Ground movements caused by

different embedded retaining wall

construction techniques
by DRCarder

Ij ThE DEPARThIENT
OFTRANSPORT TRL Report 172
OfC
The Transport Research Laboratory is the largest and most comprehensive centre for the study of
surface land transport in the United Kingdom. TRL provides research-based technical assistance to
help set standards in all aspects of surface transport, improve safety and the environment, and
encourage good transport practice for the benefit of both the public and private sectors, and
hence ultimately for society as a whole

As a national transport research laboratory, TRL operates world-wide and has developed close working
links with many other international transport centres

TRL is a non-profit distributing company whose customers include central government, local and
regional authonties, consultants, industry (construction, infrastructure owners, operators, automotive),
foreign governments and international aid agencies

TRL employs over 500 people, including 380 technical specialists, many with higher degrees
and Doctorates. Facilities include a state-of-the-art driving simulator, various indoor impact test
facilities, a 3 8 km test track, a separate self-contained road network, a structures hail, an Intelligent
Transport Systems Centre, an acoustics room and many other laboratones Numerous mobile off-site
test facilities, data collection devices and specialised vehicles are also employed to support research,
consuitancy and advice.

The Laboratory's pnmary objective is to work closely with its customers to carry out commissioned
research, investigations, studies and tests to the highest levels of quality, reliability and impartiality
TRL cames out its work in such a way as to ensure that customers receive results that not only meet
the project specification or requirement but are also geared to rapid and effective implementation

Transport Research Foundation Group of Compames

Transport Research Foundation (a company limited by guarantee) trading as Transport Research Laboratoly
Registered in England, Number 3011746 TRL Limited Registered in England, Number 3142272
Regictered Office Oid Wokingham Road, Crowthorne, Berkshire RG45 6AU

'cc
ThANSPORT RESEARCH LA3ORATOIRY
An Executive Agency of the Department of Transport

TTt]L REIPORT 172

GROUND MOVEMENTS CAUSED 3Y DIIFIFERENT EM1EDDED

RJETAI[MNG WALL CONSTRUCTI[ON TECHMQUES

by D R Carder

This report describes work conmtissioinied by the 3 ridges Engineering Division of the
lHlighways Agency nuder ]ESS2CII3G, Evailluiation of ObservatioimaJ! Method in Embedded
Retaiiniiinig Wall! amid Cut-and Cover ¶luuunniel Construction.

Crown Copyright 1995. Reproduced by permission of the Controller of HMSO. The contents of this report are the
responsibility of the author(s) and the Chief Executive of TRL They do not necessarily represent the views or
policies of the Department of Transport. The Transport Research Laboratory is no longer an Executive Agency of the
Department of Transport as ownership was transferred to a subsidiary of the Transport Research Foundation on
lstApnl 1996.

Transport Research Laboratory Highway Agency

Old Wokinghani Road St Christopher House
Crowthorne, Berkshire, RG45 6AU Southwark Street, London SE1 OTE

1995
ISSN 0968-4107
CONTENTS

Page

Executive Summary 1

Abstract 3
1 Introduction 3

2. Methodology 3

3. Walls founded in stiff clay and instrumented

byTRL 4
3.1 Surface ground movements caused
by wall installation 4

3.1.1 Boredpilewalls 4

3 1.2 Diaphragm walls 6

3 2 Movements caused by excavation

mfrontofthewall 8

4. General experience with walls founded

in stiff clay 10

4.1 Surface ground movements caused

by wall installation 10

4.2 Movements caused by excavation

infrontofthewall 10

5. General expenence with walls founded

in other soil types 14

5 1 Surface ground movements caused

by wall installation 14

5 2 Movements caused by excavation

in front of the wall 17

6. Summary and conclusions 19

7. Acknowledgements 19

8. References 19

'I
EXECUTT[VE SUMMAIY

Increasing emphasis in the design and construction of 0.04% of the pile depth for contiguous piling to 0.11% of
embedded retaining walls is being placed on the Observa- the trench depth for counterforted diaphragm walls In
tional Method where immediate feedback from monitoring general, maximum settlements were about half of the
is used to modify the design and construction procedures to horizontal movements and in all cases the zone of possible
provide more economic structures. The essentials of the movement was considered to extend to no more than 1 5
Method include establishing the limits of behaviour which times the trench/pile depth.
are acceptable together with predictions of the most prob-
able behaviour and contingency plans if momtonng reveals A summary of the magnitude and extent of horizontal and
behaviour is outside acceptable limits For this reason vertical movements at ground and wall surface caused by
likely patterns of wall and ground movements need to be excavation in front of walls founded in stiff clay is given.
identified in advance at the design stage. The only source of Final recommended upper bound values of honzontal sur-
this data, other than from numerical analysis, is from face movement were 0.125%, 0.2% and 0.4% of the exca-
previous case history studies. vation depth depending on whether high, moderate or low
stiffness support was used during bulk excavation. Upper
In this report, a database has been established from meas- bound values of surface settlement varied between 0.1%
urements of ground and wall movements at sites where and 0.2% of the excavation depth over the same range of
bored pile and diaphragm retaining walls were being used support conditions. Generally the extent of possible move-
for the construction of retained cuttings, cut-and-cover ments was up to 4 times the excavation depth. With top-
tunnels and deep basements. Results were obtained from a down construction in particular, the maximum horizontal
large numberof instrumented highway andbuildmg schemes movement of the wall during bulk excavation is not likely
in the UK and also, where they are considered relevant to to be measured at the top. The magnitude of this movement
UK practice, from elsewhere in the world. The variation of and the depth at which it occurs is investigated
surface ground movements with distance during wall in-
stallation and bulk excavation are separately reported. Although data on embedded wall construction in ground
conditions other than stiff clay are not so abundant, the
Movements of the ground surface due to wall installation in magnitude of measured surface settlements was found to be
stiff clay vaned according to the construction technique particularly variable
employed. Maximum horizontal movements ranged from

1
Page blank
in original
GIOUND MOVEMENTS CAUSIEI IY IIIIFFEIJENT
EMEIDIDEIfl 1RETAI[NIENG WALL CONSTIUCTI[ON
TECIE]INI[QILJJES

