DFI-IGS-IITB-APS Conference 2013, Mumbai

DEEP FOUNDATION TECHNOLOGIES FOR

INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT IN INDIA
EARTH RETAINING SCHEMES FOR BASEMENTS AND
DEEP EXCAVATIONS
Keynote Lecture delivered
on 16th November, 2013
by

D. V. KARANDIKAR
B.Tech., M.Tech., FIE, FIGS, FIIBE

D. V. Karandikar & Associates Consulting Engineers

INTRODUCTION
With rapid growth in Infrastructure, deep excavations are required
for :

Construction of underground metro stations,

Basements for parking facilities and
Accommodating various services
The required open space is seldom available for excavations with flatter
slopes or benches and the excavations are more often vertical.

Designing and installing a suitable retaining scheme becomes a

primary responsibility of the project consultants and contractors to
ensure:
Safety of persons working in the excavated pits,

Avoid / minimize subsidence in the vicinity plots

Ensure traffickability of adjoining roads
Protection of trees near the plot
What is important is to remember that deep excavations need
protection in all types of soils, sands, clays and even in rock.

TOPICS PRESENTED
1) Brief outline of appropriate Geotechnical Investigation for deep
excavations
2) Gathering information on foundations of buildings nearby
3) Alternative Retaining Schemes
4) Estimating lateral pressures on retaining walls and design methods to
ensure wall stability. Use of typical software for design and parametric
study
5) Case Studies of Retaining Schemes
6) General Guidelines for Design of Excavation Protection Schemes
7) Conclusions

TOPIC 1-PLANNING OF GEOTECHNICAL

INVESTIGATION
Planning of appropriate geotechnical investigation is very
essential to obtain relevant geotechnical parameters for
design of retaining scheme. Various aspects to be
considered are:
Regional Geology
Igneous and Metamorphic Rocks covered over by Residual Soils
Sedimentary Rocks and Deep Alluvial Deposits
Laterites
Marine Clays

Topography and Locality

Hilly, Coastal, River plains, Urban

Ground Water Table and its Variation

Presence of Nalla, Tides, Rains

Seismic Zone

Stability during earthquakes, Possibility of liquefaction

Planning of Geotechnical Investigation Contd.

Chemical aggressiveness of soil and ground water
Proposed Plan Area of Excavation:

one borehole on periphery

of every side is desirable

Maximum Depth: Boreholes should go up to twice the depth of

excavation or 5 to 10m in rock if met with earlier.

Tests in Boreholes: SPT, UDS, Pressure meter Tests in Weathered

Rock, Packer Permeability Tests in rock, Vane Shear Tests in soft soils

Retaining Scheme to be Temporary or Permanent

7 Islands of Mumbai and Mumbai Geology

Soil Profile at Walkeshwar, Malabar Hill

Soil Profile near Sea Beach-Mahim

Soil Profiles at Juhu Vile Parle and Andheri

Development

Topic 2-FOUNDATIONS OF NEARBY

STRUCTURES
a) Foundation plan, footing or pile layout of nearby buildings
b) Distance of nearby buildings from plot boundary
c) Structural condition and age of buildings
d) Drainage and Service lines routing details and manhole
locations
e) Presence of Trees near Excavation Boundary
f) Presence of Nalla nearby

Presence of Nalla Nearby

Presence of Service Lines and Cables

Subsidence in Adjoining Plot due to Excavation

Assessment of Ground Subsidence near

Excavations
( After Peck, Ref. Fig. 14-8, Foundation Analysis and Design, J.E.Bowles, ELBS 4th ed.)

Checking Foundations of Adjoining Building

Typical Pile Foundation Exposed

Topic 3 - ALTERNATIVE RETAINING SCHEMES

Diaphragm Wall
Contiguous Bored Piles
Secant Piles
Metre Panels
Intermittent Shore Piles
Micro piles
Sheet Piles
Peripheral Grouting
Closely Spaced Prestressed Concrete Piles

Retaining Scheme for a Deep Excavation with

a Bench on Weathered Rock
Shore Piles or Diaphragm Wall

G.L.

