Elsi James

T3 Top‐Up course ELS part I of II 2011/4/29
Objectives of ELS System

• Provide structural support with adequate margin of factor of safety to facilitate the
HKIE Geotechnical Division &
excavation under lateral earth pressures & possible surcharges
Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Hong Kong
• Without impair the integrity of the surrounding roads & properties
Top‐up course for TCP T3 on GIFW and Building Works with significant geotechnical content
Excavation and Lateral Support
Excavation and Lateral Support
Part I
Ir. James Sze
Associate Director
Ove Arup & Partners HK Ltd
Nicholl Highway before collapse After collapse on 20 Apr 2004
1 2
Content
Part I
• Common retaining walls for excavation works
• Common lateral support systems
• Basement construction sequence
• Design and submission procedures
• Geotechnical design & considerations Common Retaining Walls for
• Structural designs
g
• Points to note in ELS Design Excavation Works
Part II
• Site supervision requirement
• Technical supervision & reminders
• Instrumentation and monitoring
• Pumping test issues and a lesson learnt
• Case histories to illustrate key issues during site supervision – Police HQ III,
TSTE Extension over CHT, TKR development, HKPolyU School of Hotel &
Tourist Management
3 4
Commonly Embedded Wall Types in Hong Kong Temporary Channel Planking

Steel – usually temporary • Aligned channel
sections
• Channel planking
• Suitable of shallow
• Sheet pile wall excavation above Adjacent building
• Pipe pile wall groundwater table, eg.
• Soldier pile wall pile cap construction
• Usually “pushed” or
Cast in situ Reinforced Concrete may be permanent
Cast in‐situ Reinforced Concrete – may be permanent vibrated into ground
g
• Able to be extracted
• Secant pile/contiguous bored pile (RCD) wall afterwards
• Diaphragm (slurry) wall
Other less common ones – not covered
• Soil‐cement mix wall
• Pre‐cast diaphragm wall
5 6
Ir. James Sze, Ove Arup & Partners HK Ltd. 1
Temporary Sheet Pile Walls Temporary Sheet Pile Wall – Hammer
• In basement construction usually used for temporary support
• Coupled sheet pile sections are effective in terms of strength/mass ratio
• Vibrator and drop/hydraulic hammer are common installation method
• Noise and vibration controls could inhibit use of sheet piles in urban areas
• Jacking method is available but less common
• In weathered rocks and colluvium, hard corestones and boulders are the
obstacles whereas in fill the problems are boulders old foundation and
obstacles, whereas in fill, the problems are boulders, old foundation and
seawalls. Pre‐boring through obstructions may be required
• Seepage cut‐off performance generally satisfactory but provision of grout
curtains beneath toe may be necessary in deep excavations
• Usually left‐in with top few metres trimmed upon completion of permanent
structures
Typical Larrsen 6 to 15W, FSP I to VI
7 8
Temporary Sheet Piling – Vibrator / Giken Sheet Pile Wall Installation

(Silent) Piling
Method Application Limitation

• Readily available in HK • Noise & vibration
Vibratory/ Drop • Efficient • Restricted working hour
Hammer • Cheap • High head room required
• Cause ground settlement
• Quiet • Heavy counter weight is
• Soft/weak ground only required
Jack‐In System • High head room
• Large working space
• Limited head room • Expensive
• Limited work space •Limited trained local
Giken System • Soft/weak ground operators
• Tight alignment tolerance
E.g. East Rail Mody Road Subway, CLP Cable
Tunnel TWS access shaft
9 10
Pipe Pile Walls Pipe Pile Wall – ODEX with Air Flushing
• ODEX or similar construction technique has been used to overcome the
problem of inadequate penetration when driving sheet piles through
weathered rock with corestones and through old foundations.
• By carrying a circular hollow section with the drillbit, it forms pipe piles.
Expandable wings
Circular hollow
section
Typical 219mm dia. – 610mm dia. CHS
11 12
Concentric Drilling & Close loop drilling Pipe Pile Wall Installation
• Concentric drilling ‐ less disturbance to surrounding ground due to better air‐
flow
• Close loop drilling – air only used for powering the hammering action. Low
pressure water/bentonite used lifting debris
1: advance ODEX drill bit 2: terminate the drill bit at 6: completed pile

