Advertisement

Example Applications of Satellite Monitoring for Post-tunnelling Settlement Damage Assessment for the Crossrail Project in London

  • Giorgia GiardinaEmail author
  • Pietro Milillo
  • Matthew J. DeJong
  • Daniele Perissin
  • Giovanni Milillo
Part of the RILEM Bookseries book series (RILEM, volume 18)

Abstract

Structural monitoring of surface building displacements is a significant component of the total financial investment for underground construction projects in urban areas. While traditional monitoring requires in-situ (terrestrial) measurements and trigger levels based on preliminary evaluation of vulnerable structures, very recent advances in Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (InSAR) techniques enable remote monitoring over extensive areas, providing rapid, semi-automatic, and dense measurements with millimetre accuracy. Despite the well-established use of InSAR in geophysical applications, only a few studies are currently available on the use of satellite-based monitoring for the assessment of building deformations and structural damage. The aim of this project is to investigate the potential of InSAR monitoring data as an input to post-tunnelling damage assessment procedures. First, InSAR-based measurements of building displacements, induced by the excavation of Crossrail tunnels in London, were acquired and processed. Then, following the definition of a step-by-step procedure, the satellite-based building displacements were used to evaluate structural deformation parameters typically used in extensive damage assessment procedures. Results show that the number of available measures per single building can enable the estimation of deformation parameters, a capability that is not economically feasible for large scale projects using traditional monitoring systems. The comparison with greenfield predictions offers new insight into the effect of soil-structure interaction and demonstrates the suitability of InSAR monitoring for post-tunnelling damage assessment of structures. The outcome of this work can have a significant economic impact on the construction industry and can advance the knowledge of building and infrastructure response to ground subsidence.

Keywords

Damage assessment InSAR Structural monitoring Soil-structure-interaction Tunnelling 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Original COSMO-SkyMed product ASI Agenzia Spaziale Italiana (2011–2016). We wish to thank Deborah Lazarus and David Ashworth for providing the levelling data used in the preliminary validation of MT-InSAR measurements, and Sang-Ho Yun for providing insightful comments during the paper preparation.

