See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/305520289

A Winkler-Based Method for the Assessment of Tunnelling-Induced

Deformations on Piled Structures

Conference Paper · July 2016

DOI: 10.1061/9780784480038.032

CITATION READS
1 214

3 authors:

Andrea Franza Twana Kamal Haji

Universidad Politécnica de Madrid 8 PUBLICATIONS   49 CITATIONS   
36 PUBLICATIONS   107 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Alec M Marshall
University of Nottingham
110 PUBLICATIONS   685 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

IACMAG2020 – Mini-symposium 6: "Building and infrastructure response to ground movement" View project

Tunnelling beneath piled structures in urban areas (TUBEURB) - MARIE SKŁODOWSKA-CURIE ACTIONS Individual Fellowship (IF) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Alec M Marshall on 13 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Geo-China 2016 GSP 260 259

A Winkler-Based Method for the Assessment of Tunnelling-Induced

Deformations on Piled Structures

Andrea Franza1; Twana K. Haji2; and Alec M. Marshall3

1
Ph.D. Student, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2RD, U.K. E-mail:
evxaf2@nottingham.ac.uk
2
Ph.D. Student, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2RD, U.K. E-mail:
evxtkha@nottingham.ac.uk
3
Lecturer, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2RD, U.K. E-mail:
alec.marshall@nottingham.ac.uk

Abstract: In urban areas it is often required to assess the deformation distributions

induced by tunnel construction on piled buildings. In this paper, a simple analysis
method is presented for estimating these deformations. The proposed method is based
on a two-stage procedure: (1) estimation of the greenfield ground movements caused
by the tunnel excavation, and (2) analysis of the foundation/building on elastic springs
subjected to a system of forces induced by the greenfield ground movements. Simple
closed-form expressions are used for the evaluation of spring stiffnesses and
tunnelling-induced forces. The proposed method is validated by comparing its
predictions with those from 3D finite element analyses. It is shown that the simplified
analysis method provides a good assessment of building deformations for several
cases of tunnelling beneath piles and relative soil-structure stiffnesses. The proposed
method represents a useful tool for preliminary parametric analyses due to the reduced
computational cost and simple yet versatile implementation compared to 3D numerical
analyses.

INTRODUCTION

Urban development often involves the construction of tunnels. To satisfy the

structural serviceability state, engineers need to assess the effect of deformations
induced by tunnel construction on piled buildings. Several researchers have
investigated the effects of tunnel construction adjacent and beneath piles, leading to a
satisfactory confidence in the assessment of pile group displacements and internal
forces (Basile 2014; Huang et al. 2009). Although several studies have investigated
the tunnel-building interaction (Franzius et al. 2006; Mair et al. 1996), the
understanding of the role of piles in the global tunnel-pile-building interaction is
limited. As mentioned by Mair and Williamson (2014), despite the importance of
predicting structural settlements caused by tunnelling beneath piled foundations, there

© ASCE
Geo-China 2016 GSP 260 260

is a lack of methods for performing preliminary damage risk assessments of piled

buildings. It is well known that soil behaviour and soil-structure interactions are non-
linear, however many useful methods for tunnel-structure interaction analyses have
been developed using simplified elastic solutions (e.g. Huang et al. 2009). The method
presented in this paper also adopts an elastic framework, using a two-stage simplified
Winkler analysis. This method provides the displacements resulting from tunnel
construction in a generic structure; it is able to highlight the main tunnel-piled
foundation interaction mechanisms.

METHOD OF ANALYSIS

The problem studied in this paper considers an elastic structure on a foundation

composed of q circular vertical piles embedded in an elastic layered deposit where a
tunnel is constructed beneath the piles. The method is based on a two-stage procedure:
(1) estimation of the greenfield ground movements caused by the tunnel excavation,
and (2) analysis of the building on elastic springs subjected to a system of forces
induced by greenfield ground movements. The method considers only the vertical
degrees of freedom of the piles. This simplifying assumption is compatible with the
fact that tunnel construction induces negligible horizontal strains in structures with
continuous footings (Burland et al. 2004, Goh and Mair 2014). Moreover, the
conservative assumption of elastic soil medium, which neglects soil nonlinearities,
should lead to realistic predictions as long as the tunnel volume loss, Vl,t, does not
exceed a value of 1% (Basile 2014, Zhang et al. 2011).

FIG. 1. Simplified Winkler model for tunnel-pile-structure interaction: (a) single

pile case; (b) piled structure case.

