Tutorial 07 Eurocode Design

An NZGS 1 day short course
Ground movement control
Deep excavations
Antonio Gens
Technical University of Catalonia, Barcelona, Spain
Outline
 Introduction. Generation of ground movements by deep
excavations
 Empirical methods for estimating ground movements
 Methods for calculating ground movements
 Procedures for control and reduction of movements
 A case history
 Excavations with large movements: announcing failure?
 Conclusions
Excavation-induced ground movements
 The performance of an excavation with retaining walls

inevitably causes movements in the wall and surrounding
ground
 We will mainly focus on “normal” movements (i.e. on those
corresponding to an adequate construction not on those
arising from accidents)
 We will focus on movements associated basically to the

excavation process
 Tolerance concerning the acceptable deformation level (in

urban environment) has reduced significantly in recent years
 It means enhanced requirements for estimation and control of
movements
Deformation mechanisms
 Two basic deformation modes
Cantilever wall Propped wall Total displacements

 Surface horizontal displacements often ignored

 they are more difficult to measure (less experience)
Lion Yard excavation (Ng, 1998)

 Tension horizontal deformation contributes significantly to damage of
buildings and structures
Boscardin & Cording (1989) Burland (1998)

 Tension horizontal strains contribute significantly to the damage of
buildings and structures
 the majority of horizontal strains associated to deep excavations are tension strains
(more unfavourable than in the tunnelling case)
 the response of a building may depend significantly on its horizontal stiffness
Tension
Hor.
Tension Compression Tension
Vert.
Tension
Hor.
Vert.
Tunnels Excavations
 Factors that influence ground movements caused by excavations
 stress changes in the ground (due to excavation and construction)
 excavation size (depth and width)
 ground properties
 initial horizontal stresses in the ground
 hydraulic conditions and their variation
 wall and prop stiffness
 preloading of propos and anchors
 external loads
 construction procedure
 construction quality
 others...
Esquema de la presentación
excavations
 A case history
 Conclusions
Empirical methods for evaluating movements
 Settlements
I: sands and soft clays, standard construction quality

II: soft and very soft clays
III: soft and very soft clays reaching below excavation depth
(Peck,1969)
 Curves obtained from excavations with sheet pile walls or soldier piles.
Reduced embedment
 Support: soldier pile lagging with struts
Medium to dense sand with interbedded stiff clay

Excavations en Washington D.C. (O´Rourke, 1976)
 Stiff clays, residual soils and sands (Clough & O’ Rourke, 1990)
Maximum lateral movement Maximum settlement

 The mean of maximum lateral movements measured around 0.2%
 The mean of maximum settlements measured around 0.15 %
 Large scatter, more in horizontal movements
 No significant differences between different wall types
 Soft clays (Mana & Clough, 1981)
Maximum horizontal movement
Bottom instability
 Movements associated to bottom instability are dominant when the factor of safety is
low
 Soft clays (Clough & O’ Rourke, 1990)
Maximum lateral movements Settlements
 System stiffness: (EI)/(wh4)

 Addenbrooke et al. (2000) defined system stiffness as (EI)/(wh5)
 Other databases
 Karlsrud (1986): Oslo soft clay

 Ou et al. (1993): Taipei soft clay
 Wong et al. (1997): Singapore
 Carder (1995): UK
 Fernie and Suckling (1996): UK
 Long (2001): 296 cases! (COST Action C-7)
 Long (2001) database. Excavations in medium and stiff soils
 Large scatter
 Generally values smaller than those collected by Clough & O’Rourke (1990)
 Little influence of the type of bracing (props, anchors, top-down)
 Long (2001) database. Excavations in stiff and medium soils
h < 0.6H
System stiffness: (EIs4 (Clough & O’Rourke, 1990)
Maximum lateral movement
 System stiffness does not appear to be a critical parameter in these cases

h < 0.6H
Flexibility number: (s5)/(EI) (Addenbrooke et al., 2000)
 System flexibility does not appear to be a critical parameter in these cases

