Earth Retaining Structures in Perth, Wa: Soil & Rock Engineering

EARTH RETAINING STRUCTURES IN PERTH, WA
M A Woodward
Soil & Rock Engineering
ABSTRACT
This paper provides a brief description of the ground strata and ground water conditions commonly encountered in
excavations in and around the CBD and residential areas near Perth, WA. The particular implications of these
conditions on the selection, design and performance of conventional and locally developed retaining wall systems are
addressed to provide guidance in the identification of the most appropriate system for future excavation projects. A
summary of the retaining wall systems used in Perth is presented, with comments relating to the advantages and
limitations of each wall type. Details of a number of case histories are provided to highlight the appropriate use of most
of the retaining wall types considered. Reference is made to a cautionary note relating to the inappropriate reliance, by
some sectors of the construction industry, on the weak cementing of the near surface Tamala Sands that occurs widely
over the Perth Coastal Plain.
INTRODUCTION
A significant proportion of the land area developed for residential, commercial and industrial use, in and around Perth,
WA, is located on the coastal plain where deposits of varying depths of sand over limestone predominate. These ground
conditions are favourable for the support of vertical loads and accordingly, shallow foundations can frequently be
adopted. Rapid rises in land value in the late 1990s have led to the adoption of basement construction for increasing
numbers of developments. In particular, the use of basements has increased significantly for commercial developments
in the CBD, and prestigious residential developments on both the Swan River and Indian Ocean fronts, as land value
increases have outstripped construction costs.
The widespread presence of near surface sand deposits does not readily accommodate unsupported excavation,
particularly when in close proximity to adjacent existing structures. This paper identifies some of the conditions that
are encountered in Perth, reviews how they impact on the use of conventional retaining structures such as diaphragm
walls, gravity limestone walls and heavy sheet piles and presents details of a number of systems, such as lightweight sheet piles, microfine cement grout, reinforced earth and soil nail walls, that have recently been developed to
suit the particular ground conditions that are encountered.
The near surface sands, widely intersected within the top 4 to 8 metres, are frequently weakly cemented and, for a short
period of time, can stand up with a near vertical cut face provided there is no vibration, water or mechanical impact to
disturb the soil and cause the cementation to be lost. Unfortunately, the apparent ability of the weakly cemented sand to
stand unsupported can lead to complacency and a lack of prior realisation of the nature and/or extent of retaining
systems that may be required in some circumstances. By presenting brief details of a number of projects in Perth,
including the use of both conventional and some of the more recently developed systems, this paper provides details of
the problems associated with ground retention that can be encountered, and some of the measures that have been
adopted to address these problems.
GEOLOGICAL & GEOTECHNICAL ISSUES
A number of other papers presented in this publication address the geological and engineering nature of the coastal
sands and limestone in great detail. When addressing geotechnical issues relating specifically to earth retaining
structures, it is relevant to note that weakly cemented sand, varying from a loose to a very dense state, over limestone,
predominates.
The degree of cementing of the near surface sand can vary significantly but is often present in undisturbed strata in the
Tamala sand deposits. The Tamala sand, and underlying Tamala Limestone strata, are generally located within a
nominally 10 km wide coastal strip. Bassendean sands are located to the east of the coastal strip and are generally less
well cemented. Inspection of the Perth geological map indicates that Perth city centre and the areas to the north and
west are mainly areas of coastal quartz sand and/or the coastal (Tamala) limestone.
Generally the strength of the cementing is sufficiently low that disturbance from vibration and/or excavation can break
the inter-granular bonds and effectively remove the apparent strength returning the sand to a purely frictional material,
i.e. the apparent cohesion, c, is reduced to zero as a consequence of construction activity in the sand.
Australian Geomechanics Vol 38 No 3 September 2003 The Engineering Geology of Perth Part 1
97
M A WOODWARD
In low lying areas around the CBD, such as some parts of Northbridge and East Perth, and in most areas in close
proximity to the Swan River, recent alluvial deposits of soft clays and silty sands can be intersected. These materials,
often encountered in association with near surface ground water levels, give rise to very different retaining wall and
construction requirements.
It is relevant to note that the extreme seasonal variations that occur between the wet winter months and the long dry
Perth summer can cause significant variations in the water table level in some areas. It is important to check the time of
year that measurements of the ground water depth were taken, and the likely required timing and duration for any
retaining wall construction and performance, when assessing the possible implications of ground water on the wall
being considered.
The coastal plain and central Perth are relatively flat areas with no significant topographical features. The few natural
slopes around Perth, such as the Kings Park Escarpment, or Mount Eliza, the South Perth foreshore and river frontage
cliffs give rise to a particular and localized set of conditions that require careful consideration when construction
activity encroaches into the top or bottom of these features.
TYPES OF RETAINING WALLS
3.1
GENERAL
In order to effectively select and design an appropriate ground retention system, it is important to understand the nature
of the retaining requirements, range of options that exist, and also to be aware of the potential benefits and limitations of
these various ground retention systems. This section of the paper presents details of some of the ground retaining
systems that are available in WA. It is relevant to note that, in some circumstances, non-standard or hybrid solutions,
combining a number of aspects of different conventional systems, can be adopted.
Ground retaining structures in and around Perth may be required to perform any of the following functions:
Requirements
Options
Enable steep excavation

