.

Ii
=
SOIL MECHANICS
AND
FOUNDA TIONS
'WTrntrm'
Volume 12, Pt. 2
December 2001
HOUSING AND BUILDING RESEARCH CENTRE
"
THE EGYPTIAN GEOTECHNICAL SOCIETY
)
I
r
f
1
,
PRE F ACE
SOIL MECHANICS AND FOUNDATIONS is a half year book of
The Egyptian Geotechnical Society which is part of the International
Society for Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering
Thanks to Prof. Dr. Omaima Ahmed Salah El-Din
Chainnan of the Board of the Housing and building research centre
The Editor
',.- ..
SOIL MECHANICS AND FOUNDATIONS
Volume 12 - Part 2
Scientific Advisory Board
Prof. Dr. Abdel-Rahman EI-Ramly
Faculty of Engineering.
Cairo Univ . Giza. Egypt.
Prof. Dr. Abdel-Fanah Abouleid
Faculty of Engineering.
Cairo Univ . Giza. Egypt.
Prof. Dr. Mohamed EI-Sohby
Faculty of Enginee:ing.
AI-Azhar Univ . C ~ i r o Egypt.
Prof. Dr. Abdel-Rahrnan Bazaraa
Faculty of Engineering,
Cuiro Univ . Giza. Egypt.
Prof. Dr. Mostafa EI-Demery
Housing and Building Research Centre
Dokki. Giza. Egypt. .
Prof. Dr. Mohsen .Ylashhour
Faculty of Engineering.
Zagazig Univ . Zagazig. Egypt.
Prof. Dr. Nadia Girgis
Housing and Building Research Centre
Dokki. Giza. Egypt.
December 2001
Scientific Editorial Board
Prof. Dr. Amr Radwan
Faculty of Engineering at Mararia.
Helwan Univ . Cairo. Egypt.
Prof. Dr. Amira Abdel-Rahman
Housing and Building Research Centre
Dokki. Giza. Egypt.
Fonnerly
Prof. Dr. Mohamed EI-Sohby
Faculty of Engineering.
AI-Azhar Univ . Cairo. Egypt.
Prof. Dr. Osama Mazen
Housing and Building Research Centre
Dokki. Giza. Egypt.
Soil MechC!!ics And Foundations represents one of the scientific activities of
The Egyptim Geotechnical Society, which is registered at the Ministry of Social
Affairs. Registration No. 1162/1993
Address: :6 EI-Tahri'i Street. Rm. 422. Dokki. Giza. Egypt. Tel. 1,:02)3369418
The Egyptian Geotechnical Societ is part of
The Intem:?tional Society for Soil Mechanics and Geotechnic:ti Engineering
SOIL MECHANICS AND FOUNDATIONS
Volume 12 - Part 2 December 2001
CONTENTS
Effect of Ground Anchors on the Behavior of Diaphram Walls.
Mohamed E. EI-Kilany and Tarek N. Salem 1
Validation of a New Method for Calculating the Edge Moisture
Variation Distance.
Basuony EI-Garhy and Abdel-Fattah Youssef 13
Settlcmcnt Trough Associatcd with Diaph.-am Wall
COllstructiouiu GI'catcr Cairo.
A. A. Abdel Rahman aud S.M. EI-Sayed 29
Evaluation of thc Performance of the Dilatometer in Cohesive
Soils.
M. M. AbdeI Rahman, M. A. Elkhouly. O. Ezzeldine and A. F.
Elhakim 41
A New Method for Investigating Compressibility from
Oedometer Tests.
F ~ B ~ ~ ~
Possible Correlation Between Some Engineering and
Electro-Chemical Properties of Fine Grained Soils.
Nagwa R. EI-Sakhawy 71
Jurnal o/the Egyptian Geotechnical Society. Vol. 12. P::..rt 2. December 2001
Settlement Trough Associated with Diaphram \Vall
Construction in Greater Cairo
A. A. Abdel Rahman
S.M. EI-Sayed
ABSTRACT
Ass. Prof., Civil Engng. Dept., Engng. Res. Div ..
Nat. Res. Centre, Egypt
Ass. Prof., Struct. Engng. Dept., Fac. of Engng., -'loin Shams Univ.
Deep excavation with the use of concrete diaphragm walls, as side supports, have
ht!cn increasingly applied in Greater Cairo for several purposes such as basements,
IInderground garages, cut-and-cover tunnels, and subway stations. The wide use of concrete
diaphragm walls is attributed to the development of powerfi.il trenching equipment, the
IItilization of bentonite sluITv as a support to the sides of trenches, Iii::! incorporation of walls
into permanent structures, and the relative simplicity of their COllstrurnon compared with
otiler traditional methods for vertical cut-off purposes. The most challenging task to
)l.t!otechnical engineers is to estimate the settlement associated with the trenching process,
especially if the diaphragm wall is constructed near existing structures. Computational
complexities to obtain an acceptable estimate for the settlement field associated with
trenching, comprise the sequence of panel construction of the wall, the wall alignment, the
panel dimensions, the local soil formation of the site, the presence ofgromdwater, the rate of
the presence of neighboring buildings, and the workmanship quality. The
objective of this paper is to present observed settlements of buildings founded on different
types of foundations while constructing nearby continuos diaphragm wail panels. The field
data were utilized to empirically estimate a generic settlement trough :0 be used for future
projects. Also, the data were back analyzed using a widely practiced two-dimensional plane-
,;train finite element model to verity its reliability.
Keywords: Diaphragm wal!: trenching; excavation; settlement monitoring; structural
damage; nonlinear analysis: twC'dimensional, and finite element.
I. INTRODUCTION
Diaphragm wall construction imposes many engineering challenges regarding the
;Iability of the excavated pands and the hazardous effect of the resulting deformation field on
adjacent structures. The stability of the wall is preserved by the. iiquid support of the
bentonite slurry. The most important property of the stabilizing slurry is its ability to establish
almost instantaneously a quasi-impermeable membrane or mudcakc at the soil-liquid
i III erface which contributes to the stabilization of the trench. Another significant factor in
trench stability is the limited penetration of the bentonite into the soil (Sliwiniski and Fleming
1'17'); Fuchsberger, 1975).
29
i,
.,
..
.,
i
I,'
-
It has been proven that settlement troughs are usually associated with the process of
diaphragm wall construction (poh and Wong, 1998). It was typically assumed that
deformations will be small if there is an adequate factor of safety against overall instability of
the trench (Goldenberg et aI., 1976). However, building settlements of more than 2 inches
were recorded during a trenching process in Hong Kong (Cowland and Thorley, 1985).
Settlement damage to buildings is usually estimated using the angular distortion
criterion presented by Skempton and MacDonald (1956) or the tensile strain criterion
introduced by Burland and Wroth (1975). These common criteria necessitate assessing the
settlement profile or the settlement envelope emerging below buildiI)gs and buried pipelines.
To estimate the settlement trough associated with the construction of diaphragm walls,
different profiles have been recommended in the literature (Kutmen, 1986; Clough and
O'Rourke, 1990; Thompson 1991; Gunn and Clayton, 1992; De Moor, 1994; Ng et. ai, 1995;
Gourvenec et. aJ, 1998). Figure (1) presents widely accepted settlement distributions
suggested by Clough and O'Rourke (1990) and Tompson (1991). Clough and O'Rourke
(1990), after ploning data from well documented case histories performed in alluvial soil
conditions, recommended an upper limit of settlement equivalent to 0.15% of the trench
depth at the wall location, while the settlement trough is extended to about twice the trench
depth, as shown in Figure (I). On the other hand, Tompson (1991) recommended a settlement
trough, for over-consolidated clays, that has a maximum settlement value of 0.04% of the
trench depth, and extends to a maximum distance of about 3 times the excavation depth.
Figure (2) presents the associated settlement trough with the trench excavation recommended
by Cowland and Thorley (1985), in silty sand deposits, which has a maximum settlement
ordinate of about 0.15% of the trench depth, and vanishes after about twice of the trench
depth.
The shortcoming of generally applying these criteria tor any project is that they might
be suitable only for a specific subsurface soil condition and trenching technique. Therefore,
they can not be totally applicable when applying for projects located within different
geotechnical conditions.
The subsurface soil conditions throughout Greater Cairo are typically alluvial soils,
especially around the river Nile and its branches, with relatively shallow groundwater level.
These conditions are classified as problematic in case of diaphragm wall trenching due to the
relatively expected higher values of settlement (Clough and O'Rourke, 1990). The escalating
needs for an acceptable estimate of the deformations associated with the trenching process in
Greater Cairo call for monitoring and back analyzing many projects in order to gain more
perception on the behavior of slurry trenching and their effect on nearby buildings. Estimates
of ground movements for ,future projects, having similar conditions, can be made using the
empirical relationships developt!d from these studies.
This paper presents a c,'8e history where buildings' settlements were monitored while
executing diaphragm wall panels for a multistory building located in Dokki, Giza, Egypt.
Back-analyses were performed on the monitored data to recommend a generic settlement
distribution to be associated with diaphragm wall construction, and verify the reliability ofa
widely used plane-strain model.
2. THE SITE A!,;j) SUBSURFACE SOIL GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS
The case history of this paper presents the settlement data monitored during the
construction of a diaphragm wall of a basement of a multistory building in Dokki, Giza,
Greater Cairo during the year 2001. The site is located at nearly 1.0 km away from the river
Nile. The diaphragm wall is located as near as 1.80 m to existing buildings founded on deep
30
i
__ .n __ ~ . __ . . ~ .. = = ~ __ .....t,!'
of
hat
'of
hes
Ion
Ion
the
es.
lis,
. nd

