Amorosi, A. et al. (2014). Géotechnique 64, No. 2, 118–130 [http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/geot.13.P.

032]

Tunnelling-induced deformation and damage on historical masonry

structures
A . A M O RO S I  , D. B O L D I N I † , G . D E F E L I C E ‡ , M . M A L E NA ‡ a n d M . S E BA S T I A N E L L I ‡

The analysis of deformation and damage mechanisms induced by shallow tunnelling on masonry
structures is carried out using an integrated, geotechnical and structural, numerical approach based on
two-dimensional finite-element analyses. The masonry construction, schematised as a block structure
with periodic texture, is regarded at a macroscopic scale as a homogenised anisotropic medium. The
overall mechanical properties display anisotropy and singularities in the yield surface, arising from the
discrete nature of the block structure and the geometrical arrangement of the blocks. The soil is
modelled by means of a linear elastic-perfectly plastic model. The numerical analyses are performed
assuming plane strain and plane stress conditions for the soil and the masonry structure, respectively.
A displacement-controlled technique is adopted to simulate the tunnel construction, which produces
settlement troughs in agreement with the empirical Gaussian predictions at different volume losses
under free-field conditions. In order to test the numerical approach, a preliminary set of parametric
analyses is carried out considering a simple masonry wall, characterised by different geometrical and
mechanical properties, founded on a clayey deposit. Then, the case study of the Felice aqueduct in
Rome (Italy), undercrossed by two tunnels of a new metro line, is considered. Significant differences
are observed between the uncoupled analysis, where displacements predicted under free-field condi-
tions are simply applied at the foundation level of the structure, and the interaction-based one, the
latter being characterised by a reduced amount of tensile plastic strain. Numerical results in terms of
vertical displacements at the ground level and on the structure are found to be in good agreement
with monitoring data, thus validating the numerical model for this class of soil–structure interaction
problems.

KEYWORDS: numerical modelling; soil/structure interaction; tunnels

INTRODUCTION More recently, an extension of this approach to a three-

The prediction of settlements is one of the main tasks in the
design of underground infrastructures, as it allows estimation
of the related damage induced on surface structures and
provides a key ingredient to select the most appropriate
mitigation techniques to be eventually adopted in order to
minimise it (e.g. Mair & Taylor, 1997; Mair, 1998; Puzrin et
al., 2012). This holds particularly true for shallow tunnels in
urban areas, especially in the presence of cultural heritage
buildings for which the preservation has to be guaranteed
(e.g. Burghignoli, 2012; Rampello et al., 2012).
The conventional approach to evaluate possible induced
damage, which is currently in use for a preliminary assess-
ment of building performance, is based on the empirical
prediction of the subsidence curve under free-field condi-
tions (Peck, 1969; O’Reilly & New, 1982; Fargnoli et al.,
2013). The building is represented by a simple, weightless,
two-dimensional (2D) deep elastic beam undergoing sagging
and hogging modes of deformation according to the soil
displacement profile; the onset of cracking is related to the
critical tensile strain within the beam associated with shear
and bending (Burland & Wroth, 1974; Burland et al., 1977).
This model was then improved to incorporate the influence
of horizontal strain in the foundation soil (Boscardin &
Cording, 1989; Burland, 1997).
Manuscript received 21 May 2013; revised manuscript accepted 16
October 2013. Published online ahead of print 9 December 2013.
Discussion on this paper closes on 1 July 2014, for further details see
p. ii.
 Technical University of Bari, Italy.
† University of Bologna, Italy.
‡ University of Roma Tre, Italy.
dimensional (3D) schematisation of the structure was pro-
posed, adopting an analytical thick plate model to include
the effect of both in-plane and out-of-plane ground move-
ments (Namazi & Mohamad, 2013).
These uncoupled approaches disregard the mutual inter-
action between the soil and the structure and the influence
of structure stiffness and weight on the tunnelling-related
displacement field; as such they frequently lead to over-
estimated differential settlements and, consequently, to pre-
dictions of the induced damage that can be far more severe
when compared to what is typically observed in real cases.
An attempt to include building stiffness into the design
approach was proposed in Potts & Addenbrooke (1997), on
the basis of a parametric finite-element study representative
of the typical conditions encountered during tunnel excava-
tions in London Clay. Franzius et al. (2004) extended this
latter study to include the role of the building weight.
In general, the use of numerical methods (finite-element
or finite-difference methods) is nowadays common; neverthe-
less their success in practical application strongly depends
on different factors, which include 2D or 3D geometrical
discretisation (e.g. Kasper & Meschke, 2004), correct re-
presentation of the construction stages (e.g. Contini et al.,
2007; Möller & Vermeer, 2008), initial state of the soil (e.g.
Franzius et al., 2005; Grammatikopoulou et al., 2008),
drainage conditions (e.g. Wongsaroj et al., 2007), numerical
techniques and constitutive hypotheses (e.g. Gonzalez et al.,
2012).
Referring to masonry buildings, 2D finite-element ap-
proaches based on a non-linear model for both soil and
surface structure were developed in Liu et al. (2000), Son &
Cording (2011) and Amorosi et al. (2012), while more

