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

net/publication/228718812

The influence of construction "side effects" on existing pile foundations

Article · April 2005

CITATIONS READS

2 1,578

1 author:

Harry G. Poulos
The University of Sydney
270 PUBLICATIONS   6,918 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Underpinning of Foundations by Piles View project

Burj Khalifa View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Harry G. Poulos on 28 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The Influence of Construction “Side Effects” On Existing Pile Foundations

H. G. Poulos
Senior Principal, Coffey Geosciences Pty Ltd., 8/12 Mars Rd., Lane Cove West, NSW, Australia, and Emeritus
Professor, Civil Engineering, University of Sydney, Australia
harry_poulos@coffey.com.au

Abstract: This paper explores some of the “side effects” of investigation and construction processes, and their possible effects on
existing deep foundations. The processes considered will include:
1. The driving of piles;
2. The installation of piles by jacking;
3. Drilling holes in stressed ground for the purposes of investigation or construction;
4. Carrying out shallow excavations, for example, for pile cap construction or the installation of services;
5. Carrying out deeper excavations, for example, for a development on a site adjacent to the existing pile foundation.
Each of these processes involves the generation of additional ground movements, which will in turn induce additional movements,
forces and bending moments in the existing foundations. The paper examines these ground movements and explores their influence on
the behaviour and integrity of existing pile foundations.

1 INTRODUCTION In new foundation construction in “greenfield” conditions,, there

Much of the geotechnical research carried out over the past few
decades has focused on the design and construction of new
foundations and geotechnical structures. However, increasingly,
engineers are facing challenges with problems involving the
investigation of existing foundations and the remediation of
foundations which are assessed to be unsatisfactory. The
processes involved in investigation and construction in such cases
inevitably have side effects which are not always recognized, but
which may have a significant effect on the existing foundation
system. Such side effects may also be present when a new project
is being constructed adjacent to an existing building or facility.
This paper will concentrate on an investigation into the “side
effects” of a series of processes, and the possible influence of
these side effects on existing deep foundations. The processes
considered will include:
1. The driving of piles;
2. The installation of piles by jacking;
3. Drilling holes in stressed ground for the purposes of
investigation or construction;
4. Carrying out relatively shallow unsupported excavations, for
example, for pile cap construction or the installation of
services;
5. Carrying out relatively deep excavations which are
supported.
In each of these cases, the processes involved result in the
generation of additional ground movements, both vertical and
horizontal. These movements will interact with existing
foundation elements, particularly piles, and induce additional
foundation movements, forces and bending moments in these
existing elements. The paper will summarize means by which the
ground movements can be estimated and will then explore their
influence on existing pile foundations.
2 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ENVIRONMENT AROUND
AN EXISTING FOUNDATION SYSTEM
is usually relatively unimpeded access to the site and to the areas
in which the new foundation system is to be constructed. This
contrasts with the environment around or within an existing
foundation system which is being investigated and/or upgraded.
In this latter case, the following characteristics can be anticipated:
1. Access to the area may be very difficult and may limit the
range of construction methods that can be employed;
2. The ground will often be highly stressed, and thus changes
in the stress regime due to investigation or construction may
result in larger ground movements than would be the case in
a greenfield situation;
3. Existing piles will generally be subjected to some measure
of restraint from the building which they are supporting, via
the attachment to pile caps and the overall foundation
system;
4. Strict control of investigation and construction processes are
likely to be more critical, but more difficult to achieve than
with greenfield situations;
5. The consequences of uncontrolled ground movements on the
existing structure and foundation system are likely to be
more immediate and severe than with a greenfield site.
For these reasons, it is felt worthwhile to give special attention
to the problems of construction and investigation within an
existing foundation system, and to examine in some detail the
possible consequences of inadequate control of the resulting
ground movements.
3 A METHOD OF ANALYSIS OF THE RESPONSE OF
EXISTING PILE FOUNDATIONS TO GROUND
MOVEMENTS
It is possible to analyze problems involving soil-pile interaction
by means of a single numerical analysis, using either the finite
element method or the finite difference method, e.g. via the
commercially available program FLAC. While such analyses are,
in principle, all-embracing, they are also rather time-consuming
and not ideally suited to carrying out parametric studies. For
these reasons, an alternative approach is summarized herein,
which provides a consistent theoretical approach to the analysis
of ground movement effects on piles. Two distinct stages are
involved in this analysis:
1. Estimation of the “free-field” soil movements which would
occur if the pile was not present;
2. Calculation of the response of the pile to these computed
ground movements.
The application of this approach to the analysis of axial and
lateral pile response is set out briefly below.
3.1 Axial Response
The analysis used for axial response of the pile has been
described by Poulos and Davis (1980) and has been used to
analyze problems of negative friction of piles in consolidating
soil, and of tension and uplift of piles in expansive soil. It
employs a simplified form of boundary-element analysis, in
which the pile is modelled as an elastic column and the
surrounding soil as an elastic continuum.
The pile is divided into a series of cylindrical elements. The
vertical movement of each element is related to the applied load,
the pile-soil interaction stresses, the pile compressibility, and the
pile tip movement. The vertical movement of each supporting
soil element depends on the pile-soil interaction stresses, the
modulus or stiffness of the soil, and also on any free-field
movements that may be imposed on the pile. To simulate real pile
response more closely, allowance may be made for slip at the pile
- soil interface, i.e., the pile-soil interaction stresses cannot
exceed the limiting pile-soil skin friction.
The above analysis has been implemented via a FORTRAN 77
computer program, PIES (Poulos 1989).
The analysis of axial pile response requires a knowledge of the
pile modulus, the distribution of soil modulus and limiting pile-
soil skin friction with depth, and the free - field vertical soil
movements. The assessment of the pile-soil parameters (in
particular the soil modulus and limiting pile-soil skin friction) has
been discussed by several authors (e.g. Meyerhof 1976; de Cock
and Legrand, 1997; Poulos 1989, 2001).
3.2 Lateral Response
Details of the lateral-response analysis have been given by
Poulos and Davis (1980), and it also relies on the use of a
simplified boundary element analysis. In this case, the pile is
modelled as a simple elastic beam, and the soil as an elastic
continuum. The lateral displacement of each element of the pile
can be related to the pile bending stiffness and the horizontal
pile-soil interaction stresses. The lateral displacement of the
corresponding soil elements is related to the soil modulus or
stiffness, the pile-soil interaction stresses, and the free-field
horizontal soil movements. A limiting lateral pile-soil stress can
be specified so that local failure of the soil can be allowed for,
thus allowing a nonlinear response to be obtained.
The analysis has been implemented via FORTRAN computer
programs, including a proprietary program called ERCAP, and in
an alternative approach, via the program PALLAS (Hull, 1996).
3.3 Group Effects
The analysis of ground movement effects on groups of piles has
been reported by several authors, for example, Kuwabara and
Poulos (1989), Teh and Wong (1993), Chow et al (1990), Xu and
Poulos (2001). All these authors have found that under purely
elastic conditions, group effects tend to be beneficial to the pile
response as compared to single isolated piles, i.e. the group
effects tend to reduce the pile movement and the forces and
moments induced in the piles. This is especially so for the inner
piles within a group, which, because of the pile-soil-pile
interaction are, in effect, “shielded” from the soil movements by
the outer piles. Experimental work reported by Chen (1994)
indicates that the ultimate lateral pile-soil pressures are affected
to some extent by grouping and that the group effect may either
increase or decrease the pile response, depending on the pile
configuration and spacings.
From the viewpoint of design, it is generally both convenient
and conservative to ignore group effects and analyze a pile as if it
were isolated. Thus, in the remainder of the paper, attention is
concentrated on ground movement effects on single isolated
piles.
4 DRIVING OF PILES ADJACENT TO EXISTING PILES
4.1 Introduction
It has long been recognized that the driving of a displacement
pile will cause ground movements around that pile. These
movements will interact with existing piles nearby and cause
additional forces and stresses and displacements to be induced in
those piles. Figure 1 shows the basic problem being considered
here, with the existing pile being at a distance r from the axis of
the newly-installed pile. The ground movements and consequent
pile responses will be examined in this section.
4.2 Ground Movements
Chow and Teh (1990) employed a source-sink imaging technique
to estimate vertical ground movements due to pile installation,
They found that these movements were influenced by the ratio of
pile and soil Young’s modulus values, the pile dimensions, and
the distance from the pile. They also found that the rate of
increase of heave with increasing penetration reduced when the
pile penetrated beyond a certain depth. Poulos (1994) developed
an approximate approach to the estimation of ground movements
in a clay soil due to the driving of a pile nearby. Sagaseta and
Whittle (1996) pointed out that more refined methods can be
employed for ground movement estimation, using the strain path
method, or a modification of this method, the shallow strain path
method (SSPM). The latter method gives somewhat different
vertical ground movement profiles than the approximate
approach used by Poulos (1994), especially at shallow pile
penetrations, although similar results are obtained when the pile
nears its final penetration.
Lateral ground movements due to pile installation are
predicted reasonably well from a simple radial cavity expansion
analysis. More refined analyses employed by Sagaseta and
Whittle (1996) give generally similar lateral ground movements
to the simple cavity expansion approach.
Figures 2 and 3 show comparisons between measured ground
movements and those computed by Poulos (1994), and reveal
reasonable agreement. A similar measure of agreement was
obtained by Chow and Teh (1990) and Sagaseta and Whittle
(1996), using their respective theories. In these figures, r0 is the
pile radius (=0.5d).
 300
L1 /L =