ms
'ke
oil
Ich
Ich

he
tho
ed
mt
ch
;ht

:nt
Is,

he
19
m
re
es
he
Ie
It.
nt
'a
Ie
a,

!p
}
r
I
r
i'
i'
t

j
P
,
!
i
t
!
I
(piles) and shallow foundations. The diaphragm wall depth was 21.00 m with a thickness of
0.60 m, and a steel reinforcement from top to tip. A grab-bucket machine with the use of
bentonite suspension, as a drilling fluid, was used to excavate the trenches.
The project area lies totally within the geomorphic unit known as the young alluvial
plain representing the majority of the lowland portion of the Nile Valley in the Greater Cairo
area. Generally, the geology of Greater Cairo is characterized by tertiary sedimentary soils
and rocks and quaternary ;;oils, both underlain by older basement rocks. The Nile River
deposits govern the subsurface <tr.d groundwater conditions. The Pleistocene age sediments in
the alluvial plain (approximately 60-90 meters thick) are fairly consistent with depth, but vary
somehow laterally as a result of the long history of river meanders, and alternate cycles of
sedimentation and erosion (Shata, 1988) .
The site geotechnical investigation included executing eight boreholes of 25m deep
t:ialem. 1997 & EDECON, 2001). The subsurface soil profile consists generally ofa top fill
layer appeared from ground surface to a depth of2.0 m, followed by a silty sand layer up to a
depth of 5.0 m. A layer of medium dense fine to medium sand witL some silt followed the
silty sand layer to a depth of 11.0 m. A dense to very dense graded sand layer followed the
previous layer and extended to the end of the boreholes at 25.0 m. The bottom sand layer
occasionally contained a percentage of fine gravel in the range of 5.0 % to 15.0 %.
The results of the SPT tests with depth, corrected values of the SPT with depth
(Skempton, 1986), the angle offriction (Walt: 1989), and the modulus of deformations at the
alillospheric confining pressure (Shmertmann, 1970) are presented in Figure (3). The
f',f()undwater level is located at an average depth of 2.00 m from ground surface.
Five buildings, designated A, B, C, D and E, are located near to the wall as shown in
/igure (4). Buildings (A), (B), and (C) are about 12 to 14 stories, founded on piles oflengths
1;lIIging between 14.00 m and 16.00 m. Building (D) is a five story building aI:d building (E)
is a two-story building, founded on shallow foundations at a depth of about 2.0 m to 3.0 m.
J. OBSERVED BUILDL'lG SETTLEMENTS
An observational conse.1.!clion approach was adopted, using the "most probable"
Cllilditions and parameters in the settlement prediction, with a contingency plan for the "most
1I11(;,vorable" expected behavior. A monitoring plan was established before excavation using
Thirty-one (31) settlement points fixed on the surrounding buildings (A to E'i to monitor the
,a,lIkment associated with the diaphragm wall installation as shown in Figure (4). The
periodically-monitored settlement data were used to trigger the contingency plan if necessary,
which included ground support using special grouting techniques. Figure (5) shows the time
'ii' iation of the settlement for the 31 settlement points. The seql.'?<1Ce and rate of panel
'.'<Jrlstruction controlled these time/settlement plots. The settlement gn.dually increased for all
poillts due to excavation of more panels. The sequential numbering order of panel execution
is shown on Figure (4). No point had a settlement recovery due to concreting.
The time-settlement relation for all points did not show any marked creep effect.
.-;Ollle points had an abrupt settlement upsurge on June 24,2001 due to a mild canhquake that
I""k place between readings. Another increase of settlement occurred on July 9,2001 due to
1 he: rupture of a main water pipeline near building (A). These sudden escalations of settlement
Iliny be due to some kind of soil meta-structures that collapsed during the soil cisturbance.
The maximum settlement for buildings founded on deep foundation was 8.1 mm,
,,,.Drded at the location of point 15, Building "A", while the minimum settlement was
1 ""onled at point 28 of building "B". No movement was recorded at point 30 of building "C",
willeh could be probably due to its location toward the site corner.
31
"
The maximum settlement for buildings founded on shallow foundation was about
4.5mm, recorded at the locations of points 25, and point 22 on buildings D and E,
