Proceedings of the Institution of
Civil Engineers
Geotechnical Engineering 163
October 2010 Issue GE5
Pages 279–290
doi: 10.1680/geng.2010.163.5.279 Howard Roscoe
Principal Geotechnical
Paper GE-D-09-00052 Engineer, Atkins Design
Received 26/06/2009 Environment & Engineering,
Accepted 06/07/2009 Risley, UK
Keywords: design methods & aids/
field testing & monitoring/retaining
walls
Design and performance of retaining walls
H. Roscoe MSc, DIC, CEng, MICE and D. Twine
Embedded retaining walls for 1.8 km of cut-and-cover
tunnels and earth-retaining structures were redesigned
during the construction period to optimise construction
methods and temporary propping. The design approach
included many of the developments now recommended
in Ciria report C580, and the paper summarises the
experience gained on this contract. The site team made
detailed observations of the performance of all 14
structures during construction, and this paper gives an
overall summary of the wall movements and prop loads
that were measured. The walls were surcharged, and
none of the props was preloaded. Despite this, the
maximum movements were within those estimated
from published correlations. Wall movements were time
dependent, and occurred at rates of up to 0.2 mm/day.
Prop loads were generally about 40% of the values
obtained from moderately conservative calculations.
Reducing the prop stiffness assumed in calculations
improves agreement, and measurements are reported
that provide a basis for closer appraisal of this aspect in
future designs.
NOTATION
c9 effective cohesion
E Young’s modulus of concrete
E9h horizontal drained Young’s modulus of soil.
I second moment of area
K0 coefficient of earth pressure at rest
s9 mean principal stress
t9 shear stress
ö9 effective angle of friction
1. INTRODUCTION
Geotechnical engineers have long recognised the importance of
field observations to provide insight into behaviour
mechanisms, and as a guide to the selection of design
parameters (Burland et al., 1979). The cut-and-cover tunnels at
Ashford were carefully monitored during construction,
providing the opportunity to compare the design of embedded
retaining walls with their performance.
The tunnels were designed during the period 1998–2002.
Various different standards were current (BSI, 1994; Highways
Agency, 1994; Padfield and Mair, 1984), and further changes
were being introduced to bring geotechnical design within the
Eurocode framework (BSI, 1997). A consistent approach was
Geotechnical Engineering 163 Issue GE5
Downloaded by [] on [09/02/24]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
David Twine
Director, Ove Arup and
Partners, London, UK
MSc, DIC, CEng, MICE
developed for use throughout the Channel Tunnel Rail Link
(CTRL) project, now known as High Speed 1 and much of this
is incorporated in recent guidance on the design of embedded
walls (Ciria report C580: see Gaba et al., 2003).
This paper describes the geometry of 14 retaining structures
that make up the tunnel complex, and the soil and water
conditions in which they were constructed. It sets out the basis
of the design, and comments on those aspects that affected
work on this contract.
Detailed monitoring measurements were made during the
construction of all 14 structures (Holmes et al., 2005). The
paper summarises the wall movements and prop loads that
were measured, and compares these with the design
calculations. Wall movements continued after excavation, and
the paper gives the rates of movement that were measured.
Prop load measurements are reported that identify the
important effect of prop stiffness. They show that the prop
stiffness values that are often assumed in design are unrealistic.
Alternatives are suggested that would improve the accuracy of
design calculations.
2. ASHFORD TUNNELS
CTRL passes through Ashford, Kent in two cut-and-cover
tunnels that, together with approaches and linking earth-
retaining structures, amount to 1.8 km of contiguous bored
piled retaining structures. The tunnels were constructed by
Skanska Construction (UK) in partnership with engineers and
project managers Rail Link Engineering (RLE) on behalf of
Union Railways.
Figure 1 shows the common features of the embedded retaining
walls at Ashford. The tunnel site sloped down from north to
south, so that preliminary excavation to the level of the tunnel
roof generated greater surcharges on the north walls than on
the south. The walls were formed with contiguous bored piles
of between 900 mm and 1350 mm in diameter (Roscoe et al.,
2002). Cementation Foundations Skanska bored the piles dry,
but added bentonite slurry to stabilise the bores during cage
installation and concreting. A deep dewatering system using
ejector wells was installed to control the water pressures in the
underlying Weald Clay.
Design and performance of retaining walls Roscoe • Twine 279
 Surcharge 3.2. Permeability
Ejector wells
offset One of the key issues facing the designers was the permeability
of the Atherfield and Weald Clays. The site investigations
Surcharge height showed that the Weald Clay contained silt partings and some
Hythe
Beds Overburden bands of siltstone, but the results of permeability tests carried
thickness out in standpipes were inconclusive, and to some extent
Retained height contradictory. Full-scale pumping tests carried out in the early
Atherfield Clay
stages of the contract (Roscoe and Twine, 2001) showed that
Thickness: total the Weald Clay was strongly anisotropic, with vertical and
horizontal permeabilities of around 10
9 m/s and 10
7 m/s
Thickness:
passive respectively.
Weald Clay
Temporary The permeability of the Atherfield Clay also influenced the
Response
zone sand drain design, but was less well understood. Further dewatering trials
Penetration made during the construction of the Gasworks Lane propped
10 m
cut showed that Atherfield Clay should be treated as a drained
material, but that dewatering the Atherfield Clay was
Figure 1. Common features of embedded walls impractical.

