Underground Singapore 2014

Analysis and Behaviour of High Cantilever Retaining Wall

in Marine Clay
K. K. Soh, L. Yeo & T. T. Wai
AGS Consultants Pte Ltd, Singapore

P. K. Lim
Hock Lian Seng Infrastructure Pte Ltd, Singapore

S. H. Chew & D. K. H. Chua

National University of Singapore

ABSTRACT: A high cantilever retaining wall of up to 20m with the point of rotation at approximately
44m below the top of retaining wall has to be constructed in a 15m to 32m thick layer of soft marine
clay for the LTA Contract C481 Marina Coastal Expressway, Singapore. The sandkey is impossible to
install due to the width constraint of the construction corridor. Without the feasible sandkey, a high can-
tilever wall with rotating height of 44m will not be able to conform to the advisory deflection value of
0.5% of its height in BS 8002 section 3.2.4 & 3.2.5. This paper will explain how every structural com-
ponent of the retaining wall is integrated so that the structural strength is effective against the high ac-
tive pressure and the deep rotational slip surface. The pipe piles are interconnected by the interlocks as a
box and must be structurally robust in bending capacity above the point of rotation for internal equilib-
rium. For external equilibrium, the pipe piles must be installed into the Old Alluvium (OA) to ensure
adequate passive resistance. The integrated structural box has to optimize the bending capacity of the
pipe piles to maintain the high deflection at the top of the retaining wall within the elastic range. The in-
tegrated structural box develops the adequate structural strength and passive resistance, as shown by the
inclinometer readings. The calculated deflection magnitude and profile of the pipe piles are in good
agreement with the inclinometer results. At a high deflection of 665mm or 1.5% of H = 44m (H is the
rotating height from top of retaining wall to point of rotation.), the long term monitoring shows that the
deflection at the top of retaining wall is stable. The stability at a high deflection of 665mm is defined
by the equilibrium of the box against the net active pressure and every structural components of the in-
tegrated strong box obey the strength limitation at every point of the box.

1 INTRODUCTION

A permanent high cantilever seawall of height up to 20m has to be designed in an Old Alluvium (OA)
deposit of up to 32m below the seabed. The high seawall has to be constructed to reclaim the land for
the construction of the piled roadway, Contract C481 of the Marina Coastal Expressway of Singapore.
The physical size and construction of this cantilever seawall is restricted by the construction corridor be-
tween the navigation channel and the piled roadway. The narrowest construction corridor is at 35m, i.e.
the distance between the navigation channel line and the edge of the piled roadway, as shown in Figure
1. The frontage of the seawall is defined by the foreshore line. This paper describes the Single or Double
Box pipe piles embedded into the Old Alluvium (OA).

2 THE CONSTRAINTS TO THE SEAWALL SOLUTIONS

2.1 Foundation Treatment
For a thick layer of soft marine clay, the codes of practice have certain guidelines for the design of the
seawall. Soil treatment should be considered for foundations with insufficient bearing capacity. Removal
of soft clay is advised in BS 6349 Part 1:1984 Section 51.2.3, BS 8002:1994 Section 4.5.3.5.1 and EM
1110-2-2503:1989 Section 3.18.
Figure 1. Seawall layout and subsoil profile
The sandkey is considered to be the only feasible solution to create a stable base in the soft clay. It will
also reduce the rotating height for such a high cantilever structure. To replace the dredged up soft clay
with a sandkey design will require a width of up to 150m. Therefore, the sandkey is impossible to con-
struct within the 35m width construction corridor.

At the area, where foundation treatment can extend to a considerable width, the possibility of progres-
sive tensile failure of the treated soils such as Grouted Stone Columns or Deep Soil Mixing Columns is
imminent, as explained by K.K. Soh et al. (2013). There is no assurance that these methods can be
properly constructed in marine conditions to eliminate the deep rotational tensile failure.

2.2 Normal Seawall Structure

A retaining structure of adequate bending strength can be designed above the seabed level. However,
there is no safe method of treating the very weak foundation below the retaining structure.

Cellular cofferdam is studied as one of the possible geotechnical solutions. Driving or installing the in-
terlocked sheetpile is limited to a length of 36m and is toed into the soft marine clay as encountered in
the construction of Marina Barrage Cofferdam. It is impossible to install the interlocked sheetpile be-
yond the soft marine clay into the Old Alluvium (OA) as explained by K.K. Soh et al. (2009).

Thus, a cellular cofferdam could not attain the geotechnical factor safety against tilting and general
shear slide of structure and retained soil as specified in BS 6349 Part 2 : 1988 Section 5.7.8.3.

