Environmental Earth Sciences

, 76:102 | Cite as

A comparison of 2D and 3D numerical simulations of tunnelling in soft soils

Original Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Tunnel excavation is a three-dimensional problem, especially in the zone close to the tunnel face. However, despite recent advances in computing resources, a full 3D numerical analysis is usually complex and requires important computational resources (both in terms of storage and of time). Two-dimensional simulations are therefore often used. In this paper, the Hanoi metro system is used as a case study. A numerical investigation is performed to evaluate the applicability of 2D deconfinement methods. These methods consider pre-displacements of the soil surrounding the tunnel before installation of the tunnel structure to model the 3D phenomenon which occurs at the tunnel face. The obtained results allow estimating the 2D deconfinement method which gives the better agreement with the 3D model in terms of both soil movements and structural forces induced in the tunnel lining using an error function. These estimations were performed at different sections along the tunnel direction in order to highlight the effect of the tunnel advancement on the applicability of 2D deconfinement methods.

Keywords

Tunnelling Soft soil Numerical calculations 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research is funded by Vietnam National Foundation for Science and Technology Development (NAFOSTED) under grant number 105.08-2015.14.

References

  1. Addenbrooke TI, Potts DM, Puzrin AM (1997) The influence of pre-failure soil stiffness on the numerical analysis of tunnel construction. Geotechnique 47(3):693–712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arnau O, Molins C (2012) Three dimensional structural response of segmental tunnel linings. Eng Struct 44:210–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Callari C, Casini S (2005) Tunnels in saturated elasto-plastic soils: three-dimensional validation of a plane simulation procedure. In: Frémond M, Maceri F (eds) Mechanical modeling and computational issues in civil engineering. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 143–164Google Scholar
  4. Cattoni E, Miriano C, Boco L, Tamagnini C (2016) Time dependent ground movements induced by shield tunnelling in soft clay: a parametric study. Acta Geotech 11(6):1385–1399. doi: 10.1007/s11440-016-0452-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Do NA, Dias D, Oreste PP, Djeran-Maigre I (2013) 2D numerical investigation of segmental tunnel lining behavior. Tunnel Undergr Space Technol 37:115–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Do NA, Dias D, Oreste PP, Djeran-Maigre I (2014a) 2D tunnel numerical investigation: the influence of the deconfinement method on tunnel behaviour. Geotech Geol Eng 32(1):43–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Do NA, Dias D, Oreste PP, Djeran-Maigre I (2014b) Two-dimensional numerical investigation of twin tunnel interaction. Geomech Eng 6(3):263–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Do NA, Dias D, Oreste PP, Djeran-Maigre I (2014c) Three-dimensional numerical simulation of a mechanized twin tunnels in soft soil. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 42:40–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Do NA, Dias D, Oreste PP (2014d) 3D numerical investigation on the interaction between mechanized twin tunnels in soft soil. Environ Earth Sci 73(5):2101–2113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Do NA, Dias D, Oreste PP (2014e) Three-dimensional numerical simulation of mechanized twin stacked tunnels in soft soil. J Zhejiang Univ Sci A 15(11):896–913CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Do NA, Dias D, Oreste PP, Djeran-Maigre I (2014f) Three-dimensional numerical simulation for mechanized tunnelling in soft soil: the influence of the joint pattern. Acta Geotech 9(4):673–694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Do NA, Dias D, Oreste PP (2015) 3D Numerical investigation of mechanized twin tunnels in soft soil—influence of lagging distance between two tunnel faces. Eng Struct 109:117–125. doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2015.11.053 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hanoi Metropolitan Railway Management Board (MRB) (2012) Hanoi pilot light metro line 3, section Nhon-Hanoi Railway Station-Technical design of underground section-line and stations. Package No.: HPLMLP/CP-03Google Scholar
  14. Hejazi Y, Dias D, Kastner R (2008) Impact of constitutive models on the numerical analysis of underground constructions. Acta Geotech 3:251–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Itasca Consulting Group, Inc. (2009) FLAC fast lagrangian analysis of continua. Version 4.0. User’s manualGoogle Scholar
  16. Janin JP, Dias D, Kastner R, Emeriault F, Le Bissonnais H, Guilloux A (2015) Numerical back-analysis of the southern Toulon tunnel measurements: a comparison of 3D and 2D approaches. Eng Geol 195:42–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jenck O, Dias D (2004) Analyse tridimensionnelle en différences finies de l’interaction entre une structure en béton et le creusement d’un tunnel à faible profondeur. Geotechnique 8(54):519–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Karakus M (2007) Appraising the methods accounting for 3D tunnelling effects in 2D plane strain FE analysis. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 22:47–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Möller SC, Vermeer PA (2008) On numerical simulation of tunnel installation. Tunnel Undergr Space Technol 23:461–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mollon G, Dias D, Soubra AH (2013) Probabilistic analyses of tunnelling-induced soil movements. Acta Geotech 8(2):181–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Muniz de Farias M, Júnior AHM, Pacheco de Assis A (2004) Displacement control in tunnels excavated by the NATM: 3-D numerical simulations. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 19(3):283–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Negro A, Queiroz BIP (2000) Prediction and performance of soft soil tunnels. In: Geotechnical aspects of underground construction in soft soil, Balkema, Tokyo, Japan, pp 409–418Google Scholar
  23. Panet M, Guenot A (1982) Analysis of convergence behind the face of a tunnel. In: Proceedings of the international symposium, tunnelling, pp 187–204Google Scholar
  24. Rowe RK, Lo KY, Kack KJ (1983) A method of estimating surface settlement above shallow tunnels constructed in soft soil. Can Geotech J 20:11–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Surarak C (2010) Geotechnical aspects of the Bangkok MRT blue line project. Ph.D. dissertation, Griffith UniversityGoogle Scholar
  26. Svoboda T, Masin D (2009) Comparison of displacement field predicted by 2D and 3D finite element modeling of shallow NATM tunnels in clays. Geotechnik 34:115–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Swoboda G (1979) Finite element analysis of the New Austrian Tunnelling Method (NATM). In: Proceedings of 3rd international conference on numerical methods in geomechanics, Aachen, vol 2, p 581Google Scholar
  28. Tamagnini C, Miriano C, Sellari E, Cipollone N (2005) Two dimensional FE analysis of ground movements induced by shield tunnelling: the role of tunnel ovalization. Riv Ital Geotech 1:11–33Google Scholar
  29. Vermeer PA, Brinkgreve R (1993) Plaxis version 5 manual. A.A. Balkema, RotterdamGoogle Scholar
  30. Wongsaroj J, Soga K, Mair R (2013) Tunnelling induced consolidation settlements in London clay. Geotechnique 63(13):1103–1115CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Underground and Mining Construction, Faculty of Civil EngineeringHanoi University of Mining and GeologyHanoiVietnam
  2. 2.Laboratory 3SRGrenoble Alpes UniversityGrenobleFrance

Personalised recommendations