Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground – Viggiani (ed)

© 2012 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-68367-8

An investigation into Inclined Struts method as a type of shoring

A. Fakher
Associate Professor, Faculty of Civil Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

S. Sadeghian
Faculty of Civil Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

ABSTRACT: Underpinning and shoring are two conventional forms of temporary supports given to
the buildings next to excavations. “Inclined Struts”, as a type of retaining structure which can be used to
support buildings next to excavations, can be categorized as underpinning and shoring. In this method,
some inclined struts connect the bottom of the excavation to the footing of adjacent buildings. Despite the
excessive use of the inclined struts in years, they have been poorly investigated. Herein, the most prevalent
construction use of the “Inclined Struts” are simulated using 3 dimensional FDM and the excavation-
induced displacements of buildings caused in each method are compared. The presented paper is in the
continuation of a previous two dimensional study undertaken by the authors. The current study indicates
that excavation-induced displacements of buildings considerably depend on the sequences of excavations.
In case an excavation is done in three suggested stages, the least excavation-induced displacement will
occur. Indeed, the excavation is firstly done up to the final desired depth but a premital soil margin is
remained next to the wall of the excavation. Afterwards, struts are installed and finally the excavation is
completed. This paper also discusses the number, position and sequences of installation of struts which
results in the least excavation-induced displacements.

1 INTRODUCTION or underpinning, is widely used in Iran. Despite the

excessive use of “Inclined Strut” method, adequate
Excavation-induced displacement caused by under- researches have not been conducted about it. Besides,
ground construction is of great importance in plan- International references have not adequately point
ning the excavations. Particularly, in urban areas it out to this method. Moreover, there are not adequate
would be impossible to estimate how much of allow- international resources concerning the mechanism of
able displacement of structures has been done before shoring and underpinning.
starting the excavation construction. During excava- Conventionally, there are some differences in
tion and support of open-cuts, changes in the state using inclines strut in excavation next to buildings.
of stress in the ground mass around the excavation These differences are in the number as well as order
and loss of ground is inevitable. Due to the changes of excavation’s stages. The aim of this paper is to
in stress and the ground losses, vertical and horizon- introduce different construction methods and then
tal ground movements occurs in the surrounding of compare them to find out the method which leads
excavation, which consequently results in rotation, to the least excavation-induced displacements.
deformation, and possibly some levels of damages The presented three dimensional study of inclined
in buildings and facilities next to excavation. struts is in the continuation of a previously pub-
Shoring and underpinning are two frequently- lished research on two dimensional numerical study
used methods in all over the world. Shoring is a of inclined struts (Sadeghian & Fakher, 2010).
form of temporary support which can be given to
existing buildings adjacent to excavation to avoid
2 THE USE OF INCLINED STRUT IN
damage to neighbouring structures. Similarly,
EXCAVATION
underpinning is another temporary support for
existing buildings next to excavations. Generally,
2.1 Inclined struts in literature
the main object of underpinning works is to trans-
fer the load carried by a foundation from its exist- Inclined Strut can be considered as shoring or
ing bearing level to a new level at a lower depth. underpinning depending on load transfer mecha-
“Inclined Struts Method” as a type of retaining nism. Shoring is a form of temporary support given
system, which can be categorized as a type of shoring to excavations or buildings next to excavations to

369
prevent excessive deformation of excavation wall or q=8q1
building next to excavation. There are three basic
systems of shoring, used to support existing struc- S tr u t
L=H
tures next to an excavation named:
H
I. Dead shoring
II. Raking shoring
III. And Flying shoring L = 0 .4 5 H

