Wong Design Analysis Deep Excavations Session04

November 2009 Reducing Wall Deflection
Session 4
How to reduce wall deflection
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
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
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
Wong Kai Sin 1
Ring Beam System
Central at
Clarke Quay in
Clarke Quay in
Singapore
The Sail at Marina Bay in Singapore
Wong Kai Sin 2
Effect of
Penetration &
Wall Stiffness
Diaphragm Wall Sheetpile Wall

Effect of Number of Level Struts
2 3 4 4 5
struts struts struts struts struts
Diaphragm Wall Sheetpile Wall

Wong Kai Sin 3
Diaphragm Wall with Cross-Wall Cross-wall
Sand
Cross-wall
Marine
Clay
Diaphragm
wall
Old
Alluvium
Diaphragm
wall
TERS Design with Cross‐Walls
DW DW
Cross‐Wall
Cross‐Wall
Wong Kai Sin 4
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
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
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.
No JGP/DCM
δH,max = 361 mm
3m JGP/DCM
δH,max = 141 mm
3m JGP/DCM with
tension piles
δH,max = 37 mm
Wong Kai Sin 6
Full Penetration Wall Floating Wall
1.2mD 1.2mD
W W
5m 5m
JGP JGP
δmax = 90 mm δmax = 101 mm

Tmax = 1600 kN/m Tmax = 1580 kN/m
Mmax = 350 kNm/m
Reducing Wall Deflection Mmax = 439 kNm/m 13
No Sacrificial JGP 2m Sacrificial JGP
1.2mD 1.2mD
W 2m W
JGP
5m 5m
JGP JGP

Tmax = 1600 kN/m Tmax = 1590 kN/m
Mmax = 350 kNm/m
Reducing Wall Deflection Mmax = 371 kNm/m 14
Wong Kai Sin 7
7 Piles No Piles
1.2mD 1.2mD
2m W 2m W
JGP JGP
5m 5m
JGP JGP

Tmax = 1590 kN/m Tmax = n.a.
Mmax = 371 kNm/m
Reducing Wall Deflection Mmax = n.a. 15
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.
Wong Kai Sin 8
d = 1.5 m d = 3 m d = 6 m
Effect of Grout
Layer Thickness
Presence of JGP slab
can reduce the number
of strut levels.
Wong Kai Sin 9
JGP
Jet
Grouted
Piles
19
Jet Grouting
Reducing Wall Deflection
Construction
of Jet Grout
Slab
Wong Kai Sin 10
Wong Kai Sin 11
Jet grouting on land
Jet grouting over a canal
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)
Wong Kai Sin 12
JGP Strength & Density (Shirlaw et al., 2000)
qu = 2 cu
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
Wong Kai Sin 13
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)
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
Unconfined Compressive Strength (kPa)
Wong Kai Sin 14
Deep Cement Mixing ‐‐ DCM
Deep Cement Mixing
Wong Kai Sin 15
Strength & Modulus of DCM samples in Marine Clay
External measurements
σ−ε curves from local and external strain measurements
(Tan et al., 2002)
Wong Kai Sin 16
Modulus and Strength of DCM Samples in Marine Clay
(Tan et al., 2002)
External Measurements Local Measurements
Curing Time of DCM Samples in Marine Clay
(Tan et al., 2002)
Wong Kai Sin 17
Adverse Effects of Jet Grouting
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
How to model JGP slab in FEA?
1. Wall and JGP slab are 2. Step‐by‐step simulation of
p y p
wished‐in‐place. excavation sequence
qu = ?
Eu = ?
Wong Kai Sin 18
Shallow Excavation Deep Excavation
JGP strength not critical JGP strength critical
qu (core) = qu (mass) ?
3D view of
core sample
Plan view of JGP slab
Wong Kai Sin 19
Eu (core) = Eu (mass) ?
3D view of
core sample
Plan view of JGP slab
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
Wong Kai Sin 20
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?
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 = ?
Wong Kai Sin 21
Other Issues: (2) Field Construction Sequence
3. Step‐by‐step excavation
• Reduction in σh
Each soil element goes through a different stress path

Each soil element goes through a different stress path.
Can the soil model produce the correct response at each
element?
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?
Wong Kai Sin 22
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.
Profile B Measured wall
deflection of an
excavation in Taiwan
(Lin & Lin, 2008)
Profile A
Profile A P fil D
Profile D
Profile C
Wong Kai Sin 23
Case 17 Case 3
With simulation of jet grouting Without simulation of jet grouting
δHmax = 14 mm δHmax = 71 mm δHmax = 90 mm

