Wong Design Analysis Deep Excavations Session03

November2009 MohrCoulombModel
Session 3
Mohr-Coulomb Soil Model &
Design (Part 2)
Time Session Topic
09:00 10:30 1 Overview
10:30 11:00 Coffee Break
11:00 12:30 2 Design (Part 1)
12:30 - 01:30 Lunch
01:30 03:00 3 Mohr-Coulomb Soil Model &
Design (Part 2)
03:00 03:30 Coffee Break
03:30 05:00 4 How to reduce wall deflection

MohrCoulombModel 1
Thingsyoushouldknowaboutthe
MohrCoulombSoilModel
Plastic

Elastic ast c
Elastic
plastic
MohrCoulombModel 2
WongKaiSin 1
CanMohrCoulombModelsimulateRealSoilBehaviour?
Plastic
UUTeston
Clay
cu >0
>0 Elastic El i
Elastic
u =0 plastic

Plastic
CDTeston
Clayor
Sand
c' 0 Elastic
'>0
RealSoil MohrCoulombSoil
MohrCoulombModel 3
CanaElasticModelsimulateRealSoil Behaviour?
ElasticModel
Shearstressproduces
Shear stress produces Normalstressproduces
Normal stress produces
shearstrain: volumetricstrain:
v
no v
MohrCoulombModel 4
WongKaiSin 2
Can a elastic soil simulate undrained behaviour of clay?
Plastic

Elastic
l i Elastic
plastic
RealSoilBehaviour ElasticModel(=0.5)

no v no v
nov(undrained) nov(undrained)
Stressindependent Stressindependent
MohrCoulombModel 5
Can a elastic soil simulate undrained behaviour of clay?
Plastic

Elastic
l i Elastic
plastic
Yes!Ifweusecu andEu.
Canweusec' 'andE'?
MohrCoulombModel 6
WongKaiSin 3
CUTest
100
ESP TSP
porp(kPa)
MohrCoulombModel 7
CUTest
ConsolidatedUndrained =100kPa
TriaxialCompressionTest
RealSoil MohrCoulomb curve

13
Kf Kf
q q 2cu cu fromc' '
2cu cu measured
ESP TSP ESP TSP
porp porp 1
c' 'overpredictedcu !!!
MohrCoulombModel 8
WongKaiSin 4
Istheporepressureresponsecorrect?
LetslookatCUtestonanormallyconsolidatedclay.
RealSoil ElasticSoil
Kf Kf
q q
Uf Uf
ESP TSP ESP TSP
porp porp
Thepredictedporepressureismuchsmallerthanthemeasured!
MohrCoulombModel 9
MethodA
EffectivestressMohrCoulombMethodusingcand
Itoverestimatestheundrainedshearstrengthandunderestimatesthe
excessporepressure ofanormallyconsolidatedclay.
Kf Kf
q q
2cu
Uf Uf
2cu
ESP TSP ESP TSP
porp porp
MohrCoulombModel 10
WongKaiSin 5
Overestimationofcu ataReclaimedSite
Undrained Shear Strength (kPa)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
0
(qt-po)/Nkt
5
0.22*p'o
10
corr. FVT
15
Consol tests
20
Depth (m)
Cu based on
phi=22 & p'o
25
Method
30 A
35
40
45
50
MohrCoulombModel 11
NicollHighway ResultsofUndrainedAnalysisusingMethodA
Computedusing MethodA Measured

