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

net/publication/365344383

Three-dimensional probabilistic assessment of tunneling induced structural

damage using Monte-Carlo method and hybrid finite element model

Article  in  Computers and Geotechnics · February 2023

DOI: 10.1016/j.compgeo.2022.105122

CITATIONS READS

0 104

2 authors:

Jinyan Zhao Matthew J. DeJong

University of California, Berkeley University of California, Berkeley
3 PUBLICATIONS   5 CITATIONS    164 PUBLICATIONS   3,510 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Wind Loading of Masonry Pinnacles View project

Green sOil stAbiLisation (GOAL) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jinyan Zhao on 14 November 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Three-dimensional probabilistic assessment of tunneling
induced structural damage using Monte-Carlo method
and hybrid finite element model

Jinyan Zhao1,1 , Matthew DeJong1,2,∗

a Structural Engineering, Mechanics and Materials, UC Berkeley, 94720, Berkeley, CA, The
United States

Abstract

Probabilistic assessment methods can be used to estimate engineering demand

parameters under significant uncertainty, such as in the assessment of building
damage due to tunneling. This paper develops a new empirical, theoretical and
finite element hybrid three-dimensional model, in which the soil-structure in-
teraction is considered and window and door openings are modeled explicitly,
to achieve a reasonably fast and accurate damage prediction. The proposed
model is embedded in a Monte-Carlo based probabilistic assessment approach,
so that the building damage probabilities under different input uncertainty can
be computed. Typical methods to quantify the input uncertainty in tunnel-
soil-structure interaction practice are suggested. The probabilistic assessment
method and a variance-based (Sobol’s) sensitivity analysis are implemented with
a computer program that runs in higher-performance computing clusters, and
demonstrated with two case studies. The significance of the soil-structure in-
teraction effect and three-dimensional building effect are studied.
Keywords: Tunnel-soil-structure interaction; Finite element method;
Probabilistic assessment; Uncertainty propagation; Monte-Carlo; Sobol’s
sensitivity analysis; High-performance computing

∗ Corresponding author
Email addresses: jinyan_zhao@berkeley.edu (Jinyan Zhao), dejong@berkeley.edu
(Matthew DeJong)
1 PhD student
2 Associate professor

Preprint submitted to Computers and Geotechnics November 14, 2022

1 1. Introduction

2 Tunneling induced surface structure damage is a concern in the design and

3 construction of tunnels in urban areas. Extensive research has been done to
4 study the effect of tunnels on surface structures using deterministic methods
5 (Mair et al., 1996; Potts and Addenbrooke, 1997; Son and Cording, 2005; Franz-
6 ius et al., 2006; Pickhaver et al., 2010; Giardina et al., 2013; Yiu et al., 2017;
7 Boldini et al., 2018; Giardina et al., 2020; Amorosi and Sangirardi, 2021). Al-
8 though these studies show good accuracy when compared to lab tests or other
9 computational simulations, it is often observed that the predicted building de-
10 formation significantly deviates from monitoring results (e.g. Giardina et al.
11 (2018)). The deviation could be explained by the large uncertainty caused by
12 construction workmanship, underground conditions, inherent variance of geolog-
13 ical properties, lack of detailed information of surface building properties, and
14 the assumptions and simplifications made accordingly. To take the uncertainty
15 into consideration, probabilistic assessment methods have been proposed.
16 Mollon et al. (2013), Miro et al. (2015) and other researchers have studied
17 tunnelling induced ground movement in a probabilistic framework, and iden-
18 tified the significant uncertainty in ground movement prediction. Liu et al.
19 (2018) and Franco et al. (2019) proposed probabilistic modeling methods for
20 tunnel-soil-structure systems using the finite element method. Due to the com-
21 plexity of the numerical models adopted by Liu et al. (2018) and Franco et al.
22 (2019), the copula method and point estimation method were used respectively
23 to estimate the statistics of structural damage. Copula and point estimation
24 methods may lead to biased statistical estimation because strong assumptions
25 are made for the distribution shape of the engineering demand parameters.
26 El Kahi et al. (2020) and Zhao et al. (2021) used numerical models and the
27 Monte-Carlo (MC) method to estimate surface structure damage probabilities
28 induced by tunneling. The MC method is unbiased, although a large num-
29 ber of model evaluations are required. Therefore, both studies (El Kahi et al.

2
30 (2020) and Zhao et al. (2021)) were limited to two-dimensional (2D) scenarios
31 to control the computational cost. Obel et al. (2020) developed a metamodel
32 that approximates a 2D finite element model, and applied the metamodel in a
33 MC simulation. However, a metamodel introduces additional model uncertainty
34 and the generation of training and testing data set can be very time consuming.
35 Obel et al. (2020)’s study was extended to 3D with polymorphic uncertainty
36 input considered (Cao et al., 2022), although the problems of potential error
37 and sample generation still exist in the development of metamodels. Camós
38 et al. (2016) studied the damage probability with MC method, where three-
39 dimensional (3D) ground movements were considered. However, the structures
40 were modeled with equivalent 2D beams and the soil-structure interaction (SSI)
41 effect was neglected. A simulation-based probabilistic assessment approach that
42 takes both 3D building shape effects and the SSI effects into consideration in a
43 computationally efficient manner is still absent.
44 In this paper, a 3D deterministic model is first developed to predict the de-
45 formation of masonry facade structures induced by tunneling with the SSI effect
46 considered. The developed model is validated through a comparison with a fully
47 coupled tunnel-soil-structure finite element (FE) model. The developed model
48 is then implemented in a computer program named ASRE3D, and applied in a
49 simulation based probabilistic assessment approach originally proposed by Zhao
50 et al. (2021). Under proper uncertainty quantification of the input parameters,
51 the building damage probabilities at each stage of tunnel progression can be
52 calculated. The probabilistic assessment approach is demonstrated with two
53 case studies. A variance-based sensitivity analysis is also presented to study the
54 effect of each uncertainty input parameters on building damage prediction. The
55 general influence of SSI and 3D building effects on building damage assessment
56 are also discussed.

3
57 2. Hybrid FE model for deterministic analysis of tunneling induced
58 building damage

59 A two-stage approach using hybrid empirical, theoretical solution and fi-

60 nite element method is adopted in the deterministic model. In the two-stage
61 approach, the ground movements, assuming no structure is present, are first
62 determined with an empirical method. These ground movements are called the
63 greenfield ground movements (also called far-field or free field ground move-
64 ments) and are then applied at the soil structure interface as a Dirichlet bound-
65 ary condition. Afterwards, the response of surface structures, which are modeled
66 with a custom elastic finite element method implementation, can be determined
67 through a nonlinear elastoplastic soil-structure interaction (SSI) model, with
68 soils modeled as continuum solid using a theoretical solution. Two-stage ap-
69 proaches have been adopted in many SSI studies (e.g., Klar et al. (2007), Leung
70 et al. (2010),Camós et al. (2014) and Franza and DeJong (2019)), and have
71 been shown to produce accurate results (Franza et al., 2020b; Burd et al., 2022)
72 while avoiding the undue complexity of fully coupled models of the tunnelling
73 and SSI process. In section 2.1, the model of 3D greenfield ground movement is
74 described. The parameters and models for the soils, soil-structure interface and
75 surface structures are described in section 2.2. The proposed model is then vali-
76 dated by a comparison with the analysis of a fully coupled tunnel-soil-structure
77 model (Burd et al., 2022) using the proprietary finite element software Abaqus.

78 2.1. 3D greenfield ground movement model

79 The coordinate of a typical tunnel and building position is defined in Fig. 1,

80 where the z-axis is defined to be vertically upward. A Gaussian profile (Peck,
81 1969; Attewell, 1982; O’Reilly and New, 1982) is used to model the vertical
82 ground displacement (uz ), and uz at any position with coordinates x, y, z can
83 be calculated with Eq. 1

4
 PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

Figure 1: Tunnel and building coordinate system.

