Chapter 7

Braced Cuts
Sometimes construction work requires
ground excavations with vertical or near-
vertical faces—for example, basements of
buildings in developed areas or underground
transportation facilities at shallow depths
below the ground sur­face (cut-and-cover type
of construction). The vertical faces of the cuts
need to be protected by temporary bracing
systems to avoid failure that may be accom­
panied by considerable settlement or by
bearing capacity failure of nearby
foundation(s).
Figure 7.1 shows two types of braced cut commonly used in
construction work. One type uses the soldier beam (Figure 7.1a),
which is driven into the ground before excavation. Soldier beams
are vertical steel or timber beams. After the excavation is started,
laggings are placed between the soldier beams as the excavation
proceeds. Laggings are horizontal timber planks. When the
excavation reaches the desired depth, wales and struts are
properly installed (wales and struts are horizontal steel beams).
The struts act like horizontal columns. Figure 7.1b shows another
type of braced excavation. In this case, interlocking sheet piles are
driven into the soil before excavation. As the exca­vation proceeds,
wales and struts are inserted immediately after reaching the
appropriate depth.
To design braced excavations (that is, to select wales,
struts, sheet piles, and soldier beams), one must know
the lateral earth pressure to which the braced cuts will
be subjected. This topic is discussed in Section 7.2;
subsequent sections cover the procedures of analysis
and design of braced cuts
7.2 Lateral Earth Pressure in Braced Cuts
In Chapter 5 we learned that a retaining wall rotates
about its bottom (Figure 7.2a). With sufficient yielding of
the wall, the lateral earth pressure can be approximated
to be equal to that abtained by Rangkine’s coulomb’s
theory
In contrast to retaining walls, braced cuts show a
different type of wall yielding (see Figure 7.2b). In this
case, the deformation of the wall gradually increases with
the depth of excavation. The variation of the amount of
deformation will depend on several factors, such as the
type of soil, the depth of excavation, and the
workmanship. However, one can easily visualize that,
with very little wall yielding at the top of the cut, the
lateral earth pressure will be close to the at-rest
pressure. At the bottom of the wall, with a much larger
degree of yielding, the lateral earth pressure will be
substantially lower than the Rankine active earth
pressure. As a result, the distribution of lateral earth
pressure will vary substantially in comparison to the
linear distribution assumed in the case of retaining walls.
 A theoretical evaluation of the total lateral force, P,
imposed on a wall can be made by using Terzaghi's
general wedge theory (1943a) (Figure 7.3a), in which
the failure surface is assumed to be the arc of a
logarithmic spiral, defined by the equation

where Ø = angle of friction of soil

A detailed outline for the evaluation of P is beyond the
scope of this text; readers should check a soil
mechanics text for more information (for example, Das,
1979). However, a comparison of the lateral earth
pressure for braced cuts in sand (with angle of wall
friction S = 0) with that for a retaining wall (5 = 0) is
shown in Figure 7.3b. If 5 = 0, a retaining wall of height
H will be subjected to a Rankine active earth pressure,
and the resultant active force will intersect the wall at a
distance of nH measured from the bottom of the wall.
For this case, n = 1/3. In contrast, the value of n for a
braced cut may vary from 0.33 to 0.5 or 0.6. The general
wedge theory can also be used to analyze braced cuts
in saturated clay (for example, see Das and Seeley,
1975).
In any event, when choosing a lateral soil pressure
distribution for design of braced cuts, one should keep in
mind that the nature of failure in braced cuts
is much different from that in retaining walls. After
observation of sever braced cuts, Peck (1969) suggested
using design pressure envelopes for bra cuts in sand and
clay. Figure 7.4 shows Peck's pressure envelopes, to
which t following guidelines apply:

1. Figure 7.4a is for braced cuts constructed in dry or

moist sand. Note is the Rankine active earth pressure
coefficient.
2. For cuts in clay, first calculate the value of (where c = undrained
cohesion of the clay located on the sides of the cuts; Ø) = 0
concept). If is less than or equal to 4, the pressure envelope shown
in Figure 7.4c should be used. The value of pa, varies between 0.2
and 0.4, with an average of 0.3yH. If is greater than 4, the pressure
envelope shown in Figure 7.4b should be used. In this case, may be
equal to [1 — (4c/)] or 0.3, whichever is greater. Peck's pressure
envelopes are sometimes re­ferred to as apparent pressure envelopes

Sometimes one encounters layers of both sand and clay when

constructing a braced cut. In this case, Peck (1943) proposed
that an equivalent value of cohesion ( = 0 concept) should be
determined in the following manner (refer to Figure 7.5a):
where H = total height of the cut
ys = unit weight of sand
Hs = height of the sand layer
Ks = a lateral earth pressure coefficient for the sand layer
φs = angle of friction of sand
qu = unconfined compression strength of clay
n’ = a coefficient of progressive failure (ranges from 0.5 to one;
average value 0.75)