105
100
95
90
ReducedLevel(m)
ReducedLevel(m)
85
80
75
70
65 Level10
325 mm
325mm
60
55
50
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Formation=118mm
Final=145mm WallDeflection(mm)
MohrCoulombModel 12
WongKaiSin 6
DoesMethodA alwaysoverestimatecu forNCclay?
(13)f
1
'
3
cu u=0
Thissitehasa
constantcu. A B C
'
ForNCClay,itunderestimates cu atlowstressand
overestimates itathighstress.
MohrCoulombModel 13
MethodB
EffectivestressMohrCoulombMethodusingcu andu=0
Itforcesthesoiltofailataspecifiedundrainedshearstrength.
Kf
q q
2cu 2cu Kf
ESP TSP ESP TSP
porp porp
MohrCoulombModel 14
WongKaiSin 7
NicollHighway ResultsofUndrainedAnalysisusingMethodB
Computedusing MethodB Measured
MohrCoulombModel 15
CanMethodA beusedforOverconsolidatedClay?
CU
(13)f C
1
'
B
3
u=0
A cu UU
Thissitehasa c'
constantcu. A B C
'
ForagivenlayerofOCClay,itunderestimates cu atlow
stressandoverestimates itathighstress.
MohrCoulombModel 16
WongKaiSin 8
UsingMethodAforUndrainedAnalysisinOCClay
Kf Kf
q q
2cu 2 u
2c
Uf Uf
ESP TSP
ESP TSP
porp porp
1.MakesurethemeasuredstresspathissimilartothatofElasticSoil.
2.Dividethestratumintosublayerswithdifferentcandforeachlayer.
3.Computecu fromcandforeachlayer.Makesurethevaluesarereasonable.
MohrCoulombModel 17
UsingMohrCoulombmodelforUndrainedAnalysis
MethodA c' and' produceswrong cu forNCclay,

butitmayproducecorrectcu forOCclay
MethodB or C ForcesPlaxis
Method B orC Forces Plaxis tousespecifiedc
to use specified cu
Method A Method B Method C

Stress Type Effective Effective Total
Strength cand cu and u cu and u
M d l
Modulus E E Eu
Poissons Ratio = 0.35 u = 0.495
Ko or Kot Ko Ko Kot
MohrCoulombModel 18
WongKaiSin 9
CanMCmodelsimulateundrainedbehaviour ofclay?
Elasticplastic Plastic

Elastic
Inelastic
1. Itproducesthecorrectstrengthwithcu specified.
2. Itcannotsimulatenonlinearandinelasticbehaviour.
3. Itmaynotgeneratereliableporepressureresponse.
MohrCoulombModel 19

CanMCmodelgenerate
accuratedeflectionprofilesat
ConstantE
everystageofexcavation?
Wall Deflection (mm)

0 20 40 60 80 100
1 0
2 5
3 10
Depth (m )
4 1 2 3 4
15
20
25
30
MohrCoulombModel 20
WongKaiSin 10
Atearlystageofexcavation,
MohrCoulomb, LinearE larger
Hyperbolic, NonlinearE smaller
Et
MohrCoulombModel 21
Atfinalstageofexcavation,
MohrCoulomb,LinearE smaller
Hyperbolic,NonlinearE larger
Linear
Et
Nonlinear
MohrCoulombModel 22
WongKaiSin 11
MohrCoulomb
Eu/cu ~100to500
ConstantE
AdvancedSoilModel
Conclusion
M C model may not
MCmodelmaynot
producegoodmatchat
everystageofexcavation.
MohrCoulombModel
23
HowreliablearetheresultsgeneratedbytheMCmodel?
Fill

Soft Marine Clay
SoftMarineClay

0 50 100 150
0
V,MAX=33mm
H,MAX =28mm
35
Isthemodeofdeformationreasonable?
MohrCoulombModel 24
WongKaiSin 12
ResultsusingHyperoblicModel
Fill

Soft Marine Clay
SoftMarineClay

0 50 100 150
V,MAX=72mm
0
H,MAX =59mm
= 59 mm
35
Isthemodeofdeformationreasonable?
MohrCoulombModel 25
Linear Fill
vs SoftMarineClay
NonLinear
0 50 100 150 0 50 100 150

0 0
35 35

MohrCoulombModel 26
WongKaiSin 13
Checkplasticpointsandrelativeshearstress!
Fill
SoftMarineClay
Lessonlearned:
Correctanalysismaynotproducecorrectresults.
MohrCoulombModel 27
LinearvsNonLinearModel
Mohr CoulombModel RealSoilBehaviour