respectively, located on the same distance from the diaphragm wall boundary. The minimum
settlement was recorded at point 24, building "B", and point 31, building "D" located also at
the same distance from the diaphragm wall boundary: Figure (6) shows the plot of the
settlement of all points with distance away from the diaphragm waIl boundary.
Generally, the settlements of all buildings can be expressed with one envelope
regardless of their foundation type. However, different settlement values were recorded at
similar distances away from the diaphragm wall, which could be related to the effect of
different buildings' stiffnesses or change in the mechanical properties of the foundation soil
underneath each building. It is worth noting that settlement of the buildings founded on deep
foundation occurred due to the fact that the depth of diaphragm wall panels was deeper than
the depth of the piles of buildings A, B, and C. .
No form of structural cracks was observed in any building adjacent to the wall after
finishing the diaphragm wall installation.
A proposed general envelope of the settlement is shown in Figure (6). It can be seen
that the maximum observed settlement at the wall location is about 9.5 mm and extends to a
lateral distance of about 35.0 m. The maximum settlement represents a ratio of about 0.045%
of the trench depth, and the lateral extent of the settlement trough goes to a maximum of 1.67
of the trench depth.
Therefore, we could reasonably recommend a settlement trough envelope where the
maximum settlement is equivalent to 0.045% of the diaphragm wall trench depth, while its
extent away from the wall reaches to twice the same trench depth. The proposed distribution
of the settlement trough can be expressed by the following equation:
S =s [2d -XJ6
ma.x 2d
Where, "S" is the settlement at a distance "x" from the trench, "Sma<" is the maximum
settlement at the wall location, and "d" is trench depth. Figure (6) also presents a comparison
between the proposed settlement trough distribution, the envelopes recommended by Clough
and O'Rourke (1990), and Thompson (1991). The recommended maximum settlement by
Thompson (1991) was in a good agreement with the measured maximum value, whereas
Clough and O'Rourke's maximum settlement was much higher. Both envelopes showed
wider and higher settlement trough distributions than the measured values.
4. NUlVIERICAL MODELING OF TRENCHING
. , .
Empirical formulas based on previous observations are commonly used to describe
the induced deformation due to the trenching required for diaphragm walls installation.
However, they might not be regarded as a reliable basis of analysis even under the same
ground conditions. This is because different installation and construction procedures and
various boundary conditions are not deliberated in these empirical formulas. Plane-strain
models are the most common among engineers to analyze walls. Plane-strain modeling of the
trenching process could be considered as an appropriate tool for estimating the maximum
settlement. However, the trough resulting from the plane-strain models are always wider than
the actual profile due to the three-dimensional nature of the profile and the demerits of the
widely implemented classical constitutive relations.
A two-dimensional plane-strain model was employed in this paper to back analyze the
field 'data and confirm its validity.
32
t
1
t
f
I
,
I
I
I
The Hardening-Soil constitutive model of Plaxis vel' 7.2 (Brinkgreve and Vermeer,
I 'J'IH) was used to simulate the behavior of different types of soils in which a decreasing
Iii !I fll cs,; is exhibited when subjected to primary deviatoric loading. That stems from a yield
I\lllcl;on (fJ of the form:
1 q 2q, p
f = ------.---+2e l
50
1
- R;CJ CJ/ 0;,
(I)
ill which the model parameters q, qt; E5Q, and E
u
, are defined in Figure (7-a); Rr is the failure
111111) which equals to q/qa, and et is the principal plastic strair:. Figure (7-b) presents the
bhllPC of the yield func:ion (f) for cohesionless soils in the pI incipal stress The
Il!l',ociative flow rule is adopted so that the outward normal vector to the yield surface (f)
I rplcsents the plastic strain vectof. The parameter 50 is the stiffness modulus for primary
Il"ldilig and is given by the equation:
( )
'"
E,,= cef CCOlO-u;' ..
.0 E:JO rei

