A comparison of elasticplastic soil models for

2D FE analyses of tunnelling
G. Oettl*, R. F. Stark, G. Hofstetter
Institute for Strength of Materials, University of Innsbruck, Austria
Received in revised form 7 August 1998; accepted 10 August 1998
Abstract
Based on 2D FE analyses, simulating the excavation of a tunnel and subsequent lining with
shotcrete, the impact of the employed soil model on the predicted displacements and stresses
in the soil mass as well as on the predicted sectional forces in the shotcrete lining is investi-
gated. In particular, four dierent soil models are considered: linearelastic constitutive rela-
tions, the elasticplastic models according to the DruckerPrager and to the MohrCoulomb
criterion as well as an elasticplastic cap model. The computed results are compared with
available eld data for the vertical strains. #1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
For the numerical analysis of the excavation of a tunnel by means of the nite
element method (FEM), it is generally accepted now that an elasticplastic material
model for the soil to model the non-linear behavior of the soil should be employed.
There exists a large variety of models which have been proposed in recent years to
characterize the stressstrain and failure behavior of soil media. All these models
have their own advantages and limitations which depend to a large degree on the
particular application. The most severe drawback associated with rened and
sophisticated models is related to the larger number of required parameters, some of
them often cannot be determined from standard tests. Therefore, commonly, the
relatively simple material models with a yield surface according to the Drucker
Prager or to the MohrCoulomb criterion and an associated or a non-associated
ow rule are employed in practice. Although it is well known that these simple
models have certain inherent shortcomings, more rened soil models, such as the
Computers and Geotechnics 23 (1998) 1938
0266-352X/98/$see front matter # 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S0266-352X(98)00015-9
* Corresponding author.
Cam-clay model or cap models are still not commonly used in geotechnical engi-
neering in many parts of the world.
In common engineering practice the choice of the soil model employed for a spe-
cic job mostly depends on both the expertise of the analyst and the economic
aspects in terms of computation cost. However, application of a dierent soil model
will lead to dierent results. This might be one of the reasons for a considerable deal
of discomfort among practitioners related to the reliability of such computations.
Hence, it might be interesting to investigate the range of predicted response, result-
ing from the application of dierent soil models. To this end, a numerical study for a
2D FE analysis of the excavation of a tunnel, based on four soil models, is con-
ducted. Apart from linearelastic constitutive relations for the soil, the MohrCou-
lomb failure surface (Fig. 1), the DruckerPrager compressive cone and the
DruckerPrager tensile cone (Fig. 2), each of them treated as yield surfaces within
the framework of ideal plasticity with a non-associated ow rule, are employed. In
addition, a cap model [8] with a non-associated ow rule for the DruckerPrager
type failure envelope and with an associated ow rule for the strain hardening cap, is
used [Fig. 3(a) and (c)]. The main dierence between the DruckerPrager and Mohr-
Coulomb type models on the one hand and the cap model on the other hand is in the
prediction of deformations under predominantly compressive stress states. The for-
mer models have yield surfaces which are open in the direction of the hydrostatic
compressive axis (Figs. 1 and 2), i.e. they assume linearelastic soil response for
predominantly compressive stress states. This feature constitutes a severe physical
shortcoming of the models, since in reality, soil behavior under a hydrostatic stress
state is certainly non-linear. The cap model, however, avoids this model deciency
by using a closed yield surface with a strain hardening cap. The hardening of the cap
is dened by a non-linear relation between the volumetric plastic strain and the
hydrostatic pressure as described in Section 3 and shown in Fig. 3(b). For plastic soil
behavior the latter is represented by the point of intersection of the cap with the
hydrostatic axis.
In a FE analysis, when simulating the construction of a tunnel, results strongly
depend on the applied sequential scheme of excavating and shotcrete lining. More-
over, in a time-independent analysis the results for a particular step of excavation
and lining placement will substantially depend on the assumption of when the
Fig. 1. MohrCoulomb model.
20 G. Oettl et al./Computers and Geotechnics 23 (1998) 1938
shotcrete lining is regarded to be active. This assumption is crucial, since it deter-
mines to which extent the deformations of the soil mass due to the current excava-
tion step have already developed before the lining is in place. Clearly, this inuences
not only the stress and deformation distribution in the soil, but gures as a sig-
nicant design parameter for the lining element.
The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 contains a brief description of the soil
models, employed for simplied 2D numerical simulations of excavating and lining
of a tunnel, presented in Section 3. Finally, in Section 4 a comparison of the results
for the dierent soil models is presented. In addition, the computed vertical strains
in the soil are compared with available eld data, taken from Ref. [1].
2. Material models
2.1. DruckerPrager model
From the mathematical point of view, the DruckerPrager criterion is the most
convenient choice because of its simplicity and its straightforward numerical imple-
mentation. In 3D principal stress space the failure surface associated with this cri-
terion is a right-circular cone as shown in Fig. 2 which can be expressed by the
following equation
F' o

