Wong Design Analysis Deep Excavations Session02

November2009 ULSDesign&StrutForces
Session 2
Design (Part 1)
Time Session Topic

p
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
ULSDesign&StrutForces 1
MajorDesignConsiderationsinDeepExcavations
Totalcollapse Excessivemovements
Overallstabilityy Wall deflections
Walldeflections
Upliftorblowoutfailure Groundsettlement
Piping&quickcondition Effectonadjacent
Basalheave structures
Toestability
Struttingsystemfailure
WongKaiSin 1
Overall
Stability
UpliftInstabilityorBlowoutFailure
Fill
E
UMC
F2
LMC
E/F2
Sand
1. Whatisthepermeabilityofthesand?
ULSDesign&StrutForces 2. Isthereafreesupplyofwater? 4
WongKaiSin 2
BlowoutFailure
Forverylongexcavation:
B
T Bd+2cu d
Fs=
w hB
hB
Forrectangularshape:
T
T dBL +2d cu(B+L)
R R
Fs =
Fs=
w hBL
PipinginSand
Pipingisaphenomenonofwaterrushingupthroughpipe
Piping is a phenomenon of water rushing up through pipeshaped
shaped
channelsduetoupwardseepageunderhighgradient.Itcanlead
tototalcollapseofthesystem.Sufficientpenetrationofsheetpile
mustbeusedtolengthentheseepagepathandtoreducethe
hydraulicgradient.
WongKaiSin 3
PenetrationDepth
againstPiping
(Teng,1962)
Fs=1.5
BasalHeaveStability
qo
qult
Whenqo >qult,failureinimminent.
WongKaiSin 4
Whichmethodshould
weuse?
Terzaghi
Bjerrum&Eide
Eideetal.
Tschebotarioff
Goh
Chang
WongandGoh
O'Rourke
Suetal.
Ukritchonetal.
Plaxis
DoesFOS1meanfailure?
MethodsofAnalysis
WongKaiSin 5
TerzaghisMethod
(Terzaghi,1943)
Terzaghis
Method
HardStratum
5.7
5 7 cub B1
If T 0.7B, B1 = 0.7B
FS = ----------------------
g H B1 - cuhH If T < 0.7B, B1 = T
WongKaiSin 6
ModificationtoTerzaghisMethod
BjerrumandEidesmethod(1956)
cu Nc
FS = --------------
H+q
WongKaiSin 7
Eideetal.sMethod(1972)
WongKaiSin 8
ComparisonofMethods Case1 SheetpileWall
WongKaiSin 9
WongKaiSin 10
EffectofDepthtoHardStratum(T)
WhenT0.7B,failuresurfacecanbedevelopedfreely.
, p y
WhenT<0.7B,thedevelopmentoffailuresurfaceisrestrained.Itisnolongerthe
planeoflowestresistance.Therefore,therewillbeanincreaseinfactorofsafety.
Thecorrectionfactor accountsfortheeffectofdepthtohardstratum,T.
0.97
WongKaiSin 11
Sheetpiles are very

flexible. They tend
to move along with
the soil.
ComparisonofMethods Case5 DiaphragmWall
WongKaiSin 12
ComparisonofMethods Case6 DiaphragmWall
EffectofWallPenetration
(ZhangandZhang,1994)
WongKaiSin 13
ModifiedTerzaghis
MethodforDiaphragm
Wall
(Wong and Goh, 2001)
(WongandGoh,2001)
Method1:
Method2:
ModifiedTerzaghis MethodforDiaphragmWall
(WongandGoh,2001)
WongKaiSin 14
ModifiedTerzaghis MethodforDiaphragmWall
(WongandGoh,2001)
Terzaghi (1943): Fs = 0.82