The tunnel complex was divided for design purposes into 14
different structures.
Figure 2 gives the local names of the structures, the method of
construction that was used, and the extent of deep dewatering
in the Weald Clay, and Table 1 gives the key dimensions of the
walls.
3.3. Design parameters
The designs generally adopted moderately conservative peak
values for soil properties (Table 3). The strength parameters for
the Atherfield and Weald Clays were derived from the triaxial
test results plotted in Figures 3 and 4. Angles of friction were
increased by 28 to reflect the difference between triaxial and
plane-strain stress states.

Back-analysis of the first structure to be excavated justified the

3. GROUND CONDITIONS
Figure 1 shows typical ground conditions at this site, and Table
2 gives the overall succession and summary descriptions of the
soils. Table 1 summarises the stratum boundaries at each
structure.
3.1. Investigations
Over 80 cable percussion borings and 15 rotary-cored borings
were made prior to construction. Standard penetration tests
were performed at regular intervals, and undisturbed 102 mm
samples and rotary cores were obtained. The rotary cores were
split, examined and photographed. The undrained strength and
effective stress shear strength parameters of the Atherfield and
Weald Clays were measured in laboratory triaxial tests.
use of ‘most probable’ soil properties in conjunction with the
observational method. The values shown in Table 3 were
modified by increasing the effective cohesion of Atherfield
Clay to 10 kPa.
There was a wide scatter of undrained strength measurements
in both the Atherfield and Weald Clays, and so undrained
strengths were not used (Roscoe and Twine, 2001). Stiffnesses
were assumed to increase linearly with depth below ground
surface. Horizontal drained Young’s modulus, E9h , was taken as
about 600 times undrained strength.
The coefficient of earth pressures at rest, K0 , was taken as 1.0
to allow for the effects of pile installation. Research work
during the contract (Clark et al., 2004) shows that this was a

Box names: Chart Advance Chart Road Maidstone Greensands Way Gasworks Lane Cattlemarket Beaver
Road to Maidstone Railway to Beaver Road
Railway Road
Prop’d

4B 4A 3 2 1 Utilities Prop’d Retained

Construction bridge Cut
method
Top down
Permanent
2 Prop
propped 1 prop Chord
Bottom up walls
2 props
Retained
cut Deep dewatering in Weald Clay
N

Chainage
88 ⫹ 700 88 ⫹ 900 89 ⫹ 100 89 ⫹ 300 89 ⫹ 500 89 ⫹ 700 89 ⫹ 900 90 ⫹ 100
Scale

0 100 200 m

Figure 2. Schematic plan of Ashford tunnels

280 Geotechnical Engineering 163 Issue GE5 Design and performance of retaining walls Roscoe • Twine

Downloaded by [] on [09/02/24]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

 reasonable assumption, but that a somewhat lower value of K0
might have been adopted.

Beaver
Road

7(0)

0(0)
3.8

1.7
0

0
4. GROUNDWATER
Groundwater level prior to construction was between 1 m and

Retained cut
2 m below ground surface. Water levels in the Hythe Beds
Cattlemarket Lane to

remained high during the construction period, but were

5(0)

0(0)

2.3
Beaver Road

0
reduced to base of capping beam level by site drainage.

During construction, the water pressures in the underlying

Prop’d

1.5(0)

0(0) Weald Clay were lowered by over 10 m using vacuum ejector

9.6

12
4

6
wells installed by WJ Groundwater Limited. The extent of deep
dewatering is indicated in Figure 2. Permanent gravity wells
were provided to relieve pore pressures beneath the base slabs
Gasworks

4.5(0)

once the ejector system was removed, and the design water
Lane

10.5

0(0)

5.8

9.5
13

pressures were modified to allow for their effect.

Water levels in the Atherfield Clay were recharged from the

13 temp 13 temp 6 temp

Hythe Beds, and influenced by drainage to the underlying

8(2)

7.7
(8)
10

13
1

Weald Clay. Temporary sand drains were installed to prevent

pore pressure building up beneath tunnel formation, and a
8(2)

hydrostatic profile was adopted in design. Measured pore

2.6
(8)
10

13
2

pressures were somewhat lower than this, but were

inconsistent, and were not incorporated in the design.
10(2)

3.2
(8)
10

13
3

0
Greensands

5. CONSTRUCTION METHODS
Way

Figure 5 illustrates the methods of excavation and temporary

6 temp
10(2)

propping. The structures were built bottom up wherever

11.5
4A

(8)
10

possible and eight of the structures were redesigned during

construction to use this method. Two of the structures carried
10(7)*

existing road and rail links that could not be severed and were
10.2

5(7)
4B

12
0

constructed top down.

