You are on page 1of 7

XVI ECSMGE 2015

Geotechnical Engineering for


Infrastructure and Development
EDINBURGH INTERNATIONAL
CONFERENCE CENTRE, EDINBURGH
13th-17th SEPTEMBER 2015

XVI-ECSMGE-2015.ORG.UK
Proceedings of the XVI ECSMGE
Geotechnical Engineering for Infrastructure and Development
ISBN 978-0-7277-6067-8

The authors and ICE Publishing: All rights reserved, 2015


doi:10.1680/ecsmge.60678

Design, construction and performance of single bore


multiple anchored diaphragm wall
Conception, construction et performance dune paroi moule stabi-
lise par tirants a ancrage multiple avec forage unique
D. Mothersille*1, R. Duzceer2 , A. Gokalp2, S. Adatepe2 and B. Okumusoglu3
1
SBMA Ltd, Harrogate, UK
2
Kasktas AS, Istanbul, Turkey
3
Kasktas AS, Moscow, Russia
*
Corresponding Author
ABSTRACT: This paper presents the design, construction and performance of an anchored diaphragm wall utilizing Single Bore Multiple
Anchor (SBMA) technology to support one of the largest basement excavations in Moscow, Russia. The geotechnical challenge was to en-
sure the safe and viable construction of the five-level basement, which required a 25m deep excavation within a heavily urbanized location.
For this purpose a 26,500 m2 diaphragm wall, with a total depth of 45m, was designed incorporating 6-levels of temporary ground an-
chors. A number of trial tests were performed prior to the commencement of the anchoring works in order to establish the in situ ultimate
bond capacity in the founding stratum. The ground conditions encountered at the proposed site comprised mixed soils of mainly silt inter-
spersed with sand and clay lenses/pockets. The displacement of the reinforced concrete diaphragm wall and the associated effects of these
movements on the adjacent structures were analyzed using finite element methods and compared with measurements of lateral displace-
ments monitored during the course of excavation. The effectiveness of the SBMA technology was demonstrated by the fact that maximum
cumulative recorded wall movements were restricted to less than 65 mm for the 25m deep excavation.

RSUM: Larticle dcrit la conception, la construction, et la performance dune paroi moule ancre avec tirants construits selon une
technologie appele Ancrage Multiple Avec Forage Unique (SBMA : Single Bore Multiple Anchorage ). La paroi moule est excute
dans les alluvions permables pour construire 5 tages en sous sol dans un site fortement urbanis Moscou en Russie. La paroi mou-
le de superficie totale 26500m2 est dune hauteur de totale de 45 m, ancre sur une hauteur de 25m par 6 ranges de tirants. Des essais ont
t conduits au dbut des travaux dancrage pour tablir la capacit limite des ancrages dans ce type de sol. Le dplacement de la pa-
roi et la consquence de ces dplacements sur les structures adjacentes ont t analyss par lutilisation des mthodes de calcul en lment
fini. Les dplacements calculs ont t compars avec ceux mesurs durant les travaux dexcavation. Le type dancrage SBMA mis en
uvre fut efficace tant donn que le mouvement latral maximum observ fut plus petit que 65 mm pour une profondeur de fouille de
25m dans des conditions de sol difficile.

1 INTRODUCTION sand and clay lenses/pockets. In order to facilitate a


safe excavation with minimal impact to surrounding
Located in a south-western district of Moscow and structures and utilities, a 45m deep and 80 cm thick
scheduled for completion in late 2014, Kuntsevo Pla- cast-in-place diaphragm wall with 6 levels of pre-
za, is a vibrant mixed-use complex comprising offic- stressed temporary ground anchors were constructed.
es, residential, retail, restaurants, leisure facilities and This design required anchor working loads of up to
five levels of basement for car parks, storage and 600kN, which exceeded what could be achieved by
utilities. conventional anchors in the same founding stratum.
The unique feature of the construction is the re- For this reason the well-documented single bore mul-
taining structure which supports a 25m deep excava- tiple anchor (SBMA) technology was implemented.
tion in mixed soils of mainly silt interspersed with

