Nicholson Construction Company

12 McClane Street
Cuddy, PA 15031
Telephone: 412-221-4500
Facsimile: 412-221-3127

Diaphragm Walls

by

Thomas D. Richards, Jr. P.E.

Nicholson Construction Company, Cuddy, Pennsylvania

Presented at:
Central PA Geotechnical Conference
Hershey, Pennsylvania
March 23-25, 2006

05-01-145
 Diaphragm Walls
Thomas D Richards, Jr P.E. Nicholson Construction Company
Central PA Geotechnical Conference - March 23-25, 2005
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this paper is to describe the application, construction process, and design methods
for diaphragm walls, since this topic has not been addressed much if at all at previous Hershey
conferences.
Diaphragm walls are a method of creating a cast in-situ reinforced concrete retaining wall using the
slurry supported trench method. As such, they are often known as slurry walls. However, the term
diaphragm walls
Concrete diaphragm slurry walls were first introduced in the United States in the 1960s, and have
found a niche in urban environments such as Boston, New York City, and Washington, DC.

APPLICATIONS
Diaphragm walls are most commonly used :
in areas with dense and historic urban infrastructure,
where a very rigid earth retention system is required,
where noise and vibration must be limited,
where the geology and groundwater preclude the use of conventional earth retention systems
and/or where dewatering is not practical
Compared to other wall types, diaphragm walls are considered to be very stiff with respect to
ground movement control (Clough and ORourke, 1990).
Diaphragm walls are often attractive in granular soils with a high groundwater level, especially
when a low permeability layer underlies the granular soils. The diaphragm walls are typically
terminated in the underlying low-permeability layer which can consist of soil or rock. Keying into
this low permeability layer reduces groundwater seepage below the wall. (Pearlman, 2004)
Projects that have used these walls include:
below grade parking/ deep basements
cut and cover subway tunnels
highways as cut and cover tunnel walls and for underpasses
shafts for deep sewers
dam appurtenances
landslides
For highway projects, diaphragm walls were employed extensively on the Central Artery Tunnel
and also have been used in Denver, CO and Baltimore, MD.

Diaphragm Walls Page 2 of 17

21st Central PA Geotechnical Conference - March 23-25, 2005
BENEFITS
Diaphragm walls can:
be formed to depths of several hundred feet, through virtually all soil types and through
rock, and with great control over geometry and continuity
facilitate excavations below groundwater while eliminating dewatering
provide fairly watertight walls
provide structural stiffness which reduces ground movements and adjacent settlements
during excavation
be load bearing transferring loads to the underlying layer be reinforced to allow
incorporation of many structural configurations,
accommodate connections to structures
be easily adapted to both anchors and internal structural bracing systems
be constructed in relatively low headroom (say 15 feet) and in areas of restricted access
be installed before excavation commences
provide economic solutions in cases where temporary and permanent support can be
integrated or redesigned into one retaining structure
Diaphragm walls combine into a single foundation unit the functions of temporary shoring,
permanent basement walls, hydraulic (groundwater) cutoff, and vertical support elements. Because
of this combination, they have proven to be an economical alternative in many circumstances
(Pearlman, 2004).

Diaphragm Walls Page 3 of 17

21st Central PA Geotechnical Conference - March 23-25, 2005
CONSTRUCTION PROCESS
Overview
The trench excavation is performed using slurry for support. The slurry is typically bentonite and
water or polymer and water.
Diaphragm walls are constructed in the following steps:
pretrenching to remove obstructions
guidewall construction
panel (vertical segments) excavation
endstop placement
panel desanding
reinforcing cage placement
tremie concrete
end stop removal (if temporary)

Excavation Cage Placement Tremie Concrete

Figure 1 Source: George Tamaro, Mueser Rutledge

Diaphragm Walls Page 4 of 17

21st Central PA Geotechnical Conference - March 23-25, 2005
Site Logisitics and Slurry Plant Setup
It is important to note that diaphragm wall installation requires sufficient work area to set up the
slurry plant and to assemble the reinforcing cages prior to placement in the wall. This work may be
difficult on congested sites. To reduce site area requirements, offsite cage fabrication is possible.

