1817

Deformation characteristics of a 38 m deep

excavation in soft clay
Guo B. Liu, Rebecca J. Jiang, Charles W.W. Ng, and Y. Hong

Abstract: To meet the increasing demand for underground space for economical development and infrastructural needs,
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by DALHOUSIE UNIVER on 05/15/13

more and more deep excavations have been constructed in Shanghai. In this paper, field performance of a 38 m deep multi-
strutted excavation in Shanghai soft clay is reported. The deep excavation was retained by a 65 m deep diaphragm wall. In-
clinometers as well as settlement and heave markers were installed to monitor the performance of the deep excavation. This
project provides an unusual opportunity to study the differential heaves of center columns and diaphragm walls during exca-
vation. Because of the significant stress relief resulting from the 38 m deep excavation, maximum heaves of the center col-
umn and diaphragm wall panel were about 30 and 16 mm, respectively. The measured ratio dp/H (heave/final excavation
depth) of column is less than 0.1% whereas the observed dp/H of the diaphragm wall panel is about 0.04%. The maximum
distortion between the column and the diaphragm wall panel is smaller than 1/500, which is within the limit range proposed
by Bjerrum in 1963. Owing to careful construction control, stiff strutting system, and compaction grouting, the measured
lateral wall deflections and ground settlements at this site are generally smaller than other shallower excavations in soft clays
in Shanghai, Singapore, and Taipei.
Key words: multistrutted excavations, soft clays, field data.
Résumé : Afin de répondre à la demande croissante d’espace souterrain pour le développement économique et les besoins
en infrastructures, un grand nombre d’excavations profondes ont été réalisées à Shanghai. Dans cet article, la performance
For personal use only.

d’une excavation à entretoisement multiple de 38 m de profondeur dans l’argile molle de Shanghai est discutée. L’excavation
profonde a été retenue par un mur diaphragme de 65 m de profondeur. Des inclinomètres et des marqueurs de consolidation
et de soulèvement ont été installés pour suivre la performance de l’excavation profonde. Ce projet offre une opportunité par-
ticulière d’étudier les soulèvements différentiels des colonnes du centre et du mur diaphragme durant l’excavation. Les sou-
lèvements maximums de la colonne du centre et du panneau du mur diaphragme étaient d’environ 30 et 16 mm
respectivement, en raison du relâchement significatif des contraintes causé par l’excavation de 38 m de profondeur. Le ratio
dp/H (soulèvement/profondeur finale de l’excavation) mesuré de la colonne est de moins de 0,1 %, tandis que dp/H du pan-
neau du mur diaphragme est d’environ 0,04 %. La distorsion maximale entre la colonne et le panneau du mur diaphragme
est inférieure à 1/500, ce qui est à l’intérieur des limites proposées par Bjerrum en 1963. Grâce à un bon contrôle de la
construction, d’un système d’entretoisement rigide et de scellement en compaction, les déflections latérales des murs et les
tassements du sol sur ce site sont généralement inférieurs à d’autres excavations moins profondes dans l’argile molle à Shan-
ghai, Singapore et Taipei.
Mots‐clés : excavations à entretoisement multiple, argiles molles, données de terrain.
[Traduit par la Rédaction]

Introduction on field performance and numerical analyses of excavations

in soft clays have been reported by many researchers. Whittle
The number of multistrutted excavations constructed in et al. (1993), Finno et al. (2002, 2007), and Hashash and
many major cities around the world has been increasing in Whittle (1996) described field data and numerical simula-
recent decades. For the construction of underground metro tions on excavations in Boston Blue clay (BBC) in the US.
stations, the excavations are generally long and narrow. Mon- Nicholson (1987), Vuillemin and Wong (1991), and Wallace
itoring of soil deformation around excavations and internal et al. (1993) introduced the field performance of deep exca-
forces of retained structures is vital and useful for geotechni- vations retained by diaphragm walls or sheet piles in Singa-
cal designers and engineers to verify design assumptions and pore soft clay. They showed that the ratios of maximum
reduce construction risk during the excavation process (Whit- lateral wall deflection (dhm) and ground settlement (dvm) to
tle et al. 1993; Ng 1998; Ou et al. 1998; Long 2001; Finno et excavation depth (H) typically range from 0.43% to 0.93%
al. 2002; Ng et al. 2004; Leung and Ng 2007). Case histories and from 0.67% to 1.5%, respectively. Ou et al. (1993) and
Received 10 May 2011. Accepted 9 August 2011. Published at www.nrcresearchpress.com/cgj on 22 November 2011.
G.B. Liu and R.J. Jiang. Department of Geotechnical Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai, China.
C.W.W. Ng and Y. Hong. Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Clear
Water Bay, Hong Kong.
Corresponding author: Y. Hong (e-mail: chrishy@ust.hk).