Silty Clay
Anchor

Layer 1

Waling
Beam

Layer 2

Weathered rock
Dowels

Shotcrete/
RCC Wall

Raft

Layer 3
Rock

Typical Secant Piles Shoring Scheme

Intermittent Bored Piles, RCC Tie Beams,

Prestressed Anchors, Brick Filler Panels
with Drainage Pipes behind
Bored cast-in-situ RCC pile
Access Road
GL
Ground water Table
Fill
Soft to Firm Silty Clay

RCC Capping Beam pile

Brick Wall
Perforated Drainage
Pipe
RCC
Tie Beam
Sandy Draining Anchor
Fill

Prestressed Anchor

Brick Wall
Stiff to Very Stiff Silty
Clay
Anchor taken into
Rock

Water Proofing
Layer

Bored
Piles

Water proofing
layer

Raft
Bottom of
Exc.
Anchor

Weathered
Rock

SECTION

PLAN

Schemes have been successfully used in Mumbai to retain sides of deep

excavations upto 14m in Cohesive strata.

10

Retaining Scheme with Micro Piles

Intermittent Micro Piles with Internal Props and M.S.Plate Filler
Panels used to retain Sandy fill upto 5m. Filler panels were
progressively installed ahead of excavation.
Micro Pile with
M.S. Liner

Capping Beam
Internal Prop Truss

Ground Level
M.S.Filler Plates

Fill
Ground water Table

Prop

M.S.Tie Beam

Loose to
Medium Sand
M.S.Plate
Micro
Piles
Raft
Bottom
of Exc.

Weathered Rock

SECTION

PLAN

Alternative Retaining Scheme with Prestressed

Piles
(Fig. 14-2, Foundation Analysis and Design, J.E.Bowles, ELBS 4th ed.)

11

Diaphragm Wall
Generally the diaphragm wall is the most desirable option
for providing positive retention.
The wall however needs to be supported by prestressed
anchors.
The wall generally goes below the raft level to permit
keying and for reduction of seepage.
In restricted or congested locality however, it becomes
difficult to install the diaphragm wall since working space
is not available.

Alternative Retaining Schemes Contd

Secant Piles:
The installation of primary piles and then cutting the secondary
piles into them requires close tolerance and careful pile installation.
Anchors are required for deep excavation stability and they have to
be carefully positioned in primary piles.
Contiguous Piles:
These require careful installation and filling of gaps between piles.
At anchor locations, pile spacings have to be suitably adjusted.
Metre Panels
Special chisel tool is used to form adjoining bores of 1m wide x
0.6m thick RCC panels and they are concreted in-situ to form a
retaining wall. Depth of panel is limited.
Micro piles:
Micro piles require M.S.liners and the retaining scheme requires
multi layer waling beams and anchors.

12

Intermittent Shore Piles with Anchors

Bored piles with tie beams and anchors is one of the safeest options
in restricted area. An innovative modification consist of installing
bored cast in situ piles at say 2 pile dia. spacing along the face of
excavation and providing tie beams at various levels as per design.
Anchors, either prestressed (active) type or passive (tor-rod) type,
can be installed through the tie beams.
The arching of the soil in-between the piles is relied upon.
Continuous brick wall with mullions can be constructed on the tie
beams to give a plane inside face, which could be used for
supporting water proofing layer. The gap between the brick wall and
excavated face is filled up with graded gravel. A perforated HDPE
drainage pipe is placed to collect the seepage water and relieve the
water pressure on the brick wall.

Alternative Retaining Schemes Contd

Sheet Piles:
Not always possible since difficult to drive due to presence of
boulders,
Space restrictions for operation of the crane and hammer,
Maximum length restricted to12 metres,
Joints are cumbersome,
Withdrawal of sheet piles very difficult,
Sheet piles are not readily available
Peripheral Grouting:
In silty clayey soils, experience shows that sufficient spread of
grout can not be achieved. Time required is large.
Grout holes can not be punctured in adjoining road and If old
masonry walls exist on the boundary, then grout pressure is difficult
to develop since wall foundation might give way.
Prestressed Piles: Piles are prestressed to take lateral loads and
anchors are avoided.

