You are on page 1of 10

Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 26 (2011) 524–533

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology


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

An equivalent beam model for the analysis of tunnel-building interaction


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 a b s t r a c t

Article history: The aim of this work is to study the effect of structural characteristics, including stiffness, geometry and
Received 7 September 2010 weight on tunnel–adjacent structure interaction. Ground materials, tunnel geometry and excavator
Received in revised form 9 January 2011 device are related to a part of metro tunnel of Tehran. To describe the ground behavior due to tunneling,
Accepted 15 February 2011
a 3D FE code with an elastoplastic soil model was used. The adjacent building was modeled in two ways:
Available online 8 March 2011
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
Keywords:
ground movement distribution induced by tunnel excavation which in agree with other researchers.
Shallow tunnel
Adjacent structure
As it was predicatively, increasing in structure weight leads to create the large displacement components
Ground movement in the ground. The structure width plays also a significant role in displacement distribution of ground.
Numerical modeling The comparison of the obtained results using two methods of structure modeling shows a very good con-
formity between them.
Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction steps. The first step addresses the determination of ground move-
ment induced by tunneling using empirical (Peck, 1969), analytical
Underground transportation systems have been in demand in (Sagasta, 1987; Verruijt and Booker, 1996) or numerical methods
many major cities. These systems require a tunnel which is con- which was widely studied by many researchers (for instance Gon-
structed in urban areas, particularly in soft ground and in shallow zález and Sagaseta (2001) and ITA/AITES Report (2007) studies);
zones. Measurement, designing and performing of underground and in the second step structural analysis of building subjected
structure can be known as the most important civil engineer’s to the ground settlement calculated in the first step is done.
challenge (Bernat and Cambou, 1998; Liu et al., 2008). According to the work of Mroueh and Shahrour (2003) the simpli-
Influence on adjacent buildings is of major interest for tunnel- fied approach can be considered as very conservative. In the fully
ing operations in urban areas, due to the high interaction between 3D FE modeling, details of building can be modeled. The advantage
tunneling and existing structures (Pickhavar et al., 2010; Dimmock of such 3D model is that the building can be taken into account in
and Mair, 2008). This problem/issue was previously analyzed using any geometrical configuration with respect to tunnel axis. Three
a combination of in situ observations and numerical modeling. examples of such analyses are the works of Mroueh and Shahrour
Analysis of previous case histories paved the way for the establish- (2003), Burd et al. (2000) and Keshuan and Lieyun (2008). In the
ment of various empirical relationships between tunneling in- plane strain analysis, the building is described by its width and
duced ground movement and associated structure damage height and details can be incorporated in the model. The obtained
(Burland and Wroth, 1974; Boscardin and Cording, 1989; Burland, results from 2-D finite element analyzes show that the narrowest
1995; Mair et al., 1996). These methods are widely used in practice. settlement troughs were predicted when the nonlinearity of soils
In reality, a rigorous analysis of the tunneling-structure interac- at small strains was modeled (Chow, 1994).
tion problem is a hard task, due to (I) the high interaction between Furthermore, there is recommended another approach based on
tunneling and adjacent structure, (II) 3D nature of this problem soil-structure relative stiffness which takes into account easily the
and (III) the non-linear geometrical behavior involved that leads effect of structure stiffness in tunnel-structure interaction (Franzi-
to use an appreciate numerical method (Mroueh and Shahrour, us, 2003). In this method, the structure is modeled as an equivalent
2003). Different approaches have been used to represent the build- elastic beam or shell having bending and axial stiffness.
ing with varying level of details in the numerical methods. Accord- In spite of various works existing in the literature, it misses yet
ing to the simplified operations are executed in two consecutives a clear parametric study concerning the intensity of influence of
stiffness and the other structure characteristics in tunnel–adjacent
structure interaction problem.
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +98 811 8257410; fax: +98 811 8257400. The present work is defined in the framework of tunnel–
E-mail address: Maleki@basu.ac.ir (M. Maleki). adjacent structure subject. It focuses particularity on parametric

