10_braced_cuts_15.pdf 5s2e4
This document was ed by and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this report form. Report 445h4w
Overview 1s532p
& View 10_braced_cuts_15.pdf as PDF for free.
More details 6h715l
- Words: 7,242
- Pages: 34
10 10.1
Braced Cuts
Introduction Sometimes construction work requires ground excavations with vertical or near-vertical faces—for example, basements of buildings in developed areas or underground transportation facilities at shallow depths below the ground surface (a cut-and-cover type of construction). The vertical faces of the cuts need to be protected by temporary bracing systems to avoid failure that may be accompanied by considerable settlement or by bearing capacity failure of nearby foundations. Figure 10.1 shows two types of braced cut commonly used in construction work. One type uses the soldier beam (Figure 10.1a), which is driven into the ground before excavation and is a vertical steel or timber beam. Laggings, which are horizontal timber planks, are placed between soldier beams as the excavation proceeds. When the excavation reaches the desired depth, wales and struts (horizontal steel beams) are installed. The struts are compression . Figure 10.1b shows another type of braced excavation. In this case, interlocking sheet piles are driven into the soil before excavation. Wales and struts are inserted immediately after excavation reaches the appropriate depth. Figure 10.2 shows the braced-cut construction used for the Chicago subway in 1940. Timber lagging, timber struts, and steel wales were used. Figure 10.3 shows a braced cut made during the construction of the Washington, DC, metro in 1974. In this cut, timber lagging, steel H-soldier piles, steel wales, and pipe struts were used. To design braced excavations (i.e., to select wales, struts, sheet piles, and soldier beams), an engineer must estimate the lateral earth pressure to which the braced cuts will be subjected. The theoretical aspects of the lateral earth pressure on a braced cut were discussed in Section 7.8. The total active force per unit length of the wall (Pa ) was calculated using the general wedge theory. However, that analysis does not provide the relationships required for estimating the variation of lateral pressure with depth, which is a function of several factors, such as the type of soil, the experience of the construction crew, the type of construction equipment used, and so forth. For that reason, empirical pressure envelopes developed from field observations are used for the design of braced cuts. This procedure is discussed in the next section. 501
502 Chapter 10: Braced Cuts Wale
Strut
Strut A
A Soldier beam
Lagging
Lagging
Wale
Wedge Elevation
Plan (a)
Wale
Strut
Strut A
A Sheet pile Wale
Plan
Elevation (b)
Figure 10.1 Types of braced cut: (a) use of soldier beams; (b) use of sheet piles
10.2
Pressure Envelope for Braced-Cut Design As mentioned in Section 10.1, the lateral earth pressure in a braced cut is dependent on the type of soil, construction method, and type of equipment used. The lateral earth pressure changes from place to place. Each strut should also be designed for the maximum load to
10.2 Pressure Envelope for Braced-Cut Design
503
Figure 10.2 Braced cut in Chicago Subway construction, January 1940 (Courtesy of Ralph B. Peck)
which it may be subjected. Therefore, the braced cuts should be designed using apparentpressure diagrams that are envelopes of all the pressure diagrams determined from measured strut loads in the field. Figure 10.4 shows the method for obtaining the apparent-pressure diagram at a section from strut loads. In this figure, let P1 , P2 , P3 , P4 , c be the measured strut loads. The apparent horizontal pressure can then be calculated as P1 s1 5 d2 (s) ¢ d1 1 ≤ 2 P2 s2 5 d2 d3 (s) ¢ 1 ≤ 2 2 P3 s3 5 d3 d4 (s) ¢ 1 ≤ 2 2 P4 s4 5 d4 d5 (s) ¢ 1 ≤ 2 2
504 Chapter 10: Braced Cuts
Image not available due to copyright restrictions
d1
d1 1
P1 d2/2 d2 d2/2
2
P2 d3/2 d3 d3/2 P3
3
d4/2 d4 d4/2 P4 d5
d5/2 d5/2
4
Figure 10.4 Procedure for calculating apparent-pressure diagram from measured strut loads
10.2 Pressure Envelope for Braced-Cut Design
505
where s1 , s2 , s3 , s4 5 apparent pressures s 5 center-to-center spacing of the struts Using the procedure just described for strut loads observed from the Berlin subway cut, Munich subway cut, and New York subway cut, Peck (1969) provided the envelope of apparent-lateral-pressure diagrams for design of cuts in sand. This envelope is illustrated in Figure 10.5, in which
sa 5 0.65gHKa
(10.1)
where g 5 unit weight H 5 height of the cut Ka 5 Rankine active pressure coefficient 5 tan2 (45 2 fr>2) fr 5 effective friction angle of sand
Cuts in Clay In a similar manner, Peck (1969) also provided the envelopes of apparent-lateral-pressure diagrams for cuts in soft to medium clay and in stiff clay. The pressure envelope for soft to medium clay is shown in Figure 10.6 and is applicable to the condition gH .4 c where c 5 undrained cohesion (f 5 0). The pressure, sa , is the larger of
sa 5 gHB1 2 ¢
4c ≤R gH
and sa 5 0.3gH
(10.2)
where g 5 unit weight of clay. The pressure envelope for cuts in stiff clay is shown in Figure 10.7, in which
sa 5 0.2gH to 0.4gH
is applicable to the condition gH>c < 4.
(with an average of 0.3gH)
(10.3)
506 Chapter 10: Braced Cuts
0.25 H
0.25 H
a
H
a
0.5 H
a
0.75 H
0.25 H
Figure 10.5 Peck’s (1969) apparent-pressure envelope for cuts in sand
Figure 10.6 Peck’s (1969) apparent-pressure envelope for cuts in soft to medium clay
Figure 10.7 Peck’s (1969) apparent-pressure envelope for cuts in stiff clay
When using the pressure envelopes just described, keep the following points in mind: 1. 2. 3. 4.
10.3
They apply to excavations having depths greater than about 6 m. They are based on the assumption that the water table is below the bottom of the cut. Sand is assumed to be drained with zero pore water pressure. Clay is assumed to be undrained and pore water pressure is not considered.
Pressure Envelope for Cuts in Layered Soil Sometimes, layers of both sand and clay are encountered when a braced cut is being constructed. In this case, Peck (1943) proposed that an equivalent value of cohesion (f 5 0) should be determined according to the formula (see Figure 10.8a).
cav 5
1 3gsKsH 2s tan fsr 1 (H 2 Hs )nrqu4 2H
(10.4)
where H 5 total height of the cut gs 5 unit weight of sand Hs 5 height of the sand layer Ks 5 a lateral earth pressure coefficient for the sand layer (<1) fsr 5 effective angle of friction of sand qu 5 unconfined compression strength of clay nr 5 a coefficient of progressive failure (ranging from 0.5 to 1.0; average value 0.75)
10.4 Design of Various Components of a Braced Cut
Sand s
Hs
H
H1
Clay 1, c1
H2
Clay 2, c2
Hn
Clay n , cn
507
H Clay c
Hc
(a)
(b)
Figure 10.8 Layered soils in braced cuts
The average unit weight of the layers may be expressed as
ga 5
1 3g H 1 (H 2 Hs )gc4 H s s
(10.5)
where gc 5 saturated unit weight of clay layer. Once the average values of cohesion and unit weight are determined, the pressure envelopes in clay can be used to design the cuts. Similarly, when several clay layers are encountered in the cut (Figure 10.8b), the average undrained cohesion becomes cav 5
1 (c H 1 c2H2 1 c 1 cnHn ) H 1 1
(10.6)
where c1 , c2 , c, cn 5 undrained cohesion in layers 1, 2, c, n H1 , H2 , c, Hn 5 thickness of layers 1, 2, c, n The average unit weight is now ga 5
10.4
1 (g H 1 g2H2 1 g3H3 1 c 1 gnHn ) H 1 1
(10.7)
Design of Various Components of a Braced Cut Struts In construction work, struts should have a minimum vertical spacing of about 2.75 m or more. Struts are horizontal columns subject to bending. The load-carrying capacity of columns depends on their slenderness ratio, which can be reduced by providing
508 Chapter 10: Braced Cuts vertical and horizontal s at intermediate points. For wide cuts, splicing the struts may be necessary. For braced cuts in clayey soils, the depth of the first strut below the ground surface should be less than the depth of tensile crack, zc . From Eq. (7.8), sar 5 gzKa 2 2cr"Ka where Ka 5 coefficient of Rankine active pressure. For determining the depth of tensile crack, sar 5 0 5 gzcKa 2 2cr"Ka or zc 5
2cr
"Kag
With f 5 0, Ka 5 tan2 (45 2 f>2) 5 1, so zc 5
2c g
A simplified conservative procedure may be used to determine the strut loads. Although this procedure will vary, depending on the engineers involved in the project, the following is a step-by-step outline of the general methodology (see Figure 10.9): Step 1.
Step 2.
Step 3.
Draw the pressure envelope for the braced cut. (See Figures 10.5, 10.6, and 10.7.) Also, show the proposed strut levels. Figure 10.9a shows a pressure envelope for a sandy soil; however, it could also be for a clay. The strut levels are marked A, B, C, and D. The sheet piles (or soldier beams) are assumed to be hinged at the strut levels, except for the top and bottom ones. In Figure 10.9a, the hinges are at the level of struts B and C. (Many designers also assume the sheet piles or soldier beams to be hinged at all strut levels except for the top.) Determine the reactions for the two simple cantilever beams (top and bottom) and all the simple beams between. In Figure 10.9b, these reactions are A, B1 , B2 , C1 , C2 , and D. The strut loads in the figure may be calculated via the formulas PA 5 (A) (s) PB 5 (B1 1 B2 ) (s) PC 5 (C1 1 C2 ) (s) and PD 5 (D) (s)
(10.8)
10.4 Design of Various Components of a Braced Cut
509
d1
A
d2 B Hinges
a
d3
C
Simple cantilever d1
d4 Section
A
D
a d2
d5 B1
Simple beam
B2
a
d3 s
C1 Simple cantilever
C2 d4 Plan
a
D d5 (a)
(b)
Figure 10.9 Determination of strut loads: (a) section and plan of the cut; (b) method for determining strut loads
where PA , PB , PC , PD 5 loads to be taken by the individual struts at levels A, B, C, and D, respectively A, B1 , B2 , C1 , C2 , D 5 reactions calculated in Step 2 (note the unit: force>unit length of the braced cut) s 5 horizontal spacing of the struts (see plan in Figure 10.9a) Step 4. Knowing the strut loads at each level and the intermediate bracing conditions allows selection of the proper sections from the steel construction manual.
510 Chapter 10: Braced Cuts
Sheet Piles The following steps are involved in deg the sheet piles: Step 1. Step 2.
Step 3.
For each of the sections shown in Figure 10.9b, determine the maximum bending moment. Determine the maximum value of the maximum bending moments (Mmax ) obtained in Step 1. Note that the unit of this moment will be, for example, kN-m>m length of the wall. Obtain the required section modulus of the sheet piles, namely, S5
Step 4.