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

x2
 
uz (x, y, z) = − uz,max · exp −
2Kx2 (z0 − z)2
     (1a)
y − (ys + y0 ) y − yf
· Φ −Φ
Ky (z0 − z) Ky (z0 − z)
πVl d2
uz,max = √ (1b)
4 2πKx (z0 − z)
y0 = −Φ−1 (δ)Kz0 (1c)

84 Where uz,max is the magnitude of maximum settlement, d is the tunnel di-

85 ameter, z0 is the depth of tunnel axis, yf and ys are the distances from the
86 origin to the tunnel portal and tunnel face. Φ(·) stands for the standard nor-
87 mal cumulative distribution function. Vl is the ground volume loss given in
88 percentage, Kx and Ky are non-dimensional trough width parameters in x and
89 y directions. Vl is the ratio of the area enclosed by the settlement profile and
90 tunnel cross-section area when ys →
− −∞, and Kx and Ky are defined as the
91 ratio of distances from trough inflection points to the origin in the x and y
92 directions over tunnel axis depth. In this paper, Kx = Ky = K is assumed, as
93 suggested by Attewell (1982). y0 is the distance from tunnel face to the point
94 that 0.5uz,max occurs, and can be calculated with Eq. 1c (Camós and Molins,

5
95 2015), where δ is the ratio between the surface settlement above the tunnel face
96 and uz,max . δ is taken as 0.3 in this paper, following the suggestion of Camós
97 et al. (2016).
98 The horizontal ground displacement model created by O’Reilly and New
99 (1982) (Eq. 2) is adopted in this paper. If other greenfield ground displacement
100 models, for example the model proposed for twin tunnels(Peck, 1969; Mair et al.,
101 1993), are needed, they can be readily applied in the two-stage model proposed
102 in this paper.

x
ux = uz (2a)
z0 − z
Vl d2
uy =
8(z0 − z)
(2b)
−(y − (ys + y0 ))2 − x2 −(y − yf )2 − x2
    
· exp − exp
2Ky2 (z0 − z)2 2Ky2 (z0 − z)2

103 2.2. Prediction of building deformation

104 Given the greenfield ground displacements, a soil-structure interaction model
105 is needed to transfer the ground movements to surface structures. The elasto-
106 plastic SSI model proposed by Franza and DeJong (2019) is adopted in this
107 paper. Soils are modeled with a homogeneous elastic continuum through fully
108 coupled soil springs, and the interaction effect is modeled with rigid perfectly
109 plastic sliders in both the horizontal and vertical directions. The vertical sliders
110 have infinite compressive strength and zero tensile strength to simulate potential
111 gaps formed between soil and structure. Coulomb’s friction model is assumed at
112 the soil-structure interface. This is achieved by setting the strength of horizon-
113 tal sliders proportional to the compressive force in the vertical sliders connected
114 to the same soil spring.
115 Surface structures are modeled with the finite element method (FEM). A
116 typical mesh for a 3D building is shown in Fig. 2. Eight node isoparametric
117 trilinear hexahedral elements (Hughes, 2012) with 8 Gauss points are used to
118 model the facade, partition walls and foundations. The strain level in the build-
119 ing is assumed to remain in the elastic range, so an isotropic elastic constitutive

6
120 model is assumed for surface structures. Although this elastic assumption is not
121 necessarily correct, particularly for masonry structures due to the discontinuity
122 caused by mortar connections, it is consistent with the assumption Boscardin
123 and Cording (1989) made to introduce the widely applied damage classifica-
124 tion method (Table 2), which is also adopted in this paper. Yiu et al. (2017)
125 also suggested that it is feasible to employ simple constitutive models for most
126 practical assessment purpose. Alternatively, higher fidelity models that include
127 nonlinear structural behavior could readily be implemented in this framework in
128 the future, Although, it should be noted that even if higher fidelity constitutive
129 models were adopted, the information needed to calibrate such models, and the
130 detailed geometry and construction details needed to make them beneficial, are
131 often not available in practical assessments. The adopted simplified constitutive
132 model will unavoidably produce some uncertainty, but similar to many proba-
133 bilistic analysis practices (e.g. Nilsen and Aven (2003)), such uncertainty can
134 be considered with the probabilistic assessment approach described in section
135 3.
136 The stiffness matrix of surface structure (S) can be easily calculated through
137 the finite element theory. The displacements at each node can be solved by a
138 set of equilibrium equations (Eq.3 (Franza and DeJong, 2019)).

(S + K∗ )u = P + K∗ ucat + K∗ Λ∗ (P − Su) + K∗ uip subject to: (3a)

fi,low ≤ (P − Su)i ≤ fi,up (3b)

|(P − Su)j | ≤ µ(P − Su)i (3c)

139 where P is the load applied on the structure, u is the displacement of the
140 structure, uip is the plastic deformation of the sliders and ucat is the greenfield
141 displacements determined from Eq. 1 and Eq. 2. K∗ is the local stiffness ma-
142 trix of soil, and Λ∗ is the soil flexibility matrix without the main diagonal. K∗
143 and Λ∗ are calculated from the integrated forms of Mindlin’s solutions given by
144 Vaziri et al. (1982). Eq. 3 is nonlinear and can be solved with the algorithm
145 proposed by Klar et al. (2007). To achieve the flexibility of the ensuing proba-

7
146 bilistic simulation and an optimized computational performance, a customized
147 computer program written in C++ is created to implement all the calculations
148 mentioned above,including mesh generation, soil stiffness calculation, building
149 stiffness calculation, 3D elastoplastic soil-structure interface model formulation,
150 and the nonlinear solver. This computer program is a 3D extension of the com-
151 puter program Analysis of Structural Response to Excavation (ASRE) (Franza
152 and DeJong, 2019; Franza et al., 2020a; Zhao et al., 2021, 2022), and is named
153 ASRE3D.

154 2.3. Validation of ASRE3D

155 ASRE3D is validated by a comparison with the finite element analysis re-
156 sults reported in Burd et al. (2022), where the response of a two-story masonry
157 facade building with 8 m height, 40 m length and 10m width is calculated with
158 a 3D fully coupled tunnel-soil-structure finite element (FE) model and a simpli-
159 fied 1D soil to masonry (S2M) model respectively. The thickness of the masonry
160 facades and partition walls in the analyzed building are 0.215 m. A strip footing
161 with 1 m width, 0.5 m height and 1 m embedded depth is also modeled. The
162 geometric details of the analyzed building can be found in Burd et al. (2022). A
163 single tunnel with 11 m diameter is excavated 23 m below the ground surface,
164 which leads to a volume loss (Vl ) of 1.65% and a width parameter (K) of 0.57.
165 An Isotropic elastic constitutive model with a Young’s modulus of 3 GPa and a
166 Poisson’s ratio of 0.2 is specified for the masonry. The extended Mohr-Coulomb
167 model and multiple yield surface kinematic hardening model are adopted for
168 the soils in the fully coupled FE model, and a calibrated soil-foundation inter-
169 action model is adopted in the S2M model. In the analysis using ASRE3D,
170 the soil Young’s modulus is taken as 14.5 MPa, which is the weighted average
171 stiffness (Potts, 1976; Mair, 2013) of the terrace gravel and London Clay mod-
172 eled in Burd et al. (2022). All the other dimensions and parameters are the
173 same with the 3D FE model specified in Burd et al. (2022). Fig. 3 shows the
174 comparison of the tunnel-induced vertical displacements at the foundation base
175 level under 3 eccentricities (horizontal distances from tunnel axis to building

8
 (a) Whole building. (b) Facade and foundation details.

Figure 2: Mesh employed for ASRE3D validation.

