Computers and Geotechnics 43 (2012) 12–25

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Computers and Geotechnics

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

Effects of tunnelling on existing pipelines in layered soils

Chenrong Zhang, Jian Yu, Maosong Huang ⇑
Department of Geotechnical Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China
Key Laboratory of Geotechnical and Underground Engineering of Ministry of Education, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Soil movements caused by tunnel excavation can adversely affect and even damage underground pipe-
Received 8 October 2011 lines in the vicinity. This paper provides a continuous elastic analysis in finite difference form aimed
Received in revised form 18 January 2012 at simulating the responses of both continuous and jointed pipelines subjected to tunnel-induced soil
Accepted 27 January 2012
movement in multi-layered soils. The effects of soil stratification on pipeline behaviour are analysed
Available online 25 February 2012
using the mathematical Hankel transform and transfer matrix technique, and the behaviour of the joints
of a hinged pipeline is modelled as a plastic hinge. The accuracy of the proposed method is verified by
Keywords:
comparison with a published study of elastic solutions used in homogeneous soil and centrifuge model
Multi-layered soils
Pipeline
tests. Finally, two case studies and a parametric analysis of the effects of different soil profiles in a sand-
Tunnel excavation wich soil model are presented to demonstrate the performance of the proposed method.
Elastic theory method Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction flexible beam buried in the stratum, while tunnel-induced soil

The exploitation of urban underground space presents several
geotechnical engineering problems, one of which is the effect of
tunnel construction on existing pipelines. Urban underground
areas are congested with underground municipal pipelines that
support gas transmission, water supply and so on, some of which
are too brittle to sustain additional deformations caused by aging
and corrosion over the term of their service. The excavation of a
new tunnel generates ground movement around nearby pipelines,
which may deform or damage pipelines (illustrated in Fig. 1).
Therefore, to ensure the operation and maintenance of buried pipe-
lines, it is important for engineers to assess the magnitude of pipe-
line deformation and bending moment stressing due to tunnelling
induced ground displacements.
A complete analysis of the complex tunnel–soil–pipeline inter-
action using the finite element method can only be carried out in
conjunction with a simulation of the actual tunnel excavation pro-
cess in which rational predictions of the soil displacement field
around the tunnel mainly depends on the choice of soil constitu-
tive model. For this reason, considering the uncertainty of success-
fully replicating the green field condition, the accuracy of the
calculated pipeline behaviour with the FEM analysis is doubtful
when detailed or geotechnical information for the site is lacking.
In simplified methods for analysing pipelines subjected to tun-
nel-induced soil movement, the pipeline is usually modelled as a
⇑ Corresponding author at: Department of Geotechnical Engineering, Tongji
University, Shanghai 200092, China.
E-mail address: mshuang@tongji.edu.cn (M. Huang).
movement at the pipeline level is used explicitly as the input to
study its effect on the pipeline. The main difference between the
various simplified methods can be found in the idealisation of soil
behaviour used in their models. One is the Winkler ground model
(or the subgrade reaction method), in which soil behaviour is rep-
resented by a series of independent, linear or nonlinear springs [1].
The other is the elastic continuum soil model, in which the soil is
simulated as semi-infinite linear elastic half-space [2]. The former
does not take into account the continuum characteristic of the soil
regarding its inadequacy for the transmission of stresses but is eas-
ily extended to nonlinear analysis of the soil–pipeline interaction.
The latter method is exactly the opposite. Based on the magnitude
of free soil movement induced by tunnelling, elastic analysis could
provide a rational prediction for the pipeline’s response. Klar et al.
[2] provided a rigorous elastic continuum solution using Mindlin
solution [3] (Green’s function), usually with a Gaussian curve as
the tunnel-induced green soil movement and modified Vesic [4]
subgrade moduli for the Winkler model in order to obtain similar
results to the elastic continuum solution. Vorster et al. [5] further
considered soil stiffness degradation due to soil shearing with a
linear equivalent approach and modified the Gaussian curves to
better fit the in situ data. Klar et al. also used the elastic continuum
solution to study the nonlinearity of soil–pipe interaction with a
limit force [6], the behaviour of jointed pipelines [7] and the differ-
ence between the shell and beam representations of the pipeline
[8]. Marshall et al. [9] carried out centrifuge model tests to discuss
the soil–pipe interaction mechanism due to tunnel excavation and
modified Vorster’s method [5] by adding the ‘‘out-of plane’’ shear
strain to further degrade soil stiffness.

0266-352X/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compgeo.2012.01.011
 C. Zhang et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 43 (2012) 12–25
E 1 v1
E 2 v2 Pipeline
E i vi Volume loss
Tunnelling
Fig. 1. Problem illustration.
The above works using the elastic continuum solution have as-
sumed that the pipeline is buried in homogeneous, rather than lay-
ered soil. In fact, natural soil profiles consist of different layers,
with regards to soil fabric, the non-random arrangement of soil
grains created during deposition and so on. Therefore, compared
to present solutions with pipeline buried in a homogeneous, elastic
half-space, considering soil-stratified characters is more rational
for the problem here. Although Vorster et al. [5] mentioned that
soil stiffness at the pipeline embedment depth could provide a
fairly good approximation for non-homogeneous soil, no theoreti-
cal research has been performed to support this conclusion or to
assess the effects of non-homogeneous soils on the behaviour of
pipelines due to tunnelling.
The current paper proposes a continuous elastic analysis in fi-
nite difference form aimed at simulating the responses of both con-
tinuous and jointed pipelines subjected to tunnel-induced soil
movement in multi-layered soils. In the finite difference method,
the pipeline is treated as a beam buried in stratified soil, and the
joint behaviour in jointed pipelines is modelled as a plastic hinge
(a basic definition in steel structure). The mathematical Hankel
transform and transfer matrix technique are used to obtain a fun-
damental solution for the vertical displacements caused by a verti-
cal point load within the interior of a semi-infinite elastic layered
mass. The accuracy of the proposed method is verified by compar-
ing with elastic solutions in homogeneous soil obtained from Klar
et al. [2,7] and centrifuge model tests conducted by Marshall et al.
[9]. Therefore after, two case studies are provided to further dem-
onstrate the performance of the proposed method and a paramet-
ric analyses is carried out concerning the effects of different soil
profiles in the sandwich soil model on the responses of pipeline
under tunnelling.
2. Formulation
In the simplified method, the issue of soil–pipe–tunnel interac-
tion is considered as a problem of the effect of tunnel-induced soil
movement on pipelines. Thus, the analysis can be divided into two
stages: first, estimating the tunnel-induced green soil movement at
the pipeline level, and second, calculating the responses of the
pipeline subjected to soil movement. Because this conversion sep-
arates tunnel behaviour from a solution for pipeline response, the
precondition for its validity is as follows: (1) tunnel-induced soil
movement (green or free soil movement) is not affected by the
presence of the pipeline in the first stage; and (2) the pipe–soil
interaction exhibits the same behaviour regarding soil movement
whether the tunnel exists in the second stage or not. A similar ap-
proach to dividing the analysis into two stages was previously ap-
plied to passive piles in the case of tunnelling [10]. This study
considered only the worst case of a pipeline buried transverse to
the direction of tunnel construction. The pipeline’s axial response
is ignored in the simple theory of bending beams for the pipeline.
13
2.1. Calculation for tunnel-induced green ground movement
The direct calculations generally used to predict ground defor-
mations associated with tunnelling are the empirical method
(Gaussian distribution curve) and the numerical method. Because
it has a similar shape to observed field profiles and limited defining
parameters, the Gaussian empirical curve [11] is a popular method
of describing tunnel-induced vertical soil movement, although its
applicability is limited to certain ground conditions and construc-
tion techniques. By redefining ground loss based on the oval-
shaped gap around a tunnel in relation to various construction
methods and tunnelling equipment configurations, Loganathan
and Poulos [12] presented a closed-form solution capable of pro-
viding the vertical and horizontal soil displacement on the surface
and subsurface of non-homogeneous soil. To achieve the exact
numerical solution for layered soil and investigate the effect of soil
stratification, Zhang et al. [13] presented the displacement-con-
trolled boundary integral method to calculate tunnel-induced
ground movement. This study directly utilises the former two for-
mulations to estimate ground settlement because the closed-form
solution is more logical in the consideration of actual situations for
practical engineering, while the Gaussian curve with simple
parameters is more suitable for normalised parametric studies on
the effects of different soil profiles.
The green field soil vertical soil displacement Sv at the pipeline
level described by a Gaussian curve is [11]:
 
