Behavior Of Deep tavation With Diaphragm Wall by Toru Masuda B.E. Civil Engineering, Hokkaido University 1982 SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE. REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DIGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING at the ‘Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1993, All rights reserved. Signature of Author _ ee a Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering August 10, 1993 Certified by _ - Professor Herbert H. Einstein Thesis Supervisor Aevepted by _ pe a r Proféssor fiduardo Kausel Chairman, Departmental Committee on Gradutate Studies ARCHIVES WASSACIUSETTR INSTITUTE OF TEC aLOEY OCT 14 1993Behavior Of Deep Excavation With Diaphragm Wall by Toru Masuda Submitted to the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering on August 10, 1993, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Civil and Favironmental Engineering Abstract In recent decades, the demand for underground space, for use as railway tunnels/stations, road tunnels, redevelopment of buildings, etc, has been increased in many heavily urbanized areas. Deep excavations are required to weet the demand, and, in sary cases, excavation sites are in close proximity to the existing structures/facilities. Advanced techniques are needed in these excavations to mitigate the large amount of lateral wall deflections and surface settelements for the purpose of avoiding damage to the adjacent structures/facilities. For these reasons, the following measures are often implemented in deep excavations: 1) concrete diaphragm walls as the retaining walls; 2) preloading to struts; 3) the top-down construction method; and 4) soil improvement. A major concern in these construction activities is to predict the lateral wall deflections and the .round surface settlements in the design stage. While numerical methods are often applied for the prediction of these movements, there are demerits because of the complexities of these methods. In this thesis, a simplified procedure for the prediction of maximum lateral deflections of diaphragm walls is proposed, based on the research of empirical correlations between the maximum lateral wal! deflections and the factors affecting the behavior of walls in 52 case studies. The following will be presented: 1) review of previous studies on the lateral wall deflections and surface settlements; 2) 52 case studies of deep excavations (depth = 10-42m) supported by diaphragm walls; 3) empirical correlations for maximum lateral wall deflections; 4) effects of soil improvement on the mitigation of Lateral wall deflections in excavations; and 5) recommendations to mitigate the lateral wall deflections ‘Thesis Supervisor: Dr. Herbert H. Einstein Title: Professor of Civil EngineeringAcknowledgement I would like to acknowledge Professor Herbert H. Einstein, who supervised this thesis and provided valuable help for my study and a profound understanding of underground construction. I would like to acknowledge Professor Andrew J. Whittle, who provided the advice for this study during the class of foundation engineering. I would like to thank Professors Robert V. Whitman and Charles C. Ladd, who provided a profound understanding of geotechnical engineering during the class. I would like to thank J. R. East Professor Joseph M. Sussman; Dr. Paul E. Brown, Director of Advanced Study Program in CAES; Professor Shaoul Ezekiel, Director of CARS; and Mr. Carl A. Accardo, Senior Liaison Officer for J. R. East in [LP, who helped me to familiarize myself with the MIT academic life. Special thanks to my wife, Kazue, for her devoted support and affection. And Kyoko, our daughter who was born during our stay, always makes us happy with her smiles. Finally, I would like to thank East Japan Railway Company, which sponsored my study at MIT Toru MasudaTable of Contents Abstract Acknowledgments. Table of Contents List of Tables List of Figures a Introduction 1.1 Review of Previous Studies 1.2 Case Studies of Lateral Deflections of Diaphragm Walls 1.3. Empirical Correlations for Lateral Deflections of Diaphragm Walls 1.4 Effects of Soil Improvement on Mitigation of Lateral Wall Deflections in Excavations 1.5 Recommendations to Mitigate Lateral Deflections of Diaphragm Walls in Deep Excavations References Review of Previous Studies on Lateral Wall Deflections and Surface Settlements in Excavations 2.1 Review of Peck (1969) 2.2 Review of Sugimoto (1986) 2.3. Review of Clough and O'Rourke (1990) 2.4 Review of Hashash (1992) 2.5 Review of Simpson (1992) References 9 14 19 22 23 25 26 27 29 32 32 34 37 a 44 aTCase Studies of Lateral Deflections of Diaphragm Walls in Deep Excavations 59 3.1 Overview 59 3.2 Case Studies of Lateral Wall Deflections in Excavations in Sand 60 3.2.1 Excavation Conditions of Case Studies 60 3.2.2 Measured Lateral Wall Deflections in the Case Studies n 3.3. Case Studies of Lateral Wall Deflections in Excavations in Clay 4 3.3.1 Excavation Conditions of Case Studies 4 3.3.2 Measured Lateral Wall Deflections in the Case Studies 99 3.4 Discussion on Behavior of Lateral Wall Deflections 110 References 114 Empirical Correlations for Lateral Deflections of Diaphragm Walls in Deep Excavations 153 4.1 Factors Affecting Lateral Deflections of Diaphragm Walls 153 4.2 Discussion on Factors Affecting Lateral Deflections of Diaphragm Walls 155 4.2.1 Empirical Correlations in Previous Studies 155 4.2.2 Flexural Stiffness of Diaphragm Walls 158 4.2.2.1 Overview 1584.2.2.2 Relationships Between Bending Moment, Flexural Stiffness, and Curvature of Rectangular Beams 160 4.2.2.3 Concrete Cover Ratio and Steel Ratio of Diaphragm Walls in Usual Practice 163 4.2.2.4 Flexural Stiffness of Concrete Diaphragm Walls 170 4.2.2.5 Plexural Stiffness of Walls in the Case Studies 177 4.2.3. Review of Correlations Between the N Value (SPT), Undrained Shear Strength, and Young's Modulus of Soils 182 4.2.3.1 Correlations Between the N Value (SPT) and Young's Modulus of Sand 183 4.2.3.2 Correlations Between the N Value (SPT) and Undrained Shear Strength of Clay 185 4.2.3.3 Correlations Between the N Value (SPT) and Young's Modulus of Clay 187 4.2.3.4 Typical Range of Young's Modulus of Soils 189 4.2.4 Characteristics of Soils Above & Below the Base of Excavation in the Case Studies 190 4.2.5 Characteristics of Struts and Construction Conditions in the Case Studies 207 4.3 Empirical Correlations for Maximum Lateral Deflections of Diaphragm Walls 2154.3.1 Proposed Coefficients for the Empirical Correlations 4.3.2 Proposed Coefficient R - Evaluated with the Case Studies 4.3.3. Proposed Empirical Correlations for Maximum Lateral Wall Deflections 4.4 Empirical Correlation for the Depth Generating Maximum Lateral Wall Deflections 4.4.1 Proposed Coefficients for the Empirical Correlation 4.4.2 Proposed Empirical Correlation for the Depth Generating Maxioum Lateral Wall Deflections References wall Effects of Soil Improvement on Mitigation of Later: Deflections in Excavations 5.1 Methods of Soil Improvement and Effects 5.1.1 Overview of Soil Improvement Methods 5.1.2 Improvement of Strength of Treated Soils 5.2 Case Study of Soil Improvement in Excavations References Recommendations to Mitigate Lateral Deflections of Diaphragm Walls in Deep Excavations 6.1 Application of the Empirical Correlations for Maximum Lateral Deflections of Diaphragm Walls in Deep Excavations 215 220 238 244 244 247 250 264 264 264 268 278 282 296 2966.1.1 Hypothetical Cases for Application of the Empirical Correlations 6.1.2 Application of the Empirical Correlations to Predict Maximum Lateral Wall Deflections 6.2 Recommendations to Mitigate Lateral Wall Deflections 6.2.1 General Considerations in Construction Activities 6.2.2 Recommendations to Mitigate Lateral Deflections of Diaphragm Walls in the Design Stage References 7. Summary and Future Studies 7.1 Summary of The: 7.2 Future Studies References Appendix —— Case Studies of Soil Improvement in Excavations References 296 304 310 310 313 325 325 331 353 334 345List of Tables Tolerable Differential Settlements of Buildirgs ({1.1], [1.2], Recommended Maximum Values in Parentheses [1.3] Allowable Differential Settlements for Railway Structures u.4) Number of Cases Categorized by Depth Interval Number and Depth of Excavations of Cases Used to Derive the Empirical Correlation [2.1] Number of Cases According to Soil Types of Excavations (2.2) Number of Cases Categorized by Depth Interval [2.2] Number of Cases According to Wall Types [2.2] Preloading to Struts in Cases 7 [3.7] Measured Maximum Lateral Wall Deflections and Their Generating Depth in Cases 1-14, Excavations in Sand Characteristic of Cases 34-37 [3.27] Preloading to Struts in Case 39 and Case 40 (3.29] Measured Maximum Lateral Wall Deflections and Their Generating Depth in Cases 15-52, Excavations in Clay Typical Types/Values of Reinforcing Bars of the Concrete Diaphragm Walls ({4.8] modified) Typical Values of the Concrete Cover Ratio (a) of Diaphragm Walls Typical Values of Steel Ratio (p %) of the Concrete Diaphragm Walls ({4.8] modified) an 22 33 35, 35 35 65 1 a7 ot 165 167 1694. 4. 4 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 AL 12 13 14 15 16 AT Range fur Typical ' tues of Steel Ratio (p %) of the Concrete Diaphragm Walls 172 Typical Values of k (=x/d) of Concrete Diaphragm Walls 173 Typical Values of Equivalent Young's Modulus &,, of Concrete Diaphragm Walls 114 Typical Values of Equivalent Young's Modulus E,, According to Wall Thickness 175 Flexural Stiffness of Walls and Excavation Geometry, Cases 1-14, Excavations in Sand 178 Flexural Stiffness of Walls and Excavation Geometry, Cases 15-52, Eycavations in Clay 179 Correlations Between the N Value (SPT) and Relative Density CD, ) [4.19] 185 Correlations Between the N Value (SPT), Unconfined Compressive Strength q, , and Undrained Shear Strength S, of Clay [4.19] 186 Typical Range of Young's Modulus of Soils E, [4.14] 189 Characteristics of Soils Above & Below the Base of Excavation, Cases 1-14, Excavations in Sand 191 Characteristics of Soils Above & Below the Base of Excavation, Cases 15-52, Excavations in Clay 196 Characteristics of Struts and Construction Conditions, Cases 1-14, Excavations in Sand 208 Characteristics of Struts and Construction Conditions, Cases 15-52, Exeavations in Clay 210 Values of the Factors representing Preloading to Struts (a) and the Top-Down Method (2) 219 1018 19 -20 <2 <22 223 224 26 values of the Factor representing soil Improvement (¢) Maximum Lateral Wall Deflections and Their Ratio to Excavation Depth, Cases 1-14, Excavations in Sand and Mixed Ground Proposed Coefficient Representing the Excavation System Stiffness of Diaphragm Walls R, Cases 1-14, Excavations in Sand and Mixed Ground Maximum Lateral Wall Deflections and Their Ratio to Excavation Depth, Cases 15-52, Excavations in Ciay and Mixed Ground Proposed Coefficient Representing the Excavation System Stiffness of Diaphragm Walls R, Cases 15-52, Excavations in Clay and Mixed Ground Effect of Preloading to Struts on Mitigation of Lateral Wall Deflections, Cases 34-37, Excavations in Clay Effect of the Top-down Method on Mitigation of Lateral Wall Deflections, Cases 46 and 47, Excavations in Clay Values of A (Bq. (4.36)) and Their Bounds (%) Depth Generating Maximum Lateral Wall Deflections and Proposed Coefficient Representing the Excavation System of Diaphragm Walls, Cases 15, 24-30, 34-41, 44-48, and 52, Excavations in Clay Classification of Soil Improvement Methods (Deep Soil mprovement Methods) ({5.1], (5.21, [5.31) Strength Properties for Design Use with the CJG Method (JG-1 Type) [5.6] 1d 219 221 222 226 229 239 240 243 246 265 2695.3 5.4 5.5 5.8 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 Unconf ined Compressive Strength of Treated Soil with the In Situ Soil Mixing Method ({5.1}, [5.19]) 270 Unconfined Compressive Strength of In Situ Soils Before and After Improvement with the Quicklime Pile Method [5.7] 273 Soil Properties Before and After Improvement with the Quicklime Pile Method [5.8] 275 Classification of Grout Materials Used in Chemical Grouting Method [5.4] 276 Unconfined Compressive Strength ( q, ) of In Situ Soils Before and After Improvement with the Quicklime Pile Method, At Section I [5.10] 280 Maximum Lateral Wall Deflections in Each Excavation Step (Sua, ) at Section I and Section [1 [5.11] 2at Hypothetical Cases for Application of Empirical Correlations for Maximum Lateral Wall Deflections 299 Prediction of Maximum Lateral Wall Deflections for the llypothetical Cases, Based on the Empirical Correlations (Eqs. (4.38.c) and (4.31)) 305 Prediction of Depth Generating the Maximum Lateral Wal! Deflections for the Hypotheti ‘al Cases, Based on Empirical Correlation 307 Construction Activities Related to Lateral Wall Deflections and Ground Surface Settlements for Braced and Tied-Back Excavations [6.7] 310 Recommendations to Mitigate Lateral Deflections of Diaphragm Walls in the Design Stage 313 12A. Maximum Lateral Wall Deflections in Some Excavation Steps (Same ) (5147 339 13La 2A 23 2.4 2.5 2.6 27 2.8 2.9 2.10 3.1 3.2 3.3 Terms Relating to Excavations and Used in This Thesis Summary of Settlements Adjacent to Open Cuts in Various Soils, as Function of Distance from Kdge of Excavation (2.1) Correlation Between Maximum Surface Settlements and Cutting Factor, Envelopes for Upper Value [2.2] Maximum Lateral Wall Deflections in Sands, Stiff Clays, and Residual Soils [2.3] Maximum Surface Settlements in Sand, Stiff Clays, and Residual Soils [2.3] Correlation for Maximum Lateral Wall Deflection with Factor of Safety Against Basal Heave and System Stiffness ((2.3], (2.61) Typical Mode of Lateral Wall Deflections and Surface Settlements (2.3) Surface Settlements Adjacent to Excavations in Sand (2.3) Surface Settlements Adjacent to Excavations in Stiff to Hard Clay (2.3] Surface Settlements Adjacent to Excavations in Soft to Medium Clay [2.3] Numerical Predictions of Maximum Lateral Wall Deflections, N. C. Boston Blue Clay ({2.4], [2.10]) Soil Profile and Section of Case 7 [3.7] Soil Profile and Section of Case 8 [3.8] Soil Profile and Section of Case 9 [3.9] 14 31 49 50 52 53 57 58 118 119 120-4 Soil Profile and Section of Case 11 [3.10] 1 5 Soil Profile and Section of Case 13 [3.12] 122 6 Soil Profile and Section of Case 14 [3.12] 123 .7 Ovserved Maximum Lateral Deflections of Diaphragm Walls vs. Excavation Depth, Excavations in Sand, Cases 1-14 124 .8 Soil Profile and Section of Case 15 [3.13] 125 and Section of Case 16 [3.14] 126 and Section of Case 17 [3.15] 127 and Section of Case 25 [3.21] 128 and Section of Case 26 [3.21] 129 and Section of Case 27 [3.21] 130 and Section of Case 28 [3.22] 131 and Section of Case 29 [3.23] 132 and Section of Case 30 [3.24] 133 and S of Case 31 and Case 32 [3.25] 134 -18 Soil Profile and Section of Case 33 [3.26] 135 .19 Soil Profile and Section of Cases 34, 35, 36, and 37 [3.27] 136 eee hee ee eee eee ee ee & ww .20 Soil Profile and Section of Case 38 [3.28] 137 .21 Soil Profile and Section of Case 39 and Case 40 [3.29] 138 -22 Soil Profile and Section of Case 41 [3.30] 139 23 Soil Profile and Section of Case 42 [3.30] 140 24 Soil Profile and Section of Case 43 [3.31] 14 25 Soil Profile and Section of Case 44 and Case 45 [3.32] 142 .26 Soil Profile and Section of Case 46 [3.33] 143 27 Soil Profile and Section of Case 47 [3.33] 144 .28 Soil Profile and Section of Case 48 and Case 49 [3.34] 145 .29 Soil Profile and Section of Case 50 (3.35) 146 153.30 3.31 3.32 3.33 3.04 3.35 ad 4.2 4.3 Soil Profile and Section of Case 51 [3.35] Soil Profile and Section of Case 52 [3.35] Observed Maximum Lateral Deflections of Diaphragm Walls 32 vs. Excavation Depth, Excavations in Clay, Cases 15 Observed Maximum Lateral Deflections of Diaphragm Walls vs. Excavation Depth, Excavations in Clay, Cases 42 Observed Maximum Lateral Deflections of Diaphragm Walls vs. Excavation Depth, Excavations in Clay, Cases 43-52 Observed Maximum Lateral Deflections of Diaphragm Walls vs. Excavation Depth, Excavations in Mixed Ground, Cases 1, 7, 8,11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 33, 42, and 43 Excavation Geometry and Soil Strength Parameters for Factor of Safety Against Basal leave [4.3] Schematic Relationships Between Bending Moment, Flexural Stiffness, and Curvature of Rectangular Beams [4.7] The Concrete Cover Ratio (q@) and the Steel Ratio (p) [4.5] 4.4 (a) Doubly Reinforced Rectangular Beam [4.8] 4.4 (b) Doubly Reinforced Rectangular Beam [4.5] 4.5 4.6 4.7 Typical Values of Equivalent Young's Modulus (E,,) of Concrete Diaphragm Walls ({4.8] modified) Correlation Between N Value (SPT) and Unconfined Compressive Strength q, [4.19] Correlation Between Ratio of Maximum Lateral Wall Deflection (5 u./H) and Coefficient Representing the of Excavation System Stiffness (R), for “Excavations in Sand" 16 147 148, 149 151 152 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260sana wo .8 Correlation Between Ratio Representing the Maximum Lateral Wall Deflection (6 ,,,/H) and Coefficient Representing the B Ground” (6 ne/ll) and Coefficient Representing the Excavation System Stiffness (R), for “Excavations in Clay” -10 Correlation Between Ratio of Depth Generating Maxinum eral Wall Deflection (HS /H ) and Coefficient Representing the Excavation System (Q), for “Excavations in Clay" <1 (a) Jet Grouting Method [5.3] 1 (b) Jet Grouting Method [5.3] -2 Im Situ Soil Mixing Method [5.3] -3 Quicklime Pile Method [5.3] -4 Chemical Grouting Method [5.3] 5 Unconfined Compressive Strength ( q , ) of Treated Soils with CJG Method (JG-1 Type) [5.6] -6 An Excavation Site Improved with Quicklime Pile Method 65.7] 7 An Excavation Site Improved with Quicklime Pile Method [5.8] -8 Unconfined Compressive Strength q, of Treated Soils in Sand Ground with Chemical Grouting (Solution Type) [5.9] -9 Improvement of Unconfined Compressive Strength q, of Treated Soils in Clay Ground with Chemical Grouting Method [5.9] 17 cavation System Stiffness (R), for “Excavations in Mixed 261 .9 Correlation Between Ratio of Maximum Lateral Wall Deflection 262 289 290 291 292 293ee ewe PP ee 1 2 3 wb & = -10 (a) Section and Soil Profile at An Excavation Site [5.10] -10 (b) Construction Sequence at An Excavation Site [5.10] Section and Soil Profile of Hypothetical Cases Portion/Depth of Soil Improvement in Excavations Soil Improvement Outside Excavations, Around/Beneath Adjacent Structure [6.12] Section and Soil Profile at An Excavation Site [A.1] Section and Soil Profile at An Excavation Site [A.2] Section and Soil Profile at An Excavation Site [A.3] Section and Soil Profile at An Excavation Site [4.5] Section and Soil Profile at An Excavation Site {A.6] Section and Soil Profile at An Excavation Site [A.7] 18 294 295 322 323 324 346 347 348 349 350 3511. Introduction In recent decades, the demand for undergound space, for use as railway tunnels/stations, road tunnels, redevelopment of buildings, ete., has increased in many heavily urbanized areas. Deep excavations with the open cut method are ofien required to meet the demand, and in most cases, excavation sites are in close proximity to the existing structures/faciliti Advanced techniques needed in these excavations to mitigate the large amount of lateral wall deflections and ground surface settlements for the purpose of avoiding damage to adjacent structures/facilities. r these reasons, the following measures are often implemented in deep excavations: 1) concrete diaphragm walls as retaining walls; 2) preloading to struts; 3) the top-down construction method; and 4) soil improvement. A major concern in these construction activities is to predict the lateral wall deflections and surface settlements in the design stage. Numerical methods (e.g., the finite element method, and the boundary element method) are often applied for the prediction of these movements. The merits of these methods are the accuracy of the characterization of the soil behavior and the vailability of procedures to model construction sequences. However, there are demerits in these approaches because of their complexities In this thesis, a simplified procedure for the prediction of maximum lateral deflections of concrete diaphragm walls in deep excavations with the open cut method is proposed, based on the investigations of empirical correlations between the maximum 19lateral wall deflections and factors affecting the behavior of walls in 52 case studies. In addition, based on the empirical correlations, some measures for mitigation of lateral wall deflections are recommended This thesis is composed of five main chapters: 1) a review of previous studies on the lateral wall deflections and surface settlements in excavations; 2) case studies of lateral deflections of diaphragm walls in deep excavations (52 case studies, depth = 10-42m); 3) empirical correlations for lateral wall deflections in the 52 case studies; 4) effects of soil improvement to mitigate lateral wall deflections in excavations; and 5) recommendations to mitigate the lateral deflections of diaphragm walls in deep excavations, using the proposed empirical correlations. Note that the following terms relating to excavations and used in this thesis are shown in Fig. 1.1: depth of excavation H; width of excavation B; embedment depth D; thickness of wall t; length of wall L (= H+ D); maximum lateral wall deflection 6 y,; spacing of struts h; depth generating maximum lateral wall deflection is; surface settlement A; and number of struts (support) n. As for the allowable lateral wall deflections and ground surface settlements, the following values of structural tolerance to settlements and different settlements are useful as shown in Table 1.1. They are based on studies by MacDonald and Skempton (1955) (a study of 98 buildings of load-bearing walls, using steel, and reinforced-concrete construction) [1.1], and Grant et al. (1974) (a study of 95 additional buildings of more recent construction) [1.2]. The values in parentheses in Table 1.1 are 20recommended for design [1.3]. Table 1.1 Tolerable Differential Settlements of Buildings ({1.1], (1.2]), Recommended Maximum Values in Parentheses [1.3] Isolated romano | (ineh) | Angular distortion | Greatest differential settlement Clays 3 (2.5) 3-5 (2.5-4) | | Sands “2 (1.5) 2-3 (1.5-2.5) Another guide for allowable lateral wall deflections and ground surface settlements are the allowable differential settlements on rail tracks for Japanese railway structures, as shown in Table 1.2 [1.4], which is determined by the serviceability of train operation. These values in Table 1.2 are used as the allowable settlements when there will be an construction activity adjacent to railway structures. 