SCHOOL OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

EAG346 GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN

PROJECT 1A AND 1B

PROJECT TITLE: DEEP EXCAVATION WITH GROUND ANCHORED

(USING SLIDE2 AND RS2)

NAME: MUHAMMAD FAKHRUL NAZMI BIN SAKAWI

MATRIC NO: 147104

LECTURER: ASSOC. PROF. IR. DR. MOHD ASHRAF MOHAMAD ISMAIL

DATE OF SUBMISSION: 22thJULY 2022

(Assignment/Project received without this declaration form will not be graded)

Declaration of Academic Honesty

Academic honesty or academic integrity is a very important virtue that all students should
uphold at all times.

We declare that the assignment submitted is not plagiarized and is entirely my/our own
works, and that no part of it has been copied from any work produced by other
person(s) / source(s) or provided by other student(s).

We understand that issuing a false declaration can result in severe penalties and we are
willing to be penalized if any form of copying found valid.
PROBLEM 1(A):
Question: Reasons of the Nicoll Highway Collapsed triggered by the deep excavation failure.

1
2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A temporary anchored pile wall is to be designed to support a vertical cut of 12 meters in

normally consolidated silty clay and over-consolidated Batu Kawan clay as shown below

The Limit Equilibrium Method (Slide2) and the Finite Element Method (RS2), which
were taught to identify the stability for every slope according to different locations, were used
in this assignment's design of the temporary anchored pile wall. By considering Rankine’s
Earth Pressure Theory, manual calculation needs to be done first before using Slide2 and RS2
for the calculation of net resulting horizontal forces exerted on the soil wall and concrete pile.
The number of rows of anchorages needed to secure the wall at a given horizontal spacing is
then calculated using the support force. It is also established how long the wall's piles must be
to obtain a factor of safety of 1.5.

Based on Rankine’s Earth Pressure Theory, the net resulting horizontal forces exerted
on the 12m concrete pile wall are 318.9 kN/m and 216.619 kN/m using Slide2 software.

After that, by using finite element method (RS2), Realistically, soil deformation can be
foreseen. The prestressed weight of the anchors is 23 tonnes, and they are 10 degrees incline
from the horizontal. The depths of the excavation are 2.5 metres, 5.5 metres, 8.5 metres, and
12 metres. The bending moment, shear force, axial force, and displacement for the sheet pile
wall may all be anticipated by running the model analysis using RS2. In short, the deep
excavation problem is examined using the finite element approach.

If the displacement of deep excavation needs to be reduced to meet the desired

requirement, it require to redesign of the sheet pile wall based on the key design parameters,

3
which are thickness of sheet pile wall, pile length of the sheet pile wall, anchorage length,
inclination angle of the anchorage and the pre-stressed value of the anchorage are needed.

PROBLEM STATEMENT

As seen in Figure 1, we are tasked with creating a temporary anchored pile wall for this
project that will sustain vertical cuts of 12 metres, 14 metres, and 16 metres in. To guarantee
the stability of the excavation and lower the failure rate, we aim to identify the appropriate
design criteria and make a suitable approach suggestion. To determine the FOS, lateral force,
bending moment, axial force, and shear force diagrams for the walls, the excavation site will
be examined using the Slide2 and RS2 software. Depending on the Over-consolidated Batu
Kawan clay and normally consolidated silty clay depth and kind of excavation material,
different soil shear stress and stability levels also fluctuate. Additionally, the extreme toe
penetration may cause excessive movement of pile, sagging of piles and overturning of the
retaining wall.

To solve the problem that predicted to occurs during constructing the deep
excavation, programs of Slide 2 and RS2 are used. Various parameters that need to take into
consideration for the analysing purpose using this program.

a) Soil Parameter for Over-consolidated Batu Kawan clay and normally consolidated
silty clay:
• Unit weight
• Cohesion
• Friction angle
• Strength type

b) Shear Strength, Bulk Density, Specific Gravity of Soils, Permeability levels, location
of groundwater tables and the thickness of the soil’s layers.

c) Required factor of safety and reinforcement load elevation for back analysis. Over
design are good for the stability of the deep excavation. However, it will result in
excessive cost of construction and it not gives a good result for the economic

4
 condition, so all the input parameter is important to prevent miscalculation or
misdesign.

