See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226425865

Drainage of supported excavations

Article in Geotechnical and Geological Engineering · January 1992

DOI: 10.1007/BF00881149

CITATIONS READS

2 60

3 authors, including:

Michael Kavvadas
National Technical University of …
58 PUBLICATIONS 532 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Available from: Michael Kavvadas

Retrieved on: 19 August 2016
Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 1992, 10, 141-157

TECHNICAL NOTE

Drainage of supported excavations

M. K A V V A D A S 1, A. G I O L A S 2 and G. P A P A C H A R A L A M B O U S 2
1Lecturer in Geotechnical Engineering, Faculty of Civil Engineering, National Technical University of Athens,
Greece
ZAthens, Greece

Received 13 May 1991

Summary

The paper provides the approximate closed-form expressions for the .estimation of the amount of
ground water infiltration, the seepage exit gradient and the hydraulic pressure distribution on the cut-
off elements in the case of sheeted excavations below the water table. The expressions are obtained by a
multiple regression-type fitting of the results of an extensive parametric finite-element analysis for the
two-dimensional steady-state flow in the soil around a sheeted excavation. In addition to the problem
geometry, the effects of an impermeable base and a thin low permeability layer penetrated by the
sheeting are also studied. The predictions of the approximate expressions deviate from the
corresponding finite-element results by less than 15%, for a wide range of geometries and soil
characteristics. It is shown how shape factors might be used to adapt the semi-empirical formulae for
the case of excavations with limited length (circular and rectangular).
Keywords: Drainage, excavation, exit gradient, sheet-piling, finite elements.

Introduction

Excavations below the ground water table are very common in civil engineering projects and,
in most cases, require some type of seepage control. The following methods are commonly
used for dealing with ground water in excavations below the water table (Powers, 1982):
1. Water is permitted to flow into the excavation and is subsequently pumped out from
sumps and ditches (open pumping);
2. Soil is predrained by lowering the ground water table in advance of the excavation
using wells, wellpoints or ejectors (predrainage);
3. Water flow towards the excavation is cut off with steel sheet piling or slurry walls or
grout (drainage of supported excavations).
The designer has to select the most appropriate among these basic methods and adopt it to
the specific project requirements.
Open pumping almost invariably involves unsupported excavations with relatively flat
slopes. It is very rarely used in urban areas because of lack of space due to the close proximity
of existing buildings, streets and/or utility lines as well as the potential dangers of slope
0960-3182/92 © 1992 Chapman & Hall
142 Kavvadas et al.

deterioration and instability due to the seepage forces. Predrainage involves significant
lowering of the water table, well beyond the boundaries of the area to be excavated. The
method is used very rarely in urban areas because of the potential settlement in the
surrounding area caused by consolidation of compressible soils (due to an increase in the
effective stress) and the removal of fines from the soil through improperly constructed wells
or wellpoints.
As a result of the above, drainage of supported excavations is the most widely used
dewatering method in densely populated areas. In most applications, the method combines
the functions of lateral earth support and cutting off ground water infiltration towards the
excavation; however, while lateral support of excavations has been studied extensively in the
literature (Terzaghi, 1953; Lambe et al., 1970; Bjerrum et al., 1972; Shuster, 1972; Clough
and Tsui, 1974) and detailed design procedures have been incorporated in design codes,
dewatering of excavations has not been given analogous attention, probably because of its
complexity and the requirement of rigorous analytical models. Despite the limited attention
given to the analysis of dewatering problems, engineering solutions have been practiced for a
long time, mostly based on the experience gained from the performance of similar projects or
on crude models (e.g. modelling an excavation by a cylindrical well). These include
techniques which have only seepage cut-off characteristics (such as slurry trench plastic
walls) and techniques which combine seepage cut-off with ground support characteristics
(such as steel sheet piling, concrete diaphragm walls, bored secant pile walls and high
pressure cement grouting).
The applicability of each of the above techniques varies greatly, depending on soil and
water conditions and project requirements; however, they all have certain advantages which
make their use very appealing:
1. They involve vertical cut-off elements, a definite advantage, since the coefficient of
permeability in the horizontal direction is usually larger than in the vertical direction;
2. They induce very little lowering of the ground water table away from the excavation,
thus reducing the danger of settlement in the surrounding structures;
3. The vertical cut-off elements usually penetrate well below the depth of the excavation
which reduces the potential danger of heave, boiling or piping in the bottom of the
excavation by reducing the seepage exit gradient; furthermore, the groundwater flow
towards the bottom of the excavation can be greatly reduced if a low permeability
horizontal layer is penetrated by the cut-off elements.
In the design of dewatering systems for supported excavations, it is essential to estimate the
seepage quantity into the excavation and the hydraulic exit gradients at the bottom of the
excavation, and to know the hydraulic pressure distributions on both sides of the support
elements, since the assumption of full hydrostatic thrust is over conservative and leads to
costly designs.
This paper investigates the above questions for the case of steady-state flow under a long
sheeted excavation, using a parametric finite-element analysis. Key results, using
characteristic values of the parameters involved, are presented in the form of graphs to show
trends and illustrate their sensitivity. Based on the results of the parametric analysis, semi-
empirical formulae are also proposed for the estimation of important quantities (discharge,
exit gradients, pressure distributions on support elements). These formulae can be useful in
preliminary estimates or in 'what-if type of calculations, when neither drawing a flow-net
nor performing a finite-element analysis is justified.
Drainage of supported excavations 143