below the original
ground level
(Top down).
Embedded retaining walls (cantilever

or propped), soil nail walls and insitu
grouted gravity walls.
Retention of placed fill

above the original
ground level
(Bottom up).
Reinforced earth walls, gravity walls

(limestone), Criblock walls and
structural (concrete and reinforced
masonry) cantilever walls.
Slope Stabilisation of
existing unstable
slopes.
Soil nails, reticulated pile walls,

Criblock walls and benching,
reinforcement with vegetation.
Enable slopes to be
over-steepened to a
revised, more onerous
profile.
Soil nails, grouting, embedded

retaining walls, reticulated pile walls.
98
Comments
Basement constructions in the CBD, road
cuttings and below ground railway stations etc.
Access, design life and allowable deflections are
important selection criterion. In-situ ground
conditions must be defined.
Residential developments, elevated carriageways
and slope remediation. Fill properties must be
defined and controlled. Construction technique
will strongly influence performance.
Remediation of Mount Elisa and South Perth
foreshore slopes. Existing slope geometry and
soil strata parameters must be well understood.
Access and design life issues will dictate viable
options.
Developments along Mounts Bay Road and river
foreshore in Dalkeith and Mosman Park etc.
Existing and proposed slope profile and soil
strata parameters must be known. Access
constraints and construction methodology must
suit slope profile.
M A WOODWARD
3.2
EMBEDDED RETAINING WALLS
The most common form of ground retaining structure for the support of excavations is the embedded retaining wall.
The structural wall element is formed in the ground strata from the existing surface and supports the retained soil as the
excavation is carried out. These structures are almost all vertical, and can stand in cantilever up to heights in the order
of 3.0 m to 3.5 m. Propped, braced or anchored walls are generally adopted where larger retained heights are required
and/or where additional lateral support is required to ensure that wall deflections are limited to small values.
The following table presents brief details of a selection of some of the particular embedded retaining wall types that can
be considered for use in Perth:
Wall Type
Structural
Element
Conventional
Sheet Pile
Larssen or
Frodingham Steel
Sheet Piles.
Lightweight
Sheet Pile
Folded steel plate

up to 6mm thick.
Each sheet 800 to
1100mm cover.
Soldier Pile
Wall
Steel UC & Timber

or Concrete
Lagging.
Contiguous
Pile Wall
Bored or CFA
piles.
Diaphragm
Wall
Cast insitu
reinforced concrete
wall, 600mm to
1200mm wide.
Geocast/
Echidna Wall
Continuous cast
insitu reinforced
concrete wall.
Typically 300mm
wide.
Temporary/
Permanent
Advantages
Disadvantages
T&P
High capacity elements, can

be reused, adequate water cut
off.
Durability, cost, noise &

vibration.
T
(can be P)
Cost, well suited for use with

mechanical anchors. System
effectively developed in Perth
and very well suited to work
in the weakly cemented
Tamala sands.
Limited capacity and depth,

vibration. Limited water cut
off and declutching. Only
suitable for temporary walls.
May need prebore in clays.
Cost, access, low vibration

and flexibility. Widely used in
Perth for temporary
excavations.
Generally temporary and

potential poor alignment. Predrilling required into basal
Limestone.
High capacity, low vibration.

