Assessment of field measurements of three deep excavations from Copenhagen’s

Sydhavn metro line.

Efthymios PANAGIOTIS1, Enrico PAULATTO2, Francesco PETRELLA3, Irene ROCCHI1, Varvara ZANIA1
1TechnicalUniversity of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark
2Metroselskabet, Copenhagen, Denmark
3Arup, Copenhagen, Denmark

Corresponding author: Efthymios Panagiotis ([email protected])

Abstract
Although several authors have investigated the performance of deep excavations over the past decades, most
of the case studies analysed flexible retaining systems and/or soft ground conditions. Nevertheless, strict
deformation requirements in constructions in urban environments frequently impose stiff design solutions for
excavations. This study expands the existing data in the literature by evaluating the performance of three deep
metro station excavations, located in the vicinity of buildings, and constructed by the bottom-up method in stiff
over-consolidated deposits as well as soft rocks in Copenhagen. The data from the long-term comprehensive
instrumentation program was employed for this purpose. Lateral wall deflections, axial forces of prestressed
anchors and struts and ground water levels were analysed and discussed in accordance with the construction
plan. The measured lateral wall deflections at the three case studies indicate a typical cantilever deflection shape
until the installation of the first anchor, while the wall starts bending towards the excavation after the second
excavation stage. The ratio between the maximum wall deflection and the excavation depth is at most equal to
0.25%, which is close to the lower boundary of reported ranges for available case studies. Corner effects were
observed at one case study (Sluseholmen) where the width over length ratio of the underground excavation was
relatively small. A linear correlation between the maximum wall deflection and the excavation depth was
observed for wall deflections measured after the installation of the first support.
Keywords: metro station excavations, field measurements, wall deflections, limestone, Copenhagen
1. Introduction
The limited space in urban environments has increased the exploitation of underground space, especially for
hosting utilities and transportation networks (subway, tunnels). The construction of deep excavations in densely
populated areas is nowadays common. For this reason, design and construction of deep excavations is governed
by the wall response and ground movements, since excessive soil deformations may lead to the damage of
adjacent structures and utilities, even resulting in huge economic and/or human loss. One means of verifying
the performance requirements during construction is field monitoring during the process of the excavation. It is
widely employed to collect continuous measurements of ground movements and wall deflections as reported
in several case studies (e.g Long, 2001).
In the past decades several studies (Peck 1969; Mana & Clough 1981; O’ Rourke 1981; Clough & O’ Rourke 1990)
extensively investigated the performance of excavations and proposed empirical approaches for evaluating the
magnitude of wall deflections and ground movements behind the wall on the basis of field observations in
different types of soil. The same studies evaluated the effect of the wall stiffness, support stiffness and spacing,
depth to an underlying firm layer, excavation width and strut preload on the wall deformations and settlements.
Subsequently, empirical charts were derived, and it was shown that the measured performance was governed
by the stiffness of the retaining system and of the soil (sheet or soldier pile walls with an excavation depth less
than 20 m and/or soft ground conditions).
On the other hand, excavation-induced wall deflections and ground movements were found to be overestimated
by these empirical approaches when a stiff retaining system was used (Ou et al. 1993; Wang et al. 2005). In
particular, Ou et al. (1993) analysed and discussed the performance of ten deep excavations supported by
diaphragm or contiguous pile walls with different construction methods (bottom-up, top-down, berm method)
and excavation or wall characteristics in layered soft ground conditions (clay and silty clay). It was concluded
that the maximum lateral deflection often occurred close to the excavation surface and typically varied from
0.2% to 0.5% of the excavation depth, which is larger than that reported by Clough & O’Rourke (1990), yet
smaller than that reported by Peck (1969). The former refers to cases in stiff clays and sands, while the latter to
cases with mainly sheet or soldier piles as lateral supporting systems in different ground types (soft to stiff clay

