OBSERVATIONAL METHOD

Case Study of Observational Method

for a Infrastructure project
Prepared by

Er. Khoo Kok Sing

Ms. Xie Xiu Jun
PRESENTATION OUTLINE

1. INTRODUCTION OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE

2. GEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND AND GROUND CONDITIONS
3. DERIVATION OF CHARACTERISTIC AND MOST PROBABLE PARAMETERS
4. ANALYSES AND DESIGN
- DESIGN INFORMATION
- PROPOSED OMISSION OF STRUT BASED ON OM
- ANALYSES USING CHARACTERISTIC AND MOST PROBABLE
PARAMETERS

5. DESIGN APPROACH USING OBSERVATIONAL METHOD (OM)

6. APPLICATION OF OM BASED ON MEASURED WALL DEFLECTIONS
7. BACK ANALYSES
8. CONCLUSIONS
1. INTRODUCTION
2. GEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND AND GROUND CONDITIONS
3. DERIVATION OF CHARACTERISTIC AND MOST PROBABLE PARAMETERS
4. ANALYSES AND DESIGN
5. DESIGN APPROACH USING OBSERVATIONAL METHOD (OM)
6. APPLICATION OF OM BASED ON MEASURED DEFLECTIONS
6. BACK ANALYSES
7. CONCLUSIONS
INTRODUCTION

Plan View of Infrastructure and Surrounding

Building

Building
Building Sub-Station
+116.5m to +117.5m
EAST
WEST
Infrastructure +115.5m
+113.5m

Building Building
Building
INTRODUCTION

Typical Section (GL 1 to 7)

~116.5

114.5
113.5~114.5

ROOF SLAB

B1 SLAB

B2 SLAB

B3 SLAB
INTRODUCTION

Section View with Slab Opening

117.5
115.5
114.5

ROOF SLAB

B1 SLAB

B2 SLAB

B3 SLAB
1. INTRODUCTION OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE

2. GEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND AND GROUND

CONDITIONS
3. DERIVATION OF CHARACTERISTIC AND MOST PROBABLE PARAMETERS
4. ANALYSES AND DESIGN
5. DESIGN APPROACH USING OM
6. APPLICATION OF OM BASED ON MEASURED DEFLECTIONS
5. BACK ANALYSES
6. CONCLUSIONS
GEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND AND GROUND CONDITIONS

a. Main Geology: OLD ALLUVIUM with localized Kallang Formation

b. Fill of 3 to 8m thick covered the site
c. F1 & F2 of Kallang Formation found at localized areas underneath the
Fill
d. Excavation predominantly in OA(B)

SITE
KAKI BUKIT STATION:
GEOLOGICAL PROFILE GEOLOGICAL PROFILE

Infrastructure

Infrastructure
OA (D)
OA (C)

OA (B)
+91.65m
1. INTRODUCTION OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE
2. GEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND AND GROUND CONDITIONS

3. DERIVATION OF CHARACTERISTIC AND MOST

PROBABLE PARAMETERS
4. ANALYSES AND DESIGN
5. DESIGN APPROACH USING OM
6. APPLICATION OF OM BASED ON MEASURED DEFLECTIONS
7. BACK ANALYSES
8. CONCLUSIONS
DERIVATION OF DESIGN PARAMETERS

Main Geotechnical Parameters affecting ERSS Design

1. Shear Strength Parameters
2. Modulus of Elasticity
DERIVATION OF DESIGN PARAMETERS

FILL

OA (E)
DERIVATION OF DESIGN PARAMETERS

OA (D)

OA (C)
DERIVATION OF DESIGN PARAMETERS

OA (B)

OA (A)
DERIVATION OF DESIGN PARAMETERS
KAKI BUKIT STATION
PLAN VIEW OF RETAINING WALLS
DERIVATION OF DESIGN PARAMETERS
KAKI BUKIT STATION
PLAN VIEW
Proposed OF RETAINING
Geotechnical WALLS
Parameters for Design using OM
1. INTRODUCTION OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE
2. GEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND AND GROUND CONDITIONS
3. DERIVATION OF CHARACTERISTIC AND MOST PROBABLE PARAMETERS

