Williamson, M. G. et al. (2017). Géotechnique 67, No. 11, 983–1000 [http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/jgeot.sip17.P.

119]

Open-face tunnelling effects on non-displacement piles in clay – part 1:

centrifuge modelling techniques
M. G. WILLIAMSON
, M. Z. E. B. ELSHAFIE†, R. J. MAIR† and M. D. DEVRIENDT‡

A research programme conducted at the University of Cambridge geotechnical centrifuge provided

high-quality data on the interaction effects of open-faced tunnelling beneath non-displacement piles in
clay. This paper presents details of the novel centrifuge package, including the reinforced composite
piles used to measure loads during the centrifuge tests. Attention is particularly drawn to the
importance of temperature compensation and the corresponding effect on the model piles. Results from
maintained pile load tests conducted in the centrifuge are presented; through photogrammetric
techniques, these are compared with data from pile load cells. The results, also compared with analytical
t–z power-law modelling of the soil stress–strain behaviour based on triaxial tests, illustrate the
importance of modelling the full history of both soil and piles prior to any subsequent tunnelling-
induced loading. The experimental results of the simulated tunnelling tests on piles are presented and
compared with simple analytical solutions in a companion paper.

KEYWORDS: piles & piling; soil/structure interaction; tunnels & tunnelling

INTRODUCTION relief from tunnelling-induced ground movements that

With over half of humanity now living in urban areas, the may result in pile failure, as shown by Marshall (2012).
demand on space and new transport infrastructure is However, in order to reduce noise and vibration effects, the
unprecedented. The limited availability of surface space in majority of piles constructed in major cities in recent years
major cities makes the demand for underground infrastruc- have been non-displacement (bored) piles, rather than driven
ture, which often involves major tunnelling projects, increas- piles. Field data from well-documented case histories are also
ingly more compelling. As a result, the construction of new rare, but works include those reported by Coutts & Wang
underground railways, sewers and roadways is being under- (2000), Takahashi et al. (2004), Jacobsz et al. (2005),
taken in highly populated urban cities such as London, Kaalberg et al. (2005), Selemetas (2005), Kaalberg et al.
Amsterdam, Shanghai, Singapore and Hong Kong and (2014) and Mair & Williamson (2014). This lack of insight
many others using various tunnelling techniques. and the shortage of field data have led practitioners to adopt
The stress changes from such tunnelling activities result in highly conservative approaches when designing tunnel
soil movements that propagate through the soil and are alignments and expensive mitigation measures are often
eventually observed as settlement and horizontal displace- adopted for new tunnel constructions close beneath pile
ments at the ground surface. Significant research has gone foundations. Jacobsz et al. (2005) showed that the use of
into the prediction and observation of the effect of these expensive mitigation methods applied to a piled bridge
ground movements on buildings supported by shallow foundation was unnecessary and could have been avoided
foundations (e.g. Burland, 1997; Potts & Addenbrooke, with a better understanding of the tunnel–pile–soil
1997; Franzius et al., 2006; Farrell, 2010; Mair, 2011). interaction.
However, there has been significantly less research on the The majority of previous research, in particular analytical
effects of tunnelling-induced ground movements on piled work, has concentrated on tunnelling adjacent to, as opposed
foundations and the resulting interaction with the overlying to beneath, piled foundations (e.g. Loganathan et al., 2001;
structure(s) that these foundations support. Xu & Poulos, 2001; Kitiyodom et al., 2005; Huang et al.,
Previous experimental modelling work investigating the 2009; Zhang et al., 2011; Basile, 2012; Zhang et al., 2013).
effects of tunnelling on piles has mainly focused on the effects This has resulted in concerns over the structural integrity of
of tunnelling on driven piles (Loganathan et al., 2000; the foundations due to increased lateral loading and bending
Jacobsz et al., 2004; Marshall & Mair, 2011). Driven piles are moments on the affected piles. However, tunnelling beneath
considered a ‘worst-case’ scenario, particularly in sands piled foundations, as shown in Fig. 1, has often been ignored
where the stress bulb at the pile toe is subjected to stress owing to a lack of well-documented field data or experimen-
tal data from which analytical and numerical models can be
developed and verified. Well-documented experimental data
from centrifuge model tests of tunnelling beneath driven
Manuscript received 30 January 2017; revised manuscript accepted piles, as reported by a number of researchers including
9 August 2017. Published online ahead of print 18 September 2017. Jacobsz et al. (2004), Marshall & Mair (2011) and Marshall
Discussion on this paper closes on 1 April 2018, for further details (2012), showed significant pile settlements due to reduction
see p. ii. in the pile base capacity caused by interaction of the
Published with permission by the ICE under the CC-BY license.
tunnelling (causing stress relief) with the existing pile
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Mott MacDonald Limited, Cambridge, UK (Formerly University stress bulb.
of Cambridge). In contrast, non-displacement piles, which are shaft-
† Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge, controlled, are not subject to the loss of capacity seen for
Cambridge, UK. driven piles in sand. Case studies for tunnelling beneath
‡ Ove Arup and Partners Limited, London, UK. non-displacement piles in clay have generally been very

983
984 WILLIAMSON, ELSHAFIE, MAIR AND DEVRIENDT
loading behaviour at different stages of the centrifuge tests,
including the consolidation stage (as detailed in the section
‘Illustration of pile capability – pile load tests’). The
analytical solution developed uses non-linear shear stress
(t) against displacement (z) load-transfer model curves to
describe the interface between the model piles and the
surrounding clay soil. The non-linearity of the t–z curves
was derived from a power-law stress–strain relationship based
on triaxial tests conducted to characterise the clay soil
behaviour (Vardanega et al., 2012a). Finally, the centrifuge
model tests results are compared and contrasted with the
Tunnelling Tunnelling analytical results and some interesting conclusions are
adjacent to piles beneath piles presented.
In a companion paper (Williamson et al., 2017), exper-
Fig. 1. Tunnelling adjacent to piles and tunnelling beneath piles imental results of the simulated tunnelling tests on piles are
presented and compared with simple analytical solutions.
limited; the most relevant data are from a field trial
conducted in Dagenham for the channel tunnel rail link
(now HS1), reported by Selemetas et al. (2005), and those BACKGROUND
reported by Jacobsz et al. (2005) for a series of piled bridge The use of geotechnical centrifuges for investigating
piers. Both studies showed increased pile head displacement tunnelling movements and tunnel behaviour has been
when compared with the adjacent ground surface settlement; extensive, and the use of photographic techniques along a
however, in both cases, the ratio of pile head displacement to plane of symmetry has traditionally been adopted to measure
adjacent ground surface settlement was significantly less than subsurface soil displacements (Potts, 1976; Schofield, 1980).
that measured experimentally for driven piles in sand Historic centrifuge data are limited to displacements associ-
(Jacobsz et al., 2004; Marshall & Mair, 2011). This would ated with the development of higher strains in the soil (of the
indicate that the effect of stress relief is likely to be small for order of 20%) close to failure, as described by Mair (1979).
piles in clay subjected to tunnelling and that the effect of soil Such data have been considerably improved with the advent
displacements and the effect of pile stiffening as described by of package-mounted cameras which, in conjunction with
Jacobsz et al. (2005) may be more significant. centrifuge slip rings, allow the transmission and capture of
In order to provide high-quality data on the interaction live data from the centrifuge package at high g-levels, as
effects of open-face tunnelling beneath non-displacement described by Grant & Taylor (2000). However, such
(predominantly friction) piles in clay, a research programme experiments were stress-controlled with an air-filled rubber
was conducted using the geotechnical centrifuge at the cylinder modelling a tunnel cavity and air pressure reduction
University of Cambridge (Schofield, 1980). The research used to simulate volume loss. Although these methods
programme was designed to facilitate a more fundamental are capable of modelling tunnel failure, as shown by Taylor
understanding of tunnel–soil–pile mechanisms and to (1998), they provide somewhat inconsistent displacement
provide a body of data for back-analysis for future analytical data, particularly when looking carefully at the measured soil
and numerical models. Centrifuge modelling was chosen as it displacements away from the plane of symmetry. Bezuijen &
allows the simulation of progressively increasing volume van der Schrier (1994) used a concentrically contracting
losses up to large values (10%). Although clearly undesirable floating tunnel to simulate tunnelling volume loss; such a
in the field, high volume losses provide valuable information model is incompatible with the use of photogrammetric
to aid understanding of the mechanisms of pile behaviour techniques as maintaining plane strain conditions at the
when subjected to tunnelling-induced ground movements. plane of symmetry is not feasible. Loganathan et al. (2000)
Significant advancements in finite-element modelling have described the use of a fluid-filled cavity with the extraction of
been made in recent years, but high-quality experimental known quantities of fluid to simulate volume loss; the tunnel
data are still invaluable for the calibration and verification of was allowed to float and, as such, was again incompatible
these advanced soil models, as well as for less complicated with photogrammetric techniques. Marshall & Mair (2011),
approaches including boundary value problems. Farrell et al. (2014) and Divall (2013) made use of fixed
A description of the novel centrifuge package developed to fluid-filled cavities that allowed free movement of the soil
investigate the behaviour of piles subjected to tunnelling- during centrifuge acceleration and consolidation but which
induced movements is presented in the first part of this paper. also allowed plane strain tunnelling movements at the plane
The innovative use of a novel model composite pile together of symmetry for photogrammetric techniques. While none of
with the effective use of particle image velocimetry (PIV) to these studies investigated the problem of tunnelling beneath
obtain high-quality data is then discussed. Attention is then non-displacement piles in clay, the centrifuge modelling
drawn to the importance of temperature compensation and techniques adopted are directly relevant to the research work
the assessment of residual loading on the model piles, which presented in this paper.
developed during the model preparation process, before load Observing the behaviour of model piles with PIV during 1g
testing in the centrifuge. The second part of the paper and centrifuge testing has been attempted by a number of
presents results from maintained pile load testing carried out researchers, with limited success. White & Bolton (2004)
in the centrifuge at 75g; the load–displacement curves performed plane strain tests, at 1g, in a pressurised
obtained from the model piles are presented for three tests calibration chamber to model the installation effects of
(tests PC2, PC4 and PC5). The high-quality PIV data jacked displacement piles in sands; measurements of the
recorded during load testing were used to produce strain loading at the toe were made through the use of a button load
profiles along the entire length of the model piles; these cell, while PIV was used to measure the pile shaft displace-
profiles were compared with data from strain gauges attached ment and adjacent soil movements. Marshall & Mair (2011)
to the piles and very good agreement was found. The third described the use of a semi-circular machined aluminium
part of the paper presents analytical solutions, developed jacked/driven pile with strain gauging to allow the measure-
independently in this research, to investigate the model pile ment of pile loading along the pile shaft with limited success;
 OPEN-FACE TUNNELLING EFFECTS ON NON-DISPLACEMENT PILES IN CLAY – PART 1 985
pile bending was the primary factor attributed to the
erroneous shaft readings. Similarly, Liu (2010) described a Standpipe
CPT
number of different shaft designs for semi-circular model piston
cone penetration test penetrometers; most were unsuccessful Volume loss
and again this was attributed to bending of the model actuator
penetrometers under loading. Liu (2010) did show that
LVDT CPT
applying strain gauges along the model penetrometer array
centroid improved the data quality significantly; however,
as only quarter-bridge strain gauges were used, they did not
PIV
allow full bending or temperature compensation. Following
markers
on from this work, Williamson et al. (2013) described the use
PMMA
of semi-circular aluminium machined ‘non-displacement’ face
piles with load cells placed along the pile centroid at the pile
head and toe with full Wheatstone bridges to provide bending
and temperature compensation. Williamson et al. (2013) also Model
loaded the piles directly through the pile centroid to minimise tunnel
any applied bending to the pile head; the results showed
LED
significant improvement and were consistent at high stresses. lights
However, even though such a method was capable of PIV
measuring the pile head and base loads, it was not sufficient cameras
for the measurement of shaft loads as required for investi- (a)
gating the behaviour of non-displacement piles in clay.
Centrifuge modelling of tunnelling on piles has been
modelled by a number of authors, with the majority Pile C Pile A Pile B
conducted without the use of a plane of symmetry
(Bezuijen & van der Schrier, 1994; Loganathan et al., 2000;
Jacobsz et al., 2004; Ong, 2009). A more recent study carried
out by Marshall & Mair (2011), using semi-circular model LVDT
piles, incorporated the use of a plane of symmetry for driven array
piles in sand, which provided extensive data for the pile Load
frame
failure mechanism when subjected to tunnelling. Both
Jacobsz et al. (2004) and Marshall & Mair (2011) carried
out experiments with piles located directly above and away
PMMA
from the tunnel centre-line. In both studies, a variation was face
reported in the loading behaviour between the tunnel
Drainage
centre-line piles and those piles off the centre-line, prior to layer
tunnelling being simulated; this indicates that tunnel-lining Model
flexibility may have had an influence on the pile behaviour, tunnel
particularly at or near the pile base. For piles that are largely
shaft-controlled, such behaviour is less likely, with much less LED
PIV
lights
load shed from the pile base and the majority of the load cameras
being shed through shearing of the soil at distance from
(b)
the tunnel.
More recent centrifuge work was conducted using shaft- Fig. 2. (a) Greenfield centrifuge package. (b) Pile–tunnel centrifuge
controlled piles in sand (Lee & Chiang, 2007; Ng et al., package. CPT, cone penetrometer test; LED, light-emitting diode;
2013). These piles, unlike those used by Marshall & Mair LVDT, linear voltage differential transducer; PMMA, poly(methyl
(2011) and Jacobsz et al. (2004), accounted for the majority methacrylate)
of their load from shaft friction, not end-bearing. Lee &
Chiang (2007) showed that the effect of the factor of safety on
the pile capacity was significant in the amount of pile
displacement seen upon tunnelling-induced settlements. McMahon (2012). It is shown in Figs 2(a) and 2(b) for
However, these piles were installed such that a large greenfield and pile–tunnel tests, respectively. A detailed
amount of the load resistance was derived from shaft friction. description of the package and the setup is given elsewhere
As reported by a number of authors, including Lehane et al. (Williamson, 2014), but the following provides a summary of
(2005) and Garnier et al. (2007), particle size errors the critical aspects.
associated with the mobilisation of shaft friction for piles in The package had inner usable dimensions of
sand are significant. Such errors make interpretation of the 790  200  535 mm (width  depth  height). The model
mechanisms very difficult; in contrast, particle size errors are tunnel was an improved version of the model used by
generally negligible for piles in clay with normalised rough- Marshall & Mair (2011) and its placement within the
ness values greater than 0·1 (Garnier & Konig, 1998). All the centrifuge package is shown in Fig. 3. A base drainage
tests reported in this paper were conducted in clay, as layer of machined aluminium was used to prevent softening
described in detail in later sections. The normalised rough- of the model following removal from the consolidometer
ness value for all the model piles used in this research was, on (see Williamson (2014) for further details). Double drainage
average, greater than 2·0. of the model was permitted, with water applied to the model
within the centrifuge from both the base and the clay surface.
A series of ten linear variable differential transducers
CENTRIFUGE PACKAGE (LVDTs) was used to measure the soil settlement with thin
The centrifuge package used in this testing series was a poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) footings threaded onto
highly modified version of the ‘Take Box’ described by the LVDT spindle tips.
986 WILLIAMSON, ELSHAFIE, MAIR AND DEVRIENDT

Steel
surround
Steel
back
Clay body
Tunnel
plug
Recess
Pipe
seal

PMMA
face

PPT Model
tappings tunnel

Porous plastic
Aluminium
sheet
drainage block

1/8" BSP to 4 3 mm Fluid 1 mm latex Plane

End cap End cap
mm pipe cavity cavity tube strain gap

Bulkhead
connector
Gland
cover

Rubber
gland
4 mm copper
pipe

1" BSP to
1¼" BSP

Rubber 2 mm brass Brass 2 mm brass 20 SWG

Plasticine
O-ring ring mandrel ring TCW

Fig. 3. Tunnel placement with fitting and details (BSP = British standard pipe; 1″ = 25·4 mm). PPT, pore pressure transducer; SWG TCW,
standard wire gauge tin copper wire