13

Topic 4 -Various methods for Retaining Wall Design

( Ref. CIRIA Report 104)

1) Factor on Embedment, (Fd), Method: (Fixed earth Method): For a

cantilever wall decide the depth of embedment,do, based on soil
and water pressures,(Ref Fig.5.25), and increase the same by 20%.
For propped walls, compute do, as above but no further increase
is necessary.
2) Factor of Safety on Shear Strength (Fs) Method: Same as above
but active pressure and passive resistance are factored to increase
active pressure and decrease passive resistance and do is
decided and increased for cantilever wall but not for propped wall.
3) Factor of Safety on Moments (Fp) Method, (as in BS 8002):Depth
of embedment , do is decided for ensuring chosen Fp based on
moments about the toe and do is increased by 20% for
cantilevered walls but not for propped walls.

Various methods for Retaining Wall Design Contd..

( Ref. CIRIA Report 104)

Factor of Safety on Moments (Fr), as per assumed net available

passive pressures given by Burland and Potts (Ref. Fig. 5.27)
Design Approach A with moderately conservative soil parameters,
with c , or Cu or as per Approach B with worst credible
parameters or drained soil parameters with c=0 and
Approximate values of drained based on Plasticity Index are
given as follows: (Ref. Padfield and Mair)
PI

15

30

20

28

25

27

30

25

40

22

50

20

14

Factors of safety for Stability Analysis

( Ref.CIRIA 104 and BS 8002)
Method

Design
Design
Approach
Approach
A(Moderately A(Moderately
Conservative Conservative

Design
Approach
B(worst
parameters)

Design
Approach
B(worst
parameters)

C, or Cu

C, or Cu

C=0,

C=0,

Temporary

Permanent

Temporary

Permanent

1)Fd: Effe. Stress

1.2

1.5

Fd: Total Stress

2.0

2)Fs: Effe. Stress

1.2

Fs: Total Stress

1.5

3)Fp: Effe.Stress

1.2 to 1.5

Fp: Total Stress

2.0

4) Fr: Effe.Stress

1.5

Fr: Total Stress

2.0

1.2

1.5

1.0

1.2

1.5 to 2.0

1.0

1.2 to 1.5

2.0

1.0

1.5

Soil and Water Pressures on the Retaining Wall

Cantilevered Wall
p'a = Ka ( z-u ) - 2 c' *Ka
p'p = Kp ( z-u ) + 2 c' * Kp

Pa

Pwa
d0

Pp

La

Pwp

Lwa

Lp

R
Effective Soil Pressure

d0

Lwp

WaterPressure

Find d0 based on Following Eq. & increase by 20%

Pp*Lp + Pwa*Lwp = Pa*La +Pwa* Lwa
PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION ALONG THE RETAINING WALL
Prop Propped Wall
W
La

W
Lwp

Lwa

Lp

Pwa

Pa
Pp

d0

Effective Soil Pressure

Pwp

d0

WaterPressure

Find d0 based on Following Eq. but no increase

Pp*Lp + Pwa*Lwp = Pa*La +Pwa* Lwa

FACTOR ON EMBEDMENT METHOD

Ref: Fig. 5.25, Foundation Design & Construction, ELBS, 6th ed.,M.J.Tomlinson

15

Soil and water Pressures-Burland-Potts Method

Cantilevered Wall
p'a = Ka ( z-u ) - 2 c' *Ka
p'p = Kp ( z-u ) + 2 c' * Kp

Pa

Pwa
d0

Pp

La

Lp

Pwp

Lwa

Lwp
R
Water Pressure

Effective Soil Pressure

d0

Find d0 based on Following Eq. & increase by 20%

Pp*Lp + Pwa*Lwp = Pa*La +Pwa* Lwa
Propped Wall

T
La1
Pa1

La2

T
Lw1
Pw1

Ln
Lw2

Pa2

Pn

Net Activating Soil Pressure

Pw2

d0

Net Resisting Pressure

d0

Net Water Pressure(No Seepage)

Fr = Pn*Ln / ( Pa1*La1 + Pa2*La2 + Pw1*Lw1 + Pw2*Lw2)

do obtained from above is not further increased
FACTOR OF SAFETY ON MOMENTS METHOD
Ref: Fig. 5.27, Foundation Design & Construction, ELBS, 6th ed.,M.J.Tomlinson

Stagewise Pressures on Anchored Retaining Walls

PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION ON ANCHORED RETAINING WALL
Wall Movement

