Reliability Analysis of Ground Surface Settlement Given Multivariate Spatial Random Field in Shield Tunneling

Conference paper


It is well known that geotechnical parameters impact dramatically soil-tunneling mechanics. Random field theory has been widely used for a single geotechnical parameter, including aleatory uncertainty, spatial variability and local singularity. Current challenge is focused on analyzing the spatially correlated soil layers. Coefficient of cohesion, internal friction angle, and Young’s modulus are accounted in reliability analysis of ground surface settlement due to shallow-buried shield tunneling. At first, convert multiple non-stationary soil layers into stationary field using a local detrending method, and define the geostatistical parameters. Then, assume spatial variability of geotechnical parameters into aleatory randomness, and classical response surface method is utilized into reliability analysis. Furthermore, Co-sequential Gaussian discretization is conceived for multivariate spatial random field, in which failure probability of ground surface settlement is calculated directly by subset Monte-Carlo simulation. This approach is applied into the paralleling zone of four shield tunnels of the 5th and 6th metro lines linking to Huanhu W Rd station, Tianjin China. Results prove that reliability index of considering geotechnical parameters as random variables is lower than the assumption of multivariate spatial random field, which would support substantially to construction control and design optimization in complex shallow-buried shield tunneling projects.


Geotechnical parameter Spatial variability Stochastic simulation Multivariate Reliability index 


  1. Eldeiry, A., Garcia, L.: Comparison of ordinary kriging, regression kriging, and cokriging techniques to estimate soil salinity using LANDSAT images. J. Irrigation Drain. Eng. 136(6), 355–364 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Hasofer, A., Lind, N.: Exact and invariant second-moment code format. J. Eng. Mech. Div. 100(1), 111–121 (1974)Google Scholar
  3. Loganathan, N., Poulos, H.: Analytical prediction for tunneling-induced ground movements in clays. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 124(9), 846–856 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Matheron, G., Armstrong, M.: Principles of geostatistics. Econ. Geol. 58(8), 1246–1266 (1963)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Mollon, G., Dias, D., Soubra, A.: Probabilistic analysis of circular tunnels in homogeneous soil using response surface methodology. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 135(9), 1314–1325 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Papaioannou, I., Straub, D.: Reliability updating in geotechnical engineering including spatial variability of soil. Comput. Geotech. 42, 44–51 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Pebesma, E.: Multivariable geostatistics in S: the gstat package. Comput. Geosci. 30(7), 683–691 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Pinto, F., Whittle, A.J.: Ground movements due to shallow tunnels in soft ground. I: analytical solutions. J. Geotech. Geoenvironmental Eng. 140(4), 1–43 (2014)Google Scholar
  9. Tandjiria, V., Teh, C., Low, B.: Reliability analysis of laterally loaded piles using response surface methods. Struct. Saf. 22, 335–355 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Zhang, J., Chen, H., Huang, H., Luo, Z.: Efficient response surface method for practical geotechnical reliability analysis. Comput. Geotech. 69, 496–505 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Shanghai UniversityShanghaiChina

Personalised recommendations