Case 17
With simulation of
jet grouting
Relative Shear
Case 3
Without simulation
of jet grouting
Wong Kai Sin 24
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.
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
Wong Kai Sin 25
Other Issues: (5) JGP Post‐Failure Behaviour
σ σ
σ3 = 0 kPa σ3 = 500 kPa
ε ε
Unconfined compression test Confined compression test
stress‐strain curves of clay‐cement mix under different confining pressures
Wong Kai Sin 26
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
Cross‐section & soil profile adopted in the analysis
Wong Kai Sin 27
Plastic points showing extensive yielding in JGP slab
and surrounding soils at 7th strut level
Sacrificial
JGP1
JGP layer
Modelling of JGP Post‐Failure Behaviour
σ σ σ
50% 80%
ε ε ε
(A) (B) (C)
no softening 50% reduction 80% reduction
Wong Kai Sin 28
Maximum wall deflections computed by Analyses A, B and C at 10th level
Strain Maximum Wall Deflection ((mm))

Analysis Softening South Wall North Wall
A None 263 191
B 50% 318 220

reduction
C 80% 380 225
reduction
Measured 325 181
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)
Reduced Level (m)

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 )
(A) (B) (C)

Measured no softening 50% reduction 80% reduction
(326 mm) (263 mm) (318 mm) (380 mm)
Wong Kai Sin 29
Deflection profiles at the north wall at different stages of excavation
105
100 100 100 100
95
90 90 90 Level 1
90
Level 2
85
Reduced Level (m)

Level 3
Reduced Level (m)

Reduced Level (m)
Reduced Level (m)

Level 4
80 80 80 80
Level 5
75 Level 6
Level 7
70 70 70 70 Level 8
Level 1
Level 2 Level 9
65
Level 3
Level 10
Level 4
Level 5
60 60 60 60
Level 6
Level 7
55 Level 8
Level 9
Level 10
50 50 50 50
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 -40 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 -40 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 -40 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280
Wall Deflection (mm)
Wall deflection ((mm)) Wall deflection ((mm)) Wall
a dedeflection
ect o ((m m))
(A) (B) (C)

Measured no softening 50% reduction 80% reduction
(181 mm) (191 mm) (220 mm) (225 mm)
Comparison of Computed and Measured Strut Forces
105 105 105
100 100 100

Reduced Level (m )
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)
(A) (B) (C)

no Softening 50% reduction 80% reduction
Wong Kai Sin 30
Other Issues: (6) Adhesion between JGP and Pile
h JGP
How can we determine ca between JGP and pile?
Mixing of clay & cement Roughen the surface
Completed
specimens
Specimen
and
moulds
Wong Kai Sin 31
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
Water added (%)
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
Normal Stress (kPa)
Wong Kai Sin 32
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
(Shirlaw et al., 2005)

(Shirlaw et al., 2005) Marine Clay (83)
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
Wong Kai Sin 33
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
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
Wong Kai Sin 34

Wong Design Analysis Deep Excavations Session04

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Wong Design Analysis Deep Excavations Session04

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

November 2009 Reducing Wall Deflection

Time Session Topic

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

Diaphragm Wall Sheetpile Wall

Effect of Number of Level Struts

Diaphragm Wall Sheetpile Wall

Diaphragm Wall with Cross-Wall Cross-wall

Reducing Wall Deflection 8

δmax = 90 mm δmax = 101 mm

δmax = 90 mm δmax = 58 mm

δmax = 58 mm δmax = 442 mm

d = 1.5 m d = 3 m d = 6 m

Unconfined Compressive Strength (kPa)

Adverse Effects of Jet Grouting

How to model JGP slab in FEA?

Each soil element goes through a different stress path

δHmax = 14 mm δHmax = 71 mm δHmax = 90 mm

Modelling of JGP Post‐Failure Behaviour

(A) (B) (C)

no softening 50% reduction 80% reduction

Strain Maximum Wall Deflection ((mm))

B 50% 318 220

Reduced Level (m)

(A) (B) (C)

100 100 100 100

Reduced Level (m)

Reduced Level (m)

Reduced Level (m)

(A) (B) (C)

105 105 105

100 100 100

(A) (B) (C)

Mixing of clay & cement Roughen the surface

Water added (%)

Normal Stress (kPa)

(Shirlaw et al., 2005)

Anda mungkin juga menyukai