BRACED EXCAVATIONS: TEMPERATURE, ELASTIC MODULUS, AND

STRUT LOADS
By S. J. Boone,1 Member, ASCE, and A. M. Crawford2

ABSTRACT: Relationships between strut loads, earth pressures, temperatures, and the measurements provided
by strain gauges are presented in this paper. A braced excavation up to 20-m deep, 920 m wide, and >650-m
long constructed in competent glacially derived sand, silt, and clay soils (including glacial till) provided a
significant amount of data for analysis. The excavation was supported by soldier piles and lagging with pipe
struts and was covered with decking during construction. A direct correlation between incremental changes in
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Chung Hsing University on 03/29/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

strut load and temperature was observed during the course of the project. The few existing relationships between
strut load and temperature were reexamined and were found to produce back-calculated elastic modulus values
that were either without comparison or inconsistent with data from field tests and published sources. The rela-
tionships derived as a result of this work are supported by limited case-history data from other published sources
and are consistent with practical application of elastic deformation concepts and published soil modulus values.

INTRODUCTION
Strut loads in braced excavations have routinely been mon-
itored with strain gauges using devices ranging from physical
measurements of changes in length [e.g., Demec gauges (Base
1955)] to fully electronic vibrating wire transducers. In the
past, effort has been required to assess the differences in ther-
mal behavior between the gauge and the steel strut [Norwegian
Geotechnical Institute (NGI) 1962b; Lateral 1967; ORourke
and Cording 1975]. Thermally matched electronic gauges have
virtually eliminated the need for such corrections. However,
because of varying end-restraint conditions caused by the stiff-
ness of the retained earth, such temperature corrections do not
account for all thermal effects from load measurements (Chap-
man et al. 1972; Batten and Powrie 1996). In soft soils or for
excavation support systems where the end area of the steel
struts is large compared to the supported soil area, the effect
of temperature changes on strut loads may not be great. For
stiff soils or rock, however, thermal loading may be signifi-
cant. Apparent earth pressure diagrams are commonly used for
design estimation of the maximum strut loads that may be
incurred in a braced excavation [e.g., Soil (1982)]. Such dia-
grams implicitly include some effects of temperature (Peck
1969; Goldberg et al. 1976). Finite elements or finite-differ-
ence computer analyses also are often used to evaluate poten-
tial loads on excavation support systems from the surrounding
soil mass. Such computer programs do not usually account for
thermal and end-restraint effects. Without appropriate consid-
eration of thermal effects, measured loads may be misinter-
preted solely as loads from the retained earth or design loads
based only on computer analyses may not be representative of
potential loading conditions.
A recent braced excavation project included a detailed in-
strumentation program. Thermally matched vibrating wire
strain gauges were used to monitor strut loads. The strain
gauges also included thermistors that provided readings of
temperature at each gauge at the time the strain readings were
taken. During the course of the project, strain gauge readings
were taken nearly every day on each gauge while it was in
service. In some cases, strain gauges were in place for over a
year. A consistent pattern was observed where increments of
temperature change induced incremental changes in strut
loads. Because of other work undertaken to examine the be-
havior of the soil-structure interaction, separation of the earth-
induced and temperature-induced loads was attempted. Exist-
ing solutions for this indeterminate problem were few and did
not provide reasonable results. As a result, a new approach
was developed for separation of earth-induced and tempera-
ture-induced loads in the struts of braced excavations.
BACKGROUND
When interpreting the results of mechanical strain gauges,
it could easily be assumed that by applying a simple temper-
ature correction, by comparison to a free piece of strut mate-
rial, the effects of temperature on the loads are eliminated and
that the resulting readings represent earth loads. It also could
be assumed that readings from commercially produced vibrat-
ing wire-type gauges that are thermally matched to the
expansion/contraction of steel represent only earth loading of
braced excavation struts. However, both these assumptions ne-
glect the real and potentially important temperature-related
strut loading that depends on the relative stiffness of the braced
soil and excavation support system. Therefore, it is important
to consider what the strain gauges truly measure.
Until vibrating wire strain gauges were widely available,
stresses in excavation struts were often indirectly measured
using mechanical gauges that measured the true strain expe-
rienced by the strut (Lateral 1967; Dunnicliff 1988). Mathe-
matical correction for temperature effects was then made by
using the measured values of total strain and temperature
using
= S T (1)
where S and T = strains induced by applied external stresses
and the temperature change, respectively, then
= (S )/ES S (T ) (2)

1
where S = coefficient of thermal expansion; S = applied
Sr. Geotech. Engr./Proj. Mgr., Golder Associates Inc., 10 Chrysler, external stress; and ES = elastic modulus of the steel. By re-
Suite B, Irvine, CA 92618.
2
Prof., Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Univ. of Toronto, 35 St. George St., To-
writing this equation to define the external load in terms of
ronto, ON, Canada, M5S 1A4. total strain and temperature strain
Note. Discussion open until March 1, 2001. To extend the closing date
one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager of P = ES As S (T )ES AS (3)
Journals. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and
possible publication on May 21, 1998. This paper is part of the Journal
where P and AS = applied load and end area of the strut steel,
of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 126, No. 10, respectively. With some mechanical or vibrating wire strain
October, 2000. ASCE, ISSN 1090-0241/00/0010-08700881/$8.00 gauges it also has often been necessary to correct for the dif-
$.50 per page. Paper No. 18402. ferences between the thermal properties of the gauge and the
870 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / OCTOBER 2000

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2000.126:870-881.

