Table 1 Details of case studies Case...

Table 1

Details of case studies

Case study (abbreviation)	Source^a	FM/FE	Soil	Retained height H: m	Plan dimensions L × B: m × m	Corner angle: °	Wall type	Construction method/propping system	δV_max approx.:^b mm	δH_max^G/W approx.:^c mm	d_max^H/V: m	d_max/L
New Palace Yard Car Park	Burland and Hancock (1977)	FM	London Clay	18·5	66 × 50	90	D-wall	Top-down/permanent slabs	13 (e) 19 (s)	30^d	12·5^V (east) 16·5^V (south)	0·25
Moorhouse	Zradkovic et al. (2005)	FE	London Clay	40	35 × 35 70 × 35 140 × 35	90	N/A	Bottom-up/multiprop (seven prop levels)	22·5 31·0 38·0	N/A	7·0^V 18·9^V 28·0^V	0·2 0·27 0·2
Immigration Building	Lee et al. (1998)	FM	Marine clay (soft, high plasticity)	17·3	75·6 × 50·4	90	D-wall	Bottom-up/multiple-level props	110	60^W	N/A	N/A
Taipei National Enterprise Centre	Ou et al. (2000)	FM	Silty clay (low plasticity overconsolidated)	19·7	107 × 45	90	D-wall	Top-down/permanent slabs	78	25^S 100^W	24^V	0·225
60 Victoria Embankment	St. John et al. (1993)	FE	Alluvium and London Clay	19	67 × 29	90	Secant pile wall	Top-down/permanent slabs	28	34^d,W	N/A	N/A
Basement 1	Arup FE LS-Dyna results	FE	London Clay	14·26	89·3 × 150 approx.	90	Secant pile wall	Top-down/horizontal temporary props in diagonal arrangement	15·9	12·0	31	0·34
Basement 2	Arup FE LS-Dyna results	FE	London Clay	15	24·4 × 29·2 (in one corner of the excavation)	75	Secant pile wall	Bottom-up/multilevel temporary corner props and horizontal prop	7·8	8·9 9·3	10·7^H 11·4^H	0·44 0·39
Robert H. Lurie Medical Research Building (RLMRB)	Finno and Roboski (2005)	FM	Glacial clays (soft to stiff varying with depth)	15	68 × 80	90	Sheet pile	Bottom-up/tie-backs (three levels)	80 (w) 60 (s) 50 (n)	83^W (w) 51^W (s) 53^W (n)	17^H (w) 18^H (s) 32^H (n)	0·25 (w) 0·23 (s) 0·39 (n)
Takagi	Roboski (2004)	FM	Silt, peat and sandy and silty layers	28	30 × ?	90	N/A	N/A	52·5	N/A	4·5^V	0·15
Chicago State Subway (Chi)	Finno et al. (2002)	FM	Sand overlying a thin stiff crust over stiff clays of increasing stiffness with depth	12·2	47·3	90	Secant pile wall	Bottom-up/tubular props and tie-backs	40	38	18^V	0·38
Flagship Wharf Building	Roboski (2004)	FM	Silt deposit, glacio-marine deposit and glacial till	15·0	30 × 76	90	D-wall	Bottom-up/three levels of tubular props	28	N/A	10·5^H	0·35
Frankfurt Clay	Moormann and Katzenbach (2002)	FM	Clay layered soil with sand bands and rocky limestone embedded	15·8	34 × 54	90	Secant pile wall	?/tie-back at four levels	175	175	17^H	0·31
FE additional case studies	This paper	FE	Granular material overlying stiff overconsolidated clay	12	30 ×30 30 × 15 15 × 30 42 × 42 54 × 54 54 × 27 27 × 54 84 × 84	90	Shell element	Top-down	2·89 2·75 0·67 4·14 4·97 4·10 2·90 6·30	3·80 3·08 1·10 5·6 6·8 6·0 3·7 8·5	10·0^H 10·5^H 4·5^H 13·5^H 16·5^H 17^H 8·5^H 21·5^H	0·33 0·35 0·30 0·32 0·30 0·31 0·31 0·25
FE additional case studies	This paper	FE	Granular material overlying stiff overconsolidated clay	12	30 ×30 30 × 15 15 × 30 84 × 84	90	Shell element	Bottom-up	4·05 3·81 0·72 8·5	5·05 4·12 1·20 12·0	10·5^H 10·5^H 3·5^H 23·5^H	0·35 0·35 0·23 0·28

