Challenges in Design and

Construction of Deep
Excavation With Case
Studies - KVMRT in KL
Limestone
Gue See Sew
G&P Professionals Sdn Bhd
www.gnpgroup.com.my
20 July 2016
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
SOIL PARAMETERS
NUMERICAL ANALYSES
CASE HISTORIES
3 Underground Stations for KVMRT
Circular Shaft for Launching of TBM
Hydraulic Failure @ Penang
CONCLUSIONS
INTRODUCTION

Deep basement construction

Urban areas for parking space
Infrastructures, e.g. KVMRT

Risk associated with deep basement

construction high!
 Human Size

Excavated depth Retaining wall

24.5m - 28.5m (6-level basement) 1.2m thick diaphragm
walls
FAILURES of DEEP EXCAVATION
FAILURES of DEEP EXCAVATION
FAILURES of DEEP EXCAVATION
 Overestimation
of shear
strength!!!

Stress path using

Mohr-Coulomb Stress path
model of real soil
SOIL
PARAMETERS
SOIL PARAMETERS

Some important soil parameters

related to retaining wall and support
system design:
Shear strength parameters (su, φ’ & c’)
Soil permeability
Soil stiffness
SOIL PARAMETERS
Soil stiffness
Important parameters for retaining wall design
BUT difficult to obtain reliably
In Malaysia, sometimes based on empirical
correlations
Laboratory tests unreliable and values
obtained significantly smaller than
appropriate values for retaining wall design
Designer should be aware of small-strain
nature of retaining wall design
SOIL PARAMETERS
Soil stiffness
Seismic tests or seismic piezocone appears
promising
Basis of empirical correlations should be
understood – e.g. local soil conditions,
constitutive model used, etc.
Example, correlations in Kenny Hill formation
using hardening soil model of PLAXIS
software
Field and laboratory methods to evaluate shear wave velocity
 Soil Type Maximum small-strain shear modulus,
G0 (kPa)

Soft clays 2,750 to 13,750

Firm clays 6,900 to 34,500

Silty sands 27,600 to 138,000

Dense sands and gravels 69,000 to 345,000

Typical values of maximum small-strain shear modulus

NUMERICAL
ANALYSES
GROUND MOVEMENT INDUCED BY
DEEP EXCAVATION
FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS
Some important considerations in FEM:
Locations of the boundaries of the problem
Details of mesh
Modelling of stages of construction
Modelling of interfaces
Use of suitable constitutive soil model
Use of appropriate soil parameters, especially
empirical parameters
CONSTITUTIVE SOIL MODELS
Various constitutive soil models, e.g.
Mohr-Coulomb, Cam Clay, Hardening Soil,
Soft Soil, etc.
Proper understanding and limitations of
each model important!
Incorrect use of soil models in Nicoll Highway!
Berjaya Times Square
Hardening Soil Model of PLAXIS able to
model the problem sufficiently accurate

From FEM back-analysis, the correlations

between soil stiffness (E’) and SPT ‘N’ as
follows:
E’ = 2000*SPT‘N’(kN/m2)
E’ur = 3*E’ = 6000*SPT’N’(kN/m2)
MONITORING TRIGGER
LEVELS
MONITORING TRIGGER LEVELS
Example for inclinometer:
Alert: 0.8*Maximum predicted lateral movement using
moderately conservative parameters

Action: 0.9*Maximum predicted lateral movement using

moderately conservative parameters

Alarm: 1.0*Maximum predicted lateral movement using

moderately conservative parameters

To be developed based on specific project/site requirements

depending on factors such as risk to public safety, nature of
the works, site control measures, etc.
Berjaya Times Square
Excavated depth
24.5m - 28.5m (6-level basement)
Retaining wall
1.2m thick diaphragm walls
Support system
Prestressed Ground Anchors
TYPICAL SUBSOIL PROFILE
FINITE ELEMENT MODELLING
 Wall Relative Lateral Displacement (mm) Wall Relative Lateral Displacement (mm) Wall Relative Lateral Displacement (mm)
-10 0 10 20 30 40 -10 0 10 20 30 40 -10 0 10 20 30 40

0 0 0

Stage 1
Stage 2
Excavate to R.L.35.0m
-10 -10
-10
Stage 3
Excavate to R.L.31.0m

-20 -20 Excavate to R.L.27.0m

Depth(m)
Depth (m)
-20

Depth (m)
-30 -30

WALL A -30

-40 -40

Measured Profile -40

FEM Back Analysed

-50 -50

Wall Relative Lateral Displacement (mm) Wall Relative Lateral Displacement (mm) Wall Relative Lateral Displacement (mm)
-10 0 10 20 30 40 -10 0 10 20 30 40 -10 0 10 20 30 40 -50

0 0 0

-10 -10 -10

Stage 4
Stage 4
-20 -20
Stage 6 -20
Depth (m)

Depth (m)

Depth (m)
Excavate to R.L.22.5m

Excavate to R.L.18.5m
-30 -30 -30

Excavate to R.L.16.7m
-40 -40 -40

-50 -50 -50

Berjaya Times Square
Hardening Soil Model of PLAXIS able to
model the problem sufficiently accurate

From FEM back-analysis, the correlations

between soil stiffness (E’) and SPT ‘N’ as
follows:
E’ = 2000*SPT‘N’(kN/m2)
E’ur = 3*E’ = 6000*SPT’N’(kN/m2)
CASE HISTORIES
Case History 1 :
Deep Excavation for Three (3)
Underground Stations for KVMRT

– Sungai Buloh to Kajang Line

(Line 1)
Locations of the MRT Underground
Stations
Geology of Kuala Lumpur

All three underground

stations in
KL Limestone Formation
(with Karstic Features)
 Karstic Features of Kuala Lumpur Limestone
Formation

Valley in the bedrock

Limestone
Cavity in the Bedrock Highly fractured
Pinnacle
bedrock
Typical Karstic Feature :
Typical Karstic Feature :
 Typical Karstic Feature :

CAVERN/CAVITY EXPOSED AFTER EXCAVATION

 Typical Excavation Section for Underground
Station

(Note: Rock slope strengthening indicated is provisional only. Actual locations and
extent of rock slope strengthening are determined after geological mapping works
and kinematic analysis).
Conchrane Underground Station
Subsoil Bedrock

Material type Silty Sand Limestone

Average 5m 5m below
depth
Unit weight 18 kN/m3 24 kN/m3

SPT N 2-4 -
RQD - 0 – 100%
Average - 50 MPa
UCS
Effective c’= 1 kPa c’= 400 kPa
shear ɸ’= 29º ɸ’= 32º
strength
Elastic 4000 - 1.0E6 –
Modulus, 12000 1.0E7
E' (kPa)
Hydraulic 1.0E-5 0 – 31
conductivity, m/s Lugeon
k
Conchrane Station Bedrock Contour
Secant Pile Wall
Secant Pile Wall
Typical Secant Pile Wall Elevation View
Temporary Ground Anchor Support System
Description Properties
Working loads (kN) 212; 424; 636; 848
No. of strand 2; 4; 6; 8
Strand diameter 15.24mm
Breaking load 260.7 kN
Factor of safety 1.6
Strand U-turn radius 47.5mm
Reduction factor 0.65
Drill hole diameter 175mm
Allowable bond 400 kPa (limestone)
stress
Free length Varies (until
bedrock)
Bond length (m) 3; 3; 4.5; 6
Curtain & Base Grouting to seal the Limestone
Karstic Features

Grouted Layer
Typical Curtain & Base Grouting Holes Layout
 Construction Sequence
1 2

3 4
 Constrution Sequence (con’t)
5 6

7 8
Exposed Vertical Rock Face of the Excavation

Rock Bolting and

Shotcrete.
Maluri Portal (excavation in progress)
Steel Decking for the Traffic diversion above @
Maluri

Maximum 25m deep

 TRX Station (Excavation in Progres)

Maximum 45m deep

Conchrane Station (Excavation Stage)
 Conchrane Station (Launching of 2nd TBM)

Maximum 35m deep

Case History 2 :
Circular Shaft for
Launching of TBM
Circular TBM Launching Shaft
Circular Shaft during Excavation
Design Based on Hoop Force

<
Case History 3 :
Hydraulic Failure @ Penang
100 Years Ago
The Site
Subsoil Profile
Original Design
Original Retaining Wall (Insufficient Depth)
Original Retaining Wall (Insufficient Depth)

Thickness of Clay
insufficient to resist
Water Uplift Pressure

Water Uplift Pressure

Original Retaining Wall (Insufficient Depth)
Water flowed through
cracks in the Silty Clay
layer

Water Uplift Pressure

Original Retaining Wall (Insufficient Depth)
Lowering of ground water level
Causing settlement to surrounding ground
Water Ponding
in the Pit

Water Uplift Pressure

The Site after Failure
Ponding of water
gushed in.
Cracks of Houses
Settlement of Ground
 Groundwater Changes Distance from Excavation (m)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

4
Ground level

Estimated Original Groundwater Table

Reduced Level (mCD)

0
Ground water level from Piezometer
(Days from the date of investigation)
(28 days) PZ 7
(49 days)
-2
(84 days)
Ground Level

-4 PZ 5 PZ 8
PZ 4
PZ 3
PZ 2
PZ 1
-6

0 5 10 15 20 25
Distance from Excava tion / Depth of Excavation
 Additional Settlement
Excavation
Distance from Excavation (m)
Side Retained
0 Side 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

-5
Additional Settlement (mm)

-10

-15 Settlement Profile

Line no. (Days from the date of investigation)
Line 3 (27 days)
-20 Earlier settlement
Line 3 (62 days)
before investigation
Line 4 (27 days)
not available.
Line 4 (62 days)
-25
Line 5 (27 days)
Line 5 (62 days)
-30

0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Distance from Excavation / Depth of Excavation
Remedial Works
HYDRAULIC FAILURE
Base instability caused by piping
Seepage due to high groundwater level

Available methods
Terzaghi’s method
Critical hydraulic gradient method
HYDRAULIC FAILURE CHECKS
HYDRAULIC FAILURE
Terzaghi’s method recommended
Based on latest research by Tanaka &
Verruijt (1999)
Factor of safety required – 1.2 to 1.5
HEAVING DUE TO ARTESIAN PRESSURE
HYDRAULIC FAILURE

Heaving due to artesian pressure

Factor of safety – 1.0 to 1.2

Smaller FOS sufficient as it did not
consider shear strength or adhesion
strength of the ground and retaining wall
Video of Hydraulic Failure
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Successful deep excavation depends on:

Parameters & calibrations

Constitutive models
Impact of lowering water table & Mitigation
measures
 G&P Professionals Sdn Bhd

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The input from the following team
members for KVMRT and in this
presentation are very much appreciated:-
- Ir. TAN Yean Chin
- Ir. CHOW Chee Meng
- Ir. KOO Kuan Seng
- TIONG Chiong Ngu
- Ir. Dr. GUE Chang Shin
THANK YOU

Q&A
G&P Professionals Sdn Bhd
www.gnpgroup.com.my