 structural steel by using the appropriate coefficients of thermal
expansion, G and S , respectively.
With thermally matched (i.e., G = S ) and properly cali-
brated vibrating wire strain gauges, strut load measurements
will be representative of the following conditions [after Dun-
nicliff (1988)]:

For a strut with ends that are perfectly fixed from any
axial movement, a temperature increase (T = ) will
not result in any change in strut length L but will result
in expansion and therefore relaxation of the vibrating
wire, thus indicating an artificial strut compression. The
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Chung Hsing University on 03/29/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

artificial compression (strain) indicated by the strain

gauge will, when combined with the appropriate steel end
area and elastic modulus, correctly indicate the increase
in compressive stress that the strut experiences due to the
temperature increase. The opposite conditions hold true
for a perfectly fixed-end strut during a temperature de-
crease (T = ), except that an artificial expansion of the
strut would be indicated, resulting in a correctly calculated
increase in tensile stress.
For a strut with ends that are perfectly free to move, a
temperature increase will result in expansion of both the
strut and the gauge wire; i.e., the expansion of the strain
gauge wire that produces a relaxation of the wire tension
will compensate for the actual strain experienced by the
strut. Output from the vibrating wire strain gauge will
indicate that there was no change in length (although
strictly incorrect) and that the strut will have experienced
no change in stress. The opposite conditions would apply FIG. 1. Strut Load and Temperature Data from Oslo Excava-
to a decrease in temperature. tion (NGI 1962a)

Thus, mechanical gauges are generally true strain gauges,
whereas the vibrating wire gauges are, in effect, true stress
gauges. In spite of the mathematical simplicity of accounting
for temperature outlined above, struts in braced excavations
are neither perfectly free to move nor perfectly fixed. There-
fore, the calculated or measured stresses in the steel strut are
partially due to the earth loads and partially due to temperature
induced stresses because of the strut end conditions and sep-
aration of the two has been problematic (Dunnicliff 1988).
In the early 1960s (NGI 1962b, 1965) a braced excavation
project was undertaken in Oslo, Norway. Strut loads in this
excavation were monitored with the relatively new vibrating
wire strain gauge. Because the device was new, frequent and
detailed measurements of strut steel temperatures, gauge tem-
peratures, and gauge readings were obtained. These detailed
readings were used to identify the effect of temperature on the
gauges. When the data was processed, corrections were made
to account for the dissimilarity of the coefficients of thermal
expansion between the gauge wire and the strut steel (NGI
1962b). During the course of the project it was observed that,
after corrections were made considering the results on un-
loaded steel struts, temperature-dependent loads (Fig. 1) were
occurring and this was attributed to the end restraint provided
by the earth behind the wall. No further analysis or separation
of the load sources was completed in these early studies.
Endo and Kawasaki (1963) [as cited in Ishii et al. (1995)]
studied the relationships between thermal load and the elastic
properties of the retained earth and proposed the following
expression relating the two:
KE AS ES S TL
PT = (4)
KE L 2 AS Es
where PT = measured load due to temperature change; and KE
represented the spring constant of the retained earth. However,
this relationship does not consider the effect of strut spacing
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / OCTOBER 2000 / 871
other than by introducing a spring constant term that is not
readily evaluated.
Chapman et al. (1972) evaluated earth and temperature
loads at an excavation made through preconsolidated and lay-
ered sand, silt, and clay in Washington, D.C. [average standard
penetration test (SPT) N value of about 1620 at strut lev-
els]. Temperature-induced deformations of the wall were ex-
amined using precise measurements (to the nearest 0.001 in.)
using horizontal extensometers drilled into the ground at strut
level. Having then obtained measurements of strut load, tem-
perature, and deformations of the excavation wall at the strut
location, Chapman et al. (1972) combined the equations for
the deformation of an elastic half-space under a uniform rec-
tangular load and those for thermal expansion of the strut.
They derived an empirical expression relating temperature-de-
pendent loads to the elastic modulus of the retained earth;
essentially, they considered the lateral movement of large sec-
tions of the wall analogous to elastic settlement of a rectan-
gular foundation. From their work, Chapman et al. (1972) sug-
gested the following approximate relationship to deduce the
temperature-dependent load PT from a given temperature
change:
AS ES S T
PT = (5)
[1 (3.0nAS ES H )/(Acut Ed L)]
where Acut = rectangular area of the cut wall defined as the cut
height times a length equal to twice the cut height; Ed = elastic
deformation modulus of the soil behind the wall; H = height
of the cut wall; L = strut length; n = number of struts against
one wall of the cut with area Acut ; and S = coefficient of
thermal expansion (per degree of temperature change) for
steel.
Although this is a useful approximation, Chapman et al.
(1972) noted the difference between the initial elastic modulus
measured by plate load tests Ei of about 2,0005,000 psi

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2000.126:870-881.

