9/24/2020

Woh-Hup Distinguished Lecture

Numerical Modeling in Geotechnical Practice
(Virtual Dream becoming Reality)
Prof Harry Tan
Honorary Fellow, NUS
Date: 25 Sep 2020

Lecture Outline
• Background to lecture
• Part 1: Use of Practical Advanced Soil Models eg Hardening
Soil (HS) with Small Strain Stiffness (HSS) and Generalized HS
(GHS)
• Three Real Cases and Measured Results
• Part 2: Large Deep Shaft at Changi Water Reclamation
Plant in DTSS1
• Part 3: Re-visit Nicoll Highway Collapse tunnel at Zone M3
• Part 4: Hybrid Raft Foundation for Wisteria Condo at
Yishun Avenue 4
• Summary 2

1
 9/24/2020

Part 1: Use of Practical Advanced Soil

Models eg Hardening Soil (HS) with
Small Strain Stiffness (HSS) and
Generalized HS (GHS)

4
HS, HSS & GHS Practical Advanced Models

1. Introduction

2. Merits of the Hardening Soil model

3. Calibrating the constitutive model

4. Some concluding remarks

2
 9/24/2020

1. Introduction 5
General soil behavior

▪ Difference in behavior for primary loading & unloading/reloading

▪ Nonlinear behavior well below failure conditions

▪ Stress dependent stiffness

▪ Plastic deformation for isotropic or K0 stress paths
▪ Dilatancy is not constant
▪ Small strain stiffness at very low strains and upon stress reversal
▪ Stiffness of soils is not a constant, but dependent on
various aspects (stress level, stress path, strain level)
▪ Strength of soils is not uniquely defined by ϕ’ and c’
5

2. Merits of the Hardening Soil model 6

The Hardening Soil model

𝑑𝜀 𝑝 𝑑𝜀 𝑒

▪ Hardening Soil model:

▪ Second-order approach of soil behaviour

▪ Stress(path)-dependent stiffness behaviour according to a power law

▪ Volumetric hardening + shear hardening

▪ Memory of pre-consolidation stress 6

3
 9/24/2020

2. Merits of the Hardening Soil model 7

Hardening Soil model with small strain overlay

9
PMT
8 FEM
7
6

P' (kg/cm2)
5
4
3
2
1
0
3.95 4 4.05 4.1 4.15 4.2 4.25
R0 (cm)

▪ Why is small-strain stiffness important? 0 500

P (kPa)
1000 1500 2000
0
▪ Strain-dependent stiffness behaviour Oedometer test
0.01
FEM
▪ Hysteresis and damping in cyclic loading 0.02

▪ Small strain stiffness is critical for predicting realistic 0.03

εyy
0.04
settlement troughs behind ERSS or above tunneling
0.05

works. 0.06
7
▪ FE model can be boundary independent 0.07

2. Merits of the Hardening Soil model 8

Comparison between constitutive models

• Observe unrealistic
heaving in MC models

• Observe HSS cf HS,

small strain larger
stiffness in settlement
profile with distance
from wall

4
 9/24/2020

2. Merits of the Hardening Soil model 9

Comparison between constitutive models

2. Merits of the Hardening Soil model 10

Comparison between constitutive models

Observe in HS & HSS,

reverse clamping BM
from FEL (15m) to Wall
Toe (25m)
10

10

5
 9/24/2020

11

Generalized
Hardening Soil Model
• User defined soil model
• Alternative stress dependency formulation
• Modular version of the Hardening Soil model

11

11

2. Merits of the Hardening Soil model 12

Generalized Hardening Soil Model

Strain dependency Plastic yield function

Option 0 Standard HS Linear elastic and perfectly
Option 1
Option 1 HS small plastic
Option 2 Shear hardening
Option 3 Cap hardening
Both shear hardening and
Option 4
cap hardening

12

12

6
 9/24/2020

2. Merits of the Hardening Soil model 13

Generalized Hardening Soil Model

Frequency of update for Formulation of stress

stress dependent dependency
stiffness Option 0: Stress
Constant Eur throughout dependency is based on 𝜎′3 + 𝑐′ ⋅ cot 𝜙′
𝑚
Option 0 𝐸𝑢𝑟 = 𝐸𝑢𝑟
𝑟𝑒𝑓
the calculation minor stress σ’3 and 𝜎 𝑟𝑒𝑓 + cot 𝜙 ′
Updates Eur for every
Option 1 strength parameters
calculation phase
Updates Eur for every Option 1: Stress
𝑚
Option 2 dependency is based on 𝜎′3 + 𝑝′𝑐 ൗ
calculation step 𝑟𝑒𝑓 2
𝐸𝑢𝑟 = 𝐸𝑢𝑟
minor stress σ’3 and pre- 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑓
consolidation stress
Displacements Loads
Option 2: Stress
𝑚
dependency is based on 𝑝′ + 𝑝′𝑐 ൗ
𝐸𝑢𝑟 = 𝐸𝑢𝑟
𝑟𝑒𝑓 2
mean effective stress and 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑓
pre-consolidation stress
Strains Stresses Calculation phase
 Find equilibrium in final situation
 Subdivide in load steps
Load step
Model(s) 13
Parameters  Find equilibrium for load increment by iteration

13

2. Merits of the Hardening Soil model 14

Generalized Hardening Soil Model

Before
After
excavation
excavation

▪ During excavations, soil will weaken due to the

decrease in confining stress. HS: Min Eur reduced from 307.2E+03 to 145.8E+03 kN/m2
▪ MC model does not have stress dependent stiffness
Before
and thus can underpredict wall displacement.
excavation After
▪ Standard HS model may become too weak because its excavation
stiffness is pegged only to σ’3
▪ Generalized HS model being dependent on both p’ and
p’c would give a more realistic soil stiffness response in
drained unloading in excavation simulations 14
GHS: Min G reduced from 388.7E+03 to 334.1E+03 kN/m2

14

7
 9/24/2020

3. Calibrating the constitutive model 15

Hardening Soil model parameters

Parameters Meaning
1 E50ref Secant stiffness in standard drained triaxial test
2 Eoedref Tangent stiffness for primary oedometer loading
Deformation
3 Eurref Unloading / reloading stiffness
4 m Power for stress-level dependency of stiffness
5 c'ref (Effective) cohesion
6 φ (Effective) angle of internal friction Relevant tests:
Strength
7 ψ Angle of dilatancy • Drained triaxial test
8 σt Tension cut-off and tensile strength • 1D consolidation test
9 νur Poisson's ratio for unloading-reloading
10 pref Reference stress for stiffnesses • Pressuremeter test
Advanced
11 K0 nc K0 value for normal consolidation (Default=1-sinφ)
• CPTu test
12 Rf Failure ratio
13 G0ref Reference shear modulus at very small strains
Small strain • Resonant column / Bender element
14 γ0.7 Threshold shear strain at which Gs = 0.722G0
• Seismic CPT
15
Soil stress history is input by OCR or POP for Ko Initial Conditions • Geophysical surveys
15

3. Calibrating the constitutive model 16

Calibration by Drained triaxial test

16

16

8
 9/24/2020

3. Calibrating the constitutive model 17

Calibration by Pressuremeter test
Axisymmetric

Interface elements
Prescribed displacement
Or Line load

FEM setup Radial displacements

▪ Back analysis in-situ pressuremeter tests to calibrate the HS model

▪ Full (depth) numerical model allows for a direct input of soil stress
history
17

17

3. Calibrating the constitutive model 18

Calibration by Pressuremeter test

1
2
3

▪ Simulate the loading and unloading steps of the pressuremeter test.

