1004

Shape of ground surface settlement profiles

caused by excavation
Pio-Go Hsieh and Chang-Yu Ou

Abstract: There are two general types of settlement profiles induced by excavation, the spandrel type and the concave
type. Based on a regression analysis of the field observations of settlement curves with predominantly cohesive
subsurface conditions, an empirical method for predicting the spandrel and concave settlement profiles is proposed. The
proposed method is verified through several case histories. For comparison, the results obtained from other empirical
methods are also presented. The proposed method provides a fairly good prediction of ground surface settlement and
yields better prediction of angular distortion than other empirical methods for the concave- and spandrel-type
settlement profiles. Furthermore, the relationship of cantilever area and deep inward area of wall deflection is
established which can be used as the first approximation to predict the type of settlement profile.

Key words: prediction, excavation, settlement profile, spandrel, concave.

Rsum : Il existe deux types gnraux de profils daffaissement rsultant dune excavation, le type tympan et le type
concave. En partant dune analyse de rgression des observations sur le terrain des courbes daffaissement dans des
conditions de sous-sol principalement cohrent, lon propose une mthode empirique pour la prdiction de
laffaissement en forme concave ou en forme de tympan. La mthode propose est vrifie avec plusieurs histoires de
cas. Pour fin de comparaison, les rsultats obtenus avec les autres mthodes empiriques, telles que celles de Peck, de
Bowles, et de Clough et ORourke sont galement prsents. La mthode propose fournit une prdiction assez bonne
de laffaissement de la surface du terrain. La mthode propose donne aussi une meilleure prdiction de la distorsion
angulaire que les autres mthodes empiriques pour les profils daffaissement tant de forme concave que de forme de
tympan. De plus, lon tablit la relation de la superficie en encorbellement et de la superficie profonde intrieure de la
dflexion du mur qui peut tre utilise en premire approximation pour prdire le type de profil daffaissement.

Mots cls : prdiction, excavation, profil daffaissement, tympan, concave.

[Traduit par la Rdaction] Hsieh and Ou 1017

Introduction geological conditions, construction methods, and workman-

Excavation will result in a certain degree of ground move-
ment. The distribution of the ground surface settlement must
be predicted prior to excavation to assess impacts to adja-
cent buildings or public facilities. The finite element method
and the empirical method are two common methods of pre-
dicting ground surface settlement induced by excavation. Al-
though the finite element method can predict wall deflection
with good accuracy, prediction of settlement is not as good.
Part of the reason for this may lie in the difficulty of model-
ling soil behavior and the interface behavior between the
wall and soil, and in the selection of input soil parameters.
Basically, the empirical method accounts for all factors con-
tributing to ground settlement because it is based on the fi-
nal observed values. A major advantage of the empirical
method is that ground settlements in a project of similar
Received October 16, 1997. Accepted June 16, 1998.
P.-G. Hsieh. Department of Construction Management, Hwa
Hsia Junior College of Technology, Taipei, Taiwan, Republic
of China.
C.-Y. Ou. Department of Construction Engineering, National
Taiwan University of Science and Technology,
P.O. Box 90-130, Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China.
ship can be easily and reasonably predicted.
As shown in Fig. 1, there are two general types of settle-
ment profile caused by excavation: (i) spandrel type, in
which maximum surface settlement occurs very close to the
wall; and (ii) concave type, in which maximum surface set-
tlement occurs at a distance away from the supported wall.
According to Ou et al. (1993), the magnitude and shape of
wall deflection may result in different types of settlement
profile. If a large amount of wall deflection occurs at the
first stage of excavation and the wall deflection is relatively
small at the subsequent excavations or the wall has a cantile-
ver-type deflection, the spandrel type of settlement profile
usually occurs. On the contrary, once a relatively small
amount of wall deflection occurs at the initial stages of ex-
cavation, compared with the amount of deflection at deeper
levels, additional cantilever wall deflection, or deflection in
the upper part of the wall, is restrained by installation of
support as the excavation proceeds to deeper elevations. Lat-
eral wall deflection would shift to deeper elevations which
translates to a ground settlement profile consistent with the
concave settlement profile.
Many researchers have proposed empirical methods for
predicting both types of settlement profile. Based on field
observations, empirical methods for predicting the concave
and spandrel settlements are proposed. These and other em-

