Building Response To Excavation

1/22/2009
1
Examples of building response to Examples of building response to
excavation and tunneling excavation and tunnelinggg
E Cording M Son D Laefer J Long B Ghahreman
Barcelona
December 16, 2008
Edward J . Cording Edward J . Cording
University of Illinois at Urbana University of Illinois at Urbana--Champaign Champaign
E Cording, M. Son, D. Laefer, J . Long, B. Ghahreman
.
In the cases illustrated, the structures themselves served as indicators of the type and
causes of distortions and damage that were imposed on them. The ability to observe
and read the building response is aided by an understanding of the chain of
relationships that extends from the excavation or tunnel and adjacent ground loss or
ground movement, to the distribution of ground movement and volume change through
the soil mass, to the interaction of the ground with the building, and then to the building
distortion and damage.
To properly assess the building behavior both distortion and damage -- it is necessary
to understand not only the ground movement patterns but also the buildings structural
characteristics and finishes: how the building was built, maintained, and repaired.
Often the effects of excavation and tunneling are superposed on pre-existing distortions
and deterioration. In many cases, pre-existing conditions are separate from and
unrelated to the excavation- or tunnel-induced damage.
It is most common and nat ral for residents and o ners of b ildings to obser e and It is most common and natural for residents and owners of buildings to observe and
attribute pre-existing conditions in their building to the effects of the adjacent excavation
and tunneling.
Pre-construction photographs and video are important in resolving such issues as well
as early set up of monitoring to obtain a history of building movements due to
temperature and seasonal changes. In addition, a logical evaluation and description of
the limits and magnitude of ground movements and building distortions due to
excavation or tunneling and early recognition and acceptance of responsibility for
1/22/2009
2
1. Structures often serve as indicators of the causes of imposed distortions
and damage
2. Understand the chain of relationships and behavior extending from tunnel or
excavation to building
Ground movement sources and ground loss
G d t tt d l h Ground movement patterns and volume change
Building structural characteristics and finishes - - - how it was built,
maintained and repaired.
3. Effects of excavation and tunneling may be superposed on pre-existing
building distortions and deterioration
4. Effects of excavation and tunneling may be separate from and unrelated to g y p
pre-existing building distortions and damage
It is most common and natural for residents and owners of buildings to
observe and attribute pre-existing conditions in their building to the
effects of the adjacent excavation or tunneling.
Benefits of:
1 P t ti t d i ti h t h d id 1. Pre-construction assessments and inspection, photographs and video
-- Assess condition of buildings, sensitivity to damage, whether due to
tunneling and excavation or other effects.
-- Assess structural characteristics and building finishes
lateral and distortional stiffnesses, weak zones.
2. A logical evaluation and description of the limits and magnitude of
ground movements and building distortions due to excavation or
tunneling: zone of influence, size of building with respect to settlement tunneling: zone of influence, size of building with respect to settlement
trough, change in ground slope.
3. Early building monitoring to determine temperature & seasonal effects.
4. Community relations efforts by contractor, engineer and owner
throughout design and construction.
5. Early recognition and acceptance of responsibility for excavation or
tunneling induced-damage
1/22/2009
3
Increasing ground loss can result in disproportionate
increases in ground movement and building damage increases in ground movement and building damage
Small ground losses may be absorbed by volume increases in
soil.
Building damage increases disproportionately with strains
Objective: control ground losses at the tunnel
Increasingly, with pressurized face tunneling, ground movements gy p g g
are being controlled at the source, around the tunnel shield to
levels that result in negligible damage at the ground surface
Objective: reduce risk of large ground losses or collapse
excavation and tunneling excavation and tunneling
Review of ground movements and building Review of ground movements and building
response response response response
Characteristics of bearing wall structures Characteristics of bearing wall structures
Bearing walls parallel to tunnel or excavations Bearing walls parallel to tunnel or excavations
Separation of upper wall Separation of upper wall
Side sway of frames Side sway of frames yy
1/22/2009
4
2. REVIEW 2. REVIEW
Sources of ground movement Sources of ground movement
Risk Risk of large, uncontrolled of large, uncontrolled ground loss in face ground loss in face
Shield, EPB: Shield, EPB:
Control Control of conditioner and pressure in face of conditioner and pressure in face
Interventions for access to Interventions for access to face face Interventions for access to Interventions for access to face face
NATM: NATM:
Instability at face Instability at face
Lining failure during or after excavation sequences Lining failure during or after excavation sequences
Regular ground loss Regular ground loss
Shield: Annular Shield: Annular spaces spaces
Overcut at front of shield Overcut at front of shield
Grout annulus between tail of shield and lining Grout annulus between tail of shield and lining
NATM: Lining deflection and ground displacement during excavation NATM: Lining deflection and ground displacement during excavation
Volume decrease Volume decrease in in soil soil
Dewatering Dewatering
Stress increases around tunnel Stress increases around tunnel
1/22/2009
5
Distortion/damage Distortion/damage
Width of settlement trough
Change in ground
Angular distortion and
Lateral strain
LINK LINK
b
Volume loss
Volume
change
Volume of
Settlement
trough
Slope of
settlement trough
Settlement & Lateral displacement
Change in ground
slope beneath
structure
Estimate Estimate of regular of regular
tunnel ground tunnel ground loss loss
Volume loss
Source of
ground loss
Soft Clay: Short term: V
S
~ V
L
After consolidation: V
S
> V
L
Sand: Medium dense Sand: V
S
< V
L
Estimating Volume loss
(2) Surface Volume,
V
S
= V
L
- AV
V
s
Sand: Medium dense Sand: V
S
< V
L
Large depth/diameter,
very dense: V
S
<<
V
L
(1) Volume Loss, V
L
V
L
AV
Z
r
Volume Change, AV
EVALUATE ANNULAR
SPACES AROUND SHIELD
AND TAIL
1/22/2009
6
(3) Estimating Surface Settlement
w= r + Z tan b
o
max
= Vs/w
Average Slope = o
max
Trough Shape: Gaussian Distribution
o
max
w = 2.5 i
i
V
s
Average Slope = o
max
/w
Trough Shape: Gaussian Distribution
o/o
max
= exp ( (x/i)
2
)
Schmidt, Peck, 1969
b
o
Z
Typical values of Angle b:
Sand: 26
o
Clay: 40
o
(+ ~ 5
o
)
Cording & Hansmire, 1975
(4) Estimating Lateral Movement
(a) Lateral displacement (b) Lateral strain
w = 2.5 i
o
L
i
AV
V
S
V
b
o
m
Maximum lateral displacement, o
L
@ Inflection point, i :
o
L
= 1/3o
m
(tan b/ 0.5)
/ ) b
L
FIGURE 3.7 12
V
L
b
r
c
L
= 1.1 ( o
m
/ w) tan b
~ 1/ 2 to 1 x average
settlement slope
1/22/2009
7
Sl
o
L
L
ANGULAR DISTORTION, | LATERAL STRAIN, c
L
(Shear Strain)
Slope
c
L
= o
L
/ L
90
1. Building moves with ground &
extends beyond settlement zone:
w
b
o
m
w
Angular Distortion ~
A Sl
FIGURE 3.6 14
b
r
Average Slope:
| ~ o
m
/ w
1/22/2009
8
2. Building moves with ground & is narrow enough to tilt,
distortion concentrated in unit 1.
w
L
b
b
o
m
w
Angular Distortion =Slope Tilt
Angular Distortion =Change in
d l b t t it
FIGURE 3.6 15
b
r
Angular Distortion conservatively
estimated as:
| < (o
m
/ w) (L
b
/w)
ground slope between two units
3. Building moves with ground & is narrow enough to tilt,
frame is subject to side sway, which increases tilt
w
L
b
b
o
m
w
Angular
Distortion =Slope Tilt
1 /2 i
FIGURE 3.6 16
b
r
~1 /2 previous case
Distortion in both sections of
building
1/22/2009
9
4. Building stiff laterally
Grade beams and structural frames reduce
lateral strain to less than ground strain
Ground strain is concentrated at edges of g
building, construction joints between units,
or weaker zones in building.
Angular distortion, | <AGS
5. Building stiff in shear
Relative shear stiffness of building with
respect to foundation
Shear stiffness includes effect of windows
and cracking
-
3
)
3
4
SEVERE TO VERY SEVERE
DAMAGE
*Theresults of twofieldcases andonenumerical test
areoutof range
( ) - Damagelevel basedon
maximumcrackwidth
(Burlandetal., 1977)
[ ] - Damagelevel basedon
fieldobservation
Constant Principal
Extension Strain
Damage Criterion
based on state of strain at a point
L
a
t
e
r
a
l