1
and sand). Similar ranges were reported by Wang et al. (2005), who discussed the field measurements of six
multi-strutted excavations constructed for the metro line in Shanghai. The retaining walls were diaphragm walls
with different stiffnesses and characteristics in soft clay. Long (2001) concluded that the deformations of deep
excavations in non-cohesive soils and stiff clays are largely independent of the system stiffness, as the average
maximum deflection was found equal to 0.17%, 0.19% and 0.16% of the excavation depth for propped,
anchored, and top-down construction, respectively. The same observation was reported by Bryson & Zapata
(2012), while in the same study system stiffness was found to have a significant role in the excavation
performance in soft-to-medium clays. Bryson & Zapata (2012) suggested a semiempirical approach for selecting
the stiffness of the excavation support system, by introducing a new parameter called relative stiffness ratio
that considers the effects of soil-structure interaction, relative bending resistance (contribution of wall and
support elements) and soil conditions.
This study aims to investigate the performance of deep excavations that were carried out in urban environment
and therefore require a stiff retaining system. The case studies presented in this paper are the Enghave Brygge
(EBR) station, the Ørstedværket (ØVK) shaft and the Sluseholmen (SLU) station which were constructed as a part
of the extension of Copenhagen’s metro line to Sydhavn. Field measurements of lateral wall deflections, axial
forces of struts and anchors as well as ground water levels inside and outside the excavation are analysed and
described. The lateral wall deflections in the stiff over-consolidated glacial deposits found in Copenhagen are
established at different construction stages and compared with similar cases reported in the literature.
2. Geological and Geotechnical conditions of the case studies
The geological conditions of the Copenhagen area consist of Quaternary deposits overlaying the Paleogene
deposits, mainly consisting of Danian Limestone and locally of Selandian greensand (South Copenhagen). The
Quaternary deposits are composed of some transitional deposits covered by true glacial deposits which are
covered by different types of post and late glacial sediments and fill layers (Frederiksen et al., 2002). The fill layer
is heterogeneous and consists primarily of sand, gravel and clay and occasionally organic material or building
debris. The glacial deposits are divided into groups of low permeability tills (upper and lower clay till/sand till)
with intermediate high permeability meltwater deposits (upper, middle, and lower sand and gravel). The
bedrock in the Copenhagen area is divided into three lithostratigraphical units (Knudsen et al., 1995): the
Selandian Greensand, the Copenhagen Limestone, and the Bryozoan Limestone. The Bryozoan Limestone forms
an approximately 60 m thick unit resting on the Maastrichtian white chalk. The Copenhagen Limestone overlies
the bryozoan Limestone, and it is characterized by alternating indurated and less indurated beds and can be
generally described as a weak rock with very hard layers or nodules of flint (Paulatto & Carstensen, 2017). The
Copenhagen Limestone formation is divided into three stratigraphical units: the Upper Copenhagen Limestone
(UCL), the Middle Copenhagen Limestone (MCL) and the Lower Copenhagen Limestone (LCL). The upper part of
the Limestone is typically disturbed or highly fractured by glacial processes, with the thickness of the disturbed
zone varying from 0.3 m to 3.6 m.
Extensive field borehole investigations defined the site stratigraphy of the case studies, which is presented in
Figure 1 together with the excavation’s typical cross sections. In particular, 9 new boreholes were drilled at EBR
and ØVK stations and information from 5 available boreholes from GEUS were derived so as the stratigraphy to
be obtained. The stratigraphy at SLU was obtained by 16 new boreholes and data from 4 existing boreholes. It
can be seen in Figure 1 that the ground conditions at EBR and ØVK are similar, however the thickness of the sand
till layer decreases towards the North side of the excavation and consequently a different design profile was
considered (see Figure 1). On the other hand, the fill layer at SLU is thicker than in EBR and ØVK station, and its
thickness varies along the excavation. It should be mentioned that glacial deposits in SLU station were found to
overly directly the Bryozoan Limestone, with the first 2 m of the formation to be disturbed. In addition to the
boreholes, field and laboratory geotechnical tests were performed. The physical and mechanical properties of
the soil and rock units according to the Geotechnical Investigation Report (Metroselskabet, 2018) are presented
in Table 1.

