704

Measured performance of a 26 m deep top-down

excavation in downtown Shanghai
Yong Tan and Mingwen Li

Abstract: Via a long-term comprehensive instrumentation program, the performance of a 26 m deep metro station excava-
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Tennessee on 05/15/13

tion constructed by the top-down method in downtown Shanghai was extensively examined. The measured excavation re-
sponses included diaphragm wall deflections, wall settlements, ground settlements, uplifts of interior steel columns, axial
forces of propping struts, groundwater table levels, and settlements of adjacent buildings and utility pipelines. Based on the
analyses of field data, the following major findings were obtained: (i) the concrete struts along with the floor slabs effec-
tively suppressed later wall movements and consequently reduced the chance that the maximum wall deflections would oc-
cur above the excavation surfaces, (ii) with the progress of excavation to a lower depth, the diaphragm walls underwent a
serrated settlement pattern over time, (iii) no significant post-excavation wall deflection occurred, (iv) the relationship be-
tween the interior column uplifts and the maximum wall deflections can be described by a linear equation, and (v) most sys-
tem loads due to soil removal were carried by the concrete struts along with the floor slabs. The struts sustained mainly the
released earth pressures due to the exposure of the adjacent portions of diaphragm walls, and the soil removal distant from
the struts imposed limited effects on the strut axial forces.
Key words: top-down excavation, soft clays, field data, buildings and utility pipelines.
Résumé : La performance d’une excavation d’une profondeur de 26 m pour une station de métro au centre-ville de Shan-
ghai, construite selon la méthode de construction descendante, a été étudiée de façon extensive à l’aide d’un programme
For personal use only.

d’instrumentation à long terme. Les comportements étudiés comprennent les déflections du mur à diaphragme, les tasse-
ments des murs et du sol, les soulèvements des colonnes d’acier intérieures, les niveaux de la nappe phréatique, les forces
axiales dans les supports verticaux, et les tassements des bâtiments adjacents et des canalisations. Selon les analyses des
données de terrain, les conclusions suivantes sont obtenues : (i) les supports de béton le long des dalles de plancher suppri-
ment de façon efficace les mouvements futurs des murs et ainsi réduisent les chances que la déflection maximale des murs
se produise au-dessus des surfaces de l’excavation, (ii) en raison de la progression en profondeur de l’excavation, les murs à
diaphragme ont subit, avec le temps, un modèle de tassement dentelé, (iii) aucune déflection significative des murs s’est
produite après l’excavation, (iv) la relation entre les soulèvements des colonnes intérieures et la déflection maximale du mur
peut être décrite par une équation linéaire et (v) la majorité des charges du système causées par l’enlèvement du sol ont été
portées par les supports de béton le long des dalles de plancher. Les supports ont principalement maintenu les pressions des
terres enlevées en raison de l’exposition aux portions adjacentes des murs à diaphragme, et l’enlèvement du sol loin des
supports a causé des effets limités sur les forces axiales des supports.
Mots‐clés : excavation descendante, argiles molles, données de terrain, bâtiments et canalisations.
[Traduit par la Rédaction]

Introduction or facilities will confront bigger risks of being damaged.

Due to limited space in densely populated urban environ-
ments, underground structures such as basements and metro
lines have to go deeper today than in the past. As deeper ex-
cavations incur larger stress and strain fields, both the con-
structed underground structures and the adjacent structures
Received 24 June 2010. Accepted 8 November 2010. Published
at www.nrcresearchpress.com/cgj on 4 May 2011.
Y. Tan. Key Laboratory of Geotechnical and Underground
Engineering, Ministry of Education, Department of Geotechnical
Engineering, Tongji University, 1239 Siping Road, Shanghai
200092, P.R. China.
M. Li. Shanghai Tunnel Engineering & Rail Transit Design and
Research Institute, 200 West Tianmu Road, Shanghai 200070, P.
R. China.
Corresponding author: Y. Tan (e-mail:
tanyong21th@tongji.edu.cn).
However, stress–strain behavior of soils, especially soft soils,
is highly nonlinear and is affected by many factors, e.g., ani-
sotropy, creep, and destructuration (Hashash 1992; Fang and
Yin 2006; Yin and Cheng 2006; de Lyra Nogueira et al.
2009; Yildiz et al. 2009). It is difficult to predict the actual
development of stress–strain in soils under complex construc-
tion conditions via a numerical or analytical method. As a re-
sult, the design of an excavation today still relies heavily on
empirical and semi-empirical approaches, some of which date
back several decades. By updating the current database, well-
documented field observation data regarding a deep excava-
tion — especially in soft clays and (or) congested urban en-
vironments — will be beneficial in a practical sense to
designers, practitioners, and researchers. Another immediate
benefit of field observations is that they can provide timely
feedback to both designers and contractors and consequently
help lower the risk for design and construction.

