See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/361757486

A parametric study of settlement and load transfer mechanism of piled raft

due to adjacent excavation using 3D finite element analysis

Article in Geomechanics and Engineering · July 2022

DOI: 10.12989/gae.2022.30.2.169

CITATION READS

1 183

3 authors:

Hemu Karira Aneel Kumar Hindu

Mehran University of Engineering and Technology Mehran University of Engineering and Technology
11 PUBLICATIONS 45 CITATIONS 66 PUBLICATIONS 325 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Tauha Hussain Ali

Mehran University of Engineering and Technology
40 PUBLICATIONS 299 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Assessment of Integration Management Between 3C in Construction Industry of Pakistan View project

Effective Utilization of Construction Labor in Extreme Hot Weather View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Hemu Karira on 05 July 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Geomechanics and Engineering, Vol. 30, No. 2 (2022) 169-185
DOI: https://doi.org/10.12989/gae.2022.30.2.169 169

A parametric study of settlement and load transfer mechanism of piled raft due
to adjacent excavation using 3D finite element analysis
Hemu Karira1, Aneel Kumar2, Tauha Hussain Ali2, Dildar Ali Mangnejo1 and Naeem Mangi3
1
Department of Civil Engineering, Mehran University of Engineering and Technology, Shaheed Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto Campus,
Khairpur Mir’s, Sindh, Pakistan
2
Department of Civil Engineering, Mehran University of Engineering and Technology, Jamshoro, Sindh, Pakistan
3
Department of Civil Engineering, Quaid-e-Awam University of Engineering, Science & Technology, Sindh, Pakistan

(Received April 24, 2022, Revised June 2, 2022, Accepted June 26, 2022)

Abstract. The urbanization and increasing rate of population demands effective means of transportation system (basement and
tunnels) as well as high-rise building (resting on piled foundation) for accommodation. Therefore, it unavoidable to construct
basements (i.e., excavation) nearby piled foundation. Since the basement excavation inevitably induces soil movement and stress
changes in the ground, it may cause differential settlements to nearby piled raft foundation. To understand settlement and load
transfer mechanism in the piled raft due to excavation-induced stress release, numerical parametric studies are carried out in this
study. The effects of excavation depths (i.e., formation level) relative to piled raft were investigated by simulating the excavation
near the pile shaft (i.e., He/Lp=0.67), next to (He/Lp=1.00) and below the pile toe (He/Lp=1.33). In addition, effects of sand density
and raft fixity condition were investigated. The computed results have revealed that the induced settlement, tilting, pile lateral
movement and load transfer mechanism in the piled raft depends upon the embedded depth of the diaphragm wall. Additional
settlement of the piled raft due to excavation can be account for apparent loss of load carrying capacity of the piled raft (ALPC).
The highest apparent loss of piled raft capacity ALPC (on the account of induced piled raft settlement) of 50% was calculated in
in case of He/Lp = 1.33. Furthermore, the induced settlement decreased with increasing the relative density from 30% to 90%. On
the contrary, the tilting of the raft increases in denser ground. The larger bending moment and lateral force was induced at the
piled heads in fixed and pinned raft condition.
Keywords: excavation; fixity condition; parametric study; piled raft; sand density

1. Introduction soft clay, Ong et al. (2006, 2009) conducted centrifuge tests
to evaluate the excavation induced lateral responses of end
In densely built urban cities, the rapidly increasing bearing single piles (SP) and pile groups (PG), respectively.
population demands an effective means of underground They reported that the distance of the piles from the
transportation system (Hong et al. 2017, Shi et al. 2015, excavation and showing effects of the piles in a group
Soomro et al. (2022a, b). The underground transportation influenced the lateral deflection and bending moments of
system consists of tunnels, basements and subway metro the piles. Both studies were focused on the end bearing
stations. These excavations are sometimes inevitable to be piles, and the settlement response of floating pile
constructed adjacent to existing piled foundations. In urban foundations was not investigated. However, the settlement
areas many high buildings are supported by piled rafts response of floating piles is critical for the serviceability of
because the use of piles to reduce raft settlements and pile-supported structures. The structures supported by
differential settlements can lead to considerable economy floating pile foundations would experience severe damages
without compromising the safety and performance of the due to excessive pile settlement and tilting (Korff et al.
foundation (Bai et al. 2021). Since the underground 2016) caused by the stress release and vertical soil
basement excavation inevitably induces soil movement and movements, which has not yet been fully characterized.
stress changes in the ground, it may cause additional Some previous studies have investigated the excavation
settlement and differential settlements to nearby existing induced settlement of the floating pile. (Korff et al. 2016,
piled foundations. This condition leads to a big challenge Ng et al. 2017, Shi et al. 2019, Soomro et al. 2021a, Tan et
for a geotechnical engineer to assess and protect the al. 2016, Zhang et al. 2011). Korff et al. (2016) presented
integrity of piled foundation. Many studies have design charts to estimate the settlement of SP considering
investigated the effects of stress release and horizontal soil greenfield soil settlement using the analytical solution and
movements on existing piles (Finno et al. 1991, two-stage continuum-based non-linear model, respectively.
Liyanapathirana and Nishanthan 2016, Goh et al. 2003). In These studies proposed a framework to determine the
interaction level (z i where greenfield soil settlement
becomes equal to the pile settlement) considering the
Corresponding author, Ph.D. Student influence of the initial factor of safety (FS). The interaction
E-mail: [email protected] level moves upward with the decrease of FS, resulting in
Copyright © 2022 Techno-Press, Ltd.
http://www.techno-press.org/?journal=gae&subpage=7 ISSN: 2005-307X (Print), 2092-6219 (Online)
170 Hemu Karira, Aneel Kumar, Tauha Hussain Ali, Dildar Ali Mangnejo and Naeem Mangi

(a) (b)

Fig. 1 Configuration of numerical simulations of three cases (a) He/Lp =0.67, (b) He/Lp =1.00 and (c) He/Lp = 1.33

