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

net/publication/237899373

Use of Jet Grouting to Limit Diaphragm Wall Displacement of a Deep Excavation

Article  in  Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering · February 2003

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2003)129:2(146)

CITATIONS READS
29 1,177

3 authors, including:

Chien-chih Wang
Cheng Shiu University
22 PUBLICATIONS   111 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Chien-chih Wang on 10 August 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Use of Jet Grouting to Limit Diaphragm Wall Displacement
of a Deep Excavation
Hsii-Sheng Hsieh1; Chien-Chih Wang2; and Chang-Yu Ou3

Abstract: Excessive lateral diaphragm wall displacement and the associated ground settlement are often the primary cause of damage
of nearby buildings. It is therefore imperative to minimize diaphragm wall displacement during basement excavation if the integrity of
adjacent buildings is of concern. This paper describes the application of a jet grouting scheme to reduce the diaphragm wall displacement
of a six-level basement excavation. Based upon field experience of similar projects, buildings adjacent to the construction site may settle
well beyond an acceptable limit if excavation is carried out without any protection measures being taken. In this excavation project, the
soil mass within the excavation zone was partially jet grouted in an attempt to increase its passive resistance as an effective measure to
limit wall displacement. Numerical analyses were carried out to assess the effects of jet grouting. Field measurements on wall displace-
ment and ground settlement confirm the effectiveness of the improvement scheme.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲1090-0241共2003兲129:2共146兲
CE Database keywords: Jet grouting; Diaphragm wall; Excavation; Soil settlement; Numerical analysis; Displacement.

Introduction erable amount by auxiliary measures is a viable alternative. Two

Deep excavations in Taiwan are often carried out in congested
urban areas. Therefore, most of the construction sites are sur-
rounded by buildings at close proximity. No matter how carefully
executed, the process of excavation will still result in a certain
amount of ground settlement 共Peck 1969; Clough and O’Rourke
1990兲, which may cause structural or nonstructural damage to
adjacent buildings. Taiwan local experience has shown that no-
ticeable ground settlements may occur near the construction site
and extend to a distance three to four times of the excavation
depth 共Woo and Moh 1990兲. This implies that buildings situated
within this range are likely to be affected by excavation activities.
Cases of building damage involving several hundred neighboring
residents are often reported for deep excavation projects in Tai-
wan that lack proper control of the ground settlement. Lawsuits
and major financial losses are often inevitable for such incidents.
Therefore, whenever a deep excavation is planned, the integrity of
adjacent buildings is a major concern of project owners, design
engineers, and contractors.
The integrity of adjacent buildings can be protected by under-
pinning. Nevertheless, it is not practical to underpin a large num-
ber of target buildings, either from a financial or political point of
view. Therefore, reducing excavation related movements to a tol-
1 that the grouting pressure tends to preload the soil mass on the
Vice President, Trinity Engineering Consultants, Taipei, Taiwan,
Republic of China.
2
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Cheng Shiu Institute
of Technology, Kaohsiung, Taiwan, Republic of China.
3
Professor, Dept. of Construction Engineering, National Taiwan Univ.
of Science and Technology, Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China. E-mail:
ou@mail.ntust.edu.tw
Note. Discussion open until July 1, 2003. Separate discussions must
be submitted for individual papers. To extend the closing date by one
month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Managing Editor.
The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and possible
publication on March 2, 1999; approved on May 7, 2002. This paper is
part of the Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineer-
ing, Vol. 129, No. 2, February 1, 2003. ©ASCE, ISSN 1090-0241/
2003/2-146 –157/$18.00.
commonly adopted auxiliary measures are strengthening the brac-
ing system and/or increasing the passive resistance by soil im-
provement techniques. Case histories with varying degrees of suc-
cess have been reported 共Hsieh et al. 1995; Woo 1996兲. It should
be noted that a deep excavation exhibiting typical lateral wall
displacement and ground settlement patterns might not guarantee
the integrity of adjacent buildings. The risk of damage to adjacent
buildings is difficult to directly correlate to a magnitude of ground
movement. Normally, acceptable ground movement may cause
little or no damage to structurally sound buildings that are well
connected or that are supported by deep foundations. However,
fragile buildings may crack and sustain significant damage even if
ground movements are small.
This paper describes the design and implementation of a soil
improvement scheme to reduce diaphragm wall displacement of a
six-level basement excavation. Inclinometer readings were stud-
ied to evaluate the field performance of the excavation. In this
project, soil improvement in the form of jet grouting was de-
signed and carried out to increase the passive resistance of soil on
the excavation side. The contribution of soil improvement on the
overall soil strength is estimated by a weighted average method,
and is incorporated in numerical analyses to assess its effect on
reducing diaphragm wall displacement. Analyses also showed
excavation side, which has a pronounced effect on reducing dia-
phragm wall displacement.
Project Description
The MR Residential Building 共MRRB兲 is a 35-story structure
with a six-level basement. The basement is used mainly for
parking. MRRB occupies a plan area of about 2,240 m2
(32 m⫻70 m), and is situated in the downtown of Kaohsiung
City. Kaohsiung is a densely populated harbor city located in the
southern part of Taiwan. The project site is about 500 m away
from Kaohsiung Harbor, and is bounded by existing buildings as