Modified Terzaghi: Fs = 1.13 (Method 1)
Fs = 1.06 (Method 2)
WongKaiSin 15
Narrow Excavation for all Wall Types
Modified Eide et al.s Method
WideExcavationwithSheetpileWall
cuh
cub
HardStratum
WongKaiSin 16
Wide Excavation with Diaphragm Wall
cuh
cud cud
cub
T
HardStratum
Howimportantistheshapefactor?
WongKaiSin 17
BasalHeaveFailureinTaipei(1998)
BasalHeaveFailureinTaipei(1998)
Factor of Safety
Method AA
A-A BB
B-B
Terzaghi 0.67 0.66
Bjerrum & Eide 0.58/0.69 0.61/0.69
Wong & Goh 0.94 0.99
WongKaiSin 18
Whatfactorofsafetyshouldweuse?
HowreliableisthecomputedF.S.?
WongKaiSin 19
Whattypeoftestshouldweconducttodeterminecu?
Which strength envelope should we use ?
1. Mostconservative: cu
"worstscenario"
2. BestEstimate:
"mostprobablescenario"
3. Mostoptimistic:
"mostfavourable scenario" Depth
Basal Heave of Wall with Full Penetration to Hard Stratum
Case7 SheetpileWall
WongKaiSin 20
Case8 DiaphragmWall
Case9 SheetpileWall
WongKaiSin 21
ExcavationwithFullPenetrationofWallintoHardStratum
Basalheavestability
isnotanissueforthis
case. Buttoekickout
failuremayoccur.
WongKaiSin 22
ToeKickinStability
Pp Pa
Scenario1 Scenario2
v1 v1
5.29cu v1 5.29cu v1
ToeKickinStability
MA =?
A
WongKaiSin 23
Howtoovercomethenegativenetpressure?
Option1
Option2
A
AddJGPslab
MA =?
Penetrateintohardstratum
negativenetpressure
Howtoovercomenegativenetpressure?
Option3
Useshorterwall
negativenetpressure
WongKaiSin 24
ADeepExcavationin
Oslo
(Aas,1985)
30kPa
1.13
WongKaiSin 25
BasalHeave ToeStability
Pp Pa
IfthereisadequateF.S.againstbasalheave,
If there is adequate F.S. against basal heave,
toestabilityisnotanissue.
WongKaiSin 26
Pa &Pf arebasedon ToeKickoutStability

unfactoredstrength:
Method1:
Pp L p M
Fs=
Fs =
Pa La Lp La
Pa
Pp
Method2:
Pp Lp +Mall
Fs=
Pa La
Ppff &P
& Paff arebasedonfactoredstrength:
are based on factored strength:
Method3: Method4: Method5:
Pp Lp +Mult Ppf Lp >PafLa Ppf Lp +Mall>PafLa
Fs=
Pa La
ToeKickoutStability
Lp La
Pa
Pp
1. Howdoyoudeterminetheactiveand
passiveearthpressures?
2. AssumingPa andPp areknown,whichofthe
fivemethodswouldyouuse?
WongKaiSin 27
EarthPressure
accordingtoRankines
Theory
FS=1.29(Terzaghi)
A
A A
A
EffectofPenetration
Depthon
Bending Moment
BendingMoment
D=0,8&17m
WongKaiSin 28
Shouldtheoreticalearthpressuresbeusedintheanalysis?
SoilArching&RowesMomentReduction
WongKaiSin 29
Net
EarthPressure(kPa)
Passive Pressure (kPa)
-300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300
0
H=8m
2 o
4 =18kN/m3
D=8m
cu =25kPa
6
Depth (m)
10
12
Theory
14
Sheetpile
Diaphragm Wall
16
WongKaiSin 30
NetEarthPressure(kPa)
-100 -50 0 50 100 150 200
0
H=8m
2 o
4 D=8m =18kN/m3
cu =25kPa
6
Depth (m)
8
Mo(kNm/m)
10 Theory 838
Sheetpile 304
12
Diaphragm 1120
Theory
14 Sheetpile
Diaphragm Wall
16
EarthPressure(kPa)
-400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400
0
2
H=8m
4 o
6
8
=18kN/m3
D=15m
cu =25kPa
10
Depth (m)
12
14
16
18
20
Theory
22
Sheetpile
24
Diaphragm Wall
26
WongKaiSin 31
-100 -50 0 50 100 150 200
0
2 H=8m
o
4
6
=18kN/m
/ 3
8
D=15m
cu =25kPa
10
Depth (m)
12
14
16
Mo(kNm/m)
18
Theory 2121
20
Theory Sheetpile 298
22 Sheetpile
Diaphragm 601
Diaphragm Wall
24 Wall (Mmax=1010)
26
Soilstructureinteractionaffects B&DcanaffectPA &PP