into ground with steel design founding level
ODEX drill bit Concentric/ringbit drill bit CHS followed
13 14
Pipe Pile Wall Installation Soldier Pile Wall
• Soldier pile walls have two basic components : Soldier pile (vertical component)
& Lagging (horizontal component)
• Soldier piles are either driven or placed in pre‐drilled holes, which are
backfilled to the ground surface with lean concrete
• Excavate in lifts, weld on channel or steel plate lagging between the soldier
piles
• Lagging serves as a secondary support to soil face and prevents progressive
Mixing of cement grout
deterioration of soil arching between the piles
• Requires moderately dry ground conditions and soil with sufficient strength to
maintain vertical face prior to support from horizontal lagging
Installation of pipe pile
Tremie grouting
15 16
Soldier Pile Wall Soldier Pile Wall Installation
1: ODEX drilling onto 2: extract ODEX bit & change 3: clean the hole &

sound bedrock with to down‐the‐hole hammer to lower H‐pile section
temporary casing form rock socket
17 18
Soldier Pile Wall Installation Soldier Pile Wall Installation
Installation of H‐pile section
4: tremie grout to cut‐ 5: extract temporary casing, 6: completed pile
off level top up grout level
19 20
Soldier Pile Wall Installation Contiguous/Secant Bored Pile Wall

• Contiguous piles: bored or CFA piles built
to be almost touching. Typically nominal
50mm gap between adjacent piles
• Secant piles: interlocking concrete piles
formed using bored or CFA equipment.
Spacing to suit verticality tolerances but
typically 50mm to 100mm overlap
between piles
• Hard‐soft wall: concrete ‘male’ piles
H d ft ll t ‘ l ’ il
interlocking with low strength
unreinforced female piles. Built using
bored or CFA equipment. Spacing of male
piles typically 1.2 to 1.3D
• It provides a near water‐proof wall for
Tremie grouting Extraction of temporary casing both the temporary and permanent soil
support.
Typical 0.8 – 3.0m
21 22
Contiguous/Secant Bored Pile Wall Contiguous/Secant Bored Pile Wall Installation
Secant pile wall
Guide wall
Cantilever contiguous
bored pile wall
23 24
Conventional Bored Pile Construction (1 of 2) Conventional Bored pile Construction (2 of 2)

Concrete
water
delivery
1: Grabbing out soil with 2: RCD to excavate rock if 3: Install steel cage, 4: Concreting and tremie 5: Removal of

casing advanced necessary airlifting record temporary casing
25 26
Alternative Bored Pile Construction (1 of 2) Alternative Bored Pile Construction (2 of 2)
Recycling of
bentonite
Soil Soil
Rock Rock
1: Guide casing & excavate in soil & rock 2: Cage installation 3: Tremie Concreting 4: Casing extraction
27 28
Diaphragm (Slurry) Wall Diaphragm Wall

• Continuous wall built in aligned discrete panels typically of 4m to 6m in length
(on plan). Wall thickness 800mm to 1500mm
Panel
• Diaphragm wall techniques was used extensively in the construction of the length
MTR underground stations and of deep basements for high‐rise buildings
(temporary as well as permanent walls)
• Trench excavated under bentonite slurry support. Cable grabs still used but
hydraulically operated trench cutter machines becoming more common
• Usually cast in‐situ. Pre‐cast panels can be used but limited to relatively
Usually cast in situ Pre cast panels can be used but limited to relatively
shallow depth by lifting weight of individual units
• Bentonite slurry properties and net slurry pressure are key factors in
maintaining stability of the trench so proper site quality control is vital
• Guide wall to maintain slurry head, guide position & orientation, provide
temporary support for cage installation
Typical 0.8m thk. – 1.5m thk.
29 30
Diaphragm Wall Construction (1 of 3) Diaphragm Wall Construction (2 of 3)
guidewall
grabbing
A trench
cutter or
hydrofraise
31 32
Diaphragm Wall Construction (3 of 3)
Common Lateral Support Systems
Cage installation Tremie concreting
33 34
Overview of Typical Lateral Support Systems Cantilever Wall
Bottom‐up construction
• Cantilever
• Braced (struts or alike)
• Tie‐back
Top‐down construction
p
• Permanent slab
35 36
Fully Braced Temporary Support Raking Struts
37 38
Tubular Propping No Strut – Special Case (Hoop Stress)