I
1

J
2
_
k 0. 1
where I
1
and J
2
are the rst and second invariants of the stress tensor and the stress
deviator tensor, respectively
I
1

1
3
o
ii
. J
2

1
2
s
ij
s
ij
2
and o

and k are material constants. However, in the present study, as frequently

encountered in practice, these parameters are not directly available from experiments.
Fig. 2. DruckerPrager model.
G. Oettl et al./Computers and Geotechnics 23 (1998) 1938 21
Fig. 3. Cap model: (a) yield surface; (b) hardening behavior of the cap; (c) ow potential.
22 G. Oettl et al./Computers and Geotechnics 23 (1998) 1938
Rather the friction angle, , and the cohesion value, c, for the MohrCoulomb
model are given. Thus, o

and k must be expressed in terms of and c. Matching the

DruckerPrager model with the external apices of the MohrCoulomb failure sur-
face we get
o

2 sin

3
p
3 sin
. k
6c cos

3
p
3 sin
. 3
Besides this compressive meridian matching a tensile meridian matching yields the
following relations
o

2 sin

3
p
3 sin
. k
6c cos

3
p
3 sin
. 4
There are further ways of matching the two criterions which, however, will not be
considered in this context.
The ow rule, dening the direction of the plastic ow is given by
4
p

l
oG
o'
. 5
where G represents a plastic potential and

l is a positive scalar quantity dening the
amplitude of the plastic ow. For non-associative plasticity, i.e. for G ,= F, the
plastic potential is selected so that its derivative with respect to the stress tensor
yields
oG
oo
ij
o
[
o
ij

1
2

J
2
p s
ij
6
with o
ij
and s
ij
denoting the Kronecker delta and the stress deviator tensor, respec-
tively. o
[
is dened by a given dilation angle [ and relations analogous to Eqs. (3)
or (4). From a comparison of Eq. (6) with the derivative of F, given in Eq. (1), with
respect to o
ij
it can be seen that the ow rule is associative with respect to deviatoric
plastic ow and non-associative for the volumetric plastic component, as o
[
,= o

.
In the numerical example described in Section 3, the Drucker-Prager model with
isochoric plastic ow, i.e. a ow potential with a vanishing dilatancy angle [ is used;
thus, o
[
= 0.
Regarding the hardening behavior, a DruckerPrager model with exclusively
elasticperfectly plastic material response is considered in this study.
2.2. MohrCoulomb model
In 3D principal stress space the failure surface associated with the classical Mohr
Coulomb criterion is an irregular hexagonal pyramid, its axis coinciding with the
hydrostatic axis (Fig. 1). The function of this failure surface can be formulated by
G. Oettl et al./Computers and Geotechnics 23 (1998) 1938 23
means of the MohrCoulomb material parameters and c and the stress invariants
I
1
. J
2
and as
F'.
1
3
I
1
sin

J
2
_
sin

3
_ _

J
2
3
_
cos

3
_ _
sin c cos 0. 7
or alternatively in terms of the HaighWestergaard coordinates . ,.
F. ,.

