7/22/2019 Paper on Waler Beam

A Solution to the Braced Excavation Collapse in Singapore

By

Javier Artola

B.S., Civil Engineering

Stevens Institute of Technology, 2003

SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL

ENGINEERING IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF

MASTER OF ENGINEERING IN CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING

AT THE MASACHUSE'TS-I INSTfI'TE

OF TECHNOL OGY

MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

MAY 3 1 21
JUNE 2005

(. 2005 .Tvier Artnla_ All riihts reserved_ LIBRARI ES

The author hereby grants to MIT permission to reproduce and to distribute publicly paper and
electronic copies of this thesis document in whole or in part.

',-A

Signature
fAuthor_ -_ _
-Departin'nt of Civil and Environmental Engineering
May 24, 2005

Certified by
Andrew ttle
Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Thesis Supervisor
n .. . .

Accepted by
Andrew J. Whittle
Chairman, Departmental Committee for Graduate Students

iR .IVES

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/paper-on-waler-beam 1/88
7/22/2019 Paper on Waler Beam

A Solution to the Braced Excavation Collapse in Singapore

By

Javier Artola

Submitted to the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

On May 24, 2005 in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Master of Engineering in Civil and Environmental Engineering

ABSTRACT

At about 3:30pm on April 20, 2004, a 30m deep excavation adjacent to Nicoll Highway
in Singapore collapsed, resulting in four casualties and a delay of part of a US$4.14
billion subway project. This thesis examines the flaws in the original design of the
bracing system, which have been cited as causes of the failure. The Author then proposes
a revised design for the braced excavation system.

The Plaxis finite element program was used to simulate the excavation process and
compute forces on the major structural elements in the original design. Some pertinent
background information on this program is provided throughout the thesis in order to
better understand the significance of certain errors in the input data of the original model
that ultimately led to the incorrect assumptions and calculations of the original design. A
new model using this same program was regenerated with a corrected set of input
assumptions, thereby leading to reasonable estimates of structural forces. These results
were then used to propose a revised design of the excavation support system and compare
this design to the original used in the excavation project. There are several lessons that
could be learned from this structural failure, one being the need to acknowledge the
limitations built in advanced analysis software systems, and another being the importance
of ascertaining that the user understands every feature of the product.

A cost estimation of the proposed design is given and compared to the original design in
order to evaluate the viability of the proposed design in the construction bid. Finally,
some important conclusions are drawn from this study that should be applied to future
large-scale construction projects where public safety and welfare is at stake.

Thesis Supervisor: Andrew J. Whittle

Title: Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/paper-on-waler-beam 2/88
7/22/2019 Paper on Waler Beam

Acknowledgements

I would foremost like to thank my parents for their unwavering support of my interests and
goals, in academia and elsewhere.

For this thesis, I owe a great deal to Professor Andrew Whittle, without him I would have never
been exposed to this interesting research. His guidance and efforts encouraged me to find a
solution to this problem and led me to the culmination of my thesis project.

Professor Jerome Connor has been a wonderful mentor and inspiration to me, and I would like to
acknowledge his wisdom and support in every aspect of my life at MIT.

I would like to acknowledge Pat Dixon and Cynthia Stewart, for their support and patience in the
submission of my thesis.

I would also like to acknowledge my dearest girlfriend, Wendy, for all her help and support and
for being that joyful thought in the most stressful times.

Finally, I would like to acknowledge

the families of the victims of this tragedy, may God be with
you and your loved ones in the afterlife, and may their deaths serve as a remembrance of the
commitment and responsibility that we - engineers - have pro bono publico (for the good of the
public).

-3-

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/paper-on-waler-beam 3/88
7/22/2019 Paper on Waler Beam

Table of Contents

1. Introduction .............................................................................. 7

2. Review of Slurry (Diaphragm) Wall Excavation Systems ......................................... 8

2.1 General Methods of Slurry Wall Construction ................................................... 8
2.2 Cross-Lot Braced Slurry Wall Excavations ...................................................... 11
3. The Original Design .................................................................... 13
3.1 Overview of the Project .................................................................... 13
3.2 Design of M3 Support System ................................................................... 15
3.3 PlaxisAnalyses........ . .................. ......... .............................. 18
3.4 Design of Structural Elements ................................................... ................ 20
3.4.1 Design of Diaphragm Wall in Type M3 Area ......... ......... ..........................
0
3.4.2 Design of the Strutting System for Diaphragm Wall in Type M3 Area ............... 22
3.4.3 Design of Strut-Waler Connection ......................................................... 22
3.5 Construction Sequence .............................................................................. 23
4. The Collapse ......... . .......................................................... 25
4.1 The Under-design of the Diaphragm Wall Using Method A ................................. 28
4.1.1 Background and Errors in the Input Data of the Plaxis Finite Element Program .... 28
4.1.2 The Impact of Method A and Method B on the Diaphragm Wall Design ............ 32
4.2 The Impact of Method A and Method B on the Strutting System Design ................... 37
4.3 Under-design of Strut-Waler Connection ................... ..................... 38
4.3.1 Incorporation of C-channel Stiffeners in Waler Beam Connections ................. 39
4.3.2 Omission of Splays in Strut-Waler Connections ......................................... 41
5. A Revised Design for the Type M3 Excavation Area................................................ 42
5.1 Revised Plaxis Model .................................................................... 42

5.2 Design of the Diaphragm Wall ................... ............................. 43

5.3 Design of the Strutting System ......... ......... ......... .....................................
6
5.4 Design of Waler Connection ................................................................... 48
6. Summary ................................................................... 50
7.References......... .................. ................................................................ 51

-4-

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/paper-on-waler-beam 4/88
7/22/2019 Paper on Waler Beam

Table of Figures

Figure 1: Trenching Equipment .............................................................................. 9

Figure 2: Typical Construction Sequence of Slurry Walls .............................................. 10

Figure 3: Typical Excavation Sequence in Cross-lot Excavations ......... ........................ 12
Figure 4: Preloading Arrangement and Measured Brace Stiffness .................................... 12
Figure 5: Overview of Circle Line Construction Stages 1 to 5 ......................................... 13
Figure 6: Overview of Cut and Cover Tunnel Adjacent to Nicoll Highway ......................... 14
Figure 7: Overview of M3 Area ......... .......................................................... 15
Figure 8: Soil Profile and Design Support System for M3 Section ................................... 16
Figure 9: Cross-section for wall Type M3 .................. ......................... 21
Figure 10: Strut-Waler Connection ......... .......................................................... 22
Figure 11: Strut-Waler Connection Channel Stiffeners ................................. 26
Figure 12: Site Before and After the Collapse ......... ............................................... 27
Figure 13: Mohr-Coulomb Failure Model ................................................................ 30
Figure 14: Diaphragm Wall Deflections under Methods A and B .................................... 34
Figure 15: Diaphragm Wall Bending Moments under Methods A and B ........................... 35
Figure 16: Inclinometer Readings I-104 & 1-65 ................. .......................................
6
Figure 17: Stiffener Plate and Waler Beam Web Buckling ......... .............................. 39
Figure 18: Load-Displacement Curves of the C-channel and the Plate Stiffener Connections....40
Figure 19: Types of Strut-Waler Connections ............................................................ 41
Figure 20: Sketch of Proposed Reinforcement for Diaphragm Wall .................................. 45
Figure 21: Bending Moment Envelope Diagram for a 1.2m Thick Diaphragm Wall ............... 45
Figure 22: Maximum Deflection Diagram for a 1.2m Thick Diaphragm Wall ...................... 46
Figure 23: Diaphragm Wall and Waler Connection Detail for the 9 th Level of Struts .............. 49

-5-

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/paper-on-waler-beam 5/88
7/22/2019 Paper on Waler Beam

List of Tables

Table 1: Soil Profile Description........................................................... 17

Table 2: Summary of Plaxis Input Parameters in Original Design .................................... 19

Table 3: Plaxis Parameters under Different Design Methods.......................................... 31
Table 4: Strut Loads at Type M3 Area under Design Methods A and B ......... ................37
Table 5: Summary of Soil Parameters used in Revised Plaxis Model ................................. 43
Table 6: Summary of the Strutting System Design ............................................... 47
Table 7: Summary of the Original and Revised Designs for the Strutting System................. 48

-6-

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/paper-on-waler-beam 6/88
7/22/2019 Paper on Waler Beam

1. Introduction

Braced excavation systems are widely used in a variety of construction projects, such as
cut-and-cover tunnels and building basements. Common malpractice or negligence in the design
and construction of such systems can result in large-scale losses of capital and human lives.
There are several examples of excavation collapses and corresponding studies that investigate
their origins. This thesis examines one in particular: the 30m deep excavation collapse adjacent
to Nicoll Highway in Singapore, which occurred on April 20, 2004. There have been various
reports that explain the causes of this collapse. The final report of the Singaporean Ministry of
Manpower (MOM) Committee of Inquiry has just been released, and is cited frequently
throughout this thesis. However, it is not the author's intent to further analyze these studies, but
instead to use the information already available to propose an alternate and effective design for
the excavation system.

A finite element model using the soil-structure analysis program Plaxis v.8.0 was
generated for this excavation using the proper parameters to obtain data on the required design
capacities for the temporary diaphragm wall, strutting system, waler connection, and other
elements of the project.

All the design procedures are explained in detail throughout this thesis. The original
design was performed as per the British code BS8002 for soil-strut interaction and BS5950 for
structural steel design. However, the proposed design was done using the American Association
of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Standard Specifications for Highway
Bridges (1 4 th Edition) and the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) Allowable Stress
Design (ASD) Manual of Steel Construction (9 th Edition). The final design of the excavation

system was obtained through an iteration process of the model and design criteria.

-7-

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/paper-on-waler-beam 7/88
7/22/2019 Paper on Waler Beam

2. Review of Slurry (Diaphragm) Wall Excavation Systems

2.1 General Methods of Slurry Wall Construction

Slurry wall design and construction demands attention to a variety of factors such as slurry
materials (i.e. processing), excavating equipment, and panel size. For example, the depth of the
slurry wall may be determined by the soil conditions present at the site, or the site layout may
limit panel sizes. One often encounters existing utilities or nearby buildings in urban excavations
and they may need to be protected or relocated. In addition, water-stopping details should be
given special consideration because slurry walls are frequently part of the permanent structure.
Working schedules can also be impacted by the requirements for traffic maintenance.
Construction procedures should therefore address these and other relevant issues in order to
optimize the construction project as a whole.

A slurry wall is constructed by linking a series of slurry wall panels in a predetermined

sequence. The panels are excavated to specified dimensions while at the same time slurry or
another stabilizing fluid is circulated in the trench. Excavation equipment may range from simple
clamshell buckets to hydraulic clamshells to hydrofraises (Xanthakos, 1994, Parkison & Gilbert,

1991, Ressi, 1999, Bauer, 2000). In addition, individual contractors have developed their own
f(typically) patented trenching equipment. Figure 1 displays a variety of trenching equipment
employed in slurry wall construction. (Konstantakos, 2000).

