Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 12

Ground Surface Settlement Prediction in

Urban Areas due to Tunnel Excavation


by the NATM
Saeid Hesami
Assistant professor, Faculty of Civil Engineering
Babol University of Technology, Iran
e-mail: S.Hesami@nit.ac.ir

Saeid Ahmadi
M.Sc., Faculty of Civil Engineering
Babol University of Technology, Iran
e-mail: Saeed.Ahmaddi@gmail.com

Abbasali Taghavi Ghalesari


M.Sc., Faculty of Civil Engineering
Babol University of Technology, Iran
e-mail: Abbasali.Taghavi@gmail.com

Ali Hasanzadeh
M.Sc., Faculty of Civil Engineering
Babol University of Technology, Iran
e-mail: A_Hasanzade64@yahoo.com

ABSTRACT
Due to increasing traffic congestion in big cities, construction of underground transportation
spaces (e.g. underground metro) is inevitable. One of the problems of tunneling in urban spaces is
considerable ground settlements caused by tunnel excavation that also makes problems for surface
structures. This paper studies the ground surface settlement caused by Karaj metro line 2 tunnel
excavation. Karaj metro line 2 tunnel was excavated by the New Austrian Tunneling Method
(NATM). Therefore, a two-dimensional numerical modeling by finite element method was
performed to simulate the considered area. The obtained results were compared with the allowable
settlement and the measurements by instrumentation. The comparison depicts that the presented
method gives an acceptable prediction of the settlements.
KEYWORDS: NATM, tunnel, Karaj metro, ground settlement, finite element method

INTRODUCTION
In recent years, traffic congestion in big cities has increased due to urban development and
transportation problems. This might lead to use of underground transportation spaces such as
tunnels. In addition to their advantages, tunnel excavation may have undesirable effects on the

- 1961 -
Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. J - Hesami et al. 1962

surface structures, especially in soft ground or densely constructed areas. Some of these
undesirable aspects are exceeding ground surface settlements and change in the groundwater
level. Thus, considering the following points is necessary for a desirable tunnel design and
construction:
1-Stability: Tunnel excavation and construction method should be considered according to
the field conditions. Tunnel stability maintenance during construction (before construction of
permanent support) is a key factor.
2-Ground settlements: The effect of tunneling-induced ground settlement on the nearby
buildings along the tunnel line must be evaluated.
3-Supporting system efficiency: Tunnel support (temporary or permanent) should have
enough capacity against the applied load. Therefore, it is necessary to evaluate the existent loads
before the tunnel support is designed [1].
Underground excavation in populated urban areas, places with not enough spaces for
geotechnical operation (e.g. tunnels, trenches and access ramps), and also in places consisted of
young formations or alluvial sediments can makes many problems for engineers. Hence, much
more time and cost should be spent for these affairs during construction. One of the main
considerations of tunnel construction in urban areas is to reduce the ground surface settlement [2].
Depending on the field conditions, tunnel excavation in urban areas is performed by different
methods such as using tunnel boring machine TBM, new Austrian tuneling method NATM and
Cut and Cover method. One of the popular methods of tunnel design and construction in urban
areas is NATM. This method was first applied in Austria in 1957-1965 and then became famous
in Salzburg about 1965. The theoretical basis of NATM depends on the relationship between
tunnel stresses and deformations which was first introduced by two Austrians. Practically, this
method is suitable in soft and shallow ground. In this method, monitoring and instrumentation of
the project will be carried out and explanation of the results will be performed scientifically.
Recently, several studies have been devoted to the numerical analysis of tunnel design and
construction. Azevedo et al. [3] studied São Paulo tunnel in Brazil by finite element method.
Karakus and Fowell [4] studied the effect of tunnel face advance excavation on the settlement by
2D and 3D FEM modeling. Farias et al. [5] investigated a NATM tunnel using finite difference
analysis. Yoo [6] performed a 3D elasto-plastic FEM investigation to study the performance of
NATM on the soft ground. However, in this study, the ground surface settlement due to tunnel
excavation by NATM was evaluated by two-dimensional finite element method. The studied site
is Karaj metro line 2 and thus a sensitivity analysis was also performed to consider the effect of
soil parameter change along the tunnel line.