4. ANALYSES AND DESIGN

- DESIGN INFORMATION
- PROPOSED OMISSION OF STRUT BASED ON OM
- ANALYSES USING CHARACTERISTIC AND MOST PROBABLE
PARAMETERS
5. DESIGN APPROACH USING OBSERVATIONAL METHOD (OM)
6. APPLICATION OF OM BASED ON MEASURED DEFLECTIONS
6. BACK ANALYSES
7. CONCLUSIONS
DESIGN INFORMATION

a. Ground Level: +113.5m to +115.5m at structure foot print;

+115.5m to +117.5m on North side
b. Ground Conditions: Old Alluvium with localized Kallang Formation.
Excavation predominantly in OA(B) (50≤N<100);
c. Excavation Depth: 22 to 24m at structure footprint
d. ERSS Wall: 1m thick diaphragm wall
e. Excavation method: Top down method supported by roof slab,
intermediate slab & concourse slab with 2 layer struts (S1 above roof
slab and S5 between concourse and formation level)
DESIGN INFORMATION
KAKI BUKIT STATION
PLAN VIEW OF RETAINING WALLS
Bottom Up Top Down Method Bottom Up
DESIGN INFORMATION

Temporary Struts at B1 and B2 Levels

B1 LEVEL

B2 LEVEL
 DESIGN INFORMATION
8 11 Strut Layout (GL8 & GL11)
Strut S1 (above roof) 8 11 Strut S3 (B1 Slab)

GL8

Strut S4 (B2 Slab)

8 11

GL11
Strut S5 (between B2 and Base)
8 11
DESIGN INFORMATION: Section Views
 PROPOSED OMISSION OF STRUT
1. Studies on omission of proposed struts based on OM have been carried out.

2. Omission of S1 struts is considered not practical due to high cantilever excavation

to roof slab.

3. Removing struts at slab opening are considered not significant in time and cost
saving.

4. Omission of S5 struts between B2 and B3 slab has been considered in the present
study using OM.

Studies on omission of
S5 struts using OM
S5
GEOLOGICAL PROFILE AT SECTION OF ANALYSIS

FILL

O(D) O(D)
O(C)

O(B) O(B)

O(A) O(A)
 ANALYSES USING CHARACTERISTIC AND MOST PROBABLE
PARAMETERS

Analysis Models
S1
FILL
FILL

OA(D)
Analysis model OA(C)
with S5 struts S5

(Characteristic Formation

Parameters) OA(B) OA(B)

OA(B)

OA(A)
OA(A)

S1
FILL
FILL

Analysis model OA(D)

OA(C)
without S5 struts
(Most Probable Base Slab
Parameters)
OA(B) OA(B)
OA(B)

OA(A)
OA(A)
ANALYSES RESULTS
ERSS Wall Deflection: SLS

Characteristic Parameters
Most Probable Parameters
ANALYSES RESULTS: Characteristic Parameters
Characteristic Parameters: Bending Moment & Shear (SLS)
ANALYSES RESULTS: Most Probable Parameters
Most Probable Parameters: Bending Moment & Shear (SLS)
ANALYSES RESULTS: Characteristic Parameters
Characteristic Parameters: DA1C1
ANALYSES RESULTS: Most Probable Parameters
Most Probable Parameters: Bending Moment & Shear (DA1C1)
(DA1C1)
ANALYSES RESULTS: Characteristic Parameters

Characteristic Parameters: Bending Moment & Shear (DA1C2)

ANALYSES RESULTS: Most Probable Parameters
Most Probable Parameters: Bending Moment & Shear (DA1C2)
1. INTRODUCTION OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE
2. GEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND AND GROUND CONDITIONS
3. DERIVATION OF CHARACTERISTIC AND MOST PROBABLE PARAMETERS
4. ANALYSES AND DESIGN

5. DESIGN APPROACH USING OBSERVATIONAL

METHOD (OM)
6. APPLICATION OF OM BASED ON MEASURED DEFLECTIONS
7. BACK ANALYSES
8. CONCLUSIONS
DESIGN APPROACH USING OM
ERSS Wall Deflection

Characteristic Parameters Most Probable Parameters

Stage 1 S1 (10mm)

Stage 2 Roof (10mm)

Stage 1 S1 (12mm) Stage 3 B1 (12mm)

Stage 2 Roof (12mm)
Stage 4 B2 (14mm)
Stage 3 B1 (15mm)

Stage 4 B2
(21mm) Stage S5
(20mm)
Stage S5
(35mm)
Stage 6 FEL
(40mm)
Stage 6 FEL
(51mm)

