Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 14

210

Comparative evaluation of building responses to an adjacent braced excavation


S.J. Boone, J. Westland, and R. Nusink
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIV OF SOUTHAMPTON HIGHFIELD on 03/11/12 For personal use only.

Abstract: Construction data from a large braced excavation are evaluated in comparison to several methods of predicting the response of buildings to excavation-induced ground movements. The project included an excavation of up to about 20 m depth, over 650 m long, and 20 m wide made through generally competent glacial overburden. Excavation support was achieved using a braced soldier-pile and lagging wall system. A detailed instrumentation program was undertaken by the owner to monitor contractor compliance with ground and structure movement criteria. Data from 46 structures, with damage ranging from negligible to moderate categories, are presented, with four cases presented in detail. A modified approach to estimating potential damage categorization is provided and compared to case histories. Good agreement is demonstrated between actual and estimated damage categories. Key words: building damage, excavations, cracking, angular distortion, settlement. Resum : Les donnes de construction dune grande excavation tanonne sont values en comparant plusieurs mthodes de prdiction de la raction des btiments aux mouvements du terrain induits par une excavation. Le projet inclut une excavation dpassant environ 20 m de profondeur, 650 m de longueur, et 20 m de largeur ralise dans un mort-terrain de matriau glaciaire gnralement de bonne qualit. Le soutnement de lexcavation tait assur par un systme de mur constitu de pieux verticaux tanonns joints entre eux par des garnitures. Un programme dinstrumentation dtaill a t mis en place par le propritaire pour sassurer que le constructeur rencontrait les critres de mouvement de la structure et du terrain. Les donnes provenant de 46 structures ayant subi des dommages qui se situaient dans des catgories stendant de ngligeables modrs sont prsentes de mme que les dtails de quatre cas. Une approche modifie pour valuer la catgorisation du dommage potentiel est fournie et compare des histoires de cas. Lon dmontre quil y a une bonne concordance entre les catgories de dommages rels et estims. Mots cls : dommage aux btiments, excavations, fissuration, distorsion angulaire, tassement. [Traduit par la Rdaction] Boone et al. 223

Introduction
R.B. Peck (Peck 1984) stated that one of the main goals during the early design phase of urban construction projects is to assess the influence of the work on adjacent facilities. Brierley (1988) noted that ...the tunnel owner must catalog all third-party impacts and make an honest effort to prioritize them in terms of risk to the third party and the project. In contrast to the reasonably satisfactory state of ground movement prediction methods, Peck also stated that ...procedures for determining the need for underpinning, or protective measures in lieu of underpinning, are among the least satisfactory aspects of the state-of-the-art. In some large North American construction projects, exculpatory clauses are included in the contract documents which attempt to place all responsibility for damage to adjacent properties on the contractor. In these instances the contract documents may only require that work be carried out such that damage does not occur to neighbouring properties, but damage is often not defined. In other cases, conReceived May 8, 1998. Accepted November 11, 1998. S.J. Boone and J. Westland. Golder Associates, Ltd., 2180 Meadowvale Blvd., Mississauga, ON L5N 5S3, Canada. R. Nusink. Morrison Hershfield Ltd., 4 Lansing Square, North York, ON M2J 1T1, Canada.
Can. Geotech. J. 36: 210223 (1999)

trol of the ground and building movements is limited to statements requiring only that settlement be limited to a maximum, typically 25 mm (1 in.). Horizontal movements are often ignored. Design and control of damage, however, should be an iterative process (e.g., Clough et al. 1989) whereby a number of retaining systems or underpinning techniques can be evaluated on a cost and risk basis considering various ground and structure movements and the details of the structures in question. A number of methods have been proposed for evaluating the potential effect construction will have on nearby structures. Most methods of determining tolerable movements of structures are based on either angular distortion (e.g., Skempton and MacDonald 1956) or displacement and slope of the settlement trough (Rankin 1988). Boscardin and Cording (1989) proposed an approach that recognized the importance of horizontal strains and correlated measurements of angular distortion and horizontal strains to a limited number of case histories. Others have correlated the deflection ratio ( L, see Appendix 2) and horizontal strain for other cases (e.g., Burland et al. 1977; Mair et al. 1996). Angular distortion and the deflection ratio, however, are simple parameters that do not consider real differences in structure responses that depend on their height, length, and construction. Boone (1996) therefore proposed a stepwise method by which the geometric changes induced in a build 1999 NRC Canada

Boone et al. Fig. 1. Plot of level 1 assessment results from design stage of project assuming a maximum relative settlement of 0.2% and a parabolic settlement curve extending to a relative distance of twice the excavation depth (after Boscardin and Cording 1989).

