9 Cut-And-Cover Construction

Cut-and-cover construction
9
Introduction As the name suggests, cut-and-cover construction consists of tunnel construc-
tion by deep excavation in trench, construction of the permanent tunnel struc-
ture, and subsequent backfill and reinstatement of the ground surface. The
method is economical in comparatively shallow tunnel works and is typically
applied in urban highway schemes and for urban metro stations and running
tunnel construction. This chapter therefore describes highway and metro
schemes and includes the construction of station boxes: sometimes more
exactly these stations could be classified as basements, but are included in
this chapter with other metro illustrations for completeness.
Historically the method was used as an alternative to bored tunnel con-
struction for underground railway and river-crossing highway schemes in
European cities in the second part of the nineteenth century, particularly in
London and Paris. Early photographs in 1903 of cut-and-cover works for
the Saint-Lazare station on line 3 of the metro in Paris are shown in Figs.
9.1 and 9.2. The photos, taken two weeks apart, show the rapid progress
which the method allowed. The station was excavated from below the roof
vaults of the station following roof construction. Prior to the Second World
War, metro construction in European cities such as Berlin, Paris and
London exploited cut-and-cover construction and furthered construction
techniques such as the king post method of soil support. Its use provided
an alternative to boring for underground tunnels within a range of depths,
typically 8 to 10 m. Excavation plant and craneage was largely steam driven,
and structural materials were usually timber or steel sheet piling.
The reconstruction of European cities in the 1950s, and the improvements
to public transport facilities with progressive urbanization in the 1960s and
1970s, allowed the introduction of improved methods of tunnelling, including
cut-and-cover techniques. In particular, improvements to excavation and
drilling equipment, the availability of high-quality steel sections and reinforce-
ment and the introduction of ready mixed concrete transformed construction
methods. A range of walling methods became available and alternative
methods of installation were developed. Reinforced concrete piles were now
installed by powerful rotary auger, steel sheet piling was driven by diesel
hammer, vibrator or by hydraulic equipment, and new methods of walling
such as diaphragm walling and methods of support such as ground and
rock anchoring were introduced by innovative contractors and specialists.
In the years following the 1970s many cities invested in new metro systems,
further exploiting cut-and-cover methods. In particular, the construction of
the Island Line and more recently West Rail in Hong Kong and the Singapore
Metro North East line have further used bottom-up, top-down and variant
systems and all the walling methods.
While the choice between tunnel or surface construction may be clearly
determined by the availability and value of land and the depth of the proposed
permanent construction, the choice between bored tunnel and cut-and-cover
construction methods may sometimes be less clearly defined. In other
Downloaded by [ UNIV OF ILLINOIS] on [13/10/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
Cut-and-cover construction 399
Fig. 9.1. Cut-and-cover works: St Lazare Metro Station, Paris, 190330
400 Deep excavations
Fig. 9.2. As Fig. 9.1. photographed two weeks later30
instances, however, the prevalent groundwater conditions, availability of con-

struction site areas or the proximity of existing structures and their founda-
tions, may combine with the available horizontal and vertical alignments to
pre-determine the use of either bored tunnels or cut-and-cover construction.
Although the construction methods of cut-and-cover work may appear to
be more direct and free from the risks of bored tunnel construction, greater
risk of subsidence due to shallow works and the disruption of traffic and
services due to large-scale trench works may make cut-and-cover work less
attractive. In the early 1980s Megaw and Bartlett1 listed the disadvantages
of cut-and-cover in busy urban areas:
(a) Lengthy occupation of street sites with noise disturbances and disrup-
tion to access. This can be mitigated by mining excavation methods
below a roof slab constructed at an early stage on the permanent
tunnel walls. Roof slab construction allows speedy reinstatement of
highways and surface works. In special circumstances tunnelled head-
ings may be used to build the permanent walls with the minimum of
surface activity.
(b) In soft clays and silts, excavation in trench may be limited to maintain
stability and reduce heave. Short-length working will be necessary and
will increase construction and occupation time.
(c) Constraints on alignments by following existing streets may be undesir-
able, especially where small-radius curves are introduced into metro
construction. In some city areas, basements which encroach beyond
building lines may worsen the situation.
(d ) Progress and cost of cut-and-cover schemes can be badly affected by
diversion works to existing services, especially those inaccurately
recorded or uncharted and disclosed during trenchworks. These
works often require a break in the sequence of trench wall construction
to divert the service and then construct the trench wall across the
previous alignment of the service.
(e) Ground movement and subsidence of existing structures and services
have to be minimized. Methods to reduce subsoil heave, loss of
ground, and changes of groundwater level and flow entail cost and
construction time penalties. The use of pre-stressed ground anchors,
pre-jacking of struts, grouting works and groundwater recharge may
all be necessary, particularly where sensitive or old buildings are
nearby, and all have cost and time implications for cut-and-cover work.
The construction costs of cut-and-cover works increase significantly with
depth, but the effect of construction depth on the cost of bored tunnel
works is often much less. The choice of horizontal and vertical alignment
for large-scale works such as metro construction additionally involves com-
paring the capital cost of alternative alignments using varying lengths of
bored tunnel and cut-and-cover with the projected energy running costs of
trains on those alternative alignments.
Four methods are available for cut-and-cover wall construction:
(a) temporary support from braced or anchored steel sheet piling followed
by permanent reinforced concrete wall construction
(b) the soldier wall method of temporary support using soldier piles and
horizontal laggings, or sprayed concrete skin walls with bracing or
anchoring followed by permanent reinforced concrete wall construction
(c) temporary concrete walls in contiguous, secant reinforced concrete piles
or in situ diaphragm wall construction followed by permanent
reinforced concrete construction
(d ) combined temporary and permanent wall construction from walls in

reinforced concrete secant piles, or cast in situ or precast diaphragm
wall construction.
Bottom-up, top-down or semi-top-down construction

Whilst bottom-up construction was used with timbered or sheet piled earth
support for cut-and-cover works until the 1960s and 1970s the use of top-
down for building basement construction in those times led to its use in
European cities for metro construction, particularly by Soletanche in Paris
and Icos in Milan. Every variant of walling method and geotechnical process
has been used since then, especially in the Far East, to maximize site
development potential, and reduce cost, construction time and disturbance
to traffic and urban life.
An example of recent station box construction in Hong Kong has been
described by Cook and Paterson2 for Nam Cheong station on the West
Rail work for the Kowloon Canton Railway Corporation. The original
contract design used diaphragm walls for the new station, 350 m 80 m in
plan, with an average depth of concourse construction of 15 m below
ground level. The new station straddles the existing elevated West Kowloon
expressway and the airport expressline railway, as shown in cross-section in
Fig. 9.3. The ground conditions comprised approximately 25 m of hydraulic
sand overlying a variable thickness of alluvial silt and clay underlain by a
weathered granite system. Groundwater varied between 2 m and 5 m below
ground level.
The original scheme comprised a diaphragm wall box using the top-down
method. In the event, the alternative scheme as built used less materials
at less cost to build an in situ structure within a sheet piled cofferdam, the
external walls being supported by plunge columns. Detailed vibration studies
were undertaken to assess vibration risk in driving the 28 m long sheet piles
and only in restricted lengths was this found to be excessive. At these lengths,
the sheet piles were pitched into slurry trenches. It is intended to recover all the
sheet piles after backfilling behind the permanent walls.
In order to dewater the site, the groundwater was lowered using deep wells.
A settlement prediction made prior to the works gave an estimated total
settlement below the future high-rise structure over the east box of 35 mm,
most of which would occur during construction.
Fig. 9.3. Nam Cheong Station, Hong Kong, cross-section31
Fig. 9.4. Station construction

sequence, N.E. line,
Singapore25
The alternative design as built, also built top-down in order to achieve an

early handover of the track slab at ground level, minimized time and cost in
the use of barrettes with post-grouted shafts to improve load capacity in
lieu of bored piles and staged excavation and dewatering to control settle-
ments during construction.
A derivative of top-down construction named semi-top-down has been
applied in construction of the stations on the new N.E. line in Singapore.
Particularly because of the design requirement for civil defence purposes of
a 2 m thick station roof located 3 m below ground level, the roof itself was
used as a working platform. The access holes within this roof were large
and savings were made by using the smallest skeleton possible of permanent
works as temporary works and so the least weight of bracing and propping
to be supported by plunge columns, whilst maintaining watertightness and
avoiding settlement risk to nearby existing services and buildings. The
sequence of top-down and final bottom-up construction is shown in Fig. 9.4.
Choice of wall system The choice of walling method depends on geology, depth of excavation and
the presence of buildings or roads near the excavation. A review by Hulme
et al.3 of cut-and-cover walling methods for a large new transportation
Table 9.1 Singapore Metro: construction methods for cut-and-cover stations3
Station Maximum Typical soil Retaining system used Special measures

depth of sequencea
excavation (m)
Braddell 14.9 1F, G4 0.6 and 0.8 m diaphragm walls

Toa Payoh 13.5 4F, 4K, G Sheet piles
Novena 14.7 1 .
2F, 14 2K, G Sheet piles
Newton 14.3 3F, 13K, G 0.8 m diaphragm walls Jet grouting
1
Orchard 21 2F, G Nailed slopes
Somerset 16.2 2F, 8K, G 0.6 m diaphragm walls or sheet piles
Dhoby Ghaut 16.1 1F, 10K, S Sheet piles
City Hall 22.3 3F, 2K, S3 King piles and shotcrete lagging
Tanjong Pagar 17.9 1
2F, S Slopes, anchors
Outram 13.9 2F, 3K, S 8 m deep sheet piles over king piles
and timber laggings
Tiong Bahru 14.1 1F, S King piles and shotcrete lagging
Bugis 18.3 1F, 34K, O 1.2/1.0 m diaphragm walls Lime piles
Lavender 16.5 3F, 20K, O 1.0 m diaphragm walls
Marina Bay 16.4 12F, 24K, O Composite H pile/sheet pile Underwater excavation
a
Key: F ¼ fill
G ¼ granite
including weathered rock
S3 ¼ Jurong
K ¼ Kallang
S ¼ boulder bed
O ¼ old alluvium
Example: 3F, 13K, G ¼ 3 m of fill overlying 13 m of Kallang deposit overlying granite (in this case completely weathered granite)
system showed the choices for each station or section of running tunnel on the
Singapore MRT. Table 9.1 summarizes the walling methods used for the
underground stations on the system. A similar comparison of cut-and-cover
station walls on the initial Hong Kong MTR system was presented in the
1980s by McIntosh et al.4 (Table 9.2).
Sheet pile walls