146 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / FEBRUARY 2003

 Fig. 1. MRRB project site
shown in Fig. 1. Clearance between project site and existing
buildings ranges from 0.2 to 12 m.
Excavation depth of the MRRB basement is 22.3 m. The de-
sign uses a cast in a place slurry diaphragm wall with seven levels
of internal bracing as the excavation retaining system. The dia-
phragm wall is 1.0 m in thickness, and extends from ground sur-
face down to a depth of 36 m. The temporary internal bracing
system consists of steel H sections, which are promptly erected
and prestressed following each stage of excavation. A typical
horizontal spacing between rows of struts is about 6.5 m. Plan
layout and profile of the bracing system are shown in Figs. 2 and
3, respectively. Detailed information regarding the struts are listed
in Table 1. Following the diaphragm wall construction and soil
improvement, the MRRB basement was subsequently excavated
and completed in eight stages. Details of the construction se-
quence are listed in Table 2.
Soil Conditions
Kaohsiung is located in the heart of an alluvial plain. The subsur-
face consists mainly of alternating layers of sandy and clayey
soils. For the MRRB project site, a total of eight boreholes were
Fig. 2. Plan layout of bracing system 共MRRB project兲
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / FEBRUARY 2003 / 147
Fig. 3. Profile of bracing system 共MRRB project兲
drilled to a maximum depth of 90 m. Bedrock was not encoun-
tered in any of the boreholes. Boring logs indicate that the soil
strata are uniformly distributed across the site. A brief description
of each stratum is provided below.
1. The top layer consists of mostly granular fill material with an
average thickness of 2 m. It is a mixture of construction
waste, including concrete blocks, bricks, and other debris.
2. Underlying the backfill is a silty sand layer that extends
down to a depth of 11.1 m below ground surface. The aver-
age standard penetration test 共SPT兲 N value is about seven,
which indicates that this silty sand layer is relatively loose.
The friction angle of this layer is 29°, which is based upon
correlations to SPT N values.
3. A silty clay layer about 1.3 m in thickness lies below the
silty sand layer, the plasticity index (I p ) is about 12.1, and
the average SPT N value is 5. This is a medium stiff layer
with a typical unconfined compressive strength of 80 kPa.
4. Underneath the silty clay layer are alternating sublayers of
sandy silt and silty sand. The total thickness of these sublay-
ers is about 8.6 m, and the thicknesses of individual sublay-
ers range from 0.5 to 1.0 m. The sandy silt is noncohesive.
For analysis purpose, these sublayers are regarded as a single
noncohesive layer with an average SPT N value of 10, and
the friction angle is 28°, which is also based upon correla-
tions to SPT N values.
5. Found between 21 and 30.5 m below ground surface are
alternating sublayers of clayey silt and silty clay. These
sublayers are stiff cohesive materials with an average SPT N
value of 12. The representative plasticity index (I p ) is about
10, and the typical unconfined compressive strength is about
180 kPa.
6. Found between 30.5 and 44.7 m below ground surface are
alternating sublayers of sandy silt and silty clay. These sub-
Table 1. Details of Internal Bracing System 共MR Residential Building Project兲
Strut level Dimensions 共mm兲 A 共cm2兲
1 2H350⫻350⫻12⫻19 347.8
2 2H400⫻400⫻13⫻21 437.4
3 2H400⫻400⫻13⫻21 437.4
4 2H400⫻400⫻13⫻21 437.4
5 2H400⫻400⫻13⫻21 437.4
6 2H400⫻400⫻13⫻21 437.4
7 2H400⫻400⫻13⫻21 437.4
Note: A⫽Cross-sectional area of H steel.
layers are also cohesive materials with low plasticity. They
are regarded as a single stiff cohesive layer with an average
SPT N value of 12. The representative plasticity index (I p ) is
about 7.3, and the typical unconfined compressive strength is
about 320 kPa.
7. Found between 44.7 and 57 m below ground surface are also
alternating sublayers of sandy silt and silty clay. The physi-
cal properties of these sublayers are similar to those of the
materials found between ground level 共GL兲 ⫺30.5 m and GL
⫺44.7 m, though they are more stiff in nature. For analysis
purpose, they are regarded as a single cohesive layer with an
average SPT N value of 25. The representative plasticity
index (I p ) is about 8.4. This is a very stiff layer with a
typical unconfined compressive strength of about 430 kPa.
8. The soil deposits found 57 m below ground surface consist
of silty sand, sandy silt, or silty clay layers of varying thick-
ness to a depth exceeding 90 m. Since these layers have very
little effect on the MRRB basement excavation, their engi-
neering properties are not addressed in this paper.
Table 3 is a summary of the physical properties and shear strength
parameters of soil strata. The unconfined compressive strength of
clayey soil is obtained by performing either unconfined compres-
sion or unconsolidated undrained shear tests, while the friction
angle of sandy soil is determined by correlations to SPT N values.
Also of importance is the groundwater condition. Observation
wells installed within the project site indicates that the groundwa-
ter table was fluctuating between 3.1 and 3.3 m below ground
surface. The piezometric readings show that the groundwater at
various depths is in a hydrostatic condition.
Table 2. Construction Sequence of MR Residential Building
Excavation
Stage Construction activities
1 Excavate to GL ⫺3.05 m; install and preload
1st level of strut
2 Excavate to GL ⫺7.30 m; install and preload
2nd level of strut
3 Excavate to GL ⫺11.10 m; install and preload
3rd level of strut
4 Excavate to GL ⫺13.20 m; install and preload
4th level of strut
5 Excavate to GL ⫺15.20 m; install and preload
5th level of strut
6 Excavate to GL ⫺17.90 m; install and preload
6th level of strut
7 Excavate to GL ⫺20.50 m; install and preload
7th level of strut
8 Excavate to GL ⫺22.30 m
148 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / FEBRUARY 2003
Installation depth 共m兲 Preload 共kN兲
GL ⫺2.20 1,470
GL ⫺6.45 1,960
GL ⫺10.25 2,350
GL ⫺12.35 2,350
GL ⫺14.35 2,350
GL ⫺17.05 2,350
GL ⫺19.65 2,350
Concerns with Adjacent Buildings
The excavation of the MRRB basement is 22.3 m in depth, which
was carried out in relatively loose alluvial deposits with high
groundwater table. Though a stiff diaphragm wall was used as the
excavation support wall, it was expected that the excavation-
induced ground settlements might still exceed the allowable limit.
Local experience has shown that lateral displacement of dia-
phragm walls resulting from basement excavation alone may
reach up to 0.3–0.5% of the basement excavation depth under
normal construction conditions. Therefore, for the MRRB exca-
vation, a maximum lateral diaphragm wall displacement ranging
from 7 to 11 cm was likely as a result of basement excavation.
Monitoring results of similar excavation projects reveal that the
magnitude of excavation-related ground surface settlement falls
between 50 and 100% of the measured lateral maximum wall
displacement. As a result, it was believed that the ground surface
adjacent to the MRRB site might settle 4 to 11 cm due to base-
ment excavation. The settlement trough was anticipated to extend
outwards 3– 4 times the excavation depth of basement 共Woo and
Moh 1990兲. This means that buildings situated within a radius of
approximately 70 to 90 m from the MRRB site may be affected.
The maximum settlement of buildings adjacent to the MRRB site
was expected to reach anywhere from about 4 to 11 cm during the
course of basement excavation.
The Ambassador Hotel, which is across KM Street from
MRRB, is a 14-story building resting upon cast-in-place piles
共Fig. 1兲. The depth and diameter of foundation piles were un-
known to the writers. Since there is no competent bearing layer
existing within a shallow depth, it is very likely that the founda-
tion piles of Ambassador Hotel are frictional piles. To what extent
the Ambassador Hotel would be affected by the excavation asso-
ciated ground movement was not clear. But obviously, it is a
complicated soil-structure interaction problem.
The 12-story office building situated to the north of the MRRB
site is on mat foundation. The depth of the mat foundation is 5.1
m below ground surface. Although a mat foundation in general
provides better rigidity than spread footings to resist nonuniform
settlement, there was no guarantee that the 12-story structure can
withstand a possible settlement of 4 –11 cm.
The primary concern to the ground settlement issue was the
two-story house located to the east of the project site. This low-
rise building is a lightly reinforced brick structure supported by
shallow spread footings. Experience has shown that this type of
structure is highly susceptible to damage as a consequence of
differential settlement unless preventive measures are undertaken
prior to excavation.
Typically, the reported building damages for similar excava-
tions were not of safety concern. A large part of reported building
damages at other sites consisted of distorted window or door-
frames and slight cracks on nonstructural walls or floors. How-
Table 3. Soil Profile of MR Residential Building Site
Soil layer Depth 共m兲 Classification Average SPT-N ␥ 共kN/m3兲 W n 共%兲 Ip 共%兲 Q u 共kPa兲 ␾ 共degree兲
1 0–2 Backfill 3 19.2 23.2 — — —
2 2–11.1 SM 7 19.5 27.6 — — 29
3 11.1–12.4 CL 5 18.7 26.8 12.1 80 —
4 12.4 –21 SM 10 18.9 29.1 — — 28
5 21–30.5 CL 12 19.2 22.4 10.0 180 —
6 30.5– 44.7 CL 12 18.8 29.3 7.3 320 —
7 44.7–57 CL 25 19.0 28.5 8.4 430 —
8 57–90 CL 30 19.5 25.0 9.6 — —
Note: ␥⫽total unit weight; W n ⫽natural water content; Ip⫽plasticity index; Q u ⫽unconfined compressive strength; and ␾⫽friction angle.