CHARACTERISTICS OF KARAJ METRO LINE 2


Karaj is one of seven major cities of Iran that is located in 40 km west of the city of Tehran.
Karaj with heavy daily traffic confronts with many transportation problems due to its special
urban structure and nearby industrial towns. Using railway transportation (i.e. Tehran to Karaj
metro) in this area has provided a better choice for passengers. For this reason, the urbanism
experts were planned to implement five metro lines in this area.
Karaj metro line 2 with the length of 27 km is under construction in two phases. The D-
shaped tunnel cross section has a width of 8.4 m and a height of 7.8m from reinforced concrete.
Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. J - Hesami et al. 1963

The excavated section should be larger than these values by addition at least two times of
shotcrete and lining thickness.
This tunnel is located 14-20 m below ground surface and is classified as a shallow tunnel.
Line 2 starts from Kamalshahr in west and continues to Shahid Beheshti Street and after passing
Taleghani Boulevard and Karaj station ends in Malard. This passage involves 25 stations. Figure
1 shows the plan of Karaj lines, especially line 2.

Figure 1: Typical plan of Karaj metro line 2

Regarding tunnel materials and laboratory tests, tunnel excavation and construction were
performed by the NATM in three stages including top, center and bottom parts. The temporary
supporting system was consisted of some 20mm-diameter lattice frames, two steel mesh layers
and a 30-cm shotcrete which steel frames were used instead of lattice ones in some areas.

ANALYTICAL METHODS
Several relationships have been proposed by researchers considering different effective
parameters on ground surface settlements such as geotechnical strata, tunnel depth and
dimensions and excavation methods. The application of these relationships depends on the
accuracy of their corresponding parameters. Analytical methods are usually based upon the
assumption of elastic behavior of the soil. Peck [7] demonstrated that the ground surface
settlement distribution curve can be obtained by normal distribution (Gaussian distribution curve)
and field measurements (Figure 2). He suggested the following equation,
Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. J - Hesami et al. 1964

 x2

 x   max . e 2i
2

(1)
where  max is the maximum settlement on the tunnel centerline,  x is the ground surface
settlement at the point with the distance of x from the tunnel centerline and i is the distance
between the inflection point of the curve and the centerline.
Ground surface (Y=0) X (m)
0
Settlement profile

inflection point
tunnel depth, Yt (m) centerline

tunnel
lining

Y (m)

Figure 2: Typical settlement profile due to tunneling

Limanov’s Method
Limanov [8] have presented his method based upon the theory of elasticity using probability
function to take into consideration the mechanical behavior of the soil mass. This method was
originally developed for shape of settlement curve in mining holes based upon the Maxwell
theorem. It calculates the deformations developed at the ground surface if the lining exercised a
uniform pressure on the soil roundabout.
The Limanov's relationship for computing the maximum settlement is as follows,

S max  (1  2 )
P 2
E

4r0 h0 (h02  r02 ) 
(2)
where  is the soil Poisson’s ratio, E is soil Young’s modulus, r0 is tunnel radius, h0 is tunnel
depth. P is the radial load that can be expressed as,

1  kr
P z
2 (3)
where  z is vertical stress in tunnel centerline and kr is lateral earth pressure.

Mair et al. Method


Settlement due to tunneling is usually defined by a dimensionless parameter that is called
Volume Loss or Ground Loss. Volume loss is expressed as the ratio of excavation area volume to
the tunnel initial volume (per unit length of excavation) as follows,
Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. J - Hesami et al. 1965

Vr V S
VL  
V0 V0
(4)
where VL is the volume loss, Vr is the volume reduction of tunnel section, VS is the volume of
settlement valley on the ground surface and V0 is the tunnel initial volume (per unit length of the
tunnel). Supposing the same amount for the displaced soil due to settlement, Vr will be equal to
VS. In materials with low permeability such as dense clay, the initial behavior of the soil can be
considered as in undrained condition. Therefore, volume of settlement valley on the ground
surface is equal to the volume of soil which is excavated as well as tunnel theoretical volume (e.g
the volume between the segments outer surface and the excavated section by TBM). By
integrating Peck's Gaussian relationship [7], the volume of settlement valley (per unit length of
tunnel) can be determined,



VS  S

V dx  2 i x SV ,max
(5)
where VS is the volume of settlement valley, ix is the length of the curve inflection point and SV,max
is the maximum surface settlement on the tunnel center line. According to the definition,

VS
VL 
 D2 4 (6)
By combining Eqs. (5) and (6), the following equation can be obtained which is proposed by
Mair et al. [9] for estimation of the maximum surface settlement.

VL D 2 V
S max   S
i i 2 (7)
where VL is the volume loss, VS is the volume of settlement valley, i is the length of the curve
inflection point and D is the tunnel diameter.

Sagaseta’s Method
Sagaseta [10] presented some closed-form solutions for determination of the strain field in an
isotropic homogeneous incompressible soil (  =0.50) due to ground loss and proposed the
following equation for estimation of the maximum surface settlement:

1V 1
S x 0,max 
2 h (8)
where V is the tunnel volume loss per unit length and h is the tunnel depth.

