Underground Singapore 2014

Protection of Old Shophouses due to MRT Excavation &

Tunnelling Works on Downtown Line Stage 3 C933

Jacky Poea
Land Transport Authority, Singapore

Hendrie Bernard
Land Transport Authority, Singapore

Gordon Lee
Arup Singapore Pte Ltd

Ng Choon Yeang
Land Transport Authority, Singapore

ABSTRACT: This paper discussed on the procedures of protection measures determined for the old
shophouses in DTL3 C933 based on the impact due to MRT excavation and tunnelling works. The
protection measures were successfully implemented and monitored and it was found that the actual
ground movements were well within the design predicted movements. This was attributed to the
combination of conservative building damage assessments and controlled TBM tunnelling and
excavation performance. This resulted in reducing the impact onto the buildings.

1. INTRODUCTION

The new Downtown Line Stage 3 (DTL3) Mass Rail Transit (MRT) is a fully underground extension
from Downtown Line Stage 1 (DTL1). The alignment runs from DTL1 Chinatown Station through
MacPherson, Bedok Reservoir, Tampines and ending at the East West Line Expo Station. DTL3
comprises of 16 stations and a total route length of approximately 23km including connection to Kim
Chuan Depot.

DTL3 Contract 933 (C933), Bendemeer Station and Associated Tunnels, starts at the interface with the
east end of Contract 935 Jalan Besar Station. The tunnel alignment then runs under a number of public
roads including Jalan Besar, Foch Road, Lavender Street and Kallang Bahru. C933 then terminates at
the west end of Contract 932A Geylang Bahru Station. An overview of C933 is shown in Figure 1.

Kallang River
Escape Shaft

Geylang
Bharu Station
Allenby Road
Escape Shaft
Jalan Besar
Station

Figure 1. Overview of Bendemeer Station and Associated Tunnels.

The variable nature of Singapore’s geology presents a number of key challenges for C933; deep
excavation in the Old Alluvium soils and tunnelling in the Kallang Formation, Old Alluvium soils and
mixed faced. The typical geological profile along Jalan Besar is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Typical Geological Profile along Jalan Besar.

Ground induced movements due to deep excavation and tunnelling in dense urban areas pose major
construction risks in particular damages to sensitive conservation and heritage shophouses along Jalan
Besar and Lavender Street. Greenfield surface and sub-surface ground movements due to the C933
excavation and tunnelling works were predicted and the buildings along the alignment were assessed
for possible building damage. For shophouses requiring protection due to either not passing the
building damage assessment criteria or as precautionary measures, a number of strategies were
implemented. These included comprehensive building protection propping and instrumentation
monitoring.. Affected stakeholders were also briefed and kept informed regularly during the course of
the construction works.

2. OLD SHOPHOUSES ALONG JALAN BESAR

The Jalan Besar Conservation Area has a rich history and projects much old world charm. It is
characterised by its numerous clan associations, eating houses, entertainment outlets, engineering
workshops, hostels, places of worship and small offices that contribute to its vibrancy. Although the
area has witnessed numerous changes over the years, the distinctive streetscape of Jalan Besar remains
familiar and memorable to many locals (Yeng, 2010).

The main roads of Jalan Besar and Lavender Street are largely lined with two-storey shophouses with
the distinct five footway feature. There are also a handful of modern four-storey shop/flat
developments. The five footways are characterised as pedestrian walkways indented into the ground
floor of shophouses from the road with overhanging upper floors. The architecture of the shophouses
reflect the wide variety of architectural styles that were prevalent in Singapore then – Late,
Transitional and Art Deco styles are evident (Yeng, 2010).

Figure 3. 257A-B Jalan Besar Present (left) and Past (right). (Yeng, 2010)

3. BUILDING DAMAGE ASSESSMENTS

There are three broad categories of building damage which typically, as building foundation
movements increase, will progress from visual appearance or aesthetics to serviceability and then
finally to function and stability.

For the empirical prediction of ground movements due to tunnelling it is assumed that the transverse
ground settlement profile above a single tunnel is of normal probability distribution curve, or Gaussian
form. This will generally produce a greenfield settlement trough. Ground deformation is assumed to
take place at constant volume, so its overall magnitude can be specified as a ‘volume ground loss’ at
the tunnel. For the combined effect of multiple tunnels, the movements induced by each tunnel are
superimposed. For the prediction of ground movements around deep excavations advanced methods of
numerical analyses, based on the finite element method, are widely used such as Plaxis and Oasys
FREW computer programs. At areas where the ground movements are influenced by both tunnelling
and excavations combined effects are considered by superimposing the individual effects.

Comparison with field observations shows that successful ground movements prediction requires high
quality soil samples and measurement of the small strain stiffness properties of the various soil layers
encountered. The magnitude and in particular, the distribution of ground movements can be highly
dependent on the non-linear stress-strain response of the soils. As such, numbers of SI (Site
Investigation) & samples were collected using thin wall sampler method to minimize the disturbance.
These samples were then tested and results were used for the design and impact assessment.
The LTA Civil Design Criteria for Road and Rail Transit Systems prescribes a three staged approach
to the assessment of damage to buildings for ground movements due to deep excavation and tunneling.
This is shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4. Flowchart showing Three Staged Damage Assessment to Buildings (LTA, 2010)

In the first stage a very simple and conservative approach is adopted for the preliminary assessment.
By drawing contours of ground surface settlement along the route of the proposed alignment it is
possible to eliminate all buildings experiencing a maximum slope of 1:500 and a settlement of less
than 10mm (for immediate short-term construction movements). This approach is conservative
because it neglects any interaction between the stiffness of the buildings and the ground. However, it
should be noted that for buildings under mixed foundations or buildings sensitive to settlements, this
approach is only applicable if the components of the foundation system are identified and the effects
of differential movement considered. The preliminary assessment described is based on the slope and
settlement of the ground surface and provides a conservative initial basis for identifying those
buildings along the route requiring further study.

In the second stage the building is represented by a simple beam whose foundations are assumed to
follow the displacement of the ground in accordance with the greenfield site assumption. The
maximum resultant tensile strains are calculated for both the hogging and sagging settlements. This
result is then plotted on the relevant interaction diagram of deflection ratio versus horizontal strains.
The resultant damage category is compared to the building damage classification table first put
forward by Burland et al. (1977) as shown in Figure 5. This table defines six categories of building
damage, numbered 0 to 5 in increasing severity. Categories 0, 1 and 2 relate to ‘aesthetic’ damage, 3
and 4 to ‘serviceability’ damage and 5 represents damage affecting ‘stability’.

In assessing the classification of potential damage, it will be taken that the damage classification is
acceptable if it is categorised as slight or below, i.e. Categories 0, 1 or 2. This limit has been chosen as
all these categories relate only to aesthetic damage. No serviceability damage or damage affecting the
stability of the structure will be accepted. This second stage assessment, though considerably more
detailed than the preliminary assessment is usually still very conservative. In the majority of cases the
likely actual damage will be less than the assessed category. The reason for this is that in calculating
the tensile strains, the building is assumed to have no stiffness so that it conforms to the greenfield
settlement trough. In reality though, the inherent stiffness of the building will be such that that the
foundations will interact with the supporting ground and tend to reduce both the deflection ratio and
the horizontal strain.

Building damage classification (for masonry walls, cladding and finishes)

Predicted Description of damage Approx. width Limiting tensile
degree of of cracks (mm) strain (%)
damage
0 Negligible Hairline cracks. < 0.1 0 to 0.05
1 Very slight Fine cracks that are easily treated 0.1 to 1 0.05 to 0.075
during normal decoration. Damage
generally restricted to internal wall
finishes. Close inspection may reveal
some cracks in external brickwork or
masonry.
2 Slight Cracks easily filled. Redecoration 1 to 5 0.075 to 0.15
probably required. Recurrent cracks
can be masked by suitable linings.
Cracks may be visible externally and
some repointing may be required to
ensure weather-tightness. Doors and
windows may stick slightly.
3 Moderate The cracks may require some opening 5 to 15 0.15 to 0.3
up and can be patched by a mason. or several cracks
Repointing of external brickwork ad > 3mm
possibly a small amount of brickwork
may need to be replaced. Doors and
windows sticking. Service pipes may
fracture. Weather tightness often
impaired.
 Building damage classification (for masonry walls, cladding and finishes)
Predicted Description of damage Approx. width Limiting tensile
degree of of cracks (mm) strain (%)
damage
4 Severe Extensive repair work involving 15 to 25 > 0.3
breaking-out and replacing sections of but also depends
walls, especially over doors and on number of
windows. Windows and door frames cracks
distorted, floor sloping noticeably.
Walls leaning or bulging noticeably,
some loss of bearing in beams. Service
pipes disrupted.
5 Very severe This requires a major repair job > 25mm
involving partial or complete but also depends
rebuilding. Beams lose bearing; walls on number of
lean badly and require shoring. cracks
Windows broken with distortion.
Danger of instability.

Figure 5. Building Damage Classification after Burland et al. (1977)

If the building damage assessment is not satisfactory after the second stage assessment then a detailed
third stage evaluation of the structure will be required. The approach is a refinement of the second
stage assessment, but particular features are considered in more detail. Each case will be different and
will have to be considered on its own merits. Factors that could be taken more closely into account
would include the following; soil structure interaction, structural continuity, foundation systems,
construction sequence, orientation to alignment etc.

Greenfield surface and sub-surface ground movements due to the C933 excavation and tunnelling
works were predicted. Afterwhich each building along the alignment was assessed for possible
building damage based on the described methodology above.

4. FOUNDATION DETECTION WORKS

It was not uncommon for building as-built foundation record information to be missing or not entirely
accurate along the C933 tunnel alignment. There are several methods which are widely carried out for
investigating the foundations of buildings. Investigation works were carried out at a number of
buildings along the tunnel alignment as a means to verify the type of foundations and to ascertain
whether it impedes the TBM tunnel construction. Along the west drive TBM tunnel alignment, two
types of investigation were carried out; seismic logging test and trial pit

As shown in Figure 6, the Bukit Panjang bound tunnel is undercrossing two of the shophouses at
Lavender Street. This required investigation on the pile length to further verify that the pile was not
obstructing the tunnel alignment.
 Figure 6. Location of the Seismic Logging Foundation Investigation Works

In the pile detection works, a seismic logging test was carried out whereby a borehole was advanced
with wash boring method. A hydraulic feed rotary boring machine was used at the chosen location
shown in Figure 8. A PVC pipe with 50mm inner diameter was then installed in order to serve as an
access pipe for the seismic logging equipment. A schematic diagram of the seismic logging set-up and
logging result are shown in Figures 8 and 9 respectively. The logging results showed that the toe level
of the bored pile was estimated to be at 13.5m below the ground level and was expected to be
approximately 9m above the Bukit Panjang bound TBM tunnel.

Figure 7. Borehole and column (supported by bored pile) layout plan on site.
 Figure 8. Schematic Diagram of Seismic Logging Figure 9. Seismic Logging Result at Lavender Street
Set-up

The second investigation works comprised of trial pits was carried out at one of the shophouses at
Jalan Besar. A trench deep enough to expose the formation of the building foundation was
constructed. Once the rigid pavement had been removed, a careful mining process was carried out to
expose the foundation. As shown in Figure 11, the findings showed the existence of bakau pile
foundations. Hence it was confirmed that the foundations were of shallow type and will not impede
the tunnel construction. In the case if there are RC micro piles present, further investigation must be
carried out as described in the previous method.

Trial pit

Figure 10. Proposed Location of Trial Pit Foundation Figure 11. Trial Pit showing Bakau Pile Foundation
Investigation Works at Jalan Besar at Jalan Besar

5. BUILDING PROTECTION MEASURES

Building protection measures were required for many of the shophouses along Jalan Besar. In
particular for buildings that had undergone internal Alteration & Addition (A&A) works and did not
pass the damage assessment criteria. The standard practice in Singapore for shophouse A&A works is
typically to remove the original internal floors and rebuild the internal structure including slabs and
columns on micropiles. The original perimeter walls and party walls are not underpinned and remain
supported by the original shallow footings. Typically, the new internal micro-piled structure is not
physically connected to the perimeter walls or party walls. Differential settlement between the party
walls and the internal piled structure can be accommodated by slippage without any undue distress to
either the wall or the internal structure. However, this is a somewhat idealised theory on how the
structure will behave. Nonetheless, it is impossible to predict with any certainty how the building will
absorb the differential settlements.

The buildings that did not pass the damage assessment criteria often were resulting from excessive
differential settlement between the five-foot way façade and the rest of the building. It was not
possible to prevent the differential settlement without costly and disruptive underpinning of the five-
foot way façade. It was proposed not to install any intrusive internal propping systems. Therefore the
strategy adopted was to allow the differential settlements to occur and install adjustable props. This
was to stabilize the five-foot way façade and provide tie beams at first floor level to anchor the base of
the five-foot way façade to the main building. In addition, extensive monitoring instrumentation was
implemented and an observational approach to these buildings was adopted. Regular inspections
throughout the construction period were carried out.

Two types of tie beam were specified depending on the arrangement of the existing building structure:

 Steel Universal Beam ties at first storey level between the outer facade columns and the internal
columns where the five-foot walkway is a ground-bearing slab; and
 Steel angle ties where the five-foot walkway is a suspended slab with existing reinforced concrete
tie beams between the outer façade columns and the internal columns.

Furthermore, a number of shophouses that passed the damage assessment criteria also had building
protection measures installed to address certain pre-existing defects or conditions. A typical
arrangement for building protection propping is shown in Figure 12.

With these protection measures, the building owners were assured that the structure remained stable
but some minor aesthetic cracks might occur during the construction works. The cracks were
monitored and appropriate repairs were carried out as the works progressed.

Figure 12. Typical Arrangement for Building Protection Propping.

5.1 Additional Contingency Building Protection Measures.

From the visual inspections, a number of shophouses were found to be in particularly poor condition.
The defects recorded included very large structural cracks and large areas of concrete spalling. These
buildings were deemed to have possible structural damage and were potentially unsafe. From the
Burland Damage Classification Table, the existing building damage category was Very Severe. In
addition, one of them was identified to be a particularly sensitive building due to its very close
proximity to the station excavation works. As such, enhanced strengthening and protection works,
shown in Figures 13 and 14, were carried out prior to the commencement of the excavation and bored
tunnelling works.

Figure 13. Enhanced Building Protection Measures (A-Frame Propping) Near Station Excavation Works.

Figure 14. Typical Enhanced External Building Protection Measures. (Internal propping also provided)

5.2 Additional Five Footway Contingency Building Protection Measures

A number of shophouses showed signs of the five footway columns having considerable pre-existing
tilt. There were concerns that this would be further exasperated during the adjacent excavation and the
undercrossing tunnelling works. A number of recommendations, in addition to the installed building
protection measures, were considered. It was decided as a further contingency protection measure to
install a temporary five footway propping system at each identified shophouse. The propping system
comprised of a steel casing wrapped around the five footway column joined to a steel frame that was
then tied into the existing shophouse frontage. Its purpose was to restrain any potential differential
movement of the five footway column. During the installation, there was gap between the existing five
footway column and the steel casing due to the uneven surface of the column. The gap was filled with
sand to ensure that the steel casing was effectively in contact with the column. The purpose of sand
infill on the gap and use of mansory bolts on the steel frame was also to prevent damages during future
reinstatement. The propping system was installed at 3 shophouses along Jalan Besar and is shown in
Figures 15 and 16.
 Figure 15. Five Footway Building Protection System at Jalan Besar.

Figure 16. Photo of Five Footway Building Protection System at Jalan Besar.

6. INSTRUMENTATION & MONITORING OF THE BUILDING PROTECTION PROPPINGS

Instrumentation comprising of strain gauges was installed to the building protection proppings,
including the five-footway proppings for close monitoring of the loadings in the propping systems.
Two sensors were installed for the instrumented props to measure the changes in strain values. The
load carried by the props was estimated by the changes in strain values using the formula below:
  
 , (1)

 raw strain = strain initial,(ave) - strain,(ave) (2)

 strain =  raw strain * calibration factor (3)

Load (F) =  strain * E * Area (4)

where: E = Modulus of steel (205 GPa)

The figures below shows the typical strain gauges location installed on the props:

Axis XX Axis XX

Strain Strain
Gauges Gauges

Axis YY Axis YY

Figure 17. Typical strain gauges arrangement.

TBM approaching TBM passed

Figure 18. Plot of Strain Gauge for One of the Propping at Jalan Besar.

As shown in Figure 18 the loading in the propping for one of the shophouses at Jalan Besar over time
was minimal. It was seen that even during the period when the TBM was approaching the building and
then passing the building, the changes to loading was almost negligible. The above load trend was
found to be quite typical for the shophouses along Jalan Besar and Lavender Street.

As the construction works are still ongoing, it is prudent to estimate the amount of load carried by the
building protection proppings prior to the removal of the proppings. Should any proppings be heavily
loaded, structural strengthening to the building may have to be considered before the proppings can be
removed. The proppings are to be removed only when tunnelling works has been completed and shall
be done in a controlled manner (stages) as shown in the flowchart below:

STAGE 1: EVALUATION & ASSESSMENT

 Check and ensure that the building movements are stable.
 Check the loading in strain gauges are within allowable limits.
 Visual inspection of the building.

STAGE 2: PARTIAL UNLOADING OF PROPS

 Unload half of the props per bay with a gap of 5mm between
timber block and beam soffit.
 Monitor gaps and the building for 2 months.
 Gaps between props and beam soffit stable.
 Strain gauges in remaining props stable and within allowable
limits.
 Visual inspection of the building.

STAGE 3: FULL UNLOADING OF PROPS

 Unload remaining props per bay with a gap of 5mm between
timber block and beam soffit.
 Monitor gaps and the building for 2 months.
 Gaps between props and beam soffit stable.
 Visual inspection of the building.

STAGE 4: REMOVAL OF PROPS

 Remove proppings and monitor building.
 Reinstate and make good of the affected area.

7. CONCLUSION

Ground induced movements due to deep excavation and tunnelling in dense urban areas pose a major
construction risk. In particular, damages to the sensitive conservation and heritage shophouses along
Jalan Besar and Lavender Street. During the design stage visual inspections were firstly carried out to
identify the existing conditions of the buildings along the C933 alignment. This was to see whether
there were any pre-existing building defects present. Building damage assessments were then carried
out to ascertain the effects of MRT deep excavation and tunnelling works. The assessment approach
adopted was quite conservative as buildings were often assumed to conform to the greenfield surface
and sub-surface ground movements. The limitation of the availability and accuracy of building as-built
record drawings was a challenge. Foundation detection works were carried out to verify the type of
foundations and to ascertain whether it will impede the TBM tunnel construction. For shophouses
requiring building protection measures, due to either not passing the assessment criteria or as
precautionary measures, a number of strategies were adopted. These included comprehensive building
protection propping and instrumentation monitoring. Different protection systems were adopted
depending on the pre-existing condition of the buildings. Even under the mixed face or Kallang
Formation where immediate settlement may occur due to the radial overcut during the excavation by
the TBM, it was found that the actual ground movements were well within the design predicted
movements. This was attributed to the combination of conservative building damage assessments and
controlled TBM tunnelling and excavation performance. This resulted in reducing the impact onto the
buildings. It is important to understand the loadings carried by the building protection measures before
their removal as for those heavily loaded, measures such as structural strengthening may need to be
considered.
8. REFERENCES

1. Authority, L. T. (2010). Civil Design Criteria. Singapore.

2. Burland, J. B. (1995). Assessment of risk of damage to buildings due to tunnelling and

excavation. Proceedings of 1st International Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical
Engineering, IS-Tokyo, Japan. 495-546.

3. Burland, J. B. (1977). Behaviour of foundations and structures – SOA Report, Session 2, Proc.
9th Int. Conf. SMFE, Tokyo, 2. 495 – 546.

4. Yeng, H. C. (2010, December). Retrieved from

http://www.ura.gov.sg/skyline/skyline10/skyline10-06/html/p05.html