Effects of tunnel construction on nearby pile foundations 5

REFERENCES


Abu-Farsakh M Y and Voyiadjis G Z (1999). Computational model for the simulation of the
shield tunnelling process in cohesive soils. International Journal for Numerical and Analytical
Methods in Geomechanics, 23, pp.23-44.

ACI (1989). Building code requirements for structural concrete (318-99) and commentary (318R-
99), American Concrete Institute.

Addenbrooke T I, Potts D M and Puzrin A M (1997). The influence of pre-failure soil stiffness on
the numerical analysis of tunnel construction. Geotechnique 47, No. 3, pp.693-712.

Anand S, Leong E C and Cheong H K (2001). The use of a Continuous Surface Wave
Measurement System for in situ characterisation of soil. Proceedings of the International
Conference on Insitu Measurement of Soil Properties and Case Histories, Bali, pp. 139-144.

Augarde C E, Burd H J and Houlsby G T (1998). Some experiences of modelling tunnelling in
soft ground using three-dimensional finite elements. Proceeding of 4
th
European Conference on
Numerical Methods in Geotechnical Engineering, Udine, 14-16 October 1998, pp.603-612.

Augarde C E and Burd H J (2001). Three-dimensional finite element analysis of lined tunnels.
International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, 25, pp. 243-262.

Bezuijen A and Schrier J V D (1994). The influence of a bored tunnel on pile foundations.
CENTRIFUGE 94, Singapore. Leung, Lee & Tan (eds)., pp.681-686.

Bloodworth A G (2002). Three-dimensional analysis of tunnelling effects on structures to develop

design methods, PhD thesis, University of Oxford.

Bond A J and Jardine R J (1991). Effects of installing displacement piles in a high OCR clay.
Geotechnique 41, No. 3, pp. 341-363.

Bransby and Springman (1996). 3-D Finite element modelling of pile groups adjacent to surcharge
loads. Computers and Geotechnics, Vol. 19, No. 4, pp.301-324.

Broms B B (1979). Negative skin friction. Proceedings of 6
th
Asian Regional Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Singapore, Volume 2, pp.41-75.

Broms B B and Pandey P C (1987). Influence of ground movements from tunnelling on adjacent
piles and remedial measures. 5
th
International Geotechnical Seminar, Case Histories in Soft Clays,
Singapore.

Brown D A and Shie C F (1990). Three dimensional finite element model of laterally loaded piles.
Computers and Geotechnics, pp.59-79.

BS5930 (1981). Code of Practice for Site Investigations. British Standards Institution, London.

BS8004 (1986). Code of practice for foundations. British Standards Institution, London.

323

BS8110 (1997). Structure use of concrete. Part 1: Code of practice for design and construction.
British Standards Institution, London.

Buhan P D and Salencon J (1987). Analyse de la stabite des ouvrages en sols renforces par une
methode d’homogeneisation. Revue Francasise de Geotechnique, No. 41, pp.29-43.

Burland J B, Standing J R and Jardine F M (2002). Building response to tunnelling. Case studies
from construction of the Jubilee Line Extension, London. Thomas Telford, London.

Chandler R J and Martins J P (1982). An experimental study of skin friction around piles in clay.
Geotechnique 32, No. 2, pp. 119-132.

Chapman DN, Rogers C D F and Hunt D V L (2004). Predicting the settlements above twin
tunnels constructed in soft ground. Proceedings of the 30
th
ITA-AITES World Tunnel Congress,
22-27 May 2004, Singapore.

Chen C Y and Martin G R (2002). Soil-structure interaction for landslide stabilizing piles.
Computer and Geotechnics, Vol. 29, pp.363-386.

Chen L T and Poulos H G (1997). Effects of tunneling on piled foundations. Computer Methods
and Advances in Geomechanics, Yuan (eds), pp.2183-2188.

Chen L T, Poulos H G and Loganathan N (1999). Pile responses caused by tunneling. Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 125(3), pp.207-215.

Chen et al. (2000). Approximate design charts for piles adjacent to tunneling operations.
Proceeding of GEOENG 2000, Melbourne.

Cheng C Y, Dasari G R, Leung C F, Chow Y K and Rosser H B (2004). 3D numerical study of
tunnel-soil-pile interaction. 30

th
AITES-ITA World Tunnel Congress, Singapore.

Cheung Y K, Lee P K K and Zhao W B (1991). Elastoplastic analysis of soil-pile interaction.
Computers and Geotechnics 12, pp.115-132.

Chow Y K, Lim C H and Karunaratne G P (1996). Numerical modeling of negative skin friction
on pile groups. Computer and Geotechnics, 18, No. 3, pp.201-224.

Clarke B G (1995). Pressuremeter in geotechnical design (1
st
edition). Blackie Academic &
Professional.

Comodromos E M, Anagnostopoulos C T and Georgiadis M K (2003). Numerical assessment of
axial pile group response based on load tests. Computer and Geotechnics, Vol. 30 (6), pp.505-516.

Coutts D R and Wang J (2000). Monitoring of reinforced concrete piles under horizontal and
vertical loads due to tunneling. Tunnels and Underground Structures, Zhao, Shirlaw & Khrisnan
(eds), Singapore, pp. 541-546.

Dames and Moore (1983). Mass rapid transit system, Singapore: Detailed geotechnical study.
Interpretative Report, Provisional Mass Rapid Transit Authority, Singapore.

324

Dasari G R (1996). Modelling the variation of soil stiffness during sequential construction. PhD
thesis, Cambridge University.

Deane A P and Bassett R H (1995). The Heathrow trial tunnel. Proceeding of Institution of Civil

Engineering: Geotechnical Engineering, 113, pp.144-156.

