Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Wong Design Analysis Deep Excavations Session04
Wong Design Analysis Deep Excavations Session04
Wong Design Analysis Deep Excavations Session04
Session 4
How to reduce wall deflection
Reducing Wall Deflection 1
Options:
How to reduce
wall deflection? 1. Change to circular shape
2. Increase wall stiffness
3. Increase
3 c ease no.o of
o struts
s us
4. Increase preloads
5. Increase wall penetration
6. Install cross-walls
7. Ground improvement
• JGP - Jet grouting
• DCM - Deep cement
mixing
8. Improved soil slab with
tension piles
Reducing Wall Deflection 2
Wong Kai Sin 1
November 2009 Reducing Wall Deflection
Ring Beam System
Central at
Clarke Quay in
Clarke Quay in
Singapore
Reducing Wall Deflection 3
The Sail at Marina Bay in Singapore
Reducing Wall Deflection 4
Wong Kai Sin 2
November 2009 Reducing Wall Deflection
Effect of
Penetration &
Wall Stiffness
2 3 4 4 5
struts struts struts struts struts
Wong Kai Sin 3
November 2009 Reducing Wall Deflection
Sand
Cross-wall
Marine
Clay
Diaphragm
wall
Old
Alluvium
Diaphragm
wall
Reducing Wall Deflection 7
TERS Design with Cross‐Walls
DW DW
Cross‐Wall
Cross‐Wall
Wong Kai Sin 4
November 2009 Reducing Wall Deflection
Main applications of JGP in deep excavation are:
1. To reduce wall deflection & ground settlement
2. To minimize effect on adjacent structures
3. To improve basal heave stability
4. To improve toe kick‐in stability
5. To control seepage
Reducing Wall Deflection 9
JGP – Jet Grouted Piles
Ground Level
Ground Water Table
FILL FILL
MARINE MARINE
CLAY CLAY
FLUVIAL FLUVIAL
CLAY CLAY
JGP
MARINE MARINE
CLAY CLAY
D/WALL
D/WALL OLD ALLUVIUM
Reducing Wall Deflection Completed JGP Slabs prior to Excavation 10
Slide 10
Wong Kai Sin 5
November 2009 Reducing Wall Deflection
How does it work?
It acts as a compression In addition, it can also act
member to reduce wall as an anchored slab to
deflection
deflection. minimize bottom heave
minimize bottom heave.
Reducing Wall Deflection 11
No JGP/DCM
δH,max = 361 mm
3m JGP/DCM
δH,max = 141 mm
3m JGP/DCM with
tension piles
δH,max = 37 mm
Reducing Wall Deflection 12
Wong Kai Sin 6
November 2009 Reducing Wall Deflection
Full Penetration Wall Floating Wall
1.2mD 1.2mD
W W
5m 5m
JGP JGP
No Sacrificial JGP 2m Sacrificial JGP
1.2mD 1.2mD
W 2m W
JGP
5m 5m
JGP JGP
Wong Kai Sin 7
November 2009 Reducing Wall Deflection
7 Piles No Piles
1.2mD 1.2mD
2m W 2m W
JGP JGP
5m 5m
JGP JGP
Factor of safety without
JGP = 0.45 to 0.6
Clark Quay Station
Entrance
(Shirlaw et al., 2005)
This is one occasion where
modeling of piles is a must.
Reducing Wall Deflection 16
Wong Kai Sin 8
November 2009 Reducing Wall Deflection
Effect of Grout
Layer Thickness
Reducing Wall Deflection 17
Presence of JGP slab
can reduce the number
of strut levels.