Dead shoring system is used to carry vertical a

loadings from building next to excavation to the
bottom of excavation. In Dead Shoring a vertical q=8q1
support usually installed under the foundation of
existing structures. In this type of shoring a meas-
ure should be applied to excavate the soil beneath S tr u t L=H
some of the foundations of the buildingBut raking H
shoring system is used to support a combination
of vertical and horizontal loadings. Flying shor-
ing system could be considered as an alternative L = 0 .4 5 H
to raking shoring to give a clear working space at b
ground level. (Chudley & Greeno, 2006)
Underpinning is another kind of temporary q=8q1
support for buildings next to excavations. Under- S tr u t
pinning caries a part of the foundation load to a
lower depth where can be the bottom of the exca- L=H
vation. (Chudley & Greeno, 2006) H
The use of Inclined Struts method is a traditional
method widely used to support buildings next to
not very deep excavations. In this method, wooden
or steel “struts” are used to connect the foundation
c
of adjacent building to the bottom of excavation (as
shown in Fig. 1), so Inclined Struts can be catego-
rized as raking shoring method or underpinning. q=8q1
S tr u t
Previous studies regarding inclined struts, tried
to find the best place for inclined strut to be con-
L=H
nected to the building next to excavation. In fact,
H
they used two dimensional analysis and simulated
excavation configurations shown in Figure 1. As
can be seen in Figure 1, struts were assumed to con-
nect the bottom of the excavation to the first floor,
the wall or the foundation of the adjacent building, d
or they were assumed to connect two adjacent foot-
ing of neighboring buildings (Sadeghian & Fakher, Figure 1. Common configurations of excavation pro-
2010). These studies concluded that Configuration cedure used in traditional shoring method which are
shown as Figure 1-b results in the least excava- investigated in previous studies. (a) Inclined struts con-
tion-induced displacement and in this respect it is nected to the first floor. (b) Inclined struts connected to
the footing. (c) flying shoring. (d) Two adjacent footing
advisable to connect the bottom of the excavation
of neighbouring building are fully connected. (Sadeghian
to the foundation of neighboring building in case & Fakher, 2010).
inclined struts applied as retaining system to sup-
port building next to excavation.
(1977), who introduced a damage classification
system. Later, Boscardin and Cording (1989)
2.2 Combination of vertical and horizontal
illustrated the importance of horizontal displace-
displacement to assess damages
ment in initiating damage. Figure 2 illustrates the
To assess damages occurred in buildings next to combination of angular distortion; define in this
excavations both vertical and horizontal displace- case as the maximum change in slope angle of the
ments should be considered. Firstly, settlement “beam” or “wall”, and horizontal strain. Damage
damage to masonry buildings was addressed by categories were based on the criteria suggested by
Burland and Wroth (1974) and Burland et al. Skempton and Macdonald (1956) and work of the

370
 struts, a portion of building loads conveys to
the bottom of the excavation. So inclined struts
conveniently compensate the bearing capacity
reduction.
b. Inclined and horizontal Struts restrain the
excavation-induced horizontal displacement
and also tensile strain in buildings next to exca-
vation. Therefore, it reduces the damage of the
building as Boscardin and Cording (1989) pre-
sented a graph, shown in Fig. 6, which shows
the importance of horizontal displacement.
Figure 2. Relationship between angular distortion,
horizontal strain, and damage category Boscardin and
Cording (1989). 3 NUMERICAL ANALYSIS

Conventionally, if inclined struts is used to support

the building next to excavation, excavation will be
done in several stages. To find the best construc-
tion method in terms of the number of stages in
which full excavation should be divided as well
as the order of chosen stages, numerical analysis
are used in the present study. A number of most
common configurations of construction meth-
ods regarding applying inclined struts to support
buildings next to excavation, are modelled using
three dimensional Fast Lagrangian Analysis of
Continua, FLAC (Itasca, 2002).The results are
compared and ones which leads to the least exca-
vation-induced deformation introduces.