Can. Geotech. J. 48: 704–719 (2011) doi:10.1139/T10-100 Published by NRC Research Press
 Tan and Li
In the past few decades, performances of excavations have
been extensively investigated, and some empirical or semi-
empirical approaches for estimating the magnitudes of exca-
vation-induced wall deflections and ground movements have
been developed on the basis of field measurements (e.g.,
Peck 1969; Mana and Clough 1981; O’Rourke 1981; Finno
et al. 1989; Clough and O’Rourke 1990). However, most of
these field data were obtained from excavations less than
15 m deep, supported by flexible retaining systems (e.g.,
sheet pile walls, soldier pile walls) or without lateral support
systems or with support systems lacking sufficient stiffness.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Tennessee on 05/15/13
More recently, the observed data (Ou et al. 1993, 1998;
Hsieh and Ou 1998; Ng 1998; Long 2001; Moormann 2004;
Liu et al. 2005; Wang et al. 2005; Kung et al. 2007; Leung
and Ng 2007; Seo et al. 2010; Tan and Wei 2011) in deep
excavations supported by stiff diaphragm walls proved that
these empirical or semi-empirical approaches may overesti-
mate wall deflections and ground movements due to excava-
tion. Until now, most of these aforementioned studies focused
on retaining wall deflections and ground settlements during
excavation. Few cases were known to document pre- and
post-excavation wall deflections and ground settlements,
long-term development of retaining wall settlements, axial
forces of propping struts, and movements of interior steel
columns. These parameters are important indicators of sup-
porting system stability, and the relevant field measurements
For personal use only.
can help designers, practitioners, and researchers further
understand the behavior of deep excavations. For excavation-
induced building settlements, there were only limited field
data available in the literature (e.g., O’Rourke et al. 1976;
Boscardin et al. 1978; Finno and Bryson 2002). For excavation-
induced settlements of nearby utility pipelines, few case his-
tories can be found in the literature.
This study investigated the performance of a 26 m deep
excavation at East Nanjing Road Station of Metro Line 10,
which was constructed by the top-down method in soft clays
in the commercial district of downtown Shanghai, China.
Field measurements of lateral deflections and vertical move-
ments of diaphragm walls, ground settlements, axial forces of
struts, vertical movements of interior steel columns, ground-
water table levels outside the excavation, and settlements of
adjacent buildings and utility pipelines were reported, ana-
lyzed, and discussed. This project and the relevant field data
not only provide a good case history to calibrate and verify
numerical tools, but also to facilitate thorough understanding
of the general behavior of deep excavations constructed by
the top-down method in soft clays within congested urban
environments.
Project information
The investigated excavation is located in the commercial
district of downtown Shanghai, China. As the largest city
and the commercial and financial center of China, Shanghai
is located at the estuary of Yangtze River on China’s east
coast. The city sits on the flat alluvial plain known as the
Yangtze River Delta featuring high groundwater tables and
thick layers of soft clays. Figure 1 presents the site plan of
the project along with the instrumentation layout for field
monitoring. The investigated excavation was parallel to Mid-
dle Henan Road with East Nanjing Road to the south and
705
Ningbo Road to the north. The excavation pit was approxi-
mately 25 m by 152 m in plan with an excavation depth of
24 to 26 m. It was bounded by Metro Line 2 below East
Nanjing Road, Hongyi building under construction, and the
four-story commercial building Laojiefu to the south; by a
new development and the eight-story steel-reinforced con-
crete Huadong Real Estate Group building to the west; by
the four-story brick masonry “residential building 1” to the
northwest; by the four-story brick masonry “residential build-
ing 2” to the northeast; and by the four-story brick masonry
“commercial building,” the four-story brick masonry “resi-
dential building 3,” and the five-story brick masonry Shang-
hai Gas Corporation building to the east. Except for the
Hongyi building, all these adjacent buildings are relatively
old with histories of 50 to more than 100 years. Prior to ex-
cavation, a 1 m thick concrete diaphragm wall with a depth
of 30 m had been constructed between the new development
and the planned excavation. All these buildings are supported
by strip footings, except for Huadong Real Estate Group
building that was supported by pre-stressed high-strength
concrete (PHC) pipe piles (13 to 18 m in length, 300 mm in
external diameter, and 70 mm in wall thickness). The mini-
mum distance was 7 m between the excavation and Huadong
Real Estate Group building and 9 m between the south shaft
and Metro Line 2 (in service). The excavation was also sur-
rounded by numerous utility pipelines, including one con-
crete storm sewer with a diameter of 1000 mm and thickness
of 100 mm; two cast-iron water-supply pipelines with diame-
ters of 300 and 1000 mm and thicknesses of 5 and 10 mm,
respectively; two cast-iron gas-supply pipelines with diame-
ters of 300 and 700 mm and thicknesses of 5 and 10 mm,
respectively; one cast-iron communication-cable pipeline
with a diameter of 1000 mm and thickness of 10 mm; three
cast-iron power-cable pipelines with diameters of 300 and
1000 mm and thicknesses of 5 and 10 mm, respectively; and
several electricity pipelines. These utility pipelines were
buried at depths of 0.5 to 1.0 m below ground surface (BGS).
Subsurface conditions and soil properties
Prior to excavation, soil conditions at the site were ex-
plored by a series of field exploration programs (e.g., bore-
holes, standard penetration tests, and cone penetration tests).
The field exploration encountered a thin layer of fill (layer I)
in the upper 2 m BGS, followed by a layer of firm silty clay
(layer II) to a depth of 7 m BGS. Below layer II, there ex-
isted a layer of very soft clay (layer III) to a depth of 18 m
BGS. The next layer was soft to firm silty clay (layer IV) ex-
tending to a depth of 39 m BGS, underlain by a stiff silty
clay (layer V) to a depth of 43 m BGS. Beneath layer V was
very dense silty fine sand interbedded with sandy silt (layer
VI) to the termination depth of 70 m BGS. The observed
long-term groundwater table at the site was around 0.5 to
0.7 m BGS.
The soil properties along the depth were characterized by
both in situ field vane shear tests and a series of laboratory
tests including oedometer tests (confined compression tests),
triaxial tests, and unconfined compression tests. The effective
cohesion, c′, and the effective friction angle, f0 , were deter-
mined by consolidated undrained triaxial tests; the coefficient
of compressibility, av(0.1–0.2), and the constrained modulus,
Published by NRC Research Press
 706
Fig. 1. Site plan of the project along with the instrumentation layout.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Tennessee on 05/15/13
For personal use only.
E0.1–0.2, were obtained by oedometer tests at stress ranges of
100 to 200 kPa; the undrained shear strength, Su, along the
depth was measured by consolidated–undrained quick shear
tests; the specific penetration resistance, Ps, was obtained
from in situ static cone penetration tests, which accounts for
both cone resistance and sleeve friction. It is calculated by
4l
½1 Ps ¼ qc þ fs
D into the underlying very dense silty fine sand stratum to pro-
where qc is cone resistance in MPa, l is length of the cone
rod in metres, D is diameter of the cone rod in metres, and
fs is sleeve friction in MPa. Both the laboratory and field test-
ing results indicated that the soft soils in the upper layers fea-
ture relatively high water content, high void ratio, high
compressibility, and low strength. The in situ vane shear test
results showed that the soft soils in the upper 20 m BGS ex-
hibited medium sensitivity, St, of around 2 to 4, which im-
plies that the strength and stiffness of the soft clays would
degrade substantially once subjected to disturbances arising
from construction activities. The soil profiles along with ba-
sic soil properties are presented in Fig. 2.
Construction sequence and procedure
The investigated excavation consisted of three sections (i.e.,
the south shaft, the central standard segments, and the north
shaft). To mitigate potentially adverse impact induced by
excavation on the adjacent historic Huadong Real Estate
Group building, a row of auger cast-in-place (ACIP) piles
were installed between the building and the planned metro
station prior to excavation. The ACIP piles were 31 m in
length and 550 mm in diameter, and were spaced at 0.6 m.
Considering (i) limited construction space, (ii) mitigation of
potentially adverse effects on adjacent buildings and facili-
ties as much as possible, and (iii) maintenance of normal
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 48, 2011
commercial activities nearby during construction, the top-
down method supported by braced concrete diaphragm
walls was adopted for this deep excavation.
Figure 3 briefly illustrates the top-down excavation se-
quence at the site. It started with construction of 1 m thick
perimeter retaining walls and then the load-bearing elements
(LBE) that would carry the future metro station structures.
The diaphragm walls were toed through the soft clay layers
vide lateral stability and effective cutoff of groundwater. The
load-bearing elements consisted of ACIP piles, which pene-
trated into the very dense silty fine sand and sandy silt layers.
The interior H-section steel columns (460 mm × 460 mm)
were constructed on the deep-seated ACIP piles to sustain
construction loads as well as function as permanent struc-
tures for later use. Then, the ground floors, which also
worked as struts for supporting the diaphragm walls, were
cast. As excavation proceeded to a lower level, new struts or
floor slabs were propped or cast. This process was repeated
down to the final excavation levels. The construction was
conducted from the two end shafts toward the central stand-
ard segments. Excavation at the south shaft started on 29 No-
vember 2007 and ended on 8 April 2008; excavation at the
north shaft started on 2 March 2008 and ended on 14 July
2008; excavation at the central standard segments started on
26 August 2008 and ended on 25 October 2008. Tables 1
and 2 summarize the detailed construction activities at the
north shaft and the central standard segments.
Figure 4 presents the typical cross sections of the north
shaft and central standard segments. The cross section of the
south shaft is similar to that of the north shaft except for
some minor details. The excavation depths were 26.1 m at
the south shaft, 25.8 m at the north shaft, and 24.24 m at
the central standard segments. The depths of the diaphragm
walls were 53 m at the south shaft, 46 m at the north shaft,
Published by NRC Research Press
 Tan and Li
Fig. 2. Soil profiles and material properties.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Tennessee on 05/15/13
For personal use only.
and 44 m at the standard segments. The use of a deeper dia-
phragm wall at the south shaft was to minimize the excava-
tion-induced impact on Metro Line 2 (in service), which is
only 9 m away from the south shaft. The ACIP piles func-
tioning as the load-bearing elements were 0.8 m in diameter
and 30 m in length at the south shaft, 1.0 m in diameter and
40 m in length at the standard segments, and 1.0 m in diam-
eter and 30 m in length at the north shaft. Prior to excava-
tion, layers of soils at different depths on the excavation side
were reinforced by jet-grouting to restrain wall movements.
The reinforced soils were located at depths of 9.95 to
12.45 m BGS, 16.90 to 19.10 m BGS, and 26.10 to 29.10 m
BGS at the south shaft; at depths of 16.67 to 18.47 m BGS
and 24.24 to 27.24 m BGS at the standard segments; and at
depths of 16.60 to 18.77 m BGS and 25.80 to 28.08 m BGS
at the north shaft. The measured unconfined compression
strength of these reinforced soils 28 days after completion of
grouting was more than 1.2 MPa. It is common engineering
practice in Shanghai excavations to reinforce the soils at
some depths on the excavation sides by grouting. The main
purposes of grouting are to: (i) restrict wall movements dur-
ing excavation (unloading) by reinforcing the soils on the ex-
cavation side, (ii) mitigate potential basal heave during
excavation, and (iii) cut off seepage of waterflow below the
excavation surface. Via laboratory tests, Fang and Yin
(2007) found that the deep cemented soft soils consolidate
faster than the pure soft ground. The struts at levels 1 and 6
707
of the south and north shafts and the struts at levels 1, 3, and
6 of the standard segments were steel-reinforced concrete,
and the struts at other levels were steel pipes 609 mm in ex-
ternal diameter and 16 mm in wall thickness. To enable max-
imum working space inside the excavation, diagonal strutting
was used at the corners. The concrete struts were horizontally
spaced at 6 m and the steel pipe struts were horizontally
spaced at 2 to 3 m along the longitudinal direction of the ex-
cavation. The vertical distance from the centers of the struts
to the nearest excavation surface directly below was around
0.5 m.
Because of tight construction schedule, the curing period
of the concrete struts and floor slabs was 14 days (concrete
reached 80%∼90% of the design strength) at the two end
shafts and was only 6 to 7 days (concrete strength < 70% of
the design value) at the standard segments. The Young’s
moduli, E, of the concrete and steel used at this site were
3 × 107 and 2 × 108 kPa, respectively.
Instrumentation
To verify design assumptions and monitor the performance
of the deep excavation for securing the safety of this project,
a long-term comprehensive instrumentation program was
conducted in situ. Figure 1 presents the instrumentation
layout used to monitor the performance of the excavation.
The deflections of the diaphragm walls were monitored by
Published by NRC Research Press
 708
Fig. 3. Top-down construction sequence at the site.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Tennessee on 05/15/13
For personal use only.
24 inclinometer tubes (designated as Q1 to Q24); the settle-
ments of the diaphragm walls were surveyed by a level in-
strument with an accuracy of 0.01 mm. These surveyed
points were at the same locations as the inclinometer tubes
(Q1 to Q24). For the struts at Z2 and Z3 (designated as
Z2-1 to Z2-7 and Z3-1 to Z3-6, respectively), the develop-
ment of the strut axial forces was monitored by the vibrating
wire stress meters for the concrete struts and by the vibrating
wire strain gauges for the steel pipe struts. The vertical
movements of the interior steel columns (designated as L1 to
L25) were monitored by an electronic total station instru-
ment. The groundwater tables outside the excavation were
monitored by six standpipe piezometers (designated as SW1
to SW6), which were buried to a depth of 15 m BGS. The
ground settlements at locations D1 to D18, around 1 to 5 m
behind the diaphragm walls, were surveyed by a level instru-
ment. To monitor the ground settlements close to the adja-
cent buildings, two critical sections (designated as D10 to
D10-5 close to the Huadong Real Estate Group building and
D11 to D11-5 close to the Shanghai Gas Company building)
were selected. The settlement points at both sections were
spaced at 5 m. The settlement points D10 to D10-5 were 5
to 30 m away and the points D11 to D11-5 were 0.5 to
25 m away from the diaphragm walls.
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 48, 2011
To address the safety concerns regarding the buildings and
utility pipelines in the proximity of the excavation, the settle-
ments of the buildings and pipelines were also surveyed dur-
ing excavation. Thirty-six settlement points (designated as J1
to J36), established on the exterior walls of seven adjacent
buildings, were surveyed by a level instrument. As to the
utilities, a total of 93 settlement points were surveyed by a
level instrument, and they are designated as Y1 to Y16 for
the concrete storm sewer, S1 to S25 for two cast-iron water-
supply pipelines, M1 to M24 for two cast-iron gas pipelines,
T1 to T13 for the cast-iron communication-cable pipeline,
and DL1 to DL15 for three cast-iron power-cable pipelines
(some of the surveying points are marked in Fig. 1).
All the instrumentations equipment was zeroed before any
construction activities started. Field readings were obtained
every 2 days during stages 1(a) and 1(b), every day between
stages 2(a) and 9, and every 2 days during casting of the base
slabs and the following 30 days. Thereafter, instrument read-
ings were retrieved every 7 days.
Observed performance of the excavation
Prior to the commencement of major work, all the existing
buildings and utility pipelines within the predefined influence
zones were surveyed to establish benchmarks for monitoring
the impact from excavation. As it is not feasible to present all
the field observation data due to limited paper length, only
typical field measurements are presented and discussed in
this study.
Deflections of diaphragm walls
Figure 5 presents the typical lateral deflections of dia-
phragm walls measured at Q3 of the south shaft, Q23 of the
north shaft, and Q9 of the central standard segments follow-
ing the completion of each excavation stage. It was noticed
that as excavation went down to level 2, wall movements in
the upper part were restrained by the cast ground floors and
then the walls began to develop deep-seated movements
(bulging profiles) towards the excavation side. During the
subsequent excavation stages, the walls continuously devel-
oped deep-seated movements towards the excavation side
and the locations of maximum wall deflections moved down-
ward as excavation went deeper. Compared with Q3 and
Q23, the diaphragm wall at Q9 experienced significantly
larger deflections at the completion of excavation at each
level. This discrepancy may be attributed to these two fac-
tors: (i) corner effects at the end shafts and (ii) insufficient
curing time for the poured concrete struts and floor slabs at
the central standard segments. Because of arching effects (e.g.,
Singh et al. 2010), wall deflections at the excavation cor-
ners (end shafts) may be smaller than those at the central
sections, where plane-strain conditions can be assumed (e.g.,
Ou and Chiou 1993; Ou and Shiau 1998). To catch up
with the tight construction schedule, the curing time for the
cast concrete struts and floors at the standard segments was
only 7 days. This means that excavation to a lower level
was carried out before the cast concrete struts or floor slabs
gained sufficient strength. As a result, the struts and floor
slabs may not have provided sufficient strength to suppress
the wall deflections during excavation.
Figure 6a shows the relationship between the measured
Published by NRC Research Press
 Tan and Li 709