S
t
r
a
i
n
,

c
L

(
x
1
0
-
1
2
Col 36 vs Col 37
Col 39 vs Col 40
Col 48 vs Col 49
VSL
SLIGHT
DAMAGE
MODERATE
TO
SEVERE DAMAGE
DAMAGE
(BoscardingandCording, 1989)
(N) - Negligible
(VSL) - Veryslight
(SL) - Slight
(M) - Moderate
(SE) - Severe
(VSE) - Verysevere
[N] - Negligible
[VS] - Veryslight
[SL] - Slight
[M] - Moderate
[SE] - Severe
[VSE] - Verysevere
Numerical tests
Fieldcases
MODERATE DAMAGE
Concrete floors:
Reduced lateral strain
Reduced angular distortion due
Angular Distortion, | (x10
-3
)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
0
NEGL.
VSL
Figure25 Damagelevel estimationandobserved damagelevel
FIGURE 4-1
Angular Distortion, | ( x 10
- 3
)
1/1000 1/500 1/200 1/100
Modified after Boscardin & Cording, 1989
to side sway?
1/22/2009
10
Strain
Determined from state of strain at a point
Average state of strain in structural unit of
building
Lower level
Upper level
Average state of strain in zone determined Average state of strain in zone determined
by settlement trough
Grade beam/slab stiffness Grade beam/slab stiffness lateral strain lateral strain
1.0
c
h
/ c
hg
0.5
0
0 2 4 6 8
E A / E H S
0.2
0.8
Boscardin and Cording, 1989
E
g
A / E
s
H
exc
S
1/22/2009
11
4. Effect of soil/building shear stiffness and cracking on angular distortion in
masonry walls.
M. Son, 2004
Bearing walls parallel to tunnel or excavation Bearing walls parallel to tunnel or excavation
Side sway of frames Side sway of frames
1/22/2009
12
Early 1800 faade: alternating headers and stretchers
East coast cities U S
LATE 1800s, U.S.
1/22/2009
13
Savannah: Late 1800s
Interior of bearing wall
1/22/2009
14
Joist set in seats on
bearing wall, not tied
Wood lintel sags:
cracks in brick
Lateral displacement of joists:
12 to 20 mm
1800s Timber joists in seats on masonry bearing walls
1/22/2009
15
1870: Philadelphia
Masonry bearing walls,
Floors: cast iron I beams
with jacked brick arches
R f t t i Roof support: cast iron
truss set on bearing wall
1/22/2009
16
San Francisco: along proposed tunnel
Early 1900s, industrial, Retrofitted for earthquakes
Openings
enlarged,
posted
Retrofitted: diagonal brace behind window
1/22/2009
17
RETROFITTED:
BEAMS TIEDTO BEAMS TIED TO
BEARING WALLS
Reduced
lateral strain
Early 1900s: concrete floors reduce lateral strains
1/22/2009
18
Interior of bearing
wall building:
Interior of masonry bearing wall building
I beams tied to brick bearing wall
1/22/2009
19
Brick bearing walls parallel to tunnel or Brick bearing walls parallel to tunnel or
excavation excavation
1/22/2009
20
BEARINGWALLSPARALLELTOTUNNELOREXCAVATION
CASE1:Twobuildings:G1tunnels:WashingtonMetro.,6mdia
Brickbearingwallwithtimberjoists
Terracesandandgravelandstiffclay.
CASE2:Apartment,Evanston
Brick bearing wall with concrete floors Brickbearingwallwithconcretefloors
4.6mdia.tunnel,SoftChicagoclay
CASE3:Gymnasium
Brickbearingwallwithconcretefloors
Trenchinstiffclaynexttoandbelowbaseofbuildingfoundation
concentratedsettlement
Case4:Apartmenthouse:
Concentrateddisplacementonbearingwall.
Lossofbearingoftimberjoistsonseatsinbearingwall
Case5:
Lateraldisplacements20to30mawayfrom12mhighexcavationwall.
Crackinginstreet,basementandlowerfloor:
Smalllateraldisplacementoftimberjoistsonseatsinbearingwall.
Case 1: Two buildings, G 1 Tunnels
1/22/2009
21
Brick bearing wall, timber joists
Tunnel ~parallel to bearing wall
Common wall & faade wall
38 mm
Washington Metro: G Tunnel:
Digger shield in dense sand and stiff clay
1/22/2009
22
Tilt and Angular Distortion
Bending: separation
adjacent to wall
( x10
-3
)
| = Slope Tilt
= 4 -1.9 = 2.1
Tilt = 1.9
Measured
| = 2
AGS = 4 - 0.8 = 3.2 A/L = 0.8
1/22/2009
23
Numericaldistinctelementanalysis
BuildingII
Joistsdidnotdisplaceatwallwithsmall(10psf)
livefloorload+weightoffloor.
Reductionoffloorloadtoweightofflooronly
producedopeningoffloorjoistsatwall,aswas
observedinthefield
Washington DC Metro, G Tunnel
( x 10
-3
) Building 1 Building 2
Ground Slope: 4 0.8
A G. S. 4 - 0.8 = 3.2 * NA
Tilt 1 9 0 3 Tilt: 1.9 0.3
Slope Tilt: 4 - 1.9 = 2.1 0.8-0.3 = 0.5
| from extensometers: 1.8 to 2.0 ** 0
*Separation between walls of building 1 & 2 reduces | below AGS
** Sticking door, minor shear cracks
Lateral strain base: < 0.1 *** 0.3
Lateral strain top: < 0.1 0.8 ***
**** 5 mm gap due to
separation of joists at
left bearing wall
*** Building 1 is in zone
of small lateral strain
1/22/2009
24
Case 2: Evanston: Soft Chicago Clay
Tunnel parallel to bearing wall, concrete floors.
Diagonal Cracks Vertical Crack
Effect of tunneling Tunnel
Cracks and out-of plane brick displacement above lintels
-- unrelated to tunneling
Effect of tunneling
Tunnel
1/22/2009
25
Cracks and out-of- plane displacements above lintels,
unrelated to tunneling
but no pre-construction video in this area of building
FIGURE 4.10
South Wing, pre-existing cracks on construction video,
unrelated to tunneling
FIGURE 4.7
1/22/2009
26
Figure 5-1
Soft Chicago Clay, Evanston
12-ft-diameter Lovat Shield with Flood Doors (Not EPB)
Figure 6-10
12-ft-diameter articulated shield, Lovat
McNally Tunneling: Negotiated 160-ft radius turn
1/22/2009
27
Pneumatic Piez. Pneumatic Piez.
Multi Multi--point point
Westbay Westbay
Piezometer Piezometer
Deep Settlement Pts. Deep Settlement Pts.
Figure 6-5
Inclinometer/ Inclinometer/
Sondex Sondex
Inclinometers/ Inclinometers/
Sondex Sondex
Tunnel Centerline
Chicago Clay: Test Section 4, near CTA elevated structure
A joint effort: McNally Tunneling and University of Illinois
Distance (ft)
-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20
0
w =19.2 m
T S 3: SETTLEMENT DUE TO PASSAGE OF SHIELD
Articulated shield, wheel excavator: 3.6 m dia
D
e
p
t
h

(
f
t
)
20
40
60
0.80 in.
0.52 in.
Sand
Soft to medium gray silty clay
Very soft to soft clay
Medium to stiff silty clay
Stiff clayey silt
30 mm V
S
=0.57 cu m/m
5.5m
b=38
o Z = 22m
Figure 1-6
60
80
100
72 ft
0.82 in.
Stiff to very stiff gray silty clay
Hard gray silty clay
V
L
=0.44 cu m/m
5.5 m
79 mm
r
1/22/2009
28
Distance (ft)
-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20
0
S d
w =23 m
AV=0 85 cu m/m
T S 3: LONG TERM SETTLEMENT AFTER PASSAGE
OF SHIELD
D
e
p
t
h

(
f
t
)
20
40
60
72ft
0.80 in.
0.52 in.
Sand
Soft to medium gray silty clay
Very soft to soft clay
Medium to stiff silty clay
Stiff clayey silt
34 mm 34 mm
445 days
Zone of volume change,
AV, due to consolidation
caused by:
1. Increase in mean
stress during
AV=0.85 cu m/m
80
100
72 ft
0.82 in.
Stiff to very stiff gray silty clay
Hard gray silty clay
g
passage of shield,
and dissipation of
excess pore pressure
2. Reduction of pore
pressures due to
drainage into tunnel
20 mm
P3 -1
P 4
Passage of
shield
Consolidation
MEMBRANE, TS 4
NO MEMBRANE, TS 3
due to stress
increase
Consolidation due
to drainage into
tunnel
Figure 6-17
Days after passage of shield
Pore Pressure changes with time, Evanston
1/22/2009
29
2.5 m
10 m 11m 10 m
Street Street
79 mm
30mm
17 m
40
o
18 m
Courtyard North Wing South Wing Central Wing
CHICAGO CLAY
NORTH WING
L
E
Y
COURTYARD
ALLEY
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
CENTRAL WING
SOUTH WING
A
L
L
INTERIOR COURTYARD
S
N
L
A
T
E
R
A
L

