Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
net/publication/228718812
CITATIONS READS
2 1,578
1 author:
Harry G. Poulos
The University of Sydney
270 PUBLICATIONS 6,918 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Harry G. Poulos on 28 May 2014.
H. G. Poulos
Senior Principal, Coffey Geosciences Pty Ltd., 8/12 Mars Rd., Lane Cove West, NSW, Australia, and Emeritus
Professor, Civil Engineering, University of Sydney, Australia
harry_poulos@coffey.com.au
Abstract: This paper explores some of the “side effects” of investigation and construction processes, and their possible effects on
existing deep foundations. The processes considered will include:
1. The driving of piles;
2. The installation of piles by jacking;
3. Drilling holes in stressed ground for the purposes of investigation or construction;
4. Carrying out shallow excavations, for example, for pile cap construction or the installation of services;
5. Carrying out deeper excavations, for example, for a development on a site adjacent to the existing pile foundation.
Each of these processes involves the generation of additional ground movements, which will in turn induce additional movements,
forces and bending moments in the existing foundations. The paper examines these ground movements and explores their influence on
the behaviour and integrity of existing pile foundations.
Compressive
Pile 2 Pile 1
200
100 r
r Nc d
02 9 2/3
0 L1
1.5m 1
1/3
L
L1 -100 d
Homogeneous Clay
Es = 20MPa 2/3
Tensile
νs = 0.5 L = 15m -200
c u = 50kPa E b = 5Es
1
d = 0.5m -300
E p = 30000MPa
-400
Underlying Layer 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
p y = Nc c u
- very stiff for end-bearing pile d = 0.5m Distance from Pile Being Installed, r/d
0.4 500
300
L1
ρr / r 0
1/3
2/3
0.2 L
,1
200 d
Unrestrained Pile being
Head driven
d
0.1 100 1/3, 2/3 Existing
Pile
1
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 r/d
r/d
Fig. 5. Influence of pile spacing on maximum moment in pile due to
Fig. 2. Radial displacements in soil due to pile driving. driving of adjacent pile.
0.20 500
L1
1/3
2/3
0.10 L
,
1
200 d
Unrestrained Pile being
Head driven
0.05 d
100 1/3, 2/3 Existing
Pile
1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 2 4 6 8 10
r/d r/d
Fig. 3. Vertical displacements in soil due to pile driving. Fig. 6. Computed distributions of bending moment in existing pile due to
installation of adjacent pile-restrained head.
4.3 Pile Response to be displaced by the pile. In extreme cases, it may be necessary
to construct a barrier or wall to protect the existing piles.
Poulos (1994) presented a series of solutions for the response of a
pile to the installation of one or more adjacent piles. Figure 4
shows the computed maximum compressive and tensile axial
loads in a pile due to driving of an adjacent pile, as a function of 5 INSTALLATION OF PILES BY JACKING
the spacing between the piles and the relative depth of
embedment of the new pile. The maximum compressive load is 5.1 Introduction
developed when the penetration of the new pile is relatively Over the past few years, equipment has been developed
shallow, while the maximum tensile force is developed when the (primarily in China) for the installation of precast or preformed
new pile is at its final penetration. As expected, the maximum piles by jacking. Figure 10 shows a typical jacking rig, which has
load decreases with distance. the following features:
Figure 5 shows computed bending moments induced in the • It is a heavy machine which typically weighs 400-
existing pile by driving the new pile. In this case, the largest 600tonnes, and is supported on two tracks (typically 2m
moments occur when the new pile is at a relatively shallow wide by 10 m long), thus imparting a pressure of between
penetration and when the head of the existing pile is restrained. 200 and 300 kPa to the soil surface;
Figure 6 shows the computed distributions of bending moment • The pile is gripped by a central clamp which then pushes the
along the existing pile when it has a restrained head, and reveals pile section into the ground, and which allows rapid rates of
significant reversals of sign of the moments. penetration to be achieved. Typically, a 25m long pile can
For two cases in the UK, Figure 7 shows comparisons between be installed in 15-20 minutes;
measured pile heaves and those predicted by Poulos (1994) and • The force required to install the pile is monitored
Chow and Teh (1990). At the Northampton site, the soil profile continuously, and can be considered to be a type of load test,
consisted of 2.5 m fill overlying 1.5m silty clay overlying 2.2m although there are a number of limitations to the ability of
gravel and sand, overlying 1.7m laminated clay silt, which was such measurements to accurately indicate long-term static
underlain by firm to sandy hard sandy clay with gravel and capacity of piles.