21Table 1.2 Allowable Differential Settlements for Railway Structures (Note: Longitudial distance between two adjacent points is ten meters) [1.4] Class of tracks Allowable Under train differential | running 14 16 19 settlement —___|____ 8 (mm/10m) Static st One can assume that, if the maximum lateral wall deflectioné ,, generated as much as 0.5% of the excavation depth li, in a 20m deep excavation (H=20m), i.e., Su, = 0.005H = 100mm, some damage might occur in sensitive structures which are in close proximity to the excavation site. Therefore, a study to mitigate the lateral wall deflections in deep excavations is essential for the development of underground space. 1.1 Review of Previous Studies There have been many studies on lateral wall deflections and surface settlements in excavations with numerical and empirical approaches since the first practical study was published by Peck (1969) [1.1]. Chapter 2 is a review of the following previous studies which influenced this thesis, in part: 1) Peck (1969) (1.5], 2) Sugimoto (1986) [1.6], 3) Clough and O'Rourke (1990) (1.7], 4) Hashash (19$2) [1.8], and 5) Simpson (1992) [1.9]. Sug joto (1986) proposed an empirical correlation for the 22maximum surface settlements adjacent to excavations, based on extensive case studies. Clough and O*Rourke (1990) presented the current state-of-the art of empirical observations concerning the lateral wall deflections and surface settlements in excavations in the 1990 Specialty Conference on Design and Performance of Earth Retaining Structures (ASCE). Hashash (1992) developed a new capability to model deep excavations supported by diaphragm walls in soft clay deposits using numerical techniques and advanced constitutive soil models (Modified Cam Clay, MCC, and MIT-E3). This study, a study for Ph.D. thesis at MIT, includes extensive analyses of the numerical techniques for understanding the fundamental mechanism controlling movements in excavations in deep clay deposits and their application to an excavation for a seven-story underground garage at Post Office Square in Boston. Simpson (1992) presented a state-of-the-art report on the design of retaining structures in excavations, focusing on the lateral wall deflections. The presentation relates to the further understanding for the design methods being developed in European (Eurocodes) and British (CP 2) codes of practice. The paper was presented as the 32nd Rankine Lecture of the Bri h Geotechnical Society. 1.2 Case Studies of Lateral Deflections of Diaphragm Walls Chapter 3 describes 52 case studies from the literature on 28lateral deflections of diaphragm walls in deep excavations. The scale of excavations, dimensions of walls, ground conditions, construction conditions, and other characteristics are presented, as are the excavation conditions with the sections and soil profiles. There are 14 case studies for excavations in sand and 38 case studies for excavations in clay. (Note that the classification of soil types in excavations is determined by the soil representing major part of the total thickness above the base of excavations. Also note that the classification is then subdivided to consider the mixed ground in the later study of the empirical correlations in Chapter 4. The number of case studies after such a subdivison is: 7 in sand, 33 in clay, and 12 in mixed ground.) The most common soil properties described in the literature were the N values (standard penetration test), friction angles, unconfined compressive strenth, and undrained shear strength. The following construction conditions that will be used for the empirical correlations for the lateral wall deflecticns are presented: 1) soil improvement; 2) preloading to struts (the axial preloads are induced to struts by using hydraulic jacks immediately after the struts are placed at a certain depth. After preloading, the excavation under the struts will start); and 3) the top-down method (the method placing the permanent concrete floor/rouf slabs from the top to the bottom as the excavation processes.) The lateral watl deflections measured in each excavation step and the depth of the maximum lateral deflections are presented. The data on the lateral wall deflections will be used for the 24empirical correlations. The number of cases according to the depth of excavations is as shown in Table 1.3. Table 1.3 Number of Cases Categorized by Depth Interval Depth of excavations Number of cases 4 (m) 18 9 15 5 2 2 1 52 rical Correlations for Lateral Defiections of Diaphragm Walls Based on the data of lateral wall deflections of the 52 case studies, empirical correlations between the maximum lateral wall deflections and the factors affecting the behavior of diaphragm walls are proposed in Chapter 4 The major factors affecting the wall behavior can be obtained from the review of previous studies in Chapter 2 and from the case studies in Chapter 3. They are: 1) ground conditions (soil types, 25and soil properties above and below the base of excavations); 2) scale of excavations (excavation depth); 3) support system (thickness and length of diaphragm walls, and spacing/number of struts); 4) construction conditions (soil improvement, preloading to struts, and the top-down method). The major ground conditions described by the soil properties in the case studies are: the N value (SPT) and friction angles for sand; the N value (SPT), unconfined compressive strength and undrained shear strength for clay. Young's moduli for sand and clay are used in the study as the common soil property such that the empirical correlations cover all the soi! types. The modulus is estimated (in some cases, the moduli are measured) from the conventional empirical correlations among soil properties. One of the important factors affecting wall behavior is the flexural stiffness of concrete diaphragm walls. The wall stiffness in situ, i.e., the walls with tension cracks under the lateral earth pressure, is studied for use in the empirical correlations. Empirical correlations are proposed according to the soil types in the excavation (i.e., sand, clay, and mixed ground.) The maximum lateral wall deflections can be predicted by a simplified procedure, using the proposed empirical correlations. 1.4 Effects of Soil Improvement on Mitigation of Lateral Wall Deflections in Excavations Soil provement has often been implemented for solving geotechnical problems in recent decades as Mitchell et al. (1992) 26stated [1.10] in the following: “Soil modification and improvement techniques are continually evolving as new technology becomes available and new applications are found. A comprehensive state- of-the-art report on soil improvement (Mitchell, 1981 [1.11]) was presented at the 10th International Conference on Soil Mechanics und Foundation Engineering in Stockholm, Sweden. While most of the information contained in the 1981 report is still relevant for present applications, new technology and new applications have been developed in the past decade." Chapter 5 describes the methods and effects of soil improvement that have been implemented often in the excavations where they are required to mitigate the lateral wall deflections and to stabilize the excavation base. The major methods of soil improvement are: 1) the jet grouting method, 2) the in situ soil mixing method, 3) the quicklime pile method, and 4) the chemical grouting method. A case study of the soil improvement in excavations is presented. Note that several case studies of soil improvement in excavations are presented in Appendix to provide a general idea. 1.5 Recommendations to Mitigate Lateral Deflections of Diaphragm Walls in Deep Excavations The Central Artery/Tunnel (CA/T), a major transportation construction project, is currently underway in Roston, Massachusetts. The CA/T project involves the construction of deep excavations in deep soft clay deposits. There are similar and larger scale transportation underground construction projects 27underway in Japan, e.g., the New Joban railway line construction the 12th metropolitan subway line construction, the redevelopment of Seibu Shinjuku railway line, the Shinjuku route of metropolitan highway construction. Hashash (1992) presented an extensive numerical study focusing on the influence of a vai ty of parameters on excavation response, which aided in the prediction of walls and soil behavior for the Chaper 6 presents the application of empirical correlations for the lateral wall deflections to hypothetical cases for the CA/T project for which excavation conditions are almost the same as those described in Hashash (1992). The predicted maximum lateral wall deflection of the hypothetical case from the empirical correlations is almost the same as that of Hashash (1992), although the estimating procedure is much more simplified. In the hypothetical ca. ., implementation of the soil improvement, preloading to struts, and the top-down method are also considered F inally, recommendations to mitigate the lateral deflections of diaphragm walls in deep excavations are proposed, based on the applications of empirical correlations 28References i 1 ri Donald, D.W., and Skempton, A.W. (1955). “A Survey of Comparisons between Calculated and Observed Settlements of Structures on Clay." Proceedings of the Conference on Correlation of Calculated and Observed Str nd ses Displacements, Institution of Civil Engineers, London Grand, R., et al. (1974). “Differential Settlement of Buildings." Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol.100, GT.9 Bowles, J.B. (1988). Foundation Analysis and Design. 4th Edition, McGraw-Hill Publishing Company East Japan Railway Company. (April 1987). Regulations for Track Maintenance Peck, R.B. (1969). “Deep Excavations and Tunneling in Soft Ground." State-of-the-Art Report, Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Mexico City, Mexico Sugimoto. (1986). “Prediction for the Maximum Settlements of Ground Surface by Open Cut." Proceedings of Japan Society of Civil Engineers, No.373, VI-5 Clough, G.W., and O'Rourke, T.D. (1990). “Construction Induced Movements of In Situ Walls." Proceedings of the 1990 Specialty Conference on Design and Performance of Earth Retaining Structures, ASCE, Ithaca, New York Hashash, M.A.Y. (1992). “Analysis of Deep Excavations in Clay." Ph.D. Thesis, Dept. of Civil Engineering, MIT, Cambridge, MA Simpson, B. (1992). “Retaining Structure: : Displacement and 291, 10 iL Design." The 32nd Rankine Lecture, Géotechnique 42, No.4 Mitchel!, J.K., and Van Court, W.A. (1992). “The Role of Soil Modification in Environmental Engieneering Applications.” Proceeding of the 1992 Specialty Conference on Grouting, Soil Improvement and Geosynthetics, ASCE, New Orleans, Louisiana Mitchell, J.K. (1981). “Soil Improvement —-- State-of-the-Art Report." Proceedings of the 10th International Conference of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Stockholm, Sweden 30Fig. 1.1 Terms Relating to Excavations and Used in this Thesis H= depth of excavation B= width of excavation D= embedment depth L (© H 4D)= length of wall = thickness of wall spacing of struts Spm = maximum lateral wall deflection Ho = depth generating maximum lateral wall deflection A= surface settlement n= number of struts (supports)Review of Previous Studies on Lateral Wall Deflec Surface Settlements in Excavations Chapter 2 describes the following previous studies on the lateral wall deflections and surface settlements in excavations which influence this thesis, in part: 1) Peck (1969) [2.1], 2) Sugimoto (1986) (2.2), 3) Clough and O'Rourke (1990) [2.3], 4) Hashash (1992) [2.4], and 5) Simpson (1992) [2.5]. 2.1 Review of Peck (1969) One of the first empirical approaches for estimating surface settlements in excavations was proposed by Peck (1969). ‘The data were compiled on surface settlements adjacent to open cuts in various soils, as shown in Pig.2.1. Fig. 2.1 gives the settlements, divided by the excavation depth H, and plotted against the distance from the walls also divided by the depth H. Three categories of behavior were defined according to soil types: 1) sand and soft to hard clay, (zone [); 2) very soft to soft clay ( (a) limited depth of clay below the bottom of excavation, (b) gnificant depth of clay below the bottom of excavation but N, < N.,) (zone I); and 3) very soft to soft clay to a significart depth below the bottom of excavation and with Ny > Ney (zone i ) The stability number N, is defined as 7H / S,,, where 7 is the unit weight of the soil above the base of excavation, is the undrained shear strength below the base of excavation, and N., 32is the critical stability number for basal heave (See Section 4.2.1 and Fig. 4.1.) The maximum settlements in zone | conditions near the walls are 1% of the excavation depth. The settlements in zone || and Ill exceed those in zone I since the plastic yielding occurs below the base of excavations. For instance, the maximum settlements in zone I conditions near the walls are 2% of the excavation depth, i.e., settlement near the wall A = 0.02H = 200 mm, in a 10m deep excavation (H= 10m). The number and depth of excavations of the cases used to derive the empirical correlations in Fig. 2.1 are shown in Table 2.1. Table 2.1 Number and Depth of Excavations of Cases Used to Derive the Empirical Correlation [2.1] Number | Depth of Excavation (m) Soft to | At Chicago, 20 9. medium | Illinois clay At Oslo, Norway Vaterland Norway 18 9.8 - 10.7 Vaterland Stiff clay and cohesive sand | Cohesioniess sand Total - 33The data used to derive the three zones in Fig.°2.1 are taken from excavations supported by soldier piles or sheetpiles with cross-lot struts or tiebacks Although the results provide a useful guide for the prediction of both the magnitude of the settlements and their distribution, most of the existing data were obtained from excavations less than about 15 meters depth with relatively flexible retaining walls Therefore, there would be uncertainties in extrapolating these observations te much deeper excavations supported by concrete diaphragm walls. However, the concept of an empirical approach based on field measurements was the basis of the study in this thesis. 2.2 Review of Sugimoto (1986) Sugimoto (1986) proposed an empirical correlation to predict the maximum surface settlements adjacent to excavations, based on a statistical analysis of the maximum surface settlements and the distance from the wall. The empirical correlation between maximum surface settlements and a proposed coefficient was set up according to the soil types of excavations, as shown in Fig. 2.2, based on the 84 case studies of field measurements. The soil types of excavations in Pig. 2.2 was classified as: 1) excavations in sand; 2) excavations in clay; and 3) excavations in mixed ground. The number of cases according to the soil type, excavation depth and type of wall are as shown in Table 2.2, Table 2 and Table 2.4, respectively. 34Table 2.2 Number of Cases According to Soils Type of Excavations 2.2] Soil type Number Sand 32 Clay | ~ | 30 [Mixed ground | 22 | Total | Table 2.3 Number of Cases Categorized by Depth Interval [2.2] “Excavation depth | Number A (m) 15< H 19 Type of wall Soldier piles with wood lagging Steel sheetpiles Soil cement mixing piles 1 Steel pipe piles Concrete diaphragm | Total 35Sugimoto (1986) proposed the so-called cutting factora, for the empirical correlation in Fig. 2.2, which is defined as follows: a. = (Be) / ( By + D) (2A) Bo = (Ey 7 (B + Ep] t* (2.2) where a. = cutting factor (nf) B = width of excavation (m) H = excavation depth (m) D = embedment depth (m) Bo = coefficient of embedment (m') E,,= average modulus of elasticity of soils below the base of excavation (soils in embedment), which is estimated from the correlations between modulus, N value (SPT), and coefficient of subgrade reaction. (t/at) E = Young's modulus of wall (t/nt) moment of inertia of wail (m* ) The envelopes for upper values of maximum settlements are proposed as seen in Fig. 2.2, which are useful to predict the maximum settlements by using the proposed cutting factor, even though there is much scatter in clay. The empirical correlation indicates that there would be more than 100mm settlements in the excavation in clay if the cutting factor ranges from 30 to 100 Although these results provide a useful guide for the approximate prediction of the magnitude of maximum settlements, most of the existing data were obtained from excavations less than 15 meters depth with relatively flexible retaining walls. 36Therefore, there would be uncertainties in extrapolating these observations to much deeper excavations supported by concrete diaphragm walls. However, the concept of the proposed cutting factor is used this thesis, which aims to eatablish the empirical correlations for the prediction of the maximum lateral wall deflections 2.3 Review of Clough and O'Rourke (1990) Clough and O'Rourke (1990) presented the current state-of-the- art of empirical observations concerning the lateral wall deflections and surface settlements in excavations. Fig. 2.3 and Pig. 2.4 were prepared to show the maximum lateral wall deflections du, VS. excavation depth H; and the maximum surface settlements A... vs. excavation depth H, respectively, in the excavations in sands, stiff clays, and residual soils. The wall types producing the data plotted in these figures were soldier piles, sheetpiles, diaphragm walls, soil nail walls, drilled pier walls, and soil cement walls. Fig. 2.3 and Fig. 2.4 illustrate that: 1) the maximum lateral wall deflections and maximum surface settlements were usually less than 0.5%H. 2) the maximum lateral wall deflections tended to average about 0. 2%H. 3) the maximum surface settlements tended to average about 0.15%H As for the excavations in soft and medium clays, Fig. 2.5 [2.6] 37shows the maximum lateral wall! deflections from the empirical approach. As seen in Pig. 2.5, the maximum lateral wall deflections are related to the factor of safety against basal heave and the so-called system stiffness. The Fig. 2.5 is characterized by the following: 1) The system stiffness ((EI)/(7.