Milligan, G. W. E., St John, H. D. & ORourke, T. D. (2008). Geotechnique 58, No. 5, 377383 [doi: 10.1680/geot.2008.58.5.
377]
Contributions to Geotechnique 19482008: Retaining structures
G . W. E . M I L L I G A N * , H . D. S T J O H N * a n d T. D. O RO U R K E
Retaining structures and earth support systems form an
important part of geotechnical engineering. In the first
60 years of Geotechnique, some 110 publications have
appeared that related to such structures. These are
discussed in this review under five headings: case his-
tories and full-scale observations; ground movements
associated with retaining structures; numerical analyses;
compaction stresses acting on structures; and Symposia
in Print. Individual comments are made on approxi-
mately half of the papers published, highlighting key
contributions to the advancement of the understanding of
retaining structures. Many of the papers have provided
important information subsequently incorporated into
standard reference documents for geotechnical engineers,
notably three reports published by the Construction
Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA):
Temporary propping of deep excavations: Guidance on
design; The observational method in ground engineering:
Principles and applications; and Embedded retaining walls:
Guidance for economic design. In this way, and through
the contributions of individual papers to other aspects of
performance, Geotechnique has made a valuable contri-
bution to the improved analysis, engineering design, con-
struction and monitoring of retaining structures.
KEYWORDS: diaphragm and in situ walls; historical review;
retaining walls
INTRODUCTION
The total number of publications in the first 60 years of
Geotechnique relating to retaining structures amounts to some
110 papers, technical notes and substantive correspondence
or discussion. The exact figure depends on where the bound-
aries are drawn on subject matter to be included. For instance,
a number of papers have been included that deal with the
stability of slurry-filled trenches and associated ground move-
ments, and others relate to the base stability of excavations in
soft clay. The former are important in connection with the
construction of diaphragm walls, both from an immediate
practical point of view and also because of the influence of
wall construction methods on the initial horizontal ground
stresses affecting the design of the wall as well as soil
displacements outside the perimeter of the excavation. The
latter are important because an adequate margin of confidence
against base failure is essential for safety, and because base
failure and associated ground deformation will influence
various aspects of the retaining structure performance, includ-
ing wall penetration depths, strut loads, and soil displace-
ments affecting adjacent buildings and facilities. Publications
concerned with seepage pressures, and their influence on base
stability and earth pressures, are included for the same
reason. However, papers on the elastic heave of excavations
Discussion on this paper closes on 1 December 2008, for further
details see p. ii.
* Geotechnical Consulting Group, UK
Cornell University, USA
377
Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:
IP: 147.8.81.145
On: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 04:02:06
Les structures de soutien et les systemes de terrassement
representent une partie importante de lingenierie geo-
technique. Au cours des 60 premieres annees de Geotech-
nique, environ 110 communications ont ete publiees sur
des structures de ce genre. Dans le present recueil, elles
sont examinees dans les cinq categories suivantes : etudes
de cas et observations integrales ; mouvements du sol
relatifs a des structures de soutenement ; analyses numer-
iques ; contraintes de compactage agissant sur les struc-
tures ; colloques publies. Des commentaires individuels
sont presentes sur environ la moitie des communications
publiees, en mettant ainsi en valeur des contributions
importantes pour lavancement des connaissances sur les
structures de soutenement. Un grand nombre de commu-
nications ont apporte des informations importantes, in-
corporees par la suite dans des ouvrages de reference
pour ingenieurs geotechniciens, notamment trois rapports
publies par lassociation Construction Industry Research
and Information Association (CIRIA): Soutenement
Provisoire dExcavations Profondes Conseils Sur la Con-
ception; Methodes dObservation Dans lIngenierie des
Sols Principes et Applications; et Murs de Soutien
Encastres Conseils Pour une Conception Economique.
De cette facon, et a travers les contributions apportees
par des communications individuelles sur dautres aspects
des performances, Geotechnique a ete en mesure de
contribuer de facon importante au perfectionnement des
analyses, des etudes techniques, de la construction et du
controle des structures de soutien.
are not included, as being more a concern for foundations
than for retaining structures.