Mmax sall
(10.9)
where sall 5 allowable flexural stress of the sheet pile material. Choose a sheet pile having a section modulus greater than or equal to the required section modulus from a table such as Table 9.1.
Wales Wales may be treated as continuous horizontal if they are spliced properly. Conservatively, they may also be treated as though they are pinned at the struts. For the section shown in Figure 10.9a, the maximum moments for the wales (assuming that they are pinned at the struts) are, At level A,
Mmax 5
(A) (s2 ) 8
At level B,
Mmax 5
(B1 1 B2 )s2 8
At level C,
Mmax 5
(C1 1 C2 )s2 8
and At level D, Mmax 5
(D) (s2 ) 8
where A, B1 , B2 , C1 , C2 , and D are the reactions under the struts per unit length of the wall (see Step 2 of strut design). Now determine the section modulus of the wales: S5
Mmax sall
The wales are sometimes fastened to the sheet piles at points that satisfy the lateral requirements.
10.4 Design of Various Components of a Braced Cut
511
Example 10.1 The cross section of a long braced cut is shown in Figure 10.10a. a. b. c. d.
Draw the earth-pressure envelope. Determine the strut loads at levels A, B, and C. Determine the section modulus of the sheet pile section required. Determine a design section modulus for the wales at level B.
(Note: The struts are placed at 3 m, center to center, in the plan.) Use sall 5 170 3 103 kN>m2 Solution Part a We are given that g 5 18 kN>m2, c 5 35 kN>m2, and H 5 7 m. So, (18) (7) gH 5 5 3.6 , 4 c 35 Thus, the pressure envelope will be like the one in Figure 10.7. The envelope is plotted in Figure 10.10a with maximum pressure intensity, sa , equal to 0.3gH 5 0.3(18) (7) 5 37.8 kN , m2. Part b To calculate the strut loads, examine Figure 10.10b. Taking the moment about B1 , we have S MB1 5 0, and 1.75 1.75 1 ≤ 2 (1.75) (37.8) ¢ ≤ 50 A(2.5) 2 ¢ ≤ (37.8) (1.75) ¢ 1.75 1 2 3 2 or A 5 54.02 kN>m Also, S vertical forces 5 0. Thus, 1 2 (1.75) (37.8)
1 (37.8) (1.75) 5 A 1 B1
or 33.08 1 66.15 2 A 5 B1 So, B1 5 45.2 kN>m Due to symmetry, B2 5 45.2 kN>m and C 5 54.02 kN>m
512 Chapter 10: Braced Cuts 6m 1m
A
1.75 m
Sheet pile 2.5 m B
3.5 m
37.8 kN/m2
Clay 18 kN/m3 c 35 kN/m2 0
2.5 m C 1.75 m 1m
(a) Cross section
1.75 m
1.75 m
1.75 m
37.8 kN/m2
37.8 kN/m2
1.75 m
21.6 1m
2.5 m
2.5 m
A
B1
1m C
B2
(b) Determination of reaction
43.23 kN
43.23 kN
x 1.196 m B1 A
B2
E
F
10.8 kN
C 10.8 kN
45.2 kN
45.2 kN
(c) Shear force diagram
Figure 10.10 Analysis of a braced cut
10.4 Design of Various Components of a Braced Cut
513
Hence, the strut loads at the levels indicated by the subscripts are PA 5 54.02 3 horizontal spacing, s 5 54.02 3 3 5 162.06 kN PB 5 (B1 1 B2 )3 5 (45.2 1 45.2)3 5 271.2 kN and PC 5 54.02 3 3 5 162.06 kN Part c At the left side of Figure 10.10b, for the maximum moment, the shear force should be zero. The nature of the variation of the shear force is shown in Figure 10.10c. The location of point E can be given as x5
reaction at B1 45.2 5 5 1.196 m 37.8 37.8
Also, 37.8 1 1 3 1≤ ¢ ≤ Magnitude of moment at A 5 (1) ¢ 2 1.75 3 5 3.6 kN-m>meter of wall and Magnitude of moment at E 5 (45.2 3 1.196) 2 (37.8 3 1.196) ¢
1.196 ≤ 2
5 54.06 2 27.03 5 27.03 kN-m>meter of wall Because the loading on the left and right sections of Figure 10.10b are the same, the magnitudes of the moments at F and C (see Figure 10.10c) will be the same as those at E and A, respectively. Hence, the maximum moment is 27.03 kN-m>meter of wall. The section modulus of the sheet piles is thus S5
Mmax 27.03 kN-m 5 5 15.9 3 1025m3 , m of the wall sall 170 3 103 kN>m2
Part d The reaction at level B has been calculated in part b. Hence, Mmax 5
(B1 1 B2 )s2 (45.2 1 45.2)32 5 5 101.7 kN-m 8 8
and Section modulus, S 5
101.7 101.7 5 sall (170 3 1000)
5 0.598 3 1023 m3
■
514 Chapter 10: Braced Cuts
Example 10.2 Refer to the braced cut shown in Figure 10.11, for which ␥ ⫽ 17 kN/m3, ⬘ ⫽ 35°, and cr ⫽ 0. The struts are located 4 m on center in the plan. Draw the earth-pressure envelope and determine the strut loads at levels A, B, and C. Solution For this case, the earth-pressure envelope shown in Figure 10.5 is applicable. Hence, Ka 5 tan2 a45 2
fr 35 b 5 tan2 a45 2 b 5 0.271 2 2
From Equation (10.1) sa 5 0.65 gHKa 5 (0.65) (17) (9) (0.271) 5 26.95 kN>m2 Figure 10.12a shows the pressure envelope. Refer to Figure 10.12b and calculate B1: a MB1 5 0 5 (26.95) (5) a b 2 A5 5 112.29 kN>m 3 B1 5 (26.95) (5) 2 112.29 5 22.46 kN>m Now, refer to Figure 10.12c and calculate B2: a MB2 5 0
5m 2m A
3m B
Sand c0
3m C 1m
Figure 10.11
10.5 Case Studies of Braced Cuts
515
2m A 3m B
a 0.65HKa 26.95 kN/m2
3m C
1m (a) 26.95 kN/m2
2m
26.95 kN/m2
3m
3m B1
A (b)
B2
1m C
(c)
Figure 10.12 Load diagrams
4 (26.95) (4) a b 2 C5 5 71.87 kN>m 3 B2 5 (26.95) (4) 2 71.87 5 35.93 kN>m The strut loads are At A, (112.29)(spacing) ⫽ (112.29)(4) ⫽ 449.16 kN At B, (B1 ⫹ B2)(spacing) ⫽ (22.46 ⫹ 35.93)(4) ⫽ 233.56 kN At C, (71.87)(spacing) ⫽ (71.87)(4) ⫽ 287.48 kN
10.5
■
Case Studies of Braced Cuts The procedure for determining strut loads and the design of sheet piles and wales presented in the preceding sections appears to be fairly straightforward. It is, however, only possible if a proper pressure envelope is chosen for the design, which is difficult. This section describes some case studies of braced cuts and highlights the difficulties and degree of judgment needed for successful completion of various projects.
Subway Extension of the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) Lambe (1970) provided data on the performance of three excavations for the subway extension of the MBTA in Boston (test sections A, B, and D), all of which were well instrumented. Figure 10.13 gives the details of test section B, where the cut was 17.68 m, including subsoil conditions. The subsoil consisted of gravel, sand, silt, and clay (fill) to a depth of about 7.93 m, followed by a light gray, slightly organic silt to a depth of 14.02 m. A layer of coarse sand and gravel with some clay was present from 14.02 m to 16.46 m below the ground surface. Rock was encountered below 16.46 m. The horizontal spacing of the struts was 3.66 m center-to-center.
516 Chapter 10: Braced Cuts 11.28 m Strut S1 Fill 7.93 m S2 17.68 m S3
Silt
6.09 m
S4 S5
2.44 m Till 1.2 m
Rock
Rock
Figure 10.13 Schematic diagram of test section B for subway extension, MTBA
Because the apparent pressure envelopes available (Section 10.2) are for sand and clay only, questions may arise about how to treat the fill, silt, and till. Figure 10.14 shows the apparent pressure envelopes proposed by Peck (1969), considering the soil as sand and also as clay, to overcome that problem. For the average soil parameters of the profile, the following values of sa were used to develop the pressure envelopes shown in Figure 10.14.
17.68 m
a = 53.52 kN/m2
(a) Assuming sand
a = 146.23 kN/m2
(b) Assuming clay
Figure 10.14 Pressure envelopes (a) assuming sand; (b) assuming clay
10.5 Case Studies of Braced Cuts
517
Sand sa 5 0.65gHKa
(10.10)
For g 5 17.92 kN>m3, H 5 17.68 m, and Ka 5 0.26, sa 5 (0.65) (17.92) (17.68) (0.26) 5 53.52 kN>m2 Clay sa 5 gH c1 2 a
4c bd gH
(10.11)
For c 5 42.65 kN>m2, sa 5 (17.92) (17.68) c1 2
(4) (42.65) d 5 146.23 kN>m2 (17.92) (17.68)
Table 10.1 shows the variations of the strut load, based on the assumed pressure envelopes shown in Figure 10.14. Also shown in Table 10.1 are the measured strut loads in the field and the design strut loads. This comparison indicates that 1. In most cases the measured strut loads differed widely from those predicted. This result is due primarily to the uncertainties involved in the assumption of the soil parameters. 2. The actual design strut loads were substantially higher than those measured.
