3 Stimmen dafür0 Stimmen dagegen

790 Aufrufe888 SeitenApr 02, 2014

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT oder online auf Scribd lesen

© All Rights Reserved

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

790 Aufrufe

© All Rights Reserved

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

- Monitoring Underground Construction - ICE.pdf
- TBM Face Pressure Calculation
- Tunnel Design Basis Report.pdf
- Correlations of Soil and Rock Properties in Geotechnical Engineering
- Shaft Engineering
- Deep Excavations Foundations
- Technical Manual for Design and Construction of Road Tunnels-2010
- Tunnel Load Calcs
- Fundamental of Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering Bharatbhusan Prasad
- Soft Ground Improvement
- 102343358-Guide-LTA-Tunnel-Lining-Design.pdf
- ITA (2014) World Tunnel Congress
- Correl Soils Properties Carter&Bentley
- Very soft soil
- Soil Strength and Slope Stability
- Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering
- Geotechnical Manual for Slopes
- Geotechnical-Engineering-Handbook Ulrich Smoltzcyk Vol. 1, 2 & 3
- Tunnel Lining Design Guide
- new_a_t_m2010

Sie sind auf Seite 1von 888

SHANGHAI, CHINA, 1012 APRIL 2008

Geotechnical Aspectsof

UndergroundConstruction

inSoft Ground

Editors

C.W.W. Ng

Hong Kong University of Science and Technology,

Hong Kong Special Administrative Region

H.W. Huang& G.B. Liu

Tongji University, Shanghai, China

CRC Press/Balkema is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business

2009Taylor & FrancisGroup, London, UK

Typeset byCharonTecLtd(A MacmillanCompany), Chennai, India

PrintedandboundinGreat BritainbyCromwell PressLtd, Trowbridge, Wiltshire.

All rightsreserved. Nopart of thispublicationor theinformationcontainedhereinmaybereproduced, stored

inaretrieval system, or transmittedinanyformor byanymeans, electronic, mechanical, byphotocopying,

recordingor otherwise, without writtenprior permissionfromthepublishers.

Althoughall careistakentoensureintegrityandthequalityof thispublicationandtheinformationherein, no

responsibilityisassumedbythepublishersnor theauthor for anydamagetothepropertyor personsasaresult

of operationor useof thispublicationand/or theinformationcontainedherein.

Publishedby: CRC Press/Balkema

P.O. Box447, 2300AK Leiden, TheNetherlands

e-mail: Pub.NL@taylorandfrancis.com

www.crcpress.com www.taylorandfrancis.co.uk www.balkema.nl

ISBN: 978-0-415-48475-6(Hardback)

ISBN: 978-0-203-87998-6(eBook)

Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground Ng, Huang & Liu (eds)

2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-48475-6

Tableof Contents

Preface XIII

Sponsors XV

Special lectures

ProcessesaroundaTBM 3

A. Bezuijen &A.M. Talmon

Supportingexcavationsinclay fromanalysistodecision-making 15

M.D. Bolton, S.Y. Lam &A.S. Osman

Overviewof Shanghai YangtzeRiverTunnel Project 29

R. Huang

Undergroundconstructionindecomposedresidual soils 45

I.M. Lee & G.C. Cho

General reports

Safetyissues, riskanalysis, hazardmanagement andcontrol 67

C.T. Chin & H.C. Chao

Calculationanddesignmethods, andpredictivetools 77

F. Emeriault & R. Kastner

Analysisandnumerical modelingof deepexcavations 87

R.J. Finno

Constructionmethod, groundtreatment, andconditioningfor tunneling 99

T. Hashimoto, B. Ye & G.L. Ye

Physical andnumerical modelling 109

P.L.R. Pang

Casehistories 121

A. Sfriso

Theme 1: Analysis and numerical modeling of deep excavations

Optimizationdesignof compositesoil-nailinginloessexcavation 133

G.M. Chang

Three-dimensional finiteelement analysisof diaphragmwallsfor top-downconstruction 141

J. Hsi, H. Zhang &T. Kokubun

Numerical evaluationof dewateringeffect ondeepexcavationinsoft clay 147

L. Li & M. Yang

Analysisof thefactorsinfluencingfoundationpit deformations 153

Y.Q. Li, K.H. Xie, J. Zhou & X.L. Kong

V

Constructionmonitoringandnumerical simulationof anexcavationwithSMW

retainingstructure 159

Z.H. Li & H.W. Huang

A simplifiedspatial methodologyof earthpressureagainst retainingpilesof pile-row

retainingstructure 165

Y.L. Lin & X.X. Li

Considerationof designmethodfor bracedexcavationbasedonmonitoringresults 173

H. Ota, H. Ito, T. Yanagawa, A. Hashimoto, T. Hashimoto &T. Konda

Groundmovementsinstationexcavationsof Bangkokfirst MRT 181

N. Phienwej

Numerical modellingandexperimental measurementsfor aretainingwall of

adeepexcavationinBucharest, Romania 187

H. Popa, A. Marcu & L. Batali

3Dfiniteelement analysisof adeepexcavationandcomparisonwithinsitumeasurements 193

H.F. Schweiger, F. Scharinger & R. Lftenegger

Theeffect of deepexcavationonsurroundinggroundandnearbystructures 201

A. Siemi nska-Lewandowska & M. Mitew-Czajewska

Multi-criteriaprocedurefor theback-analysisof multi-supportedretainingwalls 207

J. Zghondi, F. Emeriault & R. Kastner

Monitoringandmodellingof riversidelargedeepexcavation-inducedgroundmovementsinclays 215

D.M. Zhang, H.W. Huang &W.Y. Bao

GPSheight applicationandgrosserror detectioninfoundationpit monitoring 223

H. Zhang, S.F. Xu &T.D. Lu

Studyondeformationlawsunder theconstructionof semi-reversemethod 227

J. Zhang, G.B. Liu &T. Liu

Comparisonof theoryandtest onexcavationcausingthevariationof soilmassstrength 235

J. Zhou, J.Q. Wang & L. Cong

Theme 2: Construction method, ground treatment, and conditioning for tunnelling

Tenyearsof boredtunnelsinTheNetherlands: Part I, geotechnical issues 243

K.J. Bakker &A. Bezuijen

Tenyearsof boredtunnelsinTheNetherlands: Part II, structural issues 249

K.J. Bakker &A. Bezuijen

Theinfluenceof flowaroundaTBM machine 255

A. Bezuijen & K.J. Bakker

Mechanismsthat determinebetweenfractureandcompactiongroutinginsand 261

A. Bezuijen, A.F. van Tol & M.P.M. Sanders

Researchof non-motor vehicle-rail transit-tubeinterchangingtransport systempattern 269

A.Z.G. Deng & Q.H. Zhang

Shotcreteexcavationsfor theMunichsubway Comparisonof different methods

of facesupport insettlement sensitiveareas 275

J. Fillibeck & N. Vogt

Fracturingof sandincompensationgrouting 281

K. Gafar, K. Soga, A. Bezuijen, M.P.M. Sanders &A.F. van Tol

VI

Historical casesanduseof horizontal jet groutingsolutionswith360

distributionand

frontal septumtoconsolidateveryweakandsaturatedsoils 287

G. Guatteri, A. Koshima, R. Lopes, A. Ravaglia & M.R. Pieroni

Theeffectsof sampledimensionandgradationonshear strengthparametersof

conditionedsoilsinEPBM 295

M. Hajialilue-Bonab, M. Ahmadi-adli, H. Sabetamal & H. Katebi

Experimental studyoncompressibilitybehavior of foamedsandysoil 301

M. Hajialilue-Bonab, H. Sabetamal, H. Katebi & M. Ahmadi-adli

Studyonearthpressureactinguponshieldtunnel lininginclayeyandsandygroundsbased

onfieldmonitoring 307

T. Hashimoto, G.L. Ye, J. Nagaya, T. Konda & X.F. Ma

Thedouble-o-tubeshieldtunnel inShanghai soil 313

C. He, L. Teng & J.Y. Yan

Frozensoil propertiesfor crosspassageconstructioninShanghai YangtzeRiverTunnel 319

X.D. Hu &A.R. Pi

Theinfluenceof engineering-geological conditionsonconstructionof the

radioactivewastedump 325

J. Kuzma & L. Hrustinec

Critical ventilationvelocityinlargecross-sectionroadtunnel fire 331

Z.X. Li, X. Han & K.S. Wang

MetrotunnelsinBuenosAires: Designandconstructionprocedures19982007 335

A.O. Sfriso

Studyontheearthpressuredistributionof excavationchamber inEPB tunneling 343

T.T. Song & S.H. Zhou

Backfill groutingresearchat GroeneHartTunnel 349

A.M. Talmon &A. Bezuijen

Longitudinal tubebendingduetogrout pressures 357

A.M. Talmon, A. Bezuijen & F.J.M. Hoefsloot

Theme 3: Case histories

Tunnel facestabilityandsettlement control usingearthpressurebalanceshield

incohesionlesssoil 365

A. Antiga & M. Chiorboli

Displacementsandstressesinducedbyatunnel excavation: Caseof BoisdePeu(France) 373

S. Eclaircy-Caudron, D. Dias & R. Kastner

Shieldtunnelingbeneathexistingrailwaylineinsoft ground 381

Q.M. Gong & S.H. Zhou

Casehistoryonarailwaytunnel insoft rock(Morocco) 385

A. Guiloux, H. Le Bissonnais, J. Marlinge, H. Thiebault, J. Ryckaert, G. Viel,

F. Lanquette, A. Erridaoui & M.Q.S. Hu

Observedbehavioursof deepexcavationsinsand 393

B.C.B. Hsiung & H.Y. Chuay

Environmental problemsof groundwater aroundthelongest expresswaytunnel inKorea 399

S.M. Kim, H.Y. Yang & S.G. Yoon

VII

Measurementsof grounddeformationsbehindbracedexcavations 405

T. Konda, H. Ota, T. Yanagawa &A. Hashimoto

Researchontheeffect of buriedchannelstothedifferential settlement of building 413

D.P. Liu, R. Wang & G.B. Liu

Performanceof adeepexcavationinsoft clay 419

G.B. Liu, J. Jiang & C.W.W. Ng

Deformationmonitoringduringconstructionof subwaytunnelsinsoft ground 427

S.T. Liu & Z.W. Wang

Theconstructionandfieldmonitoringof adeepexcavationinsoft soils 433

T. Liu, G.B. Liu & C.W.W. Ng

Excavationentirelyonsubwaytunnelsinthecentral areaof thePeoplesSquare 441

Y.B. Mei, X.H. Jiang, Y.M. Zhu & H.C. Qiao

Thebenefitsof hybridgroundtreatment insignificantlyreducingwall movement:

A Singaporecasehistory 447

N.H. Osborne, C.C. Ng & C.K. Cheah

3Ddeformationmonitoringof subwaytunnel 455

D.W. Qiu, K.Q. Zhou, Y.H. Ding, Q.H. Liang & S.L. Yang

Challengingurbantunnellingprojectsinsoft soil conditions 459

H. Quick, J. Michael, S. Meissner & U. Arslan

Supervisionandprotectionof Shanghai MassRapidLine4shieldtunnelingacross

theadjacent operatingmetroline 465

R.L. Wang, Y.M. Cai & J.H. Liu

KowloonSouthernLink TBM crossingover MTRTsuenWanLinetunnelsinHKSAR 471

K.K.W. Wong, N.W.H. Ng, L.P.P. Leung &Y. Chan

Applicationof pileunderpinningtechnologyonshieldmachinecrossingthroughpile

foundationsof roadbridge 477

Q.W. Xu, X.F. Ma & Z.Z. Ma

Characteristicsof tunneling-inducedgroundsettlement ingroundwater drawdownenvironment 485

C. Yoo, S.B. Kim &Y.J. Lee

Effect of long-termsettlement onlongitudinal mechanical performanceof tunnel insoft soil 491

H.L. Zhao, X. Liu, Y. Yuan &Y. Chi

Theme 4: Safety issues, risk analysis harzard management and control

Researchonstochasticseismicanalysisof undergroundpipelinebasedon

physical earthquakemodel 499

X.Q. Ai & J. Li

Riskassessment for thesafegradeof deepexcavation 507

X.H. Bao & H.W. Huang

Multi-factorsdurabilityevaluationinsubwayconcretestructure 513

C. Chen, L. Yang & C. Han

Theuseof artificial neural networkstopredict groundmovementscausedbytunneling 519

I. Chissolucombe, A.P. Assis & M.M. Farias

Researchandapplicationof roadtunnel structural optimization 525

W.Q. Ding &Y. Xu

VIII

Floor heavebehavior andcontrol of roadwayintersectionindeepmine 531

B.H. Guo &T.K. Lu

Squeezingpotential of tunnelsinclaysandclayshalesfromnormalizedundrained

shear strength, unconfinedcompressivestrengthandseismicvelocity 537

M. Gutierrez & C.C. Xia

Frameworkof performance-basedfireprotectiondesignmethodfor roadtunnel 545

X. Han & G.Y. Ding

Predictionof surfacesettlementsinducedbyshieldtunneling: AnANFISmodel 551

J. Hou, M.X. Zhang & M. Tu

Experimental studiesof ageological measuringsystemfor tunnel withultrasonictransducer 555

D.H. Kim, U.Y. Kim, S.P. Lee, H.Y. Lee & J.S. Lee

Performancereviewof apipejackingproject inHongKong 561

T.S.K. Lam

Geotechnical control of amajor railwayproject involvingtunnel worksinHongKong 567

W. Lee, S.S. Chung, K.J. Roberts & P.L.R. Pang

Researchonstructural statusof operatingtunnel of metroinShanghai andtreatment ideas 573

J.P. Li, R.L. Wang & J.Y. Yan

Maximisingthepotential of straingauges: A Singaporeperspective 579

N.H. Osborne, C.C. Ng, D.C. Chen, G.H. Tan, J. Rudi & K.M. Latt

Discussionondesignmethodfor retainingstructuresof metrostationdeepexcavationsinShanghai 587

R. Wang, G.B. Liu, D.P. Liu & Z.Z. Ma

Riskanalysisfor cutterheadfailureof compositeEPB shieldbasedonfuzzyfault tree 595

Y.R. Yan, H.W. Huang & Q.F. Hu

Riskassessment onenvironmental impact inXizangRoadTunnel 601

C.P. Yao, H.W. Huang & Q.F. Hu

Riskanalysisandfuzzycomprehensiveassessment onconstructionof shield

tunnel inShanghai metroLine 607

H.B. Zhou, H. Yao &W.J. Gao

Theme 5: Physical and numerical modelling

Tunnel behaviour under seismicloads: Analysisbymeansof uncoupledandcoupledapproaches 615

D. Boldini &A. Amorosi

Investigatingtheinfluenceof tunnel volumelossonpilesusingphotoelastictechniques 621

W. Broere & J. Dijkstra

Assessment of tunnel stabilityinlayeredground 627

P. Caporaletti, A. Burghignoli, G. Scarpelli & R.N. Taylor

Reinforcingeffectsof forepolingandfaceboltsintunnelling 635

K. Date, R.J. Mair & K. Soga

Mechanical behavior of closelyspacedtunnelslaboratorymodel testsandFEM analyses 643

J.H. Du & H.W. Huang

Stabilityanalysisof masonryof anoldtunnel bynumerical modellingandexperimental design 649

J. Idris, T. Verdel & M. Alhieb

IX

Excavationwithstepped-twinretainingwall: Model testsandnumerical simulations 655

N. Iwata, H.M. Shahin, F. Zhang, T. Nakai, M. Niinomi &Y.D.S. Geraldni

Stabilityof anunderwater trenchinmarineclayunder oceanwaveimpact 663

T. Kasper & P.G. Jackson

A studyonbehavior of 2-Archtunnel byalargemodel experiment 669

S.D. Lee, K.H. Jeong, J.W. Yang & J.H. Choi

Behavior of tunnel duetoadjacent groundexcavationunder theinfluenceof

pre-loadingonbracedwall 677

S.D. Lee & I. Kim

Twodistinctiveshear strainmodesfor pile-soil-tunnellinginteractioninagranular mass 683

Y.J. Lee & C.S. Yoo

Stabilityanalysisof largeslurryshield-driventunnel insoft clay 689

Y. Li, Z.X. Zhang, F. Emeriault & R. Kastner

Effectsof soil stratificationonthetunneling-inducedgroundmovements 697

F.Y. Liang, G.S. Yao & J.P. Li

Centrifugemodellingtoinvestigatesoil-structureinteractionmechanismsresultingfrom

tunnel constructionbeneathburiedpipelines 703

A.M. Marshall & R.J. Mair

Groundmovement andearthpressureduetocircular tunneling: Model testsand

numerical simulations 709

H.M. Shahin, T. Nakai, F. Zhang, M. Kikumoto, Y. Tabata & E. Nakahara

Analysisof pre-reinforcedzoneintunnel consideringthetime-dependent performance 717

K.I. Song, J. Kim & G.C. Cho

Vault temperatureof vehiclefiresinlargecross-sectionroadtunnel 725

K.S. Wang, X. Han & Z.X. Li

Effectsof different benchlengthonthedeformationof surroundingrockbyFEM 729

X.M. Wang, H.W. Huang & X.Y. Xie

Theeffectsof loadedboredpilesonexistingtunnels 735

J. Yao, R.N. Taylor &A.M. McNamara

3DFEM analysisongrounddisplacement inducedbycurvedpipe-jackingconstruction 743

G.M. You

Theme 6: Calculation and design methods, and predictive tools

Calculationof thethreedimensional seismicstressedstateof MetroStationEscalatorOpen

LineTunnels system, whichislocatedininclinedstratifiedsoft ground 751

R.B. Baimakhan, N.T. Danaev, A.R. Baimakhan, G.I. Salgaraeva, G.P. Rysbaeva,

Zh.K. Kulmaganbetova, S. Avdarsolkyzy, A.A. Makhanova & S. Dashdorj

A complexvariablesolutionfor tunneling-inducedgroundmovementsinclays 757

H.L. Bao, D.M. Zhang & H.W. Huang

Simulationof articulatedshieldbehavior at sharpcurvebykinematicshieldmodel 761

J. Chen, A. Matsumoto & M. Sugimoto

Deformationandporepressuremodel of thesaturatedsiltyclayaroundasubwaytunnel 769

Z.D. Cui, Y.Q. Tang & X. Zhang

Analytical solutionof longitudinal behaviour of tunnel lining 775

F.J.M. Hoefsloot

X

Designof tunnel supportingsystemusinggeostatistical methods 781

S. Jeon, C. Hong & K. You

Comparativestudyof softwaretoolsontheeffectsof surfaceloadsontunnels 785

D.K. Koungelis & C.E. Augarde

GeologicModel TransformingMethod(GMTM) for numerical analysismodelingin

geotechnical engineering 791

X.X. Li, H.H. Zhu &Y.L. Lin

Reviewandinterpretationof intersectionstabilityindeepundergroundbased

onnumerical analysis 799

T.K. Lu, B.H. Guo, L.C. Cheng & J. Wang

Analysisof surfacesettlement duetotheconstructionof ashieldtunnel insoft

clayinShanghai 805

Z.P. Lu & G.B. Liu

Urbantunnelsinsoil: Reviewof current designpracticeinBrazil 811

A. Negro

A studyonloadsfromcomplexsupport systemusingsimple2Dmodels 817

Z. Shi, W. Bao, J. Li, W. Guo & J. Zhu

Groundreactionduetotunnellingbelowgroundwater table 823

Y.J. Shin, J.H. Shin & I.M. Lee

Basal stabilityof bracedexcavationsinK

0

-consolidatedsoft claybyupper boundmethod 829

X.Y. Song & M.S. Huang

Analytical twoandthreedimensionmodelstoassessstabilityanddeformationmagnitudeof

undergroundexcavationsinsoil 837

L.E. Sozio

Dynamicresponseof saturatedsiltyclayaroundatunnel under subwayvibrationloading

inShanghai 843

Y.Q. Tang, Z.D. Cui & X. Zhang

Lateral responsesof pilesduetoexcavation-inducedsoil movements 849

C.R. Zhang, M.S. Huang & F.Y. Liang

Elastic-plasticanalysisfor surroundingrockof pressuretunnel withliningbasedonmaterial

nonlinear softening 857

L.M. Zhang & Z.Q. Wang

Modificationof keyparametersof longitudinal equivalent model for shieldtunnel 863

W. Zhu, X.Q. Kou, X.C. Zhong & Z.G. Huang

Author Index 869

XI

Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground Ng, Huang & Liu (eds)

2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-48475-6

Preface

Under theChairmanshipof Professor K. Fujita, thefirst symposiumpurposely addressinggeotechnical issues

relatedtoundergroundconstructioninsoftgroundwasheldin1994, priortothe13thInternational Conferenceon

Soil MechanicsandGeotechnical EngineeringheldinNewDelhi. Followingthesuccessof thefirstsymposium,

Professor R. Mair succeeded the Chairmanship of TC28 and he initiated a series of three-day International

SymposiaonGeotechnical Aspectsof UndergroundConstructioninSoft Groundincludingtechnical sitevisits

toundergroundconstructionprojects. Intotal, four three-dayInternational Symposiahavebeenheldverythree

yearssince1996.TheseincludetheonesheldinLondon, UK (1996), inTokyo, J apan(1999), inToulouse, France

(2002) andinAmsterdam, theNetherlands(2005).

This volume includes a collection of four invited special lectures delivered by Dr A. Bezuijen

(TheNetherlands), Mr HuangRong(China), Professor M.D. Bolton(UK) andProfessor I.M. Lee(Korea). The

titlesof theirlecturesareProcessesaroundaTBM, Overviewof Shanghai Yangtzerivertunnel project, Sup-

portingexcavationsinclay fromanalysistodecision-makingandUndergroundconstructionindecomposed

residual soils, respectively.

Inaddition, thisvolumecontains112papersgroupedunder sixthemesincluding(i) Analysisandnumerical

modelling of deep excavations; (ii) Construction method, ground treatment, and conditioning for tunnelling;

(iii) Casehistories; (iv) Safetyissues, riskanalysis, hazardmanagementandcontrol; (v) Physical andnumerical

modelling and (vi) Calculation and design methods, and predictivetools. Six general reports discussing and

commentingpapersgroupedunder thesixthemeswerecontributedorallyduringtheSymposiumbyProfessor

RichardFinno, Professor Tadashi Hashimoto, Mr Alejo Sfriso, Dr C.T. Chin, Dr RichardPangandProfessor

RichardKastner, respectively. Thewrittenversionsof their sixgeneral reportsarealsoincludedinthisvolume.

Y.S. Li

Chairman of the Symposium

C.W.W. Ng, H.W. HuangandG.B. Liu

Vice-Chairmen of the Symposium and Editors

XIII

Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground Ng, Huang & Liu (eds)

2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-48475-6

Sponsors

Organized by:

Tongji University

Under the auspices of:

ISSMGE

Technical Committee28of theInternational

Societyof Soil MechanicsandGeotechnical

Engineering(ISSMGE)

Supported by

ChinaCivil EngineeringSociety

ChineseSocietyfor RockMechanics

andEngineering

Geotechnical Division, theHongKong

Institutionof Engineers

HongKongGeotechnical Society

HongKongUniversityof Science

andTechnology

XV

ScienceandTechnologyCommissionof

Shanghai Municipality

Shanghai ChangjiangTunnel & Bridge

Development Co., Ltd.

Shanghai Societyof Civil Engineering

XVI

Special lectures

Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground Ng, Huang & Liu (eds)

2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-48475-6

ProcessesaroundaTBM

A. Bezuijen&A.M. Talmon

Deltares and Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands

ABSTRACT: Processesthatoccur aroundaTBMduringtunnellinghavebeeninvestigatedwhiletunnellingin

saturatedsand. Theporepressureinfront of theTBM increasesduetoalackof plasteringduringdrilling. This

hasconsequencesfor thestabilityof thetunnel face, or thesoil infront of thetunnel. A bentoniteflowislikely

alongsidetheTBMfromthetunnel face, and/or groutflowfromtheback. Itseemsthatvirtuallynoinvestigation

hasbeenmadeof thispart of theTBM, but it isimportant tounderstandthevolumelossthat occursarounda

tunnel. TheliningisconstructedbehindtheTBM andthetail voidgrout isapplied. Pressuresmeasuredinthe

tail voidgrout will bediscussed, aswell astheconsequencesfor loadingonthesoil andthelining. Most of the

resultsdescribedarebasedonfieldmeasurementsperformedat varioustunnelsconstructedintheNetherlands.

1 INTRODUCTION

Dutch experience of using TBM tunnelling is rela-

tively recent. Thefirst TBM tunnel was constructed

intheNetherlands between1997and1999(theSec-

ond Heinenoord Tunnel). In the early 1990s, Dutch

engineers were uncertain whether the soft saturated

soil in the western parts of their country was suit-

ablefor TBM tunnelling. Thedecisionwas therefore

taken to include a measurement programme in the

first tunnelling projects. An overview of this pro-

grammeandsomeresultsarepresentedby Bakker &

Bezuijen(2008). Intheprogramme, results fromthe

measurements werepredictedusingexistingcalcula-

tionmodels. Themeasurement results wereanalysed

at alater date, anddiscrepancieswiththepredictions

wereexplainedwherepossible.

An important part of the measurement and anal-

ysis programme was dictated by the processes that

occur around theTBM. This paper deals with some

of these processes. It does not cover all aspects of

TBM tunnellingasthiswouldnot fit withinthelimits

of this paper (seeBezuijen& vanLottum, 2006, for

moreinformation).Thepaper focusesoncertainareas

whereideasconcerningthemechanismsinvolvedhave

changed over the last decade, and where a better

understandingisnowapparent.

In order to structure this paper, we walk along

theTBM. Westart with aprocess at thefront of the

TBM:thecreationandstabilityof thetunnel faceunder

theinfluenceof excessporepressures. Thepaper then

discusses what happens next to the TBM. The last

part of the paper deals with the tail void grout that

isinjectedattheendof theTBM. Thepaper describes

thecurrent stateof theart of theseprocesses, anddis-

cusses howknowledgegained about theseprocesses

mayinfluencethedesignof aTBMtunnel insoftsoil.

2 PORE PRESSURESINFRONT OF A TBM

2.1 Flow in coarse and fine granular material

DuringTBM tunnelling, it isessential that thetunnel

faceisstabilisedby pressurisedslurry (slurry shield)

or muck (EPB shield). Thepressuremust beadapted

to theground pressureto stabilisethefront. If pres-

sureistoolow, thiswill leadtoaninstabletunnel front

resultingincollapseof thetunnel face. If pressureis

too high, a blow-out will occur. Various calculation

methods have been proposed to calculate the stabil-

ity of thetunnel face. Most of thesemethods do not

taketheinfluenceof porewater flowintoaccount. It

is assumed that the bentonite slurry or muck at the

tunnel facecreates aperfect seal that prevents water

flowfromthefaceintothesoil. Experiencewithtun-

nels built in areas wherethesubsoil contains gravel

hasshownthat thebentoniteslurrycanpenetrateinto

thesubsoil overmorethan7m(Steiner, 1996). Steiner

advises that thesandandfines shouldberetainedin

theslurry(insteadof removingthemintheseparation

plant),andthatsawdustshouldbeusedinthebentonite

(Steiner, 2007). Anagnostou&Kovari (1994) propose

acalculationmethodforsuchasituation.However,this

methodonlytakestheviscousbehaviour of theslurry

into account, and not the stiffening that occurs dur-

ing standstill. Theresults of this calculation method

may therefore lead to the prescription of bentonite

3

Figure1. Measuredexcessporepressureinfrontof aslurry

shieldandapproximation.

with viscosity that is too high (Steiner, 2007). The

stateof theart for such asituation involving coarse

granular material is still trial and error, but thetrial

canbeperformedinthelaboratory toavoiderrors in

thefield.

Usual tunnellingconditionsintheNetherlandsare

asaturated sandy soil in medium-finesand. In such

soil conditions, thegroundwater flow influences the

plastering. There will be virtually no plastering of

thetunnel faceby thebentoniteor themuck during

drilling, becausethegroundwater infrontof theTBM

prevents water inthebentoniteslurry or muck flow-

ing into the soil. Plastering will only occur during

standstill of theTBM process.

Figure1showsmeasuredporepressureinfront of

aslurry shieldas afunctionof thedistancefromthe

TBM front. Plasteringoccursduringstandstill, result-

inginapressureof 120kPa(thehydrostaticpressure).

Higher porepressuresweremeasuredduringdrilling,

becausetheTBMscutter headremovesacakebefore

it canformat thetunnel face.

Figure2showsthesamephenomenonmeasuredin

frontof anEPB shield. Here, onlythepressureduring

drillingwasrecorded.

Bezuijen (2002) shows that theamount of excess

pore pressure measured in the soil in front of the

TBM (apart frompressure at the tunnel face) also

depends onsoil permeability, thequality of theben-

tonite or muck, and the drilling speed. Where EPB

drilling takes place in sand with a low permeability

(k=10

5

m/s), theporepressuremeasuredinsandin

front of theTBM is virtually equal topressureinthe

mixing chamber. Thepressureis lower in sand with

higher permeability (k=3 10

4

m/s), becausesome

plasteringof thefaceoccursduringdrilling. Soil per-

meabilityalsoinfluencesthefoamproperties. Muckin

themixingchamberwill bedryerinsandwithahigher

permeability. Where the permeability of the sand is

lower, thewater content inthemuckisnearlyentirely

Figure 2. Measured excess pore pressure in front of an

EPBshield() andapproximation(BotlekRail Tunnel, MQ1

South). Relativelyimpermeablesubsoil.

determinedby water inthesoil andmuchlessby the

foamproperties(alsoseeBezuijen, 2002).

Figure1andFigure2alsoshowatheoretical curve

(Bezuijen, 2002):

Where

0

is thepiezometric headat thetunnel face,

the piezometric head at a distance x in front of

thetunnel face, and R theradius of thetunnel. This

relationship is valid for situations wheretheperme-

ability of soil around the tunnel is constant. In the

Netherlands, thesandy layers usedfor tunnellingare

sometimes overlain with soft soil layers of peat and

clay withalowpermeability. Insuchasituation, the

pressure distribution in the soil can be evaluated as

asemi-confinedaquifer. This is describedby Broere

(2001).

2.2 Influence on stability

Bezuijenet al (2001) andBroere(2001) haveshown

thatthegroundwater flowinfrontof theTBMimplies

that a larger face pressure is necessary to achieve a

stablefront.AccordingtoBezuijenetal (2001),thedif-

ferenceis approximately 20kPafor a10-m-diameter

tunnel constructed in sand, wherethetop is situated

15mbelowthegroundsurface.

Knowledge of this groundwater flow appeared

essential during the Groene Hart Tunnel (GHT)

project, not toprevent collapseof thetunnel facebut

toprevent aformof blow-out (Bezuijenet al, 2001).

Thistunnel entersadeeppolderwherethepiezometric

headinthesandlayersunderneaththesoftsoil layersis

higherthanthesurfacelevel (seeFigure3).Asaresult,

theeffectivestresses beneath thesoft soil layers are

extremely small. Thecalculatedexcessporepressure

4

Figure3. Geotechnical profileGHT tunnel inpolder. Tun-

nel isdrilledfromright toleft inthispicture.

in the sand layer induced by the tunnelling process

couldcausefloating of thesoft layers. Thecontrac-

tor madedetailednumerical calculations(Aimeet al,

2004). As aresult of thesecalculations, atemporary

sanddamwasconstructedatthepointwherethetunnel

enteredthepolder. This damdeliveredthenecessary

weight to prevent lifting of the soft soil layers due

to excess pore pressure generated at the tunnel face

duringdrilling.

3 FLOWAROUNDTHETBM

3.1 Calculation model

Until recently, only limited attention has been given

to pressure distribution and flow around the TBM

shield. It was assumed that the soil was in contact

withtheTBMshieldacrosstheshield. Duringdrilling

of theWestern Scheldt tunnel, however, it appeared

thattheTBMdeformedatlargedepthsandhighwater

pressures(thetunnel isconstructedupto60mbelow

the water line). This could not be explained by the

concept of a TBM shield in contact with the soil.

Furthermore, tunnelling technology has advanced to

a level where the ground loss due to tunnelling is

lessthanthevolumedifferencecausedbytaperingof

theTBM. TBMs areusually tapered, with a slightly

larger diameter at the head compared with the tail.

ThisallowstheTBM tomanoeuvreandtodrill witha

certaincurvature.Table1showsthevolumedifference

duetotaperingfor differentTBMs.

Thevolumelossesmeasuredduringtheseprojects

varied, but negative volume losses were sometimes

measuredinall theprojects(therewasactuallyheave).

It is clear that themeasuredvolumeloss canbeless

than the volume loss due to tapering. This leads to

Table 1. Percentage of tapering of the TBM in 3 tunnel

projectsinTheNetherlands.

Tunnel project Tapering%

SecondHeinenoord 0.95

Botlek 0.77

Sophia 0.79

theidea(Bezuijen, 2007) that thesoil is not in con-

tact with theTBM all over theTBM. Overcutting at

the tunnel face can lead to bentonite flow over the

TBMshieldfromthefacetowardsthetail. Groutpres-

sureduringgrout injectionisusuallyhigher at thetail

than the soil pressure. The soil is therefore pushed

away fromthe TBM, and grout will flow fromthe

tail over theshield. It is possibleto describeflowon

theshield, if it isassumedthat boththebentoniteand

thegrout areBinghamliquids, that theyieldstressis

dominant intheflowbehaviour, andthat thereislin-

ear elastic soil behaviour. A moreor less conceptual

model is developed, assumingacylindrical symmet-

rical situationaroundthetunnel axis. Changes inthe

soil radius for such a situation can be described as

(Verruijt, 1993):

WhereL is thechangein pressure, Lr thechange

inradius, r theradiusof thetunnel andthegrout, and

G theshear modulusof thesoil aroundthetunnel.

The flow around the TBM shield can be

describedas:

WhereLP is thechangeinpressuredueto theflow,

Lx alengthincrementalongtheTBM, s thegapwidth

betweenthetunnel andthesoil, and

theyieldstress

of thegrout aroundtheTBM. is acoefficient indi-

cating whether there is friction between the soil or

bentoniteandthegrout (=1) only, or alsobetween

theTBM andthegrout or bentonite(=2). Viscous

forcesareneglectedinthisformula.Thisispermissible

duetothelowflowvelocitiesthat canbeexpected.

Withno grout or bentoniteflowaroundtheTBM,

taperingwill leadtoaneffectivestressreductionpro-

ceedingfromtheTBMs faceto thetail accordingto

equation(2).Thegroutandbentoniteflowwill change

thispressuredistribution.Inordertocalculatethepres-

suredistributionunder flow, theflowdirectionof both

the bentonite and the grout must be known. These

flow directions can vary during the tunnelling pro-

cess(Bezuijen, 2007). Onaverage, however, theTBM

5

Table2. Inputparametersusedincalculationwithbentonite

andovercutting.

LengthTBM shield 5 m

Diameter 10 m

Diameter reduction 0.2 %

Overcutting 0.015 m

Asymmetric(1) or symmetric(2) 2

Grainstress 150 kPa

Grout pressure 400 kPa

Porepressure 200 kPa

Pressureontunnel face 250 kPa

Shear modulus(G) 90 MPa

Yieldstressgrout 1.6 kPa

Yieldstressbentonite 0.01 kPa

Figure4. PressuresandgapwidthalongaTBM.Groutpres-

suresandbentonitepressures. ParametersseeTable2. Plots

show pressures and gap width for the bentonite and grout

pressureseparatelyandthecombinedresult.

advances andthereforethebentoniteandgrout front

must also advanceinthesamedirectionto achievea

stablesituation. This means that grout andbentonite

onlymovewithrespecttothesoil, andnotwithrespect

totheTBM.Therefore=1forboththebentoniteand

thegrout. Theresult of anexamplecalculationusing

theparametersgiveninTable2isshowninFigure4.

The Figure shows that the gap width for a com-

pletelystiff soil masswouldincreasefrom0.015mat

thefrontto0.025matthetail of theTBM. If therewere

onlygrout pressures, thegapwidthwouldbe0.028m

at thetail of theTBM, dueto thegrout pressurethat

islarger thanthetotal stress. However, thegapwould

closeat3.4mfromthetail. If theinfluenceof theben-

toniteisincluded, thereisstill agapwidthof 0.01mat

thetunnel face(5mfromthetail).Thelinethroughthe

trianglespresentsthegapwidthduetothecombined

effects of both thebentoniteand thegrout. Theplot

abovepresentsthepressuresinthesameway.

3.2 Consequences and status

The model shows that the volume loss is not deter-

mined by tapering of the TBM (as suggested for

exampleby Kasper & Meschke, 2006), but is influ-

encedbythepressuredistributionof thebentoniteand

grout. Withsufficient grout pressure, it ispossibleto

haveanegative volumeloss (thesurfacelevel rises

aftertheTBMpasses). Italsoexplainsthatbentoniteis

sometimesfoundinthetail void, andgroutisfoundin

thepressurechamber. Thefirst situationoccurswhen

bentonitepressureisrelativelyhighandgroutpressure

is low(wewill seethat it is quitedifficult to control

grout pressure, especially during ring building). The

second situation occurs when grout pressures in the

tail voidarerelatively high(whichmay occur during

drilling).

Contrary, however, to themodel describedfor the

pore pressures in front of the TBM and the grout

pressure, tobedescribedinthefollowingsections, the

experimental evidenceforthismodel isstill limited.To

our knowledge, pressuredistributionaroundtheTBM

shieldhasneverbeenmeasured.Theshieldwasperfo-

ratedduringconstructionof theWesternScheldttunnel

butnogroutwasfoundbetweentheshieldandthesoil

(Thewes, 2007). Thefactthatnogroutwasfounddur-

ingthisinvestigationmaybecausedbythefactthat, in

reality, theTBMwill notbeplacedassymmetricallyin

thedrilledholeassuggestedinthissimplemodel.The

TBM must bein contact with thesoil at somepoint

tomaintainmechanical equilibrium. Therewill beno

grout aroundtheshieldat that location.

Guglielmetti (2007) rightfully argues that more

research is needed in this field, because: The topic

(flow of bentonite and grout around the TBM) is

definitely one of the most important in the field of

mechanisedtunnelling, beingthemanagement of the

voidaroundtheshieldof aTBM asoneof themajor

sourcesof concernfor bothdesignersandcontractors

involvedinurbantunnellingprojects.

Thereis someevidencefromtheresults of exten-

someter measurementscarriedout at theSophiaRail

Tunnel. The results of the extensometers (shown in

Figure5) arepresentedinFigure6duringpassageof

6

Figure5. SophiaRail Tunnel,soil stratificationandlocation

of extensometersat themeasurement location(pictureArne

Bezuijen).

Figure 6. Extensometer results. The vertical line shows

when the tail of theTBM passes. Soil above theTBM is

alreadycompressedbeforethetail passes.

theTBM. Theresultsshowthat thereisinitiallysome

extensionof thesoil infrontof theTBMduetotherela-

tivelylowstressesatthetunnel face. However, thesoil

abovethetunnel (seetheextensometer at 12.5m) is

compressedseveral rings beforethetail of theTBM

passes (thevertical line) indicating heave, and there

is thereforeno settlement dueto thetapering. When

theTBMhaspassed, theextensometer at12.5mfol-

lowsthecourseof thegroutpressuresmeasuredaround

thelining. Thiswill bediscussedinmoredetail inthe

nextsection, andshowsthatachangeingroutpressure

indeedleadstoachangeinsoil deformation.

We are currently working on the possibility of

measuringpressuresaroundtheshield.

4 TAIL VOIDGROUTING

4.1 Introduction tail void grouting

Coming at the end of theTBM, the tail void grout-

ingprocess is important. Theprocess determines the

loadingonthesoil andonthelining.

Thepressuredistributioncausedbytail voidgrout-

inghasbeenstudiedduringconstructionof theSophia

Rail Tunnel (Bezuijen et al, 2004) and the Groene

Hart Tunnel. Here, wewill describethefundamental

mechanismsusingmeasurementsfromtheSophiaRail

Figure 7. First tube Sophia Rail Tunnel: drilling velocity

andmeasuredgrout pressuresat theright sideof thetunnel

asafunctionof time.

Tunnel, astheyhaveprovidedthemost completedata

set until now.

Thestudyof groutpressureswasinitiatedbyearlier

measurements performed at the Second Heinenoord

Tunnel and the Botlek Rail Tunnel. These measure-

ments didnot matchthegenerally acceptedassump-

tionatthattime atleastintheNetherlands thatthe

vertical pressuregradient inliquidgrout must bedic-

tatedbythedensityof thegrout, andthat thepressure

distribution after hardening must reflect the K

0

(the

ratiobetweenthehorizontal andvertical soil pressure).

Inreality, thevertical pressuregradientwaslower and

theinfluenceof K

0

couldnot bedetected.

4.2 Measurements

TheSophiaRail Tunnel wasconstructedinsandysub-

soil overlainwithsoft soil layers (seeFigure5). The

water tableis closeto thesurface. During construc-

tionof theSophiaRail tunnel, tworingsinthelining

wereeachequippedwith14pressuresensors.Thepres-

sures measuredwithoneof theseinstrumentedrings

areshowninFigure7.

These measurements are discussed in detail in

Bezuijenet al (2004): wewill onlydescribethemain

phenomena here. The upper plot in Figure 7 shows

thedrillingvelocity, whendrillingoccurs, andwhen

therewasastandstill for ringbuilding. It canbeseen

thatanincreaseinpressureismeasuredassoonasthe

7

pressuregauges(builtintotheliningelements) moved

fromthegreaseinto thegrout. Pressureincreases as

longasdrillingcontinues, anddecreaseswhendrilling

stopsduringringbuilding.

4.3 Grout pressures

The mechanism that leads to these pressure varia-

tionsisexplainedinBezuijen&Talmon(2003). Grout

bleeding or consolidation of the grout leads to a

volume loss of grout. Experiments showed that this

volumelossisbetween3%and8%, dependingonthe

typeof grout(Bezuijen&Zon, 2007).Thisconsolida-

tionleadstostressreductionintherelativelystiff sand

layer. Thisstressreductionismeasuredasareduction

of groutpressure.Theeffectivestresseswill ultimately

beverysmall: theminimumstressthatisnecessaryto

keeptheholeinthegroundopen. Leca& Dormieux

(1990)calculatethisforatunnel openinginsand.They

calculatethatacylindrical cavityinthegroundremains

open when effective stresses of only a few kPa are

applied.

Theconsequenceisthatgroutpressuresaroundthe

liningwill decreasetovaluesthat areonly afewkPa

abovetheporewater pressure. Itisthereforeclear that

theoriginal K

0

cannolongerbefoundinthegroutpres-

sures. Thepressuredecreaseduetovolumelossinthe

grouthaschangedtheoriginal stressstate, andunload-

ingof thesoil leadstomuchlower stresses. Sincethe

stresses in the sand around the tunnel decrease, the

sandreactionwill bethereactionof averystiff mate-

rial. Only asmall volumedecreasein thegrout will

leadtoalargedecreaseinstresses. Calculationmeth-

odsquiteoftenstill usetheoriginal in-situstressesto

calculateloadingonthelining. For atunnel insand,

thisleadstoacalculatedloadingthatismuchtoohigh,

asshownbyHashimotoet al (2004).

For slow hardening or non-hardening grouts, the

strengthincreaseinthegroutiscausedbygroutbleed-

ing or consolidation. It should be realised that this

strength increase is only present when the tunnel is

drilledthroughapermeablesoil. Whendrillingtakes

placethrough less permeablesoils such as clay, this

consolidationwill bemuchlowerandthegroutwill be

inliquidformoveragreaterpartof thetunnelslength.

Thishasconsequencesfor loadingonthelining, aswe

will discusslater.

4.4 Pressure gradients

Thevertical pressuregradient over thetunnel lining

isimportantwhencalculatingthelongitudinal loading

onthelining. Thevertical pressuregradient that was

measuredduringconstructionof thefirsttunnel tubeof

theSophiaRail Tunnel isshowninFigure8.Thepres-

suregradient starts at nearly 20kPa/manddecreases

to values under the pore water pressure gradient of

Figure8. First tubeSophiaRail Tunnel: pressuregradient

over thetunnel liningat onelocation, andpumpactivity for

oneof theinjectionpoints(A1) asafunctionof time.

9.81kPa/m. The tail void grout used for this tunnel

had adensity of 2190kg/m

3

. If thevertical pressure

were to increase with depth in accordance with this

density, thepressuregradient should be21.5kPa/m.

Results showed that themeasured vertical density is

alwayslower. Thisisbecausethegrout isaBingham

liquid, with aviscosity and ayield stress. Thegrout

hastoflowdownwardsif moregroutisinjectedinthe

upper half of thetunnel. This downward flow needs

adriving forceto overcometheyield stress, and the

pressuregradient will thereforebeless thanthegra-

dient that iscalculatedfromthedensity. Talmonet al

(2001) developedanumerical programtocalculatethe

pressuredistributioninthetail voiddueto injection.

Weonlydescribesomeof theconsequenceshere. If the

viscosityisnottakenintoconsideration, themaximum

pressuregradient (dP/dz) that canbeexpectedis:

Where

gr

isthedensity of thegrout, g theaccelera-

tionof gravity,

thewidthof thetail voidgapbetweenthesoil andthe

lining. If theyieldstressinthegroutislow, thevertical

pressuregradient is determined by thegrout density

(21.5kPa/mfortheSophiaRail Tunnel, slightlyhigher

thanthemaximumvaluemeasuredinFigure8). Con-

solidationor hardeningof thegrout leadstoahigher

yieldstress, andthustoalower gradient.

A complicating factor is that themaximumshear

stress that canbedevelopedis avector. If themaxi-

mumshear stressisdevelopedinonedirection, there

will be no shear stress perpendicular to that direc-

tion. Whendrillingstartsfor anewringandthegrout

pumpsareactivated, theelasticsoil reactionwill lead

toanincreaseof thetail voidandgrout will therefore

flow backwards fromtheTBM. Ring shear stresses

barelydevelopinthissituation, andthevertical gradi-

entsthereforeincreaseduringdrilling. Theydecrease

againwhendrillingstops(Figure8).

8

Further from the TBM, the vertical gradients

decrease and become equal to the gradient accord-

ing to the buoyancy forces. This has to be the case,

because the total force on the lining far away from

theTBM must be zero. The vertical pressure gradi-

entthereforecompensatesfor theweightof thelining.

Asaresult, thegradient becomeslower thanthegra-

dient in the pore water. This is because the average

density of theliningislower thanthedensity of pore

water. Oneremarkableresult isthat thevertical pres-

suregradientatsomedistancefromtheTBM(at12:00

inFigure8, 5ringsbehindtheTBM) decreasesduring

drilling. Theflownolonger has any influenceat this

point, but drilling and grout injection lead to higher

gradientsinthefirstpartof theliningandthereforeto

higher buoyancy forces. Thefirst rings havetheten-

dencytomoveupwards, whichmust becompensated

by theTBM and the rings further away. This partly

compensates for theweight of therings further from

theTBM, so that theeffectiveweight of theserings

andalsothevertical gradient isless.

5 INFLUENCE ONPORE WATER PRESSURES

Section2.1describeshownoplasteringoccursat the

front when drilling takes place in fine to medium-

finesaturatedsand, becausethebentonitefiltercakeis

destroyedbythecuttingwheel beforeitisabletoform.

Asaresult, water flowsfromthetunnel faceintothe

soil. Section 4.3 describes how consolidation of the

grout alsoleadstoawater flowfromthetunnel lining

into thesoil, becausewater expelled fromthegrout

will flowintothesurroundingsoil. A grout cakewill

formhowever, because the consolidated grout is no

longer disturbed. It isthereforereasonabletoassume

that examination of thevariation in porepressurein

soil nexttoatunnel under constructionwill showpore

pressures that aredominatedby pressures existingat

thetunnel face. This theory was testedat theGroene

Hart Tunnel. Pore pressure transducers (PTTs) were

installedascloseas0.75mfromthetunnel lining.The

PTTswereplacedinoneplane, withthegroutpressure

gaugesonRing2117of thetunnel (seeFigure9).

Figure10showsthemeasurementresults.Thegrout

pressuregauges on Ring 2117 giveno signal before

theyareinthegrout. ThePPTsshowaslight increase

during drilling due to the excess pore pressure gen-

erated at the tunnel face. As drilling stops, the pore

pressurereducestothehydrostaticpressure. Thevar-

iousconstructioncyclescanbeseen. Thereisasharp

increaseingrout pressurewhenRing2117leavesthe

TBM, followedby adecreaseduetoconsolidation. It

isremarkablehowever that thishasvirtuallynoinflu-

ence on the measured pore pressures at less than a

metrefromthesegauges. Thisresult isconfirmedby

numerical calculations.Thequantityof waterexpelled

Figure9. Positionof porepressuregaugesandgrout pres-

suregaugesat ring2117of theGHT.

Figure10. Porepressuresandgrout pressuresmeasuredat

GHT (alsoseetext).

fromthegrout isfar lessthanthewater flowfromthe

tunnel face. Thelatter dominatestheporepressures.

The measurements show another remarkable fea-

ture. Grout pressuregauge05followsthewater pres-

sureafter3.20:00, butthisisnotthecaseforgauge03.

Thismayindicatethat thereisnosealing grout layer

aroundgauge05, sothat it ispossibletomeasurethe

porewater pressure.

6 LOADINGONTUNNEL LINING

WehaveseeninSection4.4thatvertical pressuregra-

dients exist in the zone where the grout is not yet

consolidatedor hardenedwhicharehigher thancorre-

spondstotheweightof thelining.Measurementsatthe

SophiaRail Tunnel showedthatthegradientdecreases

moreor less linear withthedistance(seeFigure11).

Asaresult, thatpartof theliningispressedupwardsby

9

Figure11. Exampleof gradient inthegrout pressureas a

function fromthe distance (0 on the X-axis represents the

point wheretheliningis moreor less fixed. TheTBM is at

9m). ResultsfromSophiaRail Tunnel (Bezuijenetal, 2004).

Figure12. Calculated shear forceand moment in thelin-

ing, anddisplacement wherethegrout hasnot yet hardened.

Calculatedmomentsaredividedby10.

thebuoyancyforces. It isnecessarytomobiliseshear

forcesfromtheTBMtoachieveastabletunnel lining.

Thiswill leadtomomentsinthelining.

Bezuijen & Talmon (2005) have shown that the

momentsintheliquidgrout zoneincreasebackwards

fromtheTBM (see Figure 12). A positive moment

meansherethattheforceonthelower partof thetube

is higher than on the upper part. At the TBM, this

moment iscreatedbytheTBM itself. Thisisbecause

facepressureishigher at thebottomduetolarger soil

stresses.

At theGroeneHartTunnel thebendingmoment in

thelining was measured for a largedistancebehind

theTBM using strain gauges installed in the lining

segments.Thereisanincreaseinthemomentforafew

rings, inaccordancewiththecalculations previously

mentioned. Thereissubsequentlyadecrease, withthe

momentsbecomingnegativeatagreaterdistancefrom

thetunnel. Bogaards& Bakker (1999) andHoefsloot

(2008) arguethat theremainingbendingmoment isa

result of thestaged construction of thetunnel. They

developedacalculationmodel totakeintoaccountthe

different stagesinconstruction.

Figure13. Boundaryconditionfor beamcalculation.

200

150

100

50

0

50

100

150

200

20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

Disance behind TBM [m]

Analytical model

Measurement Ring

2117

B

e

n

d

i

n

g

m

o

m

e

n

t

[

M

N

m

]

Figure14. Bendingmoment ring2117, measurement and

calculation. GroeneHartTunnel (Hoefsloot, 2008).

However, Talmon (2007) has shown that such a

staged calculationisnot necessary tofindthesame

results.

AccordingtoTalmon, thenegativemomentappears

at somedistancefromtheTBM becausethereaction

forceto compensatethebuoyancy in thefluid grout

zoneissituatedfurther fromtheTBM thanthebuoy-

ancy force itself. The tunnel lining is pushed a bit

higher inthesoil thanintheequilibriumsituationfar

behindtheTBM.

HoefslootandTalmonbothmodel thetunnel lining

as abeamonanelastic foundation, except for lining

elements insidetheTBM and lining elements in the

liquidgrout zone, seeFigure13. Theexact boundary

conditionsandthetransitionbetweenliquidandsolid

grout arestill thesubject of debate.

Althoughexamplecalculationshavebeenpresented

that show good correlation with measurements (see

Figure14), therearestill uncertainties withthis type

of calculationthat needfurther research:

An important input parameter is themoment and

shear forcethat istransferredfromtheTBM tothe

lining. Whilethemoment canbederivedfromthe

jackforces, theshear forceisnot determined.

Withgenerally-acceptedparameters for thelining

stiffnessandthesoilselasticparameters, thecalcu-

latedmovement of theliningismuchsmaller than

themeasuredmovement.

The grout pressures are only measured when the

groutismoreorlessintheliquidphase.Thisresults

10

Table 3. Specification of grout mixtures used in fracture

tests(WCR=water-cement ratio). CoclayD90Caactivated

bentoniteisused.

Bentonite k

Mixture WCR % (m/s)

1 1 7 5.10

8

2 10 7 6.10

0

in loading on the tunnel lining as shown in Fig-

ure11. However, loadingonthelininginsituations

wherethegrouthashardenedislessknown.Thisis

becausetheinstruments usedwerenot suitableto

measurepressureswhengrout hashardened.

Conclusions that can be drawn fromthis type of

calculationsare:

Thelengthof theliquidgrout zoneandthedensity

of the grout are extremely important parameters

whencalculatingbendingmomentsinthelining. If

thislengthistoolong, loadingwill betoohighand

tunnellingwill notbepossible(alsoseeBezuijen&

Talmon, 2005).

The shear force that is exerted on the lining by

theTBM isanimportant parameter. It istherefore

worthwhiletomeasurethisshear force.

7 COMPENSATIONGROUTING

Grout consolidation also appeared to be impor-

tant whendescribingcompensationgrouting. Exper-

iments (Gafar et al, 2008) showedthat thefracturing

behaviour in compensation grouting depends on the

specification of the grout. If more cement is added,

thepermeability of thegrout is higher andtherewill

bemoreconsolidationandleak-off duringgroutinjec-

tion. Gafar et al describe how this influences the

fracturingbehaviour. Recenttestscarriedoutaspartof

theresearchprojectoncompensationgroutingpresent

proof of thesuggestedgroutconsolidationmechanism.

AtDelftUniversity,thedensityof groutbodiesmadein

twocompensationgroutingexperimentswasanalysed

inaCT-scan. SuchaCT-scancanbeusedtodetermine

thedensity of thematerial tested. Thegrout mixtures

usedintheexperimentsareshowninTable3.

Theresultsof theCT-scansareshowninFigure15

and Figure16. Theresults of thefirst grout mixture

clearlyshowanincreaseindensityat theboundaryof

thegrout body. Grout at theboundary of thesample

isconsolidated. Thegroutbodymadewiththesecond

mixturehas amoreconstant density across thefrac-

ture(themiddlesection). In thesecond experiment,

theCT-scanwasperformedwhilethegrout bodywas

still in the sand. The more homogeneous density of

Figure 15. Density measured with a CT-scan. Raw data

(inset) anddensity. Correctionfor beamhardeningeffectand

calculated value of the density of the grout along the line

shownininset. Mixture1inTable3.

Figure 16. Grout density in a fracture measured with a

CT-scan. Mixture2inTable3.

the grout body in the second test is understandable

if thepermeabilities of thegrout areconsidered. The

lower permeabilityof thesecondgrout sampleresults

in much less grout consolidation within the limited

injectiontime. Thegroutdensityinthefracturethere-

foredoesnot increaseat theboundaryof thegrout as

isthecasefor mixture1.

Thepermeabilitiesweredeterminedusingthepro-

ceduresuggestedby McKinley andBolton(1999), a

formof oedometertestwithdrainageononeside.This

procedurecan also beused to test theconsolidation

properties of tail void grout. However, thethickness

of thegroutlayer inthetestshouldbeidentical tothat

inthefield. Thisistoavoidscalingeffectsthat occur

11

becausehardeningof thegrout is independent of the

samplesize(Bezuijen& Zon, 2007).

8 DISCUSSION

The research described above has increased under-

standing of the processes that occur around aTBM

duringtunnelling. Thishasalreadyhadconsequences

for practical aspects of tunnelling. Examples arethe

excessporepressuresinfront of theTBM: extrasand

was added locally above the planned tunnel trajec-

toryof theGroeneHartTunnel toprevent ablow-out,

and the grout was changed in a tunnel project in

Londonwhereit appearedthat theliquidzoneof tra-

ditional grout for a tunnel drilled in clay with no

possibility of consolidation was too long to achieve

thedesireddrillingspeed.However,theauthorsbelieve

that theresultscanmakeanevengreater contribution

toimprovingshieldtunnelling. Knowledgeabout the

influenceof excessporepressuresonfacestabilitycan

improvedefinitionof thepressurewindowat thetun-

nel face, sopreventingablow-out duetoexcessively

highpressuresandinstabilitycausedbypressuresthat

aretoolow. IncombinationwithresearchonEPBtun-

nellinginclay (Merrit & Mair, 2006), foamresearch

for EPB tunnellinginsandcanleadto better control

of theEPBprocess. Ithasalreadybeendiscussedhow

flowaroundtheTBMisimportantforTBMdesign,and

that moreexperimental evidenceisneeded. Research

into grouting can lead to smaller settlement troughs

and optimisation of loading on the lining. This last

aspect mayleadtocheaper liningconstruction.

Theresultsmust bediscussedwithtunnel builders

and contractors if improvements to the shield tun-

nellingprocess areto beachieved. Discussionabout

certain aspects has already started, but wehopethat

this paper will stimulate the involvement of more

parties.

9 CONCLUSIONS

To understandtheprocesses that areimportant when

tunnelling with aTBM, theflowprocesses around a

TBMmustbeconsidered: groundwaterflowatthetun-

nel face,bentoniteandgroutflowaroundtheTBM,and

grout flowandgrout consolidationaroundthetunnel

lining.Theresearchdescribedinthispaperhasbrought

about progress with regard to these flow processes

duringtunnellinginsoft ground:

The groundwater flow at the tunnel face is

described.

Themuck inthemixingchamber isdescribedasa

functionof drillingspeedandpermeability.

A conceptual model for theflowof bentoniteand

grout has been developed. Although this model

must still beverifiedusingtheresultsof measure-

ments, it showssomepromisingresults.

Considerableinformationhasbeenobtainedabout

the grouting process and the resultant lining

loading.

Although not unusual, it is interesting to see that

this research also raises new questions: what is the

exact positionof theTBM duringthetunnellingpro-

cess, whatistheinteractionbetweentheTBM andthe

lining, are the predicted pressures around theTBM

correct, andwhat aretheconsequencesfor our design

methods?Eveninarelativelysimplebeamcalculation

for calculatingloadingonthelininginalongitudinal

directionit appearsthat uncertaintiesintheboundary

conditions determinetheoutcomeof thecalculation.

As long as these uncertainties remain, more sophis-

ticated numerical calculations will present the same

uncertainties.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Theresearchdescribedinthispaper wassponsoredby

COB, the Dutch Centre for Underground Construc-

tion, andDelft Cluster. Wewouldliketo thank these

organisationsfor givingustheopportunitytoperform

thisresearch. Wealsowishtothanktheprojectorgan-

isationsof thedifferent tunnelsfor givingpermission

tousetunnellingdatainour research. Andlastbutnot

least, wewouldliketo thank our fellowmembers in

theCOB committeesfor their stimulatingdiscussions

onthevarioussubjects.

REFERENCES

Aime, R., Aristaghes, P., Autuori, P. & Minec, S. 2004. 15m

Diameter Tunneling under Netherlands Polders. Proc.

Underground Space for Sustainable Urban Development

(ITA Singapore), Elsevier.

Anagnostou, G. & Kovri, K. 1994. The face stability of

Slurry-shield-drivenTunnels.Tunelling and Underground

Space Technology 9(2): 165174.

Bakker, K.J. & Bezuijen, A. 2008. 10 years of bored tun-

nels in theNetherlands. Proceeding 6th Int. Symposium

on Underground Construction in soft Ground, Shanghai.

Bezuijen, A. 2002. Theinfluenceof soil permeabilityonthe

properties of afoammixturein aTBM. 3rd. Int. Symp.

on Geotech. Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft

Ground, IS-Toulouse.

Bezuijen, A. 2007. Bentoniteandgrout flowaroundaTBM.

Proc. ITA 2007, Prague.

Bezuijen,A., Pruiksma, J.P. &Meerten, H.H. van. 2001. Pore

pressures in front of tunnel, measurements, calculations

and consequences for stability of tunnel face. Proc. Int.

Symp. on Modern Tunneling Science and Techn. Kyoto.

12

Bezuijen, A. &Talmon, A.M. 2003. Grout thefoundationof

aboredtunnel. Proc ICOF 2003 Dundee.

Bezuijen,A.,Talmon,A.M.,Kaalberg,F.J.&Plugge,R.2004.

Fieldmeasurements of grout pressures duringtunneling

of theSophiaRail tunnel. Soils and Foundations 44(1):

4150.

Bezuijen, A. & van Lottum, H. (eds). 2006. Tunnelling A

Decade of Progress. GeoDelft 1995-2005, Taylor and

Francis/Balkema, Leiden, ISBN0415391134.

Bezuijen, A. & Zon, W. van der. 2007. Volumechanges in

groutusedtofill upthetail void. Proc. ITA 2007, Prague.

Bogaards, P.J. & Bakker, K.J. 1999, Longitudinal bending

momentsinthetubeof aboredtunnel. Numerical Models

in Geomechanics Proc. NUMOGVII: 317321.

Broere, W. 2001. Tunnel Face Stability & New CPT Applica-

tions. Ph.D. Thesis, Delft Universityof Technology, Delft

UniversityPress.

Gafar, K., Soga, K., Bezuijen, A., Sanders, M.P.M. & van

Tol, A.F. 2008. Fracturingof sandincompensationgrout-

ing. Proceeding 6th Int. Symposium on Underground

Construction in soft Ground, Shanghai.

Guglielmetti, V. 2007. Tunnels and Tunnelling International,

October, P32.

Hashimoto, T., Brinkman, J., Konda, T., Kano, Y. &

Feddema, A. 2004. Simultaneousbackfill grouting, pres-

suredevelopment in construction phaseand in thelong

term. Proc. ITA Singapore.

Hoefsloot, F.J.M. 2008. Analytical solution longitudinal

behaviour Tunnel lining. Proceeding 6th Int. Symposium

on Underground Construction in soft Ground, Shanghai.

Kasper, T. & Meschke, G. 2006. On the influence of face

pressure,groutingpressureandTBMdesigninsoftground

tunnelling.Tunn. and Undergr. SpaceTechn. 21: 160171.

Leca, E. &Dormieux, L. 1990. Upper andlower boundsolu-

tions for thefacestability of shallowcircular tunnels in

frictional material. Gotechnique 43: 519(inFrench).

Merritt, A.S. & Mair, R.J. 2006. Mechanics of tunnelling

machine screw conveyors: model tests. Geotechnique

56(9): 605615.

McKinley, J.D. &Bolton, M.D. 1999.Ageotechnical descrip-

tion of fresh cement grout Filtration and consolida-

tion behaviour. Magazine of Concrete Research 51(5):

295307.

Steiner, W. 1996. Slurry penetration into coarse grained

soils and settlements froma large slurry shield tunnel.

Proc. Geotech. Aspects of Underground Construction in

Soft Ground, London, Mair andTaylor (eds). Balkema,

Rotterdam, ISBN9054108568: 329333.

Steiner, W. 2007. Privatecommunication.

Talmon, A.M. 2007. Notes on analytical beam model. Delft

Hydraulicsreport Z3934/Z4145.

Talmon, A.M., Aanen, L. Bezuijen, A & Zon, W.H. vander.

2001. Grout pressures around a tunnel lining Proc. Int.

Symp. on Modern Tunneling Science and Techn. Kyoto.

Thewes, M. 2007. Privatecommunication.

Verruijt, A. 1993. Soil Dynamics. Delft University of Tech-

nology, b28.

13

Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground Ng, Huang & Liu (eds)

2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-48475-6

Supportingexcavationsinclay fromanalysistodecision-making

M.D. Bolton& S.Y. Lam

University of Cambridge, UK

A.S. Osman

Durham University, UK

ABSTRACT: FiniteElementAnalysis(FEA) isusedtocalibrateadecision-makingtool basedonanextension

of theMobilizedStrengthDesign(MSD) methodwhichpermits thedesigner anextremely simplemethodof

predicting ground displacements during construction. This newly extended MSD approach accommodates a

number of issueswhichareimportant inundergroundconstructionbetweenin-situwalls, including: alternative

base heave mechanisms suitable either for wide excavations in relatively shallow soft clay strata, or narrow

excavationsinrelativelydeepsoft strata; theinfluenceof support systemstiffnessinrelationtothesequenceof

proppingof thewall; andthecapability of dealingwithstratifiedground. Thesedevelopmentsshouldmakeit

possiblefor adesignengineer totakeinformeddecisionsontherelationshipbetweenpropspacingandground

movements, or theinfluenceof wall stiffness, or ontheneedfor andinfluenceof ajet-groutedbaseslab, for

example, without havingtoconduct project-specificFEA.

1 INTRODUCTION

TheMobilizableStrengthDesign(MSD) methodhas

developed following various advances in the use of

plasticdeformationmechanismstopredictgrounddis-

placements: (MilliganandBransby, 1975; Boltonand

Powrie, 1988; Boltonetal. 1989, 1990a, 1990b). MSD

isageneral, unifieddesignmethodology, whichaims

tosatisfy bothsafety andserviceability requirements

inasinglecalculationprocedure,contrastingwithcon-

ventional design methodology which treats stability

problems and serviceability problems separately. In

theMSD method, actual stress-strain datais used to

select a design strength that limits ground deforma-

tions,andthisisusedinplasticsoil analysesthatsatisfy

equilibriumconditions without the use of empirical

safetyfactors.

Simpleplasticmechanismsareusedtorepresentthe

workingstateof thegeotechnical system. Themecha-

nismsrepresentboththeequilibriumanddeformation

of thevarioussoil bodies, especially at their junction

with the superstructure. Then, raw stress-strain data

fromsoil testsonundisturbedsamples,takenfromrep-

resentativelocations, areuseddirectlytolinkstresses

and strains under working conditions. Constitutive

lawsandsoil parametersareunnecessary.

The MSD approach has been successfully imple-

mentedfor shallowfoundations (OsmanandBolton,

2005), cantilever retainingwalls(OsmanandBolton,

2005), tunneling-induced ground displacements

(Osman et al. 2006) and also the sequential con-

struction of braced excavations which induce wall

displacements andgrounddeformations (Osmanand

Bolton, 2006).

Consider theimpositionof certainactionsonasoil

body, duetoconstructionactivitiessuchasstressrelief

accompanyingexcavation, or to loads appliedinser-

vice. The MSD method permits the engineer to use

simplehand calculations to estimatetheconsequen-

tial ground displacements accounting for non-linear

soil behavior obtainedfromasinglewell-chosentest

of theundisturbedsoil.

TheMSDapproachfirstlyrequirestheengineer to

representtheworkingstatesof thegeotechnical system

byagenericmechanismwhichconveysthekinematics

(i.e. thepatternof displacements) of thesoil duetothe

proposedactions.Analysisof thedeformationmecha-

nismleadstoacompatibilityrelationshipbetweenthe

averagestrainmobilizedinthesoil andtheboundary

displacements.

Theaverageshearstrengthmobilizedinthesoil due

totheimposedactionsisthencalculated,eitherfroman

independent equilibriumanalysisusingapermissible

stressfield(equivalenttoalower boundplasticanaly-

sis),orfromanequationbalancingworkandenergyfor

thechosenmechanism(equivalent toanupper bound

plasticanalysis).

Thelocationof oneor morerepresentativesoil ele-

ments is then selected, basing this judgment on the

soil profile in relation to the location and shape of

15

the selected mechanism. The centroid of the mech-

anism can serve as a default location if a single

locationistobeemployed. Stress-strainrelationships

are then obtained fromappropriate laboratory tests

on undisturbed soil samples taken fromtheselected

locations and carried out with precise strain mea-

surements. Equivalentin-situtestssuchasself-boring

pressuremeter tests can alternatively be carried out.

Themodeof deformationinthesoil testsshouldcor-

respondascloselyaspossibletothemodeof shearing

intheMSDmechanism. Otherwise, anisotropyshould

somehowbeallowedfor.

Finally, the mobilized shear strength required for

equilibriumunderworkingloadsissetagainsttherep-

resentativeshear stress-straincurveinorder toobtain

the mobilized soil strain, and thereby the boundary

displacementsof thesimplifiedMSDmechanism.

2 MSDFOR DEEP EXCAVATIONPROBLEM

OsmanandBolton(2006) showedfor anin-situwall

supporting a deep excavation that the total defor-

mation could be approximated as the sum of the

cantilever movementprior topropping, andthesubse-

quent bulging movement that accretes incrementally

witheverysequenceof proppingandexcavation.

A methodfor estimatingthecantilever movement

had been suggested earlier in Osman and Bolton

(2004). Itbeginsbyconsideringthelateral earthpres-

sure distribution for a smooth, rigid, cantilever wall

rotating about a point some way above its toe, in

undrained conditions. A simple mobilized strength

ratioisintroducedtocharacterizetheaveragedegree

of mobilizationof undrainedshear strengththrough-

out the soil. By using horizontal force and moment

equilibriumequations, thetwo unknowns theposi-

tion of the pivot point and the mobilized strength

ratio are obtained. Then, a mobilized strain value

isreadoff fromtheshear stress-straincurveof asoil

element appropriatetotherepresentativedepthof the

mechanismatthemid-depthof thewall. Simplekine-

matics for a cantilever wall rotating about its base

suggeststhattheshearstrainmobilizedintheadjacent

soil isdoubletheangleof wall rotation. Accordingly,

fortheinitial cantileverphase, thewall rotationisesti-

matedasonehalf of theshearstrainrequiredtoinduce

thedegreeof mobilizationof shear strengthnecessary

to hold the wall in equilibrium. Osman and Bolton

(2004) usedFEA toshowthatcorrectionfactorsupto

about 2.0 could beapplied to theMSD estimates of

thewall crestdisplacement, dependingonavarietyof

non-dimensional groupsof parametersignoredinthe

simpleMSDtheory, suchaswall flexibilityandinitial

earthpressurecoefficient prior toexcavation.

A typical increment of bulging, ontheother hand,

was calculated in Osman and Bolton (2006) by

consideringanadmissibleplasticmechanismfor base

heave. Inthis case, themobilizedshear strengthwas

deduced fromthe kinematically admissible mecha-

nismitself, usingvirtual work principles. Theenergy

dissipatedbyshearingwassaidtobalancethevirtual

loss of potential energy dueto thesimultaneous for-

mation of a subsidence trough on the retained soil

surface and a matching volume of heave inside the

excavation.Themobilizedstrengthratiocouldthenbe

calculated,andthemobilizedshearstrainreadoff from

thestress-straincurveof arepresentativeelement, as

before. Thedeformation is estimated using therela-

tionshipbetweentheboundarydisplacementsandthe

averagemobilizedshear strain, inaccordancewiththe

original mechanism.

TheMSD solutions of Osman and Bolton (2006)

comparedquitewell withsomenumerical simulations

usingtherealisticnon-linear MIT-E3model, andvar-

ious case studies that provided field data. However,

theseinitial solutions arecapableof improvement in

threewaysthatwill contributetotheir applicabilityin

engineeringpractice.

1 Theoriginal mechanismassumedarelativelywide

excavation, whereascut-and-cover tunnel andsub-

wayconstructionsarelikelytobemuchdeeperthan

their width. TheMSDmechanismthereforeneeds

tobeadaptedforthecaseinwhichtheplasticdefor-

mationfieldsfor thesidewallsinterferewitheach

other beneaththeexcavation.

2 The structural strain energy of the support sys-

temcanbeincorporated. Thiscouldbesignificant

when the soil is weak, and when measures are

taken to limit base heave in the excavation, such

asby basegroutingbetweenthesupportingwalls.

In this case, the reduction of lateral earth pres-

suredueto grounddeformationmay berelatively

small, and it is principally the stiffness of the

structural systemitself that limitsexternal ground

displacements.

3 Progressively incorporating elastic strain energy

requiresthecalculationproceduretobefullyincre-

mental, whereas Osman and Bolton (2006) had

been able to use total energy flows to calculate

theresults of each stageof excavation separately.

A fullyincremental solution, admittinggroundlay-

ering, will permit the accumulation of different

mobilized shear strengths, and shear strains, at

different depths in theground, thereby improving

accuracy.

It istheaimof thispaper tointroduceanenhanced

MSDsolutionthat includesthesethreefeatures. This

is thencomparedwithexistingFEA of bracedexca-

vations which featured a range of geometries and

stiffnesses. It will be suggested that MSD provides

theideal meansof harvestingFEA simulationsfor use

indesignanddecision-making.

16

3 PLASTIC FAILURE MECHANISMS

Limitequilibriummethodsareroutinelyusedinstabil-

ity calculationsfor soft clay whichisidealised, unre-

alistically, as rigid-plastic. Slip surfaces areselected

astheassumedfocusof all plasticdeformations. Fail-

uremechanisms shouldbekinematically admissible,

meaningthat unwantedgapsandoverlapsshouldnot

be produced. Furthermore, in the case of undrained

shearingof clays, aconstant-volumeconditionshould

be respected at every point. A consequence is that

undrainedplane-strainfailuremechanismsmustcom-

priseonlyslipplanesandslipcircles.Thesoil onsuch

failuresurfacesistakentomobilizeitsundrainedshear

strength divided by a safety factor, to maintain the

mechanismin limiting equilibriumunder the action

of gravity, andany other appliedloads. Calculatedin

thisway, thesafetyfactorliterallyoffersanestimateof

thefactor bywhichthestrengthof thesoil wouldhave

to drop before the soil construction would collapse.

Suchestimatesmighterr either onthehighsideor the

lowside, dependingontheparticularassumptionsthat

weremade.

Inthecaseof baseheaveinbracedexcavations,plas-

tic solutions werederivedfromslip-linefields based

onthemethodof characteristics. Suchsolutionscom-

prise both slip surfaces, as before, and plastic fans

which distribute plastic strains over a finite zone in

the shape of a sector of a circle. Notwithstanding

these zones of finite strain, the additional presence

of slipsurfaces still restricts theapplicationof these

solutions to the prediction of failure. Furthermore,

no such solution can be regarded automatically as

anaccuratepredictor of failure, notwithstandingtheir

apparent sophistication. All that can be said is that

theywill leadtoanunsafeestimateof stability. Their

useinpracticecanonly bejustifiedfollowingback-

analysisof actual failures, whether inthefieldor the

laboratory.

Two typical failure mechanisms as suggested by

Terzaghi (1943) and Bjerrum and Eide (1956) are

showninFigure1. They haveeachbeenwidely used

for the design of multi-propped excavations. Terza-

ghi (1943) suggestedamechanismconsistingof asoil

columnoutsidetheexcavationwhichcreatesabearing

capacity failure. Thefailureis resistedby theweight

of acorrespondingsoil columninsidetheexcavation

andalso by adhesionactingalongthevertical edges

of themechanism. BjerrumandEide(1956) assumed

that thebaseof theexcavation could betreated as a

negativelyloadedperfectlysmoothfooting. Thebear-

ingcapacityfactorsproposedbySkempton(1951) are

useddirectlyinthestabilitycalculationsandaretaken

as stability numbers, N=H/c

u

. Eide et al. (1972)

modifiedthisapproachtoaccount for theincreasein

basal stabilityowingtomobilizedshearstrengthalong

theembeddedlengthof therigidwall.

Figure1. Conventional basal stabilitymechanismandnota-

tion(after Ukritchonet al. 2003).

ORourke(1993) further modifiedthebasal stabil-

itycalculationsof BjerrumandEide(1956) toinclude

flexureof thewall belowtheexcavationlevel. It was

assumed that the embedded depth of the wall does

not changethegeometry of thebasal failuremecha-

nism. However, anincreaseinstabilitywasanticipated

duetotheelasticstrainenergystoredinflexure. This

gavestabilitynumbersthatwerefunctionsof theyield

momentandassumedboundaryconditionsatthebase

of thewall.

Ukritchonet al. (2003) usednumerical limit anal-

ysis to calculate the stability of braced excavations.

Upper and lower bound formulations are presented

basedonSloanandKleeman(1995) andSloan(1988),

respectively.Thetechniquecalculatesupperboundand

lower boundestimates of collapseloads numerically,

by linear programming, while spatial discretization

and interpolation of the field variables are calcu-

lated using the finite element method. No failure

17

Figure2. Incremental displacements inbracedexcavation

(after ORourke, 1993).

mechanismneed beassumed and failureboth of the

soil andthewall aretakencareof. However, bothsoil

andwall areagainassumedtoberigidperfectlyplas-

tic so thefailuremechanismincludes aplastic hinge

at thelowest level of support.

All these collapse limit analyses provide useful

guidanceonthepossiblegeometryof plasticdeforma-

tion mechanisms for serviceconditions. But thekey

requirement for MSD mechanisms is that displace-

ment discontinuities (slip surfaces) must beavoided

entirely. Inthat way, small but finitegrounddisplace-

mentsareassociatedateveryinternal pointwithsmall

but finitestrains.

4 WALL DEFORMATIONS

Consider now the deformations of a multi-propped

wall supportingadeepexcavationinsoft, undrained

clay. At eachstageof excavationtheincremental dis-

placementprofile(Figure2)of thegroundandthewall

belowthelowest propcanbeassumedtobeacosine

function(ORourke, 1993) asfollows:

Herew is theincremental wall displacement at any

distance y below the lowest support, w

max

is its

maximumvalue, and l isthewavelengthof thedefor-

mation, regardedasproportional tothelengths of the

wall belowthelowest level of current support:

ORourke(1993) definedthewavelengthof thedefor-

mationasthedistancefromthelowestsupportlevel to

thefixedbaseof thewall. OsmanandBolton(2006)

suggestedadefinitionforthewavelengthof thedefor-

mationbasedonwall endfixity. For wallsembedded

into a stiff layer beneath the soft clay, such that the

wall tip is fully fixed in position and direction, the

wavelength was set equal to thewall length (=1).

For short wallsembeddedindeepsoft clay, themaxi-

mumwall displacementoccursatthetipof thewall so

thewavelengthwastakenastwicetheprojectingwall

length(=2). Intermediatecasesmight bedescribed

asrestrained-endwalls(1--2).

However, these definitions applied only to very

wideexcavations. Whenanarrowexcavationis con-

sidered, thewavelength will belimited by thewidth

of theexcavation. Inaddition, inthecaseof thepar-

tiallyrestrainedwall, thedepthof arelativelystiff soil

stratummay also limit thedepth of thedeformation

pattern.

5 GEO-STRUCTURAL MECHANISMS

Anincremental plastic deformationmechanismcon-

forming to Equation 1 was proposed by Osman and

Bolton (2006) for an infinitely wide multi-propped

excavation in clay. In this mechanism, the wall is

assumed to be fixed incrementally in position and

directionatthelowestprop, implyingthatthewall has

sufficient strength to avoid the formation of a plas-

tichinge. Thewall andsoil aredeformingcompatibly

andthesoil deformationalsofollowsthecosinefunc-

tionof Equation1.Thedimensionsof thismechanism

dependonthewavelengthl.

Figure3(a) showsthecompletedisplacement field

for the mechanismproposed by Osman and Bolton

(2006).Thesolutionincludesfourzonesof distributed

shear whichconsist of acolumnof soil adjoiningthe

excavationabovethelevel of thelowestprop,acircular

fanzonecentredatthelowestprop,anothercircularfan

zonewithits apex at thejunctionof thewall andthe

excavation surface and a 45 degree isosceles wedge

below the excavation surface. It is required that the

soil shearscompatiblyandcontinuouslywithnorela-

tiveslidingattheboundariesof eachzone. Thedotted

lineswitharrowsshowthedirectionof theflow.Along

each of theselines thedisplacement is constant and

is given by the cosine function of Equation 1. It is

assumedthat thezoneoutsidethedeformationzones

is rigid. This mechanismis simple and neat, but it

onlyappliestoverywideexcavations. Inthecaseof a

narrowexcavation, thewidthof thetriangular wedge

couldbebiggerthantheactual widthof theexcavation.

Inviewof this, anewmechanismfor narrowexcava-

tions is proposed in Figure 3(b). The mechanismin

the passive zone (zone EFHI) is replaced. The new

mechanismmeets theconditionfor undrainedshear-

ing, which means that thevolumetric strain remains

zerothroughout thezone.

The following solution approach is an extension

of Osman and Bolton (2006). In their original solu-

tion, soilsareassumedtobehomogenous.Theaverage

shear strain increment in each zoneis calculated by

taking the derivative of the prescribed displacement

18

equation. Then, theundrainedshear strength(c

u,mob

)

mobilized at any location for any excavation height-

was expressed using a single mobilization ratio

( =c

u,mob

,c

u

) tofactor thestrengthprofile. Withthe

use of the virtual work principle, the plastic work

donebyshearingof thesoil wasequatedtothevirtual

change of gravitational potential energy of the soil.

A factor can then be found so that a correspond-

ing mobilized shear strain can be read off fromthe

chosenstress-straincurve. Theincremental displace-

mentcanthenbecalculatedbythecorrelationbetween

theaverageshearstrainincrementandtheincremental

wall displacement.

Thisapproachofferedastraightforwardwaytoesti-

matethebulgingdisplacement of theretainingwall.

However, theapproachrequiresrefinementinorder to

includesomeadditional features that may besignifi-

cant indeepexcavations. Firstly, theapproachdidnot

consider theelasticstrainenergystoredinthesupport

system. Secondly, itiscommontofindanon-uniform

soil stratum with undrained shear strength varying

irregularly withdepth. Furthermore, thegeometry of

thedeformationmechanismchangesastheconstruc-

tion proceeds, so the representation of mobilization

of shear strength through the whole depth, using a

singlemobilizationratio, is only aroughapproxima-

tion. Inrealitytherewill bedifferencesinmobilization

of shear strength at different depths for calculating

incremental soil displacement. Lastly, the original

mechanismof Osman and Bolton (2006) shown in

Figure 3(a) only applied to wide excavations; nar-

row excavations called for the development of the

alternativemechanismof Figure3(b).

Inviewof theseissues, anewfullyincremental cal-

culationmethodhasbeenintroduced, allowingfor the

storageof elasticstrainenergyinthewall andthesup-

port system, andrespectingthepossibleconstriction

of theplastic deformations dueto thenarrowness of

anexcavation.

5.1 Deformation pattern in different zones

FromFigure 3, the soil is assumed to flow parallel

to thewall at theretainedsideabovethelevel of the

lowestsupport(zoneABDC) andtheincremental dis-

placement at anydistancexfromthewall isgivenby

thecosinefunctionof Equation1, replacingybyx.

By taking the origin as the top of the wall, the

deformation pattern of retained soil ABDC is given

inrectangular coordinatesasfollows:

Hard stratum

(a) Incremental displacementfield for wide excavation

Hard stratum

(b) Incremental displacement field for narrow excavation

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

5

4

3

2

1

0

1

2

3

4

5

F I

E H

t

H

h

s

B

L

Excavation

depth

l

dw

max

dw

max

dw

max

dw

max

A B

C D

F

H

I

E

l

w

max

2 ave

t

H

h

s

L

l

dw

max

dw

max

dw

max

A B

C D

F

E

I

H

Excavation

depth

l

B

l

w

max

2

l

w

max

ave 2 . 2

ave

19

Infanzone, CDE, bytakingtheapexof thefanzone

astheorigin

For fanzoneEFHinverywideexcavationsasindi-

catedinFigure3(a), bytakingthejunctionof thewall

andthecurrent excavationlevel astheorigin:

For thetriangular zoneFHI in very wideexcava-

tions, againtakingthejunctionof theexcavationand

thewall astheorigin:

For narrowexcavationsasshowninFigure3(b), a

rectangular zone EFHI of 2D shearing is now pro-

posed. The origin is taken as the mid-point of FE,

mid-wavelengthintheexcavation, at thewall.

In order to get moreaccuratesolutions, it is sup-

posed that the soil stratumis divided into n layers

of uniformthickness t (Figure4). Theaverageshear

straind(m,n) is calculatedfor n layers inm excava-

tionstages. Theincremental engineeringshear strain

ineachlayer iscalculatedasfollows:

In order to get a better idea of the deformation

mechanism, the relationship between the maximum

incremental wall displacement andtheaverageshear

strainmobilizedineachzoneof deformationshould

l

A B

C D

F

E

H

I

s

1

s

1

s

1

s

1

DSS

DSS

PSA

PSP

Layer 1

Layer 2

Layer 3

Layer 4

Layer n

Layer (n-1)

Figure4. Mobilizableshear strengthprofileof anexcava-

tionstageinanlayeredsoil.

beobtained. Ontheactivesideof theexcavation, the

spatial scaleis fixed by thewavelength of deforma-

tion l, and all strain components areproportional to

dw

max

/l. Theaverageengineering shear strain incre-

ment

mob

mobilized in the deformed soil can be

calculatedfromthespatial averageof theshear strain

increments in the whole volume of the deformation

zone.Forawideexcavationi.e.Figure3(a),theaverage

shear strainis equal to 2dw

max

/l. For anarrowexca-

vation, theaverageshear strain (

ave

) of activezone

ABCDandfanzoneCDEis2dw

max

/l and2.23dw

max

/l,

respectively, while

ave

in the passive zone EFHI

dependsbothonthewavelengthl of thedeformation

and the width B of the excavation. The relationship

betweenthenormalizedaverageshear straininEFHI

andtheexcavationgeometryisshowninFigure5.The

correlationsareasfollows:

Apartfromthefirstexcavationstage,all subsequent

deformation mechanisms must partially overlay the

previous ones (Figure6). Dueto thenon-linearity of

soil itisimportanttocalculatetheaccumulatedmobi-

lized shear strain in each particular layer of soil in

order tocorrectlydeducethemobilizedshear strength

of that layer. This is doneby anareaaveragemethod

describedasfollows:

20

Figure 5. Correlation between normalized average shear

strainandexcavationgeometryfor anarrowexcavation.

A B

C D

F

E

H

I

C" D"

F"

E"

H"

I"

n th Layer

Deformation

mechanismof

Excavation stage

m-1

Deformation

mechanismof

Excavation stage

m

Enlarged strip of the nth layer

A(m-1,n)

A(m,n)

Figure6. Overlappingof deformationfield.

where(m, n) isthetotal shear strainof thenthlayer

in the mth excavation stage, and A(m, n) is the area

of deformationinthenthlayer inthemthexcavation

stage.

Withthehelpof somesuitablestress-strainrelation

for the soil (discussed in the following section), the

mobilizedstrengthratio(m,n) at excavationstagem

for soil layer ncanbefound(Figure7).

Figure7. Typical stressstrainrelationshipof soft clay.

5.2 Shear strength mobilized in mechanism

In soft clay, the undrained shear strength generally

varieswithdepth, andwithorientationof shear direc-

tion. The strength matrix c

mob

(m,n) mobilized for

excavationstagem for layer n canbeexpressedusing

a matrix (m,n) on the appropriate undrained shear

strengthprofile. Regardingorientation, anisotropy of

soft soil canbeasignificant factor for excavationsta-

bility. For example, Clough&Hansen(1981) showan

empirical factor basedontheobservationthat triaxial

extension tests give roughly one half the undrained

shear strength of triaxial compression, with simple

shear roughly half way between. Figure4 shows the

orientation of the major principal stress direction

within thevarious zones of shearing in theassumed

plasticmechanismforwideexcavations, andindicates

withacodethesoil test configurationthat wouldcor-

rectlyrepresent theundrainedshear strengthof at the

specific orientation. For locations marked DSS the

assume directions of shearing are either vertical or

horizontal, so the ideal test on a vertical core is a

direct simple shear test. In areas marked PSA and

PSP, shearing takes place at 45 degrees to the hori-

zontal and thesezones arebest represented by plain

strainactiveandpassivetests, respectively. Sincethe

undrainedshearstrengthof thedirectsimplesheartest

isroughlytheaverageof thatof PSA andPSP, therel-

ativeinfluenceof thePSA andPSP zones is roughly

neutral withrespecttodirectsimpleshear.Asaresult,

thedesignmethodfor bracedexcavationcanbest be

basedontheundrainedshearstrengthof adirectsimple

shear test. A similar decisionwasmadebyORourke

(1993).

Theequilibriumof theunbalanced weight of soil

insidethemechanismis achievedby mobilizationof

shearstrength.Foreachexcavationstage,mobilization

21

of shear strength of each layer is considered by the

following:

where c

u,mob

(m,n) is the mobilized undrained shear

strengthfor layer n inexcavationstagem; c

u

(n) isthe

undrainedshear strengthfor layer n; and(m,n) isthe

mobilized strength ratio for excavation stage m and

soil layer n.

5.3 Incremental energy balance

By conservationof energy, thetotal loss of potential

energy of thesoil (LP) must balancethetotal dissi-

patedenergy duetoplastic shearingof thesoil (LD)

andthetotal storedelasticstrainenergyinbendingthe

wall (LU).

Thepotential energy loss ontheactivesideof the

wall andthepotential energygainof soil onthepassive

sidecanbeestimatedeasily. Thenet changeof gravi-

tational potential energy (LP) isgivenby thesumof

thepotential energychangesineachlayer:

wheredw

y

(m, i) isthevertical componentof displace-

ment of soil intheithlayer for themthconstruction;

sat

(m, i) isthesaturatedunit weight of soil intheith

layer for themthconstruction.

Sincetherearenodisplacementdiscontinuities, the

total plasticwork donebyshearingof soil isgivenby

summingtheinternal dissipationineachlayer:

wherec

u

(m,i) is theundrained shear strength of soil

in the ith layer for the mth construction; d(m,i) is

theshear strain increment of soil in theith layer for

themthconstruction;andthecorrespondingmobilized

strengthratioisgivenby:

Thetotal elasticstrainenergystoredinthewall,LU,

canbeevaluatedbyrepeatedlyupdatingthedeflected

shapeof thewall. It isnecessarytodothissinceU is

aquadraticfunctionof displacement:

whereE andI aretheelasticmodulusandthesecond

moment of areaper unit length of wall, and s is the

lengthof thewall inbending. L canbethelengthof

wall s belowthelowest prop.

Byassumingthecosinewaveformequation(Equa-

tion1), thestrainenergy termcanbeshowntobeas

follows:

wherel isthewavelengthof deformation, dw

max

isthe

maximumdeflection of the wall in each excavation

increment.

5.4 Calculation procedure

Thefollowingcalculationprocedureisprogrammedin

Matlab2006b.

1 At eachstageof excavation, amaximumdeforma-

tionw

max

,whichisboundedbyanupperandalower

bound, isassumed. Thesoil stratumisdividedinto

n layers. Theareasonboththeactivesideandthe

passivesideineachlayer arecalculated.

2 For eachlayer, withthehelpof thenumerical inte-

gration procedurein Matlab, themobilized shear

strain and the change in PE on both active and

passivesidesindifferentzonesiscalculated.(Equa-

tion18)Thetotal mobilizedshear strainisupdated

accordingEquation15.

3 Withtheuseof asuitablestress-straincurve(Fig-

ure 7), the mobilizable strength ratio can be

found.

4 Total changeinPEandtotal energydissipationand

elasticbendingenergyinthewall canbecalculated

byEquations18, 19& 21, respectively.

5 By considering the conservation of energy of a

structure in statical equilibrium, the sumof total

energy dissipationandelastic strainenergy inthe

wall balances thetotal changeinPE. To facilitate

solvingthesolution, anerror termisintroducedas

follows:

6 Whentheerror issmaller thanaspecifiedconver-

gencelimit, theassumeddeformationis accepted

asthesolution; otherwise, themethodof bisection

isemployedtoassumeanothermaximumdisplace-

ment andtheerror termis calculatedagainusing

steps1to5.

7 Then, the incremental wall movement profile is

plottedusingthecosinefunctionof equation

8 Thecumulativedisplacementprofileisobtainedby

accumulatingtheincremental movement profiles.

22

6 VALIDATIONBY NUMERICAL ANALYSIS

Thefiniteelement method can provideaframework

for performingnumerical simulations to validatethe

extendedMSDmethodinevaluatingtheperformance

of bracedexcavations. However, finiteelement anal-

ysisof retainingwallsispotentiallyproblematic. One

themost difficult problems is theconstitutivemodel

usedfor thesoil. Thestress-strainrelationshipcanbe

verycomplicatedwhenconsideringstresshistoryand

anisotropyof soil (Whittle, 1993).

The validation of the extended MSD method is

examinedbycomparingitspredictionswithresultsof

comprehensiveFE analyses of aplanestrain braced

excavation in Boston Blue Clay carried out by J en

(1998). In these analyses, the MIT-E3 constitutive

model isused(Whittle, 1987). Themodel isbasedon

ModifiedCamclay(RoscoeandBurland1968). How-

ever, several modificationshadbeenmadetoimprove

thebasiccritical stateframework. Themodel cansim-

ulatesmall strainnon-linearity, soil anisotropyandthe

hysteretic behaviour associatedwith reversal of load

paths. Whittle(1993) alsodemonstratedtheabilityof

themodel toaccuratelyrepresentthebehaviour of dif-

ferent clays when subjected to a variety of loading

paths.

J en(1998) extendedtheuseof theMIT-E3model

for analyzing cases of deep excavation in a great

varietyof situations. Sheconsideredtheeffectof exca-

vationgeometrysuchaswall length, excavationwidth

anddepthof bedrock, theeffectof soil profilesuchas

c

u

/OCR ratioandlayeredsoil, andtheeffect of struc-

tural stiffnesssuchaswall stiffnessandstrutstiffness.

Thisprovidesavaluabledatabasefor validationof the

extendedMSDmethod.

6.1 An example of MSD calculation

ThefollowingexampleshowstheextendedMSDcal-

culationof wall deflections for a40mwall retaining

17.5mdeepand40mwideexcavation(Figure8).The

constructionsequencecomprisesthefollowingsteps:

1 The soil is excavated initially to an unsupported

depth(h) of 2.5m.

2 Thefirst support isinstalledat thegroundsurface.

3 Thesecondlevel of props is installedat avertical

spacingof 2.5m, and2.5mof soil isexcavated.

Theundrainedshearstrengthof thesoil isexpressed

bytherelationshipsuggestedbyHashashandWhittle

(1996) for BostonBlueClay(BBC) asfollows:

Thecantilevermodeof deformationandthebulging

movementsarecalculatedseparatelyusingthemech-

anismof Osman & Bolton (2006) and the extended

Retaining wall

(EI=1440,77 and 19MNm

2

/m)

OCR=1

BBC

properties

C=37.5, 50 and 100m

L=20, 25, 30, 35 and 40m

B/2=15,20,25 & 30m

C

L

h=2.5m

s=2.5m

Figure8. Scopeof parametricstudytoexamineexcavation

widtheffect.

Figure 9. Stress-strain response for Ko consolidated

undrained DSS tests on Boston blue clay (After Whittle,

1993).

MSDmethodasdescribedabove.Thetotal wall move-

mentsarethenobtainedbyaddingthebulgingmove-

ments to the cantilever movements to the cantilever

movement accordingtoCloughet al. (1989).

6.1.1 Cantilever movement

By solving for horizontal force equilibrium and

moment equilibriumabout the top of the wall, the

mobilizedshear stress(c

mob

) isfoundtobe11.43kPa.

Themobilizedstrengthratio is0.2886.Withthehelp

of directsimpleshearstress-straindataforBostonblue

claybyWhittle(1993) (Figure9), themobilizedstrain

is read off for an appropriatepreconsolidation pres-

sure

p

andanappropriateOCR. Themobilizedshear

23

Figure10. Wall deflectionsfromMSDwithdifferentexca-

vationdepths.

strain(

mob

) isfoundtobe0.2%. By consideringthe

geometrical relationship, thewall rotationisfoundto

be 0.1%. The displacement at the top of the wall is

foundtobe39mm.

6.1.2 Bulging movement

The first support is installed at the top of the wall.

The length of the wall below the support is 40m.

By adopting the iterative calculation procedure, and

usingthedeformationmechanismforanarrowexcava-

tion, thebulgingmovementateachstageof excavation

canbeobtained. Then, theincremental bulgingmove-

ment profileineachstageisplottedusingthecosine

function, using the maximumincremental displace-

ment in each stage together with the corresponding

wavelengths. The total wall movement is obtained

by accumulating cantilever movement and the total

bulgingmovement. Figure10shows thefinal defor-

mationprofileof theaccumulatedwall movement of

anexcavationwithawidthof 40m.Themaximumwall

deflectionatanexcavationdepthof 17.5mis115mm.

The position of the maximumwall displacement is

locatedat 0.75L, whereL isthelengthof thewall.

