Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 86 (2019) 138–155

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tust

3D finite element analysis of pile responses to adjacent excavation in soft T

clay: Effects of different excavation depths systems relative to a floating pile
⁎
Mukhtiar Ali Soomroa,1, , Dildar Ali Mangnejob, Riaz Bhanbhroa, Noor Ahmed Memona,
Muneeb Ayoub Memona
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Quaid-e-Awam University of Engineering, Science & Technology, Sindh, Pakistan
b
Department of Civil Engineering, Mehran University of Engineering & Technology, Shaheed Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto Campus, Khairpur Mirs, Pakistan

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: To gain new insights into single pile responses to adjacent excavations in soft ground, three dimensional nu-
Finite element analysis merical parametric studies are carried out. An advanced hypoplastic (clay) constitutive model which takes ac-
Excavation depths systems count of small-strain stiffness is adopted. The effects of excavation depths (He) relative to pile (Lp) were in-
Soft clay vestigated by simulating the excavation near the pile shaft (i.e., He/Lp = 0.67), next to (He/Lp = 1.00) and below
Single pile
the pile toe (He/Lp = 1.33). In addition, the effect of pile head boundary conditions and different working loads
with FOS = 3.0 and 1.5 were also studied. The model parameters are calibrated and validated against measured
results in centrifuge reported in literature. It is found that the pile responses to excavation depend upon for-
mation level of the excavation as well as the embedded depth of the wall. With different wall depth in each case,
the induced settlement, lateral displacement and bending moment in the pile at the same stage of the excavation
was different in the three cases. Among the three cases, the excavation in case of He/Lp = 1.33 resulted in the
largest pile settlement (i.e., 7.6% pile diameter). On the other hand, the largest pile deflection was induced in
case of He/Lp = 0.67. On contrary, insignificant bending moment and changes in axial load distribution induced
in the pile on completion of the excavation in each case. However, significant bending moment (60% of pile BM
capacity of 800 kNm) induced in the pile with fixed head condition. The different working loads (with FOS = 3.0
and 1.5) influence induced pile settlement but have relatively minor effect on induced bending moment.

1. Introduction
It is well recognised that a pile foundation transfers the load of
superstructure to surrounding soil which is adjacent to pile shaft as well
as underneath the piled foundation. Consequently, the high effective
stress regime (stress bulb) is generated surrounding of the pile. On the
other hand, the excavation in the ground inevitably results in the
ground movement due to effective stress release. To cope with trans-
portation problems in congested cities in the world like Hong Kong,
Shanghai, London etc, underground transportation systems (involving
tunnels for metros, excavations of metro stations and basement to fa-
cilitate inhabitants in the buildings for parking) have been developed.
These excavations are sometimes inevitable to be constructed adjacent
to existing piled foundations. This condition leads to a big challenge for
a geotechnical engineer to assess and protect the integrity of piled
foundation.
Finno et al. (1991) and Goh et al. (2003) reported case studies in
granular soil and Alluvium residual soil respectively. They demon-
strated that lateral soil movements due to excavation can be detri-
mental to adjacent piles. In both the reported case studies, piles toe
level was much deeper than the excavation level and they reported only
the lateral behaviour of piles. Apart from field monitoring, a number of
centrifuge tests were also conducted to investigate the response of
single pile (Ong et al., 2006) and pile group in soft Kaolin clay (Ong
et al., 2006). They concluded that the induced bending moment and
lateral deflection of piles were highly influenced by distance from wall
and pile head condition. In studies, lateral response of end bearing piles
without initial applied load was reported. In reality, piled foundation in
soft clay behave as floating pile group and subjected to initial applied
load from superstructure. In the presence of initial applied load, soil
surrounding the pile foundation experience higher effective stress level
before the commencement of adjacent excavation. Leung et al. (2000,

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: eng.soomro@gmail.com (M.A. Soomro), dildarali72@gmail.com (D.A. Mangnejo), riaz@quest.edu.pk (R. Bhanbhro),
nahmedmemon@gmail.com (N.A. Memon), engr.muneebmemon@gmail.com (M.A. Memon).
1
Formerly The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Clear Water Bay, Kowloon, HKSAR.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2019.01.012
Received 9 March 2018; Received in revised form 7 January 2019; Accepted 13 January 2019
0886-7798/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M.A. Soomro et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 86 (2019) 138–155

2003; 2006) conducted centrifuge tests to investigate the effects of an Working load
un-propped excavation on the behaviours of nearby single piles and pile Prop 1 (1.0 m)
groups in dry dense Toyoura sand. It was found that the distance from Prop 2 (4.0 m) 3.0 m
the pile to the retaining wall and pile head conditions had a large in-
Existing single pile Clay
Embedded length = 18.0 m
fluence on the induced pile bending moment and lateral deflection. Ng Prop 3 (7.0 m) Diameter = 0.8 m
et al. (2017) reported the results of three centrifuge tests which were Prop 4 (10.0 m)
carried out to study the effects of a multi-propped deep excavation in- Formation level Diaphragm wall
flight on the behaviour of single piles in dry Toyoura sand. Piles were Thickness = 0.6 m
Depth = 18.0 m
laterally restrained in terms of rotation and deflection right at or above
ground surface in the three different tests. It was concluded that lateral
restraints imposed on the pile head have a significant influence on in-
Excavation depth (He) = 12 m
duced pile bending moment. Induced bending moment due to excava-
Wall penetration ratio = 0.5
tion can exceed the pile bending capacity. Poulos and Chen (1997)
developed design charts to compute the lateral behaviour of a single
pile adjacent to deep excavation in soft ground. They performed two
staged analysis considering plane strain conditions and linear elastic
soil model. Similar work was conducted by Liyanapathirana and
Nishanthan (2016) using finite element method. In both these studies
lateral response of single pile was investigated. The settlement beha- z
viour of pile and development of excess pore water pressure and con- Working load
solidation settlement were not investigated. Korff et al. (2016) devel- Prop 1 (1.0 m)
oped an analytical model relating axial pile deformation to the vertical
Prop 2 (4.0 m) 3.0 m
soil displacement resulting from the deep excavation and also suggests Existing single pile Clay
ways to determine the pile response to lateral displacements. In their Embedded length = 18.0 m
Prop 3 (7.0 m) Diameter = 0.8 m
approach nonlinear load transfer mechanisms depending on relative Prop 4 (10.0 m)
soil pile displacements as well as pile axial deformations /strains were Diaphragm wall
Prop 5 (13.0 m)
modelled. They concluded that the settlement of piles with a large Thickness = 0.6 m
Prop 6 (16.0 m) Depth = 24.0 m
component of shaft friction is determined mainly by the actual load on
the pile relative to the pile ultimate capacity. The lateral pile response is Formation level
governed mainly by the relative stiffness of the pile to the soil. Shakeel
and Ng (2018) carried out three-dimensional coupled consolidation Excavation depth (He) = 18 m
analysis is conducted to gain insight into the response of a (2 × 2) Wall penetration ratio = 0.5
floating pile group adjacent to deep excavation in soft clay. By using a
validated finite element model, the influence of the excavation depth,
pile length, pile group location from excavation, the supporting system
stiffness, soil state and permeability, and working load are system-
atically studied. The analysis revealed that the maximum settlement
occurs when the pile group is founded at the excavation level and at a
distance of 0.75 times the excavation depth, although the induced
bending moment is insignificant. In contrast to pile group settlement, Prop 1 (1.0 m)
tilting is significant when it gets closer to the wall and minimum at a Prop 2 (4.0 m) 3.0 m Existing single pile Clay
distance of 0.75 times the excavation depth. Li et al. (2014) analysed Embedded length = 18.0 m
Prop 3 (7.0 m) Diameter = 0.8 m
the pile deflection, bending moment and lateral soil pressure in con-
sideration of factors including the excavation depth, distance from the Prop 4 (10.0 m)
excavation, the retaining wall stiffness, the pile stiffness, the pile-head Diaphragm wall
Prop 5 (13.0 m)
Thickness = 0.6 m
condition, the length of pile and axial load on the pile with the Mod- Depth = 27.0 m
Prop 6 (16.0 m)
ified-Cam Clay (MCC) model. Zhang et al. (2018) carried out the finite
element analyses considering soil of the hardening small strain (HSS) Prop 7 (19.0 m)
constitutive model to establish the excavation-induced pile behaviours Prop 8 (22.0 m)
by varying the depth of excavation, pile diameter, pile length, pile Formation level
distance away from the excavation, pile-head fixity, unsupported depth Excavation depth (He) = 24 m
of excavation and axial loadings exerted on the pile head. It is well Wall penetration ratio = 0.5
understood that the stress-strain relationship of soils is highly nonlinear
even at very small strain. The stiffness of most soils decreases as strain
increases and depends on the recent stress or strain history of the soil
(Atkinson et al., 1990; Atkinson & Sällfors, 1991). Owing to non-linear
soil behaviour, an excavation can cause reduction in the stiffness of the
ground. To obtain a satisfactory numerical model of single pile re- (a)
sponses to excavation-induced effective stress relief, the analysis needs
to take account of the small strain non-linearity of soil. Fig. 1. Configuration of numerical simulation of cases of He/Lp = 0.67; He/
Lp = 1.00; He/Lp = 1.33 (a) elevation views (b) plan view.
This study aims at systematically investigating the effects of ex-
cavation depth systems of different formation level on a loaded single
floating pile. In addition, the effect of pile head boundary conditions
and working load were also studied. Settlement, axial load distribution
pile deflections and internal bending moments along the pile, effective
stress changes and excessive pore pressure generation during

