Journal of Physics: Conference Series

PAPER • OPEN ACCESS

3D numerical simulations of tunneling induced soil deformations

To cite this article: F A Ramsheh et al 2021 J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 1973 012207

View the article online for updates and enhancements.

This content was downloaded from IP address 208.94.230.51 on 01/09/2021 at 02:20

IICESAT Conference, College of Material Engineering, University of Babylon, Iraq IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 1973 (2021) 012207 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1973/1/012207

3D numerical simulations of tunneling induced soil

deformations

F A Ramsheh1, A Rashiddel2 and D Dias3

1
Department of Mining & Metallurgical Engineering, Amirkabir University of
Technology, Tehran, Iran
2
Department of Mining, Faculty of Engineering, Urmia University, Urmia, West
Azerbaijan, Iran
3
Department of Civil Engineering, Grenoble Alps University, Laboratory 3SR,
Polytech Grenoble, France
E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract. The accurate prediction of the maximum surface subsidence caused by shallow
tunneling in soil environments is a valuable criterion for safe design and operation, especially in
urban areas. To investigate the surface subsidence due to tunneling, the simultaneous impact of
depth and diameter of the tunnel in both saturated and dry conditions have been investigated
using a FLAC3D Finite Difference Method. Six models having different diameters (7 m, 8 m,
and 9 m), depths (12 m, 16 m, and 20 m), and face pressures (0.34 MPa, 0.36 MPa, and 0.38
MPa) were developed. A step-by-step excavation process of the tunnel advance was considered
in the modeling to account for deformations ahead of the face and the shield's effect. Results
showed that depth and diameter induce a significant effect on the ground surface displacement
values and crown displacement values. As face pressure increases, the effect of tunnel depth and
diameter on surface and crown displacements decreases, and the effect of saturation did not
change.

1. Introduction
Metro tunnels are typically located at shallow depths to allow easy access to underground stations for
commuters [1]. When a large-diameter tunnel drives closely across important buildings or settlement-
sensitive infrastructures such as historical buildings or bridges and generally residential buildings,
special attention should be paid to the ground deformation induced by the shield tunneling because the
safety of the geological environment is of great concern, and the potential damage to the adjacent
structures should be avoided and reduced [2].
Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM) is one of the most popular methods that are widely used for excavating
underground tunnels. Using TBM has facilitated constructing tunnels with greater lengths, depths, and
diameters under the most challenging ground conditions [1, 3]. Erath Pressure Balance TBMs (i.e., EPB
TBM) are usually employed further to minimize soil disturbance and consequent free ground surface
movements as they do not require open cut excavation [4, 5].
There are commonly three different methods for predicting and analyzing tunneling-induced ground
subsidence: empirical and semi-empirical methods [6], analytical solutions [6-11], and numerical
methods [12-14]. The empirical and analytical methods are almost simple and useful. However, their
use is limited for design purposes [14].
Currently, in light of computer development, tunnel design mainly relies on numerical models [15].
Numerical methods are categorized mainly as Beam Element Method with Elastic Support, Finite
Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd 1
IICESAT Conference, College of Material Engineering, University of Babylon, Iraq IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 1973 (2021) 012207 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1973/1/012207

Element Method (FEM), Finite Difference Method (FDM), Boundary Element Method (BEM), and
Discrete Element Method (DEM). In addition, hybrid methods have evolved by combining two or more
of these individual methods. In the FDM, the subsurface is modeled as a continuum that is divided into
many elements which are interconnected at their nodes. The primary difference lies in the approach used
to solve the unknown parameters. In contrast to the Finite Element Method's implicit approach, the
Finite Difference Method is an explicit approach. The explicit approach facilitates analyzing the
behavior of the problem domain as it evolves with time. This allows for a step-by-step analysis of
possible failure mechanisms. A 3D model allows a more accurate analysis of the soil's construction
effects and the repercussions of some key parameters [16], such as the injection grout and chamber
pressures [13].
In this study, the numerical modeling of TBM EPB tunnel excavation is evaluated using FLAC3D
software [17]. The analyses have been performed using small strain approaches [18]. The studied site is
Tehran metro line 7, almost 27 km in length, with 25 stations. A description of face displacements (i.e.,
longitudinal displacements along the y-axis), crown settlement and surface settlement (i.e., ground
surface displacements) is presented. Owing to the significant role of face pressure in shield tunneling
excavations, the displacements were investigated at three different face pressures of 0.34, 0.36, and 0.38
MPa. The problem was also modeled in terms of three different depths and diameters. The progression
for the models was 28.5, 31.5, and 36 m, respectively, at depths of 12, 16, and 20 m (i.e., saturated and
dry conditions), respectively.

