Copyright © 2013 Scienceline Publication

Journal of Civil Engineering and Urbanism

Volume 3, Issue 6: 386-391 (2013) ISSN-2252-0430

Optimization the Distance between Piles in Supporting Structure Using

Soil Arching Effect
Saeed Hosseinian*, Masoud Cheraghi Seifabad

Mining Department, Isfahan University Of Tech (IUT), Isfahan, Iran

*Corresponding author’s Email address: saeedhosseinian66@gmail.com

ABSTRACT: High cost value of traditional methods for stabilization of pit, encouraged the engineers to

ORIGINAL ARTICLE
study more about soil characteristics and its application. Arching effect is one of these characteristics, it

Received 29 Aug. 2013

Accepted 23 Oct. 2013
allows to designers apply non-continuous structural elements to provide safety and economy of project. To
investigate arching effect of retained structure with anchorage method, Plaxis 3D Tunnel software is used
to model fine-grain (CL-ML) with hardening soil behaviour which simulate soil material. In first model,
the distances between piles are 2m and number of anchors are 5. In second model, the distance between
piles are 4m and number of anchors are 3. The numerical modeling results show horizontal arching
appearance in distance between piles. A comparison between the results gained from the 3D FE analyses
and the more or less conventional method shows that the classical method is very much on the safe side.
Keywords: Arching effect; Excavation; Anchorage method; Plaxis 3D Tunnel software.

INTRODUCTION Vardoulakis et al.,1981; Otani et al.,2010; Sadrekarimi

and Abbasnejad, 2010) (Fig.1). Recently soil arching
Statement of problem theory has been extended to the study of forces and
Today, while urban constructions progress and stresses exerted by a yielding soil mass against discrete
value of land are developing, height and weight of piles embedded in a slope and extending into a firm,
buildings are increasing too that it has caused to try to non-yielding base (Bosscher et al.,1986; vermeer et al.,
find appropriate soil in high quality and effective 2001) (Fig. 2).
excavation, then small and large excavations has been
common. Additionally, because of increasing population
and lack of available spaces to construct new passages in
the cities, it is necessary to develop urban trains and
construct underground stations. If excavation is operated
in the loose soils, it is necessary to construct stable walls
to operate train stations, embedded constructions, urban
constructions and tunnels. Meanwhile, Stabilization of
soil walls at the time of excavation and making tunnel
has been considered by the engineers since a long time
ago.
Scientists have studied on soil properties and
using them to more efficiency. Soil arching is one of
these properties that it can play important role to draw
the plane safely and economically. The results from
laboratory and theoretic comparisons suggest that Figure 1. Stress distribution in the soil above a yielding base
embedded discontinued piles in a slope can result in (Bjerrum et. al., 1972; Revised by Evans, 1984)
double stability of the slop significantly if there are
conditions to make arch. In this case, the piles can be
installed at the time of constructing without decreasing
stability. If retaining wall is equipped with piles and
lagging, all costs of materials, stability and size can be
optimized.

Definition and description of soil arching

between piles
Soil arching, the transfer of soil pressure from a
yielding support to an adjacent non-yielding support, is a
phenomena commonly encountered in geotechnical
engineering (Terzaghi, 1943; Ladanyi et al., 1969; Figure 2. Soil arching between piles