118
 TUNNELLING-INDUCED DEFORMATION AND DAMAGE ON HISTORICAL MASONRY STRUCTURES
complex 3D simulations accounting for the non-linear and
irreversible behaviour of the soil, the structure and their inter-
action, were presented in Burd et al. (2000) and Giardina et
al. (2010).
In this paper the results are summarised for a multi-
disciplinary research programme aimed at combining the
advances in geotechnical and structural engineering with
reference to the numerical analyses of tunnel excavations
interacting with masonry surface structures. Major emphasis
is given here to the effects of the advanced constitutive
model adopted for the masonry (de Buhan & de Felice,
1997; de Felice et al., 2010), while a more conventional
hypothesis is considered for the soil. The long-term objec-
tive of the research is to provide an insight into the damage
patterns of ancient masonry structures interacting with un-
derground constructions, by means of up-to-date constitutive
models and numerical finite-element tools.
In the first part of the paper the results of 2D finite-
element simulations of the excavation of an ideal shallow
tunnel in a medium consistency clayey soil are presented,
first with reference to free-field conditions and then assum-
ing the pre-existence of a surface masonry wall. The
analyses were aimed at establishing the role of the masonry
structure on the resulting surface settlement profile and at
investigating the evolution of the tensile plastic strain accu-
mulation into the wall. In particular, a number of parametric
analyses were carried out to investigate the influence of
geometry (i.e. height and length), eccentricity and strength
properties of the masonry structure. The tunnel-induced
plastic strain distribution within the structure is associated
with typical bending or shear damage mechanisms and the
resulting subsidence profiles are compared to those obtained
under free-field conditions to explore the relevance of soil–
structure interaction phenomena.
All of the above was preparatory to the study of a real
ancient masonry structure, the Felice aqueduct of Rome
(Italy), undercrossed by two tunnels of the new C metro line.
The tunnels were excavated in pyroclastic soils with earth
pressure balance (EPB) machines, which guaranteed volume
losses at the surface lower than 0.5%. Uncoupled and inter-
action 2D finite-element analyses were carried out and the
results of these class C back-predictions are here discussed
taking advantage of the available monitoring data provided
by the tunnel contractor.
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
As discussed above, in this study a 2D numerical
approach is followed to investigate the interaction between
the excavation of a shallow tunnel and the response of a
surface masonry structure. This assumption confines the
study of the problem to the case of a tunnel being excavated
perpendicular to the principal plane of the structure. These
geometrical conditions can be considered as sufficiently
representative for the case study presented in the second part
of the paper.
Owing to the very different geometric and boundary
conditions of soil and masonry structures, a plane strain
behaviour is assumed for the former, whereas a plane stress
condition is adopted for the latter. This assumption is con-
sidered appropriate when modelling the problem in two
dimensions, because plane strain elements, if assumed for
the wall, would induce a slight enhancement of its stiffness
(estimated in the order of about 1.5% for the parametric
analyses described in the first part of the paper and about
5% for the Felice aqueduct).
As a direct consequence of the above assumption, care
should be taken in selecting the appropriate dimension in
the out-of-plane direction (i.e. element thickness) of the soil
119
elements adopted in the analysis. In fact, by means of this
option, which is neglected in fully plane strain conditions,
the user controls the volume of soil effectively involved in
the deformation process induced by the presence of the
plane stress surface structure, as such influencing the overall
soil–structure interaction process.
In the following, the thickness of the plane stress elements
corresponds to that of the structure, while that of the under-
lying plane strain elements is calibrated in order to match the
expected settlements experienced by the structure under its
own weight, the latter being evaluated by simple analytical
approaches. It is worth noting that the above calibration
procedure does not significantly affect the results of the tunnel
excavation stage of the analysis, given the displacement-
controlled technique employed in its simulation.
The numerical study is performed by the finite-element
program Abaqus. The mesh is composed of eight-node
quadrangular plane strain elements for the soil and four-node
quadrangular plane stress elements for the masonry. The
structure is assumed to be connected to the soil such that
the full soil strength can be mobilised at the interface.
An advanced constitutive model for the masonry was
implemented in the code to accurately simulate the initiation
and propagation of the settlements-induced damage caused
by tunnelling excavation. In comparison, a relatively simple
constitutive model was adopted for the soil. Related to this,
a specific preliminary study has been performed to evaluate
the capabilities of the numerical model to correctly predict
the effects of tunnel excavation in terms of displacements at
the surface and subsurface. A good match with the well-
known Gaussian curves for green-field conditions was con-
sidered as being representative of this goal.
Modelling of excavation
The excavation of the tunnel was simulated in the follow-
ing steps
(a) initialisation of the stress field in the soil
(b) activation of gravity in the masonry structure in several
steps
(c) deactivation of soil elements inside the tunnel section and
application of a displacement field at the boundary nodes,
in order to obtain the target volume loss.
Following the procedure described in Rowe et al. (1983),
the imposed displacements are calculated considering a
homothetic reduction in the tunnel section corresponding to
the target volume loss together with a vertical translation
such that the lower point of the tunnel remains in its initial
position (Fig. 1). The resulting displacement field is thus
characterised by both vertical and horizontal components.
In the numerical analyses the application of the nodal
displacements is performed in several steps of variable size,
Fig. 1. Initial and final configurations of the tunnel section (not to
scale; gravity is disregarded in this plot)
120 AMOROSI, BOLDINI, DE FELICE, MALENA AND SEBASTIANELLI
due to the non-linear behaviour of both soil and masonry
structure.
In the preliminary parametric analyses, the volume loss
at the tunnel section matches the subsidence volume at the
ground surface, as calculations are performed considering
undrained conditions for the soil layer. On the contrary, in
the analyses of the case study of the Felice aqueduct
drained conditions are assumed during excavation, leading
to different subsidence volume as compared to the volume
reduction imposed at the tunnel section. In this latter case,
green-field analyses were first carried out in which the
volume reduction at the tunnel section was calibrated to
obtain the target subsidence volume as observed at the
surface. Then, the same volume reduction at the tunnel
section was applied in the coupled analysis, that is, in the
presence of the structure.
Constitutive models
The constitutive models for soil and masonry are formu-
lated in the framework of classical rate-independent plasti-
city. A linear elastic-perfectly plastic constitutive model was
selected for the soil, characterised by a Mohr–Coulomb
yield criterion and a null dilatancy angle. Although very
simple and often inappropriate, the above hypothesis proved
to be sufficient in the context of the present study, as
discussed later in the subsection entitled ‘Free-field analysis
results’.
A linear elastic-perfectly plastic constitutive model was
also selected for masonry where, however, anisotropy in both
elastic properties and strength envelope are taken into
account. The model is formulated in the framework of
homogenisation theory of periodic media, referring to a
block masonry structure, consisting of a periodic pattern of
elastic blocks with cohesive and frictional joints. In such a
case, a closed-form approximated expression for the elastic
strain energy is provided in de Felice et al. (2010) that takes
the following form
 