There were 20 publications related to retaining structures
in the first 20 years, then 16 in the subsequent decade. The
fourth decade saw an increase to 20, boosted by the inclu-
sion of a Symposium in Print relating to cantilever and
propped walls in 1984. The decade from 1989 to 1998 was
the most productive, with a total of 36 publications: again,
this was helped by a number of papers in a Symposium in
Print in 1994, this one on the observational method. The
most recent decade has seen the number fall back to 18. A
dozen of the papers are either of primarily historical interest
or reviews of previously published information. Around 40
are concerned primarily with new theoretical developments,
and about 30 primarily with each of model testing, numer-
ical analysis or full-scale observations. Some papers have
significant content under more than one of these headings.
CASE HISTORIES AND FULL-SCALE OBSERVATIONS
Some of the most interesting and useful papers in Geo-
technique fall within this category. Three from the early
years that have stood the test of time are those by Skempton
& Ward (1952), Wu & Berman (1953) and Bjerrum & Eide
(1956). The first of these is a classic case of a major
excavation in soft clay with a multi-propped sheet pile
retaining wall. It has all the right ingredients for a good case
history: a detailed site investigation with high-quality data
on soil conditions, including extensive testing on block
378 MILLIGAN, ST JOHN AND OROURKE
samples retrieved from a shaft excavated on the site; infor-
mation on the construction sequence, and on all site events
that could have influenced the observed performance; details
of instrumentation used to measure forces transmitted from
sheet piles to walings and within the props, including discus-
sion on the reliability of the measurements; and an inter-
pretation of the results in a way that provides useful
information for future design.
Some of the results from the paper are shown in Fig. 1.
Interestingly, the authors considered that the factual data on
soil conditions and monitoring output were more important
than their interpretation, recognising that methods of inter-
pretation would develop with improved theory, while the
data would always be useful for calibration of new analytical
methods or as a contribution to empirical designs. One
detailed point of interest was the increase in loads in the
lowest level of props when piling was undertaken within the
excavation, owing to disturbance (and perhaps partial failure)
of the adjacent ground.
Wu & Berman (1953) present a somewhat similar case, for
a very deep cut through soft to medium clay in Chicago. The
work was for an extension of the metro system, from the early
stages of which Peck had made extensive observations on prop
loads, which had resulted in empirical design methods that
were widely adopted. Wu & Berman refer back to the early
work for the ground conditions, and then present earth pressure
distributions derived from prop load measurements, as well as
settlements measured on adjacent buildings. The pressure
distributions are successfully related to classic design methods,
and are interestingly different from Pecks earlier observations.
Wu & Berman attribute this to the greater restraint at the base
of the retaining walls in their case, which restricted the ground
movements and altered the local pressure distribution.
Bjerrum & Eide (1956) also present information on
excavations in soft clays, but have a rather different purpose.
They were seeking confirmation of the reverse bearing
capacity analysis for base heave failure of deep excavations
of limited width. To this end they collected information on
14 relevant cases, in most of which either total or partial
failure had occurred. The data on each case are more limited
than for a single case history, but include the critical
information on excavation geometry, surcharge loading, and
average soil strengths. The calculated factor of safety is
shown to be below 1.0 for the cases where failure occurred,
and just above for the cases where partial failure occurred,
or no failure was observed. The paper had a profound
influence on the evolution of design methods for braced
excavations leading to the use of dimensionless base stability
numbers in later semi-empirical procedures for predicting
both ground movements and support loads (e.g. Peck, 1969;
Clough & ORourke, 1990).
All three of these papers have provided information that
has been incorporated into subsequent reviews and design
advice, such as in CIRIA report C517 on Temporary prop-
ping of deep excavations: Guidance on design (Twine &
Roscoe, 1999).
Other papers of interest involving measurements at full
scale include Morgenstern & Amir-Tahmasseb (1965),
Farmer & Attewell (1973) and Ng et al. (1999). All three
are concerned with slurry-filled trench panels: Morgenstern
& Amir-Tahmasseb with the question of stability following
an observed failure, and the other two with ground move-
ments determined from instrumented panels. Crofts et al.