 (13.834.5 MPa) and the back-calculated elastic modulus
from temperature-dependent strut loads of about 20,000 psi
(138 MPa). This difference was attributed to confining effects
at depth behind the wall. Although not widely adopted in texts
or referred to in published literature, this expression was rec-
ommended in Goldberg et al. (1976) and has been one of the
few available tools to separate and evaluate the effects of tem-
perature and earth loads.
CASE HISTORY
Project Description
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Chung Hsing University on 03/29/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
A deep braced excavation, >650-m long, was made for con-
struction of new subway tracks. The excavation varied from
9- to 20-m deep and from 9.4- to 20.5-m wide and was made
through glacial till and overconsolidated glaciolacustrine sand,
silt, and clay deposits. The SPT N values in the stiff to hard
cohesive glacial till ranged from 25 to >100, with an average
in each borehole typically ranging between 40 and 80. Average
SPT N values in the dense sand and silt deposits typically
ranged between 60 and 100. Although sophisticated geotech-
nical testing was not carried out locally at this site (because
of its early construction schedule), elastic modulus data de-
rived from pressuremeter testing at an immediately adjacent
subway construction site (constructed within the same soil de-
posits) are provided in Fig. 2, illustrating the range of soil
stiffness. Pressuremeter testing was carried out with a mono-
cell instrument, and modulus values illustrated in Fig. 2 were
derived based on the linear portion of the initial loading curve
Eo and from a linear representation of unload-reload cycles
carried out during each test ER [e.g., Briaud (1986)]. Effective
stress frictional parameters, derived from triaxial testing, for
the glacial till and hard silt and clay soils are illustrated in
Fig. 3 (typically 7 < PI < 20). For design, an effective stress
FIG. 2. Pressuremeter Elastic Modulus Correlated to SPT N
Values Taken Immediately Adjacent to Pressurementer Tests
FIG. 3. Effective Stress Frictional Parameters from Triaxial
Compression Tests on Cohesive Soil Deposits
872 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / OCTOBER 2000
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2000.126:870-881.
friction angle of about 38 was estimated for the dense silty
sand based on local experience. Static ground-water levels,
observed in two distinct aquifers, ranged from near the ground
surface to about 4-m above the base of the main excavation,
and these were fully dewatered during construction.
As part of the contract documents, an apparent earth pres-
sure diagram was specified for derivation of the minimum
shoring design loads. The diagram was based on the empirical
approach whereby the apparent pressure on the wall is a
function of the soil unit weight, the depth (or height) of the
excavation wall H, and one or more earth pressure factors that
are based on measured maximum strut loads distributed over
a tributary area (Terzaghi 1943; Peck 1969). Typically, the
tributary area is equal to the vertical length halfway to each
of the struts above and below, multiplied by the horizontal
strut spacing. The earth pressure factors, and consequently the
maximum pressure, and the distribution of pressure are typi-
cally based on general soil type and the calculated base sta-
bility of the excavation (as shown in Fig. 4). For this project
the specified apparent earth pressure diagram was based on the
properties of the layered granular and fine-grained deposits,
the guidance of empirical diagrams such as those shown in
Fig. 4, and local empirical design and construction experience.
The constructed excavation support system consisted of
wide-flange steel beams (soldier piles) placed in prebored
holes with wood lagging between the piles. Soldier piles were
installed with a 3-m center-to-center spacing, and the prebored
holes were filled with a weak concrete/sand-cement (approx-
imate unconfined compressive strength of 0.40.6 MPa). Hor-
izontal restraint was provided by deck beams and pipe struts
located at each pile; i.e., there were no wales. The vertical
strut spacing generally ranged between 2.4 and 5.8 m, with
each pair of opposing piles restrained by the deck beam and
two to three struts. The pipe struts, ranging in diameter from
273 to 610 mm, were connected to the piles by a steel plate
directly welded to the piles, as schematically illustrated in Fig.
5. Because the excavation was made beneath a street, it was
fully decked during the majority of construction.
Because the project was in an urban area, close to many
buildings, ground and building movement limitations were
made part of the contract (Boone et al. 1999b). Therefore, the
owner incorporated a detailed instrumentation program into
the project to monitor the contractors compliance with the
specifications. As part of a larger geotechnical monitoring pro-
gram, deck beams and struts of the excavation support system
were monitored with strain gauges. Each strut and deck beam
connecting a pair of opposing piles was instrumented at a total
of eight vertical section locations, as illustrated in Fig. 5 (a
FIG. 4. Apparent Earth Pressure Diagrams for Design of
Braced Excavations [after Peck (1969) and Soil (1982)]
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Chung Hsing University on 03/29/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FIG. 5. Typical Strut-Pile Connection Detail and Arrangement of Struts, Deck Beams, and Strain Gauges (Dimensions Illustrated for
One Area of Excavation)

FIG. 6. Measured Maximum Strut Loads Compared to Apparent Earth Pressure Diagram Specified for Design

total of 79 strain gauges were installed). For each monitored
deck beam and strut, thermally matched Irad SM-5A (Roctest,
St. Lambert, Quebec) vibrating wire strain gauges were
welded to structural members before they were installed. Each
strut and deck beam in an array location was fitted with mul-
tiple strain gauges so that the influence of bending stresses on
compressive load readings could be minimized. The strain
gauges were used to assure that actual loads did not exceed
the design loads and to allow correlation of strut loads to mea-
surements from other instruments installed at or near the same
array locations. Full instrumentation was maintained for 19 of
the monitored struts, whereas 1 or several of the gauges on
the other struts and deck beams were destroyed during con-
struction. Strain gauge readings were generally taken daily
throughout the project, typically resulting in 100300 tem-
perature-correlated load readings per instrumented strut. Read-
ings were taken more frequently during the preloading stage
of strut installation and somewhat less frequently when exca-
vation was not occurring in the area. Fig. 6 illustrates the final
distribution of maximum strut loads and stable deck beam
loads (ignoring peaks from traffic and construction equipment
live loads) in comparison to the apparent earth pressure dia-
gram specified for design.
Field Observations of Temperature-Dependent
Strut Loads
Construction of the subway excavation occurred through a
period of about 16 months, with each monitored strut typically
being in place between 2 and 8 months. During the time the
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / OCTOBER 2000 / 873
struts were in place, they experienced cycles of warming and
cooling, both daily and seasonal. Absolute gauge temperatures
ranged from near 30 to 15C. Because the excavation was
decked, it was relatively free of thermal effects related to sun-
light and shadows. Thermal extremes also were moderated be-
cause of the decking and latent temperature of the surrounding
earth. Thermal gradients, from top to bottom of the excavation,
also were examined to ascertain the similarity of thermal ex-
pansion and contraction in struts within the same vertical sec-
tion. Regardless of the absolute temperatures or depth of ex-
cavation, temperature differences from the top to bottom strut
rarely exceeded 1C.
Fig. 7 presents true strut loads and changes in gauge tem-
perature for three upper-level struts (deck beam above and two
struts below) as examples of the strut load data. The temper-
ature changes shown are not absolute temperatures, but are the
change of strut temperature relative to the temperature of the
strut at the time of installation. It is clear on Fig. 7 that fluc-
tuations in strut load are directly related to temperature
changes, where temperature and load fluctuations are in sync,
as has been observed in other projects [e.g., NGI (1962b,
1965), Chapman et al. (1972), and Batten and Powrie (1996)].
THEORETICAL AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS
OF OBSERVATIONS
Data Analysis
Considering Fig. 7 and the behavior of shoring systems dis-
cussed by Chapman et al. (1972), the following general state-
ments can be made:

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2000.126:870-881.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Chung Hsing University on 03/29/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FIG. 7. Example Data from Thermally Matched Vibrating Wire Strain Gauges for Three Upper-Level Struts (Deck Beam above) Illus-
trating Temperature-Related Variation in Measured Strut Loads (Plots of Measured Loads and Temperatures Are Based on Averages
for Gauges Mounted around Pipe-Strut Circumference; and Similarities in Temperature Change Patterns, but Differences in Magnitude
and Position along Time Axis, Reflect Differing Dates of Strut Installation and Initial Strut/Gauge Temperature)

FIG. 8. Definitions of Measured Strut Load and Strut Temperature (T is Difference in Strut Temperature Relative to Installation Tem-
perature), Incremental Values of Both, and Conceptual Representation of Reset Reference Temperature (See Text)

1. When the change in temperature relative to the original formation is satisfied. The proportion of the load increase
gauge/strut temperature T or the incremental difference due to temperature will be a function of (1) the elastic
between consecutive gauge temperatures Ti is positive modulus of the soil and the corresponding level of stress;
(see Fig. 8 for terminology), measured loads will exceed (2) the end area of the strut steel; and (3) the horizontal
the loads from true earth pressure because of the re- and vertical contract area of the wall affected by the strut.
straining effect of the retained earth; i.e., expansion of 2. When T orTi is negative, the struts are essentially free
the strut will be resisted by the elastic deformation of to contract, allowing elastic rebound to occur. Provided
the retained soil until equilibrium between load and de- that the retained earth is continuously applying force to
874 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / OCTOBER 2000

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2000.126:870-881.

 the wall, and that temperature contraction of the strut
does not exceed the inward deflection of the wall due to
earth loads, then the relationship between Ti and Pi
should remain elastic.
Fig. 7 also demonstrates that a seasonal decrease in tem-
perature does not result in a prolonged decrease in strut loads.
This behavior is evident in Fig. 9, where the data from another
strut is replotted with P relative to T in the middle graph,
illustrating that the load cycles with temperature changes [note
the relatively consistent slope of lines between data points (i.e.,
T/P)] even with a long-term temperature decrease. When
the incremental load and temperature changes are plotted
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Chung Hsing University on 03/29/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
middle, and lowest strut are shown relative to both time and
the incremental load-temperature relationship. From a plot of
P and Ti , the linear portion of the plot m can readily be
determined (as in Figs. 9 and 10). The value of this slope
primarily accounts for both the mobilized elastic modulus of
the soil Es(m) and the elastic properties, end area, and length
of the strut. It also should be noted, however, that to ade-
quately assess the load-temperature relationship, the number
of data points becomes important, as illustrated in Fig. 10,
where the bottom strut data illustrates less convincing results
than those of the upper two struts. The amount of data is es-
pecially important when other construction activities are oc-
curring within the excavation, such as removing earth in the

against one another (P versus Ti in the lower plot of Fig.
9), this trend is clear. Fig. 9 demonstrates the linear relation-
ship for much of the data from one example strut; i.e., the
sequential increase and decrease of temperature and load (for
each peak of the strut load plots) are directly proportional,
indicating that both the support system and the soil are be-
having linearly and elastically. Those points that do not lie
within the cluster of linear data points represent both load
changes due to external earth loading and errors in measure-
ment (note that the line must pass through the origin by def-
inition). Data from another array (vertical section) of strain
gauges is illustrated by Fig. 10, where the loads in the top,
strut vicinity or adding or removing struts below, as these ac-
tivities can obscure any trends in the data. Note also that,
because of seasonal temperature changes and continuous earth
loading, comparison of absolute temperature and load readings
for extended periods of time could be misleading if the incre-
mental differences are not compared as above.
Deriving Earth and Temperature Loads, Mobilized
Elastic Modulus, and Load Ratio
To estimate the earth load, it is necessary to reset the
reference temperature value to which subsequent temperatures

FIG. 9. Measured Strut Load and Change in Temperature: Top Plot Shows Load and Temperature Relative to Elapsed Time; Middle
Plot Illustrates Consistent Cycling of Load Relative to Incremental Changes in Temperature but Independent of Seasonal Temperature
Drop; and Bottom Plot Compares Incremental Temperature Change and Incremental Load Change