565
Geotechnical Engineering for Infrastructure and Development

2 SOIL CONDITIONS

Two separate site investigations, undertaken in Au-


gust 2009 and May 2010, confirmed that the site
comprised 4 to 6m of fill underlain by a mixed soil
stratum of silty clays, clayey silts and sandy silts of
20 to 22m thickness. These layers were underlain by
a 16 to 18m of saturated sands, and finally an imper-
vious clay layer of hard consistency.
The typical soil profile together with CPT tests re-
sults and soil classification are given in Figure 1. Ge-
otechnical parameters of the soil layers with respect
to their identification numbers on the soil profile are
listed in Table 1.

Table 1. Geotechnical parameters of soil layers.


c E
Soil ID
(kN/m) (kPa) (degrees) (MPa)
1 19 1 28 10
10 20 32 16 11
13 21 32 15 16
16 21 56 19 25
18 20 17 27 14
21 21 75 20 29
23 20 80 19 27
24 20 20 27 14
26 20 6 38 45 Figure 1. Typical soil profile.
30 21 11 40 33
31 21 8 39 40
33 20 56 24 25 4 DESIGN OF SHORING SYSTEM

Due to challenging ground conditions and ground


3 GROUND WATER CONDITIONS water with artesian pressures, 80cm thick cast-in-
place reinforced concrete diaphragm wall was select-
Soil investigation reports also indicate the presence ed as the main retaining element. The perimeter of
of 3 distinct groundwater aquifers: the rectangular excavation measured approximately
Upper aquifer: Free flow between varying ele- 638m and the overall depth of the diaphragm wall
vations from 164.7 to 167.1 varied from 38m to 45m to provide a minimum of
Middle aquifer: Located in a sand layer (ID-27) 1m penetration into the impervious hard clay. The
between elevations from 148.9 to 153.8. Refer- plan view of the excavation and the typical retained
ence to piezometric measurements conducted in section namely K8 from Yarsevtskaya Street are
this layer, confirmed artesian pressure at vary- given in Figures 2 and 3 respectively.
ing levels from 151.0 to 163.2. The depth of the retaining structure and the close
Lower aquifer: Located between elevations proximity of adjacent infrastructure and utilities re-
from 146.5 to 150.4. Reference to piezometric quired the analysis of eight different sections for the
measurements conducted in this layer, con- staged excavation. Two different computer programs
firmed artesian pressure at varying levels from were adopted in the analysis; two dimensional finite
148.2 to 159.2. element analysis software PLAXIS with HSSmall
soil model (Benz 2007) to analyze both the wall and

566
Mothersille et al.

surrounding soil and structures, and a locally imple- Each stage of the construction process, used for
mented Russian computer software called Wall-3, the purposes of analysis, are listed on Table 2 and re-
which utilizes the classic beam on elastic soil algo- sulting force and bending moment envelopes on the
rithms to model only the wall itself. wall were subsequently determined. After final exca-
Reinforced concrete design was undertaken ac- vation level was achieved, construction of basement
cording to structural forces and moments obtained slabs and decommissioning of temporary anchors
from both computer programs. Since the design as- was implemented within the Plaxis model, to facili-
sumed diaphragm walls would act as permanent tate lateral load transfer from the diaphragm wall to
basement walls, the structural calculation included a the slabs.
crack check for a maximum crack width of 0.3mm in
excavation side and 0.2mm in earth side. Table 2. Construction Stages (Preliminary Design)
Stage No Construction
1 Construction of diaphragm wall
2 Cantilever excavation down to level 165.50
3 1st level anchors locked, and excavation to
level 162 with lowering of GWT level to 161
2nd level anchors locked, and excavation to
4
level 159 with lowering of GWT to 158
3rd level anchors locked, and excavation to
5
level 156 with lowering of GWT to 155
4th level anchors locked, and excavation to
6
level 153.8 with lowering of GWT to 152.8
5th level anchors locked, and excavation to
7
level 150.4 with lowering of GWT to 149.4
Figure 2. Plan view of the excavation.
6th level anchors locked, and excavation to
8 foundation bottom level of 147.85 with low-
ering of GWT to 146.85

