Performance of a Deep Excavation and Its Effect

on Adjacent Tunnels in Shanghai Soft Clay

G. B. Liu, Ph.D. 1; P. Huang, Ph.D. 2; J. W. Shi, Ph.D. 3; and C. W. W. Ng, Ph.D., F.ASCE 4

Abstract: A 267-m-long, 54-m-wide, and 14.9–16.4-m-deep multipropped deep excavation with three cross walls in Shanghai soft clay was
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University College London on 05/27/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

constructed at a side of an existing metro station. To investigate the performance of this deep excavation and the effect of this deep excavation
on adjacent metro station and shield tunnels, the ground deformation and structure responses were extensively monitored. Based on the field
observations, the deflections and vertical movements of diaphragm walls, surface settlements, vertical and horizontal displacements of the up
track and the down track within the station and nearby shield tunnels, as well as tunnel convergence were extensively analyzed. By adopting
cross walls, jet grouting and large dimension concrete struts, the measured maximum lateral wall deflection and ground deformation were
much smaller than those at other sites without installing cross walls in Shanghai soft clay. The maximum excavation-induced lateral wall
movements and ground settlement behind the retaining wall were 0.11% H e (final excavation depth) and 0.12% He , respectively. Because of
stress relief resulting from the deep excavation, the metro station experienced heave with a maximum value of 9.6 mm. Due to horizontal
stress relief resulting from the adjacent basement excavation, the existing tunnel moved as much as 5.5 mm toward the basement. Affected by
the horizontal stress reduction around the tunnel lining, the existing tunnel became horizontally elongated by up to 4.9 mm. DOI: 10.1061/
(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000891. © 2016 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Deep excavation; Metro station; Shield tunnel; Cross wall; Ground behaviors; Soft clay.

Introduction
Rapid and sustainable development in congested urban cities such
as Shanghai often requires efficient use of underground spaces such
as deep basements. Limited by the scarce land and space, these
basements frequently had to be built in the vicinity of operating
metro lines. Therefore, the station or tunnel of the metro will be
inevitably affected by adjacent basement excavation. To verify de-
sign assumptions and reduce risks during basement excavation,
field monitoring is adopted because it can provide immediate feed-
back to designers and engineers.
Based on field instrumentation programs, performances of deep
excavations in soft clay have been investigated by researchers
around the world in the past two decades (e.g., Ou et al. 1993;
Hsieh and Ou 1998; Ng 1998; Moormann 2004; Wang et al.
2005; Liu et al. 2011a; Tan and Li 2011; Tan and Wei 2012;
Ng et al. 2012). The characteristics of ground and diaphragm wall
deformations have been comprehensively studied. In those studies,
1 basement, whereas conventional struts can only install above the
Professor, Dept. of Geotechnical Engineering, Tongji Univ., 1239
Siping Rd., Shanghai 200092, China. E-mail: tj_liuguobin@163.com
2
Dept. of Geotechnical Engineering, Tongji Univ., 1239 Siping Rd.,
Shanghai 200092, China. E-mail: cwjzxwzj@163.com
3
Lecturer, Key Laboratory of Geomechanics and Embankment Engi-
neering of the Ministry of Education, Geotechnical Engineering Research
Center of Jiangsu Province, Hohai Univ., 1 Xikang Rd., Nanjing 210098,
China; formerly, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Hong
Kong Univ. of Science and Technology, Clear Water Bay, Kowloon, Hong
Kong, China (corresponding author). E-mail: ceshijiangwei@163.com
4
Chair Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Hong Kong Univ. of Science and Technology, Clear Water Bay, Kowloon,
Hong Kong, China. E-mail: cecwwng@ust.hk
Note. This manuscript was submitted on May 28, 2015; approved on
January 27, 2016; published online on April 19, 2016. Discussion period
open until September 19, 2016; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Performance of
Constructed Facilities, © ASCE, ISSN 0887-3828.
steel and/or concrete struts were used to support the basement dur-
ing excavation. Recently, cross walls have also been adopted to al-
leviate excavation-induced adverse effects on nearby structures (Ou
et al. 2006, 2011; Wu et al. 2013). Although cross walls have been
used extensively in deep excavation in Shanghai, case histories of
using cross walls were rarely reported in literature (Wang et al.
2010; Shi et al. 2015). Wu et al. (2013) conducted case histories
to investigate the influence of cross walls on basement excavations
in Taipei soft clay. They found that the maximum wall deflection
and ground settlement due to excavation with cross walls can re-
duce as much as 75 and 82% compared to those induced by exca-
vation without cross walls. Due to the larger dimensions of cross
walls compared to conventional concrete struts, the cross walls
had much greater axial rigidity. More importantly, cross walls were
installed before commencement of basement excavation to reduce
ground movements. On the contrary, conventional concrete struts
were installed after basement excavation had reached a certain
depth and hence some ground movements had taken place. More-
over, cross walls can be installed below the formation level of the
formation level of the basement. Thus, the use of cross walls
can reduce the deformation below the excavation surface more
effectively.
Due to limited underground spaces, basements are often con-
structed directly above or at one side of metro tunnels. Sharma et al.
(2001) reported the monitoring deformation of Mass Rapid Transit
(MRT) tunnels caused by adjacent large excavation. They found
that the excavation-induced displacement and distortion in the
MRT tunnels were significantly affected by the flexural stiffness of
the tunnels.
Zheng and Wei (2008) studied the response of an existing shield
tunnel due to overlying excavation by 2D finite element method.
They found that the convergence and divergence induced in the
existing tunnel was closely related to the location of the basement
relative to the tunnel. Moreover, Huang et al. (2013) conducted a
three-dimensional numerical analysis to investigate the response of

© ASCE 04016041-1 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 04016041

 a shield tunnel due to nearby deep excavation. They revealed that
the major influence zone of the basement excavation was five times
the basement width along the longitudinal direction of the tunnel.
Although considerable attentions have paid to the performance
of the deep excavation or the impact of excavation on nearby shield
tunnels, the influence of basement excavations on nearby metro
stations has not been thoroughly investigated. Compared to shield
tunnels, metro stations have some different characteristics. The
stiffness and volume of metro stations are larger than the shield
tunnel. Moreover, the structure form and construction method
are also different. Therefore, the performance of stations and tun-
nels may have some differences when affected by adjacent deep
excavation.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University College London on 05/27/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
ground settlements behind the diaphragm walls are then described.
Finally, the excavation-induced vertical displacement and horizon-
tal displacement of the tracks and shield tunnel convergence are
analyzed.
Site
In this study, a basement was excavated at a final depth (He )
between 14.9 and 16.4 m in the downtown area of Shanghai. Fig. 1
shows a plan view of this site. The basement was approximately
rectangular in shape with excavation geometry on plan of 267 ×
54 m. By installing three cross walls within the basement area,