B. Construction of National Plaza (South Half) in Chicago The construction of the south half of the National Plaza in Chicago required a braced cut 21.43 m deep. Swatek et al. (1972) reported the case history for this construction. Figure 10.15 shows a schematic diagram for the braced cut and the subsoil profile. There were six levels of struts. Table 10.2 gives the actual maximum wale and strut loads. Table 10.1 Computed and Measured Strut Loads at Test Section B Computed load (kip) Strut number
Envelope based on sand
S-1 S-2 S-3 S-4 S-5
810 956 685 480 334
Envelope based on clay
1023 2580 1868 1299 974
Measured strut load (kip)
313 956 1352 1023 1219
518 Chapter 10: Braced Cuts 4.36 m Existing Curb wall
Sand fill 30° 17.29 kN/m3 0.305 m Stiff clay 0.915 m
A B
Soft silty clay 0 c 19.17 kN/m2 19.97 kN/m3
C Subway
D
9.76 m Medium silty clay 0 c 33.54 kN/m2, 20.44 kN/m3 13.11 m Tough silty clay 0, c 95.83 kN/m2, 21.22 kN/m3 14.94 m
E
F
17.07 m
MZ 38 Sheet piling –18.90 m
19.51 m
Very tough silty clay 0 c 191.67 kN/m2 21.22 kN/m3
Hardpan
Figure 10.15 Schematic diagram of braced cut—National Plaza of Chicago Table 10.2 National Plaza Wale and Strut Loads Strut level
Elevation (m)
Load measured (kN/m)
A B C D E F
10.915 21.83 24.57 27.47 210.37 213.57
233.49 386.71 423.20 423.20 423.20 448.0 S2337.8
Figure 10.16 presents a lateral earth-pressure envelope based on the maximum wale loads measured. To compare the theoretical prediction to the actual observation requires making an approximate calculation. To do so, we convert the clayey soil layers from Elevation 10.305 m ft to 217.07 m to a single equivalent layer in Table 10.3 by using Eq. (10.6). Now, using Eq. (10.4), we can convert the sand layer located between elevations 14.36 m and 10.305 m and the equivalent clay layer of 17.375 m to one equivalent clay layer with a thickness of 21.43 m: 1 3gsKsH 2s tan fsr 1 (H 2 Hs )nrqu4 2H 1 d 3 (17.29) (1) (4.055) 2 tan 30 1 (17.375) (0.75) (2 3 51.24) 4 5 c (2) (21.43) < 34.99 kN>m2
cav 5
10.5 Case Studies of Braced Cuts +4.36 m
5.36 m
+0.915 m A
–1.83 m B
–4.57 m C
283.7 kN/m2
–7.47 m D
Peck's pressure envelope
–10.37 m E
16.07 m
Actual pressure envelope
–13.57 m F
Bottom of cut –17.07 m
Figure 10.16 Comparison of actual and Peck’s pressure envelopes
Table 10.3 Conversion of Soil Layers using Eq. (10.6) Elevation (m)
Thickness, H (m)
c (kN/m2)
10.305 to 29.67
9.975
19.17
29.67 to 213.11
3.44
33.54
213.11 to 214.94 214.94 to 217.07
1.83 2.13 S17.375
Equivalent c (kN/m2)
1 3 (9.975) (19.17) 1 (3.44) (33.54) 17.375 1 (1.83) (95.83) (2.13) (191.67) 5 51.24 kN>m2
cav 5
95.83 191.67
Equation (10.7) gives 1 gav 5 3g H 1 g2H2 1 c 1 gnHn ) H 1 1
519
520 Chapter 10: Braced Cuts 1 3(17.29) (4.055) 1 (19.97) (10.065) 1 (20.44) (3.35) 21.43 1 (21.22) (1.83) 1 (21.22) (2.13)4 5 19.77 kN>m3
5
For the equivalent clay layer of 21.43 m, gavH (19.77) (21.43) 5 5 12.1 . 4 cav 34.99 Hence the apparent pressure envelope will be of the type shown in Figure 10.6 From Eq. (10.2) 4cav (4) (34.99) sa 5 gH c1 2 a bd 5 (19.77) (21.43) c1 2 d 5 283.7 kN>m2 gavH (19.77) (12.43) The pressure envelope is shown in Figure 10.16. The area of this pressure diagram is 2933 kN/m. Thus Peck’s pressure envelope gives a lateral earth pressure of about 1.8 times that actually observed. This result is not surprising because the pressure envelope provided by Figure 10.6 is an envelope developed considering several cuts made at different locations. Under actual field conditions, past experience with the behavior of similar soils can help reduce overdeg substantially.
10.6
Bottom Heave of a Cut in Clay Braced cuts in clay may become unstable as a result of heaving of the bottom of the excavation. Terzaghi (1943) analyzed the factor of safety of long braced excavations against bottom heave. The failure surface for such a case in a homogeneous soil is shown in Figure 10.17. In the figure, the following notations are used: B 5 width of the cut, H 5 depth of the cut, T 5 thickness of the clay below the base of excavation, and q 5 uniform surcharge adjacent to the excavation. q
e
j B
c
B 0 c
H
B g
f
45°
i
45° T h Arc of a circle
Figure 10.17 Heaving in braced cuts in clay
10.6 Bottom Heave of a Cut in Clay
521
The ultimate bearing capacity at the base of a soil column with a width of Br can be given as qult 5 cNc
(10.12)
where Nc 5 5.7 (for a perfectly rough foundation). The vertical load per unit area along fi is q 5 gH 1 q 2
cH Br
(10.13)
Hence, the factor of safety against bottom heave is FS 5
qult 5 q
cNc cH gH 1 q 2 Br
5
cNc q c ¢g 1 2 ≤H H Br
(10.14)
For excavations of limited length L, the factor of safety can be modified to cNc ¢1 1 0.2 FS 5
Br ≤ L
q c ¢g 1 2 ≤H H Br
(10.15)
where Br 5 T or B>"2 (whichever is smaller). In 2000, Chang suggested a revision of Eq. (10.15) with the following changes: 1. The shearing resistance along ij may be considered as an increase in resistance rather than a reduction in loading. 2. In Figure 10.17, fg with a width of Bs at the base of the excavation may be treated as a negatively loaded footing. 3. The value of the bearing capacity factor Nc should be 5.14 (not 5.7) for a perfectly smooth footing, because of the restraint-free surface at the base of the excavation. With the foregoing modifications, Eq. (10.15) takes the form 5.14c ¢1 1 FS 5
0.2Bs cH ≤ 1 L Br
gH 1 q
(10.16)
where Br 5 T if T < B>"2 Br 5 B>"2 if T . B>"2 Bs 5 "2Br Bjerrum and Eide (1956) compiled a number of case records for the bottom heave of cuts in clay. Chang (2000) used those records to calculate FS by means of Eq. (10.16); his findings are summarized in Table 10.4. It can be seen from this table that the actual field observations agree well with the calculated factors of safety.
522 Chapter 10: Braced Cuts Table 10.4 Calculated Factors of Safety for Selected Case Records Compiled by Bjerrum and Eide (1956) and Calculated by Chang (2000) Site
Pumping station, Fornebu, Oslo Storehouse, Drammen Sewerage tank, Drammen Excavation, Grey Wedels Plass, Oslo Pumping station, Jernbanetorget, Oslo Storehouse, Freia, Oslo Subway, Chicago
B (m)
B,L
H (m)
H,B
g (kN , m3)
5.0
1.0
3.0
0.6
17.5
4.8
0
2.4
0.5
19.0
5.5
0.69
3.5
0.64
5.8
0.72
4.5
8.5
0.70
5.0 16
0 0
c (kN , m2)
q (kN , m2)
FS [Eq. (10.16)]
0
1.05
Total failure
12
15
1.05
Total failure
18.0
10
10
0.92
Total failure
0.78
18.0
14
10
1.07
Total failure
6.3
0.74
19.0
22
0
1.26
Partial failure
5.0 11.3
1.00 0.70
19.0 19.0
16 35
0 0
1.10 1.00
Partial failure Near failure
7.5
Type of failure
Equation (10.16) is recommended for use in this test. In most cases, a factor of safety of about 1.5 is recommended. In homogeneous clay, if FS becomes less than 1.5, the sheet pile is driven deeper. (See Figure 10.18.) Usually, the depth d is kept less than or equal to B>2, in which case the force P per unit length of the buried sheet pile (aar and bbr) may be expressed as (U.S. Department of the Navy, 1971) P 5 0.7(gHB 2 1.4cH 2 pcB)
for d . 0.47B
(10.17)
B
c 0
H
d
a
b
a
b
P
P
Figure 10.18 Force on the buried length of sheet pile
10.6 Bottom Heave of a Cut in Clay
523
and
P 5 1.5d ¢gH 2
1.4cH 2 pc ≤ B
for d , 0.47B
(10.18)
Example 10.3 In Figure 10.19. for a braced cut in clay, B 5 3 m, L 5 20 m, H 5 5.5 m, T 5 1.5 m, g 5 17 kN>m3, c 5 30 kN>m2, and q 5 0. Calculate the factor of safety against heave. Use Eq. (10.16). Solution From Eq. (10.16), 0.2Brr cH b1 L Br gH 1 q
5.14ca1 1 FS 5 with T 5 1.5 m, B
!2
So
5
3
!2
T# Hence, Br 5 T 5 1.5 m, and it follows that
5 2.12 m
B
!2
B rr 5 !2Br 5 ( !2) (1.5) 5 2.12 m
3m Clay
γ = 17 kN/m3
5.5 m
c = 30 kN/m3 φ=0
1.5 m Hard stratum
Figure 10.19 Factor of safety against heaving for a braced cut
and
FS 5
(5.14) (30) c1 1
(0.2) (2.12) (30) (5.5) d 1 20 1.5 5 2.86 (17) (5.5)
■
524 Chapter 10: Braced Cuts
10.7
Stability of the Bottom of a Cut in Sand The bottom of a cut in sand is generally stable. When the water table is encountered, the bottom of the cut is stable as long as the water level inside the excavation is higher than the groundwater level. In case dewatering is needed (see Figure 10.20), the factor of safety against piping should be checked. [Piping is another term for failure by heave, as defined in Section 1.12; see Eq. (1.45).] Piping may occur when a high hydraulic gradient is created by water flowing into the excavation. To check the factor of safety, draw flow nets and determine the maximum exit gradient 3imax(exit) 4 that will occur at points A and B. Figure 10.21 shows such a flow net, for which the maximum exit gradient is
imax(exit)
h Nd h 5 5 a Nda
(10.19)
where a 5 length of the flow element at A (or B) Nd 5 number of drops (Note: in Figure 10.21, Nd 5 8; see also Section 1.11) The factor of safety against piping may be expressed as
FS 5
icr imax(exit)
(10.20)
where icr 5 critical hydraulic gradient.
Water level
Water level B h
L1 A
B L2
Flow of water
Impervious layer
L3
Figure 10.20 Stability of the bottom of a cut in sand
10.7 Stability of the Bottom of a Cut in Sand Water table
525
Water table h
A
Water level
B a
1
8 7 2 6 5 3 4
Impervious layer
Figure 10.21 Determining the factor of safety against piping by drawing a flow net
The relationship for icr was given in Chapter 1 as icr 5
Gs 2 1 e11
The magnitude of icr varies between 0.9 and 1.1 in most soils, with an average of about 1. A factor of safety of about 1.5 is desirable. The maximum exit gradient for sheeted excavations in sands with L3 5 ` can also be evaluated theoretically (Harr, 1962). (Only the results of these mathematical derivations will be presented here. For further details, see the original work.) To calculate the maximum exit gradient, examine Figures 10.22 and 10.23 and perform the following steps: 1. Determine the modulus, m, from Figure 10.22 by obtaining 2L2>B (or B>2L2) and 2L1>B. 2. With the known modulus and 2L1>B, examine Figure 10.23 and determine L2iexit(max)>h. Because L2 and h will be known, iexit(max) can be calculated. 3. The factor of safety against piping can be evaluated by using Eq. (10.20). Marsland (1958) presented the results of model tests conducted to study the influence of seepage on the stability of sheeted excavations in sand. The results were summarized by the U.S. Department of the Navy (1971) in NAVFAC DM-7 and are given in Figure 10.24a, b, and c. Note that Figure 10.24b is for the case of determining the sheet pile penetration L2 needed for the required factor of safety against piping when the sand layer extends to a great depth below the excavation. By contrast, Figure 10.24c represents the case in which an impervious layer lies at a limited depth below the bottom of the excavation.
