You are on page 1of 15

Fargnoli, V. et al. (2015). Ge´otechnique 65, No. 1, 23–37 [http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/geot.14.P.

091]

3D numerical modelling of soil–structure interaction during EPB
tunnelling
V. FA R G N O L I  , C . G . G R AG NA N O , D. B O L D I N I  a n d A . A M O RO S I †

The paper illustrates a three-dimensional finite-element analysis aimed at back-predicting the response
of a multi-storey reinforced concrete building underpassed by a metro tunnel. The study refers to the
case of the Milan metro line 5, recently built in coarse-grained materials using an earth pressure
balance machine, for which settlement measurements along ground and building sections were
available. The soil behaviour is modelled using an advanced constitutive model that, when combined
with a proper simulation of the excavation process, proves to realistically reproduce the subsidence
profiles recorded in free-field conditions. The building is found to modify the deformative pattern at
the ground surface in relation to its stiffness and weight, reducing the differential settlements as
compared to those calculated under free-field conditions. Results of the numerical simulation carried
out, including the model of the building schematised in detail, are found to be in good agreement
with the monitoring data. They thus indirectly confirm the satisfactory performance of the adopted
numerical approach, which takes into account a unique model of the soil, the tunnel and the building
– that is, the key ingredients of this interaction problem. Further analyses are also carried out
modelling the building, adopting different levels of detail. The results highlight that, for the case
under study, the simplified approach based on the equivalent plate schematisation is inadequate to
capture the real displacement field. The overall behaviour of the system proves to be mainly
influenced by the buried portion of the building, including its foundation elements, which plays an
essential role in the interaction mechanism.
KEYWORDS: finite-element modelling; monitoring; settlement; soil/structure interaction; tunnels

INTRODUCTION
The construction of underground tunnels in urban areas
often requires excavation works to be carried out in close
proximity to residential buildings, cultural heritage monuments and underground services. The ability to predict the
tunnelling-induced settlements and the associated impact on
pre-existing structures represents a key aspect to estimate
potential damages and to design protective measures, when
needed (e.g. Mair, 2008; Amorosi et al., 2012; Puzrin et al.,
2012; Rampello et al., 2012).
Soil deformation and structural response are often assumed to be decoupled, so that the building damage is
typically predicted based on free-field settlement profiles
(Peck, 1969; Burland & Wroth, 1974; Burland et al., 1977;
O’Reilly & New, 1982; Boscardin & Cording, 1989; Burland, 1995). However, such a simplified approach disregards
the influence of the structure stiffness (Potts & Addenbrooke, 1997; Franzius et al., 2006) and the role of its
weight (Franzius et al., 2004), often leading to rather
conservative solutions in terms of estimated differential
settlements and, consequently, of induced damage intensity.
In the last few years two-dimensional (2D) and threedimensional (3D) numerical approaches have been developed
to overcome such limitations. 2D numerical studies were
proposed by Liu et al. (2000) with reference to surface
masonry structures, focusing on the effect of fac¸ade weight,
stiffness and position with respect to the tunnel axis. Alongside the same topic, Amorosi et al. (2014) back-analysed the

interaction between the excavation of a tunnel and an
ancient masonry surface structure, adopting an advanced
elasto-plastic constitutive model for the masonry. The dependency of the building response on various structural types
(i.e. brick-bearing structures, open-frame and brick-infilled
frame structures) and different soil conditions was discussed
in detail by Son & Cording (2011).
More sophisticated 3D simulations, again with reference
to masonry surface structures, were presented in Burd et al.
(2000) and Giardina et al. (2010). Soil–structure interaction
studies were also carried out, focusing on 3D framed buildings, schematised as equivalent plates (Maleki et al., 2011)
or adopting simple schemes consisting of beams, columns
and live loads acting at each floor of the reinforced concrete
structure (Liu et al., 2012).
This paper proposes the results of a numerical study
aimed at investigating the soil–structure interaction during
tunnelling using a fully 3D solution scheme based on the
finite-element method. The study refers to a real case
history, the construction of the new Milan (Italy) metro-line
5, carried out in granular soils by an earth pressure balance
(EPB) machine, which guaranteed surface volume losses
lower than 0 .4%. In the examined portion of the route (Figs
1 and 3), the right tunnel of the line diagonally underpasses
a nine-storey reinforced concrete structure dating back to the
end of the 1950s.
In the first part of the paper the tunnelling-induced settlements, as observed along the segment of the route at six
transversal ground sections and in correspondence with the
reference building, are collected and interpreted. Such analysis allows evaluation of the ability of existing closed-form
empirical solutions to back-calculate the observed free-field
settlement troughs along both transversal and longitudinal
directions, also providing direct information on the evolution
of the surface structure’s response during tunnelling.

Manuscript received 27 May 2014; revised manuscript accepted 23
October 2014. Published online ahead of print 27 January 2015.
Discussion on this paper closes on 1 June 2015, for further details see
p. ii. 
University of Bologna (Italy), Bologna, Italy.
† Technical University of Bari, Italy.

23

Finally. CASE HISTORY OF NEW MILAN METRO-LINE 5 The new Milan metro-line 5 (Fargnoli et al. Milan metro-line 5: plan view of the segment of the route between Lotto and Portello stations The numerical study. An EPB machine was selected to minimise ground movements in the highly populated areas affected by the construction activities. The EPB shield. An advanced constitutive model.69 m at the face and 6 . Location of the pressure cells on the EPB face . is adopted for the soil. in order to minimise the volume loss and the related surface settlements. The outcomes of the finite-element simulations are first presented with reference to free-field conditions and then considering the pre-existence of the surface building. 2012). the results obtained adopting different levels of detail in modelling the building are illustrated and critically discussed. respectively. Benz. 2. set in place inside the shield tail to support the tunnel as the machine advances. Under special circumstances. with a total length of about 10 m and a thickness of 30 mm. GRAGNANO. Six pressure cells are located on the EPB face. is performed by the code Plaxis 3D (Plaxis. taking into account not only its main structural components. called ‘Hardening soil with small strain stiffness’ (HSsmall. The advancement is provided by 38 hydraulic jacks located on the external perimeter of the shield body. The monitored portion considered in this study extends for a length of about 600 m between Lotto and Portello stations (Fig. the external infill panels. and a detailed numerical step-by-step procedure is used to model the main features of the tunnel excavation process.67 m at the tail.4 m and a thickness of 30 cm. acting on the already installed lining. BOLDINI AND AMOROSI 24 97 m Lotto Station 57 m 50 m GS_1 GS_2 43 m GS_3 GS_4 50 m 46 m W N S E GS_5 GS_6 Scale: 50 m Left tunnel Right tunnel 6m 25 Tun n 7 el m 0 m ode lled por tion Portello Station Fig. 1·37 m 1·93 m 2·48 m 1·80 m 1·97 m D ⫽ 6·69 m Fig. 2. 1. The tunnel lining.40 m and 5 .80 m. The outer and inner diameters of the lining ring are equal to 6 .6 km and 19 access stations. as shown in Fig. but also its secondary elements – that is. adopting simplified building models to highlight the role of the different structural components in the overall behaviour of the soil–structure system. The surface reinforced concrete building interacting with the metro-line is modelled in detail. 2013) runs from north to west of the city with a total length of 12 .71 m.. described in the second part of the paper. the maximum excavation diameter at the face could be increased up to 6 . 1). The gap behind the lining segments is promptly filled by a two-component grouting consisting of cement paste and grip accelerator. Additional numerical analyses were also carried out.FARGNOLI. 2007). They include the equivalent plate schematisation and a simplified structural model only considering the buried portion of the building together with its foundation elements. The twin tunnels of the line have a separation between the two axes of about 15 m and a mean depth of their axes z0 ¼ 15 m. consists of concrete precast rings characterised by a length of 1 . This latter reaches its maximum value of about 23 m at Lotto station. The ability of the proposed numerical approach to reproduce realistic results is assessed by comparing the computed settlements with the available geotechnical and structural monitoring measurements. is characterised by an outer diameter of 6 .

