Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Keywords: Deep excavation, Kenny hill formation, Hardening soil model, Finite ele-
ment, Standard penetration test.
1. INTRODUCTION
In the past, the performance of deep excavations and the calibration of empirical corre-
lation between soil stiffness parameters and SPT N value in Kenny Hill Formation were
mainly evaluated using 2D FE back-analyses [1–3]. Approximation is commonly needed
in 2D numerical models to represent the real situations and this could lead to uncertainties
in the interpretation and validity of the results. Field data clearly indicated that the stiff-
ening effect of corners lead to much smaller wall and ground movements at the corners as
compared to that measured near the middle of the excavation wall [4,5]. In this case, when
back analyses were performed to calibrate the 2D model, the soil stiffness would have
I-4 I-5
I-3
I-2
I-6
I-1
I-8 I-7
to be increased in order to match the observed wall deflection especially in corner areas.
Therefore, 3D geometrical or corner effect needs to be considered when back-analyses were
performed in order to get a meaningful empirical correlation to be adopted in the future in
the same soil conditions.
This paper presents a case history data and back-analysis results of a 18.5 m deep multi-
propped deep excavation supported by diaphragm wall in weathered residual soils of
Kenny Hill formation. In order to take into account the geometrical or 3D corner effect on
the back analyses results, 3D FE back analyses were performed to assess the effects of soil
Young’s modulus on the performance of the retaining system and the results are compared
with 2D FE analyses results and field measurement data.
2. CASE HISTORY
The case study project is located at Lebuh Ampang, in the Kuala Lumpur City Center. It is a
24-storey office building with 5 levels of basement car-park. The construction of basement
involved a 18.5 m deep excavation, approximately 30 m wide and 35 m long in plan view,
in weathered residual soils of Kenny Hill formation as shown in Figure 1. The excavations
were performed using the bottom-up method. Figure 2 shows the profile of the excavation
stages, the diaphragm wall, the lateral struts and the subsoil layers at the project site. The
diaphragm wall of 23 m deep and 0.8 m thick was supported by three levels of H-section
steel struts. A double steel section was used for the 2nd and 3rd strut layers to provide
sufficient resistance against the high horizontal earth pressures at these levels.
A total of 8 nos. of inclinometers (I–1 to I–8) and 6 nos. of water standpipes (P–1 to P–6)
were installed to monitor the lateral wall displacements and the fluctuation of groundwa-
ter table during entire excavation process.
The ground conditions at the site generally consist of residual soils and weathered rocks of
the Kenny Hill Formation. This formation is also referred to as meta-sedimentary,
Performance of Multi-Propped Deep Excavation in Kenny Hill Formation 707
RL30.5m
L1 Strut at RL28.8m
(H350X350137kg/m)
S1
GWL
Silty Sand
RL26.0m 1st Exc. to RL27.5m
SPT-N = 4
RL24.5m
L2 Strut at RL23.2m
S2 (2H400X400X172kg/m)
Sandy Silt/Clayey Silt
RL20.0m SPT-N = 30 2nd Exc. to RL21.4m
S3
L3 Strut at RL17.2m
Silty Sand
(2H350X350X137kg/m)
SPT-N = 60
RL15.5m
3rd Exc. to RL15.0m
S4
Silty Sand 4th Exc. to RL12.0m
SPT-N = 120
RL8.0m
Wall Toe RL7.5m
S5
Silty Sand
SPT-N = 150
RL2.0m
S6 Highly Weathered Siltstone
considering that the sedimentary rocks (e.g., sandstone, siltstone) have been partly meta-
morphosed into quartzite and phyllite [6]. As shown in Figure 2, the soil profile at this
project site consists of an upper 6 m of recent alluvium underlained by Grade IV to VI
residual soils of Kenny Hill Formation up to a depth of about 30 m. Highly fractured and
weathered Siltstone with Rock Quality Designation (RQD) of 0% is encountered beyond
30 m depth. SPT N blow counts were low in the alluvium layer but increases beyond 50
blows/300 mm from a depth exceeding 10.5 m. The bulk density of the residual soil lay-
ers generally ranged from 19 kN/m3 to 22 kN/m3 with depth. The groundwater table is
located at a depth of 4.5 m below ground surface.
The excavation geometry of the case history was carried out for a plan area of approxi-
mately 30 m by 35 m. The ratio of excavation length to width is about 1.2 suggesting that
a plane strain 2D model may not be appropriate due to the corner effect of the excavation
[4,5,11]. The numerical back analyses of this case history have therefore been conducted by
3D FE analyses using the program PLAXIS 3D FOUNDATION (3DF) Version 2.2.
