Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Underground Space 7 (2022) 882–897
www.keaipublishing.com/undsp

Behaviours of existing shield tunnels due to tunnelling

underneath considering asymmetric ground settlements
Xiaolu Gan a,b, Jianlin Yu a,b,⇑, Xiaonan Gong a,b, Nianwu Liu c, Dongzhu Zheng d
a
Research Centre of Coastal and Urban Geotechnical Engineering, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China
b
Engineering Research Centre of Urban Underground Development, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China
c
School of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Zhejiang Sci-Tech University, Hangzhou 310018, China
d
Department of Civil Engineering, Ghent University, Ghent 9052, Belgium

Received 15 June 2021; received in revised form 29 November 2021; accepted 24 December 2021
Available online 4 March 2022

Abstract

New tunnelling underneath could influence existing shield tunnels in underground spaces. The evaluation of the influences of
tunnelling-induced ground movements on existing tunnels has been a major concern during urban construction. This paper presents
a two-stage analytical method that considers the asymmetric ground settlement for investigating the longitudinal tunnel responses to
new tunnelling. An improved semi-analytical solution considering the horizontal movement of the new tunnel is established for evalu-
ating the tunnelling-induced asymmetric greenfield settlement. The proposed method is verified with field measurement data from a case
study. A parametric analysis is conducted to study the influences of the input parameters on the tunnel responses. Results indicate that
the horizontal movement of the new tunnel due to bias loading or asymmetric construction may lead to asymmetric responses of the
existing tunnel. With increasing tunnel horizontal movement, the asymmetry of the tunnel responses becomes more obvious. An increase
in the pillar depth and decreases in the tunnel horizontal movement and skew angle lower the internal forces induced by new tunnelling.

Keywords: Analytical method; Tunnelling undercrossing; Asymmetric ground movement; Longitudinal tunnel behaviours; Tunnel horizontal movement

1 Introduction
With the development of urban construction, many
shield tunnels have been constructed in urban underground
spaces (Shen et al., 2014; Lin et al., 2020; Liang et al.,
2021a, 2021b). New tunnel excavations inevitably disturb
the surrounding soil (Ding et al., 2017; Gan et al., 2021)
and may lead to deformations in the overlying existing tun-
nels. The operation of the existing tunnels will be affected
when the tunnel deformation exceeds the allowable value
(Wu et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2018; Zhou et al., 2018;
Zhu et al., 2019). Therefore, it is important to investigate
⇑ Corresponding author at: Research Centre of Coastal and Urban
Geotechnical Engineering, Zhejiang University, China.
E-mail address: yujianlinzju@163.com (J. Yu).
the interaction between the existing tunnel and the new
tunnels.
Field measurements are reliable sources for obtaining
insight into the performance of existing tunnels during
the construction of new tunnels underneath. A summary
of field cases on new tunnel excavations beneath existing
tunnels is listed in Table 1. These cases showed that differ-
ential longitudinal settlements or heaves, circumferential
rotations or distortions and additional stresses of the exist-
ing tunnels occurred because of the new tunnelling under-
neath. The normalised pillar depth in Table 1 is defined
as the ratio of the minimum vertical clear distance between
the new and existing tunnels to the diameter of the new
tunnel. It can be observed that the variation range of the
normalised pillar depth is between 0 and 0.8. Cases with
large tunnel diameters and small pillar depths have
emerged recently (Gue et al., 2017; Gan et al., 2020), which

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.undsp.2021.12.011
2467-9674/Ó 2021 Tongji University. Publishing Services by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of KeAi Communications Co. Ltd.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
 X. Gan et al. / Underground Space 7 (2022) 882–897 883

Table 1
Summary of field cases on new tunnel excavations beneath existing tunnels.
Year of Reference Geological condition Diameter (m) Normalised Skew angle (°)
construction pillar depth
Existing tunnel New tunnel
1994–1996 Cooper et al. (2002) Stiff clay 3.8 9.1 0.77 69
2005 Mohamad et al. (2010) Stiff clay 8.5 6.5 0.55 21
2009 Fang et al. (2015) Silty clay, silt, fine sand and gravel 6 6.2 0.42 90
2010 Li and Yuan (2012) Weathered granite gneiss 13.2 6 0.3 55
2010 Li and Chen (2012) Gravelly soil and weathered granite gneiss 6 6 0.39 20–23
– Zhang and Huang (2014) Silty clay and clay 6.2 6.2 0.29 75
2014 Gue et al. (2017) Stiff clay 3 6.3 0 75
2014 Zhang (2018) Sandy clay and clay 6.2 6.2 0.34 23
2015 Jin et al. (2018) Sandy and gravelly soil 6 6 0.42 83
2014–2015 Jin et al. (2019) Granite residual soil 6.85 6 0.46 90
2016 Lai et al. (2020) Fine and medium sand 11.71 6 0.17 28
2016 Wei et al. (2021) Silty clay 6.2 6.2 0.42 83
2017 Chen et al. (2018) Medium coarse sand 6 6 0.5 58
2017–2018 Gan et al. (2020) Mud and muddy clay 6.2 11.36 0.45 81

may increase the safety risk of existing tunnels and the dif-
ficulties in the construction of new tunnels. The skew angle
between the new and existing tunnels varies from 20° to 90°
and may lead to obvious effects on the tunnel responses.
The field measurement can only provide information for
the tunnel responses during or after the new tunnelling.
Some practical analysis approaches should be adopted in
the early-stage assessment of the mechanical behaviours
of the existing tunnel due to new tunnelling underneath.
The two-stage analytical method is widely used and effi-
cient for assessing the effects of undercrossing tunnelling
on existing tunnels. The soil-tunnel interaction system is
divided into two parts. First, the greenfield soil displace-
ments due to new tunnelling are obtained through empiri-
cal methods (Peck, 1969; Vorster et al., 2005) or analytical
solutions (Sagaseta, 1987; Verruijt & Booker, 1996;
Loganathan & Poulos, 1998). Second, the soil-existing tun-
nel interaction caused by the imposed ground displace-
ments is analysed. Zhang and Huang (2014) proposed a
simplified two-stage method based on Winkler foundation
model for calculating the deformation of existing subway
tunnels during crossing construction. By considering the
shearing deformation, Li et al. (2016) introduced an
approach for analysing the response of existing shield tun-
nels disturbed by tunnelling undercrossing based on the
Timoshenko beam model. By using the Winkler-based
model, Liu et al. (2018) proposed a superposition method
for calculating the responses of existing tunnels to new tun-
nel construction below without vertical clearance. Zhang
et al. (2019) presented an analytical solution for studying
the effects of new tunnel excavation underneath and per-
pendicular to the existing tunnels with the Timoshenko
beam theory and Kerr foundation model.
However, the longitudinal behaviours of the existing
tunnel due to tunnelling-induced asymmetric soil settle-
ments have seldom been investigated in previous analytical
works, which generally adopted symmetric greenfield dis-
placements for evaluating the tunnel responses to new tun-
nelling. The tunnelling machine and the tunnel lining may
have a trend of horizontal movement due to the bias load-
ing in the surrounding soil, the asymmetric construction
conditions, and the asymmetric ground conditions (Fang
et al., 2017; Lu et al., 2019). Owing to the horizontal move-
ment of the tunnel, the radial soil movement around the
new tunnel may be asymmetric. The greenfield soil settle-
ment at the location of the existing tunnel is asymmetric
about the new tunnel centreline when the asymmetric soil
movement occurs. Therefore, the horizontal movement of
the new tunnel can be incorporated in the analytical
method to reflect the effect of the asymmetric ground settle-
ment on the existing tunnel.
This paper proposes an analytical method to investigate
the longitudinal tunnel responses to asymmetric ground
movements caused by new tunnelling undercrossing with
an arbitrary skew angle. An improved semi-analytical
method considering the tunnel horizontal movement is
established to evaluate the tunnelling-induced asymmetric
greenfield settlement. The existing tunnel is assumed to
be a Timoshenko beam lying on a Pasternak foundation.
The proposed method is verified with field measurement
data from a case study. The influences from the input
parameters on the responses of the existing tunnel are stud-
ied through a parametric analysis.
2 Analytical method
Figure 1 presents the calculation model in this study for
estimating the tunnel responses to new tunnelling under-
neath. D and De are the diameters of the new tunnel and
the existing tunnel, respectively. a is the skew angle
between the new and existing tunnel. The buried depths
of the new and existing tunnel are H and Z, respectively.
The two-stage analysis method is used to assess the soil-
existing tunnel interaction. Based on the solution of
Loganathan and Poulos (1998), an improved semi-
analytical solution considering the tunnel horizontal move-
ment and the skew angle between the new and existing tun-
nel is derived for estimating the tunnelling-induced
884 X. Gan et al. / Underground Space 7 (2022) 882–897

