You are on page 1of 55

November2009 MohrCoulombModel

Session 3
Mohr-Coulomb Soil Model &
Design (Part 2)
Time Session Topic
09:00 10:30 1 Overview
10:30 11:00 Coffee Break
11:00 12:30 2 Design (Part 1)
12:30 - 01:30 Lunch
01:30 03:00 3 Mohr-Coulomb Soil Model &
Design (Part 2)
03:00 03:30 Coffee Break

03:30 05:00 4 How to reduce wall deflection


MohrCoulombModel 1

Thingsyoushouldknowaboutthe
MohrCoulombSoilModel

Plastic

Elastic ast c
Elastic
plastic

MohrCoulombModel 2

WongKaiSin 1
November2009 MohrCoulombModel

CanMohrCoulombModelsimulateRealSoilBehaviour?

Plastic
UUTeston
Clay
cu >0
>0 Elastic El i
Elastic
u =0 plastic


Plastic
CDTeston
Clayor
Sand
c' 0 Elastic
'>0

RealSoil MohrCoulombSoil
MohrCoulombModel 3

CanaElasticModelsimulateRealSoil Behaviour?

ElasticModel
Shearstressproduces
Shear stress produces Normalstressproduces
Normal stress produces
shearstrain: volumetricstrain:
v
no v

MohrCoulombModel 4

WongKaiSin 2
November2009 MohrCoulombModel

Can a elastic soil simulate undrained behaviour of clay?

Plastic

Elastic
l i Elastic
plastic

RealSoilBehaviour ElasticModel(=0.5)

no v no v
nov(undrained) nov(undrained)
Stressindependent Stressindependent

MohrCoulombModel 5

Can a elastic soil simulate undrained behaviour of clay?

Plastic

Elastic
l i Elastic
plastic

Yes!Ifweusecu andEu.

Canweusec' 'andE'?

MohrCoulombModel 6

WongKaiSin 3
November2009 MohrCoulombModel

CUTest

100

ESP TSP

porp(kPa)
MohrCoulombModel 7

CUTest
ConsolidatedUndrained =100kPa
TriaxialCompressionTest

RealSoil MohrCoulomb curve


13
Kf Kf
q q 2cu cu fromc' '

2cu cu measured
ESP TSP ESP TSP

porp porp 1
c' 'overpredictedcu !!!
MohrCoulombModel 8

WongKaiSin 4
November2009 MohrCoulombModel

Istheporepressureresponsecorrect?
LetslookatCUtestonanormallyconsolidatedclay.

RealSoil ElasticSoil
Kf Kf
q q

Uf Uf

ESP TSP ESP TSP

porp porp

Thepredictedporepressureismuchsmallerthanthemeasured!

MohrCoulombModel 9

MethodA
EffectivestressMohrCoulombMethodusingcand
Itoverestimatestheundrainedshearstrengthandunderestimatesthe
excessporepressure ofanormallyconsolidatedclay.

RealSoil ElasticSoil
Kf Kf
q q
2cu

Uf Uf
2cu

ESP TSP ESP TSP

porp porp

MohrCoulombModel 10

WongKaiSin 5
November2009 MohrCoulombModel

Overestimationofcu ataReclaimedSite

Undrained Shear Strength (kPa)


0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
0
(qt-po)/Nkt
5
0.22*p'o
10
corr. FVT
15
Consol tests
20
Depth (m)

Cu based on
phi=22 & p'o
25
Method
30 A
35

40

45

50
MohrCoulombModel 11

NicollHighway ResultsofUndrainedAnalysisusingMethodA

Computedusing MethodA Measured


105

100

95

90
ReducedLevel(m)
ReducedLevel(m)

85

80

75

70

65 Level10
325 mm
325mm
60

55

50
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Formation=118mm
Final=145mm WallDeflection(mm)

MohrCoulombModel 12

WongKaiSin 6
November2009 MohrCoulombModel

DoesMethodA alwaysoverestimatecu forNCclay?

(13)f
1
'
3
cu u=0
Thissitehasa
constantcu. A B C

'

ForNCClay,itunderestimates cu atlowstressand
overestimates itathighstress.