Table 1. Main stages of excavation at the north shaft. Ø, external diameter.

Stage Event Date Days spent

1(a) Construction of diaphragm wall, ACIP bored piles as load-bearing 5 Jan. 2007 ∼ 7 Dec. 2007 336
elements, and ACIP isolation piles
1(b) Construction of H-section steel columns resting on the ACIP piles, 13 Dec. 2007 ∼ 6 Jan. 2008 24
and performance of jet-grouting
2(a) Excavation to 1.5 m BGS (level 1) 2 Mar. 2008 1
2(b) Casting of level 1 reinforced concrete struts (1.5 m × 0.4 m) 3 Mar. 2008 ∼ 4 Mar. 2008 2
2(c) Curing of level 1 struts 4 Mar. 2008 ∼ 17 Mar. 2008 14
3(a) Excavation to 6.42 m BGS (level 2) 18 Mar. 2008 ∼ 22 Mar. 2008 5
3(b) Installation of level 2 steel pipe struts (Ø609 mm) 22 Mar. 2008 1
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Tennessee on 05/15/13

3(c) Construction of roof slab (0.8 m thick) 23 Mar. 2008 ∼ 24 Mar. 2008 2
3(d) Curing of roof slab 25 Mar. 2008 ∼ 8 Apr. 2008 14
4(a) Excavation to 10.15 m BGS (level 3) 9 Apr. 2008 ∼ 13 Apr. 2008 5
4(b) Installation of level 3 steel pipe struts (Ø609 mm) 13 Apr. 2008 1
4(c) Construction of middle slab 1 (0.8 m thick) 14 Apr. 2008 ∼ 17 Apr. 2008 4
4(d) Curing of middle slab 1 18 Apr. 2008 ∼ 2 May 2008 14
5(a) Excavation to 13.05 m BGS (level 4) 3 May 2008 ∼ 9 May 2008 7
5(b) Moving level 3 struts to level 4 9 May 2008 1
6(a) Excavation to 17.10 m (level 5) 10 May 2008 ∼ 17 May 2008 8
6(b) Installation of level 5 steel pipe struts (Ø609 mm) 15 May 2008 1
6(c) Construction of middle slab 2 (0.8 m thick) 16 May 2008 ∼ 22 May 2008 7
6(d) Curing of middle slab 2 23 May 2008 ∼ 6 June 2008 14
7(a) Excavation to 20.12 m BGS (level 7) 7 June 2008 ∼ 14 June 2008 8
7(b) Moving level 5 struts to level 7 14 June 2008 1
7(c) Casting of level 6 reinforced concrete struts (1.5 m × 1.0 m) 15 June 2008 ∼ 17 June 2008 3
For personal use only.