ever, such slight or facial damages may arouse public concern in
the neighborhood, and may lead to the delay of construction or
lawsuits. Therefore, it is the intent of the design to maintain the
integrity of adjacent structures in the course of basement excava-
tion.
Building Protection Design Concept
For the MRRB basement excavation, there was a consensus
among the project owner, consulting engineers, and contractors
that certain protection measures had to be taken to guard against
possible building damages. Underpinning is a commonly adopted
measure 共Xanthakos et al. 1994兲. However, this approach was not
practical due to the cost of the work involved. It is not only
difficult to gain access to perform underpinning, but underpinning
operation may also invoke unnecessary concern among neighbor-
hood residents. Underpinning may also cause cracking and other
damage that must be repaired. Grouting beneath adjacent build-
ings as the excavation is advanced to compensate for ground loss,
either in the form of compaction grouting or consolidation grout-
ing, is another alternative. Grouting is a theoretically possible
approach, but its operation is tedious and risky in nature. Local
experience has shown that the effectiveness of grouting under
adjacent buildings is uncertain. It also has adverse side effects
such as clogging of underground utility lines or heaving of ground
floors. Owing to the uncertainties involved, grouting beneath ad-
jacent buildings was not adopted as a preventive measure in this
case.
The design of the selected protection measure was actually
based upon a simple concept, which was to reduce the lateral
diaphragm wall displacement during basement excavation. It was
recognized that the adjacent buildings are more likely to remain
intact if the excavation-induced ground settlement is not exces-
sive. Among all possible factors, the amount of ground displace-
ment is predominately affected by the lateral diaphragm wall dis-
placement. Therefore, limiting the diaphragm wall displacement
to an acceptable magnitude should lower the associated ground
settlement to a tolerable amount. Following a lengthy discussion
between the project owner, design engineers, and contractors, it
was finally agreed that soil improvement in the form of jet grout-
ing would be implemented within the excavation zone 共Fig. 4兲.
The purpose of jet grouting was to increase the passive resistance
of soil mass to horizontal stresses, which in turn helped in reduc-
ing diaphragm wall displacement during excavation.
Other construction activities, such as slurry panel construction
and groundwater drawdown, were also possible causes of settle-
ment of adjacent ground. Since the MRRB diaphragm wall pen-
etrates relatively impervious soil layers at depth, it also serves as
a cutoff wall during basement excavation. The settlement of ad-
jacent ground associated with the groundwater drawdown within
the excavation zone was considered negligible. The writers’ field
experience in the Kaohsiung area indicates that the amount of
ground movement induced by slurry panel construction is gener-
ally not significant. It is for these reasons that only excavation-
induced ground movements are discussed in this paper.
Fig. 5 shows that jet grout piles 共JGP兲, each with a diameter of
0.6 m are spaced at 2 m intervals across the site. The JGPs were
constructed by injecting cement grout under a pressure of 20 MPa
in the desired depth intervals, which simultaneously cuts, erodes,
and cements soil. This grouting method is classified as a one-fluid
system 共Xanthakos et al. 1994兲, which involves only partial re-
placement of the jetted soil. The water/cement ratio of the in-
jected grout was 1:1 by weight, and the injected volume is about
0.375 m3 for each lineal meter of JGP. The improvement depth
was from 21 to 27 m below ground surface in the clayey silt to
the silty clay unit 共Fig. 4兲. Roughly speaking, each JGP consumed
about 1,350 kg s of cement. JGP equipment was mobilized fol-
lowing the completion of the diaphragm walls. A total of 500
JGPs were constructed. The field report showed that about
680,000 kg s of cement were eventually injected into the ground.
The design specification required that uniaxial compressive
strength of each JGP sample exceed 1,500 kPa, which was easily
achieved by the grouting contractor.
It is noted that the injected volume is larger than the theoreti-
cal volume of the displaced soil 共0.375 m3/m versus 0.28 m3/m兲.
During grouting, the injected grout not only eroded, cut, and ce-
mented soils, but also induced hydraulic fracturing around the
JGPs. A small part of the injected grout returned to the ground
surface together with displaced soil as waste material, while the
Fig. 4. Schematic diagram of MRRB soil improvement scheme