▪ The FEM simulation will be able to capture the pressuremeter’s primary loading,
unloading/reloading behavior once initial contact stresses with BH have been established.
18

18

9
 9/24/2020

3. Calibrating the constitutive model 19

Calibration by Cone penetration test with piezocone (CPTu)

3 measurements taken: cone tip

resistance qt, sleeve friction fs and u2

Press and replace method, axisymmetric

finite element model 19

19

4. Conclusion 20
Some Concluding remarks

• MC model: for simple estimates and for safety factors (stability)

• Advanced soil models: for more accurate deformation predictions needed in
closely built-up urban space like Singapore

• Many merits of using the hardening soil model

• Many ways of calibrating the hardening soil model, some ways better than others.
• HSS gave advantage over HS of simulating larger stiffness at small strains and
during stress reversals
• However both HSS and HS suffer from too much reduction of passive stiffness in
Drained Unloading, as stiffness is dependent on drained confining stress (𝜎3′ )
• GHS model gives flexibility to make unloading stiffness partly dependent on mean
confining stress and pre-consolidation stress

20

20

10
 9/24/2020

CASE HISTORIES VALIDATION STUDIES

Part 2: CWRP (Changi) Deep Shaft Excavation for DTSS1

PURPOSE OF STUDY:

1. Check FEM model capability to predict shaft/soil interaction response

2. Pore pressure measured at IP2 (under base center of shaft) is key data to understand soil
unloading behavior history

3. Study Consolidation models using Plaxis Classical Consolidation analysis (Excess EPP), and
more advanced Fully Coupled Flow-Deformation Consolidation analysis (Total TPP)

4. Compare Consolidation predictions as bounded by UnDrained and Drained analysis, using the
same sets of Effective Stress parameters
21

21

Deep Tunnel Sewerage System Changi Water reclamation Plant,

(DTSS1), to replace existing waste Influent Pumping Station connect to
water treatment, include 6 treatment the North Tunnel
works, 139 pumping stations.

Deep Shafts
22

22

11
 9/24/2020

BACKGROUND
Excavation from Feb to Oct 2002 for IPS2 Shaft

Dia 42.6m
Depth 70m
Piezo PZ-2 (2m below FML)

Dia 42.6m
Depth 70m

Dia 35.8m
Depth 69.5m

23

23

APPROXIMATED PROGRESS OF EXCAVATION (ISP 2)

CONSTRUCTION STAGES HS MODEL PARAMETERS
Date Day Day wrt CCS Day wrt IPS1 EL Depth Excavated
O/ALL Depth of Excavation total weight Effective Weight
14/2/02 14-Feb-02 0 103 0 0 0 0
15/2/02 15-Feb-02 1 102.5 0.5 0.5 8.45 8.45
16/2/02 16-Feb-02 2 102 0.5 1 16.9 16.9
17/2/02 17-Feb-02 3 101 1.0 2 33.8 33.8
18/2/02 18-Feb-02 4 100 1.0 3 50.7 50.7
19/2/02 19-Feb-02 5 99 1.0 4 67.6 67.6
20/2/02 20-Feb-02 6 98 1.0 5 ` 84.5 84.5
21/2/02 21-Feb-02 7 97 1.0 6 STAGE 1 101.4 101.4
22/2/02 22-Feb-02 8 95.5 1.5 7.5 126.75 126.75
23/2/02 23-Feb-02 9 95.5 0.0 7.5 126.75 126.75
24/2/02 24-Feb-02 10 94 1.5 9 154.62 147.62
25/2/02 25-Feb-02 11 93 1.0 10 175.12 158.12
26/2/02 26-Feb-02 12 91 2.0 12 216.12 179.12
27/2/02 27-Feb-02 13 89.5 1.5 13.5 246.87 194.87
28/2/02 28-Feb-02 14 89 0.5 14 257.12 200.12
3/1/2002 1-Mar-02 15 89 0.0 14 257.12 200.12
12/04/02 12-Apr-02 57 12 89 0 14 257.12 200.12
14/4/02 14-Apr-02 59 14 87 2 16 298.24 221.24
16/4/02 16-Apr-02 61 16 85 2 18 339.64 242.64
18/4/02 18-Apr-02 63 18 83 2 20 STAGE 2 381.1 264.1
20/4/02 20-Apr-02 65 20 82 1 21 401.9 274.9
22/4/02 22-Apr-02 67 22 81 1 22 422.7 285.7
23/4/02 23-Apr-02 68 23 81 0 22 422.7 285.7
05/03/02 3-May-02 80 35 81 0 22 422.7 285.7
05/09/02 9-May-02 84 39 81 0 22 422.7 285.7
10/05/02 10-May-02 85 40 80.6 0.4 22.4 431.02 290.02
11/05/02 11-May-02 86 41 79.4 1.2 23.6 455.98 302.98
12/05/02 12-May-02 87 42 77.6 1.8 25.4 STAGE3 493.32 322.32
13/05/02 13-May-02 88 43 75.2 2.4 27.8 543 348
14/5/02 14-May-02 89 44 72.6 2.6 30.4 596.82 375.82
15/5/02 15-May-02 90 45 71.6 1 31.4 617.52 386.52
16/5/02 16-May-02 91 46 71.4 0.2 31.6 621.66 388.66
17/5/02 17-May-02 92 47 71.4 0 31.6 621.66 388.66
02/06/02 2-Jun-02 108 63 71.4 0 31.6 621.66 388.66
03/06/02 3-Jun-02 109 64 71 0.4 32 629.94 392.94
04/06/02 4-Jun-02 110 65 70 1 33 650.64 403.64
05/06/02 5-Jun-02 111 66 69 1 34 671.34 414.34
06/06/02 6-Jun-02 112 67 67.9 1.1 35.1 694.11 426.11
07/06/02 7-Jun-02 113 68 66.2 1.7 36.8 729.3 444.3
08/06/02 8-Jun-02 114 69 64.6 1.6 38.4 STAGE 4 762.42 461.42
09/06/02 9-Jun-02 115 70 63.6 1 39.4 783.12 472.12
10/06/02 10-Jun-02 116 71 63.4 0.2 39.6 787.26 474.26
11/06/02 11-Jun-02 117 72 0 63.4 0 39.6 787.26 474.26
30/06/02 30-Jun-02 136 91 19 63.4 0 39.6 787.26 474.26
07/12/02 12-Jul-02 148 103 31 63.4 0 39.6 787.26 474.26
13/07/02 13-Jul-02 149 104 32 62.2 1.2 40.8 812.1 487.1
14/07/02 14-Jul-02 150 105 33 61.1 1.1 41.9 834.87 498.87
15/07/02 15-Jul-02 151 106 34 59.6 1.5 43.4 STAGE 5 865.92 514.92
16/07/02 16-Jul-02 152 107 35 58.6 1 44.4 886.62 525.62
17/07/02 17-Jul-02 153 108 36 57.5 1.1 45.5 909.39 537.39
18/07/02 18-Jul-02 154 109 37 56.4 1.1 46.6 932.16 549.16
19/07/02 19-Jul-02 155 110 38 55.4 1 47.6 952.86 559.86
20/07/02 20-Jul-02 156 111 39 54.5 0.9 48.5 971.49 569.49
21/7/02 21-Jul-02 157 112 40 54.5 0 48.5 971.49 569.49
31/07/02 31-Jul-02 167 122 50 54.5 0 48.5 971.49 569.49
04/08/02 4-Aug-02 171 126 54 54.5 0.0 48.5 971.49 569.49
05/08/02 5-Aug-02 172 127 55 53.6 0.9 49.4 990.12 579.12
06/08/02 6-Aug-02 173 128 56 52.6 1.0 50.4 1010.82 589.82
07/08/02 7-Aug-02 174 129 57 51.8 0.8 51.2 STAGE 6 1027.38 598.38
08/08/02 8-Aug-02 175 130 58 50.9 0.9 52.1 1046.01 608.01
09/08/02 9-Aug-02 176 131 59 49.9 1.0 53.1 1066.71 618.71
10/08/02 10-Aug-02 177 132 60 49 0.9 54 1085.34 628.34
11/08/02 11-Aug-02 178 133 61 47.9 1.1 55.1 1108.11 640.11
12/08/02 12-Aug-02 179 134 62 47.1 0.8 55.9 1124.67 648.67
13/8/02 13-Aug-02 180 135 63 47.1 0.0 55.9 1124.67 648.67
30/08/02 30-Aug-02 197 152 80 47.1 0.0 55.9 1124.67 648.67
31/08/02 31-Aug-02 198 153 81 45.8 1.3 57.2 1151.58 662.58
01/09/02 1-Sep-02 199 154 82 44.6 1.2 58.4 1176.42 675.42
02/09/02 2-Sep-02 200 155 83 43.3 1.3 59.7 STAGE 7 1203.33 689.33
03/09/02 3-Sep-02 201 156 84 42 1.3 61 1230.24 703.24
04/09/02 4-Sep-02 202 157 85 40.6 1.4 62.4 1259.22 718.22
05/09/02 5-Sep-02 203 158 86 39.3 1.3 63.7 1286.13 732.13
09/06/02 6-Sep-02 204 159 87 39.3 0 63.7 1286.13 732.13
28/09/02 28-Sep-02 226 181 109 39.3 0 63.7 1286.13 732.13
29/09/02 29-Sep-02 227 182 110 38 1.3 65 1313.04 746.04
30/09/02 30-Sep-02 228 183 111 36.8 1.2 66.2 BASE 1337.88 758.88
01/10/02 1-Oct-02 229 184 112 35.5 1.3 67.5 SLAB 1364.79 772.79
02/10/02
03/10/02
2-Oct-02
3-Oct-02
230
231
185
186
113
114
34.2
33
1.3
1.2
68.8
70
1391.7
1416.54
786.7
799.54
24