2
p
sin

3
p
, sin

3
_ _
, cos

3
_ _
sin

6
p
c cos 0 8
with 044

3
being the deviatoric polar angle (Lode angle). and , are given in
terms of the hydrostatic and deviatoric stress invariants as = I
1
,

3
_
and , =

2J
2
_
,
respectively. Instead of the formulation, given in Eqs. (7) and (8), a smooth, single-
surface approximation is adopted in the FE package [2] used for this study. The
approximation of the Mohr-Coulomb criterion is a particular case of a general
three-parameter criterion [3] given by
f. ,. A
f
,
2
m
f
B
f
, r
f
. e C
f
c
f
0. 9
For a specic choice of the parameters A
f
. B
f
and C
f
the general failure criterion Eq.
(9) is reduced to a particular one, e.g. the MohrCoulomb criterion. m
f
and c
f
are
the friction and cohesion parameter, respectively. r
f
describes the shape of the failure
surface in a deviatoric plane and is given by
r
f
. e
41 e
2
cos
2
2e 1
2
21 e
2
cos 2e 1

41 e
2
cos
2
5e
2
4e
_ . 10
The eccentricity parameter e depicts the ``out-of-roundness'' of the deviatoric trace.
When e is determined by
e
3 sin
3 sin
. 11
the generalized failure criterion Eq. (9) is calibrated to t exactly the MohrCou-
lomb surface on both extension and compression meridians, which leads to the
smooth failure surface. Hence, with the denition for e according to Eq. (11), for the
extension and the compression meridians, = 0 and =

3
, respectively, the elliptic
function Eq. (10) takes the values 1/e and 1, respectively. Expressing all other para-
meters of the generalized criterion Eq. (9) in terms of the MohrCoulomb friction
angle and cohesion c, we get
A
f
0. m
f
1. c
f
1. 12
24 G. Oettl et al./Computers and Geotechnics 23 (1998) 1938
B
f

3 sin

24
p
c cos
. C
f

1

3
p
c
lan. 13
The ow potential adopted in [2] takes the form
g. , A
g
,
2
m
g
B
g
, r
g
e C
g
. 14
It should be noticed that the radius r
g
is independent of the Lode angle, i.e.
r
g
r
f
0. e
1
e
15
resulting in a DruckerPrager type ow potential with r
g
being the radius for the
extension meridian. The other parameters A
g
. B
g
. C
g
. m
g
determining the ow
potential Eq. (14) are evaluated in an analogous way from Eqs. (12) and (13) but
using the dilatancy angle [ instead of the friction angle . In this study a non-asso-
ciative ow rule, strictly speaking, isochoric plastic ow ([ = 0) is assumed for the
MohrCoulomb model.
As in the case of the DruckerPrager model, no hardening is considered in the
example presented in Section 3, when this type of MohrCoulomb model is employed.
2.3. Cap model
The cap model adopted in this study is an extended DruckerPrager model. Its
yield surface consists of a DruckerPrager cone for shear-type failure and of an
elliptical cap for volumetric plastic compaction.
Using the invariants p, q and r given by
p
1
3
o
ii
. q

3
2
s
ij
s
ij
_
. r
9
2
s
ij
s
jk
s
ki
_ _1
3
16
allows the DruckerPrager failure surface to be written as
F
s
t. p t-p lan[ d 0. 17
where t is the deviatoric stress measure given by
t
q
2
1
1
K
1
1
K
_ _
r
q
_ _
3
_ _
. 18
The formulation in Eq. (17) is consistent with the one used in [4] and is related to
Eq. (1) by the following expressions
lan[ 3

3
p
o

. d

3
p
k. 19
K is a material parameter that represents the ratio of the distance of stress points on
the tensile and compressive meridian from the hydrostatic axis in a specic devia-
toric plane of the yield surface. In this study no dependence on the third deviatoric
G. Oettl et al./Computers and Geotechnics 23 (1998) 1938 25
invariant, r, is taken into account in this model, i.e. t = q, requiring K = 1 in Eq.
(18). K = 1 implies the classical yield surface according to DruckerPrager by which
the soil strength in tension is likely to be overestimated.
As already mentioned previously, the MohrCoulomb material parameters have
to be converted to equivalent DruckerPrager parameters. Matching the parameters
to provide the same ow and failure response in plane strain [4] results in
sin
lan [

