22 views

Uploaded by Adrian Liviu Bugea

Civil Engineering, Tunneling, Geotechnical Engineering, Finite Element Modelling

Civil Engineering, Tunneling, Geotechnical Engineering, Finite Element Modelling

© All Rights Reserved

- Structural Analysis (DS).Doc09_10
- Bitetti_TC28_2012
- Kaiser 1996 CIM Burst Support
- Lesson 2 - Simple Continuous Beam Analysis
- 09. PSC Single Span
- IJAIEM-2013-10-29-053
- BarchSyllabus 22-7-16
- Tunnels lining
- Bending, Shear and Torsion Capaciteis of Steel Angle Sections
- Shear Force
- PSC Single Span
- KSSC_3_2008_8_2_109(C)
- How to Design
- Partial Fixity in Etabs _ Waseem Rana
- 8. New Developments for the Design and Construction of Tunnels in Complex Rock Masses
- UC100x100x17 Design Calculation
- Steel Plate Shear Wall Design Michel Bruneau
- BC Elements of BC
- Ns 21 Design
- 2 MARKS MOM With Answers

You are on page 1of 10

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tust

M. Maleki , H. Sereshteh, M. Mousivand, M. Bayat

Department of Civil Engineering, Bu-Ali Sina University, Hamedan, Iran

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:

Received 7 September 2010

Received in revised form 9 January 2011

Accepted 15 February 2011

Available online 8 March 2011

Keywords:

Shallow tunnel

Adjacent structure

Ground movement

Numerical modeling

a b s t r a c t

The aim of this work is to study the effect of structural characteristics, including stiffness, geometry and

weight on tunneladjacent structure interaction. Ground materials, tunnel geometry and excavator

device are related to a part of metro tunnel of Tehran. To describe the ground behavior due to tunneling,

a 3D FE code with an elastoplastic soil model was used. The adjacent building was modeled in two ways:

one as an equivalent beam or shell and the other as a real geometry (3D frames). The obtained results

from this theoretical work indicate particularly that the stiffness of adjacent structure controls the

ground movement distribution induced by tunnel excavation which in agree with other researchers.

As it was predicatively, increasing in structure weight leads to create the large displacement components

in the ground. The structure width plays also a signicant role in displacement distribution of ground.

The comparison of the obtained results using two methods of structure modeling shows a very good conformity between them.

2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Underground transportation systems have been in demand in

many major cities. These systems require a tunnel which is constructed in urban areas, particularly in soft ground and in shallow

zones. Measurement, designing and performing of underground

structure can be known as the most important civil engineers

challenge (Bernat and Cambou, 1998; Liu et al., 2008).

Inuence on adjacent buildings is of major interest for tunneling operations in urban areas, due to the high interaction between

tunneling and existing structures (Pickhavar et al., 2010; Dimmock

and Mair, 2008). This problem/issue was previously analyzed using

a combination of in situ observations and numerical modeling.

Analysis of previous case histories paved the way for the establishment of various empirical relationships between tunneling induced ground movement and associated structure damage

(Burland and Wroth, 1974; Boscardin and Cording, 1989; Burland,

1995; Mair et al., 1996). These methods are widely used in practice.

In reality, a rigorous analysis of the tunneling-structure interaction problem is a hard task, due to (I) the high interaction between

tunneling and adjacent structure, (II) 3D nature of this problem

and (III) the non-linear geometrical behavior involved that leads

to use an appreciate numerical method (Mroueh and Shahrour,

2003). Different approaches have been used to represent the building with varying level of details in the numerical methods. According to the simplied operations are executed in two consecutives

Corresponding author. Tel.: +98 811 8257410; fax: +98 811 8257400.

E-mail address: Maleki@basu.ac.ir (M. Maleki).

0886-7798/$ - see front matter 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.tust.2011.02.006

steps. The rst step addresses the determination of ground movement induced by tunneling using empirical (Peck, 1969), analytical

(Sagasta, 1987; Verruijt and Booker, 1996) or numerical methods

which was widely studied by many researchers (for instance Gonzlez and Sagaseta (2001) and ITA/AITES Report (2007) studies);

and in the second step structural analysis of building subjected

to the ground settlement calculated in the rst step is done.

According to the work of Mroueh and Shahrour (2003) the simplied approach can be considered as very conservative. In the fully

3D FE modeling, details of building can be modeled. The advantage

of such 3D model is that the building can be taken into account in

any geometrical conguration with respect to tunnel axis. Three

examples of such analyses are the works of Mroueh and Shahrour

(2003), Burd et al. (2000) and Keshuan and Lieyun (2008). In the

plane strain analysis, the building is described by its width and

height and details can be incorporated in the model. The obtained

results from 2-D nite element analyzes show that the narrowest

settlement troughs were predicted when the nonlinearity of soils

at small strains was modeled (Chow, 1994).