Figure 3 shows the FE mesh adopted in the numerical back analyses. The side boundaries
of the mesh are fixed horizontally but are free to move vertically and the bottom boundary
of the mesh is fully fixed. Soil elements are 15-node wedge elements which are created
708 Advances in Geotechnical Infrastructure
100 m
100 m
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6 50 m
by projection of 2D, 6-node triangular elements. The diaphragm wall was assumed to be
“wished-in-place”. The installation effect of diaphragm wall was not considered.
The HS model [7] as implemented in the FE program PLAXIS 3DF was used to study the
Young’s modulus of the residual soils of Kenny Hill Formation. It has been successfully
used for the modelling and analysis of retaining wall structures in weathered residual soil
of Kenny Hill Formation [1,3].
In the HS model, three Young’s moduli, namely triaxial secant (E50 ref ), oedometer (Eref )
oed
and unloading-reloading (Eur ) Young’s moduli at a reference pressure (Pref ) are required
ref
to be input into the numerical model. In contrast to the Mohr-Coulomb model, the three
Young’s moduli of the HS model represent those at the reference pressure which can be
calibrated to the in-situ stress state.
The residual soils of Kenny Hill Formation were assumed as a drained material [8]. The
effective stress strength (c and φ) parameters as shown in Table 1 have been selected as the
representative effective strength parameters, as reported by Nithiaraj et al. [9] and Wong
and Muhinder [10]. The oedometer stiffness, (Eur ref ) and unloading-reloading stiffness, (Eref )
ur
parameters were set equal to 1.0 (E50 ) and 3 (E50
ref ref ) respectively, as suggested by Tan et al.
[3]. In the FE back-analyses, only the triaxial secant modulus, (E50 ref ) was optimized while
C kPa 1 5 8 15 20 100
φ [◦ ] 27 31 33 35 35 35
ψ [◦ ] 0 0 0 0 0 0
ref
E50 MPa 6 45 90 180 225 500
ref
Eoed MPa 6 45 90 180 225 500
ref
Eur MPa 18 135 270 540 675 1,500
γsat kN/m3 18 19 20 20 20 22
γunsat kN/m3 18 19 20 20 20 22
m [–] 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
νur [–] 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
pref kPa 100 100 100 100 100 100
KoNC [–] 0.546 0.485 0.455 0.426 0.426 0.426
Rf [–] 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9
Rinter [–] 0.7 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 1.0
ref for S1 to S5 is taken as 1.5 N(MPa).
Note: E50
28.5 28.5
26.5 26.5
24.5 24.5
22.5 22.5
20.5 20.5
Depth (RL)
Depth (RL)
18.5 18.5
16.5 16.5
14.5 14.5
12.5 12.5
28.5 28.5
26.5 26.5
24.5 24.5
22.5 22.5
20.5
Depth (RL)
20.5
Depth (RL)
18.5 18.5
16.5 16.5
14.5 14.5
12.5 12.5
10.5 10.5
Measured Stage 3 Measured Stage 4
8.5 8.5
3D Stage 3 3D Stage 4
6.5 6.5
SPT N value is found to be 1.5 N (MPa) with unloading-reloading stiffness, Eurref equal to 3
ref ref
E50 . The reference pressure (P ) is set to 100 kPa.
Figure 5 compares the 2D plane strain and 3D analysis results at 3rd and 4th excavation
stages based on the above established correlation. For the sake of brevity, the 1st and 2nd
excavation stages results are not shown in this paper. It should be noted that pre-loading
of strut has been included in the 2D numerical simulation. The results clearly demon-
strate that geometrical or corner effect has significant impact on the induced wall and
ground deformations. As the excavation depth increases the discrepancy between 2D and
3D results gets larger, implying that as the excavation gets deeper relative to its length
more restraint is provided by the corners of the excavation including the arching of the
Performance of Multi-Propped Deep Excavation in Kenny Hill Formation 711
28.5 28.5
26.5 26.5
24.5 24.5
22.5 22.5
Depth (RL)
Depth (RL)
20.5 20.5
18.5 18.5
16.5 16.5
14.5 14.5
12.5 12.5
10.5 10.5
Measured Stage 3 Measured Stage 4
8.5 3D Stage 3 (1500N) 8.5 3D Stage 4 (1500N)
2D Stage 3 (1500N) 2D Stage 4 (1500N)
6.5 6.5
28.5 28.5
26.5 26.5
24.5 24.5
22.5 22.5
Depth (RL)
Depth (RL)
20.5 20.5
18.5 18.5
16.5 16.5
14.5 14.5
12.5 12.5
10.5 10.5
Measured Stage 3 Measured Stage 4
8.5 3D Stage 3 (1500N) 8.5 3D Stage 4 (1500N)
2D Stage 3 (2500N) 2D Stage 4 (2500N)
6.5 6.5
soil around the corners. The above result is consistent with the finding from Finno et al.