~ h,,. * )) combines the effect of the average struts spacing h,,, , and the flexural stiffness of wall Ef. The maximum lateral wall deflections depend on the average struts spacing raised to the fourth power 2) The lateral wall deflections depend on the factor of safety against basal heave defined by Terzaghi [2.7] (See Section 4.2.1 and Fig. 4.1.) Lines of equal factor of safety against basal heave represent lines of equal excavation depth. 3) The figure is divided into two main regions, one for excavations supported by shectpile walls and another for excaya ns supported by concrete diaphragm walls. The maximum lateral wall deflections in the excavations supported by sheetpile walls are greater than those supported by concrete diaphragm walls in the case of an equal factor of safety against basal heave. 4) The maximum lateral wall deflections increase very much, as the factor of safety against basal heave falls below 1.5. 5) The maximum lateral wall deflections decrease below 0.5%I, as the factor of safety against basal heave becomes greater than 2. 6) The lateral wall deflections can exceed 1%" even with increasing system stiffness if the factor of safety against basal heave is close to unity. Fig. 2.6 presents typical movements of tateral wall deflections 38and surface settlements from the studies of braced and tied-back excavations, as follows: 1) Soils may be excavated before the installation of support during the initial stage of excavations. The wall deflects as a cantilever, and the adjacent ground surface settles such that the settlements increase as the distance from the edge of excavation decreases. The settlements during this stage of excavation are bounded within a triangular distribution, as shown in Pig. 2.6. (a). 2) When the excavation advances to deeper elevations, the upper lateral wall deflection is restrained by installation of a strut. A deep lateral wall deflection occurs during this stage, which is shown as an incremental component of the deflections in Fig. 2.6. (b). 3) The combination of deflections in Fig. 2.6. (a) and (b) results in the cumulative lateral wall deflections and ground surface settlements as shown in Fig. 2.6. (c). If the deep lateral wall deflections were the predominant mode, which would be the case with deep excavations in soft clay, the surface settlements would tend to have a trapezoidal distribution. If the cantilever mode predominated, which would be the case for excavations in sand and stiff to hard clay, the surface settlements would tend to be a triangular distribution. Fig. 2.7, Sig. 2.8, and Fig. 2.9 are presented to further support these findings. Fig. 2.7 illustrates the following points about the settlements 39adjacent to excavations in sand: 1) 2) The maximum surface settlements are typically less than 0.3%Il. The settlements increase with decreasing distance from the edge of the excavation. The tribution of settlements tends to have triangular bounds. Fig. 2.8 illustrates the following points about the settlements adjacent to excavations in stiff to hard clay: 1) 2) 3) The maximum surface settlements are 0.3%H, and the settlements are distributed over three times the excavation depth from the edge of excavations. (0.05-0.1)%H of heave are indicated in some cases. The distribution of settlements tends to have triangular bounds. Fig. 2.9 illustrates the following points about the settlements adjacent to excavations in soft to medium clay: 1) 2) Although the zones proposed by Peck (1969) are helpful in delineating the broad trends of surface settlements, it is evident that the scatter in settlement magnitudes places limitations on the applications of Peck (1969)"s chart for the prediction. The distribution of settlements tends to have trapezoidal bounds in which two zones of settlements can be identified. One is the zone at 0 s d/H < 0.75 (where d = distance from excavation), where the maximum settlements occurs; another is the zone at 0.75 < d / H < 2.0, where settlements decrease from the maximum to negligible values. 40Although these results also provide a very useful guide for the prediction of the the maximum lateral wall deflections and the surface settlements, most of the existing data in Pig. 2.5 - Fig 2.9 were obtained from excavations less than 15 meters depth with relatively flexible retaining walls. Therefore, there would be uncertainties in extrapolating these observations to much deeper excavations supported by concrete diaphragm walls. However, the empirical approaches for the prediction of the maximum lateral wall deflections and surface settlements in this study, especially the concept of Fig. 2.5, has influenced recent studies for deep excavations with diaphragm walls (e.g., Hashash (1992) who quoted major figures from Clough and O'Rourke (1990) for the comparison with numerical analysis.) Also, the concept of the system stiffness in Fig. 2.5 is used in this thesis, which aims to establish empirical correlations for the prediction of the maximum lateral wall deflections. 2.4 Review of Hashash (1992) Hashash (1992) developed new capability to model deep excavations supported by diaphragm walls in soft clay deposits using accurate numerical techniques and an advanced soi} model. Hashash (1992) was motivated by the practical problem of predicting the performance of deep excava ns (excavation depth: up to 30m) in soft clays associated with the construction of the Central Artery/Tunnel project in Boston and the Taipei Rapid Transit system in Taiwan. In these situations, accurate predictions of lateral 41wall deflections and surface settlements are important design criteria to avoid damages to adjacent structures/facilities The study is divided into three main sections: 1) The development of numerical procedures to integrate advanced constitutive soil models (Modified Cam Clay, MCC [2.8], and MIT- E3 [2.9]) in the finite element method, FEM, and numerical procedures to model excavation activities including soil removal and support installation are studied. 2) The fundamental mechanisms of the short term (undrained) performance of deep excavations are studied. Principal parameters are the soil model, stress history profile, wall length and vertical strut spacing. The study interprets soil response at the element level, as well as global performance such as lateral wall deflections and ground surface settlements 3) The top-down construction of a seven-story (23m deep) underground parking garage at Post Office Square in Boston is studied. The predictions are evaluated through comparisons with field measurements during construction. The predictive capabilities and limitations in analyzing the complex construction sequence are demonstrated. As for the results of the numerical study concerned with the lateral wall deflections in excavations supported with diaphragm walls, Fig. 2.10 is presented to summarize the numerical for excavations predictions of maximum lateral wall deflections in normally consolidated Boston Blue clay, BBC, as a function of the excavation depth H and strut spacing h (note it is assumed thatthe excavation width B is B = 40m and the thickness of the wall t is t = 0.9m, which are typical conditions expected for the CA/T project.) [2.10]. The figure includes loci of failure conditions obtained for walls of different lengths L ranging from 12.5m to 60m Fig. 2.10 illustrates the following points: 1) For excavations which are perfectly supported (i.e., h = Om,) the ratio of the maximum wall deflections to the excavation depth is (Sun / HW) 2 0.5%. 2) Por minimally supported wall (i.e., h = 10m,) this ratio increases to ( Sun /H) 2 1.5 to 2.0%. 3) The predictions of maximum wall deflections can be summarized as functions of the excavation depth and support spacing. Hashash (1992) presented some recommendations for future studies of the following issues, which are needed to extend the results from this numerical experiment to more general field situations: 1) the influence of support flexibility, preloading, and shrinkage on excavation response 2) the effect of excavation width on wall deflections and failure, particularly for excavations with long walls 3) the use of a more realistic model for the wall that includes reinforcement, yielding and failure 4) the effect of overexcavation prior to support installation at all excavation stages 5) the effect of a limited depth of clay below the base of excavation. In many field situations this condition should 43result in smaller wall deft ns and greater safety against basal failure for an excavation. 6) the effects of partial drainage during construction (variables include the permeability of the system, dewatering conditions, and construction time) and the effects of long-term drainage after completion of the excavation (i.e., steady state conditions.) While there are issues recommended for future studies, the research presents a useful understanding the fundamental mechanisms controlling the performance of deep excavations supported by diaphragm walls. Some issues recommended for future studies in Hashash (1992) will be studied in later chapter of this thesis; and the results will be included in the proposed empirical correlations for the maximum lateral wall deflections. They ari 1) influence of preloading to struts 2) actual stiffness of walls with reinforcement 3) effect of a limited depth of clay below the base of excavation 2.5 Review of Simpson (1992) Simpson (1992) presented the state-of-the-art report concerning the design of retaining structures, focusing on the lateral wall deflections, which increased further understanding on the design methods being developed in the European (Kurocodes) and British (CP2) codes of practice. As for the safety factors in the codes of 44practice, Simpson (1992) statcd as follows “Most modern codes of practice are based on the limit state method. In this method, consideration of stability is, in principle, separated from consideration of displacement in the working state. The codes emphasize the need for the factor of safety to ensure that collapse of a structure is extremely unlikely to occur, since the design must have ‘enough in reserve to remain stable while subjected to a resonable range of unforeseen events. In general, these codes implicitly assume that displacements will be a secondary problem, related only to minor ‘serviceability’ limit states, and can be estimated with sufficient reliability by direct, if crude, calculation. However, in the case of retaining wall, displacements (lateral wall deflections) may be larger than normally expected in concrete or steel structures. If the retained soil supports other structures or services, ground movements could be large enough to cause severe distress to them even though the retaining wall itself is quite stable. The distress may be sufficiently severe to constitute an ‘ultimate’ limit state, in the definition of the codes.” Simpson (1992) presents a new constitutive soil model known as the BRICK model, which has gained from the work of many researches. The model is readily incorporated into a finite element program and reproduces the lateral wall deflections measured at two sites: 1) at the British Library excavation in London (excavation depth Hl = 4524.4m, maximum lateral wall deflections Sy, = 30mm, Sy. / M = 0.12%,) 2) excavation in soft clay at Singapore (exca' ion depth ll , measured maximum lateral wall deflection 6. = 50mm, 6. 7H = 0.38%). This paper is useful to understand the trend of design code development concerned with retaining structures in Europe. The emphasis on the lateral wall deflections in design codes is reflected in this thesis. 46References Qa Peck, R.B. (1969). “Deep Excavations and Tunneling in Soft Ground" State-of-the-Art Report, Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Mexico City, Mexico Sugimoto. (1986). “Prediction for the Maximum Settlements of Ground Surface by Open Cut.” Proceedings of Japan Society of Civil Engineers, No. 373, VI[-5 Clough, G.W., and O'Rourke, T.D. (1990). “Construction Induced Movements of In Situ Walls." Proceedings of the 1990 Specialty Conference on Design and Performance of Earth Retaining Structures, ASCE, Ithaca, New York Hashash, M.A.Y. (1992). “Analysis of Deep Excavations in Clay." Ph.D. Thesis, Dept. of Civil Engineering, MIT, Cambridge, MA Simpson, B. (1992). “Retaining Structures: Displacement and Design.” The 32nd Rankine Lecture, Géotechnique 42, No.4 Clough, G.W., Smith, E.M., and Sweeney, B.P. (1989). “Movement Control of Excavation Support Systems by Iterative Design.” Proceedings on Foundation Engineering: Current Principles and Practices, ASCE Terzaghi, C. (1943). Theoritical Soil Mechanics, John Wiley and Sons Roscoe, K.H., and Burland, J.B. (1968). “On the Generalized Stress-Strain Behavior of ‘Wet Clay.'" Engineering Plasticity. Edited by Heyman, J., and Leckie, F.A., Cambridge University Press 2.9 Whittle, A.J., (1987). “A Constitutive Model for2. 10 Overconsolidated Clays with Application to the Cyclic Loading of Friction Piles." Sc. D. Thesis, Dept. of Civil Engineering, MIT, Cambridge, MA Whittle, A.J., and Hashash, M.A.Y. (1992). “Analysis of the Behavior of Propped Diaphragm Walls in a Deep Clay Deposit." Proceedings on International Conference on Reta ng Structures, Cambridge, UK 48Fig. % Maximum Depth of Excavation Summary of Settlements Adjacent to Open Cuts in Various Soils, as Function of Distance from Edge of Excavation [2.1] Distance from Excavation Maximum Depth of Excavation 10 2.0 3.0 4.0 Zone I Zone II Zone IL Note: All data shown are for excavations using standard soldier piles or sheetpiles braced with cross-bracing or tiebacks Sand and Soft to Hard Clay ‘Average Workmanship (a) Very Soft to Soft Clay (1) Limited depth of clay below bottom of excavation (2) Significant depth of clay below bottom of excavation but Ny< Nop (b) Settlements affected by construction difficulties Very soft to soft clay to a significant depth below bottom of excavation and with Ny> Nog, 49Fig. 2.2 Correlation Between Maximum Surface Settlements 150 100 50 150 100 250 Maximum Surface Settlements A max (mm) 200 150 100 50 and Cutting Factor, Envelopes for Upper Value (2.2] 1 T TIT —1r ° Sand 10 100 1000 TTT oT Tt ° ° Mixed ° ground 10 100 Cutting Factor o (m?) 50Fig. 2.3 Maximum Lateral Wall Deflections in Sands, Stiff Clays, and Residual Soils [2.3] Maximum Lateral Deflections, &4,,(mm) Depth of Excavation, H (m) Note: Type of walls are soldier piles, sheetpiles, diaphragm walls, soil mail walls, drilled pier walls, and soil cement walls.Fig. 2.4 Maximum Soil Settlement, Ajpax (mm) Maximum Surface Settlements in Sands, Stiff Clays, and Residual Soils [2.3] t 56,240 mm. Depth of Excavation, H (m) Note: Type of walls are soldier piles, sheetpiles, diaphragm walls, and drilled pier walls. 52Fig. 2.5 Correlation for Maximum Lateral Wall Deflection with Factor of Safety Against Basal Heave and System Stiffness ({2.3], [2.6]) [im Thick Slury Walls] ‘Sheetpile Walls h=35m h=35m 25 f= Support Spacing 20 Ls 0,.9<—Factor of Safety Against Basal Heave 1.0 a 3 é a 2 a a b § E a é 10 30 50 70 100 300 500 7001000 3000 4 System Stiffness (ED(Yy, faye) 53Fig. 2.6 Typical Mode of Lateral Wail Deflections and Surface Settlements [2.3] (a) Cantilever Mode (b) Deep Deflection Mode Lateral wall Lateral wall deflection deflection Strut | “Lilly” Triangular Shaded areas are — incremental deflection bounds on Yi and setlement Wall Potential movement of base of wall if wall is not embedded imto stiff deposit (c) Cumulative Mode Lateral wall deflection KH mH Settlement k Trapezoidal bounds on settlement 54Fig. A H Settlement Maximum Exc Settlement 4max Maximum Settlement + 2.7 Surface Settlements Adjacent to Excavations in Sand [2.3] Distance from Excavation zie Maximum Excavation Depth 15 2.0 2.5 0.5 Lo Maximum settlements envelope 0.3 S B Distance from Excavation _d Maximum Excavation Depth +H 0.5 Lo. 15 ° 0.5 Triangular bounds on distribution of settlement 55Fig. 2.8 Surface Settlements Adjacent to Settlement Maximum Excavation Depth * Settlement ‘Maximum Settlement Excavations in Stiff to Hard Clay (2.3] Distance from Excavation d Maximum Excavation Depth - H oO 10 2.0 3.0 0.1 oO 0.1 0.2 03 Maximum settlements enveloy 04 a a 1.0 2.0 3.0 Os Triangular bounds on distribution of settlement Loy 56Fig. 2.9 Surface Settlements Adjacent to Excavations in Soft to Medium Clay (2.3] Distance from Excavation ae a Maximum Excavation Depth + & ie a ale a Ae ga > co Zones I, Hl, LIL aE © 0 8 defined by Peck (1969) Z ° = 3l 05 0.75 1.0 L 20 2.5 3.0 a T 7 io i T 3 ° ° ° rapezoidal ns bounds on distribution of settlement ‘Settlement 5 3 § z z = zone 57Fig. 2.10 Numerical Predictions of Maximum Lateral Wall Deflections, N.C. Boston Blue Clay ((2.4], [2.10]) 400, 350} 300 250 200 150} 100) 50 Maximum Lateral Wall Deflection jm (mm) 0 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Excavation Depth H (m) [fh] Max. Wall Deflection Line, Support Spacing h (long wall) ®© Failure Locus, Wall Length L (M) Lines of Equal Moments Note: Examples of the ratio of maximum lateral wall deflection 5Him to excavation depth H. Hom | Sim (mm | SHm/H(%) 40. 0.18 ae 120 0.53 160. 071 280 1.24 400 1.78 583. Case Studies of Lateral Deflections of Diaphragm Walls in Deep Excavations 3.1 Overview 52 cases from the literature concerned with the lateral deflections of iaphragm walls in deep excavations (depth =10-42m) are studied. The scale of excavations, dimensions of walls, ground conditions, and the other characteristics are presented, as are the excavation conditions with the sections and soil profiles. There are 14 case studies for excavations i sand and 38 case studies for the excavations in clay. Classification of soil tpyes in excavations is done as follows: Excavations in sand: H, > H, Exeavations in clay: H, ¢ H. where H, = Total thickness of sand layer above the base of excavation Total thickness of clay layer above the base of excavation Classifications of sand and clay layers are as follows: “Sand layer": sand, gravel, sandstone “Clay layer": clay, silt, mudstone (hard clay deposit) Note that the classification is subdivided to consider the mixed ground in the later study of the empirical correlations. 593.2 Case Studies of Lateral Wall Deflections in Excavations in Sand 3.2.1 Excavation Conditions of Case Studies The wall type is a diaphragm wall except the cases where other wall types are specifically mentioned. @ Case 1, At Hiroshima [3.1] 1) Excavation scale + Depth 12.20 +Plan 52.8mx 56.6 2) Dimensions of wall + Thickness 60cm + Length 24.00 3) Ground conditions a) Above the base of excavation + Loose sand (upper part of the excavation) + Soft clay (lower part of the excavation) b) Below the base of excavation + At the base of walls, decomposed weathered granite soil 4) Construction conditions + Number of struts 4 + Preloads (60 tons) were induced to struts. @ Case 2, At Kawasaki [3.2] 1) Excavation scale + Depth 10.5m +Plan 32.1nx 21.45m 2) Dimensions of wall 60+ Thickness 60cm + Length 15. 2m 3) Ground conditions a) Above the base of excavation + Silty fine sand b) Below the base of excavation + At the base of walls, gravel 4) Construction condition + Number of struts 2 Case 3, At Nagoya [3.3] 1) Excavation scale + Depth 14.4m +Plan 32.6mx 60.0m 2) Dimensions of wall + Thickness Gem + Length 17.40 3) Ground conditions a) Above the base of excavation + Medium fine sand (N=10-20) b) Below the base of excavation + At the base of walls, gravel 4) Construction conditions + Number of struts 3 + Dewatering with the deep well method Case 4, At Kawasaki (3.4] 1) Excavation scale + Depth 10.2 612) Dimensions of wall + Thickness 50cm + Length 16.5m 3) Ground conditions a) Above the base of excavation + Medium sand (N= 10-30) b) Below the base of excavation + At the base of walls, medium to very stiff clay (N= 7- 20) 4) Construction condition + Number of struts 3 Case 5, At Kawasaki [3.5] 1) Excavation scale = Depth 12.0m Plan 350m x 10m 2) Dimensions of wall + Thickness 50ca Length = 19.5m 3) Ground condi tions a) Above the base of excavation + Medium sand (N= 10-30) b) Below the base of excavation + At the base of walls, dense sand (N250) 4) Construction condition + Number of struts 3 Case 6, At Osaka [3.6] 1) Excavation scale 62+ Depth 17.68 Plan 30.0mx 40.0m 2) Dimensions of wall + Thickness 60cm Length —.22.0m 3) Ground conditions a) Above the base of excavation + Medium sand (N=10-30) b) Below the base of excavation + At the base of walls, very stiff clay (N=15-20) 4) Construction condition + Number of struts 3 Case 7, At Tokyo [3.7] 1) Excavation scale «Depth 22.90 +Plan 53.75m x 58.420 2) Dimensions of wall (soil cement mixing pile wall) + H-type steels (spacing=45cm) were included as reinforcing members in the piles. + Thickness 65cm + Length 28.00 + Induced Hl steel dimensions Notation of the H steel dimension is as: H - (Depth) x (Width of flange) x (Thickness of flange) x (Web) ( H - 600 x200 x11xI7 (Note: same notation is used as for the dimensions of 63steel) 3) Ground conditions a) Above the base of excavation + Silt (N=2, 10), very loose sand (N=1-4) (upper part of the excavation) + Medium to dense sand (N=10-40), silt (N=8-10) (lower part of the excavation) b) Below the base of excavation + At the base of walls, gravel (N50) +See Fig. 3.1 for the soil profile and section 4) Construction conditions + Number of struts 5 + Dimensions of struts (from the top to the bottom) Ist: 2H - 350 x350 x12x19 Qnd: 2H - 350 x350 x 12x19 3rd: 2H - 400 x400 x 13x21 4th: 2H - 400 x 400 x13x 21 Sth: 2H - 350 x350 x12x19 + Dewatering with the deep well method +The chemical grouting method was implemented to the ground between walls and adjacent buildings. + Preloads were induced to struts as seen in Table 3.1. 