Furthermore, there is recommended another approach based on

soil-structure relative stiffness which takes into account easily the

effect of structure stiffness in tunnel-structure interaction (Franzius, 2003). In this method, the structure is modeled as an equivalent

elastic beam or shell having bending and axial stiffness.

In spite of various works existing in the literature, it misses yet

a clear parametric study concerning the intensity of inuence of

stiffness and the other structure characteristics in tunneladjacent

structure interaction problem.

The present work is dened in the framework of tunnel

adjacent structure subject. It focuses particularity on parametric

ground movement induced by tunnel excavation. The adjacent

building is modeled rstly as an equivalent beam that allows us

easily to achieve parametric study operation. In the second part

of work, the structure is considered with its real geometry. The

study of interaction between tunnel and adjacent structure was

done using an indirect method developed in this work. PLAXIS

and SAP (powerful in structural problems analysis) codes were

used with the consideration of displacement eld compatibility

at soil media and structure interface. Tunnel geometry and ground

properties are corresponding to a part of metro tunnel of Tehran

city which was constructed using a slurry shield machine with

an outside diameter of 9.0 m. The obtained results by two methods

structure modeling were nally compared.

PLAXIS 3D code only generates the triangle mesh, but it can use

the meshes in very ne size. Meshing is introduced in ve modes:

Very coarse, coarse, medium, ne and very ne. The important

ability of code is to make ner meshing regarding a region and

or surround of a line. However, the precision is increased by use

of ner mesh in a region but causes time to add for run problem

(PLAXIS code manual, 2005).

Medium mesh mode is used in present work and in more sensitive zones, mesh dimension gets ner. Selection of this size of mesh

is not worrying, because coarse meshes have been used in 3D settlement analysis by PLAXIS 3D code in some projects such as Rennsteig tunnel in Thuringia city. Also, for modeling Steinhaldenfeld

tunnel in Stutgart city, very coarse mesh with hardening elastoplastic constitutive model was used that had a good agreement with

real value from in situ information (Mair et al., 1996). Fig. 1 shows

FE mesh and also the lines of displacements measurement.

In this study, the most suitable constitutive model presented in

PLAXIS code was selected. This model is elastoplastic with the isotropic hardening mechanisms. It can be considered as development

of non-associated MohrCoulomb model. In fact, major limitations

of MohrCoulomb model are removed by adding a cap surface to

describe plastication under isotropic stress, and an isotropic hardening mechanism to express non-linear plastic behavior before the

failure. Evolution of yield surface in deviatoric mechanism is

controlled via deviatoric plastic strain. Volumetric plastic strain

controls the cap evolution. The plastic hardening and elastic

modulus are properly considered as function of conning pressure.

Basic properties of this model are:

525

Hardening plastic and elastic modulus is dependent on conning stress according to the exponential rule (exponential dependence of stiffness on stress).

Parabolic relationship between deviatoric stress and strain.

Separation of initial loading from unloadingreloading.

Coincidence of failure surface on MohrCoulomb criteria.

Nonetheless, this model is useful in monotonic loadings only

and some of important soil behavior aspects, such as failure surface

dependence on conning pressure and critical state concept are

not taken into account.

This model has eight parameters, fortunately all of which have

clearly physical meanings and are determined easily by the classical laboratory tests. Parameters of model are:

c: Soil cohesion.

u: Maximum internal friction angle.

w: Dilation angle.

E50

ref : Secant modulus in standard triaxial test at the reference

conning pressure (r3 = pref).

E50

ode : Tangent modulus related to the consolidation test.

Eref

ur : Modulus related to the unloading and reloading states.

m: Controls the dependence of plastic and elastic modulus on

conning stress.

mur: Poisson ratio in unloadingreloading state.

In the PLAXIS code, the mobilized shear strength in interface bond

is a function of shear strength of soil. This option is controlled

using the parameter Rinter that is equal to or less than 1.0, for real

soil-structure interaction the interface is weaker and more exible

than the associated soil layer, which means that the value of Rinter

should be less than 1.0. The Rinter in this study is supposed to be 0.7.

Because of the interface behavior before yielding is considered

elastic, the gapping or overlapping (i.e. relative displacements perpendicular to the interface) could be expected to occur. On the

other hand, the gap can be developed between the equivalent

beam and ground surface. In the present work, the gap in certain

case appeared, however, its value was very small without an effect

considerable on settlement prole in ground surface.