Gonzalez-Sagaseta Method
Gonzalez and Sagaseta [11] extended Sagaseta's method to consider the some other
parameters and soil conditions as described below,
Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. J - Hesami et al. 1966

R 2 1 1  1  y 2 
w( y )  2 R ( ) 1   
H (1  y  2 )  1  y2 
(9)
u0
where ε is the radial shrinkage strain (   ), u0 is the uniform radial displacement, R and a0 are
a0
the tunnel radius, y  is the distance from the centerline which is normalized to H,  is the volume
1  sin
compressibility of the soil mass (   which is the dilation angle of the soil, for shallow
1  sin
tunnels in granular soils  =1-2, in clay soils  =1, Sagaseta suggested  =1.2 for sandy soils), 

is the relative ellipticity (equal to ) and δ is the ellipticity. Gonzalez-Sagaseta presented the

following equation for determination of δ,
P0 1  k 0t
 (3  4  ) (10)
2G 2
where P0 is the in-situ vertical stress, G is the rigidity modulus, k0t is the coefficient of lateral
earth pressure and  is the Poisson's ratio.

MATERIAL PROPERTIES
Karaj metro lone 2 is located 1305 m above the mean sea level. Geotechnical investigation on
the borehole logs depicts that the sediments is consisted of granular soils (sand and gravel) which
are finer and mechanically stronger in eastern parts of the considered site. The soil stratigraphy
has been recognized from 40 boreholes and 18 wells with the maximum depth of 30 m along a 5
km distance. No groundwater level was observed in the 25-30 m borings. According to the tests
carried out on the obtained samples, the sediments are mainly consisted of granular soils. The
predominant soil layer is poorly-graded gravel (GP) or well-graded gravel (GW) which is very
dense. Table 1 depicts the geotechnical characteristics of the considered region [12].

Table 1: Soil properties from borings TP234 [11]


Unit weight Poisson's Modulus of Friction
Soil depth Soil type  ratio,  elasticity, E
Cohesion , c angle, 
Unified
(m) (kN/m3) - (MPa) (kPa) (o)
classification
0-15 GP 19.5 0.3 100 3 42
15-30 GW 20 0.3 100 3 44

Mohr-coulomb constitutive model was considered to model soil around the tunnel according
to the available data about Karaj metro tunnel and lack of important parameters required for other
models. Determination of the following five parameters of the soil is essential when using Mohr-
coulomb model: unit weight (  ), modulus of elasticity (E), cohesion(c), dilation angle ( ) and
friction angle (  ). The parameter value in the model by default is considered equal to zero if the
user does not assign a value to each of these parameters.
Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. J - Hesami et al. 1967

NUMERICAL MODELING AND SETTLEMENT


PREDICTION
Two types of monitoring systems were predicted to control the stability of the adjacent
retaining structures and also for measuring ground surface settlement during excavation and
consolidation stages. The required instruments are as follows: convergence monitoring stations
every 50 m of the tunnel length, surface settlement monitoring stations every 100 m of the tunnel
length and total stations (including lining pressuremeter, surface settlement monitoring stations
and three-point extensometers with the lengths of 1.5, 3 and 6 m) every 500 m of the tunnel
length.
In recent years, by increasing development of computer sciences and numerical softwares,
fast calculation of displacements and stresses of soil or rock embracing underground and surface
structures and interpretation of the results has been possible for engineers. In this study, a full
two-dimensional numerical modeling was performed for simulation of the considered region. The
soil medium was divided to several regions where the regions near the tunnel structure were
considered with finer mesh.

Model Geometry
Figure 3 shows the model geometry and boundary condition. The soil medium was
considered as a 100m  70m area. The lateral and bottom boundaries are located far enough so
that the effects of boundaries on analysis would be insignificant. According to the available
literature, the distance of the boundaries from the tunnel model is the maximum value of: (1) 4-
5D where D is tunnel diameter (2) the distance that increases the joint water ratio up to 90 %. The
lateral boundaries were assumed to be on rollers to move downward and the bottom boundary
was fixed against translation. Tunnel was assumed at the center of this geometry with the width
of 8.4 m and the height of 7.8 m (see Figure 3a)

Tunnel Modeling
The modeling of Karaj metro tunnel near the borehole TP 234 was performed using 2D finite
element method. All necessary calculations were considered during and after tunnel construction.
In each stage, all stresses and displacements around tunnel were calculated.
Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. J - Hesami et al. 1968