39 lan
2
[
_
9 lan[ lan[
. c cos d

39 lan
2
[
_
9 lan[ lan[
. 20
Evaluating Eq. (20) for associated ow ([ = [) we get
[ aiclan

3
p
sin

1
1
3
sin
2

_
_
_
_
_
_
_. d c

3
p
cos

1
1
3
sin
2

_ 21
and for nondilatant ow ([ = 0) we obtain
[ aiclan

3
p
sin . d c

3
p
cos . 22
In this study [ and d were determined by means of Eq. (21). However, it is easily
veried, that there is only a small dierence between associated and nondilatant ow
within the range of typical values of the friction angle.
The cap yield surface has an elliptical shape [Fig. 3(a)] and is written as
F
c
t. p

p p
a

Rt
1 o o, cos [
_ _
2
_
Rd p
a
lan[ 0. 23
where R is a material parameter controlling the shape of the cap. o is a small num-
ber used to dene a smooth transition surface between the DruckerPrager cone and
the cap dened as
F
t
t. p

p p
a

2
t 1
o
cos [
_ _
d p
a
lan [
_ _
2
_
od p
a
lan[ 0. 24
Whereas the material response is perfectly plastic for stress points located on the
DruckerPrager shear failure surface, for stress points on the cap, hardening is
taken into account. This hardening behavior is governed by the evolution parameter
p
a
, dened as
p
a

p
b
Rd
1 Rlan[
25
26 G. Oettl et al./Computers and Geotechnics 23 (1998) 1938
where p
b
is the hydrostatic compression stress. The hardening law is a piecewise
linear function relating p
b
to the corresponding volumetric plastic strain. The volu-
metric plastic strain at the onset of the analysis, c
pl
vol
[
0
, denes the initial position of
the cap. Consequently, p
b
actually depends on the change of the volumetric plastic
strain, c
pl
vol
c
pl
vol
[
0
, as can be seen in Fig. 3(b).
The plastic potential, governing the plastic ow, is dened by two ellipses G
s
and
G
c
[Fig. 3(c)]: an elliptical portion in the cap region that is identical to the yield
surface
G
c

p p
a

Rt
1 o o, cos [
_ _
2
_
26
and another elliptical portion that denes the volumetric plastic strain rate for the
Drucker-Prager type shear failure region of the yield surface given by
G
s