Compressive
Pile 2 Pile 1
200

Maximum Force in Existing Pile (kN)

1/3

100 r
r Nc d
02 9 2/3
0 L1
1.5m 1
1/3
L
L1 -100 d
Homogeneous Clay
Es = 20MPa 2/3

Tensile
νs = 0.5 L = 15m -200
c u = 50kPa E b = 5Es
1
d = 0.5m -300
E p = 30000MPa
-400
Underlying Layer 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
p y = Nc c u
- very stiff for end-bearing pile d = 0.5m Distance from Pile Being Installed, r/d

Fig. 4. Maximum compressive & tensile forces induced in existing pile

Fig. 1. Basic problem analysed. due to driving adjacent pile.

0.4 500

Maximum Moment in Existing Pile (kN.m)

Strain path method Values of
400 L1 /L =
0.3 Cavity expansion method ( ρ = 0.8) Restrained
Average experimental (Francescon, 1983) Head r

300
L1
ρr / r 0

1/3

2/3
0.2 L

,1
200 d
Unrestrained Pile being
Head driven
d
0.1 100 1/3, 2/3 Existing
Pile
1

0
0 2 4 6 8 10
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 r/d
r/d
Fig. 5. Influence of pile spacing on maximum moment in pile due to
Fig. 2. Radial displacements in soil due to pile driving. driving of adjacent pile.

0.20 500

Mean value along shaft, from

Maximum Moment in Existing Pile (kN.m)

Strain Path Analysis Values of

Range of experimental data 400 L1 /L =
0.15 (Steenfelt et al, 1981) Restrained
Range of experimental data Head r
(Francescon, 1983)
300
ρz / r 0

L1
1/3
2/3

0.10 L
,
1

200 d
Unrestrained Pile being
Head driven
0.05 d
100 1/3, 2/3 Existing
Pile
1

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 2 4 6 8 10
r/d r/d

Fig. 3. Vertical displacements in soil due to pile driving. Fig. 6. Computed distributions of bending moment in existing pile due to
installation of adjacent pile-restrained head.
4.3 Pile Response
Poulos (1994) presented a series of solutions for the response of a
pile to the installation of one or more adjacent piles. Figure 4
shows the computed maximum compressive and tensile axial
loads in a pile due to driving of an adjacent pile, as a function of
the spacing between the piles and the relative depth of
embedment of the new pile. The maximum compressive load is
developed when the penetration of the new pile is relatively
shallow, while the maximum tensile force is developed when the
new pile is at its final penetration. As expected, the maximum
load decreases with distance.
Figure 5 shows computed bending moments induced in the
existing pile by driving the new pile. In this case, the largest
moments occur when the new pile is at a relatively shallow
penetration and when the head of the existing pile is restrained.
Figure 6 shows the computed distributions of bending moment
along the existing pile when it has a restrained head, and reveals
significant reversals of sign of the moments.
For two cases in the UK, Figure 7 shows comparisons between
measured pile heaves and those predicted by Poulos (1994) and
Chow and Teh (1990). At the Northampton site, the soil profile
consisted of 2.5 m fill overlying 1.5m silty clay overlying 2.2m
gravel and sand, overlying 1.7m laminated clay silt, which was
underlain by firm to sandy hard sandy clay with gravel and
boulders. Driven cast in-situ piles, 0.45m nominal diameter with
enlarged bases, were installed, all piles being between 9.5 and
10m long. The London site consisted of about 2m fill overlying
3m soft organic clay overlying a 6m layer of sand and gravel
which was underlain by grey London Clay. The piles had a
nominal shaft diameter of 0.47m and were assumed to have a
length of 6.25m for the analyses. The measured heaves show
considerable scatter in both cases, but both theoretical estimates
are reasonably consistent with the measurements. The lower
heaves predicted by Chow and Teh may be attributed at least
partly to the assumption of incompressibility of the pile.
Figure 8 shows the measured and predicted horizontal
movements of a pile as five rows of piles were driven
successively, each row containing 14 piles. The predicted
horizontal movement is predicted to increase with each
successive row driven, and this is in accordance with the
measurements. While there is some difference between the
measured and theoretical response, the overall agreement is fair.
Reyno et al (1999) reported the results of a series of model
pile tests in relatively dense sand. Figure 9 shows comparisons
between measured and computed maximum bending moment,
groundline deflection and groundline rotation with depth of
penetration of the newly-installed pile. The approach used by
Poulos (1994) was used to estimate the ground movements due to
installation of the piles, which were 450 mm long and 40 mm in
diameter. Overall, the agreement is reasonable, especially for the
groundline displacement and rotation.
The foregoing theoretical and experimental data clearly
demonstrate that the driving of piles adjacent to existing piles has
the potential to induce significant vertical and lateral deflections,
together with additional axial forces and lateral bending moments
in the existing piles. Such side effects should not go
unrecognized and measures should be taken to reduce the likely
impacts on the existing piles. Maximizing the distance between
the existing and new piles is a simple, but not always feasible,
strategy, and it may be necessary in some cases to modify the
procedures for installation of the new piles, for example, by pre-
boring or using open-ended sections to reduce the volume of soil
to be displaced by the pile. In extreme cases, it may be necessary
to construct a barrier or wall to protect the existing piles.
5 INSTALLATION OF PILES BY JACKING
5.1 Introduction
Over the past few years, equipment has been developed
(primarily in China) for the installation of precast or preformed
piles by jacking. Figure 10 shows a typical jacking rig, which has
the following features:
• It is a heavy machine which typically weighs 400-
600tonnes, and is supported on two tracks (typically 2m
wide by 10 m long), thus imparting a pressure of between
200 and 300 kPa to the soil surface;
• The pile is gripped by a central clamp which then pushes the
pile section into the ground, and which allows rapid rates of
penetration to be achieved. Typically, a 25m long pile can
be installed in 15-20 minutes;
• The force required to install the pile is monitored
continuously, and can be considered to be a type of load test,
although there are a number of limitations to the ability of
such measurements to accurately indicate long-term static
capacity of piles.
Such rigs have been used increasingly in China, Hong Kong,
Malaysia and Australia, among other locations, and have proved
to be popular because of their speed and relative economy. Li et
al (2003) set out a detailed description of the equipment and its
use, and the precautions that should be taken to reduce the risks
that the pile performance will be unsatisfactory.
An issue that has not been explored in detail is the effects of
the jacking rig itself on piles that have already been installed in
close proximity to the rig. Figure 11 shows a diagram of the rig
and adjacent pile to be analyzed. The heavily loaded support
pads will give rise to both vertical and lateral ground movements
that can influence adjacent existing piles. It should be pointed out
that the rig can also influence the behavior of the pile being
installed, as the stresses caused by the support pads will increase
both the lateral and vertical stresses around the pile. As a
consequence, the ground will tend to be more highly stressed
during installation than afterwards, and this may result in the
apparent capacity of the pile during installation being greater than
the long-term capacity after the rig has departed. In this section,
attention will be focused on the effects of the rig on adjacent
piles.
5.2 Ground Movements
The ground movements due to the weight of the rig can be
computed from a numerical analysis, in this case using the
computer program FLEA (Small, 1985). Two soil profiles have
been considered, a stiff clay profile and a medium dense sand
profile, and in each case, the existing pile is founded on an
underlying weathered rock deposit. Fig. 11 gives the relevant
deformation parameters, while the following ultimate skin
friction values (fs) are assumed: clay fs = 60 kPa, sand fs =
25+5z kPa, where z=depth. Figures 12 and 13 show the
computed distributions of vertical and lateral movement at
different distances from the rig axis, for the clay profile, while
the corresponding distributions for the sand profile are shown in
Figures 14 and 15. The maximum settlements are up to 6mm in
the clay and 15mm in the sand, but the lateral ground movements
are generally small.
 Field Measurements
Theoretical (Author)
Theoretical (Chow and Teh 1990)
20 20
Pile Heave (mm)