MODEL PILE matching the soil and head loading negligible until centrifuge
The model pile is shown in Fig. 4. It was manufactured consolidation was complete (confirmed by the load cells).
as a composite of moulded resin with aluminium reinforce- Pile loading was then applied to ensure a low-strain condition
ment, which allowed strain gauging on a prepared and at the pile–soil interface. The pile loading system used in this
flat surface. Aluminium was chosen for its relatively high study, consisting of a piston, load cell, cable suspension, pile
coefficient of thermal expansion (23 ppm/K) and low caps and pile guides, is shown in Fig. 5.
stiffness (E = 70 GPa). High-resistance strain gauges As described by Williamson (2014), a test pile was added
(350 Ω) were chosen to limit thermal effects; this requirement to the centrifuge setup to provide an estimate of the pile
created a constraint on the model pile cross-section. factor of safety and the pile shaft friction/base load. For this
Aluminium 3003–H14 alloy square tubing of section width test pile (referred to as pile C), a loading pin (with a pinned
 height  thickness 4·7625 mm  4·7625 mm  0·335 mm contact point) was added to allow loading of the pile greater
and length 304·8 mm was sourced, providing an axial rigidity than that provided by the pile cap in a controlled manner
of 1·17 MN. Several resins were considered. Eventually, in (Fig. 5(b)); for the other piles (piles A and B) no pin was used
order to address the combined constraints imposed by the (Fig. 5(a)).
model pile stiffness, strength, density, thermal coefficient and
porosity in addition to the practical issues of casting
thickness and curing temperature, a casting resin consisting PARTICLE IMAGE VELOCIMETRY
of Araldite CW 1304 filler and Aradur HY 1300 hardener Recent improvements in the cost and quality of digital
was chosen. compact cameras have led to improvements in PIV without
Shear studs were added to ensure composite action the need for significant alteration of the centrifuge models.
between the resin and the aluminium section. The curved The clay was textured using a small quantity of dyed sand to
faces were uniformly roughened prior to calibration. provide contrast for the PIV images. PIV control markers
Full Wheatstone bridges with temperature and bending were added to the PMMA for spatial calibration of the image
compensation were used at six positions along the model pile vectors while great care was taken to provide consistent
shaft, as shown in Fig. 4, to measure the axial load in the spacing of the markers and to ensure no data in the region of
model piles. the piles were lost due to marker placement. As noted by
The model pile loading system was designed to simulate a White et al. (2003), the image space PIV resolution is a
non-displacement pile condition, with the pile density closely function of image quality; a value of 0·1 pixels is often
 OPEN-FACE TUNNELLING EFFECTS ON NON-DISPLACEMENT PILES IN CLAY – PART 1 987

Shear stud

30

75
87∙5
Internal
strain gauge

305

40
40
40
40
Base

32∙5
end cap
20

R7
∙5
3∙18

Fig. 4. Pile design (dimensions in mm)

Piston Piston

LVDT LVDT

Loading
Load cell Load cell
pin

Cable Cable
Pile cap suspension Pile cap suspension

Pile Pile
guides guides
(a) (b)

Fig. 5. Pile loading system

quoted, which in the setup used in this research would lead to comparison with the measured strain gauge readings when
an error of approximately 0·01 mm. Photogrammetric errors combined with the composite pile modulus (14·4 GPa).
were measured on consecutive images without movements Fig. 6 compares the PIV data from pile load tests (conducted
across the soil body; this showed that 90% of the spatial on pile C from the different centrifuge tests) at different soil
errors were below 0·01 mm while 60% of these errors were strength/stiffness values (achieved by applying different
below 0·005 mm. pre-consolidation pressures, as detailed by Williamson
The model piles were textured with a series of dots to (2014)); the agreement at working loads (i.e. P/Pmax , 0·5)
ensure high-quality PIV tracking of the pile displacements. is reasonable, with better agreement at higher loads. These
The image quality and the representative stiffness of the piles graphs illustrate both the quality of the PIV data and the
allowed direct PIV measurement of the pile strains for ability of the piles to accurately measure the applied loads.
988 WILLIAMSON, ELSHAFIE, MAIR AND DEVRIENDT
Normalised shaft displacement, δp/Dp Normalised shaft displacement, δp/Dp
0 0·002 0·004 0·006 0·008 0·010 0 0·005 0·010 0·015 0·020
0 0 0 0

0·2 0·2
50 50

Normalised depth, z/Lp

Normalised depth, z/Lp

0·4 0·4
Depth, z: mm

Depth, z: mm
100 100

PC5
0·6 P/Pmax 0·6

150 PC4 150 0·39

P/Pmax 0·50
0·26 0·63 0·8
0·8
0·38 0·74
0·87
0·58
200 200 1·00
Raw 0·87 Raw
Smoothed 1·0 Smoothed 1·0

0 0·05 0·10 0 0·05 0·1 0·15 0·2 0·25 0·3

Shaft displacement, δp: mm Shaft displacement, δp: mm
(a)

Change in pile load, ΔF: N Change in pile load, ΔF: N

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
0 0 0 0

0·2 0·2
50 50
Normalised depth, z/Lp

Normalised depth, z/Lp

0·4 0·4
Depth, z: mm

Depth, z: mm

100 100

PC5
0·6 P/Pmax 0·6
PC4 0·39
150 150
P/Pmax 0·50
0·26 0·63 0·8
0·8
0·38 0·74
0·87
0·58
200 200 1·00
SG 0·87 SG
PIV 1·0 PIV 1·0
(b)

Fig. 6. PIV pile data at varying loads: (a) settlement along shaft from PIV; (b) comparison of load change calculated from strains measured in pile
directly from PIV with strain gauge (SG) data

MODEL PREPARATION
Preparation of each centrifuge model took approximately
7 weeks due to the time required for clay consolidation and 5 degree
taper
swelling prior to clay cutting and placement within the
centrifuge. Clay (mixed under a vacuum) was poured as
Cutter guide
slurry at a water content of 1·2.
The maximum load for each clay specimen was carefully
chosen to achieve the required clay strength and to Cased auger
ensure that this was consistent between tests. The medium-
to high-strength tests (average cu = 80 kPa) were pre- Fig. 7. Model preparation: tunnel cutting
consolidated to a pressure of 800 kPa to simulate a stiff
clay while the medium-strength test (average cu = 50 kPa)
was pre-consolidated to a pressure of 400 kPa to provide a Monitoring of the pore water pressures within the clay
softer clay. body showed that no clay softening or pore pressure
Careful cutting of the clay was performed when placing the reductions were measured during model preparation.
model tunnel in the package with the use of a thin-walled However, when the clay was transported to the centrifuge,
cutter as shown in Fig. 7 (for further details see Williamson overnight pore pressure reductions were visible and the effect
(2014)). A thin wall cutter was used to cut the pile cavities of this on the pile loading conditions is discussed in the
prior to placing the piles in the cavities; good contact following section. Table 1 provides a summary of the tests
between the piles and the clay was maintained. reported in this paper while Fig. 8 shows schematic diagrams
 OPEN-FACE TUNNELLING EFFECTS ON NON-DISPLACEMENT PILES IN CLAY – PART 1 989
Table 1. Summary of tests

Test Consolidation Piles Pile test on pile C? Tunnel or pile test first Pile variable In this paper
pressure: kPa
GC1 — No (greenfield) — — — No
PC2 800 Yes Yes Tunnel Reference test Yes
PC4 800 Yes Yes Pile test Low factor of safety* Yes
PC5 400 Yes Yes Tunnel Low cu/E* Yes
PC6 800 Yes No — Pile position* No

*Parameter relative to the corresponding parameter in the reference test.