p
a
p lan[
2

t
1 o o, cos [
_ _
2
_
. 27
Thus, plastic ow is associated for plastic loading on the cap and non-associated for
plastic loading on the shear failure surface.
3. Description of the selected example
A tunnel for a Viennese subway line serves as a test example used in the following
study. Most of the city of Vienna lies in the Vienna Basin, which is a large depres-
sion lled up with tertiary sediments. The majority of these sediments consists of
sandy and clayey silts and, to less extent, of sands and gravels. In some parts, in
particular in the north-eastern part of Vienna along the river Danube these tertiary
sediments are overlayed by layers of quaternary gravels. The tunnels of the subway
line are usually not deeper than approximately 20 m below the surface. Hence, the
tunnels are mostly located at the interface between quaternary and tertiary layers.
Fig. 4 shows the cross section of the tunnel and the boundary of the discretized
domain used in the nite element analysis. The data with respect to the geometry
and the material behavior of the soil as well as measurement data for the vertical
strains in the vicinity of the tunnel are taken from [1], which contains a time-
dependent 3D FE analysis for this tunnel. For investigating the eects of dierent
soil models on the predicted response of the soil and the shotcrete lining, the
numerical model was simplied by restricting it to a 2D FE model (Fig. 5) assuming:
1. plane strain conditions,
2. time-independent material behavior and
3. linear-elastic response for the shotcrete lining
simplications which are frequently made in practice.
G. Oettl et al./Computers and Geotechnics 23 (1998) 1938 27
The tunnel is constructed in three working cycles, dealing sequentially with the
crown, the bench and the bottom of the tunnel as indicated in Fig. 6. In the analysis
each working cycle is modelled by two computation steps, simulating the excavation
of the soil material in the rst step and the placement of the shotcrete lining in the
Fig. 4. Set up of test example: (a) domain under consideration; (b) cross section of the tunnel.
Fig. 5. FE-model.
28 G. Oettl et al./Computers and Geotechnics 23 (1998) 1938
second step. In this study it is assumed that the deformations along a newly gener-
ated free surface of the tunnel, resulting from the excavation in the current working
cycle, are already present when the shotcrete lining is installed in the current work-
ing cycle. Hence, the lining installed in a specic cycle is only stressed due to defor-
mations generated by the excavation in subsequent working cycles. It might be
argued that this is not a very realistic assumption, since it requires the soil to be
stable without support in the current excavation stage. Although this scenario is met
for the problem at hand, it might not hold for other types of soil or dierent con-
struction conditions. However, the motivation for this assumption is to check whe-
ther the computed displacements provide an upper bound for the measured
deformations. On the other hand, if the computed displacements based on this
assumption are smaller than the measured ones, this could be regarded as an evi-
dence for shortcomings of the soil model. Moreover, it is not precisely known to
which extent the lining, placed in a specic working cycle, is actually loaded by the
excavation in that cycle. This depends on various parameters, like time-dependent
material response of the soil and the shotcrete, which are not taken into account by
the employed model.
Driving a tunnel is certainly a 3D problem. To account for the 3D-eects, com-
monly, in 2D FE analyses, a partial initial stress relief is assumed for the modelled
cross section, when excavation and lining are simulated in the analysis. Dierent
stress relief methods have been proposed in the literature. Probably the two most
commonly used approaches are the load reduction method and the stiness reduc-
tion method. Both methods have been successfully applied in practice, although,
they may lead to signicantly dierent results when complex excavation stages and
non-linear material behavior have to be modelled [5]. Applying a stress relief method
in a 2D analysis yields some deformations in the soil before the lining is installed.
Thus, the actually 3D states of stress and deformation in the vicinity of the working
area, indicated by deformations in the soil mass ahead of the tunnel face, are
accounted for in an approximate manner. Consequently, this part of the deforma-
tions does not lead to stresses and strains in the shotcrete lining but of course, it is
Fig. 6. Construction sequences of the tunnel.
G. Oettl et al./Computers and Geotechnics 23 (1998) 1938 29
accompanied by a change of the stress state in the soil. Certainly the results depend
on the specic stress relief method applied and therefore would veil the eect of
dierent non-linear soil models. Therefore it would not be appropriate to take par-
tial stress relief into account. Rather a complete stress relief is employed.
The mentioned simplications with respect to the excavation and lining scheme
and the idealization of the material behavior of the shotcrete lining are justied,
since the primary concern of this paper is to study predictions of dierent soil
models, commonly used in the analysis for tunnel excavation.
In the present study three elasticplastic soil models described in the previous
section are used. Material properties for the soil and the shotcrete lining are taken
from [1] and are summarized in Table 1. With respect to the soil parameters and
their determination, some remarks contained in [1], are given subsequently. Young's
modulus E was determined from the results of oedometer tests by assuming Pois-
son's ratio to be 0.38. The parameters for the failure envelope followed from results
of conventional triaxial tests. Since both, the angle of internal friction, , and the
cohesion, c, depend on the strain rate, drained and undrained tests were performed.
For drained tests which were performed at a strain rate of 0.1 mm/m
.
day the para-
meters were found to be = 25

and c = 0. Higher strain rates, e.g. 210 mm/m

.
day,
lead to = 12 13

and c&100 kN/m

2
. Since the strain rates measured in situ were
somewhere between 0.5 and 8 mm/m
.
day, for the analysis the parameters were
assumed to be = 20.4