6.2 Effect of excavation width

The effect of excavation width on predicted ground

movements is thefocus of this section. Underground

transportation systems may have excavation widths

ranging from 25m (a subway station) to 60m (an

undergroundhighway). Themost widely useddesign

charts generally incorporatetheeffect of excavation

width in estimation of factor of safety against base

heave(BjerrumandEide, 1956) or asamultiplication

factor in estimating themaximumsettlement (Mana

andClough, 1981).

Thescopeof theexcavationanalysesareshownin

Figure8. Intheanalyses, theexcavationwas carried

out inundrainedconditions inadeposit of normally

consolidated Boston Blue Clay with depth C taken

to be 100m. A concrete diaphragm wall of depth

L =40m, and thickness 0.9m, supported by rigid

props spaced at h=2.5m, was used for supporting

thesimulatedexcavation. Theexcavationwidthvaries

from20mto 60m. The wavelength of deformation

is chosen according to the l =s rule, where was

takento be1.5ands is thelengthof wall belowthe

lowest prop. ComputedresultsbyJ en(1998) areused

forcomparison. Full detailsof theanalysisprocedures,

assumptionsandparametersaregiveninJ en(1998).In

thefollowingsection, onlyresultsof wall deformation

will betakenfor comparison.

Figure11(a) and(b) showthewall deflectionpro-

filewithdifferent excavationwidthsat anexcavation

depthof 17.5m, as calculatedby theextendedMSD

method and the MIT-E3 model. Figure 11(a) shows

that theexcavationwidthdoesnot haveany effect on

the deflected shape of the wall as calculated by the

extendedMSDmethod.Figure11(b),simularly,shows

alimitedeffectonthedeflectedshapeof thewall bythe

MIT-E3model. WhiletheMSD-predictedmaximum

wall deflectionincreasesbyafactorof 1.5asthewidth

isincreasedfrom30mto60m, theMIT-E3computed

maximumwall deformation increased by afactor of

1.6withthesameincreaseinexcavationwidth.

6.3 Effect of bending stiffness of the wall

In general, structural support to excavations is pro-

videdbyawall andbracingsystem. Soldier pilesand

lagging, sheet piles, soil mixandsoldier piles, drilled

piers(secantpiles),andreinforcedconcretediaphragm

wallsareexamplesof wall typesthathavebeenusedto

supportexcavations. Thevarioustypesof wall exhibit

asignificant rangeof bendingstiffnessandallowable

moment. Supportwallscomposedof soldier pilesand

sheet pilesaregenerallymoreflexibleandcapableof

sustaining smaller loads than the more rigid drilled

piersandreinforceddiaphragmwalls.

The preceding sections have all assumed a 0.9m

thick concrete diaphragmwall with elastic bending

stiffness EI =1440MNm

2

/m. Although it is possi-

ble to increase this bending stiffness by increasing

the wall thickness and reinforcement, or by using

T-panels(barettes), most of thewallsusedinpractice

havelower bendingstiffnesses. For example, thetypi-

cal bendingstiffnessof sheetpilewallsisintherange

of 50to80MNm

2

/m. Thissectionassessestheeffect

of wall bending stiffness on the excavation-induced

displacements.

24

Figure 11. Wall deflection profile of different excavation

widthsat H=17.5m.

Excavationinsoft clay withawidthof 40msup-

portedbyawall of length25mandof variousbending

stiffness(EI =1440, 70and20MNm

2

/m) arestudied.

Results generatedby theMSD methodandFEA are

compared. Figure12(a)and(b)presentsthedeflection

profilesof theexcavationspredictedbyextendedMSD

and theMIT-E3 model, respectively. As thebending

stiffnessof thewall decreases, thereisnopronounced

changeintheoverall shapeof thewall; themaximum

wall deflection increases and its location migrates

towardstheexcavatedgrade. AtH=12.5m, themax-

imumwall displacement is 47mmfor the concrete

diaphragmwall withthemaximumdeflectionlocated

at 7.5mbelow theexcavation level, whiletheresult

for the most flexible sheet pile wall shows 197mm

of maximumwall deflectionoccurringat5.5mbelow

theexcavationlevel. Inadditional to this, changes in

Figure12. Deflectionprofilesof wallswithvariousbending

stiffnesses.

wall stiffness also affect the transition froma sub-

gradebendingmodetoatoekicking-outmode.Asthe

wall stiffness decreases, theinfluenceof embedment

depth reduces, and hencethetendency for toekick-

out to occur is less. Again, a fairly good agreement

can beseen when comparing extended MSD results

and numerical results by theMIT-E3 model, though

kinks areusually foundat thewall toeinthenumer-

ical predictions, which implies localization of large

shear strainsdevelopedbeneaththewall toe.

6.4 Effect of wall length

Wall length is oneof thegeometrical factors affect-

ingthebehaviour of asupportedexcavation. Previous

analysesweredonebyOsmanandBolton(2006). The

studies showedthat thewall endconditionshouldbe

assumedtobefreefor short walls(L =12.5m) since

theclayisverysoftatthebaseandtheembeddedlength

isnot longenoughtorestrainthemovement at thetip

of thewall (kick-out modeof deformation). For long

walls (L =40m), the embedded depth was assumed

25

Figure13. Wall deflection profileof excavation with dif-

ferent support wall lengths, byExtendedMSDmethod.

to besufficient to restrain themovement at thewall

base (bulging model of deformation). However, the

effect of structural stiffnesswasnot consideredinthe

old MSD method, though similar observations were

madebyHashashandWhittle(1996)intheirnumerical

analyses.

Inthissection, theeffectof wall lengthwill becon-

sidered. Excavationswithwidthsof 40msupportedby

a 0.9mthick concrete diaphragmwall with varying

length (L =20, 25, 30 and 40m) are studied. Fig-

ure13 shows thewall displacement profiles against

depth with different lengths of wall. For H7.5m,

thedeflectedwall shapesarevirtuallyidentical for all

four wall cases of wall length. This agrees with the

conclusionmadeby Hashash(1992) that wall length

hadaminimal effectonpre-failuredeformations.AsH

increasesto10m, thetoeof the20mlongwall begins

tokick out withmaximumincremental deformations

occurring at the toe of the wall. The movements of

the25, 30 and 40mlong walls arequitesimilar. At

H=12.5m, the toe of the 20mand 25mlong wall

kickout, whilethetwolongerwalls(L =30and40m)

continue to deformin a bulging mode. The differ-

enceindeformationmodeshapedemonstratesthatthe

wall lengthhas asignificant influenceonthefailure

mechanismfor abracedexcavation.

Figure15showsasimilar set of analysesby using

theMIT-E3model.Similarobservationsaboutthewall

shapecanbemade.

Figure 14 summarizes the variation of the nor-

malizedexcavation-induceddeflection(w

max

,H) with

thewidth to length ratio (B/L) for different bending

stiffnessesof thesupport wall, for H=17.5m.

Figure 14. Variation of maximum wall deflection with

widthtolengthratioof wall.

Figure15. Wall deflection profileof excavation with dif-

ferent support wall lengths, by MIT-E3 method (After J en

(1998)).

For aflexiblewall (EI =12.3MNm

2

/m), thenor-

malized maximumwall deflection increases linearly

as theB/L ratio increases from1 to 2. Thegradient

changes andw

max

/H increases in agentlefashion as

the B/L ratio increases from2 to 2.8. For a rigidly

supportedwall, theincreaseinw

max

/Hratioislesssig-

nificant astheB/L ratioincreases. Inother words, the

maximumwall deflectionislesssensitivetoachange

of B/L ratiofor arigidwall.

26

Figure 16. Wall deflection profiles of excavation with

different depthstothefirmstratum.

6.5 Effect of the depth of bearing stratum

Thedepthto bedrock, C, is animportant component

of the excavation geometry. The preceding analyses

haveassumedadeepclay layer withbedrock located

at C=100mwhichrepresentsapractical upper limit

on C. In practice, however, the clay layer is usually

less than100mdeep. Thefollowingresults focus on

the discussion of the geometrical parameter C. The

analysis involves planestrainexcavationinnormally

consolidated Boston blue clay supported by a 0.9m

thickconcretediaphragmwall withrigidstrutsupports

spacedat 2.5m.

The wall deflection profiles for excavations pre-

dictedby bothMSD andMIT-E3withtwo depths of

theclaystratum(C=35mand50m) arecomparedin

Figure16(a) and(b).

Ingeneral, thedepthof thefirmstratumwouldonly

affect wall deformations below theexcavated grade,

hencethelargest effectscanbeseenat thetoeof the

wall. For situationswherethewavelengthof deforma-

tionisrestrictedlessby excavationwidththanby the

depth of thefirmstratum(B>C), themagnitudeof

maximumwall deflectionincreaseswiththedepthof

thefirmstratum(C). TheMSD methodpredicts that

thekick-out displacement of thewall toeis limited

by the restriction of developing a large deformation

mechanism. As a result, the maximumwall deflec-

tionis also limited. Theincreaseinincremental wall

deflectiondecreasesinlaterstagesof excavationwhen

H increases from12.5mto 17.5mdueto thereduc-

tionof wavelengthof deformation. Ontheother hand,

whenthedepthof thefirmstratumismuchlargerthan

thewidthof theexcavation(B-C), thedepthof the

bed rock has a minimal effect on the magnitude of

wall deflection. Results by FEA by J en (1998) (Fig-

ure16(b)) alsoshowedthesameobservation. Despite

theshortcomingof MSDnot beingabletomodel the

correctshapeof wall, themaximumwall deflectionis

predictedreasonablywell. Thenet differenceinmax-

imumwall displacement between MSD and the full

FEA isgenerallylessthan20%.

7 CONCLUDINGREMARKS

AnextendedMSD methodis introducedto calculate

the maximumwall displacement profile of a multi-

proppedwall retaininganexcavationinsoft clay. As

withtheearlierMSDapproach, eachincrementof wall

bulging generated by excavation of soil beneath the

current lowest level of support is approximated by a

cosinefunction. Thesoil isdividedintolayersineach

of whichtheaverageshear strainincrementsarecom-

pounded so that themobilized strength ratio in each

layercanbetrackedseparatelyasexcavationproceeds,

usingstress-straindatafromarepresentativeelement

test matchedtothesoil propertiesat mid-depthof the

wall. Theincremental lossinpotential energyassoci-

atedwiththeformationof asettlement trough, dueto

wall deformationandbaseheave, canbeexpressedas

afunction of thoseground movements at any stage.

By conservationof energy, this must always balance

theincremental dissipationof energythroughshearing

andtheincremental storageof elasticenergyinbend-

ingthewall. Byaniterativeprocedure, thedeveloping

profileof wall displacementscanbefound.

A reasonableagreement is found between predic-

tionsmadeusingthisextendedMSDmethodandthe

FEA resultsof J en(1998) whocreatedfull numerical

solutions usingtheMIT-E3soil model. Inparticular,

theeffectsof excavationwidth, wall bendingstiffness,

wall length, andthedepthof theclaystratum, wereall

quitecloselyreproduced.

It is important to drawtheright lessons fromthis.

Theexcellent work at MIT over many years, on soil

element testing, soil constitutive models, and Finite

27

ElementAnalysis, haveprovideduswiththemeansto

calibrateaverysimpleMSDpredictionmethod. This

was basedonanundrainedstrengthprofile, asingle

stress-strain test, and a plastic deformation mecha-

nism. Wereit not for themultiplelevel of props the

calculationof grounddisplacementscouldbecarried

out inhardly moretimethanis currently requiredto

calculateastabilitynumber or factor of safety. Allow-

ingfortheneedtorepresentvariouslevelsof props,the

calculationsthencall for aMatlabscript or aspread-

sheet, andthewholeprocessmight takehalf aday to

complete.

Anengineer canthereforeanticipatethatimportant

questionswill becapableof approximatebut reason-

ablyrobust answersinasensibleindustrial timescale.

For example:

Will apropspacingof 3mbesufficient for awall

of limitedstiffnessandstrength?

Shouldthebaseof thewall befixedbyjet-grouting

prior toexcavation?

Will aparticular construction sequencecausethe

soil tostrainsomuchthat it indulgesinpost-peak

softening?

Is it feasibleto propthewall at sufficiently close

spacingstorestrictstrainsintheretainedgroundto

valuesthatwill preventdamagetoburiedservices?

Thismayleadengineerstotakesoil stiffnessmore

seriously, andtorequest accuratestress-straindata. If

so, inadecadeperhaps, our Codes of Practicemight

beupdatedtonotethatMSDfordeepexcavationspro-

videsapractical wayof checkingfor theavoidanceof

serviceabilitylimit states.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Theauthorswouldliketoacknowledgetheearmarked

research grant #618006 provided by the Research

Grants Council of the HKSAR Government, and

alsothePlatformGrant (GR/T18660/01) awardedby

theUK EngineeringandPhysical Sciences Research

Council.

REFERENCES

Bjerrum, L. &Eide, O. 1956. Stabilityof struttedexcavations

inclay. Geotechnique 6: 115128.

Bolton, M.D. & Powrie, W., 1988. Behaviour of diaphragm

walls retaining walls prior to collapse. Geotechnique

37(3): 335353.

Bolton, M.D., PowrieW. & Symons, I.F. 1989. Thedesign

of stiff in-situwallsretainingoverconsolidatedclay part.

Ground engineering 22(8): 4448.

Bolton,M.D.,Powrie,W.&Symons,I.F.1990a.Thedesignof

stiff in-situwallsretainingover-consolidatedclay part 1,

short termbehaviour. Ground Engineering 23(1): 3439.

Bolton,M.D.,Powrie,W.&Symons,I.F.1990b.Thedesignof

stiff in-situwallsretainingover-consolidatedclay, partII,

longtermbehaviour. Ground engineering 23(2): 2228.

Clough, G.W. & Hansen, L.A. 1981. Clay anisotropy and

braced wall behavior. ASCE Journal of Geotechnical

Engineering 107(7): 893913.

Clough, G.W., Smith, E.W. &Sweeney, B.P. 1989. Movement

control of excavationsupport systemby iterativedesign.

Foundation Engineering Current Principles and Practices

Vol. 2ASCE, NewYork, NY: 869882.

Eide, O., Aas, G. & J osang, T. 1972. Special applicationof

cast-inplace walls for tunnels in soft clay. Proceedings

of the 5th European Conference on Soil Mechanics and

Foundation Engineering, Madrid, Spain, 1: 485498.

Hashash, Y.M.A. & Whittle, A.J. 1996. Ground movement

predictionfordeepexcavationsinsoftclay.ASCE Journal

of Geotechnical Engineering 122(6): 474486.

J en, L.C. 1998.The design and performance of deep excava-

tions in clay. PhDthesis, Dept. of Civil andEnvironmental

Engineering, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.

Mana, A.I. & Clough, G.W. 1981. Predictionof movements

for braced cut in clay. J. Geo. Engrg. ASCE 107(GT8):

759777.

Milligan, G.W.E. & Bransby, P.L. 1976. Combined active

andpassiverotational failureof aretainingwall insand.

Geotechnique 26(3): 473494.

ORourke, T.D. 1993. Base stability and ground move-

ment prediction for excavations in soft clay. Retaining

Structures, ThomasTelford, London: 131139.

Osman, A.S. &Bolton, M.D. 2004A newdesignmethodfor

retaining walls in clay. Canadian Geotechnical Journal

41(3): 451466.

Osman, A.S. & Bolton, M.D. 2005Simpleplasticity-based

predictionof theundrainedsettlementof shallowcircular

foundationsonclay. Geotechnique 55(6): 435447.

Osman,A.S. &Bolton, M.D. 2006Groundmovementpredic-

tionsforbracedexcavationsinundrainedclay.ASCEJour-

nal of Geotechnical and Geo-environmental Engineering

132(4): 465477.

Osman, A.S., Bolton, M.D. & Mair, R.J. 2006 Predicting

2Dgroundmovementsaroundtunnelsinundrainedclay.

Geotechnique 56(9): 597604.

Skempton, A.W. 1951. Thebearingcapacity of clays. Proc.,

Building Research Congress, London: 180189.

Sloan, S.W. 1988. Lower bound limit analysis using finite

elementsandlinear programming. International Journal

for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics

12(1): 6177.

Sloan, S.W. & Kleeman, P.W. 1995. Upper bound limit

analysis using discontinuous velocity fields. Computer

Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 127:

293314.

Terzaghi, K.1943. Theoretical soil mechanics, J ohnWiley&

Sons, Inc., NewYork, N.Y.

Ukritchon, B., Whittle, A.J. & Sloan, S.W. 2003. Undrained

stability of braced excavations in clay. ASCE Journal of

Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 129(8):

738755.

Whittle,A.J. 1987.A constitutive model for overconsolidated

clays with application to the cyclic loading of friction

piles. PhD thesis, Dept. of Civil and Environmental

Engineering, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.

Whittle, A.J. 1993. Evaluation of a constitutive model for

overconsolidatedclays. Geotechnique 43(2): 289313.

28

Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground Ng, Huang & Liu (eds)

2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-48475-6

Overviewof Shanghai YangtzeRiverTunnel Project

R. Huang

Commanding Post of Shanghai Tunnel & Bridge Construction, Shanghai, P.R. China

ABSTRACT: Inthepaper, anintroductionof theconstructionbackgroundandscaleof Shanghai YangtzeRiver

Tunnel andBridgeProject andnatural conditionsof Shanghai YangtzeRiverTunnel constructionaregiven. The

overall designconcept andsomecritical technical solutionssuchassegment structureof largediameter bored

tunnel, water proofingof segment under highdepthandwater pressure, longtunnel ventilationsystemandfire

fightingsystemaredescribed. Characteristicsof twomixedTBM withadiameter of 15,430mmaredescribed.

Theoverall constructionmethodsof tunnel, andcritical technical solutionsandriskprovisionmeasuresfor large

andlongriver-crossingtunnel suchasthefrontsurfacestabilityforboredtunnel construction, floatingresistance

of largediameter tunnel, longdistanceconstructionsurvey, synchronousconstructionof internal structure, and

crosspassageconstructionof fresh/saltyalternatinggeological/environmental conditionarediscussed.

1 INTRODUCTION

Shanghai YangtzeRiver Tunnel andBridgeproject is

located at the South Channel waterway and North

Channel waterway of Yangtze River mouth in the

northeast of Shanghai, which is a significant part

of national expressway, as shown in Figure 1. It is

anextremely major transport infrastructureproject at

seashore area in China at Yangtze River mouth and

alsothelargesttunnel andbridgecombinationproject

worldwide. Thecompletionof theproject will further

promotethedevelopmentspaceforShanghai, improve

the structure and layout of Shanghai traffic system,

develop resources on Chongming Island, acceler-

ate economic development in the north of J iangsu

Province, increasetheeconomy capacity of Pudong,

accelerate the economy integrity of Yangtze River

Delta, boomthe economic development of Yangtze

River areaand even thewholecountry and upgrade

thecomprehensivecompetenceof Shanghai inChina

andevenintheglobal economy.

ShanghaiYangtzeRiverTunnel andBridge(Chong-

ming Crossing) alignment solution is the planned

westernsolutionwhichisimplementedfirstlybasedon

theShanghai overall urbanplanning, andcomparison

betweeneast andwest alignment andincombination

of variousaspects. Thewesternalignment startsfrom

Wuhaogou in Pudong, crossingYangtzeRiver South

Channel waterwaytoChangxingIslandandspanning

Yangtze River North Channel waterway to east of

ChongmingIsland.

YangtzeRiver beginstobedividedinto3levelsof

branchesandhave4mouthsflowingintothesea: The

Figure1. Sitelocationof ChongmingCrossing.

South Channel waterway is mixed river trench. The

intermediate slow flow area forms Ruifeng shoal

whichisrelatively stablefor alongtime. Thenatural

water depthmakesit asthemainnavigationchannel.

However, the North Channel waterway is located in

the middle part of river, which is influenced by the

south part and branch transition into North Channel

waterway. So the trench varies alternatively and the

river mapisnot asstableasSouthChannel waterway.

Therefore, after iterativediscussionbyseveral parties,

finally thesolution of SouthernTunnel & Northern

Bridge isselected. Thetotal project is25.5kmlong,

among which 8.95kmis tunnel with adesign speed

of 80km/hand9.97kmisbridgeand6.58kmisland

connectionwithadesignspeedof 100km/h, asshown

29

Figure2. Diagramof Shanghai YangtzeRiverTunnel andBridge.

in Figure 2. The total roadway is planned as dual

6lanes.

2 CONSTRUCTIONBACKGROUNDAND

PLANNING

The planning study of Shanghai Yangtze River Tun-

nel and Bridge Project (Chongming Crossing) was

incepted from90s of last century. The preliminary

preparatoryworkhaslasted11years. InMay1993, the

National ScientificCommitteeheldtheYangtzeRiver

mouthcrossingsignificanttechnical-economical chal-

lenges earlystageworkmeeting.Afteroneyearspe-

cial investigation, thePreliminarystudyreportof sig-

nificanttechnical challengesof YangtzeRiver Cross-

ing wasprepared.Thepre-feasibilitystudyreportwas

prepared in March 1999. InAugust 2001, the inter-

national concept competition was developed and the

Southern Tunnel & Northern Bridge solution was

defined. TheNational PlanningCommitteeapproved

theprojectproposal inDecember2002.Thefeasibility

study report was approvedby theNational Develop-

ment andReformCommitteeinNovember 2004. The

preliminary design was approved by theMinistry of

CommunicationinJ uly 2005andtotal investment of

12.616billionRMB wasapprovedfor theproject.

For the project construction investment, 5 billion

wasfundedbyShanghai ChengtouCorporation(60%)

andShanghai RoadConstructionCooperation(40%),

and7.6billionwasfinancedfromBankConsortium.

Basedonthecharacteristics of thenational major

project, Commanding Post of Shanghai Tunnel &

BridgeConstructionwasestablishedwithapproval of

Shanghai Municipal Committee. Thepost is directed

bythevicemajor andcomposedof staff fromPudong

NewArea, ChongmingCountyandother committees

andbureaus. Themainresponsibilityistomakedeci-

siononsignificantproblemsandcoordinateimportant

items. Inorder toimprovethedepthof dailymanage-

ment, officewas set upunder thecommandingpost,

workingtogether withestablishedShanghai Yangtze

River Tunnel and BridgeConstruction Development

Co., Ltd. whichismainlyinchargeof theimplemen-

tation of theproject and daily work of commanding

post and performs the investment management on

behalf of theclient. Thespecific work is responsible

for thefinancing, investment, construction, operation

and transfer of the project. To detail the technical

assurancemeasures, theclients sets up thetechnical

consultant teamwhich provides theoretical support,

technical assistanceandconsultancyserviceforsignif-

icant technical challengesduringtheimplementation.

Meanwhile, theteamisinvolvedintheinvestigationof

significanttechnical solutions, reviewof construction

methodstatementandtreatmentof technical problems

to ensure the high quality and safety. International

well-knownconsultancy companies areentrustedfor

thepurposeof applicationof state-of-art philosophy,

mostsuccessful experience, optimal conceptandmost

maturemanagementtomaketheYangtzeRiverTunnel

andBridgeProject asCenturyEliteProject.

The project finally initiated on 28th, December

2004andplannedto beopento traffic inJ uly 2010.

Themaincivil structureof thebridgeisplannedtobe

closedinJ une2008, andtunnel inApril 2009.

3 NATURAL CONDITIONSOF TUNNEL

PROJ ECT

3.1 Environmental conditions

Shanghai YangtzeTunnel Project starts fromWuhao-

gou of Waigaoqiao in Pudong NewArea, connected

withShanghai mainfast roads suchas MiddleRing,

OuterRingandSuburbRingthroughWuzhouAveneu,

crossing southern water area and lands on Changx-

ingIsland400mwestof XinkaiheHarbour, connected

withChangxingIslandroadnetthroughPanyuanInter-

change.Themainbuildingonlandisthefloodpreven-

tionwall onPudongsideandChangxingIsland.Others

arefarmfields.Theriver-crossingsectionismainlythe

30

Figure3. Longitudinal profileof tunnel.

southernwater wayfor navigationwhichisanimpor-

tantpassagefor connectingYangtzeWaterswithother

seashoreareainChinaandoceansworldwide.

Therearetwoseacablesarrangedalongthebored

tunnel axis with a depth of 3mbelow natural river

bed. One cable is basically located at the west side

of thetunnel andgoes into theriver near Wuhaogou

on Pudong side, which is about 1,500maway from

thetunnel. It becomes closer to thetunnel gradually

tothenorthandcrossesthetunnel toitseast at 240m

fromChangxingIslandandlandsonChangxingIsland

at 350mwest of XinkaiheHarbour. Theother cable

goes into theriver near Wuhaogou, 1,300away from

thetunnel. Thenit turnstoNE first andN at 2,600m

wayfromPudongLandConnections, almostidentical

with the tunnel alignment. And it changes fromthe

west of tunnel to east of tunnel gradually and lands

on Changxing Island about 300mwest of Xinkaihe

Harbor.

Furthermore, two sunkenboats closeto Chainage

XK2+350 and XK1+500 have been salved before

boredtunnel construction. Earthwasalsofilledback

atcorrespondinglocations; however, theremaybestill

someremains.

3.2 River regime and hydrological conditions

Atthemouthof YangtzeRiveritistideareawithinter-

mediatelevel. Outsideof mouthisregularhalf daytide

andinsideisirregular half dayshallowtideduetothe

changeof tidewave.Averagefloodtidetimeis5hand

averageebbtidetimeis7h, sototal timefor ebband

fluxis12h. Theaveragecurrencyflowis1.05m/sfor

flood tide during flood season and 1.12m/s for ebb

tide. Themaximal flowfor floodtideis1.98m/sand

2.35m/sfor ebbtide.

The underground water type in the shallow stra-

tumat tunnel siteis potential water, whichhas close

hydraulicrelationwithriverwater.Thepotential water

level is mainly influenced by theYangtzeRiver flux

andebb. Theaveragewater level for Waigaoqiaoand

ChangxingIslandis2.8mand2.4m, respectively.

In the stratum and at site area, the con-

finedwater is rich. At most area, theconfinedwater

is directly continuous. The confined water level is

between 4.15mand 6.76m. Furthermore, slight

confined water distributes in

2

, which has certain

hydraulicrelationswithconfinedwater in.

3.3 Geological conditions

Therelief of onshoreareaof theprojectisrivermouth,

sandmouth,sandislandwhichiswithinthemajorfour

relief units in Shanghai. Theground surfaceis even

withanormal elevationof 3.5m(WusongElevation).

Thewater areaisclassifiedasriver bedrelief.

Theprojectsitehasaseismicfortificationintensity

of 7, classified as IV site. The stratum

3

and

2

sandysilt distributingonPudonglandareaisslightly

liquefied.

Main geological layers (refers to Figure 3) TBM

crosses are:

1

grey muddy clay,

1

grey muddy

clay,

2

grey clayey silt withthinsilty clay,

3

silty

clay,

3

tlens,

11

grey clay silt,

12

grey sandy

silt, etc. Unfavorablegeological conditions areexpe-

riencedalongtheaxisof thetunnel, suchasliquefied

soil, quick sand, piping, shallowgas (methane), lens

andconfinedwater, etc.

4 TUNNEL DESIGNSOLUTION

4.1 Scale

Shanghai Yangtze River Tunnel is designed as dual

6lanesexpressway, andrail traffic provisionismade

belowtheroaddeck. Seismic fortificationlevel is 7.

31

Figure4. Crosssectionof boredtunnel.

Design service life is 100 years. The project con-

sists of landconnections of Pudongside(657.73m),

river-crossingtunnel (east tube7,471.654mandwest

tube7,469.363m) andlandconnections on Changx-

ingIsland(826.93m). Total lengthis8,955.26mand

investmentis6.3billionRMB.Theriver-crossingpart

istwin-tubeboredtunnel.

4.2 Tunnel alignment

Thelongitudinal profileof boredtunnel isinashapeof

W withalongitudinal slopeof 0.3%and0.87%. The

landconnectionshavealongitudinal profileof 2.9%.

The minimal curvature radius of horizontal plane is

4,000mandvertical profile12,000m.

4.3 Building design

4.3.1 Cross section of bored tunnel

Basedonstructural limitof trafficpassageandequip-

ment layout requirement, the internal diameter of

lining for bored tunnel is determinated as 13.7m

considering the fitted tolerance of lining at curved

section,constructiontolerance,differential settlement,

and combining the design and construction experi-

ence. Onthetopof tunnel, smokedischargeductsare

arrangedforfireaccidentwithanareaof 12.4m

2

.Each

tunnel hasthreelaneswithastructural clear widthof

12.75mandroadlaneclear height of 5.2m. Thecen-

tral partbelowroaddeckisfor rail trafficprovisionin

future. Ontheleft side, besidetheburiedtransformer

arrangement, it alsoservesasmainevacuationstairs.

The right side is cable channel, including provision

spacefor 220kV power cable, asshowninFigure4.

4.3.2 Cross-section of land connections

Working shaft is underground four-floor building:

1 is for ventilation pipe and pump plant for fire

fighting; 2 is for road lanewith cross over; 3 is

for rail traffic provisionandpower cablegallery and

4isfor wastewater pumpplant.

The cut-and-cover is designed with a rectangular

shape consisting of two tubes and one cable chan-

nel. 3lanes arearrangedineachtube. Thestructural

limitis13.25minwidthand5.5minheight, asshown

inFigure5. Upper areawithaheight of 0.6mis for

equipmentprovision.Theupper partof central gallery

is for cablechannel, middlepart for evacuation and

lowerpartforpipeditch.Ventilationshaftandbuilding

for equipments arearrangedabovethecut-and-cover

tunnel closetotheworkingshaft.

Theapproachconsists of light transitionzoneand

openramp.Thestructural limitof crosssectionisiden-

tical withthatof cut-and-covertunnel. Bothsideshave

aslopesectionwithaslopeof 1:3withgreenplanting

for protection. Thelighttransitionzoneisdesignedas

steel archstructure.

4.4 Structural design

4.4.1 Structural design of bored tunnel

The external diameter of bored tunnel lining is

15,000mm and internal diameter 13,700mm, as

shown in Figure6. Thering width is 2,000mmand

thicknessis650mm. Precastreinforcedconcretecom-

montaperedsegments areassembledwithstaggered

joint. ConcretestrengthclassisC60andseepageresis-

tance class is S12. The lining ring consists of 10

segments, i.e. 7 standard segments (B), 2 adjacent

segments (L), and 1 key segment (F). According to

the different depth, segments are classified as shal-

lowsegments, middle-deepsegments, deepsegments

andextremelydeepsegments. Skewboltsareusedto

connect segmentsinlongitudinal andcircumferential

direction.38M30longitudinal boltsareusedtocon-

necttherings. 2M39circumferential boltsareused

toconnectthesegments. Shearpinsareaddedbetween

32

Figure5. Cross-sectionof cut-and-cover.

Figure6. Liningstructure.

liningringsatshallowcoverarea, geological condition

variationareaandcrosspassagetoincreasetheshear

strengthbetweenringsat special locationandreduce

thestepbetweenrings.

4.4.2 Structural design of land connections

Theworking shaft and cut & cover tunnel sharethe

same wall. The thickness of diaphragmof working

shaft is 1,000mm, and the inner wall is 500mm,

1,200mm, respectively. For thecut-and-cover tunnel,

the thickness of diaphragm is 1,000mm, 800mm,

and600mmrespectivelydependingontheexcavation

depth. Theinner structurethicknessis600mm.

For theopen cut ramp, thebottomplatestructure

thicknessisaround5001,100mm. Under thebottom

plate, boredpilesarearrangedasup-liftingresistance

piletofulfil thestructural floatingresistancerequire-

ment. Theslopeuses in-situcast reinforcedconcrete

grid and fill earth and green planting in thegrid for

protection.

4.5 Structural water-proof and durability design

4.5.1 Requirement and standard

Fortheboredtunnel andworkingshaft, thewaterproof

standardof slightlyhigherthanlevel II isrequired. For

33

(a) (b)

Figure7. Segment joint water proofingsketch.

theentiretunnel, theaverageleakageshould beless

than0.05L/m

2

d. For eachrandom100m

2

, theleak-

ageshouldbelessthan0.1L/ m

2

d. Theinner surface

wet spots shouldnot bemorethan4of total inner

specificsurfacearea. Ineachrandom100m

2

, thewet

spots shouldnot bemorethan4locations. Themax-

imal areaof individual wet spot should not belarge

than0.15m

2

.

Thechloridediffusioncoefficient of concretelin-

ing structure of bored tunnel is not more than

1210

13

m

2

/s. Concreteseepageresistanceclassis

notlessthanS12.Furthermore,itisrequiredthatunder

1MPawaterpressurewhichisequivalentto2timesof

waterpressureforthetunnel withthelargestdepth, no

leakageisoccurredwhentheliningjoint opens7mm

andstaggers 10mm. Thesafety servicelifeof water

proof material is100years.

The seepage resistance class of onshore tunnel

structureisnot lessthanS10.

4.5.2 Water proofing design

Thesegmentjointwaterproof arrangementconsistsof

EPDMrubberstripwithsmall compressivepermanent

deformation, small stress relaxation and good aging

resistanceperformanceand hydrophilic rubber strip,

asshowninFigure7.

Thedeformationjoint at cut-and-cover tunnel uses

embedded water stop gasket, outer pastegasket and

inserted sealing glue forming enclosed system. The

top plate uses water proof paint as outer water

proof layer.

4.6 Tunnel operation system

4.6.1 Ventilation system

The road tunnel uses jet fan induced longitudinal

ventilationcombinedwithsmokeventilation.

Thelongitudinal ventilationareaintunnel is82m

2

.

J et fansaresuspendedabovethedecklaneandbelow

thesmokedischargeduct, supportinginducedventi-

lation in normal operation and congested condition.

78jet fanswithadiameter of 1,000mmarearranged

ineachtubefromPudongaccesstoChangxingIsland

access, every3asagroup.

VentilationshaftsarearrangedonPudongsideand

ChangxingIsland, respectively, housinglargeventila-

tion machineandspecial smokedischargeaxial fan.

Thefans areconnectedwithmaintunnel throughair

inlet and ventilation duct. During normal operation

and congested condition, the ventilation machine is

turnedontodischargethepollutedair inthetunnel. 6

largeaxial fanswithacapacityof 75m

3

/s 150m

3

/s

arehousedintheworkingshaftonChangxingInsland

andPudong, respectively.

For normal operation of lower rail traffic, piston

ventilationmodeisused.

4.6.2 Water supply and drainage system

The fire water, washing waste water, and structural

leakagearecollectedby thewastewater sumpat the

lowest point of river. Sumpis arrangedat upper and

lower level, respectively. The lower waste water is

drainedby therelay of upper sump. Theupper sump

is arranged on two sides of rail traffic area, housing

34

four pumpswhichareusedalternativelyunder normal

operation and turned on entirely during fire fight-

ing. For lower level, 4 sumps with a dimension of

1,0001,000550mmare arranged at the lowest

point of tunnel whereSGI segment isusedandabove

thesumpwater collectiontrenchwithalengthof 7m

andawidthof 1misarranged. Onewastewater pump

is placed in each pit which are used alternatively at

normal conditionandthreeareused, onespareduring

firefighting.

At each access of tunnel, one rain water sump is

arrangedto stopwater anddrainit out of thetunnel.

Therainamount isdesignedbasedonareturnperiod

of 30yearsfor rainstorm.

4.6.3 Power supply system

Theelectricityloadintunnel isclassifiedasthreelev-

els: level I is for ventilation fan, valve, water pump,

lightingandmonitoring& control systemanddirect

currentscreen, etc; level II isfortunnel inspectionand

repair,andventilationfanintransformerplant;level III

isfor air conditioningcoldwater machines.

OnPudongsideandChangxingIsland, two trans-

formers arearranged. Two independent 35kV power

circuits are introduced respectively and can be used

as spare power for the other through two connec-

tioncables. Eachrouteensurestheelectricity loadof

level I and II in the tunnel. For the dynamical and

lighting load far away fromtransformers, thepower

is supplied through 10kV power supply network in

thetunnel andembeddedtransformersunderneaththe

tunnel toensurethelongdistancepower supplyqual-

ity andreduceenergy losses. 6kV power is supplied

for theconcentratedventilationfan. Lightingelectric-

ityissuppliedbyindependent circuit inpower supply

system.

4.6.4 Lighting system

Light belt isusedfor lightinginthetunnel. At portal

area, natural light transitionandartificial light com-

binationisusedfor lighting. Fluorescencelampisthe

mainlightsourceinthetunnel. Strengtheninglighting

uses thehigh pressuresodiumlamp. Takingaccount

of the energy consumption, the application research

of LEDwithhighpower isbeingdeveloped. Theshift

timefor emergency lightinginthetunnel shouldnot

belarger than0.1sandtheemergencytimeis90min.

4.6.5 Monitoring and control system

Thecomprehensivemonitoringsystemconsistsof traf-

ficmonitoringsystem, equipmentmonitoringsystem,

CCTV monitoring system, communication system,

fire automatic alarming system, central computer

management system, monitoring and control center.

Equipmentmonitoringsystemisclassifiedasventila-

tionsubsystem, water supplyanddrainagesubsystem,

lightingsubsystem, andelectrical monitoringsubsys-

tem.Monitoringsystemhasaccessprovisionforhealth

monitoringsystem, andexpressway net traffic moni-

toring emergency center, rail traffic monitoring and

220kV, etc.

The information collected by the tunnel monitor-

ingsystem, bridgemonitoringsystem, andtoll station

systemis transferred to the monitoring and control

center inthetunnel andbridgeadministrationcenter

on Changxing Island. Furthermore, one administra-

tioncenter is arrangedat WuhaogouonPudongside

assistingthedaily management andemergency treat-

ment, establishingthethreelevel frameof monitoring

andcontrol center administrationcenter outfield

equipment.

4.7 Fire-fighting system

The fire fighting sytemdesign cosists of balanced

and redundant design of safety and function for the

entire tunnel structure, building, water supply and

drainageandfirefighting, emergencyventilationand

smoke discharge, lighting, power supply and other

subsystems. Thedetailsareasfollows:

Crosspassageisarrangedevery830mconnecting

theupchainageanddownchainagetunnel for pas-

senger evacuationwithaheightof 2.1mandwidth

of 1.8m. Three evacuation ladders are arranged

betweentwo cross passages connectingtheupper

andlower level.

The passive fire proof design uses the German

RABT fireaccident temperaturerisingcurve. The

fire accident temperature is 1,200

C. Fire proof

inner lining which ensures the surface tempera-

tureof protectedconcretesegmentisnotmorethan

250

thearchabovesmokeduct, smokeduct andcrown

above the finishing plate. For rectangular tunnel,

fireproof material whichensuresthestructuretop

platesafety within 90 minutes is selected to pro-

tect thetopplateand1.0mbelowthetopplate. To

ensurethepassengerevacuation,fireproof bursting

resistancefibreis mixedintheconcretebulkhead

to achieveno damageof structurewhenstructure

isexposedtofirefor 30minutes.

Theventilation systemis designed based on only

onefireaccidentinroadtunnel andrail trafficarea.

The marginal arch area of bored tunnel is used

for smoke duct. Special smoke ventilation valve

is arranged every 60mfor the smoke ventilation

incaseof fireaccidents onroadlevel. Whenfire

accidentoccursinlowerlevel, ventilationfaninthe

working shaft is turned on to ventilatethesmoke

tothesideof firesourcewhilepassengersevacuate

towardsthefreshair.

The emergency lighting is arranged on two sides

withthesametype. Asthebasic lighting, inserted

intothebasic lightinguniformly. Meanwhile, nor-

mal lightingandemergencylightingareinstalledin

35

thecablepassage. Evacuation guidancesigns are

arranged on the two sides of road, cross passage

andsafetypassage. Emergencytelephoneguidance

signsarearrangedabovethetelephonesintunnel.

Fire water supply at both ends of tunnel is from

theDN250water supplypipeintroducedfromtwo

different municipal water pipeswithout firewater

pond. One fire fighting pump plant is arranged

in working shaft on Pudong side and Changx-

ing Island, respectively. The fire hydrant system

is continuous in the longitudinal evacuation pas-

sage. Firehydrant groupisarrangedevery50mat

onelanesideineachtunnel andfireextinguisher

groupevery 25m. Foam-water sprayingsystemis

usedinthetunnel whichcanprovidedfoamliquid

continuouslyfor 20minandarrangedevery25m.

The communication and linkage of each sub-

systemof comprehensivemonitoring and control

system can realize the monitoring, control and

test of thewholetunnel suchas fan, water pump,

electrical and lighting equipment. Fire automatic

alarming systemcan detect the possible hazards

suchas firefast, real-timeidentify andalarmand

has the function of passage alarming and tunnel

closed. Furthermore, corresponding equipments

canbeautomaticallyactivatedtoextinguishthefire

at earlytimeandorganizethehazardpreventionto

reducethelosstotheminimumextent.

5 +15, 430MM SLURRY MIXEDTBM

Two large slurry pressurized mixed shield machines

withadiameter of 15.43mareusedfor theconstruc-

tionof 7.5mlongboredtunnels.

5.1 TBM performance and characteristics

TheTBM consistsof shieldmachineandbackupsys-

temwithatotal lengthof 13.4mandweightof 3,250t,

including cutter head system, shield body, tailskin,

main drive, erector, synchronized grouting system,

transportsystem,guidancesystemanddataacquisition

systemandslurrysystem.

The TBM has excavation chamber and working

chamber.Duringadvancing,theairbubbleinthework-

ing chamber is adjusted through the control unit to

stabilize the slurry level thus balance the water/soil

pressureinexcavationchamber, asshowninFigure8.

Thethrustsystemconsistsof 19groupsthrustcylin-

ders with a total thrust force of 203,066kN. Cutter

head is drived by 15 motors with 250kW power, so

thetotal power is 3,750kW. Installation position for

twosparemotorsisalsoprovided. Tailskinseal struc-

tureiscomposedof threerowssteel wirebrushesand

onesteel platebrush, forming3greasechambers. The

erector systemis centrally supportedwith6freedom

Figure8. Bulkheadof MixshieldTBM.

degrees. Vacuumsuction plated is used to grasp the

segment. 6-point grouting is used for simultaneous

grouting.

Backupsystemconsistsof 3gantries:gantry1hous-

ing thepower equipment and control system, gantry

2 housing 3 cranes and bridge section for segment,

road element, and other construction material trans-

port, gantry 3 is pipelaying gantry for carrying the

extensionof thedifferent servicessuchascablehose,

slurry, air andindustrial water pipes.

Excavated soil is transported from excavation

chamber to theslurry treatment plant (STP) through

theslurry pipeintheslurry circulationsystem. After

separationbythetreatment equipment, excavatedsoil

withlargesizeisseparatedandthentherecycledslurry

ispumpedbackintoexcavationchamber andworking

chamber.

5.2 Adaptability to the large, long and deep

characteristics

For theTBMconstruction, firstlytheprojectandcrew

safetyshouldbeensured.Thekeyforsafetyof TBMis

toprotectthecutterheadandtailskin,mainlyincluding

cutter headdesign, mainbearingseal andtailskinseal

assurance. Furthermore, the maintenance and repair

of theseparts arerisk and difficult to access, so the

inspectionandpossibility for maintenanceincaseof

failuremust beconsidered.

5.2.1 Cutter head and cutting tools

Cutter head is for soft ground and can berotated in

two directions. The cutter head is pressure resistant

steel structureandspecificwearprotectionisarranged

for theperipheryarea. Special wear protectionisalso

designedfor cuttingtools.

The closed type cutter head is designed with 6

main arms and 6 auxiliary arms, 12 large material

openingand12small material opening. Theopening

ratioisaround29%. 209cuttingtoolsarearrangedon

36

Figure9. Mainbearingseal arrangement.

thecutter head, amongwhich124fixedscrapers, 12

buckets, 2copycutters, 7replaceablecenter toolsand

64replaceabletools.

Thescrapersarecustommadelargetoolswithfea-

tures of 250mm width, wear-resistance body and

highquality carbidealloy cuttingedges whoseangle

matchestheparameterof excavatedground.Thescrap-

ers at theedgeareusedto removetheexcavatedsoil

at edgeand protect thecutter head edgefromdirect

wear.Copycuttercanautomaticallyextendandretract.

Themultipleover-cut areas can besetup in thecon-

trol cabinandcorrespondingcuttingtoolspositionare

displayed. Thereplaceablecuttingtools havespecial

seal topreventtheslurryatthefrontsurfaceenter into

thecutter headchamber. Duringoperation, thework-

ers can enter thecutter head chamber to replacethe

cutting tools under atmospheric condition with high

safety, goodoperationpossibilityandlowrisk.

In order to avoid clogging at cutter head center,

theopeningat center isdesignedaschutetoeasethe

material flowing. Meanwhile, one bentonite hole is

arrangedat each openingto easeflushingin caseof

clogging.

5.2.2 Main bearing seal

Two sets seal systemarearrangedfor themainbear-

ing seal design. The outer seal is for the excavation

chamber sideandinner seal for theshieldbody with

normal pressure. The special seal combination can

bear apressureof 8.5bar.

Outer seal istoseparatethemainbearingandexca-

vation chamber. Seal type is axial seal with large

diameter, totally 4 lip seals and one pilot labyrinth,

thusforming4separateareas, asshowninFigure9.

Theinner seal onethegear boxsideisspecial axial

seal whichcancarrythepressureof gear chamber.

The seal systemhas grease lubrication and leak-

agemonitoringsystemwhichcanmonitor thegrease

amountbypressureandflowmonitoring.Theseal sys-

temhasbeenprovedsuccessfullyinmanyprojectsfor

several yearsandbecomeastandardconfiguration.

5.2.3 Tailskin

Thetailskin is sealed off by 3 rows steel wirebrush

and 1 steel plate brush, as shown in Figure 10.

Figure10. Tailskinstructure.

Furthermore, 1 emergency seal is arranged between

the3rdrowsteel wirebrushandthesteel platebrush.

Theemergencyseal hasthefunctiontoprotectthering

buildingareafromwater ingress whilechangingthe

first threesteel brushseals. Duetonopractical appli-

cationreferencesof thistechnology, modelingtesthas

beencarriedoutfor theemergencyseal installationto

confirmthereliabilityof theemergencyseal whenthe

inflatableseal ispressurizedto1MPa.

Simultaneous grouting lines are arranged at the

tail skin, including one standard grout pipeline and

one spare pipeline for filling the annulus gap out-

side the segment after excavation. Furthermore, 19

chemical grout pipesareaddedfor special hardening

grout (simultaneous slurry penetrating into cement)

or polyurethanefor leakageblock inemergency con-

dition. 193greasepipes havethefunctionof steel

wirebrushlubricationandtail skinsealing. Theseal

systemiscontrolledfromthecabinetinautomaticand

manual modesthroughtimeandpressurecontrol.

Furthermore, freezingpipelinesarearrangedatthe

tailskintoeasethegroundtreatmentbymeansof freez-

ing measures in caseof leakageand ensuretheseal

treatment andrepair safety.

5.2.4 Man lock and submerged wall

Duringlongdistanceadvancing, thereisapossibility

of operation failure of mixing machine due to large

obstacles blockingsuchas stones, mainbearingseal

replacement due to wear, submerged wall closed or

leakageexaminationintheair bubblechamber. These

maintenance and repair work need workers access

theair bubblechamber withapressureupto 5.5bar.

Therefore, two manlocks arearrangedto ensurethe

maintenanceandrepair workerscanaccess.

Themainchamber of manlockcanhouseone1.8m

stretcher.Underpressure-reducingcondition,themed-

ical staff can access themain chamber and organize

rescueincaseof emergency.Meanwhile,theotherman

lock can transport thetools, material and equipment

fromTBM totheair bubblechamber.

Themanlockisequippedwithpoisonousgasdetec-

tion systemwhich can take the sample of enclosed

gas in the man lock. The system information will

be displayed at the working position where outside

37

staff is. The man lock also provides the flange con-

nection. Once the rescue and injuries enters into

temporary rescue chamber, the temporary chamber

can be disassembled fast and transported out of the

tunnel, connectedwithlargemedical chamber for the

convenienceof medical worktorescue.

The submerged wall uses hydraulic drive and is

equipped with air pressure seal strip. When normal

operationintheworkingchamber isneeded, thesub-

mergedwall canbeclosedthustheexcavationchamber

andworkingchamber canbeseparated, andthenthe

valvecanbeopenedfor reducingthepressure. At this

time, pipefor supplementingslurry whichpenetrates

workingchamber canmaintaintheslurry pressurein

theexcavationchamber.

6 TUNNEL CONSTRUCTIONMETHOD

6.1 Overall arrangement and time schedule

Basedontheoverall programming, theconstructionof

working shafts, bored tunnel, synchronous construc-

tionof roadstructure,operationequipmentinstallation

andcommissioningarethemainworksandsecondary

works such as receiving shaft and crosspassage in

parallel.

InMay2006, thelaunchingshaftandonshorestruc-

turesonPudongsidewerecompletedandsiteassembly

of twoTBMsstarted. Theeasttunnel startsadvancing

inSeptember2006, whilewesttunnel inJ anuary2007.

During construction of these two tunnels, the pre-

fabricatedroadelement erectionandTBM advancing

are synchronous, which on one hand resist the tun-

nel floatingduringconstructionstageandontheother

handprovidespecial truckpassagefor segments, pre-

fabricatedroadelements andmaterials to realizethe

fast boredtunnel construction. Inparallel withbored

tunnel construction, theroaddeckstructureconstruc-

tionisalsocarriedout200250mbackfromsegment

erectionandtopsmokeduct will start constructionin

J anuary, 2008, forminggraduallyworkingflowintun-

nel. After west tubeTBM advancing 3km, the first

crosspassage started construction in October, 2007.

After thetunnel is through, final connectionwork of

working shaft and road structure is carried out and

operationequipmentandfinishingandpavementwork

will start.

6.2 Main critical technical issues during bored

tunnel construction

6.2.1 TBM launching and arriving technology

6.2.1.1 TBM launching

(1) Tunnel eyestabilization

3-axial mixing pile and RJ P injection procedure is

used surrounding the working shaft to stabilize the

ground forming a stabilized area of 15min length.

6dewateringwellsforbearingwateraresupplemented

Figure11. Water stoptanksketch.

beyondthetreatedgroundareaandholesareboredfor

groutingtheannulus to ensurethesafety duringtun-

nel gateremoval.Thesethreemeasuresapplicationhas

achievedgoodperformance. DuringTBM launching,

thetreatedsoil isstable.

(2) Tunnel annulusseal

Thediameterof tunnel eyeisupto15,800mm.Topre-

vent theslurry entersintotheworkingshaft fromthe

circularbuildgapbetweentunnel eyeandshieldorseg-

mentduringlaunchingthusaffecttheestablishmentof

front facesoil andwater pressure, goodperformance

seal water stoppingfacilityisarranged. Thefacilityis

aboxstructurewith2layerswaterstoprubberstripand

chainplateinstalled, asshowninFigure11. Theout-

sidechainplateis adjustablewith50mmadjustment

allowance. Furthermore, 12grout holes arearranged

uniformly alongtheoutsidebetweentwo layer water

stoponthebox for thepurposeof sealingincaseof

leakage at the tunnel eye. The outer end surface of

water stopfacilityshall bevertical tothetunnel axis.

(3) Backsupport forTBM

Theback up shield support includes 7 rings, among

which-6is steel ringcomposedof 4largesteel seg-

ments with high fabrication quality to ensure the

circularityandstiffnessof thereferencering, asshown

inFigure12. After precisepositioningof steel ring, it

issupportedontheconcretestructureof cutandcover

tunnel by19steel strutswithalengthof 1.2m. Other

6 minus closed rings segments are assembled with

staggered joint. Inserts are embedded on the inside

andoutsidesurface. After eachringbuilding, thecir-

cumferential ringandlongitudinal ringareconnected

withsteel platetoimprovetheintegratestiffnessand

ensurethecircularityandringplaneevenness. Mean-

while, the circumferential plane of each minus ring

shall bevertical tothedesignaxis.

6.2.1.2 TBM receiving

(1) Arrangement inreceivingshaft

BeforeTBMreceiving, thediaphragmbetweenreceiv-

ing shaft and cut & cover tunnel and thediaphragm

inthereceivingshaft betweenupchainageanddown-

chainagetunnel shall becompletedtomakethereceiv-

ing shaft as an enclosed shaft structure. Then MU5

cementmortariscastintheworkingshaftwithaheight

38

Figure12. BacksupportsforTBM.

of 3mhigher thantheTBM bottom. Steel circumfer-

ential plateisarrangedalongthesteel tunnel annulus.

Theinner diameter of steel plateis 5cmlarger then

TBM. 18 grout holes are arranged surrounding the

tunnel annulus and inflatable bag is installed in the

tunnel eye.

(2) TBM arriving

Whenthecuttingsurfaceof TBM isclosetothecon-

cretewall of tunnel eye, advancing is stopped. Then

pumpwater inthereceivingshaft totheunderground

water level. Meanwhile, inject doublegrout into the

annulus 30mback fromtailskin through the preset

grout holeonthesegment tostabilizetheasbuilt tun-

nel andblockthewater/soil seepagepassagebetween

untreatedgroundandTBM.

After above work, the TBM starts excavation of

C30glass fibrereinforcedconcreteandaccesses the

working shaft. The cutting surface accesses into the

working shaft and thecutter head will cut theMU5

cementmortardirectlyandsitonthemortarlayer.Dur-

ingaccessinginto theworkingshaft, polyurethaneis

injectedthroughthechemical groutingholes.

(3) Tunnel eyesealingandwater pumping

When2/3of TBM accessesthereceivingshaft, water

pumping is started. After pumping the water in the

workingshaft, continuetheTBMadvancingandinject

the grout timely. When theTBM is in the working

shaft, fill air intheinflatablebagintimetomakethe

inflatedbagseal thecircumferential gap. Meanwhile,

groutingisperformedthroughthe18holesonthetun-

nel annulus. Grout material ispolyurethane. After the

gapisfullyfilledwiththegrout, theair ininflatedbag

could bereleased slowly under closeobservation. If

any water leakageisobserved, thepolyurethaneshall

beinjectedagainfor sealing.

Whenthetunnel gateringisout of thetailskin, the

weldingworkbetweenringsteel plate, seal steel plate

andembeddedsteel platesshall bedoneimmediately

tofill thegapbetweentunnel gateringandtunnel.

6.2.2 TBM advancing management

6.2.2.1 Mainconstructionparameters

DuringTBM construction, theconstruction parame-

tersshall bedefinedandadjustedbasedontheoretical

calculation and actual construction conditions and

monitoreddatatorealizedynamical parametercontrol

management.

Theadvancingspeedat beginningandbeforestop

shall not be too fast. The advancing speed shall be

increasedgraduallytopreventtoolargestartingspeed.

Duringeachringadvancing, theadvancingspeedshall

beas stableas possibletoensurethestability of cut-

tingsurfacewater pressureandsmoothness of slurry

supplyanddischargepipe. Theadvancingspeedmust

be dynamically matching with the annulus grout to

fill the build gap timely. Under normal boring con-

dition, the advancing speed is set as 24cm/min. If

obstacles varying geological conditions are experi-

encedat thefront face, theadvancingspeedshall be

reducedapproximatelyaccordingtoactual conditions.

Basedonthetheoretical excavationamount calcu-

latedfromformulaandcomparedtoactual excavated

amount whichiscalculatedaccordingtothesoil den-

sity, slurry discharge flow, slurry discharge density,

slurrysupplydensityandflow, andexcavationtime, if

theexcavationamountisobservedtoolarge, theslurry

39

density, viscosityandcuttingfacewater pressureshall

becheckedtoensurethefront surfacestability.

In order to control theexcavated soil amount, the

flowmeteranddensitymeterontheslurrycircuitshall

becheckedperiodically.Theslurrycontrol parameters

are: density =1.151.2g/cm

3

, viscosity=1825s,

bleedingratio-5%.

Single type grout is used to inject at 6 locations,

whichiscontrolledbybothpressureandgroutamount.

Thegroutpressureisdefinedas0.450.6Mpa.Actual

groutamountisaround110%of theoretical buildgap.

20h-shear strength of grout shall not be less than

800Paand28daystrengthshall beabovetheoriginal

soil strength.

6.2.2.2 Shallowcover construction

At the launching section, the minimumcover depth

is 6.898m, i.e. 0.447D, which is extremely shallow.

Toensurethesmoothadvancing, 12msoil isplaced

abovethetop. Meanwhile, inorder to prevent slurry

blow-out,leakage-blockingagentismixedintheslurry

andsurfaceconditioniscloselymonitored.

6.2.2.3 Crossingthebankof YangtzeRiver

Before theTBM crossing, the terrain and land fea-

tureintheconstructionsurroundingareaarecollected,

measuredandphotographedfor filing. 155monitor-

ingpointsarearrangedalongthebankin7monitoring

sections. During TBM crossing, the pressure is set

accordingtothewater pressureat excavationsurface

calculatedfor eachring. Theslurry parameter isalso

adjustedtimelybasedonthesurfacemonitoringinfor-

mation. Greaseinjectionattail skinisperformedwell

to avoidleakageandsynchronous grout amount and

qualityarestrictlycontrolled.

6.2.2.4 Adversegeological condition

(1) Shallowgas

When the TBM is crossing the deposit on Pudong

side, methane gas may be experienced in the shal-

low area. At this time, the ventilation in the tunnel

shall be increased to ensure good ventilation condi-

tionsof TBM. Theconcentrationtest of methaneand

combustiblegasarecarriedout.

(2) Lens

Prior to the construction, geological investigation is

carriedouttolearnthegeneral locationof prism. Dur-

ingconstruction, theTBMissetwithsuitablespeedto

crossthestratumasfast assafelypossible.

(3) Boredhole

Due to the tunnel alignment adjustment, 9 geologi-

cal bored holes will be experienced along theTBM

advancing. Duringcrossing, slurrywithlargedensity

is used and polyurethaneis injected surrounding the

tunnel after crossing.

6.2.3 Quality assurance technical measures for

large tunnel

6.2.3.1 Segment prefabrication

Nine sets steel formwork with high preciseness are

used for segment prefabrication to fulfill thetechni-

cal requirement to segment such as allowable width

tolerance0.40mm, thicknesstolerance+3/1mm,

arclength1.0mm, circular surfaceandendsurface

plainness 0.5mm. In order to control prefabrica-

tion preciseness strictly and ensure the production

quality, special laser survey system is introduced

to conduct accurate measurement of segment pro-

filedimensionbesidetraditional surveymeasurement

toolsandsegment trial assembly.

Fly ash and slag are mixed in the concrete

for segment prefabrication. Strictly concretecasting,

vibrating and curing procedures are used to control

cracks andachievethewater proofinganddurability

requirement.

6.2.3.2 Segment assembly

Thesegment assembly shall satisfy thefitted tunnel

designaxisrequirementbysegmentselection(rotation

angle) andmeanwhilemakethelongitudinal joint not

onthesameline. Duringthewholeassemblyprocess,

forstraightline,theprincipleistoerectonleftandright

at intervals. For curvedsection, thesuitablesegment

rotationangleshall beselectedbasedonTBMattitude,

andsegment lippingdata.

Secondly, therelativedimensionbetweensegment

andshieldshall becheckedtocorrect thepositioning

of eachringsegment.

Then, eachsegment buildingshall beclosely con-

tacted. TheringplaneandT joint shall beeven.

Finally, strictly control the lipping of ring. When

the segment lipping exceeds the control value, the

rotational angle of segment shall be adjusted timely

to ensuretheverticality betweensegment andtunnel

axis.

6.2.3.3 Floating-resistanceof tunnel

Due to the tunnel diameter up to 15m, the floating

resistance and deformation control during construc-

tion for large diameter tunnel are very challenging.

Thetechnical measureis mainly to improvethesyn-

chronous grouting management. Mortar type grout-

ingmaterial withcementationproperty is injectedat

multi-points. Furthermore, groutpackagewithcertain

strengthshall beformedsurroundingthetunnel timely

toresist thetunnel upfloating. Meanwhile, thetunnel

axisshall bestrictlycontrolledduringconstructionand

thetightconnectbetweensegmentsshall beimproved

toachievethetunnel-floatingresistance.

6.2.3.4 Grounddeformationcontrol

The ground settlement during TBM construction is

mainly contributed by the front surface slurry pres-

suresetup, annulusgroutingandshieldbody tamper.

40

Figure13. STP systemflowchart.

Therefore, thegroundsettlementvariationcandirectly

reflect theTBM construction parameters setup. The

crewcancorrect theconstructionparameter basedon

settlement monitoringtoincreasethedeformation.

6.2.4 Back-up technology for long distance TBM

construction

6.2.4.1 Slurrytreatment andtransport

Theslurry separation systemconsists of subsystems

of treatment, conditioning, new slurry generation,

slurry discharge and water supply; with a capacity

of 3,000m

3

/h to fulfill the advancing requirement

of 45mm/min, as shown in Figure 13. Based on

thegeological conditionsalongthetunnel alignment,

thetreatment systemselects 2 level treatment meth-

ods. The initial treatment uses two rolling shieve to

separatesoil withasizeof larger than7mm. For sec-

ondary treatment, firstly grain with a size of large

than 75 is separated by 4750mmcyclones and

thengrainwithasizeof largethan40misseparated

by 12300mmcyclones. Theslurry spilledat the

topof cycloneistransportedtoconditioningtank for

reuse. After adjustment, thedensityof suppliedslurry

is 1.051.35g/cm

3

. Themaintained optimal valueis

between 1.20 and 1.30 and d50 is between 40 and

50m. The STP systemcirculation efficiency is up

to70%. Dischargedslurryandwasteistransportedto

thebardgeatriversidebypipesandtrucks. Theslurry

supply pipehas adiameter of 600mmanddischarge

pipe500mm.Toensurethelongdistanceslurrysupply

velocity of 2.5m/s anddischargevelocity of 4.2m/s

toavoidslurrysettlementinpipeandmaintainnottoo

highpressureinthepipe, onerelaypumpisarranged

every1km. Thepressureat pumpoutlet iscontrolled

within10bar.

6.2.4.2 Axiscontrol andconstructionsurvey

guidance

Static measurement withGPS control net is usedfor

surfacecontrol survey. For elevationcontrol, GPSele-

vationfitmethodisusedfor elevationtransfer. Partof

basic traversemark every 500mis selected as main

traverse. Inthetunnel, level II subtraverseisusedfor

theplanecontrol, i.e. construction traverseand con-

trol parallel traverse. Thecontrol mark has aspacing

of 600900m. Theelevationcontrol survey intunnel

useslevel II. Thefixedlevel mark isarrangedwitha

spacingof 80m.

6.2.4.3 Constructionventilationandfireprotection

Duetothelargediameter, longdistanceandW lon-

gitudinal slope, especiallywhentheTBMisadvancing

withaupgradingslope, theheat andhumidity gener-

atedattheworkingfacecannotbedischargednaturally

thus concentrate at the working face in a shape of

fog. Meanwhile, heavy trucks for constructionmate-

rial transport also causealargeamount of wasteair

41

inthetunnel. Badenvironment will haveunfavorable

influenceonTBMequipmentandcrew, andalsoaffect

thesmoothprogressingof surveyactivity.

During construction stage, 2 special axial fans

(SDF-No18) are arranged on the surface to provide

fresh air to thespacebelowroaddeck in thetunnel,

then the relay fan and ventilation systemequipped

on the gantry will transport the fresh air to work-

ing surface. Meanwhile, other ventilation equipment

on the gantry provides fresh air to main secondary

equipments of TBM such as transformer, hydraulic

equipment andelectrical installations.

Adequate fire extinguishers are arranged in the

shield and gantry and also oxygen, poisonous gas

protection mask are equipped. Fire extinguisher is

equipped on each transport truck. Safety staff is

equippedwithportablegasanalysisdevicefor check

theair qualityintunnel everyday.

6.2.4.4 Material transport

Segment, grout and prefabricated elements, etc are

transportedtotheworkingareabyspecial trucksfrom

ramparea, throughcut & cover tunnel androaddeck

which is constructed synchronously. Truck transport

can avoid the derailing problems during traditional

electrical truck transport. Furthermore, thetruck has

twolocos, sothetransport efficiencyishigh.

Prefabricated road element is transported to the

gantry 2by trucks andthenliftedanderectedby the

craneonthebridgebeam. Segmentsaretransportedto

gantry2andthentransferredtothesegmentfeeder by

thecraneonthebridgebeamandthentransportedto

erectionarea.

6.2.5 Critical equipment examination and

replacement technology

6.2.5.1 Mainbearingsealing

Four supersonic sensors are installed in the seal

arrangementfor monitoringthemainseal wear condi-

tion. Oncetheabrasionreachescertainvalueorgrease

leakageismonitoredinthetank, it indicatesthemain

seal needstoberotatedtoanother oritentation.

Oncetheseal wearisobservedbeyondpresetvalue,

thesurfacecouldbemovedtoensurethereplacement

of mainbearingseal. Duringreplacing, theslurry in

thechambermustbedrainedandprovideeffectivesup-

port to excavation face. Theoperation staff shall go

totheslurry camber toreplacetheseal under certain

pressure.

6.2.5.2 Abrasionmeasurement andreplacement of

cuttingtools

Thesystemwill beinstalledon8selectedscraperposi-

tions as well as on two bucket positions. It will be

connected to a plug at the rear of the cutting wheel

to allowfor simpleconditiondiagnosis fromaread-

outdevice. Conductor loopisembeddedinthedevice.

Thewear condition of cuttingtools can beindicated

bycheckingtheclosed/openstatusof loops.

Theworker accesses thecuttingwheel arms from

thecenter of themain drive. Theworker installs the

lowering/ lifting frame (with bolts) and screws it to

the fixing plate of the tool. The fixing plate is then

unscrewed. Theworker will thenlower thetool using

the frame (with bolts). The pressure-tight gate will

be closed down. The worn out tool shall be then

exchangedwithanewone. Thetool will beliftedto

positionbehindthegate.Thegatewill beopened.Then

the tool will be put in its final position. The fixing

plateisthenscrewedtothetool support. Theframeis

transferredtothenext tool.

6.2.5.3 Tail seal andsteel wirebrushreplacement

When the leakage is experienced at tail skin, and

steel brushisdefinedtobereplacednecessarily, open

the emergency sealing and erect special segments.

Strengthenthesurroundingsoil attail skinwithfreez-

ing method and then replace first 2 or 3 rows steel

brush.

6.3 Synchronous construction of road deck

The synchronous construction of road structure

includes erectionof roadelement, segment roughen-

inganddrillingfor insertingrebar, prefabrication of

two sideballast, insitu cast corbel and road deck on

twosides.Accordingthevariationandtrendof asbuilt

ringdeformationandsettlement, andtheconstruction

progress of 12m(6 rings) per day and based on the

requirement of deformation joint arrangement every

30m, the construction is organized and arranged as

flowingoperationevery15m. AsshowninFigure14,

thebasicconstructionprocedureisasfollows:

Roadelement installation, 25ringslater thanseg-

ment erection.

Segment rougheningincludesthejunctionsurface

between ballast and segment and segment inner

surfaceat corbel. Theinsert bar placing includes

the+16bar at ballast and+20bar at corbel. The

rougheningworksatballastpositioniscarriedoutat

gantry2, andtherougheningoperationplatformat

corbel isfixedtogantry2. Insertbar placingisfol-

lowinggantry3.Theroughingmachineisequipped

withdust suctionfacility whichcaneliminatethe

dust tomaximumextent.

Reinforcement placing, formwork erection and

concretecasting for ballast is carried out at 15m

behindthegantry3and15mmorebehindfor cor-

bel,andthenanother15mforroaddeck.Roaddeck

concretecastingworksarelocatedat250m300m

fromthesegment erectionarea. After casting, the

curing with frame lasts 3 days and formwork is

removedonthe4thday. After 28days curing, the

roaddeckcanbeopentotraffic. Duringcuring, the

42

Figure14. Synchronousconstructionflowchart.

roaddeckareaisseparated. Concretemixingtruck

isusedfor concretecasting.

6.4 Cross passage construction

Thecross passagewhichconnects thetwo maintun-

nelshasalengthof around15manddiameter of 5m.

Theconstructionwill beby freezingmethodfor soil

strengtheningandminingmethodfor excavation.

Thefreezingholes arearrangedas insideandout-

side rows which are drilled from two sides. The

freezingisdonefromonesideorbothsides. Insiderow

holes aredrilledfromupchainagetunnel, 22in total

and outsiderowholes aredrilled fromdownchainge

tunnel, 18intotal.

Miningmethodwill beusedfor excavationbyarea

division. Firstly, pilot with a horn opening is exca-

vated, andthenthecrosspassageisexcavatedtodesign

dimension. Thefullsectionexcavationis donewitha

stepof 0.6mor 0.8m.

Whenthemainstructureconcretestrengthreaches

75%, enforced thawing will be carried out. The hot

brinefor thawing circulates in thefreezing pipeand

the frozen soil is thawed by section. Based on the

informational monitoringsystem, thesoil temperature

andsettlementvariationismonitored. Groutingpipeis

arrangedat shallowanddeeper areafor densegrout-

ing. Theoverall principlefor thawing is to thaw the

bottompart, thenmiddlepart, andlastly thetoppart,

as shown in Figure 15. When thawing by section is

doneinsequence, onesectionisbeingthawedandsub-

sequentsectionsmaintainthefreezingfor thepurpose

of maintaining thecross passagestructureand main

tunnel asanintegratedpart thussettlement avoidance

beforethesectiongrouted.

6.5 Land connections construction

Theprofiledimensionof workingshaftis22.449m,

with a depth of 25m. 1.0mthick diaphragmwith a

depthof 45misusedfor retainingstructure. Opencut

isusedfor excavation. Thesupport systemconsistsof

5layersreinforcedconcreteand1layer steel support.

Insidethepit, 3mbelowthebottom, injectionisdone

interval tomakethestrengthnot lower than1.2MPa.

13.516.0moutsidetheworkingshaft is treated. For

43

Figure15. Dividedthawingareaof crosspassage.

diaphragmat theTBM accessing into the receiving

shaft, GFPR isusedinsteadof normal reinforcement

so that theTBM can cut the retaining wall directly

and thus avoid the reinforcement cutting and tunnel

eyeconcreteremoval, whichsimplifies theconstruc-

tionprocedure, acceleratesconstructionprogressand

reducestheconstructionrisk.

The excavation depth of pit for Pudong cut-and-

cover is 23.19.9m, and Changxing cut-and-cover

17.2m8.4m. According to the excavation depth,

diaphragmwiththicknessof 1.0m, 0.8mand0.6mis

selectedrespectively.Thesupportsystemiscomposed

of reinforcedconcretesupport andsteel support. 3m

underneath the pit bottomis strengthened by rotat-

ing injection and also thejunction between working

shaft andcut-and-cut outsidethepit toensurethepit

excavationstability.

Therampisopencutwithaslopeof 1:3. Theslope

is protectedthroughgreenplantinginthereinforced

concretegridwhichisanchoredinsoil by anchorsto

prevent fromsliding. Inorder to avoidslopesliding,

theslopeisstrengthenedby cement mixedpileswith

adiameter of 700mm.

7 CONCLUSION

During the process from planning to implementa-

tion, Shanghai YangtzeRiver Tunnel hasexperienced

various challenges. Technical support of tunnel con-

struction fromChina and abroad is provided. With

indenpendently developed and owned IPR and fea-

turedTBM tunnel constructiontheory andcoretech-

nologyisestablished, formingthecoretechnologyof

large and long river-crossingTBM tunnel in China.

Special technical issuessuchasliningstructuredesign

of extremely large tunnel, long distance TBM con-

struction and hazard prevention systemfor long and

largetunnel achievetobeinternally state-of-art. Rel-

evant standards, codes, guidance, specification and

patenttechnologyaredevelopedtoimprovethetechni-

cal systemof tunnel constructioninChinaandupgrade

theinternal competenceof tunnel engineering.

REFERENCES

Cao,W.X. etal. 2006. Shanghai YangtzeRiverTunnel Project

design. Shanghai Construction Science andTechnology 5:

26.

Chen, X.K. & Huang, Z.H. 2007. Shanghai Yangtze River

Tunnel TBMcuttingtoolsweardetectionandreplacement

technology. The 3rd Shanghai International Tunneling

Symposium Proceedings: Underground project construc-

tion and risk provision technology: 152157. Tongji

UniversityPublicationCompany.

He, R. & Wang, J.Y. Shanghai Yangtze River Tunnel syn-

chronousconstructionmethodstatement. The 3rd Shang-

hai International Tunneling Symposium Proceedings:

Underground project construction and risk provision tech-

nology:168177.Tongji UniversityPublicationCompany.

Sun, J. & Chen, X.K. 2007. Discussion of TBM selection

for Shanghai Yangtze River Tunnel. The 3rd Shanghai

International Tunneling Symposium Proceedings: Under-

ground project construction and risk provision technol-

ogy: 9198. Tongji UniversityPublicationCompany.

Yu, Y.M. & Tang, Z.H. 2007. Shanghai YangtzeRiver Tun-

nel construction survey technology. The 3rd Shanghai

International Tunneling Symposium Proceedings: Under-

ground project construction and risk provision technol-

ogy: 158167. Tongji UniversityPublicationCompany.

Zhang, J.J. et al. 2007. Shanghai YangtzeRiver Tunnel TBM

launching construction technology. The 3rd Shanghai

International Tunneling Symposium Proceedings: Under-

ground project construction and risk provision technol-

ogy: 144151. Tongji UniversityPublicationCompany.

44

Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground Ng, Huang & Liu (eds)

2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-48475-6

Undergroundconstructionindecomposedresidual soils

I.M. Lee

Department of Civil Engineering, Korea University, Seoul, Korea

G.C. Cho

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, KAIST, Daejeon, Korea

ABSTRACT: Largescaleundergroundconstructionprojects, includingsubway constructionprojects insix

major cities, have been ongoing in Korea, where residual and granite soils are the most common soil type.

Characteristicsof decomposedgranitesoilsaredifferentfromthoseof puresandand/orclay.Thispaperpresents

an overview of geotechnical aspects of underground construction in urban areas where mostly decomposed

residual soils arepresent, focusing on mechanical properties, apparent earth pressure, effect of groundwater,

and effect of spatial variability in geotechnical properties. Although several important aspects are theoreti-

cally, numerically, and experimentally discussed herein, it remains a challenge to fully understand residual

soils, particularly in relation to the practice of underground construction, because of their complexity and

richness.

1 INTRODUCTION

Large scale subway construction projects have been

ongoing in six major cities in Korean peninsular.

Inparticular, undergroundconstructionwork of sub-

way line No.9 is being carried out under the Seoul

Metropolitan Government along with extension of

subway lines No.7 and No.3. Construction of anew

subway line(LineNo.2) will belaunchedinIncheon

thisyear andwill befinishedbeforetheAsianGames

areheldin2014.

Residual andgranitesoilsarethemostcommonsoil

typeinKorea. Characteristicsof decomposedgranite

soilsaredifferentfromthoseof sandand/orclay.Their

mechanical properties andbehaviors vary depending

on the parent rock types and weathering processes.

Moreover, theprofileof thegroundinKoreais gen-

erally not uniform, isotropic, or homogeneous; mul-

tilayeredconditions arecommon, withgroundbeing

composedof successivelayersof fill and/or sedimen-

tary layers, weatheredresidual soils, andsoft tohard

rock. Therefore, conventional/classic soil mechanics

cannot bedirectlyappliedtothesegroundconditions.

Inordertoprovidedataandmethodologiestoenhance

undergroundconstructioninareascharacterizedbythe

predominant presenceof decomposed residual soils,

thispaperpresentsanoverviewof geotechnical aspects

of underground construction in urban areas where

decomposedresidual soilsarethemaingroundcom-

ponent, focusing on mechanical properties, apparent

earth pressure, effect of ground water, and effect of

spatial variabilityingeotechnical properties.

2 MECHANICAL PROPERTIESOF RESIDUAL

SOILS

2.1 General

Wehaveintensively studiedthecharacteristics of the

following two residual soils: Shinnae-dong and Poi-

dong soils. The characteristics of the two soils are

documentedinTable1(i.e., thetypeof mineral, com-

pactionproperties, plasticity, andsoil classification).

The parent rock of the Shinnae-dong soil is a gran-

itewhilethat of thePoi-dongsoil is abandedbiotite

gneiss.TheShinae-dongsoil isclosertoacohesionless

soil, predominantly consisting of primary minerals,

with only about 10%of fineparticles. On theother

hand, thePoi-dongsoil showsclay-likecharacteristics

due to a large percentage of fine particles and sec-

ondaryminerals. Theparticlesizedistributionsof the

twosoilsareshowninFigure1.

Lee (1991) studied the behavior of a Bulamsoil

in his Ph.D. dissertation. The characteristics of the

Bulamsoil are similar to those of the Shinna-dong

soil, sincetwoareas arevery closetoeachother and

share the same rock origin. Kim(1993) studied the

mechanical behavior of Andong and Kimchun soils.

Thesesoils areclassified as SM in theUnified Soil

45

Table1. Characteristicsof tworesidual soils.

Characteristics Poi-dong Shinnae-dong

Primaryminerals

Quartz (%) 17.7 33.3

Feldspar (%) 15.0 50.0

Mica(%) 9.8 9.0

Secondaryminerals

Kaolinite(%) 23.5 6.0

Illite(%) 20.7

Vermiculite(%) 8.4 2.0

Chlorite(%) 4.5

Montmorilonite(%)

Porosity 0.409 0.358

Maximumdrydensity(kN/m

3

) 16.68 18.64

Percent passing#200sieve(%) 47.36 10.05

Plasticity Nonplastic

LI 34.0

PL 19.84

PI 14.16

Specificgravity 2.74 2.65

USCS SC SW-SM

Note: LI =liquidityindex; PL =plasticlimit; PI =plasticity

index; USCS=UnifiedSoil ClassificationSystem.

Figure1. Particlesizedistributionof tworesidual soils.

ClassificationSystemwiththepercentpassinga#200

sieve being 1417%, and are also included in the

followingdiscussiononmechanical characteristicsof

residual soils.

2.2 Strength characteristics

Figure2presentsasummaryof thepeakinternal fric-

tionangleof eachresidual soil. Theinternal friction

angledecreaseswithanincreaseof finecontents.

Becauseof capillarity, partial saturationaffectsthe

strengthof residual soils. Leeet al. (2005) performed

triaxial teststoobtainthestrengthpropertiesof unsat-

uratedresidual soils. Figure3presentstypical results

of failureenvelopes at different matric suctions. The

internal frictionangleaswell astheapparentcohesion

increasewith an increasein thematric suction (i.e.,

whenthesoil isunsaturated).

Figure2. Peak internal frictionangleversus finecontents

passingthe#200sieve.

Figure3. Failureenvelopesat different matricsuctions.

Lee et al. (2002) performed shear tests on unsat-

urated residual soils and found that the apparent

cohesioncanincreasefrom20kPaat asaturatedcon-

dition(i.e., matricsuction=0kPa) upto200kPaatan

unsaturatedcondition(i.e., matricsuction=400kPa).

As an unsaturated soil is re-saturated, its appar-

ent cohesion can beeliminated. Thus, during tunnel

construction, cohesion loss can be induced by re-

saturation(e.g., seepagehindrance, drainageclogging

and groundwater change), and may result in tunnel

faceinstability. Utilizingthelimit equilibriumanaly-

sisproposedbyLeca&Dormieux(1990), asshownin

Figure4, therequiredsupportpressuretostabilizethe

46

Figure 4. Collapse mechanismof a tunnel face with two

conical blocks.

Figure5. Groundconditionfor limit equilibriumanalysis.

tunnel facecanbecalculatedbyreplacingthespecific

apparentcohesionwithavalueof zero.Asanexample,

thegroundconditionof asiteisshowninFigure5.The

requiredsupportpressure

increasesfromzeroupto

to0kPa. Theresultsshowthat theapparent cohesion

isakeyfactor intunnel facestability.

2.3 Deformation characteristics

Oneof themost difficult tasks ingeotechnical engi-

neering is estimating the deformation-related soil

properties properly. Typical material properties com-

monly usedat thedesignstageinKoreaaresumma-

rizedinTable2.

Cho et al. (2006) proposed an analytical method

toestimatesoil parametersfromrelativeconvergence

measurements. Asanexample, thegroundconditions

of theBusansubway siteareshowninFigure6. Ini-

tial estimates aretakenfromTable2. Thecrownand

sidewall convergencedatameasuredby atapeexten-

someter, presentedinFigure7, areusedas observed

values. Resultsobtainedfromback-analysesaresum-

marizedinTable3alongwithinitial estimates. There

isalargediscrepancybetweentheinitial inputproper-

ties and theproperties obtained fromback-analyses.

In particular, the initial inputs of Youngs modulus

and earth pressure coefficient at rest of the residual

Table2. Typical material properties.

E c

Layer (MPa) j (kN/m

3

) K

0

(kPa) (

)

Filling 19.6 0.35 18.6 0.5 0 35

Residual soil 29.4 0.33 18.6 0.5 49.1 35

Weather rock 196 0.23 21.6 0.5 98.1 35

Soft rock 981 0.2 23.5 0.7 196 40

Notation: E=Youngsmodulus, j=Poissonsratio, =unit

weight of soil, K

0

=lateral earth pressure coefficient,

c=apparent cohesion, and =internal frictionangle.

Figure6. Groundconditionsof theBusansubwaysite.

Figure7. Relativeconvergencebehindtunnel face.

Table3. Resultsof parameter estimation.

Properties E

r

(MPa) E

w

(MPa) K

ow

Initial input 29.4 196 0.5

Back-analysis 83.3 210 0.76

Notation: E

r

andE

w

=Youngsmoduli of theresidual soil and

weathered rock, respectively; and K

ow

=theearth pressure

coefficient of theweatheredrock.

47

Figure 8. Apparent earth pressure distribution for braced

andanchoredwalls.

soil aretoosmall. Thisexampleclearly demonstrates

theimportanceof theobservational methodintunnel

engineering.

3 APPARENT EARTHPRESSURE

3.1 Apparent earth pressure in braced and

anchored walls

Designof aninsituwall systemrequiresalateral earth

pressuredistributionbehindthewall toestimatesup-

portloadsandwall bendingmoments. Oneof themost

well-knownapparent earthpressuresisthat proposed

byPeck(1969); however, hissuggestionisonlyappli-

cabletoeither groundthat ispurely sandand/or clay,

and cannot bedirectly applied to cohesivesoils that

havecohesionaswell asaninternal frictionangle, or

tomultilayeredgroundconditions.

ManyKoreanresearchershaveattemptedtocollect

fielddatatoproposetheearthpressureinmultilayered

ground (for example, Lee & J eon 1993, Yoo 2001).

Figure8presentsatypical set of results, showingthe

apparent earth pressure distribution of a 33mdeep

excavation site along with the distribution proposed

by Peck (1969) (Yoo 2001). The actual (measured)

earthpressureisabout 68to83%of Peaks. Figure9

shows the maximumearth pressures obtained from

62 excavation sites. In this data, the weighted aver-

agevalues of theinternal friction angleand theunit

weight of soil areusedfor themultilayer ground. The

averagevalueof themeasured apparent pressures is

approximately 75% of Pecks suggestion (i.e., earth

pressure=0.65K

a

H).

Figure9. MaximumapparentearthpressureversusK

a

H.

3.2 Apparent earth pressure in a vertical shaft

Itiswell knownthattheearthpressureactingonaver-

tical shaftislessthanthatonaretainingwall, because

of thethreedimensional archingeffect. Theexisting

equations of earthpressures actingonvertical shafts

consider only either purely cohesionless or cohesive

soils. These solutions are not directly applicable to

estimationof earthpressuresformulti-layeredground.

Leeet al. (2007) proposedanequationtoestimate

earth pressures in multi-layered ground, assuming

that the failure shape is conical, as shown in Fig-

ure 10(a). For equilibriumof horizontal forces and

vertical forces, as shown in Figure 10(b), the earth

pressure(P

i

) canbeexpressedasfollows

and

where K

w

=the coefficient of radial earth pres-

sure, =thecoefficient of tangential earthpressure,

and =the wall friction angle. Figure 11 presents

schematic drawings of a construction site in multi-

layeredgroundandthreevertical shaftsalongwiththe

locations of measuring instruments. Earth pressures

aremeasured at different shafts. Theearth pressures

calculated fromEq. (1) arecompared with themea-

sured values, as shown in Figure 12. The measured

earth pressures areeven smaller than thoseobtained

fromthetheoretical equation.

48

Figure10. Derivationof earthpressureinvertical shaft.

4 EFFECT OF GROUNDWATER

4.1 Effect of seepage pressure

Unexpected groundwater inflow and seepage forces

oftencausetunnel failures duringconstruction. Shin

et al. (2006) presentedandreviewedfivecave-incol-

lapses that occurredwhileconstructingLineNo.5of

theSeoul Metropolitansubway. Figure13shows the

general features of the collapses and failure details

aresummarizedinTable4. A comprehensivereview

Figure 11. Schematic drawings of a construction site in

multi layeredground Threeshafts withlocations of mea-

suringinstruments.

on such collapse mechanisms reveals the following

commonfeatures:

1. Thin soil/rock cover and/or mixed faced ground

conditionsincludingdecomposedgranitesoils;

2. Collapse initiated at the tunnel shoulder during

excavationof theupper half of thetunnel section;

and

3. A considerableamountof groundwaterinflowwith

soil.

Inparticular, it is observedinthesesites that tun-

nel facecollapsesalwaysoccurredalongwithseepage

aheadof thetunnel face.

Leeet al. (2003) modified theupper bound solu-

tionoriginallyproposedbyLeca&Dormieux(1990),

takingintoaccountseepageforcesinastabilityassess-

mentof atunnel face(refertoFigure4).Thehorizontal

componentsof seepagepressuresactingonthetunnel

face,

S.F

, canbesimplyconsideredasanexternal load

49

Figure12. Earthpressuresmeasuredat vertical shafts.

Figure 13. Cave-in collapses in the Seoul Subway Line

No.5.

in theoppositedirection of thesupport pressure

T

.

A modifiedupper boundsolutionwithconsideration

of seepageforcesbecomes

whereP is thesurcharge,

c

is theunconfined com-

pressivestrengthof thesoil,

T

istherequiredsupport

pressureapplied to thetunnel face,

S.F

is theseep-

agepressureactingonthetunnel face, K

p

isRankines

earthpressurecoefficient for passivefailure, isthe

unit weight of soil, D is thetunnel diameter, and N

s

andN

aretheweightingcoefficients, respectively.

When tunnel excavation is performed below the

groundwater level, thestressconditioninfront of the

tunnel face becomes the summation of the effective

stress and the seepage pressure. The effective stress

canbecalculatedbytheupperboundsolutionwhilethe

seepagepressurecanbeobtainedfromnumerical anal-

yses. Theeffectivesupport pressureat thetunnel face

canbeobtainedbyEq. (4) withuseof thesubmerged

unit weight

sub

insteadof .

As an example analysis, consider a virtual tun-

nel with a diameter D driven horizontally under a

depth C, as shown in Figure 14. Ground material

properties used for the analysis are c=0,

=35

,

and

sub

=5.4KN/m

3

. Figure15showsthetotal head

distribution around the tunnel face, determined by

seepageanalyses, andthefailurezone, estimatedfrom

alimit equilibriumanalysis. Theseepagepressureis

calculatedbyusingJ =i

w

A, wherei isthehydraulic

gradient andA isthearea. Thetotal support pressure

isthenobtainedbysumminguptheeffectivesupport

pressureandtheseepagepressure. Figure16showsthe

supportpressurechangewithvariationof theH/Dratio

(For thecaseof adry condition, thedry unit weight

d

=15.2KN/m

3

isusedfor theanalysis). Theresults

suggestthatthetotal supportpressureislittleaffected

by the tunnel depth and increases significantly with

50

Table4. Collapsemechanisms, damage, andremedial work.

Case Failuremechanism Damage Remedial work

A 17Nov1991, 18:50: blasting nohumancasualties soil dumpingimmediatelyafter

21:05: total collapse(1,000m

3

) 2-1aneroadcollapsed collapse

thinweatheredrockcover stopof gassupply faceshotcreteandinvert Close

inflowof soil andgroundwater (5,000households) (t=1.52.0m)

weatheredgranite(WG) at theface damagetolightingpoles cement milkgroutingandcurtain

veryclosetoanexistingstream andtrafficlight poles wall grouting

B 27Nov1991, 10:40: blasting nohumancasualties grouting: cement mortal cement

16:00:rockfallsat theface 80householdsevacuated milkchemical grout

22:00: soil andwater inflow(D=25m) electricityandwater loweringof groundwater

28Nov1991, maincollapsed level(3m/day)

03:20:additional collapse(D=20m) (3-storybldg) slipped pumping/forepolingfor

WGat theface intocrater re-excavation

permeability: (1.010

4

remedial cost: $4.5million

2.010

5

cm/sec)

C 11Feb1992, roadheader excavation nohumancasualties dumpingsoilsintocollapsed

04:30: raveling 4-laneroadcollapsed area(240tons)

significant inflowof ground serviceculvert (6m3m) dumpingready-mixed-

water (100130/min exposed(including154kv concrete(105tons)

about 4.5tonof soil flewinto electricitycable) grouting

face: D=10m passengersdelay

heavilyWGat theface

D 7J an1993, 03:30: blasting nohumancasualties grouting: cement mortal, cement

collapseafter removingmaterials 2-laneroadcollapsed milkandLW(160holes)

collapsesize: 0.7m1.2m supplystopof water mortal injectionbeneathsewer culvert

startedat theleft sideof crown main(+=200mm) reduceinflowof groundwater

soil inflow: 900m

3

, groundwater: sewer culvertswerebroken usingchemical grouting

300/min 40householdsevacuated

WG& DGSat theface

E 1Feb1993, ringcut nohumancasualties soil dumpingintocollapsed

08:30: rockfall andcollapse 6itemsof excavation area(5,500m

3

)

(oval shapeD=1030m) equipment wereburied chemical grouting(76holes)

inflowof soil withgroundwater compactiongrouting(300holes)

alluvium& DGSat theface remedial cost: $1.7million

beneathanexistingstream

Figure14. Dimensional conditionfor seepageanalysis.

anincreaseinthegroundwater level ratio. Asthetotal

support pressure is related to the tunnel face stabil-

ity, theseepageforceseriouslyaffectsthetunnel face

stability. While the effective overburden pressure is

reduced slightly by the arching effect during tunnel

excavation, theseepagepressureremainsat thesame

level duringtunnel excavation. Thisexplainswhythe

Figure15. Hydraulicheaddistributionandfailurezone.

effectof seepageplaysanimportantroleintunnel face

stabilityproblems.

4.2 Particle transport characteristics of granite

residual soils

A soil issaidtobeinternallystableif itisself-filtering

andif its fineparticles do not move/migratethrough

51

Figure16. Changeof supportpressurewithvariationof the

H/DRatio.

Figure17. Schematicdrawingsof experimental set-up.

thepores of its owncoarser fraction. Previous inves-

tigations into the internal stability of cohesionless

soils suggest that soils with auniformity coefficient

(C

u

)>20andwithconcaveupwardgrainsizedistri-

butionstendtobeinternallyunstable(Leeetal. 2002).

Most residual soils in Korea, including those listed

inTable1, haveuniformitycoefficientsmuchgreater

than20, suggestingthat theyareinternallyunstable.

Lee et al. (2002) studied the nature of particle

transport and erosion in residual soils. Two types

of residual soils introduced in Section 2 are used:

Shinnae-dongsoil andPoi-dongsoil.Theexperimental

setupisshowninFigure17. Inselectedexperiments,

acylindrical hole7mmindiameter isdrilledintothe

compacted specimens to induce erosion only in the

holeandsimulatesurfaceerosionof thesoils.Anelec-

tronicpumpisusedtoachieveaconstant flowrateof

the influent fromthe water tank. The effluent from

Figure18. Cumulativemass versus (a) timeand (b) pore

volumefor Shinnae-dongsoil.

the cell is characterized with respect to its turbidity

(intermsof nephelometricturbidityunits, NTUs) and

particlesizedistribution.

The cumulative mass of particles in the effluent

eroded fromthebasesoils is plotted with respect to

timeinFigures18(a) &19(a) for thetworesidual soil

types. Someimportant differencescanbeobservedin

theinternal erosionbehaviorof thetwosoil types.The

Shinnae-dongsoil exhibitsalmostthesamerateof ero-

sionduringtheinitial stagesof theexperiment for the

threedifferent flow rates used (Figure18a). Particle

redepositioninthesoil sampleappearstocompensate

fortheincreasederodibilityathigherflowrates.Thisis

evenmoreapparentwhenthecumulativemassisplot-

tedintermsof porevolume(Figure18b). Itisseenthat

at lowflowratestheerosionratesarehigher, because

of thereducedparticledeposition.Thereappearstobe

amaximumlimit for thecumulativemassof internal

erosionforeachflowrate, beyondwhichthesoil pro-

tecteditself fromfurthererosion, perhapsthroughthe

formationof afilterbridge. Fortherelativelycohesive

Poi-dong soil (Figure 19a & 19b), self-protection

dueto particleredepositionis not apparent. Thereis

nocaponthemaximumerodedquantitiesduringthe

periodof testing.

Incontrasttotheinternal erosionbehavior, thesur-

face erosion fromthe two samples (as observed in

experiments where erosion is induced in a cylindri-

cal hole) follows almost linear trends, with therates

52

Figure19. Cumulativemass versus (a) time, and(b) pore

volumes, for Poi-dongsoils.

of erosion increasing as theflowrateincreases. The

ratesof erosionarealsoconsiderablyhigherthanthose

obtainedintheinternal erosionexperimentsdiscussed

above.

Particle transport characteristics of residual soils

mightbeamongthefactorsthatresultintheinstability

of undergroundstructures.

4.3 Difficulties in penetration grouting

Tunnelling works in soft ground frequently require

grouting technology, either to prevent groundwater

or to improve mechanical properties of the ground.

However, grouting is not availablein many cases in

decomposedresidual soilsduetolowgroutability.Bur-

well definesthegroutability(N) of suspensiongrouts

bythefollowingsimpleequation(Kimet al. 2007):

where D

15

is the particle size of base soils corre-

sponding to 15% finer and d

85

is the particle size

of grouts corresponding to 85%finer. If N is larger

than 25, grout can be successfully injected into the

soil formation. However, Burwell notes that even in

Figure20. Grain-sizedistributionof soilsandgrouts.

Table5. Soil andgroutpropertiesusedinchamberinjection

tests.

D

10

D

15

d

85

d

95

Material (mm) (mm) (m) (m) N

Soil A 0.60 0.64 32

Soil B 2.10 2.22 111

Finecement 16 27

Quicksettingagent 37 70

Finecement+Quick 20 39

settingagent

caseof N >25, thefollowingrequirement shouldbe

additionallysatisfiedfor thesoil tobegroutable:

where D

10

is the particle size of base soils corre-

spondingto 10%finer andd

95

is theparticlesizeof

groutscorrespondingto95%finer. Kimet al. (2007)

performedpilot-scalechamberinjectionteststoinves-

tigatethegroutabilityof twogranular soilsthatsatisfy

thegroutabilitycriteriaproposedbyBurwell.

Thegrain-sizedistributionsof soilsandgroutsare

shown in Figure20 and their properties aresumma-

rizedinTable5.Theexperimental set-upforpilot-scale

chamber injection tests is shown in Figure21. Typi-

cal resultsof theexperimentsareshowninFigure22.

AlthoughtheNvalueof thesoil A (N=32) isgreater

than25,thegroutcouldnotbesufficientlyinjectedinto

soil A.Meanwhile,groutabilityisfairlygoodforsoil B

(N=111).Theseresultssuggestthattheconsideration

of filtration phenomena is indispensable to reason-

ablyevaluatingthepotential of groutpenetration. The

Nvalueof theShinnae-dongsoil showninFigure1is

2.6andthat of thePoi-dongsoil is 0.2. Thesevalues

meanthatpenetrationgroutinginthesesoilsisalmost

impossible. Therefore, finding an appropriategrout-

ingmethodhaspresentedaconsiderablechallengein

graniteresidual soils.

53

Figure 21. Experimental set-up for pilot-scale chamber

injectiontest.

Figure 22. Maximum injection volume with injection

pressure.

4.4 Ground reaction curve with consideration of

seepage forces and grouting

Theoretical analyses of seepagearound tunnels sug-

gest that a loss in hydraulic heads occurs at the

shotcrete lining and concentration of seepage force

at theshotcreteliningintheradial directioninduces

unfavorablegroundreaction(Shin, 2007).Thus, when

seepageproblems areanticipated during tunnel con-

struction, proper groutingaroundtunnelscanprovide

effective reduction of seepage force acting on the

shotcrete lining and also increases the stiffness and

strength of the surrounding ground. When grouting

Figure 23. Hydraulic head at soil-grouting interface

dependingonthepermeabilityratio.

is applied around the tunnel, a loss of hydraulic

heads occurs inthegroutingzonearoundthetunnel;

thisreducestheseepageforceactingontheshotcrete

lining, andresultsinafavorablegroundreaction.