64Table 3.1 Preloading to Struts in Case 7 [3.7] Struts Max.measured | Induced Ratio (from the | axial forces | preloads top to the | of struts to struts B/A to bottom) | (A) (tons) (B) (tons) (%) 100 ® Case 8, At Tokyo [3.8] 1) Excavation scale + Depth 33.2m Plan 453.0mx 38. 8m 2) Dimensions of wall + Thickness 70cm + Length 36.20 3) Ground condi tions a) Above the base of excavation + Medium to dense sand (N= 10-50) (upper part of the excavation) + Hard clay (N=73), very dense sand (N276) b) Below the base of excavation + At the base of walls, hard clay (N=73) +See Fig. 3.2 for the soil profile and section 4) Construction conditions + Number of struts 12 65+ Dimensions of struts Ast-12th: H-300 x300 x10x 15 + The top-down method s were used for the 3rd, 6th, 8th, and + Permanent s 10th struts. + Thickness of reinforced concrete slabs: 3rd: 80cm 6th, 8th, 10th: 50cm Case 9, At Tokyo [3.9] 1) Excavation scale + Depth 29.8m Plan 840mx 48m 2) Dimensions of wall + Thickness 60cm - Length 32.30 3) Ground condi tions a) Above the base of excavation + Mee m to dense sand (N=10-50) (upper part of the excavation) + Stiff to hard clay (N=10-40) Very dense sand (N=60), gravel (N=60) b) Below the base of excavation + At the base of walls, gravel (N=60) +See Fig. 3.3 for the soil profile and section 4) Construction conditions + The top-down method + At the final excavation stage: 66@ Number of slabs 4 Number of anchors 2 Case 10, At Tokyo Bay Area [3.10] 1) Excavation scale + Depth 13.1m Width 67.0m 2) Dimensions of wall (steelpipe pile wall) + Diameter 120cm (wall thickness 16mm) Length — 24.5m 3) Ground conditions a) Above the base of excavation + Very loose sand ( $= 25° - 27° , N=1-3) ana medium clay (S, = 3.5 t/of, N=5) b) Below the base of excavation - Medium clay (S, = 3.5 t/af, N=5) + At the base of walls, dense sand (g= 40° , N=30) 4) Construction conditions + Number of struts 5 + Dimensions of struts (from the top to the bottom): Ist, Sth: H-350 x 350 x12x19 2nd, 3rd, 4th: 2H-350 «350 x 12x19 Case 11, At Sapporo [3.10] 1) Excavation scale Depth 20m Width 10.0m 2) Dimensions of wall + Thickness 80cm 67+ Length 29.0m 3) Ground conditions a) Above the base of excavation + Loose sand (N=4-8), soft clay (N=2-3) b) Below the base of excavation + Medium clay (S, = 4.2 t/nf, N=8) + At the base of walls, dense sand (N=50) +See Fig. 3.4 for the soil profile and section 4) Construction conditions + Number of struts 7 + Dimensions of struts Ast-Tth: H-400 x 400 x 13x21 Data 12, [3.11] 1) Excavation scale = Depth 15.1m 2) Size of wall (soil cement mixing pile wall) + Length 20.0m 3) Ground conditions a) Above the base of excavation + Very loose sand (N=3, From GL to GL-7.0m) + Silt (N= 1-4, From GL-7.0m to GL-14.4m) + Loose to medium sand (N25-15, From GL-14.4m to base of the wall) b) Below the base of excavation + Loose to medium sand (N=5-15) 4) Construction condition + Number of struts 6 68® Case 13 and Case 14, At Okayama [3.12] Case 13 and Case 14 were at the same construction site, but for the different panels of walls. The distance between the two panels was about 20 meters 1) Excavation scale + Depth 13.3m + Plan = 28mx 27m 2) Dimensions of wall + Thickness 60cm + Length 26m 3) Ground conditions a) Above the case of excavation + Soft silt (N=2), dense sand (N=30) b) Below the base of excavation + Dense sand (N=50) + At the base of walls, gravel (N=50) + See Fig. 3.5 and Fig. 3.6 for the soil profiles and sections of Case 13 and Case 14, respectively 4) Construction conditions + Number of struts Case 13 5 Case 14 6 + The top-down method + Permanent slabs were used for all struts except the 3rd strut for Case 13; the 2nd and 4th struts for Case 14 +The chemical grouting method was implemented at the base of walls (from GL-25m to GL-27m) in all excavating 69area for the purpose of water insulation. + Soil improvement was implemented outside the wall (depth: from GL+0m to GL-16m, width: 1-3m) by the chemical grouting method for the section of Case 14 703.2.2 Measured Lateral Wall Deflections in the Case Studies The lateral wall deflections measured in each (or major) excavation step and the depth generating the maximum lateral deflections in Cases 1-14 are as seen in Table 3.2. Talbe 3.2 Measured Maximum Lateral Wall Deflections and Their Generating Depth in Cases 1-14, Excavations in Sand Excavation | Depth Generating | Max. Lateral Depth Max. Lateral Wali Deflection Wali Deflection (a) (m) (mm) | Case 7 3.3 0.0 71Excavation | Depth Generating | Max, Lateral | tase | Depth Max: Lateral. | Mali Deflection (a) (a) (am) | | case 8 15.3 10.3 6.0 17.8 12.8 65 | 20.8 11.8 7.5 | 24.3 18.8 9.0 26.8 19.8 9.0 29.8 21.8 33.2 22.8 Case 9 29.8 15.3 10 “Case 10 2.0 0.0 10 3.4 0.8 32 6.9 0.0 25 94 10.0 32 1.4 11.0 35 13.1 11.0 36 Case 11 10.2 10.5 33 “| 20.0 15.0 “4 Case 12 45 6.0 20 8.0 7.5 40 15.1 1.5 5 Case 13 2.5 0.0 15 9.5 0.0 18 “| 13.3 3.0 19 [Case 14 9.5 0.0 26 “| 13.3 0.0 26 72The plots of the maximum lateral wall deflection § 4, vs. excavation depth H are shown in Fig. 3.7. In Fig. 3.7, the lines of ( Sua/ Ml) = 0.05%, 0.2%, and 0.5% are drawn. ‘The plots in Fig. 3.7 lead to the following observations: 1) There is ample scatter of the ratio of maximum lateral wall deflections §,, to excavation depth H, 6 ,/ H. However, the maximum lateral wall deflections tend to about 0,2-0.5% of excavation depth. 2) When sowe mitigating measures are implemented, maximum lateral wall deflections can be reduced to about 0.05%U. See Case 7 (preloading to struts),Case 8 (the top-down method), and Case 9 (tie top-down method) . The lateral wall deflections and their mitigation will be discussed in a later section (See Section 3.4.) 733.3. Case Studies of Lateral Wall Deflections in Excavations in Clay 3.3.1 Excavation Conditions of Case Studies The wall type is a diaphragm wall except the cases where other wall types are specifically mentioned. @ Case 15, At Yokohama [3.13] 1) Excavation scale + Depth 41.83m +Plan 45.13m x 23.3m 2) Dimensions of wall + Thickness 1.2m + Length 480 3) Ground condi tions a) Above the base of excavation + Pill (N=1-20) + Clay (N=11-50) +Mudstone (hard clay) (N250, below GL-15m, q, = 240-370 t/nt ) b) Below the base of excavation +Mudstone (hard clay) (N250, q, = 240-370 t/nf ) +See Fig. 3.8 for the soil profile and section 4) Construction condition + Number of anchors 12 @ Case 16, [3.14] 1) Excavation scale 74+ Depth 25.7 +Plan 75.0mx 131.4m 2) Dimensions of wall + Thickness 80cm + Length 39m 3) Ground conditions a) Above the base of excavation + Loose to medium sand (N=1-20), very soft to medium silt (N=1-6) b) Below the base of excavation + Gravel (N=45-50) + Stiff to hard clay (N=10-32) + At the base of walls, stiff clay + See Fig. 3.9 for the soil profile and section 4) Construction conditions + Number of struts 4 + The top-down method + AIL the struts were permanent slabs. Case 17, At Tokyo [3.15] 1) Excavation scale + Depth 25.1m +Plan S6mx 45.60 2) Dimensions of wall + Thickness 80cm + Length 298 3) Ground condi tions a) Above the base of excavation 75+ Very soft to stiff clay and silt (N=0-14) + Gravel (N=15,50) and medium to dense sand (N=20-50) b) Below the base of excavation + At the base of walls, dense sand (N=50) +See Fig. 3.10 for the soil profile and section 4) Construction conditions Number of struts 5 + Dimensions of struts (from the top to the bottom) Ist: 2H -300 x 300 x 10x15 Qnd, 3rd: 2H -350 350 x 12x19 4th, Sth: 2H -400 x 400 < 13x 21 @ Case 18, At Yokohama [3.16] 1) Excavation scale + Depth 15.78 +Plan 42.1mx 67. 1m 2) Dimensions of wall + Thickness 60cm Length 34.5 3) Ground conditions a) Above the base of excavation + Soft silt (N=2-4) b) Below the base of excavation + Soft s + At the base of walls, stiff silt (Ns 10) @® Case 19, At Yokohama [3.17] 1) Excavation scale + Depth 21.0m 76Plan 23.7mx 53. 7m 2) Dimensions of wall + Thickness 80cm Length —46.0m 3) Ground conditions a) Above the base of excavation + Very soft to medium clay (N (from GL+ Om to GL-44m) b) Below the base of excavation + Very soft to medium clay (N=0-10)(up to GL-44m) + At the base of walls (below GL-44m), audstone (hard clay) (N250) 4) Construction conditions + Number of struts 5 - The top-down method + Soil improvement was implemented with the quicklime pile method. Case 20, At Tokyo [3.18] 1) Excavation scale + Depth 12.35m 2) Dimensions of wall + Thickness 45cm Length = 24.0m 3) Ground condi tions a) Above the base of excavation + Very soft to soft clay (N=0-3) (from GL+0m to GL-23m) 77b) Below the base of excavation + Very soft ot soft clay (N=0-3) (up to GL.-23m) + At the base of walls, medium sand (N=20) 4) Construction condition + Number of struts 3 Case 21, At Tokyo [3.19] 1) Excavation scale + Depth 20.8 Width 18.0m 2) Dimensions of wall There are two types of wall in one site. + Soil cement mixing pile wall Diameter 45cm Length —31.0m + Steelpipe pile wall Diameter 55. 88cm Length 31.0m 3) Ground conditions a) Above the base of excavation - Very soft to soft silt (N=0-4) b) Below the base of excavation 20) + Medium to very stiff silt and clay (N= (from the base of excavation to GL-29m) + At the base of walls, gravel (N250) 4) Construction conditions + Number of struts 6 + Soil improvement was implemented from GL-10m to GL-27m 18with the quicklime pile method. Case 22, At Tokyo [3.20] 1) Excavation scale + Depth 18.80 +Plan 55mx 95m (triangle) 2) Dimensions of wall + Thickness 80cm sLength = -22.4m 3) Ground condi tions a) Above the base of excavation + Very soft to medium clay (N=1-5) b) Below the base of excavation + At the base of walls, gravel (N250) 4) Construction conditions + Number of struts 4 + Preloads (100tons) were induced to struts. Case 23, At Tokyo [3.16] 1) Exeavation scale + Depth 23.82m +Plan 49.0mx 144.9m 2) Dimensions of wall + Thickness 50cm + Length 25.120 3) Ground condi tions a) Above the base of excavation + Very soft to soft silt (N=0-3) b) Below the base of excavation a)+ At the base of walls, gravel 4) Construction conditions Number of struts 5 +The top-down method Case 24, At Yokohama [3.10] 1) Excavation scale + Depth 16.08m + Width 58.0m 2) Dimensions of wall + Thickness 60cm sLength —-29.15m 3) Ground condi tions a) Above the base of excavation + Very soft to medium clay From GL | Om to GL-7.5m : N=1, S, = 3.0 t/nt From GL-7.5m to GL-25.7m : N=3, S, = 6.0 t/at b) Below the base of excavation + Mee im clay (up to GL-25.7m: = 6.0 t/nt) + At the base of walls, medium clay (from GL-25.7m to base of wall: N=10, S, = 5.0 t/nf) 4) Construction condition + Number of struts 4 Case 25, At Tokyo [3.21] i) Excavation scale + Depth 30.8m + Plan 52.3mx 89.47m (triangle) 2) Dimensions of wall 80+ Thickness 1.2m + Length 42.0m 3) Ground conditions a) Above the base of excavation + Medium to dense sand and gravel Very soft to very stiff silt and clay (N=0-16) b) Below the base of excavation + Stiff clay (N=9-14) + Very dense sand and gravel (N 250) + At the base of walls, very dense sand (N 250) +See Fig. 3.11 for the soil profile and section 4) Construction conditions + Number of struts 11 +The top-down method + Number of slabs (floors) 7 + Permanent slabs were used for the 4th, 6th, and 8th struts. + Pretoads (70-80tons: 50% of axial yield forces of struts) were induced to struts. + Soil improvement was implemented from Gi.-2.5m to GL-24.0m with the quicklime pile method. + Dewatering was implemented at GL-25m elevation with the deep well method. @ Case 26 and Case 27, At Tokyo [3.21] Case 26 and Case 27 were at the same construction site, but for the different panels of diaphragm walls. The distance between the two panels was about 42 meters. BL1) Excavation scale + Detph 36.6 +Plan 40x 76. 8m 2) Dimensions of wall + Thickness 1.0m + Length 55. 5m 3) Ground conditions a) Above the base of excavation + Soft to very stiff clay (N=2-16, S, = 4-12 t/nf) + Loose to medium sand (N=7-25) b) Below the base of excavation Gravel (N 250) and mudstone (hard clay) (N250, S, = 130 t/nt) +See Fig. 3.12 and Fig. 3.13 for the soil profile and section of Case 26 and Case 27, respectively 4) Construction conditions + Number of struts 11 + The top-down method + Number of slabs (floors) 8 + Permanent slabs were used for the Ist, 3rd, 5th, 7th, 8th, and 11th struts. +Preloads (90-120 tons: 45-48 % of axial yield forces of struts) were induced to struts. + Concrete slabs (Height 0.5m, Length 2.0m) were constructed along the wall every 6.4m interval immediately after excavation below 10th stage (GL-31. 1m). 82+ Total number of excavation stages was 12. ® Case 28, [3.22] 1) Excavation scale + Depth 23.9m Plan 19mx 24.45m 2) Dimensions of wall + Thickness 1.0m sLength = 31.1m 3) Ground conditions a) Above the base of excavation + Very soft to medium clay (N=1-5, S, = 1-7 t/nf), loose sand (N=4-8) b) Below the base of excavation Medium to stiff clay (N=5-9, S, = 5-7 t/at), mudstone (hard clay) (N250, S, =80 t/at) +See Fig. 3.14 for the soil profile and section 4) Construction conditions + Number of struts 7 +The top-down method + Permanent slabs were used for the 3rd and Sth struts. ® Case 29, [3.23] 1) Excavation scale + Depth 13.75m 2) Dimensions of wall (soil cement mixing pile wall) + Diameter D=80cm + H-type steels (i1-588x 300, 65cm interval) were included as reinforcing members in the piles. 83Length 24.00 3) Ground ccnditions a) Above the base of excavation + Soft to midium clay (N=0-5, q, = 4-10 t/nt) b) Below the base of excavation 5, 4, = 10-20 t/at) +See Fig. 3.15 for the soil profile and section + Stiff clay (N= 4) Construction conditions + Number of struts 2 +The top-down method Case 30, At Yokohama (3.24) 1) Exe: + Depth 27.6m ion scale +Plan 25.7mx 54m 2) Dimensions of wall + Thickness 1.2m + Length 38.5m 3) Ground conditions a) Above the base of excavation Very soft to medium silt (N=0-5) + Very dense sand (N250) b) Below the base of excavation + Very dense sand {N250) + At the base of walls, hard clay (N250) +See Fig. 3.16 for the soil profile and section 4) Construction conditions + Number of struts 4 84® + Number of anchors 6 (upper part of the excavation were supported by struts; lower part of the excavation were supported by anchors. ) + Preloads (60-100tons) were induced to anchors. Case 31 and Case 32, At Tokyo [3.25] Case 31 and Case 32 were at the same construction site, but for the different panels of diaphragm walls. The distance between the two panels was about 45m. At around the panels for Case 31, there was an elevated entrance for working car. There might be some influence to wall deflections. 1) Excavation scale + Depth 17.85m Plan 29mx 87m 2) Dimensions of wall - Thickness 70cm + Length 21.0m 3) Ground conditions a) Above the base of excavation + Very soft to soft silt (N=1-4) (from GL+0m to GL-13m), gravel (N=10), medium clay (N=5) b) Below the base of excavation + Dense sand (N=42), and gravel (N=50) + At the base of walls, gravel (N=50) +See Fig. 3.17 for the soil profile and section 4) Construction conditions + Number of struts 4 85+ Preloads were induced to struts. () Case 33, At Kawasaki (3.26) 1) Excavation seale + Depth 13.8m 2) Dimensions of wall + Thickness 70cm + Length 27.0.0 3) Ground conditions a) Above the base of excavation + FILL, medium sand (N=10-11), medium silt (N=1, q, =6-11 t/at) b) Below the base of excavation Stiff silt and clay (N=1-3, =10-21t/ nt), medium sand (N=10-12), gravel (N 250), mudstone (hard clay) (N 250) + At the base of walls, mudstone (hard clay) (N 250) +See Fig. 3.18 for the soil profile and section 4) Construction conditions + Number of struts 5 + The top-down method + Permanent slabs were used for the 2nd and 4th struts. @® Cases 34, 35, 36, and 37, At Kitakyushu [3.27] Cases 34-37 were at the same construction site, but for the different panels of diaphragm walls. The characteristic of each case is shown in Table 3.3. 86Table 3.3 Characteristic of Cases 34- 37 [3.27] Case 34, Case 35 Case 36, Case 3 Construction | + Soil improvement | - Soil improvement Condi tions was implemented was implemented below the base of | below the base of excavation with excavation with the CJG (Column the CJG method. Jet Grout) method. | + Improved soil mass with the CJG method was implemented as pre-constructed sturt below 4th strut. Preloading to struts Distance + Distance between | - Distance between the two panels: the two panels: 4.3 meters about 6 meters - Opposite side of | - Opposite side of walls walls Distance between the two sites: about 50m aT1) Excavation scale + Depth 13.9m + Width 4.3m 2) Dimenstions of wall + Thickness 69cm + Length 20.0m 3) Ground conditions a) Above the base of excavation + Very soft to medium silt (N=0-10, S, = 1.0-3.5 t/nf) b) Below the base of excavation + Medium silt (N=5-10, S, = 3.5 t/nf), loose sand (N=10), sandstone (N 250) + At the base of walls, sandstone (N250) +See Fig. 3.19 for the soil profile and section 4) Construction conditions + Number of struts 6 + Preloads were induced to struts: for Cases 36 and 37 + Soil improvement was implemented below the base of the excavation by the Column Jet Grout (CJG) method (thickness of tread soil mass was 2.3 weters) from the surface: for Cases 34-37. + Improved soil mass with the CJG method was implemented as pre-constructed strut (thickness of tread suil mass was 1.0 meters) from the surface: for Cases 36 and 37. @ Case 38, At Yokohama [3.28] 1) Excavation scale + Depth 26.0m 88+ Plan 12.8mx 8.1m 2) Dimensions of wall (soil cement mixing pile wall) + Diameter 60cm +Length © 28.0m + H-type steels were duced as reinforcing members in the piles. 3) Ground conditions a) Above the base of excavation + Medium to stiff clay and silt (S, = 5.2-6.0 t/nt), hard silt (S, = 250 t/nof), dense sand b) Below the base of excavation + At the base of walls, dense sand +See Fig. 3.20 for the soil profile and section 4) Construction conditions + Number of struts 8 + Preloads (30% of axial forces of struts) were induced to struts. + Three anchors were constructed for the upper part of excavation, + Soil improvement was implemented below the base of the excavation with the chemical grouting method from GL- (2-5)m (thickness of treated soil was 5 meters.) + Soil improvement was implemented outside the walls with the chemical grouting method and the CJG (column jet grout) method from the surface (thickness of the treated soil: from GL-1.7m to GL-9.7m, width of the treated soil: 1.9m in CG, 1.0m in CJG.) 89@ Case 39 and Case 40, At Tokyo [3.29] Case 39 and Case 40 were at the same construction site, but for the different panels of diaphragm walls. The distance between the two panels was about 47 meters. At around the panels for Case 40, there was an entrance for working car 1) Excavation scale + Depth 21.3m + Plan 72.0m% 43.2m 2) Dimensions of wall + Thickness 80cm sLength = 26.10 3) Ground conditions a) Above the base of excavation + Loose sand (N=4-10), very soft to medium silt a ( b) Below the base of excavation -5) + At the base of walls, medium to stiff silt (N=4-15) +See Fig. 3.21 for the soil profile and section 4) Construction conditions + Number of struts 5 + Dimensions of struts (from the top to the bottom) Ast: 2H-300 x 300 x 10x15 2nd, 3rd, 4th: 2H-350 x 350 x12x19 Sth: 2H-400 x 400 x13 21 + Preloads were induced to struts as seen in Table 3.4. 