Ring beams for safety
precaution
Strut action by
internal hoop stress of
the ring
Φ76m shaft formed by diaphragm wall cofferdam,
excavation depth = 26m at ICC, Kowloon
39 40
Comparison of Different Strutting Systems Tied-back or Anchors

• Deadman anchor system
Types of Strutting Advantages Disadvantages
• Grouted anchor system
System
• Soil nails
Cantilever (no strut) Unobstructed clear Impedes construction
working space for
mucking out
Cross-lot strutting Suitable for narrower Impedes construction
excavations
Raking strutting Suitable for large Slow and radically
excavation in plan rather constraints programme
than in depth and access
Diagonal strutting Suitable for small and Structural elements can
preferably square be very large
excavation
Circular cofferdam Unobstructed clear Very tight control on
working space for positional and verticality
mucking out tolerances, required site
in particular shape
41 42
Deadman Tie-back/Anchor System Temporary Ground Anchor – less common in HK

Cable strands ‐ rely on high
preload instead of stiffness
Rely on passive resistance in
front of deadman
e.g. Festival Walk
43 44
Temporary Tie-back/Soil Nail Permanent Slabs – Top-down Construction

Completed G/F Slab
Completed B1 Slab
Excavation for B2
Diaphragm Wall
e.g. Tin Kwong Road development
45 46
Bottom-up Construction
Basement Construction Sequence
e.g. IFCII and many other building projects
47 48
Top-down Construction Basement Slab as Prop during Top-down
E.g. Chater House, Hongkong Station
49 50
Partial Top-down to Allow Tower Bottom-up
Tower
portion to
be in
bottom‐up Design Aspects
Ring slabs as Lateral
Support
E.g. Langham Place
51 52
Design Procedure
Is an embedded retaining wall N Consider alternative construction
methods e.g. open cut excavation,
necessary? gravity retaining wall
Y
Design Interactive Construction

considerations considerations
• Establish geological model
Design and Submission Procedures • Determination
Determination & selection of
& selection of
Select wall type and
Select wall type and
construction sequence geotechnical and structural
parameters and assumptions
• Selection of design codes
Analysis • Design calculation or computer
modelling to derive loads on the ELS
system
N
Filling objectives? • Mechanical stability check – overall
sliding, overturning, toe kick
Y
• Hydraulic failure check
A • Movement prediction
53 54
Design Procedure (cont’)

A
Geotechnical and structural design of wall and
associated works, eg. grouting
Structural design of shoring systems and other
protection measures, eg. underpinning works
Prepare drawings and specification
BD Submission Issues
Approval & Consent Construction & approval in
parallel if minor change
Site Construction
Modify design
Site supervision to validate the design assumptions,
interpret actual ground response
Completion of works
55 56
Requirements for ELS Plan under Buildings ELS Plans Required for Approval
Ordinance
• Guidelines in APP‐57 (PNAP148)
• B(A)R8(1)(bc) • When excavation is deeper than 4.5m and greater than 5m in length
• Bulk excavation, even shallow, can be dangerous if not properly • Liable to affect any road, building, structure, slope steeper than 30o or
designed water main 75mm in diameter or greater
• ELS plans are required to be approved where excavations of
substantial depth are to be carried out
57 58
ELS Work Submission shall include :- ELS Work Submissions
• existing conditions of site and surrounds;
• foundation details of adjoining structures; • RSE to prepare and sign plans, structural design and structural
assessment report of effects of excavation and dewatering on
• a schedule of geotechnical design parameters and assumptions; adjoining structures, especially sensitive ones
• details and sequence of construction;
• assessment documents on topography, geology, groundwater, • RGE to prepare and sign supporting documents to substantiate soil
utilities, water mains, drains, etc; parameters and soil movements, such as geotechnical assessment
• design calculations for lateral support systems; and reports
• assessment of effects on adjacent buildings and surrounds;
assessment of effects on adjacent buildings and surrounds;
• monitoring particulars for adjacent buildings, ground movements and
water table;
• grouting and pumping test proposal, if necessary.
59 60
ELS Work Submissions Typical Statutory Procedure

