Professional Documents
Culture Documents
D
e
p
e
n
d
o
n
s
o
i
l
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
a
n
d
d
e
s
i
g
n
e
d
t
o
t
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
l
o
a
d
s
i
n
t
o
h
a
r
d
s
t
r
a
t
a
u
n
d
e
r
n
e
a
t
h
.
2
.
R
e
t
a
i
n
i
n
g
w
a
l
l
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
T
a
k
e
l
a
t
e
r
a
l
a
n
d
v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
f
o
r
c
e
s
.
D
e
s
i
g
n
e
d
t
o
c
o
u
n
t
e
r
a
c
t
l
o
a
d
s
i
n
d
u
c
e
d
f
r
o
m
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
u
r
i
n
g
s
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
a
n
d
s
u
r
c
h
a
r
g
e
.
3
.
S
t
a
n
c
h
i
o
n
s
t
e
e
l
c
o
l
u
m
n
d
e
s
i
g
n
e
d
t
o
w
i
t
h
s
t
a
n
d
v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
a
n
d
h
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l
f
o
r
c
e
a
t
p
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
w
o
r
k
a
n
d
a
n
c
h
o
r
a
g
e
i
n
t
o
p
i
l
e
f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
.
4
.
E
a
r
t
h
e
x
c
a
v
a
t
i
o
n
d
e
s
i
g
n
e
d
a
t
a
l
l
o
w
a
b
l
e
s
l
o
p
e
a
n
d
b
e
r
m
g
r
a
d
i
e
n
t
.
5
.
S
l
o
p
e
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
/
s
h
o
t
c
r
e
t
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
e
d
t
o
s
t
a
b
i
l
i
s
e
s
l
o
p
e
f
r
o
m
e
r
o
s
i
o
n
a
n
d
c
o
l
l
a
p
s
e
.
6
.
T
e
m
p
o
r
a
r
y
s
t
r
u
t
t
i
n
g
/
b
r
a
c
i
n
g
s
t
e
e
l
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
t
o
p
r
o
p
r
e
t
a
i
n
i
n
g
w
a
l
l
f
o
r
m
e
d
b
y
s
h
e
e
t
p
i
l
e
o
r
c
o
n
t
i
g
u
o
u
s
b
o
r
e
d
p
i
l
e
.
7
.
I
n
s
t
r
u
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
s
i
t
e
m
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
g
a
u
g
e
s
t
o
m
o
n
i
t
o
r
d
e
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
a
n
d
h
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l
d
u
r
i
n
g
e
x
c
a
v
a
t
i
o
n
w
o
r
k
.
8
.
T
e
m
p
o
r
a
r
y
d
e
w
a
t
e
r
i
n
g
s
y
s
t
e
m
t
o
e
n
s
u
r
e
s
i
t
e
f
r
e
e
f
r
o
m
u
n
d
e
r
g
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
a
n
d
i
n
f
l
u
e
n
c
e
g
r
o
u
n
d
s
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t
.
9
.
B
a
c
k
f
i
l
l
i
n
g
w
i
t
h
s
u
i
t
a
b
l
e
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
t
o
f
o
r
m
b
a
s
e
f
o
r
r
o
a
d
,
d
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
a
n
d
g
r
o
u
n
d
a
r
e
a
w
i
t
h
a
l
l
o
w
a
b
l
e
d
e
g
r
e
e
o
f
c
o
m
p
a
c
t
i
o
n
.
=
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
,
B
U
M
=
B
o
t
t
o
m
U
p
M
e
t
h
o
d
,
S
T
D
M
=
S
e
m
i
T
o
p
D
o
w
n
M
e
t
h
o
d
,
R
.
C
=
R
e
i
n
f
o
r
c
e
d
C
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
,
G
E
O
=
G
e
o
t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
72
6.4 Time and Cost Completion Activity
In both methods, refer Table 6.4 and Table 6.5, costs at completion of basement
work are based on specialist price which mean from direct local sub-contractors of these
two projects. The main contract cost of project is not viable to consider since Project 1
is under private development meanwhile Project 2 is under government development.