526 Chapter 10: Braced Cuts
Text not available due to copyright restrictions
10.7 Stability of the Bottom of a Cut in Sand 0.70
0.65
L2i exit(max) h
0.60 2L1
B
0.55
=
0 0.5
0.50
1 2 4 8 12 16 20
0.45
0.40
0
0.02
0.04
0.06 0.08 Modulus, m (a)
0.10
0.12
1.0
1.2
0.6
0.5
L2i exit(max) h
0.4
2L1 =0 B
0.3
0.5
0.2 1 0.1
0
2 20 12 8 4 16 0.2
0.4
0.6 0.8 Modulus, m (b)
Figure 10.23 Variation of maximum exit gradient with modulus (From Groundwater and Seepage, by M. E. Harr. Copyright 1962 by McGraw-Hill. Used with permission.)
527
528 Chapter 10: Braced Cuts B Water table
h
Sand
L2
L3
Impervious layer (a) 2.0
Loose sand Dense sand
Factor of safety aganist heave in loose sand or piping in dense sand 2.0
L3 = ∞
1.5 L2 1.0 h
1.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 1.0
0.5 0 0
0.5
1.0 B/2h (b)
2.0
2.0
1.5
Dense sand of limited depth: L3
1.5
L2 1.0 h
L3 =2 h
Factors of safety agnist piping 2.0
0.5
2.0 1.5 1.5 1.0 1.0
L3 =1 h 0
0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
B/2h (c)
Figure 10.24 Influence of seepage on the stability of sheeted excavation (US Department of Navy, 1971.)
10.8 Lateral Yielding of Sheet Piles and Ground Settlement
529
Example 10.4 In Figure 10.20, let h 5 4.5 m, L1 5 5 m, L2 5 4 m, B 5 5 m, and L3 5 ` . Determine the factor of safety against piping. Use Figures 10.22 and 10.23. Solution We have 2L1 2(5) 5 52 B 5 and B 5 5 5 0.625 2L2 2(4) According to Figure 10.22b, for 2L1>B 5 2 and B>2L2 5 0.625,m < 0.033. From Figure 10.23a, for m 5 0.033 and 2L1>B 5 2, L2iexit(max)>h 5 0.54. Hence, iexit(max) 5
0.54(h) 5 0.54(4.5)>4 5 0.608 L2
and FS 5
10.8
icr 1 5 5 1.645 i max (exit) 0.608
■
Lateral Yielding of Sheet Piles and Ground Settlement In braced cuts, some lateral movement of sheet pile walls may be expected. (See Figure 10.25.) The amount of lateral yield (dH ) depends on several factors, the most important of which is the elapsed time between excavation and the placement of wales and struts. As discussed before, in several instances the sheet piles (or the soldier piles, as the case may be) are driven to a certain depth below the bottom of the excavation. The reason is to reduce the lateral yielding of the walls during the last stages of excavation. Lateral yielding of the walls will cause the ground surface surrounding the cut to settle. The degree of lateral yielding, however, depends mostly on the type of soil below the bottom of the cut. If clay below the cut extends to a great depth and gH>c is less than about 6, extension of the sheet piles or soldier piles below the bottom of the cut will help considerably in reducing the lateral yield of the walls.
530 Chapter 10: Braced Cuts x Original ground surface V (max) Deflected shape of sheet pile
z z
H
H
H (max)
Figure 10.25 Lateral yielding of sheet pile and ground settlement
However, under similar circumstances, if gH>c is about 8, the extension of sheet piles into the clay below the cut does not help greatly. In such circumstances, we may expect a great degree of wall yielding that could result in the total collapse of the bracing systems. If a hard layer of soil lies below a clay layer at the bottom of the cut, the piles should be embedded in the stiffer layer. This action will greatly reduce lateral yield. The lateral yielding of walls will generally induce ground settlement, dV , around a braced cut. Such settlement is generally referred to as ground loss. On the basis of several field observations, Peck (1969) provided curves for predicting ground settlement in various types of soil. (See Figure 10.26.) The magnitude of ground loss varies extensively; however, the figure may be used as a general guide. Moormann (2004) analyzed about 153 case histories dealing mainly with the excavation in soft clay (that is, undrained shear strength, c < 75 kN>m2). Following is a summary of his analysis relating to dV(max), x r, dH(max), and z r (see Figure 10.25). •
Maximum Vertical Movement [dV(max)]
dV(max)>H < 0.1 to 10.1% with an average of 1.07% (soft clay) dV(max)>H < 0 to 0.9% with an average of 0.18% (stiff clay) dV(max)>H < 0 to 2.43% with an average of 0.33% (non-cohesive soils) •
Location of dV(max), that is x r (Figure 10.25) For 70% of all case histories considered, x r < 0.5H. However, in soft clays, x r may be as much as 2H.
Problems
531
3 A — Sand and soft clay and average workmanship B — Very soft to soft clay. Limited in depth below base of excavation 2
C — Very soft to soft clay. Great depth below excavation
V (%) H
1 C B A 0 1 2 3 Distance from the braced wall H
4
Figure 10.26 Variation of ground settlement with distance (From Peck, R. B. (1969). “Deep Excavation and Tunneling in Soft Ground,” Proceedings Seventh International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Mexico City, State-of-the-Art Volume, pp. 225–290. With permission from ASCE.)
•
Maximum Horizontal Deflection of Sheet Piles, dH(max) For 40% of excavation in soft clay, 0.5% < dH(max)>H < 1%. The average value of dH(max)>H is about 0.87%. In stiff clays, the average value of dH(max)>H is about 0.25%. In non-cohesive soils, dH(max)>H is about 0.27% of the average.
•
Location of dH(max), that is z r (Figure 10.25) For deep excavation of soft and stiff cohesive soils, zr>H is about 0.5 to 1.0.
Problems 10.1 Refer to the braced cut shown in Figure P10.1. Given: g 5 16 kN>m3, fr 5 38°, and c r 5 0. The struts are located at 3.5 m center-to-center in the plan. Draw the earth-pressure envelope and determine the strut loads at levels A, B, and C.
532 Chapter 10: Braced Cuts 4.5 m 1m
A
2.5 m B
Sand 16 kN/m3 38° c 0
3m C 1.5 m
Figure P10.1
10.2 For the braced cut described in Problem 10.1, determine the following: a. The sheet-pile section modulus b. The section modulus of the wales at level B Assume that sall 5 170 MN>m2. 10.3 Refer to Fig. P.10.3. Redo Problem 10.1 with g 5 18 kN>m3, fr 5 40°, c r 5 0, and the center-to-center strut spacing in the plan 5 4 m. 10.4 Determine the sheet-pile section modulus for the braced cut described in Problem 10.3. Given: sall 5 170 MN>m2. 10.5 Refer to Figure 10.8a. For the braced cut, given H 5 6 m; Hs 5 2.5 m; gs 5 16.5 kN>m3; angle of friction of sand, fsr 5 35°; Hc 5 3.5 m; gc 5 17.5 kN>m3; and unconfined compression strength of clay layer, qu 5 62 kN>m2. a. Estimate the average cohesion (cav ) and average unit weight (gav ) for the construction of the earth-pressure envelope. b. Plot the earth-pressure envelope.
3.5 m 1m
A
2m B
2m C 1.5 m
Figure P10.3
Sand 18 kN/m3 38° c 0
References
533
6m 1m
A
3m B
c 30 kN/m2 0 17.5 kN/m3
2m C 1m
Figure P10.7
10.6 Refer to Figure 10.8b, which shows a braced cut in clay. Given: H 5 7.6 m, H1 5 1.52 m, c1 5 101.8 kN>m2, g1 5 17.45 kN>m3, H2 5 3.04 m, c2 5 74.56 kN>m2, g2 5 16.83 kN>m3, H3 5 3.04 m, c3 5 80.02 kN>m2, and g3 5 17.14 kN>m3. a. Determine the average cohesion (cav ) and average unit weight (gav ) for the construction of the earth-pressure envelope. b. Plot the earth-pressure envelope. 10.7 Refer to Figure P10.7. Given: g 5 17.5 kN>m3, c 5 30 kN>m2, and center-tocenter spacing of struts in the plan 5 5 m. Draw the earth-pressure envelope and determine the strut loads at levels A, B, and C. 10.8 Determine the sheet-pile section modulus for the braced cut described in Problem 10.7. Use sall 5 170 MN>m.2. 10.9 Redo Problem 10.7 assuming that c 5 60 kN>m2. 10.10 Determine the factor of safety against bottom heave for the braced cut described in Problem 10.7. Use Eq. (10.16) and assume the length of the cut, L 5 18 m. 10.11 Determine the factor of safety against bottom heave for the braced cut described in Problem 10.9. Use Eq. (10.15). The length of the cut is 12.5.
References BJERRUM, L, and EIDE, O. (1956). “Stability of Strutted Excavation in Clay,” Geotechnique, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 32– 47. CHANG, M. F. (2000). “Basal Stability Analysis of Braced Cuts in Clay,” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 126, No. 3, pp. 276–279. HARR, M. E. (1962). Groundwater and Seepage, McGraw-Hill, New York. LAMBE, T. W. (1970). “Braced Excavations.” Proceedings of the Specialty Conference on Lateral Stresses in the Ground and Design of Earth-Retaining Structures, American Society of Civil Engineers, pp. 149–218.
534 Chapter 10: Braced Cuts MOORMANN, C. (2004). “Analysis of Wall and Ground Movements Due to Deep Excavations in Soft Soil Based on New Worldwide Data Base,” Soils and Foundations, Vol. 44, No. 1, pp. 87–98. PECK, R. B. (1943). “Earth Pressure Measurements in Open Cuts, Chicago (ILL.) Subway,” Transactions, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 108, pp. 1008–1058. PECK, R. B. (1969). “Deep Excavation and Tunneling in Soft Ground,” Proceedings Seventh International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Mexico City, State-of-theArt Volume, pp. 225–290. SWATEK, E. P., JR., ASROW, S. P., and SEITZ, A. (1972). “Performance of Bracing for Deep Chicago Excavation,” Proceeding of the Specialty Conference on Performance of Earth and Earth ed Structures, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 1, Part 2, pp. 1303–1322. TERZAGHI, K. (1943). Theoretical Soil Mechanics, Wiley, New York. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY (1971). “Design Manual—Soil Mechanics. Foundations, and Earth Structures.” NAVFAC DM-7, Washington, D.C.