30 cm
Shotcrete

Stage 1
(top heading) 4.1 m
R=4.2 m

7.8

Stage 3 Stage 2 Stage 3


(down) (Box) (down)
3.7 m

6.4 m

(a) (b)
Figure 3: (a) Tunnel geometry, excavation and construction stages (b) finite element
mesh and boundary conditions
Modeling stages are as follows,
(a) Defining the circumferential area of soil or rock around the tunnel
(b) Selecting an appropriate constitutive model and determining the required parameters
(c) Applying the boundary conditions and initial stresses
(d) Applying the initial geostatic stresses and satisfying the general equilibrium
(e) Deactivating of the top soil in the tunnel (top heading) and activating of the temporary
support by applying relatively low strength parameters in order to simulate the low initial strength
of the shotcrete (stage 1 in Figure 3a)
(f) Deactivating of the soil in the Box part and applying the actual strength parameters for the
shotcrete of the top part, simultaneously (stage 2 in Figure 3a)
(g) Deactivating of the soil in the down part (benching) and activating of its temporary
support, simultaneously (stage 3 in Figure 3a)
(h) Applying the actual strength parameters for the temporary support of the down part
Figure 3b shows the generated mesh and the geometry of the Karaj metro tunnel line 2. The
tunnel and around soil were discretized with 15-node triangular elements. The initial and
boundary conditions were considered to exactly simulate the real condition of the medium. In
order to achieve the exact values of displacements and stresses around the tunnel, finer mesh was
used in this area. Such as any problem involving tunnel excavation, according to the geometry, a
two-dimensional plane strain modeling will be effective and the influence of third dimension (z in
Figure 3b) could be neglected.

VALIDATION
In order to validate the present numerical method, a comparison between the results obtained
by Valizadeh et al. [13] was done. They investigated the ground surface settlement due to Tehran
Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. J - Hesami et al. 1969

metro excavation using a 3D finite element ABAQUS analysis. The cross section of this tunnel
was an elliptical shape and analyzed in two cases (a) with (b) without the Central Beam Column
(CBC) structure. They considered all the stages of excavation and tunnel support installation and
calculated the in-situ stresses and ground surface settlements. Figure 4 demonstrates a
comparison between the result obtained by Valizadeh et al. and that obtained with the present
method. The comparison depicts a good agreement between the results.
Distance from the tunnel centerline (m)
0 10 20 30 40 50
0
Ground surface settlement (mm)

10

15

20
Present study (2D FE)
25
Valizadeh et al. (2012)
30

Figure 4: Comparison between the results of Valizadeh et al [13] and the present study

COMPARISON OF THE RESULTS


In this section, the ground surface settlement due to tunneling was calculated with 2D finite
element method and compared with the mentioned analytical methods. The settlements were also
recorded by monitoring stations during 15 months as described before and the results compared
with the methods.
Table 2 summarizes the calculated parameters required for each method and the maximum
settlement from the analysis results. Figure 5 shows the settlement profile obtained by the
analytical methods, the measured values and the method presented in this study. The Mair et al.
method [9] overestimates the settlements up to Smax=32.4 mm. This causes to an uneconomic
estimation and overdesign. In contrast, the Gonzalez-Sagaseta method [11] underestimates the
settlement with the maximum of Smax=5 mm. The results indicate that the settlements obtained by
the Limanov’s method [8] (Smax =13.7 mm) is more appropriate than that of Sagaseta’s method
[10] (Smax=11.5 mm). As seen in Figure 3, the ground surface settlement obtained by the present
finite element method is very close to the one measured by the monitoring system. The maximum
surface settlement obtained by the present numerical method and the monitoring stations are 14.3
mm and 17 mm, respectively. This error seems acceptable which can be reduced by improving
the modeling techniques and the soil parameters determination methods.
Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. J - Hesami et al. 1970

Table 2: The results of analytical methods for settlement prediction


h0 (m) r0 (m) P (kPa) kr Smax
(mm)
Limanov’ method 18 4.83 270 0.5 13.7
3
i=0.5Z (m) Z (m) D (m) VL (m ) Smax
(mm)
Mair et al. method 9 18 9.66 0.01 32.4
3
D (m) V (m ) Smax
(mm)
Sagaseta’s method 18 0.756 11.5
    u0 Smax
(cm) (mm)
Gonzalez-sagaseta 1.4 0.42 0.0021 0.005 2.5 5
method

Distance from the tunnel centerline (m)


0
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
-5

-10

-15 Present study (2D FE)

Measurement
-20
Mair et al. method
-25
sagaseta's method
-30
Gonzalez‐Sagaseta 
method
-35 Limanov's method
Ground surface
settlement (mm)
Figure 5: Profile obtained by instrumentations (measurement) and different methods