The traditional use of sheet piles in temporary soil support for cut-and-cover
construction has been reduced by environmental pressures to avoid noise and
vibration due to pile driving in favour of the use of top-downwards techniques
which generally favour walling methods that use combined temporary and
permanent soil retention. Nevertheless, the use of hydraulic press equipment
and jetting to install sheet piles and the monitoring of noise and vibration in
less sensitive areas does allow increased sheet pile use. This has been shown
particularly in lengths of both the Singapore and Hong Kong metros where
excavation depths are limited to the order of 15 to 16 m and where soil con-
ditions allow economical pile driving. Appropriate applications include
river crossings, areas where groundwater is high and sites that are some
distance from existing structures and services. The lack of flexural stiffness
of sheet pile sections, which would normally require frequent propping or
the risk of large settlements can be corrected either by stiffening the sheeter
sections with soldier piles or tubes, as with the Combi wall, or the stiffening
of the retained soil by jet grouting or mix-in-place piles. These latter piles
can be drilled in a cellular plan form or as a series of buttresses behind the
sheet piles. The adequacy of space to withdraw sheeters from behind the
Table 9.2 Hong Kong Metro stations — adopted construction methods for cut-and-cover works4
Station Depth of Cover to Depth to Engineer’s assumed Temporary works Proximity to buildings Walls Constructor Special measures
excavation roof slab rock from method sequence
(m) (m) surface (m)
a
Choi Hung 20 0–3 Temporary Berlin wall Permanent walls One end only Hand-dug Top down Skeletal roof of cross-
with preboring or interlocking caissons beams with precast T
diaphragm walls beam infills
b
Diamond 22 3 Steel I sections king Permanent walls No Hand-dug caissons Top down Walls are to be
Hill piles and intermediate for steel piles and removable for future
sheet piles concrete jack arches widening
a
Wong Tai 24 max. 3.5–6.5 Diaphragm walls Permanent walls Medium height housing Diaphragm walls Top down Roof was clear spanning
Sin blocks during excavation with
concourse suspended
from it
Lok Fu 27 2 0–30 Bored tunnel Berlin wall of steel piles High-rise housing block In situ Bottom up Dewatering by ground
and concrete lagging — treatment and wells
ground anchors
b
Kowtown 18 2 Diaphragm walls Part permanent walls No Part diaphragm wall, Bottom up —
Tong — part Berlin type- part in situ
ground anchors
Shek Kip 18–24 1:5–6:5 0–30 Open cut in rock, sheet Berlin wall, part High-rise housing In situ Bottom up Short length of station
Mei piling with grouted strutted, part blocks and schools platforms in bored rock
anchors in soil ground anchors tunnel
Prince 28 2 16–30 Diaphragm walls Permanent walls High-rise commercial Benoto type secant Top down Extensive grouting was
Edward and residential piles and hand-dug used, plus dewatering
caissons and limited recharging
b
Argyle 25 3–5 Diaphragm walls Permanent walls High-rise commercial Benoto type secant Top down Columns extended to
and residential piles underlying rock and
vertically anchored;
some areas of slab also
anchored; grouting to
walls; use of recharge
wells
Waterloo 28 2 0–27 Part open cut, part Permanent walls High-rise commercial Benoto type secant Top down Underpinning to walls
diaphragm walls and residential piles to rock, then in
situ
Jordan 18–23 0–4:5 4–20 Diaphragm walls and PIP pile walls and 7 High-rise commercial In situ Bottom up Half of station anchored
rock anchors, in situ levels of steel strutting and residential to underlying rock
underpinning
Tsim Sha 17–21 3.5–7.5 9:5–13:5 Diaphragm walls and PIP pile walls and steel High-rise commercial In situ Bottom up Part of station anchored
Tsui rock anchors, in situ strutting and residential to underlying rock
underpinning
Admiralty 25 0–3 20 Diaphragm walls on Combination of open No Part diaphragm wall, Bottom up Part of station anchored
rock; rock anchors and cut, anchored sheet part in situ vertically to underlying
in situ underpinning piling and permanent rock: underpinning to
walls, also slurry diaphragm wall
trenches
Chater/ 28 3 33c Diaphragm walls Permanent walls with High-rise commercial Diaphragm walls Top down Special measures to
Pedder struts and hotels, low rise construct walls and
historic buildings groundwater recharging

a b c
Not known. Not known, large boulders. But rock level not proven in some sections.
405
constructed permanent structure may prove vital in the economic use of

sheeters even where good driving conditions exist.
To summarize, the disadvantages of using sheet piles in the continuous
walls of cut-and-cover works are as follows.
(a) Noise and vibration during installation: may be overcome by use of
Giken type presses for piles of medium depth.
(b) Support is provided only during construction and permanent works are
required for tunnel construction.
(c) Obstructions reduce driving efficiency and increase risk of damage due
to vibration.
(d ) Adequate allowance must be made for installation tolerances. The
initial piling line must make allowance for verticality tolerance to
ensure adequate width between sheet pile walls to accommodate the
permanent works.
(e) Ingress of groundwater through pile clutches and split clutches may
cause delay or even local failure. Use of sealed or welded clutches
may be feasible.
( f ) Future use of sheet piles may determine the cost-effectiveness of the
method. Extraction of sheet piles after completion of the permanent
works may prove difficult due to soil conditions and lack of working
space.
(g) Temporary bracing between sheet pile walls must be replaced as the
permanent structure is built with new struts between sheeters and per-
manent structure. The incomplete and complete permanent structure
must be designed to transfer soil and groundwater pressures in this way.
(h) Extension of sheeters for increased cut-off requires welding operations
with disruption to overall production.
Where subsoil conditions, environmental restrictions, excavation depths and
working space constraints are not severe, sheet piling is still economical for
cut-and-cover work. In the 1960s and 1970s, the method was the forerunner
of deep secant pile walls and diaphragm walls which now provide alternatives.
Reference to these earlier jobs shows some of the difficulties which were
experienced.
Historic use of sheet piles in cut-and-cover construction

The second Blackwall Tunnel, a crossing of the River Thames in London,
used sheet pile cofferdams for both north and south cut-and-cover
approaches5 . During construction of the north approach, artesian pressures
below the cofferdam in a fine dense sand were not sufficiently relieved by
pumping from deep wells and pore-water pressures caused spongy patches
to develop in the overlying London clay exposed at formation level. The
reduction in effective passive pressures supporting the sheet piles below
formation level appeared critical as overloading of the cofferdam bracing
increased. The formation was hastily reloaded, excavation works were tem-
porarily stopped and the pumps given time to relieve the artesian head.
Another feature on the north approach cut-and-cover was a short, 20 m
long in situ diaphragm walling built at the junction of the cut-and-cover
approach and deep tunnel section to avoid the risk of piling vibration loosen-
ing tunnel segments immediately adjacent to the junction.
Two tunnel crossings of the Thames at Dartford used alternative walling
systems for each of the cut-and-cover approaches. The first crossing in the
early 1960s used sheet piles driven into soft alluvial clays overlying sands
and gravels containing an artesian groundwater pressure. The strutting
system used to support the sheet piles, shown in Fig. 9.5, allowed secure
(a)
Fig. 9.5. First Dartford Tunnel,

cut-and-cover construction:
(a) details of bracing frames;
(b) cross-section32 (b)
frame fixing promptly after excavation to successive depths, preventing yield

of the piling and consequent increases in strut loading. The permanent cut-
and-cover was built within the trenchworks in tunnel rings, and the sheet
piles were left in.
The second Dartford Tunnel was built in 1972 and the walls were built to
resist both temporary and permanent soil and groundwater pressures using
in situ diaphragm walls.
Neither cut-and-cover sections to the Dartford crossings experienced
construction problems, unlike the north approach at Blackwall. There were
difficulties, however, with the stability of the formation at the portal of the
Clyde Tunnel, completed in the 1960s and built in a sheet piled cofferdam6;7 .
Portal construction within caissons was considered but because of the
proximity of nearby buildings and the existence of a boulder clay stratum
below formation level which could have affected caisson sinking, a sheet
piled cofferdam was preferred. In the event, the boulder clay stratum was
found at much greater depth than anticipated. Air bubbles rising within the
partly excavated cofferdam showed leakage of compressed air from the
tunnel workings and a lack of seal in the sheet piling to the cofferdam. As
excavation proceeded through the silt, cofferdam struts were overloaded
Fig. 9.6. Clyde Tunnel: plan and

vertical cross-section of
completed partial cofferdam7
and the silt below formation level became unstable as pore water pressures
increased. A borehole put down within the cofferdam gushed water confirm-
ing that groundwater had access to the underside of the silt stratum. A well
sunk 3.6 m into the bedrock made some improvement but not enough to
allow excavation to continue over the whole base area of the cofferdam.
The cofferdam was partly flooded and an auxiliary second frame inserted
and pre-loaded. Erection of the third frame was completed in the dry, and
the fourth and final frame was built in short trenches where boulder clay
did not exist above bedrock, the silt being excavated and replaced by mass
concrete within sheet piled cells driven between the upper cofferdam frames.
Excavation was completed to formation level over the remainder of the coffer-
dam (Fig. 9.6).
Anchored or braced king post walls