Thus it is not under the same development case.
Pile foundation activity in both projects should not be considered influenced the
basement work activity in construction stages as it is able to be carried out
independently. Determination of the use bored pile as foundation is designed solely
based on soil properties. It is to transfer building loads vertically to hard strata
underneath.
In Project 1 which basement works are carried out by bottom up method, the building
foundation is designed as raft foundation. However, pile foundation of 45 nos. bored
pile is designed to support core wall which located at center of building. Core wall is
designed as main braced element in tall building as to take both forces from lateral wind
load and vertical (gravity) building load.
By referring Table 6.4, with absence of pile foundation activity, the basement work
completion is still remains at 392 days. Hence, total completion cost should be
00 . 800 , 081 , 9 00 . 000 , 565 00 . 800 . 646 , 9 RM RM RM = . The footprint area Project 1 is
2
75 . 163 , 5 m . Thus, based on working area for three stories basement work, the cost rate
is
2 2
76 . 758 , 1
75 . 163 , 5
00 . 800 , 080 , 9
m
RM
m
RM
=
Meanwhile in Project 2 which basement works are carried out by semi top down
method, the pile foundation is designed as building foundation. As to simulate the
costing of basement work, the costing of Project 2 by referring Table 6.5, should be
73
assessed in absence of pile foundation. The time still remains at 303 days to complete
the basement work. Hence, total completion cost is
00 . 500 , 668 , 7 00 . 000 , 750 , 2 00 . 500 , 418 , 10 RM RM RM = . The footprint area Project 2
is
2
43 . 925 , 4 m . Based on working area for three stories basement, the cost rate is
2 2
92 . 556 , 1
43 . 925 , 4
00 . 500 , 668 , 7
m
RM
m
RM
=
Figure 6.1 : Actual cost and time completion for semi top down method
and bottom up method without pile foundation
The analysis of cost and time of both methods is tracked from operations in Table 6.4
and Table 6.5. It is superimposed into one graph as shown in Figure 6.1. From the
graph, at the first of starting project until 3.8 months, cost operation of both methods is
likely same. However for the period of 3.8 months to 7 months, the operation cost of
74
semi top down method is seems less than bottom up method. Contrary, at the 7 months
towards 10 months i.e at the end of completion progress of semi top down method, cost
operation of semi top down method is seen more than cost operation of bottom up
method. However, semi top down method is finished three months earlier than bottom
up methods with less cost.
7
5
T
a
b
l
e
6
.
4
:
A
c
t
u
a
l
w
o
r
k
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
i
o
n
o
f
b
o
t
t
o
m
u
p
m
e
t
h
o
d
f
o
r
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
1
7
6
T
a
b
l
e
6
.
5
:
A
c
t
u
a
l
w
o
r
k
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
i
o
n
o
f
s
e
m
i
t
o
p
d
o
w
n
m
e
t
h
o
d
f
o
r
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
2
CHAPTER 7
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
7.1 Introduction
In tall building with underground basement, completion on time is one critical
item vital to the owner, the consultants and the contractor. Close coordination and
cooperation between all parties concerned, together with the use of latest technique and
a reliable and diligent workforce had ensured the completion of the building on
schedule.
7.2 Conclusion
The justification for the both of semi top down and bottom up methods has been
made in both 30-storey tall building with three basements construction for Project 2
78
which is commenced one year late from Project 1 based on field compiled data and
analysis result.
Thus, the followings have been concluded,
1. The work methodology and activity on site are depend on construction
parameter which influenced both completion cost and time both method of
basement works.
2. Semi top down method requires simultaneously preinstalled column
stanchion and retaining wall element.
3. Elimination of strutting structure, earth backfilling work and shorten time in
excavation work due to reduction in excavation volume, is seems influenced
semi top down method completed work earlier with cost saving compared
with bottom up method.