2.3 The Probable Seawall

In the design of seawall, the following constraints are imposed:-
(a) Without any treatment of the soft clay below the seabed, the rotating height of the structure can ex-
tend up to 44m below the top of the capping beam to the interface of the soft clay and Old Alluvium.
Very high active force is expected for this 44m rotating height.
(b) To maintain internal equilibrium, the high active force above the rotating point must be balanced
against the integrated structural Single or Double Box with the structural factor of safety as specified in
BS 5950.
(c) The overall structure must satisfy the external equilibrium-free body diagram.
The passive resistance above the rotating point is not effective in limiting the deflection of the seawall.
Thus the structural box must be made stronger than the normal permanent work design, as its Geo-
Structural turning back bending capacity contributes significantly against the anticipated high deflection
at the top of the seawall. With the 15m to 32m soft clay passive resistance fully mobilized, it is expected
that the deflection will exceed 0.5% of its H (H is assumed to be the rotating height). BS 8002 : 1994
Section 3.2.4 & 3.2.5 advises that the wall displacements in service will be limited to 0.5% of the wall
height H.

A Single Box size is initially implemented and if its box structural capacity is exceeded, it is replaced
with a Double Box.

3 FACTORS DEFINING SEAWALL DESIGN

3.1 Subsoil Profile and Soil Parameters
A total of ninety two marine boreholes were carried out for a detailed variation of the soft clay thick-
ness, hard stratum interface and the accurate determination of the predetermined pipe pile length. Sub-
soil below seabed is typically very soft to soft marine clay (Kallang Formation consisting of Upper Ma-
rine Clay, Peaty Clay, Intermediate Clay and Lower Marine Clay) with thickness ranging from 15m to
32m. The interface between the soft clay and the hard stratum is ranging from 14m to 44m below the
capping beam of the seawall as shown in Figure 1.

The undrained shear strength of the soft clay is based on the field vane tests as shown in Figure 2. The
strength parameters of other soil layers are indicated in Table 1.
 (a) Upper Marine Clay (b) Lower Marine Clay

Figure 2. Undrained vane shear strength of soft clay

Table 1. Design soil parameters.

Average Drainage Unit weight c  cu Eu
Soil Type
SPT N condition (kN/m3) (kPa) (Deg.) (kPa) (kPa)
Reclamation Fill 7 Drained 19 0 30 - 10000
Upper Marine Clay 0 Undrained 16 - - 10+1.5(z-10) 250cu
Upper Peaty Clay 4 Undrained 17 - - 30 200cu
Upper Intermediate Clay 8 Undrained 20 - - 50 250cu
Lower Marine Clay 4 Undrained 16 - - 2.5(z-10) 250cu
Lower Peaty Clay 5 Undrained 17 - - 45 200cu
Lower Intermediate Clay 12 Undrained 20 - - 65 250cu
Old Alluvium (OA) 10~30 Drained 21 5 28 - 1500N
Old Alluvium (OA 30~50 Drained 21 10 28 - 2000N
Old Alluvium (OA >50 Drained 21 10 30 - 2000N
Note: c' = drained coefficient of friction of soil;  = drained angle of friction of soil
cu = undrained shear strength of soil
Eu = undrained elastic modulus of soil
z = depth measured from RL103m. RL103m is the elevation of the top of capping beam.

3.2 Cantilever Height and Estimated Rotating Height

The free cantilever height of seawall and depth of OA/hard stratum interface are summarized in Table 2.
The maximum depth of the hard strata below the capping beam is 44m, and this is the corresponding
maximum rotating height.

Table 2. Cantilever height and depth of hard stratum interface

Scheme Maximum cantilever Maximum Maximum depth of
height from capping soft clay OA/hard stratum interface
beam to seabed thickness from capping beam
1B (Box 01/41 ~22/62) 20m 32m 44m
1A (Box 23 ~28) 11.5m 28.5m 44m
1C (Box 29 ~39) 10.5m 24.5m 34m

3.3 Giken Line, Pile Toe Line and Interlock Line

Giken line is defined as the depth at which the Giken press-in machine could install the first predeter-
mined pipe pile length. This is indicated by the two consecutive SPT blows exceeding 40 blows/30cm or
all SPT blows exceeding 40 blows/30cm. Pile toe line is the depth which has to be mechanically augured
through from the Giken line into the hard stratum. The depth from the Giken line to the pile toe line is
the net passive resistance of the OA. Another additional predetermined length of pipe pile is then welded
to the first pressed-in pipe pile and vibrated to the pile toe line. The interlock line is the predetermined
depth in the soft clay, at which the interlock will not be damaged during the press-in installation.
4 STRONG BOX PIPE PILE

In order for the strong box to develop to the required structural strength, it must be made of strong
structural components. All the structural components of the strong box must not be overstressed by the
active pressure.