A section of line 1 of Teheran metro near 7tir square station was

modeled to achieve the aims of this study. Shield method was used

for tunnel construction. The information concerning the soil properties, tunnel geometry and tunneling device were taken from Tehran urban and suburban railway organization. Concerning the

geological aspects, 7tir station is located in the end part of nonhomogeneous alluvial formation in Tehran north and its lithologi-

526

Fig. 2. Schematic cross section of geometry and material of line 1 of Teheran metro near 7tir square station.

Table 1

Soil physical properties.

2

ref

ref

2

2

Rinter Eres

mur

ur (kN/m ) Eoed (kN/m ) E50 (kN/m )

0.7

1.7E5

5.6E4

5.67E4

w () u () C (kN/m2)

0.2 10

40

0.25

Table 2

Mechanical parameters of tunnel lining.

EA (kN/m)

EI (kN/m)

8.05E6

8.218E4

35

Table 3

Parameters of modeled structure.

Equivalent structure

W (kN/m/m)

EAstruct (kN/m)

20

40

80

160

1.035E7

1.725E7

3.105E7

5.865E7

7.97E7

3.989E8

2.393E9

1.627E10

Structure

Row

2-Storey

4-Storey

8-Storey

16-Storey

1

2

3

4

Poison ratio for equivalent beam element to load modeling assume to be 0.25.

cal composition consists of sand, gravel, cobblestone and clay. Formation of this area is of a good permeability and depth of groundwater table is 74 m. Geotechnical data of this station shows the

in situ alternative layers of GP, GW, GC, SC and SM. Values of geotechnical parameters are obtained based on jacking and direct

shear tests (Fig. 2).

According to geotechnical information, the parameters of constitutive model were estimated. The values of parameters are listed

in Table 1.

Thickness and mechanical parameters of tunnel lining are presented in Table 2.

3. Equivalent beam consideration

The structure of adjacent building is considered by an equivalent elastic beam with length of L and width of B (Fig. 1). Bending

stiffness (EI) and axial stiffness (EA) represent the overall stiffness

of the structure. The advantages of this method are; simplicity in

considering adjacent building stiffness according to structural system and weight of building and also, in 2D conditions, the small

amount of computational resources is required and therefore the

ability to perform extensive parametric studies can be achieved.

The second moment of area for the equivalent beam was then, calculated using the parallel axes theorem (Appendix A). Considered

structures in analyses were as 2, 4, 8 and 16-storeys. Diverse

parameters of structures have been presented in Table 3.

Different steps of FE calculations performed in the rst part of

this work can be concluded as:

Introducing the equivalent beam and ground analysis.

Effacing the deformation eld engendered by the beam.

Performing the tunnel and capturing the deformation.

In this section, the results of analyses are presented. The focus is

on ground horizontal displacement and ground settlement distribution. There are presented, in Figs. 3 and 4, the proles of horizontal ground movement at 6 m offset from the tunnel center

line in the cases of with and without consideration of structure

stiffness, respectively. The depth of tunnel is 17.7 m and the width

of buildings has been considered to be 100 m. Each of curves corresponds to one building with specic storey and stiffness. In addition, soil movement corresponding to Greeneld (GF) analysis has

been included. The maximum horizontal movement in GF conditions along the vertical line is reached at z = 18.14 m. From there

it reduces towards the surface so that at z = 11.50 m horizontal displacement is zero. In continuing, the movement toward ground

surface increases so that horizontal displacement of 2.5 mm occurs

at the ground surface. The presence of building causes a reduction

in horizontal movement at ground surface. For example, it changes

from 2.5 mm corresponding to GF to 0.9 mm for a 2-storeys building. Although horizontal movement is less than GF at ground surface, it increases with depth and becomes larger than that obtained

for GF conditions. These two gures indicate that with the addition

527

curves in the cases of with and without consideration of stiffness,

it is observed that consideration of building stiffness leads to

decrease horizontal soil movement. It can be generally said that

structure stiffness is a factor that resists against horizontal deformation of soil induced by tunnel excavation. The presented results

in Figs. 3 and 4 indicate that the horizontal movement in the surface has the opposite direction in comparison with movement at

tunnel depth. That is physically real because the region near

ground surface is in contraction state due to tunnel excavation.

On the other hand, the horizontal movement is toward the tunnel

centerline, whereas in depth the ground movement is outward of

centerline. Settlement distribution of ground surface in two cases

of with and without consideration of building stiffness has been

Fig. 5. Vertical soil movement prole of ground surface without consideration of

the building stiffness.

Fig. 6. Vertical soil movement prole of ground surface with applying the building

stiffness.

Fig. 3. Horizontal movement of soil prole without applying the building stiffness

in distance of 6 m from tunnel axis.

Fig. 7. Horizontal soil movement prole in 6 m distance from tunnel axis for

building with different widths.

