INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR

SOIL MECHANICS AND

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

This paper was downloaded from the Online Library of

the International Society for Soil Mechanics and
Geotechnical Engineering (ISSMGE). The library is
available here:

https://www.issmge.org/publications/online-library

This is an open-access database that archives thousands

of papers published under the Auspices of the ISSMGE and
maintained by the Innovation and Development
Committee of ISSMGE.
 Underground Construction in Soft Ground, Fujita & Kusakabe (eds) © 1995 Balkema, Rotterdam. ISBN 90 5410 536 4

Stability of bottom during deep excavations - A survey on Japanese codes

N. Kohsaka
Institute of Technology Shimizu Corporation, Tokyo, Japan
K. Ishizuka ,
Marufuji Sheetpiling Co., Ltd, Tokyo, Japan

1 INTRODUCTION 2 EVALUATION OF FAILURE PHENOMENA AT

The paper is prepared as a part of the study related
to a survey on codes of practice etc. for deep
excavations in Japan, which w.as carried out by the
Japanese Society of Soil Mechanics -and Foundation
Engineering, Committee on "Underground Construction
in Soft Ground" (JSSMFE TC - 28). The outline of
survey is Summmized' by Katsura et al. (1994) -which is
included in this Proceedings.
This paper deals with the instability of the bottom of
excavation and the determination of penetration depth of
walls for the design of braced wall, which are introduced in
nine major codes currently applied to deep excavations for
the construction of various structures in Japan. Regarding
other issues related to walls for deep excavations are
contributed by Katsura et al. (1994), Ishizuka et al. (1994),
Tsuge et al. (1994) and Hanko et' al. (1994), which are
included in this Proceedings. Table 1 shows the list of
organizations published codes of practice etc. related to this
subject and the date of issue of revised edition which are
BOTTOM OF EXCAVATION
In design of earth retaining system, an evaluation is needed
for the safety against failure at the bottom of excavation
such as heaving, boiling, "and heaving due to artesian
pressure. Failures at the bottom of excavation may be
classified as given in Table 2 and below.
(1) Heaving : Sliding failure induced by weight of
retained ground of soft' clay.
(2) Boiling : Seepage failure due to groundwater flow in
sandy soil below the groundwater level. Piping is considered
a type of local boiling and is included in this classification.
(3) Heaving due to artesian pressure : Uplift failure of
the excavation bottom due to pore water pressure of a
confined aquifer at a depth below the excavation bottom.
IDU
Table 2. Failure phenomena at excavation bottom
Ground condition Failure form

referred to this paper. `

(1) g:§:3:"`
Heaving :
T11 _

Table 1. List of Japanese codes referred

No.. Organization, ijiislf
A Architectural Institute of Japan 1988 _ 01 Il
I'
11. _f "

B<?i1i“S =
(2) ~T:3i=_iZ€Z§= 'Z

(3)
B Japan Society of Civil Engineers 1936-06
C Japan Road Association (Earth Works) 1937 _ 05
D Japan Road Association (Utilities Conduits) 1986 _ 03
(PIPIHS) 2 1i?i3aZ=Z~ ;j-:-_-i-.‘_-1-:;-if-.i_“_-'}.'z-f..l3'::}:-_-'Q-.'-I-i-It

-3'-"5"if52235i"-"5"f-13:2'I-'I-°’=`-"

E Subway Technical Council 1978 - 03

F Japan Sewage Works Agency 1933 - 10
G Metropolitan Expressway Public Corporation 1990 -10

H Japan Highway Public Corporation 1990-07

I Railway Technical Research Institute _ 1987 -09
due to
Heaving _ _
artesian _ <2 `
Pressure ' "ifi’.-"Q’="Q-':"-:Z-`=}'.5'§~'=“ "
 Table 3. Examination method of heaving ~

_ pressure
' Based .011 bam-ing_`¢apa¢i¢y formula Based on equilibrium of moments T

capacifl’
Dlagram _A4q_ __4A_ <1 ggymg moment
Formula _
,FS 414
' pv Fi_ ' M
f 2 reslstmg moment
Mt;
Method _ Terzaghi-Peck Tschebotarioff Method A Method B q
*Possible to include *Possible to include *Assuming a circular sliding *Assuming a circular sliding
excavation width or depth excavation width and surface about the lowest surface_about the
until hard ground. excavation length. strut. excavation bottom.
*Considering vertical shear *Considering vertical shear *Not considering vertical *Not considering vertical
resistance along the retained resistance along the retained shear resistance along the' shear resistance along the

` bottom level_. bottom level.

Remarks ground shallower than the ground shallower than the retained ground shallower retained ground shallower
_ excavation bottom level. excavation bottom level. than the excavation than the excavation
Safety factor 1.5 2.0 1. .2 1.2
2.1 Heaving Z.
Many methods have been proposed for examination of
heaving, and they may be broadly divided according to basic
concepts such as those based on bearing capacity formulae
represented by Terzaghi-Peck's method; and those based on
examination of moment equilibrium (Table 3). Differences
in these examination methods are seen in whether or not the
excavation configuration conceivable and the vertical shear
resistance along the retained ground shallower than the level
of the excavation' bottom are taken into consideration.
In Japan, many 'codes examine heaving by equilibrium of
moments abou_t ~ a certain point. Excavation width and
excavation length cannot be taken into consideration with
these methods, but it is possible to include variations of
shear strength in the direction of depth. About 1.2 is
adopted as the 'safety factor.
Furthermore, there are codes which adopt Peck's
stability number, Nb: 1/ t . H /Su (yt : wet unit weight of
soil, H : excavation depth, Su : undrained shear strength of
soil), which is convenient and has a long record of use, as
the primary index for judgment, with another method used
in case the critical value (about 3) is exceeded.
2.2 Boiling
The principal methods of examining boiling (piping) are
given in Table 4. Of these, Terzaghi's method and the
*Possible to include *Possible to include
variation of shear strength variation of shear strength
with depth. with depth.
critical hydraulic gradient method are so-called boiling
examination methods which mainly consider vertical flow in
the vicinity of the excavation bottom. On the other hand, the
concept of creep ratio is an examination method considering
horizontal flows such as flow underneath the dam body
applied to examination of piping at earth retaining SyStCmS.
Both Terzaghi's method and the critical hydraulic
gradient method are the same in the basic concept of
evaluating stability by the magnitude of seepage pressure
and effective overburden pressure of soil. In the critical
hydraulic gradient method, if the length of stream line is
made double the penetration length of the wall, the same
equation as in Terzaghi's method is obtained. The
examination by creep ratio is an examination method based
on an empirical rule that if the creep ratio obtained
dividing length of stream line by difference of water head is
larger than the critical value there is stability.
Of the codes surveyed, Terzaghi's method comprises the
mainstream, and 1.2 to 1.5 is adopted as the safety factor.
And, in codes using the critical hydraulic gradient method,
the safety factor is taken on the higher side of 2.0.
2.3 Heaving due to artesian pressure
Stability against heaving due to artesian pressure is
examined by the equilibrium between overburden pressure
and pore water pressure at the top surface of a confined
aquifer (bottom surface of clayey soil) as shown in Fig. 1.
IIl
Table 4. Examination methods of boiling
(1) Terzaghi's method _ (2) Critical hydraulic gradient method (3) Examination by creep ratio

v v2 W
”‘ar’a’“
Wwater
:‘:
h dhead
:`:`
- =i=,f;==<;=1=:;;=,f,=11,
v .r.,..
_L
._;;¢,=l:.Hii`f6I`CI1C€
(='ice”)ei'(ei
W ti) (i ) '(e(""
, =Z;,1,;:i==,¢::,1,=;1:=,1i=
G 3.11. 1 e ( i))c
,V=,ir1,,length
ee
i ,;,;;;,f< of==;:;:;;;
""""""
r ee
W' ‘l‘ffZ”§°°d°f

U F =i / i
YE submerged unit weight of S011 e S: slpsgi Iigtigravity o sol p 1C e __.__,¢__,___.._____r_._r_______.___._.._,____.r__._

| L 5 C
Formula Fxzw/u i _Gs_1_l _y’l C,=l/hw'
U Ywhw _ _l+e R,__ywhw \
* Failure width by boiling is equivalent * The same equation as of Terzaghi's * Creep ratio (Cr ) given by the upper
to half of penetration length of wall. method is obtained if the length of equation must be larger than critical
* Neglecting head loss in the retained _ Slream l1"e§l> ti bgme gouble to the “lee” _
Remarks ground above excavation bottom. Penelnuon eng 0 Wa ' *Critical value of creep ratio is
* Groundwater level in the retained detemlmed by soll Propemes'
` ground is unchanged.

' 3 DESIGN OF PEN ETRATION DEPTH OF WALLS

F g L Of wells _ _4_g l __g___ g_»_ 4A_4_'_'_ __h___'44____4 ]A_p__ __" 3 _ 1 e Pressure distribution for determining penetration depth

Every Code pr0videS the Pressure distribution Or loadin

121212¢:¥:1z=:¢":1:l:1:1i1:1:1:1:l:1 :2: 5:5:1:5:¢:5:¢:7: :k¥:-:<-:-:»:-:~:~ ~'..,g
‘lragram fer ‘-lererlllrlllllg the Pelleifellell <lePili Of the Well,
es Sll°W“ in Table 5 » iii a<idiii0H i0 the One for the design of
w r overburden pressure water heed Warl abeve ‘he eerrem ef e"ee"a‘l°“~
<w= r h > ll’ Case ef eeldlef Pile Welle is emlileyefli the eeiive and
h f t_-1 Passive
0 SO' Pr esslrres
excavation aellllg ell the
are increased Pile
to be onebel0W thetimes
to three b0ii0H1 Of
of the
width of pile, but not wider than the spacing -of the pile, as
f-fi___ -jr =pi _»:l _1~ _;i, :_- V g p;~;;;;_1 __'_ £15_,§§;§§;§wi;§;;=f.; shown in Fig. 2 , while the active pressure above the bottom
Lbébgé. .W.éie;..pfé§S ,fi;;{,;;,e ‘r='" f' of excavation is acting on the width of wall.
(u = Ywh W) 3 fi31l=~rj"1` ll 'i,- fi."
Figure 1. Examination method of heaving 3.2 Computed depth of penetration for limiting equilibrium
due to artesian pressure
For the determination of the penetration depth of wall, an
examination is made on equilibrium between the
overtuming moment by active pressure and the restoring
This method examines only balance of weight and does not moment by passive pressure both about the lowest strut
consider mechanical properties of soil such items as shear position as shown in Fig. 3.
strength of soil or adhesion strength of ground and earth The overtuming and restoring moments about the lowest
retaining wall. As the safety factor, 1.0 to 1.2, a smaller strut position and the limiting equilibrium condition are
value than .for other failure phenomena at the excavation given by the following formulae.
bottom, is adopted.
There is also a code which prescribes that examination be Md :Pa ya
made taking into consideration mechanical properties of
soil in excavation work of large depth and small horizontal Mp = PP YP
configuration such asa shaft.
Ma=Mp
Table 5. Loading diagrams for determining penetration depth of walls

Ranking _ Régal Coulomb Coefficient of lateral pressure

( water pressure + earth pressure based on effective stress ) ( no water pressure + earth pressure
based on total stress )

3
==
>` D D ,4_,:____
'E D

'2
gb"`l YW Vw Il, t,;. 1 iuil 1=1 2
' -1 '-l""'* :A I ' ”"_ _=¢f;§§*5f*‘ff@35fi*5* =’
U] pp,pg E
> _ K-
_ pp V»<H+»>
E L 55 §f§§§?§§§§2 ` L 'i ii ..1i§%§E§E§%§€i E) Y _`5§§§§§§§§€§‘*5”‘f1f‘5
pg 3 __ pp
pa={r-H1+r ~(H2+D)}KA-20/KA Pa = KA{Y°H1+Y"(H2+ D)} _j
pp=}/'D°Kp+2c'\/Kp Pp=Kp'7/'D - g
_ C2 o ‘= 0
KA = an2(4s° - ¢/2) KA " “Q” (45 ' ¢/2) J; KP= wn2<45 + ¢/2>
KP = tan2(45° + 41/2) Where, KA > 0.25
A KP = - Coefficient of lateral pressure K
_ sin(¢+5)-sin¢ _ 1 i*cos5
Sandy~soil
V High groundwater 0.3 ~ 0.7
Rankine - Resal table
(water pressure + earth pressure ( no water pressure + earth pressure Low groundwater 02 " 0°4

S°f‘ 0-5 ` 0-8

based on effective stress ) based on total stress ) table ~

H 2 1.=,:_,..
C1 .l_»_._. _ ._
,0_’ ‘. 'A Vw
""* ‘ 2§2§¥@§2 ~S011
:` ' 7 : UH" W¢1g*“°f -­
5UC _riz
L; Q 1; U’
¢ :=Angle
submerged *mi* Weight
of internal frictionOf
ofSO”
Soil
_ pp pa pp pa c : Cohesion of soil 5 : Angle of friction between wall
Pa={7'H1+7/'(H2+D)}KA"2¢`\lKA pa_y (H+D)_2C and soil (5=¢/2).
pp = 7/-D-KP+2r,‘JKP pp = .},_D+2c 7; :Unit weight of wet soil
KA = mn2(45°- 41/2)
K,,= mn2(45°+ ¢/2)
H : Depth of excavation
D : Penetration depth of walls for limiting equilibrium

326

a (m) a (m) a : Spacing of soldier piles
g Soldier piles
l B | B : Width of pile flange
( 1 -3 ).~B Width subjected to earthpressures
*l Width subjected to earth pressures is equal to the spacing
of soldier piles.
* 2 Width subjected to earth pressures below the bottom of
excavation is assumed to be one to three times of width of
soldier -piles, but not larger than the spacing of soldier piles.
Figure 2. Apparent width of soldier piles below
bottom of excavation subjec_ted to earth pressures
' 'Y
£552 `ii :`;'i`I`i`='i"`iii`i':'i'°':`i" 3
Pa :Resultant of active pressure at limiting equilibrium
Pp :Resultant of passive pressure at limiting equilibrium
ya :Lever arm between strut and resultant of active pressure
y p :Lever arm between strut and resultant of passive pressure
Figure 3. Limiting equilibrium between active and
passive pressures for determining penetration depth
where, Ma : Overturning moment by active pressures about
the lowest strut position. 2
M p : Restoring moment by passive pressures about
the lowest strut position.
pa : Resultant of active pressures.
pp : Resultant of passive pressures.
ya :Lever armbetween strut and resultant of active
pressures.
y p :Lever arm between strut and resultant of
passive pressures.
The penetration depth of wall for limiting equilibrium ( D )
is calculated by trial and error substitution of the above
formulae.
3.3 Design depth of penetration
The design depth of penetration ( I ) is obtained by
considering the following conditions :
1 ) factor of safety against overtuming
2 ) permeability of wall and residual water pressure
3 ) factor of safety against boiling through the bottom of
~ excavation
Aspect related to boiling is shown in section 2.2.
_ Regarding the safety against overturning, three methods
are introduced to the codes. In method l, the design depth of
penetration is obtained by multiplying the factor of safety
for depth F 4 being 1.2,
l=Fd D =l.2D
and 'codes B, C, D, F, G, H and I introduce this method. In
method 2, the depth of penetration is obtained by trial and
error substitution under the condition of equilibrium
Mp =1.2 Ma,
which is specified in code A. Method 3 is adopted in code E
under the condition of
M,,>M,,.
With respect to permeability of wall and residual water
pressures, six codes B, C, D, F, G & H and three codes C, D
& H provide provisions on the minimum and maximum
penetration depth of wall, respectively. The computed depth
D is to be adjusted accordingly.
The minimum depth of penetration is to be 1.5m ( codes
B,C,D, F,G&H)and3m(codesC,D,G&H)fora
pervious wall such as soldier pile walls and impervious wall
such as steel sheet-pile walls, respectively. The maximum
depth of penetration is to be 1.8 times of the depth of
excavation for codes C, D & H.
REFERENCES

Hanko, M. and S. Nakagawa (1994) : Design of Cantilever

Walls for Excavations. - A Survey on Japanese Codes
- , Proceedings of the International Symposium on
Underground Construction in -_Soft Ground, New Delhi,
Balkema, Rotterdam.
Ishizuka, K. and N. Horiba (1994) : Simplified Design
Method of Walls for Deep Excavations. - A Survey on
Japanese Codes - , Proceedings of the Intemational
Symposium on Underground Con.struction in Soft
Ground, New Delhi, Balkema, Rotterdam.
Katsura, Y., N. Kohsaka, K. Ishizuka, and N. Horiba
(1994) : Extemal Forces Acting on Walls During Deep
Excavations. ` - 'A Survey on Japanese Codes - ,
Proceedings of .the International Symposium on
Underground Construction in Soft Ground, New Delhi,
Balkema, Rotterdam.
Tsuge, H. and M. Tanaka (1994) : Rational Design Method
of Walls for Deep Excavations. - A Survey on Japanese
Codes - , Proceedings of the Internationa1`Symposium
on Underg_round Construction in Soft Ground, New
Delhi, Balkema, Rotterdam.

328