Evaluation of Soil Constitutive Model Effects on Numerical Modeling of Settlement Induced by Tunneling in Urban Area, Case Study of the Amirkabir Tunnel

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

1 Dept. of Mining, Petroleum & Geophysics, Shahrood University of Technology, Shahrood, Iran

2 Dept. of Mining, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran

3 Western Australian School of Mine (WASM), Curtin University, Australia

4 Dept. of Mining and Metallurgy, Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran, Iran

10.29252/anm.2019.12567.1411

Abstract

Summary
This paper reflects the role of different constitutive models on the deformations induced by tunneling in the urban area. These constitutive models were applied in finite element analysis of tunnel-induced subsidence for the case study of the Amirkabir Tunnel in Tehran. The results of this paper indicate that the numerical simulation of tunneling induced settlement with hardening soil small strain stiffness model is much more accurate than other constitutive models. 
 
Introduction
Accurate prediction of tunneling induced settlement is one of the most important challenges encountered in urban underground projects. Generally, such predictions are usually obtained by the application of numerical simulation, where the accuracy of the results depends on several factors. The constitutive models play an indicative role in the accuracy of numerical simulation of tunneling induced settlement. This issue was studied by comparing the effect of different constitutive models on the development of ground deformations around the tunnel and the tunneling induced settlement for a case study.     
 
Methodology and Approaches
Finite element analysis of tunneling induced deformations using PLAXIS software was performed for three different elastoplastic constitutive models including Mohr-Coulomb, hardening soil, and small strain hardening. The input data of numerical simulation were captured from different in-suite and laboratory tests on the host ground of the Amirkabir tunnel as a case study. Tunnel construction was modeled based on the as-built condition of the excavation stages of the T4 section of the Amirkabir tunnel. Finally, numerical results were compared and verified with monitoring results and field measurements.
 
Results and Conclusions
Results showed that the Mohr-Coulomb model provides a lower prediction of vertical displacements comparing to two other implemented models. Furthermore, the Mohr-Coulomb model shows an unrealistic uplift of the tunnel floor after all of the excavation stages. Results illustrated that using hardening soil models, with sophisticated features including non-linearity pre-failure and high stiffness under small strain, considerably improves the prediction of displacements. It is observed that using hardening soil small strain stiffness model, the accuracy of predictions increased noticeably compared to the field measurements. A full comparison between the results from Mohr-Coulomb and Hardening Soil cases yields some important differences, which are presented in this paper.

Keywords

Main Subjects

Full Text

حفر فضاهای زیرزمینی (از قبیل تونل) با جابجایی و تغییرشکل زمین اطراف (محیط درونگیر) و نشست سطح زمین همراه است. بررسی و پیش بینی این تغییرشکل‌ها بویژه برای تونل‌های شهری از اهمیت ویژه‌ای برخوردار بوده و دقت این نوع پیش‌بینی‌ها به شدت به نوع و سطح مدل‌های مورد استفاده وابسته است. با به کارگیری مدل مناسب برای بررسی رفتار جابجایی‌های اطراف فضاهای زیرزمینی مثل تونل، دقت پیش‌بینی‌ها افزایش یافته که این موضوع در نهایت منجر به افزایش کارآیی و کاهش مخاطرات پروژه خواهد شد.

پیش‌بینی جابجایی‌های سطحی (نشست سطح زمین) در فرآیند احداث تونل یک امر بسیار مهم بوده و مطالعات گسترده‌ای در این خصوص انجام شده است. به طور کلی، مطالعات انجام شده در خصوص جابجایی‌ها (به ویژه نشست) ناشی از حفر تونل را می‌توان به روش‌های تجربی[1-4]، تحلیلی[4-9] و عددی[9-13] تقسیم‌بندی نمود. اولین تلاش‌ها برای پیش‌بینی نشست ناشی از حفر تونل با استفاده از روش‌های تجربی انجام شده است. روش‌های تجربی دارای چارچوب محاسباتی ساده‌ای بوده و یک تخمین کلی و ابتدایی از جابجایی‌های ناشی از حفر تونل را ارائه می‌کنند[14،15]. معادلات حاکم بر جابجایی‌های ناشی از حفر تونل در روش‌های تجربی جایگاهی نداشته که در نتیجه، مطالعات جدیدتر به سمت توسعه روش‌های تحلیلی و راه‌حل‌های فرم بسته گرایش پیدا کردند[16،17]. مدل‌های تحلیلی دارای فرضیات ساده کننده بسیار زیادی بوده و در اعمال بسیاری از پارامترهای موثر در اندرکنش تونل و زمین درونگیر شامل پارامترهای ژئومکانیکی زمین، اثر آب زیرزمینی، شکل مقطع تونل و روش حفاری و نصب سیستم نگهداری دارای ضعف شدید هستند. به همین دلیل، در سالیان اخیر، استفاده از روش‌های عددی با قابلیت‌هایی همچون امکان مدلسازی‌ رفتارهای مختلف زمین، امکان در نظر گرفتن رفتار آنیزوتروپ و ناهمگن محیط، قابلیت تحلیل‏ مسائل غیرخطی، قابلیت مدلسازی‌ تونل با اشکال مختلف و امکان اعمال روش اجرایی، استفاده از مدل های عددی برای شبیه‌سازی تغییرشکل‌های اطراف تونل و پیش‌بینی نشست ناشی از حفر تونل به شدت گسترش یافته است[18-21].

References

[1]           Peck RB. Deep excavation and tunneling in soft ground. State-of-the-art report. In Proc 7th int conf soil mechanics and found engineering, Mexico, 1969.
[2]           New BM, O’Reilly MP. Tunneling induced ground movements, predicting their magnitude and effects. Proc 4th conf on ground movements and structure, Cardiff, 1991.
[3]           Attewell P.B. Ground movements caused by tunnelling in soil, Cardiff J.D. Geddes (Ed.), 1st Conf on Large Ground Movements and Structures, Pentech Press, London, 1977.
[4]           Mair RJ, Gunn MJ, O’Reilly MP. Ground movements around shallow tunnel in soft clay. 10th int conf on soil mechanics and foundation engineering, Stockholm, 1983.
[5]           Sagaseta C. Analysis of undrained soil deformation due to ground loss. Géotechnique, 1987
[6]           Verruijt A, Booker JR. Surface settlements due to deformation of a tunnel in an elastic half plane. Géotechnique, 1996.
[7]           Park KH. Analytical solution for tunneling-induced ground movements in clays. Tunnell. Underground Space Technol. 2005.
[8]           Pinto F, Whittle A. J. Ground Movements due to shallow tunnels in soft ground. I: Analytical solutions, ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 2011.
[9]           Wang H.N, Zeng G.S, Jiang, M.J.  Analytical stress and displacement around non-circular tunnels in semi-infinite ground, Applied Mathematical Modelling, V.63, 2018.
[10]         Rowe R.K., Lo K.Y, Kack G.J. A method of estimating surface settlement above tunnels constructed in soft ground, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 20(1), 1983.
[11]         Gall G, Grimaldi A, Leonardi A. Three-dimensional modelling of tunnel excavation and lining, Computers and Geotechnics, 31(3), 2004.
[12]         Do N.A, Dias D.  A Comparison of 2D and 3D numerical simulations of tunnelling in soft soils. Environmental Earth Sciences, 2017.
[13]         Meng F.Y, Chen R.P, Kang X. Effects of tunneling-induced soil disturbance on the post-construction settlement in structured soft soils, Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, V 80, 2018.
[14]         Sarder Y, Rini A. A review on Methods of Predicting Tunneling Induced Ground Settlements. Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 2014.
[15]         Migliazza M,  Chiorboli M, Giani G.P. Comparison of analytical method, 3D finite element model with experimental subsidence measurements resulting from the extension of the Milan underground, Computers and Geotechnics, V 36, 2009.
[16]         Zhang Z, Zhang M, Jiang Y, Bai Q, Zhao Q, Analytical prediction for ground movements and liner internal forces induced by shallow tunnels considering non-uniform convergence pattern and ground-liner interaction mechanism, Soils and Foundations, V 57, 2017.
[17]         Wang H.N, Chen X.P, Jiang M.J, Song F, Wu L. The analytical predictions on displacement and stress around shallow tunnels subjected to surcharge loadings, Tunnell. Underground Space Technol., V 71, 2018.
[18]         Dalong J, Dajun Y, Xinggao L, Haotian Z. Analysis of the settlement of an existing tunnel induced by shield tunneling underneath Tunnell. Underground Space Technol., 2018.
[19]         Fong K.Y, Liu H.L. The effects of existing horseshoe-shaped tunnel sizes on circular crossing tunnel interactions: Three-dimensional numerical analyses. Tunnell. Underground Space Technol., 2018.
[20]         Schreter M, Neuner M, Unteregger D, Hofstette G.On the importance of advanced constitutive models in finite element simulations of deep tunnel advance, Tunnell. Underground Space Technol., V 80, 2018.
[21]         Sainoki A, Tabata S, Mitri H,  Fukuda D, Kodama J. Time-dependent tunnel deformations in homogeneous and heterogeneous weak rock formations. Computers and Geotechnics, 2017.
[22]         Brinkgreve R.B.J.  Selection of Soil Models and Parameters for Geotechnical Engineering Application, engineering application, ACSE Geotech. Spec. Publ., 2005.
[23]         Lade P.V. Overview of constitutive models for soils, in Soil Constitutive Models: Evaluation, Selection, and Calibration, edited by J. A. Yamamuro, and V. N. Kalaikin, ASCE Geotech. Spec. Publ., 2005.
[24]         Atkinson J, Sallfors G. Experimental determination of soil properties. In Proc. 10th ECSMFE, V 3, 1991.
[25]         Obrzud R.F. The haedening soil model-a practical guidebook. Technical report Z_Soil. PC 100701, Zace Services LtD, 2010.
[26]         Addenbrooke T.I, Potts D.M, Puzrin A.M. The influence of pre-failure soil stiffness on the numerical analysis of tunnel construction. Ge´otechnique, 1997.