90Table 3.4 Preloading to Struts in Case 39 and Case 40 (3.29] Struts | Max. measured induced | Ratio (from the | axial forces of preloads | top to the | struts to struts | B/A bottom) (A) (tons) (B) (tons) | (%) 1 78 40 SL. 3) 2 136 60 as | 3 130 80 61.5 | 4 ut 70 63.1 @ Case 41 and Case 42, At Yokohama (3.30) Case 41 and Case 42 were at the same construction site, but for the different panels of diaphragm walls. The distance between the two panels was about 24 meters. 1) Excavation scale + Depth 19.10 + Plan 26.2ex 63.50 2) Dimensions cf wall a1+ Thickness 80cm + Length Case 41 27m Case 42 26m 3) Ground conditions a) Above the base of excavation + Very soft silt (N=0-1, q, = 2 t/nf), medium sand (N210-30) b) Below the base of excavation + Medium sand (N=10-30), hard clay (N250, q, =200-400 t/at) + At the base of walls, stiff clay +See Fig. 3.22 and Fig. 3.23 for the soil profiles and sections of Case 41 and Case 42, respectively 4) Construction conditions + Number of struts 6 +The top-down method + Permanent slabs were used for the Ist, 2nd, and 4th struts. Case 43, At Tokyo [3.31] 1) Excavation scale + Depth 22. 98m + Plan (15.85-20.27)m x 133.55e 2) Dimensions of wall + Thickness 80cm sLength 32. 98m 3) Ground condi tions a) Above the base of excavation 92+ Loose to medium sand (N=4-15), medium to stiff silt and clay (N=1-5, q, “18 t/nt) b) Below the base of excavation + At the base of walls, stiff silt (N=0-4, q, = 13-14 t/nf) +See Fig. 3.24 for the soil profile and the section 4) Construction conditions Number of struts 7 + The top-down method + Permanent slabs were used for 3rd and 5th struts. + Soil improvement was implemented from GL-1om to GL-35m with the quicklime pile method. @ Case 44 and Case 45, At Tokyo [3.32] Case 44 and Case 45 were at the same construction site, but for the different panels of diaphragm walls. The distance between the two panels was about 25 meters. 1) Excavation scale + Depth 26.2m +Plan 53mx 115m 2) Dimensions of wall + Thickness 1.0m Length = 28.7 3) Ground conditions a) Above the base of excavation + Loose sand (N=4,5), soft to stiff silt and clay (N=0-5, 4. =4-16 t/t), gravel (N=50) b) Below the base of excavation 93+ At the base of walls, gravel (N=50) +See Fig. 3.25 for the soil profile and section 4) Construction conditions + Number of struts 5 + Dimensions of struts (from the top to the bottom) Ast-Sth: H-400 x 400 x 13x 21 + The top-down method + Permanent slab was used for Sth strut. + Anchor was constructed below 5th strut (6.5m above the base of excavation.) + Preloads (50% of axial yield forces of struts) were induced to struts and anchor + Soil improvement was implemented from surface to GL-22m with the in situ soil mixing method in the excavation mensions of treated soil with the in situ soil mixing method were: width (parallel to the walls) about Im length (perpendicular to the walls) Case 44: about 5a Case 45: about 12m thickness 22m @® Case 46 and Case 47, At Osaka [3.33] Case 46 and Case 47 were at the same construction site, but at the different sections. The top-down method was implemented to the section of Case 46, while the conventional down-top method was implemented to the section of Case 47 1) Excavation scale 94+ Depth 21.6m +Plan 123m x 38m (Case 46) 32m x 34m (Case 47) 2) Dimensions of wall + Thickness: Case 46 100cm Case 47 80cm sLength: Case 46 46m (the base of wall was 46m below the ground surface, but actual length was 42m Case 47 37m 3) Ground conditions a) Above the base of excavation + Loose to medium sand (N=5-12), soft clay (N=2 b) Below the base of excavation + Loose to medium sand (N=8-12), gravel (N250), medium clay (N=6-7) + At the base of walls, gravel (N250) + See Fig. 3.26 and Fig. 3.27 for the soil profiles and sections of Case 46 and Case 47, respectively 4) Construction conditions + Number of struts Case 46: 3 (Permanent slabs were used in the top-down metnod) Case 47: 7 + For the section of Case 46, there were adjacent structure foundation footings, which existed from the ground surface to GL-4m. Therefore, the diaphraga 95walls were constructed from Gl-4m to GL-46m; the actual length of walls was 42m. ® Case 48 and Case 49, At Tokyo [3.34] Case 48 and Case 49 were at the same construction site, but for the different panels of diaphragm walls. The distance between the two panels was about 40 meters. 1) Excavation scale Depth 22. 65m +Plan 72m x 78m 2) Dimensions of wall + Thickness 80cm + Length 25.650 3) Ground conditions a) Above the base of excavation + Very soft to soft silt (N=0-3), gravel (N250), stiff silt (N=8-10) b) Below the base of excavation + At the base of walls, gravel (N250) + See Fi . 3.28 for the soil profile and section 4) Construction conditions Number of struts 5 + Dimensions of struts (from the top to the bottom) Ast: H-350x350 x12x19 nd, 3rd, Sth: H-400 x 400 x 13x21 +The top-down method was implemented below the 3rd strut. Permanent slab was used for the 4th strut. + Preloads (80% of axial yield forces of struts) were 96induced to struts. ® Case 50, Case 51, and Case 52, At Tokyo [3.35] Cases 50, 51, and 52 were at the same construction site, but for the different panels of diaphragm walls. The distance between the panels of Cases 50 and 51 was about 15 meters; and the distance between the panels of Cases 50 and 52 was about 37 meters. 1) Excavation scale + Depth: Cases 50 and 52 13.55m Case 51 13.730 + Plan 50.75mx 41. 2m 2) Dimensions of wall + Thickness: Cases 50 and 51 70cm Case 52 50cm + Length: Case 50 15.85m (the base of wall was 15.85m below the ground surface, but actual length was 14.18m) Case 51 15.98m Case 52 15.87m 3) Ground conditions a) Above the base of excavation + Very soft to soft silt and clay (N=0-3, S, =1.4-2.36 t/nf), gravel (N=22-45) b) Below the base of excavation a7+ At the base of walls, mudstone (hard clay Nz 50) +See Figs. 3.29, 3.30, and 3.31 for the soil profile and section of Cases 5G, 51, and 52, respectively 4) Construction conditions + Number of struts 4 (The ist strut was reinforced concrete 70cm x 70cm, others were steel H: H-400x 400 x 13x 21.) + Preloads (80-85tons: 43-54% of axial yield forces of struts) were induced to struts. + At the section of Case 50, there was a demolished building wall. Therefore, the diaphragm wall was constructed at GL-1.67 meters; the actual wall length was 14.18 meters. 983.3.2 Measured Lateral Wall Deflections of Case Studies The lateral wall deflections measured in each (or major) excavation step and the depth generating the maximum lateral deflections in Cases 15-52 are as seen in Table 3.5. Table 3.5 Measured Maximum Lateral Wall Deflections and Their Generating Depth in Cases 15-52, Excavations in Clay Excavation | Depth Generating | Max. Lateral Case | Depth Max, Lateral Wali Deflection Wali Deflection (mm) Case 16 "Case 17 99~ | Excavation | Depth Generating | Max. Lateral _ | case | Depth Max. Lateral Wali Deflection j Wali Deflection (a) (a) (am) case 19 6.0 = 10.8 — 13.3 17.0 = 21.0 — 500 Case 20 5 = 40 3 = 80 12.35 = 88 Case 21 ao | = 55 12.0 = 6 14.0 = 63 16.5 = 63 18.5 = 63 20.8 =a 53 Case 22 6.3 = ao 10.9 = 1 14.3 = 39 18.8 = 45 case 23 4.0 = 25 6.0 _ 30 10.2 = al 14.2 = 4 | 17.0 = 39 23.82 = 38 | 100Excavation | Depth Generating | Max. Lateral Case Depth iMax. Lateral |" [Wali Detection co) (a) case2 | 25 | 1.0 60 | aod 10.0 12.0 | 13.5 14.0 a | 16.08 | mwslUdf 40 | Case 25 0 2 5 - = [ 20 20 Case 26 0 8 -0 10 0 2 5 15 “| 0 20 0 24 -0 29 -0 34 0 35 20 3 CS 1o1, T Excavation | Depth Generating | Max. Lateral | Case | Depth Max. Lateral Mali Deflection Wali Deflection (a) (n) (am) | case 27 75 | ws | § ~ 11.0 12.5 5 15.0 “14.5 1 19.0 18.5 Bb 21.5 19.5 16 24.0 23.5 18 28.0 25.5 19 | | 31.0 26.5 - 20 34.0 26.5 20 36.6 26.5 22 Case 28 2.6 11.0 ~ 4 6.4 11.0 7 9.5 12.5 12 11.5 12.5 15 15.2 15.0 | 19 17.5 16.0 26 20.5 17.0 28 Case 29 3.0 0.0 oC 9.3 6.8 65 - 11.0 9.0 100 “| 13.75 10.0 120 102| Excavation | Depth Generating Max. Lateral | case | bepth Max. Lateral Wali Deflection | | Wali Deflection i (a) (am) | Case 30 10 25 0 30 — rn nr 22 60 ; | 3B 7.6 | (12.8 “80 ‘| Case 31 34 0.5 1 7 7.0 5.5 11.0 0.5 60 “| 14.5 5.5 40 17.85 0.5 o Case 32 3.4 0.0 20 7.0 6.0 8 11.0 8.0 2 14.5 8.0 2 17.85 9.0 10 ~ | Case 33 3.8 2.5 28 9.15 8.0 aT 13.5 12.0 38 103[Excavation | Depth Generating | Max. Lateral | | Case =| Depth =| Max. Lateral" | Wali Deflection | \ fay [Rati Bettection | | Case 34 1.0 1.0 | 6.0 8.0 10.5 11.0 - wl 13.9 nuo)©)6|) 8 Case 35 ro | 1.0 [- CO 60 | 8.0 32 10.5 oT 13.9 a case 36 1.0 2 6.0 6 10.5 10 13.9 12 Case 37 1.0 3 | 6.0 4 10.5 5 | 13.9 8 Case 38 10.9 3 13.7 6 16.8 8 20.4 12 24.0 16 104Excavation | Depth Generating | Max. Lateral Case Depth Max. Lateral Wali Deflection Wali Deflection | (m) (m) (mm) Case 39 3.3 0.0 T 7.8 7.8 | 11.0 10.0 2 | 14.3 11.0 8 [ata 12.0 30 21.3 12.5 2 case 40 3.3 0.0 24 7.8 0.0 25 — 11.0 6.0 31 14.3 8.0 3 ad 10.0 3 21.3 11.0 32 Case 41 48 7.0 4 | 1.5 1.5 un 9.2 9.2 “15 12.0 11.0 a) 15.3 13.0 30 - 17.5 13.0 30 wa | 140 32 105——— _. | Excavation | Depth Generating ; Max. Lateral | case | Depth Max. Lateral | Wall Deflection | Wali Deflection | | (a) (m) (nm) Case 42 Case 43 Case 44 106a es xeavation | Depth Generating ; Max. Lateral case Depth Max. Lateral. Wali Deflection fay | Nall Bettection Case 45 65 | 75 3 | 10.4 10.5 u | 14.15 9.5 15 17.7 10.5 wv | 19.7 14.5 20 26.2 15.0 2 “| Case 46 6.9 6.5 9 | 8.65 6.5 15 “| 12.25 8.0 a 16.75 12.0 28 21.6 14.0 26 Case 47 3.6 15 “4 6.4 8.0 25 9.3 10.0 39 12.0 12.0 51 14.7 13.5 74) | 15.0 19.9 15.5 73 21.6 15.5 85 107Case Excavation Depth Depth Generating Max. Lateral Wall Deflection (m) Max. Lateral i Deflection om) 108Excavation | Depth Generating | Max. Lateral case | Depth Max. Lateral Wali Deflection wali Deflection The plots of the maximum lateral wall deflection 6 4, vs. excavation depth H are shown in Fig. 3.32 (Cases 15-32), Pig. 3.33 (Cases 33-42), and Fig. 3.34 (Cases 43-52). In these figures, the lines of ( Su» / H) = 0.01%, 0.2%, and 0.5% are drawn. The plots in these figures lead to the following observations: 1) There is ample scatter of the ratio of maximum lateral wall deflection x. to excavation depth H, du, / H. However, the maximum lateral wall deflections tend to about 0.2-0.5% of excavation depth. 2) When some mitigating measures (the top-down method, preloading to struts, soil improvement) are implemented, maximum lateral wall deflections can be reduced to about 0.1%H. See Cases 15, 17, 25, 26, 27, 32, 36, 37, 38, 42, 44, 45, 48, 49, 50, 51, and 52. The lateral wall deflections and their mitigation will be discussed in a later section (See Section 3.4.) 1093.4 Discussion of Behavior of Lateral Wall Deflections The plots of the maximum lateral wall deflections 6, vs excavation depth HW (See Fig. 3.7, Ss. 3.32-34) lead to the following rough observations. Note that a number of statements are quite general and do not consider possible differences in soil Properties and their effects. 1) 2) 3) There is ample scatter of the ratio of maximum lateral wall deflections 54, to excavation depth H, &,, /H. However, the ratio tends to be about 0.2-0.5% both in excavations in sand and clay (See Fig. 3.7, Figs. 3.32-34.) When some mitigating measures (the top-down method, preloading to struts, soil improvement) are implemented, maximum lateral wall deflections can be reduced to about 0.05%H and 0.1%H for excavations in sand and clay, respectively (See Fig.3.7, Figs. 3.32 - 34.) The smaller the spacing of struts is, the smaller the maximum lateral wall deflections are. See and compare Case 16 (spacing h = 5.0-7.5m) and Case 7 (spacing h = 2.5-5.4m.) Sue (Case 16) > 6y,(Case 7) The excavation depth is almost the same, though the soil types in the excavation differ in Case 16 and Case 17. Note also that the walls cannot be perfectly supported by struts (i.e., h = Om), since the spacing of struts is usually h = 2-5 meters froma4) 3) 6) practical viewpoint. When the walls are embedded into stiff deposits, the maximum lateral wall deflections are small (e.g., Case 48, Case 49.) Therefore, one can assume that soil improvement for the base of walls and below the base of excavations would mitigate the lateral wall deflections in excavations in deep clay deposits The thicker the walls are, the smaller the meximum lateral wall deflections are. See and compare Case 23 (wall thickness t = 50cm) and Case 28 (wall thickness t = 100cm.) Gum (Case 23) > Sy (Case 28) (note: the excavation depth is almost the same.) However, the thickness of the diaphragm walls usually ranges from 60cm to 120cm in practice. Therefore, it would be impractical to increase the wall thickness to more than 120cm from an equipment and construction viewpoint. Also note that the wall thickness is only one of the parameters of system stiffness in excavations. Therefore, other factors have also significant influence on the lateral wall deflections. See Case 47 (embedment depth D=15.4m, wall thickness t=80cm.) The thickness of the wall is not so thin, and also the embedment depth is deep; however, the lateral wall deflections are large due to the conventional down-top method. The soil improvement implemented in the excavation can mitigate the lateral wall deflections. The soil improvement lit7) 8) can be implemented around the base of walls, below the base of excavations, above the base of excavations, and can be used as combinations thereof. (Also improved soils pre-constructed struts.) See and compare the improved soils used as the pre-constructed struts in Cases » 35, 36, and 37 (no pre-constructed struts in Cases 34 and 35; pre constructed struts in Cases 36 and 37.) Also see Cases 25 (above the base), 38 (below the base), 43 (above and below the base), 44 (above the base), and 45 (above the base) for the implementation of the soil improvement. The preloading to struts can mitigate the lateral wall deflections. The method of preloading to struts, which induces an axial load to struts using hydraulic jacks immediately after placing them, is one of the significant measures to mitigate the lateral wall deflections. See and compare the effect of preloading to struts in Cases 34, 35, 36, and 37. Note the ratio of preload to axial yield forces in struts is an important issue to be studied. The top-down method can mitigate the lateral wall deflections. The top-down method, which places the permanent concrete floor/roof slabs from the top to the bottom in the excavation sequence, is one of the significant measures to mitigate the lateral wall deflections. See and compare Case 46 (the top- down method) and Case 47 (the conventional down-top method.) Sum (Case 46) < 4 (Case 47) (note: the excavation depth is 112the same.) Note that the spacing of permanent slabs usually ranges from 2.5m to 5.5m from an architectural viewpoint. Therefore, considerations about the combination of permanent slabs and temporary struts are issues that need to be designed. These observations will be reflected in formulating the empirical correlations between the maximum lateral wall deflections and the factors affecting the behavior of diaphragm walls in deep excavations (See Chapter 4.) Note that the classification of the soil types in excavations is further subdivided to consider the mixed grounds in the later study of the empirical correlations. After the subdivision (see the discussion in Chapter 4), the following cases are classified as the excavations in mixed ground: Case 1, Case 7, Case 8, Case 11, Case 12, Case 13, Case 14, Case 16, Case 17, Case 33, Case 42, and Case 43. The number of case studies after such a subdivision is: 7 in sand, 33 in clay, and 12 in mixed ground. The plots of the maxium lateral wall deflections O ua VS. excavation depth H in the excavations in mixed ground (Cases 1, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 33, 42, and 43) are shown in Fig. 3.35. The correlations for the 1 max lateral wall deflections according to the soil types wi be discussed in Chapter 4. 113References 3.1 Nojiri and Kondo. (1973). “Preloading Method in Excavations.” Journal of the Japanese Society of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering (JSSMFE), Vol.21, No.5 3.2 Kawasaki, Ikuta, et al. (1972). “Earth Pressure Acting on Diaphragm Wall.” Proceedings of the Conference, Japanese Society of Architecture (JSA) 3.3 Toyoshima, et al. (1974). “Earth Pressure Acting on Diaphragm Wall in Dense Sand." Proceedings of the Conference, JSA 3.4 Kofujita and Aoki. (1974). “Measured Earth Pressure Acting on Retaining Wall." Proceedings of the 9th Conference, JSSMFE 3.5 Ogushi and Takahashi. (1973). “A Measured Earth Pressure Acting on Diaphragm Wall in Sand." Proceedings of the 8th Conference, JSSMFE 3.6 Ogushi, Fujikawa and Yamazaki. (1973). “Behavior of Reinforced Retaining Wall and Adjacent Ground." Proceedings of the Conference, Japan Society of Civil Engineers (JSCE) 3.7 Fujimaki et al. (1990). “Design and Construction of Retaining Wall for Nihonbashi Plaza Building." Foundation Engineering & Equipment, Vol,18, No.7 3.8 East Japan Railway Company. (1990). Tokougihou. Special Issue for Keiyou Line. Tokyo Construction Office 3.9 Japanese National Raiways. (1986). Construction Report on Tohoku Sinkansen (From Ueno to Ohmiya) lid3.10 AL 12 13 14 15 16 AT 18 19 20 Tokyo Express Highway. (1990). Building Code for Temporary Structure Ozaki and Sekimoto. (1974). “Measurements of Soil Cement " Journal of JSSMFE. Vol. Mixing Pile Walls 2, No.1 Maruoka, Ikuta et al. (1985). “Research on Observation Method for Earth Retaining Wall." Proceedings of the 20th Conference, JSSMFE Tada and Hiromoto. (1990). “Deep Excavation for the Shaft of Sewerage Pumping Facility.” The Foundation Engineering and Equipment, Vol.18, No.7 Ikuta and Maruoka. (1980). “Measured Lateral Earth Pressure." Journal of JSSMFE, Yol.28, No.3 Kanaya, Miyazaki and Moriwaki. (1981). “Measurement Control for Excavation,” Proceedings of the 16th Conference, JSSMFE Kanaya, Miyazaki and Moriwaki. (1975). “Deflection and Stress of Diaphragm Wall," Proceedings of the 10th Conference, JSSMFE Kuroyanagi and Inoue. (1974). “Measurements of Deflection of Diaphragm Wall and Acting Earth Pressure in Soft Ground,” Proceedings of the 3th Conference, JSSMFE Adachi, Ishibashi, et al. (1972). “Measurements of Behavior and Lateral Earth Pressure of Diaphraga Wall.” Proceedings of the Conference, JSCE Chimoto, Ando and Kanayasu. (1975). “Measurement of Lateral Earth Pressure of Deep Excavation for Subway Station in Soft Ground." Journal of JSCE, Vol.60, No.9 Ueno, Nojiri, et al. (1976). “Automatic Observation System for Retaining Walls and Its Application." Proceedings of the 11th 115an 222 223 24 225 26 27 28 29 -30 Conference, JSSMFE Kashiwagi. (1990). “Deep Excavation for Underground Electric Tranformer Substation." The Foundation Engineering and Equipment, Vol.18, No.7 Ikuta, Maruoka, et al. (1987). “Research of Observation Method for Excavation." Takenaka Technical Research Report, No.38 Aoki, Maruoka, et al. (1989). “Adjacent Ground Behavior Around Excavation." Proceedings of the 24th Conference, JSSMFE Ohta, Honda, et al. (1986). “Behavior of Diaphragm Wall and Its Analysis," Proceedings of the 21st Conference, JSSMFE Nojiri. (1975). “Ground Settlement and Deflection of Diaphragm Wall for Building Foundation." pp. 221-229 in “Behavior and Prediciton of Settlement and Deformation for Foundation.” Edited by JSSMFE Masaki. (1989). “Excavation Adjacent to the Building Foundation." pp. 95-110 in “Adjacent Construction." Edited by JSSMFE Japanese National Railways. (1985). Shimonoseki Construction Office. “Construction Report on Gotanda-Gawa Drainage Facility Between Kokura and Hakata on Sanyo-Shinkansen." Nizu. (1989). “Excavation Adjacent to The Tokaido-Shinkansen Bank.” pp. 121-132 in “Adjacent Construction.” Edited by JSSHFE Wada, Shiho, et al. (1982). “Measurements Control of Earth Retaining Walls in Soft Ground, No.3." Proceedings of the 17th Conference, JSSMFE Kofujita, Fujita, et al. (1980). “Measurements Control of 1163.31 3.32 3.33 3.34 3.35 Earth Retaining Walls in Soft Ground.” Proceedings of the 15th Conference, JSSMFE Ishemoto, Okabe, et al. (1985). “Behavior of Adjacent Ground by Excavation.” Proceedings of the 20th Conference, JSSMFE Katsura and Inoue. (1980). “Lateral Earth Pressure and Deflection of Diaphragm Wall." Proceedings of the 15th Conference, JSSMFE Shirako, et al. (1983). “Measurement of Deep Excavation for Japanese National Railway Osaka Terminal Station Building.” Proceedings of the 18th Conference, JSSMFE Nojiri and Tanaka. (1978). “Measurement Control for Earth Retaining Wall Using Inserted Gradient Measurement and Its Application to Diaphragm Wall.” Kajima Cooperation Technical Report, No. 26 Ogura, et al. (1980). “Measurement of Deep Excavation in Soft Clay Ground." Proceedings of the 15th Conference, JSSMFEFigure 3.1 Soil Profile and Section of Case 7 [3.7] Depth Hi SPT_N value (m) (m) Soil 0 10 20 304050} pia * aT —_ * 4 Fill a 4 — 5] Silt 4 4 wr Sand 73 = A— t- 4 silt 4 + 10 J Clay y 4 Sand — x- 4 2 1 Sand —t 154 2 4 Sand Y eK {- 1 Clay 207 Silt 3 +__] 4 Sand 254 Gravel a 4 Sand 7 Gravel vFigure 3.2 Soil Profile and Section of Case 8 [3.8] 7 SPT N value (my meen} Soil |oin 20 39 ans0 2 2p) < Fill 7 K Fine sand Medium sand ; <— 5 33 a = wr | ¥ f+ Fine sand = 7 10 2 —f- 131 =| 15 Clay 4 Mudstone 4 (hard clay) oO | 20 ° ZY Ss Fine sand 25 250 Tn + Mudstone_ < (hard clay) r 30 a <—}+ {Sand 321. Ne 7 e332 4 Mudstone LZ ys 32 35 4 (hard clay) 3 a y 119Fig. 3.3 Soil Profile and Section of Case 9 [3.9] Depth| an ‘SPT N value At final excavation (m) or 0.10 20 30 40 50} (my a al e Fe | 8 7 Sand yt 7 val 4 104 Silty sand -—— 1 2 1 + 1 Sand — L _ Is4 +o a 4 Silt 204 Chay — k 1 Silt g {Sand Anchor 257 Clay Y 3s 7 Anchor x <—— Si ” 4 ‘and 4 304 29.8 4 Gravel ‘o 4 L ciFig. 