MohrCoulombModel 13

MethodB
EffectivestressMohrCoulombMethodusingcu andu=0

Itforcesthesoiltofailataspecifiedundrainedshearstrength.

RealSoil ElasticSoil

Kf
q q

2cu 2cu Kf

ESP TSP ESP TSP

porp porp

MohrCoulombModel 14

WongKaiSin 7
November2009 MohrCoulombModel

NicollHighway ResultsofUndrainedAnalysisusingMethodB

Computedusing MethodB Measured

MohrCoulombModel 15

CanMethodA beusedforOverconsolidatedClay?

CU
(13)f C
1
'
B
3
u=0
A cu UU
Thissitehasa c'
constantcu. A B C

'

ForagivenlayerofOCClay,itunderestimates cu atlow
stressandoverestimates itathighstress.

MohrCoulombModel 16

WongKaiSin 8
November2009 MohrCoulombModel

UsingMethodAforUndrainedAnalysisinOCClay

RealSoil ElasticSoil
Kf Kf
q q
2cu 2 u
2c
Uf Uf

ESP TSP
ESP TSP

porp porp

1.MakesurethemeasuredstresspathissimilartothatofElasticSoil.
2.Dividethestratumintosublayerswithdifferentcandforeachlayer.
3.Computecu fromcandforeachlayer.Makesurethevaluesarereasonable.

MohrCoulombModel 17

UsingMohrCoulombmodelforUndrainedAnalysis

MethodA c' and' produceswrong cu forNCclay,


butitmayproducecorrectcu forOCclay
MethodB or C ForcesPlaxis
Method B orC Forces Plaxis tousespecifiedc
to use specified cu

Method A Method B Method C


Stress Type Effective Effective Total
Strength cand cu and u cu and u
M d l
Modulus E E Eu
Poissons Ratio = 0.35 u = 0.495
Ko or Kot Ko Ko Kot

MohrCoulombModel 18

WongKaiSin 9
November2009 MohrCoulombModel

CanMCmodelsimulateundrainedbehaviour ofclay?

Elasticplastic Plastic

Elastic
Inelastic

1. Itproducesthecorrectstrengthwithcu specified.
2. Itcannotsimulatenonlinearandinelasticbehaviour.
3. Itmaynotgeneratereliableporepressureresponse.

MohrCoulombModel 19


CanMCmodelgenerate
accuratedeflectionprofilesat
ConstantE
everystageofexcavation?

Wall Deflection (mm)


0 20 40 60 80 100
1 0

2 5
3 10
Depth (m )

4 1 2 3 4
15

20

25

30

MohrCoulombModel 20

WongKaiSin 10
November2009 MohrCoulombModel

Atearlystageofexcavation,
MohrCoulomb, LinearE larger
Hyperbolic, NonlinearE smaller

Et

MohrCoulombModel 21

Atfinalstageofexcavation,
MohrCoulomb,LinearE smaller
Hyperbolic,NonlinearE larger

Linear
Et

Nonlinear

MohrCoulombModel 22

WongKaiSin 11
November2009 MohrCoulombModel

MohrCoulomb
Eu/cu ~100to500

ConstantE

AdvancedSoilModel
Conclusion
M C model may not
MCmodelmaynot
producegoodmatchat
everystageofexcavation.

MohrCoulombModel
23

HowreliablearetheresultsgeneratedbytheMCmodel?

Fill

Soft Marine Clay
SoftMarineClay


0 50 100 150
0

V,MAX=33mm
H,MAX =28mm
35

Isthemodeofdeformationreasonable?

MohrCoulombModel 24

WongKaiSin 12
November2009 MohrCoulombModel

ResultsusingHyperoblicModel

Fill

Soft Marine Clay
SoftMarineClay


0 50 100 150

V,MAX=72mm
0

H,MAX =59mm
= 59 mm
35

Isthemodeofdeformationreasonable?

MohrCoulombModel 25

Linear Fill
vs SoftMarineClay
NonLinear

0 50 100 150 0 50 100 150


0 0

35 35


MohrCoulombModel 26

WongKaiSin 13
November2009 MohrCoulombModel

Checkplasticpointsandrelativeshearstress!