7(d) Curing of level 6 struts 17 June 2008 ∼ 1 July 2008 14

8(a) Excavation to 23.32 m BGS (level 8) 2 July 2008 ∼ 8 July 2008 7
8(b) Moving level 7 struts to level 8 8 July 2008 2
9 Excavation to 25.80 m BGS (final level) 10 July 2008 ∼ 14 July 2008 6
10(a) Construction of base slab (1.4 m thick) 15 July 2008 ∼ 19 July 2008 5
10(b) Curing of base slab 20 July 2008 ∼ 15 Oct. 2008 86

maximum wall deflection, dhm, and the excavation depth, H,
at the site. For a better understanding of this excavation,
some published case histories of excavations in soft to me-
dium clays, including 35 cases in Taipei (Ou et al. 1993,
1998; Hsieh and Ou 1998; Kung et al. 2007), four cases in
Singapore (Nicholson 1987; Hulme et al. 1989; Wallace et
al. 1992; Lim et al. 2003), four cases in Oslo (NGI 1962;
Murphy et al. 1975; Mitchell 1976), two cases in Boston
(Ladd et al. 1977; Whittle et al. 1993), two cases in Chicago
(O’Rourke et al. 1976; Finno and Harahap 1991), and four
cases in San Francisco (Tait and Taylor 1974; Reed 1980;
Mana and Clough 1981), were also plotted in this figure for
comparison. The excavations in Taipei, Singapore, and Bos-
ton (1993) were supported by stiff diaphragm walls, and the
excavations in Oslo, Chicago, Boston (1977), and San Fran-
cisco were supported by sheet piles or soldier piles. For ease
of comparison, typical soil properties of the clays at various
sites are summarized in Table 3.
From Fig. 6a, it was observed that except for Q20, dhm val-
ues at the south and north shafts in this study were greater
than 0.1%H, but less than 0.275%H. Except for Q10, dhm val-
ues at the standard segments were between 0.275%H and
0.5%H. The data points of dhm lay far below the limiting
line, dhm = 1%H, proposed by Peck (1969) based on the ob-
served excavations in soft clays supported by sheet piles and
(or) soldier piles. By comparing excavations at various sites,
it was noticed that most of the measured dhm values in Oslo,
Chicago, Boston (1977), and San Francisco were between
0.6%H and 2.2%H, which were above the range of dhm =
0.1%H to 0.6%H measured in Taipei, Boston (1993), and
this excavation in Shanghai. This phenomenon is due to the
fact that the excavations in Taipei, Shanghai, and Boston
(1993) were supported by stiff diaphragm walls, while the
excavations in Oslo, Chicago, Boston (1977), and San Fran-
cisco were supported by flexible sheet piles and (or) soldier
piles. Although the excavations in Singapore were also sup-
ported by stiff diaphragm walls, the measured dhm values
ranged from 0.1%H to 1.0%H, which was above those meas-
ured in Taipei and Shanghai. This may be attributed to the
weaker soil conditions in Singapore in comparison with the
soil conditions in Taipei and Shanghai (see Table 3). The
comparison in Fig. 6a indicates that although the excavations
in Taipei and Shanghai were much deeper than those in Oslo,
Chicago, Boston, San Francisco, and the cases reported by
Peck (1969), the use of a braced stiff diaphragm wall can
substantially reduce the wall deflections caused by excava-
tion.
Based on 10 excavations in Taipei soft clays, Ou et al.
(1993) found that the ratio Hm/H is approximately equal to
1.0, where Hm is the location of the maximum wall deflec-
tion. Figure 6b shows the relationship between Hm and H at
this site. It was noticed that the ratios of Hm/H fell between
Hm = H and H + 7 m (i.e., dhm occurred within 7 m below
the excavation surface) when H ≤ 16 m, which were in

Published by NRC Research Press

 710 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 48, 2011

Table 2. Main stages of excavation at the central standard segments.

Stage Event Date Days spent

1(a) Construction of diaphragm wall, ACIP bored piles as load-bearing 18 Dec. 2006 ∼ 4 Oct. 2007 290
elements, and H-section steel columns
1(b) Performing jet-grouting 31 July 2008 ∼ 16 Aug. 2008 17
2(a) Excavation to 1.5 m BGS (level 1) 26 Aug. 2008 1
2(b) Casting of level 1 reinforced concrete struts (1.5 m × 0.4 m) 27 Aug. 2008 ∼ 28 Aug. 2008 2
2(c) Curing of level 1 struts 29 Aug. 2008 ∼ 5 Sep. 2008 7
3(a) Excavation to 6.22 m BGS (level 2) 11 Sep. 2008 ∼ 13 Sep. 2008 3
3(b) Installation of level 2 steel pipe struts (Ø609 mm) 13 Sep. 2008 1
3(c) Construction of roof slab (0.8 m thick) 14 Sep. 2008 ∼ 15 Sep. 2008 2
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Tennessee on 05/15/13

3(d) Curing of roof slab 16 Sep. 2008 ∼ 23 Sep. 2008 8

4(a) Excavation to 10.22 m BGS (level 4) 24 Sep. 2008 ∼ 26 Sep. 2008 3
4(b) Installation of level 4 steel pipe struts (Ø609 mm) 26 Sep. 2008 1
4(c) Casting of level 3 reinforced concrete struts (1.0 m × 0.8 m) and 27 Sep. 2008 ∼ 29 Sep. 2008 3
middle slab 1 (0.4 m thick)
4(d) Curing of level 3 struts and middle slab 1 30 Sep. 2008 ∼ 6 Oct. 2008 7
5(a) Excavation to 12.82 m BGS (level 5) 7 Oct. 2008 ∼ 9 Oct. 2008 3
5(b) Moving level 4 struts to level 5 9 Oct. 2008 1
6(a) Excavation to 17.17 m (level 7) 10 Oct. 2008 ∼ 12 Oct. 2008 3
6(b) Installation of level 7 steel pipe struts (Ø609 mm) 12 Oct. 2008 1
6(c) Casting of level 6 reinforced concrete struts (1.2 m × 0.8 m) and 13 Oct. 2008 ∼ 14 Oct. 2008 2
middle slab 2 (0.4 m thick)
6(d) Curing of level 6 struts and middle slab 2 15 Oct. 2008 ∼ 21 Oct. 2008 7
7(a) Excavation to 18.97 m BGS (level 8) 21 Oct. 2008 1
7(b) Moving level 7 struts to level 8 21 Oct. 2008 1
For personal use only.

