Finite Element Analysis of Ground Movements and Geotechnical Capacity Loss Induced Due to Shield Tunnels

  • Animesh SharmaEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering book series (LNCE, volume 29)


Due to an exponential increase in urbanization, there is a growing need for a systematic mass transportation system in developed and developing countries. A reasonable solution is underground transportation system like tunnels. An inevitable aspect of the construction of underground tunnel in urban locale is the ground movements associated with it. With that under consideration, the current study encases the assessment of settlements induced due to bored tunnels using finite element method. Current study undertakes a detailed analysis of the parameters affecting the ground movements and also investigates the geotechnical capacity loss associated with it. The observed results from finite element analysis are then compared with the conventional theoretical results. Based on observed trends, geotechnical parametric factors are proposed considering which a more precise range of settlements can be obtained. The study investigates the phenomenon of the associated geotechnical loss induced due to bored tunnels by simulating twin bored tunnels, i.e. two tunnels in close proximity, with one passing first, followed by the second bored tunnel. The results suggested that there was a considerable reduction in geotechnical capacity loss generated due to associated ground movements. The study concludes that upon accounting the geotechnical factors and loss associated, a more precise assessment of the ground movements can be arrived at and hence an even precise assessment of the impact upon the structures in proximity.


Urban tunnels Ground movements Geotechnical loss Settlements PLAXIS Finite element analysis 


  1. Atkinson JH, Potts DM (1979) Subsidence above shallow tunnels in soft ground. J Geotech Engin, Am Socie Civil Engin GT4:307–325Google Scholar
  2. Attewell PB, Yeates J (1984) Tunnelling in soil. In: Attewell PB, Taylor RK (eds) Ground movements and their effects on structures, Surrey University Press, London, pp 132–215Google Scholar
  3. Attewell PB, Yeates J, Selby AR (1986) Soil movements induced by tunnelling and their effects on pipelines and structures. Blackies and Sons Ltd, LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. Boscardin MD and Cording EJ (1989) Building response to excavation-induced settlement. ASCE, J Geotech Eng 115(1):1–21Google Scholar
  5. Burland JB (1995) Assessment of risk of damage to buildings due to tunnelling and excavations. In: Invited Special Lecture to IS-Tokyo’95: 1st international conference on Earthquake Geotechnical EngineeringGoogle Scholar
  6. Burland JB, Broms BB, de Mello VF (1977) Behaviour of foundations and structures. In: 9th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. Tokyo, State-of-the-Art Report, pp 495–546Google Scholar
  7. Cording EJ, Hansmire WH (1975) Displacements around soft ground tunnels—General Report. In: 5th Pan American Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Buenos Aires, Session IV, pp 571–632. French translation by J. Ke´risel, Les de´placements autour des tunnels en terrain tendre (1977, AFTES-TOS, no. 8 et 12)Google Scholar
  8. El Houari, N (2011) Numerical simulation of the mechanical response of the tunnels in the saturated soils by Plaxis Jordan. J Civ Eng 5(1):9–31Google Scholar
  9. FHWA Technical Manual for Design and Construction of Road Tunnels—Civil Elements Publication No. FHWA-NHI-10-034Google Scholar
  10. Hunt DVL (2005) Predicting the ground movements above twin tunnels constructed in London Clay. Ph.D. Thesis—University of Birmingham. Birmingham, 302Google Scholar
  11. ITA/AITES Report (2006) On Settlement induced by tunnelling in Soft Ground. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 22(2007):119–149Google Scholar
  12. Laver R (2011) Long-term behaviour of twin tunnels in London Clay. Ph.D. Thesis by Richard Laver. University of CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  13. Loganathan N, Poulos HG (1998) Analytical predictions of tunnelling induced ground movements. Geotech Engin J, Am Socie Civil Engin 124(9)Google Scholar
  14. Mair RJ, Taylor RN, Burland JB (1996) Prediction of ground movements and assessment of building damage due to bored tunnelling. In: Mair RJ, Taylor RN (eds) International Symposium on Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground, Balkema, pp 713–718Google Scholar
  15. Mair R, Taylor R and Bracegirdle A (1993) Sub-surface settlement profiles above tunnels in clay. Geotechnique 43(2):315–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Molina Rodriquez M (2014) Twin tunnels and asymmetrical settlement troughs in soft soils. Proceedings of the world tunnel congress 2014—tunnels for a better Life. Foz do Iguaçu, BrazilGoogle Scholar
  17. O’Reilly MP and New BM (1982) Settlements above tunnels in the United Kingdom—their magnitude and prediction. In: Proceedings of Tunnelling ’82. IMM, LondonGoogle Scholar
  18. Peck RB (1969) Deep excavations and tunnelling in soft ground, Proc. 7th Int. Conf. On Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Mexico City, State-of-the-Art Volume, pp 225–290Google Scholar
  19. Peck RB (1969) Advantages and limitations of the observational method in applied soil mechanics. Geotechnique 19(2):171–187. ICE, LondonGoogle Scholar
  20. Sagaseta C (1987) Evaluation of surface movements above tunnels: a new approach. Colloque ENPC Interaction Sols-Structures, Paris, pp 445–452Google Scholar
  21. Schmidt B (1989) Consolidation settlements due to soft ground tunnelling. In: 12th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Rio, pp 797–800Google Scholar
  22. Verruijt A, Booker JR (1996) Surface settlements due to deformation of a tunnel in an elastic half plane. Geotech 46(4):753–756CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Geotechnical Engineer, Afcons Infrastructure LtdKolkataIndia

Personalised recommendations