Fill

SoftMarineClay

Lessonlearned:
Correctanalysismaynotproducecorrectresults.

MohrCoulombModel 27

LinearvsNonLinearModel

Mohr CoulombModel RealSoilBehaviour


E3 E4
E2

E1

ConstantE


Youmustunderstandtheshortcomingsofthesoilmodelused!
MohrCoulombModel 28

WongKaiSin 14
November2009 MohrCoulombModel

UsingMethodBatReclaimedSite

MethodBisaneffective
Fill
stress method.
stressmethod.
Ko =1 sin'
Soft
Marine Ifclayisstillconsolidating,
Clay
thecomputedrelativeshear
stresswillbe>1,i.e.theclay
SandySilt
y is in failure state prior to
isinfailurestatepriorto
excavation.

MohrCoulombModel 29

UsingeffectiveKo atasitestillundergoingconsolidation

Plastic
points

MohrCoulombModel 30

WongKaiSin 15
November2009 MohrCoulombModel

MethodB(cu u)andKo (1sin)


105
100
Effectiveoverburdenpressure Fill
Level (m) 95
90
85
B A S ft
Soft
R educed L

80
75 Marine
Current Clay
70
effective
65
stress
60
55 SandySilt
50
0 100 200 300 400 500
Current Effective Stress (kPa)

AtA,('V 'H)='V (1 Ko)=74 kPa Currentcu =22kPa


(1 3)f =2cu =44 kPa
AtB,('V 'H)='V (1 Ko)=37 kPa

MohrCoulombModel 31

Needtosetthecorrectinitialstresses!

Fill

Soft
Marine
Clay

SandySilt

Checkplasticpointsaftergeneratingtheinitialstresses!

MohrCoulombModel 32

WongKaiSin 16
November2009 MohrCoulombModel

MohrCoulombModel 33

MohrCoulombModel 34

WongKaiSin 17
November2009 MohrCoulombModel

StressDependentBehaviour ofSoilunderDrainedCondition

MohrCoulombModel 35

StressPathsinanElasticMedium

Ko
D
C
B 1 3
E
1 3

F
1 3

A E QuestionableZone
E Questionable Zone
F DangerZone

3
MohrCoulombModel 36

WongKaiSin 18
November2009 MohrCoulombModel

TypicalStressPathsinExcavation

A
B

B
A

MohrCoulombModel 37

StressPathinZoneFunder DrainedCondition

rubber

soil

1(%)

v(%)

MohrCoulombModel 38

WongKaiSin 19
November2009 MohrCoulombModel

StressPathinZoneEunderDrainedCondition

1=300
3=300

MohrCoulombModel 39

Adrainedanalysiscanproduceincorrectresultsunder
certainstresspath.

Whichoneiscorrect?

B
A B


Measured Computed

Lessonlearned:
Correctanalysismaynotproducecorrectresults!

MohrCoulombModel 40

WongKaiSin 20
November2009 MohrCoulombModel

SomeproblemsmaybesensitivetoPoissonsRatio
Wall Deflection (mm)
-20 0 20 40 60 80 100
c=5kPa 0

=35o
5
E=8000kPa
H=9m 10
=0.4
Pois. Ratio = 0.4

=0.2
Pois. Ratio = 0.2

D e p th (m )
=0.2 =0.4
15

Mmax ,kNm/m 298 477


20

Strut 1, kN/m 77 114


Strut 2,
2 kN/m 226 335 25

Strut 3, kN/m 163 178


30

Lessonlearned:
Drainedanalysiscanproducemanysurprises.
MohrCoulombModel 41

CanMCmodelsimulatedrainedbehaviour ofsoil?

1. Itgivescorrectstrength f =c+tan
2. Modulusisnotstressdependent.
3. Itcannotsimulatenonlinearandinelasticbehaviour.
4. Itmayproducewrongresponseincertainstresspath.
5. ResultsmaybesensitivetoPoissonsratio.
MohrCoulombModel 42

WongKaiSin 21
November2009 MohrCoulombModel

CanMCmodelsimulatedrainedbehaviour ofsoil?