4.1 Structural Components

Single and Double Box structure under construction is as shown in Photograph A. The pipe piles are in-
terconnected by P-P interlocks to form a strong box as shown in Figure 3. The strong box must be at the
optimum or allowable maximum size and the selected pipe pile must be of the biggest diameter that is
suitable for this press-in construction method. This is to maximize the structural strength of the integrat-
ed strong box which combines the vertical stiffness of the pipe pile, flexible tensile capacity of the P-P
interlock and the rigidity of the capping beam. The design considers all the construction possibilities and
detailings to optimize the pipe pile bending capacity of the integrated strong box.

Seaside
Capping Beam
Double Box
Single Box
22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11
29 28 27 26 25 24 23
62 61 60 59 58 57 56 55 54 53 52
5
Reclamation side 2
Filling of Box
Photograph A: View of Single and Double box under construction

Single box Double box

13.05m Back pipe piles (19mm thk.) Back pipe piles (15mm thk.)
Cross pipe piles (15mm thk.) Cross pipe piles (15mm thk.)
13.05m

11.6m
27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16
21.75m
8.7m

Front pipe piles 62 61 60 59 58 57 56

(19mm thk.) Capping beam
1.2m Pipe pile 8.7m Front pipe piles (19mm thk.)
P-P interlock
Intermediate pipe piles (19mm thk.)

Figure 3. Arrangement of Single and Double Box

P-P interlock is the structural link to the pipe piles as shown in Figure 4(a). P-P interlock is selected as
it is unlikely to declutch to a depth of 36m to 44m and is stronger than L-T or P-T interlock type shown
in Silence Piling Technologies by Giken Seisakusho Co., Ltd (2008). The P-P interlock has negligible
stiffness in the vertical and limited stiffness in the horizontal direction. Its structural contribution is to
provide the flexible tensile capacity in the longitudinal direction of pipe pile wall. The three gaps within
the P-P interlock are filled with grout G30 jacket to the permissible depth and if possible all the three
gaps are filled up. There will be contact between the 'C' pipes, ensuring the P-P interlock tensile re-
sistance is mobilized.

A concrete capping beam connects all pipe piles at their top as a rigid joint. The concrete plug or rein-
forcing bars linking the pipe pile to the capping beam is almost equivalent to the cross-sectional area of
the pipe pile, as shown in Figure 4(b).
 Grout Jacket 15mm thk.

165.2mm
12mm Fillet Weld Anchorage into
capping beam
Tubular Steel Pipe
Pipe pile
cut-off level
247.8mm
(a) P-P interlock detail (b) Concrete plug reinforcement
Figure 4. P-P interlock detail and concrete plug reinforcement

These four structural components of pipe piles, P-P interlock, capping beam and concrete plug define
the integrated strong box, and provide the internal equilibrium to the net active force throughout the ro-
tating height.

4.2 Geotechnical Components

The integrated strong box has to satisfy the external equilibrium free body diagram. The external sup-
ports to the strong box are the passive resistance of the Old Alluvium, the dead weight inside the box
above the rotating point and the geotechnical tensile capacity of the back and cross pipe piles. The Geo-
Structural turning back capacity of the integrated strong box utilizes the external passive resistance of
the Old Alluvium (OA) as reaction to maintain the high deflection within the elastic range.

5 ANALYSIS

Plaxis 3D foundation is used to analyze the Double Box for the critical forces during the stage by stage
filling and reclamation.

5.1 Simulation
The procedures for the filling and reclamation for Double Box are as shown in Figure 5. The FEM
analysis must be simulated in accordance to the sequence of construction.
Stage 1 : Installation of pipe piles and capping beams
Stage 2 : Stage by stage filling of boxes
Stage 3: Reclamation and 25 kPa surcharge, water level at RL102.3m landside and RL98.3 at seaside
Stage 4: Consolidation of soft clay under reclaimed Fill

Capping beam Filling into box

Pipe piles

Stage 1 : Installation of pipe piles and capping beams Stage 2 : Stage by stage filling of boxes
Reclamation

Stage 3 : Reclamation and 25kPa surcharge Stage 4 : Consolidation of soft clay under reclaimed Fill
Figure 5. 3D FEM simulation sequence in Double Box
The stage by stage filling of boxes at stage 2 is to design the maximum torsion, maximum bending and
horizontal shear, and maximum tensile force of the capping beam. The stage 3 reclamation is to design
the maximum bending on the pipe piles, maximum bending of the front capping beam and the maximum
tensile force of the P-P interlock.