2. Methodology
A sensitivity analysis was also performed to consider the effect of soil parameter change (i.e., face
support pressure, the grouting pressure, the trailer weight and the length, weight and taper of the shield
machine) along the tunnel line. Dimensions of the model are presented as a function of diameter (D) and
tunnel axis depth (H). These dimensions are measured such that the effect of boundary conditions on
the results be eliminated. The parametric studies had obtained the following values to evaluate the
minimum dimensions of the numerical model size: H + 4D for the model height, 5D for half the model
length, and 10D for the model width (see figure 1 (a)). Where H is the tunnel axis depth and D is the
tunnel diameter. The full excavation sequence has been simulated, including the over excavation (the
void between the ground and the shield), the gap (the tailpiece void between soil and liner), and the
grouting process behind the shield tail. The excavated soil is considered as a homogeneous and isotropic
media. An elastic-perfectly plastic constitutive model with a Mohr-Coulomb resistance criterion was
considered for the soil, while the lining rings are modeled with an elastic constitutive model.
There are five parameters which are required to model the linear-elastic perfectly plastic behavior: the
elastic parameters, E (Young’s modulus) and ν (Poisson’s ratio) and the plastic parameters, 𝜑 (friction
angle), C (cohesion), and ψ (dilatancy angle) [18].
A three-dimensional view for the model with the diameter and overburden of 7 and 12 m, respectively,
is shown in figure 1 (a). The nodes at all sides of the model were fixed in the horizontal (x and y)
directions on the x–z and y–z planes, while the nodes at the base of the model (z = 30) were fixed in the
vertical (z) direction. Also, no horizontal displacements are allowed on the x–z and y–z planes at the
mesh's boundaries. Also, no vertical displacements are allowed on the x–y plane at the base boundary
of the mesh. Boundary conditions used in the simulation are shown in figure 1 (b).
Gridpoint displacements were reduced to zero to prevent any interference between pre-excavation and
post-excavation deformations once the model is balanced and before modeling the excavation works
[13, 18-20]. Dimensions of various models generated with different diameters and depths are provided
in Table 1. Some typical parameters used in the simulation are also summarized in Table 2. Using
Terzaghi theory (1943), a pressure distribution was applied to the excavation face to model the face
pressure [13, 18]. The horizontal ground pressure was set equal to the average face pressure value
(applied at the tunnel axis) [21]. Parameters used in modeling for the grout material are provided in
Table 3.

2
IICESAT Conference, College of Material Engineering, University of Babylon, Iraq IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 1973 (2021) 012207 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1973/1/012207

Figure 1. (a) A 3D view for the model (b) Boundary conditions used in the model.

A schematic representation of the excavation's components, the grouting thickness, and lining are shown
in figure 2. For excavation purposes, the model was excavated gradually by applying face pressure and
included excavation of 1.5m in each step (considering the concrete lining width) and by applying a
tunneling shield up to 10.5m (i.e., shield length). Consequently, once the drilled distance was over 10.5m
and the drilling machine had advanced, the first 1.5m of tunneling shield was removed at each
excavation round and then the concrete lining and backfill grout injection was applied while
simultaneously modeling the shield across the drilled segment. This procedure was continued until the
end of the excavation distance. Table 4 provides shield and segment properties used in the model.

Figure 2. Components installed for

excavation and maintenance.

Table 1. The model dimension (all in meters).

Diameter Depth Direction x Direction y Direction z

Model#1 7 12 35 70 40

Model#2 8 16 45 80 45

Model#3 9 20 55 90 55

3
IICESAT Conference, College of Material Engineering, University of Babylon, Iraq IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 1973 (2021) 012207 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1973/1/012207

Table 2. Typical geotechnical parameters for the soil used in the modelling.
E (MPa) C (kPa) 𝜑 ( °) ν 𝑘𝑁 𝑘𝑁
𝛾𝑑 ( 3 ) 𝛾𝑠𝑎𝑡 ( 3 )
𝑚 𝑚
49 30 33 0.32 19 21

Table 3. Grout Properties used in modeling.

𝐷𝑟 (𝑘𝑁⁄ 3 ) E (MPa) ν Thickness (mm)
𝑚
18 40 0.25 100

Table 4. Shield and segment properties used in the modeling.

𝑘𝑁 Thickness ν E
𝛾 ( 3)
𝑚 (m) (GPa)

Shield 78.5 0.15 0.3 210

Segment 25.5 0.3 0.2 27

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Face displacements (longitudinal displacements along the y-axis)

Figure 3 illustrate the face displacements of the tunnel at three different face pressures of 0.34 MPa
(figure 3 (a)), 0.36 MPa (figure 3 (b)) and 0.38 MPa (figure 3 (c)). In the figures, H and d denote the
depth and tunnel diameter of the models, respectively. The horizontal axis shows the face displacement
in meters. The vertical axis was defined along with the ceiling, wall, and floor of the tunnel. According
to these figures, the displacement values in all models lean toward inside the tunnel except those cases
that are occurring at the face pressures of 0.36 and 0.38 MPa, a depth of 12m, and a diameter of 7m in
the dry conditions that are outward displacements. This is because of the fact that the model may heave
if displacements reach the ground surface. According to the figures, as face pressure increases, the
graphs of cases with different depths and diameters converge, indicating that the impact of depth and
diameter decreases. However, it seems that face pressure has no significant effect on moisture-induced
displacements. In other words, the displacement values for saturated and dry conditions for each model
with the same diameter and depth remain almost unchanged.
Also, in model walls, the difference between displacement values in saturated and dry conditions is
maximum (graphs’ centers). However, the difference was near zero at ceiling and floor in the model,
indicating that ground moisture conditions had a small effect on ceiling and floor displacements of the
tunnel for a known depth and diameter.
As discussed earlier, the best optimal face pressure for drilling ideally occurs with the smallest face
displacement. According to diagrams, the best face pressure in the present study is 0.38 MPa, indicated
by the smallest displacement.

4
IICESAT Conference, College of Material Engineering, University of Babylon, Iraq IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 1973 (2021) 012207 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1973/1/012207

Figure 3. Tunnel face displacement at pressure of; (a) 0.34 MPa, (b) 0.36 MPa, (c) 0.38 MPa.
The Tunnel crown settlement (i.e., vertical displacement) at three face pressures of 0.34, 0.36, and 0.38
MPa are shown in figure 4 (a), 4 (b), and 4 (c), respectively. In the figures, the horizontal axis represents
the distance from the tunnel face (x), while the vertical axis represents settlement values.
As shown in figure 4 (a), maximum tunnel crown settlement for the dry condition was observed to be
approximately 7.9 mm at a face pressure of 0.34 MPa, a diameter of 7 m, and a depth of 12 m, while for
saturated conditions, the maximum displacement is 8.7 mm at a point with the same specifications. Also,
the displacement values were observed to be 15 and 13 mm in saturated and dry conditions, respectively,
for the model with a diameter of 8 m and depth of 16 m. The tunnel crown displacement values were
observed to be 24 mm and 26 mm in dry and saturated conditions for the model with a diameter of 9 m
and a depth of 20 m. It is clear that the difference between the dry and saturated curves becomes small
and negligible as the depth and diameter of the tunnel decrease, revealing that in the case of shallow
depths and small diameters, moisture bears little effect on displacement values while this effect increases
by increasing the depth and diameter.
Also, as the depth and the diameter increase, the displacement tends toward zero. However, the
displacement values turn zero at the same distance from the tunnel face in both dry and saturated
conditions for a specific depth and diameter model. It is clear from the figure that depth and diameter
bear a more significant effect on displacement values than soil saturation.
Moreover, the tunnel's maximum crown settlement in dry conditions is about 6.5 mm for the excavated
tunnel at a pressure of 0.36 MPa, diameter of 7 m, and a depth of 12 m, while this value is 6.9 mm for
the tunnel excavated in saturated conditions with similar diameter and depth. The displacement values
for saturated and dry soils are 14 and 12 mm, respectively, for models with a depth of 16 m and a
diameter of 8 m. Also, tunnel crown settlement values for saturated and dry soils were found to be 22.8
mm and 21.5 mm, respectively, for a model with a depth of 20 m and a diameter of 9 m. A comparison
between figures 4 (a) and (b) reveals that the displacement values decrease as face pressure increases.
In addition, as the face pressure increases, the difference in displacement values decreased for points