which have heights of 4 .2 m and 2 . Its plan dimensions and the position of its middle-point M are reported in Fig. Detail of the examined portion of the route (a) 25 (b) Fig. GS_6 W Ground benchmarks N Building targets S Scale: 10 m Left tunnel E Right tunnel L2 L1 L3 L4 L5 T1 M building R1 R2 R3 T2 R4 R5 B ⫽ 12 m T3 15 m 70 Tun n el m L ⫽ 30 m m ode lled por tion Fig. (a) General view of main left side fac¸ade and (b) detail of the garage zone on the right longitudinal side of the building . 3. The data presented and discussed throughout this paper are vertical displacements recorded during the excavation of the first tunnel (i. The building interstorey height is equal to 3 . except for the ground floor and the basement floor. with recording intervals varying between 12 and 24 h. extensive geotechnical and structural monitoring was carried out along the line by an accurate levelling survey. respectively. right tunnel) at six transversal ground sections and in correspondence with a nine-storey reinforced concrete framed structure diagonally undercrossed by the tunnel (Fig.MODELLING OF SOIL–STRUCTURE INTERACTION DURING EPB TUNNELLING During the various stages of the tunnel construction.e.5 m. 3. 4. The 30 m high structure dates back to 1959 (Figs 4(a) and 4(b)) and is characterised by a total weight of about 41 000 kN.2 m. 3).

more specifically. A formation of conglomerate and sandstone underlies this upper deposit. being found at depths between 0 and 20 m. it included • 4·2 m VIII 5·2 m 6·4 m Structure above ground level 1·9 m 3·1 m • • 5·1 m Granulometric analyses were conducted on 14 disturbed samples retrieved from the drillings. and 70 cm 3 20 cm and 45 cm 3 20 cm within or along the perimeter of the upper floors. VII and VIII in Fig._2013 w. respectively three Lenfranc-type permeability tests carried out imposing a constant piezometric level. characterised by a silt percentage that typically increases with depth. the thickness of the floor slabs is 26 cm at the lower floors and 22 cm at the upper ones. depth of tunnel and position of ground monitoring sections . S. and between 25 and 30 m.5 kN/m3. 5) are located at the same level under the elevator shafts and the stairwell.26 m. 5·0 m Garage below ground level Fig. II and III.FARGNOLI. S(L) Tunnel axis Tunnel invert 25 G(S) Tunnel crown G(S) ⫽ sandy gravel G. GS_2 GS_3 GS_4 GS_5 GS_6 0 R R SG G.7 m high. Two main granulometric grading curves were determined: the first curve is typical of a gravelly sand soil. BOLDINI AND AMOROSI 26 The main structural components of the building have the following dimensions: the sections of the beams are 40 cm 3 45 cm at the lower floors.2 m 3 3 . the building rests on the foundation beams I. At the location under investigation the gravelly sand soil emerges as the main component of the deposit. s. respectively.65 m high. 5).t. Several ground benchmarks (from five to nine) were installed on each instrumented ground section. Three raft foundations (0 . G ⫽ sand with gravel S. S(L) 30 Fig. m a. indicated as I. 4 m below the ground surface. indicated as VI. the sections of the reinforced concrete interior panels are 0 . resting on a deep glacial and alluvial Pleistocene formation. GRAGNANO. G(L) S. II. In particular. 6). Plan view of building foundations CD_1 z: m 0 g. The new metro-line 5 is located within the upper granular non-cohesive unit of the formation. which mainly consists of gravel and sand of fluvioglacial and alluvial origin. l. situated at the basement floor level along the right 1·3 m 1·3 m I 1·3 m II III 1·3 m 1·3 m IV V 3·1 m 1·9 m VI 3·0 m 30·0 m VII longitudinal side of the structure. 4(b)). respectively. Along the metro-line an extensive geotechnical investigation was carried out at the design stage of the work. 5. both on the right longitudinal side of the building. G L(S) w. The upper part of this deposit mainly consists of sand and gravel. stands on the other ones (IV and V).5 m high) surround the buried portion of the structure along its three sides. while a layer about 5 m thick of sandy silt was identified between 20 m and 25 m. with reference to the portion considered in this paper between Lotto and Portello stations. l. 3). 6. GS_1 two core drillings (CD_1 and CD_2) to a depth of 24– 30 m from the ground surface (Fig. while sand and clay are present at greater depth._2007 20 15 Reference monitoring sections G. except for the garage zone. about 40 m below the ground surface. G(L) 10 10 SG 15 S. S(L) CD_2 z: m 5 5 S. IV and V in Fig. Reinforced concrete retaining walls (40 cm thick and 3 . The total unit volume weights under saturated conditions for these materials are 20 kN/m3 and 17 . instrumented with open pipe piezometers 14 and 12 SPT tests conducted along boreholes CD_1 and CD_2. S(L) ⫽ gravel with silty sand L(S) ⫽ sandy silt SG ⫽ sand and gravel S. while building targets were placed along the base of the building’s longitudinal fac¸ades and on its transversal right side (Fig. L. Soil conditions along the examined portion of the route. G(L) ⫽ sand with silty gravel R ⫽ made ground 20 Horizontal scale: 10 m L(S) 24 G. The structure is founded on five strip footings (0 . the second one of a sandy silt. GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS The city of Milan is located in the central part of the Padana plain (northern Italy).t. III. while the garage zone (Fig. the column section has dimensions of 40 cm 3 40 cm.