8(a) Excavation to 21.77 m BGS (level 9) 22 Oct. 2008 1

8(b) Installation of level 9 steel pipe struts (Ø609 mm) 22 Oct. 2008 1
9 Excavation to 24.24 m BGS (final level) 23 Oct. 2008 ∼ 25 Oct. 2008 3
10(a) Construction of base slab (1.3 m thick) 26 Oct. 2008 ∼ 29 Oct. 2008 4
10(b) Curing of base slab 29 Oct. 2008 ∼ 19 Dec. 2008 52

agreement with those observations of five excavations less
than 20 m deep in Shanghai soft clays by Wang et al.
(2005). However, the ratios of Hm/H tended to fall between
Hm = H – 7 and H + 7 m (i.e., some dhm occurred within
7 m above the excavation surface and some within 7 m be-
low) when H > 16 m. This phenomenon could be explained
by examining the measured strut axial forces (refer to the
section titled “Axial forces of struts”). When excavation to
each level was executed, the earth pressures released due to
soil removal were basically retained by the level of struts
just above (e.g., earth pressure released by excavation to level
2 would be retained by level 1 struts). If the struts could pro-
vide enough axial forces, they would suppress further wall
deflections above them. Consequently, the retaining wall de-
flection due to soil removal would basically occur below the
struts and the maximum deflection would stay below the ex-
cavation surface. Otherwise, the retaining wall portion above
the struts would be mobilized and deflected toward the upper
struts that could provide enough axial forces. When excavat-
ing in the upper 16 m, the steel and concrete struts in combi-
nation with the cast floor slabs managed to withstand the
released earth pressures, and hence the maximum wall de-
flections occurred below the excavation surfaces. When exca-
vation proceeded to the lower 10 m, the earth pressures
released by each level of excavation increased with depth so
that the steel pipe struts at levels 7 and 8 could not fully sus-
tain them. As a result, the wall deflections developed up-
wards until the concrete struts at level 6 offered extra axial
forces and consequently the maximum wall deflections oc-
curred above the excavation surfaces.
It has been widely acknowledged that consolidation and
creep of soft clays could result in significant wall deflections
and ground movements. To examine this, the maximum post-
excavation deflections of the diaphragm wall at each moni-
tored location were plotted against the elapsed time in
Fig. 7. Time coordinate starts from the completion of excava-
tion to the final level on 9 April 2008 at the south shaft, 15
July 2008 at the north shaft, and 26 October 2008 at the
central standard segments. The monitored results showed
that the maximum wall deflections increased 1 to 10 mm in
the first 4 to 10 days (i.e., during the construction of base
slabs) and then stabilized quickly over time. No long-term
post-construction wall deflection was observed. It can be
concluded that in this top-down excavation, most of the wall
deflections arose from stress relief related to excavation,
while creep of the soft clays did not induce apparent post-
construction (time-dependent) wall movements.
Figure 8 plots the relationship between the normalized
maximum wall deflections, dhm /He, and the factors of safety
(FOS) against basal heave, in which FOS was calculated us-
ing the method of Bjerrum and Eide (1956), He is the final
excavation depth, and the two boundary curves shown were
proposed by Mana and Clough (1981). The reported data of
the top-down excavations in Shanghai soft clays (Liu et al.
2005; Xu 2007) were also included in this figure for compar-
ison. It was noticed that except for a few scattering data, most

Published by NRC Research Press

 Tan and Li
Fig. 4. Cross sections of the north shaft and the central standard segments.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Tennessee on 05/15/13
For personal use only.
of the Shanghai cases were around the lower boundary of
Mana and Clough (1981). This could be attributed to the use
of the top-down technique along with reinforcement of the
soils below the excavation bases by grouting.
Wall settlements
When designing a retaining wall, it is common to assume
that the wall itself will not settle significantly. If the soil con-
ditions below the toe of the wall were complex and (or) the
wall did not rest on hard bearing stratum, wall settlements
could take place and cause racking or even failure of relevant
bracing systems. Hence, it is necessary to monitor the wall
settlements during excavation to ensure the safety of projects.
Figure 9 presents the development of wall settlements during
construction of the north shaft. The diaphragm walls initially
moved upwards up to 4 mm after completion of the concrete
struts at level 1. As excavation proceeded to lower levels, the
diaphragm wall began to settle and the wall settlements in-
creased continuously when excavation proceeded. Following
the completion of the base slabs, the wall settlements tended
to stabilize around 4.5 to 7.5 mm. When taking a close look
at Fig. 9, it can be noticed that during excavation at different
levels, the diaphragm walls underwent serrated settlement pat-
terns (i.e., the walls moved up first and then down). This im-
711
plied a different settling pattern for the diaphragm walls than
expected. Such a phenomenon can probably be explained by
the different soil movements that took place at different time
intervals. When a layer of soils was removed, the soils inside
the excavation pit moved upwards immediately due to stress
relief and consequently pulled the wall up by upward skin
friction. As time went by, the soils outside the pit started to
be mobilized and pulled the wall down by larger downward
skin friction. The observed wall settlements at the north shaft
were on average greater than those measured at the south shaft
and the standard segments. This was likely caused mainly by
the buildings nearby, which imposed additional surcharges to
the ground against the diaphragm walls once their sensitive
foundation soils were disturbed by construction activities.
The field measurements in Figs. 7 and 9 show that both
the lateral wall deflections and the vertical wall settlements
stabilized quickly following casting of the concrete base
slabs. This implies that the construction of the rigid base
slabs imposed immediate effects on suppression of the devel-
opment of wall movements.
Ground settlements
Figure 10a presents the relationship between the ground
settlements, dv, and the distance from the diaphragm wall, d,
Published by NRC Research Press
 712 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 48, 2011

Fig. 5. Typical wall deflections measured at the south shaft, north shaft, and central standard segments. dh, wall deflection.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Tennessee on 05/15/13

Fig. 6. Relationships between (a) dhm and H; (b) Hm and H. for the final excavation stage, in which both dv and d are nor-
For personal use only.

malized by the final excavation depth, He. The empirical ap-

proach for the excavation-induced ground settlements, which
was developed by Peck (1969) from excavations propped by
sheet piles or soldier piles, was included in this figure for
comparison. Different from those reported in Peck (1969),
most of the field data in this case fell within zone I, far
away from zone III for very soft to soft clays. This indicates
that the use of a braced stiff concrete diaphragm wall can
substantially reduce excavation-induced ground settlements.
Figure 10b presents the relationship between the normal-
ized settlements, dv/dvm, along sections D10 to D10-5 and
D11 to D11-5 and the normalized distance, d/H, from dia-
phragm walls, where dv is the ground settlement at various
distances behind the diaphragm walls and dvm is the maxi-
mum ground settlement along one section. The empirical ap-
proaches recommended by Clough and O’Rourke (1990) and
Hsieh and Ou (1998) were also included for comparison.
This figure shows that most of the field data falls within the
envelope proposed by Clough and O’Rourke (1990) and the
primary influence zone defined by Hsieh and Ou (1998).

Uplifts of interior steel columns

In top-down excavation, the magnitude of the interior col-
umn uplifts is an important criterion for quality assurance
and quality control. Following the deep-seated deflection of
diaphragm walls, base upheavals, and ground movements to-
wards the excavation sides, the interior columns will be lifted
up continuously during excavation. Intolerable column uplifts
will cause racking or collapse of the strutting systems, which
could lead to detrimental results. Figure 11 presents the
measured column uplifts at L3 to L16 during construction of
the north shaft. As shown in this figure, the columns kept
being lifted up as excavation proceeded. Following the con-
struction of the base slabs, the column uplifts were reduced
and then stabilized quickly as the concrete cured with time.

Published by NRC Research Press

 Tan and Li 713

Table 3. Typical soil properties of soft to medium clays at various sites.

Undrained shear Water content, Plasticity index, Soil sensitivity,

Sites strength, Su (kPa) w (%) PI (%) St References
San Francisco 23 to 34 45 to 60 15 to 60 4 to 8 Mana and Clough (1981)
Boston 65 30 11 3 to 6 Ladd et al. (1977)
Chicago 18 to 80 20 to 40 10 to 20 — O’Rourke et al. (1976)
Oslo 24 to 29 20 to 45 10 to 35 2 to 6 NGI (1962)
Singapore 20 to 30 50 to 90 30 to 70 3 to 10 Hulme et al. (1989)
Taipei 25 to 75 45 to 60 10 to 20 — Ou et al. (1993)
Shanghai 20 to 60 20 to 60 10 to 25 2 to 4 This study
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Tennessee on 05/15/13

Fig. 7. Development of the maximum post-excavation wall move- Fig. 9. Development of wall settlements during construction.
ments.
For personal use only.

Fig. 8. Normalized maximum wall deflections versus FOS against Fig. 10. Observed ground settlement profiles versus those predicted
basal heave. by empirical methods: (a) relationship between normalized ground
settlements and normalized distance from the wall for the final ex-
cavation stage; (b) relationship between relative settlements and nor-
malized distance from wall at different excavation stages.

