TECHNICAL REFERENCE

TR 26 :2010
(rcs e3.020)

TECHNIGAL REFERENCE FOR

Deep excavation

All rights reserued. Unless othemvise specified, no part of the Technical

Reference may be reproduced or utilised in any form or by any means,
electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and microfilming, without
permission in writing from SPRING Singapore at the address below:

Head
Standardisation Department
SPRING Singapore
2 Bukit Merah Gentral
Singapore 1S983S
Telephone: 62786666 Telefax: 62296667
Email: stn@spring.gov.sg

lsBN 978-981 -427 8-44-7

 TR 26 :2010
TR 26
=2010

Gontents
Page

Foreword 7

CLAUSES

Section One - General

1.1 Scope 8

1.2 Normativereferences I
1.3 Terms and definitions I

Section Two - Site lnvestigations

2.1 General I
2.2 Extent of investigation 10

2.3 Determination of wall toe-in 11

2.4 Presence of boulders 11

2.5 lnvestigation for tie-back design 12

2.6 Sampling and in-situ tests 12

2.7 Existing building conditions 13

2.8 Geotechnical model 13

Section Three - Design requirements

3.1 General 13

3.2 Water pressures 13

3.3 Basis for design 14

3.4 Design considerations 14

3.5 Ultimate limit state 16

3.6 Unplanned excavation 17

3.7 Design checks 17

First published,20l0
3.8 Serviceability limit states 19

3.9 Computer software using numerical methods 19

3.10 Structuraldesign 20
3.1 1 Material traceability and reusability of strutting materials 25

NOTE Section Four - Ground treatment

1.
the releva for any technicat
4.1 General 25
shall not whether directty 4.2 Methods of ground treatment 26
ce on this

Compliance with this Technical Reference does not exempt users

4.3 Ground treatment for specific requirements 26
from tegal obtigations.
TR 26 12010 TR 26 |2010

Page Page

Section Five - Ground anchors Section Eight - Safety of construction

5.1 General 29 8.1 Risk assessment 44
5.2 Terms and definitions 29 8.2 Risk registry 44

5.3 Factor of safety 30 8.3 Permit-to-excavate 44

5.4 Design situations and actions 31 8.4 Site insPection 45
5.5 Design of the anchorage 32 8.5 Verification of site findings with designer 45

5.6 Checking of earth retaining wall movement 33 8.6 Training and suPervision 46

5.7 lnvestigative tests 33

5.8 Suitability tests 33
ANNEXES
5.9 Acceptance tests 34
5.10 Tests on anchors 34 A Guidance on descriptions and weathering classifications 47

5.11 Pre-loading 34 B Classification of brickwork or masonry building damage 53

5.12 Supervision and monitoring 34 c I nformative references 54

5.13 Corrosion protection of steel components of anchorage 34

5.14 Maintenance of anchorages during service life 34 TABLES

Sampling and in-situ tests 12

Section Six - lmpact assessment 1

6.1 General 35
2 BS 8002 mobilisation factors for soil parameters (1'n) 16

6.2 Prediction of ground deformation 35 3 Load combination factors for limit states design of structures 20

6.3 Damage assessment 35

4 Minimum safety factors recommended for design of individual anchorages 30

6.4 Masonry structures 37

5 Recommended number of field tests 34

6.5 Reinforced/pre-stressedconcretestructures 6 Damage category for masonry buildings 5t

37
6.6 High-rise buildings 38
7 General guidelines for instrumentation and monitoring 41

6.7 4.1 Description of soil and rock tYPes 48

Piled foundations 38
49
6.8 Utilities 38
4.2 Rock weatherin g classification
6.9 Protective measures 38
4.3 Bukit Timah granite and Gombak norite 50

6.10 Limiting values of structural deformation and foundation movement 38

4.4 Jurong formation 51

4.5 Old alluvium 52

Section Seven 8.1 Classification of visible damage to walls with particular reference to ease of repair of
- lnstrumentation and monitoring
plaster and brickwork or masonry 53
7.1 General 39
7.2 Considerationsforinstrumentation 39
7.3 lnstrumentation and monitoring of structures 40
7.4 Monitoring the performance of excavations 41
7.5 Reading frequency of monitoring instruments 42
7.6 Review levels and interpretation of monitoring results 42
7.7 Multi{ier level monitoring and reviews 43
7.8 Full design reviews 43
TR 26 .2010 TR 26 :2010

Page

FIGURES
Foreword
1(a) Walls not penetrating into competent soil 18
Walls penetrating into competent soil Group on Deep Excavatio¡ appointed by the
This Technical Reference was prepared by the Working
1(b) 18
Technical Committee on civil and Geotechnical wolks under
the direction of the Building and
2 Stability against hydraulic uptift 18 the Technical Reference on 3
construction standards committee (BCSC). The BCSC endorsed
3 (a) DPL diagrams for sand 21 February 2010.
3 (b) DPL diagrams for stiff clay 21
Deep excavations are complex due to the following:
3 (c) DPL diagrams for soft clay 22
the ground
4 (a) Example of excavation with stable base a) There is always an element of uncertainty concerning in-situ conditions because
22
is a product of nature;
4 (b) Example of excavation with "unstable" base 22
5 considering the forces due to eccentricity in the design of strut and waler b) Limitations in sampling and testing;
24
6 Length of stiff bearing for strut-to-waler connection 25 c) The intrinsic soil and rock behaviour is complex;
7 (a) Treatment for utility gap 28
d) Limitations in modelling, e.g. on interfaces;
7 (b) Treatment for TBM entry 28
8 Monitoring zone (minimum 2H) for buildings, structures, roads or utilities e) Methods of construction can be varied and difficult to anticipate;
40
f) Predicting building response is complex;

g) Nature and condition of existing foundations and structures;

h) Complexsoil-structureinteractionproblems'
construction
All deep excavations should be structurally safe and robust. The planning, design and
projects arä often not straightforward, involving many project parties
pro""så"s in deep'lt excavation
ãnJ specialists. is ãssociatåo w¡tn higher risks, especìally when implemented in urban built-up
areas and in difficult ground conditions.
excavation, it
While this Technical Reference is not meant to be a design guide or manual on deep
to the key aJpeðts of design, construction and practices'
aims to draw attention ánd provide references
available for
This Technical Reference is not to be regarded as a Singapore Standard; it is made
provisional application over a period of úvo years but does .not have the status of a Singapore
Reference so that it can
Standard. The aim is to use thä experience gáined to modify the Technical
are invited to comment on its
be adopted as a s¡ngãpãre stanoaró. users õf the Technical Reference
These comments can be submitted
technical content, ease ot use and any ambiguities or anomalies.
into account
using the feedback form provided at the enO ót the Technical Reference and will be taken
in the review of the publiðation. At the end of two years, the Technical Reference will be reviewed by
and to determine its suitability as a Singapore Standard.
the WG to discuss the comments received
Submission for approvaì UV tn" Standards Council as a Singapore Standard will be carried out only
upon agreement after review.

Acknowledgement is made to CIRIA for permission to reproduce in this TR, Figure 7.12 of CIRIA
517
(London, 1999), www'ciria'org'
- Temporafu propping of O""p excavations - Guidance on design
in deep
At the time of publication, this Technical Reference is expected to be used by parties involved
excavation works, including designer, developer, owner and builder.

Attention is drawn to the possibility that some of the elements of this Technical Reference may be the
subject of patent rights. SPRING Singapore shall not be held responsible for identifying any or all of
such patent rights.

t
 TR 26 i 2010
TR 26
=2010

Technical Reference for deep excavation UK NationalAnnex to Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design

BS EN 1997-1:2004
Part 1: General rules
Section One - General CP 4:2003 Code of practice for foundations

1.2.3.2 Standards and Execution of special geotechnical works

1.1 Scope
The Technical Reference is specific to the design and BC1 :2008 Design guide on use of alternative steel materials to BS 5950, BCA
construction of deep excavations.
Sustainable Construction Series - 3
retained height or excavation depth of 6 m or BS 5400-2 : 2006 Steel, concrete and composite bridges. Specification for loads
ne or land retaining structures with walls, both BS EN 1536:2000 Execution of special geotechnical work. Bored piles
g gravity walls to multi_braced or anchored Execution of special geotechnical work. Ground anchors
BS EN 1537:2000
e retaining wall, the height is taken to be from the
n depth includes smaller but separate excavations BS EN 1538:2000 Execution of special geotechnical works. Diaphragm walls
level for construction of pile caps, pump sumps, lift BS EN 12063: 1999 Execution of special geotechnical work. Sheet pile walls
BS EN 12699:2001 Execution of special geotechnical work. Displacement piles
This Technical Reference is also applicable to situations BS EN 12715: 2000 Execution of special geotechnical work. Grouting
where the excavation depth or retained
height is less than 6 m if any of the foil'owing conditions
is met: BS EN 12716:2001 Execution of special geotechnical works. Jet grouting
a) There are adjacent structures within a horizontal distance
of less than the excavation depth
BS EN 14199: 2005 Execution of special geotechnical works. Micropiles
from the excavation face that are vulnerable to or likely BS EN 14475: 2006 Execution of special geotechnical works. Reinforced fill
to be adversely affected by the
excavation works;
BS EN 14679:2005 Execution of special geotechnical works. Deep mixing
b) Ground conditions are poor; or BS EN 14731:2005 Execution of special geotechnical works. Group treatment by deep
vibration
c) Lowering of groundwater table will likely lead to significant
consolidation setflements in BS EN 15237 2007 Execution of special geotechnical works. Vertical drainage
surrounding ground.
BS EN 10025-1 :2004 Hot rolled products of structural steels. General technical delivery
conditions
1.2 Normativereferences PrEN 14490 Execution of special geotechnical works. Soil nailing

The ments are indispensable for the application of this Technical

Reference.
The informative references for the application of this Technical Reference are listed in Annex C.
edition cited applies. For undateä references, the tatest edition
f^?:
,Erë g any amendments) applies.
of the
1.3 Terms and definitions
1.2.1 Code of practice for site investigations
For the purpose of this Technical Reference, the terms and definitions are given under the respective
BS 5930: 1999 Code of practice for site investigations sections where applicable.

1.2.2 Laboratory and field tests

Section Two - Site investigations
BS 1377: 1990 Methods of test for soils for civil engineering purposes
BS 4019 : 1993
BS lso 14686 :2003
Rotary core drilling equipment
2.1 General
Hydrometric determinations Pumping tests for water wells
considerations and guiderines for design, pèrformance and use Proper and adequate site investigations should be carried out for the design and construction of deep
excavations so as to gain a thorough understanding and enable determination of the type and
1.2-3 Geotechnicar structures or erements or processes character of the ground conditions and groundwater conditions.

1.2.3.1 Godes of practice 2.1.1 Site investigations in a wider sense refers to activities ranging from exploration of the ground,
to testing and acquiring knowledge of the characteristics of the site that may affect the design and
BS 5950-1 :2000 Structural use of steelwork in building construction of deep excavation work and the security of neighbouring land and property.

Part 1: code of practice for design Roiled and werded sections

-
BS 8002 :1994 Code of practice for earth retaining structures
BS 8081 : 1989 Code of practice for ground anchorages
 TR 26 .2010 TR 26 =2010

2.1.2 Guidance on the site investigation and geotechnical data for the design is given in Section 2
of BS 8002.
b) Hï:.:fi",îi, li,ñ: 5ï',i"Î:::':t':X"
least
boreholes have to be taken to at
ff i"'ä'J
evel' This

2:1:3 Desk study should include information from existing boreholes, geological map of Singapore d to prevent the designer from specifying as he may
(PWD, 1976; DSTA,2009), site inspections and observations. Basedãn thé information avãilable consider it necessary'
and the intended purposes, a site investigation programme is carried out to obtain the essential field
and geotechnical data to be used in design and conõtruction. 2.2.4 Use of cone penetration tests (CPT)
on of eng
NOTE - See also Annex A
in relativ
to supP
2.2 Extent of investigat¡on that the
to or beyond the interface level as appropriate,
2.2.1 The extent and number of exploration or investigation points including boreholes, in-situ tests, alluvium.
geophysical means etc should provide the information required to adequatély establish the ground
conditions and water regime, and their variability along the length of the proþosed retaining ú¡all or 2.2.5 Additional site investigations
excavation boundaries and within the influence zones of excavation work for ine purposes õf Oesign
and construction of deep excavations. etation of excavated ground conditions, and
ld be carried out to check or verify the design
2-2-1.1 Site investigations for deep excavation work normally proceed in stages as follows: tigations. Additional site investigation during
sign assumptions e.g. thickness of soil strata'
a) A desk study and site reconnaissance; be factored into the design. Where necessary'
comply with the relevant codes, standards and
b) Ground investigation should be carried out in stages, i.e. preliminary and detailed nded safety margins are present throughout the
investigation stages to obtain field and geotechnical data for design and construction excavation.
purposes;
2.2.6 Quality of site investigation
c) Verification, and, if necessary, follow-up investigations during construction.
with due care and
site investigations, including field and laboratory works, should be undertakenin turn can affect the
2.2.1.2 The site investigation should be planned to address the following: as they nave a diréct impact on the retiaoitity of all test results, which
diligence
design and construction works.
a) The probable ground conditions at site;

b) Significant design and construction issues to be considered e.g. values of geotechnical 2.3 Determination of wall toe-in
parameters, permeability conditions and adequacy of data;

c) Potential areas of design and construction risks;

d) selection of appropriate investigation methods, tools and techniques.

2.2.2 ln general, investigation points or boreholes should be located along each excavation of troPical weathering.
boundary accordìng to the complexity of the site. At critical areas and excavatioñ in difficult ground,
the spacing and location of investigation points/boreholes should be more closely relate-d; and ll should be determined by investigative boreholes
additional boreholes and/or cone penetration tests should be conducted between boreholes to t the design requirements for the embedded wall
establish any ground variability and to delineate the penetration depth of the retaining walls. The d in the wãll installation or construction work' This
number of boreholes for each design section is dependent on the size of the excavation and should walls/piles e.g' diaphragm walling, and secant or
increase according to the variation of subsoil strata between boreholes and the complexity of yering, it is a good practice to have at least an
geological formation. t.

