5/11/2013

CSGE/GEOSS SEMINAR
Prof Harry Tan
Date: 4 November2013

5/11/2013 1

 Nature of ground displacements

 Available theories
 Cantabria/MIT and Swedish Study
 Case of Mixed Type Piling
 Case of Jack-in piles in Deep Soft Clays
 Some Conclusions

5/11/2013
2

1
 5/11/2013

Two Relevant Papers

• Paper 1 from Cantabria and MIT

• Paper 2 from Skanska Sweden

5/11/2013 3

Nature of ground
displacements

5/11/2013
4

2
 5/11/2013

 Swedish empirical method

 SSPM – Shallow Strain Path Method
 Direct FEM – UnDrained Volumetric
Strains or Prescribed Cavity Expansion

5/11/2013
5

• Approximate answers to be used for

simplified cases only
• Basic assumption is UnDrained
Volume displacements takes on a
simple form of lateral and vertical
movements

5/11/2013
6

3
 5/11/2013

Closed form solutions are

remarkably so simple
5/11/2013
7

Prof Harry Tan

Date: 15 OCT 2013

5/11/2013 8

4
 5/11/2013

Assume single pile R=0.5m

L=5m

SSPM single pile surface displacements
R (m) L (m) r (m) dr (m) dv (m)
0.50 5.00 1.00 0.123 0.100
0.50 5.00 2.00 0.058 0.039
0.50 5.00 3.00 0.036 0.020
0.50 5.00 4.00 0.024 0.012
0.50 5.00 5.00 0.018 0.007

5/11/2013
9

E=2MPa, E=10MPa,
nu’=0.3 nu’=0.3

E=50MPa, E=50MPa,
nu’=0.3 nu’=0.3

5/11/2013
10

5
 5/11/2013

E=2MPa, E=10MPa,
nu’=0.3 nu’=0.3

E=50MPa, E=50MPa,
nu’=0.3 nu’=0.3

5/11/2013
11

Ground Heave Radial Lateral Displacement

5/11/2013
12

6
 5/11/2013

SSPM single pile surface displacements
R (m) L (m) r (m) dr (m) dv (m)
0.50 5.00 1.00 0.123 0.100
0.50 5.00 2.00 0.058 0.039
SSPM 0.50 5.00 3.00 0.036 0.020
0.50 5.00 4.00 0.024 0.012
0.50 5.00 5.00 0.018 0.007

For r>3D, FEM heave agrees very well with SSPM

5/11/2013
13

SSPM single pile surface displacements
R (m) L (m) r (m) dr (m) dv (m)
0.50 5.00 1.00 0.123 0.100
0.50 5.00 2.00 0.058 0.039
0.50 5.00 3.00 0.036 0.020
0.50 5.00 4.00 0.024 0.012
0.50 5.00 5.00 0.018 0.007

SSPM
E=20 and 50 MPa

E=2,5,10 MPa

For r>3D, FEM heave agrees well with SSPM

BUT E values have some small influence on results
5/11/2013
14

7
 5/11/2013

SSPM single pile surface displacements
R (m) L (m) r (m) dr (m) dv (m)
0.50 5.00 1.00 0.123 0.100
SSPM 0.50 5.00 2.00 0.058 0.039
0.50 5.00 3.00 0.036 0.020
0.50 5.00 4.00 0.024 0.012
0.50 5.00 5.00 0.018 0.007

For r>3D, FEM surface lateral displacement agrees well with SSPM
5/11/2013
15

SSPM single pile surface displacements
R (m) L (m) r (m) dr (m) dv (m)
0.50 5.00 1.00 0.123 0.100
SSPM 0.50 5.00 2.00 0.058 0.039
0.50 5.00 3.00 0.036 0.020
0.50 5.00 4.00 0.024 0.012
0.50 5.00 5.00 0.018 0.007

E=20 and 50 MPa

E=2,5,10 MPa

For r>3D, FEM surface lateral displacement agrees very well with SSPM
BUT E values have some small influence on results 5/11/2013
16

8
 5/11/2013

100% Vol Strain: Prescribed displacements:

Esp-xx=50% and Esp-zz=50% Uxx=0.19m from radius of pile

5/11/2013
17

Loose Sand Soft Clay

(Drained) (UnDrained)

Use HS-small model to characterize

highly non-linear response of soils

5/11/2013
18

9
 5/11/2013

Lateral Displacements for Linear model using 
Vol Strain vs Prescribed Displacements; and 
HSsmall models for Sand vs Soft Clay (using 
Prescribed Displacements)

From circumference of
pile

• Lateral displacements are almost the same by Volumetric Strain or Prescribed

Displacement method (Linear Elastic Model)
• Linear Elastic and Non-linear models also nearly same results
5/11/2013
19

Vertical Displacements

Vol Strain: E=2 MPa

Soft Clay (UnDrained)

Loose Sand
(Drained)

Pres Disp:
E=2 MPa

From circumference of
pile

• Heave are different by Volumetric Strain or Prescribed Displacement method
• Linear Elastic and Non‐linear models also gave different results
• Influence of small strain stiffness is important for accurate modeling of these kind of 
problems  5/11/2013
20

10
 5/11/2013

Compare 3D Plaxis with SSPM

5/11/2013
21

SSPM vs FEM

5/11/2013
22

11
 5/11/2013

5/11/2013
23

5/11/2013 24

12
 5/11/2013

BH175 BH176
BH184
0m 0m 0m
Upheave
FILL Sandy Silts bored pile
N=10 to 20 7m gripped by 6.5m
9m Firm Soils
Max tension force expected in
Soft Marine Clay Bored Piles near base of Soft
Su=10 to 20 KPa Clay
14m 14m
17m 18m
Stiff Jurong Bored pile held
Residual Soils down by
Sandy Silts embedment in Stiff
N=30 to 100 Soils
25m 25m 25m

Fig.2 Soil Profile at Piling Site in Main Workshop Area

5/11/2013
25

2nd Ring
3rd Ring 1 Ring
st

Fig.7 Simplified Ring Model of Driven Piles

surrounding Single Bored Pile

5/11/2013
26

13
 5/11/2013

Sandy FILL, E=20 
MPa
1st ring Vol‐strain=13%
2nd ring Vol‐strain=17%
Soft Clay, E=2 MPa
3rd ring Vol‐strain=9%
Upper 12m of bored 
pile has nominal steel  Stiff Clay, E=50 
cage MPa

Fig.8 Axis-symmetric model of single bored pile

with equivalent rings of driven piles around it

5/11/2013
27

Single bored pile of

radius=300mm

3rd Ring

2nd Ring

1st Ring

Fig.9 Progressive Ground Upheave from Equivalent Rings of Driven

Piles installed using Axis-symmetric 2D-FEM
5/11/2013
28

14
 5/11/2013

5/11/2013
29

Sandy 
FILL

Soft CLAY
Tension Failure 
of Bored Pile  St=3000 
(see tension  kPa
cutoff points) Tension 
failure
Stiff CLAY

Fig.10 Tension Failure in Bored Pile below steel cage due to upheave by soil
displacements from close proximity driven RC piles
5/11/2013
30

15
 5/11/2013

Single bored Ground upheave

pile upheave between 140 and
> 25 mm 180mm

Fig.11 3D-FEM model of single bored pile upheave due to closely

spaced driven piles close to it

5/11/2013
31

600mm diameter
single bored pile

Fig.12 Progressive Ground Upheave from Rings of Driven Piles installed

using 3D-FEM, with single softer bored pile in the center
5/11/2013
32

16
 5/11/2013

Pile cap with 4 600mm  Axial forces (1624 kN) in 
diameter bored piles  bored piles exceeded 
Pile cap heave about  (cyan color) maximum tension 
50 mm capacity of 500 kN

Ground heave by 
300 to 400 mm

Arrays of closely spaced 
driven 400mm square RC 
piles (green color)

Fig.13 Realistic 3D-FEM model of bored pile group followed by

closely spaced 400 square RC driven piles installation
5/11/2013
33

5/11/2013
34

17
 5/11/2013

5/11/2013 35

Site piling plan with about half of the pile groups (in green color) that
were installed without any mitigation measures taken

Installed pile
groups (in green
color)

Piles not installed

yet

36

18
 5/11/2013

Due to the existence

of very deep soft
marine clay (about
27~30m thick) at site,
see BH-2 as example,
with SPT N=0~2, the
RC pile installation
induced excessive
ground lateral
movement and heave
and caused
undesirable cracks
(nonstructural) to
adjacent properties.

