GUIDES ON SLOPE DESIGN, INCORPORATING

IMPACTS OF RAINSTORM ASSOCIATED WITH

CLIMATE CHANGE
Er. Dr. Poh Teoh Yaw, Director, Geotechnical Engineering Department
Er. Chai Kui Fhen, Senior Engineer, Geotechnical Engineering Department

Privileged/Confidential information may be contained in this presentation.

Please do not circulate or reproduce without the permission of BCA.
0 Acknowledgement
Working Committee Members
Er. Dr. Poh Teoh Yaw (Chairman) BCA
Er. Dr. Chin Kheng Ghee BCA
Er. Kong Tze Foong BCA
Er. Chow Wei Mun BCA
Er. Dr. Anastasia Santoso Maria BCA
Er. Chai Kui Fhen BCA
Mr. Steven Sie Wen Huei HDB
Associate Prof. Anthony Goh Teck chee NTU
Associate Prof. Chen Siau Chen NUS
Associate Prof. Harry Tan Siew Ann NUS
Er. Dr. Agus Samingan Industry
Er. Chua Tong Seng Industry
Er. Chuck Kho Industry
Er. David Ng Industry
Er. Khoh Tio Ching Industry
Er. Lily Yeo Industry
Er. Dr. Ng Tiong Guan Industry
Er. Dr. Ooi Poh Hai Industry

260
0 Outline

1. Background
2. Framework on Risk Based Slope Designs
a. Slope Impact Categories
b. Two different approaches: Deemed to Satisfy Approach vs. Engineering Approach
c. Subsoil drains
d. Robustness requirements for proposed building located at the crest of slope
e. Annex A – Framework

3. Important Design Consideration for ERSS works

4. Summary and Conclusion

261
26
1 Background

262
26
1 Rainfall Events Leading to Landslides in Singapore

• The data suggests that a total

rainfall of 100mm within 6-day
period is trigger for minor slips
to occur in Singapore residual
soils.

• For large landslides; a total

rainfall > 320mm seems to be
the trigger.

Source: Latsis Symposium by CCES at ETH-Z, Zurich, Switzerland, 17-19 Sep 2007
263
26
1 Case Study: Slope Failure at Kent Ridge Crescent
• Continuous heavy rainfall during the
period of Dec 2005 to January 2006
had caused a massive landslide
adjacent to a building at Kent Ridge
Crescent on 11 January 2006.

• It covered an area of approximately

65m in width and 75m in length.

• The landslide caused severe

damage to the perimeter drain at
the toe of the slope.

• The cascading drains, water pipe

and sewer line were also damaged.

264
26
1 Case Study: Slope Failure at Kent Ridge Crescent
Transient Infiltration Analysis
0.000 20.000 40.000 60.000 80.000

140.000 m

127.000

Near Steady-State condition after 30 126.000

days of rain at 20mm/day 125.000

124.000
Building – No influx 123.000

122.000
120.000
Unsaturated Zone 121.000
Input flux = 20mm/day 120.000

119.000
Raised GWT 118.000

117.000

116.000

115.000
100.000 Estimated Slip Surface
114.000

113.000

112.000

111.000

110.000

• Nature of Slip is fairly deep seated 109.000

80.000 108.000
• Likely cause is combination of rainfall induced saturation leading to
loss of suction and rising GWT
Active groundwater head
Phase number: 6 Phase time: 5 day, Extreme groundwater head 126.01 m

265
26
1 Impact of Climate Change
Extreme Rainfall Incident at Zheng Zhou Flooding Incident at Dunearn Road

Zhengzhou city flooded after a heavy downpour Flooded canal along Bt Timah Rd and Dunearn Rd on 24 Aug 2021

• Worst Rainfall with return period of 1000 years • Top 0.5% of max. daily rainfall records since 1981.
• Zhengzhou recorded 209.1mm of heavy rains in an hour. • Highest daily total rainfall 239.8mm
• Rainfall amount of 552.5mm within 24 hours from 19 July, • 3 hours rainfall of 159.8mm
8pm to 20 July, 8pm.