2
Figure 1: Typical cross sections of the excavations carried out at Enghave Brygge (EBR), Ørstedværket (ØVK) and
Sluseholmen (SLU). The soil design profiles for each case are also displayed.
Abbreviation Bulk unit Poisson's Young’s/ Rock Angle of Cohesion Pre-
weight γbulk ratio mass modulus Shearing c' [kPa] consolidation
[kN/m3] ν / νu [-] E' / Em [MPa] resistance stress σ'p [kPa]
ϕ' [o]
FY 18.0 0.2 / 0.5 8 30 0 σ'ν0
ML1 21.5 0.2 / 0.5 50 33 10 600
ML2 21.5 0.2 / 0.5 65 33 10 2400
MS2 21.0 0.2 / - 70 38 0 2400
CL 21.0 0.2 / - 600-1000 40 70 -
UCL 21.0 0.2 / - 750-4000 45 100 -
MCL 21.0 0.2 / - 750-4000 45 100 -
DBL 21.0 0.22 / - 1000-3500 46 110 -
BL 22.0 0.22 / - 1000-3500 47 130 -
Table 1: Mechanical properties of soil and rock units found at EBR, ØVK and SLU excavation pits (Metroselskabet,
2018). FY: Fill layer, ML1: Upper clay till, ML2: Lower clay till, MS2: Glacial sand till, CL: Disturbed Upper
Copenhagen Limestone, UCL: Upper Copenhagen Limestone, MCL: Middle Copenhagen Limestone, DBL:
Disturbed Bryozoan Limestone and BL: Bryozoan Limestone.
3. Construction sequence
The excavations reported in this paper are rectangular with a width of approximately 20 m and length of 60-120
m; a bottom-up construction method has been used in all cases. The excavations are retained by secant pile
walls with 1.2 m diameter piles, supported by ground anchors and struts in the temporary case, as shown in
Figure 1 for each case. The length of the piles is 24.5 m at EBR and ØVK and 28.5 m at SLU, the primary pile
spacing is 1.8 m and the bending stiffness of the wall is 1745 MNm2. The free length of the anchors is 11 m while
their fixed length is 8.5 m. The anchors have been installed at an inclination of 30o at EBR shaft and 35o at ØVK
shaft and pre-stressed at a force of 1000 kN. The horizontal spacing of the anchors is 1.8 m. Circular hollow struts
(steel class S355) of 1016 mm diameter and 30 mm wall thickness were installed at all case studies with spacing
of 6.5 m. On the other hand, a different wall supporting system was adopted for the SLU station due to the larger
excavation depth and thicker fill layer. The construction of the staircases in the southeast side of the excavation
(see Figure 2, blue box) blocked the use of anchors for supporting the excavation on this side and therefore,

3
struts were installed at 3 different levels in the east part of the excavation. The ground water control inside the
excavation consists of pumping wells, where the subtracted water is recharged back to aquifer through re-
infiltration wells that are situated outside the excavation. At SLU shaft, 95% to 100% of the pumped water was
re-infiltrated back to the aquifer while the re-infiltration rate was eventually decreased at EBR-ØVK shafts in
order to not exceed the design assumptions and the exceeding pumped water was discharged to the harbour.
Bottom-up excavations started with the construction of the secant pile walls. As excavations proceeded to a
lower level, new anchors or struts were installed until the final excavation depth was reached. Excavations were
carried out in 3 to 4 stages. Following the completion of the excavation, the base slab was casted. It should be
mentioned that the removal of the bottom struts and the casting of the base slab were carried out in sequence
and in parallel. The bottom struts removal was completed few days after the completion of the base slab, which
thereafter worked as bottom support. Table 2 summarizes the construction activities at EBR; however, it should
be mentioned that a similar construction process has been followed in the other case studies.
Stage Construction Event Starting Date End Date
1 Construction of primary secant piles 26-11-2018 14-02-2019
2 Construction of secondary secant piles 05-12-2018 19-02-2019
3 Construction of soft secant piles (between EBR and ØVK) 23-11-2018 21-02-2019
4 Excavation from level +2.20 m until -3.90 m 02-04-2019
5 Activation of the first anchor 22-04-2019 01-05-2019
6 Excavation from level -3.90m until -11.60 m 29-05-2019
7 Activation of strut 20-06-2019 09-07-2019
8 Excavation until -19.21 m 26-07-2019
9 Removal of Bottom strut 14-10-2019 13-11-2019
10 Construction of base level slab 12-11-2019
Table 2: Main construction stages of the excavation at ΕΒR shaft (all levels in m DVR90).
4. Instrumentation
A long-term comprehensive instrumentation program has been implemented for the verification of the design
assumptions, for securing the safety of the deep excavations and supervising the impact of the construction
activities on the adjacent buildings and structures. Field measurements are stored in the Kronos monitoring
database system that was established and used for the Copenhagen metro network (Rabensteiner et al., 2015).
The horizontal displacements of the secant pile wall are monitored by inclinometer casings that are fixed to the
steel reinforcement cages. The inclinometer casings were installed in both sides (longitudinal and transverse) of
the excavation down to a depth of 23 to 26 m and were equipped with In Place Inclinometer (IPI) sensors with
a vertical spacing of 3 m. They are recorded with an automatic acquisition unit and a reading interval of 4 hours.
The anchor and temporary strut loads are monitored by load cells that are installed on anchor heads and struts
respectively. Strut loads are measured by three sets of strain gauges that are installed on each side of the
selected struts and recorded with a reading interval of 20 minutes. The instrumentation program also includes
monitoring of ground movements which are measured by using levelling points that were installed on the
ground surface in the vicinity of the excavation and outside the expected primary influence zone in order to
assess the extent of the area that is influenced by excavation activities. Ground water table is also monitored
continuously in piezometers inside and outside the excavation pits. In addition, water level measurements and
inflow rate are available from pumping and re-infiltration wells. In the present paper, the field measurements
from inclinometers, load cells and piezometers are discussed in detail. An illustration of the instrumentation
layout at EBR, ØVK and SLU is shown in Figure 2.
5. Observed performance of the secant pile walls
The lateral deflections of the secant pile walls measured at ØVK shaft, from inclinometers situated at the center
of the shaft (ØVK02 and ØVK08, considered representative of plane strain conditions) and for various
constructions stages are illustrated in Figure 3. The measurements of the inclinometers located at the central
section of the excavation on the opposite sides are consistent. As expected, the lateral wall deflections increased
as the excavation proceeded. The magnitudes of the measured lateral wall deflections were lower than the
0.25% of the corresponding excavation depth and fell at the lower bound of reported ranges from similar deep
excavations (Long, 2001). The relatively small wall deflections observed can be attributed to the stiff ground
conditions, the high system stiffness, and the short horizontal span of the excavation.

4
Figure 2: Plan view of EBR, ØVK and SLU excavations with the instrumentation layout, different wall supporting
systems and the excavation cross sections shown in Figure 1.
A cantilever-type deflected shape is observed until the installation of the anchors as the wall starts bending after
the second excavation stage and prior to the strut activation, consistently with the general pattern of wall
movement reported by Clough & O’ Rourke (1990). The magnitude of the anchor forces is almost constant
throughout the construction stages, while strut forces increase from 1 MN to 4 MN as the excavation progresses
from construction stage D to construction stage E, and larger deflections take place.

Figure 3: Lateral deflections measured on ØVK shaft by inclinometers ØVK08 (left) and ØVK02 (right) for different
construction stages.
The lateral deflections of the secant pile walls at EBR station (EBR02 and EBR06, considered representative of
plain strain conditions) are shown in Figure 4. Field measurements showed that the West and East side of the
excavation behave differently after the installation of the anchors. A rotation within the MCL unit was observed
from the measurements of the inclinometer in the East side of the excavation during the initial construction
stages which is not observed in the other side of the wall. A rotation correction was therefore applied to counter
this effect. It was found that after correcting the rotation within the Limestone unit the deflections in both sides
of the walls are similar. As it was observed at ØVK shaft, the wall has a cantilever-type deformed shape until the
installation of the anchors. The activation of the anchors at EBR shaft significantly reduces wall deflections
compared to ØVK shaft which might be associated with the different anchor installation levels. The maximum
lateral wall deflection is 0.195% of the corresponding excavation depth which is lower than the one observed at
ØVK shaft. In general, the lateral wall deflections measured at ØVK were larger than the ones observed at SLU
and EBR. The lower wall deflections observed at SLU compared to the ØVK are associated with the different
supporting system that was used at SLU shaft and the shallower depth of the limestone.

5
Figure 4: Lateral deflections measured at EBR shaft by inclinometers in plane strain conditions (EBR02-EBR06)
for different construction stages. *Excavation depth at construction stage D could not be defined accurately,
however, it is higher than 13.80 m and lower than 19.21 m.
On the other hand, the lateral wall deflections measured at EBR are approximately half of those measured at
ØVK even though both shafts have similar stratigraphy and system stiffness. This is mainly attributed to the fact
that higher pumping occurred as the excavation progressed at ØVK and consequently there is a bigger difference
in water head inside and outside the excavation.

Figure 5: Maximum lateral deflection versus excavation depth for the three case studies. Results display data
at different construction stages (various He) and from several inclinometers organized according to location in
plane strain (PS) condition, and close to the excavation corners (C).
Figure 5 illustrates the maximum wall deflection measured at various construction stages with respect to the
excavation depth from the three case studies reported in this paper and from reported case histories (Long,
2001) in stiff clay conditions with similar wall stiffness and support system. It can be seen that the maximum
normalized deflection during the first excavation stage (Stage A) is approximately 0.25% for the three case
studies. However, maximum lateral deflections decrease after the activation of the anchor (Stage B), as
expected. Thereafter, the maximum deflection increases linearly with excavation depth though with a different
rate, depending on each case study. The rates of increase of EBR and SLU are 0.36 mm/m excavation and 0.4
mm/m excavation respectively while the increase rate at ØVK was found to be 0.7 mm/m excavation. The
measured lateral wall deflections are close to the lower boundary of the ones reported by the selected case

6
histories from Long (2001) which is attributed to the higher wall stiffness and the presence of Limestone for at
least 50% of the excavation depth at the three case studies. Smaller deflections were observed in the corners at
SLU, and less apparently at EBR compared to those measured in the center of the excavation. Similar
observation was made at ØVK shaft; however, this may also be attributed to the different lateral wall supporting
system that was considered in the North side of the excavation.
6. Conclusions
According to the analyses of the field measurements from three deep metro station excavations in stiff over-
consolidated deposits in Copenhagen, the following main findings were drawn:
i. A cantilever type deflected shape was observed during the first excavation stage and after the anchor
activation at all case studies. Nevertheless, wall starts bending towards the excavation after the second
excavation stage.
ii. The magnitudes of the maximum lateral deflections were smaller than 0.25% of the excavation depth
at the corresponding stage and fell at the lower margin of reported ranges observed in the literature
from excavations of similar dimension ratios supported by stiff retaining walls in soft and stiff clay
conditions.
iii. The lateral wall deflections were observed to increase linearly with the excavation depth after the
installation of the first row of anchors.
iv. Smaller deflections were measured at the corners of the shafts which could be related to arching
effects, different local support system or a combination thereof.
References
Clough, G. W., & O'Rourke, T. D. (1990). Construction induced movements of insitu walls. Specialty Conference
on Design and Performance of Earth Retaining Structures, 439-470.

Frederiksen, J. K., Brendstrup, J., Eriksen, F. S., Gordon, M. A., & Knudsen, C. (2002). Engineering Geology of
Copenhagen. Copenhagen: Danish Geotechnical Society/Dansk Geoteknisk Forening.

Knudsen, C., Andersen, C., Foged, N., Jakobsen, P., & Larsen, B. (1995). Stratigraphy and engineering geology of
København Limestone. Copenhagen: Danish Geotechnical Society.

Long, M. (2001). Database for retaining wall and ground movements due to deep excavations. Journal of
Geotechnical Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 127(3), 203-224.

Mana, A. I., & Clough, G. W. (1981). Prediction of movements for braced cuts in clay. Proceedings of the Ameican
Society of Civil Engineers, ASCE, Vol107.

Metroselskabet. (2018). Geotechnical Interpretative Report (GIR). Copenhagen: -.

O' Rourke, T. (Sept 1981). Ground movements caused by Braced Excavations. Journal of the Geotechnica
Engineering Division, ASCE, 107(GT9), 1159-1178.

Ou, C.-Y., Hsieh, P.-G., & Chiou, D.-C. (1993). Characteristics of ground surface settlement during excavation.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 30(5), 758-767.

Paulatto, E., & Carstensen, S. (2017). Rock grouting in Copenhagen Limestone- The Cityringen experience.
Symposium of the International Society for Rock Mechanics.

Peck, B. R. (1969). Deep excavations and tunneling in soft ground. Urbana, Ill. U.S.A.

Rabensteiner, K., Berger, P., & Paulatto, E. (2015). Monitoring and intergrated data management for safe urban
tunneling. ISRM Regional Symposium- EUROCK 2015. SALZBURG, aUSTRIA.

Wang, Z. W., Charles, W. W., & Guo, L. B. (2005). Characteristics of wall deflections and ground surface
settlements in Shanghai. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 42(5), 1243-1254.

Zapata-Medina, D. G., & Bryson, L. S. (2012). Method for Estimating System Stiffness for Excavation Support
Walls. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 138(9).