The selection, design and

performance of a multi-propped
contiguous pile retaining wall in
Norwich

W. J. GROSE, Ove Arup and Partners, UK, and B. H. TOONE,

ASA, Bovis Construction Ltd, UK

Introduction
The 'Castle Mall' shopping centre is currently being built in Norwich,
Norfolk. It involves the excavation, up to 18 m deep, of an irregular shaped
2.5 ha site surrounded by roads and buildings, and subsequent construction
of three levels of shopping malls alongside a five level underground car park.
The majority of the 'roof will be reinstated as parkland. The site is next to
Norwich town centre, immediately south of Norwich Castle. Figure 1 shows
the site layout relative to surrounding properties and roads. A diagrammatic
isometric view southwards is shown on Fig. 2.
Whilst some of the nearby buildings are modern, others are considerably
older and distorted due to foundation movement. In addition, the flint walled
St. John the Baptist church is only a few metres away form the site boundary
as are the Gate Houses and approach bridge to the Grade I listed Castle. The
prediction and control of the effects of the new works on these buildings
played a major part in the design process for the new wall.
The ground conditions at this site are described in detail elsewhere, see
references 1,2 and 3. In summary the stratigraphy is:
Made ground: 1 m to 10 m of archaeologically rich fill.
Norwich Crag: generally medium dense, fine to coarse sand with lenses
of clay, gravel and occasional cobbles. A marine shoreline deposit.
Upper chalk: weak chalk (N = 10 to 20), weathering grade IV.
Chalk in this area is well known for solution features. These are irregularly
shaped or inverted cone- shaped cavities in the chalk surface resulting from
solution of the chalk by percolating groundwater. The voids thus formed tend
to be filled with overlying soil.
The water table is at about +1 mOD, some 8 m below the lowest floor level
and between 15 and 26 m below original ground level.

24 Retaining structures. Thomas Telford, London, 1993

 GROSE AND TOONE

Fig. 1. Site plan

Wall selection
The layout of the project, with full-depth excavation over the whole plan
area of the site, led to the early decision to use a concrete cast in situ flexible
retaining wall system to provide both temporary and permanent support.
Alternatives considered were diaphragm, secant and contiguous walling, as
well as a king post and waling system. Factors affecting the choice were:
(i) the possibility of drilling fluid being lost into solution features
(ii) the low water table, watertightness therefore not essential
(iii) minimisation of ground movement
(iv) the ability to recognise and deal with solution features
These points led us to choose a contiguous piled wall, using 900 mm diameter
piles at 1050 centres. Piles were bored using temporary casings, and solution
features were overcome by lengthening the piles and permanently sleeving

25
RETAINING STRUCTURES

Fig. 2. Isometric sketch of excavation looking south

them to the underside of the feature. The retaining wall was some 800 m long,
and was also designed to carry vertical load.

Support selection
Three alternative means of wall support were examined in terms of
buildability, programme and cost:

Earth berm with top-down construction around perimeter

This scheme involved installing from original ground level the building's
steel columns in open shafts, onto large diameter piles, for a width of about
20 m around the site perimeter. The open, centre section of the site is
excavated leaving large berms, and the basement raft and superstructure
constructed. The perimeter berm is than excavated in layers, and the building
frame installed top-down until the remaining strip of basement raft is com
pleted. This method minimises the temporary works but at the expense of
programme flexibility. Elaborate sequencing is required to balance retained
soil forces across the building, and column grids must be fixed early in the
design.

26
 GROSE AND TOONE

Earth berm with raking props

A variation on the above, without the columns on large diameter piles but
with raking props installed between the permanent raft and the wall as the
20m wide berm is removed. The principal disadvantage of this traditional
construction method is the cost of the props.

Temporary ground anchorages

Ground anchorages are installed in layers as excavation proceeds. The
large site allows for excavation to proceed in the centre in advance of
anchoring at the perimeter. Other advantages are: an unobstructed site, both
to following trades and the bulk excavation; column positions need only be
fixed later in the construction programme; continuous basement raft not
needed - pad footings can be used. A potential disadvantage is that wayleaves
are not always given.
An appraisal of these three schemes was based on technical merit, con
struction safety risk, programme security and cost. Option 3 was significantly
cheaper (half the cost of option 2 and one quarter the cost of option 1) and
performed well in other comparisons, and was therefore the final choice.
Figure 3 shows a typical cross section.

Design
Division of responsibility
The use of a permanent retaining wall to provide temporary support is not

Permanent

27
RETAINING STRUCTURES

Permanent Works Temporary Works

Consulting Engineer Management Contractor

Design retaining wall sizes Check sizes & strength of all

permanent works under
Design floor sizes temporary conditions

Design permanent waling beams Design anchorages &

temporary props

Design temporary waling

Check that temporary use of beams
permanent works is compatible
with long term requirements

Check that overall wall Carry out analysis of wall

performance (movements) is performance in temporary
acceptable conditions

Fig. 4. Division of Design

unusual, but can lead to confusion over the duties and responsibilities of the
Temporary Works Designer (in this case the Management Contractor) on the
one hand, and the Consulting Engineer on the other. In order to achieve an
efficient design process, while ensuring that all elements of the work were
addressed, the division of responsibilities and activities relating to the wall
design were agreed at the outset between the Engineer and Management
Contractor. The flow chart on Figure 4 shows the principal design duties of
each party, and their chronological order. This sharing of the design process
aimed to combine responsibilities for design with control of the work: thus
the temporary wall support (anchors, struts or top-down construction) was
chosen, designed, programmed and specified by the Management Contrac
tor, whilst the permanent works design, and its performance in the long term,
were the province of the Engineer.

Wall design
Owing to the irregular shape of the site, and the difficulty of obtaining
wayleaves all round the perimeter, it was not possible to use ground anchor
ages everywhere. Across internal corners, especially where close to re-entrant
corners, diagonal bracing was used (see Figure 1). A total of 700 m of wall
was retained using ground anchorages and, owing to the variation in ground
level, stratigraphy and loading conditions around the site, sixty-three differ
ent cross sections were analyzed.
The forces taken into account in assessing the stability of the wall are

28
 GROSE AND TOONE

Potential Failure Mechanism

| P (Vertical Load on Wall)

o^Surcharge)^^
Prop
Made
Ground
Prop
Rigid Wall
Norwich :!/-'v .-.%
r

f1 0 Hinge
Prop

I I I

Upper
Chalk
I I I
,1,1,
A /I, Strut a (Surcharge)

CI

Idealisation for Stability Analysis p o t of Rotation

in

, (Applied) y'Prop
, M (Moment Capacity of Wall)

\
Active Zone r-> Strut q (Surcharge)
4

Passive Zone

Fig. 5. Failure mechanism considered for wall stability

shown in Figure 5. In the general case, where there are several levels of lateral
support, the system is structurally redundant and not amenable to a simple
retaining wall analysis. Here, the mode of failure was assumed to be rotation
about the bottom prop, the destabilising forces being (i) the vertical load on

29
RETAINING STRUCTURES

ID
l^i
^ c n c o t s i p i n ^ r o N r i 30.000
si mli HI Itm IIIIIIMI liwt itmJLm IHIILIM III t Jl M

iS
27.200 GROUND LEVEL

0 0
j?^ &.800

9.800

CHALK _i~t~
KEY:-
'^SURCHARGE
i K SURCHARGE ^ PERCHED WATER
A

PRE5TRE5S
FINAL DESIGN LOAD
i ANCHOR CAPACITY / FO.S. = 2-5

Fig. 6. Typical active pressure and anchor load diagram

30
 GROSE AND TOONE

the wall (ii) the weight of soil retained above prop level (modelled as a UDL
at the lowest prop level), and (iii) the wedge of soil pushing the wall's toe on
the active side. The resisting forces were (i) the passive soil resistance at the
toe, (ii) the friction between the soil mass and the downward moving soil
block and, (iii) the moment capacity of the wall. Generally, satisfactory results
were obtained with a toe penetration of 4 m below excavation level or 4 m
into chalk whichever was the greater. However, a critical condition was
reached when high vertical components of anchor loads were combined with
dead load from the permanent structure: this became a limiting condition
when several rows of steeply inclined anchorages were needed.
For short term stability it was of course also necessary to ensure that the
anchor forces were sufficient to resist the lateral forces on the wall. This was
carried out by a simple graphical check on the active pressure diagram (see
Figure 6).