PC2: Reference test PC4: Low factor of safety test

235 150 235 150
C A B C A B

278 278

31 31

100 Clay consolidation to 800 kPa 100 Clay consolidation to 800 kPa

PC5: Low strength and stiffness test

PC6: Offset test
235 150 160 150
C A B C A B
75 75
278 276·5

31 31 62

100 100 Clay consolidation to 800 kPa

Clay consolidation to 400 kPa

Fig. 8. Pile test layouts with 45° zones of influence for information (dimensions in mm)

of the tests. Pile C, used for the pile load tests, is highlighted such, may influence the consistency of a suite of tests if
in the diagrams. The pile variable relates to the tunnelling measures are not taken to nullify them.
aspects described in the companion paper (Williamson et al., Due to the ventilation setup in the geotechnical centrifuge
2017) and is relative to test PC2 (the reference test). The at the University of Cambridge, maintaining a constant
locations of piles A and B were chosen to reflect the various temperature is extremely difficult. Any incurred temperature
zones of influence from previous studies (Jacobsz et al., 2004; change should thus be appropriately considered to ensure
Selemetas, 2005). that the effects are quantified. To assess these effects, pile
loads, soil settlement and pore water pressures were mon-
itored to quantify the apparent temperature-induced loads
measured by the model piles.
INITIAL PILE LOADING AND TEMPERATURE
Although the model piles were designed with temperature
COMPENSATION
compensation within each Wheatstone bridge strain
Initial pile loading at the start of a centrifuge test is often
gauge arrangement, it was expected they may experience
ignored. This may be appropriate for tests performed in
some apparent change in load due to ambient
sands where the majority of load is derived from soil
temperature change prior to installation through to loading
self-weight and any initial load is negligible. However, in
in the centrifuge. A systematic approach to eliminating these
clay tests, such an approach may not be appropriate given the
apparent temperature loads was applied. Each Wheatstone
significant effective stresses derived from negative pore
bridge within the model piles was carefully calibrated for
pressures prior to centrifuge loading. In addition, any
varying temperatures in a water bath to provide a calibration
changes in temperature may have significant effects on both
factor for voltage changes due to only a change in
the clay body as well as the piles themselves.
temperature (cT) as given by equation (1).
Although several centrifuges worldwide are air con-
ditioned, most models are prepared in areas where tempera-

ture is not controlled before they are transferred to the @V


cT ¼ ð1Þ
centrifuge. As a result, temperature changes may have a @T
P¼0
significant impact on the results if not correctly assessed.
Similarly, when placed in the centrifuge, even though the clay For all of the centrifuge tests, the ambient external
body may be maintained at a constant temperature, the temperatures and the temperature within the centrifuge
addition of water to the model to allow consolidation is pit were measured throughout the tests. These were also
generally less controlled and applies (initially) a temperature measured upon placement of the package in the centrifuge
gradient to the clay body. Such an effect diminishes on the day prior to the tests. To verify this methodology,
during the consolidation phase as the water temperature a thermistor was placed on the surface of the model in
equilibrates with the ambient temperature in the centrifuge. one of the tests (test PC6) and was monitored prior to and
These temperature effects are exacerbated seasonally and, as throughout the installation of the package within the
990 WILLIAMSON, ELSHAFIE, MAIR AND DEVRIENDT
centrifuge. This was subsequently compared with the and in the companion paper (Williamson et al., 2017) is
measured ambient and centrifuge pit temperature and was negative for tension and positive for compression. For test
found to agree well with the ambient temperature prior to the PC2 (Fig. 9(a)), due to a problem with the data acquisition,
centrifuge being operated. During operation of the centri- no data were captured upon placement of the centrifuge
fuge, the heat generated was found to increase the pit package. However, as the setup, ambient and over-
temperature by 6°C from the measured temperature outside night temperatures were very similar to those in test PC4
of the pit for the majority of tests; however, lower temperature (Fig. 9(b)), the data from test PC4 were used to conduct the
was recorded within the centrifuge pit for test (PC6) owing to temperature compensation for test PC2.
the installation of a replacement motor that generated less The time required for consolidation of the clay in the
heat during the test. centrifuge was 8–10 h and, over this time, the temperature of
During test PC6, pile loads were monitored from placement the centrifuge pit was shown to stabilise. In all the tests, as
in the clay until the end of the centrifuge test over a period of shown in Figs 9(a)–9(d), the effect of temperature variation
approximately 72 h. No significant change in loading was should be taken into account; otherwise, invalid conclusions
observed prior to placement within the centrifuge pit owing to may be drawn from the load distribution before, and
a relatively consistent ambient temperature in the laboratory therefore after, pile head loading is applied.
and careful control of the soil body to prevent loading of the
piles through straining caused by evaporation or swelling.
Following placement within the centrifuge pit, a change in ILLUSTRATION OF PILE CAPABILITY – PILE
load due to temperature change was evident. LOAD TESTS
Figures 9(a)–9(d) show the raw pile load data for tests PC2, The experimental results from piles A and B, which
PC4, PC5 and PC6 respectively, with and without applying were designed to investigate the effects of tunnelling on
temperature compensation to take account of changes from piles, are described by Williamson et al. (2017). The results
ambient temperature; the force sign convention used here from the pile load tests on pile C are described in this section.

Pile A Pile B Pile C

−100 −100 −100

−50 −50 −50

0 0 0
Depth, z: mm

50 50 50

100 100 100

150 150 150

200 200 200

−150 −100 −50 0 50 100 −150 −100 −50 0 50 100 −150 −100 −50 0 50 100
Pile load: N Pile load: N Pile load: N

FSoil,st FSoil,st,w FSoil,su FSoil,exp,raw,No ΔT FSoil,exp

(a)
Pile A Pile B Pile C
−100 −100 −100

−50 −50 −50

0 0 0
Depth, z: mm

50 50 50

100 100 100

150 150 150

200 200 200

−150 −100 −50 0 50 100 −150 −100 −50 0 50 100 −150 −100 −50 0 50 100
Pile load: N Pile load: N Pile load: N

FSoil,st FSoil,st,w FSoil,su FSoil,exp,raw,No ΔT FSoil,exp

(b)

Fig. 9. Comparison of measured loads with temperature-compensated loads: (a) PC2; (b) PC4; (c) PC5; (d) PC6 (continued on next page)
 OPEN-FACE TUNNELLING EFFECTS ON NON-DISPLACEMENT PILES IN CLAY – PART 1 991
Pile A Pile B Pile C
−100 −100 −100

−50 −50 −50

Depth, z: mm 0 0 0

50 50 50

100 100 100

150 150 150

200 200 200

−150 −100 −50 0 50 100 −150 −100 −50 0 50 100 −150 −100 −50 0 50 100
Pile load: N Pile load: N Pile load: N

FSoil,st FSoil,st,w FSoil,su FSoil,exp,raw,No ΔT FSoil,exp

(c)
Pile A Pile B Pile C
−100 −100 −100

−50 −50 −50

0 0 0
Depth, z: mm

50 50 50

100 100 100

150 150 150

200 200 200

−150 −100 −50 0 50 100 −150 −100 −50 0 50 100 −150 −100 −50 0 50 100
Pile load: N Pile load: N Pile load: N
FSoil,st FSoil,st,w FSoil,su FSoil,exp,raw,No ΔT FSoil,exp

(d)

Fig. 9. Continued

The pile load tests were carried out at different stages, as

Table 2. Timing of the pile load tests shown in Table 2. As tests PC2 and PC4 were carried out with
the same clay strength (average cu = 80 kPa) and pile
Test Stage Pre-consolidation positioning, these tests were carried out before and after
pressure: kPa the application of tunnelling-induced ground movements
to investigate whether there was any reduction in pile
PC2 Prior to tunnelling volume loss 800
movements
capacity and/or stiffness due to the effects of tunnelling.
PC4 Following tunnelling volume loss 800 Unfortunately, due to camera failure, it was not possible to
movements monitor pile/soil displacements for test PC2; however, they
PC5 Prior to tunnelling volume loss 400 were measured for tests PC4 and PC5.
movements The pile tests were carried out to simulate a maintained
load test. However, the rate of loading at the end of the test
was found to be greater than that which might be considered
appropriate for a maintained load test as specified by the
Table 3. Pile load test loads
 
Test Pnon-CRP: N Ppeak: N PCRP: N (dδp,head/dt)CRP: ðdδp;head =dtÞCRP PSPERW: N Pmax*: N α
log 10
mm/s ðdδp;head =dtÞSPERW

PC2 338·0 371·4 367·9 0·226 1·66 315·6 338·0 0·67

PC4 288·0 358·7 356·1 0·035 0·85 328·4 328·4 0·64
PC5 238·0 255·5 237·9 0·005 0·00 237·9 237·9 0·87

*Pmax is the maximum value of Pnon-CRP and PSPERW.