5
IICESAT Conference, College of Material Engineering, University of Babylon, Iraq IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 1973 (2021) 012207 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1973/1/012207

with the same depth and diameter and the saturation conditions, which shows that the effect of soil
saturation becomes smaller when face pressure increases.
Figure 4 (c) shows that the crown settlement is approximately 5 mm for the excavated tunnel at dry soil
with a pressure of 0.38 MPa, diameter of 7 m, and depth of 12 m. This amount is 6.25 mm for the
saturated condition at a similar diameter and depth. The crown settlement is 20.7 mm and 22 mm in dry
and saturated soils, respectively, for the model with a depth of 20 m and a diameter of 9 m.
A comparison of figures 4 (a) and 4 (c) reveals that the displacement values converge for models with
different depths and diameters as face pressure increases, indicating that increasing the face pressure
reduces the effect of diameter and depth on the roof settlement. However, increasing the pressure does
not affect the way saturated and dry soils contribute to tunnel crown settlement.

Figure 4. Tunnel crown settlement at the face pressure of; a) 0.34 MPa, b) 0.36 MPa, c) 0.38 MPa.

3.2. Ground surface settlement

The ground surface settlement at different depths and diameters of the tunnel for three face pressures of
0.34, 0.36, and 0.38 MPa, are shown in figures 5 (a), 5 (b), and 5 (c), respectively. The horizontal axis
represents the distance from the tunnel face (x), while the vertical axis represents the extent of
settlement.
It can be seen that the settlement values reach zero at a certain distance from the tunnel face at smaller
depths and diameters. In contrast, in a depth of 20 m and a diameter of 9 m, the settlement values do not
approach zero even at large distances from the tunnel face. It is also clear that depth and diameter have
a greater effect on the extent of displacement than does soil saturation.
Based on the cases discussed above and in figure 5 (b), a smaller settlement is expected when pressure
increases from 0.34 to 0.36 MPa. Accordingly, settlement values in the case of the pressure of 0.36 MPa
are smaller than those for the pressure of 0.34 MPa, while settlement values in the case of the pressure
of 0.36 MPa are larger than those in the case of the pressure of 0.38 MPa.

6
IICESAT Conference, College of Material Engineering, University of Babylon, Iraq IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 1973 (2021) 012207 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1973/1/012207

The ground settlements for both the dry and saturated conditions are shown in figure 5 (c). Generally, a
review of figure 5 helps us see that any increase in face pressure leads to a decrease in depth and diameter
influence on displacement. However, an increase in the face pressure does not lead to any change in the
moisture-induced displacement.

Figure 5. Ground surface settlement at a pressure of; a) 0.34 MPa, b) 0.36 MPa, c) 0.38 MPa.

4. Conclusions
In this study, six different numerical models were developed for different tunnel diameters and
overburden in both dry and fully saturated conditions at face pressures of 0.34, 0.36, and 0.38 MPa.
Finite Difference Models were used to model and evaluate the effect of these parameters. The following
is a summary of the main outputs of this study:
At a constant face pressure, as the tunnel's diameter and depth increase, ceiling displacements in a
saturated state are higher than in the dry state. The effect of tunnel depth and diameter on displacements
is greater than the effect of moisture on these values. As the face pressure increases, the effect of tunnel
depth and diameter on displacements decreases but the amount of soil moisture does not affect the
displacement values. In both dry and saturated states, the displacements increase as the tunnel's diameter
and depth increase.

