UNDERGROUND CONSTRUCTION NEAR EXISTING STRUCTURES & INFRASTRUCTURE

Harry G. Poulos
Coffey Geotechnics

Piling & Deep Foundations Australasia Brisbane, November 2011

OUTLINE

Excavation effects
Typical effects on piles Preliminary design charts

Tunnelling effects
Ground movement estimation Some characteristics of behavior Charts for preliminary design Potential for loss of pile capacity

Examples of assessment of tunnelling effects

The Leaning Tower of Shanghai (July, 2003)

HISTORIC ARCHIVE OF COLOGNE

Pinheiros Station, Sao Paulo, 2007

NICOL HIGHWAY COLLAPSE, SINGAPORE 2004

KEY DESIGN ISSUES

Will the induced foundation actions cause damage to the foundations of existing structures of infrastructure?

Will the induced foundation movements cause damage to the structure/infrastructure?

ANALYSIS APPROACH
Most effective way is a 3-stage process:
Estimation of free-field soil movements Foundation-soil interaction analysis of the influence of these movements on settlement and induced actions in foundation (moments, shears, axial forces) Then, assess effects on structure

PILES NEAR AN EXCAVATION

EXCAVATION INDUCED SETTLEMENTS (Peck, 1969)

EXCAVATION INDUCED LATERAL MOVEMENTS IN CLAY

BASIC CASE FOR EXCAVATION ANALYSIS

LATERAL MOVEMENTS OF WALL & SOIL

Nc = gh/cu

BENDING MOMENT vs DISTANCE

DETAILED PILE RESPONSES FOR BASIC PROBLEM

DESIGN EQUATIONS FOR LATERAL RESPONSE

MAXIMUM MOMENT Mmax = Mb.kcu.kd.kNc.kEIw.kk.ks MAXIMUM DEFLECTION rmax = rb.kcu.kd.kNc.kEIw.kk.ks Basic values Mb, rb depend on distance from excavation

BASIC CURVES FOR BENDING MOMENT & LATERAL DEFLECTION

CORRECTION CURVES FOR BENDING MOMENT & DEFLECTION

Corrections for:
Soil strength Pile diameter Stability number Nc Wall stiffness Strut stiffness & spacing

Refer to Poulos & Chen(1997) ASCE for details

EFFECTS OF EXCAVATION-INDUCED MOVEMENTS ON PILES

Test PC1
300

64
estimated by design charts measured

60 56 52 48

estimated by design charts measured

250

Maximum bending moment in pile (kN.m)

measured

Maximum pile deflection (mm)

200

40 36 32 28 24 20 16 12 8 4 0

150

Test PC2

Test PC1

44

distance measured distance measured

pile-1

100

Test PC3

Test PC2

distance predicted

pile-2

Test PC3

distance
Test PC4 Test PC5

0 0 2 4 6 8 Distance from retaining wall (m) 10

Test PC5

50

Test PC4

10

Distance from retaining wall (m)

Fig. A Estimated and Measured Maximum Pile Bending Moments and Deflections

BUILDING AFFECTED BY EXCAVATION

EFFECT OF CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS ON A BUILDING

9-storey building in Indonesia Uncontrolled excavation near one corner Building tilted and continued to tilt Eventually demolished Study made of possible causes of the tilting
Various hypotheses examined Soil-pile interaction analysis carried out

GEOTECHNICAL PROFILE
0 S i lt , v er y so ft 5 0 SPT 40 80 0 S u k N /m 2 50 100 L egend : BH1 BH2 BH3 BH4 1 50 0 C o m p a r i s o n In d e x C c 1 2 C o nten t R e c o m p r e s s io n % In d e x C r 3 0 0 .3 0 Wa1 0r0 te d e n s it y P re c o n s o l i d a t i o n t/ m 3 P re ss u r e k P a 1 .2 w e t 2 .0 0 400 800

10 Depth (m) S i lt , v er y so ft s ti f f S il t , & sa n d , h ar d Sa n d , v e ry d e nse , c e m e n te d 15 20 25 30 35