8).6 mm along the longitudinal right fac¸ade and from 4 .5 mm to 6 . No geophysical investigations were specifically undertaken along the metro route. predicting the achievement of steady-state conditions well before what is observed in situ. z: m S_1 15 20 L 25 S_2 30 0 200 400 600 Small-strain shear modulus. 7. indicating a satisfactory face support during the excavation process. 1). Experimental and computed small-strain shear modulus profiles with depth Structural monitoring Vertical displacements of the building were gathered during tunnelling by monitoring targets located along the base of its three sides. Ata.f. VL (%). Six years after. R and T and a sequential number (see Fig. The target relative distance and their distances from the tunnel axis are listed in Tables 2 and 3. where the evolution at each monitoring point is displayed at different dates. the higher the settlement. MONITORING MEASUREMENTS: ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION Tunnelling-induced settlements were recorded between Lotto and Portello stations at six transversal ground sections (i.5 3 103 and 1 . indicating a well-performing EPB excavation. based on pre-existing geotechnical characterisations carried out in the Milan area. GS_5 and GS_6) and in correspondence with the surface structures interacting with the new metro-line. face settlements are best fitted by the translated Gaussian cumulative curve (Mair & Taylor. iy. the one nearest to the reference segment of the line is a down-hole test performed at a nearby construction site: this test resulted in the small-strain shear modulus (G0) profile shown in Fig. 1997). 1996. 7. GS_1. The permeability coefficients. identified by capital letters L. therefore. At the time of the geotechnical survey the hydrostatic water level was found at an almost constant depth of about 18 . The above interpolation allowed back-evaluation of the corresponding volume loss. the vertical displacements mainly increase with the excavation advancement.5 m below the ground level (Fig. were observed to vary at different depths between 5 .3% to 0 . 8. with the exception of the left-most points of each section. obtained by equating the ratio Sv. in fact. ix. is not able to capture the further evolution of settlements. with an average value equal to 0 .max to the measured one. Measurements are sufficiently well fitted by a Gaussian distribution curve (Peck.6 mm to 5 . Sv. G0: MPa 800 Fig. and consistent with similar observations reported in the literature (Leblais & Bochon. 3). These plots make it possible to highlight the effect of the distance from the tunnel axis on settlement: the closer the tunnel axis (i. at these locations is equal to about 1 mm. at each location and the recording date of the analysed settlement measurements. 1969) for K values in the range 0 .  1 m) were available. which varies from 0 . the corresponding level was detected 15 m below the ground surface. whose values are under-predicted by the empirical relation (Fig.38%. As expected. K parameter and volume loss for all the considered sections are summarised in Table 1. The tunnel face settlement. equal to the transversal one. 1991.e. during the construction stage.7 mm to 6 . Sandy silt 10 Depth.1 3 102 m/s. its strength parameters were assumed to be equal to c9 ¼ 5 kPa and 9 ¼ 268. The evolution of settlement above the tunnel centre-line is presented in Fig. Mair. The maximum settlement induced by the excavation never exceeds 7 mm. gathered when the distance of the right tunnel face from section GS_6 was about 50 m. points L1.45. is characterised by a hogging-type mode of deformation when the tunnel-boring machine (TBM) face is located in correspon- . 6). which proves to be rather similar to the one of the tunnel site. This translated profile. 1982) in order to define the longitudinal settlement trough. assuming the volume loss and K values reported in Table 1 and considering the longitudinal inflection point. that is about 8D. Mair & Taylor. GS_4. GS_3. probably due to the influence of nearby surface structures located along the examined route (see Fig.33%. 1996. range from 4 . The table also reports the different depths of the tunnel axis.4–0 . leading to a relative density in the range 60–80% and strength parameters equal to c9 ¼ 0 kPa and 9 ¼ 338. The progressive settlement response of the building evolves during tunnelling. 9. 0 Experimental Computed: 5 Gravelly sand 27 Ground monitoring Transversal settlement profiles due to the excavation of the first tunnel are shown in Fig. however. GS_2. z0.MODELLING OF SOIL–STRUCTURE INTERACTION DURING EPB TUNNELLING Results of SPT tests conducted in the gravelly sand soil were elaborated following Skempton (1986).f /Sv. this being particularly evident along its longitudinal sides: the structure. k. The values of maximum settlement. L2. As shown in Fig. The figure also illustrates the related stratigraphic profile. Final measurements. as shown in Figs 10(a)– 10(c). for which measurements of vertical displacements close to the tunnel face (i.5 mm along the longitudinal left fac¸ade.e. GS_3 and GS_6. R5 along the longitudinal right side and T2. which is consistent with the slow but continuous increase in the water table observed in the area in recent years.e. 1997). Measurements were interpreted at each location by the cumulative Gaussian probability curve (Attewell & Woodman. L3 along the longitudinal left side. Standard penetration tests (SPTs) were not considered appropriate to characterise the sandy silt layer. R4. from 3 . 9 as a function of the face distance for the two sections.7 mm along the transversal side. T3 along the transversal one). They refer to fully developed settlements achieved when the tunnel face was at a sufficient distance from the monitoring sections.

0 15 January 2013 dence with the middle of the building (measurements recorded on 11 January 2013). volume loss. Monitoring sections NUMERICAL MODEL Geometry and finite-element discretisation Different numerical models were set up to simulate the tunnel excavation under free-field conditions and in the presence of the building. Sv: mm 4 8 ⫺40 40 0 2 4 6 8 ⫺40 ⫺20 0 20 Distance from tunnel axis.e. In general.0 8 January 2013 16 .5 6 . x: m (b) 40 ⫺20 0 20 Distance from tunnel axis.0 16 December 2012 19 .31 0 . Sv: mm 0 Settlement. Sv: mm 0 2 4 6 8 ⫺40 ⫺20 0 20 Distance from tunnel axis.45 0 .37 0 .5 5 . The numerical model adopted for the free-field analysis is constituted by 84 125 nodes. the latter being modelled with different levels of detail. x: m (f) 40 0 Settlement.0 20 December 2012 17 .40 0 .42 0 .max: mm 5 . this number increases to 120 952 in the interaction analysis with the complete structural model. for the sake of simplicity. while the deformative pattern evolves in a sagging-type mode after the tunnel passage (i. x: m (d) 40 ⫺20 0 20 Distance from tunnel axis. These dimensions were selected to minimise the influence of the boundary conditions on the computed results.45 0 .38 0 . from 12 January 2013 on).34 z0: m Date 20 .5 K VL: % 0 .0 10 January 2013 15 .0 18 December 2012 18 .30 0 .30 0 . Values of maximum settlement. In the interaction analyses. axis depth and surveying date in the reference monitoring sections structure at the end of the excavation works. x: m (e) 40 2 4 6 8 ⫺40 Measurements: Transversal troughs: GS_1 GS_3 GS_5 Empirical GS_2 GS_4 GS_6 Computed Fig. 8. The mesh employed in the present study is shown in Fig.2 6 . Nodes at the bottom of the mesh GS_1 GS_2 GS_3 GS_4 GS_5 GS_6 Sv.42 0 . 11(a): it represents a soil volume 68 m wide. GRAGNANO. x: m (c) 2 4 6 8 ⫺40 40 0 Settlement.0 5 . Sv: mm 2 2 4 6 8 ⫺40 ⫺20 0 20 Distance from tunnel axis.6 5 .45 0 . owing to the relatively low settlements induced by EPB tunnelling. Sv: mm Settlement. BOLDINI AND AMOROSI 28 0 Settlement. Sv: mm Settlement. the presence of the nearby structures was neglected. no evidence of damage was detected on this . 30 m high and 100 m long. Transversal settlement troughs: measurements and best-fitting Gaussian curves (the computed profile for ground section GS_6 is also shown) Table 1. K parameter. x: m (a) 6 ⫺20 0 20 Distance from tunnel axis.FARGNOLI.

148 and. (b) 2 4 6 8 (c) Recording date: 7 January 2013 10 January 2013 13 January 2013 8 January 2013 11 January 2013 14 January 2013 9 January 2013 12 January 2013 15 January 2013 Fig. situated 4 m below the ground surface.82 13 .02 11 . (c) T1–T3. three-node line beam elements and six-node triangular plate elements are used to model the structure and some components of the tunnel (i. according to the reference system shown in Fig. the inclination of the building longitudinal sides with respect to the tunnel axis is set as equal to 25 . According to the in-situ stratigraphy.76 9 . Target relative distance Monitoring points Relative distance: m 5 . 9. 11.MODELLING OF SOIL–STRUCTURE INTERACTION DURING EPB TUNNELLING Settlement. 10.89 0 .44 7 .00 L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 T1 T2 T3 4 8 ⫺60 120 0 Settlement. in correspondence with section GS_6 (see Fig. 3).26 4 .80 7 . and between 25 and 30 m) and a layer of sandy silt (between 20 and 25 m). assuming drained conditions for the soil owing to the relatively high permeability observed during the geotechnical investigation.32 6 .7 m) underpasses the reference building. the imposed hydrostatic water table is 15 m below the ground surface. The numerical analyses were performed in terms of effective stresses. is discretised by ten-node tetrahedral elements. The tunnel axis is located at a depth of z0 ¼ 15 m as in the reference case of study.84 9 . the x and y coordinates of the structure’s middle point. Sv: mm Settlement. as well as the foundation elements. Sv: mm 0 Table 3. Settlements recorded at targets T1–T3 before 12 January 2013 are equal to zero . are equal to 0 m and 35 m. Sv: mm 2 4 6 8 R2 R3 R4 R5 T1 0 0 (a) 2 4 6 8 T2 T3 0 Settlement.38 L1–L2 L2–L3 L3–L4 L4–L5 R1–R2 R2–R3 R3–R4 R4–R5 T1–T2 T2–T3 L2 L3 L4 L5 R1 Settlement. The building is assumed to be directly connected to the soil at the foundation level. respectively.18 7 .84 6 .84 5 . 6).23 6 .35 10 .97 7 . y: m (b) Measurements: 100 120 Longitudinal troughs: Original GS_3 Translated GS_6 Computed Fig. Sv: mm 29 2 4 6 8 ⫺60 ⫺40 ⫺20 0 20 40 60 80 Distance from tunnel face. M (see Fig. Consistently with the real tunnel–structure relative position. y: m (a) 100 Distance from the right tunnel axis: m 1 . shield and lining).e. the soil profile is constituted by two layers of gravelly sand (between 0 and 20 m. Target distance from the right tunnel axis 2 Monitoring points 6 ⫺40 ⫺20 0 20 40 60 80 Distance from tunnel face. Settlements measured above the tunnel centre-line at the monitoring sections (a) GS_3 and (b) GS_6 with original and translated longitudinal profiles (the computed profile for ground section GS_6 is also shown) Table 2.53 0 .09 8 . which is included in the model. The soil domain. while the vertical boundaries are only fixed in the horizontal directions. Sv: mm L1 are fixed in both vertical and horizontal directions. Structural vertical displacements recorded in correspondence with the monitoring targets: (a) L1–L5.33 2 .33 4 . the tunnel (D ¼ 6 . (b) R1–R5.51 1 .54 6 . while twonode elastic anchor elements.

