This article was downloaded by: [Kang Fong Pong]

On: 18 July 2012, At: 18:36

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The IES Journal Part A: Civil & Structural Engineering

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tiea20

Design considerations for one-strut failure according to

TR26 a practical approach for practising engineers
a a a a b
K.F. Pong , S.L. Foo , C.G. Chinnaswamy , C.C.D. Ng & W.L. Chow
a
Geotechnical Engineering Department, Meinhardt Infrastructure Pte Ltd (Member of
Meinhardt Group), Singapore
b
Formerly of Geotechnical Amberg and TTI Engineering Pte Ltd

Version of record first published: 18 Jul 2012

To cite this article: K.F. Pong, S.L. Foo, C.G. Chinnaswamy, C.C.D. Ng & W.L. Chow (2012): Design considerations for one-
strut failure according to TR26 a practical approach for practising engineers, The IES Journal Part A: Civil & Structural
Engineering, 5:3, 166-180

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19373260.2012.700790

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to
anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should
be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims,
proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in
connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 The IES Journal Part A: Civil & Structural Engineering
Vol. 5, No. 3, August 2012, 166180

TECHNICAL PAPER
Design considerations for one-strut failure according to TR26 a practical approach for practising
engineers
K.F. Ponga*, S.L. Fooa, C.G. Chinnaswamya, C.C.D. Nga and W.L. Chowb
a
Geotechnical Engineering Department, Meinhardt Infrastructure Pte Ltd (Member of Meinhardt Group), Singapore; bFormerly of
Geotechnical Amberg and TTI Engineering Pte Ltd
(Received 22 May 2012; nal version received 13 June 2012)

Technical Reference 26: 2010 (TR26: 2010) requires the design of an earth retaining and stabilising system (ERSS) to
be structurally safe, robust and has sucient redundancy to avoid catastrophic collapse of the ERSS system resulting
from an isolated case of overloading or failure of any particular member which may lead to the failure of adjacent
members thus leading to progressive failure. One such redundancy check is the condition, where failure of a single
strut, anchor or tie-rod occurs or more commonly known as one-strut failure (OSF) stated in Clause 3.7.4 of TR26:
2010 at each stage of the construction works. Analysis for OSF is actually a three-dimensional (3D) problem and
Downloaded by [Kang Fong Pong] at 18:36 18 July 2012

carrying out such 3D analyses covering all the cases of wall stiness, properties of the soil layers, friction between
retaining wall panels in the case of diaphragm wall, soil arching eect due to the deection of the retaining wall, etc. is
very time consuming. In the conventional approach for OSF using two-dimensional (2D) plane strain analysis, the
whole layer of failing strut is removed and thus provides paths to distribute the forces in the vertical direction only.
This usually leads to more conservative design with heavier struts sections. In this paper, a procedure to rationally
idealise OSF from a 3D analysis to a 2D plane strain analysis is presented. This simplied approach will be more
practical for practising engineers to arrive at a more ecient design without the need for rigorous 3D analysis. The
results of this simplied approach are compared with the conventional approach and results incorporating appropriate
strut stiness from 3D analysis. The comparison showed that the approach is reasonable.
Keywords: numerical modelling; deep excavation; practical approach; three-dimensional analysis; one-strut failure;
redundancy check; catastrophic collapse; overloading; progressive failure; TR26