211 Table 1. Severity of cracking damage (modified after Burland et al. 1977). Damage category Negligible (0) Very slight (1) Description of typical damage Hairline cracks Very slight damage includes fine cracks which can be easily treated during normal decoration, perhaps an isolated slight fracture in building, and cracks in external brickwork visible on close inspection Slight damage includes cracks which can be easily filled and redecoration would probably be required, several slight fractures may appear showing the inside of the building, cracks which are visible externally and some repointing may be required, and doors and windows may stick Moderate damage includes cracks that require some opening up and can be patched by a mason, recurrent cracks that can be masked by suitable linings, repointing of external brickwork and possibly a small amount of brickwork replacement may be required, doors and windows stick, service pipes may fracture, and weathertightness is often impaired Severe damage includes large cracks requiring extensive repair work involving breaking-out and replacing sections of walls (especially over doors and windows), distorted windows and door frames, noticeably sloping floors, leaning or bulging walls, some loss of bearing in beams, and disrupted service pipes Very severe damage often requires a major repair job involving partial or complete rebuilding, beams lose bearing, walls lean and require shoring, windows are broken with distortion, and there is danger of structural instability

Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIV OF SOUTHAMPTON HIGHFIELD on 03/11/12 For personal use only.

Slight (2)

Fig. 2. Angular distortion as used in the application of the method proposed by Boscardin and Cording (1989).

Moderate (3)

Severe (4)

ing by ground movement can be used to estimate cumulative crack width. Examples of this approach are described further in Appendix 1 and Boone (1998). Construction data from a large braced excavation are evaluated in this paper in comparison to the methods proposed for estimating building response to excavation-induced ground movements by Rankin (1988), Boscardin and Cording (1989), and Boone (1996).

Very severe (5)

Project description
A deep braced excavation, over 650 m long, from 9 to 20 m deep, and up to 20 m wide, was made through glacial till and highly overconsolidated glaciolacustrine sand, silt, and clay deposits. Standard penetration test (SPT) N values in the stiff to hard cohesive glacial till ranged from 25 to greater than 100, with an average per borehole ranging between 40 and 70. Average SPT N values in the dense sand and silt deposits typically ranged between 60 and 100. Groundwater levels, observed in two distinct aquifers, ranged from near the ground surface to about 4 m above the base of the main excavation. Over 50 buildings were in the vicinity of the project, and 46 of these were within the most critical zone of influence of the excavation, i.e., where the front of the structure was within a distance equal to or less than the depth of the adjacent excavation. Some buildings were less than 2 m from the excavation face. Most of the structures were between one and three stories high with shallow basements and were constructed of brick load-bearing exterior walls and wood fram-

ing within. A few structures were up to four stories high, one of which was a concrete frame structure with a woodpanelled exterior. The excavation support system generally consisted of wideflange steel beams (soldier-piles) placed in prebored holes with wood lagging installed between the piles as excavation progressed. Soldier-piles were typically installed on 3 m centreto-centre spacings. Horizontal restraint was provided by deck beams and preloaded pipe struts located at each pile (i.e., there were no wales). The vertical spacing of struts generally ranged between 2.4 and 5.8 m, resulting in each pile pair being restrained by the deck beam and two to three struts below. Because the excavation was made beneath a street, it was fully decked during construction, except for small openings for removing spoil and equipment and lowering lagging, bracing, and other construction materials.
1999 NRC Canada

212

Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 36, 1999

Fig. 3. Relative lateral movements of ground behind the excavation support system expressed as a percentage of excavation depth.

Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIV OF SOUTHAMPTON HIGHFIELD on 03/11/12 For personal use only.

Fig. 4. Relative vertical movements near the excavation support system expressed as a percentage of excavation depth. Closest ground and building monitoring points are located 1.52 m from the excavation edge (0.08H to 0.22H).

Design estimation of damage


Early in the project it was recognized that damage to adjacent facilities could not be entirely avoided. Although a variety of protection or underpinning techniques could be used to minimize damage, for the dense and hard soils at the site many such methods have the potential to induce movements that could be larger than those from a conventionally supported excavation. It was also recognized that costs for damage mitigation could greatly exceed costs for repairs, replacement, or purchase of the affected facilities. Therefore,

a two-step process, loosely following Rankin (1988), was set out for the evaluation of potential building and utility damage, the level 1 and level 2 assessments. For typical buildings adjacent to the excavation, a goal of limiting damage to slight or less was also established. If the level 1 assessments indicated that slight building damage could be exceeded, the subject facility was to be analyzed in greater detail. Level 2 assessments were generally separated into two substeps: (1) rigorous analysis of potential ground movements, and (2) close examination and analysis of the buildingsutilities to ascertain specific effects the total and
1999 NRC Canada

Boone et al. Fig. 5. Ground movements at the project site showing survey error bars, envelope of movements used during design, and typical pattern of displacement at array locations.