To cite this paper: Hosseinian S. and Cheraghi Seifabad M. 2013. Optimization the Distance Between Piles in Supporting Structure Using Soil Arching Effect. J. Civil Eng.
Urban., 3(6): 386-391.
Journal homepage: http://www.ojceu.ir/main/
386
 Numerical results were validated by the finding of between soil and anchor in unload area. It is clear that if
Prakash (1962), Cox et al. (1984), Reese et al. (1992), load transfer performs in unload area, failure wedge will
Liang and Zeng (2002), Smethurst and Powrie (2007), be pulled towards excavation and the anchor not only
Pradel and Carrillo (2008), Kahyaoglu et al. (2009), prevent to fall but the available force in the anchor
chang et al. (2010) and Kourkoulis et al. (2011). causes to pull failure wedge towards excavation and to
according to which pile spacing S≤4D is required to fall excavation. Generally, stages of anchorage system
generate a group effect and the associated soil arching are operated as follow as:
between the pile. Hence, such an arrangment cannot be At first, several wells are drilled close to
applied for slope stabilization and will not be further excavation. Then, steel profiles in the forms of H or I
examined. Therefore, S=4D can be thought of as the will be installed in these wells vertically. Sometimes,
most cost-effective arrangment, because it has the largest two profiles are placed side by side to able to fasten the
spacing required to produce soil arching between the anchors on the piles. Depth of wells should be
piles for the inter-pile soil to be adequately retained. This considered 1.25 -1.35 in height. Broms and Wang- Reese
is consistent with both common engineering practice and methods (they are used in FHWA standard) can be used
numerous research findings. to determine effective depth of piles. In the next stage,
excavation is performed in considered depth that it
MATERIALS AND METHODS depends on soil conditions, stable depth and interval of
Anchorage method piles that it is 2-4m. Then concrete around steel columns
If we consider an excavation, we can determine is shaved to facilitate. The boring is drilled to place
an failure plane in low safety factor. We can increase anchors in considered depth, slope and diameter. The
safety factor of stability in excavation by reinforcing this anchors are placed in the boring and end of boring will
plane with using special elements. Anchorage method be filled with grout. After that, an anchor will be pulled
has been suggested on the basis of stabilization of slope and this force is transferred to the soil. After placing
and prevention of wall slide of excavation by using anchor and armatures on the walls of excavation and
reinforcing soil. In this method, some anchors are performing concrete cover in shotcrete method, a surface
entered in the ground and they play reinforcing role as in high stiffness is made on the excavation wall. This
the same as armature in reinforced concrete. surface can transfer all forces and changes of excavation
In this method, the anchors will be pre-stressed in wall to the anchor place. Then, the first stage of safe
the soil and their performance is as the same as available excavation is finished and the next stage of excavation
cables in the pre-stressed concrete. Then, pre-stressing in will be the same. This operation will continued in the
the soil causes to increase stabilization of soil and next stages to finish the excavation.
decrease deformation of adjacent buildings significantly.
In this method, anchor is anchored to the Numerical modelling
excavation wall on one side and its end on the other side Finite element method is used to analysis the
and tensioned that this tension causes to lateral and patterns applied in this research. Soil arching
vertical pressure and prevent to move the wall. The soil phenomenon is applied for three dimensional process
is stressed in the place of probable failure wedge by (3D) since 2D has different difficulties. Plaxis 3D
stretching the anchor. It is clear that load transfer will Tunnel is utilized regard to special characteristics and
transfer to the soil only at the back of failure wedge abilities.
where called load transfer area (load zone) and load
transfer at this place that called unload area (no load Geometry of the method and support
zone) cause to fail (fig.3). conditions
To achieve specified aim, soil arching
phenomenon is investigated between steel piles. A 10m
deep excavation with vertical depth and horizontal
surface behind the wall is selected to utilize anchorage
method for stabilization. It should choose boundary
conditions sufficient far from excavation or zone of
influence under stress states, as there is no difference
between stress states and displacements before and after
applied changes. Without consideration of this, the
modeling result is mistake and provides less safety
factor. To define and investigate the required dimensions
for modeling, Plaxis 2D version 8.5 is used in addition to
suggested dimension to suggested dimensions with
different researchers including Briaud and Lim (1999).
With the use of try and error method, different geometry
dimensions specially width of excavation is simulated
with this software and the desired distance is obtained
from model boundaries.
Figure 3. Load zone and no load zone in anchorage method Therefore, according to specified dimensions of
excavation and considered documents, the geometry of
Then, it is necessary to consider transferring load the model is illustrated in fig 4 with 2D dimensional
only in load transfer area and there isn't any stress condition.