0886-7798/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.tust.2011.02.006
M. Maleki et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 26 (2011) 524–533 525

study of structural characteristics effects of adjacent building on – Hardening plastic and elastic modulus is dependent on confin-
ground movement induced by tunnel excavation. The adjacent ing stress according to the exponential rule (exponential depen-
building is modeled firstly as an equivalent beam that allows us dence of stiffness on stress).
easily to achieve parametric study operation. In the second part – Parabolic relationship between deviatoric stress and strain.
of work, the structure is considered with its real geometry. The – Separation of initial loading from unloading–reloading.
study of interaction between tunnel and adjacent structure was – Coincidence of failure surface on Mohr–Coulomb criteria.
done using an indirect method developed in this work. PLAXIS
and SAP (powerful in structural problems analysis) codes were Nonetheless, this model is useful in monotonic loadings only
used with the consideration of displacement field compatibility and some of important soil behavior aspects, such as failure surface
at soil media and structure interface. Tunnel geometry and ground dependence on confining pressure and critical state concept are
properties are corresponding to a part of metro tunnel of Tehran not taken into account.
city which was constructed using a slurry shield machine with This model has eight parameters, fortunately all of which have
an outside diameter of 9.0 m. The obtained results by two methods clearly physical meanings and are determined easily by the classi-
structure modeling were finally compared. cal laboratory tests. Parameters of model are:

c: Soil cohesion.
2. Modeling and parameters u: Maximum internal friction angle.
w: Dilation angle.
PLAXIS 3D code only generates the triangle mesh, but it can use E50
ref : Secant modulus in standard triaxial test at the reference

the meshes in very fine size. Meshing is introduced in five modes: confining pressure (r3 = pref).
Very coarse, coarse, medium, fine and very fine. The important E50
ode : Tangent modulus related to the consolidation test.

ability of code is to make finer meshing regarding a region and Eref


ur : Modulus related to the unloading and reloading states.

or surround of a line. However, the precision is increased by use m: Controls the dependence of plastic and elastic modulus on
of finer mesh in a region but causes time to add for run problem confining stress.
(PLAXIS code manual, 2005). mur: Poisson ratio in unloading–reloading state.
Medium mesh mode is used in present work and in more sensi-
tive zones, mesh dimension gets finer. Selection of this size of mesh In the PLAXIS code, the mobilized shear strength in interface bond
is not worrying, because coarse meshes have been used in 3D settle- is a function of shear strength of soil. This option is controlled
ment analysis by PLAXIS 3D code in some projects such as Renn- using the parameter Rinter that is equal to or less than 1.0, for real
steig tunnel in Thuringia city. Also, for modeling Steinhaldenfeld soil-structure interaction the interface is weaker and more flexible
tunnel in Stutgart city, very coarse mesh with hardening elastoplas- than the associated soil layer, which means that the value of Rinter
tic constitutive model was used that had a good agreement with should be less than 1.0. The Rinter in this study is supposed to be 0.7.
real value from in situ information (Mair et al., 1996). Fig. 1 shows Because of the interface behavior before yielding is considered
FE mesh and also the lines of displacements measurement. elastic, the gapping or overlapping (i.e. relative displacements per-
In this study, the most suitable constitutive model presented in pendicular to the interface) could be expected to occur. On the
PLAXIS code was selected. This model is elastoplastic with the iso- other hand, the gap can be developed between the equivalent
tropic hardening mechanisms. It can be considered as development beam and ground surface. In the present work, the gap in certain
of non-associated Mohr–Coulomb model. In fact, major limitations case appeared, however, its value was very small without an effect
of Mohr–Coulomb model are removed by adding a cap surface to considerable on settlement profile in ground surface.
describe plastification under isotropic stress, and an isotropic hard- A section of line 1 of Teheran metro near 7tir square station was
ening mechanism to express non-linear plastic behavior before the modeled to achieve the aims of this study. Shield method was used
failure. Evolution of yield surface in deviatoric mechanism is for tunnel construction. The information concerning the soil prop-
controlled via deviatoric plastic strain. Volumetric plastic strain erties, tunnel geometry and tunneling device were taken from Teh-
controls the cap evolution. The plastic hardening and elastic ran urban and suburban railway organization. Concerning the
modulus are properly considered as function of confining pressure. geological aspects, 7tir station is located in the end part of non-
Basic properties of this model are: homogeneous alluvial formation in Tehran north and its lithologi-

Fig. 1. FE mesh and lines of soil movement measurement.