E
X
T
E
N
S
I
O
N
3 mm
2
mm
Basement floor
;
T
I
L
T
Tunnel
A B
A
N
G
U
L
A
R

D
I
S
T
O
R
T
I
O
N
1/22/2009
30
South Wing Central Wing
Concrete floors reduce lateral strains in upper levels
Measured
Vertical building
displace: 30 mm
12 mm crack
extension
Lateral ground
displace: 29 mm
(calculated)
5 mm separation
between Wings
Angular distortion, South Wing: < 30 mm/11.3 m =2.7 x10
-3
Calculated lateral strain, South Wing: < < 29 mm /11.3 m=2.5 x 10
-
3
Lateral strain, South Wing, E crack width: 17 mm /11.3 =1.5 x 10
-3
Lateral strain, upper floors ~0
SE Corner, SE Corner,
E wall E wall
1/22/2009
31
Reduced
lateral strain
Concrete floors reduce lateral strains
Lateral cracks limited to basement/ground floor level
Effect of tunneling
Tunnel
FIGURE 5.18
1/22/2009
32
Vertical Crack
E wall
At joint between South
and Central Wings.
Open: 5 mm at base
Reducing to hairline
adjacent to 1
st
floor
window.
-
3
)
3
4
DAMAGE
areoutof range
maximumcrackwidth
fieldobservation
Constant Principal
Extension Strain
Damage Criterion
based on state of strain at a point
L
a
t
e
r
a
l

S
t
r
a
i
n
,

c
L

(
x
1
0
-
1
2
Col 36 vs Col 37
Col 39 vs Col 40
Col 48 vs Col 49
VSL
SLIGHT
DAMAGE
MODERATE
TO
SEVERE DAMAGE
DAMAGE
(N) - Negligible
(VSL) - Veryslight
(SL) - Slight
(M) - Moderate
(SE) - Severe
(VSE) - Verysevere
[N] - Negligible
[VS] - Veryslight
[SL] - Slight
[M] - Moderate
[SE] - Severe
[VSE] - Verysevere
Numerical tests
Fieldcases
MODERATE DAMAGE
Concrete floors:
Reduced lateral strain
Reduced angular distortion due
-3
)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
0
NEGL.
VSL
FIGURE 4-1
- 3
)
1/1000 1/500 1/200 1/100
Modified after Boscardin & Cording, 1989
to side sway?
1/22/2009
33
NORTH WING
L
E
Y
COURTYARD
ALLEY
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
CENTRAL WING
SOUTH WING
A
L
L
INTERIOR COURTYARD
S
N
L
A
T
E
R
A
L

E
X
T
E
N
S
I
O
N
3 mm
2
mm
Basement floor
;
T
I
L
T

&

T
R
A
N
S
L
A
T
I
O
N
Tunnel
A
B
A
N
G
U
L
A
R

D
I
S
T
O
R
T
I
O
N
South Wing
Inner
Courtyard
1
.
SECTION B
8m
Street
79 mm 38mm
17m
11m
40
o
18 m
8 m 11 m
Angular distortion reduced by tilt and sidesway
No evidence of lateral cracks in basement
Hairline crack above door
Estimate of angular distortion if structure moves with
ground curvature: <1.5 x 10
-3
Lateral strain in upper floors ~0
1/22/2009
34
Concentrated vertical and lateral displacements at bearing wall Concentrated vertical and lateral displacements at bearing wall
footing. footing.
Brick bearing wall parallel to shallow excavation Brick bearing wall parallel to shallow excavation
Concrete floors Concrete floors
CASE 3
Concrete floors Concrete floors
Vertical displacements of bearing wall at ground level: 22 to 31 mm Vertical displacements of bearing wall at ground level: 22 to 31 mm
Bearing wall drags down cross walls and end wall Bearing wall drags down cross walls and end wall
Shear strains are concentrated within 3 m of bearing of bearing wall. Shear strains are concentrated within 3 m of bearing of bearing wall.
Lateral extension restrained at floor levels Lateral extension restrained at floor levels
Outward displacement at foundation level produces rotation of Outward displacement at foundation level produces rotation of
bearing wall about main floor level producing horizontal tension bearing wall about main floor level producing horizontal tension
crack on inside of wall above upper second floor level. level: crack on inside of wall above upper second floor level. level:
57 mm/ 6m =10 x 10 57 mm/ 6m =10 x 10
--33
CASE 3: Gymnasium: brick bearing wall structure with concrete
floor. Trench excavated adjacent to and below footing base elev.
68
22 to 31 mm settlement of S. bearing wall drags down E side
wall, producing distortion and damage at intersection
1/22/2009
35
Horizontal tension
crack on inside
f f ll
Ground movements
concentrated within
~3 m of wall
surface of wall
Shear cracks
on cross walls
Concrete
Brick bearing wall
STIFF CLAY
Cross
wall
Damage at cross
walls adjacent to
S. Bearing wall:
Angular distortion:
31 mm/6m ? = 5 x 10
-3
31 mm /3m = 10 x 10
-3
Severe Damage
70
South bearing
wall
31 mm
1/22/2009
36
Concentrated vertical and lateral displacements at bearing wall Concentrated vertical and lateral displacements at bearing wall
footing footing
CASE 4
footing. footing.
Brick bearing wall parallel to shallow excavation Brick bearing wall parallel to shallow excavation
Timber joists Timber joists
Lateral & vertical displacements of wall at ground level: 40 to 75 Lateral & vertical displacements of wall at ground level: 40 to 75
mm, shear cracks adjacent to distorting portion of wall. mm, shear cracks adjacent to distorting portion of wall.
Displacement of timber joists in seats on bearing wall: Displacement of timber joists in seats on bearing wall:
57 mm. 57 mm.
Requires evacuation of building, Requires evacuation of building,
Temporaryposts to support floor joists Temporaryposts to support floor joists Temporary posts to support floor joists Temporary posts to support floor joists
Lateral strains in building at ground level: Lateral strains in building at ground level:
57 mm/ 6m =10 x 10 57 mm/ 6m =10 x 10
--33
33
rd rd
Floor: Some Floor: Some sidesway sideswaycausing pulling of joists on opposite side causing pulling of joists on opposite side
of building. Continuous joists across intermediate wall reduces joist of building. Continuous joists across intermediate wall reduces joist
bearing as settlement takes place. bearing as settlement takes place.
Adjacent
basement
excavation not
backfilled
before pulling
sheet piles
CASE 4
Apartment
72
40 to 75 mm
1/22/2009
37
Crawl Space
Basement
PLAN
Bearing wall
PROFILE
SECTION
AAdjacent excavation
Basement
Base adjacent excavation
Crawl space
Crawl Space
Basement
PLAN
57 mm separation
of joists from
Bearing wall
PROFILE
SECTION
Sidesway &
separation
57 mm
separation
Basement
Crawl space
Base adjacent excavation
1/22/2009
38
Crawl Space
AAdjacent e ca ation
Basement
PLAN
57 mm reduction
of joist bearing
Adjacent excavation
57mm
PROFILE
SECTION
Sidesway &
reduction of
joist bearing
Adjacent excavation
57 mm
reduction of
joist bearing
Basement
Crawl space
Base of adjacent excavation
57 mm reduction in joist bearing
57mm
c
L
>57mm/ 6 m =10 x 10
-3
Severe to Very Severe
J oists supported with
temporary posts
1/22/2009
39
Brick bearing walls and wood joists Brick bearing walls and wood joists
Parallel bearing walls: Opening of joists in seats Parallel bearing walls: Opening of joists in seats
i ii i
Apartment building Apartment building
2 in. lateral displacement at seats 2 in. lateral displacement at seats
2 in. settlement 2 in. settlement
Lateral displacement away from excavation Lateral displacement away from excavation
12 to 20 mmlateral displacement at seats 12 to 20 mmlateral displacement at seats 12 to 20 mm lateral displacement at seats. 12 to 20 mm lateral displacement at seats.
cc =20 mm /6 m =3.3 x 10 =20 mm /6 m =3.3 x 10
--33
Cracks in side walls: total width of cracks: XXXX Cracks in side walls: total width of cracks: XXXX
CASE 5: Brick bearing wall parallel to excavation, timber joists
Lateral cracks in street, 20 to 30 m from 12 m deep
excavation: fine sand over soft clay
30 mm/ (30-20 m) =3 x 10
-3
Cracks in building at building edge Cracks in building, at building edge,
in basement & main floor:
Basement moves with ground
Decrease in joist bearing on main floor
No significant extension in upper floors
1/22/2009
40
Sidewalk crack
1/22/2009
41
Lateral displacement of joists:
12 to 20 mm
Superficial cracking of plaster/stucco
on brick bearing wall
Lateral strain: 12 to 20 mm/ 6 m = 2 to 3 x 10
-3
(Slight )
Lateral Strains Lateral Strains
N side building: 6 to 12 mm N side building: 6 to 12 mm
Across 6 mspan between bearing walls Across 6 mspan between bearing walls Across 6 m span between bearing walls Across 6 m span between bearing walls
J oist displacement out of seats: J oist displacement out of seats: 12 to 20 mm 12 to 20 mm
Separation of W. concrete block infill cross wall: Separation of W. concrete block infill cross wall: 12 to 20 mm 12 to 20 mm
Floor cracks, Center: Floor cracks, Center: 13 mm 13 mm
E Wall: Cracks at floor level: E Wall: Cracks at floor level: 10 mm 10 mm
E Wall: Cracks at ceiling level (~ E Wall: Cracks at ceiling level (~g.s g.s.) .) 18 mm 18 mm
In roomto S In roomto S 5to 12mm 5to 12mm In room to S. In room to S. 5 to 12 mm 5 to 12 mm
Lateral strain: 18mm/6m =3 x 10 Lateral strain: 18mm/6m =3 x 10
--33
1/22/2009
42
Predominantly lateral displacements at distance of 1.2 to 2 H Predominantly lateral displacements at distance of 1.2 to 2 H
behind excavation wall behind excavation wall
Brick bearing wall parallel to excavation Brick bearing wall parallel to excavation
Timber joists Timber joists
Lateral strains in building at ground level: Lateral strains in building at ground level:
18 mm/ 6m =3 x 10 18 mm/ 6m =3 x 10
--33
Approximately equal to lateral strain in ground Approximately equal to lateral strain in ground
Displacement of timber joists in seats on bearing wall: Displacement of timber joists in seats on bearing wall:
12 to 20 mm 12 to 20 mm 12 to 20 mm. 12 to 20 mm.
Summation of cracks in floor and wall: same Summation of cracks in floor and wall: same
33
rd rd
floor: reduced lateral strains: hairline cracks. floor: reduced lateral strains: hairline cracks.
Damage level: slight Damage level: slight
1/22/2009
43
5. Separation in upper floors 5. Separation in upper floors
77
th th
St: Perpendicular bearing walls St: Perpendicular bearing walls
Shear cracks at faade Shear cracks at faade
Analysis by Son Analysis by Son
G tunnel: twin buildings, parallel bearing walls G tunnel: twin buildings, parallel bearing walls G tunnel: twin buildings, parallel bearing walls G tunnel: twin buildings, parallel bearing walls
Shear first building Shear first building
Bending at edge of second building: no load in floor joists. Bending at edge of second building: no load in floor joists.
Analysis by Son: Analysis by Son:
Loaded Loaded
Unloaded Unloaded
Club 1? Parallel bearing walls. Club 1? Parallel bearing walls.
Deterioratedjoists Deterioratedjoists Deteriorated joists Deteriorated joists
2 story open. 2 story open.
Masonic Temple, Philadelphia: parallel bearing wall. I Masonic Temple, Philadelphia: parallel bearing wall. I
beams with jacked brick arch. Shear cracks and beams with jacked brick arch. Shear cracks and
separation at bearing wall. separation at bearing wall.
Separation of upper walls Separation of upper walls
1/22/2009
44
Distortion patterns in masonry Distortion patterns in masonry walls next walls next
to excavation to excavation
87 FIGURE 4-4
3. Roof structure and floor
joists perpendicular to
excavation restrain lateral
displacement & separation in
upper floors.
1. Cracks develop due
to angular distortion
and lateral strain
2. Cracks extend
upward
Distortion patterns in masonry walls Distortion patterns in masonry walls
Deep beam Deep beam
88 FIGURE 4-3
Extension of shear cracks,
or weak connection of
faade wall to side walls:
Allows rotation of wall and
opening of cracks at top
1/22/2009
45
Beam: Large L/H Deep beam: Low Beam: Large L/H Deep beam: Low
L/H L/H
Typical condition Typical condition
Shear
L
H
H
L
89 FIGURE 4-3
If continuous crack or weak
connection of faade to side
walls: Rotation and
separation of faade wall
Bending
Concentration
Shear crack
intersecting
faade causes
28 mm
ti f
Bearing wall perpendicular to tunnel Bearing wall perpendicular to tunnel
As shear cracks
extend to roof
of shear
cracks near
edge of
bearing wall
develops
because of
separation of
faade wall
90 FIGURE 4-7
extend to roof
they reduce
the bending
stiffness at the
edge of the
bearing wall.
downdrag of
faade wall
Tunnel
below
street
1/22/2009
46
Crack:
28 mm
50 mm
Displacementunit: mm
(Horizontal disp, Vertical disp)
Horizontal disp.: Positivesign leftwarddisp.
Vertical disp.: Positivesign downwarddisp.
Openingbetweenbearingwall andfaadewall: 10timesmagnified
(35.48, 27.69)
(32.03, 27.43) (9.14, 5.84) (9.14, 1.52) (9.14, -2.29)
Bearing wall Facade
Crack width = 27 mm
Distinct Element Analysis:
Each brick modeled as separate block
Crack width= 27 mm
(8.64, 27.50)
(4.91, 26.81) (0.76, 6.25)
(22.33, 27.43)
(0.76, 1.29) (1.02, -1.87)
(17.72, 26.37)
g
wall
LATERAL ()

