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

net/publication/241986516

Risk management overview of tunnels using numerical modeling

Article  in  Journal of Engineering Design and Technology · March 2011

DOI: 10.1108/17260531111121495

CITATIONS READS
0 141

5 authors, including:

Vahed Ghiasi Husaini Omar

University Universiti Putra Malaysia
29 PUBLICATIONS   96 CITATIONS    62 PUBLICATIONS   184 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Bujang B. K. Huat
Universiti Putra Malaysia
240 PUBLICATIONS   1,944 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Climate change View project

Long-term settlement prediction of open dumping area using Monte Carlo Simulation method View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Vahed Ghiasi on 27 May 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1726-0531.htm

JEDT
9,1 Risk management overview of
tunnels using numerical modeling
Vahed Ghiasi, Husaini Omar, Bujang B. Kim Huat,
110 Ratnasamy Muniandi and Zainuddin B. Md Yusof
Mountainous Terrain Development Research Center (MTD-RC),
Received 27 July 2009 Faculty of Engineering, University Putra Malaysia, Serdang, Malaysia
Revised 16 October 2009,
27 November 2009 Abstract
Accepted 23 December 2009
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to introduce the numerical methods in tunnel engineering and
their capabilities to indicate the fracture and failure in all kinds of tunneling methods such as New
Austrian Tunneling Method, tunnel boring machine and cut-cover. An essential definition of numerical
modeling of tunnels to determine the interaction between geo-material (soil and rock) surrounding the
tunnel structure is discussed.
Design/methodology/approach – Tunnel geo-material (soil and rock) interaction requires
advanced constitutive models for the numerical simulation of linear, nonlinear, time-dependent,
anisotropic, isotropic, homogenous and nonhomogeneous behaviors. The numerical models discussed
in this paper are developed in finite element method (FEM), finite deference method (FDM), boundary
element method and discrete element method and these tools are used to illustrate the behavior of tunnel
structure deformation under different loads and in complicated conditions. The disadvantage of this
method is the tunnel lining assumed an independent structure under fixed load which is unable to model
soil-lining interaction. Predicting the effect of all natural factors on tunnels is the most difficult method.
The above-mentioned numerical methods are very simple and quick to use and the results are
conservative and practical for users. One of the most significant advantages of the numerical method is
in predicting the critical area surrounding the tunnel and the tunnel structure before making the tunnel
construction due to different loads.
Findings – Numerical modeling is used as control method in reducing the risk of tunnel construction
failures. Since some factors such as settlement and deformation are not completely predictable in rock
and soil surrounding the tunnel, using numerical modeling is a very economical and capable method in
predicting the behavior of tunnel structures in various complicated conditions of loading. Another
benefit of using numerical simulation is in the colorful illustrations predicting the tunnel behavior
before, during and after construction and operation.
Originality/value – There are not many conducted studies using numerical models to tunnel structures
that estimate the critical zones. As some of the methods available have limitation in simulating and
modeling the whole tunnel design factors, numerical modeling seems to be the best option, because it is
fast, economical, accurate and more interesting in predicating critical zones in tunnel. However, what
softwares predict are not always the same as real ground nature conditions in which there is tunnel.
Keywords Risk management, Numerical analysis, Modelling, Civil engineering, Tunnels
Paper type General review