 Long (2001) database. Excavations in soft soils
h > 0.6H
Low FS

h > 0.6H
Low FS

 Long (2001) database: causes of excessive movements (with respect to the

majority of works in similar circumstances). 36 cases examined
 Excessive movements in cantilever mode: 12 cases

 Wall too flexible: 8 cases
 Creep of anchors/props: 3 cases
 Structural yielding: 2 cases
 Water inflow: 1 case
 Pile driving: 1 case
 Unknown: 9 cases
 Distribution of surface settlements (Clough & O’Rourke, 1990)
Sands
Stiff to hard clays

Chicago excavations (O´Rourke, 1976)

Soft to medium clays

Sands Stiff to hard clays
Soft to medium clays

 Distribution of surface settlements (Hsieh and Ou, 1998)

 They suggest that the shape of the settlement distribution is related to the type
of wall deformation
Spandrel
Ac (cantilever) type
Concave type
As

 Estimation method
Spandrel (cantilever) type Concave type


 Excavation in soft silty clay near the centre of the Taipei basin
Concave type

 Excavation in silty clay for the Far-East Enterprise Center project in Taipei
Spandrel (cantilever) type

 Relationship between maximum vertical and lateral movement (Hsieh and

Ou, 1998)
Independent of settlement distribution type

 Settlements caused by the installation of concrete diaphragm wall (Clough &

O’Rourke, 1990
 Hong Kong, Charter Station: 50mm settlements for a 37m deep trench
 Normally 5 – 15 mm settlement in soft ground
excavations
 A case history
 Conclusions
Methods for calculating ground movements
 Calculation methods
 Limit equilibrium (no information on ground movements)
 Diaphragm walls considered as elastic beams on springs (Winkler’s
model): RIDO, PARATIE, WALLOP…

i
 Simualtion using finite elements or finite differences: ABAQUS,

FLAC, PLAXIS
 Diaphragm wall considered as beams supported by springs

 Relatively simple, they require a limited number of hypotheses and data
 There is a wide experience of their use in practice
 They allo the introduction of some nonlinearity
 The subgrade modulus (a key parameter in this type of calculations) is a
parameter with serous limitations
 The global soil-interaction problem is not considered
 The horizontal movements of the wall are computed, ground movemnts
must be calculated separately
 Finite elements / Finite differences

 More complex, they require a larger number of hypotheses and decisions
(constitutive model, type of analysis, initial stresses, boundary conditions.
domain size…)
 There is less experience of use in practice (rapidly changing but…
 Some models require an information level not always available
 The allow the consideration of the global problem, they contribute to the
better understanding of deformation and failure mechanisms
 They provide a quite complete information on stresses, stains,
displacements
 They are progressively replacing simplified methods
 Validation/calibration with field measurements are essential
 Effect of constitutive model (Schwiger, pers. comm.)
30 m 2 - 3 x width of excavation
x 0.00m
GW = -3.00m below surface

excavation step 1 = - 4.80m
27°
z
excavation step 2 = - 9.30m 19.
27° 8m 8.0
m
excavation step 3 = -14.35m 23.

27° 3m
8.0
m
excavation step 4 = -16.80m
23.
-17.90m 8m
8.0
m
top of hydraulic barrier = -30.00m

-32.00m = base of diaphragm wall
0.8m
'='sand Specification for anchors:
2 - 3 x width of excavation
prestressed anchor force: 1. row: 768KN

2. row: 945KN
3. row: 980KN
distance of anchors: 1. row: 2.30m

2. row: 1.35m
> plane strain cross section area: 15 cm2
3. row: 1.35m
> wall "wished-in-place" Young's modulus E = 2.1 e8 kN/m2
sand
 Effect of constitutive model
 Mohr Coulomb vs. Hardening Soil
Mohr-Coulomb Hardening Soil

 Effect of constitutive model
 Mohr Coulomb vs. Hardening Soil
-60 -55 -50 -45 -40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0
0
2
Hard. Soil
4
6
distance from wall [m]
8 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
30
vertical displacements of surface [mm]

10 25
20
12
depth below surface [m]

