Please wait a minute...

Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering

Front. Struct. Civ. Eng.    2018, Vol. 12 Issue (1) : 26-43     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-017-0439-1
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Shanghai center project excavation induced ground surface movements and deformations
Guolin XU1(), Jiwen ZHANG2, Huang LIU2, Changqin REN3
1. Department of Civil Engineering, Southwest Forestry University, Kunming 650224, China
2. Department of Civil Engineering, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506-0281, USA
3. Shanghai Geotechnical Investigations & Design Institute Company Limited, Shanghai 200032, China
Download: PDF(6429 KB)   HTML
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

Empirical data on deep urban excavations can provide designers a significant reference basis for assessing potential deformations of the deep excavations and their impact on adjacent structures. The construction of the Shanghai Center involved excavations in excess of 33-m-deep using the top-down method at a site underlain by thick deposits of marine soft clay. A retaining system was achieved by 50-m-deep diaphragm walls with six levels of struts. During construction, a comprehensive instrumentation program lasting 14 months was conducted to monitor the behaviors of this deep circular excavation. The following main items related to ground surface movements and deformations were collected: (1) walls and circumferential soils lateral movements; (2) peripheral soil deflection in layers and ground settlements; and (3) pit basal heave. The results from the field instrumentation showed that deflections of the site were strictly controlled and had no large movements that might lead to damage to the stability of the foundation pit. The field performance of another 21cylindrical excavations in top-down method were collected to compare with this case through statistical analysis. In addition, numerical analyses were conducted to compare with the observed data. The extensively monitored data are characterized and analyzed in this paper.

Keywords deep excavation      foundation pit      soft clay      top-down method      field observation      ground surface movements      ground deformations     
Corresponding Author(s): Guolin XU   
Online First Date: 01 August 2017    Issue Date: 08 March 2018
 Cite this article:   
Guolin XU,Jiwen ZHANG,Huang LIU, et al. Shanghai center project excavation induced ground surface movements and deformations[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2018, 12(1): 26-43.
 URL:  
http://journal.hep.com.cn/fsce/EN/10.1007/s11709-017-0439-1
http://journal.hep.com.cn/fsce/EN/Y2018/V12/I1/26
Service
E-mail this article
E-mail Alert
RSS
Articles by authors
Guolin XU
Jiwen ZHANG
Huang LIU
Changqin REN
Fig.1  Site location and adjacent structures
Fig.2  Cross section of the foundation pit with the soil profiles
Fig.3  Soil properties along the depth at the site
Stage Operation Activity Day
1 The first level strut (Elevation−1 to−8.5 m)

Construct the first level wall and retaining structure framework with 1 m height as preparation work; 07/27/2009–08/24/2009

Cast concrete; 08/25/2009–08/27/2009

53
2&3 The Second level strut (Elevation−8.5 to−14.5 m)

Remove the first level soil to form a pit with a size of 50m (length) × 15m (width) × 5m (depth) around the lift platform No. 1; 09/16/2009–09/22/2009

Excavate to the bottom of the second level strut with a depth of 10 m around the lift platform No. 3 in a direction of north-south from peripheral to central; 10/05/2009–10/11/2009

Change excavation sequence, excavate in the direction of east-west from central to peripheral;10/11/2009–10/23/2009

Construct the second level wall and retaining structure framework and cast concrete; 10/24/2009–10/30/2009

45
4 The Third level strut (Elevation−14.5 to−19.5 m)

Excavate to the third level along the circumference but do not remove the central soil; 10/31/2009–11/03/2009

Construct the third level wall and retaining structure framework and cast concrete; 11/04/2009–11/16/2009

18
5 The Fourth level strut (Elevation−19.5 to−24.0 m)

Remove the central soil at the third level; 11/17/2009–11/21/2009

Begin to dewater; 11/22/2009

Excavate along the circumference to the fourth level but do not remove the central soil; 11/22/2009–11/29/2009

Construct the fourth level wall and retaining structure framework and cast concrete; 11/30/2009–12/07/2009

Remove the central soil at the fourth level; 12/08/2009–12/14/2009

28
6 The Fifth level strut (Elevation−24.0 to−28.0 m)

Excavate along the circumference to the fifth level but do not remove the central soil; 12/15/2009–12/20/2009

Construct the fifth level wall and retaining structure framework and cast concrete; 15/21/2009–01/04/2010

14
7 The Sixth level strut (Elevation−28.0 to−33.7 m)

Remove the central soil at the fifth level; 01/05/2010-01/08/2010

Excavate along the circumference to the sixth level but do not remove the central soil; 01/09/2010–01/23/2010

Construct the sixth level wall and retaining structure framework and cast concrete; 01/24/2010–01/30/2010

25
8 Cast concrete under-layer

Remove the central soil at the sixth level and excavate to-33.7m; 01/31/2010–02/03/2010