(1977) were concerned with the effects of trench excavation
on parallel pipelines in the ground adjacent to the trench:
the paper contains a useful collection of published data on

Fig. 1. Observed waling loads from cofferdam in soft clay (from Skempton & Ward, 1952)

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 147.8.81.145
On: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 04:02:06
 CONTRIBUTIONS TO GEOTECHNIQUE 19482008: RETAINING STRUCTURES
ground movements adjacent to excavations. Ou et al. (2000)
provide information on ground displacements and strains due
to excavation by a top-down construction method. Detailed
measurements of changes in pore pressure and horizontal
stress due to pile installation and then excavation for bored
pile retaining walls are presented in a pair of papers by
Richards et al. (2006, 2007). These are of particular interest,
in that the ground conditions comprised Atherstone and
Weald Clays, about which little information had previously
been published. Blight & Dane (1989) provide some impor-
tant information on the dangers of localised corrosion in
metallic reinforcement in reinforced soil structures: they
report detailed investigations of substantial structures that
had to be demolished and replaced well before the end of
their intended design life.
Both of the Symposia in Print in 1984 and 1994 included
a number of papers concerned with full-scale observations.
These are discussed further below, along with other related
papers.
GROUND MOVEMENTS
The importance of ground movements has received in-
creasing recognition, both because of the potential effects of
the movements on the retaining structure itself or on nearby
buildings and services, and also because the ground strength
that can be mobilised may be limited by allowable deforma-
tions. An early Geotechnique paper on this subject of con-
siderable practical importance was that by Rowe & Peaker
(1965). They showed, by a series of high-quality model tests,
that theoretical passive pressure coefficients based on peak
strength values and high values of wall friction were unsafe.
In loose sand this was because the full theoretical pressure
could be achieved only after excessive wall movements,
while in dense sand progressive failure meant that the
average soil strength was less than the peak value. Some
379
details of their apparatus and results of passive pressure
measurements at various wall displacements are shown in
Fig. 2.
From about this time a series of model tests were under-
taken at Cambridge University, using an X-ray technique to
study local strains within the soil mass associated with both
active and passive modes of wall displacement. These in-
vestigations led to a series of publications, such as James &
Bransby (1970, 1971), Bransby & Milligan (1975) and
Milligan & Bransby (1976). Later, Bolton & Powrie (1987,
1988) measured similar strain fields in centrifuge tests and
sought to develop a design approach using mobilised soil
strengths based on simplified strain fields related to allow-
able wall deformations. Bica & Clayton (1998) made meas-
urements of earth pressures and wall friction angles related
to wall movements for the embedded length of cantilever
walls. The results were consistent with previously published
work, including that of Rowe & Peaker.
Of particular interest is the failure mode for cantilever
walls observed by Bolton & Powrie (1987) whereby water
filling a gap between the wall and adjacent clay generates
hydrostatic pressure in the gap leading to collapse. This
failure mode is taken into account in UK design methods
(Gaba et al., 2003), but was not recognised in wall design
during upgrades of the New Orleans hurricane protection
system. The collapse of I-walls during Hurricane Katrina in
2005, driven by similar gap formation, was a major contri-
butor to levee failure that flooded substantial parts of
Orleans Parish (Interagency Performance Evaluation Task
Force, 2008).
Centrifuge testing has also been used to study a number
of different aspects of retaining wall behaviour, providing
information on failure modes, earth pressures, ground move-
ments and structure bending moments. Examples of these
are: Bolton & Stewart (1994), for a wall propped at excava-
tion level and subject to rising groundwater; Richards &

Fig. 2. Details of apparatus and typical measured passive pressure distributions varying with wall displacement (from Rowe &
Peaker, 1965)

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 147.8.81.145
On: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 04:02:06
380 MILLIGAN, ST JOHN AND OROURKE
Powrie (1998), for a wall propped at the top and at excava-
tion level; and Powrie & Daly (2002, 2007), for the use of
berms and stabilising bases. Powrie & Kantartzi (1996) used
centrifuge tests to study the pressures and movements in the
ground around trenches filled with slurry or wet concrete.
These studies have contributed to CIRIA report C580 (Gaba
et al., 2003) on Embedded retaining walls: Guidance for
economic design, which is considered to be the standard
industry document for embedded wall design in the UK.