e 1 Ex e 2 Ez e 2
W (å ) ¼ ( ) þ ( )
2 1  vxz vzx xx 1  vxz vzx zz
  (1)
1 2vxz Ez e e
þ   þ 4G(xz )e 2
2 1  vxz vzx xx zz
where x and z are the horizontal and vertical directions,
respectively. The coefficients in equation (1) depend on the
elastic Lamé coefficients of the blocks (º9b , b ) and the
normal Kn and tangential Kt stiffness of the joints, as well as
on the height a and width b of the blocks as follows
1 4a 1 1
¼ þ þ (2)
Ex 4abK n þ b K t 4b 4(º9b þ b )
2
1 1 1 1
¼ þ þ (3)
Ez aK n 4b 4(º9b þ b )
1 1 4a 1
¼ þ þ (4)
G aK t 4abK t þ b2 K n b
vxz vzx º9b
¼ ¼ (5)
Ex Ez 4b (º9b þ b )
The elastic domain is defined in the context of multi-
surface perfect plasticity as
Es ¼ fój f a (ó) :¼ n a : ó–ca < 08 2 ½1, . . ., mg (6)
a
where f (ó) are m independent planes, intersecting in a
non-smooth way, which define the yield surface. The expres-
sion for the yield surface of block masonry is provided in de
Buhan & de Felice (1997) on the basis of the yield design
homogenisation method. In particular, in the case of historic
masonry the blocks can be assumed as infinitely resistant
bodies and the mortar joints as interfaces with cohesion c
and friction angle . In such a case, the yield surface
comprises m ¼ 4 planes, which can be written in terms of
stress components in the O xz reference adopted for the joints
as follows
f 1 :¼ xx þ tg() zz þ ½1 þ tg() xz  c  c=tg()
<0
f 2 :¼ xx þ tg() zz  ½1 þ tg() xz  c  c=tg()
<0
f 3 :¼ zz þ 1=tg() xz  c=tg() < 0
f 4 :¼ zz  1=tg() xz  c=tg() < 0
(7)
where  ¼ 2a/b is the aspect ratio height-to-width of the
blocks.
The model is integrated at the Gauss point level by means
of a numerical procedure based on quadratic minimisation
(Goldfard & Idnani, 1983).
PARAMETRIC STUDY
In the following section the results of a preliminary
parametric study on the behaviour of a simple masonry
structure affected by the excavation of a shallow tunnel are
discussed. The aim of the analyses is to highlight the role of
geometry, eccentricity and joint cohesion of the structure on
its overall behaviour as predicted in the specific soil–structure
interaction process under study.
Geometry, boundary and initial conditions, constitutive
parameters
A schematic sketch of the numerical model is shown in
Fig. 2. The coordinate system is defined such that x is the
distance from the tunnel axis in the horizontal direction and
z is the depth below the ground surface.
The tunnel is located at a depth of z0 ¼ 20 m and is
characterised by a diameter D ¼ 10 m. It is excavated in a
homogeneous clayey layer of medium consistency, with
ground-water level coincident to the ground surface. The
assumed value of K0 is 0.593, as predicted by the well-
known expression by Jâky (1948). All the simulations of the
excavation process are performed in undrained conditions.
The masonry structure represents a typical ancient wall.
The geometric and mechanical properties of the structure, as
well as its position with respect to the tunnel, were varied in
the parametric study.
In the reference analysis, the structure is characterised by
a width of 40 m, a height of 5 m and a thickness of 1 m. The
offset distance between the centre of the wall and the tunnel
centre-line, that is its eccentricity, is equal to 20 m; its right
corner has the same x-coordinate as the tunnel axis. Consis-
tently with the procedure discussed in the previous section,
‘Statement of the problem’, a thickness of 10 m is assumed
for the plane strain elements, this value being kept constant
in all the parametric analyses described hereafter. The
mechanical parameters adopted for the masonry structure in
the reference simulation are: ª ¼ 18 kN/m3 , a ¼ 8 cm,
b ¼ 30 cm, Eb ¼ 3.18 GPa, b ¼ 0.23, Kn ¼ 30.6 GN/m3 ,
Kt ¼ 12.80 GN/m3 , c ¼ 5 kPa and  ¼ 318 (de Felice et al.,
2010). Eb and b indicate the Young’s modulus and the
Poisson ratio, respectively.
 TUNNELLING-INDUCED DEFORMATION AND DAMAGE ON HISTORICAL MASONRY STRUCTURES
D ⫽ 10 m
400 m
Fig. 2. Geometry of the problem (reference analysis) and soil parameters adopted in the numerical analyses
The soil parameters, assumed for all the simulations, are
indicated in Fig. 2.
Free-field analysis results
Figure 3 shows the free-field surface settlements for values
of the volume loss, VL , equal to 0.59% and 1.66%. The first
value is considered typical for a well-performing EPB ex-
cavation whereas the second would be appropriate for a
worse scenario for the excavation process. The settlement
profile calculated in the numerical analysis for a volume loss
of 0.59% is in good agreement with those predicted by the
Gaussian distributions (Peck, 1969) for trough width param-
eter K in the range 0.5–0.6. The accordance between the
numerical results and the empirical predictions decreases in
the case of VL ¼ 1.66%, probably due to the slight heave of
the subsidence profile as predicted numerically, which in-
duces some differences between the subsidence volume and
the volume loss at the tunnel section.
In general, the satisfactory comparison between the pro-
files of the empirical and numerical solutions indicates that
the relatively simple constitutive assumptions and the simu-
lation technique adopted for the tunnel excavation are ade-
quate to the purpose of the present study, provided low
values of K0 are adopted.
Results of the interaction analyses
Reference analysis. Figure 4 shows the results obtained for
the reference analysis. The two curves in the upper portion of
⫺5
0 0
Settlement, Sv: mm
5
K ⫽ 0·6
10
15
20 K ⫽ 0·5
VL ⫽ 0·59%
25
⫺50 ⫺25 0 25
x: m
Fig. 3. Net vertical settlement for a volume loss of 0.59% (on the left) and 1.66% (on the right) for the free-field analysis and
comparison with empirical solutions
121
z0 ⫽ 20 m
γ ⫽ 20 kN/m3
K0 ⫽ 0·593
50 m
E⬘ ⫽ 35 000 kPa, ν⬘ ⫽ 0·25
c⬘ ⫽ 5 kPa, ϕ⬘ ⫽ 24°, ψ⬘ ⫽ 0°
the figure refer to the ground surface vertical settlements as
predicted at the end of the gravity activation for the wall and
at the end of the tunnel excavation simulation. In the lower
part of the figure, the distribution of principal tensile plastic
strain for the masonry wall as induced by the excavation (i.e.
disregarding the effect of gravity loading) is provided, the
small segments superimposed on the strain contours repre-
senting the corresponding principal direction.
The aforementioned representation, adopted throughout
the rest of the paper, stems from the homogenisation ap-
proach for the masonry, where the development of cracks is
represented by an equivalent plastic strain. For the class of
problems under study, damage is typically associated with
the opening of tensile cracks and, as such, the contour of
tensile plastic strain can be considered as an appropriate
indicator of this phenomenon. According to Boscardin &
Cording (1989) different categories of damage can in fact be
associated with different levels of tensile strain (i.e. about
equivalent in magnitude to the tensile plastic strain used in
the representation). In this context, the superposition of the
principal direction segments provides an indication of the
possible crack openings’ direction.
At the end of the gravity activation, the structure is
inflected symmetrically with respect to its centre. As a
consequence of tunnel excavation, the wall shows a displace-
ment pattern characterised by the superposition of a prevail-
ing rigid rotation towards the tunnel centre and a deformative
response concentrated within the range 20 m < x < 10 m.
This induces a concentration of plastic strain characterised
by two different patterns: a shear-induced pattern, diffused
K ⫽ 0·6
25
50
K ⫽ 0·5
VL ⫽ 1·66%
75
50 ⫺50 ⫺25 0 25 50
x: m
122 AMOROSI, BOLDINI, DE FELICE, MALENA AND SEBASTIANELLI
0
Settlement, Sv: mm
25
50
75
⫺50 ⫺40
5 8·00 ⫻ 10⫺3
0
⫺40
Fig. 4. Vertical displacement at ground surface and distribution of principal tensile plastic strain
in structure for the reference analysis
from the base to the upper portion of the wall with prevailing
principal tensile plastic strain direction equal to 458 and
average magnitude of 0.7%, and a bending-induced pattern,
associated with the sagging portion of the settlement curve,
concentrated in the lower-right portion of the wall, with
average vertical direction and magnitude of 1.0%. It is worth
observing that such values of strain would lead to very severe
damage according to the categories proposed by Boscardin &
Cording (1989); these extreme conditions are related to the
specific ideal interaction problem under study, appropriately
selected to enhance the damage-related effects due to under-
ground excavations.
Parametric study. The parametric study was aimed at
investigating the role of the mortar joints’ cohesion (0, 5
and 10 kPa) and that of height (1, 5, 10 and 20 m), length
(20, 40, 80 and 400 m) and eccentricity of the wall (0, 10 and
20 m with respect to tunnel axis). This latter quantity is
defined as the horizontal distance between the tunnel axis and
the structure centre.
The results of the complete parametric study are sum-
marised in Figs 5 and 6. Fig. 5 shows the profiles of ground
surface settlements at the end of gravity activation in the
structure and the corresponding incremental settlement pro-
files as induced by the tunnel construction (i.e. disregarding
the effect of gravity loading). It can be observed that in most
cases those latter settlement profiles deviate from the Gaus-
sian free-field pattern, as a consequence of the soil–structure
interaction (e.g. Potts & Addenbrooke, 1997; Shahin et al.,
2011). The results of the reference analysis are indicated in
all the plots by thick black lines. In Fig. 6 the contour of
principal tensile plastic strain and its direction are reported.
The influence of structure cohesion appears negligible in
terms of overall displacement pattern, but more relevant for
the damage development within the masonry wall. The analy-
sis for a null cohesion displays a severe shear-induced
damage pattern, characterised by an average tensile plastic
strain value of 0.8% and a corresponding bending-induced
value of 0.6%, this latter being lower than that of the
reference case due to the prevailing shearing mode. No sig-
nificant differences are observed between the reference analy-
sis and that carried out with cohesion c ¼ 10 kPa. This set of
Gravity
VL ⫽ 1·66 %
⫺30 ⫺20 ⫺10 0 10 20
x: m
1·00 ⫻ 10⫺2
6·00 ⫻ 10⫺3
⫺30 ⫺20 ⫺10 0 4·00 ⫻ 10⫺3
2·00 ⫻ 10⫺3
0
analyses clearly demonstrates the role of non-linear structural
behaviour on the correct assessment of the masonry response.
In fact, a linear anisotropic-elastic analysis would have pre-
dicted the same level of damage in all the investigated cases.
The height of the wall clearly affects both structural
stiffness and weight. Increasing height values are associated
with larger settlements due to weight, but lower deflections
in relation to larger stiffness. The deflection of the 1-m-high
wall resembles that of a Gaussian curve, while the analyses
considering wall heights of 5 and 10 m are characterised by
an almost bilinear deflection pattern in the right portion of
the subsidence curve, with a corner point located at about
15 m left from the tunnel axis. A rigid rotation prevails for
the tallest structure, in which case almost no damage is
observed in the structure apart from some minor plastic
strain accumulation on the lower left side of the wall. The
tunnel excavation induces prevailing shear damage in the
10-m-high structure, while a bending-type damage pattern
results in the case of the shortest wall, where possible
vertical cracks are expected in plastic regions characterised
by very large average plastic strain values of about 3%.
The influence of length is strictly related to the relative
position of the tunnel and the structure, and to the extent of
the soil volume affected by the tunnelling construction. The
response of the shortest structure (length ¼ 20 m) is charac-
terised by a relatively rigid behaviour which induces a
relatively moderate tensile plastic accumulation during the
tunnel excavation (0.3 and 0.6% for shear and bending,
respectively). In fact, the masonry wall is entirely located on
the portion of the ground surface displaying a sagging mode
of deformation under green-field conditions. Longer struc-
tures, conversely, show significant shear-induced damage
mainly concentrated at a distance of about 15 m left from
the tunnel axis, associated with the bending-induced damage
concentrated at the bottom right side of the wall, with an
overall response very similar to that of the reference analy-
sis. In particular, for the 80-m-long wall, the impact of the
tunnel excavation only affects less than 25% of its length; its
left portion does not experience any significant excavation-
related damage. The special case of a 400-m-long structure,
perfectly symmetrical with respect to the tunnel (eccentricity
equal to 0 m), is also displayed; in this case the incremental
settlement profile is characterised by a Gaussian-like shape.
 TUNNELLING-INDUCED DEFORMATION AND DAMAGE ON HISTORICAL MASONRY STRUCTURES 123
VL ⫽ 1·66%