x2
Sv ¼ Smax exp  2 ð1Þ
2i
where Smax is maximum settlement, x is the horizontal distance
from the tunnel centerline, and i is the trough width parameter cor-
responding to the distance measured from the centerline of the tun-
nel to the inflection points of the curve.
The closed-form analytical solution for free soil vertical soil dis-
placement Sv(z) along the depth due to oval radial ground loss from
tunnelling can be expressed as [12]
(
ðz  HT Þ
Sv ðzÞ ¼ e0 R2T
x2 þ ðz  HT Þ2
 
) 2 2
2 1:38x 2 þ0:69z
ð3  4v Þðz þ HT Þ 2z½x  ðz þ HT Þ 
2
ðHT þRT Þ H 2
þ  e T
ð2Þ
x2 þ ðz þ HT Þ2 ½x2 þ ðz þ HT Þ2 
where RT and HT are the radius and embedment of the tunnel, z is
the depth from the ground surface, m is the soil’s Poisson’s ratio,
and e0 is the equivalent ground loss ratio. The formulation sets
the ground surface settlements at z = 0.
2.2. Elastic solution for the pipeline
The pipeline is assumed to be an elastic beam buried in non-
homogeneous soil. During the period of analysis, the pipeline re-
mains in contact with the soil, which is assumed to be an ideal, iso-
tropic elastic material. Neither slippage in the pipe–soil interaction
nor the plastic behaviour of the soil is considered, which means
that the solution is valid only as long as the section dimension of
the pipeline is relatively small compared to that of the tunnel. Fur-
thermore, the green soil movement induced by the tunnel is not so
large that purely elastic conditions will prevail within the soil. The
basic governing equilibrium equation for the deflection of the pipe-
line is provided below:
2
d wðxÞ
EI 2
þM ¼0 ð3Þ
dx
where EI is the bending stiffness of the pipeline, w is the vertical
displacement of the pipeline, and M is the bending moment of the
pipeline.
14 C. Zhang et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 43 (2012) 12–25

Vi
1 2 3 i-1 i n n+1

Mi
Vi

P1 P2 P3 P i-1 Pi Pn P n+1
Fig. 2. Representation of a pipeline as beam elements.

The pipeline is divided into n elements of length h, as shown in Fig. 3. The schematic plot of flexible pipeline.
Fig. 2. If we cut the pipeline at the location of typical node i, then
the force equilibrium for the section of node i for the left side is
1 wi1  2wi þ wiþ1
as follows:   þ Mjsi ¼ 0 ð10Þ
2
X
i1 1
hkjsi
1
þ 2Ei1 Ii1 þ 2Ei2 Ii2 1 h
M i ¼ ½ði  1ÞhP 1 þ ði  2ÞhP2 þ    þ hP i1  ¼ h ði  jÞPj ð4Þ
j¼1 For the continuous pipeline, the infinite rotation stiffness of the
where Pj is the force acting on the pipeline due to the pipe–soil joints kjsi ? 1 and the constant flexibility EI simplify the above
interaction. equation as follows:
Pipelines are composed of discrete segments connected by
joints, which may be categorised as continuous or jointed depend- wi1  2wi þ wiþ1
EI 2
þ Mi ¼ 0
ing on the construction technique used to produce them. Usually, a h
weld- or flange-connected high-pressure gas transmission pipeline which is the standard form for a typical node i in finite-difference
is a continuous pipeline and a rubber push-on connected water form for a beam with a constant section.
transmission pipeline is a jointed pipeline. The continuous pipeline For a jointed pipeline with standard segments connected by
can be envisioned as a beam with constant flexibility, while the joints, Eq. (10) is simplified accordingly:
behaviour of the jointed pipeline is different as beam sections con-
nected with joints. In this paper, no discontinuous vertical dis- 1 wi1  2wi þ wiþ1
  2
þ Mjsi ¼ 0 ð11Þ
placement of the joints is allowed (assuming infinite shear 1
hkjsi
þ EI1 h
stiffness of the joint), which applies to most jointed pipelines. Be-
cause the rotation stiffness of the joints in a jointed pipeline is ex- For example, in a continuous pipeline, the differential equation
pressed as kjs, the joints can sustain bending moment Mjs with written in finite-difference form for a typical i is as follows:
discontinuous rotations based on the following equation: X
i1
wi1  2wi þ wiþ1
kjsi ðhi1 þ hi2 Þ ¼ Mjsi ð5Þ Ei Ii 2
h ði  jÞPj ¼ 0 ð12Þ
h j¼1
where hi1 and hi2 are rotations on the left and right of the joint,
Two further equations may be obtained from the boundary con-
respectively, as shown in Fig. 3.
ditions at the ends of the pipeline. Together with the lack of restric-
As the curve of the deflected pipeline is not twice differentiable
tion at the ends of the pipeline, the load equilibrium and moment
for discontinuous rotations at the joints, the finite-difference anal-
equilibrium equations with respect to the force placed on each ele-
ysis must be modified to allow for the effect of the joint behaviour.
ment may be written:
Two fictitious nodes are introduced to meet the demands of the
second derivative for the deflected curve with fictitious displace- X
n