Cast all concrete under-layer; 02/04/2010–02/12/2010

9
9 Base plate construction

Construct the base plate framework and cast concrete; 02/08/2010–04/19/2010

End dewatering; 04/05/2010

71
10 Underground Construction

Construct the underground structure and facilities; 04/20/2010–09/29/2010

161
Tab.1  Main stages of the construction of the central foundation pit
Level Size, height × thickness (mm × mm) Central elevation (m)
1 3700 × 1500 −1.75
2 2800 × 1500 −9.30
3 2800 × 1600 −15.30
4 3000 × 1600 −20.30
5 3000 × 1800 −24.90
6 3000 × 1800 −28.90
Tab.2  Size and location of the struts
Fig.4  Instrumentation layout of the circular pit
Fig.5  Lateral movements of the walls at P01 and P05: (a) variations in different stages along the depth;(b) variations at different depths along the excavation progress
Fig.6  Vertical movements of the peripheral soil in layers at R1 and R5: (a) variations in different stages along the depth; (b) variations at different depths along the excavation progress
depth (m) accumulative settlement (mm) average (mm)
R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8
−6.0 −57 −48 −49 −49 −58 −46 −41 −41 −48
−11.0 −24 −41 −48 −48 −60 −42 −44 −39 −42
−16.0 -−20 −19 −41 −41 −46 −38 −38 −29 −33
−21.0 −5 −7 −29 −29 −37 −27 −27 −17 −21
−26.0 −5 4 −20 −20 −4 −4 −7 −12 −7
−31.0 4 10 −5 −5 3 -2 -5 1 1
−36.0 7 9 8 8 4 4 2 −2 5
−41.0 13 19 12 12 15 7 −1 4 10
-46.0 18 15 15 15 20 12 9 3 13
-51.0 17 10 13 13 20 17 17 3 14
-56.0 18 16 20 20 22 18 19 10 18
Tab.3  Layered vertical movements of the soils behind the walls at different depths at the end of the excavation
Fig.7  Cross sections showing the relationship between the surrounding ground vertical settlements and the distance to the perimeter of the pit
Fig.8  Basal heave along the depth for all arrowhead magnets
Fig.9  Relationship between the heave amount and the distance from the center of the pit to the measured points
Fig.10  Embedded depth ratio Hd /H versus H ; (b) depth where δhm occurred versus H ; (c) relationship between H and δhm , δv m, and δbs, respectively
Fig.11  (a) Embedded depth ratio Hd /H versus D ; (b) depth whereδh m occurred versus D; (c) relationship between D and δh m , δvm, and δb s, respectively; (d) relationship between Hd /H and δhm , δv m, and δbs, respectively
Fig.12  The simulation models for estimating the ground movements and deformations duringconstruction process
Fig.13  The simulation results in different construction stage corresponding to each strut level
γ: unit weight of soil (kN/m3);
c': effective cohesion(kPa);
ϕ': effective friction angle(°);
v: Poisson’s ratio (dimensionless unit);
K: permeability coefficient(10-4cm/s);
Em: pressure meter modulus(MPa);
Gm: pressure meter shear modulus(MPa);
Ps:bearing capacity of static penetration test(MPa);
E: dynamic elastic modulus (MPa);
G: dynamic shear modulus (MPa);
H: excavation depth of the pit(m);
δhm: the maximum lateral movements of the walls (mm);
Hm: the depth where δhmoccurred (m);
D: foundation pit diameter (m);
Hd: embedded length of the retaining walls (m);
δhs: the maximum lateral movement of the circumferential soil (mm) ;
δvm: the maximum layered soil settlement (mm) ;
δbs: the maximum basal heave (mm) ;
  