Movement control
Of prime importance at this site was the need to limit wall, and hence
ground, movements, as described before. Movements were estimated from
an accumulation of effects: installation of the wall; excavation and anchoring;
destressing of anchors. Whilst these were summed to give final movements,
the largest single effect was excavation and anchoring and this aspect re
ceived the most attention.
Movement analyses were carried out using commercially available com
puter programs; the Management Contractor adopting WALLAP and the
Engineer using the Oasys program FREW. Whilst these programs are super
ficially similar, the methods of analyses are not the same: WALLAP models
the soil as a series of springs, the stiffnesses derived from a modulus of
subgrade reaction, whereas FREW models the soil as an elastic continuum
and derives an appropriate stiffness matrix for the soil on each side of the
retaining wall.
In general, there were only slight differences in the input values for bulk
density (7b) and effective angle of friction (<(>'), although in FREW angles of
wall friction (8) of 3$(|>'m and V2<t>'m were used on the active and passive sides
respectively. For movement calculations FREW used Young's moduli of
2 2 2
5 - 1 5 M N / m for Made Ground, 2 0 - 5 0 M N / m for Crag and 200 to 4 0 0 M N / m
for Chalk. WALLAP calls for a modulus of Subgrade Reaction and values
2
between 2 and 3 M N / m were chosen for Made Ground and Crag, and
2
lOOMN/m for Chalk.
For this project, the difference in the results produced by these programs
were inconsequential, with the deflected shape, ground movements and final
anchorage forces being broadly similar in most cases.
Analyses involved modelling the complete construction sequence of exca
vation, anchoring, excavation, 2nd row of anchors etc. to give deflection

31
RETAINING STRUCTURES

PREDICTED DEFLECTION
UPPER LIMIT DEFLECTION
DEFLECTION PROFILES
( i f w a t e r is a d d e d
after stage 1 excavation)
Fig. 7. Stage-by-stage deflection limits

profiles at all stages, see Figure 7. By applying full design loading (traffic
loads, superimposed loads, notional water pressure) and using moderately
conservative soil parameters, an upper limit of expected wall movement was
obtained, and this was used on site as a limiting value for comparison with
measured movements. These deflection profiles together with anchorage
layouts and design load, waling design and relevant material parameters
formed the principal parts of the temporary works design and were incor
porated into design reports for issue and checking. Close attention to site
monitoring, and comparison of observed performance with the design re
ports allowed a less conservative design philosophy to be used, thereby
saving cost.
In order to be satisfied that the wall's performance was going to be
acceptable, lateral movements were translated into vertical and horizontal
components of ground surface movements away from the wall. From these,
the effect on adjacent structures was assessed. In parallel with the 'moder
ately conservative' values, 'best estimate' movements were also obtained,
using more optimistic soil parameters and not transient superimposed loads.
These generally gave results between one third and one half of the 'moder
ately conservative' movements and later proved to be much closer to the
observed values.

32
 GROSE AND TOONE

Wafer pressure
As stated elsewhere, the natural groundwater level occurred some 8 m
below the deepest excavation level, and 4 m below the general toe level of the
pile wall. It was not considered that the groundwater level would rise high
enough to be problematic, but recognition was given to the likely sequence
of events following a serious burst water main, as pipe diameters in the
vicinity were quite large, ranging form 100 mm to 450 mm. The solution was
to design the wall for no water table, then check this design with a perched
water table in the fill, dissipating uniformly through the Crag to zero at the
top of the chalk.

Anchorage failure
The robustness of the anchorage arrangement was tested against the
supposition that an anchorage failed in service. Progressive failure obviously
had to be prevented. Redistribution of loads to anchorages either side of, and
above and below, the 'failed' anchorage was allowed as long as the adjacent
anchorages could accept the load increase in the ultimate limit state. Waling
beams were checked to ensure that they could span the extra distance, albeit
with a lower factor of safety.

Berms
In order to speed up work on site, it was advantageous to excavate the
central area of the site somewhat in advance of the anchor construction at the
perimeter. The latter was therefore carried out from a platform at the top of
a berm. It was thought that excavating in this way may have led to a reduction
in the wall's stability and perhaps more movement. This matter was exam
ined using the Oasys program STAWAL in conjunction with FREW. In the
stability calculation, it was assumed that excavating to leave a berm would
result in a reduction in the passive resistance of the soil adjacent to the wall.
Reduced coefficients of passive pressure (Kp*) were derived at intervals
down the buried part of the wall based on the most critical wedge or block
failure passing through that point, see figure 8. The size of berms was
established using a batter slope angle of 30%, approximately <(>' for the soil,
and making the crest width equal to the plan width of the batter slope. The
calculations showed that stability was only marginally altered by excavation
of berms in this way.

Performance
Considerable effort went into dealing with the concerns of neighbours.
Before any site work took place, condition surveys were commissioned for
fifty separate premises. Significant cracks were instrumented at this stage for
subsequent monitoring. One of the first, and continuing, tasks of the Man-

33
RETAINING STRUCTURES

Possible critical
failure surfaces

Crag

Chalk

Kp here modified based

on soil slip analysis

Fig. 8. Modelling ofberms

agement Contractor was to survey the area around the site, using over
seventy levelling stations in roads, paths and on buildings. During construc
tion of the perimeter wall, some 30 inclinometer tubes were installed, about
25 m apart. Regular monitoring of all these instruments has provided a
comprehensive step-by-step picture of the pattern of ground movements.
The results of monitoring which will continue for some time after excava
tion is complete, has shown ground and wall movements to be always less
than 'moderately conservative' estimates and generally less than the 'best
estimate' values. An example of the comparison is shown on Figure 9 for one
of the deepest parts of the excavation.

Costs
The approximate cost of the wall was 3 m, or 250 per square metre finally
exposed. The cost of the lateral support, including anchors, walings and
2
braces is in the order of 3.6 m, or 3 0 0 / m , about 25% of which is attributable
to waling beams (including the temporarily used permanent walings).

Concluding remarks
This paper has described the design process for a retaining wall around
an unusual-shaped excavation, in difficult ground conditions and with some
what stringent performance requirements. The case history is an example of
the successful combination of economic, safe design achieved within a rela
tively fast programme, as a result of clear division of responsibilities, close

34
 GROSE AND TOONE

Movement m m

Fig. 9. Measured vs. predicted movement

Fig. 10. Completed wall, 18 m high, near the Farmers Avenue Bridge

35
RETAINING STRUCTURES

cooperation between Engineer and Management Contractor, and a rigorous

approach to design.

Acknowledgements
Projects of this magnitude depend heavily on team efforts, and the authors
gratefully acknowledge the contribution of their colleagues in Ove Arup &
Partners and Bovis Construction Ltd.
Client: Estates & General pic and Friends Provident
Consulting Engineers: Ove Arup & Partners
Management Contractor: Bovis Construction Ltd
Trade Contractors: Expanded Piling Ltd (contiguous pile wall)
Keller Colcrete Ltd (ground anchorages)
Geotechnical Instruments Ltd (inclinometer readings).

References
1. LORD J.A. (1989) Foundations in Chalk, Keynote address, International
Chalk Symposium, Brighton.
2. TWINE D. AND GROSE W.J. (1989) Contribution to discussion, Interna
tional Chalk Symposium, Brighton.
3. BARLEY A., EVE R. AND TWINE E. (1992) Design and construction of
temporary ground anchorages at Castle Mall, Norwich.

36