E3 E4
E2
E1
ConstantE

Youmustunderstandtheshortcomingsofthesoilmodelused!
MohrCoulombModel 28
WongKaiSin 14
UsingMethodBatReclaimedSite
MethodBisaneffective
Fill
stress method.
stressmethod.
Ko =1 sin'
Soft
Marine Ifclayisstillconsolidating,
Clay
thecomputedrelativeshear
stresswillbe>1,i.e.theclay
SandySilt
y is in failure state prior to
isinfailurestatepriorto
excavation.
MohrCoulombModel 29
UsingeffectiveKo atasitestillundergoingconsolidation
Plastic
points
MohrCoulombModel 30
WongKaiSin 15
MethodB(cu u)andKo (1sin)

105
100
Effectiveoverburdenpressure Fill
Level (m) 95
90
85
B A S ft
Soft
R educed L
80
75 Marine
Current Clay
70
effective
65
stress
60
55 SandySilt
50
0 100 200 300 400 500
Current Effective Stress (kPa)
AtA,('V 'H)='V (1 Ko)=74 kPa Currentcu =22kPa

(1 3)f =2cu =44 kPa
AtB,('V 'H)='V (1 Ko)=37 kPa
MohrCoulombModel 31
Needtosetthecorrectinitialstresses!
Fill
Soft
Marine
Clay
SandySilt
Checkplasticpointsaftergeneratingtheinitialstresses!
MohrCoulombModel 32
WongKaiSin 16
MohrCoulombModel 33
MohrCoulombModel 34
WongKaiSin 17
StressDependentBehaviour ofSoilunderDrainedCondition
MohrCoulombModel 35
StressPathsinanElasticMedium
Ko
D
C
B 1 3
E
1 3
F
1 3
A E QuestionableZone
E Questionable Zone
F DangerZone
3
MohrCoulombModel 36
WongKaiSin 18
TypicalStressPathsinExcavation
A
B
B
A
MohrCoulombModel 37
StressPathinZoneFunder DrainedCondition
rubber
soil
1(%)
v(%)
MohrCoulombModel 38
WongKaiSin 19
StressPathinZoneEunderDrainedCondition
1=300
3=300
MohrCoulombModel 39
Adrainedanalysiscanproduceincorrectresultsunder
certainstresspath.

Whichoneiscorrect?
B
A B

Measured Computed
Lessonlearned:
Correctanalysismaynotproducecorrectresults!
MohrCoulombModel 40
WongKaiSin 20
SomeproblemsmaybesensitivetoPoissonsRatio
-20 0 20 40 60 80 100
c=5kPa 0
=35o
5
E=8000kPa
H=9m 10
=0.4
Pois. Ratio = 0.4
=0.2
Pois. Ratio = 0.2
D e p th (m )
=0.2 =0.4
15
Mmax ,kNm/m 298 477

20
Strut 1, kN/m 77 114

Strut 2,
2 kN/m 226 335 25
Strut 3, kN/m 163 178

30
Lessonlearned:
Drainedanalysiscanproducemanysurprises.
MohrCoulombModel 41
CanMCmodelsimulatedrainedbehaviour ofsoil?
1. Itgivescorrectstrength f =c+tan
2. Modulusisnotstressdependent.
3. Itcannotsimulatenonlinearandinelasticbehaviour.
4. Itmayproducewrongresponseincertainstresspath.
5. ResultsmaybesensitivetoPoissonsratio.
MohrCoulombModel 42
WongKaiSin 21
CanMCmodelsimulatedrainedbehaviour ofsoil?
Plastic
6. Itmaynotproducecorrect
porepressureresponse.
7. Whenusingc'' in
consolidationanalysis,it
Elastic
maygeneratethewrong
undrainedstrengthat
endofconstruction.
8 There
8. Thereisnodilationuntil
is no dilation until
v afterthesoilreachesfailure.
MohrCoulombModel 43
MohrCoulombModel 44
WongKaiSin 22
November 2009 Excavation Design
Designing Temporary Work
Design &
Analysis
Instrumentation Construction
Monitoring Control
Designing Temporary Work is a Continuous Process
Initial Design
g Final Design
(Working Drawings) (As-Built)
Excavation
Start Finish
Excavation Design 1
Types of Analysis in TERS Design
1. Analysis for preliminary design

2 Analysis for working design to be
2.
adopted in construction
3. Back-analysis
4. Re-analysis
Prelim. Working Final Design

Design Design Back-Analysis & Re-analysis (As-Built)
Start Excavation Finish

Excavation Design 2
Wong Kai Sin 1

Analysis for preliminary design

To assess feasibility of proposed
TERS configuration and construction
sequence.
To assess effect of excavation on
surrounding structures
To conduct analysis using moderately
conservative design parameters
Excavation Design 3
Analysis for working or Final design

to be adopted in construction
To conduct sensitivity studies assessing
the effect of variable uncertainties
To finalise the strut forces and wall
bending moments for structural design
To assess the risk of damage to adjacent
structures
Excavation Design 4
Wong Kai Sin 2

Back-Analysis during Construction
To be carried out when the field

performance is much better or worse
than anticipated.
anticipated
To calibrate the design parameters
against field measurements
Wall Deflection (m m )
0 20 40 60 80 100
0
5
Computed
10
Depth (m)
15
Measured
20
25
30
Excavation Design 5
Re-Analysis during Construction

To be carried out after back-analysis
To assess potential final outcome using
calibrate design
g parameters
p
To revise the design where appropriate
Wall Deflection (m m) Wall Deflection (m m )
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 120

0 0
5 5
10 Computed 10
Design
Depth (m)
Depth (m )
15 15
Measured
20 20
Back-Analyzed
25 25
30 30
Excavation Design 6
Wong Kai Sin 3

Overview of Design Process
1. Site investigation
2. Pre
Pre-construction
construction survey
3. Evaluation of soil conditions
4. Selection of TERS configuration
5. Assessment of system stability
6. Preparation for FEA
7 Assessment of computed output
7.
Excavation Design 7
Design Step 1: Site Investigation
2. Pre-construction
survey
3. Evaluation of soil
conditions
4. Selection of TERS
configuration
Plan View 5
5. Assessment of
system stability
7. Assessment of
computed output
Sectional View
Designer must be actively involved in the site investigation.

Get the best S.I. company to do the job!
Do enough borings and CPTs.
Excavation Design 8
Wong Kai Sin 4

2. Pre-Construction Survey
To check pre-existing conditions 2. Pre-construction
survey
of surrounding structures 3. Evaluation of soil
conditions
Things you can see .. 4. Selection of TERS
configuration
Cracks 5. Assessment of
system stability
Patches under new paint 7. Assessment of
computed output
Settlement of aprons & driveway
Constructions in the vicinity
A comprehensive pre-con survey provides the designer

with a proper perspective of the surrounding and issues
that must be considered in the design.
Excavation Design 9
Excavation Design 10
Wong Kai Sin 5

Pre-Construction Survey Pre-existing Conditions
Things you cant see ..

Ongoing movements
Seasonal fluctuations
Ground settlement profile
Invest in
Instrumentation
Settlement marks
Paper
P prisms
i
Water standpipes
Inclinometers
3. Evaluation of Soil Conditions 2. Pre-construction
survey
Things to check .. 3. Evaluation of soil
conditions
Fill thickness and variations 4. Selection of TERS
configuration
Soft clay thickness and variations 5. Assessment of

system stability
State of consolidation of soft clay 6.

7.
Preparation for FEA
Assessment of
computed output
Depth to hard stratum & variations
Ground water table
Fill
Soft
Marine
Clay
Stiff
Silty
Clay
Dense Silt
Sand
Wong Kai Sin 6

Design Soil Profile & Parameters
Fill
Upper Marine Clay
Intermediate Stiff Clay
Lower Marine Clay
Old Alluvium
Extract only the reliable facts from Factual Report.

Is the soil condition uniform? Can we use half mesh?
Example on Idealised Soil Profile
Worst soil
condition
ABH-32
ABH-30 Instrumented
section
M3010
AC 3
AC-3
ABH-84
ABH-31
Soil Profile at ABH-32 adopted in Original Design

Wong Kai Sin 7

Example on Soil Profile -- Half-mesh based on ABH-32
RL (m)
102.
Fill
9
E upper 98.2
96.4
UM
C
85.6
F2 upper
83.4
LMC
JGP1
68.3
JGP2
E lower
63.2
F2 lower
61.
OA N = 35 6
57.
OA N = 5
72 53.
Excavation Design 8 15
Example on Soil Profile

Full-mesh at Instrumented Section
ABH-84 M3010
RL (m)
Fill Fill
E E
UMC UMC
85.4
F2 upper F2 upper
LMC
LMC
JGP1
LMC 72.1
F2 F2 lower
69 4
69.4
JGP2 OA N = 20
JGP3 66.8
F2 lower
OA N = 30
64.7
63.7 OA N = 70
OA N = 20
61.2 60.0
OA N = 30
59.2 OA N = 100
OA N = 70
55.0
Wong Kai Sin 8

Example -- Results can be very sensitive to variations in soil profile
C
Cross-Over at
Newton MRT Station
B
A B C
Results can be very sensitive to minor variations in soil profile
Cross-Over at Newton MRT Station
B
A
A B C
Wong Kai Sin 9

Results can be very sensitive to minor variations in soil profile

Cross-Over at Newton MRT Station
Design Step 4: 1.
2.
Site investigation
Pre-construction
Selection of TERS survey
conditions
We need to know 4. Selection of TERS
configuration
Site constraints 5
5. Assessment of
system stability
Dimensions 6. Preparation for FEA
7. Assessment of
Adjacent buildings computed output
MRT & CST tunnels

h,max allowable?
Slab elevations
Ramp locations
Wong Kai Sin 10

Preliminary Design Configuration
Wall type & size

Penetration depth This is where
experience
Strut size and spacing
comes in!
JGP/DCM slab thickness
Preloading
Need to Establish the Excavation Sequence
Wong Kai Sin 11

Design Step 5: 2. Pre-construction
survey
Basic Stability Checks 3. Evaluation of soil
conditions
Before conducting FEA, check configuration
5
5. Assessment of
system stability
Basal Heave Stability 6. Preparation for FEA
7. Assessment of
Uplift or Blowout Stability computed output
Toe Kick-in Stability
Basal Heave Stabillity Which method should

we use?
Terzaghi
Bjerrum & Eide
Eide et al.
Tschebotarioff
Goh
Chang
Wong and Goh
O'Rourke
Su et al.
Ukritchon et al.
Plaxis
Does FOS1 mean

failure?
Wong Kai Sin 12

Uplift Stability
B
Fill
E
UMC
F2
LMC Hw
W=dB
R=cud R d
E / F2
Sand U = w Hw B
W + 2R Check permeability &

Fs = ---------------- connectivity of sand layer!
U
Toe Kick-in Stability
Lp La
Pa
Pp
How do we check toe stability?

Wong Kai Sin 13

Preparation for FEA survey
conditions
1. Selection of software 4. Selection of TERS
configuration
2 Selection of soil models
2. 5
5. Assessment of
system stability
3. Selection of type of analysis 6. Preparation for FEA
7. Assessment of
4. Evaluation of soil parameters computed output
5. Generation of FE mesh
6. Preparation of data input Plaxis?
Mohr-Coulomb?
Undrained?
Total stress?
survey
Assessment of 3. Evaluation of soil
Computed Output conditions
configuration
5
5. Assessment of
Tons of data can be generated system stability
with a few clicks.
7. Assessment of
computed output
But what are the relevant ones?
Generating thick reports with not-so-

important graphs reflects badly on the
engineer. It is a reflection of he/she
not knowing whats important!
Wong Kai Sin 14

What are the relevant results?
Relevant Results
Wall deflections
Ground settlement
Pore pressure
Strut forces
Wall moment and shear
Plastic points
Displacement vector plots
Interpretation of Computed Output
Check Mode of Deformation
Expected Unexpected
Is the mode of deformation reasonable?

