798 Chapter 15: Braced Cuts

The pressure envelope is shown in Figure 15.19. The area of this pressure diagram is
201 kip/ft. Thus Peck’s pressure envelope gives a lateral earth pressure of about 1.8 times
that actually observed. This result is not surprising because the pressure envelope provided
by Figure 15.8 is an envelope developed considering several cuts made at different loca-
tions. Under actual field conditions, past experience with the behavior of ­similar soils can
help reduce overdesigning substantially.

15.7 Bottom Heave of a Cut in Clay

Braced cuts in clay may become unstable as a result of heaving of the bottom of the excava-
tion. Terzaghi (1943) analyzed the factor of safety of long braced excavations against bottom
heave. The failure surface for such a case in a homogeneous soil is shown in Figure 15.20.
In the figure, the following notations are used: B 5 width of the cut, H 5 depth of the cut,
T 5 thickness of the clay below the base of excavation, and q 5 uniform surcharge adjacent
to the excavation.
The ultimate bearing capacity at the base of a soil column with a width of B9 can
be given as

qult 5 cNc (15.16)

where Nc 5 5.7 (for a perfectly rough foundation).

The vertical load per unit area along fi is

cH
q 5 gH 1 q 2 (15.17)
B9

e j
B9
c
B

H 50
c

B0
g f i
45° 45°
T
h
Arc of a Figure 15.20 Heaving in braced cuts
circle in clay

Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
 15.7 Bottom Heave of a Cut in Clay 799

Hence, the factor of safety against bottom heave is

qult cNc cNc

FS 5 5 5 (15.18)
q
1 2
cH q c
gH 1 q 2 g1 2 H
B9 H B9

For excavations of limited length L, the factor of safety can be modified to

1 2
B9
cNc 1 1 0.2
L
FS 5 (15.19)
1 2
q c
g1 2 H
H B9

where B9 5 T or ByÏ2 (whichever is smaller).

In 2000, Chang suggested a revision of Eq. (15.19) with the following changes:
1. The shearing resistance along ij may be considered as an increase in resistance
rather than a reduction in loading.
2. In Figure 15.20, fg with a width of B0 at the base of the excavation may be treated as
a negatively loaded footing.
3. The value of the bearing capacity factor Nc should be 5.14 (not 5.7) for a perfectly
smooth footing, because of the restraint-free surface at the base of the excavation.
With the foregoing modifications, Eq. (15.19) takes the form

1 2
0.2B0 cH
5.14c 1 1 1
L B9
FS 5 (15.20)
gH 1 q

where
B9 5 T if T < ByÏ2
B9 5 ByÏ2 if T . ByÏ2
B0 5 Ï2B9
Bjerrum and Eide (1956) compiled a number of case records for the bottom heave of
cuts in clay. Chang (2000) used those records to calculate FS by means of Eq. (15.20); his
findings are summarized in Table 15.5. It can be seen from this table that the actual field
observations agree well with the calculated factors of safety.
Equation (15.20) is recommended for use in this test. In most cases, a factor of safety
of about 1.5 is recommended.
In homogeneous clay, if FS becomes less than 1.5, the sheet pile is driven deeper.
(See Figure 15.21.) Usually, the depth d is kept less than or equal to By2, in which case

Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
 800 Chapter 15: Braced Cuts

Table 15.5 Calculated Factors of Safety for Selected Case Records Compiled by Bjerrum and Eide (1956)
and Calculated by Chang (2000)

B H g c q FS Type of
Site (m) ByL (m) HyB (kNym3) (kNym2) (kNym2) [Eq. (15.20)] failure

Pumping station,
  Fornebu, Oslo 5.0 1.0 3.0 0.6 17.5 7.5 0 1.05 Total failure
Storehouse,
  Drammen 4.8 0 2.4 0.5 19.0 12 15 1.05 Total failure
Sewerage tank,
  Drammen 5.5 0.69 3.5 0.64 18.0 10 10 0.92 Total failure
Excavation,
  Grey Wedels
  Plass, Oslo 5.8 0.72 4.5 0.78 18.0 14 10 1.07 Total failure
Pumping station,
  Jernbanetorget,
  Oslo 8.5 0.70 6.3 0.74 19.0 22 0 1.26 Partial failure
Storehouse, Freia,
  Oslo 5.0 0 5.0 1.00 19.0 16 0 1.10 Partial failure
Subway, Chicago 16 0 11.3 0.70 19.0 35 0 1.00 Near failure


c
H
50

a b

d
P P
Figure 15.21 Force on the buried
a9 b9 length of sheet pile

the force P per unit length of the buried sheet pile (aa9 and bb9) may be expressed as
(U.S. Department of the Navy, 1971)

P 5 0.7sgHB 2 1.4cH 2 pcBd for d . 0.47B (15.21)

and

1 2
1.4cH
P 5 1.5d gH 2 2 pc for d , 0.47B (15.22)
B

Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
 15.7 Bottom Heave of a Cut in Clay 801

Example 15.4
In Figure 15.22. for a braced cut in clay, B 5 4 m, L 5 15 m, H 5 6 m, T 5 1.5 m,
g 5 17 kN/m3, c 5 40 kN/m2, and q 5 0. Calculate the factor of safety against heave.
Use Eq. (15.20).
Solution
From Eq. (15.20),

1 2 1 cHB9
0.2B0
5.14c 1 1
L
FS 5
gH 1 q

with T 5 2 m,
B 4
5 5 2.83 m
Ï2 Ï2
So
B
T#
Ï2

Hence, B9 5 T 5 2 m, and it follows that

B0 5 Ï2B9 5 sÏ2ds2d 5 2.83 m

and

3 41
s0.2ds2.83d s40ds6d
s5.14ds40d 1 1
15 2
FS 5 5 2.55
s17ds6d

4m
Clay
6m  = 17 kN/m3
c = 40 kN/m2
=0

2m
Figure 15.22 Factor of safety against
Hard stratum heaving for a braced cut ■

Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
 802 Chapter 15: Braced Cuts

15.8 Stability of the Bottom of a Cut in Sand

The bottom of a cut in sand is generally stable. When the water table is encountered,
the bottom of the cut is stable as long as the water level inside the excavation is
higher than the groundwater level. In case dewatering is needed (see Figure 15.23), the
factor of safety against piping should be checked. [Piping is another term for failure
by heave, as defined in Section 2.12; see Eq. (2.50).] Piping may occur when a high
hydraulic gradient is created by water flowing into the excavation. To check the factor
of safety, draw flow nets and determine the maximum exit gradient [imaxsexitd] that will
occur at points A and B. Figure 15.24 shows such a flow net, for which the maximum
exit gradient is
h
Nd h
imaxsexitd 5 5 (15.23)
a Nd a

where
a 5 length of the flow element at A (or B)
Nd 5 number of drops (Note: in Figure 15.24, Nd 5 8; see also Section 2.11)
The factor of safety against piping may be expressed as

icr
FS 5 (15.24)
imaxsexitd

where icr 5 critical hydraulic gradient.

Water Water
level level

B
h

L1
A B
L2

Flow of L3
water

Impervious layer Figure 15.23 Stability of the bottom of a cut in sand

Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
 15.8 Stability of the Bottom of a Cut in Sand 803

Water table Water table

h Water
level

1
A B
a 8
7 2
6
5 3
4

Impervious layer

Figure 15.24 Determining the factor of safety against piping by drawing a flow net

The relationship for icr was given in Chapter 1 as

Gs 2 1
icr 5
e11
The magnitude of icr varies between 0.9 and 1.1 in most soils, with an average of about 1.
A factor of safety of about 1.5 is desirable.
The maximum exit gradient for sheeted excavations in sands with L3 5 ` can also
be evaluated theoretically (Harr, 1962). (Only the results of these mathematical derivations
will be presented here. For further details, see the original work.) To calculate the maximum
exit gradient, examine Figures 15.25 and 15.26 and perform the following steps:
1. Determine the modulus, m, from Figure 15.25 by obtaining 2L 2 yB (or By2L 2)
and 2L1yB.
2. With the known modulus and 2L1yB, examine Figure 15.26 and determine
L2iexitsmaxdyh. Because L2 and h will be known, iexitsmaxd can be calculated.
3. The factor of safety against piping can be evaluated by using Eq. (15.24).
Marsland (1958) presented the results of model tests conducted to study the influ-
ence of seepage on the stability of sheeted excavations in sand. The results were sum-
marized by the U.S. Department of the Navy (1971) in NAVFAC DM-7 and are given
in Figure 15.27a, b, and c. Note that Figure 15.27b is for the case of determining the
sheet pile penetration L2 needed for the required factor of safety against piping when
the sand layer extends to a great depth below the excavation. By contrast, Figure 15.27c
represents the case in which an impervious layer lies at a limited depth below the bottom
of the excavation.

Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
 804 Chapter 15: Braced Cuts

1.0

0.8

0.6
2L2
B
0.4

0.2
2L1
=
B
14 4 1.5 0.4 0
20 8 2.5 1 0.67 0.2
0
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Modulus, m
(a)
1.0
4 2
2L1 12 8 1
= 20 16 0.5
B
0.8
0

0.6
B
2L2
0.4

0.2

0
0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10
Modulus, m
(b)

Figure 15.25 Variation of modulus (Based on Groundwater

and Seepage, by M. E. Harr. McGraw-Hill, 1962.)

Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
 15.8 Stability of the Bottom of a Cut in Sand 805

0.70

0.65

0.60

L2i exit(max)
2L1
=
B
h 0.55
0

0.50 0.5
1
2
0.45 4
8
12
16
20
0.40
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12
Modulus, m
(a)

0.6

0.5

0.4
L2i exit(max)

2L1
=0
0.3 B
h

0.2 0.5
1
2
0.1
20 12 8 4
16
0
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
Modulus, m
(b)

Figure 15.26 Variation of maximum exit gradient with

modulus (Based on Groundwater and Seepage, by M. E. Harr.
McGraw-Hill, 1962.)

Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
 806 Chapter 15: Braced Cuts

Water table

h Sand

L2

L3

Impervious layer
(a)

2.0
Loose sand
Dense sand Factor of safety
against heave in
L3 = `
1.5 loose sand or
piping in dense
sand
L2 2.0
1.0
h
1.5
2.0
0.5 1.5
1.0
1.0

0
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
B/2h
(b)

2.0
Dense sand of
limited depth:
L3 Þ `
1.5

L2 1.0 Factors of
h L3
=2 safety against
h piping
2.0
0.5 2.0
1.5
1.5
L3 1.0
=1 1.0
h
0
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
B/2h
(c)

Figure 15.27 Influence of seepage on the stability of

sheeted excavation (U.S. Department of the Navy, 1971.)

Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
 15.9 Lateral Yielding of Sheet Piles and Ground Settlement 807

Example 15.5
In Figure 15.23, let h 5 4.5 m, L1 5 5 m, L2 5 4 m, B 5 5 m, and L3 5 `. Determine
the factor of safety against piping. Use Figures 15.25 and 15.26.
Solution
We have

2L1 2s5d
5 52
B 5

and

B 5
5 5 0.625
2L2 2s4d

According to Figure 15.25b, for 2L1yB 5 2 and By2L2 5 0.625, m < 0.033. From
Figure 15.26a, for m 5 0.033 and 2L1yB 5 2, L 2 iexitsmaxdyh 5 0.54. Hence,

0.54shd
iexitsmaxd 5 5 0.54s4.5dy4 5 0.608
L2

and
icr 1
FS 5 5 5 1.645 ■
imaxsexitd 0.608

15.9 Lateral Yielding of Sheet Piles

and Ground Settlement
In braced cuts, some lateral movement of sheet-pile walls may be expected. (See
Figure 15.28.) The amount of lateral yield sdHd depends on several factors, the most
important of which is the elapsed time between excavation and the placement of wales
and struts. As discussed before, in several instances the sheet piles (or the soldier piles,
as the case may be) are driven to a certain depth below the bottom of the excavation. The
reason is to reduce the lateral yielding of the walls during the last stages of excavation.
Lateral yielding of the walls will cause the ground surface surrounding the cut to settle.
The degree of lateral yielding, however, depends mostly on the type of soil below the
bottom of the cut. If clay below the cut extends to a great depth and gHyc is less than
about 6, extension of the sheet piles or soldier piles below the bottom of the cut will help
considerably in reducing the lateral yield of the walls.
However, under similar circumstances, if gHyc is about 8, the extension of
sheet piles into the clay below the cut does not help greatly. In such circumstances,
we may expect a great degree of wall yielding that could result in the total collapse of

Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.