Database For Retaining Wall and Ground Movements Due To Deep Excavation - Reading

DATABASE FOR RETAINING WALL AND GROUND MOVEMENTS DUE TO
DEEP EXCAVATIONS
By Michael Long1
ABSTRACT: A database of some 300 case histories of wall and ground movements due to deep excavations
worldwide is presented. Although recognizing the weakness in the approach, a large database is used to examine
general trends and patterns. For still soil sites, movements are generally less than those suggested in the well-
known relationships proposed by Clough and his coworkers. However, for walls that retain a significant thickness
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Western Australia M209 on 01/13/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
of soft material but have a high factor of safety against basal heave, movements are similar to those calculated
using the Clough charts. In these cases, when soft ground is actually present at dredge level, the Clough charts
will underpredict movement and need to be used with care. For the above cases there is no discernible difference
in the performance of propped or anchored systems but there is some evidence to suggest top-down systems
perform better. In cases where there is a low factor of safety against excavation base heave, large movements
can occur, but the Clough charts will give reasonable preliminary estimates of the likely movement in such
cases. Cantilever walls have shown displacements that are often independent of the system stiffness. There is
evidence to suggest that, in the case of cantilever walls and for all walls in stiff soils worldwide, design practice
is conservative. Finally, the inclusion of a cantilever stage at the beginning of a construction sequence seems to
be the main cause of unusually large movements.
INTRODUCTION PREVIOUS STUDIES

This paper arises from the work of the European Union Co- General Conditions—Peck (1969)
operation in the field of Science and Technical Research
(COST) Action C7 ‘‘Soil Structure Interaction in the Urban Peck’s work is well known and much used in practice. He
Environment.’’ Its original purpose was to give town planners used case history data, mostly sheet pile and soldier pile walls,
some guidelines for predicting likely movements due to deep to produce plots of maximum vertical settlement ␦v max, nor-
excavation in urban environments. A secondary objective was malized by the excavation depth H, against distance from the
to assist geotechnical and structural engineers in preliminary excavation. A subdivision of the problem was made by sepa-
design work and to enable them to quickly evaluate various rating the data into three zones as follows:
scheme options.
In this paper the database is also used to reassess the charts • Zone I: sand/soft to hard clay/average workmanship
produced by Clough et al. (1989), as shown in Fig. 1, for • Zone II: very soft to soft clay with either a limited depth
predicting wall movements. It is also used to examine different of soft clay beneath excavation or a significant depth of
expressions for the system stiffness. Finally, the purpose of soft clay but with a high margin of safety against exca-
this paper is to summarize the data and the original references vation base heave
in such a way that other researchers will be able to use them • Zone III: very soft to soft clay with a low margin of
for their own particular purposes. safety against excavation base heave
METHOD OF APPROACH
Values of ␦v max/H varied between a maximum of 1.0% for
Two alternative methods of approach were available in an- Zone I to >2% for Zone III.
alyzing data on ground and wall movements. First, the data
could be assessed on a local basis, using a small number of General Conditions—Clough and O’Rourke (1990)
reliable case histories from that particular location. This ap-
proach has been used for deep excavations in Oslo (Karlsrud This study has largely superseded that of Peck as the most
1986), Taipei, Taiwan (Ou et al. 1993), and Singapore (Wong widely used in practice. It uses a new approach in that the
et al. 1997), and for U.K. soils (Carder 1995; Fernie and Suck- effects of the basic excavation and support system are sepa-
ling 1996). rated from ancillary construction activities. Data are again de-
Alternatively, a large number of case histories taken from rived from case histories, aided by a series of nonlinear finite-
worldwide experience can be used. The weakness in this ap- element analyses. Two main categories of data are considered:
proach is recognized, as some of the data will be influenced
by ancillary construction activities such as lack of prestressing 1. Still clays/residual soils/sands
of anchors, poorly placed props, and accidental overexcava- 2. Soft to medium clay
tion. Nevertheless, this latter approach has been used in this
paper as it is hoped that by using a large number of case
histories general trends will emerge, which will allow the ob- For Category 1 the maximum lateral wall movement ␦h max was
jectives stated above to be achieved. found to be approximately 0.2%H and ␦v max was found to be
about 0.15%H. There was ample scatter in the data, and in-
1
Dept. of Civ. Engrg., University Coll. Dublin, Earlsfort Terrace, Dub- terestingly, little difference was found between the different
lin 2, Ireland. E-mail: mike.long@ucd.ie wall types. Category 2 requires consideration of the factor of
Note. Discussion open until August 1, 2001. To extend the closing safety (FOS) against excavation base heave and also the sys-
date one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager tem stiffness, which is defined by Clough et al. (1989) as (EI)/
of Journals. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and
possible publication on March 10, 1999; revised October 13, 2000. This
(␥w s4) where E = Young’s modulus, I = moment of inertia, ␥w
paper is part of the Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental = unit weight of water, and s = average prop spacing. The
Engineering, Vol. 127, No. 3, March, 2001. 䉷ASCE, ISSN 1090-0241/ charts shown in Fig. 1 are used and yield values of ␦h max >
01/0003-0203–0224/$8.00 ⫹ $.50 per page. Paper No. 20455. 2%H, if the FOS < 1.2, to <0.5%H, if the FOS > 2.0.
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / MARCH 2001 / 203
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2001, 127(3): 203-224

FIG. 1. Charts for Predicting Wall Movements (Clough and O’Rourke 1990)
Oslo Soft Clay—Karlsrud (1986) U.K. Soils—Fernie and Suckling (1996)

Karlsrud expanded upon the relationship between FOS and These authors also considered a range of stiff U.K. soils and
deformation and arrived at a very close interrelationship be- showed that ␦h max values varied between 0.15%H and 0.2%H
tween these two properties. He produced a series of charts of and ␦v max values averaged about 0.15%H. The values are less
␦v max (normalized by the overall clay layer thickness) against than would be suggested by the Clough and O’Rourke (1990)
distance from the excavation and FOS. In addition to these charts, but the authors reasoned that the soils being considered
charts, his main conclusion comprises a series of recommen- by them are probably stiffer than those in the Clough and
dations for engineers embarking on the design of deep exca- O’Rourke database.
vations in soft soil conditions.
DATABASE
Taipei Soft Clay—Ou et al. (1993) The database, comprising some 296 individual case histo-
ries, is summarized in Tables 1–5. Full references (approxi-
These authors studied 10 high-quality case histories in Tai- mately 165 in number) are given at the end of the paper. Data
pei soft clays. All had a high FOS against base heave. Values were extracted from all reasonably accessible sources such as
of ␦h max were within 0.2%H–0.5%H, which are generally
greater than those suggested by Clough and O’Rourke (1990) • Main geotechnical journals [i.e., ASCE, Institution of
but less than what would be predicted using the Peck (1969) Civil Engineers (London), Canadian Geotechnical Jour-
charts. Values of ␦v max were within 0.5%H–0.7%H, which are nal, Soils and Foundations (Japan), etc.]
similar to those suggested by Clough and O’Rourke (1990). • All International Society of Soil Mechanics and Founda-
tion Engineering (now ISSMGE) international and Euro-
Singapore—Wong et al. (1997) pean regional conferences
• Specialty conferences such as that held by the ASCE at
Data from Phase II of the Singapore Central Expressway Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., in 1990, that held by the
are presented by these authors. It shows that, for excavations Institution of Civil Engineers at Cambridge University,
with a combined thickness of soft soil layers of <0.9H over- Cambridge, U.K., in 1992, and that held at City Univer-
lying stiff soils, generally the ␦v max and ␦h max values were sity, London, in 1996
<0.35%H and <0.5%H, respectively. For excavations with a • Other relevant conferences such as those of the Deep
combined thickness of soft soil layers of <0.6H, the pertinent Foundation Institute and the Wroth Memorial Symposium
values were 0.2 and 0.35%, respectively. The authors also held at Cambridge in 1992
found that anchored excavations underwent smaller move-
ments than propped ones and placement of the first prop close During the period this work was being prepared, the writer
to ground level is an effective means of controlling ground also had access to personnel and files held at the Norwegian
movement. Geotechnical Institute (NGI), Oslo; Laboratoire Central des
Ponts et Chaussées, Paris; Ruhr-Universität, Bochum, Ger-
U.K. Soils—Carder (1995) many; Imperial College, London; and Ove Arup and Partners,
London.
Carder used a number of reliable case histories of bored pile
or diaphragm retaining walls, in largely stiff soils, to show SUBDIVISION OF DATA
that upper bound values of ␦h max were 0.125%H, 0.2%H, and
0.4%H depending on whether high, moderate, or low system Subdivision of the data was as follows and is illustrated in
support stiffness, respectively, was used during excavation. Fig. 2:
The corresponding range of ␦v max values was between 0.1%H
and 0.2%H. Generally the extent of movement was up to four • Set 1: Cases where the ground conditions comprise pre-
times the excavation depth. dominantly stiff/medium dense soils and the thickness of
204 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / MARCH 2001

TABLE 1. Summary of Case Histories—Propped Walls h < 0.6H
Support
Case Soil at dredge Soil strength su H h EI Support spacing ␦h max ␦v max
history Location level (kPa) (m) (m) Wall type (kN/m2) configuration (m) (mm) (mm) Reference
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13)
1 Croydon London clay 85 (UU) 11.4 2 Secant 500,000 Multiprop 5 20 ? Brooks and Spence (1992)
2 Holborn London clay 120 (UU) 11 3.5 Secant 1,169,950 Single prop 8.65 12 ? Ward (1992)
3 Minster Court London clay 120 (UU) 9 5 Diaphragm 1,280,000 Props⫹berm 7.3 17 ? Tse and Nicholson (1992)
4 Britannic Hse London clay 120 (UU) 14 1 Diaphragm 1,280,000 Props⫹berm 4.67 60* 34 Cole and Burland (1972)
5 Chelsea London clay 100 (UU) 13 4 Diaphragm 312,500 Props⫹berm 4.33 27 ? Corbett et al. (1975)
6 Walthamstow London clay Stiff 7.9 1.4 Secant 8,437,500 Multiprop 7.4 18 20 Watson and Carder (1994)
7 Barbican London clay 180 (UU) 16 2 Diaphragm 8,437,500 Multiprop 4 10 ? Stevens et al. (1977)
8 Charing Cross London clay 180 (UU) 11 5 Diaphragm 1,280,000 Multiprop 2.75 35* 20 Wood and Perrin (1984)
9 John Lewis KUT London clay Stiff 12 2.5 Diaphragm 1,280,000 Props⫹berm 3.8 20 ? Long (1989)
10 Victoria Emb London clay Stiff 18 6 Secant 2,717,000 Props⫹berm 6 34 28 St. John et al. (1992)
11 London London clay Stiff 8 ? Diaphragm 312,500 Single prop 5.2 3 ? Fernie and Suckling (1996)
12 Guildhall London clay Stiff 6.5 ? Diaphragm 312,500 Single prop 3 9 ? Fernie and Suckling (1996)
13 Vauxhall London clay Stiff 14.5 ? Diaphragm 540,000 Multiprop 3.63 22 ? Fernie and Suckling (1996)
14 Chingford London clay Stiff 8 ? Secant 2,291,750 Single prop 9.2 21 ? Fernie and Suckling (1996)
15 Mark Lane London clay Stiff 7 ? Contiguous 250,000 Multiprop 3.5 8 ? Fernie and Suckling (1996)
16 Mark Lane London clay Stiff 5.5 ? Contiguous 250,000 Single prop 6.3 14 ? Fernie and Suckling (1996)
17 JLE III London clay Stiff 8 ? Diaphragm 540,000 Single prop 8.2 10 ? Fernie and Suckling (1996)
18 Malden Way London clay 80 (UU) 7.5 ? Contiguous 2,544,700 Single prop 5.5 36 ? Symons and Carder (1991)
19 Bermondsey W⫹R beds Hard clays 19.5 0 Diaphragm 2,500,000 Multiprop 6 13 ? Dawson et al. (1996)
20 Canada Water W⫹R beds Hard clays 17 7 Secant 805,158 Multiprop 5.7 14.5 ? Powrie and Batten (1997)
21 Humber Bridge Kimmer clay Very stiff clays 24.5 ? Diaphragm 1,280,000 Multiprop 4.92 21 ? Busbridge (1974)
22 Cambridge Gault clay 120 (UU) 10 2 Diaphragm 540,000 Multiprop 3.3 13 10 Ng and Lings (1995)
23 Channel Tunnel Gault clay Stiff 6.5 0 Sheet piles 73,500 Multiprop 4 45* ? Young and Ho (1994)
24 Lyon Stiff clay 80 (press’meter) 8 0 Diaphragm 540,000 Multiprop 3.2 14 ? Kastner and Ferrand (1992)
25 Switzerland Morraine ? 17.2 ? Diaphragm 1,280,000 Multiprop 4.29 36 ? Huder (?)
26 Dublin-Jervis Glacial till SPT N = 50⫹ 9.7 3 Secant 1,254,800 Single prop 8.5 3 0 Long (1997)
27 Dublin-Clarend Glacial till N = 50⫹ 6.2 1 Soldier pile 3,895 Single prop 5 7 0 Long (1997)
28 Dublin-M&S Glacial till N = 50⫹ 7.2 3 Sheet piles 58,500 Single prop 6 5 2 Long (1997)
29 MBTA, Boston Stiff clay ? 15.2 0 Diaphragm 1,908,880 Multiprop 3.36 25.4 12.7 Becker and Haley (1990)
30 Oakland Stiff clay ? 19 ? Sheet piles 63,500 Multiprop 3.36 25.4 12.7 Peck (1969)
31 Houston Stiff clay ? 18.3 ? ? 704,900 Multiprop 6.1 18 ? Peck (1969)
32 Seattle Stiff clay Hard tills 23.8 ? Sheet piles 63,500 Multiprop 2.64 114* ? Peck (1969)
33 West. Station, Seattle Stiff clay ? 15.2 0 Contiguous 1,780,000 Multiprop 3.8 4.8 4.6 Borst et al. (1990)
34 Pion. Square, Seattle Stiff clay ? 21.9 0 Secant 1,126,000 Multiprop 5.5 13.5 4.8 Borst et al. (1990)
35 Washington Hard clay ? 17 ? Piled 1,535,850 Multiprop 11 26 ? O’Rourke (1992)
36 Washington Hard clay ? 25 ? Sheet piles 63,500 Multiprop 6.25 28 ? O’Rourke (1992)
37 Washington Stiff clay Stiff fissured 15 4.5 Contiguous 20,000 Multiprop 7.5 14 7 Eisenstein and Medeiroz (1983)
38 Houston-Exxon Stiff clay 130 (UU/SPT) 16.2 0 Soldier piles 7,425 Multiprop 6.5 9 ? Ulrich (1989a)
39 Houston-1Shell Stiff clay 120 (UU/SPT) 18 3 Contiguous 841,550 Multiprop 6 25 ? Ulrich (1989a)
40 Houston-Coker Stiff clay 75 (SPT) 17.1 0 Sheet piles 103,600 Multiprop 3.5 28 ? Ulrich (1989a)
41 Tiong Bahru Stiff clay N = 20 to 100 15.3 1.5 Soldier piles 24,900 Multiprop 4.6 25* ? Leonard et al. (1987)
42 Singapore CE II Stiff clay 50–300 (various) 9 ? Soldier piles 26,250 Multiprop 4 30* 10 Wong et al. (1997)
43 Singapore CE II Stiff clay 50–300 (various) 9 ? Soldier piles 26,250 Multiprop 4 30* ? Wong et al. (1997)
44 Singapore CE II Stiff clay 50–300 (various) 9 ? Soldier piles 26,250 Multiprop 4 35* ? Wong et al. (1997)
45 Singapore CE II Stiff clay 50–300 (various) 10.2 ? Soldier piles 26,250 Multiprop 4 10 5 Wong et al. (1997)
49 Singapore CE II Stiff clay 50–300 (various) 10 ? Sheet ⫹ H 73,500 Multiprop 4 8 7 Wong et al. (1997)
52 Singapore CE II Stiff clay 50–300 (various) 10 ? Sheet ⫹ H 73,500 Multiprop 4 37* 20 Wong et al. (1997)

