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

net/publication/318467366

Optimizing the Position of Twin Tunnels for Reduction of Surface Ground

Movements

Conference Paper · July 2018

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-61636-0_1

CITATIONS READS
0 32

2 authors, including:

Mehdi Mokhberi
Islamic Azad University, Estahban Branch
20 PUBLICATIONS   35 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

A hyperbolic model for volume change behavior of collapsible soils View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mehdi Mokhberi on 11 July 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Evaluating the Twin Tunnels Position on the Ground Surface Settlements

Mehdi Mokhberi
Assistant Prof., Department of civil engineering, Islamic Azad University, Estahban Branch
mokhberi@iauest.ac.ir

ABSTRACT: Increasing in the city’s population and the necessity to access to various
locations has led to use of underground structures in urban planning. In the different cities,
the twin tunnels has utilized in urban transportations. This type of tunnel design effected
the urban facilities specially caused the settlements of roads and structures. In the
researchers studies, the tunnel deformations, ground moments and tunnel stabilities were
considered. For evaluation the effect of tunnel positions on surface settlements a numerical
study of twin tunnels in Shiraz City were studied. According to different type of soils and
the tunnel positions, the ground deformation was analyzed and discussed. Three different
configurations are taken into consideration, side-by-side tunnels, piggyback tunnels and
angular-offset tunnels. Empirical correlations, derived from extensive field data, are used to
calculate ground settlements caused by twin bored tunnel. Non-linear finite element
analysis is used for these situations. The use of superposition was tested using the non-
linear analysis to check whether or not its use with empirical methods is appropriate. The
results confirm that is a clear difference in the magnitude and distribution of ground
movements in tunnel positions

INTRODUCTION

Underground transportation facilities in urban areas have a significant importance on the

citizen lives as they provide fast and safe transportation services. Therefore, the usage of
metro tunnels has improved in recent years all over the world. Constructing multiple
tunnels provides increased engineering challenges e.g. excavation of twin metro tunnels
side by side or piggyback requires much more attention rather than a constructing single
tunnel. Ground surface settlement is an inevitable consequence of excavating and
constructing tunnels [1].
In order to evaluate the multiple tunnel behavior, a number of studied were carried out. The
studies focused on experimental, empirical and numerical methods. Many semi-empirical
equations have been introduced by various authors for predicting the movements above
single [2], [3]. The equations have been shown over many years, when compared to case
history data of single tunnels, to make accurate predictions of the vertical and horizontal
displacements. Furthermore numerical modeling and in situ observations were used to
analyze the interaction between twin tunnels. Results show that in some configurations, the
interaction could largely affect the soil settlement and that the design of twin tunnels
requires numerical analysis associated to monitoring during the design and construction [4].
The construction of the first tunnel may significantly affect the soil conditions: reduced
confinement, stress release and reduction of the strength parameters of the soils.
Consequently, the second tunnel will be excavated through a different material and the
induced settlements related to the second tunnel will be generally greater [5]. many twin
tunnel case histories do not usually have sufficient data points in critical positions and are
usually given as a total profile and do not show the individual contributions made by each
tunnel. Quality data that does fit this description has been reported [6], [7]. Due to the lack
of data and through advancements in computing power, researchers have been aiding
understanding of deformation of above twin tunnels, using the numerical methods [1], [4],
[6], [8].
Unfortunately, the resulting magnitudes of settlements produced using these numerical
methods do not accurately reproduce the actual magnitudes of displacement found at full
scale. Hence they cannot be used directly to improve the empirical equations. In this
reason, this paper presents 3D numerical analysis conducted to investigate the influence of
twin tunnel spacing on the surface settlement and internal forces resulting from the tunnel
excavation. Analysis was carried out for three different tunnel situations and different twin
tunnels spaces.

Materials and methods

In this study the analysis of the three types of twin tunnel configuration have considered;
side-by-side, piggyback and angular-offset. Fig. 1 illustrated the tunnels status. Common
practice was carried out to superimpose the independent settlements to get the final
settlement profiles. Using the finite element program analyzed the soil to evaluate the
ground surface deformation. This research has performed to evaluate the tunnels behavior
which constructed in the different class of soils.

Soils and lining properties

In order to use the PLAXIS software the soils and lining properties are defined. 5 types of
Shiraz soil properties and 35 centimeters thickness concrete fragments have been taken.
The Mohr-Columb elasto-plastic criterion introduces the soil behavior. The data used in the
analysis have listed in tables I and II respectively.

Surface effect
In order to recognize the twin tunnel settlements, surface deformation for each tunnel has
founded separately. An analysis has been performed for twin tunnels and the results
measured. Following discussed the obtained results:
 Table 1. The data collected from different location of Shiraz Metro soil

Unit  sat E  C
Soil weight
Location SPT W% KN KN KN
classification KN (degree)
m3 (m
3
) ( m2 ) ( m2 )
( )

Moa’li
1 GM-GP 21 50 5 22 60000 40 5
Abad
2 GP Qasr Dasht 19 15 15 20 40000 30 10
Farhang
3 SM-SC 18 40 10 19 25000 25 15
Shahr
Khak
4 CL-ML 17 12 12 19 30000 20 20
Shenasi
Moshir
5 CL 20 25 15 22 20000 10 30
Fatemi

Table 2. Properties of concrete lining fragments

Parameters amount unit

EA 1.4×107 KN/m
EI 1.43×105 kNm/m2
D 0.35 m
w 8.4 kN/m/m
 0.15 -

FIG. 1. The schematic position of twin tunnels

 a) Side-by-side tunnel
Figs 2 to 7 show the effect of distance on the subsurface settlements. The 6 meters diameter
tunnels are buried in depth 15 meters. The tunnels spaces are 8, 16, 20, 24, 32, 40 and 60
meters respectively. The water table position is 2 meter above the tunnel lining. The
settlements are depending to the tunnels spaces. The closest tunnels have more effect and
larger settlements. Keeping a way from each other, the settlement is decreasing. The
maximum settlement is occurred in distance 8 from the center of each tunnel. The
settlement is remains constant between 8 to 16 meters and decreases after 16 meters from
center of tunnels. In the 60 meters distance the tunnels settlements have no superimpose
effects.

b) Piggyback tunnels
The Piggyback tunnels analyzed in 8, 16, 20, 24, 32, 40 and 60 meters distances. . The
water table position is 2 meter above the tunnel lining. Figs 8 and 9 shows the effect of
vertical distance on the subsurface settlements. The results indicate that the piggyback
tunnels have not interface significantly with the maximum settlements. The surface
settlement is considerably depending on upper tunnel settlements.

c) Angular-offset tunnels
For the Angular-offset tunnels analyze the 25, 45 and 65 degree offset-angular have been
considered. The tunnels have 8 and 14 meters offset distances and the soil class is CL. The
results show a linear decay with spacing between two tunnels. Fig. 10 confirms that the
settlements increases from 25 to 65 degree offset. The 25 degree twin tunnel has less
settlements and the 65 degree offset have maximum superimpose settlements. The
maximum amount of settlements has occurred in the center point of twin tunnels.

CONCLUSIONS
The research has carried out to recognize the effect of twin tunnel situation on ground
surface settlements. Using the finite element method analysis the following results could be
obtained:
•In the single tunnel, Settlements decreases with increasing the distance from the tunnel
center; while the settlement have maximum amount in 8 to 16 meter from the center of each
tunnels in the twin tunnels, due to superimpose effect.
•In spite of soil saturation, the sand layers have considerable settlements than the other soils
type.
•Settlement is increases with increasing the offset-angular degree, and it has the maximum
amount in 60 degree alignments.
•The piggyback tunnels settlements is due to upper section settlements and the lower parts
have least effect on superimpose settlements.
 FIG. 2. The total settlements in side-by-side tunnels, tunnel diameter=6 m; tunnels
spaces=8 m

FIG. 3. The total settlements in side-by-side tunnels, tunnel diameter=6 m; tunnels

spaces16 m

FIG. 4. The total settlements in side-by-side tunnels, tunnel diameter=6 m; tunnels

spaces=20 m

5
FIG. 5. The total settlements in side-by-side tunnels, tunnel diameter=6 m; tunnels
spaces=32 m

FIG. 6. The total settlements in side-by-side tunnels, tunnel diameter=6 m;

tunnels spaces=40

FIG. 7 the total settlements in side-by-side tunnels, tunnel diameter=6 m; tunnels

spaces=60 m

6
 FIG. 8. the total settlements in angular-offset tunnels, tunnel diameter=6 m;
spaces=8 m

FIG. 9.The total settlements in angular-offset tunnels, tunnel diameter=6 m;

spaces=14 m

FIG. 10. The settlements in piggyback tunnel, tunnel diameter=6 m

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This paper was funded by a part of the M. Sc. Research in the Islamic Azad University,
Estahban Branch. The authors are grateful to the head of University, research management
and the head of the civil engineering faculty. They are thankful to Shiraz Urban Railway
Organization (SURO) for cooperating in geotechnical data

7
 REFERENCES

[1] Addenbrooke, T. I., Potis, D. M. 2001. “Twin tunnel interaction: Surface and subsurface
effects”. Int. Jour. of Geomechanics, 1 (2), 249-271.

[2] O'Reilly, M.P. and New, B.M. 1982. "Settlements above tunnels in the United Kingdom
- their magnitude and prediction". Proceedings of Tunneling' 82 Symposium. Institution of
Mining and Metallurgy. London. pp. 173 - 181.

[3] Peck, R., 1969. “Deep excavation and Tunneling in soft ground" In proc 7th int conf
soil Mechanics and Found engineering, Mexico., pp. 225-231.

[4] Chehade, F., and Shahrour, I., (2008). "Numerical analysis of the interaction between
twin-tunnels: influence of the relative position and construction procedure." Tunnelling and
underground space technology., Vol. 23, PP. 210-214.

[5] Guglielmetti, V, Piergiorgio, G, Mahtab, A and Xu Sh, 2007. Mechanized tunneling in

urban areas, Taylor and Francis Group, London, UK.
[6] Cooper, M.L., Chapman, D.N., Rogers, C.D.F., 2002. Prediction of settlement in an
Existing Tunnelcause by the Second of Twin Tunnels. Design of structures, 2002,
Transportation research record 1814, pp.103-112.

[7] Nyren, R.,1998. Field measurements above twin tunnels in London Clay. PhD theses,
Imperial College

[8] Chapman, D.N., Rogers, C.D.F., Hunt, D.V.L., 2003. Investigating the settlement above
closely spaced multiple tunnel constructions in soft ground. Proc. of World Tunnel
Congress 2003, Amsterdam 2003, vol 2. pp.629-635.

View publication stats