176 center line). ASRE3D shows a close match with the 3D fully coupled analysis
177 computed with the finite element program Abaqus (Dassault Systemes Simulia
178 Corp., Providence, RI, USA).
179 Fig. 4 shows a comparison of the principal tensile strains computed with
180 ASRE3D, the 3D fully coupled FEM method and the S2M method employed
181 by Burd et al. (2022). Burd et al. (2022) reported the 99% quantile of the
182 principal tensile strain (εt99 ) of all building elements to eliminate the strain
183 concentration effect at mesh corners and connections. Therefore, the εt99 are
184 computed with ASRE3D, and then plotted for eccentricities of 0, 5, 10, 15, 20
185 and 25 m. ASRE3D shows a reasonable match with the prediction of the 3D
186 fully coupled FEM. The comparison of the vertical displacement profiles (Fig.
187 3) and εt99 (Fig. 4) indicates that ASRE3D can provide a similar result as
188 the fully coupled 3D FE model, while ASRE3D is simpler and computationally
189 cheaper. The simple and computationally cheap nature makes it feasible to
190 apply ASRE3D in the following probabilistic assessment approach. Although
191 ASRE3D is subject to some loss of fidelity (especially for larger eccentricities)
192 compared with the fully coupled 3D finite element analysis due to the two-
193 stage modeling approach and the coarse mesh adopted for surface buildings, the
194 possible modeling errors of ASRE3D is considered to be acceptable and much
195 less critical than the uncertainty discussed in section 3.

9
 10
ASRE3D
0 3D FEM(Burd et al. (2022))

Vertical displacement (mm)

Greenfield
S2M model(Burd et al. (2022))
-10

-20

-30

-40

-50

-60
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
x (m)

(a) (b)
10
ASRE3D
0 3D FEM(Burd et al. (2022))

Vertical displacement (mm)

Greenfield
S2M model(Burd et al. (2022))
-10

-20

-30

-40

-50

-60
-30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10
x (m)

(c) (d)

10
ASRE3D
0 3D FEM(Burd et al. (2022))
Vertical displacement (mm)

Greenfield
S2M model(Burd et al. (2022))
-10

-20

-30

-40

-50

-60
-40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0
x (m)

(e) (f)

Figure 3: Principal tensile strains calculated with ASRE3D and vertical displacements at the
foundation base level induced by tunneling: (a,b) eccentricity = 0 m; (c,d) eccentricity = 10
m, (e,f) eccentricity = 20 m.

600
ASRE3D
S2M model (Burd et al.(2022))
500 3D FEM (Burd et al.(2022))
tensile strain (microstrain)
99% quantile of principal

400

300

200

100

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Eccentricity (m)

Figure 4: Variation of the 99% quantile principal tensile strains (εt99 ) with eccentricity.

10
196 3. Probabilistic assessment of building damage due to tunneling

197 The proposed 3D hybrid FE model significantly reduces the modeling sim-
198 plifications that are inherent in the state-of-the-practice equivalent beam meth-
199 ods by considering the effects of building shape, progressive excavation, and
200 openings on building facades. However, it may still suffer from the simplified
201 treatment of the greenfield ground displacements model and simplified soil and
202 structure model. Such simplifications may be reduced by adopting more detailed
203 models (e.g., Giardina et al. (2013); Amorosi et al. (2014); Yiu et al. (2017)).
204 But the in-situ information required to create the detailed models is often not
205 available for large projects where many buildings need to be analyzed, and this
206 information may also be subject to large uncertainty. In decision-making under
207 uncertainty, it is common practice to adopt a reduced order model and quan-
208 tify the effect of the potential uncertainties with probabilistic analyses methods,
209 which is the approach adopted herein.
210 In this paper, a simulation-based probabilistic assessment method of tun-
211 neling induced surface structure damage (Zhao et al., 2021) is adopted, where
212 the uncertainty inputs are first quantified as random variables, and the uncer-
213 tainty is propagated to engineering demand parameters (principal tensile strain
214 in this scenario) with the Monte-Carlo method. With a limit state defined
215 as a function of the engineering demand parameter, the probability of surface
216 structure damage can be calculated. Damage mitigation procedures should be
217 taken accordingly if the surface structure shows a large damage probability.
218 With Sobol’s sensitivity analyses, the proposed method can also suggest opti-
219 mal ways to reduce prediction uncertainty if a higher assessment precision is
220 desired.

221 3.1. Uncertainty input quantification

222 In this paper, five parameters (i.e., volume loss (Vl ), trough width param-
223 eter (K), representative soil elastic modulus (Es ), elastic modulus of surface
224 structure model (Eb ) and the dead load applied on surface structures(L)), are

11
225 considered as uncertainty input parameters. In probabilistic geoengineering
226 practice, it is usually hard to obtain sufficient site and lab data to achieve rig-
227 orous statistical description of random variables (Schweiger et al., 2001), and
228 engineering judgement based on information from in-situ tests and similar engi-
229 neering applications is usually made to quantify the uncertainties (Baecher and
230 Christian, 2005; Ayyub and Klir, 2006). In this paper, types of probabilistic
231 distribution and corresponding statistics of the five uncertainty input param-
232 eters are quantified based on monitoring data, published research and design
233 regulations. However, it is important to note that the quantification suggested
234 here are for the assessment of shallow foundation masonry buildings and shallow
235 tunnels primarily excavated in clay. Different probabilistic models for the input
236 parameters should be selected in different engineering practices according to the
237 specific tunnel design and surface buildings and underground conditions. For ex-
238 ample, a smaller mean value for volume loss can be used when the earth pressure
239 balance technique is adopted, and a smaller coefficient of variance (COV) can
240 be used when very precise workmanship control can be achieved (e.g., Cording
241 (2018)). The values presented below can be used as references for the selection
242 of probabilistic model inputs.
243 Zhao et al. (2021) collected field monitoring data of Vl and K from two tun-
244 nel construction projects in London(Wongsaroj et al., 2005; Ashworth, 2017).
245 The data at 53 independent transects were studied, and the coefficient of vari-
246 ance (COV) of Vl and K are 73.11% and 14.44%, respectively. The data also
247 revealed that Vl and K roughly follow lognormal distribution with a very small
248 covariance. Although the amount of data is small, this complies with the log-
249 normal and independent assumptions made by Camós et al. (2016), and these
250 two assumptions are adopted in this paper. Phoon and Kulhawy (1999b) stud-
251 ied the inherent variability and measurement error of geotechnical properties
252 and suggested a COV between 14% and 68% for the Young’s modulus of typi-
253 cal soils. Since upper and lower limits are usually specified for Es in practice,
254 a beta distribution is a proper choice to model the distribution shape of Es .
255 When in situ data is available, the combined uncertainty induced by inherent

12
256 variability and measurement error can be better characterized with methods
257 proposed in Phoon and Kulhawy (1999a), Baecher and Christian (2005) and
258 Uzielli et al. (2007). A Markov Chain Monte-Carlo simulation method (Wang
259 and Cao, 2013) is also available to generate equivalent samples and enhance
260 the probabilistic characterization of Es when the amount of in-situ test data is
261 small.
262 The random variables Eb and L are respectively used to model the uncer-
263 tainty of the stiffness and dead load of surface structures. Probabilistic char-
264 acterization for stiffness, strength and load can be found in probabilistic design
265 regulations for different types of structures (e.g. Cornell (1969), Ellingwood
266 (1980) and ASCE and American Forest & Paper Association (1996)). In this
267 paper, unreinforced masonry structures are primarily considered, and the sug-
268 gestion of the Brick Industry Association (BIA, 1992) is adopted to quantify the
269 uncertainty associated with Eb . To quantify the uncertainty of L, the method
270 suggested in Ellingwood (1980) is followed, where the mean of L should be taken
271 as 1.05 times the nominal design load and the COV should be taken as 10%. A
272 comprehensive discussion of probabilistic characterization of structure proper-
273 ties can be found in Melchers and Beck (2018). The quantification method and
274 corresponding references of the five uncertain input parameters are summarized
275 in table 1. The uncertainty input parameters are assumed to be statistically
276 independent from each other. The correlation between ground movements (Vl
277 and K) and soil properties (Es ) is ignored because: (1), the Vl modeled in this
278 paper can be divided into two parts, tunnel level ground loss and tunneling-
279 induced soil deformation. Tunnel level ground loss may depend on construction
280 activity, earth pressure, soil weight, properties of the soil surrounding the tun-
281 nel, etc.(Mair et al., 1982; Loganathan et al., 1998; Greschik and Greschik, 1999;
282 Franza and Marshall, 2019), and may not be strongly correlated to Es , which
283 describes the stiffness of the whole semi-infinite ground. The tunnel-induced
284 soil deformation is negatively correlated to soil stiffness, however, the magni-
285 tude of tunneling-induced soil deformation is much smaller than the tunnel level
286 ground loss (e.g., 10 times smaller in Yiu et al. (2017)). Overall, the correlation

