2nd International Conference on Civil Infrastructure and Construction (CIC 2023)

5-8 February, 2023 Qatar University, Doha, Qatar

Top-Down Construction Method: A Case Study For

Underpass Structure in Qatar
Ali Kara
Public Works Authority (Ashghal), Doha, Qatar
[email protected]
Anbalagan Chelliah
Public Works Authority (Ashghal), Doha, Qatar
[email protected]
Theodoros Tzaveas
Public Works Authority (Ashghal), Doha, Qatar
[email protected]

Abstract
The Cut and Cover construction method has been applied to build several underpass structures within
the expressway programme of the Highway Projects Department, Public Works Authority, Qatar.
Booming in the construction industry contributes to increasing existing traffic in Qatar. This
subsequently failed existing road junctions and required updating the road network parallel to the
traffic studied. Underpasses and bridges were planned across many locations in Qatar to increase the
level of service at road junctions, enhance the traffic capacity, reduce traffic congestion, and improve
the free flow of traffic. This paper discusses the design and construction challenges of the underpass
structure constructed by top-down construction method located on D ring Road in Doha, Qatar. The
top-down construction method has been suggested by the construction contractor as an alternative to
the conventional cut-and-cover construction method to minimize the traffic disruption and meet
updated temporary traffic management (TTMs) due to underpass construction works, restore traffic
at the junction on top of the underpass prior to the completion of construction works and overall
optimize the construction duration. A numerical modelling research was carried out to study the
change in arrangements. The site-specific challenges, such as modification in the structural
arrangement of the underpass, change in ground conditions, lateral displacement of pile walls and
dewatering challenges, are discussed in this paper.

Keywords: Top-Down construction; Underpass construction; Construction method; Deep excavation;

Structure in Qatar

1 Introduction
The top-down construction method is preferred for constructing substructures in urban areas where
tieback installation is not feasible in the deep excavation and when the aboveground area, such as
roads above the substructure, is to be utilized during the construction. This approach allows
simultaneous underground and aboveground structure construction.
In a conventional cut-and-cover method, after the construction of the diaphragm wall, excavation
proceeds for a certain depth and an anchoring system (one or more layers) are installed to support the
diaphragm walls and the excavation proceeds, followed by construction of the underground structure.
This process takes more time, and the whole area can only be utilized once the structure is completed.
In roadway underground structures, this approach causes much inconvenience to the public as the

397
road cannot be utilized, and traffic must be diverted for a longer duration. Lengthy occupation of road
sites with noise disturbances and disruption to access is a prime disadvantage of the cut-and-cover
method in busy urban areas (Puller, 2003). This paper presents a case study of an underpass
constructed by top-down methodology on D-Ring Road, Doha, Qatar. In this case study, the design
approach followed for the top-down construction, the construction sequence adopted, the challenges
encountered, advantages and limitations of this approach are discussed.
The D-Ring Road in Doha connects many crowded areas such as Freej Hilal, Al Nuaija, Old Airport
and Doha Expressway. D-Ring Road improvements were planned to avoid traffic congestion and
reduce travel time. As part of this project, a 420m long underpass with 3 lanes in each direction, with
a capacity of 12,000 vehicles per hour, was proposed to provide uninterrupted traffic movement.
Underpass construction was planned as a combination of conventional cut-and-cover and top-down
construction approach in the design stage. However, during construction, the construction contractor
preferred to execute the construction implementing fully the top-down construction approach to
minimize traffic disruption and optimize the construction duration (Hossein et al., 2018).
2 Literature Review
Puller (2003) stated that peripheral sheeting/walling, ground and groundwater conditions,
geographical location, skills, and preferences of local contractors influence the substructure
construction method (cut-and-cover or top-down). The top-down construction will likely minimize
wall movements, soil deformation, and settlements. When the excavation depth increases, excavation
becomes more complex, leading to top-down techniques which allow simultaneous substructure and
superstructure construction.
Whittle et al. (1993) demonstrated the importance of finite-element analysis for top-down modelling
construction for reliable and consistent predictions of soil deformations, nevertheless, emphasizes the
need for adequate characterization of engineering properties for the entire soil profile.
Marchant et al. (1994) stated that the top-down construction approach was driven by economics from the
main contractors’ point of view. Moreover, adopting the top-down method can have a far-reaching impact
on the design, and implications are also site-specific, per consultants’ point of view. It emphasized the
significance of involving the contractor at an early stage to enhance the efficiency of the design and
construction process.
The top-down approach is well suited for most situations of the urban construction environment.
However, it demands rigorous quality adherence, thorough planning, managerial expertise, and a detailed
understanding of construction sequences for inclusion in the design and analyses (Basarkar et al. 2010).
Wong et al. (2019) studied the effectiveness of the top-down construction method in Malaysia. They
concluded that adopting the top-down construction approach is most suitable and efficient in urban
areas and busy traffic locations. The study highlighted the necessity of highly experienced contractors
and special machinery for executing top-down construction. Further, the study identified that
confined working environments and machine idling are limitations of this approach.
3 Top-down Construction
3.1 Construction Methodology
A top-down approach is instrumental in construction of the underpass. Piles and the top deck slab are
first constructed to allow traffic at the ground level, then excavation to the bottom, where the
underpass foundation slab and side walls are constructed.

398
At the site, the following construction sequence was followed, as shown in Figure 1.
 Construction of Contiguous/Tangent-pile Walls and then pile cap construction on both sides.
Construction of temporary piles in the middle for the deep sections.
 Construction of approach slab.
 Erection of concrete girders (post-tensioning) and casting of deck slab.
 Proceeding the excavation (with dewatering) to the foundation level in stages using temporary
struts supports. Access for the removal of soil was provided.
 Construction of base slab, shotcrete on the pile walls, pouring mass concrete as a
counterweight against uplift.
 Construction of underpass box wall.

Fig. 1: Construction Stages

Some of the site construction photos showing various stages of construction are shown below in
Figure 2.

399
 Boring of Piles Constuction of Approach Slab

Deck slab reinforcement fixing Excavation below Deck Slab

Excavation work Application of Shotcrete at inner face of piles

Formwork installation for wall Casting Central wall in between temporary piles

Fig. 2: Site Construction Photographs

3.2 Design Approach

The pile wall-ground interaction analysis was carried out using the finite element program Plaxis 2D
and forces, displacement, and pile-wall stiffness were assessed. The contractor’s geotechnical
consultant performed the analysis following each section’s Construction Industry Research and
Information Association (CIRIA) C760 Guidance on Embedded Retaining Wall Design (Gaba et al.,

400
2017) of the underpass. In the analysis, each construction stage excavation condition, groundwater
level, excavation support system, and loadings were modelled, and the analysis was carried out
accordingly. The pile-wall flexural inertia for short-term (temporary condition) and long-term
(permanent case) conditions of 0.7EoI and 0.50EoI (where E is the modulus, and I is the moment of
inertia) were used. The resultant forces were used in the structural design.
4 Ground and Groundwater Conditions
4.1 Ground Conditions
The subsurface at the proposed underpass location consists of residual soil cover up to about 0.45m
to 3.0m below the ground level, comprising SILTY SAND with occasional limestone fragments,
followed by moderately weak SIMSIMA LIMESTONE up to about 10.0 -12.0m depth. MIDRA SHALE
was encountered below Simsima limestone with a thickness varying from 1.4m to 4.4m which is
underlain by a weak to moderately strong RUS formation up to the maximum drilled depth of 30m
below the ground level. No cavities were found.
4.2 Groundwater Conditions
The groundwater level measured in the piezometers varied between 3.75m and 6.50m below the existing
ground level, i.e., between Elevation +3.28m and +7.11m Qatar Highway National Datum (QNHD). The
ground surface elevation at the project varied between elevation +13.0m and +15.0m QNHD.
5 Design and Construction Challenges
5.1 Change in Ground conditions
After completing the detailed design and before the underpass construction, wet utility pipeline
construction was carried out by another contractor as part of a different project. Due to this, on one
side of the underpass close to the pile-wall location, the existing natural formation was excavated and
backfilled with soil fill material to about 8.0-10.0m depth (Table 1).
Table 1: Change in Subsoil Conditions
Subsoil Conditions
During Detailed Design After Detailed Design
(Before Construction)
0.0-3.0/4.0m Residual Soil 0.0-8.0/10.0m Backfilled soils in medium-dense condition
3.0/4.0-20m and below Rock Formation 8.0/10.0m – 20.0m and below the Rock Formation

Initially, the pile wall was designed considering frictional resistance from rock formation encountered
at about 3.0m below existing ground level. However, as rock formation was excavated and backfilled
with soil, the pile wall was redesigned for the latest ground formation, and pile-wall length was
increased at these locations.
As the piles must resist the lateral earth pressures and vertical loading, any reduction in pile capacity
might have endangered the entire top-down construction approach. The additional ground
investigation helped identify the fill areas. Accordingly, the piles at this alignment of the underpass
were redesigned by sufficiently extending into the rock formation below the base slab level.
5.2 Modification in Structural Arrangement
Two rows of temporary piles were necessary to be constructed for the deep sections to allow casting
the final intermediate wall. Then temporary piles were removed at a level below the base slab. After

401
the installation of side piles and excavation of soils for the construction of the underpass, it was
observed that at deeper sections of the underpass where the box structure was proposed, and the
exposed tangent piles at some locations exceeded the pile wall alignment tolerances. Revised wall
thicknesses were structurally assessed to ensure the safety of construction. This issue has forced the
contractor to make some minor modifications to the final structural configurations of the underpass.
The final structural arrangement of the underpass structure is shown below in Figure 3.