To address the aforementioned shortcomings, a deep excavation
with cross walls excavated at a final depth (H e ) of 14.9–16.4 m at
one side of a metro station was extensively instrumented. In what
follows, the site condition, geology, instrumentation, and con-
struction sequence are first reported. The groundwater table, lateral
deflections, and vertical movements of the diaphragm walls and
the area was divided into four excavation zones (i.e., Zones A,
B, C, and D). An existing metro station was located on the north
side of the basement. The soil between the existing metro station
and Zones B and C (i.e., Zones E and F) were excavated to 12 m
below the ground surface. On the east side of the basement, there
was a two-story building with two-story basements and founded on

Down track
Shield tunnel Legend
Operating metro station
Up track Shield tunnel Gound settlement
D12-5 D1-5
D12-4 D5-5 D1-4 w Groundwater table
D12-3 D11-4 Zone F D1-3
D12-2 D11-3 D5-4 Zone E D1-2 W2
D22-1
19m

W10 D11-2 w W9 D5-3 D21-1 D20-1 W1

w D12-1 D11-1Q28 Q27 W6 D5-2 W14 w D1-1 w Wall movement
Q35 Q33 Q17 w D5-1 Q19 Q42 Q43 w Q44 Q45 Q1 Q3 Q5 Q7 Q9
Q31 Q29 Q18 Q2 Q4 Q6 Q8
Q36 Cross wall Basement elevation:
Cross wall
Q26 Q20 W4w Q16 Q10 -10m
D4-1
D4-3
D4-4
D4-5

D4-2
D13-1
D13-3
D13-4
D13-5

D2-1
D13-2

D2-3
D2-4
D2-5
w W7 D2-2 Cross wall Foundation: bored
54m

piles
Q37 Zone A Z one B Zone C Z one D
D3-2

D3-5
D3-4
D3-3
D3-1

W8 w Q21 Q15 Q11 diameter: 600mm

Q25
w length: 35m
W11 Q38
Q39 Q40 Q41 Q24 Q23 Q22 Q46 Q47 Q48 Q49 Q14 Q13 Q12
W12 w w w w
D14-1 D15-1 W13 D16-1 D10a-1 D10-1 W5 D9-1 D17-1 D18-1 W15 D19-1 D8-1 D7-1 W3 D6-1

One-story building founded on 30 m deep and 0.6 m diameter bored piles

66m 66m 75m 60m

267m

(a)
Down track

XC1 XC20 XC50 Tunnel

SC1 SC20 SC50 convergence
measure line
Up track Vertical and horizontal
(b) displacement measure point

Down track
Legend
Vertical displacement
Horizontal displacement
Tunnel convergence
Up track
(c)

Fig. 1. Plan view of site with instrumentation layout: (a) ground settlement and wall deflection markers around the basement; (b) vertical displace-
ment markers; (c) horizontal displacement and convergence markers

© ASCE 04016041-2 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 04016041

 35-m-long bored piles with a diameter of 0.6 m. Moreover, a one-
story building supported by 30-m-long bored piles with a diameter
of 0.6 m was constructed on the south side of the basement.
Fig. 2 shows the cross sections of the metro station (section A-A)
and the shield tunnel (section B-B), respectively. Excavation of the
metro station started in 2008 and completed in 2010. The metro
station was a two-story basement structure with a width of 22.5 m
and a depth of 18.5 m. Thickness of the top, middle, and bottom
concrete slabs were 0.9 m, 0.5 m and 1.1 m, respectively. Dia-
phragm walls with a thickness of 1 m were installed 33 m below
the ground surface to support this basement during excavation.
They also served as a retaining system for the basement excavation

22.5m 19.0m 54.0m

Concrete strut Ground surface Concrete strut
Artificial backfill soil
Top slab Steel
Steel strut Steel column Steel column Steel column Steel column
column
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University College London on 05/27/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Moving strut Concrete strut

Steel strut
Middle slab Concrete strut
Jet-grouting
Up
track Jet-grouting
-14.9m
Bottom slab Jet-grouting
ACIP Pile
ACIP Pile ACIP Pile ACIP Pile
ACIP Pile

The main structure of

existing stations

(a)

6.2m 7.0m 6.2m 17.6m 54.0m

Ground surface Concrete strut

Steel
Steel column Steel column Steel column
column
Concrete strut

Concrete strut
Jet-grouting
Down Up
track track -14.9m
Jet-grouting

ACIP Pile ACIP Pile ACIP Pile

The shield tunnel located at ACIP Pile
both end of the metro station

(b)

Fig. 2. Cross section and geometry at this site: (a) section A-A; (b) section B-B