corresponding to the stiffness values observed along the decay curves at a shear strain of 0 .9 0 0 100 0 .7 Power for the stress-level dependency of stiffness Reference secant stiffness in standard drained triaxial test Reference tangent stiffness for primary oedometer loading Reference unloading/reloading stiffness at engineering strains Poisson ratio Reference shear modulus at very small strains Shear strain at which Gs ¼ 0 . is related to Gref 0 by the Poisson ratio for unloading/reloading. E9ref ur . for the layers of gravelly sand and sandy silt.9 0 0 Failure parameters: c9: kPa 9: degrees ł: degrees Effective cohesion Effective friction angle Dilatancy angle Stiffness parameters: m E9ref 50 : kPa E9ref oed : kPa E9ref ur : kPa ur ref G0 : kPa ª0 . respectively. Soil constitutive model parameters Parameters Name Values Gravelly sand soil S_1 Sandy silt soil L Gravelly sand soil S_2 ª: kN/m3 Total unit volume weight 20 17 . 6. its variation with strain level and the early accumulation of plastic deformations.0002 0 . E9ref 0 .455 0 .25 for the gravelly sand and for the sandy silt.7G0 Other parameters: pref: kPa K nc 0 Rf tension cincrement: kPa/m Reference stress for stiffness K0 value for normal consolidation Failure ratio Tensile strength Increase of cohesion with depth . the same total unit volume weight value is assumed for the soils above and below the water table. are assumed to be three times lower than E9ur : Finally. (b) A detail of the longitudinal section on the finite-element model is also shown Soil constitutive model calibration The mechanical behaviour of the soil strata is described by the hardening soil model with small-strain stiffness (HSsmall). GRAGNANO.9 0 0 100 0 .2 250 000 0 .0001 100 0 .455 0 .FARGNOLI. gravelly sand and 0 42E90 for the sandy silt. The variation of the small-strain stiffness with depth is and m against obtained by calibrating the parameters Gref 0 the down-hole experimental results.562 0 .5 20 0 33 0 5 26 0 0 33 0 0 .0001 0 . The other stiffness parameters. IP ¼ 0) and for material of low plasticity (index of plasticity. Details of the main aspects of its formulation are provided in Appendix 1. 11. The reference value of the Young’s modulus at small strains. Table 4. IP ¼ 15 %). The initial profile of the horizontal effective stress was calculated using K nc 0 values defined in Table 4. This latter is assumed as equal to 0 . ur. respectively.25 155 000 0 . as shown in Fig. BOLDINI AND AMOROSI 30 Tunnel axis projection Tunnel face final position 30 m y x 10 0m z 68 m (a) y z (b) Fig. In the absence of laboratory experimental data. A summary of all model parameters and corresponding values is provided in Table 4. E9ref 50 and ref E9ref oed .1%. is assumed to be 0 24E90 for the ref .4 48 000 48 000 144 000 0 . reloading stiffness.4 58 944 58 944 176 832 0 . the reference unloading/ ref . The total unit volume weight and the strength parameters (c9 and 9) of the soils were determined as discussed in the previous section on ‘Geotechnical conditions’.2 and 0 . a constitutive model capable of taking into account the high soil stiffness observed at very low strain levels.2 307 000 0 . For both materials the coefficient of earth pressure at rest is estimated with reference to a normal consolidated state (K nc 0 ). The dependency of the shear stiffness on the strain level (equation (3)) is obtained by referring to the experimental curves G/G0–ª proposed by Vucetic & Dobry (1991) for granular soils (index of plasticity.85 54 250 54 250 162 750 0 . (a) Sketch of the mesh used in the interaction analysis. For the sake of simplicity.

e.e.25 210 0 . reducing the upper portion to an equivalent load distribution (STRw analysis). ªc ¼ 24 kN/m3. excluding the activation of the cap surface included in the constitutive model). whose parameters are selected consistently with the reinforced concrete material properties: unit volume weight. 12. according to the average face pressure values recorded during the tunnel construction. Young’s modulus. Numerical modelling of the building The building is introduced in the numerical scheme (STR analysis) by modelling its main structural components as follows • • • beams and columns are modelled by beam elements plate elements with isotropic behaviour are used for the floor slabs. At the back of the shield the permanent reinforced concrete lining is installed. Pressure distribution at foundation level x . a region of 1 . Such a contraction. The pressure distribution of the structure at the foundation level is shown in Fig. which are modelled in a simplified way by means of equivalent cross-bracings (Panagiotakos & Fardis. 12. for all soils the overconsolidation ratio is fictitiously assumed to be large enough to exclude yielding during compressive stress paths (i. is characterised by a constant increment along each slice. The advancement consists in removing one slice of soil inside the tunnel and imposing dry conditions. aiming at reproducing in a simplified way the shield conical geometry. seven slices) and it is connected to the soil by way of an interface characterised by the strength parameters of the adjacent soil. corresponding to the estimated total horizontal stress acting at rest h0(z). Poisson ratio.. Ec ¼ 25 GPa.3 25 0 .03 75 0 . stairwell and retaining walls foundations are represented by volume elements constituted by non-porous material. 2014). Numerical procedure adopted to simulate TBM–EPB tunnelling 120 kPa I VII 160 kPa Table 5. c ¼ 0 . uniformly distributed in the external frames. which extends for a total length of 9 .4 m). These loads were evaluated with reference to their influence area and were applied at the ground floor in Shield Face pressure 40 kPa VI 1·4 m slice 1·4 m 1·4 m 80 kPa 9·8 m VII Fig. 13. Lining Grouting 31 In order to control the subsidence volume at the ground surface. this latter corresponding to the mean value of the grouting pressure as recorded during the excavation. the following sequence is considered • • • initialisation of the stress field in the soil (lithostatic conditions) activation of the structure in a single step (only in the interaction analyses) tunnel excavation in several steps (in the first step the displacement field due to the weight of the building is reset to zero). Shield and lining properties Parameter Thickness: m Unit volume weight: kN/m3 Poisson ratio Young’s modulus: GPa V Shield Lining 0 .8 m (i. whose properties are listed in Table 5. characterised by properties defined in Appendix 2. A linear-elastic constitutive law is adopted for these structural components. however. Numerical schematisation of TBM–EPB tunnelling In all the numerical analyses. a fictitious contraction is applied along the shield starting from the second slice. The excavation is simulated by a step-by-step procedure consisting in 43 advancements.8 m to 70 m.15 35 IV 200 kPa III 240 kPa y II I Fig. elevator shafts. The shield and the lining are modelled by means of plate structural elements.2. does not exclude the importance of the adopted constitutive model. The building is characterised by the presence of infill panels. which induces greater displacements at the top of the circumference and lower ones at the bottom. The application of a displacement field at the tunnel section. characterised by isotropic linear elastic behaviour. reinforced concrete interior panels. each having the length of one concrete lining ring (1 . 13. then an analysis was carried out limiting the modelling of the structure to its buried portion including the foundation elements. Simplified structural models were also considered in the numerical study: the building was first modelled without cross-bracings (STRwcb analysis). especially for the low values of volume loss that characterise the case under study (Fargnoli et al. In the intermediate zone between the shield tail and the permanent lining. from y ¼ 9 . The first portion of the tunnel cavity is lined by a steel shield. A pressure is applied at the new tunnel face.4 m of unlined soil is supported by a uniform pressure of 172 kPa. 1996). The simplified numerical procedure adopted to model the tunnel construction is illustrated in Fig. which ranges from 106 kPa at the tunnel crown to 185 kPa at the invert.MODELLING OF SOIL–STRUCTURE INTERACTION DURING EPB TUNNELLING standard values are taken for the other parameters of Table 4.