213

ments, were included in the contract. In general, ground movements, both horizontal and vertical, were limited to between 0.1 and 0.2% of the excavation depth.

Assessment of ground movements


To monitor the contractors compliance with the specified ground and structure movement limitations, the owner incorporated a detailed instrumentation program into the project. Instrumentation relevant to this paper included (1) inclinometers installed in the ground 12 m behind the shoring system, (2) ground surface monitoring points consisting of steel rods grouted into the ground about 1.8 m below the ground surface (to isolate them from frost and pavement movements), and (3) structure monitoring points consisting of threaded bolts and inserts installed on the buildings. Surveying of building and ground movement was performed with electronic levels achieving a typical accuracy of 2 mm or less. Near the west end of the project, an area was overexcavated below a planned strut level resulting in ground movements that were nearly double those in most other areas. Near the middle and east end of the project, a number of struts were cut prematurely during backfilling. The premature removal of struts caused additional ground movements that were readily quantified from the regular instrumentation readings. The last part of the excavation was made near the middle of the project and load transfer during preloading was optimum and ground movements were minimized in this area. Ground settlements of up to 31 mm were measured. Figures 3 and 4 summarize all the relative lateral and vertical ground movements along the excavation as measured by the instrumentation program. A line has been drawn in these diagrams indicating the estimated envelope of maximum ground movement in each area. Ground movements adjacent to the excavation were also evaluated to determine a most-likely mathematical model of the settlement profile perpendicular to the shoring line. The generally parabolic shape of the settlement profile suggested by Peck (1969) was chosen with the mathematical representation suggested by Bowles (1996) as a basis for determining a graphical best fit to the observed movements (see Fig. 5). From six arrays of multiple ground monitoring points aligned perpendicular to the excavation, the model was shown to be reasonably representative as illustrated in Figs. 5 and 6. Data from a seventh array, array 2, did not follow the patterns suggested by the other arrays because the magnitude of movements (less than 0.04%H, where H is the height (depth) of the excavation and retaining system) and survey error ( 0.022%H) in this area obscured any trends as illustrated in Fig. 5. This ground movement model in the vicinity of four example buildings is shown in Fig. 6 along with inclinometer data nearest these buildings. As shown in Fig. 6, the lateral movement was primarily cantilever in shape but also included some bulging between the supports. It is noted that, although the majority of the ground movement for maximum deformations between 0.1%H and about 0.15%H took place within a distance from the excavation equal to H, where maximum lateral and vertical deformations exceeded about 0.2%H, a wider zone of influence up to about 2H was observed, approaching the ground movement profile used during design (see Fig. 5). Based on
1999 NRC Canada

Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIV OF SOUTHAMPTON HIGHFIELD on 03/11/12 For personal use only.

differential movements could elicit. Depending on the results of the level 2 analyses, alternative excavation support, underpinning, or ground improvement measures were considered and their consequent effects on building damage potential were evaluated to choose the most cost effective solution that would also manage risk to acceptable levels. This two-step process is described in more detail by Boone et al. (1998). A geotechnical design report prepared for this project provided generalized forms of ground movement to be expected from excavations for level 1 assessments. These predictions were made on the basis of local experience coupled with a variety of published data (e.g., Peck 1969; Clough and ORourke 1990) and considered that maximum horizontal movements would be equal to maximum vertical movements. Using an empirical zone of influence, the designers applied the generalized ground movement predictions to all facilities within this zone. The potential for building damage was assessed by the designer using the method suggested by Boscardin and Cording (1989), summarized in Fig. 1, and potential structure damage was classified according to Table 1. For this project, the designer elected to use the slope of the settlement curve at the front of the structure as the value for angular distortion without subtracting rigid-body tilt (as this was a more conservative interpretation) (see Fig. 2). Based on the level 1 and level 2 analyses completed for this site, it was thought that a stiff and closely controlled soldier-pile and lagging system would limit the movements to the acceptable levels determined for the project. Since the project was close to many buildings, ground and building movement limitations, based on the damage potential assess-

214

Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 36, 1999

Fig. 6. Profiles of buildings and excavation support systems, building and ground settlement measurements, and lateral movement measurements from nearest inclinometer for four example buildings.

Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIV OF SOUTHAMPTON HIGHFIELD on 03/11/12 For personal use only.

1999 NRC Canada

Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIV OF SOUTHAMPTON HIGHFIELD on 03/11/12 For personal use only.

Boone et al.

Fig. 6 (concluded).

1999 NRC Canada

215

216 Table 2. Table of crack widths for the building illustrated in Fig. 6a. Crack No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Postconstruction crack width (mm) 0.31 1.58 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.81 5.08 4.19 3.18 6.35 3.18 0.89 1.7 1.42 0.89 Preconstruction estimated crack width (mm) Hairline Hairline Hairline Hairline, 3/4Hb Hairline

Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 36, 1999 Table 4. Table of crack widths for the building illustrated in Fig. 6c. Crack No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Postconstruction crack width (mm) 0.81 0.81 3.58 3.30 4.19 1.20 8.42 2.95 5.64 5.64 2.95 3.83 0.81 1.51 0.81 0.38 0.38 0.71 2.95 0.50 0.50 0.81 Preconstruction estimated crack width (mm) Hairline Hairline Hairline, 1/2Hb Hairline Hairline 1.0 1.0 Hairline 1.0 Hairline 1.0 Hairline Hairline Hairline Hairline 2.0 Hairline

Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIV OF SOUTHAMPTON HIGHFIELD on 03/11/12 For personal use only.

Note: Hb indicates height of building wall.

Table 3. Table of crack widths for the building illustrated in Fig. 6b. Crack No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Postconstruction crack width (mm) 0.41 0.51 3.18 5.08 3.84 0.90 0.90 0.25 0.90 0.25 0.25 Preconstruction estimated crack width (mm) Hairline Hairline Hairline Hairline Hairline Hairline Hairline Hairline Hairline Hairline Hairline

Table 5. Table of crack widths for the building illustrated in Fig. 6d. Crack No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Postconstruction crack width (mm) 4.47 4.47 2.77 3.84 0.89 2.77 3.84 4.47 2.46 0.40 0.20 0.20 0.20 1.51 0.81 Preconstruction estimated crack width (mm) Hairline, 1/2Hb Hairline, 1/2Hb Hairline, 1/2Hb Hairline Hairline

the available monitoring results (see Figs. 3 and 4) and the work of ORourke et al. (1976) and Milligan (1974), it was assumed that lateral displacement was equal to vertical displacement; little work has focused on this aspect of deformation, and this project did not include research-appropriate measurements to determine such ratios.

Building responses
Prior to construction, condition surveys were carried out for each of the neighbouring buildings. These surveys were carried out in general accordance with the guidelines prepared by the Building Research Establishment (BRE 1989a, 1989b), with reference also to Table 1. Sketches and photographs of visible cracks on interior and exterior walls were compiled along with summaries of the building construction and condition. Crack widths were generally noted as hairline (being visible on close inspection but a fraction of 1 mm wide), or estimated to 1 mm to 2 mm intervals of width. Following construction, each building was visited once again, and changes to existing conditions or new dam-

ages were noted on the preconstruction survey reports. Crack widths in the postconstruction survey reports were estimated to the nearest 12 mm where they were greater than hairline widths. For the negligible and very slight damage categories, where new hairline cracks of unmeasured width were noted in walls, the hairline cracks were arbitrarily assigned an average thickness of 0.5 mm for comparative purposes in this paper. Where damages were observed to be slight or greater in the postconstruction survey reports, subsequent detailed crack width measurements were made
1999 NRC Canada

Boone et al. Fig. 7. Height and length ratios and lengths of building walls.

217

Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIV OF SOUTHAMPTON HIGHFIELD on 03/11/12 For personal use only.

later with an automotive thickness gauge (gap gauge) and sketches were prepared. Ground movements, building movements, measured cracks, and other relevant details for four buildings are summarized in Fig. 6 and Tables 25, in which the notation 1/2Hb, for example, indicates the presence of the crack prior to construction but to one half of the building height. The buildings in Fig. 6 are also shown with their position aligned with the horizontal distance scale of the settlement plot. All postconstruction condition surveys were reviewed and the damages were categorized according to Table 1.