Fig. 4. Horizontal movement prole of soil in distance of 6 m from tunnel axis with

applying the building stiffness.

is effectively inuenced by building stiffness. In fact, building stiffness causes the uniform settlement beneath the foundation, so this

uniformity is increased by increase in stiffness. One of the most

important interests of equivalent beam method is that for a given

adjacent building, we can attribute the stiffness to building with

respect to its structural characteristics. For example, for a weighty

masonry building an insignicant stiffness can be considered.

528

Fig. 8. Vertical soil movement prole in ground surface for 4-storey building with

different widths.

Fig. 11. Vertical soil movement proles in ground surface for 4-storey structure

with different lengths of building.

Fig. 9. Horizontal soil movement proles in 6 m distance from tunnel axis where

the eccentricity is 7.5 m.

Fig. 10. Horizontal soil movement proles in 6 m distance from tunnel axis where

the eccentricity is 12.5 m.

movement due to tunnel excavation. In this gure ground horizontal movement has been drawn versus depth for vertical line placed

at 6 m from tunnel center. The building is considered to be 4-storeys with 15, 30 and 60 m width. For comparative purposes, the results of green eld analysis for B = 100 m are included. These

curves indicate that horizontal movement is increased with increase in building width. The proles of soil vertical movement

in ground surface for different building widths have been presented in Fig. 8. These results indicate that for the great values of

width the maximum settlement is decreased but a large domain

of ground is inuenced due to tunnel excavation.

Fig. 9 shows the soil horizontal movement proles of vertical

line placed in 6 m distance from centerline of tunnel. These curves

are for a 4-storeys building with 15 m width and 7.5 m eccentricity

(building center in comparison with tunnel center). For comparative purposes, the results of green eld analysis are included. These

529

Table 4

Reaction forces of structure in initial step.

Force (kN m) step 1

1

2

3

4

5

Fx

Fy

Fz

Fx

Fy

Fz

Fx

Fy

Fz

Fx

Fy

Fz

Fx

Fy

Fz

8.4

6.6

7.1

7.3

1.8

1262

1596

1638

2180

1446

8.9

10.3

94.6

120.1

16.2

7.8

4.7

5.3

3.6

3.1

1670

2076

2160

2721

1910

11.3

6.2

6.3

2

12.8

9.5

129.5

138.1

5.3

1.7

1806

2297

2413

2914

2029

11.4

5.9

6.5

2.9

13.9

6.7

130.1

134.9

3.2

12.6

2196

2711

2828

3620

2507

14.4

2.4

10.4

0.8

13.5

1.6

5.9

5.7

11

13.5

1451

1840

1941

2524

1660

16.5

1.5

124.2

149

5.8

Table 5

Reaction forces of structure in nal step.

Force (kN m) step 5

1

2

3

4

5

Fx

Fy

Fz

Fx

Fy

Fz

Fx

Fy

Fz

Fx

Fy

Fz

Fx

Fy

Fz

10.3

7.9

8.4

8.8

3.1

1242

1600

1715

2143

14277

5

6.3

90.3

99.9

13.4

6.6

3.8

4.7

3

3.5

1644

2075

2187

2731

1897

7.7

2.5

4.5

3.4

10.5

10.1

135.1

142.5

5.3

1.7

1775

2305

2442

2928

2012

7.1

2

4.7

4.3

11.4

7.1

13.4

143.2

2.6

11.8

2167

2700

2852

3631

2494

10.9

1.3

8.7

0.4

11.4

3

7.2

7.1

12.3

15.2

1433

1840

2006

2501

1649

13.4

15.1

119.7

12.3

15.2

Table 6

Displacement of beneath a structure columns in initial step.

Displacement (mm) step 1

1

2

3

4

5

Ux

Uy

Uz

Ux

Uy

Uz

Ux

Uy

Uz

Ux

Uy

Uz

Ux

Uy

Uz

0.27

0.31

0.35

0.41

0.47

13.10

14.41

14.81

14.12

11.99

0.34

0.34

0.33

0.35

0.35

0.27

0.30

0.35

0.42

0.48

14.71

16.43

16.41

15.72

13.55

0.38

0.37

0.36

0.38

0.4

0.26

0.3

0.35

0.44

0.50

16.3

17.73

18.11

17.36

14.99

0.41

0.40

0.40

0.41

0.43

0.26

0.30

0.36

0.45

0.51

17.38

18.85

19.25

18.46

15.99

0.43

0.42

0.42

0.43

0.45

0.25

0.3

0.36

0.46

0.55

18.95

20.52

21.01

20.09

17.41

0.48

0.46

0.46

0.46

0.49

Table 7

Displacement of the beneath a structure columns in nal step.

