Pressure on Basement Walls, and the Evaluation and Monitoring of Construction Impact of a Deep Excavation on the Existing Metro Red Line Tunnels Mr. John Yao, PE, GE Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LA Metro) Dr. Martin Hudson, PE, GE Amec Foster Wheeler Other Contributors to this Presentation: John Waggoner (McMillen Jacobs Associates) Yiming Sun (McMillen Jacobs Associates) Roozbeh Mikola (McMillen Jacobs Associates) Matthew Crow (LA Metro)
Overview of Proposed Development
1,099-ft (335-m), 73 stories
Tallest structure in western U.S.
Mixed-use hotel, retail & office
Owner: Hanjin (Korean Air)
Architect: AC Martin
Contractor: Turner Construction
Expected completion 2017
5/15/2016
Presentation Overview
Part I: The Evaluation and Monitoring of Construction Impact of a Deep
Excavation on the Existing Metro Red Line Tunnels
Evaluation of the Effects of Wilshire Grand Excavation on the Metro Tunnels
Tunnel Instrumentation and Monitoring
Part II: Evaluation of Seismic Lateral Earth Pressure on Basement Walls
Part I
Part I: Evaluation and Monitoring of
Construction Impact of a Deep Excavation on the Existing Metro Red Line Tunnels
5/15/2016
Wilshire Grand Red Line Tunnel Team
Amec Foster Wheeler
Tunnel Evaluation / Instrumentation Lead
Wilshire Grand Geotechnical Engineer of Record Instrumentation Installation Manual Instrumentation Measurement
Sam Mayman Executive Officer of Engineering John Jaramillo Installation Oversight / Coordination
Reviewer of Tunnel Analysis and Instrumentation
Program for L.A. Metro
Los Angeles Metro
Parsons Brinckerhoff
Los Angeles Metro Red Line Tunnels
Tower Mat Foundation
Photo taken on 4/25/14
Metro Tunnels
5/15/2016
Los Angeles Metro Red Line Tunnels
Upper soldier piles Tiebacks
Rakers
Lower soldier piles
Photo taken on 4/25/14
Shoring Designer: Cefali & Associates
Construction
Tiebacks and Preloaded Rakers
Shoring Installed by Malcolm Drilling
World Record Concrete Pour
21,200 yd3 (16,209 m3)
5/15/2016
Tunnel Cross Section
22-1 (6.73 m) excavated diameter 17-10 (5.44 m) finished inside diameter Precast concrete segments initial ground support Cast-in-place reinforced concrete final lining HDPE waterproofing
Tunnel Structural and Operational Criteria
1. Maintain Structural Integrity of Tunnel Lining 12 inch (305 mm) thick, 4000 psi (28 MPa) reinforced concrete lining must have adequate structural capacity based on ACI 318 per Metro Rail Design Criteria (MRDC) 2. Limit Tunnel Distortion For the ground conditions at the site, change in tunnel radius or diameter) should be kept below 0.25% per MRDC, which is about 0.5 inch (13 mm)
3. No Damage to HDPE Waterproofing Membrane
4. Maintain Safe and Normal Rail Operation
5/15/2016
Geological Profiles and Model Configurations
Geological profiles provided by
Amec Foster Wheeler
2D analysis using FLAC
Previous adjacent excavation
Existing tunnel construction
Excavation & shoring
installation sequence
New building construction
Fill
Old Alluvium
AL
AR
Weathered Fernando Fernando Formation (siltstone/ sandstone)
Soil & Rock Parameters for Modeling
(provided by Amec Foster Wheeler) Label
Material Type
Total Unit Weight (pcf)
K0
A1
Younger Alluvium (Coarse Grained)
125
A3
Older Alluvium (Coarse Grained)
A4
Soil Strength
Poissons Ratio
Elastic Modulus, E - Large Strain (ksf)
Shear Modulus, G - Large Strain (ksf)
35
0.35
1,120
415
400
35
0.35
1,120
415
0.48
600
31
0.35
320
118
125
0.65
1,300
33
0.4
2,587 (mean)
924 (mean)
2,015 (lower bound)
720 (lower bound)
125
0.65
1,300
33
0.4
c (psf)
(deg.)