Comparative evaluation of building response estimation methods


The three building response estimation models proposed by Rankin (1988), Boscardin and Cording (1989), and Boone (1996) were compared based on the assessed ground movement patterns. The purpose of the comparison was to evaluate and illustrate the validity of each method and the advantages or disadvantages of each, assuming that the ground conditions were appropriately modeled. A computer spreadsheet was developed incorporating building data such as height above ground surface, depth to bottom of basement wall, length, and distance from front wall to excavation face. Additional data relevant to each building location were also
Table 6. Summary of principle damage category criteria. Method Rankin 1988 Settlement S (mm) <10 na 10 < S < 50 50 < S < 75 >75 Boscardin and Cording 1989a Angular distortion (103) >-1.1 -1.1 < < -1.6 -1.6 < < -3.3 -3.3 < < -6.7 >-6.7 Horizontal strain h (103) >0.5 0.5 < h < 0.75 0.75 < h < 1.5 1.5 < h < 3.0 >3.0 Boone 1996a Cumulative crack width (mm) <0.1 0.11 15 515 1520 Boone 1996, modifieda Cumulative crack width (mm) <0.15 0.151.5 1.57.5 7.522.5 22.537.5 Critical tensile strain c (%) <0.03 <0.04

Category Negligible Very slight Slight Moderate Severe

Slope <1/500 na 1/500 < < 1/200 1/200 < < 1/50 >1/50

Note: na, not applicable. a Combination of deformation modes producing values less than those provided above for each category of damage can result in damage of equal classification. See Figs. 1, 9, and 12.

Fig. 8. Comparison of estimated frequency of damage categories to actual damage categories. The solid lines represent actual frequency of damage categories and bars indicate damage categories as estimated by the methods indicated. N, negligible; VS, very slight; S, slight; M, moderate; SV, severe; VSV, very severe.

1999 NRC Canada

218 Table 7. Summary of damage category estimation. Method Category estimation results Correct Overestimate by 1 Overestimate by 2 Underestimate by 1 Underestimate by 2 or more Rankin 1988 15 0 0 15 16 Boscardin and Cording 1989 19 7 1 17 2 Boone 1996 18 16 2 9 0

Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 36, 1999

Boone 1996, modified 21 14 1 10 0

Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIV OF SOUTHAMPTON HIGHFIELD on 03/11/12 For personal use only.

Fig. 9. Summary plots of damage estimation methods. (a) Results using the method of Boscardin and Cording (1989) and assessed ground movement behaviour. (b) Cumulative crack width estimation using the method of Boone (1996). Symbols indicate reported damage categories.

included, such as the depth of excavation and maximum settlement (as a percentage of excavation depth, from Fig. 4). From this data, the following information was calculated: (1) length of building within the settlement profile (l) (val-

ues of this length and ratios of total building length and l to building height, Hb, are shown in Fig. 7); (2) settlement at the front of the building and at the far end of the building or limit of building length, whichever governed (see Fig. 6);
1999 NRC Canada

Boone et al. Fig. 10. Measured and estimated cumulative tension crack width.

219 Fig. 11. Crack width frequency for four brick and masonry block structures.

Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIV OF SOUTHAMPTON HIGHFIELD on 03/11/12 For personal use only.

(3) lateral movement at the front of the building and at the far end of the building or limit of building length; (4) slope of the settlement profile at the front of the building for use in all methods; (5) angular distortion and horizontal strain at the front of the building for the Boscardin and Cording (1989) method; and (6) crack widths according to Boone (1996) (see Appendix 1). From these analyses, each building was evaluated and categorized for potential damage according to the three methods and the principal criteria listed in Table 6. Fortunately, all methods referred to the crack width values outlined in Table 1 as one basis for judging damage severity, thus making comparison useful. In Fig. 8, the frequency of categories predicted by each method is compared with the actual frequency determined by the postconstruction surveys. Table 7 (see also discussion below) compares the results on a building by building basis. Summary plots derived from the assessed ground movements and actual damage categories are shown in Fig. 9 for the methods suggested by Boscardin and Cording (1989) and Boone (1996). The method proposed by Boscardin and Cording (1989), used during the design stage of this project, underestimated damage in a number of cases. Where moderate damage actually occurred, the design criteria suggested that slight damage would be expected and that two of the cases would be expected to exhibit damage near the threshold between the very slight and slight damage categories. Although the more conservative interpretation of angular distortion was utilized during design, horizontal deformation remained the key estimator of damage severity. Boscardin and Cording refer to Table 1 as an indicator of damage, but the criteria illustrated in Figs. 1 and 9a and Table 7 are based on curves prepared by the National Coal Board (1975), a height to length ratio of 1, a total building length of 3040 m, and absolute values of strain. For example, the division between slight and moderate damage (cracks of 5 mm or greater) is defined at a horizontal strain of 0.15%, or about 15 mm of horizontal extension for every 10 m length of building. If this distortion

