Numerical Analysis of Tunnelling in Sand - A Case Study of a Centrifuge Test

  • Bowen Yang
  • Alan Bloodworth
Conference paper


Ground movement induced by TBM tunnelling in sand has been the subject of much discussion in recent years. It is commonly agreed that prediction of the ground movement trough in cohesionless soil is not easy. The main cause of ground movement in TBM projects is the tunnel volume loss induced by shield over-cutting and the dimensional difference between the shield and the lining. Numerical modelling could be a useful tool for ground movement prediction especially when dealing with projects where complex underground structures and strata distributions are involved. This paper employs the commercial FEM software Plaxis 3D in simulating of a centrifuge TBM tunnelling prototype using the constitutive model suggested by the software in analyzing behaviour of sands. Some popular empirical and analytical approaches of predicting ground movements are also adapted for the purpose of comparing with the numerical results.


Tunnelling in sands Numerical modelling Analytical solution 


  1. 1.
    Manouchehr, K.: Modelling and finite element analysis of soil behavior. University of Illinois (1979)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Addenbrooke, T.I., Potts, D.M., Puzrin, A.M.: The influence of pre-failure soil stiffness on the numerical analysis of tunnel construction. Geotechnique 57(3), 693–712 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Franzius, J.N., Potts, D.M., Burland, J.B.: The influence of soil anisotropy and K0 on ground surface movements resulting from tunnel excavation. Géotechnique 3, 189–199 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Potts, D.M., Addenbrooke, T.I.: A structure’s influence on tunnelling-induced ground movements. Proc. ICE - Geotech. Eng. 125, 109–125 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Burd, H.J., Houlsby, G.T.: Modelling tunnelling-induced settlement of masonry buildings. Proc. ICE - Geotech. Eng. 143, 17–29 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mroueh, H., Shahrour, I.: A simplified 3D model for tunnel construction using tunnel boring machines. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 23(1), 38–45 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schanz, T., Vermeer, P., Bonnier, P.: The hardening soil model: formulation and verification. In: Beyond 2000 Computational Geotechnics, pp. 1–16 (1999)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Marshall, A.M.: Tunnelling in sand and its effect on pipelines and piles. University of Cambridge (2009)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brinkgreve, R.B., Engin, E., Swolfs, W.: PLAXIS Material Models Manual 2013. Plaxis bv, Delft (2013)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Atkinson, J., Sallfors, G.: Experimental determination of stress-strain-time characteristics in laboratory and in situ tests. In: Proceedings of the 10th European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, vol. 3, pp. 915–956 (1991)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Vorster, T.E.B., Klar, A., Soga, K., Mair, R.J.: Estimating the effects of tunneling on existing pipelines. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 131, 1399–1410 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lee, S.: The effects of compensation injections on tunnels. Cambridge University (2001)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zhao, Y.: In situ soil testing for foundation performance prediction. University of Cambridge (2008)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rowe, R.K., Kack, G.J.: A theoretical examination of the settlements induced by tunnelling: four case histories. Can. Geotech. J. 20(2), 299–314 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Marshall, A.M., Farrell, R., Klar, A., Mair, R.: Tunnels in sands: the effect of size, depth and volume loss on greenfield displacements. Geotechnique 5, 385–399 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bym, T., Marketos, G., Burland, J.B., O’Sullivan, C.: Use of a two-dimensional discrete-element line-sink model to gain insight into tunnelling-induced deformations. Géotechnique 63(9), 791–795 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Peck, R.B.: Deep excavations and tunnelling in soft ground. In: Proceedings of 7th International Conference on SMFE, pp. 226–290 (1969)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    O’Reilly, M.P., New, B.M.: Settlement above tunnels in the United Kingdom-their magnitude and prediction. Tunnelling 1982 papers presented at the third international symposium, pp. 173–181 (1982)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Celestino, T.B., Gomes, R.A.M.P., Bortolucci, A.A.: Errors in Ground Distortions Due to settlement trough adjustment. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 15(1), 97–100 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mair, R.J., Taylor, R.N.: Theme lecture: bored tunnelling in the urban environment. In: The 14th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, pp. 2353–2385 (1997)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jacobsz, S.W., Standing, J.R., Mair, R.J.: Centrifuge modelling of tunnelling near driven piles. Soils Found. 44(1), 49–56 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sagaseta, C.: Analysis of undraind soil deformation due to ground loss. Geotechnique 37(3), 301–320 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Verruijt, A., Booker, J.R.: Surface settlements due to deformation of a tunnel in an elastic half plane. Geotechnique 46(4), 4–7 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Loganathan, N., Poulos, H.G.: Analytical prediction for tunneling-induced ground movements in clays. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 124, 846–856 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Park, K.H.: Analytical solution for tunnelling-induced ground movement in clays. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 20(3), 249–261 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The University of WarwickCoventryUK

Personalised recommendations