FollowingDarcyscontinuityequation,thehydraulic

head acting on the soil-grouting interface can be

writtenas

whereH

I

isthetotal headatthesoil-groutinginterface,

H

T

isthetotal headof asite, L

g

isthethicknessof the

grouting, L

s

is thelength across which water travels

throughthesoil media, and isthepermeabilityratio

betweenthesoil andgroutingarea(i.e., =K

g

,K

s

).

Figure23showsthevariationof thehydraulicheadat

the soil-grouting interface with different permeabil-

ityratios. Asthepermeabilityratiodecreasesandthe

groutingthicknessincreases, thehydraulicheadacting

ontheinterfaceincreases.

Finiteelement analyseswereperformedinorder to

exploretheeffect of groutingonthegroundreaction

with consideration of seepage. Seepageforceacting

onthegrouting-soil interfacecanbemodeledbyfully

coupled mechanical-hydraulic analyses, as shown in

Figure24. Material propertiesusedinthisanalysisare

summarizedinTable6. It wasassumedthat shotcrete

isnotapplied, thegroundwaterflowisinasteady-state

condition, thegroutingthickness is 1m, andtheper-

meability ratio is =0.1. Four cases weresimulated

numerically: 1) Grouting with seepage; 2) Grouting

without seepage; 3) No grouting with seepage; and

4) No grouting without seepage. Figure 25 presents

theeffectof groutingandseepageforceontheground

reaction curve as given by the numerical analysis

results. The caseof seepageforce without grouting

54

Figure24. Finiteelement model for seepageforceanalysis

withconsiderationof grouting.

Table6. Material propertiesusedinnumerical simulation.

E c

(MPa) j (kN/m

3

) K

0

(kPa) (

)

Weatheredsoil 50 0.35 18.64 0.5 10 35

Groutedzone 500 0.33 18.64 0.5 100 35

Figure25. Effect of groutingandseepageforceonground

reactioncurve(i.e., =0.1).

yieldsaveryunfavorablegroundreactioncurve,which

induces alargedeformation and requires substantial

internal support. However, if theseepageforceisnot

considered, thegroundreacts almost elastically even

though grouting is not applied. This means that the

seepage force significantly affects the ground reac-

tion behavior. In thecasewheregrouting is applied,

unfavorablegroundreactionsinducedby theseepage

forcecouldbeconsiderablyreduced.

5 CHARACTERIZATIONANDMODELINGOF

GROUTEDRESIDUAL SOIL

5.1 Experimental study on time-dependent

characteristics of grouted residual soil

InKorea, inconventional tunnellinginresidual soils,

pre-reinforcement(groutinjection)istypicallyapplied

ahead of the tunnel face to enhance the construc-

tion safety. In addition, a 1 to 2 day time interval

is given between one face and the next face. Dur-

ing this time interval, it is known that changes in

the material properties occur due to effects of the

curing of the grouting material. However, the stiff-

ness and strength at 28 curing days after the grout

injection aregenerally applied as thematerial prop-

erties for pre-reinforced zones in the design stage

without consideringtheeffect of thetime-dependent

behavior of the injected grout material. Thus, this

paper present anewmethodtocharacterizethetime-

dependent behavior of pre-reinforced zones around

a large-section tunnel in residual soil using elastic

wavesandtoconsider time-dependent characteristics

innumerical modelingfortunnel design(Song, 2007).

Figure26presentsschematicdrawingsof theexper-

imental setupfor investigationof thetime-dependent

characteristics of grouted residual soils: (a) Setup

for elastic wave measurements; (b) Setup for shear

strength parameter measurements. Bimorph bender

elementswereinstalledinthetestingdeviceandused

tosendandreceiveP- andS-waves(Figure26a). The

specimenswerepreparedbymixingaresidual soil with

5%cement (by weight; thecement-water ratio is the

sameasthat usedinthefield).

Figure27showstypical resultsfor theelasticwave

velocity according to thecuring timewhen thenor-

mal stress is

n

=160kPa. Theresults showthat the

wave velocity increases drastically according to the

curingtimeandisalmostconstantafter7days. P-wave

velocity is faster than S-wavevelocity and Poissons

ratio can be readily determined fromthe two wave

velocities.

Figure 28 shows the time-dependent characteris-

tics of shear strength parameters obtained fromthe

direct shear test. As shown in Figure28(a), thefric-

tion angle does not change in accordance with the

curingtime. Ontheother hand, it isapparent that the

cohesion increases with thecuring time; after acer-

tainamountof curingtimethecohesionconverges, as

shown in Figure 28(b). It is deduced that the bond-

ing of cement increases thecohesion and, after with

55

Figure 26. Experimental setup for investigation of

time-dependent characteristicsof groutedresidual soils.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Curing time (Days)

V

e

l

o

c

i

t

y

(

m

/

s

e

c

)

P-wave

S-wave

Figure27. Elastic wavevelocity accordingto curingtime

(

n

=160kPa).

theelapseof time, thecohesionmaintains auniform

valuewiththeendof cementation. Theearlystageof

this phenomenon is controlled by thenormal stress,

but ascuringtimeincreasesthecementationcontrols

thefrictionangleandcohesion.

Thewavevelocityandcohesionof groutedresidual

soils can be respectively correlated with the curing

timeasfollows:

0

10

20

30

40

50

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Curing time (Days)

F

r

i

c

t

i

o

n

a

n

g

l

e

(

)

(a) Friction angle

0

50

100

150

200

250

Curing time (Days)

C

o

h

e

s

i

o

n

(

k

P

a

)

(b) Cohesion

Figure28. Time-dependentcharacteristicsof shearstrength

parameters.

where , , A, and B are the fitting parameters and

t is the curing time. These fitting parameters can

be determined by best-fitting the experimental data

with Eq. (8) and Eq. (9). Also, the shear strength

and strength parameters (i.e., the cohesion and fric-

tion angle) can be uniquely correlated to the elastic

wavevelocities.

5.2 Numerical simulation of time-dependent

characteristics of grouted residual soil

The construction of underground space in residual

soil entails many risk factors such as difficulties in

predicting arching effects and determination of var-

ious uncertain underground properties. Researchers

havesuggestedvarious techniques for auxiliary sup-

portsystemssuchasthereinforcedprotectiveumbrella

method (RPUM), which has the advantage of com-

bining a modern forepoling systemwith a grouting

injection method (Barisone, 1982). This method is

used for pre-reinforcement design before the under-

groundexcavation: not only for small sectiontunnel-

ingwithinweatheredandcrashedzones, but alsofor

largeundergroundspaces. Inaddition, todecreasethe

riskof acollapseorfailureinlargeexcavationcaverns,

researchers have developed various techniques and

constructionmethods. Someexamplesinclude: atun-

nelingmethodusinganadvancedreinforcingsystem

whereadoublesteel pipeis usedfor water-proofing

56

Figure29. 3D tunnel model and time-dependent material

propertiesof thepre-reinforcedzoneafter 12mexcavation.

andaurethaneinjectionisusedfor reinforcement; the

Trevi jetmethod, whichinvolvesconstructinganarch-

shell structure around a tunnel crown with cement

grout; and steel pipereinforced multi-step grouting,

whereabeamarch is constructed around thetunnel

crownwithlargediameter steel pipes, andmultilayer

cement groutinginjectionisemployed.

Threedimensional FE analyseswereperformedto

examinethetime-dependent behavior of thegrouted

zone. Theresultsobtainedfromlaboratorytestswere

appliedto anumerical simulationof atunnel, taking

into account its construction sequence. Figure 29(a)

showsasimulated3D four-lanetunnel model, where

the same stress state and stress level as used in the

experiment were assumed. Figure 29(b) shows the

time-dependent elastic modulus andcohesionvalues

obtainedfromtheexperimental studyaswell asthose

usedinthenumerical analysis.

The time-dependent behavior of a pre-reinforced

zonecanbemodeledusingthefollowingprocedure.

Thematerial properties(i.e., stiffnessandstrength) of

thepre-reinforcedzoneareconsideredastheboundary

conditions fromDay 1toDay 28. Theregisteredini-

tial boundaryconditionsareappliedtoapre-assigned

mesh in pre-reinforcement construction. Thebound-

aryconditionsarethenupdatedaccordingtothefield

constructionsequence.

For a quantitative analysis, the displacements of

each casearenormalized with theresults of apipe-

onlycase. Figure30(a) showsthenormalizedvertical

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Excavation Length (m)

N

o

r

m

a

l

i

z

e

d

V

e

r

t

i

c

a

l

D

i

s

p

l

a

c

e

m

e

n

t

1D Stiffness and Strength

2D Stiffness and Strength

3D Stiffness and Strength

28D Stiffness and Strength

Time-Dependent Stiffness and Strength

(a) Vertical displacement on a tunnel portal

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00

0 5 10 15 20 25

Excavation Length (m)

N

o

r

m

a

l

i

z

e

d

H

o

r

i

z

o

n

t

a

l

D

i

s

p

l

a

c

e

m

e

n

t

1D Stiffness and Strength

2D Stiffness and Strength

3D Stiffness and Strength

28D Stiffness and Strength

Time-Dependent Stiffness and Strength

(b) Horizontal displacement on a tunnel face

Figure30. Variationof normalizeddisplacement.

displacementattheportal.Thetrendof thenormalized

vertical displacement curve for the time-dependent

condition is similar to that of the one day curing

casewithintheinitial excavationsection(-8m). As

the excavation continues, the results of the time-

dependent condition become similar to those of the

23 days curing case, until vertical displacement

eventuallyconverges.Thestiffnessandstrengthof the

pre-reinforcedzonefor the12dayscuringcaseare

roughly3050%of thoseof the28dayscuringcase.

Inotherwords,areductionof thematerial propertiesof

thepre-reinforcedzonemakesitpossibletomodel the

time-dependenteffectof thepre-reinforcedzoneonthe

global tunnel behavior uponinitial tunnel excavation.

Figure 30(b) shows the normalized horizon-

tal displacement at the tunnel face. It is found

that the normalized horizontal displacement for the

time-dependent condition varies within a range of

0.940.98, whichisverysimilartothatof othercases

during excavation. Therefore, pre-reinforcement can

be considered for prevention of collapse rather than

as a means of displacement reduction control at the

tunnel face. Thus, it can beconcluded that grouting

reducesthehorizontal displacementbyapproximately

26%at thetunnel facewiththepre-reinforcement

method.

57

Figure31. Diagramof simplifiedpre-reinforcedzone.

An analysis method combining experimental

and numerical procedures that consider the time-

dependent effect onthepre-reinforcedzoneontunnel

behavior will provideareliableand practical design

basisandmeansof analysisfor tunnelsinsoftground.

5.3 Determination of equivalent design parameters

for the pre-reinforced zone in residual soil

The design and analysis of pre-reinforcement tech-

niquesrequiredesignassumptionsthatareproblematic

at best, resulting in increased uncertainty in tunnel

design.Thepre-reinforcementeffectistypicallymod-

eledbysimulatingtheconstructionsequenceof setting

thereinforcedzoneandthenincreasingthestiffness,

thereby obviating theneed for complex modeling of

eachbulbandsteel pipe. However, thisapproachhas

beenfoundtobeunsuitablewhenthecenter-to-center

distancebetweenpipesislarger thantheexpansionof

thegroutbulb.Thisapproachassumesthatthestiffness

of thepre-reinforcedzoneisthesameasthestiffness

of the grout bulb, which may be either completely

hardened or arbitrary, and that the pre-reinforced

zonebecomes twotofour times stronger thanbefore

reinforcement. Therefore, this study presents a new

technique for determining a reasonable equivalent

parameter of thepre-reinforcedzone.

A pre-reinforced zone consists of ground, grout

bulbs,andsteel pipes.Itmaybesimplified,asshownin

Figure31, toaconditionwherethespacebetweenthe

pipesiswiderthanthegroutexpansionrange. Insandy

soil andweatheredsoil, thebulbmay becylindrical.

Weassessedfivecasescomprisingvariousconditions

to model thepre-reinforced zone, as summarized in

Table7.

For thestrengthening of thegrout bulb reinforce-

ment, wefollowedthemethodof Kikuchi etal. (1995).

Thegrout injection consequently produced atenfold

increaseinthestiffnessof theweatheredsoil. Table8

shows the equivalent design parameters for the var-

ious compositions of the ground, the bulb, and the

steel pipes. A precisely-simulatedmodel (Figure32a)

Table7. Summaryof equivalent designmethods.

Table 8. Equivalent design properties used for numerical

modeling.

Equivalent designproperties E

eq

(MPa) C

eq

(kPa)

Case1 1748.21 1065.04

Case2 107.35 91.21

Case3 117.81 141.22

Case4 315.22 216.73

Case5 490.35 588.42

iscomparedwithvariousequivalent stiffnessmodels

(Figure32b).

Figure 33 shows the vertical displacement at the

tunnel crown, the horizontal displacement at the

springline, and ground surfacesettlement. To obtain

thesevalues, weaveragedthefivenodeslocatedatthe

center andleft areasof thetunnel crownat adepthof

4.5mfromtheportal. TheDRM/DEM parameter is

hereindefinedas thefractionof thedisplacement of

thereferential model (DRM) to thedisplacement of

theequivalent model (DEM):

The precisely-simulated model is represented by a

valueof 0%.

Fromthevertical displacement results, case1and

case2givetheclosestresulttotheprecisely-simulated

model in weathered soil. However, general methods

tend to overestimatetheeffect of pre-reinforcement.

Although there is only a slight difference between

Case 2 and Case 3, Case 2 predicts a similar

horizontal displacementatthespringlinerelativetothe

58

Figure32. 3DFE analysismodel for comparisonof equiv-

alent model andpreciselymodeled.

precisely-simulated model and the design is rather

safe. Theequivalent model offers asatisfactory pre-

diction of the ground surface settlement, as the

DRM/DEMvaluerangesfrom0.55%to0.7%inCase

1andCase2.

Case 1 exemplifies a proper equivalent modeling

technique for simulating the pre-reinforcing mecha-

nismin residual soils. Case 2, a SPSS in which the

stiffnessof thebulbandsteel pipesarecoupledinpar-

allel andthenconnectedtothestiffnessof theground

in series, exemplifies a simple equivalent modeling

technique that predicts the vertical displacement at

thetunnel crown, thehorizontal displacement at the

springline, andthegroundsurfacesettlement.

Whentheground, grout bulbs, andsteel pipes are

regarded as an individual support system, the pre-

reinforced zone is not a series or parallel stiffness

systembut aseries-parallel compound stiffness sys-

tem. Thus, asmall degreeof stiffnesssupportreceives

thelargest stress; moreover, alinear combination of

largestiffness supports resists ground displacement.

The SPSS explains the failure mechanism of the

Figure33. Comparisonbetweenequivalent cases.

pre-reinforced zone: namely, theruptureof thesteel

pipes and thegrout bulb follows theyielding of the

ground. TheSPSS shouldbeusedinvarious studies

relatedtotheanalysisof pre-reinforcedtunnels.

59

6 EFFECT OF SPATIAL VARIABILITY

The mean value of the measurements is often used

for design parameters even if there is a noticeable

variation. Theeffect of thevariation of geotechnical

parameters on tunnel safety or deformation is rarely

studiedorconsideredusingastatistical concept.There

are two kinds of sources for variation in the design

parameters: spatial distributionanduncertainty.

Uncertainty means that the material property of

the soil/rock has a characteristic unreliability. In

reliability-based designs, theuncertainty of thegeo-

material is significant for a specific site character-

ization. There are three major geotechnical uncer-

tainties governing the variability of geoproperties:

inherent soil characteristics, measurement errors, and

transformationfallacies(Phoon& Kulhawy, 1999).

The spatial distribution of soil has been consid-

eredforecological andenvironmental modeling(J ury,

1985) andvariouscharacterizationmethodshavebeen

suggested by Cho et al. (2004). Likewise, the spa-

tial distribution of the geoproperties is important

for the mechanical behavior of underground struc-

tures surrounded by variable soils. The soil itself

is not an isotropic material, but an anisotropic and

non-homogenous material. These characteristics are

inducedby theformationprocess andgroundstress.

Spatial distributiontakesthemacroscaleintotherange

of interest.Thus, itisexpectedthat, amongothersoils,

weatheredresidual soilshavehighspatial variabilityof

their geopropertiesduetotheir originandweathering

process.

Theeffectof thespatial distributiononthegeotech-

nical parameters of tunnel deformation is studied

through numerical analyses based on statistical con-

ceptsasshowninFigure34. Thegeotechnical param-

eters that cause the largest deformation of tunnels

whenthegroundmaterial followstheMohr-Coulomb

model andtheexpecteddisplacement variationchar-

acteristicsfor eachgeotechnical designparameter are

presentedinthisstudy.

Thecoefficient of variation (COV) has long been

commonlyusedtoquantifythevariabilityof soil and

rock properties (Harr, 1987). TheCOV is definedas

thestandarddeviation() dividedbythemean(j) of

theparameter:

Eachmaterial property of theresidual soil canbe

regardedas anormal randomvariablethat has acer-

tainprobabilisticerror. Inparticular, ithasbeenshown

that thespatial distribution of thefriction angleand

unit weight follows anormal distributionparameter-

ized with the mean and COV (Lumb, 1966; Hoeg

& Murarka, 1974; Lacasse& Nadim, 1996; Low &

Figure34. Numerical model of spatial distributionof geo-

property(cohesion, Range=3R, COV=40%).

Table9. Representativecoefficient of variation (COV) of

thegeotechnical parameters.

Properties COV(%) Reference

ElasticModulus 1545 Harr, 1987; Phoonand

Kul-hawy,1999

FrictionAngle 2432 Schultze, 1972

Cohesion 4068 Schultze, 1972; Tan

et al. 2000

Tang, 1997; Phoon & Kulhawy, 1999; Tanit et al.,

2004). Thus, it is assumed herein that all geotechni-

cal parameters, i.e., constitutive components of the

Mohr-Coulombmodel, havenormal distributionchar-

acteristics.TherepresentativeCOVof thegeotechnical

parametersissummarizedinTable9.

Thebulk modulus (B) andshear modulus (G) are

importantmaterial parametersandcanbealternatively

changedbytheelasticmodulus(E)andPoissonsratio,

respectively.Thenormallydistributedelasticmodulus

generatedwithaspecific COV isconvertedtoabulk

modulusandshearmodulustosimulatethespatial dis-

tribution effect of the elastic modulus on the tunnel

deformation.

Thenumerical analysisresultsareshowninFigure

35(a). A COV of 20%shouldbeconsideredacritical

variation of theelastic modulus effect on thetunnel

deformation, asaCOV of morethan30%causesarel-

atively significant deformation variation. Theelastic

modulusisaninfluential geopropertyintunnel defor-

mation. Thelargest NDVR is morethan0.075when

COV =40%andrange=3R. Thedisplacement vari-

ationinducedbytheelasticmodulusvariationcanbe

predictedfromFigure35(a), dependingontherange

fromthetunnel center.

60

Figure35. Effect of spatially distributedgeoproperties on

tunnel deformation.

Theeffectof spatial distributioninthefrictionangle

ontunnel deformationis showninFigure35(b). The

NDVR at the tunnel crown and springline reaches

0.0770.078whenthevariationrangeis 3R andthe

COV of thefrictionangleis40%. Therefore, thefric-

tionanglevariability is themost high-rankingfactor

for thecalculationof deformationinthetunnel com-

pared with other geotechnical parameters when the

Mohr-Coulomb material model is used. Thegeneral

COV of thefrictionangleis small at 12%(Schultze,

1972). Therefore, arangeof 10%20%variation of

the friction angle is critical for tunnel deformation

characteristics.Itcanbeseenthatasthevariationrange

increases, theslopeof thecurvatureincreases.

The COV of cohesion is near 40% (Fredlund &

Dahlman, 1972).AsshowninFigure35(c), theNDVR

enlarges inall cases as theCOV increases. However,

it canbeobservedthat thevariationof cohesionhasa

minor effect ondeformationinthetunnel. Themaxi-

mumNDVRinducedbythecohesionvariationislower

than0.00006whenthevariationrangeis 3R andthe

COV is40%. Fromtheanalysisresults, thespatial dis-

tributioneffect of cohesionontunnel deformationis

smaller than that of theelastic modulus and friction

angle. Therefore, thespatial distribution of cohesion

is not acritical parameter for thecharacterizationof

tunnel behavior.

7 CONCLUSIONS

Wepresentedanoverviewof geotechnical aspects of

undergroundconstructioninurbanareaswheremostly

decomposed residual soils are present, focusing on

mechanical properties, apparent earthpressure, effect

of ground water, and effect of spatial variability in

geotechnical properties.

The strength and deformation characteristics of

residual soils areaffectedby particle/poresize, fines

content, mineralogy, andunsaturation, amongothers:

Theinternal frictionangledecreaseswithanincrease

of fine content and partial saturation increases the

strengthof unsaturatedresidual soilsduetocapillarity.

Results of back analyses fromactual measurements

show that geotechnical properties of residual soils,

which are commonly used for design and modeling

inKorea, areinappropriateinthisregard, thusdemon-

stratingtheimportanceof theobservational methodin

tunnel engineering.

As an unsaturated soil is re-saturated, its appar-

ent cohesion can beeliminated. Thus, during tunnel

construction, cohesion loss can be induced by re-

saturation(e.g., seepagehindrance, drainageclogging

andgroundwaterchange)andmayresultintunnel face

instability.

The lateral earth pressure coefficient of residual

soils is smaller than the coefficient commonly sug-

gested in the literature (e.g., 7080% of Pecks

suggestion).

Unexpectedgroundwaterinflowandseepageforces

often cause tunnel failures during construction.

Several case histories suggest that tunnel face col-

lapses always occur alongwithseepageaheadof the

tunnel face. Analytical results suggest that the total

61

support pressureis littleaffectedby thetunnel depth

and increases significantly with an increase in the

groundwater level ratio. Asthetotal support pressure

isrelatedtothetunnel facestability, theseepageforce

seriouslyaffectsthetunnel facestability.

Particle transport characteristics of residual soils

mightbeamongthefactorsthatresultintheinstability

of undergroundstructures.Their phenomenaarecom-

plicatedandareinvolvedinerosionversusself-healing

(redeposition) processes.

Whilegroutabilityisaffectedbytheporesizeof the

residual soils, proper selectionof agroutingmethod

has proved a difficult task in granite residual soils.

When seepage problems are anticipated during tun-

nel construction, proper groutingaroundtunnels can

achieveeffectivereductionof seepageforceactingon

theshotcreteliningandcanincreasethestiffnessand

strengthof thesurroundingground.

An analysis method combining experimental

and numerical procedures that consider the time-

dependent effect onthepre-reinforcedzoneontunnel

behavior will provideareliableandpractical de-sign

basisandmeansof analysisfor tunnelsinsoftground.

It is expected that, among other soils, weathered

residual soilshavehighspatial variabilityof geoprop-

erties, becauseof their originandweatheringprocess.

The numerical results show that tunnel deformation

increaseswithanincreaseinthespatial variabilityof

geotechnical designparametersandisacceleratedwith

anincreaseintunnel size.

Research on decomposed residual soils has been

conductedthroughout thelast fewdecades. Nonethe-

less, thecurrentincreaseof undergroundconstruction

projects inurbanareas requires better understanding

of residual soilsfor safer undergrounduse.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

ThisstudywasfundedbytheKoreaInstituteof Con-

struction and Transportation Technology Evaluation

andPlanningunder theMinistry of Constructionand

TransportationinKorea(Grant No. 04-C01).

REFERENCES

Barisone, G., Pigorini, B. & Pelizza, S. 1982. Umbrellaarch

method for tunnelling in difficult conditions Analysis

of Italiancases. Proceedings of the 4th Congress Interna-

tional Association of Engineering Geology. NewDelhi, 4:

1527

Cho, G.C., Lee, J.S. & Santamarina, J.C. 2004. Spatial vari-

abilityinsoils: Highresolutionassessmentwithelectrical

needleprobe. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenviron-

mental Engineering. ASCE 130(8): 843849

Cho, K.H., Choi, M.K., Nam, S.W. & Lee, I.M. 2006.

Geotechnical parameterestimationintunnelingusingrel-

ativeconvergencemeasurement.International Journal for

Numerical and Analytical Method in Geomechanics 30:

137155

Fredlund, D.G. & Dahlman, A.E. 1972. Statistical geotech-

nical properties of glacial lake edmonton sediments, in

Statistics and Probability in Civil Engineering. Hong

KongUniversity Press, distributedby OxfordUniversity

Press. London.

Harr, M.E. 1987. Reliability Based Design in Civil Engineer-

ing, Dover Publications, INC.

Hoeg, H. & Murarka, R.P. 1974. Probabilistic analysis

and design of aretaining wall. Journal of Geotechnical

Engineering Division. ASCE 100(3): 349366

J ury, W.A. 1985. Spatial variability of soil properties.In:

Hern, S.C., Melancon, S.M. (Eds.), Vadose Zone Modeling

of Organic Pollutants, Lewis, Chelsea, MI, 245269

Kikuchi, K., Mito, Y. & Adachi, T. 1995. Case study on

themechanical improvement of rockmassesbygrouting.

Rock Foundation. Balkema393398

Kim, J.S., Choi,Y.K., Park, J.H.,Woo, S.B. &Lee, I.M. 2007.

Effectof viscosityandcloggingongroutpenetrationchar-

acteristics.Journal of Korean Geotechnical Society 23(4):

513

Kim, Y.J. 1993. Mechanical characteristics of decomposed

Koreangranites. Ph.D. Thesis, Seoul: KoreaUniversity

Lacasse, S. & Nadim, F. 1996. Uncertaintiesincharacteriz-

ingsoil properties.Uncertainty 96, Geotechnical Special

Publication, ASCE 58(1): 4975

Leca, E. &Dormieux, L. 1990. Upper andlower boundsolu-

tions for thefacestability of shallowcircular tunnels in

frictional material. Geotechnique 40(4): 581606

Lee, C.K. & J eon, S.K. 1993. earthpressuredistributionon

retainingwallsintheexcavationof multi-layeredground,

Journal of Korean Geotechnical Society 9(1): 59

Lee, I.K. 1991. Mechanical behavior of compacteddecom-

posedgranitesoil. Ph.D. Thesis, London: CityUniversity.

Lee, I.M., Moon, H.P., Lee, D.S., Kim, K.R. & Cho, M.S.

2007. Earth pressureof vertical shaft considering arch-

ingeffect inlayeredsoils. Journal of Korean Tunnelling

Association 9(1): 4962

Lee, I.M., Nam, S.W. & Ahn, J.H. 2003. Effect of seepage

forces on tunnel face stability, Canadian Geotechnical

Journal 40: 342350

Lee, I.M., Park, Y.J. & Reddi, L.N. 2002. Particletransport

characteristicsandfiltrationof graniticresidual soilsfrom

theKoreanpeninsula.Canadian Geotechnical Journal 39:

472482

Lee, I.M., Sung, S.G. &Cho, G.C. 2005. Effectof stressstate

ontheunsaturatedshear strengthof aweatheredgranite.,

Canadian Geotechnical Journal 42: 624631

Lee, S.J., Lee, S.R. & J ang, B.S. 2002. Unsaturated shear

strengthcharacteristicsof weatheredgranitesoils.Journal

of Korean Geotechnical Society 22(1): 8188

Low, B.K. & Tang, W.H. 1997. Reliability analysis of rein-

forcedembankmentsonsoft ground. Canadian Geotech-

nical Journal 34(5): 672685

Lumb, P. 1966. The variability of natural soils. Canadian

Geotechnical Journal 3(2): 7497

Peck, R.B. 1969, Deep excavations and tunneling in soft

ground, Proc., 7th Int. Conf. on Soil Mech. And Found.

Engrg., State-of-the-Art Rep., State-of-the-Art Vol:

225290

Phoon, K.K. & Kulhawy, F.H. 1999. Characterization of

geotechnical variability. Canadian Geotechnical Journal

36(4): 612624

62

Schultze, E. 1972. Frequency distributions andcorrelations

of soil properties. In Statistics and Probability in Civil

Engineering, HongKongUniversityPress, distributedby

OxfordUniversityPress, London.

Shin, J.H., Lee, I.K., Lee, Y.H. & Shin, H.S. 2006. Lessons

fromserial tunnel collapses during construction of the

Seoul SubwayLine5.Tunnelling and Underground Space

Technology 21: 296297

Shin,Y.J. 2007. Elasto-plasticgroundresponseof underwater

tunnels consideringseepageforces, Ph.D. Thesis, Seoul:

KoreaUniversity

Song, K.I., Kim, J. & Cho, G.C. 2007. Numerical anal-

ysis of pre-reinforced zones in tunnel considering the

time-dependentgroutingperformance. Journal of Korean

Tunnelling Association 9(2): 109120

Tanit, C. 2004. Reliability-based design for Internal sta-

bility of mechanically stabilized earth walls. Journal of

Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering. ASCE

130(2): 163173

Yoo, C. 2001. Behavior of bracedandanchoredwallsinsoils

overlyingrock. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenviron-

mental Engineering. ASCE 127(3): 225233

63

General reports

Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground Ng, Huang & Liu (eds)

2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-48475-6

Safetyissues, riskanalysis, hazardmanagement andcontrol

C.T. Chin& H.C. Chao

Moh and Associates, Inc., Taipei, Taiwan

ABSTRACT: Theoccurrenceof hazardeventsingeotechnical practiceisoftenassociatedwithgeotechnical

uncertainties. Toprevent hazardeventsfromhappeningor reducetheimpactsof their consequence, sourcesof

geotechnical uncertainties needtobeidentifiedandtreated, andappropriatecontrol measurehas tobeimple-

mentedthroughout aproject. Theprobabilistic methodsarethedevicesdealingwithuncertaintiesandtherisk

managementisthetechniquetofacilitateachievingthegoal of projectsafety.Thepaperspresentedinthistheme

aresummarizedandbrieflydiscussedinthreecategories riskanddecisionanalysis, geotechnical control, and

analysisandcontrol of groundresponse. Inriskanalysis, geotechnical uncertaintiesneedtobetreatedexplicitly.

Resultsof riskanalysis, qualitativelyor quantitatively, not onlyprovideabaselinefor decisionmakingbut also

insightstotheproblemof concern. Inorder tomakebest useof availableanalysistools, morecasestudiesare

needed.

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Geotechnical uncertainty

Uncertainty is thelack of certainty, astateof having

limited knowledge where it is impossible to exactly

describe existing state or future outcome (Hubbard,

2007). If uncertainty requires tobetreated, probabil-

ity is thedevice. Therearetwo kinds of probability:

relative frequency and subjective, degree-of-belief

probability.Theprobabilityof anuncertaineventisthe

relativefrequency of occurrencewhen it is obtained

throughrepeatedtrialsor experimental sampling. The

subjective, degree-of-belief probability comes from

judgment wheretheprobabilityof anuncertainevent

isthequantifiedmeasureof onesbelief orconfidence,

accordingtotheinformationavailableandonesstate

of knowledgeat thetimeit isassessed(Vick, 2002).

In engineering practice, although uncertainty is

surelyacertaintyandmaycreatesomeimpact,itseems

theexistenceof which is not abother to many. As a

matter of fact, most of theengineers get alongquite

well without explicitly using the necessary device,

probability, to manageit. This probably attributes to

thecustomary practiceengineers have. By using the

establishedstandards, codes, factorsof safety, design

criteria,orproceduresinwhichtheuncertaintiessome-

how have been accounted for or somewhere hidden

behind, deterministic method by which answers are

either correct or wrongcancomfortablybeappliedin

solvingproblems.

However, the material in geotechnical engineer-

ing is widely known for its significantly abundant

Figure 1. Categories of uncertainty in soil property data

(Christianet al. 1994).

uncertainties. Sources of uncertainties can be

unknownpresenceof geologicdefects,uncertainvalue

of soil properties, limited knowledge to the mech-

anisms and processes, and much more. One of the

examples as presented by Christian el al. (1994) is

demonstratedin Figure1, in which theuncertainties

associated with the characterization of soil proper-

ties areattributeto systematic error anddatascatter.

Systematicerror resultsfromstatistical error inmean

valuearisingfromlimitednumbersof measurements

or bias inmeasurement procedures likethoseassoci-

atedwithfieldpermeabilitytestor fieldvantest. Data

scatter, ontheother hand, isaresultof randomtesting

errorsor actual spatial variationinthesoil profile.

Another sourceof geotechnical uncertaintyismod-

eling. A model is an appropriate simplification of

reality. Goodmodelingskill isreflectedintheability

toidentifytheappropriatelevel of simplification to

recognizewhatfeaturesareimportantandwhatarenot.

67

Very often engineers are unaware of the simplifica-

tions that they have made and problems may arise

preciselybecausetheassumptionsthathavebeenmade

are inappropriate in a particular application (Wood,

2004).

Thetypesof geomechanical model canbedivided

into thefollowingcategories: empirical model, theo-

retical model, analytical model, numerical model and

constitutive model. Model uncertainty is the extent

to which amodel incarnates auniquely correct rep-

resentation of the physical process it seeks to emu-

late. Model uncertaintiesarisefromitsrepresentative

degreeto thereal fieldprocesses, andfor aphysical

processdifferent modelsandoperationcanalwaysbe

found.

In conventional approach, effects of uncertainty

are generally accounted for, consciously or not, by

standards, codes, designcriteria, or factors of safety.

Theunderlying uncertainties may havealready been

consideredorevaluatedsomehowintheprocessdevel-

oping them. This simple strategy seems work quite

well forworkshavingbeenencounteredbeforeandlot

of experience accumulated. However, when circum-

stances areuniqueand uncertainties arenot routine,

whichareoftenthecasesingeotechnical engineering

practice, aforementionedproceduresor toolsmaynot

befullyapplicableanymore.

1.2 Geotechnical safety

Theoccurrenceof hazard event in major geotechni-

cal engineering projects such as tunneling or deep

excavationoftendrawsalotof attentionfromthegen-

eral public. Potential consequencesincludesignificant

financial loss to the client and contractor, schedule

delayandlossof confidencetothegeneral public, and

casualty. Thus, itisobviousthatsafetyisanimportant

issuethatrequiresspecial carestoensuretheobjectives

of aproject canbeachieved.

Safetyitself isinessencenotameasurablequantity.

Inpractice,itisevaluatedthroughthesafetyindicators.

Someof thephysical characteristicssuchasthesizeof

cracks, deformationsanddifferential settlements, are

selected to serve as safety indicators for evaluating

the safety status. This process requires analysis and

interpretation, and judgment plays an important role

init. If theuncertainty istobeaccountedfor andthe

effectsareaccommodated,sourcesof uncertaintymust

beunderstoodfirst. This is whereprobability comes

in. One of the most important tools in dealing with

probability is judgment. J udgment provides aninter-

pretativeframeworkthathelpsguidehowuncertainties

arecomprehendedandsubsequently managed. When

astructureis saidto besafeduringadjacent excava-

tion, itmeanstheassessorholdsomesufficientdegree

of belief.

In past decades, there has been a greater aware-

ness on need to treat and manage the geotechnical

Figure2. Geotechnical safety.

uncertaintyinarational andexplicit way. Inresponse

to this demand, active discussion and development

have been seen on topics that may be grouped into

fivecategories: soil variabilitycharacterization, relia-

bility analysis, newgenerationdesigncode, observa-

tional method, andrisk assessment andmanagement.

Advancementsinthesedisciplines, ontheother hand,

areintendedto address better issues ongeotechnical

safety. Theseconceptsareconveniently illustratedby

Figure2.

1.3 Risk assessment

Traditionally, risks weremanaged indirectly through

the engineering decisions taken during the project

development.Moreoftenthannot,theinformationand

knowledge used behind the decisions are inexplicit

and not easy to trace. To improve this, it is neces-

sary tointroduceformal risk management technique.

Inthispractice, riskisdefinedastheproductof failure

probabilityandconsequences:

Where, P

f

is probability of failure and C

f

is conse-

quencesof failure.

By definition, risk assessment must account for

both the probability and extent of adverse conse-

quencesof hazardeventsarisingfromagivenactivity.

Thus, risk assessment involves identificationof haz-

ardeventsandqualitativeor quantitativedescriptions

of risks. Thescopeof riskanalysiscontainstheentire

process of the causes and effect of adverse events.

Suchaprocessiscomposedof threesequential parts,

an initiator that starts it, response to the initiator

and the consequences (Vick, 2002) as illustrated in

Figure3.

Initiatoristhecausethatsetsapotential failurepro-

cessinmotion. Responseistheeventdirectlyresulted

fromthe initiator, and also called the hazard event

in some occasions. Response leads to failure if the

68

Figure3. Componentsof riskanalysis(Vick, 2002).

resistanceor capacity of astructureis unableto sus-

tain theeffects. In risk analysis, failureis treated as

consequenceandneedstobeaphysically observable

conditionlikeretainingwall collapse, utility pipeline

broken, roadwaydamageet al. Generally, failurecan-

not be evaluated meaningfully if it is not converted

to something measurable such as lives lost or dol-

lar cost. It is also important to realize there are

uncertaintiesassociatedwiththeresponse. Asshown

in Figure 3, probabilistic methods such as Bayes

approach, reliabilityanalysis, subjectivejudgmentand

othersareintroducedasthetoolsfor evaluatingthese

uncertainties.

As shownalso inFigure3, initiator, responseand

consequence are linked together by decomposition

techniquessuchaseventtreeandfaulttree. Eventtree

and fault treefacilitateenvision how failureprocess

occurs. As such, they are basic tool of risk identi-

fication and analysis. Figure 4(a) shows a two-level

of event tree and fault tress. The event starts with

initiator event I. If it occurs, the next event to hap-

pen is R

1

, followed by R

2

or R

3

or both. This event

tree contains two failure modes IR

1

R

2

and IR

1

R

3

.

Figure 4(b) presented the same failure progress by

Fault tree. Event uses a bottomup or forward

approach beginning with the initiator and taking it

to consequences. This captures failure process by

expressing its logical order. Fault tree, on the other

hand, usesatopdownorbackwardapproachstart-

ing fromthe top event and identifying the possible

eventsinthe2ndlevel throughasearchprocess. The

and andor logic gatesinstrumentedinFault tree

allowcomputations usingBooleanalgebraincoping

withcomplexproblem.

Figure4. Event treeandFault treeformat.

After riskisidentified, therestof workinriskanal-

ysis is to evaluate the probability and consequences

suchthat thecorrespondingrank-order canbedeter-

mined based on predefined criteria. Subjective,

degree-of-belief probability often areassessed using

expert investigation method incorporated with other

techniquessuchasDephi method, AnalyticHierarchy

Process(AHP), Fuzzysettheoryinriskanalysis. One

of thecontroversial issuesariseshereintheprocess

quantification of risks. According to Vick (2002),

qualitative approaches allows us to discern that one

thingismorelikelyor lesslikelythansomeother, but

animportantproperty byhowmuchmoreorless in

thequalificationprocessismissing. Other thanit, the

depthof theinsight totheproblemcanbereachedis

consideredinproportiontotheeffortsmadeinthepro-

cess of risk analysis wherenumerical quantification

usuallyrequiresmore.

Risk responsemeasureandreductionstrategy can

bedevelopedbasedonriskacceptablecriteriadefined

in risk policy (ITA, 2004). For risks with high rank-

order, itmaybenecessarytodevelopdesignoralterna-

tivesindeterminingriskreductionmeasure. Decision

analysis is essentially acomparativeapproach based

ondecisionrules andresults of risk analysis onvar-

ious alternatives. Similar techniques in risk analysis

69

0 1 2 3 4

Factor of safety, FS

P

r

o

b

a

b

i

l

i

t

y

D

e

n

s

i

t

y

F

u

n

c

t

i

o

n

FS=1.50

FS=2.00

(P

f

)

1

=0.6%

(P

f

)

2

=7.4%

Design alternative 1:

low uncertainty

Design alternative 2:

high uncertainty

Figure5. Effect of uncertainty.

can be applied to evaluate the risk associated with

each of the alternative. By comparing the results of

risk analysis, thealternativehaving thegreatest risk

effectiveness can be identified. Results of decision

analysis providea solid baselinefor decision maker

tomakedecisionwhendealingwithrisk.

1.4 Deterministic thinking versus probabilistic

thinking

Inengineering, adeterministicsystemisasystemthat

givenaparticularinput,itwill alwaysproducethesame

output, andtheunderlyingmachinewill always pass

through thesamesequenceof states. In this system,

results of thinking areeither right or wrong, mathe-

matic algorithms used are either correct or not, and

thereisnoneedtobebotheredbyuncertainty.

However,uncertaintyinfactexistsandtheeffectsof

whichmaybesignificant inmanyoccasionsandcan-

notjustbeneglected.Ashasbeenmentionedearlierin

this report, uncertainties ingeotechnical engineering

practicearemanagedthroughstandards, codes, design

criteria, factors of safety or established procedures.

Withsuchstrategies, thedeterministicthinkingworks

and functions well for situations where experience

androutineworksdominate. For uniquesituationsor

non-routineconditionsor inriskanalysis, uncertainty

becomes an unavoidableissuethat requires using of

the technique of probabilistic methods in obtaining

appropriatesolution.

Figure5demonstrates theeffect of uncertainty in

design results for two alternatives based on differ-

ent design models. The computed factors of safety

for alternative1andalternative2are1.50and2.00,

respective. In a deterministic system, the factor of

safety for alternative2is apparently higher, andthis

alternativeisalmost certaintobeselectedasthefinal

scheme. However, if theuncertaintiesassociatedwith

bothmodelsareconsidered, thefailureprobabilityof

alternative2is apparently higher eventhecomputed

factor of safetyseemsbetter.

Table1. Riskanddecisionanalysis.

ID Topic

IS-022 Riskanalysisandfuzzycomprehensive

assessment onconstructionof shield

tunnel inShanghai metroline

IS-294 Riskassessment onenvironmental impact in

XizangRoadTunnel

IS-293 Riskanalysisfor cutterheadfailureof composite

EPB shieldbasedonfuzzyfault tree

IS-070 Riskassessment for thesafegradeof deep

excavation

IS-055 Multi-factorsdurabilityevaluationinsubway

concretestructure

IS-383 Researchonstructural statusof operatingtunnel

of metroinShanghai andtreatment ideas

2 REVIEWOF PAPERS

2.1 Risk and decision analysis

As listed in Table 1, the papers related to risk and

decisionanalysisaregroupedintothissection.Among

thesepapers, IS-022, IS-294andIS-293discuss tun-

nelingriskanalysis, andIS-070introducesriskanaly-

sis for deepexcavation, andIS-055is about decision

analysis. Whiletheothers apply formal risk or deci-

sion analysis techniques in the evaluation approach,

theapproachpresentedinpaper IS-383canbetaken

as an informal risk management approach. As have

beenusedwidelyingeotechnical practice, risksasso-

ciated with the identified hazard events were not

presented. Nevertheless, thecauses of hazard events

were identified and the hazard prevention measures

weredeveloped.

Paper IS-022presentedarisk analysisapproachin

whichriskswereidentifiedthoroughthework break-

downandfaulttreemethod.Theassociatedrank-order

of theidentifiedriskswereanalyzedbyfuzzycompre-

hensive evaluation method. The expert investigation

method and AHP were used to determine the risk

indicators weight, evaluatetheprobabilitiesandcon-

sequences of the identified risks. The membership

function was applied to determine the membership

degreevalueof eachof theriskevents.Thecaseinves-

tigated in this paper was Shanghai metro, which is

a32.2kmlongshieldtunnel. For theconvenienceof

risk analysis, themetro linewas dividedinto 12sec-

tions. Resultsof theevaluationshowedtheidentified

riskeventsincludeobstruction, tunnel collapse, quick-

sand, groundwater ingress, ground settlement, et al.

The risk levels with respect to each of the sections

werefrommediumtosignificant. Thepossiblefinan-

cial lossisbetween100,000RMBto10,000,000RMB.

Basedontheriskclassificationcriteriaof thiscase, the

consequencesaregreat but compensable.

70

Paper IS-294 presented the risk analysis for the

constructionof Shanghai XizangRoadTunnel, ariver-

crossing tunnel built for the 2010 Shanghai Expo-

sition. Other special features included up-cross and

down-cross existing metro lines. Risk analysis was

based on expert investigation and confidence index

methods. The computer software TRM 1.0 devel-

oped by theTongji University was used as the tool

to analyzetherisk dataand thereafter determinethe

correspondingrisk level. Inthecaseinvestigated, the

work of risk analysis was focused on the environ-

mental impacts as a result of tunnel construction to

thesurroundingbuildings, roads, andutilitypipelines.

Basedontheanalysisresults, riskmitigationmeasures

focusedongroundsettlement control wereproposed.

Theauthorsalsopointedoutthattheriskisdynamicin

nature, whichrequiresconstantandcycledassessment

andtreatment.

Paper IS-293 presented for tunneling in adverse

groundcondition, thecutterheadof shieldmachineis

exposed to high risk of failure as a result of heavy

demand in machine operation. This paper presented

arisk analysis approach for cutterhead failureusing

the fault tree analysis method and fuzzy set theory.

In this study, risk identification was conducted by

thefault treeanalysis method. Results of theidenti-

fication indicated three major hazard events cuter

disk failure, cutter failure and other systemcompo-

nents failure will leadto cutterheadfailure. Expert

investigationmethodandfuzzyset theorywereintro-

ducedtoevaluatetheprobabilitiesandconsequences

of theoccurrences for thesehazardevents. Basedon

theresults of risk analysis, remediationmeasures for

thehazardeventswithhigherrisklevel weredeveloped

andpresented.

HistoricdatainpaperIS-070showedtheproportion

of accidentsindeepexcavationprojectsresultedfrom

designandconstructionrelatedproblemsis87%based

on344cases investigated. Becauseeffectivetools in

dealingwithgeotechnical uncertaintyandapplicabil-

ityof currentanalytical theoriesarelimited, engineers

tendtobeconservativeconsciously or not indealing

withgeotechnical problems. This is usually reflected

in high construction costs. To improvethis, aFuzzy

synthetic evaluation process was used in this study

for risk analysis. Thismethodfollowstheprocedures

in which the risk factors were identified first, and

expert investigationmethod, Analytic Hierarchy Pro-

cess(AHP) methodandDelphi methodwereadopted

todeterminetheweightfor eachof thefactorsandthe

safetyindex,andthesafetyrankingorderof anexcava-

tionproject canthusbedecided. Thecasevisitedwas

theShanghai international passenger transport center

project. The size of the excavation area, hydrogeol-

ogycondition, designfeature, constructionaspectand

surroundingenvironment areselectedas theprimary

factorsaffectingthesafetyof deepexcavation. Results

of the evaluation indicated that the level of safety

of the project as a whole was acceptable. However,

size of excavation area and hydrogeology condition

wereidentifiedasthefactorshavingmoresignificant

impactonthesafetyof theexcavationactivities. Mea-

sures to prevent hazard events fromhappening were

thusdevelopedbasedontheresultsof riskassessment.

Paper IS-055 presented a decision analysis

approach for determining the optimal design alter-

native for the concrete mixture of a subway tunnel.

Factors having significant influence on the durabil-

ity of subway concrete structure were identified to

be stray current corrosion, chloride ions ingression,

sulfate attack and carbonation. While the durability

attribution fromeach of the factors was determined

individually, thecombinedinfluenceof thesefactors

wasvague. Toobtaintheoptimal designscheme, five

designalternativesweredeveloped. Expert investiga-

tion method, AHP and Multiple Attribute Decision

Model incorporatedwithfuzzysettheorywereapplied

inassessingthejointinfluenceof thesefactors.Results

of the evaluation provided a baseline for decision

maker inselectingtheadequatedesignscheme.

PaperIS-383presentedthehealthdiagnosticresults

and hazard prevention or reduction measures for an

operating tunnel of Shanghai metro. Results of the

diagnosisshowedthetunnel structureissufferedfrom

detrimental events such as ingress of groundwater,

crackandconvergenceof tunnel lining, andsettlement

alongthetunnel alignment. Thecausesof thesedetri-

mental eventswereidentifiedtobeadversegeological

condition, sequela of the accidents during construc-

tion, local groundsubsidence, constructionactivities

in the proximity, etc. To prevent these detrimental

events fromgetting worseand reducetheassociated

riskstothetunnel andsurroundingenvironment,metro

passengersandthirdparties, control measuresinterms

of regulation, monitoringschemeswereproposed.

2.2 Geotechnical control

The geotechnical control is a process exercised

throughout the planning, design and construction

phasesof aprojecttofacilitateachievingprojectobjec-

tives. The control measures applied include regular

audit inspection, site supervision and risk manage-

menttoensureadequatedesignstandardsandeffective

safety protection beperformed such that theproject

can be completed in a manner of optimization. As

listedinTable2, twoof thepapersweregroupedinto

thissection.Thepaper IS-372introducedametrorail-

wayunderconstructionandthepaperIS-380presented

a retrospect study of a cable duct crossing project.

Bothof thecasesreportedwereconstructionprojects

inHongKong.

Paper IS-372 presented a geotechnical control

process exercised for a HK$8.3 billion subway

71

Table2. Geotechnical control.

ID Topic

IS-372 Geotechnical control of amajor railwayproject

involvingtunnel worksinHongKong

IS-380 PerformanceReviewof aPipeJ ackingProject

inHongKong

construction project in Hong Kong. This project is

packedintothreedesign-builtcontracts.Thecontentof

theprojectincludestheconstructionof shieldtunnels,

cut-and-cover tunnels and underground station. The

Geotechnical EngineeringOffice(GEO), Civil Engi-

neering and Development Department of the Hong

KongSpecial AdministrationRegion(HKSAR) is in

chargeof controllingthebuildingordinanceandreg-

ulations and issuing technical standards. Under of

auditingof GEO, theprivateowner of thisproject, the

KowloonCantonRailway corporation(KCRC) com-

mitted to follow theJ oint Codeof Practicefor Risk

Management of TunnelingWorksfor implementation

of risk management process. The geotechnical con-

trol process startedfromtheplanningstageandwill

be kept in effect throughout the construction stage.

Because the project is considered a private project,

thetunnel worksmaybeexemptedformtheadminis-

trativeprocedures. Thus, areviewpanel was formed

withinGEOintheplanningstage.TheKCRCdemon-

strated to GEO they had met the requirements for

instrument of exemption (IoE) in aspects including

risk management, design, and construction. TheIoE

wasissuedafter thedocument met withthespecified

requirements. Under the IoE, the KCRC is required

to appoint authorized personnel, employ assurance

system and control scheme, prepare site supervi-

sion plan, and keep appropriate records and reports

for regular GEO inspection during the construction

stage. Monthly meeting arescheduled between rele-

vantparties.Whensignificantchangesoccurindesign

or working methods, the KCRC needs to report to

GEO. The geotechnical control process is currently

inprogress.

Paper IS-380 review the performance of a cable

ductcrossingconstructionprojectinHongKong.With

theproject, thegeotechnical control processwasexer-

cised by the GEO, HKSAR. This project involved

theconstruction of a222mlong and 1.95mdiame-

ter tunnel to serveas cableduct crossingahighway,

two MRT tunnels, and twoAirport express link tun-

nels.Thiscableductwasconstructedwithpipejacking

method.Priortothecommencementof works,acondi-

tionsurveywasconductedforexistingutilitypipeline.

Duringconstruction, anautomaticmonitoringsystem

wasusedtotakereadingsfor monitoringrailwaytrack

settlement. Theworkof monitoringwascontrolledby

asystembasedonalert level, actionlevel andalarm

level management.Specifiedresponsescorresponding

toeachlevel of thesystemwerealsodefinedbeforethe

constructionstarted. Duringtheconstruction, aclose

to action level reading on the track settlement was

recorded. Under theframework of geotechnical con-

trol process, an urgent meeting was held among the

client, design and contractor. After the meeting, the

type of lubricant used for filling the gap between

thetunnel liningandsurroundingsoilswasreplaced.

Withthecontrol process, themaximumsettlement of

railway tracks was controlled within the maximum

allowable range throughout the whole construction

phase.

2.3 Ground response, analysis and design

Most of theengineeringdesignsarecomposedof two

major components determining the imposed load

and computing the resistance or capacity. Factor of

safety in a design problem is defined as the ratio

between the resistance and load. Because most of

thegeotechnical engineering projects areperformed

underground, theconstructionactivitiesinvolvingadd

or remove loads to the ground will inevitably result

in stress and strain redistribution. When theresulted

stresses exceed the resistance or capacity of the

ground,failurecouldoccur.However,groundresponse

beforereachingfailurestatemay drawmoreconcern

for underground construction project. In urban area,

underground construction induced ground deforma-

tion make the construction itself and the buildings,

utilitypipelinesandinfrastructuresadjacenttothecon-

struction siteexposed to therisk of being damaged.

Resultsof groundresponsepredictionandmonitoring

canbeusedas abaselinefor developingcontrol and

protectionschemes.

Thepapersinthisgrouparefurtherdividedintotwo

sub-groups groundresponse, analysis anddesign

for discussionpurposes.

2.3.1 Ground response

Table3liststhepapersrelatedtotheissueof ground

response. Paper IS-048 introduced a prototype and

laboratory scale non-destructive scanning technique

designed for detecting crack or cavity ahead of the

frontendof ashieldmachine. Paper IS-369presented

an analytical approach for evaluating the squeez-

ing potential of soft rock. Paper IS-247 presents a

numerical investigation for the floor heave behavior

at theT-sectionof adeepminingtunnel usingthree-

dimensional finiteelementmethod. Paper IS-376dis-

cusses the application of strain gauge in measuring

strut load in deep excavation project in Singapore.

Suggestionsfor maximizingitseffectivenessarealso

proposed. Paper IS-014andIS-339present theappli-

cation of fuzzy set theory and neural network in

predictinggroundsettlement inducedbytunneling.

72

Table3. Groundresponse.

ID Topic

IS-048 Experimental studiesof ageological measuring

systemfor tunnel withultrasonictransducer

IS-369 Squeezingpotential of tunnelsinclaysand

clayshalesfromnormalizedundrainedshear

strength, unconfinedcompressivestrength

andseismicvelocity

IS-247 Floor heavebehavior andcontrol of roadway

intersectionindeepmine

IS-376 MaximisingthePotential of StrainGauges:

A SingaporePerspective

IS-014 Predictionof surfacesettlement inducedby

shieldtunneling: anANFISmodel

IS-339 Theuseof artificial neural networkstopredict

groundmovementscausedbytunneling

Paper IS-048 presented an experimental model

developed for detecting multiple reflection sources

basedonrotational scanningtechniqueandultrasonic

wavereflectionmethod. Intheproposedtest config-

uration, theground was simulated by plaster blocks,

amongwhichthemaximumdimensionisof 1000mm

in height, 1200mmin width and 150mmin thick-

ness. Horizontal andinclinedcracksaresimulatedby

drilledholes. Various signal process techniques such

as stacking, signal compensation, and demodulation

wereappliedto obtainultrasonic imageof thespace

aheadof thescanningtransducer. Resultsof theexper-

imental evaluationshowedthat theproposedmethod

is ableto identify thelocation of multiplereflection

sources.

The tunnel squeezing phenomenon was first

describedbyTerzaghi (1946) whoassociatedsqueez-

ing mainly with clayrich rocks. One of the first

stability criteria to predict squeezing was developed

by Peck (1969) for tunnels in clays based on Broms

and Bennermarks (1967) stability criteria for open

excavation. For tunnel in rocks, most of thesqueez-

ingcriteriaproposedareempirical or semi-empirical

suchas Singhet al. (1992), Goel et al. (1995, 2000),

J ethwael al. (2000) andmore. Themainchallengein

useof thesesemi-empirical approachesisinthedeter-

minationof therock massstrength. Inaddition, most

of theproposedmethodologiesdevelopedthusfar are

mainlyfor claysor hardrocks. Fewstudieshavebeen

proposedfor intermediatematerial suchashardsoils

or soft rocks.

In paper IS-369, simple methods to evaluate the

squeezingpotential of intermediatesoil-rockmaterial

based on undrain shear strength, unconfined com-

pressivestrengthandP-wavevelocity was proposed.

Evaluation of field measurement and other empiri-

cal tunnel squeezing criteriawas also performed for

comparativepurpose.

For largecrosssectiontunnel, thegrounddeforma-

tion resulted fromexcavation work is usually much

moresignificant at thetunnel intersectionthanat the

regular part. Thus, special measures controllingpos-

sibleground movement that might bedetrimental to

the safety is necessary. Paper IS-247 presented an

investigationof thefloor heaveataT-sectionof aven-

tilationtunnel atthedepthof GL. 990mof Tongkou

colliery usingthree-dimensional finiteelement mod-

eling. Basedontheevaluationresults, suggestionsfor

controllingfloor heaveweregiven.

Instrumentation plays an important role in ensur-

ing that construction control is maintained during

excavation. Comparison between themonitored data

anddesignpredictions provides theopportunities for

verifying design results and refining design meth-

ods. Experiences indicate in most of the excavation

project, someof theinstrumentationreadingsaregen-

uineloadconditionswhilesomearenot. Itisimportant

togainclear understandingof theimpact of construc-

tionactivitiesanddatainterpretationandmakeeffort

tomaximizethequalityof thedata.

Accordingto paper IS-376, straingaugeis widely

used in measuring the change of strut load in deep

excavationinSingaporebecauseof theacceptablereli-

ability andlowcosts comparedto other instruments.

However, theperformanceof straingaugecaneasily

beaffectedbythelocationwhereitisinstalled, electro-

magneticinterference, temperature, preloading, weld-

ingandother constructionactivities. Tominimizethe

influence of these factors, measures such as use of

loadcell asacrossreference, protectionagainst con-

struction induced disturbance, and use of real time

systemwereproposed. For datainterpretation, skilled

personnel fullyawareof thedesignpredictionsfor the

excavation, the excavation process and the potential

impact of the excavation on the readings should be

assigned.

Duetothecomplexity andvariationof theground

composition, accuratepredictionof tunnelinginduced

ground settlement based on conventional geotechni-

cal approachessuchasempirical methods, analytical

methodsor numerical methodsisconsideredbymany

asachallenge. Empirical approachiseasy tousebut

oftenprecludestheconsiderationof groundresistance

anddeformability parameters. Analytical andnumer-

ical approach are generally using simplified ground

parameters for practical purposes rather than incor-

porating the complete ground conditions along the

wholerangeof atunnel alignment intothemodeling

approach. The applicability of available constitutive

models and simulation of three dimensional ground

responsewithin2dimensional spacefor groundset-

tlement predictionis controversial tomany. Analter-

nativeinsolvingtheproblemsmentionedaboveisthe

artificial intelligencetechnique. Artificial neural net-

work and fuzzy logic wereintroduced into this field

for predictioninrecent years.

73

Figure6. Conceptual model of aneural network withtwo

inputsandoneoutputs.

An artificial neural network (ANN), often just

called a neural network (NN), is a mathematical

model based on biological neural networks. A con-

ceptual model is showninFigure6. It consists of an

interconnected group of artificial neurons and pro-

cessesinformationusingaconnectionist approachto

computation. In most cases an ANN is an adaptive

systemthat changesitsstructurebasedonexternal or

internal information that flows through the network

duringthelearningphase. Inmorepractical termsneu-

ral networks arenon-linear statistical datamodeling

tools. They can be used to model complex relation-

shipbetweeninputsandoutputsor tofindpatternsin

data. Oneof themostimportantpropertiesof ANNsis

their abilitytolearnfromenvironmentandtoimprove

their performance with such learning. The learning

occurs when the NN reaches a generalized solution

for aparticular caseof problems.

Fuzzylogicisaformof multi-valuedlogicderived

fromfuzzy set theory to deal with reasoning that is

approximaterather than precise. J ust as in fuzzy set

theory theset membershipvalues canrangebetween

0and1,infuzzylogicthedegreeof truthof astatement

canrangebetween0and1andisnotconstrainedtothe

twotruthvalues, trueandfalse, asinclassicpredicate

logic.Whenlinguisticvariablesareused,thesedegrees

maybemanagedbyspecificfunctions.

The Adaptive Neural-Fuzzy Inference System

(ANFIS) isahybridintelligent systemcombiningthe

abilityof aneural networktofuzzylogic. Anillustra-

tivearchitect of ANFIS is given in Figure7. It uses

agiven set of input/output datato construct afuzzy

inferencesystemwithinwhichthemembershipfunc-

tion parameters are tuned or adjusted using either a

backpropagation algorithmalong or in combination

with aleast squaretypeof method. This adjustment

allows thefuzzy systemto learn fromdataand thus

it alsohasthepotential inprediction. Thispaper pre-

sentedanapplicationof anANFISbasedmodel inthe

predictionof shieldtunnel inducedsettlement.

Paper IS-339 presented an application of ANN in

predictinggroundsettlement inducedbytunnel exca-

vation. ThecasevisitedistheMetro-DF inthecityof

Brasiliaandthetunnel wasconstructedusingtheNew

Figure7. Architectureof ANFIS.

Table4. Input andoutput parameters.

Input parameters, x

i

Output parameter, y

Groundsettlementsalongthe Groundsettlement

centerlineof tunnel alignment alongthecenterline

0m, 5m, 10m, 20mand of tunnel alignment

30mrelativetofront endof +5mrelativeto

shieldmachine front endof shield

tunnel lininginstalledper dayin machine

termsof thenumber of rings

Austrian Tunneling Method (NATM). Two data sets

wereused for training theANN. Oneof thedataset

wasobtainedfromthemonitoreddataduringthetun-

nel constructionandtheother was establishedbased

on results of finite element modeling. Validating or

testingof theANN was performedafter thecomple-

tionof trainingphase. Results of theevaluationwith

monitored data show the average correlation coeffi-

cientsbetweenthepredictedandmeasuredvaluewere

about0.99and0.95atthecompletionof trainingphase

and at the validating phase, respectively. Although

the prediction with finite element method exhibited

better correlation between the results obtained from

thetrainingandvalidatingphases, precisionwas not

always achieved. Theauthors attributed thecauseof

lacking precision to inadequate constitutive model,

difficulty insimulatingthereal tunnel geometry, and

simulatethethreedimensional physical realityintwo

dimensional space. Based on the evaluation results,

the authors concluded that theANN is an effective

computational tool inpredictingsettlementinducedby

tunnelingwhengoodset of trainingdataisavailable.

Paper IS-014 presented the application of an

ANFIS model inthepredictionof groundsettlement

induced by shield tunneling. The case visited is the

Shanghai No.2subwayproject.Datasetobtainedfrom

field measurements was used in model training and

validating.

Results of the evaluation showed that theANFIS

predictionsareingoodagreement withthemeasured

data with relative error within the range from 2%

to 7%. For this particular case visited, the author

74

Table5. Analysisanddesign.

ID Topic

IS-083 Researchandapplicationof roadtunnel structure

optimization

IS-374 Frameworkof performance-basedfireprotection

designmethodfor roadtunnel

IS-125 Discussionondesignmethodfor retaining

structuresof metrostationdeepexcavation

inShanghai

IS-234 Researchonstochasticseismicanalysisof

undergroundpipelinebasedonphysical

earthquakemodel

also compared the ANFIS predicted results with

those derived fromPeck approach (1969), Pi-sigma

approach (Gupta and Rao, 1994) and Back Propa-

gation based neural network method. According to

theauthors, theANFISpredictionexhibitedrelatively

better accuracy and stablein terms of thecomputed

results.

2.3.2 Analysis and design

Thepapersrelatingtoanalysisanddesignaregrouped

inthissectionaslistedinTable5.

Accordingtopaper IS-083, conventional roadtun-

nelsaredesignedbasedonpassiveanalysisapproach.

This method follows the procedure (1) alternatives

development (2) computationandanalysis(3) select-

ing the best design scheme among alternatives. The

advantageof this methodis conceptually easy. How-

ever it is time consuming and may not be able to

identify the best alternative if it is not included in

the scheme developed. Thus, it is difficult to eval-

uate the performance of the structure. To improve

this, anoptimizationmethodisproposedinthispaper.

In this method, the dimensions of the tunneling are

treatedasinputvariables, andthestressof thespringis

theobjectivefunction. Algorithmof complexanalysis

programmedby C++ languagewasusedintheopti-

mizationprocess. Resultsof comparisonshowedboth

thestressdistributionalongthetunnel andtherelating

structural costwerereducedsignificantlybasedonthe

resultsevaluationfor thismethod.

Currently, performancebaseddesigncodehasbeen

usedinfireprotectiondesignfor buildings. However,

the design code for road tunnels is still prescrip-

tivebased. In viewof this, Paper IS-374 proposed a

frameworkof performancebaseddesigncodeforroad

tunnelswithlargecrosssections.

Although there is no significant variation in the

construction methods and geological condition for

Shanghai metro, results of diaphragmwall and strut

designinterms of diaphragmdepth, thickness, rebar

content, andstrut loadindeepexcavationareappar-

ently variedevenfor projectswithsimilar excavation

depth.ThepaperIS-125presentstheresultsof investi-

gationforprojectswithexcavationdepthfrom14.92m

to17.28m.Thecomparisonof thestrutloadsbetween

thedesignvalueandfieldmeasurement inShanghai

wasalsopresented. Causesof thedeviationwereiden-

tifiedtoberesultsof differentcomputationtools, anal-

ysisparameters, andlackingcommunicationbetween

designer and contractor. Over-design and unneces-

sary cost were often the consequences. Suggestions

ontheissues relatingto activeearthpressurecoeffi-

cients, vertical springcoefficient, k

v

, under thetoeof

thediaphragmwall, equivalent subgradecoefficient,

k

h

, strut load, diaphragmthickness, and monitoring

schemewereproposed.

3 CONCLUSIONANDREMARK

3.1 Treatment for geotechnical uncertainty

Inconventional approach, geotechnical uncertaintyis

managed through codes, standards, design criteria,

establishedproceduresandother devices. Uncertainty

is recognized somewhat indirectly and inexplicitly.

Engineering judgment plays an important role and

has beenusedcommonly indefiningandsettingthe

aforementioned management devices. For risk man-

agementandotheruniqueornon-routinegeotechnical

problems, judgment still plays an important rolebut

geotechnical uncertaintyneedstobetreatedexplicitly

for requirements such as safety evaluation. Proba-

bilistic methods includingBayes theorem, reliability

method, subjectiveprobability and moreprovidethe

necessarytoolsincopingwithit.

3.2 Qualification and quantification for risks

Expert investigationmethodwasusedextensivelyfor

risk analysis indeterminingtheprobability andcon-

sequencesof riskevents.Thismethodrequiresexperts

toexpresstheirjudgmentinqualitativetermsbasedon

predefinedcriteria, all informationavailable, andthe

uncertaintiesof therisktheyperceive.Theapplication

of elicitationtechniquesbasedoncognitiveprocessis

necessaryinfindingthetruebelief of theexperts. Itis

alsoimportanttoreducetheextentof whatconsidered

unavoidablebiaswhenusingelicitationtechniquesin

expert investigation.

Uncertainty is usually expressed qualitatively and

the use of verbal terms like possible, probable,

likely or unlikely seems to work well. However,

numerical quantificationprovidesthemissinglinkfor

qualitativeapproach. Theextent to which theuncer-

tainty of an event is greater than the other can be

determinedthroughquantitativeapproach. Itisimpor-

tant to note that probability, qualitatively or not, is

only averbal description or theoutput of numerical

quantification process. Theinsight obtained through

75

theprocess is what really matters. Theinsight helps

us understand the true meaning of the probability

associatedwiththeproblemandwhat behindit.

3.3 Decision analysis

Decision analysis is a technique developed on the

framework of risk analysis and comparative skills.

Throughthistechnique, arelativelybetterdesignalter-

nativecan bedetermined. Nevertheless, it shouldbe

notedthat decisionanalysis only provides abaseline

for decisionmaker. A well-informeddecisioncomes

about by consideringrisk magnitudes, risk reduction

measures,andfeasibilityinperformingthesemeasures

other thantheresultsof decisionanalysis.

3.4 Need for more case studies

Nonewtheory insoil mechanicscanbeacceptedfor

practical use without ample demonstration by field

observations that it is reasonable accurate under a

variety of conditions (Terzaghi and Peck, 1948). To

interpret theresults of observation, it is necessary to

incorporatejudgment. J udgment, or subjectiveproba-

bilityplaysanimportantroleforriskmanagementand

hazardcontrol. Theacquisitionof judgment relieson

experience and knowledge that can be derived from

field observation or diligent study of published case

histories. Becausetheopportunityof performingper-

sonal observationislimitedfor mostincontemporary

geotechnical practice, studyof casehistoriesbecomes

theprimarysourcefor accessinganddevelopingones

ownexperience.

Forriskmanagementandhazardcontrol, morecase

studies are needed. Geotechnical engineers should

makebestuseof availabletoolsandpresenttheircases

for further studies.

PAPER INTHEME 4

Ai, X.Q. &Li, J. 2008. Researchonstochasticseismicanaly-

sisof undergroundpipelinebasedonphysical earthquake

model.

Bao, X.H. &Huang, H.W. 2008. Riskassessmentforthesafe

gradeof deepexcavation.

Chissolucombe, I., Assis, A.P. &Farisa, M.M. 2008. Theuse

of artificial neural networkstopredictgroundmovements

causedbytunneling.

Cong, C. &Linde,Y. 2008. Multi-factordurabilityevaluation

insubwayconcretestructure.

Ding, W.Q. & Xu,Y. 2008. Researchandapplicationof road

tunnel structural optimization.

Guo, B.H. &Lu,T.K. 2008. Floorheavebehaviorandcontrol

of roadwayintersectionindeepmine.

Gutierrez, M. &Xia, C. 2008. Squeezingpotential of tunnels

inclaysandclayshalesfromnormalizedundrainedshear

strength, unconfined compressive strength and seismic

velocity.

Han, X. & Ding, G.Y. 2008. Framework of performance-

basedfireprotectiondesignmethodfor roadtunnel.

Hou, J., Zhang, M.X. & Tu, M. 2008. Predictionof surface

settlementinducedbyshieldtunneling: anANFISmodel.

Kim, D.H., Kim, U.Y., Lee, S.P., Lee, H.Y. & Lee, J.S. 2008.

Experimental studies of a geological measuring system

for tunnel withultrasonictransducer.

Lam, T.S.K. 2008. Performance review of a pipe jacking

project inHongKong.

Lee, W., Chung, S.S., Roberts, K.J. & Pang, P.L.R. 2008.

Geotechnical control of amajor railwayprojectinvolving

tunnel worksinHongKong.

Li, J.P., Wang, R.L. & Yan, J.Y. 2008. Research on struc-

tural statusof operatingtunnel of metroinShanghai and

treatment ideas.

Osborne, N.H., Ng, C.C., Chen, D.C., Tan, G.H., Rudi, J. &

Latt, K.M. 2008. Maximising the potential of strain

gauges: A Singaporeperspective.

Wang, R., Liu, G.B. & Liu, D.P. 2008. Discussionondesign

method for retaining structures of metro station deep

excavationinShanghai.

Yan, Y.R., Huang, H.W. & Hu, Q.F. 2008. Risk analysis for

cutterheadfailureof compositeEPBshieldbasedonfuzzy

fault tree.

Yao, C.P., Huang, H.W. &Hu, Q.F. 2008. Riskassessmenton

environmental impact inXizangRoadTunnel.

Zhou, H.B., Yao, H. & Gao, W.J. 2008. Risk analysis

andFuzzycomprehensiveassessment onconstructionof

shieldtunnel inShanghai Metroline.

REFERENCES

ABI/BTS. 2004. A J oint Codeof Practicefor theProcure-

ment, DesignandConstructionof TunnelsandAssociated

Underground Structures, London: The Association of

BritishInsurer, TheBritishTunnelingsociety.

Douglas Hubbard Howto MeasureAnything: Finding the

Value of Intangibles in Business, J ohn Wiley & Sons,

2007.

David Muir Wood. 2004. Geotechnical Modeling, Spon

Press, NewYork.

Gupta, M.M. & Rao, D.H. 1994. Ontheprinciplesof fuzzy

neural network. FuzzySetsandSystems, 61(1): 18.

Huang, H.W. etal. 2006. Guidelinesof riskManagementfor

MetroTunnellingandUndergroundEngineeringWorks,

Tongji University.

Internatinal tunnel Association. 2002. WorkingGroupNo. 2,

Guidelinesfor tunnelingriskmanagement, Balkema.

Peck, R.B. 1969. Deep excavation and tunneling in soft

ground. Proceedingsof the7thInternational Conference

onsoil MechanicsandFoundationEngineering, Mexico.

StevenG. Vick. 2002. Degrees of Belief-SubjectiveProba-

bilityandEngineeringJ udgment, ASCE Press, American

Societyof Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia, USA.

Terzaghi, K. &Peck, R. 1948. Soil mechanicsinengineering

practice, Wiley, NewYork.

Whitman, R.V. 2000. Organizing and Evaluating Uncerat-

intyinGeotechnical Engineering,J ournal of Geotechnical

andGeoenvironmental Engineering,Vol. 126, No. 7, J uly,

2000.

76

Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground Ng, Huang & Liu (eds)

2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-48475-6

Calculationanddesignmethods, andpredictivetools

F. Emeriault & R. Kastner

LGCIE, INSA-Lyon, F-69621, France

ABSTRACT: This general report covers 19papers that areincludedinsession6of thesymposium, related

to thedesignor calculationmethods andpredictivetools for tunnelinganddeepexcavations. For this report,

thepapers havebeenclassifiedin3mainsubjects: i) excavations, ii) tunneling, iii) general papers ondesign

methods andtools. Thereareagreater number of papers concerningtunnelling, coveringalargenumbers of

subjects, subdividedinthefollowingtopics: T.B.M. simulation, Groundreactioncurve, Longitudinal behaviour

of segmentedlining, Settlement troughs, Effect of vibrations.

1 INTRODUCTION

This session with a very broad theme, contains 19

papers. Tables1and2presentaclassificationof these

papers, by countriesandby themes. Therearepapers

from8 countries, but more than half of the papers

(11/19) arefromChina.

Table1. Classificationbycountries.

Countries Number of papers

Brazil 2

China 11

J apan 1

Kazakstan 1

Korea 1

Netherlands 1

UK 1

USA 1

Table2. Classificationbysubjects.

Number

Topics Sub-topic of papers

Excavations 3

Tunnels TBM simulation 1

Groundreactioncurve 2+2(rock)

Settlement trough 2

Longitudinal behaviour 2

Effect of vibrations 3

General 4

Thecontent of thepapers can bebroadly divided

intocalculationanddesignof tunnellingworks, exca-

vations, andmoregeneral papers. 3papers deal with

excavation, considering3different aspects: basal sta-

bility, strut loads, and effect on nearby piles. There

areagreater number of papersconcerningtunnelling,

covering a large number of subjects. Among these

12 papers, 1 reports onTBM numerical simulation,

2present analytical methods for thegroundreaction

curve, 2 deal with the assessment of the settlement

trough, 2 consider the problem of the longitudinal

behaviour of thesegmentedtunnel lining, 3report on

theeffectof vibrationsor ontheseismicresponse, the

2remainingconcerningmoreproblemsrelatedtorock

tunnels. Finallythereare4general papersconcerning

thesimulationtoolsor presentinganational report.

Consideringthislargenumber of subjects, it isnot

reallypossibletohighlight amainemphasis, someof

thepapers covering very narrowsubjects and others

concerningverygeneral topics.

In thefollowing sections of this report, themajor

findingsandkeyfeaturesof eachpaper arepresented

andbrieflydiscussed.

2 EXCAVATIONS

Song and Huang studiedthebasal stabilityof anexca-

vationinsoft clay by anupper boundapproach. The

failuremechanismconsidered(Figure1) is basedon

theclassical Prandtl failuremechanism.Theiroriginal

contributiontothisproblemistoconsider thedepen-

denceof theshorttermshearresistanceof softclayson

thelocal orientationof thefailuresurface. They pro-

poseananalytical upper boundsolutionbasedonthis

77

H

D

T

B B1

i

R

Figure1. Definitionof geometricparameters.

0. 3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0. 8 0. 9 1

Anisotropy Ratio

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

S

a

f

e

t

y

F

a

c

t

o

r

D=6m

D=8m

D=10m

D=12m

Figure 2. Influence of D/H on the factor of safety

( =18kN/m

3

, undrained shear strength S

uv

(z)=0.33

v

,

width of the excavation B=15m, depth of the excavation

H=12m).

kinematical mechanismandontheequationproposed

by CasagrandeandCarillo (1944) for describingthe

anisotropyof shear strength:

whereS

uh

andS

uv

areobtainedby undrainedtriaxial

compressionandextensiontests.

Figure2presentstheresultsof aparametric study

ontheevolutionof thesafetyfactorwiththeanisotropy

ratio, for different values of the embedment depth.

It appears clearly that theanisotropy ratio has more

influencethantheembedment depthwhichincreases

onlyslightlythesafetyfactor.Theauthorsstudiedalso

the influence of the depth of the bedrock, when the

bedrocklimitstheextensionof thefailuremechanism.

Thisapproachcomparedwell witha2DFEanalysis

of adeepexcavationinBostonBlueClayapresentedby

Figure3. Comparisonof freeheadpilegroup.

HashashandWhittle(1996) usinganadvancedeffec-

tivestress soil model, MIT-E3. Theauthors analysed

also a case of failure in Shanghai where the stan-

dardcodesledtosafety factorsof morethan1.4and

wherethis approach leads to asafety factor of 0.97,

explainingthebasal instability.

Zhang and co-authors present a method for esti-

matingtheresponseof pilestolateral soil movements

inducedbyanearbyexcavation.

Forasinglepile,themethodisbasedontheclassical

two-stageapproach(Poulos& Chen1997):

in afirst step, thefree-field soil movement must

bedeterminedeither bymeasurement or bycalcu-

lation;

inasecondstep, thesesoil movementsareimposed

to the piles through aWinkler subgrade reaction

model: thepileis representedby anelastic beam,

the pile-soil interaction is modeled using linear

elastic soil springs, the effect of axial load on

thepileisignored. TheWinkler subgradereaction

equationissolvedbyaFDapproach, permittingto

takeintoaccount heterogeneoussoils.

This classical method has been extended by the

authorstopilegroups. Inthecaseof pilegroups, the

shielding effect of piles is modelled by superposing

to the free field soil movement the reduction of the

displacement dueto neighbouringpiles. This shield-

ingeffect is calculatedusinganattenuationfunction

basedonsimplifiedMindlinsequation.

Theauthorspresentacomparisonof their approach

withcentrifugemodel tests andfiniteelement simu-

lationpublishedbyLeunget al (2000).

A comparisonof calculatedandmeasuredbending

moments is given on Figures 3 and 4 in thecaseof

78

Figure 4. Comparison of front pile in capped head pile

group.

Figure5. Exampleof strut system.

pilegroups: thissimplifiedmodel fitsquitewell with

theexperimental resultsforfreeheadedpilesbutthere

aresomedifferencesinthecaseof cappedpiles. The

authors explainthat this differencecouldbereduced

by using a non-linear elastic spring hypothesis, but

perhapsisit duetotheWinklershypothesisitself.

Finally, itmustbenotedthatthismethodisnotspe-

cifictoexcavations, andcouldbeusedforotherworks

inducinglateral soil movements, suchastunnellingor

embankmentsonsoft clays.

Shi and co authors presentamethodfor estimating

byback-analysisthestrutloadsinacomplexconcrete

strutsystem, suchasthesystempresentedonFigure5.

The proposed method is based on measured dis-

placements of thewall inthehorizontal planeof the

Figure6. ForcesactingontheTBM.

strut system, the load distribution between the dif-

ferent struts at the same level being calculated by

back-analysis.

Astherearenodirectloadmeasurements, themag-

nitudeof theloadsobtainedbythisapproachdepends

stronglyontheapriori hypothesisconcerningthedis-

tributionof soil pressureactingonthewall. Therefore

thismethodcanonlygiveanindicationontherelative

distributionof theloads.

3 TUNNELING

3.1 T.B.M. simulation

Chen and co-authors present aninterestingpaper on

thebehaviourof aTBMwhenfollowingacurvedalign-

ment.Theyproposeacomprehensivenumerical model

of an articulated shield which is an extension of a

kinematic shield model proposed for a single circu-

lar shield(Sugimoto & Sramoon2002). Their model

isfocusedonthetunnel boringmachine, considering

all theforcesactingontheshield, suchasfor example

(Figure6)

thedifferent jackthrust forces,

thepressureactingontheface,

theforcesactingontheshieldperiphery.

Theselatterforcesrepresenttheinteractionbetween

theshieldandthesurroundingsoil.Theyaresimulated

by aspringmodel. Therefore, inthis model, thetun-

nellingoperationisseenmainlyfromthepointof view

of theTBM.

Thesimulationof theTBMbehaviourisobtainedby

imposingtothemodel themainoperationparameters

of theshield.

A comparisonbetweenanobservedandsimulated

behaviour is presentedinFigure7. Theactual shield

trajectory, inthevertical andhorizontal plane, andin

79

29.6

29.7

29.8

29.9

20 40 60 80 100

Distance (m)

x

(

m

)

-6940

-6920

-6900

-6880

-8740 -8720 -8700 -8680 -8660 -8640

z (m)

y

(

m

)

Observed

Simulated

start

end

start

end

Vertical plane

Horizontal plane

R =20 m

Figure7. Simulatedandobservedbehaviour.

extremeconditionsof asharpcurve, iswell simulated

bythisverycomprehensivemodel.

Thismodel givesalsothefieldof soil pressureact-

ing on theshield, derived fromthespring model, as

shownonthisfigure. Inafurtherstep, itcouldbeinter-

estingtousethesecalculatedcontactstressesbetween

theshieldandthesoil inacontinuummodel of thesoil

massfor modellingthesoil deformationandtocheck

if thesecalculated contact stresses lead to arealistic

simulationof observeddisplacements andsettlement

troughs.

3.2 Ground reaction curve

Shin and co-authors proposean analytical model of

the ground reaction curve taking into account the

seepageforces.Thefollowingclassical hypothesesare

adopted:

Thetunnel isboredinaninfinitesoil masssubjected

toahydrostaticinsitustress,

Thesoil is linear elastic perfectly plastic withthe

Mohr-Coulombyieldcriteria,

Radial seepage forces are taken into account, as

indicatedintheequilibriumequation:

The hydraulic gradients are calculated separately,

consideringasteadystateof seepage.

Basedonthesehypotheses, theauthorsproposean

analytical solutionof theelasto-plasticstateof stress,

expressed in terms of stress state and displacement.

Duetotheseassumptions, thismodel ismoreadapted

todeeptunnels.

Theauthors present an application of their model

for a50mdeeptunnel, withadiameter of 5meters.

Different cases are examined: fully drained or with

Figure8. Effect of radial seepageon theground reaction

curve.

asemi impervious lining, havingthesamemechani-

cal propertiesthanthesurroundingsoil.A comparison

betweenthedrysoil caseandthefullydrainedcaseis

presentedinFigure8:

in dry conditions, the pressure decreases rapidly

with the convergence, as the soil resistance is

mobilised,

when fully drained seepage is considered, there

is a marked increase of the convergence for a

given internal pressure, as the seepage forces do

not depend on the soil convergence and remain

constant.

Despitethediversesimplificationsof suchanana-

lytical model, this paper gives interestingindications

ontheinfluenceof seepageforces andshows clearly

that they should be taken into account for mod-

elling the ground reaction curves and for assessing

thestabilityof theexcavation.

Inasecondpaper ongroundreactioncurves, Sozio

presentsa2Dor 3Danalytical model representingthe

tunnel andthesoil cover by athick sphereor athick

cylinder (Figure 9). The soil model is the classical

linear elastic-perfectlyplasticMohr-Coulombmodel.

The originality of this model is that the gravity

forcesareemulatedbyradial bodyforces.Thisenables

totakeintoaccount alimitedcover depth, withasur-

faceloadandaninternal pressure.Theauthorproposes

to use this 3D model for a preliminary assessment

of thestability of theunlined length of atunnel, the

problembeing to estimate the radius of the sphere

equivalent tothetunnel unsupportedheading.

Such analytical models are generally based on

restrictive hypotheses. It is the case for this model,

butithastobehighlightedthatinhispaper, theauthor

indicates very clearly thelimitations of theproposed

models. Itshouldbeinterestingtocomparethismodel

totheclassical approachbasedontheassumptionof a

tunnel boredinaninfinitesoil mass.

80

Figure9. Representationof thesoil tunnel interaction.

ThepaperspresentedbyZhang &Wang andLu et al

concernmorespecificallydeeprocktunnels.

Zhang &Wang studythegroundreactioninthecase

of apressuretunnel, therockmassbeingnotunloaded

but loaded by the internal pressure. In this specific

situation, quitefar fromurbantunnelsinsoft ground,

thesofteningof therockconsideredbytheauthorscan

leadtoabrokenzonearoundthetunnel.

Lu et al studied by 3D numerical simulations the

stability of different types of intersections between

deepminetunnelsandtheinfluenceof theconstruction

sequences. Themethodof simulationisnot precisely

described. If this study is not directly applicable to

shallowtunnels in soft ground, someof their results

can be considered froma qualitative point of view

suchas thefact that excavatingtowards theintersec-

tionappearsmoredangerousthanexcavatingfromthe

excavation.

3.3 Longitudinal behaviour of segmented lining

The paper proposed by Hoefsloot is based on the

observationthatthestagedconstructionof segmented

tunnel liningsinducesapermanentlongitudinal bend-

ingmomentinthelining. Basedonsolutionsproposed

byBogaards&Bakker(1999), andBakker(2000), the

author proposesananalytical solutionbyconsidering

thesegmented tunnel lining as abeamon an elastic

foundation.

Thelongitudinal loadingscheme(Bendingmoment

andshearforcefromjackforces, shearforcefromsteel

brushes, weight of lining segments, uniformly dis-

tributedloadof limitedlength: backuptrain)advances

withtheprogressof theTBM(Figure10).Thisanalyt-

ical model hasbeenbuiltinaspreadsheet, andverified

usingPLAXIS2D.

The result of this model is compared with strain

measurements made in the lining of the GROENE

HART tunnel in the Netherlands. As illustrated on

Figure11,abendingmomentisinducedintheliningby

D

br

l

i

l

u

x

q

w

M

jack

D

jack

q

l

q l

Figure10. Model usedbyHoefsloot torepresent thestage

constructionof thetunnel lining.

Figure11. Groenehardt tunnel evolutionof thebending

moment withtheadvanceof theTBM.

theadvancementof theTBMandbecomespermanent

afterabout60meters. Despitethesimplehypothesisof

aspringmodel,theevolutionof thebendingmomentis

quitewell modelled. Neverthelessthisresult hasbeen

obtainedbyadjustingsomeparameterswhicharedif-

ficult to assess, such as the lining bending stiffness

andtheeffect of grouting(Talmonet al. 2008).

Finally, this analytical model, validated on field

measurements, shows that thestagedconstructionof

thesegmental lininginastraightalignmentresultsina

permanent longitudinal bendingmoment, that should

beconsideredinthedesignof theliningandfor the

installationof thesegments.

A second paper on the longitudinal behaviour of

segmented lining is presented by Zhu et al. The

authors examinetheproblemof theactual longitudi-

nal stiffnessof segmentedliningswhichisoneof the

parameterswhichwasnecessarytoadjustinthemodel

proposedbyHoefsloot.

Theassessment of thelining stiffness is based on

a 3D numerical model, composed of shell elements

(Figure12) andjointswithshear andnormal stiffness

at all theinterfaces betweentheindividual elements.

Thecompletenumerical model, loadedasacantilever

beam, is comparedtoasimplifiedequivalent contin-

uous model, which is not precisely described in the

paper.

The stiffness deduced fromthe numerical model

appears on their example to depend on the segment

length and to be lower than the stiffness obtained

81

Figure12. Liningmodel.

2.U

0

U

0

/2

U

0

/2

Figure13. ConvergenceschemeproposedbyHeli Baoetal.

by the equivalent continuous model. But both mod-

els are based on hypothesises concerning the joint

behaviour, which need to be measured or assessed

based on the observation of the actual behaviour of

full scalesegmentedlinings.

3.4 Settlement troughs

Thereis generally alargeconsensus about theuseof

theGaussiantypecurvefor describingthesettlement

trough.

Thedirectestimationthroughelasticcalculationsor

by numerical simulations oftenleads to larger settle-

menttroughsthanobserved.Theresultdependsinfact

ondifferent assumptions, onebeingtheconvergence

profileof thegroundaroundthetunnel.

Heli Bao and his co-authors present an analyti-

cal solution, using conformal mapping of an elastic

half space. In order to fit with the observed settle-

ment troughs, they proposeanelliptical convergence

shape, basedonthesolutionproposedbyPark(1974),

asindicatedonFigure13.

This approachis comparedwiththeobservedset-

tlements duringtheconstructionof a6.2mdiameter

tunnel inShanghai. Thecalculatedsettlement trough

fitsquitewell withtheobservedone. Butnoindication

is givenconcerningtheassessment of themagnitude

of theconvergence, theauthorsindicatingsimply the

gapbetweentheTBM andthelining, gapwhichisin

fact certainlypartiallyfilledbygrouting.

Intheirpaper, Zu and Liu compareddifferentmeth-

odsforsettlementtroughassessment: Pecksempirical

approach(Peck1969), stochasticmediumtheory, and

thesolutionproposedbyVerruijt andBooker (1996).

-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Distance to the center of tunnel (m)

s

u

r

f

a

c

e

s

e

t

t

l

e

m

e

n

t

(

m

m

)

Peck's method

Stochastic medium theory

Verruijt and Booker's method (v=0.1)

Verruijt and Booker's method (v=0.2)

Figure 14. Settlement trough calculated using 3 different

methods(ZuandLiu).

TheexamplepresentedonFigure14exhibitsverylarge

differences, but it is in fact an extremecase, with a

coverdepthof lessthanonemeterforatunnel 6meters

indiameter.

Theypresentalsosomeobservedsettlementtroughs

fromShanghai metroline7construction.Itwouldhave

been interesting to have more details on the tunnel

worksleadingtothesesettlementtroughsandtocom-

paretheobservedsettlementtroughstothecalculation

methodspresentedinthefirst part of thepaper.

3.5 Effect of vibrations

Intheir 2complementarypapers, Cui and co-authors

investigate experimentally the dynamic loading and

the development of pore pressure of saturated silty

claysnearShanghai subwayLineNo.2, duringthepas-

sageof metrotrains. Ontheobservedsite, settlements

exceeding20cmwhereobserved, butnodetailsonthe

evolutionof thesesettlementsisgiven.

Theexperimental study is basedonfieldobserva-

tionsanddynamictriaxial tests.

Based on in situ measurements, the authors pro-

poseanexperimental lawof attenuationof thedynamic

loadingwiththedistancetothetunnel.Thislaw, dueto

thepolynomial approximationadopted, has certainly

alimited domain of validity, and cannot beextrapo-

lated outsidetherangeof distancecorresponding to

themeasurement points.

They studied also the development of pore pres-

surewiththedynamic loading, bothinthefieldand

by triaxial tests; but the relation of field measure-

mentsresultswithdynamictriaxial testsisnot clearly

described.

It would have been interesting to have more

details concerning the long termevolution of pore

pressureinsitu, combinedalso withtheevolutionof

soil deformationsduringcyclingloadingtests,inorder

toexplaintheobservedlargesettlements.

Baimakhan and co-authors propose a coupled

approach(analytical andnumerical) todeterminethe

82

stresses induced by earthquakes on the lining of

tunnelsof subwaylines.

Usingaconceptof homogeneousanisotropicelastic

mediumthey consider theeffect of thesuccessionof

different soil or rocklayers.

They analyse in a more specific way the case of

tunnel or gallerieswithalongitudinal axismakingan

anglewiththemajor directionof anisotropy.

4 GENERAL PAPERSONDESIGN

METHODSANDTOOLS

Koungelis &Augarde compare, onanacademicexam-

ple, theresultsgivenby2differentFE codes, Strand7

andPlaxis.Theyinvestigatetheeffectof surfaceload-

ingonwishedinplacetunnelsinsoftgroundassuming

planestrainconditions.

The initial conditions and soil characteristics are

thesameinall their simulations, except for dilatancy.

Thetwo meshes used in their comparativestudy are

quitedifferent: inPlaxisthemeshismorerefinedand

consistsof fifteen nodedtriangular elements, andin

Strand7themeshiscoarser, andmoreover consistsof

simple6nodedtriangular elements.

Theauthorscomparethechangesinhorizontal and

vertical diametersfor different positionof thesurface

load. There are actually small differences although

thereis agreat differencebetweentherefinement of

themeshesandthetypeof triangular elements.

Although no indication is given in thepaper, one

can suppose that in this example, plastic zones are

certainly very limited or absent around the tunnel.

Therefore, this paper compares essentially theinflu-

enceof themeshrefinementandof thetypeof element

inalinearelasticcase,whichexplainsthefactthatonly

minordifferenceisnoted.Suchcomparisonsshouldbe

extended to less academic situations, wherethetun-

nel construction is simulated and wheresmall strain

behaviour ismodelledor wherelargeplasticzonesare

mobilised.

Jeon and coauthors present an interesting com-

munication on the use of geostatistical methods for

assessingthespatial distributionof therockmasschar-

acteristicnamedRMR.Theycompareamethodnamed

SIS(J uanget al., 2003, Fenget al., 2006) tothemore

classical kriging (Marinoni, 2003; Pardo-Igzquiza

andDowd, 2005).

Theproblemconsideredhere, ishowtoassess, on

the base of limited bore holes, the ground charac-

teristics along thetunnel alignment. Theapplication

presented concerns deep rock tunnels, where geo-

statistical estimations of RMR around a tunnel are

compared.

Compared to kriging which gives a deterministic

value at each point considered, SIS gives a statisti-

cal distribution of theunknown valuewith different

Figure15. Distributionof estimatedvalue.

characteristics of this statistical distribution as illus-

tratedonFigure15.

Such a distribution is important information for

tunnelling projects, based on a limited number of

investigationpoints, inorder toevaluatethelimitsof

thedesignandfor riskassessment.

One of the difficulties for multiplying 2D or 3D

numerical simulations on tunnelling projects is that

thepre-processingtasksaremuchtimeconsuming.

Li and co-authors proposeintheir paper amethod-

ologytoderiveaFEMmodel fromnumerical geologi-

cal models, whicharemoreandmoreusedintheframe

of largegeotechnical projects.

The figures presented Figure 16 show some of

thestages, beginningfromthegeological model and

ending to a 3D finite element mesh and where the

soil characteristics areimported fromthegeological

model.

Insuchanapproach, couplingthegeological model

withthegeostatistical methodpresentedintheprevi-

ouspaper couldbecertainly avery powerful tool for

helpingthedesigner totestdifferenthypothesisof the

soil parameters.

Negro presentstheresultsof acomprehensivesur-

vey of current designpracticeinBrazil. Theanalysis

of this survey is basedontheanswers of 20experts.

Thetopics of thesurvey concernthemainaspects of

tunnel design:

Tunnel headingstability,

Settlement,

Damagetoexistingstructures,

Liningdesign,

Account of groundwater loading,

2D/3DFEM or FDM models,

Soil modelsinFEM/FDM models,

Soil investigations,

Monitoring.

Theresults of this survey areclearly summarized

andanalysedinthepaper byNegro, therefore, inthis

report aregivenonlysometypical examples.

Fromthissurvey, it resultsthat thetypical scenario

for tunnel projects inBrazil is thefollowing: tunnels

withequivalentdiameter larger than6m, drivenunder

83

Figure16. Somestages fromthegeological model to the

3DFE model.

Figure17. Soil modelsusedinnumerical analyses.

mixedfacecondition, incohesivesoils, belowwater

table, andusingsprayedconcreteaslining(NATM).

Concerning the assessment of tunnel face stabil-

ity, the survey shows that there is a large range of

methodscurrentlyused, andit isnoticedthat someof

thesemethodssuchaslimit equilibrium, upper bound

solutionsor empirical methodscanbeunsafe.

It is highlighted also that Practitioners arein fact

unhappywiththeavailablemethodsfor stabilityanal-

ysis, which certainly explains this broad range of

methodsusedinpractice.

Another interestingresultconcernstheconstitutive

modelsusedinnumerical analysis(Figure17).

A largemajority still usethelinear elastic/plastic

Mohr Coulombmodel whichis well known, but cer-

tainlyoftennotadaptedtoshallowurbantunnelswhere

thelimitationof soil movementsleadtosmall strains.

Very few or no plasticity will be mobilised, and the

model will be equivalent to a simple linear elastic

model which very poorly describes the small strain

behaviour of thesoil. It canbeaddedthat thissimple

model canbeunsafeincoupledanalysis, asthevolume

changesinthesoil arenot correctlydescribed.

Thisexampleshowsthat, withthelargeavailability

of 2D or 3D Finiteelement or finitedifferencepow-

erful codes, thereiscertainlyaneedfor clarifications

concerningthetypesof soil modelstobeusedindif-

ferent situationsandalsoaneedfor disseminationof

thisknowledge.