To be submitted either Ground investigation
• in one submission; or
Submission of retaining wall design
• in 2 stages (submission) (Stage 1 of ELS design)
• 1st stage ‐ pile wall system (e.g. sheet pile, 2 months
diaphragm wall, etc) with assumptions on Consent for installation of vertical Submission of structural design
of shoring works (Stage 2 of ELS
shoring system, such as capacity and stiffness wall and grouting (if any)
design)
1 month
• 2nd stage ‐ detailed arrangement & structural
Install vertical elements, grouting 2 months
2 months
details of lateral support system
details of lateral support system works (if any), submit as‐built Submission of permanent
records, consent for pumping test basement structures or alike
1 month
Consent for shoring works 2 months
Carry out pumping test, submit installation
report on success, consent for
excavation Consent for construction of
1 month
1 month permanent works
Carry out excavation and install 1 month
shoring
Construct Permanent Basement
Reaching final formation level Structures or Alike
61 62
Design Considerations for ELS System
Primary factors
• Location of the site – urban area might have stringent requirement due to the
consequence‐to‐life and consequence‐to‐economic.
• Ground and groundwater conditions in and surrounding the site
Geotechnical Design & Considerations • Development history of the site – artificial obstructions, space to install

temporary wall etc.
• Proximity & types of existing buildings, roads, tunnels and utilities in the
vicinity – risk can be tolerated by these properties, eg. buildings rest on
shallow foundation  high risk
• Movements associated with particular wall and shoring systems
63 64
Design Considerations for ELS system Geological Model
Secondary Factors
• Constructability ‐ local resources, common sizes or construction technique Fill
column cofferdam
• Construction time and economic considerations – time vs cost usually does not
Alluvium
co‐exist
• Short‐term vs long‐term retaining wall – if RC wall used do consider dual Core Sand Fill CDG
functions, aware of water‐proofness requirement of basement or alike
• Flexibility of the system – bottom‐up give more buffer to finalisation of slab
Alluvium
levels and column grids etc.
• Robustness – cantilever rigid wall vs flexible wall + strut ‐ Mat Foundation
16mP Weathered
D
Fault Zone Dipping
Rock
40‐500
Bedrock
2‐D 3‐D plus geological interpretation
65 66
Selection of Design Line & Parameters Geotechnical Design Codes/Guides

'N' value (blows/300mm)
0 50 100 150 200 • GEOGUIDE 1 2nd Ed.

5
• GCO Publication No. 1/90
0
• Zoning for large site • CIRIA Report C580 (limit states design)
-5 • Usually adopt lower
conservative line –
-10 lower quartile
Elevation (mPD))
-15
-20
-25
-30
-35
-40
67 68
Loads to be Resisted by ELS System Methods of Analysis

• Lateral soil pressure
• Hand calculations – e.g. charts in GCO Publication No. 1/90
• Groundwater pressure (usually major factor in Hong Kong) • Sub‐grade Reaction Method – e.g. Wallap, FREW
• Lateral forces due to adjacent structures or construction surcharge eg. • Pseudo‐finite element method – e.g. FREW, Wallap
hoarding, truck load • 2‐D finite element/finite difference method – e.g. Plaxis, SAFE, FLAC
• Vertical forces, such as temporary traffic deck, permanent column loads • 3‐D finite element/finite difference method – e.g. 3‐D FLAC, DYNA 3D
69 70
BM, SF, Prop force by Limit Equilibrium Apparent Pressure Diagrams for Computing
• Factor of safety on Pp =
Strut Loads in Multi-strutted Excavations
2.0 to determine toe‐in
requirement
Peck (1969)
Navfac, DM7
71 72
Toe Stability Check Pseudo-FE Program – eg. FREW