13
 Table 1: Uncertainty quantification of input variables.

Parameter Description Distribution Typical mean COV References

Vl Volume loss Lognormal 0.5-1.5% 73.11% Burland et al. (2004), Wongsaroj et al. (2005), Ashworth (2017)
K Trough width parameter Lognormal 0.2-0.7 14.44% O’Reilly and New (1982), Wongsaroj et al. (2005), Ashworth (2017)
Es Soil elastic modulus Beta(2, 2) Sand: 10-320MPa 18-68% Kézdi and Rétháti (1974), Phoon and Kulhawy (1999b,a)
Clay: 0.5-80MPa 14-68% Baecher and Christian (2005); Uzielli et al. (2007); Wang and Cao (2013)
Eb Building elastic modulus Lognormal 700-1200 times masonry 31-55% Plummer (1962); BIA (1992); Subasic and Borchelt (1993) ∗
prism compressive strength
L Dead load Lognormal 1.05 times nominal load 6-15% Allen (1975); Ellingwood (1980) ∗

∗ The references are for masonry structures. References for other types of structures can be found in:
Cornell (1969); ASCE and American Forest & Paper Association (1996); BIA (1992); Melchers and Beck (2018).

Table 2: Relationship between category of damage and limiting tensile strain (after Boscardin
and Cording, 1989).

Category of Normal degree Lower limiting tensile strain Upper limiting tensile strain
damage of severity εlim,low (%) εlim,up (%)
0 Negligible 0 0.05
1 Very slight 0.050 0.075
2 Slight 0.075 0.15
3 Moderate 0.150 0.3
4 to 5 Severe to very severe 0.300 ∞

287 between Vl and Es is considered to be weak in this paper; (2) although K may
288 depends on the type of soils (i.e., sand, clay or other types), it still shows a con-
289 siderable fluctuation in the same type of soil (Mair et al., 1993) and no strong
290 correlation with the soil stiffness are reported in previous tunnel projects; (3)
291 the correlation between input variables generally reduces the variability of sys-
292 tem output (Baecher and Christian, 2005) and ignoring the correlation provides
293 a conservative estimation of the damage assessment uncertainty. The later rea-
294 soning also applies to the ignorance of the correlation between Eb and L. The
295 assumption that the parameters are statistical independent is commonly made
296 in many uncertainty and probabilistic analyses of tunnels and in other engineer-
297 ing applications (e.g., Schweiger et al. (2001); Camós et al. (2016); Mollon et al.
298 (2013); Miro et al. (2015); Liu et al. (2018, 2017)).

299 3.2. Structural damage classification

300 The damage classification method (Table 2) based on limiting tensile strain
301 (εlim ) is well established (Burland et al., 1978; Boscardin and Cording, 1989) and

14
302 widely applied (e.g. Farrell et al. (2012); Goh and Mair (2011); Camós et al.
303 (2014). The tensile strain developed in surface structures can be calculated
304 with semi-empirical methods (Mair et al., 1996; Potts and Addenbrooke, 1997)
305 or numerical analysis (Pickhaver et al., 2010; Giardina et al., 2013; Yiu et al.,
306 2017; Franza et al., 2020a; Burd et al., 2022), and then compared with εlim to
307 determine a damage category. It is often observed that the computed strains
308 at corners and connections by finite element models are subjected to stress
309 singularities (e.g., Hills and Dini (2011); Yiu et al. (2017)) and the maximum
310 strain computed from finite element models is liable to overestimate the damage
311 in structures. To avoid overestimation, in this paper, the strain of elements
312 at connections of internal walls, foundations and facades are excluded in the
313 classification of structure damage. The maximum principal tensile strain in the
314 remaining elements is defined as the characteristic strain (εc ) and compared
315 with the εlim,lower and εlim,up given in Table 2. This is conceptually similar
316 to taking εt99 as the characteristic strain in Yiu et al. (2017) and Burd et al.
317 (2022), as discussed in section 2.3. For a given building, using the Monte-Carlo
318 method detailed below, an empirical probability distribution (F̂n (εc )) of εc can
319 be obtained, and the probability (P̂I ) of the damage category I can be estimated
320 with Eq. 4a. If failure is defined as damage category I or above, the failure
321 probability is denoted with P̂I+ and can be calculated with Eq. 4b. The damage
322 probabilities may change as the tunnel face approaches, so empirical distribution
323 functions are determined for multiple ys to estimated P̂I at each stage of tunnel
324 advancement.

P̂I = F̂n (εlim,up ) − F̂n (εlim,low ) (4a)

P̂I+ = 1 − F̂n (εlim,low ) (4b)

325 3.3. Uncertainty propagation and variance-based sensitivity analysis

326 In this paper, uncertainty propagation is used to estimate the probabilistic
327 distribution of building damage (PI ) under the influence of the uncertainty in-
328 put parameters through a transformation of the deterministic model ASRE3D.

15
329 Because ASRE3D is nonlinear with a relatively high input dimension, many con-
330 ventional uncertainty propagation and reliability analysis methods (e.g., point
331 estimation method, first-order second-moment (FOSM) method) may introduce
332 large biases. In contrast, the Monte-Carlo (MC) method is simple in concept and
333 provides unbiased estimation of quantities of interest. Therefore, MC method is
334 employed herein to estimate the cumulative distribution (F (εc )) of εc with an
335 empirical distribution F̂n (εc ) (See Eq. 5, where n is the number of simulations, 1
336 stands for the indicator operator and εc,i is the characteristic strain determined
337 from the ith model evaluation of ASRE3D). To achieve a sufficient accuracy,
338 the number of simulations was increased consecutively and P̂1+ for ys = −50 in
339 the following case study was calculated and plotted in Fig. 5a. It is observed
340 that P̂1+ converged to a constant when the sample size reaches 1000 and the
341 95% confidence interval obtained with bootstrap sampling method is small. To
342 ensure satisfactory accuracy, 1200 samples are used for the MC simulations in
343 this paper.
344 It is often helpful to study which parameters caused most uncertainty in
345 the estimation of εc , which defines the building damage category. Therefore, a
346 variance based global sensitivity analysis (Sobol’s method) can be conducted.
347 Sobol’s method can, in principle, describe the sensitivity of a model with a full
348 decomposition of the variance of the model output into terms depending on
349 each input parameter and their interactions. The decomposition terms range
350 from first-order (no interaction), second-order (interaction between each two
351 input parameters), to total effect (interaction of one parameter with all the
352 other parameters). Practitioners are often satisfied with computing first order
353 effect indices (Si ) and total effect indices (STi ). Si equals to the variance of
354 the conditional mean of the system output when the ith parameter is fixed. It
355 represents the main effect contribution of each input random variable to the
356 variance of the output. The difference between Si and STi describes synthetic
357 interactions among the ith parameter and all the other parameters.
358 The computation methods suggested by Saltelli et al. (2010) are adopted
359 herein to estimate Si and STi via a quasi-MC method. The estimation of Si

