From Prof.

Antun Szavits-Nossan, co-coordinator of ISSMGE TC 37

To core members of TC 37 "Practice of active geotechnical design - Case histories"

The proposed agenda of the meeting of TC 37 to be held in Hvar on Thursday, 3

October 2002 at 18.00 hours.

Following the kind invitation of the Croatian Society for Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical
Engineering, I am pleased to announce the first meeting of TC 37 "Practice of active
geotechnical design - Case histories", which will be held in Hvar, Hotel Amfora, on Thursday,
3 October 2002 at 18.00 hours. 2002, during the 3rd National conference of the Croatian
SSMGE.

The proposed agenda:

1. Adoption of agenda
2. Terms of reference of TC 37
3. The TC 37 web site
4. Gathering of case histories
5. Proposed format of a case history (example enclosed)
6. Future activities of TC 37: workshops at ISSMGE sponsored Conferences, meetings
7. Workshop during XIII ECSMGE, Prague, 25-28 August 2003
8. Presentation of a highway project in Croatia with the application of active design
9. Any other topic

Zagreb, 9. August 2002

Construction of an anchored diaphragm wall designed to secure an 18 m
deep excavation pit for the Importanne Gallery shopping mall in Zagreb,
Croatia
A. Szavits-Nossan, University of Zagreb, Croatia

1. SOIL PROFILE AND MATERIAL PROPERTIES

F r a c t io n
c o n te n t (% ) w (% ) q u (k P a ) N (S P T ) v s (m /s )
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 0 200 400 600 0 20 40 60 80 0 200 400 600
0

10
D e p th (m )

15

20

25

30
f ill f r a c t io n o f c la y + s ilt u n c o n fin e d c o m p r e s s iv e s tr e n g th
f ir m c la y fr a c tio n o f c la y + s ilt+ s a n d S P T b lo w c o u n t
p la s tic lim it s h e a r w a v e v e lo c ity ( d o w n - h o le )
g ra v e l
n a tu ra l w a te r c o n te n t s h e a r w a v e v e lo c ity ( m o d e l)
s t if f c la y liq u id lim it

Figure 1 Basic properties of practically horizontal soil layers (qu = 2cu , where qu is the com-
pressive strength, and cu the undrained strength; SPT automatic release)

Table 1 Unit weight and derived strength parameters obtained from standard CIU and UU
triaxial tests (for clays) and SPTs (for gravel)

Soil layer Unit Effective Effective Undrained

weight cohesion friction angle strength, cu
(kN/m3) (kN/m2) (deg.) (kN/m2)

Fill1 19 5 30 -
Firm clay 19 15 22 -
Gravel 212 0 38 -
Stiff clay 20 150

1
parameters assumed
2
assumed
The Young modulus of concrete was assumed in predictions as 3 x 107 kN/m2. Commercial
ground anchors of high strength steel, with a nominal Young modulus of 1.95 x 108 kN/m2,
were used.

400

300
S h e a r M o d u lu s ( M P a )

200

C I U T r ia x ia l c o m p r e s s io n te s t

-     : L o c a l m e a s u re m e n ts
w ith H a ll e ffe c t tr a n s d u c e r s
m o u n te d o n th e s o il s p e c im e n
100 -  : S ta n d a r d m e a s u r e m e n t s w i t h
d ia l g a u g e b e tw e e n c a p s

0
0 .0 0 0 1 0 .0 0 1 0 .0 1 0 .1 1 10
s h e a r s tr a in ( % )

Figure 3 Measured shear stiffness of the stiff clay at the depth of 23 m; vertical deformations
measured by Hall Effect transducers from GDS, UK, mounted directly on the soil
specimen (confining stress equal to in situ vertical stress);
Full line: Toyoura sand at the same confining stress (adopted from Iwasaki et al.
1977 and Cubrinovski 1993)

2. DESCRIPTION OF GEOTECHNICAL WORKS

depth, m 0.8
0 ±0
fil elevation 119.6 m
-2

firm clay
prestressed
-10 anchor
gravel
diaphragm
-15 wall
stiff clay
-18
free
grouted length
-23
length
Figure 2 Layout of the diaphragm wall and prestressed anchors; the seven story building
(with one basement level) 6 m behind the diaphragm wall is not shown.

Table 2 Excavation stages and anchor properties

Stage Description depth L GL β a A Fo

(m) (m) (m) (deg) (m) (cm2) (kN)
1 Excavation 5
2 Prestressing 1st
anchor row 4 27 7 20 2,6 6,6 420
3 Excavation 11
4 Prestressing 1st
anchor row 10 20 7 12 2,6 9,7 400
5 Excavation 16
6 Prestressing 1st
anchor row 15 17 7 15 2,6 9,7 400
7 Excavation 18
L = anchor length; GL = anchor grouted length; β = anchor inclination; a = horizontal
distance between anchors; A = anchor cross-section area; F0 = anchor prestressing force.

3. PERFORMANCE DURING EXECUTION

0
S ta g e 2

10
D e p th ( m )

S ta g e 4
15
Figure 4 Displacements of the diaphragm
wall measured during construction by
S ta g e 7 several inclinometers embedded in the
20
p r e d ic te d wall; prediction by Szavits-Nossan et
m e a s u re d
al, 1999, using a kinematic hardening
elasto-plastic model implemented in
25 program FLAC, with the initial shear
0 1 2 3 stiffness determined from the shear
H o r iz o n ta l D is p la c e m e n t ( c m ) wave velocity measured by the down-
hole method.

4. ACTIVE DESIGN

1. Predicted diaphragm displacements in the design document,

2. Diaphragm displacements monitored during excavation,
3. Measurements compared with predictions during excavation,
4. Contingency measures (additional prestressed anchors) were not undertaken because
measurements almost ideally matched predictions.
5. REFERENCES
Cubrinovski, M. (1993) A constitutive Model for Sandy Soils Based on Stress-Dependent
Density Parameter. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Tokyo, Faculty of Engineering, Department
of Civil Engineering, Geotechnical Engineering Laboratory.
Iwasaki, T., Tatsuoka, F. & Takagi, Y. (1977) Shear Moduli of Sands under Cyclic Torsional
Shear Loading. Soils and Foundations, 18(1): 39-56.
Szavits-Nossan, A., Kovačević, M.S., Szavits-Nossan, V. (1999). Modeling of an anchord
diaphragm wall. Proc. Interntl. FLAC Symposium on Numerical Modeling in
Geomechanics: FLAC and Numerical Modeling in Geomechanics. Minneapolis. eds.:
Detournay & Hart, Balkema, Rotterdam, 451-458.