10/29/2010

1
CE5108Lecture6
RationalforExcavation
Requirements for Safety and RequirementsforSafetyand
Economy
OCT2010
ByProfHarryTan
1
Summary Report to BCA SummaryReporttoBCA
TechnicalExpertPanel
TanSiewAnn(NUS)
WongKaiSin(NTU)
Malcolm Bolton (Cambridge UK) MalcolmBolton(CambridgeUK)
AndrewWhittle(MITUSA)
January13
th
2009
2
10/29/2010
2
Background
Primaryconstraints
StabilityofERSS(safety)
PrincipalconditionforGreenfieldsites
Damagecontrol(adjacentstructures) serviceability
P i i l diti f b it ( dj t f iliti & tiliti ) Principalconditionforurbansites(adjacentfacilities&utilities)
Groundconditions
Favorable:soilscoveredbyBS8002
Unfavorable:specifictoSingapore
Kallangformation(deepsoftclays,extendingtoorbelowformation)
Deep(clayey)fills/reclamationsites
l f l o / Principleofregulationusingo
w
/H
Stability:Mobilizationofshearstrengthinsoil
straincontrolled
Damage:empiricallyguided
priorprojects
3
Table 1 Panel recommendations for permissible maximum wall deflection ratios

Limiting values of
w
/H Facilities Located in:
Ground Conditions: Zone 1
(x/H < 1)
Zone 2
(1 x/H 2)
Zone 3
(x/H>2)
Type A: Favourable
OC stiff clays & silts
Residual soils
0.5% 0.7% 0.7%
Medium-dense sands
Type B: Unfavourable
Soft clays, silts or organic
soils extending to or below
formation
(e.g., Kallang formation)
Loose - fills
0.5% 1.0% (TEP)


0.7% (BCA)
1.5% (TEP)


1.0% (BCA)