Therichconclusionsof suchasurveycouldbecer-

tainlyagoodbasefor developingandenhancinggood

practicesinthefieldof tunnel design. For thisreason

TC28has proposedto launchnational surveys based

ontheexampleproposedbyNegro, tobecollectedand

analysedfor thenextTC28symposium.

5 CONCLUSION

After excludingthe4general papers, the15remain-

ingpapersallocatedtothissession, wererelatedto9

different specifictopics.

This highlights that tunnels and deep excavations

arecomplexworks, withstronginteractionwiththeir

environment, and that there is obviously a demand

for simplecalculationtoolsaddressingspecificprob-

lems, easytouse, especiallyatthepreliminarydesign

phases.

Concerning the calculation methods, it can be

noticed that 9 papers concern analytical or mixed

approaches as only 5 concern numerical methods.

Therefore, considering the limits of the analytical

approaches, duegenerallytotherestrictivehypotheses

necessary to obtainaclosedformsolution, it should

becertainly useful nowto developsimplenumerical

tools, easy to useand timesaving, dedicated to lim-

itedspecificproblems. Thesetoolscouldbebasedon

existingcodesandthereforeabletotakeintoaccount

advanced soil models and realistic geometries. Such

tools, after acomprehensiveevaluationof their limits,

couldbecertainlyuseful for practitioners.

Another way to beconsidered is thedevelopment

of easytousepre-processingtools, suchastheexam-

ple presented in this session, to facilitate the use of

complex3Dmodels.

Andfinally, it shouldbestressedthat all thesecal-

culation methods have to be validated carefully and

in a scientific way against comprehensive measure-

ments, andthatthelimitationsof thesemodelsshould

beclearlyindicated.

84

LIST OF PAPERSWITHINSESSION

Baimakhan, R.B., Danaev, N.T., Baimakhan, A.R.,

Salgaraeva, G.I., Rysbaeva, G.P., Kulmaganbetova, Zh.K.,

Avdarsolkyzy, S., Makhanova, A.A. & Dashdorj, S. Cal-

culation of the three dimensional seismic stressed state

of MetroStationEscalatorOpenLineTunnelssystem,

whichislocatedininclinedstratifiedsoft ground.

Bao,H.,Zhang,D.&Huang,H.AComplexVariableSolution

forTunneling-InducedGroundMovementsinClays.

Chen, J., Matsumoto,A. &Sugimoto, M. Simulationof artic-

ulatedshieldbehavior at sharpcurvebykinematicshield

model.

Cui, Z.D., Tang, Y.Q. & Zhang, X. Deformation and pore

pressuremodel of thesaturatedsiltyclayaroundasubway

tunnel.

Hoefsloot, F.J.M. Analytical solution of longitudinal

behaviour of tunnel lining.

J eon, S., Hong, C. & You, K. Design of tunnel supporting

systemusinggeostatistical methods.

Koungelis, D.K. & Augarde, C.E. Comparative study of

softwaretoolsontheeffectsof surfaceloadsontunnels.

Li, X.X., Zhu, H.H. & Lin, Y.L. Geologic model transform-

ingmethod(GMTM) for numerical analysismodelingin

geotechnical engineering.

Lu, T.K., Guo, B.H., Cheng, L.C. & Wang, J. Review and

interpretation of intersection stability in deep under-

groundbasedonnumerical analysis.

Lu, Z.P. &Liu, G.B.Analysisof surfacesettlementduetothe

constructionof ashieldtunnel insoft clayinShanghai.

Negro, A. UrbanTunnelsinSoil: Reviewof Current Design

PracticeinBrazil.

Shi, Z., Bao, W., Li, J., Guo, W. & Zhu, J. A study onloads

fromcomplexsupport systemusingsimple2Dmodels.

Shin, Y.J., Shin, J.H. & Lee, I.M. Ground Reaction due to

TunnellingbelowGroundwaterTable.

Song, X.Y. & Huang, M.S. Basal Stability of BracedExca-

vations in K0-consolidated Soft Clay by Upper Bound

Method.

Sozio, L.E. Analytical Two and Three Dimension Mod-

els to Assess Stability and Deformation Magnitude of

UndergroundExcavationsinSoil.

Tang,Y.Q., Cui, Z.D. &Zhang, X. DynamicResponseof Sat-

uratedSiltyClayaroundaTunnel underSubwayVibration

LoadinginShanghai.

Zhang, C.R., Huang, M.S. & Liang, F.Y. Lateral Responses

of PilesduetoExcavation-InducedSoil Movements.

Zhang, L.M. & Wang, Z.Q. Elastic-plastic analysis for sur-

rounding rock of pressure tunnel with lining based on

material nonlinear softening.

Zhu,W.,Kou,X.,Zhong,X.&Huang,Z.Modificationof Key

Parametersof Longitudinal Equivalent Model for Shield

Tunnel.

REFERENCES

Bakker, K.J. 2000. Soil Retaining Structures. Rotterdam:

Balkema.

Bogaards, P.J. & Bakker, K.J. 1999. Longitudinal bending

momentsinthetubeof aboredtunnel. Numerical Models

in Geomechanics Proc. NUMOGVII: p. 317321.

Casarande,A. &Carillo, N. 1944. Shearfailureof anisotropic

soil. J. of the Boston Society of Civil Engineers, 31(4).

Feng, Y., Tang, S. & Li, Z. 2006. Application of improved

sequential indicator simulation to spatial distribution

of forest type. Forest Ecology and Management 222:

391398.

Hashash, Y.M.A. & Whittle, A.J. 1996. Ground movement

prediction for deep excavations in soft clay. Journal of

Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,ASCE,

122(6): 474486.

J uang, K., Chen, Y. & Lee, D. 2003. Usingsequential indi-

cator simulation to assess theuncertainty of delineating

heavy-metal contaminatedsoils. Environmental Pollution

127: 229238.

Leung, C.F., Chow, Y.K. & Shen, R.F. 2000. Behavior of

pilesubjectedtoexcavation-inducedsoil movement.Jour-

nal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,

126(11): 947954.

Marinoni, O. 2003. Improving geological models using a

combinedordinaryindicatorkrigingapproach.Engineer-

ing Geology 69(12): 3745.

Pardo-Igzquiza, E. & Dowd, P.A. 2005. Multipleindicator

cokrigingwithapplicationtooptimal samplingfor envi-

ronmental monitoring. Computers & Geosciences 31(1):

113.

Park, K.H. 2004. Elastic solution for tunneling-induced

ground movements in clays. International Journal of

Geomechanics 4(4): 310318.

Peck, R.B. 1969. Deep excavations and tunneling in soft

ground. Proceeding of 7th international conference on

soil mechanics and foundation engineering. MexicoCity:

Stateof theArt Report.

Poulos, H.G. & Chen, L.T. 1997. Pile response due to

excavation-induced lateral soil movement. Journal of

Geotechnical and geoenvironmental engineering, ASCE,

123(2): 9499.

Sugimoto, M. & Sramoon, A. 2002. Theoretical model of

shield behavior during excavation I: Theory. Journal of

Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 128(2):

138155.

Talmon, A.M., Bezuijen, A. & Hoefsloot, F.J.M. 2008. Lon-

gitudinal tubebendingduetogrout pressures. Shanghai:

TC28.

Verruijt, A. & Booker, J.R. 1996. Surface settlements due

to deformation of a tunnel in an elastic half plane.

Geotechnique 46(4): 753756.

85

Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground Ng, Huang & Liu (eds)

2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-48475-6

Analysisandnumerical modelingof deepexcavations

R.J. Finno

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA

ABSTRACT: Thesixteenpapers comprisingthegeneral themeAnalysis andNumerical Modelingof Deep

Excavationsof the6thInternational SymposiumonGeotechnical Aspectsof UndergroundConstructioninSoft

Groundaresummarizedherein. General characteristicsof all papersarepresentedasarebrief summariesof each

paper. Mostpapersincludedpresentationof resultsof finiteelementsimulationsandattendantcomparisonswith

variousaspectsof observedfieldperformance. Someof thepitfallsfor makingcomparisonsbetweennumerical

resultsandfieldobservationsof deepexcavationperformancearediscussedbriefly. Inparticular, theeffectsof

modelingconstructiondetailsandselectionof appropriateconstitutivemodelsarepresented. Recommendations

aretenderedregardingtheessential informationthatshouldbeconveyedinpapersthatpresentresultsof numerical

calculations.

1 INTRODUCTION

Sixteen papers concerning analysis and numerical

modeling of deep excavations werepublished in the

Proceedings of the 6th International Symposiumon

Geotechnical Aspectsof UndergroundConstructionin

SoftGround.Of thesepapers,tenwerepresentedorally

atthesymposium.Anoverviewof thepapersismadeto

provideasnapshotof thestateof thepracticeasregards

to this topic. All papers are summarized and trends

in the contents are discussed. Because most papers

includedpresentationof resultsof finiteelementsimu-

lationsandattendantcomparisonswithvariousaspects

of observed field performance of deep excavations,

general commentsregardingfactorsthatcanbeimpor-

tant inorder to makeanaccurateprediction. Finally,

recommendationsaretenderedregardingtheessential

information that should be conveyed in papers that

present resultsof numerical calculations.

2 OVERVIEW

The sixteen papers covered the broad topics sum-

marized in Table 1. The classification is somewhat

arbitrary andseveral papers couldhavefit into more

thanonetopic. Itisclear, however, thatthemajorityof

papers explicitly included comparisons of computed

resultsandsometypeof performancedata.

Of these16papers, resultsof finiteelement analy-

seswerereportedintenof them. Table2summarizes

theFE codesthat wereused. Theseresultsagreewith

the authors experience that the commercial codes

Table1. Topicsandnumber of papers.

Topic No. of papers

Numerical analysisandmeasurements 7

Numerical analysis 3

Back-analysis 2

Measurements 1

Design 1

Stresspath 1

Earthpressure 1

Table2. Summaryof finiteelement codesusedinpapers.

Analyses Number andcodeused

Three-dimensional simulations 2-Plaxis3DFoundations

2- FLAC3

2-Researchcode(?)

Planestrainsimulations 6-Plaxis

1-GeoTunnel

1-Researchcode(?)

FLAC andPLAXISaremost commonlyusedinboth

geotechnical practiceandresearch. Theeaseof useof

thesecodes has progressedto thepoint wherethree-

dimensional analyseshavebecomemorecommon, as

suggested by thenumber of such analyses presented

inthepapersinthissession.

Whiletheuseof finiteelementanalyseshasbecome

more common in practice, likely as a result of the

87

Table3. Constitutivemodel summary.

Model No. of applications

Mohr-Coulomb 6

HardeningSoil 3

Duncan-Chang 1

improvedi/oof commercial codes, theaccuracyof the

resultsdependsthefaithful representationof activities

that inducestresschangesinthegroundduringexca-

vation and on theconstitutiveresponses assumed in

theanalyses. Simplemodels areeasy to use, but are

limited in thetypes of computed responses that will

agreewithobservations.

A keyaspect toapplyingfiniteelement analysisto

practical problems in geotechnics remains theselec-

tion of thesoil model and its individual parameters.

Of thetenpapersthatpresentedresultsof FEanalyses,

sixassumedsoil respondedasaMohr-Coulombmate-

rial, as shown inTable3. This assumption limits the

predictivecapabilitiesof aFEsimulationof deepexca-

vationsortunnelinginthatelasticresponseisassumed

until thesoil fails. Presumably, thischoicewasmade

becauseof lack of detailed laboratory or field char-

acterizationsof thesoilsconsideredbytheauthorsin

their papers. At thecost of simplicity, theHardening-

Soil and Duncan-Chang models are non-linear and

can account for different responses in loading and

unloading. But thesemodels also arelimitedintheir

predictivecapabilitiesinthat they donot account for

theincremental non-linearityandsmall strainstiffness

responsesthatall soilsexhibit. Inanycase, thefactors

leadingtotheselectionof asoil model shouldbedis-

cussedinapaper to put theresults incontext. Inthe

same spirit, the parameters and a rationale for their

selectionalsoshouldbeincludedinapaper.

3 SUMMARY OF PAPERS

3.1 Numerical analysis and measurements

Li and Huang presented Construction monitoring

andnumerical simulationof anexcavationwithSMW

retainingstructure. A SMW retainingstructurewas

used to support two long excavations in Shanghai.

Bearing and deformation mechanisms of the SMW

were analyzed briefly and the structural analysis of

SMWwasdiscussed. Basedonthein-situexcavation

procedures, theauthorssimulatedconstructionof the

wall numerically using the FE code FLAC3D. They

representedsoil behaviorwithaMohr-Coulombmodel

andconsideredtwocases. Case1wasthetypical con-

structionsituationatthesitewhereinthesupportswere

installed in a timely fashion. Case 2 considered the

situationwhereinthesupportswerenot installedina

timelyfashioninthelateral direction, therebyleaving

excessivelylargeamountsof wall without lateral sup-

port. They compared the computed deformations of

theretainingstructure, thehorizontal displacement at

thetopof SMWandtheaxial forcesof steel pipesup-

portswiththefieldobservationdataforbothinstances.

The authors concluded good agreement was shown

between thecomputed and observed results. Froma

practical point of view, they showed that thenormal

constructionsequencingincase1resultedinastable

andsafeexcavation; theaxial forces werelower than

the alarmvalues and the displacement due to exca-

vation werewithin thepermissiblerange. In case2,

however, thecomputedresultsshowedtheexcavation

wasclosetobecomingunstable, andmeasureshadto

betakentoprotecttheretainingstructurefromfailure.

Popa et al. presented Numerical modeling and

experimental measurements for aretainingwall of a

deepexcavationinBucharest, Romania. They sum-

marized a case history of a diaphragm wall for a

deep basement of a new building in the center of

Bucharest. Theexcavationimpactedanumber of his-

toric structures, leading to the use of top-down

techniques to support theexcavation. Thenumerical

results obtained by plane strain FE simulation were

compared with measurements recorded during con-

struction. Soil behavior was assumed to bethat of a

Mohr-Coulomb material. The computed lateral dis-

placementswere15%and75%of theobservedvalues,

depending on if the comparisons were made in an

area with or without a grouted wall not explic-

itly modeled in theFE simulations adjacent to the

diaphragmwall.

Schweiger etal. presented3Dfiniteelementanal-

ysisof adeepexcavationandcomparisonwithinsitu

measurements.Thepaper describestheresultsof FE

analyses usingPlaxis of adeepexcavationproject in

clayeysilt inSalzburg. Theexcavationwassupported

byadiaphragmwall, ajetgroutpanel andthreelevels

of struts. Thesoil responses wererepresentedby the

Hardening-Soil model. Becauseof insufficient infor-

mationavailableat thetimeof designonthematerial

properties of the jet grout panel, the authors varied

itsstiffnessinaparametricstudy. Theeffect of taking

intoaccountthestiffnessof acrackeddiaphragmwall

on the deformations also was investigated. In some

of the 3D calculations, the authors simulated non-

perfectcontactbetweenthediaphragmwall andastrut

by means of anon-linear behaviour of thestrut. The

evaluationof theresults andcomparisonwithinsitu

measurements showed that analyses which took into

account the reduced stiffness of the diaphragmwall

duetocrackingachievedthebest agreement withthe

measurements. Furthermoresettlements of buildings

could be best reproduced by the three-dimensional

model, althoughthepredictedsettlementswerenot in

goodagreement withtheobservations.

88

Zhang and Huang presented Monitoring and

modeling of riversidelargedeep excavation-induced

ground movements in clays. They discussed adeep

excavationlocatedat theShanghai international pas-

sengercenterthatwas800mlongand100150mwide

with the depth of 13m. The south side of the deep

excavation was within 4.6mof aparallel flood wall

of the Huangpu River. The north side of the exca-

vation was 5mfromahistoric building. Becauseof

thedifferences in theconditions on thetwo sides of

the excavations, Plaxis FE analyses were conducted

which explicitly included both sides of the excava-

tion, ratherthanacenterlinesymmetriccondition. Soil

responses were assumed to correspond to that of a

Mohr-coulombmaterial. Computeddifferencesof lat-

eral wall movementsoneachsidedifferedbyasmuch

as 50%, as was verified by field observations made

duringconstruction.

Hsi et al. presentedThree-dimensional finiteele-

ment analysis of diaphragmwalls for top-downcon-

struction. They discussed theTugun BypassTunnel

inGoldCoast, Australia. Thetunnel wasconstructed

using diaphragmwalls with the top-down cut-and-

cover method to allow simultaneous construction of

an airport runway extension above the tunnel, and

excavation of the tunnel beneath. The tunnel was

built indeepdeposits of saturated, alluvial andestu-

arine soils with the toes of the walls founded in

soil deposits. Therewas apotential risk for differen-

tial settlements between the diaphragmwall panels,

caused by the runway fill placed over the tunnel

roof duringexcavation. Three-dimensional numerical

modelingwasundertakenwithPlaxis3DFoundation

to predict the differential settlements of the tunnel

arising fromthe variable subsurface profile, staged

excavationanddewatering, non-uniformloadingand

soil-structureinteraction. Soil wasassumedtobehave

as a Hardening-Soil material. Settlements measured

after construction were within the range of those

computedwiththefiniteelement simulations.

Phienwej presentedGroundmovementsinstation

excavationsof Bangkok first MRT. Thecharacteris-

tics of thelateral movements of thediaphragmwalls

at excavations for 18 stations of the first Bangkok

undergroundMRT linewereevaluated. Threemodes

of deflectedshapesof thewallswereobservedat dif-

ferent excavation depths, namely a cantilever mode

andbracedmodeswithabulgeinsoftclayandabulge

instiff clay. Theratioof maximumlateral wall deflec-

tionasafunctionof excavationdepthandtheratioof

groundsurfacesettlementtoexcavationdepthandthe

normalizedgroundsurfacesettlement variedwiththe

modeof wall deflection. UndrainedundrainedYoungs

moduli for aMohr-Coulombconstitutiveresponsefor

different soil layers were back-calculated fromwall

movement dataof threeselectedstationsusingthe2-

D Plaxis FE code. Themodulus values, which were

higher than those commonly obtained fromconven-

tional triaxial tests, canbeusedasguidelinefor future

excavationsinBangkok.

Ota et al. presented Consideration of design

method for braced excavation based on monitoring

results. They comparedobservedanddesignvalues

of wall deflections at several cut-and-cover exca-

vations through soft and sensitive clay ground at

theOsakaSubway LineNo.8. A beam-springmodel

was employed in the braced design method which

accounted for the characteristics of the Osaka soft

ground. Whiletherewasgoodagreementbetweenthe

observed data and design values in past results, the

observed wall deflections in this study were larger

thanthat expectedfor constructionsites whereinthe

excavations encountered 10 to 20mthick, soft and

sensitiveclaylayer.Theauthorsdiscusshowtheyeval-

uatedthehorizontal coefficient of subgradereaction

k

h

ontheexcavationsideof softclaylayer.Theauthors

makenewrecommendationregardingselectionof k

h

,

andshowthatthecalculatedwall movementswiththe

revisedvaluesagreewiththeobservations. Theserec-

ommendationsareapplicabletothesoft andsensitive

Osakaclays.

3.2 Numerical analysis

Li andYangpresentedthepaperNumerical evaluation

of dewateringeffect ondeepexcavationinsoft clay.

They described a FLAC3D analysis that modeled

top-downconstructionof a33.7mdeepunderground

transformersubstationinthedowntownareaof Shang-

hai. Therearebothunconfinedandconfinedaquifers

onthesiteof thisproject anddrainagebydesiccation

inthefoundationpit wasadopted. AssumingaMohr-

Coulomb soil response, the effective stress methods

of analysisincorporatedexcavationanddewateringof

thefoundationpitaspartof thesimulationof construc-

tion activities. Thecomputed wall deflections, basal

heavesandsurfacesettlementsbasedonanalysesthat

didnot consider dewateringwerecomparedto those

that did. Results of analyses that considered leakage

throughthewall andleakagebetweentheaquifersare

presentedaswell.Theanalysisshowsthatalthoughthe

computed differences in lateral wall movement and

basal heaveweresmall, dueto thelowpermeability

of thesoil, dewateringincreasedtheamount of com-

putedsurfacesettlements as aresult of drawdownof

thewater outsidethewallsof theexcavation.

Li et al. contributedthepaper Analysisof thefac-

tors influencing foundation pit deformations. They

presented results of FE computations based upon

3-D Biots consolidation theory, assuming the soil

responded as a nonlinear Duncan-Changs material.

The finite element equations explicilty considered

thecoupling of groundwater seepageand soil skele-

ton deformation during excavation. They presented

89

resultsthat showedtheindividual effectsof theinflu-

enceof soil permeability, rigidityandlevelsof lateral

supports, rigidity of retaining wall and excavation

durationongroundsurfacesettlement, wall horizontal

displacement andbasal heaveof anexcavation.

Siemiska-Lewandowsk and Mitew-Czajewska

presented the paper The effect of deep excavation

onsurroundinggroundandnearby structures. They

describedproblemsrelatedwiththeconstructionof a

29mdeep excavation of Nowy Swiat Station (S11)

of 2nd metro line in Warsaw. A critical section of

theproject consistedof 7stationsand6runningtun-

nels 6kmlength in total. Running tunnels will be

constructed usingTBM while the stations are to be

constructed using cut and cover techniques. Deep

excavation will be made with diaphragmwalls sup-

ported by several levels of slabs and struts. They

presentedresults of 2-D Plaxis FE analyses interms

of ground surfacesettlements, displacements of sur-

rounding foundations and lateral wall movements,

assumingthesoil behavesasaMohr-Coulombmate-

rial. Additionally, settlements of the surface were

calculatedabovetheTBM (runningtunnels). Result-

ingvaluesof settlementsinbothcaseswerediscussed,

andformedthebasisof designpredictionsthatwill be

verifiedduringconstruction.

3.3 Back analysis

Zghondi et al. presented the paper, Multi-criteria

procedure for the back-analysis of multi-supported

retaining walls. They described a numerical back-

analysis procedurefor multi-supported deep excava-

tions basedontheoptimizationof several indicators,

taking in account the forces in the struts and the

differential pressures derivedfromthewall displace-

ment. The evaluation of the procedure is based on

results of 1g small scale laboratory experiments on

semi-flexibleretainingwalls embeddedinaSchnee-

belli material. Theproposednumerical procedurewas

appliedtoanexcavationwith2levelsof strutswithlow

stiffness.TheoptimizedHardeningSoil Model param-

etersformthebasisof calculationsof responseof 14

different tested configurations. Theresults arecom-

paredwiththeclassical methods, SubGradeReaction

Method, FiniteElement analysiswithMohr Coulomb

model and with the back-analysis using Hardening

Soil Model parametersbasedonbiaxial testsresults.

Zhangetal. contributedthepaper Studyondefor-

mation laws under the construction of semi-reverse

method. Taking a 24.1-m-deep foundation pit of

Shanghai Metro Line1 which uses thesemi-reverse

construction process of three open excavating-one

tunneling as anexample, they determineddeforma-

tionlawsof afoundationpitunder theconstructionof

asemi-reversemethodbasedonanalysisof fieldmon-

itoringdataandforwardandback analyses methods.

They employedPlaxis v8andassumedthesoil acted

as a Hardening-Soil material in their computations.

Theauthors stated that results of this approach indi-

catedthatthesemi-reversemethodisaneffectiveway

toimproverigidityof theexterior support, control the

deformation of excavation, and ensure safety of the

surroundingbuildingsandpipelines.

3.4 Measurements

Zhanget al. contributedthepaper GPSheight appli-

cation and gross error detection in foundation pit

monitoring. The authors introduced a deformation

monitoring model that combined traditional survey

technology and GPS measurements. They illustrated

foundationpit deformationmonitoringbasedontheir

experienceof deepfoundationpit constructionof an

underground tunnel in Lishui Road, Hangzhou city.

WhenanalyzingGPSheightconversiontoimprovethe

reliability of theGPS datum, they employedDixons

test in the GPS datummark to determine potential

height anomalies. The authors concluded that this

approachisaconvenientwaytosearchanddeleteraw

datathat includesgrosserrors.

3.5 Design

Changcontributedthepaper Optimizationdesignof

compositesoil-nailing in loess excavation. Excava-

tions through loess haveuniquecharacteristics com-

pared with theothers dueto its structural properties

andcollapsibility. Toevaluatethemechanismsof sup-

port and to develop reasonable methods to design

compositesoil-nailinginloessexcavation, theauthors

usedresultsof finiteelement analysistodesignasoil

nail support system. Their optimizationdesignmeth-

odsarebasedontheresultsof finiteelement analysis

apparently assuming Mohr-Coulomb soil responses.

Theyconductedthesimulationstodeterminetheregu-

larityof deformationandthesafetyfactor, asfunctions

of selecteddesignvariables.Theauthorsjustifiedtheir

methodsby reportingthat thelateral deformationsof

theexampleexcavationwerelimitedto16mm.

3.6 Stress path

Zhouetal. contributedthepaper Comparisonof the-

oryandtestonexcavationcausingthevariationof soil

mass strength. Inviewof thecharacteristic unload-

ingcausedby excavations, they deducedthestrength

ratioof theunloadedsoil tosoil subjectedtocompres-

sionloadings. Laboratorytestssimulatingexcavation

werecarriedout basedonHvorslevsstrengththeory.

By comparingtheoretical results withthelaboratory

data, theyconcludedthatthesoil massisoverconsoli-

dated.Asaconsequence,theauthorsstatedthatthesoil

microstructureisdamaged, andthesoil massstrength

90

isreducedintheunloadingprocess. Theauthorscon-

cluded that analyses of theresults arehelpful to the

understanding of the effect of excavation unloading

onthevariationof thesoil massstrength.

3.7 Earth pressure

LinandLeecontributedthepaper A simplifiedspa-

tial methodology of earth pressure against retaining

piles of pile-row retaining structure. When using a

pile-rowretainingstructuretosupport excavation, the

authorsstressedtheimportanceof obtainingthemag-

nitude and distribution of the earth pressure against

the retaining piles. Based on the mode of failure, a

new methodology is proposed to evaluate the earth

pressure against the retaining piles of such a struc-

ture. In theproposed method, both thespatial effect

andintermediateprincipal stresseffectareconsidered.

Theauthors provideanexampleof themethodology

applied to engineering practice. They demonstrated

that thestrength theory has moreinfluenceon earth

pressure.

4 COMMENTSREGARDINGCOMPUTED

ANDOBSERVEDRESULTS

Many factors affect ground movements caused by

excavations, including stratigraphy, soil properties,

support systemdetails, construction activities, con-

tractual arrangementsandworkmanship.Inthistheme,

most papers described numerical simulations that

analyzed ground response arising from excavation.

Finiteelement predictions always contain uncertain-

ties related to soil properties, support systemdetails

andconstructionprocedures. Furthermore, whilesup-

portedexcavations commonly aresimulatednumeri-

cally by modeling cycles of excavation and support

installation, it generally is necessary to simulate all

aspectsof theconstructionprocessthataffectthestress

conditionsaroundthecuttoobtainanaccuratepredic-

tionof behavior.Thismayinvolvesimulatingprevious

construction activities at the site, installation of the

supportingwall andanydeepfoundationelements, as

well astheremoval of cross-lotsupportsor detension-

ingof tiedbackgroundanchors. Issuesof timeeffects

causedbyhydrodynamiceffectsor material responses

may be important. The following sections summa-

rize some of the factors that may impact computed

responsesof groundmovementsassociatedwithexca-

vations. Proper consideration must be given to such

factors whenmakingsuchanalyses, as well as when

criticallyevaluatingpublishedresultsof thesame.

4.1 Drainage conditions

Animportantpreliminarydecisioninanyanalysisisto

match theexpected field drainageconditions, which

impacts theformulation required. Clough and Mana

(1976) and field data have shown that for excava-

tions throughsaturatedclays withtypical excavation

periods of several months, the clays remain essen-

tially undrainedwithlittledissipationof excess pore

pressures.

For undrainedconditions, onecanemploy either a

coupled finite element formulation where both dis-

placements and pore water pressures are solved for

explicitly(e.g. Carter et al. 1979) or apenaltyformu-

lation(e.g. Hughes1980) whereinthebulkmodulusof

water or asufficientlylargenumber thatdependson

theprecisionof themachinemakingthecomputation-

isaddedtothediagonal termsintheelement stiffness

matrixduringglobal matrixassembly. Thisadditional

termconstrains thevolumetric strain to nearly zero,

i.e., undrained. Inboththeseapproaches, theconstitu-

tiveresponseof thesoil isdefinedintermsof effective

stress parameters. A simpler, alternateapproachis to

defineundrainedconstitutiveresponseintermsof total

stress parameters, withcarebeingtakento makethe

diagonal terms of theelement stiffness matrix large,

typicallybyusingaPoissonsratiocloseto0.5. Inthis

case, aYoungsmoduluscorrespondstoanundrained

valueandfailureisexpressedintermsof anundrained

shear strength, S

u

(e.g., =0andc=S

u

).

However, theremay becases (e.g., ORourkeand

ODonnell 1997) wheresubstantial delaysduringcon-

struction occur and excess pore pressures partially

dissipate, andinthesecasesonemustuseamixedfor-

mulationtoaccount for theporewater effects. When

usingtop-downtechniquestoexcavate,itcantakeupto

several yearstoreachfinal gradeforlargeexcavations,

and hence partially drained conditions would apply

therein, requiringacoupledfiniteelementsimulation.

4.2 Initial conditions

A reasonable prediction of the ground response to

construction of adeepexcavation starts with agood

estimate of the initial stress conditions, in terms of

botheffectivestresses andporewater pressures. The

effective stress conditions for excavations in well-

developed urban areas rarely correspond to at-rest

conditionsbecauseof themyriadpastusesof theland.

Existenceof deepfoundationsand/or basementsfrom

abandonedbuildings andnearby tunnels changes the

effectivestresses fromat-rest conditions prior to the

start of excavation. For example, Calvello andFinno

(2003) showedthatanaccuratecomputationof move-

ments associated with an excavation could only be

achievedwhenall thepre-excavationactivitiesaffect-

ing the site were modeled explicitly. They used the

caseof theexcavationfor theChicago-Statesubway

renovation project (Finno et al. 2002), wherein con-

structionof bothatunnel andaschool impactedthe

groundstressespriortothesubwayrenovationproject.

91

Ignoringtheseeffectsmadeadifferenceof afactor of

3inthecomputedlateral movements.

One also must take care when defining the ini-

tial ground water conditions. Even in cases where

thegroundwater level isnot affectedby near surface

constructionactivities, non-hydrostaticconditionscan

existfor avarietyof reasons. For example, Finnoetal.

(1989) presentedpneumaticpiezometerdatathatindi-

cated thepresenceof adownward gradient within a

20mthick sequence of saturated clays. This down-

ward flow arose froma gradual lowering since the

1950s of thewater level intheupper rock aquifer in

theChicago area. A non-hydrostatic water condition

affects themagnitudeof theeffectivestresses at the

start of anexcavationproject.

An engineer has two choices to define such con-

ditions tomeasurethein situ conditionsdirectly or

tosimulateall thepast constructionactivitiesat asite

startingfromappropriateat-rest conditions. Because

bothapproachespresentchallenges, itisadvantageous

todobothtoprovidesomeredundancyintheinput. In

any case, careful evaluation of the initial conditions

is required when numerically simulating supported

excavationprojects, especiallyinurbanareas.

4.3 Wall installation

Manytimestheeffectsof installingawall areignored

inafiniteelementsimulationandthewall iswished-

into-place with no change in the stress conditions

in the ground or any attendant ground movements.

However, there are abundant data that show ground

movementsmaydevelopasawall isinstalled.

ORourke and Clough (1990) presented data that

summarized observed settlements that arose during

installationof fivediaphragmwalls. They notedset-

tlementsaslargeas0.12%of thedepthof thetrench.

Theseeffectscanbeevaluatedby3-dimensional mod-

elingof theconstructionprocess(e.g., Gourvenecand

Powrie 1999), but not without several caveats. The

specificgravityof thesupportingfluidusuallyvaries

duringexcavationof apanel as aresult of excavated

solids becomingsuspended increasingthespecific

gravityabovethevalueof thewaterandbentonitemix-

tureand subsequently decreasing when theslurry is

cleanedprior totheconcretebeingtremiedintoplace.

Consequently,itisdifficulttoselectonevaluethatrep-

resentsanaveragecondition. Furthermoretheeffects

of thefluidconcreteonthestressesinthesurrounding

soil dependuponhowquicklytheconcretehardensrel-

ativetoitsplacementrate. Someguidanceinselecting

thefreshconcretepressureisprovidedbyLingset al.

(1994).

Itislessstraightforwardwhenmodelingdiaphragm

wall installation effects in a plane strain analysis

becausethearchingcausedbytheexcavationof indi-

vidual panels cannot be taken directly into account.

Toapproximatetheeffectsof thisarchingwhenmak-

ing such an analysis, an equivalent fluid pressure,

generallyhigher thanthelevel of thefluidduringcon-

struction, canbeappliedtothewallsof thetrenchto

maintainstability.Thus, somedegreeof empiricismis

requiredtoconsidertheseinstallationeffectsinaplane

strainanalysis. Onecanback-calculateanequivalent

fluidpressurecorrespondingto theobservedground

responseif good records of lateral movements close

to the wall are recorded during construction. More

dataof thistypeareneededbeforeanyrecommenda-

tionscanbemaderegardingmagnitudesof appropriate

equivalent pressures.

Theeffects of installing asheet pilewall aredif-

ferent thanthoseof adiaphragmwall, yet theeffects

on observed responses also can be significant. In

this case, ground movements may arise fromtran-

sient vibrationsdevelopedasthesheetingisdrivenor

vibratedintoplaceandfromthephysical displacement

of the ground by the sheeting. The former mecha-

nismis of practical importance when installing the

sheeting through loose to mediumdense sands, and

canbeestimatedby procedures proposedby Clough

et al. (1989). However, theseeffects arenot included

in finite element simulations. The latter mechanism

inclayswasillustratedby Finnoet al. (1988). Inthis

case, thesoil wasdisplacedawayfromthesheetingas

it wasinstalled. Thismovement wasaccompaniedby

anincreaseinporewaterpressureandagroundsurface

heave. As theexcess porewater pressures dissipated,

the ground settled. The maximumlateral movement

andsurfaceheavewasequal toone-half theequivalent

width of the sheet pile wall, defined as the cross-

sectional areaof thesheetpilesectionperunitlengthof

wall. Sheet-pileinstallationcanbesimulatedinplane

strainby usingprocedures summarizedinFinno and

Tu(2006).

Inadditionto themovements that occur as awall

isinstalled, installingthewallscanhavealargeinflu-

enceonsubsequentmovements, especiallyif thewalls

areinstalledrelatively closetoeachother, as may be

the case in a cut-and-cover excavation for a tunnel.

Sabatini (1991) conducted a parametric study as a

function of thedepth, H, to width, B, of an excava-

tion, whereintheeffectsof sheet-pilewall installation

in clays were compared with simulations where the

wallswerewishedintoplace. Theresultsof thestudy

areshowninFigure1wherethecomputednormalized

maximumlateral movements, H

(max)

/H, are plotted

versusH/B.

It is apparent for wide excavations (H/B0.25)

that the decision to include installation effects in

a simulation is not critical. However, these effects

becomepronouncedfor narrowexcavations(H/B1)

andshouldbeexplicitly considered. Theresults also

show that for the wished-in-place case when the

sheet-pile installation effects are ignored, the lateral

92

0

1

2

3

0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1

H/B

H

(

M

A

X

)

/

H

[

%

]

Sheet-pile effects

No sheet-pile effects

Figure 1. Effects of sheet-pile installation on computed

lateral movements.

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Distance From South End of Excavation (m)

D

e

p

t

h

(

m

)

Day 28

Day 57

Day 58

Day 60

Day 75

Day 80

Day 88

Day 89

Day 95

Day 110

Day 113

Day 163

Tiebacks

Struts

Inclinometer 2

Location

Inclinometer 1

Location

Strut 1

(56)

Strut 2

(58)

Strut 3

(59)

Strut 4

(60)

Strut 5

(74)

Strut 6

(79)

North

South Scale (m)

0 5

Note:

Upper level tiebacks stressed between Day 81 and Day 105

Lower level tiebacks stressed between Day 98 and Day 113

Initial

Grade

East

Escalator Pit

Figure2. Construction progress at excavation in Chicago

(Finnoet al. 2002).

movementsarelarger for wider excavations, asimilar

trendreportedbyManaandClough(1981).

Sheet-pileinstallationhastwomaineffects: thesoil

adjacent to theexcavationis preloadedandtheshear

strength on the passive side is (partially) mobilized

prior to the beginning of the cycles of excavation.

Wall installationtendstopreloadthesoil ontheactive

sideof theexcavation as aresult of thereduction in

shear stress at approximately constant mean normal

effectivestress.Thismechanismprovidesthesoil out-

sidethewallswithmoreavailableshearingresistance

whenthecyclesof excavationstart. However, thesoil

betweenthewallshaslessavailablepassiveresistance

as a result of the preloading and this promotes the

larger movements during excavation as compared to

thecaseof ignoringthesheet-pileeffects (Finnoand

Nerby1989).

4.4 Plane strain versus 3-dimensional analyses

Figure 2 illustrates some of the challenges of using

field observations to calibrate numerical models of

anykind, evenwhendetailedrecordsexist.Thisfigure

summarizestheconstructionprogressattheChicago-

State excavation in terms of excavation surface and

support installationononeof thewallsof theexcava-

tionfor selecteddays after constructionstarted. Also

shown arethelocations of two inclinometers placed

several meters behind the wall. If one is making a

computation assuming plane strain conditions, then

it is clear that onemust judiciously choosedatasets

sothat planar conditionswouldbeapplicabletothose

selected.

Evenwhenasufficientlyextensivehorizontal exca-

vatedsurfaceisidentified, 3-dimensional effectsmay

still arisefromthehigher stiffnessatthecornersof an

excavation.Theseboundaryconditionsleadtosmaller

groundmovementsnear thecornersandlarger ground

movementstowardsthemiddleof theexcavationwall.

Another, andlessrecognized, consequenceof thecor-

ner stiffeningeffectsisthemaximummovement near

thecenter of anexcavationwall may not correspond

to that found froma conventional plane strain sim-

ulation of the excavation, i.e., 3-D and plane strain

simulations of the excavation do not yield the same

movementatthecenterportionof theexcavation, even

if themovementsinthecenterareperpendiculartothe

wall (Ouet al. 1996). Thisaffect canbequantifiedby

theplanestrainratio, PSR, definedhereinasthemax-

imummovement in thecenter of an excavation wall

computedby 3-D analyses dividedby that computed

byaplanestrainsimulation. Finnoetal. (2007) devel-

opedthefollowingexpressionforPSRfromtheresults

of a finite element parametric study of excavations

throughclay:

whereL istheexcavationlengthalongthesidewhere

themovement occurs, B istheother areal dimension,

andH

e

istheexcavationdepth.Thevalueof C depends

onthefactor of safetyagainst basal heave, FS

BH

, and

istakenas:

Thevalueof k dependsonthesupportsystemstiffness

andistakenas:

whereEI isthebendingstiffnessof thewall, isthe

total unitweightof thesoil andh istheaveragevertical

spacingbetweensupports. WhenL,H

e

isgreater than

6, thePSRisequal to1andresultsof planestrainsim-

ulationsyieldthesamedisplacementsinthecenter of

anexcavationasthosecomputedbya3-Dsimulation.

WhenL,H

e

islessthan6, thedisplacementcomputed

fromtheresultsof aplanestrainanalysiswill belarger

than that froma 3-D analysis. When conducting an

inverseanalysis of an excavation with aplanestrain

93

simulationwhenL,H

e

is relatively small, theeffects

of thiscorner stiffeningisthat anoptimizedstiffness

parameter will be larger than it really is because of

the lack of the corner stiffening in the plane strain

analysis. Thiseffectbecomesgreater asanexcavation

is deepenedbecausetheL,H

e

valueincreases as the

excavatedgradeis lowered. This trendwas observed

intheoptimizedparametersforthedeeperstrataatthe

Chicago-State subway renovation excavation (Finno

andCalvello2005).

5 CONSTITUTIVE MODEL

CONSIDERATIONS

Whenoneundertakesanumerical simulationof adeep

supportedexcavation, oneof thekey decisions made

earlyintheprocessistheselectionof theconstitutive

model. Ingeneral, thisselectionshouldbecompatible

withtheobjectivesof theanalysis. If theresultsform

thebasisof apredictionthat will beupdatedbasedon

fieldperformancedata, thenthetypesof fielddatathat

formthebasisof thecomparisonwill impacttheappli-

cability of a particular model. Possibilities include

lateral movements based on inclinometers, vertical

movements at various depths and distances froman

excavationwall, forcesinstructural supportelements,

porewaterpressuresoranycombinationsof thesedata.

Whenusedfor acasewherecontrol of groundmove-

ments is akey design consideration, theconstitutive

model must beabletoreproducethesoil responseat

appropriatestrainlevelstotheimposedloadings.

5.1 Incremental non-linearity

It is useful to recognizethat soil is an incrementally

nonlinear material, i.e., itsstiffnessdependsonload-

ing direction and strain level. Real soils are neither

linear elastic nor elastic-plastic, but exhibit complex

behavior characterized by zones of high stiffness at

very small strains, followed by decreasing stiffness

withincreasingstrain.Thisbehaviorunderstaticload-

ingwasidentifiedthroughback-analysisof foundation

and excavation movements in the United Kingdom

(Burland, 1989). The recognition of zones of high

initial stiffnessunder typical fieldconditionswasfol-

lowedby efforts to measurethis ubiquitous behavior

inthelaboratoryfor varioustypesof soil (e.g., J ardine

et al. 1984; Clayton and Heymann 2001; Santagata

et al. 2005; CalistoandCalebresi 1998, Cho2007).

To illustrate this behavior, Figure 3 shows the

resultsof drained, triaxial stressprobesconductedon

specimens cut fromblock samples of lightly over-

consolidated glacial clays obtained at an excavation

in Evanston, IL. Each specimen was reconsolidated

under K

0

conditions to the in-situ vertical effective

stress

v0

, subjected to a 36 hour K

0

creep cycle,

followed by directional stress probing under drained

0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1

Local Triaxial Shear Strain,

sl

(%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

S

e

c

a

n

t

S

h

e

a

r

M

o

d

u

l

u

s

,

G

s

e

c

(

M

P

a

)

FB3AL1

FB1TC2

FB1CMS2

FB1RTC2

FB1RTE1

FB1TE1

FB2CMSE1

unloading

loading

G

BE

Range

Figure3. Secant shear modulus as afunctionof direction

of loading.

axisymmetric conditions. Bender element (BE) tests

were conducted during all phases of the tests. The

secant shear moduli areplotted versus triaxial shear

straininFigure3for natural specimens whosestress

probes involved changes in the shear stress q. The

overconsolidation ratio of these specimens was 1.7,

soif oneassumestheresponseisisotropicandelasto-

plastic, thenGshouldbethesameforatleasttheinitial

portionof all curves. Thestressprobeswhereinqand

the stress ratio, =q,p

, is increased ( loading)

are clearly softer than those where q and initially

decrease( unloading). Therearenoobviouszones

of constant G

sec

at shear strainsgreater than0.002%,

andthusnoelastic zoneisobservedinthesedatafor

strainlevels.Completedetailsandresultsof thetesting

programarepresentedbyCho(2007).

Burland(1989) suggestedthatworkingstrainlevels

insoil aroundwell-designedtunnelsandfoundations

areontheorder of 0.1%. If oneuses datacollected

with conventional triaxial equipments to discern the

soil responses, onecanreliably measurestrains0.1%

or higher. Thus inmany practical situations, it is not

possibleto accurately incorporatesite-specific small

strainnon-linearityintoaconstitutivemodel basedon

conventionally-derivedlaboratorydata.

5.2 Model selection

There are a number of models reported in litera-

turewhereinthevariationof small strainnonlinearity

can be represented, e.g., a three-surface kinematic

model developfor stiff Londonclay (Stallebrass and

Taylor 1997), MIT-E3(WhittleandKavvadas 1994),

hypoplasticity models (e.g. Viggiani and Tamagnini

1999), andadirectional stiffnessmodel (Tu2007). To

derivethenecessaryparameters, thesemodelsrequire

eitherdetailedexperimental resultsorexperiencewith

themodel in agiven geology. Whilethemodels can

beimplementedinmaterial librariesinsomecommer-

cial finiteelementcodes, theseroutinesarenotreadily

94

Figure 4. Shear strains behind excavation: 57mmmaxi-

mumlateral movement (contoursin%).

availabletomost practitioners. Thusfor most current

practical applications, oneusessimpler, elasto-plastic

models containedinmaterial libraries incommercial

codes.

For these models, a key decision is to select the

elastic parameters that are representative of the

secantvaluesthatcorrespondtothepredominantstrain

levels inthesoil mass. Examples of thestrainlevels

behindawall for anexcavationwithamaximumlat-

eral wall movement of 57mmareshowninFigure5.

Thesestrainlevelswerecomputedbasedontheresults

of displacement-controlledsimulationswherethelat-

eral wall movements and surface settlements were

incrementallyappliedtotheboundariesof afiniteele-

ment mesh. Thepatterns of movements weretypical

of excavationsthroughclays, andwerebasedonthose

observedatanexcavationmadethroughChicagoclays

(FinnoandBlackburn2005). Becausethesimulations

weredisplacement-controlled,thecomputedstrainsdo

not dependontheassumedconstitutivebehavior.

AscanbeseeninFigure4, maximumshear strains

as high as 0.7% occur when 57mm of maximum

wall movement develop. The maximum strains are

proportional maximum lateral wall movement; for

example, when 26mmmaximumlateral wall move-

ment develops, the maximumshear strain is about

0.35%. These latter strain levels can be accurately

measuredinconventional triaxial testing, andthus if

onecanobtainspecimensof sufficientlyhighquality,

thensecantmoduli correspondingtothesestrainlevels

canbedeterminedviaconventional laboratorytesting.

Becausethemaximumhorizontal wall displacement

can be thought of as a summation of the horizontal

strains behindawall, themaximumwall movements

canbeaccurately calculatedwithaselectionof elas-

tic parameters that corresponds to these expected

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.2

Maximum Shear Strain (%)

M

a

x

i

m

u

m

L

a

t

e

r

a

l

M

o

v

e

m

e

n

t

(

m

m

)

1

Figure5. Relationbetweenmaximumwall movement and

shear strain.

strain levels. In this case, the fact that small strain

non-linearityisnotexplicitlyconsideredwill nothave

alargeimpact on thecomputed horizontal wall dis-

placements because the maximumhorizontal move-

ment at thewall is dominatedby thelarger strains in

thesoil mass. Thesecomputedmovements wouldbe

compatible with those measured by an inclinometer

locatedclosetothewall.

However, if oneneedstoobtainanaccuraterepre-

sentationof thedistributionof groundmovementswith

distancefromthewall, then this approach of select-

ing strain-level appropriate elastic parameters is not

applicable. Small strainnon-linearity of soil must be

explicitly considered to find theextent of thesettle-

ment becausethestrains in theareaof interest vary

fromthemaximumvalueto zero. As aconsequence,

many cases reported in literature indicate computed

wall movementsagreereasonablywell withobserved

values, buttheresultsfromthesamecomputationsdo

not accurately reflect thedistribution of settlements.

Indeed, thiswasthecaseinseveral paperspresentedas

part of thistheme. Goodagreement at distancesaway

froma wall can be obtained only if the small stain

non-linearity of thesoil is adequately represented in

theconstitutivemodel.

Therelationbetweenlateral wall displacementsand

shear strain levels in the soil behind the wall can

beevaluatedfromresults of displacement-controlled

finiteelementsimulations.Similartotheresultsshown

inFigure4, differentdisplacementprofileswerestud-

iedbyimposinglateral wall displacementsandsettle-

mentprofiles, representingconditionswithmaximum

lateral movementsattheexcavatedsurface, cantilever

movements, deep-seatedmovementsandcombination

of thelatter two(Andrianis2006). Thestratigraphies

used in the models were based on typical Chicago

soils. Theresults in Figure5 show that therelation-

ship between maximumshear strain behind thewall

andmaximumdisplacementof thewall isalmostlinear

forlateral wall displacementsbetween10and110mm.

Figure 5 also shows that the results forma narrow

95

band, suggestingthat therelationbetweenstrainand

wall displacement is not greatly affectedby thetype

of movement.

Figure5canbeusedtoestimateshear strainsfor a

specifiedmaximumwall movement.Withthisvalueof

shearstrain, thesecantshearmoduli foruseinconven-

tional elasto-plasticmodelscanbeestimatedbasedon

strain-stressdatafromhighqualitylaboratoryexperi-

ments. Thevaluesof maximumshear strains, evenin

the cases with the relatively low values of displace-

ments, areabout 0.2%and increaseas thespecified

displacement becomeslarger. Thisisimportant when

onedetermines soil stiffness in thelaboratory. Con-

ventional soil testingwithoutinternal instrumentation

allows one to accurately measure strains as low as

0.1%. Thus for many cases, the secant shear mod-

uli can be determined fromconventional laboratory

testsonhighqualitysamples. However, if strainlevels

are0.1%or less, then onemust select thesemoduli

fromtest resultsbasedoninternally-measuredstrains

in equipment not normally available in commercial

laboratories.

In summary, using a simulation based on con-

ventional elasto-plastic models limits the type and

location of the data that can be used as observa-

tions inaninverseanalysis. Bothvertical andlateral

movements measured at some distance froma wall

cannot becalculated accurately in this casebecause

thevariationof stiffnesswithstrainlevelsmustbeade-

quatelyrepresentedinthesoil model. Onlythelateral

movementsclosetoasupport wall canbereasonably

computedwithconventional modelssincethatresultis

dominatedbythezonesof highstrainsbehindthewall.

6 CONCLUDINGREMARKS

The papers presented at the symposium included

widely variable levels of information regarding the

details of the finite element analyses. As such, the

author tentatively proposes that the following infor-

mationbeincludedinanypaper describingtheresults

of any finite element simulation of geotechnically-

relatedconstruction.

1 Thefiniteelement codeused.

2 The assumed drainage conditions, e.g., drained,

undrainedor partiallydrained.

3 The dimensionality of the problem, e.g., plain

strain, axisymmetricor three-dimensional.

4 Theconstitutivemodel(s) employedfor bothsoils

andstructural elements.

5 Theparametersfor eachmaterial andadiscussion

of thebasisof their selection.

6 A descriptionof themesh, includingboundarycon-

ditionsandtypeof elementsusedforsoil, structural

componentsandinterfaces.

7 Constructionrecords, simulationsteps anddetails

of howeachconstructionactivity wasidealizedin

thefiniteelement simulation.

Finally, comparisons between computed and

observedresults, as well as adiscussionof thecom-

parisons, shouldbeincluded.

REFERENCES

Andrianis, G.E. 2006. Excavation-induced Strains and Can-

tilever Deflections in Compressible Clays. MS thesis,

NorthwesternUniversity, Evanston, IL.

Burland, J.B. 1989. Small isbeautiful thestiffnessof soils

atsmall strains: NinthLauritsBjerrumMemorial Lecture.

Canadian Geotechnical Journal 26: 499516.

Calisto, L. & Calebresi, G. 1998. Mechanical behavior of a

natural soft clay. Geotechnique 48(4): 495513.

Calvello, M. & Finno, R.J. 2003. Modeling excavations in

urbanareas: effectsof pastactivities. Italian Geotechnical

Journal 37(4): 923.

Carter, J.P., Booker, J.R. & Small, J.C. 1979. Theanalysisof

finiteelasto-plastic consolidation. International Journal

for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics

3: 107129.

Cho, W.J. 2007. Recent stress history effects on compress-

ible Chicago glacial clay. PhD thesis, Northwestern

University, Evanston, IL.

Clayton, C.R.I. & Heymann, G. 2001. Stiffnessof geomate-

rialsat verysmall strains. Geotechnique 51(3): 245255.

Clough, G.W. & Mana, A.I. 1976. Lessons learnedinfinite

element analysisof temporaryexcavations. Proceedings,

2nd International Conference on Numerical Methods in

Geomechanics, ASCE, Vol. I: 496510.

Clough, G.W., Smith, E.M. & Sweeney, B.P. 1989. Move-

ment control of excavation support systems by iterative

design. Current Principles and Practices, Foundation

Engineering Congress, Vol. 2, ASCE: 869884.

Finno, R.J., Atmatzidis, D.K. & Nerby, S.M. 1988. Ground

response to sheet-pile installation in clay. Proceedings,

Second International Conference on Case Histories in

Geotechnical Engineering, St. Louis, MO.

Finno, R.J.,Atmatzidis, D.K. &Perkins, S.B. 1989. Observed

Performance of a Deep Excavation in Clay. Journal of

Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 115(8): 10451064.

Finno, R.J. & Blackburn, J.T. 2005. Automated monitor-

ing of supported excavations. Proceedings, 13th Great

Lakes Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Conference,

Geotechnical Applications for Transportation Infrastruc-

ture, GPP 3, ASCE, Milwaukee, WI.: 112.

Finno, R.J., Blackburn, J.T. & Roboski, J.F. 2007. Three-

dimensional Effects for Supported Excavations in Clay.

Journal of Geotechnical andGeoenvironmental Engineer-

ing, ASCE, 133(1): 3036.

Finno, R.J., Bryson, L.S. & Calvello, M. 2002. Performance

of astiff support systeminsoft clay. Journal of Geotech-

nical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,ASCE, 128(8):

660671.

Finno, R.J. &Calvello, M. 2005. Supportedexcavations: the

observational method and inverse modeling. Journal of

Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering.ASCE,

131(7).

96

Finno, R.J. & Nerby, S.M. 1989. Saturated Clay Response

DuringBracedCutConstruction. Journal of Geotechnical

Engineering, ASCE, 115(8): 10651085.

Finno, R.J. &Tu, X. 2006. SelectedTopicsinNumerical Sim-

ulation of Supported Excavations. Numerical Modeling

of Construction Processes in Geotechnical Engineer-

ing for Urban Environment, International Conferenceof

ConstructionProcesses inGeotechnical Engineeringfor

Urban Environment, Th. Triantafyllidis, ed., Bochum,

Germany, Taylor & Francis, London: 320.

Gourvenec, S.M. & Powrie, W. 1999. Three-dimensional

finite element analysis of diaphragm wall installation.

Geotechnique, 49(6): 801823.

Hughes, T.J.R. 1980. Generalizationof selectiveintegration

procedures to anisotropic and nonlinear media. Interna-

tional Journal of Numerical Methods in Engineering 15

(9): 14131418.

J ardine, R.J., Symes, M.J. & Burland, J.B. 1984. Themea-

surementof small strainstiffnessinthetriaxial apparatus.

Geotechnique 34(3): 323340.

Lings, M.L., Ng, C.W.W. & Nash, D.F.T. 1994. Thelateral

pressure of wet concrete in diaphragmwall panels cast

under bentonite. Geotechnical Engineering, Proceedings

of theInstitutionof Civil Engineers, 107: 163172.

Mana,A.I.&Cough,G.W.1981.Predictionof movementsfor

bracedcut inclay. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,

ASCE, NewYork, 107(8): 759777.

ORourke, T.D. &Clough, G.W. 1990. Constructioninduced

movementsof insituwalls. Proceedings, Design and Per-

formance of Earth Retaining Structures, Lambe, P.C. and

HansenL.A. (eds). ASCE: 439470.

ORourke, T.D. & ODonnell, C.J. 1997. Deep rotational

stability of tiedback excavations in clay. Journal of

Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 123(6): 506515.

Ou, C.Y., Chiou, D.C. & Wu, T.S. 1996. Three-dimensional

finite element analysis of deep excavations. Journal of

Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 122(5): 473483.

Sabatini,P.J.1991.Sheet-pile installationeffects oncomputed

ground response for braced excavations in soft to medium

clays. MSthesis, NorthwesternUniversity, Evanston, IL.

Santagata, M., Germaine, J.T. & Ladd, C.C. 2005. Factors

AffectingtheInitial Stiffnessof CohesiveSoils.Journal of

Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,ASCE,

131(4): 430441.

Stallebrass, S.E. &Taylor, R.N. 1997. Thedevelopment and

evaluation of a constitutive model for the prediction of

ground movements in overconsolidated clay. Geotech-

nique 47(2): 235253.

Tu, X. 2007.Tangent stiffness model for clays including small

strain non-linearity. PhDthesis, NorthwesternUniversity,

Evanston, IL.

Viggiani, G. & Tamagnini, C. 1999. Hypoplasticity for

modelingsoil non-linearity inexcavationproblems. Pre-

failure Deformation Characteristics of Geomaterials,

M. J amiolkowski, M, Lancellotta, R. and Lo Presti, D.

(eds.), Balkema, Rotterdam: 581588.

Whittle,A.J. &Kavvadas, M.J. 1994. Formulationof MIT-E3

constitutivemodel for overconsolidatedclays. Journal of

Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,ASCE,

120(1): 173198.

97

Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground Ng, Huang & Liu (eds)

2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-48475-6

Constructionmethod, groundtreatment, andconditioningfor tunneling

T. Hashimoto& B.Ye

Geo-Research Institute, Osaka, Japan

G.L.Ye

Department of Civil Engineering, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai, P.R. China

ABSTRACT: This general report reviews a selected group of papers of Session 2 which is related to

ConstructionMethod, GroundTreatment, andConditioningforTunneling.Thepapersaredividedinto5groups

basedontheir topics: (1) constructionmethodswithcasestudies, (2) groundtreatment, (3) loadandpressure,

(4)conditioningadditivesforEPB,(5)others.Beforereviewing,thegeotechnical aspectsinthesefieldsarefirstly

summarized, andthentheessencesof thesepapersarepresented. Thedeficienciesandfuturedevelopmentsare

alsodiscussed.

1 INTRODUCTION

Session2includes19papersfromChina, J apan, UK,

theNetherlands, Germany, Iran, Slovakia, Argentina

and Brazil. Especially, Tongji University, Shanghai

and GeoDelft, the Netherlands contribute to present

somepapers respectively. It is becausethat Shanghai

andtheNetherlands havebeenperformedmany tun-

nelsduringthepast decadeinthesoft ground. These

papers are divided into 5 groups and 8 subgroups

based on their topics, which are shown in Table 1.

Althoughall thesepaperhascontributedtosomespec-

ifiedaspectof constructionmethod, groundtreatment,

andconditioningfor tunneling, somepaperswithsig-

nificantimportanceareselectedtobereviewedinthis

General Report.Thereviewwill becarriedoutaccord-

ing to thegrouping of thepaper. Beforethereview,

the geotechnical aspects in these fields are firstly

summarized.

2 CONSTRUCTIONMETHODWITH

CASE STUDIES

2.1 Bored tunnel by TBM

More and more practices of bored tunnels by TBM

bringforwardmoreandmorerequirementsfor shield

tunnel. Table2displaysthecurrent trendof develop-

ment of shieldtunnel basedontherequirementsfrom

theworldmarket of tunneling.

To meet theserequirements, technologies of TBM

are also developed at the same time. The recent

Table1. Groupingof thepapersinSession2.

Num. of

Topics papers Authors

1. Constructionmethods 6papers

withcasestudies

1.1Boredtunnel by (3) Bakker & Bezuijen

TBM (shield (A, B) Heet al.

tunneling)

1.2Shotcretemethod (3) SfrisoGuatteri et al.

(mountaintunneling Fillibeck&Vogt

method, NATM)

2. GroundTreatment 5papers

2.1Groundfreezing (2) Hu& Pi

Fillibeck&Vogt

2.2Grouting (4) Guatteri et al.

Bezuijen& vanTol

Gafar et al

Fillibeck&Vogt

3. Loadandpressure 7papers

3.1Liningpressure (5) Hashimotoet al.

Talmon& Bezuijen

Talmonet al.

Bakker & Bezuijen

(A, B)

3.2PressureonTBM (4) Bezuijen& Bakker

Song& Zhou

Bakker & Bezuijen

(A, B)

4. Conditioning 2papers Hajialilue-Bonab

additivesfor EPB et al. (A, B)

5. Ohters 3papers Deng& Zhang

Kuzme& Hrustinec

Li et al.

99

Table2. Current trendinshieldtunneling.

Longdistance 3km10km

Highspeedexcavation 300m1000m/month

Deepexcavation 40m100m

Largecrosssection 10m15mof diameter

Deformedcrosssection 2faces4faces, non-circular

Highdurabilityof tunnel 100years

Cost performance Not cheapbut highquality

withreasonablecost

Table3. Geotechnical aspects for bored tunneling (shield

tunneling).

TBM type Bothof slurryandEPB typeinthe

soft soil withgroundwater

Applicableground Soft tostiff clay, loosetodensesand,

gravel

Groundloss Possibletobecontrolledlessthan

0.11%innormal condition

Facestability Needsomecontrollingtechnologies

for eachslurrytypeor EPB type

Fillingtail void Simultaneousgroutingcanreduce

groundlossandgiveanuniform

distributionof liningpressure

Segmental lining Manytypesof segmental lininghave

beendeveloped

development of TBM andits technologies areshown

asfollowing:

Durabilityof TBM

Durabilityof cutter bits

Exchangeablecutter bits

Installationof linings, newsegmental linings

Drivingcontrol system

Dockingmethod

Backfill grouting

In the practice of bored tunneling by TBM, the

geotechnical aspectsshowninTable3areof themost

importanceandshouldbewell considered.

Bakker & Bezuijen (A, B) shared their invaluable

experiences and findings on shield tunneling in soft

groundobtainedinlasttenyears. Duringtheconstruc-

tion of the 2nd Heinenoord Tunnel that is approxi-

matelyinthemiddleunderneaththeriver OudeMaas

intheNetherlands.Theyfoundoutthatbecauseblow-

out occurred during TBM driving under the river,

facesupportpressuredroppedwithin15secondsafter

thecutter faceworking, shownasFigure1.According

totheirinvestigation,theypointedoutthatfacesupport

pressureshouldbecontrolledbetweenlowerandupper

limits for situations withlittleoverburdenor thesoil

cover itself isrelativelylight. Wealsoareinterestedin

the15seconds, whichindictedthat thefront insta-

bility occuredwithout any omen, acareful control of

front pressureis necessary. Someanalysis results of

Figure 1. Support pressures before, during and after the

Blow out at the 2nd Heinenoord tunnel (by Bakker &

Bezuijen (A)).

Figure 2. Surface settlements; measured and back-

calculated with different material models (by Bakker &

Bezuijen (A)).

surfacesettlement werealsodisplayed, showninFig-

ure2. Itwasconcludedthatfor anadequateprediction

of deformationsit isimportant tomodel thegrouting

pressureasaboundarycondition, incombinationwith

theuseof small strainmaterial model.

As to the structure issues of the 2nd Heinenoord

Tunnel, Bakker & Bezuijen (B) investigatedthecrack-

ingandpallingthatoccurredduetoconstructionload,

seeFigure3. Thenalargescaletunnel ringtestswas

carried out, shown as Figure 4. By combining the

model tests as well as numerical tests, it was found

that theusageof kaubit intheringjoint wasthemain

reason.Thecompressionof theflexiblekaubitstripsby

jackingforceresultedinaslippingof differentsegment

piece, leadingtolocal stressconcentrationandirreg-

ular deformation. Byreplacingitwithstiffer plywood

plates, thedamagewasprevented.Theinfluenceof the

durationof plywoodtothelong-termbehavior of tun-

nel, however, isstill questionable. Duringconstruction

of thefirst tubefor theWesternscheldt Tunnel, they

foundout that highgrout pressuresandinabsenceof

beddingmaycausethebucklingof theTBM.Certainly,

100

Figure3. Damageto thedowel and notch sockets during

thefirst 150mof constructionof the2ndHeinenoordtunnel

(byBakker & Bezuijen (B)).

Figure 4. Large-scale tunnel ring testing (by Bakker &

Bezuijen).

someotherfactorsthatwerenotdiscussedinthepaper

mayalsocauseTBM deformation.

He et al. studiedthefirst applicationof DOT tun-

neling in Shanghai. They conducted an in-situ test

to investigatethedistribution of stress and displace-

ment around thetunnel. Figure5 shows thevertical

soil stress increment ahead of cutter face. Beauti-

ful distribution of vertical earth pressure increment

andsettlement troughs wereobserved. It is expected

that more detailed information about the measuring

methodscanbegivenout. They alsoreportedaDOT

shield passed under afive-floor building with adis-

tanceof 1msuccessfullybycareful operation, shown

as Figure6. Themaincountermeasures wererelative

lowadvancingspeedandextrabackfill grouting.

Figure5. Thevertical stressincrementin1.5maheadof the

openingface(byHe et al.).

Figure 6. Dot shield tunnel run across the buildings

(byHe et al.).

2.2 Shotcrete method (Mountain tunnel

method, NATM)

Thegeotechnical aspectsof shotcretemethod(Moun-

taintunnel method,NATM)aresummarizedinTable4.

Thedesign and construction procedures of Metro

tunnels in Buenos Aires from 19982007 were

reported by Sfriso. The characterization of Buenos

Airessoilsfortunnelingisoverconsolidatedcemented

101

Table4. Geotechnical aspectsof shotcretemethod(moun-

taintunnel method, NATM).

Facestability Prelining, facebolt, horizontal

grouting, piperoof, shotcrete,

et al.

Settlement mitigation Facestabilization, shotcrete,

foot pile, rockbolt, minibench,

groundimprovement (jet

grouting, chemical grouting,

compensationgrouting, et al.)

Geological survey Geophysical survey(elastic

wave, sonicwave, electric

resistivity, et al.), pilot boring

Monitoringtechnology Extensometer, 3Dlaser

scanning, optical fiber sensing,

digital photogrammetric

system, et al.

Predictionof groundwater Loweringof groundwater

inflowandpreservation table, subsidence, dryingwell

of groundwater

soil withN

spt

>20, whichisvery favorablefor exca-

vation. As shown in Figure 7, shotcrete tunneling

methods evolved from German method to Belgian

method, and reached an optimal full face excava-

tion. Cut & cover methodandundergroundexcavated

methodwereusedfor stations. Accordingtothefiled

measurement, the surface settlement is in the range

28mmingeneral, 415mmat stations.

Guatteri et al. described the state-of-the-art of

application of ground improvement with all round

(360

Barcelona, shown as Figure 8. Horizontal jet grout-

ing columns were executed around the excavated

section, including the invert, and at the far end of

the conical treatment, to create a watertight cham-

ber. This ground improvement achieves good results

of pre-consolidation, settlement mitigation, reduction

of water flow, and keep of face stability. Accord-

ing to field measurement, ground movements were

controlledwithin2030mm.

Shotcrete excavations with ground freezing, jet

grouting, pipescreenandcompressedair supporting

methods wereappliedintheconstructionof Munich

Subway. Fillibech & Vogt made a comparison of

different methods of facesupport in settlement sen-

sitiveurbanareasbasedonthegrounddeformations.

In the case of heading with ground freezing under

important structure, measurementsfor reducingfrost

heaves were taken, namely reducing operation time

and careful temperaturecontrol. Therecorded verti-

cal displacements inFigure9showthat amaximum

heaveof 35mmwasachieved.Thereportof jetgrout-

ing displayed alargeheavedueto installation of jet

groutingcover, as shown in Figure10. Although the

facestabilityincreases,thesettlementisnotreducedso

Figure7. Various shotcretetunnelingmethods inthecon-

structionof MetrotunnelsinBuenosAires(bySfriso).

muchasexpected.Inthepaper,itispointedoutthatthe

installation of crown supporting measures must lead

to higher safety potential, but it is difficult to judge

whether thesespecial measuresarenecessaryor not.

3 GROUNDTREATMENT

The geotechnical aspects of the two sub-subjects of

ground treatment, ground freezing and grouting, are

summarizedinTable5andTable6.

102

Section Tunnel

Septum

ColumnCCPh

ColumnsCCPh

Figure 8. Ground improvement with all round horizontal

jetgroutingappliedinSaoPauloandBarcelona(byGuatteri

et al.).

Figure 9. Vertical ground surface displacement along a

tunnel protectedbygroundfreezing(byFillibech &Vogt).

TheworkbyBezuijen &vanTol aimedtomakeclear

againstthequestionwhyfracturescanoccurmoreeas-

ilyinthefieldthaninmodel testswiththesameW/C

ratio. Startingfromaconceptual model that shownin

Figure11, theydemonstratedinananalytical waythat

heterogeneityof soil inthefieldandthestressreduc-

tionby theinstallationof pipes (so-calledTAM) and

other causesbeforeinjectionaremainreasons.

Garfa et al. performedasereiesof laboratoryscale

grout injection tests in which various factors affect-

ingfracturingof sandwerestudied. Figure12shows

theschematicdiagramof theexperimental setup. The

experimental resultsconfirmedthatfractureinitiation

Figure10. Largeheavedueto horizontal jet grouting (by

Fillibech &Vogt).

Table5. Geotechnical aspectsongroundfreezing.

Mechanismof freezing Segregationpotential, icelens,

processandevaluationof structureof soil, et al.

laboratoryfreezingtest

Propertyof frozensoils Strength, stiffness, freezing

point, temperature, thermal

conductivity, salinity

consistency, et al.

Frost heaveandthaw Laboratorytesting, prediction,

settlement countermeasure

Applicationof freezing Crosspassage, dockingof

methodonunderground TBMs, launchandarrival of

construction TBM

Table6. Geotechnical aspectsongrouting.

J et grouting Uniformityof improvedsoil, ground

deformationduringjet grouting,

applicablegroundcondition

(boulder, obstacle, et al.)

Groundinjection

Material Chemical grout, micro-cement,

CB, LW, polyurethane, et al.

Grouting Penetrationgrouting,

method compactiongrouting, double

packer, et al.

Evaluationof Fracturing, compactioneffects,

improvement uniformity, strengthening, reduction

of permeability

Settlement Compensationgrouting

control

insandrequiressomelocal inhomogeneityaroundthe

injectionpoint, rapiddevelopmentof afiltercakewith

alimitedthicknessandagroutwithlowviscosityand

a limited yield stress. Grouts with high w/c (water-

cement) ratiowill exhibitfractureswiththeformation

of filter cake. If thew/c is low, no fractures will be

formed.

103

Figure11. Sketchwithpossibledeformationmodesof the

injectionhole(byBezuijen & van Tol ).

Figure12. Schematicdiagramof theexperimental setup(by

Safar et al.).

4 LOADANDPRESSURE

Geotechnical aspects onliningpressureandpressure

actingonTBM aresummarizedinTable7.

Hashimoto et al. analyzedaseriesof observedearth

pressuremeasuredbyPADtypeearthpressurecell in

soft clay, stiff clayandsandrespectively. It wasfound

thatthedistributionsof earthpressureareveryuniform

ineachkindof soils. Intheverysoft clay, alargepor-

tionof theoverburdenwill act uponthelining, while

inthestiff clayandthedensesand, themagnitudeand

distribution of earth pressurealso depend largely on

thebackfill grouting, shownasFigures13& 14.

Talmo &Bezuijen presentedaveryinterestingpaper

onthepredictionof thegroundpressure(liningpres-

sure) based on the flow theory of backfill grout in

combinationwiththetimedependentconsolidationof

groutmaterial.Themeasuredresultsandthepredicted

resultsareshowninFigure15. Intheirpaper, theydis-

playedtheresultsthattheliningpressuredropslargely

withtime, shownasFigure16. However, accordingto

theresearch by Hashimoto et al. thelining pressure

Table7. Geotechnical aspectsonliningpressureandpres-

sureactingonTBM.

Liningpressure Liningpressureduringconstruction

for design andat longterm, magnitudeand

distributionof pressure, effectsof

backfill grouting(groutingpressure

andmaterials), soil typesandground

condition

Longitudinal Backfill grouting, liveloadanddead

deformationand loaddistribution, subsoil reaction, et al

bendingof tube

PressureonTBM Backfill groutingpressure, jackforce,

slurrypressure, greasepressureat tail

seal, earthpressureat aface, driving

control of TBM, shapeandrigidityof

shield, subsoil reaction, tround

deformationbypressureandload

fromTBM

Figure 13. p

v

,p

v0

vs. 2C,p

v0

in clayey ground (by

Hashimoto et al.).

dropisverysmall.Themaindifferencesareconsidered

tobethegrout material andinjectionmethods.

Talmon et al. studied the longitudinal tube bend-

ing due to grout pressure. They carried out beam

actioncalculationusinginputparametersof thebend-

ingmoment byTBM jacks, transverseforcebyTBM,

vertical grout pressure gradient behind TBM, load-

ingdiagramandunsupportedlengthof tunnel lining

inTBM, et al. Thecalculatedresult fitstheobserved

onestosomeextent, shownasFigure17.

Bezuijen & Bakker described the interaction

betweentheslurry fromthefaceandthegrout from

thetail, seeFigure18. Thepressuredistributionalong

thelongitudinal directionof TBM iscalculatedtheo-

retically based on thepressureloss (LP) dueto the

flow.ThecalculatedresultisshowninFigure19.They

104

Figure14. p

v

,p

v0

vs.SPT-Ninsandyground(byHashimoto

et al.).

Figure 15. Meausred and calculated grout pressures (by

Talmo & Bezuijen).

foundthatLP dependsontheshear stressof thegrout

along theTBM (

r

), gap betweenTBM and ground,

andlengthincrement alongtheTBM.

Song & Zhou did a research work on the earth

pressure distribution of excavation chamber in EPB

tunneling. Accordingtotheir work, thetotal support-

ingpressurecanbecomposedbytwoparts: (1) Earth

supportingpressureP

E

inworkingchamber; (2) Cut-

ter head plane supporting pressure P

P

. The authors

proposedanestimationmethodof earthpressureratio

based on the empirical relation among cutter head

torque, trapezoidal shape of pressure distribution,

Figure16. Dropsof liningpressurewithtime(byTalmo&

Bezuijen).

Figure 17. Measured and calculated bending moments

compared (Groene Hart Tunnel, the Netherlands) (by

Talmon et al.).

opiningratioof cutter face. They foundthat EPSR in

clayislarger thanthat incobbleandsand.

5 CONDITIONINGADDITIVESFOR EPB

Required properties of conditioned soil for EPB are

summarized in Table 8. Until now, there are many

types of conditioningadditives havebeenutilizedin

practice, including slurry, foam, polymer, water (for

clayeyground), cellulose, sodiumalginate, et al.

TherearemanydataintheworldespeciallyinJ apan

for this subject, but thesedatahas not been summa-

rized in general. In Session 2, there are two papers

by Hajialiue-Bonal et al. concerningconditionaddi-

tivesfor EPB. Thetwopapersdescribedthefollowing

resultsfromlaboratorytest for foamandconditioned

sandybyfoam:

1 Polymer typefoamshowsagoodstability;

2 Withsomecombination, foam/sandmixtureshave

highcompressibility;

105

Figure18. Possibleflowdirections andsketchedpressure

distributionsalongtheTBM.

Figure19. Pressuresandjoint widthalongaTBM.

3 The soil conditioning by foamcause decrease of

shear strength(c, +);

4 WhenFoamExpansionRatiois10-FER-18,the

changeof strengtharenegligible.

6 CONCLUSIONS

Thepapersinthissessionprovideabundantcasestud-

iestoadvanceour knowledgeof tunnel constructions,

Table8. Requiredpropertiesof conditionedsoil for EPB.

Highflowability Lowshear strength, reductionof

cuttingtorqueandwear of cutter bits,

stableandprecisemonitoringof earth

pressureinworkingchamber

Impermeability Preventionof water inflowandpiping

High Reducingearthpressurefluctuation

compressibility duringexcavation

Uniformity Preventionof water inflowandpiping,

precisemonitoringof earthpressure

and many new technologies developed in recent

yearswereintroduced. Thisisparticularly important,

because through case study, we can understand the

advantage,disadvantage,applicablefield,andfeasibil-

ityof thenewconstructionmethodsandtechnologies.

Somepapersintroducednewmonitoringandmea-

suringtechnologies. This is also animportant aspect

for tunnel construction. On-time and accurate mon-

itoring and measuring can maketunnel construction

workquicker, safer, andmoreeconomical. Of course,

abundance of measuring data help us analyze and

understand the mechanism and the essence of the

interactionbetweentunnel structureandground.

Predictionandtheoretical analysis was concerned

in some papers. In general, prediction and analysis

results were compared with observed results to ver-

ify their validity. But weshould pay attention to the

limitationandapplicablefieldof thesemethods.

REFERENCES

Bakker K.J. & BezuijenA. 10 years of bored tunnelling in

the Netherlands: Part I geotechnical issures.

Bakker K.J. & BezuijenA. 10 years of bored tunnelling in

the Netherlands: Part II structureal issures.

BezuijenA. & Bakker K.J. The influence of flow around a

TBM machine.

Bezuijen A. & van Tol A.F. Mechanisms that determine

betweenfractureandcompactiongroutinginsand.

ChongH., Li T. &YanJ. The double-o-tube shield tunnel in

Shanghai soil.

DengZ.G. &ZhangQ.H. Research of non-motor vehicle -rail

transit-tube interchanging transport system pattern.

FillibeckJ. &Vogt. N. Shotcrete excavations for the Munich

subway Comparison of different methods of face support

in settlement sensitive areas.

Gafar K., Soga K., Bezuijen A., Sanders M.P.M. &

vanTol A.F. Fracturing of sand in compensation grouting.

Guatteri G., Koshima A., Lopes R., Ravaglia A. &

Pieroni M.R. Historical cases and use of horizontal

jet grouting solutions with 360 distribution and frontal

septum to consolidate very weak and saturated soils.

Hajialilue-Bonab M., Ahmadi-adli M., Sabetamal H. &

Katebi H. The effects of sample dimension and grada-

tion on shear strength parameters of conditioned soils in

EPBM.

106

Hajialilue-Bonab M., Sabetamal H., Katebi H. & Ahmadi-

adli. M. Experimental study on compressibility behavior

of foamed sandy soil.

Hashimoto T., Ye G.L., Nagaya J., Konda T. & Ma X.F.

Study on earth pressure acting upon shield tunnel lining

in clayey and sandy ground based on field monitoring.

Hu X.D. & Pi A. Frozen soil properties for cross passage

construction in Shanghai Yangtze River Tunnel.

Kuzma K. The influence of engineering-geological condi-

tions on the construction of radioactive waste dump.

Li Z.X., HanX. &WangK.S. Critical ventilation velocity in

large cross-section road tunnel fire.

Sfriso A. O. Metro tunnels in Buenos Aires: Design and

onstructionprocedures19982007.

SongT.T. & ZhouS.H. Study on the Earth Pressure Distri-

bution of Excavation Chamber in EPB tunneling.

TalmonA.M. & BezuijenA. Backfill grouting research at

Groene Hart Tunnel.

TalmonA.M., BezuijenA. &HoefslootF.J. Longitudinal tube

bending due to grout pressures.

107

Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground Ng, Huang & Liu (eds)

2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-48475-6

Physical andnumerical modelling

P.L.R. Pang

Geotechnical Engineering Office, Civil Engineering and Development Department,

Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, HKSAR

ABSTRACT: This General Report has been prepared based on areviewof twenty papers submitted to the

session on Physical and numerical modelling related to geotechnical aspects of underground construction.

The papers cover a wide range of model feature types in different materials. The problems studied include

ground/tunnel facestability, ground/tunnel deformationandearthpressures, ground/tunnel-structureinteraction,

seismicbehaviour, andvehiclefiresinaroadtunnel. Thisreport highlightsanddiscussestheapproachesused

inmodellingandpresentsthekey findings. Someremarksaregivenat theendontheobjectivesof modelling

andtheworkof TC28.

1 INTRODUCTION

20papershavebeensubmittedtothissession(Table1).

Threeof thepapersarejointcontributionsfromauthors

of twocountries.

The papers cover a wide range of model feature

types (Table 2). These include tunnels in clay, sand,

aluminumrods (modellingagranular mass), layered

soils, aswell astunnelsinsoftorweakrock.Thereisa

paper onmodellingof deepexcavationswithstepped-

twinretainingwalls, andapaper onvehiclefiresina

roadtunnel.

2 PHYSICAL MODELLING

Eleven papers present results of physical modelling

(Table3). Theseincludesix models at 1g, aphotoe-

lasticmodel andfour centrifugemodels.

Table1. Geographicdistributionof thepapers.

Country Papers

China 5

China/France 1

Denmark 1

France 1

Italy 1

Italy/UK 1

J apan 2

J apan/UK 1

Korea 4

TheNetherlands 1

UK 2

20

For thethreemodels that usealuminumrods, the

testswerecarriedoutat1g. Numerical modellingwas

also carried out to compare with the results of the

1gtests.

Thesandmodel at1gwaspreparedbycompaction

of the sand using a plate vibrator. The compaction

could have created locked-in compaction stresses

on the model braced wall and the adjacent tunnel

thus influencing themodel test results. This was not

discussedinthepaper.

Twopaperspresentresultsof modellingof rocktun-

nel problemsusing1gtests. Oneusedbaritepowder,

sandandplaster mixedwithwater, andtheother used

concretebrickstomodel thesoftrock.Therewassome

discussiononthemodellinglawsinthepapers. While

theconclusionsonthequalitativebehaviour seemrea-

sonable, and arenot unexpected, it is not sureif the

quantitativeresultsarevalidat prototypescalewhere

discontinuitiesintherockandthehigher stresslevels

couldinfluencethemagnitudeof thedeformations.

Table2. Featuretypescoveredinthepapers.

Featuretype Papers

Tunnelsin:

(a) Clay 5

(b) Sand 3

(c) Aluminumrods/crushedglass 4

(d) Layeredsoils 3

(e) Soft/weakrock 3

Deepexcavation(aluminumrods) 1

Vehiclefiresinroadtunnel 1

20

109

Table3. Papersonphysical modelling.

Techniqueandscale 2D/3D Materialsused Papers

Laboratory1gmodel 2D Aluminumrods 3

(scales: 1/10, Sand 1

1/19, 1/80) Baritepowder/ 1

sand/ plaster

Concretebricks 1

Photoelasticmodels 2D Crushedglass 1

Centrifugemodels 3D Clay 1

(75g, 100g, 160g) Sand 2

Sandoverlying 1

clay

There are four papers on centrifuge tests. One of

thepapersistostudytheeffectsof pileloadingonan

existingtunnel inanoverconsolidatedclay, twoareon

centrifugetestswheredrysandwasusedtoconstruct

themodels for studyingtheinteractionmechanisms,

and one on tunnelling in an overconsolidated clay

overlainbysandunder thewater table.

3 NUMERICAL MODELLING

18 papers present numerical modelling results

(Table4). Different numerical modelling techniques

wereused.

14 out of these 18 papers used either 2D or 3D

codes based on the finite difference method (FDM)

or the finite element method (FEM). Some of the

codes, e.g. CRISP, FLACandPLAXIS, arewell estab-

lishedcodesandthe2Dversionsarecommonlyusedin

current engineeringpractice. Intheanalyses, thesoil

was modelled either as alinear elastic or an elastic-

perfectly plastic material withtheMohr-Coulombor

Drucker Prager failurecriterion. Whereacomparison

was made, the elastoplastic model performed better

thantheelasticmodel.

In one paper, a slope stability analysis program

SLOPE/W based on the limit equilibrium method

was used to compute the factors of safety of a clay

slope. Theresults werecomparedwiththeresults of

FLACandPLAXISwhichusedthestrengthreduction

method. However, noinformationisgivenonthethe-

oretical method used (afew options areavailablein

SLOPE/WsuchasJ anbu, BishopandMorgenstern&

Price) and the choice of slip surfaces, which could

affect thecomputedsafety factors. Also, noinforma-

tionisgivenonwhattheslopedeformationandthesoil

shear strainwere, whenthesoil strengthisreducedfor

thefactor of safetytoapproachunity.

A visco-elastic model adopting a nonlinear rela-

tionshipbetweenthenormalizedshear modulus (and

dampingratio)andtheshearstrainamplitudewasused

for a 1D ground dynamic shear response analysis.

The code EERA was used for the analysis, the

objective of this study was to calibrate a linear

visco-elastic, effectivestressbased, constitutivemodel

for use in coupled 2D dynamic analyses using the

finiteelement programPLAXIS. Theviscous damp-

ingwasaccountedfor usingtheRayleighformulation

(Woodward& Griffiths, 1996).

Thesubloadingtij finiteelementmodel (developed

by Nakai & Hinokio (2004)) was used in two cases

to provideresults for comparing with physical mod-

ellingat 1gwhichusedaluminumrods inthemodel

tests. Thetij model takes into account theinfluence

of theintermediateprincipal stress by introducing a

modifiedstresstij. Also, thesubloadingconcept(pro-

posedbyHashiguchi (1980)) isadoptedtomodel the

influence of soil density. Five of the seven param-

eters in the tij model are the same as those in the

Cam-clay model, with onemoreparameter added to

describe the influence of soil density and confining

pressure, andanother parameter addedtocharacterize

theshapeof theyieldsurface. Laboratorybiaxial tests

were carried out to compare the stress-strain curves

obtained from the finite element program FEMtij-

2D. In the biaxial tests, shearing of the aluminum

rods, whichhadlowfrictionangles, induceddilatant

behaviour.Thematchbetweenthebiaxial testsandthe

finiteelement analysisresultsappearsreasonablebut

this is up to ashear strain level of about 12%only

(Figure1).

TheDistinct Element codeUDEC wasusedinone

casetocomparewiththeresultsof large-scalemodel

testscarriedout usingconcretebrickstomodel rock.

However, thepaper doesnot indicatehowthediscon-

tinuitiesintherock weremodelled. For theother two

papers ontunnels inrock, thenumerical simulations

werecarriedout usingfiniteelement codes adopting

an elastoplastic rock model with theDrucker-Prager

failurecriterion. It seemsthat theneedfor modelling

the discontinuities that may be present in the rock

was not considered. It is not too clear fromthetwo

papers howtherock parameters weredeterminedfor

thecontinuummodelsandthefieldprototypes.

Results obtained from closed form solutions

derived using upper bound limit analysis were pre-

sented in two of the papers, for comparison with

the results of centrifuge modelling and numerical

modellingrespectively.

The Fire Dynamics Simulator code incorporating

alargeeddy simulationmodel was usedto carry out

computational fluiddynamics modelling. Theobjec-

tive of this work was to study the heat release rates

fromvehiclefiresinaroadtunnel of 15mindiameter.

Thecomputedresultswerecomparedwithanempiri-

cal equation.Thisindicatesthattheempirical equation

requiresimprovementforthecaseof small firesinroad

tunnelswithalargecrosssection.

110

Table4. Papersonnumerical modelling.

Constitutivelaw Modelling Program Papers

Linear elastic 2DFEM PLAXIS 2

Nonlinear visco-elastic 1Dshear EERA 1

Elasto-plastic 2DFEM CRISP, Msc.MARC 2

(Mohr Coulomb) 2DFDM FLAC 1

3DFEM MIDAS-GTS 1

3DFDM FLAC3D 3

Elasto-plastic 3DFEM MARC 2

(Drucker Prager)

Elasto-plastic(Cam 2DFEM FEMij-2D 2

clay+2parameters)

Distinct element 2DDEM UDEC 1

Rigid-plastic Limit analysis Closedformsolution 2

Largeeddysimulation CFD FireDynamicsSimulator 1

Figure1. Stress-strain-dilatancyrelation.

4 PROBLEMSSTUDIED

Theproblemsstudiedasreportedinthepapersinclude:

1. ground/tunnel facestability(5papers),

2. ground/tunnel deformationandearthpressures (8

papers),

3. ground/tunnel-structureinteraction(5papers),

4. seismicbehaviour (1paper), and

5. vehiclefiresinaroadtunnel (1paper).

A brief reviewof selectedpapersisgivenbelow.

4.1 Ground/tunnel face stability

Thesubject of facestability is avery important one.

If thefacepressureappliedistoolow, therecouldbe

acollapseor excessivegroundsettlement, andif the

facepressureis too high, therecould bea blow-out

failureor excessivegroundheave.

A number of researchers have studied this prob-

lem(e.g. Anagnostou&Kovri, 1994). Thefollowing

papershaveaddedtotheknowledgebase.

Li et al investigated the failure of a large slurry

shield-driven tunnel using upper bound limit anal-

ysis and numerical modelling. The study is for the

15.43mdiameterShanghai YangtzeRiverTunnel con-

structedinsoft clay. A shallowgroundcover section,

with a ground cover to tunnel diameter (C/D) ratio

of 0.7, was selected for thestudy. Undrained condi-

tions wereassumed in themodelling. A multi-block

failuremechanismwithauniformfacepressure(sug-

gestedbySoubra,2002)wasusedforthelimitanalysis.

FLAC3Dwasusedforthenumerical modelling(which

adoptedanelastic-perfectlyplasticconstitutivemodel

withaMohr-Coulombfailurecriterion).Theresultsof

theupper boundlimit analysis andthe3D numerical

modellingshowedthat partial blow-out failureof the

upper part of thetunnel faceoccurs whentheslurry

pressureislarge, whereasglobal collapseof thewhole

tunnel faceoccurs when theslurry pressureis small

(Figure2).

Theauthors noted that thedifferencebetween the

slurry pressure and earth pressure at the crown and

invert for alargediameter slurryTBM tunnel canbe

large and this could have a significant effect on the

failuremechanismandthecritical slurrypressure.The

failuremechanismsandthecritical slurrypressuresat

the tunnel axis level obtained fromthe limit analy-

sisandthenumerical modellingagreewell witheach

other (Figure3).

Caporaletti et al reviewedthepast researchontun-

nel stability in undrained conditions (Davis, et al,

1980; Kimura& Mair, 1981; Sloan&Assadi, 1992),

in drained conditions (Atkinson & Potts, 1977) and

inlayeredground(Grant & Taylor, 2000). They con-

ductedcentrifugeteststoinvestigatethestabilityof a

circular tunnel in layered ground, with clay overlain

byamediumdensesandylayer, belowthewater table.

TheC/Dratioof thetunnel was2.38.Theclaywascon-

solidated fromaslurry, to givean overconsolidation

ratiorangingbetween1.4and2.8withdepth.All tests

111

Figure2. Twokindsof partial failuremechanisms.

werecarriedoutat160g. Theconditionof tunnel col-

lapsewas takenas volumeloss greater than20%. In

thecentrifugetests themechanismof failurefor the

layered ground involved a wide area of soil both in

sand and in clay, with pseudo-vertical settlements at

thesand-clayinterface(Figure4).

Itwasfoundthatthecontributiontostabilitydueto

frictionactingwithintheupper sandlayer represented

asignificant contribution. A significant overestimate

of the tunnel support pressures to prevent collapse

might result if the theoretical solutions obtained for

homogenousclaysareusedwiththesandlayer treated

as a surcharge. The authors proposed a new failure

mechanismwhich provided an upper bound to the

experimental data obtained (Figure 5). It would be

interesting to examine whether the proposed mech-

anismisapplicablefor thecaseof aloosesandlayer.

Date et al carried out a series of centrifuge tests

at 75g to investigate the ground deformation pat-

terns during excavation of tunnels in dry sand. The

C/Dratioof themodel tunnelswasone, andsomeof

themodels incorporatedreinforcements. Theground

deformation was found to be small even when the

facepressurewas reducedto half theinitial pressure

of 100kPa, but oncemovement started upon further

reductionof thefacepressureitincreasedsharplylead-

ingto instantaneous collapse(i.e. abrittlefailure).

Figure 3. Comparison of failure mechanisms of Case 2

(velocitycontour for FLAC

3D

analysis).

Figure 4. Mechanism of failure from centrifuge tests

(VL

=20%).

The model tests without reinforcement collapsed at

a support pressure which agrees with the centrifuge

test results of Chambon & Cort (1994). The study

found that introduction of face bolts and forepoling

yieldeddifferent tunnel collapsemechanisms, which

dependedonthedensityof thefaceboltsandforepol-

ingbolts. Surprisingly, thereinforcementscontributed

112

Figure5. Mechanismof failurefor layeredground.

Figure6. Tunnel failurepatternsonthelongitudinal section.

to only a slight reduction in the support pressure

requiredtokeepthetunnel facestable,comparedtothe

case without reinforcement. The face bolts installed

stiffenedthegroundaheadof thefaceandwerefound

to beableto reducethefaceextrusion. Theforepol-

ingdividedthegroundaroundthetunnel faceintotwo

zones, withtheouterzoneforminganarchcomprising

the forepoling bolts. The geometries of the collapse

mechanisms are similar to those observed by other

researchers for tunnels in sands, e.g. as reported by

Chambon& Cort(1994) andMair &Taylor (1997).

They all involve a narrow chimney, propagating

almost vertically fromthe tunnel up to the ground

surface(Figure6).

FLAC3Danalyseswerealsocarriedout.TheMohr-

Coulomb soil model with strain softening/hardening

wasfoundtogiveabetter matchtothecentrifugedata

thantheMohr-Coulombmodel without strainsoften-

ing/hardening.Thedeformationpatternobtainedfrom

theanalysisforamodel reinforcedwithfaceboltswas

similar tothatof thecentrifugetestbutthemagnitude

was smaller. Theauthors recommendedto study fur-

ther theeffectof meshshapeandtheeffectof changes

Figure7. Measuredexcessporepressureinfrontof aslurry

shieldandapproximation.

insoil-bolt interactionproperties uponexcavationin

thenumerical analyses.

Theinformationonfailuremechanisms presented

intheabovepapersisinterestinganduseful. Thereis

recent improvement inunderstandingof theground-

tunnellinginteractionprocessesassociatedwithinflu-

ence of grouting pressures, removal of the filter

cake and the pore pressures generated during the

advanceof aslurryTBM(Figure7).Thiswasachieved

throughfieldmeasurementsobtainedduringconstruc-

tion (Bezuijen & Talmon, 2008). Further data and

study in this area will no doubt augment theresults

of existinglaboratoryandanalytical modelling, which

havenotaccountedfor suchprocesses. Further under-

standing of theprocesses could help to evaluatethe

needtorefinethecalculationmodelsanddesignmeth-

odsforestimationof facepressuresrequiredtoprevent

collapseandblow-out.

4.2 Ground/tunnel deformation and earth

pressures

A number of papers inthis sessionpresent results of

modellingtostudy thegrounddeformationandearth

pressuresaroundatunnel.

Shahinet al developedanewcircular tunnel appa-

ratus and conducted 1g model tests to examine the

groundmovementsinducedbytunnellingandtheearth

pressures around the tunnels. Aluminumrods were

usedtomodel agranular soil mass.Thesurfacesettle-

ment was measured using a laser typedisplacement

transducer with an accuracy of 0.01mm, and pho-

tographs were taken during the experiments which

were later used as input for the assessment of the

groundmovementsusingtheParticleImageVelocime-

try technique (White et al, 2003). To compare with

the model test results, numerical simulations were

carried out using 2D finite element analyses under

plane strain and drained conditions. The computer

program FEMtij-2D was used. The initial stresses

113

Figure8. Distributionof shear strain: tunnel invertisfixed.

appliedcorrespondto theself-weight condition. Two

C/Dratios, viz. 1and2, wereexamined.Theeffectsof

full faceexcavation(withthecentreof theexcavation

keptfixed) andtopdriftexcavation(withtheinvertof

thetunnel kept fixed) werealso studied. Thesurface

settlement andearthpressuresaroundthetunnel were

foundto besignificantly influencedby thedisplace-

mentatthetunnel crownfor thesameoverburdenand

samevolumeloss.Thevolumelosswaslesssignificant

comparedtothecrowndrift inthecaseof theshallow

tunnel.Thefull faceexcavationcaseproducedawider

shear deformationregionthanthat for thecaseof top

driftexcavation(Figure8). Theuseof anelastoplastic

soil model producedbetter matchwiththemodel test

surfacesettlement profilethananelastic soil model.

Thedistributionof earthpressures aroundthetunnel

dependedontheexcavationpattern. Theauthorsindi-

catedthatthenumerical simulationsweregenerallyin

goodagreement withthemodel test results. However,

it is no clear whether thetij finiteelement model is

capable of describing the behaviour of tunnels con-

structedinreal soilsespecially insoilswhichexhibit

contractilebehaviour.

Lianget al studiedtheeffectsof soil stratification

on tunnelling-induced ground movements. 3D anal-

yses were carried out using the computer program

FLAC3D.Thebehaviourof the2.47mdiameter Thun-

der Bay sewer tunnel inCanada, constructedusinga

TBM withsegmental concretelining, insoft to firm

clayswithsiltandsandseams, wassimulated.TheC/D

ratioof thetunnel was3.8.Thesoil strataweredivided

into four sub-layers for thepurposeof theanalyses.

Figure9. Lateral displacement15mbehindthetunnel face.

The ground surface settlement, lateral displacement

profileat 15mbehindthetunnel faceandthesubsur-

facesettlement withdepthabovethetunnel axisfrom

theanalyses werecomparedwiththeanalysis results

obtained by Lee & Rowe (1991) using the FEM3D

program(also based on an elastoplastic soil model).