-8-

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/paper-on-waler-beam 8/88
7/22/2019 Paper on Waler Beam

(a) (b) C) Id) {e) (f) (a) (h) 1)

Figure 1: Trenching Equipment (Xanthakos, 1991)

(a) Clamshell bucket attached to a kelly. (b) Vertical percussive bit with reverse circulation,
(c) Percussive benching bit. (d) Rotary benching bit. (e) Rotary bit with vertical cutter. (f)
Rotary drilling machine with reverse circulation. (g) Bucket scraper. (h) Bell-mouth
suction rotary cutter with direct circulation. (i) Horizontal auger machine.

Figure 2 presents the basic steps in typical slurry wall construction. The first step is to clear
the site of any possible obstructions. Guide walls are then built to stabilize the upper few feet of
soil and to guide the trenching equipment (controlling the vertical orientation of the panels).
End-stops are inserted into the panel after trenching is completed in order to help form water-
tight joints connecting adjacent panels. The end-stops are withdrawn after the adjacent panel is

trenched.

After a panel is excavated to the specified dimensions, then a reinforcement cage is placed
into the slurry filled trench. Reinforcement cages may be spliced if the required cages are too
heavy for the lifting equipment.

The bottom of each panel is cleaned prior to concreting because sands and other soils may
form intrusions that undermine the integrity of the wall (i.e. its water-tightness, stiffness, and
strength). Concrete is then carefully tremied into the trench and continuously displaces the slurry
therein. The top few inches of the panel are always chipped in order to bring the fresh concrete to
the surface because the slurry is trapped in the top inches of the panel.

-9-

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/paper-on-waler-beam 9/88
7/22/2019 Paper on Waler Beam

An important issue in the concreting process is the segregation of concrete aggregates during
fast concreting. Slurry can become trapped within the tremied concrete, thereby creating soft
zones within the slurry walls. If the panel bottom is not properly cleaned, then the soil and the
waste that may have accumulated there may shift upwards during concreting as a result. This can
lead to major leakage problems (Konstantakos, 2000). Successful construction depends upon
careful construction to detail on site.

oncreted Excavating Equip. r_ _ A4 -

1 ~~~~~~~~~.___-
LUon
Panel
Slurry -- %-
  X,
··
M lllz

AI-
,.

e I II I I I-
-ll_11'_- -- ,

(A) (B)

Stop

(C) (D)

Figure 2: Typical Construction Sequence of Slurry Walls (Konstantakos, 2000)

(A) Trenching under slurry, (B) End stop inserted (steel tube or other), (C) Reinforcement cage
lowered into the slurry-filled trench, (D) Concreting by tremie pipes.

-10-

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/paper-on-waler-beam 10/88
7/22/2019 Paper on Waler Beam

2.2 Cross-Lot Braced Slurry Wall Excavations

Cross-lot bracing shifts the lateral earth (and water pressures) between opposing walls
through compressive struts. The struts are usually either pipe or W-sections and are typically
preloaded in order to produce a very stiff system. Installation of the cross-lot struts is
accomplished by excavating soil locally around the strut and only continuing the excavation once
preloading is finished. A typical sequence of excavation in cross-lot braced excavations is
presented in Figure 3. The struts rest on a succession of wale beams that distribute the strut load
to the diaphragm wall.

Pre-loading ensures rigid contact between interacting members and is achieved by placing a
hydraulic jack as each side of an individual pipe strut between the wale beam and a special
jacking plate welded to the strut (Fig. 4, Xanthakos, 1994). The strut load can be measured with
strain gages or can be calculated using equations of elasticity by measuring the augmented
separation between the wale and the strut.

When the struts were not preloaded in several previous projects, it resulted in large soil and
wall movements as the excavation progressed downward. It has therefore become standard

practice to preload the struts in order to minimize subsequent wall movements.

Cross-lot bracing is advisable in narrow excavations (18m to 36m) when tieback installation
is impossible. The struts' serviceability can be adversely affected if the deflections at the struts
are too large. This can occur when the struts' unbraced length is considerable, thereby causing
the struts to bend excessively under their own weight if the excavation spacing is too great.
Furthermore, special provisions should be to taken in order to account for possible thermal
expansion and contraction of the struts (Konstantakos, 2000).

The typical strut spacing is approximately 5.0m in both the vertical and the horizontal
direction. This is larger than the customary spacing when tiebacks are used because the pre-
loading levels are much greater. A clear advantage of using struts is that there are no tieback
openings in the slurry wall, thereby eliminating one source of potential leakage.

-11-

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/paper-on-waler-beam 11/88
7/22/2019 Paper on Waler Beam

Cross-lot Brace

Figure 3: Typical Excavation Sequence in Cross-lot Excavations

(A)V-cut initial cantilever excavation, (B) Strut installation and pre-loading in small trenches
in soil berms, (C) V-cut excavation to next level and strut installation, (B) Final grade.

A --

Ur

swwatbn
Jadft 12 el I-
._1

0I
Piwin'sW
Poe
II n I l
"' .

70 0o 110
IN (315) (405) (405)
-Retainkg Wae
-JI Prodm dkp (N)

(a) (b)

Figure 4: (a) Preloading Arrangement, and (b) Measured Brace Stiffness

(Xanthakos, 1994)

-12-

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/paper-on-waler-beam 12/88
7/22/2019 Paper on Waler Beam

3. The Original Design

3.1 Overview of the Project

The original excavation design was part of an ongoing 33.6 km Circle Line (CCL)
subway project for Singapore's Mass Rapid Transit System that was set to be completed in 2009.
With a cost of approximately US$4.14 billion, the entire CCL project will be a fully underground
orbital line linking all radial lines leading to the city and will be completed in 5 stages (Figure 5).

i _ 1· _ j

11.,

4 A .·,

E_
,=-

-
.. ·

; .. ,.

.r

e , '.:

+A
I __ _ -
I-
Figure 5: Overview of Circle Line Construction Stages 1 to 5 (MOM, 2005)

The excavation where the collapse occurred was part of a cut and cover tunneling project
that was being done adjacent to Nicoll Highway in Stage 1 of construction (Figure 6). The route
length covered by this contract was approximately 2.8 km. The temporary works to construct the
cut and cover tunnel used diaphragm walls to support the sides of the excavation, steel struts to

13 -

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/paper-on-waler-beam 13/88
7/22/2019 Paper on Waler Beam

brace these walls, and jet grout slabs constructed using interlocking Jet Grout Piles (JGP).
Further explanation on these members will be provided in the following sections of the thesis.

Figure 6: Overview of Cut and Cover Tunnel Adjacent to Nicoll Highway (MOM, 2005)

The accident area in which the collapse occurred was primarily centered at the Type M2
and Type M3 areas. The Type M3 area is the critical part of the excavation requiring particular
focus (Figure 7). This area is comprised by 12 panels (6 on the north wall and 6 on the south
wall). The wall panels were mostly 0.8m thick. The total length of the Type M3 area is about
33m. The design depth of the walls varied between 38.1m to 43.2m.

- 14-

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/paper-on-waler-beam 14/88
7/22/2019 Paper on Waler Beam

Figure 7: Overview of M3 Area (MOM, 2005)

3.2 Design of M3 Support System

Figure 8 summarizes the assumed soil stratigraphy for the M3 section together with the
design of the lateral earth support system and location of the final tunnel boxes. The initial cut-
and-cover excavation was approximately 20m wide and reached a maximum depth of 33.3m.
The excavation was supported by 10 levels of cross-lot struts. These struts were supported by a
central line of kingposts (Fig. 5 and Fig. 6) that extend deep into the first layer of the Old
Alluvium (SW2). Two layers of interlocking Jet Grout Piling (JGP), 1.5m and 2.6m thick, were
pre-installed
to control ground deformations and reduce bending moments in the perimeter
diaphragm wall panels. The upper JGP is a sacrificial layer that is removed during the excavation
process. The final tunnel boxes are supported on drilled shafts (each 1.6m diameter) that extend
into the fundamental Old Alluvium (CZ).

- 15-

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/paper-on-waler-beam 15/88
7/22/2019 Paper on Waler Beam

eiC

W &o

Ir2
-Re ID
N t 1SU,)
- r,
,,L -q
-l urru - q Pal. %
W. St-L
Ha '
I:2 __-

CZ
IN>
,.,,m,
]O N: tOO

Figure 8: Soil Profile and Design Support System for M3 Section (MOM, 2005)

- 16-

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/paper-on-waler-beam 16/88
7/22/2019 Paper on Waler Beam

upper csaEnne c ra ana rgram o cW

(disaxtinuous)

-Upper Marine Clay M) very soft clay

Fluvial Sand (F1) predominanly loose sand
(disconlinuous)

Flial Clay F2) mainly finnrmlys

(disconfinuous)

Lower Marine Clay (M) soft day

Lower Estuadne (E) Peats and organic soft days
(discontinuous)
Lower Fluvial Sand (F1) predominantly loose sand
(discontinuous)
Lower Fluvial Clay (F2) mainly firm clay
(discontinuous)

lWetered (OAW) discntnuos - Sands & Clays

N<30
Sligy weathered 30 < N< 50

(O-SW2)
Skjb eered 50 < N< 100
(Q4A-SW)
.mented unwealemd N>100
(OACZ) -

Table 1: Soil Profile Description (MOM, 2005)

The soil profile (Figure 8 and Table 1) comprises deep layers of marine (MC), estuarine

(E) and fluvial (F2) clays overlying much stronger layers of old alluvium (SW, CZ). The
engineering properties to be used in the original design were specified in a Geotechnical
Interpretative Memorandum (GIM). Please refer to Table 2 for more information on these
parameters.

-17-

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/paper-on-waler-beam 17/88
7/22/2019 Paper on Waler Beam

Following the collapse, a joint committee of experts reviewed the GIM Table of parameters
and concluded that the parameters were generally reasonable with a couple notable exceptions:
1. Permeability properties of the Old Alluvium were difficult to estimate. In general, the clays
and old alluvium layers are of low permeability.
2. Undrained shear strengths in the Lower Marine Clay (LMC) were potentially than the GIM
recommendations (based on an interpretation of piezocone penetration data). Field
monitoring of on-going settlements and pore pressures in the M3 are suggested that the LMC
layer was under-consolidated, and this may explain why lower shear strengths can ocurr in
this layer.
3. The GIM Table overestimated the undrained shear strength of the Lower Estuarine Clay due
to extrapolation of properties from the Upper Estuarine Clay.