16
360 and STi are essentially MC integrations. Quasi-MC methods, in which a low-
361 discrepancy sequence (Sobol’s sequence) is used to generate input samples, can
362 accelerate the convergence of MC integration. In Saltelli et al. (2010)’s method,
363 a base sample size (n) is selected and n(k + 2) model evaluations are needed
364 to estimate Si and STi , where k is the number of input parameters, which
365 equals five in this paper. To ensure sufficient accuracy, the base sample size
366 is increased consecutively and the variation of Si and STi are plotted in Fig.
367 5b. Only the indices for Vl are plotted for clarity, while the indices for all five
368 input parameters converge when the base sample size reaches 512. To ensure
369 satisfactory convergence, the base sample size is conservatively taken as 1024
370 for sensitivity analyses in this paper.
371 Because a large number of model evaluation is required in the MC method
372 and Sobol’s sensitivity analysis method, computation time is the most signifi-
373 cant limitation in the application of the proposed method. To tackle this limi-
374 tation, optimized linear solvers and a distributed parallel computation strategy
375 are adopted. In ASRE3D, the nonlinear equation Eq.3 is solved with an iter-
376 ation algorithm (Klar et al., 2007), where each iteration involves the inversion
377 of a constant symmetric positive definite (s.p.d.) matrix (S + K∗ ). Since the
378 matrix is s.p.d., the cholesky decomposition method can be used to decompose
379 the matrix into the product of a lower triangular matrix and its transpose. In
380 ASRE3D, The lower triangular matrix is saved and reused in each iteration since
381 (S+K∗ ) is constant in each iteration. Therefore, the inversion of matrix in each
382 iteration is reduced to forward and backward substitutions. Taking advantage
383 of the sparsity of (S + K∗ ), the computation time of forward and backward sub-
384 stitution is further reduced with a sparse storage scheme (compressed column)
385 for matrices. The sparse storage scheme can also reduce computer memory
386 consumption, which is a common bottleneck in parallel computations.
387 The typical run time of ASRE3D (employing one core in the Intel i7-8700
388 processor) is 10 minutes, in contrast to the 2.5 hours required by analysing
389 a similar problem with the software Abaqus (Yiu et al., 2017). The typical
390 memory consumption is 4 GB, which allows running 10 tasks on one computing

17
 0.5

95% Confidence interval

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Number of simulations

(a) Evolution of failure probability P̂1+ .

2.5
Sobol's first order index (SV )
l
2 Sobol's total order index (ST V )
l
95% confidence interval of SV
l
Sobol's indices

1.5
95% confidence interval of ST V
l

0.5

-0.5
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Number of base samples in sensitivity analyses

(b) Evolution of Sobol’s first and total effect index

for Vl .

Figure 5: Convergence analysis.

391 node with 64 GB memory in the high performance computing cluster SAVIO
392 at UC Berkeley. When 20 computing nodes are employed, the total run time of
393 the uncertainty propagation is on the order of 1.5 hours.

n
1X
F (εc ) = P(εc ≤ εc ) = E(1εc <εc ) ≈ F̂n (εc ) = 1ε <ε (5)
n i=1 c,i c

18
 PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

Tunnel Advance

16 m 46 m
CS-1
ys

26°
10 m
x
40 m CS-2

Figure 6: Positions of the analyzed buildings and tunnels.

394 4. Case study

395 4.1. Model parameters

396 ASRE3D and the probabilistic assessment approach are applied to two pub-
397 lished case studies. The first case study (Camós et al., 2014, 2016), which is
398 named CS-1, is a one story masonry residential building located above the L9
PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION
399 metro line in Barcelona. The rectangular building is a 46x16 m in plan di-
400 mensions. The thickness of the exterior masonry facade and internal partition
401 walls are 0.2 m and 0.04 m respectively. The walls are 3 m high with multiple
402 windows of dimension 1x1 m and doors of 2x0.8 m on the long facade. The ge-
403 ometry of the building can be found in Fig.3 of Camós et al. (2014). The tunnel
404 diameter is 12 m, the tunnel depth is 23 m, and the angle between the tunnel
405 axis and the building long facade is 26o . Fig. 6 shows the relative positions of
406 the building and tunnel. The nominal value for dead load (L) of the building is
407 taken as the masonry self weight of 1800 Kg/m3 plus a uniform roof load of 1.25
408 KN/m2 , as suggested by the Spanish regulation. As discussed in section 3.1,
409 the mean value of L is taken as 1.05 times the nominal value and the coefficient
410 of variance (COV) is taken as 10%. The mean values of Eb and Es are taken
411 as 3015 MPa and 90 MPa, which are consistent with the FEM model developed
412 by Camós et al. (2014). The COV of Es is taken as 30%, which represents a
413 medium level of uncertainty as suggested by Phoon and Kulhawy (1999b), and

19
414 the COV of Eb is taken as 35.6%, which is an average value for solid bricks
415 (BIA, 1992). Camós et al. (2016) conducted probabilistic prediction of this case
416 study by modeling the structure as a 2D equivalent beam, and assumed that the
417 mean values of Vl and K are 0.4% and 0.3 with COVs equal to 40% and 20% in
418 Camós et al. (2016). The same values for Vl and K are adopted in this paper,
419 so that the difference of the probabilistic assessment results between ASRE3D
420 and an equivalent beam method that ignores SSI effects can be evaluated.
421 The second case study (named CS-2) is an artificial scenario first developed
422 by Yiu et al. (2017) to represent a masonry building on strip footings influenced
423 by tunnel excavated in a typical London soil profile. CS-2 is used as a benchmark
424 in Burd et al. (2022) and this paper (section 2.3). The model geometry can
425 be found in section 2.3, and Fig.3 of Yiu et al. (2017). Only the case with
426 zero eccentricity is studied here, and the position is shown in Fig. 6. Mean
427 values of the uncertainty input parameters are taken as the values used in the
428 aforementioned deterministic analysis, and the COV values are the same as used
429 for CS-1.

430 4.2. Probabilistic assessment results

431 In CS-1, the proposed probabilistic assessment approach is repeated seven

432 times, each time with the position of tunnel face ys = +10, +5, 0, -5, -10, -20,
433 -50 m. The empirical distributions for the maximum characteristic strain for
434 each tunnel face position are plotted in Fig. 7. The results of deterministic
435 analyses, in which L is taken as the nominal value and the other uncertain
436 input variables taken as their mean value, are indicated with cross markers.
437 The building deformation shape and the distribution of principal tensile strains
438 calculated from the deterministic analyses at each ys are plotted in Fig. 9.
439 P̂1+ for each ys are calculated with Eq. 4b, and shown in Table 3. The
440 values predicted by Camós et al. (2016) are also presented in Table 3. Camós
441 et al. (2016) assumed the structure displacements at the foundation are exactly
442 the same as the empirical greenfield ground displacements, and only the rear
443 wall (closer to origin) was analyzed. For all ys , the failure probability of the

20
444 rear wall computed in this paper is smaller than the probabilities computed
445 by Camós et al. (2016). This is because the structure deflection is reduced
446 when the structure stiffness is considered. Camós et al. (2014) observed that
447 P̂1+ is slightly higher when ys = −10 m than ys = −20 m. This difference
448 occurs because, given the alignment of the rear wall (26o with respect to the
449 tunnel axis), the combined ground deflection from the x and y directions is more
450 critical when ys = −10 m. However, when SSI is considered, the rear wall is
451 more vulnerable when the tunnel face has completely passed (ys < −20 m).
452 This could be because the tunnel face has passed the front wall by 16m, and the
453 front wall has reached a state with smaller deformation than the rear wall, so
454 the damage probability of the rear wall is reduced by the support from the front
455 wall. This behavior indicates the significance of the building geometry, and it
456 can only be captured with a 3D analysis. When the tunnel face is far from the
457 structure (e.g, ys > −5 m), the damage probability is higher when the whole
458 structure is considered in addition to the rear wall. This is again because the
459 front wall and partition walls are closer to the tunnel portal, and the potential
460 damage to these walls increased the damage probability of the whole structure.
461 Because the deterministic analysis results in an εc that is smaller than 0.05
462 % for all ys , the building will be diagnosed with negligible damage in con-
463 ventional assessment. However, the probabilistic assessment results indicate
464 that the probability of non-negligible damage is actually around 20%. In
465 CS-2, the empirical distributions obtained from probabilistic assessment for
466 ys = −50, −20, −10, 0, 10 m are plotted in Fig.8, with the results of deter-
467 ministic analyses marked with crosses. The building deformation shape and
468 the distribution of principal tensile strains calculated from the deterministic
469 analyses at each ys are plotted in Fig. 10 Similar to CS-1, the εc determined
470 from deterministic assessment indicates negligible damage, but there is an ap-
471 proximately 34% probability that non-negligible damage will occur. The higher
472 damage probability in CS-2 is most likely due to the larger Vl (1.65%) than the
473 Vl (0.4%) in CS-1.

