Emergency Strategies for Gushing Water of Borehole and Numerical Simulation on Circular Diaphragm Wall Excavation with Ring-Beams
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Background
1.2. The Literature Review
- (1)
- Upper Section Failure: Due to lower external pressures near the surface, leading to minor axial forces, horizontal bending stress causes cracks and deformation more easily. Reinforcement with ring beams, which resist bending moments, is necessary.
- (2)
- Midsection Failure: At the excavation interface, where soil and water pressures peak, both horizontal axial forces and vertical bending stresses are maximized. Failures are dominated by vertical deformations and bending, with horizontal axial forces typically governing. Ring beams may be installed to withstand these forces.
- (3)
- Lower Section Failure: Near the diaphragm wall’s base, external pressure decreases with the support of passive soil pressure, reducing uneven pressure. While the wall remains compressed, failures arise from the soil’s stability issues, such as heaving, piping, or uplift failures.
2. Methodology
2.1. Research Methods and Content
- Analysis Process
2.2. Case Introduction
- (1)
- Soil Layer Overview
- (2)
- Groundwater Level
- (3)
- Construction Process of the Case
- A.
- Guide Trench for the Diaphragm Wall: An excavator digs to a depth of 3 m, then steel is tied inside, followed by the erection of formwork on the inside of the steel. Finally, concrete is poured outside the formwork to complete the guide trench.
- B.
- Before starting the excavation, dewatering wells are installed around the site to lower the groundwater from GL −1 m to GL −4.7 m. Pumping out water continues until the structure’s weight surpasses the groundwater’s buoyant force, allowing for the sealing of wells. This ensures a stable excavation and a dry work area for construction.
- C.
- Before constructing the roadway, an excavation 8 m wide and 25 cm deep is made. After pouring concrete, the roadway is completed (purpose: to prevent large vehicles from passing and compressing the diaphragm wall).
- D.
- After excavating the diaphragm wall trench to GL −36 m, the steel cage is lowered into the specified position, followed by concrete pouring and backfilling, and the diaphragm wall unit number and construction sequence are indicated in Figure 3.Figure 3. Diaphragm Wall Panel Numbering and Construction Sequence.
- E.
- Antiflotation piles are constructed inside the site with the purpose of using the friction between the pile or diaphragm wall body (or cross wall, etc.) and the soil beneath to resist the upward force below the raft foundation slab, as shown in Figure 4.Figure 4. Anti-Flotation Pile (or Wall) Schematic Diagram.
- F.
- For the excavation of the first underground layer, excavation proceeds from the inside out in a symmetrical manner, with each layer being 5 m deep to minimize displacement of the diaphragm wall. After the excavation inside the site is completed, the outer construction pavement is broken by an excavator, and excavation continues simultaneously.
- G.
- Excavation continues to the B1F level, and a ring beam is constructed. After exposing the reserved steel bars, the rebar is tied, the formwork is set up, and concrete is poured.
- H.
- The excavation of the second and third underground levels begins (during the curing period of the ring beam, starting with the middle excavation), and after 7 days of ring beam curing, it is excavated from below the ring beam.
- I.
- When excavating to the B3F level, a ring beam is constructed. After exposing the reserved steel bars, the rebar is tied, the formwork is set up, and excavation continues.
- J.
- Excavate the fourth and fifth underground levels (during the ring beam curing period, start with the middle excavation), and after 7 days of ring beam curing, excavate from below the ring beam.
- K.
- As the weight of soil in the excavation area continues to decrease and the amount of soapstone used to seal the drilling hole (BH-10) is insufficient, groundwater continuously flows out from the drilling hole, as shown in Figure 5 and Figure 6.Figure 5. Groundwater Continuously Flows Out from the Drilling Hole (Indicated by the Pink Circle and here, “BH-XX” in the figure refers to the XX drilling hole).Figure 5. Groundwater Continuously Flows Out from the Drilling Hole (Indicated by the Pink Circle and here, “BH-XX” in the figure refers to the XX drilling hole).Figure 6. Groundwater Continuously Flows Out from the Drilling Hole (On-Site Situation).
- L.
- Water is added to the excavation area until it reaches the same hydrostatic pressure as the groundwater outside the excavation area (at GL −6 m), as shown in Figure 7.Figure 7. Water Added to the Excavation Area Until It Matches the Hydrostatic Pressure of the Groundwater Outside the Excavation Area (The Green Circle Indicates the On-Site Situation).Figure 7. Water Added to the Excavation Area Until It Matches the Hydrostatic Pressure of the Groundwater Outside the Excavation Area (The Green Circle Indicates the On-Site Situation).