The average unit weight, yαs, of the layers can be expressed as

where yc = saturated unit weight of clay layer

Once the average values of cohesion and unit weight are
determined, the . pressure envelopes in clay (Figure 7.4b
and c) can be used to design the cuts.
In a similar manner, when a number of clay layers arc
encountered in the cut (Figure 7.5b), the average
undrained cohesion can be expressed by the. Equation

where c1,c2, . . . , Cn,=undrained cohesion in Layers 1, 2, .., n

H1,H2, ………Hn = thicknesses of layers 1, 3, . . . , n
The average unit weight, yo, can be given as
7.3. Design of Various Components of a Braced Cut

Struts
In construction work, the struts should have a minimum
vertical spacing of about 2.75 m or more. The struts are
actually horizontal columns subject to bending. The load-
carrying capacity of columns will depend on the slenderness ,
ratio, 1/r. The slenderness ratio can be reduced by providing
vertical and horizontal supports at intermediate points. For
cuts with large widths, it may be necessary to splice the
struts. In the case of braced cuts in clayey soils, the depth of
the first strut below the ground surface should be less than
the depth of tensile crack, zc;..From Eq. (5.11)
A simplified conservative procedure can be used to
determine the strut loads. This procedure will vary
depending on the engineers involved in the project.
Following is a step-by-step outline of it (refer to Figure
7.6).
sandy soil; however, it could also be for a clay. Also, in this figure,
the strut levels are marked A, B1, C, and D. The sheet piles (or
soldier beams) can be assumed to be hinged at the strut levels,
except for the top and bottom ones. In Figure 7.6a, the hinges are
at the level of struts B and C. (Many designers also assume the
sheet piles, or soldier beams, to be hinged at all strut levels,
except for the top.)

Determine the reactions for the two simple cantilever beams (top
and bottom) and all the simple beams in between. In Figure 7.6b,
these reactions
are A, B1, B2, C1, C2, and D.
The strut loads in Figure 7.6 can now be calculated as follows:

PA = (A)(s)
PB = (B1 + B2)(s)
PC = (C1 + C2)(s)
PD = (D)(s)

Where PA, PB, Pc, PD = loads to be taken by the individual struts

at levelsA, B, C, and D, respectively
A, B1, B2, C1 C2,D = reactions calculated in Step 2 (note unit:
force/unit length of the braced cut)
s = horizontal spacing of the struts (see plan in Fig­ure 7.6a)
4. Knowing the strut loads at each level and the intermediate
bracing conditions, one can now select the proper sections by
using the steel con­struction manual.

Sheet Piles
1. In order to design the sheet piles, perform the following steps:
For each of the sections shown in Figure 7.6b, determine
themaximum bending moment.

2. Determine the maximum value of the maximum bending

moment (Mmax) obtained in Step 1. Note that the unit of this
moment will be, for example, kN-m/meter length of the wall.

3. Obtain the section modulus of the sheet piles:

where = allowable flexural stress of the sheet pile material

4.The sheet pile section can now be chosen from a table such as
Table 6.1.

Wales

1. Wales can be treated as continuous horizontal members if they

are spliced properly. Conservatively, they may also be treated as
though they are pinned at the struts. For the section shown in
Figure 7.6a, the maximum moments for the wales (assuming
that they are pinned at the struts) are as follows:
 where A, B1, B2, C1 C2, and D are the reactions under
the struts per unit length of the wall (Step 2 of strut
design).

2. Determine the section modulus of the wales:

The wales are sometimes fastened to the sheet piles at points
that satisfy the lateral support requirements.

7.1. Example
The cross section of a long braced cut is shown in Figure 7.7a.
Draw the earth pressure envelope.
Determine the strut loads at levels A, B, and C.
 Determine the section of the struts subjected to the largest
load..
Determine the sheet pile section required.
Determine a design section for the wales at level B.
Note: The struts are placed at 3 m center-to-center in the
plan.

Solution
Part a

So, the pressure envelope will be like the one in Figure

7.4c. This is plotted in Figure 7.7a with maximum pressure
intensity, pa equal to 0.3yH = 0.3(18)(7) = 37.8 kN/m2.
Part b
For determination of the strut loads, refer to Figure 7.7b.
Taking the moment about ∑MB1, = 0
Part c
The struts at level B are subjected to the largest load—that is, PB =
271.2 kN. For the struts, effective length (KL: refer to the American
Institute of Steel Construction, Man­ual of Steel Construction,
1980, pp. 3-29) with respect to x and y axes is 6 m. Accord­ingly, the
section W 250 mm x 49 kg/m (in English units, it is section W 10
x 33) will be more than sufficient. (Note: Fv = 248.4 MN/m2.)

Part d
Refer to the left side of Figure 7.7b. For the maximum moment,
the shear force should be zero. The nature of variation of the
shear force is shown in Figure 7.7c. The location of point E can be
given as
Because the loading on the left and right sections of
Figure 7.7b are the same, the magnitude of moments at
F and C (Figure 7.7c) will be the same as E and A,
respectively. Hence, the maximum moment = 27.03 kN-
m/meter of wall.

The section modulus of the sheet piles,

7.4 Stability of Braced Cut

Heave of the Bottom of the Cut in Clay

Braced cuts in clay may became unstable as a result of the heaving of

the bottom of the excavation. Terzaghi (19431)) has analyzed the
factor of safety of braced excavations against bottom heave. The
failure surface for such a case is shown in Figure 7.8. The vertical
load per unit length of the cut at the level of the bottom of the cut
along the line bd and of is equal to
This load Q can be treated like a load per unit length on a
continuous foundation at the level of bd (and af)
having a width of = 0.7B. Based on Terzaghi's bearing
capacity theory, the net ultimate load-carrying capacity
per unit length., of this foundation can be given by the
equation [Chapter 3; see Eqs. (3.3) and (3.34)

Hence, from Eq. (7.8), the factor of safety against

bottom heave can be given
Hence, from Eq. (7.8), the factor of safety against
bottom heave can be given
The preceding factor of safety [Eq. (7.9)] has been derived
based on th assumption that the clay layer is homogeneous,
at least up to a depth of O., below the bottom of the cut.
however, if a hard layer of rock or rock-lik material is located
at a depth D < 0.7B, the failure surface ‘will be modified t
some extent. In such a case, the factor of safety can be
modified to the form
Bjerrum and Eide (1956) also studied the problem of bottom
heave for braced cuts in clay, and they proposed the following
equation for the factor of safety

The bearing capacity factor N, varies with the ratio of H/B

and also L/B (where L = length of the cut). For infinitely long
cuts (B/L = 0), N, = 5.14 at H/B = 0 and increases to a value
of /V, = 7.6 at H/B = 4. Beyond that—that is, for H/B > 4—the
value of N, remains constant. For cuts square in plan (B/L =
1),N, = 6.3 at H/B = 0, and N, = 9 for H/B 4. In general, at any
given H/B
 Figure 7.9 shows the variation of the value of N,, for L/B = 1,
2, 3, and co. In any case, a factor of safety of 1.25 to 1.5 is
desired.
Stability of the Bottom of the Cut in Sand
The bottom of a cut in sand is generally stable. When the
ground water table is encountered, the bottom of the cut is
stable as long as the water level inside the excavation is
higher than the ground water level. If the water level inside
the cut is lowered below the ground water level by pumping,
instability may be created as a result of the upward seepage
of water into the cut. Section 7.5 discusses this problem in
more detail.
Lateral Yielding of Sheet Piles.

In braced cuts, some lateral movement of sheet pile walls

may be expected (Figure 7.10). Of course, the lateral yield
will depend on several factors, the
most important of which is time elapsed after excavation that
is required for the placement of wales and struts. :liana and
Clough (1981) analyzed the field records of several braced
cuts in clay from the San Francisco, Oslo (Norway), Boston,
Chicago, and Bowline Point (New York) areas. Under
ordinary con­struction conditions, it was found that the
maximum lateral wall yield has a definite elationship
with the factor of safety against heave. This is shown in
Figure 7.10. Note that the factor of safety against heave as
plotted in Figure 7.10 has been calculated by using Eqs. (7.9)
and (7.10).
In several instances, the sheet piles (or the soldier piles as the
case may be) are driven to a certain depth below the bottom of
the excavation. This is done to reduce the lateral yielding of the
walls during the last stages of excavation. The lateral yielding
of the walls will cause settlement of the ground surface
surrounding the cut. The degree of lateral yielding, however,
depends mostly on the soil type below the bottom of the cut. If
clay below the cut extends to a great depth and yH/c is less
than about 6, extension of the sheet piles or soldier piles below
the bottom of the cut will help considerably in reducing the
lateral yield of the walls. However, under similar
circumstances, if yHIc is about 8, the extension of sheet piles
into the clay below the cut does not help to a great extent. In
such circumstances, one may
expect a great degree of wall yielding that may result in the
total collapse of the bracing systems. If a hard soil I layer is
located below a clay layer at the bottom of the cut, the piles
should be embedded in the stiffer layer. This will have a great
effect in reducing the lateral yield.

Ground Settlement
The Lateral yielding of walls will generally induce ground
settlement ( around a braced cut. This is generally referred to
as ground loss. Based on several field observations, Peck
(1969) has provided curves for prediction of ground
settlement in various types of soil (see Figure 7.11). The
magnitude of ground loss varies extensively; however, Figure
7.11 can be used as a general guide.
Based on the field data obtained from various cuts in the
areas of San Francisco, Oslo, and Chicago, Mana and
Clough (1981) have provided a cor­relation between the
maximum lateral yield of sheet piles and the
maximum ground settlement This is shown in
Figure 7.12. It can be seen that
Figure 7.12 Variation of maximum lateral yield with maximum
ground settlement (after mana and Clough, 1981)

Solution
In Example Problem 7.1, y =18 kN/m3, c = 35 kN/m2, and H= 7 m
Factor of Safety from Eq (7.9)
Factor of Safety from Eq (7.11)

According to Figure 7.9, for H/B = 7/6 = 1.16 and B/L ≈ 0,

the value of Nc is equal to 6.46. thus
Failure of Single wall Cofferdams by Piping
Sheet piles are sometimes driven for excavations that
need dewatering (figure 7.13). in such cases, the factor of
safety against piping should be
checked. [Piping is another term for failure by heave, as
defined in Section 1.12; see Eq. (1.48).] Piping may occur
when high hydraulic gradient is set up as a result of the flow
of water into the excavation. One can check the factor of
safety by drawing flow nets and determining the maximum
exit gradient that will occur at points A and B. Figure 7.14
shows a flow net to illustrate the problem. The maximum
exit gradient for this flow net can be calculated as
where = length of the flow element at A (or B)
= number of drops (Note: In Figure 7.14, = 8.)
The factor of safety against piping can be expressed as

Where = critical hydraulic gradient

The relationship for inhas been given in Chapter 1 [Eq.
(1.48)] as
The value of varies between 0.9 and 1.1 in most soils with an
average of about one. A factor of safety of about 1.5 is
desirable
Marsland (1958) has suggested the following values of L2 (minimum
Penetration) for a factor of 1.5 against piping for excavations in sand
The maximum exit gradient for sheeted excavations in sands with L2 = ∞
can also be theoretically evaluated (Ilarr, 1962). (Only the results of these
mathematical derivations will be presented here. For further details, refer
to the original work.) To calculate the maximum exit gradient, refer to
Figures 7.15 and 7.16 and perform the following steps:

1. Determine the modulus, m, from Figure 7.15 by obtaining L2/B (or

B/2L2) and 2L1,/B.
2. With the known modulus and 2L1/B, refer to Figure 7.16 and
determine L2 Because L2 and h will be known,
3. The factor of safety against piping can be evaluated by using Eq. (7.15).
Another method to prevent piping and increase the factor of
safety is to lower the ground water level, thereby reducing the
head h shown in Figure 7.13. This can be done by pumping
from well points or deep wells placed below the level of the
bottom of the sheet piles.

Example 7.3
Refer to Figure 7.13. Given: h = 4.5 m, L1 = 5 m, L2 = 4 m, B = 5
m, and
L3 = ∞ Determine the factor of safety against piping.
 References
American Institute of Steel Construction (1980). Manual of Steel
Construction, Eighth Edition, Chicago.
Bjerrum, L., and Eide, 0. (1956). "Stability of Strutted Excavation
in Clay," Ceotech­nique, Vol. 6., No. 1, pp. 32-47.
Das, B. M. (1979). Introduction to Soil Mechanics, Iowa State
University Press, Ames, Iowa.
Das, B. M., and Seeley, C. R. (1975). "Active Thrust on Braced
Cut in Clay,"Journal of the Construction Dicision, American Society
of Civil Engineers, Vol. 101, No. C04, pp. 945-949.
Harr, M. E. (1962). Ground Water and Seepage, McCraw-Hill,
New York.
Mana, A. I., and Clough, C. W. (1981). "Prediction of Movements
for Braced Cuts in
Clay," Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, American
Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 107, No. CT8, pp. 759-777.
 Marsland, A. (1958). "Model Experiments to Study the Influence of
Seepage on the
Stability of a Sheeted Excavation in Sand," Ceotechnique, Vol. 3, p. 223.
Peck, R. B. (1943). "Earth Pressure Measurements in Open Cuts, Chicago
(Ill.) Sub‑
way," Transactions, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 108, pp.
1008-1058. Peck, R. B. (1969). "Deep Excavation and Tunneling in Soft
Ground," Proceedings, Seventh International Conference on Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Engineering, Mexico City, State-of-the-Art Volume, pp. 225-
290.
Terzaghi, K. (1943a). "General Wedge Theory of Earth Pressure,"
Transactions, Amer­ican Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 106, pp. 68-97.
Terzaghi, K. (1943b). Theoretical Soil Mechanics, Wiley, New York