1 Three-dimensional centrifuge and numerical modeling of

2 the interaction between perpendicularly crossing tunnels

4 Charles W. W. Ng, Thayanan Boonyarak and David Mašín

5  

7 Crown-author: Dr C. W. W. Ng

8 Chair Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Hong Kong University
9 of Science and Technology, Clear Water Bay, Kowloon, Hong Kong.
10 E-mail: cecwwng@ust.hk
11 Tel: 852-2358-8760
12 Fax: 852-2358-1534

13 Corresponding author: Mr T. Boonyarak

14 Research student, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Hong Kong

15 University of Science and Technology, Clear Water Bay, Kowloon, Hong Kong.
16 E-mail: thayanan@ust.hk
17 Tel: 852-6848-8574

18 Co-author: Dr D. Mašín

19 Associate Professor, Faculty of Science, Charles University in Prague, Albertov 6, 128 43

20 Prague 2, Czech Republic.
21 E-mail: masin@natur.cuni.cz
22 Tel: 420-2-2195-1552
23

1 / 30 
  

24 Abstract: Tunnel driving inevitably induces changes in stress and deformation in the ground,

25 which could cause ultimate and serviceability problems to an adjacent tunnel. The effects of

26 induced stress on an existing tunnel and crossing-tunnel interaction are still not fully

27 understood. In this study, a series of three-dimensional centrifuge tests were carried out to

28 investigate the responses of an existing tunnel in sand to the excavation of a new tunnel

29 perpendicularly underneath it. Three-dimensional tunnel advancement was simulated using a

30 novel technique that considers the effects of both volume and weight losses. This novel

31 technique involves using a “donut” to control volume loss and mimic soil removal in-flight.

32 To improve fundamental understanding of stress transfer mechanism during the new tunnel

33 advancement, measured results were back-analyzed three-dimensionally using the finite

34 element method. The maximum measured settlement of the existing tunnel induced by the

35 new tunnel constructed underneath was about 0.3% of tunnel diameter, which may be large

36 enough to cause serviceability problems. The observed large settlement of the existing tunnel

37 was caused not only by a sharp reduction in vertical stress at the invert but also by substantial

38 overburden stress transfer at the crown. The section of the existing tunnel directly above the

39 new tunnel was vertically compressed because the incremental normal stress on the existing

40 tunnel was larger in the vertical direction than in the horizontal direction. The tensile strain

41 and shear stress induced in the existing tunnel exceeded the cracking tensile strain and

42 allowable shear stress limit given by the American Concrete Institute.

43

44 Keywords: perpendicularly crossing-tunnel interaction, three-dimensional centrifuge

45 modeling, three-dimensional numerical analysis, effects of volume and weight losses

46

47

2 / 30 
  

48 Introduction

49 When excavating a new tunnel closely beneath an existing tunnel, the existing tunnel

50 may experience excessive induced stress and deformation. Some case studies have observed

51 large differential tunnel settlement along with cracks on tunnel linings (Cooper et al., 2002;

52 Mohamad et al., 2010; Li & Yuan, 2012). Thus, it is important to understand the interaction

53 between two tunnels in order to assess potential ultimate and serviceability problems with an

54 existing tunnel. However, the responses of an existing tunnel to the excavation of a new

55 tunnel in the field are influenced by many factors that make data interpretation particularly

56 difficult.

57 A limited number of studies related to tunnel responses to the excavation of a new

58 tunnel have been conducted. Kim et al. (1998) carried out a series of tunnel-tunnel interaction

59 tests using a 1-g model in clay. They found that the section of the existing tunnel directly

60 above the new tunnel was vertically compressed due to the large jacking force induced by the

61 installation of the liner of the new tunnel. Although tunnel responses to a new tunnel

62 excavation have been investigated, the current understanding of how stress is redistributed on

63 the existing tunnel is still limited. To improve this understanding, changes in stress on the

64 existing tunnel should be studied.

65 The behavior of a pipeline beneath which a tunnel was excavated in sand has been

66 investigated in centrifuge (Vorster et al., 2005; Marshall et al., 2010b). It was shown that soil-

67 pipe stiffness has a significant influence on the longitudinal bending moment of a pipeline.

68 Tunneling effects on a pipeline have also been investigated using an analytical solution,

69 where elastoplastic soil-pipe-tunnel interaction was considered (Klar et al., 2007). In

70 addition, numerical parametric studies have been carried out to investigate soil-pipe

71 interaction with different focuses (Klar & Marshall, 2008; Lim et al., 2010; Marshall et al.,

72 2010a; Wang et al., 2011; Shi et al., 2013).

 

3 / 30 
  

73

74 The effects of ground loss (or volume loss) caused by tunneling are commonly

75 simulated in a centrifuge test by fitting an annulus around a hollow mandrel to control a

76 specified amount of water extracted (Marshall et al., 2012). Apart from the effects of volume

77 loss, the effects of soil removal inside a tunnel (i.e., the effects of weight loss) also influence

78 the shape and magnitude of ground surface settlement (Verruijt & Booker, 1996; Verruijt &

79 Strack, 2008). When a tunnel is vertically compressed, additional ground surface settlement

80 occurs above the centerline of the tunnel while heave occurs at some distance away according

81 to the analytical solution suggested by Verruijt & Booker (1996). Using numerical analysis

82 with an elastic soil model, Verruijt & Strack (2008) found that a net reduction in tunnel

83 weight causes smaller and narrower ground surface settlement than if the tunnel weight is

84 made equal to the weight of the removed soil. Thus, the effects of weight loss should be

85 considered and simulated in a centrifuge test to improve the understanding of tunnel-tunnel

86 interaction.

87 The major objective of this study was to investigate the responses of an existing tunnel

88 to the excavation of a new tunnel underneath. Furthermore, the effects of volume and weight

89 losses on the interaction between perpendicularly crossing tunnels were systematically

90 studied in a centrifuge test. In this study, two three-dimensional centrifuge tests were carried

91 out in a geotechnical centrifuge located at the Hong Kong University of Science &

92 Technology (Ng et al., 2001, 2002). In addition, three-dimensional numerical back-analyses

93 using a non-linear constitutive model with small strain stiffness were conducted to improve

94 understanding of stress transfer on the existing tunnel.

95

96

4 / 30 
  

97 Three-dimensional centrifuge modeling

98 Centrifuge model package

99 Figure 1a shows a typical plan view of the centrifuge model package of a new tunnel

100 excavation perpendicularly underneath an existing tunnel. A soil model with the dimensions

101 of approximately 1250 mm (l) x 930 mm (w) x 750 mm (h) was prepared for each test. A

102 prototype stress condition can be created by applying a centrifugal acceleration using a

103 geotechnical centrifuge. The gravitational acceleration used in this study was 60 times that of

104 the earth. Appropriate centrifuge scaling laws are summarized in Table 1. A new model

105 tunnel advanced in six excavation stages by 0.6D (where D is tunnel diameter) at a time

106 underneath and at right angles to an existing model tunnel. Reference axes identifying tunnel

107 orientation were defined. In particular the “X” axis and the “Y” axis referred to the

108 longitudinal and transverse directions of the existing tunnel, respectively.

109 It was possible that the six-stage excavation of the new tunnel in this study did not lead

110 to the plane strain conditions. Liu et al. (2009) reported a three-dimensional numerical

111 analysis of a new tunnel excavation underneath and orthogonal to an existing tunnel in rock.

112 They illustrated that the new tunnel excavation has a significant influence on the existing

113 tunnel when the advancing tunnel face is within a distance of ±1D from the centerline of the

114 existing tunnel. In the centrifuge model tests carried out in this study, the advancing tunnel

115 face was located within a distance of ±1.5D from the centerline of the existing tunnel, which

116 is larger than the distance of ±1D reported by Liu et al. (2009). Thus, it is believed that the

117 six-stage tunnel excavation can adequately capture any significant changes in stress acting on

118 the existing tunnel, even if plane strain conditions were not reached in the tests.

119 The two model tunnels had an outer diameter of 100 mm (equivalent to 6 m in

120 prototype scale). The tunnel lining was made of aluminum alloy with a lining thickness

121 equivalent to 180 mm in prototype scale. The thickness of the tunnel lining was converted to
 

5 / 30 
  

122 that of concrete with equivalent flexural stiffness. Young’s modulus of concrete (Ec) was

123 estimated to be 33 GPa by assuming that the compressive strength (f΄c) is 50 MPa (ACI,

124 2011). The tunnel lining thicknesses were thus equivalent to 230 and 420 mm in the

125 transverse and longitudinal directions of each tunnel, respectively.

126 Figure 1b shows an elevation view of the centrifuge model package. Cover depth-to-

127 diameter ratios (C/Ds) of the existing tunnel and the new tunnel were 2 and 3.5, respectively

128 (i.e., cover depths were 12 and 21 m, respectively, in prototype scale). A pillar depth-to-

129 diameter ratio (P/D) of 0.5 (i.e., the pillar depth was 3 m in prototype scale) was adopted,

130 where the pillar depth is the clear distance between each tunnel. The instrumentation shown

131 in the figure is explained in the following section. Toyoura sand was used due to its small

132 particle size relative to the size of the model tunnels (i.e., the ratio of model tunnel size to

133 particle size was 500). Thus, particle size effects were expected to be insignificant (Goodings

134 and Gillette, 1996). The average particle size (D50), maximum void ratio (emax), minimum

135 void ratio (emin), specific gravity (Gs) and critical state internal friction angle (φc) of Toyoura

136 sand are 0.17 mm, 0.977, 0.597, 2.64 and 30°, respectively (Ishihara, 1993). The sand sample

137 was prepared in each test using a dry pluviation technique. The density of a soil sample was

138 controlled by both the drop height of sand and the rate of pluviation, which in this study were

139 500 mm and about 100 kg per hour, respectively.

140

141 In-flight tunneling simulation technique

142 Figure 2a illustrates a novel modeling device, which is called the “donut”, to simulate

143 tunnel advancement in a centrifuge test. A pair of rubber bags, one mounted outside and the

144 other mounted inside a model tunnel, was used to simulate the effects of both volume and

145 weight losses at each stage of excavation in the centrifuge. The tunnel lining of 100 mm in

146 diameter (or 6 m in prototype scale) was made of aluminum alloy and its lining bending
 

6 / 30 
  

147 stiffness per unit width of 0.16 kN.m2/m (or 33.5 MN.m2/m in prototype scale) and thickness

148 of 3 mm (or 180 mm in prototype scale) were scaled properly.

149 During the centrifuge model preparation, each rubber bag was filled with a heavy fluid

150 (ZnCl2) having a density similar to that of the soil sample or about 1500 kg/m3 to simulate the

151 presence of soil. Each outer rubber bag was filled with a known amount of the heavy fluid

152 representing an equivalent percentage of “volume loss”, which in this study was 2%. Volume

153 loss was simulated by controlling the outflow of the heavy fluid from the outer rubber bag.

154 Likewise, each inner rubber bag was filled with the heavy fluid which was drained away at

155 different stages to simulate weight loss due to tunnel excavation in the centrifuge.

156 Tunnel simulation in this study was intended to mimic the effects of closed-face shield

157 tunneling. Mair & Taylor (1997) reported typical volume losses due to tunnel excavation

158 using earth pressure balance shields in sand and soft clay of up to 1% and 2%, respectively.

159 Shirlaw et al. (2003) and Abrams (2007) reported volume losses in mixed face tunneling

160 involving clay and sand of between 1 and 4%. Based on these reports, a volume loss of 2%

161 was adopted in this study.

162 Figure 2b shows the advancing sequence of the new model tunnel. Excavated sections 1

163 to 6 were assembled to form the new tunnel. Both ends of the new tunnel were closed to

164 prevent the displacement of soil into the tunnel. The six advancing sections, each

165 representing a length of 0.6D or 3.6 m in prototype scale, were controlled independently in-

166 flight in a centrifuge test. Each rubber bag was connected to an outlet valve by a drainage

167 tube. Each valve could be opened in-flight allowing outflow of the heavy fluid which was

168 collected in a reservoir. To simulate effects of both volume and weight losses simultaneously,

169 the two valves to which the inner and outer bags in each section were connected were

170 regulated to simulate the effects of tunneling in-flight. To simulate only volume loss, only the

7 / 30 
  

171 valve to which the outer bag in each section was connected was regulated, whereas the valve

172 to which the inner bag in the same section was connected was closed.

173

174 Test program

175 Two centrifuge tests were conducted. In Test S, the effects of volume and weight losses

176 due to the excavation of a new tunnel were modeled simultaneously. In Test VW, the effects

177 of volume loss were simulated first followed by the effects of weight loss. When only the

178 effects of volume loss are interpreted, the first part of Test VW is called Test V. Compared

179 with Tests V and VW, Test S better simulates tunnel advancement conditions in the field.

180 Thus, responses of the existing tunnel were mainly investigated in Test S. A summary of the

181 modeling sequences carried out in both tests is given in Table 2.

182 In order to compare measured results from both tests, the densities of sand in both tests

183 were controlled within the same range using the dry pluviation technique discussed

184 previously. The average dry densities of sand in Test S and Test VW were 1529 and 1531

185 kg/m3, equivalent to relative densities of 64% and 65%, respectively.

186

187 Instrumentation

188 Figure 3a illustrates the types and locations of instruments installed on the existing

189 tunnel to investigate responses of the existing tunnel in the longitudinal and transverse

190 directions. The existing tunnel was considered to be wished-in-place as both ends of the

191 model tunnel were closed to prevent soil movement into the tunnel.

192 In the longitudinal direction of the existing tunnel, tunnel settlement was measured

193 using linear variable differential transformers (LVDTs) connected to extension rods, which

194 were fixed along the crown of the existing tunnel. The extension rods were encased in hollow

195 tubes to minimize friction with the surrounding soil. During the dry pluviation of sand, the
 

8 / 30 
  

196 extension rods were temporarily supported by a structural frame, which was removed after

197 the sand sample reached the desired height of 750 mm. In Test S, LVDTs measuring ground

198 surface and tunnel settlement were separately installed on each side of the centerline of the

199 new tunnel. The main purpose of this LVDT arrangement was to identify a zone of influence

200 of the new tunnel excavation on the existing tunnel. After completing Test S, the LVDTs

201 were moved closer to the centerline of the new tunnel where significant ground surface and

202 tunnel settlement occurs so that the responses could be observed in Test VW.

203 To measure strain in the longitudinal direction of the existing tunnel, 14 sets of strain

204 gauges or longitudinal bending moment transducers were installed along the crown and invert

205 of the existing tunnel. Full Wheatstone bridge semiconductor strain gauges having a gauge

206 factor of 140 were used to compensate for temperature effects.

207 In the transverse direction of the existing tunnel, Figure 3b shows a sectional view of

208 the existing tunnel at the location directly above the new tunnel. Tunnel deformation was

209 measured using four potentiometers installed at the crown, at each springline and at the invert

210 to record changes in the horizontal and vertical diameters of the existing tunnel. The

211 potentiometers were mounted on a plate connected to a frame that was fixed to the lining of

212 the existing tunnel (see Fig. 1b). A linear potentiometer is a variable resistor connected to

213 three leads. The first two leads are connected to both ends of the resistor, so the resistance

214 between them is fixed. The third lead is connected to a slider that travels along the resistor

215 varying the resistance between itself and the other two connections. Changes in resistance in

216 a linear potentiometer are linearly proportional to the distance travelled by the slider (Todd,

217 1975). In this study, the accuracy of a potentiometer was about ±1 mm in prototype scale,

218 taking into account the fluctuation of data before the start of the new tunnel excavation.

219 In addition to measuring the deformation of the existing tunnel, eight sets of strain

220 gauges were installed evenly at an interval of 45o around the tunnel circumference to measure
 

9 / 30 
  

221 strain in the transverse direction. Full Wheatstone bridge foil strain gauges having a gauge

222 factor of 2 were used instead of the semiconductor type simply because it was not possible to

223 mount the latter inside the model tunnel.

224

225 Test procedure

226 After the centrifuge model package was prepared and all transducers calibrated in 1g,

227 the model package was transferred to the centrifuge platform. The centrifuge was gradually

228 spun up to a nominal gravitational acceleration of 60g. Before commencing new tunnel

229 advancement, sufficient time was allowed to ensure that there was no further ground surface

230 settlement. Data from all the transducers measured at the acceleration of 60g were taken as

231 initial readings. Subsequently, in-flight tunnel advancement was carried out according to the

232 corresponding modeling sequence (refer to Table 2). Sufficient time was provided to allow all

233 the transducer readings had stabilized before each excavated section was advanced to the next

234 stage. After completion of tunnel advancement, the centrifuge was spun down.

235

236 Three-dimensional numerical back-analysis

237 In addition to centrifuge testing, numerical back-analyses were carried out using the

238 commercial finite element program ABAQUS (Hibbitt et al., 2008).

239

240 Finite element mesh and boundary conditions

241 Figure 4a shows the three-dimensional finite element mesh used to back-analyze the

242 two tests. The mesh replicated the model geometry of the centrifuge test. Owing to

243 symmetry, only half of the entire mesh was required. The mesh had dimensions of 625 mm x

244 930 mm x 750 mm in model scale. An eight-node brick element was used to model the soil.

245 The boundaries adopted in the finite element analysis consisted of roller supports applied to
 

10 / 30 
  

246 three vertical sides (i.e., planes ABCD, BCGF and EFGH) and pin supports applied to the

247 base of the mesh (i.e., plane CDHG). A plane of symmetry was identified and applied at

248 X/D=0 (i.e., plane ADHE).

249 Apart from the back-analysis of centrifuge tests, a greenfield case (i.e., without the

250 presence of the existing tunnel) was carried out using the same mesh to compare and

251 highlight the difference between computed ground surface settlements due to the construction

252 of the new tunnel with and without the presence of the existing tunnel.

253 Figure 4b shows details of the two perpendicularly crossing tunnels. A four-node shell

254 element was used to model the tunnel lining. A tie constraint between the outer surface of the

255 existing tunnel and the surrounding soil was adopted. For ease of identification and

256 comparison, a monitoring section of the existing tunnel was located directly above the new

257 tunnel (i.e., X/D = 0).

258

259 Constitutive model and model parameters

260 A hypoplastic constitutive model with small strain stiffness was adopted in this study to

261 model dry Toyoura sand. Hypoplastic constitutive models were developed to describe the

262 non-linear response of granular material (Kolymbas, 1991; Gudehus, 1996; von

263 Wolffersdorff, 1996; Wu et al., 1996; Gudehus & Mašín, 2009; Mašín, 2012). Intergranular

264 strain concept or small strain stiffness has been incorporated into hypoplastic constitutive

265 models (Niemunis & Herle, 1997). Herle & Gudehus (1999) reported calibration results of

266 model parameters (φc, hs, n, edo, eco and eio) for Toyoura sand. Triaxial test results of Maeda

267 and Miura (1999) was used to determine exponent α and β by curve fitting. Small strain

268 stiffness or intergranular strain concept parameters (mR, mT, R, βr and χ) were calibrated by

269 curve fitting the triaxial test results with local strain measurements of Yamashita et al. (2000).

11 / 30 
  

270 The coefficient of at-rest earth pressure K0 was assumed to be 0.5. The model parameters are

271 summarized in Table 3.

272 The tunnel lining made of aluminum alloy was modeled as a linear elastic material with

273 a Young’s modulus of 69 GPa. Density and Poisson’s ratio of the tunnel lining were assumed

274 to be 2700 kg/m3 and 0.33, respectively.

275

276 Numerical modeling procedures

277 The numerical modeling of the tunnel-tunnel interaction basically followed the

278 centrifuge test procedure. Since centrifuge tests were carried out in dry sand, drained

279 effective stress analysis was adopted in the numerical modeling. First, a gravitational

280 acceleration of 60g was incrementally applied. The existing tunnel and the lining of the new

281 tunnel were modeled as wished-in-place. To back-analyze the centrifuge model tests, the

282 volume of heavy fluid, which has the same unit weight as the soil adopted, was modeled as

283 being identical to the volume of soil elements around and inside the lining of the new tunnel.

284 For simulating new tunnel advancement numerically, the soil elements that produced an

285 equivalent volume loss of 2% were “removed” by deactivating the relevant soil elements

286 around the lining of the new tunnel. Likewise, relevant soil elements inside the lining of the

287 new tunnel were “excavated” or deactivated to mimic the effects of weight loss. Modeling

288 sequences of tunnel advancement in numerical analysis were identical to those in centrifuge

289 tests (refer to Table 2).

290

291 Interpretation of results

292 Measured and computed results reported in this study are in prototype scale unless

293 otherwise stated. In order to assess any serviceability problem with the existing tunnel, both

294 measured and computed results were compared with subway tunnel codes of practices (BTS,
 

12 / 30 
  

295 2000; LTA, 2000; BD, 2009). In addition, measured field data from two case histories of

296 crossing tunnels were obtained for comparisons. Details of the case histories are summarized

297 in Table 4.

298

299 Surface settlement above the existing tunnel

300 Figure 5 compares measured and computed surface settlements normalized by tunnel

301 diameter (δ/D) for different modeling sequences at the end of tunneling. The imposed volume

302 loss was 2% in each test. In Test S, where the effects of volume and weight losses were

303 modeled simultaneously, the measured maximum normalized surface settlement was about

304 0.34% (20 mm). When only the effects of volume loss were simulated (Test V), the

305 maximum normalized surface settlement was about 15% larger than that in Test S. This is

306 because soil heave due to weight loss (or stress relief) was not simulated in Test V, resulting

307 in the larger ground surface settlement. On the other hand, when the effects of weight loss

308 were simulated after the simulation of volume loss (Test VW), additional surface settlement

309 was induced. The maximum surface settlement in Test VW was about 10% larger than that in

310 Test V. This finding was somewhat unexpected initially, but after detailed investigation it

311 was revealed that when the heavy fluid inside the rubber bags mounted inside the tunnel

312 lining was drained away, the supporting pressure exerted by the heavy fluid on the new

313 tunnel lining was removed. Consequently, the new tunnel was compressed vertically by

314 overburden pressure (to be further discussed later) causing the additional surface settlement.

315 Although the removal of soil from inside the new tunnel in Test VW led to stress relief and

316 hence soil heave, the effects of vertical compression of the new tunnel on ground settlement

317 were more pronounced. Verruijt & Booker (1996) investigated the effects of vertical

318 compression of a tunnel on ground surface displacements by an analytical elastic solution and

319 they reported that surface settlement occurs directly above the tunnel whereas heave takes
 

13 / 30 
  

320 place at some distance away. In the physical model tests carried out in this study, however,

321 the vertical compression of the new tunnel only caused surface settlement but not heave. This

322 is expected since soil is not elastic, as assumed in the analytical elastic solution.

323 Although the overall trends between measured and computed results were comparable,

324 the maximum measured and computed surface settlements of Tests S, V and VW still

325 differed by 30, 14 and 8 %, respectively. One of the possible reasons for the discrepancies is

326 that the stress-induced anisotropy computed implicitly by the hypoplastic constitutive model

327 could not describe the induced soil anisotropic responses in centrifuge tests exactly. Ng &

328 Lee (2005) have illustrated that the magnitude and profile of computed ground surface

329 settlements are strongly influenced by the degrees of stiffness anisotropy assumed in their

330 numerical simulations.

331 To investigate the effects of the existing tunnel on the surface settlement induced by the

332 advancing perpendicularly crossing tunnel underneath, computed results of the greenfield

333 case were also compared with the computed surface settlements above the existing tunnel for

334 the three cases (S, V and VW) considered. The computed greenfield maximum surface

335 settlement was significantly larger than (about 65%) that due to the presence of the existing

336 tunnel. Thus, stiffening effects due to the presence of an existing tunnel should not be ignored

337 in design analysis.

338

339 Settlement of the existing tunnel and tunnel gradient

340 Figure 6 shows the measured and computed settlements of the existing tunnel in the

341 longitudinal direction at the end of tunnel excavation. Maximum measured normalized tunnel

342 settlement (δ/D) in Test S was about 0.3% (18 mm) which exceeded one allowable limit of

343 15 mm (LTA, 2000) but was still within another allowable limit of 20 mm (BD, 2009).

344 Settlement of the existing tunnel for different modeling sequences had the same overall trend
 

14 / 30 
  

345 as the measured ground surface settlement above the existing tunnel (refer to Fig. 5). The

346 tunnel settlement measured in Test V and Test VW were larger than those measured in Test S

347 and exceeded the permissible limits set by LTA (2000) and BD (2009). The measured and

348 computed tunnel settlements in Test S were comparable, suggesting that the stress transfer

349 mechanism on the existing tunnel may be investigated using numerical analysis.

350 The gradient of the existing tunnel was calculated from the slope of measured

351 settlement of the existing tunnel. The maximum tunnel gradient in Test S of 1:1600 exceeded

352 one limit of 1:2500 (Li & Yuan, 2012) but was still within another limit of 1:1000 (LTA,

353 2000; BD, 2009). The maximum gradient was located at a distance of about 2.5D from the

354 centerline of the new tunnel (i.e., X/D = 2.5).

355 In addition, settlements of the existing tunnel and gradients in Test S were compared

356 with data from two case histories where the settlement of an existing tunnel was induced by a

357 new tunnel excavation underneath. Given the potential differences between field monitoring

358 and centrifuge tests in terms of ground conditions, tunneling methods and the flexural rigidity

359 of the tunnel (see Table 4), the field monitoring data and centrifuge test results cannot be

360 compared quantitatively but it is possible to illustrate qualitatively the general trend of

361 settlement of the existing tunnel.

362

363 Induced strain and shear stress in the longitudinal direction of the existing tunnel

364 Figure 7 illustrates the induced strains measured along the invert in the longitudinal

365 direction of the existing tunnel at the end of tunnel excavation. Induced strain in the

366 longitudinal direction of the existing tunnel was measured by strain gauges installed at the

367 crown and the invert of the existing tunnel (refer to Fig. 3a). Due to the new tunnel

368 excavation, sagging moment was induced at the location directly above the new tunnel (i.e.,

369 X/D = 0), resulting in tensile (+ve) and compressive (-ve) strain induced at the invert and the
 

15 / 30 
  

370 crown of the existing tunnel, respectively. The cracking tensile strain of unreinforced

371 concrete is 150 με (ACI, 2001). In Test S, the maximum tensile strain of about 152 με was

372 induced at the location directly above the new tunnel. Hence cracks might appear on the

373 lining of the existing tunnel. Although most of the tunnel lining was made of reinforced

374 concrete, induced tensile strain can widen the gap in the circumferential joint and cause water

375 leakage. The maximum induced tensile strain was larger in Tests V and VW than in Test S

376 within a distance of 2D from the centerline of the new tunnel (i.e., from X/D = 0 to 2). This is

377 because the maximum settlement of the existing tunnel was larger in Tests V and VW than in

378 Test S (refer to Fig. 6).

379 The shear stress on the tunnel lining was deduced from the slope of the induced strain

380 in the longitudinal direction of the existing tunnel. For comparison purposes, an allowable

381 shear stress of 660 kPa was estimated according to an assumed concrete compressive strength

382 (f΄c) of 50 MPa and a reduction factor of 0.55 (ACI, 2011). In Test S, the maximum shear

383 stress was 780 kPa, which exceeded the allowable shear stress, suggesting that cracks might

384 have appeared on the tunnel lining. There was large shear stress on the lining of the existing

385 tunnel at a distance between 2D and 3D from the centerline of the new tunnel.

386 Liu (1990; cited by Liao et al., 2008, p. 428) reported a case history from Shanghai in

387 which diagonal cracks were observed on tunnel linings when differential settlement occurred

388 on a water transmission tunnel. Liao et al. (2008) suggested that shear stress in the tunnel

389 lining was one of the key factors influencing tunnel deformation. The cracks in their study

390 were located in an area between the location of maximum tunnel settlement and the inflection

391 point of the tunnel. In this study, the inflection point was estimated to be at a distance

392 between 2.5D and 3D from the centerline of the new tunnel.

393

16 / 30 
  

394 Given the effects of volume and weight losses on cross-tunnel interaction were

395 investigated separately, it is evident that the trends of surface and tunnel settlements and

396 induced strains in the longitudinal direction of the existing tunnel in the two tests are all

397 similar but differ only in magnitude. Thus, it suffices to report results from Test S only from

398 now on.

399

400 Tunnel deformation

401 Figure 8a shows measured and computed deformations of the existing tunnel (at X/D =

402 0) during the advancement of the new tunnel in Test S. It can be seen that the existing tunnel

403 was vertically compressed and horizontally elongated as the new tunnel advanced. The

404 measured maximum normalized vertical compression and horizontal elongation of the

405 existing tunnel were 0.04% and of 0.07%, respectively. The measured maximum normalized

406 vertical compression and horizontal elongation of the existing tunnel occurred when the new

407 tunnel face was at -0.3D and -0.9D away from the centerline of the existing tunnel,

408 respectively. When the excavated section of the new tunnel was directly underneath the

409 existing tunnel (i.e., at Y/D = 0.3), a significant reduction in both vertical compression and

410 horizontal elongation of the existing tunnel was observed. As the new tunnel passed the

411 existing tunnel, the existing tunnel continued to deform but at a reduced rate.

412 On the other hand, the computed results show almost the same magnitude (or

413 symmetrical) of vertical compression and horizontal elongation of the existing tunnel due to

414 the advancement of the new tunnel. This is because uniform soil displacement around the

415 new tunnel was imposed in the numerical analysis. In the centrifuge test, however, soil

416 displacement around the new tunnel was unlikely to be uniform, resulting in the

417 unsymmetrical measured vertical compression and horizontal elongation of the existing

418 tunnel. The computed maximum vertical compression of the existing tunnel is about two
 

17 / 30 
  

419 times larger than the measured one when the advancing tunnel face was located at less than

420 half the tunnel diameter (i.e., at Y/D = -0.3) away from the centerline of the existing tunnel.

421 The maximum horizontal elongation is similarly over-predicted at Y/D = -0.3. However, both

422 measured and computed results suggest that the most critical vertical compression and

423 horizontal elongation of the existing tunnel occurred when the approaching new tunnel face

424 was between -0.9D and -0.3D away from the existing one. At the end of new tunnel

425 excavation, measured and computed deformations of the existing tunnel were consistent with

426 each other. This increase the confidence in the conclusions derived from the test.

427 According to one code of practice (BTS, 2000), the minimum and maximum diameters

428 of a tunnel should not differ by more than 2% (i.e., (Dmax – Dmin)/D0 ≤ 2%), where D0 is the

429 initial diameter of the tunnel which equals to 6 m in this study. This allowable limit was not

430 exceeded. But because the existing tunnel was vertically compressed even before the new

431 tunnel excavation due to the vertical stress being larger than the horizontal stress (i.e., K0 <

432 1), induced deformation may enlarge the gap in the radial joint and cause water leakage.

433 Kim et al. (1998) carried out a 1-g physical model test of crossing tunnels in clay. They

434 reported that the existing tunnel was compressed vertically by the large jacking forces from

435 the miniature tunneling machine when the new tunnel liner was driven. The lining of the new

436 tunnel in this study was wished-in-place before tunnel excavation. As the new tunnel

437 advanced, the existing tunnel was compressed vertically. This is because stress transfer due to

438 the new tunnel excavation caused an increase in the vertical stress acting on the existing

439 tunnel. More explanations are given later.

440 Figure 8b shows the computed deformation of the new tunnel at the location directly

441 underneath the existing tunnel (i.e., Y/D = 0) to explain the effects of different modeling

442 sequences on ground surface settlement (Fig. 5) and settlement of the existing tunnel (Fig. 6).

443 In case S, the tunnel was slightly vertically compressed due to the vertical stress being larger
 

18 / 30 
  

444 than the horizontal stress when K0 was smaller than 1. On the contrary, when the soil around

445 the new tunnel was removed but not the soil inside the tunnel in case V, the tunnel became

446 elongated vertically. This is because the vertical stress of soil inside the new tunnel was

447 larger than the horizontal stress. However, after the soil inside the new tunnel was removed

448 (case VW), which effectively meant that the supporting pressure inside the tunnel was also

449 removed causing additional ground settlement above the new tunnel, the new tunnel became

450 vertically compressed. The vertical compression of the new tunnel at the end of excavation

451 was about three times larger in case VW than in case S. Consequently, in case VW the

452 vertical compression of the new tunnel dominated the effects of stress relief due to soil

453 removal from inside the new tunnel.

454

455 Induced strain in the transverse direction of the existing tunnel

456 Figure 9 shows the measured and computed strains induced at the outer face of the

457 existing tunnel at the end of tunnel excavation in Test S. Induced strains at the outer face of

458 the existing tunnel were measured by strain gauges fixed to the tunnel lining in the transverse

459 direction at the location directly above the new tunnel (refer to Fig. 3b). The positive and

460 negative signs denote induced tensile and induced compressive strain, respectively.

461 According to the measured results, there was induced compressive strain at the crown,

462 shoulders, knees and invert while there was induced tensile strain at both springlines. By

463 considering strain in the transverse direction, it was confirmed that the existing tunnel was

464 vertically compressed and horizontally elongated (see Fig. 8a). Computed results were

465 comparable to measured results, suggesting that the tunnel responses and stress transfer

466 mechanism in the transverse direction of an existing tunnel may be studied using numerical

467 analysis.

19 / 30 
  

468 From measured results, the maximum induced compressive strain and induced tensile

469 strain of 67 and 56 με occurred at the invert and at the left springline, respectively. The

470 maximum tensile strain on the tunnel lining was still below the cracking tensile strain limit of

471 150 με (ACI, 2001). However, if strain in the transverse direction was large even before the

472 start of the new tunnel excavation, tunneling may cause cracks on the lining of the existing

473 tunnel. It should be noted that induced strain was more significant in the vertical and

474 horizontal directions (i.e., at the crown, springlines and invert) than in the diagonal direction

475 (i.e., at the shoulders and knees). However, this observation may only be applicable for the

476 soil type and in-situ stress conditions adopted in this study.

477

478 Incremental normal stress on the existing tunnel

479 Figure 10a shows the computed incremental normal stress in the transverse direction of

480 the section of the existing tunnel directly above the new tunnel in case S. The effects of the

481 changes in normal stress on the responses of the existing tunnel in the transverse direction

482 were investigated at four chosen locations—the crown, both springlines and the invert. The

483 positive and negative signs denote increases and decreases in stress relative to that before

484 tunneling, respectively. At the crown, normal stress increased as a result of stress transfer in

485 the longitudinal direction of the new tunnel (Ng & Lee, 2005). At both springlines, normal

486 stress reduced slightly. At the invert, there was a sharp reduction of normal stress when the

487 excavated section of the new tunnel reached directly underneath the existing tunnel (i.e., Y/D

488 = 0.3).

489 To investigate tunnel deformations, net incremental stress is adopted and defined as the

490 difference between the summation of stresses in the vertical direction and the summation of

491 stresses in the horizontal direction acting on the existing tunnel ([ΔσCr+ΔσIn] – [ΔσL-sp+ΔσR-

492 sp]). The positive and negative signs of computed net incremental stress denote an increase
 

20 / 30 
  

493 and a decrease in stress in the vertical direction on the existing tunnel, respectively. When the

494 new tunnel advanced towards the existing tunnel (i.e., from Y/D = -1.5 to -0.3), there was an

495 increase in net incremental stress suggesting that the existing tunnel was vertically

496 compressed. On the other hand, when the new tunnel advanced beyond the existing tunnel

497 (i.e., from Y/D = 0.3 to 1.5), a reduction in net incremental stress occurred, suggesting that

498 the existing tunnel was elongated vertically. At the end of new tunnel excavation, the

499 computed net incremental stress approached zero, revealing there was little change in the

500 diameter of the existing tunnel. This is consistent with the measured and computed

501 deformation of the existing tunnel shown in Figure 8a.

502 Figure 10b illustrates the computed normal stress distribution along the crown and

503 invert in the longitudinal direction of the existing tunnel at the end of excavation in Test S. At

504 the location directly above the new tunnel (i.e., from X/D = 0 to 0.5), stress increased

505 substantially at the crown whereas it decreased significantly at the invert of the existing

506 tunnel. Along the crown, normal stress decreased as the distance away from the centerline of

507 the new tunnel increased. On the other hand, normal stress along the invert increased with

508 distance until it reached a peak at 2D away from the new tunnel’s centerline.

509 The large tunnel settlement (Fig. 6), large induced strain in the longitudinal direction

510 and large shear stress (Fig. 7) are mainly caused by two factors. First, soil arching caused a

511 sharp reduction in vertical stress above the centerline of the new tunnel and an increase in

512 vertical stress at some distance away due to stress redistribution along the invert of the

513 existing tunnel. Second, overburden stress transfer along the crown of the existing tunnel

514 caused vertical stress to increase substantially. Soil arching is explained in the next section.

515 The changes in normal stress acting on both the crown and the invert of the existing

516 tunnel exceeded the limits defined in two codes of practice (i.e., +15 kPa for LTA, 2000; ±20

517 kPa for BD, 2009). Up to an offset distance of 1.5D from the centerline of the new tunnel,
 

21 / 30 
  

518 changes in normal stress along the crown of the existing tunnel also exceeded the allowable

519 limit. Along the invert, normal stress reduced by more than the codes of practice would allow

520 in the area between the centerline and a distance of 1D away from the centerline of the new

521 tunnel. At a distance of 1.5D to 5D away from the centerline of the new tunnel, the increase

522 in normal stress along the invert exceeded the recommended limits as well. Thus, the

523 structural capacity of the existing tunnel should be reviewed based on changes in the loading

524 condition around it.

525

526 Direction of principal stress

527 Figures 11a and 11b show the computed directions of principal stress in case S in the

528 transverse direction of the existing tunnel before tunnel excavation and when the new tunnel

529 reached the fourth section (Ex4 in the figures), respectively. There was a slight decrease in

530 the magnitude of principal stress above each of section 1 to 3 (Ex1 to Ex3) as a result of

531 tunnel excavation in each previous stage. Directly underneath the invert of the existing tunnel

532 (i.e., above Ex4), both minor and major principal stresses reduced sharply. They did so

533 because the soil above the existing tunnel tended to settle due to the new tunnel excavation

534 but was prevented from doing so by the existing tunnel. Subsequently, overburden stress was

535 transferred to the crown of the existing tunnel as a result of stress redistribution in the

536 longitudinal direction of the new tunnel causing an increase in the major principal stress. The

537 stress transfer around the existing tunnel resulted in a decrease in normal stress at the invert

538 and both springlines and an increase in normal stress at the tunnel crown when the section of

539 the new tunnel directly underneath the existing tunnel was being excavated (refer to Fig. 10a;

540 when Y/D = 0.3).

541 Figures 11c and 11d show the computed directions and magnitudes of principal stresses

542 in the longitudinal direction of the existing tunnel, before tunnel advancement and after the
 

22 / 30 
  

543 new tunnel reached the fourth section (Ex4), respectively. As expected, the magnitudes (i.e.,

544 sizes of vectors) of both major and minor principal stresses near the new tunnel reduced

545 substantially due to the effects of volume loss (or shearing) and stress relief, which in turn

546 were due to the advancement of the new tunnel. As illustrated by the rotation of principal

547 stresses, shear stress was induced due to the excavation of the new tunnel. Since the existing

548 tunnel and the soil further away from the new tunnel (i.e., that directly above Ex5 and Ex6 in

549 Fig. 11b and at X/D greater than 1 in Fig. 11d) should have larger shear strength and stiffness

550 than the soil closer to the new tunnel due to stress relief and shearing, stress redistribution (or

551 soil arching) took place to maintain the overall equilibrium, as revealed by the rotations and

552 the increases in magnitude of principal stresses of the soil above the existing tunnel in

553 Figures 11b and 11d. Also soil arching caused principal stress to rotate in direction in the soil

554 located at X/D greater than 1 and below the invert of the existing tunnel (see Fig. 11d).

555

556 Summary and conclusions

557 Three-dimensional centrifuge and numerical investigations of the interaction between

558 two perpendicularly crossing tunnels were carried out in dry sand. In order to simulate the

559 effects of both volume and weight losses on an existing tunnel due to the construction of a

560 new tunnel underneath, a novel “donut” was developed to control volume loss and to mimic

561 soil removal in-flight. Based on the measured and computed results, the following

562 conclusions may be drawn:

563 1. The measured maximum ground surface settlement was the smallest when the

564 effects of both volume and weight losses were modeled simultaneously (i.e., Test

565 S). On the other hand, the surface settlement induced when the effects of weight

566 loss were simulated after modeling volume loss (i.e., Test VW) was 10% larger

567 than that induced when only volume loss was simulated (i.e., Test V). This is
 

23 / 30 
  

568 because when the heavy fluid inside the rubber bags mounted inside the tunnel

569 lining was drained away, the supporting pressure exerted by the heavy fluid on the

570 lining of the new tunnel was removed. Consequently, the new tunnel was

571 compressed vertically by overburden pressure, causing the additional surface

572 settlement. Numerical simulations show that the presence of an existing tunnel can

573 stiffen the ground and reduce ground surface settlement due to new tunnel

574 excavation significantly.

575 2. The measured settlement of the existing tunnel was 15% larger in Test V than that

576 in Test S. This is because the removal of soil mass in Test S led to stress relief

577 resulting in ground heave which reduced the settlement induced by volume loss.

578 However, there was about 10% more tunnel settlement in Test VW than in Test V.

579 This is because the removal of soil from inside the new tunnel resulted in a

580 reduction in supporting pressure on the tunnel lining, leading to the vertical

581 compression of the new tunnel. This in turn induced settlement of the existing

582 tunnel above it. The measured ground surface settlements were consistent with the

583 observed tunnel settlements in all tests.

584 3. Due to the excavation of a new tunnel underneath the existing tunnel, the maximum

585 measured settlement of the existing tunnel in Test S was 0.3%D, where D is tunnel

586 diameter. This settlement exceeded the permissible limits of serviceability (e.g.

587 LTA, 2000). Moreover, the measured tensile strain and shear stress induced in the

588 existing tunnel exceeded the cracking tensile strain (ACI, 2001) and allowable shear

589 stress limit (ACI, 2011), respectively.

590 4. The section of the existing tunnel immediately above the new tunnel was vertically

591 compressed at every stage of excavation of the new tunnel in Test S. This is

24 / 30 
  

592 because net incremental normal stress on the existing tunnel was larger in the

593 vertical direction than in the horizontal direction.

594 5. At the end of the tunnel excavation, computed vertical stress increased substantially

595 at the crown of the existing tunnel located directly above the new tunnel. This is

596 because of stress transfer in the longitudinal direction of the new tunnel during the

597 tunnel advancement. On the other hand, there was a sharp reduction in the

598 computed vertical stress at the invert of the section of the existing tunnel

599 immediately above the new tunnel. As a result of soil arching and stress

600 redistribution, however, the computed vertical stress acting on the invert of the

601 existing tunnel increased significantly to reach a peak at an offset distance of about

602 2D from the centerline of the new tunnel.

603

604 Acknowledgements

605 The authors would like to acknowledge financial support from the Research Grants

606 Council of the HKSAR (General Research Fund project 617410).

607

608 References

609 Abrams, A. J. (2007). Earth pressure balance (EPB) tunneling induced settlements in the Tren

610 Urbano Project, Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico. Thesis (M. Eng.), Dept. of Civil and

611 Environmental Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

612 American Concrete Institute. (2001). Control of Cracking in Concrete Structures (ACI 224R-

613 01). M.I.

614 American Concrete Institute. (2011). Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete

615 and Commentary (ACI 318M-11). M.I.

616 British Tunnelling Society (2000). Specification for Tunnelling. Thomas Telford, London.
 

25 / 30 
  

617 Building Department (2009). Practice Note for Authorized Persons APP-24. Technical notes

618 for guidance in assessing the effects of civil engineering construction / building

619 development on railway structures and operations. Building department of the

620 government of HKSAR.

621 Cooper, M. L., Chapman, D. N., Rogers, C. D. F. & Chan, A. H. C. (2002). Movements in

622 the Piccadilly Line tunnels due to the Heathrow Express construction. Géotechnique

623 52(4): 243-257.

624 Goodings, D. J. & Gillette, D. R. (1996). Model size effects in centrifuge models of granular

625 slope instability. Geotech. Testing J. 19(3): 277-285.

626 Gudehus, G. (1996). A comprehensive constitutive equation for granular materials. Soils and

627 foundations 36(1): 1-12.

628 Gudehus, G. & Mašín, D. (2009). Graphical representation of constitutive equations.

629 Géotechnique 59(2): 147–151.

630 Herle, I. & Gudehus, G. (1999). Determination of parameters of a hypoplastic constitutive

631 model from properties of grain assemblies. Mechanics of cohesive-frictional materials

632 4: 461-486.

633 Hibbitt, Karlson & Sorensen Inc. (2008). ABAQUS theory manual, v 6.8. Hibbitt, Karlson &

634 Sorensen Inc. R.I.

635 Hight, D. W., Gasparre, A., Nishimura, S., Minh, N. A., Jardine, R. J. & Coop, M. R. (2007).

636 Characteristics of the London Clay from the Terminal 5 site at Heathrow Airport.

637 Géotechnique 57(1): 3–18.

638 Ishihara K. (1993). Liquefaction and flow failure during earthquakes. Géotechnique 43(3):

639 351-415.

640 Kim, S. H., Burd, H. J. & Milligan, G. W. E. (1998). Model testing of closely spaced tunnels

641 in clay. Géotechnique 48(3): 375-388.

 

26 / 30 
  

642 Klar, A., Vorster, T. E. B., Soga, K., & Mair, R. J. (2007). Elastoplastic solution for soil-

643 pipe-tunnel interaction. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Engng. 133(7): 782–792.

644 Klar, A., & Marshall, A. M. (2008). Shell versus beam representation of pipes in the

645 evaluation of tunneling effects on pipelines. Tunn. Undergr. Sp. Technol. 23(4): 431–

646 437.

647 Kolymbas, D. (1991) An outline of hypoplasticity, Archive of Applied Mechanics 61: 143-

648 151.

649 Land Transport Authority (2000). Code of practice for railway protection. Development &

650 Building Control Department, Land Transport Authority, Singapore.

651 Li, X. G. & Yuan, D. J. (2012). Responses of a double-decked metro tunnel to shield driving

652 of twin closely under-crossing tunnels. Tunn. Undergr. Sp. Technol. 28: 18–30.

653 Liao, S. M., Peng, F. L. & Shen, S. L. (2008). Analysis of shearing effect on tunnel induced

654 by load transfer along longitudinal direction. Tunn. Undergr. Sp. Technol. 23: 421–430.

655 Lim, K. S.G., Hong, C. Y., Wang, Y. & Ng, C. W.W. (2010). Soil-structure interaction of

656 tunnel excavation beneath existing buried pipeline. The 4th International Conference on

657 Geotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics, November 2-3, 2010, Tehran, Paper No.

658 587.

659 Liu, J. H. (1990). Construction technical manual for municipal underground engineering in

660 soft ground. Shanghai (in Chinese).

661 Liu, H. Y., Small, J. C. & Carter, J. P. & Williams, D. J. (2009). Effects of tunnelling on

662 existing support systems of perpendicularly crossing tunnels. Computers and

663 Geotechnics 36: 880–894.

664 Maeda, K. & Miura, K. (1999). Relative density dependency of mechanical properties of

665 sands. Soils and Foundations 39(1): 69-79.

27 / 30 
  

666 Mair, R. J. & Taylor, R. N. (1997). Theme lecture: Bored tunnelling in the urban

667 environment. Proc. 14th International Conference in Soil Mechanics and Foundation

668 Engineering, Hamburg, Balkema, pp. 2353-2385.

669 Marshall, A. M., Elkayam, I., & Klar, A. (2010a). Centrifuge and discrete element modelling

670 of tunnelling effects on pipelines. 7th International Conference on Physical Modelling in

671 Geotechnics 2010 (ICPMG 2010) (pp. 633–637). Zurich, Switzerland: A.A. Balkema

672 Publishers.

673 Marshall, A. M., Klar, A., & Mair, R. J. (2010b). Tunneling beneath buried pipes: view of

674 soil strain and its effect on pipeline behavior. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Engng. 136(12):

675 1664–1672.

676 Marshall, A. M., Farrell, R., Klar, A. & Mair, R. (2012). Tunnel in sands: the effect of size,

677 depth and volume loss on greenfield displacements. Géotechnique 62(5): 385-399.

678 Mašín, D. (2012). Hypoplastic Cam-clay model. Géotechnique 62(6): 549–553.

679 Mohamad, H., Bennett, P. J., Soga K., Mair R. J. & Bowers, K. (2010). Behaviour of an old

680 masonry tunnel due to tunnelling-induced ground settlement. Géotechnique 60(12):

681 927–938.

682 Ng, C. W. W., Van Laak, P. Tang, W. H., Li, X. S. & Zhang, L. M. (2001). The Hong Kong

683 Geotechnical Centrifuge. Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. Soft Soil Engineering, Dec., Hong Kong. pp.

684 225-230.

685 Ng, C. W. W., Van Laak, P. A., Zhang, L. M., Tang, W. H., Zong, G. H., Wang, Z. L., Xu, G.

686 M. & Liu, S. H. (2002). Development of a four-axis robotic manipulator for centrifuge

687 modeling at HKUST. Proc. Int. Conf. on Physical Modelling in Geotechnics, St. John’s

688 Newfoundland, Canada, pp. 71-76.

689 Ng, C. W. W. & Lee, G. K. T. (2005). Three-dimensional ground settlements and stress

690 transfer mechanisms due to open-face tunnelling. Can. Geotech. J. 42: 1015–1029.
 

28 / 30 
  

691 Niemunis, A. & Herle, I. (1997). Hypoplastic model for cohesionless soils with elastic strain

692 range. Mechanics of cohesive-frictional materials 2: 279-299.

693 Shi, J. W., Wang, Y., & Ng, C. W. W. (2013). Buried pipeline responses to ground

694 displacements induced by adjacent static pipe bursting. Can. Geotech. J. 50(5): 481-492.

695 Shirlaw, J. N., Ong, J. C. W., Rosser, H. B., Tan, C. G., Osborne, N. H. & Heslop, P. E.

696 (2003). Local settlements and sinkholes due to EPB tunnelling. Geotechnical Engineering

697 156 (GE4): 193–211.

698 Taylor, R. N. (1995). Geotechnical Centrifuge Technology. Blackie Academic and

699 Professional, London.

700 Todd, C. D. (1975). The potentiometer handbook. McGraw-Hill, New York.

701 Verruijt, A. & Booker, J. R. (1996). Surface settlements due to deformation of a tunnel in an

702 elastic half plane. Géotechnique 46(4): 753-756.

703 Verruijt, A. & Strack, O. E. (2008). Buoyancy of tunnels in soft soils. Géotechnique 58(6):

704 513–515.

705 Viana da Fonseca, A., Matos Fernandes, M. & Silva Cardoso, A. (1997). Interpretation of a

706 footing load test on a saprolitic soil from granite. Géotechnique 47( 3): 633-651.

707 von Wolffersdorff, P. A. (1996). A hypoplastic relation for granular materials with a

708 predefined limit state surface. Mechanics of cohesive-frictional materials 1: 251-271.

709 Vorster, T. E. B., Klar, A., Soga, K. & Mair, R. J. (2005). Estimating the effects of tunneling

710 on existing pipelines. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Engng. 131(11): 1399-1410.

711 Wang, Y., Shi, J. W. & Ng, C. W. W. (2011). Numerical modeling of tunneling effect on

712 buried pipelines. Can. Geotech. J. 48(7): 1125-1137.

713 Wu, W., Bauer, E. & Kolymbas, D. (1996). Hypoplastic constitutive model with critical state

714 for granular materials. Mechanics of materials 23: 45-69.

29 / 30 
  

715 Yamashita, S., Jamiolkowski, M. & Lo Presti, D.C.F. (2000). Stiffness nonlinearity of three

716 sands. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Engng. 126(10): 929-938.

717

30 / 30 
 1250

Tunnel Y
advancing
sequence
6 X
5
4
930 3
Existing tunnel 2
Dia. 100 mm 1 0.6D
(6.0 m @ 60g)
New tunnel
Dia. 100 mm
(6.0 m @ 60g)

(a)

Z
LVDT

X
C = 200
Extension
rod (C/D = 2)
Potentiometer
750 Existing tunnel P = 50
New tunnel (P/D = 0.5)

Medium dense Toyoura sand

(b) Note: Dimension in mm (model scale)

Figure 1 Schematic diagrams showing a centrifuge model package for simulating the
interaction between perpendicularly crossing tunnels: (a) plan view; (b) elevation view

1 / 11

 
 Outer rubber bag
(Volume loss of 2%)
Heavy fluid
Inner rubber bag (ZnCl2),
(Weight loss) ρ = 1500 kg/m3
Tunnel lining
(Aluminum alloy) 
Tunnel diameter and
thickness:
φ = 6 m, t = 180 mm
in prototype scale 
φ = 0.1 m, t = 3 mm WL VL
in model scale
 

(a)

6
5
4
Location of the
existing tunnel
3
2
3.6 m (prototype)
1
0.6D
Tunnel
advancing
sequence

New
tunnel
(b)

Figure 2 (a) The newly developed “donut” for simulating volume and weight losses
simultaneously during tunnel advancement; (b) tunnel advancing sequence in a centrifuge test

2 / 11

 
 Structural frame to support LVDT
extension rods
LVDT
extension
rod

Strain gauges in
transverse direction
See Fig. 3b of the existing tunnel

Strain gauges in
longitudinal direction
φ 100 (OD)
of the existing tunnel

(a)

Crown Strain gauges in transverse

direction of the existing tunnel

φ 94 (ID)

Springline

Potentiometer
Invert
(b)
Note: Dimension in mm (model scale)

Figure 3 (a) Types and locations of instruments installed on the existing tunnel; (b) sectional
view at mid-section of the existing tunnel showing arrangement of strain gauges and
potentiometers

3 / 11

 
 F
625
930

E Z
Y X B

Existing tunnel A
750
G
New tunnel
H
Plane of symmetry
(X/D = 0)
C

D
(a)

New tunnel centerline

(Monitoring section at X/D = 0)

Existing tunnel
φ =100
P/D = 0.5

New tunnel
φ =100

(b)
Note: Dimension in mm (model scale)

Figure 4 (a) The three-dimensional finite element mesh; (b) details of perpendicularly
crossing tunnels

4 / 11

 
 Normalized off-set distance from
centerline of new tunnel (X/D)
Normalized surface settlement (δ/D, %)
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
0.0 0

Prototype settlement (mm)

10
0.2
X/D = 0
20
0.4
Existing tunnel 30
Volume loss = 2%
0.6
New tunnel 40

Measured [S] Computed [S]

0.8 Measured [V] Computed [V] 50
Measured [VW] Computed [VW]
Ref-boundary Computed [greenfield]

Figure 5 Comparison of measured and computed surface settlement

5 / 11

 
  Normalized longitudinal distance
along existing tunnel (X/D)
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
Normalized tunnel settlement (δ/D, %)

0.0

0.1
Max. gradient
= 1: 1600 [S]
0.2
15 mm (LTA)

0.3 20 mm (BD)
X/D = 0
Max. gradient
Existing tunnel
0.4 = 1: 400
(Cooper et al., 2002)
Measured [S] Computed [S] New tunnel
0.5
Measured [V] Field [Cooper et al., 2002]
Measured [VW] Field [Li & Yuan, 2012]

Figure 6 Comparison of measured and computed settlement of the existing tunnel

6 / 11

 
  Normalized longitudinal distance
along invert of existing tunnel (X/D)
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
-100
Measured [S]
Induced strain (με)

-50 Measured [V]

Measured [VW]
0
Allowable shear
stress = 660 kPa
50 (ACI, 2011)
εt, crack of Max. shear stress
100 unreinforced concrete = 780 kPa [S]

150

X/D = 0
200 Existing tunnel Sign convention of ε
+ Tensile strain
   - Compressive strain
New tunnel

Figure 7 Induced strain measured along the invert in the longitudinal direction of the existing
tunnel  
 
 

7 / 11

 
 0.10 Test S
 
Change of normalized diameter Vertical [Measured] Horizontal [Measured]
of existing tunnel (ΔD/D0, %) Vertical [Computed] Horizontal [Computed]

ΔDV
0.05
Existing tunnel
ΔDH
at X/D = 0

0.00
Y/D -1.5 1.5
New tunnel

-0.05
Sign convention of ΔD/D0
+ Tunnel diameter elongation
- Tunnel diameter compression
-0.10
-1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
Normalized location of advancing tunnel face (Y/D)
(a)
 

0.10
Vertical [S]
Change of normalized diameter

Vertical [V] [Computed]

of new tunnel (ΔD/D0, %)

Vertical [VW]
0.05

0.00

Existing tunnel

-0.05
Sign convention of ΔD/D0
Y/D -1.5
New tunnel at Y/D = 0
1.5 + Tunnel diameter elongation
- Tunnel diameter compression
-0.10
-1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
Normalized location of advancing tunnel face (Y/D)
(b)

Figure 8 Deformations of (a) the existing tunnel in Test S; (b) the new tunnel in case S, V and
VW 

8 / 11

 
 Induced strain (με) Crown
  100

L-shoulder 50 R-shoulder
Initial
0 Measured
Computed
-50

L-springline -100 R-springline

Sign convention of ε
+ Tensile strain
- Compressive strain

L-knee R-knee

Invert
Direction of tunnel advancement

Figure 9 Induced strains at the outer face of the existing tunnel in the transverse direction in
Test S

9 / 11

 
 ΔσCr
    Δσ = ±20 kPa (BD)
Incremental normal stress, Δσn (kPa)
100
ΔσL-sp ΔσR-sp
Δσ = +15 kPa (LTA)
ΔσIn
50

Existing tunnel
-50 at X/D = 0
Crown
L-Springline
Y/D -1.5
-100 R-Springline New tunnel
1.5

Invert
Net incremental stress (ΔσCr + ΔσIn) – (ΔσL-sp + ΔσR-sp)
-150
-1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
Normalized location of advancing tunnel face (Y/D)
(a)

Δσ = ±20 kPa (BD)

Incremental normal stress, Δσn (kPa)

100 Crown
Invert Δσ = +15 kPa (LTA)

50

-50
X/D = 0
Longitudinal
stress transfer Transverse Existing tunnel
-100 stress transfer
New tunnel
New tunnel
-150
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Normalized longitudinal distance along existing
tunnel (X/D)
(b)

Figure 10 Computed incremental normal stresses at different key locations of the existing
tunnel in case S in (a) the transverse direction during tunnel advancement; (b) the longitudinal
direction at the end of tunnel excavation

10 / 11

 
 0

-1
Normalized depth (Z/D)

-2

Existing Existing
tunnel tunnel
-3

Ex1 Ex2 Ex3 Ex4 Ex5 Ex6 Ex1 Ex2 Ex3 Ex4 Ex5 Ex6
-4
-2 -1 0 1 2 -2 -1 0 1 2
Normalized offset distance from Normalized offset distance from
existing tunnel center line (Y/D) existing tunnel center line (Y/D)
(a) (b)

-1
Normalized depth (Z/D)

-2

Existing tunnel Existing tunnel

-3

-4
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Normalized longitudinal distance Normalized longitudinal distance
along existing tunnel (X/D) along existing tunnel (X/D)
(c) (d)

Figure 11 Computed directions of principal stress in case S in (a) the transverse direction
before tunneling; (b) the transverse direction when the new tunnel reached Ex4; (c) the
longitudinal direction before tunneling; (d) the longitudinal direction when the new tunnel
reached Ex4

11 / 11

 
Table 1 Some relevant scaling laws for the centrifuge tests (Taylor, 1995)
Scaling law
Parameter Unit (model/prototype)
2
Gravity m/s N
Length m 1/N
2
Area m 1/N2
Volume m3 1/N3
Density kg/m3 1
3
Unit weight N/m N
2
Flexural stiffness per unit width N·m /m 1/N3
Flexural stiffness N·m2 1/N4
Stress N/m2 1
Strain - 1
 

1/4

 
Table 2 Modeling sequences of new tunnel advancement in Tests S and VW
Modeling sequences
VL WL S VW
V1+W1 V1 ×
V6 W6 V 2 +W 2   V 2
V3+W3  V3
V5 W5
Existing V4+W4  V4 V
V4 W4 tunnel V5+W5  V5
V3 W3 V6+W6  V6  Ø
V2 W2
V1 W1
W1 ×
W2
W3
New W4 VW
tunnel W5
W6 Ø

2/4

 
 Table 3 Summary of material parameters adopted in finite element analyses
Critical state friction angle(a), φc 30°

Granulates hardness(a), hs 2.6 GPa

Exponent n(a), n 0.27

Minimum void ratio at zero pressure(a), ed0 0.61

Critical void ratio at zero pressure(a), ec0 0.98

Maximum void ratio at zero pressure(a), ei0 1.10

Exponent α(b), α 0.14

Exponent β(b), β 3.0
Parameter controlling the initial shear modulus upon 180° strain path 8
reversal and in the initial loading(b), mR

Parameter controlling the initial shear modulus upon 90° strain path 4
reversal(b), mT

The size of the elastic range(b), R 0.00002

Parameter controlling rate of degradation of stiffness with strain(b), βr 0.1

Parameter controlling rate of degradation of stiffness with strain(b), χ 1.0

The coefficient of at-rest earth pressure, K0 0.5
Note: (a) Herle & Gudehus, 1999
(b) Justify based on previous literatures (Maeda and Miura, 1999; Yamashita et al., 2000)

3/4

 
Table 4 Summary of case histories of crossing tunnels
Heathrow Express Shekou Line
Tunnels Tunnels
underneath underneath
Piccadilly Line Luobao Line
Tunnels Tunnel
(Cooper et al., 2002) (Li & Yuan, 2012)
Project location London Shenzhen
Soil type London Clay Highly decomposed
granite
Estimated K0 at the depth of 1.7(a) 0.4(b)
the existing tunnel axis
Dimensions of existing 4.1 (Outer diameter) 6.8 (Width) x 13.6
tunnel, DE (m) (Height)(c)
Lining thickness of existing 0.15 0.80
tunnel (m)
Outer diameter of new 9.1 6.3
tunnel, DN (m)
Cover depth of existing 11.0 [1.2] 15 [2.4]
tunnel, CE (m), [CE/DN]
Cover depth of new tunnel, 21.5 [2.4] 30 [4.8]
CN (m), [CN/DN]
Pillar depth, P (m), [P/DN] 7.0 [0.8] 2.0 [0.3]
0
Skew of tunnel crossing 69 550
angle, S
Tunnel excavation method Pilot shield with EPB shield
tunnel enlargement
Volume loss reported (%) 1.3 – 2.5 Not available
Note: (a) Estimated from Hight et al. (2007)
(b) Adopted from Viana da Fonseca et al. (1997)
(c) Outer dimension of double deck existing tunnel

4/4