National University of Singapore

Department of Civil Engineering

CE 5112
Structural design and construction of
deep basements &
cut & cover structures
Lecture 3

Words of wisdom
Rules for the game of engineering:
1. Engineering is a noble sport which calls for good sportsmanship.
Occasional blundering is part of the game. Let it be your ambition to
be the first one to discover and announce your blunders. If somebody
else gets ahead of you, take it with a smile and thank him for his
interest. Once you begin to feel tempted to deny your blunders in the
face of reasonable evidence, you have ceased to be a good sport. You
are already a crank or a grouch.
2. The worst habit you can possibly acquire is to become uncritical
towards your own concepts and at the same time skeptical towards
those of others. Once you arrive at that state, you are in the grip of
senility, regardless of your age.
3. When you commit one of your ideas to print, emphasize every
controversial aspect of your thesis which you can perceive. Thus, you
win the respect of your readers and are kept aware of the possibilities
for further improvement. A departure from this rule is the safest way
to wreck your reputation and to paralyze your mental activities.
4. Very few people are either so dumb or so dishonest that you could not
Karl Terzaghi
learn anything from them.
2

Practical Design Considerations

1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)
12)
13)
14)

Introduction sharing of structural engineer perspectives

General requirements clients, builders & designers
Ground, soil profile & gases
Concept of effective stress vis--vis total stress
Groundwater control
Movements caused by excavation activities
Methods of construction
Types of earth retaining system
Influence of foundations type adopted
Site Investigation
Geotechnical & structural analysis, soil-structure interaction
Protective measures
Durability and waterproofing
Safety, legal and contractual issues & risk communications
3

Design and analysis of retaining system

Design of retaining structures has traditionally been carried out using
simplified analyses or empirical approaches. Methods have been developed
for free-standing gravity walls, embedded cantilever walls (fixed earth
support) or embedded walls with a single prop (free earth support). These
are described in BS 8002 and CIRIA Report C580. Statically indeterminate,
multiple propped retaining systems have often been dealt with using
empirical approaches.
Suitable factors of safety have been applied to cater for uncertainties about
soil properties, to allow for the often-approximate nature of the calculation
model and to ensure that retaining wall displacements are acceptable.
Development of these factors has been based on experience, often as a
result of trial and error.
The rise of sophisticated FEM programs has led to considerable advances in
the analysis and design of retaining structures. Designers are able to model
the behavior of walls in service and investigating the mechanisms of soilstructure interaction. Giving designers the ability to predict service loads
and wall movements with more confidence. Allowing designers greater
understanding of wall behavior and identifying of major influences and key
areas affecting the design of retaining systems. (Refinement & Sensitivity
Analyses)

Stability considerations
Limiting earth pressures
The soil pressures to be resisted by an earth retaining structure
very much depend on the magnitude of strains permissible in
the ground. The pressures of the ground at active and passive
failure define the lower and upper limits of these forces and
related strains. The lower (active failure) or upper (passive
failure) limits are reached when the soil is allowed respectively
to extend or compress laterally to permit full mobilization of
the soils shear strength. These two extremes are usually
expressed by the coefficients of active and passive earth
pressure, Ka, and Kp respectively. These coefficients give the
ratio between lateral and vertical effective pressures at active
and passive failure. They are calculated from the soil strength,
the angle of wall friction and the geometry of the wall and the
soil surface.
5

Stability considerations

Relationship between earth pressure coefficient, Ka,p and wall movement

6

Time considerations

Earth pressure coefficient is between Ka and Ko

7

Stability considerations
Water pressures and the effects of seepage
The forces exerted by groundwater are often greater
than those from the soil. Careful consideration should
be given to variation of water levels & pressures on
each side of the wall.
Even more significant can be the effects of seepage of
water around the base of the wall and into the
basement area. This will tend to reduce water
pressures below hydrostatic on the outside of the wall
and increase water pressure above hydrostatic on the
excavation side. The higher pressures inside will
result in lower vertical effective stresses and thus
passive earth pressures. Seepage effects need to be
properly accounted for in assessing stability and wall
performance.
8

Stability considerations
Gravity wall systems
Active pressures are assessed and applied to the retaining wall
and, passive pressures are assumed in front of the wall, Water
pressure are added based on the drainage and seepage regime
around the wall. Base friction is considered. The resulting
force R is then calculated and stability is checked for:
Conventional bearing capacity
Sliding & rotational stabilities
Slip circle

Stability considerations
Cantilever & Singly-propped walls
Cantilever walls: The mode of failure of the wall is by rotation
about a point near the toe applying the resulting active and
passive pressures. This is a statically determinate system and,
for any given active and passive pressure limits, there is a
unique solution for the depth of wall.
Singly-propped walls: The failure mode is by rotation of wall
about the prop level. This is also a statically determinate
structure.

10

Stability considerations
Multi-propped walls
Overall instability is unlikely to arise in the cases of multipropped/anchored walls because of the redundancy of the structure system.
However, local instability may arise as the result of local overstressing and
the formation of hinges.
The amount by which the toe of a wall extends below excavation level is
controlled by stability - kick in requirement or to limit seepage. As the clay
softens, movement will occur towards the excavation. Movement in the
soil at the sides of the excavation would have detrimental effects on the
foundations of adjacent structures or nearby services.
No generally accepted methods for analyzing such failure by way of hand
calculations.