Can. Geotech. J. 48: 1817–1828 (2011) doi:10.1139/T11-075 Published by NRC Research Press
 1818
Wong and Patron (1993) studied some deep excavations such
as the Taipei National Enterprise Center (TNEC), Taiwan
Tax and Formosa excavations in Taipei soft clay. They re-
ported that measured dhm/H and dvm/H values in this soft
clay typically vary from 0.32% to 0.9% and from 0.23% to
0.6%, respectively. Each excavation had a high factor of
safety against basal heave (FOSbase). Liu et al. (2005) re-
ported the performance of a 15.5 m deep multistrutted exca-
vation for a metro station in Shanghai soft clays. Relatively
small wall deflections and ground settlements were measured
as compared with similar case histories worldwide. No sig-
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by DALHOUSIE UNIVER on 05/15/13
nificant “creep” deflection of the diaphragm wall could be
identified over a 60 day concrete curing period. Continuous
ground settlements accompanied by the dissipation of pore
water pressures were observed. Wang et al. (2005) reported
the characteristics of wall deflections and surface ground set-
tlements at six deep multistrutted excavations in Shanghai
soft soils. The ratio between the measured maximum wall de-
flection and the depth of the excavation (dhm/H) in Shanghai
was less than 0.7%, which was similar to the ratio measured
in Taipei, but it was substantially smaller than Peck’s bound-
ing limit of 1%. At each station, the measured maximum dis-
placement was less than 0.45% of the final excavation depth.
The measured maximum settlements of the six metro excava-
tions fell within zone I of Peck’s classical normalized
settlement–distance chart. The observed relatively small max-
For personal use only.
imum wall deflections were likely attributed to the use of
prestressed struts in which the stresses were constantly ad-
justed to about 0.7 times the total vertical stress during the
excavation and the short horizontal span of excavation.
Shanghai is located in the typical soft soil area in east-
south China. Many deep multistrutted metro excavations
have been constructed in this congested area in recent years.
In fact, the design of these deep excavations is generally
based on semiempirical approaches. Therefore, field monitor-
ing is essential for back-analysis of deep excavations in
Shanghai. The metro excavation described here is 38 m deep
in Shanghai. As far as the authors are aware, case histories
on deformation of structures and ground settlements for such
a deep excavation in soft clay are very limited. In this study,
heave of three columns in the middle of excavation during
the excavation process has been recorded. This offers an un-
usual opportunity to study the heave characteristics of the
columns as a result of stress relief. These data provide an im-
portant chance to verify any predictive method for the design of
deep excavations in future. This paper focuses on the observed
performance of lateral diaphragm wall deflections, the ground
settlements, and heave of columns and diaphragm wall panel.
Geology and soil parameters
Typical ground strata are thick soft soils comprising qua-
ternary alluvial and marine deposits in this project. High
water content, low shear strength, high compressibility, and
low ground bearing capacity are the typical characteristics of
Shanghai soft clay (Gao et al. 1986). To assess the soil prop-
erties, field geotechnical engineering investigation is vital and
necessary.
A field geology investigation has been carried out. Figure 1
shows a typical soil profile at this excavation site. The strata
concerned in this project site consist of seven layers with to-
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 48, 2011
tal depth up to 70 m. The first upper layer is 1.6 m thick ar-
tificial fill. Below it is the soft to medium clay layer with a
depth of 33 m, which was deposited in the Holocene and
Middle Pleistocene geological period. A 30.4 m thick dense
fine sand layer underlies the clay, which was the Middle
Pleistocene deposit. Below this stratum is a thick deposition
of Early Pleistocene fine sand, which was not penetrated.
Average geotechnical parameters of the investigated layers
are also included in Fig. 1. The unloading modulus (E) is ob-
tained by laboratory multistage unloading tests on the undis-
turbed soil using an oedometer. The unloading stress range of
the soil samples was varied to suit the anticipated stress
change. For the silty clay below the fill and very soft clay
the unloading range was 200–25 kPa. For the sandy silt, silty
fine sand, and fine sand, the unloading ranges were 300–25,
400–25, and 500–25 kPa, respectively. Unloading was car-
ried out incrementally, with a reduction of 25 kPa for each
step. When the deformation of the soil specimen remained
unchanged at the stress state, it was unloaded to the next
stress level. The unloading deformation of fine sand is small
and the E value of this stratum is about 200 MPa (not shown
in Fig. 1). The main soil strata studied was up to 40 m below
ground level. Apart from the unloading modulus, no other in-
formation about fine sand is available at this site. More pa-
rameters of fine sand in Shanghai were reported by Xu et al.
(2003), as shown in Fig. 1.
Horizontal and vertical soil permeability coefficients were
measured by laboratory constant head tests. Vane shear tests
in the field were conducted in the boreholes. Consolidated
undrained triaxial tests were carried out on saturated soft
clay to obtain undrained shear strength parameters. The SPT
N values were obtained by using a standard 63.5 kg hammer.
When the cumulative distance of driving is 30 cm, the total
blows of the hammer give the blow count N. In general,
groundwater conditions were approximately hydrostatic from
0.7 to 1.0 m below ground level.
Site conditions
Shanghai is located at the front fringe of the Yangtze River
Delta in China. The site plan of this deep excavation is
shown in Fig. 2. The south side of the construction site is
bounded by buildings founded on 63 m deep piles while
buildings on the north side are founded on shallow founda-
tions. The excavation is retained by a 65 m deep concrete di-
aphragm wall (1.2 m thick).
A construction link was built in the middle section of the
excavation, shown in Fig. 2, for transportation of vehicles
and workmen during the project construction. Twenty rows
of concrete struts were constructed in the horizontal plane.
Each row consists of nine struts in the vertical plane to pro-
vide sufficient system stiffness for this very deep cut. Hori-
zontal and vertical strut spacings are about 8 and 4 m,
respectively. A steel column was set at each strut center to
bear the loads on the struts. Each column was socketed into
a 1.2 m diameter cast-in-place pile by 2 m.
For typical deep excavations in Shanghai, the struts and
columns are temporary structures and would be removed
after excavation. However, in this very deep excavation all
these concrete struts were designed to be permanent. They
are used to provide the underground space for usage.
Published by NRC Research Press
 Liu et al.
Fig. 1. Soil profile and average geotechnical parameters (cu, undrained shear strength; E, unloading modulus; e, void ratio; k, permeability
coefficient; kh, horizontal permeability coefficient; kv, vertical permeability coefficient; SPT N, blow numbers of standard penetration test; w,
water content; WL, liquid limit; WP, plastic limit; g, bulk density). Parameters of fine sand reported by Xu et al. (2003): w = 23.8%; g =
19.5 kN/m3; e = 0.68; plastic index = 10.7.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by DALHOUSIE UNIVER on 05/15/13
Fig. 2. Plan view of the site.
For personal use only.
Construction sequence of the deep excavation
Figure 3 shows a typical cross section (section I–I, Fig. 2)
and geometry of the excavation. A top-down construction se-
quence was adopted in this excavation. This 38 m deep exca-
vation was supported by 65 m deep diaphragm walls and
nine levels of in situ concrete struts. Construction of this
very deep excavation in a soft soil area is complex and diffi-
cult. The construction period was divided into 12 main con-
struction stages.
Prior to the main excavation stages, it took about three
months to install deep diaphragm walls, piles, columns, com-
paction grouting (below the excavation formation and behind
the wall), and to build a construction link. Then one perime-
ter reinforced concrete capping beam was constructed along
the top of the whole diaphragm wall. The beam is 1.2 m
wide and 0.6 m in height, which enhanced the total support
system stiffness. As a result, horizontal deflection of the dia-
phragm wall prior to the construction of the L1 and L2 struts
1819
due to the excavation was suppressed. Many obstructions
were found buried in the upper excavation stratum, mainly
from 1 to 6.5 m below the ground surface. It took 29 days
(in section I–I) to excavate the top soil and remove obstruc-
tions. Then the first and second struts (i.e., L1 and L2) were
constructed, at 1.7 and 6.6 m below ground level, respec-
tively. It should be noted that the inclinometer data of this
project were collected from the excavation below 6.6 m.
This means that the wall deflection analysis was from the be-
ginning of excavation in stage 4.
Previous experiences in Shanghai show that narrow section
excavation (6 to 8 m width) could effectively reduce wall de-
flection and ground settlement (Wang et al. 2005), so the
same construction method was adopted in this project. The
total construction duration for stepwise excavation and prop-
ping in this project was 155 days. Each concrete strut was
constructed as rapidly as possible. Generally it took 3–
4 days to bind the reinforcing cage of one strut and to com-
plete casting and curing of concrete. When the excavation
reached the formation level, a 1.3 m thick concrete bottom
slab was constructed. Other detailed construction stages are
summarized in Table 1.
Dewatering wells were arranged inside the excavation.
When the excavation depth reached the aquifer, dewatering
must be done before further excavation. Dewatering in this
excavation is summarized in Table 1. From stage 5, the water
table on the excavated side was maintained at about 1 m be-
low each incremental level of excavation by dewatering.
Construction of the columns and concrete struts
A hollow steel column was socketed into a cast-in-place
pile by 2 m. Section dimensions of the column were
650 mm × 650 mm × 18 mm. At the location of the struts
(0.5 m above the designed excavation depth), steels were at-
tached crosswise to the hollow column and were joined to the
preformed steel junctions on the diaphragm wall.
Published by NRC Research Press
 1820
Fig. 3. Cross section and geometry of the excavation at section I–I.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by DALHOUSIE UNIVER on 05/15/13
For personal use only.
Table 1. Main stages of construction.
Stage Construction operation
1 Construct diaphragm wall and cast-in-place piles
2 Construct grouting, vertical column, and
construction link
3 Excavate to L1, L2; construct L1, L2 struts
4 Excavate to L3, construct L3 struts
5 Dewater to 17.0 m, excavate to L4, construct L4
struts
6 Dewater to 21.0 m, excavate to L5, construct L5
struts
7 Dewater to 24.7 m, excavate to L6, construct L6
struts
8 Dewater to 28.7 m, excavate to L7, construct L7
struts
9 Dewater to 32.7 m, excavate to L8, construct L8
struts
10 Dewater to 36.1 m, excavate to L9, construct L9
struts
11 Dewater to 41.0 m, excavate to L10, cast bottom
slab
12 One month after the construction of bottom slab
For such a deep excavation in soft soil, efficient design of
the entire support system is important for successful con-
struction. The strut structural system must have adequate
strength, stiffness, and stability. The vertical stiffness coeffi-
cient, EI/h4, was estimated to be in excess of 7.8 MPa. In
Shanghai, the strut structural system for excavation can be
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 48, 2011
considered structurally stable if its vertical stiffness coeffi-
cient is greater than 2.0 MPa. No prestress was applied on
each concrete strut.
Instrumentation
To monitor the performance of this very deep excavation,
various instruments were installed in the project site. In this
paper only the data taken by the inclinometer, heave marker,
and settlement marker are presented (see Fig. 2). Inclinome-
ter tubes were fixed to steel reinforcement cages and con-
creted in the retained wall. The casing was installed with a
pair of grooves oriented in the expected direction of move-
ment. To avoid twisting of the casing, the grooves were
checked before installation to ensure that its angle of twist
did not exceed 0.1%. The casing was fixed tightly to the steel
cages of the retained wall and then the groove direction was
checked after lowering the cages into the bentonite. Measure-
ments of the twist angle of grooves were repeated after the
concreting. The allowable value of angle of twist is 0.2%.
Measurement probes with a resolution of 0.02 mm over a
50 mm gauge length for a temperature range of –20 to
+50 °C were used for inclination monitoring.
Surface settlement monitoring markers were buried 0.3 m
into soil. They were installed at a spacing interval of 1 to
1.5 m perpendicular to the two long sides of the excavation.
All settlement monitoring was taken with a leveling instru-
ment with a stated standard deviation of ±0.5 mm for one
kilometre double run leveling.
Column heave markers were set on top of the columns (see
P1 in Fig. 3), which are supported by deep piles, and on top
of the corresponding diaphragm wall. The measuring method
used and its accuracy for monitoring heave of columns and
Day diaphragm walls is similar to that for ground settlement.
74
95 Unusual opportunity to observe heave of columns
For deep excavation in a soft area, columns are usually used
114 to bear the weight of the struts. Column heave occurs with
154 vertical stress relief in the excavation. If column heave is
170 large, it will cause differential settlement between the column
and the retaining wall and generate the secondary moment to
185 struts. For some reason, data on the heave of columns are
rarely measured and reported.
201 In this very deep and long multistrutted excavation, nine
concrete struts in the vertical plane were cast and these per-
218 manent concrete struts are large in section and weight. Set-
ting the columns is necessary for the strut system. This
236
excavation offers an unusual opportunity to observe the de-
255 velopment of column heave and its effects on the support
system.
279
Summary of 10 other metro excavations in
309 Shanghai
Details of 10 other multistrutted metro excavations in
Shanghai soft soil area are summarized in Table 2. The sup-
port system of the excavation is diaphragm walls. The final
excavation depth ranges from 16.5 to 23 m. Generally, these
underground station excavations are largely rectangular and
approximately 18–23 m wide. Each diaphragm wall was sup-
ported by prestressed steel struts. In each case, the strut is
Published by NRC Research Press
 Liu et al. 1821

Table 2. Summary of 10 other metro excavations in Shanghai.

Strut Thickness Excavation Average vertical System

Sitea No. of wall (m) depth (m) strut spacing (m) stiffness, Ks FOSbaseb dhm (mm)
Pudianc 4 0.8 16.3 3.8 626.4 1.81 69
Yanchang 4 0.8 15.2 3.6 752.2 1.62 82
Yangshupu 4 0.8 16.5 3.8 626.4 1.71 94
Tianyueqiao 4 0.8 15.0 3.6 777.6 1.51 42
Damuqiao 5 0.8 16.9 3.1 1414.3 1.91 54
Pudongc 5 0.8 17.3 3.5 911.3 1.91 49
Luban 5 0.8 18.2 3.6 777.6 1.86 72
Nanpu 5 1.0 22.6 3.8 1223.4 2.01 110
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by DALHOUSIE UNIVER on 05/15/13

Xizangnanc 7 1.0 23.0 3.2 2432.8 1.71 49

Shangtiguan 7 1.0 22.7 3.3 2286.5 1.84 81
a
The support system in these 10 metro excavations are multistrutted.
b
Factor of safety against basal heave.
c
Data from Wang et al. (2005).
16 mm thick and 609 mm in diameter (external) with a hori- From the various metro excavation experiences in recent
zontal spacing of 3 m and average vertical spacing of struts is years in Shanghai, there was no evidence to suggest that soil
summarized in Table 2. Each prestressed strut was installed heave contributed significantly to toe movement (Wang et al.
0.3 m above each level of the excavation. The prestressed 2005) as no correspondingly large ground settlement was ob-
load was actively adjusted to maintain at about 70% of the served. No large ground settlement was observed in this ex-
total vertical stress during excavation period. cavation (details to be discussed later) and there was no
These metro excavation data are used for comparison. No evidence that significant soil heave happened below the exca-
monitoring data of the columns were recorded for these exca- vation level. One factor that may contribute to the toe defor-
vations. Calculation of system stiffness (Ks) and factor of mation is the ratio of D to H, where D is the embedded
For personal use only.

safety against basal heave (FOSbase) are explained later.
Observed performance of the excavation
Lateral diaphragm wall deflection
Lateral diaphragm wall deflection was obtained from 14
inclinometers (shown in Fig. 2). But only the observed data
of six inclinometers (I1 to I6), which present three typical ex-
cavation sections, are analyzed here. I1 and I2 are near the
west corner of the excavation, I3 and I4 are near the middle
excavation plane, and I5 and I6 are at the east part of excava-
tion. The profile of lateral wall deflection during the main
excavation (stages 4–11) are shown in Fig. 4. Because of the
construction program, inclinometer measurement could not
commence at the start of the excavation. In other words,
wall deflections due to construction stages S1 and S2 are not
included in Fig. 4. The recorded data start after excavating
6.6 m below ground surface.
The deflection profiles developed into a bulged profile in-
ward as excavation depth increased. The maximum wall de-
flection is 54 mm (at I5). The inclinometer values of
diaphragm walls on the south side (I2, I4, and I6) are smaller
than the ones on the north side (I1, I3, and I5) at the same
excavation depth.
The building on the south side is supported by 63 m long
piles, which transfer surcharge to a deep bearing stratum (i.e.,
silty sand). While the building on the north side is founded
on a shallow foundation and hence surcharge is transferred
to shallow depth near the ground surface. Therefore, it is not
surprising to find different lateral wall deflections on the two
sides.
Toe movement of the retaining wall was found to take
place at I3 and I4. When the excavation depth approached
28 m (stage 8) below the ground surface, the toe movements
of all six monitored walls increased with excavation depth.
length of the wall, and H is the final excavation depth. Here
the embedment ratio is 0.7. Compared to the other 10 metro
excavations (range from 0.73 to 0.94), the D/H ratio in this
study is the smallest. Larger embedment ratio of the dia-
phragm wall could help to suppress toe movement.
Another possible reason for the toe deflections at I3 and I4
may be related to the construction link built over the dia-
phragm wall at this excavation section. Every work day,
heavy transport vehicles passed through the link. This contin-
ual dynamic loading may have contributed to toe movement.
Maximum wall deflections and location
The relationship between the maximum lateral wall deflec-
tion (dhm) and excavation depth in this deep excavation is
shown in Fig. 5. Measured results from the 10 metro excava-
tions in Shanghai and excavations in Boston, Singapore, and
Taipei soft clays are also shown for comparison.
Comparisons of geotechnical parameters of soft clays in
the aforementioned four cities indicate that moisture content,
effective cohesion, and effective angle of friction of BBC and
soft clays in Shanghai and Taiwan are similar, while water
content of Singapore soft clay is higher (varies from 50%–
90%). The effective cohesion, effective angle of friction, and
undrained shear strength of Singapore soft clay are lower
than those of Shanghai soft clay.
The dhm/H ratio of excavations in Shanghai, BBC, and Tai-
wan soft clays are mainly located between two limit reference
lines: dhm/H = 0.2% and 0.68%. The dhm/H value in Singa-
pore soft clay is scattered with the maximum value up to
dhm/H = 1.6%, which is larger than that in other soft clay
sites. Figure 5 also shows that although the excavation depth
in this study was larger than that in other case histories, the
maximum wall deflection was relatively small.
It should be noted the lateral wall deflection of stage 3 was
not recorded in this project (6.6 m deep excavation). The

Published by NRC Research Press

 1822
Fig. 4. Lateral wall deflections from excavation stage 4 (S4) to stage 11 (S11).
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by DALHOUSIE UNIVER on 05/15/13
For personal use only.
summarized lateral wall deflection due to 6.6 m deep excava-
tion from these 10 metro excavations in Shanghai ranges
from 8 to 32 mm. If this range of values is added to the
measured ones, the estimated lateral wall deflection range is
62 to 86 mm. The estimated value is plotted and it exceeded
the expected value dhm/H = 0.2%.
Generally, in Shanghai metro deep excavations, the use of
a multistrutted support system, narrow excavation sections,
prestressed steel struts (no prestress was applied in concrete
struts in this study), and fast workmanship sequences prob-
ably account for the small lateral wall deflection. For this ex-
cavation, the presence of compaction grouting below the final
excavation depth and along both sides of the retaining wall
(see Fig. 3) may also help to reduce dhm.
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 48, 2011
Location of maximum wall deflection with excavation
depth
Figure 6 shows the relationship between observed location
of maximum lateral wall deflection and excavation depth. It
can be seen that the measured location of the maximum lat-
eral wall deflection changed as the excavation depth in-
creased (from stage 4 to stage 11). For the first 10 m
excavation, all the location of maximum wall deflection fell
below the excavation bottom. The location of the maximum
lateral wall deflection moved upward as excavation depth in-
creased. When excavation depth reached 24 m (position of
L7 strut), the location was generally at the excavation bottom.
This location was above the excavation bottom when the con-
struction was approaching the final excavated level.
Published by NRC Research Press
 Liu et al.
Fig. 5. Relationship between maximum lateral wall deflection and
excavation depth.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by DALHOUSIE UNIVER on 05/15/13
Fig. 6. Relationship between location of maximum lateral wall de-
flection and excavation depth.
For personal use only.
Liu (1995) and Lee et al. (1998) stated that maximum wall
deflection occurred below the excavation level owing to the
relatively thick layer of soft clay below the excavation. This
may partially explain the changes of location of maximum
wall deflection. With increasing excavation depth, the shorter
distance to stiffer strata caused the maximum wall deflection
to occur above the excavation level.
Previously, excavation depths in Shanghai have generally
been less than 25 m. For comparison, the relationship be-
tween location of maximum wall deflection and excavation
depth in a 22.6 m deep excavation (i.e., Xizangnan in Shang-
hai) is also included in Fig. 6. It can be seen that variation of
the 22.6 m deep metro excavation is similar to that in this
study if the variation in 6.6 m depth excavation is not taken
into account. More reliable measured data in deep excavation
in soft soil is needed to further investigate this relationship in
deep excavation in soft clay sites.
Three-dimensional distribution of wall deflection
Wall deflection measured along the south and north sides
in this excavation provided an opportunity to study whether
corner effects existed in such a deep and long excavation.
Figure 7a shows the relationship between normalized maxi-
1823
Fig. 7. (a) Relationship between normalized maximum lateral wall
deflection and distance ratio. (b) Maximum lateral wall deflection
around the excavation.
mum wall deflection and distance ratio along the north and
south long sides. The distance ratio is measured from the west
corner to the east corner. Figure 7b shows the maximum lateral
wall deflection around the excavation. Three-dimensional dis-
tribution of wall deflection could be observed.
The support system, the stiffness of the strutting system,
and the ratio of length-to-depth and length-to-width should
be taken into account to study the corner effect of the exca-
vation. Studies on corner effects in BBC, Singapore, and Tai-
wan clays (Liu 1995; Lee et al. 1998; Ou et al. 1998; Finno
et al. 2007) suggested a low ratio of length-to-depth and
smaller ratio of length-to-width give rise to more significant
corner effects. In this project, the ratio of length-to-depth and
length-to-width is 4.6 and 7.6, respectively. Corner effect in
this project was not suppressed by sufficient stiffness of the
heavy strutting system.
Maximum lateral wall deflections versus FOSbase
The maximum lateral wall deflections versus the factor of
safety against basal heave were studied by Mana and Clough
(1981) by the statistical collection of many excavations in clay
areas around the world (Boston, San Francisco, Chicago, Cali-
fornia, Oslo, and others). Long (2001) collected this relation for
excavations in Asia clay sites (Japan, Taipei, Singapore). Mana
and Clough (1981) proposed the limit lines for this relationship.
Figure 8 shows the maximum lateral wall deflections ver-
sus the factor of safety against basal heave (FOSbase) of this
very deep excavation and 10 other metro excavations in
Shanghai. Some excavations in Asian clay collected by Long
(2001) were also cited here. Both the measured and estimated
maximum wall deflection in this study fall below the lower
limited line, with a factor of safety against basal heave of
2.2. The FOSbase values of these 10 metro excavations are
within the two limit lines (near the lower one).
Published by NRC Research Press
 1824 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 48, 2011

With the increasing FOSbase value there is a decreasing Fig. 8. Relationship between maximum lateral wall deflection and
trend in the dhm/H value for metro excavations in Shanghai. factor of safety against basal heave.
For excavations in Singapore, the dhm/H value is above the
upper limited line with greater value of FOSbase. Figure 8
also shows that the dhm in Singapore is larger than in Shang-
hai with the same excavation depth.
The use of concrete struts and thick diaphragm wall may
be the factors influencing the differences excavation induced
movements in Shanghai and Singapore. Grouting on both
sides of the retaining wall at this site may have also contrib-
uted to the smaller dhm/H value than most excavations of the
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by DALHOUSIE UNIVER on 05/15/13

10 reference ones in Shanghai.

Effects of stiffness of support system (KS)

Clough et al. (1989) proposed the system stiffness (KS) to
study its effect on the stiffness of the support system on lat-
eral wall movement. They identified a relationship between
KS (eq. [1]) and maximum lateral wall deflection for soft to
medium clay. Shanghai clay is soft to medium so this rela-
tionship in this very deep excavation is studied. KS is ex- Fig. 9. Relationship between normalized maximum lateral wall de-
pressed in the following equation: flection and system stiffness.
EW I
½1 KS ¼
g W h4
where EW is the Young’s modulus of the wall (25 GPa); I is
For personal use only.

the second moment of inertia of the wall section, calculated

by I = t3/12 where t is the wall thickness; h is the average
vertical strut spacing of multistrutted support system; and gW
is the unit weight of water.
Figure 9 shows the relationship between normalized max-
imum lateral wall deflection (dhm/H) and system stiffness of
this deep excavation and some selected deep excavations of
which the depth is larger than 17 m from the 10 metro ex-
cavations. dhm/H of this study fell below the line of FOSbase
with small dhm/H value. FOSbase shown in Fig. 9 is calcu-
lated by the following equation proposed by Clough et al.
(1989):
Nc Sub
½2 FOSbase ¼
H½g  ðSuu =0:7BÞ tions with the same FOSbase = 1.9, the excavation with higher
Ks has a larger dhm/He.
where Nc is the bearing capacity factor, related to length,
width, and depth of excavation; Sub is the undrained shear
Ground surface settlement
strength below the bottom of the excavation for excavation
depths ranging from 15 to 23 m, which generally ranges Figure 10 shows ground settlement of this deep excavation.
from 35–55 kPa (obtained by triaxial test); H is the depth Reported ground settlement from other case histories in
of the excavation; g is the bulk unit weight of the soil above Shanghai, Singapore, Taiwan, and Hong Kong are also in-
the bottom of the excavation; Suu is the undrained shear cluded for comparison. In this study, the observed maximum
strength above the bottom of the excavation, which generally ground settlement (dvm) was less than 20 mm, with a dvm/He
ranges from 35 to 55 kPa for the 10 metro excavations (see ratio of less than 0.053%. The dvm/He ratio in this study is
Table 2); and B is the effective width of the excavation, smaller than those reported from other excavations in Shang-
which ranges from 18 to 20.6 m for the 10 metro excava- hai clay (i.e., 0.15%) and from excavations in Taiwan soft
tions (see Table 2). clay (i.e., 0.2%). It is even smaller than the ground settlement
As shown in Fig. 9, dhm/He values are relatively scattered in some stiff soil sites, such as decomposed geomaterials (i.e.,
at a given Ks, and do not provide a very strong correlation completely decomposed granite and completely decomposed
with Ks. This means that the effect of Ks on dhm/He may not tuff) in Hong Kong (Leung and Ng 2007)
be obvious. The measured data do not seem to correspond Considering that there are many underground structures
well with the design curves. The value of FOSbase ranged buried at shallow depths (0 to –6 m) in this project, the
from 1.6 to 2.0, while the dhm/He ranged from 0.3% to measured ground surface movement at this site may have
0.55%. Similarly, the dhm/He in excavations having a similar been underestimated due to the strengthening effect of these
Ks do not show consistency. For example, for the two excava- underground services.