Eventhough, the cost rates in both project activities are based on present time of price
from local expertise, semi top down method has given more benefit in term of reduction
construction time and competitive cost saving. However performance in each activity is
solely depend on reliable local expertise with availability of modern equipment and
machinery to carry out the underground basement work.
7.3 Suggestion
.
In tall building with underground basement, the effectiveness and suitably
method of construction to carry out basement work is needed to study from a few
similar projects within same type of geological area. The construction cost budget in
79
three basements underground of tall building to be built is related to time completion of
each project which mainly contributed by method in work implementation. In feasibility
study, cost and time referred should be based on records of completed project within the
same conceptual designed and work method.
Based on field study which is carried out from these two projects, the rate of
construction time and rate cost at subcontractor price is suggested for preliminaries
study in three basements work of tall building could be summarized as below,
1. Rate of completion time for semi top down method is 16.3m
2
/day and for bottom
up method is 13.2m
2
/day.
2. Rate of construction cost at sub-contractor price for semi top down method is RM
1,556.92/m
2
and for bottom up method is RM 1,758.76/m
2
.
The above suggestion is exclusive of pile foundation contribution.
80
References :
1. Don, R. (1991), Cost Estimating For underground Structures. R.S.Sinha (Ed.).
Underground Structures Design and Construction (pp.480-515). U.S : Elsevier
Science Publishers B.V.
2. Gue, S.S. & Tan.Y.C. (1998), Design and Construction Considerations For Deep
Excavation. SSP Geotechnics Sdn. Bhd, Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia. from
www.sspsb.com.my.
3. Narong Thasnanipan, Aung Wing Maung & Pornpot Tangseng (2006), Important of
Temporary Works and Construction Sequence Lessons from Collapse of an Inlet
Shaft During Excavation, International Symposium on Underground Exacavation
and Tunnelling, 2-4 February 2006, Bangkok, Thailand from
http://www.itaaites.org/cms/fileadmin/filemounts/general/pdf/ItaAssociation/Organi
sation/Members/MemberNations/Thailand/T-31Thasnanipan.pdf.
4. Craig, R.F. (1983), Soil Mechanics (3
rd
Ed.), United Kingdom:Van Nostrand
Reinhold.
5. Tomlinson, M.J. (1995), Foundation Design and Construction (6
th
. Ed.), United
Kingdom: Longman.
6. Harris, F. (1994), Modern Construction and Ground Engineering Equipment and
Methods (2
nd
Edition), United Kingdom:Longman.
7. Bell, F.G. (2004), Engineering Geology and Construction, London : Spon Press.
8. Kong, S.K. (2003), Application of Geotechnical Instrument For Safety Control in
Basement Construction works, Moh and Associated (S) Pte. Ltd, Singapore from
www.maa.com.tw/common/publications/2000/2000-063.pdf
9. Wong, W. M. (2008), A Review on Common Technology Employed for The
Construction of Building in Hong Kong, Division of Building Science and
Technology, City University of Hong Kong from
Personel.cityu.edu.hk/~bswmwong/pp/cbpaper/cbright.html.
10. Ikuta, Y., Marouka, M., Aoki, M. And Sato, E. (1994), Application of The
Observational Method to A deep Basement Excavation Using Top-Down Method,
Geotechnique 44, No.4, pp 655-664.
81
11. Lim, C.S., Tan, S.M. & Hiew, L.C. (1999), A Basement Excavation Using Tie Back,
Internal Horizontal Strutting and Inclined-struts-andberm system, SSP.
Geotechnics Sdn. Bhd, Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia from www.sspsb.com.my
12. Sofiana Talha (2000), Deformation Behaviour of a Retaining Wall for a Deep
Basement Excavation with Semi-Top Down Method, SSP Geotechnics Sdn. Bhd,
Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia from www.sspsb.com.my.
13. Narong Thasnanipan, Aung Wing Maung & Zaw Zaw Aye (2000), Practical
Installation of Stanchion For Top Down Construction in Bangkok Subsoil,
Development in Geotechnical Engineering, Thailand, pp 337-346 from
www.seafco.co.th/RDpaper/BP-10.pdf.