526 M. Maleki et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 26 (2011) 524–533

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

Table 1 stiffness (EI) and axial stiffness (EA) represent the overall stiffness
Soil physical properties. of the structure. The advantages of this method are; simplicity in
Rinter Eres 2 ref ref mur w (°) u (°) C (kN/m2) considering adjacent building stiffness according to structural sys-
ur (kN/m ) Eoed (kN/m ) E50 (kN/m )
2 2
tem and weight of building and also, in 2D conditions, the small
0.7 1.7E5 5.6E4 5.67E4 0.2 10 40 0.25 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, cal-
Table 2 culated using the parallel axes theorem (Appendix A). Considered
Mechanical parameters of tunnel lining. structures in analyses were as 2, 4, 8 and 16-storeys. Diverse
EA (kN/m) EI (kN/m) Tunnel lining (cm) parameters of structures have been presented in Table 3.
8.05E6 8.218E4 35
Different steps of FE calculations performed in the first part of
this work can be concluded as:

– Analysis of ground for considering the gravity.


Table 3
– Introducing the equivalent beam and ground analysis.
Parameters of modeled structure.
– Effacing the deformation field engendered by the beam.
Equivalent structure Structure Row – Performing the tunnel and capturing the deformation.
W (kN/m/m) EAstruct (kN/m) EIstruct (kN m2/m)
20 1.035E7 7.97E7 2-Storey 1 4. Discussion on equivalent beam results analysis
40 1.725E7 3.989E8 4-Storey 2
80 3.105E7 2.393E9 8-Storey 3
160 5.865E7 1.627E10 16-Storey 4 In this section, the results of analyses are presented. The focus is
on ground horizontal displacement and ground settlement distri-
Poison ratio for equivalent beam element to load modeling assume to be 0.25.
bution. There are presented, in Figs. 3 and 4, the profiles of hori-
zontal ground movement at 6 m offset from the tunnel center
cal composition consists of sand, gravel, cobblestone and clay. For- line in the cases of with and without consideration of structure
mation of this area is of a good permeability and depth of ground- stiffness, respectively. The depth of tunnel is 17.7 m and the width
water table is 74 m. Geotechnical data of this station shows the of buildings has been considered to be 100 m. Each of curves cor-
in situ alternative layers of GP, GW, GC, SC and SM. Values of geo- responds to one building with specific storey and stiffness. In addi-
technical parameters are obtained based on jacking and direct tion, soil movement corresponding to Greenfield (GF) analysis has
shear tests (Fig. 2). been included. The maximum horizontal movement in GF condi-
According to geotechnical information, the parameters of con- tions along the vertical line is reached at z = 18.14 m. From there
stitutive model were estimated. The values of parameters are listed it reduces towards the surface so that at z = 11.50 m horizontal dis-
in Table 1. placement is zero. In continuing, the movement toward ground
Thickness and mechanical parameters of tunnel lining are pre- surface increases so that horizontal displacement of 2.5 mm occurs
sented in Table 2. at the ground surface. The presence of building causes a reduction
in horizontal movement at ground surface. For example, it changes
3. Equivalent beam consideration from 2.5 mm corresponding to GF to 0.9 mm for a 2-storeys build-
ing. Although horizontal movement is less than GF at ground sur-
The structure of adjacent building is considered by an equiva- face, it increases with depth and becomes larger than that obtained
lent elastic beam with length of L and width of B (Fig. 1). Bending for GF conditions. These two figures indicate that with the addition
M. Maleki et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 26 (2011) 524–533 527

of building storey, soil movement increases. With comparison of


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 defor-
mation of soil induced by tunnel excavation. The presented results
in Figs. 3 and 4 indicate that the horizontal movement in the sur-
face 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 profile of ground surface without consideration of
the building stiffness.

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

Fig. 3. Horizontal movement of soil profile without applying the building stiffness
in distance of 6 m from tunnel axis.