(a) plan view

(b) cross-sectional view

Fig. 1. Calculation model of the interaction between the new tunnelling and the existing tunnel.

greenfield settlement. The existing tunnel is modelled as a
continuous Timoshenko beam to fully consider the shear-
ing and bending deformations. The interaction between
the existing tunnel and ground is modelled with the Paster-
nak foundation model, which considers the foundation
continuity. Furthermore, some basic assumptions for the
soil-tunnel interaction model in this study should be clari-
fied. It is supposed that the existing tunnel is always in con-
tact with the foundation. The interaction between the
existing tunnel and the foundation is assumed to be linear
elastic.
2.1 Tunnelling-induced greenfield soil settlement
The new tunnel construction causes radial movements of
the surrounding soil. As shown in Fig. 2, the tunnel defor-
mation is decomposed into three basic modes (Sagaseta,
1987; Verruijt & Booker, 1996; Loganathan & Poulos,
1998; Lu et al., 2019; Liu et al., 2019): (1) uniform radial
contraction u0 due to volume loss; (2) downward move-
ment of the tunnel uv owing to gravity; (3) horizontal
movement of the tunnel uh caused by asymmetric construc-
tion or bias loading. The positive and negative uh indicate
that the tunnel moves to the right and left sides, respec-
tively. Because this paper focuses on the short-term soil
movements due to the tunnel construction, the effect of
the long-term ovalization of the tunnel lining is neglected
according to the study of Loganathan and Poulos (1998).
The previous studies generally considered the modes (1)
and (2) for evaluating the tunnel responses to new
tunnelling-induced ground movements (Zhang & Huang,
2014; Li et al., 2016; Zhang et al., 2019). The deformation
mode (3), which may lead to asymmetric ground move-
ments with respect to the new tunnel centreline was
ignored. The final displacement pattern around the new
tunnel is also presented in Fig. 2. U is the excavation
boundary due to tunnel construction, and X is the bound-
ary caused by the volume loss and tunnel movement. The
surrounding soil moves from boundary U to boundary X
after the tunnel is excavated. It should be noted that the
 X. Gan et al. / Underground Space 7 (2022) 882–897 885

Fig. 2. Deformation modes of the new tunnel.

depicted final displacement pattern is just one selected com-
bination of the three deformation modes. Different dis-
placement patterns can be seen in practical engineering
and lead to different results.
Sagaseta (1987) introduced an analytical method for
estimating the displacement field caused by a point sink
in incompressible soil (with a Poisson’s ratio of 0.5). Based
on the solution of Sagaseta, Verruijt and Booker (1996)
proposed a closed-form analytical solution for the ground
movements due to the uniform contraction in compressible
soil. Loganathan and Poulos (1998) proposed a semi-
analytical solution to evaluate the tunnelling-induced
ground movements, which modified Verruijt and Booker’s
solution by adopting an empirical exponential function to
the volume loss parameter. This analytical solution is
widely used for analysing tunnelling-induced soil-
bining the solution of Loganathan and Poulos with the
above-mentioned three deformation modes. The illustra-
tion of the proposed semi-analytical solution is shown in
Fig. 3. The solution can be obtained in two steps. Firstly,
the soil settlement due to a unit volume loss (DVL = 1) is
evaluated. Then, the integral method is used to calculate
the soil settlement caused by the excavation area between
boundary U and boundary X.
According to the study of Zeng et al. (2018) and Cao
et al. (2020), the soil settlement induced by a unit volume
loss uzunit at (x0, z0) can be obtained by modifying Eq.
(1) and is expressed as
"
1 z  z0
uzunit ðx;zÞ ¼ 
p 2
ðx  x 0 Þ þ ðz  z0 Þ
2

structure interaction because of its conformity with field  3

ð3  4mÞðz þ z0 Þ 2z ðx  x0 Þ2  ðz þ z0 Þ2
measurements (Zhang et al., 2012; Li et al., 2016; Franza 7
þ  2 5
et al., 2017). The soil settlement uz at an arbitrary point ðx  x0 Þ2 þ ðz þ z0 Þ2 2 2
(x, z) caused by a volume loss of DVL located at (x0, z0) ðx  x0 Þ þ ðz þ z0 Þ
0 1
is expressed as follows:
2
" B 1:38ðx  x0 Þ 0:69z C
2

z  z0  exp @  2  A:
uz ðx;zÞ ¼ eR  z0 2
z0 þ p1ffiffiffi
2
ðx  x 0 Þ2 þ ðz  z0 Þ2 pe

 3 ð2Þ
2 2
ð3  4mÞðz þ z0 Þ 2z ð x  x Þ  ð z þ z Þ
0 0
7
þ 2 2
 2 5
ðx  x 0 Þ þ ðz þ z0 Þ 2
ðx  x 0 Þ þ ðz þ z0 Þ
2

!
2
1:38ðx  x0 Þ 0:69z2
 exp  2
 ;
ð z 0 þ RÞ z0 2
ð1aÞ
DV L u0
e¼ ¼2 ; ð1bÞ
pR2 R
where, e is the equivalent volume loss parameter, R is the
radius of the new tunnel, m is the Poisson’s ratio of the soil,
and x is the distance from an arbitrary point along the
existing tunnel axis to the intersection point between the
new and existing tunnel.
However, the above solution is unable to consider the
effect of the tunnel horizontal movement. In this study, Fig. 3. Illustration of the proposed semi-analytical solution for greenfield
an improved semi-analytical solution was derived by com- soil settlement.
886 X. Gan et al. / Underground Space 7 (2022) 882–897