Plastic
6. Itmaynotproducecorrect
porepressureresponse.
7. Whenusingc'' in
consolidationanalysis,it
Elastic
maygeneratethewrong
undrainedstrengthat
endofconstruction.
8 There
8. Thereisnodilationuntil
is no dilation until
v afterthesoilreachesfailure.

MohrCoulombModel 43

MohrCoulombModel 44

WongKaiSin 22
November 2009 Excavation Design

Designing Temporary Work

Design &
Analysis

Instrumentation Construction
Monitoring Control

Designing Temporary Work is a Continuous Process

Initial Design
g Final Design
(Working Drawings) (As-Built)
Excavation

Start Finish

Excavation Design 1

Types of Analysis in TERS Design

1. Analysis for preliminary design


2 Analysis for working design to be
2.
adopted in construction
3. Back-analysis
4. Re-analysis

Prelim. Working Final Design


Design Design Back-Analysis & Re-analysis (As-Built)

Start Excavation Finish


Excavation Design 2

Wong Kai Sin 1


November 2009 Excavation Design

Analysis for preliminary design


To assess feasibility of proposed
TERS configuration and construction
sequence.
To assess effect of excavation on
surrounding structures
To conduct analysis using moderately
conservative design parameters

Excavation Design 3

Analysis for working or Final design


to be adopted in construction
To conduct sensitivity studies assessing
the effect of variable uncertainties
To finalise the strut forces and wall
bending moments for structural design
To assess the risk of damage to adjacent
structures

Excavation Design 4

Wong Kai Sin 2


November 2009 Excavation Design

Back-Analysis during Construction

To be carried out when the field


performance is much better or worse
than anticipated.
anticipated
To calibrate the design parameters
against field measurements

Wall Deflection (m m )
0 20 40 60 80 100
0

5
Computed
10

Depth (m)
15
Measured
20

25

30
Excavation Design 5

Re-Analysis during Construction


To be carried out after back-analysis
To assess potential final outcome using
calibrate design
g parameters
p
To revise the design where appropriate

Wall Deflection (m m) Wall Deflection (m m )

0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 120


0 0

5 5

10 Computed 10
Design
Depth (m)
Depth (m )

15 15
Measured
20 20

Back-Analyzed
25 25

30 30

Excavation Design 6

Wong Kai Sin 3


November 2009 Excavation Design

Overview of Design Process

1. Site investigation
2. Pre
Pre-construction
construction survey
3. Evaluation of soil conditions
4. Selection of TERS configuration
5. Assessment of system stability
6. Preparation for FEA
7 Assessment of computed output
7.

Excavation Design 7

1. Site investigation
Design Step 1: Site Investigation
2. Pre-construction
survey
3. Evaluation of soil
conditions
4. Selection of TERS
configuration
Plan View 5
5. Assessment of
system stability
6. Preparation for FEA
7. Assessment of
computed output

Sectional View

Designer must be actively involved in the site investigation.


Get the best S.I. company to do the job!
Do enough borings and CPTs.
Excavation Design 8

Wong Kai Sin 4


November 2009 Excavation Design

2. Pre-Construction Survey
1. Site investigation
To check pre-existing conditions 2. Pre-construction
survey
of surrounding structures 3. Evaluation of soil
conditions
Things you can see .. 4. Selection of TERS
configuration

Cracks 5. Assessment of
system stability
6. Preparation for FEA
Patches under new paint 7. Assessment of
computed output
Settlement of aprons & driveway
Constructions in the vicinity

A comprehensive pre-con survey provides the designer


with a proper perspective of the surrounding and issues
that must be considered in the design.
Excavation Design 9

Excavation Design 10

Wong Kai Sin 5


November 2009 Excavation Design

Pre-Construction Survey Pre-existing Conditions

Things you cant see ..


Ongoing movements

Seasonal fluctuations

Ground settlement profile

Invest in
Instrumentation
Settlement marks
Paper
P prisms
i
Water standpipes
Inclinometers

Excavation Design 11

1. Site investigation
3. Evaluation of Soil Conditions 2. Pre-construction
survey
Things to check .. 3. Evaluation of soil
conditions
Fill thickness and variations 4. Selection of TERS
configuration

Soft clay thickness and variations 5. Assessment of


system stability

State of consolidation of soft clay 6.