Fig. 7. Horizontal soil movement profile in 6 m distance from tunnel axis for
building with different widths.

presented in Figs. 5 and 6. It is clear that settlement distribution


is effectively influenced by building stiffness. In fact, building stiff-
ness 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
Fig. 4. Horizontal movement profile of soil in distance of 6 m from tunnel axis with respect to its structural characteristics. For example, for a weighty
applying the building stiffness. masonry building an insignificant stiffness can be considered.
528 M. Maleki et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 26 (2011) 524–533

Fig. 8. Vertical soil movement profile in ground surface for 4-storey building with Fig. 11. Vertical soil movement profiles in ground surface for 4-storey structure
different widths. with different lengths of building.

Fig. 12. Structure columns plane.

Fig. 9. Horizontal soil movement profiles in ±6 m distance from tunnel axis where
the eccentricity is 7.5 m.

Fig. 13. Process of interaction between SAP and PLAXIS.

at 6 m from tunnel center. The building is considered to be 4-sto-


reys with 15, 30 and 60 m width. For comparative purposes, the re-
sults of green field analysis for B = 100 m are included. These
curves indicate that horizontal movement is increased with in-
crease in building width. The profiles of soil vertical movement
in ground surface for different building widths have been pre-
sented in Fig. 8. These results indicate that for the great values of
width the maximum settlement is decreased but a large domain
Fig. 10. Horizontal soil movement profiles in ±6 m distance from tunnel axis where of ground is influenced due to tunnel excavation.
the eccentricity is 12.5 m. Fig. 9 shows the soil horizontal movement profiles of vertical
line placed in 6 m distance from centerline of tunnel. These curves
Fig. 7 shows the effect of building width on ground horizontal are for a 4-storeys building with 15 m width and 7.5 m eccentricity
movement due to tunnel excavation. In this figure ground horizon- (building center in comparison with tunnel center). For compara-
tal movement has been drawn versus depth for vertical line placed tive purposes, the results of green field analysis are included. These
M. Maleki et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 26 (2011) 524–533 529

Table 4
Reaction forces of structure in initial step.

Force (kN m) step 1 G F E D C


Fx Fy Fz Fx Fy Fz Fx Fy Fz Fx Fy Fz Fx Fy Fz
1 8.4 1262 8.9 7.8 1670 11.3 9.5 1806 11.4 6.7 2196 14.4 1.6 1451 16.5
2 6.6 1596 10.3 4.7 2076 6.2 129.5 2297 5.9 130.1 2711 2.4 5.9 1840 1.5
3 7.1 1638 94.6 5.3 2160 6.3 138.1 2413 6.5 134.9 2828 10.4 5.7 1941 124.2
4 7.3 2180 120.1 3.6 2721 2 5.3 2914 2.9 3.2 3620 0.8 11 2524 149
5 1.8 1446 16.2 3.1 1910 12.8 1.7 2029 13.9 12.6 2507 13.5 13.5 1660 5.8

Table 5
Reaction forces of structure in final step.

Force (kN m) step 5 G F E D C


Fx Fy Fz Fx Fy Fz Fx Fy Fz Fx Fy Fz Fx Fy Fz
1 10.3 1242 5 6.6 1644 7.7 10.1 1775 7.1 7.1 2167 10.9 3 1433 13.4
2 7.9 1600 6.3 3.8 2075 2.5 135.1 2305 2 13.4 2700 1.3 7.2 1840 15.1
3 8.4 1715 90.3 4.7 2187 4.5 142.5 2442 4.7 143.2 2852 8.7 7.1 2006 119.7
4 8.8 2143 99.9 3 2731 3.4 5.3 2928 4.3 2.6 3631 0.4 12.3 2501 12.3
5 3.1 14277 13.4 3.5 1897 10.5 1.7 2012 11.4 11.8 2494 11.4 15.2 1649 15.2

Table 6
Displacement of beneath a structure columns in initial step.

Displacement (mm) step 1 G F E D C


Ux Uy Uz Ux Uy Uz Ux Uy Uz Ux Uy Uz Ux Uy Uz
1 0.27 13.10 0.34 0.27 14.71 0.38 0.26 16.3 0.41 0.26 17.38 0.43 0.25 18.95 0.48
2 0.31 14.41 0.34 0.30 16.43 0.37 0.3 17.73 0.40 0.30 18.85 0.42 0.3 20.52 0.46
3 0.35 14.81 0.33 0.35 16.41 0.36 0.35 18.11 0.40 0.36 19.25 0.42 0.36 21.01 0.46
4 0.41 14.12 0.35 0.42 15.72 0.38 0.44 17.36 0.41 0.45 18.46 0.43 0.46 20.09 0.46
5 0.47 11.99 0.35 0.48 13.55 0.4 0.50 14.99 0.43 0.51 15.99 0.45 0.55 17.41 0.49

Table 7
Displacement of the beneath a structure columns in final step.