(Not Applicable)
DESIGN APPROACH USING OM

Plot wall deflections for Characteristic and Most Probable parameters

DESIGN APPROACH USING OM
Develop Review Levels based on predicted ERSS wall deflection
DESIGN APPROACH USING OM: Reinforcement Design
Characteristic Parameters: Bending Moment & Shear (SLS)

Reinforcement Provision
SLS (based on crack width)
DESIGN APPROACH USING OM: Reinforcement Design
Most Probable Parameters: Bending Moment & Shear (SLS)

Reinforcement Provision
SLS (based on crack width)
DESIGN APPROACH USING OM: Reinforcement Design
Characteristic Parameters: Bending Moment & Shear (DA1C1)

Reinforcement Provision (ULS)

DESIGN APPROACH USING OM: Reinforcement Design
Most Probable Parameters: Bending Moment & Shear (DA1C1)

Reinforcement Provision (ULS)

DESIGN APPROACH USING OM: Reinforcement Design
Characteristic Parameters: Bending Moment & Shear (DA1C2)

Reinforcement
Provision (ULS)
DESIGN APPROACH USING OM: Reinforcement Design
Most Probable Parameters: Bending Moment & Shear (DA1C2)

Reinforcement
Provision (ULS)
1. INTRODUCTION OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE
2. GEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND AND GROUND CONDITIONS
3. DERIVATION OF CHARACTERISTIC AND MOST PROBABLE PARAMETERS
4. ANALYSES AND DESIGN
5. DESIGN APPROACH USING OBSERVATIONAL METHOD (OM)

6. APPLICATION OF OM BASED ON MEASURED

DEFLECTIONS
7. BACK ANALYSES
8. CONCLUSIONS
APPLICATION OF OM

Final Stage In-wall Inclinometer Monitoring Results (with S5)

APPLICATION OF OM

Predicted versus Measured Movements

• S5 struts at grid lines GL1-10 & GL12-14 at

station box can be omitted based on the
measured wall deflection at Excavation
Stage 5

• At GL10-12, S5 struts in the original

design must be provided

• The results indicated using most probable

parameters are still over-predicting the Alert Level for OM
wall deflections at most areas

5
APPLICATION OF OM

Strut S5 (between B2 and B3 Slab)

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

GL 1 to 10 GL 10 to 12 GL 12 to 15
S5 can be omitted S5 to be remained S5 can be omitted
1. INTRODUCTION OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE
2. GEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND AND GROUND CONDITIONS
3. DERIVATION OF CHARACTERISTIC AND MOST PROBABLE PARAMETERS
4. ANALYSES AND DESIGN
5. DESIGN APPROACH USING OBSERVATIONAL METHOD (OM)
6. APPLICATION OF OM BASED ON MEASURED DEFLECTIONS

7. BACK ANALYSES
8. CONCLUSIONS
 BACK ANALYSES

Back analyses of excavation were carried out using c’=35kPa; φ’=34o for OA(A) & OA(B)
based on Orihara & Khoo, 1998

c’ & φ’ for OA (Orihara and Khoo, 1998)

 BACK ANALYSES
Analyses Results: c’=35kPa; φ’=34o for OA(A) & OA(B)
-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20
120
Wall Deflection Wall toe adjusted to 0 Wall Deflection Wall toe adjusted to 0

115
GL11 GL8
110 GL11 GL8
GL11
GL11
GL8 E = 2N MPa 105 E = 2N MPa

100

95 GL8
Max: 28mm Max: 50mm

90

85

80

75

Low Ground Side High Ground Side

c’=30kPa; φ’=35 for OA(A) & OA(B)

 CONCLUSIONS

1. S5 struts at grid lines GL1-10 & GL12-14 at station box can be omitted
based on the measured wall deflection at Excavation Stage 5
(excavation to 1m below S5 strut)
2. At GL10-12, S5 struts in the original design must be provided
3. Larger increment in ERSS wall deflection at GL10-12 during
excavation to B1 slab were measured
4. These could be due to steel struts provided at B1 slab were not as
rigid as those areas directly support with slab
5. With omission of the S5 struts from GL1-10 & GL12-14, the cost
saving could amount to half of the total strutting cost for this project.
The time saving for omission of these struts is estimated to be about 2
months.