ments wi1 and wiþ1 , which are shown in Fig. 3. The four equations h ðn þ 1  jÞP j ¼ 0 ð13Þ
j¼1
may be obtained for the joint node in finite difference form as
follows:
 X
nþ1

dwi1  w  wi1 Pj ¼ 0 ð14Þ

hi1 ¼  ¼ iþ1 ð6Þ j¼1
dx x¼x0 2h
Assembling a discrete equation for each node and combining it with

dwi2  wiþ1  wi1 boundary conditions leads to a finite difference formulation for the
hi2 ¼  ¼ ð7Þ
dx x¼x0 2h whole pile in matrix–vector form:
½K p fwg  ½HfPg ¼ 0 ð15Þ
2
d wi1 wiþ1  2wi þ wi1
M i1 ¼ Ei1 Ii1 2
¼ Ei1 Ii1 2
ð8Þ where [Kp] is the stiffness matrix of the pipeline as
dx h 2 3
kp1 2kp1 kp1 0
2
d wi2 wiþ1  2wi þ wi1 6 7
6    7
M i2 ¼ Ei2 Ii2 2
¼ Ei2 Ii2 2
ð9Þ 6 7
dx h 6 7
6 kpi 2kpi kpi 7
6 7
where Mi1 and Mi2 are the bending moments to the left and right of 6 7
½K p  ¼ 6    7
the joint and Ei1Ii1 and Ei2Ii2 are the bending stiffnesses of the left 6 7
6 kpðn1Þ 2kpðn1Þ kpðn1Þ 7
and right elements of the joint. 6 7
6 7
The behaviour of the joint determines that Mi1 = Mi2 = Mjsi. Com- 6 0 7
4 5
bined with Eq. (5) and eliminating the intermediate variables wi1
0 0
and wiþ1 , we arrive at the following: ðnþ1Þðnþ1Þ
 C. Zhang et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 43 (2012) 12–25 15

in which
 k1
pi = EI for pipeline element without joint; one interface without load and the discontinuity of stress and con-
kpi ¼ hk1 þ EI1 for a pipeline element with a joint; tinuity of displacement at an additional interface to which the inte-
jsi
[H] is the n + 1 by n + 1 matrix of finite difference coefficient as rior point load is applied, we relate the response of the soil mass at
2 3 the bottom of the last layer to the response at the surface layer as
1
follows:
6 2 1 cdots       7
6 7
36 7  H Þg ¼ ½qfGðn;
fGðn;  0Þg  ½sfpg ð19Þ
½H ¼ h 6 6n 1  1 7 n
7
6 n n1
 2 1 7 where
4 h2 h2 h2 h2 5
1 1 1 1
h3 h3
  h3 h3 ½q ¼ ½Uðn; DHn Þ½Uðn; DHn1 Þ    ½Uðn; DH1 Þ;
ðnþ1Þðnþ1Þ; and

{w} and {P} are respectively the n + 1 column vectors of pipeline dis- ½s ¼ ½Uðn; DHn Þ½Uðn; DHn1 Þ    ½Uðn; DHm2 Þ
placement and the interaction loading between pipe and soil.

Because we separate the analysis of tunnel–soil–pipeline inter-
action into the two problems of tunnel-induced soil movement and
soil–pipeline interaction, the soil displacement at pipeline level {u}
may be expressed as follows:
fug ¼ fufree g þ fup g ¼ fufree g þ ½kff g
where {ufree} is the n + 1 column vector of green field vertical soil
movement at the pipeline location, {up} and {f} are the n + 1 column
vectors of soil displacement and the action of forces on soil mass
due to pipe–soil interaction, respectively. [k] is the n + 1 by n + 1
matrix of the soil-displacement influence factor. Element kij of [k],
defined as the soil’s vertical displacement at node i due to the load
at node j, is evaluated through its integration over a barrel area of
an elastic solution for the vertical displacement of a point within
an elastic, stratified mass caused by the vertical point load within
the mass, which will be introduced below. The details about barrel
area are introduced in Klar et al. [2].
By imposing displacement compatibility between the pipeline
and the adjacent soil and based on the fact that the force acting
on the soil is the pipeline reaction, Eqs. (15) and (16) yield the fol-
lowing equation when the soil remains elastic:
ð½K p  þ ½K s Þfwg ¼ ½K s fufree g
1
where [Ks] = [H][k] .
Throughout the process of solving this system of equations, the
displacement of the pipeline and the bending moment of the pipe-
line can be evaluated.
2.3. Elastic solution for the load within multi-layered soil
In this study, the elastic solution for a point load in elastic non-
homogeneous soil is used to construct the components of [k].
Burmister [14] presented an analytical solution for the vertical dis-
placement caused by a point load at the surface of a semi-infinite
mass with two or three layers to calculate the settlement of an air-
field runway. This solution is now extended using the Hankel
transform and transfer matrix technique to provide the point load
within a layered elastic half-space.
The analytical matrix solution of axisymmetric problems for
one-layer soil using the Hankel transform and solving the govern-
ing differential equations by elastic theory is as follows:
fGðn; zÞg ¼ ½Uðn; zÞfGðn; 0Þg
where fGðn; zÞg ¼ fu  zÞ; s
 ðn; zÞ; wðn;  ðn; zÞgT are the corre-
ðn; zÞ; r
sponding displacement components and stress components and
[U(n, z)] is the 4-by-4 transfer matrix, the details of which are de-
scribed by Ai et al. [15].
The soil is assumed to be an elastic half-space arbitrarily hori-
zontally layered and/or underlain by a rigid bed stratum. Each
layer has thickness DHi and an independent elastic parameter.
Any two adjacent layers are bonded together through continuous
stress and compatible deformation. By repeating Eq. (18) for each
layer while imposing the continuity of stress and displacement at
fpg ¼ 0; 0; 0; 2Fp ; 2Fp is the surface density distribution of the point
load within the soil mass at the depth of hm1 using the Hankel trans-
form. DHm2 is the vertical distance between the applied load and
the top of the underlain layer.
The use Eq. (19) with the free boundary conditions at the sur-
ð16Þ face in first layer and the fixed boundary conditions at the bottom
in the last layer as follows:
szr ¼ rz ¼ 0 for z ¼ 0
u ¼ w ¼ 0 for z ¼ hn
allows all variables at the top and bottom of the soil mass to be
determined.
The stress and displacement in the Hankel transform domain at
depth z above or below the point load (z 6 hm1 or z > hm1 ) can be
expressed as follows:
fGðn; zÞg ¼ ½afGðn; 0Þg z 6 hm1 ð20Þ
fGðn; zÞg ¼ ½s1 fGðn; 0Þg  ½s2 fpg z > hm1 ð21Þ
where
ð17Þ ½a ¼ ½Uðn; z  Hi1 Þ½Uðn; DHi1 Þ    ½Uðn; DH1 Þ
½S1  ¼ ½Uðn; z  Hi1 Þ½Uðn; DHi1 Þ    ½Uðn; DH1 Þ;
½S2  ¼ ½Uðn; DHn Þ½Uðn; DHn1 Þ    ½Uðn; Hi  zÞ:
Using the inverse Hankel transform of the solution Gðn; zÞ in
Eqs. (20), (21), elastic solutions for stresses and displacements
in the multi-layered soils subjected to the vertical load can be
obtained.
3. Verification
To validate the correctness of the proposed method, compari-
sons are made with the previous elastic studies, the centrifuge
model test and two case studies below.
3.1. Comparison of the elastic solution with the Mindlin equation
As described in the introduction, most studies on this topic have
focused on homogeneous soil. Because there are few or no pub-
ð18Þ
lished theoretical analyses of pipeline responses to tunnelling con-
struction in multi-layered soil and because the proposed method
can also be applied to homogeneous soil by dividing the whole soil
into multiple layers with equal elastic characteristics (an artifi-
cially complex process), a comparison with the elastic solution
for homogeneous soil is presented below. Klar et al. [2,7] analysed
the problem of tunnelling effects on existing continuous and
jointed pipelines using an elastic continuum method with the
Mindlin solution (Green’s function). In accordance with Klar’s anal-
ysis, the Gaussian soil settlement trough is used in this study to
calculate the tunnel-induced soil movement. To enable a general
16 C. Zhang et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 43 (2012) 12–25