Figure 3. Relationships between damage category, hor-

izontal strain and deflection ratio (Δ L ) which is defined
3.1 Numerical simulation and input data
as maximum deflection between the beam deflection line The inclined struts and adjoining building are mod-
and the straight line between the two end points (chord) elled using beams (a type of structural element in
divided by the chord length, Burland (1995). FLAC). Mohr-Coulomb constitutive model has
been chosen for soil elements. The parameters of soil
U.K. National Coal Board (1975). Figure 2 was
and structural elements have been shown in Table 1.
derived for building with length (L) to height (H)
ratio of 1 in terms of horizontal strain and angu-
lar distortion (β). In fact, angular distortion is the
maximum change in slope along the beam or the Table.1. The parameters of soil and structural elements
slope at the supports. used in numerical modelling.
A later modification of the critical strain
approach by Burland (1995) induced lateral strain Parameters Units Amount
based on the work of Boscardin and Cording
(1989) and adapted different values of critical Moment Interia 4.80E-05
m4
strain to reflect different damage categories, as
Beam cross section 4.80E-03
illustrated in Figure 3. However this approach was m2
limited to the case of L H = 1. ν – 0.35
γ soil kN/m3 20
2.3 Governing mechanism H m 8
As proposed by the authors (Sadeghian & Fakher, Esteel 2 2.0E+08
kN m
2010) predominant mechanisms of Inclined Struts
to support buildings next to excavation are as Esoil kN m 2 8.0E+04
follows: C 2 20
kN m
a. Due to the excavation, the bearing capacity of φ – 35
the foundations next to it reduces. Using inclined

371
 3.2 Modeling Stages
Firstly, the in-situ horizontal and vertical stresses
are generated. Initial in-situ horizontal and vertical
stresses are as follows:

σy γh
σx K σy
Figure 4. Boundary condition of the numerical model.

The Building where γ is the soil density, K0 is the coefficient of

Next to earth pressure at-rest, and σv and σh are the ver-
Excavation tical and horizontal initial stresses at depth of h
respectively.
Secondly, it is assumed that an eight-floor build-
ing with 5 and 2 spams in y and x direction respec-
tively has been located next to the excavation. The
depth of modelled excavation (H) is considered to
be 8 m since it is a typical depth when the tradi-
tional Inclined Struts method is used.
The width of excavation (W) and also the width
of neighbouring building (L) are assumed equal to
8 m in the models as a number of researchers con-
sider H/L and H/W equal to one in their studies.
(e.g., Burland & Wroth, (1974)).
Thirdly, excavation stages are modelled accord-
Figure 5. Discretisation of the medium for modelling.
ing to common excavation procedures. Boundaries
between the stages are modelled by geometry lines
TheBuilding
and on the basis of considered order for excavating
Next to as described later in this paper. Restrained areas
Structure in geometry lines are omitted, according to the
desired excavation stages. It is assumed that the
underground water level is low enough that total
stress analysis can be conveniently applied.

3.3 Modeling different configuration

As it has been mentioned here before, the inclined
struts are supposed to connect the foundation of
adjacent building to the bottom of the excavation.
Conventionally, full excavation is done in several
stages. Various construction procedures associ-
ated with inclined struts method are commonly as
follows:

Procedure (1)
Figure 6. Discretisation of the medium for modelling.
According to this procedure, the excavation is done
in merely one stage. Afterwards, inclined struts are
To minimize boundary effects, the vertical installed. In fact it is the easiest way of installation
boundary at the far ends is set 80 m away (almost method of inclined struts.
10 times of excavation’s width) from the centre of
excavation, (Fig.4). It, therefore, is assumed to be Procedure (2)
free in vertical direction and restricted in horizon- In this procedure, excavation is divided into two
tal direction. The bottom horizontal boundary is main stages. The boundary of these two stages has
restricted in the both horizontal and vertical direc- been shown by a boundary line in Figure. 7. The
tions. The boundary condition and the discretiza- soil in the further part of the excavation area from
tion of the medium for modelling have been shown the neighboring structure (named V0 in Figure. 7)
in Figures 4 to 6. is firstly removed. Then the soil margin, remaining

372
 Building in front of the foundation of neighboring struc-
next ture and placed in areas called V2, V4, and V6 are
to excavated and simultaneously inclined struts are
Inclined
excavation
Strut installed and connect the foundations to the bot-
tom of excavation. Finally, excavation is completed
and the soil in areas named V1, V3, and V5 are
Boundary Line removed.