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / FEBRUARY 2003 / 149

 Fig. 5. Typical plan layout of jet grout piles
rest remained in the ground to form the JGPs and fill the cracks
induced by hydraulic fracturing. However, the cracks induced by
hydraulic fracturing could not extend beyond perimeter dia-
phragm walls and the injected grout remained within the con-
struction site.
The design engineers considered the improvement thickness
共GL ⫺21 m to GL ⫺27 m兲 to be optimal from a theoretical point
of view. A beam -on-elastic-foundation type of analyses con-
ducted in the design stage revealed that extending the improve-
ment zone above or below the design depth 共GL ⫺21 m to GL
⫺27 m兲 only had marginal effects on reducing diaphragm wall
displacement. The project owner also found the improvement
scheme acceptable in view of its cost effectiveness.
Field Performance of MRRB Excavation
The MRRB basement excavation was monitored with instruments
listed in Table 4. The instrumentation was installed mainly for
construction safety control and not for research purposes. Budget
constraints and lack of full access to adjacent buildings ruled out
a full-scale instrumentation system. In this paper, only diaphragm
wall displacement patterns are evaluated. Four inclinometer cas-
ings 共SI-1–SI-4兲, each 36 m in depth, were installed within dia-
phragm walls at the midpoint of each side 共Fig. 2兲 to monitor
lateral diaphragm wall displacements. Since the diaphragm walls
were not anchored in nonyielding ground, the bottoms of the
walls could move inward during basement excavation and could
not be regarded as fixed reference points. For the MRRB instru-
mentation program, the movements at the tops of the inclinometer
casings were independently measured by surveying from the ref-
erence points.
Lateral movements of the diaphragm walls based on surveying
at the ground surface and inclinometer readings at the end of the
Fig. 6. Measured diaphragm wall displacement curves 共MRRB
project兲
excavation stages are presented in Fig. 6. The results indicate that
the overall maximum lateral displacements of the diaphragm
walls were less than 5.3 cm 共0.2% of excavation depth兲. The
results also indicate approximately 2.5 cm of inward movement at
the bottom of the diaphragm walls 共GL ⫺36 m兲, which is about
14 m below the final excavation depth of GL ⫺22.3 m. The
pattern of displacement curves shown in Fig. 6 is typical of a
well-braced and stable excavation. A typical displacement curve
generally assumes a convex shape. This shows that the top and
bottom of the diaphragm wall are refrained from excessive move-
ments by internal struts and passive soil resistance, respectively.
Maximum wall displacement usually occurs at a location near the
final excavation depth, which is GL ⫺22.3 m in this case. For a
carefully conducted instrumentation program, the accuracy of in-
clinometer reading generally falls within 0.2–0.3 cm/30 m, which
is about 7% of the maximum diaphragm wall displacement 共5.3
cm/36 m兲 of the MRRB case.
In the MRRB case, the diaphragm wall served as the tempo-
rary and permanent excavation support wall. The internal struts
were removed stage by stage as the construction of basement
structure progressed upwards. As a result, the lateral earth pres-
sures were transferred to the more rigid basement floors. Incli-
nometer readings showed that the additional diaphragm wall dis-
placement in this period was less than 0.5 cm. This amount was
comparatively less than the maximum wall displacement during
excavation. It is for this reason that the FLAC analyses only con-
centrated on the excavation stage, and the subsequent stages of
basement structure construction and strut removal were not mod-
eled.
The settlement and tilting of adjacent buildings are also of
major concern. A total of 64 settlement markers and 10 tiltmeters
were installed on adjacent buildings at strategic or convenient

Table 4. Instrumentation of MR Residential Building Excavation

Type of instrument Location Quantities
Inclinometer casing Within diaphragm wall 4
Rebar stress transducer Within diaphragm wall 24
Observation well Around MR residential building site 4
Piezometer Around MR residential building site 4
Heave marker On top of pin posts 8
Tiltmeter On adjacent buildings 10
Settlement mark Around MR residential building site 64
Strain gauge On horizontal struts 104

150 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / FEBRUARY 2003

locations. Baseline readings of instruments were taken prior to the
start of basement excavation. No information regarding the
ground movement during slurry panel construction was available.
Monitoring results show that the settlement and tilting of adjacent
buildings at the end of excavation were within acceptable limits.
At the end of basement work, maximum settlements of the nearby
Ambassador Hotel, the 12-story office building, and the two-story
house were 3, 2.8, and 1.9 cm, respectively. The average tilting of
the surrounding buildings is less than 1/800, while the average
settlements of adjacent buildings were less than 2 cm in general.
But most importantly, adjacent buildings remained intact. There
were no damage reports or complaints from the neighborhood.
No distinct patterns of building settlement or tilting were ob-
served, except that their magnitudes were small in comparison to
other excavation projects of similar depth. It should be noted that
the amount of settlement and tilting of adjacent buildings are not
governed by excavation process alone. Nearby activities, such as
dynamic traffic loading or construction and maintenance of un-
derground utility lines, may also have caused slight movement of
the two-story house. Under certain circumstances, the tiltmeters
and settlement markers installed on adjacent buildings may be
affected by these background activities and give misleading read-
ings.
The groundwater level remained virtually unchanged outside
the excavation during the basement construction period. A fluc-
tuation of groundwater level between GL ⫺3 m to GL ⫺3.5 m
was observed. The fluctuation was probably the result of seasonal
variation. Fig. 7. Profile of bracing system 共baseline project兲
Another construction concern is the bottom stability of exca-
vation 共Terzaghi et al. 1996; Hunt and Gill 1997兲. Stability analy-
ses carried out in the design stage show that a relatively thick and from the baseline project for numerical analyses allowed the writ-
stiff clayey layer 共GL ⫺22.3 m to GL ⫺44.7 m兲 would result in a ers to estimate the effects of soil improvement on wall displace-
factor of safety against bottom plug failure by bearing capacity ment.
unloading of more than 2.5. Possible failure mechanisms consid-
ering bottom plug heave and buckling from hydrostatic pressure
within a layer below the slurry wall toe level acting on the plug Baseline Case History
were also studied. Since there is no artesian aquifer found be- The baseline case history was also a deep excavation project lo-
tween GL ⫺36 m and GL ⫺90 m bottom heave and buckling are cated in Kaohsiung City. The site is about 2 kilometers away from
unlikely to occur. No signs of boiling or rupture were observed at the MRRB site. The excavation at the baseline project was 21 m
the bottom, suggesting that the bottom plug remained stable dur- in depth. It was retained by the diaphragm wall with seven levels
ing basement excavation. of internal struts. The diaphragm wall is 90 cm in thickness, and
extends to a depth of 40 m below ground surface. Profile of the
excavation is shown in Fig. 7. Details of the bracing system are
Numerical Analyses on Effects of Soil listed in Table 5. Soil profile 共Table 6兲 at the baseline project
Improvement consists mainly of sandy and clayey layers. The geologic origin
and stress history are similar to those of the MRRB project. Ex-
Numerical analyses were performed after the MRRB project was perience gained from excavation projects in this part of the city
fully completed to assess the effect of soil improvement on re- showed that the soil characteristics are about the same, though the
ducing diaphragm wall displacement. These were not precon- soil profiles may vary slightly. In addition to soil conditions, the
struction predictions, but were back analyses to model the ob- behavior of a deep excavation is heavily influenced by its con-
served results. A finite difference program, FLAC 共1993兲, was struction method. In view of the similarities between soil charac-
adopted. For practical purposes, all soils were modeled as simple teristics and construction methods of these two excavation
linear elastic, perfectly plastic isotropic materials obeying Mohr- projects, parameters back calculated from the baseline case his-
Coulomb yield criterion. Relevant soil parameters were obtained tory were used with confidence for the numerical analyses of
by back analyzing the diaphragm wall displacement of a baseline MRRB excavation.
case history described below, which implies that the soil param- The baseline project excavation measured about
eters are somewhat empirical. These soil parameters represent not 40 m⫻90 m. Plan layout of the internal bracing system is de-
only the engineering properties of in situ soils, but also the effects picted in Fig. 8. It also had four inclinometer casings 共BSI-1–
of construction workmanship. The baseline case history and BSI-4兲 installed within the diaphragm wall at the midpoint of
MRRB projects are similar in a number of major aspects, includ- each side. All inclinometer casings functioned properly except for
ing excavation depth, construction method, soil characteristics, BSI-4, which was blocked at a depth of 29 m. Inclinometer read-
etc., except that the baseline case history did not have soil im- ings at the final stage of basement excavation show similar dia-
provement prior to excavation. Using parameters back calculated phragm wall displacement pattern to that for the MRRB excava-