The columns at the south shaft and the standard segments du-
plicated similar uplifting patterns as those at the north shaft.
As uplifts of the interior columns are closely related to the
excavation depths and the associated wall movements to-
wards the excavation side, the measured column uplifts were
plotted against the excavation depths in Fig. 12a and against
the measured maximum wall deflections at different excava-
tion depths in Fig. 12b. In these two figures, the column up-
lifts and the maximum wall deflections are averaged for the
south shaft, standard segments, and north shaft. As shown in
Fig. 12a, the column uplifts, Lh(avg.), increased with the exca-
vation depth, H. Similar to the observed wall deflections in 0.15%H. From Fig. 12b, it was noticed that the column up-
Fig. 6a, Lh(avg.) values at the central standard segments rang- lifts increased almost linearly with the maximum wall deflec-
ing between 0.15%H and 0.22%H were above those observed tions and their relationship can be approximated by a linear
at the north and south shafts ranging between 0.06%H and equation

Published by NRC Research Press

 714
Fig. 11. Development of the vertical movements of interior steel
columns.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Tennessee on 05/15/13
Fig. 12. Relationships between (a) Lh(avg.) and H; (b) Lh(avg.) and dhm(avg.).
For personal use only.
½2 Lhðavg:Þ ¼ 0:6dhmðavg:Þ
where Lh(avg.) is the averaged column uplift at each excavation
section and dhm(avg.) is the averaged maximum wall deflection
at each excavation section.
Axial forces of struts
Figure 13 presents the measured axial forces of the struts
at different propping levels at location Z2 of the central
standard segments. The design axial loads of struts Z2-1
(level 1) to Z2-7 (level 9) are summarized in Table 4. The de-
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 48, 2011
sign loads were calculated using the beam-on-elastic-foundation
method, where the beam is simulated as a one-dimensional fi-
nite element. To continuously monitor the development of
the axial forces, the steel struts at levels 4 and 7 were not
moved to levels 5 and 8 once excavation at levels 5 and 8
was completed.
As shown in Fig. 13 and Table 4, the system loads due to
excavation were carried mainly by the rigid concrete struts
Z2-1 and Z2-5. The measured maximum axial forces at the
concrete struts Z2-1 and Z2-5 were up to 1.1 and 1.5 times
their design loads, respectively, and the final stabilized axial
forces were around 0.8 and 1.3 times, respectively. In con-
trast, most of the measured maximum axial forces of the steel
struts were just around 50% of their design loads and the fi-
nal stabilized axial forces were 28%–51% of their design
loads. Compared with the measured axial force at concrete
strut Z2-1, the smaller magnitude at Z2-3 could be attributed
to the following two coupled factors: (i) the cast middle slab
1 below Z2-3 carried the excavation-induced loads jointly
with Z2-3 and (ii) the steel strut Z2-4 was not removed as
initially planned (i.e., according to the design, when excava-
tion proceeded to level 5, Z2-4 should have been relocated to
level 5). Therefore, Z2-4 shared the loads supposed to be car-
ried by Z2-3.
By further examination of the field observations at struts
Z2, it was found that the axial forces of most struts reached
their maximum readings in 1 to 2 weeks after being propped
or cast. Thereafter, the axial forces kept almost steady over
time. This finding indicates that during excavation, transfer-
ring of the excavation-induced loads to the struts was com-
plete in 1 to 2 weeks after strut popping or casting. The
lateral earth pressures released due to wall exposure were
sustained mainly by the struts and the floor slabs above the
excavation surfaces and deeper excavation hardly affected the
axial forces of the distant struts.
Groundwater table
Figure 14 presents the development of the measured
groundwater table levels over time at SW5 and SW6 outside
the excavation pit. During the entire construction at the north
shaft, the measured groundwater table levels at SW5 and
SW6 fluctuated slightly between 0 and 0.5 m BGS according
to seasonal changes, which were within the long-term
groundwater table levels in Shanghai areas. The measured
groundwater table levels at SW1 to SW4 around the south
shaft and the central standard segments duplicated similar de-
velopment patterns as those monitored at SW5 and SW6.
This proved that the impervious concrete diaphragm walls
along with the jet-grouting reinforcement layers below the fi-
nal excavation surfaces functioned well as waterproof cur-
tains, which successfully cut off seepage of the waterflow
during excavation.
Building settlements
Figure 15 shows the settlements of the eight-story concrete
Huadong Real Estate Group building supported by PHC pipe
piles during construction. Prior to excavation, the maximum
building settlements developed were around 5 to 35 mm.
The surveyed points close to the excavation, J1, J2, J9, J10, and
J11, experienced settlements around 15 to 35 mm, and those
away from the excavation, J3 to J8, experienced settlements
Published by NRC Research Press
 Tan and Li 715

Fig. 13. Development of the axial forces of struts at Z2 during excavation.

Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Tennessee on 05/15/13

Table 4. Axial forces, N, of the struts at Z2.

Measured Measured N
Design load, maximum N at stable
Location Strut material N (kN) (kN) state (kN)
Z2-1 (level 1) Concrete 4781 5215 3825
Z2-2 (level 2) Steel pipe 2000 1025 1025
Z2-3 (level 3) Concrete 2500 2370 2370
For personal use only.

Z2-4 (level 4) Steel pipe 2500 1267 1064

Z2-5 (level 6) Concrete 5000 7370 6560
Z2-6 (level 7) Steel pipe 2300 2400 1942
Z2-7 (level 9) Steel pipe 2300 1172 633

Fig. 14. Variation of groundwater table levels during excavation.

around 5 to 10 mm. These significant pre-excavation settle-
ments were possibly due to the combined effects of the fol-
lowing three factors: (i) lack of support from the foundation
soils during diaphragm walling, (ii) additional settlements
under the building’s own weight, and (iii) possible creep ef-
fects of the soft clays. As the diaphragm wall moved con-
tinuously towards the excavation side while soil removal
proceeded, the building kept settling over time. Immediately
after excavation to the final level was completed, the maxi-
mum building settlements of 60 to 95 mm occurred at J1,
J2, J3, J9, J10, and J11 on the southeast corner closest to
the pit, and the minimum settlements of 10 to 30 mm oc-
curred at J6 to J8 on the northwest corner furthest from
the pit. The building developed an apparent inclination to-
wards the excavation. Following the completion of the con-
crete base slab at stage 10(a), the settlements at all the
surveyed points continued to increase with time ,but at
smaller rates, until 15 October 2008. Thereafter, the settle-
ments at J4 to J11 and J10-1 almost stopped, while J1, J2,
and J3 continued settling over time. The post-excavation
settlements at J1 to J3 and J9 to J11 between 15 July and
15 October 2008 were from to 13 up to 34 mm. As the
diaphragm wall did not develop substantial post-excavation
deflections, these significant post-excavation building settle-
ments may have resulted from the following factors: (i) ex-
cavation at the adjacent standard segments close to the wall