Displacement (mm) step 5

1

2

3

4

5

Ux

Uy

Uz

Ux

Uy

Uz

Ux

Uy

Uz

Ux

Uy

Uz

Ux

Uy

Uz

0.23

0.27

0.32

0.39

0.46

14.08

15.33

15.71

14.96

12.75

0.02

0.004

0.01

0.003

0.006

0.23

0.27

0.32

0.4

0.45

14.72

16

16.33

15.62

13.43

0.03

0.02

0.02

0.03

0.05

0.24

0.27

0.33

0.41

0.46

15.4

16.75

17.1

16.35

14.04

0.06

0.06

0.05

0.06

0.08

0.24

0.28

0.33

0.41

0.47

15.86

17.24

17.62

16.83

14.46

0.08

0.07

0.08

0.08

0.09

0.24

0.29

0.33

0.42

0.5

16.52

18

18.46

17.58

15.03

0.11

0.1

0.11

0.11

0.13

results show that eccentricity of building inuences the soil horizontal movement around tunnel. In fact, an asymmetrical geometry of structure with respect to tunnel centerline results in

asymmetrical displacement eld of soil. When eccentricity takes

to tunneling will be negligible (Fig. 10).

Possibility of accurate studies on tunnel front behavior with

respect to construction methods is one of the most important

530

Fig. 15. Bending moment distribution in tunnel lining, (a is front section plan of structure b is middle section and c is rear section of structure).

interests of 3D FE analyses. In the present work, the effect of building length on ground movement around tunnel front has been

studied. To do this, a 4-storeys building with 15 m width was considered. The results of analyses for two different lengths of 10 and

50 m of building have been presented in Fig. 11. It can be seen that

ground vertical movement in direction of tunnel excavation is

inuenced by building length. In fact, for the case of building with

smaller length, the distribution of longitudinal vertical movement

is sharper than the case of building with the bigger length.

Consideration of structure as real geometry and stiffness in soilstructure interaction problems can give more realistic response in

comparison with the equivalent beam. Although such consideration necessitates us to have the accurate information from present

adjacent building. This information is related to materials, geometry and structural system that are generally difcult to obtain.

The preparation of data for existing old buildings will be more

Fig. 16. Vertical displacement in the ground surface (a is front section plan of structure b is middle section and c is rear section of structure).

adjacent buildings in tunneling or excavation problems. These

methods must be simple and have a good agreement in comparison

with the results, while the adjacent structure is modeled as its real

form. In the previous sections the adjacent building was modeled as

an equivalent beam that allowed us to study the effect of various

building properties such as stiffness, geometry, weight, width,

length and eccentricity of building with respect to tunnel axis, on

the tunnel-structure interaction problem easily. The question arising is how much equivalent beam properly faces to interaction

problems. To answer this question, one 10-storeys steel structure

is considered as real structure, and its results are compared with

the results of equivalent beam. The resistance system of structure

is bending frames in two orthogonal directions, and the connection

of columns to foundation is considered as pin. Footing is considered

to be as mat with 20 m 20 m 1.2 m dimensions. The column

plane of structure has been shown in Fig. 12.

The SAP code was used for the analysis of structures. The dead

and live loads combination is only considered in this study.

The excavation of tunnel creates a displacement eld for the

ground. For shallow tunnels, the created displacement eld inuences the adjacent building and urban services. On the other part,

the presence of adjacent building depending on geometry, weight,

and its stiffness controls the ground displacement eld due to tunneling. To study this important interaction between tunnel and

531

adjacent structure, it is recommended to use a unique nite element calculation code in which the behavior of ground material

and so the behavior of structure are properly described. At least,

in the practical works in geotechnical engineering there is rarely

existence of such general nite element code. In this paper, the

interaction between tunnel and real adjacent structure is studied

using an indirect method for which two nite element codes SAP

(strong in structural analysis) and PLAXIS (strong in geotechnical

engineering problems) have been performed alternately. To

achieve this aim, it will be necessary to use an iterative process between two codes. In Fig. 13, the analysis process using two codes

schematically is presented. As can be seen, the process is based

on transportation of total forces (Fx, Fy, Fz) and total displacements

(Ux, Uy, Uz) between two software i.e. SAP and PLAXIS 3D respectively; this process is updated in each steps. In the rst stage, the

structure is analyzed by SAP code and the forces of support points

are saved to be sent to the PLAXIS code. Now PLAXIS code is executed and gives displacements distribution for mat foundation lied

on ground surface. The displacements at the columns support

points are saved and sent to SAP code. These displacements are induced to support points of structure then SAP code is executed and

gives a set of new forces at the support points. The necessary condition for stopping the iteration process is to satisfy the displacement eld in the interface of structure and ground. On the other

hand, this denes the compatibility condition applied between

Fig. 17. Ground horizontal movement proles (a is front section plan of structure b is middle section and c is rear section of structure).