larger excavation-induced pile settlement. These studies foundation than in the pile group, to further mobilize shaft
consider the greenfield soil movements in the uniform and end bearing resistances for the maintenance of vertical
ground and neglect the influence of effective stress changes equilibrium. Apart from Ng et al. 2021's study, authors are
due to excavation-induced stress release or excess pore not aware of any other research related to effects of
water pressure. Furthermore, these studies were limited to excavation of piled raft in the literature. Therefore, there is
single pile interaction scenarios and ignored the effects of a lack of systematic research on the behaviour of an existing
group interaction and load redistribution between the piles pile raft due to excavation. This paper aims to understand
on excavation-induced pile settlement. Shi et al. (2019) and the responses of (2×2) piled raft to ground movement due to
Soomro et al. (2021d) presented excavation-induced excavation-induced stress relief. To achieve this, three-
settlement of nearby floating SP in sand and clay, dimensional finite element analysis was conducted.
respectively, using finite element analysis. They found that Moreover, three-dimensional numerical parametric studies
excavation had a significant influence on SP settlement. were conducted to systematically investigate settlement and
These studies are limited to SP response, and the findings load transfer mechanism induced in the piled raft due to a
are not applicable for PG due to group interaction and load multi-propped excavation. Various combinations of
redistribution between the piles. Ng et al. (2021) excavation depth systems, sand density and raft fixity
investigated the settlement and tilting mechanism due to conditions were taken into consideration the numerical
deep excavation of a (2×2) pile group in dry sand using the parametric study.
centrifuge and numerical modelling. They found that PG
settlement and tilting are proportional to the excavation
depth, and the front pile experiences a larger settlement than 2. Three-dimensional finite element analysis
the rear pile. Ng et al. (2021) conducted a series of three-
dimensional (3D) centrifuge model tests and numerical 2.1 Numerical modelling programme
simulations to investigate the influence of raft contact on
the response of an existing (2×2) piled raft in comparison to Three-dimensional finite element approach was used to
that of an elevated pile group when subjected to an adjacent investigate settlement and load transfer mechanism of piled
multipropped deep excavation in dry sand. They concluded raft due to excavation. To explore the effects of different
that 20% larger settlement was seen in the piled raft excavation depth systems, three different final excavation
 A parametric study of settlement and load transfer mechanism of piled raft due to adjacent excavation… 171

Table 1 Summary of numerical simulations in the parametric study

Excavation depth Diaphragm wall Raft fixity Relative density of
Variable Objective
(m) depth (m) condition sand: %
Load test N/A N/A N/A 70 Piled raft load test
12.0 18.0
Excavation & wall
18.0 24.0 Free 70 Effects of excavation depths
depth
24.0 36.0
30
50 Effects of relative density of
Sand density 12, 18 & 24 18, 24 & 36 Free
70 sand
90
Free
Raft fixity Pinned
24 36 70 Effects raft fixity conditions
condition
fixed

Fig. 2 Plan view of a typical case of He/Lp =0.67

depths (He) relative to the pile length (Lp) namely near the 0.5 is adopted in this study. The props are used to support
pile shaft (He/Lp = 0.67), adjacent to the pile toe (He/Lp = the diaphragm wall with a vertical spacing of 3 m. The
1.00) and below the pile toe (He/Lp = 1.33) were taken in props (I-section) are modelled as soft with axial rigidity of
this parametric study. The final depth of the excavation (He) 81 × 103 kNm (Hsiung 2009). Horizontal spacing of props
has been adopted as 12 m, 18 m and 24 m in case of He/Lp = is 10 m. It is evident from the research available in literature
0.67, 1.00 and 1.33, respectively. The embedded length (Lp) that the stiffness of the sand is mainly depend upon relative
and diameter (d p ) of the pile are 18 m and 0.8 m, density (Shi et al. 2019) and pile head fixity condition (i.e.,
respectively. The modelled pile represents a cylindrical free, pinned and fixed) has significant effect on the pile
reinforced concrete (grade 40, reinforcement ratio = 1) with response to excavation (Liyanapathirana and Nishanthan
a bending moment capacity of 800 kNm. Figs. 1(a)-1(c) 2016, Ng et al. 2017, Hu et al. 2021, 2022) Hence, the
show the elevations views of the configurations of analyses investigating the excavation effects on the piled
numerical simulations of He/Lp = 0.67, He/Lp = 1.00 and raft constructed in sand with three different relative density
He/Lp = 1.33, respectively. To simulate long and narrow (i.e., Dr = 30%, 50%, 70% and 90%) and different piled raft
metro stations, a basement with a final excavation depth head conditions were added in this parametric study. To
(He) of 25.0 m and a width of 10.0 m was simulated in the investigate the pile head fixity conditions at different
numerical analysis, while excavation length was taken as 20 excavation depths, the three boundary conditions (i) free in
m as illustrated in Fig. 2. The clear distance between which both translation and rotation are allowed, (ii) pinned
diaphragm wall and the pile is 3.0 m. The excavation was in which translation is constraint and rotation is allowed and
supported by 0.6 m thick diaphragm wall. The ratio of wall (iii) fixed in which both translation and rotation are
penetration depth to excavation depth is typically 0.5-2 in constrained, were applied at the top of the piled raft. In
engineering practice (Hsiung 2009, Ng et al. 2017, Shi et al. addition to these simulations, a piled raft load test (L) was
2019, Xue et al. 2021, Wang et al. 2022), thus a value of conducted numerically in to obtain the ultimate capacity of
172 Hemu Karira, Aneel Kumar, Tauha Hussain Ali, Dildar Ali Mangnejo and Naeem Mangi

Fig. 3 3D finite element mesh of case He/Lp = 1.33 (showing model of piled raft, diaphragm wall and props)

the piled raft in sand. In total, 19 numerical simulations finite element analysis. In this technique, the excavation
were performed to investigate ground and piled raft process was simulated by deactivating soil elements inside
responses due to adjacent basement excavation, as excavation zone. In the meantime, the truss elements
summarized in Table 1. The finite element program Abaqus representing the props were activated.
6.10 (Hibbitt et al. 2010) was used to conduct numerical The pile-soil and wall-soil interface is modelled as zero
simulations. thickness by using duplicate nodes. The interface is
modelled by the Coulomb friction law, in which the
2.2 Finite element mesh and boundary conditions interface friction coefficient () and limiting displacement
lim) are required as input parameters. A limiting shear
The finite element mesh, consisting of piled raft and the displacement of 5 mm is assumed to achieve full
soil (incorporating excavation along with diaphragm wall mobilization of the interface friction equal to ×p', where p'
and props), was generated using Abaqus CAE. Fig. 3 shows is the normal effective stress between two contact surfaces
an isometric view of a typical finite element mesh in case of and a typical value of for a bored pile of 0.35 is used in
He/Lp = 1.33. The depth from the ground surface to the base all analyses. This was based on relevant case histories
of the mesh was 50 m. reported by Francescon (1993) and Lee and Ng (2007). The
Eight-noded hexahedral brick elements were used to excavation process will be simulated by deactivating soil
model the soil, piled raft and the diaphragm wall, while elements inside excavation zone. In the meantime, the truss
two-noded truss elements are adopted to model the props. In elements representing the props will be activated.
the analysis, the piled raft installation effect on in situ stress
distribution of soil was not considered and hence the 2.3 Constitutive model and model parameters used in
‘‘wished-in-place pile’’ was modelled. Therefore, the finite element analyse
behaviour of the pile may be quite close to a bored pile. The
obtained computed results can be conservative with this Since the stress-strain relationship of soils is highly
assumption. nonlinear even at very small strain and the stiffness of soil
The sensitivity of the numerical results with respect to depends on the recent stress or strain history of the soil
size of mesh was explored and it was found that without (Atkinson et al. 1990, Hong et al. 2017), an advanced
undermining stability of analysis, the optimum value 1.5 hypoplastic model was used to simulate the behaviour of
mm of elements was chosen. A relatively fine mesh was sand in this study. The reason to adopt this model is because
used near the excavation and the piled raft because large it is capable to reasonably excavation-induced ground
shear strains were expected and the mesh became coarser deformations in sand, as reported by Soomro et al. (2021a,
further away from the structures (Soomro et al. 2022c). The b, c).
numerical test shows that further halving current mesh size The hypoplastic model was developed to describe non-
can only lead to a change of computed results of no more linear response of granular material (Gudehus 1996, Herle
than 0.2%. Roller and pin supports are applied to the and Mašín 1999) It consists of eight model parameters (′c,
vertical sides and the base of the mesh, respectively. hs, n, ed0, ec0, ei0, a and ). The first six parameters (′c, hs, n,
Therefore, movements normal to the vertical boundaries ed0, ec0, ei0) of Toyoura sand were calibrated by Herle and
and in all directions of the base are restrained. The Gudehus (1999). The remaining two parameters (a and b)
excavation-induced stress release process was modelled by were obtained by curving fitting Maeda and Miura (1999)
the “element removal” technique which is widely used in triaxial test results (at large strains). To account for strain-
 A parametric study of settlement and load transfer mechanism of piled raft due to adjacent excavation… 173

Table 2 Hypoplastic model parameters of sand adopted in this study

Description Parameter
Effective angle of shearing resistance at critical state: ’c 31o
Hardness of granulates, hs 2.6 GPa
Exponent n 0.27
Minimum void ratio at zero pressure, ed0 0.61
Maximum void ratio at zero pressure, ec0 1.10
Critical void ratio at zero pressure, ei0 0.98
Exponent  0.14
Exponent  6
Parameter controlling initial shear modulus upon 180 strain path reversal, mR 11
Parameter controlling initial shear modulus upon 90 strain path reversal, mT 6
Size of elastic range, R 2×10-5
Parameter controlling degradation rate of stiffness with strain  0.1
r

Parameter controlling degradation rate of stiffness with strain  1.0

Table 3 Concrete parameters adopted in finite element

analysis e) Step 5: Staged multi-propped excavation is simulated as
Description Parameter
described in section 2.1. After excavating to 3 m depth,
the first level of props is installed at 1 m below the
Young's Modulus, E 35 GPa ground surface.
Poisson's ratio,  0.3 f) Step 6: Repeat step 5 to excavate the next stages and
Density,  2400 kg/m3 install props until the last stage of excavation (i.e.,
He=12 m) is completed.

dependency and path-dependency of soil stiffness (at small

strains), Niemunis and Herle (1997) further improved the 3. Interpretation of computed results
hypoplastic model by incorporating intergranular strain
concept into the model. Five additional parameters (mR, mT, 3.1 Determination of working load for the piled raft
R, r and ) are required. These five parameters were
obtained by curve fitting stiffness degradation curves of This parametric study aims at investigating responses of
Toyoura sand measured in this study. The coefficient of at- the piled raft subjected to a working load due to adjacent
rest earth pressure (K0=0.5) was estimated based on excavations with different formation level relative to the
effective angle of shearing resistance at critical state pile length in sand. A numerical load test was carried out to
compute ultimate load carrying capacity of the piled raft.
(’=31o, as reported by Ishihara, 1993) and Jáky (1944)’s
The load of 3 MN (with increment of 1 MN) was applied on
equation. Table 2 summarises model parameters of Toyoura
the pile over period of 24 hours. Fig. 4 shows load-
sand adopted in the numerical analyses.
settlement curve obtained from numerical load test. Based
The concrete pile, the diaphragm wall and the props
on the failure criterion, suggested by ISSMFE (1985) (i.e.,
were assumed to be linear elastic with Young's modulus of
10% of pile diameter), the ultimate bearing capacity of 40.3
35 GPa and Poisson's ratio of 0.25. The unit weight of
MN was computed. Using factor of safety as 3 (Poulos
concrete was assumed to be 24 kN/m3. The parameters for
2001), the working load was determined to be 16.13 MN.
the piles and the diaphragm wall are summarised in Table 3.
The settlement of the piled raft was 8.0 mm (1.0%dp) due to
application of the working load.
2.4 Numerical modelling procedure
3.2 Effects of excavation depths
The numerical analysis modelling procedure for a
typical case (i.e., He/Lp = 0.67) is summarized as follows:
3.2.1 Induced settlement of the piled raft due to
a) Step 1: Set up the initial boundary and initial stress
different excavation depths
conditions (i.e., static stress conditions with Ko=0.5)
Fig. 5 illustrates the normalised incremental settlement
b) Step 2: Activate the brick elements representing piled
of the piled raft (Sp/dp) with different excavation depths
raft (modelled as “wished-in-place”).
systems (i.e., He/Lp = 0.67, He/Lp = 1.00 and He/Lp = 1.33).
c) Step 3: Apply the working load (determined from
Excavation depths are indicated by h. The piled settlement
numerical pile load test) on the piled raft.
is normalised by pile diameter (d p). For comparison,
d) Step 4: Activate the brick elements representing the
measured settlement of a single pile (diameter of pile = 0.8
diaphragm wall.
m with embedded length= 20 m in prototype) due to
174 Hemu Karira, Aneel Kumar, Tauha Hussain Ali, Dildar Ali Mangnejo and Naeem Mangi

Fig. 4 Computed load settlement curve from the piled raft load test without excavation

Fig. 5 Induced settlemnt of the piled raft during excavation

multipropped excavation in dry sand measured in centrifuge observed that the Sp during last two excavation stages (i.e.,
test (by Ng et al. 2017) is also included. It can be seen from 9-12 m) in former case is larger than that of due to
the figure that non-linear increment in Sp was observed with corresponding excavation stages in later case. To be more
increasing excavation depth in each case. The Sp increased specific, larger settlement induced in case of He/Lp = 0.67
linearly with excavation depth, however, rate of induced than that of in case of the He/Lp = 1.00 due to same stress
settlement increased during last two excavation stages (i.e., release due to due to excavation stages (9-12 m). The
6-12 m, 12-18 m and 18-24 m in case of He/Lp = 0.67, He/Lp additional amounts of induced-settlement at excavation
= 1.00 and He/Lp = 1.33, respectively). depth of 9 m and 12 m are 0.44d p % and 1.18d p %,
This is because of degradation of stiffness of sand due to respectively. Similarly, the Sp induced during excavation
excavation-induced stress release and shear strain stages (12-18 m) in case of He/Lp = 1.00 is higher than of in
surrounding the pile. As shown in figure similar case of He/Lp = 1.33. This can be ascribed to different
characteristics of excavation-induced settlement of single embedded depths of the diaphragm wall in each case. The
pile was observed from the centrifuge test reported by Ng et computed results in this study have revealed that the
al., 2017. However, the final measured induced settlement induced settlement of the piled foundation depends upon the
of single pile is smaller than that of piled raft. This can be embedded depth of the diaphragm wall, type of pile
attributed to the working load and excavation depth. The foundation and applied working load on the pile. Among
working load applied on the single pile is smaller than that the three cases discussed, the largest and smallest settlement
on the piled raft and final depth of adjacent excavation is induced in the pile is in case of He/Lp = 1.33 and He/Lp =
only 9 m. 0.67. This is because the piled raft is subjected to higher
By making comparison of induced settlement of the stress release due to excavation in case of He/Lp = 1.33 than
piled raft in case of He/Lp = 0.67 and He/Lp = 1.00, it is that due to excavation in case of He/Lp = 0.67 and the entire
 A parametric study of settlement and load transfer mechanism of piled raft due to adjacent excavation… 175

Fig. 6 Induced tilting of the raft during excavation

pile is located within the zone of excavation-induced connected with piles contributes to avoiding differential
displacement in case of He/Lp = 1.33 (discussed in section settlement in the building and enhances the load-carrying
3.3.3). capacity of the foundation (Bhaduri and Choudhury 2021,
The piled raft experienced total settlements (due to Poulos 2001). However, if the excavation is carried out the
working-load and excavation) of 29, 39 and 52 mm (i.e., 3.6, piled raft, it is likely that differential settlement can be
4.8 and 6.5% of pile diameter) in case of He/Lp=0.67, He/Lp induced in the raft. Hence, it is necessary to understand the
= 1.00 and He/Lp=1.33, respectively. Zhang and Ng (2005) tilting mechanism of the piled raft during the excavation.
proposed a reliability-based serviceability criterion for The differential settlement is presented in terms of tilting
settlement (i.e., 56 mm), based on information from 95 which is defined as the ratio of the differences in settlement
settling buildings. Based on their criterion, after excavation between the two edges of the piled raft and the distance
in case of He/Lp=1.33, the pile violates the serviceability between the edges. Tilting toward the excavation is taken as
requirement. positive and away from the excavation as negative.
Fig. 6 shows induced tilting of the piled raft due at
3.2.2 Apparent loss of load carrying capacity of piled different excavation depths systems (i.e., He/Lp = 0.67,
raft due to excavation He/Lp = 1.00 and He/Lp = 1.33). It can be observed from the
It is well-known that the load carrying capacity of a figure that the tilting increased non-linearly during
piled foundation is determined using displacement-based excavation in all the three cases (i.e., He/Lp = 0.67, He/Lp =
failure criterion. Therefore, additional settlement of the 1.00 and He/Lp = 1.33).
piled raft due to excavation can be estimated as apparent The rate of induced tilting increased during last two
loss of load carrying capacity of the piled raft (ALPC). The excavation stages (i.e., 6-12 m, 12-18 m and 18-24 m in
settlement of the piled raft after application of working load cases of He/Lp = 0.67, He/Lp = 1.00 and He/Lp = 1.33,
of 16.13 MN (but before excavation) was 8 mm (0.98%dp). respectively). Since the excavation was carried out on one
The piled raft experienced an additional settlement of 21 side of the piled raft, the non-uniform stress release induced
mm (2.6%dp) due to excavation in case of He/Lp=0.67. With around the piled raft. The row of piles nearest the
this additional settlement (i.e., 3.6%dp), the piled raft excavation (i.e., front row) is subjected to higher stress
behaves as if it were loaded by a load of 33.5 MN (deduced release than that of farthest the excavation (i.e., rear row).
from the load settlement curve shown in Fig. 4). Thus, the Consequently, the front row piles settled larger than that of
increase in equivalent load due to the excavation can be the rear row due to excavation which caused differential
calculated to be 17.44 MN (= 33.5 - 16.1 MN). The settlement in the piled. Similar to the induced settlement
additional load accounts for 36% of the ultimate capacity of chrematistics, Sp during last two excavation stages (i.e., 9-
the raft (i.e., 48.4 MN as shown in Fig. 4). In other words, 12 m) in case of He/Lp = 0.67 is larger than that of due to
an apparent loss of piled raft capacity (ALPC) of 36% was corresponding excavation stages in case of He/Lp = 1.00. To
resulted due to the adjacent excavation in case of be more specific, larger tilting induced in case of He/Lp =
He/Lp=0.67. Similarly, ALPC can be readily calculated in 0.67 than that of in case of the He/Lp = 1.00 due to same
cases of He/Lp = 1.00 and He/Lp = 1.33 as 42% and 50%, stress release due to excavation stages (9-12 m). The
respectively. additional amounts of induced-tilting at excavation depth of
9 m and 12 m are 0.007% and 0.03%, respectively.
3.2.3 Induced tilting of the raft due to different Similarly, the tilting induced during excavation stages (12-
excavation depths 18 m) in case of He/Lp = 1.00 is higher than of in case of
To support the high-rising buildings, the piled raft is He/Lp = 1.33. This can be ascribed to different embedded
preferred to the elevated pile group because the raft depths of the diaphragm wall in each case. Among the three
176 Hemu Karira, Aneel Kumar, Tauha Hussain Ali, Dildar Ali Mangnejo and Naeem Mangi

Fig. 7 Induced lateral movment of the raft during excavation

cases discussed, the largest and smallest tilting induced in seen that the induced lateral movement of the raft increased
the raft is in case of He/Lp = 1.33 and He/Lp = 0.67. This is linearly with excavation stages except during first
because the piled raft is subjected to higher stress release excavation stage. This is because of two reasons. Firstly, the
due to excavation in case of He/Lp = 1.33 than that due to piled raft is subjected to larger shear strain due to
excavation in case of He/Lp = 0.67 and the entire pile is excavation-induced stress release as the excavation depth
located within the zone of excavation-induced displacement increases. Second reason is the degradation of stiffness of
in case of He/Lp = 1.33 (discussed in section 3.3.3). On sand with strain due to excavation-induced stress release. In
completion of the excavation, the amount of tiling was is this study, the ground (sand) is modelled using an advanced
0.09, 0.13, and 0.14% in cases of He/Lp = 0.67, He/Lp = 1.00 constitutive soil model (i.e., hypoplastic model) which is
and He/Lp = 1.33, respectively. capable to capture small-strain stiffness. The deeper
To prevent the occurrence of a serviceability limit state excavation depth induced large shear strain causing
in structures, the maximum acceptable tilting is given by significant of stiffness degradation near the diaphragm wall.
Eurocode 7 (2004) for different types of structures. For The final lateral movement of the raft was 15 mm (i.e.,
open framed structures, infilled frames and load bearing or 1.88% pile diameter). This conclusion might not be
continuous brick walls, the allowable limit of tilting is in a applicable to scenarios in which the ground conditions are
wide range of 1/2000 to 1/300. In practice, a maximum different from those adopted in this study.
tilting of 1/500 is widely chosen for many structures. Zhang
and Ng (2005) proposed reliability-based limiting tolerable 3.2.5 Induced pile lateral displacement due to
value of tilting (i.e., 0.25%) established on 57 cases of deep different excavation depths
foundation. Since structure type is not considered in this In this section, the lateral displacement of a typical pile
study, a typical allowable limit of 1/500 (i.e., 0.20%) is thus P1 (closest to the excavation) is selected for discussion in
used for comparison purpose. Based on the configuration of each case (He/Lp = 0.67, He/Lp = 1.00 and He/Lp = 1.33). Fig.
the geometry, ground conditions, and the excavation depths, 8 shows the pile deflection profile along the depth of the
the induced tilting in each case does not exceed the limit pile P1 in each case. It can be seen from the figure that as
values recommended by Zhang and Ng (2005) and excavation was carried out, the pile deflected towards
Eurocode 7 (2001). excavation in all the three cases.
This is because of excavation-induced effective stress
3.2.4 Induced lateral movement of the raft due to release and soil displacement towards excavation. When the
different excavation depths first stage was excavated, the upper part of the pile
As discussed earlier, the piled raft is subjected to stress deflected more than the lower part of the pile. As
release on one side of the piled raft. Therefore, the excavation proceeds, significant lateral displacement was
excavation caused not only differential settlement (tilting) induced in lower part of the pile. In contrast, the upper part
but also lateral movement of the raft in the direction of the of the pile (i.e., near the head) displaced away from the
excavation. Fig. 7 illustrates the induced lateral movement excavation. The substantial lateral displacement of the
of the raft (x) due to excavation at different stages of lower part of the pile is due to further effective stress-
excavation. release and soil movement during excavation. adjacent
Lateral movement toward the excavation is taken as excavation of the pile was observed by Liyanapathirana and
positive and away from the excavation as negative. It can be Nishanthan (2016). On completion of excavation in cases of
 A parametric study of settlement and load transfer mechanism of piled raft due to adjacent excavation… 177

Fig. 8 Induced lateral deflection of pile P1

Fig. 9 Induced bending moment in pile P1

He/Lp=0.67, 1.00 and 1.33, the maximum deflection of 8.0 the excavation. It can be observed that the induced bending
mm (1.0%dp), 11.2 mm (1.4%dp) and 14.4 mm (1.8%dp), moment along the length of pile P1 increases as excavation
respectively. depth increases. Moreover, substantial positive bending
moment was induced at/near the head of the pile in each
3.2.6 Excavation-induced bending moment in the pile case. This is because the induced tilting of the piled raft and
As discussed in section 3.2.3, the tilting was induced in lateral movement of the pile is restrained due to rigid
the piled raft due to stress-induced excavation. As a result connection with the pile cap. To counter-balance the
of tilting, bending moment was induced at/near piles head positive moment at the pile head, a negative bending
in the piled raft during excavation. Fig. 9 illustrates bending moment was induced in the pile. This is attributed to lateral
moment profile in pile on completion of excavation in all soil movement towards excavation as a result of stress
three cases (i.e., He/Lp = 0.67, He/Lp = 1.00 and He/Lp = release. The maximum positive bending moment was 200
1.33). kNm at Z/Lp=0.67. Since pile toes are free to move, no any
The induced-bending moment is taken as positive if bending moment was induced in both the piles at the toes. It
compressive stress was induced along the pile shaft facing is observed that as excavation stages proceeds, the induced
178 Hemu Karira, Aneel Kumar, Tauha Hussain Ali, Dildar Ali Mangnejo and Naeem Mangi

Fig. 10 Changes in load resisted by the raft during excavation

bending moment varies along the length of pile. The load taken by the raft kept increasing till completion of the
maximum bending moments of 585, 460 and 342 kNm were excavation. This implies that the load is re-transferred to the
induced at the pile head due to excavation in cases of He/Lp raft. This is because the deeper excavation led to substantial
= 0.67, He/Lp = 1.00 and He/Lp = 1.33, respectively. settlement in the raft but less ground surface settlement. The
It can be seen that the maximum induced bending load carried by the raft reduced to 5% at excavation stage
moment at the end of excavation in all the three cases is less h/He=0.75 and after that increased to 3% on completion of
than the pile bending moment capacity (i.e., 800 kNm). the excavation.
Therefore, the most critical issue to be considered in
excavation-soil-pile problem is relatively large settlement 3.2.8 Load redistributions among piles in piled raft
and lateral displacement of the pile. This conclusion may due to excavation
not be applicable to scenarios in which the ground As discussed in previous section that the changes
conditions or stiffness of excavation system (i.e., wall and occurred in the load resisted by the raft during excavation.
prop stiffness) are different from those adopted in this study. Therefore, load redistribution also occurred among piles in
the piled raft. Fig. 11 shows the changes in head load ( p)
3.2.7 Changes in piled raft load transfer mechanism of piles P1, P2, P3 and P4 during excavation.
due to excavation The change in the pile head load (p) is normalised by
After the application of the working load on the top of the load taken by each pile (pi) before the excavation. Since
the piled raft, some load is taken by the raft, and the excavation was carried out at one side of the excavation
remainder of the load is transferred to the piles. The piled (see inset in the figure), the changes in the head loads of the
raft supports the load by mobilizing stresses in the ground pile closest to the excavation (piles P1 and P3) and the
(Lu et al. 2020, Soomro et al. 2022b). Since the process of changes in the head loads of the pile farthest to the
the excavation essentially induced stress release in the excavation (piles P2 and P4) are same during excavation. It
ground, load redistribution occurs between the raft and the can be seen from the figure that the head load of all four
piles. Fig. 10 shows the change in load sharing by the raft piles increase as excavation depth reaches at half of final
during excavation. It can be seen that before excavation
excavation depth (h/He=0.5). This is because the load
(after application of working load), about 28% of the
resisted by the raft decreases (see Fig. 10). Consequently,
working load (i.e., 16.13 MN) was carried by the raft and
load transferred to the piles resulting in increment of pile
rest of the load was transferred to the four piles equally. It
can be seen from the figure that the load taken by the raft head loads. However, as the excavation further proceeds the
kept decreasing till excavation reaches at two-third of load at the heads of piles P1 and P3 decreased significantly.
excavation depth (h/He=0.75). This suggested that some of This is because of excavation-induce stress release and soil
the working load was transferred to the four piles and the movement towards excavation led to reduction of shaft
piled raft system behaves as elevated pile group (in which resistance along the pile.
the pile cap is raised above the ground) after excavation. To support the constant working load acting on the raft,
This can be attributed to separation of the raft and the the head load of pile P2 as well as that of pile P4 and the
ground because of induced larger ground surface settlement load taken by the raft increased as a result of load
and lesser piled raft settlement. As a result of the gap redistribution from piles P1 and P3. Owing to load
between the raft and the piles, the effective vertical stress redistribution among piles during excavation, the rear piles
decreased significantly on completion of the excavation. (i.e., P2 and P4) experienced the most significant increase
However, as excavation proceeds beyond h/He=0.75, the of 12% in head load.
 A parametric study of settlement and load transfer mechanism of piled raft due to adjacent excavation… 179

Fig. 11 Load-redistributions among piles in the piled raft during excavation

Fig. 12 Changes in vertical effective stress (σ′v) in the ground immediately below the raft

3.2.9 Changes in pressure in the ground underneath of He/Lp = 0.67. As compared to the ground surface
the raft settlement in cases He/Lp = 1.00 and He/Lp = 1.33, large
The raft supports the applied working load by settlement of the raft induced due to excavation, which
generating stresses in the soil. On the contrary, excavation caused penetration of the raft into the ground resulting in
is essentially a stress-release process in the ground. the increment of the ground pressure. Consequently, the
Therefore, it is worth investigating the pressure changes load carried by the raft increased substantially (see Fig. 10).
underneath the raft during excavation to understand the load The ground pressure increased by 50 kPa underneath the
transfer in the piled raft. Fig. 12 shows the changes in raft excavation in the case of He/Lp = 1.33.
pressure (i.e., vertical effective stress) in the ground beneath
the raft due to excavation in all three cases (i.e., He/Lp = 3.3 Effects of sand density
0.67, He/Lp = 1.00 and He/Lp = 1.33). The pressure
underneath the raft reduced significantly after the 3.3.1 Induced piled raft settlement
completion of the excavation in case of He/Lp = 0.67. Fig. 13 shows the induced settlement of the piled raft
This is because of stress release due to excavation constructed in sand with different relative density (i.e., Dr
resulted in the transfer of load taken by the raft to the pile =30%, 50%, 70% and 90%) due to excavation at different
heads. The ground pressure decreased by 38 kPa underneath depths (i.e., h/He = 0.2, 0.44, 0.56, 0.8 and 1.0). It can be
the raft excavation. As the excavation goes deeper in cases seen that the induced settlement increases linearly with
of He/Lp = 1.00 and He/Lp = 1.33, the pressure in the ground excavation depths in the sand with different relative density.
underneath the raft increased. The reason is ascribed to However, piled raft settlement decreases with increasing
large raft settlement due to excavation in both the cases sand relative density. On completion of the excavation
(He/Lp = 1.00 and He/Lp = 1.33) as compared to that in case (h/He=1.0), the induced piled raft settlement in loose sand
180 Hemu Karira, Aneel Kumar, Tauha Hussain Ali, Dildar Ali Mangnejo and Naeem Mangi

Fig. 13 Effect of sand density on settlement of the raft due to excavation

Fig. 14 Effect of sand density on the raft tilting due to excavation

(Dr=30%) and dense sand (Dr =90%) are 10.3dp% and induced due to excavation. In loose sand (Dr =30%), the
2.07dp%, respectively. The settlement of the footing was zone of the ground movement and shear strain due to
reduced by 80%. This is because loose sand has a smaller excavation is larger and wider than that of in dense sand
stiffness than that of dense sand. Due to excavation-induced (discussed in section 3.3.3). The row of piles closets to the
stress relief, large soil movements are induced in loose sand excavation in dense sand is severely affected as compared
(discussed in section 3.3.3), causing larger footing to that of farthest to the excavation. A smaller amount of
settlement. Since shallow excavations induce smaller stress tilting (0.08%) therefore resulted in the loose sand test than
relief, the effects of the relative density of sand on piled raft in dense sand (0.17%).
settlement is less significant than that of deep excavations.
3.3.3 Ground soil movements
3.3.2 Induced tilting of the raft Fig. 15(a)-15(d) show the soil movement on completion
As discussed in previous section, the sand density of excavation in the ground with different sand densities of
effects the induced settlement of the piled raft due to Dr = 30%, 50%, 70% and 90%, respectively. In addition,
excavation significantly. Hence, it is necessary to excavation-induced shear strain contours are also
investigate the ground density effects on induced tilting of superimposed in each figure.
the raft. Fig. 14 shows the indued tilting of raft in the sand As it can be seen that soil behind the wall flows towards
with different relative density (i.e., Dr =30%, 50%, 70% and the excavation causing the pile to displace laterally in all the
90%) on completion of excavation. Unlike induced three cases. In each case the induced soil displacement is
settlement of the piled raft, the induced tilting of the raft uniform along the entire pile. However, the heave in the
increases almost linearly with increasing density of sand. formation level was induced at excavation side. The deep-
This is because of the ground movement and shear strain seated horizontal soil movements indicate the “bulging”
 A parametric study of settlement and load transfer mechanism of piled raft due to adjacent excavation… 181

(a) (b)

(b) (c)
Fig. 15 Effects of the sand relative density on the induced soil movement and shear strain contours (a) Dr=30%, (b) Dr
=50%, (c) Dr =70% and (d) Dr =90%

profiles of the wall deformation. The soil movement in It can be seen from the figure that the pile lateral
loose ground (i.e., Dr=30%) is larger than that in denser displacement in case of pinned and fixed raft conditions
grounds. This is because of lower shear modulus of loose was observed to zero at the ground surface, as expected.
sand. The horizontal influence zone is larger when the sand Moreover, the induced-pile deflection profiles are similar
density is lower (ranging from 1.6 to 0.6He for Dr=30% and along the pile length in cases of pinned and fixed raft
90%, respectively). This caused the larger tilting of the conditions. During the excavation, the pile deflection
piled raft in dense sand that that in loose sand. As the increased along the depth with maximum value at pile toe.
relative sand density increases from 30% to 90%, the In case of free raft condition, the pile moved as a rigid
maximum soil movement decreases from 80 mm to 20 mm. cylindrical body. On the contrary, the raft with pinned and
It implies that when the sand density decreases, the fixed condition, the lower part of the piled raft displaced
reduction of soil stiffness dominates the soil movements
laterally towards the excavation. Consequently, the induced
rather than stress relief. The larger soil movement in loose
bending moment and shear force along the pile length in
sand caused larger piled raft settlement (see Fig. 13) due to
excavation. case of free raft condition is smaller than that in cases of the
raft with pinned and fixed condition.
3.4 Effects of raft fixity
3.4.2 Induced bending moment along pile
3.4.1 Induced lateral displacement along pile Fig. 17 illustrates the comparison between induced
length bending moment profile in the pile with different raft
Fig. 16 compares induced lateral displacement of the conditions (i.e., free, pinned and fixed) on completion of
pile with different raft conditions (i.e., free, pinned and excavation. The induced-bending moment is taken as
fixed) on completion of excavation, respectively. The pile positive if tensile fibre faces towards excavation.
deflection toward the excavation is regarded as positive. It can be seen that the induced bending moment profiles
182 Hemu Karira, Aneel Kumar, Tauha Hussain Ali, Dildar Ali Mangnejo and Naeem Mangi

Fig. 16 Effect of the raft fixity on induced pile deflection due to excavation

Fig. 17 Effect of the raft fixity on induced bending moment in pile due to excavation

in the pile with retrained head conditions are quite different shear force indicates the direction of the force towards the
from that in free pile head condition in all the cases. Due to excavation.
head constraint higher negative bending moment was It can be observed from the figure that the maximum
induced at pile head in all the three cases. As excavation lateral force induced at/near pile head in all the three
depth increase positive bending moment is induced at lower different raft conditions. However, the lateral force
portion of the pile in constraint head conditions. In contrast decreases along the length of the pile and becomes zero at
only positive bending moment is induced in the free head the pile toe. This is because the pile head in constraint with
pile. The negative bending moment at pile head in raft and pile is free to move. The induced ground movement
constrained conditions increases as excavation depth is towards excavation. The inward soil movement tends to
increases. The maximum negative bending moment of 375, push the pile towards the excavation. Consequently, the
430 and 480 kNm at the pile head was induced in case of lateral forces are developed in opposite direction of that of
He/Lp = 0.67, He/Lp = 1.00 and He/Lp = 1.33, respectively. the first tunnel. To counterbalance the negative induced
lateral force, positive lateral force was induced at the lower
3.4.3 Induced lateral force along pile portion (i.e., Z/Lp≥0.30). The maximum value of 150 kN
Fig. 18 compares the induced lateral force along the induced at pile head. Comparing the induced lateral force in
piles with different raft conditions (i.e., free, pinned and free condition of raft, the induced lateral force in pile is
fixed) on completion of excavation. The positive induced- larger in pinned and fixed raft condition. The reason can be
 A parametric study of settlement and load transfer mechanism of piled raft due to adjacent excavation… 183

Fig. 18 Effect of the raft fixity on induced lateral force in pile due to excavation

ascribed to the fixity of the raft. The maximum lateral force beyond h/He=0.75, the load taken by the raft kept
of magnitude 560 kN was induced in pinned and fixed raft increasing till completion of the excavation.
condition. e) Relative density of the sand substantially effects on the
induced settlement and tilting of the piled raft due to
excavation. The induced settlement decreased with
5. Conclusions increasing the relative density from 30% to 90%. On the
contrary, the tilting of the raft increases in denser
In this study, a parametric study was carried out to ground.
investigate the settlement and load transfer mechanism of a f) The maximum bending moment was induced at the pile
(2×2) piled raft due to different excavation depths systems head in all raft fixity conditions. The larger bending
in sand. The effects of excavation depths relative to pile moment and lateral force was induced at the piled heads
were investigated by simulating the excavation near the pile in fixed and pinned raft condition.
shaft (i.e., He/Lp=0.67), next to (He/Lp = 1.00) and below the It should be noted that the computed results reported
pile toe (He/Lp=1.33). In addition, the effects of different should be treated with caution since they may be specific to
relative density (i.e., Dr = 30%, 50%, 70% and 90%) and the particular soil type and isolated piled raft adopted in this
different raft fixity condition (i.e., free, pinned and fixed) paper.
on the responses to the piled raft due to excavation were
investigated.
a) The response of the piled raft due to excavation in case Acknowledgments
of He/Lp = 0.67 and He/Lp = 1.00 have revealed that the
induced settlement, tilting, pile lateral movement and The authors would like to acknowledge the financial
load transfer mechanism depends upon the embedded support provided by Mehran University of Engineering &
depth of the diaphragm wall. Technology, Jamshoro, Sindh and Pakistan.
b) Among the three cases discussed, the largest and
smallest induced settlement and tilting in the piled raft
was found in case of He/Lp = 1.33 and He/Lp = 0.67. This Conflicts of Interest
is because the piled raft is subjected to higher stress
release due to excavation in case of He/Lp = 1.33 than The authors declare that they have no conflicts of
that due to excavation in case of He/Lp = 0.67 and the interest.
entire piled raft is located within the zone of excavation-
induced displacement in case of He/Lp = 1.33.
c) Additional settlement of the piled raft due to excavation References
can be account for apparent loss of load carrying
capacity of the piled raft (ALPC). The highest ALPC of Atkinson, J.H., Richardson, D. and Stallebrass, S.E. (1990),
50% was calculated in in case of He/Lp = 1.33. “Effect of recent stress history on the stiffness of over
d) During the first stages of the excavation, load taken by consolidated soil”, Géotechnique, 40(4), 531-540.
https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1990.40.4.531.
the raft decrease significantly resulting in the transfer of Bai, X.D., Cheng, W.C. and Li, G. (2021), “A comparative study
load to the piles. However, as excavation proceeds of different machine learning algorithms in predicting EPB
184 Hemu Karira, Aneel Kumar, Tauha Hussain Ali, Dildar Ali Mangnejo and Naeem Mangi

shield behaviour: a case study at the Xi’an metro, China”, Acta centrifuge modeling of the influence of side-by-side twin
Geotechnica, 16(12), 4061-4080. tunneling on a piled raft”, Tunn. Undergr. Sp. Tech., 103,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-021-01383-7. 103486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2020.103486.
CEN (2001), Eurocode 7 part 1: Geotechnical design: General Maeda, K. and Miura, K. (1999), “Relative density dependency of
rules, Final Draft prEN 1997-1. European Committeef or mechanical properties of sands”, Soils Found., 39(1), 69-79.
Standardization (CEN), Brussels. https://doi.org/10.3208/sandf.39.69.
Finno, R.J., Lawrence, S.A., Allawh, N.F. and Harahap, I.S. (1991), Niemunis, A. and Herle, I. (1997), “Hypoplastic model for
“Analysis of performance of pile groups adjacent to deep cohesionless soils with elastic strain range”, Mech. Cohesive‐
excavation”, J. Geotech. Eng., 117(6), 934-955. frictional Mater.: Int. J. Exper. Model. Comput. Mater. Struct.,
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1991)117:6(934). 2(4), 279-299. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-
Francescon, M. (1983), “Model pile tests in clay: Stresses and 1484(199710)2:4<279::AID-CFM29>3.0.CO;2-8.
displacements due to installation and axial loading”, PhD thesis, Ng, C.W., Wei, J., Poulos, H. and Liu, H. (2017), “Effects of
Cambridge Univ., Cambridge, U.K. multipropped excavation on an adjacent floating pile”, J.
Goh, A.T.C., Wong, K.S., Teh, C.I. and Wen, D. (2003), “Pile Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 143(7), 04017021.
response adjacent to braced excavation”, J. Geotech. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001696.
Geoenviron. Eng., 129(4), 383-386. Ng, C.W., Shakeel, M., Wei, J. and Lin, S. (2021), “Performance
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2003)129:4(383). of existing piled raft and pile group due to adjacent
Gudehus, G. (1996), “A comprehensive constitutive equation for multipropped excavation: 3D centrifuge and numerical
granular materials”, Soils Found., 36(1), 1-12. modeling”, J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 147(4), 04021012.
https://doi.org/10.3208/sandf.36.1. Ong, D.E., Leung, C.E. and Chow, Y.K. (2006), “Pile behavior due
Herle, I. and Gudehus, G. (1999), “Determination of parameters of to excavation-induced soil movement in clay. I: Stable wall”, J.
a hypoplastic constitutive model from properties of grain Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 132(1), 36-44.
assemblies”, Mech. Cohesive‐frictional Mater.: Int. J. Exper. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2006)132:1(36).
Model. Comput. Mater. Struct., 4(5), 461-486. Ong, D.E.L., Leung, C.F. and Chow, Y.K. (2009), “Behavior of
https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)10991484(199909)4:5%3C461::aid pile groups subject to excavation-induced soil movement in
-cfm71%3E3.0.co;2-p. very soft clay”, J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 135(10), 1462-
Hibbitt, D., Karlsson, B.I. and Sorensen, E.P. (2010), Abaqus 1474. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000095.
user’s manual, version 6.10.2. Hibbitt, Karlsson & Sorensen Poulos, H.G. (2001), “Piled raft foundations: design and
Inc;, Providence, RI, USA. applications”, Géotechnique, 51(2), 95-113.
Hong, Y., Koo, C.H., Zhou, C., Ng, C.W. and Wang, L.Z. (2017), https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.2001.51.2.95.
“Small strain path-dependent stiffness of Toyoura sand: Shi, J., Liu, G., Huang, P. and Ng, C.W.W. (2015), “Interaction
Laboratory measurement and numerical implementation”, Int. J. between a large-scale triangular excavation and adjacent
Geomech., 17(1), 04016036. structures in Shanghai soft clay”, Tunn. Undergr. Sp. Tech., 50,
https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)gm.1943-5622.0000664. 282-295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2015.07.013.
Hsiung, B.C.B. (2009), “A case study on the behaviour of a deep Shi, J., Wei, J., Ng, C.W. and Lu, H. (2019), “Stress transfer
excavation in sand”, Comput. Geotech., 36(4), 665-675. mechanisms and settlement of a floating pile due to adjacent
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2008.10.003. multi-propped deep excavation in dry sand”, Comput. Geotech.,
Hu, W., Cheng, W.C., Wen, S. and Rahman, M.M. (2021), “Effects 116, 103216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2019.103216.
of chemical contamination on microscale structural Soomro, M.A., Mangnejo, D.A., Saand, A. and Hong, Y. (2021a),
characteristics of intact loess and resultant macroscale “Responses of a masonry façade to multi-propped deep
mechanical properties”, Catena, 203, 105361. excavation-induced ground deformations: 3D numerical
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2021.105361. parametric study”, Eur. J. Environ. Civil Eng., 1-29.
Hu, W., Cheng, W.C., Wang, L. and Xue, Z.F. (2022), “Micro- https://doi.org/10.1080/19648189.2021.1926336.
structural characteristics deterioration of intact loess under acid Soomro, M.A., Mangnejo, D.A., Saand, A., Mangi, N. and Auchar
and saline solutions and resultant macro-mechanical properties”, Zardari, M. (2021b), “Influence of stress relief due to deep
Soil Tillage Res., 220, 105382. excavation on a brick masonry wall: 3D numerical predictions”,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2022.105382. Eur. J. Environ. Civil Eng., 1-24.
Ishihara, K. (1993), “Liquefaction and flow failure during https://doi.org/10.1080/19648189.2021.2004450.
earthquakes”, Géotechnique, 43(3), 351-415. Soomro, M.A., Mangnejo, D.A., Saand, A. and Mangi, N. (2021c),
https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1993.43.3.351 “3D numerical analysis of a masonry façade subjected to
ISSMFE (1985), “Axial pile loading test – Part I: Static loading”, excavation-induced ground deformation”, Int. J. Geotech. Eng.,
Geotech. Test. J., 8(2), 79-80, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1080/19386362.2021.1937853.
https://doi.org/10.1520/GTJ10514J. Soomro, M.A., Saand, A., Mangi, N., Mangnejo, D.A., Karira, H.,
Jáky, J. (1944), The coefficient of earth pressure at rest”, J. Soc. and Liu, K. (2021d), “Numerical modelling of effects of
Hungarian Arch. Eng., 355-8 [in Hungarian]. different multipropped excavation depths on adjacent single
Korff, M., Mair, R. and Van Tol, F.A.F. (2016), “Pile-soil piles: comparison between floating and end-bearing pile
interaction and settlement effects induced by deep excavations”, responses”, Eur. J. Environ. Civil Eng., 25(14), 2592-2622.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 138(7), 04016034. https://doi.org/10.1080/19648189.2019.1638312.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001434. Soomro, M.A., Mangi, N., Memon, A.H. and Mangnejo, D.A.
Liyanapathirana, D.S. and Nishanthan, R. (2016), “Influence of (2022a), “Responses of high-rise building resting on piled raft
deep excavation induced ground movements on adjacent piles”, to adjacent tunnel at different depths relative to piles”, Geomech.
Tunn. Undergr. Sp. Tech., 52, 168-181. Eng., 29(1), 25-40.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2015.11.019. https://doi.org/10.12989/gae.2022.29.1.025.
Lee, C.J. and Chiang, K.H. (2007), “Responses of single piles to Soomro, M.A., Kumar, M., Mangi, N., Mangnejo, D.A. and Cui, Z.
tunnelling-induced soil movements in sandy ground”, Can. D. (2022b), “Parametric study of twin tunneling effects on piled
Geotech. J., 44, 1224-1241. https://doi.org/10.1139/T07-050. foundations in stiff clay: 3D finite-element approach”, Int. J.
Lu, H., Shi, J., Ng, C.W.W. and Lv, Y. (2020), “Three-dimensional Geomech., 22(6), 04022079.
 A parametric study of settlement and load transfer mechanism of piled raft due to adjacent excavation… 185

https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0002386.
Soomro, M.A., Liu, K., Mangnejo, D.A. and Mangi, N. (2022c),
“Effects of twin excavations with different construction
sequence on a brick masonry wall: 3D finite element approach”,
Structures, 41, 866-886.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2022.05.060.
Tan, Y., Huang, R., Kang, Z. and Bin, W. (2016), “Covered semi-
top-down excavation of subway station surrounded by closely
spaced buildings in downtown Shanghai: Building response”, J.
Perform. Constr. Fac., 30(6), 04016040.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000892.
Wang, L., Cheng, W.C. and Xue, Z.F. (2022), “Investigating
microscale structural characteristics and resultant macroscale
mechanical properties of loess exposed to alkaline and saline
environments”, Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ., 81(4), 1-17.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-022-02640-z.
Xue, Z.F., Cheng, W.C., Wang, L. and Song, G. (2021),
“Improvement of the shearing behaviour of loess using recycled
straw fiber reinforcement”, KSCE J. Civil Eng., 25(9), 3319-
3335. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-021-2263-3.
Zhang, R., Zheng, J., Pu, H. and Zhang, L. (2011), “Analysis of
excavation induced responses of loaded pile foundations
considering unloading effect”, Tunn. Undergr. Sp. Tech., 26(2),
320-335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2010.11.003.
Zhang, L.M. and Ng, A.M.Y. (2005), “Probabilistic limiting
tolerable displacements for serviceability limit state design of
foundations”, Géotechnique, 55(2), 151-161.
https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.2005.55.2.151.

GC
View publication stats