11/4/2010

CE5108Lecture6
RationalforExcavation
Requirements for Safety and
RequirementsforSafetyand
Economy

OCT2010
ByProfHarryTan

Summary Report to BCA

SummaryReporttoBCA
TechnicalExpertPanel

TanSiewAnn(NUS)
WongKaiSin(NTU)
Malcolm Bolton (Cambridge UK)
MalcolmBolton(CambridgeUK)
AndrewWhittle(MITUSA)

January13th 2009
2

1
 11/4/2010

Background
Primaryconstraints
StabilityofERSS(safety)
PrincipalconditionforGreenfieldsites
Damagecontrol(adjacentstructures) serviceability
Principalconditionforurbansites(adjacentfacilities&utilities)
Pi i l diti f b it ( dj t f iliti & tiliti )
Groundconditions
Favorable:soilscoveredbyBS8002
Unfavorable:specifictoSingapore
Kallangformation(deepsoftclays,extendingtoorbelowformation)
Deep(clayey)fills/reclamationsites
l f l w/H
Principleofregulationusing /
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 Zone 2 Zone 3
(x/H < 1) (1 x/H 2) (x/H>2)
Type A: Favourable 0.5% 0.7% 0.7%
OC stiff clays & silts
Residual soils
Medium-dense sands

Type B: Unfavourable 0.5% 1.0% (TEP) 1.5% (TEP)

Soft clays, silts or organic
soils extending to or below
formation
(e.g., Kallang formation) 0.7% (BCA) 1.0% (BCA)
Loose - fills
Notes:
1. Shaded cells indicate parameters controlled by stability of ERSS, other cells are limited to prevent
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.

2
 11/4/2010

ProposedMovementControlLimits
InfluenceZone

Zone1 Zone2 Zone3

Ground Condition
GroundCondition Buildings located
Buildingslocated Buildingslocated
Buildings located Buildinglocated
Building located
withindistanceH withinHto2H 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
with/Hvalues

Influence Zone: X<H H < X < 2H X > 2H

Soil Type:

Kallang formation or
similar soft clays
found from original 2.0 on cu 1.5 on cu 1.2 on cu
ground surface to
f
formation
ti level
l l
1.5 on cu 1.2 on cu 1.2 on cu
Others
1.2 on tan 1.1 on tan 1.1 on tan

3
 11/4/2010

JustificationofMobilizationFactorsM
BS8002allowstwopossibleinterpretationsfor
Kallangsoils:
UseofM=2.0onundrained strengthcu
correspondsto/H=0.5%
Controlofdamagetoadjacentstructures
UseofM=1.2oncu fortotalstressdesign&
foreffectivestressdesign]:
[[M=1.1ontan g ]
Stability requirements
Justifiedbycontrolproceduresofinspection,
monitoringandcheckcalculation.

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

4
 11/4/2010

ControlStrategy
i. Stop Level SL, at which excavation work with be stopped due to
ground movements exceeding the designers worst case predictions
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
g
the design assumptions.
Define: The "worst case" prediction is the largest expected wall deflection determined
through a sensitivity study that includes possible scenarios of the worst credible
strength, stiffness, thickness of weak layers, and loadings in the analysis.
Define: Best Estimate prediction is based on Moderately Conservative parameters
about one standard deviation less than mean values; so that approximately 85%
chance that you would not exceed this value 9

ControlStrategy
Option1(whichissimilartotheproposaltabledbyLTA);setstheAlertLevelatthe
designersbestestimateofmaximumwalldisplacementdw,BE,andtheCheckLevelat
0.7dw,BE.Thisapproachoffersthebenefitofallowingdesignerstomaketheirown
estimatesofdw,WC,anddw,BE andofpermittingthelattertotriggertheAlertLevel.Itis
clearthatthevariabilitybetweentheexpectedandworstcasegroundstrengthprofile,on
its own, should cause a rational designer to set dw,BE
itsown,shouldcausearationaldesignertosetd w BE considerablylowerthand
considerably lower than dw,WC
wWC,on
, on
thegroundsthatmobilizationfactorMwouldbecommensuratelyvariable.However,the
Panelalsonotedthatdesignersmightbetemptedtoadvancetherationalselectionof
dw,BE towardsdw,WC soastoattempttoavoidtriggeringAlertLevelchecksduring
construction.
ThisscenarioismitigatedinOption2,wheretheAlertandCheckLevelsaresimply
definedasproportionsofthedesignersworstcasepredictionofwallmovements.Inthis
way,theBCAcouldbebetterassuredthattwocarefulstagesofassessmentwould
precedethetriggeringofastoporder,andthatthelaterofthesewouldgiveample
opportunitytotheBCAandtheengineersresponsibleonsitetoreengineertheworks.
Finally,theTEPrecommendsthatOption3,featuringcontinuousmonitoring,be
adoptedwherethedesigndependsonbrittlematerialsorwheretheconstructionprocess
ismoreuncertainthanusual.Goodexamplescouldincludeprojectsthatmakeextensive
useofsoilstabilizationtechniques.Inthiscase,fieldmeasurementsareessentialfor
validatingthebulkperformanceoftheimprovedsoilmass.Thiswaswellillustratedby
theuseofinclinometerdatatointerpretcompressionofJGPlayersinforensic
10
investigationsfortheNicoll Highwaycollapse.