and c=73 kN/m

2
. With respect to the application of the
cap model, a shape parameter K = 1 was assumed for the shear-type failure surface.
The parameter o which denes the size of the transition zone between Drucker
Prager cone and cap was taken to be 0.001, i.e. virtually no transition zone was
assumed. The hardening law used in [1] is an exponential relationship between
hydrostatic pressure and volumetric plastic strain, whose governing parameters were
matched with the results of oedometer tests by means of a trial and error procedure.
In terms of the input data for the cap model implemented in ABAQUS, this expo-
nential function was resolved in a piecewise linear function relating the hydrostatic
compression yield stress, p
b
, and the corresponding volumetric plastic strain, c
pl
vol
.
The parameters associated with the initial location of the cap at the onset of the
Table 1
Material parameters for soil and shotcrete
Notations Units Soil Shotcrete
Specic weight , kN/m
3
19 25
Young's modulus E kPa 59,000 2.8
.
10
7
Poisson's ratio v 0.38 0.30
Cohesion c kPa 73
Friction angle

20.4
Shape parameter K 1.0
Shape parameter o 0.001
Shape parameter R 0.64
Initial cap position p
b
[
0
kPa 80
c
pl
bol
[
0
0.11
30 G. Oettl et al./Computers and Geotechnics 23 (1998) 1938
analysis were given by p
b
[
0
= 80 LPa and c
pl
vol
[
0
~ 0.11. Finally the factor R, con-
trolling the shape of the cap, followed from an estimation by means of a constant
volume test performed in a shear box. In terms of ABAQUS parameters for Vien-
na's clayey silt R was found to be 0.64.
The soil was modelled by means of 2D bilinear isoparametric continuum elements
with 4 nodes each, assuming plane strain conditions (Fig. 5). Using low-order ele-
ments, special attention has to be paid to the volume locking phenomenon. As
pointed out in [6], dilatant ([ > 0) or contractant ([ - 0) plasticity imposes essen-
tially the same kinematic constraint upon elements as in the case of isochoric
([ = 0) plastic ow. As described above, isochoric plastic ow was assumed in all
cases but one. Hence, elements based on the so-called B-concept, which may safely
be used for isochoric plastic ow, were employed.
The shotcrete lining was also modelled with four noded plane strain isoparametric
continuum elements. To ensure improved bending behavior, elements enriched with
incompatible modes were used.
4. Comparison of the numerical results
The results presented in this section were computed using the FE-packages ABA-
QUS [4] and Z_SOIL [2]. For the analyses based on the DruckerPrager and the
MohrCoulomb soil models, Z_SOIL was used. Moreover, the FE-package
AFENA [7] was employed to check the results of the commercial nite element
programs. Although AFENA does not use the smooth approximation of the Mohr
Coulomb yield surface, the results agreed quite well with those from Z_SOIL. The
results for the cap model were obtained from ABAQUS.
Figs. 7 and 8 contain the computed surface settlements and the computed dis-
placements of the soil at the boundary of the cross section of the tunnel after exca-
vation and lining of the tunnel have been completed. As one would expect, the
smallest surface settlements and the smallest displacements of the boundary of the
Fig. 7. Surface settlements.
G. Oettl et al./Computers and Geotechnics 23 (1998) 1938 31
cross section of the tunnel are obtained using the linearelastic model (EL) for the
soil. The magnitude of the surface settlements predicted by the MohrCoulomb
model (MC) is between those, obtained for the DruckerPrager tensile cone (DP-
EX) and the DruckerPrager compressive cone (DP-CO). Figs. 7 and 8 clearly
indicate that the surface settlements and the displacements of the soil at the bound-
ary of the cross section of the tunnel, based on the cap model (CA), are considerably
larger than the respective values, prognosticated by the commonly employed simple
elasticplastic models. As already pointed out in the introduction, the main dier-
ence between the latter and the cap model is given by the treatment of pre-
dominantly compressive stress states. As can be seen from Figs. 7 and 8 this
renement with respect to the representation of the soil behavior has a considerable
impact on the predicted deformations. The striking changes of the displacements at
the interfaces between dierent excavation stages (Fig. 8) is very much due to the
specic assumptions of the model, i.e. to simulate the excavation of the soil and the
installation of the liner in two consecutive steps. Again, this eect is by far more
pronounced for the cap model than for the elastic model or the other simple elastic