In actual engineering practice, the new tunnel may inter- 2.2 Timoshenko beam model
sect the existing tunnel at a certain skew angle. Equation
(2) can be further modified by transforming the coordinate According to Timoshenko beam theory (Timoshenko,
axis to consider the effect of the skew angle. As illustrated 1921), the governing equations for the internal forces and
in Fig. 1(a), owing to the existence of the skew angle, the deformations can be expressed as
vertical distance from an arbitrary point along the axis of
dh
the existing tunnel to the axis of the new tunnel g is calcu- M ¼ ðEI Þeq ; ð6aÞ
dx
lated as follows:  
dw
g ¼ x  sin a: ð3Þ Q ¼ ðjGAÞeq h ; ð6bÞ
dx
Substituting Eq. (3) into Eq. (2) yields
" where, M is the bending moment, Q is the shear force,
1 z  z0 (EI)eq is the equivalent longitudinal flexural stiffness of
uzunit ðx;zÞ ¼  the tunnel, (jGA)eq is the equivalent longitudinal shearing
p ðg  x 0 Þ2 þ ðz  z0 Þ2
 3 stiffness of the tunnel, h is the shear angle, and w is the
2z ð g  x Þ
2
 ð z þ z Þ
2 deflection of the neutral axis of the beam.
ð3  4mÞðz þ z0 Þ 0 0
7
þ 2 2
 2 5 Because the shied tunnel is a composite structure con-
ðg  x0 Þ þ ðz þ z0 Þ 2
ðg  x0 Þ þ ðz þ z0 Þ
2
nected by steel bolts, the longitudinal flexural shearing stiff-
0 1 ness of the shied tunnel is much lower than that of a
2 continuous structure (Liao et al., 2008; Wu et al., 2015;
B 1:38ðg  x0 Þ 0:69z C
2
 exp @  2  A: Wu et al., 2018). Wu et al. (2015) proposed a calculation
z0 2
z0 þ p1ffiffiffi
pe
method to evaluate the equivalent longitudinal flexural
and shearing stiffness. The calculation equations are given
ð4Þ
by
The excavation area due to new tunnelling can be K f ls
divided into infinitesimal excavation elements. As pre- ðEI Þeq ¼ Ec I ¼ fEc I; ð7aÞ
K f ðls  klf Þ þ klf
sented in Fig. 3, for an infinitesimal excavation element
 1
at (x0, z0), the corresponding excavation area is dx0dz0. lf ls  lf
ðjGAÞeq ¼ nls þ ; ð7bÞ
The soil settlement caused by an excavation element is njb Gb Ab jc Gc Ac
given as uzunitdx0dz0. According to the principle of super-
position (Huang & Zeng, 2017; Cao et al., 2020), the total where, Kf is the rotation stiffness coefficient of the circum-
soil settlement can be seen as the sum of the soil settlement ferential joint; Ec is the elastic modulus of the shield seg-
induced by each infinitesimal excavation element within the ment; I is the moment of inertia of the tunnel cross-
region between boundary U and X. Therefore, the ultimate section (I = pD4e (1  x4)/64, x = de/De, De and de are the
greenfield ground settlements at the axis depth of the exist- external and internal diameters of the existing tunnel,
ing tunnel U (x, Z) can be calculated by integrating Eq. (4) respectively); k is the influencing factor of the joints; ls is
over the area between boundary U and X: the length of the shield segment; lf is the length of longitu-
ZZ dinal steel bolts; f is the reduction factor of tunnel longitu-
U ðx; Z Þ ¼ uzunit ðx; Z Þdx0 dz0 dinal flexural stiffness (f = 1/5–1/7 for the metro tunnels in
UX
Z bZ d China (Liao et al., 2008)); n is a modification factor intro-
duced to consider the actual contact relations between
¼ uzunit ðx; Z Þdx0 dz0
a c shield segments and is set to 1 in the following analysis;
Z f Z h jb and jc are the Timoshenko shear coefficients of the bolt
 uzunit ðx; Z Þdx0 dz0 ; ð5aÞ and shield segment, and can be set to 0.9 and 0.5, respec-
e g
tively; Gb and Gc are the shear moduli of the bolt and seg-
8
>
> a ¼ H  R  u0 ment, respectively; Ab and Ac are the cross-section areas of
>
>
>
> b ¼ H þ R þ u0 the bolt and segment, respectively.
>
> qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
>
>
>
> ¼ 
2
ð R þ u0 Þ  ð z 0  H Þ
2
>
>
c 2.3 Pasternak foundation model
>
> qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
>
>
< d ¼ ðR þ u0 Þ2  ðz0  H Þ2
: ð5bÞ In the Pasternak foundation model (Pasternak, 1954), a
>
> e ¼ H  R þ uv series of springs are connected by a shear layer for reflect-
>
>
>
> f ¼ H þ R þ uv
>
> qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ing mechanical interaction among these distributed springs.
>
>
>
> g ¼  R2  ð z 0  H  u v Þ 2 þ u h The relationship between the deflection of the beam centre-
>
>
>
> qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi line and the subgrade reaction p(x) can be expressed as
>
>
: h ¼ R2  ð z  H  u Þ 2 þ u follows:
0 v h
 X. Gan et al. / Underground Space 7 (2022) 882–897 887

d2 w According to Tanahashi (2004) and Liang et al. (2017),

pðxÞ ¼ kw  Gs ; ð8Þ the stiffness of the shear layer can be estimated as
dx2
where, k is the coefficient of subgrade reaction, and Gs is Es H e
the stiffness of the shear layer. Gs ¼ ; ð10Þ
6ð1 þ vs Þ
Yu et al. (2013) proposed an equation of the coefficient
of subgrade reaction for a tunnel buried at an arbitrary where, He is the thickness of the elastic layer and can be
depth. By considering the influence of the embedment assumed as 2.5 times the diameter of the existing tunnel
depth, a more accurate and reasonable coefficient could (He = 2.5De).
be obtained with the following proposed equation:
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
4
3:08 Es 8 E s De 2.4 Soil-tunnel interaction model
k¼ ; ð9aÞ
kd ð1  m2 ÞDe ðEI Þeq
( For a Timoshenko beam on a Pasternak foundation, the
2:18 ðZ=De  0:5Þ
kd ¼   governing differential equations can be obtained as Eq.
; ð9bÞ
1
1þ 1:7Z=De
ðZ=De > 0:5Þ (11):
 
where, kd is the depth parameter, and Z is the buried depth dw d2 h
ðjGAÞeq  h þ ðEI Þeq 2 ¼ 0; ð11aÞ
of the existing tunnel axis. dx dx

(a) plan view

(b) cross-sectional view

Fig. 4. Illustration for the existing and new tunnels in the case study.
888 X. Gan et al. / Underground Space 7 (2022) 882–897