Notes:
1. Shaded cells indicate parameters controlled by stability of ERSS, other cells are limited to prevent
damage to adjacent facilities
4
damage to adjacent facilities
2. (TEP) - represent limits proposed by the Technical Expert Panel to meet stability requirements. These
can be considered as long term regulatory goals.
3. (BCA) represent limits proposed by BCA and agreed by the Panel as practical limits that would be
appropriate for revision of current regulations.
10/29/2010
3
InfluenceZone
Zone1 Zone2 Zone3
Ground Condition Buildings located Buildings located Building located
ProposedMovementControlLimits
GroundCondition Buildingslocated
withindistanceH
Buildingslocated
withinHto2H
Buildinglocated
outsideof2H
Kallangetc.(TEP) 0.5%H^ 1.00%H 1.5%H*
Kallangetc.(BCA) 0.5%H^ 0.75%H^ 1.0%H*
Others 0.5%H^ 0.75%H* 0.75%H*
Note:
* stabilityofERSS
^ protectiondamagecontrol
5
Mobilizationfactorscorresponding
witho
e
/Hvalues
Influence Zone: X < H H < X < 2H X > 2H Influence Zone:
Soil Type:
X < H H < X < 2H X > 2H
Kallang formation or
similar soft clays
found from original
ground surface to
f ti l l
2.0 on c
u
1.5 on c
u
1.2 on c
u
formation level
Others
1.5 on c
u
1.2 on tan
1.2 on c
u
1.1 on tan
1.2 on c
u
1.1 on tan
6
10/29/2010
4
JustificationofMobilizationFactorsM
BS8002allowstwopossibleinterpretationsfor
Kallangsoils:
UseofM=2.0onundrained strengthc
u
correspondstoo
e
/H=0.5%
Controlofdamagetoadjacentstructures
UseofM=1.2onc
u
fortotalstressdesign&
[M=1.1ontan| foreffectivestressdesign]: [ | g ]
Stability requirements
Justifiedbycontrolproceduresofinspection,
monitoringandcheckcalculation.
7
ControlStrategy
WorstCase(WC)definesworksuspensionlevel(WSL)
SeveralalternativesforAlertLevel(AL)andCheck
Level(CL)
Level Option 1 Option 2 Option 3
WSL WC WC WC
AL Best Est. 70% WC 70% WC
CL 70% Best Est. 50% WC Continuous*
*PerformancebasedmonitoringneededforJGP
8
10/29/2010
5
ControlStrategy
i. Stop Level SL, at which excavation work with be stopped due to
ground movements exceeding the designers worst case predictions
o
w,WC
and pending a reassessment of the state of the ground and the
structure; ;
ii. Alert Level AL, at which a significant proportion of the maximum
anticipated wall movements will have occurred. Updated predictions
of future performance should then be made to consider the possible
need to re-engineer the remaining works.
iii. Check Level CL, at which early recognition of the behavior of the
ground and the structure can lead to a confirmation or recalibration of
9
g
the design assumptions.
Define: The "worst case" predict ion is t he largest expect ed wall deflect ion det ermined
t hrough a sensit ivity st udy t hat includes possible scenarios of t he worst credible
st rengt h, st iffness, t hickness of weak layers, and loadings in t he analysis.
Define: Best Est imat e predict ion is based on Moderat ely Conservat ive paramet ers
about one st andard deviat ion less t han mean values; so t hat approximat ely 85%
chance t hat you would not exceed t his value
ControlStrategy
Option1(whichissimilartotheproposaltabledbyLTA);setstheAlertLevelatthe
designersbestestimateofmaximumwalldisplacementd
w,BE
,andtheCheckLevelat
0.7d
w,BE
.Thisapproachoffersthebenefitofallowingdesignerstomaketheirown
estimatesofd
w,WC
,andd
w,BE
andofpermittingthelattertotriggertheAlertLevel.Itis
clearthatthevariabilitybetweentheexpectedandworstcasegroundstrengthprofile,on
its own, should cause a rational designer to set d
wBE
considerably lower than d
wWC
, on itsown,shouldcausearationaldesignertosetd
w,BE
considerablylowerthand
w,WC
,on
thegroundsthatmobilizationfactorMwouldbecommensuratelyvariable.However,the
Panelalsonotedthatdesignersmightbetemptedtoadvancetherationalselectionof
d
w,BE
towardsd
w,WC
soastoattempttoavoidtriggeringAlertLevelchecksduring
construction.
ThisscenarioismitigatedinOption2,wheretheAlertandCheckLevelsaresimply
definedasproportionsofthedesignersworstcasepredictionofwallmovements.Inthis
way,theBCAcouldbebetterassuredthattwocarefulstagesofassessmentwould
precedethetriggeringofastoporder,andthatthelaterofthesewouldgiveample
10
opportunitytotheBCAandtheengineersresponsibleonsitetoreengineertheworks.
Finally,theTEPrecommendsthatOption3,featuringcontinuousmonitoring,be
adoptedwherethedesigndependsonbrittlematerialsorwheretheconstructionprocess
ismoreuncertainthanusual.Goodexamplescouldincludeprojectsthatmakeextensive
useofsoilstabilizationtechniques.Inthiscase,fieldmeasurementsareessentialfor
validatingthebulkperformanceoftheimprovedsoilmass.Thiswaswellillustratedby
theuseofinclinometerdatatointerpretcompressionofJGPlayersinforensic
investigationsfortheNicoll Highwaycollapse.
10/29/2010
6
JetGroutPiles
Soilimprovementdoesnotchangethe
classificationofgroundtype
Twocases
Gravitystructures
FollowBS8002
Notensioninternallywithinimprovedsoilmass
Shear plugs Shearplugs
Performancebaseddesign
Monitoratallstages
11
AppendixA
EmpiricalDataonERSSWall
Deflection Deflection
12
10/29/2010
7
EMPIRICALDATABASEONWALL
DEFLECTIONRATIO,d
w
/H
Forexcavationsinfavourable groundconditions,
thepublisheddata(CloughandORourke,1990;
Yoo and Kim 1999; Wong and Poh 1996; and Yoo andKim,1999;WongandPoh,1996;and
Wongetal.,2001)indicatethatmostofthe
successfullycompletedexcavationsyieldedwall
deflectionratiosbelow0.5%Hascanbeseenin
FiguresA1toA4.Theexceptionsaremainlyrelated
tosoldierpilewalls.Thesecasesusuallyinvolved
running sand or squeezing soils. The term runningsandorsqueezingsoils.Theterm
favourable groundconditionreferstostiffover
consolidatedclayandsilt,sandandstiffresidual
soils.
13
EMPIRICALDATABASEONWALL
DEFLECTIONRATIO,d
w
/H
Figure1.Typical
databaseofsurface
settlementscausedby
excavation(Clough&
ORourke,1990).The
dataarefromsubway
projectsinOslo,
ChicagoandSan
Francisco.
14
10/29/2010
8
15
Kallangsitescanbebroadlyclassifiedasunfavourablegroundconditionsduetooccurrenceof
soilswithlowshearstrengthandstiffnessthatextenddowntotheformationlevelorbelowit.
Designparametersfortheseunfavorablegroundconditionsarenotconsideredexplicitlyin
BS8002.
Accordingtoconventionaldefinitionsasoftclayhasundrained shearstrength,12<s
u
<25kPa,
whilemediumreferstotherange25<s
u
<50kPa.Normallyconsolidatedclaystypicallyhave
undrained shearstrengthproportionaltotheinsituverticaleffectivestress,s
u
0.200.05s
v0
.
FavourableSoilsExperience
16
Fig.A1Observedmaximumwall
deflectionsinstiffclays,residualsoilsand
sand
(Clough&ORourke,1990)
Fig.A2Measuredmaximumwall
deflections KoreanExperience(Yoo
&Kim,1999)
10/29/2010
9
FavourableSoilsExperience Singapore
Fi A4 M i W ll D fl i i
17
Fig.A3MaximumWallDeflections
SingaporeExperience(Poh&
Wong,1996)
Fig.A4MaximumWallDeflectionsin
StiffSoilConditionatNEL(Wonget
al.,2001)
EMPIRICALDATABASEONWALL
DEFLECTIONRATIO,d
w
/H
Forexcavationsinunfavourable groundconditions,
publisheddata(Mana andClough,1981; Long,
2001; and Moormann 2004) indicate that most 2001;andMoormann,2004)indicatethatmost
excavationsyieldedwalldeflectionratiosbelow
2%HascanbeseeninFiguresA5toA8.Theterm
unfavourable groundconditionreferstoasoil
profilesimilartothatinKallangformationwitha
thickdepositofsoftclay.Itshouldbenotedthat
the factors of safety in these graphs are based on thefactorsofsafetyinthesegraphsarebasedon
Terzaghis methodwithoutconsideringthewall
penetrationbelowformationlevel.
18
10/29/2010
10
UNFavourable
SoilsExperience
MaximumWall
DeflectionsagainstBasal g
HeaveinSoftClays
(Mana &Clough,1977)
0.5%H
Fig.A5Walldeflectionratiofor
excavationswithfixedtoeinsoftclay
(Mana andClough,1981)
19 19
Fig.A6Walldeflectionratiofor
excavationswithfreetoeinsoftclay
(Mana andClough,1981)
ComparisonofResults
withFEAbyMana
(Mana,1976)
UNFavourable Soils
Experience
20
0.5%H
10/29/2010
11
21
Fig.A7Walldeflectionratiofor
excavationsinsoftclay(Moormann,
2004)
Fig.A8ProppedwallswithLowFOS
onbasalheave(Long,2001)
IdealizedCloughandORourkeChart
Fig.A9ProppedwallswithLowFOSonbasal
heave(Long,2001)
22
IncaseswherethereisalowFOSagainstbaseheave,largemovements(dhmax to
3.2%H)havebeenrecordedintheliterature.
ThedatamostlyfallwithinthelimitingvaluessuggestedbyMana andClough(1981),
anditissuggestedthattherelationshipsbetweenmovement,systemstiffness,andFOS
proposedby Cloughetal.(1989)formagoodstartingpointforpreliminaryestimatesof
theperformanceofsuchsystems.
10/29/2010
12
LessonsfromEmpiricalData(Long,2001)
Adatabaseofsome300casehistoriesofwallandgroundmovementsduetodeep
excavationsworldwideispresented.Althoughrecognizingtheweaknessinthe
approach,alargedatabaseisusedtoexaminegeneraltrendsandpatterns.
Forstiffsoilsites,movementsaregenerallylessthanthosesuggestedinthewell
knownrelationshipsproposedbyCloughandhiscoworkers.(dH <<0.5%H)
However,forwallsthatretainasignificantthicknessofsoftmaterialbuthaveahigh
factorofsafetyagainstbasalheave,movementsaresimilartothosecalculatedusing
theCloughcharts.
Inthesecases,whensoftgroundisactuallypresentatdredgelevel,theCloughcharts
willunderpredict movementandneedtobeusedwithcare.
Fortheabovecasesthereisnodiscernibledifferenceintheperformanceofpropped
oranchoredsystemsbutthereissomeevidencetosuggesttopdownsystemsperform
better.
Incaseswherethereisalowfactorofsafetyagainstexcavationbaseheave,large
movements can occur but the Clough charts will give reasonable preliminary estimates
23
movementscanoccur,buttheCloughchartswillgivereasonablepreliminaryestimates
ofthelikelymovementinsuchcases.
Cantileverwallshaveshowndisplacementsthatareoftenindependentofthesystem
stiffness.Thereisevidencetosuggestthat,inthecaseofcantileverwallsandforall
wallsinstiffsoilsworldwide,designpracticeisconservative.
Finally,theinclusionofacantileverstageatthebeginningofaconstructionsequence
seemstobethemaincauseofunusuallylargemovements.
AppendixB
Relationshipbetweensafetyandwall
deflection MSDmethodtorelatewall
deflectiontosoilshearstrainand
monbilization factors monbilization factors
24
10/29/2010
13
RELATIONSHIPBETWEENWALLDEFLECTIONRATIO
ANDMOBILIZATIONFACTOR(BoltonMSDmethod)
25
Fig.B1Idealisedmechanismsofgroundmovementduetoexcavation
AstiffdiaphragmwalldrivendowntoahardlayerasinFigureB1.awillfirstengagein
cantileverrotationwithl=L.Afloatinginsituwallwillengageasuccessionoflvalues,
startingwithl>Lduetoadditionalsoilshearingbelowz=Lintheearlystages,thenwith
progressivelysmallervaluesoflaspropsareplacedasshowninFigureB1.b.
PrincipleofMSDMethod
Forgreenfield sites,theregulationofwalldeflectionsshouldbeguidedbysound
principlesofsoilmechanicsthatrelatethekinematicmechanismsofwallandground
deformationstothemobilizationofshearstrengthwithinthesoilmass.
Thefirstlessontodrawisthatthewidthofthezonesignificantlyinfluencedby
undrained excavationshouldcorrespondroughlywiththeheight,L,ofthewallitself,
rather than depending on the depth H of excavation ratherthandependingonthedepth,H,ofexcavation.
Thesecondconclusionisthattheaveragesoilshearstrainsinthezoneadjacenttothe
wallarelikelytoberoughly:

average
~ 2d
w,max
/l
average
(B1)
whered
w,max
isthelargestlateralwallmovement.
Itshouldbeemphasizedthatthisisanapproximation,sincethelocationofmaximum
wallmovementvariesstagebystage.Nevertheless,itwillbeusefulheretorecognize
26
g y g , g
theproperdimensionlessgroupsinvolvedinlateralwallmovementsandground
deformations.
10/29/2010
14
PrincipleofMSDMethod

max
~ 1.5H

min
~ 0.5H
H
IfoneconsidersthegeometryofFigureB2asrepresentativeofERSSinunfavourable
groundconditions(ClassB),thenexcavationwouldbeginwithl
max
~ 1.5H,andwould
proceed until l
i
~ 0.5H. Accordingly, l ~ H in Eqn B1. Then B1 becomes:
min
cement/soil plug
27
proceeduntill
min
~ 0.5H.Accordingly,l
average
~ HinEqn B1.ThenB1becomes:

average
/2~ d
w,max
/H (B1)
Shearingwithintheretainedsoilmassischaracterizedbyprincipalstressrotation
andisbestapproximated(attheelementlevel)bydatafromdirectsimplesheartests.
PrincipleofMSDMethod
FigureB4summarizesthe
mobilizedshearstrength,/
f
(=1/M)
fromundrained DSStestsona
varietyofK
0
normallyconsolidated
clayscompiledbyWhittle.
The data include results from a
0.8
1.0
1.2
r
e
n
g
t
h
,

t
/
t
f

=

1
/
M
1.0%
4.0%
=
u
Thedataincluderesultsfroma
varietyofmediumtohighplasticity
marineclayscomparabletothose
foundintheKallangformation.
For/
f
0.8(i.e.,M1.2)these
claysarewelldescribedbya
parabolicrelationproposedby
Bolton:
0.2
0.4
0.6






o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

U
n
d
r
a
i
n
e
d

S
h
e
a
r

S
t
r
w
L
(%) I
p
(%)
Clay Line
45 23 BBC
58 33 GoM(RP)
80 59 Empire
80 40 GoM(U)
160 120 GoG
110 63 SFBM
2
2
1
|
|

|
|
|
|

|
28
g =
u
/M
2
(B2)
where
u
isthestrainmobilizedat
peakstrength.
Forthehighplasticityclays,
u

4.0%.
0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10

M
o
Shear Strain, (%)
(/
u
) = M
2
Fig.B4ValidationofstrengthmobilizationforMSD
BBC BostonBlueClay,GoM GulfofMexico,GoG Gulfof
Guinea,SFBM SanFranciscoBayMud(unpublisheddata
fromMITfilesprovidedbyWhittle)Singaporemarineclay
hasI
p
=50%,w
L
=55%
f u
M
|
.

\
=
|
|
.

