Linear models for the evaluation of the response of beams and frames to

tunnelling

A. Franza, S. Acikgoz & M.J. DeJong

Department of Engineering
University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

ABSTRACT: This paper investigates the tunnel-building interaction (TSI); in particular, the contribution of
shear structure deformations to TSI is addressed. An elastic solution is adopted based on beam elements con-
nected to an elastic continuum. Bearing wall structures are modelled as Euler-Bernoulli and Timoshenko simple
beams (located at the ground level and mid-height of the structure), whereas plane frames are adopted for the
frames on a continuous strip footing. Tunnelling-induced displacements, deformations, and internal forces at
the beam axes and foundation members are detailed. Results show that shear flexibility of Timoshenko beams
and framed configurations alter the TSI mechanism and can lead to greater tunnelling-induced deformations.
For frames, the stiffening effect of the higher storeys is minor. Finally, results also display the extent to which
stiff elements experience larger tunnelling-induced internal forces with respect to flexible beams. The potential
for structural failure within RC elements is estimated with a simplified procedure.

1 INTRODUCTION thus, engineers need to carry out their 3D numerical

The excavation of tunnels for transportation infras-
tructure and services results in ground movements. In
urban areas, as the results of tunnel-structure interac-
tion (TSI), these movements can deform and displace
surface structures and, potentially, lead to a loss of
their serviceability performance and structural failure.
Preliminary assessment of the effects of TSI is pos-
sible through the use of predicted greenfield ground
movements and the modification factor approach for
buildings on continuous shallow foundations (Franz-
ius, Potts, & Burland 2006, Giardina, DeJong, & Mair
2015, Haji, Marshall, & Franza 2018, Mair, Taylor,
& Burland 1996). Research has primarily dealt with
low- and medium-rise masonry buildings on strip
footings, whereas alternative framed superstructures
and/or foundation configurations (e.g. separated foot-
ings) have received less attention. However, several
studies (Goh & Mair 2014, Fargnoli, Gragnano, Bol-
dini, & Amorosi 2015, Franza & DeJong 2017) in-
dicated that tunnel-frame interaction differs from the
case of bearing wall structures. Although risk assess-
ments of RC buildings require estimating tunnelling-
induced internal forces within frame elements (i.e.
column/pier, beams), few studies performed structural
analyses of frames in a systematic way (e.g. Cai et al.
(2017)) and previous research focused on founda-
tion displacements. The response of alternative struc-
tural configurations to tunnelling remains unclear and,
modelling, which is time-consuming, during prelimi-
nary design stages (High Speed Two Limited 2014).
This paper aims to illustrate, through elastic mod-
els of tunnelling beneath surface bearing walls and
framed buildings, the influence of shear deformability
on tunnel-structure interaction (TSI). Results detail
tunnelling-induced displacements and deformations;
the distributions of internal forces within structural el-
ements are also analysed.
2 BACKGROUND
2.1 Greenfield tunnelling-induced movements
In clays, tunnelling-induced vertical (uz ) and horizon-
tal (ux ) ground movements at the surface can be esti-
mated using the standard Gaussian curves displayed
in Equation (1) and Equation (2), respectively (Mair,
Taylor, & Bracegirdle 1993, Mair & Taylor 1997).
!
x2
uz = uz,max exp − 2 (1)
2i
x
ux = uz
(2)
1 + 0.175/0.325 zt
where x is the horizontal spatial coordinate, uz,max =
1.25R2 Vl,t /i is the maximum settlement, i = Kzt is
the horizontal distance of the settlement trough in-
flection point to the tunnel centreline, zt is the tunnel
axis depth, K = 0.5 is the width parameter, R is the
tunnel radius, and Vl,t is the tunnel volume loss pa-
rameter, which is the ground loss at the tunnel periph-
ery per unit length of tunnel normalised by the tunnel
area. Tunnelling-induced ground movements can also
be modelled for varying soil conditions using either
alternative empirical methods or analytical solutions
(Marshall, Farrell, Klar, & Mair 2012, Loganathan &
Poulos 1998).
2.2 Tunnelling-induced structure deformations and
the role of soil-structure interaction
Semi-flexible structures react to tunnelling-induced
ground displacements. To quantify the structure stiff-
ness contribution on the reduction of structural de-
formations, Potts & Addenbrooke (1997) proposed
the deflection ratio modification factors, M DR,sag an
M DR,hog , as follows
DRsag/hog,bld
M DR,sag/hog =
DRsag/hog,GF
where building deflection ratios are DRsag,bld and
DRhog,bld (determined by the greenfield inflection
