AIRPORT CENTRAL DRAINED BASEMENT

Terence J. Wiesner1

ABSTRACT A case study is presented of the geotechnical design, construction and construction monitoring of the drained basement of the Airport Central Sheraton Hotel building at Mascot, Sydney. INTRODUCTION This paper provides brief details of the geotechnical design and construction monitoring carried out for the basement of the Airport Central Sheraton Hotel at Mascot, Sydney (Figure 1). The building is 12 stories high with down to 4 levels (depth of excavation about 12.5m) of basement parking and contains commercial premises as well as a five star hotel.

Figure 1 : Airport Central Sheraton Hotel at Mascot, Sydney. The design and construct tender to build the hotel was won in 1990 by Concrete Constructions, now Walter Constructions who, with Douglas Partners, geotechnical consultants, proposed a drained basement. This nonconforming design eliminated the need for tanking and permanent anchors to resist hydrostatic uplift. It facilitated an accelerated construction program using the 'top down' method, the first time this technique was used in Australia. In 'top down' construction the external diaphragm wall, load bearing barrettes and piles are installed and the basement floors and internal building structure used for lateral support allowing excavation of the basement and construction of the superstructure to proceed together. This can greatly reduce building construction time and cost.
1

Principal, Douglas Partners Pty Ltd, 96 Hermitage Road, West Ryde, Sydney, NSW 2114, Australia

Details of subsurface conditions at the site are provided followed by representative soil, rock and hydraulic properties used in analyses of the geotechnical design considerations for the drained basement. The primary design considerations were the: long term groundwater inflow into the drained basement and hence pumping requirements; potential draw down of ground water table and consequential effects in the adjacent area; potential for basement heave, that is, a 'piping' type failure under the perimeter diaphragm wall; and, magnitude of rebound and other possible effects due to excavation of material and hydraulic conditions both during construction and in the long term. Due to the serious consequences of a leaky perimeter wall, extensive geotechnical monitoring was carried out during construction and is described, as it was a key factor in the successful completion of the project. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The site is a relatively level, approximately egg shaped area of about 7800 square metres, bounded to the north and east by major streets with a railway embankment forming the southern boundary. Geotechnical investigations by Douglas Partners and others meant results from 16 test bores and 10 cone penetration tests were available to characterise the site. Subsurface conditions were relatively uniform and generally comprised: 0m to 15m - Granular filling (<1.8m) over medium to very dense, fine to medium grained SANDS 15m to ~20m - ALLUVIAL CLAYS generally firm to stiff but becoming very stiff to hard below ~18m 20m to 21m - top of RESIDUAL CLAYS which were very stiff to hard and merged at 23m to 26m+ into very low strength Ashfield SHALE, which became medium strong below 32m depth. A layer of very dense sand was encountered between 16.7m and 18.9m depth in one of the bores indicating a possible former river channel. Groundwater levels were generally measured at around 2m depth. Hydraulic conductivities (k) of the various strata were estimated from experience in similar conditions and the results of numerous borehole permeability tests, including rising and falling head tests in piezometers with screens in the sands and clays, and packer tests in the shale/laminite. The ranges of representative hydraulic conductivities for the various strata are presented in column 2 of Table 1. Also presented are the hydraulic conductivities, bulk densities, strength and stiffness values used in numerical analyses of the proposed construction sequence in which excavation and ground water changes were coupled with elastoplastic behaviour of the soil and rock. In order to represent a 'worst case' scenario low angles of friction and low k values were adopted in the clays and very low strength (clayey) shale. In addition, the elastoplastic model included a sand infilled channel behind the wall. Table 1 : Soil and Rock Properties Stratum Hydraulic conductivities (k) (m/s) 10 -4 to 10 -5 5 x 10 -6 to 10 -8 5 x 10 -8 to 10 -8 5 x 10 -6 to 10 -7 5 x 10 -7 or more k FLAC analyses (m/s) 5 x 10 -5 5 x 10 -6 5 x 10 -8 5 x 10 -8 5 x 10 -6 Bulk Density (t/m3) 2.00 1.94 2.10 2.14 2.14 Cohesion (kPa) 0 0 0 0 500 Friction angle (degree) 35 22.5 22 22 40 Shear modulus (MPa) 15 4.5 9.4 15 37.5 Bulk modulus (MPa) 49.5 14.8 31 49.5 123.7

Sand Alluvial clay Residual clay Very low strength shale Medium strong shale

The medium strong shale was known to be hydraulically linked to the surface elsewhere. As lower hydraulic conductivity clays and clayey shale overlaid it at this site there was a risk of heave, i.e. piping failure or even blowout, from local lowering of ground water levels from construction of the proposed drained basement. Piping failure can occur when the excess hydrostatic pressure on the base of a column of soil becomes equal to or exceeds the effective weight of overlying soil.

DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS Analyses of seepage flows into the proposed basement area for hydraulic conductivity of the clays ranging from 10 -6 to 5 x 10 -8 metres/second were carried out using MODFLOW, a 3 dimensional finite difference numerical ground water modeling package. The diaphragm wall was assumed to be impermeable and founded into the clays. Constant head boundaries were set at the regional groundwater head at a distance of 70m from the wall. High inflows initially occurred in the model due to water from the subsoils inside the walls and lowering of the water table to 12m associated with construction of the drained basement. Steady state conditions were achieved in the model within 50 days with most of the flow coming from the shale layer (k = 10 -6m/sec). Estimated flows into the excavation after 200 days with the wall penetrating to 17m depth ranged from 35 m3/day to 260 m3/day. Penetration into the clays to 25m depth reduced estimated inflow to around 100 m3/day for 10 -6 m/sec clay hydraulic conductivity. The estimated draw down in Figure 2 : Predicted drawdown (mm) and instrumentation locations the water table around the wall 2000 days after construction of Pore Pressures the drained basement is shown in B = 50 kPa Figure 2. Even immediately C = 100 kPa adjacent to the wall draw down is D = 150 kPa less than 300mm indicating a E = 200 kPa permanently drained basement is Scale x 10 = metres unlikely to significantly affect neighbouring structures. Removal of approximately 12m of predominantly sandy soil and design of the basement floor to allow seepage inflows to a sump will result in upward movement of the unloaded strata due to elastic rebound and swelling. Pore pressure gradients causing flow through the clay layer could lead to additional upward movements. Accordingly the effects of construction of a drained basement on pore Figure 3 : Pore pressures and flow vectors 3 days after excavation pressures, flows and soil movements were studied using FLAC, a finite difference numerical computer program capable of modeling coupled groundwater changes and elastoplastic deformations of the soils during and after basement excavation.

The construction procedures and subsuface stratification represented in the model were relatively severe compared with actual excavation and initially produced high pore pressure gradients as well as yield in a limited section of the clays. Figure 3 shows pore pressure contours and flow vectors approximately 3 days after rapid excavation to basement level. Pore pressure contour interval is 50 kPa and there are high values of over 200kPa in the clayey shale and clay. With about 10 metres to basement level in the clayey shale a simple calculation, neglecting the contribution of material strength, indicates a factor of safety against heave of close to 1. In the model the strength and weight of overlying material confined this area. As pore pressures dissipated and approached the long term steady state conditions, the clays returned to the elastic state and stability increased. In a similar plot at 50 days pore pressures are approaching steady state conditions and are approximately hydrostatic towards the centre of the excavation. Long term swell movements resulting from the removal of approximately 12.5m of sands and water were estimated using the model and other calculation methods to be of the order of 60 to 100mm. Approximately one third to one half of this movement was expected to occur within a few days of removal of the overburden materials. Based on the FLAC, MODFLOW and other calculations it was therefore considered that conditions inside the wall would eventually approach hydrostatic with very small upward flows. Significant heave was considered unlikely provided the wall and underlying clays formed an effective seal. Monitoring during construction was considered essential to ensure design requirements were met and pore pressures and ground responses were as expected. CONSTRUCTION MONITORING After satisfactory completion of design details and contract negotiations, construction of a diaphragm wall around the perimeter of the site was commenced, followed by barrettes to carry internal loads of up to 13000kN, and driven steel H piles to carry smaller loads of 1000 to 3000kN. Line loadings on the wall were estimated to range from 85 to 210kN/m although some sections carried column loads of up to 3600kN. Full time geotechnical monitoring was carried out during slurry wall construction. Each wall panel was logged during excavation to ensure it was keyed at least 2 metres into low permeability clays and the founding material was adequate for the design loads. Piezometers, borehole extensometers and inclinometers were also installed to monitor ground water and soil response during excavation. The locations where instrumentation was installed are shown in Figure 2. Frequent problems were experienced with the excavation contractor damaging or Figure 4 : Plot of measured and predicted excess pore pressures destroying the monitoring points. Some success was eventually achieved by encasing the upper section of the piezometers with heavy drill casing.

Piezometers were initially measured weekly then monthly then 3 monthly. Selected results are summarised on Figure 4, which was a simple way of presenting the internal piezometer results and the associated risk of heave. Measured pore pressures above the 'heave' line would have meant the excess pressure head at the location of the piezometer screen was greater than the effective weight of overlying material below final basement level. A factor of safety of 1.2 was applied for the 'marginal stability' line. Excess pore pressures were at a relatively safe level by February 1991 when final excavation level was achieved. Subsequently pore pressures slowly approached the theoretical long term predictions. During construction, in order to facilitate excavation, a deep pumping bore was installed to lower groundwater levels inside the excavation. Flows were initially higher than expected however they dropped rapidly to well below 20 m3/day after a small leaky section of the western portion of the wall was located and plugged. Water inflows measured after the project was completed were generally minimal and it was not possible to distinguish between actual draw down and natural groundwater fluctuations in water level measurements around the building. The excavated sands were fine grained and silty in part. Problems were experienced with excessively wet spoil, perched water tables, and traffickability due to the partially saturated sands and speed of excavation. These were addressed by draining to and pumping from shallow sumps. Excavation was initially carried out to the first basement level and the outer sections of the floor slab cast to connect and brace the walls to the internal columns. This left a large central hole through which plant was lowered and further excavation carried out to the third basement floor level. This was also partly cast as it was required to provide further bracing to the walls before the lowest basement level was excavated. A subfloor drainage system and sumps were installed beneath the lowest basement floor slab. Construction proceeded on the superstructure at the same time as the basement. Inclinometers just outside the basement walls indicated lateral movements of less than 30mm in the perimeter walls confirming the adequacy of the method of lateral support. Unfortunately the borehole extensometers were destroyed early in the excavation and could not be located or recovered despite the use of coloured grout around the holes. Observations after final excavation level was reached indicated no discernible basement heave. The building was successfully completed and the drained basement has operated for almost 10 years with very low inflows and no known problems apart from normal routine maintenance to clean out iron oxide and iron hydroxide precipitates in drains, sump and pumps. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS All the work described in this paper was carried out by Douglas Partners personnel as geotechnical consultants to Concrete Constructions Pty Ltd, now part of the Walter Construction Group. The permission and assistance of Stephen Tamone, project director for Concrete Constructions, to publish details of the project are gratefully acknowledged. Emged Rizkalla, site engineer for Douglas Partners at the time, made a substantial contribution to the success of the project as he carried out much of the fieldwork and site monitoring.