Figure 6 shows bottom-up construction in progress at

Prop’d

10(7)*
10.2

6(7)

2.1
11
0

Greensands Way. There is open access for excavation and base

slab construction, and tubular steel props have been installed
to support the walls in their temporary condition. The roof slab
1 Props 2 Props

14–16
5.9(6)

1(0)

13

was cast on falsework after the base slab was complete. The
0

2
Maidstone
Railway

retained cuts at the east end of the complex (Figure 2) used the
same temporary support method.
12–14
5.9(6)

1(0)

13
0

The permanently propped structures were designed with

reinforced concrete props at capping beam level (Figure 5).
to Maidstone
Advance Chart Road

Railway

Following value engineering, the designers increased the prop

7.2(0)

2.2(0)

13.1
1.4

1.7
14

spacing to allow excavators and cranes to work between the

props, and these structures were built bottom up (Roscoe and
Twine, 2001). The much larger Chart Road to Maidstone
5.2(0)

3.8(0)

Railway box was completely redesigned for bottom-up

9.8

7.6
0

construction using permanent reinforced concrete props

(Loveridge et al., 2008). The roof slab was supported from the
Surcharge height (offset), Relief dig

Surcharge height (offset), Relief dig

Table 1. Key dimensions of the walls

props using precast beams and an in situ concrete infill.

Chart
Road

2(4)

2(4)
2.5
8

The Chart Road box was originally a top-down structure, but

was redesigned for bottom-up construction, as shown in
Atherfield Clay thickness,

Atherfield Clay thickness,

Overburden thickness: m

Figure 5.
Retained height, H: m

The advance box (Figure 5) and the Maidstone Railway box

* Chord walls.

(Figure 7) were built top down. The reinforced concrete roof

passive: m
Box name

slabs were constructed prior to excavation, and supported on

north: m

south: m

total: m

plunge columns or on central piles. Soil was then excavated

beneath the roof slab, and temporary props were installed to
support the walls until the base slabs were cast. Figure 7

Geotechnical Engineering 163 Issue GE5 Design and performance of retaining walls Roscoe • Twine 281

Downloaded by [] on [09/02/24]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

 Stratum Description Typical
thickness: m

Fill and alluvium Loose silts and clayey sands 0–6

Hythe Beds Silty and clayey fine sand with sandstone bands 0–8
Atherfield Clay Stiff or very stiff clay, frequently closely fissured with intermittent thin partings of silt 0–13
Weald Clay Stiff or very stiff clay containing many silt partings and laminations and thin bands of siltstone Up to 120

Table 2. General succession

Soil Plasticity index: % ö9: degrees c9: kPa K0 E9h , initial (gradient): MPa

Hythe Beds 22 32 0 1.0 1.8 (4.86)

Atherfield Clay (HP) 54 26 0 1.0 3.6 (3.64)
Atherfield Clay (IP) 32 23 4 1.0 3.6 (3.64)
Weald Clay 36 25 0 1.0 18.2 (3.20)

Initial values of horizontal stiffness E9h are taken at ground surface.

‘Most probable’ analyses used a value of c9 ¼ 10 kPa in Atherfield Clay but no other soil properties were altered.

Table 3. Soil properties: moderately conservative values used for serviceability limit state design

concrete props and roof slabs were supported on corbels to

200
form pinned connections with the walls. Exceptionally, a full
Shear stress, t ⬘: kPa

150 moment connection was provided between the roof and walls
of the Greensands Way structure.
100 Most probable
(c⬘ ⫽ 10 kPa, φ⬘ ⫽ 24°)
Moderately conservative Temporary tubular steel props were purpose-made for the
50 (c⬘ ⫽ 0, φ⬘ ⫽ 24°)
contract, and Figure 8 shows the prop and waling system. Each
0 prop could carry a constant-temperature load of 5400 kN, with
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Mean principal stress, s⬘: kPa a further 1895 kN due to temperature.

Figure 3. Triaxial test results: Atherfield Clay The system allowed for multiple use of the props, and both
length and spacing could be adjusted. Props in the four-track
structures (Figure 7) were assembled from two of the props
from the two-track structures (Figure 6) and a shorter make-up
250 piece. Prop spacing could be increased from 4.5 m to 6 m by
extending the walers during installation.
200
Shear stress, t ⬘: kPa