• Impact of climate change is becoming a new normal.

• Design of infrastructure shall incorporate extreme rainfall associated with
climate change. 266
26
1 Impact of Climate Change

Eurocode 7 SS EN 1997-1: 2010(2018)

Clause 2.4.6.1 Design values of actions

(6) When dealing with ground-water pressures for limit states with severe consequences (generally ultimate limit
states), design values shall represent the most unfavourable values that could occur during the design lifetime of
the structure.

BS8002: 2015 [Non-Contradictory Complementary Information (NCCI) to Eurocode 7]

Clause 4.3.5.6
Long-term changes in groundwater that are likely to occur during the design working life of the structure
(including those due to climate change and rising groundwater) should be taken into account.

267
26
2
Framework on Risk Based
Slope Designs

268
26
2 Engagement with Industry
Working Committee Members Date Events

Er. Dr. Poh Teoh Yaw (Chairman) BCA

6th September 2021 Taskforce formed
Er. Dr. Chin Kheng Ghee BCA
18th January 2022 Working committee formed
Er. Kong Tze Foong BCA
Er. Chow Wei Mun BCA
18th January 2022 1st meeting with working committee
Er. Dr. Anastasia Santoso Maria BCA
Er. Chai Kui Fhen BCA 28th February 2022 Consultation with NTU Professor Harianto
Mr. Steven Sie Wen Huei HDB Rahardjo
Prof. Harry Tan Siew Ann NUS
Associate Prof. Chen Siau Chen NUS 1st March 2022 2nd meeting with working committee
Associate Prof. Anthony Goh Teck Chee NTU
Er. Dr. Agus Samingan Industry 22nd April 2022 Draft circular sent to working committee
Er. Chua Tong Seng Industry for comments via email
Er. Chuck Kho Industry
Er. David Ng Industry 22nd April 2022 Draft circular sent to ACES-IES committee
Er. Khoh Tio Ching Industry members for comments via email
Er. Lily Yeo Industry
Er. Dr. Ng Tiong Guan Industry 12th May 2022 GeoSS engagement
Er. Dr. Ooi Poh Hai Industry
Jan & June 2023 IES Seminar – Trial implementation of
Framework 269
26
2 What are the things included in this Framework?
Slope impact categories

Two different approaches: Deemed to Satisfy Approach

vs. Engineering Approach

Subsoil drains

Robustness requirements for proposed building located

at the crest of slope

270
27
 2 Slope Impact Categories
Impact Categories Definition of Impact Categories Type of Adjacent Buildings / Structures Close proximity to adjacent buildings /
structures
High impact High consequence for loss of human life, or • Densely populated residential area (4- Crest : Buildings located within 0.7 H
economic, social or environmental consequences storey and above) Toe : Buildings located within 1 H
very great • office building
• shopping mall
• major infrastructure (e.g. MRT)
Impact

Medium impact Medium consequence for loss of human life, • Landed house, shophouse (up to 3-storey) Crest : Buildings located within 0.7 H
economic, social or environmental consequences Toe : Buildings located within 1 H
considerable
Low impact Low consequence for loss of human life, and • Non-habitable single storey structures Green Field
economic, social or environmental consequences
small or negligible

Residential Building Residential Building Residential Building

High (4-storey and above)
Medium (4-storey and above) Low (4-storey and above)

or Landed House
or (≤ 3 Storeys)

Landed House
0.7H
0.7H Landed House 0.7H (≤ 3 Storeys)
Shopping Mall
H (≤ 3 Storeys) H
H