-0.4
-0.2

Mi2/EISmax
0.0
0.2
0.4
R=8.0
0.6
Klar et al (2005) R=2.0
0.8
This study R=0.5
1.0
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
x/i

Fig. 4. Distribution of bending moment along the continuous pipeline.

-0.1
Hinged
Mi2/EISmax

0.0

0.1 T=0.05
T=0.5
0.2 Klar et al (2008) T=5
This study
0.3
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
x/i
Fig. 5. Distribution of bending moment along the jointed pipeline.

0.0

0.2 Hinged
T=0.5
Sp/Smax

0.4

0.6

0.8
Klar et al (2008)
1.0 This study
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
x/i

0.0

0.2
T=0.05
Sp/Smax

0.4 T=5

0.6

0.8
Klar et al(2008)
1.0 This study
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
x/i

Fig. 6. Distribution of displacement along the jointed pipeline.

solution corresponding to different soil and pipeline characteris- comparison feasible. Three parameters used for the normalisation
tics, Klar et al. represented all the computed results through nor- of the results should be introduced: (1) the relative pipe–soil rigid-
malisation. Estimations made by the proposed method in this ity factor R = EI/Esi3r0 to enable the solution independent of the ra-
paper are also normalised in the same way as Klar’s, making the tio i/r0, (2) the joint stiffness ratio T = kjs/(EI/i) and (3) the joint
 C. Zhang et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 43 (2012) 12–25 17

comparison of normalised bending moment distribution along a

E S1 the first layer continuous pipeline is shown in Fig. 4 for different relative rigidity
factor R. The comparison of normalised bending moment and nor-
7r0

pipeline malised settlement along a jointed pipeline is shown in Figs. 5 and

ar0

E S2 the second layer

6 as a function of joint rigidity T for the case of R = 10 and Lj/i = 1.0.
For the tunnel excavation nearby, the two theoretical solutions re-
sult in predicting nearly identical curves of normalised bending
moment and settlement of the pipeline. It is important to empha-
ar0

E S2 the second layer

E S1 the third layer
Fig. 7. Schematic representation of soil stratification and the pipeline for paramet-
ric study.
spacing ratio Lj/i. All the comparisons given below correspond to a
Possion’s ration of 0.25 and an embedment depth ratio of Z/r0 = 7 (Z
is the depth to the pipeline axis from the ground surface). The
sise that the same shape function for the free green field soil move-
ment by tunnel is utilised and that the basic assumptions are
identical for the two methods regarding elastic soil behaviour,
the lack of slippage between pipeline and soil, the impervious
interaction of the pipeline with soil in the presence of a tunnel
and so on. The preconditions above validate that when the elastic
solution for non-homogeneous soil is simplified for homogeneous
soil, we obtain similar results to those of the continuous method
for the Mindlin solution, which partly proves the correctness of
the proposed method. The same conclusions are found to be true

-0.2

-0.1
Mi2/EISmax

0.0
Es1/Es2=1/10
0.1
Es1/Es2=1/3
0.2 Es1/Es2=1,Klar et al (2005)
Es1/Es2=3
0.3
Es1/Es2=10
0.4
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
x/i
(a) continuous pipeline

-0.10

-0.05
Mi2/EISmax

0.00
Es1/Es2=1/10
0.05
Es1/Es2=1/3
0.10
Es1/Es2=1 Klar et al (2008)
0.15 Es1/Es2=3
0.20 Es1/Es2=10
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
x/i
(b) jointed pipeline
Fig. 8. Normalised bending moment distribution.

ε 0=0.5%
0
Soil settlement (mm)

30 ε 0=1.0%

ε 0=2.5%
Centrifuge
60 L&P ε 0=5.0%

-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30

Offset from tunnel centerline (m)
Fig. 9. The tunnel-induced free soil settlement.
18 C. Zhang et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 43 (2012) 12–25

-10

Pipeline settlement (mm)

0

10 ε 0=0.5%
ε 0=1.0%
20

30
Centrifuge
40
This study (L&P)
50
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
Offset from tunnal centreline (m)
(a) ε 0 = 0.5% and ε 0 = 1.0%

-10
Pipeline settlement (mm)

10

20

30 Centrifuge
40 this study (L&P)
this study (revised) ε0=2.5%
50
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
Offset from tunnal centreline (m)
(b) ε 0 = 2.5%

-10
Pipeline settlement (mm)

10

20

30
Centrifuge
40 This study (L&P)
ε0=5.0%
This study (revised)
50
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
Offset from tunnal centreline (m)
(c) ε 0 = 5.0%

Fig. 10. Comparison of calculated and measured rigid pipeline displacement for centrifuge test.