Concrete-filled bags packed the walers from the wall piles, and
150 in situ concrete thrust blocks were cast between props and
walers. The props were not preloaded. Hydraulic jacks were
Moderately conservative
100 (c⬘ ⫽ 0, φ⬘ ⫽ 26°) inserted during prop removal so that the thrust blocks could be
lifted or broken out and the prop loads reduced incrementally.
50 The system proved robust in practice, and rapid to install. In
normal production a gang of four could prop 18 m of tunnel in
0 three shifts.
0 100 200 300 400 500
Mean principal stress, s⬘: kPa
At Beaver Road retained cut the calculated prop loads exceeded
Figure 4. Triaxial test results: Weald Clay the capacity of proprietary propping systems (Loveridge, 2001).
Lower loads were estimated using the distributed prop load
(DPL) method (Twine and Roscoe, 1999), in conjunction with
load measurements from adjacent sections of the work
shows excavation approaching formation level in the (Loveridge, 2001). This justified the use of hired props and
Maidstone Railway box. Ventilation, lighting, cranage saved over £150 000.
restrictions and limited access all add to the cost of top-
down construction. Temporary props were installed at about 400 locations but
none was damaged or displaced by the ongoing construction
6. PROPPING activities. With appropriate site control and up-to-date safe
The structures with permanent concrete props are shown in working practices it is not considered necessary to treat the
Figure 2. Table 4 gives prop dimensions and spacing. The loss of a prop as one of the design cases.

282 Geotechnical Engineering 163 Issue GE5 Design and performance of retaining walls Roscoe • Twine

Downloaded by [] on [09/02/24]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

 Relief dig

Retained
height
Temporary Temporary assumed
berm berm

Chart Road Greensands Way

(bottom up) (bottom up)

Roof slab RC permanent prop

Plunge
columns

Advance box Gasworks Lane

(top down) (permanent propped)

Figure 5. Temporary propping arrangements

Figure 6. Bottom-up construction: Greensands Way Figure 7. Top-down construction: Maidstone Railway box

7. DESIGN
The designs followed the procedure developed by RLE for use Structure Prop size: Prop spacing:
throughout the CTRL project. BS 8002 (BSI, 1994) was adopted m m
as the design standard for cantilever and singly propped
embedded walls. Many of the structures supported road and Chart Road to Maidstone Railway 13 2.3 6
rail loads, and the procedure included additional steps to show Greensand Way propped cut 13 1 6
Gasworks Lane 13 1 4.5
compliance with BD 42/94 (Highways Agency, 1994). The Cattlemarket to Beaver Road 13 1 4.5
Ashford walls fall outside the scope of these documents, and
further reference was made to Eurocode 7 (BSI, 1997) and to Table 4. Permanent prop dimensions
other current developments. This approach has since been

Geotechnical Engineering 163 Issue GE5 Design and performance of retaining walls Roscoe • Twine 283

Downloaded by [] on [09/02/24]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

 1016 ⫻ 22·2 CHS prop

Twin
610 ⫻ 305 ⫻ 238 UB
Waler
Waling
Detail ‘A’ beam Concrete
bags
750 ⫻ 950 in situ
concrete thrust block
Twin
254 ⫻ 254 ⫻ 167 UC
Extension waler 35 mm thick
end plate

1016 ⫻ 22·2 CHS

Detail ‘A’ Stiffeners

Jacking points
for prop removal

0 5m

Scale

Figure 8. Temporary propping system

(b) A separate analysis was made using factored soil properties

incorporated in published guidance on the design of embedded obtained by dividing the SLS design values by a
walls (Gaba et al., 2003). mobilisation factor of 1.2 (BSI, 1994).

Reinforced concrete design was carried out to BS 5400 (BSI,

1990).
7.1. Analysis
With few exceptions, the bending moments, shear forces and
prop loads were determined using the Oasys computer program
Frew. Separate analyses were made for each wall of each
structure. The soil was modelled as an elastic-plastic material,
and the soil stiffness matrix was derived from the input
stiffness and dimensionless results of finite-element
calculations included in the software.
The Greensands Way propped and Greensands Way section 4B
structures are complicated by additional retaining walls known
as chord walls (Figure 2). They were analysed with Oasys’s
finite-element computer program Safe. The soil was modelled
as an elastic-perfectly plastic Mohr–Coulomb material. Each
analysis modelled a complete cross-section, allowing directly
for the interaction between all four walls.
7.2. Limit states
The walls were checked for both serviceability limit state (SLS)
and ultimate limit state (ULS).
In each case, the resulting bending moments and shear forces
were multiplied by a partial load factor of 1.1 (BSI, 1990) and
compared with the ultimate structural capacity of the piles.
7.3. Wall stiffness
The Young’s modulus of the uncracked Grade 40 concrete was
taken as 31 3 106 kPa and multiplied by the second moment
of area (I ) of the piles to give an uncracked short-term wall
stiffness (EI ). Wall stiffness varies during the life of the
structure, and design values were derived as shown in Table 5.
It was assumed that the walls of top-down structures would not
crack during construction, but that for bottom-up structures
cracking would reduce the second moment of area of the walls
(I ). For long-term conditions the wall stiffness was reduced to
50% of the uncracked value to allow for creep and relaxation
of the concrete.
7.4. Prop stiffness
Initial analyses used the elastic stiffness of the props without
reduction, assuming them to be 100% efficient. Back-analysis
of the first structure to be excavated showed that observed

The SLS analyses used the design values of soil properties Stage of analysis Bottom-up Top-down
(Table 3) without modification, and the structural capacity of construction construction
the piles was determined by calculating crack widths.
During construction 0.7EI 1.0EI
ULS was checked in two ways. Long term 0.5EI 0.5EI

(a) The bending moments and shear forces from the SLS Table 5. Derivation of wall stiffness
analysis were multiplied by 1.35.

