Case History of Framework for Observational

Method to be used for ERSS & GBW

Speaker:
Er. Ng Chew Chiat, David

Prepared by:
Er. David Ng, Er. Dr. Victor Ong, Mr David Ong
ONE SMART Engineering

1
Content of Presentation:
1) Introduction on Framework of Observational
Approach

2) Case Study No 1 - Strut Omission at C922

DTL3 Expo Station and Overrun tunnels

3) Case Study No 2 – Strut Omission at C828

CCL1 Nicole Highway Station

4) Conclusions and Recommendation

2
Content of Presentation:
1) Introduction on Framework of Observational
Approach

2) Case Study No 1 - Strut Omission at C922

DTL3 Expo Station and Overrun tunnels

3) Case Study No 2 – Strut Omission at C828

CCL1 Nicole Highway Station

4) Conclusions and Recommendation

3
Design Parameter:
Characteristics vs Most Probable

Characteristic Most Probable

Adopted for normal designs using Likely behaviour of the ERSS during
EC7 construction

Caustions estimate of the value Average design parameters which are

affecting the occurrence of limit state better than characteristic

4
Observational Method Approach

5
 Design Procedure
Step 1: Characteristic Design

6
 Design Procedures
Step 1: Characteristic Design
Submission:
- For Design Code Compliance (BCA/EC7)
- To ensure design can be implemented on site
with due consideration of any forms of risks.

7
 Design Procedure
Step 2: Most Probable Design

8
 Design Procedures
Step 2: Most Probable Design
Supplement:
- This step is good practice to explore for
potential optimisation of existing design in Step
1.
Sensitivity Study:
- Requires ability to identify most attributable
components, where change in its parameter
can lead to major evolution of ERSS system.

9
Content of Presentation:
1) Introduction on Framework of Observational
Approach

2) Case Study No 1 - Strut Omission at C922

DTL3 Expo Station and Overrun tunnels

3) Case Study No 2 – Strut Omission at C828

CCL1 Nicole Highway Station

4) Conclusions and Recommendation

10
1. Case Study on Strut Omission
using Observational Method
(Down Town Line Project C922 –
Expo Station and Overrun Tunnels)

11
12
Overrun Tunnel along Down Town Line Project

Down Town Line Alignment

Overrun Tunnel Location

13
14
15
Photo showing ORT (RF)

Plaza 8

Station Station ESS DBS RF

(T/D) (B/U) (B/U)
Bank(B/U)
78m 99m 160m 270m

Plot 61 Plot 60
(Changi City) (UE
Bizhub
DBS East)
Bank

Plaza 8

16
Photo showing ORT (ESS)

Plot 60

Station Station Plot

ESS 61 RF
(T/D) (B/U) (B/U) (B/U)

78m 99m 160m 270m

Plot 61
1st Base Slab
Casting(A8~A15)

17
Overrun Tunnel Cross Section:

S3 at 98.5mRL

S4 at 93.8mRL

S5 at 88.8mRL

S6 at 84.5mRL

Strut S6 was proposed to be omitted as a result of better wall performance

using observational approach 18
General Information on Down Town Line Project
Ground Condition:

Soil Type Top Level (mbgl) Bottom Level (mbgl)

Fill 0 5

Estuarine Layer 5 7

Fluvial Sand / Fluvial Clay 7 14

Lower Marine Clay 14 17

Old Alluvium 17 <17

19
 General Information on Down Town Line Project

Construction Method:
- Bottom-Up Method
- 23m wide
- 18m to 25m deep
Earth Retaining Structural System:
- 1.0m thick diaphragm wall ERSS
- ERSS embedment is 0.42H to 0.5H
(H is total excavation depth)

20
 General Information on Circle Line Project

Shoring System:
- S3: H-beam at 98.5mRL
- S4: H-beam at 93.8mRL
- S5: H-beam at 88.8mRL
- S6: H-beam at 84.5mRL (Omitted)
Ground Improvement:
- No ground improvement as Final Excavation
Level is formed at OA layer

21
 Step 1: Characteristic Design
(Down Town Line Project C922)

22
 Design Procedure
Step 1: Characteristic Design

23
 Design Procedures
Step 1: Characteristic Design
Soil Parameter:
- Soil Parameters are interpreted using
methods in accordance to local authority
requirements.
- Drained and Undrained Analyses are
performed (To adopt governing case)

24
Step 2: Most Probable Design
(Down Town Line Project)

25
 Design Procedure
Step 2: Most Probable Design

26
 Design Procedures
Step 2: Most Probable Design
Design Parameter:
- In view both Drained and Undrained Analyses
Conditions are performed to assess the ERSS,
the less governing case shall serve as the most
probable design.
- This enables the determination of OM level in
the review level
- The OM level sets the criteria for adoption of
Most probable Design (Undrained Case)
instead of Characteristic Design (Drained Case)

27
 Design Procedures
Step 2: Most Probable Design
Potential Evidence:
- Observational Method can provide supporting
data showing potential evidence that the soil
layers are behaving under Undrained Case which
is less critical compared to Drained Case.