NUMERICAL ANALYSES
Probably the most significant development in geotechnical
design over the past 30 years has been the advance in the
power and usefulness of numerical analysis. In theory, the
application of finite element, finite difference or discrete
element modelling should allow complete solution of com-
plex real problems, for both collapse and serviceability
conditions. In his Rankine Lecture, Potts (2003) reviewed
the extent to which this is a reality, and highlighted the
pitfalls and developments that are still required to fully
achieve this aim.
Results of early attempts at numerical analyses were often
disappointing, until the full extent of the variation of soil
stiffness with strain was appreciated and incorporated into
numerical models. Simpson et al. (1979) provided an early
example of the application of non-linear behaviour in finite
element analysis, with retrospective analyses of observed
behaviour of retaining structures at New Palace Yard and
Neasden Underpass. In his Rankine Lecture, Simpson (1992)
presented a new model incorporating stress history as well
as strain-level effects; he also compared measurements made
at the excavation for the new British Library with calcula-
tions made with finite element analyses of varying levels of
sophistication. The best analyses were shown to agree well
with the measured wall deflections, as shown in Fig. 3.
Since the 1980s a number of aspects of retaining wall
behaviour have been studied using finite element analyses.
Examples of these are: Potts & Fourie (1984), investigating
the effects of different types of construction and initial
ground stresses for walls in overconsolidated clay; Potts &
Fourie (1985), extending the previous paper by studying
variations in wall stiffness; Powrie & Li (1991), analysing
a wall propped at excavation level; Georgiadis &
Anagnostopoulos (1998), on the effect of berms; and Powrie
& Chandler (1998), on a wall with a stabilising platform.
Gourvenec & Powrie (1999) modelled the installation effects
of a diaphragm wall panel in three dimensions, obtaining
ground movements and reductions in lateral stresses in the
ground.
Until relatively recently, analyses with complex soil mod-
els have been restricted to two-dimensional analyses. With
increasing computational power it has become more realistic
to undertake fully three-dimensional analyses, but these
are still comparatively time consuming and expensive.
Zdravkovic et al. (2005) compared results from three-dimen-
sional analyses of an excavation within diaphragm walls
with various two-dimensional approximations. They demon-
strated the conditions under which approximate two-dimen-
sional analyses were adequate, in terms of both wall bending
moments and ground movements. As with the model testing,
results of the various numerical studies have been taken into
account in CIRIA report C580 (Gaba et al., 2003).
COMPACTION STRESSES
Where fill material is placed and compacted behind
preformed retaining structures, the earth pressures against

Fig. 3. Comparison of measured and computed displacements for retaining walls at British Library (from
Simpson, 1992)

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 147.8.81.145
On: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 04:02:06
 CONTRIBUTIONS TO GEOTECHNIQUE 19482008: RETAINING STRUCTURES
the wall may be expected to be different from, and higher
than, those calculated from active pressure coefficients. The
first Geotechnique paper to address this issue was that by
Aggour & Brown (1974), from a theoretical point of view,
while Jones & Sims (1975) reported measured pressures on
bridge abutments. A significant contribution was made by
Ingold (1979), who presented a relatively simple analytical
method of determining stresses due to compaction, and com-
pared calculated values with field observations, obtaining
encouraging validation of the approach. Ingolds method has
been widely adopted in practice.
Clayton & Symons (1992) extended the discussion to the
stresses induced by compacted clay fill. Because of the
effects of swelling and pore pressure dissipation the pres-
sures can change significantly with time, and in high-plasti-
city materials can reach values higher than the passive
pressures calculated using soil parameter values derived
from standard compression tests.
Stresses behind abutments of integral bridges pose an
additional problem. These are structures in which the abut-
ment retaining walls are integral with the bridge deck. As
the bridge expands and contracts, the fill behind is subject to
alternating extension and compression. Broms & Ingelson
(1971) report measurements of earth pressures against sub-
stantial abutments and their variation with movements of
walls. High stresses were induced by compaction of the sand
fill, which dropped to active values during outward move-
ments of the walls, but rose to values equal to or higher than
theoretical passive pressures during subsequent expansion of
the bridge. The movements required to induce these pres-
sures were smaller than expected.
