Journal of Zhejiang University-SCIENCE A

, Volume 11, Issue 1, pp 9–17 | Cite as

Direct and relaxation methods for soil-structure interaction due to tunneling

Article
  • 161 Downloads

Abstract

This paper deals with the problem of tunneling effects on existing buildings. The direct solution, using the condensation method, is presented. This method allows the structural and geotechnical engineers to treat the problem separately and then assemble a relatively small matrix that can be solved directly, even within a spreadsheet. There are certain concerns that the resultant matrix may be ill-conditioned when the structure is very stiff. This paper suggests an alternative method that essentially relaxes the system from an infinitely rigid structure solution. As such, it does not encounter the problems associated with stiff systems. The two methods are evaluated for an example problem of tunneling below a framed structure. It is found that while the direct method may fail to predict reasonable values when the structure is extremely rigid, the alternative method is stable. The relaxation method can therefore be used in cases where there are concerns about the reliability of a direct solution.

Key words

Tunneling Soil-structure interaction Foundation settlements Excavations Soil mechanics 

CLC number

TU4 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Attewell, P.B., Yeates, J., Selby, A.R., 1986. Soil Movements Induced by Tunnelling and Their Effects on Pipelines and Structures. Blackie and Son Ltd., London.Google Scholar
  2. Davis, R.O., Selvadurai, A.P.S., 1996. Elasticity and Geomechanics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  3. Franzius, J.N., Potts, D.M., Burland, J.B., 2006. The response of surface structures to tunnel construction. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers Geotechnical Engineering, 159(1):3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Itasca, 2005. FLAC Ver. 5-User Manual. Itasca Consulting Group Inc., Minneapolis.Google Scholar
  5. Klar, A., Vorster, T.E.B., Soga, K., Mair, R.J., 2005. Soil-pipe interaction due to tunneling: comparison between winkler and elastic continuum solutions. Geotechnique, 55(6): 461–466. [doi:10.1680/geot.2005.55.6.461]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Klar, A., Vorster, T.E.B., Soga, K., Mair, R.J., 2007. Elastoplastic solution for soil-pipe-tunnel interaction. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 133(7): 782–792. [doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2007)133:7 (782)]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Klar, A., Marshall, A.M., Soga, K., Mair, R.J., 2008. Tunnelling effects on jointed pipeline. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 45(1):131–139. [doi:10.1139/T07-068]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. LUSAS, 2007. LUSAS Ver. 14-User Manual. LUSAS, London.Google Scholar
  9. Mair, R.J., Taylor, R.N., Bracegirdle, A., 1993. Subsurface settlement profiles above tunnels in clays. Geotechnique, 43(2):315–320. [doi:10.1680/geot.1993.43.2.315]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Oasys, 2007. Oasys-GSA Ver 8.2-User Manual. Oasys Limited, London.Google Scholar
  11. Plaxis, 2006. Plaxis ver 8.0-User Manual. Plaxis, Delft.Google Scholar
  12. Potts, D.M., Addenbrooke, T.I., 1997. A structure’s influence on tunnelling-induced ground movements. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers Geotechnical Engineering, 125(2):109–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Poulos, H.G., Davis, E.H., 1974. Elastic Solutions for Soil and Rock Mechanics. Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
  14. Weaver, W., Johnston, P.R., 1987. Structural Dynamics by Finite Elements. Prentice Hall, New Jersey.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Zhejiang University and Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Civil and Environmental EngineeringTechnion-Israel Institute of TechnologyHaifaIsrael

Personalised recommendations