Wong Kai Sin 15

Interpretation of Computed Output
Check extend of soil yielding
Plastic point plot

Plastic Points Relative Shear
Wong Kai Sin 16

Plastic points in JGP/DCM layer

Residual
stress
Lesson learned:
Plastic point and relative shear plots provide insight to
the extend of soil yield and overall stability of the system.
Plot wall deflections for construction control
Deflection Profiles Max. Wall Deflection
computed
measured
Wong Kai Sin 17

Change in Pore Pressure with Excavation Depth
Ground Settlement at
End of Excavation
50
nd Settlement (mm)
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
-50
-100
Groun
-150
-200
Distance (m)
Wong Kai Sin 18

Plot ground settlement vs excavation depth at selected locations
50.0
0.0
5/24/02 9/1/02 12/10/02 3/20/03 6/28/03 10/6/03 1/14/04 4/23/04
-50.0
Settlement (mm)
-100.0
-150.0
-200.0
-250.0
-300.0
Plot maximum strut forces with depth
RL (m)
Fill Fill
E E
Computed
MC MC
85.4
F2 F2 Measured
MC
MC
JGP
LMC 72.1
F2 F2
69 4
69.4
JGP OA (20)
F2 66.8
OA (30)
64.7
63.7 OA (70)
OA (20)
61.2 60.0
OA (30)
59.2 OA (100)
OA (70)
55.
Wong Kai Sin 19

Plot development of strut forces during excavation
Strut Force (kN)

S1
S1
epth below ground (m)

S1
De
Bending Moment at Different Stages of Excavation
3 1
2
4
3
5
4
5
Wong Kai Sin 20

Displacement Vectors Showing Movements at End of Excavation
Displacement Vector Plot after Strength (-c) Reduction Analysis
FOS=1.30
False alarm?
Wong Kai Sin 21

Are the computed wall deflections acceptable?
Comparison of Strut Forces with

Published Apparent Pressure Diagrams
Pecks Apparent Earth Pressure Diagrams (1969)
CIRIA
CIRIAss Characteristic Pressure Diagrams (1996)
Local Experiences on Apparent Pressure Diagrams
Wong Kai Sin 22

Mohr-Coulomb model Cant match all stages of excavation!
E3 E
E 4
2
E
1
Constant E

0 20 40 60 80 100
0
1
2 5
3 10
Depth (m )
4 1 2 3 4
15
20
25
30
Sand
Sensitivity Study to Marine

Clay
Finalise Design JGP
Old
Alluvium
Surcharge 10 and 20 kPa

Soil Modulus (Eu/cu) 300 and 200
Over-excavation 0.5 and 1 m
JGP Thickness 1.5 and 1.0 m
JGP modulus 150 and 100 MPa
Wall stiffness 1.0EI and 0.7EI
Modelling of bored piles Included and excluded
Preload 100, 50 and 0%
Wong Kai Sin 23

Wong Kai Sin
November 2009
R Bending Momen
nt (kNm/m) R
ef ef
er
en er Deflection
n (mm)
c en
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
e
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Su Su ce
rc ca ca
ha se rc se
rg ha
Excavation Design
Excavation Design
e rg
20 e
20
kP kP
a a
E= E=
1. 20 20
0m 0C 1.
0m 0C
ov u u
ov
er er
ex ex
ca ca
v. v.
JG JG
P P
E( ( 1. E( (1
JG 0m JG .0
) m
P) P) )
= =
10 10
0M 0M
Pr Pa Pa
Pr
el el
oa oa
d d
50 50
B 0 % B %
or .7 or 0.
7E
ed EI ed
pi D ID
le -W pi
le -W
al al
no l
Design H,max = 200 mm
no l
Design Mmax = 3400 kNm/m