7.
Preparation for FEA
Assessment of
computed output
Depth to hard stratum & variations
Ground water table
Fill

Soft
Marine
Clay

Stiff
Silty
Clay
Dense Silt
Sand
Excavation Design 12

Wong Kai Sin 6


November 2009 Excavation Design

Design Soil Profile & Parameters

Fill

Upper Marine Clay

Intermediate Stiff Clay

Lower Marine Clay

Old Alluvium

Extract only the reliable facts from Factual Report.


Is the soil condition uniform? Can we use half mesh?
Excavation Design 13

Example on Idealised Soil Profile

Worst soil
condition
ABH-32
ABH-30 Instrumented
section
M3010

AC 3
AC-3

ABH-84
ABH-31

Soil Profile at ABH-32 adopted in Original Design


Excavation Design 14

Wong Kai Sin 7


November 2009 Excavation Design

Example on Soil Profile -- Half-mesh based on ABH-32

RL (m)
102.
Fill
9

E upper 98.2
96.4

UM
C
85.6
F2 upper
83.4

LMC

JGP1

68.3
JGP2
E lower

63.2
F2 lower
61.
OA N = 35 6
57.
OA N = 5
72 53.
Excavation Design 8 15

Example on Soil Profile


Full-mesh at Instrumented Section

ABH-84 M3010
RL (m)
Fill Fill
E E

UMC UMC

85.4
F2 upper F2 upper

LMC
LMC
JGP1
LMC 72.1
F2 F2 lower
69 4
69.4
JGP2 OA N = 20
JGP3 66.8
F2 lower
OA N = 30
64.7
63.7 OA N = 70
OA N = 20
61.2 60.0
OA N = 30
59.2 OA N = 100
OA N = 70
55.0

Excavation Design 16

Wong Kai Sin 8


November 2009 Excavation Design

Example -- Results can be very sensitive to variations in soil profile

C
Cross-Over at
Newton MRT Station
B

A B C

Excavation Design 17

Results can be very sensitive to minor variations in soil profile

Cross-Over at Newton MRT Station

B
A

A B C

Excavation Design 18

Wong Kai Sin 9


November 2009 Excavation Design

Results can be very sensitive to minor variations in soil profile


Cross-Over at Newton MRT Station

Excavation Design 19

Design Step 4: 1.
2.
Site investigation
Pre-construction
Selection of TERS survey
3. Evaluation of soil
conditions
We need to know 4. Selection of TERS
configuration
Site constraints 5
5. Assessment of
system stability
Dimensions 6. Preparation for FEA
7. Assessment of
Adjacent buildings computed output

MRT & CST tunnels


h,max allowable?
Slab elevations
Ramp locations

Excavation Design 20

Wong Kai Sin 10


November 2009 Excavation Design

Preliminary Design Configuration

Wall type & size


Penetration depth This is where
experience
Strut size and spacing
comes in!
JGP/DCM slab thickness
Preloading
Excavation Design 21

Need to Establish the Excavation Sequence

Excavation Design 22

Wong Kai Sin 11


November 2009 Excavation Design

1. Site investigation
Design Step 5: 2. Pre-construction
survey
Basic Stability Checks 3. Evaluation of soil
conditions
4. Selection of TERS
Before conducting FEA, check configuration
5
5. Assessment of
system stability
Basal Heave Stability 6. Preparation for FEA
7. Assessment of
Uplift or Blowout Stability computed output

Toe Kick-in Stability

Excavation Design 23

Basal Heave Stabillity Which method should


we use?
Terzaghi
Bjerrum & Eide
Eide et al.
Tschebotarioff
Goh
Chang
Wong and Goh
O'Rourke
Su et al.
Ukritchon et al.
Plaxis

Does FOS1 mean


failure?
Excavation Design 24

Wong Kai Sin 12


November 2009 Excavation Design

Uplift Stability
B
Fill
E
UMC
F2

LMC Hw
W=dB
R=cud R d
E / F2

Sand U = w Hw B

W + 2R Check permeability &


Fs = ---------------- connectivity of sand layer!
U
Excavation Design 25

Toe Kick-in Stability

Lp La
Pa
Pp

How do we check toe stability?