5
 11/4/2010

JetGroutPiles
Soilimprovementdoesnotchangethe
classificationofgroundtype
Twocases
Gravitystructures
FollowBS8002
Notensioninternallywithinimprovedsoilmass
Shearplugs
Shear plugs
Performancebaseddesign
Monitoratallstages

11

AppendixA

EmpiricalDataonERSSWall
Deflection

12

6
 11/4/2010

EMPIRICALDATABASEONWALL
DEFLECTIONRATIO,dw/H
Forexcavationsinfavourable groundconditions,
thepublisheddata(CloughandORourke,1990;
Yoo andKim,1999;WongandPoh,1996;and
and Kim 1999; Wong and Poh 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,dw/H
Figure1.Typical
databaseofsurface
settlementscausedby
excavation(Clough&
ORourke,1990).The
dataarefromsubway
projectsinOslo,
ChicagoandSan
Francisco.

14

7
 11/4/2010

Kallangsitescanbebroadlyclassifiedasunfavourablegroundconditionsduetooccurrenceof
soilswithlowshearstrengthandstiffnessthatextenddowntotheformationlevelorbelowit.
Designparametersfortheseunfavorablegroundconditionsarenotconsideredexplicitlyin
BS8002.
Accordingtoconventionaldefinitionsasoftclayhasundrained shearstrength,12<su <25kPa,
whilemediumreferstotherange25<su <50kPa.Normallyconsolidatedclaystypicallyhave
undrained shearstrengthproportionaltotheinsituverticaleffectivestress,su 0.200.05sv0.
15

FavourableSoilsExperience

Fig.A1Observedmaximumwall Fig.A2Measuredmaximumwall
deflectionsinstiffclays,residualsoilsand deflections KoreanExperience(Yoo
sand &Kim,1999)
(Clough&ORourke,1990)

16

8
 11/4/2010

FavourableSoilsExperience Singapore

Fig.A4MaximumWallDeflectionsin
Fi A4 M i W ll D fl i i
StiffSoilConditionatNEL(Wonget
al.,2001)
Fig.A3MaximumWallDeflections
SingaporeExperience(Poh&
Wong,1996)

17

EMPIRICALDATABASEONWALL
DEFLECTIONRATIO,dw/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

9
 11/4/2010

UNFavourable
SoilsExperience

MaximumWall
DeflectionsagainstBasal
g
0.5%H
HeaveinSoftClays
(Mana &Clough,1977)

Fig.A5Walldeflectionratiofor
excavationswithfixedtoeinsoftclay
(Mana andClough,1981)

Fig.A6Walldeflectionratiofor
excavationswithfreetoeinsoftclay
(Mana andClough,1981)

19

UNFavourable Soils
Experience
ComparisonofResults
withFEAbyMana
(Mana,1976)

0.5%H

20

10
 11/4/2010

Fig.A8ProppedwallswithLowFOS
Fig.A7Walldeflectionratiofor onbasalheave(Long,2001)
excavationsinsoftclay(Moormann,
2004)

21

IdealizedCloughandORourkeChart
Fig.A9ProppedwallswithLowFOSonbasal
heave(Long,2001)

IncaseswherethereisalowFOSagainstbaseheave,largemovements(dhmax to
3.2%H)havebeenrecordedintheliterature.
ThedatamostlyfallwithinthelimitingvaluessuggestedbyMana andClough(1981),
anditissuggestedthattherelationshipsbetweenmovement,systemstiffness,andFOS
proposedby Cloughetal.(1989)formagoodstartingpointforpreliminaryestimatesof
theperformanceofsuchsystems.
22

11
 11/4/2010

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
movementscanoccur,buttheCloughchartswillgivereasonablepreliminaryestimates
ofthelikelymovementinsuchcases.
Cantileverwallshaveshowndisplacementsthatareoftenindependentofthesystem
stiffness.Thereisevidencetosuggestthat,inthecaseofcantileverwallsandforall
wallsinstiffsoilsworldwide,designpracticeisconservative.
Finally,theinclusionofacantileverstageatthebeginningofaconstructionsequence
seemstobethemaincauseofunusuallylargemovements.
23

