1 Numerical Analysis of Laterally Loaded Single Pile Behavior Affected by Urban Metro

2 Tunnel

4 Ramin Vali*1, Mohammad Saberian2, Majid Beygi3, Reza Porhoseini4, and Soheil

5 Jahandari5

7 1- *Corresponding author: Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Shahid Mohajer,

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

11 2- School of Engineering, RMIT University, 376-392 Swanston Street, Melbourne,

12 Victoria, Australia. E-mail: s3609245@student.rmit.edu.au

13 3- Department of Civil Engineering, Yazd University, Yazd, Iran. E-mail:

14 majidbeygi@yahoo.com

15 ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1420-3664

16 4- Department of Civil Engineering, Yazd University, Yazd, Iran. E-mail:

17 r_porhoseini@yazd.ac.ir

18 5- Department of Geotechnical Engineering, Graduate University of Advanced Technology,

19 Kerman, Iran. E-mail: jahandari.soheil2000@yahoo.com

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

38vertical displacements (ΔDv).

39

40Keywords: Finite element method; Pile; Tunneling; Horizontal displacements; Vertical

41displacements; Lateral bearing capacity.

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

50construction of tunnels in urban environment will unavoidably affect the behavior of

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

56tunnel (Meschke et al., 2013).

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

77pile-soil-tunneling interaction using a close range photogrammetric technique. It was

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

84elevated caps subjected to tunneling-induced ground movements. Huang et al. (2009)

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

87operation load on tunneling-induced pile responses was significant. Furthermore, it was

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

108conducted a three dimensional simulation to investigate the effects of tunneling on the

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

12852% and 72% of the tensile strength of concrete, respectively.

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

1362. Numerical simulation and constitutive models

1372.1. Finite element simulation

138The objective of this research is to assess the initial pile lateral bearing capacity (LBCi) in

139various geotechnical properties, following with estimation of horizontal displacement

140changes (ΔDh) and vertical displacement changes (ΔDv) relative to horizontal and vertical

141displacements of the pile before tunneling, respectively. To concentrate the structural

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

145Mohr-Coulomb constitutive parameters and structural parameters have been brought in

146Tables 1 and 2, respectively.

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

150 Table 2. The structural properties of pile and tunnel.

Length or Normal Flexural Poisson’s

Structure Thickness Weight
diameter stiffness rigidity ratio
properties
m kN/m kNm2/m m kN/m/m -
Pile 20 8.353×105 1.817×104 0.5 4.71 0.2
Tunnel 7 6.9×106 2.3×104 0.2 4.8 0.15
151

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

163were introduced as follows:

7
164

Dh pile −Dhinitial
165∆ Dh= ×100 (Equation 1)
Dhinitial

Dv pile −Dv initial

166∆ Dv = ×100 (Equation
Dvinitial

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

182et al., 2004; Yan et al., 2006):

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

Tension cut-off Points

(e)
193

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

1972.2. Validation of the numerical simulation

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

300 Bearing Capacity Before Tunneling - Liu et al. (2011)

Bearing Capacity After Tunneling - Liu et al. (2011)
200
Bearing Capacity Before Tunneling - Current Study
100
Bearing Capacity After Tunneling - Current Study
0
0 .7 0 .8 0 .9 1 1 .1 1 .2 1 .3
L/ H
211

212 Figure 3. Bearing capacity values of the verified model and results of Liu et al. (2011).

213

2143. Results and Discussions

2153.1. Initial pile lateral bearing capacity (LBCi)

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

500 f(x) = 217.59 x^0.03

200
Lateral Load (kN)

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

230 (left) and LBCi (right).

231

2323.2. Pile Behavior

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

246loading conditions (i.e. FTL and RTL).

13
247

0 0 0

-5 -5 -5

-10 -10 -10

-15 -15 -15

-20 -20 -20

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

257along the pile length.

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

263conditions around the piles.

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

296prediction slope of FTL was more than the RTL ones.

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

315values of S/D, C, φ and E as well as different loadings of RTL and FTL.

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(%)

f(x) = 0.13 x^-0.37 f(x) = 0.03 x^-0.03

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
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%

14% 35 Degree 40 Degree 35 Degree 40 Degree

4%
12%

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

328 internal friction.

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(%)

f(x) = 0.99 x^-1.53

60% 20%

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

3373.4. Vertical Displacement

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

345increasing the S/D.

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

374 internal friction.

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.

S/D Forward Tunnel Loading (FTL) Reverse Tunnel Loading (RTL)

C 20 kPa 40 kPa 60 kPa 80 kPa 20 kPa 40 kPa 60 kPa 80 kPa
ΔD
17.13% 8.36% 4.96% 4.08% 0.66% 1.62% 3.23% 3.81%
1.2 h

ΔDv 71.88% 94.46% 126.09% 156.56% 122.85% 112.44% 138.80% 165.65%

ΔD
19.12% 15.70% 13.23% 11.75% 2.81% 3.37% 4.86% 5.46%
1.9 h

ΔDv 40.61% 4.95% 21.74% 43.72% 20.58% 9.11% 31.89% 51.14%

ΔD
12.04% 13.43% 11.16% 10.73% 2.43% 5.33% 4.73% 5.36%
3.4 h

ΔDv 39.06% 87.27% 14.50% 8.66% 41.18% 77.24% 16.76% 10.71%

ΔD
5.97% 6.79% 6.92% 7.21% 1.57% 2.44% 3.74% 4.31%
6.2 h

ΔDv 45.01% 37.41% 37.37% 38.31% 49.09% 39.80% 38.87% 38.95%

ΔD
3.94% 4.15% 4.00% 4.12% 1.28% 1.90% 2.94% 3.31%
11.9 h

ΔDv 18.14% 16.93% 18.22% 19.20% 11.46% 10.28% 11.46% 12.41%

φ 20° 30° 35° 40° 20° 30° 35° 40°
ΔD
8.25% 8.36% 9.93% 9.36% 1.46% 1.62% 0.04% 2.16%
1.2 h

ΔDv 121.07% 94.46% 69.26% 72.70% 156.91% 112.44% 82.11% 89.62%

ΔD
16.18% 15.70% 18.03% 16.51% 3.26% 3.37% 1.42% 0.78%
1.9 h

ΔDv 2.10% 4.95% 8.98% 8.14% 25.51% 9.11% 0.16% 16.63%

ΔD
14.91% 13.43% 12.11% 8.74% 3.35% 5.33% 1.70% 1.20%
3.4 h

ΔDv 30.36% 87.27% 17.98% 9.61% 29.83% 77.24% 23.28% 14.79%

6.2 ΔD 9.91% 6.79% 6.16% 3.12% 2.21% 2.44% 1.52% 1.32%
h

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

ΔDv 21.35% 16.93% 13.14% 11.46% 13.90% 10.28% 7.40% 6.36%

E 20 MPa 60 MPa 100 MPa 140 MPa 20 MPa 60 MPa 100 MPa 140 MPa
ΔD
8.36% 67.98% 102.56% 120.95% 1.62% 31.67% 39.11% 38.19%
1.2 h

ΔDv 94.46% 148.68% 139.53% 131.73% 112.44% 18.79% 8.17% 1.06%

ΔD
15.70% 53.93% 79.43% 95.27% 3.37% 0.58% 1.39% 2.51%
1.9 h

ΔDv 4.95% 171.09% 127.35% 105.52% 9.11% 122.46% 98.20% 83.51%

ΔD
13.43% 23.91% 24.64% 21.19% 5.33% 0.15% 0.27% 0.76%
3.4 h

ΔDv 87.27% 30.79% 2.76% 13.76% 77.24% 57.46% 38.35% 27.97%

ΔD
6.79% 7.09% 5.02% 3.21% 2.44% 0.40% 0.14% 0.34%
6.2 h

ΔDv 37.41% 0.87% 0.33% 2.36% 39.80% 17.50% 12.70% 10.18%

ΔD
4.15% 3.14% 2.12% 0.68% 1.90% 0.08% 0.43% 0.75%
11.9 h

ΔDv 16.93% 3.16% 3.06% 2.73% 10.28% 0.04% 0.16% 0.15%

384

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

390following conclusions were found.

391  By increasing C, ?? and E, initial lateral bearing capacity of pile before tunneling

392 increased gradually.

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

399 points extended from the GS.

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

421 Mechanics and Foundations Division, 90 (2), 27-63.

422Chandrasekaran, S.S., Boominathan, A., Dodagoudar, G.R., (2010). Group interaction effects

423 on laterally loaded piles in clay. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental

424 Engineering, 136 (4), 573-582. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000245

28
425Deendayal, R., Muthukkumaran, K., Sitharam, T.G., (2016). Response of laterally loaded pile

426 in soft clay on sloping ground. International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 10

427 (1), 10-22. https://doi.org/10.1179/1939787915Y.0000000013

428El-Sawwaf, M., (2006). Lateral resistance of single pile located near geosynthetic reinforced

429 slope. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 132 (10), 1336-

430 1345. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2006)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-

436 119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2014.10.007

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

439 and Geotechnics, 68, 54-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2015.02.014

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),

442 410-422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2008.11.005

443Jongpradist, P., Kaewsri, T., Sawatparnich, A., Suwansawat, S., Youwai, S., Kongkitkul, W.,

444 Sunitsakul, J., (2013). Development of tunneling influence zones for adjacent pile

445 foundations by numerical analyses. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology,

446 34, 96-109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2012.11.005

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,

452 22 (3), 325-342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2006.07.001

453Lee, C.J., Jacobsz, S.W., (2006). The influence of tunnelling on adjacent piled foundations.

454 Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 21 (3-4), 430.

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,

458 242, 353-362. https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784413449.035

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

461 Construction, ASCE, 470-480. https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784413449.046

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

464 Publication, ASCE, 215, 191-197. https://doi.org/10.1061/47626(405)24

465Meschke, G., Ninic, J., Stascheit, J., Alsahly, A., (2013). Parallelized computational

466 modeling of pile-soil interactions in mechanized tunneling. Engineering Structures, 47,

467 35-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.07.001

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

473 Geoenvironmental Engineering, 124 (6), 542-549.

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

476 adjacent to tunnelling operations. Ge´otechnique Letters, 1 (2), 11-15.

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

479 on existing tunnels. Geotechnique, 54 (6), 351-362.

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),

483 9-14. http://gyjz.ic-mag.com/EN/10.13204/j.gyjz200403003

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-

486 235. https://doi.org/10.1080/19648189.2012.667697

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

489 under-reamed piles. International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 1-13.

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

492 geogrid-reinforced-marine-slope due to the groundwater level changes. Marine

493 Georesources and Geotechnology, 1-14.

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”

496 loadings. Computer and Geotechnics, 28, 349-375. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0266-

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

500 Ground Movement, 155, 240-247. https://doi.org/10.1061/40867(199)29

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