15
14 10
5
16 0
-5
18
-10 MC_1
20 -15 Poisson = 0.2
Poisson = 0.4
-20
Rinter = 0.5
22
-25 reference solution
-30 (Hardening Soil)
24
MC_1 26
Poisson = 0.2
Poisson = 0.4
Rinter = 0.5 28
reference solution
(Hardening Soil) 30
32
-60 -55 -50 -45 -40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0
horizontal displacement [mm]

Wesminster Palace, London

 Clock Tower inclination

 Prediction: 1:8000
 Observation: - 1:8600
Westminster Palce, London

Horizontal and vertical displacements

 Mohr-Coulomb model (or any other that incorporates a linear

elastic component)
 Although reasonable wall lateral movements can be obtained,
computed settlements are often in error
 Excavation bottom heave are considerably overestimated
 The location of the lower boundary of the calculation domain has an
decisive influence on computed displacements
 In the case of excavations in soft soils, the effects are less marked
because the soil shear strength plays a dominant role
 Effect of the friction between soil and wall
-70 -65 -60 -55 -50 -45 -40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0
0
R=0.5
2
4 R=0.8
6
distance from wall [m]
8
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
10
vertical displacement of surface [mm]

10
5
12 0

-5
14
R=0.8
-10
16
-15
18
-20
-25
R=0.5
20
-30
22 reference solution
reference solution Rinter = 0.5
Rinter = 0.8 (final stage)
-35
Rinter = 0.5 (final stage) 24
-40
Rinter = 0.8 t_virt = 0.01
(final stage) 26
reference solution
(1. excavation stage)
28
Rinter = 0.5
Rinter = 0.8 t_virt = 0.01 30
32
-70 -65 -60 -55 -50 -45 -40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0

 Benchmark (Schwiger, 2006)
 17 participants
x
30 m
0.00m
 domain size
GW = -3.00m below surface
z

27°
19.
 structural elements, interfaces
27° 8m 8.0
 Constitutive models: Mohr-

m
excavation step 3 = -14.35m 23.

27° 3m
8.0
m
excavation step 4 = -16.80m
-17.90m
23.
8m
8.0
m
Coulomb, nonlinear
elastoplastic, hypoplastic
top of hydraulic barrier = -30.00m
 similar strength parameters, more

-32.00m = base of diaphragm wall
0.8m
'='sand Specification for anchors:
differences in stiffness parameters
prestressed anchor force: 1. row: 768KN

2. row: 945KN
3. row: 980KN
distance of anchors: 1. row: 2.30m

2. row: 1.35m
3. row: 1.35m
cross section area: 15 cm2
Young's modulus E = 2.1 e8 kN/m2
sand
 Benchmark (Schwiger, 2006)
-250 -225 -200 -175 -150 -125 -100 -75 -50 -25 0 25 50
0
6 distance from wall [m]

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
8 50
B1
10
25 B2
vertical displacement of surface [mm]

0 B2a
12 B3

-25
B3a
14 -50 B4
B5
-75
B1 B6
16
B2 -100 B7
B2a
-125 B8
18
B3 B9
B3a -150 B9a
B4 20
-175 B10
B5
B6
B11
22 -200 B12
B7
B8 -225 B13
B9 24 B14
B9a -250 B15
B10 B16
B11
26 -275
B17
B12 -300
B13 28
B14
B15
B16
B17
30
Surface settlements
32
-250 -225 -200 -175 -150 -125 -100 -75 -50 -25 0 25 50
Horizontal wall displacements

excavations
 A case history
 Conclusions
Procedures for control and reduction of movements
 Taking adequate measures, it is possible to minimize movements even
in soft soils
 A recent example: Shanghai metro
d
h
17 - 23 m
Fill Level 1
Medium clay
Level 2
Soft silty clay Level 3
h = 15 – 21 m
Level 4
Level 5
Soft to medium clay
Final level
Compaction grouting
Diaphragm
Medium to stiff clay
wall
Bored pile
Stiff silty clay or silt
u max
v h %
Wong et al. (2005)
1. Increase stiffness of the retaining system (wall / bracing)