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / FEBRUARY 2003 / 151

Table 5. Details of Internal Bracing System 共Baseline Project兲
Strut level Dimensions 共mm兲 A 共cm2兲 Installation depth 共m兲 Preload 共kN兲
1 2H300⫻300⫻10⫻15 239.6 GL ⫺2.20 1,260
2 2H300⫻300⫻10⫻15 239.6 GL ⫺5.40 1,570
3 2H350⫻350⫻12⫻19 347.8 GL ⫺8.60 1,860
4 2H400⫻400⫻13⫻21 437.4 GL ⫺11.80 2,610
5 2H400⫻400⫻13⫻21 437.4 GL ⫺14.60 2,610
6 2H400⫻400⫻13⫻21 437.4 GL ⫺16.60 2,750
7 2H400⫻400⫻13⫻21 437.4 GL ⫺18.45 2,750
Note: A⫽Cross-sectional area of H Steel.

tion 共Fig. 9兲. The maximum displacements occur near the final
excavation depth 共i.e., GL ⫺21.0 m兲, and the maximum values
range from 8 to 11 cm, which were approximately twice those for
the MRRB project. It is of no surprise that there are discrepancies
between the inclinometer readings, since variations on surcharge
loading, strut stiffness, construction sequence, and corner effect
共Ou and Chiou 1993兲 may all affect the behavior of the dia-
phragm wall at different locations in the same construction site.
For simplicity, sandy and clayey soils were assumed to behave
in drained and undrained states, respectively. The shear strength
parameters and unit weight of soils were deduced from conven-
tional laboratory test results, while the Young’s moduli 共E兲 were
determined by a back-calculation process. Finite difference analy-
ses were carried out to fit the inclinometer readings by adjusting
Young’s moduli on a trial and error basis. On the other hand,
Poisson’s ratio 共␮兲 of sandy and clayey soils were taken as 0.3
and 0.48, respectively.
The flexural stiffness of the diaphragm wall (K w ) per lineal
meter is a function of the wall thickness 共h兲 and the Young’s
modulus of concrete (E c ), namely,
b⫻h 3 ⫻E C
K w ⫽0.6⫻ 共 KN-m2 兲 (1)
12
where b⫽unit width of the diaphragm wall and 0.6⫽empirical
reduction factor to reduce the nominal flexural stiffness of dia-
phragm wall by 40%. The reduction factor was applied because
the reinforced-concrete diaphragm wall may develop tension
cracks when subjected to lateral earth pressure during basement
excavation. Therefore, the actual wall stiffness is less than its
nominal value. The authors consider a 40% reduction in wall
stiffness appropriate for analysis and structural design purposes.
Field experience also shows that this design practice yields rea-
sonable wall displacement pattern.
The axial stiffnesses of horizontal struts (K s ) were calculated
by the following equation:
A⫻E S
K s ⫽0.4⫻ 共 KN/m兲 (2)
L
where 0.4⫽also a reduction factor; A⫽cross-sectional area of
strut; E s ⫽Young’s modulus of steel; and L⫽half width of the
project site. The spacing between rows of horizontal struts is an
input parameter for FLAC analyses, which is used to calculate the
average stiffness of horizontal strut per lineal meter. Though hori-
zontal struts are erected and carefully preloaded by experienced
workers, local field experience indicates that certain slacks or
construction defects are inevitable. To account for the deficien-
cies, the authors suggest that the axial stiffness of horizontal struts
be reduced by 60%. The 60% reduction in strut stiffness is a
widely accepted design practice among local structural engineers.
Best-fit diaphragm wall displacement curves by FLAC analy-
ses of the baseline project are plotted in Fig. 10 along with field
data for the last three stages of excavation. No attempt was made
to exactly fit the field curves. From a practical point of view, the
best-fit curves are considered to adequately represent the excava-
tion characteristics of the baseline project. Parameters for sandy
and clayey soils determined by back-calculation process and labo-
ratory tests are summarized in Table 7, while the stiffness of the
diaphragm wall and struts are listed in Table 8. The back-
calculated Young’s moduli of soil layers can be related to the
undrained shear strength (S u ) or SPT N values by simple equa-
tions listed below
Clay: E⫽600⫻S u 共 kPa兲 (3)
Sand: E⫽920⫻N⫻ 共 p ⬘0 /␴ a 兲 0.7 共 kPa兲 (4)
where p 0 ⫽effective overburden pressure and ␴ a ⫽atmospheric

Table 6. Soil Profile of Baseline Project Site

Soil layer Depth 共m兲 Classification Average SPT-N ␥ 共kN/m3兲 W n 共%兲 Ip 共%兲 Q u 共kPa兲 ␾ 共degree兲
1 0–0.2 Backfill — — — — — —
2 0.2– 6 SM 7 18.9 17.0 — — 30
3 6 –30 SM 16 19.2 23.0 — — 32–35
4 30–31 CL 25 19.7 22.0 6.2 210 —
5 31–35 SM 31 19.8 23.0 — — 35
6 35– 42 CL 21 19.4 27.0 5.6 266 —
7 42– 45 SM 31 19.1 27.0 — — 38
8 45–50 CL 32 20.4 19.0 4.5 — —
9 50–52 SM 39 18.4 31.0 — — —
10 52– 60 CL 33 19.6 25.0 13.7 — —
11 60– 62 CL 54 19.8 29.0 10.1 — —
Note: ␥⫽total unit weight; W n ⫽natural water content; Ip⫽plasticity index; Q u ⫽unconfined compressive strength; and ␾⫽friction angle.