Multi-propped wall stability

11

Stability considerations
Increase the strength of the toe
of the wall especially where it
connects to the base slab (a).
Do away with the void under
the base slab. This may result in
a build-up of pressure on the
base slab, which must be
accounted for in the slab design
(b).
Increase the vertical effective
stress in the soil immediately in
front of the toe of the wall.
This can be achieved by
installing pin piles (c) or by
using a partial soil-bearing base
slab (d).
Extend walls deeper into
stronger soil if such soil is
present (e).
12

Stability considerations
Circular Basements
Circular basement plan may provide an economical solution, as a circular wall
structure can sustain hoop compressive stresses caused by radial earth pressure. The
required basement must fit within the circular plan without excessive waste of
space. Most important, uniform hoop compression will occur only where ground
and groundwater conditions are uniform around the circular structure.
Soil mix piles, bored piles and diaphragm wall are used in circular basements, they
are designed to span vertically between circular walings or internal lining walls. At
Heathrow airport, a large circular basement (or cofferdam) using secant piles was
used for a large circular excavation, of 30m in diameter & 30m deep, was installed
through disturbed ground following a tunnel collapse. An internal continuous
reinforced concrete lining, cast progressively with excavation to prop the piles,
with the lining acting in hoop compression.
When diaphragm walls are used for circular wall construction, it is formed by
straight panels. These walls are designed to span vertically between circular walings
or the walls themselves are allowed to act in hoop compression where continuity of
reinforcement was provided through vertical joints in the diaphragm wall to ensure
development of hoop stresses. One such large circular diaphragm walls was built for
the basement of the new world library, the Bibliotheca in Alexandria, Egypt. It was
l50m in diameter and 35m deep, designed to also resist seismic forces. (Singapore
100m with walings for Marina IR Sand)
13

Stability considerations
Factors of safety
At present, there are several ways in which the factor of safety can be applied for
wall stability: Partial factors, factored soil strength or embedment depth or lumped
factor applied to some combination of the active and passive earth pressures. In
order to arrive at the same wall design, each approach requires a different numerical
factor of safety. Therefore the adopted factor of safety need to be consistent with
the approach.
The only consistent approach for all types of wall is the use of factored soil
strength. This is the approach proposed by CIRIA Report C580 which also offers
guidance on the appropriate choice of strength parameters. The factored soil
strength, or allowable mobilized strength, can be used consistently in calculations
of both bearing capacity and wall stability. Factors of safety can be increased to a
magnitude sufficient to limit movements to an acceptable level basing on
experience. This method should be used only when displacements are not a critical
concern.
Determining soil and wall movements is difficult and is likely to remain only
approximate until further numerical analyses are calibrated against field experience.
Consequently, the recommended factors of safety used for stability analyses are
often large enough to limit movements to an acceptable level.

14

Temporary works design

Temporary props/anchors are replaced by permanent support
in the form of floor slabs of the finished structure. Basement
structures may therefore be subjected to two different sets of
loading and support conditions during construction &
permanent as-built. Both must be considered carefully
including lock-in stresses.
Clayey soil behavior can be time-dependent, with different
characteristics under short- (undrained) and long-tern
(drained) loading. Depending on the past stress history of the
clay, i.e., normally or over-consolidated, & the method of
construction, the long-term strength may be higher or lower
than in short-term.

15

Temporary works design

For deep basement construction, the soil is likely to be weaker
in the long term. While it is possible to estimate long- and
short-term soil strength, it is difficult to predict the length of
time for the change in strength. This is a sensitive issue
because any underestimate of the strength reduction could lead
to an unsafe situation. While an overestimate lead to expensive
temporary work design.
Unless there are good reasons to the contrary, analyses should
be undertaken to show that the factor of safety using effective
strength calculations based on long-term conditions is greater
than one. This is particularly relevant if circumstances might
lead to a temporary stage of excavation being delayed beyond
the anticipated period.

16

Earth pressures
In designing a retaining structure the magnitude and
distribution of the stresses and movements for both the
temporary and permanent works stages of construction should
be ascertained. The earth pressures will depend on the initial
in situ soil stresses, wall construction method and its stiffness,
and the number & stiffness of supports.
Backfilled walls
With gravity retaining walls, if soil is backfilled behind the
wall, the compaction process will induce both transient and
residual horizontal pressures on the wall. The amount of these
pressures depends on the type of fill, state of compaction and
flexibility of the wall and its supports.

17

Earth pressures
Initial earth pressures & coefficient of earth pressure at rest Ko
In its initial natural state, the horizontal effective stresses in
the ground will be somewhere between those associated with
active failure and passive failure. Ko is defined as the ratio
between the horizontal and vertical effective stresses initially.
The magnitude and variation with depth of the initial at rest
horizontal effective stresses depend on the loading history of
the soil.

18

Earth pressures
Figure below shows the stress path followed by a clay soil
during loading, unloading and reloading. During deposition of
the overlying deposits along path OA, the material is normally
consolidated and Ko has a constant value Konc=1-sin.
Erosion of the overlying deposits & unloading takes place and
the effective stresses follow the unloading path A to B.
Unloading takes place along AB, Ko increases towards the
passive earth pressure coefficient Kp.