During the preliminary design, computer modeling


was based on the assumption that the ground water
would be lowered to a level of 1m below the respec-
tive anchoring elevation at each construction stage.
During the actual construction, with the utilization of
15 deep well water pumps, the ground water level
was reduced to its final designated level, which was
below the elevation of final level excavation and at
the beginning of the staged excavation. Further mod-
eling of this new situation, revealed a substantial dif-
ference in the horizontal movement and the bending
moment envelope of the diaphragm wall. The analy-
sis results for each case are shown in Figures 5. The
calculation results of Wall 3 are given Figure 6.

Figure 3. Typical retained section (K8)

567
Geotechnical Engineering for Infrastructure and Development

Horizontal Displacement (cm) 5 DESIGN OF MULTI UNIT ANCHORS


-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
0
5 SBMA technology is a contemporary method for ef-
10 fective mobilization of bond strength of a ground an-
15 chor in soils and weak rocks. Barley (1995) and Os-
Depth (m)

20
termayer & Barley (2003) explained that as the
25
bonded length of a conventional anchor increases, its
30
efficiency decreases due to the progressive debond-
35
ing phenomenon. At the ultimate load only a residual
40
bond stress is mobilized along the majority of the
45
Preliminary Design Actual Construction bonded length with the peak bond stress mobilized at
Bending Moment (kNm) the distal end of the fixed anchor as illustrated in
-1500 -1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000
0
Figure 7.
5
10
15
Depth (m)

20
25
30
35
40
45
Preliminary Design Actual Construction
Figure 5. PLAXIS Modeling results for horizontal displacement
and bending moment envelope of the diaphragm wall, with prelim-
inary design and actual construction (with respect to lowering of
groundwater level at the beginning of the staged excavation).

Figure 7. Progressive debonding in conventional anchors.

The ultimate load in the anchor, P ult, is a function


of the ultimate in situ bond stress and the fixed an-
chor dimensions corrected by a factor that accounts
for the non-linearity of the bond stress distribution
and progress debonding within the tendon bond
length.

Where:
D: Anchor drilling diameter
Lk: Anchor fixed length
fult: Ultimate bond stress
feff : Factor of efficiency

The ratio of the total mobilized capacity of the


fixed anchor (area A in Figure 7) to a fully efficient
Figure 6. Horizontal movement (X) and bending moment (M) en- bond strength mobilization (area B in Figure 7) has
velopes of the diaphragm wall (Wall- 3). been studied by the aforementioned authors, and a re-

568
Mothersille et al.

lationship established for the efficiency factor (ratio ing were also been implemented during testing
of Area A to Area B) vs. the respective fixed length (Mothersille et al. 2012).
as shown in Figure 8.

Figure 8. Fixed bond length vs. its respective factor of efficiency.

In a multi-unit anchor with shorter efficient bond


lengths, the total capacity is increased substantially
due to the reduced effect of progressive debonding.
At the Kuntsevo project, three units comprising 3m
bond lengths with 86% of efficiency (Figures 8 and
9), was designed to increase the total anchor capaci-
ty. Figure 10. Investigation testing of SBMAs with multiple jacks.

