Underground Singapore 2009

GEOCONSULT

Special Session 7:

Discussion about Analyses and Designs

related to One-strut-failure Case in Deep
Excavations

by

Oskar Sigl - Geoconsult Asia Singapore

04 December 2009, Singapore

GEOCONSULT
1

GEOCONSULT
One Strut Removal

» Accidental Removal of 1 Strut

» Strutting failure can cause total collapse
» Avoid progressive strutting failure
» Lower than “normal” load factors applied (1.0 or
1.05)

» Redundancy check – Therefore check of load

scenarios against the actual steel sections
2
 GEOCONSULT
Approach 1

» Remove one entire layer in 2D model

» May leave a remaining spring stiffness for the
removed layer in 2D model

» Careful with locked in stress, and the fact that

waler action may be less than expected

» OK as long as not too big impact on section

sizes

» Waler action & No longitudinal (soil) arching

3

GEOCONSULT
Approach 2

» Assess strut force re-distributions with a

Structural 3D model

» Information on the actual failure mode

» Does not consider effects ofr relative
stiffnesses and interaction between Soil /
Wall / Strut

» No longitudinal arching in soil

4
 GEOCONSULT
Approach 3

» Assess force redistributions with a

Geotechnical 3D model with structural
elements

» Information on the actual failure mode

» Considers relative stiffness and
interaction between Soil / Wall / Strut

» Longitudinal soil arching included

5

GEOCONSULT
Comparison

Discussion:

» Approach 2: structural 3D model

» Approach 3: Geotech/structural 3D model

6
 GEOCONSULT
One Strut Removal

May occur in:

» One of the top 2 layers

» Somewhere in the “middle”
» Lowest level

GEOCONSULT
Pattern of Deformation
Structural 3D Model

8
 GEOCONSULT
Pattern of Deformation

Geotechnical 3D Model

GEOCONSULT
Presentation of Results

0/3
0/2
0/1 -1/3
-1/2
-1/1
-2/3
-2/2
-2/1

10
 GEOCONSULT
Presentation of Results

+1/3
+1/2
+1/1 0/3
0/2
0/1
-1/3
-1/2
-1/1

11

GEOCONSULT
Presentation of Results

+2/3
+2/2
+2/1 +1/3
+1/2
+1/1
0/3
0/2
0/1

12
 GEOCONSULT
Presentation of Results

Reducing
Wall Stiffness
ÆÆÆÆ

13

Strut Removal in Top LayerGEOCONSULT

1

14
 GEOCONSULT
Structural Model – L1
Reducing Wall Stiffness Æ Æ Æ Æ

15

GEOCONSULT
Geotechnical Model – L1
Reducing Wall Stiffness Æ Æ Æ Æ

16
 GEOCONSULT
Strut Removal in Top
Layer 2

17

GEOCONSULT
Geotechnical / Structural Model

18
 GEOCONSULT
Strut Removal in Top
Layer 2

19

Strut Removal in Top LayerGEOCONSULT

2
Reducing Wall Stiffness Æ Æ Æ Æ

20
 GEOCONSULT
Geotechnical Model – L2
Reducing Wall Stiffness Æ Æ Æ Æ

21

GEOCONSULT
Strut Removal in Middle
Layer

22
 GEOCONSULT
Strut Removal in Middle
Layer

23

GEOCONSULT
Strut Removal in Middle
Layer
Reducing Wall Stiffness Æ Æ Æ Æ

24
 GEOCONSULT
Geotechnical Model - M
Reducing Wall Stiffness Æ Æ Æ Æ

25

GEOCONSULT
Strut Removal in Bottom
Layer

26
 GEOCONSULT
Strut Removal in Bottom
Layer

27

GEOCONSULT
Strut Removal in Bottom
Layer

28
 GEOCONSULT
Strut Removal in Bottom
Layer
Reducing Wall Stiffness Æ Æ Æ Æ

29

GEOCONSULT
Geotechnical Model – B
Reducing Wall Stiffness Æ Æ Æ Æ

30
 GEOCONSULT
Comparison

» Structural – Stiff Soil Bedding

» Structural – Soft Soil Bedding

» Geotechnical – Stiff Soil E-modulus

» Geotechnical – Soft Soil E-modulus

31

GEOCONSULT
Comparison

32
 GEOCONSULT
Comparison

33

GEOCONSULT
Comparison

34
 GEOCONSULT
Comparison

35

GEOCONSULT
Approach

Simplified Method

» Calculate all Design Strut Forces – “as

normal”

» Use percentages to distribute removed

strut load Æ up/down and left/right

» Determine strut forces for redundancy

check by superimposing such influences
36
 GEOCONSULT
Re-Distribution of Strut Load

37

GEOCONSULT
Findings

» Main direction of re-distribution is up/down

» Wall stiffness has influences on up/down

load re-distribution

» Soil stiffness seriously affects only re-

distribution due to failure in bottom layer

» Loading remaining acting on the waler in

failed level is less than expected
38
 GEOCONSULT
Influence on the Waler

Loading of waler with all struts still in place

39

GEOCONSULT
Influence on the Waler

Loading of waler in failed level is less than expected

Before OSR: 800 kN/m

After OSR with increased strut load: 1200 kN/m
In area of removed strut: <250 kN/m

40
 GEOCONSULT
Influence on the Waler

» Upon strut removal, the waler may show serious

plastic behavior and not taking serious loading

» If properly detailed for increased load in adjacent

struts, it is unlikely that the waler is the source of
total collapse

» Check other walers with increased strut load is

conservative

» Waler check in failed strut level could be ignored

41

GEOCONSULT
Influence on the Wall

» Waler action is beneficial for bending of the wall

but is very difficult to quantify and may be less
than expected

» Excess bending of the wall is an unlikely cause

for total collapse

» Remove one entire layer in ERSS analysis and

derive bending moment envelope Æ
conservative
42
 GEOCONSULT
Influence on the Wall

Simplified Method

» Removed strut force is applied as load

» Simple bending moment diagram in wall
» Add to normal design bending moment
envelope

» For redundancy check, allow formation of

plastic hinges in the wall

43

GEOCONSULT
Influence on the Wall

Top Layer 1 – Simplified Method

44
 GEOCONSULT
Influence on the Wall

Top Layer 2 – Simplified Method

45

GEOCONSULT
Influence on the Wall

Middle & Bottom Layer(s) – Simplified Method

46
 GEOCONSULT
Simplified Approach

Additional Strut Forces

Additional Bending Moments

47

GEOCONSULT
Other Redundencies / Contingencies

» Use of walers in general

» Additional “strategic” king posts to
increase strut stability

» Knock-out protection for struts &

diagonals

» Waler “Sliding” protection

48
Underground Singapore 2009
GEOCONSULT

Thank You

GEOCONSULT
49