152 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / FEBRUARY 2003

 Fig. 8. Plan layout of bracing system 共baseline project兲 Fig. 10. Best-fit diaphragm wall displacement curves 共baseline
project兲

pressure. Eq. 共3兲 shows that the Young’s modulus of cohesive soil
is in direct proportion to the undrained shear strength, while Eq.
共4兲 reveals that the Young’s modulus of cohesionless soil is a
function of the SPT N value and the effective overburden pres-
sure. Similar empirical equations can also be found in other ref-
erences 共Bowles 1988; Fang 1991兲. It has to be emphasized that
Eqs. 共3兲 and 共4兲 represent the ‘‘field behaviors’’ of soils. They are
deduced from a back-calculation process and do not necessarily
coincide with their ‘‘laboratory behaviors.’’ Eqs. 共3兲 and 共4兲 are
used in a latter stage in conjunction with the FLAC program to
study the effects of soil improvement on diaphragm wall displace-
ment for MRRB excavation.
Numerical Analyses of MRRB Excavation
Elastoplastic FLAC analyses were carried out to study the effect
of soil improvement on reducing diaphragm wall displacement.
Intuitively, soil improvement strengthens the treated soil mass and
provides additional passive resistance against lateral inward
movement of diaphragm wall. By installing JGPs at the depth
intervals shown in Fig. 4 and in a discrete pattern shown in Fig. 5,
the untreated soil together with JGPs is considered to behave as a
composite material. The equivalent shear strength parameters of
the improved soil mass are different from the untreated one, and
can be estimated by the following equation 共Hsieh et al. 1995兲:
c eqv⫽c org共 1⫺I r 兲 ⫹␣c JGPI r (5)
where c eqv⫽equivalent cohesion of the improved soil mass; c org
⫽cohesion of the untreated soil; I r ⫽improvement ratio, defined
as the ratio of treated area to the total area 共Fig. 5兲, which is 7%
for the MRRB project; ␣⫽empirical factor, which is often taken
as 0.5 共Hsieh et al. 1991兲; and c JGP is one half the unconfined
compressive strength (q u ) of JGP. For a saturated clayey material,
a ␾⫽0 condition still applies after improvement, but the cohesion
共or undrained shear strength兲 increases according to Eq. 共5兲. Eq.
共5兲 is in fact based upon a weighted average concept, which is
similar to the one used for sand column or stone column design
共Aboshi et al. 1979; Goughnour et al. 1990兲.
The soil parameters and strut stiffness used in FLAC analyses
are listed in Tables 9 and 10, respectively. Most of the shear
strength and index parameters were determined by routine labo-
ratory tests or correlations to SPT N values, while the shear
strength parameters of the improved soil mass were estimated
according to Eq. 共5兲. Further assuming that the deformation char-
acteristics of the improved soil mass remains unchanged, Eqs. 共3兲
and 共4兲 are then applied to compute the Young’s moduli required
for FLAC analyses.
Value of the maximum diaphragm wall displacement (␦ max) is
directly associated with the ground improvement ratio I r . By
reducing the spacing between JGPs, the value of I r is increased
accordingly, which may in turn increase the equivalent shear
strength, and further restrain the lateral movement of diaphragm
wall. Fig. 11 shows the relationship between I r and ␦ max for
MRRB excavation based on the FLAC analyses. If the soil mass
between GL ⫺21 m and GL ⫺27 m is 100% improved (I r ⫽1),
␦ max can be limited to no more than 4.5 cm. Though there is still
no guarantee that the adjacent buildings will remain intact under

Table 7. Soil Parameters for FLAC Analysis 共Baseline Project兲

Soil layer ␾
共m兲 Soil type ␥ 共kN/m3兲 E 共kPa兲 ␮ S u 共kPa兲 共degree兲
0– 6.0 SM 18.9 2,680 0.3 0 30
6.0–18.0 SM 19.2 9,580 0.3 0 32
18.0–21.0 SM 19.2 15,700 0.3 0 33
21.0–30.0 SM 19.2 24,300 0.3 0 35
30.0–31.0 CL 19.7 63,000 0.48 105 0
31.0–35.0 SM 19.8 56,600 0.3 0 35
Fig. 9. Measured diaphragm wall displacement curves 共baseline 35.0– 42.0 CL 19.4 80,000 0.48 133 0
project兲 42.0– 45.0 SM 19.1 64,000 0.3 0 38

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / FEBRUARY 2003 / 153

Table 8. Axial Stiffness of Internal Bracing System 共Baseline
Project兲
Strut level Dimensions 共mm兲 Stiffness 共kN/m兲
1 2H300⫻300⫻10⫻15 98,700
2 2H300⫻300⫻10⫻15 98,700
3 2H350⫻350⫻12⫻19 143,300
4 2H400⫻400⫻13⫻21 180,200
5 2H400⫻400⫻13⫻21 180,200
6 2H400⫻400⫻13⫻21 180,200
7 2H400⫻400⫻13⫻21 180,200
Note: Flexural stiffness of diaphragm wall⫽840,000 kN-m2 .
such circumstances, the likelihood of inducing damage is much
lower than normally expected. However, the cost for a 100%
improvement scheme was unacceptable to the project owner. This
is why a low-improvement ratio of 7% was adopted in the end.
The computed diaphragm wall displacement curves with and
without soil improvement are presented in Fig. 12. Analysis re-
sults show that ␦ max may reach up to 9 cm if soil improvement
was not carried out, which may induce unacceptable ground
settlement. On the other hand, ␦ max may be reduced to a slightly
lower value of 8 cm with JGPs installed at 2 m spacings (I r
⫽7%). The numerical analysis results indicate that ␦ max is only
reduced by 1 cm with I r ⫽7%. However, field measurements
show that ␦ max was limited to 5.3 cm after the JGPs were installed
with I r ⫽7%, which is a reduction in maximum displacement of
about 3.7 cm. The discrepancy between numerical analysis and
field results suggests that ␦ max is not governed solely by the im-
provement ratio as originally conceived. A previously unidentified
factor may actually control the behavior of diaphragm wall.
It is postulated that the treated soil mass was prestressed or
preloaded by the jet grouting process. The grouting technique
employed in the MRRB site did not fully remove the jetted soil,
which means the injected cement slurry is larger in volume than
the displaced soil mass. Since the improved soil mass is within
the confinement of perimeter diaphragm wall, an increase in total
volume would result in an increase of internal stress in all direc-
tions. The increase in stress not only pushes the diaphragm wall
outwards, but also lifts the soil mass above the grouted zone.
Upheaval of the ground surface during grouting stage was ob-
served by field engineers, which is a clear indication that the
stress in the soil mass surrounding the JGP zone had increased
significantly. To cause heave of the ground, the treated soil mass
must be stressed to a level that overcomes the overburden pres-
sure. Continuous injection of cement slurry into the soil mass
with a high pressure undoubtedly increased the internal stress and
eventually caused the ground to heave. However, heave of the
ground served as a pressure relief in the vertical direction. The
internal stress surge was only temporal as a consequence. The
Table 9. Soil Parameters for FLAC Analysis 共MR Residential Building Project兲
Soil layer 共m兲 Soil type ␥ 共kN/m3兲
0–11.1 SM 19.2
11.1–12.4 CL 18.7
12.4 –21.0 SM 18.9
21.0–27.0 CL 19.2
27.0–30.5 CL 19.2
30.5– 44.7 CL 18.8
44.7–57.0 CL 19.0
a
Parameter of improved soil.
154 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / FEBRUARY 2003
Table 10. Axial Stiffness of Internal Bracing System 共MR Residen-
tial Building Project兲
Strut Dimensions Stiffness
level 共mm兲 共kN/m兲
1 2H350⫻350⫻12⫻19 179,000
2 2H400⫻400⫻13⫻21 225,000
3 2H400⫻400⫻13⫻21 225,000
4 2H400⫻400⫻13⫻21 225,000
5 2H400⫻400⫻13⫻21 225,000
6 2H400⫻400⫻13⫻21 225,000
7 2H400⫻400⫻13⫻21 225,000
Note: Flexural stiffness of diaphragm wall⫽1,151,000 kN-m2 .
vertical stress must have fallen back to a level near the in situ
overburden pressure. On the other hand, the net stress increase in
horizontal direction may be higher than the overburden pressure
because of the high lateral confinement provided by the dia-
phragm wall. It is therefore assumed that the horizontal stress
within the improved soil mass is at least equal to the overburden
pressure. This implies that the horizontal stress within the treated
zone may increase from an at-rest state to a magnitude exceeding
the overburden pressure after the soil improvement is completed.
In summary, the horizontal stress within the jet grouted soil
mass is increased as a result of the grouting process, while the
vertical stress remains virtually unchanged. Roughly speaking,
the treated soil mass is preloaded in the horizontal direction to the
magnitude of in situ overburden pressure 共Fig. 13兲. This ‘‘pre-
load’’ mechanism is hypothesized for the jet grout technique em-
ployed in this project, which injects cement slurry into the soil
mass with high pressure and only partially replaces the jetted soil.
Other grouting techniques may not produce the same ‘‘preload’’
effect as described in this paper. The ‘‘preload’’ effect also causes
consolidation of the untreated cohesive soil between grouting col-
umns. The untreated soil may gain strength with time as a result.
Since consolidation is a very slow process, the strength increase
in the short period of basement excavation is probably insignifi-
cant. If the soil did gain significant strength as a result of consoli-
dation, it could probably lose some prestress amount.
FLAC analyses were further refined by incorporating the ‘‘pre-
load’’ effect postulated in the above paragraph. The initial hori-
zontal stress of the jet grouted soil mass is increased to the level
of in situ overburden pressure in the numerical model. The results
are presented in Fig. 14 together with field curves. A distinct
improvement on the prediction of diaphragm wall displacement is
observed. FLAC analyses show that the predicted maximum dia-
phragm wall displacement is about 5.5 cm, which is in close
agreement with field measurements. The shape of the displace-
ment curve also fits the field curves well. Furthermore, it is found
E 共kPa兲 ␮ S u 共kPa兲 ␾ 共degree兲
5,270 0.3 0 29
24,200 0.48 40 0
12,000 0.3 0 28
48,700/78,000a 0.48 82/130a 0
59,400 0.48 100 0
96,000 0.48 160 0
130,000 0.48 215 0
Fig. 11. Relationship between maximum wall displacement (␦ max)
and improvement ratio (I r )
that location of the predicted and measured ␦ max are nearly iden-
tical, which occurs at a depth of about 20 m below ground sur-
face.
Discussion
By comparing the diaphragm wall displacement curves of the
baseline project and MRRB excavation, strengthening the soil
mass within the excavation zone was effective in reducing the
lateral diaphragm wall displacements by 40%. It is of interest to
know that the soil improvement scheme was actually designed via
a semiempirical approach. Without first knowing exactly how par-
tial improvement works on reducing diaphragm wall displace-
ment, the design engineer devised the soil improvement scheme
based upon his experience with deep excavations. Initially, there
were concerns that a partially improved ground with a seemingly
low-improvement ratio of 7% might not perform satisfactorily.
However, constraints on the construction schedule and cost pre-
vailed, and all parties involved agreed to take a calculated risk.
Field experience accumulated over a number of excavation
projects in Kaohsiung City with similar ground conditions indi-
cates that I r ⫽7% appears to be a lower-bound optimal value. The
thickness of the treated soil plug is 6 m in the MRRB case, which
is also assumed as an optimal thickness. With such an improve-
ment ratio and improvement thickness, the requirements on field
performance and construction cost are both satisfied.
The FLAC analyses presented in this paper were carried out
after the MRRB project was fully completed and occupied by its
Fig. 12. Computed diaphragm wall displacement curves 共MRRB
project兲
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / FEBRUARY 2003 / 155
Fig. 13. Schematic diagram of ‘‘preload’’ effect
residents. In addition to the effect of soil improvement, the be-
havior of the diaphragm wall during basement excavation is also
governed by a number of factors such as ground characteristics
and construction workmanship. By using soil parameters back
calculated from the baseline project, the characteristics of ground
and construction workmanship in the Kaohsiung area are well
represented. Other factors, including wall and bracing stiffness,
were also calibrated and incorporated in the FLAC analyses.
These enabled the authors to single out the contribution of soil
improvement from the numerical results. It was originally postu-
lated that an increase in soil strength due to improvement could
have a major impact on the wall displacement. However, it ap-
pears that a relatively low I r of 7% increases the passive resis-
tance of soil mass only by a small margin. Therefore, its contri-
bution on limiting the wall displacement is insignificant as
indicated by the numerical results. It appears that the governing
mechanism in restraining the diaphragm wall displacement is pre-
loading of the soil mass by the grouting process.
Unfortunately for the MRRB case, there were no instrument
readings before basement excavation to verify the validity of hori-
zontal stress increase. To the writers’ knowledge, there were other