19

Earth pressures
Estimates of Ko in such deposits can be obtained from a
knowledge of the over-consolidation ratio (OCR) using the
expression:
sin '
K o K onc OCR
This equation is not applicable if the deposit has been
subsequently reloaded, as the effective stresses then follow the
path BC and tend towards the initial loading path
Thus for a given soil deposit, Ko can vary from location to
location depending on the stress history at each. Its value must
lie between Ka and Kp and its relative position between these
limits will govern the amount of movement required to
mobilize either.
20

Earth pressures
In normally consolidated soil, Ko is slightly larger than Ka.
Little horizontal movement will therefore be necessary to
mobilize active earth pressure conditions, whereas significant
movements will be needed to mobilize passive conditions. In
a heavily over-consolidated soil, Ko is larger & slightly less
than Kp. The vice versa is then true.

21

Earth pressures
Earth pressure coefficients are dependent on
the effective angle of shearing resistance,
c the apparent cohesion, or cu the undrained shear strength,
the angle of wall friction,
cw the wall adhesion.

The values can usually be chosen by reference to the

borehole logs, standard penetration tests, and laboratory
tests and descriptions.
The value of c is is influenced by the stress level of the test,
the rate of strain, the degree of weathering and the amount
of swelling experienced before the test. The values are only
of the order of 0-10 kN/m. Unless the engineer is
confident about the value of c it is recommended that it be
taken as zero, as it can have a significant effect on the
design.
22

Earth pressures
The values of and cw, however, is usually estimated by the engineer, and
the values chosen will have a significant effect on the earth pressure
coefficients, particularly for the passive case. For temporary steel sheet pile
cofferdams it is recommended that the maximum values of these
parameters should not exceed:

Note: c normally taken as zero

Where the toe of the wall penetrates into hard rock the above values
should be reduced by 50% for any overlying dense granular material or
over-consolidated clay. For overlying loose granular material the values
should be taken as zero. For anchor walls which have the freedom to move
upwards on mobilization of the passive pressure then zero values should be
taken.
23

Earth pressures - at rest

In undisturbed ground the at rest pressure is
Kov
where:
Ko

= The at rest pressure coefficient

& v = Effective vertical stress

Normally consolidated ground Ko = 1-sin

24

Earth pressures - Short-term, undrained, total stress analysis

The limiting active and passive pressures acting on the wall at any depth z are
given by:
pa = Kav - Kaccu
pp = Kpv + Kpccu
where
v =
=
q =
Ka =
Kp =
cu =
cw =

Total horizontal pressure active

Total horizontal pressure passive

z + q Total vertical stress

Bulk density
Any uniform surcharge on ground surface
Active pressure coefficient (taken as 1.0 in this case)
Passive pressure coefficient (taken as 1.0 in this case)
Undrained shear strength
Wall adhesion

cw
K ac 2 1
cu

K pc

cw
2 1
cu
25

Earth pressures - Short-term, undrained, total stress analysis

Active pressure cannot be less than hydrostatic water pressure, i.e.,
tension crack will fill up with water. The depth of the tension crack will
be (2cu-q)/. The active water pressure will be wz where z = depth from
the surface.
Where tension cracks will not fill with water, and to take account of
any softening of the clay, the total active pressure at any level should be
assumed to be not less than 5z kN/m. This is known as the Minimum
Equivalent Fluid Pressure with the density of being 5 kN/m.
For passive pressures it is recommended that a reduction factor is
applied to the undrained shear strength, cu, to allow for any general
softening of the clay during the period of the temporary work. In
addition cu should be taken as zero at excavation level and increased
linearly to its reduced value at a depth of one metre.

26

Earth pressures - Long-term, drained, effective stress analysis

The limiting active and passive pressures acting on the wall at any depth z are
given by:
pa= Kav- Kacc
pp= Kpv+ Kpcc
where
v=
=
q =
Ka =
Kp =
c =
cw =

Total horizontal pressure active

Total horizontal pressure passive

z + q Total vertical stress

Bulk density
Any uniform surcharge on ground surface
Active pressure coefficient (taken as 1.0 in this case)
Passive pressure coefficient (taken as 1.0 in this case)
Undrained shear strength
Wall adhesion

cw
K ac 2 K a 1
c'

K pc

cw
2 K p 1
c'

27

Earth pressures - Long-term, drained, effective stress analysis

It is recommended that c (& cw/c) be taken as zero unless
there is confident of the values.
The pore water pressure must be added to the effective
horizontal pressure to give the total horizontal pressure
acting on the wall.
i.e. pa = pa + u

p p = pp + u

28

Earth pressures - Mixed total and effective stress analysis

Mixed total and effective stress design can be appropriate for temporary works
design in stiff clays. Effective stresses with full water pressures are used for the
active pressures at the back of the wall, at least over the zone of potential tension
cracks, i.e. to a depth of (2cu-q)/.
Total stresses can be used below this zone provided that there is an active pressure
of not less than the equivalent minimum fluid pressure, 5z kN/m. Total stresses are
used for the passive pressures in front of the wall using appropriate undrained shear
strength values, cu, making due allowance for general softening of the clay. In
addition a reduction of cu to zero over in the first metre of ground below excavation
level should be made.

Pressure diagram for mixed

total & effective stress design

29

Design of wall members

Temporary works where traditional construction techniques
is adopted, only the long-term or permanent conditions need
be checked.
However, for basements excavation where the wall structural
member is subject to differing temporary and permanent
conditions, both cases must be considered.