Reducing Wall Deflection 18
Wong Kai Sin 9
November 2009 Reducing Wall Deflection
JGP
Jet
Grouted
Piles
19
Jet Grouting
Reducing Wall Deflection
Construction
of Jet Grout
Slab
Reducing Wall Deflection 20
Wong Kai Sin 10
November 2009 Reducing Wall Deflection
Reducing Wall Deflection 21
Reducing Wall Deflection 22
Wong Kai Sin 11
November 2009 Reducing Wall Deflection
Jet grouting on land
Jet grouting over a canal
Reducing Wall Deflection 23
Bulk density of JGP
2
1.9
1.8
1.7
Bulk Density (Mg/m3)
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.3
Triple Tube
1.2
Double Tube
1.1
1
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
Unconfined Compressive Strength qu (kPa)
Reducing Wall Deflection 24
Wong Kai Sin 12
November 2009 Reducing Wall Deflection
JGP Strength & Density (Shirlaw et al., 2000)
qu = 2 cu
Reducing Wall Deflection 25
JGP strength (14 days)
Project JGP Design qu Mean Source
Method (kPa) Measured qu
(kPa)
Singapore River Double 500 1225 Chia & Tan (1993)
tube
Geylang River Single 500 1843 Liang et al. (1993)
tube
Clarke Quay MRT - 600 2520 Shirlaw et al. (2000)
Station
Tunnel at Race Course - 600 2024 Shirlaw et al. (2000)
Rd
Tunnel at Race Course - 600 1290 Wen (2005)
Rd
C824 – Nicoll Highway Double 900 5826 This study
tube
C824 – Nicoll Highway Triple 900 3584 This study
tube
Reducing Wall Deflection 26
Wong Kai Sin 13
November 2009 Reducing Wall Deflection
JGP strength from C824 at Types C to M3
7 Specification:
No. of Samples
6 qu = 0.9 MPa
5
0
<0.9 0.9-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 8-9 9-10
Unconfined Compressive Strength of JGP (MPa)
Reducing Wall Deflection 27
JGP Modulus
1400
1200
Eu / qu ~ 100
Eu/qu ~ 100
Eu / c
/ cuEu/Cu
~ 200
200~ 200
1000
Modulus (MPa)
800
600
400
Triple Tube
200
Double Tube
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000
Reducing Wall Deflection 28
Wong Kai Sin 14
November 2009 Reducing Wall Deflection
Deep Cement Mixing ‐‐ DCM
Reducing Wall Deflection 29
Deep Cement Mixing
Reducing Wall Deflection 30
Wong Kai Sin 15
November 2009 Reducing Wall Deflection
Strength & Modulus of DCM samples in Marine Clay
External measurements
Reducing Wall Deflection 31
σ−ε curves from local and external strain measurements
(Tan et al., 2002)
Reducing Wall Deflection 32
Wong Kai Sin 16
November 2009 Reducing Wall Deflection
Modulus and Strength of DCM Samples in Marine Clay
(Tan et al., 2002)
External Measurements Local Measurements
Reducing Wall Deflection 33
Curing Time of DCM Samples in Marine Clay
(Tan et al., 2002)
Reducing Wall Deflection 34
Wong Kai Sin 17
November 2009 Reducing Wall Deflection
Double Tube Method
1. It pushes the wall outward
away from excavation area
away from excavation area.
2. It causes ground heave.
Esplanade by the Bay
I-5D
I-6D I-12D
I-9D I-10D
Reducing Wall Deflection 35
1. Wall and JGP slab are 2. Step‐by‐step simulation of
p y p
wished‐in‐place. excavation sequence
qu = ?
Eu = ?
Reducing Wall Deflection 36
Wong Kai Sin 18
November 2009 Reducing Wall Deflection
Shallow Excavation Deep Excavation
JGP strength not critical JGP strength critical
Reducing Wall Deflection 37
qu (core) = qu (mass) ?
3D view of
core sample
Plan view of JGP slab
Reducing Wall Deflection 38
Wong Kai Sin 19
November 2009 Reducing Wall Deflection
Eu (core) = Eu (mass) ?
3D view of
core sample
Plan view of JGP slab
Reducing Wall Deflection 39
Other Issues: (1) Initial Stresses in JGP
σ1 – σ3
Initial state
of stress ε
Assumptions commonly adopted in practice: (1) JGP
slab is wished in‐place.
(2) φu = 0 Æ Ko = 1.0 Æ (σ1 – σ3) = 0
Reducing Wall Deflection 40
Wong Kai Sin 20
November 2009 Reducing Wall Deflection
Other Issues: (1) Initial Stresses in JGP
σ1 – σ3
Initial state
of stress
Actual condition in field:
σ1 >> σ3 ( 1 – σ3) > 0
Æ (σ ) 0
What Ko value should we use in analysis?