H H
H
Note: The potential failure zone, defined as 0.7H at the crest or 1H at the toe is derived from local case studies of slope failure. 271
27
2 Design Requirements
Design Requirements Site Investigation Design Approach Long-Term Monitoring Regime to Robustness
be Specified on Plans Requirements of
Foundation for
Option 1: Option 2: Soil Nails/ Subsoil Drains
Proposed Buildings
Deemed to Satisfy Approach Engineering Approach Ground System
Located at the
(Prescribed Onerous Design (Design GWT Derived from Seepage Anchors System (Engineering
Slope Impact Crest of Slope
GWT) Analysis Incorporating Climate Change) Approach)
Categories
High Impact • Min 2 BHs per • Ultimate Limit State • Ultimate Limit State Yes Yes Required
design section • Accidental Load Case • Accidental Load Case with design GWT
• Closer borehole with design GWT at 1.0H incorporating extreme daily rainfall
interval • Subsoil drains with • Subsoil drains designed for specified
closer spacing closer spacing with overdesign factor
of 3.

Medium Impact • Min 1 BH per • Ultimate Limit State
design section • Accidental Load Case
• Medium with design GWT at 0.9H
borehole interval • Subsoil drains with
medium spacing
Low Impact • Min 1 BH per • Ultimate Limit State
design section • Accidental Load Case –
• Larger borehole Not Applicable
interval • QP to decide the need
for subsoil drains. If
provided may use larger
spacing
• Ultimate Limit State QP to decide Yes QP to decide
• Accidental Load Case with design
GWT incorporating extreme daily
rainfall
• Subsoil drains designed for specified
medium spacing with overdesign factor
of 3.
• Ultimate Limit State QP to decide Yes Not applicable
• Accidental Load Case – Not Applicable
• QP to decide the need for subsoil
drains. If provided, subsoil drains
designed for specified larger spacing
with overdesign factor of 3.

272
27
2 Deemed to Satisfy Approach (DTS) vs. Engineering Approach (Eng)
Ultimate Limit State (“ULS”)
Prescribed ground water loading • Onerous Design GWT
DTS Approach
• Simple Analysis
• Safe Design
Accidental Load Case (“AL”)
Prescribed ground water loading

Design Same outcome: Future

Ground ULS
Water Table Proofing Stable Slope
Modelling of Max daily rainfall of
350mm

ULS • Realistic Design GWT

Eng Approach Modelling Max 5 days antecedent • Rigorous Analysis
rainfall of 575mm
• Safe and Efficient
design
AL
Max daily rainfall of 530mm
273
27
2 DTS Approach: Prescribed Onerous Ground Water Table
ULS Design Load Case

Design ground water level (DGWT)

Case 1: Case 2:
With Water Standpipe (WSP) readings taken With frequency of Water Standpipe (WSP) Case 3:
min. weekly throughout November to March readings taken daily to weekly and with a Other than Case 1 and Case 2
(Wet Season) minimum of 12 readings
• DGWT = Onerous of WSP reading + α or • DGWT = Onerous of WSP reading + α or 2/3H
2/3H ≤ 0.9H ≤ 0.9H DGWT = 0.9H
• α = 0.2H • α = 0.3H
• Each design section to have at least 1 no. of WSP at the crest.
• Water levels encountered during boring operations are known to be unreliable and should not be considered. Nevertheless, designer may utilise the site
investigation borehole to install the WSP.
• For cases with the presence of retaining wall within hill slope, QP shall also comply to the minimum Design Ground Water Table shown in table above.
274
27
2 Case Study: Variation of Groundwater Table at Slope in Jurong Formation
Variation of Groundwater Table during Pro-Longed Rainfall

• Groundwater table can vary

drastically during pro-longed rainfall.

• The water standpipe monitoring

results showed that the maximum
variation was about 5m in less than a
month.

275
27
2 DTS Approach: Prescribed Onerous Groundwater Table

Accidental load case

Design GWT for high
impact Slope
Crest of Slope

Design GWT for

medium impact Slope
Slope Height, H

Toe of Slope

Slope Impact Categories

High Medium Low
Design GWT At ground surface At 0.9H Not Applicable

• Overdesign Factor (ODF) to achieve 1.05 without partial factors

276
27
2 Eng Approach
• Eng Approach: Baseline GWT + Rainfall Loading

• Eng Approach is only applicable to GBW hill slopes. For all other
excavated slopes, the QPs are to adopt onerous design ground water
level which is normally taken to be close to full height of the slope
especially at lower ground.

