Geotech Geol Eng
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-020-01353-y (0123456789().,-volV)
( 01234567
89().,-volV)
ORIGINAL PAPER
Three-Dimensional Simulation of Interaction Between
Surface Buildings and Twin Tunnelling Regarding
the Surface Settlement
A. Mirhabibi . A. Soroush
Received: 5 February 2016 / Accepted: 11 May 2020
 Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020
Abstract Tunneling-induced strain and stress distri-
bution in a soil medium is completely three dimen-
sional. However, the issue is usually modeled in two-
dimensions (2D) in order to lower the computational
costs. In this study, full three-dimensional (3D) finite
element (FE) analysis of twin tunnelling and surface
building are carried out to compare the results with 2D
ones and to find out surface settlement behavior during
tunneling process considering the presence of a
building on the surface. Conducting 3D FE parametric
studies, a large database is created and the results are
used to evaluate different aspects of 3D modeling.
Based on the outcomes of this study, comparison
between 2D and 3D modeling is conducted, the
situations in which 3D analysis could be substituted
by 2D plane strain models and the cases in which 3D
modeling is necessary are defined. The effects of
different parameters on surface settlement trough are
assessed and a modification design graph for predic-
tion of maximum 3D building settlement from 2D
green-field analysis is suggested.
A. Mirhabibi (&)
Islamic Azad University, Parand Branch, Parand, Iran
e-mail: a_mirhabibi@piau.ac.ir
A. Soroush
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Amirkabir University of Technology, Hafez Street,
Tehran, Iran
Keywords Twin tunnels  Tunnel–building
interaction  3D finite element modeling  Assessment
of 2D elastic beam method
1 Introduction
Tunneling-induced strain and stress distribution in a
soil medium is completely three dimensional (3D).
This issue is usually simulated by two dimensional
(2D) models due to computational limitations. In 2D
simulations, common simplified plane strain condi-
tions are assumed and the surface buildings are
modeled by an elastic surface beams (Mirhabibi and
Soroush 2012). This simplifications would result in
some limitations i.e. length, height and internal walls
of building could not be realistically modeled in the
equivalent surface beam and also 3D effects of
tunneling could not be simulated accurately.
Augrade (1997), Liu (1997), Netzel and Kaalberg
(2000) and Bloodworth (2002) investigated the inter-
action between tunneling and masonry buildings by
conducting some 3D numerical simulations. The
buildings were simulated using a façade box and no-
tension model was utilized for the masonry walls. Dias
and Kastner (2002) and Jenck and Dias (2004)
investigated the effect of multistory framed structure
on the tunnel-induced ground settlement. The build-
ings were modeled by elastic columns supporting
floors assuming elastic properties.
123

Shin et al (2002) used a pseudo-three-dimensional
analysis of tunnel construction and the results were
compared with 2D analyses and field data. They also
modeled green field conditions (cases in which no
building presents at the surface; denoted by GF).
In some 3D studies, the influence of surface
building on tunnel-building interaction has been
simulated utilizing surface elastic beam theory which
could be considered as an extension of surface beam
theory commonly used in 2D analyses (Franzius 2003;
Franzius and Potts 2005; Pickhaver 2006; Dimmock
and Mair 2008).
Devriendt et al (2010) conducted a 3D analysis of
interaction between demolition of an existing building
and a shallow tunnel to evaluate the effect of
excavation and reloading of a surface structure on
the displacement of existing tunnel. The results of
numerical models were compared with field data.
Maleki et al. (2011) studied the effect of structural
characteristics of surface buildings on the tunnel-
building 3D model interaction in which the surface
buildings were modeled with two methods; equivalent
beam and real geometry. Liu et al. (2012) conducted
parametric 3D analysis to study the interaction
between a surface building and enlargement of a
metro station. The building was modeled by beam
elements and the building weight was applied to the
model. Losacco et al. (2014) introduced an approxi-
mate procedure for the evaluation of the damage
induced on existing buildings by the excavation of a
tunnel. They carried out a series of 3D numerical
analyses of the excavation of an EPB tunnel; which
include either the simplified or the fully detailed
structural model of a masonry building. Do et al.
(2014) performed 3D green field numerical investiga-
tion to evaluate the impact of a new tunnel construc-
tion on an existing tunnel and influence of the lagged
distance between the two tunnels. Chakeri et al (2014)
investigated the effects of different parameters on
point of inflexion value of surface settlement trough in
3D green field situation. Fu et al (2014) analyzed a
case study on the response of the ground and a group of
buildings to the construction of twin tunnel. Results of
field data proved an evident soil structure interaction.
Katebi et al (2015) investigated influence of soil,
tunnel and building properties on tunnel lining loads
conducting 2D & 3D models. Camos and Molins
(2015) studied interaction between building damage
and tunneling-induced ground subsidence and effect
123
Geotech Geol Eng
of building wall position with respect to tunnel axis.
Son (2016) with conducting numerical analysis inves-
tigated the structural response of buildings to tunnel-
ing in clay considereing different conditions of tunnel
and structure. Houhou et al. (2016) studied the
interaction of tunnel and building with help of 3D
numerical analysis and comparing the results with
field data.
As reviewed, using three-dimensional (3D) simu-
lations, the actual conditions could be restored and
consequently more accurate results could be achieved.
However, in common practices, two-dimensional (2D)
models are usually utilized due to lower computational
costs. Therefore, it could be useful if 3D and 2D
analysis are compared and the differences between
these approaches be studied to have a more clear
understanding of differences between these modeling
approaches. In past studies a comprehensive compar-
ison between 2D and 3D simulation is rarely found
which is tried to be performed in this study.
In this research, the effects of different mechanical
and geometrical parameters in tunnel-building inter-
action are studied using full 3D finite element (FE)
simulations and differences between 2D and 3D
modeling is evaluated.
The main goal is to assess in which cases the 2D
models are accurate enough and in which conditions 3D
models should be inevitably adopted despite the fact
that they need great computational resources. Besides,
this article seeks to find the answer to the question that
whether by increasing the length of building in the third
direction, could 2D plane strain models to be a
suitable alternative for 3D models or not?
The outcomes of this study are expressed in both
qualitative (Sect. 3) and quantitative (Sect. 4). The
results of 2D analysis presented in this article are from
a previous study by Mirhabibi and Soroush (2012).
2 Numerical Modeling
2.1 Bases of Parametric Studies and the Studied
Parameters
The results presented in this study is based on
numerical modeling by ABAQUS software using field
data of Shiraz metro line 1 twin tunnels and is a
complementary work on previous studies of Mirhabibi
and Soroush (2012, 2013).
Geotech Geol Eng
Shiraz metro line 1 has a length of 24.2 km while
15 km length of this line is constructed by using two
Tunnel Boring Machines (TBMs). Horizontal dis-
tances between centerlines of the tunnels range
between 13 and 17 m with varying depth up to 23 m.
Geologically, the surrounding ground mainly con-
sists of lean clay (CL) with alternating sandy clay and
silt layers. A geological cross section along the tunnel
route is shown in Fig. 1. Mechanical properties of the
dominant soil (CL) and lining concrete, utilized in the
numerical simulations, are shown in Table 1; the soil
deposit is assumed homogeneous and isotropic. The
Mohr–Coulomb elasto plastic model was employed to
define behavior of the soil, and an elastic behavior was
considered for the tunnels liner and building material.
The effect of constitutive model on the results of this
study is explored in Sects. 3, 4.
Mirhabibi and Soroush (2012) studied the effects of
seven parameters on the interaction between twin
tunnels and surface buildings in 2D analysis. These
parameters were Tunnel depth (Z0), Center to center
distance of the twin tunnels (D0), Building width (B),
Building stiffness (EI), Edge to edge surface distance
between buildings, Building weight and geometric
location of building on the surface relative to tunnels.
Results of that study showed that locating the building
at symmetry line of tunnels will have the most effects
on tunnel-building interaction, i.e. in this case, the
effects of other parameters are most evident.
Fig. 1 General layout of Shiraz metro line 1(SURO 2003)
Consequently, only this configuration is considered
in this study (Fig. 2) and other cases (asymmetry
building location at the surface) are not reviewed due
to the high computational costs.
Besides, the length of building (in the third
direction; L) is added to the set of parameters. The
advantage of the chosen geometry (with regards to
Fig. 2) is the symmetry of models along the center line
allowing to model only half of the geometry, which
will result in a significant reduction in computational
cost.
Table 2 presents the parameters and their values
considered in this study. Full factorial combinations of
these values leads to 288 different cases. Among of
these cases, results of 125 models which have been
studied in this article (Table 3).
Boundary conditions, element types, and mesh
density of the numerical models were selected based
on several sensitivity analyses to make sure that they
will not influence the results. The buildings model is
explained in detail by Mirhabibi and Soroush (2013).
The surrounding soil was discretized by 20-node brick
quadratic reduced integration element (C3D20R) and
building was rigidly connected to the soil.
Since the simulation procedure is the same as
described by Mirhabibi and Soroush (2013), the
verification of the numerical model is the same and
consequently not presented here.
123
 Geotech Geol Eng