1. Introduction
The most effective way and third great tool to promote deep conceptual understanding
of the real world in the history of engineering and sciences is through the investigation of
Journal of Engineering, Design and computer simulation (Cai, 2000). The knowledge of computer simulation of stress
Technology
Vol. 9 No. 1, 2011
pp. 110-124 The authors would like to thank University Putra Malaysia (UPM) and University Technology
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1726-0531
Malaysia (UTM) for supporting this paper as they permitted the use of all facilities necessary for
DOI 10.1108/17260531111121495 this research, such as PLAXIS software to model tunnels.
distribution around tunnels is necessary for design and construction in mining Risk
engineering, especially in choosing suitable locations and orientations of tunnels, management
optimal shapes and sizes of the underground openings, efficiency and safety, reliable
support and reinforcement of the mining structures. Some main designing parameters overview
such as geological, geotechnical, geometry and details, materials (nonlinear elastic,
elastic, perfectly plastic, anisotropic, [. . .] and software’s ABAQUS, FLAC3D, CRIPS,
ICFEP(FSAFEM), [. . .]) are presented in Table I. 111
The main advantages of computer simulation are as follows: it is quick, powerful and
less expensive (Speers, 1992). The parameters of materials such as Young’s modulus of
elasticity (E), Poisson’s ratio (y), density (r), cohesion (c), friction angle (w) and other
properties are easily varied in simulation. In addition, this method can be used to handle
anisotropic, inhomogeneous and asymmetrical shapes without additional complication.
However, it requires a powerful computer. The stress distributions around the tunnels at
different depths of the rocks are calculated based on the nonlinear behavior of rocks
(Roberts, 1977). There are different methods for modeling 3D tunnel construction. Several
authors adopt a step-by-step approach (Katzenbach and Breth, 1981), in which tunnel
excavation is modeled by successive removal of tunnel face elements while successively
installing a lining at a certain distance behind the tunnel face. This distance will be referred
to as the excavation length.
Some authors suggest modeling 3D tunnel excavation by applying volume loss-control
methods normally used in plane strain analysis described in (Addenbrooke et al., 1996;
Rowe et al., 1983; Lee and Rowe, 1991; Augarde, 1998; Burd, 2000). Another approach is to
model the details of the tunneling machine, such as grouting or slurry pressure.

1.1 The statement of problem

One of the most important terms in tunnel engineering is tunnel lining design and the
most complex part of this design is designing the lining tunnels loading. Problems in
stability of lining tunnels due to the influence of water or underground water are
significant and previous studies have shown that tunnels have problems in weak rock
and soil especially in high underground water level conditions, therefore, majority of the
lining tunnel is designed under different loads:
.
swelling pressure that is generated by swelling rock and soil surrounding the tunnel;
.
tectonic pressure created by earth tectonic pressure;
.
tunnel shape deformation due to stress and instability of tunnel structure;
.
pressure of weight of overburden tunnel; and
.
squeezing of tunnel under different loads.

The swelling pressure is determined by using strain gage test and tectonic pressure may
be calculate by using soil dynamic field tools and rules, the water pressure may be
determined by using fluid mechanic roles and shape deformation of tunnel due to stress
may be determined by geotechnical tools.

2. Methodology
2.1 Numerical analyses
Numerical analyses have been performed using the finite difference element codes
Flac and Flac3D and the boundary element code Examine3D (Rocscience, 1998).
 9,1

112
JEDT

Table I.