Features of FREW
• Factor of safety on Pp = 2.0 to
determine toe‐in requirement
• Flexible retaining wall analysis
• Staged analysis
• Ms = 0 for cantilever or single
propped wall • Wall modelled as elastic beam elements
• Soil modelled as elasto ‐ plastic
• Soil each side uses full stiffness matrix
• Allowance for redistribution and arching
• Long term creep of the wall
• Built‐in partial factors
• Built‐in close form solutions for Ka & Kp
Figure 29, GCO 1/90 (NAVFAC, 1982b)
73 74
Example illustrating FREW staged Analysis Example illustrating FREW staged Analysis
15kPa 15kPa
75 76
Example illustrating FREW staged Analysis Example illustrating FREW staged Analysis
15kPa 15kPa
77 78
Example illustrating FREW staged Analysis FREW Output
15kPa 15
10
Allow creep
5
‐5
Water Pressure
Actual Pressures
Pressure Limits
‐10 ‐250 ‐125 0 125 250
Pressure [kPa]
STAGE 0 : Initial condition
79 80
FREW Output FREW Output

Displacement [mm] Displacement [mm]
‐25 ‐12.5 0 12.5 25 ‐25 ‐12.5 0 12.5 25
15 15
10 10 229.21 kN/m
5 5
0 0
‐5 ‐5
Water Pressure Water Pressure
Actual Pressures Actual Pressures
Pressure Limits Pressure Limits
Displacements Displacements
‐10 ‐250 ‐125 0 125 250 ‐10 ‐250 ‐125 0 125 250
Pressure [kPa] Pressure [kPa]
STAGE 1 : dig to 8.5 STAGE 2 : prop at 9, dewater & dig to +1.5
81 82
FREW Output FREW Output

‐25 ‐12.5 0 12.5 25 ‐25 ‐12.5 0 12.5 25
15 15
94.21 kN/m 146.79 kN/m
10 10
5 5
27.60 kN/m 160.48 kN/m
0 0
‐5 ‐5
Water Pressure Water Pressure
Actual Pressures Actual Pressures
Pressure Limits Pressure Limits
‐10 ‐250 ‐125 0 125 250 ‐10 ‐250 ‐125 0 125 250
Pressure [kPa] Pressure [kPa]
STAGE 3 : permanent slabs, remove temporary prop STAGE 4 : Relax wall & props
83 84
Max. BM & Deflection during Temporary

BM & Deflection in Long Term Stage
Stage
Bending [kNm/m] Bending [kNm/m]
‐1000 ‐500 0 500 1000 ‐1000 ‐500 0 500 1000
15 15
94.21 kN/m 146.79 kN/m
10 10
5 5
27.60 kN/m 160.48 kN/m
0 0
‐5 ‐5
Bending Bending
‐10 ‐25 ‐12.5 0 12.5 25 ‐10 ‐25 ‐12.5 0 12.5 25
STAGE 3 (permanent slabs, remove temporary prop) STAGE 4 (Allow wall & slabs relaxation)
85 86
FEM Analysis FEM Analysis
Ground movement and forces in wall
Able to analysis interaction of the
ELS works with external elements,
such as buildings on raft – usually 2‐
D
87 88
3-D FE Analysis – eg. Dyna 3-D Groundwater Control
An effective seepage cut‐off shall be provided such that
• to avoid excessive groundwater drawdown outside the site which may affect
the groundwater regime of the surroundings, e.g. KCRC Lok Ma Chau Spurline
through wetland
• to prevent the adjacent structures from excessive settlement due to increase
in effective stress or loss of fine materials, e.g. most excavation sites in urban
area
Able to analysis 3‐D effect of and
excavation and interaction with external
elements, such as tunnel crossing which is
not a 2‐D problem
89
FEM Seepage Analysis Hydraulic cut-off to Prevent Piping
91 92
Control of Groundwater at Passive Zone Ground Settlement Estimation - Empirical

Pump well to control pore water
Fill pressure (piezometric head is more
critical)
Alluvium
CDV
Rock
94
Ground Settlement Estimation –FEM Program Building/Ground Settlement Control
Rule of thumb
• Total settlement usually limited to 25mm for buildings or alike. Ground
settlement may be relaxed to 50mm in some cases
• Differential settlement usually limited 1:500
95 96
Relative Deflection Approach for Buildings Degree of Building Damage

Relationship of Damage Category to Deflection
• Boscardin & Cording (1989) Ratio and Horizontal Tensile Strain
0.4
• Burland et al (1997)
0.35
n Ratio,  / L (%)
0.3
0.25
L 0.2
3 reference points
3 reference points
Deflection
0.15
0.1
Differential settlement
Usually no building 0.05
damage 0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30
Horizontal Ground Strain,  h (%)
Distortion
Category 0-1, Negligible - Very Slight
 Category 1-2, Very Slight - Slight
Relative deflection Category 2-3, Slight - Moderate
 / L Category 3-4, Moderate - Severe
Predicted from ground movement assessment
97 98
Categories of Building Damage Case Histories