(
m
m
.
)
Settlement: 27 mm.
Lateral displacement
NUMERICAL ANALYSIS: DOWNDRAG OF FAADE WALL
VERTICAL
(+)
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(M. Son, 2003)
Settlement
1/22/2009
47
Damage increases at increasing rate with Damage increases at increasing rate with
i i ttl t i i ttl t increase in settlement increase in settlement
Bearing Wall Parallel to
Excavation
2 story open area 2-story open area
between joist levels
J oist deterioration at seats
Side wall: water damage,
deteriorated mortar
Adjacent Braced Cut:
. 18 mm settlement
1/22/2009
48
Mortar deteriorated due to water from downspouts
75mm
TIES
PLACED
1/22/2009
49
Abaqus FEMwithHypoplasticSoil,ConcreteFrame
ExcavationDepth:25m
Displacementmagnificationfactor:100
Soil modeled as
dense sand dense sand
FIGURE 6-11 97
B. Ghahreman, 2004
Side sway and tilt cause
Bay 1 distortions to be similar to Bay 3
Abaqus FEM,Hypoplastic Soilw/concreteframe
Excavationdepth:25mMagnificationfactor:100
Angular
distortion
similar for
each story
above first
6-12 98
above first
floor
First floor columns are distorted
by lateral ground strains
B. Ghahreman, 2004
1/22/2009
50
Beambendingmomentrelatedtoangulardistortion
1
= +0.002 10
-3
2
= + 0.089 10
-3
3
=- 0.087 10
-
3
4
= 0.000
Angular distortion, |: 0.248 10
-3
M t fi d d M 6(EI/L) |
Slope: 1.647 10
-3
- Tilt: 1.399 10
-3

4
3.02
395
3.02
2.64 cm
2
nd
story Bay 1
Moment, fixed ends: M = 6(EI/L) |
M = 6(EI/L)(| 2/3u
1
1/3 u
2
)
u
M
FIGURE 6-13 99
2

3
3.95
2.56
3.95
2.56
2.64
7.7 m
|
u
M
1/22/2009
51
Side sway of hotel with concrete floors Side sway of hotel with concrete floors
Excavation Hotel with concrete floors Historic Brick Bearing Wall
Structure
1/22/2009
52
3 mm
Stiff clays and medium dense sands
Building
Excavation
Hotel basement: 1 level
Historic
House: 1
level
3 mm
~ 3 mm
1/22/2009
53
H
O
T
E
L
1/22/2009
54
Early 1800 faade:
Alternating headers and
stretchers
No apparent cracks
1/22/2009
55
1/22/2009
56
E
A
R
I
N
G

W
A
L
L
W
A
L
L
SMALL
SIDESWAY
:
~3 mm
(Exaggerated)
SETTLEMENT
:
Settlement of
intermediate
timber
E
D
I
A
T
E

T
I
M
B
E
R

B
E
B
R
I
C
K

B
E
A
R
I
N
G

W
12 story
Hotel:
Concrete
floors
timber
bearing wall
over time
I
N
T
E
R
M
~50 mm
1/22/2009
57
W
A
L
L
SMALL
SIDESWAY
:
~3 mm
(Exaggerated)
E
A
R
I
N
G