© ASCE 04016041-3 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 04016041

 in Zones E and F. The clear distance between the metro station
and the primary excavation zone (i.e., Zones A, B, C, and D) was
about 19 m.
At the two ends of the station, two shield tunnels with a cover
depth of 12.3 m were constructed by an earth pressure balance
(EPB) machine [Fig. 2(b)]. The outer diameter and liner thickness
of the shield tunnel were 6.2 m and 0.35 m, respectively.
Geology and Soil Parameters
Before the basement excavation, a series of field exploration pro-
grams and laboratory tests, such as standard penetration, cone pen-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University College London on 05/27/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
etration, vane shear, and triaxial compression tests, were conducted
to investigate the soil properties. Soil strata concerned in this site
consists of nine layers with total depth up to 50 m.
Fig. 3 presents a typical soil profile and geological parameters of
the site below the ground surface. The top soil layer was artificial
fill (Layer 1) with a thickness of 1.8 m, underlain by a silty clay
(Layer 2) with a thickness of 1.6 m. The third layer was a
5.7-m-thick layer of very soft silty clay (Layer 3) consisting of
mica, organic matter, and silty sand. The following layer is very
soft clay and soft silty clay (Layer 4) with a thickness of 11.9 m,
characterized by high compressibility, saturation, and plasticity
and low cohesiveness and friction angle. The next layer was an
18.1-m-thick layer of clay and silty clay (Layer 5) consisting of
calcium nodules and organic matter. This layer was characterized
by medium compressibility. Below this layer was a 15.1-m-thick
layer of sand (Layer 6) that varied gradually from silty sand to
coarse sand.
The average water content (ω), void ratio (e), and liquid limit
(LI) all increased with depth within the top 14 m and decreased
with depth from 14 to 38 m below the ground surface. At depths
greater than 38 m, the water content, void ratio, and liquid limit all
increased gradually with soil depth. The change of unit weight (γ)
from top to down was opposite to the water content. Moreover, the
cohesion (c 0 ) of this site ranged from 13 to 27 kPa for clay. The
friction angle (φ 0 ) for clay was between 9.5° to 15.5° and that for
sand was about 32°.The constrained modules (E0.1−0.2 ) of the clay
and the sand ranged from 2.4 to 8.2 MPa and from 12.9 to
13.6 MPa, respectively. As shown in Fig. 2, the basement and the
shield tunnel sat on the very soft clay layer and the metro station
was located within the soft silty clay layer. The groundwater table
fluctuated from 0.9 to 1.5 m below the ground surface over time.
The saturated permeabilities of clay and silty clay were approxi-
mately 10−7 and 10−6 m=s, respectively.
Construction Sequence and Procedure
In order to ensure the normal operation of the nearby metro, a series
of deformation control measures were taken before the base-
ment excavation. Excavation was divided into two stages: the
pre-excavation stage and the excavation stage. The former stage
involved the construction of the soil mixing wall (SMW), the dia-
phragm wall, auger cast-in-place piles (ACIP piles), and dewater-
ing. The latter stage entailed the excavation of soil and the
installation of concrete struts.
It started with the construction of 0.85-m-diameter, 600-mm–
center distance, and 49-m-deep SMWs. Conventional Portland
cement was adopted to construct the SMWs. For the wall within
the top 15 m below the ground surface, 15% cement (i.e., weight
of cement/weight of soil) was used to construct the SMW, and the
percentage was increased to 30% for the wall located 15 to 49 m
below the ground surface. In this site, the thickness of clay layers
© ASCE 04016041-4
J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 04016041
was about 40 m. Because cut off groundwater during basement
excavation was the main controlling factor in the design of the
SMWs, the SMWs were therefore designed to penetrate through
all clay layers. Those SMW walls were used to reduce the adverse
effects of basement excavation on the adjacent station and to cut
off groundwater during excavation. After constructing the SMW,
0.8-m-thick and 30-m-deep diaphragm walls were installed one by
one. Diaphragm walls with thickness of 0.8 m, depth of 39 m, and
penetration depth ratio (i.e., wall penetration depth to final exca-
vation depth) of 0.96 were constructed in this project. The compres-
sion strength of concrete used to construct diaphragm walls was
30 MPa. Because there were many underground structures sur-
rounding the basement, soil deformation outside the basement,
diaphragm wall deformation, and tunnel deformation were the
governing factors considered in the design. To ensure both the serv-
iceability and safety conditions, the maximum ground settlement
outside the basement and lateral wall movement were controlled
within 15 mm (0.1% of final excavation depth) and 20 mm
(i.e., 0.13% of final excavation depth), respectively. Moreover, the
maximum vertical and horizontal tunnel movements were designed
to be less than 20 mm. In order to cut off underground water, the
diaphragm walls were inserted through the clay layer into silty clay.
Subsequently, three cross walls with the same depth and thickness
as the diaphragm walls were installed. They divided the basement
area into four excavation zones (Zones A, B, C, and D). In addition,
auger cast-in-place piles (ACIP piles) with a diameter of 0.85 m
were inserted into silty clay to support concrete struts. Then,
H-section steel columns (460 × 460 mm) were embedded into
the top of the ACIP piles.
Fig. 4 shows auger cast-in-place pile (ACIP) with three typical
cross sections. As reported by many researchers (e.g., Tan and Li
2011; Liu et al. 2011a; Tan and Wei 2012; Shi et al. 2015), heave
was induced in the interior columns which were connected to ACIP
piles. Obviously, large differential movements between interior col-
umns and diaphragm walls may affect the integrity of the retaining
system. Thus, the uplift stability of ACIP was a key factor consid-
ered in the design. The diameter of steel bars installed along the
longitudinal direction of ACIP pile was 28 mm, whereas it was
8 mm for steel bars installed along the transverse direction of ACIP.
The number of longitudinal steel bars installed was 20, 20, and 10
at the top (i.e., 4 m long), middle (20 m), and bottom (10.5 m) parts
of ACIP piles, respectively. At these three locations, the spacing of
spiral stirrups were 100 mm, 200 mm, and 250 mm, respectively.
Fig. 5 shows an H-section steel column with four typical cross sec-
tions. The steel column was welded to four angle-steels. In order to
ensure the joint integrity between ACIP pile and steel column, each
steel column was inserted into the ACIP pile with a penetration
depth of 3 m. Moreover, jet grouting was applied on the excavated
and retained sides of the basement to mitigate excavation-induced
wall movement and basal heave. Twenty-eight days after apply-
ing jet grouting, the unconfined compression strength and cohesion
of the reinforced soils were more than 1.0 MPa and 0.2 MPa,
respectively.
A bottom-up construction sequence was used during the base-
ment excavation. The basement excavation was conducted by
adopting “the time-space effect theory” (Liu and Wang 2009),
which requires strict control of the unsupported exposure time and
the thickness of each excavation layer. In this site, excavation of
Zone B was about one month earlier than that of Zone D. After
excavation of Zones B and D were finished, Zones A and C were
then excavated simultaneously. In each zone, excavation was
divided into four stages with excavation depths of 1.5, 6.0, 5.0,
and 2.4 m. Three types of in situ rectangular concrete struts with
horizontal span of 9 m were used to support the basement.
J. Perform. Constr. Facil.
 Water content, Unit weight, Void ratio, Liquid limit
(kN/m3) e LI
20 30 40 50 16 18 20 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
0 Fill
Sility clay
Very soft
silty clay
10
Very soft clay

20 Soft silty clay

Clay
30
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University College London on 05/27/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Silty clay

40
Silty sand

Coarse sand
50
Plastic index, Cohesive Friction angle, Coefficient of compressibility,
PI(%) c’(KPa) ( ) av(0.1-0.2) (MPa-1)
12 15 18 21 0 50 100 0 20 40 0 0.5 1
0 Fill
Sility clay
Very soft
silty clay
10
Very soft clay

20 Soft silty clay

Clay
30
Silty clay

40
Silty sand

Coarse sand
50
Constrained modules Specific penetration
E0.1-0.2(MPa) resistance, Ps(Mpa)
0 10 20 0 5 10 15
0 Fill
Sility clay
Very soft
silty clay
10
Very soft clay

20 Soft silty clay

Clay
30
Silty clay

40
Silty sand

Coarse sand
50
Fig. 3. Soil profiles and material properties

© ASCE 04016041-5 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 04016041

 spiral stirrup 8@100

3.0m

4.0m
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University College London on 05/27/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