1. Introduction to bad tting or strut failure due to disproportionate

Due to scarcity of land aboveground especially in
urban area, underground infrastructure projects such
as underground rails, roads and utilities tunnels
networks are increasingly built and are often in close
proximity to existing structures and buildings. The
construction of these underground structures inevita-
bly requires the use of safe and robust earth retaining
and stabilising system (ERSS) for the deep excavations
to minimise ground movement and impact to the
surrounding structures and buildings. Hence, the
structural safety and robustness are the prime con-
siderations and requirements of the ERSS design and
construction. Furthermore, the ERSS should have
sucient redundancy to avoid any catastrophic col-
lapse of the supporting system resulting from an
isolated case of overloading or failure of any particular
supporting element. In an ERSS system, overall failure
as described by Puller (2003) is more likely to occur
either as a result of inadequate strutting or passive soil
failure if the key-in depth is inadequate. Sometimes,
this inadequacy in the strutting system may occur due
loads. The load of the failed strut will be redistributed
to the adjacent struts which are not designed for these
additional loads, thus resulting in the progressive
failure of the whole strutting system.
Clause 3.7.4 of Technical Reference 26: 2010
(TR26: 2010) states that the design for deep excavations
should accommodate possible failure of any individual
strut, tie rod, ground anchor, structural member or
connection at each stage of the construction works. The
wall and remaining supporting members, including
walings and connections, should be capable of carrying
the load from the failed member. The remaining
structural system and wall should continue to be safe
without causing any danger to surrounding adjacent
structures and properties. This requirement is commonly
known in Singapore as one-strut failure (OSF). It is
necessary to consider the requirement of OSF in the
design of the ERSS for deep excavation.
In practice, it may not be necessary to check all the
combinations of OSF. For example, if there are six
struts in a deep excavation, the total number of