plastic models. Regarding the surface settlements both with respect to the maximum
settlement and the width of the settlement trough, the dierence between the cap
model and the simple models is even more distinct (Fig. 7). This is the consequence
of the elasticplastic material response, being no longer conned to a relatively small
region around the tunnel when employing a cap model.
Figs. 9 and 10 contain plots of the distribution of the vertical and the horizontal
normal stresses in the soil along three sections stretching nine meters away from the
shotcrete lining for the nal stage. Fig. 5 shows the position and orientation of these
sections. For comparison, the primary stresses drawn in dashed lines, are also
Fig. 8. Soil displacements of the cross section of the tunnel.
32 G. Oettl et al./Computers and Geotechnics 23 (1998) 1938
included in the former gures. It is well known that the distribution of the vertical
stresses in the horizontal section, passing through the bench of the tunnel, diers
quite substantially depending whether the analysis is based on a linearelastic or an
elasticplastic soil model. In contrast to linearelastic soil behavior, on the basis of
which the peak of the vertical compressive stresses occurs in the soil at the boundary
of the shotcrete lining, for the simple elastic-plastic models a peak of the vertical
compressive stress is observed in the soil at some horizontal distance from the
boundary of the shotcrete lining. This behavior correlates with the predicted
Fig. 9. Vertical stresses in the soil.
G. Oettl et al./Computers and Geotechnics 23 (1998) 1938 33
increase of the horizontal compressive stress with increasing distance from the
boundary of the tunnel. According to the employed yield surfaces the increase of the
horizontal compressive stress allows larger values of the vertical compressive stress.
However, for the cap model this peak of the vertical stresses is less pronounced. In
addition, the predicted relaxation of the vertical stresses below the bottom of the
tunnel is more distinct than for the simple elasticplastic models.
Fig. 11 shows distributions of the vertical strains in the soil, relative to the primary
state, along the three sections resulting from excavating and lining the tunnel. The
Fig. 10. Horizontal stresses in the soil.
34 G. Oettl et al./Computers and Geotechnics 23 (1998) 1938
plots also contain some eld data (MEAS), given in [1], which were obtained from
tests with sliding micrometers. One might argue that considering the simplifying
assumptions made in the analysis, a comparison with in situ measurements is
somehow arbitrary. These assumptions, however, were made in order to get an
upper bound for the displacements. Consequently, we cannot expect perfect agree-
ment between experimental data and numerical results. However, what the plots do
show is a tendency to grasp the real behavior in a better way the more sophisticated
the employed model is. In particular it can be seen that the vertical strains, predicted
by the linear elastic model are generally underestimated compared with eld data. A
Fig. 11. Vertical strains in the soil, relative to the primary state.
G. Oettl et al./Computers and Geotechnics 23 (1998) 1938 35
further general tendency reected by the three plots of Fig. 11 is, that the results
based on the cap model constitute the other extreme, i.e. these results tend to over-
estimate the vertical strains, which might be expected as a consequence of the sim-
plifying assumptions for the analysis. For the vertical sections above and below the
tunnel, for which the plots refer to regions being in a state of relaxation, the fan of
results for the dierent models is relatively narrow. In these regions of unloading
there is not much dierence between the response, predicted by the dierent models.
However, for the plot of the vertical strains along the horizontal section the picture
is quite dierent. For this region with compressive loading the cap model is the only
model which does not underestimate the vertical strains. Hence, the ndings seem to
conrm that by means of the cap model an upper bound for the displacements is
determined. Unfortunately, no eld data were available close to the tunnel.
All models but the cap model employed in this study do not take into account the
plastic compaction of the soil under predominantly hydrostatic pressure. This,
however, seems to be one of the key aspects and the surface settlement caused by
driving the tunnel may be governed by this eect to a considerable amount. Since
the vertical strains in these areas of compaction and, consequently, also the surface