24

12
 9/24/2020

Insights on Complex Nature of OA Soils (See Local Papers on OA)

• Challenging to get mass permeability of

OA soils in the ground conditions (insitu
tests)
• GSD & cementation will dictate OA
mass permeability (K) in the ground
• Oedometer tests can estimate K of OA,
provided we test at correct effective
stresses of the ground conditions
• Falling Head seepage tests may work
but we must get good sealing around
wall contact
25

25

TYPES OF CALCULATIONS & SOIL GROUNDWATER FLOW PROPERTIES IN PLAXIS

Soil Permeability
Function:
Kr vs 𝜓

Soil Water Retention

Function:
Sr vs 𝜓
Also known as SWCC
Soil Water
Characteristic Curve
26

26

13
 9/24/2020

Drained model showed

PLAXIS-CE (2020) - BASE HEAVE AT FML (70m BELOW GL) premature base uplift failure

Depths m Excavaton Elapsed Days

10 10
20 80
30 90
40 150
50 170
60 200
70 230

UnDrained is
most stable

27

27

PLAXIS CE 2020
PLAXIS COUPLED FLOW-
63 m depth 70 m depth PLAXIS CONSOLIDATION DEFORMATION TPP CONSD AT
DRAINED AT RL39.3m (failed) UNDRAINED AT RL33.0m(FML) EPP CONSD AT RL33.0m(FML) RL33.0m (FML)

28

28

14
 9/24/2020

PLAXIS CE 2020 PLAXIS COUPLED FLOW-

63 m depth 70 m depth PLAXIS CONSOLIDATION DEFORMATION TPP CONSD AT
DRAINED AT RL39.3m (failed) UNDRAINED AT RL33.0m(FML) EPP CONSD AT RL33.0m(FML) RL33.0m (FML)

29

29

UNDRAINED AT RL33.0m (FML)

PLAXIS CONSOLIDATION PLAXIS COUPLED FLOW-DEFORMATION
70 m depth EPP CONSD AT RL33.0m (FML) TPP CONSD AT RL33.0m (FML)

• UnDrained Model gave unrealistic high excess PP soil suctions below the base (+500 kPa)
• Classical EPP Model gave larger excess PP suctions compared to Coupled TPP model below FEL level (+150 kPa)
30
• Coupled TPP Model gave most realistic estimates of remaining excess PP suction below FEL level (+120 kPa)

30

15
 9/24/2020

• COUPLED TPP
CONSD GIVE
REALISTIC LOWEST
ESTIMATE OF BASE
FOS
• BUT ALL THREE
HAVE HIGH FOS
AGAINST BASE
UPLIFT FAILURE

31

31

PLAXIS CE VERISON 2020

MEASURED PZ-2 is
yellow dash line
DRAINED
FAILURE
INITIATED

Fully Coupled Consolidation Model gave most realistic response of PZ2 predictions – YELLOW DASH LINE

32

32

16
 9/24/2020

MEAN STRESSES & PP IN OA (2m below FML(70m BGL) DTSS1 CHANGI)

ACTIVE PP IN OA at 2m below
FML shifted to match Total Mean
Stress at start of Excavation

• OA at 2m below FML is essentially

UnDrained (Effective Stress
remains Unchanged) from start to
150 days after excavation (approx.
ACTIVE PP IN OA at 2m 40m depths of excavation)
below FML • Beyond 40m depths, the OA at
2m below FML is Partially
Draining as reflected in changes in
effective stress
33

33

VERTICAL TOTAL STRESS & EFFECTIVE MEAN STRESSES IN OA (2m below

(FML 70m BGL) at DTSS1 CHANGI)

• Total Vertical Stress reduction

indicates depths of Excavation
• Effective Mean Stress in OA
below FML for realistic
Coupled Consolidation Case
• Effective Mean Stress in OA
below FM
• For ideal Perfect UnDrained
Case; effective stress remain
unchanged for whole depths
of excavation

34

34

17
 9/24/2020

Diaphragm Wall Deflections and Estimated BMs

Plot of Wall Deflection Plot of Wall Deflection (a) Day 57 (b) Day 84
On Day 104 On Day 218
Wall Deflection (mm) Wall Deflection (mm) Bending Moment (kNm) Bending Moment (kNm)
-10 -5 0 5 10 -10 -5 0 5 10 -500 0 500 1000 -1000 -500 0 500 1000
110 110 110 110

100 100 100 100

90 90 90 90

80 80
80 80

70 70
70 70
Reduced Level (m)

Reduced Level (m)

Reduced Level (m)

Reduced Level (m)

60 60
60 60

50 50
50 50

40 40
40 40

30 30
30 30
20 Measured at I1 Measured at I1
20
Measured at I3 20 Measured at S4 Measured at S4
Measured at I3 20
FEM, With T emperature FEM, With T emperature Measured at S12 Measured at S12
10 10 Measured at S20
FEM. With T emperature (Adjusted) FEM. With T emperature (Adjusted) Measured at S20
10 10
FEM, With T emperature FEM, With T emperature
0 0
0 0

35

35

Some key Conclusions

• Deep shaft excavation in OA soils are usually very stable. Due to slow
partial consolidation in OA, it seldom reached Fully Drained conditions
during excavation. Assumption of Fully Drained conditions of OA may be
too conservative and involved very costly designs.
• The very stiff OA with low permeability showed small differences in
Drained to UnDrained response until shaft excavation had progressed
nearer to FML.
• Closer to FML, the response of the shaft shifts from UnDrained towards
Drained behavior.
• The Fully Coupled TPP response 2m below FML is close to either Drained or
UnDrained PP until we get closer to FML at about 63m (RL33.9m) depths
• Therefore, it is very difficult to judge if we have a Drained or UnDrained
behavior from a single piezometer; but the Drained model is Unstable and
showed unrealistic base failure at RL33.9m, failing in tension cutoff yielding
(resulting in unreal premature base uplift failure).
36

36

18
 9/24/2020

Some key Conclusions

• The Classical EPP model response is not as accurate as the Coupled
TPP model Pore Pressure response, but it gives realistic approximate
base heave predictions close to the more realistic Fully Coupled TPP
model.
• Fully Coupled Consolidation using TPP is a very powerful tool. But it
must be used with both Correct Permeability and Ground Stiffnesses
in a reasonably accurate non-linear soil model to depict realistic soil
pore pressure responses.
• It enables us to get deeper insights into realistic performance of very
complex deep excavation processes.

37

37

CASE HISTORY VALIDATION STUDIES

Part 3: Review of Nicol-Highway Collapse

Measured vs Predicted Pore Pressures

38

38

19
 9/24/2020

NHW Cut & Cover TUNNEL COLLAPSE

(BEFORE & AFTER)

39

39

KEY INSTRUMENTS AT SECTION M3/M2

40

40

20
 9/24/2020

Importance of Correct
UnDrained Shear
Strengths in Soft Clays
to assess Short-term
Safety of Cut slopes and
excavations

41

41

• UnDrained strengths is
stress-path dependent
• Different soil models will
produce different effective
stress paths
• UnDrained “B” is strictly
applicable to Mohr-
Coulomb model, and not
applicable to most
Advanced soil models
• For Advanced soil models
need to check UnDrained
Strengths profiles against
measured values for each
stage of excavations

42

42

21
 9/24/2020

• Importance of Groundwater (GW) modelling– Z-METHOD, INTERPOLATION, OR

STEADY STATE SEEPAGE
• Good GW modelling can be done in Fully Coupled Consolidation to capture
transient flow processes in OA soils

43

43

GW MODELLING INFLUENCED EXTENT OF YIELDED ZONES BELOW JGP

• When OA is set as Drained material,

Interpolated GW PP estimate larger Uplift
• Z-Water depress PP below Lower under JGP
• So plastic yielding is more extensive in lower
JGP (not safe)
JGP, and may show premature Uplift Failure
• So plastic yielding of JGP is under-
estimated 44

44

22
 9/24/2020

DID UPLIFT FAILURE HAPPENED AT NH COLLAPSE? UNLIKELY!!!

• With OA set as Drained material, predict Lower

JGP Uplift Failure
• Z-Water GW PP predicted much less • Results is UNSTABLE BASE at RL72.5
Upheave of Lower JGP
• No Uplift MODE is APPARENT

45

45

FULL FEM MODEL BASED ON BH31/BH32

FULL FEM MODEL SHOWED THAT WEAKER SIDE IS SOUTH SIDE (BH31 OR BH84)

46

46

23
 9/24/2020

REDO WITH CE-2020 YIELDED STATE AT RL72.5m (After removal of Upper JGP)

UNDRAINED MODEL for OA COUPLED FLOW MODEL in OA

• Both MODELS are STABLE without Uplift Failure predicted 47

47

PWP MEASURED DATA FROM M3 SITE

• Throughout course
of Collapse studies
we were all fixated
with Wall
deformation, Strut
Forces, and JGP
stresses
• Little attention was
given to PP data
• Now we can
Examine how well
FEM is able to
predict PWP trends
in UMC, LMC and
OA soils?

48

48

24
 9/24/2020

PIEZOMETER GW-v24 DAMAGED ON 26 FEB 2004 (AFTER 240 DAYS)

• Is Linear trend
extrapolation of PP
in OA soils below
JGP valid and
reasonable?

49

49

PREDICTION of PWP at GW-v24 in OA below Lower JGP, using FULLY

COUPLED FLOW
NHW MEASURED PWP IN OA OA SHOWED LINEAR TREND INDEED

Ideal UnDrained

MEASURED PP AT GW-v24 IN
OA COMPARE WITH PLAXIS
COUPLED FLOW RESULTS

FROM FULLY COUPLED CONSOLIDATION MODEL:

• Linear trend of PP extrapolation in OA soils is Valid.
• GW-v24 showed linear trend until it was damaged on 26/02/2004 (Collapsed occurred on 20/04/2004)
• UnDrained model predictions of PP trends in OA is unrealistic (It will predict too much PP increase
instead of reduction from 200 days onwards) 50

50

25
 9/24/2020

VERTICAL STRESSES & PP in OA at MID-BASE below Lower JGP (-0.1,64.5)

Sig-YY Total Vertical Stress REDUCTION IN TOTAL VERTICAL STRESS IN

OA is approximate INDICATION OF
EXCAVATION depths of 30m at end stage

ACTIVE PP = SigYY – SigYY’

P’ Effective Vertical Stress

UNDRAINED CONDITIONS INDICATED BY

Sig-YY’ APPROX CONSTANT (190 DAYS)

51

51

MEAN STRESSES & PP in OA at MID-BASE below Lower JGP (-0.1,64.5)

P Total Mean Stress

ACTIVE PP = Sig_P – Sig_P’

UNDRAINED INDICATED BY
• Based on mean effective stress, OA
Sig_P’ is CONSTANT FOR 180 DAYS
below FML is UnDrained for about
P’ Effective
180 days (up to about 15m depths)
Mean Stress
and partially drained up to end of
280 days at about 30m depths

52

52

26
 9/24/2020

PREDICTION OF PWP AT GW-v25-1 (-12,72.5) in Lower Marine Clay (LMC) using FULLY
COUPLED FLOW
NHW MEASURED PWP

MEASURED PP AT GW-v25-1 IN
LMC COMPARE WITH PLAXIS
COUPLED FLOW RESULTS

FULLY COUPLED CONSOLIDATION predicts realistic trends of PP

reduction in GW-v25-1 in LMC as expected in UnDrained unloading
53

53

MEAN STRESSES & PP in LMC at 2m behind DWALL (-12,72.5)

P Total Mean Stress

ACTIVE PP = Sig_P – Sig_P’

UNDRAINED
Sig_P’= CONSTANT (280 days)
P’ Effective Mean Stress
• Based on Mean Effective Stresses, LMC is
essentially UnDrained throughout the
excavation process, as we have correctly
assumed in our typical design practice.

54

54

27
 9/24/2020

PREDICTION OF PWP at GW-v25-2 (-12,85.5) in Upper Marine Clay (UMC) using FULLY
COUPLED FLOW

NHW MEASURED PWP

MEASURED PP AT GW-v25-2
IN UMC COMPARE WITH
PLAXIS COUPLED FLOW
RESULTS

FULLY COUPLED CONSOLIDATION predicts realistic trends of PP in GW-v25-2 in UMC unloading.

• The ERSS UMC response is essentially UnDrained.
• Coupled analysis gave more realistic PP predictions in UMC compared to measured response (no sharp
spikes as in measured values). 55

55

MEAN STRESSES & PP in UMC at 2m behind DWALL (-12,84.5)

P Total Mean Stress

ACTIVE PP = Sig_P – Sig_P’

• Based on Mean Effective Stress,

UNDRAINED LMC is essentially UnDrained
Sig_P’= CONSTANT (280 days) throughout the excavation
process, as we have assumed in
P’ Effective Mean Stress
our typical design practice.

56

56

28
 9/24/2020

WHY UPLIFT FAILURE DID NOT HAPPEN AT NHC WHEN IT FAILED?

Collapse caused by brittle (Sway
Buckilng) failure of Strut-Waler
Connections at Strut-9th Level
• In the COI, it was established that trigger
mechanism of collapse is brittle failure of the
Strut-waler connections by sway-buckling of
waler flange at Strut-9th level, after removal
of Upper JGP.

• If Strut-waler connection did not fail, there

would be NO collapse of ERSS.

• The OA below Lower JGP is somewhat

Undrained and produced PP reduction that
reduce Uplift pressures sufficiently to keep
Lower JGP stable, after removal of Upper
JGP.

• THE PROOF is in the BASE STABILITY OF

THE TSA SHAFT NEXT DOOR, which had
been excavated (33m deep) to FML of M3
section and showed NO sign of any Base
Uplift Instability.

57

57

CASE HISTORY VALIDATION STUDIES

Part 4: Validation of Tower Hybrid Raft Foundation

Performance on Improved Ground with Rigid Pile
Inclusions at Yishun, a 3DFEM Study

58

58

29
 9/24/2020

Project Details: Wisteria

• Mixed Development
• 3 tower blocks
• 12 floors
• 1 basement
• Constructed
using PPVC
• Podium
• 3 floors
• 1 basement

59

59

Project Details: The Wisteria at Yishun Ave 4

• 3 tower blocks
• Core walls
• 8.4m x 8.4m Columns
• Podium
• 8.4m x 8.4m Columns
60

60

30
 9/24/2020

Project Details: Foundation Details

Mixed Hybrid Foundation
• Raft Foundation
• 1.7m thick Raft on
• 3 x rigid inclusion
zones (blue)
• Base slab overhang
• Bored Pile Zones (red)
• 600mm to 1000mm
diameter

61

61

Project Details: Foundation Details (Rigid Vertical

Inclusions as Settlement Reducers)

Mixed Foundation
• Raft Foundation
• 1.7m thick Raft on
• 3 x rigid inclusion
zones (blue)
• Base slab overhang
• Bored Pile Zones (red)
• 600mm to
1000mm diameter

62

62

31
 9/24/2020

Why can the Foundation Concept Work?

• Theoretical Basis for Why Design Works?
• Basement depth = 6.6m; Soil Unloading = 6.6*18 = 120 kPa
• Average Building Load = 12 Floor + 1 Basement = 13*20 = 260 kPa (Conservative Value)
• Nett Loading on Soil below Raft = 260-120 = 140 kPa

• Bearing Capacity of Soils below Raft; N=10-20, Average N=15

• Cu = 5N = 75 kPa
• Ultimate Bearing Capacity for Strip Foundation = 5.14Cu = 5.14*75 = 385 kPa
• FoS of RAFT = 385/140 = 2.75 (between 2.5 and 3.0 used in Footing Design)
• Without any GI, expect Raft to settle between 50 to 100mm

• THUS, THIS GROUND CONDITION WILL ALLOW FOR RAFT FOUNDATION (WITH PILE
INCLUSIONS USED AS GI UNDER HEAVY TOWERS, TO ACT AS SETTLEMENT REDUCERS)

63

63

Sub-surface Soil Condition

64

64

32
 9/24/2020

Project Details: Geological Map

• Founded on Bukit
Timah Granite
Formation at
Yishun Avenue 4

65

65

Extensive SI work has been conducted in July 2015 with 11 boreholes PBH-1 to PBH-11, coupled with
detail lab Triaxial CID tests and site pressuremeter tests to ascertain soil strength parameters and
stiffness parameters for HS model. There are also 4 preliminary borehole BH-1 to BH-4 conducted in
Aug 2014 shown below:

PBH-6 PBH-5

PBH-1 BH-1 BH-4 PBH-4

PBH-9 PBH-8

PBH-7

PBH-2
PBH-11

BH-2
PBH-10 BH-3

PBH-3

66

66

33
 9/24/2020

Review of subsurface soil condition

• The predominant geological feature of the site is the Bukit Timah Formation
with typically about 3m top fill material followed by the competent Bukit
Timah residual soil with SPT N increasing with depth.
• It is noted that ALL the boreholes consistently show that there exists NO
trace of Kallang formation soft soils at site which is very favorable factor
for Hybrid Raft foundation.
• As will be demonstrated in the next slides, the Raft foundation with base
resting on an elevation of about 6.6m below GL, the founding ground
condition is predominantly stiff Residual Soil with typical SPT N value in the
range of 10~20 with average SPT N value of about 15 which is deemed to
be sufficiently strong to support the Raft foundation with tolerable
settlements that can be managed upon application of building loads.

67

67

Review of subsurface soil condition

• Certain local areas with heavier lift core loadings will be

effectively enhanced by Ground Improvement (GI) work using
H-piles grid installed beneath the raft foundation separated with
a hardcore layer (to differentiate the present concept of GI
using piles as rigid vertical inclusions stiffeners, instead of
typical structural piled foundation).