occurred as one single crack 15 mm wide, the damage would be categorized as severe, whereas if it occurred as four equally wide cracks, it would be considered slight damage. This method therefore, like all others, depends highly on the number and size distribution of cracks if damage is categorized according to Table 1. As one of the few design tools available at the time, however, this approach allowed a consistent and logical process for completing the stepwise damage potential assessment process for this project. The resulting specification requirements and construction control adequately managed risks to adjacent properties. The method proposed by Boone (1996) typically overestimates damage categories but reasonably estimates cumulative crack widths (see Fig. 10). Damage category overestimation arises from the use of cumulative crack width in comparison to Table 1. All cases where the damage category was underestimated fell within the negligible to slight categories. Measured cumulative crack widths from along the top of each wall are compared in Fig. 10 with the estimated cumulative crack width because the main deformation mode was likely to be horizontal with a component of bending (hogging). The cumulative crack widths in Fig. 10 that are greater than the estimated cumulative crack width are likely the result of including some preexisting damage in the summation of measured crack widths as well as inevitable differences in the simplified mathematical model and actual localized ground and building responses (see Fig. 6). The analysis results indicated that bendingrelated tensile strains accounted for 2040% of the cumulative tensile strain in about 70% of the buildings. Diagonal cracking from principal tensile stresses was the critical mode of damage for about 22% of the buildings, but most of these cases fell within the negligible to very slight damage categories. Figure 11 summarizes crack width frequency for the four buildings shown in Fig. 6. These four buildings were examined in detail because of their similar construction and moderate damage. It can be seen that for cumulative measured crack widths (along the top of the walls) of between approximately 12 mm and 20 mm, the maximum crack width is generally less than two thirds of the cumulative and often closer to one half of the cumulative crack width. Considering Fig. 11, data from Boone (1996) and from this project have been reevaluated using damage thresholds
1999 NRC Canada

220

Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 36, 1999

Fig. 12. Modified damage thresholds based on cumulative crack width. Numbers on some data points refer to case numbers provided in Boone (1996).

Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIV OF SOUTHAMPTON HIGHFIELD on 03/11/12 For personal use only.

for cumulative crack width equal to 1.5 times those values listed in Table 1 (see Fig. 12). The frequencies of each damage category estimated using this approach are depicted in Fig. 13. Damage categorization appears difficult in the negligible to very slight categories. This difficulty likely arises because in these categories subjectivity may be more significant in simple visual surveys, critical strains for cracking can differ, and building details and age may have a more pronounced effect. However, it is more critical to be able to appropriately estimate damage that exceeds the easily repaired aesthetic damage of these categories. As illustrated in Figs. 12 and 13, the modified approach is more able to correctly discern the boundaries between slight and moderate damage. Most importantly, those structures for which a moderate damage category was estimated were those that exhibited moderate damage in the field. Damage category underestimation was relatively evenly distributed between the negligible to very slight and very slight to slight categories in all but one case. In the one case where moderate damage was estimated to be slight, estimated crack widths fell close to the threshold between slight and moderate. For this project, Table 7 and Figs. 12 and 13 demonstrate reasonably good agreement with the proposed modified method.

1989; Boone 1996) provided far better results than the one method that did not (Rankin 1988). It is suggested that methods that do not consider horizontal movement are inappropriate for estimating damage severity resulting from an adjacent excavation. Correctly predicting the ground response was a critical factor in using any of the evaluated methods. The method proposed by Boscardin and Cording (1989) carries a number of assumptions that may or may not be appropriate for particular projects or structures. Boone (1996) provided a reasonable means of evaluating cumulative crack width which accommodated site-specific detail. As used in this study, the geometry-based mathematical representation of building deformation proposed by Boone and as modified in this paper readily allowed multiple iterations of damage potential assessment for many buildings. With built-in logical functions of spreadsheet software, damage categories were also easily estimated. Although cases where horizontal strains are not critical are needed to further evaluate the general applicability of this damage categorization approach, the category thresholds in Tables 1 and 7 and Fig. 12 are both consistent and appropriate for evaluation of low-rise, brick and masonry buildings of typical dimensions adjacent to excavations.

Acknowledgements Conclusions
From the results of this study, a number of conclusions can be drawn. In general, the two methods that considered the effects of lateral movement (Boscardin and Cording The writers would like to thank S. Pang, S. McGaghran, and S. Poot of Golder Associates Ltd. for their efforts in data collection during construction, and the owner for permission to publish this paper.
1999 NRC Canada

Boone et al. Fig. 13. Damage category frequencies estimated using modified cumulative crack width thresholds. The solid line represents actual frequency of damage categories, and bars indicate estimated damage categories.