Sensitivity Analysis
In order to consider the effect of geotechnical parameters (such as soil unit weight, cohesion
and friction angle) along the tunnel, a sensitivity analysis was performed which the range of
parameter changes was selected from the reports.
The sensitivity analysis depicts that increase in the unit weight leads to a decrease in the
maximum surface settlement (see Figure 6). The similar trend is observed about the Mohr-
Coulomb model strength parameters. A 24% increase in the unit weight leads to 90% decrease in
the maximum surface settlement. This amount of reduction is also caused by 17% increase in the
soil cohesion. Increasing the friction angle to 70% just decreases maximum surface settlement as
52%. Therefore, the soil cohesion is the most effective parameter in increasing the ground surface
settlement due to tuneling .
Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. J - Hesami et al. 1971

50 18
(a) (b)
45 16
40 14
35
y = ‐9.437x + 202.2 12
Smax (mm)

Smax (mm)
30 y = ‐0.819x + 15.79
R² = 0.867 10 R² = 0.894
25
8
20
15 6

10 4
5 2
0 0
17 18 19 20 0 5 10 15
soil unit weight, γ(kN/m 3)  soil cohesion, C ( kN/m2)

25
(c)
20
Smax (mm)

15

y = ‐0.344x + 27.26
10 R² = 0.927

0
16 26 36 46 56
soil friction angle, φ (Deg)

Figure 6: The variation of the maximum surface settlement with (a) soil unit weight (b)
cohesion and (c) friction angle

CONCLUSION
In this study, by applying a 2D finite element method, the ground surface settlement due to
Karaj metro line 2 excavation by the NATM was analyzed. In the present method, the field
conditions and construction stages were modeled and the results compared with the results of
analytical methods and measured values. According to the results, the obtained settlements in this
study were in good agreement with the measured settlements by the monitoring stations and it
acts so much better than the analytical methods. The performed sensitivity analysis showed that
soil cohesion is the most effective parameter in the prediction of ground surface settlement due to
tuneling .

REFERENCES
1. Mair, R.J. and Taylor, R.N. (1996) “Geotechnical aspect of design criteria for bored
tuneling in soft ground,” UK: Taylor & Francis.
2. Fowell, M. (2003) “Effects of different tunnel face advance excavation on the
settlement by FEM,” Tuneling and Underground Space Technology, pp 513-523.
3. Azevedo, R.F., Zornberg, J.G. and Parreira, A.B. (2002) “Numerical analysis of a
tunnel in residual soils,” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering.
ASCE, Vol. 128, pp 227–236.
4. Karakus, M. and Fowell, F. (2003) “Effects of different tunnel face advance
Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. J - Hesami et al. 1972

excavation on the settlement by FEM,” Tuneling and Underground Space


Technology, Vol. 18, pp 513–523.
5. Farias, M.M., Moraes Junior, A.H. and Assis, A.P. (2004) “Displacement control in
tunnel excavated in the NATM: 3-D numerical simulations,” Tunnelling and
Underground Space Technology, Vol. 19, pp 283–294.
6. Yoo, C. (2009) “Performance of multi-faced tunnelling – a 3D numerical
investigation,” Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, Vol. 24, pp 562–
573.
7. Peck, R.B. (1969) “Deep Excavations and Tuneling in Soft Ground,”
Proceedings 7th international Conference Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Mexico, State-of-the-Art Volume, pp 225-290.
8. Limaniv, J.A. (1957) Infolge Tunnelbau in kambrischen Tonen Leningrad Inst-Inzh.
Zhelezu, Transport.
9. Mair, R.J, Gunn, M.J. and O'Reilly, M.P. (1983) “Ground Movement Around
Shallow Tunnels in Soft Clay,” 10th International Conference on soil
mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Stockholm, pp 323-328.
10. Sagasetta, C. (1987) “Analysis of underground soil deformation due to the ground
loss,” Geotechnique, Vol. 37, No. 3, pp 301-330.
11. Gonzalez, C. and Sagaseta, C. (2001) “Patterns of soil deformations around tunnels,
Application to the extension of Madrid Metro” Computers and Geotechnics, Vol. 28,
pp 445-468.
12. Darya khak pey Consulting Engineers, geotechnical reports of Karaj metro line 2
project, 2005.
13. Valizadeh Kivi, A, Sadaghiani, M.H. and Ahmadi, M.M. (2012) “Numerical
modeling of ground settlement control of large span underground metro station in
Tehran Metro using Central Beam Column (CBC) structure,” Tunnelling and
Underground Space Technology, Vol. 28, pp 1–9.

© 2013 ejge

Вам также может понравиться