15

Pile Heave (mm)

15

10 10

5 5

0 0
2 3 4 5 6 7 2 3 4 5 6 7
Normalized Pile Spacing s/d Normalized Pile Spacing s/d

(a) Northampton Site (b) London (South Bank) Site

Fig. 7. Comparison between measured and theoretical heaves for driven cast in situ piles.

5.3 Pile Responses
Using the computer programs PIES for vertical response and
ERCAP for lateral response, the effects of the induced ground
movements on an existing 400 mm diameter concrete pile have
been computed. In each case, it is assumed that the pile has an
axial load of about 40% of its ultimate static capacity acting on it
(i.e. it is operating at a factor of safety of about 2.5). Figures 16
and 17 show the computed distributions of axial force in the pile
for the clay profile and sand profile respectively. These figures
indicate that additional axial downdrag forces are induced in the
pile by the ground movements, but that the maximum axial force
in the pile is only increased by 20-25% even when the pile is 2m
from the center of the support pad. The additional settlement of
the adjacent pile, as a function of distance from the rig, is shown
in Figure 18. It can be seen that the additional settlement can be
relatively large (of the order of the settlement of the pile under its
design working load) if the pile is close to the rig. Thus, the
presence of the rig would tend to cause noticeable additional
settlements of the existing piles, and this indeed has been
observed in at least two cases in Hong Kong involving high-rise
buildings with jacked remedial piles being installed adjacent to
the existing pile foundation system.
Figures 19 and 20 show the computed distributions of induced
bending moment within a pile near the rig, for the clay and sand
profiles respectively. In these cases, the pile head is assumed to
be fixed and restrained, representing the case where the piles are
restrained by the foundation system and by the pile cap. The
largest moments are developed at or near the pile head, but are of
relatively small magnitude. Figure 21 summarizes the maximum
moment versus distance from the rig, for both the fixed-restrained
pile head and a free-unrestrained pile head. When the pile is close
to the rig, the maximum moment for both head conditions is
comparable, but as the distance increases, the case of the fixed-
restrained head becomes more critical.
Overall, the examples shown here indicate that the proximity
of a jacking rig to an existing pile can have a deleterious effect on
the performance of that pile. Of particular concern is the
additional settlement that is induced when the pile is close to the
rig. It must be borne in mind that, in congested urban sites, such
close proximity is by no means uncommon.
6 DRILLING FOR INVESTIGATION AND PILE
CONSTRUCTION
6.1 Introduction
The drilling of holes in the ground is a standard process for
ground investigation and for the construction of piles, and is so
common that little consideration is given to the possible
consequences. Of particular concern are the ground movements
that can arise because of the removal of the soil during the
drilling process. While such movements may be very small in an
“open-field” situation, this may not be the case when the holes
are drilled in highly-stressed ground, for example, below an
existing high-rise building. In this section, an examination is
made of the ground movements that can arise from the drilling
process, and of the consequences of these ground movements on
existing nearby piles.
6.2 Ground Movements
Despite the ubiquitous nature of the hole drilling process, there
appear to be no studies of the ground movements arising from
drilling operations. As a consequence, a numerical analysis
employing the commercially-available computer program
 160
Measured (Bell et al, 1984)
Calculated
Horizontal Movement of Pile (mm)

120

80

40

0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Row Driven Fig. 10. Typical jacked pile rig.

Fig. 8. Horizontal movement of pile due to driving of pile rows – Los

Angeles Harbour project.
5 5
Envelope of Moment Response of pile Nmm
-20000 -10000 0 10000 20000 P0 = 3MN P0 = 3MN
0.0 P= 1.0MN

0.2 2 2
Relative Pile Length (Ld/L)

0.4 Pads 2m wide x 10m

long
0.6 0.4

0.8 (1) Stiff clay: 15

E ′ = 60MPa
1.0 ν′ = 0.3 x
(2) Sand:
1.2
E ′ = 15 + 32MPa
Groundline Displacement (mm) ν′ = 0.3
-1.50 -1.00 -0.50 0.00 0.50
0.0
Weathered Rock E ′ = 300MPa
0.2 ν′ = 0.3
Relative Pile Length (Ld/L)

0.4 Fig. 11. Basic problem of pile adjacent to jacked pile rig.

0.6

0.8
Movement m
1.0 0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010
0
1.2
Rotation (Degrees) x 1000 2
-200 -100 0 100 200
0.0
4
0.2 Test
6
Relative Pile Length (Ld/L)

X=0
Depth m

0.4 Theory 8 X=7

X=8
0.6 10
X=10
0.8 12 X=15

1.0 14

1.2 16

Fig. 9. Maximum bending moment, groundline displacement and rotation Fig. 12. Computed vertical displacements below jacked pile rig on clay.
in dense sand: 40mm diameter.
 Movement m Load MN
-0.003 -0.002 -0.001 0.000 0.001 0.002 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
0 0

2 2

4 X=0 4
X=7 6
6
Depth m

Depth m
X=8
8 X=10 8
X=15 No ground movs.
10 10
X=7m
12 12 X=8m
X=10m
14 14 X=15m
16 16
Fig. 13. Computed horizontal displacements below jacked pile rig on Fig. 16. Computed axial load distributions for pile in clay, adjacent to
clay. jacking rig.

Settlement m Load MN
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
0 0
No ground movs.
2 2 X=7
4 X=8
4
X=10
6 X=0 6 X=15
Depth m

Depth m

X=7
8 8
X=8
10 X=10 10
X=15
12 12
14 14
16
16
Fig..14. Computed vertical displacements below jacked pile rig on sand. Fig. 17. Axial load distribution in pile in sand due to jacking rig.

Movement m
-0.006 -0.004 -0.002 0.000 0.002 0.004 5
0 4.5 PILE IN CLAY
4 PILE IN SAND
2
Increase in Settlement mm

Axis of rig
X=0 3.5 support
X=7 4
3
X=8 6
2.5
Depth m

X=10
X=15 8 2

10 1.5
1
12
0.5
14 0
16 0 4 8 12 16
Distance of Pile From Rig Axis m

Fig. 15. Computed horizontal displacements below jacked pile rig on Fig. 18. Settlement increase for piles in clay or sand, due to jacking rig.
sand.
PLAXIS has been carried out to examine the order of magnitude
of such movements, and their dependence on the stress level in
the ground. The problem examined is illustrated in Figure 22, and
involves a hole of diameter dh drilled into a uniform stiff clay
profile which is subjected to a surface surcharge loading ps. It is
assumed that the drilling is carried out rapidly so that undrained
conditions prevail, and it also assumed that there are no effects
arising from differences between the water level inside and
outside the hole. Settlements are negative in the following
solutions.
Figure 23 shows the computed distribution of vertical
movement with depth at a distance of 2m from the centre of a
0.6m diameter hole, for values of the surcharge pressure of 0,
100, 200 and 300 kPa. The hole has been drilled to a depth of
21.5m. The following characteristics may be observed:
1. There is generally a settlement above the level of the base of
the hole, and a heave just above and below this level;
2. When there is zero surcharge pressure, the ground
movement is small and tend to be a heave, of the order of
0.5mm maximum.
3. When the surface surcharge is large, then the ground
settlements above the level of the base of the hole become
more significant, of the order of 2 mm maximum, with a
heave of a similar or greater magnitude near the level of the
base of the hole.
Figure 24 shows corresponding solutions for the lateral ground
movements due to hole drilling. Negative movements are towards
the hole. In this case, large lateral movements, of the order of
14mm, can be generated near the base of the hole when the
surcharge pressure is large. Again, in the “open-field” situation,
the lateral movements are much smaller, of the order of 1-2mm.
Figures 25 and 26 show the effects of the diameter of the
drilled hole, for a surface surcharge pressure of 200 kPa, again at
a distance of 2m from the hole centre. Clearly, the larger the hole
diameter, the larger are the movements.
Figures 27 and 28 show the variation of vertical and lateral
movement, at a depth of 17.5m, with distance from the hole, for a
0.6m diameter hole and a surface surcharge of 200 kPa. As would
be expected, the movements decrease with increasing distance
from the hole, and reduce to very small values once the distance
exceeds about 6-8 hole diameters. However, very close to the
hole, significant ground movements can occur, especially in the
horizontal direction.
From the above solutions, it can be seen that the drilling of
holes may lead to ground movements which are significant,
especially at short distances from a hole in ground which is
highly stressed, and where the hole diameter is large.
6.3 Pile Response to Ground Movements
As an example of the possible effects of hole drilling on pile
response, the case of a single pile 24m long, in a homogeneous
stiff clay, has been considered. The pile head is assumed to be
restrained against both translation and rotation (for example,
fixed into a large pile cap). The clay is assumed to have an
undrained shear strength of 100 kPa and a Young’s modulus of
50 MPa. The axis of the pile is located 2 m from the axis of the
newly-drilled hole, which extends to 21.5 m below the surface.
The pressure acting on the ground surface is assumed to be 200
kPa.
Figure 29 shows the computed maximum induced bending
moment in the pile, as a function of the hole diameter, and for
three pile diameters. As would be expected, the induced moment
increases as the hole diameter increases, and may approach the
design moment capacity, especially for the smaller-diameter pile.
Figure 30 plots the computed axial movement of the pile head
due to the drilling of a hole. In this case, the pile head is assumed
to be free to move vertically and is subjected to an applied axial
force of about 40% of the ultimate axial capacity (i.e. the factor
of safety is 2.5). Again, it can be seen that the pile head
movements increase as the hole diameter increases, and may
reach the order of 0.8-1.0mm for a 1m diameter hole.
If the pile is fixed into a cap which restrains vertical
movement, then there will be a tendency for an axial tensile force
to be induced in the pile. Figure 31 plots the induced axial force
in piles of various diameters, as a function of hole diameter. The
larger the hole diameter, the larger is the induced force at the pile
head. Of course, the net axial force at the pile head will generally
still be compressive under normal circumstances, but if the pile
has been newly-installed and is yet to carry significant load, the
net force may possibly be tensile.
The example results presented in this section clearly indicate
the potential for hole drilling near existing piles to cause
additional bending moments and axial force in those piles. The
larger the hole diameter, the closer the hole to the pile, or the
larger the surface pressure on the soil, the greater are the induced
responses. In addition, if multiple holes are drilled near an
existing pile, the combined effects may be sufficient to initiate
yield of the pile section or excessive additional settlement. A
typical field scenario for such a case would be the drilling of
holes for new large diameter bored piles adjacent to existing
smaller diameter precast piles.
7 EXCAVATION FOR A PILE CAP NEAR EXISTING
PILES
7.1 Introduction
In the context of “side effects”, a common situation is when an
excavation is carried out for a new pile cap, in the vicinity of
existing piles. In some cases, little or no support may be provided
for the excavation, since pile cap thicknesses are typically 1-3m.
However, under conditions in which the ground is highly
stressed, even such modest excavations deserve careful
consideration.
7.2 Ground Movements
It is now common for the ground movements around excavations
to be estimated via detailed numerical analyses such as the finite
element method. When numerical analyses cannot be carried out,
it is possible to use approximations developed by Clough and his
co-workers to estimate vertical and horizontal distributions of
ground movements. The distributions of movement with depth
are difficult to estimate without some form of analysis, as they
depend on wall flexibility and excavation support conditions, but
it may sometimes be adequate to assume a linear distribution with
depth (Chen and Poulos, 2001).
Common design practice employs two-dimensional analyses,
and near the centre of an excavation, two dimensional analyses
can give reasonable soil movement estimates (for example, Yong
et al, 1996). Thus, in the following examples, a two-dimensional
analysis, employing the computer program FLAC, has been used
to estimate the ground movements due to excavation for a pile
cap.
 Moment MNm 70 FIXED-RESTRAINED HEAD
-0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 FREE-UNRESTRAINED HEAD
0 60