point position, i), deflection ratios of the greenfield
settlement trough are DRsag,GF and DRhog,GF (de-
pending on the structure inflection point, ibld ).
B/2 e
B Es Bsag/hog L Es Bsag/hog
Bhog,bldg Bsag,bldg
ibldg Δsag,bldg
DRsag,bldg =
H Δhog,bldg Bsag,bldg
Δhog,bldg
Δsag,bldg DRhog,bldg =
Bhog,bldg
Δhog,gf
Δsag,gf
DRsag,gf =
Δsag,gf
Bsag
Bhog Bsag
Δhog,gf
i DRhog,gf =
Bhog
Tunnel
volume loss
Vl,t
Figure 1: Nomenclature for the flexural TSI problem (Franza et
al. 2017).
The role of the foundation scheme is remarkable
in the TSI. Structures with continuous horizontal
foundation elements (e.g. continuous strip footings)
have a significant axial stiffness and, consequently,
tunnelling-induced structural horizontal strains εh
axis are typically low (Dimmock & Mair 2008, Rit-
ter, Giardina, DeJong, & Mair 2017). On the other
hand, framed structures with columns/piers on sepa-
rated footings can undergo significant differential hor-
izontal displacements because of tunnelling, which
are associated with a bending deformation of first-
storey columns/piers rather than an overall axial de-
formation of the structure (Goh & Mair 2014). Ad-
ditionally, Franza & DeJong (2017) illustrated that a
complex combination of rotational and translational
displacements (consisting of both vertical and hori-
zontal movements) can occur for separated footings
of framed structures.
TSI can also result in varying the shape of the
structure settlement curve with respect to greenfield
ground movements. One measure to quantify this is
the difference between the structure inflection point,
ibld , and the inflection point of the greenfield settle-
ment trough, i, as shown in Figure 1 (Farrell, Mair,
Sciotti, & Pigorini 2014, Frischmann, Hellings, Git-
toes, & Snowden 1994, Franza, Marshall, Haji, Ab-
delatif, Carbonari, & Morici 2017, Potts & Adden-
brooke 1997). To quantify this, the modification fac-
tors M B,sag and M B,hog for the sagging and hogging
region lengths are defined as follows
Bsag/hog,bld
M B,sag/hog = (4)
Bsag/hog
where Bsag and Bhog are the lengths of the building
in the sagging and hogging zones based on the green-
field settlement trough, whereas Bsag,bld and Bhog,bld
(3) are based on the building settlement profile. The nu-
merical analyses from Potts & Addenbrooke (1997)
indicate that this phenomenon depends on the struc-
ture shear flexibility.
To estimate the impact of the structure stiffness on
M DR , Mair (2013) proposed the following relative
bending stiffness factors
EI EI ∗
ρsag/hog = 3
= 3
(5)
where EI is the bending stiffness of the superstruc-
ture (in kN m2 ), EI ∗ is EI per running metre (in
kN m2 /m), Es is a soil Young’s modulus representa-
tive of the soil affected by the excavation, and L is
the longitudinal length of the building in the tunnel
axis direction. Equation (5) neglects that a structure
can span across sagging and hogging regions and the
effects of the structure weight.
Although Bilotta, Paolillo, Russo, & Aversa (2017)
and Giardina, DeJong, & Mair (2015) displayed that
the increase in weight can result in greater M DR , this
influence is secondary compared to the role of stiff-
ness. Consequently, the use of elastic two-stage mod-
els is a viable approach to investigate TSI for ordi-
nary structures and low-medium volume losses (Deck
& Singh 2012).
In both research and practice, it is common to
simplify the structure to equivalent linear elastic
plates/beams to decrease computational costs during
initial assessment. Generally equivalent beams/plate
are identified by matching the bending stiffness EI
(Franzius, Potts, & Burland 2006, Bilotta, Paolillo,
Russo, & Aversa 2017). However, this approach re-
sults in equivalent beams/plates with a lower height-
to-length ratio and, thus, to a decreased shear de-
formability with respect to the target building. Pick-
haver, Burd, & Houlsby (2010) suggested a procedure
to identify an equivalent Timoshenko beam for bear-
ing wall structures with openings aiming to match the
total structure stiffness (both bending and shear con-
tributions). This might effectively capture the effect of
openings in a simplified manner, but more thorough
understanding of the influence of the shear flexibility
on TSI is still needed.
3 PROPOSED ELASTIC MODELS
In this paper, an elastic two-stage analysis method is
adopted that models the surface structure as either
a simple beam or a plane frame resting on an elas-
tic homogeneous half-space continuum subjected to
tunnelling-induced ground movements (Klar, Vorster,
Soga, & Mair 2005). In this study, a perfect bond con-
dition is assumed between the soil and the structure
(i.e. separation and relative soil-structure sliding are
not allowed). As basic assumptions, the tunnel and
structure presence does not influence, respectively,
the response of the continuum and the tunnelling pro-