0 0
Settlement, Sv: mm

25 25

Cohesion:
0 kPa
50 50
5 kPa
10 kPa

75 75
⫺50 ⫺25 0 25 ⫺50 ⫺25 0 25
x: m x: m

0 0
Settlement, Sv: mm

Height:
25 25 1m
5m
10 m
50 50
20 m

75 75
⫺50 ⫺25 0 25 ⫺50 ⫺25 0 25
x: m x: m

0 0
Settlement, Sv: mm

25 25 Length:
20 m
40 m
50 50 80 m
400 m

75 75
⫺50 ⫺25 0 25 ⫺50 ⫺25 0 25
x: m x: m

0 0
Settlement, Sv: mm

25 25

Eccentricity:
0m
50 50
10 m
20 m

75 75
⫺50 ⫺25 0 25 ⫺50 ⫺25 0 25
x: m x: m

Fig. 5. Vertical displacement at ground surface obtained in the different parametric analyses

This result should be related to the adopted length and
eccentricity, as the relative soil–structure stiffness coincides
with that assumed in the other cases. The plastic strain
distribution is symmetric with respect to the tunnel axis and
is characterised by the two-fold damage patterns associated
with bending in the sagging zone (average plastic strain
value equal to 3%) and to shearing at a distance of about
15 m from the tunnel axis (average plastic strain equal to
1%). Once again, where present, the shear-induced damage
is diffuse along the height of the wall.
Finally, eccentricity is also found to play an important
role in the interaction problem. A structure with zero
124 AMOROSI, BOLDINI, DE FELICE, MALENA AND SEBASTIANELLI
eccentricity exhibits a deformation pattern similar to that
1 ⫻ 10⫺2
observed for the 400-m-long structure, with a comparable
Reference analysis distribution of tensile plastic strain. The analysis relative to
5 8 ⫻ 10⫺3 the intermediate eccentricity produces a settlement trough
6 ⫻ 10⫺3
which is, in part, on the left side with respect to the tunnel
0
axis, superimposed on the one observed for the zero eccen-
⫺40 ⫺30 ⫺20 ⫺10 0 4 ⫻ 10⫺3 tricity case. On the right side, the structure is exposed
2 ⫻ 10⫺3 to a moderate sagging deformation pattern associated with
bending-induced damage (average plastic strain equal to 2%)
Influence of cohesion 0
in the lower portion of the wall.
5
c ⫽ 0 kPa
0
⫺40 ⫺30 ⫺20 ⫺10 0 CASE STUDY
Description of the case study
5 The undercrossing of the Felice aqueduct by the twin
c ⫽ 10 kPa
0
tunnels of the new C underground line, currently under
⫺40 ⫺30 ⫺20 ⫺10 0 construction in Rome (Italy), is analysed in the following.
The Felice aqueduct (Fig. 7) is a historical construction built
in 1585 on the ruins of Circo Variano, an amphitheatre
Influence of height dating back to the third century B.C. The structure is made
of a sequence of arches with 2.3 m span and height of
1
0 H⫽1m 9.3 m. In the early twentieth century, some of the original
⫺40 ⫺30 ⫺20 ⫺10 0 arches were replaced by five larger ones, characterised by
5.5 m span and 8.0 m height, separated by rectangular piers
of dimensions 1.5 m 3 2.3 m. The original structure is made
of combined tuff and brick masonry, while the more recent
10 additions are made of brick masonry. The underlying Circo
Variano, embedded below the ground level, is characterised
5 H ⫽ 10 m by an 8-m-thick wall made out of poorly bonded tuff blocks,
whose continuity is interrupted by a sequence of little open-
0
⫺40 ⫺30 ⫺20 ⫺10 0 ings in its upper portion. In the case under study, it plays
the role of a stiff foundation for the aqueduct.
20 The two tunnels have a diameter D ¼ 6.7 m, inter-axis
i ¼ 22.8 m and are located at a depth z0 ¼ 25.8 m from the
15
ground surface. They were excavated by two identical EPB
10 H ⫽ 20 m
machines, underpassing the aqueduct in two different stages
(odd line first, indicated as OL, followed after 10 days by
5 the even one, EL).
0 A monitoring system was installed prior to the excavation,
⫺40 ⫺30 ⫺20 ⫺10 0 aimed at registering the movements at the ground surfaces and
on the aqueduct. The details of this system are given later.
An extensive physical and mechanical characterisation of
Influence of length the soils and the masonries involved in the problem was
carried out during the design of the new underground line.
5
L ⫽ 20 m For sake of brevity in the following, only the main results
0 are summarised.
⫺20 ⫺10 0 The subsoil in the area under study was investigated by
means of eight boreholes which showed the presence of six
5
L ⫽ 80 m different layers (Table 1): made ground (R), whose main
0 characteristic is its variability due to the anthropic origin;
⫺40 ⫺30 ⫺20 ⫺10 0 Villa Senni tuff (VS-PN), a lightly cemented sandy tuff;
alternate levels of cemented sandy tuffs (T1/T2) and partly
5 cemented (TA) silty tuff and a stratum of relatively stiff clayey
L ⫽ 400 m
0 silt (ST-AR). All the above materials are characterised by
⫺25 ⫺15 ⫺5 15 20 25 relatively large permeability coefficients, in the order of
106 m/s for the tuffs and 107 m/s for the silt, as observed by
nine Lefranc tests carried out along five different boreholes.
Influence of eccentricity Four piezometers were installed at different depths along
5 two verticals, showing the existence of a permanent vertical
e⫽0m flow from the upper layers across the silty one, leading to
0 the pore-water pressure profile shown in Fig. 8.
⫺20 ⫺10 0 10 20
A set of laboratory tests was carried out to identify the
5 shear strength parameters of those strata for which undis-
e ⫽ 10 m turbed soil samples could be retrieved, namely VS-PN, T1,
0 T2, TA and ST-AR. Forty standard penetrometer tests were
⫺30 ⫺20 ⫺10 0 10 also performed to complete the overall picture in terms of
shear strength and stiffness of the subsoil, actually leading
Fig. 6. Distribution of principal tensile plastic strain in structure to rather dispersed results, especially in the semi-lithoid tuff
obtained in the different parametric analyses strata. The profile of the very small strain stiffness was
 TUNNELLING-INDUCED DEFORMATION AND DAMAGE ON HISTORICAL MASONRY STRUCTURES 125

Fig. 7. View of the Felice aqueduct

Table 1. Geotechnical properties of soil layers at the construction site (ª unit weight of volume; e void ratio; w natural water
content; K0 coefficient at rest; k permeability coefficient;  Poisson ratio; G0 shear modulus at small strains; G shear modulus;
j 9 friction angle; c9 cohesion; cu undrained strength)

Unit ª: kN/m3 e w: % K0 k: m/s ı G0 : MPa G: MPa j9: 8 c9: kPa cu : kPa

R 17.0 1.2 43 0.5 1.0 3 105 0.3 40 16 31 10 –

VS-PN 17.5 0.9 35 0.4 3.0 3 106 0.3 80 32 37 12 –
T2 16.0 1.5 45 0.4 4.0 3 106 0.3 250 150 35 40 –
TA 16.0 1.5 47 0.6 9.0 3 106 0.3 210 84 25 27 –
T1 16.0 1.5 45 0.4 4.0 3 106 0.3 250 150 35 40 –
ST-AR 19.5 0.7 25 0.6 3.0 3 107 0.3 150 60 25 15 130

0·0 m

⫺8·0 m

⫺12·5 m p.c. u
⫺17·5 m z0 z0
VS - PN
⫺21·5 m T2
TA
⫺23·5 m i
T1
⫺29·8 m D D
OL EL
⫺44·0 m
ST - AR

68·85 6·70 16·35 6·70 68·70

Fig. 8. Schematisation of the Felice aqueduct and of the geotechnical conditions

obtained by performing a specific cross-hole test; the aver-
age G0 values for each stratum were further elaborated to
evaluate the corresponding G values appropriate to the strain
level expected for the class of problem under study (0.01%
< s < 0.1%), with reference to stiffness decay curves taken
from the literature (Vucetic & Dobry, 1991). K0 values for
the different strata are assumed to equal those predicted by
the well-known expression by Jâky (1948) assuming an
overconsolidation ration (OCR) equal to one. In fact, for the
tuff strata (VS-PN, T1, TA and T2) it appears that the
previous stress history has not been significantly charac-
terised by relevant erosion and deposition cycles, consis-
tently with their geological age (they date back to less than
0.5 million years ago). This assumption is partly confirmed
by the unique pressuremeter test successfully carried out on
one of them, the TA stratum, the interpretation of which
leads to a value of K0 ¼ 0.5, fairly similar to the one
assumed here (Table 1). A slightly less satisfactory compari-
son characterises the coefficient at rest of the cohesive
ST-AR stratum, for which the assumed value, equal to 0.6,
is lower than that observed in a pressuremeter test carried
out in this soil, indicating for K0 a value of 0.8 (consistent
with an OCR value of about 2).
An extensive characterisation of the masonries was also
carried out, including careful identification of the geometri-
cal characteristics of the blocks and the execution of several
flat jack tests to detect their stiffness. The values of the
parameters adopted in the analyses were selected with
reference to the above results. For the selection of the joint
strength parameters specific reference was also made to the
available data on Roman age construction materials (e.g.
Mastrodicasa, 1993).
The selected parameters ª, K0 , G, ı, c9, j9 for each soil
layer are summarised in Table 1, while those adopted for the
masonry structure are reported in Table 2.
The whole system consisting of the Felice aqueduct, the
Circo Variano and the soil layers was incorporated into a 2D
finite-element model. The geometry of the model is shown in
Fig. 8, together with the position of the two tunnels. The
domain is characterised by a height of 44 m and a width of
163.5 m; the latter dimension being evaluated considering a
distance of ten diameters from each of the two tunnels, in
126 AMOROSI, BOLDINI, DE FELICE, MALENA AND SEBASTIANELLI
Table 2. Mechanical parameters of masonry structure

ª: kN/m3  Eb : GPa vb Kn : GN/m3 Kt : GN/m3 c: kPa : deg

Brick masonry 18 0.333 2.0 0.2 57.14 23.81 25 31

Tuff masonry 18 0.320 1.5 0.3 37.50 14.42 10 31

order to minimise boundary effects. With reference to the

OL EL
procedure discussed in the earlier sections, a thickness of 0
11.5 m is assumed for the soil plane strain elements, while that
of 2.3 m is adopted for the masonry structures. Some details of

Settlement, Sv: mm
the finite-element discretisation are provided in Fig. 9. ⫺2

⫺4
Numerical results
The case study was first analysed by means of an un-
coupled approach, followed by the more complete interaction ⫺6
Green-field
one. In the uncoupled analysis the effects of tunnel excava-
Interaction
tion on the structure are evaluated imposing vertical and
⫺8
horizontal free-field ground displacements at the base of the
structure. These were derived from a free-field analysis ⫺75 ⫺50 ⫺25 0 25 50 75
x: m
carried out with reference to the observed subsidence vo-
lumes VS ¼ 0.49% and VS ¼ 0.48%, for the OL and EL 2
OL EL

Horizontal displacement, Sh: mm

tunnels, respectively. These values were obtained by impos-
ing maximum vertical displacements of 25 and 26 mm at the
1
tunnel crown, compatible with the available gap of the
adopted tunnel-boring machine. Results in terms of displace-
ments were extracted with reference to a depth of 8 m, 0
corresponding to that of the Circo Variano base. The same
volume losses were adopted in the interaction analysis ⫺1
according to the sequence of stages described in the earlier
subsection ‘Modelling of excavation’.
⫺2
Figure 10 shows the comparisons between vertical and

⫺75 ⫺50 ⫺25 0 25 50 75

x: m

Fig. 10. Comparison between free-field and interaction settle-

ments and horizontal displacements at the foundation level (i.e. at
the base of Circo Variano)

horizontal displacement distributions as obtained by the two

analyses: the vertical trough is smoothed by the presence of
the structure, leading to a single-peak curve as opposed to
the two-peaks curve characterising the green-field result. The
interaction analysis also induces a slightly wider settlement
trough, for a lower value of the maximum settlement. As an
overall picture it can be observed that the structure does not
significantly modify the vertical trough as obtained by the
coupled analysis, irrespectively of its stiffness. This should
be ascribed to the length of the structure, which extends
(a) along the full width of the model (Fig. 8), leading to a
Gaussian-like settlement profile, consistently with what was
discussed in the parametric study with reference to a struc-
ture’s length of 400 m. Conversely, the corresponding com-
parison in terms of horizontal displacements, also shown in
Fig. 10, indicates that the interaction analysis significantly
reduces this displacement component, inducing a much low-
er amount of horizontal strain in the structure which, accord-
ing to Boscardin & Cording (1989) and Burland (1997),
plays a relevant role in its damage pattern.
Figure 11 shows the distribution of the principal tensile
plastic strain for the structure as predicted by the uncoupled
approach, while Fig. 12 illustrates the corresponding distri-
bution for the coupled analysis. In the uncoupled analysis,
plastic strain mainly develops within the Circo Variano, near
(b)
to the small openings of its upper section, with an average
value of about 0.1%, corresponding to a slight degree of
Fig. 9. Masonry discretisation of Felice aqueduct damage according to Boscardin & Cording (1989). A lower
 TUNNELLING-INDUCED DEFORMATION AND DAMAGE ON HISTORICAL MASONRY STRUCTURES 127

OL EL

x: m
40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120

2·00 ⫻ 10⫺3
1·80 ⫻ 10⫺3
1·60 ⫻ 10⫺3
1·40 ⫻ 10⫺3
1·20 ⫻ 10⫺3
1·00 ⫻ 10⫺3
8·00 ⫻ 10⫺4
6·00 ⫻ 10⫺4
4·00 ⫻ 10⫺4
2·00 ⫻ 10⫺4
0

Fig. 11. Tensile plastic strain distribution obtained in the uncoupled analysis

OL EL

x: m
40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120

2·00 ⫻ 10⫺3
1·80 ⫻ 10⫺3
1·60 ⫻ 10⫺3
1·40 ⫻ 10⫺3
1·20 ⫻ 10⫺3
1·00 ⫻ 10⫺3
8·00 ⫻ 10⫺4
6·00 ⫻ 10⫺4
4·00 ⫻ 10⫺4
2·00 ⫻ 10⫺4
0
Fig. 12. Tensile plastic strain distribution obtained in the interaction analysis

amount of principal tensile plastic strain also cumulates in
the upper portion of the Felice aqueduct, over its arches.
The coupled analysis results in less intense tensile plastic
strains, which are almost exclusively cumulated in the Circo
Variano with a maximum intensity of 0.05%, corresponding
to a negligible to very slight level of damage.
The presence of openings in the aqueduct and Circo
Variano strongly influences the plastic deformation pattern as
induced by the non-uniform settlement of the aqueduct’s piers.
Damage tends to localise in the region between two vertical
adjacent openings, characterised by lower compression and
related shear strength. The observed deformation patterns
indicate that a prevailing shear response is characterising the
behaviour at the local level, while a more complex overall
response appears to take place, where both shear and bending
are playing their role. Given the peculiar geometric character
of the aqueduct, this latter would only roughly be accounted
for when adopting the simple equivalent beam analogy.
128 AMOROSI, BOLDINI, DE FELICE, MALENA AND SEBASTIANELLI
The interpretation of the coupled analysis clearly indicates
that the Circo Variano plays a key role in reducing the
horizontal strain, thus preserving the aqueduct from experi-
encing significant excavation-related damage.
Comparison with monitoring data
A comparison between the numerical results and the
monitoring data collected by the contractor during the con-
struction of the tunnel is presented here. Vertical displace-
ments in the structure and at the ground level were acquired
during the tunnel undercrossing, by monitoring benchmarks
at the base of the structure (Fig. 13 – section D) and targets
on it (Fig. 13 – sections A, B, C).
The observed vertical displacements at the four sections
from the top of the structure down to the ground surface are
Prisms Datum point
Section A
Section B
Section C
Section D
0
Settlement, Sv: mm
reported in Fig. 13, together with the corresponding numer-
ical predictions. In particular, only a slight reduction of the
maximum settlement value is observed from the base (sec-
tion D) to the top of the aqueduct (section A), together with
a modest overall increase in the lateral uplift.
It is worth noting that, despite some little differences and
localised phenomena, the numerical outcomes compare well
with the monitoring data. No evidence of damage was
detected on the aqueduct, consistent with what was discussed
in the earlier subsection ‘Numerical results’.
CONCLUSION
This paper presents the results of an interdisciplinary,
geotechnical and structural, study devoted to the analysis of
the response of masonry structures affected by tunnelling-
induced ground displacements. This topic is of great rele-
vance for tunnel excavation in urban areas where possibly
several structures, sometimes of inestimable value, might
interact with underground developments.
The study, conducted with the finite-element code Abaqus,
was performed in 2D conditions assuming plane strain and
plane stress conditions for the soil and the structure, respec-

tively. As such, the analysed class of problems is that of a tunnel

2 excavated under a masonry structure, this latter being charac-
terised by its plane oriented perpendicularly to the tunnel axis.
4 The modelled structure represents an ancient masonry
Section A wall, schematised as a block structure with periodic texture.
6
Monitoring data (06/10/2011) Its continuum behaviour at the macro scale (i.e. at the scale
Numerical results of the analysis) was derived by a homogenisation procedure
⫺50 ⫺25 0 25 50
based on relatively simple assumption at the local scale (i.e.
x: m at the scale of blocks and joints). The resulting model is
characterised by a non-linear anisotropic mechanical re-
0 sponse. The soil was modelled using a simple elasto-plastic
Settlement, Sv: mm

constitutive assumption.
2 The first part of the paper describes the results of a set
of parametric analyses, aimed at verifying the capability of
the numerical model in simulating the tunnel excavation
4
and the related soil–structure interaction. A simple masonry
Section B wall founded on a clayey deposit was considered, and the
6 influences of the mechanical and geometrical properties of
the structure, as well as of its eccentricity with respect to
⫺50 ⫺25 0 25 50 tunnel axis, were investigated. Free-field preliminary ana-
x: m lyses demonstrated that, despite the relatively simple con-
0
stitutive hypothesis adopted for the soil, the displacement-
controlled technique used to reproduce the tunnel construc-
Settlement, Sv: mm

tion well captured the induced ground displacements, as

2
demonstrated by the comparison with the Gaussian curves
for surface settlements at different volume losses. The
4 numerical results were able to mimic the main features of
Section C the soil–structure interaction, including the modifications in
6 the subsidence profile and the related deformative pattern in
the structure.
⫺50 ⫺25 0 25 50 In the second part of the paper a class C numerical
x: m prediction of the settlements induced in a complex historical
masonry structure (the Felice aqueduct in Rome, Italy) by
0 the excavation of shallow twin tunnels is presented. First, an
Settlement, Sv: mm