21
 1

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09

Figure 7: Probabilistic assessment results of CS-1.

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1

Figure 8: Probabilistic assessment results of CS-2.

Table 3: Probability of category 1 or higher damage for different tunnel face positions.

Position of tunnel face ys = +10 m ys = +5 m ys = 0 m ys = -5 m ys = -10 m ys = -20 m ys = -50 m

Whole structure (this paper) 4.60% 6.42% 8.50% 11.08% 16.00% 19.83% 20.79%
Only rear wall (this paper) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 7.76% 15.50% 19.75% 20.50%
Only rear wall (Camós et al., 2016) 0.00% 0.01% 8.00% 23.00% 28.00% 25.00% -

22
Figure 9: Building deformation shapes and principal tensile strain distributions at ys =
10, 5, 0, −5, −10, −20, −50 m in CS-1 (Tunnel approaches from inside of paper).

Figure 10: Building deformation shapes and principal tensile strain distributions at ys =
10, 0, −10, −20, −50 m in CS-2 (Tunnel approaches from outside of paper).

23
474 4.3. Sensitivity analysis
475 The sensitivity analysis result of CS-1 and CS-2 are presented in Fig. 11,
476 together with 95% confidence intervals. The confidence intervals for first order
477 indices are larger than those for total effect indices. This is because the method
478 (Saltelli et al., 2010) adopted in this paper is primarily developed for the cal-
479 culation of total effect indices, and the first order indices can be obtained by
480 a relatively small amount of additional computation. If only first order indices
481 are needed, computationally cheaper algorithms (Tarantola et al., 2006) can be
482 employed to achieve a faster convergence and smaller confidence intervals using
483 the same sample size.
484 It is observed that in both CS-1 and CS-2, the majority of damage prediction
485 uncertainty is caused by K and Vl . This suggests that, if a higher precision is
486 desired in the damage assessment, the most efficient method is to reduce the
487 uncertainty of the predicted K and Vl . The epistemic uncertainty associated
488 with K and Vl can be reduced by employing ground movement prediction models
489 with higher fidelity, and the aleatoric uncertainty can be reduced by better
490 workmanship quality control. Under the same input uncertainty, the Sobol’s
491 indices for Eb and Es in CS-1 are significantly smaller than those in CS-2.
492 This is because the building in CS-1 has a low elevation and thin facade, so
493 the building stiffness across the entire parameter distribution space is small.
494 Therefore, the building stiffness and soil stiffness do not significantly affect the
495 SSI in CS-1. In contrast, the building in CS-2 is taller with thicker facade walls,
496 so the Eb and Es are more important in the SSI, i.e. the difference between
497 building displacements and greenfield ground displacements. It should be kept
498 in mind that the presented Sobol’s analysis results are properties of the SSI
499 models for the case studies. They also strongly depend on the input probabilistic
500 models (e.g., COV of the input parameters). As discussed in section 3.1, the
501 input probabilistic models adopted here are carefully selected according to case
502 history data and widely accepted research literature on risk and uncertainty
503 analyses, and the results can suggest the sensitivity properties of SSI for similar
504 case studies. A parametric study (e.g., Zhao et al. (2021)) may be needed to

24
 0.7
Sobol's first order indices
0.6 Sobol's total effect indices
0.555

0.5 0.473
0.451

Sobol's indices
0.410
0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1 0.055
0.003 0.046 0.003
0.000 0.003
0
Kx Vl Es Eb L

(a) Sensitivity analysis results of CS-1.

0.7
Sobol's first order indices
0.6 Sobol's total effect indices

0.5 0.480
Sobol's indices

0.398 0.396
0.4
0.317
0.3
0.207
0.2
0.140
0.1
0.039
0.023 0.010
0.000
0
Kx Vl Es Eb L

(b) Sensitivity analysis results of CS-2.

Figure 11: Sobol’s sensitivity analysis results.

505 find the sensitivity properties for different SSI scenarios.

506 5. Discussion

507 • In both case studies, the probability of non-negligible damage is on the

508 order of 20-25%, which is usually considered ”unlikely” or ”fairly unlikely”
509 (Anthony , Tony; Baecher and Christian, 2005) in typical risk analysis of
510 construction projects. However, this does not undermine the significance
511 of the probabilistic assessment for two reasons: (1) As reported by Alpert
512 and Raiffa (1982), engineers, even experts, tend to be over-confident in
513 their assessment, but the proposed probabilistic assessment approach pro-
514 vides a quantitative tool to specify how reliable an assessment result is;

25
515 (2) The variance of Vl and K adopted in the case studies are smaller than
516 the variance observed in previous tunnel constructions (see Table 1). The
517 probability of non-negligible damage may be much higher when practi-
518 tioners have a more pessimistic uncertainty quantification of the input
519 variables.

520 • Ignoring the SSI effect usually causes over-conservative assessment results
521 in tunnel and structure interactions. For example, the probability of non-
522 negligible damage computed in this paper is smaller than those computed
523 by Camós et al. (2016), in which the SSI effect is ignored. For this case
524 study, the approach proposed in this paper demonstrates the importance
525 of the SSI effect in damage assessment.

526 • Yiu et al. (2017) studied tunnel-soil-structure interaction and the differ-
527 ence that results from analyzing each facade wall individually and analyz-
528 ing the complete building altogether. It is reported that for orthogonal
529 tunnel-building scenarios, analyzing individual walls or complete struc-
530 tures provide similar values of characteristic tensile strain, but 3D com-
531 plete building analysis with a skewed tunnel predicts less damage than the
532 equivalent orthogonal tunnel case. Yiu et al. (2017) also suggested that
533 further study is needed for building performance during incremental tun-
534 nel construction. The difference between individual and complete analysis
535 for skewed tunnels is revealed by CS-1 in this paper: Camós et al. (2016)
536 reported that the damage probability of the building in CS-1 is at its
537 maximum when ys = −10 when the rear facade is analyzed individually,
538 while the probability reaches maximum at ys = −50 when the complete
539 building is analyzed in this paper. When the tunnel face approaches the
540 front wall, the rear wall is disturbed by very small ground displacements,
541 so the rear wall provides additional supports to the front wall. When the
542 tunnel face approaches the rear wall, the front wall has stabilized, and
543 additional supports are provided to the rear wall. This coupling mecha-
544 nism between the front and rear walls illustrates the importance of a 3D

26
545 modeling method in skewed tunnel-soil-structure interaction.

546 • It is observed that F̂n (εc ) changes more significantly with the tunnel face
547 position (ys ) in CS-2 than CS-1. This may be explained by the following
548 three observations. First, the volume loss in CS-2 is much larger than CS-1
549 and the change of ground movements with ys is therefore more significant
550 than CS-1. Second, when a tunnel approaches an orthogonal wall in CS-
551 2, the whole wall experiences the ground movements at the same time.
552 However, when the tunnel face approaches a wall from a skewed direction
553 as in CS-1, the front part of the wall experiences the ground movements
554 first, followed by the rear part. Therefore, the differential ground move-
555 ments is smoothed between the front and rear part of the wall and the
556 building deformation of a skewed wall changes slower than for an orthogo-
557 nal wall when a tunnel approaches. Third, as discussed above and in Yiu
558 et al. (2017), the coupling effects between the front wall and rear wall are
559 stronger in skewed buildings than orthogonal buildings. The coupling be-
560 tween front and rear walls can also smooth differential ground movements
561 through the same mechanism described above.