Procedure (3)
Similar to first procedure, soil in area V0 (Fig. 7) is
removed. Then, the soil margin which is remained
in front of the foundation and situated in areas
named V2 and V6 are replaced by inclined struts,
connecting foundation of neighboring structure to
Figure 7. Cross section of excavation stages and strut the bottom of excavation. Next, the soil which is
installation in various procedures studied. remained in V4 is removed and an inclined strut is
installed, instead. Finally, the soil situated between
inclined struts is removed. (Fig. 8)
Building
next to
Procedure (4)
excavation Similar to No. 2 and 3 procedures, soil in V0 is
removed. As shown in Figure. 7. Then, the soil
placed in front of foundation (between bound-
ary lines as shown in Figure. 8) and placed in V4
is removed and replaced with an inclined strut.
V6 V5 V4 V3 V2 V1 Afterwards, the soil margin in area V2 and V6 are
replaced by inclined struts. Finally, the remained
soil is removed. (Fig. 8)
boundary of the wedges which are Procedure (5)
excavated in the premital soil Bottom
of the
Similar to the rest procedures (except procedure
remaining after the first stage of the
excavation.Afterwards, struts are excavation No 1), the soil in V0 is removed as shown in Fig-
installed in this wedges. ure. 7. Then, the soil in V1 and V3 in Figure. 9 are
replaced with inclined struts. Next, the soil margin
Figure 8. The longitudinal cross section of studied exca- in V2 is removed and inclined struts are installed.
vation and consequence of strut installation in procedures
(1) to (4). Procedure (6)
It is exactly the same as No. 5 but after excavat-
ing V0 (Fig.7), the premital soil in V2 (Fig. 8) is
removed and an inclined strut which connect the
Building foundation of adjacent building to the bottom
next to of the excavation is installed. Next, the soil in V3
excavation and V1 is replaced with inclined struts as can be
noticed in Figure. 9

3.4 Analysis result

V6 V5 V4 V3 V2 V1
Excavation-induced displacements in ground next
Struts to excavation as well as the wall of the excavation
caused by different excavation procedures are com-
boundary of the wedges which are pared in Figures 10 and 11.
excavated in the premital soil Bottom As it can be seen in Figures 10 and 11, No. 1
remaining after the first stage of the of the
excavation.Afterwards, struts are excavation
procedure leads to the greatest excavation-induced
installed in this wedges. displacements. Therefore, doing excavation in one
stage, results in the highest level of damage in
Figure 9. The longitudinal cross section of studied neighboring building although it is the easiest pro-
excavation and consequence of strut installation in pro- cedure in using inclined struts. Other procedures
cedures (5) and (6). contribute to almost the same excavation-induced

373
 position of Inclined Struts No.2
Lateral Displacement (cm)
difference between the displacement rendered by
-6 -5.5 -5 -4.5 -4 -3.5 -3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 Procedure 2, 3 and 4. this may reveals the fact that
0 the order of stages do not affect the excavation-
1 induced displacement considerably. The little dif-
2
ference between displacement associated with
Procedure No.1
procedures No. 5 and 6 confirm this fact, as well.
3
Procedure No.2 On the other hand it can be concluded that the
Depth (m)