Displacement (mm) step 5 G F E D C


Ux Uy Uz Ux Uy Uz Ux Uy Uz Ux Uy Uz Ux Uy Uz
1 0.23 14.08 0.02 0.23 14.72 0.03 0.24 15.4 0.06 0.24 15.86 0.08 0.24 16.52 0.11
2 0.27 15.33 0.004 0.27 16 0.02 0.27 16.75 0.06 0.28 17.24 0.07 0.29 18 0.1
3 0.32 15.71 0.01 0.32 16.33 0.02 0.33 17.1 0.05 0.33 17.62 0.08 0.33 18.46 0.11
4 0.39 14.96 0.003 0.4 15.62 0.03 0.41 16.35 0.06 0.41 16.83 0.08 0.42 17.58 0.11
5 0.46 12.75 0.006 0.45 13.43 0.05 0.46 14.04 0.08 0.47 14.46 0.09 0.5 15.03 0.13

Fig. 14. 3D FE mesh for PLAXIS code.

results show that eccentricity of building influences the soil hori- the great values, the effect of building on ground movement due
zontal movement around tunnel. In fact, an asymmetrical geome- to tunneling will be negligible (Fig. 10).
try of structure with respect to tunnel centerline results in Possibility of accurate studies on tunnel front behavior with
asymmetrical displacement field of soil. When eccentricity takes respect to construction methods is one of the most important
530 M. Maleki et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 26 (2011) 524–533

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 build- 5. Consideration of structure as real geometry
ing length on ground movement around tunnel front has been
studied. To do this, a 4-storeys building with 15 m width was con- Consideration of structure as real geometry and stiffness in soil-
sidered. The results of analyses for two different lengths of 10 and structure interaction problems can give more realistic response in
50 m of building have been presented in Fig. 11. It can be seen that comparison with the equivalent beam. Although such consider-
ground vertical movement in direction of tunnel excavation is ation necessitates us to have the accurate information from present
influenced by building length. In fact, for the case of building with adjacent building. This information is related to materials, geome-
smaller length, the distribution of longitudinal vertical movement try and structural system that are generally difficult to obtain.
is sharper than the case of building with the bigger length. 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).
M. Maleki et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 26 (2011) 524–533 531

difficult. Therefore, it is reasonable to use other methods to model adjacent structure, it is recommended to use a unique finite ele-
adjacent buildings in tunneling or excavation problems. These ment calculation code in which the behavior of ground material
methods must be simple and have a good agreement in comparison and so the behavior of structure are properly described. At least,
with the results, while the adjacent structure is modeled as its real in the practical works in geotechnical engineering there is rarely
form. In the previous sections the adjacent building was modeled as existence of such general finite element code. In this paper, the
an equivalent beam that allowed us to study the effect of various interaction between tunnel and real adjacent structure is studied
building properties such as stiffness, geometry, weight, width, using an indirect method for which two finite element codes SAP
length and eccentricity of building with respect to tunnel axis, on (strong in structural analysis) and PLAXIS (strong in geotechnical
the tunnel-structure interaction problem easily. The question aris- engineering problems) have been performed alternately. To
ing is how much equivalent beam properly faces to interaction achieve this aim, it will be necessary to use an iterative process be-
problems. To answer this question, one 10-storeys steel structure tween two codes. In Fig. 13, the analysis process using two codes
is considered as real structure, and its results are compared with schematically is presented. As can be seen, the process is based
the results of equivalent beam. The resistance system of structure on transportation of total forces (Fx, Fy, Fz) and total displacements
is bending frames in two orthogonal directions, and the connection (Ux, Uy, Uz) between two software i.e. SAP and PLAXIS 3D respec-
of columns to foundation is considered as pin. Footing is considered tively; this process is updated in each steps. In the first stage, the
to be as mat with 20 m  20 m  1.2 m dimensions. The column structure is analyzed by SAP code and the forces of support points
plane of structure has been shown in Fig. 12. are saved to be sent to the PLAXIS code. Now PLAXIS code is exe-
The SAP code was used for the analysis of structures. The dead cuted and gives displacements distribution for mat foundation lied
and live loads combination is only considered in this study. on ground surface. The displacements at the columns support
The excavation of tunnel creates a displacement field for the points are saved and sent to SAP code. These displacements are in-
ground. For shallow tunnels, the created displacement field influ- duced to support points of structure then SAP code is executed and
ences the adjacent building and urban services. On the other part, gives a set of new forces at the support points. The necessary con-
the presence of adjacent building depending on geometry, weight, dition for stopping the iteration process is to satisfy the displace-
and its stiffness controls the ground displacement field due to tun- ment field in the interface of structure and ground. On the other
neling. To study this important interaction between tunnel and hand, this defines the compatibility condition applied between