3.4 Soil Profile and Section of Case 11 (3.10) Sand Depth| , Properti (my ce a soa a Clay —+t Y < wr a ° = N=4 ~ <_— Sand - ] on $ =28° cS s N=3 —f 10 Clay Su=25 2 4. = & — 15 Ss Sand & — & —_— 2 200 >Fig. 3.5 Soil Profile and Section of Case 13 [3.12] Depth] Properties a (my Soil Su (t/m?) IT Fill Silt 5 10 Sa Is Sand 20 4 25 Sand [N=25,6=37 Gravel N=50, $= 47° Note re. A: Depth range of soil improvement (the chemical grouting method), applied between the diaphragm wallsFig. 3.6 Soil Profile and Section of Case 14 [3.12] Depth | Properties (m) «m) Soll Su (tm?) Fill Silt 5 10 N=30 and @ =39° 1S Sand 20 25 Sand [N=23,0=37° Gravel__ [N=50,9=47° Note re. A: Soil improvement (the chemical grouting method) Note re. B: Depth range of soil improvement (the chemical grouting method), applied between the diaphragm walls 123Fig. 3.7 Observed Maximum Lateral Deflections of Diaphragm Walls vs. Excavation Depth, Excavations in Sand, Cases 1 - 14 Maximum Lateral Wall Deflection, 5),,,(mm) Depth of Excavation, H (m)Figure 3.8 Soil Profile and Section of Case 15 (3.13] Peon Soil Properties (m) > Fill N=1-20 Clay N=11-40 0 Sand N=50 Clay N=50 20 Mudstone N250 the clay) | qy= 240-370 tm? 30 40 125Fig. 3.9 Soil Profile and Section of Case 16 [3.14] Depth . Properties (ny | Soil ay (m2) (m) Fill (sand) Sand 10 N=1-6 gy = 10.4 = | Silt Ma | 204 | 16.0 N=6-32 J Sand feera Gravel po Clay N=50 Gravel O46" 404 Clay |Ng 3? gy = 22.0Fig. 3.10 Soil Profile and Section of Case 17 (3.15) | Depth| as Soil SPT N value S silt N=5 z 2 ? 5 — +4 Clay N=0-4 A Pa 10 * t Silt Gravel a silt < ¥ Cc 1s lay + j Sand N=40~50 wi Gravel N=50 Y — + 20 S Sand N= 20-50 95 25.1 t a Sand N=50 “i 4Fig. 3.11 Soil Profile and Section of Case 25 [3.21] Depth} Soil ~— | SPT N value (m) (m) Fill Net Td Gravel N= 10-30 Sand N=-# 10 Upper N=0-3 silt 204 J Lower J N=2-11 30-4 Organic clay N=16 4_Sit&clay_ | N=9-14 | Gravel N250 Sand N250 Note re. A: Depth range of soil improvement (the quicklime pile method), applied between the diaphragm walls prior to excavations 128Fig. 3.12 Soil Profile and Section of Case 26 [3.21] Depth ; Properties (m) Soil Su (tm?) (m) Clay Clay N=5-6,Su=5,0=5° 104 - 10, Su=1, _ 4 Sand =25° ‘ ttt a SESS < 4 Sand N= 20-30, 6 =35° N=5-10, 4 Clay Su= 10, = Silty tt 15] 3.0] 3.0 maleaealia 1 Clay Gravel Mudstone + (hard clay) ~~ 18.9 129Fig. 3.13 Soil Profile and Section of Case 27 [3.21] Depth Properties (m) Su (tim?) ™ > + 4 Fill zy 4 _ eS T chy N=3-5,Su=5,0 =10°| _ = 10 4 Clay N=5-6,Su=5,9=5° 4 Sand N=7-10, Su=l, $= 25° t a _— a {Sand _ J —_ ] 2 | Clay * 4 — ° 30 bed Silty sand | N= 12225, Su= 10, —_— = oy Ne 16, Susis, 625° ee = 4 Gravel N250, 9=45° 404 Mudstone N 250, 2 I 4 Su = 130, a ] (hard clay) ¢ =15° Y = 504 1 U LLFig. 3.14 Soil Profile and Section of Case 28 [3.22] Depth - Properties (m) Soil Su (tm?) GWL Fill = Sand 10 Clay pa Clay Clay 30] Mudstone N250 ‘| (hard clay) Su=80Fig. 3.15 Soil Profile and Section of Case 29 (3.23) Depth 7 Properties a) Soil a, (um?) (m) 4 Fill N=2-9 1 3 s4 4 Chay Ne0re | a — + 4 8 S 104 Clay 154 4 Chy a qg 1 g 20-4Soil Profile and Section of Case 30 [3.24] Fig. 3.16 Depth! Soil SPT N Value Silt N=5-18 + sit et- 104 J sit N=0 204 4 Sand N250 304 | Hard Clay N250 40 | 133 (m) —_— _— <—— << <_— — <— — 21.6Fig. 3.17 Soil Profile and Section of Case 31 and Case 32 [3.25] Pei"! Soil | SPT N Value (m) Fill Nes —_ Silt N=2-4 5 — silt N=1-2 10 —_— — Gravel N=10 15, Cla Nes ¥ 17.85 q Sand N=42 20 Gravel N=50 134Fig. 3.18 Soil Profile and Section of Case 33 [3.26] Depth. + SPT N Value (m) Soil Qu (tm?) (m) > pert Fill * ci — + Sand N=10-11 a 5 an rn oar Silt N=I € — + 10 ” a . N= ES q,= 6-1 — + 13.8 = e+ 15 silt Y Silt ao] Sand N=10-12 a N=3 Clay q,= 10-21 Gravel N250 25 Mudstone N250 (hard clay) u +Fig. 3.19 Soil Profile and Section of Cases 34, 35, 36, and 37 [3.27] Depth F Properties tm) | Soil Su itm?) (m) Fill ww | sit 5s) sit 104 Silt 4 7 ‘i N=5-10 4 Sit Su=3.5 4 N=10 4 Sad > =35° 20 | Sandstone N250 Note re. A: Depth range of soil improvement (the column jet grouting method), applied between the diaphragm walls prior to excavations —for Cases 36 and 37 (implemented as pre-constructed strut below 4th strut) re. B: Depth range of soil improvement (the CJG method), applied between the diaphragm walls prior to excavations —for Cases 34, 35, 36, and 37 136- 3.20 Soil Profile and Section of Case 38 [3.28] - Depth . Properties (m) Soil Su (m2) (m) Fil Rad —c ¥ 4 An | =—ct r Organic su=55 2 4 clay a 4 Poa i > a 4 Chay su=60 t J a <— + 4 ” uy 1.0) 1.9 a 1 Sit su=5.2 54 7 Silt Su = 250 204 35 | Dense sand @ =40° 4 Note,re. A: Soil improvement (the CJG method) re. B: Soil improvement (the chemical grouting method) re.C: Anchors re. D: Depth range of soil improvement (the chemical grouting method), applied between the retaining walls 137Fig. 3.21 Soil Profile and Section of Case 39 and Case 40 [3.29] 138 Depth! Soil SPT N Value (my + 7 Fill N=0-10 al - + Sand N=4-10 a f + Silt N=1-2 t q . a silt N=0-1 10 — + a Clay N=0 o 2 154 Silt N=0-1 a 4— + | Clay N=1-5 io 204 2 Silt N=4-15 * 25 +Fig. 3.22 Soil Profile and Section of Case 41 [3.30] Depth . Properties im) Soil a, im?) im) iu ec + Fill a « oe ~ ei 5 — tT + silt 2 10 —__ a a —— fe 15 = S 20 Sand N= 10-30 a e 25 y= 200 - 400 Clay WN > 50 4Fig. 3.23 Soil Profile and Section of Case 42 [3.30] Depth Properties te) Soil dy Wm?) (m) + ¥ | Fill & — + 4 7 ci 54 Y — | sit — + 4 2 104 1 — + 4 4 a - + 154 _ 4 Sand N=10-30 3 20 7 200 - 400 a 4 Clay N230 3 4 254 + 140Fig. 3.24 Soil Profile and Section of Case 43 [3.31] Depth . Properties fia Soil a, wm?) ~ 4 Fin 1 Sand N=4-15 10 4 Silt 204 Clay 1 . N=0-4 304 Silt qy= 13-14 Note re. A: Depth range of soil improvement (the quicklime pile method), applied between the diaphragm walls prior to excavationsFig. 3.25 Soil Profile and Section of Case 44 and Case 45 [3.32] Depth ; Properties aaa Soil ayitim 3) (m) A Sand N=5 7 Clay N=1-5 Silt N=4 Sand N=4 15+ ml Silt Fe a a ._—_ 2 “ N=0-2 — 10 Silt Gy=4-8 a 2 a a a a < v Gravel N=50 26.2 ¥ Note re. A: Depth range of soil improvement (the in situ soil mixing method), applied between the diaphragm walls prior to excavations re.B: Anchor 142Fig. 3.26 Soil Profile and Section of Case 46 [3.33] Depth) Soil,_~—« | SPT N Value Adjacent Silt Structure Footings (m) Sand N=5-10 10 Clay 20-4 Sand N=8-12 394 Gravel N250 Clay N=6-7 40 Gravel N250Fig. 3.27 Soil Profile and Section of Case 47 [3.33] Depth) Soil SPT N Value (m) iT aa Sand N=5-10 10 Clay N=2 4 20 Sand N=8-12 30| Gravel N250 Clay N=6-7 40 Gravel N250 144Fig. 3.28 Soil Profile and Section of Case 48 and Case 49 [3.34] Pepin) Soil SPT N Value (m) * 4 Silt N=0-3 5 | — 54 a 4 <_< x 1 Silt N=0-1 3 104 1 — + 4 ci 4 << is 4-7 4 Gravet N250 ~ J —_— 204 silt N=8-10 g 1 22.65 y 2 Gravel N2S0 a 254Fig. 3.29 Soil Profile and Section of Case 50 (3.35) Wall of demolished Mudstone (hardclay) Depth Properties buildi cen) Soil sana?) uilding (m) 7 4 Chay N 4 . =0 Silt Su=14-2.36 4 Clay N=2-3 104 Gravel N=22-45Fig. 3.30 Soil Profile and Section of Case 51 [3.35] Depth ' Properties (my | Soil Su (vm?) 7 4 chy Nel ] silt s4 4 Chay N=2-3 104 Gravel N=22-45 "| Mudstone 154 (hardelay) SDFig. 3.31 Soil Profile and Section of Case 52 [3.35] Depth Properties (my | Soil Su (tim?) ~~ 4 Clay J — J <— Silt 34 4 —__ J chy N=2-3 104 <— Gravel N=22-45 1 13.55 Mudstone 154 (hardclay) Beso L 148Fig. 3.32 120r HO 60F sof 40 - & g a 3 = zg = 3 g E 3 = 30F Observed Maximum Lateral Deflections of Diaphragm Walls vs. Excavation Depth, Excavations in Clay, Cases 15 - 32 . . 1 1 1 1 L 10 20 30 Depth of Excavation, H (m) gf 149Fig. 3.33. Observed Maximum Lateral Deflections of Diaphragm Walls ys. Escavation Depth, Excavations in Clay, Cases 33 - 42 100F ook 2 gop S = F 7b cok 3 é 3 a 3 = 3 3 g 5 & 8 = 10 20 30 40 Depth of Excavation, H (m)Fig. 3.34 Observed Maximum Lateral Deflections of Diaphragm Walls vs. Excavation Depth, Excavations in Clay, Cases 43 - 52 Maximum Lateral Wall Deflections, 5,,,, (mm) Depth of Excavation, H (m)Fig. 3.35 Observed Maximum Lateral Deflections of Diaphragm Walls vs. Excavation Depth, Excavations in Mixed Ground, Cases 1, 7, 8 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 33, 42, and 43 Maximum Lateral Wall Deflections, 8 ym Depth of Excavation, H (m) 1524. Empirical Correlations for Lateral Deflections of Diaphragm Walls in Deep Excavations 4.1 Factors Affecting Lateral Deflections of Diaphragm Walls Based on the observations of the behavior of lateral diaphragm wall deflections discussed in Chapter 3 and the review of previous studies in Chapter 2, the following factors can be considered to affect the lateral deflections of diaphragm walls in deep excavations: 1) Soil types in the excavations and embedments (i.e., sand, clay, and mixed ground) 2) Soil properties in excavations and embedments (e.g., undrained shear strength and the modulus of elasticity) 3) Flexural stiffness of the diaphragm walls + (EL) of the walls where E = Young's modulus I = moment of inertia 4) Spacing of struts/number of struts 5) Preloading to struts 6) Construction methods + The top-down method: the method placing the permanent concrete floor/roof slabs from the top to the bottom in the excavation sequence +The down-top method: the conventional method in excavation construction, which places the 1537) a) 9) 10) 1) permanent concrete floor/roof slabs from the bottom to the top in the exeavation sequence Length of the walls + Especially the length of embedment into a stiff deposit Soil improvement Seale of excavations + Depth of excavations + Width of excavations Groundwater condtions Other construction activities [4.1] (A) Activities performed separately of the excavations and the supports + Relocation of utilities Dewatering + Removal of existing basement/piles + Installation of concrete diaphragm walls (B) Activities integral to the excavations and the supports + Reloading rakers and tiebacks + Connections between supports and walls + Excavation depth which the first level of supports installed Depth of excavation beneath the lowest support level + Use of beri Sequence of the excavation + Time between the excavation and the installation of support 154+ Surcharge loads adjacent to the excavations However, only limited data on groundwater conditions and other construction activities exist in the case studies described in Chapter 3. The major soil properties described in the case studies are the N value (SPT) and friction angles for sands; and the N value (SPT), unconfined compressive strength, and undrained shear Strength for clays. The moduli of elas ity for sand and clay are used. The moduli are estimated (moduli were measured in some cases) from the conventional empirical correlations between soil Properties. The study of the empirical correlations for the lateral wall deflections in this chapter will use these above- mentioned factors, and will set up a simplified procedure for the Prediction of maximum lateral deflections of concrete diaphragm walls in deep excavations (depth in the case studies = 10-42m.) 4.2 Discussion on Factors Affecting Lateral Deflections of Diaphragm Walls 4.2.1 Empirical Correlations in Previous Studies (1) Review of Coefficients in the Kelations for Lateral Wall Deflections and Ground Surface Settlements Clough et al. [4.2] proposed the system stiffness as follows: fness) = (EI)/( yeh yet) (4.1) where Ef = flexural stiffness of in situ walls (System s h,,. = average vertical spacing of struts (supports) 155rT. = unit weight of water Clough et al. proposed the design curves to obtain the maximum lateral wall deflections in excavations in soft to medium clays, using the system stiffness and the factor of safety against basal al heave was The factor of safety against heave (See Fig. defined by Terzaghi [4.3] as follows (See Fig. 4.1): In the case D< ( ¥2/2) 8B FS =(N. S.y)/(H (7 /0)1 (4.2) In the case D> ( ¥2/ 2) B FS =(N. S,,)/(H (y~- 28,, /¥ 2 B)) (4.3) where D = distance between the base of excavation and hard stratum B = width of excavations N. = bearing capacity coefficient S,,= undrained shear strength below the base of excavation S,,= undrained shear strength above the base of excavation 7 = unit weight of soil Sugimoto [4.4] proposed the cutting factor as follows: (Cutting Factor) = (BH)/( By D) (4.4) Bo = (BE, /(EL)]*** (4.5) where B = width of excavations H = depth of excavations D = embedment depth of walls E, = Young's modulus of soils in embedment EI = flexural stiffness of walls 156Bo = coefficient related to wall stiffness and modulus of soils in embedment Sugimoto showed that the maximum settlements of the ground surface adjacent to the excavations were approximately predicted by a the cutting factor (See Fig. 2 Although these coefficients provide a guide on the expected magnitudes of the lateral wall deflections and the ground surface settlements, there are uncertainties in extrapolating the use of these coefficients to the situations of current interest involving much deeper excavations supported by concrete diaphragm walls These uncertainties exist for the following reasons: 1) Most of the existing data in the previous studies (i.e., Clough et al. and Sugimoto) were obtained from the excavations less than 15m deep with relatively flexible retaining walls (i.e. sheetpile and soldier pile walls.) 2) The system stiffness proposed by Clough et al. can be effectively used for the prediction only for excavations in clay, i.e., the lateral wall deflections for excavations in sand can not be predicted using system stiffness. 3) There have been many field data which indicate that the maximum lateral wall deflections are less than 0.5%H in deep excavations, which are not effectively covered by these coefficients. 157Therefore, there is a need to propose a new coefficient which will be related to the lateral wall deflections in deep excavations supported by diaphragm walls in order to set up the empirical correlations. (2) Factors to Be Considered in Proposed Coefficients Based on the behavior of lateral wall deflections, the following factors should be taken into account by the proposed coefficients. 1) Depth of excavations: H 2) Soil properties above and below the base of excavations: Young's modulus of soils E, 3) Number of struts or spacing of struts (average): n or hy. 4) Flexural stiffness of the wall: El 5) Embedment depth: D 6) Construction methods: Preloading to struts, soil improvement, the top-down method These factors will be discussed later. 4.2.2 Flexural Stiffness of Diaphragm Walls 4.2.2.1 Overview 158The flexural stiffness of diaphragm walls in situ is expressed as follows: (EL) server = Eee E (4.6) where (EL) .cssa, = flexural stiffness of diaphragm walls in situ E,.= equivalent Young's modulus of the concrete diaphragm walls after generation of tension cracks equivalent moment of inertia of the concrete diaphragm walls, assuming that the walls are in an uncracked state = bt? /12 (4.7) b = width of concrete diaphragm wall Note that b is equal to 1 meter when the unit width is considered. t = thickness of concrete diaphragm wall When the type of wall is a soil cement mixing pile wall, assuming that the diameter is equivalent to the thickness of the wall, the equivalent moment of inertia become bt? / 12 = bg? / 12 (4.8) where @ = diameter of the soil cement mixing pile wall The main concern when deciding on the flexural stiffness of a concrete diaphragm wall in situ is the estimation of E (equivalent Young's modulus of concrete diaphragm wall), since the flexural stiffness in situ would be decreased due to the generation 159of ten n cracks. Therefore, the flexural stiffness after the generation of tension cracks should be examined. 4.2.2.2 Relationships Between Bending Moment, Flexural Stiffness, and Curvature of Rectangular Beams Based on the conventional theory of reinforced concrete structures, the portion of a rectangular beam subjected to tension stresses is neglected. Based on the relationships between bending moment, flexural stiffness, and curvature for rectangular beams with tension and compression reinforcement, the following can be stated ([4.5], (4.6), (4.7), (4.81): 1) Stresses in the reinforcing bars can be calculated after tension cracks are generated in a rectangular beam subjected to bending moments and/or axial forces (tension cracks are usually generated when the stresses in the tension reinforcement become about 1000 kg/at.) Either one of the following two calculation procedures can be used producing very similar results: in one, the tensile stresses in the concrete are assumed to be effective, in the other the tensile stresses in the concrete are neglected. Note that the latter case is the usual assumption for the design of reinforced concrete beams. 2) After tension cracks are generated in a rectangular beam, the 160flexural stiffness will decrease, i.e., the gradient of moment-curvature line will decrease. See Fig. 4.2. Fig. 4.2 (a) illustrates the schematic relation between bending moment and curvature in the case of tension reinforcement. The symbols in the figure are as follows: M.,= bending moment for which the tension cracks are generated in the section M.,= bending moment for which the concrete stress in the compression portion reaches the proportional limit, i.e., the elastic limit M, = bending moment for which the steel is well past the yield stress, i.e., the failure of the section E. = Young's modulus of concrete 1,,= moment of inertia in an uncracked state U,,= moment of inertia in a cracked state When tension cracks are generated, the stiffness is immediately reduced, and the curve jumpes from point 1 to point 2 in Fig. 4.2 (a) with no increases in moment. In the limit case, the concrete stress of the compression portion reaches the proportional limit at point 3, and, typically, the steel is still below the yield stress. Next, the concrete is well into the inelastic range, although the steet has not yet yielded. The end result will be a series of points, such as 4, 5, 6, and 7 in Fig. 4.2 (a). The limit of the moment vs. curvature plot is reached at point 7 when the concrete in the top compression portion is failing. The steel will be 161well past the yield stress at this loading, and the yield stress corresponds to point 5. Fig. 4.1 (b) illustrates the schematic relation between flexural stiffness and curvature. The flexural stiffness is E, [,, before the tension cracks are generated in the section. After the generation of tension cracks, the flexural stiffness decreases and reaches E, [.,. These schematic relationships also apply to the rectangular beams with tension and compression reinforcement. 3) If the axial forces acting on the rectangular beams are negligible, the flexural stiffness after the generation of tension cracks becomes almost the same as that of a beam in which tensile stresses of the concrete are neglected. 4) If the axial ferces acting on the rectangular beams are negligible, the flexural stiffness after the generation of tension cracks is not much influenced by the value of the Young's modulus of concrete (E . ), and the strength of concrete (f . '). Based on the above-mentioned conventional reinforced concrete theory, the following can be said for the diaphragm walls in deep excavations which are not subjected to the large axial forces (these loading conditions are the usual cases in practice) [4.8]: 1624.2.2.3 Concrete Cover Ratio and Steel Ratio of 1) Tension cracks will be generated in the section of the concrete diaphragm wall when the wall is subjected to the in situ lateral earth pressures, since the stresses of tension reinforcement usually become more than 1000 kg/af in practice. 2) The flexural stiffness of concrete diaphragm walls subjected to the in situ lateral earth pressures will be almost the same as those in which tensile stresses in the concrete are neglected. 3) The flexural stiffness of a concrete diaphragm wall subjected to the in situ lateral earth pressures will not be much influenced by the value of Young's modulus of concrete (E. ), and the strength of concrete (f . ' ). iaphragm Walls in Usual Practice The concrete cover ratio (a) and the steel ratio (p) are defined as follows [4.5] (See Fig. 4.3): Assume that Ay: = Ay2 = As dy = de azd/t= d/t (4.9) p=As/ (b+ d) = Ay /[(L-a@) bed] (4.10) where A,.= area of compression reinforcing bars A,2 = area of tension reinforcing bars 1634: = concrete cover for the compression reinforcing bars d: = concrete cover for the tension reinforcing bars t = depth of the beam d = effective depth of the beam =t-da Based on the case studies of construction of concrete diaphragm walls, the thickness of the walls ranges from 60cm to 120cm, and the concrete cover ranges from 10cm to 14cm in usual practice, i.e, t= 60c 120cm and di; = dz = 10cm-14em. Typical values of diameters of the deformed reinforcing bars, the spacing of bars, and the area of the reinforcing bars for the concrete diaphragm walls are listed in Table 4.1 ([4.8] modified). (Note that the types of the reinforcing bars are based on the Japanese Industrial Standard (JIS), G3112-1975, “Deformed Bars for Reinforced Concrete." 164Table 4.1 Typical Types/Values of Reinforcing Bars of the Concrete Diaphragm Walls ((4.8] modified) (Thickness of | Reinforcing bars | diaphragm (Per unit length b=1m) \ walls Typexx | Spacing t (cm) (cm) oo [125 10.0 022 15.0 12.5 | Ft0.0 | 25 15.0 | 33.78 | 12.5 40.54 10.0 50.67 p29 12.5 51.39 10.0 64.24 80 p22 12.5 30.97 10.0 38.71 [ p25 15.0 33.78 12.5 49.54 10.5 50.67 D239 12.5 51.39 10.5 64.24 p32 12.5 63.54 10.0 | 79.42 | 165| Thickness ot | Reinforcing bars diaphraga (Per unit length b=1m) i walls po Typex | Spacing Area t (cn) | (ea) A. (ad) 100 25 2 40.54 10.0 a 50.67 p29 12.5 51.39 10.0 64.24 32 12.5 63.54 10.0 120 | pea 12.5 10.0 032 15.0 12.5 10.0 3%. Types of reinforcing bars (JIS, G3112-1975) a) Strength SD30/SD35 are used. Symbol | Yielding stress | Ultimate stress ( ke/mn? ) ( ke/am? ) sD30 30 ~ 49 ~ 63 p35 3S 50 ~ I 166b) Designations, areas, perimeters and weights Designations p25 23 | ps2 | Diameter (mm) —_ 25.4 | 28.6 | 31 | | cross. sectional area tat) | 5 067 | 6. cal 7.942 8.0 0 lio, 10 [oe Based on the above-mentioned values used in concrete diaphragm walls, the typical values of the concrete cover ratio (a) are shown in Table 4.2. Table 4.2 Typical Values of the Concrete Cover Ratio (a) of Diaphragm Walls Concrete cover Thickness of the diaphragm walls di, de _ — aa (cm) t= 60cm | t= 80cm | t=1000m | t=120cm 10 0.083 12 0.200 0.150 0.120 0.100 14 0.233 0.175 0.140 0.117 Note: Assuming di = dz, a = di /t= di /t 167The concrete cover ratio (a) ranges approximately from 0.10 to 0.20. Based on the concrete cover ratio ( uw), the typical values of steel ratio (p) for concrete diaphragm walls are shown in Table 4.3, assuming that the typical values of q@ are a = 0.10, 0.15, 0,20 ([4.8] modified) 168Table 4.3 Typical Values of Steel Ratio (p %) of the Concrete Diaphragm Walls ((4.8] modified) Reinforcing | ‘Thickness of diaphragm walls tiem) | | bars | 60 Type | Spacing | a= | a (em) | 0.15 | 0.20 | 12.5 [o.asfoas; — | — | — = pig — i ~ 10.0 0.56 | 0.60 _ — _ - —_ _ 5.0 [osilosa| — | —] — | — | — |o2z | 12.5 [0.61 /0.65|0.43|/0.46| 0.48] — | — | — 10.0 | 0.76 | 0.81 |0.5¢/0.57/ 0.60; — | — | — 15.0 | 0.66/0.70| 0.47] 0.50) 0.53] — | — | — | p25 | 12.5 | 0.79] 0.84] 0.56 | 0.60 | 0.63| 0.45 | 0.48) — 10.0 | 0.99 | 1.06 | 0.70 | 0.75 | 0.79| 0.56 | 0.60] — 12.5 | 1.01] 1.07] 0.71 | 0.76 | 0.80 | 0.57 | 0.60 | 0.48 29 | 10.0 | 1.26 | 1.34 | 0.89 | 0.94| 1.00 | 0.71 | 0.76 | 0.59 wo |—|—|—|—|—]—]— Joss osz | 12.8 | — | — [o.es|o.93|0.99| 0.75 | 0.59 10.0 | — | — |1.10| 1.17] 1.24] 0.88 | 0.93 | 0.74 Note: Assume di = dr, Ar = Ayr = Ay p= A, /(b + d)= A, /E(L -a@)b- t} Steel ratio (p) is calculated per unit length, i.e., b= 1m 1 692.4 Flexural Stiffness of Concrete Diaphragm Walls The flexural stiffness of the concrete diaphragm walls (doubly reinforced rectangular section in usual practice) after the generation of tension cracks caused by lateral earth pressures can be expressed as follows [4.8] (See Fig. 4.4 (a)): MED) gevoas = Eee Tee = +E, breve (4.11) where (EI) ..,.., = actual flexural stiffness of diaphragm walls E,, = equivalent Young's modulus of the concrete diaphragm wall after generation of tension cracks equivalent moment of inertia of the concrete diaphragm wall, assuming that the walls is in an uncracked state = bt? / 12 Young's modulus of the uncracked concrete (compression area of rectangular beams) I.cn5 = moment of inertia of the compression area about the neutral axis of the rectangular beams E, = Young's modulus of the steel reinforcing bars of the rectangular beams I,.,, = moment of inertia of the tension reinforcement of the rectangular beam, neglecting cracked concrete in the tension area Therefore, the equivalent Young's modulus of the concrete diaphragm walls is: 170E..=( Be Leone * Ee Veen) Z Tee (4,12) The moment of inertia, T.one, I,.,, , cam be calculated from the conventional theory of reinforced concrete beams with tension and compression reinforcement as follows. See Fig. 4.4 (b) ([4.5], [4.6], {4.7]) = Assumed that Avi= Ay2 = AL, di = de a@ = di /t = de /t p= Ag /(b- d) = Ay2 (b+ d) n= E,/ E, x= ke d = [2m Ayz d+ Aga dz )/b + (m(Aya + Azz) /b)? J tv? =m (Agi + Aya) fb (4.13) k=x/d = [2pn(2pn(1- a) + 1)/(-a) 17? ~ 2pn (4.14) Teome = bx? / 3 = bk? t? (L-@)?/3 (4.15) Teese = (dx)? Aye = pbt? (I-a@)? (1-k)* (4.16) where x = distance from the compression face to the neutral axis, which is expressed as (k+ d) Using the moment of inertia, I...,, 1,.,,, the equivalent Young's modulus of the concrete diaphragm walls can be obtained as follows: B.a= (Be Loewe * Ee Teaus ) / Tee = 12 E, (h-a@ )? (k? / 3 + np(i-k) ? J (4.17) In the usual practice of construction of concrete diaphragm walls, the typical value of the design strength of the concrete 171Cf ot) (14.91, 14.10]) iss f.' = 300 ke/at The Young's modulus of the concrete ( E, ) for f,. ' = 300kg/cat ({4.41], (4.12]) is: B. = 3.0 x10 ke/at The ratio of the Young's modulus of the steel reinforcing bars to that of the concrete is: 7 & 2.1% 10% (kg/at)/3.0 % 105 (ke/et) 57.0 The range for typical values of the steel ratio (p), which are listed from Table 4.3, are as seen in Table 4.4. Table 4.4 Range for Typical Values of Steel Ratio (p %) of the Conerete Diaphragm Walls Concrete cover ratio (a) |e @=0.15 | a=0.20 | | | - oe Steel ratio | 0.43 j 0.45 0.48 (p ®) | ~1.to| ~1.26/ ~1.34 Based on these typical values ( f.', E.,n, a, p), the typical value of k (=x/d) and the equivalent Young's modulus E,, of 172the concrete diaphragm walls can be obtained from Table 4.5 and Table 4.6, respectively. Table 4.5 Typical Values of k(=x/d) of Concrete Diaphragm Walls i Concrete Cover Ratio 1.34 Note: .« =[2pn(2pn(t-a@)+ 1) / (1- @)}'“? ~ 2pm (4.14) n= E, /E, = 7.0 p is substituted in Eq. (4.14) in decimal number. 173Table 4.6 Typical Values of Equivalent Young's Modulus Concrete Diaphragm Walls (x 10° kg/at) Concrete Cover Ratio (a) | Steel Ratio -- - ——-- -— (p %) Note: E., = 128, (1 -a@ )? [k? /3+ np (1-k)? ] (4.17) n= BE, / BE, = 7.0 EB. = 3.0 x103 ke/at p is substituted in Eq. (4.17) in decimal number. The values of the equivalent Young's modulus in Table 4.6 are plotted in Fig. 4.5 ([4.8] modified.) 174From Table 4.6 and Fig. 4.5, the following observations can be obtained about the equivalent Young's modulus (E,,) of the concrete diaphragm walls: 1) 2) 3) 4) The greater the value of concrete cover ratio (@), the smaller the value of the equivalent Young's modulus (E,,). The greater the value of steel ratio (p), the greater the value of the equivalent Young's modulus (E The range for typical values of the equivalent Young's modulus (E,.) (thickness of the diaphragm walls t = 60-120cm) is: B,, =(0.44-1.23) x 10° kg/cat Typical values of the equivalent Young's modulus (E,,) according to the thickness of diaphragm walls (see Table 4.3) are obtained as seen in Table 4.7. Table 4.7 Typical Values of Equivalent Young's Modulus E,, According to Wall Thickness Thickness of | Equivalent Young's Modulus Diaphrage E.. (x 108 kg/aat) Walls pa t (cm) Range 60 22) 0.44-1.15 80 0.44-1.23 100 0.53-1.04 0.63-0.94 [Fotar neva 175Based on the typical values in Table 4.7, the equivalent Young's modulus (E,,) of concrete diaphragm walls will be approximated by: E,, = 1.0 «10% kg/at = 1.0% 10° t/nt Therefore, the flexural stiffness of the concrete diaphragm walls can be expressed as: (ED) ceveat = Bee Lee (4.6) = (L.0x108 ) + (bt? /12) (t+ af) (4.18) The flexural stiffness of the concrete diaphragm walls is expressed with the Young's modulus of the uncracked concrete, E, a (ED) vevear = (Be Tey 0/3 (4.19) a/E. = 1.010% kg/ct /3.0 x10* kg/at = 1/3 ) The factor of (1/3) in Eq. (4.19) has been recommended by the Japan Railway Groups [4.9]. A factor of 0.6 in Eq. (4.19), however, is recommended by the Japan Society of Civil Engineers [4.13] and Tokyo Metropolitan Highway Public Corporation [4.10]. In this thesis, the discussion will be based on Eq. (4.18). 1764.2.2.5 Flexural Stiffness of Walls in the Case Studies The flexural stiffness of the walls calculated with Eqs. (4.6) and (4,18) and the excavation geometry of the case studies presented in Chapter 3 are described in this section. Note that the flexural stiffness is calculated in unit width, i.e., b= Im. (1) Excavations in Sand The flexural stiffness of the walls and the excavation geometry of the case studies (Cases 1-14: excavations in sand) are described in Table 4.8. The number of each case corresponds te that in Chapter 3. 177Table 4.8 Flexural Stiffness of Walls and Excavation Geometry, Cases 1-14, Excavations in Sand No. | Excavation | Embedment | Width of — | Thick- Flexural jot | Depth Depth Excavation | ness of Stiffness case | H (a) D (a) B (a) Wall (ED serves C 50 | 85-100 Very dense These correlations will be also useful to estimate the relative density. 4.2.3.2 Correlations Between the N Value (SPT) and Undrained Shear Strength (S, ) of Clay Terzaghi and Peck [4.19] proposed the correlations between the N value (SPT) and unconfined compressive strength q, as seen in Table 4.11 (Note that undrained shear strength is refered to as unconfined compressive strenth q, , using the relation, S,= 4, 72.) 185Table 4.11 Correlations Between the N Value (SPT), Unconfined Compressive Strength q, , and Undrained Shear Strength S, of Clay [4.19] 1 | unconfined | Undrained Number of | Compressive | Shear Blows Consistency | Strength Strength N (SPT) | (t/ot] (t/nf] | a (ke/ad) |S, e/a) | | «< 0.25 | Fig. 4.6 plots the correlations between the N value (SPT) and unconfined compressive strength q, . The mean q, can be estimated as: qy % N/ 7.3 (kg /eat) (4.25) Therefore, undrained shear strength S, (= q, /2) can be estimated as: S.os ON / 15) (ke/at) 10. N/ 15 (t/nt) (4.26) According to DM 7.1 [4.20], the correlations depend on plasticity as follo 186Clays of low plasticity ( I, ¢ 15) and clayey silts a. 2 N/ 13.3 (ke/cat) (4.27. a) Clays of medium plasticity (15 < I, $30) q, = N/ 6.7 (ke/cot) (4.27, b) Clays of high plasticity (I, > 30) a. = N/ 4 (ke/eat) (4.27.6) Therefore, the undrained shear strength S, (= q, /2) can be estimated as follows: Clays of low plasticity (I, < 15) and clayey silts S, = N/ 26.3. (ke/at) = 10 .N/ 26.3 (t/nt) (4.28.a) Clays of medium plasticity (15 < I, <30) S, = N/ 13.4 (ke/at) = 1ON/ 13.4 (t/nf) (4,28.b) Clays of high plasticity (I, » 30) S.= N/ 8B (kg/ad) = 1ON/8 (t/t) (4.28.¢) In this thesis, when the correlation is needed to estimate the undrained shear strength from the N value, the correlation will be based on Eq. (4.26) when the plasticity is unknown, and will be based on Eq. (4.28) when the plasticity is known. 4.2.3.3 Correlations Between the N Value (SPT) and Young's Modulus of Clay( E, ) According to Bowles [4.14], the empirical correlations between 187undrained shear strength and the modulus of elasticity for clay are as follows: Normally consolidated sensitive clay E, = (200-500) « S, (4.29.a) Normally consoilidated insensitive and lightly overconsolidated clay E, = (750-1200) x Ss, (4.29.b) Heavily overconsolidated clay E, = (1500-2000) « Ss, (4.29.0) From Eqs. (4.26) and (4.29), the modulus of elasticity of clay E, can be approximately estimated trom the N value as follows: Normally consolidated sensitive clay E, = (13.3 - 33.3) *N (ke/at) = (133 - 333) x N (t/ai) Mean value : E, = 233 xN (t/nt) (4.30.4) Normally consolidated insensitive and lightly overconsulidated clay E, = (50 - 80) xN (kg/at) = (500 - 800) x N (t/nf) Mean value : E, = 650 < N (t/nf) (4.30.b) Heavily overconsolidated caly E, = (100 - 133.3) xN (kg/at) = (1000 to 1333) x N (t/nt) Mean value : E, = 1167x N (t/at) (4.30.¢) In this thesis, when the correlation is needed to estimate the modulus of elasticity of clay from the undrained shear strength and/or 188the N value, the correlation will be based on Eqs. (4.26), (4.29), and (4.30) when the plasticity is unkown, and will be based on Eqs. (4.28) and (4.28) when the plasticity is unknown. 4.2.3.4 Typical Range of Young's Modulus of Soils Bowles [4.14] shows a typical range of Young's modulus of various soil types E, as seen in Table 4.12. These values will be useful for the estimation of &, Table 4.12 Typical Range of Young's Modulus of Soils E, [4.14] Type of Soils E, (t/nf) Sand Silty 750 - 2250 Loose 1000 - 2500 Dense 5000 - 8500 Clay Very soft 250 - 1250 Soft 500 - 2500 Medium 1500 - 5000 Hard 5000 - 10000 Sandy 2500 - 25000 Silt 200 - 2000 | Sand and gravel | Loose 5000 - 15000 Dense 10000 - 20000 Glacial till Loose 1000 - 16000 Dense 15000 - 75000 Very dense 50000 © -150000 1894.2.4 Characteristics of Soils Above & Below the Base of Excavation in the Case Studies In this section, soils above and below the base of the excavation in the case studies will be characterized by means of the N value (SPT), the modulus of elasticity of soils &, , and the undrained shear strength S, The conventional correlations between soil properties reviewed in Section 4.2.3 will be used when there is not suff) ent information about the modulus of elasticity in the case studies. (1) Characteristics of Soils in the Case Studies for Excavations in Sand Characteristics of soils in the case studies for excavations in sand (Cases 1-14) are described as shown in Table 4.13. The number of each case corresponds to that in Chapter 3. The symbols used in the table are as follows: Heat H D=D,+ D, where H = excavation depth total thickness of sand layer above the base of excavation H, = total thickness of clay layer above the base of excavation D = embedment depth of the wall D, = total thickness of sand layer below the base of excavation (in embedment) 190D. = total thickness of clay layer below the base of excavation (in embedment) N, = the N value of sand N. = the N value of clay E,,= the modulus of elasticity of sand E = the modulus of elasticity of clay Table 4.13 Characteristics of Soils Above & Below the Base of Excavation, Cases 1-14, Excavations in Sand Note: N (SPT), E, (t/nt), S. (t/a) He H+ HL »D=D, + D. (m) The notation of * in the column of E, and S, indicates that the value was measured in a lab test. The notation of >< indicates that the value and the state of consolidation (i.e., N.C. or 0.C.) are estimated from the literature. No. Above the Base Below the Base of a ———— Case A, N. E.. 4 D 1ooo- | 11.8 | 11.8 2500 1 | 12.2 1.25- 2.5 N.C. 466 -932 191No Above the Base 4, B. a [| Ss. u | 10.5 | 10.5 “atl 4.T xK | so00- | Loose | 15000 gravel 4 [10.2 | 10.2 | Medium | 2500- | 6.3 10-30 | 7500 6.3 | Medium | 4.7- p= tee to very 13.3 itt 7 5 [12.0 [12.0 |Medium| 2500- |7.5 | 7.5 | very 2 10-30 | 7500 dense 6 rr 68 7 4.32 | Very —— stiff — — | — 15-20 192Above the Base He | ON Below the Base 7 | 22.9 13.1 | Very loose (upper) 1-4 Medium to dense (lower) 10-40 9.8] Soft | 4.0- to 5.38 stiff ~ 2, 10 | 550, 2400 18.9 | Medium | 2500- to 12500 dense 10-50 (upper) Very | 19000 dense 16 (lower) 3.0 14.3 | Hard 13 193 3.0 | Hard 73No 9 | 29.8 | 19.8 2.45 (upper) Very | 15000 dense, gravei 60 (lower) 10.0 | stiff to hard 10-40 10} 13.1 {12.2} Very | 250- 11.4] 1.8 | Dense 7500 loose 750 30 1-3 0.9 11| 20.0 | 10.5 | Loose 4-8 9.0 9.5 | Soft 2-3No Above the Base a 12 15.1 | = — 13 | 13.3, [12.7 12.7 14 | 6.5 | Soft yy 7 silt 2 195(2) Characteristics of Soils in the Case Studies for Excavations in Clay Characteristics of soils in the case studies for excavations in clay (Cases 15-52) are described as shown in Table 4.14. The number of each case corresponds to that in Chapter 3. The symbols used in the table are same as those for Table 4.13. Table 4.14 Characteristics of Soils Above & Below the Base of Excavations, Cases 15-52, Excavations in Clay Note: N (SPT), E, (t/af), S, (t/of) He H+ H, (m), D> D+ D. (m The notation of * in the column of E, and S, indicates that the value was measured in a lab test. The notation of > indicates that the value and the state of consolidation (i.e., N.C. or 0.C.) are estimated from the literature. No Above the Base Below the Base 15 | 41.83 | 5.5 Very | 250- | 6.17) —— | to dense 1-50 36.33 | seire | 240- 6.17 | tard 240- to | 370 (aud- | 370 hard | * stone) | * (aud- |—— 250 | | stone) | 84000- 84000- 1- | 129500 | 129500 | 250 | 196Nol Above the Base Below the Base — pop 10725 17| 25.1 [11.6 | Gravel 3.9 3.9 Dense | 12500 15, 50 sand mediuis 50 to dense sand 20-50 13.5 | Very | <0.67- — |} — soft | 9.3 to ~ stiff 0-14 3262 18 | 15.78 = 18.72 | Sort silt (upper) 24 466-932 932 suite [6.7 eS 10 Nic. 2330Above the Base Below the Base 4" 19} 21.0 medium | 3 medium 0-10 | Nc. 0-10 «233 (upper -2330 23m) Mud- stone (hard clay) (lower | 2m) 20 — | —— | ——]1t.65 [1.0 | Medium 20 12.35 | Very — soft 10.65 | Very to soft soft to 0-3 soft 0-3 af2oe | — | — 10.2 [2.0 | Gravel 250 20.8 | Yery — soft 8.2 | Medium to to soft very silt still 0-4 silt and clay 198Above the Base Dd, Below the Base 22 18.8 | Very soft to medium 1-5 23.82 23.82 | Very soft to soft silt 0-5 24 16.08 13.07 16.08 | Very soft to soft 1-3 Soft | 6.0* 9922.4 18.9 | Mud- 27 | 36.6 | 11.3 18.9|2.3 | Gravel | > 250 12500 25.3 | Sort | 4-12 16.6 | Mud- 130 to * stone * very |-— (hard stiff clay) 2-16 250 200No Above the Base ‘af 23.9 [3.0 | toose | t000- | 7.2 sof27.6 [4.6 |very | > 10.9 [5.4 | Very dense | 12500 dense | 12500 2250 250 [23 5.5 | tard 250 201pop — a No Above the Base Below the Base — ; on [X [e&. a Ss, dD. a E.. gifiz.as [2.1 |Gravet | 2500 | 3.15 [3.15 | Sand | 10500 | 32 10 2 33 [13.8 13.2 | 4.85 6.9 Medium silt 8.35 Mud- stone | * (hard clay 250 | N. (lower) 23300 202Below the Base No Above the Base 4, N D, u D i 4, N. D, Ne safis.9 | — | — | — Jor [as 35 36 37 fi3.9 |very |1.0- | 2.3 soft | 3.5 to — medium | 600- silt | 2000 0-10 38| 26.0 | 4.0 Dense | 10000 | 2.0 2.0 40 * 22.0 | Medium) 5.2- oo to 6.0* stiff clay & | 1100 silt | -1315* 8-10 (upper) Hard | 250* silt |—_— 250 | soo00* 39) 21.3 | 5.5 Loose | 1000 | 4.8 coe 40 4-10 | -2500 15.8 | Very soft to medium | >< N s 4.8 silt & clay S 0-5 “1 203Kot No Above the Base Below the Base 4 D, 4 a 7 a Ne dD. ajist | 6.6 5.4 | Medium 10-20 10.0 2.5 | tard 250 19.1 [1 [Medium | 2500 [7.9 [0.9 | Medium] 10-20 | -5000 10-20 10.0 | Very | to }7.0 | Hard soft 250 silt <2 43 [22.98 |10.5 | Loose | 1000 | 10.0 | —— = 10.0 | Stier | 13-14 silt |* 0-4 204No Above the Brse Below the Base N, u a) He Ne | dD. E.. 44[26.2 [6.6 |Loose | 1000 [2.5 [2.5 45, 4-5 -1250 (upper) Gravel | 12500 50 (lower) 19.6 Soft 46) 21.6 | 4.5 [24.4 [16.0 17.1 | Soft 1.5 47) 21.6 | 4.5 Loose | 1250 | 15.4 | 11.9 to -3000 medium 5-12 [17.1 | sort 3.5 205No Above the Base 50] 13.55 | 4.05 9.5 2.3 stone (hard - soft |x clay) silt &|0.C. 250 clay | 1365 0-3 | -2301 51/ 13.73 |4.05 | Gravet | 5500 | 2.25. 