532

Fig. 18. (a): Geometrical idealization of structure, (b): consideration of structure as equivalent beam.

differences of two sequence steps were about zero. The reactions of

columns and their displacements components for the rst and nal

step of analysis have been presented in Tables 47.

Fig. 14 shows the 3D FE mesh for PLAXIS code in which the positions of foundation and columns have been specied.

6. Comparison of two models

In this part of work the internal forces particularity bending

moment of tunnel lining, ground surface settlement and its distribution, and also ground horizontal movement prole, obtained by

two methods of building modeling are compared.

Bending moment distribution of lining versus central angle of

the tunnel sections, for two methods of building modeling has

been presented in Fig. 15.

The central angle is measured anticlockwise from horizontal

plane. There can be seen a very good conformity between obtained

results by two methods.

The ground surface settlement is an important factor that must

be controlled in interaction problems. The ground surface settlement versus mesh width for two methods has been shown in

Fig. 16.

It is clear that the response of equivalent beam method is very

close to the obtained results from analysis with real geometry of

structure. There is a small difference between two methods in location of structure foundation. This difference is due to uniform distribution of building weight in the rst method in comparison with

the concentrated load of columns in second method.

Ground horizontal movement proles obtained by two methods

have been presented in Fig. 17. These proles are located at 6 m

distance from centerline of tunnel. From this gure we can conclude a very good conformity between the equivalent beam and

the real geometry methods.

There is a small difference (less than 0.2 mm) between the obtained results by two methods particularly in section G that is due

to special manner of structure modeling.

7. Conclusion

In this paper a set of FE analyses were performed to study the

effects of adjacent building characteristics on interaction between

tunnel and adjacent structure. The adjacent structure was modeled

by two different methods. The analysis results obtained by these

from this study are summarized as following:

(1) Structure stiffness plays an important role in tunnel-structure interaction problem. In fact ground movement due to

tunneling is controlled by the structure stiffness, in particular, neglecting the structural stiffness yields to unrealistic

ground surface settlement.

(2) Weight of structure is a very fundamental factor in ground

movement caused by tunnel excavation. Ground movements

are generally increased due to increase in the structure

weight.

(3) The obtained results indicate that horizontal movement is

increased with increase in building width and also for the

great values of width the maximum settlement is decreased

but a large domain of ground is inuenced due to tunnel

excavation.

(4) Eccentricity of building from the tunnel centerline is also an

important factor. Asymmetrical deformations are the rst

effect of structural eccentricity.

(5) Adjacent building was modeled by two methods: equivalent

beam and real geometry. The comparison of obtained analysis results indicates that the equivalent beam method for

practical purposes can be used as a simple way for introducing the adjacent building characteristics in tunneladjacent

structure interaction problems.

The building is modeled by an equivalent elastic beam (in 2D

analyses) or shell (in 3D analyses) that lies on the ground surface.

Youngs modulus E, second moment of area I, and cross section A

are the structural properties of equivalent beam. Each storey of

building is considered as a slab, therefore, considering one slab

for footing, one m storey building can be modeled as m + 1 slabs

(Fig. 18). If the vertical mean distance between slabs is H and the

thickness of each slab is tslab then, using the parallel axes theorem

(Timoshenko, 1955), second moment of area of equivalent beam

can be calculated. Second moment of area I and the area A for slab

are dened as:

Islab

t 3slab L

12

Aslab tslab L

axis to be at the mid-height of the building, the bending stiffness for

the equivalent beam is then calculated as following:

Ec Ibeam EC

m

1

X

Islab Aslab hm

In which hm is the vertical distance between the structures neutral axis and the mth slabs neutral axis. Axial stiffness for equivalent beam is obtained by the following expression:

position (Franzius, 2003).

References

Bernat, S., Cambou, B., 1998. Soil-structure interaction in shield tunneling in soft

soil. J. Comput. Geotech. 22, 221242.

Boscardin, M.D., Cording, E.G., 1989. Building response to excavation induced

settlement. J. ASCE J. Geotech. Eng. 115 (1), 121.

Burd, H.J., Houlsby, G.T., Augarde, C.E., Liu, G., 2000. Modelling tunnelling-induced

settlement of masonry buildings. In: Proceedings of the ICE, Geotechnical

Engineering, vol. 143 (1), pp. 1729.

Burland, J.B., 1995. Assessment of risk damage to buildings due to tunneling and

excavation. In: Proceedings of 1st International Conference on Earthquake and

Geotechnical Engineering, IS-Tokyo, Japan, pp. 11891201.

