APEC Seminar 2011

State-of-the-Practice of Deep Excavation Works in Malaysia, Taiwan and Hong Kong

Figure 15 shows the comparison of analysis results with excavation experience in Taipei. In Figure 15(a),
the computed toe movement for the case compares fairly with those proposed for the central areas of the
Taipei Basin (Hwang et al. 2007). In Figure 15(b), on the other hand, the computed maximum wall deflections
almost follow the corresponding reference envelope proposed by Hwang & Moh (2007). Should analysis
results correspond well to the wall behavior on the site, it appears that the installed buttress and RC panel are
not as effective as expected.
Figure 16 presents comparison of computed and measured convergence before and after the
implementation of mitigation measures. The convergence becomes stable even during the drilling of the up-
track and common duct tunnels, indicative of efficiency for the measures. A fair agreement is obtained
between analysis results and measurements.

Toe movement (mm) Maximum wall deflection,  (mm)

0 10 20 30 40 50 1 10 100 1000
4=12mm 4=20mm
0 1
Depth of Excavation, D (m)

Length of Wall

Depth of Excavation, D (m)

5 L=24m
Envelope
for K1 Zone

10
L=30m 10
15 Envelope
for TK2 Zone
L=35m
20
This Study -PLAXIS
25
100
This study 100=800mm
(L = 32.5m, D= 15.9m)
(a) Toe movement (b) Reference envelope

Figure 15: Comparison of numerical analyses with Taipei’s excavation experience

30
25
20
Up-Track 15
Convergence (mm)

Shield 10
Tunneling 5
0
-5
-10
-15
-20
-25
-30
Struts Removal
B2 Slab Construction
Dig

Removed

Strut 4 Removed

Strut 3 Removed

Strut 2 Removed

Strut 1 Removed
Dig &

2009/10/12
2009/10/18
Base2009/10/24
2009/10/30
2009/11/11
Strut 5 2009/11/17
2009/11/23
B42009/11/29
2009/12/11
2009/12/17
2009/12/23
2009/12/29

2010/10/13
2010/10/19
2010/10/25
2009/7/20
2009/7/26
2009/8/1
2009/8/7
2009/8/13
2009/8/19
2009/8/25
2009/8/31
2009/9/6
2009/9/12
2009/9/18
Stage 52009/9/24
2009/9/30
2009/10/6

2009/11/5

2009/12/5

2010/1/4
2010/1/10
2010/1/16
2010/1/22
2010/1/28
2010/2/3
2010/2/9
2010/2/15
2010/2/21
2010/2/27
2010/3/5
2010/3/11
2010/3/17
2010/3/23
2010/3/29
2010/4/4
2010/4/10
2010/4/16
2010/4/22
2010/4/28
2010/5/4
2010/5/10
2010/5/16
2010/5/22
2010/5/28
2010/6/3
2010/6/9
2010/6/15
2010/6/21
2010/6/27
2010/7/3
2010/7/9
2010/7/15
2010/7/21
2010/7/27
2010/8/2
2010/8/8
2010/8/14
2010/8/20
2010/8/26
2010/9/1
2010/9/7
2010/9/13
2010/9/19
2010/9/25
2010/10/1
2010/10/7
Invert Construction
Construction

Construction

Construction
Constrution

Reshoring
Dig
Slab

B
Slab

B3 Slab

B1 Slab
& Strut
Stage 1~4

Strut
Final

A C
CP2005AB
CP2005BC alert level ±15mm
CP2005CA - Horizontal action level ±25mm D
CP2005DB - Vertical
Plaxis - Horizontal Displacement
Plaxis - Vertical Displacement

Figure 16: Comparison of computed and measured tunnel convergence before and after mitigation implementation

26
APEC Seminar 2011 State-of-the-Practice of Deep Excavation Works in Malaysia, Taiwan and Hong Kong

4 CONCLUDING REMARKS

Several conclusions can be drawn for the case studies of the paper as follows:
(1) To reduce excavation-induced wall deflection and its consequent effects on adjacent structures or
facilities, buried RC panel and buttress have been widely applied to the urban excavation in
Taiwan.
(2) The efficiency of the panel or buttress can be recognized through comparison of the induced wall
deflection with respect to the corresponding reference envelope that is developed under the
condition of green field and no ground improvement or auxiliary supports (e.g. Hwang & Moh
2007).
(3) Though 2-D or more sophisticated numerical schemes provide access to look into the soil-
substructure interaction between the deep excavation site and the adjacent underground
constructions, it is always noted that a quality monitoring system is of equal importance to the
subject. It provides invaluable feedback data that could support and enhance not only analyses or
design but engineering judgment as well.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Permission for publishing this paper from Moh and Associates, Inc. and Department of Taipei Rapid Transit
System of Taipei City Government is gratefully appreciated. Special thanks to Dr. R.N. Hwang, Mr. T.C. Su,
Mr. C.R. Chou and Ms. C.H. Chuang who help prepare the manuscript.

REFERENCES

Hwang, R.N., Moh, Z.C., & Wang, C.H. 2007. Toe Movements of Diaphragm Walls and Correction of
Inclinometer Readings. Journal of GeoEngineering, 2(2): 61-70.
Hwang, R.N. & Moh, Z.C. 2007. Deflection Paths and Reference Envelopes for Diaphragm Walls in the
Taipei Basin. Journal of GeoEngineering, 2(1): 1-12.
PLAXIS. 2002. Plaxis 2D - Version 8, Plaxis b.v.
TRTS. 2011. Department of Rapid Transit System Web Site, http://www.dorts.gov.tw/.

27
APEC Seminar 2011 State-of-the-Practice of Deep Excavation Works in Malaysia, Taiwan and Hong Kong

A Case History of Diaphragm Wall Trench Failure Counter

Measures Applied in Taipei Loose Ground
John Chien-chung Li, Kung-tai Chou, Kweishr Li
CECI Engineering Consultants, Inc., Taiwan
Nientzu Yu
Department of Rapid Transit Systems, Taipei City Government, Taipei, Taiwan

ABSTRACT

The Taipei Rapid Transit System (TRTS) Luzhou Line adopts the practice of diaphragm wall
trench stable analysis in order to analyze the safety factor of excavation trenches affected by
loose ground and slurry condition. Part of a TRTS station located in a park is a suitable site to
execute a trial test to confirm the analysis results and effectiveness of the different counter
measures. A number of counter measures for preventing trench failure, such as “enhancement of
the slurry quality”, “installation of steel plate to spread the construction equipment load”,
“increasing the fluid water head difference between slurry level and ground water level”, “using
different grouting patterns”, etc., were applied step by step and evaluated for their effectiveness in
order to apply the most suitable counter methods for the diaphragm walling near adjacent
buildings so as to attain safe and economical aims.

1 BACKGROUND

The phenomenon of underground retaining wall trench failure is normally due to improper operational
disturbances of the soft ground in high ground water alluvium. For this project, as a precaution, many
diaphragm wall trench collapse case histories of other job sites were noted and referenced prior to
construction; while on the other hand, there have been several reported successes of diaphragm walling near
the project site. Nonetheless, this project adopts basic counter measures to improve the stability of the
diaphragm wall trench, and in addition, through a diaphragm wall trench stable analysis, analyzes the safety
factor of the excavation trench affected by loose ground and slurry condition, in order to develop dewatering
measures and different grouting patterns to keep the trench stable.

2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The Luzhou Line of the Taipei Rapid Transit System (TRTS) travels through the districts of Sanchong and
Luzhou in New Taipei City (refer to Figure 2-1), surrounded by river and floodway, and prone to flooding
since these districts are in low-lying areas (refer to Figure 2-2). In fact, serious trench collapses of the
diaphragm walling occurred at O45 and O47 stations (refer to Figure 2-3), while the diaphragm walling of
O43, O44, and O46 stations proceeded smoothly. For the CL700A construction contract, the construction and
effectiveness of various counter measures applied on O47 and O46 stations as performed by the main
contractor and same diaphragm wall subcontractor were inspected and reviewed. The CL700A construction
project includes O47 and O46 stations plus their connecting tunnels, and the ground condition of the job site is
typical Taipei alluvium, which consists of clay and sand interlayer as shown in Figure 2-4. The ground water

29
APEC Seminar 2011 State-of-the-Practice of Deep Excavation Works in Malaysia, Taiwan and Hong Kong

level of the site is at GL-1.0m to GL-2.5m, and in general, the serious trench collapses occurred at loose sandy
sub-layer (SL 5).

O43 Luzhou
O44

O45

O46

O47

Sanchong

Figure 2-1: Location of TRTS Luzhou Line

Figure 2-2: Low elevation of job site Figure 2-3: Serious diaphragm wall (D/W) trench collapses and their
( Flood Area -Historic Map) contractor at Luzhou Line

3 DIAPHRAGM WALL INSTALATION

A 0.6m thickness and 27m depth diaphragm wall is adopted for the 13.8m excavation depth of the O47 station
entrance. Considering to increasing the stiffness of retaining wall in order to reduce the wall deflection due to
station excavation, a 1.2m thickness and 39m depth diaphragm wall is applied for the 20.8m excavation depth
of the main station. A total of 114 diaphragm wall panels for O47 station are arranged as shown in Figure 3-1,
and a total of 28 diaphragm wall panels (24% of the 114 panels) were causing serious collapse during wall
installation. Various types of counter measures were applied step by step in seven construction stages (refer to
Figure 3-2), and their effectiveness is reviewed and described as follows.

30
APEC Seminar 2011 State-of-the-Practice of Deep Excavation Works in Malaysia, Taiwan and Hong Kong

Figure 2-4: Ground conditions of CL700A

Collapse panels / Total panels: 28 / 114 (24%)

Thickness=0.6m, Length= 148.4m, Panel length=3~6m
Diaphragm wall construction period:
Thickness=1.2m, Length=468.5m, Panel length=3~5.6m
2002.6~2003.6

Figure 3-1: Diaphragm wall panel arrangement and collapses of O47 station

31
APEC Seminar 2011 State-of-the-Practice of Deep Excavation Works in Malaysia, Taiwan and Hong Kong

4th stage
2nd stag
e

a ge
st 3r d
sta
h
4t ge ge
sta
t
1s 5th stage

6th stage 6th stage

7th stage

Figure 3-2: Different construction stages of O47 station diaphragm walling

3.1 Normal operation (1st stage)

Normal diaphragm wall operation was adopted on the site at the initial stage and slurry viscosity was
generally controlled at 28 - 36 sec. The first two diaphragm wall panels of the trench collapsed, which caused
adjacent ground settlement; hence, the guide wall was moved and diaphragm wall installation was suspended.
Several factors, including ground conditions and operation management might affect the trench stability as
summarized and shown in Table 3-1. However, emergency actions, such as grouting and backfill, were
applied immediately after trench collapse on site. It is difficult to identify the actual impact factors which
caused the trench collapse in accordance with the available information obtained from the site.

Table 3-1: Factors Affecting Trench Stability

Item Easily Cause Trench Failure Factors
Ground condition High ground water alluvium, improper diaphragm walling operation will
easily cause trench failure at: (1) soft ground, such as loose density sandy
soil or sensitive cohesive soil; (2) high permeability soft ground.
Ground water level The low different pressure head between slurry and ground water level.
Slurry quality Improper slurry gravity control.
Long installation period Long length panel, deep wall depth.
Panel shape and size Difficult operation on corner panel disturbs ground, and needs a long
installation period.
Excavation depth Deep wall needs a long installing period.
Operating skill Unstable operation disturbs ground.
Surcharge loading Non-uniform load near construction equipment.
Job site near road, or railway.
Others Partiality loading, ground movement, etc.

Cost expenses for grouting the full loose sandy layer at both sides of the diaphragm wall before walling
were evaluated and summarized in Table 3-2. Besides expensive grouting, other counter measures such as (1)
enhancement of slurry viscosity and quality control, (2) reducing the interface waiting period between
different construction activities, such as rebar cage installation and tremie concreting, (3) increasing the
different pressure head between slurry and ground water level, and (4) stabilizing the diaphragm wall
operation techniques in order not to disturb the ground, were also adopted. In addition, the most suitable

32
APEC Seminar 2011 State-of-the-Practice of Deep Excavation Works in Malaysia, Taiwan and Hong Kong

grouting pattern, such as grout thickness, space, and depth, need to be determined before construction at areas
near adjacent buildings so as to attain safe and economical aims.
An empty space far away from the existing adjacent buildings was available and suitable to execute trial
tests for various counter measures which would thereby provide useful information about their respective
effectiveness. A number of different counter measures, therefore, were determined to be executed step by step
in order to select the most proper counter measure and to determine the required grouting pattern to be applied
for diaphragm walling near an adjacent building.

Table 3-2: Cost for full grout at all loose ground and actual counter measures
Station Full Grout At All Loose Ground Fee (NT$) Actual Fee Applied on Site (NT$)
O46 62,000,000 0
O47 30,000,000 16,000,000(53%)
Total 92,000,000 16,000,000(17%)

3.2 Basic counter measures: (2nd stage)

Besides normal diaphragm wall construction management, basic counter measures to improve construction
management, including: (1) slow and stable trench excavation in order not to disturb sensitive soil; (2)
increasing polymer slurry viscosity from 28 - 36 sec. to 40 - 45 sec.; (3) corner panel installation first; (4)
shortening the construction interface waiting period between rebar cage installation and tremie concreting; and
(5) besides the normal working R.C. slab, install steel plate on both sides of excavation panel to uniform the
construction equipment surcharge loading in order not to cause ground movement. By adopting the above
mentioned measures, all of the panels could be completed; however, all of the panels experienced trench
failure during installation (refer to Figure 3-3). Consequently, it was confirmed that grouting and other
measures would be required to prevent trench failure for the soft ground.

3.3 Diaphragm wall trench stable analysis

Serious diaphragm wall trench collapses occurred during construction of O47 station, while for O46 station,
the diaphragm wall installation proceeded smoothly despite applying the same basic counter measures. Even
though the ground condition of O46 station is similar to the ground of O47 station (refer to Table 3-3), the
ground water table is 1.8m and 1.0m below the ground surface for O46 station and O47 station, respectively
(refer to Figures 3-4 and 3-5). In general, the slurry was controlled at around 0.4m below the guide wall
(ground) surface in order to prevent slurry to flow through and pollute the nearby roads for normal operation
(refer to Figure 3-6). As a result, the 1.4m (=1.8m-0.4m) different pressure head between slurry and ground
water is kept for O46 Station. On the other hand, there is a different pressure head between slurry and ground
water of 0.6m (=1.0m-0.4m) for O47 Station (refer to Figures 3-5 and 3-7).
A trench stable analysis model (refer Figure 3-8) was introduced to analyze the safety factor of excavation
trench affected by ground and slurry condition for the project. The analysis (refer to Figure 3-9) shows that the
different pressure heads between the slurry and ground water was significantly affecting the safety factor of
trench stability. So, keeping the different pressure heads between the slurry and ground water table as high as
possible will be a major and economical counter measure to prevent trench failure (refer to Figure 3-7).

33
APEC Seminar 2011 State-of-the-Practice of Deep Excavation Works in Malaysia, Taiwan and Hong Kong

Soil Side
Excavation Side

Trench failure, but diaphragm wall can be Trench collapse, causing adjacent ground settlement.
completed. Guide wall movement, construction shall be stopped.

Figure 3-3: Definition of trench failure and trench collapse on this project

Table 3-3: Soil conditions of O47 and O46 stations are similar

O47 Station Design Parameters O46 Station Design Parameters

Layer classic N γ t (t/m )3
C' ψ' Layer classic N γt(t/m3) C' ψ'

6 CL 3 1.85 0 27.0 6 CL 4 1.85 0 27.0

5 SM 8 1.90 0 32.0 5 SM 9 1.90 0 32.0
4 CL 6 1.87 0 29.0 4 CL 6 1.87 0 29.0
3 SM 14 1.92 0 34.0 3 SM 15 1.92 0 34.0
2 CL 18 1.93 0 30.0 2 CL 18 1.93 0 30.0
1 SM 27 2.00 0 34.0 1 SM 27 2.00 0 34.0
GM GW >100 2.10 0 36.0 GM GW >100 2.10 0 36.0

水位 (m) Elevation CL801站體外水位觀測井 (ALL) 標別： CL801 水位 (m) CL800站體外水位觀測井 (ALL) 標別： CL800
105 105 110 110

Ground surface EL.102.4m Ground water at GL-1.8m

Ground water EL.100.6m 105
Ground surface EL.102.3m Ground water at GL-1.0m 105

100 100
Ground water EL.101.3m
100 100

95 95
Diaphragm wall Station
Diaphragm wall Station 95 95
installation excavation
installation excavation

90 90
90 90
03/01/01 04/01/02 05/01/01 06/01/01 07/01/01
03/01/01 04/01/02 05/01/01 06/01/01 07/01/01
Date
Figure 3-4: Ground water condition outside of O46 station Figure 3-5: Ground water condition outside of O47 station

34
APEC Seminar 2011 State-of-the-Practice of Deep Excavation Works in Malaysia, Taiwan and Hong Kong

Figure 3-6: Slurry controlled at 0.4m below guide wall Figure 3-7: Slurry raise from 0.4m to 0.05m below guide
surface for O46 station. wall surface for O47 station.

Surcharge Surcharge Wedge

Slurry level
Ground
water
level

Parabolic Cylinder
Weight of wedge

Figure 3-8: Diaphragm wall trench stable analysis model

Safety factor Safety factor Safety factor

FS<0 FS=1 FS>1

Trench Stability Result Trench Stability Result

Trench Stability Result

Slurry gravity=1.01T/m3 Slurry gravity=1.01T/m3 Slurry gravity=1.01T/m3

Fluid water head difference : 0m Fluid water head difference : 0.5m Fluid water head difference: 1m

Figure 3-9: Safety factor is seriously affected by the fluid water head difference between the slurry and ground water for
O47 station

35