Comparison of 2D & 3D finite element analysis of tunnels based on

soil-structure interaction using GTS

Liaqat Ali Qureshi, Kashif Amin
Unversity of Engineering & Technology, Taxila, Pakistan

Tahir Sultan & M. Ilyas Sh

Bahaudin Zakariya University, Multan, Pakistan

Abstract
This paper deals with the study of soil-structure interaction based on 2D and 3D finite element
analysis of tunnels by using the software GTS (Geotechnical and Tunnel Analysis System). For buried
Structures like tunnels, the underneath soil/rock is to be simulated by elastic spring while surrounding
and overlying soil/rock by superimposed loads. GTS is state of the art software, which defines a new
paradigm for tunnel engineering and other specific geotechnical structures. It is founded on the expert
analysis and exceptional graphic technologies. GTS enables the engineers to intuitively generate
complex geotechnical models. Such modelling capabilities are armed with very strong analysis
features, powered by a uniquely developed multi-frontal solver providing the fastest analysis speed. In
3D finite element analysis of tunnels, the values of forces and moments are less than 2D FEA.
Therefore, It can be concluded that the tunnel designed by using Terzaghis method & 2D FEA is on
the safer side but uneconomical. Also, the difference in values of forces and moments, between 3D
FEA and 2D FEA, has been found to be more in large sections than small sections.
Also it is found that 2D finite element analysis of tunnels conserves simplicity and can be run on a
relatively normal computer, yet it tends to yield less accurate results. While 3D finite element analysis
of buried structures require additional efforts, yet it gives a more realistic solution of soil-structure
interaction and the availability of modern geotechnical engineering software (GTS) and speedy
computers has facilitated the work. Moreover a single analysis gives stresses and forces both in soil
and structures. Therefore, it is concluded that the tunnels should be designed by 3D finite element
method.
Keywords: Tunnel, GTS, soil-structure interaction , finite element analysis,

Introduction

The analysis and design of buried structures is one of the most complicated and difficult subjects.
With the advent of large-span flexible designs, buried structures are increasingly being used for large
culverts, tunnels and underground tanks. The engineer must understand the unusual behavior of such
structures and recognize the inherent difficulties in their design. The most important concept in
understanding buried structures is that the structural actions of the liner (that is the tunnel) and the
soil cannot be separated (Swoboda et al., 1987). The magnitudes of the interplay between soil and
structure depend on the boundary loadings. Moreover, the relative stiffness of soil and liner is not a
simple relationship, but is different in axial and flexural modes of deformation and is also dependent