*Corresponding author. Email: pkf@meinhardt-infra.com.sg

ISSN 1937-3260 print/ISSN 1937-3279 online

2012 The Institution of Engineers, Singapore
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19373260.2012.700790
http://www.tandfonline.com
 The IES Journal Part A: Civil & Structural Engineering
possible cases of OSF is 21. It is very onerous to check
all 21 cases. In reality, only six cases need to be
analysed. The rst case is OSF for strut at level 1 (S1)
when the excavation reaches strut at level 2 (S2) but
before installing S2. The second case is OSF for S2
when the excavation reaches strut at level 3 (S3) but
before installing S3, etc. The sixth case is OSF for strut
at level 6 (S6) when the excavation reaches the nal
excavation level.
Analysis for OSF is actually a three-dimensional
(3D) problem and carrying out such 3D analyses
covering all the cases of wall stiness, properties of the
soil layers, friction between retaining wall panels in
the case of diaphragm wall, soil arching eect due to
the deection of the retaining wall etc. is very time
consuming. In the conventional design approach for
OSF using two-dimensional (2D) plane strain analysis,
the whole layer of failing strut is removed and thus
Downloaded by [Kang Fong Pong] at 18:36 18 July 2012
provides paths to distribute the forces in the vertical
direction only. This usually leads to more conservative
design with heavier struts sections. In this paper, a
procedure to rationally idealise the OSF case from a
3D analysis to a 2D plane strain analysis is presented.
This approach will be more practical for practising
engineers to arrive at a more ecient design without
the need for rigorous 3D analysis. The results of this
approach are compared with the conventional ap-
proach and results incorporating appropriate strut
stiness from 3D analysis of OSF.
Figure 1. Strut layout of a typical ERSS for deep excavation projects.
167
2. Modelling of strutting system
Figure 1 shows a typical layout of the strutting system
for an ERSS commonly used in deep excavation
projects. The soil and water pressures acting on the
retaining wall are partially transferred to the struts
through the walers and partially to the soil support
below the excavation level. In this force transfer
mechanism from soil to strut, the waler acts as a
load distributing member and the strut acts as
compression member to balance the soil and water
pressures from both sides of the ERSS to maintain the
force equilibrium in the system and thus stabilises the
ERSS.
In order to carry out the plane strain analysis, the
equivalent stiness of the strut supporting system is
needed in the 2D numerical analysis. This equivalent
stiness can be obtained as two springs in series as
shown in Figure 2 and can be derived as follows:
When two springs are serially connected, the total
spring displacement due a given load is the sum of the
individual spring deections while subjected to the
same loading. In other words,
deqvt dw ds 1
where d represents the deections and the suxes
eqvt,w and s represent equivalent, waler and struts,
respectively.
 168 K.F. Pong et al.
Figure 2. Simplied model of strut-waler support system for retaining wall in deep excavation.
Re-writing the spring displacements in terms of
spring stiness, the following equation in terms of
Downloaded by [Kang Fong Pong] at 18:36 18 July 2012
spring stiness is obtained
1 1 1
2 ing possible OSF cases can be complied with using the
Keqvt Kw Ks
where K represents the stiness.
Generally, in normal case, walers are supported by
struts and splays which leads to a very short span of 2
2.5 m for the walers and thus the term Kw becomes too
large and therefore, the rst term on the right hand
side of Equation (2) becomes negligible. Therefore, soil
and water pressures on the retaining wall are partly
transferred to the struts through the walers and the rest
to the soil support below the excavation level,
Equation (2) can be simplied as:
In normal case,
Keqvt Ks : 3a
In OSF case,
Ks  Kw
Keqvt : 3b
Ks Kw
3. Modelling with one-strut failure (OSF)
The requirement of design for deep excavation to
accommodate possible failure of any individual strut,
tie rod, ground anchor is stated in Clause 3.7.4 of
TR26. A similar clause is stated in BS 8002 (1994) as
well. For projects of Singapore Land Transport
Authority (LTA), consideration of OSF is a design
requirement stated in the LTA Civil Design Criteria
(2010). One-strut failure (OSF) is a 3D problem and it
will not be an easy task to model the problem using 3D
modelling every time a design of ERSS is carried out.
Therefore, it is necessary to idealise OSF in 2D analysis
to obtain a solution that is comparable to the 3D
modelling approach. The load combination factors for
limit states design of the structural elements are shown
in Table 3 of Clause 3.10.2 of TR26. These require-
ments of design of temporary supports accommodat-
following two approaches:
(1) The rst approach is to consider removal of
one row of struts in the geotechnical modelling
using computer software (such as PLAXIS). In
this case, the contribution of struts in the same
layer as the failed strut in the horizontal
direction is totally ignored and the force from
the failed strut can only be distributed vertically
to the adjacent layers of struts. This conven-
tional approach may lead to a more conserva-
tive design with higher reinforcement for walls
and heavier sections for the struts.
(2) The second approach is to consider failure of a
single strut within a layer of struts in the
horizontal direction. The force of the failed strut
will be transferred both vertically and horizon-
tally. However, the waler at the level of the failed
strut has to be designed to transfer the load
horizontally. As such the span of the waler for
design would be increased compared with the
normal span. This is a more realistic approach.
A case study based on the second approach using the
analysis of a cross-over cut-and-cover tunnel from the
Downtown Line Stage 3 (DTL 3) Project was carried
out. The objective was to assess that the second
approach is not too conservative for both the wall and
the strutting system but yet remain robust. Two-
specic aspects were investigated:
(1) Reduced stiness of the failed strut to be
adopted in the geotechnical nite-element
modelling.
 The IES Journal Part A: Civil & Structural Engineering
(2) Waler span for the design of waler due to
OSF.
4. Methodology
Both structural and geotechnical modelling were
carried out in an attempt to study the force distribu-
Table 1. Cases for dierent wall stiness to study eect on
waler span.
Cases Wall
1 Seventy per cent stiness of diaphragm wall of
1200 mm
2 Seventy percent of CBP wall 800 mm diameter
3 Sheet Pile Wall KSP IV
4 One hundred per cent stiness of diaphragm
wall 1200 mm
Downloaded by [Kang Fong Pong] at 18:36 18 July 2012
Table 2. Geotechnical modelling with dierent strut sti-
ness.
Cases Description
1 Removal of one row of struts
2 Removal of one strut stiness at the particular
layer was reduced (Lwaler 2L; Sstrut 2L)
3 Removal of one strut stiness at the particular
layer was taken as that from 3D STAAD Pro
Analysis
4 Removal of one strut stiness at the particular
layer was reduced to Kstrut/1.5 (or 1.5
reduction factor)
5 Removal of one strut stiness at the particular
layer was reduced (Lwaler 2L; Sstrut 1.5L)
Figure 3. Structural model of a space frame with soil spring and releases between plate elements.
169
tion in the wall-waler-strut system. The structural
analysis was carried out using STAAD Pro program
and the geotechnical modelling was carried out using
PLAXIS program.
For the structural analysis, the actual strut and
waler stinesses were modelled with four dierent wall
stinesses as shown in Table 1, to study the waler span
for the design of waler due to OSF. This has been done
to determine the load distribution pattern for various
types of ERSS system.
For the geotechnical modelling, cases as indicate in
Table 2, e.g. removal of one layer of strut and dierent
strut stinesses were modelled in an attempt to study
the force distribution in the wall-strut system. The
example chosen in this paper aims to compare the
results of analyses from PLAXIS 2D model and
STAAD Pro 3D model. However, one should note
that it may not be necessary to check all combinations
of OSF. As there are six struts in the example, the
critical cases to analyse are the case where OSF occurs
at S6 after the excavation reached the nal excavation
level, the case where OSF occurs at S4 after the
excavation reached the S5 level but before installing
S5, etc.
5. 3D Analyses with structural models
Figures 312 illustrate the models of 3D structural
analyses using the STAAD Pro structural nite-
element program. The objective of the 3D analyses
carried out using the structural program is to verify the
eect due to the removal of a single strut and compare
with 2D PLAXIS plane strain analyses results.
 170
Downloaded by [Kang Fong Pong] at 18:36 18 July 2012
Figure 4. Illustration of strut-waler connection adopted in the structural model.
Figure 5. Loading onto the wall.
As shown in Figure 3, the retaining wall was
modelled with plate elements with release between
plate elements to simulate the joints between the
retaining wall such as contiguous bored piles wall,
secant bored piles wall and diaphragm wall. Soil
springs were modelled to simulate the presence of
passive soil resistance. The soil spring constants were
derived using Vesics equation from Vesic (1975).
Figure 4 shows the struts and walers sizes and
connections adopted in the structural models.
Figure 5 shows the application of earth lateral
pressure on the retaining wall. The soil parameters for
K.F. Pong et al.
the calculation of the lateral earth pressure are shown
in Figure 5. Figure 6 shows the area of the study for
the eect of removing a single strut from the level S4
struts.
Figure 7 shows the deection mode of the
temporary work system and Figure 8 shows the
deection of waler at level S4 in normal case and
OSF case.
Figures 919 show the bending moment result of
waler with dierent wall stiness for both normal case
and OSF case. Figure 9 shows the eects of the
removal of a single strut at S4 level on the bending
 The IES Journal Part A: Civil & Structural Engineering 171