Published by NRC Research Press

 Liu et al.
Fig. 10. Relationship between ground settlement and distance be-
hind retaining wall.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by DALHOUSIE UNIVER on 05/15/13
Heave of columns
Studies on heave of columns in deep excavation were lim-
ited by the lack of field monitored data. In this study the
monitoring data from three instrumented columns (P1, P2,
and P3; see Fig. 2) were obtained and analyzed during exca-
vation. This provides an unusual chance to study the charac-
teristics of column heave and basal heave. Three parts of the
data analyses are presented here: the development of total
For personal use only.
heave with time, the incremental heave at each excavation
stage, and the differential column heave and retaining wall.
Development of column heave
When an excavation is carried out, soil is removed and
ground heave is anticipated due to stress relief. Figure 11
shows the measured cumulative development of heave of
each column during the main excavation stages. The trends
of these three columns are similar. Larger heave rate is ob-
served between stages 6 and 8. After finishing the soil exca-
vation, the rate of heave dropped and increases in heave
stopped. Maximum heave was about 30 mm.
Calculations were made to predict the heave of the soil el-
ement at the center position under the final excavated level.
Soil heave can be considered as occurring without change in
volume of the soil, provided no water is allowed to accumu-
late in the excavation. The calculations of immediate heave,
therefore, can be made in the same way as for immediate set-
tlement. The soil weight is considered as a negative load. Un-
loading modulus is used in the calculation. No structure
(such as strut, column, and cast-in-place pile) in the soil is
considered. Because the permeability of the clay is low (as
shown in Fig. 1), the following undrained equation given by
Janbu et al. (1956) was used to calculate the soil heave:
qBIu
½3 di ¼
Eu
where q is the vertical stress relief inside the excavation; B is
the width of the excavation; Iu is an influence factor given by
elastic theory; and Eu is the elastic unloading modulus of the
soil (shown in Fig. 1).
As described, the column was socketed 2 m into the cast-
in-place pile (see Fig. 3). Diameter of the pile is 1.2 m and
its length is 32 m below the final excavation level. As ex-
pected, when soil is excavated, the column is found to heave
1825
Fig. 11. Cumulative heave of columns P1, P2, and P3.
upwards. However, the pile suppresses the column heave by
friction force. Calculated soil heave is based on the elastic as-
sumption without piles while measured data is taken on the
top of the three columns, which are supported by deep piles.
Significant difference between the calculated (without pile ef-
fect) and measured heave value (as shown in Fig. 11) is,
therefore, not surprising.
The effect of the cast-in-place pile (1.2 m in diameter) in
reducing basal heave is obviously dependent on spacing, di-
ameter, and length of piles. These factors are considered in
the calculation of soil heave. The 32 m long pile is in the
strata of silty fine sand and fine sand. The friction force, fs,
is assumed to distribute uniformly in the soil between the
two diaphragm wall panels. In situ geology investigation
shows that the effective friction angle of the soil is about
36.5°, cohesion is zero, the width of excavation is 22.6 m,
lateral pile spacing is 8 m, and fs is calculated using
½4 fs ¼ bs 00
where b is a coefficient given by Meyerhof (1976) for the ef-
fective friction angle 36.5° (b is near 0.331) and s 00 is the
average effective overburden pressure acting on the pile shaft.
Calculated soil heave considering effects of pile is shown
in Fig. 11. It should be pointed out that the calculated heave
is not associated with the construction time. Two main fac-
tors are considered. One is the value of the unloading modu-
lus (E) and the other is the pile effects. It is worth noting that
the reported E represents an average value of soil stiffness
during the entire unloading process. The deduced E is prob-
ably smaller than the in situ unloading modulus as stiffness
at small strains was not considered in the measurement.
Therefore, an unloading modulus equal to twice the measured
E was also used in the following calculation.
Four scenarios were calculated, (i) Eu = E with no pile ef-
fects, (ii) Eu = E with pile effects, (iii) Eu = 2E with no pile
effects, (iv) Eu = 2E with pile effects. The value of E is
shown in Fig. 1. The calculated heave results of these four
conditions are plotted in Fig. 11 as reference to the measured
data.
In scenario 1, the measured heave of each column is sig-
nificantly overestimated by the calculated heave of soil at the
center of excavation. In scenarios 2 and 3, which only con-
sider either increased soil modulus or pile effects, the calcu-
lated column heave overestimates the measured value by 72%
Published by NRC Research Press
 1826 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 48, 2011

and 24%, respectively. In scenario 4, in which both pile ef- Fig. 12. Relationship between incremental column heave and cumu-
fects and increased soil modulus are considered, the calcu- lative vertical stress relief.
lated heave (i.e., 24.9 mm) is close to the measured value (i.e.,
29.1 mm). Comparisons between calculated basal heave in
scenario 4 (Eu = 2E with pile effects) with that in scenario
3 (Eu = 2E with no pile effects) may suggest that the basal
heave was reduced by about 42% due to the presence of
piles installed below the excavation.
The preceding parametric study indicates that the presence
of piles below the final excavation level and unloading soil
modulus value on heave are two significant factors influenc-
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by DALHOUSIE UNIVER on 05/15/13

ing basal heave.

The deadweight (including self-weight of pile, column,
and props) acting on each pile is about 1843 kN, which is
about 36% of the vertical load required to fully mobilize shaft
friction between the pile and its surrounding soil (about
5054 kN as estimated by eq. [4]). Therefore, the influence of
deadweight acting on the pile is not considered to be signifi- Fig. 13. Spatial distributions of column and wall heave.
cant.