Braced Cuts
Introduction Sometimes construction work requires ground excavations with vertical or near-vertical faces—for example, basements of buildings in developed areas or underground transportation facilities at shallow depths below the ground surface (a cut-and-cover type of construction). The vertical faces of the cuts need to be protected by temporary bracing systems to avoid failure that may be accompanied by considerable settlement or by bearing capacity failure of nearby foundations. Figure 10.1 shows two types of braced cut commonly used in construction work. One type uses the soldier beam (Figure 10.1a), which is driven into the ground before excavation and is a vertical steel or timber beam. Laggings, which are horizontal timber planks, are placed between soldier beams as the excavation proceeds. When the excavation reaches the desired depth, wales and struts (horizontal steel beams) are installed. The struts are compression . Figure 10.1b shows another type of braced excavation. In this case, interlocking sheet piles are driven into the soil before excavation. Wales and struts are inserted immediately after excavation reaches the appropriate depth. Figure 10.2 shows the braced-cut construction used for the Chicago subway in 1940. Timber lagging, timber struts, and steel wales were used. Figure 10.3 shows a braced cut made during the construction of the Washington, DC, metro in 1974. In this cut, timber lagging, steel H-soldier piles, steel wales, and pipe struts were used. To design braced excavations (i.e., to select wales, struts, sheet piles, and soldier beams), an engineer must estimate the lateral earth pressure to which the braced cuts will be subjected. The theoretical aspects of the lateral earth pressure on a braced cut were discussed in Section 7.8. The total active force per unit length of the wall (Pa ) was calculated using the general wedge theory. However, that analysis does not provide the relationships required for estimating the variation of lateral pressure with depth, which is a function of several factors, such as the type of soil, the experience of the construction crew, the type of construction equipment used, and so forth. For that reason, empirical pressure envelopes developed from field observations are used for the design of braced cuts. This procedure is discussed in the next section. 501
502 Chapter 10: Braced Cuts Wale
Strut
Strut A
A Soldier beam
Lagging
Lagging
Wale
Wedge Elevation
Plan (a)
Wale
Strut
Strut A
A Sheet pile Wale
Plan
Elevation (b)
Figure 10.1 Types of braced cut: (a) use of soldier beams; (b) use of sheet piles
10.2
Pressure Envelope for Braced-Cut Design As mentioned in Section 10.1, the lateral earth pressure in a braced cut is dependent on the type of soil, construction method, and type of equipment used. The lateral earth pressure changes from place to place. Each strut should also be designed for the maximum load to
10.2 Pressure Envelope for Braced-Cut Design
503
Figure 10.2 Braced cut in Chicago Subway construction, January 1940 (Courtesy of Ralph B. Peck)
which it may be subjected. Therefore, the braced cuts should be designed using apparentpressure diagrams that are envelopes of all the pressure diagrams determined from measured strut loads in the field. Figure 10.4 shows the method for obtaining the apparent-pressure diagram at a section from strut loads. In this figure, let P1 , P2 , P3 , P4 , c be the measured strut loads. The apparent horizontal pressure can then be calculated as P1 s1 5 d2 (s) ¢ d1 1 ≤ 2 P2 s2 5 d2 d3 (s) ¢ 1 ≤ 2 2 P3 s3 5 d3 d4 (s) ¢ 1 ≤ 2 2 P4 s4 5 d4 d5 (s) ¢ 1 ≤ 2 2
504 Chapter 10: Braced Cuts
Image not available due to copyright restrictions
d1
d1 1
P1 d2/2 d2 d2/2
2
P2 d3/2 d3 d3/2 P3
3
d4/2 d4 d4/2 P4 d5
d5/2 d5/2
4
Figure 10.4 Procedure for calculating apparent-pressure diagram from measured strut loads
10.2 Pressure Envelope for Braced-Cut Design
505
where s1 , s2 , s3 , s4 5 apparent pressures s 5 center-to-center spacing of the struts Using the procedure just described for strut loads observed from the Berlin subway cut, Munich subway cut, and New York subway cut, Peck (1969) provided the envelope of apparent-lateral-pressure diagrams for design of cuts in sand. This envelope is illustrated in Figure 10.5, in which
sa 5 0.65gHKa
(10.1)
where g 5 unit weight H 5 height of the cut Ka 5 Rankine active pressure coefficient 5 tan2 (45 2 fr>2) fr 5 effective friction angle of sand
Cuts in Clay In a similar manner, Peck (1969) also provided the envelopes of apparent-lateral-pressure diagrams for cuts in soft to medium clay and in stiff clay. The pressure envelope for soft to medium clay is shown in Figure 10.6 and is applicable to the condition gH .4 c where c 5 undrained cohesion (f 5 0). The pressure, sa , is the larger of
sa 5 gHB1 2 ¢
4c ≤R gH
and sa 5 0.3gH
(10.2)
where g 5 unit weight of clay. The pressure envelope for cuts in stiff clay is shown in Figure 10.7, in which
sa 5 0.2gH to 0.4gH
is applicable to the condition gH>c < 4.
(with an average of 0.3gH)
(10.3)
506 Chapter 10: Braced Cuts
0.25 H
0.25 H
a
H
a
0.5 H
a
0.75 H
0.25 H
Figure 10.5 Peck’s (1969) apparent-pressure envelope for cuts in sand
Figure 10.6 Peck’s (1969) apparent-pressure envelope for cuts in soft to medium clay
Figure 10.7 Peck’s (1969) apparent-pressure envelope for cuts in stiff clay
When using the pressure envelopes just described, keep the following points in mind: 1. 2. 3. 4.
10.3
They apply to excavations having depths greater than about 6 m. They are based on the assumption that the water table is below the bottom of the cut. Sand is assumed to be drained with zero pore water pressure. Clay is assumed to be undrained and pore water pressure is not considered.
Pressure Envelope for Cuts in Layered Soil Sometimes, layers of both sand and clay are encountered when a braced cut is being constructed. In this case, Peck (1943) proposed that an equivalent value of cohesion (f 5 0) should be determined according to the formula (see Figure 10.8a).
cav 5
1 3gsKsH 2s tan fsr 1 (H 2 Hs )nrqu4 2H
(10.4)
where H 5 total height of the cut gs 5 unit weight of sand Hs 5 height of the sand layer Ks 5 a lateral earth pressure coefficient for the sand layer (<1) fsr 5 effective angle of friction of sand qu 5 unconfined compression strength of clay nr 5 a coefficient of progressive failure (ranging from 0.5 to 1.0; average value 0.75)
10.4 Design of Various Components of a Braced Cut
Sand s
Hs
H
H1
Clay 1, c1
H2
Clay 2, c2
Hn
Clay n , cn
507
H Clay c
Hc
(a)
(b)
Figure 10.8 Layered soils in braced cuts
The average unit weight of the layers may be expressed as
ga 5
1 3g H 1 (H 2 Hs )gc4 H s s
(10.5)
where gc 5 saturated unit weight of clay layer. Once the average values of cohesion and unit weight are determined, the pressure envelopes in clay can be used to design the cuts. Similarly, when several clay layers are encountered in the cut (Figure 10.8b), the average undrained cohesion becomes cav 5
1 (c H 1 c2H2 1 c 1 cnHn ) H 1 1
(10.6)
where c1 , c2 , c, cn 5 undrained cohesion in layers 1, 2, c, n H1 , H2 , c, Hn 5 thickness of layers 1, 2, c, n The average unit weight is now ga 5
10.4
1 (g H 1 g2H2 1 g3H3 1 c 1 gnHn ) H 1 1
(10.7)
Design of Various Components of a Braced Cut Struts In construction work, struts should have a minimum vertical spacing of about 2.75 m or more. Struts are horizontal columns subject to bending. The load-carrying capacity of columns depends on their slenderness ratio, which can be reduced by providing
508 Chapter 10: Braced Cuts vertical and horizontal s at intermediate points. For wide cuts, splicing the struts may be necessary. For braced cuts in clayey soils, the depth of the first strut below the ground surface should be less than the depth of tensile crack, zc . From Eq. (7.8), sar 5 gzKa 2 2cr"Ka where Ka 5 coefficient of Rankine active pressure. For determining the depth of tensile crack, sar 5 0 5 gzcKa 2 2cr"Ka or zc 5
2cr
"Kag
With f 5 0, Ka 5 tan2 (45 2 f>2) 5 1, so zc 5
2c g
A simplified conservative procedure may be used to determine the strut loads. Although this procedure will vary, depending on the engineers involved in the project, the following is a step-by-step outline of the general methodology (see Figure 10.9): Step 1.
Step 2.
Step 3.
Draw the pressure envelope for the braced cut. (See Figures 10.5, 10.6, and 10.7.) Also, show the proposed strut levels. Figure 10.9a shows a pressure envelope for a sandy soil; however, it could also be for a clay. The strut levels are marked A, B, C, and D. The sheet piles (or soldier beams) are assumed to be hinged at the strut levels, except for the top and bottom ones. In Figure 10.9a, the hinges are at the level of struts B and C. (Many designers also assume the sheet piles or soldier beams to be hinged at all strut levels except for the top.) Determine the reactions for the two simple cantilever beams (top and bottom) and all the simple beams between. In Figure 10.9b, these reactions are A, B1 , B2 , C1 , C2 , and D. The strut loads in the figure may be calculated via the formulas PA 5 (A) (s) PB 5 (B1 1 B2 ) (s) PC 5 (C1 1 C2 ) (s) and PD 5 (D) (s)
(10.8)
10.4 Design of Various Components of a Braced Cut
509
d1
A
d2 B Hinges
a
d3
C
Simple cantilever d1
d4 Section
A
D
a d2
d5 B1
Simple beam
B2
a
d3 s
C1 Simple cantilever
C2 d4 Plan
a
D d5 (a)
(b)
Figure 10.9 Determination of strut loads: (a) section and plan of the cut; (b) method for determining strut loads
where PA , PB , PC , PD 5 loads to be taken by the individual struts at levels A, B, C, and D, respectively A, B1 , B2 , C1 , C2 , D 5 reactions calculated in Step 2 (note the unit: force>unit length of the braced cut) s 5 horizontal spacing of the struts (see plan in Figure 10.9a) Step 4. Knowing the strut loads at each level and the intermediate bracing conditions allows selection of the proper sections from the steel construction manual.
510 Chapter 10: Braced Cuts
Sheet Piles The following steps are involved in deg the sheet piles: Step 1. Step 2.
Step 3.
For each of the sections shown in Figure 10.9b, determine the maximum bending moment. Determine the maximum value of the maximum bending moments (Mmax ) obtained in Step 1. Note that the unit of this moment will be, for example, kN-m>m length of the wall. Obtain the required section modulus of the sheet piles, namely, S5
Step 4.
Mmax sall
(10.9)
where sall 5 allowable flexural stress of the sheet pile material. Choose a sheet pile having a section modulus greater than or equal to the required section modulus from a table such as Table 9.1.
Wales Wales may be treated as continuous horizontal if they are spliced properly. Conservatively, they may also be treated as though they are pinned at the struts. For the section shown in Figure 10.9a, the maximum moments for the wales (assuming that they are pinned at the struts) are, At level A,
Mmax 5
(A) (s2 ) 8
At level B,
Mmax 5
(B1 1 B2 )s2 8
At level C,
Mmax 5
(C1 1 C2 )s2 8
and At level D, Mmax 5
(D) (s2 ) 8
where A, B1 , B2 , C1 , C2 , and D are the reactions under the struts per unit length of the wall (see Step 2 of strut design). Now determine the section modulus of the wales: S5
Mmax sall
The wales are sometimes fastened to the sheet piles at points that satisfy the lateral requirements.
10.4 Design of Various Components of a Braced Cut
511
Example 10.1 The cross section of a long braced cut is shown in Figure 10.10a. a. b. c. d.
Draw the earth-pressure envelope. Determine the strut loads at levels A, B, and C. Determine the section modulus of the sheet pile section required. Determine a design section modulus for the wales at level B.
(Note: The struts are placed at 3 m, center to center, in the plan.) Use sall 5 170 3 103 kN>m2 Solution Part a We are given that g 5 18 kN>m2, c 5 35 kN>m2, and H 5 7 m. So, (18) (7) gH 5 5 3.6 , 4 c 35 Thus, the pressure envelope will be like the one in Figure 10.7. The envelope is plotted in Figure 10.10a with maximum pressure intensity, sa , equal to 0.3gH 5 0.3(18) (7) 5 37.8 kN , m2. Part b To calculate the strut loads, examine Figure 10.10b. Taking the moment about B1 , we have S MB1 5 0, and 1.75 1.75 1 ≤ 2 (1.75) (37.8) ¢ ≤ 50 A(2.5) 2 ¢ ≤ (37.8) (1.75) ¢ 1.75 1 2 3 2 or A 5 54.02 kN>m Also, S vertical forces 5 0. Thus, 1 2 (1.75) (37.8)
1 (37.8) (1.75) 5 A 1 B1
or 33.08 1 66.15 2 A 5 B1 So, B1 5 45.2 kN>m Due to symmetry, B2 5 45.2 kN>m and C 5 54.02 kN>m
512 Chapter 10: Braced Cuts 6m 1m
A
1.75 m
Sheet pile 2.5 m B
3.5 m
37.8 kN/m2
Clay 18 kN/m3 c 35 kN/m2 0
2.5 m C 1.75 m 1m
(a) Cross section
1.75 m
1.75 m
1.75 m
37.8 kN/m2
37.8 kN/m2
1.75 m
21.6 1m
2.5 m
2.5 m
A
B1
1m C
B2
(b) Determination of reaction
43.23 kN
43.23 kN
x 1.196 m B1 A
B2
E
F
10.8 kN
C 10.8 kN
45.2 kN
45.2 kN
(c) Shear force diagram
Figure 10.10 Analysis of a braced cut
10.4 Design of Various Components of a Braced Cut
513
Hence, the strut loads at the levels indicated by the subscripts are PA 5 54.02 3 horizontal spacing, s 5 54.02 3 3 5 162.06 kN PB 5 (B1 1 B2 )3 5 (45.2 1 45.2)3 5 271.2 kN and PC 5 54.02 3 3 5 162.06 kN Part c At the left side of Figure 10.10b, for the maximum moment, the shear force should be zero. The nature of the variation of the shear force is shown in Figure 10.10c. The location of point E can be given as x5
reaction at B1 45.2 5 5 1.196 m 37.8 37.8
Also, 37.8 1 1 3 1≤ ¢ ≤ Magnitude of moment at A 5 (1) ¢ 2 1.75 3 5 3.6 kN-m>meter of wall and Magnitude of moment at E 5 (45.2 3 1.196) 2 (37.8 3 1.196) ¢
1.196 ≤ 2
5 54.06 2 27.03 5 27.03 kN-m>meter of wall Because the loading on the left and right sections of Figure 10.10b are the same, the magnitudes of the moments at F and C (see Figure 10.10c) will be the same as those at E and A, respectively. Hence, the maximum moment is 27.03 kN-m>meter of wall. The section modulus of the sheet piles is thus S5
Mmax 27.03 kN-m 5 5 15.9 3 1025m3 , m of the wall sall 170 3 103 kN>m2
Part d The reaction at level B has been calculated in part b. Hence, Mmax 5
(B1 1 B2 )s2 (45.2 1 45.2)32 5 5 101.7 kN-m 8 8
and Section modulus, S 5
101.7 101.7 5 sall (170 3 1000)
5 0.598 3 1023 m3
■
514 Chapter 10: Braced Cuts
Example 10.2 Refer to the braced cut shown in Figure 10.11, for which ␥ ⫽ 17 kN/m3, ⬘ ⫽ 35°, and cr ⫽ 0. The struts are located 4 m on center in the plan. Draw the earth-pressure envelope and determine the strut loads at levels A, B, and C. Solution For this case, the earth-pressure envelope shown in Figure 10.5 is applicable. Hence, Ka 5 tan2 a45 2
fr 35 b 5 tan2 a45 2 b 5 0.271 2 2
From Equation (10.1) sa 5 0.65 gHKa 5 (0.65) (17) (9) (0.271) 5 26.95 kN>m2 Figure 10.12a shows the pressure envelope. Refer to Figure 10.12b and calculate B1: a MB1 5 0 5 (26.95) (5) a b 2 A5 5 112.29 kN>m 3 B1 5 (26.95) (5) 2 112.29 5 22.46 kN>m Now, refer to Figure 10.12c and calculate B2: a MB2 5 0
5m 2m A
3m B
Sand c0
3m C 1m
Figure 10.11
10.5 Case Studies of Braced Cuts
515
2m A 3m B
a 0.65HKa 26.95 kN/m2
3m C
1m (a) 26.95 kN/m2
2m
26.95 kN/m2
3m
3m B1
A (b)
B2
1m C
(c)
Figure 10.12 Load diagrams
4 (26.95) (4) a b 2 C5 5 71.87 kN>m 3 B2 5 (26.95) (4) 2 71.87 5 35.93 kN>m The strut loads are At A, (112.29)(spacing) ⫽ (112.29)(4) ⫽ 449.16 kN At B, (B1 ⫹ B2)(spacing) ⫽ (22.46 ⫹ 35.93)(4) ⫽ 233.56 kN At C, (71.87)(spacing) ⫽ (71.87)(4) ⫽ 287.48 kN
10.5
■
Case Studies of Braced Cuts The procedure for determining strut loads and the design of sheet piles and wales presented in the preceding sections appears to be fairly straightforward. It is, however, only possible if a proper pressure envelope is chosen for the design, which is difficult. This section describes some case studies of braced cuts and highlights the difficulties and degree of judgment needed for successful completion of various projects.
Subway Extension of the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) Lambe (1970) provided data on the performance of three excavations for the subway extension of the MBTA in Boston (test sections A, B, and D), all of which were well instrumented. Figure 10.13 gives the details of test section B, where the cut was 17.68 m, including subsoil conditions. The subsoil consisted of gravel, sand, silt, and clay (fill) to a depth of about 7.93 m, followed by a light gray, slightly organic silt to a depth of 14.02 m. A layer of coarse sand and gravel with some clay was present from 14.02 m to 16.46 m below the ground surface. Rock was encountered below 16.46 m. The horizontal spacing of the struts was 3.66 m center-to-center.
516 Chapter 10: Braced Cuts 11.28 m Strut S1 Fill 7.93 m S2 17.68 m S3
Silt
6.09 m
S4 S5
2.44 m Till 1.2 m
Rock
Rock
Figure 10.13 Schematic diagram of test section B for subway extension, MTBA
Because the apparent pressure envelopes available (Section 10.2) are for sand and clay only, questions may arise about how to treat the fill, silt, and till. Figure 10.14 shows the apparent pressure envelopes proposed by Peck (1969), considering the soil as sand and also as clay, to overcome that problem. For the average soil parameters of the profile, the following values of sa were used to develop the pressure envelopes shown in Figure 10.14.
17.68 m
a = 53.52 kN/m2
(a) Assuming sand
a = 146.23 kN/m2
(b) Assuming clay
Figure 10.14 Pressure envelopes (a) assuming sand; (b) assuming clay
10.5 Case Studies of Braced Cuts
517
Sand sa 5 0.65gHKa
(10.10)
For g 5 17.92 kN>m3, H 5 17.68 m, and Ka 5 0.26, sa 5 (0.65) (17.92) (17.68) (0.26) 5 53.52 kN>m2 Clay sa 5 gH c1 2 a
4c bd gH
(10.11)
For c 5 42.65 kN>m2, sa 5 (17.92) (17.68) c1 2
(4) (42.65) d 5 146.23 kN>m2 (17.92) (17.68)
Table 10.1 shows the variations of the strut load, based on the assumed pressure envelopes shown in Figure 10.14. Also shown in Table 10.1 are the measured strut loads in the field and the design strut loads. This comparison indicates that 1. In most cases the measured strut loads differed widely from those predicted. This result is due primarily to the uncertainties involved in the assumption of the soil parameters. 2. The actual design strut loads were substantially higher than those measured.