To cite this paper: Hosseinian S. and Cheraghi Seifabad M. 2013. Optimization the Distance Between Piles in Supporting Structure Using Soil Arching Effect. J. Civil Eng.
Urban., 3(6): 386-391.
Journal homepage: http://www.ojceu.ir/main/
387
 (2m and 4m). the modeling of water flow is not
considered in this research.

Soil materials and suitable behavioral model

In numerical modeling, behavioral model
definition and related input parameters are most effective
principal parameters to obtain output of analysis. In
essence, the behavioral models present a mathematical
description in mechanical behavior of materials which
considers important aspects of material behavior. In this
research, homogenous fine-grain soil (CL-ML type) with
hardening soil model is used to simulate soil materials
according to their advantages and its applications.
Figure 4. Dimensions of the model Hardening soil model is an advanced model for
simulation, and stiffness of soil describes very accurate
As it shows in fig.4, support conditions of vertical with three different input stiffness. In hardening soil
boundaries in both sides with vertical rollers which model, the stiffness is function of stress, on the other
movement of boundary points is restricted in horizontal hand, the whole stiffness increase with pressure.
direction (Ux=fixed, Uy=free). Horizontal and lower According to lack of laboratory facilities, the hardening
displacements are considered closed in lower horizontal soil characteristics are derived from valuable documents
boundary (complete anchoring conditions). Width of the (Rechea et al., 2008). Therefore, the considered soil
model is variable depending on distance between piles characteristics are presented for modeling in Table 1.

Table 1. Parameters for soils

Parameter Symbol CL-ML Unit
Material model - Hardening soil -
Type of behavior - Drained -
Moist unit weight γ 18 kN/m3
Secant stiffness in standard drained triaxial test 1.8 ×104 kN/m2

Tangant stiffness for primary oedometer loading 1.44×104 kN/m2

Unloading / reloading stiffness 5.4×104 kN/m2

Power for stress-level dependency of stiffness M 0.85 -
Effective cohesion 35 kN/m2
Friction angle 25 
Dilatancy angle  0 

Steel piles and anchors characteristics considered 8 m. the location of anchors are considered as
In Y direction of the models, structural elements FHWA standard method (consists of the distance for the
of steel piles are selected as 2IPE300 construction first row of anchors to surface and the vertical,
profile. The piles characteristics are illustrated in fig 5 as horizontal distance between anchors). In all models, the
shown schematically. Number of piles is 4 in Z direction distance of first anchor from surface is 1.2 m, and the
of models from centre to centre 2m and 4m. These piles distance from end of first row anchors to surface is 4.5
are simulated with plate element. Then, with m. Therefore, free length of first row anchor in all
combination of node to node anchor and geogrid, the models is 15 m which considers the length of the other
simulation is made for anchor and cement grouts. Cable anchors relative to the length of first row anchors.
anchors are performed to have 18600 kg/cm2 failure In order to investigate arching phenomenon in
strength. Each cable consists of 7 string twisted together numerical modeling, it was not used any lining or
and diameter of cable is 0.6 inch. To perform cables, 116 structural support between steel piles (lagging or
mm drilling diameter with 10 degrees relative to horizon shotcrete) is not utilized. Physical characteristics of
is used. The length of the grouts for all the cables are assumed elements are illustrated in table 2.

Table 2. Structural elements characteristics

piles anchors geogrid
EA (kN) EI (kN.m2) W (kN/m) EA (kN) Prestess force (kN) EA (kN)
3.5028 106 6.4602 104 0.828 0.3 1.149 105 200 5.28 104