Table 2
Structural parameters of the existing tunnel in the case study.
Parameter De (m) de (m) Ec (MPa) Gc (MPa) ls (m) Ab (m2) Eb (MPa) Gb (MPa) lf (mm) n
Value 6 5.4 3.45  10
4
1.44  104
1.5 4.52  104 2.06  105 7.92  104 400 16

Table 3 3 Verifications
Calculation parameters for greenfield soil settlement in the case study.
Parameter First tunnelling Second tunnelling In this section, the field data of a selected case reported
e (%) 0.3 0.47 by Chen et al. (2018) is used to examine the validity of the
u0 (mm) 4.5 6.8 proposed method. A section of the Changsha metro line 2,
uv (mm) 2.3 4 which was constructed by the shield method, suffered from
uh (mm) 15.4 29.4 differential settlements owing to the shield construction of
new tunnels underneath. Figure 4 shows the calculation
 2    diagram for the influence of the new tunnelling on the exist-
d w dh d2 w
ðjGAÞeq   kw  G s De þ qðxÞDe ¼ 0; ing tunnel. The existing tunnel is mainly located in sandy
dx2 dx dx2 soil, and the axis depths of the existing and new tunnels
ð11bÞ are 12 and 21 m, respectively. The horizontal distance

where, q(x) is the additional loading caused by the new tun-

nelling and is expressed as follows:

d2 U
qðxÞ ¼ kU  Gs : ð12Þ
dx2

Decoupling Eqs. (11a) and (11b), the ultimate governing

Settlement (mm)

differential equation is obtained as

d4 w ðjGAÞeq Gs De þ ðEI Þeq kDe d2 w ðjGAÞeq kDe

ðEI Þeq  þ w
dx4 b dx2 b
Measurement data
ðjGAÞeq De ðEI Þeq De d2 qðxÞ uh=0 mm
¼ qð x Þ  ; ð13Þ uh=15.4 mm (Proposed method)
b b dx2
Difference

where, b=(jGA)eq + GsDe.

Equation (13) can be solved numerically by using the Offset from first tunnel centreline, x (m)
finite difference method (Huang et al., 2009; Liang et al., (a) first tunnelling
2017). The finite discretisation of the existing tunnel is
shown in Fig. 1(b). The existing tunnel is divided into n
+ 4 segments (including four virtual segments) of length
h. When the two ends of the existing tunnel are uncon-
strained, Eq. (13) can be expressed as follows:
1
wðnþ1Þ1 ¼ ðK 1  K 2 þ K 3 Þ ðQ1  Q2 þ Q3 Þ; ð14Þ
Settlement (mm)

where, w is the vector of the tunnel displacement at each

node (w = (w0, w1, w2, , wn-1, wn) T), and the other terms
are shown in the Appendix A.
Measurement data
Furthermore, the bending moment M and shear force Q uh=0 mm
are given as uh=29.4 mm (Proposed method)
 2  Difference
ðEI Þeq dw
M ¼ b 2 þ qðxÞDe  kDe w ; ð15aÞ
ðjGAÞeq dx Offset from second tunnel centreline, x (m)
 3  (b) second tunnelling
ðEI Þeq dw dw dqðxÞ
Q¼ b 3  kDe þ De : ð15bÞ
ðjGAÞeq dx dx dx Fig. 5. Calculated tunnel settlements versus measurement data.
 X. Gan et al. / Underground Space 7 (2022) 882–897
between the twin tunnels is 17 m. The skew angle between
the existing and new tunnels is 58°. The external diameter
of the new and the existing tunnels are both 6 m. The struc-
tural parameters of the existing tunnel are shown in Table 2.
The reduction factor of the longitudinal flexural stiffness is
set to 1/7. Therefore, the equivalent longitudinal flexural
and shearing stiffness of the existing tunnel are 1.08  105
MNm2 and 1.72  103 MN, respectively. The layout of
the 15 monitoring sections along the existing tunnel is also
illustrated in Fig. 4. The interval of each monitoring sec-
tion is 5 m. An automatic total station system was used
to measure the tunnel displacements during the new tun-
nelling (Chen et al., 2018). The elastic modulus and the
Poisson’s ratio of the soil are set to 30 MPa and 0.3, respec-
tively. The deformation parameters u0, uv and uh for green-
field settlements are presented in Table 3. Owing to the
limited field data on the movement of the new tunnel, the
deformation parameters are obtained by a back-analysis
Bending moment (103 kN·m)
uh=0 mm
uh=15.4 mm (Proposed method)
Difference
Offset from first tunnel centerline, x (m)
(a) first tunnelling
Bending moment (103 kN·m)
uh=0mm
uh=29.4mm (Proposed method)
Difference
Offset from second tunnel centerline, x (m)
(b) second tunnelling
Fig. 6. Calculated tunnel bending moments.
889
method to ensure that the calculated tunnel settlements
are close to the field data.
Figure 5 compares the tunnel settlements owing to the
first and second tunnelling obtained from the field data
and calculation results. The field data showed that the set-
tlement profiles of the existing tunnel were asymmetric
about the new tunnel centreline. The position of the maxi-
mum tunnel settlement was on the left of the new tunnel
centreline. This may be because the new tunnel construc-
tion was affected by the asymmetric vehicle loads and con-
struction loads on the ground (Chen et al., 2018). The new
tunnel was likely to have a trend of horizontal movement
to the right due to the surface surcharge on the left side.
The proposed method describes well the measured tunnel
settlements, thereby verifying the applicability of the
method to practical undercrossing projects. Conventional
methods, which consider symmetric ground movements,
may be insufficient for this case. When the tunnel horizon-
Shear force (103 kN)
uh=0 mm
uh=15.4 mm (Proposed method)
Difference
Offset from first tunnel centerline, x (m)
(a) first tunnelling
Shear force (103×kN)
uh=0 mm
uh=29.4 mm (Proposed method)
Difference
Offset from second tunnel centerline, x (m)
(b) second tunnelling
Fig. 7. Calculated tunnel shear forces.
890 X. Gan et al. / Underground Space 7 (2022) 882–897

tal movement is not considered, the calculated tunnel set-
tlement profile is symmetric, and the value of the maximum
settlement is lower than that derived from the proposed
method. To further explain this phenomenon, Fig. 5 pre-
sents the differences between the calculated tunnel settle-
ments with and without considering the effect of the
tunnel horizontal movement. It shows that the positive tun-
nel horizontal movement leads to additional tunnel settle-
ments on the left side and additional tunnel heaves on
the right, which is the reason for the occurrence of the
asymmetric settlement profiles.
The calculated bending moments of the existing tunnel
are shown in Fig. 6. The bending moment is asymmetric
with respect to the new tunnel centreline because of the
tunnel horizontal movement. The maximum sagging (pos-
itive) moment occurs on the side where the maximum tun-
nel settlement is observed. The differences between the
calculated bending moments with and without considering
the tunnel horizontal movement are also shown in Fig. 6.
The positive horizontal movement of the new tunnel
induces sagging moments on the left side of the existing
tunnel and hogging moments on the right. Therefore, it is
found that the hogging (negative) moment on the right side
is apparently higher than that on the left side. Figure 7
illustrates the calculated shear forces of the existing tunnel.
The profile of the shear force exhibits an asymmetric shape,
and the maximum shear force develops on the right side.
The differences between the calculated shear forces with
and without considering the tunnel horizontal movement
reveal that additional negative shear forces of the existing
tunnel develop near the new tunnel centreline due to the
positive tunnel horizontal movement. The results show that
owing to the asymmetric ground movement, the internal
forces of the existing tunnel are asymmetric about the
new tunnel centreline, and the position of the maximum
internal force shifts away.
4 Parametric analysis
In this section, the influences from different parameters
on the responses of existing tunnels to new tunnelling
underneath are discussed through a series of parametric