Excavation Design 26

Wong Kai Sin 13


November 2009 Excavation Design

1. Site investigation
Design Step 6: 2. Pre-construction
Preparation for FEA survey
3. Evaluation of soil
conditions
1. Selection of software 4. Selection of TERS
configuration
2 Selection of soil models
2. 5
5. Assessment of
system stability
3. Selection of type of analysis 6. Preparation for FEA
7. Assessment of
4. Evaluation of soil parameters computed output

5. Generation of FE mesh
6. Preparation of data input Plaxis?
Mohr-Coulomb?
Undrained?
Total stress?

Excavation Design 27

1. Site investigation
Design Step 7: 2. Pre-construction
survey
Assessment of 3. Evaluation of soil
Computed Output conditions
4. Selection of TERS
configuration
5
5. Assessment of
Tons of data can be generated system stability
6. Preparation for FEA
with a few clicks.
7. Assessment of
computed output
But what are the relevant ones?

Generating thick reports with not-so-


important graphs reflects badly on the
engineer. It is a reflection of he/she
not knowing whats important!

Excavation Design 28

Wong Kai Sin 14


November 2009 Excavation Design

What are the relevant results?

Relevant Results
Wall deflections
Ground settlement
Pore pressure
Strut forces
Wall moment and shear
Plastic points
Displacement vector plots

Excavation Design 29

Interpretation of Computed Output

Check Mode of Deformation

Expected Unexpected

Is the mode of deformation reasonable?


Excavation Design 30

Wong Kai Sin 15


November 2009 Excavation Design

Interpretation of Computed Output

Check extend of soil yielding

Plastic point plot


Excavation Design 31

Plastic Points Relative Shear

Excavation Design 32

Wong Kai Sin 16


November 2009 Excavation Design

Plastic points in JGP/DCM layer


Residual
stress

Lesson learned:
Plastic point and relative shear plots provide insight to
the extend of soil yield and overall stability of the system.
Excavation Design 33

Plot wall deflections for construction control

Deflection Profiles Max. Wall Deflection

computed

measured

Excavation Design 34

Wong Kai Sin 17


November 2009 Excavation Design

Change in Pore Pressure with Excavation Depth

Excavation Design 35

Ground Settlement at
End of Excavation

50
nd Settlement (mm)

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

-50

-100
Groun

-150

-200
Distance (m)

Excavation Design 36

Wong Kai Sin 18


November 2009 Excavation Design

Plot ground settlement vs excavation depth at selected locations

50.0

0.0
5/24/02 9/1/02 12/10/02 3/20/03 6/28/03 10/6/03 1/14/04 4/23/04

-50.0
Settlement (mm)

-100.0

-150.0

-200.0

-250.0

-300.0

Excavation Design 37

Plot maximum strut forces with depth

RL (m)
Fill Fill
E E
Computed
MC MC

85.4
F2 F2 Measured

MC
MC
JGP
LMC 72.1
F2 F2
69 4
69.4
JGP OA (20)
F2 66.8
OA (30)
64.7
63.7 OA (70)
OA (20)
61.2 60.0
OA (30)
59.2 OA (100)
OA (70)
55.

Excavation Design 38

Wong Kai Sin 19


November 2009 Excavation Design

Plot development of strut forces during excavation

Strut Force (kN)


S1

S1

epth below ground (m)


S1

De

Excavation Design 39

Bending Moment at Different Stages of Excavation

3 1
2
4
3
5
4
5

Excavation Design 40

Wong Kai Sin 20


November 2009 Excavation Design

Displacement Vectors Showing Movements at End of Excavation

Excavation Design 41

Displacement Vector Plot after Strength (-c) Reduction Analysis

FOS=1.30

False alarm?
Excavation Design 42

Wong Kai Sin 21


November 2009 Excavation Design

Are the computed wall deflections acceptable?

Excavation Design 43

Comparison of Strut Forces with


Published Apparent Pressure Diagrams
Pecks Apparent Earth Pressure Diagrams (1969)
CIRIA
CIRIAss Characteristic Pressure Diagrams (1996)
Local Experiences on Apparent Pressure Diagrams

Excavation Design 44

Wong Kai Sin 22


November 2009 Excavation Design

Mohr-Coulomb model Cant match all stages of excavation!