30

Design of wall members

Applied wall forces are derived from the following:
1. Soil and groundwater pressures acting behind and in front of the wall
together with surcharge pressures from construction load, buildings or
roads.
2. Reactions from the support systems, both temporary and permanent.
These forces may induce axial compressions or tensions due to
inclination of anchors or struts. CIRIA Report C517 provides design
guidance for temporary props based on extensive field measurements
for a wide range of props & ground conditions.
3. Abnormal loadings, higher groundwater levels caused by flooding or
water-filled tension cracks, accident or construction surcharges. For
longer-term, it is only necessary to consider average or ambient
loading conditions
4. Building permanent loads such as floor slabs and columns. These
forces may be eccentric to the wall and generate bending moments.
31

Design of wall members

Bending moments and shear forces
BS 8110 & 5400 require load factors to be applied to service conditions @
1.4 and 1.5 respectively to obtain ULS values. BS 8110 states that this
factor can be reduced if the loads are derived from an elastic analysis. If
soil strengths are factored in order to derive the loads, in accordance with
the recommendations of CIRIA 580 & BS 8002, the requirements in the
structural codes are not appropriate. This somewhat confusing situation
is discussed more fully in Section A8.2.7 of CIRIA 580.
BS 8002 suggests that soil structure interaction calculations, modeling the
SLS, can also be used to estimate the structural loads, and implies that
these loads are not factored to provide a ULS value. CIRIA 580,
recommends that the SLS values be multiplied by 1.35. It also
recommends to check both SLS and limit equilibrium, and that the value
used for the ULS structural design is the greater of the two values:
the values derived using the factored soil strengths
the SLS values multiplied by 1.35.
32

Design of wall members

Wall movements and cracking
When subjected to the complex loading from soil,
groundwater and structure, the wall structural member will,
to a greater or lesser extent, deform. Wall stiffness often has
little influence on the total deformations, which are governed
primarily by soil conditions, the method and sequence of
construction and the wall support system.
All wall members will crack. However, as it is often the
primary defense against groundwater ingress, crack control is
necessary - BS 8007. Long-term durability also depends on
the severity of cracking.

33

DESIGN & DURATION OF LOADING

Temporary works may have to function for periods of one to two years. This
is particularly significant for the design of temporary retaining system in
over-consolidated clay soils as they have a high short-term (undrained)
strength that reduces with time.
The strength of normally consolidated clays in the temporary condition is
often taken as undrained. But there are circumstances in which the drained
strength may be both appropriate and more critical; e.g. the calculation of
soil passive resistance beneath the base of an excavation.
For over-consolidated clay CIRIA 104 recommends that where the drained
strength of the clay is taken a lower factor of safety should be used (as the
drained strength is lower & better defined). For temporary conditions a
mixed drained/undrained approach is suggested, where the retained clay is
treated as drained, but a reduced undrained strength (to allow for softening
of the soil immediately below the excavation) is used to calculate passive
resistance. This approach should only be used where there is considerable
experience of excavations within the clay stratum concerned or where the
temporary conditions are of short duration.
34

Computer programs for designing retaining systems

Analysis involves simplifications and idealizations. An
appropriate analysis is one that adequately models the
dominant effects without being overly complex.
One of the dangers of computer programs is that they are
easy to use without the user necessarily having an
understanding of the principles and idealizations on which
they are based. We must understand their principles and
limitations. Simple programs are often adequate for
analyzing bending moments and shear forces in a wall, but
are likely to be inadequate for modeling ground movements.
Traditional methods which are based on a prescribed
distribution of earth pressures.
Deformation methods in which the earth pressure
distribution is computed as a function of ground and
structural stiffness
35

Use of Computer Program

The use of a computer program is encouraged subject to the
following:
the program should be validation in detail before general use
the output must include all the input data necessary to carry
out an independent check
use of the program must be by or under the direct supervision
of an experienced engineer.
Use of a computer program saves time. This also enables a number of
analyses to be made in a relatively short time, and thus the sensitivity of the
structure to changes in ground conditions, water levels and prop levels can be
assessed. It is advisable to carry out an independent manual check on the
final computer analysis. It is recommended that true scale pressure diagrams
showing ground strata, water, excavation and strut levels are drawn by hand
if they are not part of the output from the program.
Last Lecture
36

Use of Computer Program

Multi-prop walls
Analysis of walls with more than one level of props is complicated by the
complex soil/structure interaction arising from the construction sequence.
The ground is usually excavated in stages and the props are introduced at
each level. This modifies the behavior of the surrounding ground so that the
classical active state cannot develop.
The major concern is to assess the strut loads at each level of props.
Experience has shown that most failures occur due to overload in the props,
often accompanied by local web failures of the walings if they are not
adequately stiffened. Failures by bending of the walls or walings are rare.
The positions of struts are usually selected to prevent excessive deflections
during construction of the cofferdam and to suit the construction sequence
for the works within it. We also need to check the overall stability of the
cofferdam and its base.

Last Lecture
37

Use of Computer Program

Props are the most vulnerable elements in the retaining system
and are usually over-designed. Failures are extremely rare and
are generally caused by poor detailing, misjudgment of ground
conditions or accidents.
The failure of a prop could have serious consequences and might
lead to progressive collapse of the excavation. Buckling failures
also tend to be sudden.
The cost of the propping system is usually small in comparison
with the cost of the retaining wall. While efficient design of the
propping system is to be encouraged, this is not an area in
which a major reduction in overall construction costs should be
expected.