68

68

34
 9/24/2020

PBH1 – Top fill 3m followed by competent Bukit Timah Residual Soil with SPT N
increasing steadily with depth

1.7m thk raft founded on

RS with N=14~15

69

69

PBH5 – Top fill 3m followed by competent Bukit Timah Residual Soil with SPT N
increasing steadily with depth

1.7m thk raft founded on

RS with N=9~13

70

70

35
 9/24/2020

PBH10 – Top fill 3m followed by competent Bukit Timah Residual Soil with SPT N
increasing steadily with depth

1.7m thk raft founded on

RS with N=7~15

71

71

BH-1 – Top fill 1m followed by competent Bukit Timah Residual Soil with SPT N
increasing steadily with depth

1.7m thk raft founded on

RS with N=10~18

72

72

36
 9/24/2020

BH-4 – Top fill 1m followed by competent Bukit Timah Residual Soil with SPT N
increasing steadily with depth

1.7m thk raft founded on

RS with N=12~15

73

73

Just for information: The underlying rock elevation profile (below existing
GL) at site was shown below which is observed to be quite variable, from
shallow elevation of about -12 ~ -14m bgl around BH-1 and PBH-9 to
about -32~-34m bgl around BH-2 and PBH-10

74

74

37
 9/24/2020

Two rock core boxes shown below as an example to illustrate very good
quality of the underlying granite rocks with typically high TCR and RQD

75

75

1st Geotechnical Plaxis 3D FEM

Analysis of the Proposed Raft
Scheme

76

76

38
 9/24/2020

Deployment of all the boreholes available for a realistic spatial interpolation of

subsurface soil condition in 3D FEM mesh as illustrated below:

Deployed boreholes
Top fill

Firm RS (N=7~10)
Stiff RS (N=10~20)

Very stiff RS
(N=20~40)

Hard RS (N=40~80)

Underlying rocks

77

77

• Hardening Soil Model (HS) was adopted for analysis, as it is very suitable for
construction involving intermediate unloading (1-level basement excavation) and
subsequently column/wall loading.
• Pressuremeter tests was conducted at site with results summarized below. It can be seen
that the 1st time loading modulus Em typically hovers around 1 times SPT N value (in
MPa) except for PBH8 which is 3.5 times SPT N value. It is noted that OYO Elastmeter
was lowered into “Pre-drilled” borehole instead of “Self-bored” method, which could
explain certain soil disturbance and relatively lower 1st time loading modulus obtained.
• On the other hand, Eur/E50 was observed to be very high in the range of 7.4~12.0 as
tabulated below:
Depth of
pressurement Test 1st loading modulus, Unload-reload
Borehole (m) SPT N value Em (kPa) Em vs SPT N modulus, Er (kPa) Er / Em

PBH7 20~20.5m 79 79,494 kPa 1.01N (in MPa) 700,462 kPa 8.8

PBH8 22~22.5m 100 351,124 kPa 3.51N (in MPa) 2,594,818 kPa 7.4

PBH9 10.5~11m 40 25,368 kPa .63N (in MPa) 222,214 kPa 8.8

PBH10 25~25.5m 64 51,974 kPa .81N (in MPa) 624,937 kPa 12.0

PBH11 14~14.5m 17 19,203 kPa 1.13N (in MPa) 184,764 kPa 9.6
78

78

39
 9/24/2020

• Multiple lab Triaxial CID tests have been conducted with the soil strength
parameters summarized below. It is noted that generally very high soil cohesion
was derived with correspondingly lower friction angles.
• It is assessed that for such Bukit Timah residual soil with typically sandy silt
material, a lower cohesion coupled with correspondingly higher friction angle
would be more reasonable as recommended in the last column of the summary
table below, and was adopted in the present geotechnical 3D FEM analysis.

Sample Sample SPT N Lab cohesion Lab friction Recommended Recommended friction
Category Borehole Sample Depth (m) value c' (kPa) angle f ' () c' (kPa) angle f ' ()
Firm Soil
(N<10) PBH11 TW1 3~3.8m 9 11 kPa 32 degree 5 kPa 30 degree

PBH4 TW3 10~10.5m 17 14 kPa 32 degree

PBH6 TW2 7~7.7m 17 31 kPa 25 degree

Stiff soil
10 kPa 32 degree
(N=10~20) PBH7 TW3 10~10.6m 17 25 kPa 30 degree

PBH8 TW2 7~7.7m 14 9 kPa 32 degree

PBH10 TW4 16~16.6m 19 21 kPa 29 degree

Very stiff to
Hard soil PBH2 MZ-1 13.5~14m 23 28 kPa 27 degree 12 kPa 33 degree
(N=20~40) 79
PBH9 MZ1 11~12m 40 28 kPa 28 degree

79

Determination of Soil Stiffness Parameters for Bt Timah Residual Soils at Wisteria Site
Borehole Depth m SPT N Em MPA Em/N Eur MPA Eur/N Engineering Judgment on Parameters to
PBH7 20-22.5 79 79.5 1.01 700.5 8.87
PBH8 22-22.5 100 351.1 3.51 2594.8 25.95
Use:
PBH9 10.5-11 40 25.4 0.64 222.2 5.56 • Correlations to SPT N values
PBH10 22-22.5 64 52 0.81 624.9 9.76
PBH11 14-14.5 17 19.2 1.13 184.8 10.87 • E50_ref range from 0.64N to 3.51N
MEAN= 1.42 12.20 • More realistic range from 0.64 to 1.5N
STDDEV= 1.18 7.94
CHAR VALUE 0.83 8.23 • Characteristic value is 0.79 to 0.83N
Borehole Depth m SPT N Em MPA Em/N Eur MPA Eur/N
• We use E_50ref=1N MPA, with N as
PBH7 20-22.5 79 79.5 1.01 700.5 8.87 average values for each distinct soil
PBH9 10.5-11 40 25.4 0.64 222.2 5.56
PBH10 22-22.5 64 52 0.81 624.9 9.76 layers
PBH11 14-14.5 17 19.2 1.13 184.8 10.87
MEAN= 0.90 8.76
STDDEV= 0.22 2.29 • Eur_ref range from 5.56 to 25.95N
CHAR VALUE 0.79 7.62
• More realistic is 5.56 to 10.87N
• Characteristic value is 7.62 to 8.23N
• We use Eur_ref=5N MPA, with N as
average values for each distinct soil
layers 80

80

40
 9/24/2020

HS Model was adopted as it is capable of capturing the realistic soil elasto-plastic

and unloading-reloading behavior with soil parameters shown below:

81

81

• With reference to the widely quoted literature

“Foundation Analysis and Design” by JE Bowles,
the tolerable raft foundation is in the range of
50mm~125mm, while a safe recommended design
raft settlement is in the range of
• 65mm~100mm for raft on clays, and
• 35mm~65mm on sands.

82

82

41
 9/24/2020

EC7 (annex H) explicitly states that for normal structures with isolated
foundations, total settlements up to 50mm are often acceptable; while
maximum relative rotation is 1/500 (see below)

As such, the following Settlement Criteria can be

reasonably adopted accordingly:

• Allowable Max raft settlement = 40mm;

• Max differential distortion < 1:500. 83

83

Column loads simulated as “point” loads in 3D FEM mesh (some top soil
elements hidden to display loadings below GL)

Point loads within

Point loads outside basement
Point loads outside
basement boundary wall basement (on bored
piles)

84

84

42
 9/24/2020

Wall loads simulated as “line” loads in 3D FEM mesh (some top soil elements
hidden to display loadings below GL)

Line loads along

Line load at lift
basement
core walls
boundary walls

Line loads
on walls

85

85

There are also some patch surface loads for backfills (94kPa) and the Detention
tanks/Sprinkler tank (50kpa) and some local areas (16kPa) as well as general
basement surcharge of DL+SLL = 10.1kPa

Some patch
surface loads for General basement surcharge
backfill, DL+SLL = 10.1kPa
Detention
tanks/sprinkler
tank and some
local areas
(94/50/16kPa)

86

86

43
 9/24/2020

After construction of basement raft foundation and movements reset to zero,

FULL application of all the above-mentioned loads are applied as illustrated below
(some top soil elements hidden to display loadings below GL)

Loads on Raft
Loads on Raft within basement
outside basement

Loads on bored
piles

87

87

The calculated Final raft settlement contour is shown below with Max
settlement of about 42mm around the 3 Lift corewall areas, which exceeds
the Max allowable settlement of 40mm, thus the Original proposed Raft
scheme has very tight Serviceability Issue.

88

88

44
 9/24/2020

The Calculated Final raft settlement has a Max

settlement of about 42mm around the 3 Lift corewall
areas, which exceeds the Max allowable settlement of
40mm.

It is also expected that the differential settlement

between columns on RAFT and columns on bored
piles outside the RAFT will exceed 1: 500 in view of
the larger RAFT settlement.

Thus, Ground Improvements (GI) using H-piles as

Settlement Reducers (SR) is suggested to reinforce
the ground around the 3 Lift Corewell areas.

89

89

Proposed Enhanced Raft scheme with Hybrid

GI work in 2nd Geotechnical 3D FEM Analysis

90

90

45
 9/24/2020

Ground improvement (GI) scheme using H-piles

(400x400x232kg/m) in 2.0m x 2.0m grid pattern will
be deployed beneath the 3 heavily loaded lift
corewell areas as Settlement Reducers (SR) as
illustrated in next slide.

As the H-piles are used as Ground Improvement

(GI) measure instead of providing a piled
foundation, H-piles head (design as Vertical
Inclusions) will be embedded into a hardcore layer
by 200mm and detach from Raft base by 100mm,
as illustrated in next slide.

91

91

GI work using H-piles as Settlement Reducers (SR) to embed into the hardcore
layer by 200mm

1.7m Raft

H-pile embeded into 300mm hardcore layer

hardcore by 200mm

Schematic of using H-piles

as Settlement reducing
elements for GI work

92
H-piles driving or Jackin until reaching REFUSAL of underlying hard soil with SPT N=60~100

92

46
 9/24/2020

• H-piles (400x400x232kg/m) as Settlement Reducers in 2m x 2m grid pattern

deployed to cover the footprint of the Liftcore area #1 as illustrated below.
• The H-piles will be driven/jackin to refusal of about -13m below GL to socket in
N>40 RS above the underlying rock based on the local borehole PBH-9 as shown
below:

GI work by H-piles
(400x400x232kg/m) in
2m x 2m grid pattern Raft edge outline
to cover the footprint
of the heavily loaded
lift corewell area #1
Local soil profile (PBH-9):
0~3m below GL: Fill
3~9m below GL: Stiff residual
soil (N=13~18)
9~13m below GL: Very stiff
residual soil (N=40~41)
13m downwards: Underlying
rocks
(Estimated H-pile toe elevation = 93
-13m below existing GL)

93

Corresponding deployment of settlement reducing H-piles in 3D FEM mesh at

Liftcore area #1 (Top soil elements hidden to reveal the H-piles in the ground)

H-pile toe reaching refusal layer

Grid of H-piles (about -13m below existing GL)
beneath the lift
corewell area #1

94

94

47
 9/24/2020

• H-piles (400x400x232kg/m) as Settlement Reducer in 2m x 2m grid pattern deployed to cover the

footprint of the Liftcore area #2 as illustrated below.
• In the meantime, to reduce the differential settlement between the heavily loaded columns near the
edge of Raft and the adjacent bored piles, 2 rows of H piles with c/c spacing of 2m x 2m are
deployed along the edge of Raft beneath the columns, as illustrated below.
• The H-piles will be driven/jackin until reaching refusal of about -24m below GL to socket into the
underlying Hard residual soil with SPT N=64~100 based on the local borehole PBH-10 as shown
below:
GI work by H-piles Local soil profile (PBH-10):
(400x400x232kg/m) in 0~3m below GL: Fill
2m x 2m grid pattern to
3~9m below GL: Firm
cover the footprint of the
residual soil (N=7)
heavily loaded lift
corewell area #2 9~24m below GL: Stiff
residual soil (N=19~25)
24m downwards: Underlying
Hard soil (N=64~100)

(Estimated H-pile toe

elevation = -24m below
existing GL)
Raft edge outline 95

95

Corresponding deployment of settlement reducing H-piles in 3D

FEM mesh at Liftcore area #2 (Top soil elements hidden to
reveal the H-piles in the ground)

H-pile toe reaching refusal

layer (about -24m below GL)

Adjacent piled
foundations
outside basement

Grid of H-piles beneath

the lift corewell area #2
and along Raft edge
beneath heavily loaded
columns 96

96

48
 9/24/2020

• H-piles (400x400x232kg/m) as Settlement Reducer in 2m x 2m grid pattern deployed

to cover the footprint of the Liftcore area #3 as illustrated below;
• In the meantime, to reduce the differential settlement between 4W2 on Raft and
adjacent 4W3 on bored piles, H piles with closer c/c spacing of 1.5m x 1.5m are
deployed beneath 4W2, as illustrated below.
• The H-piles will be driven/jackin until reaching refusal of about -21m below GL to
socket into the underlying Hard residual soil with SPT N=72~100 based on the local
borehole PBH-11 as shown below:
GI work by H-piles Local soil profile (PBH-11):
(400x400x232kg/m) in 0~3m below GL: Fill
2m x 2m grid pattern 3~6m below GL: Firm
to cover the footprint residual soil (N=7~10)
of the heavily loaded 6~18m below GL: Stiff
lift corewell area #3 residual soil (N=17~22)
18~21m below GL: Very stiff
residual soil (N=41)
21m downwards:
Underlying Hard soil
(N=72~100)
H-piles in 1.5m x 1.5m grid (Estimated H-pile toe
pattern beneath 4W2 to reduce elevation = -21m below GL)
the differential settlement with
adjacent 4W3 on bored piles. 97

97

Corresponding deployment of settlement reducing H-piles in 3D FEM mesh at Lift-

core area #3 (Top soil elements hidden to reveal the H-piles in the ground)

H-piles in 1.5m x 1.5m

grid pattern beneath 4W2
to reduce the differential
settlement with adjacent Adjacent
4W3 on bored piles. 4W3 on
bored piles
Grid of H-piles
beneath the lift
corewell area #3

H-pile toe reaching refusal layer

(about -21m below GL)

98

98

49
 9/24/2020

With the above Settlement Reducer (SR) piles, Max settlement of the raft was
effectively reduced to about 25.1mm as shown below, much less than the 40mm
allowable settlement → OK!

99

99

For the continuous Raft foundation, the differential settlement can be visualized by plotting a cross
section across the Max settlement trough as marked in Section 1-1 below and presented in next slide.

100

100

50
 9/24/2020

The Max differential distortion works out to be about 1:1290 along

cross section 1-1 as shown below → OK!
Along 1-1

Lateral coordinate (m)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
0

-10

-20
Settlement (mm)

-30

-40

-50

-60

-70
Along Max gradient segment (green line):
-80 Max differential settlement = 21.8mm - 11.1mm = 10.1mm
Over the span of 15.9m - 2.8m = 13.1m
-90 So, Max differential distortion ratio = 10.1mm/13,100mm = 1: 1290 -- > OK!

-100

101

101

Likewise, for the settlement profile along the cross section 2-2 as marked below and
presented in next slide.

102

102

51
 9/24/2020

The Max differential distortion works out to be about 1:1680 along

cross section 2-2 as shown below → OK!
Along 2-2
Lateral coordinate (m)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
0

-10

-20

-30
Settlement (mm)

-40

-50

-60

-70 Along Max gradient segment (green line):

Max differential settlement = 22.3mm - 15.1mm = 7.2mm
-80 Over the span of 19.8m - 7.7m = 12.1m
So, differential distortion ratio = 7.2mm / 12,100mm = 1 : 1680 --> OK!
-90

-100
Along 2-2
103

103

Comparison of the above geotechnical 3D FEM

“Prediction” conducted in 2016 with Real site
measurements in 2018

(Class “A” Predictions)

104

104

52
 9/24/2020

Expected TOP in June 2018.

Final Raft settlement measurements using BSM1 to BSM21:

105

105

Final measured Max Raft settlement of about 20~23mm around the 3 BLOCKS areas as
illustrated below, matching the predicted Max raft settlement of 20~25mm very well:

106

106

53
 9/24/2020

Re-visit of the previous geotechnical 3D FEM predicted Raft settlement Contour:

The measured settlement contour pattern presented in last slide matches the
geotechnical 3D FEM prediction reasonably well with Max predict Raft settlement
around 3 BLOCKS areas of about 20~25mm.

107

107

On the other hand, the measured PODIUM settlement is much less of around
2~10mm, which also matches the 3D FEM contour pattern reasonably well as
illustrated in next slide:

108

108

54
 9/24/2020

Re-visit of the previous geotechnical 3D FEM predicted Raft settlement Contour:

The measured settlement contour pattern matches the geotechnical 3D FEM prediction
reasonably well with predicted Raft settlement of around 2~10mm around Podium area:

109

109

Only 1 settlement marker BSM-

21 is installed at the podium
area supported on bored piles
OUTSIDE the basement raft,
with final measured value of
6.0mm as shown, which
compared reasonably well with
our prediction of 6.5mm as
presented earlier, also shown
again in next slide.

110

110

55
 9/24/2020

Geotechnical 3D FEM prediction of 6.5mm bored pile settlement (see below), compared
reasonably well with the final settlement marker BSM-21 measurement of 6.0mm:

4W3 on bored
piles

4W2 on Raft

Differential Column
Column settlement settlement spacing Differential
Columns (mm) (mm) (m) settlement

4W2 on RAFT 13.9 mm

7.4 mm 7.2 m 1: 970
4W3
on bored piles 6.5 mm 111

111

Comparison with Settlements vs Time Data

• Compare final settlement profile (settlement vs distance on raft)
• Compare individual BSM readings (settlement vs time)

• Adjusted BSM 016 to 021 readings BSM Install relative to

podium construction
• BSM 014 & 015 should be adjusted but
stage of construction at installation is 001 to 013 Prior

not clear 014 to 015 During

016 to 021 After

112

112

56
 9/24/2020

Comparison: Final Settlement Profile

113

113

Comparison: Final Settlement Profile

114

114

57
 116
115
Relative movement (mm) Relative movement (mm)

-5

-25
-20
-15
-10
0
5
10

-5

-25
-20
-15
-10
0
5
10
Relative movement (mm) Relative movement (mm)

-5

-25
-20
-15
-10
0
5
10

-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
22-Feb-17 22-Feb-17
22-Feb-17 22-Feb-17

24-Apr-17 24-Apr-17
24-Apr-17 24-Apr-17

24-Jun-17 24-Jun-17
24-Jun-17 24-Jun-17

24-Aug-17 24-Aug-17

BSM 007
BSM 005
24-Aug-17 24-Aug-17

BSM 003
BSM 001

24-Oct-17 24-Oct-17
24-Oct-17 24-Oct-17

24-Dec-17 24-Dec-17
24-Dec-17 24-Dec-17

23-Feb-18 23-Feb-18
23-Feb-18 23-Feb-18
Relative movement (mm) Relative movement (mm)

-5

-25
-20
-15
-10
0
5
10
Relative movement (mm) Relative movement (mm)

-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
-5

-25
-20
-15
-10
0
5
10
-5

-25
-20
-15
-10
0
5
10

22-Feb-17 22-Feb-17
22-Feb-17 22-Feb-17

24-Apr-17 24-Apr-17
24-Apr-17 24-Apr-17

24-Jun-17 24-Jun-17
24-Jun-17 24-Jun-17

24-Aug-17 24-Aug-17

BSM 008
BSM 006
24-Aug-17 24-Aug-17
BSM 004
BSM 002

24-Oct-17 24-Oct-17
24-Oct-17 24-Oct-17

24-Dec-17 24-Dec-17
24-Dec-17 24-Dec-17

23-Feb-18 23-Feb-18
23-Feb-18 23-Feb-18
Comparison: Individual BSM

Comparison: Individual BSM

116
115
9/24/2020

58
 118
117
Relative movement (mm) Relative movement (mm) Relative movement (mm) Relative movement (mm)

-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
-5

-25
-20
-15
-10
0
5
10

-5
-5

-25
-20
-15
-10
0
5
-25
-20
-15
-10
0
5

10
10
22-Feb-17 22-Feb-17 22-Feb-17 22-Feb-17

24-Apr-17 24-Apr-17 24-Apr-17 24-Apr-17

24-Jun-17 24-Jun-17 24-Jun-17 24-Jun-17

24-Aug-17 24-Aug-17 24-Aug-17 24-Aug-17

BSM 011
BSM 009

BSM 015
BSM 013
24-Oct-17 24-Oct-17 24-Oct-17 24-Oct-17

24-Dec-17 24-Dec-17 24-Dec-17 24-Dec-17

23-Feb-18 23-Feb-18 23-Feb-18 23-Feb-18

Relative movement (mm) Relative movement (mm) Relative movement (mm) Relative movement (mm)
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10

-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10

-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10

-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
22-Feb-17 22-Feb-17 22-Feb-17 22-Feb-17

24-Apr-17 24-Apr-17 24-Apr-17 24-Apr-17

24-Jun-17 24-Jun-17 24-Jun-17 24-Jun-17

24-Aug-17 24-Aug-17 24-Aug-17 24-Aug-17

BSM 016
BSM 014
BSM 012
BSM 010

24-Oct-17 24-Oct-17 24-Oct-17 24-Oct-17

24-Dec-17 24-Dec-17 24-Dec-17 24-Dec-17

23-Feb-18 23-Feb-18 23-Feb-18 23-Feb-18

Comparison: Individual BSM

Comparison: Individual BSM

not clear
adjusted but stage of
*BSM 014 & 015 should be

construction at installation is

118
117
9/24/2020

59
 9/24/2020

SUMMARY
• Basis of Calibration of HS, HSS and GHS type models for practical
applications was presented

• Use of these models in Deep Shafts, Cut and Cover tunnel with pore
pressures response data showed good predictions capabilities when used
in Fully Coupled consolidation analysis (Cases of DTSS1 Very Deep Shaft
and NHW C824 Section M3 failure)

• Good measurements of soil stiffnesses with PMT and laboratory CID plus
Oedometer tests, allow for reliable foundation settlements performance
predictions with 3D-FEM analysis in stiff to hard residual soils (Case
Wisteria project in Bt Timah Soils)
119

119

60