which also show the plant position of the foundation elements by dashed lines. Such contraction induces a maximum vertical displacement at the tunnel crown. as discussed in Appendix 3. GRAGNANO. The numerical final settlement troughs. x: m (a) 20 30 II I 0 Settlement. BOLDINI AND AMOROSI 0 4 8 I 12 ⫺30 ⫺20 II VII III IV V ⫺10 0 10 Distance from tunnel axis. It was performed considering the appropriate selfweight and stiffness of the structural elements. 3) and at the end of tunnel excavation. whereas it increases for those which settle the least. in correspondence with the shield tail. • The stiffening role of the cross-bracings was investigated . however. in terms of normal compression forces (N) acting at the base (z ¼ 0) of the columns located along the longitudinal fac¸ades of the building. highlighting the stiffer response observed in correspondence with the discrete foundation elements. nonetheless. The overall consistency of the computed profiles with the empirical solutions and with available measurements indicates that the adopted numerical model is amenable to be adopted for more complex interaction analyses. Sv: mm NUMERICAL RESULTS AND COMPARISON WITH MONITORING DATA Results of free-field analysis and interaction analysis with a detailed structural model A preliminary free-field numerical analysis (FF) was performed to calibrate the contraction to be applied at the tunnel shield to reproduce a volume loss equal to 0 . in correspondence with the heaviest components of the building. which is quite similar in shape to the translated one. The two profiles overlap only outside the building area. (2006). In particular. 14 refers to the subsidence profiles as computed at the barycentre of the building (point M in Fig. An attempt to analyse the structural response. The computed transversal profile (Fig. As expected. that is. 4 8 FF_VL ⫽ 0·32% STR_VL ⫽ 0·36% 12 ⫺30 ⫺20 III VI ⫺10 0 10 20 30 Distance from tunnel axis. a satisfactory agreement between the numerical outcomes of analysis STR and the monitoring data is observed. as shown in Figs 8(f) and 9(b). in order to highlight the role of the structural components on the overall stiffness and. is presented in Figs 16(a) and 16(b) together with their computed final settlements. confirming the capability of the proposed finite-element simulation to provide realistic results. as illustrated in the following. In general the comparison is satisfactory. y: m (b) 40 50 Fig. Once the excavation process has been completed. 3). The numerical longitudinal subsidence trough (Fig. thus. corresponding to that observed at the monitored ground section GS_6 (see Table 1) near to the building. the following cases were also considered. 9(b)). the presence of the building influences the settlement profiles. the free-field results lead to less intense settlements and rather overestimated differential ones.32 FARGNOLI. Comparison between computed final settlement profiles of FF and STR analyses evaluated along the middle section of the building in (a) the transversal and (b) longitudinal directions to the tunnel axis (the corresponding volume loss values are also reported in the key) at the ground surface along the left and right longitudinal fac¸ades of the building and along its transversal right side. Figure 15 shows the measured and calculated settlements Settlement. but in the presence of the building. 8(f)) results in fair agreement with the Gaussian distribution. In both cases. is able to capture the face and final recorded settlements. as computed along the transversal and longitudinal directions to the tunnel axis at the foundation level (i. Results of interaction analyses with simplified structural models Additional interaction analyses were carried out adopting simplified schematisation of the building. Fig. Sv: mm correspondence with the column’s head. 14. which is more evident for the left fac¸ade. should be ascribed to the force-transfer mechanism. The interaction analysis. as described in the previous subsection on ‘Numerical modelling of the building’. it predicts the attainment of steady-state conditions at a shorter distance from the face when compared to what was measured. whose input parameters were derived adapting the approach proposed by Franzius et al. In particular. on the computed displacement field. This expected pattern. was carried out imposing the same excavation sequence and amount of contraction as defined above. due to the effect of the building weight. which is enhanced by the presence of the cross-bracings. the accordance with the experimental measurements decreases as the distance from the tunnel axis increases. as obtained for the tunnel face located at the middle of the structure (point M in Fig. including in the model the presence of the external infill panels by means of specific cross-bracings. equal to about 10 mm. 14(a)) and at the elevator shaft (VI in the same figure). the stairwell and the elevator shafts. To validate the model. It is worth noting that the maximum vertical displacement and volume loss of the interaction analysis are larger than the free-field one.e. The N values predicted before tunnelling are approximately constant. In a further analysis the structure was strongly simplified and schematised as an equivalent plate (L ¼ 30 m and B ¼ 12 m) placed at the foundation level (STR analysis). their distribution being more regular along the left side of the building due to the corresponding more regular column distribution. z ¼ 4 m). In contrast. which is compatible with the available gap of the adopted EPB machine.34%. defined as STR. N decreases for the columns that experience larger settlements. are compared to the corresponding free-field predictions in Figs 14(a) and 14(b). This observation is particularly evident at the stairwell (VII in Fig. the distribution of N becomes modified: in general. which deviate from the free-field ones along both directions. the computed transversal and longitudinal surface settlement profiles are compared to the measurements and the corresponding empirical curves.

d) longitudinal sides of the building . l: m (c) 12 15 Fig. l: m (b) 25 0 30 STRwcb analysis 1200 9 6 1000 800 3 600 400 Normal force. Sv: mm 1200 1200 200 9 400 0 5 10 15 20 Building left side. 15. l: m (c) Column position 0 30 25 Sv 200 0 N before tunnelling 5 10 15 20 Building right side. l: m (a) 25 0 30 200 9 1400 STRwcb analysis 1400 0 5 10 15 20 Building right side. l: m (d) 25 0 30 N after tunnelling Fig. N: kN 3 400 400 200 6 1000 6 800 600 3 Settlement. Comparison of monitored and computed settlements of FF and STR analyses on the longitudinal (a) left and (b) right sides and (c) on the transversal right side of the building STR analysis STR analysis 1400 1400 9 800 600 3 Normal force. Sv: mm Normal force. 16. l: m (b) 25 30 0 Settlement. l: m (a) 25 3 6 9 12 30 0 5 10 15 20 Longitudinal right side. Sv: mm 3 6 9 12 33 0 0 0 5 10 15 20 Longitudinal left side. Sv: mm Measurements_middle Measurements_end FF (point M) STR (point M) FF 3 6 9 STR 12 0 3 6 9 Transversal right side. STR and STRwcb analyses: normal compression force and settlement values at the base of the columns on the left (a. N: kN 1000 Settlement. Sv: mm Normal force. c) and right (b. N: kN 1200 Settlement. Sv: mm Settlement. N: kN 6 Settlement. Sv: mm 1000 800 600 0 5 10 15 20 Building left side.MODELLING OF SOIL–STRUCTURE INTERACTION DURING EPB TUNNELLING Settlement.