boulders. Driven cast in-situ piles, 0.45m nominal diameter with Such rigs have been used increasingly in China, Hong Kong,
enlarged bases, were installed, all piles being between 9.5 and Malaysia and Australia, among other locations, and have proved
10m long. The London site consisted of about 2m fill overlying to be popular because of their speed and relative economy. Li et
3m soft organic clay overlying a 6m layer of sand and gravel al (2003) set out a detailed description of the equipment and its
which was underlain by grey London Clay. The piles had a use, and the precautions that should be taken to reduce the risks
nominal shaft diameter of 0.47m and were assumed to have a that the pile performance will be unsatisfactory.
length of 6.25m for the analyses. The measured heaves show An issue that has not been explored in detail is the effects of
considerable scatter in both cases, but both theoretical estimates the jacking rig itself on piles that have already been installed in
are reasonably consistent with the measurements. The lower close proximity to the rig. Figure 11 shows a diagram of the rig
heaves predicted by Chow and Teh may be attributed at least and adjacent pile to be analyzed. The heavily loaded support
partly to the assumption of incompressibility of the pile. pads will give rise to both vertical and lateral ground movements
Figure 8 shows the measured and predicted horizontal that can influence adjacent existing piles. It should be pointed out
movements of a pile as five rows of piles were driven that the rig can also influence the behavior of the pile being
successively, each row containing 14 piles. The predicted installed, as the stresses caused by the support pads will increase
horizontal movement is predicted to increase with each both the lateral and vertical stresses around the pile. As a
successive row driven, and this is in accordance with the consequence, the ground will tend to be more highly stressed
measurements. While there is some difference between the during installation than afterwards, and this may result in the
measured and theoretical response, the overall agreement is fair. apparent capacity of the pile during installation being greater than
Reyno et al (1999) reported the results of a series of model the long-term capacity after the rig has departed. In this section,
pile tests in relatively dense sand. Figure 9 shows comparisons attention will be focused on the effects of the rig on adjacent
between measured and computed maximum bending moment, piles.
groundline deflection and groundline rotation with depth of
penetration of the newly-installed pile. The approach used by
Poulos (1994) was used to estimate the ground movements due to 5.2 Ground Movements
installation of the piles, which were 450 mm long and 40 mm in The ground movements due to the weight of the rig can be
diameter. Overall, the agreement is reasonable, especially for the computed from a numerical analysis, in this case using the
groundline displacement and rotation. computer program FLEA (Small, 1985). Two soil profiles have
The foregoing theoretical and experimental data clearly been considered, a stiff clay profile and a medium dense sand
demonstrate that the driving of piles adjacent to existing piles has profile, and in each case, the existing pile is founded on an
the potential to induce significant vertical and lateral deflections, underlying weathered rock deposit. Fig. 11 gives the relevant
together with additional axial forces and lateral bending moments deformation parameters, while the following ultimate skin
in the existing piles. Such side effects should not go friction values (fs) are assumed: clay fs = 60 kPa, sand fs =
unrecognized and measures should be taken to reduce the likely 25+5z kPa, where z=depth. Figures 12 and 13 show the
impacts on the existing piles. Maximizing the distance between computed distributions of vertical and lateral movement at
the existing and new piles is a simple, but not always feasible, different distances from the rig axis, for the clay profile, while
strategy, and it may be necessary in some cases to modify the the corresponding distributions for the sand profile are shown in
Figures 14 and 15. The maximum settlements are up to 6mm in
procedures for installation of the new piles, for example, by pre-
the clay and 15mm in the sand, but the lateral ground movements
boring or using open-ended sections to reduce the volume of soil
are generally small.