Can provide permanent
cantilever walls.
Cost, access for rig, no water

retention.
High capacity, can form

permanent structure, good
water cut off. Used for many
deep basements in
the Perth CBD
Not widely used in Perth.
Lower cost permanent

continuous wall. Good
surface finish. Well suited to
weakly cemented Tamala sand
strata.
Not widely used Perth.

Cost, dimensional limits of
panels. Large plant requires
clear access to an open
working platform.
New systems. Limited depth

and only suitable to ground
conditions above the water
table level.
99
M A WOODWARD
Technical developments with specialised installation equipments and temporary mechanical anchors have resulted in
widespread use of lightweight sheet pile systems for temporary ground retention in and around Perth. The system is
particularly well suited to the weakly cemented Tamala sands in the coastal strip provided that underlying Limestone
does not prevent installation to depth, and installation vibrations can be accommodated by adjacent structures.
Figure 1 Typical Lightweight Sheet Pile Wall Design

Conventional retaining wall systems, as detailed in Figure 1, are rarely as cost effective as the light weight sheet pile
wall system but are commonly used in Perth where one or more of the identified disadvantages of the lightweight sheet
pile or soldier pile walls cannot be accommodated.
Recent developments of the Geocast and Echidna cast in situ trenched retaining walls have been made to accommodate
the ground conditions encountered in and around Perth.
100
M A WOODWARD
Figure 2: Geocast wall under construction, Northbridge, WA.

Figure 2 shows the Geocast system in use through coastal strip quartz sands in the Northbridge area immediately to the
north east of the Perth CBD. Similar works have also been completed on projects in both East and West Perth.
These systems are being developed from deep trenching practice to enable the construction of permanent reinforced
concrete walls for basements up to two stories in depth.
Projects completed in 2001 have shown that limitations with the ground water, buried obstructions and the level of the
basal Limestone must be addressed when considering this approach.
Both systems cut a temporary slot in the ground into which self compacting concrete is poured followed by vertical
reinforcement. The systems are suited to use in undisturbed Tamala sands where the natural weak cementing provides
the required temporary slot stability before the concrete is placed.
Figure 3 shows the successful utilisation of a conventional soldier pile wall for an excavation into the Tamala sands
below the Perth Mint site to the east of the main CBD area.
101
M A WOODWARD
Figure 3: Soldier pile wall, Perth Mint, Perth, WA.