4 m thick and 3 . The building was finally reduced to a plate of equivalent stiffness and weight in analysis STR . without indicating any sagging or hogging deformative modes. Figure 17 summarises all the monitored and computed settlement profiles as observed and back-predicted along the longitudinal and transversal sides of the building. the latter being 0 . the results obtained using the equivalent plate schematisation are highly unsatisfactory and on the unsafe side. as described later. since the building stiffness is found to be largely overestimated. 0 Settlement.5 m high. which represent a possible cause of structural damage for surface structures. Sv: mm 0 3 6 9 12 0 5 10 15 20 Longitudinal left side. the buried portion of the structure provides the most relevant contribution to the overall stiffness. and (d) on the transversal right side of the building. in Appendix 3. thus indicating that. in this particular case. Analysis STRw investigates the stiffening contribution of the buried portion of the building. The displacement curves obtained by the analysis STRw. In this analysis the weight of the elevated structure was accounted for by a corresponding distribution of loads. with relatively higher values in the inner columns for the left side of the building (Fig. l: m (c) Measurements_end 12 15 3 6 9 12 0 3 6 9 Transversal right side. are practically coincident with those computed by the complete structural model. The soil behaviour is described by a non-linear elastoplastic constitutive model (termed ‘hardening soil with small-strain stiffness’) calibrated with reference to in-situ tests. the displacement field at the foundation level is characterised by almost rigid rotations along the four sides of the structure. l: m (b) 25 30 0 Settlement. carried out disregarding the above-ground portion of the building. are very similar to the STR ones. in fact. The study. as described earlier under ‘Numerical modelling of the building’. the N distribution is characterised by a different pattern as compared to analysis STR (Figs 16(a) and 16(b)). 17. 16(c)) and less intense actions on the external columns along the right side (Fig. (c) The computed settlement profiles on the transversal left side are also compared . GRAGNANO. the absence of these elements reduces the force redistribution process within the structure: at the end of excavation. The main aspects of the excavation process are reproduced in the 3D numerical simulation of the EPB tunnelling.FARGNOLI. the differential settlements along the transversal sides of the building. Finally. In fact. 16(d)). BOLDINI AND AMOROSI 34 • • by the analysis denoted as STRwcb. The comparison between the STRwcb and STR results proves that the absence of the cross-bracings does not significantly affect the overall displacement pattern (Fig. This topic is currently relevant as the ever-increasing demand for urban space leads to underground developments. Sv: mm Settlement. CONCLUSIONS This paper presents the results of a coupled geotechnical and structural numerical study aimed at investigating the response of a multi-storey building affected by tunnellinginduced settlements. refers to the recent construction of the metro-line 5 in Milan (Italy). l: m (a) 25 9 0 5 10 15 20 Longitudinal right side. characterised by the presence of foundation elements and retaining walls. l: m (d) STR STRwcb STRW STR* 12 15 Fig. where the building was modelled without these components. Sv: mm 6 12 30 0 3 6 9 12 3 0 3 6 9 Transversal left side. in correspondence with the foundational elements. Sv: mm Settlement. Comparison of monitored and computed final settlements on the longitudinal (a) left and (b) right sides. As shown in Figs 16(c) and 16(d). while it can play a non-negligible role on the structural forces. In particular. 17). connecting the foundation level to the ground floor. conducted using a three-dimensional finite-element code.

In contrast. the stress dependency is accounted for by a power law which resembles the ones discussed above for the other stiffness parameters   c9 cos 9 þ  39 sin 9 m G0 ¼ Gref (2) 0 c9 cos 9 þ pref sin 9 The HSsmall model implements the following modified version (Santos & Correia. while the average volume loss value was equal to 0 . The ground vertical displacements can be well interpreted by Gaussian curves both along transversal and longitudinal directions. of the cross-bracings is defined with reference to the expression proposed by Mainstone (1971) ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Financial support provided by Astaldi S. bw ¼ 0.175(ºh hw )0 4 d w (5) where dw is the diagonal length of the panel. tw is the panel thickness (equal to 40 cm). The derivative of equation (3) with respect to the shear strain provides the tangent shear modulus.A. DEFINITION OF THE CROSS-BRACINGS’ PROPERTIES The width.p.385. whereas it is shown to play a more significant role in the redistribution of the structural forces acting in the vertical columns of the building during the excavation process.p. based on Benz (2007).A. in this latter case assuming a ratio between the settlement at the tunnel face and the final settlement much lower than the standard 0 .MODELLING OF SOIL–STRUCTURE INTERACTION DURING EPB TUNNELLING One novel element of the proposed study is the detail adopted in modelling an existing reinforced concrete building underpassed by the metro-line. In the case of the small-strain stiffness. As expected. The paper presents and discusses a class C numerical prediction of the settlements induced by tunnelling under free-field conditions and.A. The elastic behaviour of the soil at medium strain levels (typically over 0 . 2001) of the stiffness reduction curve proposed by Hardin & Drnevich (1972) Gs 1 ¼ G0 1 þ ajª=ª0. in the presence of a surface structure. A reduced value of Ew ¼ 3 GPa was entered in equation (6) instead of the effective Young’s modulus of the infill panels (about equal to 6 GPa) in order to take into account the diffuse presence of voids (doors or windows) on the building . Gur Gt . proves the reliability of the proposed finite-element model to capture the essential mechanisms governing the problem. The model which considers only the buried portion of the building.7.A. including those along the structure. E950 . c9 is the effective cohesion. for providing the monitoring data and for the technical support during the site activity. The mechanical and geometrical properties of its principal structural elements are described in a realistic way. adopting a formulation inspired by the well-known stress-dilatancy theory. Similar expressions are used to define the secant stiffness in standard drained triaxial test.5. resulting in a highly inaccurate displacement field as compared to that observed in situ. which is a function of the effective stress and strength parameters according to the following expression   c9 cos 9 þ  39 sin 9 m E9ur ¼ E9ref (1) ur c9 cos 9 þ pref sin 9 where E9ref ur is the unloading/reloading Young’s modulus at the reference pressure pref ¼ 100 kPa. collected during the tunnelling activities at six ground locations and along three sides of the reference building. (formerly Astaldi S. the small-strain shear modulus G0 at the reference pressure pref) and the shear strain at which the shear modulus is reduced to about 70% of its initial value.  39 is the minimum principal effective stress and m is a constant that controls the linear or nonlinear dependency of the stiffness on the above quantities. for this particular building and foundation typology. hw is the panel height and the parameter ºh is equal to sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 4 E w t w sin(2Ł) ºh ¼ (6) 4Ec I c hw with Ew and Ec being the Young’s moduli of the infill panel and of the reinforced concrete structural elements surrounding the panel. The problem under investigation is initially discussed with reference to the analysis of the geotechnical and structural monitoring data. and the tangent stiffness for primary oedometer loading. which is a function of the deviatoric plastic strain and a cap yield surface. is found to fit the monitoring data well: in terms of displacement pattern. including the foundation elements. a summary of the main ingredients of the hardening soil model with small-strain stiffness is provided. the numerical results for the interaction analysis clearly highlight the role of the structure stiffness and weight on the settlement troughs. the equivalent plate schematisation involves a large overestimation of the structure stiffness. E9oed : The HSsmall model considers two additional stiffness parameters to take into account the soil behaviour at very small strains: the reference small-strain shear modulus. fs. Special thanks go to Eng. which is bounded by a lower limit to scale back the stiffness to the value adopted at strain levels. 9 is the angle of shearing resistance. fv. Ł is the angle formed by the diagonal of the infill panel with respect to the horizontal axis. subsequently. whereas a non-associate rule is employed for fs. due to the effect of the support face pressure.1%) is accounted for by isotropic elasticity using a stress- .p. it provides almost equivalent results to those obtained by the complete analysis. bw. including the external infill panels. Giuseppe Colombo of Milano Serravalle – Milano Tangenziali S. which is introduced to bound the elastic region for compressive stress paths and depends on the plastic volumetric strain.e. Gt.33%. Enrico Campa is gratefully acknowledged. The lower cut-off of Gt is introduced at the unloading/reloading shear stiffness.7 j (3) where Gs is the secant shear modulus and a is a constant equal to 0 . It was found that the ground and the structure experienced a maximum settlement at the end of the excavation process always lower than 7 mm. The associate flow rule is adopted for the cap yield surface fv. Gref 0 (i. The elastic region of the model can be further reduced by means of a tensile cut-off. It is also demonstrated that the contribution of the infill panels appears to be negligible in terms of the overall displacement pattern. as compared to the free-field ones. SOIL CONSTITUTIVE MODEL In the following. respectively. which are schematised by means of weightless crossbracings with equivalent stiffness. Gur ¼ Eur 2(1 þ ur ) (4) The HSsmall model is characterised by two yield surfaces which evolve isotropically: a shear hardening yield surface. and Ic is the moment of inertia of the columns adjacent to the infill panel.p. APPENDIX 1. 35 dependent Young’s modulus. ª0 .) and to Eng. indicating a good performance of the adopted EPB machine. highlighting the negligible stiffening role of the structure above in this reference case study. Davide Fraccaroli and Eng. The satisfactory comparison between the numerical results and settlement measurements. APPENDIX 2. in the person of Eng. Alessandro Caffaro of Astaldi S.