992 WILLIAMSON, ELSHAFIE, MAIR AND DEVRIENDT
δp,head/Dp δp,head/Dp
0 0·01 0·02 0·03 0·04 0 0·01 0·02 0·03 0·04
1·0 1·00

300 0·8 1·25

Pile head load, P: N

1/FoS = P/Pmax

FoS = P/Pmax
0·6 1·67
200

Ppeak PSPERW 0·4 Ppeak PSPERW 2·50

100 PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2

PC4 PC4 0·2 PC4 PC4 5·00
PC5 PC5 PC5 PC5
0 0
0 0·1 0·2 0·3 0·4 0·5 0·6 0 0·1 0·2 0·3 0·4 0·5 0·6
Pile head displacement, δp,head: mm Pile head displacement, δp,head: mm
(a) (b)

Fig. 10. (a) Pile head load plotted against pile head displacement; (b) pile head load normalised by the maximum pile head load plotted against
pile head displacement (FoS = factor of safety)

Normalised pile head displacement, δp,head/Dp Normalised pile head displacement, δp,head/Dp

0 0·01 0·02 0·03 0·04 0 0·01 0·02 0·03 0·04

300 300
Pile load, F: N

200 200

100 100

SG1 at z = −67 mm TOC at z = 0 mm

0 0
0 0·1 0·2 0·3 0·4 0·5 0·6 0 0·1 0·2 0·3 0·4 0·5 0·6

0 0·01 0·02 0·03 0·04 0 0·01 0·02 0·03 0·04

300
300
Pile load, F: N

200
200
100
100
0
SG2 at z = 20·5 mm SG3 at z = 60·5 mm
0
0 0·1 0·2 0·3 0·4 0·5 0·6 0 0·1 0·2 0·3 0·4 0·5 0·6

0 0·01 0·02 0·03 0·04 0 0·01 0·02 0·03 0·04

200 200
Pile load, F: N

100 100

0 0

–100 SG4 at z = 100·5 mm –100 SG5 at z = 140·5 mm

0 0·1 0·2 0·3 0·4 0·5 0·6 0 0·1 0·2 0·3 0·4 0·5 0·6
Pile head displacement, δp,head: mm
0 0·01 0·02 0·03 0·04

SG1
100 67
Pile load, F: N

TOC
20·5 SG2
0 40
SG3
40
SG4
–100 40
SG5
PC2
SG6 at z = 180·5 mm 40 PC4
–200 SG6
0 0·1 0·2 0·3 0·4 0·5 0·6 32·5 PC5
Pile head displacement, δp,head: mm

Fig. 11. Strain gauge load plotted against pile head displacement and normalised pile head displacement. TOC, top of clay
 OPEN-FACE TUNNELLING EFFECTS ON NON-DISPLACEMENT PILES IN CLAY – PART 1 993
industry standard, the ICE specification for piling and show very little variation in the load–settlement character-
embedded retaining walls (SPERW) (FPS, 2007), and there istics for both PC2 and PC4. Similarly, Fig. 10(b) shows the
was some rate variation between tests. To account for this, the normalised head load against the same pile head displace-
maximum load measured, which occurred at a constant rate ment. The differences between the peak and regressed
of penetration (CRP), was reduced in accordance with the (SPERW) values are illustrated in Fig. 10(a), with differing
work of Kulhawy & Mayne (1990). The maximum loads maximum values as given in Table 3.
prior to the CRP phase, peak, CRP and regressed (SPERW) Figure 11 shows the pile head displacement and normalised
loads are given in Table 3. The maximum load in Table 3 is pile head displacement plotted against the load measurements
taken as the higher value of the maximum prior to the CRP from each of the strain gauges. When comparing tests PC2
phase and the regressed (SPERW) value. and PC4, the effect of stress reversal for SG4, SG5 and SG6 is
As seen from the table, the variation of ultimate capacity evident. The initial loading was highly negative at these
between tests PC2 and PC4 was small once the peak load was locations and, for PC4, the increase in load at these depths
corrected for rate effects, which would indicate that little was much greater at lower pile head displacements as the
strain softening occurred to the shaft upon soil loading. upper pile was already close to fully mobilised shaft friction.
Figure 10(a) shows plots of pile head load against pile This is illustrated in Fig. 6, which shows the change in pile
head displacement from both PIV (for PC4 and PC5) and load when compared with the relative shaft displacement
LVDT (for PC2 due to the camera issue) data; the figures taken from the PIV data.

0·020 0·020

0·018 0·018
50 50

0·016 0·016

100 0·014 100 0·014

0·012 0·012

150 0·010 150 0·010

z: mm

0·008 0·008

200 0·006 200 0·006

0·004 0·004

250 0·002 250 0·002

0·26 P/Pmax 0·38 P/Pmax

0 0
–300 –250 –200 Sv: mm –300 –250 –200 Sv: mm

0·14
0·030
50 50
0·12
0·025

100 100 0·10

0·020

0·08
z: mm

150 150
0·015
0·06

200 0·010 200

0·04

0·005
0·02
250 250
0·58 P/Pmax 0·87 P/Pmax

0
–300 –250 –200 Sv: mm –300 –250 –200 Sv: mm
x: mm x: mm
(a)

Fig. 12. Vertical displacement contours during pile load tests: (a) PC4; (b) PC5 (continued on next page)
994 WILLIAMSON, ELSHAFIE, MAIR AND DEVRIENDT
0·020 0·020

0·018 0·018
50 50

0·016 0·016

100 0·014 100 0·014

0·012 0·012
z: mm

150 0·010 150 0·010

0·008 0·008

200 0·006 200 0·006

0·004 0·004

250 0·002 250 0·002

0·23 P/Pmax 0·39 P/Pmax

0 0
–300 –250 –200 Sv: mm –300 –250 –200 Sv: mm

0·06

50 50
0·20
0·05

100 100
0·04 0·15
z: mm

150 0·03 150

0·10

0·02
200 200

0·05
0·01
250 250
0·63 P/Pmax 0·87 P/Pmax

0 0
–300 –250 –200 Sv: mm –300 –250 –200 Sv: mm
x: mm x: mm
(b)

Fig. 12. Continued

τmob γ b PIV data

= aγ b = 1 The design of the centrifuge package allowed the
τ cu 2 γM = 2
measurement of subsurface displacements of both the pile
shaft and the adjacent soil and hence it was possible to
cu = τmax observe the effect of the model piles on the adjacent soil
during loading. Fig. 12 shows the vertical soil displacement
contours and the soil displacement vectors for different pile
loads in tests PC4 and PC5. The displacement gradients
0·5τmax along the piles are visible; these displacements were used for
calculation of the change in pile load (see the section headed
‘Model preparation’).
γ
γΜ = 2 γΜ = 1
PILE LOAD TESTS – SOIL MODELLING
To assess the pile loading results, a simplified 1D non-linear
Fig. 13. Assumed power-law stress–strain model (after Vardanega & t–z analysis was performed on the piles for tests PC2, PC4 and
Bolton (2011)) PC5. The analyses were based on the method proposed by
 OPEN-FACE TUNNELLING EFFECTS ON NON-DISPLACEMENT PILES IN CLAY – PART 1 995
0 0 0 0

50 50 50 50

100 100 100 100

Pile depth, z: mm

150 150 150 150

200 200 200 200

250 250 250 250

300 PC2/PC4/PC6 300 PC2/PC4/PC6 300 PC2/PC4/PC6 300 PC2/PC4/PC6

PC5 PC5 PC5 PC5

0 50 100 0 50 100 0 0·05 0·1 0·15 0·2 0 0·5 1·0

Yield stress ratio: R Undrained shear strength,cu: kPa Mobilisation strain to half Power law exponent, b
strength, γM = 2

Fig. 14. Power-law model parameters for test series

Vardanega et al. (2012b), which uses the Vardanega & Bolton Relative vertical settlement, Sv, ff – Sv,ff,z=L : mm
p
(2011) framework for a power-law model of mobilised shear –1·2 –1·0 –0·8 –0·6 –0·4 –0·2 0 0·2
strength for clays as shown in Fig. 13. 0
In the work presented in this paper, a series of triaxial
compression tests was performed on the same batch of
Speswhite kaolin used in the test series described in
Vardanega et al. (2012a). Based on the stress path analysis
described by Williamson (2014), in order to assess the final 50
stress conditions within the clay following consolidation at
varying depths, it was possible to predict the clay strength
and stiffness using the framework proposed by Vardanega &
Depth from top of clay, z: mm

Bolton (2011). Fig. 14 shows the calculated yield stress ratio

(after (Williamson, 2014)), the predicted undrained shear 100
strength, the predicted strain to mobilise half of the shear
strength and the power-law parameter. From this infor- PC4 fitted profiles for modelling
mation it was possible to produce load–settlement curves for PC5 fitted profiles for modelling
the piles at various depths.
150