Dias D, Kastner R & Maghazi M (2000). Three-dimensional simulation of slurry shield tunneling,
Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground, Kusakabe, Fujita & Miyazaki
(eds), pp. 351-356.

Ding W Q, Yue Z Q, Tham L G, Zhu H H, Lee C F and Hashimoto T (2004). Analysis of shield
tunnel. Int’ Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, 28, pp.57-91.

Eisenstein Z, El-Nahhas F and Thomson S (1981). Strain field around a tunnel in stiff soil. 10
th

International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Stockholm.

Ellis E A and Springman S M (2001). Full-height piled bridge abutments constructed on soft clay.
Geotechnique 51, No. 1, pp. 3-14.

Ellis E A and Springman S M (2001). Modelling of soil-structure interaction for a piled bridge
abutment in plane strain FEM analyses. Computer and Geotechnics 28, pp.79-98

Fellenius B H (1989). Tangent modulus of piles determined from strain data. Foundation
Engineering: Current principles and practices, Vol. 1 (F H Kulhawy eds.). Proceeding of the
congress, Eyanston, Illinois, June 25-29, 1989.

Fellenius B H (2001). From strain measurements to load in an instrumented pile. Geotechnical
News Magazine, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 35-38.

Feng S H, Leung C F, Chow Y K and Dasari G R (2002). Centrifuge modeling of pile responses
due to tunnelling. 15
th

KKCNN Symposium on Civil Engineering, Singapore, 19-20 December
2002, pp. G31-36.

Forth R A and Thorley C B B (1996). Hong Kong Island Line – Predictions and performance. 2
nd

Intenational Symposium on Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground,
Mair & Taylor (eds), pp. 677-682.

Fujita K (1989). Special Lecture B: Underground construction, tunnel, underground
transportation. 12
th
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Rio
de Janeiro, 19892, pp.159-2176.

Fukuoka M (1977). The effects of horizontal loads on piles due to landslides. 9
th
International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Tokyo, Japan, pp.77-80.

Georgiannou V N, Rampello S and Silvestri F (1991). Static and dynamic measurement of
undrained stiffness of natural overconsolidated clays. Proceeding of the 10
th
European Conference
on Soil Mechanics, Florence, Vol. 1, pp.91-96.

Goh A T C, Wong K S, Teh C I and Wen D (2003). Pile response adjacent to braced excavation.
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, April 2003, pp.383-386.

325

Guedes P F M de Melo and Pereira C S (2000). The role of the soil K
o
value in numerical analysis
of shallow tunnels. Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground. Kusakabe,
Fujita & Miyazaki (eds), pp.379-384.

Gunn M J (1993). The prediction of surface settlement profiles due to tunnelling. Predictive soil
mechanics. Thomas Telford, London, pp.305-316.

Hergarden H J A M, Poel J T and Schrier J S (1996). Ground movements due to tunnelling:
Influence on pile foundations. 2
nd
Intenational Symposium on Geotechnical Aspects of
Underground Construction in Soft Ground, Mair & Taylor (eds), pp. 519-524.

Hermann L R and Al-Yassin Z (1978). Numerical analysis of reinforced soil systems. Proc. ASCE
Earth Reinforcement Symposium, Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, pp.428-457.

Hibbitt, Karlsson and Sorenson Inc. (2001). ABAQUS User’s manual, Version 6.31.

Hull T S (1987). The behaviour of laterally loaded piles. PhD thesis. University of Sydney,
Sydney, Australia.

Ikeda S, Saito T, Huang Y and Mori A (1996). Settlement of storehouses during the passage of
two parallel shields through soft ground. 2
nd
International Symposium on Geotechnical Aspects of
Underground Construction in Soft Ground. Mair & Taylor (eds), pp. 367-372.

Inose J, Irie H and Saitoh S (1992). Construction of large cross-section shield tunnel directly
below extremely large building in Tokyo. Towards New Worlds in Tunnelling, Vieitez-Utesa &
Montanez-Cartaxo (eds), pp.549-556.

Jacobsz S W, Standing J R, Mair R J and Hagiwara T (2002). Centrifuge modelling of tunnelling
near driven piles. 4
th
International Symposium on Geotechnical Aspects of Underground
Construction in Soft Ground, Toulouse, France, pp.89-94.

Jacobsz S W, Bowers K H, Moss N A and Zanardo G (2005). The effects of tunneling on piled
structures on the CTRL. 5
th
International Symposium on Geotechnical Aspects of Underground
Construction in Soft Ground, 15-17 June 2005, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Jardine R J (1991). The cyclic behaviour of offshore piles. Chapter in ‘The cyclic Loading of
Soils’, Brown and O’Reilly eds, Blackie & Son.

Jardine R J, Potts D M, Fourie A B and Burland J B (1986). Studies of the influence of non-linear
stress-strain characteristics in soil-structure interaction. Geotechnique 36, No. 3, pp.377-396.

Jeong S, Kim S and Briaud J L (1997). Analysis of downdrag on pile groups by the finite element
method. Computers and Geotechnics, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp.143-161.

Kaalberg F J, Teunissen E A H, van Tol A F and Bosch J W (2005). Dutch research on the impact
of shield tunnelling on pile foundations. 5
th
International Symposium on Geotechnical Aspects of
Underground Construction in Soft Ground, 15-17 June 2005, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

KarWinn, Rahardjo H and Seh C P (2001). Characterisation of residual soils in Singapore.
Geotechnical Engineering, 23(1), pp. 1-14.

326

Kimura T and Mair R J (1981). Centrifugal testing of model tunnels in soft clay. 10
th
International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Stockholm.

Kitiyodom P, Matsumoto T and Kawaguchi K (2004). Analysis of piled raft foundation subjected
to ground movement induced by tunnelling. 15
th
Southeast Asian Geotechnical Society
Conference, 22-26 November 2004, Bangkok, Thailand, pp. 183-188.