[27]         Bolton M.D, Dasari G.R, Britto A.M.  Putting small-strain non-linearity into modified cam clay model. In Proc. of the 8th international conference on computer methods and advances in geomechanics, Morgantown, West Virginia, 1994.
[28]         Masˇı´n D, Herle I.  Numerical analyses of a tunnel in London clay using different constitutive models. In Proc of the 5th international symposium TC28 geotechnical aspects of underground construction in soft ground, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2005.
[29]         Hejazi Y, Dias D, Kastner R. Impact of constitutive models on the numerical analysis of underground constructions. Acta Geotechnica Journal. 2008.
[30]         Small J.C. Geomechanics in soil, rock, and environmental engineering. CRC Press, 2016.
[31]         Boha´cˇ J, Herle I, Masˇı´n D. Stress and strain dependent stiffness in a numerical model of a tunnel. In Proc of the 2nd international conference on soil structure interaction in urban civil engineering. Zurich, Switzerland, 2002.
[32]         Ochiai H, Lade P.V. Three-dimensioal behavior of sand with anisotropic fabric. J. Geotechn. Eng., 1983.
[33]         Chen W.F, McCarron W.O.Plasticity modelling and its application to geomechanics. In Balasubramaniam et al (eds) Proc. Intl. Symposium on Recent Developments in Laboratory and Field Testing and Analysis of Geotechnical Problems, A.A. Balkema, Bangkok, 1986.
[34]         Herle I.T, Doanh W. Comparison of hypoplastic and elastoplastic modeling of undrained triaxial tests on loose sand, Constitutive Modelling of Granular Material, (Ed. Kolymbas, D), Harton, Springer, 2000.
[35]         Wong P.K.K, Mitchell R.J. Yielding and plastic flow of sensitive cemented clay. Geotechnique 1975.
[36]         Schanz T, Vermeer P, Bonier, P. Formulation and verification of the Hardening Soil model. Beyond 2000 in Computational Geotechnics, 1999.
[37]         Brinkgreve, R.B.J, Vermeer P.A. Plaxis finite element code for soil and rock analysis-Version 7, Balkema, Rotterdam, 1997.
[38]         Drucker D.C, Gibson R.E, Henkel D.J. Soil mechanics and work hardening theories of plasticity. Transactions American Society of Civil Engineering, 1957.
[39]         Rowe P.W. The stress- dilatancy relation for static equilibrium of an assmebly of particles in contact. In proc of the Royal Society of London, V 62 of A, Mathematical and Physics Sciences, 1962.
[40]         Gryczmanski M. State of the art in modelling of soil behavior at small starins. Architecture Civil Engineering Environment Journal V2, 2009.
[41]         Jaediner J, Fourie A.B, Maswoswj J, Burland J.B. Field and laboratory measurements of soil stiffness. In proceedings, 1 lth International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, San Francisco. V 2, 1985.
[42]         Burland J.B.  Small is beautiful: the stiffness of soils at small strains. Ninth Laurits Bjerrum Lecture. Can. Geotech. J., 1989.
[43]         Jardine R J, Potts D.M, Fourie A.B, Burland  J.B.  Studies of the influence of nonlinear stress–strain characteristics in soil–structure interaction. Ge´otechnique, 1986.
[44]         Mair R.J. Developments in geotechnical engineering research: applications to tunnels and deep excavations. Proc. Instn Civ. Engrs, Civ. Engng., 1993.
[45]         Clayton C.R.I. Stiffness at small strain: research and practice. Geotechnique, 2011.
[46]         Benz T. Small-strain stiffness of soils and its numerical consequences. PhD, University of Sttutgart, 2007.
[47]         Darendeli M.B, Stokoe K.H. Development of a new family of normalized modulus reduction and material damping curves. Engrg. Rpt. GD01-1, University of Texas, Austin, Texas, 2001.
[48]         Santos J.A, Correia A.G. Reference threshold shear strain of soil: Its application to obtain a unique strain dependent shear modulus curve for soil. In 15th Int.Conf. SMGE, V1, Istanbul, 2001.
[49]         http://omrani.tehran.ir/Default.aspx?tabid=162 (website for December 2014).
[50]         D2-POR, Design Documents and study Reports of Amirkabir Tunnel. 2012.
[51]         Rieben E.H.  Geological observation on alluvial deposits in northern Iran, Geological Survey of Iran, Report No. 9, 1966.
[52]         Sayadi S, Assessment of tunnel induced displacement in sequential excavation method to develop soil constitutive model, MSc dissertation, Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran, Iran, 2015. (In Persion)
Journal of Analytical and Numerical Methods in Mining Engineering
Volume 10, Issue 24
November 2020
Pages 119-136

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 09 July 2019
  • Revise Date: 12 October 2019
  • Accept Date: 30 October 2019

Share

How to cite

Statistics