Active
Soil
Pressure

Wall Movement

Cantilever

1st Stage
Anchor

Cantilever

Anchor

Cantilever
Beam

Stress due to
Anchor Stressing

Stage 1

Stage 2

Stage 3

Ref: Fig. 5.28, Foundation Design & Construction, ELBS, 6th ed.,M.J.Tomlinson

16

Stagewise Pressures on
Anchored Retaining Walls-Contd.
Floor Slab

Cantilever
Cantilever
Anchor

Anchor

Anchor

Beam

Beam

Beam

Floor Slab
Stress due to
Anchor
Stressing

2nd
Stage
Anchor

Beam

Beam

Anchor

Beam

Base Slab/raft

Vertical
Force due
to
Anchors

Vertical
Force due
to
Anchors
Stage 5

Stage 4

Stage 6

Simplified Lateral Pressures on Braced Excavation

0.65 H Ka

H Ka

0.2H to 0.4H

0.25H

0.2H to 0.4H

0.1H

0.25H

0.75H

0.6H
0.5H

0.7H

0.75H
0.4H

0.25H
Sand
Ka = tan^2 ( 45 - /2 )

Soft to
Medium
Clay

Stiff
Fissured
Clay

Ka = 1- (4 Su/ H)

0.25H

0.2H
0.3H

0.2H

0.375H

0.5H

Sand
Temporary
Support in
Stiff clay

Permanent
Support in
Medium clay

Lateral Earth Pressure Dia. on Braced

Excavation Walls as per Peck

Lateral Earth Pressure Dia. on Braced

Excavation Walls as per Tschebotarioff

Ref. Fig. 14-4 Foundation Analysis and Design, J.E.Bowles, ELBS

4th ed.
Ref. Fig. 23, FHWA-IF-99-015, Geotech. Engg. Circular No. 4

Ref. Fig. 14-5 Foundation Analysis and Design, J.E.Bowles,

ELBS 4th ed.

17

Pressures due to Prestressed Anchors

The pressures exerted on the retaining wall due to installation of
prestressed anchors depend on the deflection of retaining wall, its
stiffness and consequent soil-wall interaction.
Various reported studies on instrumented excavations however
confirm that use of simplified pressure diagrams are acceptable for
practical purposes. (Refer FHWA -IF-99-015 , Section 4.4.4 and
FHWA-RD-98-067,1998)
It is necessary to keep in mind that for basement walls, earth
pressure at rest needs to be considered in the design, which would
be much higher than active earth pressure.

Analysis and Design of Retaining Walls using

softwares
For analysis and design of embedded retaining walls with or without
props, a typical software such as CADS PWS can be used.
It is based on widely accepted CIRIA 104, net available passive
resistance method proposed by Burland and Potts.
Construction Stage wise Analysis is available along with envelope of
maximum moments, shears and prop forces.
If active pressure tends to become negative(below zero) in cohesive
soils above water table, then software works out minimum positive
pressure based on minimum equivalent fluid density and also
checks possible positive pressure with tension crack filled with
water.
Structural design is also available for various retaining wall systems
such as diaphragm wall, bored pile walls, sheet piles etc. Typical
output obtained for one of the case studies is given below.

18

Typical Section of Retaining Wall with Props /

Anchors Locations (Walkeshwar , Mumbai site)

Analysis of Piled wall using software, input

geotechnical properties

19

Analysis of Piled wall using software-define stages

in excavation and prop levels

Typical Bending Moments and Shear Force

Diagrams

20

Typical output of moments, shears and prop forces

Walkeshwar Sea Front Site 1 Intermittant Shore

Piles for Retaining Deep Excavation
The location: Malabar Hill slope at Walkeshwar Seafront in Mumbai.
Plot 70m * 40m as shown in figure.
The structure: 7 storeye building with 4 storeyes, including parking
floors with car lifts, going 14m below the existing road level.
Excavation 5.5 m below max. tide level and 1 m below sea bed level.
10 boreholes, (2 in the sea), drilled from 4 different elevations as per
existing benches on the plot.
UDS, SPT in soil.
In rock, rotary core drilling with double tube core barrels fitted with
diamond drill bits.
Cyclic packers permeability tests in rock strata of varying recoveries,
the data considered useful during anchor grouting.