38

Design of wall members

Limit equilibrium programs Traditional
These programs are based on the simplest form of analysis. A
limiting condition is assumed and equilibrium applied to
obtain a solution. Programs are available to analyze gravity
walls, embedded cantilever and singly-propped walls. Active
and passive soil conditions are usually assumed with various
types of safety factor.
For multi-propped walls, empirically derived soil pressure
distributions are sometimes employed. These programs are
best used to obtain basic wall dimensions such as embedment
& estimate structural service loads. They give approximate
but unreliable solution to the complex deep basements
excavation, and therefore not recommended. Such programs
do not account for soil-structure interaction and cannot
estimate wall and/or soil movements.
39

Design of wall members

Limit equilibrium programs
When considering the stability of gravity retaining walls or
anchored embedded walls, it is necessary to calculate slope
stability. Generally such analysis programs allow for both
circular and non-circular slip surfaces and using factored, or
mobilized soil strength.
It must be emphasized that all of the above computation
methods should be calibrated against case histories. Many
assumptions are required for the input parameters and even
finite-element analyses cannot be relied upon to give sensible
results without some calibration.
For simpler programs, calibration is even more important as
they are more limited than FEM in their ability to
extrapolate from a situation where the results are known to
another.
40

Design of wall members

Limit equilibrium method for a of cantilever wall

The pressures at the toe of the pile have been replaced by a resultant force F3 at C some distance
above the toe. The forces F1 and F3 act through the centres of gravity of their respective areas.
The depth BC is found by assuming a level for C and calculating the moments for the forces F1
and F3 about level C. This is repeated until the moments are in balance.
To correct the error caused by the use of the simplified method the depth BC should be
increased by 20% to give the design penetration BD.
The maximum bending moment occurs at the point of zero shear at level X-X.

41

Design of wall members

Normalized depths of embedment at failure (after Bica and Clayton, 1998)
Dry sand ps is the peak value of the
plane strain angle of shearing resistance

ps degree
42

Design of wall members

Limit equilibrium method for a propped wall with free earth support

T the prop load, F1 and F2 act through the centres of gravity of their respective
areas. To calculate the penetration BD the depth of d is assumed and moments of
the forces F1 and F2 are calculated about the level of the prop T. This is repeated
until the moments balance.
The prop load T can then be found by balancing the forces, i.e.:
T = F1 - F2
& the maximum bending moment in the pile will be at the level of zero shear X-X.
43

Design of wall members

Limit equilibrium method for a propped wall with fixed earth support

Simplify equivalent beam method

The forces at the toe of the pile are replaced by a resultant force F3 some distance above the toe. Then
assume the point of zero bending moment (level Y-Y) occurs at the level where the active and passive
pressures balance i.e. the net pressure is zero.
T the prop load and F1, F2 & F3 acting through the centres of gravity of their respective areas.
The simplified pressure diagram show force F3 acts at the level of C. The prop load T can then be found by
taking moments about and above level Y-Y (assumed point of zero bending moment). Finally the depth of
C can be found by assuming its level and calculating the moments about and above this level. This is
repeated until the moments balance.
To correct the error caused by the use of the simplified method the depth BC is increased by 20% to give
the design penetration BD. The maximum bending moment in the pile occurs at level X-X, the point of
zero shear.
44

Design of Prop members

Limit equilibrium method
The design of the props will depend upon the analysis method adopted in
the calculations for the design of the wall. Prop loads calculated from
limit equilibrium calculations may be unconservative, as the effects of
soil-structure interaction are not included. In such circumstances, the
calculated prop loads should be increased by 85% to allow for the effects
of stress redistribution & arching behind the wall. Soil-structure
interaction methods that allow stress redistribution to model more
realistically the non-linear pressure profile behind the wall should provide
calculated values of prop loads that better represent the particular project
circumstances modeled. Irrespective of the type of analysis undertaken,
the calculated prop loads should be checked for adequacy by comparing
them with those derived from comparable experience, Wherever possible,
this should be based on reliable field measurements from ease history data
in comparable conditions.

45

Type of analysis
Advantages
/software
Limit
equilibrium

Needs only the

soil strength

e.g. STAWAL,
ReWaRD

Simple &
straightforward

Limitations
Does not model soil-structure
interaction, wall flexibility &
construction sequence
Does not calculate deformations.
Hand calculations of deformations
possible by relating mobilized
strength, soil shear strain & wall
rotation (rarely done); or through
empirical databases
Statically indeterminate systems
(e.g. multi-propped waits), nonuniform surcharges & berms require
considerable idealization
Can model only drained (effective
stress) or undrained (total stress)
conditions
2-D only
Results take no account of preexcavation stress state
46

Design of prop members

Traditional methods are quite simple to use and errors
leading to failure are very rare. One of the most widely used
methods, that proposed by Terzaghi and Peck (1967), is
compared with prop load measurements on site, and in most
cases the calculated loads are higher than those measured.
Will be discussed later in more details

47

Design of wall members

With current computing power, more complex methods of
analysis have been developed and are widely available. These
methods are collectively known as deformation methods.
In these methods the internal wall and support forces for the
temporary support system are calculated. The computed
support forces are often greater than those obtained from the
more traditional methods.
beam on springs
beam on elastic continuum
finite difference methods
boundary element methods
finite element methods
48

Prop loads
In some cases deformation methods of calculation predict
much larger prop loads than those which arise in practice.
Field measurements of 46 props from four sites are compared
with values calculated by deformation methods before the
excavations were made (Stroud et al, 1994).
The calculated values are generally 1.4 - 10 times the
measured values. There are a few props that fall outside this
range. Five of these attracted little or no load at all and there
were six props for which the calculated load was 0.7 - 1.3
times the measured load.

