INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR

SOIL MECHANICS AND

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

This paper was downloaded from the Online Library of

the International Society for Soil Mechanics and
Geotechnical Engineering (ISSMGE). The library is
available here:

https://www.issmge.org/publications/online-library

This is an open-access database that archives thousands

of papers published under the Auspices of the ISSMGE and
maintained by the Innovation and Development
Committee of ISSMGE.
 Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground, Kastner Emeriault, Dias, Guilloux (eds)
© 2002 spéciffque, Lyon. ISBN 2-9510416-3-2

Evaluation of damage in masonry buildings due to tunnelling in clayey

soils

S. Miliziano, F 'Soccodato & A. Burghignoli

Dept. of Structural and Geotechnical Engineering, University of Rorne La Sapienza, Italy

ABSTRACT: This paper presents the first results of a numerical study aimed at the evaluation of tunnelling­
induced damage in masonry buildings in which the effect of soil-turmel-building interaction was considered at
different levels. Two-dimensional analyses were carried out using a simple elasto-plastic model for the soil;
'the masonry was modelled following a sort of ‘discontinuous’ approach, as elastic macroelements connected
by vertical and horizontal elasto-plastic interfaces. The results of the analyses confirmed the importance of ac­
counting for soil-tunnel-structure interaction' to predict correctly the amount of damage.

