LECTURE 2 - OUTLINE

ROCK MECHANICS 2
Giovanni Barla
Politecnico di Torino

Observational method in
Geotechnical Engineering
Example: Mathematical modelling
and performance monitoring for the
Corso Vittorio Emanuele II Underpass
in Turin

- see the hand-out paper by G. Barla et al.,

1995

STRUCTURAL AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT

THE OBSERVATIONAL METHOD

The term observational method appears to have
been coined by Terzaghi and Peck in 1948. In his
Rankine lecture Professor Ralph B. Peck (1969) made
the following comments:

if the governing phenomena are complex, or are not yet

appreciated, the engineer may measure the wrong quantities
altogether and my come to dangerously incorrect conclusions

THE OBSERVATIONAL
METHOD IN EUROCODE 7

This is where the observational method is particularly

useful.

Geotechnical Category 1 should only include small and

relatively simple structures

- for which it is possible to ensure that the fundamental requirements will be

satisfied on the basis of experience and qualitative geotechnical
investigations
- with negligible risk.
Geotechnical Category 1 procedures should be used only
where there is negligible risk in terms of overall stability or ground
movements and in ground conditions which are known from comparable
local experience to be sufficiently straightforward. In these cases the
procedures may consist of routine methods for foundation design and
construction.
Geotechnical Category 1 procedures should be used
only if there is no excavation below the water table or if comparable local
experience indicates that a proposed excavation below the water table will
be straightforward.

Geotechnical Category 2 should include conventional types

of structure and foundation with no exceptional risk or difficult soil or
loading conditions.

Design for structures in Geotechnical Category 2 should

normally include quantitative geotechnical data and analysis to ensure that
the fundamental requirements are satisfied.
Routine procedures for field and laboratory testing and for design
and execution may be used for Geotechnical Category 2 designs.
NOTE: The following are example of conventional structures or parts of
structures complying with Geotechnical Category 2 :
- spread foundations, raft foundations, pile foundations, walls and other
structures retaining or supporting soil or water, excavations, bridge piers
and abutments, embankments and earthworks, ground anchors and other
tie-back systems, tunnels in hard, non fractured rock and not subjected to
special water tightness or other requirements.

Geotechnical Category 3 should include structures or parts

Geotechnical Categories
1 and 2 .
of structures which fall outside the limits of

Geotechnical Category 3 should normally include alternative

provisions and rules to those in the EC7 standard.
NOTE: Geotechnical Category 3 includes the following examples:
- very large or unusual structures, structures involving abnormal risks, or
unusual or exceptionally difficult ground or loading conditions, structures in
highly seismic areas, structures in areas of probable site instability or
persistent ground movements that require separate investigations or special
measures.

The OBSERVATIONAL METHOD is

proposed for application in the draft of
the new guidelines of the Ministry of
Infrastructures and Public Works

When prediction of geotechnical behaviour is difficult,

it can be appropriate to apply the observational
method, in which the design is reviewed during
construction
The following requirements shall be met before
construction is started:
started:
the limits of behaviour which are acceptable shall
be established
the range of possible behaviour shall be assessed
and it shall be shown that there is an acceptable
probability that the actual behaviour will be within the
acceptable limits

a plan of monitoring shall be devised which will

reveal whether the actual behaviour lies within the
acceptable limits. The monitoring shall make this
clear at a sufficiently early stage and with sufficiently
short intervals to allow contingency actions to be
undertaken successfully
the response time of the instruments and the
procedures for analysing the results shall be
sufficiently rapid in relation to the possible evolution
of the system
a plan of contingency actions shall be devised
which may be adopted if the monitoring reveals
behaviour outside acceptable limits

EXAMPLE
Mathematical modelling and
performance monitoring for
the Corso Vittorio Emanuele
II Underpass in Turin

The underpassing of the Corso

Vittorio Emanuele II street is one
of the most difficult work carried
out in connection with the
construction of the new Railway
Link in Turin (left).
The interest stems from the
opportunity to discuss a
successful application of the
observational method in
conjunction with numerical
modelling

Turin Railway Link

The under-passing of Corso Vittorio Emanuele II street was

carried out by pushing across two heavy concrete monolithic
structures (East and West Monolith) by means of hydraulic
jacks. These structures were driven ahead in the near vicinity
of an under-pass, which was constructed at the beginning of
the past century and consists of a bridge truss standing on
two brick masonry walls made of buttress and arches. While
the West monolith was located far away from the old
structure, the East one was adjacent to it and was to be
pushed ahead by excavating first down to 4m approximately
with respect to the old foundation level. In the following
figures the work is to described in detail

The traffic along Corso Vittorio Emanuele II

street was fully interdicted (21 July 1994)
The East and West trenches were excavated
in the upper section only
The East (B) and West (C) monolithic structures
were pushed alternately with excavation
taking place 1 m advance each cycle

Removal and relocation of electric and

telephone lines, water pipes, etc. on metallic
structures (A-A)
Soil treatment by cement injections under
the foundation of the old underpass
Construction by casting in place of the two
monolithic structures B and C, one to the
South and the other one to the North of
Corso Vittorio Emanuele II street
Corso Vittorio Emanuele II street closed
down with traffic on the central way only
(29 June 1994)
Excavation of trench for pushing the
monolithic structure ahead

STAGE 1 - CONSTRUCTION OF THE TWO

MONOLITHIC CONCRETE STRUCTURES

Filling up with soil between the monolith

structures and the excavation walls
Corso Vittorio Emanuele street is rendered to
trafic in the central way on 12 September 1994
The heading of the structures is completed and
the street is opened to regular traffic on 31
October 1994

For pushing each monolith structure ahead a total

of 32 jacks were used for a total horizontal force
applied up to 6500 t

STAGE 2 - THE TWO MONOLITHIC

STRUCTURES (B and C) WERE PUSHED
THROUGH AS SHOWN

STAGE 3 - CONSTRUCTION OF THE TWO

MONOLITHIC CONCRETE STRUCTURES

Existing
underpass
tM
Wes

lith
o no

East Monolith

Excavated
zone

A general view of the area during construction as the two concrete monolithic structures (East and West)
are driven in a direction orthogonal to Corso Vittorio Emanuele II street. The exixting monitored railway
underpass is indicated by the arrow. Also indicated is the excavation zone

A general view of the area during construction as the two concrete monolithic structures (East and West)
are driven in a direction orthogonal to Corso Vittorio Emanuele II street. The existing railway underpass is
shown with a train moving through as work is under way

The ground conditions in the work site were well documented

consisting of gravelly-sandy soil (51 per cent gravel, 31 per
cent sand, and 18 per cent silt and clay), which was
characterised with a friction angle of 35, a short-term cohesion
of 20 kPa (the long-term cohesive strength is generally taken
to be 0 kPa), and a deformation modulus of 100 MPa, at 10 m
depth approximately.
With due consideration given to the static conditions of the
existing unerpass structure, it was decided to improve the
mechanical properties below the East wall by injecting the soil
with cement grout and chemical mixtures - Silacsol)
A view of the area during construction as the Wast monolithic structure has reache its final position.Atrain
moving from Porta Susa Station toward Porta Nuova Station is shown on the left. The future railway line
on the right is 4m below the level of the old railway line

A SERIES OF PICTURES TAKEN DURING WORK IS GIVEN IN THE FOLLOWING

The East monolith during excavation

Excavation Zone
The East wall of the exixsting underpass

Cross section showing the existing railway underpass and the excavation zone where the East monolithic
structure has been driven in the direction from Porta susa to Porta Nuova Station

MATHEMATICAL MODELLING
MATHEMATICAL MODELLING
Longitudinal Section

The deformations and stresses induced in the existing

underpass structure and in particular in the brick masonry
wall located in the near proximity of the East monolith were
predicted by finite element calculations well in advance of
excavation and construction. In line with the observational
method the purpose was to evaluate the behaviour of the
structure later to be monitored.
Two numerical models were created:
a longitudinal model (plane stress)
a transversal model (plane strain)
always in two dimensional conditions.

Stress distribution in the brick masonry wall with a vertical displacement induced at the bottom
of buttresses A and B

MATHEMATICAL MODELLING
Longitudinal Section

MATHEMATICAL MODELLING
Transversal Section

Predicted mobilized strengths near the underpass at the end of excavation (the soil is given a
cohesive strength of 20 kPa)

Also computed with the transversal model were displacements of the

wall as due to excavtion. Tipically these resulted to be as follows:

Stress distribution in the brick masonry wall for the same displacement conditions introduced
in the previous figure, however with prior filling of the arches by light concretebuttresses A and B

horizontal displacement at the top of the wall: 5 mm toward the excavation

change in vertical displacement at the top of the wall: - 5 mm
opening of the key of the arch: negligible
change in tilt angle: 72 (mean value along the wall height)

10

PERFORMANCE MONITORING

PERFORMANCE MONITORING

In order to analyse the deformational behaviour of the brick

masonry wall durin excavation, a monitoring programme
has been established comprising the following instrumentations:
nr. 3 inclinometers located along bottresses 1,3 and 9
nr. 3 double point borehole extensometers
nr. 7 VW crackmeters installed at the key of the arch
nr. 2 VW tiltmeters
a number of topographic targets placed along the brick
masonry wall and at the surface

see the following figure showing the monitoring system

Longitudinal section of the brick masonry wall located toward the excavated zone where the East
monolith is driven in the Porta Susa to Porta Nuova Station direction. Also shown is the instrumentation
installed for monitoring purposes

crackmeter

tiltmeter
tiltmeter

11

ACCEPTABLE VALUES OF KEY PARAMETERS

PREDICTED BY NUMERICAL MODELLING

crackmeter

horizontal displacement at the top of the wall: 5 mm toward

the excavation
change in vertical displacement at the top of the wall: - 5 mm
opening of the key of the arch: negligible
change in tilt angle: 72 (mean value along the wall height)

let us see the measured values

opening of the key of the arch

change in tilt angle

inclinometer measurements

12