Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Isfahan Branch, Technical and Vocational University (TVU), Isfahan, Iran. E-Mail
Isfahan Branch, Technical and Vocational University (TVU), Isfahan, Iran. E-Mail
2 Tunnel
4 Ramin Vali*1, Mohammad Saberian2, Majid Beygi3, Reza Porhoseini4, and Soheil
5 Jahandari5
8 Isfahan Branch, Technical and Vocational University (TVU), Isfahan, Iran. E-mail:
9 ramin.vali@gmail.com
10 ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6096-8334
14 majidbeygi@yahoo.com
15 ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1420-3664
17 r_porhoseini@yazd.ac.ir
20
1
21 Numerical Analysis of Laterally Loaded Single Pile Behavior Affected by Urban Metro
22 Tunnel
23
24Abstract
25Due to the lack of adequate area adjacent to the high rise buildings in urban areas, tunneling
26has been changed into a considerable issue these days. Tunneling leads to significant changes
27in the foundations settlement near the excavation zones. Very few studies evaluate the effects
28of lateral loading of piles near the tunnel and also the direction of loading has not studied in
29previous researches. Therefore, in this paper the effects of tunneling on the displacements and
30the behavior of laterally loaded deep foundations adjacent to the tunnel were investigated for
31different geotechnical properties. Thus, the plain strain numerical simulations were carried
32out using the Plaxis 2D to investigate the effects of tunneling. Based on the results, by
33increasing the cohesion (C), angle of internal friction (??) and modulus of elasticity (E),
34initial lateral bearing capacity of pile before tunneling increased gradually. Also, C, ??, E,
35forward tunnel loading (FTL) and reverse tunnel loading (RTL) had significant effects on the
36behavior of pile before tunneling. Moreover, C, ??, E, FTL, RTL and ratio of pile axes
37distance from the tunnel axes (S/D) had effects on the horizontal displacements (ΔDh) and
39
42
2
431. Introduction
44In the congested urban areas, tunneling close to existing infrastructures often occurs due to
45the lack of sufficient areas. Beneath an urban environment, there exist many tunnels in the
46form of roads and railways. However, at the same time the construction of high-rise buildings
47requires deep foundations (Yan et al., 2006). Therefore, tunneling may cause serious
48damages, ground movements, deformations and decreasing the bearing capacities of shallow
49and deep foundations adjacent to the tunnels (Lee and Bassett, 2007; Liu et al., 2011). The
51overlying or adjacent deep foundations and cause short and long term ground deformations
52resulting from the soil stress disturbance (Lee and Jacobsz, 2006). In particular, for each
53tunneling phase in geotechnical environment and the interactions between the constructions,
54the soil and existing building infrastructure need to be evaluated to limit the risk of damages
55on the existing structures and choose an appropriate distance between the buildings and
57Based on the calculation of the lateral bearing capacity of piles in different conditions,
58various methods have been suggested. Broms (1964) picked the applied lateral load method,
59which moves the pile head equals to 20% of the pile diameter as a single pile and pile group’s
60lateral bearing capacity. Narasimha Rao et al. (1998), El-Sawwaf (2006), Chandrasekaran et
61al. (2010), and Deendayal et al. (2016) also measured the pile lateral bearing capacity using
62the applied lateral load method. Moreover, El-Sawwaf (2006), El-Sawwaf (2008) and
63Uncuoglu and Laman (2012) took the horizontal displacements of the pile head equals to
6410% of the pile diameter to calculate the lateral bearing capacity from load-displacement
65curves.