28
 Design Procedures
Step 2: Most Probable Design Parameters
Summary table of comparisons between parameters in characteristic
design and most probable design:
Parameters Characteristic Design Most Probable Design

Ground Level RL99.95m RL99.35m

Ground Water GWT at GL (RL99.95m) GWT at 3m below GL
Table
Final Excavation RL79.80m RL80.81m
Level
Soil Profile Based on original boreholes Based on additional boreholes

Soil Type Clayey Old Alluvium Clayey Old Alluvium

Soil stiffness E = 2N (MPa) E = 3N (MPa)
Unplanned 0.5m unplanned excavation 0.5m unplanned excavation
Excavation assumed in the normal case assumed in the accidental case
analyses (ULS FOS = 1.4) analyses(ULS FOS = 1.05)

Number of layer of 4 layers of struts (S3, S4, S4 & S6) 3 layers of struts (S3, S4 & S5)
struts
Soil Model Dained MC Undrained MC
29
 Instrumentation Results
(Down Town Line Project)

30
Instrumentation Results
Upon excavating down to
88.8mRL to install Strut S5,
the actual wall deflection is
much lower than predicted
wall deflection.

Most Probable Parameters

7mm(L), 8mm(R)
Characteristic Parameters
15mm(L), 19mm(R)
Actual Deflection Profile
5mm < 7mm 7mm < 8mm 7mm

31
Observed vs Prediction (Left & Right Wall)
Section Predicted Predicted Observed
Deflection based Deflection Deflection
on Characteristic based on most
Design probable design
Section B-B 15mm 7mm 5mm
(LHS)

Section B-B 19mm 8mm 7mm

(RHS)

Actual Site Condition is better than Original Design Assumption

32
 Investigative Works
(Down Town Line Project)

33
 Additional Design Check for Most
Probable Parameters
Investigation works:
- Analysis have been performed based on most
probable parameters of soil stiffness

- After comparing predicted wall deflection of

analyses based on most parameters to available
monitoring results and once monitoring results fall
within values predicted with most probable
parameters for earlier stages of excavation,
subsequent excavation can be carried out with
omission of Strut S6 at 84.5mRL based on most
probable parameters
34
 Additional Check for More
Probable Parameters
Investigation works:

- Wall deflection will then be monitored and

compared with revised predicted deflection using
most probable parameters
- Wall deflection from most probable parameters
using MC undrained parameters is able to
reasonably match the reading of in-wall
inclinometers at same construction stage.
- There is evidence suggesting that the use of MC
undrained parameters is more appropriate

35
 Decision for Strut Omission
(Down Town Line Project C922)

36
Observed Level vs OM Level

Characteristic Level 19mm

Most Probable (OM) Level

7mm

Actual Level 5mm

Omission of Strut is implemented
as the observed wall deflection is
below the OM Level

37
 Analyses with Characteristic and
Most Probable Parameters
Investigation works:
- Existing ERSS and struts derived from characteristic
design are checked against the forces due to
omission of strut S6 at 84.5mRL with most probable
parameters
- It has been checked at initial stage with most
probable parameters that existing struts can support
expected strut force with strut S6 omitted
- ERSS capacity has been checked with most probable
parameters and found adequate with omission of
strut S6

38
 Lesson Learnt
(Down Town Line Project C922)

39
 Lesson Learnt

Lesson:
- Observational Method is useful for ERSS
encountering low permeability soil layer with
significant thickness where the adoption of
Drained Condition can be very conservative
approach leading to less economical design of
ERSS.