5. References
[1] Dziuban B, Ling HI, and Li L 2018 Failure Mechanisms of Shallow Tunnel in Sandy Ground.
Transportation Infrastructure Geotechnology. 5(4) 318-331.
[2] Xie X, Yang Y and Ji M 2016 Analysis of ground surface settlement induced by the construction
of a large-diameter shield-driven tunnel in Shanghai, China. Tunnelling and Underground Space
Technology. 51 120-132.
[3] Ramsheh FA 2018 Estimation of the TBM penetration rate using strain energy and drop modulus
using ROCKLAB software. Specialty Journal of Mining and Geological Engineering. 1 23-32.

7
IICESAT Conference, College of Material Engineering, University of Babylon, Iraq IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 1973 (2021) 012207 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1973/1/012207

[4] Lambrughi A, Rodríguez LM and Castellanza R 2012 Development and validation of a 3D

numerical model for TBM–EPB mechanised excavations. Computers and Geotechnics. 40 97-
113.
[5] Rashiddel A, Ramsheh FA, Ramesh A, Dias D and Hajihassani M 2020 Clogging Potential of
Earth-Pressure Balance Shield Driven Tunnels. The Open Construction and Building Technology
Journal. 14 185-195.
[6] Atkinson JH and Potts DM 1977. Subsidence above shallow tunnels in soft ground. Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 103(Proc. Paper 11318 Proceeding).
[7] Sagaseta C 1987 Analysis of undraind soil deformation due to ground loss. Geotechnique. 37(3)
301-320.
[8] Bobet A 2001. Analytical solutions for shallow tunnels in saturated ground. Journal of
Engineering Mechanics. 127(12) 1258-1266.
[9] Park KH 2005 Analytical solution for tunnelling-induced ground movement in clays. Tunnelling
and underground space technology. 20(3) 249-261.
[10] Hedayat A 2016 Stability of circular tunnels excavated in rock masses under gravity loading, 50th
US Rock Mechanics/Geomechanics Symposium. American Rock Mechanics Association.
[11] Bobet A 2016. Deep Lined Circular Tunnels in Transversely Anisotropic Rock: Complementary
Solutions. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering. 49(9) 3817-3822.
[12] Ramsheh FA 2020 Numerical analysis of the effects of tunnel diameter and tunnel depth on the
subsidence. 7th Iran Rock Mechanics conf., Tehran University, Iran 2 54-60.
[13] Melis M, Medina L and Rodríguez JM 2002 Prediction and analysis of subsidence induced by
shield tunnelling in the Madrid Metro extension. Canadian Geotechnical Journal. 39(6) 1273-
1287.
[14] Maraš-Dragojević S 2012 Analysis of ground settlement caused by tunnel construction.
Građevinar. 64(07) 573-581.
[15] Vitali OP, Celestino TB and Bobet A 2018 3D finite element modelling optimization for deep
tunnels with material nonlinearity. Underground Space. 3(2) 125-139.
[16] Abdel-Meguid M, Rowe R and Lo K 2003 Three-dimensional analysis of unlined tunnels in rock
subjected to high horizontal stress. Canadian geotechnical journal. 40(6) 1208-1224.
[17] Itasca Consulting Group Inc., 2016 FLAC3D.
[18] Do NA, Dias D, Oreste P and Djeran-Maigre I 2014 Three-dimensional numerical simulation of
a mechanized twin tunnels in soft ground. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology. 42
40-51.
[19] Rashiddel A, Kharghani M, Dias D and Hajihassani M 2020 Numerical study of the segmental
tunnel lining behavior under a surface explosion – Impact of the longitudinal joints shape.
Comput.Geotech. vol. 128, 2020.103822. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2020.103822].
[20] Ramesh A, Hajihassani M and Rashiddel A 2020 Ground Movements Prediction in Shield-Driven
Tunnels using Gene Expression Programming. The Open Construction & Building Technology
Journal, Volume 14, Issues Suppl-2, M4, Page 286-297. DOI: 10.2174/1874836802014010286.
[21] Mollon G, Dias D and Soubra AH 2013 Probabilistic analyses of tunneling-induced ground
movements. Acta Geotechnica. 8(2) 181-199.