AppendixB

Relationshipbetweensafetyandwall
deflection MSDmethodtorelatewall
deflectiontosoilshearstrainand
monbilization factors

24

12
 11/4/2010

RELATIONSHIPBETWEENWALLDEFLECTIONRATIO
ANDMOBILIZATIONFACTOR(BoltonMSDmethod)

Fig.B1Idealisedmechanismsofgroundmovementduetoexcavation
AstiffdiaphragmwalldrivendowntoahardlayerasinFigureB1.awillfirstengagein
cantileverrotationwithl=L.Afloatinginsituwallwillengageasuccessionoflvalues,
startingwithl>Lduetoadditionalsoilshearingbelowz=Lintheearlystages,thenwith
progressivelysmallervaluesoflaspropsareplacedasshowninFigureB1.b.
25

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 2dw,max/laverage (B1)

wheredw,max isthelargestlateralwallmovement.
Itshouldbeemphasizedthatthisisanapproximation,sincethelocationofmaximum
g y g , g
wallmovementvariesstagebystage.Nevertheless,itwillbeusefulheretorecognize
theproperdimensionlessgroupsinvolvedinlateralwallmovementsandground
deformations.

26

13
 11/4/2010

PrincipleofMSDMethod

max 1.5H

min 0.5H

cement/soil plug

IfoneconsidersthegeometryofFigureB2asrepresentativeofERSSinunfavourable
groundconditions(ClassB),thenexcavationwouldbeginwithlmax 1.5H,andwould
proceeduntill i 0.5H.Accordingly,l
proceed until lmin 0.5H. Accordingly laverage HinEqn
H in Eqn B1.ThenB1becomes:
B1 Then B1 becomes:

average /2 dw,max/H (B1)

Shearingwithintheretainedsoilmassischaracterizedbyprincipalstressrotation
andisbestapproximated(attheelementlevel)bydatafromdirectsimplesheartests.

27

PrincipleofMSDMethod
1.2

FigureB4summarizesthe
mobilizedshearstrength,/f (=1/M)
obilization of Undrained Shear Strrength, / = 1/M

4.0% =
1.0% u
1.0
fromundrained DSStestsona
f

varietyofK0normallyconsolidated
clayscompiledbyWhittle.
0.8
Thedataincluderesultsfroma
The data include results from a
varietyofmediumtohighplasticity
0.6 marineclayscomparabletothose
foundintheKallangformation.
Line Clay I (%)
p
w (%)
L
For/f 0.8(i.e.,M1.2)these
0.4 BBC 23 45 claysarewelldescribedbya
GoM(RP) 33 58
Empire 59 80 parabolicrelationproposedby
GoM(U) 40 80 Bolton: 2 2
0.2 GoG 120 160
1
SFBM 63 110

Mo

(/ ) = M
2
u f M
u
0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Shear Strain, (%)
g =u /M2 (B2)
whereu isthestrainmobilizedat
Fig.B4ValidationofstrengthmobilizationforMSD
BBC BostonBlueClay,GoM GulfofMexico,GoG Gulfof peakstrength.
Guinea,SFBM SanFranciscoBayMud(unpublisheddata Forthehighplasticityclays,u
fromMITfilesprovidedbyWhittle)Singaporemarineclay 4.0%.
hasIp =50%,wL =55% 28

14
 11/4/2010

PrincipleofMSDMethod
TheresultsinFig.B4alsoshowthattheshearstrengthofsomelowplasticity,
sensitiveclays(e.g.,BostonBlueClay)ismobilizedatsmallerstrains(u 1.0%).
Ifstraintopeak,gu,isconsideredasacharacterstic materialproperty,theeqns.
B1andB2canbecombinedas:

dw/H
/H avge/2 0 5 gu/M2
/2 0.5g (B3)

Itisimportanttorecognizethatthisexpressionisrathersimplistic,sinceit
assumesatypicalgeometryforthewall,brushesovertheinfluenceofwall
flexibility,ignorestheincrementalnatureofthedeformation,andassumesthe
shapeofsoilstressstraincurves.
Ifmoreaccurateassessmentsaretobemade,theneithernumericalmethodsor
thefullyincrementalMobilizable StrengthDesignmethodcouldbeapplied.
Forregulationpurposes,Eqn.B3recognizesthatwallmovementsmustbe
For regulation purposes, Eqn. B3 recognizes that wall movements must be
normalizedbysomeappropriatedimension,thatsoilstrainsmustbeproportional
tothosenormalizedwallmovementsbecauseoftherequirementforsoilstructure
compatibility,thatsuchstrainsmustbeproportionaltothereferencestrainu,and
thatmobilizationfactorhasanexaggeratedeffectonmobilizedstrainbecauseof
theshapesofstressstraincurves.