\
=
10/29/2010
15
PrincipleofMSDMethod
TheresultsinFig.B4alsoshowthattheshearstrengthofsomelowplasticity,
sensitiveclays(e.g.,BostonBlueClay)ismobilizedatsmallerstrains(
u
1.0%).
Ifstraintopeak,g
u
,isconsideredasacharacterstic materialproperty,theeqns.
B1andB2canbecombinedas:
d /H ~ /2 ~ 0 5 g /M
2
(B3) d
w
/H~
avge
/2~ 0.5g
u
/M
2
(B3)
Itisimportanttorecognizethatthisexpressionisrathersimplistic,sinceit
assumesatypicalgeometryforthewall,brushesovertheinfluenceofwall
flexibility,ignorestheincrementalnatureofthedeformation,andassumesthe
shapeofsoilstressstraincurves.
Ifmoreaccurateassessmentsaretobemade,theneithernumericalmethodsor
thefullyincrementalMobilizable StrengthDesignmethodcouldbeapplied.
For regulation purposes, Eqn. B3 recognizes that wall movements must be
29
Forregulationpurposes,Eqn.B3recognizesthatwallmovementsmustbe
normalizedbysomeappropriatedimension,thatsoilstrainsmustbeproportional
tothosenormalizedwallmovementsbecauseoftherequirementforsoilstructure
compatibility,thatsuchstrainsmustbeproportionaltothereferencestrain
u
,and
thatmobilizationfactorhasanexaggeratedeffectonmobilizedstrainbecauseof
theshapesofstressstraincurves.
For greenfield sites the Panel recommendations are based on the
assumption that a mobilization factor, M = 1.2 on undrained shear strength is
sufficient to ensure safety of ERSS for Class A and B soils. Table 2 shows
estimated values of ow/H 0.7% (Class A) and 1.4% (Class B) for u = 2.0 and 4.0%,
respectively. These values are then recorded as Panel recommendations (TEP)
for Zone 3 limiting wall deflection ratios in Table 1. It is important to emphasize
PrincipleofMSDMethod Howwalldeflectionisrelatedto
averagesoilshearstrainsandmobilizationfactors
for Zone 3 limiting wall deflection ratios in Table 1. It is important to emphasize
that these recommendations are contingent on rigorous implementation of
procedures for inspection, monitoring and checking of ERSS performance as
outlined in Section 4.

Table 2. Interpreted mobilization factors from simple model (App. B)
Limiting, ow/H Mobilization Factor, M
Shear strain to
failure, u(%)
1.0 1.2 1.5 2.0 3.0
d
w
/H~
avge
/2~ 0.5g
u
/M
2
, u( )
1.0 0.5% 0.3% 0.2% 0.1% --
2.0 1.0% 0.7% 0.5% 0.3% 0.1%
4.0 2.0% 1.4% 0.9% 0.5% 0.2%
Notes:
1. Reference conditions for stiff clays (UK practice) used in BS8002, u = 2.0%
2. Best estimate of properties for Kallang clays, u 4.0%
3. Worst case scenario for stiff, brittle clays, u = 1.0% 30
10/29/2010
16
AppendixC
ApplicationofJGPasGravitywalls
andShearplugs
31
Question1a
Useofthemobilisation factorof1.5onundrained shearstrengthof
softsoils,andtheexpecteddesignstrainintermsofexcavation
depth.Howwouldthisbeaffectediftheexcavationbaseisplugged
withjetgroutedpiles(JGP),takingintoconsiderationtheCOIs
commentsonuseofJGPandnovelfeatures?
1. Forrigidwallrotation,BS8002stipulatesthatbyusingthefactored
strengthinthedesign,theresultingwallmovementislikelytobe
lessthan0.5%ofthewallheight(H
w
)andthecorrespondingsoil
strainwillbelessthan0.5%.Thismaybeapplicabletorigid
cantileverwallorrigidsingleproppedwall.
2. However,itisdifficulttorelatesoilstrainwithexcavationdepthH.
0 5%H
H
H
w
0.5%H
w
H
H
w
0.5%H
w
32
10/29/2010
17
Question1a (cont)
Useofthemobilisation factorof1.5onundrained shearstrengthof
softsoils,andtheexpecteddesignstrainintermsofexcavation
depth.Howwouldthisbeaffectediftheexcavationbaseisplugged
withjetgroutedpiles(JGP),takingintoconsiderationtheCOIs
commentsonuseofJGPandnovelfeatures?
3. IftheJGPlayeristreatedasahardsoil,commentsgivenin(1)
remainvalid.
H
0.5%H
w
H
H
w
H
H
w
0.5%H
w
33
Question1a (cont)
Useofthemobilisation factorof1.5onundrained shearstrengthof
softsoils,andtheexpecteddesignstrainintermsofexcavation
depth.Howwouldthisbeaffectediftheexcavationbaseisplugged
withjetgroutedpiles(JGP),takingintoconsiderationtheCOIs
commentsonuseofJGPandnovelfeatures?
4. AsJGPisconsideredanovelfeature,thefollowingactions
shouldbetaken:
a. Carryouttrialtests.
b. Implementstringentqualitycontrolduringinstallation.
c. MonitorcompressivestraininJGPduringexcavation.
d. Preparecontingencyplan.
0 5%H
H
H
w
0.5%H
w
H
H
w
0.5%H
w
34
10/29/2010
18
Question1a (cont)
Useofthemobilisation factorof1.5onundrained shearstrengthof
softsoils,andtheexpecteddesignstrainintermsofexcavation
depth.Howwouldthisbeaffectediftheexcavationbaseisplugged
withjetgroutedpiles(JGP),takingintoconsiderationtheCOIs
commentsonuseofJGPandnovelfeatures?
5. Formulitproppeddeepexcavation,thesoilstrainvariesfrom
locationtolocation.ItisdifficulttorelateM=1.5withsoilstrain
forthisclassofproblem.
6. Soilstrainmaynotbethebestindextoassessthesystem
Furthercommentsonthisissue
stability.
35
36
10/29/2010
19
Hereisanexamplewheresoilstrainisnot
relevant.WHY?
SamewithCofferdaminWater.WHY?
Slurry
Rock
37
Question1b
HowhighshouldthefactorofsafetybeforrelianceonJGP?
1. IfM=1.5isappliedtoJGP,thecorrespondingfactorofsafetyis1.5.
Thisisonlyrelevanttorigidrotationofcantileverandsingle
propped walls proppedwalls.
TherealFSdependslargelyonthedesignstrengthofJGP.
0.5%H
w
CantileverWall
Modeoffailuretoppling
SingleProppedWall
Modeoffailuretoekickout
H
H
w
H
H
w
0.5%H
w
38
10/29/2010
20
Question1b(cont)
HowhighshouldthefactorofsafetybeforrelianceonJGP?
Furthercommentsonthisissue
2. JGPprovidestwomajorfunctionsindeepexcavation: p j p
a. Ascompressionmembertoreducewalldeflection.
b. Aspartoftheanchoragesystemtoholddownthesoilto
minimisebaseheaveandhencereducewalldeflection.
39
Question1b(cont)
FurthercommentsonsafetyfactorinvolvingJGP
3. JGPaspermanentcompressionmember
a. Theactualsafetyfactorisveryhighbecauseof
Modeoffailure:
crushing
thelowdesignstrengthadoptedinpractice.
b. Thefailureisprogressivewhichprovidesample
oftelltalesignsofimpendingdanger.
6
7
8
Specification:
q 0 9 MPa
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
<0.9 0.9-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 8-9 9-10
Unconfined Compressive Strength of JGP (MPa)
N
o
.
o
f