Can. Geotech. J. 35: 10041017 (1998) 1998 NRC Canada

Hsieh and Ou
Fig. 1. Types of settlement profile.
pirical methods are used to compute the ground surface set-
tlement profile for nine case histories.
Review of existing empirical methods
Ground movements behind a supported wall will occur as
the result of unbalanced pressures, for example, the removal
of the soil mass inside the excavation. The magnitude and
distribution of the settlement are related to many factors
such as construction quality, ground condition, groundwater
pressure, excavation depth, excavation geometry, excavation
procedure, and support system. A method derived purely
from the theoretical approach will be complex, and accurate
results will be difficult to obtain. Therefore most of the ex-
isting predictive methods were obtained based on field mea-
surements rather than theoretical approaches due to the
complexity of mathematical modelling methods. Several of
the empirical methods currently used in engineering practice
are presented below.
Method of Peck
Peck (1969) summarized the field observations of ground
surface settlement around several excavations in a graphical
form as shown in Fig. 2. This method may be suitable for
the spandrel-type settlement profile. As indicated in the fig-
ure, the settlement curve is classified into three zones, I, II,
and III, depending on the type of soil and workmanship. In
Fig. 2, Nb represents the stability number, and Ncb represents
the critical stability number for basal heave.
The case histories used in the development of the Fig. 2
are prior to 1969 and are excavations supported by sheet
piles or soldier piles with lagging. With the use of newer de-
sign and construction technologies (e.g., use of stiff dia-
phragm wall), the maximum settlements are generally
smaller than those defined in Fig. 2. However, the method of
Peck will be evaluated through several case histories pre-
sented later in this paper, since it is the first practical ap-
proach to estimating the ground surface settlement induced
by excavations and has been widely used.
1005
Fig. 2. Pecks (1969) method for estimating ground surface
settlement. Su, undrained shear strength; , unit weight of soils.
Method of Bowles
Bowles (1988) proposed a method for estimating the
spandrel-type settlement profile induced by excavation. The
steps are given as follows:
(1) Estimate the lateral wall deflection.
(2) Calculate the volume of lateral movement of soil mass
(Vs).
(3) Estimate the influence zone (D) using the method sug-
gested by Caspe (1966) as follows:
[1] D = (He + Hd) tan(45 /2)
where He is the final excavation depth, and is the internal
friction angle of the soil. For cohesive soil, Hd = B, where B
is the width of the excavation; for cohesionless soil, Hd =
0.5B tan(45 + /2).
(4) Estimate the maximum ground surface settlement
(vm), assuming that the maximum surface settlement occurs
at the wall:
[2] vm = 4Vs/D
(5) The settlement curve is assumed to be parabolic. The
settlement (v) at a distance from the supported wall (d) can
be expressed as
[3] v = vm (x/D)2
where Dx is the distance from the wall.
As generally understood, ground surface settlement, in the
absence of consolidation-induced settlement, induced by an
excavation is affected by many factors, such as excavation
depth, construction procedure, and excavation support sys-
tem. These factors could also affect the wall deflection. It
seems logical that prediction of ground surface settlement is
based on the magnitude and shape of wall deflection ob-
tained from the results of lateral deformation analysis.
1998 NRC Canada
1006
Fig. 3. Method of Clough and ORourke (1990) for estimating
ground surface settlement.
According to Milligan (1983), the settlement area is ap-
proximately equal to the wall deflection area for soft clay
under undrained conditions. If this is true, vm should be
equal to 3VsD. Bowles (1988) used 4VsD instead of 3VsD,
probably to better match the field observations.
Method of Clough and ORourke
Based on several case histories, Clough and ORourke
(1990) suggested that the settlement profile is triangular for
an excavation in sandy soil or stiff clay. The maximum
ground surface settlement will occur at the wall (i.e.,
spandrel settlement profile). The nondimensionalized pro-
files are shown in Figs. 3a and 3b, in which the correspond-
ing settlement influence zones are 2He and 3He. For an
excavation in soft to medium clay, the maximum settlement
usually occurs at some distance away from the wall. The
trapezoidal shape of the nondimensional settlement profile
was suggested, as shown in Fig. 3c. The settlement influence
zone is 2He. For this method, depth of excavation (He) and
the maximum ground surface settlement (vm) are used as the
characteristic parameters. As indicated in the study of
Clough and ORourke, the method is intended to provide a
conservative envelope to the ground surface settlements that
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 35, 1998
Fig. 4. Proposed method for predicting spandrel settlement
profile. Each broken line represents a case history.
could be experienced behind the wall. As long as vm is
known, the settlement at various distances can be estimated.
Method of Ou et al.
Based on 10 case histories in Taipei, Taiwan, Ou et al.
(1993) observed that the vertical movements of the soil be-
hind the wall may extend to a considerable distance. The
settlement at a limited distance behind the wall is not uni-
form and increases with the excavation depth. Buildings or
public facilities within this distance may be damaged. The
zone is therefore defined as the apparent influence range
(AIR). The settlement outside the AIR is small, and build-
ings or public facilities are not significantly affected. Ac-
cording to the studies by Ou et al., the AIR is approximately
equal to the distance defined by the active zone. The upper
limit is a distance equal to the wall depth (He + Hp), that is
[4] AIR = (He + Hp) tan(45 /2) (He + Hp)
where He is the final excavation depth, and Hp is the wall
penetration depth.
Ou et al. (1993) proposed a trilinear line for predicting the
spandrel-type settlement profile, based on the average value
of the observed settlement profiles of 10 excavation histories
in Taipei. The suitability of the proposed method applied to
the other ground conditions will be discussed in the follow-
ing sections.
Establishment of a prediction method
Spandrel settlement profile
As described in the preceding section, Ou et al. (1993) es-
tablished a trilinear relationship between the normalized set-
1998 NRC Canada
Hsieh and Ou
Fig. 5. Proposed method for predicting concave settlement
profile.
tlement (v/vm) and the ratio of the distance to the wall
depth based on 10 case histories exhibiting the spandrel-type
settlement profile. Considering the fact that the wall depth
might be an arbitrary parameter, this study uses the excava-
tion depth (He) instead of wall depth as the parameter in the
normalized settlementdistance relationship, as shown in
Fig. 4. Figure 4 shows that the settlement curves from vari-
ous excavation cases fall in a narrow band, though factors
such as soil conditions, excavation geometry, and lateral
support system are different. Based on the results of regres-
sion analysis, a mean value of the estimate curve can be
derived (line adc in Fig. 4). The coefficient of correlation
is equal to 0.949. As shown in Fig. 4, a higher estimate line
abc, which is the mean estimate plus one standard devia-
tion, can also be obtained. The higher estimate curve (line
abc) is used in the following verification. Lines ab and
bc can be expressed as follows:
v= 0.636 + 1 vm
d
[5]
He
if d/He 2; and
v = 0.171 + 0. 342 vm
d served in this study that the amount of settlement has very
[6]
He
if 2 < d/He 4; where v is the ground surface settlement for
the soil at a distance d from the wall.
As shown in Fig. 4, line ab has a relatively steep slope,
which may induce large angular distortion on the adjacent
buildings if vm is significant. The safety of the buildings
should be checked under such circumstances. This zone is
therefore termed the primary influence zone in this paper.
Figure 4 also reveals that this zone is approximately equal to
two excavation depths (2He), which agrees with the settle-
1007
Fig. 6. Areas of the cantilever and deep inward components.
ment influence range observed by Clough and ORourke
(1990). On the other hand, line bc has a more gentle slope,
and the buildings certainly are less affected. This zone is
therefore considered as the secondary influence zone,
which approximately extends to 4He.
For economical consideration, wall depth is designed
based on the concept of free earth support (NAVFAC 1982),
in which the toe of the wall is allowed to move freely.
Therefore, the extent of the active zone behind the wall may
be equal to the wall depth. Based on many case studies
(Woo and Moh 1990), the ratio of the wall depth to the exca-
vation depth generally ranges from 1.6 to 2.2, depending on
soil stratigraphy. Therefore, the primary settlement influence
zone might be the same as the extent of active zone behind
the wall.
Concave settlement profile
With the concave settlement profile, it is necessary to
know the range of influence, surface settlement at the wall,
and location of maximum surface settlement to define a
complete settlement profile.
As studied by Ou et al. (1993) and Nicholson (1987), the
distance from the wall where the maximum ground surface
settlement occurs is approximately equal to half the depth
where the maximum lateral wall deflection occurs. For most
excavation cases, the maximum lateral wall deflection oc-
curs near the excavation bottom (Ou et al. 1993). Therefore,
the distance where the maximum ground surface settlement
occurs can be taken as half the final excavation depth (He/2).
Case histories compiled by Clough and ORourke (1990)
showed that the settlement at the wall, for soft to medium
clay, is about in the range 0.5vm to 0.7vm. It was also ob-
little effect on the shape of the settlement profile. In addi-
tion, case histories presented in the following sections indi-
cate that settlements at the wall are about equal to 0.5vm.
Therefore, a value of 0.5vm is adopted for establishing a
complete settlement profile.
The principle of Saint Venant (Timonshenko and Goodier
1951) states that if some distribution of forces acting on a
portion of the surface of a body is replaced by a different
distribution of forces acting on the same portion of the body,
then the effects of the two different distributions on the parts
of the body sufficiently far away from the region of applica-
1998 NRC Canada
1008 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 35, 1998