Fig. 3: Final Arrangement of Underpass Structure

5.3 Dewatering
The WellPoint Dewatering Method was adopted at the project site to lower the groundwater during
excavation and underpass construction. The dewatering groundwater level was maintained at 1.0m
below the excavation level. The existing WellPoint system could not achieve the required dewatering
at deeper underpass sections. Hence, additional French drains 1.0m wide and 1.0m thick on both sides
of the pile walls and 0.60m x 0.60m in the middle of the underpass at the base level were installed
along the underpass alignment, as shown in Figure 4 below.

Fig. 4: Additional Dewatering Drains

As the new drain system requires an additional 1m, the pile wall design was checked by performing
soil-structure interaction analysis using Plaxis 2D for the additional excavation. Initially, the detailed
design of the pile wall design was performed considering additional excavation of 0.50m depth
considering possible over-excavation meeting CIRIA C760 Standard (Gaba et al., 2017)

402
requirements. Hence, the net increase in excavation depth was about 0.50m only, and the increase in
forces in the pile walls due to this additional excavation is marginal. As dewatering was under
progress for some construction activities, the final deflection of walls for the static water level
condition is not available.
6 Discussion and Conclusion
The Top-down Construction Method was very useful for temporary traffic management in this project
with less traffic disruption. Compared to the conventional Cut & Cover Approach Method, this
approach reduced construction duration, and the contractor could complete the construction works on
time. Further, this case study reiterates the importance of precise location and structure-specific
geotechnical investigation for the design of various structural elements of the underpass. Post
geotechnical investigation, nearby below-ground construction activities that could alter the ground
conditions must be reported to the designer. The design of deep pile-wall sections shall allow
sufficient tolerances considering possible deviations in the verticality of piles, and underpass box
structure geometry shall be designed accordingly. Implementing this method in locations with high
water table, increases the complexity of the construction and complicates configurations to ensure
that specifications for waterproofing details are met.
7 Acknowledgements
UCC Infraroad Limak JV company W.L.L is the construction Contractor, PARSONS International is the
Design Consultant, and the Supervision Consultant of this project is WSP International, Qatar, acting also as
Independent Checker for the detailed design. ACTS, Qatar, acted as a geotechnical consultant for the contractor
and was responsible for the geotechnical design for the Top-down Construction Shoring System. The opinions
expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the organizations
mentioned above and Public Works Authority.

References
Basarkar S. S. et al. (2010). ‘Emerging Trend in Deep Basement Construction: Top-Down Technique’, IOSR Journal of
Mechanical and Civil Engineering (IOSR-JMCE), ISSN: 2278-1684, PP: 01-11.
Gaba, A. et al. (2017). ‘CIRIA C760 Guidance on Embedded Retaining Wall Design’, CIRIA, London.
Gui, Y. et al. (2020). Study on deformation law of deep foundation pit with the top-down method and its influence on
adjacent subway tunnel. Advances in Civil Engineering.
Hossein, Z. S & Mirmohamadi S. & Mostafa (2018). ‘Top-Down Construction Method: A Case Study of Commercial
Building’, 11th International Congress on Civil Engineering May 2018, University of Tehran, Iran.
Marchant, S., Wren, G. & Lamb, R. (1994). ‘Top-down construction and its implications’, Proceedings of the Institution
of Civil Engineers - Geotechnical Engineering,107(2), pp. 123-124.
Puller, M. (2003). Deep excavations – a practical manual (2nd Edition), Thomas Telford Ltd., London.
Whittle, A. J., Hashash, Y. M., & Whitman, R. V. (1994). ‘Analysis of deep excavation in Boston’. Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, 120(10), 1911-1912.
Wong, J. Y. et al. (2019). ‘Effectiveness of top-down construction method in Malaysia’. International Journal of
Innovative Technology and Exploring Engineering, 8(6), 386-392.

Cite as: Kara A., Chelliah A. & Tzaveas T., “Top-Down Construction Method: A Case Study For Underpass Structure in
Qatar”, The 2nd International Conference on Civil Infrastructure and Construction (CIC 2023), Doha, Qatar, 5-8 February
2023, DOI: https://doi.org/10.29117/cic.2023.0054

403