35m
20m
10.5m
0.5m

Cross section 3-3

Fig. 4. ACIP pile with three typical cross sections

Fig. 6 shows cross sections of three concrete struts. It is ex-
pected that axial force induced in the second-level concrete strut
is larger than the first and third-level concrete struts. Thus, the cross
section of second level concrete strut is the larger than the others.
Spiral stirrups with same dimensions (i.e., diameter of 12 mm and
spacing of 200 mm) were installed along the transverse direction of
these three concrete struts. The diameter of steel bars installed
along the longitudinal direction of the first level strut was
25 mm, whereas it was increased to 28 mm for remaining two con-
crete struts. The numbers of these steel bars were 32, 38, and 38 in
the first, second, and third concrete struts, respectively. The dimen-
sions and horizontal span of the concrete struts are summarized in

© ASCE 04016041-6 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 04016041

 construction trestle

First concrete strut anchor bar

0.8
22@150
stiffener
stiffener

stiffener
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University College London on 05/27/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

steel plate
t=20mm

(unit mm)

(unit mm)

Third concrete strut

(unit mm)

(unit mm)

Fig. 5. H-section steel column with four typical cross sections

© ASCE 04016041-7 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 04016041

 (a) (b) (c)

Fig. 6. Cross section of three concrete struts

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University College London on 05/27/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Table 1. Dimension and Horizontal Span of Concrete Struts the retaining wall, 19 groups of ground surface settlement markers
Strut/slab Rectangular cross zone Horizontal span were installed. Moreover, 15 groundwater observation wells were
drilled to monitor variations of groundwater tables.
Strut 1 0.9 m wide × 0.8 m high 9.0 m
Figs. 1(b and c) show the instruments installed in the metro
Struts 2 and 5 1.0 m wide × 0.9 m high
Struts 3 and 4 1.0 m wide × 0.8 m high station and the shield tunnel. Vertical displacement, horizontal dis-
Base slab 1.3 m thick Nil placement, and tunnel convergence were measured while Zones A,
B, C, and D were being excavated. Along the up track and the
down track, 65 pairs of settlement marks were installed to measure
the vertical movement. In this site, the intervals of settlement mark-
Table 1. Upon completion of basement excavation, a 1.3-m-thick ers, horizontal displacement markers, and horizontal convergence
concrete slab was cast. The construction stages are summarized markers were selected according to the Shanghai code (Shanghai
in Table 2. Urban Construction and Communications Commission 2010). For
the existing tunnel located within the excavation zone, the interval
of markers was reduced. The intervals of settlement markers were
Instrumentation 6 m and 12–24 m in the station and the shield tunnel, respectively.
Moreover, 36 groups of horizontal displacement markers were in-
To better understand ground deformations due to deep excavations stalled at an interval of 12 m to measure the horizontal movement of
and the responses of adjacent structures (metro station and shield the up track and the down track. In addition, 29 groups of horizon-
tunnels), a series of instruments were installed at the site. Fig. 1(a) tal convergence markers were installed at an interval of 6 m in the
shows the instrumentation layout of the excavation. Prior to install- shield tunnel to measure changes of tunnel diameter.
ing the diaphragm walls, 39 inclinometer tubes were fixed to In this project, responses of basement and nearby structures
reinforcement cages to measure lateral wall movement. The rota- were not taken during excavation in Zones E and F. Thus, the per-
tion of diaphragm wall was measured at 1.0-m intervals along their formances of the basement, nearby metro station, and shield tunnel
depth. In the same place, 39 settlement markers were installed on presented in this study were due to basement excavation in Zones
the top of the diaphragm walls to measure the vertical and horizon- A, B, C, and D only. In this paper, the following sign convention is
tal displacements. In addition, to measure ground settlement behind adopted: (1) negative and positive vertical displacements represent

Table 2. Main Stages of Construction

Zone Stage Construction activity Date
A, B, C, D Pre-excavation Construct diaphragm wall, SMW piles, cast-in-place piles, grouting, October 10, 2010–May 29, 2011
vertical column and dewatering
D D-I Excavate to Level 1 (−1.5 m), cast Strut 1 (−1 m) May 29, 2011–June 8, 2011
D-II Excavate to Level 2 (−7.5 m), cast Strut 2 (−7 m) June 8, 2011–June 28 2011
D-III Excavate to Level 3 (−12.5 m), cast Strut 3 (−12 m) June 28, 2011–August 23, 2011
D-IV Excavate to Level 4 (−14.9 m or −16.4 m), cast base slab (1.3 m thick) August 23, 2011–September 25, 2011
B B-I Excavate to Level 1 (−1.5 m), cast Strut 1 (−1 m) July 11, 2011–July 20, 2011
B-II Excavate to Level 2 (−7.5 m), cast Strut 2 (−7 m) July 20, 2011–July 31, 2011
B-III Excavate to Level 3 (−12.5 m), cast Strut 3 (−12 m) August 21, 2011–August 27, 2011
B-IV Excavate to Level 4 (−14.9 m or −16.4 m), cast base slab (1.3 m thick) August 27, 2011–October 7, 2011
C C-I Excavate to Level 1 (−1.5 m), cast Strut 1 (−1 m) October 21, 2011–November 3, 2011
C-II Excavate to Level 2 (−7.5 m), cast Strut 2 (−7 m) November 3, 2011–December 25, 2011
C-III Excavate to Level 3 (−12.5 m), cast Strut 3 (−12 m) December 25, 2011–March 1, 2012
C-IV Excavate to Level 4 (−14.9 m or −16.4 m), cast base slab (1.3 m thick) March 21, 2012–May 1, 2012
A A-I Excavate to Level 1 (−1.5 m), cast Strut 1 (−1 m) October 20, 2011–November 3, 2011
A-II Excavate to Level 2 (−7.5 m), cast Strut 2 (−7 m) November 3, 2011–December 25, 2011
A-III Excavate to Level 3 (−12.5 m), cast Strut 3 (−12 m) December 25, 2011–March 6, 2012
A-IV Excavate to Level 4 (−14.9 m or −16.4 m), cast base slab (1.3 m thick) March 6, 2012–May 23, 2012

© ASCE 04016041-8 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 04016041

 ground or track settlement and heave, respectively, (2) positive
and negative horizontal displacements indicate the movement of
a diaphragm wall or track toward and away from the basement,
respectively, and (3) positive and negative values of convergence
denote tunnel elongation and compression in the horizontal direc-
tion, respectively.
Observed Performance of the Basement
Variations of the Groundwater Table
Fig. 7 illustrates variations of the groundwater table measured out-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University College London on 05/27/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
side the excavation area during the construction period. Similar
results were obtained in each observation well. For brevity, only
measurements from four wells are plotted in this figure. The
measured groundwater table varied from 0.57 to 1.1 m below the
ground surface. According to the Shanghai geotechnical investiga-
tion standard (Shanghai Geotechnical Investigation and Design
Institute 2002), seasonal changes of the groundwater level in this
district range from 0.3 to 1.5 m below the ground surface. Note
that the variation of the groundwater table during the basement
excavation fell within the range specified by the Shanghai geotech-
nical investigation standard. Therefore, the soil movements and
structural deformation at this site are believed to be mainly due to
the basement excavation rather than variations of the ground-
water table.
Lateral Movements of Diaphragm Walls
Fig. 8 illustrates typical developments of diaphragm wall deflec-
tions with excavation stage. As excavation went deeper, the dia-
phragm walls began to develop deep-seated movements (bulging
profiles) toward the excavation side. The maximum lateral wall
movement induced by Stage II (i.e., 7.5 m below ground surface)
was less than 2 mm. However, a clear increase in lateral wall move-
ment with excavation depth was observed when excavation depth
was larger than 7 m (i.e., Stages III and IV). At the end of Stage III
(i.e., 12 m below ground surface) and Stage IV (i.e., 14.9–16.4 m
below ground surface), excavation-induced maximum lateral wall
movements were up to 10 and 15 mm, respectively. This may be
due to the fact that excavation in Stages III and IV was carried out
in very soft clay which resulted in much smaller passive resistance.
Upon completion of casting 1.3-m-thick concrete slabs, maximum
lateral wall movements of about 16 mm (0.11% of H, where H
denotes the excavation depth) were observed at each moni-
tored point.
Fig. 9 shows the relationship between the maximum lateral wall
movement (δhm ) and excavation depth (H). To gain a better under-
standing of the deformation control measures (i.e., cross walls, jet
0.0
Groundwater table (m)
-0.5
-1.0 W3
W5
W9
W15
-1.5
Stage Stage Stage Stage Stage Stage
D-II D-III D-IV C-I C-II C-III
-2.0
5/25/11 7/25/11 9/24/11 11/24/11 1/24/12 3/25/12
Date(mm/dd/year)
Fig. 7. Variation of groundwater table with time
© ASCE
grouting, and concrete struts) adopted at this site, some field mea-
surements in Shanghai soft clay are included for comparison. They
are 27 long and narrow metro station excavations (Xu 2007) and
8 cylindrical excavations (Xu 2007) in Shanghai. Most of these
excavations were constructed by a bottom-up method and were
supported by diaphragm walls with a thickness of 0.6 to 0.8 m
and steel props with a thickness of 16 mm and an outer diameter
of 609 mm. In addition, the average axial stiffness (EA) per square
meter of the concrete struts used at this site was more than 1.5 times
larger than that of steel struts normally adopted in long and narrow
excavations of other metro stations. This may be another factor
causing small movement in this study. As shown in Fig. 9, the mea-
sured δhm of the cylindrical excavation and long metro station
ranged from 0.04% H to 0.39% H and from 0.14% H to 0.64% H,
respectively. Basement excavation–induced maximum lateral wall
movement at this site was 0.11% H, which was much smaller
than that of the long and narrow excavation reported by Xu (2007).
Moreover, the measured maximum lateral wall deflection was
much smaller than that of the excavation in stiff clay reported by
Clough and O’Rourke (1990). On the contrary, the measured maxi-
mum wall deflection in this study was close to those excavations in
soft clay reported by Xu (2007) and excavations in medium-stiff
clay described by Hashash et al. (2008).
Compared with excavation-induced measurements in other
soft clays, the relatively small wall deflection in this study was
probably due to the cross walls, the jet grouting near the excava-
tion surface and the concrete struts adopted at this site. By install-
ing cross walls within the basement, Ou et al. (2011) and Wu
et al. (2013) found that the maximum wall deflection at the place
where the cross wall was installed can be reduced by as much as
75%. Based on three-dimensional numerical analysis, Hsieh et al.
(2013) found that the maximum lateral wall deflection with cross
walls can be reduced by up to 67% compared to the excavation
without cross walls. By applying jet grouting, the average uncon-
fined compression strength and cohesion of reinforced soil were
more than 21 times and 15 times larger than those of unreinforced
soil. In addition, the average axial stiffness (EA) per square meter
of the concrete struts used at this site was more than 1.5 times
larger than that of steel struts normally adopted in long and narrow
excavations of metro stations.
Vertical Movements of Diaphragm Walls
Fig. 10 presents typical development of vertical wall movements
during the basement excavation. It shows that the diaphragm walls
experienced significant heave instead of settlement. The retaining
wall experienced heave after excavation was completed in Stage II
(i.e., 7.5 m below ground surface). During excavation of soil in
Stage III (i.e., 12.5 m below ground surface), wall heave clearly
increased with excavation depth. Upon completion of the base-
ment excavation, the maximum wall heave was 11 mm. Due to
stress relief, the soil inside the basement moved upwards. The
heave phenomenon of the diaphragm walls was probably due to
-0.3 m(SGIDI 2002)
upward soil movement which resulted in upward skin friction be-
tween the soil inside and the retaining wall. Thereafter, diaphragm
walls heave gradually decreased and stabilized around 6 mm. This
was probably due to the additional loading applied at the for-
-1.5 m(SGIDI 2002)
mation level of the basement from the 1.3-m-thick concrete slab
Stage with an equivalent pressure of 33 kPa. The loading from the
C-IV
concrete slab alleviated part of the stress relief caused by the base-
5/25/12 7/25/12 ment excavation.
Fig. 11 illustrates the relationship between the maximum
heave of the diaphragm walls (δ vm ) and excavation depth (H).
To better understand the heave of the retaining wall induced by
04016041-9 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.
J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 04016041
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University College London on 05/27/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 8. Typical development of lateral wall movement with construction stage

the basement excavation at this site, field measurements of 32 case

histories in Shanghai reported by Xu (2007) are also shown in this
figure for comparison. During basement excavation, the retaining
120
wall may heave or settle depending on the loading conditions, the
hm(mm)

soil conditions under the wall, the contact between the wall and the
100
(1)Metro station
Maximum lateral wall movement,

(Xu, 2007)
80
(2)Cylindrical 12
Vertical displacements (mm)

shaft (Xu, 2007)

