Predicting RC frame response to excavation-induced settlement

Debra Laefer, Seyit Ceribasi, James H. Long, Edward J. Cording

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

In many tunneling and excavation projects, free-field vertical ground movements have been used to predict subsidence, and empirical limits have been employed to evaluate risk. Validity of such approaches is largely unknown given that ground movements are in fact not one-dimensional and that adjacent applied loads are known to have an impact. This paper employed analytical and large-scale experimental efforts to quantify these issues, in the case of excavation adjacent to a reinforced concrete frame with tieback anchors and a sheetpile wall in dry sand. With this flexible system, a disproportionate amount of the soil and building movements occurred prior to installation of the first tieback, even when conservative construction practices were applied. Furthermore, free-field data generated a trough as little as one-half the size of that recorded near the building frames. Empirically based relative gradient limits generally matched the extent and distribution of the damage, while the application of various structural limits did not fully identify local damage distribution but did generally reflect global response. The use of fully free-field data or a failure to include lateral soil displacements both underpredicted building displacements by as much as 50% for low-rise concrete frames without grade beams on sand.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1605-1619
Number of pages15
JournalJournal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering
Volume135
Issue number11
DOIs
StatePublished - 2009

Fingerprint

ground movement
Excavation
excavation
Sand
Tunneling (excavation)
Soils
damage
sand
Subsidence
reinforced concrete
Anchors
anchor
Reinforced concrete
trough
subsidence
soil
Concretes
distribution
project

Keywords

  • Damage
  • Excavation
  • Frames
  • Predictions
  • Reinforced concrete
  • Soil settlement

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Environmental Science(all)
  • Geotechnical Engineering and Engineering Geology

Cite this

Predicting RC frame response to excavation-induced settlement. / Laefer, Debra; Ceribasi, Seyit; Long, James H.; Cording, Edward J.

In: Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 135, No. 11, 2009, p. 1605-1619.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Laefer, Debra ; Ceribasi, Seyit ; Long, James H. ; Cording, Edward J. / Predicting RC frame response to excavation-induced settlement. In: Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering. 2009 ; Vol. 135, No. 11. pp. 1605-1619.
@article{5e6ecc8d0b714068ac593f5bd1c73ede,
title = "Predicting RC frame response to excavation-induced settlement",
abstract = "In many tunneling and excavation projects, free-field vertical ground movements have been used to predict subsidence, and empirical limits have been employed to evaluate risk. Validity of such approaches is largely unknown given that ground movements are in fact not one-dimensional and that adjacent applied loads are known to have an impact. This paper employed analytical and large-scale experimental efforts to quantify these issues, in the case of excavation adjacent to a reinforced concrete frame with tieback anchors and a sheetpile wall in dry sand. With this flexible system, a disproportionate amount of the soil and building movements occurred prior to installation of the first tieback, even when conservative construction practices were applied. Furthermore, free-field data generated a trough as little as one-half the size of that recorded near the building frames. Empirically based relative gradient limits generally matched the extent and distribution of the damage, while the application of various structural limits did not fully identify local damage distribution but did generally reflect global response. The use of fully free-field data or a failure to include lateral soil displacements both underpredicted building displacements by as much as 50{\%} for low-rise concrete frames without grade beams on sand.",
keywords = "Damage, Excavation, Frames, Predictions, Reinforced concrete, Soil settlement",
author = "Debra Laefer and Seyit Ceribasi and Long, {James H.} and Cording, {Edward J.}",
year = "2009",
doi = "10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000128",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "135",
pages = "1605--1619",
journal = "Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering - ASCE",
issn = "1090-0241",
publisher = "American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)",
number = "11",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Predicting RC frame response to excavation-induced settlement

AU - Laefer, Debra

AU - Ceribasi, Seyit

AU - Long, James H.

AU - Cording, Edward J.

PY - 2009

Y1 - 2009

N2 - In many tunneling and excavation projects, free-field vertical ground movements have been used to predict subsidence, and empirical limits have been employed to evaluate risk. Validity of such approaches is largely unknown given that ground movements are in fact not one-dimensional and that adjacent applied loads are known to have an impact. This paper employed analytical and large-scale experimental efforts to quantify these issues, in the case of excavation adjacent to a reinforced concrete frame with tieback anchors and a sheetpile wall in dry sand. With this flexible system, a disproportionate amount of the soil and building movements occurred prior to installation of the first tieback, even when conservative construction practices were applied. Furthermore, free-field data generated a trough as little as one-half the size of that recorded near the building frames. Empirically based relative gradient limits generally matched the extent and distribution of the damage, while the application of various structural limits did not fully identify local damage distribution but did generally reflect global response. The use of fully free-field data or a failure to include lateral soil displacements both underpredicted building displacements by as much as 50% for low-rise concrete frames without grade beams on sand.

AB - In many tunneling and excavation projects, free-field vertical ground movements have been used to predict subsidence, and empirical limits have been employed to evaluate risk. Validity of such approaches is largely unknown given that ground movements are in fact not one-dimensional and that adjacent applied loads are known to have an impact. This paper employed analytical and large-scale experimental efforts to quantify these issues, in the case of excavation adjacent to a reinforced concrete frame with tieback anchors and a sheetpile wall in dry sand. With this flexible system, a disproportionate amount of the soil and building movements occurred prior to installation of the first tieback, even when conservative construction practices were applied. Furthermore, free-field data generated a trough as little as one-half the size of that recorded near the building frames. Empirically based relative gradient limits generally matched the extent and distribution of the damage, while the application of various structural limits did not fully identify local damage distribution but did generally reflect global response. The use of fully free-field data or a failure to include lateral soil displacements both underpredicted building displacements by as much as 50% for low-rise concrete frames without grade beams on sand.

KW - Damage

KW - Excavation

KW - Frames

KW - Predictions

KW - Reinforced concrete

KW - Soil settlement

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=70350413610&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=70350413610&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000128

DO - 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000128

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:70350413610

VL - 135

SP - 1605

EP - 1619

JO - Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering - ASCE

JF - Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering - ASCE

SN - 1090-0241

IS - 11

ER -