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / OCTOBER 2000 / 875

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2000.126:870-881.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Chung Hsing University on 03/29/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FIG. 10. Example Plots of Strain Gauge Load Readings from Braced Excavation with Three Levels of Struts

are compared in order to be consistent with Statement 2, made
above. The reset reference temperature is thus the chrono-
logical minimum strut temperature recorded for a given time.
The change in temperature, from the reset reference value,
used for deriving the earth loads is then
Tr = T Tmin (6)
The true temperature dependence of a strut load can be
graphically derived by the slope m of P/Ti , as shown in
Figs. 9 and 10. The earth loads at any particular time can then
be estimated by
PE = P mTr (7)
The strut forces due to earth loads for the example strut
shown in Fig. 9, as estimated using the above approach, are
illustrated in Fig. 11.
The mobilized resistance of the soil behind the braced re-
taining system and the load ratio, defined as the temperature-
induced load for a partially restrained strut divided by the tem-
perature-induced load for a perfectly fixed strut, can be derived
using the following simplifying assumptions:
1. For soldier pile walls with struts at each pile, the tem-
perature-induced load will be spread over a bearing area
equal to the horizontal pile width by a length taken as
equidistant to the struts above and below [as used for
apparent earth pressure diagrams (see Fig. 6)].
2. Total changes in length of the strut L will be the com-
bined effect temperature changes attempting to realize

FIG. 11. Example of Separation of Earth Load from Total Strut Loads for One Strut (Interpreted Earth Loads Shown in Heavy
Solid Line)

876 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / OCTOBER 2000

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2000.126:870-881.

 full expansion of the strut steel and the reaction force
provided by the soil behind the wall
L = S TL PT L/(AS ES )
3. The deformation of the wall induced by the strut reaction
to temperature changes can be derived using a simple
expression for deformation [e.g., Terzaghi (1943), and
Soil (1982)]
B(1 2 )I
= (9)
Es(m)
where = deformation (note the direction sign conven-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Chung Hsing University on 03/29/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
tion; = Poissons ratio; = applied stress; Es(m) = mo-
bilized elastic modulus behind the wall within the influ-
ence of the strut; B = least width of the bearing area;
and I = influence factor for foundation shape and analysis
point on the foundation.
4. Total changes in strut length can be assumed equally dis-
tributed to each side of a symmetrical excavation; i.e.
= L/2
It has been assumed for this work that the stresses and
movement of the wall, within the influence of a particular
strut, can be considered approximately equal to those of the
center of a rigid rectangular foundation acting on the surface
of an elastic half-space. The dimensions of this area, B and s,
can be defined as the horizontal width of the piles and the total
vertical distance along which the strut load acts, respectively
(see Fig. 5 for s dimension). For this case, where the piles
(including cemented backfill) had a width of approximately 1
m, the ratio of length/width varied from about 3 to 5. Consid-
ering the ranges of Poissons ratio values and vertical strut
spacings, the term (1 2 )I reduced to between 1 and 1.4 for
this case. Similar total influence values (0 1 ) also were
derived using the method proposed by DAppolonia et al.
(1968, 1970). For sheet-pile walls in other cases, the sheeting
and wales serve a similar stress-distribution function and an
appropriate I value could be selected considering B the hori-
zontal distance between the struts.
For a symmetrical excavation where the soil conditions on
each side are similar, the movement of one side of the shoring
system will be equal to half the total temperature-induced
change in length. Considering equal to PT /(sB) and combin-
ing (8)(10) yields
2IPT
Es(m) =
s[ S TL PT L/(As Es )]
or further, because m = PT /T and T = 1C, then
2Im
Es(m) =
s[ S L mL/(As Es )
By combining (8), (9), and (11), the load change induced
by temperature change PT and a ratio of this load to the load
for a perfectly fixed-end strut PF can be derived
s TL
PT =
(2I)/(sEs(m)) L/(AS ES )
or
s TLsEs(m) As Es
PT =
2IAs Es LsEs(m)
Eq. (13) is then directly analogous to (4), yet relates the
loading directly to deformation properties of the soil that can
be determined through conventional testing approaches rather
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / OCTOBER 2000 / 877
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2000.126:870-881.
than to a separate spring constant term. The load ratio LR
being equal to PT /PF is then
(8) L
LR = (14)
(2AS ES )/(sEs(m)) L
Comparison to Published Methods
Data from the instrumented strut locations (NGI 1962a,
1965; Chapman et al. 1972) were used to compare elastic mod-
uli back calculated using the method of Chapman et al. (1972)
and the method proposed in this paper [(12)] to initial elastic
moduli derived from field or laboratory tests. For both equa-
tions PT was set equal to mT and T = 1C. The results of
these comparisons are shown in Fig. 12. To permit comparison
of the methods, it was necessary to use a consistent definition
of the linear elastic modulus. Therefore, a conscious choice
was made to correlate and compare results to an initial (small-
strain) linear elastic modulus representative of the likely stress
range experienced during the cycle low-strain loading and un-
loading. It was considered that to be useful during design, the
(10) performance must be related to parameters that could be de-
rived from either published values of elastic properties for var-
ious soil deposits or to relatively common, simple, and re-
peatable field or laboratory tests. Chapman et al. (1972)
compared their work to the results of plate load tests that were
used to determine an initial linear elastic modulus Ei . Soil
strength-deformation data provided by NGI (1962a, 1965)
consisted of triaxial compression tests and field vane shear
tests. For each of the NGI sites, an initial linear elastic mod-
ulus was determined based both directly on the triaxial tests
and by applying conventional relationships [e.g., Kulhawy and
Mayne (1990)] to the field test results to provide a range of
initial stiffness values. For the evaluated site the unload-reload
linear elastic modulus determined from pressuremeter tests
was utilized, as it best represented the loading conditions from
the soldier piles, minimized disturbance-related deformation
responses observed in the initial loading cycle, and provided
a reasonable correlation with the test results (Fig. 2) to allow
site-to-site comparisons.
Fig. 12 illustrates that the Chapman et al. (1972) method
(open symbols in Fig. 12) overestimates the mobilized elastic
(11)
(12)
(13a)
(13b)
FIG. 12. Comparison of Methods for Separation of Earth and
Temperature-Induced Strut Loads and Mobilized Elastic Defor-
mation Modulus of Retained Soils; Ed Values Calculated Using
Method of Chapman et al. (1972), and E s (m ) Values Calculated
Using Eq. (12)
 modulus (in comparison to field/lab test results) of the retained
earth for all cases, sometimes by nearly an order of magnitude.
Fig. 12 also illustrates the results of least-squares linear re-
gressions applied to the data sets. Because suitable published
data are limited, the estimation of elastic modulus is subject
to some uncertainty, and the number of points included in the
regressions is small, the regressions only provide a broad in-
dicator of the validity of the approaches. The relationship pro-
posed by Chapman et al. (1972) produces greater scatter in
the comparison results (r = 0.75 versus r = 0.80). This scatter
is likely because of averaging the temperature responses and
structure dimensions over the full excavation depth and over
a wall length equal to twice the excavation depth, and from
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Chung Hsing University on 03/29/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
assumptions regarding the application of elastic deformation
equations. Although correlation of soil parameters with SPT
N values are generally crude, the Es(m) values derived using
the proposed relationships also are consistent with the trends
and magnitudes of mobilized elastic modulus values presented
by DAppolonia et al. (1968, 1970) for full-scale foundations,
as shown in Fig. 13.
While Figs. 12 and 13 present comparisons of back-calcu-
FIG. 13. Comparison of Magnitude and Trends of Back-Cal-
culated E s (m ) Values with Mobilized Compression Modulus for
Foundation on Preloaded and Normally Loaded Sands [after
DAppolonia et al. (1968)]
FIG. 14. Comparison of Estimated Temperature-Induced Strut
Compression Loads Using Methods of Chapman et al. (1972)
and This Paper for Constant Temperature Increase of 10C
878 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / OCTOBER 2000
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2000.126:870-881.
lated elastic modulus values, it is of more importance for de-
sign to be able to estimate the temperature-induced loads that
a strut might experience. Based on an estimated initial elastic
modulus of 138 MPa (between 4 and 10 times the measured
field values), Chapman et al. (1972) calculated a temperature-
induced load approximately 30% higher than the measured
load increase for one particular strut exposed to a 22.2C
(40F) change. Using the average of the plate load test data,
where Ei 24 MPa (3,500 psi), and applying (13) with Es(m)
= Ei = 24 MPa, a temperature-induced load within about 5%
of the measured load can be calculated for this same strut.
Using the strut load and initial elastic modulus data for this
project, Fig. 14 compares the estimated temperature-dependent
loads PT for a uniform temperature increase of 10C using the
method of Chapman et al. (1972) and the method proposed in
FIG. 15. Load Ratio versus Estimated Elastic Modulus for Dif-
ferent Strut and Wall Geometry Conditions
FIG. 16. Schematic Geometry and Construction Sequence for
Example Parametric Computer Model Used to Estimate Poten-
tial Strut Loads
 TABLE 1. Example Evaluation of Maximum Strut Loads Combining Results of Simplified Computer Analyses, Eq. (13), and Field
Measurements (Fig. 9) for Excavation Made Primarily in Dense Sand and Silt, Where L = 20.42 m and Es (m ) = 60 MPa
FLAC strut Measured
load, PFLAC T As PF PFLAC PT maximum load Difference
Strut (kN) (C) (m2) (kN) LR (kN) (kN) (%)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
Upper 730.0 14 0.018 588.6 0.456 998.5 1,053 5.2
Middle 772.9 6 0.018 252.2 0.411 876.7 764 14.7
Bottom 295.1 8 0.016 308.5 0.405 420.1 394 6.6

this paper. Fig. 14 indicates that the method of Chapman et model was developed to illustrate the use of the above meth-
al. (1972) typically underestimates PT by about 35% and the ods to estimate strut loads. FLAC (FLAC 1996), an explicit
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Chung Hsing University on 03/29/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

