Tunnels Part 2

Finite Element Modelling of
Tunnels and Tunnelling

Mahmoud Ali
Tunneling Alternative
1) Bored a) TBM (tunnel boring machine), b) Jacked, c)

Micro-tunneling (MTBM)
2) Cut-and-Cover
3) Immersed Tube
4) NATM a) The traditional New Austrian Tunneling Method,
b) The Cofferdam-Mining Method.
1) Bored a) TBM (tunnel boring machine)



1) Bored C) Micro-tunneling MTBM

1) Bored C) Micro-tunneling MTBM

2) Cut and cover Method

3) Immersed Tube Method

Non-circular tunnel shapes
1. Using shape designer* to create tunnel shape
2. D e c o m p o s e tunnel volume into surfaces
3. Assign Plate and interfaces features to tunnel surface
Methods of Modelling Tunneling in 2D
• 3D arching around unsupported tunnel heading carries vertical load Pg by

transferring them around unsupported cut stretch
• 2D analysis cannot model 3D arching effect - this is compensated by including
an artificial support pressure Ps (can be a pressure- or displacement-controlled
approach)
• Plaxis 2D provides
1. Lining Contraction Method
2. Stress Reduction Method
3. Applied Pressure Method (APM) (from Grout Pressure Method by Moller &
Vermeer, 2008)
Lining Contraction Method
• 1St Phase: Lining is wished-in-place, soil elements inside tunnel deactivated –

tunnel heaves
• 2nd Phase: Lining is stepwise contracted until prescribed contraction % – radial
displacement towards tunnel center
• Tend to give unrealistic results for ground surface settlement & horizontal
displacement
Stress Reduction Method ( β )
Applied Pressure Method (APM)
A. Based on Grout Pressure (Moller & Vermeer, 2008)

B. B. Applied Pressure Methods vs betamethod,
difference is the profile of internal support
pressure
FE Prediction of Greenfield Surface Settlement
1. Numerical analysis with simple constitutive model (LEPP) cannot

replicate measured greenfield (G/F) surface settlement curve
2. FE prediction improved by
1. Refining method of modelling tunnel excavation (TBM model)
2. Using advanced soil constitutive model
3. An exercise to investigate effects of these two factors
4. Case histories showed G/F surface settlement could be reasonably
fitted
FE Prediction of Greenfield Surface Settlement
Modelling of Tunneling in Hong Kong Soils
• Ground conditions: 3m Fill, 3m MD,

34m CDG & rock; GWT at surface.
•Tunnel 6m diameter with axis at 20
mbgl; 2700 nos of 15-noded
elements.
Modelling of Tunneling in Hong Kong Soils
Details For Analyses
1. FE series 1-Mohr Coulomb

(i) Lining Contraction Method (ii) Stress Reduction (β) Method (iii)
Applied Pressure Method -APM
2. FE Series 2-HS & HS-small
(i) Lining Contraction Method (ii) Stress Reduction (β) Method (iii)
Applied Pressure Method -APM • Compare greenfield surface
settlement curves with a ground loss ratio (VL) of 1%
Results for Mohr Coulomb Soil Analyses
Comparison of MC & HS-small Models
Comparison of MC & HS-small Models
Stress Reduction vs. Applied Pressure Methods
Stress Reduction vs. Applied Pressure Methods
TUNNELLING ADJACENT TO A BUILDING
SUPPORTED BY END-BEARING PILES
1. 3D analysis for detailed evaluation only
2. Give greater certainty on requirements
for protective measures
3. Saving in construction cost & time
justifies time spent on 3D analysis
4. 3D analysis has potential to add value to
tunnel design & construction process
Tunnel-pile-soil Interaction
1.A three-dimensional problem due to

1. progressive advance of tunnel face towards piles
2. movement of piles in 3D
3. oblique orientation of building relative to tunnel alignment
Tunnel-pile-soil Interaction
2. Tunnelling induced ground movements can cause