E3 E
E 4
2
E
1
Constant E


Wall Deflection (mm)
0 20 40 60 80 100
0
1
2 5

3 10

Depth (m )
4 1 2 3 4
15

20

25

30
Excavation Design 45

Sand

Sensitivity Study to Marine


Clay
Finalise Design JGP

Old
Alluvium

Surcharge 10 and 20 kPa


Soil Modulus (Eu/cu) 300 and 200
Over-excavation 0.5 and 1 m
JGP Thickness 1.5 and 1.0 m
JGP modulus 150 and 100 MPa
Wall stiffness 1.0EI and 0.7EI
Modelling of bored piles Included and excluded
Preload 100, 50 and 0%
Excavation Design 46

Wong Kai Sin 23


Wong Kai Sin
November 2009

R Bending Momen
nt (kNm/m) R
ef ef
er
en er Deflection
n (mm)
c en

0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
e

0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350

Su Su ce
rc ca ca
ha se rc se
rg ha

Excavation Design
Excavation Design
e rg
20 e
20
kP kP
a a
E= E=
1. 20 20
0m 0C 1.
0m 0C
ov u u
ov
er er
ex ex
ca ca
v. v.
JG JG
P P
E( ( 1. E( (1
JG 0m JG .0
) m
P) P) )
= =
10 10
0M 0M
Pr Pa Pa
Pr
el el
oa oa
d d
50 50
B 0 % B %
or .7 or 0.
7E
ed EI ed
pi D ID
le -W pi
le -W
al al
no l
Design H,max = 200 mm

no l

Design Mmax = 3400 kNm/m


tm tm
od od
el el
le le
d d
N N
o o
pr pr
Sensitivity Study on Wall Deflection

el el
oa oa
d d

Sensitivity Study on Wall Bending Moment

48
47
Excavation Design

24
Wong Kai Sin
November 2009

R Shear Forc
ce (kN/m)
ef
Re er
fe S trut loa d (kN/m ) en
r

0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500

en Su ce
Su rc ca

0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
ce se
rc ha
ca rg

Excavation Design
Excavation Design
ha
rg se e
e 20
20 kP
kP a
a E=
1. E= 1. 20
0m 20 0m 0C
0C ov u
ov u er
er ex
ex ca
c v.
J G av . JG
P P
E(
(1 E( (1
JG JG .0
.0 m
P) m P) )
= ) =
10 10
0M 0M
Pr Pa Pa
el Pr
oa el
oa
Bo d d
re 50 50
d
0.
7E % B 0. %
pi or 7E
ID

Design S1 = 420 kN/m


le ed ID
-W pi -W
no al le
l no al
l
tm
Design Vmax = 2200 kN/m

od tm
el od
el
N o l ed le
d

Sensitivity Study - Maximum Strut Load (S1)


pr N
el o
oa pr
el
Sensitivity Study on Wall Shear Forces

d oa
d

50
49
Excavation Design

25
Wong Kai Sin
November 2009

Strut load ((kN/m)


Re
Re S trut load (kN/m ) fe
fe re
r

0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900

nc
en e

0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Su ce Su ca
rc r ch se

Excavation Design
Excavation Design
ha ca ar
rg se ge
e 20
20 kP
kP a
a E=
1. E= 1. 20
0m 20 0m 0C
0C ov u
ov
er u er
ex
ex ca
ca v .
JG v. JG
P P
E( (1
(1 E(
J .0
JG . m
0m GP )
P)
) ) =
= 10
10 0M
0M Pa
Pr Pr
el Pa e lo
oa ad
d 50
%
Bo 50
re 0. % 0.
Design S2 = 780 kN/m

Design S3 = 960 kN/m


7E Bo 7E
pi ID r ed ID
le -W pi -W
no le all
al no
tm l tm
od od
el el
le le

Sensitivity Study - Maximum Strut Load (S3)


d
Sensitivity Study - Maximum Strut Load (S2)

No d No
pr pr
el el
oa
oa
d d

52
51
Excavation Design

26
Wong Kai Sin
November 2009

R R Strut load (kN/m )


ef ef
e re Strut load (kN/m ) e re
nc nc

0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000

0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Su e Su e
rc ca rc ca

Excavation Design
Excavation Design
ha se ha se
rg rg
e e
20 20
kP kP
a a
E= E=
1. 20 1. 20
0m 0C 0m 0C
ov u ov u
er er
e xc e xc
av av
JG . JG .
P P
E( (1 E( (1
JG .0 JG .0
m m
P)
= ) P) )
10 =
0 10
M 0 M
Pr Pa Pr Pa
el
o ad
el
o ad
50
B % B
50
0. %

Design S5 = 500 kN/m


Design S4 = 880 kN/m

or 7E or 0.
ed ID ed 7E
pi -W ID
le pi
le -W
no al
t l no al
l
m tm
od

Sensitivity Study - Maximum Strut Load (S5)


e od
Sensitivity Study - Maximum Strut Load (S4)

ll e el
N d N le
o o d
pr pr
el
oa el
d oa
d

54
53
Excavation Design

27
November 2009 Excavation Design

Best Estimates and Design Values


Design
Values
Best
based on
Estimates
Sensitivity
St d
Study
Deflection mm 168 200
Diaphragm
Moment kNm/m 2980 3400
Wall
Shear kN/m 2065 2200
Strut S1 Force kN/m 417 420
Strut
St ut S2
S Force
o ce kN/m
/ 771 780
80
Strut S3 Force kN/m 929 960
Strut S4 Force kN/m 836 880
Strut S5 Force kN/m 474 550

Excavation Design 55

Bending Moment and Shear Forces at Various Stages


Elevation (m)
Elevation (m)

3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000
Bending moment (kN.m/m) Shear force (kN/m)
Bending Moment (kNm/m) Shear Force (kN/m)
Excavation Design 56

Wong Kai Sin 28


November 2009 Excavation Design

From the results of sensitivity studies


studies, we
can proceed to finalize the design:
Wall design
Strut design
Waler/stiffer design
Set alert levels
Instrumentation plan
Contingency plan
Design drawings

Excavation Design 57

Analysis of Control Section for Construction Control

RL (m)
Fill Fill
Use best estimated
E E parameters to compute:

UMC UMC
Wall deflection profiles

F2 upper F2 upper
85.4 Deflection vs Excav. depth

LMC
Strut forces
LMC
Wall bending moments
LMC 72.1
F2 F2 lower
69.4
OA N = 20 Wall shear forces
F2 66.8
OA N = 30
63.7
lower 64 7
64.7 Ground settlement
OA N = 20 OA N = 70
61.2 60.0
59.2
OA N = 30 OA N = 100 Pore pressures
OA N = 70
55.0

Results are to be compared with field measurements.


Excavation Design 58

Wong Kai Sin 29


November 2009 Excavation Design

How reliable is your design?

sand

Benchmarking
Exercise in
Germany

Excavation Design 59

Benchmarking
Exercise in
Germany

Measurement

Five worst results


were OMITTED!

Excavation Design 60

Wong Kai Sin 30


November 2009 Excavation Design

Prediction Exercise in Singapore

Maximum Wall Deflection


vs
Excavation Level
102

100

98
Elevation Level (RL in m)

96

94

92

90
E

88

86

84
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Maximum Wall Deflection (mm)
Particpant # 7 Particpant # 10 Particpant # 1 Particpant # 5
Particpant # 3 Particpant # 9 Particpant # 8 Particpant # 11
Particpant # 12 Particpant # 6 Particpant # 13 Particpant # 4
Excavation Design
Particpant # 14 Particpant # 12 Measured 61

Design vs As-Built Construction Sequence

As-Built Design

Excavation Design 62

Wong Kai Sin 31


November 2009 Excavation Design

Over-
Excavation
(Clough & ORouke, 1990)

Excavation Design 63

Excessive Surcharge

q = 20 kPa

Excavation Design 64

Wong Kai Sin 32


November 2009 Excavation Design

Dont be over-confident about your analysis!

Be prepared to face a few surprises.

Implement Observational Method diligently.

If in doubt, get a second opinion.

Excavation Design 65

Excavation Design 66

Wong Kai Sin 33