Maximum Moment kNm

2 50
Axis of rig
4 support
40
X=7m
6
Depth m

X=8m
30
8 X=10m
10 X=15m 20

12 10
14
0
16 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Fig. 19 Distributions of bending moment induced in pile in clay by Distance of Pile From Rig Axis m
jacking rig.
Fig. 21b. Maximum moments induced in pile in sand by jacking rig.
Moment MNm
-0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
0 Surface pressure x
= po P = 0.50 MN
2

4 Hole Existing
X=7 drilled pile
6 X=8 L h = 21.5m
24m
Depth m

X=10
8
X=15
10 50m
dh
12
Clay: c u = 100 kPa
14 φu = 0
γ = 20 kN/m3
16 Eu = 50 MPa
νu = 0.5

Fig. 20. Distributions of bending moment induced in pile in sand by Rigid Rock
jacking rig.
Fig. 22. Basic problem of hole drilled near an existing pile.

Vertical Movement mm
25 FIXED-RESTRAINED HEAD -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
FREE-UNRESTRAINED HEAD 0

20
Maximum Moment kNm

-10

15 Axis of Rig
-20
Support

Base of hole -30

Depth m

10

p=10 kPa
-40
5 p=100 kPa
Hole diameter = 0.6m
p=200 kPa -50
0 p=300 kPa Distance from hole axis = 2.0m
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 -60
Distance of Pile From Rig Axis m
-70
Fig. 21a. Maximum moments induced in pile in clay by jacked pile rig. Fig. 23. Variation with surface pressure of vertical movement due to hole
drilling (settlement is negative).
 Horizontal Movement mm 3.5
-15 -10 -5 0 5
3
0
2.5 Hole diameter = 0.6m

Vertical Movement mm
-10 2 Surface Pressure = 200 kPa
1.5
-20
1
Base of hole 0.5
-30
Depth m

Hole diameter = 0.6m 0

Distance from hole axis = -40
-0.5 0 5 10 15 20
p=10 kPa -50 -1
p=100 kPa -1.5
p=200 kPa -60
Distance from Hole Axis m
p=200 kPa Fig. 27. Variation with distance of vertical movement due to hole drilling
-70 at 17.5 m depth (settlement is negative).

Fig. 24. Variation with surface pressure of horizontal movement due to Distance from Hole Axis m
hole drilling (negative
egative towards the hole). 0 5 10 15 20
0
Vertical Movement mm
-4 -2 0 2 4
-10
0
Horizontal Movement mm

Hole diameter = 0.6m

-10 -20 Surface Pressure = 200 kPa

-20
-30

-30
Depth m

-40
p=10 kPa
-40
p=100 kPa
Hole diameter = 0.6m -50
p=200 kPa -50
p=300 kPa Distance from hole axis = 2.0m
-60 -60

-70 Fig. 28. Variation with distance of horizontal movement due to hole
drilling at 17.5m depth (negative towards the hole).
Fig. 25. Variation with hole diameter of vertical movement due to hole
Fig.
drilling (settlement is negative). Surface pressure = 200 kPa CL hole is 2m from pile axis
10000
Horizontal Movement mm
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 Moment capacity for d=1.0m
Maximum Induced Moment kNm

0
1000
-5 Moment capacity for d=0.6m
Surface Pressure = 200 kPa
Distance from hole axis = 2.0m
-10
100
-15
Depth m

-20 Moment capacity for d=0.3m

dh=0.3m 10
d=1.0m
dh=0.6m -25
d=0.6m
dh=1.0m
-30 d=0.3m
1
-35 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Drill Hole Diameter m
-40
Fig. 29. Induced bending moments due to hole drilling. Fixed head
Fig. 26. Variation with hole diameter of horizontal movement due to hole restrained pile.
drilling (negative towards the hole).
 The case examined is shown in Figure 32, and involves an
excavation in medium-soft clay for a 3m deep pile cap, 10m in
width, with no lateral support provided for the excavation.
Figures 33 a-d show typical distributions of the vertical and
lateral movements with depth, at various distances from the
excavation. Two different values of the surface pressure are
considered, 0 kPa (a “green-field” situation) and 50 kPa, a typical
situation that may arise beneath an existing building. It can be
seen that, as would be expected, the movements for the 50 kPa
surface pressure are considerably larger than those for zero
pressure, and that the movements tend to decrease with
increasing distance from the excavation. It is further assumed that
the excavation is carried out relatively rapidly, and that no drop
in the level of the water table arises from the excavation.
7.3 Pile Response to Ground Movements
For the case as shown in Figure 32, Figures 34 and 35 summarize
the computed maximum bending moment and shear in an
adjacent pile, as a function of the distance from the excavation
and the surface pressure. It will be seen that the induced
maximum bending moment is very large when the pile is close to
the excavation. Indeed, for a 0.6m diameter reinforced concrete
pile with 1% reinforcement, carrying a working axial load of 800
kN (corresponding to a factor of safety of about 2), the maximum
design moment capacity is about 0.56kNm. Thus, Figure 34
implies that piles within about 10m of the axis of the excavation
could have induced moments that exceed the design capacity of
the pile, if the surface pressure is 50 kPa.
Figure 36 summarizes the computed additional movement of
an existing pile adjacent to the excavation. In this case, if there is
zero surface pressure, the adjacent pile tends to move upwards
slightly because of the excavation, but it settles if the surface
pressure is 50 kPa. In the latter case, the additional axial force
induced in the pile by the vertical ground settlement is small,
even if the pile is relatively close to the excavation.
Thus, it would appear that the issue that may cause most
concern is the induced bending moment and shear in the pile due
to the lateral ground movements.
8 PILES ADJACENT TO DEEPER
EXCAVATIONS
8.1 Introduction
Excavations for the construction of high-rise buildings in
congested urban areas have become increasingly prevalent. They
may however cause damage to existing structures because of the
soil movements they induce. Examples of such damage have
been reported by Finno et al (1991), Amirsoleymani (1991) and
Chu (1994). Although an excavation will cause both vertical and
lateral ground displacements, the lateral component may be more
critical as adjacent piles are often not designed to sustain
significant lateral loadings. Thus, attention here will be focused
on the lateral response of piles to excavation-induced lateral
ground movements.
8.2 Design Charts for Supported Excavations
Poulos and Chen (1997) have developed design charts which may
be useful for a preliminary assessment of the pile response. A
“standard” problem has been considered, as shown in Figure 37,
and the analysis techniques outlined above have been used to
compute the maximum pile deflection and maximum bending
moment for this case, for a single pile in a homogeneous clay
layer, at various distances from the excavation. Non-linear
behaviour of the pile has been allowed for by imposing limiting
lateral pile-soil pressures. A number of parameters have then
been varied (one at a time) to examine the effect of each on the
pile deflection and bending moment. The results of these analyses
have then been expressed in terms of basic solutions for the
“standard” problem, with correction factors for each parameters
varied. A critical parameter is the stability number Nc = γh/cu
where h=excavation height, γ=unit weight, cu=shear strength.
Chen and Poulos (1996) have examined the effects of the
pile head boundary condition on the pile response, and have
found that it may have a very substantial effect. The greater the
degree of restraint, the greater are the bending moments induced
in the pile. Figure 38 shows the computed deflection and moment
profiles, and the maximum positive and negative bending
moments for the standard case. It can be seen that, while the
maximum positive bending moment does not vary greatly, a very
large negative bending moment is developed when the pile head
is restrained against rotation, This negative moment becomes
extreme when the pile head is also restrained against translation.
From a practical viewpoint, this may be extremely significant.
Piles within an existing large group will normally be supported
by a cap or mat, and there will be considerable restraint against
both rotation and translation of the piles near the excavation
because of the cap and the other piles. Thus, the possibility of
pile damage due to a nearby excavation may be more severe for
piles within a group than for isolated piles without head restraint.
In turn, this implies that during construction, there is a reduced
risk of damage if the excavation is carried out before any nearby
piles are capped.
Finno et al (1991) described a case where a 17.7m deep
tieback excavation was made through primarily granular soils
within an existing frame structure, which was supported by
groups of step-tapered piles about 21 m long. Although the
excavation was provided with temporary support by a tieback
sheet-pile wall, the main column pile caps had moved about
6.4cm laterally toward the excavation by the time the sheet-pile
extraction was about to begin. Measurements of the deflection
profile along the pile and the distribution of maximum moment
were reported by Finno et al (1991), and Poulos and Chen (1997)
report reasonable comparisons between these measurements and
the computed behaviour from a detailed analysis.
A further example of reasonable agreement between the
design charts and experimental data has been described by Chen
and Poulos (2001) for a series of centrifuge tests carried out by
Leung et al (2000) on a single pile adjacent to unstrutted deep
excavations in dense sand.
8.3 Case History of Building Collapse Due to Excavation-
Induced Ground Movements
A commercial project located on the island of Java, Indonesia,
involved the construction of three buildings, an office block, a
hotel, and a shopping centre. Early in 1991, significant
settlements started to develop in the 9-storey office block, which
had been largely completed. Because of the continual increase in
settlement, and the resulting tilting of the building, the decision
was made to demolish the structure. Subsequently, investigations
were carried out to assess the cause of the tilting, and these
involved a consideration of a number of issues related to soil-
structure interaction. A detailed description of this work is given
 Movement mm
1.2 Surface pressure = 200 kPa CL hole is 2m from pile axis
0 1 2 3 4
1 0

0.8
Settlement mm

-2

0.6 -4

0.4 d=1.0m -6

Depth m
d=0.6m
0.2
d=0.3m -8

0
-10 X=6m
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Hole Diameter m X=10m
Excavation Depth
-12 X=15m
= 2.5m Zero
Fig. 30. Induced settlement due to drilling. Vertically unrestrained pile X=20m
head.
-14

-500 Surface pressure = 200 kPa CL pile is 2m from pile axis Fig. 33a. Vertical movement profiles due to cap excavation for zero
surface pressure.
d=1.0m
Movement mm
-400 d=0.6m -5 0 5 10 15 20
Axial Tension kN

d=0.3m 0
-300
2

-200 4
Depth m

6
-100 x=6m
8 x=10m
0 x=20m
10
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Hole Diameter m 12

Fig.31. Induced tension due to hole drilling. Vertically restrained pile. 14

Fig.33b. Vertical movement profiles due to cap excavation for 50 kpa

surface pressure.
Pw = 0.8 MN Movement mm
x
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
po
0
X=6m
X=10m
3 -2
Pile: d = 0.6m X=15m
X=20m
5 Clay: c u = 35 kPa -4
φu = 0 12
Depth m

9 γ = 18 kN/m 3 -6
Eu = 15 MPa
Ko = 0.75 -8

-10
Excavation Depth = 2.5m Zero
Weathered rock: c = 500kPa
Surface Pressure
E = 150 MPa -12

Fig. 33c. Horizontal movement profiles due to cap excavation for zero
surface pressure.
Fig. 32. Problem analyzed for effect of cap excavation.
 Movement mm 2.5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
0 2

Additonal Vertical Movement mm

2 1.5
p=0
4 1
p=50 kPa

6 0.5
Depth m

x=6m
x=10m 0
8
x=20m 0 5 10 15 20 25
-0.5
10

-1
12
Distance of Pile Axis from Excavation Axis m
14
Fig. 36. Additional vertical movement of pile due to cap excavation.
Fig. 33d. Horizontal movement profiles due to cap excavation for 50 kPa
surface pressure.
CL
B X
Strut Wall
H = 22m
1 h max d B = 4m
s cu = 40kPa
Maximum Induced Moment MNm

Es = 400cu = 16MPa

Lw
0.8 p=0 γ = 20kN/m 3
H Lp Lp = 22m
p=50 kPa d = 0.5m
0.6 Ep = 30000MPa
Lw = 13m
EIw = 22 x 104 kN.m2
0.4 h max = 10m

0.2 Fig. 37. Basic problem of pile near an excavation (Poulos & Chen, 1997).

0
Deflection (mm) Bending moment (kN.m)
0 5 10 15 20 25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 -300 -200 -100 0 100
Distance of Pile Axis from Excavation Axs m 0 0
Nc = 3 Nc = 3
5 5
Fig. 34. Induced bending moments due to cap excavation.
Depth (mm)
Depth (mm)

10 10

15 15
0.7 free free
fixed/rest. fixed/rest.
20 20
fixed/unrest. fixed/unrest.
0.6 free/rest. free/rest.
25 25
p=0
(a) Deflection and bending moment profiles
Maximum Shear MN

0.5
p=50 kPa
150
Nc=γh/cu
0.4 100
-M max(kN.m) +M max(kN.m)

free fixed/rest. fixed/unrest. free/rest.