Clayton et al. (2006) undertook laboratory tests to investi-
gate the stress changes induced by the cyclic strains in the
ground behind integral bridge abutments. They found that
natural clay specimens did not show increases in horizontal
stress due to the cyclic straining, but that sand specimens
showed a progressive increase in maximum horizontal stress,
approaching the theoretical passive pressure, consistent with
the field measurements of Broms & Ingelson (1971).
SYMPOSIA IN PRINT
Papers submitted to two relevant Symposia in Print have
been published in Geotechnique. In 1984 the Symposium
was addressed to propped and cantilevered retaining walls.
The 1994 Symposium was on the observational method in
geotechnical engineering, and included four papers on appli-
cations of the observational method to retaining structures.
From the 1984 Symposium, two papers relate to retaining
walls for the Bell Common cut-and-cover tunnel in London
Clay, and two to retaining walls required in Gault Clay at
Dunton Green, both arising from construction of the M25
motorway. For the former, Hubbard et al. (1984) describe
the design of the propped walls. Questions arising from the
conventional initial design led to a full soilstructure inter-
action analysis being undertaken using finite element meth-
ods, reported in this paper, and to the instrumentation and
monitoring of construction, reported on by Tedd et al.
(1984).
Garrett & Barnes (1984) report on the design of cantilever
walls at Dunton Green, and also on measurements made
during construction and with the walls in service. Clarke &
Wroth (1984) present results of pressuremeter tests to mea-
sure lateral stresses in the ground, and derive values of soil
parameters for use in finite element analyses, which gave
results reasonably in accordance with the field measure-
ments. These papers were of particular interest because at
that stage there was very little detailed information on the
Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:
IP: 147.8.81.145
On: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 04:02:06
381
Gault Clay, as previous developments had tended to avoid
the clay formation owing to its unfavourable characteristics.
The final paper in this symposium was by Wood & Perrin
(1984), and reported field measurements from a basement
wall in London Clay with three levels of props. Measure-
ments were made of wall movements, wall bending strains,
ground movements and strut forces, and preliminary com-
parisons were made with designs based on conventional
earth pressures.
As well as providing useful case histories, with data that
has been incorporated into design guides such as CIRIA
C580 (Gaba et al., 2003), these publications did much to
establish that proper design of embedded walls in heavily
overconsolidated clays required the use of finite element
analyses backed by further information on actual perform-
ance. Follow-up work is reported in a number of papers:
Tedd & Charles (1985), on the strength of London Clay
measured in both compression and extension at low stress
levels relevant to retaining wall design; Carder & Symons
(1989), with a further detailed case history of a wall in
London Clay on the A329 at Reading; Symons & Tedd
(1989), on the long-term performance of the walls at Bell
Common; and a review by Symons & Carder (1992) of
measurements from Bell Common, Reading, and further
instrumented walls at Hatfield and Malden.
The 1994 Symposium contained four papers relating to
retaining structures. Powderham (1994) provided an over-
view of the use of the observational method in cut-and-cover
tunnel construction. Details of the major project at the
Limehouse Link tunnel in East London are provided by
Glass & Powderham (1994). Here the observational method
was used to make considerable savings in propping costs.
Young & Ho (1994) describe how a full-scale trial, finite
element analyses and site instrumentation were combined in
an observational approach to the construction of an anchored
sheet-pile wall at the Channel Tunnel terminal in Folkestone.
Ikuta et al. (1994) report on the construction of a large,
deep basement excavation by a top-down procedure. Mon-
itoring of the initial stages of excavation allowed the design
of later stages to be rationalised and two arrays of temporary
props included in the original construction method to be
omitted.
All four of these papers are referenced in CIRIA report
R185 on the Observational method in ground engineering:
Principles and application (Nicholson et al., 1999). This is
now the standard guidance document for practical applica-
tion of the observational method in UK construction.
FINAL COMMENTS
This review has mentioned individually fewer than half
the papers published on the subject of retaining structures
during the first 60 years of Geotechnique. Many other papers
have made important theoretical contributions to subjects
such as the determination of earth pressure coefficients or
seepage pressures, and even the combination of the two.