2. Early installation of bracing (especially the top one)
3. Attention to the contact between bracing and wall
4. Preloading the bracing
5. Avoid overexcavations
6. Embedding the wall in a stiff layer
7. Bracing below the maximum excavation depth
8. Impervious wall and water flow control
9. Compensation / correction grouting?
 Increase the stiffness of the retaining system
 increase wall stiffness (thickness, counterforts)
 increase bracing system (prop separation, prop stiffness)
System stiffness: (EI)/(ws4) (Clough & O’ Rourke, 1990)

Flexibility number: (s5)/(EI) (Addenbrooke et al., 2000)
Addenbrooke
et al. (2000)
Clough & O’ Rourke (1990)
 based on finite elements calculations

(nonlinear model with small strain stiffness)
 Influence of system stiffness

h < 0.6H
Maximum lateral wall movement
 System stiffness does not appear to be a dominant factor in these cases

 Influence of system stiffness

h > 0.6H
Low FOS
 There appears to be some influence of the system stiffness for low factors fo safety
 Early installation of bracing
 top-down construction
Buen Pastor Cathedral, San Sebastián, Spain

Section Plan view

Buen Pastor
Buen Pastor

 Attention to the contact between bracing and wall
Lisbon Metro Circle Line, Singapore Metro

 Preloading the bracing (props and anchors)
Lisbon Metro Diagonal Mar, Barcelona
 prestressing reduces the movements caused by excavation

 prestressing does not increase the stiffness of the bracing
 Preloading of the bracing (props and anchors)
 anchors with a considerable free length exhibit a significant deformability
 Pile wall (65 cm diameter)

 Wall length: 80 m
 Max. excavation depth: 20 m
 Excavation in weathered granite
Science Museum, Barcelona

 Preloading of the bracing (props and anchors)
 anchors with a considerable free length exhibit a significant deformability
-10.000 0.000 10.000 20.000 30.000 40.000 50.000 60.000 70.000 80.000 90.000
70.000
60.000
50.000
40.000
30.000
Science
20.000 Museum
-10.000 0.000 10.000 20.000 30.000 40.000 50.000 60.000 70.000 80.000 90.000
10.000
70.000
60.000
50.000
40.000
30.000
20.000 Maximum lateral

10.000
displacement
Science Museum, Barcelona
 Bracing below the maximum excavation depth

 Procedures:
 Props placed in trenches or tunnels previously excavated
 Rows of barrettes (diaphragm walls segments)
 Jet grouting slabs or props
 Slabs of props constructed with deep soil mixing
 Slabs of props constructed with compaction grouting
 For bracing constructed using soil improvement techniques

 There is no consensus whether it is better to use slabs or thicker
discontinuous props
 Ground improvement techniques often produce brittle materials that
can lose strength if failure strain is exceeded
 Constructing the bracing may weaken the overlying soil
 Props placed in pre-excavated trenches or tunnels
Westminster Station
London
Barbican Arts Centre

London
Studenterlinden
Oslo
Diaphragm wall segments Lime-cement columns

 Jet grouting slabs or props
No jet
grouted slab
Lateral excavation movements

in Singapore (Shirlaw, 2006)
Race Course Road Metro

Singapore
 Impervious wall and water flow control
 The lack of water flow control or the changes in hydraulic conditions
cause sort and long term ground movements
Pumping
Sealing defects
 Amsterdam. North-South line
 Vijzelgracht station
 250 m long, 22 m wide, 31
m deep
 Top down construction
 1.2 m thick diaphragm
walls 45 m deep
 5.1 m long panels with
steel stop ends
 Vijzelgracht station, North-South line, Amsterdam
 Vijzelgracht, 26. Leakage due to a steel stop not being removed
(Korff et al., 2009)

 Vijzelgracht, 26. Leakage due to a steel stop not being removed
 Settlement due to ground loss

 Tilt 1/78 and 1/184. Severe to very severe damage
 Vijzelgracht, 4. Leakage due a large bentonite inclusion in the wall
 Settlement due to ground loss