29

PrincipleofMSDMethod Howwalldeflectionisrelatedto
averagesoilshearstrainsandmobilizationfactors
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 w/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
that these recommendations are contingent on rigorous implementation of
procedures for inspection, monitoring and checking of ERSS performance as
outlined in Section 4.
dw/H avge/2 0.5gu/M2
Table 2. Interpreted mobilization factors from simple model (App. B)

Limiting, w/H Mobilization Factor, M

Shear strain to
1.0 1.2 1.5 2.0 3.0
failure,, 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

15
 11/4/2010

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(Hw)andthecorrespondingsoil
strainwillbelessthan0.5%.Thismaybeapplicabletorigid
cantileverwallorrigidsingleproppedwall.

2. However,itisdifficulttorelatesoilstrainwithexcavationdepthH.
0 5%Hw
0.5%H

Hw H
Hw

0.5%Hw 32

16
 11/4/2010

Question1a (cont)
Useofthemobilisation factorof1.5onundrained shearstrengthof
softsoils,andtheexpecteddesignstrainintermsofexcavation
depth.Howwouldthisbeaffectediftheexcavationbaseisplugged
withjetgroutedpiles(JGP),takingintoconsiderationtheCOIs
commentsonuseofJGPandnovelfeatures?

3. IftheJGPlayeristreatedasahardsoil,commentsgivenin(1)
remainvalid.

0.5%Hw

Hw H
Hw

0.5%Hw

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%Hw
0.5%H

Hw H
Hw

0.5%Hw 34

17
 11/4/2010

Question1a (cont)
Useofthemobilisation factorof1.5onundrained shearstrengthof
softsoils,andtheexpecteddesignstrainintermsofexcavation
depth.Howwouldthisbeaffectediftheexcavationbaseisplugged
withjetgroutedpiles(JGP),takingintoconsiderationtheCOIs
commentsonuseofJGPandnovelfeatures?

Furthercommentsonthisissue
5. Formulitproppeddeepexcavation,thesoilstrainvariesfrom
locationtolocation.ItisdifficulttorelateM=1.5withsoilstrain
forthisclassofproblem.

6. Soilstrainmaynotbethebestindextoassessthesystem
stability.

35

36

18
 11/4/2010

Hereisanexamplewheresoilstrainisnot
relevant.WHY?
SamewithCofferdaminWater.WHY?

Slurry

Rock

37

Question1b

HowhighshouldthefactorofsafetybeforrelianceonJGP?

1. IfM=1.5isappliedtoJGP,thecorrespondingfactorofsafetyis1.5.
Thisisonlyrelevanttorigidrotationofcantileverandsingle
propped walls
proppedwalls.

TherealFSdependslargelyonthedesignstrengthofJGP.

CantileverWall SingleProppedWall
Modeoffailure toppling Modeoffailure toekickout

0.5%Hw

Hw H
Hw

0.5%Hw 38

19
 11/4/2010

Question1b(cont)

HowhighshouldthefactorofsafetybeforrelianceonJGP?

Furthercommentsonthisissue
2. JGPprovidestwomajorfunctionsindeepexcavation:
p j p
a. Ascompressionmembertoreducewalldeflection.
b. Aspartoftheanchoragesystemtoholddownthesoilto
minimisebaseheaveandhencereducewalldeflection.

39

Question1b(cont)
Modeoffailure:
crushing
FurthercommentsonsafetyfactorinvolvingJGP
3. JGPaspermanentcompressionmember

a. Theactualsafetyfactorisveryhighbecauseof
thelowdesignstrengthadoptedinpractice.

b. Thefailureisprogressivewhichprovidesample
oftelltalesignsofimpendingdanger.

7 Specification:
6
qu =0.9MPa
0 9 MPa
No. of Samples

0
<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)
40

20
 11/4/2010

JGP strength(14days)
Project JGP Design qu Mean Source
Method (kPa) Measured qu
(kPa)
Singapore River Double 500 1225 Chia & Tan (1993)
tube
Geylang River Single 500 1843 Liang et al. (1993)
tube
Clarke Quay MRT - 600 2520 Shirlaw et al. (2000)
Station
Tunnel at Race Course - 600 2024 Shirlaw et al. (2000)
Rd
Tunnel at Race Course - 600 1290 Wen (2005)
Rd
C824 Nicoll Highway Double 900 5826 Wong (2006)
tube
C824 Nicoll Highway Triple 900 3584 Wong (2006)
tube
41

Questionb(cont)
Modeoffailure:
Strutoverstressed
FurthercommentsonsafetyfactorinvolvingJGP
3. JGPassacrificialcompressionmember

a. Thestrengthselectionofthesacrificiallayeris
critical.

b. Ifthedesignstrengthistoolow,itcanleadto
underestimationofthestrutforces.