proposed method overestimates PT by about 23% on average
provided that an initial elastic modulus based directly on field
or laboratory tests is used.
The differences in the two approaches to load estimation is
more pronounced when estimating the load ratio. Fig. 15 com-
pares the load ratios calculated using (14) and the estimated
elastic moduli for all cases used for this study. The load ratio
depends on both the strut length and the wall area over which
the load is applied. For the project described above, bounds are
drawn using (14) and the typical range of strut spacing, end
area, and length. The lower solid curve of Fig. 15 illustrates the
load ratio and elastic modulus relationship for a narrow exca-
vation in soft to stiff clay typical of the NGI projects (1962a,b,
1965). The upper curve illustrates a load ratio and elastic mod-
ulus relationship for a wide excavation in stiff to hard or dense
ground, similar to the project of Chapman et al. (1972) and this
project. The use of (5) to estimate the load ratio for strut di-
mensions typical of this project also is illustrated in Fig. 15,
highlighting the differences in the approaches if estimates of
elastic modulus values from laboratory or field tests are used.
It is expected that if reasonable estimates of the elastic modulus
can be made and combined with estimates of the strut sizes and
spacing, reasonable estimates of the temperature-induced loads
can be calculated for new projects. The combination of loads
derived from analytical models and temperature effects could
then be more rationally compared to empirical measurements
of maximum brace loads in excavations.
Example Application to Simplified Computer Model
Because numerical models are being used more frequently
for design and analysis of braced excavations, a simplified
finite-difference analysis program, was used to model the per-
formance of the excavation supported by the struts illustrated
in Figs. 5 and 10 without a priori knowledge of actual strut
loads (Boone et al. 1999a). Soil behavior was modeled as a
Mohr-Coulomb linear elastic perfectly plastic constitutive ma-
terial with ranging from 33 to 38 as the soils in the vi-
cinity of this instrumented section consisted primarily of dense
sand and silt. Two initial states of stress, where Ko = 1 sin
and 1.0, were used in the modeling to assess the influence
of potential in situ horizontal stress conditions on the distri-
bution of strut loads. The wall and struts were considered lin-
ear-elastic structural elements, and cohesive-frictional ele-
ments that allowed slippage were used at the soil-wall
interface to account for the discontinuity imposed by the spac-
ing of the soldier piles and the cuts for the lagging between
the piles.
The excavation stages were based on the typical construc-
tion practices in the area of the project where a temporary
central trench is cut to allow equipment access, leaving berms
at the sides. Struts are then installed, and the remainder of the
earth is removed to the next stage (Fig. 16). The preloading
sequence and preloads that were actually achieved also were
included in the model. Table 1 summarizes the strut loads from
this analysis, maximum measured loads, the maximum tem-
perature change up to the time of maximum load, and esti-
mated temperature-induced loads using the proposed approach.
The table illustrates that the simple computer analysis under-
estimates the strut loading by as much as 30%. Once the tem-
perature effects are considered, however, the differences be-
tween the estimated and actual measured loads are less than
about 15%. More importantly, the computer analyses indicated
that the middle strut would likely experience the highest loads

FIG. 17. Comparison of Strut Load Distributions Resulting from Computer Analyses for Example Group of Struts (Left Plot) and Ra-
tio of Calculated to Measured Loads (Right Plot) Illustrating Influence of Temperature Effects on Strut Loads (Also See Table 1)

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / OCTOBER 2000 / 879

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2000.126:870-881.