cess. In addition, the presence of the tunnel is ne-
glected when defining the response of the continuum
to loading. Thanks to the superposition principle, the
effects of structural loads and tunnelling are studied
independently.
The structures considered in this work are simple
beams (for bearing wall buildings) and frames on a
continuous beam (for framed buildings on a contin-
uous strip foundation), as shown in Figure 2. Rather
than modelling the structure by means of an equiva-
lent beam, the cross-sectional properties and Young’s
and shear moduli of the beam elements are chosen
to represent the structural characteristics of the target
building. To decouple the effects of bending and shear
flexibilities, Euler-Bernoulli and Timoshenko beams
are adopted for the simple beams and foundation el-
ements whereas Euler-Bernoulli beams are used for
the framed superstructures.
The influence of the offset between structure neu-
tral axis and ground level is also investigated in
this paper. Elastic models are solved for both sim-
ple beams and foundations elements located at the
ground level (labelled ‘GL’ solutions) and at mid-
height of the simple beam/foundation height (labelled
‘NA’ solutions). Note that for GL solutions, green-
field tunnelling-induced forces are applied at the sim-
ple beam/foundation axis, whereas for NA solutions
these forces are applied at the bottom fibres of these
beams. For framed structures, the offset between su-
perstructure neutral axis and ground level is implicitly
accounted for by modelling a plane frame.
The finite element method (FEM) is used to solve
the TSI problem numerically. For the GL solutions,
the equilibrium equation of the system, written in ma-
trix form, is
Ku = q; K = S + Ks ; q = p + Ks ucat (6)
where u is the structure axis displacement vector
(uT = [ux uz φ], in which ux and uz consist of
the translational displacements along x and z, respec-
tively, whereas φ contains rotations of the finite el-
ement nodes), q is the load vector of the structure
(qT = [qx qz m], in which qx and qz are transla-
tional forces whereas m is the vector of applied bend-
ing moments), ucat is the greenfield surface displace-
ment due to tunnelling (a generic greenfield displace-
ment field can be the input to the model), p is the ex-
ternal loading vector of the structure, S is the structure
stiffness matrix, and Ks is the stiffness matrix of the
soil equal to the inverse of the soil flexibility matrix
defined with the elastic integrated forms of Mindlin’s
solutions given by Vaziri, Simpson, Pappin, & Simp-
son (1982).
For the NA solutions, the offset between the axis of
the simple beam/foundation beam and ground level
(dna ) is implemented by considering that the struc-
ture stiffness matrix S is given for forces and dis-
placements with respect to its neutral axis, that the
soil stiffness matrix Ks and tunnelling-induced forces
Ks ucat are given with respect to the ground level (i.e.
structure bottom fibre), and that there is a linear rela-
tionship between axis and ground displacements and
forces. Primed symbols are used for the ground level
reference system. For a given node,
u0i,z = ui,z ; u0i,x = ui,x + φi dna (7a)
0 0 0
qi,z = qi,z ; qi,x = qi,x ; m = qi,x dna (7b)
The equilibrium equation for NA solutions can be
written as follows
K∗ u = q∗ ; K∗ = S + Ks ∗ ; q∗ = p + (Ks ucat )∗ (8)
where Ks ∗ and (Ks ucat )∗ are the soil stiffness matrix
and the vector of tunnelling-induced forces, respec-
tively, at the structure axis reference system; Ks ∗ and
(Ks ucat )∗ were obtained from Ks and (Ks ucat ) using
Equations (7a) and (7b) (Cheung & Nag 1968).
4 RESULTS
4.1 Investigated scenarios
For the elastic soil continuum, a Young’s modulus
Es = 100MPa and a Poisson’s ratio νs = 0.5 were
assumed. Tunnelling-induced surface ground move-
ments in greenfield conditions were defined on the ba-
sis of Equations (1) and (2) for Vl,t = 1%. To consider
different ground movement characteristics, two tun-
nelling scenarios were investigated: 6m diameter (D)
tunnels with a depth to tunnel axis either zt = 8m or
20m.
The structures were orthogonal to the tunnel and
located centrally with respect to the tunnel centreline
(corresponding to x = 0). In this work, the moment
 Case BER/TIM: Simple Beam
B cross-sectional depth df = 0.7m and width bf = 1.2m.
Columns and beams had square cross-sections with
H Axis a 0.5m side length (dc = db = bc = bb = 0.5m). The
dna
inter-storey heights were h = 3.2m and the bays had a
Ground span of l = 4m. Frames with 1, 3, 5, 10, and 15 storeys
level
Case FR: Framed Building on Continuous Beam were modelled (e.g. 5-storey frame is labelled FRS5).
B The foundation was modelled with a Timoshenko
isotropic beam (E/G = 2.6), whereas columns and
beams with Euler-Bernoulli elements due to their high
h
H