tm tm
od od
el el
le le
d d
N N
o o
pr pr
Sensitivity Study on Wall Deflection
el el
oa oa
d d
Sensitivity Study on Wall Bending Moment
48
47
Excavation Design
24
Wong Kai Sin
November 2009
R Shear Forc
ce (kN/m)
ef
Re er
fe S trut loa d (kN/m ) en
r
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
en Su ce
Su rc ca
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
ce se
rc ha
ca rg
Excavation Design
Excavation Design
ha
rg se e
e 20
20 kP
kP a
a E=
1. E= 1. 20
0m 20 0m 0C
0C ov u
ov u er
er ex
ex ca
c v.
J G av . JG
P P
E(
(1 E( (1
JG JG .0
.0 m
P) m P) )
= ) =
10 10
0M 0M
Pr Pa Pa
el Pr
oa el
oa
Bo d d
re 50 50
d
0.
7E % B 0. %
pi or 7E
ID
Design S1 = 420 kN/m

le ed ID
-W pi -W
no al le
l no al
l
tm
Design Vmax = 2200 kN/m
od tm
el od
el
N o l ed le
d
Sensitivity Study - Maximum Strut Load (S1)

pr N
el o
oa pr
el
Sensitivity Study on Wall Shear Forces
d oa
d
50
49
Excavation Design
25
Wong Kai Sin
November 2009
Strut load ((kN/m)

Re
Re S trut load (kN/m ) fe
fe re
r
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
nc
en e
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Su ce Su ca
rc r ch se
Excavation Design
Excavation Design
ha ca ar
rg se ge
e 20
20 kP
kP a
a E=
1. E= 1. 20
0m 20 0m 0C
0C ov u
ov
er u er
ex
ex ca
ca v .
JG v. JG
P P
E( (1
(1 E(
J .0
JG . m
0m GP )
P)
) ) =
= 10
10 0M
0M Pa
Pr Pr
el Pa e lo
oa ad
d 50
%
Bo 50
re 0. % 0.

7E Bo 7E
pi ID r ed ID
le -W pi -W
no le all
al no
tm l tm
od od
el el
le le

d
No d No
pr pr
el el
oa
oa
d d
52
51
Excavation Design
26
Wong Kai Sin
November 2009
R R Strut load (kN/m )

ef ef
e re Strut load (kN/m ) e re
nc nc
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Su e Su e
rc ca rc ca
Excavation Design
Excavation Design
ha se ha se
rg rg
e e
20 20
kP kP
a a
E= E=
1. 20 1. 20
0m 0C 0m 0C
ov u ov u
er er
e xc e xc
av av
JG . JG .
P P
E( (1 E( (1
JG .0 JG .0
m m
P)
= ) P) )
10 =
0 10
M 0 M
Pr Pa Pr Pa
el
o ad
el
o ad
50
B % B
50
0. %

or 7E or 0.
ed ID ed 7E
pi -W ID
le pi
le -W
no al
t l no al
l
m tm
od

e od
ll e el
N d N le
o o d
pr pr
el
oa el
d oa
d
54
53
Excavation Design
27
Best Estimates and Design Values

Design
Values
Best
based on
Estimates
Sensitivity
St d
Study
Deflection mm 168 200
Diaphragm
Moment kNm/m 2980 3400
Wall
Shear kN/m 2065 2200
Strut S1 Force kN/m 417 420
Strut
St ut S2
S Force
o ce kN/m
/ 771 780
80
Bending Moment and Shear Forces at Various Stages

Elevation (m)
Elevation (m)
3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000
Bending moment (kN.m/m) Shear force (kN/m)
Bending Moment (kNm/m) Shear Force (kN/m)
Wong Kai Sin 28

From the results of sensitivity studies

studies, we
can proceed to finalize the design:
Wall design
Strut design
Waler/stiffer design
Set alert levels
Instrumentation plan
Contingency plan
Design drawings
Analysis of Control Section for Construction Control
RL (m)
Fill Fill
Use best estimated
E E parameters to compute:
UMC UMC
Wall deflection profiles
F2 upper F2 upper
85.4 Deflection vs Excav. depth
LMC
Strut forces
LMC
Wall bending moments
LMC 72.1
F2 F2 lower
69.4
OA N = 20 Wall shear forces
F2 66.8
OA N = 30
63.7
lower 64 7
64.7 Ground settlement
OA N = 20 OA N = 70
61.2 60.0
59.2
OA N = 30 OA N = 100 Pore pressures
OA N = 70
55.0
Results are to be compared with field measurements.