66A number of studies have been carried out to evaluate the effects of tunneling on the adjacent
67pile group. Xu and Poulos (2001) numerically simulated a three dimensional boundary
3
68element to analyze the response of vertical piles subjected to passive loading, such as
69tunneling, and soil movement arising from driving piles. Lee and Jacobsz (2006) found that
70when a pile was located within 0-0.6 and 1.2-2.4 times of the tunnel diameter, the surface
71settlement might not follow the normal settlement distributions. It was also observed that the
72location of piles should be at least one time of the tunnel diameter from the tunnel to maintain
73serviceability of the piled foundations. Yan et al. (2006) found that the loading of piles
74caused global downward movement. Also, the crown settlement of tunnel lining reduced with
75the increase of the spacing along the pile rows, the spacing between the pile rows and the
76minimum spacing between the pile rows and the tunnel. Lee and Bassett (2007) studied the
78concluded that the pile axial forces were greatly influenced by the location of the pile tip
79from the tunnel center line. It was also found out that the influence zones depended on the
80location of pile tip, volume loss, soil strength, pile operation load, pile size, dilation effect of
81the granular material and tunnel size. Huang et al. (2009) and Zhang et al. (2011) presented a
82simple two-stage analysis method for determining the response of pile groups due to the
83tunneling and a two-stage analysis method to study the behavior of pile groups with rigid
85demonstrated that the method generally would give a satisfactory prediction of the response
86of passive piles subjected to tunneling. Also, Zhang et al. (2011) showed that the influence of
88demonstrated that with the increase of the soil stiffness, the tunneling-induced axial force
89increased linearly, whereas the bending moment increased nonlinearly. Poulos (2011)
90numerically made a comparison with the measured axial and lateral responses of piles
91supporting a viaduct bridge in Singapore, where a parallel twin tunnels were constructed
92adjacent to the piles. It was observed that the measured and computed behavior generally
4
93agreed well. Liu et al. (2011) numerically studied the influence of urban metro tunneling on
94bearing capacity of pile foundation and on the behavior of single piles at different distances
95from the tunnel. It was found out that piles were obviously influenced when the piles located
96within the area by 0.5-1.0 times of the tunnel diameter that was the primary influence area of
97tunneling, and also bearing capacity of the pile was reduced for about 20% in this area. Lee
98(2012) numerically carried out the analyses to study the behavior of a single pile adjacent to
99tunneling. It was concluded that due to the tunneling, a maximum compressive force at about
1000.25-0.52 times of the service pile loading prior to tunneling was developed on the pile. Also,
101the majority of the axial force on the pile developed within ±2 times of the tunnel diameter
102behind and ahead of the piles relative to the pile position. Mu et al. (2012) presented a
103simplified two-stage analysis method to estimate the lateral responses of pile rafts induced by
104tunneling in the layered soil with modelling the interactions between structural members. It
105was inferred that the maximum deflections and bending moments appeared near the spring
106line of the tunnel, also it was shown that the proposed method could reasonably estimate the
107lateral responses of the pile rafts induced by tunneling. Jongpradist et al. (2013) numerically
109existing loaded piles and to suggest the critical influence zones. When the pile tip located
110within +3 to -1 times of the tunnel diameter from the tunnel horizontal axis, a considerable
111settlement occurred at the pile head. Also, the zone of influence had the 60˚ inclination
112against the horizontal direction. Finally, the maximum pile bending moment was considered
113when the pile tip was below -1 time of the tunnel diameter. Li et al. (2014) numerically
114conducted analyses to investigate the influences of tunnel excavation on the existing loaded
115piles. The results showed that the tunneling led to significant displacements in the adjacent
116piles and the maximum horizontal displacement of the piles occurred nearby the tunnel
117crown. Liu and Zhang (2014) provided a case history of a large diameter shield tunnel in
5
118Shanghai. By the comparison between the field data and finite element results, it was shown
119that the nonlinear finite element analysis could provide an acceptable explanation of the
120practical tunneling process and the prediction of soil response. Hong et al. (2015a) carried out
121two centrifuge tests to simulate side-by-side twin tunnels at two critical locations relative to
122the pile group, next to, and below the toe of the pile group. It was observed that the induced
123tilting of the pile group was significantly larger in the case that twin tunnels located next to
124the toe of the pile group rather than the case that the twin tunnels located below the toe of the
125pile group. Hong et al. (2015b) carried out two series of finite element analyses to simulate
126the tunneling directly underneath a 2×2 pile group and a 2×2 piled raft in sand. It was
127observed that the maximum tensile stresses in the pile group and piled raft were equivalent to
129It can be concluded that most of the studies were ultimately related to prediction of pile and
130pile group behavior due to tunneling with concentration on the vertical loading in piles.
131However, very limited studies focused on the lateral behavior of pile subjected with tunneling
132effects, and also the direction of loading have not studied in previous researches. Therefore,
133the aim of this study is to evaluate the lateral behavior of single pile affected by urban
134tunneling.
135
138The objective of this research is to assess the initial pile lateral bearing capacity (LBCi) in
140changes (ΔDh) and vertical displacement changes (ΔDv) relative to horizontal and vertical
142behavior of the laterally loaded piles, the behavior status of pile’s points was focused in the
6
143forms of plastic, elastic and tension cut-off points along the pile length. Accordingly, the ratio
144of pile axes distance from the tunnel axes (S/D) and the lateral loading were changed. The
147
148 Table 1. The properties of the soil in the base condition (Liu et al., 2011).
Cohesion Angle of internal friction Unit weight Elastic modulus Poisson’s ratio
kPa degree kN/m3 MPa -
40 20 18 20 0.4
149
152As shown in Figure 1, S/D = 1.2, 1.9, 3.4, 6.2 and 11.9; Cohesion (C) = 20, 40, 60 and 80
153kPa; angle of internal friction (??) = 10°, 20°, 30° and 40°; and elastic modulus (E) = 20, 60,
154100 and 140 MPa, were chosen for the numerical simulations. Forward tunnel loading (FTL)
155and reverse tunnel loading (RTL) were considered to simulate the both concentrated lateral
156loading conditions. The length and height of the model were considered at 220 and 50 m,
157respectively. To achieve higher accuracy, fine meshes were considered near the tunnel and
158the pile. Also, 4th order 15-node triangular elements were used by the means of plain strain
159geometry in Plaxis 2D software (Vali et al. 2017a; Vali et al. 2017b). The bottom boundary
160of the model was fully fixed against vertical and horizontal displacements while the side
161boundaries were fixed horizontally. Note, the volume loss factor was set to 5%. For making
162an appropriate comparison between the horizontal and vertical displacements, two parameters
7
164
Dh pile −Dhinitial
165∆ Dh= ×100 (Equation 1)
Dhinitial
1672)
168
169where ΔDh and ΔDv are pile’s horizontal and vertical displacement changes relative to
170horizontal and vertical displacements of the pile before tunneling, respectively. Dh pile and
171 Dv pile are horizontal and vertical displacements of the pile after tunneling, respectively.
172 Dh initial and Dv initial are horizontal and vertical displacements of the pile before tunneling,
173respectively.
174
175
176 Figure 1. A plain strain geometry model of the pile adjacent to the tunnel.
177
178To simulate the pile in plain strain geometry, the equivalent wall needed to be replaced
179instead of equally spaced circular piles. The thickness of the equivalent wall ( t wall) and the
180pile diameter ( D pile) were supposed equal to each other. Therefore, based on the Equation 3,
8
181the Young’s modulus of the equivalent wall ( E wall) could be calculated as follows (Schroeder
183
π D2pile
184 E pile
( 4 S1 )= Ewall t wall (Equation 3)
185
186where E pile is the pile Young’s modulus, and S1 is the center-to-center spacing of the piles
187along each row that was considered by 3 m in all numerical simulations in this paper.
188A typical view of the simulated model in Plaxis 2D including the meshes and boundaries,
189horizontal, vertical and total displacements of the model as well as plastic points is shown in
190Figure 2. It can be seen that the main concentrated zone was located near the tunnel, and the
191disturbance of the stress-strain distribution was due to the high rigidity of the tunnel lining.
192
9
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Mohr-Coulomb Points
194 Figure 2. A typical view of the model (a) meshes and boundaries, (b) horizontal
195 displacements, (c) vertical displacements, (d) total displacements and (e) plastic points.
196
198Liu et al. (2011) used ANSIS software, and showed that the bearing capacity of pile before
199and after tunneling was increased by increasing the ratio of pile length (L) to the distance of
200tunnel center from the ground surface (H) (i.e. ratio=L/H). It was concluded that the ultimate
10
201bearing capacity of the pile was the load when subsidence of the pile head equals to 10% of
202the pile diameter (Shen et al., 2004). The main parameters of their study are shown in Table
2033.
204
205 Table 3. Main input parameters of the Liu et al. (2011) analyses.
Angle of
Natural Saturated Elastic Poisson’s
Cohesion internal
Parameters unit weight unit weight modulus ratio
friction
kN/m3 kN/m3 MPa - kPa degree
Soil 18 21 20 0.4 40 20
Pile 24 24 30000 0.15 - -
Lining 24 24 30000 0.18 - -
206
207Figure 3 shows the verified model as well as the results of Liu et al. (2011). It can be seen
208that there is a good agreement between the Plaxis 2D results and the results of Liu et al.
209(2011).
210
900
Vertical B earin g C ap acity (k N)
800
700
600
500
400
212 Figure 3. Bearing capacity values of the verified model and results of Liu et al. (2011).
213
11
216Figure 4 shows the load-horizontal displacement curves in different geotechnical conditions
217in the ranges of C, ?? and E before tunneling, as well as the calculated values of LBCi. As
218already mentioned, LBCi was the load when the pile head horizontal displacement equals to
21920% of the pile diameter that was 10 cm in the present numerical simulation (Broms, 1964;
220Narasimha Rao et al., 1998; El-Sawwaf, 2006; Chandrasekaran et al., 2010; Deendayal et al.,
2212016). As shown in Figure 4, by increasing C, ?? and E, LBCi increased gradually. In the case
222that C = 20, 40, 60 and 80 kPa, LBCi = 191, 225, 235 and 235 kN, respectively. Also, for ?? =
22310, 20, 30 and 40 degrees, LBCi = 216, 225, 229 and 225 kN, respectively. Furthermore, for
224E = 20, 60, 100 and 140 MPa, LBCi = 225, 312, 333 and 343 kN, respectively.
225
800 250
f(x) = 194.99 x^0.16 Chart Title
700
200
600
500 150
Lateral Load (kN)
400
BCi(kN)
100
L
300
20 kPa
200 40 kPa
50
100 60 kPa
80 kPa
0 0
0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1
Dhinitial (mm)
226
700 300
Chart Title
600
250
400
150
i(kN)
300
B
LC
10 Degree 100
200
20 Degree
30 Degree 50
100
40 Degree
0 0
0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
Dhinitial (mm)
227
12
500 400
Chart Title
450
f(x) = 234 x^0.31 350
400
300
350
300 250
Lateral Load (kN)
250 200
BCi(kN
)
200
L
150
150 20 MPa
60 MPa 100
100
100 MPa
50 50
140 MPa
0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Dhinitial (mm)
228
229 Figure 4. Load-horizontal displacement curves in the ranges of C, ?? and E before tunneling
231
233Figure 5 shows a behavior status of 20-meter pile due to lateral loading in the ranges of C, ??
234and E before tunneling. The applied lateral loads equaled to LBCi which was calculated for
235each geotechnical condition as shown in Figure 4. Note, the red triangle, green square, and
236blue diamond, represent the plastic, elastic and tension cut-off points along the pile,
237respectively. It can be inferred that by increasing the C from 20 to 80 kPa, the elastic and
238tension cut-off points along the pile length remained almost unchanged, while in C = 20 kPa,
239plastic points appeared near the ground surface (GS). Similar behaviors were also observed
240by changing the ??. By increasing the ?? from 10 to 40 degrees, tension cut-off points
241increased slightly while elastic points remained constant. Plastic points near the GS were
242observed in the case that ?? = 10°. Completely different behaviors were observed by changing
243the E. By increasing the E from 20 to 140 MPa, more tension cut-off and plastic points
244appeared near the GS, while elastic points extended from the GS. In the following,
245comprehensive results of the pile behavior will be discussed due to the different lateral
13
247
0 0 0
-5 -5 -5
248
249 Figure 5. Pile behavior status in the ranges of C, ?? and E before tunneling.
250
251It can be seen from Figure 6 that by increasing the C more than 40 kPa, insignificant changes
252were observed in the behavior of the 20-meter pile due to the both loading conditions. In the
253case that C = 20 kPa, plastic points played an important role in RTL, such that when S/D =
2541.2, plastic points extended from nearly 6 m below the GS. While for the FTL, it was not as
255similar condition for plastic points for the same S/D. Note, the plastic points just appeared for
256C = 20 kPa, however, for the other conditions (i.e. C = 40, 60, 80), no plastic points generated
258Figure 7 shows that by increasing the ?? in RTL, the tension cut-off points decreased
259substantially, especially for larger S/Ds, i.e. no tension cut-off points were observed in RTL
260for ?? = 40° and S/D = 3.4 and 6.2. As shown for C = 20 kPa, plastic points just took place for
261?? = 10°. It should be noted that the plastic points in this condition just extended near the GS.
262Therefore, it is obvious that the plastic points were generated in the sensitive geotechnical
264As shown in Figure 8, by concentrating the behavior status of 20-meter pile, it could be
265inferred that by increasing the E more than 60 MPa, considerable changes were observed in
266the plastic points around the pile, especially when S/D = 1.2. It should be noted that beside
267the plastic points, tension cut-off points were more notable in the FTL rather than RTL. For
14
268instance, in RTL, the plastic and tension cut-off points extended from about 13 and 2 m of the
269GS in the case that E = 140 MPa and S/D = 1.2, respectively, while in FTL and the same E
270and S/D, they were extended from about 13 and 4 m of the GS, respectively.
15
0 0
-5 -5
-10 -1 0
-15 -1 5
-20 -2 0
271
0 0
-5 -5
-10 -1 0
-15 -1 5
-20 -2 0
272
0 0
-5 -5
-10 -10
-15 -15
-20 -20
273
0 0
-5 -5
-10 -1 0
-15 -1 5
-20 -2 0
274
275 Figure 6. Pile behavior status in the ranges of S/D, C and different loadings.
16
0 0
-5 -5
-10 -1 0
-15 -1 5
-20 -2 0
276
0 0
-5 -5
-10 -1 0
-15 -1 5
-20 -2 0
277
0 0
-5 -5
-1 0 -1 0
-1 5 -1 5
-2 0 -2 0
278
0 0
-5 -5
-10 -10
-15 -15
-20 -20
279
280 Figure 7. Pile behavior status in the ranges of S/D, ?? and different loadings.
17
0 0
-5 -5
-10 -1 0
-15 -1 5
-20 -2 0
281
0 0
-5 -5
-10 -1 0
-15 -1 5
-20 -2 0
282
0 0
-5 -5
-10 -1 0
-15 -1 5
-20 -2 0
283
0 0
-5 -5
-10 -10
-15 -15
-20 -20
284
285 Figure 8. Pile behavior status in the ranges of S/D, E and different loadings.
18
2863.3. Horizontal Displacement
287Figure 9 shows the ΔDh in the ranges of S/D and cohesions for FTL as well as RTL. It can be
288inferred that for S/D ≥ 1.9, ΔDh decreased substantially for both loading conditions. It should
289be noted that a vise versa condition was shown for S/D < 1.9; it was due to the disturbance of
290the stress-strain distribution near the tunnel because of the high rigidity of the tunnel lining.
291The range of changes in the FTL was about four times more than the changes in RTL that
292shows the importance of lateral loading direction. As a matter of fact, by increasing the
293cohesion, ΔDh decreased when S/D ≤ 1.9 in the FTL, while it increased for the RTL.
294Figure 10 illustrates the prediction of ΔDh in various C as well as the ranges of S/D. Note, for
295the both loading conditions, by increasing the S/D, ΔDh decreased. It should be noted that the
297Figure 11 shows the values of ΔDh in the ranges of S/D as well as different φ in the both FTL
298and RTL. It was shown that a fluctuated behavior happened in the RTL condition while a
299decreasing manner was shown in the FTL when S/D ≥ 1.9. Moreover, by increasing the φ, ΔDh
300decreased, especially for φ = 40°. As it was mentioned before, for S/D < 1.9, the disturbance of
301stress-strain distribution near the tunnel lining had a significant effect on the ΔDh.
302Figure 12 demonstrates the prediction of ΔDh for the ranges of S/D as well as φ. It was found
303out that by increasing the S/D, ΔDh decreased significantly for the FTL while a negligible
304increase was observed for the RTL. In addition, the change ranges for the FTL was almost
305about three times more than the ranges for the RTL.
306As shown in Figure 13, a dramatic decrease of ΔDh was observed by increasing the S/D in the
307ranges of E. It is clear that for E ≥ 60 MPa, significant increases took place for the both FTL
308and RTL, which had great differences with the case that E = 20 MPa; it was due to the
309increase of the soil sensitivity by increasing the E. It can be seen that for S/D ≥ 5 and S/D ≥
3103.4 a constant and similar behavior observed by the FTL and RTL, respectively.
19
311Figure 14 presents the prediction of ΔDh in various E. It was clear that a dramatic decrease
312took place by increasing the S/D in FTL, while an inconsiderate decrease observed for the
313RTL. Furthermore, the disturbance of stress-strain distribution affected the ΔDh for the S/D =
3141.2. It is worth adding that the Table 4 provides the ΔDh values of the piles due to the different
316
25% 6%
FTL RTL
20 kPa 40 kPa 20 kPa 40 kPa
5%
20%
60 kPa 80 kPa 60 kPa 80 kPa
4%
15%
3%
ΔDh(%)
ΔDh(%)
10%
2%
5%
1%
0% 0%
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
S/D S/D
317
318 Figure 9. ΔDh for a range of S/D and different loadings in various cohesions.
319
25% 6%
FTL RTL
5%
20%
4%
15%
3%
ΔDh(%)
ΔDh(%)
5%
1%
0% 0%
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
S/D S/D
320
321 Figure 10. Prediction of ΔDh for a range of S/D and different loadings in various cohesions.
322
20
20% 6%
FTL RTL
18%
20 Degree 30 Degree 20 Degree 30 Degree 5%
16%
10% 3%
ΔDh(%)
ΔDh(%)
8%
2%
6%
4%
1%
2%
0% 0%
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
S/D S/D
323
324 Figure 11. ΔDh for a range of S/D and different loadings in various angles of internal friction.
325
20% 6%
FTL RTL
5%
15%
f(x) = 0.16 x^-0.49 4%
10% 3%
ΔDh(%)
ΔDh(%)
2%
f(x) = 0.01 x^0.25
5%
1%
0% 0%
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
S/D S/D
326
327 Figure 12. Prediction of ΔDh for a range of S/D and different loadings in various angles of
329
21
140% 45%
FTL RTL
40%
120% 20 MPa 60 MPa 20 MPa 60 MPa
35%
100% 100 MPa 140 MPa 100 MPa 140 MPa
30%
80% 25%
ΔDh(%)
ΔDh(%)
60% 20%
15%
40%
10%
20%
5%
0% 0%
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
S/D S/D
330
331 Figure 13. ΔDh for a range of S/D and different loadings in various elastic modulus.
332
140% 45%
FTL RTL
40%
120%
35%
100%
30%
80% 25%
ΔDh(%)
ΔDh(%)
15%
40%
10%
20%
5%
f(x) = 0.08 x^-1.39
0% 0%
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
S/D S/D
333
334 Figure 14. Prediction of ΔDh for a range of S/D and different loadings in various elastic
335 modulus.
336
338By comparing the ranges of ΔDv and ΔDh, it can be concluded that the ΔDv ranges of FTL and
339RTL were more similar than the ΔDh ones. For instance, the ΔDv changed up to around 160%
340for the both FTL and RTL in various C. As shown in Figure 15, it is clear that by increasing
341the S/D, ΔDv decreased substantially, especially for 1.2 < S/D < 1.9. The disturbance of stress
342strain in low S/D is obvious for ΔDv as it was clear for the ΔDh.
22
343Figure 16 shows the prediction of ΔDv for the ranges of S/D and C. It is clear that similar
344behavior has shown for both FTL and RTL, which was a decrease took place for ΔDv by
346Figure 17 demonstrates the values of ΔDv by changing the S/D for both lateral loading
347conditions of FTL and RTL. Stress-strain distribution adjacent to the tunnel lining due to the
348increase of the model rigidity, significantly affected the ΔDv especially for the S/D < 3.4. Also,
349by increasing the S/D > 3.4, ΔDv decreased. Moreover, by increasing the φ, ΔDv decreased
350negligibly.
351As it is reported based on the results of Figure 16, similar trends could also be inferred from
352the Figure 18 for both lateral loadings. It is clear that by increasing the S/D, the values of ΔDv
353decreased slightly.
354Based on Figure 19, the disturbance of stress-strain distribution affected the values of ΔDv in
355various E more than the other geotechnical conditions, especially when 1.2 < S/D < 3.4. It is
356obvious that the increase of S/D resulted in a decrease of the ΔDv values, which was steeper
357for the RTL rather than FTL. Also, the ΔDv decreased by increasing the E.
358As shown in Figure 20 and as it was mentioned based on the results of Figure 16 and Figure
35918, similar trends were also observed for both of the loading conditions. Moreover, a
360decrease was observed by increasing the S/D for various E. Table 4 also shows the ΔDv values
361of the piles due to the different values of S/D, C, φ and E as well as different loadings.
362
23
180% 180%
FTL RTL
160% 160%
20 kPa 40 kPa 20 kPa 40 kPa
140% 140%
60 kPa 80 kPa 60 kPa 80 kPa
120% 120%
100% 100%
ΔDv(%)
ΔDv(%)
80% 80%
60% 60%
40% 40%
20% 20%
0% 0%
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
S/D S/D
363
364 Figure 15. ΔDv for a range of S/D and different loadings in various cohesions.
365
180% 180%
FTL RTL
160% 160%
140% 140%
120% 120%
100% 100%
ΔDv(%)
ΔDv(%)
80% 80%
f(x) = 0.85 x^-0.74
60% 60%
f(x) = 0.62 x^-0.48
40% 40%
20% 20%
0% 0%
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
S/D S/D
366
367 Figure 16. Prediction of ΔDv for a range of S/D and different loadings in various cohesions.
368
140% 180%
FTL RTL
160%
120% 20 Degree 30 Degree 20 Degree 30 Degree
140%
100% 35 Degree 40 Degree 35 Degree 40 Degree
120%
80% 100%
ΔDv(%)
ΔDv(%)
60% 80%
60%
40%
40%
20%
20%
0% 0%
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
S/D S/D
369
24
370 Figure 17. ΔDv for a range of S/D and different loadings in various angles of internal friction.
371
140% 180%
FTL RTL
160%
120%
140%
100%
120%
80% 100%
ΔDv(%)
ΔDv(%)
60% 80%
60%
40%
40%
f(x) = 0.31 x^-0.24 f(x) = 0.41 x^-0.47
20%
20%
0% 0%
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
S/D S/D
372
373 Figure 18. Prediction of ΔDv for a range of S/D and different loadings in various angles of
375
180% 140%
FTL RTL
160%
20 MPa 60 MPa 20 MPa 60 MPa 120%
140%
100 MPa 140 MPa 100 MPa 140 MPa 100%
120%
100% 80%
ΔDv(%)
ΔDv(%)
80% 60%
60%
40%
40%
20%
20%
0% 0%
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
S/D S/D
376
377 Figure 19. ΔDv for a range of S/D and different loadings in various elastic modulus.
378
25
180% 140%
FTL RTL
160%
120%
140%
100%
120%
100% 80%
f(x) = 1.47 x^-1.7
ΔDv(%)
ΔDv(%)
80% 60%
f(x) = 0.8 x^-1.56
60%
40%
40%
20%
20%
0% 0%
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
s/D s/D
379
380 Figure 20. Prediction of ΔDv for a range of S/D and different loadings in various elastic
381 modulus.
382
383 Table 4. ΔDh and ΔDv for a range of S/D, C, φ and E as well as different loading.
26
ΔDv 44.79% 37.41% 32.29% 29.82% 47.31% 39.80% 35.83% 33.38%
ΔD
6.34% 4.15% 4.16% 2.11% 0.99% 1.90% 1.26% 2.12%
11.9 h
3854. Conclusion
386The aim of this paper was to study the effects of tunneling on the displacements and the
387behavior of laterally loaded deep foundations adjacent to the tunnel based on different
388geotechnical properties. Thus, the plain strain numerical simulations were carried out using
389the Plaxis 2D to investigate the effects of tunneling. Based on the numerical simulations the
391 By increasing C, ?? and E, initial lateral bearing capacity of pile before tunneling
393 Before tunneling, by increasing the C from 20 to 80 kPa, the tension cut-off and
394 elastic points along the pile remained almost constant, while in C = 20 kPa, plastic
395 points generated near the GS. By increasing the ?? from 10 to 40 degrees, tension cut-
396 off points increased negligibly while elastic points remained unchanged. Plastic points
397 near the GS were observed in the case that ?? = 10°. By increasing the E from 20 to
398 140 MPa, more tension cut-off and plastic points appeared near the GS, while elastic
27
400 Before tunneling, by increasing the C more than 40 kPa, insignificant changes were
401 observed in the pile behavior of the due to the RTL and FTL loading conditions.
402 However, in the case that C = 20 kPa, plastic points were observed by due to the RTL.
403 By increasing the ?? in RTL, the tension cut-off points decreased substantially and the
404 plastic points just took place for ?? = 10°. Also, by increasing the E more than 60
405 MPa, considerable changes were observed in the plastic points around the pile, and
406 tension cut-off points were more notable in the FTL rather than RTL.
407 After tunneling, for the cases that S/D ≥ 1.9, ΔDh decreased substantially for the both
408 loading conditions. By increasing the cohesion, ΔDh decreased when S/D ≤ 1.9 in the
409 FTL, while it increased for the RTL. Moreover, a fluctuated behavior happened in the
410 RTL condition while a decreasing manner was observed in the FTL when S/D ≥ 1.9.
411 Moreover, by increasing the φ, ΔDh decreased. In addition, a dramatic decrease of ΔDh
412 was observed by increasing the S/D in the ranges of E. It is clear that for E ≥ 60 MPa,
413 significant increases took place for the both FTL and RTL. Also, reverse behaviors
414 were observed for the cases of S/D ≤ 1.9 due to the disturbance of the stress-strain
415 distribution near the tunnel because of the high rigidity of the tunnel lining.
416 After tunneling, by increasing the S/D, ΔDv decreased substantially. By increasing the
417 φ, ΔDv decreased negligibly. Also, the ΔDv decreased by increasing the E.
418
4195. Reference
420Broms, B.B., (1964). Lateral resistance of piles in cohesive soils. Journal of the Soil
422Chandrasekaran, S.S., Boominathan, A., Dodagoudar, G.R., (2010). Group interaction effects
28
425Deendayal, R., Muthukkumaran, K., Sitharam, T.G., (2016). Response of laterally loaded pile
428El-Sawwaf, M., (2006). Lateral resistance of single pile located near geosynthetic reinforced
429 slope. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 132 (10), 1336-
431El-Sawwaf, M., (2008). Lateral behavior of vertical pile group embedded in stabilized earth
432 slope. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 134 (7), 1015-1020.
433 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2008)134:7(1015)
434Hong, Y., Soomro, M.A., Ng, C.W.W., (2015a). Settlement and load transfer mechanism of
435 pile group due to side-by-side twin tunneling. Computers and Geotechnics, 64, 105-
437Hong, Y., Soomro, M.A., Ng, C.W.W., Wang, L.Z., Yan, J.J., Li, B., (2015b). Tunnelling
438 under pile groups and rafts: Numerical parametric study on tension effects. Computers
440Huang, M., Zhang, C., Li, Z., (2009). A simplified analysis method for the influence of
441 tunneling on grouped piles. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 24 (4),
443Jongpradist, P., Kaewsri, T., Sawatparnich, A., Suwansawat, S., Youwai, S., Kongkitkul, W.,
444 Sunitsakul, J., (2013). Development of tunneling influence zones for adjacent pile
447Lee, C.J., (2012). Numerical analysis of the interface shear transfer mechanism of a single
448 pile to tunnelling in weathered residual soil. Computers and Geotechnics, 42, 193-203.
449 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2012.01.009
29
450Lee, Y.J., Bassett, R.H., (2007). Influence zones for 2D pile-soil-tunnelling interaction based
451 on model test and numerical analysis. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology,
453Lee, C.J., Jacobsz, S.W., (2006). The influence of tunnelling on adjacent piled foundations.
455 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2005.12.072
456Li, X.X., Yang, Z.H., Chen, H., (2014). Influences of construction of side-crossing shield
457 tunnel on adjacent pile foundation. Tunneling and Underground Construction, ASCE,
459Liu, C., Zhang, Z.X., (2014). Vertical movement of pile groups caused by adjacent large
460 diameter shield-driven tunneling in Shanghai soft clay. Tunneling and Underground
462Liu, H., Liao, X., Zhang, J., Li, N., Yu, Z., Yao, Q., (2011). Numerical analysis of bearing
463 capacity of pile foundation due to urban metro tunneling. Geotechnical Special
465Meschke, G., Ninic, J., Stascheit, J., Alsahly, A., (2013). Parallelized computational
468Mu, L., Huang, M., Finno, R.J., (2012). Tunnelling effects on lateral behavior of pile rafts in
469 layered soil. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 28, 192-201.
470 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2011.10.010
471Narasimha Rao, S., Ramakrishna, V.G.S.T., Babu Rao, M., (1998). Influence of rigidity on
472 laterally loaded pile groups in marine clay. Journal of Geotechnical and
474 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(1998)124:6(542)
30
475Poulos, H.G., (2011). Comparisons between measured and computed responses of piles
477 https://doi.org/10.1680/geolett.10.00006
478Schroeder, F.C., Potts, D.M., Addenbrooke, T.I., (2004). The influence of pile group loading
480 https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.2004.54.6.351
481Shen, B., Chen, L., Wang, H., He, D., Sun, J., (2004). Full-scale test study on frictional
482 resistance and end bearing of DX piles cast-in-situ. Industrial Construction, Vol, 34 (3),
484Uncuoğlu, E., Laman, M., (2012). Numerical modelling of short pile behaviour subjected to
485 lateral load. European Journal of Environmental and Civil Engineering, 16 (2), 204-
487Vali, R., Mehrinejad, E., Saberian, M., Li, J., Mehrinejad, M., Jahandari, S., (2017a). A three-
488 dimensional numerical comparison of bearing capacity and settlement of tapered and
490 https://doi.org/10.1080/19386362.2017.1336586
491Vali, R., Saberian, M., Li, J., Shams, G., Van Gelder, P.H.A.J.M., (2017b). Properties of
494 https://doi.org/10.1080/1064119X.2017.1386741
495Xu, K.J., Poulos, H.G., (2001). 3-D elastic analysis of vertical piles subjected to “passive”
497 352X(00)00024-0
31
498Yan, J.Y., Zhang, Z.X., Huang, H.W., Wang, R.L., (2006). Numerical simulation of
499 interaction between pile foundation and adjacent tunnel. Underground Construction and
501Zhang, R.J., Zheng, J.J., Zhang, L.M., Pu, H.F., (2011). An analysis method for the influence
502 of tunneling on adjacent loaded pile groups with rigid elevated caps. International
503 Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, 35, 1949-1971.
504 https://doi.org/10.1002/nag.989
505
32