221 by F.H Kulhawy. American Society of Civil Engineers, Geotechnical Special Publication 22, pp. 869884. Mair, R.J., Taylor, R.N., and Burland, J.B. 1996. Prediction of ground movements and assessment of risk of building damage due to bored tunnelling. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground, London. Edited by K. Fujita and O. Kusakabe. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 713718. Milligan, G.W.E. 1974. The behaviour of rigid and flexible retaining walls in sand. Ph.D. thesis, Cambridge University, Cambridge, U.K. National Coal Board. 1975. Subsidence engineers handbook. National Coal Board Production Department, London, U.K. ORourke, T.D., Cording, E.D., and Boscardin, M. 1976. The ground movements related to braced excavations and their influence on adjacent structures. U.S. Department of Transportation Report No. DOT-TST 76T-23. Peck, R.B. 1969. Deep excavations and tunnelling in soft ground: state of the art report. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Mexico City, pp. 225290. Peck, R.B. 1984. State of the art: soft-ground tunnelling. In Tunnelling in soil and rock. Edited by K.Y. Lo. American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, pp. 111. Rankin, W.J. 1988. Ground movements resulting from urban tunnelling: predictions and effects. In Engineering geology of underground movements. Edited by F.G. Bell, M.G. Colshaw, J.C. Cripps, and M.A. Lovell. Geological Society, London, pp. 79 92. Skempton, A.W., and MacDonald, D.H. 1956. The allowable settlements of buildings. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Part 3, 6: 727768.

Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIV OF SOUTHAMPTON HIGHFIELD on 03/11/12 For personal use only.

References
Boone, S.J. 1996. Ground movement related building damage. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 122(11): 886896. Boone, S.J. 1998. Ground-movement-related building damage: closure. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 124(5): 463465. Boone, S.J., Garrod, B., and Branco, P. 1998. Building and utility damage assessments, risk and construction settlement control. In Proceedings of the 24th World Tunnelling Congress, Sao Paulo, Brazil. Edited by A. Negro and A. Ferriera. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 243248. Boscardin, M.D., and Cording, E.J. 1989. Building response to excavation-induced settlement. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 115(1): 121. Bowles, J.E. 1996. Foundation analysis and design. 5th ed. McGraw-Hill, New York. BRE. 1989a. Simple measuring and monitoring of movement in low-rise buildings. Part 1: cracks. BRE Digest 343, Building Research Establishment, Watford, U.K. BRE. 1989b. Simple measuring and monitoring of movement in low-rise buildings. Part 2: settlement, heave and out-of-plumb. BRE Digest 344, Building Reasearch Establishment, Watford, U.K. Brierley, G. 1988. Discussion on The risks associated with tunnelling projects. Tunnelling Technology Newsletter, Number 64, December 15, U.S. National Committee on Tunnelling Technology, Washington, D.C. Burland, J.B., Broms, B.B., and DeMello, V.F.B. 1977. Behaviour of foundations and structures: state-of-the-art report. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Japanese Geotechnical Society, Tokyo, Japan, pp. 495546. Clough, W.G., and ORourke, T.D. 1990. Construction induced movements of in situ walls. In Design and performance of earth retaining structures. Edited by P.C. Lambe and L.A. Hansen. American Society of Civil Engineers, Geotechnical Special Publication 25, pp. 439470. Clough, W.G., Smith, E.M., and Sweeney, B.P. 1989. Movement control of excavation support systems by iterative design. In Foundation engineering, current practices and principles. Edited

Appendix 1
The method proposed by Boone (1996) was used to estimate the cumulative crack width caused by ground deformation in response to the excavation. In essence, the method utilizes the geometric changes induced by ground deformation in combination with an assumption that the building wall will deform as a simply supported, uniformly loaded, deep beam. Definitions of geometry parameters are provided in Fig. A1. Equations used for calculation of estimated cumulative crack width, derived from Boone (1996), are summarized in Table A1 and were utilized in a computer spreadsheet. Critical tensile strains, c , were taken from Table 1 in Boone (1996). For negligible damage, an upper threshold of c = 0.03% was chosen where cracks less than 1 mm first appear, and strains below this value were considered to be accommodated by the building materials without readily visible cracking (i.e., microcracking). For the division between very slight and slight damage, the average of the upper bounds of the c values (from 0.3 to 0.6 for bendingtensile strains) provided in Table 1 (Boone 1996), where fine cracks are evident during cursory inspection, were used, resulting in an c of about 0.04%. Beyond this limit of strain, it is considered that the existing fine cracks open and new ones form at positions often governed by discontinuities (windows, doors, and previous repairs).
1999 NRC Canada

222 Table A1. Table of equations for estimation of building damage. Parameter Settlement, S, and horizontal movement, h Slope, g Rigid-body tilt, t Rotation slope, Maximum curve deflection, max Proportion of deformation due to moment, (M ), max(M ) Proportion of deformation due to shear, (V ), max(V) Radius of bending, RM Bending strain at top of wall, M Lateral extension strain, le Shear strain, Cumulative maximum tensile strain along top of wall, t Principal tensile strain, p Cumulative tension crack width, Ct Cumulative diagonal crack width, Cp Equation

Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 36, 1999

Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIV OF SOUTHAMPTON HIGHFIELD on 03/11/12 For personal use only.