Predicted pile response during consolidation

During the consolidation phase, the actual stress–strain
behaviour is extremely difficult to estimate. Based on the
majority of the soil swelling displacements and load changes 200 PC4 free-field movements at x = –300 mm
during the centrifuge tests occurring towards the end of PC4 free-field movements at x = –150 mm
consolidation, when the stresses were more readily known, PC4 free-field movements at x = –75 mm
the displacement profiles (from PIV) during consolidation PC5 free-field movements at x = –300 mm
that were used in the consolidation analysis are shown in PC5 free-field movements at x = –150 mm
PC5 free-field movements at x = –75 mm
Fig. 15; these are shown relative to the pile toe displacement 250
for clarity. Using these profiles alongside t–z analyses for the
piles (as described below) allowed an estimate of the initial Fig. 15. PIV profiles of soil displacement during consolidation
shear strain at the soil–pile interface and, in turn, enabled the
initial loading to be estimated.
Taking a Winkler spring approach for the t–z model and In these equations, z is the depth below ground level, w is
analysing a single pile element of thickness dz the pile displacement, F is the pile load, E is the Young’s
modulus of the pile, A is the cross-sectional area of the pile, ro
dw F is the pile radius and τo is shear stress at the pile–soil
¼ ð2Þ
dz EA interface.
Using a standard concentric ring model for piles
d2 w dF 1 (Randolph, 1977), which assumes little change in lateral
¼ ð3Þ
dz2 dz EA displacement with depth and where γ is the shear strain in the
noting that soil and r is the distance from the centre of the pile,
dF dw
¼ 2πro τ o ð4Þ γ ð5Þ
dz dr
996 WILLIAMSON, ELSHAFIE, MAIR AND DEVRIENDT
therefore Combining the shear stress with a single pile element to
ð ð construct a t–z analysis gives
dw  γ dr ð6Þ  
d2 wpile 2πro wpile 1  b b cu
¼
For concentric rings of influence, the shear stress τ at a dz2 EA ro bγM¼2 2
radius r is "  # ð11Þ
d2 wpile 1 1b b
τ o ro ¼ πcu ro wpile
b
τ¼ ð7Þ dz2 EA bro γM¼2
r
From Vardanega et al. (2012b) and Fig. 13, the shear By discretising the pile into elements and applying a finite-
strain can be rewritten as equation (9) using equation (8), difference version of equation (11) when equation (10) is
where τmob is the mobilised shear stress in the soil, cu is the combined with equation (3), and by varying the displace-
undrained shear strength in the soil, γM = 2 is the shear strain ments of the first (base) node and applying a predictor–
at half the mobilised strength and a and b are parameters corrector or Runge–Kutta solver, it is possible to find the
based on soil properties. head load required to induce the given base displacement. By
 b varying the base displacement, a load–settlement response
τ mob 1 γ for the pile can then be calculated.
¼ aγ ¼
b
ð8Þ This method is a sound approach when attempting to
cu 2 γM¼2
quantify the non-linearity of the pile–soil interface using a
 1=b   validated stress–strain model for a number of clays. To allow
2τ 2τ o ro 1=b for some form of non-linearity at the base, the non-linear
γ ¼ γM¼2 ¼ γM¼2 ð9Þ
cu cu r exponent for the shear stress–shear strain curve was calcu-
lated based on the above analysis at the level of the pile base;
ð wpile ð r¼ro   full mobilisation of the pile base was assumed at 10% Dp.
2τ o ro 1=b 1=b Figure 16 shows the predicted behaviour of the piles
dw ¼  γM¼2 r dr
0 r¼1 cu when subjected to consolidation movements; these are
  ð compared with the measured loading profiles following
2τ o ro 1=b r¼ro 1=b temperature compensation. The input parameters to the
wpile ¼  γM¼2 r dr
cu r¼1 model are the strength and stiffness parameters in Fig. 14;
    the consolidation movements in Fig. 15 and the values of α
2τ o ro 1=b b b1=b r¼ro given in Table 3 are based upon the analysis in section
¼  γM¼2 r ‘Illustration of pile capability – pile load tests’. The
cu b1 r¼1
 1=b ð10Þ agreement between the predictions and measurements in
b 2τ o ro Fig. 16 is quite good; at the pile head, the low effective stress
¼ γ rb1=b had a large impact on the shear stiffness and, based on the
b  1 M¼2 cu o
model of Vardanega & Bolton (2011), the values of γM=2 and
 1=b b were limited to 0·2 and 0·8, respectively (Vardanega, 2015,
b 2τ o
¼ γ ro personal communication).
1  b M¼2 cu
An error in the power-law approach is the infinite stiffness
  at zero strain, although this has the benefit of integration to
wpile 1  b b cu
[τ o ¼ infinity such that no ‘magic radius’ or similar needs to be
ro bγM¼2 2 estimated. Despite this error, at the strains typical of a pile

0 0

Pile C
50 50

100 100
Pile depth, z: mm

150 150

200 200

250 250

Predicted Measured Predicted

PC2/4 pile forces Pile C PC5 Measured
300 pile forces PC2
300 pile forces pile forces
PC4 PC5

−150 −100 −50 0 −150 −100 −50 0

Pile load, F: N Pile load, F: N

Fig. 16. Non-linear t–z soil loading on piles during consolidation

 OPEN-FACE TUNNELLING EFFECTS ON NON-DISPLACEMENT PILES IN CLAY – PART 1 997
under service loads, the model predicted values in reasonable paper (Williamson et al., 2017)), providing a stiffer response
agreement with hyperbolic or ‘S-shaped’ curves. upon stress reversal for the load–settlement response. The
An α–cu approach was applied to limit the skin friction; effect of this was to give a stiffer response in the lower section
these values were based on the average shaft capacities and of the pile upon reloading and a softer response in the upper
the predicted shear stresses given in Table 3. These were section of the pile based on their initial respective skin
applied for both positive and negative skin friction on frictions. Fig. 17(a) shows the predicted load distributions at
the piles. salient loads when compared with the measured results.
The predicted response was less stiff than the measured
response seen in the piles, as shown in Fig. 18, although the
Pile head loading shapes of the curves were well predicted. In addition, the
Of most interest is the behaviour of a pile upon reloading loading behaviour (Fig. 17(a)) and in particular the change
having been subjected to consolidation movements and in pile load (Fig. 17(b)) with increasing head load was well
loading. To account for the effect of stress reversal on the modelled by the proposed power-law method, providing a
piles, the Masing rule (Masing, 1926) was applied for good estimate for the expected change in pile load for each of
stress reversals (as shown in Fig. 14(d) of the companion the centrifuge tests.

Head load closest Head load closest Head load closest Head load closest Head load closest
to 0% of Pmax to 25% of Pmax to 50% of Pmax to 85% of Pmax to 100% of Pmax
0 0 0 0
Measured
pile load
PC2
PC4
PC5

50 50 50 50
Pile depth, z: mm

100 100 100 100

150 Predicted pile 150 150 150

load with base
PC2
PC4
PC5

Predicted pile
200 load no base 200 200 200
PC2
PC4
PC5

−100 0 100 −100 0 100 0 100 200 0 100 200 300 0 100 200 300
Pile load, F: N Pile load, F: N Pile load, F: N Pile load, F: N Pile load, F: N
(a)

Head load closest Head load closest Head load closest Head load closest Head load closest
to 0% of Pmax to 25% of Pmax to 50% of Pmax to 85% of Pmax to 100% of Pmax
0 0 0 0
Measured
pile load
PC2
PC4
PC5

50 50 50 50 50
Pile depth, z: mm

100 100 100 100 100

150 Predicted pile 150 150 150 150

load with base
PC2
PC4
PC5

Predicted pile
200 load no base 200 200 200 200
PC2
PC4
PC5

0 100 200 300 0 100 200 300 0 100 300 0 100 200 300 0 100 200 300
Change in pile load, ΔF: N Change in pile load, ΔF: N Change in pile load, ΔF: N Change in pile load, ΔF: N Change in pile load, ΔF: N
(b)

Fig. 17. Non-linear t–z shaft loading for piles during pile load testing: (a) pile shaft load; (b) change in pile shaft load
998 WILLIAMSON, ELSHAFIE, MAIR AND DEVRIENDT
Normalised pile head displacement, δp,head/Dp: % Normalised pile head displacement, δp,head/Dp: %
0 0·8 1·6 2·4 0 0·8 1·6 2·4
350 350
Pile C Pile C
Predicted
PC5 δp,head
300 300 With base
No base