(a) plan view

(b) cross-sectional view

Fig. 8. Calculating diagram for the interaction between the existing and new tunnels in the parametric analysis.
 X. Gan et al. / Underground Space 7 (2022) 882–897 891

analyses. Figure 8 shows the plan and cross-sectional views
of the existing tunnel and the new tunnel for the parametric
analysis. The buried depth Z and diameter De of the exist-
ing tunnel are 15 m and 6 m, respectively. The diameter of
the new tunnel D is set to be 6 m. The equivalent longitu-
dinal flexural stiffness (EI)eq and shearing stiffness (jGA)eq
of the existing tunnel are 1.1  105 MNm2 and 4.5  103
MN, respectively. The elastic modulus Es and the Poisson’s
ratio of the soil m are 30 MPa and 0.3, respectively. The uni-
form radial contraction u0 and the downward tunnel move-
ment uv are both set to 7.5 mm. The corresponding volume
loss ratio e is 0.5%.
4.1 Tunnel horizontal movement uh
In this section, a pillar depth and skew angle of 3 m and
90° are considered, respectively. Figure 9(a) presents the
variation in the longitudinal tunnel settlement for different
uh. The asymmetry of the tunnel settlement profile becomes
more apparent with an increasing uh. With an increasing
uh, the maximum tunnel settlement increases, and its posi-
tion gradually shifts away from the new tunnel centreline.
The tunnel settlement on the left side of the new tunnel cen-
treline increases with an increasing uh, and a reduction in
the tunnel settlement can be seen on the right. This is due
to that the tunnel horizontal movement results in changes
in the spatial distribution of the volume loss. The volume
loss on the left side of the new tunnel becomes larger as
the left-to-right horizontal movement of the new tunnel
occurs, which leads to larger settlements of the soil and
the existing tunnel on the left side. Figure 9(b) presents
the changes in the maximum tunnel settlement for different
uh. With the increase of the normalised tunnel horizontal
movement uh/uv from 0 to 4, the maximum tunnel settle-
ment increases by 11% at an increasing rate, which implies
that the effect of tunnel horizontal movement intensifies
gradually.
Figure 10(a) shows the bending moments of the existing
tunnel for different uh. Three maximum values of the bend-
ing moments can be observed, and the maximum bending
moment increases with an increasing uh. The locations of

uh=0uv
uh=1uv
Bending moment (103 kN·m)

uh=2uv
uh=3uv
Settlement (mm)

uh=4uv

uh=0uv
uh=1uv
uh=2uv
uh=3uv
uh=4uv

Normalised distance from new tunnel centreline, x/D Normalised distance from new tunnel centreline, x/D
(a) longitudinal tunnel settlement (a) longitudinal tunnel bending moment

Maximum hogging moment (103 kN·m)

Maximum sagging moment (103 kN·m)

Maximum tunnel bending moment

Sagging moment
Maximum settlement (mm)

Hogging moment

Normalised tunnel horizontal movement, uh /uv Normalised tunnel horizontal movement, uh /uv

(b) maximum tunnel settlement (b) maximum tunnel bending moment

Fig. 9. Settlements of the existing tunnel under different tunnel horizontal Fig. 10. Bending moments of the existing tunnel under different tunnel
movements. horizontal movements.
892
the maximum sagging and hogging moments move to the
opposite direction of the tunnel horizontal movement with
an increasing uh. Figure 10(b) shows the changes in the
maximum tunnel sagging and hogging moments for differ-
ent uh. The maximum sagging moment and hogging
moment increase by 26% and 42% at increasing rates when
uh/uv increases. The increment of the maximum hogging
moment is lower than that of the maximum sagging
moment.
The shear forces of the existing tunnel for different uh
are illustrated in Fig. 11(a). Two peak values of the shear
forces are observed away from the new tunnel centreline,
and the negative shear force is larger than the positive
one when uh is not equal to 0 mm. Figure 11(b) shows
the changes in the maximum shear force for different uh.
It is observed that when uh/uv increases from 0 to 4, the
maximum shear force increases by 69% at an increasing
rate.
uh=0uv
uh=1uv
uh=2uv
uh=3uv
Shear force (103 kN)
uh=4uv
Normalised distance from new tunnel centreline, x/D
(a) longitudinal tunnel shear force
Maximum shear force (103 kN)
Normalised tunnel horizontal movement, uh /uv
(b) maximum tunnel shear force
Fig. 11. Shear forces of the existing tunnel under different tunnel
horizontal movements.
X. Gan et al. / Underground Space 7 (2022) 882–897
4.2 Pillar depth P
In this section, a tunnel horizontal movement and skew
angle of 7.5 mm and 90° are considered, respectively. Fig-
ure 12(a) presents the longitudinal tunnel settlement for
different P. The settlement profile exhibits an asymmetric
shape, and the location of the maximum tunnel settlement
remains constant with increasing pillar depth. The results
show that the pillar depth has almost no influence on the
asymmetry of the settlement profile. The reason for this
phenomenon is that the spatial distribution of the volume
loss is not affected by the variation of the pillar depth.
The tunnel settlement near the new tunnel centreline
increases with decreasing pillar depth, and smaller tunnel
settlements occur away from the new tunnel centreline.
This is because that the influence range of the greenfield
soil settlement gets smaller with the decreasing pillar depth.
Figure 12(b) shows the changes in the maximum tunnel set-
tlement for different P. The maximum tunnel settlement
Settlement (mm)
P=0.5D
P=1D
P=1.5D
P=2D
P=2.5D
Normalised distance from new tunnel centreline, x/D
(a) longitudinal tunnel settlement
Maximum settlement (mm)
Normalised pillar depth, P/D
(b) maximum tunnel settlement
Fig. 12. Settlements of the existing tunnel under different pillar depths.
 X. Gan et al. / Underground Space 7 (2022) 882–897 893

decreases by 39% as the pillar depth increases from 0.25D from the new tunnel centreline increases slightly with an
to 3D. This is attributed to the fact that the effect of the increasing pillar depth. The variation in the maximum tun-
greenfield settlement on the existing tunnel weakens due nel shear forces under different P is shown in Fig. 14(b). A
to the increase of the pillar depth. significant decrease in the maximum tunnel shear force can
Figure 13(a) shows the longitudinal bending moment of be observed as the pillar depth increases. The shear force
the existing tunnel for different P. Both the sagging decreases by 87% when the pillar depth increases from
moment and hogging moment decrease significantly as 0.25D to 3D.
the pillar depth increases. The location of the maximum
hogging moment moves toward the new tunnel centreline
when the pillar depth decreases. Figure 13(b) shows the 4.3 Skew angle a
variation in the maximum tunnel bending moments under
different P. The maximum sagging and hogging moment In this section, the tunnel horizontal movement and pil-
decrease by 77% and 70% at decreasing rates as the pillar lar depth are set to be 7.5 mm and 3 m, respectively. The
depth increases from 0.25D to 3D. Thus, increasing the pil- longitudinal settlements of the existing tunnel for different
lar depth is an effective way for reducing the tunnel bending a are presented in Fig. 15(a). The tunnel settlement
moment. increases, and the influence zone of the tunnel settlement
The shear forces of the existing tunnel for different P are widens owing to the reduced skew angle. This is because
presented in Fig. 14(a). The shear force near the new tunnel the decreasing skew angle induces a wider greenfield settle-
centreline decreases significantly, and the shear force away