settlement are overestimated by the cap model in this study, the results predicted by
this model are conservative. This might be crucial in urban areas.
In Fig. 12 distributions of the normal force and the bending moment in the shot-
crete lining are plotted. Since the shotcrete shell for the bottom of the cross section
of the tunnel was placed after the deformations due to excavating the bottom have
occurred, there are no stresses in the respective part of the shotcrete lining. As
expected, the maximum normal force and the maximum bending moment in the
Fig. 12. Bending moment and normal force in the shotcrete lining.
36 G. Oettl et al./Computers and Geotechnics 23 (1998) 1938
lining are predicted in the upper part of the lining, irrespective of the employed soil
model. However, there are considerable dierences in the predicted maximum values
of the normal force in the lining. Modelling the soil behavior using the cap model or
the DruckerPrager tensile cone yields maximum values for the normal force, which
are about 25% larger than the respective value, predicted on the basis of the Mohr
Coulomb model for the soil. As expected, smaller values of the normal force in the
lining are predicted employing the DruckerPrager compressive cone for the soil. By
contrast, except for the DruckerPrager compressive cone, which yields smaller
bending moments, there is almost no dierence for the predicted maximum value of
the bending moment between the dierent elasticplastic soil models.
5. Conclusions
In a numerical study of a 2D FE analysis dealing with multistage excavation and
lining of a tunnel, dierent material models for the representation of the soil beha-
vior have been employed. In particular, linearelastic constitutive relations, the
elasticplastic models according to the DruckerPrager and to the MohrCoulomb
criterion as well as an elasticplastic cap model were taken into account. Signicant
dierences of the predicted surface settlements have been found between the simple
elasticplastic models, based on a DruckerPrager or MohrCoulomb type yield
surface, and the cap model. Such signicant dierences are also observed for the
predicted deformations of the boundary of the cross section of the tunnel. Com-
parison with eld data clearly shows, that an analysis based on the current simpli-
fying assumptions cannot describe the response of the soil with desired accuracy.
However, focussing on dierent soil models, this comparison reveals, that the cap
model seems to be superior to the DruckerPrager and MohrCoulomb model in
the sense that an upper bound for the displacements is obtained by accounting for
the nonlinear soil behavior under predominantly compressive stress states. At least
for the selected example this feature yields conservative results with respect to the
deformations in the soil due to the excavation. However, further investigations
would be necessary to improve the unloading/reloading behavior of the model.
Acknowledgements
The study described in this paper was partially funded by the Austrian Science
Foundation, FWF (Fonds zur Fo rderung der wissenschaftlichen Forschung), under
project number S08005-TEC. This support is gratefully acknowledged.
References
[1] Kropik Ch. Three-dimensional elasto-viscoplastic nite element analysis of deformations and stresses
resulting from the excavation of shallow tunnels. Ph.D. thesis, University of Technology of Vienna,
1994.
G. Oettl et al./Computers and Geotechnics 23 (1998) 1938 37
[2] Zace Services Ltd, Z_SOIL user's manual, version 3.2. Lausanne, Switzerland Zace Services Ltd,
1997.
[3] Mene trey Ph, Willam KJ. Triaxial failure criterion for concrete and its generalization. ACI Journal
1995;S92:3118.
[4] Hibbit, Karlsson & Sorensen, ABAQUS user's manual, version 5.6. RI: Hibbit, Karlsson & Sor-
enson, 1996.
[5] Schweiger HF, Schuller H, Po ttler R. Some remarks on 2D-models for numerical simulation of
underground constructions with complex cross sections. In Yuan JX, editor. Computer methods and
advances in geomechanics, vol. 2. Wuhan, China: IACMAG, 1997. p. 13038.
[6] De Borst R, Groen AE. Ecient and robust low-order elements for 2D- and 3D-soil plasticity. In:
Yuan JX editor. Computer methods and advances in geomechanics, vol. 1. Wuhan, China: IAC-
MAG, 1997. p. 95104.
[7] Carter JP, Balaam NP. AFENA user's manual, Version 5.1. University of Sydney, Australia: Centre
for Geotechnical Research, 1995.
[8] Sandler IS, DiMaggio FL, Baladi GY. Generalized cap model for geological materials. Jnl. Geotech.
Eng. Div., ASCE 1976;102:68399.
38 G. Oettl et al./Computers and Geotechnics 23 (1998) 1938