Cage Fab *
~120 x panel
depth

Slurry Plant with

6 tanks **
~60 x 120

Cage Fabrication Area

Another Job

* The cage fabrication area is dependant on the number of rigs and production schedule.
** The plant are is dependant on number of tanks.
The slurry plant includes a slurry mixer, storage tanks, and desanding units.
Sufficient storage tanks must be used for bentonite slurry hydration, several panels of bentonite,
recycled bentonite.

Diaphragm Walls Page 5 of 17

21st Central PA Geotechnical Conference - March 23-25, 2005
Storage Tanks

Desanders and Desilter

Pretrenching
Pretrenching is often performed to remove shallow obstructions and provide stable support for the
guidewalls (next step). This pretrenching may be performed as open excavation backfilled with
flowfill or excavated under self hardening slurry.

Guidewall construction
Guidewalls provide a template for wall excavation and panel layout, support the top of the trench,
restrain the endstops, serve as a platform to hang the reinforcement, provide a reference elevation

Diaphragm Walls Page 6 of 17

21st Central PA Geotechnical Conference - March 23-25, 2005
for inserts ( anchors, slabs, etc.), support the tremie pipes, hold down the cage during concreting,
and provide reaction for jacking out some types of endstops.
Guidewalls are reinforced concrete typically four to five feet deep and constructed similar to the
figure and photo below.
The top of the guidewalls should be at least four feet above the groundwater table to allow for
construction in the dry and to allow for slurry level to be three feet above groundwater table.

Typical Guidewall Details

Diaphragm Walls Page 7 of 17

21st Central PA Geotechnical Conference - March 23-25, 2005
Panel (vertical segments) Excavation
Special clamshells also known as grabs or buckets are rectangular shaped (see photos) and used to
excavate vertical slots known as panels. These clamshells may be cable hug or Kelly mounted, and
the digging mechanics may be cable or hydraulic operated.

Kelly Mount Hydraulic Grab Cable Mounted Hydraulic Grab

Cable Mounted & Operated Grab Panel Excavation along Building

Diaphragm Walls Page 8 of 17

21st Central PA Geotechnical Conference - March 23-25, 2005
The excavation is performed in panels which are vertical slots. Trench stability is mostly provided
by the fluid weight of the bentonite and the arching action of the soil around the trench.
Calculations on trench stability often do not show that successfully excavated trenches should stay
open which indicates conservatism and effects that have not been considered. The bentonite slurry
is placed in the trench after a few buckets have been excavated and continuously added to maintain
at least 3 feet above groundwater level and within 2 feet of the top of the guidewall.
Panel lengths are typically 20 to 24 feet governed by the geometry of the project and the size of
contractors special clamshells. The panel width is governed by the contractors clamshells. Various
widths can be accommodated by reinforcing design including shear and bending reinforcement.

Endstop Placement
Endstops are used to control the concrete placement so that adjacent secondary panels are not
excavating monolithic concrete. Endstops may be permanent or removed after concrete placement.
Permanent endstops are typically wide flange shapes. Removable endstops can be pipe (Figure 1)
or special keyway end stops (Photo below).

Permanent Endstops Special V Groove Endstop

Diaphragm Walls Page 9 of 17

21st Central PA Geotechnical Conference - March 23-25, 2005
Panel Desanding
The panel must be de-sanded to remove excess sand in the slurry and bottom of panel. The removal
of sand from the slurry decreases the density of the slurry so that tremie concrete does not mix with
the slurry or trap pockets of sand.
Reinforcing Cage placement
Carefully fabricated three-dimensional reinforcing cage are then inserted into the panel excavation.
The reinforcing cage may also support future structural or utility connections using knockouts
that are pre-set in the wall. Concrete is then placed around the reinforcing cage using tremie
methods to form each concrete panel.

Cage Placement Note blockouts for floor slabs and trumpets for anchors .

