Advertisement

Geotechnical and Geological Engineering

, Volume 32, Issue 1, pp 43–58 | Cite as

2D Tunnel Numerical Investigation: The Influence of the Simplified Excavation Method on Tunnel Behaviour

  • Ngoc-Anh Do
  • Daniel Dias
  • Pierpaolo Oreste
  • Irini Djeran-Maigre
Original paper

Abstract

Tunnel excavation is a three-dimensional (3D) problem. However, despite recent advances in computing resources, 3D models are still computationally inefficient and two-dimensional (2D) simulations are therefore often used. Modelling the tunnelling process in a 2D plane strain analysis requires a specific approach that allows a 3D tunnelling effect to be taken into consideration. As far as the urban tunnels are concerned, most cases reported in the literature have focused on estimating the applicability of these equivalent approaches that are based on the evaluation of the settlement that develops on the ground surface, without considering the influence of segment joints. The main objective of this study was to provide a 2D numerical investigation to highlight the influence of two equivalent approaches, that is, the convergence-confinement method (CCM) and the volume loss method (VLM), on the behaviour of a tunnel built in an urban area, in terms of not only the surface settlement but also the structural lining forces, taking into account the effect of segment joints. A technique that can be used to simulate the tunnel wall displacement process, based on the principles of the VLM, has been developed using the FLAC3D finite difference program (Itasca in FLAC fast Lagrangian analysis of continua, version 4.0; User’s manual, http.itascacg.com, 2009). A comparison with 3D numerical results has been introduced to estimate the precision of these 2D equivalent approaches. The results have shown a significant influence of the tunnel boundary deconfinement technique and segment joints on the tunnel lining behaviour and surface settlements. The structural forces obtained by means of the CCM are often smaller than those determined with the VLM for the same surface settlement. Generally, the structural lining forces determined by the CCM are in better agreement with the 3D numerical results than the ones obtained with the VLM. However, in order to obtain an accurate estimation of the structural forces, the impact of the construction loads during tunnelling should be taken into account.

Keywords

Two-dimensional model Convergence-confinement method Volume loss method Segmental lining Structural forces Settlement 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Mrs. Marguerite Jones from Politecnico of Torino for her contribution to the paper.