Knight-Hassell C K and Tan K B (2000). Tunnelling through challenging ground conditions in
Singapore. Proceeding of the International Conference on Tunnels and Underground Structures,
Singapore, 26-29 November 2000, pp.633-638.

Komiya K, Soga K, Akagi H, Hagiwara T and Bolton M (1999). Finite element modeling of
excavation and advancement processes of a shield tunnlling machine. Soils and Foundations, Vol.
39, No. 3, pp.37-52.

Kovacevic N, Edmonds H E, Mair R J, Higgins K G and Potts D M (1996). Numerical modeling
of the NATM and compensation grouting trial at Redcross Way. 2
nd
Intenational Symposium on
Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground, Mair & Taylor (eds), pp.553-

559.

Krishnan R (2000). Tunnelling and underground projects in Singapore. Proceeding of the
International Conference on Tunnels and Underground Structures, Singapore, 26-29 November
2000, pp.89-95.

Kuwabara F and Poulos H G (1989). Downdrag forces in group of piles. ASCE Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, 115, No. 6, pp.806-818.

Lee C H, Tan S A and Dasari G R (2002). 2-Dimensional and 3-dimensional comparisons of finite
element analysis of a soil nail problem. The 15
th
KKCNN Symposium on Civil Engineering, 19-20
December 2002, Singapore.

Lee C J, Bolton M D and Al-Tabbaa A (2002). Numerical modelling of group effects on the
distribution of dragloads in pile foundations. Geotechnique 52, No. 5, pp.325-335.

Lee C J and Chiang K H (2004). Load transfer on single pile near new tunneling in sandy ground.
Engineering Practice and Performance of Soft Deposits, IS-OSAKA, pp. 501-506.

Lee G T K and Ng C W W (2005). Effects of advancing open face tunneling on an existing loaded
pile. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 131, No. 2, pp.
193-201.

Lee K M and Rowe R K (1989). Deformation caused by surface loading and tunnelling : the role
of elastic anisotropy. Geotechnique 39, No. 1, pp.125-140.

Lee K M and Rowe R K (1991). An analysis of three-dimensional ground movements: the
Thunder Bay tunnel. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 28, pp.25-41.

Lee K M, Rowe R K and Lo K Y (1992). Subsidence owing to tunneling 1: Estimating the gap
parameter. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 29, pp.929-940.

327

Lee R G, Turner A J and Whitworth L J (1994). Deformations caused by tunneling beneath a piled
structure. XIII ICSMFE, New Delhi, India, pp. 873-878.

Leong E C, Rahardjo H and Tang S K (2003). Characterisation and engineering properties of
Singapore residual soils. Proceeding of the Characterisation and engineering properties of natural
soils. Tan et al. (eds), Singapore, pp.1279-1304.

Lim K C (2003). Three-dimensional finite element analysis of earth pressure balance tunnelling.
PhD thesis, National University of Singapore.

Lin D G, Tseng C T, Phienwej N and Suwansawat S (2002). 3-D deformation analysis of earth
pressure balance shield tunneling in Bangkok subsoil. Journal of Southeast Asian Geotechnical
Society, April 2002, pp.13-27.

Loganathan N and Poulos H G (1998). Analytical prediction for tunneling-induced ground
movements in clays. Journal of Geotechnical and Environmental Engineering, ASCE, 124(9),
pp.846-856.

Loganathan N (1999). Effect of tunnelling adjacent to pile foundations. PhD thesis. University of
Sydney.

Loganathan N, Poulos H G and Xu K J (2001). Ground and pile-group responses due to
tunnelling, Soils and Foundations, Vol. 41, No. 1, pp.57-67.

LTA (2000). Guide to carrying out restricted activities within railway protection and safety zones,
Development & Building Control Department, Land Transport Authority, Singapore.

Mair R J (1979). Discussion: Effects of tunnelling on the bearing capacity and settlement of piled
foundations by Morton J D and King K H, Tunnelling ’79, pp. 65.

Mair R J (1993). Unwin Memorial Lecture - Developments in geotechnical engineering research:
application to tunnels and deep excavations. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers.
Civil Engineering, 1993, 97 (1), pp.27-41.

Mair R J, Taylor R N and Bracegirdle A (1993). Subsurface settlement profiles above tunnels in
clays. Geotechnique, Vol. 43, No. 2, pp. 315-320.

Mair R J, Taylor R N and Burland J B (1996). Prediction of ground movement and assessment of
risk of building damage due to bored tunnelling. 2
nd
Intenational Symposium on Geotechnical
Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground, Mair & Taylor (eds), pp. 713-718.

Mair R J and Standing J R (2001). Discussion Session 3.3: Underground work in urban areas
including its impact on existing infrastructure. Proceedings of the 15
th
International Conference on
Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Volume 2, 27-31 August 2001, Istanbul, Turkey,
pp.2715-2717.

Maranha J R and Neves E M (2000). 3D analysis of ground displacements due to the construction
of Lisbon underground. Proceedings of the International Conference on Geotechnical &
Geological Engineering (GeoEng 200), Melbourne.

328

Matsumoto T, Kitiyodom P and Kawaguchi K (2005). Three-dimensional analyses of piled raft
foundations subjected to ground movements induced by tunnelling. 5
th
International Symposium
on Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground, 15-17 June 2005,
Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Melis M, Medina L and Rodriguez J (2002). Prediction and analysis of subsidence induced by
shield tunneling in the Madrid Metro extension. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 39, pp.1273-
1287.

Mhroueh H and Shahrour I (2002). Three-dimensional finite element analysis of the interaction
between tunneling and pile foundations, International Journal for Numerical and Analytical
Methods in Geomechanics, Vol.26, pp.217-230.