Theywerealsocomparedwiththefielddatareported

byBelshaw&Palmer(1978).Additional comparisons

werecarriedout withtheanalytical solutiongivenby

Loganathan& Poulos (1998). Thestudy showedthat

theelastoplastic soil model couldsimulatethedefor-

mationprofilesbetter thanthosebasedontheelastic

model.Theresultsof theelastoplasticsoil model indi-

cated that soil stratification had little effects on the

groundsurfacesettlementbutsignificantlyinfluenced

the lateral displacement and subsurface settlement

profiles (Figure9). This was different fromtheelas-

tic soil model whichpredictedthat soil stratification

had significant effects in all cases. This is an inter-

esting casehistory of benchmarking a3D computer

programusing data froma past project, illustrating

the value of documenting good data and making it

availablefor research.

Song et al studied the time-dependent behaviour

of soft ground tunnels constructed using steel rein-

forcementsgroutedintothegroundaheadof atunnel

114

Figure10. Time-dependent characteristics of elastic wave

velocitiesof asand-cement mixture.

(atechniquewhichtheauthorscalledthereinforced

protectiveumbrellamethod). Laboratorydirectshear

testsandPandSwavevelocitytests(usingpiezoelec-

tric bender elements) were carried out to determine

thestrengthandstiffnessof thesand-cement mixture

at different curingtimes. Thetest resultsshowedthat

thesand-cement mixturegainedsignificant increases

in stiffness after about 6 hours whereas the appar-

ent cohesion increased to about 2MPa after 7 days

(Figure10).

3D finiteelement analyses werecarriedout using

acomputer programMIDAS-GTS(2005) tosimulate

thebehaviour of such atunnel. Thetunnel is 18.8m

wideand10.4mhigh, at 15mbelowground. It was

constructedinweatheredrock, using12mlongsteel

pipesasreinforcement. Thewater tablewasatground

surface.Theanalysesincorporatedthetime-dependent

material properties of thesand-cement mixture. The

excavation rate was taken as 0.75m per day. The

studyconcludedthat useof the23daysstrengthand

stiffness parameters was adequatefor predicting the

time-dependent deformation behaviour, for practical

designpurposes, providedthatthereissufficientover-

lapbetweenthereinforcements. Nocomparisonwith

anyfieldperformancemonitoringresultswashowever

presented.

Leeet al studiedthebehavior of a2-archrocktun-

nel usingalarge-scaletestmachine(6mwide6.5m

high). Themodel tests(1/19scale) wereconductedat

1g.Therockwasmodelledusingconcretebricks.The

tests showed that the ground displacements induced

by tunnelling were mainly within a zone of 0.25D

fromthetunnel, whereD is thetunnel width. Hori-

zontal displacements of morethan 40%and vertical

displacements more than 20% of the total displace-

mentsoccurredduringexcavationof thepilot tunnel.

Theauthors suggestedthat thestability of the2-arch

tunnel couldbedominatedbythestabilityof thepilot

tunnel excavationandthat therockbolt lengthshould

be longer than 0.25D. Displacements obtained from

UDEC analyses werepresented. Whiletheseshowed

the same pattern, details of the analyses were not

given. Based on thelimited measurements obtained,

theauthorssuggestedthat therock loadactingonthe

centrepillar of the2-archtunnel may betakento be

0.15Wfor preliminarydesign, whereWisthecentre-

to-centredistancebetweentheleft andright tunnels,

whentheRMR of therock massismorethan60. No

numerical analyses were carried out. More research

wasrecommendedtoconfirmtheproposedempirical

relationship. It wouldbeuseful toexaminetheinflu-

enceof rockdiscontinuitiesandtheeffectof rockblock

sizerelativetothetunnel diameter.

4.3 Ground/tunnel-structure interaction

Broere&Dijkstrainvestigatedtheinfluenceof tunnel

volumelossonpilesusingthephotoelastictechnique.

2Dplanestrainmodel testswereconductedtoexamine

the tunnel-pile interaction. Crushed glass (a photo-

elasticmaterial)wasusedtomodel thesoil.Theeffects

of volume loss were simulated by making the tun-

nel diameter contract vertically. Fromthetests, it was

found that significant stress changes occurred close

tothepiletips. Thetests withavolumeloss of 0.6%

showed a clear influence of the volume loss on the

stresses near thepiletips up to onetunnel diameter

away. Thestudysuggestedthat theinfluencezonefor

displacementpileswithbothendbearingandskinfric-

tion, might beslightlylarger thanfor boredpileswith

endbearingalone. Theauthors indicatedthat further

fieldobservations, model testingandnumerical mod-

ellingarerequiredtodeterminetheinfluencezone.

Lee & Yoo studied the ground shear strain pat-

ternsdevelopedaroundatunnel andtheexistingpiles

nearby dueto tunnel construction. Small-scalelabo-

ratory model tests at 1gwereconducted. Aluminum

rods wereused to model thesoil mass and thepiles

embedded in it. A tunnel diameter reduction system

capable of achieving a tunnel volume loss of up to

20%wasspeciallydeveloped. Thestrainedcontrolled

testscarriedout usingthissystemresultedinground

shear strainswhichwerecapturedbycloserangepho-

togrammetry. 3Dnumerical analyseswerealsocarried

outusingthefiniteelementprogramCRISP. Compar-

ison between thephysical model tests and thefinite

element analysesshowedgoodagreement intermsof

shear strain patterns. Based on the maximumshear

115

Figure11. Schematicillustrationof shear strainmodesfor

pile-soil-tunnellinginteraction.

straincontours, twodistinctshear strainpatternswere

observed, viz. withandwithouttunnel-pileinteraction

(Figure11). Theboundary betweenthesetwo modes

of behaviour dependedonthelocationof thepiletip

fromthetunnel andthemagnitudeof thetunnel vol-

ume loss. The authors suggested that this boundary

might serveasauseful guideintheplanningthetun-

nel alignment inareaswherepilesarepresent. It may

beworthwhileto comparetheresults given in these

paperswiththefindingsof J acobszetal (2004; 2005)

fromcentrifugetestsandSelemetaset al (2005) from

fieldtests.

Yao et al studied the effects of loading of bored

pilesonexistingtunnels. Centrifugemodel testswere

carried out at 100g. The model tunnel was formed

in firmto stiff clay consolidated froma slurry. The

tunnel liningdeformation, porepressures intheclay,

pileloadapplied, pilesettlementsandtunnel facepres-

suresweremonitoredwhilethepileloadingwasbeing

applied.TwoC/Dratios, viz. 2and3, werestudied.The

tests examined thebehaviour after pileconstruction.

Theinfluenceof pileexcavationwasnotconsidered.In

theteststhepilebasewassetattwodifferentpositions:

tunnel crownandinvert level. Therateof loadingwas

designedtocreateundrainedconditions. Preliminary

analysisof theresultsindicatedthatthepilesettlement

hadalinear relationshipwithincreaseinappliedload

whentheloadexceedshalf thedesignedultimateload.

Thetunnel centrealwaysmoveddownwardsandaway

fromthe pile. Increasing the pile-tunnel clear spac-

ingreducedthedeformationof thetunnel lining. The

longpilehadmoreeffectonthetunnel liningthanthe

shortpileregardlessof theC/Dratio.Thetunnel crown

wasalwayssubjecttosignificantmovementduetopile

loading.

Marshall & Mair investigated the soil-structure

interaction mechanisms resulting from tunnel con-

struction beneath buried pipelines using centrifuge

modelling. The study aimed to validate visually the

interaction mechanisms that account for pipeline

behaviour. Particle Image Velocimetry was used to

measure displacements for characterising the soil-

structure interaction. The model tests were carried

out at 75g, using sand prepared to a relative den-

sityof 90%. TheC/Dratioof thetunnel was2.4. The

studyshowedthatestimationof thetunnel volumeloss

(defined as change in tunnel volume divided by the

original total tunnel volume) usingsoil displacement

data was not simple for sands. This was due to the

uncertainty ontheextent of thedilationandcontrac-

tilebehaviour of thesandaroundthetunnel. Thesoil

volumeloss(definedasthevolumecalculatedbyinte-

gratingthesoil settlement profileanddividingbythe

original total tunnel volume) wasnot alwaysthesame

asthetunnel volumeloss.Themagnitudeof theformer

calculatedat thegroundsurfacecanbegreater or less

thanthelatter. Thecentrifugepipelinetest illustrated

that agapformedbelowthepipelineat atunnel vol-

umeloss of between1and2%. Thegapgrewas the

tunnel volumeloss increased. Thebendingmoments

inducedinthepipeincreasedfromtheonsetof tunnel

volumeloss but didnot appear to besensitiveto the

growthof thegapheight (Figure12).

Lee&Kimstudiedthebehaviour of abracedexca-

vation in sand adjacent to atunnel using large-scale

(1/10 scale) model tests at 1g. Thebraced wall was

subjected to preloading to limit the wall deflections

during the ground excavation. The tunnel was at a

distanceof half thetunnel diameter fromthebraced

wall. Thesand was prepared to arelativedensity of

56%.2Dnumerical analyseswerecarriedoutusingthe

finiteelement programPLAXIS. It is not clear what

constitutivemodel was used for thesand. Thestudy

found that if the wall deflections were significantly

reduced by preloading, the stability of the adjacent

tunnel wouldgreatlyincrease. Themaximumbending

momentandshear forceinthetunnel liningdecreased

duetothepreloading. Thegroundsurfacesettlement

also decreased as a result of preloading. The wall

deflection profiles fromthemodel tests agreed well

withthenumerical analysisresults. Itisnotedthatthe

116

Figure12. Derivationof bendingmomentsfromdeformed

shapeof pipeline(fromPIV data).

sandwascompactedtoconstructthemodels.However,

itisnotclear whatinitial soil stresseswereusedinthe

numerical analyses. Also, noinformationis givenon

whether thewall installationandexcavationsequence

intheanalysesmatchedthoseinthemodel tests.

5 CONCLUDINGREMARKS

In the papers submitted to this session, the mod-

ellingobjectivesaregenerallynotexplicitlystatedbut

they probably include one or more of the following

objectives:

Toobserve/understandcollapsemechanisms

To observe/understand deformation patterns and

interactivebehaviour

Toassess/verifytheusefulnessoraccuracyof theo-

retical solutions,softwareorempirical rulesagainst

laboratory(1gor Ng) model test data

Same, but against fieldmeasurement data

Tobenchmarktheoretical solutionsor software

Topredict fieldperformance

Other than to gain knowledge and to understand

the problem, an important goal of the modelling

researchshouldbetoprovideuseful andreliabletools

or to enhance the existing tools for prediction of

fieldperformance, for useinengineeringpractice. In

this regard, some of the papers have contributed to

thisgoal.

TC28hasrecently set uptwoworkinggroups, one

on databases on underground works and another on

preparingguidelines for comparingfieldor physical

modelling with numerical simulations. Thefirst ini-

tiativewill beuseful formodellersinthatgoodquality

datawill bearchivedsystematicallyfor easyreference

andretrieval, physical modellers couldusetheinfor-

mationtoplantheirresearchandchecktheirmodel test

resultsagainstothersworkforbenchmarkingpurpose,

andnumerical modellers couldusethedatato check

thereliability andlimitations of theexistingtheoret-

ical closed formsolutions and numerical codes. The

secondinitiativewill beuseful for thosewhoarecar-

ryingoutmodellingtounderstandreal behaviour or to

validatenumerical codes.

Oneof thedatabasesonundergroundworkscould

includefailures observedinmodel tests andfailures

inactual projects. Datainthelatter categoryaremore

difficult toobtainunlessthereisaforensicinvestiga-

tionandtheinformationissubsequentlymadepublicly

available. Information on failures would be invalu-

abletoprovidelessonslearnt, forcalibrationof design

methods andfor providinginsights for risk manage-

ment. If thisistoproceed, thentheremaybemerit to

collect dataonthesizeof thefailureinfluencezones

for different groundandgeometrical conditions, and

alsothetimefor anycavitycreatedatdepthtomigrate

tothegroundsurface. Suchinformationispotentially

useful forriskmanagement,inparticular,forpreparing

monitoring plans, planning of risk mitigation mea-

sures, andpreparationof emergencypreparednessand

contingencyplans.

Another database will be on monitoring results.

For such databases, the monitoring data should be

accompanied by the necessary data on ground and

groundwater conditions, the way the soil and rock

parameterswasmeasuredandinterpreted, themethod

of wall installation, informationongroundtreatment

and the sequence of construction. Such data would

allow numerical modellers to check the capabilities

and limitations of the existing computer programs.

Fromapractisingengineerspoint of view, it isoften

not practical to use overly sophisticated software

requiringmultipleparameterstocharacterizethesoils

for design. Thisisbecauseof thecost, timeanddiffi-

cultiesinobtaininghighquality groundinvestigation

data, theuncertainties associatedwithmodellingthe

ground and the hydrogeological conditions (includ-

ing the boundary conditions), the effort needed to

model therangeof designsituationsandtocarry out

sensitivityanalyses, theneedforhavingrelativelysim-

pletools for undertaking design reviews in atimely

manner duringconstruction, thedifficulties inincor-

porating effectively the wall installation and ground

treatment effectsintheanalyses, andthelackof com-

petent personnel intheuseof sophisticatedcodesand

checking of the computed results fromsuch codes.

117

Thereisalackof systematiccomparisonontheresults

obtainedfromsophisticatedsoftwarewiththosefrom

lesssophisticatedones. Theavailabilityof goodqual-

itymonitoringdataandbenchmarkingof theexisting

numerical codes using good quality monitoring data

couldhelptoaddressessomeof theseissues.

TC2onphysical modellingingeotechnicshassim-

ilar initiatives ondatabases (seehttp://www.tc2.civil.

uwa.edu.au). Cross committee communication will

createsynergy.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Theauthor isgrateful toPaul Wufor hisassistancein

preparingthisGeneral Report.

LIST OF PAPERSREVIEWED

Boldini, D. & Amorosi, A. Tunnel behaviour under seis-

mic loads: analysis by means of uncoupledandcoupled

approaches.

Broere, W. &Dijkstra, J. Investigatingtheinfluenceof tunnel

volumelossonpilesusingphotoelastictechniques.

Caporaletti, P., Burghignoli, A., Scarpelli, G. &Taylor, R.N.

Assessment of tunnel stabilityinlayeredground.

Date, K., Mair, R.J. & Soga, K. Reinforcing effects of

forepolingandfaceboltsintunneling.

Du, J.H. & Huang, H.W. Mechanical behavior of closely

spacedtunnelslaboratorymodel testsandFEManalyses.

Idris, J.,Verdel,T. &Alhieb, M. Stabilityanalysisof masonry

of anoldtunnel bynumerical modellingandexperimental

design.

Iwata, N. Shahin, H.M., Zhang, F., Nakai, T., Niinomi, M. &

Geraldni, Y.D.S. Excavationwithstepped-twinretaining

wall: model testsandnumerical simulations.

Kasper, T. & J ackson, P.G. Stabilityof anunderwater trench

inmarineclayunder oceanwaveimpact.

Lee, S.D., J eong, K.H., Yang, J.W. & Choi, J.H. A study on

behavior of 2-archtunnel byalargemodel experiment.

Lee,S.D.&Kim,I.Behaviorof tunnel duetoadjacentground

excavationunder theinfluenceof pre-loadingonbraced

wall.

Lee, Y.J. &Yoo, C.S. Twodistinctiveshear strainmodesfor

pile-soil-tunnellinginteractioninagranular mass.

Li, Y., Zhang, Z.X., Emeriault, F. & Kastner, R. Stability

analysisof largeslurryshield-driventunnel insoft clay.

Liang, F.Y., Yao, G.S. & Li, J.P. Effectsof soil stratification

onthetunneling-inducedgroundmovements.

Marshall, A.M. & Mair, R.J. Centrifugemodelingtoinvesti-

gatesoil-structureinteractionmechanismsresultingfrom

tunnel constructionbeneathburiedpipelines.

Shahin, H.M., Nakai, T., Zhang, F., Kikumoto, M.,

Tabata, Y. & Nakahara, E. Ground movement and earth

pressureduetocirculartunneling: model testsandnumer-

ical simulations.

Song, K.I., Kim, J. & Cho, G.C. Analysis of pre-reinforced

zone in tunnel considering the time-dependent perfor-

mance.

Wang, K.S., Han, X. &Li, Z.X. Vaulttemperatureof vehicle

firesinlargecross-sectionroadtunnel.

Wang, X.M., Huang, H.W. & Xie, X.Y. Effects of different

benchlengthonthedeformationof surroundingrock by

FEM.

Yao, J., Taylor, R.N. & McNamara, A. Theeffectsof loaded

boredpilesonexistingtunnels.

You, G.M. 3DFEManalysisongrounddisplacementinduced

bycurvedpipe-jackingconstruction.

REFERENCES

Anagnostou, G. & Kovri, K. 1994. The face stability of

slurry-shielddriventunnels.Tunnelling and Underground

Space Technology. 9(2), 165174.

Atkinson, J.H. & Potts, D.M. 1977. Stability of a shallow

circular tunnel incohesionlesssoil. Gotechnique, 27(2),

203215.

Belshaw, D.J. &Palmer, J.H.L. 1978. Resultsof aprogramof

instrumentationinvolvingaprecast segmentedconcrete-

linedtunnel inclay. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 15,

573583.

Bezuijen,A. &Talmon,A.M. 2008. ProcessesaroundaTBM.

KeynoteLecture. Pre-printVolumeof theProceedingsof

the6thInternational SymposiumonGeotechnical Aspects

of UndergroundConstructioninSoft Ground, Shanghai.

Chambon, P. & Cort, J.F. 1994. Shallow tunnels in cohe-

sionlesssoil: Stabilityof tunnel face. Journal of Geotech-

nical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 120(7),

11481165.

Davis, E.H., Gunn, M.J., Mair, R.J. & Seneviratne, N.

1980. Thestability of shallow tunnels and underground

openings in cohesive material. Gotechnique, 30(4),

397416.

Grant, R.J. & Taylor, R.N. 2000. Stability of tunnelsinclay

withoverlyinglayersof coarsegrainedsoil. Proceedings

of GeoEng2000. Melbourne, Australia.

Hashiguchi, K. 1980. Constitutiveequationof elastoplastic

materialswithelasto-plastictransition. Journal of Applied

Mechanics, ASME, 102(2), 266272.

J acobsz, S.W. Standing, J.R., Mair, Soga, K., Hagiwara, T. &

Sugiyama, T. 2004. Centrifuge modelling of tunnelling

near drivenpiles. Soils and Foundations, 44(1), 5158.

J acobsz, S.W., Bowers, K.H. and Moss, N.A. 2005. The

effectsof tunnellingonpilestructuresontheCTRL. Pre-

print Volumeof theProceedings of the5thInternational

Symposium on Geotechnical Aspects of Underground

ConstructioninSoft Ground, Amsterdam.

Kimura, T. & Mair, R.J : 1981. Centrifugal testingof model

tunnels in soft clay. Proceedings of 10th International

Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineer-

ing. Stockholm, 1, 319322.

Lee, K.M. & Rowe, R.K. 1991. An analysis of three-

dimensional groundmovements: theThunder Baytunnel.

Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 28, 2541.

Lee, K.M., Rowe, R.K. & Lo, K.Y. 1992. Subsidenceowing

totunnelling. I. Estimatingthegapparameter. Canadian

Geotechnical Journal, 29, 929940.

Loganathan, N. & Poulos, H.G. 1998. Analytical prediction

for tunnelling-inducedgroundmovementsinclays. Jour-

nal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineeing,

ASCE, 124(9), 846856.

Mair, R.J. & Taylor, R.N. 1997. Themelecture: Bored tun-

nelling in the urban environment. Proceedings of 19th

118

International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foun-

dation Engineering, Hamburg, 23532384.

MIDAS-GTS. 2005. Geotechnical &Tunnel Analysis System,

MIDASInformationTechnologyCo., Ltd.

Nakai, T. & Hinokio, M. 2004. A simpleelastoplasticmodel

for normally and over consolidated soils with unified

material parameters. Soils and Foundations, 44(2), 5370.

Selematas, D., Standing, J.R., & Mair, R.J. 2005. The

responseof full-scalepilestotunnelling.Pre-printVolume

of the Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium

onGeotechnical Aspectsof UndergroundConstructionin

Soft Ground, Amsterdam.

Sloan, S.W. &Assadi,A. 1992. Stabilityof shallowtunnelsin

soft ground. Predictive Soil Mechanics, ThomasTelford,

London, 1993, 644662.

Soubra,A.H.2002.Kinematical approachtothefacestability

analysis of shallow circular tunnels. Proceedings of 8th

International Symposiumon Plasticity, BritishColumbia,

Canada, 443445.

Wang, J.N. 1993. Seismic Design of Tunnels: A State-of-

the-art Approach. Monograph 7, Parsons, Brinckerhoff,

Quade& DiuglasInc., NewYork.

White, D., Take, A. Bolton, M.D. 2003. Soil deformation

measurementusingparticleimagevelocimetry(PIV) and

photogrammetry. Gotechnique, 53(7), 619631.

Woodward, P.K. &Griffiths, D.V. 1996. Influenceof viscous

damping in thedynamic analysis of an earth damusing

simpleconstitutivemodels. Computers and Geotechnics

19(3), 245263.

119

Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground Ng, Huang & Liu (eds)

2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-48475-6

Casehistories

A. Sfriso

Department of Estabilidad, University of Buenos Aires, Argentina

ABSTRACT: Twentypapersacceptedfor publicationunder IS-Shanghai 2008Session3onCaseHistoriesare

classifiedandsummarized. Papers deal with open pit excavations, groundimprovement, tunnels, monitoring

systemsandimpact onsurroundings, most of themrelatedtoprojectsperformedinchallengingurbanenviron-

ments. Ithasbeenfoundthatdifferentauthorsfollowdifferentapproacheswhenreportingcasehistories, mainly

withrespect to thequantitativedescriptionof groundconditions andbehavior. Whilethis canbeattributedto

different scientific andprofessional schools, it isjudgedthat ahigher degreeof consistency andcompleteness

of thebasicinformationisrequiredfor abetter usabilityof theinformeddata. Tocontributetothisgoal, ashort

guidelineonreportingcasehistoriesisproposed.

1 INTRODUCTION

IS-Shanghai 2008becameamajoropportunitytoshare

recentexperiencerelatedtoundergroundconstruction

in soft ground. In Session 3, devoted to case histo-

ries,manyprojectsreflectingadvancesingeotechnical

engineering related to challenging urban conditions

werediscussed.

Eightcountriescontributedatotal of twentypapers

to this session: eleven fromChina, one fromJ apan,

two from Korea, one from Singapore, one from

Taiwan, onefromItaly, twofromFranceandonefrom

Germany.

In the following sections, the twenty papers are

classifiedandsummarized. Thepurposeof this clas-

sificationis toguidetheinterestedreader tospecific

informationthat might beuseful for his/her research.

Papers aregrouped as follows: i) seven papers deal-

ingwithopenpit excavations; ii) four papersdealing

with NATM and drill&blast tunnels; iii) fivepapers

dealing withTBMs and shield tunnels; and iv) four

papersdealingwithmonitoringsystemsandtheeval-

uation of the impact of under-ground projects on

surroundings.

Almost all kindof difficult groundconditionsdue

to existing infrastructureand spaceconstraints were

described. For instance, papers dealing with TBM

tunnelling describe crossing beneath a shield tunnel

and arailway line, across thefoundations of ahigh-

waybridgeandaboveexistingtunnelsof anoperating

metroline. Openpit excavationprojects arenot sim-

pler, showing thechallenges that urban construction

posestogeoengineering.

Twofacts becameevident duringtherevisionpro-

cess, asfollows: i) groundconditionsaredescribedin

widelydifferent waysandwithhighlyvaryingdegree

of completeness; andii) groundandstructurebehavior

are characterized by some representative numbers

selectedwithampleliberty. Whilethereporteddatais

veryvaluable,someeffortmustbedonetofullyexploit

itsusability.

Itisremarkablethatsevenoutof twentypapersdeal

with either recent or on-going underground projects

in Shanghai, thus reflecting the impresive rate of

infrastructuredevelopmentof thecity.A largeamount

of information is provided with respect to Shanghai

soils, including laboratory and field tests and exten-

sivereportingof groundbehaviorduringconstruction.

It is desirable that this valuable information be fur-

ther analyzed by researchers to produceaconsistent

andcompleteset of material parametersfor Shanghai

soils, astherawdataprovidedbythepapersdoesnot

allowfor acompleteunderstandingof soil conditions

andsoil behavior.

In each section, the list of papers is listed in a

table and a brief description is presented for each

paper.Thedescriptionmerelystatesthetypeof project,

geology conditions whereknownandthedescription

of a few selected contributions. These contributions

canbeof anytype, fromanoverall descriptionof con-

structionprocessestoaquantitativemeasureof ground

behavior or detailed monitoring data. The writer

recommends the reading of all papers, as the valu-

ableinformationcontainedthereisonlysuperficially

grasped by the short descriptions that follow in this

report.

121

Table1. Papersonopenpit excavations.

Author Project

Hsiung& Threeexcav. 20mdeepinKaohsiung,

Chuay Taiwan

Kondaet al Elevenbracedexcavationsat Osaka, J apan

Liu, D. et al 18mdeepproppedexcavationinShanghai

Liu, G. et al 21mdeepproppedexcavationinShanghai

Liu, T. et al 40mdeepproppedexcavationinShanghai

Mei et al 6mdeepproppedexcavationinShanghai

Osborneet al J MM groundtreatment inSingapore

2 OPENPIT EXCAVATIONS

Thelist of papersdealingwithopenpit excavationsis

giveninTable1.

2.1 Hsiung and Chuay. Observed behaviour of

deep excavations in sand

The behavior of three excavations in Kaohsiung,

Taiwan, isdescribed.Theexcavationsareapprox. 20m

deep, supported by propped diaphragmwalls 1.0m

thick and36mlong, andexcavatedinmediumdense

silty sand with clay layers (N

SPT

: 530). The water

tableisreportedat 3mto6mbelowgroundsurface.

Themaximumlateral wall displacement

hmax

and

surfacesettlement

vmax

arereported. Valuesarenor-

malizedbytheeffectiveheightof theexcavationH

e

for

comparison among thethreeprojects. It is observed

that

hmax

/H

e

falls in the range 0.03% to 0.3% and

that

vmax

isabout onehalf of

hmax

. Theeffect of the

constructionsequenceandremedial effectstoreduce

surfacesettlementsarediscussed.

2.2 Konda et al. Measurement of ground

deformations behind braced excavations

The paper reports surface and wall deformations of

braced support systems used at eleven sites of the

OsakaSubway L8 project in J apan. Whiledetails of

the support systems are not informed, the geotech-

nical conditions are reported to vary widely among

the sites analyzed, fromgravels to soft clays. Wall

deformationandsurfacesettlementsaredescribedby

areaindices as shown in Fig. 1. It is concluded that

theground settlement areaA

s

is about 20%30%of

the wall deflection area A

21mdeep, but can be much higher if consolidation

settlementsoccur.

2.3 Liu, D. et al. Research on the effect of buried

channels to the differential settlement of

building

The paper deals with the impact of a deep excava-

tion on adyacent structures in Shanghai, China. The

Figure1. Symbol definition(Kondaet al 2008).

Table2. Descriptionof thesoils(Liu, D. et al 2008).

Shear pars

Bottom e

Name level [m] % kN/m

3

- c[kPa] [

]

Fill 2.93

Clay 0.33 34.6 18.2 0.99 21 17.5

Siltyclay 3.87 43.0 17.3 1.21 13 17.0

Siltyclay 11.87 49.1 16.8 1.39 14 11.0

Clay 14.87 38.9 17.6 1.12 16 14.0

Siltyclay 21.37 34.9 17.9 1.02 15 18.5

Sandysilt 35.87 32.2 18.0 0.94 4 29.0

Siltysand 26.3 18.8 0.77 1 32.0

excavation is 18mdeep, supported by a diaphragm

wall 0.8mthick and 26mlong with steel supports,

excavatedinShanghai soft clays. Groundconditions

aredescribedas showninTable2. Thewater tableis

assumedtobe1mbelowgroundlevel.

The maximumlateral wall displacement

hmax

is

reported to be 60mm, or 0.33% of the excavation

height. Extensive analysis of the settlement behav-

ior of an adyacent building is reported in thepaper,

withemphasisonthenon-uniformsettlementratedur-

ingtheexcavationstage. Whilethecomplexityof the

geological conditionsisassessed, nodataonthecom-

pressionandpermeability parametersof thesoft clay

layersisgivenandtheconsolidationprocessisnotdis-

cussed, despitethefact that thereportedsettlement of

thebuildingwasupto125mm.

2.4 Liu, G. et al. Performance of a deep excavation

in soft clay

Thedeformationbehavior a21mdeepexcavationin

Shanghai, China, isdescribed. Thegeologicprofileis

the quaternary soft alluvial and marine clay deposit

typical of Shanghai City. The authors brief on the

geologyandpresentFig. 2thatallowsforafirstunder-

standingof thesiteconditions. GWL isreportedtobe

1mbelowgroundsurface.

122

Figure2. Soil profileandparametersinShanghai (Liu, G.

et al 2008).

Figure3. Thetwo-drill-onegrabmethodfortheconstruc-

tionof thediaphragmwall (Lui, T. et al 2008).

The support system is a 0.8m40m propped

diaphragmwall withbasecompensationgroutingand

prestressedstruts.Themaximumlateral wall displace-

ment

hmax

is reportedto be55mm, or 0.32%of the

excavationheight. Thisresult iscomparedwithother

measured values in Shanghai and other sites having

rather similar soil conditions.

Theeffectof thestiffnessof multi-proppedsupport

systemsisanalysedandthethreedimensional behavior

of theexcavationisassessed. Itisconcludedthatacor-

ner effect existsthat reducesthelateral wall displace-

mentcorner-to-center ratio

hmax(corner)

/

hmax(center)

to

about 0.390.74.

2.5 Liu, T. et al. The construction and field

monitoring of a deep excavation in soft soils

Thepaper describes theconstruction procedureof a

verylargeanddeepexcavationperformedinShanghai

clays. Theexcavationwas263mlong, 23mwideand

38m41mdeep, supportedbya1.2mthickand65m

longmulti-proppeddiaphragmwall.

Thedeepdiaphragmwall constructionprocedureis

describedindetail, includingthesocalledtwo-drill-

onegrabconstructionmethodshowninFig. 3andthe

employmentof acounterweighttobetter cleanthelast

panels lateral surfacebeforepouringthenext panel,

asshowninFig. 4.

J et groutingwas extensively employedto improve

soil conditions in the passive zone. Reported incli-

nomenter data shows wall behavior along the

Figure4. Procedureusedtocleanthelateral surfaceof the

last panel (Lui, T. et al 2008).

construction stages. The max lateral wall deflection

was

hmax

=50mm, or0.12%of thetotal heightof the

excavation. Surface settlements are reported but not

associatedby theauthors to aconsolidationprocess.

Moreover, neitherasetof compressionparametersnor

ananalysisof compressionbehaviorof Shanghai clays

isreported.

2.6 Mei et al. Excavation entirely on subway

tunnels in the central area of the Peoples

Square

Thedesignandconstructionof ashallowexcavation

6mdeep in Shanghai, China, is described. Thepar-

ticular challengeof this project was that thebottom

of theexcavationwas placed3maboveexistingtun-

nels. A support systemconsisting in a soil-cement

pilewall 3.2mthickwithdirectional jet groutingwas

designed and passivetension piles wereprovided to

control uplift.

2.7 Osborne et al. The benefits of hybrid ground

treatment in significantly reducing wall

movement: a Singapore case history

The paper reports the first major use in Singapore

of ahybridgroundimprovement procedurecalledJ et

Mechanical Mixing (J MM). J MM is a large diame-

ter deep mixing method that forms acentral coreof

mixedsoil combinedwithajet-groutedouter annulus.

A schematic diagramof thedrillingtool is shownin

Fig. 5.

Thesystemwas employed in theNicoll Highway

Station Project. Theexcavation was 27mdeep, sup-

portedbya1.5mthickand51mlongdiaphragmwall.

TheJ MM wasusedtomakeabaseplugof improved

soil 7mthickbelowtheexcavation.Groundconditions

includefill,fluvial sand,fluvial clayandnormallycon-

solidatedmarineclay. Theauthorsconcludedthat the

groundimprovementtechniqueemployedreducedthe

lateral wall displacements

hmax

byafactor of three.

123

Figure5. Schematic diagramof thedrilling tool showing

themixingarmof theJ MM machine(Osborneet al 2008).

Table3. Comparisonof wall deformationdata.

H

e

hmax

/H

e

Author Soil m %

Hsiung& Chuay Sand 20 0.030.30

Kondaet al Varies 21 0.100.24

Liu, D. et al Clay 18 0.33

Liu, G. et al Clay 20 0.32

Liu, T. et al Clay 40 0.12

Osborneet al Clay 27 0.09

2.8 Comparison between wall deformation data

Table3lists thelateral wall displacement

hmax

as a

fractionof theexcavationheight H

e

for thedifferent

projects and construction procedures described. No

correlation can be observed between H

e

and

hmax

,

confirming the well-known fact that wall deflection

heavily depends on the particular construction pro-

cedure, to the extent that it might be concluded

that diaphragmwallsandconstructionproceduresare

designed to accomplish lateral wall deflections that

balance the performance requirements of engineers

andclients.

3 NATM/DRILL&BLAST TUNNELS

Thelist of papersdealingwithNATM anddrill&blast

tunnelsisgiveninTable4.

3.1 Eclaircy-Caudron. Displacements and stresses

induced by a et al tunnel excavation: case of

Bois de Peu (France)

Thepaper describes theground responseduring the

constructionof thetwotwindrill&blasttunnelsinBois

dePeu, France.Thetunnelshaveacrosssectionareaof

130m

2

, alengthof 520m, andwereexcavatedthrough

Table4. Papersondrill&blast andNATM tunnels.

Author Description

Eclaircy- Drill&blast tunnel inBoisdePeu, Fr.

Caudronet al

Guilouxet al Drill&blast tunnel inMorocco

Quicket al NATM tunnel inMainz, Germany

Yooet al Subsidenceduetowater drawdown

claysandsoft rocksunder 8mto140mof overburen.

Thesupportsystemwasformedbyshotcrete, steel ribs

and radial bolts. Unfavourable ground conditions in

theclaysoilsdemandedtheuseof astructural invert,

forepolingandfacebolting.

An interactive design and construction procedure

wasemployed, wheremonitoringdatawasusedinan

adaptive design process. The paper reports the con-

structionsequence, theuseof monitoringinformation

toadjust design, andextensivedataonfacedisplace-

ments measured at four instrumented sections. It is

shownthat extrusionextendedonediameter aheadof

thetunnel faceandthat highfaceextrusionprovedto

beagoodindicator of poor groundperformanceand

riskof facefailure.

3.2 Guiloux et al. Case history on a railway tunnel

in soft rock (Morocco)

The construction process of the Ras RMel tunnel

in Morocco is described. The tunnel is 2.6kmlong

and has a cross section of 60m

2

. It was excavated

throughweak flyschunder 50mto150moverburden

bydrill&blastmethod. Thesupportsystemconsistsin

23cmof shotcreteandsteel ribs. A particular feature

of theconstructionprocedureistheuseof aformwork

toreduceshotcreteloss, asshowninFig. 6. Stress-to-

UCSratiosupto3.5andconvergencesupto300mm

werereported, valueshigher thanusual for drill&blast

tunnelsinrock.

3.3 Quick et al. Challenging urban tunnelling

projects in soft soil conditions

Thedesignandconstructionof theNewMainz Tun-

nel inGermanyispresented. NewMainzTunnel runs

parallel to Old Mainz Tunnel, built in 1884, with a

clearanceof 4mto 50 meters. Thetunnel is 1250m

long, with across section of 140m

2

andruns below

buildings with 10m to 23m overburden. Soils are

marly clays, silts and sand, and the support system

isacomplex combinationof bolting, umbrellas, face

boltingandreinforcedshotcrete.Groundimprovement

techniques employedat somesections to reducesur-

face settlements are described. It is reported that a

reductionof settlementsfrom11cmto1.5cm2.5cm

wasachievedbygroundimprovement.

124

Figure6. Constructionof RasRMel tunnel (Guilouxet al

2008).

Figure7. Constructionprocedurefor OldandNewMainz

Tunnels(Quicket al 2008).

It is very interesting to note the differences and

similitudes in construction procedures used in two

similar tunnels separated in time by one century, as

showninFig. 7.

3.4 Yoo et al. Characteristics of tunneling-induced

ground settlement in groundwater drawdown

environment

The paper studies the effect on surface settlements

of groundwater drawdownduetotunnel construction.

The case analyzed consists in a 70m

2

tunnel exca-

vated through weathered granite with 20mto 30m

overburden formed by fill, alluviumand weathered

rock. The support systemconsisted in pre-grouting,

pipeumbrellas, rockboltsandshotcrete.

Water drawdownproducedsurfacesettlementsthat

started approximately six diameters ahead of tunnel

faceand that stabilized six diameters behind it. The

problemwas analyzedby aparametric study usinga

2Dfiniteelement model withMohr-Coulombconsti-

tutivemodel. Itwasconcludedthatsurfacesettlements

duetotunnel constructionhavedifferentpatternswhen

ground-waterdrawdownispresent, whencomparedto

thenormal case.

It must be noted that surface settlements due to

groundwater drawdown are a well-known problem

Table5. PapersonshieldtunnelsandTBMs.

Author Description

Antiga& EPB tunnelsinMilano, Italy

Chiorboli

Gong&Zhou Tunnel beneathrailwaylineinShanghai

Wanget al Crossingbelowexistingtunnel inShanghai

Wonget al Crossingaboveexistingtunnel inHKSAR

Xuet al Crossingbridgefoundations, Shanghai

of geotechnical engineering that is accounted for by

consolidationtheoryandthatissimulatedwithconsti-

tutiveequationsthataccountforinelasticcompression.

TheMohr-Coulombconstitutivemodel reportedtobe

usedinthemodel, however, neithersimulatesinelastic

compressionnor includescompressionparameters.

4 SHIELDTUNNELSANDTBMS

The list of papers dealing with shield tunnels and

TBMsisgiveninTable5.

4.1 Antiga and Chiorboli. Tunnel face stability and

settlement control using earth pressure balance

shield in cohesionless soil

Thepaperanalyzesandcomparestwocasehistoriesof

EPBtunnelsdriveninMilano, Italy. Bothtunnelswere

excavatedthrough50mto 60mof medium-denseto

densealluvial sandsandgravels.

Theauthors provideacomprehensivesummary of

factorsaffectingsubsidenceof shieldtunnelsinsands.

They concludethat ahighadvancerateproducesless

volume loss and reduces subsidence and show that

EPB face pressure is poorly correlated to surface

settlements but depends on technological aspects of

backfillingoperations.

4.2 Gong and Zhou. Shield tunneling beneath

existing railway line in soft ground

The design and construction of the Metro Line 11

tunnel running below the Hu-Ning railway line in

Shanghai, Chinais described. Thetunnel was driven

throughShanghai soft clays below11moverburden.

Waterlevel isreportedtobe1mbelowgroundsurface.

Thetunnel hasacrosssectionof 30m

2

andissup-

ported by asegmental lining 35cmthick. Extensive

soil improvement, including jet-piles and grouting,

was performed to control surface settlements. It is

reportedthatsettlementsintheimprovedsectorswere

85%lowerthanthoseof theunimprovedsectors. Fig. 8

shows thelongitudinal irregularity of thetracks after

thetunnel wasdrivenbelowtherailway.

125

Figure 8. Longitudinal irregularity of the tracks by

tunneling-induceddeformation(GongandZhou2008).

4.3 Wang et al. Supervision and protection of

Shanghai Mass Rapid Line 4 shield tunneling

across the adjacent operating metro line

Thepaper reportsthedesign, constructionandmoni-

toringprocedureof thecrossingof MassRapidLine4

(MRL4) shieldtunnelsbelowexistingL2Metrotun-

nels inShanghai, China. MRL4tunnels haveacross

sectionof 32m

2

andweredriveninShanghai softclays

onlyonemeter beneathL2tunnelsat asmall crossing

angle. Noinformationisprovidedwithrespect tosoil

parameters and support systems of both theexisting

andnewtunnels.

Groundcontrol measurestakentoreducedisplace-

ments in the existing tunnels are described. It is

remarkable that, despite the short distance between

thenewandexistingtunnels, control measuresdidnot

include ground improvement due to lack of surface

space.

Extensivemonitoringdatawasgeneratedduringthe

operation, andsomeof it issummarizedinthepaper.

It was foundthat astrict control of shielddeviation,

careful tail groutingandaslowadvancerateaidedin

controllingL2tunnel displacements. Shieldtail grout-

ingisreportedtohaveinfluencedsettlementssometen

to fifteenmeters aboveandbehindthegroutingsec-

tion, dependingongroutpressureandgroutingstages.

Asageneral conclusion,authorsrecommendveryslow

advanceratestominimizetunnel inducedsubsidence.

4.4 Wong et al. Kowloon Southern Link TBM

crossing over MTR Tsuen Wan Line tunnels in

HKSAR

Thepaper describestheconstructionof MassTransit

Railway(MTR) Crossing. MTR Crossingisthepoint

where the new Kowloon S. Link twin tunnels cross

(2mabove) theexistingMTR tunnelsinHongKong.

KowloonS. Linktunnelshaveacrosssectionof 51m

2

andweredriventhroughdecomposedandsoundgran-

ite under 6.8moverburden by a shield-slurry TBM

withanhorizontal clearanceof 900mm. Water table

isreportedtobe2.5mbelowgroundlevel.

No restrictions to service of MTR tunnels were

allowed, andthereforeaseriesof groundimprovement

Figure9. Horizontal umbrellaplacedbetweenthenewand

existingtunnels(Wonget al 2008).

and ground control measures had to be undertaken.

Thesemeasuresincludedextensivejet-groutingof the

whole area and the installation of a physical bar-

rier made by an umbrella of horizontal pipe piles

placed below the new tunnel as shown in Fig. 9.

Whileasophisticatedmonitoringsystemisreportedto

havebeeninstalled, thereisnoinformationof ground

or tunnel behavior during the construction of MTR

Crossing.

4.5 Xu et al. Application of pile underpinning

technology on shield machine crossing through

pile foundations of road bridge

Thepaper deals with thedesign problemof a39m

2

EPB tunnel hiting 14 piles of a bridge foundation.

The tunnel belongs to Metro Line 10 in Shanghai,

China. Soil conditions are described as fill, organic

soil,clayleysiltsandclays.Twounderpinningschemes

areproposedinthepaper: i) thebridgesfoundations

be reinforced before eliminating the existing piles;

and ii) the existing piles be replaced after founda-

tion reinforcement. It is unclear whether the project

iscompletedor not.

5 MONITORINGANDIMPACT TO

SURROUNDINGS

Thelistof papersdealingwithmonitoringsystemsand

impact tosurroundingsisgiveninTable6.

5.1 Kim et al. Environmental problems of

groundwater around the longest expressway

tunnel in Korea

A 3D hydrogeologic model that simulates theimpact

of Injetunnel on grounwater level is presented. Inje

tunnel is in fact two 14.5m wide by 11km long

drill&blast twin tunnels, claimed by the authors to

formthelongest expressway in Korea. Thegeologic

126

Table 6. Papers on monitoring systems and impact to

sourroundings.

Author Description

Kimet al Hydrogeological model for InjeTunnel, Korea

Liu&Wang Descriptionof deformationmonitoringsystems

Qiuet al Monitoringsystemappliedat Beijing

SubwayL1

Zhaoet al Math. model of settlement inducedliningstress

Figure 10. 3D model of fracture network and tunnel for

steadystatesimulationof groundwaterflow(Kimetal 2008).

profiles is composed by methamorphic rocks with

somesuperficial debris.

AMODFLOWcontinuousmodel wasimplemented

for thefar fieldsimulationof groundwater flow, while

a MAFIC discontinuous model was developed for

thenear fieldmodel includingtheeffect of grouting

on water flow, as shown in Fig. 10. The conclusion

is that grouting might reduce groundwater inflow

to the tunnel by 53% to 3.6m

3

/h/km, and that the

expecteddrawdownmightbereducedby65%toabout

0.61.1meters.

5.2 Liu and Wang. Deformation monitoring during

construction of subway tunnels in soft ground

The objectives, methods and required precision for

open field and urban tunnel ground monitoring are

discussed in this paper. Tunnel Profile Scanners are

introduced.Thesearetwodigital camerasmountedon

arigidframethatproduceastereoscopicdigital image

of thetunnel surface.

A highamount of low-precisiondisplacement data

isrecorded,withanestimatederrorof 5mm.Statistical

analysisof thisdata, however, isreportedtobeuseful

asamonitoringtool.Anautomaticdeformationdevice

using an advanced Geodetic Monitoring Software,

capableof managinghighprecisionmonitoringdata,

isalsodescribed.

5.3 Qiu et al. 3D deformation monitoring of

subway tunnel

Thepaper describes theapplication of LIDAR tech-

nology to Beijing Subway L1 tunnel. LIDAR tech-

nology allows for a rate of 3D data acquisition of

100.000 points/sec by 3D laser scanning. With this

technology, expensivereflectingprismsdonotneedto

beusedandcanbereplacedbyreflectionsheetsplaced

onthetunnel walls. NURBS(nonuniformrational B

splines) technologyisusedtointerpolatetheobtained

data, andamathematical model is developedfor the

analysisof theinformation.Anexampleisgivenwhere

adifferential settlementof 0.29mmcouldbemeasured

usingthistechnology.

5.4 Zhao et al. Effect of long-term settlement on

longitudinal mechanical performance of tunnel

in soft soil

Thepaper presentsastructural model for theinduced

longitudinal stress developed in a segmental tunnel

duetononuniformsettlementsandapplythetheoryto

acasehistory.

Asreportedbytheauthors, anunspecifiedhighway

shieldtunnel 30yr old, settled/heavedupto30mmin

thelast10years.Themathematical model wasusedto

evaluatethestructural performanceof thetunnel based

onlongitudinal curvatureradiusR. Itisconcludedthat

R-27300mmayinduceleakage; stressesinducedby

R-18800mmayfail segments; bolt yieldingshould

beexpectedfor R-15000m; andthat tensilefailure

wouldprobablyoccur for R-302m.

6 SUMMARY OF CASE HISTORIESRELATED

TOPROJ ECTSINSHANGHAI

Seven out of the twenty case histories presented at

Session 3 are related to challenging underground

projectsinShanghai,China.Thisisanuniqueopportu-

nity toadvanceintechnology andtocalibratedesign

procedures for soft soils with valuableexperimental

evidence.

However,itmustbenotedthatnocompleteandcon-

sistent description of Shanghai soils has been found

amongall papers. Thereis almost no informationon

basic index parameterslikeliquidlimit, compression

or recompression indexes and apparent OCR due to

ageing.

The shear strength parameters as reported by the

different authorsarelistedinTable7andcanbeused

as an exampleto further illustratetheobserved lack

of information. WhileparameterslistedinTable7are

127

Table7. Strengthparametersreportedfor Shanghai clays.

Depth: 1015m Depth: 2025m

c c

Author kPa

kPa

Gong&Zhou 8 24.0 45 15.0

Liu, D. et al 14 11.0 15 18.5

Liu, G. et al Fig. 2.

Liu, T. et al 7 32.0 43 15.5

Mei et al nodata

Wanget al nodata

Xuet al nodata

not and cannot be either undrained or effective

stressparameters, noneof theauthorsexplainedwhat

theseparametersactuallymean.

Shanghai clays are normally consolidated clays

withsomedegreeof ageing. Strengthof thesesoilsis

universallycharacterizedbyundrainedshear strength

s

u

, either determined by in situ testing or lab test-

ing. While it might be argued that there are many

undrainedshearstrengthsforagivenclayduetostress-

pathdependencyof shearstrength, itmustbeaccepted

thatthegeotechnical communitywouldappreciateany

reportedvalueof shear strength. Theoverall lackof a

completedescriptionof Shanghai clayshighlightsthe

valueof Fig. 2.

Drained shear strength parameters are probably

fewer inquantity, thoughalsopresumedtobewidely

available, given the impressive pace of city growth

andtheexcellent degreeof geoengineeringinvolved.

Unfortunately, noclear discussiononthecritical state

frictionangleof Shanghai soilswasfoundamongall

papers.

7 SHORT, DRAFT GUIDELINE ON

REPORTINGCASE HISTORIES

After the experience of reviewing papers submitted

to Session 3 to write this report on Case Histories,

thewriter believesthat ashort anddraft guidelineon

reportingcasehistoriesfor projectsdealingwithsoft

soils might be useful. The guideline neither intends

to becompletenor definitive, as it is only based on

theinformationsearchedbut not foundinthepapers

duringtheprocessof writingthisreport.

1. Nameof theproject andlocation.

2. State of the project by the time of submittal of

the paper: design phase, under construction, or

completed.

3. Basic information on geometry: i) for tunnels,

length,areaandapictureshowingthecrosssection

with main dimensions; ii) for excavations, type,

dimensions, structural descriptionof thesupport

systemandapictureshowingthesupport system

andsoil profile.

4. A description of geological/geotechnical ground

conditionsandwater table.

5. Acomprehensivesetof clearlydefinedsoil param-

eters. Ideally, SPT and/or CPT profiles should

beincluded. Bothtotal stress andeffectivestress

shear parameters should be indicated, either as

measured or estimated values. If other strength

parametersarealsoreported, theirmeaningshould

befully explained. For problems involving large

subsidenceor other compression-drivenphenom-

ena, compressionparametersandmaterial perme-

abilityshouldalsobeindicated.

6. A brief descriptionof theconstructionprocess.

7. Description of ground behavior and unexpected

changesingroundconditionsduringconstruction

activities.

8. Monitoringinformationwhenavailable, orastate-

ment otherwise. Someamount of basic rawdata

should beincluded to better understand and use

somederivedparameterslikeA

, seeFig. 1. Fig8

is agoodexampleof informationrelevant to the

subject beingdiscussed.

9. Forunusal equipmentsorconstructionprocedures,

somefigures/picturesthat better explaintheidea,

seeFigs. 3to7and9.

10. For nonconventional calculationsandmodels, an

illustrativepicture, seeFig. 10.

Inall cases, thesourceanddegreeof confidenceof

theprovidedinformationshouldbeassessed.

A goodexampleof reportingacasehistorycanbe

foundinapaperbyShaoandMacari (ShaoandMacari

2008), selectedbecauseitdealswithadeepexcavation

inShanghai clays. Twentythreekeyparametersiden-

tify each of the six main layers that formShanghai

soils profile, including water content and void ratio,

classificationdata, shearandcompressionparameters,

permeabilityandSPT values(ShaoandMacari 2008).

8 CONCLUSIONS

Session 3 of IS-Shanghai 2008 becamean excellent

opportunity to share experience related to under-

ground construction in soft ground in challenging

urbanconditions.

Twenty papers fromeight countries, dealing with

openpit excavations, NATM anddrill&blast tunnels,

TBMs and shield tunnels, and monitoring systems

wereclassifiedandsummarizedinthisreport. While

thereporteddataisveryvaluable, someeffortmustbe

donetofullyexploititsusabilitybecausenoconsistent

procedurewasfollowedbytheauthorstoreportground

conditions and ground behavior during construction

activities.

128

A largeamount of informationwas providedwith

respect to Shanghai soils, including laboratory, field

testsandgroundbehaviorduringconstruction. Lackof

definitionof thereportedparametersisjudgedtomaje

theinterpretationof thereportedinformationnoteasy.

Toallowfor abetter consistencyandcompletenessof

reporteddata, ashortdraftguidelineonreportingcase

historiesisproposed.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thewriter wishes to acknowedgetheauthors of the

summarized papers for sharing valuableinformation

withthegeo-community andtheorganizingcomittee

for invitinghimtodeliver thisgeneral report.

REFERENCES

Antiga, A. andChiorboli, M. 2008. Tunnel facestabilityand

settlement control usingearthpressurebalanceshieldin

cohesionlesssoil. IS-039.

Eclaircy-Caudron, S., Dias, D. and Kastner, R. 2008. Dis-

placements andstresses inducedby atunnel excavation:

caseof BoisdePeu(France). IS-107.

Gong, Q. and Zhou, S. 2008. Shield tunneling beneath

existingrailwaylineinsoft ground. IS-013.

Guiloux, A., LeBissonnais, H., Marlinge, J., Thiebault, H.,

Ryckaert, J., Viel, G., Lanquette, F., Erridaoui, A. and

Hu, M. 2008. Case history on a railway tunnel in soft

rock(Morocco). IS-367.

Hsiung, B. andChuay, H. 2008. Observedbehaviour of deep

excavationsinsand. IS-005.

Kim,S.,Yang,H.andYoon,S.2008.Environmental problems

of groundwater aroundthelongest expressway tunnel in

Korea. IS-087.

Konda, T., Ota, H., Yanagawa, T. and Hashimoto, A. 2008.

Measurements of ground deformations behind braced

excavations. IS-337.

Liu, D., Wang, R. andLiu, G. 2008. Researchontheeffectof

buriedchannelstothedifferential settlement of building.

IS-118.

Liu, G., J iang, J. and Ng, C. 2008. Performanceof adeep

excavationinsoft clay. IS-082.

Liu, S. andWang, Z. 2008. Deformationmonitoringduring

constructionof subwaytunnelsinsoft ground. IS-120.

Liu, T., Liu, G. andNg, C. 2008. Theconstructionandfield

monitoringof adeepexcavationinsoft soils. IS-029.

Mei, Y., J iang, X., Zhu, Y. and Qiao, H. 2008. Excavation

entirely on subway tunnels in the central area of the

PeoplesSquare. IS-140.

Osborne, N., Ng, C. and Cheah, C. Thebenefits of hybrid

ground treatment in significantly reducing wall move-

ment: aSingaporecasehistory. IS-378.

Qiu, D., Zhou, K., Ding,Y., Liang, Q. andYang, S. 2008. 3D

deformationmonitoringof subwaytunnel. IS-151.

Quick, H., Michael, J., Meissner, S. and Arslan, U. 2008.

Challengingurbantunnellingprojects insoft soil condi-

tions. IS-358.

Shao, Y. andMacari, E. 2008. Informationfeedback analy-

sisindeepexcavations. ASCE Int. J ou. Geom. Vol. 8, 1,

91103.

Wang, R., Cai,Y. andLiu, J. 2008. Supervisionandprotection

of Shanghai MassRapidLine4shieldtunnelingacrossthe

adjacent operatingmetroline. IS-033.

Wong, K., Ng, N., Leung, L. and Chan, Y. 2008. Kowloon

Southern Link TBM crossing over MTR Tsuen Wan

LinetunnelsinHKSAR. IS-370.

Xu, Q., Ma, X. andMa, Z. 2008. Applicationof pileunder-

pinning technology on shield machinecrossing through

pilefoundationsof roadbridge. IS-326.

Yoo, C., Kim, S. and Lee, Y. 2008. Characteristics of

tunneling-induced ground settlement in groundwater

drawdownenvironment. IS-329.

Zhao, H., Liu, X., Yuan, Y. andChi, Y. 2008. Effect of long-

termsettlement onlongitudinal mechanical performance

of tunnel insoft soil. IS-199.

129

Theme 1: Analysis and numerical modeling of

deep excavations

Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground Ng, Huang & Liu (eds)

2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-48475-6

Optimizationdesignof compositesoil-nailinginloessexcavation

G.M. Chang

Urban Construction and Environment Engineering Department, West Anhui University, LuAn, Anhui, P.R. China

School of Civil Engineering, ChangAn University, XiAn, Shanxi, P.R. China

ABSTRACT: Theloess excavation has its uniquecharacteristics comparedwith theothers dueto its struc-

tural property and collapsibility. In order to acquire the work mechanismand design methods of composite

soil-nailinginloessexcavation, areasonablefiniteelement analysismodel isselected. Theoptimizationdesign

methods areintroduced based on theresults of finiteelement analysis conducted to determinetheregularity

of deformation, thesafety factor andtheendogenforceof thestructurealongwiththechangeof designvari-

able. Finally, the optimization design methods are validated contrasted with the data measured in an actual

project.

1 INTRODUCTION

Composite soil-nailing combined soil nails with

other forms of supporting measures has avoided the

soil-nailing technology from excessive dependence

onthesoil andexpandeditsapplicationfield. Among

the different kinds of composite soil-nailing forms,

theanchor compositesoil-nailing support method is

widely appliedfor its powerful location adaptability,

easyconstruction, lowcostandreducingthepitdefor-

mationremarkably. However, itsworkmechanismand

designmethod, especially theLoess Pit anchor com-

posite soil-nailing research, fall behind the project

practicebyfar. Inthefirst instance, thispaper aimsat

studyingnail designparameter selectioninplainsoil-

nailingonthepremiseof maintainingsoil-nailingtotal

length, andthenreplacingaanchor for asoil nail to

researchtheparametervalueof anchorcompositesoil-

nailing structure and optimization design under the

circumstancesof maintainingplainsoil-nailingdesign

parametersamoreoptimal value.

2 PARAMETERANALYSIS

Theoverall stabilityandworkingperformanceof exca-

vation supporting is closely related to the design

parameters. Understandingandgraspingtherelations

of theoverall stabilitysafetyfactor withthechangeof

thesedesignvariables, particularlythiskindof sensi-

tivity degreethat variety, havespecial andimportant

meaningfor guidingengineeringpractice.

2.1 Hypothesis

To simplify thecalculations, wemakethefollowing

assumptionswhencarry onthenumerical analysisto

thecompositesoil-nailingnumerical analysis:

1 Composite soil-nailing problems are plane strain

problems;

2 Soil-nailingandassistancereinforcementmaterials

areelasticmaterials;

3 Thesoil ispresumedastheelastic-plasticmaterial.

2.2 Computation diagram and parameter

of material

2.2.1 Computation diagram

Engineering experience shows that the influence of

excavationwidthisabout 3to4timesof theexcava-

tion depth, influence depth is about 2 to 3 times of

excavation depth. Thecaseassumes that theexcava-

tiondepthis9.5m,thetotal lengthof thefiniteelement

model is 45m, thetotal height is 25mandtheslope

gradient is1:0.1(Fig. 1).

2.2.2 Boundary conditions and loads

Ontheleftandrightboundaryof themodel, wesetthe

X-directiondisplacementtozeroandallowtheY direc-

tiondeformation; theX andY directiondisplacement

of thebottomboundaryarezero; thetopisafreesur-

face. Initial stressfieldisgravitystressfield; thevalue

of Gravitational Accelerationis 9.8m/s

2

. Sincecom-

positesoil-nailingisusuallyconstructedafter precip-

itation, theimpact of groundwater isnot considered.

133

Figure1. Finiteelementanalysismodel (Anchoratmiddle).

2.2.3 Material parameters

This research was completed against theloess exca-

vations and the soil parameters were provided from

a engineering investigation report in Xian City.

Because the soil distributes in certain scope are

uneven, it isdiscommodioustocarry ontheNumeri-

cal Calculationandtakethesoil strengthaveragevalue

of eachlevel. Soil nailsandanchorstaketheformof

thecommonly used procedurein Xian: Soil-nailing

110mmdiameter bored, steel bar 1 22; theanchor

holediameter 150mm, steel bar 2 18, surface100

for C25 thick concrete, reinforced with distribution

steel bar network. Soil nail andanchor weremadeof

steel bars that wrappedwithcement slurry composi-

tion. Slurry tightly wrappedtheexternal part of steel

bars, andoccludedwiththesoil indogtooth. Inorderto

simulatethemechanical behavior of soil-nailingand

anchors correctly and simplify finiteelement analy-

sis process, we regard the steel bar and the cement

pastebodyasakindof compoundmaterial. Materials

geometricandmechanical parameters, asfollows:

Soil: c =30kpa, =18

, gravity =18KN/m

3

,

deformation modulus E

0

=1.810

7

Pa, Poissons

ratio j=0.3; Soil-nailing: diameter 0.11m, sec-

tional area is 0.0094985m

2

, moment of inertia

1.832410

6

m

4

, equivalent modulus of elasticity

E

eq

=210

10

Pa, Poissonsratioj=0.3;

Anchor: the sectional area of free segment is

5.086810

4

m

2

, moment of inertia is 1.030077

10

8

m

4

, elastic modulus E

s

=210

11

Pa, thesec-

tional area of anchorage segment is 0.0176625

10

4

m

2

, moment of inertia is 2.48378910

5

m

4

,

equivalent elastic modulus E

eq

=2.0310

10

Pa.

Poissons ratio j=0.3; Surface (unit length) :

The sectional area is 0.1m

2

, moment of inertia

is 8.3333310

5

m

4

. Equivalent elastic modulus

E

eq

=2.110

10

Pa, Poissonsratioj=0.3.

Contact surfacefriction: Accordingtotheresearch

of reference(Chen, 2000, Wang, 1997), thesoil-nail

contact surface and the soil-anchor contact surface

frictionvalueis60kPa.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

28 24 20 16 12 8 4

lateral deformation/mm

d

i

s

t

a

n

c

e

t

o

g

r

o

u

n

d

/

m

0 5 10

15 20 25

Figure 2. Relations of soil-nailing angle and pit

displacement.

Table1. Relationsof soil-nailingangleandsafetyfactor.

Soil-nailing 0 5 10 15 20 25

angle

Safety 1.593 1.623 1.654 1.615 1.568 1.53

factor

2.3 Soil-nailing support

2.3.1 The angle of soil-nailing

Concerning with theconstruction method, theangle

of soil-nailing has great influence on the pit

displacement, the safety factor and the surface sub-

sidence.Takingthetotal lengthof soil-nailingis40m,

establishingfiverowsof soil-nailing, takingthesoil-

nailinglevel andthevertical spacingtakes1.8m, the

first row of soil-nailing depth of burying is 1.8m.

Dividing fivesteps excavates, thefirst step of exca-

vation depth is 2.3m, and the other step of cutting

depthis1.8meach. Soil-nailingobliquitiesarecalcu-

latedby inclinationof 0

, 5

, 10

, 15

, 20

and25

respectively.

Figure2andTable1showthat thehorizontal dis-

placement isgradually increasingandchangingat an

increasingly rapid pace as soil-nailing angle from0

degreesto25changesgradually. Whenthepit design

requiresstrict control of thehorizontal displacement,

they should use a smaller angle. Safety factor in

soil-nailing angle reduces 10 degrees at the largest

and declines rapidly with the angle increases after

10degrees.

On the other hand, Soil-nailing angle is related

withconstructionmethods andsoil-nailingconstruc-

tion usually adopt the self grouting methods, in the

hopeof soil-nailinghasmoreinclinationtomakethe

cement grout fill soil-nailingholes under theweight

easily.

134

Figure3. Longat upper rowandshort at lower row.

Figure 4. Long at middle row and short at upper and

lower row.

Figure5. Short at upper rowandlongat lower row.

Soafterconsideringthepitdisplacement, thesafety

factor and construction factors, the angle should be

about 1015degrees.

2.3.2 Scheme of soil-nailing layout

Other researchersdomoreabout theschemesof soil-

nailinglayout (Hu& Song, 1997, Li & Zhang, 1999).

But their studies focus moreoncomparisonbetween

longatupperrowandshortatlowerrowscheme(long-

shortscheme) andshortatupperrowandlongatlower

rowscheme(short-longscheme). But inpractice, we

oftenuselongatmidrowandshortatupper andlower

rowscheme(mid-longscheme), especially whenthe

soil-nailingisusedwithanchor together (Figs. 35).

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

25 20 15 10 5

lateral deformation/mm

d

i

s

t

a

n

c

e

t

o

g

r

o

u

n

d

/

m

long-short

mid long

short-long

Figure6. Relationsof soil-nailinglayoutanddisplacement.

Table 2. Relations of scheme of soil-nailing layout and

safetyfactor.

Schemeof layout Long-short Short-long Mid-long

Safetyfactor 1.478 1.447 1.376

Selecting nail angleis 10 degrees then calculates

and analyzes on three different layouts, we get the

resultsFigure6andTable2below.

FromFigure6andTable2wecanfindthatthereare

smallest displacement andlargest safety factor when

using long-short scheme. On the contrary, there are

largest displacement andsmallest safety factor when

usingshort-longscheme.Asthesameconclusionwith

our forerunners, displacement and safety factor that

use short-long short scheme are between the other

two modes and we can see that when using plain

soil-nailing support a long-short scheme should be

adopted.

2.4 Anchored soil-nailing support

At present, the application of prestressed anchor in

compositesoil-nailingdesignisoftenusedempirically

and there has not a determinate calculative method

to set the anchor position, the length of anchorage,

prestressedvalue.

Basedonpreviousstudies, wechosethenailsangle

of 10degreesandlong-shortlayoutschemetoresearch

theanchoredsoil-nailingsupport.

2.4.1 Location of prestressed anchor

After replacingthe1st and3rdrowsandthefifthrow

of soil nailswithanchor, let usstudytheinfluenceof

blotlocationonthepitslevel displacementandsafety

factors. Diagrams shows in Figures 78, 1, and the

resultsareshowninFigure11andTable2below.

135

Figure7. Anchor at upper row.

Figure8. Anchor at lower row.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

25 20 15 10 5 0

lateral deformation /mm

d

i

s

t

a

n

c

e

t

o

g

r

o

u

n

d

/

m

soil

upper anchor

mid anchor

lower anchor

Figure9. Relationsof anchor locationsanddisplacement.

Table3. Relationsof anchor locationsandsafetyfactor.

Anchor locations Upper Middle Lower

Safetyfactor 1.496 1.546 1.511

Figure 9 and Table 3 show that add prestressed

anchor into soil-nailing can significantly reduce the

maximumhorizontal displacement, especially inand

near theanchor location. Inaddition, comparedwith

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

25 20 15 10 5 0

lateral deformation/mm

d

i

s

t

a

n

c

e

t

o

g

r

o

u

n

d

/

m

0kN

100kN

150kN

200kN

250kN

Figure10. Relationsof prestressinganddisplacement.

Table4. Relationsof prestressingandsafetyfactor.

Prestressing

value/kN 0 100 150 200 250

Safetyfactor 1.546 1.597 1.617 1.624 1.628

plain soil-nailing, it can significantly reduce the

level of surface displacement through adding pre-

stressed anchor, particularly the top-anchor scheme

and bottom-anchor schemehavethemost obviously

effect on the surface of the horizontal displacement

control. Anchor locations also affect the safety fac-

tor. It hasthebiggest safetyfactor whenanchor at the

central pit.

Therefore, tocontrol thepit deformation, theangle

of anchor wouldfavor theupper-anchor scheme; the

mid-anchor schemeisthemost beneficial toimprove

the safety factor. However, in the engineering prac-

tice, becauseexcavationsconcentratemoreandmore

onurbanareas andtheanchor may into thepit slope

outsidemoredistance, theremay affect anchor con-

structionfor theadjacent buildingswhenusedthetop

anchor scheme.

2.4.2 Level of prestressing value

Used prestressed anchor replace with the 3rd soil-

nail, taking the anchor free segment length is 10m,

anchoragesegment length is 8m, prestressing value

is 0kN, 150kN, 200kN and 250kN respectively for

calculating. Theresults calculated fromthehorizon-

tal displacement and thesafety factors areshown in

Figure10andTable4.

Figure 10 and Table 4 show that the impact of

prestressing value on the horizontal displacement

is greater. When the magnitude of prestressing is

100kN, horizontal displacement decreasesmorethan

plain soil-nailing from the maximum displacement

of 23.1mmto 17.6mmlower. If prestressing value

136

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

20 16 12 8 4 0

lateral deformation/mm

d

i

s

t

a

n

c

e

t

o

g

r

o

u

n

d

/

m

6m

8m

10m

12m

14m

Figure 11. Relations of anchorage segment length and

displacement.

Table5. Relationsof anchoragesegment lengthandsafety

factor.

Anchorage

length/m 6 8 10 12 14

Safety 1.586 1.617 1.629 1.637 1.641

factor

increases to 150kN, the maximum horizontal dis-

placementwill decreaseto15.3mm.If theprestressing

valueis morethan 150kN, such as 200kN, 250kN,

horizontal displacement will continueto decline, but

the reduction range is insignificant. As the value of

the prestressing increases, the Pit safety factor will

gradually increase in a limited extent, which means

thevalueof prestressinghasnosignificant impact on

safetyfactor.

2.4.3 The length of anchorage segment

Selecting a middle-anchor scheme, the prestressing

value is 150kN, taking the length of anchorage for

6mand8m, 10m, 12m, 14mtocalculate, theresults

areshowninFigure11andTable5.

Figure11andTable5showthat thehorizontal dis-

placementof Pitgraduallydiminishesastheanchorage

lengthincreases, butthereductionismodest. Pitsafety

factorwouldincreaseasthelengthof anchorincreased

either, but not markedly.

3 ANCHORANDSOIL-NAILINGWORKING

TOGETHER MECHANISM

Plain soil-nailing support is a passive support sys-

temandsoil-nailingwouldhavearoleonlywhenthe

soil generatessufficientdeformation. Anchor belongs

to the initiative support system and through pre-

stresstocontrol soil deformation.Anchoredcomposite

soil-nailingisaspecial kindof support,whichbetween

plain soil-nailing and prestressed anchoring sup-

port. It has the advantages of both the plain soil-

nailing support and the prestressed anchor support

simultaneously.

3.1 Anchor and soil-nailing working together

It isat theinitiativestressful conditionasanchor sup-

port constructioncompletedbecauseof theexistence

of prestressing. As a result of the anchor prestress-

ing reaction, the soil is caused to be at the pressed

condition, reduced soil lateral deformation. On the

other hand, anchor is wrapped in the cement paste,

andadhibitedwithcementpaste. Becauseof theholes,

pores and crannies existed in soil; the cement and

thesoil assumethezigzaglinking. After anchor ten-

sion deformation, there will have a shear stress due

to elastic deformation and retraction in the anchor-

soil interface, whichdirectiononthesoil deformation

under shear stressisthecontrary. Itreducessoil inter-

nal tensilestress, andwill alsolimitthedeformationof

soil. Theaxial forceof soil-nailingisrelatedwiththe

deformation of theearth. Becausestress reduces the

soil deformation, soil-nailinginternal forceisreduced

more remarkably than plain soil-nailing .The closer

the anchor approaches the soil nails, the more the

axial forcedecreases.Therefore,theroleof restrictions

pit deformationisthebaseof anchor andsoil-nailing

workingtogether.

3.2 Anchor contribution to resistance moment

When thePit Slopein theevent of damage, theslip

surface have too much plastic deformation to make

slidemassalongfor destructionunder sliding. Gener-

ally, theslidingmomententirelydependsonthedepth

of excavationandthesoil gravity. For acertainpit, the

soil depthandits weight usually areconstant andits

slidingmoment canbeseenasaconstant. Meanwhile

resistancemomentisprovidedbytheundisturbedsoil,

shear strength, soil nailsandanchor.

Thecontribution of soil nails performancelies in

three main aspects: soil-nailing presence gives the

slip surfaceplaceto thepost-transfer slip, improves

theslidingareaandincreases thefrictionof slipsur-

face. Upliftroleof thesoil-nailingthatoutsidetheslip

surface, andthebendingresistanceroleof soil-nailing.

Thecontributionof anchor mainfeatures (Chang,

2007):

1 The anchors anchorage is long in general and

extendsintothesteadysoil massincentral slipaway

fromtheexcavation surfaceto provideastronger

uplift capacity.

2 Theanchorsprestressingmakesslideandstability

soil mass tightly squeezed each other to improve

the friction resistance to sliding and increase the

resistancemoment.

137

3 When the slip surface crosses the anchorage

segment, the anchor resistance to bending has

somecontribution, but thecontributionisweak in

general.

3.3 The impact of prestressing to soil-nailing

axis force

Therearemanystudiesabout theimpact of prestress-

ingto soil-nailingaxis forceandtheconclusions are

thesame. Generally, theprestressingwill significantly

reducesoil-nailingforcesandthegreater thevalueof

prestressing, thesmallerthesoil-nailinginternal force.

And moreover, thecloser theanchor, thegreater the

internal force reduction (Zhang & Liu, 2002, Zhen

et al. 2005).

4 DESIGNOPTIMIZATION

1. Soil-nail design. Recommending taking the soil-

nailings long-short layout and it is advisable to

select 1015degrees.

2. Loess has strong structure, which should beused

asmuchaspossible.

3. Anchorshouldbeinstalledclosetothecentral verti-

cal partof thepit, whichcanachieveahighersafety

factor andrestrict thepit deformation.

4. Itdoesnotprovideagreatersafetyfactorandbetter

control deformationeventheanchor lengthis too

long. Soit hadbetter beabout 812m.

5. Since the anchor prestressed reaction limits soil

lateral deformation, reduces the lateral displace-

ment of compositesoil-nailingretainingandaxial

force of the-soil-nailing near the anchor. On the

premise of meeting deformation control request,

wecanshortenthelengththat several soil-nailing

topof thepit appropriately inlong-short scheme,

long-short-long scheme while forming to reduce

projectcost. However, inorder nottoreducesafety

factor, it isnot recommendedtoshortenthelength

of soil nailsinthelower side.

6. Thefixingontheprestressedvaluemustbeaccord-

ingtothesoil shearstrengthvalues, itwill beabout

100kN to 200kN as well. Dueto theprestressed

valuehasnoobviousinfluenceonproject cost, we

caninclinesafetytochoosethevaluesgreater. But

toomuchprestressedhasnosignificant impact on

pit retainingperformance.

5 ENGINEERINGANALYSIS

5.1 Project overview

AprojectinXian,theexcavationdepthis11.0m,both

thePitslengthandwidthareabout 100m. Intheeast

Table 6. Site layer structure and geotechnical

characteristics.

Unit Angleof

Soil Thickness/ weight Cohesion/ internal

class (m) (kN/m3) kPa friction/

LoessQ3

2EOL

6.60 16.20 28.00 18.00

LoessQ3

2EO

L 1.70 18.00 26.80 18.10

Ancient soilQ3lal 3.40 18.90 32.20 17.60

LoessQ3

al+PL

8.00 19.50 20.00 18.00

bynorthfromthepit 6.3misaseven-storeymasonry

structureresidential buildings, thelimesoil founda-

tion depth is about 3m.On the south-east there is a

18-storeyhigh-risebuildingwithone-storeybasement

whichdepthis 6m, reinforcedconcretepilefounda-

tionsare36mlong, fromPit 9.10m, andtheadjacent

side of the project pit used soil-nailing in the con-

struction;northof theseven-storeyresidential building

masonry structure, androughly parallel to pit edges,

buildingslengthis42mandthewidth13m, thenear-

est to excavationis 5.3m; thewest sideof theSouth

andanadjacent hotel podiumwhichis atwo storeys

buildingwithanundergroundlayer fromtheedgeof

pit 4m, framework and infrastructure end elevation

is 7.13m; the south side is close to a main road,

therearewater andgaspipelinesunder thesidewalks.

5.2 Engineering geological conditions

According to geotechnical engineering investigation

reportthattheprojectsitegeomorphicunitsbelongto

theLoessbeam-swamplandscape. Proposedsitelayer

structureandgeotechnical characteristicsareinrange

of 30.0mdeepinTable5.

5.3 Retaining design

Thedesignof anchoredcompositesoil-nailingadopts

themethodsproposedinpart 4of thispaper, whichis

the excavation depth was 11.0mand the slope was

1:0.1. The basic design parameters were shown in

Table6.Therearesixlayersof soil nailsandthelayout

is cinquefoil. Wealso set aprestressedanchor at the

depthof 6.0mtoreducethelateral displacementand

ensurethehigh-risebuildings insafety andstability.

Using two 18mmdiameter grade 60 bars in anchor

(10mfree, 8manchorage); Usingone22mmdiame-

ter grade60bar insoil-nailingwith1.5mspacingand

inclinationof 15degrees, prestressingvalueis150kN.

(Fig. 12).

5.4 Monitoring results

ThisprojectwasconstructedsinceMarch20, 2006and

lasted75days. Monitoringresultsshowedthegreatest

138

Figure12. Compositesoil-nailingsupport diagram.

lateral displacementoccurredintheeastcentral pitand

thelargest displacement was16mm. It wasnoexces-

sivelateral deformationandearthsurfacesubsidence

andsurroundingbuildingswerenogreater settlement.

6 CONCLUSIONS

Inthis paper, theauthor analyzedtheparameter sen-

sitivity of compositesoil-nailing in loess excavation

using the finite element method. The optimization

designmethodsareintroducedbasedontheresultsof

finiteelementanalysis.Thewriterbelievesthatanchor

should be installed in the pit in the central vertical,

whichcanachieveahigher safety factor andrestrict

thepit deformationobviously.

Wecanshortenthelengththat several soil-nailing

topof thepitappropriatelyinlong-shortscheme, mid-

long scheme while forming to reduce project cost.

Anchor lengthshouldnotbetoolongandprestressing

alsoshouldnot betoolarge. Practical project proved

thatthisoptimizationmethodinloesspitisapplicable.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This paper was supported by Youth Foundation of

Anhui Education Committee (No. 2007jql181), and

supportedbyYouthFoundationof WestAnhui Univer-

sity(No. wxzq2006018).

REFERENCES

Chang, G.M. 2007. Study on theApplication of Compos-

itesoil-nailing in Loess Excavations. XiAn: ChangAn

University

Chen, Z.Y. 2000. The application of soil-nailing in excava-

tions. Beijing: ChinaArchitecture& BuildingPress

Hu, K.G. & Song, Q.G. 1997. Nonlinear analysis of action

mechanismof soil-nailingwall . Industrial Construction

27(11): 1013

Li, S.H. & Zhang, Y.J. 1999. Numerical simulations by 2D

FEM in process of excavation and supporting of deep

foundationditch. Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and

Engineering 18(3):342345

Wang, B.Y. 1997. Designof soil-nailing. Geotechnical Engi-

neering Technique (4): 3041

Zhang, F., Liu, Z.C. & Chen, G.G. 2002. The mechanical

workingmechanismresearchontheunitedsupportingof

prestressed soil anchor and soil-nailing. Rock and Soil

Mechanics 23(3): 292296

Zheng, Z.H., et al. 2005. In-situ testing study on retaining

miscellaneousfill slopebyusingcompoundsoil-nailing.

Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering

24(5): 898904

139

Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground Ng, Huang & Liu (eds)

2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-48475-6

Three-dimensional finiteelement analysisof diaphragmwallsfor

top-downconstruction

J. Hsi, H. Zhang&T. Kokubun

SMECAustralia Pty Ltd, Sydney, NSW, Australia

ABSTRACT: TheTugunBypassTunnel inGoldCoast, Australiawasconstructedusingdiaphragmwallswith

thetop-downcut-and-cover methodto allowsimultaneous constructionof anairport runway extensionabove

thetunnel, whilst excavation of thetunnel continued underneath. Thetunnel was built in an environment of

high groundwater table and deep deposits of alluvial and estuarine soils with the toes of the walls founded

in soil deposits. There was a potential risk for differential settlements between the diaphragmwall panels,

causedbytherunwayfill placedoverthetunnel roof duringexcavation.Three-dimensional numerical modelling

was undertakento predict thedifferential settlements of thetunnel withconsiderations of varyingsubsurface

profile, stagedexcavation anddewatering, non-uniformloadingandcomplex soil-structureinteraction. Field

instrumentationandmonitoringwasimplementedtoconfirmnumerical predictions.

1 INTRODUCTION

The 7km long Tugun Bypass forms part of the

PacificHighway, andconnectssouth-eastQueensland

to northern NewSouthWales, Australia. Oneof the

keyfeaturesof theprojectwasatunnel of about334m

in length (Ch5588 to Ch5922.4), constructed below

theproposedrunwayextensionof theGoldCoastAir-

port. Figure1presentstheproject routeplanshowing

thelocalityof theproject.

Figure1. Project routeplan.

Asthetunnel wastobeconstructedintheproximity

of theairport runway, therewasastrict height restric-

tion for the construction activities. Low headroom

plant and equipment were chosen to construct the

diaphragmwalls for thecut andcover tunnel. As the

constructionof therunway extensioncoincidedwith

the tunnel construction, the top-down construction

methodwasadopted.

Thesubsurfaceof thetunnel sitecomprisedmainly

alluvial and estuarine soils up to depths of about

35munderlainby weatheredrock of NeranleighFer-

nvaleformation. To minimizeconstructioncosts, the

diaphragmwallswerefoundedinsoil depositswhich

weresubjected to settlement under theloading from

therunwayextension.

Excessivedifferential settlement of thediaphragm

walls couldoverstress thetunnel structureandaffect

the tunnel serviceability. Detailed numerical mod-

ellingwascarriedoutusingthefiniteelementpackage

PLAXIS3DFoundation(Version1.6) wherethespa-

tial subsurface variation and non-uniform loading

patternscouldbetakenintoconsideration.

Instrumentation and monitoring were undertaken

todemonstratethefieldperformance, whichwasthen

comparedwiththenumerical predictions.

2 SITE GEOLOGY

The tunnel was situated in a flood plain which was

subjected to periodical flooding. Thegeology of the

site comprised Neranleigh Fernvale Beds overlain

by Cenozoic estuarine and coastal deposits. These

141

Figure2. Siteinvestigationplan.

depositswereupto35minthickness, comprisingriver

gravels, sandsandclays, andfloodplainandtidal delta

mudsandsilts. At thetunnel location, thesubsurface

horizons consisted of dune sands, Coffee Rock

(local termgiven to cemented silty sands), estuarine

interbeddedclaysandsands, andresidual soilsderived

fromtheweatheredbedrock.Groundwaterwasslightly

saline due to the close proximity to the ocean. The

water tablewas influenced by both tidal movements

and rainfall events recharging Cobaki Broadwater.

Dueto low-lying ground surfaces, potentials existed

for acidsulphatesoils.

3 GEOTECHNICAL MODEL

Asthesubsurfaceconditionsvariedspatiallyalongthe

lengthandwidthof thetunnel, extensivesiteinvesti-

gationsusingboreholes(BH) andpiezocones(CPTU)

were undertaken at the wall and barrette locations.

Withinthefootprintof therunwayextension,theinves-

tigationsweredoneataspacingof approximately20m

intervals.Theplanof thesiteinvestigationisshownin

Figure2.

The geotechnical model of the site included sub-

surface stratigraphy and geotechnical parameters.

The subsurface was divided into discrete soil units,

classifiedaccordingtomaterial typeandconsistency

or densityandissummarizedasfollows(topdown):

Top soil thin skinned (-1m) comprising peaty

sandy organic topsoil, having loose consistency.

The ground surface was marshy and generally

untrafficable;

Dunesands asequenceof generallyloosetovery

loosesands of upto about 8to 10minthickness,

finetomediumgrainedsands;

Coffee Rock (CR) a sequence of medium

densetovery densecementedsilty sandsof about

7 to 10m in thickness with occasional loose

consistency;

Estuarine a sequence of about 15mthickness

comprising shell fragments, sand and silty sand,

clayandsandyclay, siltandclayeysilt, clayeysilty

sandandgravels. Relativedensityvariedfromvery

loosetodense, andconsistencyvariedfromfirmto

verystiff;

Figure3. Subsurfaceprofile.

Table 1. Typical soil profile and key geotechnical

parameters.

E

ref

50

&

RL

k E

ref

oed

E

ref

ur

(m) Soil (deg) (m/day) (MPa) (MPa)

0.5 Sand(VL) 30 1.0 10 30

4.0 CR (MD) 32 0.1 50 150

11.2 CR (D) 34 0.1 80 240

13.5 Sand(L) 32 1.0 30 90

17.5 Clay(St) 28 110

4

10 30

21.1 Sand(L) 32 1.0 30 90

23.0 Clay(F) 24 110

4

7 21

28.6 Clay(VSt) 29 110

4

25 75

30.8 Bedrock

Note: RL (reducedlevel) is at topof eachlayer; VL is very

loose; L islose; MDismediumdense; Disdense; F isfirm;

St isstiff; VSt isvery stiff;

isdrainedfrictionangle; k is

permeability; E

ref

50

is secantYoungs modulus at areference

pressureof 100kPa; E

ref

oed

istangentYoungsmodulusfor pri-

mary odometer loading at areferencepressureof 100kPa;

and E

ref

ur

is unloading/reloadingYoungs modulus at a ref-

erence pressure of 100kPa. Refer to PLAXIS manual for

HardeningSoil (HS) model.

Residual soil comprising clay and silty clay

with some sands, and with residual fragments of

extremely weathered and extremely low strength

interbeddedargilliteandgreywackeof theNeran-

leighFernvaleBeds.Thethicknessrangedbetween

about 1mand6m;

Bedrock comprising extremely weathered to

moderately weathered and extremely low to low

strengthinterbeddedargilliteandgreywacke, hav-

inganirregular contact withtheoverlainresidual

material at adepthof approximately30to35m.

The subsurface profile based on the boreholes

along the centre line of the tunnel is presented in

Figure3. Thegeotechnical parametersfor eachof the

unitsweredeterminedfrominterpretationof thefield

and laboratory test results, and based on local expe-

rience. Thetypical soil profileand key geotechnical

parametersassumedareshowninTable1.Theground

142

surfacelevel was approximately at RL 0.5mandthe

groundwater tablewasat thesurface.

4 ISSUESANDCONSTRAINTS

Construction of a tunnel in soft ground at shallow

depthsisconventionallyundertakenusingthecutand

cover method. However, to allow for construction

of the runway extension that occurred concurrently

withthetunnel excavation, thetop-downconstruction

methodhadtobeadopted. Diaphragmwallsandcast

insitutunnel roof slabshadbeenchosentofacilitate

the construction requirements and time constraints.

Figure2showsthefootprint of therunway extension

obliquetothetunnel alignment.

Following the handover of ground surface, up to

23mof fill for the airport runway extension was

placed above the tunnel roof. Loads acting over the

entirewidthof theroof slabsweretransferreddirectly

to the diaphragm walls and the barrettes. The site

investigationsrevealedpresenceof estuarinedeposits

consisting of loose materials below the toe of the

walls. Therefore, therewas apotential for thetunnel

to settleduringexcavation. Oneof thecritical issues

wasthedifferential settlementsbetweenthewallsand

thecentral barrettes, andalongthewalls.Thesediffer-

ential settlementscouldpotentiallyinducesignificant

stressesintheroof structuresandinthewalls.

Other issues in relation to thetunnel construction

arelistedbelow:

ObstacleLimitationSurface(OLS) appliedat

bothendsof therunwaytoprovidesafeairspacefor

approaching aircrafts. This required all construc-

tionactivitiestobeundertakenwithinaheadroom

of as low as 8m. Use of cranes or heavy-lifting

equipment was only allowed outside the airport

operatinghours;

Highgroundwaterlevel duetoitscloseproximity

totheseaandCobaki Broadwater.Thegroundwater

waspracticallyatthegroundsurfacelevel. Reliable

dewateringsystemwasessential duringexcavation;

Environmental requirements strict environmen-

tal controls wereenforcedsuchthat drawdownof

thegroundwater tableoutsidethediaphragmwalls

was insignificant. Also, all acidic sulphate soils

excavated from the tunnel had to be dried and

neutralizedwithlimeprior to placement as fill in

embankments.

5 CONSTRUCTIONMETHOD

Suitableconstructionmethodswerechosentoaddress

theissuesandconstraintsmentionedabove. Inorderto

adheretotheOLSrequirements,special lowheadroom

hydraulic grab(Leibherr HS852HD) and2.8mwide

trenchcutter(CBC25)wereused.Theguidewallswere

Figure4. Diaphragmwall constructionsequence(courtesy

of Bauer/PilingContractors).

built first followed by construction of the 6mwide

primary panels (Steps 1 to 5 of Figure4) and 2.8m

widesecondarypanels(Steps6to8). Theopentrench

wassupportedbymixtureof bentoniteslurry,whenthe

cutterundertookfull excavation(Steps2to3and6).A

steel reinforcement cagewasloweredwhenthepanel

wasexcavatedtofull depth(Steps4and7). Concreting

of thepanelswasthenachievedbythetremiemethod

(Steps 5 and 8). Figure 4 presents the construction

sequenceof thediaphragmwall.

Following completion of the diaphragm walls

andbarrettes, dewateringandexcavationcommenced

insidethewalls. Excavationwas initially undertaken

to depths of up to about RL 2mto allowfor con-

structionof theroof slab. Water-tight membranewas

installedas part of thewater-proofingsystem. When

theroof slabwascompleted, it wasbackfilledandthe

sitewas clearedfor handover to theGoldCoast Air-

port. Theseactivities commencedinApril 2006after

environmental approvalsweregranted, andwerecom-

pleted by November 2006 which was the scheduled

dateof handover of thesitesurface. Excavationbelow

the runway extension continued through to J anuary

2007, and the remaining construction of the tunnel

continued.

6 STRUCTURAL DETAILS

The tunnel structure consisted of diaphragm walls

andbarrettes locatedat thecentreof thetunnel. The

diaphragmwallswere1minthickness, andextended

from the Northern Portal (Ch5588) to the South-

ern Portal (Ch5922.4). The walls were installed to

the depth of RL 17m, fromthe top of the guide

wall at RL 2m. The internal width between the

diaphragm walls ranged from about 25.7m at the

northern portal to 28mat the southern portal. Bar-

rettes were 0.8mthick and 2.8mwide with a clear

spacingof 2.8mthroughoutthecentral axisof thetun-

nel, extendingtoRL 17mindepth.Thesestructures

hada100year designlife, usingN-gradereinforcing

143

Figure5. Typical tunnel crosssection.

steelsand50MPahighstrengthconcrete. Therewere

nomechanical joints at theinterfaceof theprimary

and secondary panels in the longitudinal direction.

However, thebarrettesandthediaphragmwallswere

rigidlyconnectedtothe1mthickroof slab.Therewere

threejetfannicheswheretheroof slabwasslightlyele-

vated.Thebaseslabwasalso1mthickwithafounding

level rangingfromRL 5.5mtoRL 9.5m. Figure5

showsthetypical crosssectionof thetunnel.

7 DESIGNCONSIDERATIONS

Geotechnical design of the tunnel was required to

satisfythefollowingthreekeyissues:

Excavation support during construction the

diaphragmwall structuresweredesignedtoensure

stability of the excavation. Issues included struc-

tural design of the walls, base heave, hydraulic

uplift, piping, andliquefaction;

Longtermstabilityof thetunnel buoyancyof the

tunnel whenthegroundwater tablewasclosetothe

surface;

Serviceability assessment duetosettlement of the

tunnel during construction the tunnel was sub-

jected to loading fromairport runway fill which

resulted in settlements. The influences of dif-

ferential settlements on structural capacity were

assessed.

8 NUMERICAL MODELLING

8.1 Two-dimensional numerical modelling

Design of the tunnel was initially undertaken using

thefiniteelement softwarePLAXIS (Version8.4) at

selected sections. This numerical package was used

to analyze two-dimensional plane-strain problems

involving complex soil-structure interaction for the

design of the structural members. Structural beam

elements wereusedtosimulatethediaphragmwalls.

Global factorof safetyduringeachof theconstruction

stages was calculated based on the c

reduction

methodtoensuretheminimumFoSwasachieved.The

softwareallowedmodellingof constructionsequence,

changinggroundwater levels, andvaryingsubsurface

conditionsacrossthewidthof thetunnel.

8.2 Three-dimensional numerical modelling

A three-dimensional numerical modelling package,

PLAXIS3DFoundation(Version1.6), wasemployed

topredict thesettlementsof thetunnel causedbyrun-

wayfill loadingandexcavation. Duetothelimitation

of theprogram, settlement analyses wereundertaken

in sections, each of approximately 40 to 60m in

length. The major advantages of the 3D modelling

wereasfollows:

Abilitytomodel thephysical dimensionsof thewall

andbarrettestructures.Thisimprovedtheaccuracy

of settlement prediction, asit accountedfor longi-

tudinal stiffnessof thetunnel whichassistedinload

redistributionandtoeresistanceof thestructures;

Ability tosimulate3D loaddistributionwherethe

runway fill wasplacedobliquetothelongitudinal

axisof thetunnel;

Ability to model 3D subsurface profile based on

probeholesat discretelocations;

Ability to simulate dewatering within the tunnel

excavationarea.

The Hardening Soil (HS) model was considered

mostappropriatetosimulatesoil behaviourinanopen

excavation.TheHSmodel tookintoaccountunloading

andreloadingbehavior andirreversibleplasticstrains

of soil.TheHSstiffnessparametersweredefinedwith

respect to a reference pressure of 100kPa. The key

parameters included E

ref

50

, E

ref

oed

, and E

ref

ur

as shown in

Table1. Thepublisheddataindicatetheratio of E

ref

oed

toE

ref

50

isabout 0.7to1.4andtheratioof E

ref

ur

toE

ref

50

varies from2to 4. Theanalysis adoptedE

ref

50

=E

ref

oed

,

andE

ref

ur

=3E

ref

50

.

Presentedhereisa41.2mlongsectionof thetun-

nel between Ch5728.8 and Ch5770. This section of

the tunnel was of the deepest location of the tun-

nel, beneaththethickest layer of therunway fill, and

underlainbyslopingbedrock level andchangingclay

thickness. A jet fannicheof approximately12mlong

alsoliedwithinthecentreof thissectionwhichhadalso

beenincorporatedinthemodel. Withinthischainage

range, thereweresevenboreholes. Duetothecapacity

of theprogram, four representativeboreholes, which

wereevenlydistributedspatially, wereselectedfor the

analysis. Theassumedsubsurfaceprofiles areshown

inTable2.

8.3 Assumptions of analysis

Theconstructionsequencewasconsideredintheanal-

ysis to simulate the load transfer fromthe runway

fill tothediaphragmwalls. Theassumedconstruction

sequenceisdescribedbelow:

1. Applicationof loads exertedonthevirginground

fromthe working platformbuilt to RL 2m(for

construction of theguidewalls) and construction

loadof 10kPa;

144

Table2. Subsurfaceprofiles.

Borehole #1 #2 #3 #4

Location LHS RHS LHS Centre

Chainage 5730 5737 5757 5768 Soil type

(density/

Unit RL at topof eachlayer consistency)

1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Sand(VL)

2 4.8 3.4 5.0 2.8 CR (MD)

3 10.8 14.4 9.8 9.7 CR (D)

4 13.8 15.9 12.6 11.7 Sand(L)

5 17.8 17.1 17.5 17.5 Clay(St)

6 24.3 21.8 20.8 17.5 Sand(L)

7 27.3 25.1 21.8 18.0 Clay(F)

8 33.3 30.8 25.0 25.2 Clay(VSt)

9 36.3 32.0 27.4 27.4 Bedrock

Note: LHS is left hand side of tunnel facing increasing

chainage direction; RHS is right hand side of tunnel; and

Centreiscentrelineof tunnel.

2. Installationof diaphragmwallsandbarrettestoRL

17m;

3. Removal of theworkingplatform, andapplication

of 10kPaconstructionloadonsurface;

4. Dewateringandexcavationtoundersideof theroof

slab;

5. Installationof theroof slab(andjetfanniche), and

backfill toexistinggroundsurface;

6. Placement of runway fill todesignheights (simu-

latedaspressures) with10kPaliveloadabovethe

runway;

7. Staged dewatering and excavation within the

diaphragmwallstoundersideof thebaseslab;

8. Casting of the base slab and completion of the

tunnel structure;

9. Return of the groundwater table to the ground

surfaceandremoval of 10kPasurfaceloads.

The settlement assessment was undertaken at

stage 7, which was considered most critical with

maximumexcavationunder full runwayloading.

The assumed levels within the modeled chainage

rangearesummarizedinTable3.

8.4 Results of analysis

Thedeformedmeshof the3Dfiniteelement analysis

under thefull runway loading and at thefinal stage

of theexcavationisshowninFigure6. Thepredicted

settlementprofilesatthetopof theroof slabalongthe

diaphragmwalls andbarrettes prior to castingof the

baseslabarepresentedinFigure7.

Thepredictedsettlementof thetunnel duringexca-

vation was about 45mmon theLHS, 43mmon the

RHS, and 35mm along the central barrettes. The

maximumdifferential settlement was predictedto be

12mmbetweenthewalls andthebarrettes. To allow

Table3. Assumedgeometryduringconstruction.

5728.8 5737.6 5743.6 5755.2 5761.2

to to to to to

5737.6 5743.6 5755.2 5761.2 5770.0

Chainagerange

Feature RL (m)

Natural Ground 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Level

Topof Roof Slab 0.8 0.25 +0.4 0.25 0.8

Bottomof Roof 1.8 1.25 0.6 1.25 1.8

Slab

Initial Excavation 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8

Initial Dewatering 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8

Intermediate 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0

Excavation

Intermediate 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0

Dewatering

Topof BaseSlab 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4

Bottomof Base 9.4 9.4 9.4 9.4 9.4

Slab

Final Excavation 9.7 9.7 9.7 9.7 9.7

Final Dewatering 11.7 11.7 11.7 11.7 11.7

Toeof Diaphragm 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0

Wall

Figure6. Deformed3Dfiniteelement mesh.

for uncertainties, thetunnel wasdesignedfor amaxi-

mumdifferential settlement of 25mm. Thestructural

analysisshowedthatthelongitudinal in-planestiffness

of thetunnel wouldsmoothoutdifferential settlements

alongthetunnel alignment, withthepresenceof thejet

fannicheandvariabilityof thesubsurfaceconditions.