0.43
400
125
0.43
Older Alluvium (Fine Grained)
125
Tfw
Weathered Fernando Formation
Tf
Unweathered Fernando Formation
4,698 (mean)
1,678 (mean)
3,300 (lower bound)
1,179 (lower bound)
5/15/2016
Calculated Displacements at Tunnel Invert
0.9 (23 mm) Wilshire Grand Project Site
0.65 (16 mm)
0.6 (15 mm) 0.25 (6 mm)
Shape of ground movement parallel to excavation estimated using an
empirically fitted error function by Roboski and Finno (2006)
Instrumentation and Monitoring Plan
Instrumentation Types Selected
SURFACE Survey Points on Shoring Inclinometers Load Cells on tiebacks Strain Gages on Rakers TUNNEL Survey Points in Tunnel Convergence Points In Tunnel Crackmeters Vibration Monitors
Inclinometer (typ)
5/15/2016
Surface Instruments
Load Cell
Strain Gage
Tunnel Instruments
Prism (typ)
Tape Extensometer
Automated Total Station
5/15/2016
Tunnel Monitoring Criteria
Automated Total Station
Tunnel Instruments
5/15/2016
Monitoring of Tunnel Movement
Time History of Absolute Vertical Movement
Time History of Relative Vertical Movement (per 25 ft along Tunnel)
Monitoring of Tunnel Cross Section
Deformed Shape (Magnified 20x)
Original Shape
10
5/15/2016
Measured Versus Calculated Vertical Movement at
Tunnel Invert
Lower Bound
Mean
Measured Versus Calculated Horizontal Movement
at Tunnel Invert Lower Bound
Mean
West
East
11
5/15/2016
Possible Causes of the Nonsymmetrical Lateral
Movement Pattern Metro Tunnels under Street
Lower Bound
Mean
East
West East
West
Part I - Conclusions 1. Numerical Analysis suggests shoring stiffening did not significantly reduce tunnel deflection 2. Preloading of rakers to 100% of design load significantly reduced lateral movement 3. Excavation unloading caused more vertical than lateral movement 4. Detailed monitoring and evaluation of deformations were key to success 5. No discernible distress or change of operations in the Metro Red Line Tunnels
12
5/15/2016
Part II
Part II: Evaluation of Seismic Lateral
Earth Pressure on Basement Walls
II FEMA 369Part Commentary
Two categories of walls:
yielding walls walls that can move sufficiently to develop minimum active earth pressures nonyielding walls walls that do not satisfy the movement condition For yielding walls, the FEMA 369 commentary states that there is consensus in the geotechnical engineering practice that a simplified Mononobe-Okabe seismic coefficient analysis reasonably represents the dynamic (seismic) lateral earth pressure increment for yielding retaining walls. The commentary presents an equation for evaluation of the dynamic incremental component (DPAE) proposed by Seed and Whitman (1970):
DPAE ~ (3/8)khgH2
where kh is the horizontal ground acceleration divided by gravitational acceleration.
Reference for Mononobe-Okabe:
13
5/15/2016
FEMA 369 Commentary
For nonyielding walls, the FEMA 369 commentary presents an equation developed by Wood (1973) for a rigid nonyielding wall retaining a homogeneous linear elastic soil and connected to a rigid base. The dynamic thrust, DPE, is approximately: DPE = kh gH 2 As for yielding walls, the point of application of the dynamic thrust is typically taken at a height of 0.6H above the base of the wall.
COMMENTS ON THE NEHRP COMMENTARY REGARDING SEISMIC DESIGN OF
RETAINING WALLS
The commentary does not provide recommendations on the height of the
retained earth such as given in the California Building Code. The seismic coefficient should not be equal to the peak ground acceleration - the value should be significantly lower, generally below 0.15. The reason for the reduced value of seismic coefficient compared to the peak ground acceleration is well documented and is due to two factors: a reduction based upon the use of an effective ground acceleration rather than a peak ground acceleration (to take into effect the repeatable ground motion), and a reduction to account for the averaging of the lateral forces on the retaining wall over the height of the wall.
kh should be taken as one-third to two-thirds of the peak ground acceleration.
In the absence of more detailed analyses, a kh equal to one-half of the peak ground acceleration might be considered reasonable.
14
5/15/2016
City of Los Angeles Criteria
Memorandum issued by grading division, specifying the Seed and Whitman may be used, whereby Kh may be taken as PGA Example Calc:
29
Alternative Procedures
Instead of what is currently done, what
SHOULD be done?
Example:
LA Metro
Seismic Racking Analysis
15
5/15/2016
Example: Metro Criteria
Caltrans Deterministic ARS
Example: Metro Criteria
Racking Deformation Numerical Modeling Methods
1. Simplified pseudo-static method
1. 2.
Obtain maximum racking displacement from 1D site-response dynamic analysis
Apply maximum racking displacement to structure through springs (push over analysis)
1.
Scattering Analysis (ex. QUAD4M) ground motions around proposed structure void
time history (from 1.1) through springs to structure 3. 2D Dynamic 2.
Input 2D site-response time histories to nodes of structure 2D
Dynamic input 2D site-response time histories to nodes of structure
4. 2D Fully-coupled analysis (FLAC, SAP 2000, ADINA)
16
5/15/2016
Example: Metro Criteria
Racking
Method 1 or 2 1D Racking Displacement (r)
Racking defined as the side-to-side deformation of the box as the shear waves atdepth travel through the box to the ground surface
Racking displacement is computed by
first obtaining free-field deformation profile of the ground and then computing the differential deformation between the top and bottom of the box. (Method 1.1)
Station top
Station bottom
Example: Metro Criteria
Racking Racking defined as the side-to-side deformation of the box as the shear waves atdepth travel through the box to the ground surface
Station top
Station bottom
This free-field displacement profile (Method
1.1) does not account for the stiffness of the box and so is adjusted by multiplying with the box flexibility ratio (Rr ) to obtain racking displacement (r) r = free-field * Rr
Simplified Racking Analysis (Method 1.2)
push over analysis Seismic demand as racking displacement (r) is imposed on the frame to analyze the stresses and strains in the structure
17
5/15/2016
Example: Headworks Reservoir
Obtain information such as moment
Example: Headworks Reservoir
Note: primary objective of SSI is NOT to obtain
seismic earth pressure distribution
18
5/15/2016
Wilshire Grand Unbalanced height
Site
Wilshire Grand: Basement Wall Design
Cantilevered (unrestrained) short walls: static earth pressure load of 35 pcf
Basement walls: static earth pressure load of 57 pcf
at-rest condition what does that mean it assumes a normally consolidated
condition compute K0,NC i.e. dont use in-situ K0
Unbalanced condition: design shorter walls for increased lateral earth pressure to allow development of increased resistance Pressure assuming 1 inch displacement
57 pcf
100 pcf
38
Up to 15 ft deep grade beams
19
5/15/2016
Wilshire Grand: Basement Wall Design
Driving Force
Resisting Forces 35 pcf * 0.3 friction
Lateral friction parallel to basement walls
39
Wilshire Grand Seismic Wall Pressure
Active + Seismic Increment = 35 pcf + 15 pcf
Used 2/3 MCE PGA (design level ground motion)
Watch nomenclature: PA active
PE or PAE or PAE - seismic increment
PAE in some publications indicates static PLUS seismic increment
Note seismic LESS THAN static in design recommendation
Why? Because we dont believe static force will get up to the at rest condition of 57 pcf.
35 pcf (static) + 15 pcf (seismic)
40
20
5/15/2016
Wilshire Grand Computation for PAE
Mononobe Okabe computation
Unit Weight = 120 pcf Cohesion = 0 pcf, = 42 degrees Used ka (seismic coefficient) of PGA = 0.3g
Why?
Reduction from peak motion to equivalent uniform: multiplier ~2/3
Reduction from PGA to seismic coefficient (remember definition of seismic coefficient can be thought of as average acceleration within active wedge; the taller the wall, the larger the active wedge, and the larger the active wedge, the lower the ka / PGA ratio ~3/4 [wave incoherence]) Combining the two factors: ka/PGA = 2/3 * 3/4 =
Result: for 80-foot wall EFP = 44.71 (static + seismic)
Recommend 50 pcf (35 pcf + 15 pcf) why? Because 15 pcf sounds good for seismic increment. 41
Brandenberg, Stewart, and Mylonakis
H = 83 feet D = 105 feet? 135 feet? Try sensitivity B = 170 feet (half of basement width to be discussed later) Vs behind wall = 1,174 ft/sec Vs below wall = 1,580 ft/sec Unit weight behind wall = 122.5 pcf Unit weight beneath base = 123.4 pcf Poissons Ratio = 0.4 considering P and S wave velocity of downhole measurements Ug0 = 0.405 feet based on Denali modified time history utilized for design Representative Period Tm = 0.636 second based on Fourier Spectrum of Denali modified time history (similar result to Rathje et al. 2004 Tm based on range of magnitudes and distance from probabilistic disaggregation) Damping = 0.05 based on generalization 42
21
5/15/2016
Results of single frequency analysis Brandenberg et al.
Equivalent to 240 pcf seismic lateral EFP
43
Results of single frequency analysis Brandenberg et al.
Equivalent to 14.3 pcf seismic lateral EFP
44
22
5/15/2016
Part II - Conclusions
General standard of practice still Mononobe-Okabe analysis
Current City of Los Angeles criteria based on Seed and Whitman Mononobe-Okabe analysis and Seed and Whitman analysis fundamentally incorrect Actual behavior governed by kinematic effects SSI can be utilized Metro criteria can be used as a guide for some structures Brandenberg et al. should be increasingly used as a simplified procedure for regular structures