S
a
m
p
l
e
s

q
u
=0.9MPa
40
10/29/2010
21
JGP strength(14days)
Project JGP
Method
Design q
u
(kPa)
Mean
Measured q
u
(kPa)
Source
Singapore River Double
500 1225
Chia & Tan (1993) Singapore River Double
tube
500 1225
Chia & Tan (1993)
Geylang River Single
tube
500 1843
Liang et al. (1993)
Clarke Quay MRT
Station
-
600 2520
Shirlaw et al. (2000)
Tunnel at Race Course
Rd
-
600 2024
Shirlaw et al. (2000)
41
Tunnel at Race Course
Rd
-
600 1290
Wen (2005)
C824 Nicoll Highway Double
tube
900 5826
Wong (2006)
C824 Nicoll Highway Triple
tube
900 3584
Wong (2006)
Questionb(cont)
FurthercommentsonsafetyfactorinvolvingJGP
3. JGPassacrificialcompressionmember
a. Thestrengthselectionofthesacrificiallayeris
Modeoffailure:
Strutoverstressed
critical.
b. Ifthedesignstrengthistoolow,itcanleadto
underestimationofthestrutforces.
6
7
8
Specification:
q 0 9 MPa
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
<0.9 0.9-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 8-9 9-10
Unconfined Compressive Strength of JGP (MPa)
N
o
.
o
f

S
a
m
p
l
e
s

q
u
=0.9MPa
42
10/29/2010
22
Question1b(cont)
FurthercommentsonsafetyfactorwithJGP
3. JGPaspartofanchoringsystem
a. Theactualsafetyfactorisdependsonthe
Modeoffailure:
Shearing,bending
interfaceshearstrength.
b. Ifthepilesarefarapart,JGPcanfailin
bending.
c. Afloatingwallsystemismoreriskyasitlack
asecondlineofdefensetopreventbasal
heave heave.
d. Fullpenetratingwallismorerobustbecause
thesystemissafeagainstbasalheave.
43
Question1c
HowwilltheJGPchangethemovementlimitvaluetobe
allowedindesign?Whatistherecommendeddesignstrainlimit
fortheJGP?Howcanthisbetakenintoaccountinnumerical
method?
1. Nochange0.5%Hforfavourablegroundotherwiseuse1.0%H.
2. Deformation(SLS)andsafety(ULS)shouldbetreatedseparately
wheneverpossible.
3. Forsomeproblemssuchaswallswithrigidrotation(M=1.5)or
designofpilecapacity(FS=2.5),itmaybepossibletosatisfyboth g p p y ( ) y p y
SLSandULSinonesimpleanalysis.
4. Forcomplicatedsoilstructureinteractionproblemsuchasmulti
proppeddeepexcavations,itismoreappropriatetoconduct
separateSLSandULSanalyses.
44
10/29/2010
23
Question1c(cont)
HowwilltheJGPchangethe
movementlimitvaluetobe
allowedindesign?
Whatistherecommended
d i t i li it f th JGP? designstrainlimitfortheJGP?
Howcanthisbetakeninto
accountinnumericalmethod?
5. TypicalfailurestrainfromJGPsamplesis
between0.5%to1%.
Core
sample
6. FailurestrainforJGPmasslikelytobe>0.5%.
7. Recommendeddesignstrainlimitis0.5%.
JGP
mass
45
Question1c(cont)
HowwilltheJGPchangethe
movementlimitvaluetobe
allowedindesign?
Whatistherecommended
d i t i li it f th JGP? designstrainlimitfortheJGP?
Howcanthisbetakeninto
accountinnumericalmethod?
8. E
u
/c
u
=200failurestrain=0.5%
300 0.33%
400 0.25%
00 0 20% 500 0.20%
9. UseE
u
/c
u
200inFEA.ThedesignE
u
andc
u
mustbevalidatedagainsttestresults.
46
10/29/2010
24
Question1c(cont)
FurthercommentsonFEAinvolvingJGP
10. BrittlebehaviourofJGPcanleadtoprogressivefailure.
11. MustchecktheextendofyieldingofJGPateachstageof
excavation.
12. Ifyieldingisexcessive,itmaybenecessarytomodelthe
strainsofteningbehaviour.
o
o
1
o
3
c c
Realbehaviour
FEsimulationusingMohr
CoulombModel
47
stressstraincurvesofclaycementmixunderdifferentconfiningpressures
48
10/29/2010
25
Deflectionprofilesatthesouthwallatdifferentstagesofexcavation
105
BackAnalysisofC824atNicollHighway
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
R
e
d
u
c
e
d
L
e
v
e
l (m
)
Level 3
Level 4
Level 5
Level 6
Level 7
Level 8
Level 9
Level 10
50
60
70
80
90
100
R
e
d
u
c
e
d
L
e
v
e
l (
m
)
50
60
70
80
90
100
R
e
d
u
c
e
d
L
e
v
e
l (
m
)
50
60
70
80
90
100
R
e
d
u
c
e
d
L
e
v
e
l (
m
)
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 4
Level 5
Level 6
Level 7
Level 8
Level 9
Level 10
49
50
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Wall Deflection (mm)
50
-100 100 300 500
Wall deflection (mm)
50
-100 0 100 200 300 400
Wall deflection (mm)
50
-100 0 100 200 300 400
Wall deflection (mm)
Measured
(326mm)
(A)
nosoftening
(263mm)
(B)
50%reduction
(318mm)
(C)
80%reduction
(380mm)
100
105
100
100 100
Deflectionprofilesatthenorthwallatdifferentstagesofexcavation
BackAnalysisofC824atNicollHighway
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
Wall Deflection (mm)
R
e
d
u
c
e
d
L
e
v
e
l (m
)
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 4
Level 5
Level 6
Level 7
Level 8
Level 9
Level 10
50
60
70
80
90
-40 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280
Wall deflection (mm)
R
e
d
u
c
e
d
L
e
v
e
l (
m
)
50
60
70
80
90
-40 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280
Wall deflection (mm)
R
e
d
u
c
e
d
L
e
v
e
l (
m
)
50
60
70
80
90
-40 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280
Wall deflection (mm)
R
e
d
u
c
e
d
L
e
v
e
l (
m
)
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 4
Level 5
Level 6
Level 7
Level 8
Level 9
Level 10
50
( ) ( ) a de ect o ( )
Measured
(181mm)
(A)
nosoftening
(191mm)
(B)
50%reduction
(220mm)
(C)
80%reduction
(225mm)
10/29/2010
26
OutlineofLectureonNicoll Highway
SummaryofCoI Report
SignificantEventsleadingtoCollapse
IncorrectuseofPLAXIS,MethodAvs B
Incorrectwaler/strutconnectiondesign
Othermitigatingfactors
51
ConclusionsandLessonsLearnt
OverviewofCollapseSiteM3/M2
52
10/29/2010
27
53 3:46pm
SummaryofCoIReporton
CausesofCollapse
Under design of strut/waler connection Under-design of strut/waler connection
Under design of Dwall using Method A in Plaxis
Significant contributory factors:
Incorrect Back analysis
Problems with instrumentation and monitoring
54
ob e s s u e a o a d o o g
10/29/2010
28
SignificanteventsleadingtoCollapse
ReplacementofstiffenerplateswithCchannels
RemovalofupperJGPenbloc over8
b h ll
th
l l bayswithoutinstalling10
th
levelStruts
55
Source:NLCExpertReport,Figure
10.6.1
Source:ExhibitE93
UndrainedStrengthDifferencesinMethodAand
MethodBforC824
RL Method A Method B Diff %Diff
MC (Lower)
MC (Upper)
MethodA
56
RL Method A Method B Diff %Diff
(m) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa)
MC(U) Top 97.1 16 20 -4 -20
MC(U) Bot 85.6 37 24 13 56
MC(L) Top 82.1 50 29 21 71
MC(L) Bot 69.0 75 50 25 49
MethodB=GIM
10/29/2010
29
OriginalFieldVaneShear
T GIM Li & P i A B
Strength(Cu)ofLower
MarineClay
Tests,GIMLine&PointsA,B
&CproducedbyMethodA
inPlaxis
UsingMethodAwith=22
o
gave a design line of
57
gaveadesignlineof
Cu/p=0.3
Strengthofsoftclaygrossly
overestimated
GIM
Cu/p=0.3
MethodA
MethodB
Strength(Cu)
ofLower
MarineClay
Figure1offirstreportof
expertsforLTA
(Nkt =14)
CPTu datasuggeststhat
lower part of LMC is
58
lowerpartofLMCis
UnderConsolidateddueto
morerecentreclamation
works
10/29/2010
30
ImpactofMethodAorB
onTypeKWall
59
GOLDENMILETOWER GOLDENMILETOWER
THECONCOURSE THECONCOURSE
Inclinometer,I100,Soil
NICOLLHIGHWAYSTATION NICOLLHIGHWAYSTATION CROSSOVERBOX CROSSOVERBOX
Inclinometer,I63,DW
60
F2 G2
TypeI TypeK
H G1
TypeJ
Inclinometers
10/29/2010
31
77
78
80
82
84
86
88
90
92
94
96
98
100
102
104
I
6
3
I
10
0
78
80
82
84
86
88
90
92
94
96
98
100
102
104
L1
L2
L3
L4
L5
L6
L7
Current
TypeKArea(XOB)
50
52
54
56
58
60
62
64
66
68
70
72
74
76
78
-100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250
L1
L2
L3
L4
L5
L6
L7
Current
54
56
58
60
62
64
66
68
70
72
74
76
78
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500
I 63 I 100
61
100 50 0 50 100 150 200 250
03-Mar-03 37683
03 S 04 38233
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
225
250
9
-
M
a
y
-
0
3
8
-
J
u
n
-
0
3
8
-
J
u
l
-
0
3
7
-
A
u
g
-
0
3
6
-
S
e
p
-
0
3
6
-
O
c
t
-
0
3
5
-
N
o
v
-
0
3
5
-
D
e
c
-
0
3
4
-
J
a
n
-
0
4
3
-
F
e
b
-
0
4
4
-
M
a
r
-
0
4
3
-
A
p
r
-
0
4
3
-
M
a
y
-
0
4
2
-
J
u
n
-
0
4
2
-
J
u
l
-
0
4
L
a
t
e
r
a
l