40
Content of Presentation:
1) Introduction on Framework of Observational
Approach

2) Case Study No 1 - Strut Omission at C922

DTL3 Expo Station and Overrun tunnels

3) Case Study No 2 – Strut Omission at C828

CCL1 Nicole Highway Station

4) Conclusions and Recommendation

41
2. Case Study on Strut Omission
using Observational Method
(Circle Line Project C828)

42
Nicoll Highway Collapse Incident - 20 April 2004

43
Realignment after Collapse – Aerial View
GMT

CONCOURSE
GMC
Boulevard Station
PLAZA Original Alignment

Launching
Shaft

Station New Alignment

Receiving
Shaft
C824

C825

Land Transport 44
Authority
 Nicoll Highway Station along Circle Line Project
Nicoll Highway Station relocated 100m to the South

45
Ground Condition

40

Marine Clay (upto 40m below GL)

- Normally consolidated or slightly over-consolidated
- Undrained Shear Strength, Cu starting with 15kPa, increase with depth
Old Alluvium
- Sandy silt or clayey silt
- At depth, generally found to have some cementation
46
Cross Section:

S1 at 102mRL
FILL S2 at 99.87mRL
96.8 3rd level strut was
omitted as a result
UMC/E S3 at 86mRL
of better wall
performance
79.6

F1

67.0
LMC

7m thick JMM Block

OA
57.8

47
 General Information on Circle Line Project

Ground Condition:

Soil Type Top Level (mbgl) Bottom Level (mbgl)

Fill 0 5

Upper Marine Clay 5 20

Fluvial Sand / Fluvial Clay 20 25

Lower Marine Clay 25 40

Old Alluvium 40 <40

48
 General Information on Circle Line Project

Construction Method:
- Top-down Method
- 24m wide
- 20m deep
Earth Retaining Structural System:
- 1.5m thick diaphragm wall with 7m thick Jet
Mechanical Mixing (JMM) Block below base
slab level
- ERSS Toe Level at 60mbgl

49
 General Information on Circle Line Project

Shoring System at 5.7m horizontal spacing:

- S1: H-beam 414x405x232kg/m at 102mRL
- S2: H-beam 414x405x232kg/m at 99.87mRL
- S3: H-beam 414x405x232kg/m at 86mRL (Omitted)
Ground Improvement:
- JMM column consisting of 1.6m internal diameter
Deep Cement Mix with additional 0.6m radius
extension of Jet Grout Mix, forming effective
diameter of 2.8m JMM column

50
51
Jet Mechanical Mixing (JMM)

Combination of soil mixing & jet grouting

- Dual and counter rotation mixing blades

- A inner mechanical mixing column of 1.6m
diameter is formed
- Jet nozzles from the mixing blades adds a
further 0.6m jet grouting
- Creating a 2.8m diameter column within ground
52
 General Information on Circle Line Project

Ground Improvement Configuration:

Jet Grout Mix

Deep Cement Mix

53
 Cross Section
S1 at 102mRL
FILL S2 at 99.87mRL
96.8 3rd level strut was
proposed to be
UMC/E S3 at 86mRL
omitted as a result
of better wall
79.6
performance
F1

67.0
LMC

7m thick JMM Block

OA
57.8

54
Step 1: Characteristic Design
(Circle Line Project C828)

55
 Design Procedure
Step 1: Characteristic Design

56
 Design Procedures
Step 1: Characteristic Design
Soil Parameter:
- Soil Parameters are interpreted using
methods in accordance to local authority
requirements.
- Ground Improvement Block parameters adopt
generally accepted values of Su=300kPa with
Undrained Stiffness correlation of (Eu=300Su)

57
 Design Procedures
Step 1: Characteristic Design
Soil Parameter:
- Achievable strength of Ground Improvement
Block is unknown
- Degree of enhancement of soil above JMM
Block is unknown. (Hence, enhancement is
ignored)

58
Step 2: Most Probable Design
(Circle Line Project C828)

59
 Design Procedure
Step 2: Most Probable Design

60
 Design Procedures
Step 2: Most Probable Design
Design Parameter:
- Average Design Parameters better than
characteristic are adopted
- This enables the determination of OM level in
the review level
- The OM level sets the criteria for adoption of
Most probable Design instead of
Characteristic Design

61
 Design Procedures
Step 2: Most Probable Design
Evidence:
- The fruition of optimised ERSS system based on
Step 2 requires evidences that the chosen
component has performed as intended on site.

62
 Design Procedures
Step 2: Most Probable Design
Comparison of Actual JMM Strength(Most probable value) against
Design Value (Characteristic value) Stiffness, E
Strength, Cu
700 Highest test result
3000

600 Average of all test results

2500
Highest test result
500

Stiffness E (MPa)
2000
Strength Cu (kPa)

Average of all test results

Low est test result
400
1500

Low est test result 300

1000
200

500
100

0 0
Original
original design Test results
Analysis 1 Test results
Analysis 2 Original
original design Test results
Analysis 1 Test results
Analysis 2
design (Factored)
(factored) (Unfactored)
(unfactored) (factored) (unfactored)
design (Factored) (Unfactored)
Average Strength (From Core sample) Average Stiffness (From Core sample)
Most Probable Design, Cu = 1845 kPa Most Probable Design, E = 572 MPa
Characteristic Design value = 300kPa Characteristic Design Value = 90MPa 63
 JMM Block Parameter
Investigation works:
- JMM Block test results were reviewed and
was suspected to be the most plausible
reason for the reduced wall deflection. Average
Results
(Unfactored)
Average
Results
(Unfactored)
Mass Correction
Mass Correction is applied to
is applied to Average Results
Average Results (Factored)
(Factored)

JMM Block of
JMM Block of Eu=90MPa is
Su=300kPa is conservative
conservative

Undrained Shear Strength (kPa) Comparison Stiffness, E (MPa) Comparison

64
 Instrumentation Results
(Circle Line Project C828)

65
 Instrumentation Results
Upon excavating down to
98.7mRL
98.7mRL, the actual wall
deflection is much lower
than predicted wall
deflection of 80mm.

Characteristic Parameters
80mm
Actual Deflection Profile
22mm
Most Probable Parameters
32mm 32mm

66
Observed vs Prediction (Wall Deflection)
Section Predicted Predicted Observed
Deflection based Deflection Deflection
on Characteristic based on most
Design probable design
80mm 32mm 22mm

Actual Site Condition is better than Original Design Assumption

67
 Investigative Works
(Circle Line Project C828)

68
 Soil Cement Mix Parameter
Investigation works:
- Moreover, test results for soil cement mix
above the JMM Block also shows better shear
strength and stiffness parameter compared to
adopted parameter in the original design.

69
Cross Section:

96.8

Higher Cu
values achieved
79.6 compared to
original design
67.0

57.8

70
Decision for Strut Omission
(Circle Line Project)

71
Observed Level vs OM Level

Characteristic Level 80mm

Most Probable (OM) Level

32mm

Actual Level 22mm

Omission of Strut is implemented
as the observed wall deflection is
below the OM Level

72
Content of Presentation:
1) Introduction on Framework of Observational
Approach

2) Case Study No 1 - Strut Omission at C922

DTL3 Expo Station and Overrun tunnels

3) Case Study No 2 – Strut Omission at C828

CCL1 Nicole Highway Station

4) Conclusions and Recommendation

73
Types of ERSS suitable for
Observational Method

74
 Observational Method Precursors

Design Stage:
1. ERSS with multi-layer struts (Strut Layers > 2).
2. ERSS with excavation level requiring ground
improvement.
3. ERSS in grounds with notable spread in shear
strength parameter.
4. Ground Condition showing soil with low
permeability.

75
Observational Method Precursors

76
Potential Challenges in Applying
Observational Method

77
 Challenges

Design Stage (Step 2):

1. A plan of monitoring shall be devised.
2. Safe assignment of OM level.
3. A plan of contingency actions shall be devised
if monitoring reveals behaviour outside
acceptable limits.

78
 Challenges

Construction Stage:
1. Procedures for collecting/analysing the
monitoring data shall be sufficiently rapid in
relation to possible evolution of the system.

79
 Challenges

Back-calculation:
1. Identification on the most attributable/most
plausible reasons leading to lesser wall
deflection with subsequent modification on
parameters to match back the observed wall
deflection.

80
 Challenges

Review between Parties:

1. Procedures for analysing results/review
between parties shall be sufficiently rapid
without delay.

81
 Challenges
Faulty Monitoring Equipment
1. Monitoring equipment shall either be
replaced or extended if it fails to supply
reliable data of appropriate type or in
sufficient quantity.

82
Conclusion

83
 Observational Method

Conclusion:
1. Valuable tool in which time & cost-saving can
be acquired through optimisation of design
using observed results.
2. Observational Method is useful for ERSS in
soil with low permeability.
3. Observational Method gives higher benefit
for the types of ERSS fulfilling criteria in logic
gate shown in Annex 1.
4. Simple ERSS adopting observational method
can be very labour-intensive with little
surplus benefits.
84
Annex 1

85
Acknowledgement

Mr David Ong C.S.

Preparation of Presentation Material

86
Thank you

Speaker:
Er. Ng Chew Chiat, David

Prepared by:
Er. David Ng, Er. Dr. Victor Ong, Mr David Ong
ONE SMART Engineering

87