66 3 105 6 .65 3 108 1 . DEFINITION OF THE EQUIVALENT PLATE PROPERTIES The axial (EcA)building and bending (EcJ)building stiffnesses of the building were calculated by considering that the structure consisted only of floor slabs and was oriented with the longitudinal sides parallel to the tunnel axis (such an hypothesis does not significantly affect the second moment of area of the slab): (Ec A)building ¼ n X (Ec A)slab (8) 1 (Ec J )building ¼ n X (Ec J )slab ¼ Ec 1 n X (J slab þ Aslab H 2m ) (9) 1 where n is the reference level of the building.22 0 .80 7 . per its thickness. respectively. 2003). Aslab and Jslab are the cross-sectional area and the second moment of area of the slab at each level..65 3 108 1 .66 3 105 6 . The building foundation system was neglected in this simplified approach (Franzius et al. The input parameters of the plate element used in the finiteelement analysis were then evaluated as sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 12(Ec J )building tfe ¼ (10) (Ec A)building Efe ¼ (Ec A)building tfe (11) with tfe and Efe being the equivalent thickness and the Young’s modulus. APPENDIX 3. 2006).10 3 106 1 . was calculated as the ratio between the total building weight (excluding the weight of the retaining walls modelled in STR analysis.65 3 108 1 .66 3 105 NOTATION Aslab Aw B bw c9 cross-sectional area of slab transversal area of infill panels structure width width of cross-bracings soil effective cohesion cincrement increase of soil cohesion with depth D tunnel diameter dw diagonal length of infill panels Ec Young’s modulus of reinforced concrete Efe Young’s modulus of equivalent plate E9ref reference tangent stiffness of soil for primary oedometer oed loading Eur unloading/reloading Young’s modulus of soil E9ref reference unloading/reloading stiffness of soil ur Ew Young’s modulus of infill panels E9ref reference Young’s modulus of soil at small strains 0 E9ref reference secant stiffness of soil in standard drained 50 triaxial test Flim maximum compression strength of cross-bracings fs shear hardening yield surface fv cap yield surface Gs secant shear modulus of soil Gt tangent shear modulus of soil Gur unloading/reloading shear modulus of soil G0 shear modulus of soil at small strains Gref reference shear modulus of soil at small strains 0 H structure height Hm vertical distance between the slab’s and structure’s neutral axis hw height of infill panels Ic moment of inertia of the columns IP index of plasticity ix transversal inflection point iy longitudinal inflection point Jslab second moment of area of slab K trough width parameter Kw axial stiffness of cross-bracings K0 coefficient of earth pressure at rest K nc coefficient of earth pressure at rest in a normal 0 consolidated state k permeability coefficient L structure length M structure middle-point m power of stress-level dependency of stiffness N normal compression force in building columns n reference level of building pref reference pressure Rf failure ratio Sv settlement Sv. tw.f settlement at tunnel face tfe thickness of equivalent plate tw thickness of infill panels VL volume loss z0 depth of tunnel axis max maximum angular distortion ª shear strain.26 0 .22 0 .2 MPa. and Aw is its transversal area.66 3 105 6 .22 0 . which contribute to reducing the overall stiffness of the structures (Melis & Ortiz.65 3 108 1 .66 3 105 6 .60 3 .66 3 105 6 .7 shear strain at which Gs ¼ 0 .max maximum settlement Sv.92 kN/m3.30cr Aw (7) where cr is the shear cracking stress of the panel.22 15 .22 0 . equal to about 2500 kN) and the plate volume (B 3 L 3 tfe).22 0 .65 3 108 1 .95 3 108 1 . unit volume weight for soil ªc unit weight of volume for reinforced concrete ª0 .66 3 105 6 . An elasto-plastic constitutive law is selected for such elements to introduce a limit value of the tensile strength equal to zero.7G0 ˜max maximum relative deflection (˜/L)max maximum deflection ratio smax maximum differential settlement Ł angle formed by diagonal of infill panel with respect to horizontal axis Łmax maximum slope ºh parameter depending on geometrical and material properties of infill panels and reinforced concrete structural elements c Poisson coefficient of reinforced concrete ur unloading/reloading Poisson coefficient tension tensile strength  39 minimum principal effective stress cr shear cracking stress of the infill panels 9 effective friction angle ł dilatancy angle ø rotation . which is equal to 2 .65 3 108 1 . lw. respectively.65 3 108 1 .22 0 . n Basement floor Ground floor First floor Second floor Third floor Fourth floor Fifth floor Sixth floor Seventh floor Eighth floor Ninth floor Slab thickness: m Hm: m EcAslab: kN EcJslab: kNm2 0 .70 13 . The computed axial and bending stiffness for each slab are reported in Table 6. and Hm is the vertical distance between the slab’s and the structure’s neutral axes (the latter assumed to be located in correspondence with the structure’s centroid). The unit volume weight of the plate element.26 0 .66 3 105 6 .10 3 106 6 . Furthermore. GRAGNANO.66 3 105 6 . Table 6.65 3 108 1 .80 2 .20 13 . evaluated as the product of the panel length.20 9 . the maximum value of the compression strength is evaluated according to the following expression F lim ¼ 1.FARGNOLI.40 16 .95 3 108 1 .22 0 .22 0 .00 10 .65 3 108 1 . BOLDINI AND AMOROSI 36 fac¸ades. Stiffness properties of the slabs at each level Level. The cross-bracings are modelled as weightless one-dimensional node-to-node anchor elements reacting solely to axial stresses and characterised by an axial stiffness equal to Kw ¼ Ew 3 bw 3 tw.00 5 . together with the thickness and Hm values. assumed equal to 0 .60 0 .60 1 .