N a tu r a l W /C

A p p r o x i m a te e ff e c tiv e o v erb u rd en p re ss u re

F i g u r e 1 5 S u m m a r y o f E n g i n e e r i n g P r o p e r ti e s

STRUCTURAL CAPACITY OF PILES

5000 4000 Normal Load (kN) 3000 2000 1000 0 S tr u c t u r a l c a p a ity u s in g u lt i m a t e s t r e n g th s o f st e e l a n d c o n c r e t e S tr u c t u r a l c a p a c it y u s i n g d e s ig n s tc ren g th s o f ste e l a n d c o n c re te

C o m p u t e d c o n d i t io n in p i l e 0 100 200 300 400 B e n din g M om en t (k N m ) 50 0

Conclusion: Induced moment due to excavation was sufficient to cause structural failure of the piles near the uncontrolled excavation

F ig u re 1 8 S t r u c tu r a l C a p a c it y o f O ff i c e B u i l d in g P i le s

THE MESSAGES
Control excavation-induced movements Adopt the observational approach:
Predict Set action levels Measure Compare Take remedial action, if necessary

ASSESSMENT OF TUNNELLING EFFECTS ON PILES & STRUCTURES

Estimation of tunnelling-induced ground movements:
Empirical approach Peck (1969), Mair et al (1993) Analytical approach Loganathan & Poulos (1998)

ANALYTICAL METHOD FOR TUNNELLINGINDUCED MOVEMENTS (Loganathan & Poulos, 1998)

ANALYTICAL METHOD

e0 = average ground loss ratio

COMPARISON FOR DTSS SEWER PROJECT, SINGAPORE

Lateral Distance (m)
-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0
-5

Sub-surface settlement (mm)

10 15 20 25
0 0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15

-2 -4 -6

-10
-15

Depth (m)

-20 -25 -30

Settlement (mm)

Loganathan & Poulos (1998) Mair (1983) Clough & Schmidt (1981) Observed

-8

Loganathan & Poulos (1998)

-35 -40

-10

Mair et al (1993) Observed

Settlement Profile Section T03-1

Distribution with Depth

MEASURED & PREDICTED SETTLEMENTS

70

60

Maximum Settlement mm

50

40

Mair (1981) Clough et al (1981) Loganathan and Poulos (1998) Observed

30

20

10

0 Heathrow Express Thunder Bay Tunnel, Green Park Tunnel, Trial Tunnel, UK Canada UK Barcelona Subway Network Barcelona Bangkok Sewer Tunnel, Thailand

SOME CHARACTERISTICS OF PILE RESPONSE NEAR TUNNELS

Parametric Study Tunnel D=6m H = 20 m Average volume loss = 1, 2.5, 5 % Pile d = 0.5 1.2 m L = 15, 20 25 m x/H = 0 to 2

BENDING MOMENT DISTRIBUTIONS

Largest moment occurs at or near level of tunnel axis

Note major effect of ground loss

LATERAL DEFLECTION OF PILE

AXIAL INDUCED FORCE IN PILE

Note tension in upper part of pile due to stretching by ground settlement increasing with depth

DESIGN CHARTS FOR SINGLE PILES NEAR TUNNELS

DESIGN EQUATIONS
Lateral Response
Mmax = Mb.kcum.kdm.klpm rmax = rb.kcur.kdr.klpr

Axial response
+Pmax = Pb.kcup.kdp.klpp vmax = vb.kcuv.kdv.klpv

BASIC CURVES

Maximum Moment

Pile Head Settlement

CORRECTION FACTORS Shear strength Pile diameter Relative pile length

See Chen et al (1999) ASCE JGGE

RESPONSE OF PILE GROUPS

Settlements and lateral deflections of group & single pile are similar Axial forces in group less than an a single pile Thus, is conservative to use single pile solutions for a small group