3.3 Plaxis Analyses

Plaxis is a general purpose geotechnical finite element program suitable for modeling a
wide range of geotechnical processes. For the original design, a Plaxis model was generated to
find the maximum design loads, moments and deflections for the diaphragm walls and cross-lot
strut elements. The basic input parameters used in Plaxis to represent the various soil layers are

summarized in Table 2.1

l Note that some of the input parameters used in the original analysis/design were incorrect. A new Plaxis model has
been generated (see Chapter 4) with the corrected soil parameters.

- 18-

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/paper-on-waler-beam 18/88
7/22/2019 Paper on Waler Beam

Stratum Material Unit Pern Yref Eref Binc Cref ' R inter
Type Wdght
kN/m' nVday mRL 2
hWMN/mtm WNm2 Deges
Fill Drained 19 8.6E10' 10 0.1 30 0.67
Estuarine Undraind 15 8.6E110 92.9 6 0.92 0.1 18 0.67
M2(upper) Undrained 16 8.6E10 87.9 8 0.64 0.1 22 0.67
F2 Undrined 19 8.6E10 92.9 8 0.8 0.1 24 0.67
M30Wowr) Undrained 16 8.6E1 87.9 8 0.64 0.1 24 0.67
'
OA SW2 Drained 20 4.3E10 70/72 5.0 32 0.67
OA SWI Drained 20 4.3E10 144/158 360/395 0 0.5
OA CZ Drained 20 4.3E10 200 500 0 0.5
JGP Non por 16 0 131 300 0 0.33
OAClayN16 Undrained 20 4.3E10 l 32 80 0 0.5
OASandN20 Drained 20 4.3E10 40 0.1 32 0.67
OASandN26Undrained 20 4.31E1 52 130 0 0.5

Table 2: Summary of Plaxis Input Parameters in Original Design (MOM, 2005)

The most significant aspects of the original Plaxis analysis are as follows:
1. The Soil layers are represented as linearly elastic-perfectly plastic materials, with shear
strength governed by the Mohr-Coulomb criterion with effective stress strength
parameters (c' and (p').

2. Each of the low permeability clay layers is treated as undrained material, while old
alluvium is assumed to be fully drained.
3. The JGP layers are assumed non-pourus with a cohesive component of shear strength,
Su= 300kPa.
4. Pore pressures in the Old Alluvium were established by specifying a phreatic line , with
reduced pressures below the base of the excavation.

More detailed background information on the use of Plaxis and the parameters included will be
provided in Section 4 of this thesis.

- 19-

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/paper-on-waler-beam 19/88
7/22/2019 Paper on Waler Beam

3.4 Design of Structural Elements

The original design of the temporary wall and strutting system was carried out with the
following assumptions: (using the British Standard Code of Practice for Earth Retaining
Structures BS8002)
1. Effective stress strength parameters for characterizing the marine and estuarine clays at
the excavation site.
2. Load factor of 1.2 for structural elements as per British Standard Code of Practice for
Steel Elements (BS5950).
3. Surcharge load of 20 kPa, with actual surcharge not to exceed 10 kPa.
4. One strut failure analysis at selected locations.

For design purposes, the cut and cover tunnel was divided into 40 wall sections (approx. 6m
each). The selection of wall type was based on an assessment of the soil profile, in particular the
depth of the marine clays, and depth and width of the excavation.

3.4.1 Design of Diaphragm Wall in Type M3 Area

The diaphragm wall in Type M3 area had 10 levels of struts, and 2 levels of JGP slab.
th h
The upper JGP slab was located between the 9 and 10 level struts. The design required that the
wall was embedded 3 meters in the Old Alluvium (SW2) layer. The soil profiles, strutting levels
and JGP slab levels are presented in Figure 9. (Note that the spacing in the horizontal direction of
the struts was 4m).

-20-

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/paper-on-waler-beam 20/88
7/22/2019 Paper on Waler Beam

Figure 9: Cross-section for wall Type M3 (MOM, 2005)

Apparently, the incorporation of JGP slabs was done to help cut off soil seepage and
reduce the need for further embedment of the diaphragm wall into the Old Alluvium (SW2). This
was done in order to control the potential consolidation settlements outside the excavation.

-21 -

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/paper-on-waler-beam 21/88
7/22/2019 Paper on Waler Beam

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/paper-on-waler-beam 22/88
7/22/2019 Paper on Waler Beam

Figure 10: Strut-Waler Connection (Modified from MOM, 2005)

3.5 Construction Sequence

The construction sequence that was planned for the braced excavation system included:

1. Install diaphragm walls: After excavating a trench for the diaphragm walls and placing all the
reinforcing steel for the wall panels, concrete was to be poured and cast on site to build the
diaphragm walls around the perimeter of the excavation.
2. Drive kingposts: Once the diaphragm wall was in place, kingposts were to be driven at the
specified locations (midpoint between the north and south walls and spaced horizontally
every 4 meters)
3. Jet Grout Piling (JGP): Holes for interlocking Jet Grout Piles (JGP) were to be perforated at
the specified locations of the design drawings in order to support the jet grout slabs shown in
Figure 9. The thickness of the upper and lower slabs was 1.5m and 2.6m, respectively.
4. Install bored piles: JGP were to be bored once the holes were perforated.
5. Excavate up to 0.5m lower than the 1st level struts: Excavation was to be carried out down to
an elevation of 0.5m below the first level of struts. Please refer to Figure 9 for more
information on strut level elevations.

- 23 -

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/paper-on-waler-beam 23/88
7/22/2019 Paper on Waler Beam

6. Install pre-loaded struts: The first level of pre-loaded struts was to be placed and framed to
the diaphragm walls or waler beams (depending on the location) at the specific points
determined in the design. (First level struts were spaced horizontally every 8m).
7. Excavate up to 0.5m lower than the next level struts: Following the installation of the struts,
excavation was to be resumed at an elevation of 0.5m below the second level of struts.
8. Install pre-loaded struts: The second level pre-loaded struts were then to be installed and
spaced every 4m in the horizontal direction of the wall.
9. Repeat steps 7 to 8 until the lowest struts (10 h level) were installed and pre-loaded
10. Excavate to formation level: Once the 1 0 th level struts were installed, excavation to formation
level was to be performed and 75mm thick lean concrete was to be cast without delay.

-24 -

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/paper-on-waler-beam 24/88
7/22/2019 Paper on Waler Beam

4. The Collapse

At about 3:30pm on April 20, 2004, a 30m deep excavation adjacent to Nicoll Highway in
Singapore collapsed resulting in four casualties and a delay of part of the US$4.14 billion CCL
subway project. According to the Committee of Inquiry (MOM, 2005) that was set up to
investigate the failure, the main causes of the collapse included two critical design errors in the
temporary retaining wall system. These were:
1. The under-design of the diaphragm wall using Method A2 . The use of Method A in the
original design to model the undrained behavior of soft marine clays was incorrect. The
method over-predicted the undrained shear strength. In other words, it underestimated the
bending moments and deflections of the diaphragm wall. Hence, this resulted in an under-
designed diaphragm wall. Method B should have been used in this circumstance. The
bending moments and deflections in the original design were about 50% of the actual
bending moments and deflections observed by the diaphragm wall. This is equivalent to a
factor of 2 in the original design of the diaphragm wall in the Type M3 area.

2. The under-design of the strut-waler connection in two ways:

a) The original estimation of load on the strut-waler connection for double struts assumed

that the splays would absorb one third of the load in the struts. Where splays were
omitted, the design load that resulted in the strut-waler connection was only about 70% of
the load in the strut, when the full 100% should have been used.
b) The change in the design of the waler plate stiffeners with C-sections (Figure 11) relied
on a stiff bearing length (bl) of 400mm instead of approximately 65mm in accordance
with BS5950, and on an effective length of 70% of the net web depth, where a number
close to 1.2 for unrestrained conditions would have been more appropriate. As a result,

the axial design capacity of the stiffeners was only about 70% of the assumed design load
for the connection. Further explanation of this will be provided later in this section.

2 Method A refers to the use of effective stress strength parameters to represent the undrained shear strength of low
permeability clay. Further explanation will be given in later sections

- 25 -

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/paper-on-waler-beam 25/88
7/22/2019 Paper on Waler Beam

Figure 11: Strut-Waler Connection Channel Stiffeners (MOM, 2005)

The under-design of the waler connection caused the failure of the 9 th level strut-waler
connections at the Type M3 area during the excavation to the 10 th level. This was the initiating

failure of the collapse. The failure of the 9 th evel waler connection caused the transfer of loads to
the 8 th level struts, leading to the failure of the 8 th level strutting system and the subsequent
collapse of the Type M3 area. The collapse then propagated westward to the Type M2 area.

Other errors such as inadequate welding of the members could have also contributed to
the collapse of the excavation system, but these factors were not as critical as the two specified
previously. The failure of the 9 th level strut-waler system together with the inability of the

temporary retaining wall system to resist the redistributed loads as the 9th level strutting failed
led to a catastrophic collapse of the excavation system (Figure 12).

- 26 -

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/paper-on-waler-beam 26/88
7/22/2019 Paper on Waler Beam

Figure 12: Site Before and After the Collapse (MOM, 2005)

- 27 -

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/paper-on-waler-beam 27/88
7/22/2019 Paper on Waler Beam

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/paper-on-waler-beam 28/88
7/22/2019 Paper on Waler Beam

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/paper-on-waler-beam 29/88
7/22/2019 Paper on Waler Beam

Due to the contractive nature of the soft clay, the undrained strength (D, Fig. 11) is less
than the drained strength. Since the Mohr-Coulomb model does not model this contractive effect,
it cannot reproduce the stress path followed by the soft clay as it is sheared. The Mohr-Coulomb
model using effective stress strength parameters therefore over-estimates the strength of soft
normally consolidated clay in undrained condition. (MOM, 2005, Ch. 5)

Mohr-coulomb

I
Cu
(Method A

cu
(Methods
C, D)

0 Confining Stress p', p

Figure 13: Mohr-Coulomb Failure Model (MOM, 2005)

(Undrained shear strengths derived from Methods A, B, C and D used in the original design)

The Mohr-Coulomb model allows the user to input either effective stress parameters (c'
and p') or the undrained strength parameters (c'=c%, p'=O).Although this approach would give
the correct undrained strength, it cannot correctly model the stress path followed by the soft clay.
(MOM, 2005, Ch. 5)

In the original design, the use of a Mohr Coulomb soil model with effective stress

strength parameters in combination with an undrained material type has been referred to as
Method A. Method B refers to the use of Mohr-Coulomb soil model with undrained strength
parameters in combination with undrained material type. The latter method prevents the Mohr-
Coulomb model from over-estimating the strength of soft clay in undrained condition (as shown
in Fig. 11).