139
M.A. Soomro et al.
Fig. 1. (continued)
excavation are reported and discussed.
2. Three-dimensional coupled consolidation analysis
With the prime objective of investigating the effects of the excava-
tion depths relative to the piled foundation in soft clay, a three-di-
mensional coupled consolidation numerical parametric study was car-
ried out. Three different final excavation depths (He) relative to the pile
length (Lp) namely near the pile shaft (He/Lp = 0.67), adjacent to the
pile toe (He/Lp = 1.00) and below the pile toe (He/Lp = 1.33) are taken
in this parametric study. The final depth of the excavation (He) has been
adopted as 12 m, 18 m and 24 m in case of He/Lp = 0.67, 1.00 and 1.33,
respectively. The embedded length (Lp) and diameter (dp) of the pile are
18 m and 0.8 m, respectively. The pile was modelled as a cylindrical
concrete with a bending moment capacity of 800 kNm. Fig. 1(a), (b)
and (c) show the elevation views of the configuration of numerical si-
mulation of cases of He/Lp = 0.67, 1.00 and 1.33. The clear distance
between diaphragm wall and the pile is 3.0 m (where the maximum
surface settlement occurred in free-field condition discussed in Section
4.1.1). The excavation was supported by 0.6 m thick diaphragm wall.
The ratio of wall penetration depth to excavation depth is typically
0.5–2 in engineering practice (Hsiung, 2009; Ng et al., 2012) and thus a
value of 0.5 is adopted in this study. The props are used to support the
diaphragm wall with a vertical spacing of 3 m. The props are modelled
as soft with axial rigidity of 81 × 103 kNm (Hsiung, 2009). Horizontal
spacing of props is 10 m. It is evident from the research available in
literature that pile head fixity condition and pile loading (i.e. different
working load) has significant effect on the pile response to excavation
(Leung et al., 2000, Liyanapathirana & Nishanthan (2016), Ng et al.
(2017) and Shakeel & Ng (2018)). Therefore, the analyses investigating
the excavation effects on the pile at different pile head conditions and
working load were added in this parametric study. To investigate the
pile head fixity conditions at different excavation depths, the three
boundary conditions (i) free head in which both translation and rota-
tion are allowed, (ii) pinned head in which translation is constraint and
rotation is allowed and (iii) fixed head in which both translation and
rotation are constrained, were applied at the pile head. To determine
pile responses to excavation at different working load, the pile with free
head condition was loaded with factor of safety 3.0 and 1.5. It is worth
noting that the pile responses to excavation could vary at different pile-
wall offset. Nonetheless, only single pile-wall offset is selected to un-
derstand the settlement and load transfer mechanism clearly.
Apart from the numerical analyses, four additional numerical ana-
lyses are carried out to simulate excavation in a ‘free-field’ and to si-
mulate a loading test of the pile in a “free-field” condition. The objec-
tives of these three numerical analyses are to obtain the excavation-
induced settlement trough in a ‘free-field’ and the ultimate axial ca-
pacity of the pile. Based on this, the working load will be obtained with
a factor of safety of 3.0. The obtained working load will be applied to
the pile in the parametric analysis simulating excavation. Table 1
summarises numerical simulations (a total of 16) conducted in this
parametric study.
Fig. 1(b) illustrates the plan view of the configuration of the
140
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 86 (2019) 138–155
numerical simulation. The length of the excavation is 12 m. Due to
symmetry, only half of the excavation was simulated. A monitoring
section was selected at the transverse centreline of the excavation.
2.1. Finite element mesh and boundary conditions
The finite element program Abaqus (2010) will be used in this
study. The size of the mesh for each numerical runs will be taken as
50 m × 20 m × 40 m as shown in Fig. 2. Eight-noded hexahedral brick
elements are used to model the soil, the pile and the diaphragm wall,
while two-noded truss elements are adopted to model the props. The
simulations were carried out for 17, 25 and 35 days in case of He/
Lp = 0.67, 1.00 and 1.33, respectively.
Roller and pin supports are applied to the vertical sides and the base
of the mesh, respectively. Therefore, movements normal to the vertical
boundaries and in all directions of the base are restrained. The water
table is assumed to be at ground surface. Initially, the pore water
pressure distribution is assumed to be hydrostatic. Free drainage is al-
lowed at the top boundary of the mesh.
The pile-soil and wall-soil interface is modelled as zero thickness by
using duplicate nodes. The interface is modelled by the Coulomb fric-
tion law, in which the interface friction coefficient (μ) and limiting
displacement (γlim) are required as input parameters. A limiting shear
displacement of 5 mm is assumed to achieve full mobilization of the
interface friction equal to μ × p', where p' is the normal effective stress
between two contact surfaces and a typical value of μ for a bored pile of
0.35 is used in all analyses (Lee and Ng, 2004). The excavation process
will be simulated by deactivating soil elements inside excavation zone.
In the meantime, the truss elements representing the props will be ac-
tivated.
2.2. Constitutive model and model parameters used in finite element
analysis
The unique feature of basic hypoplastic model is to capture non-
linear behaviour within range of strain level of medium to large (due to
monotonic loading) of granular material (Mašín & Herle, 2005; Mašín,
2009). The basic model consists of five parameters(N , λ∗, κ ∗, φc and r ) .
The position and the slope of normal compression line in the space of
ln(1 + e ) versus lnp' (wheree is the void ratio, and p' is the mean ef-
fective stress) is representing by the parameters N and λ∗, respectively.
The parameter κ ∗ represents the slope of the isotropic unloading line in
the same plane. φc is the friction angle at critical state, and the para-
meter r controls the large strain shear modulus. Niemunis and Herle
(1997) further implemented the concept of intergranular strain to im-
prove the basic hypoplastic model. To take into consideration of the
strain and path dependency of soil stiffness, five additional parameters
(required by intergranular strain) were included into the basic model.
These five additional parameters are R, βr , χ ,mT and mR in which R is
elastic range and βr andχ determine the rate of stiffness degradation.
The remaining parameters mT and mR regulate the initial shear mod-
ulus, respectively. The hypoplastic clay model (Gudehus et al., 2008)
with small strain stiffness has been implemented in the commercial
finite element software package Abaqus (2010) through a user-defined
subroutine.
In Abaqus, the “Soils” step is used to simulate partially or fully sa-
turated flow of single phase fluid in porous media (Abaqus, 2010). In
this analysis type, an effective stress principle is used to describe the
behaviour of the soil. The total stress tensor acting at a point in the soil,
σij, is composed of the pore fluid pressure p, as well as the effective
stress σ'ij.
σij = σij′ + pδij (1)
where δij is the Kronecker delta. In soils, the pore pressure is mainly
caused by a “wetting liquid” pressure uw which is usually
M.A. Soomro et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 86 (2019) 138–155

Table 1
Summary of numerical simulations.
Variable Excavation depth (m) Diaphragm wall depth Pile head Working load Objective
(m) condition (kN)

Excavation effect on pile

Excavation & wall depth 12.0 18.0 Free 720 Effects of excavation depths
18.0 24.0 720
24.0 36.0 720
Pile head condition 12.0 18.0 Pinned & fixed 720 Effects pile head conditions
18.0 24.0 Pinned & fixed 720
24.0 36.0 Pinned & fixed 720
Working load 12.0 18.0 Free 1440 Effects different working loads
18.0 24.0 1440
24.0 36.0 1440

Excavation in greenfield condition

Excavation & wall depth 12.0 18.0 N.A N.A To compute ground and sub surface settlement due to
18.0 24.0 excavation in free-field condition
24.0 36.0

Note: N/A denotes not applicable.

surface of the liquid or solid. Darcy’s law is adopted to describe the

water flow through the soil (Abaqus, 2010):

n (V f − V s) = k·(−∇x p + ρf (f − γ f − a)) (3)

where k is the anisotropic permeability tensor, and a is the dynamic

Fig. 2. Finite element mesh and boundary conditions of a typical numerical
analysis (i.e. He/Lp = 0.67).
tortuosity vector. V f and V s stand for the velocity fields of fluid and
skeleton, respectively. n is the Eulerian porosity. f refers to the body
force density per mass unit, and γ f is the fluid acceleration vector.
In this hypothesised study, the parameters for Kaolin powder were
used (Wang et al., 2015). The parameters (i. e. ,N , λ∗, κ ∗ and φc ) for
Kaolin clay have been widely reported in the literature. Based on these
four known parameters, the parameters which are r (i.e., controlling
soil stiffness at medium to large-strain levels) and at small-strain levels
(i.e, R, βr , χ ,mT and mR ) were calibrated against existing experimental
data of Kaolin clay. The model parameters at small-strain and large-
strain ranges are calibrated against the measured stress-strain re-
lationships (reported by Parry and Nadarajah, 1974) and the measured
stiffness degradation curves (reported by Benz, 2007) in Kaolin clay,
respectively.
The coefficient of lateral earth pressure at rest, Ko is estimated by
Jáky (1944)’s equation
K 0 = (1 − sinφ') (4)

All model parameters for soft clay are summarised in Table 2.

incompressible (water), as well as an average pressure stress in the
other fluid (air) ua which is usually compressible.
p = χu w + (1 − χ ) ua
where χ denotes a factor that depends on saturation and tension on the
The concrete pile, the diaphragm wall and the props were assumed
to be linear elastic with Young's modulus of 35 GPa and Poisson's ratio
(2) of 0.25. The unit weight of concrete was assumed to be 24 kN/m3. The
parameters for the piles and the diaphragm wall are summarised in
Table 3.

Table 2
Model parameters of kaolin clay adopted in the parametric study.
Description Parameter Reference

Effective angle of shearing resistance at critical state: ϕ′ 22° Bolton and Powrie (1986)
Parameter controlling the slope of the isotropic normal compression line in the ln(1 + e) versus lnp plane, λ* 0.11 Deduced from Al-Tabbaa (1987)
Parameter controlling the slope of the isotropic normal compression line in the ln(1 + e) versus lnp plane, κ* 0.026 Deduced from Al-Tabbaa (1987)
Parameter controlling the position of the isotropic normal compression line in the ln(1 + e)–lnp plane, N 1.36 Deduced from Al-Tabbaa (1987)
Parameter controlling the shear stiffness at medium- to large- strain levels, r 0.65 Calibrated based on Parry and Nadarajah (1974)
Parameter controlling initial shear modulus upon 180° strain path reversal, mR 14 Calibrated based on Benz (2007)
Parameter controlling initial shear modulus upon 90° strain path reversal, mT 11 Calibrated based on Benz (2007)
Size of elastic range, R 1 × 10−5 Calibrated based on Benz (2007)
Parameter controlling the rate of degradation of the stiffness with strain, βr 0.1 Calibrated based on Benz (2007)
Parameter controlling degradation rate of stiffness with strain, χ 0.7 Calibrated based on Benz (2007)
Initial void ratio, e 1.05 Deduced from measured water content
Dry density (kg/m3) 1136 Deduced from measured void ratio
Coefficient of permeability, k (m/s) 1 × 10−9 Al-Tabbaa (1987)

141
M.A. Soomro et al.
Table 3
Concrete parameters adopted in finite element analysis.
Description Parameter
Young's modulus, E 35 GPa
Poisson's ratio, ν 0.3
Density, ρ 2400 kg/m3
2.3. Numerical modelling procedure
The numerical analysis modelling procedure for a typical case (i.e.,
He/Lp = 0.67) is summarized as follows:
(a) Step 1: Set up the initial boundary and initial effective stress con-
ditions (i.e., static effective stress conditions with varying
K0 = 0.63).
(b) Step2: Activate the brick elements representing single pile (mod-
elled as “wished-in-place”).
(c) Step 3: Apply the working load (determined from numerical pile
load test) on the pile.
(d) Step 4: Allow excess pore pressure, which generated in result of
application of working load on the pile, to dissipate.
(e) Step 5: Activate the brick elements representing the diaphragm
wall.
(f) Step 6: Staged multi-propped excavation is simulated as described
in Section 2.1. After excavating to 3 m depth, the first level of props
is installed at 1 m below the ground surface.
(g) Step 6: Repeat step 6 to excavate the next stages and install props
until the last stage of excavation (i.e., He = 12 m) is completed.
3. Validation of numerical modelling against centrifuge test
results
As discussed in Section 2.1, the constitutive (hypoplastic clay)
model parameters were calibrated with laboratory test results. To jus-
tify the calibration of soil model and its parameters, a back-analysis of a
centrifuge test (performed by Ong et al., 2006) were carried out. The
computed results from the back-analysis have been validated against
measured results in the centrifuge test.
3.1. Configuration and procedure of centrifuge test
Ong et al. (2006) carried out a centrifuge test to investigate the
responses of a single pile to adjacent excavation with stable wall in
Kaolin clay. The test was carried out at a centrifugal acceleration of 50g
on the National University of Singapore geotechnical centrifuge.
Fig. 3(a) shows the configuration of the centrifuge model test. An ex-
cavation of 1.2 m in the prototype was carried out adjacent to 600 mm
diameter (in prototype) concrete bored pile of Grade 35. The embedded
depth of the pile was 12.5 m (in prototype) and rested on the bottom of
the box. The model wall was a single sheet of aluminium alloy with
thickness of 3 mm (having bending rigidity of 24 × 103 kN-m2/m). It is
approximately equivalent to an FSP-IIA sheet pile wall with dimension
of 400 mm × 120 mm × 9.2 mm (w × h × t) in prototype scale with
embedded depth of 8 m in terms of flexural rigidity by assuming that
the Young’s modulus values of steel is 210 GPa. The excavation rate was
0.55 m/day. The excavation was simulated in-flight by darning away
the ZnCl2 solution (having same unit weight as the clay) from latex
membrane. The model was prepared and tested in plane strain
strongbox. The strongbox was made of aluminium and had an internal
plane area of 540 mm by 200 mm (27 m by 10 m in prototype) and
internal height of 470 mm (23.5 m in prototype). The clay layer was
modelled using Kaolin powder. The Kaolin slurry was prepared at an
initial water content of 120% (about twice that of the liquid limit of
Kaolin). The slurry was placed in strongbox over a 120 mm (6 m in
142
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 86 (2019) 138–155
prototype) thick sandy layer. The sandy layer serves as a drainage
boundary at the bottom of the box. The strongbox was then placed in a
consolidation frame to achieve a soft clay layer of 130 mm (6.5 m in
prototype).
After installation of model pile and wall at 1g, a portion of the clay
was then removed and replaced by a latex bag containing ZnCl2 solu-
tion. After assembling the centrifuge model package the whole package
was mounted on the swinging platform of the centrifuge and the cen-
trifuge was spun to 50g. On completion of reconsolidation (i.e., the
degree of the consolidation > 90%), in-flight excavation was simulated
by draining away zinc chloride fluid from the latex bag.
3.2. Back-analysis of centrifuge test and modelling procedure
Fig. 3(b) shows an isometric view of a typical finite element mesh
for back-analyzing centrifuge test by Ong et al. (2006). To facilitate
direct comparison between the measured and computed results, all
dimensions of the finite-element mesh were in model scale and were
identical to those in the centrifuge tests. Displacements perpendicular
to the outer boundaries of the mesh were restrained. The soil and the
deadweight were modelled with eight-node brick elements while the
pile was modelled with four-node shell elements. The Kaolin clay
parameters are summarized in Table 2. The sand in the centrifuge
model test that underlies the Kaolin clay was modelled using the Mohr-
Coulomb soil model. The sand used was Toyoura sand and its properties
are given in Leung et al. (2000). Under a confining pressure of between
50 and 100 kPa, the internal friction angle is about 43°. The unit weight
and relative density of the sand were measured to be 15.78 kN/m3 and
90%, respectively. Based on sand type (quartz sand) and relative den-
sity, the calculated angel of dilation is 12° (Bolton and Powrie, 1986).
In back-analysis, the numerical modelling procedure is the same as
those modelled in the centrifuge tests. Details are summarised as fol-
lows:
1. Set up the initial boundary and initial effective stress conditions
with Ko = 0.5) at 1 g;
2. Activate pile and diaphragm wall modelled as “wished-in-place”;
3. Apply hydrostatic pressure due to ZnCl2 solution on the wall and
formation level.
4. Increase stress level of the entire mesh (including soil, pile and
diaphragm wall) by raising its gravitational acceleration from 1g to
50g;
5. Excavation was modelled by releasing ZnCl2 solution pressure.
3.3. Comparison of computed and measured results
Fig. 4(a) shows the comparison between measured and computed
ground surface settlement trough developed on completion of the ex-
cavation. The ground surface settlements are taken at an offset of 0.2dp
from the pile (see inset of the figure). Both the ground surface settle-
ment (S) and the distance behind the wall in the transverse direction are
normalised by final excavation depth (He). It can be observed from the
figure that the measured and computed settlement trough show rea-
sonable agreement. A spandrel type of settlement trough was formed
behind the wall. This type of settlement trough is commonly observed
in non-propped excavation (Hsieh and Ou, 1998). The maximum set-
tlement was computed as s/He = 8.0% at d/He = 0.67 (i.e., 0.8 m) be-
hind the wall. Owing to excavation release, the pile deflected towards
the excavation.
Fig. 4(b) compares the measured and computed lateral displace-
ment along the pile length. The results from centrifuge and numerical
modelling revealed that the maximum pile deflection occurred at the
pile head. The magnitude of the maximum measured and computed pile
deflection were 12.6 mm (2.1dp%) and 11.4 mm (11.4dp%), respec-
tively. This is because of free head condition of the pile in the centrifuge
test. However, negligible pile deflection was observed at lower part (Z/
M.A. Soomro et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 86 (2019) 138–155

200 mm 340 mm

Excavation 24 mm

130 mm
Kaolin clay

470 mm
Single pile

Toyoura sand

120 mm
Retaining wall

540 mm
(a)
Diaphragm
Single pile
Fluid pressure wall
200 mm

250 mm

Fig. 3. Details of centrifuge test reported by Ong et al. (2006) (a) Elevation view (b) Finite element mesh.

Lp > 0.7) of the pile. The computed deflection profile showed good
agreement with that of measured in centrifuge test.
Fig. 4(c) illustrates the comparison between measured and com-
puted bending moment profile along the pile length due to excavation.
Since the pile head was not constrained in centrifuge and numerical
modelling, zero bending moment was induced in the pile due to ex-
cavation. However, the bending moment increases along the pile length
with maximum bending moment of 87 kNm at Z/Lp = 0.6. With ex-
cavation depth of only 1.2 m, the bending moment decreases at lower
portion of the pile (0.6 < Z/Lp < 1.0). Comparing the computed
bending moment profile with measured; the computed bending mo-
ment shows reasonably good agreement.
These agreements in the surface settlement troughs pile deflection
and bending moment profiles validate the hypoplastic model and model
parameters adopted in this study and gives confidence that the finite
element analyse has ability to predict reasonable accurate excavation-
induced effective stress and strain changes which resulted in ground
movements and pile deflection.

143
M.A. Soomro et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 86 (2019) 138–155

Fig. 4. Measured and computed ground and pile response (a) surface settlement (b) pile deflection (c) induced bending moment in pile.

3.4. Determination of working load for the pile 24 h. Fig. 5 shows the computed load-settlement curve. A displacement-
based failure criterion (as given in Eq. (5)) given by Nget al. (2001) was
This parametric study aims at investigating the loaded single pile used to determine ultimate capacity of the pile.
responses to adjacent excavations with different formation level re-
lative to the pile length in soft clay. A numerical pile load test was 1 Ph Lp
δph,max ≅ 0.045d p +
carried out to compute bearing capacity of the pile. The load of 3 MN 2 Ap Ep (5)
(with increment of 0.27 MN) was applied on the pile over period of
where δph, max is the maximum pile head movement which defines the

144
M.A. Soomro et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 86 (2019) 138–155

Normalised excavation depth (h/L p)

0.00 0.17 0.33 0.50 0.67 0.83 1.00 1.17 1.33
0
He/Lp=0.67
He /Lp= 0.67
1
He/Lp
He /Lp==1.00
1.00

Normalised pile head settlement (Sp/dp): %

He /Lp==1.33
He/Lp 1.33
2

3
Kaolin clay

5
He/Lp = 0.67

6 Kaolin clay Kaolin clay

7
He/Lp = 1.00 He/Lp = 1.33
8

Fig. 7. Normalised pile head settlement during excavation.

simplicity, only the settlement at the end of excavation is included in

the figure.
It can be seen from the figure that spandrel type surface settlement
profiles were induced after excavation in each case. Maximum settle-
ment was observed at 2.8 m behind the wall; it decreased with the
Fig. 5. Computed load settlement curve from the pile load test without ex- distance from the wall at a decreasing rate. Therefore, the clear distance
cavation (i.e., Simulation L). between the pile and wall was taken as 3 m in the analyses of excava-
tion effects on pile. The maximum settlement increases and settlement
trough became wider as excavation depth increases. The magnitude of
ultimate load, Ph is the pile head load, Lp is the pile length, Ep is the pile
the maximum settlements were 24 mm, 38 mm and 50 mm in case of
shaft elastic modulus, Ap is the cross-sectional area of the pile, and dp is
He/Lp = 0.67, He/Lp = 1.00 and He/Lp = 1.33, respectively.
the pile diameter.
Based on the failure criterion, the ultimate bearing capacity of 2.15
MN was computed. Using factor of safety as 3, the working load was 4.1.2. Excavation-induced settlement of the pile
determined to be 0.72 MN (or 720 kN). The pile settled 5.12 mm Fig. 7 shows the normalised incremental settlement of the pile (Sp/
(0.64%dp) due to application of the working load. dp) with different excavation depths in all three cases (i.e., He/
Lp = 0.67, He/Lp = 1.00 and He/Lp = 1.33). Excavation depths are in-
dicated by h. It can be seen from the figure that bi-linear increment in Sp
4. Interpretation of computed results
was observed with increasing excavation depth in each case. The Sp
increased linearly with excavation depth, however, rate of induced
4.1. Effect of excavation depth
settlement increased with further excavation stages in each case. This is
because of degradation of clay stiffness due to excavation-induced ef-
4.1.1. Ground surface settlement in free-field condition
fective stress release and shear strain surrounding the pile. By com-
Fig. 6 shows the measured excavation-induced ground-surface set-
paring induced settlement of the pile in case of He/Lp = 0.67and He/
tlement behind the retaining wall in free-field conditions in all the three
Lp = 1.00, it is observed that the Sp during last two excavation stages
cases (i.e., He/Lp = 0.67, He/Lp = 1.00 and He/Lp = 1.33). For
(i.e., 9–12 m) in former case is larger than that of due to corresponding
excavation stages in later case. To be more specific, with same effective
stress release due to excavation stages (9–12 m), larger settlement in-
duced in case of He/Lp = 0.67 than that of in case of the He/Lp = 1.00.
The additional amounts of induced-settlement at excavation depths of
9 m and 12 m are 1.55dp% and 2.1dp%, respectively. Similarly, the Sp
induced during excavation stages (12–18 m) in case of He/Lp = 1.00 is
larger than of in case of He/Lp = 1.33. The reason of the above men-
tioned observations is different embedded depths of the wall in each
Kaolin clay Kaolin clay
case. This revealed that the induced-settlement highly depends on the
wall stiffness. Among the three cases discussed, the largest and smallest
settlement induced in the pile is in case of He/Lp = 1.33 and He/
Free-field condition Free-field condition
Lp = 0.67, respectively. This settlement behaviour can be attributed
HHe/L p=
e/L p =0.67
0.67 HeH/Le/L
p =p =
1.00
1.00 two reasons. Firstly, the pile is subjected to higher effective stress re-
Kaolin clay
lease due to excavation in case of He/Lp = 1.33 than that due to ex-
cavation in case of He/Lp = 0.67. Secondly, the entire pile is located
within the zone of excavation-induced displacement in case of He/
Free-field condition
He/L = p1.33
Hep/L = 1.33 Lp = 1.33.
The single pile experienced total settlements (due to working-load
and excavation) of 39, 51.5 and 66 mm (i.e., 4.9, 6.4 and 8.3% of pile
Fig. 6. Ground surface settlements after excavation in free-field condition in all diameter) in case of He/Lp = 0.67, He/Lp = 1.00 and He/Lp = 1.33, re-
the three cases (i.e. He/Lp = 0.67; He/Lp = 1.00 and He/Lp = 1.33). spectively.

145
M.A. Soomro et al.
Fig. 8. Pile settlement and sub surface settlements along the pile axis in cases
(i.e. He/Lp = 0.67; He/Lp = 1.00 and He/Lp = 1.33).
4.1.3. Excavation-induced pile settlement and free-field subsurface profile
Fig. 8 shows the normalised pile and sub surface vertical settlement
(Sp/dp) profile along the pile length after excavation in all three cases
(i.e., He/Lp = 0.67, He/Lp = 1.00 and He/Lp = 1.33).
It can be seen from the figure that sub surface settlement soil
slightly decrease along the pile axis due to excavation in all the three
cases. Because of the uniform settlement due to excavation, the changes
in axial load distribution along the pile are insignificant (discussed in
Section 4.1.7). However, the significant pile settlement induced during
excavation in each case (discussed earlier). Korff et al. (2016) devel-
oped an analytical model relating axial pile deformation to the vertical
soil displacement resulting from the deep excavation and also suggests
ways to determine the pile response to lateral displacements. In their
approach nonlinear load transfer mechanisms depending on relative
soil pile displacements as well as pile axial deformations/strains were
modelled. It can be seen from the computed results that pile settlement
is similar to the greenfield case at smaller working load. Thus Korff’s
framework may be an efficient approach to assess the interaction of
deep excavations with isolated pile with a free head and a constant
smaller head load. However, this could not be applicable for larger
working loads (explained in Section 4.3.1). The surface settlement in-
creases with increase of excavation depth. The maximum settlement of
3.3dp%, 5.0dp% and 6.34%dp% in case of He/Lp = 0.67, He/Lp = 1.00
and He/Lp = 1.33, respectively. On the other hand, the pile settlement
profile is uniform along its depth. This is because of higher stiffness of
concrete as comparative to soft soil.
4.1.4. Excavation-induced lateral pile displacement
Fig. 9(a), (b) and (c) show lateral pile displacement induced during
different excavation stages in case of He/Lp = 0.67, He/Lp = 1.00 and
He/Lp = 1.33, respectively. The excavation stages (h = 6, 9 and 12 m),
(h = 9, 12 and 18 m) and (h = 12, 18 and 24 m) are chosen for dis-
cussion and comparison in case of He/Lp = 0.67, He/Lp = 1.00 and He/
Lp = 1.33, respectively. The positive values mean that pile deflected
towards excavation.
It can be seen from the figure that as excavation was carried out, the
pile deflected towards excavation in all the three cases. This is because
of excavation-induced effective stress release and soil displacement
towards excavation.
146
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 86 (2019) 138–155
When the first stage was excavated, the upper part of the pile de-
flected more than the lower part of the pile. As excavation proceeds,
significant lateral displacement was induced in lower part of the pile. In
contrast, the upper part of the pile (i.e., near the head) displaced away
from the excavation. The substantial lateral displacement of the lower
part of the pile is due to further effective stress-release and soil move-
ment during excavation. On completion of excavation in case of He/
Lp = 0.67, the maximum deflection of 40 mm (5.0%dp) was induced at
the pile toe. Furthermore, the excavation-induced deflection results
reveal that the pile has rotated counter-clockwise about an axis per-
pendicular to the plane of the paper. The pivot point is approximately at
Z/Lp = 0.25. Similarly, the pile deflected towards the excavation due to
effective stress-release and soil flow in case of He/Lp = 1.00. By com-
paring the deflection due to third stage of the excavation (i.e., h = 9 m)
in case of He/Lp = 0.67 and He/Lp = 1.00, it is found that induced-de-
flection in later case is smaller (18%) than that of in former case. This is
because of the embedded depth of that wall which provides stiffness
effect in the clay. Similar to the pile responses in case of He/Lp = 0.67,
the pile rotated about the axis perpendicular to the plane of the paper in
case of He/Lp = 1.00. However, the pivot point shifted downward (i.e.,
Z/Lp = 0.34) in this case. A similar pile deflection profile during an
adjacent excavation of the pile was observed by Liyanapathirana and
Nishanthan (2016). The maximum deflection of the pile after the
completion of the excavation was computed as 32 mm (4.0% dp) in case
of He/Lp = 1.00.
The pile deflection induced due to excavation in case of He/
Lp = 1.33 was observed similar to that of in cases of He/Lp = 0.67 and
He/Lp = 1.00 qualitatively. The magnitude of the maximum pile lateral
displacement induced at the pile toe was 36 mm (4.5% dp). Moreover,
the pivot point of the rotation about the axis perpendicular to the plane
of the paper shifted in downward direction ((i.e., Z/Lp = 0.4) as com-
pared to those of in cases of He/Lp = 0.67 and He/Lp = 1.00.
4.1.5. Excavation-induced bending moment in the pile
Fig. 10 illustrates bending moment profile in pile on completion of
excavation in all three cases (i.e., He/Lp = 0.67, He/Lp = 1.00 and He/
Lp = 1.33). The induced-bending moment is taken as positive if tensile
stress was induced along the pile shaft facing the excavation. Since
there was no rigid constraint at the pile head (pile head was free to
move and rotate), no bending moment was induced at/near pile head in
all the three cases.
On completion of excavation with formation level at mid-depth of
the pile (i.e., He/Lp = 0.67), negative bending moments were induced
along the entire pile. It implies that the tensile fibre is located on the
face of pile opposite to excavation. The bending moment increased
linearly along the pile length with the maximum magnitude of 127 kNm
at Z/Lp = 0.8 (i.e. above formation level). This is because the pile was
subjected to lateral soil displacements towards the excavation due to
total stress release.
In contrast to induced bending moment in case of He/Lp = 0.67,
negative bending moment profile (i.e. tensile fibre in the pile shaft fa-
cing the excavation) was established on completion of excavation in
cases of He/Lp = 1.00 and 1.33. The reason for this bending profile can
be attributed to the embedded depth of the wall which makes soil
displacement milder than that of in case of He/Lp = 0.67. The maximum
bending moment of 42 kNm and 13 kNm at Z/Lp = 0.7 were induced in
the pile in case of He/Lp = 1.00 and 1.33, respectively.
It can be seen that the maximum induced bending moment at the
end of excavation in all the three cases is much less than the pile
bending moment capacity (i.e., 800 kNm). Therefore, the most critical
issue to be considered in excavation-soil-pile problem is relatively large
settlement and lateral displacement of the pile. However, lateral pile
movement is dependent on the pile head boundary conditions (dis-
cussed in Section 4.2). This conclusion may not be applicable to sce-
narios in which the ground conditions or stiffness of excavation system
(i.e., wall and prop stiffness) are different from those adopted in this
M.A. Soomro et al.
Fig. 9. Lateral pile displacement at different excavation stages (a) He/Lp = 0.67; (b) He/Lp = 1.00 and (c) He/Lp = 1.33.
study.
4.1.6. Changes in axial load distribution
Fig. 11 shows the axial load distribution along the normalised pile
length (i.e., Z/Lp) below the ground surface after excavation in the three
cases (i.e., He/Lp = 0.67, He/Lp = 1.00 and He/Lp = 1.33). For re-
ference, axial load distribution after application of the working load
147
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 86 (2019) 138–155
(before excavation) is included. Before the excavation in each case, the
pile shaft and pile toe shared 65% and 35% of the working load (i.e.,
720 kN), respectively. It can be seen from the figure that on the com-
pletion of the excavation, no any significant changes in axial load dis-
tribution was computed along the entire pile length in each case. This is
because of uniform soil displacement along the entire pile length (see
Fig. 8) and insignificant changes in normal effective stresses to the pile
M.A. Soomro et al.
Fig. 10. Induced bending moment due to excavation.
Fig. 11. Axial load distribution along the pile length before and after the ex-
cavation in all the three cases.
shaft (discussed later). This led to negligible relative pile-soil dis-
placement along the pile length.
Although no substantial changes in axial load distribution were
observed yet load transfer occur along the pile to some extent in all the
three cases. In case of He/Lp = 0.67, owing to excavation-induced
ground movements due to total stress release at the wall and nonlinear
shear stiffness degradation of the soil, axial load increased along the
upper part of the pile length (i.e., Z/Lp < 0.64). This caused mobilised
shaft resistance (inferred from slope of axial load distribution lines)
148
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 86 (2019) 138–155
Fig. 12. Relative pile-soil displacement before and after the excavation all the
three cases.
Fig. 13. Changes in normal effective stress on the pile due to excavation in all
the three cases.
decreased at the upper portion of the pile. Consequently, the load
transfers downward at lower portion of the pile (i.e., 0.64 < Z/
Lp < 1.00). To maintain equilibrium, the pile had to settle to further
mobilise shaft resistance at the lower part of the shaft. Since the shaft
resistance at the lower part of the pile is not fully mobilised at working
load condition, the downward transferred load due to excavation was
resisted by the lower portion of the shaft. This led to increase (i.e., 7%)
in mobilised shaft resistance and decrease (i.e., 8%) in mobilised end-
bearing.
M.A. Soomro et al.
Fig. 14. Computed evolution of stress paths of elements near the pile shaft and underneath the pile toe during excavation in all the three cases.
In contrast to the case of He/Lp = 0.67, the axial load increased
along the entire pile length due to excavation-induced ground move-
ments due to total stress release in both cases of He/Lp = 1.00 and 1.33.
This led to reduction in the mobilised shaft resistance (suggested by
increased slope of axial load distribution) along the pile length. As a
result, the load borne by shaft resistance transferred to the pile toe.
Consequently, the pile settled to further mobilise end-bearing to
maintain equilibrium. The end-bearing to increased because of the
linearly decreasing distribution of free-field ground movements. The
increase in end-bearings of the pile were 4% and 2% of the pre-ex-
cavation value in cases of He/Lp = 1.00 and 1.33, respectively.
4.1.7. Development of relative pile-soil displacement due to excavation
To understand the load, transfer mechanism (as discussed in per-
vious section) caused by excavation in all the three cases (i.e., He/
Lp = 0.67, He/Lp = 1.00 and He/Lp = 1.33), relative pile-soil displace-
ment at the piles-soil interface along the pile length is illustrated in
Fig. 12. The relative shear displacement before excavation (due to
working load) is also included for reference. A positive value of pile-soil
relative displacement indicated that the soil is supporting the pile and
vice versa. As expected, the positive relative pile-soil displacement was
developed along the entire pile length after the application of the
working load (i.e., before excavation). This implies that positive shaft
resistance was mobilised at the interface (see Fig. 11). Nevertheless, the
excavation-induced effective stress release led to changes in the relative
shear displacement (of insignificant magnitude) in each case. The soil
displacement along the entire pile length is almost uniform which led to
substantial pile settlement (see Fig. 7) in all the three cases. Conse-
quently, insignificant relative pile-soil shear displacement was devel-
oped due to excavation in each case.
Owing to soil displacement due to excavation in each case, the shear
displacement decreased along the upper part of the pile (i.e., Z/
Lp < 0.35). Conversely, the relative displacement increased at the
149
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 86 (2019) 138–155
lower part of the pile. Consequently, the mobilised shaft resistance
decreased along the upper part and increased at the lower part of the
pile as discussed in pervious section. Among the three cases, the de-
veloped relative pile-soil shear displacement in cases He/Lp = 1.00 and
1.33 is smaller than that of in case of He/Lp = 0.67. This is because of
the soil displacements behind the wall (i.e., surrounding the pile) in-
duced due to excavation in case of He/Lp = 1.00 and He/Lp = 1.33 are
larger than that in case of He/Lp = 0.67. Due to this reason, the mobi-
lised shaft resistance along the lower part of the pile is higher is case of
He/Lp = 0.67 as compared to that in cases He/Lp = 1.00 and 1.33.
4.1.8. Changes in normal effective stresses to the pile shaft after excavation
It is well recognised that the mobilised shaft resistance depends
upon coefficient of friction (i.e., tangent of friction angle between pile
and soil at interface), the normal effective stresses to the pile shaft and
relative pile-soil displacement. To substantiate the discussion in per-
vious section, the normal effective stresses to the pile shaft was ex-
tracted from the numerical analysis of all the three cases (i.e., He/
Lp = 0.67, He/Lp = 1.00 and He/Lp = 1.33) as shown Fig. 13. Three
references lines (i.e., earth pressure at rest (Ko), Rankine active (Ka) and
passive (Kp) pressures) are included in the figure for comparison. Before
excavation (after application of working load) the effective stress dis-
tribution along the pile shaft is was approximately equal to earth
pressure distribution at Ko condition.
It can be seen from the figure that the normal effective stresses to
the pile shaft decreased along the pile length except near the pile toe
(Z/Lp > 0.87) on completion of the excavation in case of He/Lp = 0.67.
Consequently, shaft resistance reduced at the upper part of the pile (as
discussed in Section 4.1.6). As a result, pile settled with respect to the
free-field case to further mobilise shaft resistance. These computed re-
sults are consistent with the centrifuge tests results reported by Lee and
Chiang (2007), Franza and Marshall (2018) and Franza and Marshall
(2017). They discussed the impact of excavation induced effective stress
M.A. Soomro et al.
Fig. 15. Generation of excess pore pressure at different locations along the pile
during excavation in all cases (a) near the pile head (b) at mid of the pile shaft
(c) below the pile toe.
relief due to tunnelling on non-displacement piles in fully drained
conditions.
Similarly, the normal effective stresses to the pile shaft decreased
along the entire pile length as result of the excavation in each of cases of
He/Lp = 1.00 and He/Lp = 1.33. Because of this reason, the shaft re-
sistance reduced along the entire pile length and load transferred to the
pile toe. To carry constant applied working load, the pile had to settle
substantially (see Fig. 7) to further mobilise end-bearing (see Fig. 11).
150
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 86 (2019) 138–155
4.1.9. Stress path evolution of elements underneath the pile toe and at the
mid-depth of the pile shaft
To further understand the load transfer mechanism in the pile due to
excavation, two elements (one underneath the pile toe and the other at
the mid-depth of the pile shaft) were selected for comparing the evo-
lution of stress path during excavation in case of He/Lp = 0.67, He/
Lp = 1.00 and He/Lp = 1.33 as illustrated in Fig. 14. For reference, at-
rest earth pressure coefficient (i.e., Ko) line and critical state line (i.e., M
line) are also included in the figure. It can be seen that the initial stress
states of selected elements are on Ko line which means the element is
subjected to Ko stress condition in each of cases. After application of
working load in each case, the mean effective stress (p') and deviatoric
stress (q) of the elements underneath the pile toe increased. The p' and q
further increased after consolidation in each cases. It can be observed
from the figure that the p' and q increased due to first two excavation
stages (i.e., E1 and E2) in case of He/Lp = 0.67. This implies that load
transferred to the pile toe. This is because of reduction in shaft re-
sistance of the pile during the excavation stages. However, both the p'
and q decreased at the end of excavation, suggesting that end-bearing
reduced (see Fig. 11) and pile had to mobilise its shaft resistance to
carry constant applied working load.
In contrast to the stress path in case of He/Lp = 0.67, the p' and q
keep increasing during entire excavation process in both the cases of
He/Lp = 1.00 and 1.33. This is because of embedded depth of the wall
which providing support to soil element underneath the pile toe.
Consequently, the end-bearing of the pile increased (see Fig. 11) in both
the cases. At the end of the excavation in each case the stress state of the
selected element remained above and below the Ko line and M line,
respectively.
The p' and q of element at the mid-depth of the pile shaft decreased
after application working load and consolidation. Owing to excavation-
induced stress release the mean effective stress (p') of the element de-
creased in each case. However, the deviatoric stress (q) increased
during excavation. This can be because of mobilisation of shaft re-
sistance to carry constant applied working load.
4.1.10. Generation of excess pore water pressure during excavation
Fig. 15(a), (b) and (c) show the generation of excessive pore water
pressure (Δu) along the pile shaft near the pile head (i.e., Z = 1.5 m), at
the mid-depth of the pile shaft (i.e., Z = 9.0 m) and below the pile toe
(Z = 18.0 m), respectively in all the three cases (i.e., He/Lp = 0.67, 1.00
and 1.33). Δu is normalised by the corresponding value at hydrostatic
condition (uo). It can be seen that excessive positive and negative pore
pressure generated during excavation in each cases.
Owing to excavation in each case, the positive excessive pore
pressure was generated near the pile head. This is because of excava-
tion-induced stress re-distribution and soil arching. The maximum
change was computed in the case of He/Lp = 0.67.
In contrast to the pore pressure near pile head (see Fig. 15(b)),
negative excessive pore pressure was developed at the mid depth of the
pile shaft during excavation in each case. However, it recovered to
hydrostatic condition as excavation proceeded in case of He/Lp = 0.67
and 1.00. This can be attributed to stress re-distribution and vertical
shear transfer mechanism explained by Ng et al. (1998).
It can be observed form Fig. 15(c) that below the pile toe, at the
beginning of the excavation (i.e., first excavation stage in case of He/
Lp = 0.67 and first & second stages in both the cases of He/Lp = 1.00
and 1.33) positive pore pressure was generated. And the computed pore
pressure decreased significantly owing to total stress relief as excava-
tion approached to the level of the pile toe in all the three cases. Among
three cases, maximum drop of pore pressure was computed in case of
He/Lp = 0.67 at the end of excavation. This is because of the reason that
in case of He/Lp = 0.67, the wall is less stiff (shallower embedded wall)
than that in cases of He/Lp = 1.00 and 1.33.
M.A. Soomro et al.
Fig. 16. Effect of pile head fixity on lateral pile displacement (a) He/Lp = 0.67; (b) He/Lp = 1.00 and (c) He/Lp = 1.33.
4.2. Effect of pile head fixity
Fig. 16(a) (b) and (c) compare induced lateral displacement of the
pile with different head conditions (i.e. free, pinned and fixed) in case
of He/Lp = 0.67, He/Lp = 1.00 and He/Lp = 1.33, respectively. The ex-
cavation stages (h = 6 and 12 m), (h = 9 and 18 m) and (h = 12 and
24 m) are selected for discussion and comparison in case of He/
Lp = 0.67, He/Lp = 1.00 and He/Lp = 1.33, respectively. The pile de-
flection toward the excavation is regarded as positive.
It can be seen from the figure that the pile lateral displacement in
151
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 86 (2019) 138–155
case of pinned and fixed head conditions was observed to zero at the
ground surface in all the three cases as expected. Moreover, the in-
duced-pile deflection profile along the pile length in cases of pinned and
fixed head conditions are similar in all the three cases. During the ex-
cavation, the pile deflection increased along the depth with maximum
value at pile toe. Compared to the lateral pile displacement in case of
free head condition, the deflection at the upper portion of pile is smaller
in case of pinned and fixed condition.
Fig. 17(a) (b) and (c) illustrate the comparison between induced
bending moment profile in the pile with different pile head conditions
M.A. Soomro et al.
Fig. 17. Induced bending moment at different excavation depth (a) He/Lp = 0.67; (b) He/Lp = 1.00 and (c) He/Lp = 1.33.
on completion of excavation in all three cases (i.e., He/Lp = 0.67, He/
Lp = 1.00 and He/Lp = 1.33). The induced-bending moment is taken as
positive if tensile fibre faces towards excavation.
It can be seen that the induced bending moment profiles in the pile
with retrained head conditions are quite different from that in free pile
head condition in all the cases. Due to head constraint higher negative
bending moment was induced at pile head in all the three cases. As
excavation depth increase positive bending moment is induced at lower
152
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 86 (2019) 138–155
portion of the pile in constraint head conditions. In contrast only po-
sitive bending moment is induced in the free head pile. The negative
bending moment at pile head in constrained conditions increases as
excavation depth increases. Among the three cases reported, the ex-
cavation in case He/Lp = 1.33 induced the largest bending moment of
480 kNm at the pile head which is 60% of the pile bending moment
capacity (i.e., 800 kNm, as discussed in Section 2) with corresponding
flexural rigidity. The maximum negative bending moment of 375 and
M.A. Soomro et al.
Fig. 18. Effect of different working loads on induced settlement at different
excavation stages (a) He/Lp = 0.67; (b) He/Lp = 1.00 and (c) He/Lp = 1.33.
Fig. 19. Effect of different working loads on induced bending moment along
the pile length.
480 kNm at the pile head was induced in case of He/Lp = 0.67 and He/
Lp = 1.00, respectively.
4.3. Effect of working load
4.3.1. Excavation-induced settlement of the pile
Fig. 18 shows the normalised incremental settlement of the pile (Sp/
dp) at different working load (i.e. 720 kN and 1440 kN) in all three cases
(i.e., He/Lp = 0.67, He/Lp = 1.00 and He/Lp = 1.33). The long-term pile
settlement (i.e., 10 years after completion of excavation) is also in-
cluded in the figure.
It can be seen from the figure that higher the working load on the
pile, the larger is the induced settlement in the pile at same excavation
depth. This can be attributed to degradation of the tangent soil stiffness
153
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 86 (2019) 138–155
Fig. 20. Effect of different working loads on axial load distribution along the
pile length before and after the excavation in case of He/Lp = 1.33.
Fig. 21. Pile settlement in case of FOS = 1.5 and sub surface settlements along
the pile axis in all the cases (i.e. He/Lp = 0.67; He/Lp = 1.00 and He/Lp = 1.33).
along the pile shaft and underneath the pile toe due to higher working
load (i.e. low factor of safety). As Korff et al., (2016) method analyti-
cally suggests, the greater the pile head settlements, the lower the
tangent soil stiffness at the shaft and pile tip for further relative pile-soil
displacements. Therefore, in undrained conditions a pile with a lower
safety factor before the excavation has a very low stiffness for further
variation of load applied at its head for shaft. This is the reason for a
pile with low safety factor pile can settle significantly more than the
greenfield ground movement (explained in Section 4.3.4) as the pile
soil-stiffness is low. From a soil mechanisms perspective, the deep ex-
cavation induced pile settlement in undrained conditions is not due to a
“bulb stress” rather the shear stresses/strains at the pile-soil interface
(i.e. refer to shear stiffness degradation curves from the G0 level).
It can be seen that settlement of the pile increased in the long term
M.A. Soomro et al.
Fig. 22. Evolution of stress paths of elements near the shaft and underneath the toe of the pile subjected to different working loads during excavation.
(i.e., 10 years after completion the excavation) in all cases. This addi-
tional pile settlement is attributed to the dissipation of excessive pore
pressure generated around the pile due to excavation. The maximum
increment in the pile settlement (35% of the settlement after excava-
tion) was observed in the case of He/Lp = 1.33 with factor of safety 1.5.
4.3.2. Excavation-induced bending moment
Fig. 19 illustrates bending moment profile in pile at different
working loads after excavation in all three cases (i.e., He/Lp = 0.67, He/
Lp = 1.00 and He/Lp = 1.33). The induced-bending moment is taken as
positive if tensile stress was induced along the pile shaft facing the
excavation. Since there was no rigid constraint at the pile head (pile
head was free to move and rotate), no bending moment was induced at/
near pile head in all the three cases. It can be seen that minor influence
on excavation-induced bending moment profile in the pile was ob-
served due to different working load (i.e. FOS = 3.0 and 1.5). The si-
milar observation was made by Zhang et al. (2011), Liyanapathirana
and Nishanthan (2016) and Zhang et al. (2018).
4.3.3. Changes in axial load distribution
Fig. 20 compares the axial load distribution along the pile length for
different working load (720 kN with FOS = 3.0 and 1440 with
FOS = 1.5) in case of He/Lp = 1.33. For reference, axial load distribu-
tion after application of the working load (before excavation) is in-
cluded. Before the excavation in each case, the working load was car-
ried by the pile by mobilising shaft and end-bearing resistance. The pile
with working load of 1440 kN mobilised higher shaft and end-bearing
resistance than that with working load of 720 kN.
Similar to changes in load distribution along the pile subjected to
working load of 720 kN after the excavation, no any significant changes
in axial load distribution was computed along the entire pile length in
each case. This is because of uniform soil displacement along the entire
pile length (see Fig. 21). This led to negligible relative pile-soil
154
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 86 (2019) 138–155
displacement along the pile length.
4.3.4. Excavation-induced pile settlement and free-field subsurface profile
Fig. 21 shows the normalised pile (subjected working load with
FOS = 1.5) and sub surface vertical settlement (Sp/dp) profile along the
pile length after excavation in all three cases (i.e., He/Lp = 0.67, He/
Lp = 1.00 and He/Lp = 1.33).
It can be seen from the figure that sub surface settlement soil
slightly decrease along the pile axis due to excavation in all the three
cases. Because of the uniform settlement due to excavation, the changes
in axial load distribution along the pile are insignificant (discussed in
Section 4.3.3). However, the significant pile settlement induced during
excavation in each case (discussed earlier). Moreover, the settlement of
the pile subjected to working load with FOS = 1.5 is significantly
higher than the subsurface settlement in free-field case. Thus Korff’s
framework may be an efficient approach to assess the interaction of
deep excavations with isolated pile with a free head and a constant
smaller head load (see Fig. 8). However, this could not be applicable for
larger working loads.
4.3.5. Stress path evolution of elements at the mid-depth of the pile shaft
and underneath the pile toe
Fig. 22 compares the stress path evolution of the two elements (one
underneath the pile toe and the other at the mid-depth of the pile shaft)
around the pile loaded with working load 720 (FOS = 3.0) and 1440 kN
(FOS = 1.5) during excavation in case of He/Lp = 1.33. Comparing the
stress path of element underneath the pile toe in case of FOS = 1.5, the
increment in the p' and q is higher in case of FOS = 3.0. This is because
of large load transferred (see Fig. 20) to the pile toe after application of
the working load and during excavation.
Qualitatively, the stress path evolution of the element at the mid-
depth of the pile shaft during excavation is similar in both case of