PA &PP
B
-100 -50 0 50 100 150 200
0
4
D
6
10
Depth (m)
12
14
16
18
20
Theory
22 Sheetpile
Diaphragm Wall
24
26
Analysisbasedonearthpressuretheoriescanleadto
unrealisticresults!
WongKaiSin 32
Methods1to3are ToeKickoutStability
basedonunfactored
strength:
1. Methods1,2andyieldaboutthesameFS
Method1: becauseMall andMult arenegligiblewhen
comparedtotheotherterms.
Pp L p
Fs=
Fs = 2 Methods
2. Methods4&5yieldaboutthesameFSforthe
4 & 5 yield about the same FS for the
Pa La samereasongivenin(1).
3. Ifearthpressuretheoryistobeusedtocompute
Method2: Pa andPp,all5methodscanbeused.
Pp Lp +Mall
4. IfPa istobedeterminedfromFEA,onlyMethods
Fs=
Pa La 1or3shouldbeused.
Method3: Methods4&5arebasedonfactoredstrength:
Pp Lp +Mult Method4: Method5:
Fs=
Pa La Ppf Lp >PafLa Ppf Lp +Mall>PafLa
ToeKickinStability
Pp Lp +Mult La
Fs= Lp Pa
Pp
Pa La
1. Iffactorofsafetyagainstbasalheaveisadequate,toestabilityisnot
anissue.Noanalysisisnecessary.
2. ComputePa andPp fromearthpressurestheory.IfthecomputedFS
isadequatewithoutrequiringexcesspenetrationdepth,nofurther
is adequate without requiring excess penetration depth no further
analysisisneeded.
3. Iftherequiredpenetrationdepthfrom(1)isexcessive,tryusingPa
fromFEA.
WongKaiSin 33
LateralEarthPressureinBracedExcavations
Redistributionofearthpressureduetoarching
R di t ib ti f th d t hi
Preloading
Incrementalexcavationandstrutinstallation
WongKaiSin 34
CIRIAsCharacteristicPressureDiagramforSand
(CIRIA,1996)
P=0.2H
StrutForcesinStifftoVery
StiffClay
(CIRIA,1996)
WongKaiSin 35
CIRIAsCharacteristic
PressureDiagramforSoft
Clay
(CIRIA,1996)
CIRIAsCharacteristicPressureDiagramforSoftClay
(CIRIA,1996)
SoftClay
(Unstablebase)
WongKaiSin 36
(CIRIA,1996)
FirmClay
(stable)
SoftClay
(stable)
(CIRIA,1996)
SoftClay
(unstable
base)
WongKaiSin 37
StrutForcesbyTributaryareamethod
a
PA
AreaA
b
b
PB AreaB
c
c
PC d AreaC
d
p
e.g.PB =(b+c )pinkN/mrun

ComparisonofAPD SheetpileWall
WongKaiSin 38
ComparisonofAPD DiaphragmWall
AreFEresults
reliable?
StrutForcesonDiaphragm
WallinSand
(Kastner &Lareal,1974)
WongKaiSin 39
EffectofWallStiffnessonStrutForces
(Chang&Wong,1996)
x107
EffectofWallStiffnesson
StrutForces
(Chang&Wong,1996)
(m=1)
WongKaiSin 40
Effect of
Temperature
on Strut
Forces
DegreeofRestraint
(CIRIA,1996)
B=StiffClayC=GranularSoilsD=MixedSoils
WongKaiSin 41
DegreeofRestraint
(CIRIA,1996)
TemperatureEffecton
StrutForces
(Battenetal.,1996)
WongKaiSin 42
TemperatureEffecton
StrutForces
(Battenetal.,1996)
Tubularsteelprops
OtherFactors
AffectingStrut
Forces
WongKaiSin 43
November2009 FiniteElementAnalysis
MajorDesignConsiderationsinDeepExcavations
Totalcollapse
Excessivemovements
Overallstability
U lift bl
Upliftorblowoutfailure
t f il Wall deflections
Walldeflections
Piping&quickcondition Groundsettlement
Basalheave Effectonadjacent
structures
Toestability
Struttingsystemfailure NeedFiniteElementAnalysis!
FiniteElementAnalysis 1
WhatdoyougetfromFiniteElementAnalysis?
Strutforces
Wallbendingmoment&shearforces
Walldeflections
Groundsettlement
Tunneldisplacements
Factorofsafety
WongKaiSin 1
DeformationAnalysisusingFiniteElementPrograms
1-D Programs 2-D Programs 3-D Programs
Rido Plaxis Plaxis 3D
Wallap Sage Crisp Flac 3D
FREW Sigma/W ZSOIL

Flac GEOFEA
ABAQUS
MidasGTS-3D
MidasGTS 3D
Which program should we use?
MethodofAnalysis
Plaxisoffersthefollowingchoicesforanalysisofshortterm
performanceofTERSinclay:
A. MohrCoulomb:effectivestress,c ,undrained
B.
B effective stress cu u,undrained
MohrCoulomb:effectivestress,c
MohrCoulomb: undrained
C. MohrCoulomb:totalstress,cu u,nonporous,undrained
D. MohrCoulomb:effectivestress,c ,consolidation
E. MohrCoulomb:effectivestress,cu u,consolidation
F. SoftClay:effectivestress,c ,undrained
G. SoftClay:effectivestress,c ,consolidation
H. Mod.CamClay:effectivestress,c
y , ,undrained
,
I. Mod.CamClay:effectivestress,c ,consolidation
J. AdvancedHardening:effectivestress,c ,undrained
K. AdvancedHardening:effectivestress,c ,consolidation
Whichoneshouldweuse?
WongKaiSin 2
Blessings&cursesofcommercialsoftware
Blessings:
Userfriendly
User friendly
Generatesoutputwithbeautifulplots
Givesuserasenseofaccomplishment
Curses:
Sometimesitabortswithoutsuggestingthe
nextcourseofaction
t f ti
Sometimesitproducespuzzlingresults
Geotechnical
problem
Mustdefinetheproblem
User thewaytheprogramwill
understand
Faithfulbutnottoo
intelligent
WongKaiSin 3
Advice to Users
1. Attendtrainingcourse!
y p
2. Studythemanualanddothetutorialproblems.
3. Donotassumeitwillworkthewayyouthink.
4. Whenindoubt,deviseasimpleproblemandtestout
howtheprogramworks.
5. Checkinput mesh,designparameters
6. Studyoutput:
Isthemodeofdeformationcorrect?
Arethemagnitudesreasonable?
2DFiniteElementMethod
h
v
h
v
WongKaiSin 4
FEModelingofanExcavation
Useofhalfmeshbecauseofsymmetry
HalfmeshorFullmesh?
HalfMesh FullMesh
WongKaiSin 5
NotesonMeshGenerationforFEA
1.Setleftandrightboundariesfarawayfromareaofinterest.
2.Useafinemesh.
3.Includeonlythekeyelements.Excludethedetails.
4.Simplifythesoilprofile.
5 S
5.Setproperdrainageboundariesinconsolidationanalysis.
d i b d i i lid i l i
6.Includepilesonlywhereappropriate.
EffectofMeshFinenessonWallDeflection
WongKaiSin 6
Whattypeofanalysisshouldweconduct?
TotalStress
EffectiveStress
ff
Undrained
Drained
Consolidation
Itdependsonthepermeabilityofsoiland
durationofconstruction.
Effectofpermeabilityonwalldeflection
WongKaiSin 7
Effectofpermeabilityongroundsettlement
Isitimportanttoconductconsolidationanalysisfordeep
excavationinclay?
WongKaiSin 8
CoefficientofPermeabilityk
k (m/s)
Clean Clean sands Very fine Silts & Clays

gravels sands clayey
sand
Drained Transition Undrained
1D(BeamnSpring)AnalysisbyFiniteElementMethod
WALLAP
RIDO
FREW
REWARD
WongKaiSin 9
ParametersfortheBeamandSpringModel
Kh =???c
= ??? cu
Ka &Kp
WongKaiSin 10
CalibrationofSoilModulususing1Dand2DPrograms
RIDO:1D EXCAV97 2Dcontinuum

BeamandSpring HyperbolicModel
Ks /cu =??? Ei /cu =???