summarized
and FDM analyses
Details of 2-3D FEM
Mesh or grade Tunnel
Width Length
b C
Authors Material K a0 D (m) Z0(m) (m) (m) Length (m) Lexc Program
e
Katzenbach and Breth (1981) Nonlinear elastic 0.8 6.7 15.2 35.0 59.0 Varies
5.2D 8.8D
Lee and Rowe (1991) Nonlinear elastic 0.85 2.5 8 19.5 37.0 N/A (gap) FEM3D
Perfectly plastic 7.8D 15D
F
Augarde et al. (1998) Nonlinear elastic 1.0 5.0 10.0 60.0 60.0e 60.0 N/A(VL) OXFEM
Burd et al. (2000) plastic 12.0 12.0D 12.0D
Desari et al. (1996) Nonlinear elastic 1.0 8.0 25.0 40.0 50.0 40.0 2.0e CRISP
Perfectly plastic (SDMCC) 5.0D 6.3D 5.0D
Komiya et al. (1999) Elastic 0.55 3.7 33.0
Perfectly plastic anisotropic
Tang et al. (2000) Elastic Perfectly plastic transverse 1.5 8.6 25.0 80.0 95.0 67.5e 5.0,10.0 ABAQUS
anisotropic 9.5D 11.1D 7.8D
Guedes and Santos Pereira Elastic 0.5, 1.0 6.0 9.0 60.0 54.0 28.0e 2.0 ABAQUS
(2000) 10D 9.0D 4.5D
Dias et al. (2000) Elastic perfectly plastic 0.36, 0.43 6.0 25.0 45.0 0.75 FLAC3D
4.6D
Vermeer et al. (2002) Linear elastic 0.67 8.0 2.0 55.0 100.0 80.0 2.0 PLAXIS
Perfectly plastic 6.9D 12.5D 10D
Dolezalova (2002) Elastic perfectly plastic/nonlinear 0.5-1.5 2.75-3.76 15.7 22.0 51.0 36.0 3.5 CRIPS
elastic 6.7D 15.5D 10.9D
Perfectly plastic
Lee and Ng (2002) Elastic perfectly plastic 0.5, 1.5 9.0 22.5 75.0 101.25 77.0e 2.25 ABAQUS
8.3D 11.25D 5.5D
Shin et al. (2002) Elastic perfectly plastic 0.85-0.2 9.2 20 100.0 160.0 60.0 2.0 ICFEP
10.8D 17.3D 6.5D (FSAFEM)
Galli et al. (2004) Elastic perfectly plastic 0.5 11.0 11.0 44.0 70.0 35.0 4.0-1.0 LUSAS
4.0D 6.3D 3.2D
e
Moller et al. (2004) Elastic perfectly plastic Varies 7.3-8.8 15.0 40.0 120.0 70.0 1.2 PLAXIS
5D 15D 8.8
Franzius (2005) Nonlinear elastic 1.5 4.15 20 100 155 100 2.5 ICFEP
Perfectly plastic 24.1D 37.3D 24.1D
Notes: Empty entries: no information found; aK0 ¼ coefficient of lateral earth pressure at rest, bD ¼ tunnel diameter, cZ0 ¼ distance between tunnel, centerline and soil
surface, dLexc ¼ excavation length, eNot specified in text of publication; listed value was determined from plots, graphs, and so on, fVL ¼ volume loss
The aim was to simulate the intrinsic behavior of a deep circular tunnel in homogeneous Risk
ground during excavation. Stress paths were studied with particular attention to the management
sidewalls (S) and at the crown/invert (C) of the tunnel (Barla, 1998). As shown in Figure 1,
both 2D and 3D stress analyses were carried out with the excavation being simulated overview
according to the procedure available with the Flac codes. For the 3D simulation the tunnel
excavation proceeds from left to right. Before excavation, the stress state at points C and S
depends on the depth of cover and the stress ratio (minimum to maximum principal stress 113
ratio, K0) considered. During excavation, the tunnel face advances, passes through the
A-A section and continues up to completion of excavation. Two different stress conditions,
depending on the K0 ratio, have been simulated. For each case 2D and 3D analyses have
been performed and the results compared with the closed form solutions available. The
ground around the tunnel is assumed to behave according to a linearly elastic isotropic
model, with elastic modulus E ¼ 400 MPa and Poisson’s ratio n ¼ 0.3 (Bonini et al., 2001).
Zhang studied the dynamic response of tunnels subjected to the passage of high-speed
train loads by adopting a FEM, incorporating nonlinear stress-strain relationships of
material using Mohr-Coulomb criteria (DENG Fei-huang, 2006).
The use of numerical analyses is advisable in cases where the scm/p0 ratio is below 0.3,
and it is highly recommended if this ratio falls below 0.15, when the stability of the tunnel
may become a critical issue. Significant advantages are envisaged by using numerical
analyses at the design stage, when very complex support/excavation sequences,
including pre-support/stabilization measures are to be adopted, in order to stabilize the
tunnel during construction.
Very powerful computer codes have been developed and are now available for the
stress and deformation analysis of tunnels. It is, therefore, possible to develop reliable