50
0.3
0
-50
0.2
-100

0.1 -150
-200
0 -250
Head condition
0 5 10 15 20 25 (b) Maximum bending moment
Distance of Pile Axis from Excavation Axis m
Fig. 38. Effect of head restraint on induced moment and deflection in pile.
Fig. 35. Induced shear in pile due to cap excavation.
by Poulos (1997), and a summary of some of the main features is
presented below.
Figure 39 shows a plan of the project site and the locations of
the boreholes and cone penetration tests carried out prior to and
after construction. Figure 40 shows the details derived from the
boreholes. A layer of soft to very soft silt extended to a depth of
about 11m, underlain by stiffer silt to about 18m. This was in turn
underlain by very stiff and cemented layers of silt, silty sand and
sand, in which the SPT values exceeded 60. The borelogs and
SPT data obtained from the second investigation confirmed the
earlier indications that the site was relatively uniform. Laboratory
testing was carried out to measure the undrained shear strength
profile, and the one-dimensional compressibility characteristics.
In the soft upper layer, the undrained shear strength was typically
20 kPa or less, and the compression index for the normally
consolidated state was between about 0.6 and 1.7.
Figure 41 shows the plan of the foundation piles, which
consisted of 0.5 m diameter driven cast-in-situ piles, extending to
a depth of about 20m, and founded in the cemented hard layers of
silt, sand and silty sand. A total of 90 piles were used for the
office building.
8.4 Building Settlements
Settlements of both the hotel and office buildings were monitored
during and after construction, but no significant movements were
observed until after about mid-October 1990. At that time, an
excavation sub-contractor started to make an excavation in the
ground adjacent to the shopping centre (see Figure 39). The
excavation was unsupported and was meant to have vertical
sides, extending to a depth of about 4m. Movement of the soft
silty soil towards the excavation was noted, and it appears that it
was not possible to complete the excavation, despite repeated
attempts by the sub-contractor. He attempted to stabilize the
excavation by driving bamboo poles, and then steel I-beams, but
to no avail. It was also noted that some of the steel I-beams
located near the attempted excavation had moved more than 1m
towards the excavation. It was clear then that the uncontrolled
excavation had caused gross ground movements.
The building began to tilt shortly thereafter, and by mid-
February, with the average tilt of the office building floor being
about 1 in 29, and the horizontal movement of the top of the
building was about 1.2m. Detailed settlement measurements were
not available for the hotel building, but it was reported that no
additional settlements had been recorded. In addition, there was
no evidence of significant settlement of an apartment block on an
adjoining site, although there were signs of some horizontal and
vertical movements of the soil around this block towards the
excavation, extending back about 7m from the closest side of the
excavation.
8.5 Investigation of Causes of Settlement of the Office Building
The following possible causes of the observed settlements of the
office building were examined:
• settlements due to compressible underlying layers;
• geotechnical failure of the piles;
• structural failure of the piles under the design loading;
• applied loads on the foundations being in excess of the
design values;
• the effects of the adjacent excavation and the consequent
imposition of additional foundation loadings.
Of these, the most likely cause was found to be the latter. The
excavation-induced movements would have had the following
effects on the nearby office building piles:
• the imposition of lateral soil movements and pressures, and
hence additional deflection, bending moment and shear in
the piles;
• the imposition of additional axial shear stresses due to the
vertical component of soil movement, and a consequent
increase in the axial force due to negative friction.
The effects of lateral soil movements were analyzed using the
program ERCAP, while the effects of vertical soil movements
were analyzed using the program PIES. In estimating the axial
and lateral soil movements, use was made of the work of Mana
and Clough (1981) and Clough et al (1989). The assumed profile
of movement (both axial and lateral) with depth is shown in
Figure 42. A depth of excavation of 4m was assumed, although it
was unlikely that this depth was reached in all sections of the
excavation. The settlement and lateral movement appear to
become relatively small at about 2 - 3 times the excavation depth
behind the face of the excavation, and this characteristic appeared
to be borne out on site. The second line of piles driven for the
shopping centre (about 8 to 10m away) did not appear to have
suffered significant movements, at least initially. The ultimate
skin friction, end bearing and lateral pressures were assessed on
the basis of the laboratory measured undrained shear strength (su)
values. Values of Young’s modulus were estimated from the su
values, and also from values backfigured from axial and lateral
pile load test data. These values were found to be about 1000-
1500 times su.
8.6 Estimated Forces and Moments in Office Building Piles
The piles in the group D13 nearest to the uncontrolled excavation
were analyzed to assess the possible influence of soil movements.
The estimated axial dead load on the piles was about 1000 kN per
pile at the time of the excavation, and it was assumed that the pile
heads were restrained against both rotation and translation,
because of their fixity to the structure via the pile cap. From the
analysis of the effects of the vertical soil movements, ground
settlements of the order of 30 to 40mm were found to develop an
additional downdrag force of about 150kN, with the additional
pile settlement being about 5-6mm.
In the analysis of pile response to lateral soil movements, it
was found that a soil movement of 80mm or more would cause
the soil to flow past the piles, and would develop a bending
moment of about 245 kNm in each pile, if the pile was assumed
to be elastic. The corresponding head shear force would be 134
kN per pile, giving a total lateral force at the pile cap (for the four
piles) of 536 kN.
Figure 43 compares the maximum applied bending moment
and axial load with the structural capacity of the pile section. It is
clear that the ultimate pile capacity was exceeded by a substantial
margin. The analysis indicates that the yield moment of the pile
section of 160 kNm would be reached at a horizontal soil
movement of only about 10mm. Since movements in excess of
100mm were measured at a nearby pile group of the shopping
centre, it was likely that the soil movements occurring at D13
would have been enough to cause the pile to yield at the pile
head. The additional restraining force and bending moment could
not have reasonably been anticipated by the foundation designers,
and were not allowed for in the structural design of the piles.
It was therefore postulated that the tilting of the building was
triggered by such structural failure of the piles, caused by the
uncontrolled excavation. Deformation of the corner piles caused
 GROUND TANK BH2
D
Soil Movement /
S1
S3
SHOPPING CENTRE S5 DBII
Surface Soil Movement
C
BH3
S7
0 0.5 1.0
DBI OFFICE BUILDING 0
B
BH4 S2 S4 S6 S8
A
Nominal base of excavation
13
14 15 16
BH1 5

Depth (m)
Legend: 10 Base of very soft layer
Boreholes
CPT Locations
Pile or Pile Group
15
Note - Same profile used for both horizontal
Fig. 39. Plan of site and borehole locations. &vertical movements
20
Water wet
Recompression Content density Preconsolidation
SPT S u kN/m 2 Comparison Index Cc Index C r % t/m3 Pressure kPa
0 40 80 0 50 100 150 0 1 2 3 0 0.3 0 100 1.2 2.0 0 400 800
0

Silt,
Legend:
BH1
Fig. 42. Assumed distribution of lateral movement due to excavation.
very soft 5
BH2
BH3
10 BH4
Silt,
very soft -
stiff 15
Depth (m)

Silt, &
sand, hard
20
Sand, very
dense,
cemented
25
5000
30

Structural capacity using

35
Natural W/C Approximate ultimate strengths of
effective
overburden
pressure
4000 steel and concrete
Normal Load (kN)

Structural capacity using

Fig. 40. Geotechnical information. 3000 design strengths of
steel and concrete

GROUP D13
2000
118 119 122 123 165 166 167 168
124
162 164 163 169 170
116 117 125 126 161
1000
127 160 171 Computed condition
in pile
128 158 159 172

114 115
129 130 0
156 157 173 174
0 100 200 300 400 500
113 131 133 155
120 132 Bending Moment (kNm)
111 112 153 154 175 176
134 135
121
109 110 136 137 151 152 177 178
108 138 Fig. 43. Computed bending moment in pile versus pile strength
106 107 149 150 179 180 envelopes.
139 140
181 182

183 184

141 142 147 148

105 185 186

103 104 143 144 145 146 187 188 189 190

13 14 15 15a 16

Fig. 41. Plan of pile foundations for office building.

a transfer of structural load to adjacent columns of the building,
and induced additional bending moments and tensile forces in the
floor slab and the beams. Consequently, cracking of the floor slab
and beams occurred, resulting in a further redistribution of
structural loads to adjacent columns and panels, and hence further
cracking. Because of the rigidity of the structure, it tilted
subsequently. Tilting caused an increased moment due to the
eccentricity of the weight of the building, and the tilting was
exacerbated. Thus, the initial failure of the piles due to the
ground movements was assessed to have triggered a progressive
failure of both the structure and the foundations, extending over a
period of 2 - 3 months.
Some confirmation for the postulated mechanism of tilting
was provided by two observations:
• reports from security personnel in early January 1991 of
three loud “cracking” noises at about two-hourly intervals
during the night. In the morning, the corner of the office
building closest to the excavation had settled about 140mm.
• substantial cracking was found in the floor slab in both
directions near the corner of the building supported by the
pile group D13.
It was concluded that the tilting of the building was a
consequence of the side effects of an uncontrolled excavation,
which caused ground movements that induced unsustainable
bending moments in the existing nearby piles supporting the
building. The building was subsequently demolished.
CONCLUSIONS
This paper has attempted to demonstrate the possible effects that
construction activities can have on existing pile foundations.
Construction activities cause ground movements which interact
with existing pile foundations, thus inducing additional forces,
moments, shears and deflections in these piles. Such effects may
not be very significant in a “greenfield” situation, where
construction is carried out in ground that is not stressed by
existing loaded foundations. However, the effects are certainly
not trivial where the existing piles carry a significant amount of
load and therefore have stressed the ground in which the
construction activities are taking place. A common situation in
which these circumstances occur is when additional or remedial
foundations are being installed within or adjacent to an existing
foundation system.
Five common cases of construction “side effects” have been
examined: pile driving, pile installation by jacking, the drilling of
holes near existing piles, the excavation of the ground for pile cap
construction, and deeper excavations near existing piles. In each
case, an assessment of the ground movements due to the
construction operation has been made, and then pile-soil
interaction analyses have been carried out to examine the effects
of these ground movements on the axial and lateral response of
nearby existing piles. It has been found that all the processes
examined have the potential to cause damage of the existing
piles, or to induce undesirable movements of these piles.
However, of the activities examined, the ones that appear to have
the greatest potential to cause damage are pile driving, and
excavations, either for a pile cap, or for new construction on an
adjacent site.
It is therefore clear that consideration needs to be given to the
possible side effects of construction activities on existing
foundations, so that such foundations are not damaged, and so
that (for example) planned remedial works do not create
additional damage to the foundation system they are meant to
reinforce.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author is grateful to J.C. Small and P.K. Wong for his
constructive comments, Ms. Maria Domadenik for preparing the
manuscript in its final form, and Ms. Kim Pham for preparing the
figures.
REFERENCES
Amirsoleymani, T. 1991. Elimination of excessive differential
settlement by different methods. Proc. 9th Asian Reg. Conf.
Soil Mechs. Found. Eng., Bangkok, 1: 351-354.
Chen, L.T. 1994. The effect of lateral soil movements on pile
foundations. PhD Thesis, The University of Sydney,
Australia.
Chen, L.T. and Poulos, H.G. 2001. Approximation of lateral soil
movements for analyzing lateral pile response. Proc. 20th
Annual Seminar of Geot. Divn., H.K. Inst. Engrs, 14-23.
Chen, L.T., and Poulos, H.G. 1996. Some aspects of pile
response near an excavation. Proc. of 7th Australia and New
Zealand Conference in Geomechanics, pp.604-609.
Chow, Y.K., Chin, J.T. and Lee, S.L. 1990. Negative skin friction
on pile groups. Int. Jnl. Num. Anal. Meths. in Geomechs., 14
(1), 75-91.
Chow and Teh 1990. A theoretical study of pile heave.
Geotechnique, 40(1): 1-14.
Chu, Y.K. 1994. A failure case study of island method excavation
in soft clay. Proc. Int. Conf. Des. and Constrn. Deep Founds.,
Orlando, 3: 1216-1230.
Clough, G.W., Smith, E.M. & Sweeney, B.P. 1989. Movement
control of excavation support systems by iterative design.
Proc. ASCE, Foundation Engineering: Current Principles and
Practices, 2: 869-884.
De Cock, F. and Legrand, C. 1997. Design of axially loaded piles
– European practice. Rotterdam, A.A. Balkema.
Finno, R. J., Laurence, S.A., Allauh, N.F. and Harahap, I.S. 1991.
Analysis of performance of pile groups adjacent to deep
excavation. Jnl. Geot. Eng., ASCE, Vol. 117, No. 6, 934-955.
Hull, T.S. 1996. PALLAS user’s guide. Centre for Geotechnical
Research, Univ. of Sydney, Australia.
Kuwabara, F. & Poulos, H.G. 1989. Downdrag forces in a group
of piles. J. Geot. Eng. Divn., ASCE, 115(6): 806-818.
Leung, C.F., Chow, Y.K. and Shen, R.F. 2000. Behaviour of pile
subject to excavation-induced soil movement. Jnl. of Geot.
and Geoenv. Engineering, ASCE, Vol.126, pp.947-954.
Li, K.S., Ho, N.C.L., Tham, L.G. and Lee, P.K.K et al 2003. Case
studies of jacked piling in Hong Kong. Centre for Research
and Profnl. Devel,, Univ. of Hong Kong (153pp).
Mana, A.I. & Clough, G.W. 1981. Prediction of movement of
braced cuts. Jnl. Geotechnical Division, ASCE, 107: 759-778.
Meyerhof, G.G. 1976. Bearing capacity and settlement of pile
foundations. Jnl. Geot. Eng. Div., ASCE, 102(GT3): 195-228.
Poulos, H.G. 1989. Pile behaviour-theory and application.
Géotechnique, 39(3): 365-415.
Poulos, H.G. 1994. Effect of Pile Driving on Adjacent Piles in
Clay. Can. Geot. Jnl., Vol. 31, No. 6, 856-867.
Poulos, H.G. 1997. Failure of a building supported on piles. Proc.
Int. Conf. On Found. Failures, Singapore, Inst. Engrs.
Singapore. 53-66.
Poulos, H.G. 2001) Pile foundations. Ch. 10 of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering Handbook, Ed. R.K. Rowe,
Kluwer Press.
Poulos, H.G. and Chen, L. 1997. Pile response due to excavation-
induced lateral soil movement. Jnl. Geot. and Geoenv. Eng.,
ASCE, 123 (2), 94-99.
Poulos, H.G. & Davis, E.H. 1980. Pile foundation analysis and
design. New York, John Wiley.
Reyno, A.J., Hull, T.S. and Poulos, H.G. 1999. Effect of Pile
Jacking on Adjacent Piles in Sand. Proc. 8th Aust. – New
Zealand Conf. Geomechs., Hobart, 1: 437-443.
Sagaseta and Whittle 1996. Effect of pile driving on adjacent
piles in clay: Discussion. Can. Geot. Jnl., 33: 525-527.
Small, J.C. 1985. FLEA Users Manual. Dept. Civil Engineering,
University of Sydney, Australia.
Teh, C.I. and Wong, K.S. 1995. Analysis of downdrag on pile
groups. Geotechnique, 45(2): 191-207.
Xu, K.R. and Poulos, H.G. 2001. 3-D elastic analysis of vertical
piles subjected to passive loadings. Computers and
Geotechnics, 28: 349-375.
Yong, K.Y., Lee, F.H. and Liu, X.K. 1996. Three dimensional
finite element analysis of deep excavations in marine clay.
Proc. 12th Southeast Asian Geot. Conf., Kuala Lumpur, 1:
435-440.
View publication stats