A3ST1ACT In this report a database has been established from the

monitored movements at schemes where retained cuttings,
A database has been established of the pattern of ground cut-and-cover tunnels and deep basements were being
and wall movements measured at sites where bored pile and constructed using embedded retaimng walls. This database
diaphragm retaining walls were being used for the con- includes results from a large number of highway and
struction of retained cuttings, cut-and-cover tunnels and building schemes instrumented by TRL and others in the
deep basements. Results were obtained from a large number UK and also, where they are considered relevant to UK
of instrumented highway and building schemes inthe UK practice, results from elsewhere in the world. The latter
and also, where they are considered relevant to UK prac- were the subject of earher reviews by Peck (1969) and
tice, from elsewhere in the world. The variation of surface Clough and O'Rourke (1990).
ground movements with distance during wall installation
and bulk excavation are separately reported. The zones of In addition to being an essential pre-requisite of design and
movement which develop are related to the type of wall construction using the Observational Method, the results in
construction, the ground conditions and the stiffness of the tins report are expected to be of value in assessing the
support system used during excavation in front of the wall magnitude of ground movements near to wall construction
The results are of value both in establishing the most and its effect on neighbouring buildings and buried
services.
probable movement and acceptable lmuts when using the
Observational Method to control construction and also in
assessing the effects of construction on neighbounng build-
ings and buried services.
2 MTThOI1)OLOGY
For permanent works, bored pile or diaphragm (slurry
1 1[NTIOIL)UCT1[ON trench) techmques are usually used to form walls of rein-
forced concrete. The construction procedures used for the
installation of the wall are expected to have a considerable
Increasing emphasis in the design and construction of
embedded retaimng walls is being placed on the Observa- influence on the ground movements and stress regime close
tional Method where immediate feedback from momtonng to the structure both immediately after installation and in
the longer term during underpass or cut-and-cover tunnel
is used to modify the design and construction procedures to
provide more economic structures. The principles of the construction. Forthis reason the variation of surface ground
Observational Method were first described in detail by settlements and horizontal movements with distance caused
Peck (1969). The essentials of the Method include estab- by wall installation are separately assessed following the
lishing the limits of behaviour which are acceptable to- non-dimensional method of Peck (1969), which divides
gether with predictions of the most probable behaviour and both movements and distances by the depth of augered hole
contingency plans if momtonng reveals behaviour is out- or trench. This differs from the analyses of ground move-
side acceptable linuts. ments during the subsequent stages of construction which
are treated non-dimensionally by dividing by the depth of
In momtoring embedded retaining wall behaviour, instru- excavation in front of the wall. It must be noted that only
mentation tends to concentrate on techniques for determin- cast-rn-place piles/panels fall within the scope of this study:
ing deformation and movements of the structure and ground driven piling techmques have not been included.
For this reason likely patterns of wall and ground move-
ments need to be identified at the design stage from either Embedded walls can be free standing and act as cantilevers,
numerical analysis or previous case histories. Because of supported by anchoring back, or by provision of structural
the sensitivity of analyses to the soil parameters adopted props For retained cuttings, support is often provided by a
and the difficulty in accurately modelling the complexity of permanent structural slab spanmng between the walls on
the construction sequence and the soil-structure interac- each side and cast just below carnageway level. In this case,
tion, the most reliable source of these data is generally temporary support in the form of either props or berms is
considered to be from case studies where the same construc- reqwred to prevent excessive movements when excavating
tion techmque has been used in similar ground conditions. to formation level and constructing the permanent slab. On
release of the temporary props, rotation of the wall can then

3
occur about the permanent carriageway slab. With cut-and- in stiff clay was imtiated in the early 1980's when the secant
cover tunnels the roof slab is normally designed to act as a pile walls of the cut-and-cover tunnel at Bell Common
permanent prop with construction being top-down. Top- (M25) were instrumented Since then a number of con-
down construction is also widely used in deep basement struction schemes have been instrumented and the site
construction with the floor slabs acting as permanent props. locations, wall form, construction sequence and ground
In tins report the type and effectiveness of support is related conditions are hsted in Table 1. Also given in the table are
to the surface ground movements and distances from the the source references for each site.
excavation calculated non-dimensionally by dividing by
the maximum depth of excavation m front of the wall. The For the purposes of this study only ground movement data
distance from the excavation has been taken as that from the have been extracted for the sites listed in Table 1. More
front face of the wall for the bulk excavation stage so that detailed information on other aspects such as ground and
movements at zero distance represent wall movement rather water pressures, wall bending moments, prop loads and
than ground movement. heave of the ground below excavation level can be found
from the source references.
In summaiy, wherever possible the measurements of move-
ment in the proximity of the wall were non-dimensionally 3.1 SU11FACE G1OUN1I)
evaluated for the following cases. MOVEMENTS CAUSED 1Y
o After wall installation WALL 1[NSTALLATIION
o Bored pile walls
3.1.1 Bored pile walls
o Diaphragm walls
The honzontal ground movements caused by mstallationof
o
Shortly after underpass/tunnel/basement construction bored pile walls are shown non-dimensionally in Fig 1. At
o Low stiffness support during excavation, e.g. the contiguous bored pile sites, movements were generally
cantilever, temporary props of low stiffness or small and within the indicated upper bound line. On this
at low level basis only small movements were measured at distances
o Moderate stiffness support during excavation, greater than 1.0 times the pile depth, although the possible
zone of movement extended to 1.5 times the pile depth. A
e.g. temporary props of high stiffness pnor to
permanent props at low level maximum horizontal movement of 0.04% of the pile depth
o
was measured at the ground surface close to the piles.
High stiffness support during excavation, e.g.
top-down construction, temporary props prior Also shown in Fig 1 are the results from two sites where
to permanent props at high level secant bored pile techniques were employed At Bell Com-
mon tunnel the primary piles were cased through the Older
It must be noted that movement measurements have been
Head and Claygate Beds to a depth of about 6m; secondary
separately quoted for the wall installation and the main
piles were then bored using casing to full depth with the
construction stages, i.e. overall movements have to be
cutting edge on the casing breaking out the concrete of the
obtained by summation of the two effects.
primary piles. A similar approach was used at Hackney
Because of the extensive information available from field Wick Ml 1 with primary pile casing to about 4.5m depth
through the Terrace Gravel. In both cases the magnitudes of
studies carried out by TRL (Symons and Carder, 1992;
Carder, 1994) on bored pile and diaphragm walls founded the measured movements were unexpected and outside of
in stiffclays, data from this source were separately ana- the trend of movements for contiguous bored piling. At Bell
lysed as the first phase of the study The second and third Common, approximately 30% of the surface movement
phase of the study mvolved researching a broader database during tunnel construction occurred during wall installa-
from all sources of construction m stiff clay and other tion. A maximum horizontal movement of 0.08% of the
pile depth was measured close to the piles and the zone of
ground conditions respectively and attempting correlations
with the TRL data. possible movement extended to 1.5 times the pile depth.
Unusually at Hackney Wick Ml 1, loca]ised surface move-
ments of the ground away from the piles were measured and
this was considered to be a 'displacement effect' as the full
3 WALLS I?OUNDEE lEN STI[IFF depth casing for the secondary piles could only be driven
using avery heavy oscillator. Itis worth noting that at depth
CLAY ANII IENSTIUMINTEID some lateral stress relief still occurred during pile installa-
IY TIL tion at this site, implying subsurface movement towards the
pihng.
The ongoing programme of field monitoring carried out by
Surface settlement data for the same sites are shown in Fig
TRL on the behaviour of embedded retaining walls founded
2 Generally surface settlements were much smaller than

4
 TA]B]LIE 1
BORED PILEAND DIAPHRAGM WALLS INSTRUMENTED BY TRL

SITELOCATION WALL TYPE CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE GROUND CONDITIONS SOURCE REFERENCES

(a) BORED PILEWALLS

Bell Common Secant (1 18mpiles Cut-and-cover tunnel, roof simply supported London Clay overlain by 7m Older Tedd,Chaid,Charlesand Symons(1984);
(M25) at 1 08mcentres) and acts as prop Head and Claygate Beds Symons and Tedd (1989)

Rayleigh Weir Contiguous (1 5m piles Partly excavated before using temporary London Clay overlain by 3m Darley,Carder and Alderman (1994)
(A127) at! 7mcentres) props spanning underpass, permanent prop made ground
belowcarriageway

Walthamstow Contiguous (1 5m piles Excavated below temporary props spanning London Clay overlain by 1 5m Carswell, Carderand Gent (1993),
(A406) at 1 7m centres) underpass, permanent prop below camageway made ground Watsonand Carder (1994)

Hackney Wick Secant (1 2m pilesat Excavated below temporary props spanning London Clay overlain by 5m Unpubhshed TRLdata
(Mu) 1 03mcentres,heavy underpass, permanent prop below carriageway made ground and TerraceGravels
casing oscillator used

EastofFalloden Contiguous (1 5m piles Cantilever Glacial Till underlain by London Unpublished TRLdata
Way (A406) at 2m centres), constructed Clayat 23m
under bentomte slurry

(b) DIAPHRAGM WALLS

A4061A10 T-panels (4m x 0 8m front, Excavated below temporary props spanning London Clayoverlain by 2 4m Carder,Ryleyand Symons (199!)
Junction 2 7m x 0 8m counterfort) underpass, permanent prop below carriageway made ground/sand and gravel

Walthamstow T-panels (4m x 0 8m front, Excavated below temporary props spanning London Clay to surface Carder,Carswell and Watson (1994)
(A406) 3 2m x 1 5m counterfort) underpass, permanent prop below camageway

Limehouse Link Planar panels (4 2m x 1 Om) Tunnel portal, cantilever London Clay overlain by 6m Moran and Laimbeer (1994)
made ground and Terrace Gravels

East ofFalloden Planar panels (5 Om x I Om) Cut-and-cover tunnel, propped at top Glacial Till underlain by London Unpublished TRL data
Way (A406) by integral roof Clay at2lm
 a.
VC)
C)

C
C)
E
0
E
is
C
0
N

I
0

0 05 1 15 2
Distance from pile/pile depth
Fig 1. HorIzontal surface movement during bored pile wail
installation in stiff clay

horizontal movements. This was not surpnsing as the walls As would be anticipated the potential zone of movements
mvestigated were all founded in stiff over-consolidated for the counterforted construction was larger than meas-
clays. A maximum settlement of 002% of the pile depth ured for planar construction and extended to a distance of
formed an upper bound for the contiguous bored piling about 1.0 times the trench depth. Honzontal surface move-
techniques, based mainly on data from Rayleigh Weir site. ments for planar walls only extended to a distance of 0.6
In general, settlements for contiguous bored pile walls fell times the trench depth, although this finding was based on
well within this upperbound and were only just measurable the results from only one site. Upper bound movements
at a distance of about 0.75 times the pile depth. Once again after mstallation of counterforted walls were 0 11% of the
significantly higher movements were recorded due to se- trench depth, whereas movements were below half of this
cant piling at Bell Common with maximum settlements of level for planar construction. The larger magnitude and
005% of the pile depth and the zone of movement extend- extent of surface movements dunng installation of
mg to 1.5 times the pile depth. counterforted walls was the consequence of the larger
volume of soil which had to be excavated and the longer
3.1.2 Diaphragm walls duration therefore for which trenches remained open be-
fore concreting occurred.
TRL information on movements caused by diaphragm wall
installation was only available from three construction Fig 4 shows the settlements measured at ground surface at
schemes; one of these involved construction using planar the three diaphragm wall sites. Upper bound movements
wall panels with the other two using counterforted, T- for the counterforted walls were 0.05% of the trench depth
shaped, panels. The data on horizontal ground surface and the possible zone of movement extended to a distance
movements are shown non-dimensionally in Fig 3. In the equal to the trench depth. Surface settlements at East of
case of the counterforted panels, the distances from the Falloden Way, where the diaphragm walls were planar and
trench have been deternuned with respect to the edge of the the installation was camed out under bentomte, were
main trench forming the face of the wall. For comparison hardly measurable Nevertheless, for consistency, an upper
purposes, the extent of the counterforts have also been bound line has been shown in Fig 4 with the zone of
indicated in Fig 3. movement being assumed to extend out to 06 times the
trench depth to conform with that measured for horizontal

6
 -o

Upper bound for

Contiguous piles -
•8
0 Rayleigh Weir

Wallhamstow

t004
Cl,
Upper bound for
secant piles
------0-----
East of Falloden Way

Secant piles -
Hackney Wick Mu
——.e——
Bell Common
—t&—

0 05 1 15 2
Distance from pile/pile depth

Fig 2. Surface settlement dunng bored pile wall Installation In stiff clay

002

004

0
C
2
C
0 006
E

E
0
C

I
C
0 008

01

o 12
0 02 04 06 08 1 12 14
Distance from trench/trench depth

Fig 3. HorIzontal surface movement during diaphragm wall

installation in stiff clay

7
 0

002

0.
0
0
a
C
004
C
0
E
0
0
C')

006

008
0 02 04 06 08 1 12 14
Distance from trench/trench depth

FIg 4. Surface settlement during diaphragm wall Installation In stiff clay

movements Maximum surface settlements of less than during excavation. Included in this category are results
0.01% of the trench depth would be expected. from Walthamstow, Hackney Wick Ml 1 and the A406/
AlO Junction where high level temporary steel props span-
32 MOVEMENTS CAUSED IY mng the underpasses were used, although on their release
EXCAVATION IN FRONT OF some rotations occurred about the permanent camageway
props The results for top of wall movement at Bell Com-
¶'IHUE WALL mon tunnel are marginally outside the 0.2% limit derived
for moderate stiffness support cases and this reflects the
Measured horizontal movements and settlements at the
construction procedure used. The excavation to 5m depth
ground surface caused by underpass/tunnel construction at
was unsupported pnor to construction of the roof structure
the TRL sites are shown in Figs 5and 6 respectively. When
and a 75mm thick compressible packmg was used between
the distances from the excavation are zero in these plots,
the roof beams and the thrust wall. The large settlements
movements actually represent those at the wall top rather
and horizontal movements at Bell Common, atadistanceof
than the ground surface. Results are given from datums
0.45 times the excavation depth, were outside the typical
estabhshed after wall installation and for the performance
range of behaviour and a consequence of temporary works
of both bored pile (BP) and diaphragm walls (DW). Some
in which sheetpiles were installed and propped against the
differences in performance might have been expected be-
secant piled wall to support a 3.5m deep excavation close
cause of different stress histones resulting from the various
to the wall. As anticipated, movements were well within the
wall installation techmques However other factors such as
upper bound for moderate stiffness support for the top-
the nature and effectiveness of any support during bulk
down cut-and-cover tunnel construction at East of Falloden
excavation and wall stiffness appear to dominate For
Way where the roof slab was integral with the diaphragm
example at Walthamstow where the method of temporary
support during bulk excavation was nearly identical for the walls and provided rigid support mimmismg horizontal
movements at the ground surface and top of the wall.
bored pile and diaphragm walls, very little difference in
However it was not considered appropriate to estimate a
surface horizontal movement is observed in Fig 5.
trend for top-down construction, where there is high stiff-
In Fig 5, an upper bound line has been fitted to describe the ness support during excavation, on the basis of data from
behaviour of walls which have moderate stiffness support this site alone.