A C

1m
Excavation
direction S

5m 1m
A

Figure 1.
Longitudinal and
cross-section A-A of the
Notes: C = crown of tunnel, S = sidewall of tunnel; mesh in 2D and 3D, FLAC
circular tunnel
Source: Bonini et al. (2001)
JEDT predictions of tunnel behavior, provided a proper understanding of the real phenomena
9,1 as observed in practice is available. With respect to closed-form solutions, anisotropic
in situ stress fields can now be considered, together with multiple excavation
stages, the influence of face advance, and the important 3D conditions which occur
in the immediate vicinity of the face, the consequence of liner placement delay, etc.
(Barla, 2001).
114 An example of a typical stress-deformation analysis of a circular tunnel, for
the same properties for the rock mass as shown in Figure 2, where the confining
pressure pi is set equal to 0.8 MPa, which is the equilibrium solution for the
rock-support interaction analysis. The results obtained by the FLAC code (version 3.4),
Itasca (1998).
Numerical analysis (also called numerical simulation) aims at predictions of the
behavior of the support (lining, rockbolts, etc.) and the deformations of the ground and
buildings. By means of such predictions it is tried to assess the safety and to optimise
the construction. With a posteriori “predictions” (so-called class B predictions) it is tried
to improve the understanding, to adjust the involved parameters and to analyze failures.
The application of numerical simulation is nowadays standard in tunnelling.
However, its results are not always convincing and, therefore, usually not appropriately
integrated in the decision and construction process. It is thus interesting to look at the
capabilities and limitations of numerical simulation (Dimitrios, 2008).
No doubt, tunnel heading stability requires a 3D FE-analysis, as otherwise one cannot
possibly capture the very significant arching in frictional ground. Numerical analyses
are used for settlement prediction (Vermer et al., 2003).
As with all older construction, ancient tunnels feature particular characteristics,
especially as regards past construction methods, geometrical design considerations
and the set of construction materials used. Old tunnels usually display a unique
vaulted section shape built with masonry. The present part proposes two numerical

60.0

50.0

40.0

30.0
Max. disp = 0.12 m
20.0

10.0

Figure 2. 0.0
Stress deformation
analysis of a circular
tunnel by the FLAC code
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0
models of an old tunnel supported by masonry; these models were developed by the Risk
well-known universal distinct element code. A masonry mechanical behavior management
analysis and numerical simulation of the masonry ageing phenomenon will also be
addressed by means of an experimental design to study the influence of masonry overview
block physical properties on the mechanical behavior of masonry structures in old
tunnels.
From a historical viewpoint, a wide range of studies have been conducted in order to 115
compare numerical results with measurements on full-scale geotechnical structures and
to validate computational models. The validation procedure must confirm the capacity of
the model to resolve in a satisfactory manner, a geotechnical problem under conditions
resembling those of a project.
Unfortunately, while this practice is the only one with any real pertinence, it
remains complex as simultaneous testing has to be conducted on a software application,
a theoretical model and geotechnical tests for the determination of the parameter values
and potential means of use. The computation hypotheses employed are of the greatest
importance: they make it possible to run the tool and, in many instances, to compensate
for a lack of data. Hypotheses must, however, be chosen with care; as such, modeling
and engineering precepts are invoked to help ensure that these hypotheses remain
representative (Mestat, 2004).
The actual stress path in a rock mass during tunnel excavation is complex.
To capture the correct tunnel excavation response, it is important to correctly assemble
the stress path in situ in the numerical tools.

2.2 Numerical modeling software

FLAC, Phase2 and PLAXIS (2D and 3D) are three powerful 2D continuum codes for
modeling soil, rock and structural behavior, in the fields of geotechnical, geomechanics
and in civil and mining engineering. FLAC is based on an explicit finite difference
formulation while Phase2 and PLAXIS (Figures 3 and 4) are based on implicit
finite element formulations. As shown in Figure 3, 3D stress analyses were carried
out with the excavation being simulated according to the procedure available with
the PLAXIS code. There are colorful figures outputs of PLAXIS which show different
stress levels and critical risk places in the crown and sidewalls of tunnel structures
surrounded.
By geomaterial such as soil and rock bases, Figure 4 shows two tunnels combining
to form one tunnel (trousers tunnels). Figure 5 shows the numerical modeling (FEM)
and mesh generation of tunnel with station and Figure 6 shows the cross-section of
tunnel with station.