3.3
REINFORCED CUT RETAINING STRUCTURES (TOP DOWN)
The use of soil nails to reinforce the insitu soil as an excavated face is formed is now widely adopted around the world.
The system can be used for temporary or permanent retaining structures and can offer a flexible and cost effective
solution in many circumstances. As the soil nail wall involves the sequential excavation of the cut face, it is essential
that the exposed soil strata can stand unsupported for a short period of time, as is commonly the case in the coastal
sands around Perth.
For steep excavations in sand, temporary support, generally in the form of scrap corrugated iron roof sheets and star
pickets, can be used prior to placement of the shotcrete facing. At shallower angles or in cohesive soils the temporary
stability is not generally of concern. Recent developments, adopted by Perth based soil nail wall contractors to address
temporary instability issues, have included the use of sacrificial lightweight sheet piles, a cast-in-situ grout membrane
and pre-treatment of problematical areas with Microfine cement grout. All of these issues add to the standard costs of a
soil nail wall but can enable the use of this solution in some circumstances that would otherwise require more costly
structural pile or diaphragm wall embedded retaining structures.
Caution must be exercised when adopting soil nail wall techniques below the water table. Temporary dewatering will
be required ahead of the excavation and provision must be made for weep drains through the wall facing to ensure that
water pressures cannot build up behind the wall. The issues associated with dealing with these problems are often
sufficient to preclude the use of soil nails in areas where the excavation must extend below the level of the ground
water.
Slope stabilisation with soil nails can frequently be adopted without the need for any shotcrete facing. The nature of the
required surface stabilisation measures will be dictated by the slope angle and the cohesion of the soil strata. Systems
such as surface vegetation, geogrids and matting have been used successfully on a number of projects. In arid climates
the use of vegetation and the associated requirement for reticulation must be considered in terms of slope stability and
component durability. In Perth the selection of vegetation must be based around the use of native plants that can be
assured of survival without the need for extensive reticulation.
Where the proposed soil nail wall is close to a site boundary, it is generally necessary to obtain permission to place the
nails below the adjacent property. In some situations this can preclude the use of this otherwise suitable system.
3.4
REINFORCED EARTH FILL RETAINING STRUCTURES (BOTTOM UP)
The reinforcement of placed and compacted soil fill, with some form of protective face or membrane, can provide
flexible and cost effective retaining solutions. Geogrid and deadman reinforced earth retaining systems are
particularly well suited to the Perth conditions due to the relatively low cost, or on site availability, of suitable clean
sand fill. The design of any reinforced earth wall (REW) retaining structure must be based around the relevant
parameters for the available fill material and proposed compaction methodology.
102
M A WOODWARD
These systems are not generally pre-stressed and provide a relatively flexible or soft retaining structure. REW are
frequently constructed laid back at a small angle so that final deflections will, generally, result in a near vertical face.
The wall facing is required to provide a durable membrane to prevent erosion and surface sloughing and at the same
time would be selected to give an acceptable aesthetic scheme.
Thiess utilised precast concrete facing panels with steel reinforcement strips to construct the bridge abutment walls for
the Kwinana Freeway Extension Project to the south of Perth. Geogrid reinforced limestone faced walls have been used
on a number of large scale residential developments where the walls were required to look like conventional limestone
walls but the geogrid approach offered a more cost effective solution (Figure 4).
Soft REW retaining solutions can often accommodate surface vegetation and curved sloping construction lines which
can produce an environmentally acceptable, natural looking or even hidden retaining structure.
Figure 4: Geogrid reinforced limestone wall, Mosman Park, WA.

3.5
GRAVITY WALLS
The gravity wall provides lateral support from its self weight and bearing pressure at the base. Conventional limestone
walls are the most common example in WA. It is essential that the bearing pressure, imposed by the base of the wall on
the underlying founding soil strata, is acceptable and does not cause excessive rotation or settlement of the wall
structure. It is also essential that the wall geometry and mass provide adequate resistance to sliding as these walls do
not typically incorporate any significant depth of embedment.
The introduction of Microfine cement grout in WA in the mid 1990s has enabled the insitu formation of substantial
gravity retaining structures in clean Perth sands (Figure 5). The grouted block has properties not dissimilar to
limestone, i.e. unconfined compressive strengths (UCS) typically in excess of 2.0MPa, and can be formed prior to
excavation to provide a combined underpinning and ground retention function. It is essential that appropriate controls
are adopted on site as the grout block must be continuous and of the specified size and strength to perform adequately.
The grouted option has the significant advantage that extensive over-excavation, as would generally be required to
enable construction of a conventional gravity wall, is avoided.
103
M A WOODWARD
Figure 5: Typical Microfine cement grout block detail.