moment induced in the waler at S4 level for Case 1, Figure 10 shows the eects of the removal of a
where the wall is a 1.2 m thick diaphragm wall and single strut at S4 level on the bending moment induced
cracked section properties (70% of full stiness) in the waler at S4 level for Case 2 where the wall is a
are used for the stiness of the wall. As shown in 0.8 m diameter contiguous bored pile wall and cracked
Figure 9, the maximum bending moment at the mid
span and support of the waler increases to about 1.5
times of the bending moment in normal condition
without OSF.
Downloaded by [Kang Fong Pong] at 18:36 18 July 2012

Figure 6. Area of study for the 3D structural analyses. Figure 7. Deection mode of the temporary work system.

Figure 8. Deection of waler at level S4 with and without one-strut failure.

 172 K.F. Pong et al.
Downloaded by [Kang Fong Pong] at 18:36 18 July 2012

Figure 9. Waler bending moment with and without one-strut failure (Case 1: 70% stiness of 1200 mm thick diaphragm wall).

Figure 10. Waler bending moment with and without one-strut failure (Case 2: 70% of CBP wall 800 mm diameter).
 The IES Journal Part A: Civil & Structural Engineering 173
Downloaded by [Kang Fong Pong] at 18:36 18 July 2012

Figure 11. Waler bending moment with and without one-strut failure (Case 3: Sheet Pile Wall KSP IV).

Figure 12. Waler bending moment with and without one-strut failure (Case 4: 100% stiness of diaphragm wall 1200 mm).
 174 K.F. Pong et al.

section properties (70% of full stiness) are used for
the stiness of the wall. As shown in Figure 10, the
maximum bending moment at the mid span and
support of the waler increases to about 1.8 times of
the bending moment in normal condition without
OSF.
Figure 11 shows the eects of the removal of a
single strut at S4 level on the bending moment induced
in the waler at S4 level for Case 3, where the wall is
KSP IV sheet pile wall. As shown in Figure 11, the
maximum bending moment at the mid span and
support of the waler increases to about 2.2 times of
the bending moment in normal condition without
OSF.
Downloaded by [Kang Fong Pong] at 18:36 18 July 2012
Figure 12 shows the eects of the removal of a
single strut at S4 level on the bending moment induced
in the waler at S4 level for Case 4, where the wall is
1.2 m thick diaphragm wall with full (100%) wall
stiness. As shown in Figure 12, the maximum bending
moment at the mid span and support of the waler
increases to about 2.6 times of the bending moment in
normal condition without OSF.
The comparison of bending moment ratio and span
length ratio for dierent wall stiness are presented in
Figures 13 and 14, respectively. It is observed that the
ratio of maximum bending moment in OSF case to
maximum bending moment in normal case without OSF
decreases when the retaining wall stiness increases.