Field Measurements
Theoretical (Author)
Theoretical (Chow and Teh 1990)
20 20
Pile Heave (mm)
15
10 10
5 5
0 0
2 3 4 5 6 7 2 3 4 5 6 7
Normalized Pile Spacing s/d Normalized Pile Spacing s/d
5.3 Pile Responses comparable, but as the distance increases, the case of the fixed-
restrained head becomes more critical.
Using the computer programs PIES for vertical response and
Overall, the examples shown here indicate that the proximity
ERCAP for lateral response, the effects of the induced ground
of a jacking rig to an existing pile can have a deleterious effect on
movements on an existing 400 mm diameter concrete pile have
the performance of that pile. Of particular concern is the
been computed. In each case, it is assumed that the pile has an
additional settlement that is induced when the pile is close to the
axial load of about 40% of its ultimate static capacity acting on it
rig. It must be borne in mind that, in congested urban sites, such
(i.e. it is operating at a factor of safety of about 2.5). Figures 16
close proximity is by no means uncommon.
and 17 show the computed distributions of axial force in the pile
for the clay profile and sand profile respectively. These figures
indicate that additional axial downdrag forces are induced in the
pile by the ground movements, but that the maximum axial force 6 DRILLING FOR INVESTIGATION AND PILE
CONSTRUCTION
in the pile is only increased by 20-25% even when the pile is 2m
from the center of the support pad. The additional settlement of
the adjacent pile, as a function of distance from the rig, is shown 6.1 Introduction
in Figure 18. It can be seen that the additional settlement can be The drilling of holes in the ground is a standard process for
relatively large (of the order of the settlement of the pile under its ground investigation and for the construction of piles, and is so
design working load) if the pile is close to the rig. Thus, the common that little consideration is given to the possible
presence of the rig would tend to cause noticeable additional consequences. Of particular concern are the ground movements
settlements of the existing piles, and this indeed has been that can arise because of the removal of the soil during the
observed in at least two cases in Hong Kong involving high-rise drilling process. While such movements may be very small in an
buildings with jacked remedial piles being installed adjacent to “open-field” situation, this may not be the case when the holes
the existing pile foundation system. are drilled in highly-stressed ground, for example, below an
Figures 19 and 20 show the computed distributions of induced existing high-rise building. In this section, an examination is
bending moment within a pile near the rig, for the clay and sand made of the ground movements that can arise from the drilling
profiles respectively. In these cases, the pile head is assumed to process, and of the consequences of these ground movements on
be fixed and restrained, representing the case where the piles are existing nearby piles.
restrained by the foundation system and by the pile cap. The
largest moments are developed at or near the pile head, but are of
relatively small magnitude. Figure 21 summarizes the maximum 6.2 Ground Movements
moment versus distance from the rig, for both the fixed-restrained Despite the ubiquitous nature of the hole drilling process, there
pile head and a free-unrestrained pile head. When the pile is close appear to be no studies of the ground movements arising from
to the rig, the maximum moment for both head conditions is drilling operations. As a consequence, a numerical analysis
employing the commercially-available computer program
160
Measured (Bell et al, 1984)
Calculated
Horizontal Movement of Pile (mm)
120
80
40
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Row Driven Fig. 10. Typical jacked pile rig.
0.2 2 2
Relative Pile Length (Ld/L)
0.4 Fig. 11. Basic problem of pile adjacent to jacked pile rig.
0.6
0.8
Movement m
1.0 0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010
0
1.2
Rotation (Degrees) x 1000 2
-200 -100 0 100 200
0.0
4
0.2 Test
6
Relative Pile Length (Ld/L)
X=0
Depth m
1.0 14
1.2 16
Fig. 9. Maximum bending moment, groundline displacement and rotation Fig. 12. Computed vertical displacements below jacked pile rig on clay.
in dense sand: 40mm diameter.
Movement m Load MN
-0.003 -0.002 -0.001 0.000 0.001 0.002 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
0 0
2 2
4 X=0 4
X=7 6
6
Depth m
Depth m
X=8
8 X=10 8
X=15 No ground movs.