-30-

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/paper-on-waler-beam 30/88
7/22/2019 Paper on Waler Beam

The pore water pressure generated by the Mohr-Coulomb model will not be
representative of those generated in-situ under an undrained loading condition. This is true
regardless of whether the effective stress parameters (Method A) or the undrained parameters
(Method B) are used. The parameters used for the various methods are tabulated in Table 3.

Undrained Behaviour

Plaxis Material Parameters Computed

Method
aterial Model Strength Stiffness stresses
setting
A Undrained Mohr- c', ' E',v' Effective stress and
Coulomb (effective) (effective) pore pressure

B Undrained Mohr-
Coulomb Cu, u
(total) E', v'
(effective) Effective stress and
pore pressure

Mohr- C., 4 U E,, v=0.495

C oulomb
Non-porous(total) (tal) Total stress

D As in Method A, for other soil models

Table 3: Plaxis Parameters under Different Design Methods (MOM, 2005)

Pore Water Pressure Distribution

There are two calculation types available in Plaxis, referred to as Plastic and
Consolidation analyses. The Plastic calculation type is the non-linear computation carried out for
loading stage, such as surcharge placement or an excavation with changing applied loads. Plastic
calculation steps do not consider time-dependent phenomena such as consolidation or pore
pressure dissipation. The consolidation calculation type refers to a stage involving consolidation
or seepage in which excess pore water pressure will change with time. For the consolidation type
of calculation, the Plaxis program computes the groundwater flow and the volumetric
consolidation or swelling of the ground caused by changes in the mean effective stress. (MOM,
2005, Ch. 5)

-31 -

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/paper-on-waler-beam 31/88
7/22/2019 Paper on Waler Beam

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/paper-on-waler-beam 32/88
7/22/2019 Paper on Waler Beam

Figure 14 presents a comparison of the predicted displacements for wall Type M3 under
each method. The predicted displacements using Method B are more than 100% greater than the
Method A prediction.

Figure 15 shows a comparison of the predicted bending moment profiles for wall Type
M3 under each method. The figure also includes the as-built moment capacity. The unfactored
bending moments predicted using Method B exceeded the as-built moment capacity of the wall
by more than 100% at several locations.

- 33 -

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/paper-on-waler-beam 33/88
7/22/2019 Paper on Waler Beam

4 1rJ
Method A
I u

100
95

90
85
E
80
75

70
65
60
55
-0.050 0.000 0.050 0.100 0.150 0.200 0.250 0.300
Wall Disp. (m)
Method B
4 nJ;
u~

100
95
90

85
_.J
80
75
70
65
60
55
-0.050 0.000 0.050 0.100 0.150 0.200 0.250 0.300
Wall Disp. (m)
- Exc to RL 100.9or S1 ---- Ex to RL 9.1 for S2 --&- Exe to RL 94.6 for S3
-- Exc to RL 91.1 or 84 --- Exc to RL 87.6 for S5 -.- Exc to RL 4.6 for SO
-- Exc to RL 81.8 for 87 ---- Exc to RL 783 for S - Ex to RL 75.3 for S9

Figure 14: Diaphragm Wall Deflections under Methods A and B (MOM, 2005)

- 34-

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/paper-on-waler-beam 34/88
7/22/2019 Paper on Waler Beam

4 AI
Method A
iu

100

95
I

90
85 -

E
. 80 I
I
75
I
70 r-
-1
65
I
60 I
I

8d omn ° 8 ° 8 o
Binding Moment (kNmIm)

.^e

100
95
90
85

80
75
70

65
80
55
o a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E 0
c, Cl C
C~ N
2 8Mq.
Bending Moment (kNm/m)
--- Ex 10o L 100.9 for S --- Exc to RL 98.1 for S2 6- Exc to RL 94.6 for S3
ExctoRL91.f totS   --- xclo RL 67.6for S5 -- Excto RL.84.6for 6
-- '-- Ewc o RL 1.6 tor S7 --- Ec to RL 78.3 for S8 I Ex to RL 75.3 fo S9
- Excto RL 72.3 for 510- -BM Cacty

Figure 15: Diaphragm Wall Bending Moments under Methods A and B (MOM, 2005)

- 35 -

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/paper-on-waler-beam 35/88
7/22/2019 Paper on Waler Beam

It is clear from the results that Method A under-predicted both, bending moments and
displacements of the diaphragm wall. The retaining wall system designed using the results
obtained from the Method A analysis was therefore severely under-designed. This led to the
excess of the wall moment capacity and the formation of plastic hinges as the excavation reached
deeper levels. For example, Figure 16 shows the wall deflections measured by two inclinometers
(I-104, South and 1-65, North) at type M3, for excavation immediately prior to failure on April
17.

5o4 Rmags .I we Womo

WE em (Wm) t IDIbllmmmtau
94.4 44 * n X r Ia ' ' m * O ,a

S II"
04 zw
sA.
jIe
i I

· ~~·i
. I . I   - - :1
: 4 f d e i j I -;---'1

D~WfLDeIon84
1-~~tor III'

Figure 16: Inclinometer Readings 1-104 & 1-65 (MOM, 2005)

-36-

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/paper-on-waler-beam 36/88
7/22/2019 Paper on Waler Beam

The use of Method B in the analysis resulted in a diaphragm wall design with thicker wall
sections and possibly deeper penetration into the competent Old Alluvium.

4.2 The Impact of Method A and Method B on the Strutting System Design

The maximum predicted strut load at each level during the excavation sequence using
Method B is given in Table 4 and is compared to the unfactored design of the strutting system.

Predicted Strut Load Design Strut Load

Ratio Method B to
Strut Row Using Method B (unfactored)
Design Strut Load
(kN/m) Using Method A (kN/m)
1 379 568 67%

2 991 1018 97%

3 1615 1816 89%
4 1606 1635 98%
5 1446 1458 99%
6 1418 1322 107%

7 1581 2130 74%

8 1578 2632 60%
9 2383 2173 110%

Table 4: Strut Loads at Type M3 Area under Design Methods A and B (MOM, 2005)

The strut loads predicted by Method B and the design (unfactored) strut loads using
Method A fall within a range of 60% to 1 10% of the original design value. For level 9, Method

A resulted in the strut design being under-estimated by about 10% in comparison to Method B.
However, the strut load for level 9 used in the revised design that is presented in Section 5 is less
than that used under Method A (approximately 93% of 2173 kN or 2020 kN). Even though the
revised design was performed using Method B, the variation of the loads in the revised design
from the loads predicted by Method B in Table 4 are due to an increment in the thickness of the

-37-

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/paper-on-waler-beam 37/88
7/22/2019 Paper on Waler Beam

diaphragm wall used in the revised design. Further explanation on this will be provided in
Section 5 of this thesis.

4.3 Under-design of Strut-Waler Connection

In the original design of the strut-waler connection, the check for local buckling of the
waler web used a wrong value of 400mm for the stiff bearing length. The correct value in a strict
interpretation of the code BS5950 would be 65mm. Stiff bearing length has a direct correlation
with the capacity of the waler system. A longer stiff bearing length produced a buckling
resistance of the waler web in the design calculations. In spite of the error, it was found that the
buckling resistance Pw was still less than the strut load bearing on the waler Pbr.

For H-400, which was used at the 9th level strutting system of the Type M3 area, Pbr was
3543 kN, while Pw was 2218 kN. This meant that the web could not, on its own, be able to
withstand the forces acting on it and therefore stiffeners were required in order to increase the
capacity of the connection against buckling. Please refer to Appendix C for details on these
calculations.

The design error in the stiff bearing length, although not in accordance with BS5950, did
not contribute materially to the capacity of the original stiffener design (using plate stiffeners)
because the wrong waler web buckling capacity (Pw) was not used in this calculation set. The
capacity of the H-400 waler section stiffened with a plate on each side of the web was calculated
correctly as 2424 kN in accordance with BS5950.

The stiffener plates were crucial components of the strut-waler connection. The ability of
the entire strut/waler connection to bear the forces acting upon it was dependent on the strength
of the stiffened section. The integrity of the entire strutting system could be affected by the lack
of adequate capacity in the strut-waler connection to withstand the load. It was therefore critical
that the design of the stiffeners (and any changes made to it) was carefully reviewed to ensure its
adequacy and strength.

-38-

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/paper-on-waler-beam 38/88
7/22/2019 Paper on Waler Beam

4.3.1 Incorporation of C-channel Stiffeners in Waler Beam Connections

In February 2004, several instances of buckling of the stiffener plates and waler webs
were reported at the Nicoll Highway Station (Figure 17).

Figure 17: Stiffener Plate and Waler Beam Web Buckling (MOM, 2005)

This condition led the contractor to replace the double stiffener plates with C-channel

sections. The replacement of double stiffener plates with C-channels provided only minor
improvement to the design in terms of axial load bearing capacity for the waler connections, but
this came at the expense of ductility. The change worsened the design and made it more
susceptible to the brittle "sway" failure mode. This is proved a posteriori in the results of finite
element analyses and physical laboratory tests that were performed by experts after the collapse
occurred.

Finite element calculations showed that in the elastic range, the C-channels attracted
about 70% of the axial strut load. This caused the yielding of the C-channels before the web
reached its full capacity. Once the C-channel had yielded completely, a fundamental change in
the behavior of the connection occurred: the resistance of the waler flanges to relative
displacement (i.e. lateral sway) was reduced. As the axial compression continued, local crushing
of the web occurred. At this point, there was little resistance to rotation and lateral displacement

-39-

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/paper-on-waler-beam 39/88
7/22/2019 Paper on Waler Beam

on the outer (towards the excavation, away from the wall) waler flange. The results post-collapse
demonstrated clearly that the connection was susceptible to sway failure under direct
compression.

Once the axial force reached the yield capacity of the C-channel connection, the
connection displayed a very brittle response, resulting in a rapid loss of capacity upon continued
compression. Conversely, the plate stiffeners connection was significantly more ductile. Please
refer to Figure 18 for a graphical visualization of this fact.

rod
----
4500 D1- Walerwith double
4000

3500:
40*t- Ix- V 4!plate
L~~~
Al5fl.0-
8
tiffeners
,I
~u

3000.
Stiffener
2000

[ I 4_
1500
[/ T
x- ; C1 - Walerwith
500
channelstiffeners

0 ; .... .... .... ... ... I .........

I I........
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Axial Displacement (mm)

Figure 18: Load-Displacement Curves of the C-channel and Plate Stiffener Connections
(MOM, 2005)

This graph proves that the failure load / peak capacity of waler with C-channel stiffeners
is about equal to that with double plate stiffeners. However, the C-channel stiffeners accentuated
the problem associated with the under-design of the waler connections because they induced the

sway mode of failure into the strutting system. When the C-channel was compressed beyond the
peak capacity, there was a rapid and sudden release of load, resulting in a large reduction of the
capacity of the C-channel connection beyond yield, thereby causing a brittle failure.