4
Procedure No.3
Procedure No.4
width of the wedge play an important role in the
5
Procedure No.5 excavation-induced displacement. The later con-
Procedure No.6
clusion inferred from the different displacement
6
caused by procedure No. 2, 3 and 4 compared with
7 procedure No. 5 and 6. (Fig. 10 and 11)
8
Moreover, Figure 12 compares the amount of the
load which is transferred to the bottom of the excava-
Figure 10. Lateral displacement caused by mentioned tion via inclined struts. Considering the mechanism
procedures. of inclined strut which is discussed previously, one of
the main objects of inclined is to transfer a portion
position of Inclined Struts No.2
of load of the adjacent building’s foundation from its
bearing level to the bottom of the excavation. There-
12
fore, it can be noticed from Figure 12 that procedure
10
No. 1 is not work efficiently in comparison with
other methods. Although, No. 2 and 3 seems slightly
heave of the ground (mm)

8 Procedure No.1 more efficient in this regard, there are not consider-
Procedure No.2 able differences between the rest procedures.
Procedure No.3
6
Procedure No.4
Procedure No.5
4 Procedure No.6
4 CONCLUSION
2
The presented 3D study confirms the results of pre-
0 viously published 2D studies (Sadeghian & Fakher,
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Distanse from the edge of excavation (m)
2010). In addition, the following conclusions are
suggested base on the presented research.
Figure 11. Displacement of the adjacent ground caused a. To minimize excavation induced displacement,
by mentioned procedures. it is essential that a premital soil margin of
excavation to be left before the installation of
180 inclined struts. It means, the excavation of the
160 premital margin should be done after the instal-
Load transferred to the bottom of excavation (kN)

lation of inclined struts.

140
b. The sequence struts installation has not any
120 considerable effects on excavation induced dis-
100 Strut No.1
placement. However, the simultaneous installa-
Strut No.2 tion of struts could minimize displacement.
80 Strut No.3
c. To install each inclined struts, the above men-
60 tioned perimital soil margin should be exca-
40
vated in a very narrow trench perpendicular to
the excavation wall. The width of this trench
20
plays an important role on the amount of dis-
0 placements and should be minimized.
Procedure Procedure Procedure Procedure Procedure Procedure
No.1 No.2 No.3 No.4 No.5 No.6

Figure 12. Load transferred to the bottom of the exca- REFERENCES

vation in different procedures.
Boscardin, M.D. and Cording, E.G. (1989), “Building
Response to Excavation-Induced Settlement”, Jour-
displacements. However, more detailed studies, nal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 115, No. 1,
reveals that Procedure No. 2, 3 and 4 leads to the pp. 1–21.
least displacements in comparison with Proce- Burland, J.B. and Wroth, C.P. (1974), ”Settlement of
dures No. 5 and 6. However, there are not to much Buildings and Associated Damage” SOA Review,

374
 Conf. Settlement of Structures, Cambridge, Pentech Itasca (2002a (, “Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continuain
Press, London, pp. 611–654. 2 Dimensions – FLAC2D “Second Revision, April.
Burland, J.B., Broms, B.B., and DEMello, V.F.B. (1977), National Coal Board (1975), “Subsidence Engineers
“Behaviur of foundations and structures”, State-of- Handbook”, National Coal Board Production Dept.,
the-Art Report. Proc, 9th Int. Conf. on Soil Mech. London, England.
And Found. Engr., 2, Tokyo, Japan, pp. 495–546. Sadeghia, S. and Fakher, F. (2010), “An Investigation into
Burland, J.B. (1995), “Assessment of Risk of Damage to a Shoring Method to Support Buildings Adjacent to
Buidings due to tunnelling and Excavations”, Invited Excavations”, The 17th Southeast Asian Geotechnical
Special Lecture to IS-Tokyo”, 95:1st. Conference, Taipei, Taiwan, pp. 207–210.
Chudley, R. and Greeno, R. (2006), “Building Con- Skempton, A.W. and Macdonald, D.H. (1956), “The
struction Handbook”, Technology and Engineering, Allowable Settlement of Buildings”, Proc. Inst. Of
pp. 728. Civ. Engrs., Part 3, 5, pp. 727–784.

375