W
A
L
L
SETTLEMENT
:
Shrinkage of
intermediate
timber
B
R
I
C
K

B
E
A
R
I
N
G

W
12 story
Hotel:
Concrete
floors
E
D
I
A
T
E

T
I
M
B
E
R

B
E
timber
bearing wall
I
N
T
E
R
M
~50 mm
.
CONCLUSIONS
1. Structures often serve as indicators of the causes of imposed distortions
and damage
2. Understand the chain of relationships and behavior extending from tunnel or
excavation to building
Groundmovement sources and groundloss Ground movement sources and ground loss
Ground movement patterns and volume change
Building structural characteristics and finishes - - - how it was built,
maintained and repaired.
3. Damage due to excavation and tunneling may be superposed on pre-
existing building distortions and deterioration
4. Damage due to excavation and tunneling may be separate from and
unrelated to pre-existing building distortions and damage
1/22/2009
58
CONCLUSIONS
It is most common and natural for residents and owners of buildings to
observe and attribute pre-existing conditions in their building to the
effects of the adjacent excavation or tunneling.
Benefits of:
1. Pre-construction assessments and inspection, photographs and video
A diti f b ildi iti it t d h th d t -- Assess condition of buildings, sensitivity to damage, whether due to
tunneling and excavation or other effects.
-- Assess structural characteristics and building finishes
lateral and distortional stiffnesses, weak zones.
2. A logical evaluation and description of the limits and magnitude of
ground movements and building distortions due to excavation or
tunneling:
a. zone of influence, a. zone of influence,
b. settlement slope,
c. size of building with respect to settlement trough,
d. change in ground slope.
3. Early building monitoring to determine temperature & seasonal effects.
4. Community relations efforts by contractor, engineer and owner
throughout design and construction.
5. Early recognition and acceptance of responsibility for excavation or
t li i d d d
Control and reduce Control and reduce
Risk Risk of large, uncontrolled of large, uncontrolled ground loss in face ground loss in face
Shield, EPB: Shield, EPB:
Control Control of conditioner and pressure in face of conditioner and pressure in face
Interventions for access to Interventions for access to face face Interventions for access to Interventions for access to face face
NATM: NATM:
Instability at face Instability at face
Lining failure during or after excavation sequences Lining failure during or after excavation sequences
Regular ground loss Regular ground loss
Shield: Annular Shield: Annular spaces spaces
Overcut at front of shield Overcut at front of shield
Grout annulus between tail of shield and lining Grout annulus between tail of shield and lining
NATM: Lining deflection and ground displacement during excavation NATM: Lining deflection and ground displacement during excavation
Volume decrease Volume decrease in in soil soil
Dewatering Dewatering
Stress increases around tunnel Stress increases around tunnel
1/22/2009
59
Allowable l Allowable limit for imit for
distortion/damage distortion/damage
Observations/Control Observations/Control
ADDITIONAL MEASURES ADDITIONAL MEASURES
If Ground loss causes more If Ground loss causes more
distortion than allowable distortion than allowable
C t l t li C t l t li
Modify ground Modify ground
Compensate ground Compensate ground
Protect structure Protect structure
Near tunnel
In soil mass
At surface
At structures LINK
Estimate tunnel Estimate tunnel
ground loss ground loss
Control tunneling Control tunneling
process process
Increasing ground loss can result in disproportionate
increases in ground movement and building damage increases in ground movement and building damage
Small ground losses may be absorbed by volume increases in
soil.
Building damage increases disproportionately with strains
Objective: control ground losses at the tunnel
Increasingly, with pressurized face tunneling, ground movements gy p g g
are being controlled at the source, around the tunnel shield to
levels that result in negligible damage at the ground surface
Objective: reduce risk of large ground losses or collapse
1/22/2009
60
METHOD OF CALCULATING BUILDING DISTORTION
BAY 1 BAY 2 BAY 3
C
D
m
UDEC analysis of full scale brick bearing wall
BAY 1
A AG S O
A B
6100 mm
6
1
0
0

m
m
3877 1654
3
L
H
892 483
6100
067 10
3
. .
.
=

AVERAGE SLOPE :
TILT :
ANGULAR DISTORTION :
LATERAL STRAIN (T) :
LATERAL STRAIN (F) :
3877 1654
6100
364 10
3
. .
. =

1473 483
6100
162 10
3
. .
.
=

( . . ) . 364 162 10 202 10
3 3
=

3090 1473
6100
265 10
3
. .
.
=

FIGURE 4.6
1/22/2009
61
Adjacent excavation wall:
Physical Model Studies, Test 5E
Schnabel Large Soil Model Test Lab at U. I. U. C.
D. Laefer, 2001
1.2 m high
Weight
added at
front to
simulate
downdrag
from
faade
.
Model Test 5E: Excavation to 1220 mm
1/22/2009
62
BAY 1 BAY 2 BAY 3 BAY 1 BAY 2 BAY 3

1.06 1.09 1.02 0.96
2.59 2.65 2.59 2.59
4.32 2.06 0.65 -0.21

VERTICAL
(+)
LATERAL
()
Distance (mm.)
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
.
)
BAY 1
*
BAY 2
SLOPE 1.93
TILT 2 30
*
BAY 3
SLOPE 1.80
TILT 1 95
* SLOPE 4.59
TILT 2 30
Distance (mm.)
VERTICAL
SOIL BUILDING
4.39 2.07 0.62 -0.19
BAY 1
*
BAY 2
SLOPE 2.38 *
BAY 3
SLOPE 1.33 * SLOPE 3.80
VERTICAL
BUILDING
SOIL
LATERAL
BUILDING SOIL
()
(+)
A A
123
TILT 2.30
| -0.37
clat (F) 0.16
clat (T) 0.49
TILT 1.95
| -0.15
clat (F) 0.03
clat (T) 0.05
TILT 2.30
| 2.29
clat (F) 1.95
clat (T) 2.25
a. Brick-Bearing Wall (Inelastic Analysis)
* Multiply by 10
-3
b. Frame Wall (Elastic Analysis)
* Multiply by 10
-3
TILT 2.57
| -0.19
clat (F) 0.11
clat (T) 0.10
TILT 2.67
| -1.34
clat (F) 0.10
clat (T) 0.00
TILT 2.56
| 1.24
clat (F) -0.05
clat (T) -0.10
Numerical analyses of 2-story brick-bearing wall (Pit 5E) and elastic frame, 1/10
th
model scale
A 1.08 mm
L 1830 mm
A/L 6.00E-04
A 1.08 mm
L 1830 mm
A/L 6.00E-04
| ~ 4A/L
| ~ 2A/L
FIGURE 5-5
EXTRAS
1/22/2009
63
52.5 S of back
of Soldier pile
Separation: ~1/8? open to N,
behind E column (adjacent to
Chroma W Wall), at crown molding.
South Wall
Excavation
Congress St
W
e
s
t

W
a
l
l

Chroma
Gallery
Ray Ellis
Gallery
separation between
sidewalk and wall
54.5: 1/8crack
86.5: 1/ 4crack, curb, & crack in W. side pave.
95.5: 1/ 4@ c. j. in sidewalk
cr
75: 3/8separation at c. j. on brick sidewalk,
64: 5/16crack cuts straight across bricks, toward
gallery entrance (crack gauge)
Fig 2. South side Ell is Square
97.5: 1/ 8 crack, curb,
97.5: separation of construction joint between
concrete pavement slab extends across street
B
a
r
n
a
r
d