[11], who have shown that large differences between 2D and 3D responses are apparent
when L/He ratio is less than 2, where L is the length of wall and He is the total excavation
depth. For this case history, the L/He is approximately 1.89. In this case, if back analyses
are performed to calibrate the 2D model, the soil stiffness would have to be inappropriately
increased in order to match the observed wall deflections. For instance, the stiffness would
have to be increased to 2.5N (MPa) as shown in Figure 6, suggesting that a plane strain 2D
model may not be appropriate due to the corner stiffening effects.
712 Advances in Geotechnical Infrastructure
6. CONCLUSIONS
The performance of a deep excavation in the stiff residual soils of Kenny Hill Formation
has been described. Application of the HS model to this practical deep excavation prob-
lem has shown that the model is considered suitable for analyzing this type of excava-
tion problems from a practical point of view. The case history presented here shows that
whilst it is important to define the soil modulus parameters, it is equally important to take
into consideration the geometrical or corner effect when evaluating the performance of an
excavation.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The writers would like to express their gratitude to Dr. Lee Siew Wei of Golden Associates
(HK) Ltd for his meticulous reviews of the paper.
REFERENCES
1. Liew, S. S. and Gan, S. J., “Back analysis and performance of semi top-down basement excavation
in sandy alluvial deposits”, Proc. 16th Southeast Asian Geotechnical Conference, Kuala Lumpur, Vol.
1 (2007), pp. 833–837.
2. Sofiana, B. T. and Hooi, K. Y., “Prediction versus observed movement of a very deep diaphragm
wall basement in Kenny Hill residual soils”, Proc. Malaysian Geotechnical Conference, Kuala
Lumpur, Vol. 1 (2004), pp. 359–366.
3. Tan, Y. C., Liew S. S., Gue S. S. and Taha M. R., “A numerical analysis of anchored diaphragm
walls for a deep basement in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia”, Proc. 14th Southeast Asian Geotechnical
Conference, Hong Kong, Vol. 1 (2001).
4. Lee, F. H., Yong, K. Y., Quan, C. N. and Chee, K. T., “Effect of corners in strutted excavations: filed
monitoring and case histories”, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 124
(1998), pp. 339–348.
5. Ou C. Y., Shiau B. Y. and Wang I. W., “Three-dimensional deformation behavior of the Taipei
National Enterprise Center (TNEC) excavation case history”, Canadian Geotechnical Journal,
Vol. 37 (2000), pp 438–448.
6. Ibrahim Komoo, “Engineering properties of weathered rock properties in Peninsular Malaysia”,
Proc. 8th Southeast Asian Geotechnical Conference, Kuala Lumpur, Vol. 1 (1985), pp. 3-81–3-86.
7. Schanz, T., Vermeer, P. A. and Bonnier, P. G., “The hardening soil model: formulation and verifi-
cation”, Beyond 2000 in Computational Geotechnics, Roterdam:Balkema, Vol. 1 (1999), pp. 281–296.
8. Tan, S. A., “One north station excavation in 30 m of Jurong residual soils in Singapore”, Earth
Retention Conference, Washington, Vol. 1 (2010), pp. 732–739.
9. Nithiaraj, R., Ting, W. H. and Balasubramaniam, A. S., “Strength parameters of residual soils
and application to stability analysis of anchored slopes”, Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 27 (1996),
pp. 55–81.
10. Wong, J. and Muhinder, S., “Some engineering properties of weathered Kenny Hill Formation in
Kuala Lumpur”, Proc. 12th Southeast Asian Geotechnical Conference, Kuala Lumpur, Vol. 1 (1996),
pp. 179–187.
11. Finno, R. J., Blackburn, J. T. and Roboski, J. F., “Three-dimensional effects for supported excava-
tions in clay”, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 133 (2007), pp. 30–36.