Incremental heave in excavation stages

The relationship between incremental column heave and
cumulative vertical stress relief from stage 4 to stage 11 is
shown in Fig. 12. Calculated data of soil heave in scenario 1
and scenario 2 are also shown for comparison.
The response of observed column heave to soil unloading
For personal use only.

is varied in each excavation stage. Even with the same verti-

cal stress relief (such as stages 7 and 8), the incremental
heave is different. Larger measured incremental heave took
place from stage 7 to stage 8 in sandy silt (see Fig. 3). Even
negative incremental heave was found in stage 11. The incre-
mental column heave P1 in stages 8 and 9 are 10.2 and
7 mm, respectively, with a cumulative heave value of
30 mm. More than half of the total heave was developed in
these two construction stages. The reason for this may be
that plastic soil deformation occurs underneath the formation
level when excavation depth exceeds 24 m below ground sur-
face. In excavation stage 11 (casting of l.3 m thick bottom
slab), the incremental heave of column P1, P2, and P3 is
less than 1.5 mm.
Calculated results show larger incremental heave occurred
from stage 3 to stage 5 and the calculated incremental value
decreased with excavation depth. This difference between the
calculated values and measured data may be because the cal-
culation is based on elastic theory and plastic deformation of
soil is not considered.
Magnitude of column heave
Figure 13 shows spatial distributions of column heave and
diaphragm wall from excavation stage 4 to stage 11. It can be
seen that the wall heave value is less significant than that of
columns. dp/H ratios (dp denotes the maximum heave value)
of column and wall are less than 0.1% and 0.04%, respec-
tively. The most significant wall and column heave occurred
in stages 8 and 9, during which sandy silt was excavated (see
Fig. 3). During the same period, lateral wall displacements
measured by inclinometers I2 and I6 also increased signifi-
cantly compared with previous stages (see Fig. 4). The large
inward wall movement in stages 8 and 9 could have caused
soil on the excavated side to heave upwards. It is worth not-
ing that measured unloading modulus (E) of sandy silt is the
largest compared with the strata above (Fig. 1). Therefore,
larger column heave measured in stages 8 and 9 is likely to
be mainly induced by inward wall movement, rather than de-
formation of sandy silt due to vertical stress relief.
At the end of the excavation (stage 11), the column heave
appears to be partially suppressed (see Fig. 13), probably due
to self-weight of the bottom slab acting on the formation
level.
Distortion of column to diaphragm wall
Figure 14 shows the distortion between column and dia-
phragm wall panel from stage 4 to stage 11. The distortion
is defined as differential vertical displacement between two
points divided by the horizontal distance between the two
points. The distance between P1 to P1-1 and P1 to P1-2 is
half of excavation width (11.3 m). The same distance is used
for P2 and P3.
It can be seen that the distortion increased with excavation
depth until the completion of the 1.3 m thick bottom slab.
From stage 6 to stage 9 the increasing rate was the largest.
The observed data shows that both the columns and dia-
phragm wall heaved during the main excavation process.
Measured maximum wall heave is 15.6 mm (at P1-2 in stage
11) and the column heave is 28 mm in stage 11. The soil
heave below the final excavation level was suppressed and
came to an equilibrium state with the completion of the bot-
tom slab.