ComparisonofResults
Rochor Complex
WongKaiSin 11
ComparisonofResults
LavenderStation
ComparisonofResults
SyedAlwiCondo
WongKaiSin 12
LimitationsofBeamandSpringMethod
1. Itignoredtheeffectofwidthonwall 2.Itignoredtheeffectofclay
deflection. thicknessonwalldeflection.
WongKaiSin 13
LimitationsofBeamandSpringMethod
1. Itignoredtheeffectofwidthon 2.Itignoredtheeffectofclay
strutforce. thicknessonstrutforce.
IsEu/cu=200applicabletoallsoilmodelsandprograms?
MOE Rochor Syed Alwi Lavender

Building Complex Project Station
WALLAP, Mohr Coulomb, Eu/ cu 250 250 300 300

SAGE CRISP,
CRISP Mohr Coulomb,
Co lomb Eu/cu 100 150 300 500
SAGE CRISP, Hyperbolic, Ei/cu 300 300 300 300
EXCAV97, Hyperbolic, Ei/cu 200 200 200 200
WongKaiSin 14
MajorShortcomingsof2DAnalysis
Is2Danalysis
y
appropriate?
Isappropriateto
modelthepilesas
plates?
I1
Is2DAnalysisappropriateat
I1,I2andI3?
I5 (AfterOuetal.,1996)
I4
I2
I3
WongKaiSin 15
I1
3DEffectinBraced
Excavation
(AfterOuetal.,1996)
I5
I4
I2
I3
(I4&I5)
Whichsectionisclosertoplanestraincondition?
A B
L=100m L=40m
B=100m B=20m
A B
PSR=0.91 PSR=0.90
H,max (3D)
PlaneStrainRatio,PSR=
H,max(2D)
WongKaiSin 16
PSR=0.91
PSR=0.83
PSR=0.60
B=L=40m
B=L=60m
B=L=100m
PSR =0.60
PSR 0.60 PSR=0.50 PSR=0.42
B=40m B=40m B=40m
L=40m L=60m L=100m
ReductionFactorforH,max dueto3DEffect
(DevelopedbasedondatafromOuetal.,1996)
1
0. 9
B=20m
0 8
0.
0. 7
B=40m
0. 6 L
B=60m
PSR
0. 5 B=80m
B
0. 4 B=100m
0. 3
0. 2
0. 1
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
L (m)
WongKaiSin 17
ReductionFactorforH,max dueto3DEffect
(DevelopedbasedondatafromOuetal.,1996)
1. 2
B=60m B=40m B=20m

B=80m
1
B=100m
0. 8
L
PSR
0. 6
B
0. 4
0. 2
0
0 0. 5 1 1. 5 2 2. 5 3 3. 5
L/B
WongKaiSin 18

Wong Design Analysis Deep Excavations Session02

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 Session02

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

November2009 ULSDesign&StrutForces

Time Session Topic

11:00 12:30 2 Design (Part 1)

01:30 03:00 3 Mohr-Coulomb Soil Model &

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

ComparisonofMethods Case1 SheetpileWall

ComparisonofMethods Case2 SheetpileWall

ComparisonofMethods Case3 SheetpileWall

ComparisonofMethods Case4 SheetpileWall

Sheetpiles are very

ComparisonofMethods Case5 DiaphragmWall

ComparisonofMethods Case6 DiaphragmWall

Terzaghi (1943): Fs = 0.82

Narrow Excavation for all Wall Types

Modified Eide et al.s Method

Wide Excavation with Diaphragm Wall

Which strength envelope should we use ?

Basal Heave of Wall with Full Penetration to Hard Stratum

Basal Heave of Wall with Full Penetration to Hard Stratum

Basal Heave of Wall with Full Penetration to Hard Stratum

Pa &Pf arebasedon ToeKickoutStability

Soilstructureinteractionaffects B&DcanaffectPA &PP

e.g.PB =(b+c )pinkN/mrun

1-D Programs 2-D Programs 3-D Programs

Rido Plaxis Plaxis 3D

Wallap Sage Crisp Flac 3D

FREW Sigma/W ZSOIL

Which program should we use?

Clean Clean sands Very fine Silts & Clays

Drained Transition Undrained

RIDO:1D EXCAV97 2Dcontinuum

Ks /cu =??? Ei /cu =???

MOE Rochor Syed Alwi Lavender

WALLAP, Mohr Coulomb, Eu/ cu 250 250 300 300

B=40m B=40m B=40m

L=40m L=60m L=100m

B=60m B=40m B=20m

You might also like