1. lN'TRODUQTIQN_____________________ ____*_ ,__________
When dealing with tunnelling in an urban environ­
ment, the prediction of the effects induced by tunnel
construction on existing buildings plays a maj or role.
More specifically, it is important to predict the de­
gree of damage on structures in order to plan a suit­
able design and, if needed, adequate protective
measures.
A simplifiediapproach to solve this soil-structure
interaction problem involves the evaluation of the
expected surface displacement field for greenjield
conditions (i.e. neglecting the presence of buildings)
using semi-empirical expressions such as the in­
verted normal Gaussian distribution and a given de­
sign ground loss; the greenjield displacement field is
then applied to a verylsimple structural model of the
building (e.g. elastic beam). In this way, different
quantities, such as differential settlements, angular
distortions and horizontal strains, can be computed
to enter into a number of charts of damage in which
the degree (or category) of damage is also related to
the frequency and width of the visible cracks (e.g.
Burland & Wroth, 1974; 'Boscardin & Cording,
1989; Burland, 1995). '
This approach is usually conservative because
soil-structure interaction reduces both differential
settlements and angular distortions. Thus, a more re­
alistic evaluation of damage requires a tunnel-soil­
building interaction analysis. Addenbrooke & Potts
(1996) carried out a parametric study of the influ­
ence of building stiffness on the settlements induced
by tunnelling using the finite element method. The
analyses were carried out under plane-strain condi­
tions, the building was modelled as an elastic,
weightless beam with axial and bending stiffness,
and a non-linear constitutive model wasused for the
soil. The results allowed some correction facto-rs- to
be computed which should be applied to the
greenfield displacements in order to take into ac­
count the effect of the global stiffness of the building
when using the -simplified approach described above
(charts of damage).
This paper presents the preliminary results of a
numerical study aimed at the evaluation of the dam­
age induced in masonry buildings by shallow tun­
neling in clayey soils in which the effects of soil­
tunnel-structure interaction were considered. As the
computational costs of fully three-dimensional (3-D)
analyses (including data pre- and post-processing)
are still very high (Burd et al., 2000), two­
dimensional (2-D) analyses, inthe transverse plane
of the tunnel axis and under undrained conditions,
were carried out with the finite. difference code
FLAC (IT ASCA, 2000). ` _
The 2-D approach followed in this study required
a first research stage focused on:
° the identification of a numerical technique for the
simulation of the tunnel excavation process capable
of reproducing the shape of the observed settlement
profiles for greenfield conditions. A good numerical
prediction of the settlement profiles is, in fact, a pre­
lirninary and necessary step in order to carry out an
accurate soil-structure interaction analysis;
° the 2-D modelling, in tenns of geometry and me­
chanical properties, of the 3-D masonry building
Hom which an accurate prediction of the pattem and
width of the cracks may be obtained.
In the following, .the two topics mentioned above
will first be illustrated; the results of the numerical
analyses will then be presented and discussed.
 EFFECTS i
2 2-D MODELLING OF THE EXCAVATION
In order to simulate the tail void (gap) closure and
the 3-D extrusion effects at the tunnel face, 2-D
analyses of shield tunnelling in clayey soils are usu­
ally carried out using either of the following two
numerical techniques: i) initial stress reduction or
ii) assigned displacements at the tunnel boundary.
The method of proportional stress reduction is
the most common: -the vertical and the horizontal
components of the geostatic stress initially acting at
the tunnel boundary are progressively decreased by
the same factor until the required ground loss is
reached. Q
The imposition of a given displacement_field to
the tunnel boundary is the alternative method: differ­
ent shapes (uniform or oval-shaped) ofthe imposed
tunnel convergence have been proposed in the lit­
erature -(e.g. Loganathan & Poulos, 1998; Rowe &
v_­
Kack, 1983); once again, ground loss is the parame­
ter controlling the overall magnitude ofthe tunnel
convergence.
However, these methods often produce relatively
wide and flat surface settle1n_ent_nrQfi1@§_as__9Qmpared
to those generally observed, even when _highly non
linear and sophisticated soil model are used (e.g.
Gunn, 1993; Addenbroke et al., 1997, Burghignoli et
al., 2001a, 200lb). Furthennore, the horizontal