To cite this paper: Hosseinian S. and Cheraghi Seifabad M. 2013. Optimization the Distance Between Piles in Supporting Structure Using Soil Arching Effect. J. Civil Eng.
Urban., 3(6): 386-391.
Journal homepage: http://www.ojceu.ir/main/
388
 Calculation phases consolidation, dynamic, staged construction, Phi-c
After making geometry of the model, soil reduction analysis and simulate the real conditions. As
characteristics definition, structural elements and the time-dependant parameters and dynamic analysis are
underground water condition, the calculation of phases is not concerned in this research, thus with selection of
considered in next section. stage construction analysis, the excavation stages and
In calculation section, it is possible to simulate environment condition are simulated with reality and
loading condition and excavation steps according to FHWA standard method. Fig.5 shows final calculation
reality. The type of analysis can be selected in relation to phase for distances 2 m and 4 m between piles.

a b

Figure 5. Final excavation phase: a) 2m distance between piles; b) 4m distance between piles

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION the depths in 2 and 4 m distances. Stress concentration

around piles directly contact with soil is shown clearly.
Horizontal stress distribution ( ) between two On the other hand, horizontal stresses in the
piles from center to center 2 m and 4 m are illustrated direction of distance between two piles (Z direction) are
alternatively in fig.6 and fig.7. The results from
reduced to very little amount at the middle of two piles.
horizontal sections in plane X-Y direction are obtained
with the considered depths (Y). As it is observed the This means that arching effect is recognized clearly in
horizontal stress pattern showing the same trend for all soil behind the wall.

Figure 6. Horizontal stress distribution ( ) in different depths between two piles with axial distance 2 m

To cite this paper: Hosseinian S. and Cheraghi Seifabad M. 2013. Optimization the Distance Between Piles in Supporting Structure Using Soil Arching Effect. J. Civil Eng.
Urban., 3(6): 386-391.
Journal homepage: http://www.ojceu.ir/main/
389
 Figure 7. Horizontal stress distribution ( ) in different depths between two piles with axial distance 4 m

Generally, horizontal pressure diagrams are used

to design supports between piles such lagging or and MacNab method, it can conclude traditional methods
shotcrete, which often ignore arching effect in them or it and classic design of supports in piles are conservative.
is associated with simplified assumptions in calculation In addition, in classic method the span width between
of this phenomenon. The diagrams shown in fig.8 are piles do not considered in calculations, i.e., pressure
suggested by MacNab (2002). diagram is identical for spans 2 m, and 4 m which is
shown in figs.7 and 8 for comparison.

CONCLUSION

Arching effect causes reduction of horizontal

stress in distance between piles and concentration of
horizontal stress behind the piles. Classic methods of
horizontal pressure distribution in distance between piles
Figure 8. Diagrams reduced pressure on board between two piles result in conservative design. The width of span between
piles in horizontal stress distribution is effective by
As shown in left side of fig.8, horizontal pressure comparison with classic and numerical methods in this
ground in piles is maximum and less in the distance research. As the span between the piles increased, the
between piles. In right side of fig.9, pressure between forces transferred to piles are reduced according to
two piles is half of the horizontal pressure in ground. arching effect. This results in increase soil displacement
According to both diagrams, applied pressure increases between the piles. The amount of calculated horizontal
with depth without limitation in distance between two pressure between two piles in different depths using
piles. numerical methods is very close to each other. Whereas
The left side of the diagram is used to adapt in classic methods the pressure between two piles
classic and numerical method in depths Y=22.45 m and increases with depth which is against finite element
Y=16.25 m. As it is seen in fig, 6, the calculated results.
horizontal pressure amounts between two piles in
different depths using numerical methods are very close REFERENCES
to each others, whereas in classic methods the pressure
between piles increases with depths which are against 1. Terzaghi ,K. (1943). Theoretical Soil Mechanics.
each other. In comparison with results of 3D finite Wiley and Sons, New York.
element

