Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Although the reliable evaluation of ground movement has become essential for the
economy and safety of major offshore construction projects, the current techniques
for evaluation of marine soil properties and design procedure show a considerable
lack of accuracy when compared with the instrumented results. This is usually
attributed to a misunderstanding of marine soil behavior under working load
conditions.
The strain level experienced in the soil medium under working load condition
usually ranges below about 0.5%, and soil behaves nonlinearly from the small strain
ranges of about 10 3% (Jardine et al. 1986; Burland 1989). The stiffness of granular
soils and weathered rock is considerably affected by the in situ confinement, and the
Address correspondence to Dong Soo Kim, Department of Civil & Environmental
Engineering, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Taejon, Korea.
E-mail: dskim@kaist.ac.kr
117
118
modulus values based on (SPT) obtained by site investigations before major excavation would be quite different from those values after excavation. In current design
practice, subgrade reaction method and=or a linear finite element method are often
employed for the analysis of deformational behavior of geotechnical offshore structures using soil properties determined by SPT N-values and=or a conventional triaxial tests which cannot properly consider the effects of confinement, small-strain
nonlinearity and hysteresis loading=unloading loop. Therefore, it is necessary to
develop the refined site investigation and numerical analysis methods which can consider the aforementioned effects for the reliable ground movement analysis during
deep excavation at coastal area.
In this article, the case study of the deep excavation for a 56 m-depth cylindrical
inground LNG storage tank at coastal area was investigated. The 1.7 m thick, 80 m
diameter, and 75 m deep cylindrical diaphragm wall was utilized as a retaining structure for the excavation. Detailed site investigations were performed both before and
after excavations to determine the variation in deformational characteristics due to
the decrease of confinement. The small-strain nonlinearity of the site was evaluated
by effectively combining the maximum shear moduli determined by a downhole test
with the modulus reduction curves determined by a resonant column test. A number
of instruments were installed at the diaphragm wall and the adjacent ground, and the
distributions of wall deflection, pore water pressure, and rebar stress were monitored
at various locations during the excavation (Samsung Corporation 1998). The result
of series of numerical analyses was compared with the monitored wall deflection,
and the importance of considering the effects of small-strain nonlinearity and confining pressure was assessed. Finally, the effects of wall stiffness on the performance of
cylindrical diaphragm walls were evaluated for the future similar construction in the
coastal area.
119
120
Depth EL,m
7.4 2.6
2.6 16.3
16.3 30.0
30.0 39.9
39.9 42.3
42.3 47.3
47.3 63.8
63.8 72.1
72.1 100.0
Soil
classification
Reclaimed full
Silty sand
Silty sand
Silty sand
Clay
Sandy gravel
Weathered rock
Soft rock
Hard rock
N-Value
before after
17
24
42
70
73
127
173
85
510
E 28 N (kPa)
before
44667
65883
115295
192158
204420
348630
474906 233335
1400011
Depth (EL, m)
Soil
classification
Unit weight
c (kN=m3)
(before)
7.4 2.6
2.6 16.3
17.3 39.9
30.0 39.9
39.9 42.3
42.3 47.3
47.3 63.8
63.8 72.1
72.1 100
Reclaimed fill
Silty sand
Silty sand
Silty sand
Clay
Sandy gravel
Weathered rock
Soft rock
Hard rock
18.14
18.14
18.63
20.10
18.63
20.59
23.04
23.04
25.00
after
Vs (m=s)
before after
160
200
260
310
310
310
450
750
1500
246
400
Max. shear
modulus
Gmax (Pa)
(before)
Elastic
modulus
Emax (Pa)
(before)
4.736E7
7.400E7
1.284E8
1.970E8
1.826E8
1.922E8
4.759E8
1.434E9
5.738E9
1.260E8
1.968E8
3.417E8
5.240E8
4.857E8
5.113E8
1.266E9
3.815E9
1.526E10
Gmax and Emax are obtained from shear wave velocity Vs.
pressuremeter tests were also performed before and after excavations and elastic
modulus of weathered rock obtained after excavation was found to be considerably
lower than the modulus before excavation as shown in Figure 2(b).
Downhole test was performed before excavation to obtain the shear wave velocity (Vs) profile of the site as shown in Figure 3. At depths of 24 m, 34.5 m, and 40 m
during excavation, Spectral Analysis of Surface Wave (SASW) tests were performed
to evaluate the variation of vs with confinement. Because of the limited testing space,
the receiver spacing in the SASW tests was restricted. It was interesting to note that
the shear wave velocities measured after excavation were lower than the velocities
obtained before excavation, and the importance of considering the confinement
effect in the evaluation of deformational characteristics can be explained. Unfortunately, it was not possible to perform an SASW test at the bottom of the excavation
(at a depth of 55 m) because of construction problems. The shear wave velocity after
excavation was estimated by correcting the downhole test result based on confining
pressure influence factors of weathered and soft rocks determined by resonant
column tests as shown in Figure 3. The elastic modulus values determined by
SPT, PMT, and shear wave velocity measurements before and after excavation are
121
Figure 2. Comparison of modulus obtained by SPT and by PMT between before and after
excavation.
122
Figure 4. Comparison of elastic moduli between before and after excavation according to
various testing methods.
123
Figure 5. Normalized modulus reduced curve by RC tests at average effective confining pressure of each layer.
In the numerical analysis, the layer of weathered rock plays a major role in the
wall lateral deflection. The modulus values of weathered rock were significantly
reduced due to the disturbance and the decrease of confinement during excavation.
Figure 6. Comparison between elastic moduli determined by N-value, downhole test, and RC test.
124
If one used the modulus values determined before excavation, the stiffness of the
layer would be overestimated in the analysis.
125
values at each layer were decreased as strain level increased, and it was interesting to
note that modulus value estimated by 7N was considerably low, but values estimated
by 28N were close to the value at a strain level of about 0.1%. Considering the fact
that the strain level in the working stress condition is usually less than 0.11.0%, it
may be appropriate to use 28N as a linear elastic modulus.
Instrumentation
An extensive instrumentation program was implemented, which included (1) inclinometers in eight directions to measure the wall lateral deflection, (2) pore water
pressure transducers in four directions to measure the variation in pore pressures
during excavation at four different depths, (3) rebar stress meters in the radial and
vertical directions, and so on (Figure 7). The measuring section was divided into
eight directions (31, 73, 128, 170, 211, 253, 308, 350). In the directions of 73
and 253 (MAIN LINE 1) all instruments were performed. In the directions of
170 and 350 (MAIN LINE 2) which were almost at a right angle to MAIN LINE
1, all instruments excluding pore water pressure meter in the surrounding ground
were installed. In other directions, minimum required instruments were installed.
Figure 8. Lateral wall deflections and average value in final excavation step.
126
The variations of wall deflections with depth were monitored at eight directions
by inclinometers installed in diaphragm wall. Circumferential rebar stress meters
were installed at five depths in eight directions. Pore water pressure transducers were
installed to measure the applied water pressure to the diaphragm wall and to confirm
security against permeation through the bottom. Pore pressure transducers were
installed at three depths in four directions outside of the diaphragm wall and at
one depth in four directions inside of the diaphragm wall.
Figure 9. Comparison of lateral deflection by using rebar stress and inclinometer value at 4th,
6th and final excavation steps.
127
Numerical Analysis
Proposed Nonlinear Elastic Model
In this study, the improved numerical modeling method was proposed to estimate
the behavior of the cylindrical diaphragm wall and surrounding ground movement
128
during deep excavation in coastal area. During excavation, soil strains in the working stress ranges usually experienced were below about 0.5% (Burland, 1989). At this
small strain range, stress-strain relationships of soil show nonlinearity and hysteresis
loop. The backbone curve is very important for the evaluation of loading=unloading
behavior because it defines the initial stiffness of the soil at small strains and constitutes the basis for characterizing the stress-strain behavior of soils for nonlinear
analysis. Ramberg-Osgood stress-strain relationship generally fits the nonlinearity
of the experimental data at strain range below 0.1% very well (Anderson and
Richart 1975). In this article, hysteresis loop can be represented by the backbone
curve, which is described by Ramberg-Osgood Parameters, and by assuming
Masing rule.