slenderness.
dna

4.2 Bearing wall buildings: Euler-Bernoulli and

l Timoshenko beams
Subspripts
Positive sign x, ux s : soil Tunnelling-induced vertical (uz ) and horizontal (ux )
convention for t : tunnel displacements of the Euler-Bernoulli and Timoshenko
displacements f : footing
z, uz beam axes predicted by the elastic GL (solid lines)
zt

and forces g : ground level

b : beam and NA (dashed lines) solutions are displayed in Fig-
R c : column
ures 3 and 4 for zt = 8 and 20m, respectively. Note
that structural displacements are reported at the height
of the neutral axis that is z = 0 and z = −db /2 for
Figure 2: Studied configurations. GL and NA solutions, respectively. For comparison,
greenfield settlements at the ground level (z = 0) are
of inertia I of each element was taken relative to the also reported (dotted lines).
geometric centroid of the full cross-section. A finite
element size of 0.5m was adopted. 5
The simple beams were representative of low-rise GF (a)
STR:GL
bearing-wall structures with the actual wall charac- STR:NA
teristics (rather than fictitious Young’s moduli E and
uz (mm)

cross-sectional dimensions). The simple beams had a

transverse length B = 20m, a Young’s modulus, E = 10
1GPa, a Poisson’s ratio ν = 0.3, and cross-sectional
depth db = 9m and width bb = 0.5m. Euler-Bernoulli
and Timoshenko simple beams had matching bend- −10 −5 0 5 10
ing stiffness (EI) and axial stiffness (EA); in this
way, it is possible to isolate the effects of shear flex- (b)
ibility. Adopted simple beams are summarised in Ta- 2
ux (mm)

ble 1. The ratio between Young’s and shear moduli

was varied; E/G = 0.5, 2.6, and 12.5 were consid- 0

ered to cover the range of values typically adopted BER.

−2 TIM0.5
within the limiting tensile strain method. As detailed TIM2.6
TIM12.5 Vl,t =1.0%
by Burland, Broms, & De Mello (1977), E/G = 2.6
is the value corresponding to the isotropic material −10 −5 0 5 10
x (m)
with ν = 0.3, E/G = 12.5 was proposed for low shear
stiffness structures (e.g. because of the presence of Figure 3: Greenfield and beam displacements for zt = 20m.
openings), and E/G = 0.5 considers the lack of hori-
zontal stiffness.
Structure settlement curves are shown in Fig-
Table 1: Implemented simple beams.
ures 3(a) and 4(a), for which the beam is located, re-
Label Type E/G spectively, entirely in the greenfield sagging zone and
(-) across the sagging and hogging regions of the green-
BER Euler-Bernoulli 2.6 field settlement trough. Firstly, beams with their axis
TIM0.5 Timoshenko 0.5 at the ground level (GL, solid lines) are discussed;
TIM2.6 Timoshenko 2.6 their flexural and axial response is almost decou-
TIM12.5 Timoshenko 12.5
pled (i.e. horizontal ground movements marginally af-
fect axis settlements and structure deflection does not
highly impact axial strains). Results confirm that BER
RC frame buildings had a transverse length B = beams are stiffer than TIM beams, which have addi-
20m, a Young’s moduli, E = 30GPa, and a Poi- tional shear flexibility. In addition, the shape of uz
son’s ratio ν = 0.3. The foundation (strip footing) had curves is worth noting. In Figure 3(a), BER beams
 Table 2: Greenfield and beam inflection point locations of GL
GF (a) solutions.
STR:GL zt = 8m zt = 20m
0 STR:NA
uz (mm) i ibld i ibld
10 (m) (m) (m) (m)
BER 4 10 10 10
20
TIM05 4 7.5 10 8
TIM26 4 5.5 10 7
TIM125 4 4.5 10 7
30
−10 −5 0 5 10

10
8 (b) at the beam axis with additional terms corresponding
6
4 to the rotations φ (Cheung & Nag 1968).
ux (mm)