There are also some interesting individual publications that
do not fit naturally into the general subject subdivisions used
for this review. Examples are the paper by Lee et al. (1994)
on major failures of high reinforced earth structures on a
highway in Tennessee, and analyses by discrete element and
finite element methods of drystone masonry walls, compared
with measurements made on a full-scale test wall in Ireland
in 1834, by Harkness et al. (2000) and Zhang et al. (2004).
As noted above, many of the papers selected have not
only been of interest in themselves, but have also provided
valuable feedstock for subsequent review papers that have
become standard reference documents for geotechnical en-
gineers. A prime example is the paper by Clough &
382 MILLIGAN, ST JOHN AND OROURKE
ORourke (1990) on construction-induced movements of in
situ walls, while St John et al. (1993) review information on
wall movements specific to London Clay. The three CIRIA
reports on prop loads, wall design and the observational
method are all important and useful practical documents,
and include much that was first published in Geotechnique.
REFERENCES
Aggour, M. S. & Brown, C. B. (1974). The prediction of earth
pressure on retaining walls due to compaction. Geotechnique 24,
No. 4, 489502.
Bica, A. V. D. & Clayton, C. R. I. (1998). An experimental study
of the behaviour of embedded lengths of cantilever walls.
Geotechnique 48, No. 6, 731745.
Bjerrum, L. & Eide, O. (1956). Stability of strutted excavations in
clay. Geotechnique 6, No. 1, 3247.
Blight, G. E. & Dane, M. S. W. (1989). Deterioration of a wall
complex constructed of reinforced earth. Geotechnique 39, No.
1, 4753.
Bolton, M. D. & Powrie, W. (1987). The collapse of diaphragm
walls retaining clay. Geotechnique 37, No. 3, 335353.
Bolton, M. D. & Powrie, W. (1988). Behaviour of diaphragm walls
in clay prior to collapse. Geotechnique 38, No. 2, 167189.
Bolton, M. D. & Stewart, D. I. (1994). The effect on propped
diaphragm walls of rising groundwater in stiff clay. Geotechni-
que 44, No. 11, 111127.
Bransby, P. L. & Milligan, G. W. E. (1975). Soil deformations near
cantilever sheet pile walls. Geotechnique 25, No. 2, 175195.
Broms, B. B. & Ingelson, I. (1971). Earth pressure against the
abutments of a rigid frame bridge. Geotechnique 21, No. 1,
1528.
Carder, D. R. & Symons, I. F. (1989). Long-term performance of an
embedded cantilever retaining wall in stiff clay. Geotechnique
39, No. 1, 5575.
Clarke, B. G. & Wroth, C. P. (1984). Analysis of Dunton Green
retaining wall based on results of pressuremeter tests. Geotech-
nique 34, No. 4, 549561.
Clayton, C. R. I. & Symons, I. F. (1992). The pressure of compacted
fill on retaining walls. Geotechnique 42, No. 1, 127130.
Clayton, C. R. I, Xu, M. & Bloodworth, A. (2006). A laboratory
study of the development of earth pressure behind integral
bridge abutments. Geotechnique 56, No. 8, 551559.
Clough, W. & ORourke, T. D. (1990). Construction induced move-
ments of in-situ walls. Proceedings of the ASCE specialty
conference on design and performance of earth retaining struc-
tures, Cornell, ASCE SP15, pp. 439470.
Crofts, J. E., Menzies, B. K. & Tarzi, A. I. (1977). Lateral
displacement of shallow buried pipelines due to adjacent deep
trench excavation. Geotechnique 27, No. 2, 161179.
Farmer, I. W. & Attewell, P. B. (1973). Ground movements caused
by a bentonite-supported excavation in London clay. Geotechni-
que 23, No. 4, 576581.
Gaba, A. R., Simpson, B., Powrie, W. & Beadman, D. R. (2003).
Embedded retaining walls: Guidance for economic design,
C580. London: Construction Industry Research and Information
Association.
Garrett, C. & Barnes, S. J. (1984). The design and performance of
the Dunton Green retaining wall. Geotechnique 34, No. 4, 533
548.
Georgiadis, M. & Anagnostopoulos, C. (1998). Effect of berms on
sheet-pile wall behaviour. Geotechnique 48, No. 4, 575578.