Tremie Concrete
Tremie pipes are placed in the panel to within a foot of the bottom. Typically two tremie pipes are
used for full size panels and one tremie pipe is used for single bite panels. Concrete with 8 to 10
inch slump is then tremied into the panel.
The concrete mix is special to provide 4000 to 6000 psi strength with high slump and contains fairly
high cement content, often other pozzolans, plasictizers and often other chemicals.

Diaphragm Walls Page 10 of 17

21st Central PA Geotechnical Conference - March 23-25, 2005
The concrete level is sounded after each load and records maintained on actual versus theoretical
concrete take. Tremie pipe sections are removed as the concrete level rises but maintained 10 feet
into the concrete.
While the concrete is being placed, the bentonite slurry is pumped back to storage tanks for
treatment and reuse.

Diaphragm Walls Page 11 of 17

21st Central PA Geotechnical Conference - March 23-25, 2005
End Stop Removal (if temporary)
As the concrete is setting typically four hours after placement at a given depth, temporary endstops
are removed by crane or jacks (see Photo of Special V Groove End Stop above). This often means
late nights and overtime.

DESIGN (modified from Pearlman, Boscardin, and Walker 2004)

The design analyses for excavation support systems can range from relatively simple empirical
analyses to more complex computer analyses, where typically all stages of the excavation sequence
are evaluated. The design considerations should include not only the stresses and loads on the
support system, but also the affect of construction movements on the response of adjacent
structures. The level of effort for the evaluation often depends on the stage of the project, proximity
of structures, contractors methods of construction, and known local practice. The discussion of
design methodologies will consider both structure loading and system movements.

Empirical Methods
Stress Analysis
Traditionally, apparent pressure envelope methods have been used successfully to design flexible
wall systems such as soldier pile and lagging and steel sheet-pile systems. The approach was
developed based on data from flexible wall systems, and typically assumes that the wall acts as a
simple beam spanning between the brace levels (Terzaghi et al., 1996). For the more rigid slurry
wall system, the pattern of wall displacement that develops during the actual excavation and bracing
sequence can have a major effect on the bending moments in the wall and the distribution of load to
the bracing/anchors. Hence, use of apparent pressure envelopes for design of stiffer systems can be
misleading. In general, apparent pressure envelope loadings are most appropriate as upper bounds
for cases that match the bases of the empirical data, which include cases with relatively flexible
walls and a stable subgrade.
The pressure envelope design approach is for a temporary support system and does not necessarily
provide the long-term loading corresponding to the permanent condition after the end of excavation.
When the temporary support system, such as a slurry wall system, is incorporated into the
permanent building foundation, a staged analysis that includes loading at each stage is required to
evaluate the built-in stresses and strains that are locked into the final structure at the end of
construction.
Movement Analysis
The use of empirical data for the evaluations of movements is a useful tool in evaluating potential
effects of a proposed excavation on adjacent buildings. Empirical data also allow the designer to
validate the general magnitudes and patterns of the results of more sophisticated analyses. The
empirical data can be used to estimate the zone of influence of the excavation as well as typical
magnitudes of ground movements for various wall stiffness and subgrade stability conditions (e.g.,
Clough and ORourke, 1990).