• Cheung Kong Centre – Court of Final Appeal
Building and Structure Damage Classification
(after Burland et al 1997 & Boscardin et al 1989) • 118 Gloucestor Road – Wanchai Police Station
Predicted Description of damage Approx. width Limiting
degree of of cracks tensile strain
damage (mm) (%) • MTRC and KCRC projects
Negligible Hairline cracks < 0.1 0 to 0.05
Very slight Fine cracks easily treated during normal redecoration. Perhaps 0.1 to 1 0.05 to 0.075
isolated slight fracture in building. Cracks in exterior brickwork visible
upon close inspection.
Slight Cracks easily filled. Redecoration probably required. Several slight 1 to 5 0.075 to 0.15
fractures inside building. Exterior cracks visible, some repointing may
be required for weather tightness. Doors and windows may stick
slightly.
Moderate Cracks may require cutting out and patching. Recurrent cracks can 5 to 15 or 0.15 to 0.3
be masked by suitable linings. Tuck-pointing and possibly several cracks
replacement of a small amount of exterior brickwork may be > 3mm
required. Doors and windows sticking. Utility services may be
interrupted. Weather tightness often impaired.
Severe Extensive repair involving removal and replacement of sections of 15 to 25 also > 0.3
walls, especially over floors and windows required. Windows and depends on
door frames distorted. Floor slopes noticeably. Walls lean or bulge number of
noticeably. Some loss of bearing in beams. Utility services disrupted. cracks
Very severe Major repair required involving partial or complete reconstruction. Usually > -
Beams lose bearing; walls lean badly and require shoring. Windows 25mm
broken by distortion. Danger of instability. depends on
number of
cracks
99 100
Structural Design Codes

• Structural Use of Concrete
• Structural Use of Steel
Structural Designs
101 102
Structural Design of Embedded Wall Structural Design of Shoring

Working load approach Working load approach
RC wall Steel wall Strut Waling Kingposts
Working envelope of BM, SF; vertical Maximum working BM, SF, vertical Working axial forces from Working BM, SF, axial force if Working vertical &
load (if any) from analysis load (if any) from analysis analysis diagonal struts lateral forces
LF = 1.4 LF = 1.4 LF = 1.4
Load factor 1.4 Load factor 1.4
Ultimate axial force Ultimate BM, SF, axial force
Ultimate BM, SF, axial force Ultimate BM, SF, axial force Ultimate SF, axial force
SSelect member size with axial
l t b i ith i l
stiffness comply with design Select member size & steel grade
Select member section with bending Select member section with bending Check against ultimate
stiffness comply with design stiffness comply with design assumption, assumption, steel grade capacity (buckling
requirement, concrete grade steel grade strengths)
Check against ultimate Check ultimate capacity with
capacity with respect to respect to appropriate codes
appropriate codes (buckling (combined stress usually govern) Check required toe
Reinforcement design according to Check against ultimate capacity against
strengths) embedment
RC design code combined stress, buckling if applicable
following steel code Design for welds, dowels, bolts
103 104
Associated Works - Temporary Decks Temporary Deck etc, Underpinning Works

Supporting
beams
Temporary
utility Pipe pile wall
support
Underpinning work for a
footbridge Underpinning work for
a Champion Tree
Pre‐fabricated steel traffic deck
Stablisation of adjacent
Temporary Deck for structures
mucking out
105 106
Points to Note in ELS Designs Constructability
107 108
Buildable Design Over-excavation
• Easy and fast construction
• Less risks
• Safer working
environment Large clear
spanned struts
• Could be more cost
effective
E.g. KCRC Tsuen Wan West Station
Unworkable sequence vs Opportunistic contractor
109 110
Things to Watch out during Design Optimization of ELS Design at Kowloon Bay
vert. 2m c/c
Temporary deck
Fill
MD
Temporary deck ALL
CDG/MDG
Which system would be more constructable ?
Original Design Optimized
111 112
Minimising Workmanship Problem - Modular Modular Strutting System