21

Case Study 1-Malabar Hill-Walkeshwar Sea Front

Site Layout and Borehole Data

Topic 5-Case Study 1-Borehole data and

stratification
Subsurface Stratification

Layer I : G.L. to 7.5m depth: Stiff yellowish brown silty clay with
gravels. Classification MH. SPT N typically 10.
Layer II :7.5m to12m :Very Stiff yellowish brown silty clay with fine
sand and kankers. MH, SPT N 15.
Layer III :12m to16m:Dense yellowish brown medium to fine clayey
sand with gravels. SC. SPT N 37 to 62
Layer IV:16m to 23m:Yellowish brown medium to fine grained
Weathered Basalt rock, C.R. <35%, RQD Nil
Layer V: Moderately hard, dark and bluish grey medium to fine
grained Basalt rock, C.R. >50 %, RQD upto 25%.
The soaked UCS about 175 Kg/sq cm.
The ground water table around 9.5 m depth, i.e. about 3.5 m above
sea bed level.

22

Geotechnical parameters and shore pile details

Cohesion, C
=
10 T/sq m
Angle of internal resistance
=
20 degrees.
Bulk density
=
1.8 T/cu m
Retaining Scheme: 600mm dia bored cast-in-situ piles were
installed at 1.2m c/c . They were tied with RCC waling beams and
three level anchors. Brick wall facing was constructed to receive
water proofing and back side was filled with draining fill. Details are
shown in the drawings.
During construction raft stability had to be ensured against uplift due
to high sea level. 10 T anchors were provided by installing 25 mm
dia. tor-below raft.

Anchored Shore Piles

23

Seafront (South) side Protection with Shore Piles

with Grouting of Existing Rubble wall

Case Study 2: Combination of Diaphragm Wall

and Intermittant Shore Piles
The location: Walkeshwar Seafront.
The plot size: 20 m*17.5 m with one side (south) right on seafront.
The structure: 6 storeyed building with 4 storeys going below the
existing road level upto 10.35m depth with car lift base further down
upto13 m depth.
Excavation had to be vertical with side protection on east, west and
north (road) sides. On the sea front side, an existing rubble wall was
to be backed up by R.C.C. retaining wall.
Excavation was going to be about 4 m below the max. tide level.
Besides dewatering arrangements ,base instability due to uplift also
neeeded to be prevented.
Four boreholes at four corners of the plot, going upto 25m depth,
revealed following stratification.

24

Case Study 2-Seafront Site

Geotechnical Data-Case Study 2

Layer I: Yellowish brown very stiff silty clay (residulal soil), thickness
varying from 2.75 m to 6.5 m. SPT N, 14 to 34, higher N due to
kanker and gravels.
Classification MH / CH, sand, silt and clay 20%,60%and20%
respectively, LL 51 to 64% ,PI 19 to 38%,
Cohesion 2.4T/m2, 26 degrees, saturated density 1.89 g/cc,
Layer II: Brownish grey Weathered Basalt, about 10 m thick. C.R.
upto 50%, RQD nil to 20%
Layer III: Greyish moderately strong Amygdaloidal Basalt with black
tachylitic bands with C.R. 50 to 100% , RQD about 50%
Soaked UCS about 150 kg/cm2.
The ground water table 9 m below G.L.
Based on above properties retaining schemes were designed with
details as below. CADS PWS software was also used.

25

Case Study 2-Retaining Scheme Details

Road (North) Side: 600mm thick, 2 level anchored diaphragm wall,
cast in 4m wide panels, founded at about 8m depth in weathered
rock.
10 T/m2 uniform surcharge considered to allow for traffic and
construction equipment loading.
Terzaghi-Peck simplified soil pressure diagram for anchored walls in
soft to medium stiff silty clay adopted for design.
60T and 100T anchors @2m c/c spacing were installed.
Incidentally, to ensure proper founding of diaphragm wall in
weathered rock, a minimum Chisel response Energy parameter of
50 T/m2/cm was specified, which was confirmed in pilot bores. This
is based on the approach suggested by eminent geotechnical
consultant, late Mr K.R.Datye.