D
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
o
n


(
m
m
)
I100, Type K Area
Trigger @ 147mm
Design @ 210mm
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
2
3
-
M
a
r
-
0
3
2
2
-
A
p
r
-
0
3
2
2
-
M
a
y
-
0
3
2
1
-
J
u
n
-
0
3
2
1
-
J
u
l
-
0
3
2
0
-
A
u
g
-
0
3
1
9
-
S
e
p
-
0
3
1
9
-
O
c
t
-
0
3
1
8
-
N
o
v
-
0
3
1
8
-
D
e
c
-
0
3
1
7
-
J
a
n
-
0
4
1
6
-
F
e
b
-
0
4
1
7
-
M
a
r
-
0
4
1
6
-
A
p
r
-
0
4
1
6
-
M
a
y
-
0
4
1
5
-
J
u
n
-
0
4
L
a
t
e
r
a
l

D
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
o
n


(
m
m
)
I63, Type K Area
Trigger @ 306mm
Design @ 438mm
TypeKWallModeling
Fill
UpperMarineClay
LowerMarineClay
F1
OA
F2 JGP
62
OA
10/29/2010
32
-0.5
Displacement [m]
Method ...
Method b
CompareMethodAandB
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
Method A
Method A*
MethodA,LMC
MethodBorMethod
A*,LMCphi=17deg
ieCu/P=0.25
I63
measured
0 50 100 150 200 250
-0.1
0
Time [day]
phi=24degie
Cu/P=0.32
Forsamestrengthprofiles,MethodA*andMethodBgavesameresults
63
MethodAgavebetterfit
tofielddataupto5
th
level
struts(about15mdepth)
D th 6
th
l l Deeperthan6
th
level
struts,walldisplacement
increasedsignificantlyandis
closertoMethodB
predictions
Resultsshowedthata
simplelinearelasticmodel
t di t th h l
64
cannotpredictthewhole
rangeofexcavation
response,fromstartto
finish
10/29/2010
33
CompareMethodA,BandD(HS)
-0.5
Displacement [m]
Method ...
Method B
Method A
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
Method A
Method A*
Method D(HS)
MethodA,LMC
phi=24degie
MethodA*,LMC
phi=17degie
Cu/P=0.25
MethodD(HS
Cc=0.6,Cs=0.06),
LMCphi=24deg
I63
measured
65
0 50 100 150 200 250
-0.1
0
Time [day]
phi 4 deg ie
Cu/P=0.32
MethodD(HS)cangavesimilarresultstoMethodB
-0.5
-0.4
Displacement [m]
Method ...
Method B
Method A MethodD(SSEI/2
Cc=0 6 Cs=0 06)
CompareMethodA,BandD(SS)
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
Method A*
Method D (SS)
Method D(SS ...
MethodA,LMC
phi=24degie
MethodD(SSCc=0.6,
Cs=0.06),LMC
phi=24deg
Cc=0.6,Cs=0.06),
LMCphi=24deg
I63
measured
0 50 100 150 200 250
0
Time[day]
Cu/P=0.32
MethodD(SS)gaveresultsbetweenMethodAandMethodB
66
10/29/2010
34
UseofMethodAandMethodB
2
nd
JSE Cl.7.2.7 InC824,theContractorhadadopted
MethodAinthePlaxisanalysisforthedesign.Allexperts
agreedthatMethodA,withoutcheckingtheundrainedshear
strengthitimplied,wasnotappropriate.
ItwouldhavebeenmoreappropriatetouseMethodBinthe
analysis.Allexperts(saveforexpertsforMCS)agreedthatfor
thisparticularcase,theuseofMethodA,insteadofMethodB,
wouldresultinanunderestimationofthepredictedbending
moments and deflections by about 50%, or a factor of 2 for
67
momentsanddeflectionsbyabout50%,orafactorof2for
theoriginaldesigninM3.
ImpactofMethodAorB
onTypeM3Wall
68
10/29/2010
35
M3SymmetricalMesh
UpperJGP
removed
LowerJGP
69
90
95
100
105
110
Method A
Method B
Stage19 after
removalofUpper
JGPwhenexcavated
65
70
75
80
85
R
L

(
m
)
toRL72.5m
Deflectionisunder
predictedbyabout
50%
70
50
55
60
-50 0 50 100 150 200 250
Wall Deflections (kNm/m)
10/29/2010
36
95
100
105
110
Method A
Method B BMisunderpredicted
by50%
65
70
75
80
85
90
R
L

(
m
)
D/Wallwouldbe
underdesigned
71
50
55
60
-2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000
Bending Moments (kNm/m)
90
95
100
105
110
Method A
Method B
TotalPressureson
ActiveSideunder
predictedbyabout
65
70
75
80
85
90
R
L

(
m
)
p y
10%
72
50
55
60
65
-500 0 500 1000 1500
Earth Pressures (kN/m2/m)
10/29/2010
37
-2500 -2000 -1500 -1000 -500 0 500
1
2
Loads (kN/m)
Method A
43%
21%
3
4
5
6
7
S
t
r
u
t

