Advertisement

Influence of Twin Tunnel Depth in Numerical Ground Movement Prediction Using Mohr Coulomb and Hardening Soil Model

  • Darvintharen Govindasamy
  • Mohd Ashraf Mohamad IsmailEmail author
  • Mohd Faiz Mohammad Zaki
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering book series (LNCE, volume 53)

Abstract

In urban area tunnel construction growing rapidly due to urbanization and increase in population rate. Tunnels are excavated at different depths from ground surface, but this will cause ground settlement in the excavation area which impact the surrounding structures. This paper is focused on effects of the surface ground movement prediction using numerical approach at various depth with Mohr Coulomb (MC) model and Hardening Soil (HS) model. Kenny Hill Formation used as the study area particularly chainage NB 1960. In this paper, the shape and pattern of the ground movement that obtained from simulation in PLAXIS 2D using MC model was compared with HS model output. Various tunnel depth location was used in the analysis such as real site condition tunnel depth and the relationship of 1d, 2d, 3d and 4d where d is the diameter of the tunnel. From this study, it can be seen that when tunnel depth increases the surface settlement decreases for both MC and HS model. But, the MC model’s ground surface settlements were undoubtedly lower than HS model.

Keywords

Mohr Coulomb model Hardening soil model Twin tunnel Ground surface settlement Finite element method Contraction ratio 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Author express gratitude to USM Fellowship program for providing financial assistance in the form of scholarship. Moreover, the authors gratefully acknowledge the lecturers and peers of School of Civil Engineering, Universiti Sains Malaysia for the successful completion of this study. In addition, the authors would also like to express their gratitude to the anonymous reviewers for the constructive and useful suggestion in improving this article.

References

  1. 1.
    Brinkgreve RBJ (2005) Selection of soil models and parameters for geotechnical engineering application. Geo-Frontiers Congress 2005:69–98.  https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7445.AM2013-1522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brinkgreve RBJ, Kumarswamy S, Swolfs WM, Foria F (2018) PLAXIS 2D material models manual. PLAXIS 2018Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Celik S (2017) Comparison of Mohr-Coulomb and hardening soil models numerical estimation of ground surface settlement caused by tunneling. J Inst Sci Technol 7(4):95–102.  https://doi.org/10.21597/jist.2017.202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chakeri H, Ozcelik Y, Unver B (2013) Effects of important factors on surface settlement prediction for metro tunnel excavated by EPB. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 36:14–23.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2013.02.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chen SL, Lee SC, Wei YS (2016) Numerical analysis of ground surface settlement induced by Double-O tube shield tunneling. J Perform Constr Facilities 30(5):04016012.  https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)cf.1943-5509.0000732CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Law KH, Othman SZ, Hashim R, Ismail Z (2014) Determination of soil stiffness parameters at a deep excavation construction site in Kenny Hill formation. Meas J Int Meas Confederation 47(1):645–650.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2013.09.030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Likitlersuang S, Surarak C, Balasubramaniam A (2016) Long-term behaviour prediction of the Bangkok MRT tunnels using simplified finite-element modelling. Jpn Geotech Soc Spec Pub 2(42):1507–1512.  https://doi.org/10.3208/jgssp.sea-07CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Likitlersuang S, Surarak C, Suwansawat S, Wanatowski D, Oh E, Balasubramaniam A (2014) Simplified finite-element modelling for tunnelling-induced settlements. Geotech Res 1(4):133–152.  https://doi.org/10.1680/gr.14.00016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Loganathan N (2011) An innovative method for assessing tunnelling-induced risks to adjacent structures. Parsons Brinckerhoff IncGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Melis M, Medina L, Rodríguez JM (2002) Prediction and analysis of subsidence induced by shield tunnelling in the Madrid Metro extension. Can Geotech J 39(6):1273–1287.  https://doi.org/10.1139/t02-073CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mohamed Z, Rafek AG, Komoo I (2007) Characterisation and classification of the physical deterioration of tropically weathered Kenny Hill Rock for civil works. Electron J Geotech Eng 12:16Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schanz T, Vermeer PA, Bonnier P (1999) The hardening soil model: formulation and verification. Beyond 2000 Comput Geotech 10 years PLAXIS Int Proc Int Symposium beyond 2000 Comput Geotech. Taylor & Francis, Rotterdam, NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schweiger HF (2008) The role of advanced constitutive models in geotechnical engineering. Geomechanik Und Tunnelbau 1:336–344.  https://doi.org/10.1002/geot.200800033CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yang XL, Wang JM (2011) Ground movement prediction for tunnels using simplified procedure. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 26(3):462–471.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2011.01.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Darvintharen Govindasamy
    • 1
  • Mohd Ashraf Mohamad Ismail
    • 1
    Email author
  • Mohd Faiz Mohammad Zaki
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Civil EngineeringUniversiti Sains MalaysiaNibong TebalMalaysia
  2. 2.School of Environmental EngineeringUniversiti Malaysia PerlisArauMalaysia

Personalised recommendations