 Tilt 1/38 and 1/70. Severe to very severe damage
 Compensation grouting
 Excavation in soft clay in Shanghai (Liu, 2003)
 Risk of affecting the wall (injection is performed after the props have been
installed)
 It is generally counterproductive to perform compensation grouting in soft
clays
 Corrective grouting at Vijzelgracht, 22, 24, 26
(Bezuijen et al., 2009)

 Corrective grouting at Vijzelgracht, 22, 24, 26
(Bezuijen et al., 2009)

excavations
 A case history
 Conclusions
Prat de Llobregat cut-and-cover tunnel



What the papers say…
Desplazamientos verticales de la superficie del terreno
en calle M. Bertrand (pk 201+525)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
0.000
-0.005
Desplazamiento vertical [m]

-0.010
-0.015
-0.020
-0.025
-0.030
-0.035
Inclinometer Distancia al centro de la estructura del IB [m]
Computed settlements
Desplazamientos horizontales de la superficie del terreno

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
0.000
Desplazamiento horizontal [m]

-0.005
Fill
Relleno -0.010
Sands
Arenas -0.015
-0.020
-0.025
Limos
Silts y
and -0.030
clays
arcillas
-0.035
Distancia al centro de la estructura del IB [m]
Computed horizontal displacements

en calle M. Bertrand (pk 201+525)  Project 0
0,000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
 No additional measures
-0,005
-0,010
-0,015
-0,020 actual
-0,025
-0,030 proyecto 0
-0,035

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
0,000
-0,005
-0,010
-0,015
-0,020 actual
-0,025
-0,030 proyecto 0
-0,035

 Possible additional measures
 Increase wall thickness
 Install additional props
 Increase wall length
 Embed the diaphragm wall in a stiff layer
 Install bracing below the maximum excavation depth (jet grouting)
 Cases examined
 Project 0: No additional measure
 Project 1: 1.20 m wall thickness (UIC2)
 Project 2: Project 1 + Temporary intermediate prop
 Project 3: Project 2 + wall depth to elevation -27
 Project 4: Project 2 + wall depth to elevation -34
 Project 5: Project 3 + bracing below the maximum excavation depth
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75  Project 0
0,000
-0,005
 Project 1
-0,010
-0,015
 Wall thickness:1.2 m
actual
-0,020
-0,025 proyecto 0
-0,030
proyecto 1
-0,035

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
0,000
-0,005
-0,010
-0,015
actual
-0,020
-0,025 proyecto 0
-0,030
proyecto 1
-0,035

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75  Project 0
0,000
-0,005
 Project 1
-0,010
-0,015
 Wall thickness: 1.2m
-0,020
actual
 Project 2
-0,025
proyecto 0
 Project 1 + additional prop
proyecto 1
-0,030
proyecto 2
-0,035

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
0,000
-0,005
-0,010
-0,015
actual
-0,020
proyecto 0
-0,025
proyecto 1
-0,030
proyecto 2
-0,035

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
0,000
-0,005  Project 1
-0,010
 Project 2
-0,015
actual
-0,020
proyecto 0
-0,025 proyecto 1
-0,030
proyecto 2  Project 3
-0,035
proyecto 3
 Project 2 + wall to elevation -27
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
0,000
-0,005
-0,010
-0,015
actual
-0,020
proyecto 0
-0,025 proyecto 1
proyecto 2
-0,030
proyecto 3
-0,035

0,000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
 Project 0
-0,005
-0,010  Project 1
-0,015
actual
-0,020
-0,025 proyecto 1
proyecto 2
-0,030
-0,035
Distancia al centro de la estructura del IB [m]  Project 2 + wall to elevation -34

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
0,000
-0,005
-0,010
-0,015
actual
-0,020
proyecto 0
-0,025 proyecto 1
proyecto 2
-0,030
proyecto 4
-0,035

0,000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75  No additional measures
-0,005  Project 1
-0,010  Wall thickness: 1.2m

-0,015
actual
 Project 2
-0,020 proyecto 0
proyecto 1
 Project 3
-0,025
proyecto 2
 Project 2 + wall to elevation -27