2 Bending deformations of structure BER and

0
−2 TIM0.5 mobilised the stiffness of the matrix Ks ∗
BER.
−4 TIM0.5 at the rotational degrees of freedom and resulted
−6 TIM2.6
−8 TIM12.5 Vl,t =1.0% in high compressive reaction forces of the soil (as
−10 displayed in Figure 4(b) the structures NA undergo
−10 −5 0 5 10
greater negative horizontal strains than GL beams).
x (m)
On the other hand, the effects of the axis offset on
Figure 4: Greenfield and beam displacements for zt = 8m. tunnelling-induced displacements are minor for struc-
tures TIM2.6 and TIM12.5 (with a significant shear
tend to deform entirely in sagging (similarly to the deformability) because the deflection is dominated by
greenfield curve), whereas the BER beam in Fig- shear which induces minor nodal rotations; for in-
ure 4(a) varies its shape of deflection (with respect stance, ux and uz curves of TIM12.5 are close to val-
to the greenfield settlement curve) to a fully sagging ues associated with BER GL beams at the ground
deformation mode. On the other hand, beams TIM2.6 level. Overall, for the NA solutions the influence of
and TIM12.5 with high shear flexibility have a deflec- the offset dna was only significant for low shear flexi-
tion shape similar to the greenfield settlement trough bility beams.
when spanning across greenfield sagging and hogging
zones (see Figure 4(a)), whereas their stiffness results
M DR,sag, M DR,hog (-)

1.4
in a hogging region at the structure edges and a nar- 1.2 Up Mair (2013)
Low Mair (2013)
row sagging region of the structure in Figure 4(a). i 1
and ibld values for GL solutions are reported in Ta- 0.8
0.6
ble 2. In general, results illustrate that the increase in
0.4
shear flexibility is associated with a decrease in ibld .
0.2 (a)
This mechanism impacts the structure deformations 0
in terms of flexural modification factors, M DR and −5 −4 −3 −2
10 10 10 10 10
−1 0 1
10 10 10
2

M B , as discussed later in the text. On the other hand, ρsag , ρhog (-)
ux displacement profiles of GL structures are over- 3
M B,sag , M B,hog (-)

lapped in Figures 3(b) and 4(b) because the axial de- 2.5 Sag. zt =8m
Hog. zt =8m
formations of the beam only depend on the greenfield 2 Sag. zt =20m
BER
horizontal ground movements and the axial stiffness 1.5 TIM0.5
EA. TIM2.6
1 TIM12.5
0.5
Secondly, beams NA accounting for the offset be- (b)
tween the ground level and the beam axis are anal- 0
−5 −4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
ysed for zt = 8m. In addition to the interaction mech- ρsag , ρhog (-)
anisms characterising the GL solutions, the effect of
the offset ground level-beam axis resulted in the stiff- Figure 5: Modification factors for GL solutions of the simple
ening of structures NA with respect to beams GL, beams.
particularly for low shear flexibility structures BER
and TIM0.5. This stiffening effect caused the decrease Modification factors M DR and M B associated with
of the maximum tunnelling-induced structure settle- GL solutions are presented in Figure 5, which indi-
ments of the beams NA as well as the increment of cates that the greater the E/G ratio (i.e. the shear flex-
hogging deformations at the edges of the beams. This ibility), the larger the deflection in both sagging and
is due to the fact that the offset dna results in the cou- hogging M DR . Furthermore, M B tends to unity for
pling of rotational and horizontal degrees of freedom high E/G in the case of structures spanning across the
(Equations (7a) and (7b), e.g. horizontal forces at the greenfield sagging and hogging regions (for zt = 8m),
ground level induce distributed bending movements whereas for beams entirely located in the sagging
along the structure axis) and a soil stiffness matrix Ks ∗ zone (zt = 20m), M B,sag ≤ 1 and its value decreases
with E/G. This is consistent with ibld /i values re- decreasing effect of higher storeys in high-rise build-
ported in Table 2. These results give evidence of the ings agrees with the empirical formulas given by Haji,
need to account for the shear flexibility when assess- Marshall, & Tizani (2018), Figures 7 and 8 demon-
ing structure deformations due to TSI. In this way, strates that this effect remains true when the change
the influence of the structure on the shape of the set- in the shape of the foundation settlement profile with
tlement trough could be more directly accounted for, respect to the greenfield settlement trough is included
rather than using a Timoshenko beam only to back- in the analysis.
calculate strains Burland, Broms, & De Mello (1977),
as is typically done in current damage assessment pro- 5
cedures. GF (a)
STR:GL
STR:NA

uz (mm)
6
x 10
N (N), S (N), M (Nm)