5.2 Single Box or Double Box

The size of Single Box is controlled by the induced structural stress of the pipe pile. If the induced struc-
tural stress is exceeding the maximum permissible stress for the selected diameter of pipe pile, the Dou-
ble Box pipe pile must be adopted. The maximum cantilever heights for the Single and Double Box are
shown in Figure 6.

(a) Single Box (b) Double Box

Figure 6. Cross-section of Single and Double Box

At a cantilever height of 11.5m, the factor of safety for the front pipe pile of the Single Box is at the
limit of 1.57. Thus, the Double Box is adopted for the cantilever height exceeding 11.5m, as shown in
Table 3.

6 RESULTS OF 3D FEM ANALYSIS

The 3D FEM analysis obtains the maximum bending moment and corresponding axial force of the pipe
piles, maximum tensile force on the P-P interlocks, the maximum structural force of capping beams, and
the mobilization of the shear stress of the surrounding soil.

Equilibrium free body diagram by hand computation of the Double Box is shown in Figure 7. The struc-
tural and geotechnical factor of safety are shown in Table 3.

Top of capping beam Net active pressure Geo-Structural

turning back
Rotating height= 44m

Cantilever height
bending capacity
or fill depth =20m
of integrated
2650kN/m strong box
Seabed
44m

Net passive
38.3m

pressure
Rotating point
Giken line (SPT=40) 9700kN/m
Optimum embedment
into OA = 12m Pile toe line 7.4m
(a) Active and passive wedge of soft clay (b) Equilibrium net active and passive pressure
Figure 7. Geo-Structural turning back capacity of strong box
Table 3. Design of maximum active force and structural and geotechnical factor of safety
Input parameters Factor of safety
Scheme Maximum net Cantilever Rotating Embedment Box size
Structuralb Geotechnicalc
active force on wall height heighta into OA adopted
1B 2650 kN/m 20m 44m 12m Double Box 1.81 1.84
1A 1880 kN/m 11.5m 43.5m 12m Single Box 1.57 1.72
1C 1650 kN/m 9.5m 34.5m 7m Single Box 1.53 1.67
a
Cantilever height plus soft clay thickness
b
Structural factor of safety is for combined maximum bending and corresponding axial force.
c
Geotechnical factor of safety is from external equilibrium.

6.1 Bending Moment of Pipe Pile

The bending moment of the pipe pile during filling is only 70% of the reclamation stage. However, after
reclamation and 25kPa surcharge loading, the bending moment and corresponding axial forces are the
maximum on the front pipe piles of both Single and Double Box. The P-P interlocks restrict this force to
localized location to the four front piles.

Landside Seaside
Fully rigid joint
FEM analysis
Max. BM 2200kN/m
at isolated 3100kNm/m (Compression)
location

85% of Max.
3200kN/m
BM
(Compression)

BM distribution Max. BM Corresponding axial force

of front pipe pile of front pipe pile of front pipe pile
Figure 8. Bending moment and axial compressive force of front piles after reclamation and 25kPa surcharge

The lowest structural factor of safety is the combination of the maximum bending moment and axial
force on the four front piles. The maximum stressed zone is an isolated location as shown in Figure 8.
There is a surplus structural factor of safety of the back, intermediate and cross piles as shown in Table
4. This is a critical design consideration as it defines the serviceability of the strong box at deflection
higher than the calculated value. Structural capacity of the box has some redundancy to absorb certain
amount of the additional active force.

Table 4. Governing design forces of pipe piles

Description Scheme 1B Scheme 1A Scheme 1C
of pile Structural
Axial Bending
Bending Axial Bending Axial factor of safety
force moment
moment force moment force
(kN/pile (kNm/pile
(kNm/pile) (kN/pile) (kNm/pile) (kN/pile) 1B 1A 1C
) )
Front pile 2850 3600 3720 2640 3120 2400 1.81 1.57 1.53
Back pile 1050 4200 2160 3000 2160 1200 2.56 2.32 2.81
Intermediate pile 1450 5500 - - - - 2.30 - -
Cross pile 1000 5500 500 8000 500 7500 2.50 2.06 2.17
Calculated max.
-375mm -385mm -300mm -
deflection
Note : Lowest factor of safety at front piles for combined bending and axial force.
For front and intermediate pile : Ultimate bending and axial capacity = 7070 kNm/pile and 24000
kN/pile
For back and cross pile: Ultimate bending and axial capacity = 5800 kNm/pile and 20000 kN/pile
For deflection, (+) Landward; () Seaward.
6.2 Tensile Force of P-P Interlock
The interlock tension force produced at the cross wall during the reclamation and 25kPa surcharging is
at the maximum. This maximum tension force occurred at the localized location of the two cross wall
interlocks near the corner front pipe pile in both Single and Double Box. The tensile capacity of the P-P
interlock is determined with a full-scale test in National University of Singapore laboratory as shown in
Figure 9, and the corresponding factor of safety is shown in Table 5.