TABLE 1. (Continued )
Support
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13)
54 Singapore CE II Stiff clay 50–300 (various) 11.5 ? Sheet ⫹ H 73,500 Multiprop 4 23 10 Wong et al. (1997)
55 Singapore CE II Stiff clay 50–300 (various) 11.5 ? Sheet ⫹ H 73,500 Multiprop 4 42* 12 Wong et al. (1997)
59 Singapore CE II Stiff clay 50–300 (various) 11 ? Contiguous 100,000 Multiprop 4 7 12 Wong et al. (1997)
60 Singapore CE II Stiff clay 50–300 (various) 11 ? Contiguous 100,000 Multiprop 4 7 10 Wong et al. (1997)
61 Singapore CE II Stiff clay 50–300 (various) 11.5 ? Contiguous 100,000 Multiprop 4 7 10 Wong et al. (1997)
62 Singapore CE II Stiff clay 50–300 (various) 12 ? Contiguous 100,000 Multiprop 4 20 ? Wong et al. (1997)
67 Singapore CE II Stiff clay 50–300 (various) 13.5 ? Contiguous 100,000 Multiprop 4 17 ? Wong et al. (1997)
69 Singapore CE II Stiff clay 50–300 (various) 21.5 ? Contiguous 100,000 Multiprop 4 25 ? Wong et al. (1997)
70 Singapore CE II Stiff clay 50–300 (various) 13.5 ? Diaphragm 1,280,000 Multiprop 4 15 15 Wong et al. (1997)
71 Singapore CE II Stiff clay 50–300 (various) 14.5 ? Diaphragm 1,280,000 Multiprop 4 27 23 Wong et al. (1997)
72 Waterloo Med gravel 75 (UU) 5.78 2 Diaphragm 540,000 Props⫹berm 5.8 20* ? Li et al. (1992)
73 Eastbourne Gravel/sand N = 30 to 35 11 0 Diaphragm 2,500,000 Multiprop 7 60* ? Fernie et al. (1996)
74 Buffalo Dense S&G ? 11 ? Sheet piles 63,585 Multiprop 3.67 63* ? Peck (1969)
75 Ontario VD sand ? 15.2 ? Sheet piles 42,000 Multiprop 3.04 230 ? Bauer (?)
76 Zurich Silt/sand ? 15.5 ? Diaphragm 1,278,760 Single prop 13.7 22 ? GYSI (?)
77 Lyon-P Kleb Sandy gravel Medium dense 6.75 3.5 Sheet piles 57,700 Single prop 6.75 7 Kastner (1982)
78 Lyon-R Ney Sandy gravel Medium dense 9.95 6.5 Diaphragm 107,000 Multiprop 3.1 14 ? Kastner (1982)
79 Lyon-S. Gam. Sandy gravel Medium dense 10.7 3 Diaphragm 185,000 Single prop 5.2 60* ? Kastner (1982)
80 Karlshrue Sands Dense 5 0 Sheet piles 2,033 Single prop 3.75 5 ? Josseaume et al. (1997)
81 Maas, Rotterdam Silts/sands Medium dense 21 0 Sheet ⫹ tubes 1,717,900 Single prop 17 32 ? Bakker and Brinkgrieve (1991)
82 Cairo Metro Clay/sands ? 10 6 Precast 227,813 Multiprop 3.3 24 ? El-Nahhas and Eisenstein (1989)
83 Lisbon-Carlos Clay/sands 60 (SPT N = 7) 13.8 5.5 Diaphragm 540,000 Multiprop 2.76 43* ? Mattos-Fernandes (1985)
84 Hannover Sand, marl, silt ? 11.5 ? Secant 1,527,000 Multiprop 2.6 2 ? Rizkallah and Vogel (1992)
85 Hannover Sand, gravel, clay ? 21.9 ? Secant 1,134,000 Multiprop 6.6 20 12 Blümel and Wemheuer (1980)
86 Duisburg Gravel, sand, silt ? 23 ? Soldier pile 4,320,000 Multiprop 4.8 19 ? Hettler et al. (1997)
87 Offenbach Clay ? 19.3 ? Secant 805,000 Multiprop 6.4 44 23 Krajewski et al. (1997)
88 Lubeck Silt ? 9.6 ? Secant 631,000 Multiprop 4.25 3 ? Rodatz et al. (1996)
89 Salsburg Gravel, clay ? 10 ? Soldier piles 1,280,000 Single prop 5 17 26 Breymann (1992)
90 Bruckmuhl Sand, marl ? 14.1 ? Soldier piles 2,500,000 Single prop 7 9 ? Viendenz (1984)
91 Sao Paulo, ES1 Residual soil N=8 9 0 Soldier pile 71,700 Multiprop 3.6 15 ? Massad (1985)
92 Sao Paulo, ES2 Residual soil N=8 19 0 Soldier pile 71,700 Multiprop 3.8 18 ? Massad (1985)
93 Argyle Station, HK Residual soil SPT N (average) 18.7 7 Diaphragm 2,500,000 Multiprop 6.2 29 58 Morton et al. (1980)
= 50
94 Manchester Sandstone ? 7 ? Contiguous 254,350 Single prop 8 5 ? Fernie and Suckling (1996)
95 New York Rock ? 18.5 ? Piled 1,822,500 Multiprop 3.7 70* ? Saxena (?)
96 Han River, Seoul Wth. rock N = 20 to 50 25 13.5 Secant/H 60,640 Multiprop 2.78 10 ? Choi and Lee (1998)
97 YMCA, London London clay Stiff 16 1 Diaphragm 540,000 Multianch 10 20 ? St. John (1975)
98 Neasden London clay 150 (UU) 8 1 Diaphragm 540,000 Multianch 2 52 54 Sills et al. (1977)
99 Oresund-Sydh Boulder clay ? 10 5 Soldier pile 48,125 Single anch 7 55 ? Hess et al. (1997)
100 Copenhagen Stiff clays 150–300 (?) 11 1 Tubes/H 1,000,000 Single anch 5.5 2 ? Duc Long and Bredenberg (2000)
101 Lisbon-DD Ave. Stiff clay 175 (?) 17 2.6 Soldier pile 19,250 Multianch 3.25 24 ? Correia and da Costa Guerra (1997)
102 Lisbon-Colom Stiff clay 200 (?) 14 4 Soldier pile 14,435 Multianch 3.25 90* ? Correia and da Costa Guerra (1997)
103 Lisbon-Ivens Stiff clay Stiff 9 0 Soldier pile 19,250 Multianch 3.25 4 ? Correia and da Costa Guerra (1997)

104 Colomb., Seattle Stiff clay Very stiff 37 0 Piled 763,400 Multianch 1.75 15 10 Grant (1985)/
O’Rourke and Jones (1990)
105 University Street Stiff clay ? 18.3 0 Contiguous 1,126,000 Multianch 2.6 12.7 1.8 Borst et al. (1990)
Station, Seattle
106 Seattle Stiff clay ? 23 0 Soldier pile 718,690 Multianch 1.5 22.9 5.1 Winter (1990)
107 Houston-Herm Stiff clay 75(SPT/UU) 9 0 Contiguous 203,900 Multianch 3 20 5 Ulrich (1989b)
108 Houston-Bank Stiff clay 130(SPT/UU) 16.8 3 Contiguous 203,900 Multianch 3.35 29 ? Ulrich (1989b)
109 Houston-FCB Stiff clay 75(SPT/UU) 9.1 0 Contiguous 209,650 Multianch 8 20 ? Ulrich (1989b)
110 Houston-Smith Stiff clay 150(SPT/UU) 15.5 0 Contiguous 140,135 Multianch 3 20 ? Ulrich (1989b)
111 Houston-Texas Stiff clay 100(SPT/UU) 16 3 Contiguous 13,860 Multianch 3.2 30 ? Ulrich (1989b)
112 Houston-Cullen Stiff clay 75(SPT/UU) 8.2 0 Contiguous 210,470 Multianch 7 20 ? Ulrich (1989b)
113 Houston-321 Stiff clay 75(SPT/UU) 9.1 0 Contiguous 315,050 Multianch 3 20 ? Ulrich (1989b)
114 Washington Stiff clay ? 15.2 3 Soldier 19,000 Multianch 3 51* ? Ware et al. (1973)
115 State Trans, Boston Stiff clay ? 9.1 0 Diaphragm 567,450 Multianch 3.36 20.3 30.5 Becker and Haley (1990)
116 60 State St., Boston Stiff clay ? 9.1 0 Diaphragm 567,450 Multianch 3.36 19.1 30.5 Becker and Haley (1990)
117 Davis Square, Boston Stiff clay ? 17.1 0 Diaphragm 567,450 Multianch 3.36 27.9 43.2 Becker and Haley (1990)
118 1 Memorial, Boston Stiff clay ? 8.2 0 Diaphragm 567,450 Multianch 3.36 25.4* 30.5 Becker and Haley (1990)
119 Harvard Square, Till Dense 15.7 0 Diaphragm 1,908,000 Multianch 5.2 10 ? Hansmire et al. (1989)
Boston
120 Harvard Square, Till ? 15.7 0 Diaphragm 1,908,001 Multianch 6.2 11 ? Hansmire et al. (1989)
Boston
121 Boston Stiff clay ? 18.9 2 Soldier pile 347,430 Multianch 2.7 89* ? Houghton and Dietz (1990)
122 Salt Lake City Stiff clay ? 12.5 3 Soldier pile 127,436 Multianch 3.2 25.4 ? Cliendo et al. (1990)
123 Singapore CE II Stiff clay 50–300 (various) 12.2 ? Soldier piles 26,250 Multianch 4 10 8 Wong et al. (1997)
126 Singapore CE II Stiff clay 50–300 (various) 16 ? Soldier piles 73,500 Multianch 4 15 ? Wong et al. (1997)
129 Singapore CE II Stiff clay 50–300 (various) 18.5 ? Soldier piles 100,000 Multianch 4 27 ? Wong et al. (1997)
131 A1(M) Sand Medium dense 9.3 ? Sheet piles 104,785 Single anch 10.6 20 ? Symons (?)
132 Hatfield Gravels SPT N = 20 9.3 3 Sheet piles 96,440 Single anch 6.8 25 27 Symons et al. (1988)
133 Lisbon Sand ? 13.8 5.5 Diaphragm 540,000 Multianch 2.75 46* ? Fernandes (1985)
134 Paris-R Gau Sand/gravel qc = 5 MPa 12.3 4 Sheet 115,080 Single anch 8.3 55* ? Gignan (1984)
135 Paris-13e Sands Medium dense 17.4 0 Diaphragm 540,000 Multianch 4.35 20 ? Josseaume and Stenne (1979)
136 Calais Sands Medium dense/ 24 4.5 Diaphragm 5,881,600 Multianch 8 58 ? Delattre et al. (1995)
dense
137 Le Havre Sand/gravel qc = 10 MPa 16.5 9 Diaphragm 4,320,000 Single anch 10.5 12 ? Maquet (1981)
138 Geneva, Le Mail Sand/gravel Medium dense 14.8 4 Diaphragm 2,500,000 Multianch 2.5 13 ? Monnet et al. (1994)
139 Berlin P Platz DB Sands Medium dense 18 3 Diaphragm 5,184,000 Single anch 15 42 10 Triantafyllidis et al. (1997)
140 Berlin-Hofgarten Sands Medium dense 17 3 Diaphragm 1,280,000 Multianch 2.83 36 ? Nussbaumer (1998)
141 Berlin Sands Medium dense 18.5 ? Soldier piles 4,320,000 Multianch 0.75 15 5 Triantafyllidis (1998)
142 Berlin Sands Medium dense 12.3 ? Secant 631,000 Multianch 3.6 27 ? Weibenbach and Gollub (1995)
143 SONY, Berlin Sand/gravel Medium dense 14.3 5 Diaphragm 1,280,000 Multianch 3.58 50 ? Kudella and Mayer (1998)
144 Salzburg Gravel, clay ? 11 ? Soldier piles 540,000 Multianch 4 13 11 Breymann (1992)
145 Salzburg Gravel, clay ? 11.5 ? Soldier piles 540,000 Multianch 4.9 20 28 Breymann (1992)
146 Urreiting Gravel, sand ? 18.3 ? Soldier piles 1,280,000 Multianch 5.5 3 ? Naderer (1988)
147 Fr’hafen Gravel, clay ? 12.5 ? Secant 631,000 Multianch 2.9 11 ? Ostermayer (1983)
148 Wien Sand, marl ? 18.5 ? Soldier piles 1,280,000 Multianch 2.9 6 ? Pötscher et al. (1984)
149 Dusseldorf Sand, gravel ? 19.8 ? Soldier piles 540,000 Multianch 3.5 50 40 Ulrichs (1980)
150 Dusiburg Sand, gravel ? 20 ? Soldier piles 1,280,000 Multianch 2.9 32 ? Ulrichs (1982)
151 Grauholz, Switzerland Sands/silts N = 25 to 35 17 0 Contiguous 483,095 Multianch 2.4 20 ? Steiner and Werder (1991)
152 Johannsburg, South Firm silt ? 18.3 0 Soldier piles 2,581 Multianch 3.05 18 22 Day (1990)
Africa
153 Milwaukee Sands Medium dense 5 0 Deep soil mix 60,000 Multianch 1.67 15 ? Anderson (1998)
154 Norwich Chalk N = 15 18 1.2 Contiguous 919,700 Multianch 2.57 9 ? Grose and Toone (1992)
155 Dartford Chalk N = 30 9 0 Barrettes 1,280,000 Multianch 2 15 ? Wood et al. (1989)

TABLE 1. (Continued )
Support
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13)
156 Bell Common London clay 130 (UU) 9 4 Secant 2,330,250 Top down 8.9 25 25 Tedd et al. (1984)
157 New Palace Yard London clay 150 (UU) 18.5 2 Diaphragm 2,500,000 Top down 3.08 30 20 Burland and Hancock (1977)
158 British Library London clay 200 (UU) 24.4 3 Secant 2,571,750 Top down 5 30 30 Simpson (1992)
159 Nat Gal Ext London clay Stiff 10 4.2 Secant 618,000 Top down 7 10 2 Long (1989)
160 Aldersgate London clay 250 (UU) 23 8 Diaphragm 2,500,000 Top down 3.3 33 18 Fernie et al. (1991)
161 Limehouse W&R beds Hard clays 16 4 Diaphragm 4,320,000 Top down 4 5 ? Stevenson and De Moor (1994)/
De Moor and Stevenson (1996)
162 PO Square Boston Till Stiff 23.4 4 Diaphragm 1,822,500 Top down 3.3 52 45 Whittle et al. (1993)
163 HK&S Bank, HK Decom. granite N = 40 16 5 Diaphragm 2,500,000 Top down 4 48 25 Humpheson et al. (1986)
164 Charter Station, HK Decom. granite ? 26 14 Diaphragm 2,500,000 Top down 4 36 180 Davies and Henkel (1980)
165 Hong Kong Decom. granite ? 28 ? Soldier piles 4,320,000 Top down 4.7 75 37 Triantafyllidis (1996)
166 Rowes Whr, Boston Stiff clay ? 16.8 5 Diaphragm 1,106,125 Top down 3.36 19.1 ? Becker and Haley (1990)
167 75 State St., Boston Stiff clay ? 19.8 3 Diaphragm 1,106,125 Top down 3.36 50.8 101.6 Becker and Haley (1990)
168 125 Sum. St., Boston Stiff clay ? 18.3 0 Diaphragm 1,106,125 Top down 3.36 15.2 9.7 Becker and Haley (1990)
169 Salzburg Gravel, clay ? 11.5 ? Soldier piles 1,280,000 Top down 3.8 5 8 Breymann (1992)
170 Wien Sand, silt ? 24 ? Soldier piles 1,280,000 Top down 6.3 25 ? Fross and Klenovec (1992)
171 Cairo Metro Clay/sands ? 10 3.5 Diaphragm 1,280,000 Top down 5 15 ? El-Nahhas and Eisenstein (1989)
Note: UU = unconsolidated undrained triaxial test; SPT = standard penetration test.

TABLE 2. Summary of Case Histories—Propped Walls h > 0.6H—Stiff Soil at Dredge Level
Average
Average strength strength Support Fixed
Case Soil at above dredge su at dredge su H h EI Support spacing at ␦h max ␦v max
history Location dredge level (kPa) (kPa) (m) (m) Wall type (kN/m2) configuration (m) base (mm) (mm) Reference
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15)
1 Singapore River Stiff clay 50 (vane) 200 (vane) 29 20 Diaphragm 1,280,000 Multiprop 3.3 Yes 79 ? Gronin et al. (1991)
2 Singapore Havelock Stiff clay 50 (vane) 200 (vane) 16.5 16.5 Diaphragm 1,280,000 Multiprop 4 Yes 40 ? Gronin et al. (1991)
3 Singapore CBD Stiff clay 30 (vane) 70 (vane) 14.7 14 Sheet piles 60,000 Multiprop 2.1 No 280 100 Broms et al. (1986)
4 Singapore CE II Stiff clay 5–40 (vane) N < 5 50–200 (SPT) 10 ? Diaphragm 1,280,000 Multiprop 4 Yes 22 15 Wong et al. (1997)
5 Singapore CE II Stiff clay 5–40 (vane) N < 5 50–200 (SPT) 10 ? Sheet ⫹ H 73,500 Multiprop 4 Yes 32 30 Wong et al. (1997)
7 Singapore CE II Stiff clay 5–40 (vane) N < 5 50–200 (SPT) 14 ? Contiguous 100,000 Multiprop 4 Yes 37 18 Wong et al. (1997)
8 Singapore CE II Stiff clay 5–40 (vane) N < 5 50–200 (SPT) 15 ? Arbed 685,000 Multiprop 4 Yes 88 75 Wong et al. (1997)
9 Singapore CE II Stiff clay 5–40 (vane) N < 5 50–200 (SPT) 17 ? Contiguous 100,000 Multiprop 4 Yes 73 58 Wong et al. (1997)
11 Singapore CE II Stiff clay 5–40 (vane) N < 5 50–200 (SPT) 17.5 ? Arbed 685,000 Multiprop 4 Yes 43 ? Wong et al. (1997)
12 Singapore CE II Stiff clay 5–40 (vane) N < 5 50–200 (SPT) 18.5 ? Contiguous 100,000 Multiprop 4 Yes 73 ? Wong et al. (1997)
13 Singapore CE II Stiff clay 5–40 (vane) N < 5 50–200 (SPT) 19 ? Arbed 685,000 Multiprop 4 Yes 50 ? Wong et al. (1997)
14 Singapore multistory Clayey sand 20–50 (vane) N = 100 17.3 17.3 Diaphragm 2,500,000 Multiprop 2.88 Yes 50 ? Lee et al. (1998)
15 Singapore interchange Stiff clay 15 (vane) 500 (SPT) 20 15 Contiguous 1,338,750 Multiprop 4 Yes 40 ? Vuillemin and Wong (1991)
16 Singapore canal Stiff clay Soft Stiff 6.5 6 Sheet 50,000 Single prop 5 Yes 85 120 Wong and Chua (1999)
17 Bangkok B Stiff clay ? ? 15.5 15 Diaphragm 1,378,420 Multiprop 5.1 Yes 45 ? Balasubramaniam et al.
(1991)
18 Bangkok D Stiff clay ? ? 16 14 Diaphragm 2,500,000 Multiprop 3.2 Yes 25 ? Balasubramaniam et al.
(1991)
19 Oslo Gronland 1 Rock 25 (vane) ? 11.5 11.5 Sheet 73,800 Multiprop 4.5 Yes 32 190 NGI (1962a)
20 Oslo Tech School Rock 15 (vane) ? 6 6 Sheet 39,600 Multiprop 2 Yes ? 74 NGI (1962b)
21 Oslo Telephone Rock 20 (vane) ? 18.5 18.5 Diaphragm 2,500,000 Multiprop 6.1 Yes 15 40 DiBiagio and Roti (1972)
22 Oslo Olav Kyrres Rock 20 (vane) ? 18.5 18.5 Sheet 135,500 Multiprop 2 Yes 27 67 Karlsrud and Myrvall
(1976a,b)/Karlsrud (1986)
23 Oslo City Rock 25 (vane) ? 19 19 Sheet 127,760 Multiprop 2.5 Yes 42 27 Bruskeland (1991)
24 Nieuw Maas Sand 19.5 19.5 Diaphragm 4,320,000 Multiprop 6 Yes 32 ? Van Tol and Brassinga (1991)
25 Japan 1 Stiff clay ? ? 13.75 12 Sheet 63,450 Multiprop 6.88 ? 120 ? Fernie and Suckling (1996)
26 Sheung Wan HK CDG 5 (vane) N = 70 30 19 Diaphragm 4,320,000 Multiprop 2.73 Yes 20 23 Fraser (1992)
27 Singapore CE II Stiff clay 5–40 (vane) N < 5 50–200 (SPT) 12 ? Diaphragm 1,280,000 Multianch 4 Yes 15 17 Wong et al. (1997)
28 Quai Gloria France Sands 20–30 (vane) Medium dense 12 9 Diaphragm 1,378,420 Single anch 10 Yes 39 ? Vezinhet et al. (1989)
29 Hartford, Conn. Dense gravels 20–60 (UU) Dense 7 13.5 Soldier pile 26,250 Single anch 5 Yes 20 ? Murphy et al. (1975)
Note: UU = unconsolidated undrained triaxial test; SPT = standard penetration test.

TABLE 3. Summary of Case Histories—Propped Walls h > 0.6H—Soft Soil at Dredge Level
Average strength Support
Case Soil at of soil su H h EI Support spacing Fixed ␦h max ␦v max
history Location dredge level (kPa) (m) (m) Wall type (kN/m2) configuration (m) at base (mm) (mm) Reference
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)
1 UOB Singapore Soft clay 30 (vane) 13 30 Diaphragm 4,320,000 Multiprop 2.6 Yes 56 130 Wallace et al. (1992)
2 H’Fok A Singapore Soft clay 15 (vane) 7.3 19 Sheet piles 75,700 Multiprop 1.83 Yes 60 ? Davies and Walsh (1983)
3 CTC Singapore Soft clay 20 (vane) 12 37 Sheet piles 57,440 Multiprop 2 Yes 188 150 Lee et al. (1985)
4 Somerset Singapore Peats/silts 10–20 (vane) 15.2 10 Diaphragm 540,000 Multiprop 3.8 Yes 20 ? Leonard et al. (1987)
5 MOE I2 Singapore Soft clay 18 (vane) 6.8 24 Sheet piles 45,436 Multiprop 1.7 Yes 330 ? Tan et al. (1985)
6 MOE I9 Singapore Soft clay 18 (vane) 6.4 12 Sheet piles 45,436 Multiprop 1.6 Yes 100 ? Tan et al. (1985)
7 Singapore Bugis Soft clay 40 (vane) 18.3 30 Diaphragm 4,320,000 Multiprop 2.29 Yes 160 ? Hulme et al. (1989)
8 Singapore CBD Soft clay 10–15 (vane) 15 17 Sheet piles 70,000 Multiprop 2.5 Yes 145 100 Broms et al. (1986)
9 Singapore Parking Soft clay Soft 9.5 12 Diaphragm 540,000 Single prop 5.9 Yes 70 ? Vuillemin and Wong (1991)
10 Taiwan Airline Firm clay 45 (?) N = 5 9.6 9 Contiguous 18,850 Multiprop 2.4 Yes 22 22 Ou et al. (1993)
11 Taiwan Power Firm clay N = 2 to 26 16.2 15 Diaphragm 540,000 Multiprop 3.24 Yes 80 56 Ou et al. (1993)
12 Taiwan Quen M Firm clay 47 (?) N = 9 10.7 8 Diaphragm 540,000 Multiprop 2.68 Yes 70 35 Ou et al. (1993)
13 Taiwan Tax Soft clay 25–50 (?) N = 1 to 2 7.65 8 Sheet 40,000 Multiprop 1.91 Yes 69 41 Ou et al. (1993)
14 Taiwan Formosa Soft clay 25–70 (?) N = 1 to 2 18.45 20 Diaphragm 1,280,000 Multiprop 2.64 Yes 60 42 Ou et al. (1993)
15 Taiwan Cathay Firm clay 50–130 (?) N = 3 to 7 21 12 Diaphragm 857,500 Multiprop 2.63 Yes 62 31 Ou et al. (1993)
16 Bangkok A Soft clay ? 9.8 15 Diaphragm 1,378,420 Multiprop 3.1 Yes 50 ? Balasubramaniam et al. (1991)
17 Bangkok C Soft clay ? 18.5 12 Diaphragm 1,378,420 Multiprop 4.6 Yes 30 ? Balasubramaniam et al. (1991)
18 Bangkok E Soft clay ? 7.2 12 Sheet 50,000 Multiprop 1.8 Yes 220 ? Balasubramaniam et al. (1991)
19 Oslo Vaterland 1 Soft clay 25 (vane) 11 16 Sheet 73,800 Multiprop 2 Yes 220 270 NGI (1962f )
20 Oslo Vaterland 2 Soft clay 20 (vane) 11 16 Sheet 73,800 Multiprop 2 Yes 140 260 NGI (1962g)
21 Oslo Studenterlu Soft clay 40 (vane) 16 37 Diaphragm 2,500,000 Multiprop 5.3 Yes 42 65 Karlsrud (1981, 1983, 1986)
22 Oslo Jerbanetorget Soft clay 20 (vane) 10 35 Diaphragm 2,500,000 Multiprop 5 Yes 20 ? Karlsrud (1981, 1983)
23 Oslo Bank of Norway Soft clay 20 (vane) 16 18 Diaphragm 2,500,000 Multiprop 3.2 Yes 16 62 Roti and Friis (1985)
24 Eastbourne 1 Soft clay ? 11 15 Diaphragm 2,500,000 Single prop 10 Yes 61 ? Fernie and Suckling (1996)
25 Eastbourne 2 Soft clay ? 14 15 Diaphragm 2,500,000 Single prop 13 Yes 15 ? Fernie and Suckling (1996)
26 Pietrafitta, Italy Soft to firm clay 40 (SPT N ) 5.5 20 Sheet 42,000 Multiprop 7.8 No 71 ? Rampello et al. (1992)
27 Chicago Soft clay ? 13.4 15 Sheet 1,055,000 Multiprop 4.46 ? 150 ? Fernie and Suckling (1996)
28 Inland Steel Chicago Soft clay ? 11 19 Sheet 50,000 Multiprop 2 Yes 55 ? Flaate (1966)
29 Sewage Tr. Tokyo Soft clay 2.9 ⫻ depth (UC) 26 30 Steel pipe pile 8,000,000 Multiprop 4.3 Yes 70 ? Tominaga et al. (1985)
30 Osaka A Soft clay ? 20.6 25 Diaphragm 2,500,000 Multiprop 3 Yes 78 ? Tamano et al. (1996)
31 Japan 2 Soft clay ? 17.1 20 Steel pipe pile 34,000,000 Multiprop 4.3 ? 26 ? Fernie and Suckling (1996)
32 Lake zone, Mexico Soft clay 25 (various) 15.7 20 Diaphragm 2,500,000 Multiprop 2.62 Yes 135 ? Auvinet and Organista (1998)
33 Shanghi-Jin Mao Soft/firm clay N = 1 to 2 19.65 36 Diaphragm 2,500,000 Multiprop 3.93 Yes 81 ? Zhao et al. (1999)
34 Shanghi-Heng Long Soft/firm clay N = 1 to 2 18.2 29 Diaphragm 2,500,000 Multiprop 3.64 Yes 99 ? Zhao et al. (1999)
35 Shanghi Soft/firm clay N = 1 to 2 17.85 24 Diaphragm 2,500,000 Multiprop 3.57 Yes 129 ? Onishi and Sugawara (1999)
36 River Wall M’Boro Soft clay ? 9.5 12 Sheet 177,660 Single anch 4.25 Yes 125 ? Baggett and Buttling (1977)
37 Detroit Soft clay ? 7 10 Sheet 83,400 Single anch 11.2 ? 45 ? Fernie and Suckling (1996)
38 TP, Bogota Soft clay/silt N = 2 to 4 16 34 Diaphragm 540,000 Multianch 3.75 ? 125 1,000 Maldonado (1998)
39 Newton Singapore Soft clays 18 (vane) 14.5 12 Diaphragm 2,500,000 Top down 3.63 Yes 110 220 Nicholson (1987)
40 Taiwan Chi Ching Soft clays N = 2 to 12 13.9 15 Diaphragm 857,500 Top down 2.78 Yes 65 65 Ou et al. (1993)
41 Taiwan Far East Firm clay 60 (vane) N = 2 to 6 20 24 Diaphragm 857,500 Top down 3.33 Yes 135 67 Ou et al. (1993)
42 Oslo Christiana Soft clay ? 9.6 23 Sheet 483,600 Top down 3 Yes 48 100 Finstad (1991)
Note: SPT = standard penetration test; UC = unconfined compression test.

TABLE 4. Summary of Case Histories—Propped Walls—Low FOS against Base Heave

Soil strength Support
Case Soil at su H h EI Support spacing FOSa ␦h max ␦v max
history Location dredge level (kPa) (m) (m) Wall type (kN/m2) configuration (m) (m) (mm) (mm) Reference
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)
1 Oslo Enerhaughen Soft clay 20 (vane) 8. 17 Sheet 45,000 Multiprop 2.5 1.34 40 106 NGI (1962c)
2 Oslo Telecom Soft clay 20 (vane) 8.5 10 Sheet 35,850 Multiprop 2.25 0.9 80 93 NGI (1962d)
3 Oslo Gronland 2 Soft clay 25 (vane) 11.5 26 Sheet 73,800 Multiprop 3.75 1.3 100 178 NGI (1962e)
4 Oslo Vaterland 3 Soft clay 34 (vane) 12 26 Sheet 73,800 Multiprop 2 1.26 125 114 NGI (1962h)
5 Oslo Gunnerus Soft clay 35 (vane) 10.5 18 Sheet 82,350 Multiprop 2 1.21 320 600 Aas (1984, 1985)
6 Vasteras, Sweden Soft clay 30 (fall cone) 6.3 12.5 Sheet 17,000 Multianch 2.1 1.5 100 175 Broms and Stille (1976)
7 Gothenburg Soft clay 17 (fall cone) 4 10 Sheet 17,000 Single anch 2 1.6 400 410 Broms and Stille (1976)
8 Chicago Subway Soft clay ? 19 11 Sheet 50,000 Multiprop 3 0.96 60 ? Flaate (1966)
9 Chicago A Soft clay Soft 9.4 ? Sheet 55,250 Multiprop 3.05 1.67 64 ? Gill and Lucas (1990)
10 Chicago C Soft clay Soft 8.8 ? Sheet 55,250 Multiprop 1.98 1.18 56 ? Gill and Lucas (1990)
11 Chicago D Firm clay Firm 5.7 ? Sheet 55,250 Multiprop 2.44 1.55 13 ? Gill and Lucas (1990)
12 Chicago E Firm clay Firm 10.67 ? Diaphragm 1,106,000 Multiprop 3.04 1.55 38 ? Gill and Lucas (1990)
13 Chicago F Firm clay Firm 10.67 ? Sheet 55,250 Multiprop 3.81 1.25 89 ? Gill and Lucas (1990)
14 Chicago G Firm clay Firm 12.34 ? Sheet 69,000 Multiprop 3.96 1.41 178 ? Gill and Lucas (1990)
15 Chicago H Firm clay Firm 10.67 ? Diaphragm 566,340 Multiprop 3.05 1.4 69 ? Gill and Lucas (1990)
16 HDR-4 Chicago Firm clay 30 (various) 12.2 16 Sheet 161,000 Multiprop 2.4 1.1 190 250 Finno et al. (1989)
17 Washington Soft clay 30 (UU) 9.1 18 Soldier piles 50,160 Multiprop 2.2 0.81 254 ? Swanson and Larson (1990)
18 Bowlin Point, N.Y. Stiff clay 20–60 (UU) 9.8 9.8 Sheet 50,000 Multiprop 1.96 2.4 80 ? Murphy et al. (1975)
19 Davidson 1, San Francisco Soft clay 10 (various) 9.1 21 Sheet 72,500 Multiprop 3 0.83 254 ? Clough and Reed (1984)
20 Islais 2, San Francisco Soft clay 13 (various) 9.1 21 Sheet 55,250 Multiprop 3 1.22 38 ? Clough and Reed (1984)/
Mana and Clough (1981)
21 Embarcadero III Soft clay 30 (various) 13.7 27 Sheet 80,000 Multiprop 3.4 0.99 150 ? O’Rourke (1992)
22 Levi Strauss San Francisco Soft clay Soft 14 19.5 Sheet 80,000 Multiprop 2.74 1.3 190 ? Tait and Taylor (1975)
23 SNBB San Francisco Soft clay Soft 14 19.5 Diaphragm 4,528,466 Multiprop 2.74 1.3 22 ? Tait and Taylor (1975)
24 3rd Har Tun Boston Soft clay 34/60 (UU) 15.8 30 Sheet 72,500 Multianch 2.63 1.2 150 ? Cacoilo et al. (1998)
25 H’Fok B Singapore Soft clay 15 (vane) 7.3 30 Sheet 75,700 Multiprop 1.83 0.87 235 250 Davies and Walsh (1983)
26 Tokyo Airport Soft clay Soft 11 15 Sheet 172,000 Multiprop 2.75 1.64 300 ? Tanaka (1996)
27 Mexico City Soft clay 25 (UC) 9 20 Sheet 50,640 Multiprop 1.8 0.95 155 ? Rodriguez and Flamand (1969)
Note: UU = unconsolidated undrained triaxial test; UC = unconfined compression test.
a
From Bjerrum and Eide (1956).

TABLE 5. Summary of Case Histories—Cantilever Walls
Soil strength
Case Soil at su H h sa EI
history Location dredge level (kPa) (m) (m) (m) Wall type (kN/m2) ␦h max ␦v max Reference
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12)
1 Benwell Road London clay Stiff 4.5 ? 6.3 Contiguous 100,661 11 ? Fernie and Suckling (1996)
2 A329-Reading London clay 80 (UU) 6.9 1 9.66 Diaphragm 2,500,000 18 ? Carder and Symons (1989)
3 Leith House London clay Stiff 3.7 6.6 5.18 Contiguous 465,950 0.7 ? Thompson (1991)
4 Sanct Bld London clay Stiff 5.3 2 7.42 Diaphragm 1,280,000 4 ? Thompson (1991)
5 Newport Crt London clay 180 (UU) 3.7 4.8 5.18 Diaphragm 1,280,000 8 ? Wood and Perrin (1984)
6 Putney Centre London clay Stiff 4.8 0 6.72 Diaphragm 1,280,000 3.3 ? Thompson (1991)
7 British Library London clay Stiff 4 3 5.6 Secant 2,571,750 20* 20 Raison (1985)
8 Bell Common London clay 130 (UU) 5.2 4 7.28 Secant 2,330,250 10 18 Tedd et al. (1984)
9 Dunton Green London clay 70 (UU) 8 0 11.2 Contiguous 4,385,400 38 ? Garrett and Barnes (1984)
10 Broadgate 5 London clay 200 (UU) 9 6 12.6 Contiguous 465,950 8 ? Ove Arup and Partners Files
11 Broadgate 9/10 London clay 200 (UU) 7.2 6 10.08 Contiguous 465,950 10 ? Ove Arup and Partners Files
12 Nat Gal Ext London clay Stiff 2.3 4.2 3.22 Secant 618,000 3 ? Long (1989)
13 Bentalls KuT London clay Stiff 6.5 2 9.1 Secant 2,855,000 12 ? Sherwood et al. (1989)
14 Waitrose KuT London clay Stiff 3.5 2 4.9 Contiguous 1,132,800 8 ? ‘‘First’’ (1985)
15 Swindon Kimmeridge Stiff 4.5 ? 6.3 Contiguous 179,600 12 ? Fernie and Suckling (1996)
16 Channel Tunnel Gault 60 (UU) 2.7 0 3.78 Sheet 73,500 11* ? Young and Ho (1994)
17 Cheltenham Lias 120 (UU) 10.6 0 14.84 Contiguous 4,141,760 40* ? Ford et al. (1991)
18 Batheaston Lias Very stiff/hard 8.5 0 11.9 Diaphragm 1,280,000 16 ? La Masurier (1997)
19 Finchley Boulder clay 200 (UU) 5.2 1 7.28 Contiguous 1,198,500 11 0 Brookes and Carder (1996)
20 Manchester Sandstone ? 5 ? 7 Contiguous 254,250 11 ? Fernie and Suckling (1996)
21 Manchester Sandstone ? 5 ? 7 Contiguous 254,250 11 ? Fernie and Suckling (1996)
22 Edinburgh Coal Meas ? 6 ? 8.4 Contiguous 245,400 6 ? Fernie and Suckling (1996)
23 Salzburg Gravel, clay ? 11.5 ? 16.1 Soldier piles 1,280,000 100 30 Breymann (1992)
24 Konstanz Gravel, clay ? 7.2 ? 10.08 Secant 639,000 26 29 Goldscheider and Gudehus
(1988)
25 UOB Singapore Soft clay 30 (vane) 3 32 4.2 Diaphragm 4,320,000 10* — Wallace et al. (1992)
26 San Francisco Soft clay Soft 10 ? 23.5 Sheet ? 61,000 220* ? Clough ??
27 Thessaloniki Soft clay 30–40 (vane) 6.5 11.5 9.1 Diaphragm 14,000 62* ? Hadjigogos and Avdelas
(1998)
Note: UU = unconsolidated undrained triaxial test.
a
s = H or H ⫹ fixity.
• Set 3: As in Set 2 but with a low FOS against excavation

base heave (Table 4). [A low FOS means those cases in
which significant movements have occurred because of
excessive heave at the base of the excavation. For the 27
cases available, the average numerical FOS (Bjerrum and
Eide 1956) is about 1.3.]
• Set 4: Cantilever walls with s defined as retained height
plus fixity depth (Table 5).
Within each data set further subdivisions are made for in-
ternally propped walls, anchored walls, and cases where ex-
cavation was carried out using the top-down method (where
the ground floor slab is constructed first, allowing excavation
beneath the slab and construction of the superstructure to occur
simultaneously—sometimes called ‘‘up-down’’ construction).
Details of the strength of the soils are also given in Tables
2–5 together with the test method used to determine the
strength. In this paper ‘‘stiff’’ soil sites represent cases where
the strength is significant (i.e., close to 100 kPa) and the ‘‘soft’’
soil sites typically have strengths of 25 kPa or less. There are
FIG. 2. Subdivision of Data very few intermediate cases.
No attempt has been made in this paper to subdivide the
data by the type of retaining wall, as Clough and O’Rourke
soft soils h is <0.6H. Support spacing s is defined as av- (1990) have previously shown little significant difference in
erage spacing (or maximum spacing if significantly dif- maximum movements due to different wall types where other
ferent) (Table 1). conditions, including the wall stiffness, are similar. The ter-
• Set 2: Situations similar to Set 1 but with h > 0.6H and minology used in the tables is illustrated in Fig. 3.
with a high FOS against excavation base heave, due to
the wall toe being embedded in a stiff stratum. [The FOS
by Bjerrum and Eide (1956) approach must be >3.0. This DEFINITION OF SYSTEM STIFFNESS
is consistent with Clough and O’Rourke (1990).] A further
subdivision was made to separate those cases where stiff Addenbrooke (1994) summarized the existing methods of
soil occurred at dredge level (Table 2) and soft soil oc- representing a retaining wall’s stiffness/material flexibility. It
curred at dredge level (Table 3). is possible to use

Material flexibility: Using a series of finite-element analyses, Addenbrooke (1994)
showed that existing numbers do not provide a complete
ln(EI ) (1)
framework for displacement control design of deep excava-
Wall flexibility [after Rowe (1952)]: tions. He suggested that situations with the same flexibility
log 冉冊
s4
EI
(2)
number, s5/(EI ), will give rise to the same ␦h max, ␦v max, and
sum of the prop forces.
System stiffness [after Clough et al. (1989)]: PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF DATA

EI Data Set 1: h < 0.6H, High FOS
(3)
␥ws4
Detailed analysis is beyond the scope of this paper, and the
Addenbrooke showed that a logical extension to Rowe’s flex-

following preliminary analysis seeks to identify major trends
ibility number is to derive an expression, the constancy of
and lessons to be learned from the data. Fig. 4 shows nor-
which defines support systems with the same absolute dis-
malized maximum lateral wall movement versus excavation
placement. Displacement flexibility was thus derived by
depth (␦h max /H versus H ). A wide scatter is evident in the data,
Addenbrooke
with little overall trends. The average ␦h max values for the
s5 propped, anchored, and top-down systems are 0.17%H,
(4)
EI 0.19%H, and 0.16%H, respectively, when all the data are con-
sidered (Table 6). Extracting all the cases where ␦h max /H >
0.3% (these cases are likely to involve some particular site-
related problem, and a detailed analysis of them is given be-
low), the average values reduce to 0.13, 0.14, and 0.16%, re-
spectively. These data would suggest that there is little
difference in the behavior of any of these systems. This is
contrary to what is reported by Wong et al. (1997), for the
Singapore case histories, who found a stiffer response in the
anchored systems.
In Fig. 5, the ␦h max /H data have been replotted against sys-
tem stiffness as defined by Clough et al. (1989). Again there
is a large scatter in the data, with some slight indication of
decreasing movement with increasing system stiffness. How-
ever, for practical purposes in the range of data available, it
would seem that movement is largely independent of system
stiffness. This has important practical and economic implica-
tions as it suggests that if the system has a reasonable stiffness
the movement can be controlled to acceptable values. A pos-
sible explanation for the lack of dependency on system stiff-
ness is that, once sufficient stiffness is available, movement is
determined by the magnitude of excavation base heave. Also,
it is likely that these stiff soils have significant capacity to
‘‘arch’’ or ‘‘self support.’’
Potts and Day (1990) investigated the influence of wall stiff-
ness in detail by consideration of case histories. They showed
that a fivefold reduction in maximum wall bending moment
FIG. 3. Terminology Used in Tables could be achieved by using a sheet pile wall instead of a 1-
FIG. 4. Walls with h < 0.6H—Normalized Maximum Lateral Movement versus Depth

TABLE 6. Summary of ␴h max /H and ␦v max /H Values
␦h max /H (%) ␦v max /H (%)

Data set Cases considered Proppeda Anchors Top down Proppeda Anchors Top down
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
h < 0.6H All cases 0.17 (96) 0.19 (57) 0.16 (16) 0.12 (37) 0.15 (19) 0.20 (12)
h > 0.6H (stiff at dredge) All cases 0.39 (25) 0.15 (3) No cases 0.50 (15) 0.14 (1) No cases
h > 0.6H (soft at dredge) All cases 0.84 (35) 0.91 (3) 0.60 (4) 0.80 (13) 6.25 (1) 0.79 (4)
h < 0.6H ⌬h/H < 0.3% only 0.13 (81) 0.14 (50) 0.16 (16) 0.11 (35) 0.12 (15) 0.20 (12)
h > 0.6H (stiff at dredge) ⌬h/H < 0.3% only 0.21 (14) 0.21 (2) No cases 0.39 (7) 0.14 (1) No cases
h > 0.6H (soft at dredge) ⌬h/H < 0.3% only Not relevant Not relevant
a
Number of relevant cases are in parentheses.
FIG. 5. Walls with h < 0.6H—Normalized Maximum Lateral Movement versus Clough et al. (1989) System Stiffness
FIG. 6. Walls with h < 0.6H—Normalized Maximum Lateral Movement versus Addenbrooke Flexibility Number
m-thick diaphragm wall. It was concluded that, if the increased • The soils are behaving in a stiffer manner than assumed
movements, associated with more flexible walls, can be ac- in the original charts.
commodated or reduced by extra propping, such walls can • It would be possible to use a less stiff wall, for a particular
provide economic and viable solutions. scheme, while maintaining movements within acceptable
Fig. 5 shows the majority of the data points fall below the limits; thus, suggesting that current design practices
Clough and O’Rourke (1990) line for FOS = 3.0, suggesting that worldwide are somewhat conservative.

FIG. 7. Walls with h < 0.6H—Normalized Maximum Settlement versus Excavation Depth
FIG. 8. Walls with h > 0.6H—Stiff Soil at Dredge Level—Normalized Maximum Lateral Movement versus Depth
The data are again replotted against the Addenbrooke flex- Data Set 2a: h > 0.6H, High FOS, Stiff Soil
ibility number in Fig. 6 and shows a similar pattern to that of at Dredge Level
the Clough et al. (1989) chart. There is a wide scatter in the
recorded movement at each flexibility number value. Fig. 8 shows the ␦h max /H versus H information for this data
Data of normalized maximum vertical ground settlement be- set. There may be some evidence of decreasing movement
hind the retaining wall are shown in Fig. 7 plotted against with increasing depth, possibly suggesting that greater care is
excavation depth (␦v max /H versus H ). Again there is wide scat- taken in the design, construction, and movement control of
ter in the data, with no discernible patterns obvious. The mag- deeper excavations. Movements are significantly larger than
nitude of the ␦v max /H values are less than those of the for Data Set 1 with h < 0.6H (see also Table 6 for summary).
␦h max /H ones, which is consistent with magnitudes reported by Both the propped system and the anchored system perform
others. Average values of ␦v max for the propped, anchored, and similarly, with the average ␦h max /H values (having removed
top-down systems (having removed all the cases with data with ␦h max /H > 0.3%) both being 0.21%.
␦h max /H > 0.3%) are 0.11%H, 0.12%H, and 0.20%H, respec- The data are replotted against the Clough et al. (1990) sys-
tively. Once again there is little difference between the tem stiffness and Addenbrooke (1994) flexibility number in
propped systems and the anchored ones, but the top-down Figs. 9 and 10. The Clough and O’Rourke (1990) line for FOS
cases perform surprisingly poorer than the others. This is per- = 3.0 represents an approximate average of the data. Move-
haps due to thermal shrinkage of the concrete in the supporting ments seem, in general, to reduce with increasing system stiff-
slabs, a factor which is not applicable for other systems. ness. In this case the Addenbrooke flexibility number plot

FIG. 9. Walls with h > 0.6H—Stiff Soil at Dredge Level—Normalized Maximum Lateral Movement versus Clough et al. (1989) System
Stiffness
FIG. 10. Walls with h > 0.6H—Stiff Soil at Dredge Level—Normalized Maximum Lateral Movement versus Addenbrooke Flexibility
Number
seems to show less scatter and is relatively constant, suggest- as that of Bjerrum and Eide (1956), as the toe of the retaining
ing that there may be some promise in this method of data wall is embedded in a stiff stratum. However logic and prac-
analysis. tical experience confirm that a high FOS against base heave
Data for ␦v max /H versus H are only available for propped exists. The trend in the data seems to be for decreasing move-
walls and the average values of ␦v max /H0.39%, which is greater ment with increasing depth, again suggesting a greater degree
than the corresponding value of ␦h max /H and is the reverse of of control with deep excavation projects when compared to
the trend for Data Set 1. more modest digs. There is little difference between the
propped and anchored cases, with some evidence of top-down
Data Set 2b: h > 0.6H, High FOS, Soft Soil excavation behaving better.
at Dredge Level Data for ␦h max /H are plotted against Clough et al. (1989)
system stiffness in Fig. 12. There is some evidence of a trend
Data for ␦h max /H and ␦v max /H, plotted against excavation for decreasing movement with increasing system stiffness.
depth, are shown in Fig. 11. It can be seen that there is a However the magnitude of the movements are much greater
significant increase in the magnitude of the movements when than would be predicted by the charts.
compared to Data Set 2a (stiff soil at dredge level). Average
values are summarized in Table 6. The large movements are Data Set 3: h > 0.6H, Low FOS against Base Heave
obviously due to inadequate lateral support to the retaining
wall at dredge level caused by the presence of soft soil con- The FOS against base heave of the excavation needs to be
ditions at this location. It is not possible to calculate the FOS considered in the analysis of this data set. Various expressions
against basal heave in these cases using a simple method such exist for determining the FOS [e.g., Terzaghi (1943), Bjerrum

FIG. 11. Walls with h > 0.6H—Soft Soil at Dredge Level—Normalized Maximum Lateral Movement versus Excavation Depth
FIG. 12. Walls with h > 0.6H—Soft Soil at Dredge Level—Normalized Maximum Lateral Movement versus Clough et al. (1989) System
Stiffness
and Eide (1956), O’Rourke (1992), and Goh (1994)]. The Values as high as 3.2% have been recorded for the case where
Bjerrum and Eide value assumes that unloading caused by the FOS was of the order of 0.9. Most of the values fall in
excavation is analogous to the performance of a single large the limiting range suggested by Mana and Clough (1981).
footing. It is recognized that the Bjerrum and Eide value does Note that these authors used a different method to calculate
not account for the influence of shear resistance along the re- FOS. Their limiting range has been used for illustration pur-
taining wall or the effect of wall penetration below the base poses only, and the same trend would be evident regardless of
of the excavation. The O’Rourke (1992) value does account the method used to determine FOS.
for these factors and is therefore perhaps the most satisfactory. The data have been replotted in Fig. 14 in the form sug-
However, as the Bjerrum and Eide value is probably the one gested by Clough et al. (1989) to account for system stiffness
most frequently quoted in the literature, it has also been used and FOS. (Note that the method for calculating FOS by
in this paper. It should be considered as an index value rather Clough et al. is also different from that used here and the
than strictly an FOS. Note that, although the FOS may be curves are included for illustration of trends purposes only.)
lower at an earlier stage of the excavation, the final stage has Curves for predicting movement for various FOS values be-
been discussed here because movement data are generally tween 0.9 and 2.0, suggested by Clough et al. (1989), are also
available for this stage only. shown in the figure. Considerable scatter exists in the data.
Values of ␦h max /H for these case histories are plotted against However the data broadly follow the trends suggested by these
FOS in Fig. 13. There is some tendency for decrease in move- authors and it is suggested that these charts form a good start-
ment with increasing FOS, but in the range of FOS between ing point for the preliminary prediction of wall movements in
1.0 and 1.5, movement appears largely independent of FOS. these circumstances.

FIG. 13. Propped Walls—Low FOS against Base Heave—Normalized Maximum Lateral Movement versus FOS
FIG. 14. Propped Walls—Low FOS against Base Heave—Normalized Maximum Lateral Movement versus Clough et al. (1989) Sys-
tem Stiffness
Data Set 4: Cantilever Walls ments (defined as ␦h max /H > 0.3%) have occurred. Thirty-six
Maximum lateral cantilever wall movements normalized by such cases were found relatively evenly distributed between
excavation depth (␦h max /H ) are shown plotted against excava- the propped and anchored cases. It is interesting to note that
tion depth in Fig. 15. (Insufficient data on vertical settlements ␦h max /H never exceeded 0.3% in the top-down cases. Causes
exists.) Surprisingly the ␦h max /H values are confined within a for the unexpectedly large movements, as stated by the authors
relatively narrow band and seem relatively independent of H. of the original papers, included having an initial cantilever
They have average values of about 0.36%. The data are plotted stage in the construction sequence, an overly flexible retaining
against Clough et al. (1989) system stiffness in Fig. 16 and system, creep of anchorages, and structural yielding (one case
against ln(EI ), from (1) in Fig. 17. Beyond a Clough et al. of yielding of a sheet pile wall and the other of failure of the
system stiffness value of 1 (equivalent to a sheet pile wall of propping system). A summary of the number of occurrences
average size), or ln(EI ) value of 11, the lateral movements in each category is given in Fig. 18. It would seem that the
appear to be independent of the stiffness. This suggests that a inclusion of a cantilever stage at the beginning of a construc-
more flexible (and hence a more economic) wall may perform tion sequence can often lead to excessive movements. There-
adequately in many cases. Worldwide design practice of can- fore overexcavation can also be a primary cause of excessive
tilever walls may therefore be conservative. movements.
Analysis of Cases Where Unusually Large CONCLUSIONS

Movements Occurred This paper presents an analysis of a large database of world-
A detailed examination of Data Sets 1 and 2a has been car- wide case histories on retaining wall and ground movements
ried out to investigate cases where unexpectedly large move- due to deep excavations.

FIG. 15. Cantilever Walls—Normalized Maximum Lateral Movement versus Excavation Depth
FIG. 16. Cantilever Walls—Normalized Maximum Lateral Movement versus Clough et al. (1989) System Stiffness
For retaining walls in stiff soils, with a large FOS against • The data indicate that less stiff walls may perform ade-
excavation base heave quately in many instances and worldwide design practice
may be somewhat conservative.
• Normalized maximum lateral movement values ␦h max are For retaining walls that retain a significant thickness of soft
frequently between 0.05%H and 0.25%H, where H is the material (>0.6H ), with stiff material at dredge level and where
excavation depth. there is a large FOS against base heave
• Normalized maximum vertical settlement values ␦v max are
usually lower, at values frequently between 0 and • The ␦h max and ␦v max values increase significantly from the
0.20%H. stiff soil cases.
• There is no discernible difference in the performance of • The values are very close on average to those predicted
propped, anchored, or top-down systems. by Clough and O’Rourke (1990).
• The values recorded are somewhat less than would be • There is some promise in the use of the Addenbrooke
expected from the charts produced by Clough and (1994) flexibility number for the analysis of these data.
O’Rourke (1990), possibly because the soils are on av-
erage stiffer than originally assumed by these authors. For retaining walls embedded in a stiff stratum that retain
• They seem relatively independent of system stiffness and a significant thickness of soft material (>0.6H ) and have soft
are perhaps controlled by excavation base heave and lim- material at dredge level, but where there is a large FOS against
ited by ‘‘arching’’ effects in these stiff soils. base heave (as determined intuitively)

FIG. 17. Cantilever Walls—Normalized Maximum Lateral Movement versus Wall Stiffness (in EI )
FIG. 18. Reasons for Excessive Deflections (␦h max /H > 0.3%)
• The ␦h max and ␦v max values increase significantly from the • Suggest that, therefore, worldwide design practice may be
situation where stiff soil exists at dredge level. somewhat conservative
• The Clough et al. (1989) charts considerably underesti-
mate movements. It would seem that the inclusion of a cantilever stage at the
beginning of a construction sequence can often lead to exces-
sive movements.
In cases where there is a low FOS against base heave, large
movements (␦h max to 3.2%H ) have been recorded in the liter- ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
ature. The data mostly fall within the limiting values suggested
by Mana and Clough (1981), and it is suggested that the re- The writer would like to express his thanks to his colleagues in Work-
ing Group 1 of the EU COST Action C7 for help in gathering the data
lationships between movement, system stiffness, and FOS pro- presented here, and in particular, to Fiona Chow, Theorodos Hadjigogos,
posed by Clough et al. (1989) form a good starting point for Aris Avdelas, and Serge Borel. Thanks are also owed to Luc Delattre at
preliminary estimates of the performance of such systems. the Laboratoire Central des Ponts et Chaussées, Tim Chapman and Arup
For cantilever walls the normalized maximum lateral move- Geotechnics in London, Kjell Karlsrud of the NGI, and Diethard Koenig
ments of Ruhr-Universität for help with sourcing data.
APPENDIX I. REFERENCES
• Are relatively modest and average about 0.36%H
Aas, G. (1984). ‘‘Stability problems in a deep excavation in clay.’’ Proc.,
• Are surprisingly independent of excavation depth and sys- Int. Conf. Case Histories in Geotech. Engrg., Vol. 1, University of
tem stiffness Missouri, Rolla, Mo., 315–323.
• Suggest that less stiff walls would perform adequately in Aas, G. (1985). ‘‘Stability problems in a deep excavation in clay.’’ Nor-
many cases wegian Geotech. Publ. No. 156, Norwegian Geotech. Inst., Oslo.

Addenbrooke, T. I. (1994). ‘‘A flexibility number for the displacement Earth Retaining Struct., Geotech. Spec. Publ. No. 25, ASCE, New
controlled design of multi propped retaining walls.’’ Ground Engrg., York, 439–470.
London, September, 41–45. Clough, G. W., and Reed, M. W. (1984). ‘‘Measured behavior of braced
Anderson, T. C. (1998). ‘‘Anchored deep soil mixed cutoff/retaining walls wall in very soft clay.’’ J. Geotech. Engrg., ASCE, 110(1), 1–19.
for Lake Parkway Project in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.’’ Design and con- Clough, G. W., Smith, E. M., and Sweeney, B. P. (1989). ‘‘Movement
struction of earth retaining systems, Geotech. Spec. Publ. No. 83, R. control of excavation support systems by iterative design.’’ Proc.,
J. Finno, Y. Hashash, C. L. Ho, and B. P. Sweeney, eds., ASCE, Reston, ASCE Found. Engrg.: Current Principles and Pract., Vol. 2, ASCE,
Va., 1–13. New York, 869–884.
Aurinet, G., and Organista, M. P. R. (1998). ‘‘Deep excavations in Mexico Cole, K. W., and Burland, J. B. (1972). ‘‘Observation of retaining wall
City soft clays.’’ Big digs around the world, Geotech. Spec. Publ. No. movements associated with a large excavation.’’ Proc., 5th Eur. Conf.
86, J. R. Lambrechts, R. Hwang, and A. Urzua, eds., ASCE, Reston, Soil Mech. Found. Engrg., Vol. 1, Balkema, Rotterdam, The Nether-
Va., 211–229. lands, 445–458.
Baggett, J. K., and Buttling, S. (1977). ‘‘Design and in-situ performance Corbett, B. O., Davies, R. V., and Langford, A. D. (1978). ‘‘A load bear-
of a sheet pile wall.’’ Proc., 9th Int. Soc. Soil Mech. Found. Engrg., ing diaphragm wall at Kensington and Chelsea town hall, London.’’
Vol. 2, 3–8. Diaphragm walls and anchorages, Institution of Civil Engineering,
Bakker, K. J., and Brinkgrieve, R. B. J. (1991). ‘‘Deformation analysis London, 57–62.
of a sheet pile wall using a 2D model.’’ Proc., 10th Eur. Conf. Soil Correia, A. G., and da Costa Guerra, N. M. (1997). ‘‘Performance of
Mech. Found. Engrg., Vol. 2, Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, three Berlin type retaining walls.’’ Proc., 14th Int. Soc. Mech. Found.
655–658. Engrg., Vol. 2, 1297–1300.
Balasubramaniam, A. S., Bergado, D. T., Chai, J. C., and Sutabur, T. Davies, J., and Henkel, D. (1980). ‘‘Geotechnical problems associated
(1991). ‘‘Deformation analysis of deep excavations in Bangkok.’’ with the construction of Charter Station, Hong Kong.’’ Proc., Conf.
Proc., 13th Int. Conf. Soil Mech. Found Engrg., Vol. 2, Balkema, Rot- Mass Transp. in Asia, Mass Transit Railway Corp., Hong Kong.
terdam, The Netherlands, 909–915. Davies, R. V., and Walsh, N. M. (1983). ‘‘Excavations in Singapore ma-
Becker, J. M., and Haley, M. X. (1990). ‘‘Up/down construction—De- rine clays.’’ Proc., Int. Seminar on Constr. Problems in Soft Soils, Nan-
cision making and performance.’’ Proc., ASCE Conf. on Des. and Perf. yang Technological Institute, Singapore.
of Earth Retaining Struct., Geotech. Spec. Publ. No. 25, ASCE, New Dawson, M. P., Douglas, A. R., Linney, L. F., Friedman, M., and Abra-
York, 170–189. ham, R. (1996). ‘‘Bermondsey Box, JLE.’’ Proc., Int. Symp. Geo As-
Bjerrum, L., and Eide, O. (1956). ‘‘Stability of strutted excavations in pects of Underground Constr. in Soft Ground, City University, London,
clay.’’ Géotechnique, London, 6(1), 32–47. 99–104.
Blümel, W., and Wemheuer, R. (1980). ‘‘Erkenntnisse aus Wandverfor- Day, P. (1990). ‘‘Design and construction of a deep basement in soft
mungs-und Setzungsmessungen bei tiefen Baugruben des U-Bahn-Baus residual soils.’’ Proc., Conf. on Des. and Perf. of Earth Retaining
in Hannover.’’ 16, Baugrubentagung, Mainz, Germany (in German). Struct., Geotech. Spec. Publ. No. 25, ASCE, New York, 734–746.
Borst, A. J., Conley, T. L., Russell, D. P., and Boirum, R. N. (1990). Delattre, L., Mespoulhe, L., and Faroux, J. P. (1995). ‘‘Monitoring of a
‘‘Subway design and construction for the downtown Seattle transit cast in place concrete quay wall at the port of Calais.’’ Proc., 4th Int.
project.’’ Proc., ASCE Conf. on Des. and Perf. of Earth Retaining Symp. Field Measurements in Geomechanics, ISMES, Milan, Italy, and
Struct., Geotech. Spec. Publ. No. 25, ASCE, New York, 510–524. SGE Ditorali, Padova, Italy, 73–80.
Breymann, H. (1992). ‘‘Tiefe Baugruben in weichplastischen Böden.’’ 7, De Moor, E. K., and Stevenson, M. C. (1996). ‘‘Evaluation of the per-
Christian-Veder-Kolloquium, Graz, Austria (in German). formance of a multi propped diaphragm wall during construction.’’
Broms, B. B., and Stille, H. (1975). ‘‘Failure of anchored sheet pile Proc., Int. Symp. Geo Aspects of Underground Constr. in Soft Ground,
walls.’’ J. Geotech. Engrg. Div., ASCE, 102(3), 235–251. City University, London, 111–116.
Broms, B. B., Wong, I. H., and Wong, K. S. (1986). ‘‘Experience with DiBiaggio, E., and Roti, J. A. (1972). ‘‘Earth pressure measurements on
finite-element analysis of braced excavations in Singapore.’’ Proc., 2nd a braced slurry trench wall in soft clay.’’ Proc., 5th Eur. Conf. Soil
Int. Symp. on Numer. Methods in Geomechanics, Balkema, Rotterdam, Mech. Found. Engrg., Vol. 1, Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands,
The Netherlands, 309–324. 473–483.
Brookes, A. H., and Carder, D. R. (1996). ‘‘Behaviour of a cantilever Eisenstein, Z., and Medeiroz, L. V. (1983). ‘‘A deep retaining structure
contiguous bored pile wall in boulder clay at Finchley.’’ Transport Res. in till and sand.’’ Can. Geotech. J., Ottawa, 20(1), 131–140.
Lab. Rep. 244, Berkshire, U.K. Fernandes, M. M. (1985). ‘‘Performance and analysis of a deep excava-
Brooks, N. J., and Spence, J. (1992). ‘‘Design and recorded performance tion in Lisbon.’’ Proc., 11th Int. Conf. Soil Mech. Found. Engrg., Vol.
of a secant retaining wall in Croydon.’’ Proc., Int. Conf. Retaining 4, 2073–2078.
Struct., Thomas Telford, London, 205–215. Fernie, R., Kingston, P., St. John, H. D., Higgins, K. G., and Potts, D.
Bruskeland, O. (1991). ‘‘Oslo—City deep basement with permanent sheet M. (1996). ‘‘Case history of a deep stepped box excavation in soft
pile walls, high-strength concrete piles.’’ Proc., 4th Int. Conf. on Piling ground at sea front.’’ Proc., Int. Symp. Geo Aspects of Underground
and Deep Found., Deep Found. Inst., London. Constr. in Soft Ground, City University, London, 123–129.
Burland, J. B., and Hancock, R. J. R. (1977). ‘‘Underground car park at Fernie, R., St. John, H. D., and Potts, D. M. (1991). ‘‘Design and per-
the House of Commons London: Geotechnical aspects.’’ The Struct. formance of a 24 m deep basement in London Clay resisting the effects
Engr., London, 55(2), 87–105. of long term rise in ground water.’’ Proc., 10th Eur. Conf. Soil Mech.
Busbridge, W. M. (1974). ‘‘Foundations in clay for massive suspension Found. Engrg., Vol. 2, Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 699–
bridge.’’ Ground Engrg., London, May. 702.
Cacoilo, D., Tamaro, G., and Edinger, P. (1998). ‘‘Design and perfor- Fernie, R., and Suckling, T. (1996). ‘‘Simplified approach for estimating
mance of a tied back sheet pile wall in soft clay.’’ Design and con- lateral movement of embedded walls in U.K. ground.’’ Proc., Int. Symp.
struction of earth retaining systems, Geotech. Spec. Publ. No. 83, R. Geo Aspects of Underground Constr. in Soft Ground, City University,
J. Finno, Y. Hashash, C. L. Ho, and B. P. Sweeney, eds., ASCE, Reston, London, 131–136.
Va., 14–25. Finno, R. J., Atmatzidis, D. K., and Perkins, S. B. (1989). ‘‘Observed
Caliendo, J. A., Anderson, L. R., and Gordon, W. J. (1990). ‘‘A field performance of a deep excavation in clay.’’ J. Geotech. Engrg., ASCE,
study of a tie back excavation with FEA.’’ Proc., ASCE Conf. on Des. 115(8), 1045–1064.
and Perf. of Earth Retaining Struct., Geotech. Spec. Publ. No. 25, Finstad, J. A. (1991). ‘‘Royal Christiana Hotel—Basement with perma-
ASCE, New York, 747–763. nent sheet pile wall, up and down method.’’ Proc., 4th Int. Conf. on
Carder, D. R. (1995). ‘‘Ground movements caused by different embedded Piling and Deep Found., Deep Found. Inst., London.
retaining wall construction techniques.’’ Transport Res. Lab. Rep. 172, ‘‘First ‘stent wall’ installed at Kingston upon Thames.’’ (1985). Ground
Berkshire, U.K. Engrg., London, October, 27–31.
Carder, D. R., and Symons, I. F. (1989). ‘‘Long term performance of an Flaate, K. S. (1966). ‘‘Stresses and movement in connection with braced
embedded cantilever retaining wall in stiff clay.’’ Géotechnique, Lon- cuts in sand and clay.’’ PhD thesis, University of Illinois, Urbana, Ill.
don, 39, 55–75. Ford, C. J., Candler, C. J., and Chartes, F. R. D. (1991). ‘‘The monitoring
Choi, C. S., and Lee, I. K. (1998). ‘‘Geotechnical aspects of the Seoul and back analysis of a large retaining wall in Lias clay.’’ Proc., 10th
subway.’’ Big digs around the world, Geotech. Spec. Publ. No. 86, J. Eur. Conf. Soil Mech. Found. Engrg., Vol. 2, Balkema, Rotterdam, The
R. Lambrechts, R. Hwang, and A. Urzua, eds., ASCE, Reston, Va., 44– Netherlands, 707–710.
62. Fraser, R. A. (1992). ‘‘Mobilisation of stresses in deep excavations: The
Clough, G. W., and O’Rourke, T. D. (1990). ‘‘Construction induced use of earth pressure cells at Sheung Wan Crossover.’’ Proc., Wroth
movements of in situ walls.’’ Proc., ASCE Conf. on Des. and Perf. of Memorial Symp., Thomas Telford, London, 279–292.

Fross, M., and Klenovec, H. (1992). ‘‘Der Neubau des Kärntnerringhofes Krajewski, W., Kuntsche, K., and Plamitzer, R. (1997). ‘‘Untersuchungen
in Wien.’’ 7, Christian-Veder-Kolloquium, Graz, Austria (in German). zum Verformungsverhalten einer tiefen Baugrube in überkonsolidier-
Garrett, C., and Barnes, S. J. (1984). ‘‘The design and performance of tem Ton.’’ 3, Stuttgarter Geotechnik-Symposium, Stuttgart, Germany
the Dunton Green retaining wall.’’ Géotechnique, London, 34, 533– (in German).
548. Kudella, P., and Mayer, P. M. (1998). ‘‘Calculation of deformations using
Gignan, J. P. (1984). ‘‘Experimentation d’un rideau de palplanches ancre hypoplasticity—Demonstrated by the SONY-Centre excavation in Ber-
par tirants actifs.’’ Bull. liaison Lab de Ponts et Ch, Paris, 129(Jan.– lin.’’ Proc., Int. Conf. Soil/Struct. Interaction, Vol. 1, Darmstadt Tech-
Feb.) (in French). nical University, Darmstadt, Germany, 151–164.
Gill, S. A., and Lucas, R. G. (1990). ‘‘Ground movement adjacent to La Masurier, J. (1997). ‘‘One up for co-operation.’’ Ground Engrg., Lon-
braced cuts.’’ Proc., ASCE Conf. on Des. and Perf. of Earth Retaining don, December, 30–33.
Struct., Geotech. Spec. Publ. No. 25, ASCE, New York, 471–488. Lee, F. H., Yong, K. Y., Quan, K. C. N., and Chee, K. T. (1998). ‘‘Effect
Goh, A. T. C. (1994). ‘‘Estimating basal-heave stability for braced ex- of corners in strutted excavations: Field monitoring and case histories.’’
cavations in soft clay.’’ J. Geotech. Engrg., ASCE, 120(8), 1430–1436. J. Geotech. and Geoenvir. Engrg., ASCE, 124(4), 339–349.
Goldscheider, M., and Gudehus, G. (1988). ‘‘Baueiner Tiefgarage im Lee, S. L., Karunaratne, G. P., Lo, K. W., Yong, K. Y., and Choa, V.
Konstanzer Seeton—Baugrubensicherung und bodenmechanische An- (1985). ‘‘Developments in soft ground engineering in Singapore.’’
forderungen.’’ 20, Baugrubentagung, Hamburg, Germany (in German). Proc., 11th Int. Conf. Soil Mech. Found Engrg., Vol. 5, 1661–1666.
Grant, W. P. (1985). ‘‘Performance of Columbia Centre shoring wall.’’ Leonard, M. S., Wong, H., and DeLabrusse, P. (1987). ‘‘The design and
Proc., 11th Int. Conf. Soil Mech. Found. Engrg., Vol. 4, Balkema, Rot- performance of the temporary works for Somerset and Tiong Bahru
terdam, The Netherlands, 2079–2082. stations.’’ Proc., Conf. Singapore MRTC, Mass Rapid Transit Corp.,
Gronin, H., Depauw, J., and N’Guyen, M. (1991). ‘‘Singapore’s express- Singapore, 141–145.
way: Temporary retaining structures.’’ Proc., 10th Eur. Conf. Soil Mech. Li, E. S. F., Nyirenda, Z. M., and Pickles, A. R. (1992). ‘‘Design and
Found. Engrg., Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 805–808. measured performance of diaphragm walls at Waterloo International
Grose, W. J., and Toone, B. H. (1992). ‘‘The selection, design and per- Terminal.’’ Proc., Int. Conf. Retaining Struct., Thomas Telford, London,
formance of a multi propped contiguous pile retaining wall in Nor- 237–247.
wich.’’ Proc., Int. Conf. Retaining Struct., Thomas Telford, London, Long, M. (1997). ‘‘Design and construction of deep basements in Dublin,
24–36. Ireland.’’ Proc., 14th Int. Conf. Soil Mech. Found. Engrg., Vol. 2,
Hadjigogos, Th., and Avdelas, A. (1998). ‘‘Results of inclinometer mea- 1377–1380.
surements for a cantilever diaphragm wall at the seashore in Thessa- Long, M. M. (1989). ‘‘The prediction and measurement of wall and
loniki, Greece.’’ Proc., Meeting of EU Group, COST C7, Working ground movements associated with deep excavations in stiff over con-
Group 1, European Union (COST), Brussels. solidated clay.’’ Proc., 3rd Young Geotech. Engrs. Conf., Eur. Soc. Soil
Hansmire, W. H., Russell, H. A., Rawnsley, R. P., and Abbott, E. L. Mech. Found. Engrg., City University, London.
(1989). ‘‘Field performance of a structural slurry wall.’’ J. Geotech. Maldonado, R. (1998). ‘‘Big digs in the lacustrine soil of Bogotá, Co-
Engrg., ASCE, 115(2), 141–156. lombia.’’ Big digs around the world, Geotech. Spec. Publ. No. 86, J.
Hess, U. H., Pedersen, S. K., and Ladefoged, L. M. (1997). ‘‘Fixed link R. Lambrechts, R. Hwang, and A. Urzua, eds., ASCE, Reston, Va.,
across the Oresund: Large excavation for tunnel ramp in freight railway 252–272.
yard.’’ Proc., 14th Int. Conf. Soil Mech. Found. Engrg., Vol. 2, 1369– Mana, A. I., and Clough, G. W. (1981). ‘‘Prediction of movements for
1372. braced cuts in clay.’’ J. Geotech. Engrg. Div., ASCE, 107(6), 759–777.
Hettler, A., Besler, D., and Gutjahr, S. (1997). ‘‘FE-Simulation von auf- Maquet, J. F. (1981). ‘‘Quai en paroi moulee du port autonome du
getretenen Spannungen und Verformungen an der Baugrube Gleiswech- Havre.’’ Bull. liaison Lab de Ponts et Ch, Paris, 113(May–June), 109–
sel in Duisburg-Meiderich.’’ Die Bautechnik, Berlin, 74, Heft 1, S.25– 134 (in French).
S.32 (in German). Massad, M. (1985). ‘‘Braced excavations in lateritic and weathered sed-
Houghton, R. C., and Dietz, D. L. (1990). ‘‘Design and performance of imentary soils.’’ Proc., 11th Int. Conf. Soil Mech. Found. Engrg., Vol.
a deep excavation support system in Boston, Massachusetts.’’ Proc., 4, 2113–2116.
ASCE Conf. on Des. and Perf. of Earth Retaining Struct., Geotech. Mattos-Fernandes, M. (1985). ‘‘Performance and analysis of a deep ex-
Spec. Publ. No. 25, ASCE, New York, 795–816. cavation in Lisbon.’’ Proc., 11th Int. Conf. Soil Mech. Found. Engrg.,
Hulme, T. W., Potter, J., and Shirlaw, N. (1989). ‘‘Singapore MRT system: Vol. 4, 2127–2132.
Construction.’’ Proc., Instn. of Civ. Engrs., Vol. 86, London, 709–770. Monnet, J., Khlif, J., and Biard, C. (1994). ‘‘The diaphragm wall—Le
Humpheson, C., Fitzpatrick, A. J., and Anderson, M. D. (1986). ‘‘The Mail—Experimental and numerical study.’’ Proc., 13th Int. Conf. Soil
basement and substructure for the new headquarters of the Hong Kong Mech. Found. Engrg., 839–844.
and Shanghi Banking Corporation, Hong Kong.’’ Proc., Instn. of Civ. Morton, K., Leonard, M. S. M., and Cater, R. W. (1980). ‘‘Building set-
Engrs., Vol. 80, London, 851–883. tlements and ground movements associated with the construction of
Josseaume, H., Dellattre, L., and Mespoulhe, L. (1997). ‘‘Interpretation two stations of the modified initial system of the mass transit railway,
par le calcul aux coefficients de reaction du comportement du rideau Hong Kong.’’ Proc., 2nd Conf. on Ground Movements and Struct.,
de palplanches experimental de Hochstetten.’’ Revue Geotechnique University of Cardiff, Wales, U.K., 788–800.
Francaise, Paris, Numero 79, 2e trimestre (in French). Murphy, D. J., Woolworth, R. S., and Clough, G. W. (1975). ‘‘Temporary
Josseaume, H., and Stenne, R. (1979). ‘‘Etude experimentale d’une paroi excavation in varved clay.’’ J. Geotech. Engrg. Div., ASCE, 101(3),
moulee ancree quatre nappes de tirants.’’ Revue Geotechnique Fran- 279–295.
caise, Paris, Numero 8 (in French). Naderer, R. (1988). ‘‘Schlitzwandmessungen bei den Baugrubenum-
Karlsrud, K. (1981). ‘‘Performance and design of slurry walls in soft schließungen der Kraftwerke Mittlere Salzach.’’ 3, Christian-Veder-
clay.’’ Proc., ASCE Spring Convention, Preprint 81-047, ASCE, New Kolloquium, Graz., Austria (in German).
York. El-Nahhas, F., and Eisenstein, Z. (1989). ‘‘Behaviour of diaphragm walls
Karlsrud, K. (1983). ‘‘Performance and design of slurry walls in soft during the construction of the Cairo Metro.’’ Proc., 12th Int. Conf. Soil
clay.’’ Norwegian Geotech. Publ. No. 149, Norwegian Geotech. Inst. Mech. Found. Engrg., Vol. 3, 1483–1486.
Oslo. Ng, C. W. W., and Lings, M. L. (1995). ‘‘Effects of modeling soil non-
Karlsrud, K. (1986). ‘‘Performance monitoring in deep supported exca- linearity and wall installation on back-analysis of deep excavation in
vations in soft clay.’’ Proc., 4th Int. Geo. Seminar, Field Instrumenta- stiff clay.’’ J. Geotech. Engrg., ASCE, 121(10), 687–695.
tion and In-Situ Measurement, Nanyang Technological Institute, Sin- Nicholson, D. P. (1987). ‘‘The design and performance of the retaining
gapore, 187–202. walls at Newton Station.’’ Proc., Conf. Singapore MRTC, Mass Rapid
Karlsrud, K., and Myrvoll, F. (1976a). ‘‘Performance of a strutted exca- Transit Corp., Singapore, 147–154.
vation in quick clay.’’ Proc., 6th Eur. Conf. Soil Mech. Found. Engrg., Norwegian Geotechnical Institute (NGI). (1962a). ‘‘Measurements at a
Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. strutted excavation, Oslo Subway, Grønland 1, km 1559.’’ Tech. Rep.
Karlsrud, K., and Myrvoll, F. (1976b). ‘‘Performance of a strutted exca- No. 1, Oslo.
vation in quick clay.’’ Norwegian Geotech. Publ. No. 111, Norwegian Norwegian Geotechnical Institute (NGI). (1962b). ‘‘Measurements at a
Geotech. Inst., Oslo. strutted excavation, Oslo Technical School.’’ Tech. Rep. No. 2, Oslo.
Kastner, R. (1982). ‘‘Excavations profondes en site urbain.’’ These Doc- Norwegian Geotechnical Institute (NGI). (1962c). ‘‘Measurements at a
teur des Sciences, Laboratoire de Geotechnique-Insa Lyon, Lyon, strutted excavation, Oslo Subway, Enerhaugen South, km 1982.’’ Tech.
France (in French). Rep. No. 3, Oslo.
Kastner, R., and Ferrand, J. (1992). ‘‘Performance of a cast in situ re- Norwegian Geotechnical Institute (NGI). (1962d). ‘‘Measurements at a
taining wall in a sandy silt.’’ Proc., Int. Conf. Retaining Struct., Thomas strutted excavation, The new headquarters building for the Norwegian
Telford, London, 237–247. Telecomunications Administration, Oslo.’’ Tech. Rep. No. 4, Oslo.