on the sequencing of backfill materials and the construction techniques (Read et al., 1998). Finally, a
buried structure (culvert, tunnel, underground tank) in the soil at a given depth and boundary loading
will behave quite differently depending on its shape. All these variables can become crucial to the
design and must be considered. Therefore, in order to understand the soil-structure interaction, in case
of buried structures, it is required to model the surrounding soil/rock as a material (Kjartanson et al.,
1998). The modern tool of analysis and design (GTS) of soil-structure interaction based on finite
element analysis is so powerful that with enough resources to run the computer, almost any
combination of shape, static or dynamic external loading, and nonlinear or anisotropic material
properties can be modelled successfully.
For buried Structures, the soil-structure interaction based on 2D & 3D finite element analysis has
been studied by many researchers. They have simulated the underneath soil by elastic spring.
Moreover, the surrounding and overlying soil/rock has been simulated by superimposed loads. Arup
(2003) have been at the forefront of the development of 3D finite element techniques in the field of
Geotechnical Engineering. Arup has a set of 2D and 3D finite element software packages to solve
complex problems. There is a range of standard geotechnical problems where 3D effects matter.
Simplified modeling solutions have previously been developed; however, the accuracy of these
simplifications is uncertain. J. N. Frenzies & D. M. Potts (2005) investigated the influence of
geometry and dimensions of a 3D finite element model on tunnel-induced surface settlement
predictions. They showed how the vertical boundaries can influence the results. It demonstrates that
reasonable results can be obtained by increasing the length of incremental tunnel excavation and by
scaling back the settlement values to give a required tunnel volume loss. Their study therefore not
only highlights the limitations of 3D modeling but also shows its potential for engineering practice. K.
M. Lee & R. K. Rowe (1990), examined a hypothetical situation which involves a relatively simple
tunnel geometry and soil conditions for the purpose of understanding the three-dimensional behaviour
of a shallow tunnel, The results of three-dimensional ground displacements and stress pattern around a
tunnel face and at the ground surface are examined for two idealized limiting situations: (i) an unlined
tunnel, and (ii) a perfectly lined tunnel. The findings from these two idealized cases bracket the
response of a full construction simulation. Results obtained from their analysis indicate that the
general three-dimensional stress and displacement patterns around a tunnel are very different as
compared to those obtained at the plane strain transverse section. The distance required for the ground
displacement to reach the plane strain condition will depend on the amount of plasticity developed
around the tunnel opening.
E. Eberhardt (2001) conducted a series of detailed three-dimensional analysis in varying ground
conditions, which compares vertical (radial) displacements measured at the roof, vector orientations
associated with these roof displacements and tunnel face displacements (extrusion). These numerical
results suggest that in all the cases, vector orientation provided additional information which could not
be obtained from traditional radial displacements or face extrusion. If interpreted correctly, the vector
orientations could provide advanced warning of changing ground conditions in the vicinity of the
tunnel face. M. Migliazza et al. (2008), carried out a study to estimate the values of the surface
settlements induced by the excavation of the new extension of line 1 of the Metropolitana Milanese,
constructed in an alluvial sandy area of the Padana Plain. In particular, the purpose of this study has
been to compare the vertical surface displacements monitored during the advancing excavation with
the settlements estimated by analytical and empirical formulations and by setting up a threedimensional finite element model that could simulate, step by step, the different tunnel excavation and
supporting phases. S. Qassun et al. (2008) have performed finite element analysis on tunnels in
saturated porous medium using the elastoplastic-viscoplastic bounding surface models.
In his paper, the model and the finite element formulation are described and examples of model
prediction and accuracy of the finite element formulation are given. The transient analysis of tunnel
problem is then carried out, and the comparison of the finite element results with the field

measurements demonstrate the ability of the bounding surface model to solve problems of tunneling
in saturated porous medium.

Analysis of tunnels

The analysis deals with the study of soil-structure interaction with the help of GTS (software) for two
typical sizes (10/ x 10/ & 26/ x 22/) of tunnels, based on 2D and 3D finite element analysis.

2.1

Properties of materials

The rock with the following material properties is taken to study the interaction of tunnels with the
surrounding material:
Modulus of elasticity of rock =229,740 ksf
Poissons ratio = 0.33
Unit weight (dry) = 0.1686 kcf
Unit weight (saturated) = 0.1686 kcf
Cohesion = 5.22 ksf
Friction angle = 30o
Tensile strength = 83.5 ksf
Initial stress parameters = 0.5
Modulus of subgrade reaction =2500 ksf
RQD = 50% - 75%

2.2

Loads on 10/ x 10/ tunnel

Load on the model made up in 2D finite element analysis was calculated using Terzaghis theory:
Roof load = 0.4 (B +Ht)
r
= 0.4 x 0.1686 x (12+12) = 1.624 ksf
B
=10 + 1 + 1 = 12/ Ht = 10 + 2 = 12/
Wall load h= kor = 0.5 x 1.62 = 0.81 ksf
Only self weight was applied in the model comprising 3D finite elements.

2.3

Loads on 26/ x 22/ tunnel

Load on the model made up of 2D Finite Elements was also calculated using Terzaghis Theory:
Roof load = 0.4 (B +Ht)
r
= 0.4 x 0.1686 x (30+25.91) = 3.77 ksf
Ht = 21.91+4 = 25.91/
B
= 26 + 2 + 2 = 30/
Wall load h= kor = 0.5 x 3.77 = 1.885 ksf
Only self weight was applied in the model comprising 3D finite elements.

2.4

Tunnel geometry

The 2D finite element model has been developed by using shell elements. Linear elastic springs are
provided under all nodes of base slab equal to the product of contributing area and co-efficient of

modulus of sub grade reaction. For stability of structure, translations in principle horizontal directions
are kept fixed and springs are provided only in vertical direction. All the three rotations are kept free.
(Figure 1).