-0,030 proyecto 3
proyecto 5
-0,035
Distancia al centro de la estructura del IB [m]  Project 5
Computed settlements  Project 3 + Jet grouting prop
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
0,000
-0,005
-0,010
-0,015
actual
-0,020 proyecto 0
proyecto 1
-0,025
proyecto 2
-0,030 proyecto 3
proyecto 5
-0,035

Trial sections
Adopted construction procedure

Jet grouting props below maximum excavation depth

Fill
Sands
Silts and
clays
Finite element model
 “Hardening Soil model” for all layers

 Observations and model calibration. Ground inclinometers
Excavation Ground Excavation Ground Excavation Ground
10 10 10
5 5 5
0 0 0
-5 -5 -5
-10
Elevation (m)
-10 -10
Elevation (m)
-15 -15 -15
-20 -20 -20
-25 -25
-25
-30 -30
-30
-35 -35
-35
-40 -40
-40
-0,020 -0,010 0,000 0,010 0,020
-0,020 -0,010 0,000 0,010 0,020 -0,020 -0,010 0,000 0,010 0,020
Horizontal displacement (m)
Horizontal displacement (m) Horizontal displacement (m)
Jet-grouting Excavation from top Total excavation

to bottom slab
Maragall St. section

 Predictions of the calibrated model. Wall inclinometer
Excavation Ground Excavation Ground Excavation Ground

10 10 10
5 5 5
0 0 0
-5 -5 -5
Elevation (m)
-10 -10 -10
-15 -15 -15
-20 -20 -20
-25 -25 -25
-30 -30 -30
-35 -35 -35
-40 -40 -40

-0,020 -0,010 0,000 0,010 0,020 -0,020 -0,010 0,000 0,010 0,020 -0,020 -0,010 0,000 0,010 0,020
Horizontal displacement (m) Horizontal displacement (m) Horizontal displacement (m)
Excavation of first Excavation of Total excavation

tunnel second tunnel
 Estimation of potential damage
Displacements from phase 7 to phase 16
3.5
3.0
Severe to very
2.5
severe
Horizontal strain (‰)
2.0
1.5 Moderate
1.0
Slight
0.5 Very slight
Negligible
0.0
0.000 1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000 5.000 6.000 7.000
Angular distortion (‰) model M35_0
Excavation of the second tunnel

 Estimation of potential damage
Displacements from phase 0 to phase 16
3.5
3.0
Severe to very
2.5
severe
Horizontal strain (‰)
2.0
1.5 Moderate
1.0
Slight
0.5 Very slight
Negligible
0.0
0.000 1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000 5.000 6.000 7.000
Angular distortion (‰) model M35_1
Total excavation
Construction of tunnel UIC

7-06-2007 15-10-2007
 Observations Maragall St.
d=7m d=32m d=55m

Horizontal displacements
excavations
 A case history
 Conclusions
Excavations with large movements: announcing failure?
 Diagonal Mar
 Surface: 40,000 m2
 Excavation depth: 20 m
 Excavation volume: 800,000 m3
 Water level: 1.5 m deep
330 m
 Diagonal Mar
 Diagonal Mar
 Diagonal Mar
Anchor head
- 4.50 m
Cantilever excavation
- 7.50 m
to -4.50 m
- 9.00 m
Excavation with
1 anchor
Wall horizontal displacements

 Diagonal Mar: numerical model
-90.000 -60.000 -30.000 0.000 30.000 60.000
60 m
Symmetry axis
0.000
Sands (upper aquifer)
Silty fine sands

(intermediate
layer)
-30.000
Gravel (lower aquifer)
-60.000
Still clayey silt
-90.000
 Diagonal Mar: calculations and observations
10 10
5 5
0 0
-5 -5
-10 -10
-15 -15
-20 -20
Elevation (m)
Elevation (m)
-25 -25
-30 -30
-35 -35
-40 -40
-45 -45
-50 -50
-55 -55
-60 -60
-65 -65
-70 -70
-0.20 -0.15 -0.10 -0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 -0.20 -0.15 -0.10 -0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
Horizontal displacement (m) Horizontal displacement (m)
model p75b i75p (04.11.97 to 19.01.98) model p75b i75p (04.11.97 to 17.07.98)
Cantilever excavation to -4.50 m Anchored excavation to -7.50 m
Horizontal wall displacements

