4.7 Article

Influence of groundwater drawdown on excavation responses - A case history in Bukit Timah granitic residual soils

出版社

SCIENCE PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.jrmge.2018.04.006

关键词

Braced excavation; Bukit Timah granitic (BTG) residual soil; Wall deflection; Groundwater drawdown; Empirical charts

资金

  1. Land Transport Innovation Fund (LTIF) - Land Transport Authority (LTA), Singapore
  2. China Postdoctoral Science Foundation [2017M620414]
  3. Special Funding for Postdoctoral Researchers in Chongqing [Xm2017007]
  4. Advanced Interdisciplinary Special Cultivation Program of Chongqing University [06112017CDJQJ208850]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Performances of a braced cut-and-cover excavation system for mass rapid transit (MRT) stations of the Downtown Line Stage 2 in Singapore are presented. The excavation was carried out in the Bukit Timah granitic (BTG) residual soils and characterized by significant groundwater drawdown, due to dewatering work in complex site conditions, insufficient effective waterproof measures and more permeable soils. A two-dimensional numerical model was developed for back analysis of retaining wall movement and ground surface settlement. Comparisons of these measured excavation responses with the calculated performances were carried out, upon which the numerical simulation procedures were calibrated. In addition, the influences of groundwater drawdown on the wall deflection and ground surface settlement were numerically investigated and summarized. The performances were also compared with some commonly used empirical charts, and the results indicated that these charts are less applicable for cases with significant groundwater drawdowns. It is expected that these general behaviors will provide useful references and insights for future projects involving excavation in BTG residual soils under significant groundwater drawdowns. (C) 2018 Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据