 regardless of the soil friction angles and initial stress condi-
tions ( = 3338, Ko = 1 sin 1.0). The field data
(Figs. 6 and 10), however, show that the upper strut often
experienced the highest loads. The instrumented upper struts
for which data is shown in Figs. 6 and 10 were typically in-
stalled in the fall, winter, or spring. Where three struts were
used for the excavation support, the instrumented middle struts
were typically installed in late spring or summer. Thus, the
upper struts experienced greater increases in temperature than
the middle strut level. After including temperature differences
similar to those experienced in the field, the final distribution
of estimated strut loads is more reflective of the actual mea-
surements, as illustrated by Table 1 and Fig. 17.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Chung Hsing University on 03/29/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
CONCLUSIONS
By comparing the incremental changes of strut load and
temperature from vibrating wire strain gauge data, important
behavioral characteristics can be interpreted for braced exca-
vations including: the temperature-dependent loads, relative
fixity of the strut end, and mobilized soil loads and stiffness.
The proposed equations proved reliable for estimation of tem-
perature-induced loads for the subject case history as well as
for earlier published case histories using elastic modulus data
derived from conventional field or laboratory testing results.
The proposed approach provides a transparent and strut-spe-
cific means of evaluating the effects of temperature on struts
within braced excavations and is supported by both empirical
data and practical application of elastic theory. Conventional
apparent earth pressure diagrams have long been used as a
tool for design of braced excavation support systems. How-
ever, the choice of appropriate diagrams and how they are
derived for individual sites considering layered soil deposits,
necessary stiffness for deformation control, and temperature-
induced loads has been the subject of considerable judgment.
Design of braces for future excavations and back analysis of
empirical data may be better rationalized considering earth
loads from analytical or computer models, the possible timing
of brace installation, the temperature fluctuations that the
braces could be exposed to, and the elastic properties of the
retained earth. The ability to separate components of strut load
also could aid in the interpretation of the causes of strut load
changes as related to construction activities that might other-
wise be obscured.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The writers thank both B. Sellers, of Geokon Inc., (Lebanon, N.H.)
and J. Dunnicliff for their discussions during the early preparation of this
paper, S. Pang for compilation of the raw data, H. Bidhendi for numerical
modeling work, and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.
APPENDIX I. REFERENCES
Base, G. D. (1955). Further notes on the Demec, a demountable me-
chanical strain gage for concrete structures. Mag. of Concrete Res.,
London, 7(19), 3538.
Batten, M., and Powrie, W. (1996). Prop loads in large braced excava-
tions. Ground Engrg., London, October, 2930.
Boone, S. J., Bidhendi, H., Westland, J., and Grabinsky, M. (1999a).
Rationalizing the practice of strut preloading for braced excavations.
Geo-engineering for underground facilities, Geotech. Spec. Publ. No.
90, ASCE, Reston, Va., 393404.
Boone, S. J., Westland, J., and Nusink, R. (1999b). Comparative eval-
uation of building responses to an adjacent deep braced excavation.
Can. Geotech. J., Ottawa, 36(2), 210223.
Briaud, J. L. (1986). Pressuremeter and foundation design. Use of in
situ tests in geotech. engrg., Geotech. Spec. Publ. No. 6, ASCE, New
York, 74115.
Chapman, K. R., Cording, E. J., and Schnabel, H. (1972). Performance
of a braced excavation in granular and cohesive soils. Proc., Spec.
880 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / OCTOBER 2000
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2000.126:870-881.
Conf. on Perf. of Earth and Earth Supported Struct., Vol. 3, ASCE,
New York, 271293.
DAppolonia, D. J., DAppolonia, E., and Brissette, R. F. (1968). Set-
tlement of spread footings on sand. J. Soil Mech. and Found. Div.,
ASCE, 94(3), 735760.
DAppolonia, D. J., DAppolonia, E., and Brissette, R. F. (1970). Set-
tlement of spread footings on sand, closure. J. Soil Mech. and Found.
Div., ASCE, 96(2), 754761.
Dunnicliff, J. (1988). Geotechnical instrumentation for monitoring field
performance, Wiley, New York.
Endo, M., and Kawasaki, T. (1963). Study of thermal stresses acting on
struts. Trans. Arch. Inst. of Japan, 63, 689692.
FLAC users manual. (1996). Itasca Consulting Group Inc., Minneapolis.
Goldberg, D. T., Jaworski, W. E., and Gordon, M. D. (1976). Lateral
support systems and underpinning: Vol. IIDesign fundamentals, Vol.
IIIConstruction methods. Rep. No. FHWA-RD-75-130, Fed. Hwy.
Admin., U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C.
Ishii, Y., Miyazaki, Y., Murata, J., and Kazama, S. (1995). Lateral pres-
sures acting on earth retaining systemsA survey on Japanese litera-
ture. Underground construction in soft ground, K. Fujita and O. Ku-
sakabe, eds., Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 283290.
Kulhawy, F. H., and Mayne, P. (1990). Manual on estimating soil prop-
erties for foundation design. Rep. EPRI EL-6800, Electric Power Re-
search Institute, Palo Alto, Calif.
Lateral earth pressure studies on strutted excavations of the Toronto sub-
way system. (1967). Toronto Transit Commission, Toronto.
Norwegian Geotechnical Institute (NGI). (1962a). Measurements at a
strutted excavation. Oslo Tech. School, Tech. Rep. No. 2, Oslo.
Norwegian Geotechnical Institute (NGI). (1962b). Vibrating wire mea-
suring devices used at strutted excavations. Tech. Rep. No. 9, Oslo.
Norwegian Geotechnical Institute (NGI). (1965). Measurements at a
strutted excavation, the new headquarters building of the Norwegian
Telecommunication Administration, Oslo. Tech. Rep. No. 4, Oslo.
ORourke, T. D., and Cording, E. J. (1975). Measurement of strut loads
by means of vibrating wire strain gages. Performance monitoring for
geotechnical construction, ASTM STP 584, ASTM, West Consho-
hocken, Pa., 5877.
Peck, R. B. (1969). Deep excavations and tunnelling in soft ground:
State-of-the-art report. Proc., 7th Int. Conf. on Soil Mech. and Found.
Engrg., Sociedad Mexicana de Mecanica de Suelos, Mexico City, 225
290.
Soil mechanics, design manual 7.1, NAVFAC DM-7.1. (1982). United
States Department of the Navy, Alexandria, Va.
Terzaghi, K. (1943). Theoretical soil mechanics, Wiley, New York.
APPENDIX II. NOTATION
The following symbols are used in this paper:
B = least width of bearing area;
Ed = mobilized deformation modulus of soil as used by Chap-
man et al. (1972);
Ei = initial (small strain) elastic modulus of soil;
Eo = soil elastic modulus derived from linear portion of pres-
suremeter test curve on first loading [e.g., Briaud (1986)];
ER = soil elastic modulus derived from linear approximation of
unload-reload cycle conducted during pressuremeter test
[e.g., Briaud (1986)];
ES = elastic modulus of steel [200 106 kPa (29,000 ksi)];
Es(m) = secant elastic modulus of soil (mobilized);
I = shape and rigidity settlement influence factor (Soil 1982);
KE = spring constant for retained earth as used by Endo and
Kawasaki (1963) [as cited in Ishii et al. (1995)];
LR = load ratio or percentage of measured load change com-
pared to theoretical thermally induced load change in per-
fectly fixed steel strut; i.e., LR = PT /PF ;
m = slope of linear portion of temperature-dependent load
change; i.e., m = Pi /Ti ;
P = total load experienced by strut steel;
PE = measured load change due to external earth loading;
PF = load change due to thermal changes in fixed-end strut;
PT = measured load change due to temperature change;
s = length measured equidistant from subject strut to struts
above and below [as used for apparent earth pressure di-
agrams (Fig. 2)];
T = strut temperature;
 G = coefficient of thermal expansion of strain gauge;
S = coefficient of thermal expansion of steel strut per degree
Celsus = 11.7 106;
P = incremental difference in strut load between two consec-
utive readings;
T = change in temperature relative to original strut tempera-
ture;
Ti = incremental difference in temperature between two con-
secutive readings;
Tr = reset change in temperature relative to minimum ex-
perienced strut temperature;
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Chung Hsing University on 03/29/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
= total strain;
S = strain resulting from applied stress;
T = strain resulting from temperature change;
0 = depth of foundation embedment settlement influence fac-
tor as used by DAppolonia et al. (1968, 1970);
1 = length/width and thickness of compressible stratum set-
tlement influence factor as used by DAppolonia et al.
(1968, 1970);
= applied stress at interface of bearing area and soil;
= tension; and
= compression loads and strains.

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / OCTOBER 2000 / 881

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2000.126:870-881.