49

Prop loads

All computation methods/programs should be calibrated against case histories

50

Design of wall members

Beam-on-spring model programs
Retaining wall is represented by a beam & the soil and props
as a series of springs.
For embedded walls, a more realistic estimate is often
needed, and the calculation should take soil-structure
interaction into account. The simplest of these represent the
wall as a structural member usually employing a finitedifference or finite-element approximation, with the soil as a
series of unconnected springs.
The construction sequence is simulated by adding and
subtracting loads from the wall. Both structural stresses and
wall movements are calculated. While such programs
represent a significant improvement over the simpler limit
equilibrium approaches, they still have severe imitations. For
example:
51

Design of wall members

Beam-on-spring model programs
It is difficult to select appropriate spring stiffness to
represent the soil require judgment & experience.
It is difficult to include the effects of any soil berm.
By representing the soil with a set of independent springs,
it is difficult/impossible to reproduce the observed stress
redistribution arising from wall flexibility.
Generally do not allow for the influence of the release in
vertical stress caused by the process of excavation. Thus,
deep-seated movements arising from this process are not
included.
Only the wall movements are computed, difficult to
estimate the movements of adjacent Structures
52

Design of wall members

Beam-on-spring model programs
These programs compute prop forces, earth pressures,
internal bending moments, shear forces and wall movements.
In comparison with field data, the computed values are often
conservative, particularly in the case of prop loads.
The corresponding movements cannot be found with
sufficient accuracy from a simple elastic model of this type
and operators may manipulate the input in order to influence
the calculated deflections.
Movements predicted from this type of analysis should be
regarded with caution.

53

Design of wall members

Beam on e1astic continuum programs
In this method the soil is represented as an elastic continuum
generated by interpolation of a pre-stored library of results
from finite element computations.

54

Type of analysis
Advantages
/software
Subgrade
reaction/beam
on springs
e.g. WALLAP

Full soil-structure
interaction analyosis is
possible, modelling
construction sequence,
etc.
Soil modelled as a bed
of elastic springs
Soil-structure
interaction taken into
account
Wall movements are
calculated
Relatively
straightforward

Limitations
Idealisation of soil
behavior is likely to be
crude
Subgrade moduli can be
difficult to assess
2D only
Berms and certain
structural connections
are difficult to model
Global effects not
modeled explicitly
Ground movements
around wall are not
calculated

Results take account of

excavation stress state
55

Design of wall members

Boundary element programs
In these programs the soil to each side of the wall is
represented by a boundary element. These programs
overcome most of the difficulties listed earlier apart from the
estimation of the movements of adjacent structures. They
also involve many assumptions and simplifying idealizations:
Can give a good understanding of how the overall system
behaves and which parameters are likely to control the
designs
May not give realistic displacement predictions.

56

Type of analysis
Advantages
/software
Pseudo-finite
element
e.g. PREW
WALLAP

Full soil-structure
interaction analysis is
possible, modeling
construction sequence, etc

Limitations
2D only
Limited to linear
elastic soil model, with
active & passive limits

Soil modeled as an elastic

solid with soil stiffness
matrices calculated using a
finite element program

Berms and certain

structural connections
are difficult to model

Soil-structure interaction
takes into account

Global effects not

modeled explicitly

Wall movements are

calculated

Ground movements
around wall are not
calculated

Relatively straightforward
Takes account of preexcavation stress state

57

Design of wall members

Numerical analysis programs
FEM in which the soil and wall are modeled as a mesh of
elements, In this way increasingly complex soil behaviour can
be modelled, e.g. as linear elastic/plastic and bi-linear
elastic/plastic materials, Highly nonlinear behavior of soil
can also be included by more complex methods such as the
brick model.
FEA are complicated and must be used by experienced
engineers. It is also necessary to estimate the initial stresses
in the ground after wall installation. Wall installation tends
to reduce significantly the in-situ earth pressure coefficient
Ko, which is itself difficult to establish for heavily overconsolidated soils.

58

Design of wall members

Numerical analysis programs
At one particular site, the widely adopted approach, where
the installation effects are ignored and elastic/perfectly
plastic soil behavior is assumed, gave good predictions of
movement, but prop loads were over-estimated. The
prediction of prop load improved with the effect of wall
installation included.
FEM is complex and cannot be regarded as infallible. Good
results come from experienced engineers in well researched
soils. The selection of input parameters and the
interpretation of the results require care and experience.
FEM is of greatest benefit in the design of support systems
for excavations which, by reason of their size or complexity,
fall outside the range of available case histories.
59

Design of wall members

Numerical analysis programs
Usually based on FEM and it is in principle possible to
analyze the complete 3D construction process from
temporary to permanent works, current limitations on
computing resources usually restrict analyses to 2D plane
strain or axis-symmetric sections. With such an approach, it
is possible to simulate the construction process and include
all significant structural members. Stresses, retrains and
movements both in the soil & structure can be predicted. The
effects on adjacent structures such as tunnels, sewers and
buildings can also be assessed.
The method is more expensive & requires detailed
information on soil properties, etc. Full FEA have become
more widely used. Nicoll Highway Incident, Fort Canning
Tunnel by NUS.
60

Design of wall members

For design purposes a compromise approach is to
carry out a limited number of full numerical
analyses in combination with simpler computations.
The FEM analyses are then used to calibrate the
simpler approaches, which is then used to assess the
effects of design modifications.
Once the design is finalized, it may be necessary to
carry out a few additional full numerical analyses to
check the adopted solution.
In Singapore, critical excavation is always by FEM
as computation resource only limits 3D analysis. So
it is 3D to calibrate 2D FEA.
61