Figure 13. Graph showing the ratio of waler bending moment with OSF to Normal case.

Figure 14. Graph showing the ratio of waler span with OSF to Normal case.
 The IES Journal Part A: Civil & Structural Engineering
Downloaded by [Kang Fong Pong] at 18:36 18 July 2012
Figure 15. Geometry of the retaining wall and strutting system with details of strut and waler sizes.
6. Plaxis modelling
A case study based on a cross-over cut-and-cover
tunnel from the DTL 3 Project was carried out using
PLAXIS program. The geometry of the retaining wall
and strutting system of the cross-over cut-and-cover
tunnel from DTL 3 Project is shown in Figure 15.
Figure 16 illustrates the model of geotechnical analysis
modelled in PLAXIS program for the normal case
without OSF.
The various cases of geotechnical modelling carried
out are shown in Table 2. These various cases of
analyses attempt to study the force distribution in the
wall-strut system for the 2D PLAXIS model based on
dierent input of strut stiness derived from dierent
scenarios. In the PLAXIS 2D analyses, the eects of
OSF on the ERSS were studied by the scenario of
failure of a single strut of the ERSS which consists of
175
total six layers of struts. Figure 17 shows a typical
section, where a single layer of strut was considered for
OSF case in the analysis.
There were ve OSF analyses carried out as listed in
Table 2. For OSF Case 1, an entire layer of struts was
completely removed. For OSF Case 2, the removal of
one strut was simulated by reducing the stiness at the
strut. For OSF Case 3, the removal of one strut was
simulated by using the stiness for the strut taken from
3D structural model analysis. For OSF Case 4, the
removal of one strut was simulated by reducing the
stiness for the strut to Kstrut/1.5, i.e. reduction
factor 1.5.
For each of the ve cases listed in Table 2, six
scenarios of OSF have been carried out. The rst case is
OSF for strut at level 1 (S1) when the excavation
reaches strut at level 2 (S2) but before installing S2. The
 176 K.F. Pong et al.
Downloaded by [Kang Fong Pong] at 18:36 18 July 2012

Figure 16. Sectional view of the plain strain 2D model in PLAXIS program.

Figure 17. PLAXIS model showing the OSF for strut at level 4 (S4) for Cases 15.
 The IES Journal Part A: Civil & Structural Engineering
second case is OSF for S2 when the excavation reaches
strut at level 3 (S3) but before installing S3. The third
case is OSF for S3 when the excavation reaches strut at
level 4 (S4) but before installing S4. The fourth case is
OSF for S4 when the excavation reaches strut at level 5
(S5) but before installing S5. The fth case is OSF for
S5 when the excavation reaches strut at level 6 (S6) but
before installing S6. The sixth case is OSF for strut at
level 6 (S6) when the excavation reaches the nal
excavation level.
The strut stiness comparisons for all the cases of
analyses mentioned above are tabulated in Figure 18.
The results of strut forces for all the cases of analyses
mentioned above are tabulated in Figure 19. The strut
forces tabulated are based on the maximum strut
forces for each layer of the struts for the various
scenarios and sequence of OSF in each case of analysis
with dierent approach of simulation of OSF analysed
Downloaded by [Kang Fong Pong] at 18:36 18 July 2012
using 2D PLAXIS model.
As shown in Figure 19, the results of strut forces
from analyses of Cases 3 and 4 are similar. This means
that the assumption of strut stiness equivalent to the
original strut stiness multiplied by a reduction factor
of 1.5 is a reasonable simplied assumption of the
reduced strut stiness as a result of a single strut failure
as compared to the strut stiness derived from the 3D
structural analysis.
Figure 18. Stiness comparison for dierent cases of analyses.
177
Figure 13, which shows the comparison of waler
span length with dierent wall stiness, indicates that
the increase in span length due to OSF ranges from 1.6
L to 1.2 L. Hence, it is reasonable to adopt 1.5 L for
waler design.
As shown Figure 20, in the comparison of dia-
phragm wall bending moment with dierent strut
stiness, the diaphragm wall design is generally gover-
ned by normal case, though there are locations where
removal of one layer of struts governs. However, it
may be too conservative to consider removal of one
layer of struts in geotechnical modelling, hence adop-
ting combined stiness as illustrated in Figure 21 was
found to be reasonable.
It is also noted that the bending moment diagram
of the diaphragm wall in Cases 3 and 4 analyses are
very similar. This shows that the assumption of strut
stiness equivalent to the original strut stiness
multiplied by a reduction factor of 1.5 is a reason-
able simplied assumption of the reduced strut
stiness as a result of a single strut failure as
compared to the OSF strut stiness derived from the
3D structural analysis. Based on the results shown in
the study, for modelling of OSF in PLAXIS, the
approach of using equivalent strut stiness for OSF
as illustrated in Figure 21 is appropriate and can be
used.
 178 K.F. Pong et al.
Downloaded by [Kang Fong Pong] at 18:36 18 July 2012