- 40 -

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/paper-on-waler-beam 40/88
7/22/2019 Paper on Waler Beam

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/paper-on-waler-beam 41/88
7/22/2019 Paper on Waler Beam

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/paper-on-waler-beam 42/88
7/22/2019 Paper on Waler Beam

Layer RL c'v t k su Friction Shear v' Ko Piezo-

(m) (kPa) (kN/m3) (m/day) (kPa) angle, Modulus, metric
[c'] ' () G (MPa) Head,
H(m)
Fill 102.9 30.0 4.0 0.25 0.5 100.5
43 19.0 0.086 [0]
98.2
Upper 98.2 58 20 0 3.0 0.25 0.7 100.5
MC 16.0 8.6 x
85.6 120 10-5 25 103.0
F2 Clay 85.6 120 19.0 8.6 88 0 11.7 0.25 0.7 103.0
83.4 132 x10- 5
Lower 83.4 132 31 0 5.2 0.25 0.7 103.0
MC
75.0 189 16.8 8.6 105.0
x10- 5
63.2 293 47 103.0
F2 Clay 63.2 293 8.6 x 88 0 11.7 0.25 0.7 103.0
61.6 309 20.0 10 - 5
OA - 61.6 309 100 0 40.0 0.25 1.0 103.0
weather 20.0 8.6 x
ed 53.9 386 10-4 500
OA - <53.9 386 8.6 x 500 0 67.0 0.25 1.0 103.0
compet 10-5
ent
JGP --- 16.0 8.6 x 300 0 108.0 0.15 --
10 - 5

Table 5: Summary of Soil Parameters used in Revised Plaxis Model

The output file of this analysis can be seen in Appendix D.

5.2 Design of the Diaphram Wall

The bending stress was the greatest concern in the design of the diaphragm wall. Figure
21 summarizes the envelope of bending moments for the complete excavation sequence. The
maximum moment, Mmax (+) = 6.21MN-m/m occurs at Elevation 71.6m, while much smaller
bending moments occur at the back of the wall, Mmax ( - ) = 2.22MN-m/m at Elevation 68.3m.

- 43 -

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/paper-on-waler-beam 43/88
7/22/2019 Paper on Waler Beam

As per AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges ( 1 4 th Edition), the

required area of steel needed to resist these forces could not be designed for a 0.8m thick
diaphragm wall. Hence, the thickness of the wall must be increased in order to accommodate the
number of rebars required in the design. However, increasing the wall size (and bending
stiffness) generates even higher bending moments in the wall. An iteration process was done to
obtain the optimal wall thickness and rebar area required. The final thickness of the wall was
1.2m, and the required area of steel per meter of wall was 42757mm2/m on the near-end and
11600m2/m on the far-end of the wall to resist positive and negative bending moments,
respectively. The area of steel provided in the revised design was approx. 7.5 times higher for
resistance of positive bending moments and 2 times higher for resistance of negative bending
moments than the ones used in the original design. The maximum axial forces observed by the
wall were also included in the analysis and slightly decreased the design bending moments of the
wall. Please refer to Appendix E for further information on these calculations.

The total amount of rebar should be placed in the following manner to effectively resist
the bending moments:
For the entire depth of the wall, # 14 bars should be spaced every 102mm on the front face of the
wall to resist positive bending moments. On the rear face of the wall, # 9 bars should be spaced

every 102mm to resist negative bending moments for the first 19m and the last 21.5m of wall
depth. Please refer to Figure 20 for a sketch of the wall design with location of the rebars.

- 44 -

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/paper-on-waler-beam 44/88
7/22/2019 Paper on Waler Beam

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/paper-on-waler-beam 45/88
7/22/2019 Paper on Waler Beam

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/paper-on-waler-beam 46/88
7/22/2019 Paper on Waler Beam

the excavation were extracted from the Plaxis analysis. Since these forces only reflected one
single line of struts, and the struts were spaced every 4m, the horizontal tributary area was
factored into the calculations. These forces were fairly comparable to the ones observed in the
original design. Please refer to Table 6 for a summary of the strutting system design and Table 7
for a summary of the original and revised Plaxis output strut reactions and strut member designs.

Strut Section Design Axial

Forces Capacities

1 W14x132 1981.0 3831.5

2 W14x132 1793.2 3831.5
3 W14x159 2897.9 4647.0
4 W14x159 2840.8 4647.0
5 W14x176 3016.5 5154.4
6 W14x176 3148.6 5154.4
7 W14x193 3442.0 5697.5
8 W14x176 3075.0 5154.4
9 W14x233 4137.1 6922.9
10 W14x145 2387.0 4216.6

Table 6: Summary of the Strutting System Design

Once the maximum axial forces were identified for each strut, a design was carried out
using the AISC Manual of Steel Construction (ASD) Ninth Edition. The connections on each end
of the struts were assumed (conservatively) to be pinned connections. Since the unbraced length
on the x-x direction of the struts was greater, it was assumed to control the design. A check for
slenderness ratios on each direction was later performed in order to confirm this assumption. All
members were designed below 65% of their capacity to account for possible load increments in
the removal stage of these members. Please refer to Appendix F for further detail on the strutting

system design calculations.

-47-

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/paper-on-waler-beam 47/88
7/22/2019 Paper on Waler Beam

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/paper-on-waler-beam 48/88
7/22/2019 Paper on Waler Beam

equal to or less than the length contained between the stiffener plates plus 18 times the thickness
of the waler beam web.

The waler section proposed is a W14x233 with four 1-in-thick stiffener plates spaced
12in from each other (6in from each side of the concentrated strut load). Please refer to
Appendix G for further information on these calculations.

Figure 23 shows a plan and an elevation view of the revised design for the Diaphragm
Wall, Strutting System and Waler Connection for the 9 th level of struts. Other strut levels have
the same waler connections but different strut member sizes.

1.2nl J 8000ra
q.
4 r 25,4x356mm
..i : 800r,m THICK
,· ~CON'
C, PACKING
-'..4.-~f I~~~~1N I 1. :233
-R
4: 25A4 Ix356mm
I (TYP)
STIF ;FENER (TYP)

L/ &

.....
· ._-51 Bi

.0m
Ie= .uy~~S '14x233 'EL
.-..
:' :'·~~~~B TH LEVEL
TRUT (TYP)
TYP)

__ _ V 14x233
39'
w' i.·" S'
ALER 102m EVERY 102m,,

:..~ '.~ EAM (TYP) 10lrm EVERY 102M

'.~'-,~39E MM
Z9 REBARS- -#14 REBARS
EVERY 102mm EVEI RY 102mm
.-

PLAN VIEW ELEVATION VIEW

Figure 23: Diaphragm Wall and Waler Connection Detail for the 9 th Level of Struts.

- 49 -

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/paper-on-waler-beam 49/88
7/22/2019 Paper on Waler Beam

6. Summary

Several valuable lessons arise from this thesis. Still, some of these lessons or

recommendations should be used on a specific project basis. Each project must be appropriately
assessed before considering these observations. In summary, these are the fundamental lessons
that can be learned from this study:

1. An effective framework of hazard identification, consequential analysis, risk reduction

strategies, and a responsive safety management should always be implemented in
construction projects in order to identify and address any potential human errors and systems
that may cause or contribute to a major catastrophe.
2. A large-scale deep excavation project has the potential to injure or to cause inconvenience to
the public and must therefore be specially managed with careful instrumentation and
monitoring.
3. There must be a continuous and visible commitment by management and workers,
accompanied with an external consultative approach, to ensuring safety and health, from the
inception of the design to the execution of the project.
4. New or unfamiliar technologies that are employed in the design of major elements of a
construction project must be thoroughly evaluated and understood before they are adopted.

Finally, it is important to remember that most structural components are designed based on
code calculations, and therefore have intrinsic redundancies built into them. These redundancies,
in terms of their load bearing capacity, are over and above the various factors of safety applied in
calculations of the capacity of each member. This robustness is a necessary and essential factor
of safety and stability in the overall context of the design, and it should not be ignored.

- 50-

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/paper-on-waler-beam 50/88
7/22/2019 Paper on Waler Beam

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/paper-on-waler-beam 51/88
7/22/2019 Paper on Waler Beam

Appendix A: Original Design for the Diaphragm Wall

5;

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/paper-on-waler-beam 52/88
7/22/2019 Paper on Waler Beam

Summarized Plaxis Output Table (Original Model)

The following data was obtained from the Plaxis Analysis output in the original model: (Please
note that this data gives the maximum forces/moments in each phase of the of the excavation
and that the 21 phases in this model are comparable to the 24 phases used in the revised
model)

Construction Max Deflections Max Mom + ) Max Mom (-) Max. Shear
Phase [mm] [kNm/m] [kNm/m] [kN/m]
1 51.2 203.6 -107.4 -243.0
2 26,3 272.4 -101.9 -240.0
3 54.3 769.6 -220.5 309.9
4 46.8 680.5 -340.3 350.5
5 75.3 1101.4 -528.6 552.3
6 65.2 857.0 -400.9 487.3
7 90.1 1294.8 -1150.5 825.8
8 82.7 1111.6 -529.1 510.5
9 106.5 1596.2 -852.9 918.5
10 97.1 1335.2 -581.9 544.9
11 114.1 1701.1 -621.3 920.2
12 105.3 1401.1 -579.6 534.2
13 117.6 1783.4 -725.2 937.4
14 107.7 1305.4 -652.6 507.1
15 114.6 1632.0 -760.8 922.9
16 107.6 987.5 -652.2 -465.6
17 107.6 885.8 -513.2 806.0
18 107.4 883.8 -512.0 -591.0
19 106.8 1050.4 -1240.1 1247.0
20 107.0 878.9 -783.2 836.3
21 107.0 1325.6 -1078.2 997.5
Overall Maximum 117.6 1783.4 -1240.1 1247.0

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/paper-on-waler-beam 53/88
7/22/2019 Paper on Waler Beam

Diaphraam Wall Design of Main Rebars

Please note that envelope calculations for the moments were included in this design, thereby leading
in some occasions to greater moments than those shown in the summarized Plaxis output table for
the original model.