Design of wall & prop members

Deformation methods as well as traditional
methods, should be calibrated against field
measurements. The case histories summarized in
CIRIA 517 provide a frame of reference against
which analytical results can be judged.
Where calculated prop loads obtained analytically
differ significantly from those predicted from case
histories by the empirical method given. The
physical reasons for the differences should be
identified and explained as part of the design report
which includes the analyses.
62

Type of analysis
/software
Finite element &
finite difference
e.g. SAFE (2D FE)
PLAXIS (2D & 3D
FE)
CRISP (2D & 3D
FE)
FLAC (3D & 3D
FD)
ABAQUS (3D FE)
DYNA (3D FE)

Advantages
Full soil-structure interaction
analysis is possible, modeling
construction sequence etc
Complex soil models can
represent variation of
stiffness with strain &
anisotropy
Takes account of preexcavation stress state
Can model complex wall and
excavation geometry
including structural &
support details
Wall and ground movements
are computed
Potentially good
representation of pore water
response
Can model consolidation as
soil moves from undrained to
drained conditions
Can carry out 2D or 3D
analyses

Limitations
Can be time-consuming to set up
& difficult to model certain
aspects, eg wall installation
Quality of results dependent on
availability of appropriate stress
strain models for the ground
Extensive high-quality data (eg
pre-excavation lateral stresses as
welt as soil stiffness and strength)
needed to obtain most
representative results
Simple (linear elastic) soil model
may give unrealistic ground
movements
Structural characterization of
many geotechnical finite element
and finite difference packages
may be crude
Significant software-specific
experience required by user
Basic representation of pore
water response
63

TEMPERATURE EFFECTS
Designers noma1ly ignore temperature effects in
props for flexible walls, but account for them in
props for stiff walls
Where the effects of temperature are explicitly
considered, it is usual to follow the guidance given
in BS5400: Part 2 also referenced in Bridge Design
Standard BD42/94. Designers either choose a small
temperature range, e.g. 10C, but assume the prop to
be completely restrained, or they adopt a larger
temperature range, e.g. 30C, but assume the
temperature effect to be only 50% cent of the fully
restrained value.
64

TEMPERATURE EFFECTS
Reductions in temperature below prop installation
temperature will normally remove the effect of any pre-load,
to zero in some instance.
Envelopes produced by Peck (1969a) are based on max.
measured loads with some temperature effects.
It is not usual for deformation methods of analysis to include
temperature effects, although this is possible. Temperature
effects are normally added to the predicted prop loads after
the analysis is complete.
Safety factor is lower when temperature effect is to be
considered (1.2). Load caused by effect of temperature range
are passive action, as the load increase in caused by prop
pushing against the ground, unlike persistent acting earth
pressure. Any yielding of strut system will release such load.
65

Prop members Temperature effects on props

Change in temperature of a prop from its installation temperature will cause
it to expand or contract according to the relationship:
L = tL
where:
L = change in prop length
= thermal coefficient of expansion for the prop material
t = change in prop temperature from the installation temperature
L = prop length.
If prop is restricted from expanding freely, additional load is generated in
the prop. The magnitude of this additional load is:
Ptemp = tEA(/100)
where:
E = Youngs modulus of the prop material
A = cross-sectional area of the prop
= percentage degree of restraint of the prop. (70% for stiff walls in stiff
ground & 40% for flexible walls in stiff ground).
Select the appropriate value of to suit particular project circumstances &
on the basis of comparable experience.
66

Prop members TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS in Spore

Measured Strut Loads and Temperature Change with Time

MRT North East Line Dhoby Ghaut station
J. X. Niu et al
67

Prop members Temperature effects on props

Load Increase in Struts of Various Sizes in Temperature Change of 10oC.

E, Youngs modulus of steel, is equal to 205x106 kN/m2 and
Thermal coefficient of expansion for steel and is equal to 12x10-6/oC
* Rigidity of strut system should also be considered. We should consider effective E*
68

Prop members TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS in Spore

Measured Wall Movements and Temperature Change with Time

MRT North East Line Dhoby Ghaut station
J. X. Niu et al
69

Design of prop members

For multipropped walls, as it is difficult to predict
the pressure distribution acting on the back of a
wall, empirical methods were developed, eg
Terzaghi and Peck (1967). These methods are based
on the results of actual field measurements and take
account of the method of construction

70

Apparent Earth Pressure Diagrams

Pressure envelope method Terzaghi and Peck

Sand

Soft/medium clay

Stiff clay
Last Lecture
71

Apparent Earth Pressure Diagrams

Last Lecture
72

Design of prop members CIRIA C517 CLASSIFICATION

Excavation classified on the basis of the type of ground:
Class A-

normally and slightly overconsolidated clay soils (soft and firm

clays)

Class B -

heavily overconsolidated clay soils (stiff and very stiff clays)

Class C -

granular/cohesionless soils

Class D -

walls retaining both cohesive and cohesionless soils (mixed soils).