8
 0

01

High stiffness support during excavation -

a) East at Fafloden Way DW
02
Upper bound with Moderate stiffness suort during excavation -
low stiffness support
—x—
Waitharnstow BP

Bell Common BP
03 ——a-—-
Hackney Wick BP
0
Waithamatow DW

04 A4061A10 Jn DW

05
'I'I'I Low stiffness support dunng excavation -
Limehouse Link DW

Rayleigh WaiF BP
—--a-—-
East of Falloden Way BP
—0—
06
0 1 2 3 4
Distance from excavation/excavation depth
Fig 5. Horizontal surface movement caused by excavation
In front of wall (stiff clay)

High stiffness support dunng excavation -

-02
--0---
East of Failoden Way DW

Moderate stiffness support dunng excavation -

—x—
Waithamstow BP

--C---
Bell Common BP

Waithamstow DW
-0 1 A
Low stiffness support during excavation -

I
a,
Rayleigh Weir BP
—--w—
East of Falloden Way BP
0 —0—
0

C
a)
E
a)
N
Upper bound with moderate
stiffness support
U,
/
01 I
I
I
d

02
0 1 2 3 4
Distance from excavation/excavation depth
Fig 6. Surface settlement caused by excavation in front of wall (stiff clay)

9
As shown in Fig 5 a horizontal movement of 0.3% of the measured at these sites are plotted non-dimensionally in
excavation depth was established as an upper bound for Fig 7. Also shown are the upper bounds of the TRL data for
walls with low stiffness support during excavation. This planar walls reproduced from Figs 3 and 4
category includes the diaphragm walls forming the ap-
proach to Limehouse Link tunnel and the bored pile wall at Fig 7a shows that, at Reading site, the magnitude of the
East of Falloden Way (A406) which were constructed as horizontal ground movements was less than that expected
cantilever walls. Results from Rayleigh Weir also fall in from TRL data. However results from New Palace Yard
this range as the walls were allowed to cantilever out to indicate that the zone of possible movement extended to a
relieve soil stresses during excavation to about 5mdepth: at greater distance of 1.5 times the trench depth. Surface
this stage temporary steel props were installed to provide settlements are shown in Fig lb. In this case, measurements
support during final excavation and construction of the at Reading were close to the upper bound from TRL data.
permanent carriageway slab. In all cases the zone of meas- However once again, the zone of measured movements at
urable horizontal movements at the ground surface ex- New Palace Yard was larger and extended to a distance of
tended out to about 4 times the maximum excavation depth. 1.5 times the trench depth Maximum movements were also
higher and corresponded to 003% of the trench depth. At
Generally, associated settlements of the ground surface New Palace Yard, Burland and Hancock (1977) report that
were very small as is shown in Fig 6. For walls with ground movements due to wall installation formed a sig-
moderate stiffness support during bulk excavation, settle- mficant part (about 50%) of the total recorded horizontal
ments were within an upper limit of 0.075% of the excava- and vertical movements. This may be due to the lOm depth
tion depth and a zone of possible movement extending to 3 of fill and gravel overlying the London Clay and the
times the excavation depth was identified. It was not presence of a deep clay layer containing frequent sand and
possible to identify separate trends for walls with high and silt partings.
low stiffness support because of the hmited data. However
movements at Rayleigh Weir and East of Falloden Way 4i MOVEMENTS CAUSED 3Y
bored pile schemes, where some cantilever behaviour was EXCAVATION IN FRONT OF
expected, were just above and just below the upper bound
for moderate stiffness support respectively. Ground sur- TIBIE WALL
face settlements for the top-down construction at East of
Nine sites were identified where movement measurements
Falloden Way diaphragm wall were hardly measurable. It
were taken during excavation in front of bored pile or
is worth noting in Fig 6 that measurements at zero distance
diaphragm walls founded in stiff clay. The data on horizon-
from the excavation, i.e. at the top of the wall, generally
tal movements at ground surface and the top of the wall
showed small heaves as a consequence of the unloading
from these sites are shown in Fig 8.
effect caused by bulk excavation in front of the wall.
The five sites which are categonsed as having high stiffness
support during excavation are either top-down construc-
tions for deep basements or are permanently or temporarily
40 GENEJAL EXFEfflENCE strutted near to the wall top during bulk excavation. Gener-
W1[TIH[ WALLS IFOUNIDEI uN ally as shown in Fig 8 the results from these five sites lie
within an upper bound with a maximum horizontal move-
STW? CLAY ment of 0.125% of the excavation depth and a zone of
movement extending to a distance of 4 times the excavation
A literature search was camed out to identify sites of depth. The possible exceptions to this are the movements
embedded retaining wall construction where field momtor- measured remotely from the walls at New Palace Yard and
mghadbeencamedout. The bored pile and diaphragm wall the YMCA which indicate that the zone of movement may
sites which were identified are listed, together with details extend beyond 4 times the excavation depth. However at
of the source references, in Table 2. Construction inground both these sites little change in the magnitude of horizontal
conditions other than stiff clay is dealt with separately in movement had occurred between distances of 2 and4times
Section 5 the excavation depth away, whereas movements would
normally be expected to reduce with increasing distance.
41I SU11FACE GROUND For this reason, a revision to the upper bound line to extend
MOVEMENTS CAUSED 1Y the movement zone for excavations with high stiffness
WALL INSTALLATION support was not considered appropriate.

Only two sites were located where surface ground move- Excavation at the remaining four sites was carned out with
ments were monitored during embedded wall installation, low stiffness support for the walls. At both Britannic House
in both cases these involved the construction of planar and Waterloo International Terminal, a large central exca-
diaphragm walls. Horizontal movements and settlements vation was made with a soil berm left munediately in front

10
 TABLE 2
BORED PILE AND DIAPHRAGM WALLS FOUNDED IN STIFF CLAY (NON-TRL)

SITELOCATION WALL TYPE CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE GROUND CONDITIONS SOURCE REFERENCES

(a) BORED PILEWALLS

British Library, Secant (0 9m piles) Top-down construction, multi-propped 21m of London Clay overlying Loxham, Simpson and Gatenby (1991)
London Woolwich and Reading Beds

Holborn Bars, Secant (0 88mpiles Supported by berm during excavation of London Clay overlain by 3m Ward (1992)
London at 0 755m centres) central area, temporary raked props installed made groundand 2 to 5m sandygravel
from top ofwall whilstpemianentslab constructed

(b) DIAPHRAGM WALLS

NewPalace Yard, Planar panels (1 Om thick) Top-down construction, multi-propped London Clay overlain by lOm Burlandand Hancock (1977), St John(1975),
London made ground/sand and gravel Simpson, O'Riordanand Croft (1979)

YMCA, London Planar panels (0 6m thick) Supported by ground anchors and multi- London Clay overlain by 7 5m St John (1975), Burland, Simpson and
proppedduring excavation made ground and gravel St John (1979)

BntanmcHouse, Planar panels (0 8m thick) Supported by berm during excavation of London Clay overlain by 2 5m Cole and Burland (1972), Burland, Simpson
London central area, temporary struts then installed sand and gravel and St John (1979)
followed by casting of strutting floor