One solution that is more widely used in other regions where limestone is not so readily available is the use of scrap
tyres to build walls. The tyres are placed in layers and filled with locally available fill material to form a gravity wall.
Ties, running back to buried dead man tyre anchors, can also be utilised where increased lateral stability is required.
This form of construction can consume large numbers of scrap tyres that are otherwise difficult and costly to dispose of.
The very low material costs must often be offset against the increased construction costs that can occur with a labour
intensive construction system.
LOCAL CAPABILITY, EXPERIENCE AND RESOURCES
The local capability and expertise, which has been developed by specialist contractors operating in WA, has evolved
specifically to address the more commonly encountered ground conditions in and around Perth. The widespread use of
Microfine cement grout, and the combination of lightweight sheet piles with mechanical anchors, both offer very cost
effective retaining wall solutions in the Perth sands encountered below the coastal plains. More conventional systems
such as soldier pile walls, contiguous pile walls, diaphragm walls and soil nailing are all offered by Perth based
contractors and in many circumstances have also been tailored to suit local conditions.
The advice and recommendation of suitably experienced contractors should be sought early on in the selection process
to ensure that the optimum solution is identified and that site specific issues such as access and environmental
constraints are considered as well as the technical advantages and limitations of the possible solutions.
DESIGN ISSUES
5.1
GENERAL
The design of any retaining structure can only be effectively addressed if the relevant potential modes of failure and
unacceptable serviceability criteria, i.e. principally excessive deflection and/or settlement, are understood and defined.
AS 4678 2002, Australian Standard Earth-retaining structures, presents a description of the fundamental
requirements of the design of a retaining wall and also provides graphical details of potential modes of failure in both
the ultimate and serviceability limit state conditions. This standard does not however present details of accepted
methods of analysis or design for specific retaining wall structures.
104
M A WOODWARD
A number of established methods of retaining wall analysis exist that are based on the application of active (Ka) and
passive (Kp) earth pressures on the back and front of the wall. There are a large number of widely used publications
dealing with the analysis and design of retaining walls and the selection of appropriate earth pressure coefficients. As
the purpose of this paper is to be specific to Perth conditions these general issues are not considered further herein.
5.2
DESIGN PARAMETERS FOR PERTH
The widespread assumption, in the local construction industry, that most of the Perth area comprises of weakly
cemented Perth sand over limestone, frequently leads to reliance on very limited geotechnical site investigations. In
some circumstances, no geotechnical investigation is carried out at all. In these situations it is necessary to adopt
reasonably conservative design parameters and base the design methodology and analytical values on experience in
similar conditions. When the wall analysis is based on assumed parameters, it is particularly important that rigorous
site supervision and inspection are adopted to ensure that the conditions encountered on site are consistent with the
design assumptions that have been adopted.
The design process will essentially require determination of destabilising loads or forces, i.e. overturning moments,
horizontal forces and/or earth pressures on the structure and comparison with the restraining loads or forces that can be
sustained by the retaining structure. An adequate FoS against the ultimate limit state of collapse or failure must be
maintained. There are numerous publications which define appropriate design methods for the various retaining
systems. A number of these are presented below but cannot be addressed in detail here.
5.3
PREDICTION OF DEFLECTIONS
Some specialised software packages produced for the analysis of embedded walls, adopt finite element analytical
methods in an attempt to predict wall deflections during the specified construction sequence. The use of such
packages,and adoption of reasonably conservative parameters for the Perth sands generally tends to ignore any potential
cementing, i.e. c would be set to 0.0 kPa and the soil stiffness would frequently be set at nominally 10.0 MPa/m depth,
and so tends to overestimate wall deflections. Comparison between predicted and actual wall deflections on a
significant number of lightweight sheet pile walls in and around Perth indicates that in some circumstances the actual