For firm & soft clays (Class A) and stiff clays (Class B) these have been sub-divided
according to wall type based on the wall stiffness:
Flexible (F) walls - timber sheet pile and soldier pile/king post walls
Stiff (S) walls - contiguous, secant and diaphragm concrete walls.
Flexible walls retaining soft clay soil (Class AF) have been further sub-divided
according to base stability conditions into stable and enhanced stability cases.
Walls in granular soils (Class C) are sub-divided into dry and submerged cases.
The classification is denoted by its reference number. For example, BF3 is a case
history for an excavation in an over-consolidated clay (B) supported by a flexible wall
(F). Within each classification the number increases with excavation depth, e.g. AF1
is the shallowest excavation and AF28 the deepest.
73

Apparent Earth Pressure Diagrams

Variations of total prop load within an excavation (after Flaate and Peck, 1973)
74

Design of prop members CIRIA C517 CLASSIFICATION

Variations between the loads in props within the same
excavation are very significant, 30%-60%. It follows that:
1. Designer of a propping system should expect large
variations in load within the temporary propping system.
The entire system should redistribute load from any
overstressed element. The eventual collapse mechanism
should be ductile (yielding under constant Load) rather than
brittle.
2. Maximum load at a prop level is much higher than the
average prop load within the excavation at that prop level.
3. Measurement of loads in only one or two of the props
within an excavation may markedly under-predict the actual
maximum prop load.
75

Prop members TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS

Temperature changes have little effect on prop loads, at least for props
supporting flexible walls & soft ground.
But for props supporting stiff walls in stiff (Class B and C) soils,
temperature effects are normally considered in design.
It is concluded that temperature effects should be allowed for by making
simple checks on the structural members selected as props, but that an
increase in characteristic prop loads may not be required, e.g. safety factor is
normally lower if temperature range ( 5-7%) is considered.
Prop temperature is similar to the ambient air temperature.

76

Prop members PRELOADING

Props can be preloaded either by jacking between the prop and the waling. It
is often applied to flexible king post and lagging systems to take up the
initial slack following installation. Preloading is a significant additional
cost.
The preload applied to take up slack in the support system is typically
around 10% of the design (working) load. In some cases additional preload
of 50-80% of the design load was applied to stiffen the support system in an
attempt to reduce wall deflections. Preloads of that order will result in the
wall being pushed back into the ground when they are applied.
Preloading does not reduce the variation in loading between individual
props. Temperature changes can vary the prop load, & in some cases, fall in
temperature can completely eliminate the effect of preloading.
Preloading a prop with a higher load than is needed to take up slack in the
support system can result in a higher prop load than would otherwise be
required. Most engineers consider that there is little benefit in introducing
additional load in this way.

77

Prop members PRELOADING

Loss of preload due to a reduction in prop temperature

78

Analysis using the distributed prop load method

Prop loads are currently determined either by traditional methods or by
deformation methods, but the reliability of any method can only be
evaluated by comparison with reliable field measurements.
Methods of predicting prop loads directly from field measurements were
1st developed by Terzaghi and Peck (1967).

Method for calculating the distributed prop load

79

Analysis using the distributed prop load method

Some modifications are proposed and predictions are now
given in terms of characteristic values used in limit state
codes, such as BS8110, BS5400, Eurocodes and BS5950. In
limit state terminology the characteristic value is a cautious
estimate and in statistical terms is the one which has only a
5% probability of being exceeded.
There are a number of factors that require further
consideration:
1. Duration of loading
2. Temperature effects
3. Base stability (for excavations in soft clays).

80

REVIEW OF PECKS RECOMMENDATIONS

The principal findings are:
1. The envelopes originally proposed by Peck did not enclose all
the data on which they were based, but covered within the
factor of safety of the prop.
2. Loads from the apparent earth pressure envelopes is not the
characteristic loads in a limit state calculation.
3. Case histories available confirm that Pecks tentative
recommendations for stiff walls in stiff clays are not
conservative.
4. The widely used practice of taking the buoyant weight of the
soil along with a careful estimate of the possible water pressure
was found to give reasonable agreement with the measured
loads & a modified envelope for granular soils is put forward on
that basis.
5. No simple conclusion was reached in respect of Class D (mixed
soils) sites.
81

Class B, C & D soils

For Class B soils (heavily overconsolidated clay) the negative pore
water pressures decrease towards equilibrium values with time & the
effective stresses, hence soil strength reduces.
Pore pressure changes in cohesionless soils (Class C) occur rapidly.
They would not gradual variations in load with time. In certain
circumstances the creep of granular soils can be sufficient to cause
build-up of load with time.
Mixed soils profiles (Class D) would only be expected to have load
variations with time if there were sufficiently thick layers of clay
that would not drain quickly. Cases D14a to c include the presence
of a 4 m thick stratum of what is predominantly clay within a
generally cohesionless soil profile, but there were no significant prop
load increases over a 12-month period.
Observations indicate that significant increases in prop load can
occur with time in excavations within Class B and Class D soils, but
that this is not always observed and that increases in load may be
minimal.
82

Normalized DPL diagrams according to the classification

are as follows:
Soft clays & flexible walls with enhanced base stability
(Class AF)
Soft clays & flexible walls with stable bases (Class AF)
Firm clays & flexible walls (Class AF)
Soft clays & stiff walls (Class AS)
Stiff clays & flexible walls (Class BF)
Stiff clays & stiff walls (Class BS)
Granular soils (Class C)
Layered cohesive and granular soils (Class D).
83

Characteristic distributed prop load diagrams for Class

A, Class B & Class C soils
Class A soils (soft to firm clays)
For Class AS, tentatively as Class AF

84

Characteristic distributed prop load diagrams for Class

A, Class B & Class C soils
Class B soils (stiff to very stiff clays)

85

Characteristic distributed prop load diagrams for Class

A, Class B & Class C soils
Class C soils (granular Soils)

86