Fig. 17. Ground horizontal movement profiles (a is front section plan of structure b is middle section and c is rear section of structure).
532 M. Maleki et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 26 (2011) 524–533

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

structure and ground. This iterative process is continued until the methods were then compared with each other. The conclusions
differences of two sequence steps were about zero. The reactions of from this study are summarized as following:
columns and their displacements components for the first and final
step of analysis have been presented in Tables 4–7. (1) Structure stiffness plays an important role in tunnel-struc-
Fig. 14 shows the 3D FE mesh for PLAXIS code in which the posi- ture interaction problem. In fact ground movement due to
tions of foundation and columns have been specified. tunneling is controlled by the structure stiffness, in particu-
lar, neglecting the structural stiffness yields to unrealistic
6. Comparison of two models ground surface settlement.
(2) Weight of structure is a very fundamental factor in ground
In this part of work the internal forces particularity bending movement caused by tunnel excavation. Ground movements
moment of tunnel lining, ground surface settlement and its distri- are generally increased due to increase in the structure
bution, and also ground horizontal movement profile, obtained by weight.
two methods of building modeling are compared. (3) The obtained results indicate that horizontal movement is
Bending moment distribution of lining versus central angle of increased with increase in building width and also for the
the tunnel sections, for two methods of building modeling has great values of width the maximum settlement is decreased
been presented in Fig. 15. but a large domain of ground is influenced due to tunnel
The central angle is measured anticlockwise from horizontal excavation.
plane. There can be seen a very good conformity between obtained (4) Eccentricity of building from the tunnel centerline is also an
results by two methods. important factor. Asymmetrical deformations are the first
The ground surface settlement is an important factor that must effect of structural eccentricity.
be controlled in interaction problems. The ground surface settle- (5) Adjacent building was modeled by two methods: equivalent
ment versus mesh width for two methods has been shown in beam and real geometry. The comparison of obtained analy-
Fig. 16. sis results indicates that the equivalent beam method for
It is clear that the response of equivalent beam method is very practical purposes can be used as a simple way for introduc-
close to the obtained results from analysis with real geometry of ing the adjacent building characteristics in tunnel–adjacent
structure. There is a small difference between two methods in loca- structure interaction problems.
tion of structure foundation. This difference is due to uniform dis-
tribution of building weight in the first method in comparison with
the concentrated load of columns in second method. Appendix A. Calculations of equivalent beam characteristics
Ground horizontal movement profiles obtained by two methods
have been presented in Fig. 17. These profiles are located at 6 m The building is modeled by an equivalent elastic beam (in 2D
distance from centerline of tunnel. From this figure we can con- analyses) or shell (in 3D analyses) that lies on the ground surface.
clude a very good conformity between the equivalent beam and Young’s modulus E, second moment of area I, and cross section A
the real geometry methods. are the structural properties of equivalent beam. Each storey of
There is a small difference (less than 0.2 mm) between the ob- building is considered as a slab, therefore, considering one slab
tained results by two methods particularly in section G that is due for footing, one m storey building can be modeled as m + 1 slabs
to special manner of structure modeling. (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
7. Conclusion
can be calculated. Second moment of area I and the area A for slab
are defined as:
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 t 3slab L
Islab ¼ Aslab ¼ tslab L ð1Þ
by two different methods. The analysis results obtained by these 12
M. Maleki et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 26 (2011) 524–533 533

