Earth Pressure Distribution for Deep Excavations in Gravel Formation

Sung-Chi Hsu1, Yu-Ping Huang2 and Tao-Ming Cheng3

1
Professor, Department of Construction Engineering, Chaoyang University of Technology, 168 Jifong
East Road, Wufong District, Taichung 41349, Taiwan. [email protected]
2
Post Graduate Student, Department of Construction Engineering, Chaoyang University of Technology,
168 Jifong East Road, District, Taichung 41349, Taiwan.
3
Professor, Department of Construction Engineering, Chaoyang University of Technology, 168 Jifong
East Road, Wufong District, Taichung 41349, Taiwan. [email protected]

ABSTRACT: There are no available guidelines for lateral earth pressure envelope in
gravel formations, especially for high gravel content, ranged from 70 to 86%. Design of
retaining structures and anchors in gravel is typically based on empirical experience and
that was often too conservative. Therefore, this research collects twenty-five deep
excavation cases in gravel deposits in Taichung areas. The value of apparent earth
pressure had the tendency to increase as the depth of excavation increased. Comparison
was made with the apparent earth pressure envelopes recommended by Peck (1969),
Terzaghi and Peck (1967), and Tschebotarioff (1951). The acquired shape of the
envelope was trapezoid and similar to the ones suggested by Terzaghi-Peck and
Tschebotarioff. However, the value of the coefficient of apparent earth pressure was less
than half of the values suggested by Terzaghi-Peck and Tschebotarioff. The
distributions of apparent earth pressure at different excavation depths, 15, 20, and 27 m,
could be obtained and normalized based on this study. The shape of the envelopes is
similar to the one suggested by Tschebotarioff (1951), but the apparent earth pressure is
much less.

INTRODUCTION

Gravel formation is a very common geological formation in central Taiwan,

especially in and around Taichung City. The percentage of gravel content is as high as
86% and grain size is as large as 2 m. Most gravel is quartzite and hard. Hence, it is
extremely difficult to conduct a standard penetration test (SPT) during site investigation,
and it is hard to drill, bore, or excavate diaphragm walls using a machine, or to install
solider or sheet piles into the formation. Design methods used for deep excavation
constructions in gravel formation, however, are still under exploration due to lack of
research and in situ monitoring data.
The apparent lateral earth pressure envelopes used for design of braced excavation

Page 1
had been established for sands and clays only. There are no available guidelines for
lateral earth pressure envelope in gravel formations. Design of retaining structures in
gravel is typically based on empirical experience or the earth pressure suggested for
sands. Therefore, this research collects twenty-five deep in-situ excavation cases in
gravel deposits in Taichung, Taiwan. Monitoring results, including horizontal strut
forces, inclination and deformation of retention systems and surface settlements, for
each case are synthesized and analyzed. The purpose of this study is to obtain the
possible earth pressure envelope for deep exaction in gravel formation.

GRAVEL FORMATION IN CENTRAL TAIWAN

Gravel formations are common in western Taiwan, especially in and around Taichung
City. The geological formations in the Taichung basin consist of a thin layer, roughly
2–4 m, of laterite, which is a Quaternary deposit near the ground surface and a thick
layer (>100 m thick) of gravel underneath. The gravel formation belongs to the
Toukoshan Formation of the Pliocene Epoch, and comprises gravel, interlayers of sand
and clay, and sand lenses. Thus, gravel formation is extremely heterogeneous and is a
composite stratum that characterized by properties that exist between soils and rocks.
The percentage of gravel content, grain size distribution, cementation of the matrix, and
groundwater situation will control and impact the mechanical behavior of the gravel
formation. For the gravel formations in central Taiwan, the percentage of gravel content
is as high as 86% and grain size is as large as 2 m. The shear strength of the formation is
usually dominated by fine content when gravel content is <70%. D50 is about 8–20 cm.
The percentages of gravel, sand, and fine content are approximately 56-90%, 10–38%,
and 6%, respectively (Chu et al., 1996). The gravel formation is classified as GP or
GP-GM and is gap-graded. The average unit weight of the gravel formation is around
2.25 t/m3. The groundwater table in the Taichung gravel formation is around 3 to 13
meters below the ground.
The uniaxial compressive strength of the gravel is from 89-210 MPa. According to the
in situ large direct shear test, 1.5×1.5 m (Chu et al., 1989), the peak and residual friction
angles were 54.3° and 44.9°, and apparent cohesions were 1.5 t/m2 and 0, respectively.
Most gravel is quartzite and hard. Hence, it is extremely difficult to conduct a standard
penetration test (SPT) during investigation and to drill, bore, or excavate diaphragm
walls using a machine. A retaining column method excavated by workers is used to
excavate a pile-like straight rectangular column, and was reinforced with steel and
concrete after completion.
In order to study the apparent lateral earth-pressure envelopes used for braced
excavation in gravel formation, twenty five deep excavation cases in Taichung, Taiwan
are collected and analyzed. The collected data includes horizontal strut forces,
inclination and deformation of retention systems, and surface settlements for each case.