Method of analysis

Fluid flow through a porous medium is governed by the mass conservation law and an
appropriate constitutive relationship (Malvern, 1969). In the steady-state case (when
changes in storage do not occur), the mass conservation law requires that the net fluid mass
flowing through the surface S bounding a volume V fixed in space, is zero:

s pf~.r~ dS=O (1)

where p is the fluid mass density of the pore fluid (assumed incompressible), ~ is a unit vector
normal to the infinitesimal surface element dS and ~ is the (apparent) velocity of the pore fluid
at the location of the surface element cIS. Using the divergence theorem, the surface integral
can be transformed into a volume integral over the volume V:

v V. (p~) dV=O (2)

or, equivalently (since the volume is arbitrary):

V" (p~) = 0 (3)

where V is the gradient vector operator, which in Cartesian coordinates has the form:

V (ox 8y'~z (4)

In the case of spatially uniform fluid density, Equation 3 gives the well-known continuity
equation:
V'~=0 (5)
The solution of the continuity equation requires the use of a constitutive law to relate the
fluid velocity (~) to the corresponding gradient of the pore pressure field (p). One such linear
relationship, initially proposed by Darcy (1856) and later by Terzaghi (1943), is:
1
= ~" V ( p - Po) (6)

where ~is the permeability tensor, Po is the (ambient) hydrostatic pore pressure and 7 is the
specific weight of the pore fluid.
Combination of Equations 5 and 6 gives the final form of the governing differential
equation with respect to the unknown pore pressure field p:
V" [~" V(p-po)] = 0 (7)
It should be noted that, in the case of homogeneous and isotropic permeability, the
governing differential equation (Equation 7) reduces to a standard Laplacian:
V2(P - Po) = 0 (7a)
The boundary conditions associated with Equation 7 are:
144 Kavvadas et al.

(a) Essential boundary conditions which prescribe the value of the pore pressure over a
certain portion of the boundary surface:
p=p on Sp (8a)
(b) Natural boundary conditions which prescribe the value of the normal component of
the fluid velocity vector over the (remaining) part of the boundary surface ( S =- S - Sp):
4.~=~, on Sv
or (using Equation 6):
~.[k'.V(p-po)]+7~,=0 on Sv (8b)
In the case of simple geometries and uniform soil permeability, the differential equation
(Equation 7a) and the corresponding boundary conditions can be solved using the
Schwarz-Christoffel transformation and the theory of elliptic integrals (Harr, 1962). For
more complicated geometries and/or inhomogeneous permeability, a finite-element type of
analysis is usually required. In the present study, a finite-element formulation based on the
method of Weighted Residuals (Connor and Brebbia, 1976) is adopted for the solution of the
two-dimensional (plane) flow under a sheeted excavation.
A Galerkin-type variational form is obtained by weighing the mass conservation equation
(Equation 7) and the Natural boundary condition (Equation 8b) with respect to arbitrary
variations ~p of the pore pressure field (Kavvadas, 1982). Algebraic manipulation of the
Variational equation leads to the symmetrical weak form:

fv v( p) dv+ fso e. s-0 (9)

which is appropriate for a finite-element formulation via an isoparametric interpolation
scheme for the pore pressure field. The finite-element interpolation in the present analysis
uses four node quadrilateral isoparametric elements.
The main assumption in the analysis presented above (in addition to the linearized form of
Darcy's law) is that fluid flow in the soil is steady-state. The implications of this assumption
in an essentially transient problem, such as dewatering of sheeted excavations, are discussed
in the following section; furthermore, the steady-state conditions require no assumptions
about the compressibility of the soil skeleton and the degree of saturation of the soil, since
these quantities are time-independent.

F l o w under a shected excavation - the m o d e l

The model used to study the steady-state flow in the soil under a long sheeted excavation (of
width 2b) is shown in Fig. 1, where the problem geometry is defined. The soil is assumed to be
homogeneous and isotropic (having permeability k) with the exception of a thin horizontal
layer having lower permeability kr. The sheeting penetrates the soil to a depth d below the
excavation level, while the tip of the sheeting is at distance s from the impermeable base. It is
further assumed that flow in the soil towards the excavation does not cause drawdown of the
ground water table behind the sheeting. This assumption is exact for offshore excavations
using double sheet-pile walls (cofferdams), as shown in the righthand side of Fig. 1, or in the
Drainage of supported excavations 145

On-shore excavation Off-shore excavation

1_ W.T.
!
I I
L

I/A\\YlI"%VI/A\\Y/&X\YI~'X\'II/"\'~Y/I~\\\YlA\\YIA\\\Y/&\X~II&\XV/
~ b~ b +,l ,.-,~vj,~\\
W.T. /

1"'°1
H Pcrrneabitity k

i/A\.lzt.\\,/it.~\vt vl/x\v//.\~/~\\~l, 13o

!
/

[ '1 .:-.:
i...: .:. .-.' : !.." :. t: i: ,.,."..

ItI~\\'IIA\\ZIA\',VtA\XVIA\XVIA\7A\
impermiable
\'/II.X,\Vy/AIt,\VX/AlS\~\~IAN\
base
\/II~\'~Y/I.\N\XY/&XI/AXV/AN\V/A\Y/~NV/&V/A\Y/A\V/A\~/~
Fig. 1. Geometry and properties of a sheeted excavation below the water table. On-shore
(left) and off-shore (right) excavations

case of confined aquifers, but it is conservative in the case of the unconfined aquifers, as in
most onshore excavations (left hand side of Fig. 1). In the latter case, dewatering inside the
excavation is associated with transient flow in the soil around the excavation and gradual
lowering of the water table, until steady-state conditions are practically reached some time
after commencement of dewatering. The transition period is longer in cases of low
permeability soils, large penetration of the sheet-piles below the water table and narrow
excavations. During the transition period, as the water table around the excavation is
lowered, flow quantities, exit gradients and hydraulic pressures on the support elements
gradually decrease; thus, flow conditions are most critical in the early stages ofdewatering. In
the case of unconfined aquifers, the present model applies to these initial flow conditions;
however, the usefulness of the model is not significantly reduced in practical dewatering
problems involving unconfined aquifers, since:

1. In most projects, the duration of dewatering is short compared to the time required to
lower the water table around the excavation. Even in cases of high permeability soils,
longer sheet-piles are usually used to reduce the rate of water table lowering during
construction, in order to avoid settlements in the surrounding area;
2. Even in long duration projects involving significant water table lowering, the capacity
of pumping systems, the factor of safety against piping and bottom heave, and the
strength of support elements must be determined for the most critical conditions which
occur in the early stages of dewatering (when the present model is readily applicable).
146 Kavvadas et al.