Case study (abbreviation)	Source^a	FM/FE	Soil	Retained height H: m	Plan dimensions L × B: m × m	Corner angle: °	Wall type	Construction method/propping system	δV_max approx.:^b mm	δH_max^G/W approx.:^c mm	d_max^H/V: m	d_max/L
New Palace Yard Car Park	Burland and Hancock (1977)	FM	London Clay	18·5	66 × 50	90	D-wall	Top-down/permanent slabs	13 (e)19 (s)	30^d	12·5^V (east)16·5^V (south)	0·25
Moorhouse	Zradkovic et al. (2005)	FE	London Clay	40	35 × 3570 × 35140 × 35	90	N/A	Bottom-up/multiprop (seven prop levels)	22·531·038·0	N/A	7·0^V18·9^V28·0^V	0·20·270·2
Immigration Building	Lee et al. (1998)	FM	Marine clay (soft, high plasticity)	17·3	75·6 × 50·4	90	D-wall	Bottom-up/multiple-level props	110	60^W	N/A	N/A
Taipei National Enterprise Centre	Ou et al. (2000)	FM	Silty clay (low plasticity overconsolidated)	19·7	107 × 45	90	D-wall	Top-down/permanent slabs	78	25^S100^W	24^V	0·225
60 Victoria Embankment	St. John et al. (1993)	FE	Alluvium and London Clay	19	67 × 29	90	Secant pile wall	Top-down/permanent slabs	28	34^d,W	N/A	N/A
Basement 1	Arup FE LS-Dyna results	FE	London Clay	14·26	89·3 × 150 approx.	90	Secant pile wall	Top-down/horizontal temporary props in diagonal arrangement	15·9	12·0	31	0·34
Basement 2	Arup FE LS-Dyna results	FE	London Clay	15	24·4 × 29·2 (in one corner of the excavation)	75	Secant pile wall	Bottom-up/multilevel temporary corner props and horizontal prop	7·8	8·99·3	10·7^H11·4^H	0·440·39
Robert H. Lurie Medical Research Building (RLMRB)	Finno and Roboski (2005)	FM	Glacial clays (soft to stiff varying with depth)	15	68 × 80	90	Sheet pile	Bottom-up/tie-backs (three levels)	80 (w)60 (s)50 (n)	83^W (w)51^W (s)53^W (n)	17^H (w)18^H (s)32^H (n)	0·25 (w) 0·23 (s) 0·39 (n)
Takagi	Roboski (2004)	FM	Silt, peat and sandy and silty layers	28	30 × ?	90	N/A	N/A	52·5	N/A	4·5^V	0·15
Chicago State Subway (Chi)	Finno et al. (2002)	FM	Sand overlying a thin stiff crust over stiff clays of increasing stiffness with depth	12·2	47·3	90	Secant pile wall	Bottom-up/tubular props and tie-backs	40	38	18^V	0·38
Flagship Wharf Building	Roboski (2004)	FM	Silt deposit, glacio-marine deposit and glacial till	15·0	30 × 76	90	D-wall	Bottom-up/three levels of tubular props	28	N/A	10·5^H	0·35
Frankfurt Clay	Moormann and Katzenbach (2002)	FM	Clay layered soil with sand bands and rocky limestone embedded	15·8	34 × 54	90	Secant pile wall	?/tie-back at four levels	175	175	17^H	0·31
FE additional case studies	This paper	FE	Granular material overlying stiff overconsolidated clay	12	30 ×3030 × 1515 × 3042 × 4254 × 5454 × 2727 × 5484 × 84	90	Shell element	Top-down	2·892·750·674·144·974·102·906·30	3·803·081·105·66·86·03·78·5	10·0^H10·5^H4·5^H13·5^H16·5^H17^H8·5^H21·5^H	0·330·350·300·320·300·310·310·25
FE additional case studies	This paper	FE	Granular material overlying stiff overconsolidated clay	12	30 ×3030 × 1515 × 3084 × 84	90	Shell element	Bottom-up	4·053·810·728·5	5·054·121·2012·0	10·5^H10·5^H3·5^H23·5^H	0·350·350·230·28

Unless otherwise stated within the table and the notes below, all the information included in the table comes from the references listed in the second column

The letters inside parentheses in the last four columns represent the directions specified in the cited reference: e, east; n, north; s, south; w, west

The superscripts W and S represent whether the value was derived from observation of the wall or the soil, respectively

Long (2001)

approx., approximate; FE, finite elements; FM, field measurement; H, horizontal movement; V, vertical movement

[ViewLarge]

Sharing Unavailable