Society of Myanmar Civil Engineers

Singapore SMCES

Important Design
Considerations in Basement
and Foundation Works –
A Case History of City’s
Tallest Building

27 September 2014

Ei Sandar Aung Win

 Project Background  ERSS
 Site Investigation  Geotechnical Analysis
 Foundation  Monitoring & Field Performance
Site Location
Features of Site
• Public Roads
• Shop Houses
• Underground
MRT Station
• Maxwell
Chamber
• International
Plaza

International
Plaza
Features of Development
• 64 Storeys mixed-used Tower
(Residential + Offices)
• 20 Storeys Hotel Tower
• 3 Levels of basement (18m deep) 290m

• Direct links with existing Office Tower

Hotel (64-storeys)
underground MRT station (20-storeys)

MRT Basement
Station
Floor Plan – Basements
B3 B1

B2 L1
3D View - Basements
Design Software
• ETABS Structural Analysis Package
• SAFE Concrete Slab Analysis
• RAPT Post Tension Beam Analysis
• Mega Floor Composite Slab Design

• GSA General Structural Analysis

• ADC Reinforced Concrete Beam Design
• ADSEC Section Capacity Design
• COMPOS Composite Beam Design
Wind Tunnel Test Wind Y
252 mm
Wind X
126 mm

• Wind Loads are taken from

wind tunnel test.
• Criteria of lateral displacement
is H/500 (560mm)
Geotechnical Related Key Risks
• Adjacent MRT Station
(supported by raft foundation)
• Surrounding buildings located
less than 20m away
• Sensitive neighbor (Maxwell
Chamber)
Wind Y
252 mm
Wind X
126 mm
• Stringent movement control
limit by LTA (max 15mm)
• Groundwater drawdown &
subsequent movements
• Vibration and noise control
 Geology &
Ground Condition
Singapore Geological Map
Site Geology
• Located where two facies meet
- Queenstown Facies (west)
- Rimau Facies (east)
• 3m of top Fill Layer
• Underlain by Jurong Formation
- Residual soils SVI / SV
(N = 50~100)
- Completely weathered
(N > 100)
- Highly weathered SIV
Borehole Layout Plan

• Total 20
Boreholes
Ground Investigation
• 20 rotary drilled boreholes
• In-situ Testing
- SPT
- Pressuremeter testing
- Falling head permeability tests
• Laboratory Testing
- Classification tests
- Triaxial testing (UU & CU)
- UCS & PLT
Testing Schedule & Criteria
Subsoil Geological Profile
Foundation
Pile-Raft Foundation

Stiff Soil

Stiff or Dense Soil

• Load sharing between raft and

piles
• Upper soils contributed to overall
stability of the foundation system
• Piles help to increase stability
and reduce settlement
Key Consideration for Pile-Raft System
• Soil condition
- No soft layer of top soil
- SPT > 100 from about 5m bGL
• Site constraint
- Adjacent MRT station
- Need to limit soil bearing load
• Structural loadings
- Two towers with different load
- Uplift forces under the basement
Floor Plan – Base Slab
1.2m Thick Slab 4m Thick Slab

1.2m Thick Slab

• Dia 1200~1800mm
• Spaced at 2.5D (D=Diameter)
• End-bearing piles
Function of Piles
• Controls the tower settlement influence zone to meet the
stringent settlement criteria set by LTA on MRT
structures adjacent to site.
• Limit the differential settlement underneath the tower
due to both eccentric loadings from residential tower and
change of underlying soils due to weak rock condition
• To provide the tension capacity if any (such as podium
subjected by buoyancy)
Preliminary Tests for Foundation
1. Preliminary Load Tests
2. Working Load Tests
3. PDA Tests
4. Plate Load Tests
PDA Test
Basement
Excavation
ERSS Layout (CBP + SBP)
Combination of CBP & SBP
• SBP
- 1300mm Dia @ 1.5m c/c
- 900mm Dia soft pile (fcu = 15MPa)
- 200mm Thk Skin Wall
• CBP
- 1100mm Dia @ 1.2m c/c
- 550mm Dia LSS pile (fcu= 0.75MPa)
- 200mm Thk Skin Wall
ERSS Layout
Construction Sequence
Construction Sequence
Construction Sequence
Construction Sequence
Construction Sequence
Construction Sequence
Construction Sequence
Construction Sequence
Construction Sequence
Construction Sequence
Construction Sequence
Construction Sequence
Construction Sequence
Construction Sequence
 Geotechnical
Analysis & Design
What are the Geotechnical Design Contribution?
• ERSS Analysis • Plaxis 2-D
• Pile-Raft Settlement Analysis • Plaxis 3-D + SAFE
• Pile Design • Excel Spreadsheet
• Deformation Analysis • Plaxis 3-D
• Damage Assessment • Plaxis 3-D + Oasys
What are the Geotechnical Design Contribution?
• ERSS Analysis • Plaxis 2-D
• Pile-Raft Settlement Analysis • Plaxis 3-D + SAFE
• Pile Design • Excel Spreadsheet
• Deformation Analysis • Plaxis 3-D
• Damage Assessment • Plaxis 3-D + Oasys
ERSS Analysis – Plaxis 2-D
H = 17.8m

L = 30m

66m
MRT Station
ERSS Wall

Bored Piles

• Mohr-Coulomb Soil Model

• Drained Analysis
• Steady Stage Seepage
ERSS Analysis – Plaxis 2-D

• Wall Deflection
• BM
• SF
• Slab Forces
What are the Geotechnical Design Contribution?
• ERSS Analysis • Plaxis 2-D
• Pile-Raft Settlement Analysis • Plaxis 3-D + SAFE
• Pile Design • Excel Spreadsheet
• Deformation Analysis • Plaxis 3-D
• Damage Assessment • Plaxis 3-D + Oasys
PLAXIS 3-D Modeling
Layers Side view

Section 1 Section 2 Plaxis 3D modeling

• CBP & SBP (Plate Elements)

• Piles (Embedded Pile Elements)
Side view Top view
• 4m Thk Raft (Volume Elements)
• MRT Station Box & Tunnels
• Uplift not considered
Loading Plan
 2
1
Excavation sequence
1. Excavate for L1
2. Cast L1
3. Cast B1
4. Pile at 88.1mRL

4
3
Analysis results
- Vertical stress
SAFE modeling
 SAFE Model

• Raft (Slab)
• Pile spring ( Reaction / Pile Head
Settlement)
• Soil spring ( Effective stress / Soil
settlement below raft)
• Uplift (not considered)
Comparison of settlement contour (Tower)
(Each pile with individual spring)

Max settlement (tower)

= 29mm
Max settlement (tower)
= 30mm
Comparison of soil pressure (Tower)
(Each pile with individual spring)

400 kPa
564 kPa
Comparison of settlement contour (Hotel)
(Each pile with individual spring)

Max settlement (hotel)

= 15mm
Max settlement (hotel)
= 20mm
Comparison of soil pressure (Hotel)
(Each pile with individual spring)

250 kPa

384 kPa
Comparison of settlement contour (Tower)
(Spring values based on zoning)

Max settlement (tower)

= 29mm
Max settlement (tower)
= 29mm
Comparison of soil pressure (Tower)
(Spring values based on zoning)

540 kPa

400 kPa
Comparison of settlement contour (Hotel)
(Spring values based on zoning)

Max settlement (hotel)

= 15mm
Max settlement (hotel)
= 22mm
Comparison of soil pressure (Hotel)
(Spring values based on zoning)

250 kPa

435 kPa
Independent SAFE Study
• Raft  Modeled as slab
• Piles  Modeled as columns with spring at toe
• Pile Spring  Based on pile capacity (allowable compressive stress and
allowable settlement 15mm)
• Soil Spring  From geotechnical analysis results (Allowable bearing pressure /
actual soil settlement)
SAFE Views
Comparison of settlement contour (Tower)

Max settlement (tower) Max settlement (tower)

= 31mm = 29mm

Max settlement (centre

CBP) = 11mm

SAFE Plaxis 3D
Comparison of settlement contour (Hotel)

Max settlement (hotel)

Max settlement (hotel) = 15mm
= 30mm

Max settlement (centre

CBP) = 11mm

SAFE Plaxis 3D
Comparison of soil pressure (Tower)

460 kPa

400 kPa

SAFE Plaxis 3D
Comparison of soil pressure (Hotel)

250 kPa
395 kPa

SAFE Plaxis 3D
Side-by-side comparison of pile reaction along x-direction
(Tower)
Side-by-side comparison of pile settlement along x-direction
(Tower)
Side-by-side comparison of pile stiffness along x-direction
(Tower)
Load Distribution
• SAFE (independent spring) • 70% : 30%
• SAFE (from Plaxis 3D) • 65% : 35%
• Plaxis 3-D • 62% : 38%