B. Construction of National Plaza (South Half) in Chicago The construction of the south half of the National Plaza in Chicago required a braced cut 21.43 m deep. Swatek et al. (1972) reported the case history for this construction. Figure 10.15 shows a schematic diagram for the braced cut and the subsoil profile. There were six levels of struts. Table 10.2 gives the actual maximum wale and strut loads. Table 10.1 Computed and Measured Strut Loads at Test Section B Computed load (kip) Strut number
Envelope based on sand
S-1 S-2 S-3 S-4 S-5
810 956 685 480 334
Envelope based on clay
1023 2580 1868 1299 974
Measured strut load (kip)
313 956 1352 1023 1219
518 Chapter 10: Braced Cuts 4.36 m Existing Curb wall
Sand fill 30° 17.29 kN/m3 0.305 m Stiff clay 0.915 m
A B
Soft silty clay 0 c 19.17 kN/m2 19.97 kN/m3
C Subway
D
9.76 m Medium silty clay 0 c 33.54 kN/m2, 20.44 kN/m3 13.11 m Tough silty clay 0, c 95.83 kN/m2, 21.22 kN/m3 14.94 m
E
F
17.07 m
MZ 38 Sheet piling –18.90 m
19.51 m
Very tough silty clay 0 c 191.67 kN/m2 21.22 kN/m3
Hardpan
Figure 10.15 Schematic diagram of braced cut—National Plaza of Chicago Table 10.2 National Plaza Wale and Strut Loads Strut level
Elevation (m)
Load measured (kN/m)
A B C D E F
10.915 21.83 24.57 27.47 210.37 213.57
233.49 386.71 423.20 423.20 423.20 448.0 S2337.8
Figure 10.16 presents a lateral earth-pressure envelope based on the maximum wale loads measured. To compare the theoretical prediction to the actual observation requires making an approximate calculation. To do so, we convert the clayey soil layers from Elevation 10.305 m ft to 217.07 m to a single equivalent layer in Table 10.3 by using Eq. (10.6). Now, using Eq. (10.4), we can convert the sand layer located between elevations 14.36 m and 10.305 m and the equivalent clay layer of 17.375 m to one equivalent clay layer with a thickness of 21.43 m: 1 3gsKsH 2s tan fsr 1 (H 2 Hs )nrqu4 2H 1 d 3 (17.29) (1) (4.055) 2 tan 30 1 (17.375) (0.75) (2 3 51.24) 4 5 c (2) (21.43) < 34.99 kN>m2
cav 5
10.5 Case Studies of Braced Cuts +4.36 m
5.36 m
+0.915 m A
–1.83 m B
–4.57 m C
283.7 kN/m2
–7.47 m D
Peck's pressure envelope
–10.37 m E
16.07 m
Actual pressure envelope
–13.57 m F
Bottom of cut –17.07 m
Figure 10.16 Comparison of actual and Peck’s pressure envelopes
Table 10.3 Conversion of Soil Layers using Eq. (10.6) Elevation (m)
Thickness, H (m)
c (kN/m2)
10.305 to 29.67
9.975
19.17
29.67 to 213.11
3.44
33.54
213.11 to 214.94 214.94 to 217.07
1.83 2.13 S17.375
Equivalent c (kN/m2)
1 3 (9.975) (19.17) 1 (3.44) (33.54) 17.375 1 (1.83) (95.83) (2.13) (191.67) 5 51.24 kN>m2
cav 5
95.83 191.67
Equation (10.7) gives 1 gav 5 3g H 1 g2H2 1 c 1 gnHn ) H 1 1
519
520 Chapter 10: Braced Cuts 1 3(17.29) (4.055) 1 (19.97) (10.065) 1 (20.44) (3.35) 21.43 1 (21.22) (1.83) 1 (21.22) (2.13)4 5 19.77 kN>m3
5
For the equivalent clay layer of 21.43 m, gavH (19.77) (21.43) 5 5 12.1 . 4 cav 34.99 Hence the apparent pressure envelope will be of the type shown in Figure 10.6 From Eq. (10.2) 4cav (4) (34.99) sa 5 gH c1 2 a bd 5 (19.77) (21.43) c1 2 d 5 283.7 kN>m2 gavH (19.77) (12.43) The pressure envelope is shown in Figure 10.16. The area of this pressure diagram is 2933 kN/m. Thus Peck’s pressure envelope gives a lateral earth pressure of about 1.8 times that actually observed. This result is not surprising because the pressure envelope provided by Figure 10.6 is an envelope developed considering several cuts made at different locations. Under actual field conditions, past experience with the behavior of similar soils can help reduce overdeg substantially.
10.6
Bottom Heave of a Cut in Clay Braced cuts in clay may become unstable as a result of heaving of the bottom of the excavation. Terzaghi (1943) analyzed the factor of safety of long braced excavations against bottom heave. The failure surface for such a case in a homogeneous soil is shown in Figure 10.17. In the figure, the following notations are used: B 5 width of the cut, H 5 depth of the cut, T 5 thickness of the clay below the base of excavation, and q 5 uniform surcharge adjacent to the excavation. q
e
j B
c
B 0 c
H
B g
f
45°
i
45° T h Arc of a circle
Figure 10.17 Heaving in braced cuts in clay
10.6 Bottom Heave of a Cut in Clay
521
The ultimate bearing capacity at the base of a soil column with a width of Br can be given as qult 5 cNc
(10.12)
where Nc 5 5.7 (for a perfectly rough foundation). The vertical load per unit area along fi is q 5 gH 1 q 2
cH Br
(10.13)
Hence, the factor of safety against bottom heave is FS 5
qult 5 q
cNc cH gH 1 q 2 Br
5
cNc q c ¢g 1 2 ≤H H Br
(10.14)
For excavations of limited length L, the factor of safety can be modified to cNc ¢1 1 0.2 FS 5
Br ≤ L
q c ¢g 1 2 ≤H H Br
(10.15)
where Br 5 T or B>"2 (whichever is smaller). In 2000, Chang suggested a revision of Eq. (10.15) with the following changes: 1. The shearing resistance along ij may be considered as an increase in resistance rather than a reduction in loading. 2. In Figure 10.17, fg with a width of Bs at the base of the excavation may be treated as a negatively loaded footing. 3. The value of the bearing capacity factor Nc should be 5.14 (not 5.7) for a perfectly smooth footing, because of the restraint-free surface at the base of the excavation. With the foregoing modifications, Eq. (10.15) takes the form 5.14c ¢1 1 FS 5
0.2Bs cH ≤ 1 L Br
gH 1 q
(10.16)
where Br 5 T if T < B>"2 Br 5 B>"2 if T . B>"2 Bs 5 "2Br Bjerrum and Eide (1956) compiled a number of case records for the bottom heave of cuts in clay. Chang (2000) used those records to calculate FS by means of Eq. (10.16); his findings are summarized in Table 10.4. It can be seen from this table that the actual field observations agree well with the calculated factors of safety.
522 Chapter 10: Braced Cuts Table 10.4 Calculated Factors of Safety for Selected Case Records Compiled by Bjerrum and Eide (1956) and Calculated by Chang (2000) Site
Pumping station, Fornebu, Oslo Storehouse, Drammen Sewerage tank, Drammen Excavation, Grey Wedels Plass, Oslo Pumping station, Jernbanetorget, Oslo Storehouse, Freia, Oslo Subway, Chicago
B (m)
B,L
H (m)
H,B
g (kN , m3)
5.0
1.0
3.0
0.6
17.5
4.8
0
2.4
0.5
19.0
5.5
0.69
3.5
0.64
5.8
0.72
4.5
8.5
0.70
5.0 16
0 0
c (kN , m2)
q (kN , m2)
FS [Eq. (10.16)]
0
1.05
Total failure
12
15
1.05
Total failure
18.0
10
10
0.92
Total failure
0.78
18.0
14
10
1.07
Total failure
6.3
0.74
19.0
22
0
1.26
Partial failure
5.0 11.3
1.00 0.70
19.0 19.0
16 35
0 0
1.10 1.00
Partial failure Near failure
7.5
Type of failure
Equation (10.16) is recommended for use in this test. In most cases, a factor of safety of about 1.5 is recommended. In homogeneous clay, if FS becomes less than 1.5, the sheet pile is driven deeper. (See Figure 10.18.) Usually, the depth d is kept less than or equal to B>2, in which case the force P per unit length of the buried sheet pile (aar and bbr) may be expressed as (U.S. Department of the Navy, 1971) P 5 0.7(gHB 2 1.4cH 2 pcB)
for d . 0.47B
(10.17)
B
c 0
H
d
a
b
a
b
P
P
Figure 10.18 Force on the buried length of sheet pile
10.6 Bottom Heave of a Cut in Clay
523
and
P 5 1.5d ¢gH 2
1.4cH 2 pc ≤ B
for d , 0.47B
(10.18)
Example 10.3 In Figure 10.19. for a braced cut in clay, B 5 3 m, L 5 20 m, H 5 5.5 m, T 5 1.5 m, g 5 17 kN>m3, c 5 30 kN>m2, and q 5 0. Calculate the factor of safety against heave. Use Eq. (10.16). Solution From Eq. (10.16), 0.2Brr cH b1 L Br gH 1 q
5.14ca1 1 FS 5 with T 5 1.5 m, B
!2
So
5
3
!2
T# Hence, Br 5 T 5 1.5 m, and it follows that
5 2.12 m
B
!2
B rr 5 !2Br 5 ( !2) (1.5) 5 2.12 m
3m Clay
γ = 17 kN/m3
5.5 m
c = 30 kN/m3 φ=0
1.5 m Hard stratum
Figure 10.19 Factor of safety against heaving for a braced cut
and
FS 5
(5.14) (30) c1 1
(0.2) (2.12) (30) (5.5) d 1 20 1.5 5 2.86 (17) (5.5)
■
524 Chapter 10: Braced Cuts
10.7
Stability of the Bottom of a Cut in Sand The bottom of a cut in sand is generally stable. When the water table is encountered, the bottom of the cut is stable as long as the water level inside the excavation is higher than the groundwater level. In case dewatering is needed (see Figure 10.20), the factor of safety against piping should be checked. [Piping is another term for failure by heave, as defined in Section 1.12; see Eq. (1.45).] Piping may occur when a high hydraulic gradient is created by water flowing into the excavation. To check the factor of safety, draw flow nets and determine the maximum exit gradient 3imax(exit) 4 that will occur at points A and B. Figure 10.21 shows such a flow net, for which the maximum exit gradient is
imax(exit)
h Nd h 5 5 a Nda
(10.19)
where a 5 length of the flow element at A (or B) Nd 5 number of drops (Note: in Figure 10.21, Nd 5 8; see also Section 1.11) The factor of safety against piping may be expressed as
FS 5
icr imax(exit)
(10.20)
where icr 5 critical hydraulic gradient.
Water level
Water level B h
L1 A
B L2
Flow of water
Impervious layer
L3
Figure 10.20 Stability of the bottom of a cut in sand
10.7 Stability of the Bottom of a Cut in Sand Water table
525
Water table h
A
Water level
B a
1
8 7 2 6 5 3 4
Impervious layer
Figure 10.21 Determining the factor of safety against piping by drawing a flow net
The relationship for icr was given in Chapter 1 as icr 5
Gs 2 1 e11
The magnitude of icr varies between 0.9 and 1.1 in most soils, with an average of about 1. A factor of safety of about 1.5 is desirable. The maximum exit gradient for sheeted excavations in sands with L3 5 ` can also be evaluated theoretically (Harr, 1962). (Only the results of these mathematical derivations will be presented here. For further details, see the original work.) To calculate the maximum exit gradient, examine Figures 10.22 and 10.23 and perform the following steps: 1. Determine the modulus, m, from Figure 10.22 by obtaining 2L2>B (or B>2L2) and 2L1>B. 2. With the known modulus and 2L1>B, examine Figure 10.23 and determine L2iexit(max)>h. Because L2 and h will be known, iexit(max) can be calculated. 3. The factor of safety against piping can be evaluated by using Eq. (10.20). Marsland (1958) presented the results of model tests conducted to study the influence of seepage on the stability of sheeted excavations in sand. The results were summarized by the U.S. Department of the Navy (1971) in NAVFAC DM-7 and are given in Figure 10.24a, b, and c. Note that Figure 10.24b is for the case of determining the sheet pile penetration L2 needed for the required factor of safety against piping when the sand layer extends to a great depth below the excavation. By contrast, Figure 10.24c represents the case in which an impervious layer lies at a limited depth below the bottom of the excavation.