Published by NRC Research Press

 Liu et al.
Fig. 14. Distortion of column and diaphragm wall from stage 4 (S4)
to stage 11 (S11). DD, distance between column and diaphragm
wall; Dd, differential vertical displacement between column and dia-
phragm wall.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by DALHOUSIE UNIVER on 05/15/13
The maximum distortion value is less than 1/500, which is
within the safe limit (i.e., 1/500) proposed by Bjerrum (1963)
based on self-weight settlement. No cracks in the concrete
struts were observed during and after this deep excavation.
Conclusions
For personal use only.
The field performance of a 38 m deep multistrutted exca-
vation in soft clay in Shanghai was monitored. Based on the
field observation and comparisons of this deep excavation
with 10 other metro excavations in Shanghai and similar ex-
cavations in Singapore and Taiwan, the following conclusions
may be drawn:
1. As the measurements of lateral wall deflection, dhm, due to
the first 6.6 m excavation was not available from this
38 m deep excavation, an estimate of lateral wall deflec-
tion due to the first 6.6 m excavation was made from 10
other excavations in similar ground conditions and con-
struction methods in Shanghai. The sum of normalized
estimated (due to the first 6.6 m) and measured (due to
the last 31.4 m deep excavation) lateral wall deflection,
dhm/He, is higher than 0.20% but less than 0.30%, which
is small and falls within the limit set by the Shanghai
metro authority. The small wall deflection may be attrib-
uted to the adoption of strict construction control and
the use of compaction grouting.
2. Plane strain behavior is observed for the long and narrow
excavation, except at the two ends, where three-dimensional
effects are significant.
3. Measured locations of the maximum lateral wall deflection
changed as the excavation depth increased. For the first
24 m excavation, the location of maximum wall deflec-
tion fell below the depth of excavation. However, when
the excavation depth reached 24 m (position of L7 strut)
and beyond, the location of the maximum lateral wall
deflection shifted upwards gradually, above excavation
levels.
4. With an estimated FOSbase against basal heave to be 2.2
for the 38 m deep excavation, the normalized measured
maximum lateral wall deflection falls below the lower
limit proposed by Mana and Clough (1981). On the
1827
other hand, however, most of the other case histories in
Shanghai fall within the two limit lines proposed by
Mana and Clough (1981). For a given stiffness of sup-
port system (Ks), there is a relatively large scatter in
dhm/He values. This seems to suggest that there is no
strong correlation between measured dhm/He and Ks va-
lue in excavations in Shanghai soft clay.
5. Due to the significant stress relief resulting from the 38 m
deep excavation, maximum heaves of center column and
diaphragm wall panel are found to be about 30 and
16 mm, respectively. The measured column heave ratio
dp/H is less than 0.1%, whereas the observed dp/H of the
diaphragm wall panel is about 0.04%. The maximum dis-
tortion between the column and the diaphragm wall panel
is smaller than 1/500, which is within the limit range pro-
posed by Bjerrum (1963).
6. Comparing with theoretical calculations of soil heave due
to the stress relief resulting from the 38 m deep excava-
tion, it is deduced that the basal heave was reduced by
about 42% owing to the presence of the piles installed un-
derneath of the excavation.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge the earmarked re-
search grant 618006 provided by the Research Grants Coun-
cil of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and to
thank many colleagues who have contributed to the reported
field monitoring work in Shanghai.
References
Bjerrum, L. 1963. Allowable settlement of structures. In Proceedings of
the Third European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Weisbaden, Germany. Vol. 2, pp. 135–137.
Clough, G.W., Smith, E.M., and Sweeney, B.P. 1989. Movement
control of excavation support systems by iterative design. In
Proceedings of Current Principles and Practices on Foundation
and Engineering, Evanston, Ill., 25–29 June 1989. American
Society of Civil Engineers, New York. Vol. 2, pp. 869–884.
Fernie, R., and Suckling, T. 1996. Simplified approach for estimating
lateral movement of embedded walls in U.K. ground. In
Proceedings of the International Symposium on Geotechnical
Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground, London,
15–17 April 1996. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. pp.
131–136.
Finno, R.J., Bryson, L.S., and Calvello, M. 2002. Performance of a
stiff support system in soft clay. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, 128(8): 660–671. doi:10.1061/
(ASCE)1090-0241(2002)128:8(660).
Finno, R.J., Blackburn, J.T., and Roboski, J.F. 2007. Three-
dimensional effects for supported excavations in clay. Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 133(1): 30–36.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2007)133:1(30).
Gao, D.Z., Wei, D.D., and Hu, Z.X. 1986. Geotechnical properties of
Shanghai soils and engineering applications. In Marine geotech-
nology and near-shore /offshore structures. STP 923. American
Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, Pa. pp.
161–177.
Hashash, Y.M.A., and Whittle, A.J. 1996. Ground movement
prediction for deep excavations in soft clay. Journal of Geotechni-
cal Engineering, 122(6): 474–486. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410
(1996)122:6(474).
Hulme, T.W., Potter, J., and Shirlaw, N. 1989. Singapore MRT
Published by NRC Research Press
 1828
system. Construction Proceedings, Institution of Civil Engineers,
London, 86: 709–770.
Janbu, N., Bjerrum, L., and Kjaernsli, B. 1956. Veiledning ved
Løsning av Fundamenteringsoppgaver. NorwegianGeotechnical
Institute, Oslo, Norway. Publication No. 16. [In Norwegian.]
Lee, F.H., Yong, K.Y., Quan, K.C.N., and Chee, K.T. 1998. Effect of
corners in strutted excavations: field monitoring and case histories.
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 124(4):
339–348. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(1998)124:4(339).
Leung, E.H.Y., and Ng, C.W.W. 2007. Wall and ground movements
associated with deep excavations supported by cast in situ wall in
mixed ground conditions. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvir-
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by DALHOUSIE UNIVER on 05/15/13
onmental Engineering, 133(2): 129–143. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)
1090-0241(2007)133:2(129).
Liu, K.X. 1995. Three dimensional analysis of deep excavation in soft
clay. M.Eng. thesis, National University of Singapore, Singapore.
Liu, G.B., Ng, C.W.W., and Wang, Z.W. 2005. Observed performance
of a deep multi-strutted excavation in Shanghai soft clays. Journal
of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 131(8):
1004–1013. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2005)131:8(1004).
Long, M. 2001. Database for retaining wall and ground movements
due to deep excavation. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenviron-
mental Engineering, 127(3): 203–224. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-
0241(2001)127:3(203).
Mana, A.I., and Clough, G.W. 1981. Prediction of movements for
braced cut in clay. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering
Division, ASCE, 107(6): 759–777.
For personal use only.
Meyerhof, G.G. 1976. Bearing capacity and settlements of piled
foundations. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division,
ASCE, 102(3): 197–228.
Ng, C.W.W. 1998. Observed performance of multipropped excavation
in stiff clay. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, 124(9): 889–905. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241
(1998)124:9(889).
Ng, C. W. W., Simons, N., and Menzies, B. 2004. Soil-structure
engineering of deep foundations, excavations and tunnels. Thomas
Telford, London
Nicholson, D.P. 1987. The design and performance of the retaining
walls at Newton Station. In Proceedings of the Singapore Mass
Rapid Transit Conference, Singapore, 6–9 April 1987. Mass Rapid
Transit Corp., Singapore. pp. 147–154.
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 48, 2011
Ou, C.-Y., Hsieh, P.-G., and Chiou, D.-C. 1993. Characteristics of
ground surface settlement during excavation. Canadian Geotech-
nical Journal, 30(5): 758–767. doi:10.1139/t93-068.
Ou, C.-Y., Liao, J.-T., and Lin, H.-D. 1998. Performance of
diaphragm wall constructed using top-down method. Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 124(9): 798–
808. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(1998)124:9(798).
Poh, T.Y., and Wong, I.H. 1998. Effects of construction of diaphragm
wall panels on adjacent ground: field trial. Journal of Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 124(8): 749–756. doi:10.
1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(1998)124:8(749).
Tamano, T., Fukui, S., Mizutani, S., Tsuboi, H., and Hisatake, M.
1996. Earth and water pressures acting on a braced excavation in
soft ground. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on
Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft
Ground, London, 15–17 April 1996. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam,
the Netherlands. pp. 207–212.
Vuillemin, R.J., and Wong, H. 1991. Deep excavation in urban
environment: examples. In Proceedings of the 10th European
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
Florence, Italy, 26–30 May 1991. Balkema, Rotterdam, the
Netherlands. Vol. 2, pp. 843–847.
Wallace, J.C., Ho, C.E., and Long, M.M. 1993. Retaining wall
behaviour for a deep basement in Singapore marine clay. In
Proceedings of the International Conference on Retaining
Structures, Cambridge, UK, 20–23 July 1992. Thomas Telford,
London. pp. 195–204.
Wang, Z.W., Ng, C.W.W., and Liu, G.B. 2005. Characteristics of wall
deflections and ground surface settlements in Shanghai. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 42(5): 1243–1254. doi:10.1139/t05-056.
Whittle, A.J., Hashash, Y.M.A., and Whitman, R.V. 1993. Analysis of
deep excavation in Boston. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
119(1): 69–90. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1993)119:1(69).
Wong, L.W., and Patron, B.C. 1993. Settlements induced by deep
excavations in Taipei. In Proceedings of the 11th Southeast Asian
Geotechnical Conference, Singapore, 4–8 May 1993. pp. 787–791.
Xu, Y., Sun, D., Sun, J., Fu, D., and Dong, P. 2003. Soil disturbance
of Shanghai silty clay during EPB tunnelling. Tunnelling and
Underground Space Technology, 18(5): 537–545. doi:10.1016/
S0886-7798(03)00083-X.
Published by NRC Research Press