6 CONSTRUCTION

During the staged excavation, a total of 3,512 an-


chors were installed. 3,442 of these were subjected to
an acceptance testing using a proof load factor of
1.25 and the remainder (~10 anchors at each level) to
a proof load factor of 1.5 due to requirement VSN
506-88. All anchors were locked-off to 1.1 times the
specified working load of 600 kN.
The displacement of the diaphragm wall, at its
highest location, was optically measured continuous-
ly during the excavation using prisms socked on to
Figure 9. SBMA design for Kuntsevo Project. the capping beam of the diaphragm wall. The final
displacements of the capping beam are presented in
The differences in free lengths between the units the plan view in Figure 11. At the corner of Partizan-
warranted the use of a hydraulically synchronized a skaya and Yartsevskaya streets, the movement is rec-
multiple jack setup for testing and stressing of orded to be in excess of the average recorded
SBMAs, which successfully sustained test loads up throughout the site. The reason for this was that at
to 1200 kN. To reduce creep displacements to magni- this location a 2m high reinforced concrete cantile-
tudes stipulated in the governing standards for the vered wall was constructed by the general contractor
project (VSN 506-88 and Appendix M of BS and connected to the diaphragm wall. This was sub-
8081:1989), post-grouting and end-of-casing grout- sequently back filled to grade and incorporated a

569
Geotechnical Engineering for Infrastructure and Development

slope at this location. The original anchored dia- 7 CLOSING REMARKS


phragm wall was checked to ensure that accommo-
dated this additional surcharge loading. One of the deepest excavations recorded in the histo-
ry of the capital city of Russian Federation, Moscow
was undertaken ahead of programme in 13 months
from July of 2011 to August of 2012. This included
construction, in difficult ground conditions, of ap-
proximately 28,000 m of diaphragm wall and ap-
proximately 90,000 linear metres of SBMAs.
Originally envisioned to be a lengthy and difficult
top-down excavation project, which is a common
construction methodology for Moscow, the project
was executed successfully with detailed QA/QC pro-
cedures for installation of SBMAs and continuous
monitoring of wall displacements as the excavation
progressed to 25m. As apparent in Figure 12, after
the locking off the first row of ground anchors, to
Figure 11. Measured horizontal displacements at capping beam. reaching the final excavation level, the horizontal
displacement of the wall was restricted to less that
The lateral movement of the diaphragm wall was 10mm.
also monitored by 12 no. of inclinometers; placed On completion, the open excavation, delivered to
within the wall. It should be noted that the inclinome- the general contractor, comprised a safe working en-
ter readings were taken immediately after the stress- vironment for the construction of the large basement
ing of first row anchors. Therefore the lateral dis- levels forming the Kuntsevo complex.
placements recorded at the capping beam, given in
Figure 11, should be added to inclinometer readings
to provide an indication of the total displacement. A REFERENCES
comparison of predicted and measured lateral dis-
placements of the wall for Section K8 is presented in Barley, A.D. 1995. Theory and Practice of the Single Bore Multi-
ple Anchor System. International Symposium on Anchors in Theo-
Figure 12. ry and Practice,. Saltzburg, Austria. pp 293-301
BSI, 1989. BS8081:1989. British Standard Code of practice for
Ground Anchorages, BSI, London, UK.
Mothersille, D.K.V. Bayur, A.O. & Okumusoglu, B. 2012. The
performance of Single Bore Multiple Anchor trials installed in
mixed Moscow soils. Proceedings of the Road Construction Con-
ference, 461470. Penza, Russia.
Ostermayer, H. & Barley, A.D. 2003. Fixed anchor design guide-
lines, Geotechnical Engineering Handbook Volume 2, 189-205.
Pub Ernst and Sohn, Berlin, Germany.
VSN 506-88 1989. Design of Arrangement and Installation of
Ground Anchors, USSR Ministry of Assembly and Special Con-
structions, Moscow, Russia.
Benz, Thomas 2007. Small-Strain Stiffness of Soil and Its Numeri-
cal Consequences, PhD Dissertation. The Institute of Geotechnical
Engineering, University of Stuttgart, Germany.

Figure 12. Predicted vs. measured displacements for Section K8.

570