A comparison of current analytical methods for predicting soil-structure interaction due to tunnelling

Abstract Current procedures for the assessment of buildings response to tunnelling take into account the effect of soil-structure interaction through the definition of the building stiffness relative to the soil stiffness. Limitations of these procedures are uncertainties in the evaluation of structural parameters and inconsistent results between different methods. In this paper, three existing formulations of the Relative Stiffness Method (RSM) have been critically evaluated by analysing the governing factors in the building stiffness calculation and their effect on the structural damage assessment. The results of a sensitivity study on building height, eccentricity, opening ratio, tunnel depth, soil and masonry stiffness, and trough width parameter quantified the effect of these factors on the considered RSMs. The application of different RSMs to a real masonry building adjacent to the Jubilee Line tunnel excavation underlined the significant effect of window openings, facade stiffness and neutral axis position on the building stiffness calculation and deformation prediction. These results highlight the need for a consistent and robust damage assessment procedure.

[1]  Paul Simon Dimmock.  Tunnelling-induced ground and building movement on the Jubilee Line extension , 2003 .

[2]  David M. Potts,et al.  A STRUCTURE'S INFLUENCE ON TUNNELLING-INDUCED GROUND MOVEMENTS. , 1997 .

[3]  David M. Potts,et al.  The response of surface structures to tunnel construction , 2006 .

[4]  Robert J. Mair,et al.  Prediction of ground movements and assessment of risk of building damage due to bored tunnelling , 1996 .

[5]  Tom Schanz,et al.  Global sensitivity analysis for subsoil parameter estimation in mechanized tunneling , 2014 .

[6]  R. N. Taylor,et al.  Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground , 2022 .

[7]  R. Peck.  Deep excavations and tunnelling in soft ground , 1969 .

[8]  John Burland,et al.  SETTLEMENT OF BUILDINGS AND ASSOCIATED DAMAGE , 1975 .

[9]  E. Cording,et al.  Estimation of building damage due to excavation-induced ground movements , 2005 .

[10]  Robert J. Mair,et al.  Effect of building stiffness on tunnelling-induced ground movement. , 2008 .

[11]  A. Saltelli,et al.  Importance measures in global sensitivity analysis of nonlinear models , 1996 .

[12]  B. M. New,et al.  SETTLEMENTS ABOVE TUNNELS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM - THEIR MAGNITUDE AND PREDICTION , 1982 .

[13]  Gebräuchliche Fertigarzneimittel,et al.  V , 1893, Therapielexikon Neurologie.

[14]  M. Boscardin,et al.  Building Response to Excavation‐Induced Settlement , 1989 .

[15]  Robert J. Mair,et al.  Building damage assessment for deep excavations in Singapore and the influence of building stiffness , 2011 .

[16]  Bengt B. Broms,et al.  Behaviour of foundations and structures , 1977 .

[17]  H. D. Netzel.  Building Response Due to Ground Movements , 2009 .

[18]  R. N. Taylor,et al.  Settlement predictions for Neptune, Murdoch and Clegg Houses and adjacent masonry walls , 2001 .

[19]  Sakinah,et al.  Vol. , 2020, New Medit.

[20]  Richard J. Jardine,et al.  Ground performance and building response due to tunnelling , 2004 .

[21]  Robert J. Mair,et al.  The response of buildings to movements induced by deep excavations , 2012 .

[22]  Guy T. Houlsby,et al.  An equivalent beam method to model masonry buildings in 3D finite element analysis , 2010 .

[23]  G. E. Torp-Petersen,et al.  Geotechnical investigation and assessment of potential building damage arising from ground movements: CrossRail , 2001 .