S = Smax[(Dmax D)/Dmax]2; h = hmax[(Dmax D)/Dmax]2 g = 2Smax(Dmax D)/(Dmax)2 t = (S1 S2)/L g1 t max = L 4 max(M ) = max (1 + 2. 88H 2 L2 ); (M ) = v (1 + 2. 88H 2 L2 ) max(V ) = max max(M ); v (V ) = v v (M ) RM = L/[2 sin(tan1(M ) )] M = H ( 2 RM ) le = ( h1 h2 ) L = tan1(V ) t = M + le 1 p = 0.25t + [( 0.25t )2 + ( 0.5 )2 ] 2 Ct = t L 1 C p = p [( 0.5L )2 + H 2 ] 2

Note: Settlement curve derived from Bowles (1996), and cracking damage equations derived from Boone (1996). Basic assumptions are as follows: (1) horizontal deformation profile at ground surface is equal to vertical deformation profile; (2) building moves with the ground; (3) equations provided for primarily cantilever-type wallground lateral movement pattern; (4) equations are provided only for load-bearing walls; and (5) lengthening of ground surface simply by virtue of changing straight line to a curve is ignored (see Boone 1996).

Appendix 2: List of symbols


Cp: cumulative diagonal (principal) crack width, see Boone (1996) Ct: cumulative tension crack width D: distance from excavation edge Dmax: distance to point where settlement lateral movement is zero Dfront: distance from excavation edge to front of building g1, g2: slope, or grade, of line tangent to vertical parabolic curve related to horizontal, at points 1 and 2 H: height (depth) of excavation and retaining system Hb: height of building wall h: horizontal movement hmax: maximum horizontal movement at excavation edge l: length of straight line between curve endpoints, i.e., length of part of building within settlement profile L: original horizontal length of building in settlement profile M: moment R: radius of curvature RM: radius of curvature defined by moment portion of total deflection RNA: radius of the neutral axis curvature r: linear regression coefficient S1, S2: settlement at points I and Q in profile, respectively Smax: maximum settlement at excavation edge S: differential settlement between endpoints of l t: rigid-body tilt V: shear : slope : angular distortion defined as the maximum change in slope along the beam, or the slope at the support used by Boscardin and Cording (1989) L: deflection ratio: maximum deflection between the curved beam deflection line and the straight line length between the two end points (chord), divided by the chord length as defined by Burland et al. (1977)

Fig. A1. Definitions of geometry and terms used to estimate cumulative crack width. Note that at beam ends is equivalent to as defined by Boscardin and Cording (1989).

1, 2 : angle of rotation at support of simple beam at points 1 and 2, respectively M : angle of rotation at support due to moment c : critical tensile strain g : strain due to elongation of the ground movement profile along the curved profile le : direct lateral extension strain, equivalent to horizontal strain h as used by Boscardin and Cording (1989) M : tensile strain due to moment-induced bending, either + for tension or for compression p: principle tensile strain, see Boone (1996) t : cumulative tensile strain = M + g + le : shear strain defined as a measure of distortion in units of radians (tan = ( V ) ) : deflection of beam in relation to chord between beam endpoints; although deflection is often notated as , is retained as the general notation for deflection consistent with the work of Timoshenko, where max = , and to avoid confusion with prior uses of in this particular subject max: maximum deflection of beam in relation to chord between beam endpoints
1999 NRC Canada

Boone et al.

223

max( V ) : maximum beam shear deflection related to chord between beam endpoints max(M) : maximum beam moment deflection related to chord between beam endpoints : slope of deflection curve, or x, related to chord Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIV OF SOUTHAMPTON HIGHFIELD on 03/11/12 For personal use only.

between beam endpoints; subscripts 1 and 2 refer to curve endpoints 1 and 2 as illustrated in Fig. A1 ( M ) : slope of deflection curve from moment-induced bending ( V ) : slope of deflection curve from shear distortion = tan

1999 NRC Canada

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi