You are on page 1of 6

APPROXIMATE DESIGN CHARTS FOR PILES ADJACENT TO TUNNELLING OPERATIONS

L.T. Chen1, H.G. Poulos2, and N. Loganathan3

ABSTRACT This paper analyses the behaviour of piles adjacent to tunnelling operations, focusing on the case of piles whose tips are located above the horizontal axis of a tunnel. In the analysis, the ground movements induced by tunnelling are estimated using a published analytical method, and these movements are then imposed on the pile in simplified boundary analyses to compute the pile response. A parametric study is carried out to identify factors which have a significant influence on the pile behaviour, and design charts are presented subsequently for estimating maximum pile responses. INTRODUCTION When designing tunnels located in congested urban areas, it is necessary to carry out impact assessments of tunnelling-induced ground movements on adjacent structures, or from a geotechnical point of view, on the foundations supporting these structures. An assessment will normally include the following steps: 1) estimate ground movements induced by tunnelling; 2) analyse the foundation response due to these ground movements; and 3) check if this additional response (due to tunnelling) is within the reserve capacity of the foundation. For shallow foundations, the most common way is to estimate the maximum settlement and angular distortion of the foundation, based on the surface settlement trough estimated using the error-curve method proposed by Peck (1969). These estimated results are then checked against deformation criteria considered tolerable by the foundation. For piled foundations, both the lateral and vertical ground movements along the entire length of the pile, rather than just the surface settlement, are considered important to analyse the pile behaviour and examine the extent of the impact caused by tunnelling. Recently, Loganathan and Poulos (1998) have published analytical solutions for estimating subsoil movements caused by tunnelling, and using this method, Chen et al (1999) have presented design charts for estimating the lateral and axial responses of single vertical piles adjacent to tunnelling operations. However, these design charts are applicable only for piles whose tips are at or below the horizontal axis of the tunnel (termed long-piles). As pointed out by Chen et al (1999), the behaviour of piles whose tips are above the tunnel axis (termed short piles) is significantly different from that of the long piles. To supplement the design charts for the long piles, this paper studies the behaviour of the short piles and presents corresponding design charts. METHOD OF ANALYSIS The basic problem considered here is shown in Figure 1, where an existing single pile is situated adjacent to a tunnel under construction. The approach adopted to tackle this problem follows that described in Chen et al (1999), and involves the following steps:

Senior Geotechnical Engineer, Atkins China Ltd, 16/F, World Trade Centre, 280 Gloucester Rd, Causeway Bay, Hong Kong SAR, China. 2 Senior Principal, Coffey Geosciences Pty Ltd, 142 Wicks Rd, North Ryde, Australia 2113; and Professor of Civil Engineering, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia. 3 PhD Student, Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia.

1) calculate lateral and vertical soil movements along the pile length using the analytical solutions presented by Loganathan and Poulos (1998); 2) impose the calculated lateral soil movement on the pile in a simplified boundary element analysis, via the computer program PALLAS, to compute the lateral response of the pile; 3) impose the calculated vertical soil movement on the pile in a simplified boundary element analysis, via the computer program PIES, to compute the axial response of the pile.

APPLICATION OF THEORY TO PILE ANALYSIS Pile analyses were carried out for the simple case shown in Fig. 1, with the following assumptions: 1) the soil is a deep homogenous clay layer, assumed to be in an undrained condition. The undrained shear strength cu = 60kPa and Youngs modulus Es = 24MPa, values which are representative of a medium clay. 2) the tunnel radius R = 3m and the depth of tunnel axis h = 20m. 3) The pile length Lp = 15m, pile diameter d =0.5m, Youngs modulus Ep = 30,000MPa, limiting lateral pile-soil pressure pu=540kPa, limiting skin friction fs = 48kPa, and limiting end bearing pressure fb=540kPa. For a factor of safety of 2.5, the allowable geotechnical capacity of the pile is estimated to be approximately 495kN for compression and 452kN for tension. 4) The pile is precast concrete and has 2.5% and 1% steel reinforcement in the top half and bottom half of the length, respectively, a typical design for piles supporting normal structural loads. The corresponding allowable bending moments are in the order of 250kN.m and 175kN.m, respectively. Typical Pile Responses Figure 2 shows the computed vertical and horizontal soil movement profiles induced by tunnelling, corresponding to two ground loss ratios, , of 1% and 5%, and for a distance x = 4.5 m.
Lateral Movement, Ux (mm) -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 0 = 1% = 5% -5 -10 Depth (m) -15 -20 -25 -30 -35 -100 Vertical Movement, Uz (mm) -50 0 50 0 -5 Depth (m) -10 -15 -20 = 1% = 5% -25 -30 -35

Figure 2: Soil Movements at x = 4.5m

0 0 Depth (m) -5 -10 -15 -20 -25

Bending Moment, M (kN.m) 20 40 60 = 1% = 5%

Lateral Deflection of Pile (mm) 80 -50 -40 -30 = 1% = 5% -20 -10 0 0 Depth (m) Depth (m) 50 50 -5 -10 -15

Tunnel Axis

Tunnel Axis

-20 -25

Axial Force, P (kN) -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 0 Depth (m) -5 -10 = 1% = 5% Tunnel Axis -15 -20 -100

Vertical Movement of Pile, v (mm) -80 -60 -40 -20

0 0

= 1% = 5%

-5 -10 -15 -20 Tunnel Axis -25

-25

Figure 3: Typical Pile Response at x = 4.5m for the "Short Pile' Case
50 40 30 20 10 0 0 10 20 30 Distance, x(m) Mb (kNm)

R = 1% 2 R = 5%

40

50

0 0 b (mm)

10

Distance, x(m) 20 30

40

50 0 vb (mm) -20

10

Distance, x (m) 20 30

40

-20

R = 1% R = 5%
2

R = 1% -40 -60 Distance, x (m) 20 30 R = 5%


2

-40 400 300 +Pb (kN) 200 100 0 0 10 20 30 Distance, x(m) 40 50 R = 1% 2 R = 5% -Pb (kN)
2

0 0 -100 -200 -300 -400

10

40

R = 1% 2 R = 5%

Figure 4: Maximum Pile Responses Vs. Distance, x, for the "Short Pile" Case

The soil movement profiles shown in Figure 2 were input into the computer programs PALLAS and PIES to compute lateral and axial pile responses. From the PALLAS lateral response analysis, results have been obtained for lateral pile deflection and bending moment in the pile, whereas results for vertical pile movement and axial force in the pile have been obtained from the PIES axial response analysis. The results are shown in Figure 3. Figure 4 shows the maximum values of various pile responses varying with the distance away from the vertical axis of the tunnel, x. For general purposes, the results are presented for two values of R2. Parametric Study and Design Charts To investigate the influences of various parameters on the pile responses, a parametric study was carried out in which the following parameters were varied: the tunnel radius R, the ground loss ratio , the undrained soil shear strength cu, the depth of tunnel axis level h, the pile diameter d and length Lp. Youngs modulus Es was also varied, assuming the relationship Es = 400cu. The following observations may be made from the parametric studies: 1) maximum bending moment Mmax, lateral pile deflection max, compressive axial force +Pmax, tensile axial force -Pmax and settlement vmax all increase with increasing tunnel radius R and ground loss ratio , and may be related conveniently to the product of R2; 2) Mmax, max, +Pmax, and -Pmax increase with increasing cu because of an increase of the limiting lateral soil pressure and skin friction. vmax also increases with increasing cu. 3) Increasing the pile diameter tends to increase Mmax but decrease max, due to an increase of pile lateral rigidity; +Pmax, and -Pmax increase, while vmax decreases, with increasing pile diameter; 4) The effects of the depth of tunnel axis level h and the pile length Lp depend on the ratio Lp/h; the maximum pile responses may either increase or decrease with changing Lp/h, depending on the other parameters. Based on the results of the parametric study, it has been found that, within the range of parameters examined, the various maximum pile responses may be approximated as follows: Lateral Response
M M M M max = M b .k cu .k d .k Lp / h max = b .k cu .k d .k Lp / h

(1)

Axial Response

+ Pmax = + Pb .k + P cu .k + P d .k + P Lp / h P P P Pmax = Pb .k cu .k d .k Lp / h v v v v max = vb .k cu .k d .k Lp / h