- M.
- Before the CCP (Compacted Concrete Piling) grouting operation, a platform is set up, and the grouting machine is placed on the platform. After drilling around the drilling hole (down to GL −40 m), CCP grouting is performed from the outside to seal the inflow holes.
- N.
- After completing the CCP grouting, water inside the excavation area is pumped out.
- O.
- After lowering the groundwater outside the excavation area to GL −6 m and inside the excavation area to GL −18 m, excavation of the fourth and fifth underground levels continues.
- P.
- Before constructing the base of the fifth underground level, a layer of PC (Precast Concrete) with a thickness of 10 cm is laid.
- (4)
- Introduction to Monitoring Instruments
3. Numerical Simulation and Monitoring Data Validation
3.1. Numerical Simulation Model and Input Parameters
- (1)
- Soil Layer Parameter Settings
- (2)
- Simulation of Circular Diaphragm Wall Parameters
3.2. Simulation of Construction Steps
- Simulation of normal excavation construction steps (without water gushing inside the excavation area):
- (1)
- Set up the diaphragm wall, anti-flotation pile walls, and roadway (with a load of 33.75 kN/m2), and calculate the initial Ko stress before excavation.
- (2)
- Perform the first excavation (GL −5 m) calculation, lower the groundwater level to (GL −6 m) while the groundwater level outside the excavation area remains unchanged (GL −1 m), as detailed in Figure 13a.
- (3)
- Install the first layer of ring beam support (GL −4.75 m), with the groundwater level outside the excavation area remaining unchanged (−1 m).
- (4)
- Perform the second excavation (GL −12 m) and lower the groundwater level to (GL −13 m), while the groundwater level outside the excavation area remains unchanged (GL −1 m).
- (5)
- Install the second layer of ring beam support (GL −11.55 m), with the groundwater level outside the excavation area remaining unchanged (GL −1 m).
- (6)
- Perform the third excavation (GL −17.05 m), apply surface load calculations, and lower the groundwater level to (GL −18.05 m), while the groundwater level outside the excavation area remains unchanged (GL −1 m), as detailed in Figure 13b.
- Simulation of water gushing within the excavation area:The first six steps are the same as above.
- (7)
- Simulate water gushing within the excavation area up to GL −6 m while the groundwater level outside the excavation area remains unchanged (GL −1 m), as detailed in Figure 13c.
- (8)
- Pump out the water gushing inside the excavation area, and lower the groundwater level to (GL −18.05 m), then perform the final excavation to the bottom (GL −17.05 m) calculation, as detailed in Figure 13d.
3.3. Comparison of Simulation and On-Site Monitoring
- Comparison of simulated normal excavation construction steps with on-site monitoring:
- (1)
- Comparison of simulation results with inclinometer data from on-site monitoring
- (2)
- Comparison of ground settlement simulation results with on-site ground settlement data (SM2)
- (3)
- Comparison of ground settlement simulation results with on-site ground settlement data (SM16~30)
- Comparison of simulated water gushing within the excavation area with on-site monitoring
- (1)
- Comparison of water gushing simulation results with on-site monitoring inclinometer data
- (2)
- Comparison of wall deformation results between normal excavation simulation and water gushing simulation
4. Conclusions
4.1. Summary
- Model Evaluation for Normal Excavation: This study utilizes three models to assess soil behavior. The HS model demonstrates higher accuracy in capturing soil deformations under normal excavation conditions. With parameters “clay = 800 Su, sand = 2500 N”, both the HS and HSS models predict similar diaphragm wall displacements, but the HS model predicts less ground settlement, indicating a closer resemblance to real-site conditions.
- Effect of Young’s Modulus on Soil Behavior: Adjusting the clay Young’s modulus at three different levels shows that 800 Su best represents real soil behavior. The modulus of sand has minimal impact on wall deformation and settlement, highlighting the limited effect of Young’s modulus in scenarios with mixed soil conditions.
- Accuracy of Ground Settlement Simulation: Under the parameters “clay = 800 Su, sand = 2500 N”, the HS model’s simulation of ground settlement aligns well with on-site data at site SM2, away from construction traffic. Conversely, sites SM16~30, located on traffic routes, recorded higher settlements than simulated, pointing to discrepancies likely influenced by external factors.
- Support from Previous Studies: The simulation results of horizontal displacement at the bottom of the diaphragm wall are corroborated by findings from Yasushi and Osamu [3], enhancing the credibility of these results.
- Water Gushing Simulations: Simulations of water gushing conditions revealed significant disparities with on-site data, suggesting the models’ limitations in accurately reflecting real-time soil and water pressure dynamics, which cause notable outward wall inclinations.
- Wall Deformation Under Normal Excavation: The HS model estimated a maximum wall deformation of 12.9 mm at a depth of 12.0 m, slightly higher than the observed 11.6 mm at 11.5 m depth. This discrepancy, along with variations in wall diameter, depth, and external loads compared with the existing literature (Peck [18]), underscores the need for further investigation.
- Ground Settlement Near Excavation Site: Using the HS model parameters for normal excavation up to GL −17.05 m, the simulation indicated a maximum ground settlement of 62.59 mm at 8 m from the diaphragm wall. This exceeded empirical expectations and was likely influenced by nearby roadway traffic and load effects on soil behavior.
4.2. Recommendations
- Circular Diaphragm Wall Analysis: Using Plaxis 3D, this study found that the Hardening Soil model (HS) closely matched the actual maximum wall deformations for a circular diaphragm wall. Ground settlement at point SM2 was accurate, but discrepancies at points SM16~30 suggest the need for a specific arrangement of settlement monitoring points to avoid distortions from construction activities.
- Soil Behavior Analysis with Three Models: This study employed three models (MC, HS, HSS) using effective stress parameters due to the lack of comprehensive total stress data. This underscores the necessity for more detailed soil data to enhance simulation accuracy in future research.
- Use of Circular Diaphragm Wall: The application of a circular diaphragm wall with unsupported excavation is uncommon domestically. Additional successful case studies are essential for a better understanding of wall displacement and ground settlement, thus improving analysis references.
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Illustration | Description | Management Item | Measurement Frequency | Alert Value (cm) | Action Value (cm) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Inclinometer observations inside the wall at 8 locations, required to be embedded at GL −36 m. | Lateral displacement of the retaining wall | During the excavation phase, observations are conducted twice a week, normally once a week. | 1.6 | 2.5 | |
2 | Inclinometers in the soil at 8 locations, each location 5 m deeper than the diaphragm wall. | Lateral displacement of the soil layers | During the excavation phase, observations are conducted twice a week, normally once a week. | 1.6 | 2.5 | |
3 | Strain gauges at 8 locations, each installed at depths of GL −11.8 m and GL −22.2 m on the main reinforcement bars inside and outside, with a total of 32 strain gauges installed. | Stress in the reinforcement of the diaphragm wall | During the excavation phase, observations are conducted daily at fixed times, normally once every two days. | 2100 Kgf/cm2 | 2520 Kgf/cm2 | |
4 | Water level observation wells at 4 locations, each with a depth of 12 m. | Groundwater level around the site | Observations are conducted twice a week. | 2 m | 3 m | |
5 | Building tilt meters at a minimum of 8 locations are to be installed near buildings and pedestrian bridges at the construction site (arranged by the contractor). | Tilt of neighboring buildings near the site | During the excavation phase, observations are conducted twice a week, normally once a week. | 1/500 | 1/300 | |
6 | Additionally, at least 30 settlement observation points are to be set up on roads, buildings, and pedestrian bridges surrounding the construction site (arranged by the contractor). | Ground settlement near the site (cm) | During the excavation phase, observations are conducted twice a week, normally once a week. | 1.6 | 2.5 | |
7 | Electronic water pressure gauges at 4 locations, positioned 39 m below the ground surface. | Groundwater pressure within the site and beneath the excavation face | During the excavation phase, observations are conducted daily at fixed times, normally once every two days. | See details below. | See details below. |
References
- Wen-Han, P. The Study of the Performances of a Large-Scale Cofferdam Excavation. In Institute of Civil Engineering & Disaster PreVention Technology; National Kaohsiung University of Applied Sciences: Kaohsiung, Taiwan, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Kim, D.-S.; Lee, B.C. Cylindrical Diaphragm Wall Movement During Deep Excavation For In-ground LNG Storage Tankin Coastal Area. Int. J. Offshore Polar Eng. 2003, 13, 285. [Google Scholar]
- Arai, Y.; Kusakabe, O.; Murata, O.; Konishi, S. A numerical study on ground displacement and stress during and after the installation of deep circular diaphragm walls and soil excavation. Comput. Geotech. 2008, 35, 791–807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, W.; Zhu, W.; Chen, Z.; Weng, Q.; Wu, J. Design, study and practice of deep cylindrical excavation of Shanghai World Expo 500 kV underground transmission substation project. Chin. J. Geotech. Eng. 2008, 30, 564–576. [Google Scholar]
- Tan, Y.; Lu, Y.; Xu, C.; Wang, D. Investigation on performance of a large circular pit-in-pit excavation in clay-gravel-cobble mixed strata. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 2018, 79, 356–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, Q.W.; Xie, J.L.; Zhu, H.H.; Lu, L.H. Supporting behavior evolution of ultra-deep circular diaphragm walls during excavation: Monitoring and assessment methods comparison. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 2024, 143, 105495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lim, A.; Ou, C.-Y. Case Record of a Strut-free Excavation with Buttress Walls in Soft Soil. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Asia Urban GeoEngineering, Singapore, Changsha, China, 24–27 November 2018; pp. 142–154. [Google Scholar]
- Chuah, S.; Harry, S.T. Numerical study on a new strut-free counterfort embedded wall in Singapore. In Proceedings of the Earth Retention Conference 3, Washington, DC, USA, 1–4 August 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Chiu, H.-W.; Hsu, C.-F.; Tsai, F.-H.; Chen, S.-L. Influence of Different Construction Methods on Lateral Displacement of Diaphragm Walls in Large-Scale Unsupported Deep Excavation. Buildings 2024, 14, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clough, W.; O’Rourke, T. Construction induced movements of in situ wall. Geotech. Spec. Publ. 1990, 25, 439–470. [Google Scholar]
- Ou, C.-Y.; Hsieh, P.-G.; Chiou, D.-C. Characteristics of ground surface settlement during excavation. Can. Geotech. J. 1993, 30, 758–767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, J.-Z.; Chan, X.-S.; Lei, Y.-M. Analysis of Soil Parameters in the Kaohsiung Metro Red Line Section. J. Chin. Inst. Civ. Hydraul. Eng. 2003, 30, 101–104. [Google Scholar]
- Mana, A.I.; Clough, G.W. Prediction of movements for braced cuts in clay. J. Geotech. Eng. Div. 1981, 107, 759–777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Masuda, T.; Einstein, H.H.; Mitachi, T. Prediction of lateral deflection of diaphragm wall in deep excavations. Doboku Gakkai Ronbunshu 1994, 1994, 19–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hsiung, B.-C. Engineering Performance of Deep Excavations in Taipei. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Hsu, C.-F.; Wu, C.-Y.; Li, Y.-F. Development of a Displacement Prediction System for Deep Excavation Using AI Technology. Symmetry 2023, 15, 2093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hsieh, P.-G.; Ou, C.-Y. Shape of ground surface settlement profiles caused by excavation. Can. Geotech. J. 1998, 35, 1004–1017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peck, B. Deep excavation and tunnelling in soft ground, State of the art volume. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering (Mexico), Mexico City, Mexico, 25–29 August 1969; pp. 225–290. [Google Scholar]
- Woo, S.; Moh, Z. Geotechnical characteristics of soils in the Taipei basin. In Proceedings of the 10th Southeast Asian Geotechnical Conference, Taipei, Taiwan, 16–20 April 1990. [Google Scholar]
- Jia, J.; Zhai, J.Q.; Li, M.G.; Zhang, L.L.; Xie, X.L. Performance of Large-Diameter Circular Diaphragm Walls in a Deep Excavation: Case Study of Shanghai Tower. J. Aerosp. Eng. 2019, 32, 04019078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goh, A.T. Basal heave stability of supported circular excavations in clay. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 2017, 61, 145–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ou, C.-Y.; Shiau, B.-Y. Analysis of the corner effect on excavation behaviors. Can. Geotech. J. 1998, 35, 532–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
γ (KN/m3) | B (m) | T (m) | H (m) | D (m) | Co (kPa) | m | Ave Cu (kPa) | FSFE | FSshart |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
16 | 40 | 60 | 16 | 4 | 5 | 1.5 | 39.5 | 1.288 | 1.287 |
16 | 40 | 60 | 16 | 4 | 10 | 1.5 | 44.5 | 1.473 | 1.450 |
16 | 40 | 60 | 16 | 4 | 20 | 1.5 | 54.5 | 1.813 | 1.776 |
16 | 40 | 60 | 16 | 10 | 10 | 1.5 | 53.5 | 1.923 | 1.952 |
16 | 40 | 72 | 24 | 4 | 10 | 1.5 | 56.5 | 1.285 | 1.291 |
16 | 40 | 80 | 24 | 12 | 10 | 1.5 | 68.5 | 1.748 | 1.785 |
16 | 100 | 120 | 24 | 24 | 10 | 1.5 | 93.25 | 2.192 | 2.180 |
16 | 20 | 60 | 16 | 10 | 10 | 1.5 | 51.25 | 2.177 | 2.300 |
16 | 20 | 60 | 16 | 4 | 10 | 1.5 | 42.25 | 1.544 | 1.610 |
16 | 30 | 60 | 16 | 4 | 10 | 1.5 | 43.375 | 1.479 | 1.498 |
16 | 40 | 60 | 16 | 4 | 20 | 1.2 | 47.6 | 1.584 | 1.551 |
16 | 40 | 60 | 16 | 4 | 10 | 1.2 | 37.6 | 1.246 | 1.225 |
16 | 40 | 60 | 16 | 10 | 10 | 1.2 | 44.8 | 1.617 | 1.634 |
Soil Layer | Average Depth (m) | γm (kN/m3) | N | Su (kN/m2) | CC | Cr | c (kN/m2) | Φ (°) | c’ (kN/m2) | φ’ (°) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ML/SM | 0~−6.88 ± 2.0 | 18.84 | 3 | 30 | − | − | 14.7 | 18 | * 0 | * 28 |
CL/ML | −6.88~−11.7 ± 2.2 | 18.05 | 3 | 30 | − | − | 14.7 | 18 | * 0 | * 28 |
ML/CL | −11.7~−18.1 ± 2.0 | 18.54 | 8 | 0.35 σ’ | * 0.2 | * 0.02 | 19.6 | 20 | 0 | 30 |
SM | −18.1~−22.2 ± 1.1 | 19.03 | 12 | − | * 0.12 | * 0.012 | − | − | 0 | 31 |
CL | −22.2~28.2 ± 1.5 | 18.54 | 9 | 0.35 σ’ | 0.21 | 0.033 | 19.6 | 20 | 0 | 30 |
SM | −28.2~−31.7 ± 1.1 | 20.01 | 20 | − | * 0.10 | * 0.010 | − | − | 0 | 32 |
CL, ML | −31.7~−36.7 ± 1.7 | 18.64 | 13 | 0.35 σ’ | 0.38 | * 0.039 | 19.6 | 21 | 4.9 | 30 |
ML | −36.7~−39.1 ± 2.3 | 18.74 | 17 | − | * 0.12 | * 0.012 | − | − | * 0 | * 32 |
ML, CL | −39.1~−52.4 ± 1.6 | 18.64 | 16 | 0.35 σ’ | 0.43 | 0.038 | 19.6 | 21 | 4.9 | 30 |
SM | −52.4~−60.4 ± 0.5 | 20.11 | 35 | − | − | − | − | − | * 0 | * 35 |
GM/SM | −60.4~−71.6 | 21.58 | 20 | − | − | − | − | − | * 0 | * 40 |