10 10
X=7m
12 12 X=8m
X=10m
14 14 X=15m
16 16
Fig. 13. Computed horizontal displacements below jacked pile rig on Fig. 16. Computed axial load distributions for pile in clay, adjacent to
clay. jacking rig.
Settlement m Load MN
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
0 0
No ground movs.
2 2 X=7
4 X=8
4
X=10
6 X=0 6 X=15
Depth m
Depth m
X=7
8 8
X=8
10 X=10 10
X=15
12 12
14 14
16
16
Fig..14. Computed vertical displacements below jacked pile rig on sand. Fig. 17. Axial load distribution in pile in sand due to jacking rig.
Movement m
-0.006 -0.004 -0.002 0.000 0.002 0.004 5
0 4.5 PILE IN CLAY
4 PILE IN SAND
2
Increase in Settlement mm
Axis of rig
X=0 3.5 support
X=7 4
3
X=8 6
2.5
Depth m
X=10
X=15 8 2
10 1.5
1
12
0.5
14 0
16 0 4 8 12 16
Distance of Pile From Rig Axis m
Fig. 15. Computed horizontal displacements below jacked pile rig on Fig. 18. Settlement increase for piles in clay or sand, due to jacking rig.
sand.
PLAXIS has been carried out to examine the order of magnitude increases as the hole diameter increases, and may approach the
of such movements, and their dependence on the stress level in design moment capacity, especially for the smaller-diameter pile.
the ground. The problem examined is illustrated in Figure 22, and Figure 30 plots the computed axial movement of the pile head
involves a hole of diameter dh drilled into a uniform stiff clay due to the drilling of a hole. In this case, the pile head is assumed
profile which is subjected to a surface surcharge loading ps. It is to be free to move vertically and is subjected to an applied axial
assumed that the drilling is carried out rapidly so that undrained force of about 40% of the ultimate axial capacity (i.e. the factor
conditions prevail, and it also assumed that there are no effects of safety is 2.5). Again, it can be seen that the pile head
arising from differences between the water level inside and movements increase as the hole diameter increases, and may
outside the hole. Settlements are negative in the following reach the order of 0.8-1.0mm for a 1m diameter hole.
solutions. If the pile is fixed into a cap which restrains vertical
Figure 23 shows the computed distribution of vertical movement, then there will be a tendency for an axial tensile force
movement with depth at a distance of 2m from the centre of a to be induced in the pile. Figure 31 plots the induced axial force
0.6m diameter hole, for values of the surcharge pressure of 0, in piles of various diameters, as a function of hole diameter. The
100, 200 and 300 kPa. The hole has been drilled to a depth of larger the hole diameter, the larger is the induced force at the pile
21.5m. The following characteristics may be observed: head. Of course, the net axial force at the pile head will generally
1. There is generally a settlement above the level of the base of still be compressive under normal circumstances, but if the pile
the hole, and a heave just above and below this level; has been newly-installed and is yet to carry significant load, the
2. When there is zero surcharge pressure, the ground net force may possibly be tensile.
movement is small and tend to be a heave, of the order of The example results presented in this section clearly indicate
0.5mm maximum. the potential for hole drilling near existing piles to cause
3. When the surface surcharge is large, then the ground additional bending moments and axial force in those piles. The
settlements above the level of the base of the hole become larger the hole diameter, the closer the hole to the pile, or the
more significant, of the order of 2 mm maximum, with a larger the surface pressure on the soil, the greater are the induced
heave of a similar or greater magnitude near the level of the responses. In addition, if multiple holes are drilled near an
base of the hole. existing pile, the combined effects may be sufficient to initiate
Figure 24 shows corresponding solutions for the lateral ground yield of the pile section or excessive additional settlement. A
movements due to hole drilling. Negative movements are towards typical field scenario for such a case would be the drilling of
the hole. In this case, large lateral movements, of the order of holes for new large diameter bored piles adjacent to existing
14mm, can be generated near the base of the hole when the smaller diameter precast piles.
surcharge pressure is large. Again, in the “open-field” situation,
the lateral movements are much smaller, of the order of 1-2mm.