 Diagonal Mar: numerical model
-50.000 -40.000 -30.000 -20.000 -10.000 0.000 10.000 20.000 30.000 40.000 50.000 60.000 -50.000 -40.000 -30.000 -20.000 -10.000 0.000 10.000 20.000 30.000 40.000 50.000 60.000
10.000 10.000
m m
0.000 0.000
0.200 0.200
0.180 0.180
-10.000 -10.000
0.160 0.160
0.140 0.140
-20.000 0.120 -20.000 0.120
0.100 0.100
0.080 0.080
-30.000 -30.000
0.060 0.060
0.040 0.040
-40.000 -40.000
0.020 0.020
0.000 0.000
-50.000 -0.020 -50.000 -0.020
-0.040 -0.040
-0.060 -0.060
-60.000 -60.000
-70.000 -70.000
Cantilever wall Anchored wall
Horizontal displacements contours

 Diagonal Mar: field observations
Surface crack 35 m away from the wall

 Diagonal Mar
Excavation trial
 Diagonal Mar
-100
-110
-120
-130
-140
-150
-160
-170
-180
-190
-200
-210
-220
-230
-240
-250
-260
-270
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60
-70
-80
-90
0
2
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
-14
-16
Level (m)
-18
-20
-22
-24
-26
102 P75 Panel 19-ene-98 -2.0
-28 107 P75 Panel 20-feb-98 -5.0
406 P75 Panel 26-mar-98 -7.5
439 P75 Panel 18-dic-98 -7.5
-30 442 P75 Panel 15-ene-99 -7.5
475 P75 Panel 07-abr-99 -10.8
723 P75 Panel 07-jun-99 -10.8
-32 492 P75 Panel 18-ago-99 -10.8
731 P75 Panel 09-sep-99 -10.8
753 P75 Panel 31-may-00 -10.8
-34 755 P75 Panel 20-jun-00 -10.8
758 P75 Panel 21-jul-00 -10.8
-36 761 P75 Panel 25-ago-00 -10.8
762 P75 Panel 27-sep-00 -10.8
769 P75 Panel 16-oct-00 -14.0
-38 773 P75 Panel 25-oct-00 -14.0
775 P75 Panel 30-oct-00 -14.0
781 P75 Panel 22-nov-00 -14.0
-40 788 P75 Panel 20-dic-00 -14.0
789 P75 Panel 22-dic-00 -14.0
797 P75 Panel 26-ene-01 -14.0
-42 799 P75 Panel 02-feb-01 -14.0
Horizontal Displacement (mm)
Excavation trial
 Diagonal Mar: observations and calculations
10
-50.000 -40.000 -30.000 -20.000 -10.000 0.000 10.000 20.000 30.000 40.000 50.000 60.000 -5
10.000
-10
m -15
0.000
0.200
-20
0.180
Elevation (m)
-10.000
0.160
-25
0.140
-30
-20.000 0.120
-35
0.100
0.080 -40
-30.000
0.060
-45
0.040
-40.000 -50
0.020
0.000 -55
-50.000 -0.020
-60
-0.040
-65
-0.060
-60.000
-70
-0.20 -0.15 -0.10 -0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
-70.000
Horizontal displacement (m)
model p75b i75p (04.11.97 to 07.04.99)
Anchored excavation to -18.0 m. Horizontal displacements

 Diagonal Mar
Maximum lateral wall displacements

 Diagonal Mar 0.000
Safety
Phase
factors -30.000
2 1.68
-60.000
8 3.09
Cantilever excavtion to -4.50 m. SF = 1.68
16 >1.88 0.000
19 1.99
-30.000
21 2.34
-60.000
Maximum excavtion. SF = 1.99

 Diagonal Mar
 Nicoll Highway excavation, Singapore
20/4/04
Fill
Kallang Formation
Old Alluvium
North wall South wall

South wall
North wall
Maximum lateral wall displacements

9
Strut 338-9 north wall
Strut 335-9 south wall

Summary & conclusions
 Performing a deep excavation inevitably produces movements in the retaining
walls and surrounding ground. The tolerance concerning acceptable
deformation levels (in urban conditions) has reduced significantly in recent
years
 The mechanisms of excavation-induced deformations are well identified.
Horizontal movements are mainly tension ones, more unfavourable than in the
tunnelling case
 There exists a wide documented experience providing useful information to
estimate excavation-induced ground movements and heir possible effects on
nearby structures
 Numerical analyses of excavations are becoming widespread. Those methods
provide a more complete perspective of the problem but must be validated and
calibrated if used for prediction purposes.
 There is a large range of construction procedures to reduce the excavation-
induced ground movements to the required levels.
 Although it is advisable to try to prevent large deformations of the retaining
walls, they are not necessarily signs of impending failure.

Tutorial 07 Eurocode Design

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Tutorial 07 Eurocode Design

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

An NZGS 1 day short course

Ground movement control

 The performance of an excavation with retaining walls

 We will focus on movements associated basically to the

 Tolerance concerning the acceptable deformation level (in

Cantilever wall Propped wall Total displacements

 Surface horizontal displacements often ignored

Lion Yard excavation (Ng, 1998)

Boscardin & Cording (1989) Burland (1998)

I: sands and soft clays, standard construction quality

 Support: soldier pile lagging with struts

Medium to dense sand with interbedded stiff clay

Maximum lateral movement Maximum settlement

 Soft clays (Mana & Clough, 1981)

Maximum horizontal movement

 Soft clays (Clough & O’ Rourke, 1990)

Maximum lateral movements Settlements

 System stiffness: (EI)/(wh4)

 Karlsrud (1986): Oslo soft clay

 Long (2001) database. Excavations in medium and stiff soils

Maximum lateral movement Maximum settlement

 Long (2001) database. Excavations in stiff and medium soils

System stiffness: (EIs4 (Clough & O’Rourke, 1990)

Maximum lateral movement

 System stiffness does not appear to be a critical parameter in these cases

 Long (2001) database. Excavations in stiff and medium soils

Flexibility number: (s5)/(EI) (Addenbrooke et al., 2000)

Maximum lateral movement

 System flexibility does not appear to be a critical parameter in these cases

 Long (2001) database. Excavations in soft soils

Maximum lateral movement

 Long (2001) database. Excavations in soft soils

Maximum lateral movement

 Long (2001) database: causes of excessive movements (with respect to the

 Excessive movements in cantilever mode: 12 cases

 Distribution of surface settlements (Clough & O’Rourke, 1990)

 Distribution of surface settlements (Clough & O’Rourke, 1990)

Stiff to hard clays

 Distribution of surface settlements (Clough & O’Rourke, 1990)

Chicago excavations (O´Rourke, 1976)

 Distribution of surface settlements (Clough & O’Rourke, 1990)

Soft to medium clays

 Distribution of surface settlements (Clough & O’Rourke, 1990)

Sands Stiff to hard clays

Soft to medium clays

 Distribution of surface settlements (Hsieh and Ou, 1998)

 Distribution of surface settlements (Hsieh and Ou, 1998)

Spandrel (cantilever) type Concave type

 Distribution of surface settlements (Hsieh and Ou, 1998)

 Distribution of surface settlements (Hsieh and Ou, 1998)

Spandrel (cantilever) type

 Relationship between maximum vertical and lateral movement (Hsieh and

Independent of settlement distribution type

 Settlements caused by the installation of concrete diaphragm wall (Clough &

 Simualtion using finite elements or finite differences: ABAQUS,

 Diaphragm wall considered as beams supported by springs

 Finite elements / Finite differences

GW = -3.00m below surface

excavation step 3 = -14.35m 23.

top of hydraulic barrier = -30.00m

prestressed anchor force: 1. row: 768KN

distance of anchors: 1. row: 2.30m

> wall "wished-in-place" Young's modulus E = 2.1 e8 kN/m2

Mohr-Coulomb Hardening Soil