• Total long-term settlement and differential settlement are

predicted from SAFE
- Allowable differential settlement = 1/500
- Allowable maximum settlement = 42mm … Office Tower
Differential settlement

26mm 13mm
15mm 21mm

Tower Hotel

(26-13)/11200 = (21-15)/6550 =
1:861 <1:500 (OK) 1:1091 <1:500 (OK)
What are the Geotechnical Design Contribution?
• ERSS Analysis • Plaxis 2-D
• Pile-Raft Settlement Analysis • Plaxis 3-D + SAFE
• Pile Design • Excel Spreadsheet
• Deformation Analysis • Plaxis 3-D
• Damage Assessment • Plaxis 3-D + Oasys
Bored Pile Design
• Pile design carried out in accordance with SS CP4:2003
• Working load on each pile checked against pile structural capacity as well as
geotechnical capacity
• Assumed design parameters to be verified by “Ultimated Pile Load Tests”
What are the Geotechnical Design Contribution?
• ERSS Analysis • Plaxis 2-D
• Pile-Raft Settlement Analysis • Plaxis 3-D + SAFE
• Pile Design • Excel Spreadsheet
• Deformation Analysis • Plaxis 3-D
• Damage Assessment • Plaxis 3-D + Oasys
Why 3-D. . .???
• Due to complex soil-structure and structure-existing structure interactions
• Sequential excavation zones proposed by Contractor was expected to significantly
impact on predicted movements around a non-regular basement
• Simpler analyses software was not deemed appropriate for estimation of the
resulting wall deflections and movement of soils surrounding the new basement.
• 3D modeling was employed in a number of different ways for the project:
To investigate the effect of proposed excavation sequence
To investigate soil structure interactions (for both the new structure and existing
MRT box)
3-D Modelling
• Model size 300m x 80m
• About 83, 620 nodes
• Hardening Soil Model
• Drained Analysis
• Pheratic Water Level
• Tower loadings
• arkers
3-D Modelling
• Point loads for Columns
• Line loads for Wall
Loads
• Surface Loads for Area
Loads)
3-D Modelling

Embedded piles
3-D Modelling
What are the Geotechnical Design Contribution?
• ERSS Analysis • Plaxis 2-D
• Pile-Raft Settlement Analysis • Plaxis 3-D + SAFE
• Pile Design • Excel Spreadsheet
• Deformation Analysis • Plaxis 3-D
• Damage Assessment • Plaxis 3-D + Oasys
Damage Assessment
• Shallow Foundation
• Preliminary Check: settlement
<10mm or rotation<1/500
• Secondary Check: Burland’s
Chart method
• Differential settlement: <1/500
Damage Assessment

•No strengthening/protective work required

• Recommend continual monitoring of both buildings

3-D Analysis of MRT Station
Instrumentation &
Field Monitoring
Excavation Monitoring
Real Time Monitoring
Monitoring Layout Plan

In-wall Inclino
In-soil Inclino
IW+PZ+WS
IS+PZ+WS
BS
Tiltmeter
GS
VT
Monitoring Instruments_Excavation
• Excavation Instruments
- Inclinometers (In-wall & In-soil)
- Piezometers
- Water Standpipes
• Building Instruments
- Building settlement markers
- Tiltmeter
- Vibration transducer
• Ground Instruments
- Settlement markers
Monitoring Frequency
Long Term Monitoring
• To monitor the followings in long term condition
• Settlement of tower
• Bearing pressure of the soil underneath the raft
• Uplift pressure built up at the base of raft
• Monitoring Instruments
• Building Settlement Markers  Tower Settlement
• Flat Cells & Strain Gauge  Load distribution of raft & pile
• Piezometers
Long Term Monitoring
• Settlement of Tower
• Load distribution of Pile-Raft
• Uplift pore pressure built up
beneath the raft
• Settlement Markers
• Flat Cells + Strain Gauge
• Piezometers
Monitoring for Office Tower
Settlement Monitoring for Office Tower
Conclusion . . .
• Pile-raft is an innovative and economical solution, effective control over
differential settlement and reduce soil bearing pressure
• Performance of ERSS well within the predicted values
• Pore pressure drop during basement excavation due to stress release as well as the
drained behaviour of Jurong Formation
• No significant settlement due to pore pressure drop.
Site Photos