Figures 25 and 26 show the effects of the diameter of the 7 EXCAVATION FOR A PILE CAP NEAR EXISTING
drilled hole, for a surface surcharge pressure of 200 kPa, again at PILES
a distance of 2m from the hole centre. Clearly, the larger the hole
diameter, the larger are the movements. 7.1 Introduction
Figures 27 and 28 show the variation of vertical and lateral
movement, at a depth of 17.5m, with distance from the hole, for a In the context of “side effects”, a common situation is when an
0.6m diameter hole and a surface surcharge of 200 kPa. As would excavation is carried out for a new pile cap, in the vicinity of
be expected, the movements decrease with increasing distance existing piles. In some cases, little or no support may be provided
from the hole, and reduce to very small values once the distance for the excavation, since pile cap thicknesses are typically 1-3m.
exceeds about 6-8 hole diameters. However, very close to the However, under conditions in which the ground is highly
hole, significant ground movements can occur, especially in the stressed, even such modest excavations deserve careful
horizontal direction. consideration.
From the above solutions, it can be seen that the drilling of
holes may lead to ground movements which are significant, 7.2 Ground Movements
especially at short distances from a hole in ground which is
highly stressed, and where the hole diameter is large. It is now common for the ground movements around excavations
to be estimated via detailed numerical analyses such as the finite
element method. When numerical analyses cannot be carried out,
6.3 Pile Response to Ground Movements it is possible to use approximations developed by Clough and his
As an example of the possible effects of hole drilling on pile co-workers to estimate vertical and horizontal distributions of
response, the case of a single pile 24m long, in a homogeneous ground movements. The distributions of movement with depth
stiff clay, has been considered. The pile head is assumed to be are difficult to estimate without some form of analysis, as they
restrained against both translation and rotation (for example, depend on wall flexibility and excavation support conditions, but
fixed into a large pile cap). The clay is assumed to have an it may sometimes be adequate to assume a linear distribution with
undrained shear strength of 100 kPa and a Young’s modulus of depth (Chen and Poulos, 2001).
50 MPa. The axis of the pile is located 2 m from the axis of the Common design practice employs two-dimensional analyses,
newly-drilled hole, which extends to 21.5 m below the surface. and near the centre of an excavation, two dimensional analyses
The pressure acting on the ground surface is assumed to be 200 can give reasonable soil movement estimates (for example, Yong
kPa. et al, 1996). Thus, in the following examples, a two-dimensional
Figure 29 shows the computed maximum induced bending analysis, employing the computer program FLAC, has been used
moment in the pile, as a function of the hole diameter, and for to estimate the ground movements due to excavation for a pile
three pile diameters. As would be expected, the induced moment cap.
Moment MNm 70 FIXED-RESTRAINED HEAD
-0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 FREE-UNRESTRAINED HEAD
0 60
X=8m
30
8 X=10m
10 X=15m 20
12 10
14
0
16 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Fig. 19 Distributions of bending moment induced in pile in clay by Distance of Pile From Rig Axis m
jacking rig.
Fig. 21b. Maximum moments induced in pile in sand by jacking rig.
Moment MNm
-0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
0 Surface pressure x
= po P = 0.50 MN
2
4 Hole Existing
X=7 drilled pile
6 X=8 L h = 21.5m
24m
Depth m
X=10
8
X=15
10 50m
dh
12
Clay: c u = 100 kPa
14 φu = 0
γ = 20 kN/m3
16 Eu = 50 MPa
νu = 0.5
Fig. 20. Distributions of bending moment induced in pile in sand by Rigid Rock
jacking rig.
Fig. 22. Basic problem of hole drilled near an existing pile.