1 Ou C Y, Liao  J T, Lin  H D. Performance of diaphragm wall constructed using the top-down method. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 1998, 124(9): 798–808
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(1998)124:9(798)
2 Liu G B, Ng  C W, Wang  Z W. Observed performance of a deep multistrutted excavation in Shanghai soft clays. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 2005, 131(8): 1004–1013
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2005)131:8(1004)
3 Tan Y, Wang  D. Characteristics of a large-scale deep foundation pit excavated by the central-island technique in Shanghai soft clay. II: top-down construction of the peripheral rectangular pit. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 2013a, 139(11): 1894–1910
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000929
4 Whittle A J, Corral  G, Jen L C,  Rawnsley R P. Predication and performance of deep excavations for Courthouse Station, Boston. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 2015, 141(4): 04014123
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001246
5 Orazalin Z Y, Whittle  A J, Olsen  M B. Three-dimensional analysis of excavation support system for the Stata Center Basement on the MIT campus. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 2015, 141(7): 05015001
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001326
6 Tanner Blackburn J,  Finno R J. Three-dimensional responses observed in an internally braced excavation in soft clay. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 2007, 133(11): 1364–1373
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2007)133:11(1364)
7 Hashash Y M A,  Osouli A,  Marulanda C. Central artery/tunnel project excavation induced ground deformations. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 2008, 134(9): 1399–1406
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2008)134:9(1399)
8 Tan Y, Wang  D. Characteristics of a large-scale deep foundation pit excavated by the central-island technique in Shanghai soft clay. I: bottom-up construction of the central cylindrical shaft. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 2013b, 139(11): 1875–1893
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000928
9 Wong I, Poh  T, Chuah H. Performance of excavations for depresses expressway in Singapore. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 1997, 123(7): 617–625
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(1997)123:7(617)
10 Hsieh P G, Ou  C Y. Shape of ground surface settlement profiles caused by excavation. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 1998, 35(6): 1004–1017
https://doi.org/10.1139/t98-056
11 Long M. Database for retaining wall and ground movements due to deep excavations. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 2001, 127(3): 203–224
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2001)127:3(203)
12 Moormann C. Analysis of wall and ground movements due to deep excavations in soft soil based on a new worldwide database. Soil and Foundation, 2004, 44(1): 87–98
https://doi.org/10.3208/sandf.44.87
13 O’Rourke T D,  McGinn A J. Lessons learned for ground movements and soil stabilization from the Boston Central Artery. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 2006, 132(8): 966–989
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2006)132:8(966)
14 Wang J H, Xu  Z H, Wang  W D. Wall and ground movements due to deep excavations in Shanghai soft soils. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 2010, 136(7): 985–994
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000299
15 Tan Y, Wei  B. Observed behaviors of a long and deep excavation constructed by cut-and-cover technique in Shanghai soft clay. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 2012, 138(1): 69–88
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000553
16 Tan Y, Wang  D. Structural behaviors of large underground earth-retaining systems in Shanghai I: unpropped circular diaphragm wall. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 2015a, 29(2): 04014058
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000521
17 Tan Y, Wang  D. Structural behaviors of large underground earth-retaining systems in Shanghai. II: multipropped rectangular diaphragm wall. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 2015b, 29(2): 04014059
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000535
18 Shanghai Construction and Management Commission. Code for Investigation of Geotechnical Engineering (DGJ08-37-2002), Shanghai: Jian Zhu Jian Cai Ye Shi Chang Guan Li Zong Zhan, 2002 (in Chinese)
19 Xu Y S, Shen  S L, Du  Y J. Geological and hydrogeological environment in Shanghai with geohazards to construction and maintenance of infrastructures. Engineering Geology, 2009, 109(3-4): 241–254
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2009.08.009
20 Clough G W, O’Rourke  T D. Construction induced movements of in-situ walls. Geotechnical Special publication: Design and performance of earth retaining structures (GSP25), ASCE, Reston, VA, 1990
21 Kung G T C,  Juang C H,  Hsiao E C L,  Hashash Y M A. Simplified model for wall deflection and ground-surface settlement caused by braced excavation in clays. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 2007, 133(6): 731–747
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2007)133:6(731)
22 Liu K X. Three dimensional analysis of deep excavation in soft clay. M.Eng. thesis, National University of Singapore, 1995
23 Lee F, Yong  K, Quan K,  Chee K. Effect of corners in strutted excavations: field monitoring and case histories. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 1998, 124(4): 339–349
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(1998)124:4(339)
24 Liu G B, Jiang  R J, Ng  C, Hong Y. Deformation characteristics of a 38m deep excavation in soft clay. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 2011, 48(12): 1817–1828
https://doi.org/10.1139/t11-075
25 Peck R B. Deep excavation and tunneling in soft grund. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Mexico City, 1969, 225–281
Related articles from Frontiers Journals
[1] Arash SEKHAVATIAN, Asskar Janalizadeh CHOOBBASTI. Application of random set method in a deep excavation: based on a case study in Tehran cemented alluvium[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2019, 13(1): 66-80.
[2] Konstantinos P. TZIVAKOS,Michael J. KAVVADAS. Numerical investigation of the ultimate lateral resistance of piles in soft clay[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2014, 8(2): 194-200.
[3] Yuepeng DONG, Harvey BURD, Guy HOULSBY, Yongmao HOU. Advanced finite element analysis of a complex deep excavation case history in Shanghai[J]. Front Struc Civil Eng, 2014, 8(1): 93-100.
[4] Chunlin DING , Xiaohong MENG , . Centrifuge model test and field measurement analysis for foundation pit with confined water[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2009, 3(3): 299-304.
[5] CHEN Yunmin, CHEN Yingping, HUANG Bo. Experimental investigation of the influence on static and cyclic deformation of structural soft clay of stress level[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2007, 1(4): 422-429.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed