Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Underground Space 4 (2019) 201–209
www.elsevier.com/locate/undsp

Numerical study on 3D effect and practical design in shield tunneling

Hossain Md. Shahin a,⇑,1, Teruo Nakai b,c, Tetsuo Okuno d
a
Islamic University of Technology, Gazipur, Bangladesh
b
Geo-Research Institute, Japan
c
Nagoya Institute of Technology, Nagoya, Japan
d
Shimizu Corporation, Tokyo, Japan

Received 21 May 2018; received in revised form 27 August 2018; accepted 11 January 2019
Available online 27 March 2019

Abstract

In practice, different design methods are used in solving geotechnical problems depending on the type of issue such as the tunneling,
braced excavation, or bearing capacity of a foundation, that is, the basic mechanism of the design method differs depending on the prob-
lems even for the same ground. A numerical analysis using the finite element method has recently become familiar owing to an improved
computing performance; however, it is not widely used in the design of geotechnical problems including tunnel excavation owing to the
reliability of the constitutive model of the ground material. If a constitutive model of soils can properly express the properties of the
ground material, a numerical analysis will play a vital role in solving the geotechnical problems. In this paper, the current state of a
numerical analysis and its applicability in tunnel design are discussed. Herein, the simulation of the ground behavior during tunnel exca-
vation is carried out using sandy and clay ground parameters for shallow and deep tunnel excavations. This paper is mainly focused on
the effects of tunnel excavation under three-dimensional (3D) conditions, as well as the current design method. Non-linear 2D and 3D
finite element analyses have been conducted, in which the elastoplastic sub-loading tij model has been used as a constitutive model of the
soil. The performance and acceptability of the constitutive model have already been proven to reproduce the results of various model
tests on different geotechnical problems such as the tunneling, braced excavation, and bearing capacity of a foundation, as well as
the measured field data. It was found that a 2D finite element analysis where the rate of stress release is considered, can be used for
the prediction of the ground deformation and surface settlement; however, it does not provide rational information in the prediction
of tunnel lining forces such as the stress, bending moment, and axial force, which emphasize the necessity of a 3D analysis with a proper
construction process in a tunnel design.
Ó 2019 Tongji University and Tongji University Press. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Owner. This is an open access article
under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Keywords: Shield tunneling; Finite element analysis; 3D effect

1 Introduction and ground stability in practice are mostly predicted using

Underground structures, in which open cut excavation is
not possible for overlying structures, or a canal or river,
etc., are constructed using a tunneling method. In the tun-
nel design, the earth pressure acting on the tunnel lining
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: shahin@iut-dhaka.edu (H.M. Shahin), nakai.teruo@
nitech.ac.jp (T. Nakai), okuno@shimz.co.jp (T. Okuno).
1
Formerly Nagoya Institute of Technology, Nagoya, Japan.
a rigid plasticity approach. In this design approach, the
vertical earth pressure is estimated from the over-burden
pressure and Terzaghi’s loosening earth pressure theory.
The lateral earth pressure is obtained by multiplying the
vertical earth pressure by the coefficient of the lateral earth
pressure. A beam-spring model is used to estimate the
deformation and stress acting on the tunnel lining using
the vertical and lateral earth pressures. The surface settle-
ments from tunneling are often predicted using empirical
approaches such as Gaussian distribution curve fitting

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.undsp.2019.01.002
2467-9674/Ó 2019 Tongji University and Tongji University Press. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Owner.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
202 H.Md. Shahin et al. / Underground Space 4 (2019) 201–209
(Peck, 1969), assuming a given volume loss from the tun-
neling. In certain cases, an elastic finite element analysis
is used to predict the surface settlement troughs that occur
from the tunneling. However, an elastic analysis cannot
take into consideration various features of the soil, includ-
ing a nonlinearity and dilatancy. As a result, a practical
elastic analysis is often used for a crude estimation of the
ground deformation. In a traditional design method, the
parameters of the elastic analysis are revised by fitting the
results with the field data. Usually, the range of influence
is overestimated in an elastic finite element analysis, which
is not limited to the tunnel problem but also other geotech-
nical problems such as a braced excavation. Shahin, Nakai,
Zhang, Kikumoto, and Nakahara (2011) showed that an
elastic analysis produces wider surface settlement profiles
than the experimental results. Because there is no yield
point in a linear elastic model, it cannot express a deforma-
tion that occurs locally. In addition, in elastic analyses, the
distributions of the shear strain for varying distances from
the tunnel invert toward the bottom boundary (Shahin
et al., 2011).
In practice, different design methods are used depending
on the type of problem, such as the tunneling, braced exca-
vation, or bearing capacity of a foundation, etc. It is some-
what unfortunate that the basic mechanism of the design
method used in geotechnical engineering differs depending
on the problem, even for the same ground. Although a
numerical analysis using the finite element method has
become familiar with improvements in the capacity of per-
sonal computers and their lower costs, such an analysis has
yet to be widely applied to the design of geotechnical prob-
lems including a tunnel excavation owing to the reliability
of the constitutive model of the ground material. There-
fore, if a constitutive model that can properly express the
properties of the ground material and be used for practical
applications is developed, the numerical analysis will play a
vital role in a tunnel design. During the past decade, con-
siderable improvements were made in the use of numerical
methods to simulate a tunnel excavation (Amorosi,
Boldini, & Falcone, 2014; Augarde & Burd, 2001; Conti,
Viggiani, & Perugini, 2014; Mroueh & Shahrour, 2002),
although many studies still use simple constitutive models,
such as linear elastic or elastic perfectly plastic Mohr–
Coulomb models. Although strain-hardening type nonlin-
ear elastoplastic models such as the Cam clay model are
used at the research level, in practice they are applied as
a back-end support for existing design methods.
In urban areas, however, many excavations are con-
ducted using tunnels within the vicinity of existing struc-
tures and tunnels. In these cases, how the deformation of
the ground, including the existing structure, is controlled
and how the safety of the tunnel excavation is ensured
are questionable. The same questions are also applicable
in a braced excavation. In response to the current demands,
the current design method is unable to provide persuasive
answers. Therefore, in practice, the material parameters
used in a finite element analysis (mainly an elastic analysis)
are modified to predict a deformation of the ground during
the subsequent construction process using in-situ measured
data obtained from preceding construction work.
In this paper, the current use of numerical analysis in
tunnel design is discussed. The subloading tij model has
been used as a constitutive model in such analyses, and
the validity and reliability of the model have been demon-
strated in previous studies (Shahin, Nakai, Hinokio,
Kurimoto, & Sada, 2004; Shahin, Nakai, Hinokio, &
Yamaguchi, 2004; Shahin et al., 2011) and field results
(Konda, Nagaya, Hashimoto, Shahin, & Nakai, 2013) of
tunnel excavation problems. Using the subloading tij
model, Shahin, Nakai, Hinokio, Kurimoto, et al. (2004)
showed that such numerical simulations properly repro-
duce the influence of the excavation sequence in a tunnel
construction as compared to the laboratory results
obtained from two-dimensional (2D) physical models.
The results of numerical analyses showed that the constitu-
tive model can precisely reproduce the observed patterns of
surface settlement and earth pressure under 2D conditions,
including the effects of the existing building load on the
tunnel excavation, as demonstrated by Nakai, Shahin,
Hinokio, Sada, and Sung (2005) and Shahin et al. (2011).
Sung, Shahin, Nakai, Hinokio, and Yamamoto (2006)
showed the capability of the constitutive model to predict
the general patterns of the ground behavior in model tests
with existing piled and raft foundations.
2 Material properties of sand and clay used in the simulations
Regardless of the tunnel excavation problem, the behav-
ior of the ground largely depends on the material proper-
ties of the ground. Herein, the stress–strain relationships
of sandy ground (Toyoura sand) and clay ground (Fuji-
mori clay) are first described. The subloading tij model
was used as a constitutive model for both sand and clay.
Detailed features of the model are given in Nakai and
Hinokio (2004) and Nakai (2012), some of which are sum-
marized below:
(1) The model can explain the behavior of soil, from the
negative dilatancy (volumetric compression during
shearing) of normally consolidated clay and loose
sand to the positive dilatancy (volumetric expansion)
of over-consolidated clay and dense sand using the
same material parameters and model framework.
As a result, the soil behavior, from a low stress level
as with a model test, to the stress level in the field,
can be described using the same material
parameters.
(2) To obtain reliable results in the analysis of 3D
problems, it is necessary to express the influence of
the intermediate principal stress uniquely (from the
triaxial compression condition to the plane strain
and triaxial extension conditions). This model can
describe the 3D behavior using material parameters
obtained under triaxial compression conditions.
 H.Md. Shahin et al. / Underground Space 4 (2019) 201–209 203

(3) The model can explain the influence of the stress-path
dependency of the plastic flow.
Model parameters for sand and clay are shown in
Table 1. The parameters are fundamentally the same as
those of the Cam clay model except for parameter a, which
influences the density and confining pressure. Parameter b
represents the shape of the yield surface. These parameters
can easily be obtained from traditional laboratory tests.
Figure 1 shows (a) the characteristics of sand under a
triaxial compression condition (stress–strain-dilatancy rela-
tionship) with a varying relative density (Dr) and (b) the
relation between the internal friction angle and relative
density obtained from the diagram in (a). Figure 2(b) is
used for a conventional tunneling design. Figure 2 shows
the characteristics of triaxial compression ((a) the

Table 1
Parameters used in subloading tij model for sand and clay.
Parameter Notation Value Remarks
Sand Clay
Compression index k 0.070 0.104 Same parameters
Swelling index j 0.004 0.010 as Cam-clay model
5
Reference void ratio on normally consolidation line at p = 98 kPa and N 1.10 0.922
q = 0 kPa
Critical state stress ratio Rcs = (r1/r3)cs(comp.) Rcs 3.20 3.20
Poisson’s ratio me 0.20 0.20
Shape of yield surface (same as original Cam clay at b = 1) b 1.50 1.50 —
Influence of density and confining pressure a 30 500

(a) Stress–strain-dilatancy curves (b) Internal friction angle vs. relative density

Fig. 1. Simulations of drained triaxial compression tests on sand used in the analyses.

(a) Stress–strain curves (b) Effective stress paths

Fig. 2. Simulations of undrained compression tests on clay used in the analyses.

204 H.Md. Shahin et al. / Underground Space 4 (2019) 201–209

Table 2 3 Investigation into rate of stress release from 2D and 3D

Undrained strength of clay under different over-consolida-
tion ratio.
OCR
1.04
2.0
4.0
8.0
stress–strain relationship and (b) the effective stress path)
of clay with a varying over-consolidation ratio (OCR).
Table 2 shows the undrained strength cu/p’ under different
OCRs, which is obtained from the results in Fig. 2. This
parameter is also used in a conventional tunneling design
for clay ground. The model can express stress–strain-
strength relation and dependency of the stiffness, strength,
and dilatancy on the density of the soil. The subsequent
results of the existing design method for both sand and clay
are described using the material parameters listed in
Table 1.
Fig. 3. Mesh used for 3D analysis.
simulations
cu/p’ Although a tunnel excavation is a 3D problem during
0.296 construction, it is a 2D (plane strain) problem once the
0.493 excavation is completed. In other words, in both a shield
0.911
1.693
tunnel and NATM, segments or lining are continuously
installed while advancing the cutting (excavation) face. It
is essential to consider this process as a 3D problem,
although in many cases, it is considered a 2D problem.
In addition, a conventional design method basically deals
with the process as a 2D problem. For this reason, in a
2D finite element analysis, a lining material such as a seg-
ment is inserted before releasing the stress of the ground
at up to 100% when simulating a tunnel excavation. The
timing at which the lining material is placed is defined as
the rate of stress release. In a 2D plane strain analysis, a
rate of stress release of 0% means the insertion of the lining
before commencement of the tunnel excavation, and a rate
of 100% corresponds to the case in which no lining is
placed before completion of the tunnel excavation. The
rate of stress release in a 2D analysis corresponds to the
distance between the excavation face and the location of
the lining in the 3D analysis.
Figure 3 shows a typical mesh used for a 3D finite ele-
ment analysis. To check the accuracy, a 2D mesh is
matched with that of a 3D mesh in the cross-sectional
direction of the tunnel (XZ plane). In the analysis, sandy
ground is used with loose fill (Dr = 20%) and dense
ground (Dr = 78%), where Dr is the relative density. Clay
ground is used when considering soft soil (OCR = 2.0)
and stiff soil (OCR = 8.0), where OCR is the over-
consolidation ratio. The tunnel diameter B = 8 m and
the soil cover D = 16 m (D/B = 2.0). Herein, the
analyses have been carried out considering both dry
(cd = 15.5 kN/m3) and saturated conditions in sandy
(csat = 19.4 kN/m3) and clay (csat = 18.7 kN/m3) ground.
In clay ground, undrained conditions are considered dur-
ing the tunnel excavation. Assuming a concrete segment
as the lining material, the thickness is set to 35 cm based
on standard practice, which is said to be 4%~4.5% of the

0 0

0.02 0.02
Sand, Dr=78%
Settlement (m)

Sand, Dr=20%
Settlement (m)

2D: Lining at 3D: Interval of 2D: Lining at 3D: Interval of

0.04 stress release Segment
0.04 stress release Segment installation
20% 20% 2.0 m
Installation 40%
40% 2.0 m 4.0 m
0.06 45% 4.0 m 0.06 45% 6.0 m
50% 50% 8.0 m
6.0 m 60%
60% 8.0 m
0.08 0.08
0 8 16 24 32 40 48 0 8 16 24 32 40 48
Distance from tunnel center (m) Distance from tunnel center (m)

(a) For Dr =20% b) For Dr =78 %

(b

Fig. 4. Surface settlement from 2D and 3D simulations for sand.

 H.Md. Shahin et al. / Underground Space 4 (2019) 201–209 205

tunnel diameter. Figures 4 and 5 show the settlement
profiles (half section from the tunnel center) of sand
and clay grounds, respectively. In the figures, both 2D
and 3D analyses are shown for different rates of stress
release under 2D conditions, and for different locations
of the lining from the excavation face under 3D condi-
tions. Figures 6 and 7 show the surface settlement at
the center (maximum surface settlement) for sand and
clay, respectively. In these figures, the left vertical axes
represent the rate of stress release for the 2D conditions,
and the right vertical axes represent the position of exca-
vation face for the 3D conditions. It can be seen from
Figs. 4–8 that the settlement troughs for the stress release
of 40%~50% in the 2D analyses nearly correspond to the
case in which the lining is set up at 2 m behind the exca-
vation face in the 3D analysis for both soil conditions of
Dr = 20% and Dr = 78% in sandy ground (Figs. 4 and 6).
From the 3D analysis on the soft clay ground
(OCR = 2.0) shown in Fig. 5, it is also understood that
an early lining is particularly important under such soil
conditions. In clay ground, the settlement corresponding
to a stress release of 35%~40% in a 2D analysis is
close to the lining setup after 2 m in the 3D analysis in
the same ground (Figs. 5 and 7). These results also

0
0
0.25
0.02
Clay, OCR=2.0
Settlement (m)

Clay, OCR=8.0

Settlement (m)
0.5
2D: Lining at 3D: Interval 2D: Lining at 3D: Interval
stress release of segment 0.04 stress release of segment
0.75 20% installation 20% installation
35% 2.0 m 35% 2.0 m
40% 4.0 m 0.06 40% 4.0 m
1 50% 6.0 m 50% 6.0 m
60% 8.0 m 60% 8.0 m
1.25 0.08
0 8 16 24 32 40 48 0 8 16 24 32 40 48
Distance from tunnel (m) Distance from tunnel (m)
(a) For OC
CR=2.0 (b) For OCR =8.0

Fig. 5. Surface settlement from 2D and 3D simulations for clay.

(a) For Dr =20% (b) For D r =78%

Fig. 6. Surface settlement at center from 2D and 3D simulations for sand.

(a) For OCR=2.0 (b

b) For OCR=88.0

Fig. 7. Surface settlement at center from 2D and 3D simulations for clay.

206 H.Md. Shahin et al. / Underground Space 4 (2019) 201–209

Fig. 8. Change in stress at the tunnel crown in 3D analysis.

correspond to the rate of stress release normally used in a

design. Nakahori, Inagaki, Ushida, and Okuno (2013)
emphasized the necessity of 3D analyses and properly
produced the effects of an early inverted closure through
3D analyses. Fig. 9. Layout of the analysis.
Figure 8 shows the change in vertical stress (normalized
by the initial stress r0) in the ground above the tunnel
crown as the excavation advances. The abscissa represents
the distance from the tunnel face, and herein, a negative
value means that the excavation face is behind the mea-
sured section. It can be seen from the figure that the stress
significantly decreases when the excavation face
approaches the measured section; however, the stress
increases again after the face crosses the section owing to
the arching effect in the direction of excavation. In addi-
tion, if the setup of the lining is delayed (8 m from the exca-
vation face), a large increase in stress is seen after passing
the excavation face. (a) For Dr =20%

4 Surface settlement in 2D and 3D simulations

Two-dimensional elastoplastic finite element analyses of

shallow and deep tunnels have been conducted on the
sandy and clay ground mentioned above. The differences
in the surface settlements based on the soil types (sand
and clay), ground densities, and tunnel depths were inves-
tigated. In addition, both dry and saturated sand are con-
sidered in the sandy ground, where the saturated sand is
modeled as a drained condition with a sufficiently high
coefficient of permeability. In addition, in clay ground,
the soil–water coupling condition is considered when tak-
ing the undrained condition during excavation and allow-
ing a dissipation of the excess pore water pressure after
excavation. As shown in Fig. 9, the tunnel diameter is
10 m with soil covers of D/B = 1.0 and D/B = 4.0 in the
analyses. The thickness of the lining (assuming a reinforced
concrete segment) is 40 cm. A rate of stress release of 40%
is set for the placement of the lining with reference to the
results described above, and a 20% stress release (early
placement of the lining) is also examined.
Figures 10 and 11 show the profiles of the ground sur-
face settlement at the completion of the excavation in dry
(b) For Dr =78%
=
Fig. 10. Surface settlement profiles for dry sandy ground.
and saturated sand for soil covers of D/B = 1.0 and 4.0.
The left half shows the results for a stress release of 40%,
and the right half shows results for 20%. Although there
is no pore water pressure in the dry ground, the excess pore
water pressure dissipates quickly in the soil–water coupling
analysis under drained conditions (static pore water
pressure acts as a water pressure on the lining) in the satu-
rated ground. As shown in Fig. 11, when a shallow tunnel
(D/B = 1.0) is excavated in saturated sandy ground, a large
surface subsidence occurs locally unless the lining is applied
at an early stage. When the lining is installed at a stress
release of 40%, the maximum values of the surface
 H.Md. Shahin et al. / Underground Space 4 (2019) 201–209
Fig. 11. Surface settlement profiles for saturated sandy ground.
(a) For OCR=2.0
(b) For OCR=8.0
Fig. 12. Surface settlement profiles for saturated clay ground.
settlement are 1.128 and 0.368 m for relative densities of
20% and 78%, respectively. When the rate of the stress
release is set to 20% (early lining), the subsidence of the
207
ground surface can be considerably suppressed. Figure 12
shows the results of the surface settlement profiles in the
clay grounds for an OCR of 2 and 8 in the same manner
as with sandy ground. Herein, the maximum surface settle-
ment is 2.210 m when the lining is set up at a stress release
of 40% in ground with an OCR of 2.0. Because the clay
ground is simulated when considering undrained condi-
tions, the immediate settlement after excavation is as
shown in the figure. Again, when a shallow tunnel is exca-
vated in soft clay ground, an early lining is effective. In
addition, for the deep tunneling in stiff clay soil, the
amount of surface settlement of the ground does not
increase much regardless of the timing of the lining setup,
which is rational.
5 Descriptions of 2D finite element analysis and practical
design
From the results of 2D and 3D analyses as shown in
Figs. 4 and 5, and the results of different stress releases as
shown in Figs. 10–12, the tunnel construction processes
in a 2D analysis were evaluated. For convenience, we dis-
cuss the case of shallow tunnel excavation in soft saturated
clay ground (OCR of 2.0, with rates of stress release of 40%
and 20%, and D/B = 1.0, as shown in Fig. 12).
Figure 13 shows the surface settlement profiles immedi-
ately before the lining, upon completion of the excavation,
and after 50 years have elapsed since the tunnel excavation
(after a complete dissipation of excess pore water pressure).
The left half of the figure shows the results of a finite ele-
ment analysis for a stress release of 40%, and the right half
shows the results for a stress release of 20%. It can be seen
from the figure that, regardless of the rate of stress release,
the surface settlement of the ground upon completion of
the excavation is determined based on the settlement before
setting the lining, and almost no surface settlement occurs
from the placement of the lining until the completion of the
excavation in the 2D analysis. Therefore, subsequent settle-
ment occurs owing to a consolidation of the soil associated
with the dissipation of excess pore water pressure that
develops during a tunnel excavation.
Figure 14 shows the total earth pressure distribution
acting on the tunnel (normal stress acting on the lining).
Fig. 13. Surface settlement profiles at the time of the lining, completion of
the excavation, and after complete dissipation of excess pore water
pressure (D/B = 1.0).
208 H.Md. Shahin et al. / Underground Space 4 (2019) 201–209
(a) Lining at 40% stress release (b) Lining at 20% stress release
Fig. 14. Earth pressure on lining based on analysis and field design (clay,
OCR = 2.0, D/B = 1.0).
The left half shows the results obtained from the 2D finite
analysis. Herein, the dotted line shows the initial earth
pressure distribution, the broken line shows the result
immediately after the lining is set up, and the solid line
shows the result upon completion of the excavation; in
addition, the earth pressure after 50 years (complete dissi-
pation of excess pore water pressure) obtained from the
finite element analyses is also included in the figure. The
right half of the figure shows the earth pressure distribution
upon completion of excavation obtained from the existing
design method (beam-spring model) using the parameters
of Fig. 2. The left half of Figs. 15(a) and (b) shows the
bending moment distribution of the lining obtained from
the finite element analysis when the stress releases are
40% and 20%, respectively. The right half of each figure
shows the bending moment distribution obtained from
the existing design method upon completion of the excava-
tion. The existing design method uses structural analysis
with the assumption that the earth pressure on the tunnel
lining does not depend on the rate of stress release. In
figures showing the results of the finite element analyses,
the solid line indicates the result immediately after excava-
tion, and the broken line shows the result 50 years after the
Scale: 300 kN-m
Field Field
Analysis
design
Analysis
design
(a) Lining at 40% stress re lease (b) Lining at 20% stress release
Fig.15. Bending moment on lining based on analysis and field design
(clay, OCR = 2.0, D/B = 1.0).
S cale: 300 kN
Fiel d Field
Analysis Analysis
desig n design
(a) Lining at 40% stress release (b) Lining at 20% stress release
Fig. 16. Axial force on lining from analysis and field design (clay,
OCR = 2.0, D/B = 1.0).
excavation in which the dissipation of the excess pore water
pressure is completely achieved. Figure 16 shows a similar
arrangement for the axial forces of the lining members.
From these figures, it can be seen that, even if a large defor-
mation occurs in the ground with a stress release of 40%,
the lining force immediately after the excavation does not
differ much from the result of a stress release of 20%, where
the surface settlement is remarkably less. Although a 2D
finite element analysis, in which the rate of stress release
is considered, is used for the prediction of the ground
deformation, surface settlement, and other factors, it does
not provide rational information regarding the tunnel sta-
bility (prediction of the member forces), whereas the anal-
ysis requires a reasonable estimation of the rate of stress
release. In contrast, in the current design practice, com-
pletely different considerations are applied for the evalua-
tion of the stability of the tunnel and in the deformation
of the ground. From such a perspective, a proper evalua-
tion of the properties of the ground materials and struc-
tures, as well as a 3D analysis with proper construction
process, is necessary in the tunnel excavation problem.
6 Conclusions
In this paper, we mainly described the role of a numer-
ical analysis in a tunnel excavation problem in order to ful-
fill the current demand of tunnel design. Finite element
analyses have been carried out for the evaluation of various
properties of ground materials by reproducing the ground
behavior during a tunnel excavation, including the arching
effect. Two-dimensional and 3D finite element analyses on
a tunnel excavation were conducted on sand and clay, and
the design method used in practice including the rate of
stress release was discussed.
It is found that a 2D finite element analysis, where the
rate of the stress release is considered, can be used for
the prediction of the ground deformation and surface set-
tlement; however, it does not provide rational information
for the prediction of tunnel lining forces, such as the stress,
bending moment, and axial force, which emphasize the
necessity of a 3D analysis with a proper construction pro-
cess in the tunnel design.
 H.Md. Shahin et al. / Underground Space 4 (2019) 201–209
From the viewpoint of a numerical analysis, the tunnel
excavation problem is not a special problem and is instead
a boundary value problem that can be solved in the same
way as several other geotechnical problems. However, to
obtain reliable results from a numerical analysis, a sophis-
ticated constitutive model is indispensable for soils, which
can properly explain the mechanical properties of the
ground material; in addition, a proper construction process
needs to be formulated in the simulation technique. It can
be stated that, if the mechanical properties of the ground
material and the construction process are treated properly,
the ground movements and earth pressure around the lin-
ing can be predicted with sufficient accuracy through such
numerical simulations.
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the financial support of the
Advanced Construction Technology Center (ACTEC),
Japan for a portion of the numerical simulation.
References
Amorosi, A., Boldini, D., & Falcone, G. (2014). Numerical prediction of
tunnel performance during centrifuge dynamic tests. Acta Geotechnica,
9(4), 581–596.
Augarde, C. E., & Burd, H. J. (2001). Three-dimensional finite element
analysis of lined tunnels. International Journal for Numerical and
Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, 25(3), 243–262.
Conti, R., Viggiani, G. M. B., & Perugini, F. (2014). Numerical modelling
of centrifuge dynamic tests of circular tunnels in dry sand. Acta
Geotechnica, 9(4), 597–612.
Konda, T., Nagaya, J., Hashimoto, T., Shahin, H. M., & Nakai, T. (2013).
In-situ measurement and numerical analysis on tunnel lining and
ground behavior due to shield excavation. In 3rd International
209
conference on computational methods in tunnelling and subsurface
engineering, Germany, April (pp. 191–202).
Mroueh, H., & Shahrour, I. (2002). Three-dimensional finite element
analysis of the interaction between tunneling and pile foundations.
International Journal for Numerical and analytical Methods in Geome-
chanics, 26(3), 217–230.
Nakahori, C., Inagaki, T., Ushida, k., & Okuno, T. (2013). Construction
of extremely binocular tunnels without drift and with early invert
closure - Torihama tunnel of Maizuru Wakasa motorway. Tunnel and
Underground, 44(1), 15–22, in Japanese.
Nakai, T. (2012). Constitutive modeling of geomaterials – principles and
applications. Boca Raton London New York: CRC Press.
Nakai, T., & Hinokio, M. (2004). A simple elastoplastic model for
normally and over consolidated soils with unified material parameters.
Soils and Foundations, 44(2), 53–70.
Nakai, T., Shahin, H. M., Hinokio, M., Sada, T., & Sung, E. (2005).
Influence of existing building load on the deformation and earth
pressure of ground due to tunneling. In Proceeding of the 16th
ICSMGE, Osaka (pp. 1633–1638).
Peck, R. B. (1969). Deep excavations and tunnelling in soft ground. In
Proceedings of the 7th international conference on soil mechanics and
foundation engineering, Mexico City (pp. 225–290).
Shahin, H. M., Nakai, T., Hinokio, M., Kurimoto, T., & Sada, T. (2004).
Influence of surface loads and construction sequence on ground
response due to tunnelling. Soils and Foundation, 44(2), 71–84.
Shahin, H. M., Nakai, T., Hinokio, M., & Yamaguchi, D. (2004). 3D
effects on earth pressure and displacements during tunnel excavation.
Soils and Foundations, 44(5), 37–49.
Shahin, H. M., Nakai, T., Zhang, F., Kikumoto, M., & Nakahara, E.
(2011). Behavior of ground and response of existing foundation due to
tunneling. Soils and Foundations, 51(3), 395–409.
Sung, E., Shahin, H. M., Nakai, T., Hinokio, M., & Yamamoto, M.
(2006). Ground behavior due to tunnel excavation with existing
foundation. Soils and Foundations, 46(2), 189–207.
Further reading
Addenbrooke, T. I., & Potts, D. M. (2001). Twin tunnel interaction:
Surface and subsurface effects. International Journal of Geomechanics, 1
(2), 249–271.