References

  1. 1.
    Burland JB, Standing JR, Jardine FM (2001) Building response to tunnelling: case studies from construction of the Jubilee Line Extension. CIRIA Special Publication Series. Thomas Telford, LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Torp-Petersen GE, Black MG (2001) Geotechnical investigation and assessment of potential building damage arising from ground movements: crossrail. Proc Inst Civil Eng - Transp 147(2):107–119Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Korff M, Kaalberg F (2014) Monitoring dataset of deformations related to deep excavations for North-South line in Amsterdam. In: Geotechnical aspects of underground construction in soft groundGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    DeJong M, Giardina G, Chalmers B, Lazarus D, Ashworth D, Mair R The impact of tunnelling on load bearing masonry buildings on shallow foundations (under review)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Milillo P, Fielding EJ, Shulz WH, Delbridge B, Burgmann R (2014) COSMO-SkyMed spotlight interferometry over rural areas: the slumgullion landslide in colorado, usa. IEEE J Sel Topics Appl Earth Observations Remote Sens 7(7):2919–2926CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Yun SH, Hudnut K, Owen S, Webb F, Simons M, Sacco P, Gurrola E, Manipon G, Liang C, Fielding E, Milillo P, Hua H, Coletta A (2015) Rapid damage mapping for the 2015 m w 7.8 Gorkha earthquake using synthetic aperture radar data from COSMO-SkyMed and ALOS-2 satellites. Seismol Res Lett 86(6):1549–1556Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gonzáles-Martí JG, Nevard S, Sanchez J (2017) The use of InSAR (interferometric synthetic aperture radar) to complement control of construction and protect third party assets, Crossrail Learning Legacy Report; Crossrail Ltd.: London, UKGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lazecky M, Perissin D, Bakon M, de Sousa JM, Hlavacova I, Real N (2015) Potential of satellite InSAR techniques for monitoring of bridge deformations. Joint Urban Remote Sens Event (JURSE) 2015:1–4Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chang L, Dollevoet RPBJ, Hanssen RF (2017) Nationwide railway monitoring using satellite SAR interferometry. IEEE J Sel Topics Appl Earth Observations Remote Sens 10(2):596–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Strozzi T, Delaloye R, Poffet D, Hansmann J, Loew S (2011) Surface subsidence and uplift above a headrace tunnel in metamorphic basement rocks of the Swiss Alps as detected by satellite SAR interferometry. Remote Sens Environ 115(6):1353–1360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Perissin D, Wang Z, Lin H (2012) Shanghai subway tunnels and highways monitoring through COSMO-SkyMed persistent scatterers. ISPRS J Photogrammetry Remote Sens 73 (Supplement C), 58–67. Innovative Applications of SAR Interferometry from modern Satellite SensorsGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Martire DD, Iglesias R, Monells D, Centolanza G, Sica S, Ramondini M, Pagano L, Mallorquí JJ, Calcaterra D (2014) Comparison between differential SAR interferometry and ground measurements data in the displacement monitoring of the earth-dam of Conza della Campania (Italy). Remote Sens Environ 148(Supplement C):58–69Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Milillo P, Burgmann R, Lundgren P, Salzer J, Perissin D, Fielding E, Milillo G (2016) Space geodetic monitoring of engineered structures: the ongoing destabilization of the Mosul dam, Iraq. Scientific reports 6 (37408)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Milillo P, Perissin D, Salzer JT, Lundgren P, Lacava G, Milillo G, Serio C (2016) Monitoring dam structural health from space: insights from novel InSAR techniques and multi-parametric modeling applied to the Pertusillo dam Basilicata, Italy. Int J Appl Earth Obse Geoinf 52(Supplement C):221–229Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tapete D, Fanti R, Cecchi R, Petrangeli P, Casagli N (2012) Satellite radar interferometry for monitoring and early-stage warning of structural instability in archaeological sites. J Geophys Eng 9(4):S10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Arangio S, Calò F, Di Mauro M, Bonano M, Marsella M, Manunta M (2014) An application of the sbas-dinsar technique for the assessment of structural damage in the city of Rome. Struct Infrastruct Eng 10(11):1469–1483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cerchiello V, Tessari G, Velterop E, Riccard M, Defilippi P, Pasquali P (2016) Risk of building damage by modeling interferometric time series. 2016 IEEE Int Geosci Remote Sens Symp (IGARSS), 7334–7337Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Black M, Dodge C, Lawrence U (2015) Crossrail Project: infrastructure design and construction. ICE PublishingGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hanssen RF (2001) Radar interferometry: data interpretation and error analysis, vol 2. Springer Science and Business MediaGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ferretti A, Prati C, Rocca F (2000) Nonlinear subsidence rate estimation using permanent scatterers in differential SAR interferometry. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens 38(5):2202–2212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ferretti A, Prati C, Rocca F (2001) Permanent scatterers in SAR interferometry. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens 39(1):8–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Perissin D, Wang Z, Wang T (2011) The SARPROZ InSAR tool for urban subsidence/manmade structure stability monitoring in China. Proc ISRSE 2010, 10–15, Sydney, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Milillo P, Giardina G, DeJong MJ, Perissin D, Milillo G (2018) Multi-temporal InSAR structural health monitoring via relative stiffness method: the London cross rail case study. Remote Sens 10(2):287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Giardina G, Milillo P, DeJong MJ, Perissin D, Milillo G (2018) Evaluation of InSAR monitoring data for post-tunnelling settlement damage assessment. Struct Control Health Monit (under review)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Peck R (1969) Deep excavations and tunneling in soft ground. In: Proceedings of the 7th international conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering, Mexico City, pp 225–290Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    O’Reilly M, New B (1982) Settlement above tunnels in the United Kingdom – their magnitude and prediction. In: Tunnelling 82, proceedings of the 3rd international symposium, London, 173–181. Institution of Mining and MetallurgyGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Burland JB, Mair RJ, Standing RN (2004) Ground performance and building response due to tunnelling. In: Conference on advances in geotechnical engineering 1:291–342. Institution of Civil EngineersGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Burland JB, Wroth CP (1974) Settlement of buildings and associated damage. In: Proceedings of conference on settlement of structures, Cambridge, 611–654. Pentech PressGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Potts DM, Addenbrooke TI (1997) A structure’s influence on tunnelling-induced ground movements. Proce Inst Civil Eng Geotech Eng 125(2):109–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Frischmann W, Hellings J, Snowden C (1994) Protection of the mansion house against damage caused by ground movements due to the docklands light railway extension. Proce Inst Civil Eng Geotech Eng 107:65–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Viggiani G, Standing J (2001) Building response to tunnelling: case studies from construction of the jubilee line extension, vol 2, Chapter The treasury, pp 401–432. Ciria and Thomas Telford, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Taylor R, Yip D (2001) Centrifuge modelling on the effect of a structure on tunnelling-induced ground movements. In: International conference on response of buildings to excavation-induced ground movements, pp 601–611, London, UK. CIRIAGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Caporaletti P, Burghignoli A, Taylor R (2005) Centrifuge study of tunnel movements and their interaction with structures. In: Geotechnical aspects of underground construction in soft ground: proceedings of the 5th international symposium TC28, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp 99–106, London, UK. CRC PressGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Farrell RP (2010) Tunnelling in sands and the response of buildings. Ph.D. thesis, University of CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Liu G, Houlsby GT, Augarde CE (2000) 2-dimensional analysis of settlement damage to masonry buildings caused by tunnelling. Struct Eng 79(1):19–25Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Franzius JN, Potts DM, Addenbrooke TI, Burland JB (2004) The influence of building weight on tunnelling-induced ground and building deformation. Soil Found 44(1):25–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Amorosi A, Boldini D, De Felice G, Malena M, Sebastianelli M (2014) Tunnelling-induced deformation and damage on historical masonry structures. Geotechnique 64(2):118–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Giardina G, DeJong MJ, Mair RJ (2015) Interaction between surface structures and tunnelling in sand: centrifuge and computational modelling. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 50:465–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© RILEM 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Giorgia Giardina
    • 1
    Email author
  • Pietro Milillo
    • 2
  • Matthew J. DeJong
    • 3
  • Daniele Perissin
    • 4
  • Giovanni Milillo
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Architecture and Civil EngineeringUniversity of BathBathUK
  2. 2.NASA Jet Propulsion LaboratoryCalifornia Institute of TechnologyPasadenaUSA
  3. 3.Department of EngineeringUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK
  4. 4.Lyles School of Civil EngineeringPurdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA
  5. 5.Italian Space AgencyMateraItaly

Personalised recommendations