APPARENT EARTH-PRESSURE DIAGRAMS FOR BRACED EXCAVATION

For design of braced deep excavation in soils, apparent earth-pressure diagrams are
usually used to calculate the minimum horizontal strut loads for each supporting level
during vertical excavation. Figure 1 shows the apparent earth pressure envelopes for

Page 2
braced cuts in sand and clay (Terzaghi, 1943; Peck 1969). For cuts in clays, the lateral
stress distribution depends on the stability number, H/su. H is the total height of a cut
and su is the undrained shear strength of the soil.  is the total unit weight of the soil. If
H/su is greater than 4 (Figure 1a), then Pa is equal to H -4 su or 0.3H, whichever is
higher. If H/su is less than or equal to 4 (Figure 1b), then Pa varies between 0.2H to
0.4H, with an average of 0.3H. For cohesionless soils like sands, Pa is equal to
0.65HKa 4 (Figure 1c), where Ka is the Rankine active earth pressure and is equal to
tan 2 (45   / 2) .

Strut Strut Struts

Pa Pa Pa

H H
(a) Soft to medium clay 4 (b) Stiff clay 4 (c) Sand
su su

FIG. 1. Apparent earth-pressure envelopes for braced excavation in sand and clay
suggested by Peck (1969).

Tschebotariff (1951) also suggested a similar diagram, shown in Figure 2a, for cuts in
sand based on in-situ construction data and the suggestion by Terzaghi (1943). It is a
trapezoid-shape envelope instead of rectangular one suggested by Peck (1969). The
magnitude of lateral earth pressure, Pa, is fixed as 0.2H. Other apparent pressure
diagrams for dense and loose sands provided by Terzaghi and Peck (1967) are shown in
Figure 2b and 2c, respectively.
Juran and Elias (1987) used in situ monitoring data of nailed retaining structures in
cohesive sand to verify the load on the soil nails, and modified the apparent pressure
diagram provided by Terzaghi and Peck (1967). For clayey sand, the shape of the
apparent pressure diagram is the same as the stiff clay in Figure 1b, but the Pa is equal to
HKa〔1-4(su/γH)*(1/√Ka)〕.

DEFLECTION OF RETAINING STRUCTURE AND SETTLEMENT

Total of twenty-five construction cases of braced cuts in Taichung are collected.

Page 3
Related data, including inclination, surface settlement, and strut loads, are also
synthesized. The collected excavation depths range from 10 to 27 m. The amount of the
lateral deflection measured from the inclinometer is usually less than 3 cm, and the
maximum deflection is about 6 cm, as shown in Figure 3. Most of the maximum lateral
deflection, about 57%, occurs at the top of the cut. The measured surface settlement
around the braced cuts is also very small, less than 1 cm. There is a positive tendency
between maximum deflection and surface settlement, as shown in Figure 4.

0.1H
0.2H 0.2H

H 0.7H 0.6H 0.6H

H

0.2H 0.2H 0.2H

0.2 H 0.2 H 0. 25  H
(a) Sand, Tschebotariff (1951) (b) Dense Sand (c) Loose Sand

FIG. 2. Apparent pressure envelope for cuts in sand suggested by Tschebotariff (1951)
and Terzaghi and Peck (1967).

FIG. 3. Measured maximum deflection at cases with different excavation depth.

Page 4
APPARENT EARTH-PRESSURE ENVELOPES

The earth pressure acting behind the retaining structure is calculated based on the strut
loads at different depth levels from each case. It is found that the amount of calculated
earth pressure varies with maximum excavation depth. Thus, the distributions of
apparent earth pressure at different excavation depths, 15, 20, and 27 m, could be
normalized and obtained based on this study. The amount of apparent pressure, Pa, is
divided by H and plotted at different strut location. For maximum excavation depth, H,
is less than 20m, the coefficient of earth pressure, Pa/H, is within and less than 0.07,
shown in Figure 5. For H is between 15 and 20m, the coefficient of earth pressure is
within and less than 0.09, shown in Figure 6. The obtained coefficient of earth pressure
is 0.11 for H between 20 and 27m. The shape of the envelopes is similar to the one
suggested by Tschebotarioff (1951) and Terzaghi and Peck (1967), but the apparent
earth pressure is much less.

CONCLUSIONS

Twenty-five deep excavation cases in gravel formation are synthesized. The values of
apparent earth pressure are analyzed. Following findings can be obtained.
1. About 57% of the maximum lateral deflections occurred at the top of the retaining
wall, and the wall deformation is negligible.
2. The measured surface settlement around the braced cuts was than 1 cm. A positive
relationship between maximum surface settlement and maximum lateral deflection
can be found.

FIG. 4. Surface settlement versus maximum deflection for different cases.

Page 5
3. The value of apparent earth pressure had the tendency to increase as the depth of
excavation increased.
4. The envelopes of apparent earth pressure for gravel formation at different
excavation depths, 15, 20, and 27 m, are normalized and obtained.
5. The value of the coefficient of apparent earth pressure was less than the values
suggested by Terzaghi and Peck and Tschebotarioff.
6. The coefficient of earth pressures, Pa/H, for H less than 15m, between 15 and 20m,
and between 20 and 27m, are 0.07, 0.09, and 0.11, respectively.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors would like to thank National Science Foundation in Taiwan to support
the project, and the companies providing the data.

REFERENCES

Chu, B. L., Hwang, C. L., Cheng, S. Y. and Pan, G. M. (1989). “Study of in situ direct
shear tests in gravel formation in Taiwan.” The Third Geotechnical Conference,
Taiwan, 695-706. (in Chinese)
Chu, B. L., Pan, G. M. & Chang, G. S. (1996). “In situ geotechnical properties of gravel
formation in western Taiwan.” Sino-Geotechics, Vol. 55: 47-55. (in Chinese)

Juran, I. and Elias, V. (1987). Soil nailed retaining structures: Analysis of case
histories, Soil Improvement, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE
Geotechnical Special Publication No. 12, New York, USA, 232-244.
Peck, R.B. (1969). "Deep Excavations and Tunneling in Soft Ground", Proceedings of
the 7th International Conference on Soil Mechnics and Foundation Engineering,
State-of-the-Art Volume, 225-290.
Terzaghi, K. (1943). Theoretical soil mechanics, Wiley, New York.
Terzaghi, K. and Peck, R. (1967). Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice. John
Wiley & Sons, New York.
Tschebotarioff, G.P. (1951). Soil Mechanics, Foundations and Earth Structures.
McGraw-Hill, New York.

Page 6
FIG. 5. The coefficient of earth pressure at different strut locations for H< 15m.

FIG. 6. The coefficient of earth pressure at different strut locations for 15m <H< 20m.

Page 7
FIG. 7. The coefficient of earth pressure at different strut locations for 20m < H < 27m.

0.1

H< 15m

0.65
Tschebotariff
15m<H<20m

20m<H<27m

0.25

FIG. 8. Obained apparent earth pressure envelopes for different excavation depths.

Page 8