9 FIELDPERFORMANCE

The performance of tunnel during construction was

assessed based on the field monitoring results. This

wasameanstoconfirmthatthestructural integrityof

thediaphragmwallsandbarretteswerenot adversely

affectedby differential settlements. Threeinstrumen-

tation arrays were set up at Ch5655, Ch5718, and

Ch5770correspondingtolocationsof therunwayfill

(seeFigure8).

Each array consisted of three settlement plates

placed above the LHS and RHS diaphragm walls

145

55

50

45

40

35

30

45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Distance along Centre Line (m)

S

e

t

t

l

e

m

e

n

t

(

m

m

)

Central Barrettes

RHS Diaphragm Wall

LHS Diaphragm Wall

CH5728.8 CH5770

Figure7. Predictedsettlement profilesat topof roof.

Figure8. Planof instrumentationarrays.

Figure9. Typical instrumentationsection.

and the central barrettes (see Figure 9). These were

installed prior to runway fill placement and excava-

tionof thetunnel inorder tocaptureall construction

induced movements. In addition to the settlement

plates, surveytargetswerealsoinstalledatinner walls

tothetunnel torecordtunnel movement duringexca-

vation. This informationhadto becalibratedagainst

thesettlementplatemeasurementsastheinitial tunnel

movement recordwasnot available.

Figure 10 shows a summary of construction

activities, recorded settlements, and the predicted

settlements at diaphragmwall and barrettelocations

at Ch5718. Thesettlement predictionadoptedhereis

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

10

26/11/2006 16/12/2006 5/01/2007 25/01/2007 14/02/2007 6/03/2007 26/03/2007 15/04/2007

Date

S

e

t

t

l

e

m

e

n

t

(

m

m

)

10

8

6

4

2

0

2

4

R

L

o

f

E

x

c

a

v

a

t

i

o

n

a

n

d

T

o

p

o

f

F

i

l

l

(

m

)

Measured at LHS

Measured at Centre

Masured at RHS

RL of Excavation

RL of Top of Fill

Predicted 35mm (Center)

Predicted 43mm (RHS)

Predicted 45mm (LHS)

Figure10. Settlement monitoringresultsat Ch5718.

theresult of analysisbetweenCh5728.8andCh5770.

Monitoring commenced at thebeginning of Novem-

ber 2006. Excavationof thetunnel commencedinmid

December 2006fromtheNorthernPortal at Ch5588.

TheexcavationprocessreachedCh5718inearlyJ an-

uary.Placementof runwayfill aboveCH5718followed

in mid J anuary, which had resulted in visiblesettle-

mentsof thetunnel. Thesettlementsappearedtohave

ceasedafter theexcavationreachedfinal depthinmid

February. Themonitoring datashowed that thefield

performanceof thetunnel wasconsistentwiththepre-

dictions obtained fromthe PLAXIS 3D Foundation

modelling.Maximumdifferential settlementsbetween

thebarrettes andthediaphragmwalls wereless than

25mmat all stagesof construction.

10 CONCLUSIONS

TheTugunBypasstunnel hadtobeconstructedunder

many strict constraints in a challenging geotechni-

cal environment. Extensive site investigations were

undertaken to better characterize ground conditions

and reduce risks of geotechnical uncertainties. The

top-downconstructionmethodwas adoptedto allow

extension of the airport runway to occur simultane-

ouslyduringtunnel construction.Theadditional loads

fromtherunwayfill inducedsettlementsof thetunnel

duringconstruction. Settlement analysisof thetunnel

using 3D numerical modelling techniques had been

undertaken. Thedifferential settlementsof thetunnel

weresuccessfully predicted. Theperformanceof the

tunnel wasmonitoredduringconstructionandthefield

measurements were consistent with the numerical

predictions.

REFERENCES

PLAXIS2D, Version8.4, PLAXISBV Netherlands, 2006.

PLAXIS 3D Foundation, Version 1.6, PLAXIS BV

Netherlands, 2006.

146

Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground Ng, Huang & Liu (eds)

2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-48475-6

Numerical evaluationof dewateringeffect ondeepexcavationinsoft clay

L. Li

Tianjin Institute of Ubran Construction, Tianjin, P.R. China

Tianjin Key Laboratory of Soft Soil Characteristics and Engineering Environment, Tianjin, P.R. China

M.Yang

Key Laboratory of Geotechnical and Underground Engineering of Ministry of Education, Tongji University,

Shanghai, P.R. China

Tongji University, Shanghai city, P.R. China

ABSTRACT: Thispaper describestheapplicationof FLAC3Danalysisfor modelingatop-downconstruction

of a four-story (33.7mdepth), underground transformer substation in downtown of Shanghai city. There is

unconfinedaquifer andconfinedaquifer onthesiteof thisprojectanddrainagebydesiccationinthefoundation

pit isadopted. Theeffectivestressmethodsof analysisincorporateexcavationanddewateringof thefoundation

pitfor real-timesimulationof constructionactivities. Theresultsnotconsideringdewateringarecomparedwith

theresult consideringdewatering, includingwall deflections, basal heave, surfacesettlement. Theanalysis of

considering leakage of the wall and leakage between confined aquifer is provided also. The analysis shows

that although thedifferenceis small in soft clay dueto thelowpermeability of thesoil, dewatering enhance

thedeformationof thefoundationpit andthefoundationpit is inclinedto benot security if dewateringis not

considered, theeffect of leakageof thewall canbeobviousonthesurfacesettlement.

1 INTRODUCTION

Fordeepexcavationincongestedurbanenvironments,

designers are particularly interested in making reli-

able prediction of the magnitudes of movements in

thesurroundingsoil (Peck 1969, Cloughet al. 1989,

ORourke 1981) and then estimating the effects of

thesemovementsonadjacent structuresandfacilities

(Burland&Wroth1974, Boscardin&Cording1989).

In principle these prediction can be achieved using

powerful numerical methods such as finite element

analyses, but there is difficulties in achieving reli-

ableanalytical predictionsof soil deformationswhich

can be attributed to a variety of factors including

dewatering.

Dewateringisnecessaryintheexcavationunderthe

ground water level in soft clay, which provideadry

environment for theexcavationandis benefit for the

slopestability andreducingtheharminducedby the

groundwater, but dewateringhaveimportant effect on

thebehaviour of thefoundationpit andthesurround-

ingsoils, seepageinducedbydewateringfromoutside

to theinsideof thefoundationpit haveeffect onthe

stabilityandthedeformationof thefoundationpitand

surfacesettlementforthevertical consolidationbythe

underground-water drawdown out of the foundation

pit, so effective stress methods of analysis distinct

fromvast majority of analyses relies on total stress

methods of analysis andreal-timesimulationof cou-

plingbetweenground-water flow(porepressure)and

soil deformations is adoptedinthis numerical analy-

sisconsideringdewatering. Inthispaper, considering

dewateringmeansconsideringthedifferencebetween

inandout of thefoundationpit inthesimulating, and

notconsideringdewateringmeansnotconsideringthe

difference.

This paper describes the application of FLAC3D

programfor predictingsoil deformationsandground

water flowassociatedwiththetop-downconstruction

of acolumniformundergroundtransformersubstation

indowntownof Shanghai city.Themodel incorporates

anumber of advancedfeaturesof analysisincluding:

(1) A FLAC3Dmodel whichcanconsider interaction

betweensupport systemof thefoundationpit andthe

surroundingsoil;(2)Dewateringandexcavationareall

consideredinthenumerical analysisatthesametime;

(3) The drawdown of the ground water and the sur-

facesettlementduetodewateringinthefoundationpit;

(4) Thesurfacesettlement inducedby theleakageof

thediaphragmwall. Sitestratigraphy, material proper-

ties, andinitial ground-waterconditionareall selected

usinginformationprovidedprior toconstruction, the

simulation of theconstruction sequenceis based on

thescheme.

147

82.3m

77.4m

60.3m

45.3m

73.4m

37.5m

31.6m

26.5m

21.3m

16.5m

10.5m

3.2m

2.0m

100.0m

11

1

1

2.0m

7.0m

Roof slab

Temporary bracing

Floor slab

Floor slab

Floor slab

Temporary bracing

Temporary bracing

11.5m

16.5m

22.0m

26.5m

31.0m

33.7m Floor slab

1

7

1

2

3

4

5

12

5

6

7

1

8

2

8

3

8

1

9

2

9

2

7 2

7

Figure 1. Soil profile and the location of the wall and

bracing.

2 GENERAL SITUATIONOF THE PROJ ECT

2.1 Project description

Thecolumniformundergroundtransformersubstation

of afour floor and33.7mhighundergroundstructure

occupies aplanareaof 13000squaremeter (interior

diameter is130m) inthedowntownof Shanghai city

and is bounded by buildings and viaduct and lots of

undergroundpipeline.

The underground transformer substation design

uses a cast in situ, reinforced concrete, diaphragm

wall (1.2mthick) extendingdown into theelevation

57.5m (With respect to the Shanghai City Base

datum), the circular wall is braced internally by the

floorslabsand3temporaryannularbracing(Figure1),

which arein turn supported by theinterior columns

(steel and reinforced concrete & angel iron lattice)

foundedonthebearingpile(boredfillingpile, thepile

tipat depths8090mbelowgroundlevel. Both

thediaphragmwall andinterior columnsareinstalled

prior to excavationusingslurry trenchmethods. The

roof andfourfloorlevelsarecastinsequencefromthe

top-downbyexcavatingthesoil frombeneaththemost

recentlyconstructedslab. Duringexcavation, dewater-

ingisaccomplishedusingdrainagebydesiccation.

2.2 Engineering geological and groundwater

conditions

Table 1 shows an averaged profile of subsurface

stratigraphyinterpretedfromboringsconductedatthe

site. It shouldbenotedthat theborings logs actually

Table1. Input parametersinMohr-coulombmodel.

E j C D

Stratum MPa kPa (

) (

)

1.2 0.36 0.32 22.5 0

9.3 0.36 25.9 17.4 0

8.9 0.37 5.1 21.2 0

8.2 0.39 8.0 19.7 0

1

11.4 0.38 13.4 15.7 0

2

14.9 0.37 27.1 15.8 0

26.8 0.34 42.7 13.7 0

1

44.9 0.32 5.0 31.2 0

2

80.2 0.31 0.0 33.0 0

1

16.4 0.34 21.2 23.1 0

2

28.3 0.33 16.9 24.1 0

3

72.2 0.33 22.1 20.3 0

1

99.2 0.31 0.0 35.0 5

2

133.4 0.29 0.0 37.0 7

Table2. Porosityandcoefficient of permeability.

Coefficient of

permeability

Vertical Horizontal

Stratum Soil name Porosity m/s m/s

Artifical soil 0.56

Siltyclay 0.49 2.510

9

5.510

7

Muckysilt 0.57 1.710

8

3.510

6

Muckysilt 0.58 7.210

9

8.110

8

11

Clay 0.52 3.910

9

4.110

8

12

Siltyclay 0.51 4.010

8

3.210

8

1

Siltyclay 0.43 5.810

9

4.110

8

1

Siltysilt 0.46 2.610

6

2.610

5

2

Silt sand 0.44 5.410

6

3.810

5

1

Silt clay 0.51 8.210

9

4.010

6

2

Silt sand 0.50 6.210

8

2.810

6

3

Silt sand 0.47 1.710

6

3.010

4

1

Mediumsand 0.37 5.710

6

3.010

4

2

Coarsesand 0.35 7.910

6

3.010

4

showsignificantvariationsinthethicknessof theindi-

vidual strata across the site, The assumption of an

averageprofileisconsistent withthelimitedareaand

uncertainties in engineering properties of individual

strata.Thematerial parameterof thelayersisintable1.

Thereis unconfined aquifer and confined aquifer

inthesite. Thegroundwater level of theunconfined

aquifer is 12munder thegroundandthe6thlayer

is relative impervious layer. The confined aquifer is

dividedintothe1st confinedaquifer andthe2ndcon-

fined aquifer by the

1

2

layer. The 1st confined

aquiferliesinthe

1

and

2

layerandthe2ndconfined

aquifer lieinthe

3

andlayer, theremay besome

relationshipbetweenthe1stand2ndconfinedaquifer.

Theporosityandthecoefficientof permeabilityof the

layersisintable2.

148

2.3 FLAC3D model description

The three dimensional numerical analysis program

FLAC3D is developed by Itasca Consulting Group,

Inc. Thegroundwater flowmodel may becoupledto

the stress model. The finite element model extends

far beneaththeexcavation(to100mdepth) andlater-

ally a distance of 200mbeyond the perimeter wall

where soil displacements, due to the simulation of

undergroundtransformer substationconstruction, are

negligible. Constitutivemodelingof soil behavior and

selectionof inputparametersrepresentamajor source

of uncertaintyinfiniteelementanalysis.Thesoil con-

stitutive model use Mohr-coulomb failure criterion

andinorder tomodel realisticallythedepthvariations

in properties theelastic shear and bulk modulus are

assumedtobeproportional tothemeaneffectivecon-

finingstress. Theunloadingmodulusof thesoil inthe

foundationpitistrinal loadingsandthemodulusof the

soil undertheultimatebaseof excavationadoptmixed

modulus because of tension pile. The parameters of

thesoil areshownintable1.

The soil and diaphragmwall adopt 8 nodes solid

element and the permanent floor slab adopted shell

element and the temporary annular bracing adopted

beamelement, and interface is adopted in the joint

of the diaphragm and soil. Elastic model is used

for the diaphragmwall and the youngs modulus is

2.310

4

MPa, andthePoissonsratiois0.167. Elastic

model isalsousedforfloorslabandtemporaryannular

bracingandtheparameter of themis consistent with

thescheme. TheFLAC3D model of this project is in

Figure2.

Boundariesconditionissummarizedasfollows: (1)

Theundersidedisplacement of themodel iszero, the

horizontal displacement of the side of the model is

zero, theuppersurfaceisfree; (2)Theundersideof the

model isimperviousboundary, thesideof themodel is

perviousboundaryandtheporepressureisfixed, the

porepressureof theupper surfaceis fixedas zeroin

theformationof theinitial stressfieldandhydrostatic

pressureandisfreeduringdewateringandexcavation.

Dewateringinthefoundationpit issimulatedbycon-

trolling the saturation and pore pressure at specific

locationsintheelement model.

2.4 Construction sequence

Based on the actual record of site activities and the

sequenceof events occurs in thefiniteelement sim-

ulation, this process is simulated by 17 stages. Each

stage in the analysis represents a distinct change

in either the geometry, boundary conditions or time

elapsedbetweenevents.Thefirststageistheformation

of the initial stress field and hydrostatic pressure

andafter every dewateringandexcavation(including

addingbracing) is astage. Thenumerical simulation

assumes that theconstruction of thediaphragmwall

Figure2. FLAC3Dmodel of theproject.

has no effect on the surrounding soil (i.e., the wall

iswished-inplace)anddoesnot consider theinstal-

lation of load-bearing elements used to support the

internal column.

3 RESULT ANDANALYSIS

3.1 Analysis of the seepage field

Duetounconfinedaquifer andconfinedaquifer exist-

inginthesite, thereisdifficultyinsimulatingthemat

thesametime. Theconfinedaquifer isnot takeninto

149

Figure3. Theneural pressurecontour andflowvector.

Figure4(a). Lateral deflectionof wall.

Figure4(b). Contrast of thewall deflection.

accountwhenanalyzingtheseepageof theunconfined

aquifer, whichhavenoinfluenceonthephreaticline.

Theneutral pressurecontourandtheflowvectorwhen

excavatingto33.7misasFigure3. Itshowsthatthe

drawdownof thephreaticwaterissmall andthedepres-

sionconeis not obvious dueto thelowpermeability

of thesoft clay.

3.2 Analysis of the lateral deflection of wall

Figure4(a)isthecomputingresultof thelateral deflec-

tions of thediaphragmwall alongthedepthat every

Figure4(c). Contour of thelateral deflection.

excavationstage. Themaximumlateral deflectionof

thewall is23.3mm, theratioof themaximumlateral

deflection to theend excavation depth is 0.07%, the

top-downandthehighrigidityof theslabisthereason

forthesmall ratio.Thelocationof thelateral deflection

is alittlehigher thantheexcavationfaceandfalling

withtheexcavatingandthelocationof themaximum

lateral deflectionisat28.1m. Figure4(b) isthecon-

trast of thelateral deflection considering dewatering

andnot inthelast 3excavationstage. Themaximum

lateral deflection considering dewatering is 27.7mm

andhigher thantheresultnotconsideringdewatering.

Thedifferencemostlyhappeninthemiddleandunder-

sidewall andis increasingwiththeexcavationdepth

fortheseepageforceisconcentratedinthemiddleand

underside wall and the hydraulic head is increasing

withtheexcavationdepth. Figure4(c) is thecontour

of lateral displacement of thediaphragmwall.

3.3 Analysis of the basal heave formation

The basal heave is including the elastic rebounding

andthelocal plasticfailureandthedeep-seatedplastic

failure. Theelastic reboundisbecauseof theunload-

ing, the local plastic failure is that the soil near the

wall yield, and thedeep-seated plastic failureis that

thesoil inthebottomisshort of bearingpower. When

the excavation depth is little, the elastic rebound is

themost, themaximumheaveliesinthecenter, with

theexcavation depth increasing theheavein thecir-

cumferencepreponderateover theheaveinthecenter

becauseof thefailureinthecircumference, Figure5(a)

isthecurveof thebasal heave, Figure5(b) isthecon-

tour of thebasal heavewhenexcavatingto 33.7m.

Figure5(c)isthecontrastof thebasal heaveresultcon-

sideringdewateringandnot inthelast twoexcavation

stages, it showsthebasal heaveconsideringdewater-

ingishighthanthenotandthedifferenceisincreasing

withtheexcavationdepth.

3.4 Analysis of the surface settlement

Figure 6(a) shows the surface settlement after the

every excavation stage. The surface settlement and

150

Figure5(a). Thedeformationof thebasal heave.

Figure5(b). Contour of thebasal heave.

Figure5(c). Contrastof thedeformationof thebasal heave.

thedistancebetweenthemaximumsurfacesettlement

andthefoundationpit is increasingwiththeexcava-

tiondepth. Themaximumsettlement is 15.7mmand

the maximumdistance is 44mwhen excavating to

33.7mdepth.Thediaphragmwall moveupandraise

thesoil near thefoundationpitbecauseof theunload-

ing, whichhasaeffectonthelocationof themaximum

surfacesettlement .

Figure6(a). Surfacesettlement at stages.

Figure6(b). Contour of thesurfacesettlement.

Figure6(c). Contrast of thesurfacesettlement.

Figure6(b) isthecontour of thesurfacesettlement.

Figure6(c)showsthecontrastof thesurfacesettlement

consideringdewateringandnot. Itshowsthatthemag-

nitudeandrangeof thesurfacesettlement inducedby

thedewateringissmall forthereasonof thelowperme-

abilityof thesoil andthesmall descentof groundwater

level induced by dewatering. The location of max-

imum surface settlement induced by dewatering is

closer tothefoundationpitthanbyexcavationandthe

151

Figure7. Leakageinthe6thlayer.

maximumsurfacesettlement consideringdewatering

is15.9mm.

3.5 Analysis of leakage

By the excavation experience in Shanghai city, the

leakageof diaphragmwall oftenoccur whenthedepth

beyond 28m and the probability increase with the

excavationdepth. Themaincauseisthat thebadjoint

of the wall and the dimension error in construction

andthedistortionof thediaphragmwall. Theleakage

will inducethedeclineof thegroundwater level and

theadditional surfacesettlement, so theeffect of the

leakagehavetobetakenintoaccount.

If the leakage occurs in the sixth layer, Figure. 7

showstheneutral pressureandtheflowvelocity vec-

tor, by the contour of the neutral pressure, only the

groundwater level near thefoundationpit descendlit-

tle, sotheleakageinthe6thlayer havelittleeffect on

thesettlementaroundthefoundationpitbecauseof the

lowpermeabilityandsmall discharge.

If the leakage occurs in the 1st confined aquifer

which of the water pressure is 56m under the

ground, thewater pressureof the1stconfinedaquifer

descendclearly andthesurfacesettlement is distinct

for thepermeabilityof the1stconfinedaquifer ishigh

andthedischargeismuch.

The2ndconfinedaquifer canleaktointerior of the

1st confined aquifer for the fall of the neutral pres-

sureinthe1stconfinedaquifer duetodewateringand

excavatingin

1

layer. Thenumerical analysisshows

leakageoccurs, but thedischargeislittle, sotheleak-

agehavelittleeffectonthesettlementforpermeability

of theof the

1

grayclayislow(8.2110

9

m/s) and

thethicknessof

1

layer reachto15m.

4 CONCLUSIONS

This paper introduce the FLAC3D model for simu-

lating the top-down construction of an underground

transformer substationat Shanghai city. Results con-

sideringdewateringarecomparedwiththeresult not

considering including wall deflection, basal heave,

and surface settlement, the effect of leakage is also

analyzed. Themain conclusions of this study areas

follows:

1. Dewatering by desiccation in the foundation pit

haveeffectonthebehaviorof thefoundationpit,the

seepagecouldenhancethewall deflectionandthe

deformation of thebasal heave, thedrawdown of

thegroundwater level outsideof thefoundationpit

couldresultinthevertical consolidationandaddthe

surfacesettlement.Thefoundationpitisinclinedto

benot securityif dewateringisnot considered.

2. Thewall deflectionandbasal heaveduetotheseep-

ageislittlebecauseof thelowpermeabilityof the

soil insoftclay. Thedrawdownof thegroundwater

level duetodewateringislittle, whichresultinlittle

surfacesettlement for thesamereasonabove.

3. Theleakageof thewall haveimportant effect on

thesurfacesettlement, whichisaproblemneeded

tosolve.

REFERENCES

Andrew J. Whittle, Youssef M. A. Hashash & Robert V.

Whitman. 1993. Analysis of deep excavation in boston,

Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 119(1): 6990.

Chang-Yu, Ou, Tzong-Shiann Wu & Hsii-Sheng Hsieh,

1996. Analysis of deep excavation with column tye of

groundimprovementinsoftclay. Journal of Geotechnical

Engineering 122(9): 709716.

Itasca Consulting Group, Inc. 2002.6. FLAC3D (Fast

LagrangianAnalysis of Continua in 3DDimensions) User

Manuals, Version2.1. Minneapolis, Minnesota.

ItascaConsultingGroup, Inc.2005.5. FLAC(Fast Lagrangian

Analysis of Continua )User Manuals, Version 5.0. Min-

neapolis, Minnesota.

J acob Bear, 1983. Dynamics of Fluids in Porous Media.

Beijing: ChinaArchitecture& BuildingPress.

Lin Li, 2007. Studies on the behavior of deep excavation

and surroundings due to dewatering effect, Ph.D, Thesis,

Universityof Tongji, Shanghai, China.

LinLi & MinYang, 2007. Theanalysisof deformationchar-

acteristicsof thedeepexcavationinsoft clay. China Civil

Engineering Journal, 40(4): 6672.

Sunil S.Kishnani &RonaldoI.Borja,1993.Seepageandsoil-

structureinteractioneffectsinbracedexcavtion. Journal

of Geotechnical Engineering, 119(5): 912927.

Youssef M.A. Hashash & AndrewJ Whittle, 1996. Ground

movement prediction for deep excavations in soft clay.

Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 122(6): 474486.

Yuqi Li, 2005. Studies on the behavior of foundation pit with

excavation considering seepage, Ph.D,Thesis,University

of Zhejiang, Hangzhou, China.

152

Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground Ng, Huang & Liu (eds)

2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-48475-6

Analysisof thefactorsinfluencingfoundationpit deformations

Y.Q. Li

Department of Civil Engineering, Shanghai University, Shanghai, P.R. China

K.H. Xie

Institute of Geotechnical Engineering, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, P.R. China

J. Zhou& X.L. Kong

Key Laboratory of Geotechnical and Underground Engineering of Ministry of Education,

Tongji University, Shanghai, P.R. China

Department of Geotechnical Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai, P.R. China

ABSTRACT: Due to the complexity of excavation and groundwater seepage, the behavior of foundation

pitsisnot yet well understood. Inthispaper, basedonthree-dimensional (3D) Biotsconsolidationtheory and

nonlinearDuncan-Changsmodel, finiteelementequationsconsideringthecouplingof groundwaterseepageand

soil skeletondeformationduringexcavationarededucedandacorrespondingthree-dimensional finiteelement

programis developed. Using the program, the influence of soil permeability, rigidity and tiers of supports,

rigidity of retainingwall andconstructionperiodof excavationongroundsurfacesettlement, wall horizontal

displacement and pit baseheaveareanalyzed in detail. Someuseful conclusions aredrawn by analyzing the

influenceof thesefactors on theexcavation deformations, which arevery significant for guiding design and

constructionof excavations.

1 INTRODUCTION

Inurbanareas, moreandmoreundergroundspaceis

utilized with the fast development of city construc-

tion, andthusalotof excavationengineeringappears.

However, the pit deformations induced by excava-

tion greatly influence the safety of not only the pit

itself but also the buildings and municipal facilities

around it. Therefore, study of the behavior of foun-

dationpitshasreceivedmuchattention. Whittleet al.

(1993) described the application of a finite element

analysis for modelling thetop-down construction of

a seven-storey, underground parking garage at Post

OfficeSquareinBoston.Theresultsdemonstratedthat

reliableandconsistentpredictionsof soil deformations

and groundwater flow can beachieved by advanced

methods of analysis without recourse to parametric

iteration, but emphasizedtheneedfor adequatechar-

acterizationof engineeringpropertiesfortheentiresoil

profile.Vaziri (1996) describedasimple, efficientand

practical numerical model for analysisof cantilevered

and strutted flexible retaining walls. The model had

incorporated a variety of features that affected the

performance of the retaining walls in the field such

as installation and removal of struts, application of

surcharge, changes in groundwater table, changes in

soil properties andsimulationof stagedexcavations.

Themodel canbeusedeffectivelytoperformabroad

suite of parametric studies in the design stage and

also as a reliable tool for predicting performance.

Ou et al. (1996) further proposed a nonlinear, 3D

finite element technique for deep excavation analy-

sis. Thetechniqueaswell astheanalytical procedures

formodelingtheexcavationprocesseswerecodedinto

acomputer program, andtheaccuracyof theprogram

wasassessed. Thecaseof anirregularly-shapedexca-

vationwithfieldmeasurementsof wall deflectionwas

studiedandtheresults showedcloseagreement with

field measurements. Zdravkovic et al. (2005) stud-

iedtheeffect of excavationonthesurroundingareas

andprovidedadetailedassessmentof wall andground

movements.

Therehavebeen afew studies on theinfluencing

factors of foundationpit deformations. Inthis paper,

3Dconsolidationfiniteelementequationsarederived,

andthecorrespondingfiniteelementprogramisdevel-

oped. Someuseful conclusionsaredrawnbyanalyzing

the influence of factors such as soil permeability,

rigidity and tiers of supports, rigidity of retaining

wall andconstructionperiodof excavationonthepit

153

deformations, whicharebeneficial tooptimisationof

excavationdesign.

2 FINITE ELEMENT EQUATIONS

BasedonBiots3Dconsolidationfiniteelementequa-

tions(Xie&Zhou2002),andconsideringgroundwater

seepageinducedbythewaterheaddifferencebetween

the inside and outside of a pit, the finite element

equationsof excavationareasfollows:

where is an integral constant; Lt is the time

increment; [K

eij

] and[K

cij

] arerespectively thesub-

matrices of the stiffness matrix and the coupling

matrix; K

sij

is an element of seepage matrix; Lu

i

,

Lv

i

andLw

i

arethedisplacement incrementsof ele-

ment node i; P

i(n+1)

is the soil water potential of

element nodei at t =t

n+1

; LR

xi

=LR

xi

+[K

cij

]P

i(n)

,

LR

yi

=LR

yi

+[K

cij

]P

i(n)

, LR

zi

=LR

zi

+[K

cij

]P

i(n)

,

andLR

pi

=LR

pi

LtK

sij

P

i(n)

, LR

xi

, LR

yi

andLR

zi

are the equivalent load increments of element node

i, and LR

pi

is theequivalent water runoff increment

of element nodei, P

i(n)

is thesoil water potential of

element nodei at t =t

n

.

The soil water potential of a saturated soil can

beexpressed using thefollowing equation when the

solutepotential of thesoil isneglected:

wherethespatial coordinatez isupwardspositive; P is

soil waterpotential of saturatedsoil; p isthesumof the

pressurepotential andtheloadpotential, i.e. thetotal

porewater pressure; and

w

z isthegravitypotential.

3 ANALYSISOF THE INFLUENCING

FACTORSOF PIT DEFORMATIONS

Inorder toanalyzetheparametricinfluenceonthepit

deformations, a3D consolidationfiniteelement pro-

gramis developedon thebasis of thefiniteelement

equations derived. Usinganumerical examplegiven

below, themain factors influencing thepit deforma-

tions such as soil permeability, rigidity and tiers of

supports, rigidity of retaining wall and construction

periodof excavationareanalyzedrespectively.

Figure1. Meshof finiteelements.

Table 1. Duncan-Chang model parameters

of soil.

Parameters Values

K 150

n 0.7

R

f

0.85

c

15kPa

35

F 0.15

G 0.35

D 3.5

K

ur

300

3.1 Reference case numerical example

Theexcavatedlength, widthanddepthof thefounda-

tionpitinacertainhomogenousandisotropicstratum

of soft soil are60m, 50mand8mrespectively. The

soilsvertical andhorizontal permeabilitycoefficients

areboth2.010

6

cm/sandtheeffectiveunit weight

of the soil is 9.0kN/m

3

. The retaining wall is 0.6m

thickandembedded16mdeepinsoftsoil. Reinforced

concretesupportsareinstalledat different excavation

stages and the horizontal spacing between supports

along the pits long side (i.e. y-direction) and short

side (i.e. x-direction) is 6mand 5mrespectively in

everytier.

In order to minimize the boundary effects and

improvethecomputational efficiency, thecalculation

domainsinx-, y- andz-directionare100m, 100mand

40mrespectively in consideration of the symmetry

about the pit centerline. The finite element mesh of

thesoil massandretainingwall areshowninFigure1.

All soil units are discretized using eight-node

hexahedral isoparametric elements, modelled using

thenonlinear Duncan-Changmodel with parameters

listed in Table 1, where c

and

cohesion and the effective friction angle of the soil

respectively, R

f

is the failure ratio, and K, n, F,

G, D and K

ur

are some parameters determined by

tests. Theretainingwall adoptsWilsonnon-harmony

154

elements, modelled as alinear elastic model, whose

modulus of elasticity and Poissons ratio are25GPa

and0.167respectively.A rowof 0.1mthickinterfaces,

connectingthesoil massandtheretainingwall isatthe

twosidesof retainingwall, adopting3Dthininterface

elements derivedfromYins rigidplastic model (Yin

et al. 1995) with the outer friction angle=1.0

and

cohesion=0.5kPa,anditsothermodel parametersare

thesameasthoseof thesoil masselements. Thesup-

ports are modelled using a linear elastic model and

spatial bar elements, with0.6m0.6mcrosssection,

whoseelasticitymodulusis23GPa.

Theexcavationinvolves threestages. Thedetailed

description of the staged excavation of the pit is as

follows:

1. Stage1: 2.0mexcavationdepthwithout supports

for four days, andfour days excavationintermis-

sionfor installingsupports at thenext excavation

stage.Thezvalueis1.5mforthefirsttierof sup-

portsand2.0mfor thecorrespondingexcavation

level belowthesupports.

2. Stage 2: 3.0m excavation depth (excavation to

5.0mdeep) with a tier of supports in six days,

andsixdays excavationintermissionfor installing

the next tier of supports. The z value is 4.5m

for thesecondtier of supportsand5.0mfor the

correspondingexcavationlevel belowthesupports.

3. Stage 3: 3.0mexcavation depth (full excavation

to 8.0mdeep) with two tiers of supports in eight

days, andtwentydays excavationintermissionfor

castingthepit baseconcrete.

3.2 Influencing factors

3.2.1 Soil permeability

In this section, theinfluenceof soil permeability on

the pit deformations at the y =0 section after the

thirdexcavationstageis studied. Thesoil permeabil-

ity for the reference case is 2.010

6

cm/s. Four

more analyses are carried out for soil permeability

of 2.010

5

cm/s, 5.010

6

cm/s, 5.010

7

cm/s

and2.010

7

cm/s. Figures 24showtheinfluence

of soil permeabilityrepresentedbypermeabilitycoef-

ficient k onthewall horizontal displacement, ground

settlementandpitbaseheave.Withthesoil permeabil-

ity increasing, the vertical effective stresses outside

thefoundationpit alsoincrease, but thosebeneaththe

pit basedecrease, so ground settlement and pit base

heaveincrease, whichareshowninFigures 34. For

the wall horizontal displacement, with the soil per-

meability increasing, thehorizontal effectivestresses

insideandoutsidethepit bothincrease, andthewall

horizontal displacement decreases as a result of the

greaterinfluenceof lateral pressuresactingonthewall

insidethepit, whichcanbeseeninFigure2.

-16

-12

-8

-4

0

5 6 7 8 9

Wall horizontal displacement/cm

D

e

p

t

h

/

m

k=2e-7cm/s

k=5e-7cm/s

k=2e-6cm/s

k=5e-6cm/s

k=2e-5cm/s

Figure 2. Influence of soil permeability on wall

displacement.

-6

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

0 20 40 60 80

Distance from the wall/m

G

r

o

u

n

d

s

e

t

t

l

e

m

e

n

t

/

c

m

k=2e-7cm/s

k=5e-7cm/s

k=2e-6cm/s

k=5e-6cm/s

k=2e-5cm/s

Figure 3. Influence of soil permeability on ground

settlement.

0

3

6

9

12

0 5 10 15 20 25

Distance from the pit center/m

P

i

t

b

a

s

e

h

e

a

v

e

/

c

m

k=2e-7cm/s k=5e-7cm/s

k=2e-6cm/s k=5e-6cm/s

k=2e-5cm/s

Figure4. Influenceof soil permeabilityonpit baseheave.

3.2.2 Rigidity of supports

The influence of support rigidity on wall horizontal

displacement, ground settlement and pit base heave

at the y =0 section after the third excavation stage

are shown in Figures 57. When the support rigid-

ity becomes larger, the retaining wall movement is

more restricted, so the wall horizontal displacement

is smaller. However, theinfluenceof support rigidity

ongroundsettlement andpit baseheaveis relatively

insignificant.

3.2.3 Tiers of supports

The influence of support tiers on the pit deforma-

tions at the y =0 section after the third excavation

155

-16

-12

-8

-4

0

5 6 7 8 9 10

wall horizontal displacement/cm

D

e

p

t

h

/

m

5GPa

10GPa

23GPa

50GPa

100GPa

Figure 5. Influence of support rigidity on wall

displacement.

-6

-4

-2

0

0 20 40 60 80

Distance from the wall/m

G

r

o

u

n

d

s

e

t

t

l

e

m

e

n

t

/

c

m

5GPa 10GPa

23GPa 50GPa

100GPa

Figure 6. Influence of support rigidity on ground

settlement.

0

3

6

9

12

0 5 10 15 20 25

Distance from the pit center/m

P

i

t

b

a

s

e

h

e

a

v

e

/

c

m

5GPa 10GPa

23GPa 50GPa

100GPa

Figure7. Influenceof support rigidityonpit baseheave.

stageis studied. Thereferencecasehas two tiers of

support. Threemoreanalysesarecarriedout: nosup-

port, onetier at 2.0mexcavationdepthandonetier at

5.0mexcavationdepth. Figures810showtheinflu-

enceof support tiersonwall horizontal displacement,

groundsettlementandpitbaseheaverespectively.The

deformationsof thefoundationpit duringexcavation

withnosupport arethelargest, andtheyevidentlyare

smallerwithaddingsupporttiers.Tiersof supportalso

influencethepitdeformations, whichfortwo-tiersup-

ports are less than those with one-tier. In addition,

-16

-12

-8

-4

0

0 10 20 30 40

wall horizontal displacement/cm

D

e

p

t

h

/

m

two tiers

one tier at

upper depth

one tier at

lower depth

no support

Figure8. Influenceof support tiersonwall displacement.

-15

-12

-9

-6

-3

0

0 20 40 60 80

Distance from the wall/m

G

r

o

u

n

d

s

e

t

t

l

e

m

e

n

t

/

c

m

two tiers

one tier at upper depth

one tier at lower depth

no support

Figure9. Influenceof support tiersongroundsettlement.

0

5

10

15

20

0 5 10 15 20 25

Distance from the pit center/m

P

i

t

b

a

s

e

h

e

a

v

e

/

c

m

two tiers

one tier at upper depth

one tier at lower depth

no support

Figure10. Influenceof support tiersonpit baseheave.

the position of the supports also greatly influences

thepit deformations. Thedeformationswithsupports

installed at a higher level are less than those with

supportsinstalledatalower level under thesamecon-

ditions, so theformer approachis moreeffectivefor

controllingthepit deformations.

3.2.4 Rigidity of retaining wall

Figures 1113 show the influence of rigidity of the

retainingwall onwall horizontal displacement,ground

settlementandpitbaseheaveatthey =0sectionafter

the third excavation stage. The wall horizontal dis-

placement will obviously decrease with an increase

in the rigidity of the retaining wall. However, the

156

-16

-12

-8

-4

0

0 3 6 9 12

wall horizontal displacement/cm

D

e

p

t

h

/

m

5GPa

10GPa

25GPa

50GPa

100GPa

Figure 11. Influence of rigidity of retaining wall on wall

displacement.

-6

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

0 20 40 60 80

Distance from thewall/m

G

r

o

u

n

d

s

e

t

t

l

e

m

e

n

t

/

c

m

5GPa 10GPa

25GPa 50GPa

100GPa

Figure12. Influenceof rigidityof retainingwall onground

settlement.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 5 10 15 20 25

Distance fromthe pit center/m

P

i

t

b

a

s

e

h

e

a

v

e

/

c

m

5GPa 10GPa 25GPa

50GPa 100GPa

Figure13. Influenceof rigidityof retainingwall onpitbase

heave.

influenceof rigidityof retainingwall ongroundsettle-

ment andpit baseheaveisnot significant. Therefore,

increasingtherigidityof theretainingwall caneffec-

tively reducethewall horizontal displacement andis

beneficial tothesafetyof excavations.

3.2.5 Construction period

Theconstructionperiodincludestheexcavationperiod

andintermissionsatall excavationstages,whichis48d

inthereferencecase. Four moreanalyseswerecarried

outforconstructionperiodof 24d, 36d, 60dand72d.

-16

-12

-8

-4

0

0 2 4 6 8 10

wall horizontal displacement/cm

D

e

p

t

h

/

m

t=24d

t=36d

t=48d

t=60d

t=72d

Figure14. Influenceof construction period of excavation

onwall displacement.

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

0 20 40 60 80

Distance from the wall/m

G

r

o

u

n

d

s

e

t

t

l

e

m

e

n

t

/

c

m

t=24d t=36d t=48d

t=60d t=72d

Figure15. Influenceof construction period of excavation

ongroundsettlement.

4

6

8

10

0 5 10 15 20 25

Distance from the pit center/m

P

i

t

b

a

s

e

h

e

a

v

e

/

c

m

t=24d t=36d

t=48d t=60d

t=72d

Figure16. Influenceof construction period of excavation

onpit baseheave.

Theinfluenceof constructionperiodonwall horizon-

tal displacement, groundsettlementandpitbaseheave

at they =0sectionafter thethirdexcavationstageis

shown in Figures 1416. On the one hand, with the

constructionperiodincreasing, theexcessporewater

pressureshavealonger timetodissipate, andthesoil

strata can achieve a higher degree of consolidation,

gaining higher strength and stiffness, thus the wall

horizontal displacement decreasestoacertainextent.

On theother hand, thepit baseheaveincreases with

an increase in construction period. The influence of

constructionperiodongroundsettlement isrelatively

insignificant.

157

4 CONCLUSION

Based on Biots consolidation theory, finiteelement

equationswerededucedandacomputer programwas

developed.Theinfluenceof thekeyparameterssuchas

soil permeability,rigidityandtiersof supports,rigidity

of theretainingwall, andtheconstruction periodon

pit deformations is studied using the finite element

program. The study and the results reported in this

paper arehelpful toguideexcavationengineering.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

ThisresearchprojectwassupportedbytheChinaPost-

doctoral ScienceFoundation(No. 20060400672) and

InnovationFundof Shanghai University, China.

REFERENCES

Ou, C.Y., Chiou, D.C. & Wu, T.S. 1996. Three-dimensional

finite element analysis of deep excavation. Journal of

Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE 122(5):337345.

Vaziri, H.H. 1996. A simplenumerical model for analysisof

proppedembeddedretainingwalls. International Journal

of Solids Structures 33(16):23572376.

Whittle,A.J.,Hashash,Y.M.A.&Whitman,R.V.1993.Analy-

sisof deepexcavationinBoston. Journal of Geotechnical

Engineering, ASCE 119(1):6990.

Xie, K.H. & Zhou, J. 2002. Theory and Application of Finite

Element Analysis in Geotechnical Engineering. Science

Press, Beijing.

Yin, Z.Z., Zhu, H. &Xu, G.H. 1995. A studyof deformation

intheinterfacebetweensoil andconcrete. Computers and

Geotechnics 17:7592.

Zdravkovic, L., Potts, D.M. & St J ohn, H.D. 2005. Mod-

elling of a 3D excavation in finite element analysis.

Geotechnique 55(7):497513.

158

Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground Ng, Huang & Liu (eds)

2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-48475-6

Constructionmonitoringandnumerical simulationof anexcavation

withSMWretainingstructure

Z.H. Li & H.W. Huang

Key Laboratory of Geotechnical and Underground Engineering of Ministry of Education, Tongji University,

Shanghai, P.R. China

Department of Geotechnical Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai, P.R. China

ABSTRACT: The soil mixing wall (SMW) retaining structure is applied in two long strip excavations in

Shanghai. Firstly, thebearinganddeformingmechanismof SMWisanalyzedinbrief. Thestructural analysis

methodof SMWisdiscussed. Secondly, basedonthein-situexcavatingconstructionprocedures, theconstruction

stepsof excavatingandsupportingaresimulatedinthenumerical calculationwiththemethodof FastLagrangian

Analysisof Continua3D. Therearetwocasessimulatedinnumerical calculation, case1isthenormal casein

whichthesupportsareinstalledtimely, andcase2isacaseinwhichthesupportsarenotinstalledtimelybecause

of somereasons.Then, thedeformationof theretainingstructure, thehorizontal displacementatthetopof SMW

andtheaxial forces of steel pipesupports areanalyzedandcomparedwiththeactual observationdataintwo

cases. A goodagreement canbefoundbetweenthecalculationresultsandobservationdata. It canbeseenthat

incase1theexcavationisstableandsafe; theaxial forcesarelower thanthealarmvaluesandthedisplacement

duetoexcavatingisinthepermissiblerange. Incase2, however, theexcavationisindanger of instability and

somemeasuresshouldbetakentoprotect theSMWretainingstructurefromfailure.

1 INTRODUCTION

The composite structure with H-shaped steel and

deepcemented-soil pilesiscalledSMWmethod. This

methodcanbeappliedincohesivesoil, sandysoil and

sandy gravel layers. It has been widely accepted in

China, whichismainlyappliedtodeepexcavationsin

soft soilsof easternandsouthernChina.

Thispaperstudiesthebearinganddeformingmech-

anismof SMW. Basedonthein-situexcavationcon-

structionprocedures of theengineeringexample, the

construction steps of excavating and supporting are

simulated in the numerical simulation method with

FLAC3D. Becausetheexcavations aretoo long, the

methodof excavatingissimilar totunnel excavating,

whichis fromonesidetoanother. Andtherearetwo

cases simulated, oneis thenormal caseinwhichthe

supports areinstalled timely. However, in middleof

March 2007 during excavating, because of the bad

weatherandsomeotherreasons, thesupportswerenot

installedtimely so that theexcavationwas indanger

of collapse. Therefore, another caseisacaseinwhich

thesupportsarenot installedtimely.

Through comparing the actual observation data

in-situ and the calculation results, some useful con-

clusionsareachieved.

2 THE PROJ ECT GENERAL SITUATION

ANDMONITORINGSCHEME

2.1 The project general situation

Theundergroundchannels project contains two long

stripexcavations, theeasternandwesternexcavations,

which are similar to each other. The length is both

820.5m, andthewidthis16.5m.Theexcavationdepth

is between 6.645m8.039m. It is clear around the

constructionsite.

The foundation soil layers belong to Quater-

nary Pleistocene-Holocene deposit, including cohe-

sive soils, silt and sandy soils which distribute in

planes. The physico-mechanical parameters of soils

insiteareshownonTable1.

The650 SMW method is applied and steel pipe

supports are installed. The SMW retaining struc-

ture is 17m long in depth, which is inserted with

5002001016H-shapedsteels.Inordertofacil-

itatetheearthwork excavating, twosteel pipesupport

tiers including theupper and thelower supports are

installedconsideringthecharacteristic of theexcava-

tions. Theupper steel supportslocate1.0mbelowthe

groundsurface. Thelower steel supportslocate2.5m

above the excavation bottom. The sizes of the steel

159

Table1. Physico-mechanical parametersof soilsinsite.

Thesoil Depth C E

layers (m) (kN/m

3

) (KPa) (

) (MPa) j

Siltyclay 3 17.8 10.0 23.0 4.38 0.3

andclayey

silt

Sandysilt 2 18.2 4.0 29.0 4.78 0.33

Siltyclay 2 17.3 10.0 21.5 3.84 0.35

Sandysilt 2 17.6 3.0 25.5 5.08 0.3

andsilty

clay

Siltyclay 10 16.2 11.0 11.0 13.62 0.3

Clay 11 17.3 13.0 12.0 17.0 0.3

Figure1. General layoutof monitoringpoints: (a)Thesouth

section of the excavations; (b) The strain gauges welded

aroundthesupport.

supportsareall 60912. Thedistancebetweenthe

adjacent supportsis5m.

2.2 The monitoring scheme

Aroundthetwoexcavations, themonitoringpointsfor

thehorizontal displacement andsettlement at thetop

of theretainingstructurearelocatedaboutevery10m.

And they are numbered using E and W, in which E

denotes the eastern excavation, W denotes the west

excavation. There are all 324 monitoring points for

thetophorizontal displacement andsettlement of the

SMW in two excavations, as shown in Figure 1(a).

Because the excavations are so long that the south

sectionisgivenonly.

14 inclinometer tubes for lateral deformation of

SMW are set in every excavation. They are located

in the same distance about 100m symmetrically.

The location of every monitoring point is shown in

Figure1(a), in which ECX denotes theinclinometer

tubeintheeasternexcavationandWCX denotes the

inclinometer tubeinthewesternone.

In every excavation there are 6 pairs of monitor-

ing points for axial forces of supports, and every

pair hastwopointsincludingtheupper andthelower

supports.AsshowninFigure1(a), for example, EZC1

includestheupperEZC1andthelowerEZC1supports.

Therefore, there are 12 monitoring points for every

excavation, EZC denotes the axial force monitoring

pointsintheeasternexcavation, andWZCdenotesthe

western one. The distance between each pair moni-

toringpoints is about 120m. Thesteel straingauges

areweldedaroundthesteel pipesupportsasshownin

Figure1(b).

3 BEARINGANDDEFORMING

MECHANISM OF SMW

The cemented soil material that is produced gener-

ally has a higher strength, lower permeability, and

lower compressibility thanthenativesoil. Therefore,

theSMWmethodcanmakeit possibletoformwater-

preventingandearth-retainingwallsquicklybymixing

earth collected at a construction site with cement

slurry.Therigidityof theearthretainingwallswasfur-

ther enhancedbyformingacompoundearth-retaining

wall withH-shapedsteel materialsweldedwithstuds

thatactasstressmaterial arrangedwithintheimproved

soil walls. And under the suitable conditions, the

H-shapedsteelscanberecycled.

Stress-straincharacteristicsof SMWareextremely

complex duringthecourseof thepit excavation. The

curves of H-shaped steel strain are under the linear

elasticscope, butcemented-soil isnonlinearresponse,

andtherigiditychangesof compositestructuremainly

by thecemented-soil. It iscommonly consideredthat

theH-shapedsteelsbear all thelateral water andearth

pressureandthecementdeepmixingpilesareusedto

prevent water. However, it istestifiedthroughexperi-

mentsthatcementsoil canenhancetheH-shapedsteels

to reduce the deformation. In addition, the cement

soil can also haveconfinement effect to prevent the

H-shaped steels instability. The composite flexural

stiffnessis20%greaterthanonlyH-shapedsteels.The

stiffnessenhancingcoefficient candenotethedegree

of stiffnessenhancingasfollows:

whereE

cs

and E

s

aretheelastic modulus of cement

deepmixingpilewithH-shapedsteel andtheelastic

modulusof H-shapedsteel, respectively; I

cs

andI

s

are

theinertiamoment of cement deepmixingpilewith

H-shaped steel and the inertia moment of H-shaped

steel.

In this numerical calculation, the cement deep

mixing pile with H-shaped steel is equivalent to

diaphragmwall andtheinfluenceof stiffnessenhanc-

ing coefficient is considered. According to the

principlethat thestiffness is equal to eachother, the

equationisgivenby

160

Figure 2. The stiffness equivalence between SMW and

diaphragmwall.

Figure3. Elementsof model incase1.

Basedonequation(1), thus

Here, is considered as 1.2. The equivalent thick-

ness of diaphragm wall in this numerical calcu-

lation is h =0.65m and the Young modulus is

E =12.6GPa.Theequivalent figurefromSMWwith

H-shaped steels to diaphragmwall in this project is

shownasFigure2shown.

The interfaces are installed to simulate the inter-

face characteristics between the retaining structure

and thesoils. In FLAC3D, Interfaces havetheprop-

ertiesof friction, cohesion, dilation, normal andshear

stiffness, andtensileandshear bondstrength, which

are characterized by Coulomb sliding and/or tensile

andshearbonding. Inthiscomputation, theequivalent

diaphragmwall isconsideredaselasticity.

4 CALCULATIONCASE

4.1 Case 1

Becausetherearetwolongstripexcavationsandthey

aresimilar, onepartof theeasternexcavationischosen

tobesimulated.Themodel sizeis60minextent, 60m

inbreadthand30minheight. Themodel isshownin

Figure3.

Theearthworkssoilsforexcavatingaredividedinto

3layers. Thefirst layer is from0.0mto 2.0m, the

second layer is from2.0mto 6.5m, the third is

from6.5mto 8.0m. There are upper and lower

twosupportsinstalled, theupper supportsarelocated

at 1.0mandthelower supportsareat 6.5m. And

thedistancebetweentwoadjacentsupportsinydirec-

tionis5m. Therefore, thelengthof soilsexcavatedin

every layer is 5min y direction in every excavating

step.Becausetheexcavationistoolong,theexcavating

methodissimilar totunnel excavatingmethodwhich

is fromonesideto another. Theconstruction proce-

dureof excavatingandsupportingisdividedintolots

of steps, asfollows:

Theconstructionof SMW.

Thefirst layer is excavated5miny directionand

thefirst upper steel support isinstalled.

Thefirst andsecondlayersareexcavated5miny

directionandthesecondupper andthefirst lower

supportsareinstalled.

All thethreelayersareexcavated5minydirection,

andthethirdupper andthesecondlower supports

areinstalled.

Do this until the earthworks excavation is

completed.

The whole procedure of excavating steps and

installing supports is simulated by 3D numerical

method. Thereare11excavatingandsupportingsteps

except theconstructionof SMW.

In this numerical simulation calculation, the

mechanical soil behavior is modeled with Mohr-

Columnmodel andthesupportingstructuresarecon-

sidered as elastic model. Theinterfaces areinstalled

between SMW and soils. The top of the model, at

z=30m, is afreesurface. Thebaseof themodel, at

z=0m, is fixedinthez-direction, androller bound-

ariesareimposedonthesidesof themodel, atx=0m,

x=60m, andy=0m, y=60m.

4.2 Case 2

Inmiddleof March2007, becauseof thebadweather

and other reasons, the steel pipe supports were not

installedintime.Therewereabout30minlengthwith-

outsupportsfromtheexcavatingfacetothelattermost

supportsfor alongtime. Meanwhile, accordingtothe

in-situmeasurements, therewasasharpincrement in

horizontal displacement of thesoil mixingwall. This

caseissimulatedtoanalyzetheinfluence.

Inthis case, thematerial properties andboundary

conditions are same to case 1. The excavating and

supportingproceduresaresame, too.

5 RESULTS

5.1 Case 1

Inordertoanalyzethecalculationresultsconveniently,

some key points are set in the model, as shown in

161

Figure4. Thehorizontal displacement at pointA incase1.

Figure3. Firstly, thehorizontal displacementatthetop

of SMWisanalyzed.Thecurveof horizontal displace-

mentsatpoint A isshowninFigure4(a). Itcanbeseen

that thehorizontal displacement increasesbeforestep

6butthendecreasesinthefollowingsteps. Themaxi-

mumvalueis6.76mmatstep6andtheultimatevalue

is4.63mm. Accordingtotheexcavatingstepsincalcu-

lation,whentheexcavatingfaceexceedspoint Aabout

15m, thevalueof thehorizontal displacement begins

todecline. Theactual observationdatafor point A is

showninFigure4(b). Itcanbeseenthattheactual val-

uesarebigger thanthecalculationresults. Thecurve

ismonotoneincreasingby stepsandtendstobecon-

stant after havingreachedacertainlevel. Itsultimate

valueis 10.4mm. Thecalculation result of thehori-

zontal displacement at point A is muchless thanthe

observationvalue.

The curves of calculation results with excavating

stepsandtheobservationdatawithdatefor thehori-

zontal displacement of theretainingstructureinline

B areshowninFigure5. Accordingtothecalculation

results, its maximumhorizontal displacement of the

SMWoccursatthepointof 6.5mdepth,anditsvalueis

22.35mm.AsshowninFigure5(a), whentheexcavat-

ingfacereachesthelineBatstep3, thedeformationof

SMWincreasesdramatically.Whenithaspassedaway

fromline B about 20m, the deformation increases

Figure5. Thehorizontal displacement of theSMWinline

B incase1.

slowly.Figure5(b)showstheobservationcurveof hor-

izontal displacement of SMWinlineB withthedate.

A rathergoodagreementcanbefoundbetween(a) and

(b). Accordingtotheobservationdata, themaximum

horizontal displacement inlineB occurredat point of

5.0mdepthanditsvalueis26.8mm, whichisgreater

thanthemaximumcalculationvalueby4.45mm.With

theexcavatingfaceadvancing, thedeformationincre-

mentisbecomingsmaller. Fromtheactual observation

dataandcalculationresults, itcanbeseenthatthehori-

zontal displacementof theSMWmainlyoccurreddur-

ingtheperiodof excavatingsurfacepassingthisline.

The curves of axial forces of the steel pipe sup-

ports C and D with excavating steps are shown in

Figure6(a). Thefinal axial forceof theupper support

C is657.60kN, andthelower support Dis1467.7kN

in calculation results. As shown in Figure 6(b), the

observationdataisgreaterthanthecalculationresults.

Themaximumaxial forceof theupper support C is

995.83kN, andthelowersupportDis1575.7kN. Both

C andDhaveanascendingfirstlyandthendeclining

processwithlapseof timeinactual observation. This

isbecausethefoundationmat boreapart of soil pres-

surewithitspouringandstrengthening. However, the

procedureof pouringandstrengtheningof foundation

matisnotsimulatedinnumerical calculation. Sothere

162

Figure6. Theaxial forceof supportsC andDincase1.

is no decliningtrendof axial forces. But intheearly

stage, thetrendandshapeof calculationresultscurve

withexcavatingstepsandobservationdatacurvewith

dateisagreedgenerally.AsshowninFigure6(b),on28

April thelower support Dwasremoved, therefore, the

axial forceof theuppersupportChadasignificantrise

by102.5kN. However, incalculationthisprocedureis

not simulated.

Through analysis, it can be seen the values of

observation data are greater than the calculation

results universally. The main discrepancy between

calculation and measure can be explained that the

physico-mechanical parametersof soilsarenot accu-

rateenough. However, inreality, thisareawaslessstiff

thaninitiallyplanned.Accordingtothenumerical sim-

ulationandtheactual observationdata, theexcavation

is stableif thesteel pipesupports canbeinstalledin

time. The numerical results and actual data of axial

forces arelower thanthealarmvalues. Thedisplace-

ment duetoexcavatingisinthepermissiblerange.

5.2 Case 2

In case2, thenumerical calculation model is shown

in Figure7. Figure8 shows thehorizontal displace-

ment of themodel and theaxial forces of steel pipe

supportsatlaststep. Itcanbeseenthemaximumhori-

zontal displacementatthetopof SMWoccursatpoint

Figure7. Elementsof model incase2.

Figure8. Thehorizontal displacement andtheaxial forces

of steel pipesupportsincase2.

Figure9. Thehorizontal displacement of point E incase2.

E with 48.96mm, as shown in Figure 7. The curve

of horizontal displacementsat point E whenexcavat-

ing fromstep 1 to step 11 is shown in Figure 9. It

canbeseenthedisplacement at point E isnearlyzero

before step 6 until the excavating face passes point

E. With the excavating face advancing after step 6,

thedisplacementincreasessignificantly.Accordingto

calculationresults, themaximumhorizontal displace-

ment of SMWoccursat thepoint of 3mdepth, which

is in lineF, and its valueis 50.44mm. As shown in

Figure10, thehorizontal displacementof SMWinline

Fdevelopsslightlyuntil theexcavatingfacepassesthis

lineat step6. Becausethesupports arenot installed

nearthisline, thedeformationof SMWdevelopsmore

rapidly. Inactual observation, therearethreepointsof

which horizontal displacements in lineF aregreater

than the alarmvalue with 50mm. The axial forces

163

Figure10. Thehorizontal displacementof theSMWinline

F incase2.

Figure11. Theaxial forcesof supportsGandHincase2.

of lastly installedsupports G andH aremuch larger

becauseof withoutinstallationof subsequentsupports.

The axial force of support G is 1924.50kN, and H

is 2095.60kN. Thecurves of theaxial forces of sup-

portsGandH withtheexcavatingstepsareshownin

Figure11. Accordingto calculationresults, theaxial

forces of G and H are much greater than the adja-

cent supports by 903.75kN for upper support and

546.00kN for lower support. Compared with Figure

6(a), themagnitudeis much greater. Theaxial force

of Gexceedsthealarmvaluewiththeupper supports

for 1500kN and H exceeds thealarmvalueof lower

supportsfor 2000kN.

TherearetwoinclinometertubesECX2andECX13

for lateral deformation of SMW around this site.

According to the observation data of 19 March

and 20 March, the velocity of horizontal displace-

ment exceeded the alarmvalue of 3mm/d for two

days between the depth of 5m8m at ECX13.

The velocity values were 4.18mm/d, 3.97mm/d,

3.64mm/d and 3.20mm/d when the depths are 5m,

6m, 7mand 8mrespectively on 19 March. More-

over, thevelocity valueswere5.18mm/d, 5.66mm/d,

4.98mm/dand3.44mm/dinthenextday. Meanwhile,

thevelocitiesof horizontal displacement weregreater

than3mm/dinthedepthfrom1mto12matECX2on

19March, whichwereover 10mm/dwithin3mfrom

thetopof SMW.

According to the results of numerical simulation

andactual observationdata, itwaspossibletocollapse

for this excavation because the supports were not

installed in time. The risk was existent so the cor-

responding measures should be taken. After being

alarmed, the construction team stopped excavating

and installed the supports speedily. Its turned out

that themeasures arevery effectiveaccordingto the

subsequent observeddata.

6 CONCLUSIONS

Inthispaper, firstly, thebearinganddeformingmech-

anism of SMW is analyzed in brief; secondly, the

constructionmonitoringschemeisintroduced; thirdly,

a 3D numerical simulation of this long stripe exca-

vation is described, including all the components of

theproject(theSMWconstruction,steppedexcavation

andsupports installation); thenthenumerical results

arecomparedwiththeactual datain-situobservation.

The3D numerical methodcansimulatethewhole

excavation construction very well. A good agree-

ment can befound between thenumerical results

and the actual observation data except for some

small deviations.

Theexcavationisstableandthedisplacement due

toexcavatingisinthepermissiblerangeif thesteel

pipesupportsarestalledtimely. However, because

of badweatherandotherreasonsthesteel pipesup-

portsarenotinstalledintimeandwithoutsupports

for alongtime, suchascase2, theexcavationisin

danger of collapse.

Accordingtothein-situobservationdata, thecon-

structionteamcantakecorrespondingmeasuresto

protecttheexcavationawayfromsomeundesirable

eventsandrisks.

REFERENCES

Commend, S. Geiser, F. & Crisinel, J. 2004. Numerical sim-

ulation of earthworks and retaining systemfor a large

excavation. Advances in Engineering Software Vol. 35:

669678.

Li, J.C. Zhang, Z.Y. & Xu, Q 2005. Study on three-

dimension numerical simulation of deformation of the

deep-foundationpit withexcavation. Journal of Nanjing

University of Technology 27(3): 17.

Liu, H.Y. et al 2006. Numerical analysis on excavation

safety of deep foundation engineering. Chinese Journal

of Geotechnical Engineering 28(Supp): 14411444.

Liu, J.G. & Zeng, Y.W. 2006. Application of FLAC3D to

simulation of foundation excavation and support. Rock

and Soil Mechanics 27(3): 505508.

Liu, J.H. & Hou, X.Y. 1997. The Handbook of Founda-

tion Engineering, Beijing: ChinaArchitecture&Building

Press. 569572.

Zhang,P&Liu,R.H.2000.TheApplicationof SMWMethod

inFoundationPit.Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and

Engineering 19(Supp): 11041107.

164

Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground Ng, Huang & Liu (eds)

2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-48475-6

A simplifiedspatial methodologyof earthpressureagainst

retainingpilesof pile-rowretainingstructure

Y.L. Lin

Geotechnical Research Institute, Hohai University, Nanjing, P.R. China

Key Laboratory for Geotechnical Engineering of Ministry of Water Resource, Hohai University, Nanjing, P.R. China

X.X. Li

Key Laboratory of Geotechnical and Underground Engineering of Ministry of Education, Tongji University,

Shanghai, P.R. China

Department of Geotechnical Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai, P.R. China

ABSTRACT: Pile-rowretainingstructureiswidelyadoptedintheexcavationof deepfoundationpit. Inthesup-

portingsystem, retainingpilesarethemainbearingmembers. Itisextremelyimportanttoobtainthemagnitude

anddistributionof earthpressureagainstretainingpiles. Basedonthemodeof failure, anewmethodologyispro-

posedtoevaluatetheearthpressureagainstretainingpilesof pile-rowretainingstructure.Intheproposedmethod,

bothspatial effect andintermediateprincipal stresseffect areconsidered. Finally, themethodologyisappliedto

practiceengineering. It is demonstratedthat thestrengththeory has moreinfluenceonearthpressureandthe

potential strengthof fillingmaterialsissufficientlydevelopedunder theguidanceof theunitedstrengththeory.

1 INTRODUCTION

Thepressureagainst theback of aretainingstructure

causedbybackfill andsurchargeonthegroundsurface

is a classical problemof soil mechanics. It is influ-

enced by retaining structuretypes, movement mode,

stiffnessandcontactconditionsbetweensoil andstruc-

ture(Fang& Ishibashi, 1986; Harrop-Willrams,1989;

Zhou,1990; Fang et al., 1994; Wang, 2000; Pal &

Salgado, 2003). Inaddition, thedistortionof soil mass

has acertaineffect ontheearthpressure. Beforethe

soil achievesbreakage,themagnitudeof earthpressure

cannotbedetermined. Evenif itreacheslimitstate, the

earthpressurecannotalsobecalculatedbecauseinner

soil masscannotsynchronouslyarriveatlimitequilib-

riumstate. Sothereliableparameter of soil cannot be

acquired. Thus, to apply inpracticeexpediently, it is

usuallyassumedthesoil isonideal failurestate.

In theexcavation of deep foundation pit pile-row

retainingstructureiswidelyadopted.Inthesupporting

system, retaining piles are the main bearing mem-

bers. It isveryimportant toobtainthemagnitudeand

distribution of earth pressureagainst retaining piles.

Because of failure mechanismof soil behind piles,

theinfluenceof interactionbetweenretainingstructure

andsoil onearthpressurecantbeachievedaccurately

accordingtoclassical earthpressuretheory. Soearth

pressureshouldbetakenasthespatial problemrather

thanplaneproblem. Mohr-Coulombstrengththeoryis

usually introducedinto thecomputationanalysis and

theinfluenceof intermediateprincipal stressisomit-

ted. However, plenty of experiments reveal the soil

strength varies with theintermediateprincipal stress

(Yu,2004),whichisquitedifferentfromwhathasbeen

depicted in the conventional Mohr-Coulomb theory.

Theunified strength theory is asystemof yield and

failurecriteriaof material sunder complexstresses. It

hasaclear physicsandmechanicsbackground, auni-

fied mathematical model, and a simple and explicit

criterion which includes all independent stress com-

ponentsandsimplematerial parameters(Yu, 2002).

In this study, a new methodology based on the

plasticslimitanalysisisproposedtoevaluatetheearth

pressureagainst retaining piles of pile-rowretaining

structurebasedonthemodeof failure. Intheproposed

method, bothspatial effect andintermediateprincipal

stresseffect areconsidered. Thesolutionof theequa-

tionisobtained, givingatheoretical resultfortheearth

pressureonretainingpiles.

2 UNIFIEDSTRENGTHTHEORY

Based on atwin-shear element and themultipleslip

mechanism,YuandHe(1992) establishedtheunified

strength theory. It has a unified model and simple

165

Figure1. Varietiesof theunifiedstrengththeoryondevia-

toricplane(Yu, 2004).

unified mathematical expression that is suitable for

various materials (Yu, 1994). The unified strength

theory covers all the regions fromthe lower bound

to upper bound, as shown in Figure 1. The unified

strength theory considers the different contributions

of all stress components actingonthestress element

totheyieldor failureof materials.

Themathematical modelingisexpressedasfollows

(Yuet al., 2002):

If it is prescribed that press stress is positive,

Equation(1) andEquation(2) canberewrittenas

wherec

0

=cohesion,

0

=frictionangle, b =unified

strength parameter that reflects theinfluences of the

intermediate principal stress on the yielding of the

material (0b1),

t

and

c

are uniaxial tensile

strength and compressive strength, respectively, and

istensile-compressivestrengthratio.

IntroducingLodeparameter j

, thus

SubstitutingEquation(5) intoEquation(3) and(4),

letting

The unified cohesion c

t

and the unified friction

angle

t

canbedefinedas

According to Mohr circularity of stress state at a

point, theunifiedexpressionof shear strengthcanbe

obtained

3 FAILURE MODE OF SOIL HEHINDPILES

For pile-rowretainingstructure, thearchingeffect in

the retaining soil mass occurs (Hu et al., 2000). It

is a stress redistribution process by which stress is

transferred around a region of the soil mass, which

then becomes subject to lower stresses. So theearth

pressureactingon piles is enhanced, whiletheearth

pressureonsoil aroundpilesisdepressed.Thesmaller

ispilespace, thestronger issoil archingeffect. Andit

ismorepropitioustothestabilityof foundationpit.

3.1 Simple shear failure mode

Figure2showsthefailuremodeA homogeneousfoun-

dationpitof depthH andthenetspaceBisconsidered.

166

Figure2. Simpleshear failuremodeof soil mass between

piles.

Figure3. Rip-shearfailuremodeof soil massbetweenpiles.

Thesoil wedgeisassumedtoberigidandslidealonea

planar surface. Thecritical inclinationof failureplane

isexpressedas.

WhenB2b 0,simpleshearfailuremodeoccurs,

letting

AccordingtoEquation(10), thefailureconditionof

simpleshear failuremodecanbeobtainedas

whereH

cr

=critical height of failuremode.

3.2 Rip-shear failure mode

Rip-shear failure mode will arise when H >H

cr

, as

showninFigure3.Thesoil massbehindpilesisdivided

into two portions fromthecritical height H

cr

. Above

theheight H

cr

, thesoil is rip failure, and it is shear

failurebelowtheheight H

cr

.

4 CALCULATIONOF ACTIVE EARTH

PRESSURE

4.1 Earth pressure of simple shear failure mode

Figure4(a) showsthemechanismof simpleshear fail-

ure. Thesinglepileendures theearthpressureof the

Figure 4. Schematic for earth pressure of simple shear

failure.

regionsoil of blockBCDB

. Itisassumedthatthe

soil is perfectly plastic andtheir deformationis gov-

ernedbytheassociativeflowrule. Then, Kinematical

admissibility requires thevelocity jumpvector, v, be

inclined to the velocity discontinuity at angle

t

, as

presentedinFigure4(b).

The Cartesian coordinates systemestablished for

the present analysis is shown in Figure 4(a). The

point C istheoriginof theCartesiancoordinatessys-

tem, andplaneXY islevel plane. SectionAC (or A

)

isslippagetangentof fracturesurfaceBCC

, anditis

inclinedtothevelocitydiscontinuityatangle

t

. Slim-

ily, thevelocityof fracturesurfaceBCDandB

is

atanangle

t

totheslippagetangentDC andD

. In

theplaneBCD, accordingtothedirectional derivative

of thevelocityv, theangle canbeobtainedas

Therateof workof soil weightcanbecalculatedas

theworkrateof blockABC-A

plustheworkrates

for blocks C-BAD andC

-B

. Consequently, this

workratetakestheform

where =the soil unit weight, d =the diameter of

pile, f

1

isafunction, it canbedeterminedas

Duetothehomogeneoussoil massesbeingrigid,the

internal energyisonlydissipatedalongtheslidingsur-

face.Theworkdissipationratecanbecalculatedasthe

167

work dissipationrateof block CC

DD

plusthework

dissipationratesfor blocks DBC andD

. Conse-

quently, thisdissipationworkratecanbecalculatedas

where

Sincesoil-pileinterfacecanbeconsideredasveloc-

itydiscontinuityrather thanstresscharacteristic, ideal

plastic model is not applicableto theinterfacemate-

rial. The relative movement between soil and pile,

whichdependsontheinterfacecharacteristicsandthe

property of theadjacent soil, is not always of purely

frictional sliding. If it is assumedthat thetotal hori-

zontal earthpressureinducedbysoil massisP

au

. The

frictionangleof soil-pileinterfaceis.Twoconditions

areconsideredinthefollowing.

1 Smoothpile( <

t

)

Theexternal work ratecontributedbytheresultant

horizontal earthpressureP

au

is

Theworkdissipationratealongpilesurfaceis

Equatingtherateof internal energy dissipationto

therateof theexternal work, wecanobtain

2 Roughpile(

t

)

Theexternal work ratecontributedbytheresultant

horizontal earthpressureP

au

is

Theworkdissipationratealongpilesurfaceis

Similarly, equatingtherateof internal energy dis-

sipationtotherateof theexternal work, theresultant

horizontal earthpressurecanbeobtained

Figure5. Schematicfor earthpressureof rip-shear failure.

4.2 Earth pressure of rip-shear failure mode

Therip-shear failuremechanismfor thepresent anal-

ysisisshowninFigure5.Theearthpressureactingon

singlepileisinducedbytheregionsoil massFCDG-

G

.Similartotheearthpressureof simpleshear

failure mode, the rate of work due to the soil mass

weight canbeexpressedas

where

whereS =thecenter distanceof twoadjacent piles.

For the rigid material considered, the internal

energy is only dissipated along the sliding surface

and the interface surface of soil-pile. The rate of

energy dissipation along the sliding surface can be

expressedas

168

Figure6. Relationsbetweentheunifiedstrengthparametersandthesoil strength.

where

Theratedissipationalongtheinterfacesurfaceof

soil-pile is similar to the Equation (16) and (19).

For Smooth pile ( -

t

), according to the energy

conversationlaw, wecanobtain

Similarly,forroughpile(

t

),thetotal horizontal

earthpressureP

au

canbederivedas

Accordingly, thecorrespondingresultant P

a

acting

onthepileis

The magnitude of active earth pressure can be

obtained fromEquation (25). Obviously, for agiven

example, theresultant P

a

is only determinedby fail-

ureangle. Bytakingthefirstderivativesof Equation

(25) with respect to , and equating it to zero and

solving it, wecan obtain thecritical angle

cr

. Sub-

stituting

cr

intoEquation(25), wehavethemaximal

upper-boundfor theactiveearthpressure.

5 RESULTSANDDISCUSSION

Toevaluatethevalidityof theproposedmethod, apile-

row retaining structure without anchor is analyzed.

Numerical resultsarepresentedandcompared.

5.1 Effects of the unified strength parameters on

soil parameters

Theinfluences of theunifiedstrengthparameters on

soil mass strength are represented in Figure 6 for

0

=15

varies with the variety in the value of the unified

strengthb. Thesoil mass parameters of c

t

and

t

are

piece-wisefunctionsandtheyachieveextremumwhen

j

=sin

0

.

5.2 Effects of the unified strength parameters on

failure mode

Figure 7 presents the effects of the unified strength

parameters on critical height H

cr

for =17kN/m

3

,

0

=15

H

cr

decreases with the increase in the value of b.

Figure7(a) and Figure7(b) also show theinfluence

of S andpilediameter d. For c

0

=0, thecritical height

increases with the increase in the value of S, while

it decreases with the increase of d. It is also clear

169

Figure7. Influenceof theunifiedstrengthparametersoncritical height H

cr

.

that under thesameconditionsH

cr

decreaseswiththe

increaseof c

0

or inFigure7(c) andFigure7(d).

5.3 Effects of the unified strength parameters on

active earth pressure

Based on the unified strength theory, the values

of active earth pressure is shown in Table 1 for

=17kN/m

3

,

0

=15

, H =10m, d =1.0m, c

0

=0.

The proposed formula can be degenerated into the

expressions inducedby Mohr-Coulombstrengththe-

ory. From the table, it is found that the strength

Table1. Effectsof theunifiedstrengthparametersonactive

earthpressure.

b =0 b =0.5 b =1

0 483.6 483.6 414.9 396.3 378.8 350.0

15 364.1 364.1 305.4 378.8 275.5 252.0

b =0issimplifiedtoMohr-Coulombtheory; b =1istwin

shear theory. Situation (1) represents j

(2) isj

=sin

0.

170

theory has moreprodigious influences on theactive

pressure. The resultant earth pressure P

a

decreases

withtheincreaseinunifiedstrengthparameter b. For

j

earth pressure P

a

decreases by about 21.7%. Simi-

larly, theearth pressureP

a

is also influenced by the

Lodeparameter j

.

6 CONCLUSIONS

The estimation of active earth pressures acting on

retaining piles is very important in geotechnical

design. However, unlike the assumption used in the

analysisof Coulomb, whichgenerallycalculatesearth

pressureaccordingto planestrain, theearthpressure

behindthepiles shouldbetakenas thespatial prob-

lem.Thisisduetoarchingeffectsintheretainingsoil,

whichresultfromthefrictional resistancebetweenthe

pilesandthesoil.

In this paper, a new methodology is proposed to

evaluatetheearth pressureagainst retaining piles of

pile-rowretainingstructure.Theadvantageof thepro-

posedmethodliesinthefactthatbothspatial effectand

intermediateprincipal stresseffectareconsidered. Itis

indicatedthat thestrengththeory has moreinfluence

onearthpressureandthepotential strengthof filling

materialsissufficientlydevelopedunder theguidance

of the united strength theory. But the methodology

requiresexperiment or fieldverification.

REFERENCES

Fang, Y. & Ishibashi, I. 1986. Static earth pressures with

various wall movements. Journal of Geotechnical Engi-

neering, ASCE, 112(3):317333.

Fang,Y.S.,Chen,T.J.&Wu,B.F.1994.Passiveearthpressures

with various walls movements. Journal of Geotechnical

Engineering, ASCE, 128(8):651659.

Harrop-Willrams, K.O. 1989. Geostaticwall pressures. Jour-

nal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 115(9):1321

1325.

Hu, M.Y., Xia, Y.C. & Gao, Q.Q. 2000. Calculationprinci-

ple of earth pressure against retaining piles of pile-row

retaining structure. Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics

and Engineering, 19(3):376379.

Palk, K.H. & Salgado, R. 2003. Estimation of activeearth

pressureagainst rigidretainingwallsconsideringarching

effects. Geotechnique, 53(7):643653.

Wang,Y.Z. 2000. Distributionof earthpressureonaretaining

wall. Geotechnique, 50(1):8388.

Yu, M.H. 2004. Unifiedstrengththeoryanditsapplications.

Berlin: Springer.

Yu, M.H. 2002.Advanceinstrengththeoryof materialsunder

complex state in the 20th Century. Applied Mechanics

Reviews, 53(3):159218.

Yu, M.H. 1994. Unified strength theory for geomaterials

and its applications. Chinese Journal of Geotechnical

Engineering, 14(2):110.

Yu, M.H., He, L.N. & Liu, C.Y. 1992. Generalized twin

shear stressyieldcriterionanditsgeneralization. Chinese

Science Bulletin, 37(24):20852089.

Yu, M.H., Zan, Y.W. & Zhao, J. 2002. A unified strength

criterionfor rock material. International Journal of Rock

Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 39:975989.

Zhou, Y.Y. & Ren, M.L. 1990. Experimental study of the

active earth pressure on rigid retaining wall. Chinese

Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 12(2):1926.

171

Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground Ng, Huang & Liu (eds)

2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-48475-6

Considerationof designmethodfor bracedexcavationbasedon

monitoringresults

H. Ota, H. Ito&T.Yanagawa

Osaka Municipal Transportation Bureau, Osaka, Japan

A. Hashimoto

Kotsu Service Co., Ltd., Osaka, Japan

T. Hashimoto&T. Konda

Geo-Research Institute, Osaka, Japan

ABSTRACT: A comparisonbetweenobserveddataanddesignvalueof earthretainingwall deflectiondueto

bracedexcavationwascarriedoutinsoftandsensitiveclaygroundof someconstructionsitesof OsakaSubway

LineNo.8.Thebeam-springmodel wasemployedinthebraceddesignmethod, anditwastakenintoaccountthe

characteristicsof theOsakasoft ground, andtherewasgoodagreement betweentheobserveddataanddesign

valueinpast results. Accordingtothis comparison, theobservedwall deflectionwas larger thanthedesigned

oneinsomeconstructionsites consistedof thesoft andsensitiveclay layer with10to 20mthickness. Inthis

paper, themeasuringprocessof thehorizontal coefficient of subgradereactionk

h

intheexcavationsideof soft

claylayer isdiscussed.Asthevalueof k

h

becamesmall dependedonthewall deflection, thenewknowledgehas

beenemployedonthedesignmethod. It isfoundthat thecalculationwiththereviseddesignmethodagreewell

withthemonitoringdata.

1 INTRODUCTION

In densely populated city, it is necessary to use the

undergroundspacehighlyandeffectivelyforthedevel-

opment of city. It is believed that the demand for

much deeper underground excavation will increase

gradually. Therefore an applicable design method is

demandedfor deep, safeandeconomical excavation.

OsakaMunicipal TransportationBureau(OMTB)sug-

gested an original design method for braced exca-

vation based on the characteristics of the Osaka

groundandsubway constructions. At eachconstruc-

tion site (elevens stations and railway depot) where

opencut methodwasadoptedinOsakaSubway Line

No.8, bracedexcavationdesignbasedonthisoriginal

designguidelinewascarriedout,andtheobservational

methodwasalsoutilizedeffectively.

Inthispaper, somecomparisonsbetweenobserved

dataanddesign valueof earth retainingwall deflec-

tionduetobracedexcavationhavebeencarriedouton

softandsensitiveclaygroundof twoconstructionsites

of OsakaSubway LineNo.8. Theevaluationmethod

for design has been described based on the ground

properties.

2 CHARACTERISTICSOF THE MODIFIED

BEAM SPRINGMODEL

East andWest sides of Osaka ground areconsistent

withtheHolocenelayers(softclayandloosesand),but

Pleistocenelayersexist aroundthegroundsurfaceof

Uemachi plateau. Thewater levelsarehighinuncon-

finedandconfinedaquifers, alsothepermeability of

theseaquifersarelarge.

Thebeam-springmodel for thebracedexcavation,

whichisindicatedinStandardSpecificationsforTun-

nel [OpenCutTunnel]publishedbytheJ apanSociety

of Civil Engineers(J SCE, 2006), isfrequentlyimple-

mentedasawidelyusablemethodinJ apan. However,

sincetheresultof thepredictionof wall deflectionand

strut forcearenot alwaysconsistent withtheobserva-

tiondata, OMTB proposedthemodifiedbeamspring

design method (OMTB, 1993) (Kishio et al., 1997)

173

which can consider the characteristics of Osaka

groundandtheconditionsof subwayconstruction.

Theoutlineof theOMTB model isshowninFigure1.

2.1 Active lateral pressure above the excavation

bottom

Becausetherearesomepossibilities of gap between

the braced wall and back ground, the active earth

pressureisestimatedbyRankine-Resalsequationwith

thewater pressure. Insandy layer, thewater pressure

isassumedashydrostaticpressure. Inclayeylayer, the

water headof theupper sandylayer isextendedinthis

clayeylayer.

2.2 Active lateral pressure below the excavation

bottom

In thecaseof sufficient penetration depth of braced

wall, the wall deflection near the tip is small and

the lateral pressure is kept as the initial condition.

So, if theactivelateral pressureis defined basically

only by thelimit equilibriumtheory, therearesome

cases which the wall deflection is overestimated by

givingmuchlateral pressure.Therefore, theactivelat-

eral pressurewhichisdeeper thanthebottomlayer of

excavationisgraduallydecreasingintheareaof trian-

gleformedfromthelateral pressureat thebottomof

theexcavationtothetipof wall.

2.3 Resisting lateral pressure of the excavated

ground

Resisting lateral pressure of the excavated ground

is the multiplication of the coefficient of horizontal

Figure1. Theconcept of themodifiedbeamspringmodel

(presentedbyOMTB, 1993).

subgradereaction and thewall deflection. However,

this value should not exceed the coefficient of the

passivelateral pressurewhichisthesubtractionfrom

limit passive lateral pressure defined by Coulombs

equationtothelateral pressureat rest.

2.4 Water pressure in clayey ground

Sinceit is difficult to distinguish thewater pressure

fromthelateral pressureinclayeyground, lateral pres-

sureis often identified as theintegration of soil and

water. Ontheother hand, it is consideredthat soil is

separatedfromwater inmodifiedbeam-springmodel.

Because the pore water pressure acts on the braced

wall hydrostatically, thewater pathispossiblyformed

betweenthewall andtheback grounddueto braced

excavation.

For these reasons, the effective stress method is

adopted in both sandy layer and clayey layer. The

groundwater table in clayey ground is taken on the

higher gravitational pressuredistributionbycompari-

sonbetweentheupper water-bearinglayer anddown

sidewater-bearinglayer.

2.5 Supported effect of covering plates

Becausetheeffectof depressingthewall deflectionis

recognized when thecovering plates areconstructed

inthesamedirectionasstruts, thesupportedeffect of

coveringplatesisconsideredby reducing10%of the

spring-beamcoefficient.

2.6 Horizontal coefficient of subgrade reaction of

excavated side

The coefficient of subgrade reaction k

h

used in the

J SCE model is taken into consideration the geo-

metrical effect related to the difference of loaded

width based on some plate loading test results per-

formednear thegroundsurface. However, thelateral

pressure acts on the horizontal direction against the

earth retaining wall, because the wall is installed

to thevertical direction in subway construction site.

Therefore, it is not always appropriate to apply the

coefficient of subgrade reaction used in the J SCE

model tobracedexcavationdesigndirectly. Sointhe

OMTB model, the coefficient of subgrade reaction

is expressedas equation(1) and(2) (Yanagidaet al.,

1981) empirically.

174

3 COMPARISONSBETWEENOBSERVATION

ANDDESIGNOF BRACEDWALL

DEFLECTION

The comparison between observed data and design

valueof earthretainingwall deflectionduetobraced

excavation was carried out in soft and sensitiveclay

groundof No.8Lineconstructionsites.

In general, the design value can estimate the

observeddataappropriatelyinmostconstructionsites.

Butinsomesensitiveandsoftalluvial claylayer accu-

mulate from10mto 20mthick, observed data are

larger than the design value due to braced excava-

tion. The causes for these phenomena are described

asfollows.

Figure2. Crosssection(A site).

Table1. Earthretainingwall andeachstrut (A site).

Soil mixingwall (H-steel) condition

Size Pitch Length EI Area

(mm) S(m) L(m) (kNm

2

/m) A(m

2

)

H-5883001220 0.60 27.25 399000 0.01925

Excavationcondition Strut condition

Depth Depth

Size Span Pitch Area

Step (GL-m) Stage (GL-m) (mm) L(m) S(m) A(m

2

)

0th 1.51 Cover beam 0.51 H-5883001220 16.25 2.00 0.01925

1st 4.50 1st 3.50 H-3003001015 14.76 2.50 0.01048

2nd 7.00 2nd 6.00 H-3003001015 14.86 2.50 0.01048

3rd 8.70 3rd 7.70 H-3003001015 14.66 2.50 0.01048

4th 11.20 4th 10.20 H-3003001015 14.76 2.50 0.01048

5th 13.90 5th 12.90 H-3503501219 14.46 2.50 0.01549

6th 16.45 6th 15.45 H-3503501219 14.46 2.50 0.01549

7th 19.05 7th 18.05 H-3503501219 14.46 2.50 0.01549

8th 21.55

3.1 A-site

Thelayer of thisA-sitegroundconsistsof thealluvial

layer,upperlowerPleistocenefromthegroundsurface.

The uniformity coefficient of this fine sand Aus

is small, and is called the first water-bearing layer.

Thealluvial clayeylayerAucissensitive(N-value =0

to 3, liquid limit I

L

=0.4 to 1.0, cohesion c =20 to

100kN/m

2

),andistypical softgroundinthisconstruc-

tionsite. Ontheother hand, under thealluvial layer,

theupper Pleistocenesandyandgravel layer Tsg(the

secondwater-bearinglayer),thelowerPleistoceneclay

layer Oc3(OsakaGroup, MarineClayMa3, c =about

400kN/m

2

) and the lower Pleistocene sandy layer

Os3 (OsakaGroup, thethird water-bearing layer, N-

value >60) aredeposited continuously to horizontal

direction.

Thecrosssectionof A-siteisshowninFigure2, the

wall andstrutsconditionsareshowninTable1andthe

soil parametersareshowninTable2. Inthisconstruc-

tionsite, theseepagecontrol methodwasadoptedby

extendingtheearthretainingwall tothelowpermeable

layer Oc3, excavationwidthis16.2m, thefinal exca-

vationdepthis GL-21.5mandthepenetrationdepth

is4.8m.

Figure3shows thecomparisonbetweenobserved

dataanddesignvalueof theearthretainingwall deflec-

tion. Theobserved wall deflections in east and west

sidesaresymmetrictill the4thstep.Itisconfirmedthat

thedesignvaluecanestimatestheactual phenomenon

adequately. However, sincethe5thstep, theobserved

wall deflection of west sidewas larger than theeast

side, whichcanbeseenfromtheresultsof the8thstep

175

in Figure3. It can beassumed that thecauseof this

phenomenonwas thedifferenceof constructionpro-

cessanddevelopmental patternof creepdeformation.

Moreover,theobserveddataexceededthedesignvalue

at thewest side. It was consideredthat this disparity

occurredfor thereasonthat theplasticzoneunder the

excavationbottomexpandedintheAmcandTsglayer

fromthe5thstepdrastically. Inaddition, it was con-

firmedthatthestressinthewall wascontrolledwithin

theallowablestress.

In theexcavation stageat theAmc layer, thecal-

culation result considering the 75%stress reduction

under the5mfromtheexcavationbottomwasshown

together inFigure3. Duringanexcavationincohesive

Table2. Soil parameters(A site).

Bottom Internal

Soil depth Cohision friction E

50

layer (GL-m) N-value c (kN/m

2

) angle (

) (MN/m

2

)

B 1.8 2 0 19.3

Auc 4.9 4 42 0 4.1

Aus 8.3 2 0 19.3

Amc1 13.8 0 29 0 4.7

Amc2 16.8 1 60 0 6.9

Amc3 19.4 4 91 0 15.9

Alc 21.8 6 108 0 15.9

Tsg 25.4 26 0 32.7

Oc3 31.6 14 360 0 83.6

Figure3. Comparisonbetweenobservationanddesignvalueof bracedwall deflection(B site, (a) : the4thstep, (b) : the8th

step).

soil, if anexcavationstagetakesalongtime, thesuc-

tionof thesubgradesoil will disappearduetoswelling

causedbythewater infiltrationfromcontinuousrain-

fall, whichleadstoreductioninstrength(Hashimoto

et al., 1997). In conjunction with this arrangement,

the ultimate passive lateral pressure and coefficient

of subgradereactionwerereduced. Thisphenomenon

wasverifiedbytheconsolidationwithun-drainedtri-

axial compressiontest,inwhichshearstrengthreduced

to 70% after the suction was disappear completely

and after measuring the water pressure and suction.

Inshort, it isprovedthat thereisapossibilitythat this

phenomenonmayoccur (Katoet al., 2006).

Inthe8thstep, thecalculationresultconsideringthe

stressreductionexceededthedesignvaluewhichcould

explaintheobserveddataappropriatelytosomeextent.

However, under the bottomof the excavation, espe-

cially inTsglayer, thetendency that thedesignvalue

andcalculationresultexceededtheobserveddata.The

wall deflectiondistributionwasdifferent betweenthe

observeddataanddesignvalueandcalculationresult.

It wouldappear that oneof thereasonsfor theseten-

dencies is thedeformation at thebottomof thewall

towardstheexcavationside.

3.2 B-site

The layer of this B-site ground constitutes the

alluvial layer, upper lower Pleistocene from the

176

groundsurface. Especially, thisconstructionsitewas

located in the Neyagawa lowland, and it is peculiar

that the very soft and sensitive alluvial clay layer

(N-value

L

=0.6 to 1.5, cohesion

c =30 to 100kN/m

2

), which is specific for theEast

side of Osaka Plain, deposited with 15 to 20m

thickness. The upper Pleistocene sandy and gravel

layer Ts & Tgandthelower Pleistocenesandy layer

Os3 (Osaka Group) constitute the second water-

bearinglayer under thealluvial layer.

Thecrosssectionof B-siteisshowninFigure4, the

wall andstrutsconditionsareshowninTable3andthe

soil parametersareshowninTable4.

Inthisconstructionsite,theseepagecontrol method

was adoptedby extendingtheearthretainingwall to

the low permeable layer Oc7 (about GL-42m), too.

Thebottomdepthof Soil MixingWall (H-steel) was

extendedtotheOs8. Theexcavationwidthis17.2m,

Figure4. Crosssection(B site).

Table3. Earthretainingwall andeachstrut (B site).

Soil mixingwall (H-steel) condition

Size Pitch Length EI Area

(mm) S(m) L(m) (kNm

2

/m) A(m

2

)

H-5883001220 0.60 27.52 399000 0.01925

Excavationcondition Strut condition

Depth Depth

Size Span Pitch Area

Step (GL-m) Stage (GL-m) (mm) L(m) S(m) A(m

2

)

0th 1.42 Cover beam 0.42 H-4883001118 17.15 2.00 0.01592

1st 2.81 1st 1.81 H-3003001015 16.55 2.59 0.01048

2nd 5.96 2nd 4.96 H-3503501219 16.45 2.59 0.01549

3rd 8.26 3rd 7.26 H-3503501219 16.45 2.59 0.01549

4th 11.51 4th 10.51 H-3503501219 16.45 2.59 0.01549

5th 14.51 5th 13.51 H-3503501219 16.45 2.59 0.01549

6th 17.21 6th 16.21 H-4004001321 16.35 2.59 0.01977

7th 19.61 7th 18.61 H-4004001321 16.35 2.59 0.01977

8th 21.70

thefinal excavationdepthis about GL-22mandthe

penetrationdepthisabout 5m.

Figure 5 shows the comparison between the

observeddataanddesignvalueof theearthretaining

wall deflection in the 4th and 8th excavation steps

(Oota et al., 2007). The wall deflection distribution

modewassimilar bothsideinthe4thexcavationstep.

However theamount of theobservedwall deflection

was two times of thedesign value. Moreover, in the

8th excavation step, the wall deflection distribution

modewasdifferent inbothandobserveddataexceed

thedesignvalue. Inaddition, itwasconfirmedthatthe

stress inthewall was controlledunder theallowable

stress.

Table4. Soil parameters(B site).

Bottom Internal

Soil depth Cohision friction E

50

layer (GL-m) N-value c (kN/m

2

) angle (

) (MN/m

2

)

B 0.8 2 0 19.9

Auc 2.0 0 27 0 2.2

Aus 4.0 2 0 19.9

Amc1 8.0 0 42 0 2.2

Amc2 13.0 0 63 0 5.5

Amc3 16.0 0 76 0 7.4

Alc 19.0 3 73 0 5.6

Tc 20.8 7 129 0

Ts 23.3 42 0 37.5

Tg 26.0 45 0 38.2

Os8 39.1 60 0 41.8

177

Figure5. Comparisonbetweenobservationanddesignvalueof bracedwall deflection(B site, (a) : 4thstep, (b) : 8thstep).

As the ground condition under the bottom of

the excavation is considered as the plastic zone in

thecalculationusingJ SCE model, thebottomof the

wall deformedtowardstheexcavationsideinalarger

valueandthewall deflection distribution haddiffer-

ent phenomenoncomparedtotheobservation. Inthe

excavationstageattheAmclayer, thecalculationcon-

sideringthe75%stressreductionunder the5mfrom

theexcavationbottomwasshowntogetherinFigure5.

Unlike the comparison result inA-site, this calcula-

tionwassimilar tothedesignbecausewall deflections

around thebottomof theexcavation arein theplas-

tic zone. It was impossible to explain the observed

phenomenon adequately used by some calculation

model.

Thehorizontal coefficientof subgradereactionk

h

of

clayeygroundforexcavationsideintheOMTBmodel

isdeterminedbyequation(2). Thissettingmethodof

k

h

wastheempirical equationbasedonmanyobserved

datainthecasethatthewall deflectionwasabout3cm

(Yanagida et al., 1981). This reference bring up the

problemthat k

h

istendtodecreaseduetotheincrease

of thewall deflection.

In the actual construction site, as k

h

is depended

on the ground mechanical characteristics and some

boundary conditions and so on, it is known that

k

h

changes every second due to braced excavation.

For example, k

h

is determined as solid line by the

wall deflectionfunctiontakingintoconsiderationthe

nonlinearity(J apanRoadAssociation, 1986).

Theinverseanalysisbasedonsomeearthretaining

monitoringresultswascarriedouttoestimatethevalue

of k

h

. ModifiedPawell Methodwasemployedfor the

inverseanalysis. It ispossibletoobtaintheoptimized

solutionstablyonthemanyunknownparameter prob-

lem(Kishio, et al., 1995). Input valuesfor theinverse

analysis areearth retaining wall deflection (angleof

inclination) andaxial forceof struts, andoutputvalues

arelateral pressureontheearthretainingwall andk

h

.

Figure 6 shows the inverse analysis results based

on themonitoring datain OsakaSubway LineNo.8

touchedtotheKishio, et al., 1997.Thevertical scaleis

theratioof theestimationvaluek

h

bytheinverseanal-

ysistodesignvalueof k

h0

. Inother words, k

h

,k

h0

=1

meanstheinverseanalysisresultsanddesignvalueare

thesame.

Inthecasethat thewall deflectionwasabout 1cm,

the relation between k

h

and k

h0

was about the same

in both past actual results and Line No.8 results. In

short,theapplicabilityof k

h

inthedesignisreasonable.

178

Figure 6. Dependence for brace wall deformation of k

h

(touchinKishio, et al., 1997).

However inthecasethatthewall deflectionwasabout

2to4cm, inverseanalysisresultsk

h

aresmaller than

the design value k

h0

, the ration k

h

,k

h0

decreased to

about 0.5.

The relation of =1/40 was presumed on the

assumption that k

h

decrease due to the increase of

thewall deflection. Figure5shows therecalculation

resultsunder thisrelation.

Inthecaseof the4thexcavationstep, therelation

between observation and recalculation was in good

agreement. Inthecaseof the8thexcavationstep, the

wall deflectiondistributionmodebetweenobservation

andrecalculationwasstill different, butthemaximum

amount of wall deflection was similar. It is believed

that the cause of differences in the wall deflection

distributionmodeis thelimit explainedby thebeam

springmodel indesign.

In accordancewith theseestimations results, it is

preferabletoconsider thek

h

settingmethodcarefully

asequation(3) withconsideringthetraditional design

ideainthecaseof earthretainingdesigninthesoftand

sensitiveclayey layer, whichN-value is about 0to 2,

withthicklayer (about 10to20m).

4 CONCLUSIONS

Theresultsareshownasfollows;

1. At theA-site, theobserved wall deflection in the

east andwest sidearesymmetric till the4thstep,

and it is confirmed that the design value esti-

matestheactual phenomenonadequately. However

since the 5th step, the observed data exceeded

the design value. It was assumed that the plastic

zoneexpanded drastically to thepenetration area

indesign.

2. It was possiblethat thecalculation result consid-

eringthe75%stressreductionunder the5mfrom

thebottomof theexcavationexplainedtheobserved

datatosomeextent. However, under thebottomof

theexcavation, thetendency that thedesignvalue

andcalculationresult exceededtheobserveddata.

It wasconsideredthat oneof thereasonsfor these

tendenciesisthedeformationatthebottomof wall

towardstheexcavationside.

3. At theB-site, thewall deflectiondistributionwas

similar betweentheobservationanddesigninthe

4th excavation step. However the observed wall

deflectionistwotimesof thedesign. Inthe8thstep,

thewall deflectiondistributionmodewasdifferent

inboth, andobservedwall deflectionexceededthe

designvalue.

4. Owingthat=1/40waspresumedontheassump-

tionthatk

h

decreaseduetotheincreaseof thewall

deflection, the relation between observation and

recalculation was in good agreement in the case

of the 4th excavation step. In the 8th excavation

step, thewall deflectiondistributionmodeinboth

wasstill different, butthemaximumwall deflection

wasclose.

5. It isrecommendedthat thek

h

settingmethodcare-

fullyasequation(3)withconsideringthetraditional

design idea in the case of earth retaining design

in the soft and sensitive clayey layer, which N-

value is about 0 to 2, with thick layer (about 10

to20m).

REFERENCES

Hashimoto,T.,J.Nagaya,J.KishioandT.Shiotani : Investiga-

tionof StrengthDegradingduetoSwellingof theGround

in Excavation, Proc. of the Int. Conf. on Foundation

Failures, pp.393398, 1997.

J apanRoadAssociation: DesignGuidelinefor Underground

Multipurposeduct, 1986(inJ apanese).

J SCE : StandardSpecificationsforTunneling-2006, Cutand

CoverTunnels, pp.142181, 2006(inJ apanese).

Kato, S., T. KondaandH. Shinkai: Effect of SuctionReduc-

tionCausedbyWettingProcessonShear StrengthChar-

acteristicsUnderLowConfiningPressure, JSCEJournals

C, Vol.62, No.2, pp.471487, 2006(inJ apanese).

Kishio, T., N. Nakai, H. Arimoto, T. KondaandK. Takami :

Inverseanalysisexampleof BracedWall usedbyModified

Pawell Method, Proc. of the50thJ SCE Annual Meeting,

III-520, pp.10401041, 1995(inJ apanese).

Kishio, T., H. Oota, T. Hashimoto, T. Konda, E. Saito

and N. Kobayashi : Estimation of Lateral Pressure and

Coefficientof SubgradeReactionduringExcavationWork

in Osaka, JSCE Journals, No.560, VI-34, pp.107116,

1997(inJ apanese).

179

Kishio, T., H. Oota, T. Hashimoto and T. Konda : Some

Aspects of Designing Earth Pressures for Braced Wall

under the Bottom of Excavation, Tsuchi-to-Kiso JGS,

Vol.45, No.10, pp.2022, 1997(inJ apanese).

Oota, H., H. Ito, T. Yanagawa, T. KondaandT. Hashimoto:

Considerationof DesignMethodfor BracingExcavation

BasedonMonitoringResults, Proc. of the 42nd JNCSFE,

2007(inJ apanese).

OsakaMunicipal TransportationBureau: DesignGuideline

for temporarystructure(draft), 1993(inJ apanese).

Yanagida, S., T. Watanabe, I. Yamaguchi, H. Nakamuraand

S.Mizutani :TheStudyof Lateral EarthPressureforEarth

Retaining Design (Part II), Proc. of the 16th JNCSFE,

14491452, 1981(inJ apanese).

180

Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground Ng, Huang & Liu (eds)

2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-48475-6

Groundmovementsinstationexcavationsof Bangkokfirst MRT

N. Phienwej

Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok, Thailand

ABSTRACT: Thecharacteristicsof movementsof diaphragmwall andgroundintheexcavationof 18stations

of thefirst BangkokundergroundMRT linewereevaluated. Threemodesof deflectedshapesof thewallswere

observedatdifferentexcavationdepths, namelycantilever mode, bracedmodeswithbulgeinsoftclayandbulge

in stiff clay. Theratio of maximumlateral wall deflection developing with excavation depth and theratio of

groundsurfacesettlement toexcavationandthenormalizedzoneof groundsurfacesettlement variedwiththe

modeof wall deflection. Back-calculationof undrainedsoil moduli for differentsoil layersweremadefromwall

movementdataof threeselectedstationsusingthe2-Dlinear elasto-plasticFEM analyses. Themodulusvalues,

whichwerehigher thanthosecommonlyobtainedfromconventional triaxial tests, canbeusedasguidelinefor

futureworksinBangkok.

1 INTRODUCTION

Deep excavation by means of strutted concrete

diaphragm walls is often used for construction of

multi-level buildingbasements inBangkok soft soil.

It is superior to theexcavation with steel sheet piles

for control of groundmovement toavoiddamagesto

adjacentstructures.Priortotheconstructionof thefirst

Bangkok MRT project, fewstudiesweremadeonthe

characteristics of the ground movement and its pre-

diction (e.g. Phienwej and Gan, 2003 andTeparaksa

et al, 1999. etc.). However, it was the implemen-

tation of the first Bangkok MRT subway line that

provided systematic and comprehensive monitoring

dataontheexcavationof stationboxesthatallowedin-

depthevaluationonthecharacteristicsof thewall and

groundmovementsassociatedwithdeepexcavationin

Bangkok subsoil conditionsusingstrutteddiaphragm

walls.Theprojectinvolvedthedeepesteverexcavation

madeinBangkoktodate.Theexcavationsof all station

boxeswerefully instrumented. Monitoringdatafrom

18stationexcavationswerecompiled,summarizedand

interpreted.

The construction of the first MRT underground

projectinBangkok,theMassRapidTransitInitial Sys-

temProject(MRT ISPBlueLine) wasstartedin1998.

Prior tothattherewerepublicdoubtsontechnical via-

bilityof theconstructionandoperationsafetyof under-

ground MRT in Bangkok soft soil. That pessimistic

outlookledtoacall foranin-depthinvestigationonthe

applicationandperformanceof theexcavationmethod

andsupportsystemstobeintegratedintheexcavation

insoft andsubsidingBangkok ground. Thecontracts

madeitscompulsorythatfull instrumentationprogram

beimplemented during excavation for design verifi-

cationandsafety assurance. Evaluationontheactual

performanceatsiteswasperformedtoconfirmthesuf-

ficiency inthedesignof thesupport systems for the

MRT stationexcavations.A comprehensivestudywas

madeontheaspectof thewall andgroundmovements

(Hooi, 2003) andthesalient pointsfromthestudyare

reportedherein.

2 PROJ ECT DESCRIPTION

TheISP BlueLineisthefirst undergroundMRT line

constructedinBangkok.Itcomprises22-km-longtwin

single-tracktunnels, 18stationsandadepot.Thehori-

zontal alignmentmainlyfollowstherightof wayof city

roads. Constructionof theundergroundstructureswas

implemented under two fast track design-built con-

tracts, each having approximately thesameamounts

of work. TheSouthContract involvedconstructionof

atwinboredtunnelsfromtheinter-cityrailwaytermi-

nal at HuaLamphongeastwardsfor 5kmbeneaththe

busyRamaIV roadtotheQueenSirikitNational Con-

ventionCenter, then4.5kmnorthbeneaththenarrow

businessAsokeroad, andRatchadaphisekroadending

onthesurfacenearthedepot.Worksof theNorthCon-

tractcontinuedfor4.5kmnorthalongRatchadaphisek

roadtoLadPhraoroadthenturnedwesttoChatuchak

Park and finally terminated beneath the Bang Sue

181

railway station. The18 stations of theproject areas

follows:

South Contract North Contract

1. HuaLamphongStation 1. ThiamRuamMit Station

2. SamYanStation 2. Pracharat BumphenStation

3. SilomStation 3. SutthisanStation

4. Lumphini Station 4. RatchadaStation

5. BonKai Station 5. LadPhraoStation

6. Sirikit CentreStation 6. PhahonyothinStation

7. Sukhumvit Station 7. MoChit Station

8. Phetchaburi Station 8. KamphaengPhet Station

9. RamaIX Station 9. BangSuStation

3 GROUNDCONDITIONS

Bangkok is situated on thesouthern part of thelow

lyingChaoPhrayaplain, whichextendsnorthfromthe

coast lineat theGulf of Thailanduptoapproximately

350kmand spans east-westward up to 150km. The

flat topography plain is covered with athick marine

clay layer, whichoverlies avery thick series of allu-

vial depositsof alternatingstiff tohardclayanddense

toverydensesandtogravel. Thethick soft claylayer

generallyextendsfromthegroundsurfacetoadepthof

12to15m.ThesoftclaywhichisknownasBangkok

soft clay has high water content (70120%), high

plasticity, lowstrengthandhighcompressibility.

Theshallowsubsoil of theupper 35mzoneisrela-

tivelyuniformandgenerallyconsistsof layersof soft

tomediumclay, stiff tohardclayandsand. Belowthis

shallowzone,alternatinglayersof stiff tohardclayand

densesandexist toagreat depth. Bedrock isfoundat

depths morethan 450m. Thetypical subsoil profile

for thefirst 50mdepthislistedasfollows:

MadeGround

BangkokSoft Clay

First Stiff Clay

MediumDenseClayeySand, SandyClayandSilty

Clay

VeryStiff SandyClay/First BangkokSand

SecondHardClay

SecondBangkokSand

Maconochie (2001) summarized the general soil

profileandpropertiesat theBangkok MRT ISP Blue

Line. The variation in soil profile along the align-

ment was observedprimarily intheVery Stiff Sandy

Clay/First Bangkok Sandlayer andthesoilsimmedi-

atelybelowit. Figure1showthesoil profilealongthe

MRT alignment andat thestations.

Deep well pumping in Bangkok and its environs

hasreducedtheporewaterpressuresinthesandlayers

by approximately 23mfromtheoriginal hydrostatic

profile. The groundwater pumping has also created

regional subsidencethroughout Bangkok metropolis.

At thelocations of theproject, aperchedwater table

istypically encounteredinMadeGround. Belowthis

horizon, hydrostaticconditionsaregenerallyfoundto

adepth of approximately 8mto 10mdepending on

thelocation and thickness of First and Second Sand

layers. Typically, theupper fewmetres of sandlayers

underlying First Stiff Clay andVery Stiff Clay have

beendewatered.

4 STATIONCONSTRUCTION

TheMRT stationshadfollowingfeatures:

Typically,threelevelsof structure,withacentreplat-

formthatisfedbystairsandescalatorsbetweentwo

linesof columnsdownthemiddleof thestation.

Up to 230mlong and approximately 25 mwide,

excavateduptoadepthof 25mto30mbelowthe

groundsurface.

Theperimeterswereof diaphragmwalls,1.0mthick

and30mto35mdeepandsolidin-situreinforced

concrete slabs, typically 0.9mthick for the roof

slabs, 0.7mthick for the intermediate slabs and

1.75mthick for the base slabs, which were used

as the excavation support systemand permanent

structureslater on.

Therewerethreestackedstations, atSamyan, Silom

and Lumphini Stations, due to space constraints

causedbytheexistenceof thefoundationpilesof the

longroadflyover andawater transmissiontunnel at

thesebusyintersections.

Therewas asideplatformstationat BangSuSta-

tion, withtwolevelsonly, toaccommodatethetrack

alignment for futureelevatedextensionof theline

tothenorth.

TheremainingstationswereconstructedasCentre

IslandPlatformstations.

PracharatBamphenandSutthisanStationsincorpo-

ratedintersectionroadunderpassesontheroofsof

thestations.

Silom, LadPhraoandPhahonyothinStationswere

excavated underneath foundation piles of existing

road flyovers and thus, the station structures and

foundation were designed to support the flyovers

viacross-beamandunderpinningboredpiles.

Thetopdownconstructiontechniquewasadopted

for all stationbox excavations withdiaphragmwalls

andconcreteslabs as theexcavationsupport system,

which was later utilized as thepermanent structures

of the stations. The designs were made with an aid

of FEM analyses. Theexcavationdepths andthetoe

depthof thediaphragmwallsof all stationexcavations

182

Figure1. Soil profilealongMRT alignment andat thestations.

aresummarizedinFig. 2. It shouldbenotedthat the

ratioof thedepthof thewall embedment tothedepth

of excavationwas significantly different betweenthe

two contracts, primarily due to the difference in the

designcriteriaadoptedbythetwodifferent designers.

5 INSTRUMENTATIONDATA

The measurement data frominclinometers and sur-

facesettlement pointswerecompiledandinterpreted

toevaluatetheoverall performanceof thestationexca-

vations in Bangkok subsoil using diaphragmwalls.

The data were screened to preclude movements not

expresslyrelatedtotheexcavationandsupport instal-

lation, such as diaphragmwall construction, tempo-

rarydeckingworksandtheinitial 2.3mexcavationthat

involved driving sheet piles, backfilling and extract-

ingthesheetpilessubsequently.Adetailedstudyof the

instrumentationdataobtainedwasundertakenbycom-

paringobservedgroundmovement amongthestation

excavations. Factors that may result in such patterns

of datawasexaminedanddeduced, suchas:

Stationboxconfigurationanddimension

Constructionsequences

183

Figure2. Depthof excavationandtoedepthof D-wall.

Figure3. Modesof wall deflection.

Variationinsoil profileandproperties

Temporaryworksor presenceof structuresadjacent

toexcavationbox

5.1 Lateral wall movement

Ingeneral, most inclinometersall stationexcavations

showedthatthecantilevermodewasthemostpredom-

inant of wall deflectionshapeat theinitial excavation

stage, whilethebracedexcavationmodedevelopedin

thesubsequent stages as theexcavations weredeep-

ened. Figure 3 shows the three modes of deflected

shape of wall movement, which occurred at differ-

ent excavationdepths. Thecantilever modewasmost

commonduringthefirstexcavationstage. Thebraced

excavationmodewithbulgeinsoftsoil prevailedatthe

second and third excavation stages. This mode con-

tinued to dominatethepattern of lateral movements

for NorthContract, butdataof SouthContractexhibit

that the braced mode with bulge in the underlying

NORTH CONTRACT

0

5

10

15

20

25

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4

Maximum Lateral Wall Movement/Excavation Depth, d

Hmax

/H

E

x

c

a

v

a

t

i

o

n

D

e

p

t

h

,

H

(

m

)

Cantilever mode (H=1.6m-4.0m) Braced mode-soft soil (H=6.5m-10.8m)

Braced mode-stiff soil (H=12.4m-16.7m) Braced mode-stiff soil (H=20.0m-32.6m)

SOUTH CONTRACT

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8

Maximum Lateral Wall Movement/Excavation Depth, d

Hmax

/H

E

x

c

a

v

a

t

i

o

n

D

e

p

t

h

,

H

(

m

)

Cantilever mode (H=1.6m-4.0m) Braced mode-soft soil (H=6.5m-10.8m)

Braced mode-stiff soil (H=12.4m-16.7m) Braced mode-stiff soil (H=20.0m-32.6m)

Figure 4. Normalized maximum wall deflection versus

excavationdepth.

stiff soil layers was more predominant. This differ-

entbehavior maybeattributedtothedifferenceinsoil

profiles. In addition, South Contract had three deep

stationexcavationsof verticallystackedplatforms.

Themaximumlateral wall deflectionof the18sta-

tionexcavationswereintherangeof 1047mm. The

monitoring data also showed that there were signif-

icant variations in the shape and magnitude of the

lateral wall movementwithinsomeof thestationexca-

vations. Thevariationmay beattributedto anumber

of factors including the variation in soil profile and

properties over theplan areaof thestation, adjacent

temporarysurfaceworks, andconfinement fromroad

pavements and buried utility structures. The area of

theexcavationwas quitelarge(about 25mwideand

200mlong). For the three stations adopted for the

detailed analysis in this study, the variations in the

maximumlateral wall movementswereasfollow: 28

38mmfor the deepest SilomStation, 15 to 40mm

for Sirikit Station, and 1827 for ThiamRuamMit

Station. Figure4summarizestherangesof thenormal-

izedmaximumlateral wall movementwithexcavation

depth(

Hmax

/H) versusexcavationdepthsrecordedby

all inclinometers at the 18 stations. The plots show

that inthefirst stagecantilever modeexcavationthe

value of

Hmax

/H was as high as 1.60. The maxi-

mumvalue of

Hmax

/H decreased with the increase

in the excavation depth in the braced modes of the

184

Figure5. Normalizedsettlementversusdistancefromwall.

walls. Thedecreaseinthevaluewithdepthwasdueto

thechangeinsoil conditionat theexcavationbottom

fromsoft clay to stiff clays as the excavation depth

increased. Whentheexcavationdepthreachedstiffer

soils,

Hmax

/H decreased and the range of the value

becamenarrow. Whentheexcavationbottomwasstill

inthesoft clay layer, themaximumvalueof

Hmax

/H

wassmaller than0.5. Thevaluewassmaller than0.2

whentheexcavationsweredeeper, instiff clays.

5.2 Ground surface settlement

The maximum ground surface settlement was

observedat 58mmat BonKai Stationand75mmat

Pracharat Bumphen, in South and North Contracts,

respectively. Figure5showsplot of theratioof maxi-

mumsettlement toexcavationdepth(

vmax

/H) versus

thedistancefromexcavationnormalizedbytheexca-

vation depth (D/H). For shallow excavations under

cantilever modeof wall deflection, thezoneof ground

settlement may extend up to D/H of 7 to 10. As for

the excavation depths while the wall deflection was

under thebracedmodewithbulgeinsoft clay layer,

the

vmax

/H may extend up to D/H of 7. For deeper

excavations while the wall was deflected under the

modeof bulgeinstiff clay layer, thezoneof ground

settlement may extend up to adistanceof D/H of 4

and

vmax

/H valuemay beas highas 0.35Under the

bracedmodeinsoftclay,

vmax

/Hvaluemayreach0.55.

For shallowexcavationunder thecantilever modethe

value of

vmax

/H can be higher. The characteristics

of ground surface settlement behind the excavation

withdiaphragmwallscanbecategorizedaccordingto

themodeof wall deflectionof excavationdepth. The

zonesof groundsettlementforthethreemodesof wall

deflection in Bangkok soil are marked in figure. In

addition, thethreecategoriesof groundmovement in

bracedwall excavationforflexiblewalls(sheetpilesor

soldierpiles) suggestedbyPeck(1969) arealsoshown

intheplot. Thelevel of groundsettlement inexcava-

tionwithdiaphragmwall inBangkoksoftsoil ismuch

smaller thanthatpredictedbyPeckschartfor flexible

wall. However, theinfluencezones of ground settle-

ment werewider thanthosesuggestedbyPecks. This

findingcanbeusedasageneral guidelinefor predic-

tiongroundsurfacesettlement fromdeepexcavation

withdiaphragmwallsinBangkoksubsoil condition.

6 PREDICTIONOF MOVEMENTS

For the design of the MRT station excavations of

both contracts, FEM analysis were made to deter-

minegroundmovement andforcesonthediaphragm

walls andbracings. Theanalyses mainly utilizedlin-

earelasto-plasticMohr-Coulombsoil parameters.The

parameters wereobtainedfromthesoil investigation

andtestingprogrammadefor eachstationexcavation.

Triaxial compression tests as well as pressuremeter

tests wereconducted to determinethevalues of soil

modulusfordesignanalysis.Theinstrumentationdata

providedvaluableinformationto evaluatetheappro-

priateness of thesoil model and thesoil parameters

usedinthedesigncalculation. Inthisstudy, monitor-

ingdatafromthreerepresentativestationexcavations,

i.e. Silom, Sirikit and Thiam Ruam Mit Stations,

were examined in details and suitable soil parame-

ters were back-calculated using a continuum FEM

analysis. Computer codePLAXIS2Dwasadoptedin

the study. Effective stress strength parameters were

adoptedintheundrainedanalysis.Thedrawdownphe-

nomenonof thepiezometric levelswasconsideredin

thesimulation.

Silom Station was the deepest excavation in

Bangkok to date (32.6m deep), with a vertically

stackedplatformsthusithadfour levelsof slabbelow

the roof. The station was designed to underpin the

existing flyover roadway running over the station

length. A densesandlayer of thefirst Bangkok Sand

was encountered fromdepth 8.5mabove the final

excavationlevel.Hence,theexcavationrequireddewa-

tering. Thediaphragmwall wastoedintotheSecond

Sandlayer.

Sirikit Stationhadthetypical configurationof the

centreislandplatformwiththreelevelsbelowtheroof

slab. The first stage and final excavation depths of

185

3.65mand23.6mrespectively, whichweresimilar to

majorityof other stations.

ThiamRuamMit Stationwasselectedbecausethe

soil profilewasslightlydifferent fromthosefoundin

thefirsttwostations. Theareahadathicker FirstStiff

Claylayer withlensesof clayeysands. Inaddition, the

first stageexcavationwasveryshallowwithroof slab

wasonlyat 1.8mdepth.

Theback-calculationusingthelateral groundmove-

ment datafromtheexcavations of thethreestations

suggestedthesuitableundrainedsoil modulusparam-

etersasfollows.

Soft andMediumClay : E

u

=500C

u

kN/m

2

First Stiff Clay : E

u

=700N

60

kN/m

2

ClayeySandandSilty/ : E

u

=900N

60

kN/m

2

SandyClay

SecondHardClay : E

u

=1600N

60

kN/m

2

ThirdHardClay : E

u

=2500N

60

kN/m

2

whereC

u

isthecorrectedfieldvaneshearstrengthand

N

60

isthecorrectedSPT N valueaccordingtoLiao

andWhitman(1986).

These back-calculated values of soil modulus are

higher than those commonly obtained fromconven-

tional laboratorytriaxial tests. It reflectsthemodulus

valuesatlowstrainlevel whichwouldbethedominat-

ingresponseof soil intheexcavationproblem(Mair,

1993). The soils would be mainly under unloading

conditionof stresses.

Insimilar early studies, Phienwej andGan(2003)

andTeparaksa(1999) both proposed thesamemod-

ulus parameter of thesoft clay as E

u

=500c

u

. While

for stiff clay, thevalueof E

u

=1200C

u

and 2000C

u

were suggested, respectively. Based on the relation-

shipof C

u

=0.6N

60

kN/m

2

typicallyusedforBangkok

subsoil, theparametersareequivalent toE

u

=720N

60

and1200N

60

kN/m

2

,respectively.Theback-calculated

values from this study were comparable to those

suggestedbyPhienwej andGan(2003).

7 CONCLUSIONS

Thefollowingconclusionscanbedrawnfromthestudy

of thewall andgroundmovementsintheexcavationof

thestationsof thefirst BangkokMRT underground.

Threemodesof deflectedshapesof thewall move-

ment were observed at different ranges of exca-

vation depth. Mode 1: Cantilever mode (H=1.6

m4.0m), Mode2: Bracedmodewithbulgeinsoft

clay layer (H=6.5m11m), and Mode3: Braced

modewithbulgeinstiff soil (H=12.4m32.6 m).

Themaximumlateral wall movement (

Hmax

) was

smaller than47mminbothcontracts. Thenormal-

izedwall deflection,

Hmax

/Hinthecantilevermode

of movement was as high as 1.60, while it was

reducedtonomorethan0.60and0.40inthelatter

stagesof excavationwhenthewall deflectiondevel-

opedinthebracedmodewithbulgeinsoftclayand

bracedmodewithbulgeinstiff soil, respectively.

The maximumground surface settlement (

Vmax

)

was58mmfor SouthContractand75mminNorth

Contract. Thenormalizedmaximumgroundsettle-

ment with excavation depth,

vmax

/H, was smaller

than 0.55 and 0.35 for Modes 2 and Mode3 wall

deflection, respectively. The normalized distance

fromexcavationof thezoneof groundsettlement,

D/H, varied from7.0 and 4.0 for the two modes

of wall deflection. In the initial excavation stage

of cantilever mode, thevalues of bothnormalized

settlement anddistanceof groundmovement were

higher that thoseinthebracedmodes.

Back-calculation of soil moduli of different soil

layers using monitoring data fromthree selected

stations showed higher values than those com-

monly obtained for conventional laboratory tests.

Thevaluesare: SoftandMediumClay: E

u

=500c

u

,

First Stiff Clay E

u

=700N

60

kN/m

2

, Clayey Sand

andSilty/SandyClayE

u

=900N

60

kN/m

2

, Second

HardClay E

u

=1600N

60

kN/m

2

, ThirdHardClay

E

u

=2500N

60

kN/m

2

REFERENCES

Hooi, K.Y. 2003. Ground Movements Associated with Station

Excavations of the First Bangkok MRT Subway. Master

Thesis, AsianInstituteof Technology, Bangkok.

Liao, S. &Whitman, R.V. 1986. OverburdenCorrectionFac-

torforSPT inSand. J ournal of Geotechnical Engineering.

American Society of Civil Engineers 112(3): 373377.

Mcconochie, D. 2001. Geotechnical Completion Report

MRTA Chaloem Ratchamongkhon Line. A CSC Report

submittedtotheMRTA.

Mair, R. 1993. Developments in geotechnical engineering

research: application to tunnels and deep excavations.

UnwinMemorial Lecture1992,Proceedings of Institution

of Civil Engineers, Civil Engineering, 93, Feb: 2741

Phienwej, N. & Gan, C.H. 2003. Characteristics of

GroundMovements inDeepExcavations withConcrete

Diaphragm Walls in Bangkok Soils and their Predic-

tion. Journal of The Southeast Asian Geotechnical Society

34(3): 167175.

Teparaksa, W.,Thasnanipan, N. &Tanseng, P. 1999.Analysis

of Lateral Wall Movementfor DeepBracedExcavationin

Bangkok. Proc. of AIT 40thAnniversary Conference,AIT,

Bangkok, Thailand.

186

Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground Ng, Huang & Liu (eds)

2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-48475-6

Numerical modellingandexperimental measurementsfor aretainingwall

of adeepexcavationinBucharest, Romania

H. Popa, A. Marcu& L. Batali

Technical University of Civil Engineering, Geotechnical and Foundations Department, Romania

ABSTRACT: Althoughcivil engineers disposeof various calculationmethods for retainingstructures, none

of themhavedefinitelyimposeditself, eachonebringingitsownbenefitsor limitations. FiniteElementMethod

(FEM) offers the benefits of complex models allowing taking into account the majority of soil structure

characteristic parameters. However, theexperienceshows that thedifferences between theexperimental and

thecalculationresults areoftenquiteimportant. Thepaper presents thecasehistory of adiaphragmwall for

adeepbasement of anewbuildingincentreof Bucharest. Nearby thenewbuildingthereis anancient cathe-

dral historic monument. Thedeepexcavationisalsoneighboringat different distanceswithanother existing

buildingsandaheavy traffickedroad. All theseconditionsledtochoosethetop-down technology inexecu-

tionof thebasement. Thenumerical results obtainedby FEM arecomparedwiththemeasurements recorded

duringtheconstruction. Thedifferences betweentheobtainedvalues (displacements) arecomprisedbetween

15%and 75%, depending on the enclosure sides. The main factors leading to these differences are the soil

parameters.

1 INTRODUCTION

Theeffect of deepexcavations onneighboringstruc-

tures can become important and therefore special

measureshavetobetakeninthedesignandmonitoring

of retainingwalls.

Calculation of such structures must be based on

methodstakingintoaccount thesoil structureinter-

action and, with this respect good soil knowledgeis

indispensable.

Paper presents the case of a diaphragmwall for

a deep basement in the very centre of Bucharest.

The basement is developed on 4 underground lev-

els andneeds anexcavationof about 15mdeep. The

groundwater level is at about 6mdepth. Theground

iscomposedof alluviumslayerscomprisingmedium

soft silty clays, as well as fine to coarse medium

densesand. Near thenewconstruction, at about 6m

distance, there is an ancient cathedral, classified as

historical monument. As well, thepit has onanother

sidesomebuildings, whileon theother two sides it

is delimitedby aheavy traffic road. All thesecondi-

tions led to choosethetop down technology for

buildingtheinfrastructure, inorder tohaveminimum

deformations and displacements of the wall, so that

the integrity of the neighboring buildings not being

affected.

2 WORK ANDSITE DESCRIPTION

2.1 Site and geometrical characteristics

Thenewbuildingislocatedatthecentreof Bucharest,

next to theRomano Catholic Cathedral St. J oseph.

Figure1presentsaphotoof thesite.

Asit canbeseenonthephoto, ontheWesternside

thepitisveryclosetotheSt. J osephCathedral (about

Figure1. Locationof thedeepexcavation.

187

Figure2. Crosssectionthroughthediaphragmwall.

6mdistance), ontheSouthernsidethereisabuilding

complexatabout10mdistance, whileonthetwoother

sidesthereisapublicroadwithheavytraffic.

Figure 2 shows a cross section through the

buildings infrastructure, presenting also the ground

lithology.

Thediaphragmwall ismadeof panels80cmthick

and21mdeep. Theembedmentdepthhasbeenestab-

lished considering the wall stability and excavation

bottom imperviousness. Dewatering has been per-

formed only inside the enclosure, the groundwater

level outsidebeing left unchanged to avoid undesir-

ablesettlements of theground around thepit dueto

dewatering, whichwouldbeinadditionto theinher-

ent settlementsduetoexcavationinsidetheenclosure

andtotheerectionof thenewstructure, whichcould

affect especiallySt. J osephCathedral.

2.2 Geotechnical characteristics of the ground

Thegeotechnical parametersarespecificforBucharest

area, whichischaracterizedbyalluviumsoils.Thetri-

axial testsperformedwithimposedstresspathallowa

direct determinationof theshear strengthparameters

(, c), of thesecantmodulus(E) andof theearthcoef-

ficient at rest (k

0

) for theclayey layers; for thesands

theseparametershavebeenestablishedbasedonSPT

tests.

Table1. Designvaluesfor thegeotechnical parameters.

Thickness, E,

K

0

Stratum m kN/m

3

MPa (

) kPa

Clay(1) 4.00 19 25 25 30 0.7

Sand& gravel 5.50 20 40 38 0 0.4

Clay(2) 7.50 20 50 22 50 0.7

Siltyclayey 2.00 20 75 28 20 0.5

sand

Clay(3) 4.00 20 75 22 50 0.4

Finesand 7.00 20 75 36 0 0.4

Thegroundlithology andthedesignvalues of the

geotechnical parameters are shown in table 1 (level

0.00mrepresentsgroundlevel).

Thegroundwater level is +74.0mand, according

to the site investigations, it can vary with 1.00m.

A secondaquifer, confined, has beenfoundbetween

+63.0+61.0m(withinthesandylayer).

3 NUMERICAL MODELLING

3.1 Numerical model

Numerical modeling has been performed using 2-D

FEM, the model having 1933 elements and 5866

nodes.

For thesoil, aperfectelasto-plasticconstitutivelaw

hasbeenused,withMohr Coulombcriteria,usingthe

geotechnical parameters issued fromlaboratory and

insitutests.

3.2 Calculation stages

Calculationshavebeenorganizedin6stages, follow-

ingthetechnological phases:

phase 0 initialization of the stress state in the

ground;

phase 1 excavationdowntothelower level of the

first floor slab; executionof thefirst floor slab;

phase 2 excavationbelowthefirstfloorslabdown

tothelowerlevel of thesecondfloorslabanddewa-

teringinsidetheenclosure; executionof thesecond

floor slab;

phase 3 excavation between floor slabs no. 2

and3; executionof floor slabno. 3;

phase 4excavationbelowthethirdfloorslabdown

tothefinal level (15.00m).

3.3 Results

Figure3presents theevolutionof thehorizontal dis-

placement of thewall as afunction of theexecution

stages.

188

Figure3. Horizontal displacementsfunctionof calculation

phases.

Figure4. Bendingmoment functionof calculationphases.

Figure5. Shear forcefunctionof calculationphases.

Table2. Floor slabreactionforces.

Force, kN/ml

Floor 1 Floor 2 Floor 3

Phase1

Phase2 142.2

Phase3 2.3 456.5

Phase4 6.7 249.2 729.2

Accordingto thecalculations, themaximumhori-

zontal displacementsof thewall areof about 15mm,

at 15mdepth. Duetothetop-down technology, the

shapeof thedisplacementcurvesshowsgreatervalues

inthelower part of thewall. Thedisplacementsof the

upper part arepracticallyblockedbythealreadybuilt

floor slabs.

Theupper maximumhorizontal displacements are

estimatedtobeof 56mm.

Bendingmomentandshear forcegraphsareshown

figures4and5, respectively.

Thereaction forces on thebasements floor slabs

areshowntable2.

4 MEASUREMENTS

In order to record theinfluencethedeep excavation

and, moreover the whole new building, has on the

189

Figure6. Experimental measurements.

neighbouring structures, a monitor of the displace-

mentshasbeenperformed.

Theretainingwall wasequippedoneachsidewith

inclinometers for measuring thehorizontal displace-

mentsand, thus, thewalls deformation.

Markswereinstalledonthesurroundingbuildings

to monitor their settlements. As well, extensometers

were installed, just behind the wall for measuring

grounds settlements.

Another monitoring concerned the groundwater

level outside the enclosure. For this purpose, wells

weredrilledandequippedaspiezometers, locatedon

eachsideof theenclosure. Themeasurementsshowed

that thedewateringworks insidetheenclosuredidnt

affect thegroundwater level outside.

Figure6showsthemonitoringequipment usedfor

theSt. J osephCathedral side.

It canbeseenthat, inorder toreducefurthermore

therisksof anegativeinfluenceof theretainingwall on

theCathedral, betweenthesetwo first astabilization

wall wasbuilt usingcement-basedinjections.

Figure6showsalsothemeasuredlateral displace-

mentsof thewall duringthelastexcavationstage(stage

4). It canbeseenthat theshapeof thedisplacement

190

curvecorresponds to theoneobtained by numerical

calculation. But the values are much less than the

estimatedones.

So, at theupper part of thewall, themaximumdis-

placementsareof about2mm,representingabout50%

of theestimatedones, whileatthelowerpartthediffer-

encesaremoreimportant, themeasuredvaluesbeing

only25%of thecalculatedones.

Thisimportantdifferencebetweencalculationsand

measurementscanbeduealsototheprotectioninjec-

tion screen locatedon this sideof theenclosure. On

the other sides, where no such protection has been

installed, themaximumwalls displacementswereof

about13mm, beingquiteclosedtotheestimatedvalue

(85%).

Anyway, estimations arestill higher thanthemea-

suredvaluesfor all excavationstages.

Concerning the ground settlement behind the

retainingwall (at about 1mdistance), extensometers

showed a maximumvalue at ground level of about

7mm. Thesettlement evolutionversus thedepthcan

alsobeseeninfigure6andonecannotethatitbecomes

negligibleat about 23mbelowwalls toe.

MarksfixedontheSt. J osephCathedral indicateda

maximumsettlementof 0.7mm, itsintegritynotbeing

endangered.

Fromthis point of view it can also be noted the

beneficial roleof theinjectionscreen, thedifference

of settlementsononesideandtheother of thescreen

beingsubstantial.

Concerningtheotherneighboringbuildingslocated

atabout10mdistance, maximumsettlementsof about

3mmwererecorded, insignificant for their stability.

5 CONCLUSIONS

Retaining structures imply complex soil structure

interactionphenomena. A correct estimationof their

behavior is possible only by using numerical mod-

els, allowing a complex modeling of the system

formedby theretainingwall, foundationgroundand

neighbouringbuildings.

Evenwhensuchmethods areused, theresults can

present significant differences fromthe real behav-

ior.Thereasonsforthesedifferencesaremany, among

them:

incertituderegarding thegeotechnical parameters

usedfor thecalculations, especiallywhencomplex

constitutivelawsareusedfor theground;

difficulty inestimationof theinitial stressstatein

the ground, taking into account its lithology, the

presenceof neighbouringstructures, theexecution

of theretainingwall itself etc.;

complexity of thenumerical model itself, consid-

eringall impliedparameters;

three-dimensional behaviour of the retaining

structure.

In order to obtain reliable results using numeri-

cal modelingit is important to calibrateandvalidate

themodel basedonexperimental measurements per-

formedonsimilar structures andinsimilar sitecon-

ditions. The experience in such modeling is also an

important aspect.

REFERENCES

Marcu, A., Popa, H., Marcu, D., Coman, M., Vasilescu, A. &

Manole, D. 2007. Impactdeepexcavationsonneighboring

buildings, National ConferenceAICPS, 1J une2007(in

Romanian).

Marcu, A. &Popa, H. 2004. Calculationsandmeasurements

of deformations and displacements of a retaining wall

for adeepexcavationandof theneighboringstructures.

10th National Conferenceof Soil Mechanics and Foun-

dation Engineering, 1618 September 2004, Bucharest,

Romania, pp. 311322(inRomanian).

Popa, H. 2002. Contributions to the study of the soil

structure interaction in case of underground structures,

PhD thesis, Technical University of Civil Engineering

Bucharest, p. 311.

191

Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground Ng, Huang & Liu (eds)

2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-48475-6

3Dfiniteelement analysisof adeepexcavationandcomparison

withinsitumeasurements

H.F. Schweiger

Computational Geotechnics Group, Institute for Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Graz

University of Technology, Austria

F. Scharinger & R. Lftenegger

GDP Consulting Engineers, Graz, Austria

ABSTRACT: Thepaper describes theanalysis of adeep excavation project in clayey silt in Salzburg. The

excavationwassupportedbyadiaphragmwall, ajetgroutpanel andthreelevelsof struts. Becauseof insufficient

informationonthematerial propertiesof thejetgroutpanel thestiffnessof itwasvariedinaparametricstudy.The

effectof takingintoaccountthestiffnessof acrackeddiaphragmwall onthedeformationswasalsoinvestigated.

Insomeof the3Dcalculationsanon-perfectcontactbetweendiaphragmwall andstrutwassimulatedbymeans

of anon-linear behaviour of thestrut. Theevaluationof theresultsandcomparisonwithinsitumeasurements

showedthatanalyseswhichtookintoaccountthereducedstiffnessof thediaphragmwall duetocrackingachieved

thebest agreement withthemeasurements. Furthermoresettlementsof buildingscouldbebest reproducedby

thethree-dimensional model.

1 INTRODUCTION

Softsubsoil depositsinAustriaaremainlyfreshwater

deposits, sedimentedinthepost-glacial lakesafter the

boulder periods. Thesedeposits areknown as lacus-

trineclays onthefoothills of theAlps. Oneexample

for awidespread lacustrineclay deposit is thebasin

of Salzburg, where the city of Salzburg is situated

on subsoil sediments, which partly showathickness

upto70m, calledSalzburger Seeton, whichcanbe

classifiedasclayeysilt.

Inthedesignstageof deepexcavationsinsuchprob-

lematic soils finiteelement calculations areauseful

tool toobtainreasonablyrealisticpredictionsof defor-

mationsexpected. Inpractical engineering2D-models

arestill prevailing, but3D-model becomeincreasingly

attractive. It will beshown, andthis is themainpur-

poseof thispaper, that thebest overall matchwithin

situmeasurements,inparticularwithrespecttosurface

displacements behindthewall, is achievedwith 3D-

models. If only wall deflectionisconsideredalso2D

analysesshowreasonableagreement. Themechanical

behaviourof thesoil ismodelledwithanelasto-plastic

constitutivemodel, namelytheHardeningSoil model

as implemented in the finite element code Plaxis

(Brinkgreve2002). For theproject theclass A 2D

analysis predictedtheoverall deformationbehaviour

withsufficientaccuracyfromapractical pointof view,

but amoredetailedcomparisonwithinsitumeasure-

mentshasbeenmadeafter constructioninvolving3D

finiteelementanalyses.Furthermoresomedetailswith

respecttothestruttinghavebeenchangedduringcon-

struction which havenot been taken into account in

theoriginal analysis.

The input parameters for the constitutive model

have been determined not solely from site investi-

gations but also fromprevious experience of finite

element analyses under similar conditions (see e.g.

Schweiger & Breymann2005).

Inthefollowingabrief descriptionof theproblem

will be provided together with the material parame-

ter used. The different assumptions with respect to

modellingthediaphragmwall andthejet grout panel

arediscussed. Finallyresultsfromvarious2Dand3D

analyses arecomparedwithinsitumeasurements of

wall deflectionandsurfacedisplacements.

2 PROBLEM DESCRIPTIONANDMATERIAL

PARAMETERS

2.1 Project description

A cross section of the excavation with strut levels

and final excavation depth is shown in Figure 1. In

plantheexcavationis roughly square, approximately

193

Figure1. Crosssectionof excavationandstrut levels.

1920m, whichof coursemustraisedoubtswhether

a2Danalysisisatall appropriateinthiscase.Attention

ispaidtothefact that ajet grout panel just belowthe

final excavation level has been constructed to act as

lateral support. This has beenconstructedbeforethe

startof theexcavationandallowedexcavationwithout

installing afourth strut level. Groundwater lowering

insidetheexcavationwas achievedby vacuumwells

(commonly usedinSalzburg) whichextendedbelow

theexcavationlevel inorder toreduceuplift.

The construction sequence is closely reflected in

the analysis. Starting from the initial stress state

(K

0

=0.55 for all layers) and theloads of thefoun-

dations of theneighbouring buildings (80kN/m

2

for

the Novotel, 200 and 250kN/m

2

for the strip foot-

ings of Object 24) the wall and jet grout panel

havebeenintroducedwish-in-place. Thenexcavation

steps, groundwater changes andinstallationof struts

have been modelled in a step by step analysis. Soil

behaviour below20mis assumedto beundrained,

above20m, duetothepresenceof thinsandylayers,

asdrained.

2.2 Material parameters

The soil parameters used in the analysis for the top

soil layer (04mbelow surface) and the clayey silt

aresummarizedinTables1and2. Asmentionedpre-

viously, parameter determinationisnot onlybasedon

siteinvestigationsandlaboratoryexperimentsbutalso

fromexperienceof back analysesof other deepexca-

vations in Salzburg. Therfeore soil parameters have

not been varied in this study. In Table 1 E

50

, E

oed

and E

ur

are the reference stiffness in primary load-

ing (for deviatoric and oedometric stress paths) and

unloading/reloadingrespectively.

Theaxial stiffnessof thestruts(Table3) differsfor

thethreelevels, thematerial behaviour isassumedto

Table1. Stiffnessparametersfor soil layers.

E

50

E

oed

E

ur

m p

ref

ur

(MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (kPa)

Soil layer 3 3 12 0.0 40 0.2

(04m)

Clayeysilt 37.6 37.6 150.4 0.30 100 0.2

Table2. Strengthparametersfor soil layers.

c

(kPa) (

) (

)

Soil layer (04m) 5 28 0

Clayeysilt 1 30 26 0

Table3. Axial stiffnessof struts.

EA spacing

(kN) (m)

Strut level 1 3.234E6 3

Strut level 2 1.067E7 3

Strut level 3 5.334E6 3

Table4. Parameters for wall, jet grout panel and founda-

tions.

E R

inter

UCS

(kN/m

2

) (N/mm

2

)

Diaphragmwall 2.9E7 0.2 0.7 18.8

J et grout panel 5.0E5 0.2 0.7 2.25

Foundations 3.0E7 0.2 0.7

belinear elastic. Table4lists thebasic set of param-

eters used for diaphragmwall, jet grout panel and

the foundation structures of Novotel and Object 24.

Inthe2D analysesaMohr-Coulombfailurecriterion

hasbeenusedfor wall andjetgroutpanel whereasthe

cohesionwaschoseninsuchaway toobtaintheuni-

axial compressivestrength(UCS) aslistedinTable4,

assuming

=45

.Tensioncut-off wassettoUCS/10.

R

inter

denotes thereductionof soil strengthto model

wall friction. In the 3D analyses the wall was elas-

tic andstiffnesswaseither assumedtocorrespondto

uncrackedconditions or crackedconditions. The

stiffnesspropertiesof thejetgroutpanel havebeenvar-

iedbecauseof thesignificantuncertaintyinobtaining

reliablevaluesfor theinsitustiffnessof suchpanels.

194

Figure2. Locationof pointsusedfor comparison.

3 INSITU MEASUREMENT PROGRAMME

Theexistenceof structuresintheclosevicinityof the

excavationrequiredacareful observationof deforma-

tions duringconstruction. Therefore, about 30settle-

mentgaugeswereinstalledtomonitor thesettlements

outside the excavation, in particular of the adja-

cent buildings. In addition, four inclinometers were

installedin thediaphragmwalls in order to measure

thehorizontal deflectionof thewall inall construction

stages.Twoof themwerelocatedapproximatelyinthe

cross section chosen for the 2D analysis, i.e. along

thecentrelineof theexcavation. Figure2depictsthe

pointschosenfor thecomparisonof measurementand

analysisfor settlements.

4 NUMERICAL MODELS

As mentioned previously 2D and 3D analyses have

beenperformedusingPlaxis2DandPlaxis3DFoun-

dations.The2Dmodel consistsof approximately2,300

15-noded elements (Figure 3) and the 3D model of

approximately11,00015-nodedwedgeelements(Fig-

ure 4). Lateral boundaries are fixed in horizontal

direction and the bottom boundary in vertical and

horizontal direction in both models. It can be seen

that the 3D mesh is much coarser as compared to

the2D meshbut studiesperformedonthe3D model

showedthat ameshwithmorethan20,000elements

resultedinonlymarginal differencesindisplacements.

However, bendingmomentsaremoresensitivetodis-

cretisationandastabilityanalysiswouldcertainlynot

yieldcorrectresultswiththemeshadoptedfor the3D

analyses.

5 RESULTSOF 2DMODEL

Four different analyseshavebeenperformedwiththe

2Dmodel:

Variation 1 (V1): Wall and jet grout panel elastic

withelasticpropertiesaccordingtoTable4.

Figure3. 2Dfiniteelement mesh.

Figure4. 3Dfiniteelement mesh.

Variation 2 (V2): Diaphragm wall modelled as

elastic-perfectly plastic material with UCS as given

inTable4.

Variation3(V3): V2andincreaseof stiffnessof jet

grout panel byafactor of 3.

Variation4(V4):V3andincreaseof tensioncut-off

indiaphragmwall byafactor of 2.

Figures 5 and 6 compare the deflection of the

wall for the final construction stage for all four

analyses with the measurements obtained fromthe

inclinometers.

Itfollowsthatthedifferentassumptionsmadehave

littleinfluenceontheresults intheupper part of the

wall becauseinthispartthedeformationsaregoverned

by thestruts. Results for theright wall comparewell

withmeasurementsintheupper part, for theleft wall

thisisnot thecase. For thelower part onlyV3andV4

produceareasonably match and it turned out that it

isdifficulttoobtainthewall curvatureasmeasuredat

thelocationof thejet grout panel.

Figures7to9showacomparisonof calculatedand

measuredvertical displacements at various points on

thegroundsurface.Thetwosetsof squaresineachdia-

gramrepresentpairsof settlementgaugeswhicharein

closedistancetothepointspickedfromthenumerical

analysisatvariousstagesof construction(thedatesare

givenwithinthediagram, theaxisrepresentscalcula-

tion steps, representing the progress of construction

195

Figure5. 2Danalysis: wall deflection left wall.

with time). Only for point H a reasonable agree-

mentbetweencalculationandmeasurementscouldbe

achieved, although onehas to mention that absolute

values are very small, with about 10 mmas maxi-

mumsettlement. InpointI theanalysispredictsheave

whereassettlementshavebeenmeasured, butforpoint

E settlementsareoverpredicted.

6 RESULTSOF 3DMODEL

Inthissectionresultsfrom3Danalysesarepresented.

These analyses have been performed because the

geometry of theexcavation(approximately quadratic

inplanview)andalsopartof thebracingsystem(struts

across thecorners of theexcavation) cannot beade-

quately representedinplanestrainconditions. Inthe

first series of analyses emphasis has beenput onthe

stiffnessof thediaphragmwall and3different calcu-

lationshavebeenperformed: thefirst assumedlinear

elasticbehaviour for thewall withastiffnessassigned

representingstiffness I (uncrackedconditions), the

secondoneassumedstiffnessII(crackedconditions)

andthethirdoneintroducedanon-linearbehaviourby

Figure6. 2Danalysis: wall deflection right wall.

Figure7. 2Danalysis: surfacedisplacements Point I.

meansof apre-definedcurverelatingallowablebend-

ingmomentstothecurvatureof thewall. InFigures10

and11thesearedenotedwithZ1, Z2andnon-linear

respectively. It has been observed already in the2D

analysesthattheassumptionfor thestiffnessof thejet

groutedpanel has asexpected asignificant influ-

ence on the curvature of the wall. The inclinometer

measurementsindicatethatthelower value obtained

fromlaboratoryexperiments seemstounderestimate

thesupportinsitu. Thishasbeenconfirmedalsofrom

196

Figure8. 2Danalysis: surfacedisplacements Point H.

Figure9. 2Danalysis: surfacedisplacements Point E.

Figure10. 3Danalysis: wall deflection left wall.

Figure11. 3Danalysis: wall deflection right wall.

3D analyses and thereforeonly results assuming the

highstiffness(1,500MPa, asusedinV3andV4of the

2Dcalculations) arepresentedinthefollowing.

Thecomparisonof horizontal displacements (Fig-

ures10and11) clearlyshowtheeffect of varyingthe

stiffness of the diaphragmwall in the unsupported

zone whereas the assumption of cracked stiffness

is closer to the measured curvature than the analy-

siswithhighwall stiffness, at least for theright wall.

In theupper part theinfluenceof varying wall stiff-

nessismuchlesspronouncedbecausethebehaviouris

dominatedbythestruts, however predictedhorizontal

displacementsarelessthanmeasured. Thenon-linear

model is, not surprisingly, between the two extreme

cases.

Finally, after some discussion with the designer,

an additional analysis was performed assuming a

non-perfect connection of struts and wall, i.e. it was

assumedthat thereis animperfectionbeforethefull

support of thestrut can bemobilised. This has been

achieved by a nonlinear model for the strut which

197

Figure12. Comparison2D-3Danalysis left wall.

results ina0.25mm/mgap tobeclosedbeforethe

full support is activated (this variation is denoted as

V7 in the following diagrams). The consequence of

thisfollowsformFigures12and13, inwhichresults

fromthe2Danalysis(Variation4) arealsoplottedfor

comparison. For theleftwall thecurvatureattheposi-

tion of the grout panel is still not in full agreement

with measurements but the upper part corresponds

much better than in previous analyses. For the right

wall thecurvatureandtheupper part arenowinrea-

sonablegoodagreement withmeasurements (for the

right wall the2Danalysisisalsoingoodagreement).

Figures14to17plot settlementsat variousobserved

points. It is immediately noticedthat incontrast to

the2D model the3D analysis predicts settlements

alsoforPointI, althoughtheyarestill slightlyloweras

comparedtomeasuredvalues. PointHcorrespondsin

thesensethatmeasuredandcalculatedsettlementsare

almostzero. PointE showsslightlyhigher settlements

for later stagesof constructionthanmeasuredandthe

sameholdsfor point G.

Figure13. Comparison2D-3Danalysis right wall.

Figure14. Comparison2D-3Danalysis: Point I.

Figure15. Comparison2D-3Danalysis: Point H.

198

Figure16. Comparison2D-3Danalysis: Point E.

Figure17. Comparison2D-3Danalysis: Point G.

7 CONCLUSIONS

Results form2D and 3D finite element analyses of

a deep excavation have been compared to in situ

measurements. The excavation is supported by a

diaphragmwall, 3rowsof strutsandajet grout panel

locatedjustbelowthefinal excavationdepth.Inapara-

metricstudythestiffnessof thediaphragmwall andthe

jetgroutpanel havebeenvaried.Thestudyshowedthat

a 2D analysis would reasonably predict wall deflec-

tions(inparticular for theright wall) but if bothwalls

and vertical displacements of all surface points are

consideredthe3Danalysisproducesasomewhatbetter

overall agreement withthemeasurements.

REFERENCES

Brinkgreve,R.B.J.2002.PLAXIS, Finite element code for soil

and rock analyses, usersmanual. Rotterdam: Balkema.

Schweiger, H.F. & Breymann, H. 2005. FE-analysis of

fivedeepexcavations inlacustrineclay andcomparison

within-situmeasurements. In(K.J. Bakker, A. Bezuijen,

W. Broere, E.A. Kwast, eds.), Proceedings 5th Int. Symp.

Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in

Soft Ground, Amsterdam, June 1517, 2005, Taylor &

Francis/Balkema, Leiden, 887892.

199

Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground Ng, Huang & Liu (eds)

2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-48475-6

Theeffect of deepexcavationonsurroundinggroundandnearbystructures

A. Siemi nska-Lewandowska& M. Mitew-Czajewska

Warsaw University of Technology, Warsaw, Poland

ABSTRACT: Inthepaper problemsrelatedwiththeexecutionof 29mdeepexcavationof NowySwiatStation

(S11) of 2ndmetrolineinWarsawarediscussed. Inthecentral section, Warsaw2ndmetrolinerunsbelowthe

center of thecity(officeandhousingbuildingsandhightrafficroads) aswell asbelowVistulariver.Thiscentral

sectionconsistsof 7stationsand6runningtunnels 6kmlengthintotal. Runningtunnelswill beconstructed

usingTBM, stations cut andcover method. Deepexcavationwill beexecutedwithindiaphragmwalls. The

stabilityof thewallswill beprovidedbyseveral levelsof slabsandstruts. Theanalysisof settlementsof ground

surface, surroundingfoundations anddisplacements of walls of theexcavationhavebeenmade. Additionally,

settlementsof thesurfacewerecalculatedabovetheTBM (runningtunnels). Resultingvaluesof settlementsin

bothcaseswerecomparedanddiscussed.

1 INTRODUCTION

Constructionof 2ndMetrolineinWarsawisscheduled

tobegininJ anuary2008, announcementof designand

buildtender hasbeenalreadypublished. Inthecentral

section,Warsaw2ndMetrolinecrossesbelowthecen-

ter of thecity (officeandhousingbuildingsandhigh

trafficroads)aswell asbelowVistulariver.Thiscentral

sectionconsistsof 7stationsand6runningtunnels

6kmlengthintotal.

Figure1. Longitudinal sectionof thecentral part of the2ndMetrolineinWarsaw.

Running tunnels will be constructed usingTBM,

stations cutandcovermethod. Inthepaperproblems

relatedwiththeexecutionof 29mdeepexcavationin

Quarternarysoils(siltysands, sands, clayeysandsand

Plioceneclays) arediscussed. Within theexcavation

Nowy Swiat Station(S11) of the2ndmetrolinewill

bebuilt.TheS11stationwill befoundedatthedepthof

29mbelowgroundsurface(b.g.s.) inthevicinityof so

calledWarsawSlope, wherethedenivelation(differ-

enceingroundsurfacelevels) reaches30m(Figure1).

201

Figure2. Longitudinal sectionof thecentral part of the2ndMetrolineinWarsaw.

Thedepth of thestation is aconsequenceof sud-

denloweringof thetunnel fromtheupper slopelevel

to the level below the bottomof the river with the

considerationof appropriatesoil cover resultingfrom

TBM technology. Deep excavation will be executed

within100cmthickdiaphragmwalls. Thestabilityof

thewalls will beprovided by several levels of slabs

andstruts. Intheclosevicinity of theexcavationand

abovethetunnel therearemanyoldbuildings, suchas:

historic buildingsbuilt inXIXthcentury, partially

destroyed during the 2nd World War and rebuilt

after thewar. PolishAcademyof Sciences, Warsaw

University andaHospital arelocatedthere. These

buildings arefounded on spread foundations at a

depth of 4,80mb.g.s. Shortest distance between

theexcavationwall andfoundationof thebuilding

amountsto3m;

residential buildings constructed in 30. of XXth

century,probablyfoundedonpiles.Thesebuildings

arelocatedabovethetunnel drilledusingTBM;

residential andofficebuildings constructedin50.

and 60. of XXth century on old pre-war foun-

dations. These buildings are founded on spread

foundations at adepth of 4,00mb.g.s., 6mapart

fromtheexcavationwall;

masonryandconcreteresidential andofficebuild-

ings constructedin 60. of XXth century, founded

at a depth of 6,00m b.g.s., 5m apart from the

excavationwall.

Polish Central State Bank and the Ministry of

Financearelocatedthere.

Thesesbuildingsaremostlymasonryor reinforced

concretestructuresingoodtechnical state.Themajor-

ity of themis protected by the heritage conservator

law. The location of the excavation of S11 Station,

running tunnels and surrounding buildings is shown

onFigure2.

Theanalysisof settlementsof groundsurface, sur-

roundingfoundationsanddisplacementsof excavation

wallshavebeenmade.Additionally, settlementsof the

surfacewerecalculatedabovetheTBM, T11running

tunnel (cross-sectionmarkedby greenline). Figure2

showsthelocationof all calculationcross-sectionsin

thevicinityof S11StationandT11runningtunnel.

2 GEOLOGY

ThereareQuaternaryandTertiarysoilsintheareaof

thedeepexcavationof thestationandrunningtunnels.

According to the geotechnical investigations report,

followinggeotechnical layersaredistinguished:

layer I uncontrolledfills 1,52mthick, insome

placesupto3m;

layer II morainedeposits reachingdepthof 4m

b.g.s., consistingof mediumandstiff sandy clays

andclayeysandsof Wartaglaciation;

202

Figure3. CalculationsectionN

3.

layer III mediumsands and silty sands of Odra

glaciation, tothedepthof 10mb.g.s.;

layer IV morainedepositsreachingdepthof 13m

b.g.s. consistingof mediumandstiff sandyclaysof

Odraglaciation;

layerV pliocenclaystill thedepthof 50mb.g.s.

Therearethreelevels of groundwater table. Con-

sidering temporary stability of the bottom of the

excavation, it wasassumedthat thewater tablewould

beloweredduringconstructionof thestation.Geotech-

nical conditions,distributionof soil layersandlocation

of foundationsareshownonFigure3andFigure4.S11

stationandT11runningtunnel arebothlocatedwithin

thelayer of stiff andverystiff Plioceneclays.

3 DESCRIPTIONOF THE DEEP EXCAVATION

OF THE S11STATION

It was designedthat thedeepexcavationof S11Sta-

tionwill beexecutedwithin100cmthick diaphragm

walls, founded10mbelowthebottomof theexcava-

tion(thatmeanstheheightof wallsis39m). Duetothe

greatdepthof theexcavation, amountingto29m, slab

methodof theexecutionof theexcavationwaschosen

inordertoprovidemaximumsafetyof theconstruction

works. Thestability of diaphragmwalls will bepro-

vided by 8 levels of 35cmthick underground slabs.

Vertical spacingof slabsis3m, whichgivesanoppor-

tunitytoadopt undergroundsurfacefor car parksand

retail. Constructionstagesareconsideredasfollows:

execution of guide-walls, 1m thick diaphragm

walls and 1mhigh reinforced conretegirt on the

entireperimeter of theexcavation,

excavation till the depth of 2mb.g.s., i.e. below

the slab at level 1, execution of barrettes and

temporaryslabsupports,

constructionof theslabatlevel 1, backfillingthe

excavationandallowtrafficback,

excavationtill thedepthof 5mb.g.s., i.e. belowthe

slabat level 2,

constructionof theslabat level 2,

excavationtill thedepthof 8mb.g.s., i.e. belowthe

slabat level 3,

constructionof theslabat level 3,

excavationtill thedepthof 11mb.g.s., i.e. below

theslabat level 4,

constructionof theslabat level 4,

excavationtill thedepthof 14mb.g.s., i.e. below

theslabat level 5,

constructionof theslabat level 5,

excavationtill thedepthof 17mb.g.s., i.e. below

theslabat level 6,

constructionof theslabat level 6,

excavationtill thedepthof 20mb.g.s., i.e. below

theslabat level 7,

constructionof theslabat level 7,

excavationtill thedepthof 23mb.g.s., i.e. below

theslabat level 8,

constructionof theslabat level 8,

excavationtill thedepthof 26,5mb.g.s.,

installationof temporarystrutsatthedepthof 26m

b.g.s.,

final excavationtill thedepthof 29mb.g.s.,

constructionof 1,5mthickfoundationslab,

deinstallationof thetemporarystruts.

Calculations were made in 3 sections, chosen

becauseof thevicinityof significant buildings.

Figure 3 presents example cross-section N

3,

located close to the beginning of the running tun-

nel (for thelocationof thesectionrefer toFigure2),

showinggeotechnical conditionsandsurcharges.

4 DESCRIPTIONOF THET11TUNNEL

Two versions of the tunnel structure has been

considered: 1tubeincluding2tracksand2tubes, sin-

gletrackeach.

The lining of the tunnel was assumed to be con-

structedof 40cmthicksegments. Followingstagesof

theexecutionof thetunnel weremodeled:

initial stress includingoverburdenandsurcharges

(buildingsandtraffic),

203

excavation of the tunnel and construction of the

liningof thetunnel.

Figure4showscalculationcross-sectionN

I-I (for

thelocationof thesectionrefer toFigure2) including

geotechnical conditions, tunnels(2tubes)andlocation

of existingbuildings.

5 CALCULATIONS

5.1 Calculations of the excavation of S11 station

Finiteelement plain strain analysis werecarried out

usingPLAXIS v. 8software, Coulomb-Mohr consti-

tutive soil model was chosen for modeling the soil

body,diaphragmwallsaswell asslabsweremodeledas

3-nodes, linearbeamelements. Non-associatedplastic

flowlawwasconsidered. For modelingwall frictions

Coulomb-Mohr lowwasused. Model dimensionsare:

65m (vertical), 100m (horizontal), they were esti-

matedtakingintoaccountpolishregulationsaccording

totherangeof influencezoneof theexcavation.

FEM model mesh, generated automatically, was

built of 807 15-nodes triangle elements and 9773

nodes. For thepurposeof thepaper 3rdcross-section

waschosentobepresentedanddiscussedbecauseof

Figure4. CalculationsectionNoI-I (T11).

its vicinity to theT11 running tunnel. Geotechnical

conditionsandlocationof existingbuildingshasbeen

presentedonFigure3, FEM model is shownonFig-

ure5. Figure6presentsmaximumdeformationsof the

model inthefinal constructionstage. Maximumcal-

culatedlateral displacement of thediaphragmwall in

section3amountsto49,3mm; maximumfoundation

displacement 30,6mm.

Table 1 presents maximum calculated values of

horizontal and vertical displacements of the wall as

well as settlements of thesurroundingbuildings in3

cross-sectionschosenfor calculation.

Figure5. Numerical model section3(PLAXIS).

204

5.2 Calculations of the T11 running tunnel

PlaceFiniteelementplainstrainanalysiswerecarried

out usingGEO4TUNNEL software, Coulomb-Mohr

constitutivesoil model was chosen for modeling the

soil body, tunnel lining was modeled using 3-nodes,

linearbeamelements. Non-associatedplasticflowlaw

wasconsidered. Formodelingwall frictionsCoulomb-

Mohr lowwasused.

SectionI-I, 1tube, 2tracks:

model dimensions: 60m (vertical) and 240m

(horizontal);

Figure6. Final displacements section3(PLAXIS).

Table1. Resultsof calculationsof deepexcavationS11.

Maximum Maximum

displacementsof settlements

diaphragmwall of buildings

Ux Uy U

Section [mm] [mm] [mm]

1-1 46,1 32,8 24,5

2-2 61,0 52,8 35,2

3-3 49,3 53,3 30,6

Figure7. FEM model, T11tunnel 2tubes, (GEO4TUNNEL).

FEM model mesh, generated automatically, was

built of 70606-nodestriangleelementsand15011

nodes.

SectionI-I, 2tubes, singletrackeach:

model dimensions: 60m (vertical) and 240m

(horizontal);

FEM model mesh, generated automatically, was

built of 81786-nodestriangleelementsand17284

nodes.

Geotechnical conditions, tunnelslocation(2tubes,

singletrackeachcase) andlocationof existingbuild-

ings has been presented on Figure 4, corresponding

FEM model is shownonFigure7. Figure8presents

maximumdeformationsof that model.

Table 2 presents maximum calculated values of

bending moments, and displacements of the lining

aswell assettlementsof thesurfaceandsurrounding

buildings.

6 CONCLUSIONS

Taking into consideration results of analysis of the

excavationof S11Stationaswell astheresultsof T11

runningtunnel calculationsfollowingconclusionsare

formed:

1. Inthevicinity of the29mdeepexcavation, which

will be executed during the construction of S11

MetroStationestimatedsettlementsof thesurface

andsurroundingbuildingsamountto24,535mm.

2. Calculated settlements of theground surfaceand

surroundingbuildingsabovetheT11runningtun-

nel constructedby themeansof TBM, takinginto

consideration both cases 1 two track tunnel and

2 single track tunnels are similar and amount to

37,537,8mm.

3. Theoretical values of settlements as well as dis-

placements and forces in the structures were

205

Figure8. Maximumdeformationsof themodel, T11tunnel.

Table2. Resultsof calculationsof runningtunnel T11.

Finiteelementsmethod

Maximum

bendingmoments, Maximum Maximum

displacements surface settlements

of tunnel lining settlements of buildings

Typeof Mmax Umax Umax Umax

tunnel [kNm/m] [mm] [mm] [mm]

1-1 306,6 24,2 37,7 37,8

(1tunnel)

1-1 290,2 8,1 37,5 37,6

(2tunnels)

calculatedconsideringthat thevalueof themodu-

lusof deformationof Plioceneclays, withinwhich

thestructuresarelocated,isE=50MPa.Thisvalue

must beverifiedbymeansof in-situtestsandthen

thecalculationswill beadjusted.

4. Due to the expected differences in the values of

settlementsof thegroundsurfaceclosetothedeep

excavation and above the tunnel further analysis

of thecaseincluding 3D modeling of thecontact

of 2types of tunnel structure(runningtunnel and

station) will beperformed.

5. During the construction, the results of analysis

describedinthepaperwill becarefullyverifiedand

discussed.

REFERENCES

FINE Ltd. 2007. GEO4 Users manual. Prague: FINE Ltd.

Geoteko Sp. z o.o. 2004. Evaluation of the technical state

of buildings in the influence zone of 2nd metro line in

Warsaw, section Rondo Daszy nskiego Station Powi sle

Station. Warsaw: GeotekoSp. z o.o.

Geoteko Sp. z o.o. 2004. Geotechnical and hydrological

report for theconstructionof 2ndmetro lineinWarsaw,

Nowy

Geoprojekt Sp. z o.o.

Grodecki, W., Siemi nska-Lewandowska, A. & Lejk, J. 2007.

Second metro line in Warsaw possibility and meth-

ods of realization, In zynieria i Budownictwo 7-8/2007:

365368.

Kotlicki, W. &Wysoki nski L. 2002. Protection of structures

in the vicinity of deep excavations (376/2002). Warsaw:

BuildingResearchInstitute.

PLAXISBV. 2005. PLAXIS Users manual. Roterdam: A. A.

Balkema.

Polish Committee of Standardisation. 2002. PN-EN 1538-

2002 Execution of special geotechnical works. Diaphragm

walls. Warsaw: PolishCommitteeof Standardisation.

206

Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground Ng, Huang & Liu (eds)

2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-48475-6

Multi-criteriaprocedurefor theback-analysisof multi-supported

retainingwalls

J. Zghondi

Arcadis, Lyon, France and LGCIE, INSA-Lyon, France

F. Emeriault & R. Kastner

LGCIE, INSA-Lyon, France

ABSTRACT: A numerical back-analysis procedurefor multi-supporteddeepexcavations is proposedbased

ontheoptimizationof several indicators, takinginaccount theforcesinthestrutsandthedifferential pressures

derivedfromthewall displacement. Theevaluationof theprocedureisperformedon1gsmall scalelaboratory

experiments(Masrouri 1986) onsemi-flexibleretainingwallsembeddedinSchneebelli material. Theproposed

numerical procedurewasappliedonanexcavationwith2passiveslowstiffnessstruts. TheresultingHardening

Soil Model parametersarefurther usedtoback-calculatethe14different testedconfigurations. Theresultsare

comparedwiththeclassical methods, SubGradeReactionMethod, FiniteElementanalysiswithMohr Coulomb

model withparameters proposedby Masrouri (1986) andwiththeback-analysis usingHardeningSoil Model

parametersbasedontriaxial testsresults.

1 INTRODUCTION

Numerical back-analysisof insitumonitoringresults

of multi-supported deep excavations is generally

extremelycomplex(Hashash&Whittle1996,Finno&

Calvello2005, Delattre1999): soil characteristicscan

beheterogeneousor determinedwithalowdegreeof

confidence, thedifferent stagesof theexcavationcan

bedifficult toreproduceina2Dnumerical approach,

keymechanical parameterscanbeunknown(forexam-

ple the actual stiffness of the strut-to-wall contact)

and thenumber of measured quantities such as wall

displacements, settlements and strut forces is gener-

allytoosmall toperformacomprehensivecomparison

betweentheactual behavior andthenumerical results.

Thus thefull validationof aback-analysis numer-

ical procedure (including in particular the choice of

theconstitutivelaw and thedetermination of all the

requiredparameters) israrelydirectlypossibleonreal

casehistories.Therefore,thenumerical procedurepro-

posedinthispaperisvalidatedon1gsmall scalelabo-

ratoryexperimentsperformedbyMasrouri (1986) on

semi-flexibleretainingwallsembeddedinSchneebeli

material (mixtureof steel rods of different diameters

representingin2Dthebehaviorof acohesionlesssoil).

The14consideredexperimentscorrespondtoaretain-

ingwall, whoselengthandmechanical propertiesare

keptconstant, supportedbyoneor twolevelsof active

or passivesteel strutswithvariousaxial stiffnessand

prestressing.

Even for such simple comprehensive laboratory

experiments, usual design method like SubGrade

Reaction Method(SGRM) or classical limit equilib-

riummethodsdonotcaptureall theobservedbehaviors

andtest results. It isthusnecessary toproposeauni-

fied numerical procedure to back calculate with an

acceptabledegreeof confidence, all theresultsof the

excavationstestsof Masrouri (1986).

2 EXPERIMENTSANDCOMPARISONWITH

CLASSICAL/SGRM CALCULATIONS

Theexperimentscorrespondtosmall scale2Dmodels

of flexibleretainingwalls(Figure1).

Figure1. Masrourisexperimental set up.

207

Table1. Summaryof Masrouri (1986) experiments.

First strut Secondstrut

Prestressed Stiffness Prestressed Stiffness

Experiments (kN/m.ml) (kN/m.ml) (kN/m.ml) (kN/m.ml)

B1 2.133 83333 (not used)

B2 3.025 83333 (not used)

B3 0.208 816 (not used)

B4 2.1 816 (not used)

B5 3 816 (not used)

B6 0.191 404 (not used)

B7 2.016 404 (not used)

B8 2.916 404 (not used)

B10 0.383 83333 0.333 83333

B11 1.330 83333 2.691 83333

B12 0.366 816 0.400 816

B13 2.075 816 2.700 816

B14 1.733 816 4.041 816

Schneebelli 2D analogic soil was used: this mate-

rial offer a good repeatability and enables to build

a homogeneous 2D soil model with quick handling

for the experiments. However Schneebeli materials

havesomeinconvenients: theunit weight is closeto

6.5kN/m

3

, theangleof frictionissmaller thanthat of

most of thesoils (21

behavior.

While maintaining the same geometrical and

mechanical characteristics for the wall (EA =1.2

10

6

kN/mand EI =14.4kN/m

2

/m), a wide range of

configurations(1or 2struts, withdifferent prestress-

ing and stiffness) was considered, see Table 1. The

phases used in all the excavations were planned as

follows;

1. strut cases: 10cmof excavation, installationof the

first strut at 5cmfromthe top and prestress-

ing, then3excavationsof 10cmeachtill 40cm,

then several excavations of 5cmuntil failure is

obtained.

2. struts cases: the same procedure as for the 1

strut casesisfolloweduntil theexcavationreaches

40cmfromthetop, thenthe2ndstrutisinstalled

at thelevel 25cmandprestressed. Thestep-wise

excavation(byincrementof 5cm) isresumeduntil

failureoccurs.

Thestruttowall contactishingedinordertoprevent

bending moment to betransmitted to thestruts. For

eachexcavationphase,thehorizontal displacementsof

thetopor bottomof thewall aremeasured.Thecurva-

tureisalsomeasuredin26locations(bothsidesonthe

wall)allowingtodeterminewithareasonableaccuracy

thedifferential pressureactingonthewall fromthetop

to thebottom(polynomial approximation performed

bythePalpanprogramcreatedbyBoissieret al. 1978).

Photographswerealsotakentodeterminethedisplace-

ment fieldswithastereophotogrammetric technique.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

-15 -5 5 15

Differential pressure (kN/m2)

exc -45cm

Experiment

SGRM

B3

Passive strut

low stiffness

Figure2. Differential pressurecalculatedwithSGRMcom-

pared to experimental values: Case B3 low stiffness

passivestrut (45cmexcavationlevel).

Load cells determine the forces on the cylindrical

struts.

2.1 Classical and SGRM calculations

Thewholeseriesof experimentswerefirst compared

with classical (modified Blummethod) and SGRM

calculations (Terzaghi 1955). The subgrade reaction

modulus used in RIDO calculations (Fages 1996) is

increasingwithdepthinthefollowingmanner:

K

h

= K +K

v

. withK = 0, K

h

= K

v

Classical methods calculation totally neglects the

influence of the stiffness of the wall, construction

steps, stiffnessandprestressingonthestruts, arching

effect, etc. OntheoppositeSGRMexplicitlyconsiders

thestiffnessof thewall, theconstructionstepsandthe

stiffnessof thestrut.

In thecaseof onepassivestrut with lowstiffness

(tests B3, B6), the SGRM method reproduces in an

acceptable manner the differential pressures results

(Figure2).

208

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

-20 -10 0 10 20

Differential pressure (kN/m2)

exc -45cm

Experiment

SGRM

B10

Passive stiff

strut

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

-20 -10 0 10 20

Differential Pressure (kN/m2)

exc -45cm

Experiment

SGRM

B14

Active low

stiffness

Figure3. Calculated (SGRM Method) and measured dif-

ferential pressurefor B10andB14at 45cmof excavation.

Figure4. Meshusedfor thePlaxiscalculationsof 2struts

supportedwalls.

Withonestiff or activestrut or inthecaseof exca-

vations with 2 struts, both the SGRM and the limit

equilibriummethodsfail toreproducetheexperiment

differential pressures(Figure3a Test B10). Insome

cases, a good description of the pressure diagrams

seemstobeobtained(Figure3bTestB14). Itactually

results fromtwoerrors compensatingeachother: the

overestimationof thepressureinducedbyprestressing

andthelackof abilitytoreproducethearchingeffect.

2.2 Finite element back calculation with Mohr

Coulomb model

Itappearsthattheclassical andSGRMmethodsdonot,

eveninsimplecasesof excavation, accuratelydescribe

all theobservedresults. A finiteelement approachis

thereforeproposed.

The finite element calculations were performed

withPlaxisV8.2, themodel representsavertical slice

of Masrouris experiment. Themesh is composed of

triangular 15nodeselements(Figure4).

For thesecalculations, thesamecharacteristics of

the Schneebelli material were used (c=0, =21

,

=65kN/m

3

), taking into account for the soil-wall

interfaceaninterfacefactor R

int

=0.55(relatedtothe

frictionanglevaluenotedbyMasrouri).

Masrouri (1986) estimated theelastic modulus at

4500kPa with an increment of 26830kPa/m after

Figure 5. Strut forces for cases B1 to B8 with 1 strut

variationduringthelast 4excavationphasesbeforefailure.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

0,00 1,00 2,00 3,00 4,00 5,00

200 kPa

300 kP a

400 kPa

D

e

v

i

a

t

o

r

i

c

S

t

r

e

s

s

k

P

a

200 kPa

300 kPa

400 kPa

Axial Strain %

Experiments

HSM1

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 6

500Kpa

200Kpa

400Kpa

200Kpa

1 2 3 4 5

Axial Strain%

500Kpa

200Kpa

400Kpa

200Kpa

V

o

l

u

m

e

t

r

i

c

s

t

r

a

i

n

/

1

0

0

0

Experiments

HSM1

Figure6. SimulationwithHSM1parametersof thebiaxial

testswith200, 300and400kPa.

0.6mof depth(valuesbackcalculatedontestB4with

1activestrut of lowstiffness).

Inall thepresentedcalculationsthedifferencewith

themeasuredstrut forces andwall displacements do

not exceed20%(seeFigure5for the1-strut casesB1

toB8).

A sensibility analysis is performed considering

all the parameters of the Mohr Coulomb model. It

appears that the differences between calculated and

experimental results can not besatisfyingly reduced

(especiallyinthecaseswith2struts).Thereforeamore

sophisticated constitutivelaw is required (Figure6):

theHardeningSoil model.

209

Figure7. Differential pressurefor test B12andexcavation

at 50cm: comparisonof theexperimental values withthe

resultsof SGRM, FEwithMohrCoulomblawandHardening

Soil Model (HSM1andHSM2).

2.3 FE back-calculation with Hardening soil model

parameters based on triaxial tests

Hardeningsoil model (Shanz et al. 1999) cancapture

soil behavior inaverytractablemanner. Thevaluesof

thedifferentparameterswerefirstfittedonthebiaxial

testsresults(under a200Kpaconfiningpressure) per-

formedon2010cmsamplesbyKastner(1982).The

200kPaconfiningstressisgreaterthanthemeanstress

generally observedinMasrouri experiments, but ina

firstapproachitwasconsideredasmorerepresentative

of thesoil behavior thanthebiaxial testsusinglower

confining pressures: the size of the sample and the

highvalueof theunit weight of Schneebelli material

inducesanonhomogeneousstressstateinthesample

that could greatly affect the accuracy of the results.

The obtained set of parameters noted HSM1 in the

sequel providesasatisfyingdescriptionof thebiaxial

test with200kPaor moreconfiningstress(Figure6).

Thissetof parameterswasfurther usedtobackcal-

culatethewholeseriesof Masrourisexperiments(14

cases). It appearsthat thesecalculationsdonot repro-

duce well the test results in termof strut forces or

differential pressuresonthewall (Figure7represents

onlytheresultsof differential pressures).

3 PROPOSEDBACK ANALYSISPROCEDURE

The aimof this procedure is to find the proper set

of parameters for the constitutive soil model (Mohr

CoulomborHardeningSoil models) consideredinthe

Finite Element simulations. Considering one partic-

ular test configuration, the parameters will be first

obtained fromthe minimization of indicators based

on differential pressures and struts forces errors.

The resulting set of parameters will then be con-

frontedwiththeresults of thebiaxial tests andof 14

Figure 8. Differential pressure curves for indicator

explication.

configurationsconsideredexperimentallybyMasrouri

(1986).

3.1 Definition of indicators

Inorder toconsider themainfeaturesof theretaining

wall behaviour, two indicators were defined: E

sm

is

relatedtothestrutforcesandE

pd

relatedtothediffer-

ential pressureonthewall (linkedtothedisplacement

profile).

whereE

b1

=f

1

f

1

andE

b2

=f

2

f

2

andwithf

1(2)

and

f

1(2)

thestrut forcecalculatedor measuredinthe1st

(2nd) strut level.

TheE

sm

indicator isbasedontheerror of thesum

of strutsforces: thereforeanerror onthestrutforcef

1

canbecompensatedbyf

2

.

TheE

pd

indicator (Figure8) takesintoaccount the

absolutevalueof thedifferencebetweenthemeasured

andcalculateddifferential pressures (respectively P

1

andP

2

), dividedby theintegral of themeasureddif-

ferential pressureP

1

. Integralsarecalculatedfromthe

top of the wall to 10cmbelow the final excavation

level.

E

pd

isthemainindicator whilethepossibleinaccu-

racy of thestrut forcemeasurement especially at the

beginningof theexcavationmakestheE

sm

indicator a

secondvalidationindicator.

3.2 Parameter optimization for Mohr Coulomb

model based on a 2 strut excavation test

Thedetermination of asecond set of parameters for

Mohr Coulomb model is performed by fitting the

final resultsof a2strutsexcavationcase(excavation

level 50cm). Theparticular caseof test B12 (cor-

responding to passive struts with low stiffness) was

selectedbecauseitclearlyappearsthattheSGRMfail

210

Figure9. Variationsof indicatorsE

sm

andE

pd

withE

ref

50

.

toreproducethedifferential pressurediagramobtained

insuchconfiguration.

Only oneindependent parameter was usedfor fit-

ting the results, the elastic modulus E. The other

parameters arekept constant (c, , . . .). Thefinal

valueof E is determinedthroughtheoptimizationof

theindicatorsE

sm

andE

pd

. Actually, alinear variation

of E withthedepthisconsidered:

Both the initial value of the elasticity E

0

and its

variation with depth were considered in the opti-

mization procedure. It appeared that none of these

parameterscouldbemodifiedtoimprovethedescrip-

tion of the experimental results, indicating that the

Mohr Coulombmodel is unableto reproduceimpor-

tantfeaturesof thesoil behaviourinvolvedintheglobal

behaviour of theretainingwall.

3.3 HSM model optimized by fitting on a 2 strut

excavation test

Thedetermination of asecond set of parameters for

HardeningSoil Model (notedHSM2inthesequel) is

performed by fitting the final results of the same 2

strutsexcavationcase(B12excavationlevel 50cm)

asinsection3.2.

Onlyoneparameter wasusedfor fittingtheresults,

thereferencestiffnessmodulusE

ref

50

.Theotherparam-

eters areeither constant (c, , ) or keepadirect

relationshipwithE

ref

50

. For example:

Thefinal valueof E

ref

50

isdeterminedthroughtheopti-

mization of theindicators E

sm

and E

pd

. Considering

theaccuracy of theexperimental results (in particu-

lar theprocedureleading to thedifferential pressure

diagrams), E

ref

50

is determined with a precision of

1000kPa(Figure9).

Thevalueof E

ref

50

=6000kPais chosenbecauseit

appearstominimizebothindicators. HSM2isfurther

usedto simulatethebiaxial tests withlowconfining

stress(50and100kPa). Figure10showsagoodagree-

ment with theexperimental results, even though the

latter canbeaffectedby thenon-homogeneity of the

initial stressstatein20cm10cmsamples.

Figure 10. q-

1

biaxial curves: experimental results and

calculatedvalueswithHSM2.

The proposed back analysis procedure shows its

ability to verify or justify the HSM parameters that

accuratelydescribethebiaxial test results.

3.4 Back calculation of the 14 configurations tested

by Masrouri (1986)

TheHSM2set of parametersisnowusedtobackcal-

culatethe14different tests(Table1). Figures11and

12presentthedifferential pressurediagramsobtained

withHSM2andother methodsandtheratios f ,f

of

thecalculatedtothemeasuredstrutforcesrespectively

for tests B1 to B8 (1 strut) and tests B10 to B13 (2

struts).

The strut forces and the differential pressure are

well represented compared to theclassical methods,

the SGRM method or Finite element analysis with

a simpler constitutive model (Mohr Coulomb). The

effectof theprestressingof thestrutiswell reproduced

bythat procedure(comparingB3andB5inFigure11

or B10andB11inFigure12), as well as thearching

effect (caseof B10inFigure12) andtheinfluenceof

thestrutstiffness(comparingB1andB7inFigure11).

The proposed back analysis procedure and the

resulting set of parameters HSM2 show their effi-

ciency in all the configurations (unlike the SGRM

wherethearching effect and theprestressing on the

strutsarenot well reproduced).

3.5 Summary

Figure13presentsacomparisonof thevaluesobtained

for theselectiveindicator E

pd

in3casesof excavation

andfortheSGRM, MohrCoulomb, HSM1andHSM2

models:

B3correspondstoasinglepassiveandlowstiffness

strut

B12uses2passivelowstiffnessstruts

andB102passiverigidstruts.

In all of these 3 cases, it appears that the HSM2

set of parametersclearlyminimizestheerror between

experimental andnumerical results.

211

Figure11. Differential pressurediagrams andstrut forces

obtained with HSM2 (excavations with 1 strut at 50cm)

compared with experiments, Mohr Coulomb, and classical

methodsresults.

Figure12. Differential pressurediagrams andstrut forces

obtainedwithHSM2(excavations with2struts at 50cm)

comparedwithexperimentsandclassical methodsresults.

Figure13. E

pd

indicator calculatedfor testsB3, B12, B10

(excavation 50cm), for the SGRM, HSM1, HSM2 and

Mohr Coulombcalculation.

With the same constitutive model (HSM1 and

HSM2) andwiththesameparametersexceptE

ref

50

, the

error isdividedby3to5.

4 CONCLUSION

A comprehensive series of 14 small scale experi-

ments on flexibleretaining walls with different strut

212

stiffnessandprestressingisusedtovalidateanumeri-

cal back calculationusingtheHardeningSoil Model.

The final set of parameters HSM2 is fitted on one

single test (B12 at the final excavation level). The

proposed model is based on the simultaneous mini-

mization of two indicators E

sm

and E

pd

respectively

relatedtothestrutforcesanddifferential pressuredia-

gram. Theverificationof theproposedback analysis

procedureshowedthattheHSM2model givesthemost

acceptabledescriptionof thedifferential pressuresand

forcesonthestrutsinall of the14testedconfigurations

compared to theSGRM method or aFiniteElement

approachwitheitherMohrCoulombmodel orHarden-

ingSoil model withparametersbasedonbiaxial tests

(HSM1).

Further developmentswill includetheverification

of theability of proposedback-analysis procedureto

determinedtheHSM parametersnot onlyonE

sm

and

E

pd

at thefinal excavationlevel but alsooninterme-

diatelevels, for examplethefirstexcavationstepafter

theinstallationandprestressingof thelower strut.

Despite the already mentioned difficulties, fur-

ther validationof theprocedureonwell-instrumented

excavationsiteswill alsobetested.

REFERENCES

Boissier, et al. 1978. Dtermination des moments et des

pressions exercs sur uncranpartir demesures incli-

nomtrrique.Revue Canadienne de Gotechnique, 15,(4),

522536.

Brinkgreve, R.B.J. & Broere, W. 2004. PlaxisV8manuel.

Delattre, L. 1999. Comportementdescransdesoutnement-

Exprimentations et calculs. PhD dissertation, ENPC,

Paris, ENPC, 498p.

Fages, J. 1996Rido Users manual, RFL, Miribel, France.

Finno, R. & Calvello, M. 2005. Supported excavations:

observational methodandinversemodeling. J. Geotech.

Geoenv. Eng. ASCE, 131, (7): 826836.

Hashash,Y. M. A. &Whittle, A. J. 1996. GroundMovement

Predictionfor DeepExcavations insoft Clay. Journal of

Geotechnical Engineering, 122(6): 474486.

Kastner, R. 1982. ExcavationprofondeensiteurbainProb-

lmes lis la mise hors deau- Dimensionnement des

soutnements butonns. PhD dissertation, INSA Lyon &

Universit Claude Bernard-Lyon 1, 409p.

Masrouri, F. 1986. Comportement DesRideaux desoutne-

ment Semi- Flexibles. PhD dissertation, INSA Lyon,

France.

Schanz, T., Vermeer, P.A., Bonnier, P.G., 1999. The

Hardening-Soil Model: Formulation and verification.

In: R.B.J. Brinkgreve, Beyond 2000 in Computational

Geotechnics. Balkema, Rotterdam: 281290.

Terzaghi, K. 1955. Evaluation of coefficients of subgrade

reaction, Gotechnique, 5: 297326.

213

Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground Ng, Huang & Liu (eds)

2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-48475-6

Monitoringandmodellingof riversidelargedeep

excavation-inducedgroundmovementsinclays

D.M. Zhang& H.W. Huang

Key Laboratory of Geotechnical and Underground Engineering of Ministry of Education, Tongji University,

Shanghai, P.R. China

Department of Geotechnical Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai, P.R. China

W.Y. Bao

China State Construction Engineering Corporation (SH), Shanghai, P.R. China

ABSTRACT: TheRiversidelargedeepexcavationof Shanghai international passenger center was800mlong

and100150mwidewiththedepthof 13m. Thesouthlongsideof thedeepexcavationwas at adistanceof

4.6mfromtheparallel floodwall of HuangpuRiver. Thenorthlongsidewas5mawayfromahistoricbuilding.

Problemsresultedfromthelargedeepexcavationwastheasymmetricgroundmovementsalongthelongsides

duetothecomplexsurroundingconditionandsurfacesurcharge.Themonitoringduringtheexcavationprovided

numerousdatatostudythecharacteristicsof thegroundmovementandearthpressure.Thenumerical modelling

wasalsoadoptedaimtopredict thegroundmovements.

1 INTRODUCTION

Thedevelopmentof undergroundspacealongthebund

of HuangpuRiver inShanghai, Chinahasresultedin

excavationsbecomingprogressivelylarger andcloser

totheRiver, wherethegroundwatertablewasjustnear

thegroundsurfaceandagreatnumberof underground

works are within a few meters of the surface. The

riversideexcavationswereall locatedclosetotheexist-

ing buildings, network and the city lifeline of flood

wall. It hasbecomeagreat challengetoprotect these

neighboringbuildings andpublic utilities fromdam-

age during the deep excavation due to the complex

geotechnical constraints and thesmall opening from

theHuangpuRiver. Thesoilsnear theHuangpuRiver

wasusuallyweakwithaverylowstrengthandhigher

water content, which were a potential causes of the

largergroundmovement.Meanwhile,thecomplexand

denseenvironments put forward astrict requirement

onthegroundmovement controlling. It was difficult

todeterminetheearthpressureactedontheretaining

wall withanyconventional earthpressuretheorycon-

sideringthesmall soil bodyleftbetweenretainingwall

andfloodwall. Besides, theretainingwall of riverside

deep excavation was usually asymmetrically loaded

with much higher earth pressureon oneside, which

wascausedbygreatsurfacesurchargeduetotheexist-

ingbuildingsandthepileof theconstructionmaterial.

Thestability of thedeep excavation as a wholewas

worth considering to avoid any kinds of failure of

the deep excavation and consequent damage on the

environments.

However, there were few references for the con-

struction of the large deep excavation because of

thegeotechnical conditionandcomplex environment

alongthebundof HuangpuRiver. Thedeepexcava-

tionof Shanghai international passengercenter(SIPC)

wasthelargestandclosestonetoHuangpuRiversofar.

Theconstructionandtheanalysismethodof thedeep

excavationof SIPCandtheinducedgroundmovement

aswell will beauseful andpractical referencefor the

subsequent riversidelargedeepexcavation.

2 PROJ ECT OUTLINEANDSOIL CONDITIONS

2.1 Project outline

Thedeepexcavationof SIPCwas800mlongwiththe

widthof 100150mandthedepthof 13m. Thelarge

deepexcavationwasdividedintotwosub-excavations

with thelengths of 480mand 218mrespectively to

reducetheriskof damagefortheexistingstructureand

thefailureof deepexcavation. Thestudypresentedin

thispaperwascarriedoutbasedonthedeepexcavation

withthelengthof 480m.Thesketchviewof theproject

wasillustratedinFigure1.Thespacebetweenthedeep

excavationandfloodwall of HuangpuRiver wasonly

215

Figure1. Sketchviewof theproject.

Figure2. Theplaneviewof strut arrangement.

4.6mat south side. A number of existing buildings,

including ahistoric building, werelocated along the

north sideof thedeep excavation with adistanceof

about 5m.

BoredpilessupplementedbySMWpileswall were

used as the retaining structure. The bored pile was

950mmindiameter withacenter-to-center spaceof

1150mm. Theeffectivelengthof theboredpilewas

26mandtheembedmentwasadequatetoprovidesuf-

ficient passiveearthpressureto keepthestability of

the retaining wall. The SMW piles were 850mmin

diameter withaneffectivelengthof 20.8m. Thedis-

tancebetweenSWM piles was 600mmto guarantee

thewaterproof performance. Themixratioof cement

wasashighas20%for SMWpiles. Threereinforced

concretestrutsweresetatthedepthof 0.9m, 5.7m

and9.6mwiththecrosssectionof 1250800mm

forthefirststrutandof 1200800mmforthesecond

andthirdstrut. Theplanespaceof thestrut wasabout

1.2mand illustrated in Figure2. Thecross sections

of the deep excavation were presented in Figure 3a

and3b.

The jet grouting belt of 4mwide and about 4m

high was employed closely above the bottomof the

deepexcavationalongtheretainingwall.Thegrouting

could significantly increase the capacity of the soil

resistancefor theretainingwall duringtheexcavation.

Theboredpilewas extendedfrom26mto27mnear

Figure3a. A-A crosssectionof deepexcavation.

Figure3b. B-B crosssectionof deepexcavation.

thehistoricbuildingtoprotectthebuildingfromcrack

andtilting. Besides, theisolationpileswerespecially

designedtoreducetodeepexcavation-inducedeffect

onthehistoricbuilding.

2.2 Soil conditions

Thesoil profilethroughout thedeepexcavationcom-

prises the mixed filling to a depth of 6.4m, which

containsmanyobstaclesandmadealot of troublefor

thedeep excavation, underlain by silt, silty clay and

mucky clay. The retaining wall including the water-

proof wall wasembeddedinthesiltyclay.Thedetailed

characteristicsof thesoilswerepresentedinTable1.

216

Table1. Soilscharacteristicsthroughout thedeepexcavation.

Water Bulk Compression Cohesion Friction

Depth content density modulus kPa angle

Soil m % kN/m

3

kPa

Mixedfilling 6.38

Silt 4.89 31.7 18.2 8170 8 28.5

Muckyclaywithsilt 4.96 40.5 17.5 4130 11 22

Muckyclay 7.17 49.7 16.6 2580 14 13

Siltyclay1 7.31 34.0 18.0 4570 17 17

Siltyclay2 4.05 33.3 17.8 8130 8 29

Siltyclay3 17.23 33.2 17.9 5240 17 23.5

Figure4. Monitoringlayout of lateral displacements.

Table2. Progressof excavation.

corresponding

excavation

Date depth(m)

11/5/200511/11/2005 3

11/11/200512/2/2005 6.2

12/2/20051/3/2006 13

1/13/2006 completionof

bottomplate

3 MONITORINGOF EXCAVATION

As showninFigure4, 14inclinometers, whichwere

denoted by CX1 to CX14, were set into the retain-

ingwall aroundthedeepexcavation. 2earthpressure

gaugesdenotedasTY1andTY2inFigure4werealso

installedclosetotheretainingwall tostudytheevolu-

tionof earthpressureof thesmall soil body between

retainingwall andfloodwall duringexcavation. The

earthpressuregaugeswereinstalledevery 5minthe

vertical overall 25m.

Theprogressof excavationwaspresentedinTable2.

3.1 Monitored lateral displacements

Figures 58 showed the lateral displacements at

monitoring points of CX1, CX3, CX12 and CX10

correspondingtothestudiedexcavationstages. These

inclinometerswereclosetothecenter of thelongside

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 10 20 30 40 50

11/ 11/ 2005

12/ 2/ 2005

1/ 3/ 2005

1/ 13/ 2006

d

e

p

t

h

/

m

lateral displacement/mm

Figure5. Lateral displacement at inclinometer CX1.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 10 20 30 40

12/2/2005

1/3/2005

1/13/2006

d

e

p

t

h

/

m

lateral displacement/mm

Figure6. Lateral displacement at inclinometer CX12.

of the deep excavation and thus the readings were

representative of the maximumdisplacement of the

retaining wall. It could be found fromfigures 58

that themaximumlateral displacement was less than

60mmduringthewholeexcavationstage. Meanwhile,

217

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

11/11/2005

12/2/2005

1/3/2005

1/13/2006

d

e

p

t

h

/

m

lateral displacement/mm

Figure7. Lateral displacement at inclinometer CX3.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 10 20 30 40 50

11/11/2005

12/2/2005

1/3/2005

1/13/2006

d

e

p

t

h

/

m

lateral displacement/mm

Figure8. Lateral displacement at inclinometer CX10.

thelateral displacement exhibitedasymmetricbehav-

ior along the two long sides of the deep excavation

becauseof thefollowingtworeasons. Firstly, theearth

pressure acted on the retaining piles was asymmet-

ric becauseof thesmall soil body betweenHuangpu

River anddeepexcavation. Secondly, thesurfacesur-

chargewasasymmetric duetotheexistingbuildings.