Reducing Wall Deflection 41
Other Issues: (2) Field Construction Sequence
1. Construction of DW panels
• Reduction in σh
2. Installation of JGP slab
Increase in σh
• Increase in σ
• Rotation of principal stress
direction
p = ?
Reducing Wall Deflection 42
Wong Kai Sin 21
November 2009 Reducing Wall Deflection
Other Issues: (2) Field Construction Sequence
3. Step‐by‐step excavation
• Reduction in σh
Can the soil model produce the correct response at each
element?
Reducing Wall Deflection 43
Other Issues: (3) Wall Deflection Profile
Wall Deflection at I104
105 RL (m)
Fill Fill
100
E E
95
90 UMC UMC
85
85.4
F2 upper F2 upper
80
LMC
75 LMC
70 LMC 72.1
69.4 F2 F2 lower
65 OA N = 20
F2 66.
OA N = 30
60 lower 864.7
63.7 OA N = 70
OA N = 20
55 61 2
61.2 60 0
60.0
OA N = 30 OA N = 100
59.2
50
OA N = 70
55.0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
WallDeflection(mm)
1. Are these deflection profiles correct?
2. Can they be used to determine the wall bending moments?
Reducing Wall Deflection 44
Wong Kai Sin 22
November 2009 Reducing Wall Deflection
Other Issues: (3) Wall Deflection Profile
Where is the reference line?
Profile A
Profile A (Initial)
Profile B
Profile D (After JG)
Profile C
Using Profile A as Using Profile B as
reference line. reference line.
Reducing Wall Deflection 45
Profile B Measured wall
deflection of an
excavation in Taiwan
(Lin & Lin, 2008)
Profile A
Profile A P fil D
Profile D
Profile C
Reducing Wall Deflection 46
Wong Kai Sin 23
November 2009 Reducing Wall Deflection
Case 17 Case 3
With simulation of jet grouting Without simulation of jet grouting
Case 17
With simulation of
jet grouting
Relative Shear
Case 3
Without simulation
of jet grouting
Reducing Wall Deflection 48
Wong Kai Sin 24
November 2009 Reducing Wall Deflection
Profile B is the more rational choice as
reference line.
It gives the true deflection profile.
Profile A
Profile A (Initial)
Profile B
Profile D (After JG)
Profile C
Using Profile A as Using Profile B as
reference line. reference line.
Reducing Wall Deflection 49
Other Issues: (4) JGP Slab Thickness
Design
• Reasonable to assume uniform thickness
• Need to conduct sensitivity study
eed to co duct se s t ty study
Back‐Analysis
• Need to know variations of JGP thickness
Reducing Wall Deflection 50
Wong Kai Sin 25
November 2009 Reducing Wall Deflection
Other Issues: (5) JGP Post‐Failure Behaviour
σ σ
σ3 = 0 kPa σ3 = 500 kPa
ε ε
Unconfined compression test Confined compression test
Reducing Wall Deflection 51
stress‐strain curves of clay‐cement mix under different confining pressures
Reducing Wall Deflection 52
Wong Kai Sin 26
November 2009 Reducing Wall Deflection
Modelling of JGP Post‐Failure Behaviour
σ σ
σ3 = 0 kPa σ3 = 500 kPa
ε ε
σ1 – σ3
FE simulation using Mohr‐
Coulomb Model
ε
Reducing Wall Deflection 53
Cross‐section & soil profile adopted in the analysis
Reducing Wall Deflection 54
Wong Kai Sin 27
November 2009 Reducing Wall Deflection
Plastic points showing extensive yielding in JGP slab
and surrounding soils at 7th strut level
Sacrificial
JGP1
JGP layer
Reducing Wall Deflection 55
σ σ σ
50% 80%
ε ε ε
Reducing Wall Deflection 56
Wong Kai Sin 28
November 2009 Reducing Wall Deflection
Maximum wall deflections computed by Analyses A, B and C at 10th level
Reducing Wall Deflection 57
Deflection profiles at the south wall at different stages of excavation
105
Level 3
100 100
100 Level 4 100
Level
e e 5
Level 6
95
Level 7
Level 1
Level 8 90 90
90 90
Level 9 Level 2
Level 10
Level 3
Reduced Level (m)
85
Reduced Level (m)
Level 4
80 80
80 80 Level 5
Level 6
75
Level 7
70 70 70 Level 8
70
Level 9
65 Level 10
60 60 60 60
55
50 50 50 50
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 -100 100 300 500 -100 0 100 200 300 400 -100 0 100 200 300 400
Wall Deflection (mm)
Wall deflection (mm) Wall deflection (mm) Wall deflection (m m )
Reducing Wall Deflection 58
Wong Kai Sin 29
November 2009 Reducing Wall Deflection
Deflection profiles at the north wall at different stages of excavation
105
95
90 90 90 Level 1
90
Level 2
85
Reducing Wall Deflection 59
Comparison of Computed and Measured Strut Forces
Reduced Level (m )
Redu ced L evel (m )
95 95 95
90 90 90
85 85 85
80 80 80
75 75 75
0 500 1000 1500 2000 0 500 1000 1500 2000 0 500 1000 1500 2000
M i
Maximum strut
t t load
l d (kN/m)
(kN/ ) Maximum strut load (kN/m)
Maximum strut load (kN/m)
Reducing Wall Deflection 60
Wong Kai Sin 30
November 2009 Reducing Wall Deflection
Other Issues: (6) Adhesion between JGP and Pile
h JGP
How can we determine ca between JGP and pile?