Moroto N, Ohno M and Fujimoto A (1995). Observational control of shield tunneling adjacent to
bridge piers. 3
rd
Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground, Tokyo,
Japan, Fujita & Kusakabe (eds), pp. 241-244.

Morton J D and King K H (1979). Effects of tunneling on the bearing capacity and settlement of
piled foundations, Tunnelling ’79, pp. 57-64.

Nakajima M, Saitoh S and Nakamura H (1992). Planning of underground railway directly below
extremely large overhead expressway piers in Tokyo. Towards New Worlds in Tunnelling,
Vieitez-Utesa & Montanez-Cartaxo (eds), pp. 81-88.

Naylor D J (1982). A study of reinforced earth walls allowing strip slip. Proc. ASCE Earth
Reinforcement Symposium, Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, pp.618-643

Ng C W W, Sun Y F and Lee K M (1998). Laboratory measurements of small strain stiffness of
granitic saprolites. Geotechnical Engineering Journal, SEAGS, Vol. 29, No. 2.

Ng C W W, Pun W K and Pang R P L (2000). Small strain stiffness of natural granitic saprolite in
Hong Kong. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 126, No. 9.

Ng C W W and Wang Y (2001). Field and laboratory measurements of small strain stiffness of
decomposed granites. Soils and Foundations, Vol. 41, No. 3, pp.57-71.

Ong J C W, Chen D C and Nadarajah P (1999). A summary of preliminary pile load test results for
North East Line. Proceeding of International Conference on Rail Transit, Singapore, pp.689-702.

Osborne N, Noren C, Li G J, Chinniah R and Jonsson P (2004). Design and construction of MRT
project Contract 825 of CCL1 in Singapore. 30
th
ITA-AITES World Tunnel Congress, 22-27 May
2004, Singapore.

Ottaviani M (1975). Three-dimensional finite element analysis of vertically loaded pile groups.
Geotechnique 25, No. 2, pp.159-174.

Ou C Y, Hwang R N and Lai W J (1998). Surface settlement during shield tunneling at CH218 in
Taipei. Canadian Geotechnical Journal. 35. pp.159-168.

Panet M and Guenot A (1982). Analysis of convergence behind the face of a tunnel. Proc.
Tunnelling ’82, London, The Institution of Mining & Metallurgy, pp.197-204.
329

Peck R B (1969). Deep excavations and tunneling in soft ground. Proceeding of 14
th
International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 3, Hamburg, pp.1469-1472.

Phienwej N (1997). Ground movements in shield tunnelling in Bangkok soils. 14
th
International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Hamburg, Germany.

Plaxis B V (2004). Validation and verification manual for Plaxis 3D Tunnel, Version 2
(Brinkgreve and Broere eds.)

Poh K B, Chua N L and Tan S B (1985). Residual granite soil of Singapore. Proceedings of 8
th

Southeast Asian Geotechnical Conference, Kuala Lumpur, pp. 3.1-3.9.

Potts D M and Zdravkovic L (2001). Finite element analysis in geotechnical engineering:
Application, Thomas Telford, London.

Poulos H G (1989). Pile behaviour-theory and application. 29
th
Rankine Lecture. Geotechnique,
39(3), 365-415.

Poulos H G and Chen L T (1997). Pile response due to excavation-induced lateral soil movement.
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, February 1997, pp. 94-99.

Powderham A, Cording E and Geilen T (1999). JLE – London Bridge Station: Evaluation and
control of excavation induced settlement on masonry and framed buildings. P1015 CIRIA.

Powrie W and Li E S F (1991). Finite element analyses of an in situ wall propped at formation
level. Geotechnique 41, No. 4, pp.499-514.

Ran X, Leung C F and Chow Y K (2003). Centrifuge modeling of tunnel-pile interaction in clay.
Underground Singapore 2003, pp. 256-263.

Randolph M F (1981). Pilot study of lateral loading of piles due to soil movement caused by
embankment loading, Report for the Department of Transport, Engineering Department,
Cambridge University

Richards D J and Powrie W (1994). Finite element analysis of construction sequences for propped
retaining walls. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Geotechnical Engineering, 107,
pp.207-216.

Rowe R K, Lo K Y and Kack G J (1983). A method of estimating surface settlement above tunnel
constructed in soft ground. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 20, pp.11-22

Sawatparnich A and Kulhawy F H (2004). Simplified model to predict pile response caused by
tunnelling in soils. 15
th
Southeast Asian Geotechnical Society Conference, 22-26 November 2004,
Bangkok, Thailand, pp. 697-702.

Schofield A N (1980). Cambridge geotechnical centrifuge operations. 20
th
Rankine Lecture.
Geotechnique 20, No. 2, pp.129-170.

Selemetas D, Standing J R, Mair R J, Sharrocks D M, Parker F and Allen R (2002). The response
of a piled structure to tunnelling and jacking. 4
th
International Symposium on Geotechnical
Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground, Toulouse, France.
330


Selemetas D, Standing J R and Mair R J (2005). The response of full-scale piles to tunnelling. 5
th

International Symposium on Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground,
15-17 June 2005, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Shirlaw J N (2000). Discussion: Can settlement be accurately predicted using advanced numerical
method. Geotechnical Aspect of Underground Construction in Soft Ground. Fujita & Miyazaki
(eds).

Shirlaw J N, Ong J C W, Rosser H B, Tan C G, Osborne N H and Heslop P E (2003). Local
settlements and sinkholes due to EPB tunneling. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers:
Geotechnical Engineering. Issue GE4, pp.193-211.

Shirlaw J N, Richards D P, Ramond P and Longchamp P (2004). Recent experience in automatic
tail void grouting with soft ground tunnel boring machines. ITA-AITES World Tunnel Congress,
22-27 May 2004, Singapore.