One form of the Ramberg-Osgood stress-strain equation for the inintial backbone curve can be written as (Eq. 1):
e1
r1 r3
Ei
r1 r3 R
;
C
Ei
where e1 is principal strain, r1 r3 is deviatoric stress, Ei Emax is initial modulus, C is dimensionless coefficient, and R is dimensioless exponenet.
Since the tangential modulus is defined as the instantaneous tangential slope of
the stress-strain curve, the tangential modulus can be calculated from (Eq. 1) by differentiating with respect to the major principal strain as shown in (Eq. 2).
Et
@r1 r3
@e1
1 CR
Ei
r1 r3
Ei
R1 :
According to the excavation steps, the effective confinement decreases due to the
removal of surcharge load and seepage flow, and soil stiffness inside the wall after
excavation is reduced compared to that before excavation. Based on the site investigations, soil stiffness after excavation is estimated about 30% of the value before
excavation. Therefore, for the precise estimation of deformation behavior, it is necessary to consider a variation of soil stiffness due to confining pressure reduction by
excavation. The initial tangential modulus of stress-strain curve has been observed
to be dependent on confining pressure. Janbu (1963) proposed the following equation (Eq. 3) to consider the dependency of confining pressure for initial tangential
modulus Ei .
n
r3
Ei Emax KPa
;
3
Pa
where, Pa is atmospheric pressure, initial tangential modulus factor K and stress
influence exponent n are nondimensional material parameters.
If (Eq. 3) is substituted into (Eq. 2), the tangential modulus of backbone curve
considering the effect of confining pressure at working load condition is represented
by (Eq. 4).
n
KPa Pr3a
Et
4
R1 :
1 r3
1 CR KParr
n
3 =Pa
129
230
420
1000
0.68
0.60
0.62
31622
79433
3981
2.57
2.97
2.21
130
was made stress free by calculating the equivalent nodal forces from the removed elements and applying them on the excavated boundary (Ishihara 1970). The implied
load due to excavation was found too large to be applied in a single increment for
the nonlinear soil. Hence the load was spread over a number of increments until
131
Analysis Results
Comparison Between the Measured and Analyzed Results
Measured lateral wall deflections are compared to nonlinear FEM analysis results
with excavation steps in Figure 13. Soil parameters listed in Table 2 reflect the effect
of confining pressure reduction derived from ground excavation and small-strain
nonlinearity of soil modulus. Because the stiffness of the cylindrical diaphragm wall
with thickness of 1.7 m is high, lateral wall deflection is relatively small. FEM analysis results are well consistent with measured values at each excavation steps. On the
other hand, wall deflection obtained from using parameters before excavation shows
much smaller deflections at depths between 40 m and 55 m, compared to the measured data at final excavation step as shown in Figure 14. It is explained that parameters before excavation cannot consider the effect of confining pressure reduction
during excavation.
Figure 13. Comparison between measured and numerical analysis results with excavation
steps.
132
Figure 14. Comparison of results with soil properties before and after excavation.
133
Figure 16. Comparison of results between linear and nonlinear analysis with strain levels.
134
to choose the proper strain level in the linear analysis, because it depends on various
factors such as soil and wall stiffnesses.
In the proposed case, the wall stiffness of the cylindrical diaphragm was so large
that lateral wall deflection appeared very small, but the effect of the nonlinearity of
soils would influence significantly lateral wall deflection in case of small wall stiffness. Using the numerical analyses performed with altering wall stiffness, the difference between linear and nonlinear analysis can be noticed clearly. For similar deep
excavation in the coastal area, the effects of wall stiffness on the lateral wall deflection have been investigated by varying the wall stiffness of EI 13510, 4752, 2750,
1408, and 594 MNm2, which corresponds to 1.7, 1.2, 1.0, 0.8, and 0.6 m thick cylindrical diaphragm walls, respectively. As shown in Figure 17, the lateral wall deflection decreases with increasing wall stiffness. The shape of lateral wall deflection with
wall stiffnesses shows similar pattern. The maximum lateral wall deflection at the
0.6 m, 0.8 m, 1.0 m and 1.2 m cylindrical diaphragm walls is increased by 93%,
64%, 43% and 27%, respectively, as compared to the maximum lateral wall deflection of the 1.7 m thick wall.