PMAX = 117kN

300mm 50kN
Linear Fit:
Load/displacement = 4.63kN/mm
(Without grout jacket)
10.8mm

Figure 9. P-P Interlock full scale test set-up and force-displacement curve

Table 5. Maximum interlock tension force in cross wall interlocks

Scheme Maximum interlock tension force Structural Factor of Safety
1B 145 kN/m 2.68
1A 155 kN/m 2.52
1C 140 kN/m 2.79
Note: Ultimate tension capacity of P-P interlock from full scale test = 117kN/0.3m = 390 kN/m

6.3 Structural Forces of Capping Beam

The capping beam is subjected to bending, shear, torsion and axial forces during the filling and reclama-
tion. The maximum structural forces for the center box as shown in Figure 10 are tabulated against fill-
ing or reclamation stage as shown in Table 6. The maximum structural forces on capping beams are de-
tailed according to the calculated maximum values either at the filling stage of the individual box or at
the full reclamation stage. Maximum tensile force of the capping beam occurs at the filling stage when
the adjacent box is empty.

Cross beam Tie beam Cross beam Intermediate

Back beam beam
Back beam

Front beam
Front beam

(a) Capping beams in Single box (b) Capping beams in Double box

Q12
1 M22 1 1 M22= Bending moment about axis 1
N2 M12= Torsional moment about axis 2
Q23 M12
M12 Q23 = Horizontal shear force
2 3 2 3 3
M22 Q12 2 Q12 = Vertical shear force
Q23 N2 N2 = Axial force
(c) Capping beam force and orientation ("+" tension and "-" compression)

Figure 10. Capping beam in Single and Double Box, and orientation of force
Table 6. Maximum structural forces of capping beams during filling and reclamation stage
Description Bending moment Torsion Shear force (kN) Axial
of beam M22 (kNm) M12 (kNm) Horizontal Vertical tension force
Support Middle shear, Q23 Shear, Q12 N2 (kN)
Scheme 1B
Front beam 4100 2100 3800 4100 3000 4400
Back beam 3500 1600 3200 3600 2300 4420
Intermediate 1400 600 1100 1800 2600 6500
beam
Cross beam 4800 3100 5800 5350 4500 10000
Scheme 1A
Front beam 4700 3500 4600 4500 4000 4500
Back beam 4000 2400 4500 3800 5000 3100
Tie beam 250 250 150 400 2200 12000
Cross beam 4500 4100 3500 3200 4500 10000
Scheme 1C
Front beam 4200 2500 5000 4400 2600 4000
Back beam 3350 3200 5000 4000 3600 4300
Tie beam 400 400 100 150 2100 11900
Cross beam 4000 4000 4750 4900 4900 11800
Note : Filling stage Reclamation stage

6.4 Deflection Curves and Rotational Strain

The calculated rotational strain on the seawall is an average 0.87% of H as shown in Table 7.

Table 7. Calculated rotational strain of three critical sections

Max. horizontal Cantilever Rotating point below Calculated
Scheme
deflection height top of capping beama rotational strain
1B 375mm 20m 44m 0.85% of H
1A 385mm 11.5m 43.5m 0.89% of H
1C 300mm 9.5m 34.5m 0.87% of H
a
Calculated rotating height, H, in 3D FEM; For deflection, (+) Landward; () Seaward.

The rotational height H of the Double Box after reclamation and surcharging of 25kPa are shown in
Figure 11. The maximum imposed strain within the potential failure wedge of soft clay is 0.80% at pas-
sive side and 0.90% at active side which are at the ultimate state.