2-2-3 For most embedded walls, particularly for cast-in-place concrete walls e.g. diaphragm walling,
secant or contiguous bored piles, site investigations should consider the following: 2.4 Presence of boulders
a) The depth of investigative holes should be such that they can appropri
The investigation points should be spaced as evenly as practicable around the full periphery he boulders'
of the wall. rock head, o¡. .orp"î"nt strata. The depilr of boreholes s-hould go beyo depth of the
retaining system o¡' àt¡"6¿"d walls, kingfosts or soldier piles' li is com drill into rock
for a depth of at leait 5 m to establish *Éätn", a boulder or bedrock is p cases where
into rocks, it is necessary to drill deeper than 5 m'
investigation requires the determination of socketing

10
 TR 26 i2010 TR 26
=2010

2.5 lnvestigation for tie-back design

2.7 Existing building Gond¡t¡ons
For use of soil nails, tie-backs or ground anchors, the investigation points should
be extended laterally pre-construction surveys should be carried out to establish the condition of adjacent properties,
from the alignment at critical sections so that sectional intefriàtations can be made be paid to
investigation should also cover the area of the expected fixed anchor zone.
for design. The in"iø¡ng ootaining the plans of existing buildings and structures. Special attention should
buildingã or structures that are sensitive to settlements'

2.6 Sampling and in-situ tests (see Table 1) 2.8 Geotechnical model
2.6.1 Sampling One of the end-products of site investigation should be one or more geátecnnical models.
2.g.1
õucn geotechnical models, which may be in two-dimensional representation.of
To,ensure..the quality of undisturbed soil samples, sampling procedures, techniques, methods and
tn" site, shows how tñe stratigraphic units, eristics and the
tools, e.g. thin-walled tube sampler, piston sampler and lviaziér'sampler, should
be selected based on "i."u"tion
conditions relate to the deep excavation, the stru and constructed,
the type and stiffness of soil. lióunO*at"r
ãnd the surroundings. The appropriate sections to be used for the detailed design of the excavation
2.6.2 ln-situ tests *oif r"y be deriried from tne geotechnical model taking full consideration of themost variability and
uncertainiy involved in modelling. fne design should consider the case with the adverse or
worst anticipated ground conditions.
ln-situ tests include standard penetration tests (SPT), field vane tests (F\rr),
cone penetration tests
(CPT)'
.permeability tests, packer tests ano pressuremeter tests (pMT). The iests should be 2.8.2 The geotechnical models should be updated and verified during construction as and when
appropriate for the soil types. Test results shouid not be derived from'extraþotated
BS 5930 provides detailed test procedures and their limitations.
dãta. Sectio n 4 of additional information becomes available. This includes:

Table 1 - Sampling and in-situ tests

a) Additionalsiteinvestigationresults;

Tyþe of ground Sampling

b) Logs from installation of walls, kingposts, piles, dewatering/pressure relief wells, monitoring
Techniques ln-situ tests instruments and any grouting or other geotr chnical processes;
methods/tools
Fill/ Reclaimed
sand / F1
Thin-walled tube sampler Hydraulic pressing Standard penetration c) Mapping of exposed ground during excavation.
test
Block sample Trial pit and soil Cone penetration
trimming Design requ¡rements
test
Field permeability
Section Three -
test
Marine deposits Thin-walled tube sampler
(Ka-E,M&F2)
Hydraulic pressing Standard penetration
test (F2)
3.1 General
Piston sampler Hydraulic pressing Cone penetration
3.1.1 The support system for deep excavations should be safe and robust to ensure stability and to
with suction test
control ground änO wáff deformations. lt should be designed and constructed with appropriate factors
Field vane shear test
of safet! and load factors that are not less than those required for permanent works in accordance
Pressuremeter test
OA / Residual soil Thin-walled tube sampler with the relevant standards, codes of practice and statutory requirements.
Hydraulic pressing Standard penetration
(JF & Br)
test
Mazier sampler Rotary drilling Pressuremeter test
3.1.2 The excavation support system should be designed for appropriate forces obtained from
analysis which considers tire full ôonstruction sequence through to the removal of the supporting
Field permeability
test
elements for the excavation or construction works. The analysis should consider appropriate
Bouldery clay Triple{ube core barrel Diamond coring boundary conditions and progressive changes in pore water pressures throughout the excavation and
Standard penetration
(FCBB) construction stages.
test (Clay matrix)
Pressuremeter test
Rock (JF & BT) Triple{ube core barrel Diamond coring Pressuremeter test
Field permeability
3.2 Water pressures
test e design should that is considered
and passive res groundwater level
2.6.3 Groundwaterconditions oading for each unless alternative
ccount tidal and onditions. Where
recordsof to be artesian condition exists, additionalwater pressure should be considered.
Standpipes uld be
water press n site. 9.2.2 The groundwater flow pattern around an excavation can affect water pressures and earth
to establish pressures on the active and passive sides of the wall, and piping as well as heave potential of the
excavation. The most adverée groundwater condition that can reasonably be anticipated should be
used in the estimation of passive resistance, taking into consideration the influence of upward
seepage and potentially high pore water pressure within the passive zone of the soil.

12 13
 TR 26 .2010 TR 26 :2010

3.3 Basis for design m) sensitivity analyses on the performance of retaining structures;
The design of the deep excavation wall system should consider Effects due to groundwater lowering;
both the ultimate limit states (ULS) n)
and the serviceability limit states (SLS). As a minimum, the following limit states should be
considered: Effects of ground deformation on neighbouring properties;
o)

a) Loss of overall stability; p) No allowance for any material overstress in the design;
members for
b) Failure of a structural element e.g. anchor, waler, strut or connection
between such elements; q) Factors of safety for designing retaining structures and all supporting structural
deep excavations should ñot be less than those for permanent works;
c) Combined failure in the ground and structural element whereby behaviour
of one, when it fails,
has an adverse effect on the other which leads to progressive iailure; r) UnPlanned excavation;

d) Failure in basal heave, toe kick-in, hydraulic heave and piping; s) Preloading of struts/anchors.

e) Movements of the retaining structure or surrounding ground which

may cause collapse, partial
or othenuise, or affect the appearance, serviceaoiiti or functionality of the
3.4.2 Factors of safetY
structure, nearby
safety factorihat
structu res or services;
The retaining structures for deep excavations should be designed with an adequate
take full account of the
is not less than that required of permanent works and the calculations should
for any
material deficiencies,- ðonstruction imperfections and tolerances adopted. No
f) Failure due to rotation or translation of the wall or parts thereof; allowance
material overstress should be made in the design' ations, the factor of safety
s) Failure due to lack of vertical equilibrium;
should take into account abnormal risks, un loading conditions' soil
characteristics, extreme soil and groundwater to restrict deformation,
h) Any combination of the above. consequence of failure and impact on surrounding properties'

3.4 Design cons¡derations 3.4.3 Robustness of design

3;4'1. As a minimum, all types and on retaining structure for deep excavations should
The design of retaining structure and.its supporting structural elements
for deep excavations be identified for design. The s to be robust and sufficient redundancy should be
should take into account the folrowing key design caiastrophi m an isolated case of overloading or failure of any
"oi.riia"r"i¡õn., fiouio"o to avoid
particular element.
a) Adequate site investigation;
g.4.4 ln addition to the earth pressures under all identifiable conditions and surcharge/building
b) Proper selection of the soil parameters for deslgn;
loads, the design should consider the following:
c) Effects due to onerous water pressures and seepage forces, on
of the wall, unless justified othenruise;
both active and passive sides a) Accidental load;

d)
b) One-strut or one structural member failure;
!lf.9cts of soil permeability (drained and undrained conditions), drainage boundary, rain water
infiltration and time rate of construction (consolidation).
c) Materialdeficienciesandconstructionimperfections;

Abnormal loads, particularly from construction surcharges, and exceptionally high

e) Effects of surcharge loads, including incidental loads, construction loads,
vehicular traffic etc; d)
groundwateifãu"i. òaused by flooding or prolonged heavy rainstorms, or water-filled tension
f) Varying load conditions and movement conditions during stages of
construction or excavation; cracks;
Design robustness and. redundancy considerations which should include
Eccentric loads or out-of-balance forces and reactions from the support systems,
s) both
accidental loads, thermal loads, eccentricity etc;
one-strut failure, e)
temporary and permanent e.g. due to inclined anchors or struts;
h) Construction material deficiencies and construction imperfections or
tolerances; f) Temperature effects.
i) Adequacy of wall embedment;
3.4.5 Soil parameters
i) overallwall stability, basal heave, toe kick-in, hydraulic heave and piping;
ln assessing the shear strength, influence due to factors such as stress level imposed on the
soil,
and sensitivity should be considered' The
k) structural adequacy of supporting system e.g. walers, struts, anchors, including provision strain rate effects, laige strain situation, time effects,
due allowance for the influence of sampling and the
adequate stiffeners;
of representative strenliñ values should make
màtnoO of testing as well as for possible softening during excavation.
r) Provisions of restraints in structural members' connections, ties
and bracings;

14 15

I
 TR 26 i2010
TR 26 :2010

3.4.6 Design drainage conditions

3.5.4 The ULS design should be based on the more onerous of the following approaches:
soils with field permeability greater than 10-6 m/s can be considered as free
draining. Drained a) Approach 1: Earth pressures derived from design values as defined in this section in which
conditions should be adopted forthese materials. soils with
con fermeability less than l0-o m/s can be the mobilisation factors y, in Table 2 are appropriately applied to the moderately conservative
th
ost cases. lf low or there is a lonq idlino parameters;
?:lJ maY be morea rmeabitity J#å
o!ñ[fìð
ru be considered. ct a consolidation analysis.
The ct two analyses b) Approach 2: Earth pressures derived from the worst credible parameters.

3.4.7 Sensitivityanalyses
3.6 Unplanned excavation
or poor ground conditions, the designer should not
The design for excavations should consider an additional depth of 0.5 m of unplanned excavation in
e set of geotechnical parameters is used, and the front of the wall.
ction' of deformations, loads and stresses. The
rs within a reasonable range corresponding to
The minimum values should be reviewed for each design and more adverse values adopted in
ditions, and to critically examine the effectã of particularly critical or uncertain circumstances. The requirement for an additional or unplanned
s and stresses.
excavation as a design criterion is to provide for unforeseen and accidental events. Foreseeable
Sensitivity analyses should be performed as part of the design excavations such as for waler support brackets, services or drainage trenches in front of a retaining
to demonstrate that the design and wall, which may be required at some stage, should be treated as planned excavation.
models are not unduly sensitive to variations in any of the inpit parameters
such as shear strength,
soil stiffness and reduced wall stiffness due to crací<ing. tt snãul¿
also cover the effect of time on the
soil conditions and its impact on the performance of reiäining
structures.
3.7 Design checks
3.5 Ultimate limit state As a minimum, design checks should be carried out for, but not limited to, the following.

3.5.1 Design factors 3.7.1 Against toe kick-in

Mobilisation factors are to be used in the ultimate limit state (uLS) The design of the retaining wall for deep excavations should demonstrate that the system is safe
design of the excavations system.
The design values of the geotechnical parameters (¿ should
Èe oeriveo
-using against toe kick-in. For the system shown in Figure I (a), which has adequate factor of safety against
basal heave (i.e. FS > 1.5), it may not be necessary to checktoe stability. Forwalls penetrating into
Xa=X¡/y, Equation (3a)
the competent stratum [(see Figure 1 (b)], the toe stability has to be checked using the equation below.

where X¡ is the moderately conservative estimate of the soil parameter; and

Pp Lr + ¡¡o
y, is the reduction factor for the parameter. FS=------- >1.5 Equation (3b)
Pn Ln
The mobilisation factors based on BS g0o2 are shown in Table
2.
where Pe is the total passive resistance, inclusive of the water force, in front of the wall;
Table 2 - BS 8002 mobilisation factors for soil parameters (y,) Lp is the distance from the lowest strut level to Po;
Pa is the total active force, inclusive of the water force, behind the wall;
Soil parameter Symbol
LA is the distance from the lowest strut level to Pn;
Min value Mo is the ultimate moment capacity of the wall.
Angle of shear resistance (tan ô) Yo 12
Effective cohesion 12
\c Pp and Pn should be determined based on unfactored strength parameters. The interface wall friction
Undrained shear strenqth 15 angle and adhesion should be taken into consideration. A competent stratum may consist of very stiff
v
Unconfined strength 15 to hard clay or silt and medium dense to dense sand.
You
Weight or density 10
\u
3.7.2 Against base heave failure

3'5'2 The term "moderately conservative" is taken to mean the "cautious estimate,,
of the value
The retaÌning wall for deep excavations should be designed with appropriate adequate precautions
relevant to the occurrence of the limit state as specified in clRlA against base heave for every stage of the construction.
c5g0. lt is also considered to be
equivalent to "representative value', as specified in BS gOO2.
vation width (B) is greater than excavation depth
3'5'3 "Worst credible" value is the worst value which is reasonably
believed to occur. lt is
43), Goh (1994), or Wong and Goh (2002) may be
considered to be equivalent to "conseryative" value as specifiãd
in BS g002. xcavations, i.e. H > B and/or excavations of finite
FAC DM-7.2 (1982) or Eide etal. (1972) may be
n check against base heave of an excavation, the

l6 17
 TR 26 : 2010
TR 26 12010

e checked at intermediate levels to ensure

also check for piping and quick conditions'
analYsis.

member failure
3.7.4 Against one-struUanchor/structural
houldaccommodatepossiblefailureofanyindividualstrut,tierod,
orconnectionateachstageottheconstructionworks.Thewall
capable of re-
rr, lncruãing tãùngt and éonnections' should beand wall should
ed member' The remaining structural system
structures and properties'
g o"nõãt to suirounoing aã¡acent
"n¡l

3.8 ServiceabilitY limit states

deep excavations.s!ou]! be designed to keep deformation of
3.8.1 The retaining wall system for
a m,n,riumiá prevent damage to ne'ighoouring structures' utilities
Figure f (a) -Walls not penetrating into Figure f - Walls penetrating into
(b) the wa' and surrounding ground to
:
competent soil competent soil and ProPerties.
limit state
3.g.2 wa, defrection is commonry adopted as a performance indicator for serviceabirity
and proximity to surrounding
3.7.3 Against base failure due to hydraulic uplift and seepage consideration. The limit depends on soil "on¿ition,
depth of excavation
structures and utilities.
Hydraulic uplift check should be carried out to ensure that the base of the excavation will not blowout.
This check should be carried out in accordance with Figure 2. The minimum factor of safety as the on wall deflection should be
3.8.3 For rei ning walls'
w to 70 o/o of the full stiffness' i'e'
defined in Equation (3c) is 1.2. checked. This ing-a reduced
of the second moment of area of
E
0.7Eol where
ngìsmodulus
lopes of the walls obtained from
Factor of safety = (y DB + factored side resistance)/ U Equation (3c) the reinforced The bending
l.oEoand0.TEoshouldbeusedfortheultimatelimitstatedesign.
where y is the saturated unit weight of the soil; at the
D such as FSP-lll, there is a possibility of slippageprevent
is the silt or clay thickness; For sheetpile walls utilising U.shape sheetpile to
B is the width of excavation; and crutches between sheetpire resurting ir ;'i¿¡"r;i;.
i.
*ãrì stiffness. rf nò action is taken
ãrr"rt the effect of using full and reduced stiffness
U is the hydraulic uplift force. such slippage, analyses should ¡e con¿uåte¿ to
on OenOing moment and wall deflection'
The prerequisites for blowout are as follows:
3.8.4 SeePage analYsis
a) The permeability k2 is much higher than k1 such as marine clay above F1 sand;
could be expected from .excavation activities,
ln cases where changes in groundwater conditions stuoy otlhe resurts to variations in permeabirity
b) Ample water supply in the kz soil layer. seepage anarysrs rh;;rãG pËrformed *tn
önrìtriù
wouíd not ¿"t"g" surrounding buildings and
vatues, to demonsiiãätñãt-tne ground à"ior.ãt¡oñ
Where the factor of safety is less than 1.2, the wall needs to be deepened to cut off the water supply properties.
else relief wells should be provided. The reduction factor on side resistance has to be correcfly
determined.
3.9 Gomputer software us¡ng numerical methods
computer software using numerical methods
in geote.chnical analysis and design for deep pore
intéraction probrems in staged construction,
Standpipe excavations shourd be abre to moder ,oir-.üu.trre
''-È.svrvrv stiess analyses'
d effective where
pressures, ground stresses
ñumericat rñodetrin! is used,
^
:T::1,Îfi"?lf"iätt{:îäiï::ì
H's:ïili1i:iElì:ii"fi5îfliì
comPuter software, users are a
use of
such anarvses náiaroins

published by The lnstitution of structural

1) The use computers for engineering catculations
of
Engineers, UK (Mar 2002)',

2)GuidetinesfortheuseofadvancednumericalanalysiseditedbyDavidPotts,Kennet
ãnã rt¡i"n"ér long' published by Thomas
Telford
Axetsson, Lars Grande, I elmut S.ît*"iôåi
Figure 2 - Stability against hydraulic uplift (2002);

19
18

tt¡ , --I
 TR 26 | 2010 TR 26 |2010

3) "clRlA C580: Emöedded retaining watls

simpson, - Guidance for economic design" AR Gaba,
w powrie and DR Beadrñan, pu¡r¡srrãã
Ëv'õìnrn London (2003);
4) Numerical analysis: A viftual dream or
practical reatity? Rankine lecture by David potts,
Geotechnique 53, No.6, pp 535_573 (200 i).
eability such as clays and silts, there are several
soil model adopted and whether total or effective
finite difference software it is essential that the
rstood, particularly for the modelling of soft clays
3.10 Structural design
to ensure lateral stability of the excavation
e design should ensure that the structural failure of
nd that deflections are restricted so as to avoid
3.10.2 Minimum load factor and load combinations
be designed with a minimum load factor of j.4
r and surcharge load using the results of the
ve soil parameter. The design values of the
uation (3a) assumihg y. = 1.0. Table 3 shows the
of strutting and retaining wallstructure.
Table 3 - Load combination factors for limit states design
of structures
B 3.10.4 Excavation loadings
pressure diagrams
Loading from earth pressure can readily be estimated from the apparent
peck (1967). These are maximum envelopes from field measurements.
ãár"i"õ"0 by Tezaghi and of revised
case records. The results are a series
in rggö, clRlA updaled these diagramswith more (DPL)
diagrams of the distributed prop loads method'
äi"gr"r, which are termed chaácteristic of the distributed strut
These diagrams are not maximum envelopes. They are cautious estimate
a5o/o chance of beingexceeded. These diagrams (see ClRlA, 1999)
loads and have approximately
are reproduced in Figures 3 (a) to 3 (c).
water table is below the
Figure 3 (a) shows the DPL diagrams for excavations in granular soil. lf the
depth, the total-unitweight is to be used to compute the earth pressure. lf the water
i¡näl
is above the excavation level, the total and buoyant unit weights should be used above
and
table""""ìátion
the hydrostatic water pressure above the formation
below the water taOleièspectively. ln this case,
level has to be taken into consideration.
and
Figure 3 (b) is for excavations in stiff to very stiff clay The earth pressure on the wall is inversely
a stiff wall, the soil
próportionàt'to the amount of wall displacement. since a flexible wall deflects more than
greater reduction in soil pressure.
b"ri¡no the flexible wall is given more ireedom to expar d and hence a
Figure 3 (c) shows the DpL diagrams for excavations in soft to firm clay. A stable
base refers to an
exîavation with adequate factor! of safety against basalleave. ln the computation of safety factor,
and Bìjerrum and Eide's method for narrow excavation should
iåizaghi's method for wide excávation
consider thé contribution from wall penetration below the formatton
be used. These methods do not
not only
level. lt should be noted that the FS value has to be satisfactory at all stages of.excavation,penetrate
needs to
at the final level of excavation. unstable base refers to situations where the wall
the basal
into the competent tayer line depth to which the slip surface would not exceed) to improve
and "unstable" base.
heave stabiliiy. Figure 4 shows examples of excav¿ tions with stable
safe side hence be
The struts are the most important element in an excavation. lt is wise to err on the
conservative in choosing an appropriate DPL diagram in the design.

It should be noted that the DpL diagrams are derived from case studies involving
mainly flexible walls.
Cn"ng and Wong tfgeOl highligñted that the apparent earth pressure on "rigld" walls such of
as
the application
diáphiagm wa¡ cain ¡" n¡dn"ñn"-n tho." indicated in the DPL diagrams. Therefore
these DÞL diagrams is t¡mited to flexible wall systems without soil improvement.

An alternative to the DpL diagrams is to conduct finite element analysis (FE[/l) lf done
correctly, the
FEM will generally produce mãre realistic strut load magnitudes and distributions.

-T
I

3.10.3 Kingposts and decking structures

I

ned with the appropriate loads and load factors in H n,

I
['
achieve robustness and adequate factor of safety 1

se would occur, Where appropriate, anticipated

I

:h t

conditions should be considered in the design and I

f

_1
þ*+{ þ-----+{
0.3t Ïl{ 0.50 Tl
p=0.2.1H p=0.3T'H
High ground water table Flexible wall Stiff wall
No ground water
Figure 3 (a) - DPL diagrams for sand Figure 3 (b) - DPL diagrams for stiff clay

20 21
TR 26 i2010 TR26 =2010

3.10.5 Additional design considerations

the following loads also have to be
ln addition to the excavation load under all identifiable conditions,
considered in the design of the excavation support system:
for
a) Abnormal loads, particularly from loads caused by flooding and construction loads,
which are considered to be in excess of
example construction cranes, heavy vehicles etc,
of
minimum .rrðÀ"rj" of 10 kPa. Whére ther is vehicular traffic, a design surcharge load 20
kpa should ¡e usé¿. Higher surcharge load (> 20 kPa) may be required if heavy construction
equipments are emPloYed.

b) Change of strut force due to temperature difference of t 10 "C should be considered.

c) Change of strut force due to the installation and removal of struts at any level'

Change of strut force induced by wall rotation and relative displacements between
the
r.1s ìH d)
supPorted ends.
Firm clay with stable base unless
Soft clay with stable base Soft clay with unstable base e) Accidental load of 50 kN to be applied normal to the strut at any point in any direction,
othenrvise demonstrated by risk assessment'

Figure 3 (c) - DpL diagrams for soft clay Axial force on the waler due to the inclined struts (in plan) imposing force along, rather
than
f)
Figure 3 is reproduced from CIRIA C517, 1gg9 orthogonal to, the waler'
following:
Besides the loading, the design of the support system should also consider the

a) Materialdeficiencies,constructionimperfectionsandtolerances;

b) Robustness of connection to avoid brittle failure;

FS-3 c) Accidental removal or failure of one struflanchor or its connections'

3.10.6 Temperature effects

An increase or decrease in the temperature of a strut from its installation temperature will
cause a
change of strut force according to the relationship:

AP=kaAtEA Equation (3d)

where E is Young's modulus of the strut material;

A is the cross-sectional area of the strut;
At is the change in temperature from the installation temperature force; 1.2x10'5 per'Cfor
a isthethermal coefficientof expansionforthestrutmaterial,typically
steel; and
k is reduction factor due to the degree of end restraint'

rock ln Equation (3d), /r = 1.0 is for a fully restrained strut where both ends are prevented to expand freely'
lf the degreò oî restraint of the stiut allows some expansion, lesser strut loads due to temperature
pile
Figure 4 (a) effects will result. ln the absence of rigorous analysis, k = 0.6 is recommended for flexible sheet
- Example of excavation with Figure 4 (b) - Example of excavation with walls and k = 0.g for stiff wall with stiff soil conditión. Temperature effects are normally added to the
stable base "unstable" base predicted strut loads after the analysis is completed.

A rigorous soil-structural interaction analysis may be used to.evaluate the strut force by considering
the iemperature effects, wall movement and soil condition. However, the best way to observe
the
temperäture effect on sirut force is to monitor the strut force together with the temperature variation
and make comparison with the predicted results'

23

I
 TR 26 i2010 TR 26:2010

3.10.7 Struts, walers, kingposts and connections stiff bearing to be.

3.10.13 ln calculating the bearing capacity of the beam web, the length ofand T thickness of
ãonsidered should betãken as b1 = {+Zt,where t= thickness of theweb of strut =
The axial load capacity o.f strut may be reduced
due to loss of end fixity or when the loss of an end plate, as shown in Figure 6.
intermediate support results in an intrease in
the ;ff""ir" l;;gth of the strut over that assumed in
design.
Web of strut
3'10'8 The design of struts, walers and struuwaler connections
should take into account eccentricity
of load transfer from the waler to the strut. rne eccãnti¡.¡tv
than 30 mm' where d is the d pth of the strut. Figure i"l should be taken as 0.1d but not tess
s iÉows the forces due to the eccentricity for
the design of the strut and water.
warer,s tveo snouro be designeJ
force' For strut acting on
t
dóuble ;'ir^f y?::iiXi ?ï li::HTål.Jffi End plate

r should be designed to resist additional

force of magnitude 0'5Fe/D where D is the- spacing Flange of
between tñe' two walers. ìf necessary, stiffene(s)
should be provided to prevent side sway or tne waËinåårGl. waler --)
3:J0:9. Buckling and bearing checks should be carried
out for all strut-to-waler connections and the
br =1+27
effect due to load eccentricity shoufd be considerec
as spåtit"¿ ¡n 3.ro.B. suitabre stiffeners should Web of
be provided to prevent brittlé failure of waler connection.
load is applíed, including the effect of eccentricity, is wnár" the waler flange through which the waler
not effectively restrained against lateral
movement relative to the other flange, proper.effeciive
tenltn
should be used to check the buckringiapãciiy of the .considering the effect of side sway
stiffenááïeo.
3.10.10 All restraints to axially compressed struts should be Length of stiff bearing for strut-to-waler connection
than 1 '0 % ol the axial force in ine strut and transferrirg a force of not less Figure 6 -
A restraint should have adequate strength and stiffnesË
iiioth positional restraint.
position or direction, as appropriate. Þositional
to¡nÁ¡ restrained point in 3.11 Material traceability and reusab¡l¡ty of strutting materials
shear diaphragm or system of tiiangulated bracing.
restraintsshoutC to an appropriate
use of reusable
A quality assurance plan has to be established to ensure material traceability and the
strutting materials in construction. Guidelines to establish a quality plan for ma_t913t traceability and
3'10'11 A bracing system that provides positional restraint to more than (2009). Steel materials
adequately designed to resist the iestraint fôrces one member should be reusabiity of steel strutting system in accordance with BC1 : 2008: Annex A
rrom eaìn màÀ¡", restrained. 2 are nolto be used.
other thañ class 1 and class

e=10Y,rd>3ünrrn Section Four - Ground treatment

M=Fe
lVl=Fe 4.1 General
ground
r Although ground treatment is not required in excavation projects, there are situations where
ground movement
treatment becomes an essential part of the excavation support system for stability,
control or water flow control purposes.

4.1.1 ln excavation works, ground treatment may be used to:

a) Enhance passive support to the retaining wall;

b) Provide adequate resistance against base heave;

c) Prevent boiling at the excavation base;

Double waler d) Retain earth behind wall oPenings;

e) Enhance trench stability of a diaphragm walling;

Figure 5 - Gonsidering the forces due to eccentricity in the design
of strut and waler Ð Form gravity mass for shallow excavations;
prevent soil and water ingress between wall members in case of contiguous bored pile wall;
3'10'12 e d column if no triangulated bracings are
s)
provided of a uld be determined fróm anatysis to derive h) Form water cut-otf;
the posit gro d also include construction stages when
the temp s or i) Make up for ground movement and loss as compensation grouting;

i) Minimise settlement in the ground adjacent to excavation'

24 25
 TR 26 i 2O1O
TR 26 :2010
4.2 Methods of ground treatment
4.3.2.2 The treated ground can only be considered as an improved soil and not as a structural prop in
!.2.1 Ground treatment ret
Depending
excavations. The design also has to consider the 'brittle' nature and rapid strain softening of the
oi
on the type y grouting or mechanical mixinq. treated ground as opposed to the 'ductile' behaviour of naturally occurring soils. The strength
displac
permeation, fracture,
methods risted berow o," å
grouting may take the form õf
grouting. some or tne common
adopted in the design needs considerations such as field variability and possible voids in parts of the
grouted mass and should be based on adequate trials.
"ó
a) Single or double packer grouting; 4.3.2.3 The design and design checks of all supporting structural members and walls for deep
excavations should include the full consideration of the transfer of forces under the most onerous
b) Tube-A-Manchette (TAM); conditions if the treated material is excavated away or removed, partially or wholly, at any excavation
stage. Analyses and design checks should be done with strength and stiffness at the upper end of
c) Mechanicaldeep mixing; measured values of treated material as this would yield higher forces on the structural members.

d) Jet grouting. 4.3.2.4 The grout pile size adopted to form mass treatment needs to be substantiated adequately
based on all trial measurements and tests. Allowances have to be made for positioning and drilling
f grouting depend on. the g.round inaccuracies, e.g. where drilling tolerances cannot be achieved, usually within 1:100.
conditions and requirements of
to reduce permeabirity rnã the treated ground.
apptications are maiñry oon""ontror*ãiär
ti"*i. ,"iÀiffi"-oip"rr""tíon grouting 4.3.2.5 The required thickness of treated soil has to be evaluated based on its strength and stiffness
"iiÁåri!'r""nanicat áeef müi,ig, 1". grouting or a properties and the design requirement of the wall with the proposed support system. As a guide,
owing to construction tolerances, the thickness of the treatment should not be less than 2 m.
4'2'3 ln the case,ofhigh pressu* (permeation, fracture or jet grouting),
applied pressure and poss-ible l?:!lg
g-touni movemenr have to
bå assessed and kept within
the effects of 4.3.3 Support against base heave
avoid damage to the retainini',üall, safe rímits to
üuir¿¡ng., rtiràirîå. åî0"i,,i1,,i", in the vicinity. Ground treatment to resist base heave should have sufficient thickness or depth to resist and transfer
mechanical deep mixing is used, the up-heave forces to the wall or supporting piles without developing significant tensile forces within
å',í;Í**nen guiderines given in BS EN 14679 :2[5sshoutd be
the grouted mass. The thickness also has to be checked with the bond strength developed between
the treated ground and the wall as well as foundation piles. The treatment may be done in a manner
to form an inverted arch to minimise bending moments within the treated mass.
ployed to enhance passive
support below the final
is weakened. Untess c"rt"ìñ-J,iount 4.3.4 Prevent boiling at excavation base
of hardenino
"
the desisn has to cons¡aerã wË;k;;;j'Jit,#il:
Permeation grouting may be required to prevent boiling at the base of an excavation in saturated
4'2'6 when iet grouting is used, granular soils. The grout holes have to be evenly spaced, preferably in a hexagonal arrangement to
Execution or 'spe-c¡ar gé"t.Ã;;åtinstallation and testing should follow ,BS EN 12716 : 2001 _ achieve uniform treatment. The spacing among grout holes depends mainly on the permeability of
i¡orks_- Jet giout,yng,
(corumnlet - recnnìquã',iäiïia.l"no the desigi may forow the
the ground, type of grout, grout flow rate, setting time, grout volume and grout pressure. Since
:;:ïïl:åi?HffiJî;1#rout' or the Japan iei crout Association numerous grouting parameters are involved and the selected combination may affect the results, the
success of treatment needs to be determined by field permeability tests. However, it is important to
remember that in saturated granular soils, ground treatment against boiling usually increases the
potentialfor base blow up.

4.3.5 Retaining earth behind wall openlngs

movements, including ground It is sometimes not possible to relocate utilities away from the proposed excavation. The construction
hea
of a retaining wall directly below the pipes or cables of utilities becomes unfeasible. Under these
circumstances, ground treatment may be considered to bridge the gap in the wall to prevent soil and
4.3 Ground treatment for specific
requirements
water inflow during excavation. Figure 7 (a) illustrates one possible application involving both vertical
and inclined grout piles and Figure 7 (b) illustrates another possible application for the entry of a
tunnel boring machine (TBM).
åÍ;l'"',tJ.ìrt"?ì'fJ..i!"ffitåîî'. "r sround treatment depend very much on the existins
soir and
4.3.6 Prevent localised collapse during walltrenching
4.3.2 Passive support to retaining
wall ln the installation of cast-in-place concrete walls such as diaphragm walls, contiguous or secant piled
4.3.2.1 Deep walls, it is usually inevitable that slurry is needed to maintain stability during trenching or boring
Pl:_:i"î suppo ground treatment ro improve operations. Trench stability design calculations need to be done to determine the required slurry level
final
þetow the eto enhance passive .rppo.t to safeguard against potential trench collapses. lt may be necessary to prevent localised collapses by
the excavation evels and excävated .,á}, ã. using ground treatment on either side of the trench. The slurry level has to be controlled and
maintained at all times throughout wall trenching or boring operations.

27
 TR 26 .2010
TR 26
=2010

4.3.10 Minimise ground settlement

Compensation grouting is done as an 'observe-and-do' process during excavation, whereas overall
ground treatment in the active side of the wall may be done in advance to control ground settlement
during deep excavation. Evenly spaced jet grout piles, grout mixed piles of mechanical deep mixing
are most suited for this application. Such an overall treatment not only decreases the ground
settlement but also decreases the active pressure on the retaining wall and thus the wall displacement

Section Five - Ground anchors

5.1 General
This section applies to the design of temporary and permanent ground anchorages used for deep
excavations to:
Figure 7 (al - Treatment for utility gap Figure 7 (b) - Treatment for TBM entry a) Support a temporary earth retaining structure;

4.3.7 Prevent soir and water ingress behind GBp wails

b) Support a permanent earth retaining structure;

t::*.lli"l9Tl.1:-r:_î1.s c) Provide the stability of slopes or cuts.

retainins wails, it is often required ro sear the
Hffi:åll':iî:: ."Jj::.:.1,:,.Ur?*: ih; ;i"å;;;iå;;;;ü;å;ï;0,,!iili*5,ii"ì saps
This is achieved by transmitting a tensile force to a load-bearing formation of competent soils or rocks.
i:H::: 9." ,1lji.,jo,pf':I the true s;ó ;;t
Ëil;-'.;;'ä#å; ãõäiiing on pile
i"""yî:_?^lt^:il: 1-09, TT:,,However, .l_q y?t"i ins,ess"is'init"Gãl¡i.iliå1"*åä' ou';,'"ïälË;finii
i::"jfll?1J.,?î?ÌÌ:,l,1jilTÌ^:?r'r !å,ï The following standards should be referred to:
::,î j:J"1,?f?.::Ípj:l ¡1!191
eventualy reaãs to soir ;ìrrp. ih.;sn
ä*i"il"ffii;::"I;,r'ii
;i:lifl:ig?J:,,,T?,1j"::,,1o:1,'j:l,.y1l_! "_y:,i,årrvl"iL .ì''r r,är"Ëiei'ti,* ffi;;ffi;,"';:.";J a) BS EN 1537 :2000 Execution of specialgeotechnicalworks - Ground anchors;
i5!llllîi"îli,i1lî".'l,l..i:î,::glïl1tiî."9"11,"
*L"^,",^1Ì:î:"il¡.oir::1,,._"ls_t¡l
ó*Í",,t,"t"1no*, pä'';;;il-ö;ïJ ;ilí
i:r'"'i:i* may o9 ,ãqri,"J ;ü;tionäiri i;;,ä;il"."i"iäilliillj=lí b) BS 8081 : 1989 British standard code of practice for ground anchorages;
j:j. g:?1,1. g pj:l
preventing water
g
: T? lî I _ : " q 'boredã'. ol n
m i xi n s
Ti
soil inflow between ", piles.
r ; il ; ; Ëä' I ft
I
;i JJ Hv : åi"J :." iff: l;
and
c)
:
^ " BS EN 1997-1 :2004 Eurocode 7: Geotechnical Design - Part 1: General Rules.

4.3.8 Water cut-off

4.3.8.1 When an excavation is carried out with a 5.2 Terms and definitions
5.2.1 The main terms are used in common with BS 8081 : 1989 or Eurocodes, where applicable.

5.2.1.1 Permanent anchorage

space or cells with cut_off grouting and performing Anchorage with a design life of more than two years.

4'3'.8'2 when a permeable layer is present at a short depth 5.2.1.2 Temporary anchorage
below the final excavation level beneath
an impermeable layer, the poiential for base heave is
nigñ Juring excavation. Water cut_off of this Anchorage with a design life of up to two years.
permeable layer along the perimeter of the
excavation iõ requireO to avoid the risk of base heave.
Relief wells may also be used to reduce heave potential.
5.2.1.3 Removable anchorage
4.3.9 Make up of volume loss
Anchorage system that allows its components, i.e. strands, to be removed after its service life.

e volume loss associated with wall displacement 5.2.1.4 Acceptance test

s and utilities. Compensation of lost volume is
Fracture grouting done with thin seams of grout in Load test on site to confirm that each anchorage meets the design requirements.
in volume but part of the increase may ieduce
assess the performance of compensation grouting 5.2.1.5 Suitability test

Load test on site to confirm that a particular anchor design is adequate in particular ground conditions.

28 29
 TR 26 i2010 TR 26
=2010

5.2.1.6 lnvestigative test

5.4 Design situations and act¡ons
Load test to establish the ultimate resistance of an anchor at the grouyground
determine the characteristics of the anchorage in the oesign worting
interface and to 5.4.1 When selecting design situations, consideration should be given to:
loa'd ,an!e.

5.2.1.7 Proof load a) All circumstances during the construction of the structure.

The maximum test load to which an anchor is subjected. b) All anticipated circumstances during the design life of the structure.

All pertinent limit states, both individually and in their combinations including, but not limited
to,
5.2.1.8 Working load c)
the following:
Safe load of an anchor.
i) structural failure of the tendon caused by applied stresses;
5.2.1.9 Lock-off load
ii) Distortion or corrosion of the anchor head;
The load transferred to an anchor head immediately on completion of a stressing
operation. iii) Failure at the interface between the body of grout and the ground;
5.2.1.10 Anchor holding piece
iv) Failure of the bond between the steel tendon and the grout;
Used in a removable anchorage. Component of anchor that ís bonded direcfly to
capable of transmitting the applied tensile load.
the grout and v) For temporary anchor, failure by insufficient resistance of the holding piece,

5.2.1.11Unit anchors vi) Loss of anchorage force by excessive displacements of the anchor head or by creep
and relaxation Processes;
Term used in a removable anchorage to denote a pair of strands which loops around
holding piece.
an anchor vii) Failure or excessive deformation of parts of the structure due to the applied
anchorage force;

5.3 Factor of safety viii) Loss of overall stability of the retained ground and the retaining structure;

5'3.1 The factor of safety to be used should not be less than those given in Table
4.
ix) lnteraction of groups of anchorages with the ground and adjoining structures.

Table 4 - Minimum safety factors recommended for design of individual anchorages d) The groundwater and water pressures.

e) The consequences of failure of any anchorage'

Minimum safety factor Proof load f) The possibility that the forces applied to the anchorage during pre-stressing
(anchorage load)
factor to may exceed t-he forces required for the des ign of the structure.
Anchorage category Tendon Ground/ GrouU working
failure grout tendon or load (WL)
interface grouU
5.4.2 Design and construction cons¡derations
into account
encapsulation 5.4.2.,1 The design of the anchorage and the specification for its execution should take
interface any adverse effeòts of tensile stresðes transmitted to ground beyond the vicinity of the anchorage'
Temporary anchorage 16 25 2.5 1.25 in site
with a service life of, say, 5.4.2.2 The zone of ground into which tensile forces are to be transferred should be included
up to two years where investigations.
although the
consequences of failure 5.4.2.1The anchor head should allow the tendon or rod to be stressed, proof-loaded and locked-off
are quite serious, there is and, if required by the design, released, de-stressed and re-stressed.
no danger to public safety
without adequate 5.4.2.4 For all types of anchorage, the anchor head should be designed to tolerate angular deviations
may
warninq* of the anchorforce (seã es er.irbgz :2000) and be able to accommodate deformationswhich
occur during the design life of the structure.
Permanent anchorages 20 30 30 15
and temporary
5.4.2.5 Where different materials are used in an anchorage, their design strengths should be
anchorages where
assessed with due account of the compatibility of their deformation performance.
corrosion risk is high
and/or the consequence
of failure is serious*
. NOTE - There has adequate proper instrumentation and monitoring of wall movements and
anchor loads.

30 31
 r
TR 26 :2010
TR 26 2O'lO
=

5'4'2'6 The only anchorage systems that should

be used are those assessed by investigative tests should not be more than 0.8. This value should be verified by appropriate tests on site for
(see BS EN 1537:2000) orfórwhich
successful ."rpãå¡i" experience is documented 5.S.4 Ro
both performance and duiability. in terms of every batch of strand delivered to site.

5'4'2'7 The direction of the tendon should normally S.5.5 The removable anchor using loop system usually consists of one or more unit anchors. The
be such as to provide self-stressing wíth
deformations due to potential failure mecÀan¡sms fixed length for each of this unit anchor should be calculated using Equation (5d).
be taken into account in the design.
¡n tnir-i. not feasible, adverse effects should
"ãrã
L¡",¡ = (Fs x WL¡)/ (n x D x f.¡) Equation (5d)
5'4'2'8 The characteristic resistance of anchor should
be determined and verified on the basis of
suitability tests' The design resistance should
o" oyãàeptance tests after execution.
where L¡*,¡ = required fixed length for each unit anchorage, m;
"n"ðr,àJ D = diameter of borehole, m;
5'4'2'9 The performance of the tendon
of pre-stressed ground anchorages should be Fs = factor of safety, geotechnical (see Table 4);
checked in accordancewith BS g0gi : 19g9 þeandr91o-th
BS EN 1s37:2000. f,i = ultimate skin friction at the location of the anchor holding piece, kPa;
WL¡ = working load of each unit anchor.

5.5 Design of the anchorage 5.5.6 As skin friction may not be uniformly mobilised, the design of the fixed length of the unit
anchor should take into consideration efficiency factor and should generally be not more than 10 m as
5'5'l The design of the-anchorage should satisfy
both the structurar and geotechnical requirements.
recommended in BS 8081 : 1989.
The structural capacity,of th.e an.ñor"g" snoul-o_¡e
oesilnlã-tå support its design toad. The number
of strands shourd be carcurated using ÈTrãi¡on
(sa), as roiio*s,- 5.5.7 For good practice, the investigative test anchor should be representative of the actual length
of working anchors to be used in similar ground condition.
N=(F.xWL)/(UTS)
Equation (5a)
where N = number of strands; 5.6 Checking of earth retaining wall movement
F" = factor of safety, structural;
UTS = Ultimate tensiie strength of strand, kN; 5.6.1 The most adverse combination of the minimum or maximum anchorage stiffness and
WL = working load of ancnõr, Hlt. minimum or maximum pre-stress should be selected when analysing the design situation.

F" shourd be no ress than the factor of 5.6.2 When considering a non-prestressed anchorage as a (non-prestressed) spring, its stiffness
safety given in Tabre 4.
should be selected to achieve compatibility between calculated displacements of the retained
5.5.2 The fixed rength for the anchorage shourd
be carcurated using Equation (5b). structure and the displacement and elongation of the anchorage.

Lo,=(FsxWL)/(æxDxf.) 5.6.3 Account should be taken of the effects of any deformations imposed on adjacent foundations
Equation (5b)
by the anchorage pre-stress force.
where _Lo- = required fixed length for each anchorage, m;
D = diameter of borehóle, m;
fn
f"
= factor of safety, geotechnical; 5.7 lnvestigative tests
= ultimate skin fiiction, kpa.
lnvestigative tests should be specified for anchorages and should be carried out before the installation
Fn shourd be no ress than the factor of safety given in Tabre 4. of any working anchor. The size, depth and angle of borehole should be representative of the
designed working anchor.
5.5.3 For temporary anchors
s
in looPs. The bending of the allY
strands. This reduction should the
5.8 Suitability tests
The number of strands forremov red.

N = (F" x WL)/ (UTS x 5.8.1 Suitability tests should be specified for anchorages. The performance of the test should
R¿)
Equation (5c) comply with BS 8081 : 1989 and BS EN 1537 :2000, as appropriate.
where N = number of strands;
F" = factor of safety, structural (see Table 4); 5.8.2 At least three suitability tests should be performed for each distinct condition of ground and
UTS = Ultimate tensile strength oi strand, kN;'' structure to determine or verify the characteristic resistance of the anchor for design.
Rd = reduction factor due tó bending of'strãnd; 5.8.3
WL = working load of anchor, The proof load of a suitability test of anchor should comply with BS 8081 : 1989 and BS EN
kN.
1537 : 2000, as appropriate.

32
33
 !

TR 26 i 2010
TR 26
=2010
5.9 Acceptance tests
Section Six - lmpact assessment
5'9'l lt should be specified in the d":]g.l that ail grouted
anchorages shoutd be subjected to
acceptance tests prior to rock-off and before-tney
oecomË ãiãåt¡on"r.
6.1 General
for acceptance tests should foilow rhe
l^?r"rü;då;:cedure rutes given in BS 8081 : 1989 and BS Pre-construction building or condition surveys should be carried out to establish the condition of
surrounding properties including obtaining the plans of existing buildings, structures, foundations and
buried utilities where available.
test or anchor shourd compry with BS 8081
El.í;trri'irBïïl:?:|'Tilff*otance : 1e8e and BS

5'9'4 where groups. of anchorages cross with tendon bond lengths at spacing of less
6.2 Prediction of ground deformation
random contror tests shourd be maãe than 1.5 m,
afteicompretion of the rock-off action.
6.2.1 Each soil or rock type has its own problems and assessing the problems requires knowledge
and understanding of the soils, soil profile and groundwater conditions. Movements in soils can be
5.10 Tests on anchors time-dependent. The prediction of the deformation of surrounding ground due to excavation should
consider, but not limited to, the following:
Depending on the number of ground
anchors and site conditions, the number of
tests to be carried out
should not be tess than thoseindicaìe¿ in
iaOle S: a) All stages of work including wall construction or installation, and installation and removal of
the support system;
Table 5 - Recommended number of field
tests
b) Construction tolerances;

c) Potential loss of fines through the walls e.g. arising from flow of water;

Minimum 3 for each distinct grounO d) Movements during excavation;

"*ãitiõ
e) Drained, undrained and consolidation deformation;

5.11 Pre-loading 0 Effects of grouting, soil improvement, drilling, piling, or any other construction activities which
may cause or induce ground movements.
orages shourd be based on the design
varue of pre_road assumed in the earth
The anchor rock-off road shourd oã increased 6.2.2 Determining ground and wall movement is complex. Even advanced numerical methods such
bi 10 z oiiÀe oesign pre_road
consideration has to be given to the verification as finite element or finite difference may give misleading results for the development of ground
or .onlrr"t¡on of the actual movements outside the excavation. The predictions are likely to remain only approximate until further
numerical analyses are validated and calibrated against field experience. lt is not prudent to step
outside the bounds of experience without fulljustification and careful observation of performance.
5.12 Supervision and monitoring
6.2.3 All buildings, structures, utilities, roads and any properties that may be or are likely to be
should follow the rules affected by the excavation should be assessed for damage.
il::Jjsj;l"3nl3,Ion'totins siven in BS 8081 : 1e8e and BS EN 1537 : 2000,

5'13 corrosion 6.3 Damage assessment

protection of steer components of anchorage
6.3.1 A three-stage damage assessment may be adopted.

6.3.1.1 Stage 1 Assessment

For preliminary assessment, a very simple approach may be adopted based on consideration of both
maximum slope and maximum settlement of the ground surface at the location of each building. This
approach uses ground surface rather than foundation level, displacements, and neglects any
interaction between the stiffness of the buildings and the ground. According to Rankin (1988), a
building which experiences a maximum slope of 1/500 and a settlement of less than 10 mm has
5'14 Maintenance of anchorages during service negligible risk of damage. As such, no further assessment is required. However, this approach is not
rife
applicable for building/structure under mixed foundations or building/structure/utility or any property
Provision' e'g' instruction manuals, should sensitive to ground deformation. They warrant more stringent movement criteria and a Stage 3
be made for the maintenance of the anchorages
and ensure that its structural capacit/ìs
notaffeciedinärgh;t its design service tife. Theto verify assessment should be carried out.
|i:S'if J:ì,ffii,'ï::li";gï'j jj.;;;;#äijii ä'#i"r
anchor
maintãnan.",ãg necessary re-

34
35
 TR 26 :2010

6.3.1.2 Stage 2 Assessment TR 26 :2010

The building of.?nV.structure

structure is assuméd is ass_essed based on,,o1 6.4 Masonry structures
"greenfield" ground -to
rràìã nä iì,nn"r. so that ¡¡ 6"il1afi"td," assumption, Le. the buitding
or
oår*r"iil"niTÀ orms with tñ"
érãrîo or conforms to the 6'4'1 The classification of damage to masonry structures or buildings should
be
based on the work
of Boscardin and cording (1989), Mair, Taylor and Burtano (1g9õ) ano aoonãìt at. (1999) in
accordance with Table 6.
mple beam whose foundation
is assumed
ith^th_e_"greenfietdsite,, Table 6 - Damage category for masonry buildings
nogging and sagging "rr;rpñ;:"'i;;
setflemenls. ft,ã
6.3.1.3 Stage 3 Assessment Normal degree Limiting tensile strain (e¡¡,n)
of severity
Detailed evaluation is %t
carried out' taking into
account buirding/structure Negligible 0 - 0.05
stiffness and foundation.
Stage 3 assessment is Very slight
carried out for cases including: 0.05 - 0.075
a) Those buildings or structures
Slight 0.075 - 0.15
on mixed foundatíons; Moderate 0.15 - 0.3
b) Buildings/structures/utilities
or Severe to > 0.3
e'g' old-masonry structures; any property that is unusually sensitive to ground very severe
deformation
c) Those deemed unsatisfactory
as a resurt of stage 2 The description of the damage associated by degrees of severity by Burland,
assessment. 9:a:.2 .. Broms and De
6.3.2 The aooro.ach is a refinement Mello (1977) is given in Annex B.
of the Stage 2 assess
the buirdíns anä the,exc;""il;';j'ànstructio-n

:g:iT,i:,Í¿?. oe treatåã"oi"ii.irn meritsffi;"_,.:-iiir,iË,ö: iî"J:?jï:r,Ê::"r.:î:: iJ

e"ãto-oir,"t .ñ;;;:, iåä
6'4'3 lt should be noted that the classification in Annex B and Table 6 was developed
for
brickwork
" more crosery ínto
or blockwork and stone masonry. lt may be adapted for other forms of ctaoJinl.-'tt
applied to reinforced/pre-stressed concrete, steel cr composite elements.
should not be

6.5 Reinforced/pre-stressedconcretestructures
6'5'l For reinforced/pre-stressed concrete structures, such as underpasses, underground
structures, bridges and structural members of a buifding, the procedures
b) Excavation or construction adopted. ln addition, a serviceability performance reviewJnay be carried out.
ouflined in 6.3.1 may be
se(
constructionsnouräü;-'ö.:åÌ,:?ff;.,tj;j:l""nce and method or excavarion
and
c) 9'5'.2 .. Each building differs and has to be considered on its own merits. The existing condition of
Buirdinss with strucrurar the building should be considered and the following factors included in the
continuity,,such as rhose serviceabitity performance
iö:':'ff:?lli'lt{'
masonry b,,;iffiJ,ili":i1i:f,'lJï'*[Uilæä'iiäÀ',n","
of sreer and concrete
,itnä,iJt,ifi',, continu*y,
review:
es
d) a) Basement configuration;

i,"ffiîl"lfirî"tJJlj,::".ït;.#rqii.":t;,j,i,fll?"orienred at a sisniricant skew to the

main b) Cladding system;

c) Construction sequence;
movements will be modified
by the
e RlobteJn shoutd inctude
so¡r_stitíctuiã
ures such as those pubtished
d) Foundation system;
brË.üi e) Orientation to alignment;

n1 ot. still undergoing 0

il movements
they. may reoîce1ne
Soil-structure interaction;
11 "r, toleranåã
so when the buildings
or parts of its g) Structural continuity.

36
37
TR 26 | 2010
6.6 High-rise buildings
Where foundation movement occurs, a building may suffer from both distortion and tilt. With high-rise
buildings, however, the relatively large ratio of height to length of the structure usually ensures a
predominantly rigid body rotation. High-rise buildings should be assessed on an individual basis to
determine whether the tilt affects the serviceability of the building, which depends on purpose of the
building, type of building superstructure and the type of foundation system.
6.7 Piled foundations
The construction of an excavation adjacent to existing piles requires consideration of the pile
response to the ground movements as a result of the works, and an assessment of the consequential
axial movement, lateral deflection, bending moment and rotation of pile head. The horizontal soil
movement induced by the works will in turn induce additional lateral deflection and bending moment in
the piles (Finno et al. 1991; Goh et al. 1996; Poulos and Chen 1997; Ong etal.2002; Goh et al. 2003;
see Annex C). Such effects should be appropriately considered and assessed.
6.8 Utilities
6.8.1. A damage assessment for every utility that may be affected should be carried out. The
allowable values for settlement, deformation, joint rotation, joint slip or other such criteria as agreed
with the utility agency should be established The allowable values should be such that the utility can
be kept fully functional during and after the works.
6.8.2 Particular attention should be given to the junction of pipes and spurs of pipes, as outlined by
Attewell, Yeates and Selby (1996). For cast iron pipes, reference may be made to the methodology
by Bracegirdle et al (1996).
6.9 Protective measures
6.9.1 Protective measures should be designed and installed with the aim to prevent damage and to
satisfy the serviceability or functionality or acceptance criteria. Protective measures include
underpinning, ground improvements, compaction or compensation grouting, jacking or building
strengthening or some combination of these or other such means. Care should be taken to ensure
that the selected method of protection does not do more harm than the original movements to the
building.
6.9.2 Where there is presence of a layer of peat (soft and compressible peaty clay or soft soils with
peat), judiciously designed water recharge wells should be put in place and operationally tested
before any excavation work commences. This is particularly so where there are nearby buildings or
surrounding structures which are on shallow foundations e.g. timber piles, footings or of mixed
foundations, or any property which is sensitive to ground movements.
6.10 Limiting values of structural deformation and foundation movement
6.10.1 The components of foundation movement which should be considered include total
settlement, relative or differential settlement, rotation, tilt, relative deflection, relative rotation and
horizontal displacement.
6.10.2 Limiting values should be established for the foundation movements of neighbouring
structures Any differential movements of foundations leading to deformation in the supported
structure should be limited to ensure that they do not lead to a limit state in the supported structure.
The differential settlement should take account, among others, of the occurrence and rate of
settlements and ground movements.
38
TR 26
=2010
6.10.3 The maximum acceptable relative rotattons for open-framed structures, in-filled frames and
load-bearing or continuous brick walls are unlikely to be the same. For such structures which deform
in a sagging mode, they are likely to range from about 1/2000 to about 1/500, to prevent the
occurrenCe of a serviceability limit state. A maximum relative rotation of 1/500 is acceptable for many
structures. For a hogging mode, where the edge is settling more than other parts of the structure, the
acceptable values should be half of those in sagging mode, i.e. less than 1/'1000.
Section Seven - lnstrumentat¡on and mon¡toring
7.1 General
7.1.1 The instrumentation and monitoring scheme for the excavation works should be properly
designed, supervised, coordinated and reviewed continuously by qualified and competent personnel
who understand the objective of the monitoring and underlying principles for the purposes, including.
a) Verifying the assumptions made in the design;
b) Providing confrrmation of the predicted behaviour of the support system for the excavation
and surrounding ground during excavation and construction works;
c) Providing information and enabling assessment of the effects of the works on buildings
including its own and other surrounding structures, utilities and other structures like roads;
d) Providing a record of the performance of the works;
e) Providing early warning, and to enable excavation and construction to be carried out safely
without causing damage to any property at all stages as long as the excavation remains;
f) Enabling appropriate protective and precautionary measures to be implemented in time so as
to preveìt any settlement or movement which may impair the stability of or cause damage to
the whole oi part of any surrounding premises or building, structures, roads and other
properties.
7.1.2 The instrumentation and monitoring scheme should be appropriate to the objective and
purposes of monitoring, particularly to safeguard the safety of persons such as workers within the site,
persons like the public outside the site, and surrounding structures, and prevention of damage to any
surrounding pr"mises or buildings, structures, utilities, roads and other properties. The monitoring
should extend around all sides of the excavation.
7.1.3 The choice of instruments should take into account the required accuracy of the
measurements, reliability of the instruments and site conditions. Some allowance needs to be made
for instrumentation failuies during construction Detailed guidance on geotechnical instrumentation is
given in literature such as Hanna (1985) and Dunnicliff (1988).
7 .1.4 Timely evaluation of results and assessments should be carried out at all appropriate stages,
particularly where the data are required to provide an indication of safety. Changes in values between
consecutive measurements should be examined.
7.2 Gonsiderat¡onsforinstrumentation
7.2.1 The accuracy and reading range of all monitoring instruments should be specified as part of
the design of the retaining system for the excavation works.
39
 TR 26 :2010
TR 26 :2010

7.2.2 The depth of inclinometers should extend beyond the influence zone of the excavation to a 7..3.q For existing buildings, the pre-existing tilt and cracks in the structure,
position where negligible ground movement is anticipâted to occur throughout the excavation and to .. where appropriate,
should be determined before the start of any construction and excavation activity.
where fixed toe conditions are expected to be achieved. The cooidinates of the top of the
inclinometer casing should be regularly surveyed as a check. 7.3.4 All gas, water mains and sewer pipes which fall within a horizontal distance of less than the
excavation depth from the excavation face should be more closely monitored. For
7.2-3 For monitoring the changes in ground water table, the depth of water standpipes/piezometers more sensitive
utilities, settlement points at closer intervals should be used, e.g. for electrical cables
should extend beyond the expected drawdown level. ln order to monitor the hydrauiic uplift stability, with voltage
higher than 22kV and fibre optical systems.
some piezometers should be installed in the pervious soil layers beneath the iinal excavation depih
within the excavation area. ln areas where there is soft ótay underlain by a pervious soil layer,
piezometers should be installed in this layer to monitor the water drawdown which can potentially lâad
to consolidation settlement of the soft clay.
7.4 Monitoring the performance of excavat¡ons

7.2.4 Tiltplates should be properly bonded to the surface of structural members on which they are
7-4.1 Excavations and their impacts on adjacent structures/utilities should be considered through
monitoring of embedded retaining walls, ground and structural movements/deformations,
installed after the removal of paint, tiles and plaster. basal heavã,
struUanchor loads, groundwater table and piezometric pressures, etc. so as to provide data
for desitgn
and review on the field performance shown in Table 7 as follows:
7.2-5 All instruments should be properly calibrated. Generally, instruments undergo a three-stage
calibration, namely factory calibration, acceptance test and re-calibration. The factory calibratión
Table 7 - General guidelines for instrumentation and monitoring
provides only a quality check for products in the manufacturing process which needs to bê verified by
acceptance test prior to installation in view of possible disturbance involved in the shipment workj.
Re-calibration will help to minimise possible instrument errors attributed to changes in instrument Measurement of parameters lnstruments
properties, e.g. misalignment of sensor, deviation in reference gauge reading
le.g. zero gauge .
reference) and elongation of measuring tape and cable.
Deformation of the ground (including any
slope), retaining wall movements and
lnclinometers in the ground
and/or in the wall
7.2.6 The as-buílt condition of instruments including the co-ordinates, especially inclinometer casing
supporting members ¡ Settlement points
and levels, e.g. piezometer tip level, of the installed instruments and any change which may bã . Magneticextensometers
created to the installed instruments during monitoring period, such as change of top level of water . Rod extensometers
standpipe and inclinometer, etc. should- Oe propeñy' captured, adjusted ãnd considered in the
monitoring and interpretation of results. . Prisms
Deformation of structu re o Tiltmeters
7.2.7 The design should include protection for all instruments to ensure that they are suitably . Settlement markers with precise
protected against accidental damage, vandalism, and adverse climatic conditions.
levelling
. Crackmeters
7.3 lnstrumentation and mon¡toring of structures . Electrolevel beams
. Prisms
713_.1 All buildings, structures, roads, utilities and any other property where any part thereof falls . Tape extensometers
within the minimum monitoring zones defined in Figure g, should be monitored. . Vibration sensors
Groundwater levels and pore pressures . Piezometers
. Water standpipes
Loads on supporting structural members a Load cells
(struts), and anchors where appropriate
a Strain gauges

7'4.2 Control sections for excavation works should be identified and adequately instrumented with
the validation or calibration between the design/predicted and actual values
io be'verified as early as
possible during the construction and excavation stage.

7'4.3 Piezometers or water standpipes at active sides should be installed to monitor changes of
pore water pressure or water
Figure I- Monitoring zone (minimum 2H) for buildings, structures, roads or utitities level. Piezometers should be also installed on the excavation side to
stability, hydraulic uplift stability and piping stability etc when there are permeabte soit
:l.t_i|".t9"
tayers below the excavation level.
7.3.2 ln addition to instrumentation, monitoring of properties should include inspections, site
observations, tests and records. Although the measurements usually include tiltmeters and precise
levelling, for a building or structure which is more sensitive or subject to protective works, electio-level f..a'a .When ground improvement is used to strengthen the earth retaining system for a deep
beam systems may also be used to monitor movements in the bullding or structure. Crack monitoring excavation, heave and compression of the ground impróvement layer should ne moñ¡toreo.
is carried out on the development of existing cracks and new cracÉs which may occur during the
works, and on movement joints. itored for load, preferably by using load cells. lf
onitored struts should also be checked using load
of two strain gauges coupled with temperature
cation.
40
41
 TR 26 :2010
TR 26 :2010
7 '4'6 There are several pitfalls for the load
measurement in steel struts. The strain gauges for
member forces should b.e properly installed, calibrated anJcnecred
for meaningful interpretation and
7.7 Multi-tier level monitoring and reviews
monitoring as the readings could be affected bt ñnt-i"ctors such as ñon-uniform stresses,
temperature, joints, strut installation and pre_loading. 7.7.1 ln addition to the SL values based on the
most criticalconstruc
be determined for each stage ot
áno b;;ü;tË. "' Th"." timíts should
7'4'7 caution should be exercised when evaluating strut force by hydraulic jacking. n
selected critical instruments that ""óãuãt¡on
ections, and
the use of calibrated jacks, the loads should be in lepãndeÀtty conrirmeð
oy
ln addition to
catiorated load cell.
stresses in structural members s. The ñ::i:::: :?
nits
i
each stage of excavation, e.g.
¡nstaltat uts, år:|]i::å,
7 '4'8 The layout of the settlement markers should be able to reflect the differential
setflement of the
after removal of struts, immeãia y prior
to backfillinj.
building.
7'7'2 Excavation and strut removal should only proceed
if the monitored performance
current stage is within, es-tablished preset
limits. oihå*";, ìnä oesign shourd be reviewed for the
7.5 Reading frequency of monitoring instruments the rinal perroimance durins ár ,;;;i;;ù'!,"s", with new
î:Íl/"tï"t:jrt"Tate and to estabrish that the sL wiil
The design of the retaining system for the e ¡clude tables giving reading
frequencies of all instruments. The frequency
ts may be varied, depending tjo",.filt"of'ff^1,"*,:,.:nl-11,L:,,1]:,*g in, a timery manner to ensure that there is
on the type of instrument and the relationshiþ l;l;lrrå,[ ,."^olîlî-o a
Criteria for increasing the frequency of reading
and aieas of current activity.
;""äi'j# ;:ii"?trîl?:y""::",l?f "Tq i"d;"ii::i,"i, å1il",.i"i"ï:il:i:,J:;
t,Sì J.#;"'lå1":;"'il "ffi,niï,iå,:?å,1,1'iìi
ff:fl',,313 å1iï:: :l,i:f,0'l^n:"3::- a:::i.-:jrpu jJ
3[ü::ä'";:î:'ff
sisniricant changes :"*:ii^?,::::::,1',*;]¡i_ilil"*i,;ä:i.i:ñiï:,":i8:SJ:s:Ji:1i''
occur betwe"n tñJLäaii,g ;;öï:,i.Å;åÍËi::.:låS:;:
7-6 Review levels and interpretat¡on of monitoring results ''""ài"ò.,

7'6'1 monitoring is provided to verify the design assumptions by comparing 7.8 Full design reviews
actual the
vations against predicted valueé. lt also protects the functionality and
safety
of surr roads, uti¡ties, structures and any pràperty by having preset acceptable
on the
limits lrTl""ii,il;Tj$:",::t",I:_j,î11i9^ii,_"l"rt,,r"y"l,of the arert rever is breached and it becomes
eformations, water levels and pr".érrä, measured. *,ãt êf ìs' ìi.,iiiå ;:ï:"ä"i.,i." îl$,iJff,"ff;
;:åi,::å[ü i:î',:1|î1,i:li:lï:i,,:i:g:
7'6'2 Prior to the commencement of excavation, preset acceptable levels 3ñ:i,Jï:,.113"yå1.,*1::_:31T:itfl:i"r,i:i* äåìiJ'e,: l"i:;."iï.åJ[i 'ïili:Tii?:
should be assigned to
li"ï'$,å";:'*;:""0"i:, ti.?i1::*if-1;¡þ;;ååi',ä.iä".,ä li:"ff.Ïn'l fl?:il "åJffi#:
selected critical instrument as follows:
B[:".i,:? i"ffïï i;;ñ,.",ì;'"i,li;",;"J:å
:p:'0,I"^il:iTþl1 ¡,å .i,J;åä;jlåi,ä#:iì#:;j':"îliJll,J:
il:,TT:åi"','nîll, _î".": l:"t:i:;i¡.1Ë t:"Ë*
i,.,:::,":äÌfi ;J
a)
il""¡;,:iï?:ì",llT"gï:^_i,,^.,:i,"^9.^ll jl:,,0:n91 ;t¡-;h"til;ï""';"".;
Check Level (CL) -50yo of the Suspension Level;
:8"ïJj,,,.ji:'fl;
b) Alert Levet (AL)- 70 % of the Suspension Level; i:fåi:;1! the lljii_:f,,11:iiilîs^:fç3l;F,ãtËrr,äiitnä';ï'JIJ,äJilä::;il
rikery trend or thË ;å;ài;s, tó tne eno
"ï:: il?,1,,iilli:illj
3i'.""::::""r "r
inã *"lll åÏ:ffiff:l';.i!".'i."ii:;i:i:
c) suspension Lever (sL) - the rimiting varue ailowed in the design.
7'8'2 lf the sL is reached, the related part of the works
should immediately be made safe and all
7'6'3 Separate AL and SL values should be set for both positive and
negative readings, where
other works in that area stoppec, penãing
the outcome oi *i"*.
construótioà srrouro not proceed
appropriate These should include appropriate allowances for backgrounã until proper remedial actions'ánd n"-".."ry measures are put in prace.
tolerances etc.
reading fluctuations, safety and robustness and entirely"it i"moue the possibirity iË;
Ãäu" to fury ensure
or exceeding the
ñ;;;i. sL.
Methods to
7'6'4 The following should be taken into consideration when establishing the ;:i$il'jl1":'.",Ë:t,;l:*tjH:
exðess roaos ài shr urd ú
p"; ãr in" remediar and
SL:
a) Limits as given in relevant codes and regulations; 7'8'3 The review should include full analyses with justifications
monitored behaviour to assess ano cr¡áct and design validation with actual
on l-"qriràÀånir'ror. stability of the excavations and
b) Limiting loads and/or defrections in structurar members; construction works' and to ensure
that all minimum ro¡irìr"tion factoré, lo"à
factors, incruding robustness consioeràt¡ons t"àtor. and safety
of suppã.t,.é ;t;"r, are adequatery
c) Limits on movement of the ground, surfaces, utilities or structures; met.
7'8'4 The back-analysis should be carried out to
reflect the actual construction sequence
d) Limits on water levels and/or pressures. monitored behaviour. rt shourd not
to.rr"-tiitrõãì*.il
be rim¡ted and
defrections.
7.6.5 A limit on the lowering of water table outside the excavation should be set to minimise 7.8.4.1 The review of the design
assumptions sho
consolidation which, alone or in combination with other expected used, soil parameters, wallstiffnãss,
movements, could result in a coñstruction seq
settlement SL being exceeded. recorded pore water pressure
actual surcharges i

|e_1i.gjons
made in the back_an V.¡, .hoirO not be
7'6'6 Upper limits should be set for water pressures below the base of the excavation for each iustification and substantiation i åli .n"ìg"s
results of field or laboratory adopt
excavation stage such that design assumptions or parameters including tests or ev¡àence from construction records.
hydrauliã ultit, to" stability
and piping should not be invalidaied or staòility in any otner moãe
impaired. 7'8'4'2 lf a back-analysis is
carried out for one area of a site that results
rnade to anv asþect of in major changes being
the moderrin! tnËnìn"."rå.i"ng"r'À""u"
other areas of the site to be made to t-he anaryses for a,
where tne simllår conO¡t¡on. apply.

42
43
 TR 26
TR 26 t2010 =2010

c) The necessary safety precautions are taken and enforced when such work is being carried out.
Section Eight - Safety of construction

and should be prioritised when planning

8.4 Site inspection
safety of construction personnel is of paramount importance
any excavation works. Before any work commences, the site should be examined for signs of cave-ins, failure of earth
retaining systems, toxic or hazardous substances or atmospheres.
should not be left to the builder or the
The management of risks and hazards of excavation works
be addressed right at the beginning of the
workprace Safety ano Hãann officer twsHo) bui snouro lnspections should be carried out as follows:
design stage.
Daily and before work commences;

8.1 Risk assessment When there are tension cracks, sloughing, undercutting, water seepage or bulging, or when
the soil is disturbed;
Management).Regulations, a risk
ln accordance with the workptace safety and Health.,(Ri:k
posed by the excavation works'
assessment should be conducted to assessihe risk When the size, location or placement of the spoil heap changes;
to excavation works should be done and
starting from the design stage, a risk assessment specific - When any movement of the adjacent structures is noticed;
the controt ."rrrr", ã"term'íned to reduce ine rist<.
Îhe obligation to reduce the risk should be upon
the person who creates the risk' When movement of the retaining structure is beyond expected reading;
to, the possible worst case scenarios such as:
The hazards identified should ìnclude, but not be limited After every rainstorm or seismic activity.

CollaPse of excavated sloPe; Any possible signs of cave-ins, failure of earth retaining systems, toxic or hazardous substances or
atmospheres should be thoroughly investigated before any work can commence.
Failure or damage of soil retaining structure;
Site personnel responsible for the daily site inspections should be adequately trained to identify
Damage of suPPorting structure; possible signs of slope failure or failure of structural support.

Flooding;
8.5 Verification of s¡te findings with designer
Damage to surrounding structures'
be reduced to an acceptable level Often, site personnel are endangered in excavation works because the design intent, assumptions
ln assessing the risks of the hazards identified, the risk shouldshould be implemented in the course and excavation methods are not verified with the designer. This could lead to a failure of the
through proposed measures and these control measures excavation site, resulting in accidents.
of the work.
"ônìrãL
To ensure a safe excavation, the person in charge of excavation should:
a change of the design or in the scope of
The Risk Assessment should be reviewed in the event of
works. Confirm design intent with the designer.

Confirm assumptions to be verified on site with the designer.

8.2 Risk registrY
The verification of the assumptions is usually done through instrumentation readings which
the information made available to the
The risk assessment should be kept in a risk register and should be obtained on a regular basis and submitted to the designer for verification.
should be included in the risk register to
builder. Vital information on safety, design "nã .oñttruction
to the parties involved'
enable effective communication oirisks a-nd hazards Confirm excavation method with the designer.

The person in charge of excavation should follow the step-by-step procedure as agreed with
8.3 Permit-to-excavate the designer for excavation to ensure safety of the site and hence construction personnel.

(construction) Regulations: clause 10' a permit-

ln accordancewith theworkplace Safety and Health Confirm inspection findings with the designer if any sign of soil or structure failure is observed.
commencement of the excavation to ensure
to-excavate system sñould óe implemented before the
that: Confirm instrumentation readings with designer to ensure they are within the allowable limits.

The excavation work can be carried out with due regard

to the safety and health of the
a)
workers;
with such work and the precautions they
b) The workers are informed of the hazards associated
have to take;

45
44
TR 26 | 2010 TR 26 :201O

8.6 Training and supervision Annex A

Allworkers on an excavation site should be trained and supervised during their course of work.

The training programme should include, but not be limited to:

Guidance on descriptions and weathering classifications

Safe methods of excavation;

A.l General
ldentification of hazards related to the use of excavation plant and equipment;
4.1.1 This Annex provides guidance on the various ways of describing and classifying weathered
rocks as outlined in BS 5930 : 1999. lt is intended to ensure consistent apþlication of g-S S;9SO, but not
Use of personal protective equipment (PPE);
to change any requirement of the Standard. Reference should also be made to 'The description and
classification of weathered rocks for engineering purposes', Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology,
Emergency procedures.
?e_, ?07 -242
(1995), for further details of the wor<ing party report that was used in-the prefarationãi
BS 5930:1999.
Employers have to take reasonably practicable steps to ensure a safe working environment for their
workers and that workers are adequately prepared for their course of work.
4.1.2 All site investigation work should comply with the current version of BS 5930.

4.1.3 Personnel: The soil and rock descriptions which appear on final bore logs should be prepared
by a geologist, engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer and based on inspection of the
samples retrieved, driller's logs, site supervisor's records, in-situ tests, laboratory tests and laboratory
descriptions. See also Section 17 on Personnelfor Ground lnvestigation, BS s930 : 199g.

4.2 Background
4.2.1 Before the Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) projects in 1983, the weathering classiflcation system in
Singapore closely followed Public Works Depaftment (PWD) standards whicñ were based on ttre gS
standards and proposals made by the Geological Society Engineering Group Working party in 1970
(Anon 1970). However, a simplified weathering classification system was developed-in 1gB3 forthe
first Phase of MRT and became general use. At the enO of 2001learly 2002, weathering
classifications based on BS 5930 :1999 came into use.

4.3 Description and classification of rocks

4.3.1 All samples of rocks have to be fully described and classified as outlined in Section 6 of BS
5930. lt provides different approaches for classifying material scale weathering in rocks. These are
Approach 2 (for rocks that are moderately strong or stronger in a fresh state), Ãpproach 4 (rocks that
are moderately weak or weaker in a fresh state) or Approach 5 (special cases such as karstj.

4.3.2 The factual description of the material, including comments on weathering, in Approach 1 in
Table 19 of BS 5930 :1999 shoutd be foilowed in all cases.

4.3.q Weathering grade classifications at a material scale should be shown on the borelog. These
classifications should be based on Approach 2 (Bukit Timah granite, Gombak norite anã Jurong
formation) and Approach 4 (Old alluvium), as seen in Table 19 of BS 5930. There should be nó
attempt to assess heterogeneous mass classifications (Approach 3) on the borehole records.

4.4 Basis for assessing mater¡al scale weathering classifications for rocks
in Singapore
4.4.1 Table 4.1 gives a description of the soils and rock types in relation to their geological origins.

46
 TR 26 : 2010

TR 26 : 2010
past decades, various systems for
A.4.2 Table A.2 gives rock weathering classificatron. Over the
in use. Reference should be made
Table A.1 - Description of soil and rock types the classification of thã weathering of thé old alluvium have been
systems.
to the corresponding reports for the basis of the classification
General descriPtion Geological formation
Notations Soiland rock classification
types
(PWD,1976) Table A.2 - Rock weathering
Sandy, sometimes silty' wltn Kallang Littoral, PossiblY also Gharacteristics
Beach Geological Grade/ Glass Glassification
B
gravels, coral and shells part of att other members &
(Littoral) Tekong notations
SI&GI Fresh Unchanged from original state

Kallang Transitional, PossiblY sil & Gll il Slightly weathered Slight discoloration, slight weakening
E Estuarine Peats, PeatY and organlc
part of Alluvial and Marine Considerably weakened, penetrative
(Transitional) clays, organic sands silr & Glll ll ModeratelY
weathered discoloration, large pieces cannot be
broken by hand
Sands, siltY sands' sllts ano Kallang Alluvial, PossiblY Part
F Fluvial
of all other members and SIV & GIV IV Highly weathered Large pieces cannot be broken by hand,
(Alluvial) clays doeè not readily disaggregate (slake)when
Tekong
dry sample is immersed in water
CompletelY Considerably weakened, slakes, original
PredominantlY granutar sotts Bed of Alluvial Member of SV&GV V
F1 weathered texture apparent
including siltY sands, claYeY Kallang
Residualsoil Soil derived by in-situ weathering but
sands and sandY silts SVI & GVI VI
retaining none of the original texture or
fabric
Cohesive soils including stttY Bed of Alluvial Member of
F2 Kallang OA A Unweathered Original strength, colou r, fr""t!t"j!99'n9-
clays, sandY claYs and claYeY
silts OB B Partially weathered Slightly reduced strength, slightly clos.er .

traóture spacing, weathering penetrating in

from fractures, brown oxidation
Very soft to soft blue or greY Kallang Marine Member'
M Marine Further weakened, much closer fracture
clay oc c Distinctly weathered
spacing, grey reduction

Old alluvium Destructured Greatly weakened, mottled, ordered

o Old alluvium Very weak to weak beds oÏ
sandstone and mudstone'
See Table 4.5 for weathering
classification
A colluvial dePosit of boulders
FC Fort Canning
in a soil matrix. The matrix is
boulder bed
t
(also known as
S3, bouldery
clay or boulder
bed)
the Jurong formation.
Sandstones, siltstones'
S Sedimentaries
mudstones, conglomerate and
(rocks &
associated limestone. The rock has been
subiected to a varying degree
soils)
of metamorPhism. See Table
4.4 for weathering
classification.
Not shown in GeologY of
SingaPore, PWD (1976)
ial
of
Jurong, Tengah, Rimau' AYer
Chawan and Queenstown
Facies (and Pandan
Limestone, which was not
identified in GeologY of
SingaPore, PWD (1976))
OD D
lithoreiics in matrix becoming weakened
and disordered, bedding disturbed
OE E Residualsoil Matrix with occasional altered random or
'apparent' lithorelics, bedding destroyed.
Classed as re-worked when foreign
inclusions are present as a result of
transportation
A.4.3 Tables A.3 to A.5 for classifying weathered rocks provide the basis for establishing
the case that all of the
weathering descriptions under BS 5930: tõgg. However, it is not necessarily
weatherin! grades will be present at a particular location'
4.5 Bukit Timah gran¡te and Gombak norite
granite in Australia' and
A.5.1 Approach 2 follows the system originally devised by lr/oye in 1955 for
igneous rocks of Bukit Timah
which has ¡een u.ej'iãiràny years tor!ãn¡te ¡n Hong'Kong. The
gr"nit" and Gombak norite snoulâ be described using Approach 2 for classification'

Granitic rocks, including Bukit Timah granite

G Granite (rock
and associated oranodiorite, adamellite and
residual soils) ãranite. See Table A.3 for
úeathering classification'

49
48
 TR 26 2010
TR 26 12010 =

A.5.2 The Geotechnical Engineering Office (GEO) in Hong Kong produced a list of simple indicators A.6.4 For Approaches 4 and 5, reference should be made to BS 5930
for the assessment of weathering grades in Hong Kong. A slightly amended version is given in Table
Table A.4 - Jurong formation
4.3. These indicators may also be used in the igneous rocks of Singapore, which have a similar
strength when fresh.
Weathering classification for Jurong formation
A.5.3 lt is particularly important to distinguish between grades lll, lV, V and Vl, where present, as
Grade I Basis for assessment
there is a significant difference in the engineering behaviour of each of these grades. Typically, the
weathered granite in Singapore has a thick mantle of residual soil, with only limited Grade V and/or I lntact strength, unaffected by weathering
Grade lV materials below the residual soil. ln order to identify these during site investigation, careful il slighfly weakened, slight discolouration, particularly along joints.
and closer sampling has to be carried out once the SPT value reaches 30 blows/300 mm. The
'Classifiers' are provided in BS 5930 (see Table 4.2). ll Considerably weakened & discoloured, but larger pieces_cannot be broken
¡V nân¿. (R'ock euality Designation, RQD is generally >0, but RQD should
Bukit Timah granite and Gombak norite nôt be used as the major criterion for assessment).
Table A.3 -
IV
Weathering classification for Bukit Timah granite and Gombak norite

Grade Basis for assessment

lntact strength, unaffected by weathering. Not broken easily by hammer-
Grade lV (does not slake).
rings when struck. No visible discolouration.
V Rockweathered down to soil-like material, but bedding intact. Material
I Not broken easily by hammer - rings when struck. Fresh rock colours slakes in water.
generally retained but stained near joint surfaces. Bedding destroYed
VI
il Cannot be.broken by hand. Easily broken by hammer. Makes a dullor
slight ringing sound when struck with hammer. Stained throughout.
V Core can be broken by hand. Does not slake in water. Completely
A.7 Old alluvium
discoloured.
A.7.1 The old alluvium is an alluvial deposit tha
V Original rock texture preserved, can be crumbled by hand. Slakes in
water. Completely discoloured.
VI Original rock structure completely destroyed. Can be crumbled by hand.
boreholes.

4.6 Jurong formation A.7.2 lt is common practice in Singapore to use the blow count from SPT testing as an
indicator of
weathering classification. lt has to be understo
4.6.1 The Jurong formation includes a variety of sedimentary rocks that have been subjected to a than weatñering. These other factors would incl
variable degree of metamorphism. Where observed, such evidence of metamorphism has to be and the equipment and method used for the te
described on the borehole record. ln some cases, it is appropriate to use a term indicating a values for different weathering grades, althou
metamorphic rock, rather than a sedimentary rock, in the Jurong formation i.e. quartzite rather than assessment of both SPT and careful inspection
sandstone. correlation with SPTs should be confirmed by com
old alluvium. Care has to be taken in the SPT
4.6.2 The engineering properties are affected by factors such as lithology, stress history, degree of classification should not be based on SPT alone'
CPT may be du-"-tg
cementation/lithifaction and degree of metamorphism or silicifTcation. The degree of weathering is found in the weathered old alluvium, and very high SPT values or refusal of the
a sudden drop in SPT
therefore only one factor in assessing the engineering properties of the ground. lt is essential that the hárdpan rather than ã ðn"ng" in weathering !raoé. Conversely, there may be
which is not full of stabilising fluid'
description of the material covers all observablefeatures, as required in the BS 5930: 1999, and not blow count if a tayer of unifõrm sand is encãüntered in a borehole
is little evidence of joints in the old
just weathering. Unlike the Bukit fimán iranite or the Jurong formation, there
penetrated as a discernible front from the surface'
alluvium. As a result, thã weathering has typically
It is therefore unlikeiy that there w¡ìi oe móre *êåt'ered beds under less weathered beds.hole is
other
A.6.3 The rocks of the Jurong formation exhibit a wide range of strength in the fresh state, and
jìven the cause of a sudden drop in SPT as the
weather in different ways. The generally weak mudrocks weather in a way that is best described by factors, such as tnosé above, are likely to be
Approach 4, while the stronger sandstones and conglomerates weather in a way similar to Approach advanced.
2. Where the rock is thinly bedded, which is the case in much of the formation, it is considered
impractical to apply different approaches. Approach 2 will thus be used for the classification of Jurong
formation wherever it is thinly bedded, and in all cases to sandstone, quartzite, siltstone, shale and
conglomerate. The formation also includes the pandan limestone. Where mudstone or pandan
limestone is predominant in an area, then Approach 4 may be used for the mudstone and Approach 5
for the limestone. The methods for assessing the weathering grade under Approach 2 are given in
Table 4.4.

51
50
 TR 26 :2010
TR 26 i2010

Old alluvium
Annex B
Table A.5 -
Weathering classification for old alluvium
Glassification of brickwork or masonry building damage

Table 8.1 - classification of visible damage to walls with particular reference to ease of repair
of plaster and brickwork or masonry
Slightly reduced strength

Normal Description of tYPical damage

degree of (Ease of repair is in italics)
Greatly weakened, often
mottled, bedding disturbed
severity
NOTE - Crack width is only one factor in assessing 'normal degree of severity'
or establishing the 'category of damage' and should not be used on its own as
a direct measure of it.

* NOTE The SPT values should not be used in isolation to assess weathering' Negligible Hairline cracks less than about 0.1mm.
-
Very slight Fine cracks which are easily treated during normal decoration. Damage
generally restricted to internal wall finishes. Close inspection may reveal
4.8 Fort Canning boulder bed ãome cracks in external brickwork or masonry. Typical crack widths up to
1mm.
A.8.1 The material underlying much of the south
Sl ght Cracks easily filled. Re-decorat
be masked by suitable linings.
re-pointing may be required
windows may stick slightlY. TYP
Moderate can be patched bY a mason.
a small amount of brickwork to
'S4'. The material is termed as 'Fort Canning b Service pipes maY fracture.
boulder bed) should be inserted in brackets and rack widths are 5 to 15mm or
Formation can be identified with confidence' several greater than 3mm.

A.8.2 S4a and b were terms originally introdu Severe

residual soil of the Jurong formation' but which
bed. ln some locations the material so describe
characteristic quartzite boulders. ln other locatio
dense materials are encountered above what
material, then the samples should be examined c Very severe This requires a major repair job involving partial or com.plete rebuilding'
or alluvial. lf the material is clearly colluvial, it ca Beams lbse bearing, walls tean Oadty and require shoring. Windows broken
alluvial, it can be classified as old alluvium' lf no cl with distortion. Danger of instability. Typical crack widths are greater than
be described following Approach 1 stipulated in BS 5930 : 1999. 25mm but depend on the number of cracks.

* NOTE Local deviation of slope, from the horizontal or vertical, of more than 1/1 00 will normallY be clearlY
-
visible. Overall deviations in excess of 1/1 50 are undesirable'

53
52
 TR 26 :2010
TR 26
=2010

Annex C 17) Goh, A. T. C. (1994). Estimating basal-heave stability for excavations in soft clay. J.
Geotech. Eng., 120(8), 1430-1436.

18) Goh, A. T. C., Wong, K. S., Teh, C.1., and Wen, D. (2003). Pile response adiacent to braced
I nformative references excavations. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, vol.
12e(4),383-386.

Attewell, Yeates and Selby (1996). Soil movements induced by tunnelling and their effects re) Goh, A. T. C., Teh, C. l. and Wong, K. S. (1996). Ihe response of vertical piles to ground
f ) movements from adjacent braced excavations. Proceedings of the 12th Southeast Asian
on pipetines and structures. Blackie and Sons, London'
Geotechnical Conference, Kuala Lumpur, May 1996, vol. 1, 403409.
2) Batten, M., Powrie, w., Boorman, R., Yu, H.T. and Leiper, o. (1999). lJse of vibrating wire
strain gauges fo rneas ure loads in tubutar steel props suppofting deep retaining walls. 20) Guidetines for the use of advanced numerical analysis. Thomas Telford (2002). Edited by
proceedings of the lnstitution of Civil Engineers - Geotechnical Engineering, 137, No. 1, 3- Potts, D., Axelsson, K., Grande, L., Schweiger, H. and Long, M.
13.
21) Hanna, T. H. (1985). Field instrumentation in geotechnical engineering. Trans Tech
3) Bjerrum, L., and Eide, O. (1956). Stabitity of strutted excavations in clay. Geotechnique, Publications, Clausthal-Zellerfeld, Federal Republic of Germany.
6(1),32-47.
22) Holmes, G., Roscoe, H. and Chodorowski, 4., (2005) Construction monitoring of cut and
4) Bolton, M.D. (November 1996). Geotechnica! design of retaining wal/s. The Structural cover tunnels. Proceedings of the lnstitution of Civil Engineers - Geotechnical Engineering,
Engineer, Volume 74, No.21. 158, No. 4,187-196.

5) Boone, S.J., Westland, J. and Nusink, R. (1999). Comparative evaluation of building 23) Japan Jet Grout Association (August 1997). Jet grout (Column iet- Technique materials),
responses to an adjacent braced excavation. Can. Geotech' J. 36: 210-223. 6th edition.

6) Boscardin, M.D. and Cording, E.G. (1989). Buitding response to excavation-induced and 24) Long, M. (2001). Database for retaining wall and ground movements due to deep
settlement. Journal Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, vol 1 l5' excavations. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol
127, No. 3 pp203-224.
7) Bracegirdle, 4., Mair, R.J., Nyren, R.J. and Taylor, R'N. (1996)'
evatuãting the potential damage to buried cast iron pipes from 25) Mair, R.J., Taylor, R.N. and Burland, J.B. (1996). Prediction of ground movements and
from tunnetting. lnternational Symposium on Geotechnical assessmenf of risk of buitding damage due to bored tunnelling.lnternational Symposium on
Construction in Soft Ground, London. GeotechnicalAspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground, London.

8) Burland, J.8., Broms, B.B. and De Mello, v.F.B. (1977). Behaviour of foundations and 26) Mana, A.l. & Clough, G.W. (1981). Prediction of movements for braced cuts in clay. Journal
structures. proceedings of the 9th lnt Conference of Soil Mechanics and Foundation of Geotechnical Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol 107, pp759-777.
Engineering, Tokyo.
27) NAVFAC DM-7.2 (1982). Foundations and eafth structures. U.S. Navy Naval Facilities
e) Chang, J.D. and Wong, K. S. (April 1996). Apparent pressure diagram for braced excavation Engineering Command.
¡n soít'ctay with aiap'ntragm ùa'tt. Proceedings of Conference on Geotechnical Aspects of
Underground Construction in Soft Ground, London. 28) Ong, D. E. L., Leung, C. F. and Chow, Y. K. (2002). Pile behaviorduetoexcavation-induced
soit movements in ctay. l: Stable wall. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
10) CIRIA C58O (2003) - Embedded retaining walls - Guidance for economic design' Engineering, ASCE, 132(1), 36-44.

11) ctRtA 104 (1984) - Design of retaining walls embedded in stiff clay. 2s) Poulos, H. G. and Chen, L. T. (1997). Pile response due to excavation-induced lateral soil
movements. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 123(2),94-
oo
12) Dunnicliff, J. (1gBB). Geotechnical instrumentation for monitoring field per-formance' John
Wiley.
30) Potts, D. (2003). Numerical analysis: A viñual dream or practical reality? Rankine lecture.
13) Defence science and Technology Agency (2009), Geotogy of singapore, 2nd Edition. Geotechnique 53, No.6, pp 535-573.

14) Eide, O., Aas, G., and Josang, f . (972). Special apptications of cast-in-place walls for 31) Public Works Department (1976), Geology of the Republic of Singapore.
tunnels in soft ctay in Osto. Pub.9l. Norwegian Geotechnical lnstitute, Oslo, 63-72'
32) Puller, M. (2003). Deep excavafions - A practicat manual. Thomas Telford, London, 2nd
15) Finno, R. J., Lawrence, S.4., Allawah, N. F., and Harahap, l.S.(1991) Analysis of Edition.
pertoimance of pite g'roups adjacent to deep excavations. Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, ASCE, 1 17 (6), 934-955' 33) Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology,28,207 - 242 (1995).

16) GCO publication No. 1190 Revlew of design methods for excavatL'ons. Geotechnical
Engineering Office, Civil Engineering Department, Hong Kong'

55
54
 TR26:2010
TR 26 i2010

Feedback Form
tunnelting: Predictions and
34) Rankin, w.J. (1988) Ground movements resulting from urban
Edited by F'G' Bell' M'G'
effects. ln engineering geology otf underground movemenfs'
cotshaw, J.c. öripps, ãnã rr¡.nliove¡. Geotogy society, London, pp.79 -92. To Head
Standardisation DePartment
of temporary prop SPRING SingaPore
35) Richards, D.J., Holmes, G. and Beadman, D.R., (1999) \e-asyrgment
toads at Mayfair car park. eroceeoings of in" lnstiìution'of Civil Engineers- Geotechnical 2 Bukit Merah Central
Singapore 159835
Engineering, 137, No. 3,165-174'
New York' E-mail
Tezaghi, K. (1943). Theoreticalsoil mechanics. John wiley & sons,
stn@spring.gov.sg
36) :

37) Tezaghi and Peck (1967) Soilmechanics in engineering practice

by John Wiley' Fax- : (65) 62786990

of deep basements
3g) The lnstitution of structural Engineers (2004). Design and construction
Technical Reference for deep excavation
i n ct ud i n g cut-a n d-cove r stru ctu re s'

computers for engineering Specific: (Please use the format below)

39) The lnstitution of structural Engineers, uK (Mar 2002) The use of
calculations.
S/No Glause no. in Comments (To be suPPorted Proposed changes
40) Twine, D and Roscoe H, (1999), Temporary propping of deep
excavations - Guidance on the TR with reasons)
' design CIRIA publication C517' ClRlA, London'

excavations' Proc' 3rd

41) wqng, K. s., and Goh, A.T.C. (2002). Basal he^ave stability for wide Toulouse, 699-
Ground,
tnt. Symp. c"ìi""ñ.-Á.pácts oì unããrground Construction ¡n Soft
704.
(2007).
42) Workplace safety and Health (construction) Regulations
General:

Submitted by : Name (SPelt in full)

ComPanY
Designation
Postaladdress
Tel no.
Fax no.
E-mail

57
56
TR 26 | 2010

ABOUT SPRING SINGAPORE

SPRING Singapore is the enterprise development agency for growing innovative companies and
fostering a competitive SME sector. We work with partners to help enterprises in financing,
capabilities and management development, technology and innovation, and access to markets. As the
national standards and accreditation body, SPRING also develops and promotes internationally-
recognised standards and quality assurance to enhance competitiveness and facilitate trade.

SPRING Singapore
2 Bukit Merah Central
Singapore 159835
Tel: 6278 6666
Fax:6278 6667
E-mail: queríes@spring. gov.sg
Website: http://www.sprin g. gov. sg

ABOUT THE NATIONAL STANDARDISATION PROGRAMME

Under the national standardisation programme, SPRING Singapore helps companies and industry to
meet international standards and conformity requirements by creating awareness of the importance of
standardisation to enhance competitiveness and improve productivity, co-ordinating the development
and use of Singapore Standards and setting up an information infrastructure to educate companies
and industry on the latest developments.

SPRING Singapore is vested with the authority to appoint a Standards Council to advise on the
preparation, publication and promulgation of Singapore Standards and Technical References and
their implementation.

Singapore Standards are in the form of specifications for materials and products, codes of practice,
methods of test, nomenclature, services, etc. The respective standards committee will draw up the
standards before seeking final approval from the Standards Council. To ensure adequate
representation of all viewpoints in the preparation of Singapore Standards, all committees appointed
consist of representatives from various interest groups which include government agencies,
professional bodies, tertiary institutions and consumer, trade and manufacturing organisations.

Technical References are transition documents developed to help meet urgent industry demand for
specifications or requirements on a particular product, process or service in an area where there is an
absence of reference standards. Unlike Singapore Standards, they are issued for comments over a
period of two years before assessment on their suitability for approval as Singapore Standards. All
comments are considered when a technical reference is reviewed at the end of two years to
determine the feasibility of its transition to a Singapore Standard. Technical References can
therefore become Singapore Standards after two years, continue as Technical References for further
comments or be withdrawn.

ln the international arena, SPRING Singapore represents Singapore in the lnternational Organisation
of Standardisation (lSO), the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation (APEC) Sub-committee for
Standards and Conformance (SCSC) and in the ASEAN Consultative Committee on Standards and
Quality (ACCSO). The Singapore National Committee of the lnternational Electrotechnical
Commission which is supported by SPRING Singapore, represents Singapore in the lEC.

58