Case Study 2-Excavation with Short Shore Piles

and Bench

26

Diaphragm Wall on Road (North) Side

Typical Details of Shore Pile,RCC Waling Beam

and Anchor

27

Case Study 2-After Installing Shore Piles with

Anchors, excavation and brick wall construction

Case Study 2- Dowels and 225 mm thick RCC

Wall constructed in 2m stretches below Anchored
Diaphragm Wall

28

Case Study 2 - Shore Piles on either side of Sea

Front protected by RCC Wall

Case Study3 - Contiguous Piles and Secant Piles,

with Anchors through capping Beam

29

Juhu Vile Parle Site-Salient Details of Shore Piles

and Anchors
Plot: 80m*35m
Site Constraints: Nalla nearby, Planning too tight to permit
benches, Existing 7 storeyed building resting on old footings very
close to excavation

Stratification: 0 to1m Fill, 1m to 5m Stiff Silty Clay (Residual soil),

5m onwards weathered Rhyolite rock

Excavation Depth: 14m to15m, surcharge load 10 to 30 T/m2

Shore Piles: 900mm dia @1000mm c/c, 16m long with 115 T
anchors @4.2mc/c thro capping beam

Secant Piles :Near 7 storeyed building both primary and secondary

piles, 900 mm dia. 16m long, with secondary RCC piles cutting
200mm on either side of PCC primary piles, with 115Tanchors
@2.1m c/c thro capping beam

Shore Piles and Secant Pile layout

30

115 T Anchors @4.2m c/c, inclined 45 degrees,

through Capping Beam

900mm dia Shore Piles with Anchors Through

Capping Beam (Nalla Side)

31

900mm dia.Secant Piles near Existing Building

Excavation with ground water in part area

32

Mahim, Mumbai Site Shore Pile SchemeCombination of 750 and 1000mm dia piles

Case Study 4-Mahim Site-BH1-Typical Data

33

Mahim Site - Salient Details of Shore Piles,

Anchors and Micropiles
Plot: 65m*20m, Excavation Depth: 10.5m
Stratification: 0 to 1.5m Murrum Fill, 1.5m to 7.5m Loose to
medium Sand, 7.5m to 10.5m Marine Clay and weathered rock
beyond 10.5m depth onwards, GWT at 3m depth

Shore Piles: On 3 sides,750mm dia @800mm c/c, 12m long

ensuring rock socket min. 2pile dia., M.S. liner upto 8m depth
(penetrating 0.5m in marine clay), and 1000mm dia @1050mm c/c on
4th side to avoid anchors.

Prestressed Anchors: 80 T capacity @ 3.35 m c/c, inclined 45

degrees to horizontal, located at -2.5m depth

Passive Uplift Anchors in Raft: 200mm dia [email protected]

c/c both ways, 4m in rock
Access Road Slab Supported on 300mm dia Micropiles @6m c/c,
going 1 m in rock on one side and shore piles on the other side.

Details of Shore Piles

34

Access Road Structural RCC Slab resting on

Shore Piles and Micropiles

Uplift Resisting Passive Anchors in the Raft

35

Mahim Site - Excavation in Progress

Excavation Completed

36

Dewatering and Excavation

Laying of PCC and Installing Passive Anchors

37

Site 5-Charni Road, Mumbai-Sandy strarta,

Intermittant Micropiles, M.S.Sheeting and Internal
Props used

Case Study 5 - Salient Details

Plot:

12m*30m

Constraints: Existing Multi Storeyed Buildings on sides

Excavation Depth: 5m
Stratification: Loose Beach Sand with GWT within 1 to 1.5m
Retaining Scheme: 200mm dia M.S. pipe micro piles @600mm
c/c,10m deep, reinforced with 2*ISMC100 box and grouted, gaps
between micro piles welded with M.S. plates, progressively lowered
ahead of excavation.

Internal Props: 12m long lattice girders @ 4m c/c which also

supported the working platforms at G.L.