Waterloo International Planar panels (0 8m thick) Supported by 5m berm during excavation of London Clay overlain by 8 5m Li,Nyirenda and Pickles (1992)
Terminal, London central area, temporary props then installed made ground/alluvial clay/gravel
followed by casting of permanent prop

LionYard, Planar panels (8 Sm x 0 6m) Top-down construction, multi-propped Gault Clay overlain by 3m Lings, Nash, Ng and Boyce (1991)
Cambridge made ground and gravel

NeasdenLane Underpass Planar panels (4 57mx 0 6m) Supported by 4 rows of under-reamed anchors London Clay overlain by 0 Sm Sills, Burland and Czechowski (1977),
made ground Simpson, O'Riordanand Croft (1979),
St John (1975); Carswell, Carderand
Symons (1991)

Reading A329(M) Planar panels Cantilever London Clay overlain by 3m Burland, Simpson and St John (1979),
(3.66mxl 22m) made ground and Terrace Gravel St John(1975);Carder and Symons (1989)

-&
-&
 -001

001

1 003

004

005

0.06
0 02 04 06 0.8 1 12 14
Distance from trench/trench depth
(a) 1oriRontaI movement

001

-C
0 002
V
0
C
0
0.03
C
0
E
0
0 004
0)

0.05

006
0 0.2 04 06 08 1 1.2 14
Distance from trench/trench depth

(b) Settlement

Fig 7. Surface movement during diaphragm wail installation in stiff clay

12
 0

0.1

High stiffness support dunng excavation

0.2
—--
Bntish Library BP

New Palace Yard DW

--a--
C
Upper bound with ——
YMCA DW

03 Holbom Bars BP
I high stiffness support
Lion Yard OW

'I --4---
Upper bound with Low stiffness support dunng excavation -
04 low stiffness support
E Britannic House DW

Waterloo mt Terminal DW
2
I
C
0 —4--
05 Neasden Underpass DW

Reading DW
-0— -
06
0 1 2 3 4
Distance from
Fig 8. Horizontal surface movement caused by excavation
in front of wall (stiff clay)

of the wall whilst a central raft was constructed. Strutting Fig 9 for completeness. This graph demonstrates that for
was then installed between the wall and the raft to enable walls with high stiffness support during excavation, e.g.
excavation of the berm to take place. On the highway top-down construction, the peak horizontal movement oc-
scheme at Neasden Lane, under-reamed ground anchors curs at a depth of between 0.7 to 0.9 times the excavation
were progressively installed as bulk excavation proceeded. depth. Individual results for walls which have low stiffness
Burland, Simpson and St. John (1979) recorded horizontal support during excavation plot on the Y-axis as maximum
movements beyond the extent of the anchored zone and movements are at the top of the wall. Measurements of
suggested that some block movement of the ground may movement made by TRL on walls with moderate stiffness
have occurred At Reading, construction of the A329(M) support during excavation also have maxima at the top of
was camed out using cantilever diaphragm walls. Results the wall and would plot similarly.
from these sites can be compared with the upper bound
established from TRL data (Fig 5) for walls with low Measurements of surface settlement caused by excavation
stiffness support during excavation. Generally the TRL in front of the wall are given in Fig 10. For the walls with
data indicate smaller movements: the results in Fig 8 high stiffness support during excavation, a zone of settle-
indicate a maximum horizontal movement of 0.4% of the ment is indicated with a maximum of 0.1% of the excava-
excavation depth rather than 03%, although the zone of tion depth at the wall top and possible ground surface
hkely movement extends to the same distance of 4 times movements extending to 4 times this depth. The only
this depth. results which lie outside of this bound are those for Bntan-
mc House, Neasden and Lion Yard. The first two of these
With high stiffness support during excavation, the maxi- sites are classified as having low stiffness support during
mum horizontal wall movement is not likely to be meas- excavation and a zone with maximum settlements of 0.2%
ured at the wall top. Fig 9 shows the maximum wall of excavation depth is suggested for this category. The
movement plotted non-dimensionally against the depth at anomalous result at Lion Yard was accounted for by canti-
which it occurs. In addition to the results for the walls lever behaviour of the instrumented section of wall during
founded in stiff clay currently being considered, the TRL the early phases of excavation pnorto grouting of the multi-
data for East of Falloden Way Scheme are also mcluded in level props (Lings, Nash, Ng and Boyce, 1991).

13
 035

High stiffness support dunng excavation -

03 —
X Bntish Library BP
1
o New Palace Yard DW
a
a, * YMCA DW
C 0.25 V Holborn Bars BP
Lion Yard DW
East of Falloden Way DW

Low stiffness support dunng excavation -

V Britannic House DW
(> Waterloo Int.Terrninal DW
Li. Neasden Underpass DW
o Reading DW

005

0
0 02 04 06 0.8 1

Depth to maximum movement/excavation depth

FIg 9. IViaximum horizontal wall movements caused by excavatlon In stiff clay

50 GENIAL EXIPEIt]IENCE zontal surface movements caused by diaphragm wall in-

stallation. However limited results were available on sur-
WIETh WALLS FOUNTI)ET1) TIN face settlements due to planar diaphragm wall installation
OT1UIEI 5011 TYPES and these are plotted in Fig 11. The upper bound to the
results in stiff clay is also reproduced from Fig 7b for
Sections 3 and 4 have dealt exclusively with measurements comparative purposes.
on embedded walls founded in stiff clay Some infonnation
Behaviour in other soil types is expected to conform with
was retneved from construction sites mother ground con-
the broad pattern suggested by Peck (1969) with the zone
ditions and this is now considered. The source references
and magnitude of surface settlements increasing as the
and locations of these sites are given in Table 3.
strength of the soil decreases The results in Fig 11 gener-
ally support this trend. With the exception of settlement
5.11 SU1JFACE GROUND measurements taken in glacial till and during the slurry
MOVEMUENTS CAUSED IY trench trial in soft clay undertaken by the Norwegian
WALL JINSTALLAflON Geotechnical Institute, the other results were outside the
upper bound values for stiff clay. Most movement was
No data were found on horizontal or vertical ground surface recorded in the soft alluvial deposits encountered on re-
movements caused by bored pile installation nor on hon- claimed land along the coast of Hong Kong Island and the

14
 TA1L1 3
BORED PILEAND DIAPHRAGM WALLS FOUNDED IN VARIOUS SOILS (NON-TRL)

SITELOCATION WALL TYPE CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE GROUND CONDITIONS SOURCE REFERENCES

(a) BORED PILEWALLS

Manchester Contiguous Unsupported excavation to 4m before Up to 4 6m of drift deposits Curtis and Mirzabaigian (1992)
(0.75mpiles at 0.9m centres) installing ground anchors and basement slabs overlying Middle Coal Measures

(b) DIAPHRAGM WALLS

Hong Kong(7 sites) Planar panels Measurements during wall installationonly Soft alluvial deposits encountered Cowland and Thorley (1985)
(0 8m to 1 Om thick) on reclaimed land

Chicago, site E Planar panels (O.76m thick) Braced excavations designed togive Soft silty clays Gill and Lucas (1990)
site H Planar panels (0 61mthick) high system stiffness

Harvard Square, Planar panels (2 7m x 0 91m) Unsupported excavation to 4 6m, anchors Glacial soils overlying bedrock Hansmire, Russell, Rawnsley and Abott
Boston then mstalled progressively (1989)