The finite-element code used in the present study was developed at the National Technical
University of Athens, based on the Weighted Residuals method briefly described above, and
was run on an MS-DOS based 386 Personal Computer using double-precision storage
(8 bytes) for real numbers. In this configuration, the maximum size of the finite-element mesh
is limited by the 640KB DOS memory size. The maximum number of nodes possible depends
on the node numbering which controls the half-bandwidth of the stiffness matrix. For the
mesh patterns used in the present study, the maximum number of nodes is about 800. The
finite-element discretization was limited to one-half of the excavation geometry (due to
symmetry) and employed rectangular elements with a maximum aspect ratio of 3 to 1. The
distance of the outer (free-draining) boundary from the centre line varied between two and
five times the height h o. Results were shown to be insensitive when distances larger than
about 3ho were used. Finally, production runs were performed with the outer boundary
placed at distance 4h o from the centre line. The portion of the sheet-pile below excavation
level was modelled as a column of elements with very low permeability (five orders of
magnitude lower than the soil). Aspect ratios up to 3 to 1 were employed for these sheet-pile
elements. The total number of finite elements used was between 300 (20 by 15) and 600 (30 by
20) in the case of homogeneous soil permeability. The number of finite elements increased up
to 800 (40 by 20) when a thin horizontal layer with lower permeability was involved. This
layer was modelled by one or two rows of rectangular elements (depending on its thickness)
with a maximum aspect ratio of 5 to 1. Sensitivity analyses showed that the use of such
slender elements did not" significantly influence the accuracy of the numerical solution,
especially in view of the potential errors in the measurement of the hydraulic conductivity of
this layer. The same argument can be used for the potential discretization errors around the
tip of the sheet-pile (especially in the case of small penetration depths) due to the steep
gradients of the pore pressure in that region (especially the intense directional changes).
Special care was taken to refine the discretization around the tip of the sheet-pile and to use
elements with small aspect ratios.
The finite-element solution was calibrated by comparing its predictions to the analytical
solution for a sheeted excavation in a homogeneous soil without a lower impermeable
boundary (s = oo), presented by Harr (1962). By this comparison, the sensitivity of the model
on
(a) the size of the finite elements;
(b) the resolution in high pressure gradient regions;
(c) the position of the (far) boundary (simulating a boundary at infinity) were controlled.
It was found that, using the resolution mentioned above, the model predictions deviate
from the analytical solution by less than 5%.
The finite-element model was subsequently used to study the flow around sheeted
excavations with geometries and soil profiles not amenable to analytical solution. An
extensive parametric study (87 cases) was performed by varying the geometrical and material
parameters of the problem, as shown in Table 1 (for a definition of the geometrical
parameters see Fig. 1).
In each case, the total flow inside the excavation, the seepage exit gradient (the maximum
value near the sheeting and the minimum value at the centre of the excavation) and the pore
pressure distribution along both sides of the sheeting were determined. Despite the wide
range of geometries and soil properties covered in the parametric study, the usefulness of the
results obtained is severely limited unless the data are compiled and presented in an
Drainage of supported excavations 147

Table 1. Ranges of problem parameters studied

Parameter Minimum value Maximum value
s/b 0.25 6
d/b 0.25 6
dl/b 0.25 11
t/d 0 1
k/kr 1 1000

accessible form. For this reason, the data were statistically analysed using a multiple
regression method. Based on the results of the analysis, the following semi-empirical
formulae are proposed for the case of a soil with uniform hydraulic conductivity (k):

(10)

i~= 0.50(~4) El- (0.2y/b] (~)1/3(~) -~/s (11)

expI0 0( )033( )l ,12

i(X)ie l _ ( b ) ( 2 _ b)(1 imin~i,/e (13)

/s\1125/d\1/4/d \-115
(14)

where: q is the total amount of seepage in to the excavation per unit length; ie is the maximum
seepage exit gradient (at a location adjacent to the support element); imi. is the minimum
seepage exit gradient (at the centre of the excavation); i(x) is the seepage exit gradient at a
location x along the bottom of the excavation (x = 0 corresponds to the position of the
support element); p is the hydraulic pressure at the tip of the sheeting.
Figure 2 compares the amount of seepage (q) and the maximum seepage exit gradient (ie)
predicted by the proposed formulae (Equations 10 and 11) to the exact analytical solution
presented by Harr (1962) for the case of a long sheeted excavation in a uniform half-space.
The predictions differ by less than 10% compared to the exact solution, despite the wide
variation of the geometrical parameters. The analytical solution obtained by Harr (1962) for
the maximum exit gradient is also presented in the Design Manual NAVFAC DM-7.1 (1982)
for the case of sand of infinite depth.
Figures 3 and 4 compare the values of the amount of seepage (q), the maximum seepage
exit gradient (ie) and the hydraulic pressure at the tip of the sheeting (p) obtained by using
Equations 10, 11 and 14 respectively, to the corresponding finite-element (FE) predictions
for all 87 cases analysed. The correlation coefficients for the three approximations approach
148 Kavvadas et al.
1.5
..... = . s/b= oo
q
kH 1

• ....... _2.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0.5

Proposed I
........ Horr (1962)
I L I

°o 1 2 3
d I /b
1
-~ Propo'sed J
" " ~ _ I . . . . . . . Ha.rr (1962) ]
led ~ d . / . b - . , ........................ .J

07.5

0
, , I .

1
. . .

2
, , ,
. . . . . . . . . .
, ,

,3
, ,
_ . . . .
- 7 " " 1
14
dl/b
Fig. 2. Comparison between the estimations of the amount of discharge (top) and the
seepage exit gradient (bottom), using the proposed formulae (solid line) and the exact
analytical solution presented by Harr (1962) (dashed line)

unity (they are equal to 0.89, 0.84 and 0.91 respectively), an indication of the level of accuracy
of the semi-empirical formulae compared to the results of the FE model. This level of
uncertainty is acceptable, especially in drainage problems in which the potential error in the
determination of the coefficient of permeability may well exceed one order of magnitude. In
fact, the importance of reliable estimates of the permeability coefficient in drainage problems
cannot be over-emphasized. The amount of ground water infiltration is proportional to k
(Equation 10); thus, any error in its determination is transferred directly to the estimated
seepage. Furthermore, while it may appear (Equations 11-14) that exit gradients and
hydraulic pressures are independent of k, this is only true in the case of a uniform soil profile.
As is shown in the following, the existence of even a thin layer with different permeability
makes the importance of k evident (see Equation 15).
Besides the coefficient of permeability, the geometrical characteristics of the excavation
play an important role in the estimation of the quantities of interest. The existence of a
practically impermeable stratum at some depth below the level of the excavation is common
in many dewatering projects. If this stratum is at a relatively shallow depth, extending the
sheeting to this depth will practically cut off infiltration completely. If this stratum is at a
greater depth, extending the length of the sheeting may not always be economical; however,
the effect of an impermeable base is beneficial even if the sheeting does not reach it. Figure 5
presents the effect of varying the distance (s) of the tip of the sheeting from the impermeable
base on the amount of ground water infiltration for the case of an excavation in a soil with
Drainage of supported excavations 149

q 1.5
kH

( Formula )
0.5

q
0.5 I 1.5
q
(FE}
kH
1

ieHd * ~ * * / *• ~• • ,

( Formu1(1)

I }
0 0.5

!e d {FE}
H
Fig. 3. Comparison between the estimations of the amount of discharge (top) and the
seepage exit gradient (bottom), using the proposed formulae and the finite-element (FE)
model, for all cases studied

Yh° **~
(Formula) *~*~; *
0.5 , ~ ' ~ * ....

/
y 7

o oh ;
yh° (FE)
Fig. g. Comparison between the estimations of the hydraulic pressure at the tip of the
sheeting, using the proposed formula and the finite-element (FE) model, for all cases
studied
150 Kavvadas et al.

1.5
dl/b = I
d / b =0.5
q kr= k
kH 1

0.5

0 I I

0 1 2
S/b
1.5
dl/b = 2
d / b = 0.5
I kr = k
q

kH

0.5

I
O0 I 2
S/b
Fig. 5. Influence of the distance (s) - tip of the sheeting to impermeable base - on the
estimated discharge. Soil with uniform permeability