for the jointed pipeline in the case of Lj/i = 2 and Lj/i = 4, which is
not shown here due to the limited space.
Based on the conclusions above, we present a preliminary para-
metric study to interpret the effects of soil layers on pipeline
behaviour due to tunnelling. Fig. 7 illustrates the three-layered
sandwich soil model assumed here with a weak or strong inter-
layer where a pipeline is buried, explaining the geometric configu-
ration used for the parametric study of the influence of soil layers
on the behaviour of the pipeline. The elastic modulus of the upper
and bottom soil layer is Es1 and that of the intermediate soil layer is
Es2. The pipeline with diameter 2r0 is buried in the middle soil layer
with thickness hm = 2r0 + 2ar0, which demands that in the middle
soil layer, the pipeline is overlain and underlain with soil of the
same thickness, ar0. The Gaussian distribution curve is adopted
to calculate the tunnel-induced free soil movement with i/r0 = 5
for a continuous pipeline and with i/r0 = 10 for a jointed pipeline.
The embedment depth of the pipeline is 7r0. The depth ratio
hm/r0 is set at 4, and the assumed Poisson’s ration of the soil is
0.25. To illustrate the effects of soil stratification, the computed
bending moment distribution along a continuous pipeline is shown
in Fig. 8a for the case of EI=Es2 r40 ¼ 1000; the bending moment dis-
tribution along a jointed pipeline is shown in Fig. 8b for the cases of
EI=Es2 r40 ¼ 10; 000, T = 0.5, and Lj/i = 1. The soil and pipeline prefer-
ences used in this parametric study, with the exception of hm/r0,
accord with those used in Klar’s case. The soil elastic modulus ra-
tios, Es1/Es2, are set at 1:10, 1:3, 1:1, 3:1, and 10:1, shifting the soil
configuration from strong interlayer to weak interlayer. Fig. 8
shows that as the ratio Es1/Es2 increases, the maximum normalised
sagging and hogging bending moments increase. Compared to the
results for homogeneous soil with Es1/Es2 as 1:1 (Klar’s solution), in
the three-layered sandwich soil system considered here, the calcu-
lated bending moments for the continuous pipeline corresponding
to Es1/Es2 as 1:10, 1:3, 3:1, and 10:1 are 51%, 75%, 119%, and 130%,
respectively, of the moments in homogeneous soil; for the jointed
 C. Zhang et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 43 (2012) 12–25 19

Pipeline settlement (mm)

0

10 ε0=0.5%
20 ε0=1.0%

30

40
Centrifuge
50 This study (L&P)
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
Offset from tunnel centreline (m)
(a) ε 0 = 0.5% and ε 0 = 1.0%
Pipeline settlement (mm)

10

20

30
Centrifuge
40
This study (L&P)
50 This study (revised) ε 0=2.5%

-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30

Offset from tunnel centreline (m)
(b) ε 0 = 2.5%
Pipeline settlement (mm)

10

20

30
Centrifuge
40
This study (L&P)
50 This study (revised) ε0=5.0%
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
Offset from tunnel centreline (m)
(c) ε 0 = 5.0%
Fig. 11. Comparison of calculated and measured flexible pipeline displacement for centrifuge test.

pipeline, the moments are 48%, 75%, 119% and 129%, respectively.
If a strong interlayer soil is treated as homogeneous with soil stiff-
ness at the pipeline embedment depth, the pipeline’s responses
will be overestimated; in the case of weak interlayer soil, the re-
sponses will be underestimated. A detailed comparison of the
behaviour of continuous pipelines relating to pipe–soil rigidity fac-
tor EI=Es2 r 40 and that of jointed pipelines relating to the joint stiff-
ness ratio T in layered soil for the sandwich soil model with
different (hm/r0) will be presented later in the Section 4 parametric
study.
3.2. Comparison with centrifuge model test
Marshall et al. [9] conducted a series of centrifuge model tests
on the effects of tunnelling on the behaviour of nearby pipelines.
All tests were carried out at an acceleration level of 75 g. The soil
used is Leighton Buzzard Fraction E dry silica sand, which is treated
as homogeneous soil. The same soil sample with a similar prepara-
tion was used by Vorster et al. [16] in the centrifuge model test
back-analysed by Zhang et al. [17]; Zhang et al. provide the advised
soil property values as an elastic modulus of 19.52 MPa and a Pos-
sion’s ration of 0.4. Three different continuous pipelines whose
longitudinal pipeline bending stiffness varied over two orders of
magnitude were used: a rigid pipeline with 2.56  1010 Nm2, an
intermediate pipeline with 7.54  109 Nm2, and a flexible pipeline
with 2.04  109 Nm2. The tunnel volume losses applied in the tests
controlled by a motor-driven actuator are 0.5%, 1%, 2.5%, and 5%,
corresponding to the lower, upper, high and extremely high ranges
of typical volume loss. Fig. 9 shows the free soil movement mea-
sured in the centrifuge tests and that predicted by Loganathan
and Poulos [12]. The comparisons of pipeline displacement calcu-
lated by the proposed solutions and those measured for the rigid
20 C. Zhang et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 43 (2012) 12–25

and the proposed elastic solution overestimates the real behaviour

Refilled soil 1.46 of the pipeline. The results for the rigid pipeline deviate from the
Silty clay 1.26
Pipeline true behaviour more seriously than the results for the flexible pipe-
Sandy clay 2.22

0.9
line. The reasons for this larger deviation may include two factors:
Mucky silty clay 2.55 the estimation of green field soil movement and the behaviour of

15.38
the soil–pipe interaction. For small volume losses of 0.5% or 1%,

2
the Loganathan and Poulos [12] formula of calculating the tun-

6.
Mucky clay 7.63
nel-induced free soil displacement offers a good estimation in
comparison with the measured estimations. For larger volume
losses of 2.5% or 5%, the calculated soil movement is larger than
the measured movement; the differences increase as volume loss
Silty clay 7.37 increases. Revising the formula for large tunnel volume loss pro-
Tunnelling posed by Loganathan and Poulos [12] by inputting the elastic solu-
tion with the green displacement data from centrifuge tests results
Silty clay in a much smaller difference between the measured and calculated
movement, especially for the flexible pipeline. Although it is
Fig. 12. Schematic representation of soil stratification and the pipeline for Case 1. greatly improved, the difference between the pipeline displace-
ment of the rigid pipeline and the flexible pipeline at a volume loss
of 5% cannot be dismissed. This effect may be ascribed to the stiff-
Table 1
ness degradation of the soil, the nonelastic soil behaviour and the
Site geotechnical characteristics.
complexity of the soil-pile interaction. With increasing tunnel loss,
Soil layer Thickness (m) Possion’s ratio Elastic modulus (Mpa) tunnel-induced soil movement will degrade the soil stiffness due
Refilled soil 1.46 0.3 7.89 to the corresponding shear strain, and the soil behaviour will devi-
Silty clay 1.26 7.89 ate from the elastic state, which can be treated as either nonlinear
Sandy clay 2.22 12.78
or elastic–plastic. Furthermore, the large relative displacement be-
Mucky silty caly 2.55 5.71
Mucky clay 7.63 3.16
tween the soil and the pipeline will induce slippage at the inter-
Silty clay 7.37 10.11 face; the soil will no longer be able to supply resistance. For the
Silty clay 4.2 20.30 rigid pipeline, the larger relative displacement at the pipe–soil
interface relates to the large difference between calculated and
measured curves in the tests. All of the factors discussed above
are beyond the scope of this paper, which focuses on elastic solu-
tions. Because tunnel volume loss is controlled within a small
f
b

range to reduce the extent of soil disturbance for a typical tunnel

construction, the proposed method provides satisfactory results
in typical cases. Of course, the problems accompanying large tun-
¦Õ

nel volume loss should also be analysed, which is a potential topic

c
e
a

d of future research.