7 Specification:
6
qu =0.9MPa
0 9 MPa
No. of Samples

0
<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)
42

21
 11/4/2010

Question1b(cont) Modeoffailure:
Shearing,bending
FurthercommentsonsafetyfactorwithJGP
3. JGPaspartofanchoringsystem

a. Theactualsafetyfactorisdependsonthe
interfaceshearstrength.

b. Ifthepilesarefarapart,JGPcanfailin
bending.

c. Afloatingwallsystemismoreriskyasitlack
asecondlineofdefensetopreventbasal
heave.
heave

d. Fullpenetratingwallismorerobustbecause
thesystemissafeagainstbasalheave.

43

Question1c

HowwilltheJGPchangethemovementlimitvaluetobe
allowedindesign?Whatistherecommendeddesignstrainlimit
fortheJGP?Howcanthisbetakenintoaccountinnumerical
method?

1. Nochange 0.5%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

22
 11/4/2010

Question1c(cont)

HowwilltheJGPchangethe
movementlimitvaluetobe
allowedindesign?
Whatistherecommended
d i
designstrainlimitfortheJGP?
t i li it f th JGP?
Howcanthisbetakeninto
accountinnumericalmethod?

5. TypicalfailurestrainfromJGPsamplesis Core
between0.5%to1%. sample

6. FailurestrainforJGPmasslikelytobe>0.5%.

7. Recommendeddesignstrainlimitis0.5%. JGP
mass

45

Question1c(cont)

HowwilltheJGPchangethe
movementlimitvaluetobe
allowedindesign?
Whatistherecommended
d i
designstrainlimitfortheJGP?
t i li it f th JGP?
Howcanthisbetakeninto
accountinnumericalmethod?

8. Eu/cu =200 failurestrain=0.5%

300 0.33%
400 0.25%
00
500 0 20%
0.20%

9. UseEu/cu 200inFEA.ThedesignEu andcu

mustbevalidatedagainsttestresults.

46

23
 11/4/2010

Question1c(cont)
FurthercommentsonFEAinvolvingJGP
10. BrittlebehaviourofJGPcanleadtoprogressivefailure.

11. MustchecktheextendofyieldingofJGPateachstageof
excavation.

12. Ifyieldingisexcessive,itmaybenecessarytomodelthe
strainsofteningbehaviour.

1 3

Realbehaviour FEsimulationusingMohr
CoulombModel
47

stressstraincurvesofclaycementmixunderdifferentconfiningpressures

48

24
 11/4/2010

BackAnalysisofC824atNicollHighway

Deflectionprofilesatthesouthwallatdifferentstagesofexcavation

105
Level 3
100 100
100 Level 4 100
Level 5
Level 6
95
Level 7
Level 1
Level 8 90 90
90 90
Level 9 Level 2
Level 10
Level 3

Reduced Level (m)

Reduced Level (m)

85 Reduced Level (m)
Level 4
Reduced Level (m)

80 80
80 80 Level 5
Level 6
75
Level 7

70 70 70 Level 8
70
Level 9
65 Level 10

60 60 60 60

55

50 50 50 50
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 -100 100 300 500 -100 0 100 200 300 400 -100 0 100 200 300 400
Wall Deflection (mm)
Wall deflection (mm) Wall deflection (mm) Wall deflection (m m )

(A) (B) (C)

Measured nosoftening 50%reduction 80%reduction
(326mm) (263mm) (318mm) (380mm)
49

BackAnalysisofC824atNicollHighway

Deflectionprofilesatthenorthwallatdifferentstagesofexcavation

105

100 100 100 100

95

90 90 90 Level 1
90
Level 2
85
Level 3
Reduced Level (m)

Reduced Level (m)

Reduced Level (m)

Reduced Level (m)

Level 4
80 80 80 80
Level 5
75 Level 6
Level 7
70 70 70 70 Level 8
Level 1
Level 2 Level 9
65
Level 3
Level 10
Level 4
Level 5
60 60 60 60
Level 6
Level 7
55 Level 8
Level 9
Level 10
50 50 50 50
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 -40 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 -40 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 -40 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280
Wall Deflection (mm)
Wall deflection ((mm)) Wall deflection ((mm)) Wall
a dedeflection
ect o ((m m))