(2)
where Fj'if is a reference stiffness modulus corresponding to the reference atmospheric
1.'""lIning pressure (p"I), and "m" is an exponent number dominates the equation degree. The
"he:lI parameters c, <p cse the cohesion intercept and the angle of friction. For unloading and
I clo:lding stress paths, the stress-dependent stiffness modulus (Eur) is used:
E . = ref ( COl.:!J
. iii Ellr I . ref
\,ccoIaTp
(3)
whele :.1 is the reference modulus for unloading and reloading, corresponding to the
1l'lClcnce atmospheric pressure. In many practical cases it is appropriate to set E5'l equal to
I //'i in cohesive soils and 8-10 Ej'if for granular soils. Table (I) lists the properties of the
dilkrent lithological units that were identified during the geotechnical investigation. Slurry
plessure is presented using a weak material (c= I. 0 kPa, <p=0.0 and unit weight of 12 kN/m3).
Tile finite element mesh is drawn on Figure (8).
Settlement trough predicated by the model is drawn in Figure (6). The maximum
Jlledicted settlement at the wall is about 9.50 mm, and extends to at out 45.0 m. It can be seen
I h:1I although a back-anal,sis was performed to match the measured \'alues, the distribution of
I he settlement trough is still generally wider than the measured envelope with higher
'".:lllement ordinates. However, the maximum settlement at the wall location was in a good
ilgreement with the measured one.
:i, SUl\rIMARY AND CONCLUSION
An indispensable prerequisite to successful installation of diaphragm wall projects is
10 predict the induced deformation in its vicinity in order to avert any' potential damage to
huildings or buried utilities. The reliability of the predicted settlement, using empirical
"'Illations or numerical models, depends on the amount of data base implemented in their
li)rmulations. The paper presented a case history where settlemem troughs were measured
during the execution of diaphragm wall panels for a project in Giza, Egypt.
A recommended setthment trough based on the monitored data was formulated such
lilat the maximum settlement at the wall location (distance zero from the wall) is about
1l 045% of the trench depth. The extent of the settlement trough is recommended to
horizontally reach about twice the trench depth. The settlement distribution along the
',eltlement trough can be expressed by the following equations:
33
A