As shown in Figure 5, nonlinearity of soil varies soil modulus with strains. As
wall stiffness decreases, wall deflection increases as shown in Figure 17. The increase
of wall deflection comes from both the decrease of wall stiffness and the decrease of
Figure 17. Curves of lateral wall deflections with various wall stiffnesses.
135
soil modulus due to increase of soil strain. By comparing wall deflections obtained
by linear analysis with constant modulus values and nonlinear analysis for all cases
of wall stiffness, respectively, the effect of soil nonlinearity can be explained. In this
analysis, the soil modulus used in linear analysis is 80% of maximum value, which
corresponds the values at strains of about 0.01%, and the effect of soil nonlinearity
can be defined as the difference of maximum wall lateral difference between linear
and nonlinear analysis. It is found that the effect of soil nonlinearity increases with
decreasing wall stiffness. This means that wall lateral deflection is governed by not
only wall stiffness but also soil nonlinearity with decrease of wall stiffness. Therefore,
to evaluate exactly wall deflection and surrounding ground deformation, numerical
analyses must be performed considering the small-strain nonlinearity of soil as well
as the effect of confining pressure reduction during excavation.
Conclusions
The lateral deflections of a cylindrical diaphragm wall induced by deep excavation
are analyzed by performing site instrumentations and numerical analyses in the costal area of Korea. Comparing the elastic modulus values before and after excavation,
it was found that the elastic modulus is reduced significantly after the excavation due
to the effect of confining pressure reduction and the permeation. Therefore, the
effect of confining pressure reduction should be considered appropriately to determine the elastic modulus for an accurate evaluation of the lateral deflection of
diaphragm wall.
The stress-strain model, which enables consideration of the effects of soil nonlinearity and the confinement reduction, was proposed. The propsed model is implemented in ABAQUS, and its applicability to analysis of deep excavation works has
been found to be satisfactory through the verification with in situ measurement
results. To evaluate wall lateral deflection properly, numerical analyses should be
performed considering the effect of small-strain nonlinearity of soil and confining
pressure reduction during excavation.
References
ABAQUS. Users and theory manuals, V. 5.5. Hibbit, Karlson & Sorensen Inc.
Anderson, D. G. and F. E. Jr. Richart. 1975. Effects of shearing of shear modulus of clays.
Journal of the Geotechnical Eng. Div., ASCE 102(9): 975987.
Burland, J. B. 1989. Ninth Lauritis Bjerrum Memorial Lecture: Small is beautiful-The
stiffness of soils at small strains. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 26: 5265.
Duncan, J. M., P. Bryne, K. S. Wong, and P. Marbry. 1980. Strength, stress-strain and bulk
modulus parameters for finite element analyses of stresses and movements in soil masses.
Geotechnical Engineering Research Report No UCB/GT/80-01, University of
California, Berkeley, California.
Ishihara, K. 1970. Relations between process of cutting and uniqueness of solution. Soil and
Foundations 10(3): 5065.
Janbu, N. 1963. Soil compressibility as determined by oedometer and triaxial tests. Proc
Europe Conference on soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering 1: 1925.
Jardine, R. J., D. M. Potts, A. B. Fourie, and J. B. Burland. 1986. Studies of the influence of
non-linear stress-strain characteristics in soil-structure interaction. Geotechnique 36(3):
377396.
136
Kim, D. S., K. C. Kweon, S. Y. Jeong, and J. Y. Park. 1997. Evaluation of nonlinear deformation characteristic of soil using laboratory tests and site tests. Journal of the Korean
Geotechnical Society 13(5): 89100 (in Korean).
Korea Highway Corporation. 1996. Korea specification of highway and bridges. (in Korean).
Samsung Corporation. 1998. Subsoil investigation of incheon LNG storage tank, Rpth to
Korea Gas Corporation. (in Korean).