Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Tarek Thabet Abdel-Fattah, Ground Movements Patterns Due To Shield Tunnelling in Clays
Tarek Thabet Abdel-Fattah, Ground Movements Patterns Due To Shield Tunnelling in Clays
Abstract
A numerical technique capable of adequately representing the states of stress release
associated with shield tunnelling in clay is presented. Tunnel excavation is simulated
using a deconfinement method characterised by differential unloading scheme in
terms of tangential and radial components. The former is intended to simulate the
effect of the machine driving through clays, whereas the later is intended to simulate
the gap closure behind the shield tail. A test problem previously solved by
Burghignoli et al. [1] is resolved here. The results obtained from the proposed
procedure using the finite-element method were found in very good agreement with
their measured counterparts, and superior to those obtained previously for the
subsurface movements.
Keywords: shield tunnelling , deconfinement method, tunnel excavation, gap
closure, ground movement, finite-element analysis.
1 Problem Statement
Predictions from the conventional numerical techniques for simulating shallow-
tunnel excavation are normally found in poor agreement with the measured ground
response . These techniques (e.g., the deconfinement method) usually predict ground
settlement troughs that are relatively wider and flatter than those of the normal
Gaussian distribution, proved to be in good agreement with the observed response.
In the commonly-used deconfinement method (e.g., Panet and Guenot [2]; Bernat
and Cambou [3]; Bernat et al. [4]; Abdel-Fattah [5]), the initial geostatic loads
acting on the tunnel perimeter prior to excavation are progressively reduced till a
predefined ground loss (a predefined settlement trough volume) takes place.
Paper 276
Enhancing Numerically-Predicted Ground
Movement Patterns due to Shield Tunnelling in Clays
T.T. Abdel-Fattah, A.Y. Akl, H.A. Hodhod and A.M. Abdel-Rahman
Department of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering
Housing and Building Research Centre, Giza, Egypt
Department of Civil Engineering
Faculty of Engineering, Cairo University, Giza, Egypt
Civil-Comp Press, 2005.
Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference
on Civil, Structural and Environmental
Engineering Computing,
B.H.V. Topping (Editor),
Civil-Comp Press, Stirling, Scotland.
2
2 Numerical simulation of the excavation process
Simulation of the excavation process using the finite-element method may be carried
out through removal of the soil elements that represent the soil mass excavated
during a certain excavation stage. The equivalent nodal forces caused by the removal
of these elements may be expressed as:
{ } [ ] [ ] [ ] { } [ ] { } [ ] { } { }
E w
v
T
w
v
T
v
T
v
T
f dv N dv P B dv N dv B f + + =
(1)
where
{ } f
= equivalent nodal forces vector,
[ ] B
= strain-displacement transformation matrix,
[ ]
= effective stress matrix before excavation,
{ }
= vector of effective body forces,
{ }
w
P
= vector of pore pressure before excavation,
{ }
w
+
=
325 . 0
175 . 0
1
, (3)
which reduces to
o
y x
z
x
S S 65 . 0 = (4)
at the ground surface
Equation (3) implies that the displacement vectors focus on a point located
on the tunnel vertical centerline having a Z-coordinate of
o
z
325 . 0
175 . 0
below the
springline.
Contrary to the assumption that the horizontal movements can be described
in near-surface regions using Equation (3), the centrifugal tests conducted by Grant
and Taylor [13] showed that these movements are not well described by assuming
an average vector focus. The results obtained from these tests for four different
subsurface levels together with those predicted using Equation (3) are plotted in
Figure 13. Although a good agreement between the two sets of results can be
observed from Figure 13-b, 13-c, and 13-d, the predictions for the horizontal
movements near the ground surface using Equation (3) (Figure 13-a) are
considerably less than the observed ones. Also, the predictions obtained using
Equation (2) were found to be less than the observed movements. This is despite the
fact that the estimations from Equation (2) are 50% higher than those from Equation
(3). Also, the horizontal ground movements profile predicted at the ground surface
using either Equation (2) or Equation (3) is found to be narrower than the observed
one. Therefore, it can be concluded that neither Equation (3) nor Equation (2) can
adequately represent the horizontal ground movements at, or near to, the ground
surface, since it significantly underestimates the magnitudes of these movements.
The finite-element results obtained form the present study for the horizontal
ground movements assuming a deconfinement ratio,
u
of 0.20 are plotted in Figure
14. Also shown in the same figure are the results obtained form the analytical
solutions by ORielly and New [11] and Grant and Taylor [13], as well as those
obtained from the finite-element solution by Burghignoli et al. [1].
It can be seen from Figure 14 that the lowest estimations for the horizontal
ground movements at the ground surface are obtained from the analytical solution
by Grant and Taylor [13], shown previously in this section to underestimate the
magnitudes of these movements. On the other hand, the predictions from the present
finite-element solution are higher than those from the other three solutions. This
implies that the present solution may be the most representative one when compared
to field data.
14
Figure 13: Induced vertical and horizontal movements from the centrifugal test in
clay with predicted curves by Grant and Taylor [13] at subsurface levels of:
(a) 10 mm below ground surface (near ground surface) (b) 30 mm below ground
surface (c) 70 mm below ground surface (d) 100 mm below ground surface
5.3.3 General pattern of ground movements
In order to examine the general pattern of ground movements predicted using the
solution technique proposed here, the vectors of the ground movements due to a
ground loss percentage V
L
of 1.4%, are obtained and compared to the results of
Burghignoli et al. [1] in Figure 15. It can be seen that the general patterns of the
ground movements obtained from both solutions are somewhat similar above the
tunnel crown.
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0 2 4 6 8 10
x/D
S
x
/
S
y
m
a
x
O'Reilly & New (1982)-K=0.5
Proposed
Burghhibnoli et al. (2001)
Grant & Taylo (2000) - K=0.5
Figure 14: Horizontal ground movements at the ground rface.
15
A comparison between the ratios of the magnitudes of the ground
movements at the invert and those at the crown predicted from both solutions shows
that the ratio obtained from the present solution is much lower than that obtained
from the solution by Burghignoli et al. [1]. This is supported by the observed ground
response (Figure 16) when tunnelling in clays.
(a) (b)
Figure 15: Vectors of tunnelling-induced ground movements in clay from F.E
analyses using: (a) Burghignoli et al. [1] unloading scheme, and (b) present
unloading scheme.
Figure 16: Vectors of tunnelling-induced ground movements in clay from
centrifugal test (Grant and Taylor, [13])
16
6 Conclusions
A numerical simulation of excavation process is proposed to incorporate the effect
of excavation in the finite element analysis using the radial and tangential
components of the excavation equivalent nodal forces.
In order to determine the equivalent nodal forces that develop around the
excavation boundary due to a specific deconfinement scheme, a finite element code
has been developed. This code is used concurrently with the F.E. software DIANA.
The validity of the technique proposed for predicting the ground movements
is examined through comparisons between the predictions from this technique, and
those obtained from published finite element and analytical solutions and
experiments.
Generally the use of the partial deconfinement scheme proposed yields better
estimations for the normalised settlement S
y
/S
ymax
than does the uniform
deconfinement scheme.
The use of a variable deconfinement ratio around the tunnel perimeter can
significantly enhance the predicted settlement trough shape , and this is dependent
on the selected deconfinement ratio.
Predictions of the horizontal movements at the ground surface from the
present finite-element solution are higher than analytical olutions by ORielly and
New [11] and Grant and Taylor [13], as well as those obtained from the numerical
solution by Burghignoli et al. [1]. This implies that the present solution may be the
most representative one when compared to experimental data.
Generally, the ground movment pattern around the tunnel predicted using the
present solution is in good agreement with experimental data compared with other
solutions available in literature.
References
[1] A. Burghignoli, A. Magliocchetti, S. Miliziano, and F.M. Soccodato, A
simple technique to improve the prediction of surface displacement profiles
due to shallow tunnel construction In Adachi et al. (eds.), Modern tunnelling
science and technology. Rotterdam-Balkema, 2001.
[2] M. Panet and A. Guenot, Analysis of convergence behind the face of a
tunnel, Proceeding of Tunnelling 82 symposium, London, pp. 197-204,
1982.
[3] S. Bernat, and B. Cambou, Soil-structure interaction in shield tunnelling in
soft soil, Computers and Geotechnics, Vol. 22, No. 3/4 pp. 221-242, 1998.
[4] S. Bernat, B. Cambou and P. Dubois, Assessing a soft soil tunnelling
numerical model using field data Geotechnique, Vol. 49, No. 4, pp. 427-452,
1999.
[5] T.T. Abdel-Fattah, Material modelling and 3-D finite-element simulation for
shield tunnelling in soft clay, Ph.D. thesis, Cairo University, Egypt, 2004.
[6] A.E. Esmail, Numerical modelling of deformations around closed-face
tunnelling machines, Ph.D. thesis, Ain Shams University, Cairo, 1997.
17
[7] M.A.M. Mansour, Three-dimensional numerical modelling of hydroshield
tunnelling, Thesis presented to university of Innsbruck, in partial fulfilment
of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of engineering science, 1996.
[8] DIANA, A Finite-Element Analysis Programme, Users Manual-Release 8.1
(2nd ed.), TNO DIANA BV., Delft, The Netherlands, 2003.
[9] A.G. Bloodworth, Three-dimensional analysis of tunnelling effects on
structures to develop design method, Ph.D. thesis, University of Oxford,
2002.
[10] R.B.J. Brinkgreve and W. Broere, The influence of tunnel boring on
foundations and buildings in urban areas A numerical study, Int. workshop
on geotechnics of soft soils - Theory and practice. Vermeer, Schweiger,
Karstunen & Cundy (eds.), pp. 257-263, 2003.
[11] M.P. OReilly, and B.M New, Settlements above tunnels in the United
Kingdom-their magnitude and prediction, Proceeding of Tunnelling 82
symposium, London, pp. 173-181, 1982.
[12] R.N. Taylor, Tunnelling in soft ground in the UK. Under ground
conastruction in soft ground, Fujita & kusakabe (eds.) Balkema, Rotterdam,
pp. 123-126, 1995.
[13] R.J. Grant and R.N. Taylor, Tunnelling-induced ground movements in clay.
Proc. Inst. Civ. Engng., Vol. 143, pp. 43-55, 2000.