strain profile, which, potentially, may affect greatly
the damage of buildings, is significantly underesti­
mated bythe techniques quoted above. `
In this study, a simple technique to improve the
prediction of the surface settlements profiles was
used. The technique is based on a djferential reduc­
tion of the vertical and horizontal components of the
geostatic stress ini_tially acting at the tunnel bound­
ary. Full details about this technique are given in
Burghignoli et al. (2001a); basically, the amount of
unloading of the horizontal stress component is
linked to the amount of unloading of the vertical
stress component by a variable factor which depends
on both the geometry of the problem (tunnel diame­
ter and depth) and the mechanical properties of the
soil. The relationship relating the vertical and hori­
zontal amount of unloading must be identified with a
trial-and-error procedure; however, the adopted
teclmique allows a numerical prediction of the sur­
face displacement field to be obtained which is in
good agreement with the observations, even when
very simple (elastic-perfectly plastic) soil models are
used.
Figure 1 shows the geometry of the problem, the
finite difference grid and the boundary conditions
which will be considered in the soil-tunnel-structure
interaction analyses. Two sets of numerical analyses
were carried out for a 6 m diameter tunnel with two
different covers (H=7 and 12 m). Because of its sim­
plicity and wide use in engineering practice, the
Mohr-Coulomb elasto-plastic model was adopted for
the soil. Two types of soils, with different elastic
stiffness, were considered. Table 1 summarizes the
values of the parameters which are typical of a me_
dium to stiff clay: Young’s modulus E’ has been as­
sumed to be linearly increasing with depth. The co­
efficient of earth pressure at rest was taken to be
equal to 0.6.
\ f\
EEE=EEE-`==EE=EE-EiiiiiiiiiiiEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE===EEEEEEE=EEiiL§fi. H
Z
I.. IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIEEEIIlllllllllllllllllllllllllllllE===T
:ii “IFIl:“IE|==|=====“liIHi:=|=|I{====|=|§====||=? D
IIIllllllllllIIIlllllllllIIlllllIllllllllllllllllllllllll
lllllllllllllllIIlllllllllllIllIIlllllllllllllllllllllllll
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
llllllIlllllllIlllllllllllllllllIllIllllllllllllllllllllllll
IlllllllllIllllIIllIllIIIIIllIllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
|||||||||||||||||||I|II|||ll||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
allIllIllIIIIllIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII; 4 D
IIIIIQIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIQIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIQIIIII
10 D
Figure 1. The problem under examination.
Soil y c' q>’ E' v’
Table 1. Soil parameters adopted in the analyses.
(kN/1113) (kPa) (°) (MPH)
A__ 20 15 28 6.7 :> 2O;0 0.25
B 20 15 28 33.3 :> 46.7` ` 0.25
Figure 2 shows typical results of the greenfield
analyses. The vertical settlements are normalized by
the maximum settlements smax obtained from the in­
verted normal (Gaussian) distribution, which is also
shown in Figure 2a. A value of the settlement trough
parameter i=0.5-Z0 (O’Reilly & New 1982), where
Z0 is the depth of the tunnel axis, was used to obtain
smax as:
VS =\/zu-i-sm, (1)
as, in undrained conditions, the 'ground loss into the
tunnel VS is equal to the volume of the settlement
trough per unit length. Furthermore, to derive a ref­
erence surface horizontal displacement profile, the
usual assumption that the ground surface displace­
ment vectors point at the tunnel axis was introduced.
The vertical and horizontal surface displacements
predicted by the Gaussian distribution are given by
the following relationships:
s = smax -e 2* (2)
<-%>
u 2 L_ S (3)
and
Zo
 "% /S
where y is the transverse distance Hom the tunnel erties of the elements of the structure along the lon­
center-line, i the horizontal offset from the- tunnel gitudinal tunnel' axis (e.g. equal spacing between
center-line to the inflection point of the settlement parallel walls) is also required (Fig. 3).
trough and smax the maximum surface settlement for
\ ’.3= '/,/A
%_%¢
7;\//
>
y=0. The maximum horizontal displacement umax 5';' _ -///'Q
obtained Hom Equations (2) and (3) was used in
order to. normalize the horizontal surface //#¥
/}¢&¢QQ§3:
/%- %3 _fg
Q w f1-
i Fe;% 5 9% @ > é%'
a '/gZZ
Q
1/
gé
% %¥ \/"4` »'g¢%
é. 'wé z¢¢¢
4 ax;
displacement profile.
The curves shown in Figure 2 are associated with #\' » "¢=>.%¢
Mtvaa,
;§-
s., ".f'%E\
w %<&.
*5-;%7,
,-.->.
x'%%'g¢;,-%.
.<
§;E?£%@
¢= :¢%
/ _~=_, “fan . f ,-_ A
%z-, \'»*
wéi ¢w¢'-
­
- `. za%=
=-2*£%”-
"2/ygf /%&
'%.aa/a
%