FOS = 3.0 and 1.5. The increment in deviatoric stress (q) in case of
M.A. Soomro et al.
FOS = 1.5 is higher than that in case of FOS = 3.0. This is because of
large excavation-induced settlement (see Fig. 18) to mobilise shaft re-
sistance to carry constant applied working load in case of FOS = 1.5.
5. Summary and conclusion
This study compares the responses of a floating pile due to different
excavation depths systems in saturated soft Kaolin clay using 3D cou-
pled consolidation analysis. The effects of excavation depths relative to
pile were investigated by simulating the excavation near the pile shaft
(i.e., He/Lp = 0.67), next to (He/Lp = 1.00) and below the pile toe (He/
Lp = 1.33). Based on ground conditions, different configurations and
method of excavation modelled, the following conclusions can be
drawn
(a) Owing to different embedded depth of the wall in each of three
cases, the induced settlement (Sp), lateral displacement and bending
moment in the pile at the same stage of the excavation was different
in the three cases.
(b) Significant effect of wall embedded depth was observed. For a given
excavation depth, induced pile settlement in case of larger em-
bedded was smaller than that in cases of smaller embedded depth of
the wall. Owing to the dissipation of excess pore pressure after
10 years of completions of excavations, induced pile settlement
increases in all cases.
(c) Owing to excavation, the bending moment was induced along the
pile length. At the end of excavation in each case, the maximum
induced bending moment in all the three cases is much less than the
pile bending moment capacity (i.e., 800 kNm).
(d) The pile head boundary conditions had significant effects on
bending movement profile of the pile while impact on settlements
was minor. In particular, fixed pile head conditions led to very large
bending moments (60% of pile bending moment capacity).
(e) On the contrary, the different working loads (with FOS = 3.0 and
1.5) influenced induced pile settlement significantly but have re-
latively minor effect on induced bending moment.
(f) The computed results have revealed that, the settlement of the pile
subjected to working load with FOS = 1.5 is significantly higher
than the subsurface settlement in free-field case after excavation in
each case. Thus Korff’s framework may be an efficient approach to
assess the interaction of deep excavations with isolated pile with a
free head and a constant smaller head load. However, Korff ap-
proach may provide unconservative estimation of pile settlements
for low pile safety factor.
(g) On the completion of the excavation, no any significant changes in
axial load distribution and relative pile-soil displacement were
computed along the entire pile length in each case. This is because
of uniform soil displacement along the entire pile length and minor
changes in normal effective stresses to the pile shaft.
Readers should be reminded that the above conclusions are drawn
from this parametric study in one soft layer of clay. Any extrapolation
from these results should be treated with caution.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support pro-
vided by Quaid-e-Awam University of Engineering, Science &
Technology, Sindh and Pakistan.
References
Al-Tabbaa, A., 1987. Permeability and stress–strain response of Speswhite Kaolin. Ph.D.
thesis. University of Cambridge, U.K.
155
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 86 (2019) 138–155
Atkinson, J.H., Richardson, D., Stallebrass, S.E., 1990. Effect of recent stress history on
the stiffness of overconsolidated soil. Géotechnique 40 (4), 531–540.
Atkinson, J.H., Sällfors, G., 1991. Experimental determination of stress-strain-time
characteristics in laboratory and in-situ tests. General report. In: Proceedings of 10th
European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Florence, Italy,
Vol. 3, pp. 915–56.
Benz, T., 2007. Small-Strain Stiffness and Its Numerical Consequences. Ph.D. thesis.
UniversitatStuttgart.
Bolton, M.D., Powrie, W., 1987. The collapse of diaphragm walls retaining clay.
Géotechnique 37 (3), 335–353.
Finno, R.J., Lawrence, S.A., Allawh, N.F., Harahap, I.S., 1991. Analysis of performance of
pile groups adjacent to deep excavation. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., ASCE 6 (117),
934–955.
Franza, A., Marshall, A.M., 2017. Centrifuge modelling of tunnelling beneath axially
loaded displacement and non-displacement piles in sand. In: Brandon, T.L.,
Valentine, R.J. (Eds.) Proc. Geotech. Front. 2017. GSP 277 Transp. Facil. Struct. site
Investig. Orlando, Florida, pp 576–586.
Franza, A., Marshall, A.M., 2018. Centrifuge modeling study of the response of piled
structures to tunneling. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 144, 04017109. https://doi.
org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001751.
Goh, A.T.C., Wong, K.S., Teh, C.I., Wen, D., 2003. Pile response adjacent to braced ex-
cavation. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., ASCE. 4 (129), 383–386.
Gudehus, G., Amorosi, A., Gens, A., Herle, I., Kolymbas, D., Mašín, D., Wood, M., Nova,
R., Niemunis, A., Pastor, M., Tamagnini, C., Viggiani, G., 2008. The soilmodels.info
project. Int. J. Num. Anal. Methods Geomech. 32(12), 1571–1572.
Hsieh, P.-G., Ou, C.-Y., 1998. Shape of ground surface settlement profiles caused by ex-
cavation. Can. Geotech. J. 35 (6), 1004–1017.
Hsiung, B.C.B., 2009. A case study on the behaviour of a deep excavation in sand.
Comput. Geotech. 36 (4), 665–675.
Jáky, J., 1944. The coefficient of earth pressure at rest. J. Soc. Hungarian Architects Eng.
355–358 [In Hungarian].
Korff, M., Mair, R.J., Van Tol, F.A.F., 2016. Pile-soil interaction and settlement effects
induced by deep excavations. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 142 (8), 04016034.
Lee, C.J., Ng, C.W.W., 2004. Development of downdrag on piles and pile groups in
consolidating soil. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., ASCE 130 (2), 905–914.
Lee, C.J., Chiang, K.H., 2007. Responses of single piles to tunneling-induced soil move-
ments in sandy ground. Can. Geotech. J. 44, 1224–1241. https://doi.org/10.1139/
T07-050.
Leung, C.F., Chow, Y.K., Shen, R.F., 2000. Behavior of pile subject to excavation-induced
soil movement. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., ASCE 126 (11), 947–954.
Leung, C.F., Lim, J.K., Shen, R.F., Chow, Y.K., 2003. Behavior of pile groups subject to
excavation-induced soil movement. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., ASCE. 129 (1),
58–65.
Leung, C.F., Ong, D.E.L., Shen, R.F., Chow, Y.K., 2006. Pile behavior due to excavation-
induced soil movement in clay II: collapsed wall. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., ASCE
132 (1), 45–53.
Liyanapathirana, D., Nishanthan, R., 2016. Influence of deep excavation induced ground
movements on adjacent piles. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 52, 168–181.
Li, L., Hu, X.X., Dong, G.H., Liu, J., 2014. Three-dimensional numerical analyses of pile
response due to braced excavation-induced lateral soil movement. Appl. Mech.
Mater. 580–583, 524–531.
Mašín, D., Herle, I., 2005. State boundary surface of a hypoplastic model for clays.
Comput. Geotech. 32 (6), 400–410.
Mašín, D., 2009. 3D modeling of an NATM tunnel in high K0 clay using two different
constitutive models. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 135 (9), 1326–1335.
Ng, C.W.W., Simpson, B., Lings, M.L., Nash, D.F.T., 1998. Numerical analysis of a mul-
tipropped excavation in stiff clay. Can. Geotech. J. 35, 115–130.
Ng, C.W.W., Yau, T.L.Y., Li, J.H.M., Tang, W.H., 2001. New failure load criterion for large
diameter bored piles in weathered geomaterials. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., ASCE
127 (6), 488–498.
Ng, C.W.W., Hong, Y., Liu, G., Liu, T., 2012. Ground deformations and soil structure
interaction of a multi-propped excavation in Shanghai soft clays. Géotechnique 62
(10), 907–921.
Ng, C.W.W., Wei, J., Poulos, H.G., Liu, H., 2017. Effects of multipropped excavation on an
adjacent floating pile. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 143 (7), 04017021.
Niemunis, A., Herle, I., 1997. Hypoplastic model for cohesionless soils with elastic strain
range. Mech. Cohesive-Frict. Mater 2, 279–299.
Ong, D.E.L., Leung, C.F., Chow, Y.K., 2006. Pile behavior due to excavation-induced soil
movement in clay. I: Stable Wall. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., ASCE 132 (1), 36–44.
Parry, R.H.G., Nadarajah, V., 1974. Observations on laboratory prepared, lightly over-
consolidated specimens of kaolin. Géotechnique. 24 (3), 345–358.
Poulos, H.G., Chen, L.T., 1997. Pileresponse due to excavation-induced lateral soil
movement. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 123 (2), 94–99.
Shakeel, M., Ng, C.W.W., 2018. Settlement and load transfer mechanism of a pile group
adjacent to a deep excavation in soft clay. Comput. Geotech. 96, 55–72.
Wang, L.Z., Chen, K.X., Hong, Y., Ng, C.W.W., 2015. Effect of consolidation on responses
of a single pile subjected to lateral soil movement. Can. Geotech. J. 52 (6), 769–782.
Zhang, R., Zheng, J., Pu, H., Zhang, L., 2011. Analysis of excavation-induced responses of
loaded pile foundations considering unloading effect. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol.
26 (2), 320–335.
Zhang, R., Zhang, W., Goh, A.T.C., 2018. Numerical investigation of pile responses caused
by adjacent braced excavation in soft clays. Int. J. Geotech. Eng. 10 (5), 856–864.