Published by NRC Research Press

 716
Fig. 15. Settlement developments at Huadong Real Estate Group building.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Tennessee on 05/15/13
J1 to J3 between 26 August and 25 October 2008 and (ii)
For personal use only.
additional building settlements under its own weight due to
disturbance of its sensitive foundation soils by construction
activities. For survey points J1 to J3, at which the building
settlements did not stop even after construction at the stand-
ard segments was completed, factors other than the afore-
mentioned ones contributed to the observed settlements.
One possible explanation is that the structural integrity of
the building had been severely damaged by construction-in-
duced impact, and thus the side along J1 to J3 settled inde-
pendently from the res of the building. This assumption was
proved by the fact that: (i) during construction, apparent
cracks were observed on the south wall along J2 to J3, the
west wall along J3 to J4, and the interior wall along J4 to
J10 in an extra survey program, which is data that was not
available for the current study; and (ii) the other building
walls (e.g., J9 to J11, J4 to J7, J7 to J9) completely stopped
settling since the completion of excavation at the standard
segments on 25 October 2008. These cracks should be
caused by the excessive differential settlements, which were
up to 25 mm between J2 and J3, 34 mm between J3 and
J4, and 55 mm between J4 and J10. The observed building
settlements indicated that although a row of isolation piles had
been installed between the Huadong Real Estate Group build-
ing and the excavation pit, this concrete building still under-
went significant settlements up to 115 mm at J1 and J2 and
differential settlements up to 105 mm between J2 and J7.
The way the five-story brick masonry Shanghai Gas Com-
pany building settled was similar to that of Huadong Real
Estate Group building, while the maximum settlement it ex-
perienced was only half that of Huadong Real Estate Group
building and no long-term post-excavation settlement was ob-
served after the construction of the base slabs. Such distinc-
tive settling behavior could be partially attributed to thae fact
that theHuadong Real Estate Group building was closer to
the excavation and much heavier. As explained previously,
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 48, 2011
the sensitive foundation soils around the buildings closer to
the excavation would be disturbed more during construction
and therefore the soil strength would degrade more. As a re-
sult, they would experience relatively longer and larger post-
construction settlements under their own weights. At the
Shanghai Gas Company building, apparent cracks were ob-
served on the south wall along J28 to J30-1 and the north
wall along J27 to J27-1, where the maximum differential set-
tlements were up to 47 mm between J28 and J30-1 and
55 mm between J27 and J27-1.
Different from Huadong Real Estate Group building and
Shanghai Gas Company building, the other five four-story
brick masonry buildings (i.e., residential buildings 1 to 3,
the commercial building, and the Laojiefu building) resting
on shallow foundations experienced only very limited settle-
ments up to 7 mm throughout the excavation. Similar to the
Shanghai Gas company building, these five buildings stopped
settling quickly as the concrete base slab was cast. Because
the building settlements were greatly affected by many
factors (e.g., foundation types, structural types, structural
integrity, distances from excavations, and pre-construction
conditions of the structures), it is difficult to give general
explanations about the building settlements. A much more
detailed building survey program and structural analysis are
required for further investigation.
Settlements of utility pipelines
Figure 16 presents the typical settlements of the utility
pipeline — a 1.0 m diameter concrete storm sewer — during
construction of the south shaft. The sewer is centered 0.7 m
below the ground surface. The settlements of the other pipe-
lines duplicated similar settlement patterns, but with different
magnitudes. Prior to excavation, the pipelines settled slightly
and then moved upwards. The initial settlements were likely
induced by ground settlements resulting from diaphragm
walling, and the later upheaval was likely caused mainly by
Published by NRC Research Press
 Tan and Li
Fig. 16. Typical settlements of utility pipelines during excavation.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Tennessee on 05/15/13
reinforcement of the soils on the excavation side using jet-
grouting. Following excavation to deeper levels, the utility
pipelines began to settle again and the settlements increased
over time. After the base slab was cast, the pipelines almost
stopped settling by 26 August 2008, when excavation at the
standard segments started.
As the settlements of utility pipelines are affected by
many factors (e.g., stiffness and length of the pipelines, pre-
construction conditions of the pipelines, geometrical shapes
For personal use only.
of the excavations, embedment depths of the utilities, soil
conditions, distances relative to the excavations, and types
of adjacent facilities and structures), it is difficult to give a
general interpretation for the observed pipeline behavior
during excavation.
Conclusions
Via a long-term comprehensive instrumentation program,
the performance of a 26 m deep metro station excavation
constructed by the top-down method in soft clays within
downtown Shanghai was extensively investigated. Based on
the analyses of the field data, the following major findings
were obtained:
1. Using the top-down excavation method with braced dia-
phragm walls along with jet-grouting reinforcement, con-
struction activities of this 26 m deep metro station did
not induce a significantly adverse impact on the urban
environment.
2. The diaphragm walls developed typical deep-seated inward
movements (bulging profiles) during excavation. The
measured maximum wall deflections were between dhm
= 0.1%H and 0.5%H. The ratios of Hm/H were between
Hm = H and H + 7 m when H ≤ 16 m, and between
Hm = H – 7 m and H + 7 m when H > 16 m.
3. No significant long-term post-excavation wall movement was
observed. Most wall deflections and ground settlements
during excavation arose from stress relief incurred by
soil removal instead of consolidation and (or) creep of
the soft clays. The immediate casting of the concrete base
slabs following the completion of excavation helped stabi-
lize the movements of the retaining walls and the ground
as well as the adjacent buildings and utility pipelines.
4. The uplifts of the interior steel columns due to excavation
were closely related to the excavation depths and the as-
717
sociated wall deflections. The measured column uplifts
were between Lh(avg.) = 0.06%H and 0.22%H. The rela-
tionship between the column uplifts and the wall deflections
can be fit by a linear equation, Lh(avg.) = 0.6dhm(avg.)%H.
5. During excavation, the diaphragm walls underwent serrated
settlement patterns. This is likely due to the fact that the
soils on the two sides of the diaphragm walls were not
mobilized at the same time.
6. During top-down excavation, most of the system loads due
to soil removal were carried by the rigid concrete struts
and floor slabs. When each layer of soil was removed,
the earth pressures released due to wall exposure were
basically retained by the level of struts just above the
excavation surface. If the struts could provide enough
axial forces, they were able to sustain retaining wall de-
flections. Otherwise, the retaining wall would tend to
deflect towards the nearest struts that could provide
greater axial forces to resist the earth pressures. The pro-
cess of transferring the excavation-induced loads to the
braced struts was almost completed within 1 to 2 weeks
after installation of the struts.
7. The impervious concrete diaphragm walls along with the
jet-grouting reinforcement layers below the excavation
bases can successfully cut off the seepage of waterflow
during excavation. Therefore, additional settlements due
to consolidation of soft clays, which would result from
changing of the water head, can be prevented.
Acknowledgements
Many people and organizations contributed to the success of
this project and special thanks are due to Mr. Hong-liang Lan
of Shanghai Geotechnical Investigations & Design Institute
Co., Ltd. for providing the detailed information for soil condi-
tions at the project site, Shanghai Jing-Hai Engineering Tech-
nology Company for field instrumentation and field data
collection, and Dr. Ye Lu of Shanghai University for her sub-
stantial contribution to improve the quality of this manuscript.
The financial support from the National Natural Science Foun-
dation of China (NSFC Grant No. 50908172), Kwang-hua
funds for the College of Civil Engineering of Tongji University,
and Shanghai Leading Academic Discipline Project (No. B308)
are gratefully acknowledged. Finally, the great comments from
the three anonymous reviewers, the Associate Editor, and the
Editor are sincerely appreciated.
Published by NRC Research Press
 718
References
Bjerrum, L., and Eide, O. 1956. Stability of strutted excavations in
clay. Géotechnique, 6(1): 32–47. doi:10.1680/geot.1956.6.1.32.
Boscardin, M.D., Cording, E.J., and O’Rourke, T.D. 1978. Case
studies of building behavior in response to adjacent excavation.
Final report prepared by the University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign for the U.S. Department of Transportation, Washing-
ton, D.C. Report No. UMTA-IL-06-0043-78-2.
Clough, G.W., and O’Rourke, T.D. 1990. Construction induced
movements of in-situ walls. In Design and Performance of Earth