:;j
'I
,

s=s [2d-XJ6
""'" 2d
Plane-strain finite element modeling can be used to predict settlement distribution
associated with diaphragm wall construction. However, due to the numerical limitation of
that type of modeling, the settlement distribution is expected to be wider than the real on-site
behavior although the maximum expected settlement at the wall location can be predicted.
6. REFERENCES
L Brinkgreve, R. and Vermeer, P., 1998, "Plaxis Ver 7.2: Material Models Manual", A.
A. Balkema, Rotterdam.
2. Burland, J. B. and Wroth, C. P., 1975, "Settlement of Btiildings and Associated
DalUage", Build. Res. Establishment Current Paper, 33(75), Building Research
Establishment, Watford, England.
3. Clough, G. and O'Rourke, T., 1990, "Construction Inquced Movements ofInsitu
Walls", Design and Performance of Earth Retaining Structures, ASCE Geotechnical
Special Publications 25, pp. 439-470.
4. Cowland, J. W. and Thorley, C. B. B., 1985, "Ground and Building Settlement
Associated with Adjacent Slurry Trench Excavation." Ground Movements and
Structures - Proc., Third Int. Conf, University of Wales Institute of Science and
Technology, J. D. Geddes, ed., Pentech Press, London, England, 723-738.
5. De Moor, E. K., 1994, "An Analysis of Bored PilelDiaphragm Wall Installation
Effects", Geotechnique, London, England, 44(2), 341-347.
6. EDECON, 200 I, Geotechnical Report for Administrative Building Located in EI-
Dokki, Giza, Egypt..
7. Fuchsberger, M., 1975, "Some Practical Aspects of Diaphragm Wall Construction",
Proc. of Diaphragm Walls & Anchorages, Institution of Civil Engineers,London, pp.
75-79.
8. Goldberg, D. T., Jaworski, W. E. and Gordon, M. D., 1971\ "Lateral Support and
Underpinning - Vol. III. Construction Methods", Report No. FHWA-RD-75-130,
prepared for Federal Highway Administration, Office of Research & Development,
Washington D.C., p. 465.
9. Gourvenec, S., and Powrie, W., 1998, "Three-Dimensional Finite Element Analysis
of Diaphragm Wall Installation", Geotechnique (1999), Vol. 49, No.6, PP 801-823.
10. Gunn, M. J., and Clayton, R. 1., 1992 "Installation Effects and Their Importance in the
Design of Earth Retaining Structures", Geotechnique, London, England, 42(1), 137-
142.
II. Kutmen, G., 1986, "The Influence of the Construction Process on Bored Piles and
Diaphragm Walls: A Numerical Study", Master's of Philosophy thesis, Univ. of
Surrey, England. .
12. Ng, W. W., and Lings, M. L., 1995. "Effects of Modeling Soil Nonlinearity and Wall
Installation on Back-Analysis of Deep Excavation in Stiff Clay", J. Geotech. Engrg.,
ASCE, 121(10),687-695.
13. Ng, C. W. W., Rigby, G. H, Lie, G. H. and Ng, S. W. L., 1999, "Observed
Performance ofa Short Wall Panel", Geotechnique, Vol. 49, No.5, pp. 681-694.
14.' Poh, T. Y. and Wong,!. H. (1998). "Effects of Construction ofDiaphragrn Wall
Panels on Adjacent Ground: Field TriaL" Journal of Geotechnical and Geo-
environmental Engineering., Vol. 124, No.8, ASCE, 749-756.
34
w",;;,;rY'wwn77W; !' __ h''';,' m ....... "
I" Salem, A M., 1997, Geotechnical Report for Administrative Building Located in El-
"'Dokki, Giza, Egypt.
1(\ Schmertmann, J H, 1970, "Static Cone to Compute Settlement Over Sand", Journal
of the Soil Mech. And Found., ASCE, VoL 96, SM3, pp. 1011-1042.
I r Shata, A. A, 1988, "Geology of Cairo, Egypt", Bulletin of the Association of
Engineering Geologists, VoL XXV, No.2, pp. 149-183.
III. Skempton, A. W. and MacDonald, D. H., 1956, "The Allowable Settlements of
Buildings", Proc., Inst. of Civil Engrs., Part III, The Institution of Civil Engrs.,
London, pp. 727-768.
I'), Skempton, A W., 1986, "Standard Penetration Test Procedures and Effect in Sands of
Overburden Pressqre, Relative Density, Particle Size, Aging and Over-consolidation",
Geotechnique, VoL 36, No.3, pp. 425-447.
)0, Sliwiniski, Z. and Fleming, W. G. K, 1975, "Practical Considerations Affecting the
Construction of Diaphragm Walls", Proc. of Diaphragm Walls & Anchorage,
Institution of Civil Engineers, London, pp. 1-10.
11 Thompson, P., 1991, "A Review of Retaining Wall Behavior in Overconsolidated
Clay during Early Stages of Construction", Mphil Thesis, Univ. of London, London,
England.
l.2. Wolf, T. E, 1989, "Pile Capacity Predication UsingPar"meterFunctions", ASCE
Geotechnical Special Publication No. 23, pp. 96-106
35
!
I
t
I,

;
"

ij;
.,
1.
Table (1): Geotechnical properties of strata
Depth .Cohesion Unit Weight
E rtl
Poissfj
Layer

50
(m) .
(kPa) (kN/m
3
1
(MPa)
rati
Fill
0.00-
0 17 29 6 0.4
2.00
SILT-SAND
2.00-
0 18 31 10 0.3
5.00
.'
Fine SAND, 5.00-
0 19 33.5 16 0.3
some silt 11.00
Graded
11.00-
SAND,some
25.00
0 20 36 20 0.3
aravel
Distance from TranchITrench Depth
o 0.5 1.5 2 2.5 3

----
"" c
!
I
M
0.02
0.04 . ---
---
0.00
o.oa
0.1 .
0.12 .
0.14 .
0.16
---
----
------
----
---
-----
I - Clough and O'Rourke, 1990
! ---Tompl'>o:l. 1991
Fig. (I): Settlements envelopes associated with in-situ walls trenching
...
,
Dll,I.lanCG hom Trench )(
6f1Pth of Troneh D
..
, 0
,
...
,
o I 'I ... ., .' .!':
.. .... .:'
'I ..
. " .
CIlIa 0.06 ... .. I
':: ......

u
_c
CO

:.: ..
..
0.10 ':
-.
:;:

o
o
....
, .
Fig. (2): Building settlements due to slurry trench excavation
(after Cowland and Thorley, 1985)
36
W

,k .. .."0- ,':'X4 .. Si $."""",
S?T f!i?-:t:,
S?T
: ,,0
'"

'"
5) 0
,"
'" '"

OJ ,

I
..

..

....
.-
5 1 ...
5 f





101
...
'0
...
.. ..

_ ..

. ....

I

... ...
15
...
'5 ...

..

..



...

....

20 ! .... 20 ....


25 !

25



$'
50 28 3()
"
34 36 38 0
o ,
0



5
5




10

.. .

10
..

+*

...
'5

15
..



...


20 ....
20


25
25


o
W
Eli150 (kN/m')
10000 20000


...






...

..

... +

...

..



....

....




w
30000
I
30LI ________________
______________
30LI __________________
______________ __J
Fig. (3): Site characterization

w

[:::::1
1:>1

o
:..
FILL
.. ",-
:;
... '" _. '"
'" =


FINE SAND,
SOME SILT
GRADED
SAND,
SOME
GRAVEL
I
I
!
I
I
,
Kox
Settlement painl
23m
6
20 ZI 13


12
8
Diaphragm wall panels
3/\6
23
10
5

.,'.
E
4 2
22
-.74"
I-
I( ) 1 <>
12.8m :.35 1.8

(
1005 )
Fig. (-\): Layout of the wall and the settlement points
(Construction sequence of panels is indicated by numbers)
38
I
"
L
,
j
"
,

,
,
'jt
,
J
j
, ,
I
, ,
I
,,<,.
, )
, ,
i'l
I,
, , I
11
1
-!