250 250
Pile head load, P: N

200 200
Predicted
PC2 δp,head
150 PC2 with base 150
PC2 no base

100 100

Measured Predicted
50 δp,head PC4 δp,head 50 Measured
PC2
PC4 with base δp,head
PC4 no base
PC4 PC5
0 0
0 0·1 0·2 0·3 0·4 0 0·1 0·2 0·3 0·4
Pile head displacement, δp,head: mm Pile head displacement, δp,head: mm

Fig. 18. Non-linear t–z load–settlement response of piles subjected to consolidation movements prior to loading

For both PC2 and PC5, the effects of tunnelling move- models given the magnitude of consolidation
ments prior to pile loading were modelled; for PC4, where movements seen in the centrifuge.
pile loading took place prior to tunnelling movements, these ( f ) The simple t–z model was able to predict the load
effects were not modelled. The effect of this is clear in the changes observed on the application of loading in the
initial load distribution of each in Fig. 16. The differences centrifuge well, although it appears to over-predict
between PC2 and PC4 in the load–settlement curves in settlement of the piles at working loads.
Fig. 18 for both the predicted and actual response were very
small, indicating no loss of pile capacity due to the tunnelling
movements or, indeed, a change in the material properties of ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
the clay. The first author acknowledges the financial support
provided by Arup Tunnelling and the Engineering and
Physical Sciences Research Council for an Industrial Case
Studentship. The significant support from technical staff at
CONCLUSIONS
both the Schofield Centre and Cambridge University
Engineering Department is greatly appreciated.
(a) The initial state of a model pile in a centrifuge must be
assessed prior to the start of the experimental phase.
Failure to do this will result in inaccurate load
conditions when attempting to back-analyse the results.
(b) The effect of temperature (of both the pile and the clay NOTATION
body itself) is important when trying to correctly model A cross-sectional area of pile
piles in a centrifuge. It should therefore be carefully a constant coefficient in power-law stress–strain
considered by both physical and numerical modellers model
when analysing these and other results. b power coefficient in power-law stress–strain
(c) A reinforced composite pile was successfully used to model
simulate a non-displacement pile in a centrifuge. Strain cT unconstrained calibration factor for voltage
gauge (load cell) data and photogrammetric changes with change in temperature
cu undrained shear strength of soil
interpretation of the piles agreed extremely well, Dp pile diameter
providing confidence in the results of the load tests and, dδp,head/dt rate of displacement of pile head
crucially, the loading changes due to tunnelling E Young’s modulus of pile
reported in the companion paper (Williamson et al., F pile load
2017). FSoil,exp pile load due to soil movement at the end of
(d ) The effects of tunnelling-induced ground movements consolidation, with temperature compensation
on non-displacement pile capacity in clays in these FSoil,exp,raw,No ΔT pile load due to soil movement at the end of
experiments were found to be minimal. The effect of consolidation, with no temperature
tunnelling movements did not reduce the amount of compensation
FSoil,st pile load due to soil movement prior to
shaft capacity and no significant strain softening was
centrifuge spin-up
observed. FSoil,st,w pile load due to soil movement prior to
(e) Non-linear t–z modelling based on triaxial data showed centrifuge spin-up with water added
the importance of modelling the full stress history of FSoil,su pile load due to soil movement at the end of
both the soil and the piles and also showed the centrifuge spin-up
importance of the allowance for plasticity in such Lp length of pile
 OPEN-FACE TUNNELLING EFFECTS ON NON-DISPLACEMENT PILES IN CLAY – PART 1 999
P pile head load at top of clay (where not specified Engrs – Geotech. Engng 159, No. 1, 3–17, http://dx.doi.org/
this is with temperature and strain rate 10.1680/geng.2006.159.1.3.
compensation) Garnier, J. & Konig, D. (1998). Scale effects in piles and nails
PCRP peak pile head load at top of clay at a constant loading tests in sand. In Centrifuge 98: proceedings of the
rate of penetration (CRP), with temperature international conference on geotechnical centrifuge modelling
compensation (eds T. Kimura, T. Kusakabe and J. Takemura), pp. 205–210.
Pmax maximum pile head load at top of clay (where Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Balkema.
not specified this is temperature- and Garnier, J., Gaudin, C., Springman, S. M., Culligan, P. J., Goodings,
strain-compensated) D., Konig, D., Kutter, B., Phillips, R., Randolph, M. F. &
Pnon-CRP maximum pile head load at top of clay at a Thorel, L. (2007). Catalogue of scaling laws and similitude
maintained loading rate prior to the CRP phase, questions in geotechnical centrifuge modelling. Int. J. Phys.
with temperature compensation Model. Geotech. 7, No. 3, 1–24.
Ppeak peak pile head load at top of clay, with Grant, R. J. & Taylor, R. N. (2000). Tunnelling-induced ground
temperature compensation movements in clay. Proc. Instn Civ. Engrs – Geotech. Engng 143,
PSPERW maximum pile head load at top of clay at a CRP, No. 1, 43–55, http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/geng.2000.143.1.43.
with temperature and strain rate compensation Huang, M., Zhang, C. & Li, Z. (2009). A simplified analysis method
R yield stress ratio for the influence of tunneling on grouped piles. Tunn. Undergr.
r distance from centre of pile Space Technol. 24, No. 4, 410–422.
ro pile radius Jacobsz, S. W., Standing, J. R., Mair, R. J., Hagiwara, T. &
Sv vertical settlement Sugiyama, T. (2004). Centrifuge modelling of tunnelling near
Sv,ff vertical free-field soil settlement driven piles. Soils Found. 44, No. 1, 49–56.
Sv;ff;z¼Lp vertical free-field soil settlement at pile toe Jacobsz, S. W., Bowers, K. H., Moss, N. A. & Zanardo, G. (2005).
T temperature The effects of tunnelling on piled foundations on the CTRL. In
V measured voltage Proceedings of the 5th international symposium on geotechnical
w pile vertical displacement aspects of underground construction in soft ground (eds
z depth from surface of clay K. J. Bakker, A. Bezuijen, W. Broere and E. A. Kwast),
α shaft adhesion factor pp. 115–121. Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Balkema.
γ shear strain Kaalberg, F. J., Teunissen, E. A., van Toi, A. F. & Bosch, J. W.
γM=1 shear strain to mobilise maximum shear strength (2005). Dutch research on the impact of shield tunnelling on pile
of soil foundation. In Proceedings of the 5th international symposium on
γM=2 shear strain to mobilise half the shear strength of geotechnical aspects of underground construction in soft ground
soil (eds K. J. Bakker, A. Bezuijen, W. Broere and E. A. Kwast),
ΔF change in pile load pp. 123–131. Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Balkema.
δp pile displacement Kaalberg, F. J., Ruigrok, J. A. T. & De Nijs, R. (2014). TBM face
δp,head pile head displacement stability & excess pore pressures in close proximity of piled
δp/Dp normalised pile displacement bridge foundations controlled with 3D FEM. In Proceedings of
δp,head/Dp normalised pile head displacement the 8th international symposium on geotechnical aspects of
τmax maximum mobilised shear stress underground construction in soft ground (eds C. Yoo, S. W.
τmob mobilised shear stress Park, B. Kim and H. Ban), pp. 555–560. London, UK: Taylor &
τo shear stress at the pile–soil interface Francis.
Kitiyodom, P., Matsumoto, T. & Kawaguchi, K. (2005). A simplified
analysis method for piled raft foundations subjected to ground
movements induced by tunnelling. Int. J. Numer. Analyt.
REFERENCES Methods Geomech. 29, No. 15, 1485–1507.
Basile, F. (2012). Pile-group response due to tunnelling. In Kulhawy, F. H. & Mayne, P. W. (1990). Manual on estimating soil
Proceedings of the 7th international symposium on geotechnical properties for foundation design, EL-6800. Palo Alto, CA, USA:
aspects of underground construction in soft ground Electric Power Research Institute.
(ed. G. Viggiani), pp. 781–790. Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Lee, C. J. & Chiang, K. H. (2007). Responses of single piles
Balkema. to tunneling-induced soil movements in sandy ground. Can.
Bezuijen, A. & van der Schrier, J. S. (1994). The influence of a bored Geotech. J. 44, No. 10, 1224–1241.
tunnel on pile foundations. In Centrifuge 94: proceedings of the Lehane, B. M., Gaudin, C. & Schneider, J. A. (2005). Scale effects on
international conference on geotechnical centrifuge modelling tension capacity for rough piles buried in dense sand.
(eds F. H. Lee, C. F. Leung and T. S. Tan), pp. 681–686. Géotechnique 55, No. 10, 709–719, http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/
Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Balkema. geot.2005.55.10.709.
Burland, J. B. (1997). Assessment of risk of damage to buildings Liu, W. (2010). Axisymmetric centrifuge modelling of deep pen-
due to tunnelling and excavation. In Earthquake etration in sand. PhD thesis, University of Nottingham,
geotechnical engineering: proceedings of IS-Tokyo ’95, the first Nottingham, UK.
international conference on earthquake geotechnical engineering Loganathan, N., Poulos, H. G. & Stewart, D. P. (2000). Centrifuge
(ed. K. Ishihara), vol. 87, pp. 1189–1201. Rotterdam, model testing of tunnelling-induced ground and pile defor-
the Netherlands: Balkema. mations. Géotechnique 50, No. 3, 283–294, http://dx.doi.org/10.
Coutts, D. R. & Wang, J. (2000). Monitoring of reinforced concrete 1680/geot.2000.50.3.283.
piles under horizontal and vertical loads due to tunnelling. Loganathan, N., Poulos, H. G. & Xu, K. J. (2001). Ground and
In Tunnels and underground structures (eds J. Zhao, J. N. Shirlaw pile-group responses due to tunnelling. Soils Found. 41, No. 1,
and R. Krishnan), pp. 541–546. Rotterdam, the Netherlands: 57–67.
Balkema. Mair, R. J. (1979). Centrifugal modelling in tunnel construction in
Divall, S. (2013). Ground movements associated with twin-tunnel soft clay. PhD thesis, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
construction in clay. PhD thesis, City University, London, UK. Mair, R. J. (2011). Tunnelling and deep excavations: ground
Farrell, R. P. (2010). Tunnelling in sands and the response of buildings. movements and their effects. In Geotechnics of hard soils weak
PhD thesis, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. rocks: proceedings of the 15th European conference on soil
Farrell, R. P., Mair, R. J., Sciotti, A. & Pigorini, A. (2014). Building mechanics and geotechnical engineering (eds A. Anagnostopoulos,
response to tunnelling. Soils Found. 54, No. 3, 269–279. M. Pachakis and C. Tsatsanifos), pp. 39–70. Amsterdam, the
FPS (Federation of Piling Specialists) (2007). ICE specification Netherlands: IOS Press.
for piling and embedded retaining walls, 2nd edn. London, UK: Mair, R. J. & Williamson, M. G. (2014). The influence of tunnelling
Thomas Telford Publishing. and deep excavation on piled foundations. In Proceedings of
Franzius, J. N., Potts, D. M. & Burland, J. B. (2006). The response the 8th international symposium on geotechnical aspects of
of surface structures to tunnel construction. Proc. Instn Civ. underground construction in soft ground (eds C. Yoo, S. W.
1000 WILLIAMSON, ELSHAFIE, MAIR AND DEVRIENDT
Park, B. Kim and H. Ban), pp. 21–30. London, UK: Taylor & Taylor, R. N. (1998). Modelling of tunnel behaviour. Proc. Instn Civ.
Francis. Engrs – Geotech. Engng 131, No. 3, 127–132, http://dx.doi.org/
Marshall, A. M. (2012). Tunnel–pile interaction analysis using 10.1680/igeng.1998.30467.
cavity expansion methods. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Engng 138, Vardanega, P. J. & Bolton, M. D. (2011). Strength mobilization in
No. 10, 1237–1246. clays and silts. Can. Geotech. J. 48, No. 10, 1485–1503.
Marshall, A. M. & Mair, R. J. (2011). Tunneling beneath driven or Vardanega, P. J., Lau, B. H., Lam, S. Y., Haigh, S. K.,
jacked end-bearing piles in sand. Can. Geotech. J. 48, No. 12, Madabhushi, S. P. G. & Bolton, M. D. (2012a). Laboratory
1757–1771. measurement of strength mobilisation in kaolin: link to stress
Masing, G. (1926). Eigenspannungen und verfestigung beim messing history. Géotech. Lett. 2, No. 1, 9–15, http://dx.doi.org/
(Self stretching and hardening for brass). In Proceedings of 10.1680/geolett.12.00003.
the 2nd international congress for applied mechanics (ed. Vardanega, P. J., Williamson, M. G. & Bolton, M. D. (2012b). Bored
E. Meissner), pp. 332–335. Zürich, Switzerland: Orell Füssli pile design in stiff clay II: mechanisms and uncertainty. Proc.
Verlag (in German). Instn Civ. Engrs – Geotech Engng 165, No. 4, 233–246,
McMahon, B. T. (2012). Deformation mechanisms beneath http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/geng.11.00063.
shallow foundations. PhD thesis, University of Cambridge, White, D. J. & Bolton, M. D. (2004). Displacement and strain paths
Cambridge, UK. during plane-strain model pile installation in sand. Géotechnique
Ng, C. W. W., Lu, H. & Peng, S. Y. (2013). Three-dimensional 54, No. 6, 375–397, http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/geot.2004.54.
centrifuge modelling of the effects of twin tunnelling on 6.375.
an existing pile. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 35, 189–199. White, D. J., Take, W. A. & Bolton, M. D. (2003). Soil deformation
Ong, C. W. (2009). Centrifuge model study of tunnel-soil-interaction measurement using particle image velocimetry (PIV) and
in soft clay. PhD thesis, National University of Singapore, photogrammetry. Géotechnique 53, No. 7, 619–631, http://
Singapore. dx.doi.org/10.1680/geot.2003.53.7.619.
Potts, D. M. (1976). Behaviour of lined and unlined tunnels in sand. Williamson, M. G. (2014). Tunnelling effects on bored piles in clay.
PhD thesis, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. PhD thesis, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Potts, D. M. & Addenbrooke, T. I. (1997). A structure’s influence on Williamson, M. G., Elshafie, M. Z. E. B. & Mair, R. J. (2013).
tunnelling-induced ground movements. Proc. Instn Civ. Engrs – Centrifuge modelling of bored piles in sands. In Proceedings
Geotech. Engng 125, No. 2, 109–125, http://dx.doi.org/ of the 18th international conference on soil mechanics and
10.1680/igeng.1997.29233. geotechnical engineering (eds P. Delage, J. Desrues, R. Frank,
Randolph, M. F. (1977). A theoretical study of the performance of A. Peuch and F. Scholosser), pp. 981–984. Paris, France:
piles. PhD thesis, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. Presses des Ponts.
Schofield, A. N. (1980). Cambridge geotechnical centrifuge oper- Williamson, M. G., Elshafie, M. Z. E. B., Mair, R. J. &
ations. Géotechnique 30, No. 3, 227–268, http://dx.doi.org/ Devriendt, M. D. (2017). Open-face tunnelling effects on
10.1680/geot.1980.30.3.227. non-displacement piles in clay – part 2: tunnelling beneath
Selemetas, D. (2005). The response of full-scale piles and piled loaded piles and analytical modelling. Géotechnique,
structures to tunnelling. PhD thesis, University of Cambridge, http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/jgeot.sip17.P.120.
Cambridge, UK. Xu, K. J. & Poulos, H. G. (2001). 3-D elastic analysis of vertical piles
Selemetas, D., Standing, J. R. & Mair, R. J. (2005). The response of subjected to ‘passive’ loadings. Comput. Geotech. 28, No. 5,
full-scale piles to tunnelling. In Proceedings of the 5th 349–375.
international symposium on geotechnical aspects of underground Zhang, R. J., Zheng, J. J., Zhang, L. M. & Pu, H. F. (2011).
construction in soft ground (eds K. J. Bakker, A. Bezuijen, W. An analysis method for the influence of tunneling on adjacent
Broere and E. A. Kwast), pp. 763–769. Rotterdam, the loaded pile groups with rigid elevated caps. Int. J. Numer.
Netherlands: Balkema. Analyt. Methods Geomech 35, No. 18, 1949–1971.
Takahashi, K., Fukazawa, N., Hagiwara, T. & Hosoda, M. (2004). Zhang, R. J., Zheng, J. J. & Yu, S. (2013). Responses of piles
Observational control of slurry shield tunnels with super close subjected to excavation-induced vertical soil movement con-
spacing under the nearby bridge abutments. Tunn. Undergr. sidering unloading effect and interfacial slip characteristics.
Space Technol. 19, No. 4, 390–390. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 36, 66–79.