Design Data:

40 N/mm z fc 18 N/mm z
fy 460 N/mmZ fy 400 N/mmz
B 6000 mm Yms 1.15 mm
h 800 mm YLF 1.2 mm

Reinforcement gainst + ) Moment

Level d K Mmax Reqr'd As Provided As

z z
[m bgl] [mm] KNm/m mm mm
7.8 710 0.912 1209 5601.371 5864.30
12.8 710 0.889 1369 6506.757 6597.35
30.8 710 0.862 1795 8798.732 9617.47
37.3 710 0.925 1050 4796.346 5864.30
44.3 710 0.903 1326 6204.670 6597.35

Reinforcement Against ( -) Moment

Level d K Mmax Reqr'd As Provided As

[m bgl] [mm] KNm/m mm Z mmZ
5.3 710 0.916 1162 5360.1 5864.30
11.8 710 0.826 2170 11100.5 11728.62
19.3 710 0.944 800 3580.8 3753.15
24.3 710 0.872 1692 8198.7 8796.47
34.3 710 0.91 1240 5757.6 5864.30
44.3 710 0.947 761 3395.5 3753.15

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/paper-on-waler-beam 54/88
7/22/2019 Paper on Waler Beam

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/paper-on-waler-beam 55/88
7/22/2019 Paper on Waler Beam

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/paper-on-waler-beam 56/88
7/22/2019 Paper on Waler Beam

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/paper-on-waler-beam 57/88
7/22/2019 Paper on Waler Beam

Appendix C: Original Design for the Waler Connection

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/paper-on-waler-beam 58/88
7/22/2019 Paper on Waler Beam

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/paper-on-waler-beam 59/88
7/22/2019 Paper on Waler Beam

4.5 Check against web buckling and bearing

* Design load
The factored strut reaction (Nu) in below table are derived from P.4-25.

Factored max. orce Max. Bearing Stiffener

Waler Member Strut in one strut member load TYPE* Plate
Nu (kNNo) Pbr (kN/No) (rm)
H-294H-300, HR-300 1979 1979
H-344 2799 2799 1 2 x 12
H350, HR-350 Single 2204 2204
H1-.35 Mi-lt, M3-1 t) 2891 2891 tZ4 x 12
H-400, HR-400 5592 2796 2 -'12X 12
HR-400 (S- ) 3630 3630 1 *4 X12
H-4O, HR-400 Double 5314 3543 3
H-4i 4 Single 8784 4392 2 2 x 12
H-414 Double 6439 4293 3
* refer to the sketchbelow
Considering the effsct of splays, the bearing load Pbr is derived as follows:
ForsinglestrutMIYPE-1) i t+ d rr a·
Pbr=Nu/2 z:4, 7 *d.
For double struts (fYPE- 2)
Pbr = 2Nu /3

J'Y/4

I I
- Strrt - Strut
Sply
WAler Wler
.- _
  __ [ -
I\%\1
  '1
lu _
.
T -/

. TYPE-I TYPE-2

FVL: 27419.
The calculationresultsare shown n P.742
42 7419/,. .A
>tff4-,
Source:E72Pg74-1

Figure 5.7 Design calculation for waler connections (extract from E72).

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/paper-on-waler-beam 60/88
7/22/2019 Paper on Waler Beam

-J
z wu

I. W
o 8

.c2

w
w
.5
0

C,

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/paper-on-waler-beam 61/88
7/22/2019 Paper on Waler Beam

TEMPORARY WORKS-DRAWNG CHANGE NOTIFICATION

NLC JV CONTRACT: Circle lie Stae 1 C824
Dde: · i 5.. Pr,.usy: I ..
._wing'hgeNolidtorl Number DCN824/NCH

-!ng mbet: W/8241Vc.EUTr/ - 1Revtslon:

Tie hanges willbe Incorporated Into:' i1. Same Drawfa New tefbre :
2. As Blt Dwin - Sam Nrmber
3. New Dw:
Descvlpton of Amendment:

Imp. k.kn la I~aCDtC.o O= , K.

· lhched kete(c-I ob?.)

Aached Sktch(es) Number:.

Reason for Armendmnt:

OtherRemarkomments:

