Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 24

5/15/2016

Wilshire Grand Project:

Evaluation of Seismic Lateral Earth


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

Tunnel Soil-Structure Modeling


Tunnel Structural Evaluation
Instrumentation Installation

Train Modeling

Tunnel ATMS Instrumentation / Monitoring


Website Development/Maintenance

Tunnel Vibration Equipment / Monitoring

Instrumentation Electrical Installation

McMillen Jacobs Associates

J.L. Patterson & Associates

Martin Project Management

Comet Electric

Wilshire Grand Project Management Coordinated


interaction with L.A. Metro

Turner Construction

Contractor for Wilshire Grand / Coordinated


Tunnel Entry, Instrumentation Installation

Wilshire Grand Shoring Designer

Shoring Installer

Surveying of Initial Position of Tunnel

Cefali & Associates

Psomas

Soldata

Digitexx

Malcolm Drilling

Brandow & Johnston

Wilshire Grand Structural Engineer

Matthew Crow Director of Engineering for Tunnels


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

2. Simplified dynamic method input 1D site-response


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


equivalent fluid pressure (active pressure condition)

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

Movement Criteria

23

5/15/2016

Raker Details

24

Оценить