526 Chapter 10: Braced Cuts
Text not available due to copyright restrictions
10.7 Stability of the Bottom of a Cut in Sand 0.70
0.65
L2i exit(max) h
0.60 2L1
B
0.55
=
0 0.5
0.50
1 2 4 8 12 16 20
0.45
0.40
0
0.02
0.04
0.06 0.08 Modulus, m (a)
0.10
0.12
1.0
1.2
0.6
0.5
L2i exit(max) h
0.4
2L1 =0 B
0.3
0.5
0.2 1 0.1
0
2 20 12 8 4 16 0.2
0.4
0.6 0.8 Modulus, m (b)
Figure 10.23 Variation of maximum exit gradient with modulus (From Groundwater and Seepage, by M. E. Harr. Copyright 1962 by McGraw-Hill. Used with permission.)
527
528 Chapter 10: Braced Cuts B Water table
h
Sand
L2
L3
Impervious layer (a) 2.0
Loose sand Dense sand
Factor of safety aganist heave in loose sand or piping in dense sand 2.0
L3 = ∞
1.5 L2 1.0 h
1.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 1.0
0.5 0 0
0.5
1.0 B/2h (b)
2.0
2.0
1.5
Dense sand of limited depth: L3
1.5
L2 1.0 h
L3 =2 h
Factors of safety agnist piping 2.0
0.5
2.0 1.5 1.5 1.0 1.0
L3 =1 h 0
0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
B/2h (c)
Figure 10.24 Influence of seepage on the stability of sheeted excavation (US Department of Navy, 1971.)
10.8 Lateral Yielding of Sheet Piles and Ground Settlement
529
Example 10.4 In Figure 10.20, let h 5 4.5 m, L1 5 5 m, L2 5 4 m, B 5 5 m, and L3 5 ` . Determine the factor of safety against piping. Use Figures 10.22 and 10.23. Solution We have 2L1 2(5) 5 52 B 5 and B 5 5 5 0.625 2L2 2(4) According to Figure 10.22b, for 2L1>B 5 2 and B>2L2 5 0.625,m < 0.033. From Figure 10.23a, for m 5 0.033 and 2L1>B 5 2, L2iexit(max)>h 5 0.54. Hence, iexit(max) 5
0.54(h) 5 0.54(4.5)>4 5 0.608 L2
and FS 5
10.8
icr 1 5 5 1.645 i max (exit) 0.608
■
Lateral Yielding of Sheet Piles and Ground Settlement In braced cuts, some lateral movement of sheet pile walls may be expected. (See Figure 10.25.) The amount of lateral yield (dH ) depends on several factors, the most important of which is the elapsed time between excavation and the placement of wales and struts. As discussed before, in several instances the sheet piles (or the soldier piles, as the case may be) are driven to a certain depth below the bottom of the excavation. The reason is to reduce the lateral yielding of the walls during the last stages of excavation. Lateral yielding of the walls will cause the ground surface surrounding the cut to settle. The degree of lateral yielding, however, depends mostly on the type of soil below the bottom of the cut. If clay below the cut extends to a great depth and gH>c is less than about 6, extension of the sheet piles or soldier piles below the bottom of the cut will help considerably in reducing the lateral yield of the walls.
530 Chapter 10: Braced Cuts x Original ground surface V (max) Deflected shape of sheet pile
z z
H
H
H (max)
Figure 10.25 Lateral yielding of sheet pile and ground settlement
However, under similar circumstances, if gH>c is about 8, the extension of sheet piles into the clay below the cut does not help greatly. In such circumstances, we may expect a great degree of wall yielding that could result in the total collapse of the bracing systems. If a hard layer of soil lies below a clay layer at the bottom of the cut, the piles should be embedded in the stiffer layer. This action will greatly reduce lateral yield. The lateral yielding of walls will generally induce ground settlement, dV , around a braced cut. Such settlement is generally referred to as ground loss. On the basis of several field observations, Peck (1969) provided curves for predicting ground settlement in various types of soil. (See Figure 10.26.) The magnitude of ground loss varies extensively; however, the figure may be used as a general guide. Moormann (2004) analyzed about 153 case histories dealing mainly with the excavation in soft clay (that is, undrained shear strength, c < 75 kN>m2). Following is a summary of his analysis relating to dV(max), x r, dH(max), and z r (see Figure 10.25). •
Maximum Vertical Movement [dV(max)]
dV(max)>H < 0.1 to 10.1% with an average of 1.07% (soft clay) dV(max)>H < 0 to 0.9% with an average of 0.18% (stiff clay) dV(max)>H < 0 to 2.43% with an average of 0.33% (non-cohesive soils) •
Location of dV(max), that is x r (Figure 10.25) For 70% of all case histories considered, x r < 0.5H. However, in soft clays, x r may be as much as 2H.
Problems
531
3 A — Sand and soft clay and average workmanship B — Very soft to soft clay. Limited in depth below base of excavation 2
C — Very soft to soft clay. Great depth below excavation
V (%) H
1 C B A 0 1 2 3 Distance from the braced wall H
4
Figure 10.26 Variation of ground settlement with distance (From Peck, R. B. (1969). “Deep Excavation and Tunneling in Soft Ground,” Proceedings Seventh International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Mexico City, State-of-the-Art Volume, pp. 225–290. With permission from ASCE.)
•
Maximum Horizontal Deflection of Sheet Piles, dH(max) For 40% of excavation in soft clay, 0.5% < dH(max)>H < 1%. The average value of dH(max)>H is about 0.87%. In stiff clays, the average value of dH(max)>H is about 0.25%. In non-cohesive soils, dH(max)>H is about 0.27% of the average.
•
Location of dH(max), that is z r (Figure 10.25) For deep excavation of soft and stiff cohesive soils, zr>H is about 0.5 to 1.0.
Problems 10.1 Refer to the braced cut shown in Figure P10.1. Given: g 5 16 kN>m3, fr 5 38°, and c r 5 0. The struts are located at 3.5 m center-to-center in the plan. Draw the earth-pressure envelope and determine the strut loads at levels A, B, and C.
532 Chapter 10: Braced Cuts 4.5 m 1m
A
2.5 m B
Sand 16 kN/m3 38° c 0
3m C 1.5 m
Figure P10.1
10.2 For the braced cut described in Problem 10.1, determine the following: a. The sheet-pile section modulus b. The section modulus of the wales at level B Assume that sall 5 170 MN>m2. 10.3 Refer to Fig. P.10.3. Redo Problem 10.1 with g 5 18 kN>m3, fr 5 40°, c r 5 0, and the center-to-center strut spacing in the plan 5 4 m. 10.4 Determine the sheet-pile section modulus for the braced cut described in Problem 10.3. Given: sall 5 170 MN>m2. 10.5 Refer to Figure 10.8a. For the braced cut, given H 5 6 m; Hs 5 2.5 m; gs 5 16.5 kN>m3; angle of friction of sand, fsr 5 35°; Hc 5 3.5 m; gc 5 17.5 kN>m3; and unconfined compression strength of clay layer, qu 5 62 kN>m2. a. Estimate the average cohesion (cav ) and average unit weight (gav ) for the construction of the earth-pressure envelope. b. Plot the earth-pressure envelope.
3.5 m 1m
A
2m B
2m C 1.5 m
Figure P10.3
Sand 18 kN/m3 38° c 0
References
533
6m 1m
A
3m B
c 30 kN/m2 0 17.5 kN/m3
2m C 1m
Figure P10.7
10.6 Refer to Figure 10.8b, which shows a braced cut in clay. Given: H 5 7.6 m, H1 5 1.52 m, c1 5 101.8 kN>m2, g1 5 17.45 kN>m3, H2 5 3.04 m, c2 5 74.56 kN>m2, g2 5 16.83 kN>m3, H3 5 3.04 m, c3 5 80.02 kN>m2, and g3 5 17.14 kN>m3. a. Determine the average cohesion (cav ) and average unit weight (gav ) for the construction of the earth-pressure envelope. b. Plot the earth-pressure envelope. 10.7 Refer to Figure P10.7. Given: g 5 17.5 kN>m3, c 5 30 kN>m2, and center-tocenter spacing of struts in the plan 5 5 m. Draw the earth-pressure envelope and determine the strut loads at levels A, B, and C. 10.8 Determine the sheet-pile section modulus for the braced cut described in Problem 10.7. Use sall 5 170 MN>m.2. 10.9 Redo Problem 10.7 assuming that c 5 60 kN>m2. 10.10 Determine the factor of safety against bottom heave for the braced cut described in Problem 10.7. Use Eq. (10.16) and assume the length of the cut, L 5 18 m. 10.11 Determine the factor of safety against bottom heave for the braced cut described in Problem 10.9. Use Eq. (10.15). The length of the cut is 12.5.
References BJERRUM, L, and EIDE, O. (1956). “Stability of Strutted Excavation in Clay,” Geotechnique, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 32– 47. CHANG, M. F. (2000). “Basal Stability Analysis of Braced Cuts in Clay,” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 126, No. 3, pp. 276–279. HARR, M. E. (1962). Groundwater and Seepage, McGraw-Hill, New York. LAMBE, T. W. (1970). “Braced Excavations.” Proceedings of the Specialty Conference on Lateral Stresses in the Ground and Design of Earth-Retaining Structures, American Society of Civil Engineers, pp. 149–218.
534 Chapter 10: Braced Cuts MOORMANN, C. (2004). “Analysis of Wall and Ground Movements Due to Deep Excavations in Soft Soil Based on New Worldwide Data Base,” Soils and Foundations, Vol. 44, No. 1, pp. 87–98. PECK, R. B. (1943). “Earth Pressure Measurements in Open Cuts, Chicago (ILL.) Subway,” Transactions, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 108, pp. 1008–1058. PECK, R. B. (1969). “Deep Excavation and Tunneling in Soft Ground,” Proceedings Seventh International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Mexico City, State-of-theArt Volume, pp. 225–290. SWATEK, E. P., JR., ASROW, S. P., and SEITZ, A. (1972). “Performance of Bracing for Deep Chicago Excavation,” Proceeding of the Specialty Conference on Performance of Earth and Earth ed Structures, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 1, Part 2, pp. 1303–1322. TERZAGHI, K. (1943). Theoretical Soil Mechanics, Wiley, New York. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY (1971). “Design Manual—Soil Mechanics. Foundations, and Earth Structures.” NAVFAC DM-7, Washington, D.C.
More Documents from "Nasrul" 12o1
10_braced_cuts_15.pdf 5s2e4
January 2022 0
Stp Report.docx 506b6i
December 2021 0
Marketing Plan Of Lux 5l8
November 2019 63
Pps-ukp-bab-8.xls 6x4m54
December 2020 0
Proposal Kelompok Tani 2019 Inkubasi 372t6j
November 2020 0