Norwegian Geotechnical Institute (NGI). (1962e). ‘‘Measurements at a Stevenson, M. C., and De Moor, E. K. (1994). ‘‘Limehouse Link: Cut
strutted excavation, Oslo Subway, Grønland 2, km 1692.’’ Tech. Rep. and cover tunnel, design and performance.’’ Proc., 13th Int. Conf. Soil
No. 5, Oslo. Mech. Found. Engrg., Vol. 2, 887–890.
Norwegian Geotechnical Institute (NGI). (1962f ). ‘‘Measurements at a St. John, H. D. (1975). ‘‘Field and theoretical studies of the behaviour of
strutted excavation, Oslo Subway, Vaterland 1, km 1373.’’ Tech. Rep. ground around deep excavations in London clay.’’ PhD thesis, Univer-
No. 6, Oslo. sity of Cambridge, Cambridge, U.K.
Norwegian Geotechnical Institute (NGI). (1962g). ‘‘Measurements at a St. John, H. D., Potts, D. M., Jardine, R. J., and Higgins, K. G. (1992).
strutted excavation, Oslo Subway, Vaterland 2, km 1408.’’ Tech. Rep. ‘‘Prediction and performance of ground response due to the construc-
No. 7, Oslo. tion of a deep basement at 60 Victoria Embankment.’’ Proc., Instn. of
Norwegian Geotechnical Institute (NGI). (1962h). ‘‘Measurements at a Civ. Engrs., Part 1, Vol. 92, 449–465.
strutted excavation, Oslo Subway, Vaterland 3, km 1450.’’ Tech. Rep. Swanson, P. G., and Larson, T. W. (1990). ‘‘Shoring failure in soft clay.’’
No. 8, Oslo. Proc., ASCE Conf. on Des. and Perf. of Earth Retaining Struct., Geo-
Nussbaumer, M. F. (1998). ‘‘Massive big digging in the center of Berlin.’’ tech. Spec. Publ. No. 25, ASCE, New York, 551–561.
Big digs around the world, Geotech. Spec. Publ. No. 86, J. R. Lam- Symons, I. F., and Carder, D. R. (1989). ‘‘The behaviour in service of a
brechts et al., eds., ASCE, Reston, Va., 333–357. propped retaining wall in stiff clay.’’ Proc., 10th Eur. Conf. Soil Mech.
Onishi, K., and Sugawara, T. (1999). ‘‘Behaviour of an earth retaining Found. Engrg., Vol. 2, Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 761–
wall during deep excavation in Shanghi soft ground.’’ Soils and Found., 766.
Tokyo, 39(3), 89–97. Symons, I. F., Little, J. A., and Carder, D. R. (1988). ‘‘Ground movements
O’Rourke, T. D. (1992). ‘‘Base stability and ground movement prediction and deflections of an anchored sheet pile wall in granular soil.’’ En-
for excavations in soft clay.’’ Proc., Int. Conf. Retaining Struct., gineering geology of underground structures, Geological Soc. Spec.
Thomas Telford, London, 657–686. Publ. No. 5, E. G. Bell, M. G. Culshaw, J. C. Cripps, and M. A. Lovell,
O’Rourke, T. D., and Jones, C. J. P. F. (1990). ‘‘Overview of earth reten- eds., 117–127.
tion systems 1970–1990.’’ Proc., ASCE Conf. on Des. and Perf. of Tait, R. G., and Taylor, H. T. (1975). ‘‘Rigid and flexible bracing systems
Earth Retaining Struct., Geotech. Spec. Publ. No. 25, ASCE, New on adjacent sites.’’ J. Constr. Div., ASCE, 101(2), 365–375.
York, 22–51. Tamano, T., Fukui, S., Mizutani, S., Tsuboi, H., and Hisatake, M. (1996).
Ostermayer, H. (1995). ‘‘Das Verhalten des Systems Bauwerk-Anker- ‘‘Earth and water pressures acting on a braced excavation in soft
Boden als Grundlage für den Entwurf verankerter Konstruktionen.’’ ground.’’ Proc., Int. Symp. Geo Aspects of Underground Constr. in Soft
Bauingenieur, Berlin, 70, S.371–S.380. Ground, City University, London, 207–212.
Ou, C. Y., Hsien, P. G., and Chiou, D. C. (1993). ‘‘Characteristics of Tan, S. B., Tan, S. L., and Chin, Y. K. (1985). ‘‘A braced sheet pile
ground surface settlement during excavation.’’ Can. Geotech. J., Ot- excavation in Singapore marine clay.’’ Proc., 11th Int. Conf. Soil Mech.
tawa, 30, 758–767. Found. Engrg., Vol. 5, 1671–1674.
Peck, R. B. (1969). ‘‘Deep excavations and tunneling in soft ground.’’ Tanaka, H. (1996). ‘‘Undrained shear strength for passive earth pressure
Proc., 7th Int. Conf. Soil Mech. Found. Engrg., 225–281. in an excavation in soft clay.’’ Proc., Int. Symp. Geo Aspects of Un-
Pötscher, R., Prodinger, W., and Veder, C. (1984). ‘‘Erkenntnisse aus derground Constr. in Soft Ground, City University, London, 213–218.
Druck- und Verformungsmessungen an verankerten Baugrubenum- Tedd, P., Chard, B. M., Charles, J. A., and Symons, I. F. (1984). ‘‘Be-
schließungen im innerstädtischen Bereich.’’ Bauingenieur, Berlin, 59, haviour of a propped embedded retaining wall in stiff clay at Bell
S.331–S.335. Common Tunnel.’’ Géotechnique, London, 34(4), 513–532.
Potts, D. M., and Day, R. A. (1990). ‘‘Use of sheet pile retaining walls Terzaghi, K. (1943). Theoretical soil mechanics, Wiley, New York.
for deep excavations in stiff clay.’’ Proc., Instn. of Civ. Engrs., London, Thompson, D. (1991). ‘‘A review of retaining wall behaviour in over-
Part 1, 88, 899–927. consolidated clay during the early stages of construction.’’ MSc thesis,
Powrie, W., and Batten, M. (1997). ‘‘Prop loads in large braced excava- Imperial College, London.
tions.’’ Rep. to Engrg. and Phys. Sci. Res. Council, Ref. GR/K55974, Tominaga, T., Nhashimoto, T., and Fukuwaka, M. (1985). ‘‘Application
London. of the stress path method to a large excavation.’’ Proc., 11th Int. Conf.
Raison, C. (1985). ‘‘Performance of propped and cantilevered rigid walls Soil Mech. and Found. Engrg., Vol. 4, 2137–2140.
—Fifth Geotechnique Symposium in Print.’’ Géotechnique, London, Triantafyllidis, Th. (1996). ‘‘Verformungsverhalten von Stützwänden bei
35, 540–544. tiefen Baugruben anhand von Ausführungsbeispielen.’’ 11, Christian-
Rampello, S., Tamagini, C., and Calabresi, G. (1992). ‘‘Observed and Veder-Kolloquium, Graz, Austria (in German).
predicted response of a braced excavation in soft to medium clay.’’ Triantafyllidis, Th. (1998). ‘‘Neue Erkenntnisse an tiefen Baugruben am
Proc., Wroth Memorial Symp., Thomas Telford, London, 544–561. Potsdamer Platz in Berlin.’’ Die Bautechnik, Berlin, 75, Heft 3, S.133–
Rizkallah, V., and Vogel, J. (1992). ‘‘Tiefe U-Bahn-Baugrube im Ein- S.154.
flußbereich eines alten Kirchengebäudes—Konstruktion, Sicherheits- Triantafyllidis, Th., Brem, G., and Vogel, U. (1997). ‘‘Construction mon-
konzept, Meßprogramm.’’ 7, Christian-Veder-Kolloquim, Graz, Austria itoring and performance of the deep basement excavation at Potsdamer
(in German). Platz, Berlin.’’ Proc., 14th Int. Conf. Soil Mech. Found. Engrg., Vol. 2,
Rodatz, W., Gattermann, J., and Horst, M. (1996). ‘‘Anwendung der Beo- 1347–1350.
bachtungsmethode zur Sicherstellung geringen Verformungen einer Tse, C. M., and Nicholson, D. P. (1992). ‘‘Design, construction and mon-
zweilagigen ausgesteiften Baugrube.’’ Bauingenieur, Berlin 71, S.355– itoring of the basement diaphragm wall at Minster Court, London.’’
S.364. Proc., Int. Conf. Retaining Struct., Thomas Telford, London, 323–332.
Rodriguez, J. M., and Flamand, C. L. (1969). ‘‘Strut loads recorded in a Ulrich, E. J., Jr. (1989a). ‘‘Internally braced cuts in overconsolidated
deep excavation in clay.’’ Proc., 9th Int. Conf. Soil Mech. Found. soils.’’ J. Geotech. Engrg., ASCE, 115(4), 504–520.
Engrg., Vol. 2, 450–467. Ulrich, E. J., Jr. (1989b). ‘‘Tieback supported cuts in overconsolidated
Roti, J. A., and Friis, J. (1985). ‘‘Diaphragm wall performance in soft soils.’’ J. Geotech. Engrg., ASCE, 115(4), 521–545.
clay excavation.’’ Proc., 11th Int. Conf. Soil Mech. Found. Engrg., Vol. Ulrichs, K. R. (1980). ‘‘Untersuchungen über das Trag- und Verformungs-
4, 2073–2078. verhalten verankerter Schlitzwände in rolligen Böden. Dissertation.
Rowe, P. (1952). ‘‘Anchored sheet pile walls.’’ Proc., Instn. of Civ. Forschungsberichte aus dem Fachbereich Bauwesen.’’ Heft 15, Uni-
Engrs., London, Part 1, Vol. 1, 27–70. versität Essen Gesamthochschule, Essen, Germany (in German).
Sherwood, D. E., Harnan, C. N., and Beyer, M. G. (1989). ‘‘Recent de- Ulrichs, K. R. (1982). ‘‘Besonderheiten bei der Planung und Ausführung
velopments in secant bored pile wall construction.’’ Piling and deep von Baugrubensicherungen.’’ Grundbau-Seminar, Mitteilung aus dem
foundations, Deep Found. Inst., London, 211–220. Fachgebiet Grundbau und Bodenmechanik, Universität Essen Gesam-
Sills, G. C., Burland, J. B., and Czechowski, M. K. (1977). ‘‘Behaviour thochschule, Essen, Germany (in German).
of an anchored diaphragm wall in stiff clay.’’ Proc., 9th Int. Conf. Soil Van Tol, A. F., and Brassinga, H. E. (1991). ‘‘Evaluation of earth retaining
Found. Engrg., Vol. 2, 147–155. structures.’’ Proc., 13th Int. Conf. Soil Mech. Found. Engrg., Vol. 2,
Simpson, B. (1992). ‘‘Retaining structures: Displacement and design.’’ 803–808.
Géotechnique, London, 42(4), 541–576. Vezinhet, M., Brucy, M., and Balay, J. (1989). ‘‘Behaviour of a quay in
Steiner, W., and Werder, F. (1991). ‘‘Performance of a 17 m deep tie back compressible silts.’’ Proc., 12th Int. Conf. Soil Mech. Found. Engrg.,
wall under large surcharge loads.’’ Proc., 10th Eur. Conf. Soil Mech. Vol. 3, 1527–1528.
Found. Engrg., Vol. 2, Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 757– Viedenz, U. (1984). ‘‘Die Krafthausbaugrube des Pumpenspeicherwerkes
760. Leitzach I (neu).’’ Die Bautechnik, Berlin, 61, Heft 10, S.329–S.340.
Stevens, A., Corbett, B. O., and Steele, A. J. (1977). ‘‘Barbican arts cen- Vuillemin, R. J., and Wong, H. (1991). ‘‘Deep excavation in urban en-
tre: The design and construction of the substructure.’’ The Struct. Engr., vironment: 3 examples.’’ Proc., 10th Eur. Conf. Soil Mech. Found.
London, 55(11), 473–485. Engrg., Vol. 2, Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 843–847.

Wallace, J. C., Ho, C. E., and Long, M. M. (1992). ‘‘Retaining wall mentation and performance of an anchored retaining wall.’’ Instrumen-
behaviour for a deep basement in Singapore marine clay.’’ Proc., Int. tation in geotechnical engineering, Thomas Telford, London, 137–154.
Conf. Retaining Struct., Thomas Telford, London, 195–204. Wood, L. A., and Perrin, A. J. (1984). ‘‘Observations of a strutted dia-
Ward, K. (1992). ‘‘The design and performance during construction of phragm wall in London Clay: A preliminary assessment.’’ Géotech-
the propped secant pile wall at Holborn Bars London.’’ Proc., Int. Conf. nique, London, 34(4), 563–579.
Retaining Struct., Thomas Telford, London, 216–226. Young, D. K., and Ho, E. W. L. (1994). ‘‘The observational approach to
Ware, K. R., Mirsky, M., and Leuniz, W. E. (1973). ‘‘Tieback wall con- design of a sheet piled retaining wall.’’ Géotechnique, London, 44(4),
struction—Results and controls.’’ J. Soil Mech. and Found. Div., 637–654.
ASCE, 99(12), 1136–1152. Zhao, X. H., Gong, J., Chen, Z. M., and Bao, Y. (1999). ‘‘Design and
Watson, G. V. R., and Carder, D. R. (1994). ‘‘Comparison of the measured practice on special deep and large excavation engineering in Shanghi.’’
and computed performance of a propped bored pile retaining wall at Proc., 12th Eur. Conf. Soil Mech. Found. Engrg., Balkema, Rotterdam,
Walthamstow.’’ Proc., Instn. of Civ. Engrs. Geotech. Engrg., London, The Netherlands, 239–244.
107(3), 127–133.
Weißenbach, A., and Gollub, P. (1995). ‘‘Neue Erkenntnisse über mehr- APPENDIX II. NOTATION
fach verankerte Ortbetonwände.’’ Die Bautechnik, Berlin, 72, Heft 12, The following symbols are used in this paper:
S.780–S.799.
Whittle, A. J., Hashash, Y. M. A., and Whitman, R. V. (1993). ‘‘Analysis E =
Young’s modulus;
of deep excavation in Boston.’’ J. Geotech. Engrg., ASCE, 119(1), 69– H =
excavation depth;
90. h =
thickness of fill and soft material retained;
Winter, D. G. (1990). ‘‘Pacific first center performance of the tie back I =
moment of inertia;
shoring wall.’’ Proc., ASCE Conf. on Des. and Perf. of Earth Retaining
N =
standard penetration test (SPT) number (blows/300 mm);
Struct., Geotech. Spec. Publ. No. 25, 764–777.
Wong, I. H., and Chua, T. S. (1999). ‘‘Ground movements due to pile
qc =
measured cone penetration test end resistance;
driving in an excavation in soft soil.’’ Can. Geotech. J., Ottawa, 36, s =
average prop spacing (or retained height plus fixity in
152–160. cantilever wall);
Wong, I. H., Poh, T. Y., and Chuah, H. L. (1997). ‘‘Performance of ex- ␦h max = maximum lateral movement of retaining wall into exca-
cavations for depressed expressway in Singapore.’’ J. Geotech. and vation;
Geoenvir. Engrg., ASCE, 123(7), 617–625. ␦v max = maximum vertical settlement behind retaining wall; and
Wood, L. A., Maynard, A., and Forbes-King, C. J. (1988). ‘‘The instru- ␥w = unit weight of water.

Database For Retaining Wall and Ground Movements Due To Deep Excavation - Reading

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Database For Retaining Wall and Ground Movements Due To Deep Excavation - Reading

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Database For Retaining Wall and Ground Movements Due To Deep Excavation - Reading

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DATABASE FOR RETAINING WALL AND GROUND MOVEMENTS DUE TO

INTRODUCTION PREVIOUS STUDIES

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2001, 127(3): 203-224

Oslo Soft Clay—Karlsrud (1986) U.K. Soils—Fernie and Suckling (1996)

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2001, 127(3): 203-224

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2001, 127(3): 203-224

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2001, 127(3): 203-224

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2001, 127(3): 203-224

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2001, 127(3): 203-224

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2001, 127(3): 203-224

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2001, 127(3): 203-224

TABLE 4. Summary of Case Histories—Propped Walls—Low FOS against Base Heave

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2001, 127(3): 203-224

• Set 3: As in Set 2 but with a low FOS against excavation

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2001, 127(3): 203-224

System stiffness [after Clough et al. (1989)]: PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF DATA

Addenbrooke showed that a logical extension to Rowe’s flex-

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / MARCH 2001 / 213

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2001, 127(3): 203-224

␦h max /H (%) ␦v max /H (%)

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2001, 127(3): 203-224

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2001, 127(3): 203-224

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2001, 127(3): 203-224

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2001, 127(3): 203-224

Analysis of Cases Where Unusually Large CONCLUSIONS

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2001, 127(3): 203-224

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2001, 127(3): 203-224

220 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / MARCH 2001

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2001, 127(3): 203-224

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / MARCH 2001 / 221

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2001, 127(3): 203-224

222 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / MARCH 2001

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2001, 127(3): 203-224

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / MARCH 2001 / 223

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2001, 127(3): 203-224

224 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / MARCH 2001

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2001, 127(3): 203-224

You might also like