Wong Kai Sin 29

How reliable is your design?
sand
Benchmarking
Exercise in
Germany
Benchmarking
Exercise in
Germany
Measurement
Five worst results

were OMITTED!
Wong Kai Sin 30

Prediction Exercise in Singapore
Maximum Wall Deflection

vs
Excavation Level
102
100
98
Elevation Level (RL in m)
96
94
92
90
E
88
86
84
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Maximum Wall Deflection (mm)
Particpant # 7 Particpant # 10 Particpant # 1 Particpant # 5
Excavation Design
Particpant # 14 Particpant # 12 Measured 61
Design vs As-Built Construction Sequence
As-Built Design
Wong Kai Sin 31

Over-
Excavation
(Clough & ORouke, 1990)
Excessive Surcharge
q = 20 kPa
Wong Kai Sin 32

Dont be over-confident about your analysis!
Be prepared to face a few surprises.
Implement Observational Method diligently.
If in doubt, get a second opinion.
Wong Kai Sin 33

Wong Design Analysis Deep Excavations Session03

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wong Design Analysis Deep Excavations Session03

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

November2009 MohrCoulombModel

03:30 05:00 4 How to reduce wall deflection

Can a elastic soil simulate undrained behaviour of clay?

Can a elastic soil simulate undrained behaviour of clay?

RealSoil MohrCoulomb curve

ESP TSP ESP TSP

ESP TSP ESP TSP

Undrained Shear Strength (kPa)

Computedusing MethodA Measured

DoesMethodA alwaysoverestimatecu forNCclay?

ESP TSP ESP TSP

Computedusing MethodB Measured

MethodA c' and' produceswrong cu forNCclay,

Method A Method B Method C

Wall Deflection (mm)

0 50 100 150 0 50 100 150

Mohr CoulombModel RealSoilBehaviour

MethodB(cu u)andKo (1sin)

AtA,('V 'H)='V (1 Ko)=74 kPa Currentcu =22kPa

Mmax ,kNm/m 298 477

Strut 1, kN/m 77 114

Strut 3, kN/m 163 178

Designing Temporary Work

Designing Temporary Work is a Continuous Process

Types of Analysis in TERS Design

1. Analysis for preliminary design

Prelim. Working Final Design

Start Excavation Finish

Wong Kai Sin 1

Analysis for preliminary design

Analysis for working or Final design

Wong Kai Sin 2

Back-Analysis during Construction

To be carried out when the field

Re-Analysis during Construction

Wall Deflection (m m) Wall Deflection (m m )

0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Wong Kai Sin 3

Overview of Design Process

Designer must be actively involved in the site investigation.

Wong Kai Sin 4

A comprehensive pre-con survey provides the designer

Wong Kai Sin 5

Pre-Construction Survey Pre-existing Conditions

Things you cant see ..

Ground settlement profile

Soft clay thickness and variations 5. Assessment of

State of consolidation of soft clay 6.

Wong Kai Sin 6

Design Soil Profile & Parameters

Upper Marine Clay

Intermediate Stiff Clay

Lower Marine Clay

Extract only the reliable facts from Factual Report.

Example on Idealised Soil Profile

Soil Profile at ABH-32 adopted in Original Design

Wong Kai Sin 7

Example on Soil Profile -- Half-mesh based on ABH-32

Example on Soil Profile

Wong Kai Sin 8

Example -- Results can be very sensitive to variations in soil profile

Results can be very sensitive to minor variations in soil profile

Cross-Over at Newton MRT Station

Wong Kai Sin 9