El-Kelesh, A M and Hassan, D A (2023) Impact of ground conditions and excavation depth on selection of excavation support system. International Journal of Construction Management, 23(15), pp. 2539-2550. ISSN 1562-3599
Abstract
Inappropriate selection of an excavation support system (ESS) may lead to delays, cost overruns and quality and safety problems. Soil conditions, excavation depth and groundwater level are important factors that significantly affect the selection of ESS. However, a guideline that determines the effects of these three factors and accounts for their variation in the selection of ESS is not available. To evaluate such effects, a questionnaire was sent to excavation support experts worldwide. The results of the conducted survey are presented and discussed in the current paper to determine the favourable soil conditions and maximum excavation depths for ESS in dry and wet soils. The focus is on the soldier pile, secant pile, diaphragm and jet grout walls because of their common use worldwide. Clear guidelines that can help in the selection of an appropriate ESS for given site conditions could be established. The obtained findings are compared with the conditions and adopted ESS of reported case histories.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | excavation depth; excavation support systems; ground conditions; groundwater level |
| Index terms: | history, ground condition, variation, questionnaire, excavation, groundwater, survey, cost overrun |
| Subjects: | water management, contractual condition, geotechnical engineering, data collection methods, financial and cost management, architectural and construction history, construction operations |
| Topics: | Cost Management, Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Sustainability, Contract Administration, Site Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here