M. O’Reilly. J. UK: Taylor & Francis. Tunnelling Underground Space Technol. R. No. http://dx. & Correia.1986.10. M. A. B. Proc. G. UK: Institute of Mining and Metallurgy. T. J. the Netherlands: Balkema. London. 98. Broms. (1971). (1974). (2004). In Proceedings of tunnelling ’82 symposium. 341–352. Franzius. (2012). D. 1189–1201. E. 2. Japan: ICSMFE. B. Villejust Tunnel: slurry shield effects on soils and lining behaviour and comments on monitoring equipment. 199. A. Liu. 225. Taylor & Francis Group. Instn Civ. de Felice. Engng 115. 118–130. vol. M. R.. 3. & Cording. 9. 1. 495–546. Ground Engng 15. 267–270. Proc. Hicks.org/10. 387–394. Instn Civ. A structure’s influence on tunnelling-induced ground movements. Responses of buildings with different structural types to excavation-induced ground settlements. 8.. . B. R. In Proceedings of the 7th international symposium on geotechnical aspects of underground construction in soft ground. 44. & Soccodato. Boldini. Reference threshold shear strain of soil. Ge´otechnique 62. (1982). (1996). (1997). J. pp. J. J. Res. A. Numerical methods in geotechnical engineering. 336. T. (1995). J. J. Houlsby. paper no. (2013).. Geoenviron.. C. Callisto. A. Boldini. Burland. Rotterdam. Hendriks. A. (2012). Rotterdam. Proceedings of conference on settlement of structures. Amorosi. (1989). No. No.. Burland. 13–22. R. 611–654. 1. R. J. J. 43–53. 425–557. Addenbrooke. Mexico City. 1.doi. Vucetic. Mair.2008.. Instn Civ. A. No. 4. Rotterdam. 323–344. Melis.. IS-Tokyo 77. B. Fargnoli. pp. No. & New. (2011). (2012). Engng 125. J. (1986). pp. Geotech. UK: Ciria. C. & Malena. Oxford. General report on settlement effects of bored tunnels. London (ed. 43–50. 109–125. M. 3–17. 28. Mair and R. & Ortiz. Tunnelling-induced deformation and damage on historical masonry structures. Boscardin.org/10. Peck. Pachakis and Ch. N. 38. 695–736. Modelling tunnelling-induced settlement of masonry buildings. http://dx. J. M. Ata. 1. R. Istanbul (eds A. Maleki. T. G. J. Mousivand. & Wroth. & Bayat. Ground settlements induced by slurry shield tunnelling in stratified soils. pp. (2000).. Benz. 2353–2385. pp. No. G. 25–38. E.127. Ozdemir). UK: Balkema. Rohe).P.1680/geot. Plaxis (2012).. M. No.3. London. Acapulco. Proc. (1977). Behavior of foundations and structures. Proceedings of the 11th world conference on earthquake engineering. M. J. Shear modulus and damping in soils: design equations and curves. D. Engng 137. Consideration of the stiffness of buildings in the estimation of subsidence damage by EPB tunneling in the Madrid Subway. Proceedings of the 15th international conference on soil mechanics and geotechnical engineering. No. UK: CRC Press. Found. Potts..425. R. 173–181. the Netherlands: Balkema. 2. K. 1. 225–290. Soils Found. Engrs – Geotech. J. In Proceedings of North American tunnelling ’96 (ed. (2000). M. & Woodman.. Viggiani).doi. particle size. http://dx. pp. 827–832. & Cording.13. V. B. Tunnelling and geotechnics: new horizons. Engrs – Geotech. J. London. R. L. 7. 1.. Potts.1680/geot. the Netherlands: Balkema. Engr 79. the Netherlands: Plaxis bv. F. Qi. Proceedings of international conference on response of buildings to excavation-induced ground movements (ed. Mair. T. 4.doi. London. (1969). vol. Building response to excavation induced settlement. Ge´otechnique 58. Tokyo. Ge´otechnique 64. (1996). Mainstone. M. Hamburg. pp. M. D. A. London. L. J. UK: Pentech Press. G.. Plaxis 3D user’s manual. pp. 46th Rankine lecture. 4. pp. London. G. D. Tunnelling Underground Space Technol. 2. An equivalent beam model for the analysis of tunnel-building interaction. Brinkgreve and A. & Drnevich. M. E. 1. (1972). 667–692. No. Son. 353–359. N. The response of surface structures to tunnel construction. Proceedings of the 14th international conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering. 1–21.P. T. relative density. B. Puzrin. 26. (2008). N. (2001). pp. ageing and overconsolidation. Tsatsanifos).org/10. T. NUMGE 2014 (eds M. G. (1982). S. P. Engng 143. A. Settlements on buildings and associated damage. UK: Pergamon. Predicting the dynamics of ground settlement and its derivatives caused by tunnelling in soil. UK: Institution of Mining and Metallurgy. Tunnelling 5. & Bochon. Jardine). No. A. Geotech. & Dobry. & Amorosi. 1. Panagiotakos. B. J. V. N. Soil Mech. Japan: ICSMFE. Simple approach to predicting ground displacements caused by tunnelling in undrained anisotropic elastic soil.. J. G. Ishihara). Div. (2006). 19–25. M.. Engrs – Geotech. The influence of building weight on tunnelling-induced ground and building deformation. B. & Burland. Proceedings of the 7th international conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering. 289–294. & Taylor. M. 2-dimensional analysis of settlement damage to masonry buildings caused by tunnelling. J. No. F. Fargnoli. Anagnostopoulos. V. Engng. N. Proceedings of the 9th international conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering. M. N. 17–29. No. Deep excavations and tunnelling in soft ground.1680/geot. J. Malena. Evaluating the effects of tunnelling on historical buildings: the example of a new subway in Rome. Boldini. The Struct. (1997). vol. No. Hardin. 287–296. London. Viggiani. pp. Jones). Skempton. Leblais. J. J.org/10. & Addenbrooke... 133–134.1680/geot. & Fardis. Germany. Universita¨t Stuttgart. vol.. Analysis of ground movement due 37 to metro station driven with enlarging shield tunnels under building and its parameter sensitivity analysis. Augarde. No. 65–77. On the stiffnesses and strengths of infilles frames. No. & Amorosi. Instn Civ. D. vol. Assessment of risk of damage to buildings due to tunnelling excavation. Mair. Mexico City.032. M. Balkema. & Wu. (2012).MODELLING OF SOIL–STRUCTURE INTERACTION DURING EPB TUNNELLING REFERENCES Amorosi. & Liu. PhD thesis. M. D. http:// dx. Taylor). State-of-art-report and theme lecture. Geomech. Santos. Small-strain stiffness of soils and its numerical consequences. (2007). P. ASCE 117. 89–107. TBM-tunnelling induced settlements in coarse-grained soils: The case of the new Milan underground line 5. J. Cambridge and London. Effect of the soil plasticity on cyclic response. (1991). Houlsby. H. Tunnelling-induced deformation in a masonry structure: a numerical approach. J. B.9. B. (2003).. Liu. No. 2. Burland. B. pp. Engng 159.. Bored tunnelling in the urban environment. & Standing. J. Seismic response of infilled RC frames structures. J. IS Tokyo ’95 (ed. Ge´otechnique 36. I. J. Rampello. R. Z. M. Its application to obtain a unique strain dependent shear modulus curve for soil. J. (1991). (2014). 347–347. 3. Burland. No. M. V. In Proceedings of international symposium on geotechnical aspects of underground construction in soft ground (eds R. Proceedings of Tunnelling 91. Advd Mater. pp. (2011). B. G. D.58. Numerical analysis of tunnelling effects on masonry buildings: the influence of tunnel location on damage assessment. Attewell. D. F. & Rots. Standard penetration test procedures and the effects in sands of overburden pressure.doi.695. Tunnelling Underground Space Technol. M. A. Y. I. Franzius.36. B. T. (1996). & de Mello. Engrs 49. Potts. Delft. vol. M. Giardina. M. B. de Felice. P. & Augarde. V. G. R. Sereshteh. C. M. (2014). Numerical prediction of tunnelling-induced settlements in coarse-grained soils. 524– 533. Burd. & Sebastianelli. Mexico: Sociedad Mexicana de Mecanica. (2010). A. A. G. A. Boldini. 59–70. Settlements above tunnels in the United Kindom – their magnitudes and prediction. & Burland. Proc.. 275–299. P. Tokyo. E. Geotech. G. Rome (ed. B. Proceedings of the 1st international conference on earthquake geotechnical engineering. 2.