Glass, P. R. & Powderham, A. J. (1994). Application of the
observational method at the Limehouse Link. Geotechnique 44,
No. 4, 665679.
Gourvenec, S. M. & Powrie, W. (1999). Three-dimensional analysis
of diaphragm wall installation. Geotechnique 49, No. 6, 801
823.
Harkness, R. M., Powrie, W., Zhang, X., Brady, K. C. & OReilly,
M. P. (2000). Numerical modelling of full-scale tests on dry-
stone masonry retaining walls. Geotechnique 50, No. 2, 165
179.
Hubbard, H. W., Potts, D. M., Miller, D. & Burland, J. B. (1984).
Design of the retaining walls for the M25 cut and cover tunnel
at Bell Common. Geotechnique 34, No. 4, 495512.
Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:
IP: 147.8.81.145
On: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 04:02:06
Ikuta, Y., Maruoka, M., Aoki, M. & Sato, E. (1994). Application of
the observational method to a deep basement excavated using
the top-down method. Geotechnique 44, No. 4, 655664.
Ingold, T. S. (1979). The effects of compaction on retaining walls.
Geotechnique 29, No. 3, 265283.
Interagency Performance Evaluation Task Force (2008). Perform-
ance evaluation of the New Orleans and Southwest Louisiana
Hurricane Protection System, Final and Interim Reports, US
Army Corps of Engineers, https://ipet.wes.army.mil/
James, R. G. & Bransby, P. L. (1970). Experimental and theoretical
investigation of a passive earth pressure problem. Geotechnique
20, No. 1, 1737.
James, R. G. & Bransby, P. L. (1971). A velocity field for some
passive earth pressure problems. Geotechnique 21, No. 1,
6183.
Jones, C. J. F. P. & Sims, F. A. (1975). Earth pressures against the
abutments and wing walls of standard motorway bridges. Geo-
technique 25, No. 4, 731742.
Lee, K., Jones, C. J. F. P. Sullivan, W. R. & Trolinger, W. (1994).
Failure and deformation of four reinforced soil walls in eastern
Tennessee. Geotechnique 44, No. 3, 397426.
Milligan, G. W. E. & Bransby, P. L. (1976). Combined active and
passive rotational failure of a retaining wall in sand. Geotechni-
que 26, No. 3, 473494.
Morgenstern, N. & Amir-Tahmasseb, I. (1965). The stability of a
slurry trench in cohesionless soils. Geotechnique 15, No. 4,
387395.
Ng, C. W. W., Rigby, D. B., Lei, G. H. & Ng, S. W. L. (1999).
Observed performance of a short diaphragm wall panel. Geo-
technique 49, No. 5, 681694.
Nicholson, D., Tse, C.-M. & Penny, C. (1999). The observational
method in ground engineering: Principles and applications,
R185. London: Construction Industry Research and Information
Association.
Ou, C.-Y., Liao, J.-T. & Cheng, W.-L. (2000). Building response
and ground movements induced by a deep excavation. Geotech-
nique 50, No. 3, 209220.
Peck, R. B. (1969). Deep excavations and tunneling in soft ground.
Proc. 7th Int. Conf. Soil Mech. Found. Engng, Mexico City,
State of the Art Volume, 225290.
Potts, D. M. (2003). 42nd Rankine Lecture: Numerical analysis: a
virtual dream or practical reality. Geotechnique 53, No. 6, 533
573.
Potts, D. M. & Fourie, A. B. (1984). The behaviour of a propped
retaining wall: results of a numerical experiment. Geotechnique
34, No. 3, 383404.
Potts, D. M. & Fourie, A. B. (1985). The effect of wall stiffness on
the behaviour of a propped retaining wall. Geotechnique 35, No.
3, 347352.
Powderham, A. J. (1994). An overview of the observational method:
development in cut and cover and bored tunnelling projects.
Geotechnique 44, No. 4, 619636.
Powrie, W. & Chandler, R. J. (1998). The influence of a stabilizing
platform on the performance of an embedded retaining wall: a
finite element study. Geotechnique 48, No. 3, 403409.