APMo rev
AproStatus App m - Reason S,-
NLC eig Miager

*PA _~~~
A7
, 'I,
NLC Temp WotkPE

CorPP nrr
J

jeoL
Y
_ .~"~q~l   f
fr

Iu~

~~~ ~ L- -J .a
Source: MaunsellER Pg 82
.4
Temporary Works - Drawing Change Notification for change from
stiffener plates to C-channel.

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/paper-on-waler-beam 62/88
7/22/2019 Paper on Waler Beam

Dign ofdWebStiffeerr ageiuatWebBuckilig

Watr amber Stt TYPE

P
1, 0d0* P, 0~* 0d
"
8ingle I6 '7 '8 1
R-400
HI-400, 118 2
Double S4, 1.j:32S
81:afi 492 89 3
H-414 Dge 4 2
Double 4293 798 2I
* sr to C824SD OA,104D 7410. 7414. 416, 74-18
(1) TYPEB--
Provide 21-160X'7xS6X8.x
AtX23.7147.42s
N.08em

Lmr4.4-2X2A45.8ca
.1,ALA1-.9 AdAwLl

P.o pc A'm X47.42X 10su 12 N, F' -Pw = 5'78rN OKm

'V W
4

RA- Ra Q80.7SwL
RI-=LwL
· 2[-lsOX76X6JX O ,x
RA+RoS= 0.3/X2796- 1049kN c Pc 121cN OK!
· Web .i
1a = 125X2796/2 17481kN - 2181kN OKm

Source: MaunsellER Pg 83

Design calculations for C-channel connection in Drawing Change

Figure 5.11(a) Notification.

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/paper-on-waler-beam 63/88
7/22/2019 Paper on Waler Beam

(2) TYPE-2
Provide 2a-200X80X7. x
A=2X31.3S=62.&m.
r.-88cm "

L,=40.0-2X.14LSkm

ph266N/mn (Bs690Tllbb7)
Pe-po A=5 X .66X 10lOkN > F-P =1i325kN O
Casd- .
w w

iAR= 0.1J76wL
RB,; wl
·*,r.-]O
aI O 6Xis L25#bL
.-!+Ro= 07.87X41 = 1647kN <c a = 160 NO OK

.. R =I' iR
25X4892/ 27146N Pw = 35OlON O
0

Source: MaunsellERPg 84

Figure 5.11(b)
Design calculations for C-channel connection in Drawing Change
Notification.
Notification .

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/paper-on-waler-beam 64/88
7/22/2019 Paper on Waler Beam

Appendix D: Plaxis Output/Revised Analysis

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/paper-on-waler-beam 65/88
7/22/2019 Paper on Waler Beam

Summarized Plaxis Output Table (Revised Model)

The following data was obtained from the Plaxis Analysis output in the revised
model: (Please note that this data gives the maximum moments in each phase
of the of the excavation and that the 24 phases in this model are comparable
to the 21 phases used in the original model)

Construction Max Deflections Max Mom (+ ) Max Mom ( - )

Phase [mm] [kNm/m] [kNm/m]
1 2.99 10.3 13
2 2.99 10.4 13
3 7.78 152 167
4 46.3 - 587
5 23.75 637.6 557.5
6 44.59 1900.8 1135
7 39.95 1764.2 1022.9
8 57.53 2799 1411
9 54.17 2600 1357
10 71 3635.8 1896
11 67.18 3350 1808
12 86.1 4471 2222
13 81.62 4150 2080
14 99.46 5026 1452.3
15 95.63 4670 1375.4
16 113.9 5410 1452.3
17 110.3 4950 1313.4
18 123.3 5400 1177.8

19 119.68 4800 1131.7

20 125.9 5440 1233.4
21 123 5160 1102.7
22 130.98 6210 1236.6
23 128.4 5730 1243.5
24 131.6 5920 1244
Overall Maximum 131.6 6210.0 13.0

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/paper-on-waler-beam 66/88
7/22/2019 Paper on Waler Beam

Plaxis Output Table (Revised Model)

The following data was obtained from the Plaxis Analysis output: (Please note that this data gives the force
envelope including all the phases of the of the excavation)

Elevation Max Deflections Max Mom (+) Max Mom - ) Max. Shear (+ ) Max. Shear ( - )
[m] [mm] [kNm/m] [kNm/m] [kN/m] [kN/m]
102.9 14.10 0.00 0.00 0.29 -0.63
102.65 14.85 0.41 -1.26 3.81 -10.02
102.4 15.59 1.95 -5.00 8.70 -19.84
102.15 16.34 4.72 -11.18 13.55 -29.58
101.9 17.08 8.68 -19.78 17.90 -39.28
101.9 17.08 8.68 -19.78 422.17 -292.47
101.65 17.82 84.48 -91.46 412.05 -301.99
101.4 18.57 186.21 -168.35 401.46 -313.13
101.15 19.31 285.22 -248.13 390.39 -325.04
100.9 20.05 381.37 -330.94 378.87 -337.70
100.9 20.05 381.37 -330.94 379.01 -337.53
100.45 21.40 547.13 -488.12 357.74 -361.49
100 22.77 703.16 -656.54 335.34 -387.22
99.55 24.15 848.81 -836.98 311.65 -414.85
99.1 25.56 983.43 -1030.21 286.52 -444.48
99.1 25.56 983.43 -1030.21 582.27 -72.54
98.875 26.28 1046.44 -1035.54 575.85 -88.28
98.65 27.01 1106.52 -1057.20 569.56 -104.11
98.425 27.75 1163.65 -1082.40 563.40 -119.86
98.2 28.49 1217.83 -1111.11 557.38 -135.37
98.2 28.49 1217.83 -1111.11 556.77 -137.50
97.75 30.00 1318.86 -1182.81 541.09 -181.40
97.3 31.54 1410.53 -1274.57 524.93 -226.62
96.85 33.12 1492.79 -1387.05 508.36 -273.46
96.4 34.73 1565.63 -1520.97 491.40 -322.24
96.4 34.73 1565.63 -1520.97 491.64 -321.82
96.2 35.46 1595.48 -1587.56 484.99 -344.31
96 36.20 1623.91 -1658.74 478.14 -367.36
95.8 36.95 1650.93 -1734.58 471.11 -391.01
95.6 37.70 1676.51 -1815.18 463.91 -415.27
95.6 37.70 1676.51 -1815.18 1158.37 -0.34
95.35 38.67 1706.49 -1691.86 1128.41 -0.33
95.1 39.65 1734.25 -1576.40 1097.67 -0.33
94.85 40.64 1759.79 -1469.05 1066.21 -0.32
94.6 41.65 1783.10 -1374.17 1034.03 -0.32
94.6 41.65 1783.10 -1374.17 1034.14 -0.32
93.975 44.21 1885.96 -1312.46 950.63 -0.31
93.35 46.85 2105.09 -1308.92 862.75 -95.96
92.725 49.55 2294.34 -1366.92 770.50 -199.10
92.1 52.32 2453.45 -1489.85 673.92 -307.91
92.1 52.32 2453.45 -1489.85 1389.77 -4.01
91.85 53.46 2508.58 -1356.32 1347.49 -5.19
91.6 54.61 2558.92 -1271.64 1304.53 -13.59
91.35 55.77 2604.42 -1198.54 1260.93 -21.98
91.1 56.94 2645.04 -1137.29 1216.72 -30.37
91.1 56.94 2645.04 -1137.29 1216.61 -30.37
90.475 59.89 2827.27 -1037.22 1103.15 -51.38
89.85 62.89 3077.37 -1015.69 985.21 -72.52

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/paper-on-waler-beam 67/88
7/22/2019 Paper on Waler Beam

89.225 65.92 3280.84 -1076.20 862.75 -202.15

88.6 68.99 3437.17 -1222.27 735.71 -344.28
88.6 68.99 3437.17 -1222.27 1502.50 -115.03
88.35 70.25 3486.91 -1020.86 1447.33 -123.43
88.1 71.51 3529.26 -833.84 1391.41 -131.70
87.85 72.78 3564.31 -733.42 1334.86 -139.78
87.6 74.05 3592.16 -652.02 1277.76 -147.63
87.6 74.05 3592.16 -652.02 1277.69 -147.05
87.1 76.59 3748.30 -535.45 1161.74 -162.13
86.6 79.14 3948.30 -481.95 1043.43 -175.46
86.1 81.69 4108.81 -492.99 923.32 -186.43
85.6 84.23 4231.47 -570.03 801.94 -220.76
85.6 84.23 4231.47 -570.03 1649.17 -206.17
85.35 85.52 4281.13 -359.40 1586.58 -204.96
85.1 86.80 4324.58 -165.05 1523.92 -203.34
84.85 88.08 4362.10 -136.83 1460.90 -201.58
84.6 89.36 4393.93 -142.79 1397.26 -200.00
84.6 89.36 4393.93 -142.79 1396.77 -200.36
84.3 90.88 4424.90 -149.22 1320.65 -198.17
84 92.39 4448.42 -155.07 1242.97 -197.70
83.7 93.88 4464.00 -160.74 1162.69 -199.75
83.4 95.37 4583.58 -166.62 1078.75 -205.11
83.4 95.37 4583.58 -166.62 1077.39 -207.09
83.2 96.34 4659.18 -171.12 1022.71 -215.10
83 97.32 4727.67 -175.98 966.78 -226.85
82.8 98.28 4789.00 -181.17 909.92 -242.86
82.6 99.24 4843.14 -186.65 852.42 -258.84
82.6 99.24 4843.14 -186.65 1699.14 -258.66
82.35 100.44 4901.06 -193.90 1622.14 -278.22
82.1 101.63 4947.83 -201.58 1544.62 -297.37
81.85 102.80 4983.69 -209.67 1466.63 -316.07
81.6 103.96 5008.88 -218.16 1388.27 -334.29
81.6 103.96 5008.88 -218.16 1388.19 -334.39
81.025 106.56 5026.95 -239.24 1206.70 -375.14
80.45 109.06 5190.91 -262.50 1022.91 -414.26
79.875 111.45 5331.60 -288.01 836.87 -451.88
79.3 113.73 5401.64 -315.85 648.64 -489.68
79.3 113.73 5401.64 -315.85 1384.64 -489.55
79.05 114.72 5410.84 -328.69 1298.44 -517.07
78.8 115.68 5407.07 -342.00 1211.85 -544.54
78.55 116.62 5390.54 -355.78 1124.92 -572.44
78.3 117.54 5361.44 -370.02 1037.68 -600.17
78.3 117.54 5361.44 -370.02 1037.60 -600.44
77.8 119.31 5329.85 -399.91 862.02 -654.59
77.3 120.98 5394.25 -462.22 684.90 -708.68
76.8 122.56 5396.99 -601.84 506.36 -761.85
76.3 124.05 5338.80 -745.72 326.49 -813.23
76.3
76.05 124.05
124.79 5338.80
5287.85 -745.72
-819.16 1765.90
1671.15 -811.62
-837.69
75.8 125.51 5221.53 -893.26 1576.18 -861.85
75.55 126.20 5140.42 -967.04 1481.05 -884.92
75.3 126.85 5045.09 -1039.42 1385.81 -907.75
75.3 126.85 5045.09 -1039.42 1385.72 -905.70
74.925 127.78 4917.74 -1172.56 1242.53 -713.45
74.55 128.62 4949.01 -1243.32 1098.69 -521.84
74.175 129.37 5049.21 -1257.19 954.22 -349.38
73.8 130.02 5359.47 -1235.32 809.16 -221.55

i)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/paper-on-waler-beam 68/88
7/22/2019 Paper on Waler Beam

73.8 130.02 5359.47 -1235.32 1419.99 -263.59

73.425 130.60 5635.46 -1211.67 1268.60 -314.39
73.05 131.06 5856.59 -1195.35 1116.42 -365.27
72.675 131.40 6022.41 -1186.26 963.48 -415.34
72.3 131.61 6132.43 -1184.34 809.83 -464.82
72.3 131.61 6132.43 -1184.34 809.66 -466.55
71.575 131.58 6212.23 -1279.09 510.00 -558.01
70.85 130.96 6133.53 -1423.47 206.41 -657.77
70.125 129.72 5915.24 -1605.07 17.59 -774.51
69.4 127.85 5728.53 -1925.53 9.77 -891.74
69.4 127.85 5728.53 -1925.53 13.80 -865.91
69.125 126.98 5623.42 -2060.26 35.78 -756.79
68.85 126.03 5538.29 -2155.60 71.20 -642.66
68.575 125.00 5470.80 -2209.95 123.05 -523.24
68.3 123.89 5418.71 -2222.04 179.46 -402.76
68.3 123.89 5418.71 -2222.04 179.47 -414.47
67.925 122.24 5374.09 -2175.21 283.04 -244.62
67.55 120.45 5367.35 -2062.98 375.40 -96.16
67.175 118.51 5392.78 -1905.28 463.86 -0.14
66.8 116.43 5441.61 -1722.67 499.34 -0.14
66.8 116.43 5441.61 -1722.67 487.19 -0.13
65.9 110.80 5405.68 -1326.73 392.57 -228.29
65 104.29 5116.69 -1015.88 299.07 -475.79
64.1 96.96 4578.69 -787.10 209.48 -734.96
63.2 88.88 3796.97 -636.64 126.57 -1000.14
63.2 88.88 3796.97 -636.64 135.30 -976.65
62.8 85.08 3395.97 -634.37 120.35 -1027.23
62.4 81.18 2976.24 -639.60 106.96 -1070.14
62 77.18 2540.43 -646.29 96.82 -1107.22
61.6 73.10 2090.96 -652.18 91.60 -1140.31
61.6 73.10 2090.96 -652.18 103.76 -1093.60
60.85 65.29 1341.93 -669.50 191.32 -868.14
60.1 57.34 805.55 -506.39 319.95 -605.57
59.35 49.31 399.09 -236.50 384.80 -480.14
58.6 41.23 0.00 0.00 185.31 -666.11
Overall Maximum 131.61 6212.23 -2222.04 1765.90 -1140.31

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/paper-on-waler-beam 69/88
7/22/2019 Paper on Waler Beam

I
C)
4-
C)
C) 0

+
A_
(IA E0
cr

E C
4f-

0
o,
x Cc)
d)
+

0.
0

w
-
C\1

-
e

E l

c.
o 6.-

o
o
"{3
c~ C Q

C)
C) 5
u
C)r
To
To
CD,

[tu] UOlIAaI3 I

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/paper-on-waler-beam 70/88
7/22/2019 Paper on Waler Beam

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/paper-on-waler-beam 71/88
7/22/2019 Paper on Waler Beam

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/paper-on-waler-beam 72/88
7/22/2019 Paper on Waler Beam

Diaphraam Wall Design

Conversion Values

1 KN = I: 0.2248091kips

1MPa = I. 1 4''. 03.08'ksi

Im = : i:- 3.280841ft

Plaxis Analysis Output Values (Force Envelopes)

MaximumMoment +) ,~-; 8= MN-m/m 1396 k-ft/ft

Maximum Moment (-) =. 2;22 MN-m/m 499 k-ft/ft

Negative Rebar Depth (Top) = ':17.31m 56.8 ft

Negative Rebar Depth (Bottom) 65.3 ft

MaximumAxial Force (P) = I · 727 KN/m 50 kft