Vertical Movement mm
25 FIXED-RESTRAINED HEAD -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
FREE-UNRESTRAINED HEAD 0
20
Maximum Moment kNm
-10
15 Axis of Rig
-20
Support
10
p=10 kPa
-40
5 p=100 kPa
Hole diameter = 0.6m
p=200 kPa -50
0 p=300 kPa Distance from hole axis = 2.0m
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 -60
Distance of Pile From Rig Axis m
-70
Fig. 21a. Maximum moments induced in pile in clay by jacked pile rig. Fig. 23. Variation with surface pressure of vertical movement due to hole
drilling (settlement is negative).
Horizontal Movement mm 3.5
-15 -10 -5 0 5
3
0
2.5 Hole diameter = 0.6m
Vertical Movement mm
-10 2 Surface Pressure = 200 kPa
1.5
-20
1
Base of hole 0.5
-30
Depth m
Fig. 24. Variation with surface pressure of horizontal movement due to Distance from Hole Axis m
hole drilling (negative
egative towards the hole). 0 5 10 15 20
0
Vertical Movement mm
-4 -2 0 2 4
-10
0
Horizontal Movement mm
-20
-30
-30
Depth m
-40
p=10 kPa
-40
p=100 kPa
Hole diameter = 0.6m -50
p=200 kPa -50
p=300 kPa Distance from hole axis = 2.0m
-60 -60
-70 Fig. 28. Variation with distance of horizontal movement due to hole
drilling at 17.5m depth (negative towards the hole).
Fig. 25. Variation with hole diameter of vertical movement due to hole
Fig.
drilling (settlement is negative). Surface pressure = 200 kPa CL hole is 2m from pile axis
10000
Horizontal Movement mm
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 Moment capacity for d=1.0m
Maximum Induced Moment kNm
0
1000
-5 Moment capacity for d=0.6m
Surface Pressure = 200 kPa
Distance from hole axis = 2.0m
-10
100
-15
Depth m
0.8
Settlement mm
-2
0.6 -4
0.4 d=1.0m -6
Depth m
d=0.6m
0.2
d=0.3m -8
0
-10 X=6m
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Hole Diameter m X=10m
Excavation Depth
-12 X=15m
= 2.5m Zero
Fig. 30. Induced settlement due to drilling. Vertically unrestrained pile X=20m
head.
-14
-500 Surface pressure = 200 kPa CL pile is 2m from pile axis Fig. 33a. Vertical movement profiles due to cap excavation for zero
surface pressure.
d=1.0m
Movement mm
-400 d=0.6m -5 0 5 10 15 20
Axial Tension kN
d=0.3m 0
-300
2
-200 4
Depth m
6
-100 x=6m
8 x=10m
0 x=20m
10
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Hole Diameter m 12
9 γ = 18 kN/m 3 -6
Eu = 15 MPa
Ko = 0.75 -8
-10
Excavation Depth = 2.5m Zero
Weathered rock: c = 500kPa
Surface Pressure
E = 150 MPa -12
Fig. 33c. Horizontal movement profiles due to cap excavation for zero
surface pressure.
Fig. 32. Problem analyzed for effect of cap excavation.
Movement mm 2.5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
0 2
6 0.5
Depth m
x=6m
x=10m 0
8
x=20m 0 5 10 15 20 25
-0.5
10
-1
12
Distance of Pile Axis from Excavation Axis m
14
Fig. 36. Additional vertical movement of pile due to cap excavation.
Fig. 33d. Horizontal movement profiles due to cap excavation for 50 kPa
surface pressure.
CL
B X
Strut Wall
H = 22m
1 h max d B = 4m
s cu = 40kPa
Maximum Induced Moment MNm
Es = 400cu = 16MPa
Lw
0.8 p=0 γ = 20kN/m 3
H Lp Lp = 22m
p=50 kPa d = 0.5m
0.6 Ep = 30000MPa
Lw = 13m
EIw = 22 x 104 kN.m2
0.4 h max = 10m
0.2 Fig. 37. Basic problem of pile near an excavation (Poulos & Chen, 1997).
0
Deflection (mm) Bending moment (kN.m)
0 5 10 15 20 25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 -300 -200 -100 0 100
Distance of Pile Axis from Excavation Axs m 0 0
Nc = 3 Nc = 3
5 5
Fig. 34. Induced bending moments due to cap excavation.