Thus, it is possible to manage the likelihood of failure and compute straightforward

analytical results. The following design requirements are simpler to understand:

a) To provide lower vertical forces on the pile wall, the installation position for the
anchor should be as close to the horizontal layer as possible.

b) To guarantee that the grout tieback and the soil layer are properly bonded to the
ground anchor and that it has a strong connection for load transfer purposes, the
ground anchor should be placed inclined (with an inclination between 10° and 45°).

c) The Factor of Safety should be bigger than 1.5 (FS > 1.5) for the safety purposed and
it having the higher stability that cause tendency to failure decrease.

DESIGN DESCRIPTION

A temporary anchored pile wall is to be designed to support a vertical cut of 12 meters in

normally consolidated silty clay and over-consolidated Batu Kawan clay as shown below

5
PROBLEM 1(B):

Estimate the net resulting horizontal thrust by using Rankine’s Earth Pressure Theory and
limit equilibrium by using Slide2 software.

6
From the manual calculation of Rankine’s Earth pressure Theory, the net resulting forces are
318.9kN/m. The result obtain are greater compared to the result from RS 2.

Analysis result using Rocscience Slide 2.0 Stability software

7
Coordinate of the external boundary

Coordinate X Y
C1 0.0 0.0
C2 -20.0 0.0
C3 -20.0 -12.0
C4 -20.0 -30.0
C5 20.0 -30.0
C6 20.0 -12.0
C7 0.0 -12.0

The model is programmed with the stress units in Metric, Permeability Units in
meters/second and Time Units in days. The method used to solve the problem are using Bishop
simplified, Janbu simplified and Morgenster-Price method. However, after doing the analysis,
only Bishop simplified and Janbu simplified results will be used using LEM to get the average
lateral force in kN/m.

Reinforcement load elevation is set to 8m for first scenario and increased to 9m to see
the elevation height affect the active force or not. Add material boundary and material
properties (normally consolidated clay and over consolidated Batu Kawan clay). The normally
consolidated clay is added on the top layer of material boundary and the overconsolidated Batu
Kawan clay lies below it.

8
Elevation height: 8m

Bishop Simplified FS: 0.639

9
Janbu Simplified FS: 0.721

GLE/Morgenstern-Price method FS 0.714

10
Elevation height: 9m

Bishop Simplified FS: 0.639

11
Janbu Simplified FS: 0.721

GLE/Morgenstern-Price method FS 0.714

12
Elevation 8m

Type of Method Factor of Safety (FOS) Lateral Force (kN/m)

Bishop Simplified 0.639 247.284
Janbu Simplified 0.721 185.954
Morgenster-Price 0.714 -
Average 216.619

Elevation 9m

Type of Method Factor of Safety (FOS) Lateral Force (kN/m)

Bishop Simplified 0.639 221.425
Janbu Simplified 0.721 185.954
Morgenstern-Price 0.714 -
Average 203.690

From the results we can see the elevation will only have an effect on the results for the
Bishop Analysis method. This is because a Bishop analysis uses moment equilibrium, and the
elevation of the force determines the moment arm. It does not affect Janbu simplified because
considers only force equilibrium; since the force is horizontal, the location of the force does
not enter into the analysis. GLE/Morgenstern-Price method did not show the lateral force value
thus we will only use Bishop simplified and Janbu simplified results for analysis.

We only change the elevation height to see whether it affects the lateral force for
methods used. We will use LEM based method using the 8m elevation height for back analysis.
The LEM based methods are compared based on the factor of safety (FOS) obtained for various
load combinations. The comparison is mainly based on simplified slope geometry and input
parameters like material properties, geological and geotechnical properties. The first two
methods, Janbu simplified and Bishop Simplified satisfy only force equilibrium while
GLE/Morgenstern-price method not satisfy lateral force.

So, using result from back analysis of 8m elevation height, the average lateral force
from the analysis using LEM is selected which is Pa = 216.619 kN/m. The result obtain form

13
manual calculation (Rankine’s Earth Pressure Theory) are Pa = 228.400 kN/m. It is shown that
value from manual calculation is greater than using Slide2 software.