LyonSubway, France Planar panels (0 6m thick) Supported by two levels of stiff struts during Sandy silt Kastner and Ferrand (1992)
excavation

Car Park, Holland Planar panels (0 8m thick) Unsupported excavation to 4m followed by Medium to dense sand Kooistra and Beringen (1984)
installation of prestressed ground anchors

Chicago (3 sites) Planar panels (0 76m thick) Braced excavations Soft compressible clay O'Rourke,Cording and Boscardin (1976)

Post Office Square, Planar panels (3 Om x 0 9m) Top-down construction, multi-propped Soft Boston Clay Whitman, Johnson,Abbottand Becker (1991);
Boston Whittle and Hashash (1992), Whittle,
Hashash, and Whitman (1993)

Dartford, A258 Barrette wall (O.8m thick) Prestressed ground anchor at top ofwall Boyne Hill Terracegravel (9m) Wood, Maynardand Forbes-King (1989)
overlying UpperChalk

CNA Center, Planar panels (O.76m thick) Doubly proppedduringexcavation Soft Chicago LakeClay ovedainby Cunmngham and Fernandez (1972)
Chicago about 3m made ground

NGI Test Wall Planar panels (5 Om x 1 Om) Measurements dunng wall installationonly Soft marine clay Dibiagio and Myrvoll (1972)
-&
Cl'
 a.
a)
C

0 1 2 3 4
Distance from excavation/excavation depth

Fig 10. Surface settlement caused by excavation In front of wall (stIff clay)

002

Glacial Till

/
Harvard Sq (E wall)
Upper bound of results for

/
planar walls in stiff clay Harvard Sq (NE wail)
U 004
C
Soft clay

/ ---0--
C NGI Trial
5
E

/
a)
CNA Center,Chucago
006
Cl)
p
Alluvium

——
Hong Kong (7 sites)

01

01
0 02 04 06 08 1 12 14
Distance from trench/trench depth
FIg 11. Surface settlement dunng diaphragm wall installation in various soils

16
Kowloon Peninsula. Cowland and Thorley (1985) report 5.2 MOV1EUENTS CAUSED BY
measurements from seven sites in this region and the mean
of theirdata is shown in Fig 11. On tins basis the maximum
IEXCAVATIION uN FRONT OF
settlement was 0.08% of the trench depth and the zone of TIHIE WALL
possible movement extended to over 1.5 times the trench
depth. If the upper bound of their data is considered the Although the need to control horizontal wall movement
maximum settlement increases to about 0.15% of the during bulk excavation has meant that these measurements
trench depth and it is tins value that Clough and O'Rourke are frequently taken, there is a paucity of data on horizontal
(1990) have taken in their review. Because of the paucity of movements of the ground surface. For this reason the
data a definitive upper bound for settlement caused by standard Peck type plot has not been produced, although
diaphragm wall installation in soils other than stiff clay is Fig 12 shows the variation of wall movement for different
not presented in this report. excavation depths and soil types Also shown plotted are

40
Glacial Till
+ Harvard Sq (E wall)
Upper bound to data for walls with
moderate stiffness support dunng
excavation and founded in stiff clay
/
v Harvard Sq (NE wall)
Soft clay
X Chicago (site E)
o Chicago (site H)
o Post Office Sq,Boston

30 Coal Measures
Manchester
Alluvium

/
Lyon Subway, France
E Dense sand
C o Car park,Holland
a
E
20
E
a
Upper bound to data for walls with
C high stiffness support dunng
0N excavation and founded in stiff clay
I-
I0 0
10
x

0*
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Excavation depth (m)
Fig 12. HorIzontal wall movements caused by eizcavatlon In various soils

17
the upperbounds to data for walls which are founded in stiff results from a highway scheme on the A258 at Dartford,
clay with moderate and high stiffness support during exca- where an anchoredbarrette wall was constructed in Boyn Hill
vation in front of the wall, i.e maximum movements of Terrace GraveL In tins case, horizontal wall movement into
0.2% and 0.125% of the excavation depth respectively. the retamed ground was recorded due to the use of prestressed
ground anchors. Howeverhonzontalmovements atthe ground
Generally the wall movement developed in the various soil surface were towards the wall and were generally about 50%
types hes below the upper bound for excavations with mod- higher than would be expected in stiff clay. Further details of
erate stiffness support in stiff clay. The only scheme where these measurements are reported by Wood, Maynard and
movements approach this upper bound is the contiguous Fothes-King (1989)
bored pile construction of a lOm deep service basement at
Manchester where unsupported excavation was permitted to Although horizontal movements of the wall and hence the
4m depth prior to instalhng ground anchors. All the other retained ground surface can be controlled by use of a
schemes given in Fig 12 are top down construction of suitable support system, the magnitude of the measured
basements where a reasonably high level of support was in settlements is more dependent on the ground conditions
operation. The results tend to demonstrate that the magnitude and generally above the trend in stiff clay as shown in Fig
of horizontal movement at the wall top is almost totally 13 This was particularly the case for excavations carried
dependent on the effectiveness of the support system, al- out in the soft compressible clay encountered in the Chi-
though in the cases investigated these had clearly been cago area. All the Chicago cuts show large settlements (up
designed with the ground conditions in mind. It must be noted to about 2% of the excavation depth) indicative of large
that, although top of wall movement was controlled, very plastic deformations. The same behaviour was recorded for
large variations m horizontal wall movements at depth were a large number of braced excavations in soft to medium
recorded with values of up to 1.2% of excavation depth m the clay where sheetpiles were used; these measurements are
soft clays of the Chicago area. Not mcluded in Fig 12 are the comprehensively reported by Clough and O'Rourke (1990)

Upper bound to data for walls with

0.5 -

AT
high stiffness support during
excavation and founded in stiff clay Glacial Till
+ Harvard Sq (E wall)

/ V0 V Harvard Sq (NE wall)

/
/
0.
a Soft clay
o Chicago (site 1)
0 14
o Chicago (site 2)

N' 4f Chicago (site 3)