Reducing Wall Deflection 61
Completed
specimens
Specimen
and
moulds
Reducing Wall Deflection 62
Wong Kai Sin 31
November 2009 Reducing Wall Deflection
Compressive strength of specimen at different curing time
(Goh, 2005)
1600
1400
Compressive Strength (kPa)
1200
28 days
1000
14 days
800
600
7 days
400
200
0
0 10 20 30 40
Reducing Wall Deflection 63
Adhesion between concrete with clay‐cement mixture
(Goh, 2005)
700
y = 0.448x + 444.82
600
20%W@28days
500
Shear Strength (kPa)
30%W@28days
y = 0.3348x + 369.64
400
20%W@28days-
separate
300 30%W@28days-
separate
y = 0.7408x
200
y = 0.6273x
100
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Reducing Wall Deflection 64
Wong Kai Sin 32
November 2009 Reducing Wall Deflection
PreliminaryTest Pile TP2
Max load
1750 Tonnes Rod extensometers
(damaged on SPT Blows per Shear Transfer
1m diameter
installation) mm penetration at maximum load
GL
(7)
Sandy Typical
Pile head settlement
Made Ground <10/300 =23mm
at maximum load
Pile Load Test at KPE 10m
Residual settlement =4mm
Jet Grout Slab (754)
20m
(197)
(52)
Measured adhesion =
754 kPa 30m
Marine Clay
65.5m
Adhesion at failure
>>754 kPa 40m
(126)
46/300
Fluvial Sand 25/300
(72)
44/300
55/300
50m
100/220 (106)
Old Alluvium 100/260
(15)
100/280
100/220
100/220
60m
0 500 1000
Reducing Wall Deflection Shear transfer (kN/m2) 65
Other Issues: (7) How to model the adhesion in FEA?
d
Qs on piles in field = ( π d h / s ) ca
Qs on piles in FEA = 2 h c
il i FEA 2 h a,FEA
s ca,FEA = (π d ca) / (2 s)
Pile ca,FEA
p
Spacingg
h JGP
2.5 d 0.63 ca
3.0 d 0.52 ca
3.5 d 0.45 ca
4.0 d 0.39 ca
Reducing Wall Deflection 66
Wong Kai Sin 33
November 2009 Reducing Wall Deflection
Conclusions
1. Many uncertainties involving JGP:
• Strength
• Modulus
• Initial stress
• Slab thickness
• Post‐failure behaviour
2. Shallow excavations Æ JGP strength may not be important.
3. Deep excavations Æ JGP strength becomes critical. Proper
modeling of post‐failure behaviour becomes important.
4. Use qu=600 kPa and Eu=150 MPa as reference case
Reducing Wall Deflection 67
5. Conduct sensitivity studies on
‐ Modulus
‐ Strength
‐ Slab thickness
‐ Post‐failure softening
6. Do not zero the inclinometer readings at the start of
excavation. Always base on the initial readings.
7. Exercise stringent quality control during jet grouting.
8 M it
8. Monitor performance closely during construction.
f l l d i t ti
Reducing Wall Deflection 68
Wong Kai Sin 34