P=0.5D
P=1D
P=0.5D P=1.5D
P=1D P=2D
Bending moment (103 kN·m)

Shear force (103 kN)

P=1.5D P=2.5D
P=2D
P=2.5D

Normalised distance from new tunnel centreline, x/D

Normalised distance from new tunnel centreline, x/D
(a) longitudinal tunnel shear force
(a) longitudinal tunnel bending moment
Maximum hogging moment (103 kN·m)
Maximum sagging moment (103 kN·m)

Maximum shear force (103 kN)

Maximum tunnel bending moment

Sagging moment
Hogging moment

Normalised pillar depth, P/D

(b) maximum tunnel bending moment
Normalised pillar depth, P/D
(b) maximum tunnel shear force
Fig. 13. Bending moments of the existing tunnel under different pillar
depths. Fig. 14. Shear forces of the existing tunnel under different pillar depths.
894 X. Gan et al. / Underground Space 7 (2022) 882–897
ment profile. As shown in Eq. (3), the vertical distance
from a point along the existing tunnel to the axis of the
new tunnel decreases owing to the reduction in the skew
angle, which leads to larger greenfield settlements and a
wider settlement trough at the axis of the existing tunnel.
Figure 15(b) shows the variation in the maximum tunnel
settlements for different a. The maximum settlement
decreases by approximately 1.2 mm (18%) when the skew
angle increases from 0° to 90°. The variation in the maxi-
mum tunnel settlement can be classified into three stages:
slow reduction can be observed when the skew angle
increases from 0° to 15° and 60° to 90°, and a rapid
decrease occurs when the skew angle increases from 15°
to 60°. Lin et al. (2019) applied numerical simulations to
investigate the responses of existing tunnels to new, obli-
quely undercrossing tunnels. The numerical results showed
a similar phenomenon: the decrease in the maximum tunnel
settlement experienced three stages with increasing skew
angle, indicating that the effect of the skew angle between
Settlement (mm)
a=30°
a=45°
a=60°
a=75°
a=90°
Normalised distance from new tunnel centreline, x/D
(a) longitudinal tunnel settlement
Maximum settlement (mm)
Skew angle between new and existing tunnel, a (°)
(b) maximum tunnel settlement
Fig. 15. Settlements of the existing tunnel under different skew angles.
the new and existing tunnels can be effectively considered
by the proposed method.
The longitudinal bending moments of the existing tunnel
under different a are illustrated in Fig. 16(a). The sagging
moment decreases sharply, and the hogging moment
approaches zero gradually with decreasing skew angle. Fig-
ure 16(b) presents the change in the maximum tunnel bend-
ing moments for different a. It is shown that the maximum
sagging and hogging moments increase remarkably with
the increasing skew angle when the skew angle is less than
60°. As the skew angle increases from 60° to 90°, just a
slight increase in the maximum bending moment develops.
The longitudinal shear forces of the existing tunnel
under different a are shown in Fig. 17(a). The value of
the shear force decreases, and the location of the maximum
shear force moves away from the new tunnel centreline due
to the reduced skew angle. Figure 17(b) shows the variation
in the maximum tunnel shear forces under different a. A
six-fold increase in the maximum shear force can be seen
a=30°
a=45°
Bending moment (103 kN·m)
a=60°
a=75°
a=90°
Normalised distance from new tunnel centreline, x/D
(a) longitudinal tunnel bending moment
Maximum hogging moment (103 kN·m)
Maximum sagging moment (103 kN·m)
Maximum tunnel bending moment
Sagging moment
Hogging moment
Skew angle between new and existing tunnel, a (°)
(b) maximum tunnel bending moment
Fig. 16. Bending moments of the existing tunnel under different skew
angles.
 X. Gan et al. / Underground Space 7 (2022) 882–897 895

A parametric analysis with the proposed method was

a=30° conducted to investigate the influences from the input
a=45° parameters on the tunnel responses. The larger the tunnel
a=60°
a=75° horizontal movement, the more obvious the asymmetry
Shear force (103 kN)

a=90° of the tunnel settlement profile. Increases in the tunnel hor-

izontal movement and skew angle and a decrease in the pil-
lar depth can lead to apparent increases in the maximum
bending moment and shear force. The internal forces
may be overestimated when the influence of the skew angle
is neglected.
It should be noted that the proposed method does not
consider the nonlinear features induced by tunnel-soil inter-
actions or soil plasticity. Further study may be conducted to
comprehensively evaluate the performance of existing tun-
Normalised distance from new tunnel centreline, x/D
nels that are subjected to new tunnelling underneath.
(a) longitudinal tunnel shear force
Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing

financial interests or personal relationships that could have
Maximum shear force (103 kN)

appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgements

The financial support from the National Natural Science

Foundation of China (Grant No. 51778575) and Science
and Technology Department of Zhejiang Province (Grant
No. 2019C03103) is gratefully acknowledged.

Appendix A Vectors and matrices of Eq. (14)

2 3
Skew angle between new and existing tunnel, a (°) A1 A2 2 0
6 A3 5 4 1 7
(b) maximum tunnel shear force 6 7
6 7
6 1 4 6 4 1 7
Fig. 17. Shear forces of the existing tunnel under different skew angles. 6 7
6 1 4 6 4 1 7
6 7
166 .. .. .. .. .. 7
7
K1 ¼ 4 6 . . . . . 7
h 6 7
when the skew angle increases from 15° to 90°. The results 6 1 4 6 4 1 7
6 7
imply that neglecting the skew angle between new and 6 1 4 6 4 1 7
6 7
existing tunnels may lead to overestimated internal forces 6 7
of the existing tunnel. 4 1 4 5 A3 5
0 2 A2 A1 ðnþ1Þðnþ1Þ
5 Conclusion
ðA1Þ
2 3
To improve the existing analytical methods, this paper BT 0
6 7
presents a simplified analytical method for assessing the 6 T 2T T 7
6 7
influences of new tunnelling underneath on existing tun- 6 T 2T T 7
6 7
nels. The proposed method highlights the responses of 6 7
6 T 2T T 7
the existing tunnel to tunnelling-induced asymmetric 6 7
6 .. .. .. .. .. 7
ground movements and was successfully verified with the K2 ¼ 6 . . . . . 7
6 7
6 T 2T T 7
measurement data of a case study. When the horizontal 6 7
6 7
movement of the new tunnel due to bias loading or asym- 6 T 2T T 7
6 7
metric construction conditions is considered, the settlement 6 T 2T T 7
4 5
and internal forces of the existing tunnel are apparently
0 BT ðnþ1Þðnþ1Þ
higher, and their profiles are asymmetric about the new
tunnel centreline. ðA2Þ
896 X. Gan et al. / Underground Space 7 (2022) 882–897