Depth (mm)
Depth (mm)
10 10
15 15
0.7 free free
fixed/rest. fixed/rest.
20 20
fixed/unrest. fixed/unrest.
0.6 free/rest. free/rest.
25 25
p=0
(a) Deflection and bending moment profiles
Maximum Shear MN
0.5
p=50 kPa
150
Nc=γh/cu
0.4 100
-M max(kN.m) +M max(kN.m)
0.1 -150
-200
0 -250
Head condition
0 5 10 15 20 25 (b) Maximum bending moment
Distance of Pile Axis from Excavation Axis m
Fig. 38. Effect of head restraint on induced moment and deflection in pile.
Fig. 35. Induced shear in pile due to cap excavation.
by Poulos (1997), and a summary of some of the main features is Of these, the most likely cause was found to be the latter. The
presented below. excavation-induced movements would have had the following
Figure 39 shows a plan of the project site and the locations of effects on the nearby office building piles:
the boreholes and cone penetration tests carried out prior to and • the imposition of lateral soil movements and pressures, and
after construction. Figure 40 shows the details derived from the hence additional deflection, bending moment and shear in
boreholes. A layer of soft to very soft silt extended to a depth of the piles;
about 11m, underlain by stiffer silt to about 18m. This was in turn • the imposition of additional axial shear stresses due to the
underlain by very stiff and cemented layers of silt, silty sand and vertical component of soil movement, and a consequent
sand, in which the SPT values exceeded 60. The borelogs and increase in the axial force due to negative friction.
SPT data obtained from the second investigation confirmed the The effects of lateral soil movements were analyzed using the
earlier indications that the site was relatively uniform. Laboratory program ERCAP, while the effects of vertical soil movements
testing was carried out to measure the undrained shear strength were analyzed using the program PIES. In estimating the axial
profile, and the one-dimensional compressibility characteristics. and lateral soil movements, use was made of the work of Mana
In the soft upper layer, the undrained shear strength was typically and Clough (1981) and Clough et al (1989). The assumed profile
20 kPa or less, and the compression index for the normally of movement (both axial and lateral) with depth is shown in
consolidated state was between about 0.6 and 1.7. Figure 42. A depth of excavation of 4m was assumed, although it
Figure 41 shows the plan of the foundation piles, which was unlikely that this depth was reached in all sections of the
consisted of 0.5 m diameter driven cast-in-situ piles, extending to excavation. The settlement and lateral movement appear to
a depth of about 20m, and founded in the cemented hard layers of become relatively small at about 2 - 3 times the excavation depth
silt, sand and silty sand. A total of 90 piles were used for the behind the face of the excavation, and this characteristic appeared
office building. to be borne out on site. The second line of piles driven for the
shopping centre (about 8 to 10m away) did not appear to have
suffered significant movements, at least initially. The ultimate
8.4 Building Settlements
skin friction, end bearing and lateral pressures were assessed on
Settlements of both the hotel and office buildings were monitored the basis of the laboratory measured undrained shear strength (su)
during and after construction, but no significant movements were values. Values of Young’s modulus were estimated from the su
observed until after about mid-October 1990. At that time, an values, and also from values backfigured from axial and lateral
excavation sub-contractor started to make an excavation in the pile load test data. These values were found to be about 1000-
ground adjacent to the shopping centre (see Figure 39). The 1500 times su.
excavation was unsupported and was meant to have vertical
sides, extending to a depth of about 4m. Movement of the soft
8.6 Estimated Forces and Moments in Office Building Piles
silty soil towards the excavation was noted, and it appears that it
was not possible to complete the excavation, despite repeated The piles in the group D13 nearest to the uncontrolled excavation
attempts by the sub-contractor. He attempted to stabilize the were analyzed to assess the possible influence of soil movements.