(A) (B) (C)

Measured nosoftening 50%reduction 80%reduction
(181mm) (191mm) (220mm) (225mm)

50

25
 11/4/2010

OutlineofLectureonNicoll Highway
SummaryofCoI Report
SignificantEventsleadingtoCollapse
IncorrectuseofPLAXIS,MethodAvs B
Incorrectwaler/strutconnectiondesign
Othermitigatingfactors
ConclusionsandLessonsLearnt

51

OverviewofCollapseSiteM3/M2

52

26
 11/4/2010

3:46pm
53

SummaryofCoIReporton
CausesofCollapse
Under
Under-design
design of strut/waler connection
Under design of Dwall using Method A in Plaxis

Significant contributory factors:

Incorrect Back analysis
Problems
ob e s with instrumentation
s u e a o a and
d monitoring
o o g

54

27
 11/4/2010

SignificanteventsleadingtoCollapse
ReplacementofstiffenerplateswithCchannels
RemovalofupperJGPenbloc over8
b
bayswithoutinstalling10
h ll th levelStruts
l l

Source:NLCExpertReport,Figure Source:ExhibitE93
10.6.1
55

UndrainedStrengthDifferencesinMethodAand
MethodBforC824

MC (Upper)

MethodA

MC (Lower)

RL Method A Method B Diff %Diff

(m) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa)
MC(U) Top 97.1 16 20 -4 -20
MethodB=GIM
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

56

28
 11/4/2010

Strength(Cu)ofLower
MarineClay
OriginalFieldVaneShear
T
Tests,GIMLine&PointsA,B
GIM Li & P i A B
&CproducedbyMethodA
inPlaxis

UsingMethodAwith=22o
gave a design line of
gaveadesignlineof
Cu/p=0.3
MethodA
Cu/p=0.3
GIM
MethodB Strengthofsoftclaygrossly
overestimated
57

Strength(Cu)
ofLower
MarineClay
Figure1offirstreportof
expertsforLTA
(Nkt =14)

CPTu datasuggeststhat
lower part of LMC is
lowerpartofLMCis
UnderConsolidateddueto
morerecentreclamation
works

58

29
 11/4/2010

ImpactofMethodAorB
onTypeKWall

59

THECONCOURSE

GOLDENMILETOWER

Inclinometer,I100,Soil

Inclinometer,I63,DW

NICOLLHIGHWAYSTATION CROSSOVERBOX

F2 G2 TypeI TypeJ TypeK

G1 H

Inclinometers
60

30
 11/4/2010

77

104
L1
L2
I
6
I
10
TypeKArea(XOB)
104
102
102 L3
100 3 0 100
98 L4 98
96 L5 96
94 L6 94
92 L7 92
90 Current 90
88 88
86 86
84 84
82 82
80 80
78 78
76 76
74 74
72 L1
72 70 L2
70 68
68 L3
66 66
64 L4
64 62 L5
62 60
60 L6
58 I 63 I 100 58 L7
56 56
54 Current
54 52
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 50
250 200 150 100 50 0 -50
50 -100
100
250

Lateral Deflection (mm)

450 225 I100, Type K Area
Lateral Deflection (mm)

400 200
I63, Type K Area
350 175
300 Trigger @ 306mm 150 Trigger @ 147mm
250 125
Design @ 438mm
200 100 Design @ 210mm
150 75
100 50
50 25
0 0
9-May-03

8-Jun-03

8-Jul-03

7-Aug-03

6-Sep-03

6-Oct-03

5-Nov-03

5-Dec-03

4-Jan-04

3-Feb-04

4-Mar-04

3-Apr-04

3-May-04

2-Jun-04

2-Jul-04
23-Mar-03

22-Apr-03

22-May-03

21-Jun-03

21-Jul-03

20-Aug-03

19-Sep-03

19-Oct-03

18-Nov-03

18-Dec-03

17-Jan-04

16-Feb-04

17-Mar-04

16-Apr-04

16-May-04

15-Jun-04

61
03-Mar-03 37683
03 S 04 38233

TypeKWallModeling

Fill
UpperMarineClay
F1
LowerMarineClay

JGP F2

OA

62

31
 11/4/2010

CompareMethodAandB
Method ...
Displacement [m]
-0.5
Method b

MethodBorMethod Method A
-0.4
A*,LMCphi=17deg
Method A*
ieCu/P=0.25
I63
-0.3 measured