+0.5% +0.9% +1.3% (Localized ) '+'Tension

Deflection +0.03 +0.09 +0.10 
+0.3% '-'Compression
375mm Rigidity of capping beam Top of capping beam
Box fill (+) Clockwise toward
Rotating height, H

-0.80%
20m

weight seaside from vertical

-0.5%
= 44m

44m

Rotational = Deflection (%)

strain H

Rotating point Rotating point

OA passive (Intersection of two tangents)
resistance Embedment = 12m Giken line (SPT=40)
Pile toe line Pile toe line
(a) Calculated deflection of Double box (b) Calculated imposed strain of Double box

Figure 11. Deflection and imposed strain after reclamation and surcharging of 25kPa

7 EXTERNAL EQUILIBRIUM

The geotechnical external equilibrium controls the external stability of the box structure. The generated
forces in the overturning mechanism of the Double Box is shown in Figure 12. The OA passive re-
sistance is the predominant resistance against the overturning of the box. The interface friction of back
and cross pipe piles, and the weight of the box also contribute to the resisting moment against overturn-
ing. The optimum OA embedment depth of the box which maintains the box in external equilibrium and
geotechnical factor of safety are shown in Table 8.

Table 8 shows that the depth of embedment into OA is near the optimum depth. The external equilibri-
um factor of safety is lower than the Plaxis 3D Phi-c reduction. In the Plaxis 3D Phi-c reduction, the
elastic turning back bending capacity of the integrated box is resisting the rotational failure. The site
factor of safety is probably slightly higher than the external equilibrium factor of safety as the point of
rotation is conservatively assumed to be at the pile toe instead of the rotating point.

Landside B Seaside where

HTL RL102.3
LTL RL98.3 FS = Factor of safety against overturning
Reclaimed FILL Pa = Total active force
Pp = Total passive force
Total active Seabed W = Box fill weight
Soft clay

pressure Fsb = Tensile force of back wall

Total passive
Fsc = Tensile force of cross wall
pressure
B = Box width
la = Lever arm of total active force from pile
Giken line toe
12m lp = Lever arm of total passive force from pile
toe
Optimum embedment into OA ''O'' (Overturning point) fs = Interface friction between soil and wall
Figure 12. External equilibrium of Double Box

Table 8. Factor of safety against overall failure and Plaxis 3D Phi-c reduction
Scheme Embedment Geotechnical factor of safety by Geotechnical factor of safety
into OA external equilibrium by Plaxis 3D Phi-c reduction
1B 12m 1.84 2.33
1A 12m 1.72 2.17
1C 7m 1.67 2.00

8 CAUCULATED AND INCLINOMETER PROFILE OF SEAWALL (SCHEME 1B BOX NO.

1/41 TO 63/64)

The observed seawall movement at the critical section of 20m cantilever height in 24m of soft clay for
the Double Box no 07/47 is examined. There is a set of three inclinometers IW4711, IW0714, and
IW0703 installed inside the pipe pile at back, intermediate and front wall respectively, as shown in Fig-
ure 13. The observed seawall movement is compared to the calculated deflection as shown in Table 9.
The other inclinometer results for IW0103, IW0503 and IW4412 are also summarized in Table 10.

Table 9. Calculated deflection and inclinometer readings for Double Box 07/47
Calculated values Max. inclinometer readings
Behaviour Front Intermediate Back Front pile Intermediate pile Back pile
pile pile pile IW0703 IW0714 IW4711
Deflection 370mm 370mm 375mm 311mm 422mm 264mm
Rotation at capping beam +0.10 +0.09 +0.03 +0.03 +0.03 0.10
Rotational strain 0.86% 0.86% 0.87% 0.77% 1.03% 0.64%
Rotating height, H 43m 43m 43m 40.5m 41m 41m
Rotating point to design toe level 12.3m 12.3m 12.3m - - -
Rotating point to - - - 12.9m 12m 12m
as-built pile toe level
Note: Deflection at capping beam of seawall = Rotational strain % of H.
Deflection: (+) Landward; () Seaward.
Rotation: (+) clockwise toward seaside from vertical; () counterclockwise toward landside from vertical.
Table 10. Inclinometer reading of deflection and rotational strain
Max. inclinometer readings
Behaviour Front pile Back pile
IW0103 IW0503 IW4412
Deflection 203mm 319mm 171mm
Rotation at capping beam +0.15 +0.40 0.10
Rotational strain 0.64% 0.84% 0.46%
Rotating height, H 31.5m 38m 37.2m
Rotating point to 12.2m 12.9m 7m
as-built pile toe level
Note: Deflection at capping beam of seawall = Rotational strain % of H;
Deflection: (+) Landward; () Seaward;
Rotation: (+) clockwise toward seaside from vertical; () counterclockwise toward landside from vertical.