L
e
v
e
l
s
Method B
31%
21%
10%
40%
5%
73
8
9
-4%
10.5%
Strutsloadatlevel9underpredictedby10%
SummaryonMethodA/B
Underestimateundrainedstrengthbyfactor
of2(2
nd
JSE7.2.7)
UnderestimatewalldeflectionandBMby
factorof2(2
nd
JSE7.2.7)
UnderestimateStrutLoadatlevel9byabout
lessthan10%withnootherchangesin
calculation or design (2
nd
JSE 7 2 11)
74
calculationordesign(2 JSE7.2.11)
10/29/2010
38
ImplicationsofMethodA/B
UnderdesignofD/Wall(lessthickwallwithsmallertoe
penetration)
SmallerToePenetrationintoOAthanrequiredforadequate q q
safety
ReducedredundancycausingplastichingetooccurinD/wall
panelatI104ataboutexcavationlevelafterexcavationto10
th
strutlevel,andhencereducedcapabilitytoredistributestrut
loadsbelowhingelevel
LargewalldisplacementscausingJGPtobeloadedbeyond
peak capacity invoking brittle behavior
75
peakcapacityinvokingbrittlebehavior
10%errorinstrutloadestimateisnottrivialinthelightofa
highlycompromiseddesignintermsofwallcapacityandwaler
connectioncapacity(thisissignificantinviewofstructuralsteel
designdonewithFOSof1.2)
NumericalModelling g
of
CollapseState
76
10/29/2010
39
DwallEIby50%andJGPstrengthand
stiffnessreducedby50%
103
101
73
78
83
88
93
98
E
le
v
a
tio
n
R
L
(
m
)
Excavate to 100.9m
Excavate to 98.1m
Excavate to 94.6m
Excavate to 91.1m
Excavate to 87.6m
Excavate to 84.5m
Excavate to 81.6m
Excavate to 78.3m
Excavate to 75.3m
Excavate to 72.3m,
Mstage=0.4
Remove S9 71
76
81
86
91
96
E
le
v
a
tio
n
R
L
(
m
)
Excavate to 100.9m
Excavate to 98.1m
Excavate to 94.6m
Excavate to 91.1m
Excavate to 87.6m
Excavate to 84.5m
Excavate to 81.6m
Excavate to 78.3m
77
63
68
73
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
Horizontal displacement (m)
Remove S9,
Mstage=0.4
Excavate to 72.3 m,
Mstage=1
61
66
71
0 0.2 0.4 0.6
Horizontal displacements (m)
Excavate to 75.3m
Excavate to 72.3m,
Mstage=0.4
Remove S9,
Mstage=0.4
Excavate to 72.3 m,
Mstage=1
DwallEIby50%andJGPstrengthand
stiffnessreducedby50%
78
10/29/2010
40
DwallEIby50%andJGPstrengthand
stiffnessreducedby50%
79
DeflectionprofilewithbrittleJGP
80
10/29/2010
41
ToachievefailureatRL72.3m,andreasonablematchingpatternofwalldeflections
atallstages,thecombinedeffectsofreducedlowerDwall EIandJGPby50%and
lowstrutcapacityisneededinthemodel
81
UsingtheMStage
setting;theevolutionof
strutloadsforthelast
stageofexcavation
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
S
t
r
u
t

f
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
/
m
)
Strut 1
Strut 2
Strut 3
Strut 4
Strut 5
Strut 6
Strut 7
Strut 8
beforefailurecanbe
computed
Thetrendshowed
reductionofloadin
strut9,sharpincrease
ofloadinstrut8,
followedbygradual
0
200
400
0 0.0
5
0.1 0.1
5
0.2 0.2
5
0.3 0.3
5
0.4 0.4
5
0.5 0.5
5
0.6 0.6
5
0.7
Mstage
Strut 9
82
reductionofloadsin
strut7and6
10/29/2010
42
BackAnalysis
(takenbetweentheperiodbetweenFebtoApr2004)
23
rd
FEB04,I104
1
st
APR04,I104
302mm>252.7mm
2
d
9
th
0
159mm>145mm
1
st
BA 5MAR04
2
nd
BA 19
th
APR04
83 Source:Maunsell ExhibitE17.6
NLC Back Analysis: NLCBackAnalysis:
Donotcomparewell
withI104ateverystage
uptocurrentstageofBA
Cannotcorrectlypredict
futuretrends
84
10/29/2010
43
M3isanUnforgivingSite
VeryDeepExcavationinVeryDeepSoftClayrequire
useofSacrificialJGP
CurvedD/walls:resultedinuseofshortwalersand
missingsplays
66kVcrossings:gapsinJGPandDwall,shiftingof
boredpilesawayfromfrontofgaps
DeepburiedvalleyonsouthwalljustwestofI104:
85
p y j
weakerOAwithreducedpassiveresistanceonsouth
side
DWallPanelPositionsatCollapseSite
NorthDwallmovedmore
thanSouth(Southrestrainedby
longerboredpiles)
Mostpanelsseemto
i d i i remainedinonepiece,
especiallypanelwithI65tube
Northwallpanelslaterally
translatedshearingofftopof
OAsoils
Southwallpanelsoverthe66
kVgapappeartohavefailedby
86
g p pp y
toekickin,sinceboredpiles
weremovedawayfrominfront
ofgaparea
10/29/2010
44
OnemustneveruseFEMsoftwarelikeablackbox,
withoutsoundengineeringjudgment
Conclusions
Needtounderstandsoilmechanics,constitutive
modelbehavior,andsomeaspectsofnumerical
analysistouseFEMprogramcorrectly
OverrelianceofdesigndecisionsonFEManalysis
mustbediscouraged,andbasicmechanicsfor
87
checkingofFEMresultsmustalsobeemployed
Designisnotaonetimeact,butacontinualprocess
ofensuringthatdesignassumptionsareconsistent
withsiterealitybycheckingwithproper
instrumentation and monitoring
Conclusions
instrumentationandmonitoring
Whenobserveddataandbehaviorisdifferentfrom
FEManalysis,wemustdeterminerationalreasons
fordifference,andbackanalyzewithrealisticmodels
andinputparameterstomakesoundpredictionsof
subsequentworks
Steel works connection details must be done and
88
Steelworksconnectiondetailsmustbedoneand
reviewedbycompetentpersons
Useofanynewdesignfeaturesmustbeproperly
investigatedbeforeimplementation(e.g.CChannel
brittleresponse,sacrificialJGP)
10/29/2010
45
LessonsLearnt
Thedesignofimportantstructuresshould
involveareviewbyanindependentchecker,in
theformofanotherconsultingteam.Inthis
waypossibleshortcomingsmaybeidentified
atanearlystageoftheproject.
89
LessonsLearnt
Properbackanalysesshouldattemptasystematic
assessment of the causes of significant assessmentofthecausesofsignificant
discrepanciesbetweenanalysisand
measurement.
Themodificationofmaterialparametersshould
reflecttheuncertaintyinthedeterminationof
theseparametersandthustherangeofvariation
hastobewithinsensiblelimits.
90