14
PROBLEM 2:

Design pile length to achieve a FS = 1.5 against a global rotational failure again by using
Slide2.

In the Slide 2, pile is modelled as an infinite strength material and by Morgenstern & Price
limit equilibrium method, slip surfaces are formed under the modelled pile After
incrementing through various “d” depths, it is found.

15
Analysis result using Rocscience Slide 2.0 Stability software

Pile 16m length

Pile 14m length

16
Pile 12m length

Material Properties for all three scenario

Pile length set = 16 m (from ground level)

GLE / Morgenstern-price
FOS = 1.769 > 1.5 required (OK!)

Pile length set = 14 m (from ground level)

GLE / Morgenstern-price
FOS = 1.605 > 1.5 required (OK!)

17
Pile length set = 12 m (from ground level)
GLE / Morgenstern-price
FOS = 1.373 > 1.5 required (NOT OK!)

Graph is plotted to find the total length of the pile.

Chart Title
1.9
1.8 y = 0.099x + 0.1963
R² = 0.9903
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Pile length set that satisfy FOS = 1.5

X = 13.09 m
Take length = 14 m

18
PROBLEM 3:
If 0.6-inch anchorages are to be used with an allowable capacity of approximately 14 tons,
design the number of anchorage rows to be used with a horizontal spacing of 2.4m The
average Px = 220 KN/m

• 22 tons of net resulting horizontal thrust applied to the excavation wall in 2-D
• 22 tons x 2.4 m horizontal spacing = 52.8 tons required anchorage capacity for 2.4 m
horizontal spacing 52.8 tons / 14 tons per each anchorage capacity = 3.77 anchors / 12
meters.
• Thus, for the 12 m excavation depth, required anchorage rows approximately 4 m to
sustain the net resulting horizontal thrust in the active zone.

19
The problem were design in RS2 software and like had been mention, the pre-tensioning
force was set to 220kN. Four rows of the anchorages were located at 2.5, 5.5, 8.5, 12m below
the ground surface with an inclination of 10 degrees with the horizontal. This anchorage
excavation were completed in 6 stages which are initial stage, pile installation, excavate until
2.5 m depth and then install the anchor at that stage. Fourth, fifth and sixth stages involve the
same process with third stage which excavation will be done until 5.5, 8.5, and 12 m depths
and the installation of tieback anchorage for every stage. There are some advantage and
disadvantage of this anchorage excavation method:

Advantages:

• High efficiency for excavation and underground structure construction.

• Short construction period.

• Fit for excavation projects with large areas and shallow depths.

Disadvantages:

• This method of excavation is not applicable to weak soil layers.

20
 • When applied to a depth 10 m below the groundwater table in granular soils (such as
sandy soils or gravel soils), anchors should be installed with care.

• Large settlement may occur if the construction quality of anchors is not good enough

Initial Stage:

Pile Installation Stage:

21
Excavate 2.5m – install pile anchor

Excavate 5.5m – install pile anchor

22
Excavate 8.5m – install pile anchor

Excavate 12m – install pile anchor

23
A) Plot the bending moment, axial force and shear force diagrams for the walls. Identify the
maximum displacement of the wall in each stage.

BENDING MOMENT

24
 Graph: Bending Moment Diagram

AXIAL FORCE

25
 Graph: Axial Force Diagram

SHEAR FORCE

26
 Graph: Shearl Force Diagram

DISPLACEMENT

27
 Graph: Total Displacement

The maximum displacement for the wall at Stage 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are 0.01 m, 0.021 m, 0.035
m, 0.063 m and 0.091 m respectively.

28
B) Plot the axial force diagram of the anchorage grout tieback with the max tensile capacity
of the anchorage.

Maximum axial force of 418.608 kN occurred in stage 6.

29
Graph: Axial Force Diagram for Bolt 1

Graph: Axial Force Diagram for Bolt 2

30
Graph: Axial Force Diagram for Bolt 3

Graph: Axial Force Diagram for Bolt 4

31
B) Plot the displacement of the ground surface 10m behind the wall

32
PROBLEM 4:
Estimate the FoS against basal heave. In order to estimate the factor of safety against basal
heave, a simple method of analyzing basal heave stability developed by

• Terzaghi (1943)
• Bjerrum and Eide (Bjerrum and Eide, 1956)

33
34
PROBLEM 5:
Discuss if estimated lateral and vertical displacement profiles behind the pile wall is
consistent with several deep excavation projects in literature

i. What can you do as designer to reduce displacement of the deep excavation?

• Increased pile length to 16m

By examining the result from RS2, we can see the displacement has reduced with increasing
length of pile. We can compare this result with the displacement result that we get in
Problem 3.

35
 • Increased Pre-tensioning force to 250kN from 220kN

By examining the result from RS2, we can see the displacement was slightly reduce when we
increase the Pre-tensioning force to 250kN. We can compare this result with the displacement
result that we get in Problem 3. However the value of total displacement suddenly increase
when the Pre-tensioning been increased to 300kN. We can say 220kN and 250kN is the
sufficient Pre-tensioning force to the bolt.

36
ii. What can you do as designer to increase overall stability of the deep excavation?

• Find optimum inclination angle for the tieback anchorage

According to a few studies, the safety factor would rise as the inclination angle
rises before reaching the optimum inclination angle for tieback anchorage.
According to the British Standard, the slope's inclination angle should be
between 50° and 40°, which would increase slope stability, make the slope's
anchor system and linkages more durable, and lower the soil's shear stress.
We can use Slide2 software to find the optimum inclination angle that will give
the highest value of FoS at once will contribute to the overall stability of the
deep excavation

• Increased depth of pile

Results showed that when the Hp/He ratio increased, the stability of
excavations first improved and then remained unchanged with increasing
Hp/He.

Hp = depth of pile
He = Depth of excavation

This is proven in Problem 2 where the FoS value for 16m pile is higher than
14m pile. The FoS value that we get are 1.769 and 1.605 for 16m pile and 14m
pile respectively.

37
REFERENCE

Kathilein, C. (n.d.). Nicoll Highway Collapse. Prezi.Com.

https://prezi.com/ofd8akrjaaen/nicoll-highway-

collapse/?frame=63ebfa3b64a69eefc58ce1df77066be2f143819d

Yang Ng, H. M. (n.d.). STRUCTURE magazine | Revisiting Lessons Learned from the Nicoll

Highway Collapse. NCSEA. https://www.structuremag.org/?p=17166

Dong, M., & Jia, P. (2020). Stability Analysis and Parameter Optimization of Deep

Excavation Supporting System in Granular Soils. Advances in Civil Engineering,

2020, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/8873655

Do, T. N., & Ou, C. Y. (2019). Factors affecting the stability of deep excavations in clay with

consideration of a full elastoplastic support system. Acta Geotechnica, 15(7), 1707–

1722. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-019-00886-8

T Phan, T., & Gui, M. W. (2019). Soil nailing behaviour for slope stabilization: A case study.

IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 527(1), 012037.

https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899x/527/1/012037

Endicott, J. (2013). Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering. CASE HISTORIES OF

FAILURE OF DEEP EXCAVATION EXAMINATION OF WHERE THINGS WENT

WRONG: NICOLL HIGHWAY COL, 1–7.

https://scholarsmine.mst.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3091&context=icchge

Kathilein, C. (n.d.). Nicoll Highway Collapse. Prezi.Com.

https://prezi.com/ofd8akrjaaen/nicoll-highway-

collapse/?frame=63ebfa3b64a69eefc58ce1df77066be2f143819d
Assoc. Prof. Ir. Dr Mohd Ashraf Mohamad Ismail (2022). Project 1B [Slides]. PowerPoint.

https://elearning.usm.my/sidang2122/mod/resource/view.php?id=214485

Chinnaswamy, C., & Chew Chiat, D. N. (2015). Assessment of pile response due to deep

excavation in close proximity—A case study based on DTL3 Tampines West Station.

Cogent Engineering, 2(1), 1014247. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311916.2015.1014247

Geotechnical Engineering - Nicoll Highway. (2014, September 7). [Video]. YouTube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZMRgSD36P0