1. increase/decrease in pile axial force (negative/positive skin friction)
– relative pile/soil vertical displacement
2. increase in pile bending moment – curvature of pile horizontal
displacement
3. potential reduction in pile geotechnical capacity – reduction in soil
effective stresses
4. distortion of building, e.g. angular distortion & horizontal strain
Zones of Influence
For pile toe located in Zone

A: pile head settlement > soil surface settlement; decrease in pile axial
force Zone B: pile head settlement ≈ soil surface settlement Zone C:
pile head settlement < soil surface settlement; increase in pile axial
force
Zones of Influence
Analyses of Tunnel-pile Interaction
1.Typically use the combination of

1. empirical relationships/closed-form solutions to
estimate greenfield ground movements; and
2. boundary element methods to compute pile
deformations and stresses
Analyses of Tunnel-pile Interaction
1. Suitable for preliminary assessment, with some

limitations
2. Alternatively, use 3D numerical analysis Pros: model
tunnelling, tunnel-pile-building interaction &
geotechnical entities in one single analysis Cons:
complicated, relatively long analysis time & require
advanced constitutive model for soil non-linear
behaviour
Example of Tunneling Below piled Building
Soil small strain Non-linear stiffness
3D Finite Element Model
3D Finite Element Model
Modelling of Tunnel Face Advance
1. Soil elements inside TBM shield are
deactivated
2. Apply tunnel support pressure profiles
3. For each face advance, shift tunnel support
pressures forward & correspondingly erect
new lining behind TBM
4. The process is repeated as tunnelling
progresses
Modelling of Structures
1. Piles & pile cap modelled by solid elements
2. Interface elements along pile shafts & on pile cap vertical
faces
3. Consider flexural stiffness (EI) & axial stiffness (EA) of
superstructure by incorporating a “Plate” structural elements
on top of pile cap. Superstructure EI estimated by (Potts &
Addenbrooke, 1997)
1. Parallel Axis Theorem (bending about building neutral
axis); or
2. Summation of EI for individual building storeys
4. Tunnel linings modelled by “Plate”
Prediction on Ground Settlement
Prediction on Ground Settlement
Prediction on pile Transverse Displacement
Prediction on pile Longitudinal Displacement
Prediction on pile settlement & Axial force
Prediction on pile Bending Moment
Check on potential Structure Damage
Comparison with Closed From Solution
3D FEA vs. Analytical Solution
3D FEA vs. Analytical Solution
Tunneling Below Building on Frictional piles
3D Model by Plaxis
Settlement & Axial Force Pile P5
Channel Tunnel Rail Link (UK) Measurement
Longitudinal Horizontal Displacement &
Bending Moment Pile 5
Greenfield Surface & Building Settlements
Building Settlement > Greenfield surface
settlement
Building Settlement > Greenfield surface
settlement
Tunneling Near a Group of 48 piles
3D Modelling by Plaxis 3D
Effect of 3m Thick Annulus Grout
Effect of Fixed Pile Head Connections
Output of Results
Output of Results
Greenfield Surface & Building Settlement
Effect of 3m Thick Annulus Grout on Bldgs.
Settlement

Tunnels Part 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tunnels Part 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tunnels Part 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Finite Element Modelling of

Tunnels and Tunnelling

1) Bored a) TBM (tunnel boring machine), b) Jacked, c)

1) Bored a) TBM (tunnel boring machine)

1) Bored a) TBM (tunnel boring machine)

1) Bored a) TBM (tunnel boring machine)

1) Bored C) Micro-tunneling MTBM

1) Bored C) Micro-tunneling MTBM

2) Cut and cover Method

3) Immersed Tube Method

• 3D arching around unsupported tunnel heading carries vertical load Pg by

• 1St Phase: Lining is wished-in-place, soil elements inside tunnel deactivated –

A. Based on Grout Pressure (Moller & Vermeer, 2008)

1. Numerical analysis with simple constitutive model (LEPP) cannot

• Ground conditions: 3m Fill, 3m MD,

1. FE series 1-Mohr Coulomb

1.A three-dimensional problem due to

2. Tunnelling induced ground movements can cause

For pile toe located in Zone

1.Typically use the combination of

1. Suitable for preliminary assessment, with some

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.