” TOP - DOWN CONSTRUCTION FOR DEEP BASEMENTS by V. S. Samathar Abstract “The top-down method is a method for construction of deep basements, given in the BS: 8002 code of practice for retaining structures. It was adopted in early 60's and now itis used in various countriesas and when required by site conditions Unlike in traditional method, in the top-down method, first the perimeter wall is constructed and usually the piled foundation and columns are laid from the ground level. The ground floor slab is laid and excavation for basements carried out through openings left in the slab. Construction of basements and super structure can be done simultaneously. In this paper the top-down method is discussed first. Variations in the top-down method, and theadvantages and disadvantages compared with traditional methods are also discussed. A perimeter wall for a building with three basements was analysed limiting its lateral deflection. This enabled to outline design steps that could be used in design of perimeter wall in top-down, method. The Terzahgi and Peck method was used to obtain strut loads in the permanent slabs and the Rankine pressure distribution for the earth pressure on the wall. This method hasbeen found to be ofadvantage in highly populated cities but economic viability would have to be estimated for each individual project. 1.0 Introduction In cities population density is increasing and so are the land values. This has resulted in high-rise buildings in the cities, for parking, storage, loading of goods and services combined with the aesthetics of the building, basements are required. Although construction of basements are expensive, it has potential benefits and, income. So it has become essential and must for commercial high-rise buildings. 51 Unlike in bottom-up method, in the top-down method, first a permanent perimetre wall is constructed, followed by alll internal piles are constructed. Then the basements are constructed downwards starting with the first basement, This paper describes the construction, advantages and, disadvantages faced in the top-down method. New technologies are being introduced to make this method more economical and safe. Some of the techniques used, in column construction are also given. Design procedure that could be adopted for this purpose is briefly discussed 2.0 Deep basement construction methods Deep basements are widely classified as construction in Open excavation, Bottom-up construction, Top-down, ‘construction and a Combination of bottom-up and top- down, ‘The BS8002:1994 on Earth retaining structures (c14.3.2.1) gives the various construction methods for deep basement construction. Two typesof top-down methods of construction of deep basements are illustrated in the code in Fig 28 and Fig 29 which are also included in the Institution of the Structural Engineers’, ‘Design and construction of deep basements’ published in 1975. They are ‘concurrent upward and downward construction’ (Fig 1) and ‘Floors cast on ground with excavation continuing below’ (Fig 2) are given in the appendix. Ms. WS Sunuthor-B,Tch-Trmporary acre, Open University of LankaPlates for supporting floor stabs Cylinder betled out to form final foundation base. In-situ column cast in cylinder shat First basement floor level wating stab Line of berm Foundations to central area Progress concurently Note 1, Advantages. Good for deep excavation. Affords speedier construction on superstructure. Note 2. Disadvantages. Excavation and removal of spoil from enclosed area relatively difficult Note3. Source. Institution of Structural Engineers 1975. Design and construction of deep basements. Figure taken from. BS 8002: 1994 Fig 1: Concurrent upward and downward construction 52Waling. beam at first Sheet pile wall Tor level \ 6 : PRR + Steet cylinder —2 -3 Steel tottice ———] Snes a coluen ay ‘Small. temporary —H a a tose G ; fL. aoa Viting sls wierd 38 ui excavation —3 proceeds: —st downwards i ea a Lif? of retaining wall buil! with wating slab t & =1 =) asc he 15 E —6 Final column loads Iransmitted onto raft ten aft at si ‘basement floor level NUTE 1, Advantayes, Gund method for deep excavations Temporary suiting eliminated ‘ Temporary beam imiated, NOTE 2. Disudim tage. Excuvativn under ss and removal spl relatively dificult NOTE A, Sain: INSTITUTION OF STRUCTUMAL ENGINEERS 1975. sign and vastrutin 1h deop basements, a Figure 2. Floors cast on ground with excavation continuing below , ) 53‘The Top-down method is being used in many countries. Different ways of constructing the basement using, top-down method are discussed in the following papers. + Headquarters of Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, Hong Kong (Archer et al (1998), Humphenson, Fitzpatrick et al (1986) + The Galleries Shopping Center, Bristol. Peattie (199) + Office block, Victoria Street, London. (Hodgson. (1975), Tomlinson (1986) * Queen Elizabeth Il Conference Centre, Westminster. Kalra and Willows (1986) 3.0 Top-Down method ‘The construction sequence of Top-Down method for deep basement is illustrated in Fig 3. It generally includes the following sequence of operations: 1. The perimeter basement wall is constructed first. This could be of cast-in-situ or Precast concrete diaphragm walls constructed by bentonite slurry method, secant piles, contiguous piles or stee! sheet piles (Fig 3a). 2, Allinternal foundations are constructed from the existing ground level, before carrying out any excavation. Usually the internal structure comprises steel stanchions on piled foundations. Under-reamed piles and raft foundations too could be used. It is also essential for top-down construction to use only a single pile at each column position and this technique will not permit multi pile-cap arrangements. (Fig 3.b) Since the columns would be loaded by the superstructure prior to being restrained by the sub-structure floors, it is necessary to provide temporary lateral restraint tostee! stanchioas. Pile casing could be back filled with peat shingle. The steel liner above also could be braced to the steel column (Marcand, 1993a) 3. The ground level floor is cast directly on the ground, connecting it with the diaphragm wall and the pre-founded columns. First, the ground is levelled and blinding concrete is laid. On top of this ply wood formwork is placed and then the reinforcement, Since the slabs act as struts to perimeter wall, slabs should be connected to perimeter wall, The top section of perimeter wall is broken and reinforcement is lapped to reinforcement in theslab. (Fig 3.c). Opening is left in the slab for the movement of materials and machinery to construct the first basement slab. (@) diaphragm walls; (b) piles and steol stanchion; (upper basement floor; (d) first basement and superstructure; (second basement; (0) final basement raft Fig 3 Sequence of top-down method 4. Then superstructure construction can be done as usual. Basement construction is done simultaneously below (Fig 3.d). Excavate underneath the ground floor to the first basement level, Level the first ground floor of the basement and prepare the reinforcements. During excavation, dewatering may be necessary, but perimeter wall will act as a cut-off wall or reduce the amount of seepage. 5. The procedure is repeated until the lowest basement is reached. Final basement floor is constructed with water proofing and drainage system (Fig 3.¢g). 3.1 Advantages of top-down method + Intop-down method since the retaining structure is permanent, it saves time and money spentona temporary retaining structure. Recently steel sheet piles with proper protection, were used as permanent retaining wall in a Bristol, U-K., underground car park. In this method, construction begins with the ground floor propping the retaining wall. The deflections of the wall are reduced as they are strutted by the ground floor before any significant excav: takes place (Katzenbach & Quick 1998). This limits settlement of any adjacent buildings. This would be necessary where shallow foundation* buildings and historical buildings are present close to the site. In bottom up method steel is used for propping the retaining wall. in the top-down method, the perimeter wall is propped by permanent slabs at different levels, According to Rowley, F.N. et al (1988) a permanent concrete slab is perhaps the best form of temporary prop. This is because it fulfils in the permanent condition and also it is very much stiffer than steel. Once in place there is no need to remove heavy strutting with high locked in loads. Temporary props used in bottom up method, makes the movement of material and equipment difficult Slabsare constructed, before any excavation starts below. Ground is used as formwork and props for the slab construction. This saves time and money, in setting up slab formwork The construction of the superstructure can be started as soon as the ground floor is completed, and well before the completion of the basements. This can bring about several months of saving on the total construction program. Early completion will bring early income, loan interests are reduced and contractor can start a new project. Even though diaphragm walll may be costlier than other methods, early completion saves a lot of money, In the Aldersgate Street, London basement this method enabled completion and use of 7 storey superstructure while lowest of 14 split level basement was in construction (Marchand, 1993b). This method provides valuable storage room during construction, since part of the ground level area is available at all times and progressively, the floors below. This method minimizes noise and dirt nuisance ‘caused by the excavation of the deep pit as the major part of the excavation is done under the protection of the basement floors. top-down method minimizes changes in load through compensation of the excavated material's weight with the gradually rising building’s load and therefore reducing the deformations of the new building and of the neighboring structures (Katzenbach R et al 1998). 3.2 Problems in Top-Down method * Excavation under the slab is difficult. It may bea strain for the workers since working condition are difficult. * If any unexpected ground conditions such as buried foundation or difficult soil layers to work with are encountered, then excavation becomes difficult. * Earth moving operation is slower than the conventional methods + Thereshould be very goad coordination between management and workers. Construction material, storage, handing, transport and all the other activities should be planned ahead. * After completing the concreting of floors, excavation cannot be started immediately. Soil cannot be removed before slab attains the required strength + Rowley, FIN et al(1988) suggests that only. piled foundations can be used for top-down construction. Raft foundations are possible but these are usually restricted to relatively narrow structures. Under-reamed pile with raft foundation was used in Queen Elizabeth Il centre (Klara J.C. et all 1986). Hence decision to use the top-down method, will restrict the selection on foundation type and basement columns. Some of these problems could be overcome having larger slab openings. Two or more opening could be designed so that separate paths could be used for handing materials inside and outside. There will be more ventilation and lighting inside basement during excavation. 3.3 Columns construction in top-down method in all the case histories studied so far, steel stanchions were used as columns in the basement. Warren Deen (1996) suggests that large diameter piles can also be installed in the pre-determnied positions before any excavation takes place and are concreted up to ground floor. This would become the permanent structural columns for basement. Marchand et al. (1994) describes two methods of permanent column installation on the market. The two methods are as follows :Bored pile is constructed first and permanent casing placed in between cut-off level and ground level. This casing would provide safe access to people. People descend into the casing, prepare the pile head and place steel stanchions. ‘The second method is plunging the column into the wet concrete immediately after the pile had been poured. This has the advantage of faster construction. Also there in no requirement for a permanent casing and prepare the pile cap and it is safe since the works are carried out at ground level. Levels of accuracy of + 10mm horizontally and 1 : 6000 verticaly can be achieved. 4.0 Design building with three basement was considered for the design. A sandy soil with angle of internal friction of 9=27° which corresponds to relatively loose sand was assumed to simplify the calculation of earth pressure. Analysis is carried out for a reinforced concrete diaphragm wall. According to sheet pile wall design shown in Fig 38 of BS8002: 1994 at strutting positions the wall is assumed tobe pinned. A rigid wall cannot be assumed tobe pinned thus, this makes the multi strutted wall an indeterminate structure. ‘Acomputer package Microfeap was used to analyse this type walll. Packages with finite element method could be used to obtain soil settlements and wall movement due to construction. This takes soil stffnessin to account. Since Microfeap does not account for soil properties, this ‘was not possible. Atypical diaphragm wall panel was analysed according to BS 8002: 1994, code of practice for retaining wall structure, In ultimate limit state design. ‘The wall has to resist active earth pressure, pore pressure and surcharge loads. Passive pressure is developed to resist these forces. The wall was analysed considering a typical depth of panel. Allowable lateral deflection of the wall was assumed to be 25mm. Since the assumed depth of wall gave excessive wall movements, depth of wall and thickness of wall were adjusted and the analysis, repeated until an acceptable wall movement was obtained. For allowable deflection, depth of panel, amount of moment to be resisted, thickness of wall etc. were calculated. Please refer the appendix for more details. Design steps of procedure recommended for perimeter wall 1, Obtain borehole details and establish ground conditions and surcharge loads 2 Obtain basement layout and dimensions. 3. Thickness of diaphragm wall is assumed. Select relevant material, sizes and material properties. 4, Obtain relevant active and passive pressure taking in to consideration all the variations along, the depth of the wall 5. Establish critical stages of excavation. 6 Assume an embedment length of diaphragm wall. 7. Analyse the wall for Rankine pressure distribution 8. Obtain the inward movernent of the wall. If this, is more than the allowable, increase the embedment, and /or wall thickness analyse it, till the deflection is within the allowable limit. 9. According to Terzhgi and Peck’s pressure distribution, analyse the wall again to obtain strut loads on the slab. 10. Maximum of strut load obtained in 7 & 9 should bbe used in design of the slab. 11. Using these design values obtain the reinforcement details for diaphragm wall and slab. 5.1 Active pressure calculation in braced Excavation First the perimeter wall is constructed. Before any excavation takes place the wall is fully supported by the earth. Then struts (floors) are constructed as excavation proceeds. As the excavation increases, yielding of the soil becomes appreciable but the ground evel slab prevents yielding near the surface. Deformation of the wall is negligible at the top and inereases with the depth. Thus deformation condition of Rankine theory cannot be used for multiple row of braced excavation (Craig, 1983). To determine strut loads ‘Terzaghi and Peck (1976) developed a pressure envelope shown in Fig 4 from case histories (semi-empirical method). This is Fig 37 of BS 6002:1994. A retaining wall acts as a structural unit and fails as a unit whereas a strutted excavation has some flexibility, and local concentrations of earth pressure can cause high Joads on individual bracing members. [fone strut fails it will immediately throw increased loads on to theadjoining members, thus initiating a general collapse of the system, hence the trapezoidal distribution of Terzaghi and Peck envelope coversthe maximum strut loads likely to occur at any level rather than representing the average strut loads (Tomlinson, 1986). ‘The perimeter wall is designed according to BS 8002:1994. ‘For the strutted excavation, the pressure distribution given in BS8002:cl.4.43. 1s used. Inbraced excavation propping force are transferred to all the struts. To determine strut forces this soil pressure distribution is used to this Note: Source : Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice (second edition). Terzghi & Peck (1967) Ka - Coefficient of earth pressure D = bulk density H_ = Depth of excavation Figure taken from BS 8002 : 1994 Figure 4. Active pressure diagram relating to maximum strut loads in braced earth retaining structures pore water pressure and surcharge pressure should be added according to BS 8002:c.4.4.3.2. Itshould be noted that active pressure, pore pressure and surcharge loads, are considered only to the depth of excavation Here both a trapezoidal pressure distribution and a triangular pressure distribution was used separately to, analyse the diaphragm wall. Triangular pressure distribution to obtain bending momentsand trapezoidal Pressure to obtain critical strut loads. 5.2 Critical stages of excavation At critical stages of excavation maximum bending moments, shear force and deflection were calculated. Stage1 at theend excavation for I" basement (after constructing ground floor) Stage 2: at the end of excavation for 2” basement (after constructing ground floor and 1* basement floor) 7 at the end of excavation for 3" basement (after constructing ground floor, ¥* and 2" basement floors) Stage 3 5.0 Conclusion ‘Top-down method has advantages of using the slabs as temporary struts, using completed slabs as storage space, concurrent construction of superstructure and basement, deflection of wall is minimised without obstruction the construction with large number of struts, early completion of the building and super structurecan, be utilised before the completing the basement construction. Permanent perimeter retaining wall and slabs serve as shoring and struts, as well as permanent final elements in the structure. This saves time, resources, and money on temporary works. In top-down method, the basement walls are strutted at, ‘ground level using the permanent structure. and the wall movements are reduced compared to traditional method. These would save on extra care that need to be taken on protecting the adjacent structures. Since the construction is carried out simultaneously above as well in the basement, ground heave is reduced. This method, minimizes the pollutions during excavation. In designing the perimeter wall in top - down method, Rankine method should be used in obtaining the moments and shear forces on the wall. Terzaghi and Peck’s method should be used to obtain the strutting slab loads. The outline steps that were discussed in the paper would be most helpful to understand the design procedure at design stage, construction stage and post construction stage. ‘This method has been found tobe of advantage in highly built-up areas. The economic viability would have to estimated for the individual project before deciding on this method. Acknowledgement I take this opportunity to thank my supervisor Dr. Mrs. P.Sivaparakasapiliai without whose assistance this project would not have been possible. She guided and instructed me throughout this project. I also wish to thank the consultants whom I met to get information. ‘The information they shared with me were a great help, to this project. I also thank my uncle who found the technical material. | thank my family forall the support they gave me.Reference: 1 10, nL. 12, 13. Archer, FH. and Knight, DWM. (1988), Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Headquarters Construction, Proc. Instn Civ. Engrs, Part], 1988, 84, Feb. pp. 43-65. CIRIA Report 139, Water-resisting basements, 1995, Code of practice for Earth retaining structures BS 8002: 1994 Craig, R.F. (1983), Soil mechanics, 4" edition, Workingham, Berks; Van Nostrand Reinhold. Design and construction of Deep basements (Aug, 1975) institution of Structural Engineers, 11 Upper Belgrave Street, London SWIX 8BH. Hodgson, FT, (1975) Design and construction of a diaphragm wall at Victoria Street, London., Diaphragm walis and anchorages, paper-7, Institution of Civil Engineers, London, 1975, pp5i-56 Humpheson, C,, Fitzpatrick, AJ. and Anderson, J.M.D, (1986), The basements and substructure for the new headquarters of the Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, Hong Kong, Proc. Instn Civ. Engrs, Part 1, 1986, 80, Aug., pp. 851- 883, Thomas Telford Ltd. Kalra, J.C. and Willows, KR. (1986), Queen Elizabeth Il Conference Centre: Design and - construction. proc. instn. Civ, Engrs, Part 1, 1986, 80, Dec,, pp. 1451-1477, Thomas Telford Ltd, Katzenbach, R. and Quick H. (1998), A new concept for the excavation of deep building pits in inner urban areas combining top/down method and piled raft foundation, 5.17, 7* international conference and exhibitions on piling and deep foundations, Austria. Lee Hyun-Soo (1999), Nonshored forwork system for top-down construction, Journal of construction engineering and management, November / December 1999 Marchand, S. (1993 a), A deep basement in Aldersgate Street, London. Part 1: Contractor's design and planning,, Proc. Instn Civ. Engrs., Civ. Engng, 1993, 93, Feb., pp. 19-26 Marchand, S. (1993 b), A deep basement in Aldersgate Street, London. part 2: Construction, Proc. Instn Civ. Engrs. Civ. Engng, 1993,97, May, pp. 67-76 Marchand, S., Wren G. and Lamb R. (1994), Top- down construction and its implications, proc. Instn Civ. Engrs. Geotech. Engng, 1994107, Apr., pp. 123-124 58 14. Microfeap II (1988), Analysis of 2Dtruss / frame/ wall) Micro Ace club, Asian Institute of Technology. 15. Peattie, G.C. and Mojabi, MS. (1991), Design and construction of the Galleries Shopping Centre Bristol, Proc. Instn Civ. Engrs, Part 1, 1991, 90, Dec., pp. 1225-1253, Thomas Telford Ltd. 16. Rowley, FN. and Yarwood, N.G.A. (1988), Method on design, Proceedings of the conference Economic construction techniques: temporary works and their interaction with permanent works, organized by the Institution of Civil Engineers and held in London on 16 Nov. 1998. 17. Terzaghi, K. and Peck, R.B. (1967), Soil mechanics in engineering practice. Wiley, New Yourk, 1967, 2 edition. 18, Tomlison, MJ. (1986), Foundation Design and Construction 5* edition, Thomas Telford Ltd. publication, 19, Warren Deen, R. (1996), Civil Engineering Construction, Design and Management, Macmillan. Appendix A building with three basements was considered for the design. Since this is a strutted excavation the analysis, becomes indeterminate. A computer package was used for this analysis. Since basement diaphragm wall take the soil pressures these triangular loads also need to be inchided. Microfeap package used does not accept them. This package not analyse structures using finite element, method. Hence this package does not accept the properties of soil. Settlement of adjacent buildings, cannot be calculated using this package. ‘The figure 5 below shows the section of the building analysed. It was assumed that the diaphragm walll does not carry any vertical loads. Diaphragm wall was, assumed to carry the soil pressure and strutting loads of the slab.ut 15 Basement 3 ee oer Fig 5 Basement and diaphragm wall structure. 1to 16 - Node number (N) 1» 19 - Element number (E) End condition F - Free L ~ Locked Element «7 - diaphragm wall 8tois - slab 419 = - column 39Table 1 gives the maximum bending moment in the wall, ‘maximum deflection and maximum axial force for 20m and 186m deep diaphragm wall. For the 18.6m deep diaphragm wall the deflections are found tobe excessive 0f25 mm. Then diaphragm wall was analysed again for a 20m deep. Table 2 gives the details of 20m deep diaphragm wall. Maximum bending moment, deflection and axial force at critical stages of excavation. From this it is evident that the maximum axial force at the end of second basement excavation is more in trapezoidal distribution than the triangular distribution. ‘The package used has limited capability and this limits the validity of the results obtained. In the basement design shear wall action should be considered as the shear wall carries the loads to the foundation. The 2-D analysis of the Microfeap package does not take this in to account, Triangular active pressure distribution thickness of wall 1000mm | 800mm. Height of wall -20m maximum bending moment on the diaphragm wall KNm 932 932 NS NB maximum deflection in mm towards the excation 27 26 N6 N6 maximum axial force on the slab KN 8558 872 E10 E10 Height of wall -18.6 m maximum bending moment on the diaphragm wali KNm 1700 1700 Né Na maximum deflection in mm towards the exes 70 985 NB NB maximum axial force on the slab KN 1086 1136 E10 E10 N- Node number E- Element number ‘Tab 1 Results of deflection and bending moment for triangular active pressure distribution » & a ”Height of wall - 20 m Triangular active pressure distribution end of 1* | end of 2" | end of 3* basement | basement | basement excavation | excavation | excavation maximum bending moment on the diaphragm wall KNm 348 625 932 N7 NS NS maximum deflection in mm towards the excation 0.99 238 uz N2 NB Nd maximum axial force on the slab KN 849 48 855.8 EB BD E10 ‘Trapezoidal active pressure distribution ‘maximum axial force on the slab KN end of | end of 2 | end of 34 basement } basement | basement excavation | excavation lexcavation 1 st slab (E8) - 81 325 2st slab (E9) - 5058 231 3st slab (E10) 679 ‘Tab 2 Results obtained for 20m deep diaphragm wall maximum bending moment diaphragm wall should be designed for maximum axial force slab_—_1" and 2 nd slab should be designedfor 3M slab 61 932 KNm. 505.8 KN 855.8 KN