Although vertical soldier piles or king posts with horizontal poling boards
spanning between them had been used most effectively in the sandy subsoils
of Berlin in the 1930s, it was the development of powerful mechanical
augers, anchoring methods and methods of spraying concrete which pro-
moted its post-war use. Unrestricted, wide, anchored excavations were now
possible, and metro schemes, particularly in Germany, adopted the method
for temporary soil support. The method is most economical where ground-
water is absent or can be reduced by dewatering. Figure 9.7 shows a typical
excavation below bracing with reduction of groundwater by pumping.
Fig. 9.7. Cut-and-cover construction using soldier pile walls: sequence of construction using cut-offs and dewatering system33
Fig. 9.8. Composite Berlin wall

with pre-stressed precast
diaphragm wall, Fukuoka
Metro, Japan (courtesy of
Soletanche–Bachy)
The king post wall method is particularly useful as part of a composite

wall system, acting as a temporary soil support for shallow depths above
a temporary/permanent pile or diaphragm wall at greater depth. A typical
composite wall is shown in Fig. 9.8 and is referred to later in this chapter.
Contiguous bored pile walls

Contiguous reinforced concrete piles, installed by either CFA rig or power
auger with casing oscillator, are ideally used for cut-and-cover works of
moderate excavation depth, say 15 m or so, in cohesive soils with minimal
groundwater. Where ingress of heavy groundwater does occur locally through
sandy or gravel seams, jet grouting may be used at the rear of the piles to
reduce leakage.
An ideal application of the method was the cut-and-cover approach
section of the Mersey Kingsway Tunnel in Liverpool in the early 1970s8 .
The cut-and-cover structure was founded on sandstone while the 17.7 m
high walls supported boulder clay. To avoid the considerable thickness
of cantilevered walls or large overhead propping beam to span the
approach width of 26 to 31 m, a continuous arch roof structure was used
with backfill over it. The rise of this arch was designed in proportion to
the arch span and the depth of backfill so that a balance was obtained
between lateral ground pressure from the walls and the outward horizontal
arch thrust.
Excavation was initially made to arch springing level between temporary
anchored king post walls (Fig. 9.9). From this level, 2.5 m dia. contiguous
piles were augered into bedrock. A dumpling between the contiguous bored
piles could not be removed until the arch thrust had been developed from
the backfill load over the arch. Successive stages of dumpling excavation
and filling were carefully sequenced. Two hundred piles were installed at a
peak rate of four piles per day.
Fig. 9.9. Vertical cross-section

of cut-and-cover structure,
Liverpool approach to Mersey
Kingsway Tunnel; contiguous
bored pile walls propped by
concrete arch8
Secant pile walls

Secant pile construction, alternate male and female piles interlocked to form
a hard–hard secant wall, provides an efficient and economical walling system
to moderate and greater depths in a wide range of soil and groundwater
conditions. A permanent wall is constructed to allow soil support during con-
struction. The principal advantages of the system are as follows.
(a) Permanent structural walls are constructed in one operation ahead of
excavation.
(b) The hard–hard secant pile walls are substantially watertight.
(c) Excavation methods using down-the-hole hammers, reverse circulation
drills, heavy-duty rotary augers/buckets, or temporary casings with
casing oscillators and hammer grabs are highly efficient in hard soil
and rock conditions. Excess heads of water or slurry within the tem-
porary pile casing can be used to overcome onerous groundwater
conditions. For cut-and-cover structures of modest depth higher pro-
duction rates can be obtained in less demanding soil conditions with
CFA rigs particularly for hard–firm and hard–soft secant pile walls.
(d ) Good verticality tolerances can be achieved with twin-walled temporary
casing, and casing oscillators. Tolerances of the order of 1 in 200 to 1 in
300 may be expected, depending on soil conditions. Little overbreak
may be expected and the pile finish is uniform.
(e) Pile installation is comparatively noise- and vibration-free although
some vibration is inevitable when penetrating through dense granular
or rock strata.
( f ) Loss of ground during excavation is generally small. In soft silts and
clays or where sand with a high piezometric head is penetrated, the tem-
porary casing affords continuous lateral support and the stability of the
base of the bore within the casing may be continuously retained by a
head of water or slurry within the casing to ground level.
(g) Vertical loading of secant walls is viable because of the reliability of
good soil density below the concreted base of the pile.
(h) Temporary gaps may conveniently be left in the secant pile wall to allow
service access. Piles are temporarily filled with sand after boring at these
locations and are concreted later.
The design and construction of six recent deep stations on the Copenhagen
Metro was described by Beadman and Bailey9 . The design, on the basis
Fig. 9.10. Copenhagen Metro

Station construction:
cross-section9
of 100-year design life, was made in accordance with the requirements of

recently introduced Eurocodes. The six stations were all similar in cross-
section and plan shape. The main structure of each is a secant piled box
20 m deep, 20 m wide and 60 m long. The internal structure to the box is
shown in cross-section in Fig. 9.10. The support to the box walls is provided
by the station roof and floor with a waling beam at approximately mid-height.
The ground conditions consisted of varying depths of well-compacted made
ground and over-consolidated sandy clay or clayey sand with bands of water-
bearing sands and gravels overlying limestone. The stations all extended into
the limestone which was heavily fractured and hard. The permeable sands
and gravels contained a secondary aquifer but the main aquifer was within
the limestone; the groundwater level was typically 2 m below ground level.
Secant piles were selected in favour of sheet piles (which would not
penetrate the limestone) and diaphragm walls (insufficient space on sites for
bentonite plant and reinforcement storage). The secant pile solution that
was used consisted of hard male piles, 1180 mm dia. with soft female piles
750 mm dia. installed only as far as the intact limestone. CFA and cased
techniques were used. The gaps between the male piles in the limestone
were sealed with grout.
Most of the stations were built using top-down methods to minimize
temporary works and settlements outside the box. The construction sequence
was:
(a) construct the secant piles and the station roof
(b) excavate to the waling level and construct the waling beam and the
permanent props
(c) hang the inner edge of the waling beam from the roof
(d ) excavate to base level and construct the base slab
(e) complete the internal elements, bottom-upwards
( f ) remove those hangers that are only required temporarily.
Geotechnical design in accordance with Eurocode EC7 (as detailed in Chapter
4) required three ultimate limits to be considered:
Table 9.3 Soil parameters and

partial factors used in Soil parameter SLS Case B Case C
construction of the Copenhagen
Metro Made ground 0 30/1.0 30/1.0 30/1.25
Glacial till 0 32/1.0 32/1.0 32/1.25
c0 25/1.0 25/1.0 25/1.6
Limestone 0 40/1.0 40/1.0 40/1.25
c0 50/1.0 50/1.0 50/1.6
. Case A: deals with flotation

. Case B, wall design: deals with the strength of the structural members.
Ultimate load factor of 1.35, permanent unfavourable actions (forces)
. Case C, wall design: deals with the geotechnical design: ultimate load
factor of 1.0, permanent unfavourable actions (forces).
Soil parameters and partial factors applied to them were as detailed in Table
9.3.
Beadman and Bailey comment that the specified maximum crack width of
0.2 mm (rather than a maximum of 0.3 mm) was most onerous and required
substantial increased reinforcement quantities.
Examples of inclined secant pile walls for cut-and-cover works in the late
1960s on the Munich Metro were reported by Weinbold and Kleinlein10 .
The method replaced underpinning in hand-dug pits where space between
existing buildings was limited, and in some cases allowed the retention of
the existing facades which would otherwise have been rebuilt. Figure 9.11
shows typical cross-sections of the inclined pile walls on metros in Munich
and Frankfurt, both bored with a 128 inclination. These piles were installed
by Benoto rigs and were continuously supported by temporary casing
within the inclined bore at all stages of excavation and concreting. The
design of these inclined walls was based on elastic analysis after site experi-
mental verification of the modulus of subgrade reaction. The wall was
therefore assumed to be loaded by earth pressure at rest, groundwater
pressure and superimposed loads due to buildings, and was to be supported
by elastic embedment within the soil and by ground anchors and strutting.
Soil conditions, loading and sheeting moments and deflections at successive
excavation stages are shown for a typical section in Fig. 9.12.
Hana and Dina11 carried out a series of model tests on anchored inclined
walls. They concluded the following.
(a) The design of an inclined wall supported by rows of pre-stressed
anchors should incorporate a rectangular earth pressure envelope.
(b) Walls which tend to undercut the retained soil, inclined away from the
excavation (the same direction of inclination as shown in Figs. 9.11 and
9.12), experienced much larger soil subsidence than walls inclined
towards the excavation, at all stages of excavation from ground level
to final formation. Generally, for walls inclined away from the excava-
tion the largest lateral movements were at the top of the wall, whereas
for walls inclined in the opposite direction the largest lateral movements
occurred at the base of the wall. There were also vertical movements,
particularly for walls inclined away from the excavation. The bearing
capacity of the wall base was stated to be very important.
(c) Individual anchor loads changed as construction progressed. In
general, for walls inclined towards the excavation, anchor loads
reduced from initial values, whereas for walls inclined away from the
excavation initial anchor loads increased.
Fig. 9.11. Inclined secant pile

construction for metro
construction: (a) cross-section
with temporary roadway, pile
construction for Benoto rig,
Munich Metro; (b) inclined
walls, Frankfurt Metro
Fig. 9.12. Inclined secant wall construction: (a) section; (b) soil profile; (c) lateral pressure on wall due to foundation pressure; (d) earth pressure at stage 1 excavation
to 3.1 m below street; (e) end-of-construction earth pressure; (f) moment in secant wall for construction stages; (g) deformation during construction stages10
415
(d ) The mechanics of inclined wall behaviour are similar to those of the

vertical wall and are controlled by wall and anchor.
Schnabel12 argued that earth pressure was reduced on walls sloping towards
the excavation. Site measurements for sloping walls were compared with
calculated pressures for vertical walls, with proposed reduction factors.
Diaphragm walls
Historic use and development
The earliest structural diaphragm walls were built in Italy by Icos in the 1950s.
The method was soon used to facilitate cut-and-cover construction for metros
in major cities. In Milan, Icos walls were used in a method developed by the
firm and shown in Fig. 9.13. The sequence of construction was designed to
minimize the disturbance to highway and traffic by early reinstatement of
the carriageway above the permanent cut-and-cover roof as excavation and
invert construction proceeded beneath it. This method, now familiar as top-
downwards construction in both basement and cut-and-cover construction,
became the basis of metro construction by Icos in many cities worldwide
and, over time, by their competitors. Innovations were introduced by Icos13
and later by others in Milan, on number 1 and 2 lines, when structural steel
column elements were lowered into barrettes, sections of Icos wall, below
tunnel invert level, as plunge columns to be used as structural support for
reinforced concrete mezzanine floor and roofworks to the tunnel. Details of
this construction are shown in Fig. 9.14.
Fig. 9.13. Construction

sequence used by Icos in
original cut-and-cover works for
Milan Metro (courtesy of Icos)
Fig. 9.14. Milan Metro:

cross-section of fabricated steel
columns cast into reinforced
concrete base using diaphragm
wall techniques for vertical
load-bearing units (courtesy of
Icos)
Icos also introduced castellated sections of diaphragm walling on metro

construction in Milan (Fig. 9.15). The section, of greater breadth than the
straight wall, provides considerably enhanced strength in bending. More
recently, panel joints which can transmit vertical shear and tension from
one panel to its neighbour have allowed this efficient plan shape to be fully
exploited with a continuous wall section.
In the UK, diaphragm walls were introduced in 1962 for use on cut-and-cover
construction for a road underpass at Hyde Park Corner in London14 . The
engineer had decided that driven sheet piling could not be used because of
installation noise and vibration (a hospital was located nearby), so contiguous
bored reinforced concrete piles were specified. Icos diaphragm walls were
introduced by the main contractor but neither the contiguous piles of the
original scheme nor the alternative of diaphragm walls were considered as
part of the permanent subsoil support. This diaphragm wall scheme was also
successfully used to underpin the existing hospital walls where the underpass
diaphragm wall was built less than 1 m from the main hospital walls and more
Fig. 9.15. Cut-and-cover construction using castellated plan shape diaphragm walls on one side: (a) plan; (b) cross-section
(courtesy of Icos)
than 8 m below it. These measures later became standard practice for such
locations. The use of short panels, increased wall reinforcement, pre-loaded
struts and reduced open lengths of main excavation limited horizontal and
vertical soil movements and wall movements to less than 3 mm.
The reluctance of designers outside Europe to use diaphragm walling as
a means of combined temporary and permanent soil support persisted
in the 1960s and 1970s. The cut-and-cover for the Calcutta Metro15 used
diaphragm walls only to resist buoyancy under permanent load conditions.
A factor of safety of 1.5 was used against flotation with full soil cohesive
strength being allowed in calculating wall adhesion to the clay subsoil.
In the UK, diaphragm walls were similarly used to resist buoyancy but with
no assumed contribution to flexural strength of the rectangular cut-and-cover
box structure housed between the walls. This reluctance to use the flexural
strength of the diaphragm wall after construction was evident in the second
tunnel crossing of the Thames at Dartford in 1972. By this time, diaphragm
wall construction had gained wide acceptance in the UK and the walls at
Dartford were extended to depths in excess of 30 m to minimize the length
of the driven tunnel. Nevertheless, the flexural strength of the diaphragm
walls was ignored for the permanent works design.
The 800 mm and 1 m thick diaphragm walls at Dartford were excavated by
kelly-mounted hydraulic grabs through soft alluvial silty clays and dense
gravels into hard chalk. Five frames of bracing were necessary to reduce
flexural stresses in the wall as bulk excavation proceeded to the deepest
sections at the junction with the bored tunnel, almost 30 m from ground
level. These high flexural stresses were correctly anticipated by the wall
designers who appreciated the relatively large wall movements that would
be necessary to mobilize relatively small passive resistance in the soft clays
at formation level and immediately below it. Following the innovation used
by the contractor for the first Dartford Tunnel, hammerheaded concrete
struts were used throughout to brace diaphragm walls in the cut-and-cover
length, thus avoiding the need for separate walings.
Shortly after the Dartford Tunnel cut-and-cover works had been
constructed by diaphragm walling, the station at Heathrow for the Piccadilly
Line extension was built in cut-and-cover box, the diaphragm walls acting as
both temporary and permanent soil-retaining walls. Jobling and Lyons16 said
that cut-and-cover construction was chosen in preference to bored tunnelling
for three reasons:
(a) the use of station tunnels with space between escalator access tunnels
would have used more plan area than the cut-and-cover box and left
insufficient space for further station development for surface railways
(b) it was considered very costly to provide foundations for proposed
building development over driven tunnels
(c) subsoil strata, flood plain gravels overlying London clay, favoured box
construction in diaphragm walling.
The box shown in Fig. 9.16 was typical metro station size at that time, 131.5 m
long and 22 m wide with a depth to formation level of 17 m to keep the tunnel
drive below the flood plain gravels and within the London clay. The 1 m thick
diaphragm walls, propped by three frames, were designed using earth
pressures based on a value of Ka ¼ 0:25 for the gravel and K0 ¼ 0:75 for
the clay and a design groundwater level of 2 m below ground level. The
base to the box, between 1.9 and 2.575 m thick, was designed as a beam on
Fig. 9.16. Heathrow Central station, plan and vertical section16
an elastic foundation using a modulus of elasticity of 107 MN/m2 for London

clay, and a modulus of subgrade reaction of 9055 kN/m2 . The design factor of
safety against flotation of the box was 1.2 on completion, but a rubble drain
beneath the base raft adjacent to the diaphragm walls restricted groundwater
pressure on the raft during construction. The raft was not designed to resist
hydraulic forces until loaded by the main internal columns.
The walls were temporarily braced by the frames of Rendex No. 6 struts at
floor level and by 300 mm 300 mm timber struts at platform level. A maxi-
mum deflection of only 5 mm at the top of the diaphragm walls had been
specified and pre-loading of the top frame and successive shimming of the
second frame was necessary to achieve this. Strut loads were monitored;
this showed that middle frame loads exceeded design values prior to the
lower frame being placed. This lower frame consisted of timber struts
spanning from the central raft section to the walls which were placed as a
soil berm 4 m 3 m in section progressively excavated from the face of the
walls. Excavation of these berms was uneconomical, being hindered by starter
steel from the raft and the strutting itself.
Metro construction in the Far East has utilized diaphragm walling for both
station and running tunnel construction in soil conditions generally more
demanding than those in Europe. The original contract for the construction
of the Hong Kong MTR in the late 1970s4 comprised running tunnels in
bored tunnel and cut-and-cover and the construction of twelve stations.
In general, the cut-and-cover tunnels were built within braced sheet pile
trenchworks, except in one section close to rather sensitive buildings where
a proprietary contiguous (PIP) piling system was used.
The contracts were let as design-and-construct contracts within specifi-
cations and layouts prepared by the engineer. Local ground conditions
comprised granites in various stages of decomposition, varying from strong
intact rock to stiff residual clays containing granite boulders. These ground
conditions impose many practical construction difficulties for bored tunnel,
large exavations and cut-and-cover work.
Table 9.2 compared those methods of station construction envisaged prior
to bidding and those adopted by the successful contractors. Generally, it had
been planned that the twelve stations would be built top-down using dia-
phragm walls, but with three main exceptions: bored tunnel construction
for Lok Fu station; top-down construction within sheet pile walls at Diamond
Hill; and bottom-upwards construction in open rock cut at Shek Kip Mei. In
the event, considerable changes were made as contractors’ alternatives for
both construction method and walling techniques were considered and then
adopted.
Choi Hung and Diamond Hill stations used a locally popular technique at
that time, the hand-dug caisson. At Choi Hung (Fig. 9.17) the caissons used
were interlocked to form the station walls, and at Diamond Hill (Fig. 9.18)
the system was modified for the semi-permanent walls by the use of anchored
plates spanning king piles installed within the caissons. Hand-dug caissons
were used at both stations to place permanent columns prior to bulk excava-
tion works. More recently the use of family caissons in Hong Kong has
declined significantly due to the unacceptable health and safety risks. Only
where all other methods are considered inapplicable are hand-dug caissons
used in Hong Kong, although at present some use is made of the method in
mainland China.
At Argyle station, Hong Kong, one of the largest, with a concourse level,
two track levels, 13 entrances and three ventilation shafts, the intensity of
street traffic and the proximity of tower blocks, some with piles founded
near station formation level, favoured the top-down construction method.
Fig. 9.17. Choi Hung station,

Hong Kong MTR: interlocked
hand-dug caissons4
Fig. 9.18. Diamond Hill station,

Hong Kong MTR: jack arches
between soldier piles installed
in hand-dug caissons4
Due to difficult subsoil conditions with large granite boulders and the need to
penetrate bedrock, secant piles installed by Benoto oscillating rigs were
chosen by the contractor. The piles, 1.2 m in diameter and bored at 1 m
centres, were reinforced in both male and female piles by 914 mm 305 mm
universal beam sections. Figure 9.19 shows a plan and cross-section of the
station and Fig. 9.20 shows a typical cross-section during excavation for the
lower track. To reduce settlements due to dewatering and subsidence of
adjacent buildings, a bentonite cement and silicate grout curtain was made
below the toe of the structural wall to form a cut-off to the box from the
high water table where this could not be achieved by the Benoto rigs. This
grout curtain produced excellent results, restricting the abstraction rate
from the whole box to less than 0.0045 m3 /s under a differential head of
more than 20 m. Design of the walls during construction and in the permanent
case used active and at-rest earth pressures with plastic methods and limit
state checks. Station columns, heavily loaded, in some cases up to 15 MN,
comprised 1000 mm 800 mm steel boxes in 50B steel, 20 m long.
Figure 9.21 shows a shear shoe and plate arrangement used to transfer high
loads from slabs to walls and columns.
At Tsim Sha Tsui station, shown in Fig. 9.22, the bottom-up construction
sequence with PIP piles was used by the contractor in preference to the
original, pre-bid, top-down method using diaphragm walls, with the following
advantages4 .
Fig. 9.19. Argyle station, Hong

Kong MTR: plan and vertical
section showing soil profile and
location of existing buildings4
(a) Where rock existed above formation level, difficult underpinning work
was avoided.
(b) Less noise and vibration was caused by PIP piling.
(c) The PIP wall was narrower than the diaphragm wall.
(d ) The PIP wall provided drier conditions in which to build the permanent
structural box.
(e) The PIP pile did not require wide, heavy reinforcement cages as used in
the diaphragm wall panels.
( f ) The work construction period was reduced.
In the event, the method was successful. Figure 9.23 shows the formation of
PIP walls, installed by a large continuous flight auger (CFA) with mortar
placement through the hollow stem, in a simlar way to CFA piles. The male
PIP piles (piles B), however, required a cement paste injection pressure
of 200 kg/cm2 to make a vertical mortar cut-off between adjacent female
Fig. 9.20. Argyle station,