§\/I \ \/\
two extreme values of ground loss VL (expressed as
yea '%#%=
&.. ?
é=>%%= S '%€?P1'E§Z
;I2-.%&&€ +§:%‘e”
».@%=%%% *
a percentage of the notional excavated volume of the
tum1el): \§\\N'¢»€g1.'_}4»
5
@%%
=y%4»
§' Z
%
-%¢ ~ / Qfaxf
» =¢ 2%:,,e-. %%= \~:-- -/' =%#%¢J
a-&%@,<=>%- ¢ . \ -‘ ‘zyzx
,%/’ ~y 4&'%=
% A&%44
~»4%/
4%
f »J <%’
? g4Z %¢%@
»4¢%
Qvya#

VL :i T’ (4)
Vs
D
‘n.___
4
§ ' ' xyzx
QQ 'Z\ \
%a#%
~Z
,ZZ%ZZ \/ \ ‘/
/ \\ ’.-\\f. \\
~%a%

_
0.2 \ .\ _ a)
- \” -­ '
Figure 3. 3-D versus 2-D representation of buildings.

0_0 _ _ _»=-=-=-_=_.»_.` These requirements are not too restrictive when

dealing with tunnelling in an urban area: usually, the
>< ` Gauss route of the tunnel follows, at a given depth, the lay­
out of main, straight city streets; old masonry build­
Q 0-4 f -»- soil A; VL=O.4%` \\ r ings are often characterized by a modular and repeti­
L” 0_6 _ -n- SOilA;VL=2.5% " r __ tive structural arrangement.
"° - -9-_ SON B;__YLiQfl% __ ~ In these' conditions it is possible to reduce the 3-D
0-8 - -r9- son B, VL=2.5% ­ masonry building to an equivalent 2-D wall, or­
1_0
10' .8| .6| . 4| . 2u .0 thogonal to the transverse plane of the analysis. The
geometrical dimensions of the wall are identical to
real ones while the mechanical properties (density,
1-2 _ | | 1 | ,t _ b) stiffness and strength) are scaled following a linear

1.0 i' "AFA i factorization rule which takes into account the ‘con­

\0.6
_ ,_- _­
:s0.2
0.4 --/2.\/ 3 '
tinuity’ (solid/void ratio) of the various structural
elements along the longitudinal axis of the tunnel. »
The equivalent wall (12 m wide and 12 m in high)
was modelled with a number of macroelements (l m
wide and 0.5 m high), each of them consisting of 8
isotropic, linear elastic elements, connected by verti­
cal and horizontal interfaces. An elastic perfectly­
0.0
10F 28- ‘_
= 16
_ '4
/1 2
' ' '0i plastic model, with a tensile strength limit, was used
y/ D for the interfaces.
Figure 2. Nomralized a) vertical and b) horizontal surface dis­ This approach represents a compromise -between
placements (greenfield analyses, H=12 m, D=6 m). numerical complexity and a reasonable description
of the discontinuous nature of the masonry. In fact,
It is clear that the adopted technique for the in this way, it is possible to take 'intoaccount the
simulation of the effects of tunnel excavation is ca­ non-linear behavior of the masonry and, also, to
pable of reproducing a surface displacement profile quantify the width of cracks which may potentially
in close agreement with the Gaussian distribution develop through the wall in order to evaluate the
which, in turn, matches very closely field observa­ category of damage.
tions. Different types of equivalent walls were studied,
with different geometry (solid walls and walls with
openings) and different mechanical properties (an­
3 2-D MODELLING OF THE MASONRY cient, ancient-consolidated and modem masonry).
BUILDING Figure 4 shows the mesh ofthe equivalent wall used
in the numerical analyses which will be presented in
The 2-D representation of structures in a tunnelling the next section.
analysis is possible when the structures are- charac­ The parameters used in the analyses for the elastic
terized by bearing walls which are orthogonal and/or macroelements (unit weight, y, Young’s modulus, E,
parallel to the longitudinal tunnel axis. Furthermore, and Poisson’s ratio, v) and for the horizontal and
a repetition of the geometrical and mechanical prop­ vertical interfaces (normal and tangential stiffness,
tensile strength, horizontal and vertical cohesion and
friction angle) are reported in Table 2 and 3, respec­
tively. '
The values of the Mohr-Coulomb strength pa­
rameters forthe interfaces were calculated using a
linear approx-imationjin the range of normal stresses
on involved in the problem (self-weight of the
building and deadloads), of a typical curved failure
In the numerical analyses, the properties reported
above were scaled in the different zones of the
equivalent wall according to factor fshown in Figure
5 (linear factorization).
Numerically, factor f is the ratio between the
spacing and the width of the generic structural e1¢_
ments evaluated along the direction orthogonal to the
plane of the analysis. For instance, in the case under

TT
rule of the masonry: examination, continuous walls (factor f=1) are repr¢_
sented by the two lateral colurrms orthogonal to the