3. Research study
3.1 The roles of numerical (FEM, FDM) simulation methods in tunnel design
The most basic difference between finite element and finite difference methods in
numerical modeling is apparent from their names. In FEM, a field variable (also known
as a field function) the quantity of interest, temperature, water head, displacement, etc.
is defined by a differential equation in mathematical physics, and solved through a
desired field by the aid of shape functions that are geometric characteristics of the area
under study. These shape functions (also known as interpolation functions) relate the
quantity of the field variable to its value on the boundary of the domain of interest,
JEDT
9,1

116

Figure 3.
The example of 3D
modeling of tunnel
with PLAXIS

i.e. the numerical solution of the problem is approximated by these functions. In this
method, the value of the field variable can be found from any desired point in the domain
of the problem. In the finite difference method, an approximate solution of a differential
equation of mathematical physics is presented by the aid of finite differences of the field
variable in some certain nodes in the domain. Thus, the solution is obtained even from
some predefined points and not at every point. Another method somewhat similar to
FEM and finite deference method (FDM) is known as mesh free or mesh-less method. In
this method, the value of the field variable is determined at any desired point while there
is no need to mesh the field. The complete definition of these methods are available in
FEM text books and even in advanced engineering mathematics texts, where they
present a general numerical solution to ODEs and PDEs.
 Risk
management
overview

117

Figure 4.
The examples of 3D
modeling of tunnel details
using the MATLAB
programming

Simulations with the FEM were conducted to analyze a series of collapses in the
construction of a highway tunnel in order to evaluate the influence of the excavation
phases and the other factors on the process. It was observed from these simulations
that intermediate excavation phases may have a great influence on the induced stress
values, and this causes failure or collapse of the rocks and soils around the tunnel.
When total excavation of the tunnel is achieved within one single phase, however,
the induced stress values at these critical positions would be much smaller and thus
the real failure or collapse is neglected. Therefore, tunnel designers should use staged
construction modeling by accurate numerical simulations, in order to avoid these risks,
especially when tunnels are to be opened in soils and weak rocks. Figure 7 shows
(as a model) the different geology layers of materials (rocks or soils) and the direction
of two tunnels in opposite directions which it will be bored with a tunnel-boring
machine.

3.2 Different methods used in solving the tunnel problems

Therefore, the overburden load pressure is completely complex because the pressure of
overburden is dependent on many factors such as performance method, lining time and
lining stiffness. To analyze the loading tunnel lining there are four main methods:
(1) experimental methods;
(2) convergence-confinement;
(3) analytical methods; and
(4) numerical methods.
JEDT
9,1

118

Figure 5.
The examples of 3D
modeling of tunnel details
using the PLAXIS
programming

The experimental methods are based on experiment not on theoretical methods so in

this case the main parameter in tunnel behavior is neglected.
The convergence-confinement method first sketches the characteristic curve
by a mathematic relation then sketches the lining characteristic curve and the contact
point between two curves determines the lining load. This method model the soil-lining
interaction suitable but is used just for deep circular tunnels that are under hydrostatic
stresses (K0 ¼ 1) and in practice it is not usually used.
In the analytical method, the tunnel load is calculated by the limit equation directly so
the weak point of this method is that the lining is assumed to be an independent structure
that is under fixed load and unable to model soil-lining interaction, however, this method
is very simple and quick to use and the results are conservative and is, therefore, usually
used.
The basis of the analytical method is the limit equilibrium and the basics of the limit
equilibrium are the fracture mechanism of soil surrounding the tunnel and also with
failure mechanism, the load pressure to tunnel can be calculated.
Previous researchers have different methods to model the failure mechanism and
each one got a different relationship for tunnel lining.
It is necessary to note that with the analytical method only the load in overburden in
tunnel could be calculated and the pressure to the tunnel walls could be calculated with
lateral pressure in steady state. After determining the tunnel load lining with software
it could be modeled with a bending element and the effect of soil resistance under the Risk
lining modeled with Winkler springs.
management
3.3 The classification of numerical modeling in tunnel overview
The most commonly applied numerical methods for tunnel problems are:
(1) Continuum methods:
.
the FDM; 119
.
the FEM; and
.
the boundary element method (BEM).
(2) Discontinuum methods:
.
discrete element method (DEM); and
.
discrete fracture network methods.
(3) Hybrid continuum/discontinuum models:
. hybrid FEM/BEM;
.
hybrid DEM/DEM;
.
hybrid FEM/DEM; and
.
other hybrid models.
In these methods, except DEM, the environment around the tunnel is modeled as a
continuum area. The environment around is meshed as elements connected by nodal
points. Solving problems with this method need to be solved multi-known and unknown
equestrian that the solution computer needs. There are so many uses of numerical