Estimation of greenfield ground movements

In the analysis presented here, the closed-form expression proposed by Loganathan
and Poulos (1998) for the prediction of vertical greenfield tunnelling-induced
displacements in clays is implemented. It is important to note that any input of
greenfield displacements can be used in the method, thereby enhancing the versatility
of the approach.

© ASCE
Geo-China 2016 GSP 260 261

Global tunnel-piled structure interaction

Tunnel-single pile interaction
The schematic representation of the problem for the single pile case is shown in Fig.
1a. For the Winkler assumption, vertical linear springs distributed along the pile shaft
and base are used to simulate a layered soil deposit with no slip at the pile-soil
interface. The pile is discretized into n+1 nodes. If each pile is assumed rigid, it is
possible to provide the following simple closed-form expressions for the stiffnesses of
the equivalent pile-soil spring, Kp, and the resultant tunnelling-induced vertical force,
Fp, at the p-th pile head.
Lp n +1
K p =  k z ( z ) dz + K b ≈  k z ( z i ) Δz i + K b
o i
Lp
(1)
n +1
Fp = s z ( z ) k z ( z ) dz + s z (L p )K b ≈  s z ( z i ) k z ( z i ) Δz i + s z (L p )K b
o i

where kz and Kb are, respectively, the stiffness of shaft springs (per unit-length of pile)
and the base spring stiffness of the pile; Δzi is the effective pile length corresponding
to the i-th node, and sz is the greenfield vertical soil movement induced by tunnel
excavation at the pile axis line. As suggested by Randolph et al. (1978), kz and Kb are
assumed equal to
2πG s
kz =
 2.5 L p (1 − ν s ) 
ln  

 dp /2  (2)
d p Eb
Kb =
1 − ν b2
where Gs and νs are the shear modulus and the Poisson’s ratio of the soil layer at the
node depth; Eb and νb are the shear modulus and the Poisson’s ratio of the soil deposit
at the pile toe; dp is the pile diameter; Lp is the total pile length.

Global tunnel-piled structure interaction

If each pile is treated as an isolated case, the global tunnel-pile-structure interaction
problem is idealized as an elastic structure supported by independent vertical springs,
which account for the soil deformability (see Fig. 1b). The structure is restrained in the
horizontal direction. The only degrees of freedom of this system are the vertical
displacements of structural nodes connected to the springs (pile heads). The tunnel
excavation induces a system of vertical forces at the foundation level. The equilibrium
equation is formulated by adding the contribution of soil stiffness to the condensed
stiffness matrix of the structure. The equilibrium equation is
(K s + K g )u p = f p (3)
where Ks is the condensed stiffness matrix of the structure, Kg is the stiffness matrix
of the soil-pile group system, up is the displacement vector of the piled foundation and

© ASCE
Geo-China 2016 GSP 260 262

fp is the vector of the tunnelling-induced forces. The condensed stiffness matrix of the
structure is a full matrix, whereas the stiffness matrix of the pile-soil system is a
diagonal matrix because pile-pile interaction is neglected. The elements up,i and fp,i are,
respectively, the displacement and the tunnelling-induced force at the i-th degree of
freedom (dof). If the structure degrees of freedom are fixed, Ks,ij is the structural
reaction force in the i-th dof due to a unit displacement of the j-th dof. Kg,ii is the
equivalent stiffness of the i-th pile.
Once the equilibrium equation is solved, structural deformations can be computed by
displacing the constrained structure according to the solution displacement vector up.
In this paper, the condensed stiffness matrix of the elastic structure was obtained with
a finite element code using the Euler-Bernoulli beam theory. Alternatively, the second
stage may be solved directly through a 3D numerical modelling software, simulating
the structure on vertical springs subjected to the tunnelling-induced force system.

VERIFICATION BY COMPARISON WITH 3D NUMERICAL ANALYSES

In this section, the Winkler-based method predictions are compared against more
rigorous 3D numerical analyses performed with Abaqus (Simulia 2010). This section
demonstrates that the proposed method allows for a reliable assessment of piled
building deformations due to tunnel construction. The influences of tunnel location as
well as soil and structure stiffnesses are also investigated.

Configurations
The validation of the proposed method was performed by analysing the deformation
profile of a beam with a foundation comprising a row of either 5 or 11 piles. The
beam, with a stiffness representing a foundation and superstructure, was located with
its centre at a horizontal distance Xt from the tunnel centreline. The pile spacing was
fixed, hence the 5-pile building model has a width B=20m, whereas the 11-pile
foundation has a width B=50m. Fig. 2 summarizes the considered tunnel-pile-structure
configurations.
db
Lp
H

FIG. 2. Studied configurations.