Table 1 Material Clayey soil (CL) Tunnel liner concrete

properties used in numerical
simulations Unit weight, c, (kN/m3) 17 24
Saturated unit weight, csat , (kN/m3) 20.7 –
Total cohesion, Cu, (kN/m2) 100 –
Effective cohesion, C, (kN/m2) 10 –
Total friction angle, /u , degree 0 –
Effective friction angle, /0 , degree 30 –
Young’s modulus, E, (MPa) 20 33,700
Poisson’s ratio, m 0.25 0.2

EI

Length
B
Z0
Pillar Width

D0

Fig. 2 Illustration of the studied geometry and the parameters reviewed (The model is symmetrical relative to the center line)

2.2 Modeling Steps (TBM Advance Simulation)
15 km of Shiraz metro line 1 is constructed by using
two TBMs each with a cutting-wheel diameter of
6.9 m and a shield with external diameter of 6.88 m.
For lining of the tunnels, 30-cm-thick precast concrete
segments with a length of 140 cm are installed just
behind the shield. The tunnels pass through different
urban areas and therefore different buildings exist on
the surface, which are influenced by tunnelling.
Considering TBM working procedure, the tunnel
construction and with presence of building is simu-
lated in different steps in numerical models. In the first
step, geostatic stresses are employed and then, the
building and its weight are switched on at the same
time in the FE model. Afterward the tunnel

123
Geotech Geol Eng
Table 2 Factors and their values used in 3D-parametric studies
Parameter Description Values
Z0 (m) Tunnel’s center depth 13.5, 18.5, 23.5 (Based on Shiraz metro line 1 elevation)
D0 (m) Distance between centerlines of twin 15, 22, 29 (corresponding to pillar width of 1, 2 and 3 times of tunnel diameter;
tunnels 1D, 2D, 3D)
B (m) Building’s width 10, 20, 40, 80
EI Building’s bending stiffness Corresponding to 3, 5, 10 and 15storey concrete buildings
L (m) Building’s length in the third 20, 40
direction
construction is modeled in a number of steps simulat-
ing the tunnel pass through the building.
In each step, the cutter head excavates the ground in
1.4 m length while the face pressure is applied to the
excavated face in order to balance the earth pressure
(Fig. 3). Behind the cutter head, a shield with a length
of 9.1 m exists which restricts the deformation of
excavated surface to the shield position. Behind the
shield, pressurized grout is injected into the annular
gap between the segmental lining and the excavated
ground surface. As the grout hardens, the pressure
diminishes and solid grout plus lining start to interact
with the surrounding soil. This procedure is modeled
according to Shiraz metro line 1 characteristics as
shown schematically in Fig. 3. Figure 4 shows a
sample image of ABAQUS model. In the model,
tunnel construction begins by enough distance from
building (Fig. 5), passes beneath the building and goes
enough distance beyond the building. Therefore, all
effects of tunneling process on the surface building
could be evaluated.
2.3 Assessment of Adequacy of the Third
Dimension in the Numerical Model
In 3-dimensional models it is essential to consider an
appropriate dimension for longitudinal length of the
model to prevent the effects of boundaries on the
results. Regarding the geometrical specifications of
this study, the distance of front boundary and the
building is considered to be 20 m i.e. around three
times the tunnel diameter. Moreover, about 14 m (two
times the tunnel diameter) is considered for the
distance between the end of the longest building (with
40 m length) and the hardened grout. One diameter
distance is also considered between rear boundary and
excavation face at the final step. The sum of these
numbers is 100 m. Figure 5 illustrates the components
of third dimension of 3D numerical models. Reduction
of this length might cause the boundary implications
on the results or inability to fully model the tunnelling
procedure. Conversely, increasing the third dimension
will result in excessive computational costs.
Figure 6 presents the adequacy of model length in
third direction. As illustrated, by progress of tun-
nelling from the front of model (number of steps in the
Fig. 6 indicates the number of excavation steps and
consequently the tunnel construction progress), the
results of surface settlements have converged at the
front and also at the end of the 3D model which proves
that there is no boundary effect on the results and the
boundaries are far enough to allow the steady state.
2.4 Modeling of Surface Buildings
Mirhabibi and Soroush (2013) showed that in order to
get the most reliable results, especially for longitudi-
nal profile of settlement, it is better to model the
building as realistically as possible i.e. simulation of
the building by structural components accompanied
by exterior walls and partition-walls distributed in
typical distances close to reality. Figure 7 presents the
typical floor plans of this type of building modeling for
various widths of buildings considered in this study.
2.5 Computation Resources
As discussed, considering the symmetry of models,
only half of each model was simulated to reduce the
computational costs. The number of elements in the
models varied between 17,500 and 30,000. Due to the
huge number of elements and large number of
123
123
Table 3 Cases analyzed in 3D-parametric studies; marked by ‘‘•’’
Depth 3 Storey 5 Storey 10 Storey 15 Storey
and
pillar B = 10 B = 20 B = 40 B = 80 B = 10 B = 20 B = 40 B = 80 B = 10 B = 20 B = 40 B = 80 B = 10 B = 20 B = 40 B = 80
width
of
tunnels

Length = 20 m 13.5-1D • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
13.5-2D • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
13.5-3D • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
18.5-1D • • • • •
18.5-2D • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
18.5-3D • • • • •
23.5-1D • • • • •
23.5-2D • • • • •
23.5-3D • • • • •
Length = 40 m 13.5-1D • • • • • • •
13.5-2D • • • • • • •
13.5-3D • • •
18.5-1D • • •
18.5-2D • • • • • • •
18.5-3D • • •
23.5-1D • • •
23.5-2D • • •
23.5-3D • • •
Note: The term of ‘‘13.5-1D’’ refers to the case in which the tunnel’s depth is 13.5 m and pillar width of tunnels is one times of tunnel diameter (1D) i.e. distance between centerlines
of tunnels is 15 m. All other terms in the table could be defined accordingly with reference to Table 2
Geotech Geol Eng
Geotech Geol Eng

Fig. 3 Schematic procedure of twin TBM’s running at Shiraz metro line 1

Fig. 4 Sample image of TBM simulation in numerical models

modeling steps (60 steps in each case), the normal Amirkabir University of Technology (AUT) has a
computers were not capable of simulating the models. power of 34,000 billion operations per second. Using
Consequently, Amirkabir university super-computer this super-computer, the average running time was
was utilized to run the models. Super-computer of between 15 and 20 h with a huge volume of data.

123
 Geotech Geol Eng

Fig. 5 Components of the third dimension of 3D models

Fig. 6 Illustration of changes settlement profile in the longitudinal direction while tunnels go forward (excavation face is shown for
each step)

123
Geotech Geol Eng
B=10m
B=20m
Fig. 7 Typical floor plans used in the analyses for various assumed building’s widths
3 Qualitative Assessment of Influence
of Parameters
Conducting parametric studies (Table 3); the results
are presented in this section in a qualitative manner in
which the trends and not the values are reviewed. In
the next section, the results will be analyzed with a
quantitative approach.
Outcomes of this study indicated that, generally the
effects of different parameters on surface settlement
trough in 3D analysis are the same as two-dimensional
ones. However, predicted settlement by three-dimen-
sional models is higher than two-dimensional plane
strain ones and as a result, relying on 2D plane strain
B=80m
B=40m
simulations to assess tunnelling effects on the surface
buildings may not be conservative.
3.1 Tunnels Depth (Z0)
As illustrated in Fig. 8, increase of tunnels’ depth
leads to decrease of tunnelling effects on building
settlement. It is evident by comparing the settlement
troughs’ change as the tunnel depth increases from
13.5 to 18.5 m and from 18.5 to 23.5 m. However, the
order of settlement values in all depths is the same and
consequently the tunnel depth is not a major parameter
in tunnel-building interaction.
Besides, comparison of 3D and 2D analyses’ results
reveals that three-dimensional modeling predicts
123
 Geotech Geol Eng

Fig. 8 Changes of cross Distance from Symmetry Line (m)

sectional settlement trough 2
due to changes of tunnels Building
depth 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
-2

Selement (mm)
Depth23.5 - 3D Modelling
-4
Depth23.5 - 2D Modelling
Depth13.5 - 3D Modelling
-6 Depth13.5 - 2D Modelling
Depth18.5 - 3D Modelling
-8 Depth18.5 - 2D Modelling

-10

-12
(a) 3-storey building , Length=20m, B=80m, D0=15m

Distance from Symmetry Line (m)

(b)10-storey building , Length=20m, B=80m, D0=29m

higher surface settlement than two-dimensional ones
and also, the settlement troughs of 2D analysis are
more rigid (have less curvature) than 3D ones.
Consequently, differential settlements predicted by
3D analyses are more than that of 2D ones.
3.2 Center to Center Distance of Tunnels (D0)
As discussed by Mirhabibi and Soroush (2012), the
center to center distance of tunnels (or sheer distance
between tunnels; Pillar width) affects the surface
settlement trough significantly, the influence of which
is shown in the green-field cases (the case in which no
building is present at the surface; GF) in Fig. 9.
The results of 3D analyses showed that by increas-
ing the central distance of tunnels, the curvature of
settlement trough decreases and its shape gets more
rigid. This behavior is not seen in the 2D analysis.
Figure 9 presents the results of changing D0
parameter for two different cases. The settlement
amounts of 3D models are evidently higher than 2D
ones and also have more curvature and flexibility.

123
Geotech Geol Eng

Fig. 9 Assessment of center Distance from Symmetry Line (m)

to center distances (Pillar
width) of twin tunnels 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120

-4

Selement (mm)
D0=15 (pillar width=1D) / 3D Modelling
-8
D0=15 (pillar width=1D) / GF
D0=15 (pillar width=1D) / 2D Modelling
D0=22 (pillar width=1D) / 3D Modelling
-12 D0=22 (pillar width=1D) / GF
D0=22 (pillar width=1D) / 2D Modelling
D0=29 (pillar width=1D) / 3D Modelling
D0=29 (pillar width=1D) / GF
-16 D0=29 (pillar width=1D) / 2D Modelling

-20

(a) 3-Storey building, Z0=13.5m ،B=80m ،Length=20m

Distance from Symmetry Line (m)

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120

-4
Selement (mm)

D0=15 (pillar width=1D) / 3D Modelling

-8 D0=15 (pillar width=1D) / GF
D0=15 (pillar width=1D) / 2D Modelling
D0=22 (pillar width=1D) / 3D Modelling
-12 D0=22 (pillar width=1D) / GF
D0=22 (pillar width=1D) / 2D Modelling
D0=29 (pillar width=1D) / 3D Modelling
D0=29 (pillar width=1D) / GF
-16 D0=29 (pillar width=1D) / 2D Modelling

-20

(b) 3-Storey building, Z0=18.5m ،B=80m ،Length=20m

3.3 Building Width (B)
Similar to 2D analysis (Mirhabibi and Soroush 2012),
the building width is the most effective parameter in
tunnel-building interaction issue. For small values of
building width, the relative stiffness of building
compared to the surrounding ground is too high and
consequently the settlement trough has a very small
curvature. In this situation, other geometrical and
mechanical properties of building and tunnels do not
come into effect.
As the building width increases (i.e. the building
stiffness decreases relative to the surrounding ground)
other parameters start to show their effects. Figure 10
illustrates the effect of building width (B) on surface
settlement trough.
Comparing 2D and 3D analysis results displays
identical behavior regarding the general increase of
settlement and its curvature in three-dimensional
analysis.

123
 Geotech Geol Eng

Fig. 10 Assessment of Distance from Symmetry Line (m)

building width effect 2

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
-2

-4 B=10 / 3D Modelling
B=20 / 3D Modelling

Selement (mm)
-6
B=40 / 3D Modelling

-8 B=80 / 3D Modelling
GF
-10 B=10 / 2D Modelling
B=20 / 2D Modelling
-12
B=40 / 2D Modelling
-14 B=80 / 2D Modelling

-16

-18

-20

(a)3-Storey building, Z0=13.5m ،D0=15m ،Length=20m

Distance from Symmetry Line (m)

2

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
-2

-4 B=10 / 3D Modelling
Selement (mm)

B=20 / 3D Modelling
-6
B=80 / 3D Modelling

-8 GF
B=10 / 2D Modelling
-10 B=20 / 2D Modelling
B=80 / 2D Modelling
-12

-14

-16

-18

(b) 5-Storey building, Z0=18.5m ،D0=22m ،Length=20m

3.4 Building Stiffness (EI)
Stiffness of building especially in combination with
building width is one of the major controlling factors
of tunnelling-induced building settlement. The
method of applying building stiffness in 2D models
is described by Mirhabibi and Soroush (2012). In 3D
models, building stiffness is directly simulated by FE
model i.e. the real shape of building is modeled and
consequently the higher number of stories results in
higher stiffness.
As illustrated in Fig. 11, increase of building
stiffness will result in less settlement trough curvature
(more rigid settlement trough). Therefore, for building
with higher stiffness, differential settlement would
have lesser concerns.
Again, 3D analysis leads to larger settlement with
higher curvature and consequently more differential
settlement compared to 2D models.

123
Geotech Geol Eng

Fig. 11 Assessment of Distance from Symmetry Line (m)

building stiffness effect on 2
tunnelling induced surface
settlement trough (the more 0
building storey would result 0 20 40 60 80 100
in more stiffness)
-2
D0=15 / 3storey

Selement (mm)
D0=15 / 10storey
-4
D0=22 / 3storey
D0=22 / 10storey
-6 D0=29 / 3storey
D0=29 / 10storey

-8

-10

-12

(a) Z0=18.5m, B=80m, Length=20m

Distance from Symmetry Line (m)

2

0 20 40 60 80 100
-2

-6
Selement (mm)

B=10 / 3storey
-10
B=10 / 10storey
B=80 / 3storey
-14 B=80 / 10storey

-18

-22

-26

(b) Z0=13.5m, D0=15m, Length=20m

3.5 Building Weight
The results presented in the previous sections showed
that the amounts of surface settlements predicted by
3D analysis are higher than that of 2D ones. The
reason for this could be explored in two factors. The
first factor is the difference between bending stiffness
in 2D and 3D analysis. In 2D models, the building is
simulated by an elastic plane strain beam which over
predicts the bending stiffness (Mirhabibi and Soroush
2013). The more the beam’s stiffness, the less would
be the surface settlement.
The second factor is the building weight. As
indicated by Mirhabibi and Soroush (2012), for each
building storey, 10kN/m2 linear force is applied to the
surface beam in the 2D plane strain models. The
outcomes of the 2D parametric studies showed that
just about 6% increase in settlement is produced by
consideration of these loads. However, based on the
engineering judgment, more settlement is anticipated
by applying weight loads especially for high-rise

123

buildings which apply much more load on the surface.
This idea was previously suggested by Bloodworth
(2002) who stated that the weight factor is more
effective in three-dimension models rather than 2D
models.
Therefore, in order to evaluate the effect of building
weight factor on the surface settlement, nine cases of
this study were analyzed again but without weight.
Table 4 introduces the different cases analyzed in both
conditions of weighted and weightless.
Figure 12 presents the results of 3D analyses (with
and without weight load) versus 2D models. As
illustrated in this figure, application of weight would
have a considerable effect on the increase of surface
settlement. On the other hand, exclusion of weight
load from the 3D analysis, leads to results which are
more close to the 2D ones. Hence it may be concluded
that a 2D model can be assumed as an approximation
of a 3D model which excludes the weight of building
from the simulation. Also, it is obvious that the
geometric shape of the settlement curve is approxi-
mately independent of the building weight.
3.6 Longitudinal Length of Building (L)
The possibility of complete modeling of building is
one of the major advantages of 3D models. In two
dimensional plane strain models, the length of build-
ing along the tunnel route i.e. the third length which is
actually limited to a few meters, is considered to be
infinite which results in errors in comparison with
reality. However, in engineering practices, the 3D real
cases are approximated by 2D plane strain simulations
whenever the ratio of the length of structure to its
width, gets more than a certain amount. The ratio of
length to width of surface buildings that allows 2D
approximation instead of 3D modeling was studied in
this research. It is obvious that in the cases where the
ratio of building length to its width is less than 2, the
plane strain behavior definitely could not be consid-
ered. But, the question is that whether for the cases
Table 4 Different cases 5 Storey building
studied to evaluate the
effect of building weight on B = 10
the surface settlement
Z0 = 13.5, D0 = 15 • •
Z0 = 13.5, D0 = 22 • •
Z0 = 18.5, D0 = 22 • •
123
Geotech Geol Eng
where the ration of building length to its width is more
than 2, could we use plane strain approximation or
not?
In order to answer this question, four different
widths of buildings were analyzed; 10 m, 20 m, 40 m
and 80 m while two values were considered for the
length; 20 m and 40 m. Thus, the ratio of building
length to its width was in the range of 0.25 to 4.
Figure 13 presents the schematic numerical model
with illustration of buildings. Also, Table 3 introduces
the cases in which the length of building is considered
40 m and outcomes are compared with 20 m long
ones.
Comparison of the results of cases shows that
increase of building length does not have any major
influence on the behavior of tunnelling-induced sur-
face settlement of building. However, increase of
building length in some cases leads to small increase
of surface settlement which could be the result of
augmentation of building weight due to larger area of
the building (As described earlier, in this study 10 kN/
m2 is applied for each building storey. So, increase of
building length will increase the area of each building
storey).
Therefore, it could be concluded that the three-
dimensional behavior of tunnelling-induced surface
settlement of buildings could not be simulated with 2D
plane strain approximation even for buildings with
length to width ratio equal to four.
In the following, the qualitative effect of increase of
building length is described more accurately.
• Increasing the number of building stories will
results in more noticeable effect of increase of
building length i.e. tunnelling-induced settlement
of a 40 m-long building will be more than a 20 m-
long one. (Figs. 14 and 15). By increasing the
building width (augmentation of building weight),
a larger increase in surface settlement is obtained.
• Enlargement of building width (B) will cause a
small increase in surface settlement due to the
10 Storey building
B = 20 B = 40 B = 80 B = 10 B = 20 B = 40 B = 80
•
•
•
Geotech Geol Eng

Fig. 12 Assessment of Distance from Symmetry Line (m)

effects of building’s weight 2
on building’s settlement 0
trough 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
-2

-4 Z0=13.5 / D0=15 / B=10 / 5storey

Selement (mm)
Z0=13.5 / D0=15 / B=10 / 5storey / Weightless
-6
2D Modelling
-8

-10
-16
-12 0 2 4 6 8 10

-14 -18

-16
-20
-18

-20 -22

-22

(a) 5-storey building, B=10m ،Z0=13.5m ،D0=15m

Distance from Symmetry Line (m)

2

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Selement (mm)

-2
Z0=13.5 / D0=22 / B=80 / 5storey
Z0=13.5 / D0=22 / B=80 / 5storey / Weightless
-4 2D Modelling

-6

-8

-10

(b) 5-Storey building, B=80m ،Z0=13.5m ،D0=22m

Distance from Symmetry Line (m)

2

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
-2
Selement (mm)

-4
Z0=13.5 / D0=22 / B=80 / 10storey

-6 Z0=13.5 / D0=22 / B=80 / 10storey / Weightless

2D Modelling
-8

-10

-12

-14

-16

(c)10-Storey building, B=80m ،Z0=13.5m ،D0=22m

123

Fig. 13 Presentation of location of building at the numerical
models with length of 20 m, 40 m
increase of building length. In other words, when
the length of a 40 m-wide building is enlarged, a
small increase in surface settlement is observed
compared with the case of a 20 m-wide building.
This small augmentation in settlement may be due
to the increase of building weight. Figure 16
illustrates this issue.
• Augmentation of twin tunnels’ depth (Z0) will
reduce the increasing effect of enlargement of
building length. Figure 17 shows some samples for
the issue. As shown, the increase of building length
is higher when the tunnels are located at the depth
of 13.5 m compared to the ones located at depth of
18.5 m.
• Widening the central distance of tunnels (D0) does
not have any major influence on the effects of
building length. It means that by increase of
tunnels central distance from 1-diameter to
123
Geotech Geol Eng
2-diameter, the surface settlement will have small
increase with enlargement of building length. But,
with more central distance of tunnels, no special
changes are observed. Generally, these changes
could be ignored for engineering cases. A sample
of this behavior is presented in the Fig. 18.
4 Quantitative Assessment of 3D Analysis Results
4.1 Comparison of 3D Models with 2D Models
The results presented at the preceding sections show
that in many cases the results of 3D models have major
differences with the 2D ones. However, in some cases
the difference is not considerable and could be
neglected for engineering purposes. Considering the
fact that the cost of 3D modeling is much more than
2D ones, it could be very beneficial if the cases in
which the differences are negligible, and therefore
3-dimentional modeling is not necessary, could be
identified.
The available data base of this study would help to
define the criteria for the cases in which 2D analysis
could be used instead of 3D ones. If we accept the 20%
difference between 2D and 3D model’s results as the
higher boundary for neglecting 3D modeling, the
following criteria should be all met as the prerequisite
of neglecting 3D modeling and sufficing to 2D
interaction included simulation:
• Small building width (less than 20 m).
• Small number of building stories (less than 5
stories).
• Length of building larger than its width (L [ B)
Also, when the tunnels get closer, neglecting 3D
simulation is more reliable.
For the cases where the building length is less than
its width (L \ B) and the number of stories is more
than 5, the surface settlement predicted by 3D
simulations is significantly higher than 2D models
and therefore 3D simulation is required.
For the cases between these two ranges, the
decision whether or not to use 3D simulation will be
upon engineering judgment.
Besides, there are many cases in which the differ-
ence between results of 3D simulations and 2D green-
field ones is less than 20%. In these cases, even 2D
Geotech Geol Eng

Fig. 14 Assessment of Distance from Symmetry Line (m)

2
surface settlement changes
for a 3-Storey building with 0
Z0 = 13.5 m, D0 = 15 m 0 20 40 60 80
and B = 10 m -2

-4

Selement (mm)
-6

-8 L=20
L=40
-10

-12

-14

-16

-18

-20

(a) Cross sectional settlement trough

Distance in Longitudinal direcon (m)

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
-5
Selement (mm)

-10
L=20
L=40
-15 Building (L=20m)

-20
Building (L=40m)
-25

(b) Longitudinal settlement profile at the surface symmetry axis of tunnels

green-field model could be utilized instead of 3D
model. The criteria that should be met to allow such a
substitution are as presented in Table 5:
Regarding the above criteria, with the decrease of
building width, the ratio of BL increases and the building
should have less bending stiffness (fewer stories) to
avoid 3D simulations. On the contrary, when the
building width increases, BL decreases and 3D models
could be conveniently neglected even for taller
buildings.
According to these criteria, the cases where 3D
models could be substituted with 2D green-filed
models are more frequent than the ones where 3D
simulations could be replaced by 2D interaction
models.
This is mainly due to the modeling approach in 2D
plane strain simulations where the building is modeled
as an elastic surface beam and therefore, highly over
predicts the bending stiffness of building and results in
less surface settlement while in three dimensional
simulations, the building and its interaction with the
tunnels and the surrounding soil are simulated more
realistically.
It should be noted that the above conclusions and
the criteria for neglecting 3D simulation are about the
maximum building settlement of the buildings that are
located at symmetry line of tunnels. In this case, the
maximum building settlement would happen at the
middle of the building. However, as described earlier,
comparison with previous results (Mirhabibi and
Soroush 2012) shows that the same recommendations
may be applicable for the other cases where buildings
are located on the surface with every given geometry.

123
 Geotech Geol Eng

Fig. 15 Assessment of Distance from Symmetry Line (m)

surface settlement changes 2
for a 10-Storey building
with Z0 = 23.5 m, 0
D0 = 22 m and B = 80 m 0 20 40 60 80 100 120

-2

Selement (mm)
-4

L=20
-6
L=40

-8

-10

-12

-14

(a) Cross sectional settlement trough

Distance in Longitudinal direcon (m)

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
-2
Selement (mm)

-4
-6
-8
L=20
-10
L=40
-12
-14
-16

(b) Longitudinal settlement profile at the surface symmetry axis of tunnels

4.2 Regression Analysis of Three-Dimensional
Models Results (Incorporation of Analyses
Results into a Design Graph)
In the previous sections, interaction between twin-
tunneling and a building located at the symmetry axis
of tunnels on the surface was studied by full 3D
numerical modeling. Based on the outcomes of these
analyses the difference between 2D and 3D numerical
simulations was examined. Also, the effects of differ-
ent factors and parameters on the tunneling-induced
surface settlement of building were investigated using
the numerical results. Using the available database, the
authors tried to incorporate the results of analyses into
design. So, they looked to find out a design correlation
between green-filed settlement and full 3D settlement
of building induced by twin tunnelling. As described
in details by Mirhabibi and Soroush (2012) regression
analysis was employed to find a reliable correlation
between geometrical and mechanical parameters of
building and tunnels and the ratio of maximum
building settlement to the corresponding green-field
value (SR). The method, definitions and parameters
are the same as described by Mirhabibi and Soroush
(2012) where just one new parameter is added to the
independent variables; ‘‘L’’; length of building at the
third direction which could be merely defined in 3D
models.
The same approach employed by Mirhabibi and
Soroush (2012) is used here to find the best correlation
between SR parameter and relative bending stiffness,
q .
When the length of building is added to the
independent variables, the definition of relative stiff-
ness parameter should be revised. As described by
Mirhabibi and Soroush (2012), the q parameter needs

123
Geotech Geol Eng

Fig. 16 Assessment of Distance from Symmetry Line (m)

surface settlement changes 2
due to enlargement of
0
building width for a 0 20 40 60 80 100
3-Storey building with -2
Z0 = 13.5 m, D0 = 15 m
-4

Selement (mm)
-6 B=10 / L=20
B=40 / L=20
-8
B=80 / L=20
-10 B=10 / L=40
B=40 / L=40
-12 B=80 / L=40

-14

-16

-18

-20

(a) Cross sectional settlement trough

Distance in Longitudinal direcon

0
0 20 40 60 80 100

-4
Selement (m)

-8

-12 B=10 / L=20

B=40 / L=20
B=80 / L=20
-16 B=10 / L=40
B=40 / L=40
B=80 / L=40
-20

(b) Longitudinal settlement profile at the surface symmetry axis of tunnels

to be dimensionless and eventuate to best fitness to the factors in the tunnel-building interaction. Increase of
data. Examining different combinations of parameters building stiffness and central axes of tunnels would
and regression basics, the following equation was used enhance the stiffness of building relative to the twin
as the best definition for relative stiffness parameter: tunnels, while increase of tunnels’ depth and building
  width will reduce the relative stiffness.
 EID30 L
q ¼ ; Definition of relative parameter The best fit equation to the numerical results
Es Z02 B5 achieved from regression analysis has a linear form
in 3D simulations; as follows:
ð1Þ Y ¼ a þ bX þ e ð2Þ

All of the parameters used in q Eq. 1 have the same where
definition as described by Mirhabibi and Soroush
(2012) and the Length is the longitudinal dimension of SR
Y ¼ P ; X ¼ Lnðq Þ; e ¼ estimation error
the building. B
Regarding the elements of relative stiffness param-
Table 6 and Fig. 19 illustrate the summary results
eter, it is obvious that the building width, and the
of the regression model.
central distance of tunnels axes are the most important

123
 Geotech Geol Eng

Fig. 17 Assessment of Distance from Symmetry Line (m)

surface settlement changes 2
due to enlargement of twin
tunnels depth for a 3-Storey 0
building with D0 = 15 m 0 20 40 60 80 100
and B = 80 m
-2

Selement (mm)
Z0=13.5 / L=20
-4
Z0=23.5 / L=20
Z0=13.5 / L=40
-6 Z0=23.5 / L=40

-8

-10

-12
(a) Cross sectional settlement trough

Distance in Longitudinal direcon (m)

0
0 20 40 60 80 100

-4
Selement (mm)

-8

-12 Z0=13.5 / L=20

Z0=23.5 / L=20
Z0=13.5 / L=40
Z0=23.5 / L=40
-16

(b) Longitudinal settlement profile at the surface symmetry axis of tunnels

Figure 19 presents the design graph assigned to the
numerical data resulted from regression model.
In order to use this equation for predicting the
maximum settlement of building induced by tunnel-
ing, the relative stiffness parameter should be calcu-
lated according to the Eq. 1. Using Fig. 19 or Table 6,
the modification factor (SR) could be derived. Apply-
ing the SR factor into the green-field settlement would
result in prediction of maximum tunneling-induced
building settlement. This procedure could be very
useful for preliminary design stages. If more accurate
results are needed, 3D simulations should be
conducted.
4.3 Effect of Constitutive Model
As described before, the Mohr–Coulomb elastic-
perfectly plastic model is utilized in this study. It
should be noted that the main purpose of this research
is not predicting the values of tunneling-induced
surface settlements but rather exploring the trends and
comparing the effect of full 3D modeling on the
results. Therefore, the ratios (and not the absolute
values) of surface settlements in 2D and 3D and green-
fields conditions are compared with each other.
Consequently, it could be assumed that the effect of
constitutive model on the results may be neglected.
In order to evaluate the effect of constitutive
models on the results, three cases were analyzed with
three different behavior models; Mohr–Coulomb,
Drucker-Prager and Cap-model.

123
Geotech Geol Eng

Fig. 18 Assessment of Distance from Symmetry Line (m)

surface settlement changes 0
0 20 40 60 80 100
due to enlargement of twin
tunnels central distance for 3
& 5-Storey buildings with -2

Z0 = 13.5 m and B = 80 m
-4 D0=15 / L=20

Selement (mm)
D0=22 / L=20
D0=29 / L=20
-6 D0=15 / L=40
D0=22 / L=40
D0=29 / L=40
-8

-10

-12

(a) Cross sectional settlement trough for a 3-storey building

Distance from Symmetry Line (m)

0
0 20 40 60 80 100

-2

-4 D0=15 / L=20
Selement (mm)

D0=22 / L=20
D0=29 / L=20
-6 D0=15 / L=40
D0=22 / L=40
D0=29 / L=40
-8

-10

-12

(b) Cross sectional settlement trough for a 5-storey building

Table 5 The Criteria for Building width (m) Ratio of building length to its width (L=B) Number of building stories
substituting 2D green-field
simulations instead of 3D 10 L=B  2 Less than or equal to 5
models
20 L=B ¼ 1 Less than or equal to 5
40 L=B ¼ 0:5 ; 1 Less than or equal to 5
80 L=B\1 Less than or equal to 10

The studied cases are: • Coupled model with the above condition plus
3-storey building with width of 10 m
• Green-field condition for tunnels running at
Z0 = 13.5 m and D0 = 15 m The results are presented in Fig. 20. As illustrated,
• Coupled model with the above condition plus despite the difference between magnitudes of surface
3-storey building with width of 10 m. settlements in various models, the trends and the ratio

123
 Geotech Geol Eng

Table 6 The results of the best fit regression model applied to dimensional plane strain models which are commonly
the results of 3D simulations of twin-tunneling beneath the used in engineering practices and results of accurate
building located at symmetry axis of tunnels
three-dimensional models. The authors also explored
Variable Coefficient t-statistic Prob. the situations in which rather simplified 2D simulation
could be adopted with enough accuracy and they
Intercept -3.148791 -82.02079 0.0000
described the cases in which 3D models have to be
X 0.197719 23.92024 0.0000
adopted to achieve precise results. Also, the effect of
R-squared = 0.867 constitutive models on the results was investigated.
F-statistic = 572.2 Moreover, based on the results of numerical analyses,
Prob (F-statistic) = 0.000 a design graph was proposed to be used in preliminary
Mean absolute percentage error = 9.3 design stages of engineering practices.
Using Shiraz metro line 1 data and ABAQUS code,
132 three-dimensional numerical models were ana-
lyzed and the outcomes were used to assess the effects
of settlements values could be assumed similar of different geometrical and mechanical parameters on
irrespective of behavior models for practical purposes. the interaction issue. The rather simplified assump-
tions of this study (homogenous and isotropic soil and
concrete, classical Mohr–Coulomb failure criteria for
5 Conclusion the soil and elastic concrete, and short-term undrained
analysis) are mostly based on the common design
In this research, numerical full 3D modeling of twin- practice.
tunnel and building interaction were conducted and Below, the findings of this study are summarized:
the results were compared with 2D analysis. The main
goal of this article was to study the effect of different 1. Generally, the predicted settlements by 3D models
geometrical and mechanical parameters on the tun- are larger than the 2D plane strain ones. Conse-
neling induced settlements of surface buildings and to quently, relying on the results of 2D models results
study the differences between the results of two-

Ln( r *)
0
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10

-1
Ln(SR/∑B)

-2

-3

-4

One building Located at symmetry line of tunnels

-5

-6

Fig. 19 Design graph for predicting of maximum building settlement where building is located at symmetry axis of tunnels

123
Geotech Geol Eng
Fig. 20 Effect of constitutive model on the results
to assess the surface building stability during
tunnel construction may not be conservative.
2. The settlement curves resulted from 3D simula-
tions are more flexible compared to 2D plane
strain ones (they have more curvature). This
means that the plane strain assumption and
modeling the building as equivalent elastic beam
leads to large value for bending stiffness of the
building. The higher the bending stiffness value of
the beam, the less would be the building settle-
ment. The settlement curves with higher curva-
tures (which are the outcomes of 3D models) will
result in more differential settlements.
3. The building weight in three dimensional models
produces higher settlements compared to two
dimensional simulations.
4. The building width and its stiffness are the most
important parameters affecting the building sur-
face settlement curve. Increase of building weight
will increase the flexibility and curvature of
settlement curve while augmentation of building
stiffness will reduce this curvature.
5. Increase of tunnels’ depth will decrease the effect
of tunneling on the building settlement.
6. Enlargement of longitudinal length of building,
increases the building weight, and as a result,
increases the surface settlement. The more the
building width, the bigger this influence would be.
7. Parametric studies on the ratio of building length
to its width proved that the plane strain assumption
could not be applied to the building-tunneling
interaction even for length to width ratios equal to
4. According to these studies, the three-dimen-
sional behavior of building is different from the
two-dimensional simulations even for large
lengths of building.
8. In many cases, the difference between results of
full 3D models and 2D model is less than 20%
which could be neglected for engineering pur-
poses. The criteria to indentify these situations
where 3D simulation is not necessary were
described.
9. Conducting regression analysis, a modification
factor was developed to be used in preliminary
design stages in order to predict the maximum
building surface settlement through the available
2D green-filed results.
Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the
Amirkabir fast processing center for their cooperation in
facilitating the access to the super-computer.
123

References
ABAQUS 6.8, User’s Documentation., Hibbitt, Karlsson and
Sorensen, Inc
Augrade CE (1997) Numerical modelling of tunnelling pro-
cesses for assessment of damage to buildings. Ph. D. The-
sis, Oxford Univ
Bloodworth AG, (2002) Three-dimensional analysis of tun-
nelling effects on structures to develop design methods.
PhD thesis, Oxford Univ
Camos C, Molins C (2015) 3D analytical prediction of building
damage due to ground subsidence produced by tunneling.
Tunn Undergr Sp Technol 50:424–437
Chakeri C, UnverOzcelik By (2014) A novel relationship for
predicting the point of inflexion value in the surface set-
tlement curve. Tunn Undergr Sp Technol 43:266–275
Do N, Dias D, Oreste P et al (2014) Three-dimensional
numerical simulation of a mechanized twin tunnels in soft
ground. Tunn Undergr Sp Technol 42:40–51
Dias D, Kastner R (2002) Tunnelling in soils-ground move-
ments and damage to buildings. In: Proceedings of 2nd int.
conf. soil structure interaction in urban civil engineering,
Zurich, pp 249–253
Devriendt M, Doughty L, Morrison P et al (2010) Displacement
of tunnels from a basement excavation in London. Proc Inst
Civ Eng Geotech Eng 163(GE3):131–145
Franzius JN (2003) Behavior of building due to tunnel induced
settlement. Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. of London
Franzius JN, Potts DM (2005) Influence of mesh geometry on
three-dimensional finite element analysis of tunnel exca-
vation. ASCE Int J Geomech 5(3):256–266
Fu J, Yang J, Zhang X et al (2014) Response of the ground and
adjacent buildings due to tunnelling in completely weath-
ered granitic soil. Tunn Undergr Sp Technol 43:377–388
Houhou MN, Emeriault F, Vanoudheusden (2016) Three-di-
mensional back-analysis of an instrumented shallow tunnel
excavated by a conventional method. É Geotech Geol Eng
34:1101
Jenck O, Dias D (2004) 3D-finite difference analysis of the
interaction between concrete building and shallow tun-
nelling. Geotechnique 54(8):519–528
123
Geotech Geol Eng
Katebi H, Rezaei AH, Hajialilue-Bonab M, Tarifard A (2015)
Assessment the influence of ground stratification, tunnel
and surface buildings specifications on shield tunnel lining
loads (by FEM). Tunn Undergr Sp Technol 49:67–78
Liu G (1997) Numerical modeling of damage to masonry
buildings due to tunnelling. Ph.D. Thesis, Oxford Univ
Liu JF, Qi TY, Wu Z (2012) Analysis of ground movement due
to metro station driven with enlarging shield tunnels under
building and its parameter sensitivity analysis. Tunn
Undergr Space Technol 28:287–296
Losacco N, Burghignoli A, Callisto L (2014) Uncoupled eval-
uation of the structural damage induced by tunnelling.
Geotechnique 64(8):646–656
Maleki M, Sereshteh H, Mousivand M et al (2011) An equiva-
lent beam model for the analysis of tunnel-building inter-
action. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 26:524–533
Mirhabibi A, Soroush A (2012) Effects of surface buildings on
twin tunnelling-induced ground settlements. Tunn Undergr
Sp Technol 29:40–51
Mirhabibi A, Soroush A (2013) Effects of building three-di-
mensional modeling type on twin tunneling-induced
ground settlement. Tunn Undergr Sp Technol 38:224–234
Netzel H, Kaalberg FJ (2000) Numerical damage risk assess-
ment studies on adjacent buildings in Amsterdam. In:
Proceedings of Int. Conf. Geotechnical and Geological
Engineering. Melbourne
Pickhaver JA (2006) Numerical modeling of building response
to tunnelling. Ph.D. Thesis. Oxford Univ
Shin JH, Potts DM, Zaravkovic L (2002) Three-dimensional
modeling of NATM tunnelling in decomposed granite soil.
Geotechnique 52(3):187–200
Shiraz Urban and Railway Organization-SURO (2003)
Geotechnical Investigation Report, Line 1
Son M (2016) Response analysis of nearby structures to tun-
neling-induced ground movements in clay soils. Tunn
Undergr Sp Technol 56:90–104
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with
regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.