excavation by driving bamboo poles, and then steel I-beams, but The estimated axial dead load on the piles was about 1000 kN per
to no avail. It was also noted that some of the steel I-beams pile at the time of the excavation, and it was assumed that the pile
located near the attempted excavation had moved more than 1m heads were restrained against both rotation and translation,
towards the excavation. It was clear then that the uncontrolled because of their fixity to the structure via the pile cap. From the
excavation had caused gross ground movements. analysis of the effects of the vertical soil movements, ground
The building began to tilt shortly thereafter, and by mid- settlements of the order of 30 to 40mm were found to develop an
February, with the average tilt of the office building floor being additional downdrag force of about 150kN, with the additional
about 1 in 29, and the horizontal movement of the top of the pile settlement being about 5-6mm.
building was about 1.2m. Detailed settlement measurements were In the analysis of pile response to lateral soil movements, it
not available for the hotel building, but it was reported that no was found that a soil movement of 80mm or more would cause
additional settlements had been recorded. In addition, there was the soil to flow past the piles, and would develop a bending
no evidence of significant settlement of an apartment block on an moment of about 245 kNm in each pile, if the pile was assumed
adjoining site, although there were signs of some horizontal and to be elastic. The corresponding head shear force would be 134
vertical movements of the soil around this block towards the kN per pile, giving a total lateral force at the pile cap (for the four
excavation, extending back about 7m from the closest side of the piles) of 536 kN.
excavation. Figure 43 compares the maximum applied bending moment
and axial load with the structural capacity of the pile section. It is
clear that the ultimate pile capacity was exceeded by a substantial
8.5 Investigation of Causes of Settlement of the Office Building
margin. The analysis indicates that the yield moment of the pile
The following possible causes of the observed settlements of the section of 160 kNm would be reached at a horizontal soil
office building were examined: movement of only about 10mm. Since movements in excess of
• settlements due to compressible underlying layers; 100mm were measured at a nearby pile group of the shopping
• geotechnical failure of the piles; centre, it was likely that the soil movements occurring at D13
• structural failure of the piles under the design loading; would have been enough to cause the pile to yield at the pile
• applied loads on the foundations being in excess of the head. The additional restraining force and bending moment could
design values; not have reasonably been anticipated by the foundation designers,
• the effects of the adjacent excavation and the consequent and were not allowed for in the structural design of the piles.
imposition of additional foundation loadings. It was therefore postulated that the tilting of the building was
triggered by such structural failure of the piles, caused by the
uncontrolled excavation. Deformation of the corner piles caused
GROUND TANK BH2
D
Soil Movement /
S1
S3
SHOPPING CENTRE S5 DBII
Surface Soil Movement
C
BH3
S7
0 0.5 1.0
DBI OFFICE BUILDING 0
B
BH4 S2 S4 S6 S8
A
Nominal base of excavation
13
14 15 16
BH1 5
Depth (m)
Legend: 10 Base of very soft layer
Boreholes
CPT Locations
Pile or Pile Group
15
Note - Same profile used for both horizontal
Fig. 39. Plan of site and borehole locations. &vertical movements
20
Water wet
Recompression Content density Preconsolidation
SPT S u kN/m 2 Comparison Index Cc Index C r % t/m3 Pressure kPa
0 40 80 0 50 100 150 0 1 2 3 0 0.3 0 100 1.2 2.0 0 400 800
0
Silt,
Legend:
BH1
Fig. 42. Assumed distribution of lateral movement due to excavation.
very soft 5
BH2
BH3
10 BH4
Silt,
very soft -
stiff 15
Depth (m)
Silt, &
sand, hard
20
Sand, very
dense,
cemented
25
5000
30
GROUP D13
2000
118 119 122 123 165 166 167 168
124
162 164 163 169 170
116 117 125 126 161
1000
127 160 171 Computed condition
in pile
128 158 159 172
114 115
129 130 0
156 157 173 174
0 100 200 300 400 500
113 131 133 155
120 132 Bending Moment (kNm)
111 112 153 154 175 176
134 135
121
109 110 136 137 151 152 177 178
108 138 Fig. 43. Computed bending moment in pile versus pile strength
106 107 149 150 179 180 envelopes.
139 140
181 182
183 184
103 104 143 144 145 146 187 188 189 190
13 14 15 15a 16