CNA Center,Chicago

I 15 - Post Office Sq,Boston

2-0 I
1
I

2 3 4
Distance from excavation/excavation depth

Fig 13. Surface settlement caused by excavation in various soils

18
6 §UMMAIY AND top. In the cases investigated where the walls were founded
in stiff clay, the peak movement occurred at depths of
CONCLUSTIONS between 0.7 to 0.9 times the excavation depth. The magni-
tude of this movement varied between 0.04% and 0.16% of
Establishing the most probable wall and surface ground the excavation depth.
movements, together with acceptable lmuts, is essential in
the use of the Observational Method to control embedded 4. Generally horizontal movements at the top of walls
retaining wall construction. It is also important in assessing founded in various soil types lie below the upper bound for
the effects of the construction on neighbouring buildings excavations with high stiffness support in stiff clay. This
and buried services. In this report a database has been data generally related to top-down construction and dem-
established from measurements of movement at sites where onstrates that the horizontal movement at the wall top can
retained cuttings, cut-and-cover tunnels and deep base- be effectively controlled by using high stiffness support
ments were being constructed. Movements caused by wall systems during excavation, although large movements (up
installation and excavation in front of the wall have been to 1.2% of excavation depth in the soft compressible clays
separately assessed and total movements can therefore be of Chicago) can occur at depth. The magnitude of measured
found by summation of the two effects. The main findings settlements at the ground surface is more variable and
were as follows: generally above the values for stiff clay. This was particu-
larly the case for excavations in soft clay.
1. Movements of the ground surface due to wall installa-
tion in stiff clay varied according to the construction
technique employed Maximum horizontal movements
ranged from 0.04% of the pile depth for contiguous piling 70 AC]KNOWLIDGEMINTS
to 0.11% of the trench depth for counterforted diaphragm
walls. Maxima for planar diaphragm walls were 0.05% of The work described in this report forms part of the research
trench depth and 008% of pile depth for secant piling. The programme of the Civil Engineering Resource Centre of
last result was heavily influenced by measurements at Bell TRL and was funded by Bridges Engineering Division of
Common Tunnel where stiff clay was overlain by 7m of the Highways Agency. The assistance of Dr GB Card (Card
superficial deposits. More data are needed to estabhsh that Geotechnics Ltd) and MrPDarley in retrieving, processing
the normal trend of surface movements for secant piling is and interpreting the data is gratefully acknowledged.
below this value. In general, maximum settlements were
about half of the horizontal movements and in all cases the Thanks are also due to the team involved in acquiring the
zone of possible movement was considered to extend no TRL field data which included Mr MD Ryley, Mr GH
more than 1.5 times the trench/pile depth. Alderman, Mr Ak! Brookes and Mr S Bennett.

2. A summary of the magnitude and extent of honzontal

and vertical movements at ground surface caused by exca-
vation in front of walls founded in stiff clay is given in Table IIEFERENCES
4. Final recommended upper bound values of horizontal
surface movement were 0.125%, 0.2% and 0.4% of the BURLAND, JB and RJR HANCOCK (1977). Under-
excavation depth depending on whether high, moderate or ground car park at the House of Commons, London:
low stiffness support was used during bulk excavation. Geotechnical aspects. The Structural Engineer, February,
Upper bound values of surface settlement varied between Vol 55, No 2, pp 87-100.
0.1% and 0.2% of the excavation depth over the same range
of support conditions. Generally the extent of possible BURLAND, JB, B SIMPSON and liD ST JOHN (1979).
movements was up to 4 times the excavation depth Al- Movements around excavations in London Clay. Proc 7th
though this extent was slightly larger than recorded by other European ConfSoilMechFndnEngng, Brighton, Vol "pp
authors (dough and O'Rourke, 1990; Burland, Simpson 13-29.
and St John, 1979), the maximum movements close to the
wall were generally smaller. For this reason it is important CARDER, DR (1994). The performance of retaining walls.
to calculate the movement profile from the non-dimen- TRL Annual Review 1994. Crowthome. Transport Re-
sional values as the effective zone of influence may be search Laboratory, pp 5 1-57.
considerably less than 4 times the excavation depth if, for
example, movements of less than say 1mm are ignored. CARDER, DR. IG CARSWELL and GVR WATSON
(1994). Behaviour during construction of a propped dia-
3. With top-down construction using high level props in phragm wall in stiff clay at Walthainstow. TRL Project
particular, the maximum honzontal movement of the wall Report 17 Crowthorne: Transport Research Laboratory.
during bulk excavation is not likely to be measured at the

19
Is)
0

TABLE 4
ZONES OF MOVEMENT FOR EXCAVATION IN FRONT OF WALLS FOUNDED IN STIFF CLAY

HIGH STIFFNESS SUPPORT MODERATE STIFFNESS SUPPORT LOW STIFFNESS SUPPORT

Max surface Max.surface Max.surface
movement Extent movement Extent movement Extent

TRL Horizontal - - 02% 4 0.3% 4

DATA Vertical - - 0075% 3 - -

GENERAL Horizontal 0 125% 4 - - 0.4% 4

EXPERIENCE Vertical 0.1% 4 - - 0.2% 4

FINAL Horizontal 0 125% 4 02% 4 0.4% 4

RECOMMENDED
VALUES Vertical 0.1% 4 0.1% 4 0.2% 4

Notes: 1 Maximum surface movement occurs close to the wall and is calculated as a percentage of maximum excavation depth in front ofthe wall
2. Extent of movement is calculated non-dimensionally by dividing by the maximum excavation depth
3. High stiffness support during excavation includes top-down construction, temporary props pnor to permanent props at high level
4 Moderatestiffness support during excavation is temporary props of high stiffness prior to permanent props at low level.
5 Low stiffness support during excavation includescantilever, temporary props of low stiffness or at low level.
6. Wall mstallation effects to be considered separately.
CARDER, DR, MD RYLEY and IF SYMONS (1991). LA), Geotechnical Special Publication No 25, pp 471-488.
Behaviour during construction of a propped diaphragm New York. ASCE.
wall in stiff clay at the A406/Al0junction. TRRL Research
Report 331. Crowthorne: Transport and Road Research HANSMIRE, WH, HA RUSSELL, RP RAWNSLEY and
Laboratory. EL ABBOTT (1989) Field performance of structural slurry
wall. Journal Geotech Engng, ASCE, Vol 115, No 2, pp
CARDER, DR and IF SYMONS (1989). Long-term per- 141-156.
formance of an embedded cantilever retaining wall in stiff
clay. Geotechnique, Vol 39, No 1, pp 55-75. KASTNER, R andl FERRAND (1992). Performance of a
cast in situ retaimng wall in a sandy silt. In: Retaining
CARSWELL, 1G. DR CARDER and AJC GENT (1993). structures (Ed. Clayton, CR1), pp 291 - 300 London
Behaviour during construction of a propped contiguous Thomas Telford.
bored pile wall in stiff clay at Walthamstow. TRL Project
Report 10 Crowthorne Transport Research Laboratory. LI, ESI, ZM NYIRENDA and AR PICKLES (1992).
Design and performance of diaphragm walls at Waterloo
CARSWELL, 1G. DR CARDER and IF SYMONS (1991). International Terminal. In Retaining structures (Ed.
Long term performance of an anchored diaphragm wall Clayton, CR1), pp 237 - 247. London: Thomas Telford.
embedded in stiff clay. TRRL Research Report 313.
Crowthorne: Transport and Road Research Laboratory. LINGS, ML, DFF NASH, CWW NG and MD BOYCE
(1991) Observed behaviour of a deep excavation in Gault
CLOUGH, GWand1D O'ROURKE(1990). Construction Clay. A prehminary appraisal. Proc 10th European Conf
induced movements of insitu walls. In: Design and per- Soil Mech Fndn Engng, Florence, Italy, Vol 2, pp 467-470.
formance of earth retaining structures (Eds. Lainbe, PC
and Hansen, LA), Geotechnical Special Publication No 25, LOXHAM, R, B SIMPSON and NE GATENBY (1991).
pp 439-470. New York: ASCE Ground instrumentation at the Bntish Library, Euston. In.
Geotechnical instrumentation in practice, pp 257-273.
COLE, KW and JB BURLAND (1972). Observation of London: Thomas Telford.
retaining wall movements associated with a large excava-
tion. Proc 5th European Con! Soil Mech Fndn Engng, MORAN, J and A LAIMBEER (1994) Behaviour during
Madrid, Vol 1, pp 445-453 construction of a cantilever diaphragm wall in stiff clay at
Limehouse Link. TRL Project Report 73. Crowthome:
COWLAND, 3W and CBB THORLEY (1985). Ground Transport Research Laboratory.
and building settlement associated with adjacent slurry
trench excavation In: Ground movements and structures, O'ROURKE, TD, EJ CORDING and M BOSCARDIN
pp 723-738. London Pentech Press. (1976). The ground movements related to braced excava-
hon and their influence on adjacent buildings. Federal
CUNNINGHAM, JA and ii FERNANDEZ (1972). Per- Railroad Administration, US Dept of Transportation, Wash-
formance of two slimy wall systems in Chicago. Proc ington, DC, 20590
ASCE Speciality Conf on Performance of Earth and Earth
Supported Stru ctures, Purdue, Vol 1, Part 2, pp 1425-1449. PECK, RB (1969). Deep excavations and tunnelling in soft
ground. Proc 7th mt Conf Soil Mech Fdn Engng, Mexico,
CURTIS, DC and H MIRZABAIGIAN (1992). Prediction pp 225-281.
versus actual movement of bored pile walls in middle coal
measures. In: Retaining structures (Ed. Clayton, CR1), pp SILLS, GC, JB BURLAND and MK CZECHOWSKI
248-257. London. Thomas Telford. (1977). Behaviour of an anchored diaphragm wall in stiff
clay. Proc 9th mt Conf Soil Mech Fndn Engng, Tokyo, Vol
DARLEY,P,DRCARDERandGHALDERMAN (1994). 2, pp 147-154.
Behaviour during construction of a propped contiguous
bored pile wall in stiff clay at Rayleigh Weir. TRL Project SIMPSON, B, NJ O'RIORDAN and DD CROFT (1979).
Report 23. Crowthorne: Transport Research Laboratory. A computer model for the analysis of ground movements in
London Clay Geotechnique, Vol 29, No 2, pp 149-175.
DIBIAGIO, E and F MYRVOLL (1972). Full scale field
tests of a slurry trench excavation in soft clay. Proc 5th ST JOHN, ND (1975). Field and theoretical studies of the
European Conf Soil Mech Fndn Engng, Madrid, Vol 1, pp behaviour of ground around deep excavations in London
461-471. Clay. PhD Thesis, University of Cambridge.