© ASCE
Geo-China 2016 GSP 260 263

Several relative soil-structure stiffness ratios, given by Es/Eb, where Es and Eb are the
Young’s modulus of the soil and foundation beam, respectively, and tunnel locations,
given by Xt, were investigated.

Model details
The ABAQUS model simulated both the soil and piles using 3D 8-node linear brick,
reduced integration solid elements (C3D8R). The mixed analytical-numerical
approach for soil-structure interaction analysis used by Klar and Marshall (2008) was
adopted here. This ensured that the input of soil displacements due to tunnelling in the
numerical model were consistent with those used in the Winkler method.
The mixed analytical-numerical analysis consists of two stages. In the first stage, all
nodes of the soil model are forced to displace vertically according to a chosen input
for greenfield settlements, in this case the closed-form expression proposed by
Loganathan and Poulos (1998), and the reaction forces of the nodes (nodal forces
required to produce the applied displacements) are recorded. In the second stage, the
model is returned to its original condition (before deformation) and the selected
structure, in this case the piles and superstructure (beam), are then added to the model.
The nodal reaction forces recorded in the previous stage are then applied to the model
which includes the added structure. Any difference in soil displacements between the
two stages of the model is due to the existence of the added structure (piles and
superstructure). All other aspects of the ABAQUS model were consistent with the
assumptions adopted in the Winkler method: tie connections, elastic linear isotropic
materials, no contact between the soil and beam, and weightless materials. The model
dimensions were set to ensure that boundary conditions did not affect results.

Results and discussion

A comparison of the numerical and Winkler model results of vertical surface
settlement are presented in Fig. 3 and 4 for structures with Eb = 30 and 600 GPa,
respectively, and for varying soil stiffness and building locations. Especially for the
more flexible building in Fig. 3, the results agree well with the observations of Mair
and Williamson (2014): piles with their toes above the tunnel settle more than the
surface level settlement and less than the surface level settlement otherwise. This
happens because the piles transfer a proportion of the displacements occurring along
their length (i.e. at greater depths where greenfield displacements near the tunnel are
larger) to the ground surface.
The following observations can be made:
• Compared to the numerical analysis, the proposed method gives a good and
generally slightly conservative assessment of the tunnelling-induced
deformation profile.
• Examination of Fig. 3c, 3d, 4c and 4d indicates that the superstructure shows
more flexible behaviour when the ratio between soil and structure Young’s
modulus and/or the ratio between structure width and tunnel depth is high.
• The effect of superstructure stiffness is to reduce the maximum relative
deflection of the piled structure (in Fig. 4, the settlement of the 5-pile building varies
almost linearly with transverse distance), where the relative deflection is the distance
between the settlement curve and the segment connecting two points of the curve.

© ASCE
Geo-China 2016 GSP 260 264

-1 -1
0 Xt = 0m 0 Xt = 0m

Vertical settl. (mm)

1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
6 Es = 24 MPa 6 Es = 100 MPa
7 (a) Eb = 30 GPa 7 (b) Eb = 30 GPa
8 8
-1 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25-1 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
0 Xt = -15m 0 Xt = -15m
Vertical settl. (mm)

1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
6 Es = 24 MPa 6 Es = 100 MPa
7 (c) Eb = 30 GPa 7 (d) Eb = 30 GPa
8 8
-1 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25-1 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
0 Xt = -25m 0 Xt = -25m
Vertical settl.(mm)

1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
6 6 Es = 100 MPa
Es = 24 MPa
7 (e) Eb = 30 GPa 7 (f) Eb = 30 GPa
8 8
-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
x (m) x (m)
Greenfield Surface Abaqus – B=50m Winkler – B=50m
Settlements Abaqus – B=20m Winkler – B=20m
FIG. 3. Comparison of numerical and Winkler model results: Eb = 30 GPa.

Results highlight the role of piles in the tunnel-pile-structure interaction. Because of

the interaction of the piles with subsurface ground movements, which become
increasingly narrow with depth, piles increase the relative deflection of the structure
compared to shallow foundations. Furthermore, piled foundations are generally stiffer
than shallow foundations, therefore the piled foundation will have a more dominant
role in a structure-foundation interaction analysis. To evaluate the potential damage of
piled buildings, the limiting tensile strain method (Mair et al., 1996) may be used with
the building settlement profile obtained with the Winkler-based method rather than the
greenfield surface settlement trough. Although the proposed analysis method does
account for the effect of horizontal strains, these should be negligible in case of
foundations with continuous footings.