60 (3)Clough and
O'Rourke(1990) 8
(4)Hashash et al.
40 (2008) 4 Q22(Section B)
(5)This study
Q18(Section B)
20 0 Q21(Between Section B and C)
Stage Stage Stage Stage Stage Stage
B-II B-III B-IV C-I C-II C-III
0 -4
0 10 20 30 40 7/15/11 8/14/11 9/14/11 10/14/11 11/14/11 12/14/11 1/14/12 2/13/12
Excavation depth, H(m) Date(mm/dd/year)

Fig. 9. Relationship between the measured maximum lateral wall Fig. 10. Typical development of vertical wall movements with con-
movement, (δhm ) and excavation depth (H) struction time

© ASCE 04016041-10 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 04016041

 30 Normalized distance from diaphragm wall, d/H e
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

vm(mm)

Normalized ground settlement, v /He(%)

25 0.00

20 0.02
Maximum vertical displacement of diaphragm wall ,

15
0.04
10
0.06
5
0.08
0 Section A Section B
Section C Section D
-5 0.10
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University College London on 05/27/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

-10 Fig. 13. Distribution of ground surface settlement normalized by final

excavation depth
-15

-20

-25
-30
0 5
Fig. 11. Relationship between maximum vertical displacement of
diaphragm walls and excavation depth
surrounding soil, the construction duration, and dewatering. At this
site, the largest excavation-induced heave of the diaphragm wall
ranged from 0.04% H to 0.07% H, which was smaller than the
average heave of 0.073% H in soft clays reported by Xu (2007).
This was probably due to a series of deformation control measures
(i.e., cross wall, jet grouting, and large-dimensioned concrete
struts) taken at this site.
Ground Surface Settlement
Fig. 12 shows variations of typical ground surface settlement with
construction time. At the end of Stage II (i.e., 7.5 m below ground
surface), the maximum ground surface settlement was less than
1 mm. After the third layer of soil (i.e., 12.5 m below ground sur-
face) was removed, the ground surface settlement increased rapidly
with excavation depth, consistent with the measured wall deflec-
tions shown in Fig. 8. The settlements induced by basement exca-
vation in Stage III and Stage IV were about 30% and 50% of
the total settlement, respectively. After the bottom concrete slab
was cast, the surface settlement gradually reached a stable value.
0
Ground settlement (mm)
This site Due to installation of cross walls and concrete struts, the surface
Shanghai(Xu, 2007) settlement at each zone was within the maximum allowable
settlement of 0.15% H(H = excavation depth) (Shanghai Urban
10 15 20 25 Construction and Communications Commission 2010).
Excavation depth, H(m) Fig. 13 presents the relationship between the normalized
ground settlement (δ v =He ) and the normalized distance from the
diaphragm walls (d=He ). H e denotes the final excavation depth.
According to the field data from three excavations supported by
sheet pile or soldier pile walls that have different ground conditions,
Peck (1969) proposed that surface ground settlements of soft clay
excavations fell in Zone II (very soft to soft clay). Based on 300
case histories supported by diaphragm walls or contiguous pile
walls in Shanghai soft clay, Wang et al. (2010) proposed a trilinear
upper bound ground settlements curve which fell in Zone II. The
measured maximum ground surface settlement at this site was
about 0.072% He , which was much smaller than the trilinear upper
bound settlements curve proposed by Wang et al. (2010). This was
probably due to cross walls and large-dimensioned concrete struts
used at this site.
As shown in Fig. 13, the measured maximum ground settlement
in Zone A was more than three to four times larger than those in
Zones B and C. This was probably due to the comprehensive jet
grouting applied in Zones E and F, which were close to Zones B
and C. Twenty-eight days after applying jet grouting, the average
unconfined compression strength and cohesion of reinforced soils
were 21 and 15 times larger than those of undisturbed soils, re-
spectively. The soil from 9 to 16.8 m below the ground surface in
Zones E and F (i.e., corresponding to the third and fourth soil
layers) was reinforced, but the soil outside of Zones A and D was
not. As shown in Fig. 12, most of the ground settlements were
caused by removal of the third and fourth soil layers. Therefore, the
relatively small induced ground surface settlements in Zones B and
C were due to the jet grouting applied in Zones E and F. The ground
settlement in Zone D was only half of that in Zone A. This may be
due to the different surcharge load near the ground surface outside

D12-1 D12-2
-2 D12-3 D12-4 of Zones A and D. Because Zone D was located near the main gate
-4 which was the main access routes of this site, it was not possible to
-6 stack the construction material in the vicinity.
Fig. 14 presents the relationship between the measured maxi-
-8
mum surface settlement (δ vm ) and excavation depth (H). In order
-10 to improve understanding of measured ground settlement at this
Stage A-II Stage A-III Stage A-IV
-12 site, field measurements data from 16 metro station excavations
11/3/11 1/3/12 3/4/12 5/4/12 7/4/12 9/3/12 11/3/12 and 4 cylindrical shaft excavations in Shanghai reported by Xu
Date(mm/dd/year) (2007) are also shown for comparison. At the end of basement
excavation, the measured maximum ground settlement at this site
Fig. 12. Typical variation of ground surface settlement with time
was 0.12% H, which was much smaller those of the metro station

© ASCE 04016041-11 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 04016041

 120 10

Vertical displacement (mm)

Heave
vm(mm)
5
100
(1)Metro station 0
Maximum surface settlement,

80 (Xu, 2007)

Settlement
(2)Cylindrical -5
shaft (Xu, 2007)
Left Station Right Down track
60 (3)Clough and -10
Zone E Zone F Up track
O'Rourke(1990) Up track
Zone A Zone B Zone C Zone D
(4)Hashash et al. -15
40 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
(2008)
(5)This study Distance from the left end of station (m)
20 Stage B-III Stage C-IV
Stage B-IV Stage A-IV
Stage C-II Two months after Stage A-IV
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University College London on 05/27/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0 Stage C-III Three months after Stage A-IV

0 10 20 30 40 (a)
Excavation depth, H(m)
10

Vertical displacement (mm)