Table 1. Summary of information on the case histories.

Case Type of Wall depth Excavation Excavation Observed Computed

No. Wall type construction (m) depth (m) width (m) hm/He (%) hm/He (%)a FSb
1 Diaphragm wall Top down 35.0 19.7 41.0 0.54 0.33 1.68
2 Diaphragm wall Bottom up 31.0 18.45 35.0 0.34 0.40 1.28
3 Steel concrete wall Bottom up 32.0 17.0 30.0 1.03 0.49 1.54
4 Diaphragm wall Bottom up 30.0 18.5 50.0 0.13 10.04
5 Sheet pile wall Bottom up 19.2 12.2 12.2 1.40 1.50 1.65
6 Sheet pile wall Bottom up 16.0 11.0 11.0 2.01 1.44 1.11
7 Diaphragm wall Top down 33.0 20.0 70.0 0.62 0.34 1.73
8 Secant pile wall Bottom up 21.0 9.0 40.0 0.29 6.49
9 Diaphragm wall Anchoring 13.0 8.5 20.0 0.62 14.51
a
Computed using the method of Clough and ORourke (1990).
b
Factor of safety against basal heave.

Table 2. Strut arrangements for the case histories (all values are in metres).

Case Stage
No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 Hs 2.0 3.5 7.1 10.3 13.7 16.5
Hn 2.8 4.9 8.6 11.8 15.2 17.3 19.7
2 Hs 1.0 3.7 6.2 9.5 12.5 15.5
Hn 1.6 4.3 6.9 10.15 13.2 16.2 18.45
3 Hs 3.5 6.5 8.5 11.0 14.5
Hn 4.0 7.0 9.0 12.0 15.0 17.0
4 Hs 0.0 2.5 6.5 9.0 12.5 15.25
Hn 2.5 6.5 9.0 12.5 15.25 18.5
5 Hs 2.1 4.7, 5.8 9.1
Hn 4.7 7.9 11.3 12.2
6 Hs 2.5 4.0 6.0 8.0 9.5
Hn 5.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 11.0
7 Hs 3.45 4.95 8.55 12.4 16.4
Hn 5.75 9.35 13.2 16.2 16.9 20.0
8 Hs 1.5
Hn 5.0 9.0
9 Hs 2.5 4.0 6.5 8.0
Hn 3.0 5.5 8.0 8.5
Note: Hs, strut level or anchor level; Hn, depth of excavation at each stage.