To cite this paper: Hosseinian S. and Cheraghi Seifabad M. 2013. Optimization the Distance Between Piles in Supporting Structure Using Soil Arching Effect. J. Civil Eng.
Urban., 3(6): 386-391.
Journal homepage: http://www.ojceu.ir/main/
390
2. Ladanyi ,B., Hoyaux, B. A. (1969). study of the groups: Parametric study and design insights,
trap-door problem in a granular mass, Canadian Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Geotechnical Journal,Vol.6,pp.1-14. Engineering,Vol.137,pp.663.
3. Vardoulakis ,I., Graf ,B., Gudehus ,G. (1981). 17. Sabatini ,P., Pass ,D. (1999). Geotechnical
Trap‐door problem with dry sand: A statical Engineering Circular No. 4 Ground Anchors and
approach based upon model test kinematics, Anchored Systems.
International Journal for Numerical and Analytical 18. Briaud ,JL., Lim ,Y. (1999). Tieback walls in sand:
Methods in Geomechanics,Vol.5,pp.57-78. numerical simulation and design implications,
4. Otani ,J., Chevalier ,B. (2010). 3-D Arching Effect Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
in the Trap-Door Problem: A Comparison between Engineering,ASCE,Vol.125,pp.101-110.
X-Ray CT Scanning and DEM 19. Rechea ,C., Levasseur ,S., Finno ,R. (2008). Inverse
Analysis,GeoFlorida,pp.570-579. analysis techniques for parameter identification in
5. Sadrekarimi ,JSJ., Abbasnejad ,AAA. (2010). simulation of excavation support systems,
Arching effect in fine sand due to base yielding, Computers and Geotechnics,Vol.35,pp.331-345.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal,Vol.47,pp.366-374. 20. Macnab ,A. (2002). Earth Retention Systems
6. Bosscher ,PJ.(1986). Soil arching in sandy slopes, Handbook, McGraw-Hill Companies.
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE,
Vol.112,pp.626.
7. Vermeer ,PA., Punlor ,A., Ruse ,N. (2001). Arching
effects behind a soldier pile wall, Computers and
Geotechnics,Vol.28,pp.379-396.
8. Prakash, S. (1962). Behavior of pile groups
subjected to lateral load. Ph. D. dissertation. Dep. Of
Civil Engineering, Univ. of Ilinois.
9. Cox, W. R., Dixon. D. A., and Murphy, B. S.
(1984). Lateral load tests of 5.4 mm piles in very
soft clay in side-side and in-line groups. Laterally
loaded deep foundations: Analysis and performance,
ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA.
10. Reese, L. C., Wang, S. T., and Fouse, J. L. (1992).
Use of drilled shafts in stabilizing a slope. Stability
and performance of slopes and embankments, vol. 2,
ASCE, Reston, VA, 1318-1332.
11. Liang ,R., Sanping ,Z. (2002). Numerical study of
soil arching mechanism in drilled shafts for slope
stabilization, Soils and Foundations,Vol.42,pp.83-
92.
12. Smethurst, J. A., and Powrie, W. (2007). Monitoring
ans analysis of the bending behavior of discrete
piles used to stabilize a railway embankment.
Geotechnique, 57 (8), 663-677.
13. Pradel, D., and Carrillo, R. (2008). Landslide
stbilization using drilled shafts. Continuum and
discrete element numerical modeling in
geoengineering (Proc., 1st Int. FLAC/DEM Symp. ),
R. Hart, C. Detournay, and P. Cundall, eds., Itasca
Consulting Group, Minneapolis.
14. Rifat ,Kahyaoglu M., Imancli ,G., Ugur ,Ozturk A.,
Kayalar ,AS. (2009). Computational 3D finite
element analyses of model passive piles,
Computational Materials Science,Vol.46,pp.193-
202.
15. Qiu-chang ,L., Jian-wei ,Z. (2010). Numerical
analysis of soil arching effects of anti-sliding
pile,IEEE.
16. Kourkoulis ,R., Gelagoti ,F., Anastasopoulos ,I.,
Gazetas ,G. (2011). Slope stabilizing piles and pile-

To cite this paper: Hosseinian S. and Cheraghi Seifabad M. 2013. Optimization the Distance Between Piles in Supporting Structure Using Soil Arching Effect. J. Civil Eng.
Urban., 3(6): 386-391.
Journal homepage: http://www.ojceu.ir/main/
391