Tunnel-Pile Interaction Analysis Using Cavity

Expansion Methods
Alec M. Marshall1

Abstract: Evaluation of the impact of tunnel construction on existing buried structures is an important problem. This paper presents an an-
alytical method for estimating the effect of tunnel construction on end-bearing piles located above the tunnel. The method can be used to es-
timate the safe relative distance between existing piles and newly constructed tunnels. Spherical and cylindrical cavity expansion/contraction
analyses are used to evaluate pile end-bearing capacity and the reduction of confining pressure at the pile tip that results from tunnel volume loss.
Pile end-bearing capacity is then reevaluated based on the reduced confining pressure at the pile tip. A modified shear modulus is used to account
for the effect of pile installation on soil stiffness. The method is used to analyze centrifuge experiments conducted to study this problem. For
the experimental data, where the service load applied to the piles during tunnel volume loss ranged between 50 and 60% of the maximum jack-
ing force, the analytical method showed that pile failure occurred when the load-carrying capacity was reduced below 80% of its original value.
A parametric analysis is included that highlights the effect of key soil properties on results. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000709.
© 2012 American Society of Civil Engineers.
CE Database subject headings: Tunnels; Piles; Cavitation; Soil-structure interactions; Centrifuge.
Author keywords: Tunnel; Pile; Cavity expansion; Soil-structure interaction; Centrifuge.

Introduction
The construction of tunnels within congested urban areas inevitably
affects existing surface and subsurface structures and infrastructure.
Determination of these effects is difficult to accurately assess be-
cause of the nonlinear behavior of soil and the complex nature of
the soil-structure interactions that take place. Analytical solutions
for these types of problems have the benefit of computational effi-
ciency over more robust numerical methods; however, fundamental
simplifying assumptions of material behavior (e.g., elasticity) and
soil-structure interactions are generally made to obtain solutions.
Despite this, many analytical solutions have proven to be useful. For
example, the Winkler foundation models presented in Attewell et al.
(1986) are often used to evaluate the effect of tunneling on buried
pipes, and the elastic continuum solutions of Klar et al. (2005) have
been validated using centrifuge experiment data (Vorster et al.
2005), as well as numerical modeling (Klar and Marshall 2008).
Attewell et al. (1986) also used a Winkler model to evaluate the
effect of tunneling on buildings, and Potts and Addenbrooke (1997)
and Franzius et al. (2006) evaluated tunneling-induced damage to
buildings using a relative stiffness approach. These solutions all
use greenfield tunneling displacements (i.e., displacements caused
by tunneling in soil with no other structures affecting results) as an
input and evaluate the change in greenfield displacements due to the
existence of a structure (i.e., a pipeline or building). For the problem
of tunneling beneath piles, which is the focus of this paper, the
1
Lecturer, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Univ. of
Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham NG7 2RD, United Kingdom.
E-mail: alec.marshall@nottingham.ac.uk
Note. This manuscript was submitted on August 2, 2011; approved on
February 7, 2012; published online on February 9, 2012. Discussion period
open until March 1, 2013; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 138, No. 10, October 1, 2012.
©ASCE, ISSN 1090-0241/2012/10-1237–1246/$25.00.
assumption that greenfield displacements can be used as the input for
the evaluation of the soil-structure interaction problem is ques-
tionable. For less intrusive pile installation methods like bored piles,
it may be that this assumption holds. For jacked or driven piles,
however, Marshall and Mair (2011) showed that greenfield con-
ditions are significantly altered by the pile installations. They
concluded that greenfield displacements should not be used as an
input for tunnel-soil-pile interaction analyses relating to jacked or
driven piles.
The problem of tunnel construction beneath piles is becoming
increasingly important in urban areas where available underground
space is limited. In addition, because the overall cost of constructing
deep transport tunnels in urban areas is generally greater than for
shallow tunnels, a tunnel route that lies closer to building founda-
tions is generally financially preferable. The important consideration
is how close a tunnel can be constructed to an existing pile. The
answer to this question involves understanding the load-carrying
capacity of the pile and how the relaxation of stresses within the
ground that result from tunnel volume loss will affect the pile
capacity. The tunnel-soil-pile interaction problem has been anal-
yzed in a variety of ways: experimentally (Morton and King 1979;
Bezuijen and Van der Schrier 1994; Jacobsz 2002; Meguid and
Mattar 2009; Marshall 2009; Marshall and Mair 2011), analytically
(Chen et al. 1999; Poulos and Deng 2004; Kitiyodom et al. 2005),
and numerically (Cheng et al. 2007; Lee and Jacobsz 2006; Mroueh
and Shahrour 2002).
Analytical solutions offer an attractive means of studying the
problem because of their computational efficiency. Chen et al.
(1999) used an analytical solution to determine greenfield tunneling
displacements and a boundary element analysis to evaluate their
effect on adjacent piles. As discussed earlier, this assumption may
be valid for bored piles; however, its applicability to jacked or driven
piles is not certain because of the use of greenfield displacements as
the input for the solution. Poulos and Deng (2004) used standard
bearing-capacity equations and soil-pile skin friction coefficients to
evaluate the load-carrying capacity of piles and then estimated the

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2012 / 1237

reduction in pile capacity using an elastic, constant volume cavity
contraction analysis.
This paper considers the problem of tunnel construction beneath
end-bearing piles and provides an analytical method for evaluating
the safe relative tunnel-pile distance based on an expected tunnel
volume loss. The results of the method are compared against data
obtained from centrifuge model experiments of tunnel volume loss
beneath piles jacked in sand. The analysis is based on the limit
pressure spherical cavity expansion method set out in Randolph et al.
(1994) to evaluate the end-bearing capacity of a pile and ground
stresses caused by pile installation. The Randolph et al. (1994) frame-
work calculations are also used to estimate an average mobilized
skin-friction shear stress during pile installation. The next stage of
the analysis is similar to that provided by Poulos and Deng (2004),
who used an elastic, constant-volume cylindrical cavity contraction
analysis to estimate the reduction in confining stress at the location of
the pile so that a reduced pile capacity could be calculated. In this
analysis, however, the soil is treated as elastic-perfectly plastic
(using the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion) and includes soil di-
lation. In addition, a modified soil modulus is used to account for the
effect of pile installation on soil stiffness in the region between
the tunnel and pile (based on the ground stresses calculated from the
initial spherical cavity expansion analysis used to evaluate pile end-
bearing resistance). The method presented in this paper does not
attempt to estimate the effect of tunneling on skin friction. Instead,
the calculated mobilized shaft skin friction from pile installation is
assumed to remain constant during tunnel volume loss. This sim-
plifying assumption is supported by experimental data from Jacobsz
(2002), who concluded that tunnel volume loss did not have a sig-
nificant effect on shaft capacity of piles directly above a tunnel and
that disregarding the increase in normal stress around the pile shaft is
conservative.
Overview of Analysis
The general philosophy of the analysis in this study is to provide
a relatively fast method to determine the approximate safe loca-
tion of tunnel construction beneath end-bearing piles without the
need for computationally expensive and time-consuming finite-
element or finite-difference analyses. The method is based on the
combination of (1) spherical cavity expansion analysis to de-
termine the end-bearing capacity of the pile and (2) cylindrical
cavity contraction to estimate the change in confining stress within
the soil and the resulting reduction in load-carrying capacity of
the pile caused by tunnel volume loss, including a modification
of soil stiffness to account for the effect of pile installation.
The method relies on the assumption that changes in stress
from 2 can be superimposed on the stress state caused by 1. This
simplifying assumption, based on elastic soil behavior, is not
strictly correct because the analyses do account for soil yielding,
adopting a Mohr-Coulomb yield criterion. Nevertheless, the re-
sults of the analysis provide rational results when compared with
data obtained from centrifuge tests of jacked end-bearing piles
above tunnels in sand provided by Jacobsz (2002) and Marshall
(2009).
The analysis considers driven or jacked end-bearing piles with
their tips located within the influence zones defined by Jacobsz et al.
(2004) (Fig. 1), where there is a potential for large pile displacements
to occur as a result of tunnel construction. As discussed previously,
the effect of tunnel volume loss on pile shaft friction is not con-
sidered in this analysis. A constant value of average mobilized soil-
pile skin shear stress is assumed, which is based on the framework
equations provided by Randolph et al. (1994).
1238 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2012
Fig. 1. Influence zones defined by Jacobsz et al. (2004)
Centrifuge Experiments
In a subsequent section, the analysis studies the centrifuge experi-
ment data provided by Jacobsz (2002) and Marshall (2009). This
section provides a description of the centrifuge models. Additional
information on the centrifuge model equipment and the tests per-
formed can also be found in Jacobsz et al. (2004), Marshall et al.
(2010), and Marshall and Mair (2011).
Centrifuge modeling involves testing of scaled-down models of
full-sized prototypes within an elevated gravity environment (Ng,
where g is gravity and N is a scaling factor). Centrifuge modeling
provides an effective method of studying soil-structure interaction
problems because it realistically replicates the nonlinear soil and soil-
structure interaction behavior. Centrifuge modeling has provided
valuable data for the analysis of tunneling induced soil displacements
(Mair et al. 1993; Marshall et al. 2012), as well as for soil-structure
interaction problems related to tunneling (Vorster et al. 2005; Marshall
et al. 2010; Marshall and Mair 2011).
A schematic of the Marshall (2009) centrifuge model is presented
in Fig. 2(a). The tests were performed at a centrifuge acceleration of
N 5 75, representing a prototype scale tunnel diameter, Dt, of 4.65 m
buried with its axis at a depth, zt, of 13.65 m. The piles, which were
half cylindrical in shape so that they could be placed against the
Perspex wall of the centrifuge strong-box [Fig. 2(b)], had a proto-
type diameter, Dp of 0.9 m. The experimental setup allowed for the
acquisition of digital images of the soil and piles through the Perspex
wall during the tests. The images were then analyzed using geoPIV
(White et al. 2003) to determine subsurface soil and pile dis-
placements. The piles were pushed into the ground by approximately
two pile diameters at 75g, after which the load on top of the piles was
reduced to roughly 60% of the maximum jacking force. Water was
then extracted from the model tunnel to simulate volume loss, and
the displacement of the piles was measured using geoPIV and linear
variable differential transformers (LVDTs) on the pile caps. The
service load applied to the piles was kept constant during tunnel
volume loss. Two centrifuge experiments were conducted by
Marshall (2009), labeled TP1 and TP2, with different offsets from
the tunnel to the piles [Figs. 2(c and d)].
The Jacobsz (2002) experiments were conducted using the same
sand and model pile size as Marshall (2009), as well as similar
equipment to replicate tunnel volume loss. In the Jacobsz experi-
ments, however, the piles were placed within the middle of the
centrifuge container and were fully cylindrical. In addition, the
ultimate pile loads were reduced to roughly 50% of maximum
jacking loads. It should be noted, however, that Jacobsz (2002)
varied this value between 50 and 82% and noted no discernible
effect on the response of the piles to tunnel volume loss. In prototype
 Fig. 2. Centrifuge model test details for Marshall (2009)
scale, the Jacobsz tunnel was 4.5 m in diameter and located at a depth
to axis level of 21.5 m.
Pile End-Bearing Capacity Using Spherical
Cavity Expansion
This part of the analysis follows the logic set out by Randolph et al.
(1994), in which the spherical cavity expansion method is used to
estimate the end-bearing capacity of piles. The analysis requires an
input of the mean effective stress, p90 ; the friction angle, f9; the
dilation angle, c; shear stiffness, G; and Poisson’s ratio, n.
For this analysis, the in situ mean effective stress p90 was taken at
the depth of the pile tip. As discussed in Randolph et al. (1994), for
a closed-ended pile, the values of friction and dilation angles adopted
in the analysis should be the average of the initial (maximum) values
and the final (critical state) values; hence, f9 5 0:5ðf9max 1 f9cy Þ and
c 5 0:5cmax , where f9cy is the critical state friction angle. The work
of Bolton (1986, 1987) can be used to obtain an estimate of
the peak friction and dilation angles in triaxial strain conditions:
f9max 2 f9cy 5 cmax 5 3IR , where IR is the relative dilatancy index.
The value of IR is dependent on relative density, Id, and confining
pressure, p9, as follows: IR 5 5Id 2 1 for p9 # 150 kPa, and
IR 5 Id ½5 2 lnðp9=150Þ 2 1 for p9 . 150 kPa (Bolton 1987). Using
the values of f9max and cmax from Bolton (1986, 1987) to determine
f9 and c gives the following Eqs. (1) and (2), respectively:
f9 ¼ f9cy þ 1:5IR ð1Þ
c ¼ 1:5IR ð2Þ
The value of Id was 90% for the Marshall (2009) tests and varied
between 76 and 79% for the Jacobsz (2002) tests. The value of f9cy
for the soil was taken as 32° for both cases. The mean effective stress
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2012 / 1239
was calculated as p90 5 2s9y =3, based on an assumption of an at-rest
lateral earth pressure coefficient, K0, of 0.5 and where s9y is vertical
earth pressure.
Also from Randolph et al. (1994), the small strain shear modulus,
G0, was used as the representative value of shear stiffness and was
estimated using Eq. (3) as follows:

n
G0 p9
¼ S exp ðc1 Id Þ 0 ð3Þ
pa pa
where S 5 600; c1 5 0.7; n 5 0.43 (Lo Presti 1987); and pa 5
atmospheric pressure (100 kPa).
The spherical cavity expansion analysis is based on an isotropic
dilatant elastic-perfectly plastic material with a nonassociated
Mohr-Coulomb yield criterion. The analysis allows estimation of
the limiting end-bearing pressure to cause failure beneath the pile,
p9lim , as well as the associated distribution of stress within the soil.
This part of the analysis is based on the expansion of cavities in an
infinite medium, derived within Yu and Houlsby (1991) and Yu
(2000). The necessary parameters [Eq. (20)] are from Yu (2000) and
have been reproduced here so that the reader may follow the cal-
culation sequence more readily. The reader may refer to Yu (2000)
for the complete derivation of the equations. The parameter k is used
to differentiate between spherical (k 5 2) and cylindrical (k 5 1)
analyses.
Analytically, the pressure required to expand a cavity from
zero radius to a finite radius is equivalent to that required to ex-
pand a cavity from a finite radius to infinity. The solution pre-
sented here to determine p9lim is the latter, although both methods
are provided in Yu (2000). The limit pressure p9lim is found using
the Eqs. (4)–(6) by varying the value of p9lim in Eq. (4) until the
left and right sides of Eq. (5) are equal; the summation on the left
side of Eq. (5) was found to converge quickly (n 5 10 was
sufficient):
  
ðk þ aÞ Y þ ða 2 1Þp9lim
Rlim ¼ ð4Þ
að1 þ kÞ½Y þ ða 2 1Þp90 

P
‘ x b1k
An ðRlim ; mÞ ¼ ð1 2 dÞ b ð5Þ
n¼0 g

8 n
>
> m
< ln R if n ¼ g
n!
An ðR; mÞ ¼ mn ð6Þ
>
> ðRn2g 2 1Þ
: otherwise
n!ðn 2 gÞ

The relationship between the end-bearing pressure of the pile, qb,

and p9lim is given by Eq. (7) (Randolph et al. 1994) as follows:
h   i
qb ¼ p9lim 1 þ tan fcvA
9 tanðac Þ ð7Þ

Fig. 3. Ground stresses at end of pile jacking based on cavity expansion

where ac 5 45 1 f9cy =2.
For the experimental data of Marshall (2009) and Jacobsz (2002),
the model piles had conical tips (45 and 60° angles, respectively).
These angles were therefore used in Eq. (7) in place of ac, and an
interface friction angle, ds, of ðf9cy 2 5°Þ was used in place of
f9cvA [resulting in ds 5 27°, which is in agreement with estimates of
interface friction made by Jacobsz (2002)].
Ground Stresses Attributable to Pile Jacking
A spherical zone of yielded soil is created around the tip of the pile
during jacking. The ground stress profile within the yielded plastic
zone and the nonyielded elastic zone can be evaluated using cavity
expansion methods. Using p9lim (from the previous section) as the
cavity pressure, p, the distance, c, from the pile tip to the elastic-
plastic interface can be evaluated using Eq. (8) (Yu 2000) as follows:
 a
c ðk þ aÞ½Y þ ða 2 1Þp kða21Þ
¼ ð8Þ
a0 að1 þ kÞ½Y þ ða 2 1Þp90 
where a0 5 original radius of the cavity and is taken as the radius of
the pile. The ground stresses in the elastic and plastic zones are then
calculated using Eq. (21), and the confining stress is calculated as
p9 5 ðsr 1 2su Þ=3. The effect of pile unloading is not considered in
this analysis for the reason that ground stresses are generally locked
into the ground after pile jacking. This is supported by observations
by Jacobsz (2002) that pile response to tunnel volume loss did not
vary for piles unloaded to 50–82% of their maximum jacking loads.
An example of ground stresses determined from the cavity ex-
pansion analysis for centrifuge test TP2 is shown in Fig. 3.
Effect of Tunnel Volume Loss on Ground Pressure
The analysis now considers the effect of tunnel volume loss on the
confining pressure at the location of the pile tip. The case of con-
centric contraction of a cylinder from an in situ stress state is con-
sidered. The cavity contraction analysis and equations presented
here are derived from Yu (2000). It is assumed that an isotropic
pressure, p90 , acts throughout a homogeneous soil. The value of p90
is calculated at the depth of the tunnel axis. Initially, the tunnel has
a radius of a0 and an internal pressure, p0, equal to the isotropic
pressure of the soil. The analysis is for a cylindrical cavity and
therefore k 5 1.
analysis of centrifuge test TP2
To account for the effect of pile installation on the increased
stiffness of the soil surrounding the pile, an increased value of shear
stiffness, Gmod, was used. This was done rather arbitrarily by adding
the value of p9 determined from the increase in ground stresses
resulting from pile installation at the midpoint between the pile
tip and the tunnel boundary to the isotropic value of p90 calculated
at the depth of the tunnel. The value of Gmod was then calculated
using this increased value of p9 in Eq. (3). All other parameters
were recalculated based on the isotropic p90 value. The result of
increasing stiffness in this step of the analysis is that confining
stresses at the pile tip are reduced more significantly with volume
loss, thus providing a more conservative approach. A quantitative
evaluation of the effect of this process is given subsequently.
For an assumed percentage value of tunnel volume loss, Vl,
which is based on the assumption of concentric contraction, the
tunnel radius after volume loss can be calculated using Eq. (9) as
follows:
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
a ¼ a0 ð1 2 Vl =100Þ ð9Þ
For very low volume losses, the soil around the tunnel may not
yield. and tunnel pressure, radial stress, and circumferential stress
within the soil can be calculated using Eq. (22). As volume loss
increases and tunnel pressure decreases, the soil around the tunnel
will eventually yield. Analytically, the soil around the tunnel will
yield when tunnel pressure becomes less than p1y, given by Eq. (10)
(Yu 2000) as follows:
ð1 þ kÞ ðkYÞ
p1y ¼ p0 2 ð10Þ
ð1 þ akÞ ð1 þ akÞ
After yield, the procedure for determining ground stresses is
now described. First, the ratio of c0/c, where c0 is the original radius
to the elastic-plastic interface and c is the new radius, is determined
by Eq. (11) (Yu 2000) as follows:
c0 ð1 2 aÞp0 þ Y
¼ 1þ ð11Þ
c 2ð1 þ kaÞG
Using Eq. (12) (Yu 2000), the value of tunnel pressure, p, can be
iterated until the calculated value of a matches that specified by the
value of volume loss [calculated by Eq. (9)] as follows:

1240 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2012

 0    11kb  1
c
ln 1 2 1 2 X 0
a0 B c C
¼ expB
@
C
A
a 1 þ kb
ð12Þ
 11kb
ð1 þ kaÞ½Y þ ða 2 1Þp kð12aÞ
X ¼
ð1 þ kÞ½Y þ ða 2 1Þp90

Once the tunnel pressure, p, is determined, the ratio between

the plastic radius and the tunnel radius, c/a, can be determined using
Eq. (13) (Yu 2000) as follows:
 1
c ð1 þ kaÞ½Y þ ða 2 1Þp kð12aÞ
¼ ð13Þ
a ð1 þ kÞ½Y þ ða 2 1Þp90

With the knowledge of c, the postyield ground stresses within

the elastic and plastic zones around the contracting tunnel can be
determined using Eq. (23).
Effect of Tunnel Volume Loss on Pile
Load-Carrying Capacity
The effect of tunnel volume loss on the end-bearing capacity of the
piles can now be estimated by evaluating the change in confining
stress at the location of the pile tip because of tunnel volume loss,
dp9. Given the assumption of isotropic pressure acting throughout
the soil for the cavity contraction analysis from the previous section,
the initial confining pressure is equal to p90 . The values of su and sr
are calculated at the location of the pile tip using Eqs. (22) or (23)
depending on the magnitude of volume loss and determined state of
soil. The cylindrical cavity contraction model assumes plane strain
conditions during unloading and therefore the change in out-of-
plane stress, dsy, can be calculated as dsy 5 n(dsu 1 dsr) (Yu and
Houlsby 1991). The change in confining pressure at the location of
the pile tip can therefore be calculated as dp9 5 [(1 1 n)(dsr 1
dsu)]/3.
A confining stress reduction factor, Rp (Fig. 4 illustrates a contour
of Rp for data from centrifuge test TP2) can be calculated using Eq.
(14) as follows:
dp9
Rp ¼ 1 2 ð14Þ
p90
The effect of tunnel volume loss on the end-bearing capacity of
the pile is then determined by applying the reduction factor from
Eq. (14) to the value of confining stress, p90 , used in the initial bearing
capacity analysis and then repeating this analysis to determine a new
value of end-bearing capacity after tunnel volume loss: qb,yl.
A reduction factor for the end-bearing capacity can be defined as
Rq 5 qb,yl/qb. This term, however, does not include the effect of pile
length, which limits the ability to compare results from different piles.
The use of total pile load capacity, Q, does allow comparison of
results from piles of different size. The value of Q is determined as
the summation of the contribution from the pile base, Qb, and the
shaft, Qs as follows:
.
Q ¼ Qb þ Qs ¼ qb pD2p 4 þ t s pDp L ð15Þ
where t s 5 average shear stress along the pile shaft (skin friction);
Dp 5 pile diameter; and L 5 embedded length of the pile (Fleming
et al. 1992).
The framework equations of Randolph et al. (1994) can also
be used to evaluate an average skin friction, t s , based on pile
jacking. As shaft shear stress is mobilized after relatively small pile
Fig. 4. Contour of Rp for centrifuge test TP2
displacements [0.5–2% of pile diameter according to Fleming et al.
(1992)], it can reasonably be assumed that the full shaft capacity is
mobilized on small pile movements caused by tunnel volume loss. In
addition, Jacobsz (2002) concluded that stress changes within the
soil did not have a significant effect on shaft capacity for piles
directly above the tunnel and that disregarding the increase in normal
stresses along the pile shaft that results from tunnel volume loss is
conservative. The Randolph et al. (1994) method should therefore
provide a rational estimate of pile shaft capacity and the simplifying
assumption that volume loss does not affect shaft capacity can be
applied as a conservative approach.
Following Randolph et al. (1994), the maximum shear stress
along the pile shaft, tmax can be calculated using Eq. (16) as follows:
t max ¼ qb St tanðds Þ ð16Þ
where St 5 a exp [2b tan(fcy)]; a 5 2; b 5 7; and the values of qb
and ds are from the previous discussion. The distribution of bs along
the pile length (a subscript s is used here to differentiate between the
b term used in the cavity expansion equations in the Appendix),
where bs 5 t s =s9y was calculated using Eq. (17) (Randolph et al.
1994) as follows:
 
bs ðzÞ ¼ bmin þ ðbmax 2 bmin Þexp 2 ms ðL 2 zÞ=Dp ð17Þ
where bmin was taken as 0.2, bmax 5 StNq tan(ds); Nq 5 qb =s9y (s9y at
pile tip); ms 5 a parameter that controls the rate of decay of bs along
the pile shaft and was taken as 0.05; and z 5 depth measured from the
surface. The distribution of shear stress along the pile shaft is then
t s ðzÞ 5 bs ðzÞs9y ðzÞ.
An equivalent average shear stress, ts , which provides the same
shaft load as the distributed shaft shear stress, can be calculated by
integrating the shear stresses along the pile length [Eq. (18)]. This
value of t s can then be used in Eq. (15) to determine the total load-
carrying capacity of the pile as follows:
ÐL
t s dz
ts ¼ z ¼ 0 ð18Þ
L
Using this method, the calculated values of t s were roughly 57 kPa
for the Marshall (2009) tests and 93 kPa for the Jacobsz (2002) tests.
A pile capacity reduction factor, RQ, is defined in the following
equation to compare the fraction of pile capacity at failure because
of tunnel volume loss, Qyl, against the initial capacity, Qo:

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2012 / 1241

 .
Qyl qb;yl pD2p 4 þ t s pDp L qb;yl Dp þ 4t s L
RQ ¼ ¼ . ¼ (19)
Qo qb pD2p 4 þ t s pDp L qb Dp þ 4t s L

This normalization considers the size and embedment of the piles

and therefore allows comparison of data between piles of different
size and depth.

Comparison with Centrifuge Test Results

The results of the analysis of the Jacobsz (2002) and Marshall

(2009) centrifuge tests are shown in Fig. 5. Fig. 5(a) (from Marshall
and Mair 2011) plots experimental data of the relationship between
the normalized relative tunnel-pile tip position ðdt2p 2
=rt2 Þ and the
volume loss at which failure occurred. For the interpretation of the
centrifuge test data, pile failure was taken as the moment when
the rate of change of the pile displacement showed a significant
increase. Fig. 5(b) plots the values of RQ [Eq. (19)] calculated using
the analysis method presented in the previous sections for all of the
centrifuge experiments presented in Fig. 5(a). The solid data points
indicate piles within Zone A of Fig. 1 (directly above the tunnel),
whereas the open data points indicate piles within Zone B.
As discussed in Marshall and Mair (2011), the data in Fig. 5(a)
suggest that there is a relationship between the volume loss at
which pile failure occurs and the square of the relative distance
between the tunnel and pile tip. Fig. 5(b) shows that the value of RQ
is between 0.69 and 0.77 at pile failure. This means that at the
moment of pile failure, the pile capacity was reduced to between
69 and 77% of its original value as a result of the reduction in confining
stress at the pile tip because of tunnel volume loss (based on this
analysis and the assumptions associated with RQ discussed previously).
It should be noted that, except for one data point, the experimental
results are based on piles with an applied service load during tunnel Fig. 5. Results of analysis for centrifuge tests
volume loss that was between 50 and 60% of the maximum jacking
load. However, Jacobsz (2002) showed that similar pile behavior
was measured for piles with substantially different service loads Discussion
(ranging between 53 and 82% of the maximum jacking load). Indeed,
one of the data points included in Fig. 5 is from the pile with a service Fig. 6 illustrates how the analysis can be used to estimate the critical
load of 82% of the maximum jacking load (RQ 5 0.72, Vl 5 1.4%). volume loss at which pile capacity is reduced to a given value of RQ.
Two data points available from Jacobsz (2002) and one from As the value of RQ is decreased, the analysis results logically show
Marshall (2009) have been omitted from Fig. 5 even though the tips that the allowable volume loss increases. These results are based on
of the piles were located within the critical influence zones identified the reference parameters provided in Table 1 and assuming a closed-
in Fig. 1, where large pile displacements are expected. These piles ended, flat-based pile.
failed at unexpectedly high volume losses. For the omitted Jacobsz An evaluation of the sensitivity of the analysis to the variation of
piles, it is likely that the failure was because the pile tips were key material parameters was performed, the results of which are
located very close to the interface to Zones C and D in Fig. 1. Despite shown in Fig. 7. The variation of parameters is indicated within each
the fact that the tips were located within the critical influence zone, of the subplots in Fig. 7. Results are presented in a similar form as
the soil beneath the tips would have been significantly compacted Fig. 5(a), where normalized distance from the tunnel axis to the pile
during the pile jacking stage, resulting in a densified bulb of soil with tip is plotted against volume loss. Note, however, that the curves
high strength and stiffness (White and Bolton 2004; Marshall 2009; illustrate the volume loss required to obtain RQ 5 0.85. This was
Marshall and Mair 2011). This bulb of densified soil could have done by iterating volume loss and dt2p within the analysis until the
transferred the pile load to the soil within Zone D where tunnel desired value of RQ was obtained. The data presented in Fig. 6 are
volume loss does not have a significant effect on pile-bearing ca- based on the geometric parameters given in Table 1 and would vary
pacity. For the omitted Marshall pile, it was observed that, upon ini- for other geometric conditions.
tiation of the failure of Pile 1 in test TP2 (refer to Fig. 2), displacements The strength parameters f9cy and C in Figs. 6(a and b) have minor
were concentrated in the zone between the tunnel and Pile 1 and that effects on the results because they contribute to both qb,yl and qb.
very little disturbance was observed in the region between the tunnel However, the magnitude of contribution to each of these is different
and Pile 2. The effect of tunnel volume loss was then concentrated on for a given increase in strength parameter. For an increase of f9cy ,
Pile 1, resulting in failure of Pile 2 at a very high volume loss. the results show a small increase in the critical value of volume loss
The data presented in Fig. 5(b) suggests that a conservative value (Vl,crit) necessary to achieve RQ 5 0.85 (a beneficial effect). The
of RQ for the experimental data are 0.85. The effect of the variation results for C, however, show an opposite effect, with a small de-
of key soil parameters on the results of the analysis of the centrifuge crease in Vl,crit noted for an increase in C. This is because, for a given
experiments is presented in the next section. increase in C, the value of qb increases slightly more than that of

1242 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2012

 Gmod/Gtun decreases exponentially as the magnitude of tunnel-pile
separation increases. This is because Gmod is influenced by the
stresses determined from the pile jacking process that are based on
the spherical cavity expansion analysis.

Conclusions

This study presented a method to evaluate the effect of tunnel con-

struction on the load-carrying capacity of end-bearing piles. The
method is based on calculation of pile end-bearing capacity using
a spherical cavity expansion analysis and estimation of the reduction of
confining pressure at the pile tip that results from tunnel volume loss
using a cylindrical cavity contraction analysis. The reduced confining
pressure is then used to reevaluate the pile end-bearing capacity, and
Fig. 6. Analysis results solving for volume loss necessary to obtain the reduction of total pile capacity is determined using an average
values of RQ shear stress along the pile shaft. A modified shear modulus is included
to account for the effect of pile installation on shear stiffness.
Table 1. Reference Parameters for Parametric Analysis The analytical results were compared against centrifuge test data,
and it was shown that a reduction factor, RQ, of 0.85 conservatively
Parameter Symbol Unit Value predicted the volume losses at which pile failure occurred for the
Tunnel depth zt m 15 analyzed tests. It should be noted, however, that the applicability
Tunnel radius rt m 5 of this value of RQ has not been validated against field data, and
Pile radius rp m 1 therefore, its general use should be applied with appropriate judg-
Normalized pile tip depth zp /(zt 2 rt) — 0.8 ment. Results of a parametric analysis were presented that illustrate
Critical state friction angle f9cy ° 30 the variation of analysis results for a range of material properties.
Cohesion C kPa 0
Unit weight g kN/m3 18 Appendix. Cavity Expansion/Contraction Equations
Relative density Id — 0.8
At rest earth pressure K0 — 0.5 The equations provided within this appendix were obtained from Yu
coefficient (2000).
Poisson’s ratio n — 0.2 The following parameters are used for cavity expansion and cavity
contraction analyses:
qb,yl in the analysis. This would result in a decrease in RQ, so to E E 2C cosf
obtain RQ 5 0.85, a higher value of normalized tunnel-pile G¼  M¼  Y¼  
2ð1 þ nÞ 12n2 ð22kÞ 12sinf
separation ðdt2p =rt Þ2 is necessary, resulting in a shift upward
of the curves in Fig. 6(b) as C increases. Figs. 6(c and d) show that 1 þ sinf 1 þ sinc aðb þ kÞ
an increase in relative density, Id, has a detrimental effect (de- a¼ b¼  g ¼  
12sinf 12sinc kða21Þb
creasing the value of Vl,crit), whereas unit weight has a beneficial  
effect. The effect of K0 and Poisson’s ratio in Figs. 6(e and f) are Y þ ða21Þp90 ð1 þ kÞd 12n2 ð22kÞ
d¼  m ¼
shown to be quite small. 2ðk þ aÞG ð1 þ nÞða21Þb
As described previously, the effect of pile installation on soil  
stiffness was taken into account when evaluating the effect of tunnel knða þ bÞ
 ab þ kð122nÞ þ 2n2  
volume loss on the confining stress at the pile tip location. This was 12nð22kÞ
done by using an increased value of shear stiffness, Gmod, based on 
ðb þ kÞð122nÞð1 þ ð22kÞnÞ½Y þ ða21Þp0 
an increase in confining stress at the midpoint between the tunnel x ¼ exp
boundary and the pile tip. Fig. 8(a) illustrates the effect of using Gmod Eða21Þb
compared with results obtained when stiffness was not modified ð20Þ
(labeled Gtun and calculated based on p90 at the depth of the tunnel
axis). The Gmod method is more conservative because it provides The following are the ground stresses resulting from pile jacking
a lower value of Vl,crit than using Gtun. Fig. 8(b) shows the ratio of (superscripts e and p refer to elastic and plastic, respectively):

Plastic zone: r , c Elastic zone: r . c

Y
ser ¼ 2 p90 2 Br 2ð11kÞ
kða21Þ
spr ¼ þ Ar2 a
a21
Y A kða21Þ B
spu ¼ þ r2 a seu ¼ 2 p90 þ r 2ð11kÞ
a21 a k
   
ð1 þ kÞa Y þ ða 2 1Þp90 kða21Þ k Y þ ða 2 1Þp90 11k
A ¼ 2 c a B ¼ c ð21Þ
ða 2 1Þðk þ aÞ k þa

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2012 / 1243

 Fig. 7. Results of material property parametric analysis

 11k
Preyield ground stresses resulting from tunnel volume loss are as sr ¼ 2 p90 2 ð p 2 p90 Þ a  
r
follows:

p 2 p90 a 11k
su ¼ 2 p90 2 ð22Þ
k r
2kGða0 2 aÞ Postyield ground stresses resulting from tunnel volume loss are as
p ¼ p90 þ  
a follows:

Elastic zone: r . c Plastic zone: r , c

ser ¼ 2 p0 2 Br 2ð11kÞ spr ¼ Y þ Arkða21Þ
a21
seu ¼ 2 p0 þ Br2ð11kÞ spu ¼ Y þ Aar kða21Þ cð12aÞk ð23Þ
 k a21  
k ð1 2 aÞp90 2 Y 11k ð1 þ kÞ Y þ ða 2 1Þp90
B ¼ c A ¼ 2
1 þ ka ða 2 1Þð1 þ kaÞ

Acknowledgments Notation

The author would like to acknowledge financial support from the The following symbols are used in this paper:
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada An 5 cavity expansion analysis parameter used to determine
(NSERC) and the Cambridge Commonwealth Trust—Kenneth p9lim ;
Sutherland Memorial Scholarship. Ap 5 cross-sectional area of pile;

1244 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2012

 Qb 5 pile shaft contribution to total pile load capacity;
Qyl 5 total pile load capacity at failure because of tunnel
volume loss;
Q0 5 initial total pile load capacity;
qb 5 pile end-bearing pressure;
qb,yl 5 new value of pile end-bearing pressure after tunnel
volume loss;
Rlim 5 elastic-plastic interface radius at limiting pressure;
Rp 5 reduction factor—confining stress;
RQ 5 reduction factor—pile load capacity;
Rq 5 reduction factor—bearing capacity;
rt 5 tunnel radius;
S 5 parameter used to determine G0;
St 5 ratio of radial effective stress near pile tip at failure to qb;
Vl 5 tunnel volume loss, in %;
Y 5 cavity expansion analysis parameter related to C and f;
z 5 depth, measure from surface;
zt 5 depth to tunnel axis, measure from surface;
a 5 cavity expansion analysis parameter related to f;
ac 5 parameter used to determine qb;
b 5 cavity expansion analysis parameter related to c;
bs 5 ratio of pile shaft shear stress to vertical stress within
soil ðts =s9y Þ;
bmax 5 maximum value of bs;
Fig. 8. Effect of Gmod bmin 5 minimum value of bs;
x 5 cavity expansion analysis parameter;
d 5 cavity expansion analysis parameter;
a5 current cavity radius; ds 5 interface friction angle;
a0 5 original cavity radius; f9 5 friction angle;
C5 cohesion; f9 5 average friction angle;
c5 current distance from pile tip to elastic-plastic interface; f9cy 5 critical state (constant volume) friction angle;
c0 5 original distance from pile tip to elastic-plastic f9max 5 maximum friction angle;
interface; g 5 cavity expansion analysis parameter;
c1 5 parameter used to determine G0; m 5 cavity expansion analysis parameter;
Dp 5 pile diameter; ms 5 parameter that controls the rate of decay of bs along the
Dt 5 tunnel diameter; pile shaft;
dt2p 5 relative distance between tunnel axis and pile tip; y 5 Poisson’s ratio;
E5 Young’s modulus; s9r 5 radial stress;
G5 shear stiffness/modulus; s9y 5 vertical earth pressure;
Gmod 5 modified soil stiffness to account for effect of pile s9u 5 circumferential stress;
installation; tmax 5 maximum shear stress along pile shaft;
Gtum 5 shear stiffness calculated based on tunnel axis depth; ts 5 shear stress along pile shaft;
G0 5 small strain shear stiffness/modulus; t s 5 average shear stress along pile shaft;
g5 gravity; c 5 dilation angle;
Id 5 relative density; c 5 average dilation angle; and
IR 5 relative dilatancy index; cmax 5 maximum dilation angle.
K0 5 at-rest lateral earth pressure coefficient;
k5 cavity expansion parameter 5 spherical k 5 2;
cylindrical k 5 1;
References
L5 embedded length of pile;
N5 centrifuge scaling factor;
Attewell, P. B., Yeates, J., and Selby, A. R. (1986). Soil movements induced
n5 parameter used to determine G0; by tunnelling and their effects on pipelines and structures, Blackie and
p5 cavity pressure; Son, London.
pa 5 atmospheric pressure (100 kPa); Bezuijen, A., and Van der Schrier, J. (1994). “The influence of a bored tunnel
p9lim 5 limiting end-bearing pressure; on pile foundations.” Proc., Int. Conf., Centrifuge ’94, C. F. Leung,
p0 5 initial tunnel pressure; F. Lee, and T. Tan, eds., Balkema, Singapore, 681–686.
p90 5 mean effective stress; Bolton, M. D. (1986). “The strength and dilatancy of sands.” Geotechnique,
36(1), 65–78.
p1y 5 pressure at which soil yields around a contracting Bolton, M. D. (1987). “Discussion on the strength and dilatancy of sands.”
cylinder; Geotechnique, 37(2), 219–226.
Q5 total pile load capacity; Chen, L. T., Poulos, H. G., and Loganathan, N. (1999). “Pile responses
Qb 5 pile base contribution to total pile load capacity; caused by tunneling.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 125(3), 207–215.

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2012 / 1245

Cheng, C. Y., Dasari, G. R., Chow, Y. K., and Leung, C. F. (2007).
“Finite element analysis of tunnel-soil-pile interaction using dis-
placement controlled model.” Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol., 22(4),
460–466.
Fleming, W., Weltman, A., Randolph, M. F., and Elson, W. (1992). Piling
engineering, 2nd Ed., Blackie and Son, Glasgow, U.K.
Franzius, J. N., Potts, D. M., and Burland, J. B. (2006). “The response of
surface structures to tunnel construction.” Proc. Inst. Civil Eng. Geotech.
Eng., 159(1), 3–17.
Jacobsz, S. W. (2002). “The effects of tunnelling on piled foundations.”
Ph.D. thesis, Cambridge Univ., Cambridge, U.K.
Jacobsz, S. W., Standing, J. R., Mair, R. J., Hagiwara, T., and Sugiyama, T.
(2004). “Centrifuge modelling of tunnelling near driven piles.” Soil
Found., 44(1), 49–56.
Kitiyodom, P., Matsumoto, T., and Kawaguchi, K. (2005). “A simplified
analysis method for piled raft foundations subjected to ground movements
induced by tunnelling.” Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech., 29(15),
1485–1507.
Klar, A., and Marshall, A. M. (2008). “Shell versus beam representation of
pipes in the evaluation of tunneling effects on pipelines.” Tunn. Undergr.
Space Technol., 23(4), 431–437.
Klar, A., Vorster, T. E. B., Soga, K., and Mair, R. J. (2005). “Soil-pipe
interaction due to tunnelling: Comparison between Winkler and elastic
continuum solutions.” Geotechnique, 55(6), 461–466.
Lee, C. J., and Jacobsz, S. W. (2006). “The influence of tunnelling on
adjacent piled foundations.” Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol., 21(3–4),
430.
Lo Presti, D. (1987). “Mechanical behaviour of ticino sand from resonant
column tests.” Ph.D. thesis, Politecnico di Torino, Torino, Italy.
Mair, R. J., Taylor, R. N., and Bracegirdle, A. (1993). “Subsurface
settlement profiles above tunnels in clays.” Geotechnique, 43(2),
315–320.
Marshall, A. M. (2009). “Tunnelling in sand and its effect on pipelines and
piles.” Ph.D. thesis, Cambridge Univ., Cambridge, U.K.
Marshall, A. M., Farrell, R., Klar, A., and Mair, R. J. (2012). “Tunnels in
sands the effect of size, depth, and volume loss on greenfield dis-
placements.” Geotechnique, 62(5), 385–399.
1246 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2012
Marshall, A. M., Klar, A., and Mair, R. J. (2010). “Tunneling beneath buried
pipes—A view of soil strain and its effect on pipeline behavior.”
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 136(12), 1664–1672.
Marshall, A. M., and Mair, R. J. (2011). “Tunneling beneath driven or jacked
end-bearing piles in sand.” Can. Geotech. J., 48(12), 1757–1771.
Meguid, M. A., and Mattar, J. (2009). “Investigation of tunnel-soil-pile
interaction in cohesive soils.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 135(7),
973–979.
Morton, J. D. and King, K. H. (1979). “Effects of tunnelling on the bearing
capacity and settlement of piled foundations.” Proc. Tunnelling ’79,
Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, London, 57–68.
Mroueh, H., and Shahrour, I. (2002). “Three-dimensional finite element
analysis of the interaction between tunneling and pile foundations.” Int.
J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech., 26(3), 217–230.
Potts, D. M., and Addenbrooke, T. I. (1997). “A structure’s influence on
tunneling-induced ground movements.” Proc. Inst. Civil Eng., Geotech.
Eng., 125(2), 109–125.
Poulos, H. G., and Deng, W. (2004). “An investigation on tunnelling-
induced reduction of pile geotechnical capacity.” Proc., 9th Australia
New Zealand Conf. on Geomechanics, Vol. 1, New Zealand, Geo-
technical Society & Australian Geomechanics Society, Auckland,
New Zealand, 116–122.
Randolph, M. F., Dolwin, J., and Beck, R. (1994). “Design of driven piles
in sand.” Geotechnique, 44(3), 427–448.
Vorster, T. E. B., Klar, A., Soga, K., and Mair, R. J. (2005). “Estimating the
effects of tunneling on existing pipelines.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.,
131(11), 1399–1410.
White, D. J., and Bolton, M. D. (2004). “Displacement and strain paths
during plane-strain model pile installation in sand.” Geotechnique, 54(6),
375–397.
White, D. J., Take, W. A., and Bolton, M. D. (2003). “Soil deformation
measurement using particle image velocimetry (PIV) and photogram-
metry.” Geotechnique, 53(7), 619–631.
Yu, H. S. (2000). Cavity expansion methods in geomechanics, Kluwer
Academic, Dordrecht, Netherlands
Yu, H. S., and Houlsby, G. T. (1991). “Finite cavity expansion in dilatant
soils: Loading analysis.” Geotechnique, 41(2), 173–183.
Copyright of Journal of Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Engineering is the property of American Society of
Civil Engineers and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.