Strutting System
• Modular system is constructed using site bolts without the need of
extensive site welding.
• Main struts comprise beam members laced with diagonal steel
angles bolted to the top and bottom flanges. Members may be
delivered to site either in pieces or completely bolted, to suit
storage conditions.
• Hydraulic and screw jacks are supplied, as standard components.
y j pp , p
113 114
Robustness & Reliability Uncertainties in Excavation Works

More robust !
• Variability in ground condition
Stability highly
• Ground response
sensitive to over‐
excavation and • Change in groundwater table
change in load
• Sequence of works – over‐excavation
• Workmanship – strut levels, welds etc
• Response of adjacent structures
Cantilever stiff wall vs Strutted flexible wall
115 116
Ways to Limit Wall Deflection Hence

Ground Movement
• Stiffer wall
• Stiffer shoring system
• Preloading of struts
• Improve soft soils within excavation (passive side)
Ways to Limit Ground Movement • Form circular cofferdam – very stiff
• Top
Top‐down
down instead bottom
instead bottom‐up
up sequence
sequence
117 118
1. Relative Stiffness of Retaining Systems 2. Stiffer Shoring System
• Steel – low grade with bigger cross‐sectional area
1
• Reinforced concrete – thicker section
• Shorter effective length by moving support closer to the wall
Sheet Pile Wall
• Truss system for large sites
Pipe Pile Wall
Bored Pile Wall
Diaphragm Wall
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
EI/m (x106 KNm 2)
  ( h4) / EI
119 120
3. Preloading of Struts Procedure of Preloading
• Apply a force at the strut against the wall prior to final connection
• Reduces the shear stress set up in the soil due to previous excavation
activities
• Removes slack from the support system
• Use of preloads in the struts reduces movements, although there are
diminishing returns at higher preloads
• However, very high preloads may, in fact, be counter
However very high preloads may in fact be counter‐productive
productive, since local
since local
outward movements at support levels can damage adjacent utilities Apply force through
jacking
Insert shim
plates
Release and
Remove the jack
121 122
4. Improve Weak Soils Prior to Excavation

• Smaller movement
• less toe‐in
• less strut
Fill Fill
5. Adopting Circular Cofferdam
virtual span
Jet grouted
virtual span of raft prior to
Soft soil wall due to Soft soil excavation
little passive
resistance
Stiff soil Stiff soil
123 124
+4.4mPD ‐2mPD
+5.6mPD ‐5mPD
76m
+5.6mPD
+4.4mPD ‐1mPD
125 Day 18 ‐ Ring Beam construction in progress 126 Day 51 ‐ Excavation reached ‐5.0mPD at deepest by earth‐ramp
‐3mPD
‐8mPD
‐17mPD
‐3mPD ‐9mPD
Day 68 ‐ Excavation reached ‐8.0mPD at deepest by mucking hoisting. First Ring Beam in progress
127 128 Day 111 ‐ 2nd Ring Beam completed. Excavation reached ‐17mPD at deepest
Lateral deflection of wall

wall deflection (mm)
0 10 20 30 40 50
0
5
Actual 10
Predicted Movement
measured
15
20
Raft cap
25 location
depth (m)
‐21mPD 30
Excavation level
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
129 Day 159 ‐ 50% of subgrade blinded 130
Comparison of Bottom-up & Top-down Bottom-up vs Top-down - Movements

Option Advantages Disadvantages
Bottom-up •Allow maximum flexibility for the •Usually induce large movements
final basement layout & column •Conflict of shoring wall with permanent
positions slabs/walls may required special treatment
•Using involves flexible temporary •Generally large construction time for entire
wall which is fast to construct development
•Faster excavation for basement
alone, allow foundations to be
Typical
constructed upon reaching
range in
formation level. Top‐down
HK
•Unconfined, healthly working Bottom‐up
environment for workers
Top down •Better control on movements •Fix the column positions and load at early
•Allow simultaneous start of stage
superstructure and basement •Require extra deep foundations if mat
•Avoid conflict between temporary foundation is viable for the tower
shoring and permanent slabs •Extra cost for heavy weight stanchions
•Confined excavation implies longer period
for sub-structure construction especially in
hard materials
⇒ Rating will be project and site specific !
131 132
End of Part I
133

Elsi James

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Elsi James

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

T3 Top‐Up course ELS part I of II 2011/4/29

Objectives of ELS System

Commonly Embedded Wall Types in Hong Kong Temporary Channel Planking

Temporary Sheet Pile Walls Temporary Sheet Pile Wall – Hammer

Temporary Sheet Piling – Vibrator / Giken Sheet Pile Wall Installation

Method Application Limitation

1: advance ODEX drill bit 2: terminate the drill bit at 6: completed pile

Pipe Pile Wall Installation Soldier Pile Wall

Soldier Pile Wall Soldier Pile Wall Installation

1: ODEX drilling onto 2: extract ODEX bit & change 3: clean the hole &

Soldier Pile Wall Installation Soldier Pile Wall Installation

Soldier Pile Wall Installation Contiguous/Secant Bored Pile Wall

Contiguous/Secant Bored Pile Wall Contiguous/Secant Bored Pile Wall Installation

Conventional Bored Pile Construction (1 of 2) Conventional Bored pile Construction (2 of 2)

1: Grabbing out soil with 2: RCD to excavate rock if 3: Install steel cage, 4: Concreting and tremie 5: Removal of

Alternative Bored Pile Construction (1 of 2) Alternative Bored Pile Construction (2 of 2)

1: Guide casing & excavate in soil & rock 2: Cage installation 3: Tremie Concreting 4: Casing extraction

Diaphragm (Slurry) Wall Diaphragm Wall

Diaphragm Wall Construction (1 of 3) Diaphragm Wall Construction (2 of 3)

Diaphragm Wall Construction (3 of 3)

Common Lateral Support Systems

Overview of Typical Lateral Support Systems Cantilever Wall

Fully Braced Temporary Support Raking Struts

Tubular Propping No Strut – Special Case (Hoop Stress)

Comparison of Different Strutting Systems Tied-back or Anchors

Deadman Tie-back/Anchor System Temporary Ground Anchor – less common in HK

Temporary Tie-back/Soil Nail Permanent Slabs – Top-down Construction

Top-down Construction Basement Slab as Prop during Top-down

Partial Top-down to Allow Tower Bottom-up

Design Interactive Construction

Design Procedure (cont’)

ELS Work Submission shall include :- ELS Work Submissions

ELS Work Submissions Typical Statutory Procedure

Design Considerations for ELS System

Geotechnical Design & Considerations • Development history of the site – artificial obstructions, space to install

Design Considerations for ELS system Geological Model

Selection of Design Line & Parameters Geotechnical Design Codes/Guides

0 50 100 150 200 • GEOGUIDE 1 2nd Ed.

Loads to be Resisted by ELS System Methods of Analysis

Toe Stability Check Pseudo-FE Program – eg. FREW

Example illustrating FREW staged Analysis FREW Output

FREW Output FREW Output

FREW Output FREW Output

Max. BM & Deflection during Temporary

FEM Analysis FEM Analysis

3-D FE Analysis – eg. Dyna 3-D Groundwater Control

FEM Seepage Analysis Hydraulic cut-off to Prevent Piping

Control of Groundwater at Passive Zone Ground Settlement Estimation - Empirical

Ground Settlement Estimation –FEM Program Building/Ground Settlement Control

Relative Deflection Approach for Buildings Degree of Building Damage

Categories of Building Damage Case Histories

Structural Design Codes

Structural Design of Embedded Wall Structural Design of Shoring

Associated Works - Temporary Decks Temporary Deck etc, Underpinning Works

Buildable Design Over-excavation

Minimising Workmanship Problem - Modular Modular Strutting System

Robustness & Reliability Uncertainties in Excavation Works

Ways to Limit Wall Deflection Hence

1. Relative Stiffness of Retaining Systems 2. Stiffer Shoring System

3. Preloading of Struts Procedure of Preloading

4. Improve Weak Soils Prior to Excavation

125 Day 18 ‐ Ring Beam construction in progress 126 Day 51 ‐ Excavation reached ‐5.0mPD at deepest by earth‐ramp

Lateral deflection of wall

129 Day 159 ‐ 50% of subgrade blinded 130