© ASCE
Geo-China 2016 GSP 260 265

-1 -1
0 Xt = 0m 0 Xt = 0m

Vertical settl. (mm)

1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
6 Es = 24 MPa 6 Es = 100 MPa
7 (a) Eb = 600 GPa 7 (b) Eb = 600 GPa
8 8
-1 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25-1 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
0 Xt = -15m 0 Xt = -15m
Vertical settl. (mm)

1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
6 Es = 24 MPa 6 Es = 100 MPa
7 (c) Eb = 600 GPa 7 (d) Eb = 600 GPa
8 8
-1 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25-1 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
0 Xt = -25m 0 Xt = -25m
Vertical settl. (mm)

1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
6 6 Es = 100 MPa
Es = 24 MPa
7 (e) Eb = 600 GPa 7 (f) Eb = 600 GPa
8 8
-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
x (m) x (m)
Greenfield Surface Abaqus – B=50m Winkler – B=50m
Settlements Abaqus – B=20m Winkler – B=20m
FIG. 4. Comparison of numerical and Winkler model results: Eb = 600 GPa.

CONCLUSIONS

This paper presented a simple elastic Winkler based method of analysis for piled
buildings subjected to tunnelling-induced ground movements. Results obtained from
the model compared very well to finite element analyses for cases where both soil and
structure stiffness as well as the location of the structure were varied. Results indicate
that the proposed method is suitable for preliminary assessment of building/foundation
deformations. The method has the advantage that it permits implementation of a
framed or a 3D structure rather an equivalent beam or plate at the foundation level.

© ASCE
Geo-China 2016 GSP 260 266

Results highlighted that neglecting the pile contribution in the tunnel-pile-structure

interaction is not conservative. To account correctly for the relative structure-piled
foundation stiffness and the pile transfer of subsurface movements to the surface level,
the structural damage may be assessed with the limiting tensile strain method using the
building settlement profile obtained with the Winkler-based method.
Finally, it is worth emphasising that this Winkler-based method has a simple
implementation and allows for a remarkable reduction of the computational cost
compared to complete 3D numerical analysis. Thus, it would be a suitable tool for
parametric analysis. This work may be extended to more complex structural
configurations in the future.

REFERENCES

Basile, F. (2014). "Effects of tunnelling on pile foundations." Soils & Found., Vol. 54
(3): 280-295.
Burland, J.B. Mair, R.J. and Standing, J.R. (2004). "Ground performance and building
response due to tunnelling." In: Proc. Int. Conf. on Advances Geotech. Engrg., Vol.
1: 291-342.
Goh, K.H. and Mair, R.J. (2014). "Response of framed buildings to excavation-
induced movements." Soil & Found., Vol. 54 (3): 250-268.
Franzius, J.N. Potts, D.M. and Burland, J.B. (2006). "The response of surface
structures to tunnel construction." Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Geotech. Eng., Vol. 159 (1):
3–17.
Huang, M. Zhang, C. and Li, Z. (2009). "A simplified analysis method for the
influence of tunneling on grouped piles. " Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol., Vol. 24
(4): 410-422.
Klar, A. and Marshall, A.M. (2008). "Shell versus beam representation of pipes in the
evaluation of tunneling effects on pipelines." Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol., Vol.
23 (4): 431–437.
Loganathan, N. and Poulos, H.G. (1998). "Analytical prediction for tunneling-induced
ground movements in clays." J. Geotechnical & Geoenv. Engrg., Vol. 124 (9): 846-
856.
Mair, R.J. Taylor, R.N. and Burland, J.B. (1996). "Prediction of ground movements
and assessment of risk of building damage due to bored tunnelling." In: Proc. Int.
Symp. Geotech. Aspects Undergr. Constr. Soft Ground: 713-718.
Mair, R.J. and Williamson, M.G. (2014). "The influence of tunnelling and deep
excavation on piled foundations." In: Proc. Int. Symp. Geotech. Aspects Undergr.
Constr. Soft Ground: 21-30.
Randolph, M.F. Wroth, P.C., & Wroth, C. (1978). Analysis of deformation of
vertically loaded piles. J. Geotechnical & Geoenv. Engrg. Division, Vol. 104 (12):
1465-1488.
Simulia, D.S. (2010). Abaqus analysis user’s manual.
Zhang, R. Zheng, J. Pu, H., & Zhang, L. (2011). "Analysis of excavation-induced
responses of loaded pile foundations considering unloading effect." Tunn. Undergr.
Space Technol., Vol. 26 (2): 320-335.

© ASCE

View publication stats