uncoupled analysis was performed, applying at the base of

2 the structure the displacements obtained by the model under
free-field conditions. Then, a fully coupled simulation was
4
carried out, thus highlighting the influence of soil–structure
interaction on the computed deformative response of the
Section D structure, characterised by a reduced amount of tensile
6
plastic strains, and in the ground, where horizontal displace-
ments were dramatically decreased. The satisfactory com-
⫺50 ⫺25 0 25 50 parison with available monitoring data proved the soundness
x: m
of the numerical model.
Fig. 13. Comparison between numerical predictions and monitor- It is worth commenting on the novelty and potential of
ing data in terms of vertical settlements the presented approach, in which all the important ingredi-
 TUNNELLING-INDUCED DEFORMATION AND DAMAGE ON HISTORICAL MASONRY STRUCTURES 129
ents of the problem (i.e. the tunnels, the soil and the REFERENCES
structure) are incorporated in a unique model without the Amorosi, A., Boldini, D., de Felice, G. & Malena, M. (2012).
need for cumbersome, or sometimes obscure, links between Tunnelling-induced deformation in a masonry structure: a nu-
the ‘geotechnical’ and the ‘structural’ responses. In addition, merical approach. Proceedings of the 7th international sympo-
the masonry constitutive law allows the evaluation of plastic sium on geotechnical aspects of underground construction in
strain initiation and accumulation within the structure and soft ground, Rome (ed. G. Viggiani), pp. 353–359. London, UK:
Taylor & Francis.
the estimation of the induced damage using a realistic (i.e. Boscardin, M. D. & Cording, E. J. (1989). Building response to
inelastic and anisotropic) material model. excavation induced settlement. J. Geotech. Engng 115, No. 1,
Should the present approach be further validated for dif- 1–21.
ferent geotechnical and structural conditions, it would be Burd, H. J., Houlsby, G. T., Augarde, C. E. & Liu, G. (2000).
amenable for future use as a class A predictive tool for Modelling tunnelling-induced settlement of masonry buildings.
similar soil–structure interaction processes. Proc. Instn Civ. Engrs – Geotech. Engng 143, No. 1, 17–29.
Burghignoli, A. (2012). L’attraversamento sotterraneo del centro
storico di Roma. Riv. Ital. Geotec. 3, 13–50 (in Italian).
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Burland, J. B. (1997). Assessment of risk of damage to buildings
Special thanks are owed to Eng. Grazia Di Mucci of due to tunnelling and excavation. invited special lecture. Pro-
ceedings of 1st international conference on earthquake geotech-
Metro C S.p.c.A. for providing monitoring data of the Felice nical engineering, IS-Tokyo 95 (ed. K. Ishihara), pp. 1189–
aqueduct and technical support during the site activity, and 1201. Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Balkema
to Eng. Marco Ferrandino for carrying out some of the Burland, J. B. & Wroth, C. P. (1974). Settlements on buildings and
analyses. Financial support provided by the research pro- associated damage. Proceedings of conference on settlement of
grams Reluis, funded by the Italian Civil Protection Depart- structures, Cambridge, pp. 611–54. London, UK: Pentech Press.
ment and PRIN 2009, funded by the Ministry for Research Burland, J. B., Broms, B. B. & de Mello, V. F. B. (1977). Behavior
and Higher Education, is gratefully acknowledged. of foundations and structures. Proceedings of the 9th interna-
tional conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering,
IS-Tokyo 77, vol. 2, pp. 495–546.
Contini, A., Cividini, A. & Gioda, G. (2007). Numerical evaluation
NOTATION of the surface displacements due to soil grouting and to tunnel
a, b height and width of blocks excavation. Int. J. Geomech. 7, No. 3, 217–226.
c mortar joints cohesion de Buhan, P. & de Felice, G. (1997). A homogenisation approach to
c9 soil cohesion the ultimate strength of brick masonry. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 45,
cÆ intercept of Æ – plane constituting elastic domain of No. 7, 1085–1104.
masonry de Felice, G., Amorosi, A. & Malena, M. (2010). Elasto-plastic
cu undrained strength analysis of block structures through a homogeneization method.
D tunnel diameter Int. J. Numer. Analyt. Methods Geomech. 34, No. 3, 221–247.
Eb Young’s modulus of blocks Fargnoli, V., Boldini, D. & Amorosi, A. (2013). TBM tunnelling-
E x , Ez Young’s moduli of masonry in x and z directions induced settlements in coarse-grained soils: the case of the new
E elastic domain of masonry Milan underground line 5. Tunnelling Underground Space Tech-
e void ratio; eccentricity of the masonry wall nol. 38, 336–347.
fÆ independent planes constituting elastic domain of Franzius, J. N., Potts, D. M., Addenbrooke, T. I. & Burland, J. B.
masonry (2004). The influence of building weight on tunnelling-induced
G0 shear modulus at small strains ground and building deformation. Soils Found. 44, No. 1,
G shear modulus 25–38.
H height of masonry wall Franzius, J. N., Potts, D. M. & Burland, J. B. (2005). The influence
i tunnel inter-axis of soil anisotropy and K0 on ground surface movements result-
K trough width parameter ing from tunnel excavation. Géotechnique 55, No. 3, 189–199,
Kn , Kt normal and tangential stiffness of joints http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/geot.2005.55.3.189.
K0 coefficient of earth pressure at rest Giardina, G., Hendriks, M. A. N. & Rots, J. G. (2010). Numerical
k permeability coefficient analysis of tunnelling effects on masonry buildings: the influ-
L length of masonry wall ence of tunnel location on damage assessment. Advd Mater. Res.
m number of independent planes constituting elastic 133–134, 289–294.
domain of masonry Goldfard, D. & Idnani, A. (1983). A numerical stable dual method
nÆ normal to Æ – plane constituting the elastic domain of for solving strictly convex quadratic programs. Math. Program-
the masonry ming 27, No. 1, 1–33.
Sv settlement Gonzalez, N. A., Rouainia, M., Arroyo, M. & Gens, A. (2012).
VL volume loss Analysis of tunnel excavation in London Clay incorporating soil
VS subsidence volume structure. Géotechnique 62, No. 12, 1095–1109, http://
W elastic strain energy dx.doi.org/10.1680/geot.11.P.030.
w natural water content Grammatikopoulou, A., Zdravkovic, L. & Potts, D. M. (2008). The
x horizontal distance from tunnel axis influence of previous stress history and stress path direction on
z depth below ground surface the surface settlement trough induced by tunnelling. Géotech-
z0 depth of tunnel axis nique 58, No. 4, 269–281, http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/geot.2008.
ª unit weight of volume 58.4.269.
åe elastic strain tensor Jâky, J. (1948). The coefficient of earth pressure at rest. J. Union
s deviatoric strain Hungarian Engrs Architects 78, No. 22, 355–358.
exx , ezz , exz normal and shear components of elastic strain tensor Kasper, T. & Meschke, T. (2004). A 3D finite element simulation
º9b , b elastic Lamé coefficients of blocks model for TBM tunnelling in soft ground. Int. J. Numer. Analyt.
 2a/b aspect ratio height-to-width of blocks Methods Geomech. 28, No. 14, 1441–1460.
 Poisson ratio Liu, G., Houlsby, G. T. & Augarde, C. E. (2000). 2-dimensional
b Poisson ratio of blocks analysis of settlement damage to masonry buildings caused by
 xz ,  zx Poisson ratios between x and z directions tunnelling. The Struct. Engr 79, No. 1, 19–25.
ó stress tensor Mair, R. J. (1998). 46th Rankine Lecture. Tunnelling and geotech-
xx , zz , xz normal and shear components of the stress tensor nics: new horizons. Géotechnique 58, No. 9, 695–736, http://
 mortar joints friction angle dx.doi.org/10.1680/geot.2008.58.9.695.
j9 soil friction angle Mair, R. J. & Taylor, R. N. (1997). Bored tunnelling in the urban
130 AMOROSI, BOLDINI, DE FELICE, MALENA AND SEBASTIANELLI
environment: State-of-the-art report and theme lecture. Proceed-
ings of the 14th international conference on soil mechanics
and foundation engineering, Hamburg, vol. 4, pp. 2353–2385.
Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Balkema.
Mastrodicasa, S. (1993). Dissesti statici delle strutture edilizie.
Milan, Italy: Hoepli Editore (in Italian).
Möller, S. C. & Vermeer, P. A. (2008). On numerical simulation of
tunnel installation. Tunnelling Underground Space Technol. 23,
461–475.
Namazi, E. & Mohamad, H. (2013). Assessment of building damage
induced by three-dimensional ground movements. J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Engng ASCE 139, No. 4, 608–618.
O’Reilly, M. P. & New, B. M. (1982). Settlements above tunnels in
the United Kindom – Their magnitudes and prediction. Proceed-
ings of tunnelling ’82 symposium, London (ed. M. J. Jones), pp.
173–181. London, UK: Institution of Mining and Metallurgy.
Peck, R. B. (1969). Deep excavations and tunneling in soft ground.
State of the art volume. Proceedings of the 7th international
conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering,
Mexico City, pp. 225–290. Mexico City, Mexico: Sociedad
Mexicana de Mecanica.
Potts, D. M. & Addenbrooke, T. I. (1997). A structure’s influence
on tunnelling-induced ground movements. Proc. Instn Civ.
Engrs – Geotech. Engng 125, No. 2, 109–125.
Puzrin, A. M., Burland, J. B. & Standing, J. R. (2012). Simple
approach to predicting ground displacements caused by tunnel-
ling in undrained anisotropic elastic soil. Géotechnique 62, No.
4, 341–352, http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/geot.10.P.127.
Rampello, S., Callisto, L., Viggiani, G. & Soccodato, F. (2012).
Evaluating the effects of tunnelling on historical buildings: the
example of a new subway in Rome. Geomech. Tunnelling 5, No.
3, 275–299.
Rowe, R. K., Lo, K. Y. & Kack, G. J. (1983). A method of
estimating surface settlement tunnels constructed in soft ground.
Can. Geotech. J. 20, No. 1, 11–22.
Shahin, H. M., Nakai, T., Zhang, F., Kikumoto, M. & Nakahara, E.
(2011). Behaviour of ground and response of existing foundation
due to tunneling. Soils Found. 51, No. 3, 395–409.
Son, M. & Cording, E. J. (2011). Responses of buildings with
different structural types to excavation-induced ground settle-
ments. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Engng 137, No. 4, 323–344.
Vucetic, M. & Dobry, R. (1991). Effects of the soil plasticity on
cyclic response. J. Geotech. Engng Div. ASCE 117, No. 1, 89–
107.
Wongsaroj, J., Soga, K. & Mair, R. J. (2007). Modelling of long-
term ground response to tunnelling under St James’s Park,
London. Géotechnique 57, No. 1, 75–90, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1680/geot.2007.57.1.75.