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/paper-on-waler-beam 73/88
7/22/2019 Paper on Waler Beam

Transverse Steel Reinforcement

Rebar design as per AASHTO Standards

Notes and Assumptions:

English System was adopted or these calcualtions. Convertedvalues to MetricSystem are shown n thesis
All calculations are done per foot of lengthof wall
Please refer to Plaxis outputfor further informationon the analysis

L d2 = 1066.7mm J
I- -I
14 Steel Baikrs -·
18.6 m · · · · 04.8 mm1ift)
rr
# 9 Steel Bars
OOO ,
4.4 m
L
I. I
  14 Steel Bars
d = 909.32 mm
9 Steel Bars
21.3 m r t = 1200mm
L
K
Wall Elevation Wall Plan
NTS NTS

Reinforcement at near-end of diaphram wall (ositive moment):

INPUT VALUES

Use grade 60 steel reinforcingbars

Es -= !:,.=i,,-l ksi
Ec
fy -= I - -; 01 ksi
fc -= ;-::, .4ksi

,
cover length
Width (b) ,.: ksi
m
Wall Thickness = ' .I-- ~' 47.2 in

Choose Bar Size :

Bar diameter = OI
"";}~?41in
Barspacing OK>1.5db
Number of rows = I.. :"-41

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/paper-on-waler-beam 74/88
7/22/2019 Paper on Waler Beam

OUTPUTVALUES

Wall Section Properties:

EA = 4.14E+07 KN/m
El = 4.96E+06 KN mA2/m

Loads/Moments obtained from Plaxis analysis:

Positive Bending Moment (M,,,) = 1396 k-ft / ft of wall (Absolutevalue)

Max. Axial Force (P) = 50 k / ft of wall (Compression)

Check Cracking Moment (Mcr,k): AASHTO 8.13.3

Depth(do) 35.8 in
xbar (from left) 23.6 in
Ig= b*(tbott)/12 105449 n4
Yt 23.6 in (Distance rom N.A to edge in tension)
fr 0.5 ksi AASHTO 8.15.2.1.1
Morad = fr*lg/ Yt 176 k-ft
1.2*Mcrk 212 k-ft AASHTO 8.17.1.2

Required Area of Reinforcing Steel:

I's 24 ksi
fc 1.6 ksi
n = Es/Ec 6
r = fs/fc 15
k = n/(n+r) 0.28
j= 1-k/3 0.91

dI-xbar 12.2 in

M, = M.,, + P*(dl-xbar) 1447 k-ft / ft of wall Ma>1.2*Mcrack

Design Moment (Md) 1447 k-ft / ft of wall

Reqr'dAs = [Md/(fs*j*d1) - P/(fs)] 2

20.20 in / ft of wall

ActualA, (pr f) F 26.92 in2 / ft of wall OK > reqr'd

Note:

Due to a varying moment, 14 bars spaced every 4-in might not be needed or the entire depth of the wall.
However, becausesignificant depth of the wall would need his amount of reinforcement, t was assumed hat
these rebars would run the entire depth of the wall. Please refer o Plaxis output for more nformationon the
moment diagram of the diaphragm wall.

'i C

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/paper-on-waler-beam 75/88
7/22/2019 Paper on Waler Beam

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/paper-on-waler-beam 76/88
7/22/2019 Paper on Waler Beam

Development Lenath

# 9 Bars: AASHTO 8.25

Ld(baac).04Ab*fy/(fyc)2 37.7 in

Factor = S , :1.41 AASHTO 8.25.2

Ld (development ength) I 531in AASHTO 8.25.4

Lap Splices: AASHTO 8.32.3

2
Ld(bic)= .04*Abfy(rfC) 37.7 in

Factor = l" ' ' 1.31 AASHTO 8.32.3.1

Ld(development ength) = 50 in

Standard Hooks: AASHTO 8.29

/2
Lhb 1200db/(fc)l 21.3 in

90-dea Hooks:

Factor . -: "- - .7 AASHTO 8.29.3.4

Ldh development ength) 15 n OK

Length of hook (12*db) 13.5 in

Conclusion

From the previous analysis ransverse reinforcingsteel bars should be placed in the following manner:

a) For the entire depth ofthe wall use 14 barsspaced every 4-in on the near-endof the wall to resist positive bending moments.

b) For the first 62 ft of wall depth, use 9 bars spaced every 4-in on the far-end of the wall to resist negative bending moments.

c) For the last 70 ft of wall depth, use again 9 bars spaced every 4-in on the far-end of the wall to resist negative bendingmoments.

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/paper-on-waler-beam 77/88
7/22/2019 Paper on Waler Beam

Appendix F: Proposed Design for the Strutting System

-,

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/paper-on-waler-beam 78/88
7/22/2019 Paper on Waler Beam

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/paper-on-waler-beam 79/88
7/22/2019 Paper on Waler Beam

BucklingCheck: As per AISC Allowable Stress Design Standards

1 2 3 (1*2+3)
Strut Trib.Width Temp.Effect Design Pa = Design
Layer MaxStrut Reaction KN/m) (m) (KN/nos) Forces Forces kips)
1 461 4.0 137 1981 445
2 848 2.0 97.2 1793.2 403
3
4 1419
1391 2.0
2.0 59.9
58.8 2897.9
2840.8 651
639
5 1481 2.0 54.5 3016.5 678
6 1549 2.0 50.6 3148.6 708
7 1670 2.0 102 3442 774
8 1486 2.0 103 3075 691
9 2020 2.0 97.1 4137.1 930
10 1142 2.0 103 2387 537

N- CL Strut (kingpost bracing)

Lx= 33 ft
 A 1
nLZ-ffi__

Fy EI Z 501ksi
K ASD 5-135
Lx
Ly | 8ft
ft ASD Table C-50
[usingMAX(KLx/rx,Kly/ry)]

Strut Section rx (in) ry (in) KLx/rx KLy/ry Area in^2) Pa kips) fa (ksi) Fa ksi) fa/Fa
1 W14x132 6.28 3.76 63 58 38.8 445 11.5 22.2 0.52
2 W14x132 6.28 3.76 63 58 38.8 403 10.4 22.2 0.47
3 W14x159 6.40 4.00 62 54 46.7 651 14.0 22.4 0.62
4 W14x159 6.40 4.00 62 54 46.7 639 13.7 22.4 0.61
5 W14x176 6.43 4.02 62 54 51.8 678 13.1 22.4 0.59
6 W14x176 6.43 4.02 62 54 51.8 708 13.7 22.4 0.61
7 W14x193 6.48 4.05 61 53 56.8 774 13.6 22.6 0.60
8 W14x176 6.43 4.02 62 54 51.8 691 13.3 22A4 0.60
9 W14x233 6.64 4.10 60 53 68.5 930 13.6 22.7 0.60
10 W14x145 6.33 3.98 63 54 42.7 537 12.6 22.2 0.57

Summary able nMetricSystem

Strut Section Design Axial

Forces (KN) Capacities KN
1 W14x132 1981.0 3831.5
2 W14x132 1793.2 3831.5
3 W14x159 2897.9 4647.0
4 W14x159 2840.8 4647.0
5 W14x176 3016.5 5154.4
6 W14x176 3148.6 5154.4
7 W14x193 3442.0 5697.5
8 W14x176 3075.0 5154.4
9 W14x233 4137.1 6922.9
10 W14x145 2387.0 4216.6

:ci 1

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/paper-on-waler-beam 80/88
7/22/2019 Paper on Waler Beam

Appendix G: Proposed Design for the Waler Connection

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/paper-on-waler-beam 81/88
7/22/2019 Paper on Waler Beam

Waler Connection Design

Notes and Assumptions:

EnglishSystem was adopted for these calcualtions.Converted values to Metric System are shown in thesis
Calculationsdone as per AASHTO Standards
Steel waler beams are the same size as the
largestconnectingstrut

High strut reaction orce (P) will cause waler beam web to sway (see figure below):

| Strut Force (P)

Waler Beam Cross-Section

NTS

To prevent this failure stiffner plates need to be incorporated:

/ Diaphragam Wall

. 4. . Strut Force (P)

~"-W aler Beam

Valer Stiffners

At t AW

Wall Elevation
NTS

Strut Force (P)

Waler Beam l / Waler Stiffners(bottom)

r~

I 11K 1 I

I
Section A-A
NTS

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/paper-on-waler-beam 82/88
7/22/2019 Paper on Waler Beam

Waler StiffnersDesign AASHTO 10.34.6 (BearingStiffners)

Max. Strut Force (P) 930 kips ( 4137.1KN )

Waler beamproperties:

Yield Strength(Fy) = 50 ksi

Length of Waler Beam = 19.7 ft (6m)
Waler Beam Size = W14x233
Beam Depth(D) = I 1604 in
Flangewidth (bf) = .: 15.89 in
Flange hickness (tf) = L/ 1.72 n
Web thickness (tw) = I 1.071in
Stiffnerspacing (do) = I 12in OK < 1.5*D
Strip of web (b) = 31 in

- x

B B I
b = 31 n

Waler Beam Elevation Section B-B

NTS NTS

Check for bucklingof stiffnerplate:

Thickness of stiffner = I in OK > 0.76 in

Width of stiffner (w) = 7.41 in
Length of sitiffner (L) = 12.6 in
Moment of Inertia(Ix) = 138.8 in^4
Bearing Area (Ab) = 63.1 in^2
Radius of gyration (rx) = 1.48 in
Allowable Stress(Fa) = 23.5 ksi AASHTO Table 10.32.1A
Actual Stress (fa) = P/Ab = 14.7 ksi OK < Fa

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/paper-on-waler-beam 83/88
7/22/2019 Paper on Waler Beam

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/paper-on-waler-beam 84/88
7/22/2019 Paper on Waler Beam

CostAnalysis

The ollowing re hecost ncrements ssociated ith he proposed esign:

NotesandAssumptions:

1. Forpracticality, nly he ncrementsf the costsassociated ith he diaphragm allare ncluded, ince hechangesmade o he design f the
strutting ystem houldnot havea strong mpacton he costof he original esign.

2. Unitcosts ncludeall fringebenefits,axesand nsurance n abor 35%),general onditions ndequipment10%),andsales ax (5%).

3. Unitcostsare he standar sed n the US. Itwasassumedhat hese osts should ot varysignificantlyn Singapore

ExcavationCost

Fill

Depth = 4.7 m
Length = 33 m
Thickness = 0.4 m (increasedhickness f thediaphragmwall)
3
TotalVolume = 62.04m = 81 CuYd

PriceperCuYd $35.9

TotalCost = S2.915

EstuarineClay Soft Clay)

Depth = 1.8 m
Length = 33 m
Thickness = 0.4 m

TotalVolume = 23.76m3 31 CuYd

PriceperCuYd $45.8

TotalCost £1.424

MarineClay (UpDer ndLower SoftClay)

Depth = 31 m
Length = 33 m
Thickness = 0.4 m

TotalVolume = 409.2m3 535CuYd

PriceperCuYd $45.8

TotalCost S24.532

S;

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/paper-on-waler-beam 85/88
7/22/2019 Paper on Waler Beam

FluvialClay (FirmClay)

Depth = 3.8 m
Length = 33 m
Thickness = 0.4 m

TotalVolume = 50.16m3 66 CuYd

PriceperCuYd $64.3

TotalCost $4.217

OldAlluvium-SW2 Hard Sands& Clays)

Depth 3m
Length 33 m
Thickness 0.4 m
3
TotalVolume 39.6 m 52 CuYd

PriceperCuYd $74.4

TotalCost $3.855

Total Excavation ost = $36,943

Mobilization actor 5%

Total Cost for Excavation& Mobilization = E $38,79

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/paper-on-waler-beam 86/88
7/22/2019 Paper on Waler Beam

MaterialCosts

Concrete:

Wall Depth = 44.3m

Wall Length = 33 m
0.4 m (increasedhicknessof he diaphragm all)
AThickness =
3
Total Volume = 584.76m = 765 CuYd

Priceper CuYd = $110.4

Total Cost or Concrete 1 84,465

ReinforcingSteelBars:

PositiveMomentnear-end)

OriginalDesign Please efer oAppendixA) RevisedDesign

2
Area of Steel = 0.33614209m
2
Area of Steel 0.056977m /m 26.92 n2/ft
RebarDepth (alreadyncludedn areaof steel) RebarDepth = 44.3 m
WallLength = 33 m Wall Length = 33 m
3
TotalVolume = 11.09m3 TotalVolume = 83.29m

= 15 CuYd = 109 CuYd

NegativeMoment far-end}

OriginalDesign Please efer o AppendixA) Revised esign

2 2 2
Areaof Steel = 0.275622257m Area of Steel 0.012624m /m 5.96 n /ft
RebarDepth (alreadyncludedn areaof steel) RebarDepth = 39.9 m
WallLength = 33 m WallLength = 33 m
3 3
TotalVolume = 9.10 m TotalVolume = 16.63m

= 12 CuYd 22 CuYd

TotalRebarVolume n OriginalDesign 26 CuYd

Total RebarVolume n RevisedDesign 131 CuYd

VolumeDifferenceRevised Original) 104 CuYd

SpecificWeightof Steel 6.615Tons/CuYd

Total ncreased teelRebarWeight -

690 Tons

PriceperTon $2,027

Total Cost or SteelReinforcement 1 $1,398,4651

.. )

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/paper-on-waler-beam 87/88
7/22/2019 Paper on Waler Beam

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/paper-on-waler-beam 88/88