GeoRisk 2011 © ASCE 2011 948

Risk Analysis of Pile Pressing-in on an Adjacent Earth-Retaining Wall

Amy D.D. Lu1 and Albert T. Yeung, Fellow, ASCE2

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 03/27/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

1
Dept. of Civil Engrg., The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong;
PH (852) 53779264; FAX (852) 25595337; email: ldd09@hku.hk
2
Dept. of Civil Engrg., The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong;
PH (852) 28598018; FAX (852) 25595337; email: yeungat@hku.hk

ABSTRACT

Pile pressing-in is a green pile installation technology that uses hydraulic jacks
to press piles into the ground. It is environmentally friendly as it eliminates the noise
and vibration nuisance as well as air pollution problems.
The current state of development of the pressing-in technique and equipment al-
lows piles to be pressed-in very close to existing permanent or temporary earth-
retaining walls. The piles being installed may induce additional lateral loads on the
retaining wall and/or excessive movement of the wall, and may thus have detrimental
effects on the stability of the wall. It is of great importance to understand these ad-
verse effects that may be induced by pile pressing-in to ensure the stability of any
nearby retaining walls. However, it is extremely expensive and time-consuming to
conduct a full-scale evaluation. Therefore, laboratory evaluation using a scaled model
was adopted in this research. The availability of a hi-tech tactile pressure sensor mat
makes it possible to measure the normal stress on a laboratory-scale model retaining
wall with high accuracy. Based on a series of laboratory tests, the variation of factor
of safety against sliding k with distance between the pile and the retaining wall was
quantified. Influences of the movement of the retaining wall on k were studied. Limi-
tations of the current research are also discussed.

BACKGROUND

Pile pressing-in (also known as pile jacking) is an environmentally friendly pile

installation method that uses hydraulic jacks to press piles into the ground. It is wide-
ly used worldwide, in particular in Asian countries including China, Singapore, and
Malaysia (Lam and Li 2003). The versatility of the pressing-in technology makes it
possible for pressed-in piles to be installed in very close proximity to existing earth-
retaining walls. The situation often occurs in mountainous regions, where retaining
walls are commonly used to improve slope stability or to make room for infrastruc-
tures. For better use of land resources, piles are sometimes constructed very close to
the retaining wall. Moreover, pressing-in piles can be installed adjacent to temporary
earth retaining walls supporting temporary excavations when different construction
activities are progressing simultaneously.
The pressing-in piles may have detrimental effects on nearby retaining walls by
increasing the lateral load on the retaining walls, inducing excessive movement of the

GeoRisk 2011
 GeoRisk 2011 © ASCE 2011 949

retaining walls, or both. It is vital to analyze the risk of such detrimental effects so as
to ensure the stability of the existing earth-retaining walls and to avoid excessively
conservative designs. However, relevant research has not been extensively conducted.
As a result, there are many uncertainties in the design.
Several analytical methods were proposed to describe soil movement induced
by pile installation, including the strain path method (Baligh 1995), shallow strain
path method (Sagaseta and Whittle 2001), and cavity expansion method (Baligh
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 03/27/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

1985). However, these studies have not been extended to evaluate the effects of pile
installation on nearby retaining walls. Henke (2009) used ABAQUS to simulate the
effects of additional load on nearby retaining structure. However, there are no full-
scale or laboratory-scale experiments conducted to evaluate the validity of Henke's
simulations.
In this research, a series of laboratory-scale experiments has been performed to
evaluate the additional load on the retaining wall, movement of the wall induced by
pile pressing-in, and their interactions. Risk analysis on the factor of safety against
sliding k has been conducted to express the potential risk explicitly.

EXPERIMENT DESIGN

In the past, it was very difficult to

capture the stress distribution acting on a
laboratory-scale retaining wall. The use of
too few pressure cells cannot capture an
accurate stress distribution. However, the
use of too many pressure cells will adver-
tently change the stiffness of the system
(Talesnick 2005).
The availability of grid-based Teks-
Figure 1. Laboratory apparatus.
can tactile pressure sensor mats makes it
possible to measure the normal stress distribution accurately and continuously. In this
research program, a 102 cm long and 50 cm wide apparatus made of plexglas as de-
picted in Fig. 1 was specifically designed, fabricated, and assembled. The front end
wall of the apparatus is used to model an earth-retaining wall. The wall can undergo
controlled translations, rotations, and any combination of translations and rotations as
required. A Tekscan sensor Mat #5315 containing 2016 sensor cells had been in-
stalled on the inner surface of the retaining structure before the apparatus was filled
with dry British standard sand compacted to relative density of 60%.
A speed-control motor with a maximum thrust of 140 kg is used to press a mod-
el pile into the sand. The motor is fixed onto a transverse beam by G-clamps. The
transverse beam is supported by two longitudinal beams so that the motor can be lo-
cated anywhere within the apparatus to press-in piles as shown in Fig. 1. Steel hollow
circular model piles of diameter 1.5 cm with conical tip were used in the experiments.

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

Experiments were conducted to simulate the pile pressing-in operation and diff-

GeoRisk 2011
 GeoRisk 2011 © ASCE 2011 950

rent types of retaining wall 4

movements including: (1) no
movement; (2) translational 3
movement; and (3) rotational
movement. Piles were installed

γave,c
at different distances from the 2
wall. The lateral stress distribu-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 03/27/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

tion on the wall was measured as 1

a function of pile penetration and
wall movement.
0
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42
Case 1: Rigid retaining wall.
Distance (cm)
When the retaining wall is rigid,
the only effect of pile pressing-in Figure 2. Average lateral stress ratio along the
is the increase in lateral stress vertical centerline of the retaining
acting on the wall. The model wall versus pile distance.
80
pile is penetrated along the cen-
5 cm
terline of the apparatus at differ-
10 cm
Normal stress (kPa)

ent distances from the wall. Con- 60

15 cm
sequently, the maximum increase
20 cm
in lateral stress induced by the
40 25 cm
pressed-in pile occurs at the cen- 30 cm
tral column of sensors on the 35 cm
sensor mat. The average lateral 20
stress ratio measured along the
central column of sensors γave,c
0
induced by the pressed-in pile as 1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41
a function of distance from the Vertical sensor column number
retaining wall is shown in Fig. 2.
Figure 3. Lateral stress distribution in the trans-
The average lateral stress ratio
verse direction of the wall
along the central column of sen- 2.0
sors γave,c is defined as the aver-
age of the ratios of the lateral
stresses induced by the pressed- 1.5
in pile to the original lateral
stresses measured by the central
γave

1.0
column of sensors. When the dis-
tance is 3 cm, γave,c is approx-
imately 3.75. The average lateral 0.5
stress ratio along the central col-
umn decreases rapidly with in- 0.0
crease in distance between the 0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42
pile and the retaining wall. After Distance (cm)
the pile distance reaches 20 cm, Figure 4. Average lateral stress ratio within the
the rate of decrease is much effective zone versus pile distance
slower. γave,c are approximately

GeoRisk 2011
 GeoRisk 2011 © ASCE 2011 951

1.5 and 1.1 for pile distances of 20 cm and 40 cm, respectively.

There is an effective zone within which there is a significant increase in normal
lateral stress acting on the wall induced by pile pressing-in. The lateral stress distribu-
tions at the pile tip level along the transverse direction of the wall when the pile was
pressed-in at 3 cm from the wall are shown in Fig. 3. It can be observed that the later-
al stress increases with penetration depth. The average lateral stress ratio throughout
the effective zone γave as a function of pile distance as shown in Fig. 4 can thus be
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 03/27/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

used to reflect the average effects of a single pressed-in pile.

Case 2: Translational retaining 4

wall. When the retaining wall can
translate, the lateral stress acting 3
on the wall and amount of trans-
lation of the retaining wall are
γave,c
inter-dependent. The pile was 2
first pressed-in at a distance of
6 cm from the retaining wall. The 1
retaining wall was then translated
outwards to 0.2 mm gradually.
The resulting γave,c and γave as a 0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
function of the amount of out-
Translation (mm)
ward translation are shown in
Figs. 5 and 6, respectively. It can Figure 5. Average lateral stress ratio along the
be observed that both γave,c and vertical centerline of the retaining
γave decrease with increase in wall versus translation
2.0
outward translation. There ap-
pears to be a linear relationship
between γave,c and outward trans- 1.5
lation as shown in Fig. 5. It can
be observed in Fig. 6 that the total
γave

1.0
lateral load acting on the wall
within the effective zone is re-
duced to the original value before 0.5
pile pressing-in when the outward
translation reaches 0.06 mm. 0.0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
Case 3: Rotational retaining Translation (mm)
wall. When the retaining wall can Figure 6. Average lateral stress ratio within the
rotate, the lateral stress acting on effective zone versus translation
the wall and the amount of rota-
tion of the retaining wall are inter-dependent. Similar to Case 2, the pile was first
pressed-in at a distance of 6 cm from the retaining wall. After the pile had been
pressed-in, the retaining wall was rotated outwards about the base to 0.2°. The result-
ing γave,c and γave as a function of the angle of rotation are shown in Figs. 7 and 8, re-
spectively. It can be observed that both γave,c and γave decrease with increase in out-
ward rotation. It can be observed in Fig. 8 that total lateral load acting on the wall

GeoRisk 2011
 GeoRisk 2011 © ASCE 2011 952

within the effective zone decreases to the original value before pile pressing-in when
the outward rotation is approximately 0.03°.

RISK ANALYSIS 4

As shown in the experimen- 3

tal results, pile pressing-in would
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 03/27/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

induce considerable increase in

γave,c
lateral load on the retaining wall. 2
However, translation and/or rota-
tion of the retaining wall can re- 1
duce the increased lateral load to
some extent.
0
A factor of safety against 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
sliding k is utilized to express the o
Angle of rotation ( )
associated risk explicitly. In prac-
tice, piles are pressed-in at a spe-
Figure 7. Average lateral stress ratio along the
cific spacing. The effects of neigh- vertical centerline of the retaining
boring piles on the retaining wall wall versus rotation
2.0
may overlap. The overlapping may
increase both the γave,c and γave of a
single pile. As a result, k will be 1.5
reduced. On the other hand, if γave,c
γave,c

is considered as the increase in lat- 1.0

eral stress ratio for the entire re-
taining wall, the estimation of k
would be too conservative for a 0.5
single pile, as the load increase on
the retaining wall away from the 0.0
centerline projection of the pile as 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
shown in Fig. 3 is less. However, o
Angle of rotation ( )
γave,c is adopted for the analysis to Figure 8. Average lateral stress ratio within the
estimate k to account for the over- effective zone versus rotation
lapping effects of multiple piles.
Assuming the original design factor of safety against sliding is k0, i.e.,
R0
k0 = (1)
F0
where F0 = lateral load acting on the wall; and R0 = resisting force. The lateral load
acting on wall after pile pressing-in is denoted as F and is given by
F = F0 × γ ave,c (2)

Therefore, the factor of safety against sliding k becomes

R0 k k 1
k= = 0 ⇒ = (3)
F γ ave,c k 0 γ ave,c

GeoRisk 2011
 GeoRisk 2011 © ASCE 2011 953

When the pile distance is 1.0

twice the pile diameter, k is de-
creased to approximately one 0.8
third of the original design fac-
tor of safety k0. As the pile dis- 0.6

k / k0
tance increases, k increases but
will not resume the value k0 0.4
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 03/27/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

until the pile distance reaches

approximately 40 cm as shown 0.2
in Fig. 9.
The outward translation of 0.0
the retaining wall would reduce 0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42
the increased lateral load in- Distance (cm)
duced by pile pressing-in. The Figure 9. Factor of safety against sliding versus
increase in k with outward pile distance
translation of the retaining wall 1.0
is shown in Fig. 10. When the
outward translation reaches 0.2 0.8
mm, k/k0 is approximately 0.75,
which is twice the value for the 0.6
k / k0

rigid wall.
Similarly, the outward ro- 0.4
tation would also reduce the
increased lateral load induced 0.2
by pile pressing-in. The in-
crease in k with outward rota- 0.0
tion of the retaining wall is 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
shown in Fig. 11. When the an- Translation (mm)
gle of rotation is approximately Figure 10. Factor of safety against sliding versus
0.17°, the value of k resumes translation
the original design factor of 1.4
safety against sliding k0. Fur- 1.2
ther outward rotation will result
in further increase in the factor 1.0
of safety against sliding. 0.8
k / k0

With regard to the factor

0.6
of safety against overturning k',
it can be defined as 0.4
L0 0.2
k' = k × (4)
L 0.0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
where L0 = moment arm of the o
Angle of rotation ( )
force about the base before pile
pressing-in; and L = moment Figure 11. Factor of safety against sliding versus
arm of the force about the base rotation
after pile pressing-in. As the

GeoRisk 2011
 GeoRisk 2011 © ASCE 2011 954

increased in lateral load on the retaining wall by pile pressing-in is more significant at
the bottom than at the top as shown in Fig. 3, L should be smaller than L0. As a result,
k' is generally larger than k. Therefore, the factor of safety against sliding would be
more critical than the factor of safety against overturning during pile pressing-in.

DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 03/27/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

When pressed-in piles are constructed in proximity of a retaining wall, the lat-
eral stress acting on the retaining wall is increased, resulting in a decrease in the fac-
tors of safety against sliding and overturning of the retaining wall. There is a risk of
failure of the retaining wall if the factor of safety is less than unity. However, the
translation and rotation of the retaining wall can reduce the increased lateral stress.
As the amount of movement increases, the lateral stress decreases and the risk of fail-
ure decreases. However, the amount of movement must be within serviceability limits.
A methodology has been developed to evaluate the risk of failure on the basis of lat-
eral stress increase induced by a single pressed-in pile, wall translation and rotation.
The current study is limited to laboratory-scale measurements of lateral stress
increase induced by a single pile. Therefore, the results should be considered as pre-
liminary. Scale effect should be considered for real life construction projects. Moreo-
ver, overlapping effects of multiple piles should be considered in further study.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The financial support provided to the first author for her graduate study by The
University of Hong Kong is acknowledged. Moreover, the 2nd IPA Research Grant
Award bestowed to the second author by the International Press-in Association to
support the research is gratefully acknowledged.

REFERENCES

Baligh, M.M. (1985). "Strain path method." J. Geotech. Engrg., ASCE, 111(9), 1108-
1138.
Gue, S.S. (1984). Ground heave around driven piles in clay. PhD thesis, University of
Oxford, U.K.
Henke, S. (2009). "Influence of pile installation on adjacent structures." International
Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, 34(11),
1191-1210.
Lam, J., and Li, K.S. (2003). "Introduction." Case histories of jacked piling in Hong
Kong, Centre for Research & Professional Development, Hong Kong, 1-35.
Randolph, M.F., Steenfelt, J.S., and Wroth, C.P. (1979). "The effect of pile type on
design parameters for driven piles-design parameters in geotechnical engi-
neering." Proc., 7th. European Conf. Soil Mech., Brighton, Vol. 2, 107-114.
Sagaseta, C., and Whittle, A.J. (2001). "Prediction of ground movements due to pile
driving in clay." J. Geotech. Geoenvir. Engrg., ASCE, 127(1), 55-66.
Talesnick, M. (2005). "Measuring soil contact pressure on a solid boundary and quan-
tifying soil arching." Geotech. Test. J., ASTM, 28(2), 171-179.

GeoRisk 2011