38

Micropiles with Multilevel Structural Steel Waling

Beams, Internal Props and M.S. Sheeting

Site 6-Excavation 5m deep in 50m*30m,Open space

permitting Rubble Retaining Wall on one side but due to
less space,Shore Piles provided on other 3 sides

39

Site 6 - Andheri, Mumbai-Typical Borelog

40

600mm dia., 8m deep Shore Piles without Anchors

41

Rubble wall on one side and Shore Piles on the

other sides

Caution-Check the Design -Site where Shore Piles

Without Anchors Tilted

42

Topic 6-GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR DESIGN

OF INTERMITTANT PILE / MICROPILE
EXCAVATION RETAINING SCHEME
Plan Geotechnical Investigation with at least one borehole per side
of excavation, conduct SPT, UDS, PMT, VST as necessary and
decide the stratification and geotechnical design parameters.
Work out the Lateral Pressures on the retaining system considering
geotechnical parameters, depth of excavation, surcharge loads due
to material stacking near the edge of excavation, movement of
construction equipment, variation in ground water table.
Based on site constraints, accessibility for movement of piling
equipment, decide whether to go for bored piles or micropiles.
Decide the termination depths of piles or micropiles, ensuring that
they go well below the bottom of excavation and provide the
necessary fixity to pile and also have required lateral and vertical
load and bending moment carrying capacity.

Guidelines contd.
If piles are terminated in rock above the bottom of excavation, then
an adequate ledge of rock should be left between pile tips and face
of deeper excavation. The exposed rock face should be dowelled
and shotcreted at the earliest.
Spacing of piles should be decided based on soil stratification, shear
strength of weakest strata to develop arching action and location of
ground water table during construction period.
Decide whether to go for brick filler panels or M.S. sheet panels and
whether RCC waling beams are to be provided or structural steel
girders to be used. Structural design of panels and beams should be
made based on loading and their connection details properly worked
out. Beam design should consider anchor loads and bending
moments and RCC details modified at anchor locations.

43

Guidelines Contd..
Study the site constraints to decide whether prestressed anchors
could be adopted or not and what could be their permissible
inclination with horizontal. Also firm up whether the anchors are to
be designed as `temporary or `permanent type. In case they are
`temporary and destressed later, then the basement walls will need
to be designed for eventual full lateral loading coming on the
retaining wall system.
Decide optimum spacing of anchors and their capacity based on
their cost and time for execution.
If anchors are not possible then design suitable internal props and
connect them temporarily to main building columns or specially
constructed supports.
A close coordination and technical discussions between the project
geotechnical consultant and the structural design consultant are
very essential for ensuring appropriate design of the retaining
scheme and the safety of the excavations.

Conclusions
Retaining schemes with bored cast-in-situ piles / micro
piles with waling beams, anchors and filler panels, is a
safe and economic method of retaining deep
excavations in urban environment.
Various options of retaining schemes should be explored
before finalizing a scheme for a particular project.
Effect of deep excavations on foundations of nearby
structures should be studied and proper precautions
taken.

44

Acknowledgements
The author is thankful to M/s Talati & Panthaky Associated Pvt. Ltd.
the architects and M/s Ghadiali and Raval, Structural Consultants for
involving him in the projects covering the first 2 Case Studies.
He also wishes to thank Mr. Pravin Gala Structural Consultant, Dr
Kelkar Design Consultants, Mr. Kohojkar of Design Excellence and
Dr. Nori and Mr. Agugia of Shirish Patel Associates Consultants for
involving him in the projects covering the other case studies and
similar projects.
He thanks Mr. Kedar Birid for assisting with the preparation of this
presentation.

References
1) Brandl H. (1976) Stabilization of high cuts in slide areas of
weathered soils, Proceedings of the Sixth European Conference on
Soil mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vienna.
2) North-Lewis J.P. and Lyons G.H.A. (1975) Contiguous Bored
Piles, Proceedings of the Conference on Diaphragm walls and
Anchorages, Institution of Civil Engineers, London, P.189 - 194.
3) Datye K.R., Karandikar D.V. (1988) Bored Piling in Bombay
Region 1st International Geotechnical Seminar on Bored and Auger
Piles, Van Impe (ed.)/Ghent/ 1988 Balkema.
4) Karandikar D.V. (1996) Innovative use of piles for Retaining
Sides of Deep Excavation , 6th International Conference and
Exhibition on Piling and Deep Foundations, 1996, Mumbai, India.

45

References Contd..
5) FHWA-IF-99-015, Ground anchors and Anchored Systems.
6) Foundation Analysis and Design : J.E.Bowles, McGraw Hill
International ,4th ed.
7) Foundation Design and Construction: M.J. Tomlinson, ELBS, 6th
ed.
8) Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice, Second Edition, Karl
Terzaghi, Ralph B. Peck, Wiley International Edition, 1967

Be Wise and Discriminative

46

Thank You

47