37

It is impossible to simulate the whole site without 3D FEM numerical simulation

difficulty. As such, the 1st 3D FEM impact analysis will focus on the zone as
indicated below with many installed pile groups to back-analyze its impact to
adjacent properties, and evaluate future superposing effect of the trailing outstanding
piles with & without mitigating measures

Installed pile
groups (in green
Piles not installed
color)
yet

Referred to as
“Zone-1”
hereinafter
38

19
 5/11/2013

To make the 3D FEM feasible, the 2nd 3D FEM impact analysis

will focus on the zone as indicated below with most of the pile
groups NOT installed yet, and evaluate its impact to adjacent
properties with & without mitigating measures

Referred to as
“Zone-2”
hereinafter Piles not installed
yet

39

Top view of the 3D FEM mesh with the Installed Piles with imposed volumetric strain 
expansion over the full length of each of the installed piles

40

20
 5/11/2013

Visualization of induced lateral ground movement pattern (Largest lateral

ground movement around the pile groups and dissipate with
distance away from piles)

41

Visualization of induced ground heave pattern (Largest ground heave around the 
pile groups and dissipate with distance away from piles)

42

21
 5/11/2013

The calculated lateral ground movement at the frontline of adjacent properties is 
about 94mm (inclinometers only recorded about 30~50mm as it is at corner of 
piles location, thus the analysis is on the conservative but realistic side), and this 
help explains the observed cracks damages in the buildings

43

The calculated ground heave at the frontline of adjacent prosperities is about 
58mm (Settlement markers only recorded about 30~40mm, thus the analysis may 
be on the conservative side), and this explains the observed cracks around the 
buildings

44

22
 5/11/2013

Going forward, the scenario was simulated that the outstanding RC piles are to be 
installed WITHOUT any mitigating measures…

Outstanding RC
piles to be
installed without
any mitigating
measures

45

There will be an ADDITIONAL lateral ground movement at the frontline of adjacent 
properties of about 31mm with accompanying ground heave of about 18mm, which 
are deemed to be too much additional movements for the adjacent properties.

46

23
 5/11/2013

As such, it is proposed to take the following mitigating measures 
before resumption of the site works:

(1) Installation of perimeter sheetpile wall with length of 18m to 

help cut off the propagation of induced ground movements;
(2) 1m x 1m trench will be formed behind the above sheetpile
wall to further cut off the propagation of ground movement 
at the ground level;
(3) Last but most importantly, the top 24m of each pile location 
will be pre‐bored with sufficiently large diameter (say about 
400mm) to eliminate the volumetric strain expansion of the 
soft ground, which is most crucial in view that the buildings 
are founded on footings near the ground surface.

47

In the 3D FEM simulation, the top 24m was NOT imposed with volumetric strain as it 
has been pre‐bored. On the other hand, the lower part will be imposed with full 
volumetric strain accordingly. 

1mx1m trench

18m sheetpile

For the Outstanding RC  For the Outstanding RC 
piles, top 24m will NOT  piles, the lower part will 
be imposed with  be imposed with 100% 
volumetric strain as it  lateral volumetric strain 
has been pre‐bored. accordingly.
48

24
 5/11/2013

The figure below clearly shows that with the mitigation measures, the 
induced lateral ground movement mainly occurs in the deep ground 
elevations, while the induced ground  surface lateral movement is quite 
minimal.

SSPM theory on
Pre-boring
Effects

49

The induced ADDITIONAL lateral ground movement at the location of the adjacent 
properties is about 11mm which mainly occurs at  much deeper elevations, while the 
lateral ground movement at the ground surface where the buildings are seated is 
less than 1mm. However, there is an accompanying ground heave of about 3mm
which is deemed to be  acceptable.

50

25
 5/11/2013

 Ground displacements by UnDrained Volume expansion of 
installed solid piles had been extensively studied
 SSPM and FEM approach produce close agreements in predicted 
ground movements some distance away from the installed piles
 These approaches were applied to a well monitored Swedish 
case, and showed good reliable predictions
 The same methods were applied to two local cases with success 
to give insights into the field problems
 The methods have good potential for applications to predict and 
mitigate excessive ground movements that may cause potential 
damages to close‐by buried and surface structures in crowded 
urban built‐up environment like Singapore

5/11/2013
51

26