VERIFICATION OF ANALYSIS METHODS FOR PILES

Centrifuge tests Loganathan et al (2000) Application to field cases

CASE HISTORY APPLICATION - UK

ANALYSIS vs MEASUREMENT

EXPERIENCE IN SINGAPORE (Pang et al)

MRT North East Line 6.5m diameter tunnels near piles supporting viaduct (1.6m clear) 12 piles monitored for response during tunnelling

COMPARISONS WITH MEASUREMENTS

Bending Moment MNm

-1 -0.5 0 10 20 0 0.5 1

Calculated Pile P1 Measured - Pile P1 Computed FE Pang et al Pile P1

Depth m

30 40 50 60 70

EXPERIENCE IN SINGAPORE (Pang et al)

Peak axial force when tunnel face near piles Larger force and moment in pile nearer tunnel Larger responses as tunnel loss increases Longitudinal moments equal to or less than transverse moments Induced moments relatively small, even for 1.5% volume loss

POTENTIAL LOSS OF PILE CAPACITY

What is the effect of tunnel construction on pile geotechnical capacity?

BASIC APPROACH
Treat tunnel as cylindrical cavity Compute equivalent change in cavity stress based on assumed volume loss Consider radial stress changes due to tunnelling, via cavity expansion theory From radial stress changes, compute changes in normal and vertical stress at location of pile Estimate loss in pile shaft & base capacity from these stress changes

TYPICAL RESULTS PILE ABOVE TUNNEL

CONTOURS OF % LOSS OF PILE CAPACITY

THE MESSAGES
Control tunnelling-induced movements
Control volume loss

Adopt the observational approach

CRITERIA FOR STRUCTURE DAMAGE

(Burland et al, 2001)

Damage Category 0 1 2 3 4-5

Severity

Lim. Tensile Strain % 0-0.05 0.05-0.075 0.075-0.15 0.15-0.3 >0.3

Negligible Very slight Slight Moderate Severe-v. severe

EFFECTS OF FOUNDATION STIFFNESS - Potts & Addenbrooke (1997)

CONSEQUENCES OF FOUNDATION STIFFNESS

Reduces maximum settlement (small effect on average settlement) Reduces differential settlements Reduces horizontal strains major influence Generally reduces risk of damage

BUILDING PROTECTION
Underpinning foundations Construction of wall/barrier between structure and tunnel Compensation grouting

Typical Scenario for Hong Kong Express Rail Link

BUILDING SB127

APPLICATION TO EXISTING BUILDING ASSESSMENT IN SINGAPORE

13-storey building Founded on 322 driven steel H-piles Tunnel route initially adjacent to and through part of the foundation system Assessment of additional settlement of foundation system Some piles cut, additional mini-piles to be installed Also additional pile moments due to tunnel construction assessed

SINGAPORE BUILDING
Ground profile Building Outline

LAYOUT OF PILES

ANALYSIS RESULTS
Stage Description Max. Settl. mm 19 37 57 48 Min. Settl. mm 15 18 16 13 Max. Max. Pile Rotn. rad Load MN -1/10593 1/2700 1/1260 1/1780 1.45 2.03 3.36 2.23

Load on Existing Foundation Tunnelling Settls Imposed on Existing Foundn. (no cut piles) Tunng. Setts., 55 piles cut

Tunng. Setts., 55 piles cut, extra piles added

APPLICATION TO EXISTING BUILDING ASSESSMENT IN SINGAPORE

SOME PRACTICAL CONSEQUENCES OF GROUND-MOVEMENT-INDUCED LOADINGS

Maximum forces & moments generally below the top of the pile Damage may not be apparent Account should be taken of pile joints for precast piles May require full-length reinforcement of piles

CONCLUSIONS
Tunnelling- and excavation-induced ground movements have the potential to cause additional forces, moments and deflections in nearby piles Group effects are generally beneficial Assessment of ground movement effects is critical for many urban infrastructure developments below and adjacent to existing structures & infrastructure

THE MESSAGES
Control construction-induced movements Adopt the observational approach:
Predict Set action levels Measure Compare Take remedial action, if necessary