Hong Kong MTR: typical
cross-section showing
top-down construction for lower
track slab using secant pile
walls and ground treatment to
secure cut-off to bedrock4
Fig. 9.21. Argyle station, Hong Kong MTR: detail of shear shoe and plate to transfer high loads from slabs to secant pile walls:
(a) side view; (b) end view; (c) force transfer4
Fig. 9.22. Tsim Sha Tsui

station, Hong Kong MTR: typical
cross-section of cut-and-cover
station constructed by bottom-
upwards method showing
temporary deck support4

station: construction of wall
using PIP piles4

station: PIP construction
sequence: (a) augering;
(b) withdrawing auger and
injecting mortar; (c) completing
injection; (d) inserting
reinforcement cage or steel
column section; (e) augering;
(f) withdrawing auger then
injecting and jetting mortar;
(g) completing injection and
jetting; (h) inserting
reinforcement cage or steel
column section4
piles. A rock boring machine (typically a Koken N50 Big Man) was used to
bore through boulders or into bedrock. Figures 9.23 and 9.24 show the
sequence of piles used at Tsim Sha Tsui station: piles A were taken 500 mm
below formation level to support the traffic deck at road level; piles B were
taken 1.5 m into rock, and the pressure-injected sealing piles C were taken
to rockhead.
The following loading and permissible stress values were used in the
design:
. wall stiffness per metre width: EI ¼ 9:40 108 kN/cm2 per metre
. traffic load: 14.7 kN/m2
. building load: 353 kN/m2
. earth pressure: trapezoidal loading, active pressure
. water pressure from 1 m below ground level: fully hydrostatic
. design strength of pile mortar: 23.5 N/mm2 .
The design loading model for the cofferdam is shown in Fig. 9.25. A typical
cross-section of the temporary support and the permanent works in Fig.
9.22 shows the six frames of pre-loaded H steel strutting at centres of 2.1 m.
Considerable settlements to existing buildings resulted from the initial
Hong Kong MTR construction. Settlement was primarily due to dewatering,
diaphragm wall panel installation and bulk excavation, but more importantly
the combination of properties of the decomposed granite subsoil and the
groundwater regime, unusual for developed city centres, was conducive to
high installation deformations.
Davies and Henkel17 referred to the construction of Chater station and
settlements of the existing Courts of Justice building. A section of the con-
struction and soil profile is shown in Fig. 9.26. The permeability of marine
deposits was of the order of 107 m/s compared with 105 m/s for the under-
lying decomposed granite. Wide variations in drawdown were expected due to
local variations in the geological profile, and preliminary studies showed
unfavourable dewatering settlements could result. Pumping tests had shown
that for each 1 m of drawdown a settlement of 4 mm would result. A system
of groundwater recharge was used, however, both at the Courts and else-
where, with beneficial results.

station: earth pressure, water
pressure and horizontal
surcharge loading diagrams4
Fig. 9.26. Cross-section of

Chater station, Hong Kong,
showing soil profile and
location of existing structures17
Fig. 9.27. Chater station,

settlement record of ground
adjacent to diaphragm wall
construction17
Settlements due to diaphragm wall panel excavation for Chater station

had unpredicted and serious consequences. Figure 9.27 shows the extent of
movements of three points, D, E and F, spaced 6 m, 15 m and 2 4m, respec-
tively, from the diaphragm wall. The progressive settlement of the points,
even as diaphragm wall installation was completed well away from the vicinity
of the points, is clear. This is a most unusual phenomenon. Measurements of
soil movement due to diaphragm wall installation before and since in widely
differing soils, show very small soil movements (a few millimetres) due to
panel excavation at points near the panel and very early reduction of soil
movement at distances of less than half the panel depth from the panel, as
described in references by Farmer and Attewell18 , Uriel and Oteo19 , Clough

and O’Rourke20 , Thompson21 , Carder22 and Carder et al23 . Generally,
vertical settlement at the wall due to diaphragm wall installation in stiff clay
is of the order of 0.05% of wall depth and probably becomes negligible at a
distance of 1.5 times wall depth from the wall. The progressive movement
as panels were excavated at Chater station was therefore unprecedented and
unexpected. Morton et al.24 concluded that this cumulative movement
resulted from the combined effect of a relatively high permeability and a
medium compressibility of the completely weathered granite. A softened
zone of highly compressible soil occurred as the diaphragm panel was
excavated due to relaxation of horizontal soil pressures. After the panel was
concreted this softened zone compressed due to soil pressures and, in turn,
reduced arching action within the soil as further panels were excavated. It
may be summarized that such large soil movements only occur as a result
of panel excavation in expansive soil with a high permeability and access to
a groundwater supply.
In Singapore, metro construction did not proceed until the late 1980s and
many organizational and technical lessons learned on the Hong Kong MTR
were used to good effect. The works were let mainly on a design-and-construct
basis and Table 9.1 showed the wide range of station constructions chosen.
The ground conditions in Singapore3 are predominantly soft clays and
loose sands or, from an earlier period, stronger soils and rocks. The soft
clays and loose sands have been laid down in valleys eroded into the under-
lying rocks during periods of low sea level. Where the soft clays and loose
sands were virtually absent, cut slopes were used with improvement where
necessary by soil nailing, rock bolting or anchoring. Generally, cut-and-
cover structures were not supported on these clays; piles or diaphragm
walls were used to take loads down to a lower bearing stratum. Where
there was any significant depth of soft clay a continuous walling system was
used. Sheet piles were used for this purpose, except where existing buildings
were particularly vulnerable to soil movement, in which case diaphragm
walls were used. A typical cut-and-cover station 15 m deep would generate
a net active pressure in the marine clay until the shear strength exceeded
about 60 kPa. This strength would only occur at a depth of about 35 m,
where the clay persisted to this depth, and would require heavily reinforced
diaphragm walls and special construction measures to resist the very high
moments and deflections induced in the wall. A thick layer of weak soil
above or below formation level poses problems for the designer in coping
with these very high wall moments prior to placing the lowest bracing
frame.
At Bugis station, 1.2 m thick diaphragm walls were socketed into dense
cemented old alluvium up to 14 m to produce walls up to 54 m deep. Where
the depth of old alluvium support to the wall was greatest, the marine clay
above and below the final excavation level was strengthened with chemico-
lime piles. Figure 9.28 shows a cross-section of the station. Seven frame
levels were used, but even so, deflections of 150 mm were measured in the
diaphragm walls.
Diaphragm walling: recent developments in cut-and-cover works

In recent years, since the end of the 1990s, diaphragm walling has continued to
find extensive use in cut-and-cover works for deeper and more heavily loaded
walls. In turn, the technique has been improved and varied by competing
specialists. These improvements have been applied to excavation plant and
diaphragm walling site practice (as referred to in Chapter 8), but specific
changes have also been made because of the demands of the plan length
Fig. 9.28. Bugis station,

Singapore MRT: cross-section
showing seven cofferdam
frames used to minimize wall
deformation3
and depth of cut-and-cover works, both in terms of design and production

improvements.
Semi top-down construction

The development of a variation on conventional top-down construction was
made, as explained previously in this chapter, on the N.E. line of Singapore
MRT system to reduce bracing and strutting, to expedite excavation and
still gain the advantages already secured by top-down construction, the
minimization of soil and wall deformation to reduce settlements and ground-
water leakage. A typical application, described by Mitchell et al.25 , was made
on two station boxes on Contract 705, after a tender stage comparison of
alternative methods; a summary is shown in Table 9.4, reproduced from
this paper. The first decision to use diaphragm walls instead of sheet piling
was made to avoid problems with nearby buildings and services. The next
decision, the choice of construction method was guided by the disadvantages
of large working space and the large props needed to build bottom-up (the
box widths were up to 60 m) and the difficulties with conventional top-
down due to a very heavy roof structure and a complex internal lay out
needed for station operation. These matters were solved by the use of large
construction openings in the roof to reduce loading whilst keeping the lateral
support of the structure. The roof openings are shown in Fig. 9.29, at Boon
Keng station.
The stiffness of this roof (the thickness of 2 m was required for civil defence
purposes) compared to the diaphragm walls of the box (not yet lined) meant
that a large moment was temporarily transferred to the walls at the junction
with the roof. From a crack width consideration, the necessity to comply with
a maximum width of 0.2 mm as specified caused considerable design effort to
show that in the long term the influence of creep in the diaphragm walls, the
influence of the 1 m thick R.C. lining walls and the re-application of water
pressure would limit cracks to the 0.2 mm width.
The semi-top-down method also had the advantage that it allowed the base
slab to act as a raft before all the weight of the superstructure is applied and
thereby reduced settlement.
Table 9.4 N.E. line Singapore MRT; summary of alternative methods at tender stage25
Construction Main quantities Advantages Disadvantages

method (per station)
Sheet pile . Sheet pile: 18 000 m2 . Lowest cost . Difficult to install sheet piles in
(FSP 4 3420 t) . No influence of temp works on hard ground
. Steel struts and walers: station design . Noise and vibration
2900 t (total of 5 or 6 . Early start on site . Sensitive utilities and buildings
layers) very close
. Decking steel: 1700 t . Ground treatment under utility
crossing required
. Congestion of site with six layers
of struts
. Sequence of work affected by
strutting
. Removal of all temporary works
required
D-wall . Diaphragm wall: . High stiffness and water . Permanent works design
Bottom-up 16 000 m2 tightness of retaining wall approval needed to start D-wall
. Steel struts and walers: . D-wall can be installed below . Congestion of site with six layers
2500 t (total of 5 or 6 utility of struts
layers) . D-wall is part of permanent . Sequence of work affected by
. Decking steel: 1700 t works strutting
Top-down 16 000 m2 tightness of retaining wall approval needed to start D-wall
. Temp props: 1000 t . D-wall can be installed below . All walls have to be under-
. Steel strut and waler: utility pinned to soffit
400 t (1 layer) . D-wall is part of permanent . Large number of props to
works remove at end
. Minimal heavy duty falsework . All work under roof in confined
required space
. Fairly clear working area
Semi-top- 16 000 m2 tightness of retaining wall approval needed to start D-wall
down . Steel strut and waler: . D-wall can be installed below . Complex design
400 t (1 layer) utility . Some walls have to be
. Minimal temp props . D-wall is part of permanent underpinned to soffit
works . Large openings have to be closed
. Very clear working area later
A precedence network prepared for an example of semi-top-down construc-

tion is shown in Fig. 9.30, based on Mitchell et al. and prepared by Brian Bell
Associates.
Movement joints in box structures

The use of movement joints within the diaphragm walls of cut-and-cover
structures has, until now, not been deemed necessary by designers either on
the grounds of thermal movement or flexural movement. On the construction
of the Stratford station box, part of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link works in
London, movement joints have been incorporated in the 1070 m long box,
with its width of 50 m and a depth varying between 16 and 22 m. The structure
is permanently propped at each end by concrete props at 10 m centres and by
road and rail bridges in the middle of the structure. Temporary props are used
below the permanent props. The base slab is unreinforced concrete and a
Fig. 9.29. Boon Keng station,

semi top-down construction of
the N.E. line, Singapore MRT
(courtesy of Benaim
Consultants)25
permanent dewatering scheme will operate by deep wells in the chalk stratum
below the box to relieve water pressure on the base slab during its 120-year
design life.
The movement joints, shown in Fig. 9.31, were designed to accommodate
differential deflections, settlements and in-plane movements. The design
requirements for the joint were: þ100 mm=0 mm for horizontal deflection,
þ10 mm=30 mm for horizontal in-plane movement and 10 mm for vertical
settlement with joint watertightness for the 120-year design life. The joints are
prefabricated off-site in 9 m lengths, in a steel–rubber sandwich construction
which is pre-compressed and pinned in the factory. After installation and
concreting of the wall each side of the joint the pin system is released following
initial concrete shrinkage in the wall, the joint remaining in compression.
Soft tunnel eyes

The Thames tunnel crossing for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link has recently seen
the use of a soft eye formed from glass fibre bar reinforced concrete within the
end diaphragm wall panels of the reception chamber for the tunnel boring
machine (TBM). This innovation was necessary as a replacement for the
normal slurry block on the outside of the chamber through which the TBM
travels without allowing a ‘blow’ of groundwater and soil into the reception
chamber. The composite cage, made from the conventionally steel reinforced
sections and the glass fibre bar section was lifted successfully in one piece
(Fig. 9.32). Wider application of ‘eyes’ of glass fibre reinforcement may be
expected to allow permanent access ways through structural diaphragm walls.
Cut-and-cover walls of varied plan form

Where working space allows, the straight walls of cut-and-cover sections can
be replaced by walls of varied plan shape to produce walls of improved stiff-
ness and flexural strength. The use of diaphragm walls built to T plan shape
and castellated plan shapes with shear joints between panels has been referred
to in Chapter 8. A further variation is the use of walls built as horizontal
arches with temporary tubular stop ends. The arch shapes span between
props or diaphragm cross walls as shown in Fig. 9.33. The improved stiffness
and flexural strength of these plan shapes allows reduced vertical propping at
increased centres with both cost and programme advantages where working
space permits.
432
Deep excavations
Fig. 9.30. Semi top-down construction: precedence network (after Mitchell et al.25 ) prepared by Brian Bell Association
Fig. 9.31. Movement joint construction: Fig. 9.32. Soft tunnel eye construction:
Channel Tunnel Rail Link works, composite reinforcement cage35
Stratford station box, London
Observational techniques
The repetitive nature of cut-and-cover construction, in which wall panels are
progressively cast, bulk excavation made and bracing frames inserted, allows
any observed production or technical improvement in walling or strutting
to be introduced at an early stage as the work proceeds. The principles of
observational soil mechanics as described by Peck26 are particularly relevant
to cut-and-cover construction. An example of the successful use of this tech-
nique is the Limehouse Link highway tunnel in East London which was built
in the early 1990s. The original design of the top-downwards construction
required temporary 1350 mm dia. steel props between diaphragm walls on
each side of the cut-and-cover box below roof level. The props were lifted
into place using hoists supported from the soffit of the roof slab (Fig. 9.34).
Excavation then continued to formation level below the line of struts. This
excavation was slow and costly due to the presence of the struts.
The observational method was applied progressively in a number of stages.
Initially, props were destressed and removed one at a time as wall movements
were measured. Since wall displacements were small, a new section with ‘soft’
props was installed with a small gap allowed at the end of the strut prior to
load take-up. Since movement again proved to be very small as excavation
Fig. 9.33. Plan of diaphragm

wall construction using
horizontal arch plan shapes
Fig. 9.34. Limehouse link,

London. Heavy props used in
top-down construction34
was taken below the props to formation level, the mid-height props were
omitted and excavation was made to full depth prior to the installation of a
strut at blinding level. The monitored wall movements were still very small
and this allowed the continuing omission of the centre struts. Eventually
the blinding struts were also omitted. Contingency struts were always kept
available, but were not needed. The trigger level for maximum wall movement
was defined as 70 mm but the maximum recorded movement was 11 mm, and
generally readings were less than 7 mm. Considerable savings resulted from
avoiding the use of these heavy props.
A similar application of the observational method to reduce the propping to
a cut-and-cover excavation was reported by Beadman et al.27 , for the excava-
tion support (by a secant pile wall) at Norreport station on the Copenhagen
Metro. A system of trigger levels at the various design sections along the
station defined risk and the need to implement contingency measures. The
design calculations were based on most probable soil parameters based on
back analysis of a previous station excavation. Deflection profiles (based on
analysis by the springs program, WALLAP) defined the trigger values. The
green limit was assessed as 70% of the design values, the amber limit used
the most probable soil parameters whilst the red limit, stipulating the stoppage
of excavation was defined as 120% of calculated horizontal deflection values.
This value of 120% of designed deflection still ensured the secant piles
remained within their ultimate capacity.
Precast diaphragm walls

Precast concrete panels were introduced into diaphragm wall works in France
by the firms Bachy and Soletanche during the early 1970s. Each company
Fig. 9.35. Cairo Metro: junction

between precast and in situ
diaphragm walls
obtained patents for its particular technique. The innovation found early
application in cut-and-cover construction and was used in Paris for underpass
and metro construction, and in both Lille and Lyon for metro construction.
The technique has not been used in the UK, and appears to have found less
application in recent years in France. (More recently the two companies
have merged to trade internationally together as one.)
In the Far East, in Hong Kong and Thailand, thick, heavily reinforced in
situ diaphragm walls are preferred; in Japan there are only a few examples
of precast walls; and there are no known precast walls in the USA. This
lack of acceptance of a potentially attractive innovation is probably due to
a unit cost disadvantage between in situ and precast walls. The introduction
of the cutter machine and its use by the largest diaphragm wall contractors
may also have detracted from the popularity of precast walls; the reverse
circulation process cannot be economically applied when grout is used as
the stabilizing fluid during excavation.
The principal feature of the precast diaphragm wall is the absence of any
surface finishing subsequent to its exposure after bulk excavation. On bulk
excavation the cement–bentonite slurry strips away from the inside surface
of the wall to reveal the precast concrete surface, to true alignment. Figure
9.35 shows the junction between in situ and precast diaphragm wall construc-
tion on the Cairo Metro.
The use of prefabricated diaphragm walls for metro cut-and-cover con-
struction was described by Namy and Fenoux28 . They noted two fundamental
disadvantages of in situ reinforced concrete diaphragm walls:
(a) the surface finish and quality of excavation of the wall depends on
subsoil conditions
(b) the water resistance of the concrete and the joints may be inadequate.
The development of precast wall methods offers several advantages over in
situ diaphragm wall construction.
(a) Site nuisance is reduced by more rapid execution. The sequence of panel
excavation is simplified by successive panel excavation, whereas in situ
diaphragms frequently use primary, secondary and intermediate panel
excavation sequences to allow hardening of concrete. Remedial works
in breaking down walls to level or to profile are largely unnecessary.
(b) Site concreting operations and stop end extraction are avoided.
Fig. 9.36. Paris Metro, St Denis,

cross-sections of precast
diaphragm wall construction:
(a) top of excavation supported
by hardened slurry and bracing;
(b) arrangement of precast
concrete elements used in
cut-and-cover walls (courtesy of
Soletanche–Bachy)
(c) In the permanent phase, constructional thicknesses are reduced by the

improved concrete qualities brought by precasting (a 400 mm precast
wall can be equivalent to a 600 mm in situ wall panel). By incorporating
water bars into the precast panels, good wall finishes and better water
resistance are possible.
The use of precast wall panels enables prefabricated units to be made up

with soldier beams for temporary soil retention above the precast wall. An
example of prefabricated, precast diaphragm construction using the Panosol
system is shown in Fig. 9.36 in cross-section. The works, an extension of
the Paris Metro in the heart of St Denis, extended 500 m along a confined
route, 12 m wide wall-to-wall, bordered by old, delicate buildings.
The subsoils consisted of fill, gypsiferous marls and clayey greensands
overlying St Ouen limestone. The marls acted as an upper aquifer close to
street level, and the lower aquifer of limestone has its piezometric head near
the top of the greensand.
Refuge holes, cross-drainage holes and slab starter bars were incorporated
into the precast panels which transferred vertical load through the sealing
grout into the limestone. No lining to the precast walls was used in the finished
structure although an epoxy resin based treatment was applied to the joints on
the inside to provide long-term waterproofness. The wall works, including site
set-up, were completed in a period of seven weeks, with a daily output of 30
linear metres of walls complete.
A precast diaphragm wall was also used for metro cut-and-cover con-
struction on the line serving Charles de Gaulle Airport at Sevran. Again,
gypsiferous marls and greensands overlying St Ouen marls and limestone
contained separate aquifers (shown in Fig. 9.37). Due to the risk of large
voids and solution cavities, sometimes several metres deep in the marly lime-
stones, pre-grouting with bentonite–cement grout with a high sand content
was carried out under gravity. Smaller cavities in the greensands were injected
with bentonite–cement under low pressure. The insertion of the precast
panel and the water stop is illustrated in Fig. 9.38. At the base of the panel
a blade-shaped plate slides into the vertical groove within the adjacent
panel, which serves as a guide as the new unit is lowered. The water stop fol-
lows the blade during the lowering. The weight of the panels reached 37
tonnes; the standard panels were 9.50 m high by 3.35 m wide by 0.45 m
thick. Extra-thick panels were provided at areas of high loading and at
tunnel refuge holes. The site output averaged 30 m of precast panel placed
daily, the side walls of the 300 m cut-and-cover section being constructed in
less than five months.
New metro construction in Lyon and Lille during the late 1970s provided
an opportunity for the use of precast diaphragm walls at two stations,
Saxe-Gambetta and Gare de Lille, and on sections of running tunnel in cut-
and-over construction.
Saxe-Gambetta station (Fig. 9.39) was built at the junction of two lines in
Rhone alluvium 25 m thick underlain by a relatively impermeable sand. The
groundwater table was at a depth of only 3.5 m and the alluvium was very
permeable. The station incorporated a precast diaphragm wall to support
the soil temporarily and provide a cut-off into the sand substratum, together
with an in situ reinforced concrete tunnel section. A sandwich-type water-
proof membrane was applied to the inside face of the precast wall.
The precast wall was designed to support all loads – soil and groundwater
pressure and surcharge loads – during construction. In the permanent
condition, the load was divided between soil load on the Panosol wall and
water pressure on the reinforced concrete tunnel structure. In the temporary
condition the permeable alluvium became impregnated with the cement–

bentonite slurry used in the wall excavation, with a resulting reduction in
short-term soil pressures and deformation.
The works were built in open trench (Fig. 9.39(b)) with the exception of one
section beneath Gambetta Road where traffic could not be diverted (Fig.
9.39(c)). In this latter section, intermediate supports were needed from barette
panels. The construction sequence for the works in the open was:
(a) relocate existing utilities
(b) install precast diaphragm wall from street level (economy in the use
of materials and panel weight was achieved by making a cut-off at
the level of the relocated utilities, an H-beam was set in the top of
each panel to allow cantilever support for a temporary roadway for
light vehicles)
(c) excavate to groundwater level
(d ) concrete between H-beams beneath temporary roadway to support
utilities
(e) install temporary ground anchors
( f ) complete excavation and station construction (Fig. 9.40).
Gare de Lille station, which was planned to connect with a future line, was
built in a larger box 230 m long, 27 m wide and between 14 and 16 m deep.
The ground conditions consisted of fill and alluvium overlying chalk with a
Fig. 9.37. Cross-section of

precast diaphragm wall
construction for the rail link to
Charles de Gaulle Airport, Paris
(courtesy of Soletanche–Bachy)
groundwater table at the base of the surface fill material and just below per-
manent roof level of the tunnel section. As at Lyon Saxe-Gambetta station,
the same combination of Panosol precast wall and in situ reinforced concrete
tunnel section with a sandwiched waterproof membrane was used. The plan
Fig. 9.38. Rail link to Charles de

Gaulle Airport, Paris: (a) view of
assembly of precast units in
slurry trench; (b) view of
completed cut-and-cover tunnel
and cross-section of the works is shown in Fig. 9.41. The rate of flow of
groundwater into the completed excavation was limited to about 50 m3 per
hour, demonstrating the effectiveness of the cut-off.
Precast units in both reinforced and pre-stressed concrete were used in
sections of the cut-and-cover for the running tunnels of the Lyon Metro,
depending on depth to formation. Typical sections are shown in Fig. 9.42,
illustrating the use of a grouted base within the walls below formation level
and at a depth to balance the groundwater pressure within the alluvium. In
some areas, to obtain cut-off within the underlying sandstone it proved
more economical to extend the depth of the self-hardening slurry wall
where the formation level was deeper.
Ingress of the self-hardening slurry, containing between 150 and 250 kg of
slag and cement per cubic metre, into the alluvium at the sides of the
excavation was high – estimated at between 1 and 1.5 m3 per square metre
of wall area. The assumed short-term strength properties of the alluvium
allowed for this loss and a value of 20 kN/m2 was used for cohesion in
the design of wall and strutting in the temporary condition. As the water
resistance of the permanent structure was achieved with the sandwiched
impermeable membrane, the panels were made of rectangular section with
Fig. 9.39. Lyon Metro, Saxe-

Gambetta station: (a) plan of
site area; (b) section A–A,
works in open trench; (c) section
B–B, at junction, constructed by
top-downwards method
Fig. 9.40. Lyon Metro,

Saxe-Gambetta station:
completed station excavation
showing precast diaphragm
walls (courtesy of
Soletanche–Bachy)
Fig. 9.41. Gare de Lille station: (a) plan; (b) transverse sections (courtesy of Soletanche–Bachy)
Fig. 9.42. Lyon Metro, typical

sections of running tunnel:
(a) deep section constructed
with precast reinforced
concrete units; (b) shallow
section using precast
pre-stressed concrete units
no special jointing devices, temporary waterproofing being obtained from the

self-hardening slurry. Figure 9.43 shows illustrations of the Panosol wall con-
struction applied to the Lyon Metro.
The versatility of precast diaphragm walls in cut-and-cover construction
is demonstrated in Figs 9.44 to 9.46. Bachy’s method was used to build a
culvert at Vitny. Figure 9.44 shows a cross-section of the completed works,
which were constructed to high standards of finish, alignment and water
Fig. 9.43. Lyon Metro: two views of exposed precast Panosol panels in running tunnel
Fig. 9.44. Vitny culvert:

cross-section of completed
works (courtesy of
Soletanche–Bachy)
resistance. The culvert was located in a narrow commercial street in the centre
of the town. The finished culvert, of internal rectangular section, is 3.75 m high
and 3.5 m wide with approximately 3 m depth of cover from existing
carriageway levels, the roof being just below groundwater level. The sequence
of construction was as follows.
(a) Construct a 350 mm thick precast diaphragm wall within an excavated
slurry trench 600 mm wide. The top of the precast wall was carefully
levelled to the soffit level of the roof slab, and the cementitious slurry
within the trench above this level was reinforced with steel mesh.
(b) Excavate between the walls in a strutted excavation, the upper 3 m of
exposed cementitious slurry being protected by sheeting behind vertical
Fig. 9.45. Vitny culvert:

cross-section showing
temporary soil support above
permanent walls (courtesy of
Soletanche–Bachy)
runners. The average depth of excavation to the underside of the culvert

base slab was 7.3 m from ground level, the precast walls and the slurry
securing a cut-off into the marl.
(c) Cast in situ reinforced concrete floor and roof slabs.
(d ) Complete waterproofing of joints.
(e) Backfill over roof slab and reinstate carriageway.
The culvert constructed under this contract was 700 m long, used 524 precast
concrete wall panels weighing approximately 15 tonnes each. An output of 7.5
linear metres of culvert structure was achieved per day.
Bachy’s patented continuous water bar system was used in this work. A
perspective view is shown in Fig. 9.47. Vertical sections of PVC water bar
are cast into a recess in the face of the prefabricated panel. These are sub-
sequently thermally welded to a third section of water bar in the horizontal
plane after exposure of the wall following the main excavation. The horizontal
water bar is cast into the in situ floor slab of the culvert. The vertical
recess between the panels is finally filled with mortar reinforced with steel
mesh.
Overall stability: Cut-and-cover works are frequently constructed in water-bearing soils and in
design for uplift such circumstances it is necessary to consider the risk of failure of the struc-
tural box by uplift pressures both during construction and during the
design life of the structure. The total downward self-weight of the structure
together with the frictional resistance of the external walls, anchors or tension
piles is required to exceed the upward hydrostatic force by an acceptable
factor of safety at each stage.
In particular, tidal conditions, should they exist, should be considered
pessimistically over the design life with allowance for inaccuracy in predicted
levels. It would be usual to consider the restoring force in this factor of safety
Fig. 9.46. Vitny culvert, successive stages in construction: (a) excavation by grab;
(b) final stages of excavation and strutting; (c) culvert construction
to be based on:
(a) dead weight of structural elements based on minimal dimensions but
the displacement of the structure based on maximum overall
dimensions
(b) height of fill above the roof of the cut-and-cover to final finished levels
in permanent condition only
(c) frictional resistance due to piled walls or diaphragm walls based on
the inner and outer surface of the walls below the underside of the
base slab
Fig. 9.47. Vitny culvert: water

bar system with continuity
between vertical and horizontal
water bars (courtesy of
Soletanche–Bachy)
(d ) total resistance from anchors or tension piles based on the ultimate

capacity of anchors or piles divided by 2.0, using conservative values
of soil or rock parameters, unless the results of pull-out tests are
available.
Usually, an overall factor of safety of at least 1.1 on dead weight of the struc-
ture and fill over is required. A minimum value of 1.4 is required when the
effects of friction and resistance due to anchors or tension piles are included;
a further check that upward force does not exceed

dead weight friction
þ
1:1 3:0
is prudent.
A draft Institution of Structural Engineers report on Basements and
Cut and Cover29 refers to design specifications for buoyancy and flooding
Table 9.5 Typical safety factor requirements, uplift for cut-and-cover structures29
Condition Downward forces D Upward forces U
Partial safety factors Partial safety factor on water

density or displacement (f )
On weights (m ) On friction m , i.e. sides,

piles, anchors
During construction 1.01 2.0 1.01
In service 1.05 3.0 1.05
Extreme event (flooding to 1 m 1.03 2.5 1.03
above ground level)
P D X
Criterion (for each condition): > U f
m
of underground structures for railway clients in Hong Kong, Singapore and

London. Typical clauses included a summary of partial safety factors as
shown in Table 9.5. Accompanying such a table would be a list of
specified material densities. Water density variation of 2% between fresh
and sea water was noted, the appropriate density being used in the
calculation. These safety factors would be modified if the centre of
factored buoyancy did not reasonably correspond to the centre of factored
gravity.
The draft report29 also adds that these metro authorities prudently
require the threshold to their underground stations to be not less than 1.0 m
above local ground level with no apertures below this level to guard against
extensive flooding underground from one source. Similar requirements
apply to highway tunnels, particularly approaches to river crossings, in the
UK.
References 1. Megaw T.M. and Bartlett J.V. Tunnels: planning, design, construction. Ellis
Horwood, Chichester, 1981, Vol. 1.
2. Cook R. and Paterson J. Nam Cheong station, Hong Kong. Struct. Eng., 2002,
80, No. 11, 13–15.
3. Hulme T.W. et al. Singapore M.R.T. system: construction. Proc. Instn Civ.
Engrs, Part 1, 1989, 86, Aug., 709–770.
4. McIntosh D.F. et al. Hong Kong M.T.R. modified initial system: design and
construction of underground stations and cut and cover tunnels. Proc. Instn
Civ. Engrs, Part 1, 1980, 68, Nov., 599–626.
5. Ridley G. Blackwall Tunnel duplication. Proc. Instn Civ. Engrs, 1966, 35, Oct.,
253–274 (discussion 1967, 37, Jul., 537–555).
6. Morgan H.D. et al. Clyde Tunnel design, construction and tunnel services. Proc.
Instn Civ. Engrs, 1965, 30, Feb., 291–322.
7. Haxton A.F. and Whyte H.E. Clyde Tunnel construction problems. Proc. Instn
Civ. Engrs, 1965, 30, Feb., 323–346 (discussion 1967, 37, Jul., 511–535).
8. Megaw T.M. and Brown C.D. Mersey Kingsway Tunnel. Proc. Instn Civ. Engrs,
1972, 51, Mar., 479–502.
9. Beadman D.R. and Bailey R.P. Design and construction of the deep stations for
the Copenhagen Metro. Proc. Conf. on Deep Foundations, 2000, 375–387. Deep
Foundations Institute, New York, 2000. DFI, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey,
2000.
10. Weinbold H. and Kleinlein H. Berechnung und Ausführung einer schrägen
Bohrpfahlwand als Gebäudesicherung. Der Bauingenieur, 1969, 44, Jan., 233–
239.
11. Hana T.H. and Dina A.O. Anchored inclined walls, a study of behaviour. Ground
Engng, 1973, 6, Nov., 24–33.
12. Schnabel J.R. Sloped sheeting. ASCE J. Civil Engng, 1971, Feb., 48–50.
13. The Icos company in the underground works. Icos, Milan, 1968.
14. Granter E. Park Lane improvement. Proc. Instn Civ. Engrs, 1964, 29, 293–317
(discussion 1966, 33, 657–664).
15. Dasgupta K.N. et al. Calcutta Rapid Transit System and the Park Street under-
ground station. Proc. Instn Civ. Engrs, Part 1, 1979, 66, May, 261–275 (discussion
1980, 68, 127–129).
16. Jobling D.G. and Lyons A.C. Heathrow Station – Piccadilly Line. Proc. Instn
Civ. Engrs, 1976, 60, 212–217.
17. Davies R. and Henkel D.J. Geotechnical problems associated with construction
of Chater Station. Proc. Conf. Mass Transport in Asia, Hong Kong, 1980, paper
J3, 1–31. Concrete Society (HK) Ltd., 1980.
18. Farmer I.W. and Attewell P.B. Ground movements caused by a bentonite-
supported excavation in London clay. Geótechnique, 1973, 4, Dec., 576–581.
19. Uriel S. and Oteo C.S. Stress and strain beside a circular trench wall. Proc. 9th
Int. Conf. S.M.F.E., Tokyo, 1977, Vol. 1, 781–788. Japanese Society of Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Tokyo, 1977.
20. Clough G.W. and O’Rourke T.D. Construction induced movements of in situ
walls. Proc. Design and Performance of Earth Retaining Structures, ASCE Special
Publication 15, 439–470. Cornell University, 1989.
21. Thompson P. A review of the retaining wall behaviour in overconsolidated clay
during early stages of construction. M.Sc. Thesis, Imperial College, 1991.
22. Carder D.R. Ground movements caused by different embedded retaining wall
construction techniques. Transport Research Laboratory, Crowthorne, 1995.
TRL Report 172.
23. Carder D.R. and Darley P. Long term performance of embedded retaining walls.
Transport Research Laboratory, Crowthorne, 1998. TRL Report 381.
24. Morton K. et al. Observed settlements of buildings adjacent to stations con-
structed for the modified initial system of the M.T.R. Hong Kong. 6th South
East Asian Conf. Soil Engng, Taipei, 1980, 415–429. Organising Committee,
Taipei, 1980.
25. Mitchell A., Izumi C., Bell B. and Brunton S. Semi top-down construction
method for Singapore MRT, NEL. Proc. Int. Conf on Tunnels and Underground
Structures, Singapore, 2000. Balkema, Rotterdam, 2000.
26. Peck R.B. Advantages and limitations of the observational method in applied soil
mechanics. 9th Rankine Lecture. Geótechnique, 1969, 19, Jun., 169–187.
27. Beadman D. et al. The Copenhagen Metro observational method at Norreport
station. Proc. ICE Geotech, Eng., 149(4), 231–236.
28. Namy D. and Fenoux G.Y. Tranchées couvertes en parois prefabriquees. Proc.
6th Euro. Conf. SMFE, Vienna, 1976, Vol. 1.1, 183–188. Austrian National
Committee, Vienna, 1976.
29. Institution of Structural Engineers. Design and construction of deep basements
including cut and cover structures. Draft, 2002. Institution of Structural Engi-
neers, London, 2002.
30. Tricoire, J. Le metro de Paris. Paris Museés, 1999.
31. Nam Cheong station, Hong Kong. Struct. Engr, 2002, 80, June 13–15.
32. Kell J. The Dartford Tunnel. Proc. Instn Civ. Engrs, 1963, 24, Mar. 359–372.
33. Bigey M. et al. Construction des metros. Regie Autonome des Transport Parisien,
Paris, 1973.
34. Powderham A.J. The observational method learning from projects. Proc. Instn
Civ. Engrs, Geotechnical Engineering, 2002, 155, Jan., 59–69.
35. News item. Ground Engng, Supplement, 2002.
Bibliography BS EN 1538: Diaphragm walls. British Standards Institution, London, 2000.

BS EN 1537: Ground anchors. British Standards Institution, London, 1999.
BS EN 1536: Bored piles. British Standards Institution, London, 1999.
BS EN 12063: Sheet piling. British Standards Institution, London, 1999.
BS EN 12715: Grouting. British Standards Institution, London, 2000.

BS EN 12716: Jet grouting. British Standards Institution, London, 2001.
Pr EN 14490: Soil nailing. British Standards Institution, London, 2003.
Darling P. The Limehouse Link: two cut and cover techniques. Tunnels and Tunnel-
ling, 1991, 23, Jan., 16–18.
Roy T. Calcutta metro: contract section 16B: Proc. Instn Civ. Engrs, Part 1, 1983, 74,
Nov., 871–883.

9 Cut-And-Cover Construction

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

9 Cut-And-Cover Construction

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Cut-and-cover construction

Fig. 9.1. Cut-and-cover works: St Lazare Metro Station, Paris, 190330

Fig. 9.2. As Fig. 9.1. photographed two weeks later30

instances, however, the prevalent groundwater conditions, availability of con-

(d ) combined temporary and permanent wall construction from walls in

Bottom-up, top-down or semi-top-down construction

Fig. 9.3. Nam Cheong Station, Hong Kong, cross-section31

Fig. 9.4. Station construction

The alternative design as built, also built top-down in order to achieve an

Table 9.1 Singapore Metro: construction methods for cut-and-cover stations3

Station Maximum Typical soil Retaining system used Special measures

Braddell 14.9 1F, G4 0.6 and 0.8 m diaphragm walls

Sheet pile walls

historic buildings groundwater recharging

constructed permanent structure may prove vital in the economic use of

Historic use of sheet piles in cut-and-cover construction

Fig. 9.5. First Dartford Tunnel,

frame ﬁxing promptly after excavation to successive depths, preventing yield

Fig. 9.6. Clyde Tunnel: plan and

Anchored or braced king post walls

Fig. 9.8. Composite Berlin wall

The king post wall method is particularly useful as part of a composite

Contiguous bored pile walls

Fig. 9.9. Vertical cross-section

Secant pile walls

Fig. 9.10. Copenhagen Metro

of 100-year design life, was made in accordance with the requirements of

Table 9.3 Soil parameters and

. Case A: deals with ﬂotation

Fig. 9.11. Inclined secant pile

(d ) The mechanics of inclined wall behaviour are similar to those of the

Fig. 9.13. Construction

Fig. 9.14. Milan Metro:

Icos also introduced castellated sections of diaphragm walling on metro

Fig. 9.16. Heathrow Central station, plan and vertical section16

an elastic foundation using a modulus of elasticity of 107 MN/m2 for London

Fig. 9.17. Choi Hung station,

Fig. 9.18. Diamond Hill station,

Fig. 9.19. Argyle station, Hong

Fig. 9.20. Argyle station,

Fig. 9.22. Tsim Sha Tsui

Fig. 9.23. Tsim Sha Tsui

Fig. 9.24. Tsim Sha Tsui

Fig. 9.25. Tsim Sha Tsui

Fig. 9.26. Cross-section of

Fig. 9.27. Chater station,

Settlements due to diaphragm wall panel excavation for Chater station

described in references by Farmer and Attewell18 , Uriel and Oteo19 , Clough

Diaphragm walling: recent developments in cut-and-cover works

Fig. 9.28. Bugis station,

and depth of cut-and-cover works, both in terms of design and production

Semi top-down construction

Construction Main quantities Advantages Disadvantages

A precedence network prepared for an example of semi-top-down construc-

Movement joints in box structures

Fig. 9.29. Boon Keng station,

Soft tunnel eyes

Cut-and-cover walls of varied plan form

Fig. 9.33. Plan of diaphragm

Fig. 9.34. Limehouse link,

Precast diaphragm walls

Fig. 9.35. Cairo Metro: junction

Fig. 9.36. Paris Metro, St Denis,