Diaphragm Walls Page 12 of 17

21st Central PA Geotechnical Conference - March 23-25, 2005
Staged Excavation Analysis
Staged excavation analyses use numerical approaches to model the actual sequence of excavation
and brace installation by considering each stage of the excavation as it is constructed, and the
excavation support is installed and then removed. The soil and water pressures applied to the wall
are representative of the actual pressures (not apparent pressure envelopes) expected in the system
at each stage, and calculated loads are representative of the actual loads (not upper bound loads).
The models can incorporate interaction of the soil and the structure as the earth pressures vary with
displacement. The overall reliability of the structural requirements and displacement performance
estimates determined from a staged excavation analysis is directly related to and very sensitive to
the quality of the input parameters, particularly soil stiffness and strength parameters.
Three general methods have been used for staged construction analyses:
Equivalent Beam Method
Beam on Elastic Foundation Method
Finite Element Method
The equivalent beam method is outdated and rarely used in current practice. Discussion will focus
on the beam on elastic foundation and finite element methods. Both approaches can be used to
predict stresses, loads, and system movements.
Beam on Elastic Foundation Method (BEF)
The earth pressures are modeled with a series of independent spring supports similar to Winkler
elastic foundation model. At the start of the model, the springs are compressed to create an initial
load equal to represent a state of at-rest pressure. At each stage of excavation or support system, the
spring loads change as soil, water, and support system loads are applied or removed and lateral wall
displacement occurs. The soil springs load-displacement relationship (modulus of subgrade
reaction) is determined by the input soil stiffness and governs the spring displacement until the
limiting value of active or passive pressure is reached.
The Winkler elastic foundation model approximates the wall-soil interaction with a one-
dimensional model instead of a two-dimensional model that includes the soil mass, and hence does
not include the effects of arching within the soil mass.
Typically, the required soil parameters include: unit weight; at-rest, active, and passive earth
pressure coefficients; and values for the modulus of subgrade reaction for the various soils that may
affect the system. The modulus of subgrade reaction is not a true soil property, but rather depends
on both the soil conditions and the geometry of the excavation being modeled. To be
representative, the modulus of subgrade reaction needs to be adjusted based on the effective
influence zone, which varies with the size of the loaded area.
Typically, the predicted wall displacements are much more sensitive to the values of subgrade
modulus used in the analysis than the predicted brace loads and wall bending moments. Hence,
conservative selection of the modulus of subgrade values should provide conservative estimates of
ground movements, without significantly increasing the structural demand of the wall and bracing
system.

Diaphragm Walls Page 13 of 17

21st Central PA Geotechnical Conference - March 23-25, 2005
The BEF method does not directly estimate vertical ground movements behind the wall. Ground
movements behind the wall are evaluated using the calculated wall displacement from the model.
An empirical relationship between wall movement and ground movements must then be used.
There are several computer programs that automate the analysis. Some use Youngs modulus as
input for the soil stiffness. The program then automatically converts the Youngs modulus values
for the various soils to adjusted values of subgrade reaction modulus using closed-form elastic
solutions.
The BEF analytical model can provide useful insights into the behavior of the wall and the wall-soil
boundary, and the automated computer programs make it easy to perform multiple analyses for
optimizing the design and evaluating sensitivity to input parameters.
Finite Element Methods (FE)
Finite element models are typically two-dimensional models that include the soil mass surrounding
the excavation. The stress-strain response of the soil is represented by a mathematical soil model
that can vary from a simple linear-elastic model to a complex nonlinear elasto-plastic model. The
stress-strain response can be defined in terms of effective stresses or total stresses. The required
input parameters depend on the soil model used.
Generally, it is desirable to use a soil model that can model failure (plastic yield) when the soil
strength is exceeded. In some problems, the ability to model volumetric changes in the soil
(consolidation or dilation) may be important. A linear elastic, fully plastic Mohr-Coulomb soil
model is often used. In this soil model, the soil acts linearly elastic until it reaches failure, defined
by the Mohr-Coulomb criterion, where upon it becomes perfectly plastic.
In contrast to the BEF analysis, the FE analysis can provide direct information on the ground
movements outside of and inside the excavation (see Figure 2 below). It can also be used to model
the soil-structure interaction response of nearby structures to the excavation-induced ground
movements.

Diaphragm Walls Page 14 of 17

21st Central PA Geotechnical Conference - March 23-25, 2005
Figure 2: Displacement Vectors from FEM Analysis
Another difference between the FE and BEF methods is that variations in the soil stiffness
(modulus) can have a greater effect on predicted loadings and movements due to the inclusion of
soil arching in the FE model.
FE models can be used to perform parametric studies to understand the relative effects of changes
of parameters such as soil stiffness and excavation support stiffness and sequence on forces, stresses
and displacements. They can also be used to estimate the absolute magnitudes and patterns of
excavation support systems and ground movements which is much more difficult. A primary
reason for the difficulty is the selection of reasonable stiffness values for the various materials that
make up the soil mass. In general, values of stiffness based on laboratory and field tests tend to
underestimate to a large degree the ground stiffness. This in turn can result in an overestimate of
the magnitude of displacements, by two times or more, and the extent of the influence zone around
an excavation. This tendency can be tempered to a great degree by using representative, local, field
case history data during the selection of material parameters and to calibrate the numerical model to
previous case histories.
In the past, performing FE analyses have been complex and time consuming to perform, but new,
user-friendly programs (e.g., PLAXIS) are making their use more common.

Diaphragm Walls Page 15 of 17

21st Central PA Geotechnical Conference - March 23-25, 2005
Comparison of BEF and FE Results
For the United States Capital Visitor Center (Pearlman et.al. 2004 and Bonita (2005)), the analyses
for the structural design of the support system were performed using both BEF and FE models. The
BEF program (WALLAP, 1997) was easier and quicker to run than FE programs, so it was used for
the structural design of the wall system. By using the BEF model, the design team could evaluate
more design profiles. Two FE models were run to verify that the BEF model loadings and stresses
were conservative, and to provide ground deformation predictions to compare to contract
requirements.
Figure 3 presents the predicted deflected shapes of the slurry wall for the BEF and FE model
analyses, as well as inclinometer data for the most heavily loaded design sections. The FE model
included the tieback anchors modeled within the soil mass. The difference between the movements
predicted by the BEF model and the larger movements predicted by the FE model is essentially the
free field movement behind the anchor zones of the tiebacks. In other words, the BEF and FE
model had good agreement in predicting the local movement of the wall. The actual wall
movement is less than the values predicted by both models. This behavior is likely the result of the
combination of conservative modulus values for the soils, and conservative estimates of building
surcharges used in the models.
Pearlman et.al. (2004) note that overall the wall movements for the entire site are less than
predicted, even in sections where there are no building surcharges.

Figure 3: Modeled and Measured Wall Displacement Data

Diaphragm Walls Page 16 of 17

21st Central PA Geotechnical Conference - March 23-25, 2005
SUMMARY
Permanent retaining walls with high groundwater tables can be economically constructed using
concrete diaphragm walls.

An introduction to construction methods was presented. Given the various options of permanent
versus temporary endstops, panel length and width, and the economics of these options; the final
design of the diaphragm wall is often done as design/build working in close cooperation with the
Owner, GC, and Engineers.

Design techniques that involve sophisticated soil structure interaction models combined with local
data and experience give a high level of confidence for predicting wall performance on projects
surrounded by other structures, where control of building movement and damage are paramount to a
successful project delivery. These models need to be calibrated to empirical predictions, and other
case histories of successful excavation support projects in similar ground conditions.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Most of the design section of this paper was prepared By Seth Pearlman, Mike Walker and Marco
Boscardin.

REFERENCES

Bonita, G. (2005) "United States Capital Visitor Center ", Proceedings of 21st Central PA
Geotechnical Conference - March 23-25, 2005

Clough, W.G. and O'Rourke, T.D., 1990. "Construction induced movements of in-situ walls."
Design and Performance of Earth Retaining Structures, ASCE GSP No.25, 439 - 470.

PLAXIS, 1998. Finite Element Code for Soil and Rock Analyses. Brokgreve and Vermeer, et al.,
(ed.), Balkema. Rotterdam, Brookfield, Version 7, A.A.

Pearlman, S.L., Boscardin, M.D., Walker, M.P. 2004. Deep Underground Basements for Major
Urban Building Construction, Presented at Geo-Support 2004, Jan. 28-31, 2004, Orlando,
FL.

Terzaghi, K., Peck, R. B., and Mesri, G., 1996. Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice, Third
Edition, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, 349-360.

WALLAP, 1997. Anchored and cantilevered retaining wall analysis program, D.L. Borin, MA,
Ph.D., CEng., MICE. Geosolve, Users Manual, Version 4.

Diaphragm Walls Page 17 of 17

21st Central PA Geotechnical Conference - March 23-25, 2005