• Developers/builders are advised to engage QPs and ACs who are

competent and have sufficient knowledge in advanced modelling of
slope that considers onerous groundwater variation and rainfall loadings.
Highly skilled and experienced QPs and ACs should be able to provide a
safe and optimised slope design.

277
27
2 Eng Approach: Baseline GWT + Rainfall
Eng Approach: Baseline GWT + Rainfall
Precipitation
BCA’s study concluded that by adopting
these two values, impact of climate
change deemed to be included. For slope
Infiltration with high to medium risk, additional
check is carried out with higher value of
rainfall.
Wetting front

Baseline / Initial GWT

ULS Design Load Case
Runoffs
≥α Load Case 1:
WSP Reading
Max Daily Rainfall = 350mm

Load Case 2:
Max 5 Days Antecedent Rainfall = 575mm

278
27
2 Eng Approach: Baseline GWT + Rainfall
Eng Approach: Baseline GWT + Rainfall

Rainfall Infiltration
Accidental Design Load Case
Crest of Slope
Max Daily Rainfall = 530mm

Initial GWT Overdesign Factor (ODF) to achieve 1.05

≥α Slope Height, H without partial factors

WSP Reading Note: Based on PUB’s code of practice on surface

water drainage, maximum total amount of rainfall
in a day is 533.2mm
Toe of Slope

279
27
2 Eng Approach: Baseline GWT + Rainfall

ULS design rainfall loadings

incorporating impact of climate change

400 450 500 550

280
28
2 Why Subsoil Drain?
Parametric Study of Influence of Subsoil Drains
Factor of Safety (FOS) 0.9 < 1
without subsoil drains
Factor of Safety (FOS) with 1.6 > 1
8m long subsoil drains

• Prolonged rainfall would reduce the unsaturated zone

of a slope and lead to the decrease in effective stress
and shear strength. Hence, affecting the slope
stability.

• From past case studies, subsoil drains are easy to

install and have been proven to be a cost-effective
measure to enhance the robustness of the
slope to endure heavy rainstorm.
281
28
2 Requirements of Subsoil Drains in DTS Approach
• Only applicable to GBW hill slopes.
Additional row of subsoil drain at the interface
IF more permeable between permeable and less permeable soil layer. • Min. diameter of subsoil drain = 75mm
• Provision of adequate subsoil drainage
system near the toe of the slope will help
to drain off the rainwater that seep into
the slope.
Less permeable Slope
Height, H • Subsoil drains → cost-effective measure
to enhance the robustness of the slope.

1
10
Serve as Robustness
Minimum 1 row of subsoil drain at the
bottom of the slope.
Requirements.

Slope Impact Categories

High Medium Low*
Max. Subsoil Drain Horizontal Spacing 2.0m 2.5m 3.0m
*QP to decide the need for subsoil drains. 282
28
2 Requirements for Subsoil Drain in Eng Approach
• QP may design & specify additional rows
of subsoil drain.
More permeable Additional rows of subsoil drain to QP’s design. • When subsoil drain is included in
numerical seepage analysis, QP to state
in calculation report the assumptions
made about the drain, e.g. drain is
Less permeable Slope modelled as “drain element”, or as soil
Height, H element with input permeability value.
• QP to design the length, diameter,
gradient, rows of subsoil drain in
according to specified spacing to achieve
Minimum 1 row of subsoil drain at the minimum overdesign factor of 3.
bottom of the slope.
Beneficial Effects
Considered in Slope Design
Slope Impact Categories
High Medium Low*
Max. Subsoil Drain Horizontal Spacing 2.0m 2 to 3m 3 to 4m
*QP to decide the need for subsoil drains. 283
28
2 Requirements for Subsoil Drain in Eng Approach
Monitoring and Maintenance of Subsoil Drains for Eng Approach