I tk 1+1.5_Tk (5) plane of the analysis; values of f=6.25, 7.7 and 10

I1

are associated with the bearing walls spaced at 5 rn

and with thickness equal to 0.8, 0.65 and 0.5 nr at
where 'ck is the characteristic shear strength of the the first, second and third level, respectively.
masonry wall at zero normal stress, ranging between

is .
40 and 80 kPa for ancient structures and between
180 and 220 kPa for modern masonry walls. A value ` i;:::if:.:i:::;;f::ff :::i:::f:f:f;ir:1Z F 10
/
Q = 1.4-tk (6)
for the uniaxial tensile strength: _§3§3f§32325Zf'5 Qififififjffifjf

Q
n
_-J
ii'21i'ii F 7.7
was also assumed.
/
Izlzlzfé
§;§E§E§E§f r=@r>5

12 rn I F14

II III
___ -._._.___i____1_-Tii ._._ . `5¥E2E¥E2E2E¢E2E¥5 E2353552§¢E2E2‘¥E¥E¥E¥E=E=E2E=E' / " F21
I*-*I
Figure 5. 3-D versus 2-D modelling: linear factorization..

A detailed description on the selection of the

numerical values of the parameters for the masonry
II and on the factorization technique can be found in
Magliocchetti (2000).

' I» I
f__E____~. _l____
I
4 NUMERICAL ANALYSES

Different relative positions between equivalent wall

and tunnel center-line were considered in this study;
for brevity, the results related to a single geometry of
the problem, which is shown in Figure 6, will be dis­

I\ ',f 'I' \­ cussed in this section. It should be noted that a sym­

metry line was assumed to holditrue in order to re­
duce the computational cost of the analysis;
furthermore, the building(s) will experience a hog­
interfaces macroelements ging pattern of settlements due to tunnel construc­
Figure 4. 2-D model of a masonry building with openings. tion when looking at the greenfiela' situation (see
Fig. 2a).
Table 2. Masonry macroelements: parameters Three kinds of numerical analyses were carried
used in the analyses. _
Masonry yEv
type (kN/ma) (MPa)
out, following a different approach in modelling the
effects of both building and tunnel construction:
A; _Ancient 16 1500 __ _0.25 ° approach #1: building construction on a rigid
B: Modem 18 2400 0.25 boundary and subsequent imposition, at foundation
level, of the vertical and horizontal displacements
Table 3. Interfaces: parameters used in the analyses. obtainedfusing, for greenfield' conditions and for a
Masonry kn= ks t] Ch (ph Cy tpv given ground loss, the numerical technique described
A:type (MPH/m) (kPa) (kPa) (°) (kPa) (°)
Ancient 7200 70 56 11 50 18 in Section 2. Any soil-structure interaction effect is
therefore neglected;
B:M0<1¢m 11150 zéo 204 15 200 18", ° approach #2: building construction (drained condi­
tions) taking into account the soil-structure interac­
 %
10- ­
tion effects; after this, removal of the soil mesh and
imposition of tunnelling-induced displacements as in

- _ __
approach #1. In this way, a more realistic stress dis­

_Q
tribution in the structure after its construction is ex­

20 - __ _
pected to be obtained;
° approach`#3: full soil-turmel-structure interaction
analysis: building construction as in approach #2 and
tumiel construction effects modelled using the nu­
merical technique described in Section 2, under ° - -- greenfield analysis _
undrained conditions and allowing for the same Tn' 30 - _ interaction analysis `

_ _ b)
ground loss value used in the previous approaches. It 40 _ o masonry A; soil B => Esmm/ESOi|=4 ` _

15
/\ 6 - " ­
50, 1 l 1 - | 1 | 1
is worth noting that, 'in this way, the stress redistri­ _ ¢ masonry B; soil A => Estmct/ES0i|=20O
bution in the foundation soil due to building con­
struction will also influence the results of the analy­
sis.
20 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

:s5101_
° -//,i1"\\_
\1­ '
In approaches #2 and #3 the contact between the
structure and the soil was modelled with an interface
characterized bythe same elastic and plastic (fric­
Q _ /I _ _ ` \3 _
tional) properties used for the soil.

_ ,V \_
0 -- --O--|"°"'Ta=:-l 1 l 1
40 30 20 _ 10 0
Q(T_4O.5m
_,__,__ X_______
12m \¢.5m -distance from tunnel axis, y (m)
_ _ ._

HA AB
Figure 7. Soil-tunnel-structure interactionanalyses: vertical
15 m _
and b) horizontal surface displacements.
X D=o m
5 EVALUATION OF DAMAGE

27 m The ‘discontinuous’ model used for the masonry al­

lowed an evaluation of damage to be made -based on
the _crack pattem and on the values of the maximum
V
crack width, tmax, reported in Table 4.

Figure 6. Soil-tunnel-structure interaction analyses: geometry of Table 41. Classification of damage

the problem. Q 1
As expected, the* results of the analyses carried
out following approach #3 showed clearly the sig­
nificant effects of the-relative stifmess of the struc­
ture and the soil in reducing differential displace­
ments due to tunnelling.
As an example, Figure 7 shows the veitical and
horizontal displacement profiles relative to two ex­
treme values of the stiffness' ratio Estmct/Esoil of
about 4 (type A masorny and type B soil) and of 200
(type B masonry and type A soil). The analyses refer
to a ground loss equal to 2.5 % for which the
greenfield displacements profiles are also reported in
Figure 7.
(after Boscardin & Cording, 1989).
Category degree of max crack
of damage severity width, tmax (mml
0 negligible 0. 1
1 very slight 1.0
23 moderate
slight55.0
to 15
4 to 5 severe > 15
The results of the numerical analyses are shown
in Table 5 and in Figure 8. Even though the maxi­
mum crack width is probably not sufficient in prop­
erly defining the category of damage, the analyses
confirm that, in the case of high (and typical) relative
stiffness between structure and soil, the severity of
damage is significantly over-predicted when the ef­
fects of soil-tunnel-structure interaction are ignored.

E
 Table 5. Results obtained from the numerical analyses. identification of the degree of damage should be
analysis approach masonry A; soil B masonry B; soil A baSed_
tm; Cat. of tmax Cat. of
. (mm) damage (mm) damage
#1 (greenfield) 2.1 2 9.1 3
#2 (green-field) 3_2 2 1()_g 3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
#3 (full interaction) 2.0 2 < 0.1 0 _
The Authors would like to acknowledge dr A

1 I
Magliocchetti .for his help in carrying out the nu
merical analyses. This work has been developed un­
5311"--u
II‘I.i_II
5'i"*---- a) E %.I L?¥ der the financial support of MURST, National Re­
_U
g_.i E ' I .'_l
%§?-'-i
I:I
ll _ I 1
_g-___
-___§_
l_§¥--2%
%?'l%'--¥
_J __
I I II
search Project: Gallerie in Condizioni Di@‘icili.

?
_"|:‘i
11 _-_ -_

L¥ I l | _
lJ!{¥ _L& ¥ %§_u¥_¥_-I
-§¥-"--'£¥ I
l11_i_2u11_L1l
I§1|?1
i_§ ___
r?1 In-_
REFERENCES

ia r-$4 ME H-1| rn 'Q-­ Addenbrooke, T.I. & Potts, D.M. 1996. The influence of ex_
isting surface structure on the ground movements due to

._==a­
_ C) _ ) tunnelling. In Mair & Taylor (eds). Geotechnical Aspects of
_ 1 ' _ _ --_____ d Underground Construction in Soj? Ground. Rotterdam;

-_.;--
.-mf -JI,' '1 -­ reI-_I
_ 'HP 1 Balkema.

-_ I Lv
--ur­llI_| .II Il|_. Addenbrooke, T.I.;, Potts, D.M. & Puzrin, A.M. 1997. The in_

1 I-Quai
1 1 -I _
L I,E:|":
_1_---! : :..--I--=l:::
If _ ri fluence of pre-failure soil stiffness on the numerical analysis
L1
---I -l-
IIgéi-125-'
- '__l_:-%
-r_|' 1._'I.-' ' -I '1
_ ll#-*___
of tunnel construction. Geotechnique 47(2): 693-712.
Boscardin, D.M. & Cording, EJ. 1989. Building response to
CXCZV ation induced settlement. ASCE Journal of Geotech­
:£__
:_:-1 _ :_ - s
J Lg lun l_l f- rs

(.
F'igure
8. Effects of soil-structure interaction. Masonry A on
soil B (Estmct/ES0i1=4): a) full interaction analysis and b)
greenfield analysis; Effects of relative soil-structure stiffness
full interaction 3Il2llyS1S)‘ c) masonry A on soil B
(Esmmt/Es0;|=4) and d) masonry B on soil A
nical Engineering, 115: 1-21.
Burd, H.J., Houlsby, .G_T. &_Augarde, C.E. 2000. Modelling
tunnelling-induced settlement of masonry buildings. Geo­
technical Engineering, 143: 17-29
Burghignoli, A., Miliziano, S. & Soccodato, F.M. 2001a. Pre­
diction of ground settlements due to tunnelling in clayey
soils using advanced constitutive soil models: a numerical
study. In Adachi et al (eds), Modern Tunnellzng Science
and Technology. Rotterdam: Balkema.
Burghignoli, A., Miliziano, S. & Soccodato, F.M. 2001b. A
simple technique to improve the prediction of surface dis­

'f
(Estruct/Esoil=200)­
.p ac p
1 ement rofiles due to shallow ttuinel construction. In
Adachi et al (eds), Modern Tunneling Science and Tech­

6 CONCLUSIONS
This paper reports the irst results of a numerical
'study aimed at the evaluation of damage in masonry
buildings due to shallow tunnel construction in
clayey soils.
The attention was focused on the identification of
a numerical technique of the excavation process ca­
pable of reproducing, from 2-D analyses, the sur ace
settlement profiles observed in the field; further­
more, a reasonable model _of the masonry was
adopted using elastic macroelements connected by
elasto-plastic interfaces.
The analyses confirmed, for a given ground loss
and geometry (relative building-tunnel position), the
signihcant effects of the relative stiffness of the soil
and the building on the displacement fields and,
thus, on the amount of predicted damage.
The approach followed to model the masonry al­
lows for the evaluation of the number, frequency,
pattern and width of the cracks; this appears to be
particularly promising because the maximum width
of the cracks is just one of the factors on which the
ur , _ _ _ .
nology. Rotterdam: Balkema.
B land J B & Wroth C P 1974. Settlements of buildings and
associated damage. Conference on Settlement and Struc­
tures: 203-208.
Burland, J _B. 1995. Assessment of risk of damage to buildings
qua e ..
' due to tunnelling and excavation. Proc Int. ' Conf Earth­
k Geotechnical Eng IS-Tokyo 95.
Gunn MJ. 1993. The prediction of surface settlement profiles
due to tunnelling. In Houlsby & Schofield (eds), Predictive
Soil Mechanics. London: Thomas Telford.
I' ` ` ` ’ . M' a olis.
Itasca Consulting Group 2000. FLAC (Fast Lagrangian Analy­
sis of Continua) version 4.0. User s manuals mne p
Magliocchetti, A. 2000. Modellazione dell’interazione tra
strutture in muratura e gallerie superficiali in terreni coesivi.
Graduate Thesis, University of Rome La Saptenza (in Ital­
ian).
Loganathan, N. & Poulos, H.G. 1998. Analytical prediction for
tunnelling-induced ground movements in clays. ASCE
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenviromental Engineering
l24(9): 846-856.
O’ReillY,M.P. & New, B.M. 1982. Settlements above tunnClS
in the United Kingdom - their magmtude and effects. Tun
nelling 82: 173-181.
Rowe, R.K. & Kack, GJ. 1983. A theoretical examination of
the settlements induced by tunnelling: four case historieS
Canadian Geotechnical Journal 20: 299-314.

340