Soil Layer | c’ (kN/m2) | φ’ (°) | ψ (°) | K0 | υ | Gs | ω (%) | e | K (cm/s) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. ML, SM | 0.2 | 28 | 0 | 0.53 | 0.30 | 2.7 | 23 | 0.62 | 3.25 × 10−4 |
2. CL, ML | 0 | 28 | 0 | 0.53 | 0.35 | 2.7 | 31 | 0.84 | 1.25 × 10−7 |
3. ML, CL | 0 | 30 | 0 | 0.50 | 0.35 | 2.7 | 31 | 0.84 | 1.25 × 10−7 |
4. SM | 0.2 | 31 | 1 | 0.48 | 0.30 | 2.7 | 29 | 0.78 | 3.25 × 10−4 |
5. CL | 0 | 30 | 0 | 0.50 | 0.35 | 2.7 | 29 | 0.78 | 1.25 × 10−7 |
6. SM | 0.2 | 32 | 2 | 0.47 | 0.30 | 2.7 | 21 | 0.57 | 3.25 × 10−4 |
7. CL, ML | 5 | 30 | 0 | 0.50 | 0.35 | 2.7 | 36 | 0.97 | 1.25 × 10−7 |
8. ML | 0.2 | 32 | 2 | 0.47 | 0.30 | 2.7 | 29 | 0.78 | 3.25 × 10−4 |
9. ML, CL | 5 | 30 | 0 | 0.50 | 0.35 | 2.7 | 31 | 0.84 | 1.25 × 10−7 |
10. SM | 0.2 | 34.5 | 4.5 | 0.43 | 0.30 | 2.7 | 20 | 0.54 | 3.25×10−4 |
11. GM, SM | 0.2 | 34.5 | 4.5 | 0.36 | 0.30 | 2.7 | 13 | 0.34 | 3.25×10−4 |
Soil Layer | N | Su (kN/m2) | m | E50ref (kN/m2) | Eurref (kN/m2) | Eoedref (kN/m2) | e | Go (kN/m2) | G50ref (kN/m2) | γ0.7 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
HS Model | Common Items | HSS Model | ||||||||
1. ML, SM | 3 | − | 0.5 | 7500 | 22,500 | 6000 | 0.62 | 61,566 | 112,330 | 6.88 × 10−5 |
2. CL, ML | 3 | 30 | 1.0 | 24,000 | 72,000 | 19,200 | 0.84 | 65,223 | 81,730 | 1.72 × 10−5 |
3. ML, CL | 8 | 44.41 | 1.0 | 35,532 | 106,596 | 28,425 | 0.84 | 103,681 | 81,730 | 1.77 × 10−5 |
4. SM | 12 | − | 0.5 | 30,000 | 90,000 | 24,000 | 0.78 | 116,334 | 88,523 | 2.16 × 10−5 |
5. CL | 9 | 75.88 | 1.0 | 60,704 | 182,112 | 48,563 | 0.78 | 191,954 | 88,523 | 1.63 × 10−5 |
6. SM | 20 | − | 0.5 | 50,000 | 150,000 | 40,000 | 0.57 | 196,076 | 121,605 | 1.95 × 10−5 |
7. CL, ML | 13 | 104.68 | 1.0 | 83,748 | 251,244 | 66,998 | 0.97 | 189,210 | 66,803 | 2.37 × 10−5 |
8. ML | 17 | − | 0.5 | 425,000 | 1,275,000 | 340,000 | 0.78 | 293,177 | 88,523 | 1.66 × 10−5 |
9. ML, CL | 16 | 139.68 | 1.0 | 111,748 | 335,244 | 89,398 | 0.84 | 306,719 | 81,730 | 1.93 × 10−5 |
10. SM | 35 | − | 0.5 | 87,500 | 262,500 | 70,000 | 0.54 | 282,090 | 126,533 | 2.61 × 10−5 |
11. GM, SM | 50 | − | 0.5 | 125,000 | 375,000 | 100,000 | 0.34 | 418,052 | 170,341 | 2.03 × 10−5 |
Type | Depth (m) | γ (kN/m3) | E (kN/m2) | Poisson’s Ratio υ | Thickness (m) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Diaphragm walls | GL + 0~−36 | 23.57 | 2.30 × 107 | 0.15 | 1.0 |
Anti-Flotation Pile | GL −17.05~−32 GL −17.05~−30 | 23.57 | 2.30 × 107 | 0.15 | 1.0 |
Type | Area (m2) | γ (kN/m3) | E (kN/m2) | I1 | I2 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ring Beam | 0.8 | 23.57 | 2.30 × 107 | 0.04267 | 0.06667 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Tsai, Y.-H.; Hsu, C.-F.; Ho, K.-H.; Chen, S.-L. Emergency Strategies for Gushing Water of Borehole and Numerical Simulation on Circular Diaphragm Wall Excavation with Ring-Beams. Symmetry 2024, 16, 524. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym16050524
Tsai Y-H, Hsu C-F, Ho K-H, Chen S-L. Emergency Strategies for Gushing Water of Borehole and Numerical Simulation on Circular Diaphragm Wall Excavation with Ring-Beams. Symmetry. 2024; 16(5):524. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym16050524
Chicago/Turabian StyleTsai, Yi-Hao, Chia-Feng Hsu, Kuo-Hsiang Ho, and Shong-Loong Chen. 2024. "Emergency Strategies for Gushing Water of Borehole and Numerical Simulation on Circular Diaphragm Wall Excavation with Ring-Beams" Symmetry 16, no. 5: 524. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym16050524
APA StyleTsai, Y.-H., Hsu, C.-F., Ho, K.-H., & Chen, S.-L. (2024). Emergency Strategies for Gushing Water of Borehole and Numerical Simulation on Circular Diaphragm Wall Excavation with Ring-Beams. Symmetry, 16(5), 524. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym16050524