Objective:
To ensure the drainage system perform as per design intent in long term

QP Developer
✓ Specify on the structural plans the ✓ Undertake the monitoring and
long-term inspection and maintenance of subsoil drains
maintenance

284
28
2 Detailing for Subsoil Drains
Typical Details of Double Pipes for Subsoil Drain
(HK Geo Publication CEDD Standard Drawing No. C2403)
Example of External Longitudinal Ribs along
Perforated Subsoil Drain Pipe
Example of Double Filtration Layers for
Subsoil Drain
• 1st filtration layer: 400x400m of cut trench filled with
10-50mm coarse gravel or rock chips wrapped around
with geotextile.
• 2nd filtration layer / drainage layer: 75mm perforated
PVC pipe wrapped around with geotextile.
285
28
2 Case Study: Adoption of Eng Approach in Slope Design
Reinstatement of Existing Soil Nail Slope with 1(V):2.75(H)

Existing Cut Slope

Proposed Reinstatement Slope

Layout Plan

Section A-A

286
28
 2 Case Study: Adoption of Eng Approach in Slope Design
Step 1: Obtain Soil Water Characteristic Curve (SWCC) for transient seepage analysis
Particle Size Distribution (PSD) of soil layers
• SWCC parameters can be obtained Average
Clay
S(VI)
31.8 %
Average S(V) 50<N<100
Clay 30.8 %
from tests according to ASTM ABHS007 ABHS009
Silt
Sand
31.9 %
36.0 %
Silt 33.8 %
Sand 34.5 %
D6836-16* Gravel 0.4 %
Gravel 1.0 %
ABHS008 ABHS010
• Most tests are time consuming. Average
Clay
S(V) N=100
31.7 %
However hygrometer test may give Silt
Sand
37.7 %
28.3 %
test results within minutes. Gravel 2.3 %

• For cases where tests to determine Estimation of SWCC from program

SWCC have not been carried out, the
SWCC parameters can be estimated
from Particle Size Distribution (PSD),
soil types database from program
and other models as appropriate
with upper and lower bounds.

287
28
2 Case Study: Adoption of Eng Approach in Slope Design
Step 2: Determine Initial Design Ground Water Table
Initial Design Ground Water Table (DGWT)
Case 1 Case 2
With Water Standpipe (WSP) readings taken With frequency of Water Standpipe (WSP)
4 mbgl
min. weekly throughout November to readings taken daily to weekly and with a
March (Wet Season) minimum of 12 readings

Initial DGWT = WSP reading + α Initial DGWT = WSP reading + α

• α = 0.15 slope height (H) • α = 0.3 slope height (H)
• DGWT shall not be lower than the • DGWT shall not be lower than the Wettest Period

wettest GWT in Chart 1 wettest GWT in Chart 1

Chart 1 GWS1158005
GWS1158014

GWS1158013

288
28
 2 Case Study: Adoption of Eng Approach in Slope Design
Step 3: Initialisation to model the initial design ground water table

To achieve the initial design ground water table in the model, the designer is required to run a transient
seepage analysis with appropriate precipitation (rainfall per area) [flux] value for a period of time until the
initial design ground water table in step 1 is established.

289
28
2 Case Study: Adoption of Eng Approach in Slope Design
Step 4: Carry out seepage analysis for ULS check
Load Case 2:
Load Case 1: Max 5 Days Antecedent Rainfall = 575mm
Max Daily Rainfall = 350mm (115mm/day for 5 days)

290
29
 2 Case Study: Adoption of Eng Approach in Slope Design
Step 5: Carry out slope stability analysis for ULS check
Load Case 2:
Load Case 1: Max 5 Days Antecedent Rainfall = 575mm
Max Daily Rainfall = 350mm (115mm/day for 5 days)