(2)

where Mmax = maximum bending moment, kN.m; max = maximum lateral deflection, mm; +Pmax = maximum compressive axial force, kN; -Pmax = maximum tensile axial force, kN; vmax = maximum pile head settlement, mm; Mb, b, +Pb, -Pb, vb = basic bending moment, lateral deflection, compressive axial force, tensile axial force and pile head settlement, respectively, as shown in Fig. 4; kMcu, kcu, k+Pcu, k-Pcu, kvcu = correction factors for undrained shear strength, as shown in Fig. 5; kMd, kd, .k+Pd, k-Pd, kvd = correction factors for pile diameter, as shown in Fig. 6; kMLp/h, kLp/h, k+PLp/h, k-PLp/h, kvLp/h = correction factors for the ratio of pile length to tunnel axis level, as shown in Fig. 7. Note that Eqs. (1) and (2) compute only the additional response of the pile, assuming that the pile is initially stress free, both laterally and vertically, before tunnelling;

1.5 1.25
M cu

1 0.75 0.5 0 50 100 150 cu (kPa) 200

x = 4.5 x = 7.5 x = 10 250 300

1.1 1.05
cu cu v

1.1 1.05 K 1 0.95 0.9 0 100 cu (kPa) 200 300 0 100 cu (kPa) 4 3
-P cu

0.95 0.9

200

300

6
+P cu

4 2 0 0 100 cu (kPa) 200 300

2 1 0 0 100 cu (kPa) 200 300

Figure 5: Correction Factor for cu for the "Short Pile' Case

50 40 K
M

x = 4.5 x = 7.5 x = 10

30 20 10 0 0

0.5

d (m)

1.5

1.1
d

1.1
d v

1 0.9 0.8 0 x = 4.5 x = 7.5 x = 10 0.5 d (m) 1 1.5

0.9 0 0.5 d (m) 1 1.5

5 4
+P

2.5 x = 4.5 x = 7.5 x = 10 2


-P d

3 2 1 0 0

x = 4.5 x = 7.5 x = 10

1.5 1 0.5

0.5

d (m)

1.5

0.5

d (m)

1.5

Figure 6: Correction Factor for d for the "Short Pile' Case

6 5
M Lp/h

4 3 2 1 0 0

x = 4.5 x = 7.5 x = 10

0.5

Lp/h

1.5

2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0 0.5 1 Lp/h

1.5
Ld/h

Lp/h

1 x = 4.5 x = 4.5 x = 10 0 0.5 Lp/h 1 1.5 2

x = 4.5 x = 7.5 x 1.5= 10

K 0.5 0

2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0 0.5 Lp/h 1

2
Ld/h

+P

Ld/h

1.5 1

x = 4.5 x = 7.5 x = 10

x = 4.5 x = 7.5 x = 10 1.5 2

-P

0.5 0 0 0.5 Lp/h 1 1.5 2

Figure 7: Correction Factor for Lp/h for the "Short Pile' Case

CONCLUSIONS This paper studies the behaviour of piles whose tips are located above the horizontal axis of a tunnel, following the analysis approach described in Chen et al (1998). The factors which may have significant influence on the pile behaviour are identified to include tunnel geometry, ground loss ratio, soil strength, pile diameter, and ratio of pile length to tunnel cover depth. Simple design charts are presented for estimating maximum pile responses and may be used in practice to assess the behaviour of existing piles adjacent to tunnelling operations. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The work described herein was carried out as part of a research program on the influence of underground construction on pile behaviour, supported by the Australian Research Council. The authors acknowledge the contributions of T.S. Hull, who developed the PALLAS program. REFERENCES Chen, L.T., Poulos, H.G. and Loganathan, N. (1999), Pile responses caused by tunnelling, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol, 125, No. 3, pp. 207 - 215. Loganathan N and Poulos H G (1998), Analytical solutions to predict tunnelling induced ground movements, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenviornmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 124, No. 9, pp.846-856. Peck, R.B. (1969). Deep excavations and tunnelling in soft ground. State of-the-art report, Proc. 7th Int. Conf. Soil Mech., Mexico, Vol. 3, pp.225-290.