GILL, SA and G LUKAS (1990). Ground movement SYMONS, IF and DR CARDER (1992). Stress changes in
adjacent to braced cuts. In: Design and performance of stiff clay caused by the installation of embedded retaining
earth retaining structures (Eds Lambe, PC and Hansen, walls. In: Retaining structures (Ed. Clayton, CR1), pp 227
- 236. London: Thomas Telford

21
SYMONS, IF and PTEDD (1989). Behaviourofapropped
embedded retaimng wall at Bell Common Thnnel in the
longer term. Geotechinque, Vol 39, No 4, pp 701-710.
TEDD, P. BM CHARD, JA CHARLES and IF SYMONS
(1984). Behaviourof apropped embeddedretaimng wall in
stiff clay at Bell Common Tunnel. Geotechnique, Vol 34,
No 4, pp 5 13-532.

WARD, K (1992) The design and performance during

construction of the propped secant pile wall at Holborn
Bars London. In Retaining structures (Ed Clayton, CR1),
pp 216 - 226. London: Thomas Telford.

WATSON, GVR and DR CARDER (1994). Comparison

of the measured and computed performance of a propped
bored pile retaining wall at Walthainstow. Proc Instn Civ
Engrs Geotech Engng, Vol 107, July, pp 127-133.

WHITMAN, RV, EG JOHNSON, EL ABBOTT' and JM

BECKER (1991). Field instrumentation program plays
vital role in deep excavation project. Proc Geotech Engng
Congress, ASCE, Vol 1, pp 173-184.

WHITFLE, AJ and YMA HASHASH (1992). Analysis of

the behaviour of propped diaphragm walls in a deep clay
deposit. In: Retaining structures (Ed. Clayton, CR1), pp
131-139. London: Thomas Telford.

WHI1TLE, AJ, YMA HASHASH and RV WHITMAN

(1993). Analysis of deep excavation in Boston. Journal
Geotech Engng, ASCE, Vol 119, No 1, pp 69-90.

WOOD, LA, A MAYNARD and CJ FORBES-KING

(1989). The instrumentation and performance of an an-
chored retaining wall. In Geotechnical instrumentation in
practice, pp 137-154. London: Thomas Telford.

22
 MORE NFORMATON FROM TRL
TRL has published the following other reports on this area of research
RR331 Behaviour during construction of a propped diaphragm wall in stiff clay at the A406/Al0 junction
D R Carder, M D Ryley and I F Symons Pnce
PR1O Behaviour during construction of a propped contiguous bored pile wall in stiff clay at Walthamstow
I G Carswell, D R Carder and A J C Gent Pnce Code H
PRI7 Behaviour during construction of a propped diaphragm wall in stiff clay at Walthamstow
D R Carder, I G Carswell and G V R Watson Price Code H
PR23 Behaviour during construction of a propped contiguous bored pile wall in stiff clay at
Rayleigh Weir P Darley, D R Carder and G H Alderman Price Code H
If you would like copies, photocopy and fill in the slip below There is a 20% discount if you take all
the reports listed above Prices include postage and are correct at the time of publication Please
see the enclosed letter for current price code values and handling charge Enquiries to TRL
Library Services, Tel 01344 770784, Fax 01344 770193

To Publication Sales, TRL Library, P0 Box 304, CR0WTHORNE, Berkshire, RG45 6YU
Please send me the following TRL reports (state report Nos and quantity)

Repori no Quantity Report no Quantity

Report no Quantity Report no Quantity
Report no Quantity Report no Quantity

Name PAYMENT
Address ° I enclose a cheque for

payable to Transport Research Laboratory

Please debit my Deposit Account
Postcode no
Telephone . Please debit my Credit Card by
Credit card no
Credit card address (if different from above) Expiry date -

Signature

USE OUR EXIPERTSE

TRL's researchers and Laboratory facilities are available at competitive rates.
Our 250 scientists and engineers include many world-class experts on highways design and
maintenance, transport structures, traffic systems, vehicle safety, road safety and the
environment.
TRL facilities include a 3.8 km test track, a fully interactive driving simulator, an all weather
facility for impact testing of vehicles, large structures test halls for static and fatigue testing,
dynamic pavement test facility, dynamic and low cost impact test rigs, a pedestrian impact
test facility, as well as advanced computer systems and a large specialist library with online
access to worldwide information.
If you are planning a project where we may be able to help, contact TRL Business Directorate at
Crowthorne, Berkshire RG45 6AU, telephone 01344 770004, fax 01344 770356.

23
 0

a 0 —I
rn32
•sJ
O-
0 0
-D 2•
-CD
-1CD
—

Z
r1
0
r
U
C
PDtOfl
CDO
o
a'
00
OCD2
c9 -I. —
C

th
thO
0%>
C

Girornd mcvtmnts caused by different embedded

reahthg wall c©shuceini itechiiilques TTL RTEPORT 172