Burland, J.B., Wroth, C.P., 1974. Settlements on buildings and associated damage. In:

Proceedings of Conference on Settlement of Structures, BTS, Cambridge, pp.

611654.

Chow, l., 1994. The Prediction of Surface Settlements due O Tunneling in Soft

Ground. MSc Thesis, Oxford University.

533

ground movement. J. Tunnel. Undergr. Space Technol. 23, 438450.

Franzius, J.N., 2003. Behaviour of Buildings due to Tunnel Induced Subsidence. PhD

Thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Imperial College of

Science, Technology and Medicine, London, UK.

Gonzlez, C., Sagaseta, C., 2001. Patterns of soil deformations around tunnels.

Application to the extension of Madrid Metro. Comput. Geotech. 28, 445468.

ITA/AITES Report, 2007. 2006 on settlements induced by tunnelling in soft ground. J.

Tunnel. Undergr. Space Technol. 22, 119149.

Keshuan, M., Lieyun, D., 2008. A full 3-D nite element analysis of the prediction

between river-crossing tunneling and adjacent building. In: Proceedings of

World Tunnel Congress on Underground Facilities for Better Environment and

Safety, India.

Liu, H.Y., Small, J.C., Carter, J.P., 2008. Full 3D modelling for effects of tunnelling on

existing support systems in the Sydney region. J. Tunnel. Undergr. Space

Technol. 23, 399420.

Mair, R.J., Taylor, R.N., Burland, J.B., 1996. Prediction of ground movements and

assessment of risk of building damage due to bored tunneling. In: Proceedings

of the International Symposium on Geotechnical Aspects of Underground

Construction in Soft Ground, Balkema, Rotterdom, pp. 713718.

Mroueh, H., Shahrour, I., 2003. A full 3-D nite element analysis of tunneling

adjacent structures interaction. J. Comput. Geotech. 30, 245253.

Peck, R.B., 1969. Deep excavation and tunnelling in soft ground. In: Proceedings of

7th International Conference on Soil Mechanic Foundation Engineering, Mexico,

State-of-the-Art Volume, pp. 225290.

Pickhavar, J.A., Burd, H.J., Houlsby, G.T., 2010. An equivalent beam method to model

masonry building in 3D nite element analysis. J. Comput. Geotech. 88, 1049

1063.

PLAXIS 3D Tunnel 2.00 Manual, 2005.

Sagasta, C., 1987. Analysis of undrained soil deformation due to ground loss.

Geotechnique 37, 301320.

Timoshenko, S., 1955. Strength of Material, Part 1, Elementary Theory and Problems,

third ed. D. Van Nostrand, New York.

Verruijt, A., Booker, J.R., 1996. Surface settlements due to deformation of tunnel in

an elastic half plane. Geotechnique 46, 753757.

- Structural Analysis (DS).Doc09_10Uploaded byA A Adedeji
- Bitetti_TC28_2012Uploaded byAnonymous D5s00DdU
- Kaiser 1996 CIM Burst SupportUploaded byAlexandre Gomes
- Lesson 2 - Simple Continuous Beam AnalysisUploaded byGunabalasingam Jeneevan
- 09. PSC Single SpanUploaded bythanzawtun1981
- IJAIEM-2013-10-29-053Uploaded byAnonymous vQrJlEN
- BarchSyllabus 22-7-16Uploaded byAbhishek Kar
- Tunnels liningUploaded bymbiancar
- Bending, Shear and Torsion Capaciteis of Steel Angle SectionsUploaded byp_meulendijks108
- Shear ForceUploaded byGregory Miller
- PSC Single SpanUploaded byGerman Sanchez
- KSSC_3_2008_8_2_109(C)Uploaded byBrian Halomoan Putra Pardosi
- How to DesignUploaded byAhmad Burqan
- Partial Fixity in Etabs _ Waseem RanaUploaded byAnonymous 5VwQ0KC3
- 8. New Developments for the Design and Construction of Tunnels in Complex Rock MassesUploaded bypawitra
- UC100x100x17 Design CalculationUploaded byWin Than
- Steel Plate Shear Wall Design Michel BruneauUploaded bychrist14n
- BC Elements of BCUploaded byAnish Kumar
- Ns 21 DesignUploaded byanselle001
- 2 MARKS MOM With AnswersUploaded byjeroldscd
- 9011S124-sample[1]Uploaded byAlbert Dimayuga
- IRJET-Parametric Study of Closed Grid Floor SystemUploaded byIRJET Journal
- STDSGN3.pdfUploaded byFlorence Lloyd Ubaldo
- US Sizer Tutorial InstructionsUploaded bySimona Ionut
- Production Technologies notesUploaded byarshnoor singh
- ME 3320 Calendar StrengthsUploaded bycollege_kid081
- ME 110Uploaded byShivu KC
- Chapter-4Uploaded byLenon Rugayan
- Reference load method.docUploaded byV.m. Rajan
- Lesson Plan 8th SD-III(CE-1442)Uploaded byprasad