2 3
N 0 References
6 7
6 N 7
6 7 Cao, L. Q., Zhang, D. L., & Fang, Q. (2020). Semi-analytical prediction
6 N 7 for tunnelling-induced ground movements in multi-layered clayey soils.
6 7
6 .. 7 Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 102, 103446.
6 . 7 Chen, R. P., Lin, X. T., Kang, X., Zhong, Z. Q., Liu, Y., Zhang, P., &
6 7
6 7 Wu, H. N. (2018). Deformation and stress characteristics of existing
K3 ¼ 6 N 7
6 .. 7 twin tunnels induced by close-distance EPBS under-crossing. Tun-
6 7 nelling and Underground Space Technology, 82, 468–481.
6 . 7
6 7 Cooper, M. L., Chapman, D. N., Rogers, C. D. F., & Chan, A. H. C.
6 7 (2002). Movements in the Piccadilly Line tunnels due to the Heathrow
6 N 7
6 7 Express construction. Géotechnique, 52(4), 243–257.
4 N 5 Ding, Z., Wei, X. J., & Wei, G. (2017). Prediction methods on tunnel-
excavation induced surface settlement around adjacent building.
0 N ðnþ1Þðnþ1Þ Geomechanics and Engineering, 12(2), 185–195.
Fang, Q., Liu, X., Zhang, D. L., & Lou, H. C. (2017). Shallow tunnel
ðA3Þ construction with irregular surface topography using cross diaphragm
method. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 68, 11–21.
De ðjGAÞeq T Fang, Q., Zhang, D. L., Li, Q. Q., & Wong, L. N. Y. (2015). Effects of
Q1 ¼ ½ q0 q1    qn1 qn  ðA4Þ twin tunnels construction beneath existing shield-driven twin tunnels.
bðEI Þeq Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 45, 128–137.
2 3 Franza, A., Marshall, A. M., Haji, T., Abdelatif, A., Carbonari, S., &
q1  2q0 þ q1 Morici, M. (2017). A simplified elastic analysis of tunnel-piled
6 q  2q þ q 7 structure interaction. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology,
6 7
De 6 7
2 1 0 61, 104–121.
6 .
.. 7 Gan, X. L., Yu, J. L., Gong, X. N., & Zhu, M. (2020). Characteristics and
Q2 ¼ 4 6 7 ðA5Þ
bh 66
7
7
Countermeasures of Tunnel Heave due to Large-Diameter Shield
Tunneling Underneath. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facil-
4 qn  2qn1 þ qn2 5 ities, 34(1), 04019081.
qnþ1  2qn þ qn1 1ðnþ1Þ Gan, X. L., Yu, J. L., Gong, X. N., Hou, Y. M., Liu, N. W., & Zhu, M.
(2021). Response of operating metro tunnels to compensation grouting
T
of an underlying large-diameter shield tunnel: A case study in
Q3 ¼ ½ C 1 C2 0  0 C3 C 4 ðnþ1Þ ðA6Þ Hangzhou. Underground Space. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
undsp.2021.07.006.
Gue, C. Y. Ã., Wilcock, M. J., Alhaddad, M. M., Elshafie, M. Z. E. B.,
where Soga, K., & Mair, R. J. (2017). Tunnelling close beneath an existing
tunnel in clay – perpendicular undercrossing. Géotechnique, 67(9),
k 2 D2e h4 2kDe h2
A1 ¼ þ 2; A2 ¼  4 795–807.
b2
b Huang, D., & Zeng, B. (2017). Influence of Double-O-Tube Shield Rolling
on Soil Deformation during Tunneling. International Journal of
Geomechanics, 17(11), 04017105.
kDe h2 kDe h2
A3 ¼  2; B ¼ Huang, M. S., Chen, Z. R., & Li, Z. (2009). A simplified analysis method
b b for the influence of tunneling on grouped piles. Tunnelling and
Underground Space Technology, 24, 410–422.
ðjGAÞeq Gs De þ ðEI Þeq kDe ðjGAÞkDe Jin, D. L., Yuan, D. J., Li, X., & Zheng, H. (2018). An in-tunnel grouting
T ¼ ;N ¼ protection method for excavating twin tunnels beneath an existing
bðEI Þeq h 2
bðEI Þeq tunnel. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 71, 27–35.
Jin, D. L., Yuan, D. J., Liu, S., Li, X., & Luo, W. (2019). Performance of
2 2 3 3 2 3
q0 U0 U 1  2U 0 þ U 1 Existing Subway Tunnels Undercrossed by Four Closely Spaced Shield
6q 7 6 7 6 7 Tunnels. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 33(1),
6 1 7 6 U1 7 6 U 2  2U 1 þ U 0 7 04018099.
6 7 6 7 6 7
6 7 6 . 7 Gs 6 .. 7
q ¼ 6 ... 7 ¼ k 6 .. 7
Lai, H. P., Zheng, H. W., Chen, R., Kang, Z., & Liu, Y. (2020). Settlement
þ 26 . 7 behaviors of existing tunnel caused by obliquely under-crossing shield
6 7 6 7 h 6 7
6 7 6 7 6 7 tunneling in close proximity with small intersection angle. Tunnelling
4 qn-1 5 4 U n-1 5 4 U n  2U n1 þ U n2 5 and Underground Space Technology, 97, 103258.
qn U n 1ðnþ1Þ U nþ1  2U n þ U n1 1ðnþ1Þ Li, P., Du, S. J., Shen, S. L., Wang, Y. H., & Zhao, H. H. (2016).
Timoshenko beam solution for the response of existing tunnels because
of tunneling underneath. International Journal for Numerical and
 