tion of the forces are essentially the same, provided that the
two distributions of the forces have the same resultant force.
Theoretically, different excavation and strut installation pro-
cedures (i.e., different distribution forces) will result in the
same active zone (i.e., the same resultant forces). Such dif-
ferent excavation and strut installation procedures should re-
sult in different states of stress for the soil near the wall,
which may in turn yield different shapes of the settlement
profile (i.e., concave type and spandrel type). According to
the principle, different excavation and strut installation pro-
cedures may have little influence on the state of stresses for
the soil far away from the wall and the corresponding settle-
ment may be the same under such circumstances.
With the nature of active state, the active zone may be
reasonably regarded as the zone heavily affected by the ex-
cavation and strut installation procedures (i.e., different dis-
tribution forces). The active zone defined by the Rankine
theory in the spandrel settlement profile is approximately
equal to the primary influence zone (2He) as stated in the
preceding section. With the nature of the spandrel-type set-
tlement profile, the secondary influence zone is much less
steep than the primary influence zone, which certainly im-
plies that this zone is much less affected by excavation and
strut installation procedures. The secondary influence zone
can thus be presumed to be sufficiently far away from the
wall and less affected by the loading distribution from the
point of view of Saint Venants principle. The settlement in
this region should be little affected by excavation and strut
installation procedures. Therefore, the extent and magnitude
of the secondary influence zone for the two types of settle-
ment trough can be considered the same. Therefore, the set-
tlement is equal to 0.1vm (point b in Fig. 4) at 2He, and
practically negligible (point c in Fig. 4) at 4He. For simplic-
ity, a linear relationship is assumed between each turning
point. Case histories presented in the following section also
indicate that this assumption is reasonable. Figure 5 shows
the complete settlement profile used for prediction.
Justification of settlement profiles
As stated in the preceding section, the type of settlement
1998 NRC Canada
Hsieh and Ou
Fig. 7. Verification: case 1 (concave settlement profile). LL, liquid limit; PI, plasticity index; , drained friction angle; v, effective
overburden pressure; , water content.
profile may be related to the magnitude of the cantilever
component and the deep inward component. To provide a
quantitative method to justify types of settlement profile in-
duced by excavation, the area of the deep inward component
(As) is differentiated from total wall deflection, as shown in
Fig. 6. The area of the cantilever component (Ac) is thus de-
fined as
[7] Ac = Max (Ac1, Ac2)
where Ac1 and Ac2 are the area of the cantilever at the com-
pletion of the first and final stages of excavation, respec-
tively.
To establish a relationship between types of settlement
profile and shape of wall deflection, six case histories exhib-
iting the concave settlement profile and three case histories
exhibiting the spandrel settlement profile, all of which are
constructed under prudent conditions, are used for further
studies. Table 1 lists the basic excavation information and
Table 2 lists strut levels and the excavation sequence for all
nine case histories. The basic soil properties, such as index
properties, water content, and strength parameters, are dis-
played in Figs. 715. Figure 16 shows the relationship of Ac
and As for the case histories presented in this paper, except
for case 6, for which the wall deflection at the first stage is
not available from the literature. Figure 16 is also augmented
by some cases presented by Ou et al. (1993) and one case
provided by Clough and ORourke (1990), as listed in
Table 3. Figure 16 clearly indicates that the concave-type
settlement profile occurs if As 1.6Ac. Otherwise the
spandrel-type settlement profile occurs.
Maximum ground surface settlement
In general the maximum ground surface settlement (vm)
can be estimated by referring to the value of the maximum
wall deflection (hm). Figure 17 shows the nondimension-
1009
alized relationship of vm and hm for the nine case histories
summarized in Table 1. The findings of Mana and Clough
(1981) are also indicated in Fig. 17. As shown in the figure,
in most cases vm is equal to (0.50.75)hm, and the upper
limit is vm = hm. The magnitude of vm may be greater than
that of hm for the case histories having a significant soil
movement (e.g., case 5).
The maximum lateral wall deflection (hm) can be ob-
tained by performing lateral deformation analysis, e.g., the
finite element method or the beam on elastic foundation
method (Miyoshi 1977), with good accuracy and can also be
estimated by referring to the maximum excavation depth
(He). Clough and ORourke (1990) proposed a design chart
used to estimate hm/He in soft clay, based on the factor of
safety against basal heave (FS), type of supported wall, and
vertical spacing of the strut. Table 1 also lists the computed
values of hm based on the design chart of Clough and ORourke.
Note that FS is calculated using the approach suggested by
Terzaghi (1943), for which average undrained shear strength
beneath the excavation bottom across the potential failure
surface is used. The calculation procedure for FS for each
case history is outlined later in the paper. As shown in
Table 1, only in some cases the computed values of hm do
agree well with the observed values. Other factors, such as
soil condition, construction sequence, excavation width, and
stiffness of the strut, may also affect the magnitude of hm.
Estimation of hm solely based on the design chart of Clough