Comparingtherecordsof CX1withCX12, CX3with

CX10, it couldbefoundthat lateral displacement of

retainingwall was 1529%smaller at thesouthside

than north side. Unfortunately, thelarger lateral dis-

placement at north side would result in a potential

damageto theneighboring historic building. Conse-

quently, thejetgroutingshouldbeimmediatelycarried

out toimprovethefoundationof thehistoricbuilding

andit was provedtobeaneffectiveway toavoidthe

damageof crackandtilt of thebuilding.

Therecordedlateral movementsatthetopof retain-

ingwall werepresentedinFigure9.Thefivemovement

Figure 9. Distribution of lateral movement at the top of

retainingwall.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

11/11/2005

12/2/2005

1/3/2005

1/13/2006

active pressure

d

e

p

t

h

/

m

earth pressure/kPa

Figure 10a. Comparison of recorded earth pressure with

calculatedactiveearthpressureatTY1.

curves fromoutsideto insidewerecorresponding to

theexcavationdepthof 2.3m, 6.2m, 13m, completion

of bottomplateandcompletionof undergroundstruc-

turerespectively. Themaximumlateral movement at

thetopof retainingwall reached106.5mmatthenorth

side, whileit wasonly50mmat thesouthside, when

theundergroundstructurewascompleted. Thesephe-

nomenaalso confirmedtheinfluenceof asymmetric

earthpressureonthemovement of theretainingwall.

3.2 Evolution of earth pressure

The monitored earth pressure was illustrated in

Figure 10a and 10b with calculated one. The calcu-

latedactiveearthpressurewasobtainedusingRankine

earthpressuretheory.

Fromfigure10aandfigure10b, it couldbefound

thatthemonitoredearthpressureattop15mwasvery

218

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

11/11/2005

12/2/2005

1/3/2005

1/13/2006

active pressure

d

e

p

t

h

/

m

earth pressure/kPa

Figure 10b. Comparison of recorded earth pressure with

calculatedactiveearthpressureatTY1.

closetotheactivepressurefor bothmonitoredpoints.

Itbecamemuchlargerthanactivepressurebelow15m.

Two factors could be contributed to the distribution

of theearthpressure. Onewas that themagnitudeof

lateral displacementof theretainingwall waslarger in

thetop15mthanthat of below15m, andit couldbe

verifiedfromFigures58.Theothercausewasthatthe

small bulkof thesoil bodyagainsttheretainingwall at

top15m. It couldbefoundfromFigure3that thesoil

bodyinthetop15mwasmuchsmaller thaninbelow

15m. Bothfigure10aandfigure10bimpliedthat the

soil bodyhadasignificanteffectonthedistributionof

earthpressureagainst theretainingwall.

However, theearthpressureatnorthsideof thedeep

excavationwas not monitored. No comparisoncould

beperformedbetweenthetwosides.

4 MODELLINGOF DEEP EXCAVATION

2-Dnumerical modellingwascarriedout usingFEM

codeof Plaxisv8consideringthenarrowplanechar-

acteristic of the deep excavation. The cross section

11showninFigure2was adoptedinFEM analysis

becauseitwasalmostthecenterof thedeepexcavation

andnear thehistoricbuildingaswell.

4.1 Numerical model

Theoverall widthof deepexactionatcrosssection11

was100mwithexcavationdepthof 13m.Thewidthof

thenumerical model was240m, whichwas18times

as wide as the depth of the excavation. The vertical

dimensionwas50m, whichwasmorethan3.5times

thedepthof theexcavation.Themodel dimensionwas

Figure11. TheFEM mesh.

Table3. Parametersof retainingpilesandgroundimprove-

ment.

Elasticmodulus

kPa Poisonsratio

Retainingpiles 3.310

7

0.15

Strut 3.010

7

0.15

Groundimprovement 1.410

5

0.20

large enough to lower the boundary effect. A linear

elastic model was adopted for the ground improve-

ment. The retaining wall as well as the strut was

simplified as elastic beamin numerical modelling.

ThesoilsweresimulatedwithMohr-coulombmodel.

Thenumerical simulationwasperformedwith15-node

isoparametricfiniteelementsunder theassumptionof

planestrainconditions.TheFEMmodel waspresented

inFigure11.

The boundary conditions in the numerical simu-

lation contain the following two types, one was the

displacement boundary condition, and theother was

thedrainagecondition. A freedisplacementboundary

condition was adopted at theground surface. It was

assumedthat nohorizontal nor vertical displacement

takenplaceat thelower boundary, for it was beyond

theinfluenceof deepexcavation. Thelateral displace-

ments at left andright handboundary wereboth

fixed as zero. The drainage condition at the ground

surfacewasassumedtobefree, hencetheexcesspore

pressurewas kept as zero along theground surface;

meanwhile the lower boundary as well as the left

andright handboundaryconditionwereconsidered

tobekept ashydrostaticporepressureduringexcava-

tion. Theinitial effectivestressesandhydrostaticpore

pressurewerecalculated based on theweight of the

soil andtheundergroundwater condition.

4.2 Parameters used in numerical modelling

The parameters of retaining structure and ground

improvement used in the numerical analysis were

listedinTable3. Thesoil parameters couldberefer-

encedasTable1.Theinterfacebetweenretainingpiles

andsoil wasadoptedandtheinterfaceparameterswere

determinedaccordingtoPlaxismanual. Themodulus

219

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 10 20 30 40 50

1.4 m

6.2 m

13 m

lateral displacement/ mm

d

e

p

t

h

/

m

Figure12. Evolutionof lateral displacementsat southside

of deepexcavation.

Figure13. Evolutionof lateral displacementsat northside

of deepexcavation.

of resilience was adopted for soils. The modulus of

resilience was obtained by back-analyzing the mon-

itored lateral displacements of the first excavation

progressshowninTable2. Itwasfoundthatthemodu-

lusof resiliencewasas5timeshighasthecompression

modulusfor soils.

4.3 Numerical modelling procedure

Theexcavationwasmodeledwith7consecutivesteps

shownasfollowing: STEP1wastodeterminetheini-

tial stressstateduetothegravityof soils. STEP2was

usedtoexert theloadingof existingbuildingsonthe

surface with the magnitude of 6070kPa according

tothetypeof thebuildings. Themovements induced

inSTEP 1and2werereset tozerointhemodelling.

STEP 3representedtheconstructionof retainingwall

andgroundimprovement, thesurchargeof 20kPawas

alsoloadedat thisstep. STEP 4meant thefirst exca-

vationto1.4mdeepandtheconstructionof firststrut.

InSTEP5, thesecondstrutwassetafter excavatingto

6.2mdeep. Excavatingto10mdeepandthethirdstrut

wasfinishedinSTEP6.Theexcavationwascompleted

andbottomplatewasconstructedinSTEP7. Dewater-

ingwasconsideredduringtheexcavationbychanging

water table.

4.4 Calculated lateral displacements

Figures 1213 presented the evolution of lateral

displacements with excavation progress. The lateral

displacements of south side of the retaining piles

reached 28.8mm, 38.4mmrespectively when exca-

vatedtothedepthof 6.2mand13m.Theyweresmaller

than thoseof north sideof theretaining wall, which

were 32mmand 60mm. It could be found that the

maximumlateral displacement at northsidewas 1.5

timeslargerthanthatof southsideof theretainingwall

bycomparingfigure12andfigure13.

Thecomparisonbetweencalculatedandmonitored

lateral displacementcouldbecarriedoutbecausecross

section 11 was coordinate with inclinometer CX3

andCX10. Themonitoredlateral displacementswere

57.8mmand 35mmat monitored points CX3 and

CX10correspondingtotheexcavationdepthof 13m,

whiletheaccordinglycalculatedoneswere60mmand

38.4mmrespectively. Theagreement betweencalcu-

lation and monitoring implied the validation of the

simulation procedure of FEM modelling with back-

analysisonthemodulusof resilienceof soils. Besides,

theconsiderationof maininfluential facts, suchassur-

facesurchargedueto existing loading and piling of

construction material, theprocess of excavation, the

supplemented techniques of dewatering and ground

improvement, wasessential intheFEM modellingto

reasonablypredict thebehavior of theretainingpiles.

5 CONCLUSIONS

Thelateral displacementof Riversidedeepexcavation

with complex surrounding environment was studied

withmonitoringdataandFEM modelling. Thelateral

displacements of theretainingwall wereasymmetric

becauseof theasymmetric earthpressure. Themaxi-

mumlateral displacementatnorthsidewasalmost1.5

220

timesaslargeasthatof southsideof thedeepexcava-

tion. Theearthpressurewas closeto theactiveearth

pressureintop15mduetothelargelateral displace-

ment and small soil body against theretaining wall.

Theearthpressurewas muchlarger thanactivepres-

surebelow15m. Itwasfoundthesoil bodybulkhada

noticeableeffect onthedistributionof earthpressure

against retainingwall.

REFERENCES

Chang, C. T. & Sun, C. W. et al. 2001. Responseof aTaipei

rapidtransit systemTRTS tunnel toadjacent excavation.

Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 16:

151158.

Yamagushi, I. &Yamazaki, I. et al. 1998. Studyof ground

tunnel interactions of four shieldtunnels driveninclose

proximity, in relation to design and construction of par-

allel shield tunnels. Tunnelling and Underground Space

Technology 13(3): 289304.

Zhang, D. M. & Huang, H. W. 2007. Ground movements

and controlling measurements in deep excavation under

asymmetricloading. Proceeding of 10th national confer-

ence on soil mechanics. Chongqing, 14 Novermber 2007

(in press). (inChinese).

221

Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground Ng, Huang & Liu (eds)

2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-48475-6

GPSheight applicationandgrosserror detectioninfoundationpit

monitoring

H. Zhang

School of Safety and Resource Engineering, China University of Mining &Technology, Beijing, P.R. China

S.F. Xu

College of Architecture & Civil Engineering, Zhejiang University of Technology, Hangzhou, P.R. China

T.D. Lu

Department of Survey, East China University of Technology, Fuzhou, P.R. China

ABSTRACT: Theauthorintroducesadeformationmonitoringmodel combinedbytraditional measuringtech-

nology and modern GPS measuring technology based on technical attribute of foundation pit deformation

monitoringandauthorsexperienceof deepfoundationpit constructionproject of undergroundtunnel inLishui

Road, Hangzhoucity. WhenanalyzingGPSheightconversion, inorder toimproveGPSdatummarksreliability,

onecan useDixons test in GPS datummark reliability test to find out height anomaly, thus provideconve-

nienceto searchanddeletemarks withgross error. This test also improves deformationmonitoringprocesss

efficiency.

1 BACKGROUNDPROJ ECT INTRODUCTION

Lishui Road(fromHuzhouRoadto QingfangRoad)

projectisoneof HangzhouCitygovernments33929

engineeringproject. Thetunnel of theproject iscom-

posedbyU-tanksandboxculverts.1+5681+638,

1+7941+864 are U-tanks. Each tank is 70m

long and the width of banks is summed to 22m.

1+6381+794areboxculverts.Thesumof lengths

of all box culverts reaches 156m. Equally dividedit

into4parts, eachboxculvert is38.25mlongandthe

widthof all box culvertsissummedto21.4m. Rein-

forced concrete piles with diameter of + 100 steel

pipeweretakenas support. They are21mlongwith

concrete outside. The concrete piles with +60@30

wereusedtokeepdry fromwater. Thedepthof con-

cretepileis 10m. They areconnected to each other

side by side. The steel in the shape of I is used as

the inside supports. The distance between two sup-

ports is 6mwide. Thedepthof thefoundationpit is

8m. Thisfoundationpit islevel 2foundationpit. The

constructions 0.000mlevel is equal to Huanghai

height+4.125m.Thesituationaroundsiteareaisquiet

complex,especiallyJ inghangCanal onthewestsideof

siteandancientmunicipal heritageGongchengBridge

whichisclosetothenadirof undergroundlot, smallest

distanceisabout 2m.

2 GPSHEIGHT APPLICATION

GPS positioning technology has advantages such as

no need of keeping vision between measuring sta-

tions, not restrained by weather conditions, able to

measuring the targets 3D displacement and highly

automated. Theaccuracy of short distancedeforma-

tion monitoring can reach minor millimeter level

[1]

,

thusprovidesanewmethodfor high-accuracy defor-

mationmonitoringof largeconstructionandfounda-

tion pit. In Lishui Road projects case the visibility

condition in foundation pit construction site is bad

and most datummarks cant share vision, monitor-

ing marks and datummarks are in different height,

and also thereis a across-river benchmark problem.

To solve these problems above, this project take a

monitoring plan using both modern and traditional

measuring technology: using GPS technology to set

up a 3D datummark network, and using traditional

measuring methods to monitor after the network is

established

[2]

.

AfteradjustingGPSmeasuringresults,theoutcome

height is geodetic height H

GPS

relevant to WGS-84

ellipsoid. Sincethebenchmarkheight(normal height)

is using in foundation pit engineering application,

the geodetic height H

GPS

should be transferred into

normal height H

0

in this project. The difference

223

between normal and geodetic height is called height

anomaly

[3]

:

In solving GPS height anomaly, known marks

height anomalyvaluesreliabilityiscrucial tosolving

result accuracy. Becauseof restraint fromsitecondi-

tion, it isimpossibletohaveenoughGPSmarksmeet

benchmarks or taking benchmark co-measuring. So

every singlemarks height anomaly valuewill make

considerable affect to calculating result accuracy, a

markwithgrosserrorheightanomalyvaluecouldeven

lead to a totally useless result and complete failure.

Thustheinitial datashouldtakeagrosserrortest. Dur-

ingthetest, thedataisnormallycheckedbygeometric

conditional closure, like triangle closure in triangle

network or pole condition closure, which monitor-

ing valuemust meet or by residual fromadjustment

error. Since gross error is hard to distinguish from

limited error, this method is hard to discover small

grosserror. Alsoit ishardtofindapplicablegeomet-

ric conditionclosureduringGPS height transferring.

To solvethis problem, onecanpick upsometrustful

geometricbenchmarkspot height andgeodeticheight

in the GPS network to fit other benchmark height,

or pick somespot separately to processingrepetitive

trail calculation, thenobtainother measuredgeomet-

ric benchmarks trail height with mathematic model

fromfit and using the equation below to obtain fit

residual:

H

i

,

i

is trail height and trail height anomaly, H

i

,

i

is measured benchmark height and measured height

anomaly. Then, one can use residual to process rel-

evant spots measured benchmark height gross error

test, after carefully analysis of measured value with

gross error, select enoughreliablemeasuredvalueto

runfit again.

3 HEIGHT ANOMALY GROSSERRORTEST

METHOD

Accordingto DixonTest

[4]

, assumetherereaset of

residual V

1

, V

2

, V

n

, sortthemfromlowtohigh, and

get asequencelikebelow:

Thenwehave:

If onefromr

10

, r

11

, r

21

, r

22

andr

10

, r

11

, r

21

, r

22

islarger

than critical value, then wecan consider V

(n)

or V

(1)

as anomaly value. After analyzes the sensitivity of

anomaly inr statistics test, Dixonclaimedthat when

3n 7, itisbettertouser

10

orr

10

; when8n 10,

user

11

or r

11

; when11n 13, user

21

or r

21

; when

14n 25, user

22

or r

22

.

It isnatural tousedifferent statisticsdependingon

different n. When n is small, rangeestimation has a

betterefficiency, butwhilen becomelarger, rangeesti-

mations efficiency decreaseaccordingly. So when n

is relevant large, userangeV

(n)

V

2

or V

(n)

V

(3)

to

estimate. Statistics r

ij

or r

ij

s critical value is given

inr(n, ) inreference

[4]

. isType1probability, also

calledsignificance. Itsvalueusuallyis0.05or 0.01.

Whenrunningthetest, onecancalculateanddis-

criminatefrombothends of residual sequencesepa-

rately, until thereis no gross error suspicion in both

endsof thetest.

4 GROSSERRORTEST EXAMPLE

InLishui Roadundergroundtunnel foundationpitcon-

structionproject, thedatummarksarethedeformation

monitoringdatumcontrol system. Sotheyareusually

built in the area outside and far fromthe construc-

tionsitetomaintaintheir stability. Theyshouldnotbe

too far though for theconsideration of havingbetter

monitoringaccuracy andalsofor our convenienceof

work. Our monitoringnetworkisdividedintotwolev-

els.Thefirstlevel of monitoringnetworkiscomposed

bythedatummarksandworkingspots, measuredonce

a week to maintain its stability. Thesecond level of

thenetwork is set upby workingspots andmonitor-

ingspots, usingstabledatummarkstoverifyworking

spots. Six datummarks were set up: four are at the

eastbankandother twoareatwestbankof theancient

J inghangCanal.UsingGPStointroducethetwodatum

marks at west bank of thecanal tothecanals east in

favor of monitoring network. The datumnetwork is

surveyedfour times; followingtheofficial construc-

tionstandardsentitledGlobal PositioningSystemfor

UrbanSurveyTechniquestandards CJ J 73-97. Three

224

Trimble4600LSGPSsingle-frequencyreceiverswere

setuptoreceivethesignal atthesametime.Theobser-

vationtimelastedmorethan90min. Informationfrom

510satelliteswereefficientlyreceived.Theelevation

angleof satellitesis15degreeandabreakof 20sec

wassetfor everytwoobservations. 12baselineswere

observedandfourof themaretherepeatones. Specific

softwareprovidedbyAmericasupplier wasemployed

toprocessthedataandtocarryout theeffectivesolu-

tions. Themaximumof error is about 5mmwhile

theminimumis2mm.Theobservationresultswere

further checkedbytimesynchronizedandunsynchro-

nizedcircle. Datumheightnetworkmonitoringdatais

fitfrom4spotsand16setsof dataof GPSbenchmarks

geometricbenchmarkheight residual.

Running Dixon test, first discriminate the largest

residual V

(16)

, since n =16, so take r

22

and r

22

as

statistics.

Using n =16, =0.05 as argument, according to

table

[4]

, r

0

(16, 0.05)=0.507, sincer

22

-r

0

(16, 0.05),

the conclusion is the geometric benchmark height

whichV

(16)

referstodoesnthavegrosserror. Discrim-

inationof smallest residual V

(1)

:

Asr

22

>r

0

(16, 0.05), theconclusionisthegeometric

benchmarkheightwhichV

(1)

referstohasgrosserror,

shouldbeeliminated.

After theeliminationof residual V

(1)

, thebothends

test shouldberunagain.

First discriminatethelargest residual V

(15)

Using n =16, =0.05 as argument, according to

table

[4]

, r

0

(15, 0.05)=0.525, sincer

22

-r

0

(15, 0.05),

the conclusion is the geometric benchmark height

which V

(15)

refers to doesnt have gross error. Then

test thesmallest residualV

(1)

:

Since r

22

>r

0

(15, 0.05)=0.525, and r

22

-r

0

(15, 0.01)=0.616 it can be concluded that the geo-

metric benchmark height whichV

(1)

referstodoesnt

havegrosserror.

5 CONCLUSION

WithGPStechnologyswidelyapplication, peoplecan

simply and efficiently obtain horizontal accuracy of

certainspot onminor millimeter level, but still cant

obtain the spots height on same accuracy level. So

in order to extend GPSs superior ability in survey-

ing 3D displacement, we should put our efforts on

researchinghowto improveGPS survey accuracy of

vertical displacement, thus it can match with survey

accuracyof horizontal displacement. Thereasonwhy

GPS has alowsurvey accuracy of vertical displace-

mentisthatthoughGPScouldprovideahighaccuracy

geodetic height, thelack of ageodic model withrel-

evant accuracy lead to a serious accuracy decrease

duringtransferringfromGPS geodetic height tonor-

mal height. To seek theGPS height anomalys value,

thereliabilityof knownspots heightanomalyvalueis

critical toresultsaccuracy

[5]

,isthekeytoimprovever-

tical deformation accuracy. To apply theGPS height

survey inour projectsfoundationpit monitoring, the

questionsbelowshouldbeconsidered:

1. Height anomaly is unstable, it maybe smooth in

small range or flat-contour region, where height

datumnetworkof foundationpitmonitoringisoften

established, thusiseasytoseekanomalyvalue; but

it isveryvariant inwiderangeor complexcontour

region, possible to occur several value with high

residual. Soinorder toimprovereliabilityof gross

error detection, when discriminated an anomaly

value, oneshouldanalyzecarefullybeforedeleteit.

2. Incalculationof GPSheightanomaly, thesourceof

error isvarious; itcouldbesurveyingerror of GPS

geodeticheight or GPSgeodeticheight difference,

orerrorfromgeometricbenchmarksurveying.This

problemdirectly leads to adifficulty of deciding

error distributionpatternfor heightanomaly. Since

test methodusually runinacertainerror distribu-

tion pattern, (e.g. Dixon test, requires residual is

randomsamplefromnormal distribution) thecred-

ibilityof usingthistesttorungrosserror detection

isdecreasedinreal application.

3. Many factors couldaffect GPS height component

accuracy.Variousmeasuresshouldbetakentoguar-

anteetheaccuracy in specific projects. Minimize

themultipath effect when surveying with GPS in

urbanarea, choosinggeodetictypeof GPStomon-

itoring datumduring foundation pit construction

period. Experienceprovedthatusingthesemethods

notonlyavoidtherestrictionsbroughttositecondi-

tionsfromconventional methods, butalsoimprove

workingefficiencyandassureconstructionquality.

GPS static relativepositioningsurvey hastremen-

douspractical significancetopreciseengineeringsur-

vey. Withthereasonablemonitoringplanaccordingto

engineeringconditionandpurpose, itsaccuracycould

225

meetalmosteveryrequirementsof preciseengineering

survey. It also has multiple advantages such as low

cost, highefficiencyandahighdegreeof automation.

TheapplicationinLishui Roadfoundationpit project

isauseful experience.

REFERENCES

Li, Z.H. & Huang, J.S. GPS measurement and date process.

Wuhan: WuhanUniversityPress, 2005

Lu, T.D. Zhou, S.J. GuanY.L. Height anomaly Gross Error

Test andAnalysisinGPSHeight Conversion. Geotechni-

cal Investigation & Surveying, 2004(4) 5154

Yang, J.T. J iang Y.X. Zhou J. Analysis on Reliability and

Accuracy of Subsidence Measurement with GPS Tech-

nique. Journal of Geodesy and Geodynamics, 2006(1)

7075

Zhang, H. &Gu, J.S. Deformationmonitoringanddataanal-

ysis of foundation in municipal engineering. Journal of

Zhejiang University of Technology, 2003(5) 571574

Zhang, F.G. &ZhangJ.Y. Statistical Distribution and Test of

Survey Error. Beijing: ChinaMeasurement Press, 1991

226

Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground Ng, Huang & Liu (eds)

2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-48475-6

Studyondeformationlawsunder theconstructionof semi-reversemethod

J. Zhang, G.B. Liu&T. Liu

Key Laboratory of Geotechnical and Underground Engineering of Ministry of Education, Tongji University,

Shanghai, P.R. China

Department of Geotechnical Engineering Tongji University, Shanghai, P.R. China

ABSTRACT: Takinga24.09-m-deepfoundationpit of Shanghai Metro Line1whichuses thesemi-reverse

constructionprocessof threeopenexcavating-onetunneling asanexample, throughgatheringandanalyzing

fieldmonitoringdataandmakinguseof forwardandbackanalysismethods, wefoundout deformationlawsof

foundationpitundertheconstructionof semi-reversemethod.Theimplementationresultsof thisprojectindicated

thatthesemi-reversemethodisaneffectivewaytoimproverigidityof theexteriorsupport,control thedeformation

of excavation, and ensuresafety of thesurrounding buildings and pipelines. Meanwhile, theresults coincide

essentiallywithtime-spaceeffect.Thedeformationof theexcavationiscloselycorrelativewithexcavationspeed

andexposuretime. It providedsomeuseful referencefor thedesignof deepexcavationinsoft soil.

1 INTRODUCTION

With the development of urban construction, more

attentions havebeenpaidto theutilizationof under-

ground space, and theconstruction technology level

of foundationengineeringhasbeenimprovedcontin-

uously. At the existing construction process of deep

foundation engineering, open excavation method is

the most common construction method at present.

Because it boasts many advantages, such as more

constructionoperationsurface, short periodandless

cost. However intheapplicationof somedeepexcava-

tions which havecomplicated adjacent environment,

narrow operation space, and complicated geological

conditions, openexcavationmethodwouldcausegreat

influence on the traffic flow. At the same time, the

pollution of mud fluid, dust particle, acoustic noise,

andvibrationwhichcausedintheconstructionwould

inducediscommoditytotheresidents life. Especially,

openexcavationmethodwouldgoagainst withdefor-

mationcontrol of pits, whichwouldcauseperimeter

buildings and structures cracking, and bring great

economic loss or unfavorable social influence. The

completereversemethodhas littleeffect onadjacent

environment, but itsspeedof excavationisslow, con-

structiontechnologic process is complicated, andthe

cost of pillar pilesishigh.

Combined with advantages of open excavation

method and complete reverse method, semi-reverse

constructionmethodemergesasthetimerequire, and

hasbeenusedmoreandmorewidelyinShanghai deep

foundation constructions. Taking a pit of Shanghai

metro line 1, which uses semi-reverse construction

method, asanexample, throughgettingfieldmonitor-

ingdataandsettingupthefiniteelement model, this

paper has given an evaluation for thecharacteristics

of semi-reversemethodsuchasconstructiontechnol-

ogyanddeformationcontrol laws, kindlyexpectedto

provide with a beneficial reference to those similar

projectsinfuture.

2 ENGINEERINGCASE

2.1 General engineering situation

A railwaystationof Shanghai Rail TransitLineNo. 10

(metroline1) issituatedattheintersectionof SouthXi

ZangRoadandFuXingRoad, andcrosstransferred

with metro line8. Thegeographical position of this

stationisshowninFigure1.

Thestationof metroline1isbelowthatof line8.The

structureformof thissubwaystationwiththreefloors

is two pillars andthreespans, theoutsidedimension

are 179.2m(length) 23.8m(width). And the size

of east and west end well is 27.8m16.1m, which

bottomfloor burieddepthare24.06m, 24.09m.

Accordingtotherequirementsof waterproof design

andconstructionplan, thewholerailwaystationmain

bodystructureisdividedintotwoconstructionregion

witheight parts. Thesubsectionconstructiondrawing

of thisstationisshowninFigure2. Thewest endwell

is the first construction part, which requires higher

environment protection. Thisendwell approachesthe

227

Figure1. Geographical positionof thestation.

Figure2. Subsectionconstructionof thestation.

Figure3. Distributionof monitoringpointsinwestendwell.

International Squire(28floors) andShenNengInter-

national Building (26 floors), and surrounding with

lotsof pipelines. Accordingtotherequirementsof the

firstclassenvironmentprotectionspecifiedforShang-

hai subway station, the horizontal deformation of

diaphragmwall shouldbe1.4H(Histhedepthof

excavation), andthemaximumsettlement of perime-

ter groundsurfaceshouldbe1H. Theexcavation

depthof thewest endwell isabout 24.09m. It adopts

theundergrounddiaphragmwall withwidth1000mm

anddepth44m.Thebracesystemapplies1piececon-

cretebraceof 900800and7piecessteel tubebrace

of +60916. Thedistributionof monitoringpointsis

showninFigure3.

2.2 Geological condition

Basing on the geological prospecting data, the soils

of engineeringsitearedividedinto 9layers fromup

to bottom. They arefill soil layer, silt clay layer,

mud-silt clay layer, muddy clay layer,

11

clay

layer,

12

silt clay layer,

3

silt clay layer,

4

silt

clay layer,

2

finesandlayer. Table1shows physical

andmechanical characteristicsof differentsoil layers.

Figure4showsGeotechnical sectionof excavation.

Mainhydrology conditionof this stationis as fol-

lows:theshallowgroundwaterfieldisphreaticaquifer,

whichmainlycomesfrominfiltrationof precipitation

andseepageof surfacewater.Theannual averagewater

stage of Shanghai ranges from0.50m0.70m, and

generally0.5mischosenasdesignvalue.

Inthereportof geological prospectingdata, thesoil

of

2

finesandlayer is distributedinthesite, whose

buried depth is 4446mand confined water head is

10.511.0m. Consideringtheworst factors, whenthe

pit excavated to 24m, thecoefficient of upheaval in

thebottomof thepit wouldnot meet therequirement

of safetyfactor, soit shouldbeadoptedmeasurement

for decreasingconfinedwater head.

2.3 Construction procedure

Considering the actual factors such as construction

period,trafficorganization,undergroundpipelinesand

environmentprotection, thesemi-reverseconstruction

processof threeopenexcavating-onetunnelingwas

adoptedinthisproject.

Thedetail of theprocessisasfollows: Firstlyexca-

vatethesoil tothefifthbrace, andthenconstruct the

secondmedianplatebetweentheforthandfifthbrace.

With thetop reinforced concretebrace, thereversed

medianplateandundergrounddiaphragmwall formed

aframesystem. Whilethepavement maintenanceof

median plate has been finished, utilize two shield

structureholes of theend well to dig thesoil below

theplateuntil thebottomplatefinished.

Thesemi-reversedconstructionhasbrought lotsof

inconveniencetoexcavatingandsupportingof thepit

under the second median plate. This inconvenience

generallyreflectsatthenarrowperpendicular channel

andthecomplicatedsupportsinstallation. Commonly,

installationprocedureof supportsunder theconstruc-

tionof semi-reversedmethodisthat, dividethebrace

into several pieces, bring thesepieces to thebottom

one after another, and then assemble themtogether

to thedesignelevation. For theprocess as it is men-

tioned, installing one straight brace generally needs

7hours, and installing one diagonal brace needs 10

hours, whichfar fromtherequirement of time-space

effect. Time-space effect requires that the exca-

vation width should be no more than 6m, and the

excavation plus supporting time should be no more

than24h(excavationtime-16h; supportingtime-8h).

Thedeformationshouldbecontrol ineffectively, if the

pit was not supportedwithinsuchtime. So basedon

theengineeringtraits, theproject excavatethesoil as

soonaspossiblewhileintheopencut period. It uses

opencutmethodtoexcavatethesoil until 0.5mbelow

228

Table1. Physical andmechanical characteristicsof different soil layers.

peakvalueof

Permeability

Buried consolidated Compression

coefficients(m/s)

depth gravity quickshear moduleEs(MPa)

No. (m) r (kN/m

3

) C (kPa) (

) Kv Kh

2.31

3.41 18.6 18 14 4.80

9.21 17.5 11 16 3.51 1.97E-92.18E-9 2.08E-09

19.81 16.7 13 12 2.27 1.17E-91.48E-9 1.33E-09

11

22.91 17.5 16 14 3.93 1.77E-9 1.77E-9

12

27.81 18.1 15 17.5 4.98 1.52E-9 1.52E-9

3

42.11 18.2 15 19.5 5.08 1.60E-92.13E-9 1.87E-09

4

44.71 19.7 39 15.0 8.00 9.3E-101.46E-9 1.20E-09

2

19.3 0 31 15.11 2.48E-82.57E-8 2.53E-08

Figure4. Geotechnical sectionof excavation.

thefifthbrace(3mbelowthesecondmedianplate).

Whentheseventhsoil wasexcavated, disassemblethe

supportsformthelocationof thefifthbraceandinstall

themtothelocationof theseventhbrace. Sotheinstal-

lationof everybracejustneeds0.5hours,whichshould

acceleratetheconstructionspeedaswell ascontrol the

deformationof thepit effectively.

3 FINITE ELEMENT MODELING

Combinedwithfieldmonitoringdata, thefiniteele-

ment softwarePLAXIS 8.2(Brink Greve& Vermeer

1998) was used to compute the response of the soil

aroundtheexcavationforeffectiveanalysis.Theprob-

lemwas simulated assuming plane-strain conditions

andchosenhalf of thepit astheresearchsubject. The

sideboundaries of themesh(total size90m75m)

wereestablishedbeyondthezoneof influenceof the

settlements induced by the excavation (Caspe 1966;

Hsieh & Ou 1998). Thefiniteelement mesh bound-

aryconditionswereset usinghorizontal restraintsfor

theleftandrightboundariesandtotal restraintsforthe

bottomboundary. Thesoil stratigraphy was assumed

tobeuniformacrossthesite. Thosesoilswithsimilar

propertieswouldbecombinedbyweightedsimilarity

method. Sosixsoil layerswerecompartmentalizedfor

thecalculationsimplify.

Thesoil model usedtocharacterizetheclaysinthe

PLAXISsimulationof theexcavationisthehardening-

soil (H-S) model (Schanz et al. 1999).

Thiseffectivestressmodel isformulatedwithinthe

framework of elastoplasticity. Plastic strains arecal-

culatedassumingmultisurfaceyieldcriteria. Isotropic

hardening is assumed for both shear and volumetric

strains. Theflowruleis nonassociativefor frictional

shearhardeningandassociativeforthevolumetriccap.

Theinitial valuesof thebasicH-Sinputparametersfor

thesoil layersarereferencedasTable1andcalibrated

byinverseanalysis.

Thelinear spring-layer model is adopted to simu-

late the braces; the plate element model is adopted

tosimulatetheundergrounddiaphragmwall, reversed

medianplateandbottomplate. Consideringthebuild-

ingsaroundthepit, 50kN/m

2

overloadisappliedfor

calculation.

Figure5showsthecalculationmodel.Table2shows

11calculationphasesandtheconstructionstagesused

in the finite element simulations. PLAXIS employs

a penalty formulation so that undrained conditions

canbeexplicitly modeled. Becausetherewas along

timeinterval between Phase6 and Phase7, thedis-

placementsareduetopartiallydrainedconditions. So

consolidationshouldbeconsideredinthisstage. Other

stages whichnot notedas consolidation inTable2

weremodeledasundrainedandtheexcessporewater

pressureswerecomputedrelativetosomesteady-state

value(1m) that changeswithdredgelinelevel.

229

Table2. Calculationphasesandtheconstructionstagesusedinthefiniteelement simulations.

Identification Phaseno. Calculation Stages

Initial equilibrium 0 Plastic construction

Set updiaphragmwall andapplyoverload 1 Plastic construction

Excavatethefirst soil andsupport thefirst brace 2 Plastic construction

Excavatethesecondsoil andsupport thesecondbrace 3 Plastic construction

Excavatethethirdsoil andsupport thethirdbrace 4 Plastic construction

Excavatetheforthsoil andsupport theforthbrace 5 Plastic construction

Excavatethefifthsoil andsupport thefifthbrace 6 Plastic construction

Construct medianplate 7 Plastic constructionand

consolidation

Excavatethesixthsoil andsupport thesixthbrace 8 Plastic construction

Excavatethelast soil 9 Plastic construction

Construct bottomplate 10 Plastic construction

Figure5. Calculationmodel.

4 COMPARISONOF FIELDDATA WITH

CALCULATIONRESULTSOF FINITE

ELEMENT SOFTWARE

Inorder tostudythedeformationlawsunder thecon-

structionof semi-reversedmethod, lotsof fieldmoni-

toringdataof west endwell havebeenfinishedfrom

thesecondbracehasbeensupportedtotheroof plate

hasbeenfinished. Choosetheinclinationsurveypoint

CX3andthesettlement points J 6-1, J 6-2, J 6-3, J 6-4,

J 6-5 which have the same cross section with CX3

as representative points. Combined with calculation

results of finite element software, it could be got

detailedanalysis.

4.1 Inclination deformation of underground

diaphragm wall

Intheconstructionprocessof foundationpit, thedis-

placement curveof inclinationpoint CX3at different

depth which changed with the working condition is

showninFigure6.

FromFigure 6, it could be found that the maxi-

muminclination displacement of diaphragmwall is

only33.69mmwhenthebottomplatehasbeenpoured,

which is satisfied with the requirement of Class 1

accumulative displacements (mm)

-2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36

d

e

p

t

h

(

m

)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

38

40

42

44

support second brace

support third brace

support fourth brace

support fifth brace

construct median plate

support sixth plate

support seventh brace

construct bottom plate

Figure 6. Displacement curve of CX3 at different depth

whichchangedwiththeworkingcondition.

environment protection. Basedontheexperiences of

Shanghai underground works these years, with the

similar excavation depth, excavation size, geological

conditionsandperipheral circumstance, if thefounda-

tionpitadoptsopencutmethod, thedeformationvalue

couldnot becontrolledat sosmall range.

Calculation results of finiteelement softwareand

field data were compared from the time that fifth

braceshadbeeninstalled, whichisshowninFigure7.

In the figure, dashed line represents the calculation

value, andsolidlinewithcirclerepresents measured

value. Table3showsthespecificcomparativevalue.

230

Theshapeof calculationcurvewasingoodagree-

mentwiththemeasuredcurve,andthemaximumvalue

of calculation deformation was in accordance with

fielddatawhilethebottomplatehasbeenconstructed.

Theresults showthat finiteelement methodcancor-

rectly reflect excavation deformation regularity. It

shows that thediaphragmwall engenderedcompara-

tivelargerdeformationwithintheperiodfromthefifth

bracesupportedtothemedianplateconstructed. This

isbecausethediscrepancyof thetwoworkconditions

lasts as long as 20 days. Though soils werent exca-

vated, exposuretimeforthefoundationpitwithbraces

wascomparativelong. Theexcavationfaceissituated

inmuddyclaylayerwhichhasverystrongflowprop-

erty, andthepermeabilityof thesoil isrelativelylarge

(

=1.7710

9

m/s). For abovereasonsthediaphragm

wall engenderedlarger deformation. Inthefiniteele-

ment calculation, consolidationhas beenconsidered,

soit couldcorrectlyreflect theactual deformation.

-2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

d

e

p

t

h

(

m

)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

38

40

42

44

measured value

calculation value

accumulative displacement(mm)

accumulative displacement(mm)

-2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30

d

e

p

t

h

(

m

)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

38

40

42

44

measured value

calculation value

Support the fifth brace Construct the median plate

accumulative displacement(mm)

-2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34

d

e

p

t

h

(

m

)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

38

40

42

44

measured value

calculation value

accumulative displacement(mm)

-2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40

d

e

p

t

h

(

m

)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

38

40

42

44

measured value

calculation value

Support the sixth brace Support the bottom plate

Figure 7. Measured versus computed horizontal

displacements.

Table3. Specificvaluesof measuredversuscomputedhorizontal displacements.

Project database Fifthbrace Medianplate Sixthbrace Seventhbrace Bottomplate

Completiontime 06-11-16 06-12-6 06-12-29 07-1-1 07-1-15

MeasuredValue Maximumvalue 12.33 27.94 30.25 31.85 33.69

Depth 14 19 19 21 21.5

Calculationvalue Maximumvalue 13.19 27.32 31.05 35.35 37.68

Depth 15 20 21 21 22

Inorder toanalyzetherelationshipbetweendefor-

mation of diaphragm wall and time, we chose the

department of the maximum deformation for filed

data CX3 (CX3-43 point whose depth is 21.5m) as

akey point. Thevariations of deformationwithtime

for thispointinthewholeexcavationconstructionare

inspectedasFigure8shows.

From Figure 8, we can find that though the

diaphragmwall engendered large deformation from

the fifth brace supported to the median plate sup-

ported, in the process of concrete maintenance, the

deformation stopped to growand it even had alittle

falling,andalsowhenthesoil underthereversedmedia

plate was excavated, the deformation rate is smaller

thanthatof previous. Withthetopreinforcedconcrete

supports, thereversedmedianplateandunderground

diaphragmwall could beformed as aframesystem,

whichconstrainedthespreadingof soil deformation.

The reduction of deformation rate in this phase has

releasedthecomparatively largedeformation, which

engenderedasaresult of soil creepinforwardphase.

This is beneficial for the reduction of foundation

deformationandassuranceof pit stability.

4.2 Ground settlement

Groundsettlement points J 6-1, J 6-2, J 6-3, J 6-4, J 6-5

areinthesamesectionwiththeinclinationpointCX3,

whichisdistributedwiththedistanceof 3mfor every

point fromtheedgeof pit. Figure9 shows thefield

settlement curvesintheprocessof construction.

From Figure 9, it shows that ground settlement

increased with excavation depth. When the bottom

plate has been finished, the maximumsettlement is

only 7.1mm. Thesoil presented alittleuplift at 6m

fromthe edge of excavation. With reference to the

actual engineeringproject, highpressurejet grouting

was used in the end well for the stability of shield

accesstotunnel. Itmightbethereasonthatcausedthe

soil uplifting.

4.3 Building settlement and pipeline settlement

ToMarch2007, whiletheroof platehasbeenfinished,

themaximumbuildingsettlementwasonly3.3mm,

whichis at F05point. Thevariations of deformation

231

-5.00

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

35.00

40.00

10-20-06 10-30-06 11-9-06 11-19-06 11-29-06 12-9-06 12-19-06 12-29-06 1-8-07 1-18-07 1-28-07

d

i

s

p

l

a

c

e

m

e

n

t

(

m

m

)

second

brace

third

brace

fourth

brace

fifth

brace

median

plate

sixth

brace

seventh

brace

bottom

plate

Figure8. Variationsof displacement withtimefor CX3-43inthewholeexcavationconstruction.

Figure9. Fieldsettlementsintheprocessof construction.

Figure10. Variationsof deformationwithtimefor F05.

withtimefor F05areshowninFigure10. Asaresult

of highpressurejet grouting, intheformer phasesof

constructionthevertical deformationof F05presented

anupliftingtrend. It was not until J anuary 2007that

the soil deformation fell back. This was one of the

main reasons for theso small accumulativebuilding

settlement.

The conditions of pipeline settlement were as

follows: the maximum deformation point of gas

pipe was M01, whose accumulative settlement was

8.6mm; themaximumdeformation point of water

supply pipe was S02, whose accumulative settle-

ment was8.4mm; themaximumdeformationpoint

of rain pipe is Y01, whose accumulative settlement

Figure11. Time-historycurvesof M01, S02andY01.

was8.2mm. ChoosingpressurepipepointM01, S02

andnon-pressurepipepointY01askey point, whose

time-historycurvesisshowninFigure11.

Thesettlement trends of thesepipelines wereuni-

form,andthesetime-historycurveshapesweresimilar

tothat of inclinationpoint inFigure8. FromDecem-

ber 6thtoDecember 29th, whenthemedianplatehas

been maintained, thedeformation valueof pipelines

alsopresentedastableperiod. In1969, Peck put for-

ward stratumcompensation theory, which indicated

that theshapesandtheenclosedareaof lateral defor-

mationcurvescausedbyfoundationpitexcavationare

similar tothatof groundsettlementcurves. FromFig-

ure 11, it can be found that this similarity changed

uniformlywithtime, thatitistosaythegroundsettle-

mentchangedwiththelateral deformationatanytime,

whichisfavorablefor theenvironment protection.

5 CONCLUSION

1. Adopting semi-reverse construction method in

metro foundation pit could control the deforma-

tion of pit effectively, and decrease the influence

of excavationconstructiononitssurroundingenvi-

ronment. Semi-reverseconstructionmethodowns

a deep foundation support technology with prac-

tical value and brilliant prospects, which would

232

be further developed and applied in rail transit

construction.

2. The reversed median plate and underground

diaphragmwall formedaframesystem. Inthepro-

cessof medianplatemaintenance, thedeformation

of soil behindretainingwall wasstable. Whenthe

platemaintenancefinishedandthesoil excavated,

thedeformationratewas smaller thanthoseengi-

neeringworks whichadoptedopen-cut methodof

thesameconditions.

3. Intheprocessof reversedmedianplatesupporting,

alongperiodwasneededfor reinforcementassem-

bleand scaffold erection. As aresult of soil flow

property, larger deformation may begenerated at

thisperiod.

4. As theexcavation is in clay, longer times of con-

struction may result in partial drainage as well.

Consolidation of thesoil should beconsidered in

finiteelement calculation.

5. The shapes of lateral deformation curves caused

by foundation pit excavation are similar to that

of groundsettlement. Thissimilaritychangeduni-

formly together with time pass. It is conjectured

thatthegroundsettlementchangedwiththelateral

deformationshapeat anymoment.

REFERENCES

Brinkgreve, R.B.J. &Vermeer, P.A. 1998. Finite element code

for soil and rock Analysis. PLAXIS7.0manual, Balkema,

Rotterdam, TheNetherlands.

Liu, J.H. &Hou, X.Y. 1997. Foundation engineering manual.

Beijing: ChinaConstructionIndustryPress.

Richard, J., Finno, M. &Michele, C. 2005. Supportedexcava-

tions: observational methodandinversemodeling. Jour-

nal of geotechnical and geoenvironmental engineering

10.1061:826836.

Zhao, G.W. &Guo, H.B. 2006. Applicationof semi-reversed

constructionmethodtorail transit construction. Building

Construction 28(10):815818.

233

Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground Ng, Huang & Liu (eds)

2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-48475-6

Comparisonof theoryandtest onexcavationcausingthevariation

of soilmassstrength

J. Zhou& J.Q. Wang

Key Laboratory of Geotechnical and Underground Engineering of Ministry of Education,

Tongji University, Shanghai, P.R. China

Department of Geotechnical Engineering Tongji University, Shanghai, P.R. China

L. Cong

Key Laboratory of Geotechnical and Underground Engineering of Ministry of Education,

Tongji University, Shanghai, P.R. China

ABSTRACT: Inviewof theexcavationunloadingcharacteristic, thevariationof soilmassstrengthisstudied

throughthetheoretical deductionandthetestanalysis. BaseedontheHvorslevsreal strengththeory, thestrength

ratioof theunloadingsoil andthenormal compressedsoil consideringthepore-water pressureisdeducedand

thetest simulating excavation is carried out. Through comparing dataof thetheory and test, thesoilmass is

causedtobeat theoverconsolidatedstate, andthesoil microstructureisdamaged, thenthesoilmassstrengthis

reducedintheunloadingprocess. Theanalysisresult of theoryandtest arehelpful tothefurther understanding

of theeffect of unloadinginexcavationonthevariationof thesoilmassstrength, whichareverysignificant for

avoidingproject accidents.

1 INTRODUCTION

With the rapid and remarkable development of city

construction, an increasingly large number of the

exploitationof theundergroundspaceshaveemerged,

suchas high-story building, theundergroundmarket

andundergroundgarageetc., whichneedtoexcavate

for buildingfoundation.Theexcavation, includingthe

influenceof thesoilmasss engineering property and

thevariation of theenvironment characteristic, have

been systematically studied by numerous scholars.

Rutledge(1944) summarized thesoil sampledistur-

bancetotheinfluenceof theunconfinedcompression

strength and the initial tangential modulus in stress

and strain curve, and the result showed that the ini-

tial tangential modulus of theremouldedsoil sample

is smaller than the one of the undisturbed value by

about 20%, some were only even 3%4%. On res-

onant column test, Drnevich & Massarsch (1979)

discoveredthat evenif thesoil samplesufferedfrom

the small disturbance, its initial tangential modulus

also obviously reduced. Broms (1980) pointed out

that the soil sample disturbance in the brittle soil

to the stress and strain curves influence was much

bigger than in the plastic soil. Zeng (1995) studied

the subway double lines shield tunnel construction

to the influence of the surface, the buildings and

the underground pipelines, and analyzed the tunnel

interval to the influence of stress and the displace-

ment of surrounding soilmass. Zeng & Pan (1988)

studied stress path to theinfluenceof theundrained

strength in excavation. Wei (1987) has studied the

relationof theexcavationunloadingandpassivesoil

pressure.

Several examplesof thecollapseof foundationpits

inthepasthadveryseriousconsequences,whichurged

thepeopletostudythedesignandconstructionof foun-

dationpitdeeply.Atpresentthemaintenancestructure

of foundationpit isdesignedandcalculatedby using

theelastic foundation beamlawor theelastoplastic-

ityfiniteelementmethod.Theroutine-testparameters

generally were adopted as the computation parame-

ters, which had not really considered theexcavating

and unloading to theinfluenceof soilmass strength.

Thevariationof soilmassstrengthafterexcavatingand

unloadingisstudiedthroughtheanalysisof theoryand

testinthispaper. Theresultof thestudyindicatesthat

theunloadinginexcavationhasinfluenceonthevari-

ationof soilmassstrength, whichcanbeof somehelp

toavoidproject accidents.

235

2 THEORETICAL DEDUCTIONOF SOILMASS

STRENGTHUNDER UNLOADING

After excavation, the surrounding soil can be seen

as the overconsolidated soil layer, and Wei (1987)

deduced the undrained strength of the excavation

unloadingsoft clay accordingtotheHvorslev (1960)

real strengththeory, whichwasthesameformulathat

Mayne(1980)obtainedtheundrainedstrengthof over-

consolidatedclay soil accordingto thestatistics of a

largenumber of testdata.After theexcavation, infact,

theeffectivestressof bottomsoil layer of foundation

pitisinunceasinglydevelopingandchangingprocess,

rather thanthestaticoverconsolidatedstatethatabove

formula derives. In this process, becauseof unload-

ing, thenegativeporewaterpressuredissipatesslowly,

andeffectivestressdecreasesgradually,andeventually

stops at theoverconsolidated state. According to the

Hvorslev real strengththeory, theundrainedstrength

of thesoilsafter excavationandunloadingisdeduced.

TheHvorslevstrengthformulaisasfollows:

where c

e

= p

e

; In normal consolidated soil, p

e

is

equal to the current effective stress (drained shear

strength) or the consolidation pressure (undrained

shear strength); In overconsolidated soil, p

e

is the

consolidation pressure that the test specimen fail-

uresporosityratiocorrespondsinthenormal pressure

dense curve. tg

e

is the increment ratio which the

shearing strength increases along with the effective

stresschangewhenthewater content isconstant; P is

theeffectivestress.

Accordingtothereal strengththeoryandthecritical

states concept, when soilmass has withstood a sim-

ple loadingunloading cycle in stress history, it can

beassumedthat thefailurepoint of overconsolidated

soil is coincidencewith thefailurepoint of thenor-

mal consolidatedsoil at thesamewater content when

stress path reaches at critical stateline, as shown in

Figure1andFigure2. Thentheeffectivestressof the

overconsolidatedsoil isasfollows:

Based on the confirmation of a large number of

tests, it can be considered approximately that the

shapes of undrained stress path of the normal com-

pacting soil sample is geometrical similarity under

thedifferent consolidationpressure, andthevariation

valueof effectivestressandconsolidationpressureare

inproportion(Wei 1987). Thereforetheir relationcan

beproposedfromthefollowingequation:

p

e c

A

E

C

B

p'

a

p'

b

p'

e

p' p p

over-compacting soil

normal compacting soil

normal compacting soil

c

r

i

t

i

c

a

l

s

t

a

t

e

l

i

n

e

initial compressed line

p

Figure 1. The constant consolidation pressure and the

undrained stress path for the normal consolidated soil and

theoverconsolidatedsoil (Wei 1987).

p

c

p

e

p log p

A

E

C

B

Figure2. Therelationcurves for thenormal consolidated

soil andtheoverconsolidatedsoil.

The undrained shear strength of overconsolidated

soil sampleB isasfollows:

Takingtheequation(2),(3),(5) intotheequation(4),

then:

236

The undrained shear strength of normal consoli-

datedsoilmassA ininitial consolidationpressureP

c

isasfollows:

InFigure2:

Ontheinitial compressionlineAEC,

The equation (12) is the undrained strength ratio

of the excavation unloading soil and the normal

consolidationsoil.

Figure3. Thediagramof thestressvariationforexcavation.

Intheabovedeductionprocess:

S

ub

The undrained strength of the excavation

unloadingsoils;

S

ua

Theundrainedstrengthof thenormal consol-

idatedsoils;

u

t

Thenegativepore-waterpressureof theunload-

ingsoilmass, withtimedissipation;

P

t

Thesoilmassconsolidationpressureof current

state;

p

c

The soilmass consolidation pressure under

natural state;

C

c

, C

s

Thecompressionindexandswellingindex

of soilmass.

Thelawis reflectedintheequation(12) that soil-

mass strength reduces gradually with the negative

pore-water pressuredissipationafter unloading. when

u

t

=0, soil is at thecompleteover-compactingstate.

The key that estimates the soilmass strength after

unloading is to determine the parameter i. Because

of theerrors of thesamplingdisturbanceandinstru-

mentation equipment, the computed result of the

parameteri whichisdeterminedbyconsolidationtests

result C

c

, C

s

, isbigger thanthereal value, needingto

calculatetheparameter i bythestrengthtest.

After the synthetical comparison, Mayne (1980)

propose that 1C

s

,C

c

takes the statistical average

value 0.64 to be quite reasonable according to the

statistics of a large number of experimental data

andinsitumeasurement; Furthermore, Zhang& Wei

(1987) haveconfirmedthis viewpoint. Thereforethe

parameter i istaken0.64inthispaper.

3 EXPERIMENT ANALYSISOF SOILMASS

STRENGTHAFTER UNLOADING

3.1 Test plans

In theexcavation process, as shown in Figure3, the

soilmassunitA of aroundfoundationpitwall islateral

237

Table1. Thetriaxial testplansof constantpressureconsol-

idation.

Consolidationpressure

v

=

H

(kPa)

Variationmodeof

thestress 100 200 300 400

Unloading

v

unloading I01 I02 I03 I04

failure

Unloading

v

loading J 01 J 02 J 03 J 04

failure

v

unloadingfailure K03

v

loadingfailure L03

Table2. Thetriaxial test plansof K

0

consolidation.

Consolidationpressure

v

=

H

/K

0

(kPa)

Variationmode

of thestress 180 240 400

H

unloadingfailure M01 M02 M03

unloading, and vertical pressureis nearly invariable;

ThesoilmassunitBof thelateral andvertical inthebot-

tomof foundationpitsimultaneouslyunloads, andthe

vertical stress drops morequickly thanlateral stress,

but still retains quiteapart of incompleteunloading

stress, therefore the influence of the unloading only

possiblyexistsinacertainscopebelowfoundationpit

bottomsurface.Thestageexcavationmethodisgener-

allyselectedforthefoundationpit.Thefirstsupporting

structureimmediatelybetakenwhenthefirstlayersoil

isexcavatedtoreachat thedesignelevation; Thenthe

secondlayer soil isexcavated. Duringtheexcavation,

the soilmass units are in the process that the soil is

unloadingandexpandingandthenegativepore-water

pressureisdissipatingslowly.

Accordingtotheunloadingcharacteristicof above

soilmassunitA, B, testplansaredesignedasshownin

Table1andTable2.

I, J grouptests simulatethestress pathof theunit

B, andthesoil samplesareconsolidatedfor 24hours

under constant pressure; thenaccordingto thestress

pathL

v

=

v

,3, L

v

,L

H

=2, thetestspecimenare

unloaded simultaneously on thevertical and thelat-

eral, and the value was recorded when the negative

pore-water pressure are stable after unloading; This

processneedsfor 23hour fromstartingunloadingto

stabilityof readingvalue, thenturnsonthedrainvalve,

and makes thenegativepore-water pressuredissipa-

tion, the soil sample completes consolidation under

thenewlowstresscondition, theconsolidationtimeis

8hours.ThentheI groupisloadedtothetestspecimen

compression failureon thevertical, and theJ group

is unloadedto thetest specimenextrusionfailureon

Table3. Thebasicindexof mechanical propertyof Siltclay.

Parameters Values

w 52.6%

16.9KN/m

3

e 1.487

Sr 97.3%

I

p

23.2

I

L

1.231

1-2

1.20MPa

1

c 11kPa

9.3

sampleafter unloading(kPa).

Serial number I (J ) 01 I (J ) 02 I (J ) 03 I (J ) 04

Negative 30.9 34.1

pore-water

pressure(kPa)

Note: Becauseof instrument failure, thedataof 01 and 02

cannotbedetected, thelatter twodataareaveragevalueof I,

J group.

thevertical. Asareferencetest, K groupandL group

specimen areconsolidated in theconfining pressure

of setting, withoutunloadingdisturbance, andrespec-

tively are loaded and unloaded to the test specimen

failureonthevertical.

Theunloadingstressvariationprocessof unitA is

simulatedbyMgrouptest. K

0

=0.6, theconsolidation

pressureisexertedbystagedloading; Foravoidingthe

accidental failureof thetestspecimen, thestagedload-

ingis divided10levels to exert; Theaxial stress L

isexertedineachlevel loading, at thesametime, the

confiningpressureL

H

=K

0

L

v

isexerting, consol-

idationtime24hours. After consolidationcompletes,

L

v

ismaintainedinvariable, andthetestspecimenis

compressedtofailurebythelateral unloading.

3.2 Test results

Thesoil samplesof testsarethetypical softsoil of the

Shanghai area, itsbasicindexof mechanical property

asshowninTable3.

After unloading, thenegativepore-water pressure

isshowninTable4.

4 THE COMPARISONANALYSISBETWEEN

THEORY RESULT ANDTEST RESULT

OF THE SOILMASSSTRENGTHAFTER

EXCAVATINGANDUNLOADING

The theory deduction and the test simulation about

soil strength of the excavation has been discussed.

238

Figure4. Thenormalizationstressof theunloadingsoil of

I group.

Figure5. Thenormalizationstressof theunloadingsoil of

J group.

Nowwewill discuss thecomparisonreuslt of theory

andtest.

Thestressstrainrelationcurveof differentconfin-

ing pressureof I, J two groups tests arenormalized,

and

m

=(

1

+2

2

),3=233kPa, thenthecurvescan

bedrawnasshowninFigure4andFigure5, inwhich

K Line, L linearethesoil stress-straincurvesof natu-

ral compactionafter normalization, andI02, I03, J 01,

J 02, J 04 are the normalizing stress-strain curve of

over-compactingsoil after theunloading.

After excavationunloading, thestress valueof the

soil samplestress-strainrelationscurveapproachesor

surpassesthestressvalueof thenatural normal com-

pacting soil as shown in Figure4 and Figure5; For

eliminating the test error, after unloading, soil sam-

plepeak value(

1

3

)

max

canbetakentheaverage

valueof eachnormalizedcurvepeak value, asshown

Table 5. The soil strength contrast between theory result

andtest result after unloading.

Project

Peakvalue

(

1

3

)

max

(kPa)

Natural Soil sample Test Theory Difference

Test soil of unloading result result value

number sample disturbance S

ub

/S

ua

S

ub

/S

ua

(%)

I 208.2 219.0 1.052 1.175 12.3

J 205.1 212.5 1.040 1.175 13.5

inTable5; For comparingwithtest result, theoretical

calculationis takenby theformula(12), theparame-

ter P

c

=300kPa, P

t

=233kPa, thetestresultsandthe

theoretical formularesults, areshowninTable5.

In the Table 5, S

ub

is the undrained strength of

excavation unloading soil in I, J series tests by

normalization; S

ua

is the undrained strength of the

normal compressed soils in K, L series tests by

normalization.

In above tests, the influence of negative pore-

water pressure(Table4) isconsideredinsoil sample.

According to the computation of the formula (12),

thesoilmassstrengthratioS

ub

/S

ua

is1.229and1.235,

which is higher about 5%6%than theratio of the

pore-water pressuredissipatingcompletely.

ThecomparisonfromTable5canbefoundthatthe-

oretical calculation result is bigger about 10% than

testresult. NotonlyThesoilmassiscausedtobeatthe

overconsolidatedstate, butalsothesoil microstructure

isdamaged, andthesoilmassstrengthisreducedinthe

unloadingprocess. Inthistriaxial test, soil samplesis

unloadedaccordingtothestress pathof thetest, soil

stress is redistributed, andconsolidated, theovercon-

solidatedsoil isformated, soil structureof theoriginal

systemisalsodamaged.

5 THEVARIATIONOF SOILMASSSTRENGTH

PARAMETERSAFTER EXCAVATINGAND

UNLOADING

Based on the stress-strain relation curves of tests,

according to the Mohr-Coulomb criterion, the soil-

mass strength parameters c$$ of the simulating

excavation unloading and the parameters c$$ of

routine-test arelistedinTable6.

The cohesion, the angle of internal friction that

unloadingfailureof I andM groupobtainedarequite

close, their c value is bigger than J group, but the

value is smaller, furthermore, the values of c$$

are obviously different from the result of conven-

tional consolidatedquick shear test. Becauseof lack

239

Table6. Thestrengthparameter valuec$$ of thesoilmass

failure.

Test number

A unit of B unit of B unit of Theresult of

M group I group J group conventional

(unloading (unloading (loading consolidated

Parameter failure) failure) failure) quickshear

Cohesion 26.5 24.3 7.36 11

c (kPa)

Angleof 15 13 16 9.3

internal

friction

(

)

of thesufficienttestdata, therelationshipbetweenthe

unloadingstressandthestrengthparametersc$$ can

not beobtained, whichneedsfurther test todetermine

whether theseparametershavetheinevitablerelation.

6 CONCLUSION

This paper chooses thetypical excavationas thetest

study object, designs and carries out different stress

pathsindoor triaxial testsinI, J, K, L, M grouptests.

Someuseful conclusions aredrawnby analyzingthe

influence of excavation on the result of theory and

test, which are very significant for avoiding project

accidents:

1. Bytheassumptionthatthesoil asoverconsolidated

soil with dissipation of the negative pore-water

pressure after unloading, the undrained strength

ratiobetweenthesoilsof excavationunloadingand

thenormal consolidated soils is deduced, namely

theformula(12). Withthedissipationof soil neg-

ativepore-water pressure, thesoilmass strengthis

reduced.Accordingtotheanalysisresult, thescope

of reductionisnotlarge. Undertheaboveteststress

condition, the strength ratio range of variation is

about 5%6%.

2. TheundrainedstrengthratioS

ub

/S

ua

fromthetests

issmaller about 10%thanundrainedstrengthratio

fromthe above theoretical formula computation.

Thedifferencevalueinthetestcanbeidentifiedas

theresult that of unloadingdisturbance.

3. Intheunloadingprocess, thesoilmassiscausedto

beattheoverconsolidatedstate,thesoil microstruc-

ture is damaged, and the soilmass strength is

reduced.

4. Thetotal stressstrengthparametersc$$ obtained

fromthe different stress path tests are much dif-

ferent fromthe parameters fromthe routine-test.

Due to the insufficiency of data, the relation-

shipbetweentheunloadingstressandthestrength

parametersc$$ cannot beobtained, whichneeds

further test todeterminewhether theseparameters

havetheinevitablerelation.

REFERENCES

Broms, B.B. 1980. Soil Sampling in Europe: State-of-the-

Art. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Div. 106:

6598.

Drnevich, V.P. & Massarsch, K.R. 1979. Sample Distur-

bance and Stress Strain Behaviour. ASCE Journal

of the Geotechnical Engineering Division 105(GT 9):

10011016.

Hvorslev, M.J. 1960. Physical component of the shear

strengthof saturatedclays. Research Conference on Shear

Strength of Cohesive Soils, ASCE: 169274.

Mayne, P.W. 1980. Cam-clay prediction of undrained

strength. Geotech Engrg Div ASCE 106(GT11):

12191242.

Rutledge, P.C. 1944. Relation of undisturbed sampling to

laboratorytest. Transactions ASCE, (109): 11551183.

Wei, R.L. 1987. Soft clay strength and deformation. Beijing:

Chinacommunicationspress.

Zeng, X.Q. 1995. Subway project double thread tunnel

parallel advancement interaction and construction

mechanics research. Shanghai:Tongji Universitydoctoral

dissertation.

Zeng, G.X., Pan, Q.Y. & Hu, Y.F. 1988. The Behavior of

Excavation in Soft Clay Ground. Chinese Journal of

Geotechnical Engineering 10: 1322.

240

Theme 2: Construction method, ground treatment,

and conditioning for tunnelling

Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground Ng, Huang & Liu (eds)

2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-48475-6

Tenyearsof boredtunnelsinTheNetherlands: Part I, geotechnical issues

K.J. Bakker

COB, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands

A. Bezuijen

Deltares, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands

ABSTRACT: Ten years have passed since in 1997 for the first time construction of bored tunnels in the

Netherlands soft soil was undertaken. Before that date essentially only immersed tunnels and cut-and-cover

tunnelswereconstructedintheNetherlands.ThefirsttwoboredtunnelswerePilotProjects, the2ndHeinenoord

tunnel and theBotlek Rail tunnel. Sincethen aseries of other bored tunnels has been constructed and some

arestill under constructiontoday. At thebeginningof thisperiod, amongst othersBakker et al (1997), gavean

overviewof therisksrelatedtoboredtunnelsinsoft groundandaplanfor researchrelatedtothepilot projects

was developed. After that in1999the2ndHeinenoordtunnel openedfor thepublic, theJ ointedplatformfor

Boredtunnelling, inshortGPB, wasorganized, tocoordinatefurther researchandmonitoringof boredtunnels.

This platformis supervisedby theCenter for UndergroundConstruction. Inthis paper asummary is givenof

someof themost characteristicobservationsonthese10yearsof undergroundconstructionintheNetherlands.

Inthefirst part of thispaper thefocusisongeotechnical interactions, andstability, whereaspart twowill focus

moreonstructural relatedissues.

1 INTRODUCTION

In 1992 afact-finding mission was sent to J apan by

theDutchgovernment, whichreportedthat it should

be possible to construct bored tunnels in the Dutch

soft soil conditions. Up to that timeessentially only

immersedandcut-and-cover tunnelswereconstructed

intheNetherlands,asboringof tunnelsinsoftsoil con-

ditions, atthattime, wasconsideredtobetooriskfull.

Afterthisconclusionthingswentquitefast; in1993

the Dutch minister of Transport and Public works

orderedtheundertakingof twopilot projects, the2nd

HeinenoordTunnel and theBotlek Rail Tunnel. The

projects were primarily aimed at constructing new

infrastructure and besides that for monitoring and

researchinorder to advancethedevelopment of this

new construction method for the Netherlands. The

projects started in 1997 and 10 years have passed

sincethen.

Atthestartof thepilotprojects, thedifficultieswith

respect toconstructingboredtunnelsinsoft soil con-

ditionswereevaluatedandaplanfor monitoringand

research was put forward, see Bakker et al (1997).

Sincethen, the2ndHeinenoordtunnel, seeFig. 1, and

aseriesof other boredtunnelswereconstructed.

After the completion of the pilot projects a J oint

PlatformforBoredtunnelswasestablished(GPB) that

coordinatesthemonitoringandresearchatthevarious

Figure1. Geological profileat the2ndHeinenoordtunnel.

otherDutchtunnellingprojects.TheGPB, aninitiative

of thelarger clientsfor undergroundinfrastructureon

thegovernmentside, wasorganisedunder supervision

of theNetherlandsCentrefor UndergroundConstruc-

tion; COB. Theresearchwasorganisedinsuchaway

that resultsof aproject wouldbebeneficial for anext

project startingalittlelater.

Unquestionablyalothasbeenlearnedfromtheper-

formed monitoring and research. The results of this

processhavebeennoticedabroad. In2005theNether-

lands hosted the fifth International symposium of

TC28onUndergroundConstructioninSoftGround.

Researchersandexpertsfromall over theworldcame

toAmsterdam, tolearnabout theDutchobservations

ontunnellingandto visit theconstructionworks for

thenewNorth-SouthcitymetrosysteminAmsterdam.

243

Table1. Boredtunnelscompletedafter 1997intheNetherlands.

Completion Boredlength Depth OutwardDiameter

(Year) (m) (m) (m)

2ndHeinenoordtunnel Road 1999 945(dual) 30 8.3

WesternScheldt tunnel Road 2003 6700(dual) 60 11.30

BotlekRail tunnel Rail 2004 1835(dual) 26 9.60

SophiaRail tunnel Rail 2005 4000(dual) 27 9.60

PannerdenschCanal Rail tunnel Rail 2005 1615(dual) 25 9.60

GreenHart tunnel Rail 2006 8.620(single) 30 14.90

The above event was also the occasion for the

presentationof abook; A decadeof progressintun-

nellingintheNetherlands by BezuijenandvanLot-

tum(2006), wherethis researchis describedinmore

detail.

This paper(s) gives some highlights of the main

researchresult of thepast decade.

2 REVIEWOF THE 1997SITUATIONAND

WHAT CAMEAFTER

Inthedesignphasefor the2ndHeinenoordtunnel a

main concern were the soft soil conditions in com-

binationwithhighwater pressures. Ingeneral inthe

Netherlandsthewater tableisjust belowthesoil sur-

face. Furthermorethe8.3moutwarddiameter for this

first largediameter tunnel was amajor stepforward,

comparedtopastexperienceintheNetherlands; expe-

rience that was mainly based on constructing bored

tunnels, pipesor conduitsuptoabout 4.0mdiameter.

Thisgavesomeconcernwithrespecttotheamountof

extrapolationof empiricknowledge.

Withrespecttothesoft-soil conditions,thelowstiff-

nessof theHoloceneclayandpeatlayersandthehigh

groundwater table; nearlyuptothesoil surface, were

consideredapotential hazardandachallengeforbored

tunnels.Thesoil profileatthe2ndHeinenoordtunnel,

seeFig. 1, isindicativefor theheterogeneouscharac-

ter and on occasion sudden changes in underground

soil layeringthat onemight encounter. Inadditionto

theheterogeneityandthegroundwater, deformations

dueto tunnellingmight influencethebearingcapac-

ity of any existing piled foundations in the vicinity.

And as the common saying is that the Amsterdam

Forest is underground, one might realize the poten-

tial risksinvolvedfor theNorth/SouthMetroworksin

Amsterdam.

Characteristic for ahigh water tableis buoyancy;

theeffect that thetunnel might befloatingupintothe

softupperlayersabovethetunnel duetothegradientin

thegroundwaterpressure. Besidestheriskof breaking

upof thesesoil layers, therather flexiblebeddingof

thetunnel and thedeformations that this may cause

needtobeanalysed.

Therefore research was aimed at clarifying the

effects of thesoft underground, groundwater effects,

andtheeffect of tunnellingonpiledfoundations.

After thesuccessful construction of thetwo Pilot

projects, anumber of other boredtunnellingprojects

followed, seeTable1. MentionworthisthattheGreen

Hart Tunnel holds until recently the record as the

largest diameter boredtunnel intheworld.

Still under construction arethetunnels for Rand-

stadRail inRotterdam, theHubertusTunnel for aroad

in The Hague and the North/South metro works in

Amsterdam.

Withrespecttotheconstructionof theNorth/South

metro works in Amsterdam, the station works have

madequitesomeprogress andtheboredtunnel is in

a preparation phase. The elements of the immersed

tunnel; theextension toAmsterdamNorth under the

river IJ, arewaitingfor thecompletionof theimmer-

siontrenchunder theAmsterdamCentral Station. For

theboredtunnellingpart, theTBMisexpectedtostart

excavationat theendof 2008.

Tenyearsafterthepilotprojects, thequestionarises

whether the observations and related research have

confirmedtheaboveissues to bethecritical ones or

that advancinginsight mayhaveremovedtheseissues

fromthestage and swapped thesefor other topics

givingmoreconcern.

Inthispaper someof thecharacteristic eventsand

resultsof thispastdecadewill bedescribed.Thechoice

for the topics being discussed is influenced by the

projects that both authors wereinvolved with, with-

outintenttominimizetheimportanceof otherresearch

thatisnotdiscussedinthispaper.Furtherissuesrelated

to groundwater effects andgroutingaredescribedin

moredetail inaseparatepaper inthissymposiumby

Bezuijen&Talmon(2008).

3 EXPERIENCESWITHBOREDTUNNELSIN

THE NETHERLANDSINTHE PAST DECADE

3.1 An instability of the bore front

Duringtheconstructionof the2ndHeinenoordTunnel,

approximatelyinthemiddleunderneaththeriverOude

Maasaninstabilityat theexcavationfront developed,

244

Figure 2. Support pressures before, during and after the

Blowout at the2ndHeinenoordtunnel.

see Fig. 2; afterward commonly referred to as The

Blow-out (seealsoBezuijen& Brassinga, 2001).

Backtrackingthesituationlearnedthat after that a

pressuredrop was observed, in his efforts to restore

frontal support, themachinedriver first pumpedben-

tonitetotheexcavationchamber; consideringadefi-

ciencyinthebentonitesystem.Whenthisdidnothelp,

air waspumpedtotheborefront; notrealizingthatthe

front itself already had collapsed. This collapsecre-

ated ashortcut between theexcavation chamber and

the river. The action of pumping air was noticed by

shipmasters on theriver, which reported air bubbles

risingtothewater surface, whichcausedthefailureto

beknownastheblow-out. Inthiscasethepumping

of air hadnotbeenbeneficial totherestorationof sta-

bilitybecausepressurelosswasnot thecausebut one

of theresultsof theevent.

This frontal stability at the 2nd Heinenoord tun-

nel has attracted some public attention. Presumably

it is less knownthat loss of frontal stability has also

occurredsincethenwithsomeregularity at theother

tunnelsunder constructionintheyearsafter, e.g. dur-

ing construction of the Sophia Rail Tunnel and the

Green Hart Tunnel, however without much delay-

ingtheconstructionprocess. At the2ndHeinenoord

Tunnel, construction work was delayed for several

weeks beforethecrewsucceededinrestoringfrontal

stability, fillingupthecrater intheriver bottomwith

clay and bringing in swelling clay particles in the

excavationroom.

From the evaluation of the monitored pressures

in the excavation room, it appeared that before the

developmentof theinstability, thefrontal pressurewas

raisedabovetheadvisedpressurefor frontal support;

i.e. at about 470kPa instead of about 310kPa. see

Fig.2(pressuregaugeP15isintheexcavationchamber

at tunnel axislevel).

In retrospect it was understood that during stand-

still,thepressureswereraisedtogetalargergradientin

thepipesinordertoimprovethetransportof excavated

Figure 3. Pore water pressure distribution in front of

theTBM.

material;i.e.Kedichemclaythatwasfoundinthelower

partof theexcavationfrontandappearedtobedifficult

topumpthroughthehydraulicmucktransportsystem.

The measurements indicate that excavation had

startedwithoutreleasingpressuretothestandardsup-

portlevel duringexcavation. Inthatconditioninstabil-

ity developedwithin15seconds after that thewheel

startedcutting. Atstandstill, whensufficienttimehas

passedfor aproper vertical cakesealingof bentonite

to build up at the front, a high support pressure is

not muchof aproblem, asthepressuresusedareway

belowthosethatmightoverridethepassiveresistance

at the front. However, as the pressure itself is fluid

pressure, whenthecake-sealingistakenaway during

excavation, andwater canpenetratethefront, accord-

ingto Pascals lawfor afluidwithout shear stresses,

thepressurealso works inthevertical direction, and

if this pressureexceeds thevertical soil pressurethis

will triggeranupliftandpossiblyabreakingoutof soil

layers, andapparentlythat iswhat hashappenedhere.

In their paper on face support J ancsecz and Steiner

(1994), for thisreasongaveawarningaboutthelimits

to thefacesupport pressure, for situations withlittle

overburden.

Researchlearnsthat for thefinesandthat wehave

in the Pleistocene sands layers in the Netherlands,

penetration of bentonite in the pores is negligible.

Excavationthereforemeansremoval of thecakeseal-

ing; Research by Bezuijen and Brassinga (2001),

indicatesthatitnormallytakesabout4to5minutesto

buildupanewcakesealingafter theexcavationwheel

has removedthesealingduringexcavation. Thetime

betweenpassingsof chisels, intheorderof 20seconds

is too short for that. It must beemphasized that this

effect isnot onlyimportant for theupper limit toface

support pressures, but may also give a limitation to

thelower limit of thesupport pressure. A methodto

discount for this effect was given by Broere(2001),

seealsoFig. 4.

245

Figure 4. The effect of removal of the cake sealing dur-

ingexcavationonpore-pressuresinthefront. Theinfluence

zonefor excess pore-pressures may belarger that thezone

normallyconsideredinstabilityanalysis.

Thesituationof alowsoil coverunderneaththeriver

bottomisnottheonlysituationthatmightbecritical to

theaboveeffect, alsoif thesoil coveritself isrelatively

light, suchas inthecaseof thethicker layers of peat

overlayingthesandwheretheGreenHartTunnel was

excavated, thismightleadtoacritical situation.Alocal

failuremight betriggeredwherethegeneratedexcess

porepressureinfrontof thetunnel facecanliftthesoft

soil layers.

Theknowledgegainedwiththemonitoringof the

2ndHeinenoordtunnel wasappliedfortheGreenHart

tunnel, and may have prevented instabilities at the

borefront at larger scales; seeBezuijenet al. 2001&

Autuori & Minec(2005).

3.2 Tail void grouting and grouting pressures

Tomeasurethesoil pressuresonatunnel liningisdiffi-

cult. Inthestart-upphaseforthemonitoringof the2nd

HeinenoordTunnel, anumber of international experts

on tunnel engineering advised not to put too much

effort onthistopic, astheresultswouldprobablybe

disappointing. Duetothehardeningof thegrout, the

periodfor meaningful pressuremeasurements would

beshort andtoprevent bridgingeffectsthesizeof the

pressure cells would have to be large and therefore

costly.

Still, against this advice, the measurement of

grouting pressures was undertaken, and repeated for

a number of tunnel projects. It appeared that the

interpretationwas difficult whenthegrout has hard-

ened,butforthefreshgroutuntil 17hourafterinjection

Figure5. Under circumstancestheGroutmaterial fromthe

tail voidmight flowintothegapbehindthetail of theTBM,

givingcausetoincreasedloads.

itwaspossibletogiveanacceptedinterpretationof the

measurement results (Bezuijen & Brassinga, 2004),

and a lot of experience has been gained that has

contributedto abetter understandingof thegrouting

processandthepressuresactingonthetunnel lining.

Withtheseresults it was possibleto predict grouting

pressuresandtunnel loading, seeTalmon& Bezuijen

(2005).

Basedonvariousevaluationsof theforcedistribu-

tioninthetunnel lining, seeamongst others, Bakker

(2000), it came forward that the initial in-situ soil

stresses around the tunnel do not have a dominant

influence on the compressive loading of the tunnel.

Duetothetaperingof theTBM andinspiteof thetail

voidgroutingthereisasignificantreleaseof theradial

stressesaroundthetunnel, seeFig. 5.

Thefinal loadingontheliningrelates moretothe

effectivenessof thegroutingprocess, thedistribution

of thegroutopeningsandtheconsolidationof thegrout

than to the initial in-site soil stresses, see Bezuijen

et al. (2004). Whether this reduction of the in-situ

radial stresses is alasting effect that will remain for

thefull lifespanof thetunnel maydependonthecreep

sensitivityof thesoil, seealsoBrinkgreveandBakker

(2001), andHashimotoet al. (2008).

3.3 Surface settlements

Hoefsloot et al. (2005), haveshownthat theapplica-

tion of a stress boundary condition between tunnel

and soil in 3D tunnel analysis has a better corrobo-

ration between measurement and calculation of soil

deformations around thetunnel and subsequently of

theloadingonthetunnel, thantheapplicationof the

socalledcontractionmethod.

Althoughthiseffectwasknownintheliterature, see

for exampleMair andTaylor (1997), for theresearch

teamthat worked at the 2nd Heinenoord tunnel the

observationthat thenumerical predictions of surface

settlementslackedaccuracywasdisappointing.Atthe

start theexpectationsonnumerical analysishadbeen

quite high. Shortly after the first observations were

evaluatedit wasrealizedwithintheteam, that it were

only the empirical predictions by Peck (1969) for a

246

Figure 6. Surface settlements; measured and

back-calculatedwithdifferent material models.

volumeloss of about 1%that gaveareasonablecor-

roborationwiththemeasurements. Thefiniteelement

calculations, at that time mainly based on an appli-

cationof theelastic-plastic Mohr-Coulombmodel in

combinationwithacontractiontypeof modellingfor

thetail voidloss, predictedatoowideandtooshallow

surfacesettlement.

Thisdisappointingresult createdaproblemfor the

intentionstoapply3Dnumerical analysisindeforma-

tionpredictionsfortunnel projectsinurbanareas, such

asfor theAmsterdamNorth-Southlinemetroworks.

Since then, however, a lot of effort has been put

in the improvement of the numerical prediction of

soil deformations. To begin with it was the project

teamfor theAmsterdamMetroworks, seeVanDijk&

Kaalberg (1998), that gave a first indication for an

improvement, withtheproposal tomodel thestresses

atthetunnel soil interfaceinsteadof thedeformations.

Withtheintroductionof thisgroutpressuremodel the

resultsimproved.Lateron,whenthephysicsinthepro-

cessbecamebetter understood, i.e. theimportanceto

account for thehighstiffnessof thesoil inunloading,

double hardening was introduced with the develop-

mentof HardeningSoil, asamaterial model; withthis

development, thecalculationresultslargelyimproved

comparedtothemeasurements, seeFig. 6. Thelatest

development is theintroduction of small strain stiff-

ness in theHardening Soil Model, seeBenz (2006),

which up to now gives the best results, see Mller

(2005).

Theoretically theresult might further beimproved

introducing anisotropy in the model; such models

are being developed nowadays, e.g. in the frame-

work of European Research; AMGISS, e.g. see

www.ce.strath.ac.uk/amgiss.

4 EVALUATIONOF THE LEARNINGISSUES

Nowadays its not the soil deformation during nor-

mal excavation process that makes us worry about

surfacesettlements. Withanaveragetail voidloss of

about 0.5%of thediameter or less, thedeformation

might only be a problem for situations of under-

excavationof buildingsor if thestructuresarelocated

veryclosetotheexcavationtrack. Fortunnelsinurban

area, thereismoreconcernwithrespect tobore-front

stability; especiallywhentheupper stratumof thesoil

above the Pleistocene layers, where the tunnels are

usually positioned in, consists of soil with arelative

lowdensity, asintheNetherlands. For thesesituations

withrelativelylight upper layersof peat or clayswith

organic parts, onehas to bevery careful controlling

thesupportpressuresduringexcavation, asontheone

hand there is a lower bound value of the support to

prevent cavein, but ontheother hand, theupper limit

triggeredbyanupliftof lightupper layersmayalsobe

notfar.Thiswill limitthepressurewindowtoworkin.

Front instabilityhasoccurredat varioustunnelling

projects in the Netherlands. If the tunnel is outside

anyurbanareathismightnotgivetoomuchproblems;

however if the tunnel is underneath a city road sys-

tem, or closetopilefoundationsthismaycausesevere

problems, asinstability might causeasinkholeinthe

pavement andfoundationsettlements.

With respect to the accuracy in the prediction of

soil deformations:Apartfromthewell knownempiric

model of Peck (1969) that predicts the shape of the

settlementtroughbutnotthevolumeloss, thenumeri-

cal models have become quite reliable in predicting

surface and subsurface deformations, both vertical

and horizontal. The improvement, mainly achieved

in 2D analysis has opened up the possibility for a

reliable deformation analysis in 3D of tunnelling in

urban areas. For an adequateprediction of deforma-

tionsitisimportanttomodel thegroutingpressuresas

aboundaryconditiontotheexcavation,incombination

withtheapplicationof ahigher order material model,

that takes into account the small strain deformation

behaviour of sand, seeBenz (2006).

Furtheritisrecommended, andplannedfor, tointe-

grate the Delft Cluster Grout pressure model in the

Plaxis3DTunnel software.Thelatterwouldcontribute

totheapplicabilityof thenumerical modelsasamore

general tool forundergroundconstruction.Thiswould

enableabetter analysis for theloadingonthetail of

theTBM andof thetunnel lining.

Within certain limits some cost saving structural

improvements areexpected to bepossibleand, even

moreimportant, insight isobtainedinthemechanism

involved.

5 CONCLUDINGREMARKS

TenYears have passed since the first large diameter

boredtunnellingprojectintheNetherlandsinSoftsoil

was undertaken. Sincethensomeworldrecords with

respect totunnellinghavebeenbrokenintheNether-

lands; i.e. the largest diameter (for the Green Hart

247

Tunnel), thehighest outsidepressureonasegmental

tunnel (fortheWesternscheldtTunnel), theapplication

of an Earth Pressure Balance shield in coarse sand,

andthelargest lengthof constructedtubeinoneday,

(PannerdenschCanal Tunnel).

Before the underground construction works were

started,andthetunnellingprojectswereinapre-design

stage, the softness of the Netherlands underground

attracted a large part of the attention, see Bakker

(1997). In retrospect theinfluenceof alowstiffness

asasourceof riskandinfluenceonundergroundcon-

structionwasconfirmed, but sometimesinadifferent

perspective, orrelatedtootherphysical processesthan

foreseen.

Withrespect thesenewinsightsthefollowingcon-

clusionsweredrawn:

1 The low stiffness of the soil may also lead to

increasedflexibility of thetunnel tube. Thedefor-

mationof thetubeduringhardeningof thegrout,

andtheadditional Eigenstressesthatthismaycause

isstill aresearchtopic.

2 For aproper predictionof surfacesettlementsand

soil deformations, it is important to model the

groutingpressuresattheinterfacebetweensoil and

tunnel (or grouting zone). Further to improvethe

prediction of the width of the settlement trough,

theuseof small strainanalysisisadvised.

3 Duringexcavationinfinesand, suchas thePleis-

tocenesandlayersintheNetherlands, thesupport-

ing cake fluid will be removed by the chisels on

theexcavationwheel.Therefore, incasesof limited

overburdentheupperboundtothesupportpressure

must becarefullydeterminedtoprevent instability

of theoverlayingsoil.

4 Inaddition; for thedeterminationof thelower limit

tothesupportpressure,theincreasedporepressures

inthefront alsoneedstobetakenintoaccount.

With acknowledgement to the Netherlands Cen-

tre for Underground Construction for their consent

topublishabout theresearchthey commissionedand

coordinated.

REFERENCES

Autuori,P.&Minec,S.2005.Largediametertunnellingunder

polders, Proceedings 5th Int. Symposiumon Underground

Construction in soft Ground, IS-Amsterdam2005.

Bakker, K.J., v.d. Berg, P. & Rots, J. 1997. Monitoringsoft

soil tunnellingintheNetherlands; aninventoryof design

aspects, Proc. ISSMFE, Hamburg.

Bakker, K.J. 2000. Soil Retainingstructures, developmentof

modelsforstructural analysis,Balkema,2000,Rotterdam.

Benz, T. 2006. Small strain stiffness of soils and its conse-

quences, DoctorThesis, IGSUniversitt Stuttgart.

Bezuijen,A.&Brassinga,H.E.2001.Blow-outpressuremea-

sured in a centrifuge model and in the field. Proc. Int.

Symp. on Modern Tunnelling Science and Techn. Kyoto.

Bezuijen,A.,Talmon,A.M.,Kaalberg,F.J.&Plugge,R.2004.

Fieldmeasurementsof grout pressuresduringtunnelling

of theSophiaRail Tunnel. Soils and Foundations vol, 44,

No1, 4150, Feb.

Bezuijen, A. & Talmon, A.M. 2005. Grout properties and

their influenceonback fill grouting. Proceeding 5th Int.

Symposiumon Underground Construction in soft Ground,

IS-Amsterdam2005.

Bezuijen, A., Pruiksma, J.P. &vanMeerten, H.H. 2001. Pore

pressures in front of tunnel, measurements, calculations

and consequences for stability of tunnel face. Proc. Int.

Symp. on Modern Tunnelling Science and Techn. Kyoto.

Bezuijen, A. & van Lottum, H. (eds). 2006. Tunnelling A

Decade of Progress. GeoDelft 19952005.

Bezuijen, A. & Bakker, K.J. 2008. The influence of flow

aroundaTBM machine. Proceeding 6th Int. Symposium

on Underground Construction in soft Ground, Shanghai.

Bezuijen, A. & Talmon, A.M. 2008. Processes around a

TBM. Proceeding 6th Int. Symposium on Underground

Construction in soft Ground, Shanghai.

Brinkgreve, R.B.J. & Bakker, K.J. 2001. Time-dependent

behaviour of bore tunnels in soft soil conditions; a

numerical study, Proceedings, ICSMGE Istanbul, Turkey.

Broere, W. 2001. Tunnel facestability & newCPT applica-

tions, Delft UniversityPress.

Hashimoto, T., Ye, G.L., Nagaya, J., Konda, T. & Ma, X.F.

2008. Study onearthpressureactinguponshieldtunnel

lininginclayey andsandy grounds basedonfieldmon-

itoring. Proceeding 6th Int. Symposium on Underground

Construction in soft Ground, Shanghai.

Hoefsloot, F.J.M. & Verweij, A. 2005. 4D grouting pres-

suremodel PLAXIS. Proceeding5thInt. Symposiumon

UndergroundConstructioninsoftGround, IS-Amsterdam

2005.

J ancsecz,S.&Steiner,W.1994.FaceSupportforalargeMix-

Shieldinheterogeneousgroundconditions.Tunnelling 94,

BritishTunnellingAssociation, 57J uly1994.

Mair, R.J. & Taylor, R.N. 1997. ThemeLecture: Boredtun-

nelling in the urban environment. Proc. 14th ICSMFE,

Balkema, Rotterdam.

Mller, S.C. &Vermeer, P.A. 2005. Predictionof settlements

andstructural forcesinliningsduetotunnelling. Proceed-

ing 5th Int. Symposium on Underground Construction in

soft Ground, IS-Amsterdam2005.

Pachen, H.M.A., Brassinga, H. & Bezuijen, A. 2005.

Geotechnical centrifuge tests to verify the long-term

behaviour of aboredtunnel, Proc. 5th Int. Symposium on

UndergroundConstructioninsoft Ground,IS-Amsterdam

2005.

Peck, R.B. 1969. Deep excavations and Tunnelling in soft

Ground. Proceedings 7th ICSMFE Mexico.

Talmon, A.M. &Bezuijen, A. 2005. Groutingthetail voidof

boredtunnels: theroleof hardeningandconsolidationof

grouts. Proceeding 5th Int. Symposium on Underground

Construction in soft Ground, IS-Amsterdam.

vanDijk, B. & Kaalberg, F.J. 1998. 3-Dgeotechnical model

for the North/Southline in Amsterdam. In A. Cividini

(Ed.), Applicationof numerical methods togeotechnical

problems, Wien, 739{750. Springer-Verlag.

248

Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground Ng, Huang & Liu (eds)

2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-48475-6

Tenyearsof boredtunnelsinTheNetherlands: Part II structural issues

K.J. Bakker

COB, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands

A. Bezuijen

Deltares, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands

ABSTRACT: In1997for thefirst timeconstructionof boredtunnelsintheNetherlandssoft soil wasunder-

taken. Beforethat dateessentially only immersed tunnels and cut-and-cover tunnels wereconstructed in the

Netherlands. Thefirst two boredtunnels werePilot Projects, the2ndHeinenoordtunnel andtheBotlek Rail

tunnel. Sincethenaseries of other boredtunnels has beenconstructedandsomearestill under construction

today. At thebeginningof this period, amongst others Bakker (1997), gaveanoverviewof therisks relatedto

boredtunnelsinsoft groundandexplainedabout aplanfor researchrelatedtothePilot projects. Tenyearshave

passed, alot of monitoring and research has been done. In this paper that is split in two parts asummary is

givenof someof themost characteristicobservationsof thesepast 10yearsof undergroundconstructioninthe

Netherlands. Inthissecondpart, theemphasiswill beonstructural relatedissuesdiscussedwhereasinpartone,

frontal stability, groutingandsoil deformationsarediscussed.

1 INTRODUCTION

In1992theDutchgovernmentsentafact-findingmis-

siontoJ apan, toreport onthepossibilitytoconstruct

boredtunnelsintheDutchsoft soil conditions. Upto

thattimeessentiallyonlyimmersedandcut-and-cover

tunnels wereconstructed in theNetherlands, as bor-

ingof tunnelsinsoft soil conditions, at that time, was

consideredtobetooriskfull.

After thereport, that advisedpositive, thingswent

quite fast; in 1993 the Dutch minister of Transport

and Public works ordered the undertaking of two

pilot projects, the 2nd Heinenoord Tunnel and the

BotlekRail Tunnel.Theprojectswereprimarilyaimed

at constructing new infrastructure and besides that

for monitoring and research in order to advancethe

development of thisnewconstructionmethodfor the

Netherlands.Theprojectsstartedin1997and10years

havepassedsincethen.

Atthestartof thepilotprojects, thedifficultieswith

respecttotheconstructionof boredtunnelsinsoftsoil

conditions wereevaluatedandaplanfor monitoring

andresearchwasputforward,seeBakker(1997).Since

then, the2ndHeinenoordtunnel, andaseriesof other

boredtunnelswereconstructed. Unquestionablyalot

hasbeenlearnedfromall themonitoringandresearch

that wasperformed.

Figure1. Trumpet effect intunnel ringconstruction.

Theresultsof thisprocesshavebeennoticedabroad.

In2005theNetherlandshostedthefifthInternational

symposiumofTC28onUndergroundConstructionin

Soft Ground. Theaboveevent wasalsotheoccasion

for thepresentationof abook; A decadeof progress

intunnellingintheNetherlands byBezuijenandvan

Lottum(2006), where this research is described in

moredetail.

In the present paper some highlights of the main

researchresult of thepast decadewill begiven. The

paper is split in two parts, where part one includes

somegeneral observationsanddiscussesfacesupport,

249

groutingandsurfacesettlements, whereaspart twois

moreabout structural issues.

2 REVIEWOF THE 1997SITUATIONAND

WHAT CAMEAFTER

A mainconcernwithrespect toboringtunnels inthe

Netherlandswerethesoftsoil conditions; thelowstiff-

nessof theHoloceneclayandpeatlayersandthehigh

groundwater table; nearly upto thesoil surfacewere

consideredapotential hazardandachallengeforbored

tunnels.

Furthermore the 8.3moutward diameter for the

first largediameter tunnel was amajor stepforward,

comparedtopastexperience; experiencethatuptothat

timewasmainlybasedonconstructingboredtunnels,

pipesor conduitsuptoabout 4.0mdiameter.

Inadditiontothat, ingeneral deformations dueto

tunnellingmightinfluencethebearingcapacityof any

existingpiledfoundations inthevicinity. Andas the

commonsayingisthattheAmsterdamForestisunder-

ground, onemight realizethepotential risksinvolved

for theNorth/SouthMetroworksinAmsterdam.

Characteristic for ahighwater tablearebuoyancy

effects.Besidestheriskof breakingupof thesoftupper

soil layers, theratherflexiblebeddingof thetunnel and

thedeformationsthatthismaycauseneedtobeanaly-

sed. Therefore research was aimed at clarifying the

effects of thesoft underground, groundwater effects,

andtheeffect of tunnellingonpiledfoundations.

Ten years later, the question arises whether the

observationshaveconfirmedtheaboveissuestobethe

critical ones. Inthis paper someof thecharacteristic

eventsandresultsof thispastdecadewill bedescribed.

Thechoiceforthetopicsbeingdiscussedisinfluenced

by theprojects that bothauthors wereinvolvedwith,

without intent to minimize the importance of other

researchthat isnot discussedinthispaper.

3 EXPERIENCESWITHBOREDTUNNELS

INTHE NETHERLANDSINTHE PAST

DECADE

3.1 Structural damage

Anearlyexperiencewiththedifficultiesforboredtun-

nels insoft groundwas thedamagetotheliningthat

occurred during thefirst 150 metres of construction

of the2ndHeinenoordTunnel. Onaveragethedam-

agewastoohighcomparedtoexperiencesfromabroad

andwasconsideredtobeunacceptable. Although, the

integrityof thetunnel wasnotatstake, therewasworry

aboutthedurabilityof thetunnel andthelevel of future

maintenance.

Characteristic to the damage was cracking and

spalling of concrete near the dowel and notches see

Fig. 2. Quite often the damage was combined with

Figure2. DamagetotheDowel andnotchsockets.

Figure3. Large-scaletunnel ringtestingintheStevinLab-

oratoriesatDelftUniversity(thediameter of the(gray) inner

ringis8.3m).

differential displacements between subsequent rings

and with leakage. Theevaluation report, seeBakker

(2000), attributed thedamageto irregularities in the

constructionof theliningat therear of theTBM and

subsequent loading duringTBM progress. Further a

correlation of thedamagewith high jack forces was

observed; theseappearedtobenecessarytoovercome

thefrictioninthis part of thetrack, whichprevented

smoothprogress.

With respect to the tunnel ring construction, it is

difficulttoerectastressfreeperfectcircular ring. The

250

Figure4. Test sitefor thePile-tunnel interactiontest.

ring needs to bebuilt onto theend of aformer ring

that already has undergonesomeloading and defor-

mation fromthe tail void grouting while it partially

has left the tail of theTBM, see Fig. 3. The further

deformationis characterisedby thetrumpet shapeof

thetubingthatdevelops, seeFig. 1, withtheinevitable

relatedstress development inthelining. Thetrumpet

shapeandthehighjackingforces leadtolocal stress

concentrations andirregular deformations inthelin-

ing and occasional to slipping between thedifferent

tunnel elements.Theslippingof elementswasblamed

to theuseof abituminous material called Kaubit in

theringjoint.<

## Viel mehr als nur Dokumente.

Entdecken, was Scribd alles zu bieten hat, inklusive Bücher und Hörbücher von großen Verlagen.

Jederzeit kündbar.