9.68 stone (hard clay) 250 52| 13.55 | 4.05 9.5 2.32 | Mud- | 233.3 stone (hard |} clay) 250 2064.2.5 Characteristics of Struts and Construction Conditions in the Case Studies The following characteristics in the case studies described in Chapter 3 will be summarized: + Number of struts + Types and dimensions of struts (support) + Spacing of struts (vertical direction) + Average spacing of struts (vertical direction) + Implementation of preloading to struts (amount of preload and the ratio of preload to the axial yield forces in the struts) Implementation of the top-down method + Implementation of soil improvement (1) Characteristics of Struts and Construction Conditions in the Case Studies for Excavations in Sand The characteristics of struts and construction conditions in the case studies for excavations in sand (Cases 1-14) are summarized as shown in Table 4.15. The number of each case corresponds to that in Chapter 3. The symbols used in the table are as follows: Hl = excavation depth B = excavation width n= number of struts (supports) h = spacing of struts = average spacing of struts 207Notation for steel H dimension: kh Depth) x (Width of flange) ( Table 4.15 Characteristics of Struts and Construction Conditions, Cases 1-14, Excavations in Sand The notation of > indicates thst the dimensions of steel H were unkown. No| Excavation ; | a@] 6w@ Type/Dimension | h Preload (from the top | (m) induced/ to the bottom) None 1] 12.2 [52.8 4 [steer kx | — [2.44 | Induced | “56.6 : 60 tons per strut 21.45 2 | Steel -32.1 32.6 we! 4 3 5 10.0 3 6] 17.68 | 30.0 3 -40.6 a T[22.9 | 53.75 58.42 Preload: (80-110) % of axial forces measured in struts (100- | 40 tons) 208Excavation | No Struts wm |B (m | a | type/Dinension | Preload | (from the top induced/ | to the bottom) None [33.2 j38.8 | 12 [Steet # None H-300 x 300 \ jt | The top-down me| ~e/29.8 [48.0 jo The top-down me! to | 13.1 | 67.0 2350x350 { | 23,42 I 2H-350 x 350 1] 20.0 | 10.0 7 [Stern [ta [2.5 [None 1-7: -3.2 H-400 x 400 oo to _ a nis... | — | 6 | Steet 2.2 | None 13] 13.3. | 27.0 5 |1,2,4,5 2.66 | None Steel" | | The top-down method;Soil improvement (the chemical grouting) 14] 13.3. | 28.0 6 2.2 | None | The top-down method;Soil improvement (the “chenical grouting) | 209(2) Characteristics of Struts and Construction Conditions in the Case Studies for Excavations in Clay Characteristics of struts and construction conditions in the case studies for excavations in clay (Cases 15-52) are summarized as shown in Table 4.16. The nuaber of cach case corresponds to that in Chapter 3. The symbols used in the table are same as those in Table 4.15. Table 4.16 Characteristics of Struts and Construction Conditions, Cases 15-52, Excavations in Clay The notation of 3 indicates that the dimensions of steel H were unknown. No| Excavation Struts Him) | Bim | n_ | type/Dimension | fh Preload (from the top. | (m) induced/ to the bottom) None 23.3 | 12 | Anchors None 16 | 25.75 [131.4 | 4 | Stabs 5.0 [5.15 | None | “2.5 -down method 45.6 | 5 [Steel H [2.0 [4.18 | induced 1:2H-300x300 | -6.1 | 23 | 2H-350 x 350 4,5 ' 2-400 x 400 18 [15.78 | 42.1 4 [Steel H 3x — |3.16 | None -67.i 21023.7. 53.7 ‘The top-down me Type/Dimension (from the top | (m) to the bot tor Steel H and 20 | 12.35 21 | 20.8 Soil improvement (the quicklime pile) laa] 18.8 — 4 [steet Wy | Preload:100 tons Preload induced/ | None None 23 | 23.82 | 49.0 5 The top-down method 24) 16.08 | 58.0 i 4 25 | 30.8 | 30.0 Ww The top-down method; (70-80 tons); Soil i Preload:50 % of axial mprovement (the quickli forces of me pile) 26| 36.6 | 40.0 vt 27 2,4,6,9,1 Steel H 1,3,5,7,8 Slabs 1.5 -4.0 3.05 |The top-down method: struts (90-120 tons) Preload:45-48 % of a 1 forces of 19.0 7 24.45 1,2,4,6 Steel Hx 3,5: Slabs 2.99 The top-down method[No | Excavation | ee) ! Bin) | on | Type/Dimens = “| Pretoad (from the top ta} | induced to the bottom) | None 30] 27.6 [25.7 | 10 | 1-4:8teet H 3x | 1.0 [2.51 | induced | 5:10:Anchors -3. { The top-down me 13.9 [4.3 35 foo Ls | Soil improvement (the 36] 13.9 [4.3 6 None 31 Soil improvement (the CJG) — 38 | 26.0 | 8.1 8 | Steel HX “J induced | “12.8 Preload:30 % of axial forces of struts; Soil improvement (the CJG, the chemical grouting) | 39] 21.3 | 43.2 5 | Steel H 2.3 | 3.55 1:2H-300 x 300 | -5.2 2,3 2H-350 x 350 | 5: 2H-400 x 400 Preload:51-63 % of axial forces of struts (40-80 tons) 212ve | pretoad (m) | induced/ 1 | Type/Dimension (from the top None ao] 213s | 72.0 5 | Steel H 55 | Induced H-300 x 300 13,4: | 21-350 x 350 | 5:2H-400 x 400 ial forces of struts (40-80 tons) 2.1 | 3.17 6.1 1,2,4:Slabs 43| 22.98 [15.85 | 7 | 1,2,4,6,7: 2.4-[ 2.87 | None Steel H 3x 3.65 3,5:Slab —_1___ 1 a . a The top-down method; Soil improvement (the quicklime pile) [44] 26.2 | 53.0 6 |1-4:steel Hx [2.0 [3.74 | Induced 45 The top: ; Preload:50 % of axial forces of struts & anchoi improvement (the in situ soil mixing) 46| 21.6 | 38.0 3. | Stabs 4.0 None (17.6) “3.6 [a7] 21.6 | 34.0 7 [Steet # x 2.0 2138No| Excavation Bim) | n | Type/Dimension Preload (from the top induced/ to the bottom) None -350 x 350 | 2.35| 3.78 | Induced 48 2 5 | 2,3,5: 4.6 H-400 x 400 4:Slab -down method; Preload:80 % of axial forces of struts 60.0 5 | 1:H-350 x 350 Induced 2,3,5: 43 Preload:80 % of axial forces of struts The top-down me! 50 | 13.55 | 30 4 | A:Stab 1.85 | 2.71 | induced 52 2-4 3.5 H-400 x 400 243-84 % of axial forces of struts (80-85 tons) 30 4 | 1:Slab 1.85 | 2.71 | Inducea Qa: 3.5 | H-400 x 400 3-84 % of axial forces of struts (80-85 tons) 2144.3 Empirical Correlations for Maximum Lateral Deflections of Diaphraga Walls 4.3.1 Proposed Coefficients for the Empirical Correlations Based on the previous discussions on the factors affecting the lateral deflections of diaphragm walls, the following points should be evaluated for proposed coefficients, which will be empirically correlated to the maximum lateral deflections of diaphragm walls: 1) The flexural stiffness of the walls and the number of struts/spacing of struts should be considered. Note that tension cracks, which will be generated in the concrete diaphragm walls when the walls are subjected to lateral earth Pressure, will decrease the flexural stiffness. 2) The stiffness of soils above the base of excavation should be considered. There are not many cases with a single layer stratification of sand or clay in the excavations. The modulus of elasticity will be used as a soil property both for sand and clay, which is empirically correlated to the N value (SPT) and undrained shear strength S, . 3) The stiffness of soils below the base of excavation should be considered. Based on the observation of fateral wall deflections, stiffness of soils in the embedment influences the behavior. The modulus of elasticity can be used for the 215evaluation of soils in the embedment. 4) The factor of safety against basal heave would be useful as one of the parameters in a coefficient for an empirical correlation (e.g., the system stiffness; see Eqs. (4.1), (4.2), and (4.3) if all the deposits and embedments in the excavations were clay layers. However, these types of ground conditions do not occur in many case studies. Therefore, a new parameter which could represent the undrained shear strength above and below the excavation should be considered. The formation of Eq. (4.5) could be a hint. 5) The excavation depth and the embedment depth should be considered. 6) As influencing factors of the construction method, the followings should be taken into account: @ Preloading to struts @® Soil improvement @ The top-down method 7) Consideration of the total excavation system stiffness including both the soil stiffness and support system stiffness is required in order to distinguish the behavior of conventional shallow excavations with relatively flexible walls from the deep excavations with diaphragm walls. In other words, new coefficients should be included to cover the 216behavior of deep excavations with diaphragm walls, which could not be satisfactorily considered in previous relations. To meet the above-mentioned requirements for coeff cients, which will be correlated to the maximum lateral wall deflections, the followings are proposed: R= la Where R Bs = TE./(EL) wevoard '7* FA) n ME, Bu Bol (4.31) coefficient representing the excavation system stiffness of diaphragm walls («10+ m* /t) = coefficient representing the modulus of diaphragm walls and soils above the base of the ex: = TE. /(ED) wee vation Pte (mt) (4.32) coefficient representing the modulus of diaphragm walls and soils below the base of the excavation (soils in embedment) ") (4.33) = factor representing preloading to struts = factor representing the top-down method = factor representing stiffness of soil in embedment = (Eee / Esa | '7* (4.34) number of struts setaer = flexural stiffness of concrete diaphragm walls based on Eqs. (4.6) and (4.18) (t+ af) = average modulus of elasticity of soils above and below (in embedment) the base of excavation = (HE,, + DE, )/(H + D) (t/at) (4.35) = average modulus of elasticity of soils above the 217base of excavation SC YW € EVM (t/a) —,, = average modulus of elasticity of soils below the base of excavation (soils in embedment) = CY D, & By, V/M (t/at) = factor representing soil improvement o H = depth of excavation ‘m) D embedment depth of concrete diaphragm wall (m) The values and the derivations of the factors representing preloading to struts and the top-down method are proposed as shown in Table 4.17; and the values of factor representing soil improvement are proposed as shown in Table 4.18. Note that the classification of soil types in the excavations subdivided to consider the mixed ground for the empirical correlations as follows: Excavations in sand: 7H 2 60% He / HH Ss 40% Excavations in clay: H, / Hs 40% H. / HH = 60% Excavations in mixed ground: 40% < H, / H < 60% 40% CH, / HW ¢ 60% where H, = total thickness of sand layer above the base of excavation H, = total thickness of clay layer above the base of excavation 218Table 4.17 Values of the Factor Representing Preloading to Struts (a@), and the Top-Down Method (2) Soil type in Sand | Mixed | Ca - excavation No preload | * Induced | (1.5)? =2.25 | (1.75)* =3.06 | (2.0)? =4.0 the down-top _ a [2 the top-down | (1.5)? =2.25 | 75)? = (2.0)? =4.0 Table 4.18 Values of the Factor Representing Soil Improvement (¢) jethod of so Type of treated soil improvenent j___-¥Pe ore _ Sand Clay Chemical grouting, reas quick! ime pile Column Jet Grout | £, = 30000 t/nt | E, = 10000 t/a ¢ = 30000/ E, ¢ = 10000/ E, 219Note that the methods of soil improvement in Table 4.18 are the values of the those described in the case studies in Chapter factors in Table 4.17 and Table 4.18, and other methods of soil improvement will be discussed in a later section (See Section 4.3.3) and in Chapter 5. 4.3.2 Proposed Coefficient R - Evaluated with the Case Studies ns in Sand and Mixed Ground (1) Exeava Table 4.19 presents the maximum laterai wall deflections 6 ya, the ratio of the maximum lateral wall deflections to the excavation depth H, y,/H, and the ratio of H, /H in the Cases 1-14. 220Table 4.19 Maximum Lateral Wall Deflections and Their Ratio to Excavation Depth, Cases 1-14, Excavations in Sand and Mixed Ground Lateral Wall Deflecitons | Soil type ae ——} in San 7M (%) From the values of H, /H in Table 4.19, Cases 1, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, and 14 are classified as cases of “excavations in mixed ground," since the stratifications are (40% < H, /H < 60%). See also Table 4.21. 221Table 4.20 presents the proposed coefficient R representing the excavation system stiffness of diaphragm walls in Cases 1-14. The ient R is calculated with Eq. (4.31), using the proposed coeffi values summarized in Table 4.8 and Table 4.13. The number of each case corresponds to that in Chapter 3. Table 4.20 Proposed Coefficient Representing the Excavation System Stiffness of Diaphragm Walls R, Cases 1-14, Excavations in Sand and Mixed Ground Note: EB, (t/nf), H (m), D (m), 8. (m'), By (m'"), R(x 10-5 m* /t) Coefficient Representing the Excavation System Stiffness E.as Be a — E, R Dy | Ey, a 7 a a 10000 | 0.863 1 | 2.824 11.8 | 10000; : 1 10000 4.7 | 10000 | 222Coefficient Representing the Excavation System Stiffness | a a | oR 1 1 5 1 9.862 | a | A 1 11.624 |. t-----J _ - | 5 1 2.888 i 1 “| - 1 6 14.399 (a.75)* | 1 1.274 7 1 (1.75)? | 0.266 8 {ee 1.0620.839 137.665 10.284 36.843 7.0 | 750 | 4.9 | 2500] 6 1.207 0.7 | 2500 74 | 583 8242 0.694 1 ANT 12500 o.913 | (1.75)? | 1.427 13, —} | 6.8 | 7500 | 12.7 | 12500 5 rio | 6.5 | 700 _ 8242 0.694 1 “4 4um7 12500 | 0.913 | (1.75)? | 0.939 6.8 | 7500 | 12.7 | 12500 6 | tito | 6.5 | 700 224The ratio of maximum lateral wall deflections (6 y,/H) vs. the coefficient representing the excavation system stiffness R is plotted in a log-log plot as shown in Fig. 4.7 and Fig. 4.8 for “excavations sand” and “excavations in mixed ground,” respectively. The correlations between (6 ,/H) and R will be discussed in a later section (See Section 4.3.3.) 225(2) Exeavations in Clay and Mixed Ground Table 4.21 presents the maximum lateral wall deflecitons 6 ya, the ratio of the maximum lateral wall deflections to the excavation depth, Sua/ H, and the ratio of H, /M in the Cases 15-52. The number of each case corresponds to that in Chapter 3. Table 4.21 Maximum Lateral Wall Deflections and Their Ratio to Excavation Depth, Cases 15-52, Excavations in Clay and Mixed Ground [No. | # | H, /H |Max. Lateral Wall Deflections ease | (a) | S un/ H (%) 15 [41.83 | 86.9 2 0.06 P16 [25.75 | 50.5 185 0.72 [a7 | 25.1 53.8 100 0.04 “18 | 15.78 | 100.0 16 1.01 13 [21.0 | 100.0 150 on 100.0 88 on 100.0 68 0.33 “100.0 | 45] 100.0 oT 100.0 0. 80.8 0. | 61.2 0. | 69.1 0. 87.4 | 0. 226| Max. Lateral Wall Deflections | No. | of | case | " (m) We /H (4) 6 vad WK) | 29 0.87 Clay 1 excavation | = { i 42 [19.1 20 43. | 22.98 63 44 | 26.2 aT 45 | 26.2 2 46 | 21.6 79.2 28 Pat | 21.6 73.2 85 [a8 | 22.65 | 92.5 10 49 [22.65 | 92.5 2 50 /13.55 | 70.1 | 10 - Pst fis.73 | 705 | on 52 [43.55 | 70.1 wo 227ses 16, 17, 33, 42, From the values of H, /H in Table 4.21, and 43 are classified as cases of “excavations in mixed ground," since the stratifications are (40% < H, / H < 60%). See also Table 4.19. ient R representing the Table 4.22 presents the proposed coeffi The excavation system stiffness of diaphragm walls in Cases 15-' proposed coefficient R is calculated with Eq. (4.31), using the values suamarized in Table 4.9 and Table 4.14. The number of each case corresponds to that in Chapter 3. 228Table 4.22 Proposed Coefficient Representing the Excevation System Stiffness of Diaphragm Walls R, Cases 15-52, Excavations in Clay and Mixed Ground Note: E, (t/at), H(m), D(m, 2, (m'), By (a R (x 10-5 mt /t) No] Coefficient Representing the Excavation System Stiffness Bs a@ R [ ose | 1 | | 15 93552 106750 | 0.928 1 0.102 5.5 | 6375] 6.17| 106750] 12 1.029 | 36.33 | 106750 7355 0.593 1 16 5291 u3ee | 0.718 | (1.75)? | 2.338 12.75] 4125 10.25] 11875. 4 1.115 13.00] 6435] 3:0°| 9628 5856 0.580 | (1.75)? | - 17 4824 12500 | 0.736 1 2.161 1.5 | 6250 | 3.9 | 25000/ 5 1.209 3:0 | 12500 3.0 | 7500 4.1 | 10000 uo | 233, 2:5 | 3262 875 — 0.440 1 — | ___ _ 18 639 1023 | 0,488 1 127.946 15.78] 699 | 15.00/ 699] 4 1.040 | 3.72| 2330 229ient Representing the Excavation System Stiffness ai eee el a a R 19 a 1282 9577 21.0 | 1282 | 23.0 | 1282 2!0 | Take 17475 655 0.416 20 466 - 855, 0.579 197.646 466 | 1.0 | 5000 3 10:65 | "466 7 2859 0.583 1 875 6304 0.976 1 4.108 a > - 20.8] (583) |6.2 | (2913) 6 1.247 + (1.5) + (1.5) = 815 = 4730 2.0 | 2913 20 | 18750 3600 0,329 699 18750 | 0.439 1 | 7.955 22 = a os 18.8 | 699 | 3.6 | Take 4 1.51 23 230No| Coefficient Representing the Excavation System Stiffness Bs a a R 2 4388 asz1 | 0.723 1 10.463 16.08] 4388 | 9.62] 5850 4 1.016 [ “6 (2.0)? 25] 2851 0.374 2.5] 6250 3.4 | (6250) = (1.5) = 9375 18.1] (332) + (1.5) = 1398 3.7| 932 3.1 3728 17648 0.445 | (2.0)? 7 26. 3266 0.860 | (2.0)? | 0.066 14.2 | 4000 n 1.267 22:4 | 2800 _ 16477 - 0.442 | (2.0)? | at] 3170 42245 0.844 | (2.0)? | 0.073 1.3 | 4000 | 2.3 | Take u 1.265 25.3 2800 18750 0.456 1 28 3599 0.667 | (2.0)? | 1.147 3.0 | 1500 | 1 1.258 20:9 | 3900 231[No | Coefficient Representing the Excavation System Stiffness S eee aoe nee ne ! Bas Be a | on ; ky -|— 5.256 1.090 5.113 5.113 | a3{ 3385 10972 | 0.602 | (1.75)? | 3.055 6.9 5 1s | 6.9 | 23234 1300 9385 a 8.003 13.9 | 1300 | 0.9 | 30000 6 1.256 2.9 2500 | 2:3 | 10000 (cJG) 3766 3s{ 1300 9385 1 8.003 13.9 | 1300 | 0.9 | 30000 6 1.256 2:9 | "2500 2.3 10000 (cua) - 4201 0.572 | (2.0)? 36 1926 0.850 1 1.667 12.9 | 13r0 | 0.9 | 30000 6 1.224 1” | 10000 | 2:9 | "2500 (csc) | 2:3 | 10000 (CG) 4201 0.572 | (2.0)? 3T 1926 9385 0.850 1 1.667 12.9 | 1300 | 0.9 | 30000 6 1.224 1” | 10000 | 2:9 | "2500 (csG) | 2:3 | 10000 (caG) 13033 0.920 | (2.0)? 38{ 15000 0.955 1 0.2L ; 4.0 [10000 | 2.0 | (10000) 8 1.036 16.5 | 1208 + (1.5) L 5 | 50000 = 15000 233(1.75)? “1.327 10.0] (13163)No| Coefficient Representing the Excavation System Stiffness | Exe a. | a | R 1073 | 0.362 3.5 | (1125) 44 (1.5) =1688 18.5 | (4875) | + (1.5) | 21313 | 3.1 | 12500 it! 4875 7546 | 7073, | 0.362 3.5] (1125) [2.5 | 12500 | 6 1.134 45 + (1.3) =1688 18.5) (4875) = (13) =1313 3.1! 12500 Lt] 4875 —— |. ee 5963 0.314 1 812 10522 0.596 | (2.0)? | 6.477 46 |-— {. ff 4.5 | 2125 2500 3 1.153 ATL | 466 Take 18750 A515 osm | 1 | 812 10190 | 0.699 1 9.640 a7 | ee a 4.5 | 2125 “4 | 2500 1 1.212 wii | 466 | 7:5 | Take 18750 1515 235n System Stiffness R 0.218 ; 2 0.218 0.603 | (2.0)? | 3788 “17475 0.884 1 1.540 Vos] ass | 2.3 | Take 4 1.319 ais" | 1833 11475 ~ 5694 0.602 | (2.0)? | Bt 3763 17475 | 0.884 1 1.558 4.05] 8375 | 2.25] Take 4 1.324 3:5 | 1833 17475 —_ 5789 0.777 | (2.0)? —_ 52 3788 1475—| 0.139 1 0.926 4.05] 375 | 2.32] Take “4 | asia | 915 17475 236The ratio of maximum lateral wall deflections (6. /i) vs. the coefficient representing the excavation system stiffness R is plotted in a log-log plot as shown in Fig. 4.9 and Fig. 4.8 for “excavations in clay" and “excavations in mixed ground," respectively. The correlations between (6,,/H) and R will be discussed in a later section (See Section 4.3.3.) 237.3 Proposed Empirical Correlations for Maximum Lateral Wall Deflections (1) Discussion on the Factors Representing Preloading to Struts and the Top-Down Method As seen in Table 4.17, vatues of the factor representing preloading to struts (i) and the factor representing the top-down method (A) vary with the soil types for excavations, i.e., sand, clay and mixed ground, respectively. The values of the factors are determined to produce better correlations between the ratio of maximum lateral wall deflections, 6 y, / H, and the proposed coefficient representing the excavation system stiffness R. (a) actor Representing Preloading to Struts (a) The preloading to struts is often implemented for deep excavations to mitigate the lateral wall deflections and surface settlements. The effect of preloading can be examined from the ratio of maximum lateral wall deflections, Sy, / H, of the Cases 34-37 as shown in Table 4.23. 238Table 4.23 Effect of Preloading to Struts on Mitigation of Lateral Wall Deflections, Cases 34-37, Excavations in Clay Remarks No Case 34 | 24 | 13.9 0.17 | No pre-constructed Preloading = strut with the CJG Case 35 | 41 | 13.9 0.29 | (column jet grout) Implemen- | Case 34 | 12 | 13.9 0.09 | Pre-constructed tation of |— —- strut with the Preloading | Case 35 8 | 13.9 0.06 | CJG The ground and construction conditions including the excavation geometry are almost the same except the pre-constructed strut with the CJG (column jet grout) in Cases 34 and 35, and Cases 36 and 37. From the values of 6 us Strutscan be estimated with a factor of 2-4. Jay the effect of preloading to I assume 2 as the factor of preloading to struts, since the range (2-4) includes the effect of pre-constructed struts with the CJG, which could not be accurately estimated. 25 ue ZH) sreroes = From the correlation lines in Fig. 4.7 - 4.9, log ( Sue JH) aes 239 (Sum ZH) ve cretoas