- Introduction to ModelingUploaded byAdrian Liviu Bugea
- STAS 3221-86Uploaded byAdrian Liviu Bugea
- Manual of Cement TestingUploaded byAdrian Liviu Bugea
- Aggregate and Concrete TestingUploaded byAdrian Liviu Bugea
- Settlement of Piled FoundationsUploaded byWubetie Mengist
- Elementary Soil EngineeringUploaded byTracey Dee
- EarthUploaded byAimn Awad
- A0001 - ASTMUploaded byAdrian Liviu Bugea
- Small and Large Strain 1D 2D 3D Consolidation_FredlundUploaded byAdrian Liviu Bugea
- ELE Key Product Catalogue - EnGUploaded byAdrian Liviu Bugea
- Sesimic Reflection PptUploaded bygaurav_geokuk007
- Leaning Tower of Pisa Case StudyUploaded byMohamed Yousuf
- FoundationUploaded byJiraphong Songsri
- A New Finite Element Model for Pile-Soil InteractionUploaded byAdrian Liviu Bugea
- Cam Clay Model ParametersUploaded byAdrian Liviu Bugea
- Constitutive Model of Unsaturated Structured Soils Under CyclicUploaded byAdrian Liviu Bugea
- A Numerical Study on Ground Displacement and Stress During and After the Installation of Deep Circular Diaphragm Walls and Soil ExcavationUploaded byAdrian Liviu Bugea
- Solution of a Rigid Disk on Saturated Soil Considering Consolidation and RheologyUploaded byAdrian Liviu Bugea
- Embankments on Soft SoilsUploaded byAdrian Liviu Bugea
- High Performance Abaqus Simulation in Soil Mechanics-huegel_henke_kinzlerUploaded byAnonymous FOt6t3N
- Bulk Density CoffeeUploaded byCris-Anne Juangco III
- Settlements Induced by Tunneling in Soft GroundUploaded byAdrian Liviu Bugea
- Sample PreparationUploaded byAdrian Liviu Bugea

- Block+Shear+Tests+in+High-Strength+Steel+AnglesUploaded bySergioAlcantara
- DSS notes.pdfUploaded bymaniram7
- 43_JaliliUploaded byNicolas Aguilar
- Γ-Titanium Aluminide Ti-48Al-2Cr-2Nb Manufactured by Electron Beam MeltingUploaded byandradaolteanu
- Lecture 12Uploaded byakhlaq_hssainkota
- SECTION-6Uploaded byILAYAPERUMAL K
- Intergranular CorrosionUploaded bysklux
- Strength of Compressed Rectangular Plates Subjected to Lateral PressureUploaded byGanesh.Mahendra
- Direct Shear TestUploaded byVarun Shastry
- Tensile StrengthUploaded byMacovei Alin
- AQE(7.782)Uploaded byP Allen Samuel Ignatius
- Wb-mech 120 Nl Ws05bUploaded byDiego Flores
- ShoreR&DUploaded byJigar M. Upadhyay
- Biot Theory (Almost) For Dummies-patzek_oral.pdfUploaded byNima Danesh
- Fatigue Analysis of an Automotive Stabilizer BarUploaded byAbhay Khot
- The Right Connection.pdfUploaded byKarthikeyan Krish
- Dilatometry pptUploaded byUpendra93
- ultrasonic testing.pptUploaded byAmit Sindhya
- Simarata Dhillon, Koushik SeetharamanUploaded byAlejandro Serrano Chavez
- text-chapt10Uploaded byMANAS KUMAR RATH
- Prestressed-Precast Design SpreadsheetUploaded byCivilax.com
- Design of Metal Extrusion ProcessesUploaded byJabbar Aljanaby
- Structure Calculation ReportUploaded byMasoodMiyan
- Interaction between Copper and GalliumUploaded bycapranzolo
- Pressure Testing- An Update on Fact and FictionUploaded byEd Lewis
- CVEN2301 Week 1 Introduction 2014Uploaded byZaeed Huq
- 10246_05092017DMM-1_MID-1_ASSIGNMENT.docUploaded byJeeeva
- ASTM A1008 - A1008M-07Uploaded byManuel Muñoz
- Mechanical SealsUploaded bygutierrezcamposd20
- Mechanical Integrity of PFHE in LNG Liquefaction ProcessUploaded byhan.velthuis431