and ORourke might be less accurate, but this method can be
used as a first approximation.
Prediction procedure
Based on the previous studies, the steps for predicting
ground surface settlement behind the wall are outlined as
follows:
1998 NRC Canada
1010
Fig. 8. Verification: case 2 (concave settlement profile).
Fig. 9. Verification: case 3 (concave settlement profile).
(1) Predict the maximum lateral wall deflection (hm) by
performing lateral deformation analysis, e.g., finite element
methods or beam on elastic foundation methods.
(2) Determine the type of settlement profile by calculating
the cantilever area and deep inward area of predicted wall
deflection and referring to Fig. 16.
(3) Estimate the maximum ground surface settlement
(vm) using the vmhm relationship (Fig. 17). at which point the adjacent buildings are not in the critical
(4) Calculate the surface settlement at various distances
behind the wall according to Figs. 4 or 5.
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 35, 1998
If the lateral deformation analysis is not performed, a
crude approximation, such as that obtained using the design
chart of Clough and ORourke (1990), may be used. Thus
the type of settlement profile cannot be determined prior to
excavation. However, based on field observations and finite
element studies (e.g., Finno and Harahap 1991), the type of
settlement profile emerges at the initial stages of excavation,
condition. Therefore, ground surface settlement at the final
stage, which is critical, can be iteratively estimated follow-
1998 NRC Canada
Hsieh and Ou
Fig. 10. Verification: case 4 (concave settlement profile).
Fig. 11. Verification: case 5 (concave settlement profile).
ing the result of field observation at each stage.
Case studies
Concave settlement profile
Six case histories (cases 16) exhibiting the concave set-
tlement profile are used for verification. The results using
the method of Clough and ORourke (1990), i.e., trapezoid
shape of the settlement profile, are also shown in the figures.
Although vm can be estimated from the methods presented
in the preceding section, for comparison, the maximum
1011
ground surface settlement (vm) used in the computation co-
mes directly from the field observation.
Case 1 (Ou et al. 1998) is located near the center of the
Taipei basin. The soil conditions consist mainly of silty clay.
As Table 1 shows, the calculated factor of safety against
basal heave (FS) is 1.68, assuming that the failure surface is
limited by 33.5 or 37.5 m of sandy soil and that the failure
surface is across homogeneous soft clay with average un-
drained shear strength Su = 80 kPa. Settlements obtained
from field observations, using the computation based on
Fig. 5, and using the method proposed by Clough and
1998 NRC Canada
1012
Fig. 12. Verification: case 6 (concave settlement profile).
Fig. 13. Verification: case 7 (spandrel settlement profile).
ORourke (1990) are shown in Fig. 7, which indicates that
the settlement profile computed based on Fig. 5 is in good
agreement with the field observations. Settlement computed
using the method of Clough and ORourke generally gives a
good estimate of the settlement envelope. However, it ne-
glects the settlement in the secondary influence zone.
Case 2 is also located in the Taipei basin. The ground con-
dition is mainly composed of silty clay overlying clayey silt.
The calculated FS is 1.28, assuming that the failure surface
is limited by 31 m of gravel material and that the failure sur-
face is across a homogeneous soft clay with average Su =
55 kPa. Figure 8 shows that the proposed method yields
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 35, 1998
good agreement with the field observations. The method of
Clough and ORourke (1990) neglects the settlement in the
secondary influence zone, but provides a better estimate of
the settlement profile for most of the soil.
Case 3 is a case history described by Miyoshi (1977). The
soil beneath the bottom of the excavation is mainly com-
posed of soft clay (MHCH according to the Unified Soil
Classification System). The calculated FS is 1.54, assuming
that the failure surface with Su = 73.6 kPa is limited by 37 m
of dense sand. Figure 9 shows that both methods slightly un-
derestimate the settlement for part of the soil in the primary
influence zone. However, the method proposed in this paper
1998 NRC Canada
Hsieh and Ou
Fig. 14. Verification: case 8 (spandrel settlement profile).
Fig. 15. Verification: case 9 (spandrel settlement profile).
in general gives a closer agreement with the field observa-
tions. The method of Clough and ORourke (1990) neglects
the settlement in the secondary influence zone, but provides
a good estimate of the settlement profile for the soil near the
wall.
Case 4 is the New Palace Yard Park project in London
(Burland and Hancock 1977). The foundation soil is stiff
London clay. The calculated FS is greater than 10.0, assum-
ing that the failure surface is limited either by 30 m of stiff
clay or 44 m of hard rock and that the failure surface is
across a homogeneous soft clay with average Su = 170 kPa.
1013
With a foundation soil of stiff clay, the triangular-type set-
tlement profile from the method of Clough and ORourke
(1990) should be used, as shown in Fig. 3b. However, field
observation indicates that this case has the concave-type set-
tlement profile. For comparison, the trapezoid shape of the
settlement profile is also used. Figure 10 shows that the pro-
posed method is in good agreement with the field observa-
tions. The method of Clough and ORourke (trapezoid
shape) provides a good envelope of the settlement profile for
the soil near the wall but neglects the settlement in the sec-
ondary influence zone.
1998 NRC Canada
1014 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 35, 1998

Table 3. Summary of information for the case histories.