wall deflections are less than 50% of those predicted by WALLAP, one of the widely adopted wall analysis packages.
Experience gained using WALLAP on wall analyses in Perth sands indicates that the adoption of higher soil stiffness
values, in combination with relatively low stiffness wall elements such as lightweight sheet piles or soldier pile walls,
leads to numerical errors in the software and can prevent the analysis running properly.
The prediction of wall movements for gravity and reinforced earth retaining systems would require the use of finite
element or finite difference, i.e. FLAC methods of analysis. These analytical approaches are rarely used for routine
walls as the value of the works is not large enough to justify the costs associated with the necessary detailed engineering
analysis. Experience has shown that the following typical deflections can be assumed to represent a reasonably
conservative estimate of wall deflections for passive systems, i.e. where no pre-stressed anchors or pre-loaded struts are
used:
Wall Type
Soil Nail Wall
Microfine Grout Wall
Maximum deflection
Height x 0.003
10 mm
Notes
Passive nails
Base reaction in the middle third
The values presented above would not apply in non-standard conditions for example where the surface of the retained
ground was at a steep batter and/or a significant surcharge load was applied to the retained ground by, for example, an
adjacent building.
5.4
GROUND WATER
A substantial proportion of all failed or problematical retaining walls are influenced by the action of ground water.
Generally, retaining walls are not designed as water retaining structures and excessive deflections, collapse or loss of
structural integrity can occur rapidly if the ground water is allowed to build up behind a wall. It is crucial that the
selection, design, specification and construction of all walls are carried out to address any potential ground water
problems.
The provision of catch or spoon drains on the retained surface above the wall are often very effective in avoiding any
build up of water behind the wall that could result from infiltration of rain or down slope run-off water. Weep hole
drains and toe drains at the base of the wall are a very simple means of preventing a rise in the water level behind the
wall, provided that the system is durable and can be maintained, for example by clearing blockages etc.
105
M A WOODWARD
As indicated on the WA Water Authority (WAWA) ground water atlas the depth to the ground water is significant, i.e.
more than say 7.0 m in much of the area in and around Perth. However any developments in low lying areas that are
close to the river, or existing or backfilled lakes or swamps, i.e. some areas of Northbridge, East Perth and the Graham
Farmer Freeway corridor, must anticipate and accommodate interception of ground water at shallow depths. It is also
important to note that projects located on steep slopes falling towards the river, such as Mount Elisa or the Kings Park
Escarpment, and foreshore areas, such as Dalkeith and Mosman Park, can intercept springs and elevated water table
levels.
PROJECT DETAILS AND RELEVANT COMMENTS
The following brief project details are provided to indicate the locations and circumstances under which some of the
retaining wall systems referred to in this paper have been used successfully in and around Perth. In order to avoid
excessive length the details presented have been limited to a brief description and the more relevant issues. Where
necessary, further details for these and other similar projects should be sought by first contacting the Client for
permission, and then obtained from the specialist contractor and/or consultant responsible for the construction and
design of these systems.
6.1
SERVETUS STREET SOIL NAIL WALL, SWANBOURNE, (TAMALA SAND LIMESTONE)
The first permanent soil nail wall used on a Main Roads Western Australia (MRWA) highways project (Figure 6). The
soil nail wall was adopted as an alternative to the original cantilever RC wall as a substantial cost saving was achieved.
The adoption of the soil nail system provided an efficient and geometrically flexible retaining wall that avoided the
need for significant, costly and environmentally damaging over-excavation that would have been required for
construction of the conventional reinforced concrete walls. The two stage soil nail walls achieve an overall retained
height of up to 10.5 m and adopt nails of up to 8.0 m in length. The excavation revealed soil strata varying from loose
uncemented sand to medium strength limestone. The flexibility of the soil nail system, in combination with detailed
inspection of each new area of excavation, enabled adjustment of the nail specification to suit the varying ground
conditions and thereby ensuring optimisation of the wall.
Figure 6: Servetus Street Soil Nail Wall, Swanbourne.