284 Geotechnical Engineering 163 Issue GE5 Design and performance of retaining walls Roscoe • Twine

Downloaded by [] on [09/02/24]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

 performance could be matched only if a lower prop stiffness
was assumed. In later analyses a prop efficiency of 50% was
adopted. The effect of this change is discussed in Section 8.3.
In contrast, loads used to model temperature effects (expansion
and contraction of the props) were calculated using a prop
efficiency of 60% (Twine and Roscoe, 1999) from the outset.
7.5. Comments
Design work at Ashford provided early experience of current
guidance on the design of embedded retaining walls (Gaba et
al., 2003). This approach was used in the initial designs for the
bored piled walls, and by the site team to optimise the
temporary works and construction sequence.
7.5.1. Limit states. In the optimised designs, bending
moments and/or shear forces were close to the limiting
structural capacities determined as described in Section 7.2.
Twenty-one sections were analysed. The calculated bending
moments were within 95% of the limiting capacity in nine
cases, and in a further nine cases the calculated moment lay
between 85% and 95% of the limiting capacity. The most
critical limit states were distributed as follows
(a) SLS: 15 cases
(b) ULS determined from an SLS analysis: two cases
(c) ULS analysis: three cases
(d ) ULS and SLS equally critical: one case.
Analysing each of the walls for both limit states increases
design costs, but this distribution shows that the most critical
case could not be identified in advance.
Once the governing limit state was clearly established,
subsequent amendments to the construction sequence were
justified for that limit state only.
7.5.2. Wall stiffness. The uncracked wall stiffness was used to
analyse the top-down structures, but when excavation was
complete, flexural cracks were seen at about the level of the
maximum bending moment. Clearly, the vertical load on the
walls had not been sufficient to prevent cracking. Using the
cracked modulus in the analyses would have reduced the
calculated bending moments and increased the calculated wall
movements. The temporary props could have been set at lower
levels to accelerate excavation and reduce costs.
7.5.3. Relaxation. Frew can model the relaxation of concrete,
taking account of the reduction in bending moment that results
from the lower long-term stiffness (Gaba et al., 2003), but
initial analyses for the Gasworks Lane propped cut did not use
this facility, overestimating long-term moments by about 30%
of their ‘relaxed’ values. This led to an unnecessarily slow and
cautious approach during the first excavations. Subsequent
designs took benefit from relaxation to reduce calculated long-
term moments.
Concrete starts to relax from the time that load is applied. This
effect is allowed when considering long-term cases, but may
also influence the temporary stages. Design of the Maidstone
Railway box allowed 25% relaxation in the later stages of
construction following prop removal.
Geotechnical Engineering 163 Issue GE5
Downloaded by [] on [09/02/24]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
8. PERFORMANCE DURING CONSTRUCTION
Over 700 instruments were installed during the contract, and
all 14 structures were carefully monitored during construction
(Holmes et al., 2005). This paper summarises the maximum
wall movements and prop loads that were measured. Wall
movements during the cantilever stage of the excavations and
the effects of asymmetric loading (sway) are described
elsewhere (Loveridge et al., 2008; Roscoe, 2003).
8.1. Maximum wall movements
Figures 9 and 10 show typical deflected shapes for top-down
and bottom-up construction. Maximum movement occurred
close to the base of the top-down excavations. For bottom-up
construction cantilever movements at the top of the wall
(Roscoe, 2003) governed both deflected shape and maximum
movement.
Figure 11 plots the maximum wall movements at the end of
excavation against retained height H. These measurements
include toe movements of about 5 mm (Holmes et al., 2005) as
indicated on the figure. Also shown are the linear relationships
often used to estimate the movement of embedded walls (Gaba
et al., 2003).
Wall movements for the top-down and permanent propped
structures are generally close to the 0.15%H line, with an upper
bound at about 0.2%H. Results from the structures that
included an initial cantilever stage are sensibly bounded by the
0.4%H line. The Greensands Way structures were constructed
using the observational method to utilise more of the walls’
capacity, and movements were proportionately greater than
elsewhere. Larger movements were recorded at inclinometer CR
IC1 in the Chart Road box and at the utilities bridge. These are
explained by a long delay in construction, and inundation
during regional flooding.
The Ashford walls support significant surcharges (Figure 2),
and at Gasworks Lane they retain up to 5.8 m of overburden
rather than stiff clay. None of the props was preloaded during
installation. Despite these factors, the wall movements lie
within the expected range.
Figure 12 summarises the ratios between measured and
calculated movements. Measured movements were about 40%
of those calculated using a moderately conservative approach,
but for finite-element analyses were grouped about the
expected value of 70%. The ratios for ‘most probable’ analyses
cover a wide range, but only rarely approached 100%. Many of
these analyses were critical only for the initial cantilever stages
of the excavation.
8.2. Time-dependent movement
It has long been recognised that ground movements around
excavations in stiff clay have a significant time-dependent
component (Burland et al., 1979). This aspect is particularly
important where an observational method is being used and
controls are set on the rates of movement (Holmes et al., 2005),
and at Ashford results from the first structures to be
constructed were used to optimise the subsequent excavations.
Wall profiles at different stages of construction (Figures 9 and
10) show that movement continues during periods when there
Design and performance of retaining walls Roscoe • Twine 285
 Roof slab 0
Top of wall