Lt

Figure 6.
The examples of 3D R1,
Hs
Lc Rt R2, R3, R4 ¼ different
radius of tunnel section,
Wc Dr1 ¼ thickness of layer 1
and Dr2 ¼ thickness of
ec + layer 2, WC ¼ wide of
A1 ceiling, Lr ¼ long of
+ – retuning wall, Hr ¼ high
er2 of different radiuses,
– Hc ¼ high of ceiling,
er1
Hc Rt ¼ radius of tunnel,
Lt ¼ long of tunnel,
A2 R1 et Hs ¼ high from street
R2
level. A1 and A2 ¼ high
R3 from center of tunnel;
modeling of tunnel details
Load using the PLAXIS and
R4 Lr
Hr MATLAB programming
JEDT
9,1

120

Figure 7.
The geological profile
layers of tunnel
overburden

methods for analyzing the stress and strain in civil engineering also analyses of fluid
flow in pore areas are another application of numerical modeling.
The use of numerical modeling in tunnel engineering (for civil engineering functions
and mining engineering) consists of all of the above mentioned.
3.4 Finite deference method Risk
The finite difference method is one of the oldest techniques used to solve deferential management
equilibrium with an initial amount and boundary condition and in FEM the stress and
strain in each element uses special functions called shape functions. overview
In FDM, each equation derived directly is replaced by an algebra phrase. The
formulation can be explicit or inexplicit. In an inexplicit method, the dominant equation
in each process depends on the alternative of the same process, therefore, solving this 121
problem depends on solution of the multi-known and unknown equilibrium but in the
explicit method the dominant equation in each process just depends on the last process
parameter, which is known. Therefore, there is a proportional ability to reproduce finite
deference equations at any stage. Unknown factors found in one process then start the
next process so no stiffness matrix is produced.

3.5 Comparison of analytical and numerical methods

The results of the analytical and numerical methods (FLAC) were compared. This
comparison includes the following assumption:
.
tunnel lining exactly after boring;
.
soil behavior model based on Mohr-Coulomb;
.
tunnel lining assumed 2D and plane strains;
.
all analysis assumes a circular section;
.
D ¼ Tunnel diameter, C ¼ Soil cohesion, w ¼ internal friction angel; and
.
y ¼ Poisson ratio, H ¼ Tunnel overburden, K0 ¼ lateral pressure factor.

4. Discussion
Finite difference software, as well as PHASE2, EXAMIN3D, PLAXIS 8.2, 8.4, FLAC,
PLAXIS 3D Tunnel and other similar software can be used for numerical modeling while
hand calculations are also possible. In the later method (hand calculations), some
simplifications are presented in professional books on rock mechanics and tunnel
engineering in which, the theory of elasticity, and in some cases, theory of plasticity, are
employed to introduce a solution to a general tunnel problem. A general tunnel problem
in the theory of elasticity is commonly predicated to an axis symmetric problem of
a circular tunnel in deep soil or rock mass. In this problem, the stresses are uniformly
distributed in two perpendicular directions, i.e. horizontal and vertical stresses. In fact,
the variation of stresses in the depth, due to geostatic pressure, is neglected. In finite
element or finite difference programs, every state of loading can be modeled. But, the
first question is that which part of a tunnel is to be modeled? At this point, it should be
noted that in tunnel design, there are several problems that should be predicted and
considered for analyses. Among them, deformation of the tunnel, determination of safety
factors against possible states of failure in temporary and permanent borings, analysis
and design of required linings in these two stages of construction and furthermore,
analysis and design of supports for possible block failures in walls and crown of the
tunnel are considered. Numerical modeling is used as control method in reducing the risk
of tunnel construction failures. Since some factors such as settlement and deformation
are not completely predictable in rock and soil surrounding the tunnel, using numerical
modeling is a very economical and capable method in predicting the behavior of tunnel
structures in various complicated conditions of loading. Another benefit of using
JEDT numerical simulation is in the colorful illustrations predicting the tunnel behavior
9,1 before, during and after construction and operation.

5. Conclusion
An overview of numerical methods in tunnels and their applications to reduce illustrated
hazard zones surrounding the tunnel structures were discussed in this paper. Numerical
122 methods in tunnel design as well as analytical modeling in tunnel engineering and their
capabilities to reduce the fracture and failure in all types of tunneling methods have been
introduced. Essential definitions of tunnel numerical models were discussed to determine
the geometrical tunnel interaction. Numerical modeling is also used for control and to
reduce the risk of tunnel construction failures, therefore, some factors such as settlement
and deformation are not completely predictable in rock and soil surrounding the tunnel
structure. Therefore, using numerical models are a very economical, popular and capable
method of predicting the behavior of tunnel structures at different loading conditions.
Also another advantage of using numerical simulation is the colorful illustrations
predicting the tunnel behavior before, during and after construction and operation. As
shown in figures very powerful computer codes have been used and are now available for
the stress and deformation analysis of tunnels. It is, therefore, possible to develop reliable
predictions of tunnel behavior, provided a proper understanding of the real phenomena
as observed in practice is available. The most commonly applied numerical methods for
tunnel problems are presented in this paper, moreover, this paper conducted studies
using numerical models to tunnel structures that estimate the critical zones.

References
Addenbrooke, T.I. and Mair, T. (Eds) (1996), Influence of an Existing Surface Structure on the
Ground Movements Due to Tunneling, GAUC, Canterbury, pp. 573-8.
Augarde, G. (1998), Three-Dimensional Modeling of the Interaction Between Buildings and
Tunneling Operations, Southampton University, London.
Barla, M. (1998), “Stress path around a circular tunnel. Workshop on squeezing rock conditions
in tunneling”, Italian Geotechnical Journal 1/2000, pp. 53-8.
Bonini, M., Barla, M. and Barla, G. (2001), “FLAC applications to the analysis of swelling
behavior in tunnels”, in Billaux, D. (Ed.), FLAC and Numerical Modeling in Geomechanics –
2001 (2nd International FLAC Conference, Lyon, October 2001), Balkema, Rotterdam,
pp. 329-33.
Burd, H.J. (2000) in Bloodworth, A.G. (Ed.), Three-dimensional Modeling of the Interaction
Between Buildings and Tunneling Operations, Southampton University, London.
Cai, M. (2000), “Influence of stress path on tunnel excavation response – numerical tool selection
and modeling strategy”, Journal of Tunneling and Underground Space Technology, Vol. 23,
pp. 618-28.
Deng, F.H., Mo, H.H., Zeng, Q.J. and Yang, X.J. (2006), “Analysis of the dynamic response of a
shield tunnel in soft soil under a metro-train vibrating load”, Journal of China University of
Mining and Technology, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 45-56.
Desari, G.R., Rawlings, C.G. and Bolton, M.D. (1996), “Numerical modeling of a NATM tunnel
construction in London clay”, Proceeding of the International Symposium on Geotechnical
Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground, Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 491-6.
Dimitrios, K. (2008), Tunneling and Tunnel Mechanics: A Rational Approach to Tunneling,
Springer, Berlin.
Dolezalova, M. (2002), “Approaches to numerical modelling of ground movements due to shallow Risk
tunneling”, Soil Structure Interaction in Urban Civil Engineering, Vol. 2, pp. 365-73.
management
Franzius, J.N., Potts, D.M. and Burland, J.B. (2005), “The influence of soil anisotropy and K0 on
ground surface movements resulting from tunnel excavation”, Journal of Géotechnique
overview
2005, Vol. 55 No. 3, pp. 189-99.
Galli, G., Grimaldi, A. and Leonardi, A. (2004), “Three-dimensional modelling of tunnel
excavation and lining”, Journal of Computers and Geotechnics, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 171-83. 123
Guedes, P.F.M. and Santos Pereira, C. (2000), “The role of the soil K0 value in numerical analysis
of shallow tunnels”, Proceeding of International Symposium on Geotechnical Aspects of
Underground Construction in Soft Ground, Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 379-84.
Itasca (1998), available at: www.itascacg.com/flac/index.php
Katzenbach, R. and Breth, H. (1981), “Nonlinear 3D analysis for NATM in frankfurt clay”,
Proceedings 10th ICSMFE, Stockholm, Vol. 1, pp. 315-18.
Komiya, K., Soga, K., Akagi, H., Hagiwara, T. and Bolton, M.D. (1999), “Finite element modeling
of excavation and advancement process of a shield tunneling machine”, Journal of Soils
and Foundations, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 37-52.
Lee, G.T.K. and Ng, C.W.W. (2002), “Three-dimensional analysis of ground settlements due to
tunneling: role of K0 and stiffness anisotropy”, Proceeding of the International Symposium
on Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground, Specifique, Lyon,
pp. 617-22.
Lee, K.M. and Rowe, R.K. (1991), “An analysis of three-dimension ground movements:
the thunder bay tunnel”, Journal of Canadian Geotechnical, Vol. 28, pp. 25-41.
Mestat, Ph.E., Bourgeois, A. and Riou, Y. (2004), “Numerical modeling of embankments and
underground works”, Journal of Computers and Geotechnics, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 227-36.
Roberts, A. (1977), An Introductory Text for Students and Engineers’ Geotechnology, Pergamon
Press, Oxford.
Rocscience (1998), available at: www.rocscience.com/hoek/Practical RockEngineering.asp
Rowe, R.K., Lo, K.Y. and Kack, G.J. (1983), “A method of estimating surface settlement above
tunnels constructed in soft ground”, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 20, pp. 11-22.
Shin, J.H., Potts, D.M. and Zdravkovic, L. (2002), “Three-dimensional modeling of NATM
tunneling in decomposed granite soil”, Journal of Geo´technique, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 187-200.
Speers, C.R. (1992), “Support for tunnels subjected to changing rock loads: a comparison of
design methods”, Tunneling and Underground Space Technology, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 25-32.
Tang, D.K.W., Lee, K.M. and Ng, C.W.W. (2000), “Stress paths around a 3-D numerically
simulated NATM tunnel in stiff clay”, Proceeding of the International Symposium on
Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground, Balkema, Rotterdam,
pp. 443-9.
Vermeer, P.A., Bonnier, P.G. and MÄoller, S.C. (2002), “On a smart use of 3D-FEM in tunneling”,
Proceeding of the 8th International Symposium on Numerical Models in Geomechanics,
NUMOG VIII, Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 361-6.
Vermeer, P.A., Moller, S.C. and Ruse, N. (2003), “On the application of numerical analysis
tunneling”, Post Proceeding 12th Asian Regional Conference on soil Mechanics and
Geotechnical Engineering (12 ARC ), Singapore, pp. 1539-49.
JEDT Further reading
9,1 Barla, G. (2001), “Tunnelling under squeezing rock conditions”, in Kolymbas, D. (Ed.), Tunneling
Mechanics, Eurosummer School, Innsbruck, pp. 169-268.
Dias, D., Kastner, R. and Maghazi, M. (2000), “Three dimensional simulation of slurry shield in
tunneling”, Proceeding of the International Symposium on Geotechnical Aspects of
Underground Construction in Soft Ground, Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 351-6.
124 Moller, S.C. and Vermeer, P.A. (2004), “NATM-tunneling in softening stiff clays and weak rocks”,
Numerical Models in Geotechnics, Numogix, London.

Corresponding author
Vahed Ghiasi can be contacted at: Ghiasi_upm@yahoo.com

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

View publication stats