where L is out-of-plane dimension of the slab. Assuming the neutral Dimmock, P.S., Mair, R.J., 2008. Effect of building stiffness on tunneling-induced
ground movement. J. Tunnel. Undergr. Space Technol. 23, 438–450.
axis to be at the mid-height of the building, the bending stiffness for
Franzius, J.N., 2003. Behaviour of Buildings due to Tunnel Induced Subsidence. PhD
the equivalent beam is then calculated as following: Thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Imperial College of
Science, Technology and Medicine, London, UK.
X
m þ1  
2 González, C., Sagaseta, C., 2001. Patterns of soil deformations around tunnels.
ðEc IÞbeam ¼ EC Islab þ Aslab hm ð2Þ Application to the extension of Madrid Metro. Comput. Geotech. 28, 445–468.
1 ITA/AITES Report, 2007. 2006 on settlements induced by tunnelling in soft ground. J.
Tunnel. Undergr. Space Technol. 22, 119–149.
In which hm is the vertical distance between the structure’s neu- Keshuan, M., Lieyun, D., 2008. A full 3-D finite element analysis of the prediction
tral axis and the mth slab’s neutral axis. Axial stiffness for equiva- between river-crossing tunneling and adjacent building. In: Proceedings of
lent beam is obtained by the following expression: World Tunnel Congress on Underground Facilities for Better Environment and
Safety, India.
ðEc AÞbeam ¼ ðm þ 1ÞðEc AÞslab ð3Þ 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
Fig. 18 shows the geometry of structure with respect to tunnel Technol. 23, 399–420.
Mair, R.J., Taylor, R.N., Burland, J.B., 1996. Prediction of ground movements and
position (Franzius, 2003).
assessment of risk of building damage due to bored tunneling. In: Proceedings
of the International Symposium on Geotechnical Aspects of Underground
References Construction in Soft Ground, Balkema, Rotterdom, pp. 713–718.
Mroueh, H., Shahrour, I., 2003. A full 3-D finite element analysis of tunneling–
Bernat, S., Cambou, B., 1998. Soil-structure interaction in shield tunneling in soft adjacent structures interaction. J. Comput. Geotech. 30, 245–253.
soil. J. Comput. Geotech. 22, 221–242. Peck, R.B., 1969. Deep excavation and tunnelling in soft ground. In: Proceedings of
Boscardin, M.D., Cording, E.G., 1989. Building response to excavation induced 7th International Conference on Soil Mechanic Foundation Engineering, Mexico,
settlement. J. ASCE J. Geotech. Eng. 115 (1), 1–21. State-of-the-Art Volume, pp. 225–290.
Burd, H.J., Houlsby, G.T., Augarde, C.E., Liu, G., 2000. Modelling tunnelling-induced Pickhavar, J.A., Burd, H.J., Houlsby, G.T., 2010. An equivalent beam method to model
settlement of masonry buildings. In: Proceedings of the ICE, Geotechnical masonry building in 3D finite element analysis. J. Comput. Geotech. 88, 1049–
Engineering, vol. 143 (1), pp. 17–29. 1063.
Burland, J.B., 1995. Assessment of risk damage to buildings due to tunneling and PLAXIS 3D Tunnel 2.00 Manual, 2005.
excavation. In: Proceedings of 1st International Conference on Earthquake and Sagasta, C., 1987. Analysis of undrained soil deformation due to ground loss.
Geotechnical Engineering, IS-Tokyo, Japan, pp. 1189–1201. Geotechnique 37, 301–320.
Burland, J.B., Wroth, C.P., 1974. Settlements on buildings and associated damage. In: Timoshenko, S., 1955. Strength of Material, Part 1, Elementary Theory and Problems,
Proceedings of Conference on Settlement of Structures, BTS, Cambridge, pp. third ed. D. Van Nostrand, New York.
611–654. Verruijt, A., Booker, J.R., 1996. Surface settlements due to deformation of tunnel in
Chow, l., 1994. The Prediction of Surface Settlements due O Tunneling in Soft an elastic half plane. Geotechnique 46, 753–757.
Ground. MSc Thesis, Oxford University.