Temporary prop
Temporary
5 prop 5

Base slab
Formation
10 Key dates
10

Max. cantilever 13 May 2000

Depth: m
Base slab
Formation 15 Dig below prop 30 May 2000
15
Dig to formation 5 June 2000
Key dates Cast slab 21 Toe of wall
June 2000
Depth: m

Excavate to temporary prop 20

20 23 February 2001 Latest 18 April 2001

Excavate to formation
15 May 2001
25
Toe of wall
25
Cast base slab 28 July 2001

Destress props 4 August 2001

30
0 20 40 60 80 100
30 Latest 12 September 2001
Wall movement: mm

Figure 10. Wall movement profiles: bottom-up construction,

35
Greensands Way box

is no excavation or change to the propping. This is also seen in

40
Figure 13, a graph of maximum movement against time in the
⫺20 0 20 40 60 80 100
Maidstone Railway box.
Wall movement: mm

Figure 9. Wall movement profiles: top-down construction, Figure 14 summarises all the movements that were recorded
Maidstone Railway box between the end of excavation and base slab completion. Rates
of movement were generally less than 0.2 mm per day, and

Chart Road
Advance
60 Chart Road/Maidstone Railway
Maidstone Railway
Greensand Way – propped
Maximum movement at dig to formation stage: mm

Utilities Greensand Way – 4B

%

50 Greensand Way – 1 to 4A
bridge
4

Gasworks Lane
0·

Cattlemarket to Beaver Road

CR IC1
40 Formation
left 11
months
(2 props)
%
30 (2 props) 0·15

(2 props) (2 props)
20
Utilities
bridge

10

5 mm
0
0 5 10 15 20
Retained height, H: m

Figure 11. Wall movement against retained height

286 Geotechnical Engineering 163 Issue GE5 Design and performance of retaining walls Roscoe • Twine

Downloaded by [] on [09/02/24]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

 Figure 16 compares the average load for each set measured
10
at the end of excavation with the calculated value at that
70% stage. The calculations were performed on several different
bases. The data include results from both Frew and Safe
analyses, using either moderately conservative or most
No. of cases

5 probable soil properties, and assuming the props were either

100% or 50% efficient.

Measured loads were about 40% of those calculated in

moderately conservative analyses, significantly lower than
0
20 40 60 80 100 the expected ratio of about 70%. The Greensands Way
Measured movement structures were analysed using more probable soil properties,
:%
Calculated movement and measured loads were closer to 70% of the calculated
5 (a) values.
No. of cases

Prop stiffness has an important effect on the accuracy of the

calculations. The loads from analyses that assumed a prop
efficiency of 50% are marked with a tick in Figure 16. They are
0
20 40 60 80 100
more realistic than the loads calculated by assuming the props
Measured movement were fully efficient.
:%
Calculated movement
(b) Table 6 summarises the load data for structures that were
5
propped at two levels. Without exception the upper props
No. of cases

attracted a much greater percentage of their calculated load.