6.2
MOTOROLA BUILDING, UWA, CRAWLEY, (TAMALA SANDS)
The new Motorola research building on the University of Western Australia campus incorporated a two storey
basement. Interlocking, 9.0 m long, lightweight sheet piles were used, in conjunction with two rows of mechanical
anchors, to form the temporary perimeter retaining wall. After completion of the excavation and casting of the new pad
106
M A WOODWARD
and strip footings the sheet pile wall was used as the back shutter to form the permanent reinforced shotcrete retaining
walls. Permanent lateral support of the completed wall was provided by the floor slabs of the new basement building
thereby making the sheet piles and anchors redundant as soon as the below ground structure was complete (Figure7).
Figure 7: Lightweight anchored sheet pile wall, Motorola Building, UWA, Crawley.
6.3
ST JOHN OF GOD HOSPITAL, WEST LEEDERVILLE, (TAMALA SANDS)
A conventional diaphragm wall with high capacity temporary grouted anchors was used for the permanent boundary
wall on part of the development at St John of God Hospital. The diaphragm wall was required to form the permanent
retaining structure for a two-three storey basement. This project demonstrates that conventional diaphragm walls can
offer cost effective solutions where permanent high structural capacity retaining walls are required. On this project, and
as also well demonstrated on the Northbridge tunnel scheme, diaphragm walls can also offer the benefit of providing
significant foundation capacity to support vertical loads imposed by buildings constructed on top of the basement wall.
6.4
MICROFINE CEMENT GROUT WALLS (VARIOUS LOCATIONS)
Microfine cement grout injected retaining and underpinning walls have been used extensively in and around Perth to
provide temporary support for excavations up to 4.0 m in height (Figure 8). The system is particularly well suited to
circumstances where the new development requires excavation up to the boundary line and an existing building on the
adjacent block must be supported. The use of a sheet pile, soldier pile or contiguous pile wall would generally result in
lost width of 300 mm to 500 mm which may not be acceptable on a high value and/or narrow site.
Where the required excavation face is vertical and on the boundary line, it is not possible to optimise the grout block
location by placing it forward of the wall of the existing building. In these circumstances, and where the retained height
exceeds approximately 2.5 m, it is generally necessary and/or cost effective, to introduce lateral restraint and reduce the
size of the grout block. The lateral restraint can often best be provided with low capacity passive grouted anchors or
nails with substantial head plates or waler beams to distribute the load into the grout wall. Raked props can easily
provide the required lateral support but can be a significant inconvenience when building the permanent retaining wall
in front of the grout wall.
107
M A WOODWARD
Figure 8: Typical Microfine cement grout wall, Cottelsoe.