uniform permeability. The reduction of the discharge is significant for distances (s) less than
the half-width of the excavation; furthermore, the rate of decrease of the discharge is an
exponential function of the distance (s), i.e. the rate of decrease becomes more pronounced as
the distance is reduced. Thus, the gains in limiting ground water infiltration by increasing the
depth of the sheeting are better than the (linear) increase in the cost of the sheeting.
Another factor which significantly affects the amount the ground water infiltration
towards the excavation is the length (d) of the sheeting below the excavation level (Fig. 6).
The rate of decrease of the discharge is large for penetration depths less than the half-width
(b) of the excavation, but it levels offfor larger depths of penetration. As a result, the gains in
limiting ground water infiltration by increasing the length of the sheeting (up to a depth d -- b)
are better than the (linear) increase in the cost of the sheeting.
Figure 7 and 8 present the effect of the distance (s) from the impermeable base and the
depth (d) of the sheeting below the excavation level, on the normalized maximum exit
gradient for the case of a uniform soil profile. The effect ors is significant for s < b, while there
is only a slight decrease of the exit gradient (ie) with increasing d (since the product led
increases almost linearly). The importance of the seepage exit gradient on the stability of the
bottom of the excavation is crucial: high values of ie (approaching unity) may cause bottom
heave, piping and loss of support at the base of the sheeting. Increasing the depth (d) of the
sheeting below the excavation level is very effective in reducing the exit gradient, both directly
(Equation 11) and indirectly (due to the increased chance of approaching or penetrating
Drainage of supported excavations 151

q
.....: 2 , ~ k r = k
kH '-~,~2,~v~-d I I b = 1 - - - --

0.5 ....:.-.7.

1 2 3
d/b

0.5

1 2 5
d/b
Fig. 6. Influence of the depth (d) of the sheeting penetration below the excavation level on
the estimated discharge. Soil with uniform permeability

through a low permeability layer). Results similar to the above are also shown in the
document NAVFAC DM-7.1 (1982) for the magnitude of the maximum exit gradient in
sheeted excavations as a function of the distance (s) from the impermeable base.
The distribution of the seepage exit gradient along the width of the excavation is presented
in Fig. 9. For large depths of penetration and high values of s, the exit gradient is almost
constant across the width of the excavation. Conversely, ie decreases away from the support
for low values of d and s; in these cases piping could be avoided by taking special measures
(e.g. placing weights) along the toe of the sheeting.
The hydraulic pressure distribution on the faces of the sheeting is very important in the
determination of the stability and the structural design of the support elements. During the
steady-state flow condition, hydraulic pressures on the upstream face of the sheeting are
lower than the hydrostatic pressures and vice versa on the excavation face of the sheeting. The
finite-element results show that in the case of a soil with uniform permeability the steady-
state pressure distribution is practically linear with depth along both sides of the sheeting
with a (common) peak value at the tip of the sheeting. The peak pressure (p) at the tip of the
sheeting is almost independent ors (Equation 14) and its dependence on the depths d and d 1 is
presented in Fig. 10 for the case of a soil with uniform permeability. The ratio of the steady-
state pressure to the hydrostatic pressure behind the excavation decreases with decreasing d
and increasing d 1 . For common values of d/b and dl/b, the pressure may be 20-50% lower
that its initial hydrostatic value. As a result, significant savings can be obtained if the reduced
hydraulic pressures are used in the design of the support system, rather than the more
152 Kavvadas et al.

d 1 /b = 1 d/b = 0.5
ied
1
H
2
0.5

i i

o 1 2 S/b

1
dl/b= 2
i d d/b = 0.5
e kr= k

0.5 2
l,

°o 1 2 S/b

Fig. 7. Influence of the distance (s) - tip of the sheeting to impermeable base - on the
estimated seepage exit gradient. Soil with uniform permeability

conservative full hydrostatic values. It should be pointed out that even these reduced
pressures are only applicable in the early stages of dewatering in the case of unconfined
aquifers. Water table lowering, which gradually occurs around the excavation, tends to
reduce the hydraulic pressures on the support elements even further. There is also evidence
that after the water table is lowered, hydraulic pressure distribution on the support elements
is no longer linear, but increases more rapidly with depth than a linear distribution suggests.
Uniform soil profiles are the exception rather than the rule in practical dewatering
problems. Soils usually include (thin) layers with different permeabilities; the effect of such
layers may be crucial in the success of the dewatering scheme selected. High permeability
continuous layers may increase significantly the amount of ground water infiltration and the
seepage exit gradient, while the low permeability layers have a very beneficial effect by acting
as seals. Increasing the depth of penetration of the sheeting below the excavation level
isolates any high permeability layers and takes advantage of the reduced permeability of clay
layers. This effect was investigated for the case of a continuous horizontal layer having
thickness (t) and permeability (kr) lower that the global soil permeability (k) (see Fig. 1). In
this case, fitting the finite-element results using a similar regression analysis leads to the
following relationships for the amount of seepage (qr) and the maximum exit gradient (ier):