J j
l
, ,
I
"

",.1"'1 'I
""I", ,,,,
\,':";1 JIlt),
OA'T&
'-' _oj. ,_! ;...; _.. ._.
,... . -".,.
I' .. ;-'r-r- : .... ...;,,:...,.._.J
OATH

(>AT13:
,,=-0=--
"
;.::::::: ;.;::;, j, ,
"'lOOt
. !..
, ,
t '.'-..'J.!..'_: . ...:.
.. 1...1 '_'_.Ll_1. L,_
I I I j-f-!-I t-!-t,;"-jI"-r'i;-
I I "-I ,',----
"1 -.
" 1""'-" ;-",-j,'-' -i ,',-j-'
r--I-fTT" S g
(lATE
, , I , I , ; I I
. ..!.
I I l:.J.!... 1-1 .J.
-
I ) J 1.1 .. 1. L.I J !.
V' .,.---..
"A'o..:
HArD
.,.

DATE
,
.
,
.. .;.=; ",",_,i,;;;, .,;;;;;:::;:::::=:-:'='l
-21 _ ._" _ ", __ ' _ "._._
;;
,
S



...
;; !
DATil
.: r,-.", "t'""I-"i-'"i "j 'i" ",'. i""i' ",','i -,",", "'i"' ","."'=,=. ",'"
.0
..
. ..
i+l-"l
i-; II
.. :1'rl-lJ..;-;-t-:-, !-;-;;- :-H"
__ Polnl (19) _ ,"_". _. _. _. _ ..... _. _". _ ." ___ . _ . _ .
- Point (28) ;":.!. . .!. :_',':' .:_ .. _. _
L. _'. ,!_. _ J._ L JJ. _. J. ,_
1-1. t...;...J .L .'_1 ...... 1 ___ .:.... i.. I..J . .;.. .'_J .1. .1__ ":._,"':. 1.... _. _ J_' .
:.. :::
DATE
__
.,
.0
;; , ,
i I I I I I . ' . ..! ,I . I I;'
il." \J .. --Poinl(21) W. !_\.!.\..;...! .. L!_ .. !. .. _ .. ! I -1-',
10 .7- """'Polnl(30) !-
I...J J../..J L.l , ..... i_L..:.:....!..J.I.I..J.!..:_! ...... :":.1.1..:_._.1_1.
..g 1..J.I...'-' ..... I_I . .... .;..j ..... _ _, ... ;_'..:._I .... -'-1
.0
E
!

i!


"r "
_Point (25) r-,-:-,.",-r
--Poin' (:311 :-. I j',-, ',- )"
__ :-1. L J..J ... __ : _ '
,
;; : .. = it
DATU
.i- oJ.
,
i
1-- --;-j-
'_._.'_1.
I'I' (5): Time,settlement relations for the monitoring points
39
,-'"
Ohslanoo from tho trcmoh em)

, . 15 20 2S 30 35


..'
,
a
-- ----- -- ----------t -- ----
I, I
, "


I" I I
;.
i

E

:
2

"
I I I
1 ,! I I
--------------r--- -------r------,-------r------
I l I I I
I Measured
----- --- --- - - -:----- - _-1 --- -- - -Proposed Envolope
I J I - -FE
"25
I I J _Tompson C1991)
-- --_. ------ --t---- - ---!--- -----.:-- -.-----j-. _Clough & O'Rouke (1990)
I I I I I !
I I I I i
30
I I i I I I

J I I I I I
I I J I I I
, ,
35
Fig. (6): Comparison between measured settlements andmticipated profiles
,
<la ___ __ __ ___ __________ ______ _
- q,
0"

!C


e
"
u

0
I;
1
"
___ ---- failure lin!..
i
(a)

.... -0',
shear leld surface
(b)
Fig. (7): Hardening soil model : (a) hyperbolic stress-strain relation;
(b) yield surface forcohesionless soil (after Brinkgreve and Vermeer, 1998)
Fig. (8): Finite element mesh
40