0 stage excavation tightens the upper props and increases their
20 40 60 80 100
Measured movement
:%
Calculated movement
(c)
Figure 12. Measured and calculated movements:
(a) moderately conservative (Frew); (b) moderately
conservative finite element (Safe); (c) most probable (Frew)
were approximately linear over the period of observation (up to
75 days). Negative movements were measured on bottom-up
structures, where maximum deflections at the tops of the walls
decreased as the walls rotated about the props in response to
increasing movements lower down.
The time-dependent movements at this site cannot be
explained by consolidation of the Weald and Atherfield Clays.
The Weald Clay has high horizontal permeability, and responds
to changes of load in a drained manner. The consolidation
period for a 13 m thick layer of Atherfield Clay is only a few
days, and layer thickness in the passive zone is generally much
less (Figure 1). Further work is needed to quantify the relative
importance of soil creep and relaxation of the concrete
structure.
8.3. Prop loads
Loads were measured in 36 sets of three props (Holmes et al.,
2005). Variations in load within each set were generally within
25% of the average, and all load measurements in steel props
were corrected for temperature effects during processing. The
results plotted in Figure 15 are typical. The loads dropped as
the base slab expanded after being cast, but then increased
with time by between 10% and 30% of the load at the end of
excavation.
This effect is most marked where the upper props are stiff
reinforced-concrete permanent props. Loading during the first-
efficiency. They then attract a greater share of load during the
later stages.
These data show that props are not 100% efficient. Structural
engineers commonly take a prop efficiency of 60% when
calculating temperature loads. This approach may be
appropriate when selecting a prop stiffness for wall analysis,
but would not allow for the ‘hardening’ of props after first
loading, as evidenced in Table 6. This could be modelled by
allowing initial movement before the prop is activated, or by
increasing prop stiffness at an intermediate stage of the
calculation.
9. CONCLUSIONS
Some 1.8 km of cut-and-cover tunnels and earth-retaining
structures were redesigned during the contract period to use
bottom-up methods of excavation wherever possible, and to
take benefit from deep dewatering in the Weald Clay.
This contract provided early experience of the approach now
incorporated in CIRIA Report C580 (Gaba et al., 2003). Both
ultimate and serviceability states were analysed, and in 85% of
cases the serviceability analyses were the more critical.
Designs that assumed that the walls of top-down structures
would not crack during construction were found to be unduly
conservative.
Modelling relaxation of the concrete structure gave significant
reductions in calculated bending moments. Relaxation may in
some circumstances apply to temporary situations, as well as in
the long term.
Many of the walls at this site were subject to significant
surcharges. None of the props was preloaded prior to

Geotechnical Engineering 163 Issue GE5 Design and performance of retaining walls Roscoe • Twine 287

Downloaded by [] on [09/02/24]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

 50
Internal structure
Cast base
slab
Dig to
40 formation

Maximum wall movement: mm

Dig to
First Intermediate dig
30 prop Prop out
excavation
Centre Chords

50 days
20

0·1 mm/day

10 0·2 mm/day

0
04-01-01 23-02-01 14-04-01 03-06-01 23-07-01 11-09-01 31-10-01
Date

Figure 13. Wall movement against time: Maidstone Railway box

25

Chart Road
Advance
20 Chart Road/Maidstone Railway
Maidstone Railway
Greensand Way – propped
Time dependent movement: mm

Greensand Way – 4B
15
Greensand Way – 1 to 4A
y
Gasworks Lane /da
mm
Cattlemarket to Beaver Road 0·2
10
90% consolidation
/day
2½ days 0·1 mm

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Time: days
Utilities
⫺5 bridge

Figure 14. Wall movement against time: all structures

4000
Cast
Excavate base slab
to formation
3000
Load: kN

2000

1000

11-09-00 01-10-00 21-10-00 10-11-00 30-11-00 20-12-00 09-01-01 29-01-01 18-02-01

Date

Figure 15. Prop loads against time: Maidstone Railway box

288 Geotechnical Engineering 163 Issue GE5 Design and performance of retaining walls Roscoe • Twine

Downloaded by [] on [09/02/24]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

 7000
Advance
Chart Road/Maidstone Railway
Maidstone Railway
6000 Greensand Way – propped

0%
10
Greensand Way – 4B
Greensand Way – 1 to 4A
5000 Gasworks Lane
Greensands Way Cattlemarket to Beaver Road
calculations (x) used %
Measured load: kN ‘most probable’ soil 70
properties Calculated using 50%
4000 theoretical stiffness

3000
40%

2000
Utilities
bridge

1000

0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
Calculated load: kN

Figure 16. Measured and calculated prop loads. Results for 36 sets of props (117 props in total)

Prop location Prop type Measured load: kN Calculated load: kN Measured load/
calculated load: %

Chart Road to Maidstone Railway

Ch. 88 + 972: upper Concrete 6215 5576 111
Ch. 88 + 972: lower Steel 1827 4565 40
Maidstone Railway
Ch. 89 + 164: upper Steel 4525 3500 129
Ch. 89 + 164: lower Steel 2197 2688 82
Greensands propped
Ch. 89 + 207: upper Concrete 3033 2100 144
Ch. 89 + 207: lower Steel 2312 3960 58
Greensands Way 4B
Ch. 89 + 240: upper Steel 2200 2340 94
Ch. 89 + 240: lower Steel 1025 2340 44
Ch. 89 + 285: upper Steel 1890 2340 81
Ch. 89 + 285: lower Steel 817 2340 35
Greensands Way 1
Ch. 89 + 555: upper Steel 1356 2331 58
Ch. 89 + 555: lower Steel 903 3325 27
Gasworks Lane
Ch. 89 + 675: upper Concrete 303 429 70
Ch. 89 + 675: lower Steel 1814 4450 40
Cattlemarket to Beaver Road
Ch. 89 + 900: upper Concrete 2223 1518 146
Ch. 89 + 900: lower Steel 1015 4133 25

All tabulated loads taken at completion of excavation.

Measured loads are average values from three adjacent props.