0
10

B ER
TIM0.5
−5 TIM2.6 −10 −5 0 5 10
TIM12.5
N
S (b)
M Vl,t =1.0%
−10 2
−10 −5 0 5 10

ux (mm)
x (m)
0
Figure 6: Inner forces of the simple beams for zt = 8m and GL FRS3
solutions. −2 FRS5
FRS10
FRS15 Vl,t =1.0%
Finally, internal forces (N =axial force, S=shear −10 −5 0 5 10
force, M =bending moment) induced by tunnelling at x (m)
the simple beam axis (Ftun ) are displayed in Figure 6
for GL solutions. Results illustrate that the magnitude Figure 7: Greenfield and frame displacements for zt = 20m.
of N is low compared to S, while M has a distribution
that is qualitatively similar to the greenfield ground
settlements. The BER beam, which has the lowest de- (a)
GF
flection ratios, has the highest inner forces. Also note STR:GL
0 STR:NA
that both S and M decrease in magnitude with E/G
uz (mm)

because of the increase in shear flexibility, whereas 10

their profile shapes do not depend on the E/G ratio.
20

4.3 Framed buildings

30
−10 −5 0 5 10
Multi-storey concrete frame buildings were consid-
10
ered to investigate the effects of the framed config- 8 (b)
urations, the shear flexibility of the framed structures, 6
and the stiffening effects of higher storeys in high-rise 4
ux (mm)

2
structures. 0
The tunnelling-induced displacements at the foun- −2
FRS3
−4
dation level of the multi-storey frames are reported −6
FRS5
FRS10
in Figures 7 and 8 for the shallow (zt = 8) and mid- −8 FRS15 Vl,t =1.0%
depth (zt = 20) tunnels, respectively. Generally, foun- −10
−10 −5 0 5 10
dation settlement profiles are similar to the Timo- x (m)
shenko beam results with high E/G ratio from the
previous section; frames tend to have a decreased rel- Figure 8: Greenfield and frame displacements for zt = 8m.
ative deflection at the base of ground level columns,
caused by both a decrease of the central deflection of Finally, to address the risk of structural failure,
the structure and embedment at the ends, with respect tunnelling-induced internal forces (both forces and
to the greenfield settlement curve. This mechanism re- bending moments) within the finite elements can be
sults in hogging deflections at the edges of the foun- analysed. For example, this section considers the in-
dation beam for zt = 20m. Furthermore, settlements ternal forces in the foundation strip footing. Struc-
curves display that the stiffening contribution of up- tural analyses of potential failure depends on pre-
per storeys in high-rise frames is minor (compare set- tunnelling service loads of the superstructure. In
tlement curves of FRS10 and FRS15). Although the this section, service loads (self-weight and additional
loads) were assumed equal to uniform distributed 1.5
×106

N (N), S (N), M (Nm)

loads of q = 50kN/m at the superstructure beams (a)
1
and q = 21kN/m at the foundation beams. The pre-
tunnelling internal force distributions (Fini ) and the 0.5
tunnelling-induced internal forces (Ftun ) are plotted 0
in Figures 9(a) and 9(b), respectively, for zt = 8m. -0.5
Interestingly, while Fini increases with the number -1
of storeys, tunnelling-induced internal force values
-1.5
at the foundation beams are relatively unaffected by -10 -5 0 5 10
the number of stories for the range of frames consid- ×106 x (m)
1.5

N (N), S (N), M (Nm)

ered; this has implications on the potential for fail- (b)
ure. To be acceptable, post-tunnelling forces (Ff in = 0.75
Fini + Ftun ) should be limited to the capacity of the FRS3
frame and foundation elements (i.e. Ff in should be 0 FRS15
N
within the envelopes of capacity). However, at pre- S
-0.75
liminary stages, a simplified procedure (similar to the M
Vl,t =1.0%
approach proposed by Cai, Verdel, & Deck (2017)) -1.5
based on the permissible internal forces, Fper , can -10 -5 0 5 10
be adopted for which Ff in should be less than the x (m)
simple approximation of Fper ≈ 2 × Fini , which ne- Figure 9: Inner forces of the foundation of the frame buildings
glects the interaction between bending moments and due to (a) structure weight, Fini , and (b) tunnelling for zt = 8m,
axial forces. In addition, for the bending moments Ftun (GL solutions).
the side of the tensile fibres should be considered.
To perform this check, Ff in and Fper in terms of M • The shear flexibility, which results both from the
and S are displayed in Figures 10(a) and 10(b), re- local shear flexibility of structural elements and
spectively. Results illustrate that the foundation of the the global shear flexibility of framed configura-
low-rise frame FRS3 has greater potential for failure tion, altered the response of the structure both in
than the high-rise building FRS15 (compare Ff in and terms of the magnitude and distribution of dis-
Fper at the central and external spans) because Fper placements and deformations (as discussed by
are greater due to the high level of vertical loads at Boldini, Losacco, Bertolin, & Amorosi (2016)
the foundation level, and the incremental load induced for frames). For simple beams, shear flexibil-
by tunnelling is relatively smaller. Note that the com- ity significantly increased the total deflection in-
pressive tunnelling-induced force could play a role in duced by the excavation.
preventing the failure due to tunnelling. For specific
structures, Fper values associated with the actual re- • For simple beams, the offset between the struc-
inforcement of RC beams and foundations could be ture’s neutral axis and the ground level resulted
instead considered.
×106
2.5
(a)
5 CONCLUSIONS 1.25
M (Nm)