Figure 19. Comparison of strut forces (in kN/m) for Upper Changi cross-over cut-and-cover tunnel.

Thus, the following derivation shown in Equations where

(4) and (5) can be adopted for waler design:
Wreduced: Removed strut force (with reduced
2 stiness)
Mw1 1=8 Wreduced 1:5 L ! Factor 1:05 4
WOSF: OSF strut force
WOSF: OSF strut force accounting for removal of
Mw2 1=10 WOSF L2 ! Factor 1:05 5 strut above/below it.
 The IES Journal Part A: Civil & Structural Engineering 179
Downloaded by [Kang Fong Pong] at 18:36 18 July 2012

Figure 20. Comparison of diaphragm wall bending moment with dierent strut stiness.

Figure 21. Recommended approach for derivation of OSF strut stiness to be used in PLAXIS modelling.
 180 K.F. Pong et al.
7. Conclusions
In conclusion, analysis for OSF is actually a 3D
problem and carrying out such 3D analyses covering
all the cases of analyses considering the variability of
the dierent parameters is very time consuming. In the
conventional approach for the analysis of OSF case
using 2D plane strain analysis, the entire layer of
failing strut is removed and thus the forces are
redistributed in the vertical direction only. This usually
leads to more conservative design with heavier strut
sections. A procedure to rationally idealise OSF from a
3D analysis to a 2D plane strain analysis which is a
more practical approach for practising engineers has
been presented. The comparisons of results of various
cases have been carried out.
The results of strut forces and bending moment of
diaphragm wall from analyses of Cases 3 and 4 are
similar. This means that the assumption of strut
Downloaded by [Kang Fong Pong] at 18:36 18 July 2012
stiness equivalent to the original strut stiness multi-
plied by a reduction factor of 1.5 is a reasonable
simplied assumption of the reduced strut stiness as a
result of a single strut failure as compared to the strut
stiness derived from the 3D structural analysis. The
increase in span length due to OSF ranges from 1.6 L
to 1.2 L. Hence, it is reasonable to adopt 1.5 L for
waler design. In the comparison of diaphragm wall
bending moment with dierent strut stiness, the
diaphragm wall design is generally governed by normal
case, though there are locations where removal of one
row strut is governing. However, it may be too
conservative to consider removal of one row of strut
in geotechnical modelling, hence adopting combined
stiness was found to be reasonable.
For design to accommodate possible OSF accord-
ing to Clause 3.10 of TR26, the results presented in this
paper show that the proposed approach of adopting a
combined stiness and using a simplied method in
deriving the reduced equivalent strut stiness for
simulating OSF case in 2D numerical analysis is
reasonable and appropriate.
References
BS 8002., 1994. Code of practice for earth retaining structures.
London, British Standards Institution.
LTA Civil Design Criteria Revision A7 for Road and Rail
Transit Systems, Land Transport Authority, 2010.
Puller, M., 2003. Deep excavations: a practical manual,
2nd ed. Thomas Telford Publishing.
TR26: 2010. Technical reference for deep excavation, Spring
Singapore, Singapore.
Vesic, A.S., 1975. Foundation engineering handbook, 1st ed.
Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, Chapter 14, Pile
Foundation, 561563.