Powrie, W. & Daly, M. P. (2002). Centrifuge model tests on
embedded retaining walls supported by earth berms. Geotechni-
que 52, No. 2, 89106.
Powrie, W. & Daly, M. P. (2007). Centrifuge modelling of em-
bedded retaining walls with stabilising bases. Geotechnique 57,
No. 6, 485497.
Powrie, W. & Kantartzi, C. (1996). Ground response during dia-
phragm wall installation in clay: centrifuge model tests. Geo-
technique 46, No. 4, 725739.
Powrie, W. & Li, E. S. F. (1991). Finite element analyses of an in
situ wall propped at formation level. Geotechnique 41, No. 4,
499514.
Richards, D. J. & Powrie, W. (1998). Centrifuge model tests on
doubly propped embedded retaining walls in overconsolidated
kaolin clay. Geotechnique 48, No. 6, 833846.
Richards, D. J., Clark, J. & Powrie, W. (2006). Installation effects
of a bored pile wall in overconsolidated clay. Geotechnique 56,
No. 6, 411425.
Richards, D. J., Powrie, W., Roscoe, H. & Clark, J. (2007). Pore
water pressure and horizontal stress changes measured during
construction of a contiguous bored pile multi-propped retaining
 CONTRIBUTIONS TO GEOTECHNIQUE 19482008: RETAINING STRUCTURES
wall in Lower Cretaceous clays. Geotechnique 57, No. 2, 197
205.
Rowe, P. W. & Peaker, K. (1965). Passive earth pressure measure-
ments. Geotechnique 15, No. 1, 5778.
Simpson, B. (1992). Rankine Lecture: Retaining structures: displa-
cement and design. Geotechnique 42, No. 4, 541576.
Simpson, B., ORiordan, N. J. & Croft, D. D. (1979). A computer
model for the analysis of ground movements in London Clay.
Geotechnique 29, No. 2, 149175.
Skempton, A. W. & Ward, W. H. (1952). Investigations concerning
a deep cofferdam in the Thames Estuary clay at Shellhaven.
Geotechnique 3, No. 3, 119139.
St John, H. D., Potts, D. M., Jardine, R. J. & Higgins, K. G. (1993).
Prediction and performance of ground response due to construc-
tion of a deep basement at 60 Victoria Embankment. In
Predictive soil mechanics (eds G. T. Houlsby and A. N. Scho-
field), pp. 581608. London: Thomas Telford.
Symons, I. F. & Carder, D. R. (1992). Field measurements on
embedded retaining walls. Geotechnique 42, No. 1, 117126.
Symons, I. F. & Tedd, P. (1989). Behaviour of a propped embedded
retaining wall at Bell Common Tunnel in the longer term.
Geotechnique 39, No. 4, 701710.
Tedd, P. & Charles, J. A. (1985). The strength of London Clay in
383
relation to the design of embedded retaining walls. Geotechni-
que 35, No. 2, 199204.
Tedd, P., Chard, B. M., Charles, J. A. & Symons, I. F. (1984).
Behaviour of a propped embedded retaining wall in stiff clay at
Bell Common. Geotechnique 34, No. 4, 513532.
Twine, D. & Roscoe, H. (1999). Temporary propping of deep
excavations: Guidance on design, C517. London: Construction
Industry Research and Information Association.
Wood, L. A. & Perrin, A. J. (1984). Observations of a strutted
diaphragm wall in London Clay: a preliminary assessment.
Geotechnique 34, No. 4, 563579.
Wu, T.-H. & Berman, S. (1953). Earth pressure measurements in
open cut: Contract D-8 Chicago subway. Geotechnique 3, No. 3,
248258.
Young, D. K. & Ho, E. W. L. (1994). The observational approach
to design of a sheet-piled retaining wall. Geotechnique 44, No.
4, 637654.
Zdravkovic, L., Potts, D. M. & St John, H. D. (2005). Modelling of
a 3D excavation in finite element analysis. Geotechnique 55,
No. 7, 497513.
Zhang, X., Koutsabeloulis, N. C., Hope, S. & Pearce, A. (2004). A
finite element analysis for the stability of drystone masonry
retaining walls. Geotechnique 54, No. 1, 5760.

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 147.8.81.145
On: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 04:02:06