Over Design Factor = 1.436 Over Design Factor = 1.382

291
29
 2 Case Study: Adoption of Eng Approach in Slope Design
Step 6: Design for subsoil drains
Flow capacity of pipe drain, Qcap = 24.2 m3/day per pipe

From Plaxis Analysis, water inflow rate in the pipe drains,

(a) Upper Subsoil Drains
Internal subsoil drains model as
Drain elements with Case 1: Rain 350mm in 1 day, Qinflow = 0.198 m3/day per pipe
Head=Elevation values Case 2: Rain 575 mm in 5 days, Qinflow = 0.204 m3/day per pipe

Overdesign factor, ODF = Qcap/Qinflow

= 24.2/0.204 > 3 OK!

(b) Lower Subsoil Drains

The adequacy of drains will be checked against the drainage capacity of pile
flow using Manning’s theory
Case 1: Rain 350mm in 1 day, Qinflow = 0.764 m3/day per pipe
Case 2: Rain 575 mm in 5 days, Qinflow = 0.872 m3/day per pipe
Overdesign factor, ODF = Qcap/Qinflow
= 24.2/0.872 > 3 OK!

292
29
2 Robustness Requirements for Proposed Building located at the Crest of Slope

For buildings located at the crest of existing high

impact slope, designer should design the piles located
within the potential failure zone of the slope for the For Example: Proposed Residential Building
additional case below. (4-storey and above)

Additional Load Case :

• Run a global slope analysis such as c/phi reduction
or equivalent analysis for soil layer with SPT N value
of less than 30 to simulate the potential slope
failure without consider the piles and buildings.
• The pile foundation within the potential slope failure 0.7H

zone shall be designed in such • Ignore the shaft

Existing
Slope friction
a) Shaft friction within the potential failure zone H • Design the
should be ignored. QP should consider reinforcement for
movements and
potential down drag load for the pile design. bending moments
b) Adequate reinforcement designed for Piles within
potential
movement and bending moments due to failure zone
potential slip failure should be provided.
Potential slip failure

293
29
3
Important Design
Consideration for
ERSS Works

294
29
 Case 1:
3 Critical Aspects that MUST be Considered by QP when Designing Retaining Wall on Slope
Importance of Desk Study
1 • Overlay of geological map to identify
potential adverse conditions (e.g. soft
soil deposits)
Carry out impact assessment
on adjacent structures
6 including slopes in accordance
with BC Regulation 33
Retaining wall and temporary ERSS Local stability check
including complete construction sequence
7 under single submission.
soil parameters should be
verified with SI instead of with
Proposed retaining wall 4 an assumed safe bearing
on existing slope pressure from boreholes
located far away.
Identify site terrain and shows
2 on plan and section
• For this case building retaining wall on
top of existing slope is classified as
A&A to GBW slope.

Global stability check involving both

5 the existing slope and retaining wall
Conduct adequate SI as per BC Regulation 31 and “Guide on
3 Ground Investigation and Geotechnical Characteristic Values
to Eurocode 7”
295
29
 3 Case 2: Split of ERSS Submission (NOT allowed!)
ST01
A&A to
existing slope

7.48m
ST02
Basement
excavation

• Proposed works involve A&A to existing slope of 7.48m height with 5 tiers of L-shape retaining wall abutting 4.9m
basement excavation.
• QP treated 5 tiers of L-shape retaining wall as individual planter box and submitted as non-AC ST. This is NOT allowed!
A&A to existing slope of 7.48m height is classified as Geotechnical Building Works (GBW) and shall submit as GBW.
• QP also split the upper A&A to existing slope (GBW) and basement excavation into two separate STs. This is NOT
Allowed!
• As both upper A&A to existing slope (GBW) and basement excavation are new construction, they shall be submitted
under the same GBW ST. 296
29
3 Case 3: Reminder: This is GBW!

• Non-AC ST as retaining wall with height

3.5m

not exceeding 4m.

Retaining wall
submitted by QP • True only if it is a standalone retaining
wall built on flat ground.

• The retaining wall is built on existing

slope.
• GBW as it is classified as A&A to an
H = 11m existing slope with height more than
6m.
Actual siting of retaining wall on slope H Endorsement requirement
requires global stability check
<= 4m QP(ST)
>4m to 6m QP(ST), AC
> 6m (GBW) QP(ST), QP(Geo), AC, AC(Geo)
297
29
 Case 4:
3 Sensitive Existing Rubble Wall – Importance of Impact Assessment and I&M
Collapse of Existing Existing Rubble Wall along Construction Boundary
Rubble Wall

Basement
Excavation

Basement
Excavation

• 2.8m high existing rubble wall along the construction boundary collapsed during basement excavation.
• Investigation revealed that:
➢ Pre-existing cracks observed, however was not included in the impact assessment. QPs are reminded to carry out
proper impact assessment in accordance with Regulation 33 with site photographs of slopes , boundary wall and
retaining structure/ wall.
➢ Daily rainfall before the day of incident was 192mm, highest recorded in previous 4 months. Heavy rain 192mm is
high but still far from max rainfall encountered in Singapore (350mm).
➢ Lack of protective measures, and appropriate instruments resulted in the incident. 298
 Case 4:
3 Sensitive Existing Rubble Wall – Importance of Impact Assessment and I&M
Annex B1 – Impact Assessment Form Key Learning Points

1. Instrumentation and Monitoring

• Weep holes blocked – Builder must maintain the weepholes and
ensure the weepholes properly function during construction
stage.
• Instrumentations and monitoring serve as early warning system.

2. Impact Assessment – Annex B1 form

• Regulation 33 mandates QP to carry out impact assessment.
• Pre-existing conditions such as cracks at the rubble wall should
be considered in the impact assessment. The rubble wall is
sensitive to movement which should be protected.
• Impact assessment should be carried out for realistic rainfall that
could occur. Heavy rainfall 192mm is high but still far from
maximum rainfall, 350mm encountered in Singapore.
• Necessary measures to ensure stability should be specified on
plans.
299
29
 Case 4:
3 Sensitive Existing Rubble Wall – Importance of Impact Assessment and I&M
Example of Photographs showing Existing Retaining Wall
QP specified protective measures on plans

Site photos showing

existing rubber wall

Maintaining weepholes
during construction stage

300
3 Case 5: Preventing sinkhole due to CHI in Mixed Ground of BTG

1. No Unauthorised
Flushing of TBM
• Flushing without shield
advancement could
easily results in over-
excavation, hence
flushing shall not be
carried out during
tunnelling and CHI.
Key Points
2. Monitor and Review 3. Location of
Excavation Volume Instrumentations
• Continuous monitoring • RX should be placed
and reviewing of above TBM location to
excavation volume be effective.
should be carried out • In hard ground or mixed
during both tunnelling ground of BTG, sinkhole
and CHI. likely to form above
• Discharge volume tunnel within narrow
should be properly range from TBM centre
monitored to detect line with chimney-like
any over-excavation. mechanism.
4. Correct Type of
Instrumentations
• Extensometer (RX)
should be provided at
every CHI location and
at high-risk area.
• RX serves as early
warning system to
detect over-excavation
before voids propagate
to surface and form
sinkhole.

RX RX

RX

30
301
4 Summary and Conclusions

30
302
42 Summary and Conclusions
✓ This framework allows risk based slope designs depending on slope
impact categories, aims to future proofing slope to cater for impact
of climate change.
✓ It allows experienced QP with adequate knowledge to adopt “Eng
Approach” that considers onerous groundwater variation and
rainfall loadings including impact of climate change to produce a
safe and efficient design.
✓ Project parties shall remember the important design consideration
for ERSS Works shared to make our ERSS and tunnelling works safe!

30
303
Annex A - Framework on Risk Based Slope
Designs

304
304
Thank You
@BCASingapore

30
305