Simple FEM numerical models have been presented 0 FRS3

in this paper to study tunnel-structure interaction. FRS15
-1.25 Ff in
The proposed models allow consideration of struc- Fper
ture characteristics and load conditions, and has low
-2.5
computational costs. As a result, the proposed method -10 -5 0 5 10
provides a tool that enables efficient large-scale para- ×106
2.5
metric studies to improve understanding, as well as a (b)
tool for rapid initial assessment to evaluate tunnelling- 1.25
induced deformations and internal forces of surface
S (N)

structures while accounting for soil-structure interac- 0

tion.
-1.25
The performed analyses dealt with the cases of
tunnelling centrally beneath [i] bearing walls mod- -2.5
elled by both Euler-Bernoulli and Timoshenko simple -10 -5 0 5 10
x (m)
beams with varying shear flexibility and [ii] framed
RC structures on continuous strip footings with in- Figure 10: Comparison between permissible forces (lines) and
creasing numbers of storeys. The following conclu- post-tunnelling forces (markers) within the foundation beam: (a)
sions can be drawn. bending moments, (b) shear forces (GL solutions).
 in coupling between flexural and axial deforma-
tions; this coupling is more significant for lower
shear flexibility (e.g. Euler-Bernoulli beams).
• For framed buildings, outcomes confirmed that
higher storeys in high-rise frames contribute
marginally to the stiffening of the structure (Haji,
Marshall, & Tizani 2018) and indicated that the
potential for foundation structural failure was
greater for low-rise structures than for high-rise
frames.
• Stiff elements experience larger tunnelling-
induced internal forces with respect to flexible
beams (despite smaller deflections). This has im-
portant implications in the assessment of the po-
tential failure of RC structures. A simple proce-
dure is adopted to compare post-tunnelling inner
forces with permissible values based on the pre-
tunnelling scenario (Cai, Verdel, & Deck 2017).
REFERENCES
Bilotta, E., A. Paolillo, G. Russo, & S. Aversa (2017). Displace-
ments induced by tunnelling under a historical building. Tun-
nelling and Underground Space Technology 61, 221–232.
Boldini, D., N. Losacco, S. Bertolin, & A. Amorosi (2016).
Modelling of Reinforced Concrete Framed Structures Inter-
acting with a Shallow Tunnel. Procedia Engineering 158,
176–181.
Burland, J. B., B. B. Broms, & V. F. B. De Mello (1977). Be-
haviour of foundations and structures. In Proceedings of the
9th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foun-
dations Engineering, Volume 2, Tokyo, pp. 495–546.
Cai, Y., T. Verdel, & O. Deck (2017, sep). Using plane frame
structural models to assess building damage at a large scale
in a mining subsidence area. European Journal of Environ-
mental and Civil Engineering, 1–24.
Cheung, Y. K. & D. K. Nag (1968). Plates and beams
on elastic foundations–linear and non-linear behaviour.
Géotechnique 18(2), 250–260.
Deck, O. & A. Singh (2012). Analytical model for the predic-
tion of building deflections induced by ground movements.
International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods
in Geomechanics 36(1), 62–84.
Dimmock, P. S. & R. J. Mair (2008). Effect of building stiff-
ness on tunnelling-induced ground movement. Tunnelling
and Underground Space Technology 23(4), 438–450.
Fargnoli, V., C. G. Gragnano, D. Boldini, & A. Amorosi (2015).
3D numerical modelling of soilstructure interaction during
EPB tunnelling. Géotechnique 65(1), 23–37.
Farrell, R., R. Mair, A. Sciotti, & A. Pigorini (2014). Building
response to tunnelling. Soils and Foundations 54(3), 269–
279.
Franza, A. & M. J. DeJong (2017). A simple method to evalu-
ate the response of structures with continuous or separated
footings to tunnelling-induced movements. In I. Arias, J. M.
Blanco, S. Clain, P. Flores, P. Lourenço, J. J. Ródenas, and
M. Tur (Eds.), Proceeding of the Congress on Numerical