qr=q/# (15a)

ier = ie/l~ (15b)

Drainage of supported excavations 153

S/b= 0.5
,dl/b= 1 /2 ____..
r = k ............

0.25

O I i

1 2 d/b 5

led kr
H 06 ---- 2 .............

0.4 ~~;.~7.7.1.~.~.~.i~
......z...........
;i ......
0.2
o 1 2 ,5
d/b

Fig. 8. Influence of the depth (d) of the sheeting penetration below the excavation level on
the estimated seepage exit gradient. Soil with uniform permeability

where:

(lSct

and q, ie are the corresponding values for a soil with uniform permeability k (Equations 10
and 11). The effect on both the amount of ground water infiltration and the maximum exit
gradient, as plotted in Fig. 11, is very important: a thin, low permeability layer can cause a
tenfold reduction of their values compared to the case of a homogeneous soil. Therefore, the
identification of such layers is one of the main objectives of the geotechnical investigation in
@watering projects. However, the designer should be cautioned that the beneficial effect of
such layers is restricted to cases where these layers are continuous beneath the excavation.
It should be pointed out that in the case of soils where thin low permeability layers are
penetrated by the sheeting in assessing the Factor of Safety against bottom heave the stability
of the base as a whole should also be checked. In fact, while the exit gradients may be greatly
reduced, high water pressures still act on the lower face of the impermeable layer and may
cause an uplift of the base if the weight of the soil above is not sufficient. Finally, in modelling
seepage problems in sheeted excavations, caution should be given to the boundary
conditions at the 'far field', especially in the case of layered soils. The existence of free water in
the proximity of the excavation (such as in excavations near a beach or a river) may result in
high water pressures at the base of the excavations and high seepage due to direct flow
154 Kavvadas et al.

i rain ........................................ " ...................

0.5

kr=k
0
2 4 d/b

i(x) /b--2
ie
1
0.5
0.5

S/b = 0,5

kr= k
0
o o.5 x/b

Fig. 9. Distribution of the seepage exit gradient across the width of the excavation, as a
function of the depth (d) of the penetration of the sheeting. Soil with uniform
permeability

through high permeability layers connected to the free water reservoir. In such cases, the
approximate solutions presented above are evidently not valid.

Excavations of limited length

The analysis and the results presented in the previous section refer to the two-dimensional
(plane) flow under a sheeted excavation with practical applications in the case of long
excavations (e.g. excavations for sewage transport systems and urban mass transit lines).
Excavations of limited length (circular, rectangular, square etc.) are also common. In these
cases, the ground water flow is three dimensional and the computational complexity of
numerical solutions via the finite-element method increases considerably. It would be very
convenient to extend the methodology used in the present study and estimate the relevant
quantities, i.e. the amount of seepage (qo) and the exit gradient (ie0) from their computed
values for excavations of infinite length (q, ie) through the application of appropriate
correction 'shape factors'. Table 2 presents the shape factors proposed in the Canadian
Foundation Engineering Manual (1985), for the case of excavations having circular and
square shapes. In the case of excavations having rectangular shape of (width B and length L,
where B < L), the shape factors presented in Table 2 can be generalized as follows (using
B=2b):
Drainage of supported excavations 155

P dl/~ "~ .............

~ho

0.5 ..........

S/b = 0.5

kr = k
O ~
0 1 2 3
d/b

dl/b
P
~ho
,. ,.-'°

0.5

S/b=

I kr = k
I a I I I 0

1 2 3 4
d/b
Fig. 10. Influence of the depth (d) of the sheeting penetration below the excavation level,
on the estimated maximum hydraulic pressure acting at the tip of the diaphragm. Soil
with uniform permeability
156 Kavvadas et al.