unreported partial improvement cases with measurements taken
before excavation showed that the diaphragm wall was pushed
outward as a result of grouting. The outward movement of the
diaphragm wall is strong evidence of a horizontal stress increase.
Aside from the ‘‘preload’’ effect, the writers acknowledge that
Fig. 14. Revised prediction of MRRB diaphragm wall displacement
curves 共‘‘preload’’ effect included兲
other mechanisms could also result in similar ground movement
predictions by FLAC, e.g., a combined effect of the modulus in-
crease within the nontreated soil added to the higher modulus of
the treated soil and combined with horizontal stress increase. Ex-
tensive instrumentation on future projects is required to further
verify the ‘‘preload’’ hypothesis.
The improvement scheme outlined in this paper is basically a
jet grout method, which only partially replaces the jetted soil and
causes the ground to heave. The soil mass within the excavation
zone is totally surrounded by the diaphragm wall prior to im-
provement. Injection of an additional volume of cement slurry
into the confined soil mass compresses the soil and induces a
preloading effect. As shown in the numerical analyses, this pre-
loading effect is probably the governing factor responsible for
reducing diaphragm wall displacement. Though this scheme
works for the MRRB excavation, it must be used with caution on
a case-by-case basis. It is widely recognized that a number of
construction details associated with jet grouting, including rota-
tion speed and withdraw rate of drilling rod, injection pressure,
etc., may affect the quality and behavior of jet grouted soil mass.
If used improperly, uncontrolled pressurized slurry jets could cut
through the soil mass and cause disturbance instead. The effect of
excessive disturbance may overshadow or even negate other ben-
eficial grouting effects, leaving the treated soil mass with an over-
all strength much lower than expected. This phenomenon is more
likely in soft clay deposits. An uncontrolled jet grouting process
may significantly disturb the soil mass and sharply reduce the in
situ undrained shear strength. Though the disturbed soil mass will
consolidate and gain strength with time, very little strength in-
crease in the period of basement excavation is expected because
consolidation is a slow process in nature.
Other improvement methods, such as compaction grout col-
umns and displacement pile driving may be even more effective
than jet grouting. However, jet grouting is a favored choice over
other techniques based upon environmental and cost concerns for
the MRRB project. Basically, vibration and noise induced by pile
driving are not allowed in a congested urban area. On the other
hand, compaction grout columns are seldom used in Taiwan,
making this technique less cost competitive than jet grouting.
Conclusions
Using monitoring results of the baseline project as a comparison,
soil improvement was found to be very effective in reducing the
diaphragm wall displacement for a 22.3 m deep excavation
共MRRB project兲. In this case, partial improvement of the ground
(I r ⫽7%) was sufficient to reduce the estimated maximum wall
displacement by more than 40%. Numerical back analyses con-
firm the effectiveness of partial improvement. The benefit of par-
tial improvement appears to be cost effective when compared to
benefits of more thorough and costly ground improvement. In
other words, a carefully planned partial improvement scheme may
lead to substantial saving in improvement cost when it is required
to reduce diaphragm wall displacement. It has to be emphasized
that the numerical results were based upon many assumptions and
limited data. Nevertheless, it is the writers’ best judgment that the
lateral movements of the MRRB diaphragm wall could have been
40% more had the jet grout piles not been installed.
The preloading effect is believed to be the primary mechanism
in limiting the diaphragm wall displacement. The grouting tech-
nique employed in the MRRB project appears to induce a signifi-
cant increase of horizontal stress within the improved soil mass.
156 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / FEBRUARY 2003
Numerical results show that the preloading effect is more signifi-
cant in reducing wall displacement than anticipated. Jet grouting
also increases the overall shear strength of the improved soil
mass. Nevertheless, FLAC analysis results reveal that the as-
sumed shear strength increase of the combined soil mass was
relatively ineffective in the MRRB case.
In most jet grouted deep excavation cases, both improvement
ratio and preloading effects are important factors in reducing dia-
phragm wall displacements. However, their effects have not been
clearly distinguished from one another due to a lack of instrumen-
tation data. It is recommended that a more carefully instrumented
study be completed at an additional site to clearly distinguish the
effects of improvement ratio and preloading.
Another issue worth noting is the thickness of the jet grout
treated area. Since I r is defined as the ratio of the jet grout treated
area to the bottom plug area, it does not account for thickness of
the treated area. The thickness of the improved ground is logically
an important factor influencing the bottom plug stiffness or the
extent of preloading caused by the jet grouting. The MRRB case
used a treated thickness of 6 m, which is considered adequate to
achieve the required performance based upon field experience. No
further studies were carried out to address the effects of grouting
thickness in this paper, and more thoroughly instrumented case
histories are required to help resolve this issue.
As a result of the improved diaphragm wall behavior, adjacent
buildings did not show signs of distress during the MRRB base-
ment excavation. While underpinning remains the most reliable
method for building protection, partial ground improvement of
the internal bottom plug soil may be a cost-effective alternative.
There are of course additional risks involved for adopting a less
robust building protection scheme. Therefore, careful evaluation
and sufficient instrumentation are both required to improve the
odds of success.
References
Aboshi, H., Ichimoto, E., Enoki, M., and Hazaad, K. 共1979兲. ‘‘A method
to improve characteristics of soft clays by inclusion of large diameter
sand columns.’’ Int. Conf. on Soil Reinforcement, Paris, 211–216.
Bowles, J. E. 共1988兲. Foundation analysis and design, McGraw-Hill,
New York.
Clough, G. W., and O’Rourke, T. D. 共1990兲. ‘‘Construction induced
movements of in situ walls.’’ Design and Performance of Earth Re-
taining Structures, ASCE, New York, 439– 470.
Fang, H. Y. 共1991兲. Foundation engineering handbook, Van Nostrand
Reinhold, New York.
Fast lagrangian analysis of continua (FLAC), version 3.2, user’s manual.
共1993兲. Ithasca Consulting Group, Minneapolis.
Goughnour, R. R., Sung, J. T., and Ramsey, J. S. 共1990兲. ‘‘Slide correc-
tion by stone columns.’’ Deep foundation improvements: Design, con-
struction and testing, Esrig, M. I. and Bachus, R. C. eds., ASTM
STP-1089.
Hsieh, H. S., Chien, M. C., and Chen, C. T. 共1991兲. ‘‘Design, construction
and performance of a deep excavation in soft clay.’’ Proc., First Young
Asian Geotechnical Engineers Conf., Asian Institute of Technology,
Bangkok, Thailand, 41–50.
Hsieh, H. S., Lu, F. C., Wu, L. H., and Lin, Y. K. 共1995兲. ‘‘Application of
JG and DMP to reduce excavation induced diaphragm wall deflec-
tion.’’ Proc., 10th Asian Regional Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Foun-
dation Engineering, International Academic Publisher, Beijing, 403–
406.
Hunt, S. W., and Gill, S. A. 共1997兲. ‘‘Bottom stability of shafts with
cohesive soil plugs overlying an artesian aquifer.’’ Proc., Rapid Exca-
vation and Tunneling Conf., J. E. Carlson and T. H. Budd, eds., SME,
379– 403.
Ou, C. Y., and Chiou, D. C. 共1993兲. ‘‘Three-dimensional finite element
analysis of deep excavation.’’ Proc., 11th Southeast Asian Geotech.
Conf., Southeast Asian Geotechnical Society, Singapore, 769–774.
Peck, R. B. 共1969兲. ‘‘Deep excavations and tunneling in soft ground.’’
State-of-the-Art Rep., 7th Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Founda-
tion Engineering, Mexico City, 225–290.
Terzaghi, K., Peck, R. B., and Mesri, G. 共1996兲. Soil Mechanics in engi-
neering practice, Wiley, New York.
Woo, S. M. 共1996兲. ‘‘Some methods to reduce wall movement in deep
excavation.’’ Proc., 12th Southeast Asian Geotech. Conf., Southeast
Asian Geotechnical Society, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 2, 281–286.
Woo, S. M., and Moh, Z. C. 共1990兲. ‘‘Geotechnical characteristics of soils
in the Taipei basin.’’ Proc., 10th Southeast Asian Geotech. Conf.,
Southeast Asian Geotechnical Society, Taipei, Taiwan, 2, 51– 65.
Xanthakos, P. P., Abramson, L. W., and Bruce, D. A. 共1994兲. Ground
control and improvement, Wiley, New York.

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / FEBRUARY 2003 / 157

View publication stats