Sousas L M R, Arslan U, Katzenbach R, Festag G and Dolz K (2001). Numerical analysis of a
shield driven tunnel in Lisbon. Modern Tunneling Science and Technology, Adachi et al. (eds.),
pp.625-628.

Stewart D P (1992). Lateral loading of piled bridge abutments due to embankment construction.
PhD thesis, University of Western Australia.

Stewart D P, Jewell R J and Randolph M F (1993). Numerical modelling of piled bridge
abutments on soft ground. Computer and Geotechnics 15, pp.21-46.

Sujardinata J, Carter J P, Hull T S and Poulos H G (2005). Analysis of effects of tunnelling on
single piles. 5
th
International Symposium on Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction
in Soft Ground, 15-17 June 2005, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Swoboda G (1979). Finite element analysis of the New Austrian Tunnelling Method (NATM),
Proc. 3
rd
International Conference on Numerical Method in Geomechanics, Aachen, Vol. 2,
pp.581-586.

Swoboda G and Abu-Krisha A (1999). Three-dimensional numerical modeling for TBM tunneling
in consolidated clay. Journal of Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, Vol. 14, No. 3,
pp.327-333.

Takahashi K, Fukazawa N, Hagiwara T and Hosoda M (2004). Observational control of slurry
shield tunnels with super close spacing under the nearby bridge abutments loads. 30
th
AITES-ITA
World Tunnel Congress, Singapore.

Tan S B, Tan S L, Lim T L and Yang K S (1988). Landslide problems and their control in

Singapore. Proceedings of 9
th
Southeast Asian Geotechnical Conference, Bangkok, Thailand, Vol.
1, pp. 25-36.

Taylor R N and Grant R J (1998). Centrifuge modelling of the influence of surface structures on
tunnelling induced ground movements. Tunnels and Metropolises, Negro Jr & Ferreira (eds),
pp.261-266.

331

Teh C I and Wong K S (1995). Analysis of downdrag on pile groups. Geotechnique 45, No. 2,
pp.191-207.

Tham K S and Deutscher M S (2000). Tunnelling under Woodleigh Workers’ Quarters on
Contract C705. Tunnels and Underground Structures, Zhao, Shirlaw & Krishnan (eds), pp. 241-
249.

Tomlinson M J (1977). Pile design and construction practice. Viewpoint publication.

Vermeer P A and Bonnier P G (1991). Pile settlements due to tunneling. 10
th
European
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Florence, Italy, pp.869-872.

Viggiani G and Atkinson J H (1995). Stiffness of fine-grained soil at very small strains.
Geotechnique 45, No.2, PP.249-265.

Wakai A, Gose S and Ugai K (1999). 3-D elasto-plastic finite element analyses of pile foundations
subjected to lateral loading. Soils and Foundations, Vol. 39, No. 1, pp.97-111.

Wang X N (2003). Field monitoring and back-analysis of soldiers piles retaining wall for deep
excavation. PhD thesis, National University of Singapore.

Wood D M (1990). Soil behaviour and critical state soil mechanics. Cambridge University Press.

Yang K S and Tang S K (1997). Stabilising the slope of Bukit Gombak. Proceedings of 3YGEC,
Singapore, pp. 589-605.

Yang Z H and Jeremic B (2003). Numerical study of group effects for pile groups in sands.
International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, 27, pp.1255-1276.

Yong K Y, Lee F H, Tan T S and Lee S L (1998). Excavation near critical structures bridging
research and practice. Proceedings of the 13
th
Southeast Asian Geotechnical Conference, 16-20
November 1998, Taipei, Taiwan, pp. 69-80.

Yong K Y and Pang C H (2004a). Geotechnical challenges of the mass rapid transit (MRT) system
in Singapore. Special lecture, Malaysian Geotechnical Conference, 15-17 March 2004, Petaling
Jaya, Malaysia, pp.119-130.

Yong K Y and Pang C H (2004b). Effects of construction of underground Mass Rapid Transit on
nearby piled-structures, Special Lecture, 15
th
Southeast Asian Geotechnical Conference, 22-26
November 2004, Bangkok, Thailand.

Zhou Y (2001). Engineering geology and rock mass properties of the Bukit Timah Granite.
Proceedings of Underground Singapore 2001, Singapore, pp.308-314.

Zhu H (1999). Evaluation of load transfer behavior of bored piles in residual soil incorporating
construction effect. PhD thesis, Nanyang Technological University.

Zhu H and Chang M F (2002). Load transfer curves along bored piles considering modulus
degradation. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental engineering, September issue, pp.
764-774.

332

APPENDIX A PILE STIFFNESS FOR MRT NEL C704

First, the tangent modulus method proposed by Fellenius (1989) was used to derive the variation
of modulus with strain based on a pile load test carried out. The pile tested had a similar concrete
mix, reinforcement and installation procedure as other piles at the viaducts. The pile was
instrumented with thirty-two vibrating wire strain gauges and three telltale extensometers.
According to Fellenius (1989), the tangent modulus is represented as follow:-


BAE
tt
+
=
ε
[A.1]

Where as the secant modulus to be used for converting strain to stress is as follow:-


BAE

ts
+
=
ε
5.0 [A.2]

where A
t
is the slope of tangent modulus line (GPa/µε), B is the intercept of the tangent modulus
i.e. initial tangent modulus (GPa). Figure A.1 shows a plot of the tangent modulus against the
strain based on all the strain gauges and tell-tales in the pile. By curve fitting, A
t
is derived as -
0.02 GPa/µε and B is within 30 to 50 GPa. There seems to be a large variation between the upper
and lower bounds. This is likely to be due to the amount of shaft resistance mobilised at different
depth. The larger the shaft resistance, the lower the tangent modulus line (Fellenius, 2001).
Another possibility could be due to the bored pile installation method. The concrete was poured by
tremie pipe and did not go through vibrating compaction, which leads to non-uniform property at
different depth.