-0.2

MethodA,LMC
-0.1
phi=24degie
Cu/P=0.32

0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Time [day]

Forsamestrengthprofiles,MethodA*andMethodBgavesameresults
63

MethodAgavebetterfit
tofielddataupto5th level
struts(about15mdepth)
D th 6th level
Deeperthan6 l l
struts,walldisplacement
increasedsignificantlyandis
closertoMethodB
predictions
Resultsshowedthata
simplelinearelasticmodel
cannotpredictthewhole
t di t th h l
rangeofexcavation
response,fromstartto
finish

64

32
 11/4/2010

CompareMethodA,BandD(HS)
Method ...
Displacement [m]
-0.5
Method B

Method A
-0.4 MethodA*,LMC
phi=17degie Method A*

Cu/P=0.25 Method D(HS)

-0.3

I63
MethodD(HS measured
-0.2 Cc=0.6,Cs=0.06),
LMCphi=24deg
MethodA,LMC
-0.1
phi=24degie
phi 4 deg ie
Cu/P=0.32

0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Time [day]

MethodD(HS)cangavesimilarresultstoMethodB
65

CompareMethodA,BandD(SS)
Method ...
Displacement [m]
-0.5
Method B

MethodD(SSEI/2 Method A
-0.4
Cc=0 6 Cs=0 06)
Cc=0.6,Cs=0.06),
Method A*
LMCphi=24deg
Method D (SS)
-0.3

Method D (SS ...

MethodD(SSCc=0.6,
-0.2
Cs=0.06),LMC I63
measured
phi=24deg
MethodA,LMC
-0.1 phi=24degie
Cu/P=0.32

0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Time [day]

MethodD(SS)gaveresultsbetweenMethodAandMethodB
66

33
 11/4/2010

UseofMethodAandMethodB
2nd 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
momentsanddeflectionsbyabout50%,orafactorof2for
theoriginaldesigninM3.

67

ImpactofMethodAorB
onTypeM3Wall

68

34
 11/4/2010

M3SymmetricalMesh

UpperJGP
removed
LowerJGP

69

110

105
Method A
Method B
100
Stage19 after
95
removalofUpper
90 JGPwhenexcavated
85 toRL72.5m
RL (m)

80
Deflectionisunder
75 predictedbyabout
70 50%
65

60

55

50
-50 0 50 100 150 200 250
Wall Deflections (kNm/m)

70

35
 11/4/2010

110

105
Method A
100 Method B BMisunderpredicted
95 by50%
90
D/Wallwouldbe
85 underdesigned
RL (m)

80

75

70

65

60

55

50
-2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000
Bending Moments (kNm/m)

71

110

105 Method A
Method B
100
TotalPressureson
95 ActiveSideunder
90 predictedbyabout
p y
85
10%
RL (m)

80

75

70

65

60

55

50
-500 0 500 1000 1500
Earth Pressures (kN/m2/m)
72

36
 11/4/2010

Loads (kN/m)
500 0 -500 -1000 -1500 -2000 -2500

1
43%
2 Method A
21%
3 Method B
31%
4
Strut Levels

5 10%

40%
6
5%
7

8 -4%
10.5%
9

Strutsloadatlevel9underpredictedby10%

73

SummaryonMethodA/B
Underestimateundrainedstrengthbyfactor
of2(2nd JSE7.2.7)
UnderestimatewalldeflectionandBMby
factorof2(2nd JSE7.2.7)
UnderestimateStrutLoadatlevel9byabout
lessthan10%withnootherchangesin
calculation or design (2nd JSE7.2.11)
calculationordesign(2 JSE 7 2 11)

74

37
 11/4/2010

ImplicationsofMethodA/B
UnderdesignofD/Wall(lessthickwallwithsmallertoe
penetration)
SmallerToePenetrationintoOAthanrequiredforadequate
q q
safety
ReducedredundancycausingplastichingetooccurinD/wall
panelatI104ataboutexcavationlevelafterexcavationto10th
strutlevel,andhencereducedcapabilitytoredistributestrut
loadsbelowhingelevel
LargewalldisplacementscausingJGPtobeloadedbeyond
peak capacity invoking brittle behavior
peakcapacityinvokingbrittlebehavior
10%errorinstrutloadestimateisnottrivialinthelightofa
highlycompromiseddesignintermsofwallcapacityandwaler
connectioncapacity(thisissignificantinviewofstructuralsteel
designdonewithFOSof1.2)
75

NumericalModelling
g
of
CollapseState

76

38
 11/4/2010

DwallEIby50%andJGPstrengthand
stiffnessreducedby50%

103

101
98

96 Excavate to 100.9m
Excavate to 100.9m 93 Excavate to 98.1m

91 Excavate to 98.1m Excavate to 94.6m

Excavate to 91.1m
Excavate to 94.6m 88
86 Excavate to 87.6m
Elevation RL (m)