6.5
KWINANA FREEWAY EXTENSION, PERTH, (TAMALA & BASSENDEAN SANDS)
Most of the new bridge abutments for the Kwinana Freeway extension and upgrade to the south of Perth were
constructed from reinforced earth retaining structures. Precast reinforced concrete panels were utilised to form the
permanent abutment wall facing and deformed steel straps, supplied by The Reinforced Earth Company, were used to
reinforce the sand fill. The use of single full height concrete facing panels provided a cost effective and visually
acceptable abutment wall, but was more sensitive to total and differential settlements than a more flexible segmental
facing system.
Concerns over potential problems associated with increased predicted settlements at the Mundijong Bridge site, due to
the poor nature of the founding strata, led to the adoption of a piled abutment to avoid assessed problems with the
reinforced earth at this location.
6.6
240 ST GEORGES TERRACE, PERTH, (TAMALA SANDS)
A combination of perimeter anchored secant pile walling, grouting, sheet pile walls, screw piles and a hybrid soldier
pile - grout wall were utilised to overcome access restrictions and program constraints and enable the required retaining
functions to be provided (Figure 9). One particular problem that required an unusual combination of methods was the
underpinning and ground retaining below an existing shop faade on Hay Street. Construction of the new basement
required a two storey excavation immediately adjacent to the back of the shop faade that was to be retained. The roof
and return walls of the original structure could not be removed before the underpinning, ground retention and wall
bracing systems had been installed. The fragile nature of the existing structure, and severe access limitations imposed
by the roof and side walls, precluded the use of bored piles and sheet piles for this section of the works.
In order to provide adequate support and restrict anticipated deflections to within required limits of less than 10mm, a
combination of an anchored soldier pile wall with Microfine cement grout underpinning and arching blocks was used
below the main faade wall. Screw piles and flat jacks were used to form a prestressed underpinning framework to
support the ends and returns of the main wall during demolition of the rear section of the building. The combination of
vertical underpinning of the faade wall with Microfine cement grout, and the incorporation of prestress loads in both
the wall anchors and underpinning screw piles enabled the excavation to be completed with negligible movement of the
faade wall.
108
M A WOODWARD
Figure 9: Hybrid anchored grout and soldier pile wall, 240 St Georges Terrace, Perth.
6.7
HAY STREET & ROBERTS ROAD, SUBIACO, (TAMALA SANDS)
Lightweight sheet piles were driven to form the perimeter retaining wall for the two storey basement of this
development (Figure 10). Conventional mechanical anchors were used on three sides of the site but could not be used
on the fourth side as the close proximity of the Subiaco rail tunnel prevented the installation of anchors with the
required length. A hybrid sheet pile and soil nail wall system was adopted to utilise the sheet piles while achieving the
required stability with short nail lengths. The wall of the rail tunnel was located only 3.2 m from the sheet pile wall
alignment and therefore restricted nail lengths to nominally only 3.2 m. In order to maintain adequate short-term
factors of safety, 90 mm nails were installed on a 1.0 m (H) by 1.0 m (V) grid through the sheet piles. The steel sheets
provided an effective membrane in lieu of the shotcrete facing that would typically be adopted for a soil nail wall. The
relatively high density of short nails effectively reinforced the 3.2 m wide block of soil behind the sheet pile wall and
acted as a mass gravity wall. Vertical excavation was achieved to a maximum depth of 5.5 m with recorded wall
deflections of less than 8.0 mm.
109
M A WOODWARD
Figure 10: Hybrid sheet pile and soil nail wall, Roberts Road and Hay Street, Subiaco.
SOME CAUTIONARY NOTES
The widespread expectation of some degree of cementing in Perth sands can lead to the adoption of inappropriate
excavation techniques. In the short term, excavations in weakly cemented sands can stand to heights in excess of 3.0 m
with a near vertical cut face. Factors such as vibration, inundation or revised loading conditions, can destroy the weak
cementing bonds and cause instantaneous collapse. Any excavation over 1.0 m in depth must be dealt with in an
appropriate manner as serious injury or death can result from sudden collapse if site personnel are working in the area in
front of the excavation.
In order for an anchored or cantilever embedded wall to maintain adequate factors of safety it is essential that the
specified toe in depth is maintained. Driven walls, particularly with the less robust lightweight sheet pile system can be
subject to refusal on limestone pinnacles, Coffee Rock and/or layers of cemented sands. In these circumstances it is
essential that prebore, flushing or alternative measures are adopted to ensure provision of the required toe in depth.
The process of forming an insitu Microfine cement grout wall is heavily dependant on operator skill to achieve the
permeation required to provide a grout block of the required size, strength and uniformity. In particular, increased fines
and/or organic matter content in the near surface sands, i.e. immediately below any existing footings to be underpinned,
can severely restrict the flow of the Microfine cement grout. In extreme cases this can result in voids or gaps in the
grout block which must be re-grouted or repaired with sand cement mortar or concrete before bulk excavation proceeds.
Organic material in the sands above the ground water level can delay or reduce the strength gain of Microfine cement
grout in some situations.
The formation of grouted anchors in potentially unstable granular soils can be problematical even when good grouting
practice and cased drilling techniques are adopted. It is essential that all grouted anchors in sands are formed in a
manner that ensures continuity of the grout annulus.
Due to the highly critical nature of the role performed by anchors resisting lateral loads imposed by retaining walls, all
anchors should be load tested before bulk excavation proceeds to the final design depth.
110
M A WOODWARD
A retaining wall that has been designed and constructed with adequate factors of safety in terms of stability may exhibit
unacceptably high deflections and therefore fail under serviceability criteria. In particular, it is important to note that
any cantilever embedded retaining wall must deflect forward to maintain equilibrium as the excavation is progressed.
This situation should preclude the use of any cantilever wall system where the retaining wall is required to limit
movements to existing, adjacent, fragile or brittle structures. The use of pre-stressed or very stiff anchors and or struts,
installed sequentially during staged excavation, can significantly reduce wall and associated soil movements.
CLOSURE
It is hoped that this overview of some of the specialised ground retaining wall systems that have been developed and
used in and around Perth will be of assistance to engineers, architects, builders and developers addressing future
projects in Western Australia. In particular, reference should be made to other papers in this publication which deal in
detail with the anticipated properties of the soils that can be expected in the area. Optimism, based on the ability of
Perth sands to stand unsupported in the short term, must be avoided if collapse or excessive movements are to be
prevented.
111

Earth Retaining Structures in Perth, Wa: Soil & Rock Engineering

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Earth Retaining Structures in Perth, Wa: Soil & Rock Engineering

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EARTH RETAINING STRUCTURES IN PERTH, WA

GEOLOGICAL & GEOTECHNICAL ISSUES