562 6. Conclusions

563 A new two-stage model using empirical, theoretical and finite element hybrid
564 methods to compute tunneling induced surface building deformation is devel-
565 oped. The ground movements are estimated with empirical equations, the soil
566 and an elastoplastic soil structure interface are modeled with theoretical solu-
567 tions and the surface structures are modeled with the finite element method.
568 The proposed two-stage model is computationally cheaper than fully coupled
569 tunnel-soil-structure finite element models, but demonstrates a sufficient ac-
570 curacy when compared to published results that employ a fully coupled finite
571 element model (Burd et al., 2022). The proposed model is implemented into
572 a computer program ASRE3D and embedded in the probabilistic assessment
573 method originally introduced in Zhao et al. (2021). Uncertainty quantification

27
574 methods for input parameters are suggested according to field data, published
575 researches and design regulations. The input uncertainty is then propagated
576 to the building damage engineering demand parameter (characteristic tensile
577 strain) through the Monte-Carlo method, without employing surrogate models,
578 to ensure an unbiased uncertainty propagation. A high-performance computing
579 cluster was employed, so that the uncertainty propagation can be completed in
580 around 2 hours. This results in one of few probabilistic assessment tools (not
581 only in the area of tunnel-soil-structure interaction, but also most civil engi-
582 neering problems) that employ MC simulation and large numerical models, and
583 that can be routinely applied in practice. A variance-based sensitivity analysis
584 is also implemented, and two case studies are presented.
585 The comparison of the results obtained from the proposed damage assess-
586 ment approach and an approach without considering the SSI effect and 3D
587 coupling effect is consistent with the expected behaviour: (1) neglecting the SSI
588 effect results in over-conservative damage prediction, and (2) the 3D coupling
589 effect is important to achieve accurate damage prediction, especially for skewed
590 building-tunnel scenarios. The sensitivity analysis suggests that, for the case
591 studies considered, ground movement prediction with higher precision and bet-
592 ter tunnel construction workmanship are likely to be the most efficient method
593 to reduce damage prediction uncertainty.

594 References

595 Allen, D.E., 1975. Limit states design—a probabilistic study. Canadian Journal
596 of Civil Engineering 2, 36–49.

597 Alpert, M., Raiffa, H., 1982. A progress report on the training of probability
598 assessors .

599 Amorosi, A., Boldini, D.d., De Felice, G., Malena, M., Sebastianelli, M., 2014.
600 Tunnelling-induced deformation and damage on historical masonry struc-
601 tures. Géotechnique 64, 118–130.

28
602 Amorosi, A., Sangirardi, M., 2021. Coupled three-dimensional analysis of the
603 progressive tunnelling-induced damage to masonry buildings: is it always
604 worth it? Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 118, 104173.

605 Anthony (Tony) Cox Jr, L., 2008. What’s wrong with risk matrices? Risk
606 Analysis: An International Journal 28, 497–512.

607 ASCE, American Forest & Paper Association, 1996. Standard for load and
608 resistance factor design (LRFD) for engineered wood construction. American
609 Forest & Paper Association.

610 Ashworth, D., 2017. Ground surface movement behaviour influences from twin
611 bored tunnels excavated within Longdon Clay. Master’s thesis. University
612 of Cambridge. The Old Schools, Trinity Ln, Cambridge CB2 1TN, United
613 Kingdom.

614 Attewell, P., 1982. Predicting the dynamics of ground settlement and its deriva-
615 tives caused by tunnelling in soil. Ground engineering 15, 13–22.

616 Ayyub, B.M., Klir, G.J., 2006. Uncertainty modeling and analysis in engineering
617 and the sciences. Chapman and Hall/CRC.

618 Baecher, G.B., Christian, J.T., 2005. Reliability and statistics in geotechnical
619 engineering. John Wiley & Sons.

620 BIA, 1992. Technical notes 3a–brick masonry material properties. Technical
621 Notes on Brick Construction 216.

622 Boldini, D., Losacco, N., Bertolin, S., Amorosi, A., 2018. Finite element mod-
623 elling of tunnelling-induced displacements on framed structures. Tunnelling
624 and Underground Space Technology 80, 222–231.

625 Boscardin, M.D., Cording, E.J., 1989. Building response to excavation-induced

626 settlement. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 115, 1–21.

29
627 Burd, H., Yiu, W., Acikgoz, S., Martin, C., 2022. Soil-foundation interaction
628 model for the assessment of tunnelling-induced damage to masonry buildings.
629 Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 119, 104208.

630 Burland, J., Mair, R., Standing, J., 2004. Ground performance and building
631 response due to tunnelling, in: Advances in geotechnical engineering: The
632 Skempton conference: Proceedings of a three day conference on advances in
633 geotechnical engineering, organised by the Institution of Civil Engineers and
634 held at the Royal Geographical Society, London, UK, on 29–31 March 2004,
635 Thomas Telford Publishing. pp. 291–342.

636 Burland, J.B., Broms, B.B., De Mello, V.F., 1978. Behaviour of foundations
637 and structures .

638 Camós, C., Molins, C., 2015. 3d analytical prediction of building damage due
639 to ground subsidence produced by tunneling. Tunnelling and Underground
640 Space Technology 50, 424–437.

641 Camós, C., Molins, C., Arnau, O., 2014. Case study of damage on masonry
642 buildings produced by tunneling induced settlements. International Journal
643 of Architectural Heritage 8, 602–625.

644 Camós, C., Špačková, O., Straub, D., Molins, C., 2016. Probabilistic approach
645 to assessing and monitoring settlements caused by tunneling. Tunnelling and
646 Underground Space Technology 51, 313–325.

647 Cao, B.T., Obel, M., Freitag, S., Heußner, L., Meschke, G., Mark, P., 2022.
648 Real-time risk assessment of tunneling-induced building damage considering
649 polymorphic uncertainty. ASCE-ASME Journal of Risk and Uncertainty in
650 Engineering Systems, Part A: Civil Engineering 8, 04021069.

651 Cording, E.J., 2018. Monitoring and Controlling Ground Behavior at the Source
652 Recent Applications to Pressurized Tunneling. International Tunneling and
653 Underground Space Association.

30
654 Cornell, C.A., 1969. A probability-based structural code, in: Journal Proceed-
655 ings, pp. 974–985.

656 El Kahi, E., Deck, O., Khouri, M., Mehdizadeh, R., Rahme, P., 2020. Simplified
657 probabilistic evaluation of the variability of soil-structure interaction parame-
658 ters on the elastic transmission of ground movements. Engineering Structures
659 213, 110554.

660 Ellingwood, B., 1980. Development of a probability based load criterion for
661 American National Standard A58: Building code requirements for minimum
662 design loads in buildings and other structures. volume 13. US Department of
663 Commerce, National Bureau of Standards.

664 Farrell, R., Mair, R., Sciotti, A., Pigorini, A., Ricci, M., 2012. The response
665 of buildings to tunnelling: a case study, in: Geotechnical Aspects of Un-
666 derground Construction in Soft Ground-Proceedings of the 7th International
667 Symposium on Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft
668 Ground, pp. 877–885.

669 Franco, V.H., de FN Gitirana Jr, G., de Assis, A.P., 2019. Probabilistic as-
670 sessment of tunneling-induced building damage. Computers and Geotechnics
671 113, 103097.

672 Franza, A., Acikgoz, S., DeJong, M.J., 2020a. Timoshenko beam models for the
673 coupled analysis of building response to tunnelling. Tunnelling and Under-
674 ground Space Technology 96, 103160.

675 Franza, A., DeJong, M.J., 2019. Elastoplastic solutions to predict tunneling-
676 induced load redistribution and deformation of surface structures. Journal of
677 Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 145, 04019007.

678 Franza, A., Marshall, A.M., 2019. Empirical and semi-analytical methods for
679 evaluating tunnelling-induced ground movements in sands. Tunnelling and
680 Underground Space Technology 88, 47–62.

31
681 Franza, A., Ritter, S., Dejong, M.J., 2020b. Continuum solutions for tunnel–
682 building interaction and a modified framework for deformation prediction.
683 Géotechnique 70, 108–122.

684 Franzius, J.N., Potts, D.M., Burland, J.B., 2006. The response of surface struc-
685 tures to tunnel construction. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-
686 Geotechnical Engineering 159, 3–17.

687 Giardina, G., DeJong, M.J., Chalmers, B., Ormond, B., Mair, R.J., 2018. A
688 comparison of current analytical methods for predicting soil-structure inter-
689 action due to tunnelling. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 79,
690 319–335.

691 Giardina, G., Van de Graaf, A.V., Hendriks, M.A., Rots, J.G., Marini, A.,
692 2013. Numerical analysis of a masonry façade subject to tunnelling-induced
693 settlements. Engineering structures 54, 234–247.

694 Giardina, G., Losacco, N., DeJong, M.J., Viggiani, G.M., Mair, R.J., 2020.
695 Effect of soil models on the prediction of tunnelling-induced deformations
696 of structures. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Geotechnical
697 Engineering 173, 379–397.

698 Goh, K., Mair, R., 2011. Building damage assessment for deep excavations in
699 singapore and the influence of building stiffness. Geotechnical Engineering
700 42, 1–12.

701 Greschik, K., Greschik, G., 1999. Prediction of surface subsidence due to tun-
702 neling in soft ground. Challenges for the 21st Century.[S. l.]:[sn] , 685–693.

703 Hills, D., Dini, D., 2011. Characteristics of the process zone at sharp notch
704 roots. International Journal of Solids and structures 48, 2177–2183.

705 Hughes, T.J., 2012. The finite element method: linear static and dynamic finite
706 element analysis. Courier Corporation.

32
707 Kézdi, Á., Rétháti, L., 1974. Handbook of soil mechanics. volume 1. Elsevier
708 Amsterdam.

709 Klar, A., Vorster, T., Soga, K., Mair, R., 2007. Elastoplastic solution for soil-
710 pipe-tunnel interaction. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental En-
711 gineering 133, 782–792.

712 Leung, Y., Klar, A., Soga, K., 2010. Theoretical study on pile length optimiza-
713 tion of pile groups and piled rafts. Journal of geotechnical and geoenviron-
714 mental engineering 136, 319–330.

715 Liu, W., Wu, X., Zhang, L., Wang, Y., 2018. Probabilistic analysis of tunneling-
716 induced building safety assessment using a hybrid fe-copula model. Structure
717 and Infrastructure Engineering 14, 1065–1081.

718 Liu, W., Wu, X., Zhang, L., Zheng, J., Teng, J., 2017. Global sensitivity analysis
719 of tunnel-induced building movements by a precise metamodel. Journal of
720 Computing in Civil Engineering 31, 04017037.

721 Loganathan, N., Poulos, H., et al., 1998. Analytical prediction for tunneling-
722 induced ground movements in clays. Journal of Geotechnical and geoenviron-
723 mental engineering 124, 846–856.

724 Mair, R., 2013. Tunnelling and deep excavations: Ground movements and their
725 effects, in: Proceedings of the 15th European Conference on Soil Mechanics
726 and Geotechnical Engineering–Geotechnics of Hard Soils–Weak Rocks (Part
727 4). IOS Press, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, pp. 39–70.

728 Mair, R., Gunn, M., O’reilly, M., 1982. Ground movement around shallow
729 tunnels in soft clay. Tunnels & Tunnelling International 14.

730 Mair, R., Taylor, R., Bracegirdle, A., 1993. Subsurface settlement profiles above
731 tunnels in clays. Geotechnique 43, 315–320.

732 Mair, R., Taylor, R., Burland, J., 1996. Prediction of ground movements and as-
733 sessment of risk of building damage due to bored tunnelling, in: Geotechnical
734 aspects of underground construction in soft ground, pp. 713–718.

33
735 Melchers, R.E., Beck, A.T., 2018. Structural reliability analysis and prediction.
736 John wiley & sons.

737 Miro, S., König, M., Hartmann, D., Schanz, T., 2015. A probabilistic analysis of
738 subsoil parameters uncertainty impacts on tunnel-induced ground movements
739 with a back-analysis study. Computers and Geotechnics 68, 38–53.

740 Mollon, G., Dias, D., Soubra, A.H., 2013. Probabilistic analyses of tunneling-
741 induced ground movements. Acta Geotechnica 8, 181–199.

742 Nilsen, T., Aven, T., 2003. Models and model uncertainty in the context of risk
743 analysis. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 79, 309–317.

744 Obel, M., Ahrens, M.A., Mark, P., 2020. Metamodel-based prediction of struc-
745 tural damages due to tunneling-induced settlements. ASCE-ASME Journal
746 of Risk and Uncertainty in Engineering Systems, Part A: Civil Engineering
747 6, 04020044.

748 O’Reilly, M.P., New, B., 1982. Settlements above tunnels in the United
749 Kingdom-their magnitude and prediction. Technical Report.

750 Peck, R.B., 1969. Deep excavations and tunneling in soft ground. Proc. 7th
751 ICSMFE, 1969 , 225–290.

752 Phoon, K.K., Kulhawy, F.H., 1999a. Characterization of geotechnical variability.

753 Canadian geotechnical journal 36, 612–624.

754 Phoon, K.K., Kulhawy, F.H., 1999b. Evaluation of geotechnical property vari-
755 ability. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 36, 625–639.

756 Pickhaver, J., Burd, H., Houlsby, G., 2010. An equivalent beam method to
757 model masonry buildings in 3d finite element analysis. Computers & struc-
758 tures 88, 1049–1063.

759 Plummer, H.C., 1962. Brick and tile engineering. Structural Clay Products
760 Institute.

34
761 Potts, D., Addenbrooke, T., 1997. A structure’s influence on tunnelling-
762 induced ground movements. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-
763 Geotechnical Engineering 125, 109–125.

764 Potts, D.M., 1976. Behaviour of Lined and Unlined Tunnels in Sand. Ph.D.
765 thesis. University of Cambridge.

766 Saltelli, A., Annoni, P., Azzini, I., Campolongo, F., Ratto, M., Tarantola, S.,
767 2010. Variance based sensitivity analysis of model output. design and esti-
768 mator for the total sensitivity index. Computer physics communications 181,
769 259–270.

770 Schweiger, H., Thurner, R., Pöttler, R., 2001. Reliability analysis in geotechnics
771 with deterministic finite elements—theoretical concepts and practical appli-
772 cation. International Journal of Geomechanics 1, 389–413.

773 Son, M., Cording, E.J., 2005. Estimation of building damage due to excavation-
774 induced ground movements. Journal of geotechnical and geoenvironmental
775 engineering 131, 162–177.

776 Subasic, C.A., Borchelt, J.G., 1993. Clay and shale brick material properties–a
777 statistical report, in: The 6th North American Masonry Conference, Proceed-
778 ings of the 6th North American Masonry Conference, The Masonry Society,
779 Boulder, CO.

780 Tarantola, S., Gatelli, D., Mara, T.A., 2006. Random balance designs for the
781 estimation of first order global sensitivity indices. Reliability Engineering &
782 System Safety 91, 717–727.

783 Uzielli, M., Lacasse, S., Nadim, F., Phoon, K., et al., 2007. Soil variability
784 analysis for geotechnical practice. Characterisation and engineering properties
785 of natural soils , 1653–1754.

786 Vaziri, H., Simpson, B., Pappin, J., Simpson, L., 1982. Integrated forms of
787 mindlin’s equations. Géotechnique 32, 275–278.

35
 788 Wang, Y., Cao, Z., 2013. Probabilistic characterization of young’s modulus of
789 soil using equivalent samples. Engineering Geology 159, 106–118.

790 Wongsaroj, J., Borghi, F., Soga, K., Mair, R., Sugiyama, T., Hagiwara, T., Bow-
791 ers, K., 2005. Effect of tbm driving parameters on ground surface movements:
792 Channel tunnel rail link contract 220. Geotechnical aspects of underground
793 construction in soft ground , 335–341.

794 Yiu, W., Burd, H., Martin, C., 2017. Finite-element modelling for the assess-
795 ment of tunnel-induced damage to a masonry building. Géotechnique 67,
796 780–794.

797 Zhao, J., Franza, A., DeJong, M.J., 2021. Method for probabilistic assessment
798 of tunneling-induced damage to surface structures considering soil-structure
799 interaction effects. ASCE-ASME Journal of Risk and Uncertainty in Engi-
800 neering Systems, Part A: Civil Engineering 7, 04021055.

801 Zhao, J., Ritter, S., DeJong, M.J., 2022. Early-stage assessment of structural
802 damage caused by braced excavations: Uncertainty quantification and a prob-
803 abilistic analysis approach. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology
804 125, 104499.

36

View publication stats