Elevation RL (m)
Excavate to 91.1m
Excavate to 84.5m
Excavate to 87.6m 83
81 Excavate to 81.6m

Excavate to 84.5m Excavate to 78.3m

78
76 Excavate to 81.6m Excavate to 75.3m

Excavate to 72.3m,
Excavate to 78.3m Mstage=0.4
71 73 Remove S9
S9,
Excavate to 75.3m Mstage=0.4
Excavate to 72.3 m,
Mstage=1
66 Excavate to 72.3m,
Mstage=0.4 68
Remove S9,
Mstage=0.4
61
Excavate to 72.3 m,
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 Mstage=1 63
Horizontal displacements (m) 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
Horizontal displacement (m)

77

DwallEIby50%andJGPstrengthand
stiffnessreducedby50%

78

39
 11/4/2010

DwallEIby50%andJGPstrengthand
stiffnessreducedby50%

79

DeflectionprofilewithbrittleJGP

80

40
 11/4/2010

ToachievefailureatRL72.3m,andreasonablematchingpatternofwalldeflections
atallstages,thecombinedeffectsofreducedlowerDwall EIandJGPby50%and
lowstrutcapacityisneededinthemodel

81

1800
1600 Strut 1
Strut 2
1400
Strut 3
UsingtheMStage
Strut force (kN/m)

1200
Strut 4
1000 Strut 5 setting;theevolutionof
800 Strut 6
Strut 7
strutloadsforthelast
600
400
Strut 8 stageofexcavation
Strut 9
200 beforefailurecanbe
0 computed
0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7
5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Mstage Thetrendshowed
reductionofloadin
strut9,sharpincrease
ofloadinstrut8,
followedbygradual
reductionofloadsin
strut7and6

82

41
 11/4/2010

BackAnalysis
(takenbetweentheperiodbetweenFebtoApr2004)

1st APR04,I104
302mm>252.7mm
23rd FEB04,I104
2ndd BA 19
9th APR04
0
159mm>145mm
1st BA 5MAR04

Source:Maunsell ExhibitE17.6 83

NLC Back Analysis:

NLCBackAnalysis:
Donotcomparewell
withI104ateverystage
uptocurrentstageofBA
Cannotcorrectlypredict
futuretrends

84

42
 11/4/2010

M3isanUnforgivingSite
VeryDeepExcavationinVeryDeepSoftClayrequire
useofSacrificialJGP
CurvedD/walls:resultedinuseofshortwalersand
missingsplays
66kVcrossings:gapsinJGPandDwall,shiftingof
boredpilesawayfromfrontofgaps
DeepburiedvalleyonsouthwalljustwestofI104:
p y j
weakerOAwithreducedpassiveresistanceonsouth
side

85

DWallPanelPositionsatCollapseSite
NorthDwallmovedmore
thanSouth(Southrestrainedby
longerboredpiles)
Mostpanelsseemto
remainedinonepiece,
i di i
especiallypanelwithI65tube
Northwallpanelslaterally
translatedshearingofftopof
OAsoils
Southwallpanelsoverthe66
kVgapappeartohavefailedby
g p pp y
toekickin,sinceboredpiles
weremovedawayfrominfront
ofgaparea

86

43
 11/4/2010

Conclusions
OnemustneveruseFEMsoftwarelikeablackbox,
withoutsoundengineeringjudgment
Needtounderstandsoilmechanics,constitutive
modelbehavior,andsomeaspectsofnumerical
analysistouseFEMprogramcorrectly
OverrelianceofdesigndecisionsonFEManalysis
mustbediscouraged,andbasicmechanicsfor
checkingofFEMresultsmustalsobeemployed

87

Conclusions
Designisnotaonetimeact,butacontinualprocess
ofensuringthatdesignassumptionsareconsistent
withsiterealitybycheckingwithproper
instrumentation and monitoring
instrumentationandmonitoring
Whenobserveddataandbehaviorisdifferentfrom
FEManalysis,wemustdeterminerationalreasons
fordifference,andbackanalyzewithrealisticmodels
andinputparameterstomakesoundpredictionsof
subsequentworks
Steelworksconnectiondetailsmustbedoneand
Steel works connection details must be done and
reviewedbycompetentpersons
Useofanynewdesignfeaturesmustbeproperly
investigatedbeforeimplementation(e.g.CChannel
brittleresponse,sacrificialJGP)
88

44
 11/4/2010

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

45