The effect of deep excavation-induced lateral soil movements on the behavior of strip footing supported on reinforced sand

Pile groups subjected to abrupt collapse of retaining structure

“…However, in the present study, lateral loading on pile per unit length is increased rapidly due to an abrupt collapse of the retaining structure. Contrary to previous studies, the soil movement is induced due to collapse of the retaining wall rather than due to excavation activity [8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22]. The results of this study are not directly scalable to full-scale conditions because of the low pressure (high dilation/low stiffness) response in the present study.…”

“…Researchers have developed analytical, theoretical and experimental approaches to predict the response of pile foundations exposed to soil movement. However, most of the studies considered the cases of excavations supported by retaining structures [8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25]. Abbas et al [26] performed numerical analysis using Plaxis and found that the group configuration has a significant effect on the performance of pile groups subjected to lateral loading.…”

The Effects of Multipropped Deep Excavation‐Induced Ground Movements on Adjacent High‐Rise Building Founded on Piled Raft in Sand

“…Figure 1(a) illustrates the general setup of the 20-storey building founded on a piled raft and a basement. In practice, the final excavation depth of the basement commonly varied from 12 to 26 m, and the thickness of the retaining wall varied from 0.3 to 1.0 m [1,6,25]. To simulate an actual construction in practice, the basement with a final excavation depth of 25 m (staged excavation) and a wall thickness of 0.3 m was simulated in this study.…”

“…To simulate an actual construction in practice, the basement with a final excavation depth of 25 m (staged excavation) and a wall thickness of 0.3 m was simulated in this study. e depth of first and eighth (i.e., final) stages was 2 m and the depth of each of remaining stages (i.e., second to seven) was taken as 3 m. e ratio of wall penetration depth to excavation depth is typically 0.5-2 in engineering practice [1,6,26], and thus a value of 0.6 is adopted in this study. e retaining wall was supported by eight levels of props with vertical and horizontal spacing of 3.0 m and 5 m, respectively.…”

Influence Analysis of Underground Excavation on the Adjacent Buildings and Surrounding Soil Based on Scale Model Test

“…Moncarz and Krawinkler [9] considered that if an adequate model correctly scales the primary features of the problem, the scaling relations between the prototype and model are not significantly affected. In the previous research, Sawwaf and Nazir [10] have analyzed the results of laboratory model tests on the influence of deep excavation-induced lateral soil movements on the behavior of a model strip footing adjacent to the excavation and discussed the variation of the footing measured vertical settlements with different parameters. Fang et al [11] conducted physical model tests of highway tunnel construction and examined the stability of the surrounding rocks regarding different caved zone-tunnel distance and dip angles of the coal seam.…”