Retaining Structures, Proceedings of a Specialty Conference,
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Tennessee on 05/15/13
Ithaca, N.Y., 18–21 June 1990. GSP 25. Edited by P. Lambe and L.
A. Hansen. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), New
York. pp. 439–470.
de Lyra Nogueira, C., de Azevedo, R.F., and Zornberg, J.G. 2009.
Coupled analyses of excavations in saturated soil. International
Journal of Geomechanics, 9(2): 73–81. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1532-
3641(2009)9:2(73).
Fang, Z., and Yin, J.-H. 2006. Physical modelling of consolidation of
Hong Kong marine clay with prefabricated vertical drains.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 43(6): 638–652. doi:10.1139/
T06-021.
Fang, Z., and Yin, J.H. 2007. Response of excess pore water pressure
in soft marine clay around a soil-cement column. International
Journal of Geomechanics, 7(3): 167–175. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)
1532-3641(2007)7:3(167).
Finno, R.J., and Bryson, L.S. 2002. Response of building adjacent to
For personal use only.
stiff excavation support system in soft clay. Journal of Performance
of Constructed Facilities, 16(1): 10–20. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0887-
3828(2002)16:1(10).
Finno, R.J., and Harahap, I.S. 1991. Finite element analysis of HDR-4
excavation. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 117(10): 1590–
1609. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1991)117:10(1590).
Finno, R.J., Atmatzidis, D.K., and Perkins, S.B. 1989. Observed
performance of a deep excavation in clay. Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, 115(8): 1045–1064. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410
(1989)115:8(1045).
Hashash, Y.M.A. 1992. Analysis of deep excavations in clay. Ph.D.
thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, Massachusetts Institute
of Technology (MIT), Cambridge, Mass.
Hsieh, P.-G., and Ou, C.-Y. 1998. Shape of ground surface settlement
profiles caused by excavation. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 35
(6): 1004–1017. doi:10.1139/cgj-35-6-1004.
Hulme, T.W., Potter, J., and Shirlaw, N. 1989. Singapore MRT
system: construction. Proceedings – Institution of Civil Engineers,
86: 709–770.
Kung, G.T.C., Juang, C.H., Hsiao, E.C.L., and Hashash, Y.M.A.
2007. Simplified model for wall deflection and ground-surface
settlement caused by braced excavation in clays. Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 133(6): 731–
747. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2007)133:6(731).
Ladd, C.C., Foott, R., Ishihara, K., Schlosser, F., and Poulos, H.G.
1977. Stress-deformation and strength characteristics. In Proceed-
ings of the 9th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Tokyo, 10–15 July 1977. Japanese
Society of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Tokyo.
Vol. 2, pp. 421–494.
Leung, E.H.Y., and Ng, C.W.W. 2007. Wall and ground movements
associated with deep excavations supported by cast-in-situ wall in
mixed ground condition. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvir-
onmental Engineering, 133(2): 129–143. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)
1090-0241(2007)133:2(129).
Lim, K.W., Wong, K.S., Orihara, K., and Ng, P.B. 1977. Comparison
of results of excavation analysis using WALLUP, SAGE CRISP
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 48, 2011
and EXCAV97. In Proceedings of Underground Singapore,
Singapore, 27–28 November 2003. Nanyang Technological
University, Singapore. pp. 83–94.
Liu, G.B., Ng, C.W.W., and Wang, Z.W. 2005. Observed performance
of a deep multistrutted excavation in Shanghai soft clays. Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 131(8): 1004–
1013. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2005)131:8(1004).
Long, M. 2001. Database for retaining wall and ground movements
due to deep excavations. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvir-
onmental Engineering, 127(3): 203–224. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)
1090-0241(2001)127:3(203).
Mana, A.I., and Clough, G.W. 1981. Prediction of movements for
braced cuts in clay. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering
Division, ASCE, 107(6): 759–777.
Mitchell, J.K. 1976. Fundamentals of soil behavior. John Wiley &
Sons, Inc., New York.
Moormann, C. 2004. Analysis of wall and ground movements due to
deep excavation in soft soils based on a new worldwide database.
Soils and Foundations, 44(1): 87–98.
Murphy, D.J., Clough, G.W., and Woolworth, R.S. 1975. Temporary
excavations in varved clay. Journal of the Geotechnical Division,
ASCE, 101(GT3): 279–295.
Ng, C.W.W. 1998. Observed performance of multipropped excavation
in stiff clay. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, 124(9): 889–905. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241
(1998)124:9(889).
NGI. 1962. Measurements at a strutted excavation, Oslo Subway,
Vaterland 1. Norwegian Geotechnical Institute (NGI), Oslo,
Norway. Technical Report 6.
Nicholson, D.P. 1987. The design and performance of the retaining
walls at Newton station. In Proceedings of the Singapore Mass
Rapid Transit Conference, Singapore, 6–9 April 1987. Singapore
Mass Rapit Transit. pp. 147–154.
O’Rourke, T.D. 1981. Ground movements caused by braced
excavations. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division,
ASCE, 107(9): 1159–1178.
O’Rourke, T.D., Cording, E.J., and Boscardin, M. 1976. The ground
movements related to braced excavation and their influence on
adjacent structures. University of Illinois report for U.S. Depart-
ment of Transportation, Washington, D.C. Report No. DOT-TST-
76T-22.
Ou, C.Y., and Chiou, D.C. 1993. Three-dimensional finite element
analysis of deep excavation. In Proceedings of 11th Southeast Asia
Geotechnical Conference, Singapore, 4–8 May 1993. The Institu-
tion of Engineers, Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. pp. 769–
774.
Ou, C.-Y., and Shiau, B.-Y. 1998. Analysis of the corner effect on
excavation behaviors. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 35(3): 532–
540. doi:10.1139/t98-013.
Ou, C.-Y., Hsieh, P.-G., and Chiou, D.-C. 1993. Characteristics of
ground surface settlement during excavation. Canadian Geotech-
nical Journal, 30(5): 758–767. doi:10.1139/t93-068.
Ou, C.Y., Liao, J.T., and Lin, H.D. 1998. Performance of diaphragm
wall constructed using the top-down method. Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 124(9): 798–
808. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(1998)124:9(798).
Peck, R.B. 1969. Deep excavation and tunneling in soft ground. In
Proceedings of 7th International Conference on Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Engineering, Mexico City, Mexico, 25–29 August
1969. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. State-of-the-art
volume, pp. 225–281.
Reed, M.W. 1980. Observed behaviors of an excavation in an
unusually soft San Francisco Bay Mud deposit. Doctoral thesis,
Stanford University, Stanford, Calif.
Published by NRC Research Press
 Tan and Li
Seo, M.W., Olson, S.M., Yang, K.S., and Kim, M.M. 2010.
Sequential analysis of ground movements at three deep excavation
sites with mixed soil conditions. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, 136(5): 656–668. doi:10.1061/
(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000257.
Singh, S., Sivakugan, N., and Shukla, S.K. 2010. Can soil arching be
insensitive to f? International Journal of Geomechanics, 10(3):
124–128. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000047.
Tait, R.G., and Taylor, H.T. 1974. Design construction and
performance of rigid and flexible bracing systems for deep
excavations in San Francisco Bay Mud. In Proceedings of the
ASCE National Meeting, Los Angeles, Calif. American Society of
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Tennessee on 05/15/13
Civil Engineers (ASCE), New York. pp. 1403–1405.
Tan, Y., and Wei, B. 2011. Observed behaviors of a long and deep
excavation constructed by cut-and-cover technique in Shanghai
soft clay. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental En-
gineering. (Posted online ahead of print 14 April 2011.) doi:10.
1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000553.
Wallace, J.C., Ho, C.E., and Long, M. 1992. Retaining wall behaviour
for a deep basement in Singapore clay. In Proceedings of the
For personal use only.
719
International Conference on Retaining Structures, Cambridge, UK,
July 1992. Thomas Telford, London. pp. 195–204.
Wang, Z.W., Ng, C.W.W., and Liu, G.B. 2005. Characteristics of wall
deflections and ground surface settlements in Shanghai. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 42(5): 1243–1254. doi:10.1139/t05-056.
Whittle, A.J., Hashash, Y.M.A., and Whitman, R.V. 1993. Analysis
of deep excavation in Boston. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
119(1): 69–90. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1993)119:1(69).
Xu, Z.H. 2007. Deformation behavior of deep excavations supported
by permanent structures in Shanghai soft deposit. Doctoral thesis,
Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China. [In Chinese.]
Yildiz, A., Karstunen, M., and Krenn, H. 2009. Effects of anisotropy
and destructuration on behavior of Haarajoki test embankment.
International Journal of Geomechanics, 9(4): 153–168. doi:10.
1061/(ASCE)1532-3641(2009)9:4(153).
Yin, J.-H., and Cheng, C.-M. 2006. Comparison of strain-rate
dependent stress–strain behavior from Ko-consolidated compres-
sion and extension tests on natural Hong Kong marine deposits.
Marine Georesources and Geotechnology, 24(2): 119–147. doi:10.
1080/10641190600704780.
Published by NRC Research Press