Based on the deflections derived from the inclinometers results, the rotational strains are shown in Table
9 and 10. The deflection is a maximum of 1.03% of H at IW0714 and a minimum of 0.46% of H at
IW4412 with an average of 0.73% of H, and is higher than BS 8002 advisory deflection value of the
0.5% of H (H is rotating height). As the pipe piles are embedded into sufficient or optimum depth in Old
Alluvium, the calculated and inclinometer profile are indicative of the negligible movement below the ro-
tating point. The inclinometer profiles as shown in Figure 13 confirm that the structural box is behaving
according to the intended design. There is a rigid connection between capping beam and pipe pile. The
deflection profile also shows the maximization of the bending capacity of the pipe pile by the rigid cap-
ping beam connection and the optimum depth into the Old Alluvium. The response of the deflection pro-
file at the early stage of reclamation also suggests that there is reasonable tightness of the grouted gap of
the P-P interlock.

Back wall Intermediate wall Front wall Definition of rotating point

& rotational strain

Deflection: (+) Landward; () Seaward;

Rotation: (+) clockwise toward seaside from vertical;
() counterclockwise toward landside from vertical.

Figure 13. Observed deflection by inclinometers

9 HORIZONTAL DEFLECTION OF SEAWALL BY INCLINOMETER READING

The horizontal deflection at the capping beam (Scheme 1B box 01/41 to 63/64) from the period of com-
pletion of the installation of the pipe piles to the completion of reclamation and all construction activities
are shown by the six inclinometers in Figure 14. Only one inclinometer IW0714 exceeds the predicted
calculated deflection of 375mm by 39mm and is stable at 414mm. It is difficult to explain the high
movement of the intermediate pipe pile of IW0714 when the maximum movement of the front pile
IW0703 is 307mm and the back pile IW4711 is 265mm. Theoretically the massive capping beam
should maintain the deflection of the double box at a single value. The remaining three inclinometers
show the deflection of the capping beam is varying from 163mm to 314mm.

Figure 14. Horizontal deflection at capping beam of seawall for Double box (Box no. 1/41 to 63/64)

The long-term inclinometer behaviour shows stability with a general trend that the seawall is moving
towards the landside by a magnitude of 4mm to 22mm. Due to the consolidating 44m active wedge on
the back pipe pile wall, the integrated box is forced to move towards the landside. At this deflection of
422mm or 1.03% of H, the serviceability of the strong box is within the elastic limit.

Table 11. Summary of horizontal deflection of scheme 1B by inclinometer

Maxi- Date of After completion of Incremental
Scheme Inclinometer mum Maximum all construction activities movement from
deflection deflection Current deflection Date maximum deflection
IW0103 -203mm 28-Sep-12 -181mm 07-Oct-13 +22mm
IW4412 -171mm 15-Jun-12 -163mm 07-Oct-13 +8mm
1B IW0503 -319mm 08-Oct-12 -314mm 07-Oct-13 +5mm
(Box 01/41~63/64) IW0703 -311mm 01-Apr-13 -307mm 07-Oct-13 +4mm
IW0714 -422mm 03-Sep-12 -414mm 07-Oct-13 +8mm
IW4711 -264mm 03-Dec-12 -265mm 07-Oct-13 -1mm
Note: Incremental movement = Current deflection - Maximum deflection; (+) Landward & () Seaward

The observed inclinometer deflection of seawall at scheme 1B box no. 11/51 to 22/62, scheme 1A box
no 23 to 28 and scheme 1C box no. 29 to 39 will be presented in the subsequent paper on reclamation.
The horizontal deflection varies significantly according to the reclamation procedure.
10 HORIZONTAL DEFLECTION OF THE SEAWALL BY SURVEY RESULTS

After all the construction activities have been completed, the survey readings show that horizontal de-
flection of the capping beam has stabilized for the other schemes (Scheme 1B box no 11/51 to 22/62,
Scheme 1A box no 23 to 29 and Scheme 1C box no 29 to 39) as shown in Figure 15. However the max-
imum deflection of 665mm or 1.5% of H is far exceeding the advisory value of 0.5% of H in BS8002.
Despite the high deflection, the seawall is stable. This sudden high incremental deflection occurred dur-
ing the period when clay slurry ponds were created, generating additional lateral forces.

The total pulling back movement of the seawall towards the land by the consolidating active wedge is
shown in Table 12. The long-term survey results show that the seawall is moving landward by a
maximum amount of 32mm with an average of 24mm.

Table 12. Summary of horizontal deflection of scheme 1B, 1A and 1C by surveying

After completion of
Reference Date of Incremental
Maximum all construction activities
Scheme Survey Maximum movement from
deflection Current deflec-
point deflection Date maximum deflection
tion
1506 644mm 24-Aug-12 621mm 25-July-13 +23mm
1B
1806 665mm 06-Sep-12 645mm 25-July-13 +20mm
(Box 11/51 ~ 22/62)
2206 532mm 21-Dec-12 512mm 25-July-13 +20mm
1A 2409 569mm 21-Dec-12 546mm 25-July-13 +23mm
(Box 23~28) 2709 435mm 21-Sep-12 413mm 25-July-13 +22mm
1C 3009 424mm 05-Aug-12 392mm 25-July-13 +32mm
(Box 29~39) 3309 364mm 04-Aug-12 335mm 25-July-13 +29mm
Note: Incremental movement = Current deflection - Maximum deflection; (+) Landward & () Seaward

Figure 15. Deflection of seawall by survey readings

11 CONCLUSION

It was impossible to dredge up the 15m to 32m thick soft clay and replace with a stable sandkey before
seawall construction. Therefore the seawall cannot comply with BS 6349 Part 1 section 51.2.3, BS
8002 section 4.5.3.5.1 and EM1110-2-2503 section 3.18 which advise the removal of the thick soft
clay.

The integrated strong box has to develop the Geo-Structural turning back bending capacity by optimiz-
ing the structural strength of the pipe pile, capping beam, P-P interlock and concrete plug to maintain
the internal equilibrium of the seawall and deflection within the elastic limit. The geotechnical equilibri-
um forces are derived from the passive resistance of Old Alluvium (OA), the tensile capacity of the back
and cross pipe pile wall and the dead weight of the soil mass inside the box. The depth of embedment in-
to Old Alluvium (OA) governs the external equilibrium of the strong box.

The recorded highest deflection of seawall is 665mm or 1.5% of H = 44m (H is the rotating height)
which is higher than the calculated value of 385mm or 0.89 % of H. Inclinometer profiles of seawall
show that the integrated strong box has maximized the bending capacity of the pipe piles by optimal uti-
lization of the capping beam and P-P interlock, and the optimum depth of embedment into Old Alluvium
(OA) and is behaving according to the intended design. The seawall is stable at such a high deflection as
every structural components of the integrated strong box obeys the strength limitation defined by BS
5950, at every points of the box.

The long term stability monitoring also shows that the wall is stable with maximum movement of 32mm
and an average of 24mm towards the landside, after the recorded maximum seaward movement of
665mm.

REFERENCES

Bolton M.D. 1993. Codes, standards and design guides, Proceedings International Conference on Retaining
Structures. Institution of Civil Engineers, Robinson College, Cambridge, July 1992; 387-402, London:
Thomas Telford.
Bolton, M. D. 1996. Geotechnical Design of Retaining Walls. The Structural Engineer 74(21): 365-369.
BS 6349-1 : 1984 Code of Practice for Maritime Structures. British Standard Institution, London.
BS 8004 :1986 Code of Practice for Foundations. British Standard Institution, London.
BS 8002 : 1994 Code of Practice for Earth Retaining Structures. British Standard Institution, London.
BS 8110 : 1997 Structural Use of Concrete - Part 1: Code of Practice for Design and Construction. British
Standard Institutions, London.
BS 5950-1: 2000 Structural Use of Steel Work in Building - Part 1: Code of Practice for Design – Rolled and
Welded Sections. British Standard Institutions, London.
EM 1110-2-2503 :1989 Design of Sheetpile Cellular Structures, Cofferdams and Retaining Structures. U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Washington.
Harold V. Anderson. 2001. Under Water Construction Using Cofferdams. Best Publishing Company, U.S.A.
Malcolm Puller. 1996. Deep Excavations – A Practical manual. 1st Ed., Landon: Thomas Telford.
Silent Piling Technologies. 2008. Giken Seisakusho Co., Ltd, Japan.
Soh, K. K. and Yeo, L. 2009. Design and Performance of Marina Barrage Temporary Cofferdam. Proc., Un-
derground Singapore. Tunneling and Underground Construction Society of Singapore and Center for Soft
Ground Engineering of the National University of Singapore, 176-187.
Soh, K. K., Leong, W. K., Yeo, L., Chew, S. H., Leong, K. W. and He, Z. W. 2013. Deep Soil Mixing Col-
umns as Retaining Structure. Proc., 18th Southeast Asian Geotechnical Conference cum Inaugural
AGSSEA Conference : Advances in Geotechnical Infrastructure. Geotechnical Society of Singapore
(GeoSS), 157-164.