Methods in Engineering 2017, Valencia, Spain, pp. 919–931.
Franza, A., A. M. Marshall, T. Haji, A. O. Abdelatif, S. Car-
bonari, & M. Morici (2017). A simplified elastic analysis
of tunnel-piled structure interaction. Tunnelling and Under-
ground Space Technology 61, 104–121.
Franzius, J. N., D. M. Potts, & J. B. Burland (2006). The re-
sponse of surface structures to tunnel construction. Proceed-
ings of the ICE - Geotechnical Engineering 159(1), 3–17.
Frischmann, W., J. Hellings, G. Gittoes, & C. Snowden (1994).
Protection of the Mansion House against damage caused by
ground movements due to the Docklands Light Railway Ex-
tension. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers -
Geotechnical Engineering 107(2), 65–76.
Giardina, G., M. J. DeJong, & R. J. Mair (2015). Interaction be-
tween surface structures and tunnelling in sand: Centrifuge
and computational modelling. Tunnelling and Underground
Space Technology 50, 465–478.
Goh, K. H. & R. J. Mair (2014). Response of framed build-
ings to excavation-induced movements. Soils and Founda-
tions 54(3), 250–268.
Haji, T. K., A. M. Marshall, & A. Franza (2018). Mixed
empirical-numerical method for investigating tunnelling ef-
fects on structures. Tunnelling and Underground Space Tech-
nology 73, 92–104.
Haji, T. K., A. M. Marshall, & W. Tizani (2018). A cantilever
approach to estimate bending stiffness of buildings affected
by tunnelling. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technol-
ogy 71, 47–61.
High Speed Two Limited (2014). HS2 Phase One information
papers: property, compensation and funding - Ground settle-
ment (C3).
Klar, A., T. E. B. Vorster, K. Soga, & R. J. Mair (2005). Soil-pipe
interaction due to tunnelling : comparison between Winkler
and elastic continuum solutions. Géotechnique 55(6), 461–
466.
Loganathan, N. & H. G. Poulos (1998). Analytical prediction
for tunneling-induced ground movements in clays. Journal
of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 124(9),
846–856.
Mair, R. (2013). Tunnelling and deep excavations: ground move-
ments and their effects. In A. Anagnostopoulos, M. Pachakis,
and C. Tsatsanifos (Eds.), Proceedings of the 15th European
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineer-
ing - Geotechnics of Hard Soils - Weak Rocks (Part 4), Ams-
terdam, the Netherlands, pp. 39 – 70. IOS Press.
Mair, R. J. & R. N. Taylor (1997). Theme lecture: Bored tun-
nelling in the urban environment. In 14th International con-
ference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering, Ham-
burg, pp. 2353–2385. Balkema.
Mair, R. J., R. N. Taylor, & A. Bracegirdle (1993).
Subsurface settlement profiles above tunnels in clay.
Géotechnique 43(2), 315–320.
Mair, R. J., R. N. Taylor, & J. B. Burland (1996). Prediction of
ground movements and assessment of risk of building dam-
age due to bored tunnelling. In R. J. Mair and R. N. Tay-
lor (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Symposium on
Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft
Ground, London, United Kingdom, pp. 713–718. Balkema,
Rotterdam.
Marshall, A. M., R. Farrell, A. Klar, & R. Mair (2012). Tunnels
in sands: the effect of size, depth and volume loss on green-
field displacements. Géotechnique 62(5), 385–399.
Pickhaver, J., H. Burd, & G. Houlsby (2010). An equivalent
beam method to model masonry buildings in 3D finite ele-
ment analysis. Computers & Structures 88(19), 1049–1063.
Potts, D. M. & T. I. Addenbrooke (1997). A structure’s influ-
ence on tunnelling-induced ground movements. Proceedings
of the ICE - Geotechnical Engineering 125(2), 109–125.
Ritter, S., G. Giardina, M. J. DeJong, & R. J. Mair (2017, aug).
Influence of building characteristics on tunnelling-induced
ground movements. Géotechnique, 1–12.
Vaziri, H., B. Simpson, J. W. Pappin, & L. Simpson (1982). In-
tegrated forms of Mindlin’s equations. Géotechnique 32(3),
275–278.