. . . .:::. . iii

0.5 0.5

iId=°5
......i.iiiii~i:.i.
.....:.:.........
o o
2 5 10 20 50 100 200 1,000
k/kr
Fig. 11. Influence of a thin low permeability layer having thickness (t) and permeability
coefficient (kr), on the seepage and the maximum exit gradient.

Table 2. Corrective Shape factors (Canadian Foundation Engineering

Manual, 1985)
Excavation shape Relation to b qo/q a ieo/ie
Circular (radius R) R= b 0.80 1.30
Square (size B) B= 2b 0.70 1.70 b

a discharge per unit length of the perimeter

b at the corners

00+00(,;) (16a)

ie~°= 1.70 (16b)

ie

Conclusions

The two-dimensional ground water flow, in the case of long sheeted excavations below the
water table, is analysed via the finite-element method, and the results of an extensive
parameteric study are presented in the form of dimensionless graphs. Semi-empirical
formulae are also proposed for the estimation of the amount of ground water infiltration, the
seepage exit gradient and the hydraulic pressure distribution on the faces of the sheeting, in
terms of the geometrical characteristics of the excavation and the soil permeability. The
predictions using the proposed relationships deviate from the corresponding finite-element
predictions by less than 15% for a wide range of geometries and soil characteristics. It is also
Drainage of supported excavations 157

shown that increasing the depth of sheeting penetration below the excavation level is a very
effective means of cutting off infiltration, especially in cases where the sheeting penetrates
through a low permeability horizontal layer or approaches the level of an impermeable base.
The accurate determination of the value of soil permeability is of utmost importance since
it strongly affects the amount of ground water infiltration towards the excavation.
Furthermore, the existence of continuous, horizontal, low permeability layers below the
excavation level significantly affects the drainage characteristics; thus, early identification of
such layers could influence the selection of the appropriate dewatering method. In
conclusion, careful geotechnical investigation and interpretation of the collected data is very
important in excavation projects below the water table.

References

Bjerrum, L., Clausen, C.J.F. and Duncan, J.M. (1972) Earth pressures on flexible structures. In
Proceedings of the 5th European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
Madrid, Spain, Vol. 2, pp. 167-76.
Canadian Foundation Engineerin 9 Manual (1985). Published by the Canadian Geotechnical Society,
Vancouver, B.C., pp. 421-428.
Clough, G.W. and Tsui, Y. (1974) Performance of tied back walls in clay, JGED, ASCE, 100, GT12,
1259-73.
Connor, J.J. and Brebbia, C.A. (1976) Finite Element Techniques for Fluid How, Butterworth and Co.,
London, pp. 207-21.
Darcy, H. (1856) Les Fontaines Publiques de la Ville de Dijon, Dijon, France.
NAVFAC DM-7.1 (1982) Soil Mechanics, Design Manual, US Department of the Navy, Alexandria,
VA.
Harr, M.E. (1962) Groundwater and Seepage, McGraw-Hill, New York, pp. 132-40.
Kavvadas, M. (1982). Non-linear consolidation around driven piles in clays, ScD thesis, Department of
Civil Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA, pp. 450-79.
Lambe, T.W., Wolfskill, L.A. and Wong, J.H. (1990) Measured performance of braced excavations,
JSMFE, ASCE, 96, SM3, 81%36.
Malvern, L.E. (1969) Introduction to the Mechanics of a Continuous Medium, Prentice-Hall, New
Jersey, pp. 205-7.
Powers, J.P. (1982) Construction Dewatering : A Guide to Theory and Practice, Wiley Interscience, New
York, N.Y., pp. 233-246.
Shuster, J.A. (1972) Controlled freezing for temporary ground support. In Proceedings of the 1st North
American Rapid Excavation and Tunnelling Conference, Chicago, Illinois, pp. 863-94.
Terzaghi, K. (1943) Theoretical Soil Mechanics, John Wiley and Sons, N.Y., pp. 235-48.
Terzaghi, K. (1953) Anchored bulkheads, American Society of Civil Engineers Separate Publication
262, New York, N.Y.