3.3. Case study 1

b

There are a limited number of published case studies describing

Fig. 13. Schematic plot of the joint configuration.
and flexible pipelines are shown in Figs. 10 and 11. The comparison
of pipeline shows that in the case of volume losses of 0.5% and 1%,
the two displacement curves compare well with each other. The
discrepancy between the calculated and the measured displace-
ments increases with increasing tunnel volumes of 2.5% and 5%,
Pipeline settlement (mm)
pipelines’ responses to tunnelling construction in which sufficient
data are supplied about the tunnel and the pipeline to enable a
comparison between measured and predicted behaviours. Two
case studies are described below that provide detailed information
on soil stratigraphy, tunnel construction and the measurements of
the deflected pipeline.
The first case involves the construction of the subway tunnel
Line 1 in the city of Hangzhou, China, which facilitates important

-2

Measured
6
Calculated
8
-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
Offset from tunnel centreline (m)
Fig. 14. Comparison between calculated and measured values.
 C. Zhang et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 43 (2012) 12–25 21

8.7

14.5
Silty clay 16.60

3
6
Pipeline

Completely-weathered
granite 1.82
Highly-weathered Tunnelling
granite 3.98
Medium-weathered
3.95
granite

Fig. 15. Schematic representation of soil stratification and the pipeline for Case 2.

Table 2
Site geotechnical characteristics.

Soil layer Thickness (m) Possion’s ratio Elastic modulus (Mpa)

Silty clay 16.60 0.30 8.2
Granite Completely- weathered 1.82 0.20 25.0
Highly-weathered 3.98 0.21 52.9
Medium-weathered 3.95 0.20 150.0

0
Surface settlement (mm)

6
Calculated
8 Measured
10 above pipeline (point DL)
3 meters away from DL
12
50 meters away from DL
14
-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
Offset from tunnel cenerline (m)
Fig. 16. Ground surface settlement induced by tunnelling.
Pipeline displacement (mm)

6 Calculated
Measured (east point)
8
Measured (west point)
10
-75 -60 -45 -30 -15 0 15 30 45 60 75
Offset from tunnel centerline (m)

Fig. 17. Comparison between calculated and measured values.

traffic between the central business district and certain sub-busi- tunnelling shields with rings of expanded precast concrete seg-
ness centres in that city [18]. The tunnel (15.38 m in embedment ments providing the permanent lining. During the construction
depth and 6.2 m in diameter) was designed using open-face process, the tunnel volume loss was controlled to less than 0.5%.
22 C. Zhang et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 43 (2012) 12–25

1.0
hm/r0=4
0.8

Mmaxi2/EISmax
0.6
Es1/Es2=1/10

0.4
Es1/Es2=1/3
Es1/Es2=1 (Klar et al,2005)
0.2 Es1/Es2=3
Es1/Es2=10
0.0
1 10 100 1000 10000
4
EI/Es2 r 0

Fig. 18. Normalised maximum sagging moment of continuous pipeline.

1.0
hm/r0=4
0.8
θmaxi/Smax

0.6
Es1/Es2=1/10
0.4 Es1/Es2=1/3
Es1/Es2=1(Klar et al,2008)
0.2
Es1/Es2=3
0.0 Es1/Es2=10

1E-3 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

T

Fig. 19. Normalised maximum joint rotation of jointed pipeline.

A gas pipeline buried 0.9 m below the soil surface was monitored
during tunnel construction. It is nearly perpendicular to the direc-
tion of the tunnel, at an angle of 88° between the two axes.
The schematic diagram of the simplified soil profile with the
tunnel and pipeline configuration is shown in Fig. 12, and typical
soil layers for the Yangtze river delta and their corresponding soil
properties are shown in Table 1. As no details about the soil prop-
erties are provided in this reference, the data in Table 1 are based
on a reported ground investigation for another building program
near the project site. The gas pipeline is composed of nodular cast
iron jointed with flexible rubber push-on joints, the rotation stiff-
ness of which has been determined based on the equation by Sing-
hai [19] as follows:
4puE1 f 3
k¼
9ðe  cÞ
in which E1 is the equivalent elastic modulus of rubber at 255 MPa,
and the other variables are the corresponding geometrical parame-
ters for the joint configuration shown in Fig. 13. Based on the industry
standard GB + 13295 [20], they are determined to be the following:
/ ¼ 0:326m
f ¼ 0:05m
e  c ¼ 0:028m
Thus, the rotational stiffness of the jointed gas pipeline is obtained:
4puE1 f 3 4  p  0:326  255000  0:053
k¼ ¼ ¼ 518 KN=rad
9ðe  cÞ 9  0:028
The outer diameter of the pipeline’s section is 0.326 m with a
thickness of 8 mm, and the elastic modulus of the nodular cast iron
is 1.52  107 Nm2. Because of the limited available data, this
segment of the pipeline will be treated as 5 m, which is the com-
mon length for a ductile iron gas pipeline. Fig. 14 shows the calcu-
lated displacement of the pipeline and the measured curves along
the pipe’s longitudinal axis. It appears that the proposed method
overestimates the pipeline’s deflection and gives a conservative
solution compared to the observed deflection, but the calculated
maximum displacement just above the tunnel agrees well with
the measured displacement. The hogging phenomenon of the pipe-
line at the location of 15 m observed from the measured curve is
not obvious in the calculated curve, perhaps due to a discrepancy
from the assumed measurement of the pipeline segment of 5 m.
3.4. Case study 2
ð22Þ
This case involved a 6 m diameter shield-driven tunnel running
14.5 m deep in soft clay, which is part of the subway tunnel link
from Yitian Station to Xiangmihu Station in the town of Shenzhen,
China [21]. During the tunnelling construction, the volume loss
was controlled at 0.77%. A cable pipeline 3 m in diameter and
12 cm thick exists perpendicular to and above the tunnel, buried
8.7 m below the soil surface. Its bending stiffness is
2.82  1010 Nm2. The soil consists of soft clay underlain by rock,
as shown in Fig. 15 along with the illustrated tunnel and pipeline.
Detailed soil properties from the reported ground investigation are
listed in Table 2. Three points along the longitudinal axis of the
tunnel are disposed to observe the surface settlement of the soil
trough. One (Point DL) is on the soil surface just above the interac-
tion point of the tunnel and pipeline, and the other two points are
3 m and 50 m from the first point along the tunnel axis. As the
diameter of the pipeline is large, two separate series of points are
marked on the east and west walls of the pipe to measure the dis-
placement of the pipeline during tunnel construction.
 C. Zhang et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 43 (2012) 12–25 23