S
t
57 mm reduction in joist bearing
57mm
c
L
>57mm/ 6 m =10 x 10
-3
Severe to Very Severe
J oists supported with
temporary posts
1/22/2009
64
Masonic
Temple,
Philadelphia
1/22/2009
65
1/22/2009
66
1/22/2009
67
N
B
a
r
n
a
r
d

S
t
.
Congress St.

b
l
o
c
k

w
a
l
l

Old drain
patches
1/8
1/8-3/8 top
Joists: - out of seat
Joist
orientation
1/8
CG37
1mm
Floor crack: 3/8 lat, 3/8 vert.
C
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
1/8
-
separation
1/8
1/16 -3/8 top
1/16 -3/16 top
Joists: 12 19 mmout of seat
1/8
CG55
1mm
CG42 3mm
CG38 2mm
Fig 3. Chroma Gallery, NE Basement Fig 3. Chroma Gallery, NE Basement
3/8 lat, 3/8 vert.
1 /4 -
1/8 top
1/16
Photos IMGP 2447-2471
(Main floor, Chroma Gallery: Photos IMGP 2508-2518)
1/22/2009
68
N
B
a
r
n
a
r
d

S
t
.
Congress St.

b
l
o
c
k

w
a
l
l

Old drain
patches
3mm
3 10 mm
top
J oists:12-20 mm
out of seat
NS J oist
orientation
3 mm
CG37
1mm
Floor crack:
10mmlateral
C
o
n
c
r
e
t
e

3 mm
12-20 mm
separation
3 mm
2-10 mm top
2-5 mm top
J oists: 12-20 mm
out of seat
1/8
CG55
1mm
CG42 3mm
CG38 2mm
10 mm lateral,
10 mm vertical.
Fig 3. Chroma Gallery, NE Basement Fig 3. Chroma Gallery, NE Basement
10 mm lat,
10 mm vert
6 3 mm
top
2 mm
(Main floor, Chroma Gallery: Photos IMGP 2508-2518)
1/22/2009
69
Bearing walls parallel to excavation Bearing walls parallel to excavation
Contact at party walls a plane of weakness Contact at party walls a plane of weakness
Determine Determine AA G.S. between bays G.S. between bays yy
Opening at top: Opening at top: AA G.S x H G.S x H
Strain at top: Strain at top: AA G.S x H/ 2 L G.S x H/ 2 L
b b
= 4 (Defl Ratio) x H/2Lb = = 4 (Defl Ratio) x H/2Lb =
H/2R H/2R
Distribute: Distribute:
To one side of the wall To one side of the wall
To both sides of the wall To both sides of the wall
B ll ( il ) B ll ( il ) Between two walls (tilt) Between two walls (tilt)
Party walls assumed continuous Party walls assumed continuous Determine Determine A A
G.S. between bays G.S. between bays
For bearing walls moving with ground: For bearing walls moving with ground:
| = A | = A G.S. G.S.
-
3
)
3
4
DAMAGE
areoutof range
maximumcrackwidth
fieldobservation
Constant Principal
Extension Strain
L
a
t
e
r
a
l

S
t
r
a
i
n
,

c
L

(
x
1
0
-
1
2
Col 36 vs Col 37
Col 39 vs Col 40
Col 48 vs Col 49
VSL
SLIGHT
DAMAGE
MODERATE
TO
SEVERE DAMAGE
DAMAGE
(N) - Negligible
(VSL) - Veryslight
(SL) - Slight
(M) - Moderate
(SE) - Severe
(VSE) - Verysevere
[N] - Negligible
[VS] - Veryslight
[SL] - Slight
[M] - Moderate
[SE] - Severe
[VSE] - Verysevere
Numerical tests
Fieldcases
MODERATE DAMAGE
-3
)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
0
NEGL.
VSL
FIGURE 4-1
- 3
)
1/1000 1/500 1/200 1/100
after Boscardin & Cording, 1989
1/22/2009
70
Physical Model Studies, Test 5E
Schnabel Large Soil Model Test Lab at U. I. U. C.
D. Laefer, 2001
1.2 m high
Weight
added at
front to
simulate
downdrag
from
faade
.
Model Test 5E: Excavation to 1220 mm
1/22/2009
71
1/22/2009
72
South Wing Central Wing
Concrete floors reduce lateral strains in upper levels
37 32
Vert.
1.2
0.5
i
Lat. 0.9
(calc)
0.2 separation
b
Angular distortion across South Wing = 0.1/37 = 1/370 Angular distortion across South Wing = 0.1/37 = 1/370
Lateral strain across South Wing = Lateral strain across South Wing = 0.08/37 = 1/470 0.08/37 = 1/470
Lateral strain largely confined to basement level Lateral strain largely confined to basement level
extension
of cracks
between Wings
1/22/2009
73
Cross
wall
Angular distortion:
31mm/6m? =5 x 10
-3
31 mm/6m ? 5 x 10
31 mm /3m ? =10 x 10
-3
Severe Damage
145
South bearing wall
31 mm
Max. Lat.
(calc):1 4
SECTION A
34
37
32
2.5 1.4
56
w =
i
(calc):1.4
34
40
o
Z=60 Average Slope = 1/300
Maximum lateral displacement (calculated):
o
L
= 1/3 o
M
(tan b/ 0.5) = 1.4
1/22/2009
74
Evaluate strains and displacements across bay:
37 bay 32
Street Street
Vert.
1.2
34
Lat. 0.9
(calc)
Angular distortion across 37 bay = 0.1/ 37 = 1/370 Angular distortion across 37 bay = 0.1/ 37 = 1/370
Lateral strain across 37 bay = Lateral strain across 37 bay = 0.08/ 37 = 1/467 0.08/ 37 = 1/467
1/22/2009
75
1/22/2009
76
1/22/2009
77
1/22/2009
78
1/22/2009
79
1/22/2009
80

Building Response To Excavation

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Building Response To Excavation

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

1/22/2009

Você também pode gostar