Besides, the constant Young’s modulus for concrete (E
c
) can be interpreted based on an
approximate method by ACI (1989) as follows:
333



'
cc

f151000E = kPa [A.3]

where
is the characteristic compressive cylinder strength of concrete at 28 days (in kPa). The
piles were constructed using Grade 45 concrete. The
can be approximated as 0.8 times
from cube strength. Ultimately, the modulus was derived as 28.65GPa.
'
c
f
'
c
f
cu
f

Figure A.2b compares the axial force interpreted for one of the piles during tunnelling. Firstly, a
variation of approximately 40% was noted for the upper and lower bounds using the tangent
modulus method. Secondly, the lower bound value was similar to the value using ACI method.
Despite the variation, the results to be presented in Chapter 3 were interpreted based on the ACI
method.

0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Microstrain (
µ ε
)
Tangent modulus, E
t
(GPa)
TT-1 (1st cycle)
TT-2 (1st cycle)
A (1st cycle)
B (1st cycle)
D (1st cycle)
E (1st cycle)
F (1st cycle)
G (1st cycle)
H (1st cycle)
I (1st cycle)
J (1st cycle)
K (1st cycle)
L (1st cycle)
M (1st cycle)
N (1st cycle)
O (1st cycle)
Curve fit (Upper bound)
Curve fit (Lower bound)
Strain gauge and telltale
data at 1st cycle
48m

A
B

C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
TT2
TT1
Figure A.1 Tangent modulus derived from a pile load test


334


0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
-200-150-100-500

Microstrain (
µε
)
Depth (m.b.g.l.)
X1 Y1
X2 Y2
Average
X
Y
1
Y
2
X
2
Plan view of strain gauges
arrangement in each level
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
-8000-7000-6000-5000-4000-3000-2000-10000
Axial force (kN)
Depth (m.b.g.l.)
Constant E (ACI, 1989)
Strain dependent E (Upper)
Strain dependent E (Lower)

SB

Tunnel
springline
NB
Tunnel
SB
Tunnel
Tunnel springline
(a) (b)

Figure A.2 Influence of (a) non-uniform strain distribution and (b) pile stiffness in the
interpretation of axial force in pile










335

APPENDIX B PILE MOMENT OF INERTIA FOR MRT NEL C704

Besides the Young’s modulus, moment of inertia (I
pile
) is another variable that could affect the

interpretation of bending moment. Depending on the significance of bending moment, the pile
section could be in an un-cracked state (I
pile
=I
gross
), fully cracked (I
pile
=I
cracked
) or in between. In
order to investigate the appropriateness of the moment of inertia adopted, all the bending moments
reported in Chapter 3 were first interpreted using I
gross
. The bending moments were then compared
to the cracked moment (M
cr
) which can be computed from the following:-

z
If
M
grossr
cr
= [B.1]

where f
r
is the modulus of rupture of concrete and is equal to '7.
c
f19 (in kPa) as recommended

by ACI (1989), z is the distance from the centroid to the extreme fibre of the pile in tension (m)
and I
gross
is the gross moment of inertia (m
4
) which is calculated as
64
.
4
pile
D
π
.

The M
cr
was calculated to be 634kNm and 2140kN for 1.2m and 1.8m diameter piles respectively.
Figure B.1 shows the bending moment computed for all the 1.2m diameter instrumented piles
(using I
gross
) and the cracked moment envelope. Generally, the bending moment at all four levels
of the piles stayed within the cracked moment envelope after the two tunnels were driven.
However, there were some points within the piles where bending moment exceeded the cracked
moment (particularly at Pier 11). It is observed that the bending moments exceeding the cracked
moment were developed during the construction of the viaduct bridge (which exerted further
loading on the piles).

336

Despite some points exceeding the cracked state, bending moment to be presented subsequently is

based on I
gross
. It is realised that I
gross
as assumed for the computation of bending moment
exceeding cracked moment would over-estimate the actual bending moment. Further assessment
of the effective moment of inertia is not within the scope of this research.

-1500
-1000
-500
0
500
1000
1500
-1500 -1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500
Transverse bending moment, M
xx
(kNm)
Longitudinal bending moment, M
yy
(kNm)

Cracking moment
Cracking moment
M > Mcr
M < Mcr
Figure B.1 Computed bending moments and cracked moment envelope
337

APPENDIX C

C.1 Comparison of pile responses between SDMCC and NLES models

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
-5000-4000-3000-2000-10000
Axial force (kN)
Depth (m)
Pile P1 (SDMCC)
Pile P1 (NLES)
Measured (Pile P1)
1.6m
P2
P1
P4 P3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70

-5-4-3-2-10
Pile settlement (mm)
Depth (m)
Pile P1 (SDMCC)
Pile P1 (NLES)
1.6m
P2
P1
P4 P3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
-20-15-10-50
Pile lateral deflection - transverse (mm)
Depth (m)
Pile P1 (SDMCC)
Pile P1 (NLES)
SB
1.6m
P2
P1
P4 P3

Tunnel springline
SB Tunnel

Tunnel springline
SB Tunnel
Tunnel springline
SB Tunnel
(a) (b) (c)

Figure C.1 Comparison of pile responses with respect to SDMCC and NLES models (a) Pile axial force (b) Pile settlement (c) Pile
lateral deflection
338



C.2 Comparison of pile responses between 3-D tunnel advancement and plane strain tunnel procedures

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
-20000-15000-10000-50000
Axial force (kN)
Depth (m)
3-D tunnel adv. (WL+tunnelling)
Plane strain tunnel (WL+tunnelling)
3-D tunnel adv. (WL)
Plane strain tunnel (WL)
With WL, G

max
/p'=800, V
L
=1%, L
p
/H
tun
=3.0, X
pile
/D
tun
=1.0
Tunnel
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
-15-10-50
Pile settlement (mm)
Depth (m)
3-D tunnel adv. (WL+tunnelling)
Plane strain tunnel (WL+tunnelling)
With WL, G
max
/p'=800, V
L

= 1%, L
p
/H
tun
=3.0, X
pile
/D
tun
=1.0
Tunnel
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
-15-10-50
Pile lateral deflection - transverse (mm)
Depth (m)
3-D tunnel adv. (WL+tunnelling)
Plane strain tunnel (WL+tunnelling)
Tunnel
With WL, G
max
/p'=800, V
L
=1%, L
p

/H
tun
=3.0, X
pile
/D
tun
=1.0

Tunnel springline
Tunnel springline

(a) (b) (c)


Figure C.2 Comparison of pile responses with respect to different numerical simulation procedures (a) Pile axial force (b) Pile
settlement (c) Pile lateral deflection
339

APPENDIX D OTHER INFLUENCING FACTORS IN
PLANE STRAIN FE ANALYSIS


The calibration charts as presented in Chapter 6 only hold for the assumed cases particularly the
adopted soil model (non-linear elastic), earth pressure at-rest, K
o
(=1.0) and single tunnel
simulation. These assumptions are further investigated here.

D.1 Effect of soil model

To-date, there are probably hundreds of constitutive models available which allows the
characteristics of soil to be modelled. Therefore, it is impossible to investigate every one of the
models. At here, the commonly used ‘Mohr-Coulomb’ model is compared to the ‘Non-linear
elastic’ model. The tunnel-pile configuration and dimension remained the same in both analyses.
Total stress analysis was carried out with the Young’s modulus of soil, E
u
of 30,000kPa, undrained
shear strength, C
u
of 150kPa and angle of shearing resistance, φ’ of 0
o
. Figure D.1 shows the
convergence plots for both the pile horizontal deflection and pile head settlement. It can be
observed that the modification factors differ up to two times for the two different models. Strictly
speaking, it is hard to justify the variation of modification factors for different soil models since
the input parameters also play a role in determining the factors. It is not within the scope of this
study to quantify the effect of soil model.

D.2 Effect of soil earth pressure at-rest

All the analyses that have been presented so far assumed the soil earth pressure at-rest, K
o
of 1.0.
However, K
o
is commonly found to be less than 1.0 in soft normally consolidated soil and more
than 1.0 in stiff over-consolidated soil. Figure D.2 shows a comparison of convergence and the
340

corresponding modification factor between K

o
of 1.0 and 1.5 in non-linear elastic model. As can
be observed, the K
o
parameter plays a small part in varying the modification factors in both the
pile horizontal deflection and pile head settlement. However, it should be noted that the influence
of K
o
parameter is highly dependent on the type of soil model adopted.

Figure D.1 Influence of soil model on pile stiffness modification factor


0
50
100
150
200
250
0.00.10.20.30.40
Figure D.2 Influence of soil earth pressure at-rest on pile stiffness modification factor
.5
Pile stiffness ratio, E
wall(2D)
/ E
pile(3D)
Response of 2D to 3D analysis (%)
Pile max. horiz. defl. (NE, Ko=1.0)
Pile max. horiz. defl. (NE, Ko=1.5)
Pile head sett. (NE, Ko=1.0)

Pile head sett.
(
NE, Ko=1.5
)
0.07
0.12
2D response = 3D single pile response
2D response = 3D single pile response
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Pile stiffness ratio, E
wall(2D)
/ E
pile(3D)
Response of 2D to 3D analysis (%)
Pile max. horiz. defl. (Non linear)
Pile max. horiz. defl. (Mohr Coulomb)
Pile head sett (Non linear)
Pile head sett. (Mohr Coulomb)
0.07
0.15
341

D.3 Effect of twin tunnel simulation

The modification factor as investigated in Chapter 6 assumed a single tunnel simulation. However,
in practice, there is a likelihood of encountering multiple tunnels interaction. Study was also
carried out to investigate the sensitivity of twin tunnels on the modification factor. Two cases were
simulated; single pile and one-row pile group. Figures E.3a and b show respectively the typical 3-
D and 2-D mesh adopted for simulation of the twin tunnels which are located on each side of the
single pile. Equal distance between tunnel and pile was modelled on each side of the pile (i.e.
X
pile
=5.45m). Other tunnel-pile configuration and dimension remained the same as the typical case
described in Section 6.4.2. Figures D.4a and b compare the convergence obtained for pile
horizontal deflection and pile head settlement respectively. From the negligible differences, it can
be concluded that the modification factor is not affected by the twin tunnels in both single pile and
one-row pile group.
342


74m
(a)
72m
72m
30m




(b)
72m

72m
74m

Figure D.3 Typical mesh for twin tunnels simulation with single pile (a) 3-D mesh (b) 2-
D mesh
343


(a)


(b)

Figure D.4 Influence of twin tunnels advancement on pile stiffness modification factor (a)
Pile maximum horizontal deflection (b) Pile head settlement
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Pile stiffness ratio, E
wall(2D)
/ E
pile(3D)
Response of 2D to 3D analysis (%)
Single pile (Single tunnel)

Single pile (Twin tunnel)
1-row pile group (Single tunnel)
1-row pile group (Twin tunnel)
D
pile
= 1.2m, E
pile
= 28GPa
G
ma x
/P' = 800, V
L
= 1.81%
Tunnel-pile dist. = 5.45m
Pile head settlement
0.25
0.12
2D response = 3D
single pile response
2D response = 3D
single pile response
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Pile stiffness ratio, E
wall(2D)
/ E
pile(3D)
Response of 2D to 3D analysis (%)
Single pile (Single tunnel)
Single pile (Twin tunnel)
1-row pile (Single tunnel)
1-row pile (Twin tunnel)
D
pile
= 1.2m, E
pile
= 28GPa
G
ma x
/P' = 800, V
L
= 1.81%
Tunnel-pile dist. = 5.45m
Pile lateral deflection
0.08
0.16
344

APPENDIX E MRT CIRCLE LINE STAGE 1 CONTRACT C825
SINGAPORE


E.1 Background and overview

The on-going Contract C825 project formed the first stage of the Circle Line construction (CCL1).
The CCL1 line, also known as the Marina Line is part of the five stages to be built (Yong & Pang,
2004b). In the contract, four stations namely the Dhoby Ghaut Station, Museum Station,
Convention Centre Station and Millenia Station are to be built. The contract also includes the
construction of twin tunnels of 1.5km long. All the constructions are located in the densely
populated civic and business district centre of Singapore. Inevitably, the construction has to be
carried out very near to existing heritage structures such as Raffles Hotel, Singapore Arts
Museum, Cathedral and various high-rise buildings. Figure E.1 shows the location of tunnels,
stations and also the close proximity structures in Contract 825. Further details on the project can
be found in Osborne et al. (2004).
Stamford
Canal
Overrun Tunnel
Bored tunnel
Cathedral of the
Good Shepherd
Singapore
A
rt Museum
Bored tunnel
Existing MRT
East-West Line
Raffles
Hotel
Future Art
Centre Line
C & C
Tunnel
Temporary TBM

Launching Shaft
Stamford
Canal
C & C
Tunnel
MRT CCL1 Contract 825
Pan
Pacific
Hotel
Marina
Square
Underground
Carpark Link
Bored tunnel
JRL
B
T
L
E
R
L
EWL
NEL
CCL
LRT
LRT
C825
Stamford
Canal
Overrun Tunnel

Bored tunnel
Cathedral of the
Good Shepherd
Singapore
A
rt Museum
Bored tunnel
Existing MRT
East-West Line
Raffles
Hotel
Future Art
Centre Line
C & C
Tunnel
Temporary TBM
Launching Shaft
Stamford
Canal
C & C
Tunnel
MRT CCL1 Contract 825
Pan
Pacific
Hotel
Marina
Square
Underground
Carpark Link
Bored tunnel

JRL
B
T
L
E
R
L
EWL
NEL
CCL
LRT
LRT
C825
JRL
B
T
L
E
R
L
EWL
NEL
CCL
LRT
LRT
C825

Dhoby Ghaut
Station
Museum

Station
Convention
Centre Station
Millenia
Station
NSL
Dhoby Ghaut
Station
Museum
Station
Convention
Centre Station
Millenia
Station
NSLNSL
Figure E.1 Location of MRT Circle Line C825
345

In this project, one of the great challenges posed to engineers was to construct tunnels under an
existing building beneath the Raffles Boulevard. Figure E.2 shows the twin tunnels bored under
the 5-storey frame concrete structure which includes a basement carpark. The two tunnels
configured in a vertically stack alignment passed beneath the structure which link the Marina
Square and the Pan Pacific Hotel. The structure is supported on driven Raymond Step-Taper steel
piles of 324mm diameter. The piles are founded at a depth of approximately 11.5m below the
basement. The main columns are supported on pile groups of four, eleven and seventeen piles
whereas the wall sits on a stretch of single piles. The piles are located as close as 1.12m to the
tunnel extrados. Two EPB shield machines of 6.58m diameter were used to bore the twin tunnels
and were located very near to each other with a clear spacing of 3.84m from their extrados. The
upper tunnel is located at a depth of 12.5m below the basement car park.

Figure E.2 Tunnelling under the link structure between Pan Pacific Hotel and Marina Square

346

E.2 Geology and ground conditions

From the soil investigation carried out, the structure is generally founded on the Old Alluvium
with the degree of weathering varying with depth. The Old Alluvium is an alluvial deposit that has
been variably cemented and has the strength of weak rock (LTA, 2001). The Old Alluvium which
composed of silty sandy clay can be classified into five classes, i.e. OA1 to OA5 which are
defined by the SPT-N of <10, 10 to 30, 30 to 50, 50 to 100 and >100 respectively. However, the
7m of soil below the basement consists of mixed layers of fluvial sand (F1) and clay (F2), marine
clay (M) and fill material, typically the Kallang Formation (Fig. E.2). Ground water is close to the
original ground level. The piles are generally founded on the dense Old Alluvium material (i.e.
OA5). Material of OA3 to OA5 was encountered during the north bound tunnel advancement
whereas the south bound tunnel encountered only OA5 material.

E.3 Construction sequence

The tunnels were driven by two earth pressure balance machine (EPBM) manufactured by
Herrenknecht and has an outer diameter of 6.58m and length of 8m. When the EPBM were under
the building, good soil condition was encountered, therefore leading to good advance rate (i.e.
approximately 50mm/min) and progress rate (up to 10 rings/day). A face pressure of 150kPa was
maintained in the chamber to provide face stability although it is realised that the material
encountered is generally stable and has a considerable stand-up time even without the pressure.
The first EPBM (for North bound tunnel) was launched from Millenia Station on the 22 January
2003 and advance towards the Convention Centre Station. This is followed by the second EPBM
(for South bound tunnel) which was launched two months later from the same launching shaft.
The construction of the tunnels were scheduled such that the lower tunnel was bored first and

followed by the upper tunnel to minimise the effect on the structure. Initially the tunnels started
347