Type of Wall Excavation

Casea Wall type construction depth (m) depth (m) Reference
a Continuous prepacked pile Bottom up 16.75 9.6 Moh and Associates 1982
b Diaphragm Top down 28.0 13.9 Moh and Associates 1982
c Sheet pile Bottom up 16.0 7.65 Moh and Associates 1982
d Diaphragm Bottom up 17.0 10.7 Moh and Associates 1982
e Continuous prepacked pile Berm method 28.0 12.8 Chu et al. 1991
f Sheet pile Bottom up 15.5 12.0 Karlsrud and Myrvoll 1976
a
Cases as given in Fig. 16.

Fig. 16. Relationship between the area of the cantilever Fig. 17. Relationship between the maximum wall deflection and
component and the area of the deep inward component of the the maximum ground surface settlement. The numbers 19 refer
deflected wall. The numbers 19 refer to the cases listed in to the cases listyed in Table 1. hm, maximum wall deflection.
Table 1, and the letters ae to the cases listed in Table 3.

Case 5 is the HDR-4 project for the Chicago subway de-

scribed by Finno et al. (1989). The subsurface soil at the site
is mainly composed of clay. The calculated FS is 1.65, as-
suming that the failure surface with Su = 47.9 kPa is limited Fig. 18. Location of two footings (F1 and F2) and differential
by 19.2 m of hard clay. As shown in Fig. 11, the wall de- settlement.
flected a considerable amount at the initial stage. Although
the top of the wall rebounded as the subsequent excavation
proceeded, a large settlement near the wall occurred. There-
fore, the settlement at a distance between the wall and the
location of maximum ground surface settlement was unusu-
ally large. The proposed method in general gives a good es-
timate of the settlement profile, and the method of Clough
and ORourke (1990) also provides a good estimate of the
settlement envelope.
Case 6 is the Olso subway excavation project (Norwegian
Geotechnical Institute 1962). The subsurface soil profile
consists mainly of soft clay. The calculated FS is 1.11, as-
suming that the failure surface with Su = 29.4 kPa is limited
by 13 m of bedrock. As shown in Fig. 12, the settlement at a
distance greater than 13 m behind the wall was unavailable.
In general, the proposed method gives a good estimate of the
settlement profile, and the method of Clough and ORourke
(1990) provides a good estimate of the settlement envelope.

1998 NRC Canada

Hsieh and Ou 1015

Table 4. Comparison of angular distortion at different distances from the wall from field observations
and various methods for the case histories.

d1/He
Case
No. Method 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
1 Measured 1/275 1/550 1/350 1/450
Clough and ORourke 0 1/7350 1/330 1/330
This study 1/265 1/440 1/440 1/440
2 Measured 1/150 1/870 1/660 1/1400
Clough and ORourke 0 1/6800 1/530 1/530
This study 1/420 1/700 1/700 1/700
3 Measured 1/40 1/250 1/200 1/180
Clough and ORourke 0 1/900 1/135 1/135
This study 1/65 1/180 1/180 1/180
4 Measured 1/350 1/1580 1/1510 1/1800
Clough and ORourke 0 1/16000 1/1200 1/1200
This study 1/960 1/1600 1/1600 1/1600
5 Measured 1/20 1/51
Clough and ORourke 0 1/152 1/60 1/60
This study 1/50 1/80 1/80 1/80
6 Measured 1/35 1/80
Clough and ORourke 0 1/154 1/70 1/70
This study 1/55 1/108 1/108 1/108
7 Measured 1/180 1/370 1/450 1/820
Clough and ORourke 1/540 1/540 1/540 1/540
Bowles 1/430 1/485 1/555 1/660
This study 1/140 1/440 1/600 1/710
8 Measured 1/300 1/575 1/3300 1/5400
Clough and ORourke 1/1040 1/1040 1/1040 1/1040
Bowles 1/1240 1/1370 1/1540 1/1750
This study 1/405 1/940 1/1225 1/1445
9 Measured 1/480 1/700 1/920 1/1100
Clough and ORourke 1/800 1/800 1/800 1/800
Bowles 1/210 1/250 1/300 1/400
This study 1/320 1/730 1/945 1/1115

Spandrel settlement profile
Three case histories are used to verify the proposed
method and the methods proposed by Clough and ORourke
(1990), Bowles (1988), and Peck (1969). The higher esti-
mate of settlement in Fig. 4 is used for computing the settle-
ment profile. To compare the shape of the settlement profile,
the same magnitude of maximum ground surface settlement
(vm), obtained directly from field observations, is adopted
in the proposed method and in the method of Clough and
ORourke. Bowles has his own approach for estimating vm.
For the method of Peck, the boundary curve between zones I
and II (i.e., 1% curve) is used for computation.
Case 7 is the Far-East Enterprise Center project in Taipei.
The ground conditions are as shown in Fig. 13. The calcu-
lated FS is 1.73, assuming that the failure surface with Su =
76.5 kPa is limited by 32 m of gravel material. As shown in
Fig. 13, the top of the wall had a relatively large displace-
ment at the initial stage of excavation. Although the wall
had a deep-seated type of displacement, the settlement curve
became of the spandrel type. Comparing the observed settle-
ment profile with the methods described above, the 1%
curve of Peck (1969) greatly overestimates the settlement.
This may be because the method of Peck was derived pri-
marily from the case histories with sheetpiles or soldier piles
with lagging. The method of Bowles (1988) gives a good es-
timation for vm, but overestimates the settlement behind the
wall. The method of Clough and ORourke (1990) provides
a good estimate of the settlement profile envelope. The pro-
posed method gives a good agreement with the field obser-
vation.
Case 8 is the Bell Common Tunnel in England, as de-
scribed by Tedd et al. (1984). The subsurface soil is mainly
London clay. The calculated FS is 6.49, assuming that the
failure surface extends as deep as 0.7B, i.e., 28.0 m, in
which the average Su = 150 kPa. As shown in Fig. 14, the
method of Bowles (1988) underestimates the maximum
ground surface settlement (vm) but overestimates the settle-
ment for the ground surface at a distance greater than 5 m
behind the wall. The settlements from the 1% curve of Peck
(1969) are very different from the field observations because
a stiff wall was used. The method of Clough and ORourke
(1990) gives a good settlement profile envelope. Although
the proposed method also overestimates the ground surface
settlement at a distance greater than 4 m, it gives a closer es-
timate when compared with the other methods.
Case 9 is the Neasden Underpass in north London (Sills et

1998 NRC Canada

1016
al. 1977). The subsurface soil is London clay. The calculated
FS is 14.5, assuming that the failure surface extends as deep
as 0.7B, i.e., 14.0 m, in which the average Su = 170 kPa. As
shown in Fig. 15, the deflection was like that of a cantilever
wall through the end of excavation. Therefore, the spandrel
settlement profile would be expected for this case.
The computed settlements using the empirical methods
described above are shown in Fig. 15, which clearly indi-
cates that both the 1% curve of Peck (1969) and the method
of Bowles (1988) greatly overestimate the settlement. The
settlement computed from the method of Clough and
ORourke (1990) envelops the measured settlement. The
proposed method again yields a very good agreement with
the field observations.
Since angular distortion is normally related to damage to
structures, the angular distortions calculated from observed
settlements are thus compared with those computed using
the proposed method and the other empirical methods. As
shown in Fig. 18, the angular distortion between two foot-
ings is defined as 12/L12, in which 12 and L12 denote the
differential settlement and distance, respectively. Table 4
gives the results calculated for L12 = 5.0 m at various dis-
tances (d1) away from the wall and indicates that for the
concave settlement profiles (cases 16), the proposed
method yields better prediction of angular distortion than the
method of Clough and ORourke (1990). For the spandrel
settlement profiles (cases 79), the proposed method also
yields better prediction of angular distortion than the meth-
ods of Clough and ORourke and Bowles.
Conclusions
The deflection of a supported wall during excavation can
usually be predicted using the finite element method with
good accuracy. However, prediction of the ground surface
settlement induced by excavation is not as good as that of
the wall deflection. Under such circumstances the empirical
methods sometimes give a good prediction of ground sur-
face settlement. In this paper, a method for estimating the
ground surface settlement for both spandrel and concave set-
tlement profiles is proposed, given the deflected shape of the
wall. The proposed method is evaluated through several case
histories with predominantly cohesive subsurface conditions
in various areas. The following conclusions are made on the
basis of the work presented herein.
(1) For the concave settlement profile, the method of
Clough and ORourke (1990) gives a good estimate of the
settlement envelope, but it neglects the settlement in the sec-
ondary influence zone. The proposed method gives good
agreements with the field observations for the case histories
presented in this paper. The proposed method is suitable for
both soft clay and stiff clay.
(2) For the spandrel settlement profile, the 1% curve of
Peck (1969) greatly overestimates the settlement. The
method of Bowles (1988) underestimates the angular distor-
tion of the buildings and overestimates the magnitude of the
settlement. The method of Clough and ORourke also gives
a good estimate of the settlement profile. The proposed
method provides a fairly good prediction of ground surface
settlement and is suitable for soft clay and stiff clay.
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 35, 1998
(3) The reliability of the proposed method depends upon
the accuracy of the estimated value of maximum lateral wall
movement and maximum ground surface settlement. The
maximum wall deflection can be obtained using numerical
methods. In general, the maximum ground surface settle-
ment, vm, is 0.5hm to 0.75hm. For very soft clay, vm may
be larger than hm because there may be plastic flow in the
soil around the excavation.
(4) Types of settlement profiles induced by excavation can
be justified based on the relationship of cantilever area and
deep inward area of wall deflection. However, this relation-
ship requires more field data for further enhancement and
verification.
(5) Based on studies of nine case histories, for the con-
cave and spandrel settlement profiles the proposed method
yields better prediction of angular distortion than the other
empirical methods, such as those of Clough and ORourke
and Bowles.
References
Bowles, J.E. 1988. Foundation analysis and design. 4th ed.
McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York.
Burland, J.B., and Hancock, R.J.R. 1977. Underground car park at
the house of commons: geotechnical aspects. Structural Engi-
neer, 55: 87100.
Caspe, M.S. 1966. Surface settlement adjacent to braced open cuts.
Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE,
92(SM4): 5159.
Chu, Y.G., Kuo, H.S., and Chen, D.L. 1991. Wall deflection and
ground surface settlement induced by excavation. In Proceed-
ings of the 4th National Geotechnical Conference, Hawlin, Tai-
wan.
Clough, G.W., and ORourke, T.D. 1990. Construction-induced
movements of in situ walls. In Proceedings, Design and Perfor-
mance of Earth Retaining Structures, ASCE Special Conference,
Ithaca, New York, pp. 439470.
Finno, R.J., and Harahap, I.S. 1991. Finite element analyses of
HDR-4 excavation. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
ASCE, 117(10): 15901609.
Finno, R.J., Atmatzidis, D.K., and Perkins, S.B. 1989. Observed
performance of a deep excavation in clay. Journal of the Geo-
technical Engineering Division, ASCE, 115(GT8): 10451064.
Karlsrud, K., and Myrvoll, F. 1976. Performance of a strutted exca-
vation in quick clay. In Proceedings of the 6th European Confer-
ence on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vienna,
Vol. 1, pp. 157164.
Mana, A.I., and Clough, G.W. 1981. Prediction of movements for
braced cut in clay. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Di-
vision, ASCE, 107(GT8): 759777.
Milligan, G.W.E. 1983. Soil deformation near anchored sheet-pile
walls. Gotechnique, 33(1): 4155.
Miyoshi, M. 1977. Mechanical behavior of temporary braced wall.
In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Soil Me-
chanics and Foundation Engineering, Tokyo, Vol. 2, No. 2/60,
pp. 655658.
Moh and Associates. 1982. Report on instrumentation monitoring
of five deep excavations in the Taipei City. Taipei Mass Rapid
Transit Bureau, Taipei, Taiwan, pp. 1149.
NAVFAC. 1982. Design manual: foundations and earth structures.
NAVFAC DM 7.2, U.S. Department of the Navy, Washington,
D.C.
1998 NRC Canada
Hsieh and Ou 1017

Nicholson, D.P. 1987. The design and performance of the retaining List of symbols
wall at Newton Station. In Proceeding of Singapore Mass Rapid
Transit Conference, Singapore, pp. 147154.
Norwegian Geotechnical Institute. 1962. Measurements at a strut-
Ac cantilever area
ted excavation, Oslo Subway, Vaterland 1. Norwegian Ac1, Ac2 cantilever area at completion of the first and final
Geotechnical Institute, Technical Report 6. stages of excavation, respectively
Ou, C.Y., Hsieh, P.G., and Chiou, D.C. 1993. Characteristics of As deep inward area
ground surface settlement during excavation. Canadian AIR apparent influence range
Geotechnical Journal, 30(5):758767. B excavation width
Ou, C.Y., Liao, J.T., and Lin, H.D. 1998. Performance of D settlement influence zone
diaphragm wall constructed using top-down method. Journal Dx distance from the wall
of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, d distance from the supported wall
124 (9): 987808. d1 distance from the supported wall
Peck, R.B. 1969. Deep excavation and tunneling in soft ground. In FS factor of safety against basal heave
Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Soil Me- He final excavation depth
chanics and Foundation Engineering, State-of-the-Art-Volume, Hp wall penetration depth
Mexico City, pp. 225290. Hs strut or anchor level
Sills, G.C., Burland, J.B., and Czechowski, M.K. 1977. Behavior L12 distance between two footings
of an anchored diaphragm wall in stiff clay. In Proceedings of Nb stability number
the 9th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Founda- Ncb critical stability number
tion Engineering, Tokyo, Vol. 2, pp. 147155. Su undrained shear strength
Tedd, P., Chard, B.M., Charles, J.A., and Symons, I.F. 1984. Be- Vs volume of lateral movement of soil mass
havior of a propped embedded retaining wall in stiff clay at Bell
hm maximum wall deflection
common tunnel. Gotechnique, 34(4): 513532.
v ground surface settlement
Terzaghi, K. 1943. Theoretical soil mechanics. John Wiley and
vm maximum ground surface settlement
Sons, Inc., New York.
Timonshenko, S., and Goodier, J.N. 1951. Theory of elasticity. 2nd
12 differential settlement between two footings
ed. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York. internal friction angle
Woo, S.M., and Moh, Z.C. 1990. Geotechnical characteristics of drained friction angle
soils in Taipei basin. In Proceedings of the 10th Southeast Asian unit weight of soils
Geotechnical Conference, Special Taiwan Session, Taipei, v effective overburden pressure
pp. 5165. water content

1998 NRC Canada