Table 6. Loads in paired props

installation. Despite this, the overall wall movements fall
within the conventional relationships used to estimate wall
movements.
Measured movements at the end of excavation were only about
40% of the values calculated on a moderately conservative
basis. This ratio increased to around 70% where finite-element
analyses were carried out.
Wall movements continued after excavation at rates of up to
0.2 mm/day. This is not explained by consolidation of the stiff
clay soils. Further research is needed into the effects of soil
creep and concrete relaxation.
The rates of movement measured on the first structures to be
constructed were used to optimise the construction sequence
for the excavations that followed.

Geotechnical Engineering 163 Issue GE5 Design and performance of retaining walls Roscoe • Twine 289

Downloaded by [] on [09/02/24]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

 Temporary props were installed at some 400 locations. None
was damaged or displaced by subsequent site activities, calling
into question the need to design for the loss of a prop.
Loads were measured in 36 sets of three or more props, and
were about 40% of those predicted by moderately conservative
calculations. This was lower than expected. The distributed
prop load (DPL) method was used in conjunction with field
measurements to justify a reduction in the loads used for prop
design.
Prop stiffness had an important effect on the designs. It is not
realistic to assume that props are 100% efficient. Reducing
prop efficiency to 50% improved agreement between calculated
and measured values.
Where two levels of propping were used, the upper props
attracted a much greater proportion of their calculated load.
Loading during the first-stage excavation tightens the upper
props and increases their stiffness during subsequent stages.
REFERENCES
BSI (British Standards Institution) (1990) BS 5400 Parts 1 to 4:
Steel, concrete and composite bridges. BSI, Milton Keynes.
BSI (British Standards Institution) (1994) BS 8002: Code of
practice for earth retaining structures. BSI, Milton Keynes.
BSI (British Standards Institution) (1997) DD ENV 1997-1:
Eurocode 7 Geotechnical Design Part 1: General rules. BSI,
Milton Keynes.
Burland JB, Simpson B and St John HD (1979) Movements
around excavations in London Clay. Proceedings of the 7th
European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Brighton, 1, 13–29.
Clark J, Richards DJ and Powrie W (2004) Wall installation
effects: preliminary findings from a field study at the CTRL,
Ashford. In Advances in Geotechnical Engineering: The
Skempton Conference. Thomas Telford, London, pp. 691–
699.
Gaba AR, Simpson B, Powrie W and Beadman DR (2003)
Report C580: Embedded Retaining Walls: Guidance for
Economic Design. Construction Industry Research and
Information Association, London.
Highways Agency (1994) Design Manual for Roads and Bridges
(1994). Design of embedded retaining walls and bridge
abutments (unpropped or propped at the top). 2 Section 1.
The Stationery Office, London, BD 42/94.
Holmes G, Chodorowski A and Roscoe H (2005) Construction
monitoring of cut and cover tunnels, CTRL Contract 430,
Ashford, Kent. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil
Engineers, Geotechnical Engineering 158(4): 187–196.
Loveridge F (2001) Evaluation of prop loads at Channel Tunnel
Rail Link Contract 430 – Ashford tunnels. Ground
Engineering 34(8): 38–42.
Loveridge F, Hocombe T and Roscoe H (2008) Design and
construction of a retaining structure subject to sway.
Proceedings of the 2nd BGA International Conference on
Foundations, Dundee, 1, 729–740.
Padfield CJ and Mair RJ (1984) C104: Design of Retaining
Walls Embedded in Stiff Clays. Construction Industry
Research and Information Association, London.
Roscoe H (2003) Retaining wall movements, CTRL Contract
430: Ashford Tunnels. Proceedings of the BGA International
Conference on Foundations: Innovations, Observations,
Design and Practice, Dundee, pp. 757–766.
Roscoe H and Twine D (2001) Design collaboration speeds
Ashford tunnels. World Tunnelling 14(5): 237–241.
Roscoe H, Chodorowski A and Wiltcher P (2002) Piling the
gateway to Europe. Proceedings of the 9th International
Conference on Piling and Deep Foundations, Nice, 681–688.
Twine D and Roscoe H (1999) Temporary Propping of Deep
Excavations: Guidance on Design. Construction Industry
Research and Information Association, London, C517.

What do you think?

To discuss this paper, please email up to 500 words to the editor at journals@ice.org.uk. Your contribution will be forwarded to the
author(s) for a reply and, if considered appropriate by the editorial panel, will be published as discussion in a future issue of the
journal.
Proceedings journals rely entirely on contributions sent in by civil engineering professionals, academics and students. Papers should be
2000–5000 words long (briefing papers should be 1000–2000 words long), with adequate illustrations and references. You can
submit your paper online via www.icevirtuallibrary.com/content/journals, where you will also find detailed author guidelines.

290 Geotechnical Engineering 163 Issue GE5 Design and performance of retaining walls Roscoe • Twine

Downloaded by [] on [09/02/24]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.