References

  1. Addenbrooke TI, Potts DM, Puzrin AM (1997) The influence of pre-failure soil stiffness on the numerical analysis of tunnel construction. Geotechnique 47(3):693–712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Benmebarek S, Kastner R, Ollier C (1998) Auscultation et modélisation numérique du processus de creusement à l’aide d’un tunnelier. Geotechnique 48(6):801–818CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bernat S (1996), Modélisation des déformations induites par le creusement d’un tunnel—Application au métro de Lyon-Vaise, Ph.D. dissertation, Ecole Centrale de LyonGoogle Scholar
  4. Bezuijen A, Talmon AM (2004) Grout pressures around a tunnel lining, influence of grout consolidation and loading on lining. In: proceedings of world tunnel congress and 13th ITA Assembly, Singapore, 22–27Google Scholar
  5. Bilotta E, Russo G (2013) Internal forces arising in the segmental lining of an EPB bored tunnel. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000906
  6. Cavalaro SHP, Aguado A (2011) Packer behaviour under simple and coupled stresses. Tunnel Undergr Space Technol 28:159–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Croce A (2011) Analisi dati di monitoraggio del rivestimento della galleria del passante ferroviario di Bologna. Degree dissertation. Polytechnics of Torino, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  8. De Borst R, Van den Broek WLAH, Groen AE (1996) Two and three dimensional numerical modelling of a guided pipe-jacking in soft soil, geotechnical aspects of underground construction in soft ground, London, April 1996. Balkema, RotterdamGoogle Scholar
  9. Dias D, Kastner R (2012) Movements caused by the excavation of tunnels using face pressurized shields—Analysis of monitoring and numerical modelling results. Eng Geol 152(2013):17–25Google Scholar
  10. Dias D, Kastner R, Maghazi M (2000) Three dimensional simulation of slurry shield tunnelling. In: Kusakabe O, Fujita K, Miyazaki Y (eds) Geotechnical aspects of underground construction in soft ground. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 351–356Google Scholar
  11. Do NA, Dias D, Oreste PP, Djeran-Maigre I (2012) Numerical investigation of surface settlement above a tunnel: influence of segmental joints and deformability of ground. In: proceeding of 2nd international conference on advances in mining and tunnelling, Vietnam. ISBN: 978-604-913-081-6, 251-258Google Scholar
  12. Do NA, Dias D, Oreste PP, Djeran-Maigre I (2013) 2D numerical investigation of segmental tunnel lining behavior. Tunnel Undergr Space Technol 37:115–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Franzius JN, Potts DM, Burland JB (2005) The influence of soil anisotropy and K0 on ground surface movements resulting from tunnel excavation. Geotechnique 55(3):189–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hefny AM, Chua HC, Jhao J (2004) Parametric studies on the interaction between existing and new bored tunnels. Tunnel Undergr Space Technol 19:471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hejazi Y, Dias D, Kastner R (2008) Impact of constitutive models on the numerical analysis of underground constructions. Acta Geotech 3:251–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hordijk DA, Gijsbers FBJ (1996) Laboratoriumproeven Tunnelsegmenten, TNO-rapport 96-CON-R0708/03 (COB-K100-rapport K100-W-026), TNO BouwGoogle Scholar
  17. Itasca Consulting Group, Inc. (2009) FLAC fast Lagrangian analysis of continua, Version 4.0. User’s manual, http.itascacg.com
  18. Janin JP (2012) Tunnels en milieu urbain: Prévisions des tassements avec prise en compte des effets des pré-soutènements (renforcement du front de taille et voûte-parapluie), Ph.D. dissertation, N° d’ordre 2012ISAL0038, École doctorale MEGA de LyonGoogle Scholar
  19. Janin JP, Dias D, Kastner R, Emeriault F, Le Bissonnais H, Guillou A (2013) South Toulon tube: numerical back-analysis of in situ measurements. Plaxis Bull 33(2013):10–13Google Scholar
  20. Jenck O, Dias D (2003) Numerical analysis of the volume loss influence on building during tunnel excavation. Third Int, FLAC Symp.-FLAC and FLAC3D numerical modelling in geomechanics, Sudbury, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  21. Jenck O, Dias D (2004) Analyse tridimensionnelle en différences finies de l’interaction entre une structure en béton et le creusement d’un tunnel à faible profondeur. Geotechnique 54(8):519–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. JSCE (1996) Japanese standard for shield tunnelling, Tunnel Engineering Committee English Edition of the Japanese Standard for Tunneling, Subcommittee Japan Society of Civil Engineers, the third edition, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  23. Karakus M (2007) Appraising the methods accounting for 3D tunnelling effects in 2D plane strain FE analysis. Tunnel Undergr Space Technol 22:47–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Koelewijn AR, Verruijt A (2001) Simplified three-dimensional numerical modelling of shield tunnel advancement. Proc. XV Int. Conf. Soil Mech. And Geotech. Engng., Istanbul 27–31, August 2001, 1463–1466Google Scholar
  25. Melis M, Medina L, Rodriguez JM (2002) Prediction and analysis of subsidence induced by shield tunnelling in the Madrid Metro extension. Can Geotech J 39:1273–1287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Migliazza M, Chiorboli M, Giani GP (2009) Comparison of analytical method, 3D finite element model with experimental subsidence measurements resulting from the extension of the Milan underground. Comput Geotech 36:113–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Möller S (2006) Tunnel induced settlements and structural forces in linings. Ph.D. dissertation, Stuttgart UniversityGoogle Scholar
  28. Möller SC, Vermeer PA (2008) On numerical simulation of tunnel installation. Tunnel Undergr Space Technol 23:461–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mollon G (2010) Etude déterministe et probabiliste du comportement des tunnels, Ph.D. dissertation, INSA de Lyon. N° d’ordre 2010ISAL0110Google Scholar
  30. Mollon G, Dias D, Soubra AH (2012) Probabilistic analyses of tunnelling-induced ground movements. Acta Geotechnica doi: 10.1007/s11440-012-0182-7
  31. Mroueh H, Shahrour I (2008) A simplified 3D model for tunnel construction using tunnel boring machines. Tunnel Undergr Space Technol 23:38–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Muniz de Farias M, Júnior AHM, Pacheco de Assis A (2004) Displacement control in tunnels excavated by the NATM: 3-D numerical simulations. Tunnel Undergr Space Technol 19(3):283–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Negro A, Queiroz BIP (2000) Prediction and performance of soft ground tunnels. In: geotechnical aspects of underground construction in soft ground, 1999, Balkema, Tokyo, Japan, 409–418Google Scholar
  34. Panet M, Guenot A (1982) Analysis of convergence behind the face of a tunnel. In: proceedings of the international symposium, Tunnelling-82, 187–204Google Scholar
  35. Rijke QC (2006) Innovation of stress and damage reduction in bored tunnels during construction based on a shield equilibrium model, Ph.D. dissertation, Utrecht: Delft University of Technology and Holland RailconsultGoogle Scholar
  36. Rowe RK, Lo KY, Kack KJ (1983) A method of estimating surface settlement above shallow tunnels constructed in soft ground. Can Geotech J 20:11–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Simic D (2006) Building damage potential due to tunnel settlements, 4th International FLAC symposium on numerical modelling in geomechanics, 2006 Hart & Varona (eds.), 63–69Google Scholar
  38. Surarak C (2010) Geotechnical aspects of the Bangkok MRT blue line project, Ph.D. dissertation, Griffith UniversityGoogle Scholar
  39. Svoboda T, Masin D (2009) Comparison of displacement field predicted by 2D and 3D finite element modelling of shallow NATM tunnels in clays. Geotechnik 34:115–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Swoboda G (1979) Finite element analysis of the New Austrian Tunnelling Method (NATM), In: proceedings 3rd international conference Num Meth Geomech, Aachen, 2, 581Google Scholar
  41. Takano YH (2000) Guidelines for the design of shield tunnel lining. Tunnel Underg Space Technol 15(3):303–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Thienert C, Pulsfort M (2011) Segment design under consideration of the material used to fill the annular gap. Geomech Tunnel 4:665–679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Van Oorsouw RS (2010) Behavior of segment joints in immersed tunnels under seismic loading, Master thesis, Delft University of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  44. Vermeer PA, Brinkgreve R (1993) Plaxis version 5 manual. A.A Balkema, RotterdamGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ngoc-Anh Do
    • 1
    • 4
  • Daniel Dias
    • 2
  • Pierpaolo Oreste
    • 3
  • Irini Djeran-Maigre
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratory L.G.C.I.E., INSA of LyonUniversity of LyonVilleurbanneFrance
  2. 2.Grenoble Alpes University, LTHEGrenobleFrance
  3. 3.Department of L.E.G.E.Politecnico of TorinoTorinoItaly
  4. 4.Faculty of ConstructionHanoi University of Mining and GeologyHanoiVietnam

Personalised recommendations