Fig. 14. Relationship between measured maximum surface settlement

Heave
5
(δvm ) and excavation depth (H)
0

Settlement
-5
excavations (0.09–0.82%H) and the cylindrical shaft excavations
Down track
(0.07–0.24%H) in similar ground conditions reported by Xu -10 Left Station Right
Up track
Zone E Zone F
(2007). Compared with field measurements in medium-stiff clays Zone A Zone B Zone C Zone D Down track
-15
(Hashash et al. 2008; Clough and O’Rourke 1990), the maximum
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
ground settlement at this site was also much smaller. This was Distance from the left end of station (m)
probably due to cross walls, comprehensive jet grouting, and large-
Stage B-III Stage C-IV
dimensioned concrete struts taken at this site. Stage B-IV Stage A-IV
Stage C-II Two months after Stage A-IV
Stage C-III Three months after Stage A-IV
Observed Performance of the Tracks within the (b)
Station and Tunnels
Fig. 15. Measured vertical displacements of tracks along their long-
Because of a partial loss of research data, only the data after itudinal direction: (a) up track; (b) down track
August 29, 2011, is presented in this paper. At that moment,
Zone B and Zone D had been excavated to Level 3 (−12.5 m
below ground surface) and the third concrete struts had
been cast. increased quickly with excavation depth. Upon completion of
excavation Stage A-IV, the largest vertical displacements of the
Vertical Displacement of the Tracks along Their tracks within the left tunnel, the station, and the right tunnel were
Longitudinal Direction −9.7 mm, 6.4 mm, and 1.2 mm, respectively. Two months after
Fig. 15 presents the measured vertical displacement of the tracks Stage A-IV was completed, the maximum heave of 9.6 mm was
along their longitudinal direction. Generally, the vertical displace- induced within the station. Subsequently, a slight decrease in tunnel
ment tendency of up track and down track was similar. Because the displacement was observed. Three months after Stage A-IV was
up track was located closer to the excavation than the down track, completed, the measured maximum displacements of the tracks
larger stress relief occurs at the up track resulting in a bigger ver- within the left tunnel, the station, and the right tunnel were
tical displacement. Heaves were induced to the tracks within the −6.8 mm, 8.4 mm and 0.9 mm, respectively.
station. Upon completion of basement excavation, the maximum Compared with measured displacement in shield tunnels, sig-
heaves of the up track and the down track were 9.6 mm and nificant heave was induced to the tracks within the station. Base-
6.9 mm, respectively. The maximum heave at this site was within ment excavation–induced heave in the tunnel was probably due to
the allowable limit for tunnel movement [i.e., 10 mm reported by the following two reasons. As shown in Fig. 1, the metro stations
Liu et al. (2011b)]. On the contrary, settlement was induced in the were retained by 32. 8 m long diaphragm wall and were rigidly
left shield tunnel. The largest settlements of the up track and the connected to the Zones E and F via diaphragm walls. Because of
down track in the left tunnel were −9.7 mm and −7.2 mm, respec- vertical stress relief, heave was induced in the diaphragm walls
tively. However, slight heave was induced in the right shield tunnel (Fig. 11) in Zones E and F. Moreover, the metro stations were
with a maximum value of 2.8 mm. The maximum tunnel settlement 22.5-m-wide and 18.9-m-deep basements. During the construc-
at this site was also within the allowable limit [i.e., 15 mm reported tion of the basements for the metro stations, antiuplift piles were
by Liu et al. (2011b)]. Basement excavation induced different re- normally installed underneath the basement. Because there was a
sponses of the left and right shield tunnels maybe due to variation net loss of soil weight after construction of the metro station,
of geology and excavation sequence. antiuplift piles beneath the basement experienced tension. When
At the end of Stage B-IV, the largest vertical displacements the nearby basement was excavated at the side of the metro sta-
of the track within the left tunnel, the station, and the right tunnel tion, the antiuplift resistance was reduced due to the stress relief
were −6.3 mm, 1.4 mm, and −1.6 mm, respectively. Followed by around the piles. Accordingly, it caused heave in the existing
the excavation of Zone A and Zone C, the vertical displacement metro stations.

© ASCE 04016041-12 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 04016041

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University College London on 05/27/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 16. Measured horizontal displacements of tunnel along their long-
itudinal direction: (a) up track; (b) down track
Horizontal Displacement of the Tracks along Their
Longitudinal Direction
Fig. 16 shows the horizontal displacement of the tracks along their
longitudinal direction. Due to excavation-induced stress relief
along the horizontal direction, the tracks moved back and forth in
a sideways manner toward the basement. At the end of Stage B-IV
(by then Zones B and D had been excavated to 14.9 m and the
bottom slab had been cast), the largest horizontal displacements
of the up track and the down track were 4.7 mm and 2.4 mm, re-
spectively. As excavation proceeded to Stage A-IV (Zones A and C
had been excavated to 14.9 m and the bottom slab had been cast),
the largest horizontal movements observed were 5.8 mm and
4.4 mm in the up track and the down track, respectively. After cast-
ing the bottom concrete slab in Zones A and C, the horizontal dis-
placements of the up track and the down track gradually stabilized
over time. Three months after Stage A-IV was completed, the hori-
zontal displacements of the up track and the down track stabilized
at 5.5 mm and 3.8 mm, respectively. The maximum horizontal dis-
placement was within the allowable limit (i.e., 20 mm reported by
Hu et al. 2003).
The maximum horizontal tunnel displacement was not at the
middle of the metro station but at the two ends of Zones E and F.
This phenomenon may be mainly attributed to the jet grouting
applied at Zones E and F. The reinforced soils in Zones E and F
alleviated the effect induced by the basement excavation.
Tunnel Convergences along Their Longitudinal
Direction
Fig. 17 presents the tunnels’ horizontal convergence along their
longitudinal direction. During the basement excavation, horizon-
tal elongation was observed in the tunnel lining. For basement
© ASCE
J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 04016041
Fig. 17. Measured horizontal convergence of tunnels along their long-
itudinal direction: (a) up track; (b) down track
excavation conducted at one side of the basement, the horizontal
stress around the tunnel lining was reduced to a greater extent than
the vertical stress around the lining. Thus, the tunnels were hori-
zontally elongated during the basement excavation.
It can be seen from Fig. 17 that the convergence was larger at
both ends of the excavation and the station. The tendency of tunnel
convergence induced in the up track and the down track were sim-
ilar. At the end of Stage A-III, the maximum convergences emerged
nearby to both ends of the excavation. Measured maximum con-
vergences of up track and down track were 4.2 mm and 4.9 mm,
respectively.
Summary and Conclusions
Based on the field observations, the performance of a multipropped
deep excavation with cross walls and the influence on an adjacent
operating metro station in Shanghai soft clays were extensively
investigated. According to the field measurements, the following
conclusions may be drawn:
1. By adopting cross walls, jet grouting near the excavation sur-
face, and large-dimensioned concrete struts at this site, the de-
formations of the diaphragm walls and the ground caused by the
basement excavation were much smaller than those observed at
other sites without installing cross walls in Shanghai. The max-
imum lateral wall movements and ground settlement behind
the retaining wall were 0.11% H e (final excavation depth) and
0.12% He , respectively.
2. Because of stress relief resulting from the deep excavation, the
metro station located within excavation zone experienced signif-
icant heave. The maximum heaves of the up track and the down
track were 9.6 mm and 6.9 mm, respectively, which occurred
two months after casting the bottom concrete slab.
04016041-13 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.
 3. For the basement excavated at one side of the existing tunnel,
the large horizontal stress relief was induced in the tunnel lining
located close to the basement. Consequently, the existing tun-
nel moved toward the basement. Because the up track was
located much closer to the basement, it was expected to experi-
ence a larger stress relief than the down track. Accordingly, the
measured maximum horizontal displacement in the up track
(5.5 mm) was much larger than that in the down track (3.8 mm).
4. For the basement excavated at one side of the basement, the
existing tunnel experienced a reduction in the horizontal stress,
accompanied by relatively smaller vertical stress relief. Thus,
the existing tunnels were horizontally elongated. The measured
maximum convergence values for the up track and the down
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University College London on 05/27/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
track were 4.2 mm and 4.9 mm, respectively.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge the Fundamental Research
Funds for the Central Universities (Project No. 2015B29414 &
2015B25914) and the GRF Grant No. 617511 provided by the
Research Grants Council of HKSAR.
References
Clough, G. W., and O’Rourke, T. D. (1990). “Construction induced
movements of in-situ walls.” Geotechnical Special Publication: Design
and Performance of Earth Retaining Structures (GSP 25), ASCE,
Reston, VA, 439–470.
Hashash, Y. M. A., Osouli, A., and Marulanda, C. (2008). “Central
artery/tunnel project excavation induced ground deformations.”
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2008)134:
9(1399), 1399–1406.
Hsieh, P. G., and Ou, C. Y. (1998). “Shape of ground surface settlement
profiles caused by excavation.” Can. Geotech. J., 35(6), 1004–1017.
Hsieh, P. G., Ou, C. Y., and Lin, Y. L. (2013). “Three-dimensional numeri-
cal analysis of deep excavations with cross walls.” Acta Geotech., 8,
33–48.
Hu, Z. F., Yue, Z. Q., Zhou, J., and Tham, L. G. (2003). “Design and con-
struction of a deep excavation in soft soils adjacent to the Shanghai
Metro tunnels.” Can. Geotech. J., 40(5), 933–948.
Huang, X., Schweiger, H. F., and Huang, H. W. (2013). “Influence of
deep excavations on nearby existing tunnels.” Int. J. Geomech.,
10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000188, 170–180.
Liu, G. B., Jiang, R. J., Ng, C. W. W., and Hong, Y. (2011a). “Deformation
characteristics of a 38 m deep excavation in soft clay.” Can. Geotech. J.,
48(12), 1817–1828.
Liu, G. B., and Wang, W. D. (2009). Excavation engineering handbook,
Chinese Construction Industry, Beijing (in Chinese).
Liu, H. L., Li, P., and Liu, J. Y. (2011b). “Numerical investigation of
underlying tunnel heave during a new tunnel construction.” Tunnelling
Underground Space Technol., 26(2), 276–283.
© ASCE 04016041-14
J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 04016041
Moormann, C. (2004). “Analysis of wall and ground movements due to
deep excavations in soft soil based on a new worldwide database.” Soils
Foundations, 44(1), 87–98.
Ng, C. W. W. (1998). “Observed performance of multi-propped excavation
in stiff clay.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241
(1998)124:9(889), 889–905.
Ng, C. W. W., Hong, Y., Liu, G. B., and Liu, T. (2012). “Ground defor-
mation and soil-structure interaction of a multi-propped excavation in
Shanghai soft clays.” Géotechnique, 62(10), 907–921.
Ou, C. Y., Hsieh, P. G., and Lin, Y. L. (2011). “Performance of excavations
with cross walls.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)GT
.1943-5606.0000402, 94–104.
Ou, C. Y., Hsien, P. G., and Chiou, D. C. (1993). “Characteristic of
ground surface settlement during excavation.” Can. Geotech. J., 30(5),
758–767.
Ou, C. Y., Lin, Y. L., and Hsieh, P. G. (2006). “Case record of an excavation
with cross walls and buttress walls.” J. GeoEng., 1(2), 79–86.
Peck, R. B. (1969). “Deep excavation & tunneling in soft ground. State
of-the-art-report.” Proc., 7th Int. Conf. Soil Mechanics Foundation
Engineering, Mexico City, 225–281.
SGIDI (Shanghai Geotechnical Investigation and Design Institute). (2002).
“Code for investigation of geotechnical engineering.” DGJ08-37-2002,
Shanghai, China (in Chinese).
Shanghai Urban Construction and Communications Commission. (2010).
“Technical code for excavation engineering.” DJ/TJ08-61-2010,
Shanghai, China (in Chinese).
Sharma, J. S., Hefny, A. M., Zhao, J., and Chan, C. W. (2001). “Effect of
large excavation on deformation of adjacent MRT tunnels.” Tunnelling
Underground Space Technol., 16(2), 93–98.
Shi, J. W., Liu, G. B., Huang, P., and Ng, C. W. W. (2015). “Interaction
between a large triangular excavation and adjacent structures in
Shanghai soft clay.” Tunnelling Underground Space Technol., 50(Aug),
282–295.
Tan, Y., and Li, M. W. (2011). “Measured performance of a 26 m deep
top-down excavation in downtown Shanghai.” Can. Geotech. J., 48(5),
704–719.
Tan, Y., and Wei, B. (2012). “Observed behaviors of a long and deep
excavation constructed by cut-and-cover technique in shanghai soft
clay.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606
.0000553, 69–88.
Wang, J. H., Xu, Z. H., and Wang, W. D. (2010). “Wall and ground
movements due to deep excavations in Shanghai soft soils.” J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000299, 985–994.
Wang, Z. W., Ng, C. W. W., and Liu, G. B. (2005). “Characteristics of
wall deflections and ground surface settlements in Shanghai.” Can.
Geotech. J., 42(5), 1243–1254.
Wu, S. H., Ching, J., and Ou, C. Y. (2013). “Predicting wall displacements
for excavations with cross walls in soft clay.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000826, 914–927.
Xu, Z. H. (2007). “Deformation behaviour of deep excavations supported
by permanent structure in Shanghai soft deposit.” Ph.D. thesis,
Shanghai Jiao Tong Univ., Shanghai, China (in Chinese).
Zheng, G., and Wei, S. W. (2008). “Numerical analyses of influence
of overlying pit excavation on existing tunnels.” J. Cent. South Univ.
Technol., 15(s2), 69–75.
J. Perform. Constr. Facil.