2De kD2e ðq  q1 ÞDe Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, 40(5), 766–784.
C 1 ¼ q0  2 þ 1 þ q0 Li, X. G., & Chen, X. S. (2012). Using grouting of shield tunneling to
bh 2
b bh2 reduce settlements of overlying tunnels: Case study in Shenzhen metro
construction. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,
ðjGAÞeq Gs D2e þ ðEI Þeq kD2e 138, 574–584.
 Li, X. G., & Yuan, D. J. (2012). Response of a double-decked metro
b2 ðEI Þeq tunnel to shield driving of twin closely under-crossing tunnels.
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 28, 18–30.
C 2 ¼  qbh 2 , C3 ¼ 
0 De qn De
bh2
, Liang, R. Z., Xia, T. D., Huang, M. S., & Lin, C. G. (2017). Simplified
analytical method for evaluating the effects of adjacent excavation on
  shield tunnel considering the shearing effect. Computers and Geotech-
2De kD2e q  qnþ1 De nics, 81, 167–187.
C 4 ¼ qn  þ n1 þ qn
bh 2
b2
bh2 Liang, R. Z., Kang, C., Xiang, L. M., Li, Z. C., Lin, C. G., Gao, K., &
Guo, Y. (2021a). Responses of in-service shield tunnel to overcrossing
ðjGAÞeq Gs D2e þ ðEI Þeq kD2e tunnelling in soft ground. Environmental Earth Sciences, 80(5), 183.
 Liang, R. Z., Wu, J., Sun, L. W., Shen, W., & Wu, W. B. (2021b).
b2 ðEI Þeq Performances of adjacent metro structures due to zoned excavation of
 X. Gan et al. / Underground Space 7 (2022) 882–897
a large-scale basement in soft ground. Tunnelling and Underground
Space Technology, 117, 104123.
Liao, S. M., Peng, F. L., & Shen, S. L. (2008). Analysis of shearing effect
on tunnel induced by load transfer along longitudinal direction.
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 23, 421–430.
Lin, C. G., Huang, M. S., Nadim, F., & Liu, Z. Q. (2020). Embankment
responses to shield tunnelling considering soil-structure interaction:
Case studies in Hangzhou soft ground. Tunnelling and Underground
Space Technology, 96, 103230.
Lin, X. T., Chen, R. P., Wu, H. N., & Cheng, H. Z. (2019). Deformation
behaviors of existing tunnels caused by shield tunneling undercrossing
with oblique angle. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 89,
78–90.
Liu, C. H., Bezuijen, A., Yang, M., & Cachim, P. (2019). Elastic analysis
of ground movements around a tunnel considering a buoyant lining
moving upwards. International Journal for Numerical and Analytical
Methods in Geomechanics, 43(8), 1562–1575.
Liu, X., Fang, Q., & Zhang, D. L. (2018). Mechanical responses of
existing tunnel due to new tunnelling below without clearance.
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 80, 44–52.
Loganathan, N., & Poulos, H. G. (1998). Analytical Prediction for
Tunneling-Induced Ground Movements in Clays. Journal of Geotech-
nical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 124, 846–856.
Lu, D. C., Kong, F. C., Du, X. L., Shen, C. P., Gong, Q. M., & Li, P. F.
(2019). A unified displacement function to analytically predict ground
deformation of shallow tunnel. Tunnelling and Underground Space
Technology, 88, 129–143.
Mohamad, H., Bennett, P. J., Soga, K., Mair, R. J., & Bowers, K. (2010).
Behaviour of an old masonry tunnel due to tunnelling-induced ground
settlement. Géotechnique, 60(12), 927–938.
Pasternak, P. L. (1954). On a new method of analysis of an elastic
foundation by means of two foundation constants. Moscow: Gosu-
darstvennoe Izdatelstvo Literaturi po Stroitelstvu i Arkhitekture (In
Russian).
Peck, R. B. (1969). Deep excavations and tunneling in soft ground. In
Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Engineering, State of the Art Report, Mexico City,
pp. 225–290.
Sagaseta, C. (1987). Analysis of undrained soil deformation due to ground
loss. Géotechnique, 37, 301–320.
Shen, S. L., Wu, H. N., Cui, Y. J., & Yin, Z. Y. (2014). Long-term
settlement behaviour of metro tunnels in the soft deposits of Shanghai.
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 40, 309–323.
Tanahashi, H. (2004). Formulas for an infinitely long bernoulli-euler beam
on the Pasternak model. Soils and Foundations, 44(5), 109–118.
Timoshenko, S. P. (1921). On the correction for shear of the differential
equation for transverse vibration of prismatic bars. The London,
Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science,
41, 744–746.
Verruijt, A., & Booker, J. R. (1996). Surface settlements due to
deformation of a tunnel in an elastic half plane. Géotechnique, 46,
753–756.
897
Vorster, T. E., Klar, A., Soga, K., & Mair, R. J. (2005). Estimating the
effects of tunneling on existing pipelines. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, 131, 1399–1410.
Wei, X. J., Zhang, M. B., Ma, S. J., Xia, C., Liu, X. W., & Ding, Z. (2021).
Deformation characteristics of existing twin tunnels induced by double
shield undercrossing with prereinforcement: A case study in Hang-
zhou. Advances in Civil Engineering, 2021, 7869899.
Wu, H. N., Shen, S. L., Liao, S. M., & Yin, Z. Y. (2015). Longitudinal
structural modelling of shield tunnels considering shearing dislocation
between segmental rings. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technol-
ogy, 50, 317–323.
Wu, H. N., Shen, S. L., & Yang, J. (2017). Identification of tunnel
settlement caused by land subsidence in soft deposit of Shanghai.
Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 31(6), 04017092.
Wu, H. N., Shen, S. L., Yang, J., & Zhou, A. (2018). Soil-tunnel
interaction modelling for shield tunnels considering shearing disloca-
tion in longitudinal joints. Tunnelling and Underground Space Tech-
nology, 78, 168–177.
Yu, J., Zhang, C. R., & Huang, M. S. (2013). Soil-pipe interaction due to
tunnelling: Assessment of Winkler modulus for underground pipelines.
Computers and Geotechnics, 50, 17–28.
Zeng, B., Huang, D., Peng, N., & Chen, F. Y. (2018). Analogous
stochastic medium theory method (ASMTM) for predicting soil
displacement induced by general and special-section shield tunnel
construction. Chinese Journal Rock Mechanics and Engineering, 37,
4356–4366 (in Chinese).
Zhang, C. R., Yu, J., & Huang, M. S. (2012). Effects of tunnelling on
existing pipelines in layered soils. Computers and Geotechnics, 43(2),
12–25.
Zhang, D. M., Huang, Z. K., Wang, R. L., Yan, J. Y., & Zhang, J. (2018).
Grouting-based treatment of tunnel settlement: Practice in Shanghai.
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 80, 181–196.
Zhang, D. M., Huang, Z. K., Li, Z. L., Zong, X., & Zhang, D. M. (2019).
Analytical solution for the response of an existing tunnel to a new
tunnel excavation underneath. Computers and Geotechnics, 108,
197–211.
Zhang, Q. F. (2018). Field observation and theoretical study on an
existing tunnel underpassed by new twin tunnels. Advances in Civil
Engineering, 2018, 1598672.
Zhang, Z. G., & Huang, M. S. (2014). Geotechnical influence on existing
subway tunnels induced by multiline tunneling in Shanghai soft soil.
Computers and Geotechnics, 56, 121–132.
Zhou, S. H., Xiao, J. H., Di, H. G., & Zhu, Y. H. (2018). Differential
settlement remediation for new shield metro tunnel in soft soils using
corrective grouting method: Case study. Canadian Geotechnical Jour-
nal, 55, 1877–1887.
Zhu, M., Gong, X. N., Gao, X. L., Liu, S. M., & Yan, J. J. (2019).
Remediation of damaged shield tunnel using grouting technique:
Serviceability improvements and prevention of potential risks. Journal
of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 33, 04019062.