2.0
hm/r0=4
1.5

Mmax /Mmax
h
1.0
Es1/Es2=1/10
n Es1/Es2=1/3
0.5
Es1/Es2=3
Es1/Es2=10
0.0
1 10 100 1000 10000

EI/Es2r4

2.0
hm/r0=8
1.5
Mmax /Mmax
h

1.0
Es1/Es2=1/10
n

Es1/Es2=1/3
0.5
Es1/Es2=3
Es1/Es2=10
0.0
1 10 100 1000 10000
4
EI/Es2r

2.0
hm/r0=12
1.5
Mmax /Mmax
h

1.0
Es1/Es2=1/10
n

Es1/Es2=1/3
0.5
Es1/Es2=3
Es1/Es2=10
0.0
1 10 100 1000 10000

EI/Es2r4

Fig. 20. Maximum sagging bending moment of continuous pipeline.

Fig. 16 shows a comparison of calculated and measured surface
soil settlement due to tunnel construction. It is clear that the exis-
tence of the pipeline reduced the degree of induced soil deflection
and widened the extent of the soil settlement trough caused by
soil–pipeline interaction because the DL point above the pipeline
shows the smallest surface soil settlement and the point 3 m away
demonstrates a larger vertical soil displacement. The point 50 m
away shows no reaction to the existence of the pipeline; its ob-
served soil settlement is in good agreement with the free soil dis-
placement calculated based on Loganathan and Polous’ [12]
equation. A comparison of the calculated and observed pipeline
displacements along the pipeline, which are in good agreement
with one another, is shown in Fig. 17. This figure shows that the
calculated sagging of the pipeline displacement is deeper than
measured and that the calculated maximum displacement of the
pipeline is larger, which offers a conservative estimate of the pipe-
line’s response when subjected to tunnel excavation.
4. Parametric study
In comparison with the existing elastic solutions, centrifuge
model test and case histories described above, the validity of the
proposed method for analysis of the responses of continuous or
jointed pipelines subjected to tunnel-induced soil movements in
layered soil is proven. Some studies about such routine parameters
as tunnel-induced soil movement and the soil and pipeline charac-
teristics of homogeneous soil have been published previously;
therefore, this study attempts to investigate only the influence of
soil stratification on the pipeline’s behaviour. As previously men-
tioned, this section will provide a further parametric study of the
behaviour of continuous pipelines relating to the pipe–soil rigidity
factor, EI=Es2 r40 , and that of the jointed pipelines relating to joint
stiffness ratio T in layered soil for the sandwich soil model with dif-
ferent (hm/r0).
The range of the parameters of the previously introduced three-
layered sandwich soil model are set as 10, 3, 1, 1/3, and 1/10 for the
non-homogeneous ratio Es1/Es2 and 4, 8, and 12 for the depth ratio
hm/r0. Beyond the exceptions mentioned here, the other parame-
ters are the same as those in the former preliminary parametric
study. For the continuous pipeline, the induced stress is more
important for maintaining serviceability of the pipeline, while
engineers pay more attention to the joint rotation for the jointed
pipeline. To enable a direct comparison corresponding to different
parameters, the computed bending moment of continuous pipeline
24 C. Zhang et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 43 (2012) 12–25

2.0
hm /r0=4

1.5

θ max / θ max
h
1.0

Es1/Es2=1/10
n

0.5 Es1/Es2=1/3
Es1/Es2=3
Es1/Es2=10
0.0
1E-3 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
T
2.0
hm /r0=8
1.5
θ max / θ max
h

1.0
Es1/Es2=1/10
n

Es1/Es2=1/3
0.5
Es1/Es2=3
Es1/Es2=10
0.0
1E-3 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
T

2.0
hm /r0=12
1.5
θ max / θ max
h

1.0
Es1/Es2=1/10
n

Es1/Es2=1/3
0.5
Es1/Es2=3
Es1/Es2=10
0.0
1E-3 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
T
Fig. 21. Maximum joint rotation of jointed pipeline.

and the computed joint rotation of jointed pipeline are normalised
in the parametric analysis. Fig. 18 shows the computed normalised
maximum sagging, bending moments for different non-homoge-
neous soil ratios in relation to the pipe–soil rigidity factor
EI=Es2 r40 . The normalised bending moment is defined as Mi2/EISmax.
Fig. 19 shows the computed normalised maximum joint rotation
for different non-homogeneous soil ratios in relation to the joint
stiffness ratio T; the normalised joint rotation is defined as hi/Smax.
This effect is shown only for hm/r0 = 4; however, similar behaviour
was observed for other hm/r0 values. Fig. 18 shows that the norma-
lised bending moments of a continuous pipeline with different
non-homogeneous soil ratios tend closer to each other when the
rigidity factor, EI=Es2 r 40 , runs to the two limits. For the jointed pipe-
line in Fig. 19, it also shows that the normalised maximum joint
rotation curves appear close to each other with different non-
homogeneous soil ratios for the two limits of joint stiffness ratio
T. These findings indicate that the influence of soil stratification
on the pipeline is relatively small for continuous pipelines with a
too-low or too-high relative pipe–soil stiffness ratio and the
jointed pipelines with a too-low or too-high relative joint stiffness
ratio. For a typical pipeline with parameters in the middle range of
the horizontal axes, applying different Es1/Es2 results in a signifi-
cant difference in the bending moment of continuous pipeline
and the joint rotation of jointed pipeline. The effect of soil layers
on pipeline behaviour cannot be dismissed. Calculating the pipe-
line’s behaviour with the soil stiffness at the pipeline embedment
depth (homogeneous soil) results in a conservative estimation for a
strong interlayer soil model and a lower result for a weak inter-
layer soil model. Fig. 20 shows the magnitude of the calculated
maximum sagging bending moments, M nmax , of the continuous
pipeline for different Es1/Es2 ratios relative to that of the results
in homogeneous soil, Mhmax for Es1/Es2 = 1. Fig. 21 shows the magni-
tude of the calculated maximum joint rotation, hnmax , of a jointed
pipeline for different Es1/Es2 ratios relative to that of results in
homogeneous soil, hhmax , for Es1/Es2 = 1. The depth ratios of hm/r0
equal 4, 8 and 12. From Figs. 20 and 21, the ratios of M nmax =M hmax
and hnmax =hhmax increase with increasing non-homogeneous soil ratio
Es1/Es2 and become more serious with increased EI=Es2 r 40 or T. The
differences in the ratios M nmax =M hmax and hnmax =hhmax are largely
dependent on the thickness of the intermediate soil. For the thicker
intermediate soil, the relative difference is smaller, and for thinner
intermediate soil, it is larger. This analysis demonstrates that the
 C. Zhang et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 43 (2012) 12–25
influence of soil stratification on the behaviour of the pipeline is
smaller for the pipeline buried in a thicker soil layer than for the
pipeline buried in a thinner soil layer.
5. Conclusion
This paper suggests a continuous elastic method of evaluating
adjacent tunnelling effects on existing pipelines in multi-layered
soils. Fundamental solutions for multi-layered soils are obtained
by applying the Hankel transform and transfer matrix technique
based on the elastic layered half-space soil model. The physical
behaviour of jointed pipelines is also considered through mathe-
matical transformation in the finite difference method.
An analytical equation developed by Loganathan and Poulos
[12] offers a reasonable prediction of tunnel-induced soil move-
ment for actual cases with a limited range of tunnel volume loss.
In comparison with the published elastic solutions, centrifuge tests
and case studies, the method presented in this paper has proven
useful in solving this problem for both homogeneous and non-
homogeneous soils. In layered soils in which the differences of
elastic parameters among successive layers are large, treating the
soil as homogeneous with soil stiffness at the pipeline embedment
depth can result in significant error. The parametric analysis of
pipeline behaviour in the sandwich soil model shows that soil
non-homogeneity has significant effects on pipeline deformation.
A procedure simplifying the sandwich soil model as homogeneous
soil will overestimate the pipeline’s response in a strong interlayer
soil model and underestimate the pipeline’s response in a weak
interlayer soil model. The error decreases with increasing soil
thickness in the area in which the pipeline is buried.
It should also be noted that the suggested method does not con-
sider the nonlinearity resulting from existing pipeline-soil interac-
tions. Advanced mechanisms that contribute to nonlinear soil
behaviour should be included in the analysis, such as relative uplift
failure and gapping between the existing tunnel and soils. There-
fore, further research on this subject is required in order to more
reasonably simulate existing tunnel deformation behaviour caused
by adjacent tunnelling.
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge the financial support of the National
Science Fund for Distinguished Young Scholars of China through
Grant No. 50825803, as well as that of the Kwang-Hua Fund of
the College of Civil Engineering, Tongji University.
25
References
[1] Attewell PB, Yeates J, Selby AR. Soil movements induced by tunneling and their
effects on pipelines and structures. London: Blackie & Son; 1986.
[2] Klar A, Vorster TEB, Soga K, Mair RJ. Soil–pipe interaction due to tunnelling:
comparison between Winkler and elastic continuum solutions. Géotechnique
2005;55(6):461–6.
[3] Mindlin RD. Forces at a point in the interior of a semi-infinite solid. Physics
1936;7:195–202.
[4] Vesic AB. Bending of beams resting on isotropic elastic solid. J Eng Mech Div
ASCE 1961;87:35–53.
[5] Vorster TEB, Klar A, Soga K, Mair RJ. Estimating the effects of tunneling on
existing pipelines. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 2005;131(11):1399–410.
[6] Klar A, Vorster TEB, Soga K, Mair RJ. Elastoplastic solution for soil–pipe–tunnel
interaction. J Geotechn Geoenviron Eng ASCE 2007;133(7):782–92.
[7] Klar A, Marshall AM, Soga K, Mair RJ. Tunneling effects on jointed pipelines.
Can Geotech J 2008;45:131–9.
[8] Klar A, Marshall AM. Shell versus beam representation of pipes in the
evaluation of tunneling effects on pipelines. Tunn Undergr Space Technol
2008;23:431–7.
[9] Marshall AM, Klar A, Mair RJ. Tunneling beneath buried pipes: view of soil
strain and its effect on pipeline behavior. J Geotechn Geoenviron Eng ASCE
2010;136(12):1664–72.
[10] Huang M, Mu L. Vertical response of pile raft foundations subjected to
tunneling-induced ground movements in layered soil. Int J Numer Anal
Methods Geomech 2011. doi:10.1002/nag.1035.
[11] Peck RB. Deep excavations and tunnelling in soft ground. In: Proceedings of the
7th international conference on SMFE. Mexico, City; 1969. p. 225–90.
[12] Loganathan N, Poulos HG. Analytical prediction for tunneling-induced ground
movements in clays. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 1998;124(9):846–56.
[13] Zhang Z, Huang M, Zhang M. Theoretical prediction of ground movements
induced by tunneling in multi-layered soils. Tunn Undergr Space Technol
2011;26:345–55.
[14] Burmister, DM. The general theory of stresses and displacements in layered
soil systems (I, II, III). J Appl Phy 1945;6(2):89–96 [6(3):126–127; 6(5):296–
302].
[15] Ai ZY, Yue ZQ, Tham LG, Yang M. Extended Sneddon and Muki solutions for
multilayered elastic materials. Int J Eng Sci 2002;40:1453–83.
[16] Vorster TEB, Mair RJ, Soga K, Klar A. Centrifuge modelling of the effect of
tunnelling on buried pipelines: mechanisms observed. In: Proceedings of the
5th international symposium on geotechnical aspects of underground
construction in soft ground. Amsterdam, Netherlands; 2005.
[17] Zhang Z, Huang M, Wang W. Analysis on response of existing tunnels due to
adjacent tunneling in multi-layered soils. Chin J Geotech Eng
2009;31(4):600–8.
[18] Sun Y, Wu W, Zhang T. Analysis on the pipeline settlement in soft ground
induced by shield tunneling across buried pipeline. China Rail Sci
2009;30(1):80–5.
[19] Singhai AC. Behavior of jointed ductile iron pipelines. J Transport Eng ASCE
1984;110(2):235–50.
[20] GB13295. Ductile iron pipes, fittings and accessories for water or gas
applications. General administration of quality supervision, inspection and
quarantine of the People’s Republic of China (AQSIQ); 2003.
[21] Ma T. The research of tunneling-induced ground surface movements and their
influence to adjacent utilities. M.eng Thesis, school of civile engineering and
architecture. Changsha University of Science & Technology, China; 2005.