Figure 1. Geometry of 2D (left) & 3D (right) finite element models

In 3D finite elements model, the tunnel has been developed by using shell elements and the
surrounding rock has been modeled by using solid elements. For stability of structure, translations in
three principle directions are kept fixed. All the three rotations are kept free. (Figure 1).

2.5

Loads on 2D finite elements model

The load of overlying rock calculated by Terzaghis method is applied as uniformly distributed on the
roof and triangularly distributed load on the walls (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Loads on 2D finite element model

2.6

2D & 3D Finite Element Analysis

2D & 3D finite element analysis was carried out on the basis of transverse moments and shear forces
in top slab, walls and base slab of both typical sizes of tunnels (10/ x 10/ & 26/ x 22/). Some typical
results are shown in figures 3 8.

Figure 3. Transverse moments in top slab in 2D (left) & 3D (right) FE models for 10/ x 10/ tunnel

Figure 4. Shear forces in base in 2D (left) & 3D (right) models for 10/ x 10/ tunnel

Figure 5. Transverse moments in walls in 2D (left) & 3D (right) FE models for 10/ x 10/ tunnel

Figure 6. Transverse moments in top slab in 2D (left) & 3D (right) FE models for 26/ x 22/ tunnel

Figure 7. Transverse moments in walls in 2D (left) & 3D (right) FE models for 26/ x 22/ tunnel

Figure 8. Shear force in base in 2D (left) & 3D (right) FE models for 26/ x 22/ tunnel

Comparison of results

3.1

Comparison of results for 10/ x 10/ tunnel

The results of 2D finite element analysis of 10/ x 10/ tunnel are compared with 3D finite element
analysis of same section as follows:
In 3D FEA, negative transverse moment in top slab is reduced by 33.3%, positive transverse
moment is reduced by 58.7%, and shear force is reduced by 1.25% as compared with 2D FEA.
In 3D FEA, negative transverse moment in walls is reduced by 22 %, and shear force is increased
by 80% as compared with 2D FEA.
In 3D FEA, negative transverse moment in base slab is reduced by 20.8 %, positive transverse
moment is reduced by 77.8 %, and shear force is reduced by 76 % as compared with 2D FEA.

+0.62k-ft

+1.5 k-ft
-0.80 k-ft

-1.24 k-ft
-0.87 k-ft

+0.77 k-ft
+7.34 k-ft

+1.64 k-ft
-6.46 k-ft

-8.29 k-ft

-6.68 k-ft

-8.44 k-ft

Figure 9. Transverse moments in 2D FEA (left) & 3D FEA (right).

3.2

Comparison of results for 26/ x 22/tunnel

The results of 2D finite element analysis of 26/ x 22/ tunnel are compared with 3D finite element
analysis of same section as follows:
+15.53 k-ft

-16.9 k-ft
-15.0 k-ft
+66.5 k-ft
-71.7 k-ft
-71.0 k-ft

Figure 10. Transverse moments in 2D FEA

 In 3D FEA, negative transverse moment in top slab is reduced by 69 % and positive transverse
moment is reduced by 73.7 % as compared with 2D FEA.
In 3D FEA, negative transverse moment in walls is reduced by 3.64 % as compared with 2D FEA.
In 3D FEA, negative transverse moment in base slab is reduced by 2.3 % and positive transverse
moment is reduced by 78.5 % as compared with 2D FEA.
+4.08k-ft

-5.24 k-ft
+6.69 k-ft
+14.33 k-ft
-69.1 k-ft
-69.4 k-ft

Figure 11. Transverse moments in 3D FEA

Conclusions

In 3D finite element analysis of tunnels, the values of forces and moments are less than 2D FEA.
Therefore, it can be concluded that the tunnel designed by using Terzaghis method & 2D FEA is
on the safe side but uneconomical.
The difference in the values of forces and moments, between 3D FEA and 2D FEA, in all type of
structures, studied in this research, has been found to be more in large sections than small sections.
The buried structures can be more accurately and safely designed by 3D finite element analysis.

References
SWOBODA, G., LAABMAYER, F., AND MADER I., 1987. Principles and developments in shallow tunnel construction,
Part 2, Computers and Geotechnics, 3(1), 61-68.
READ, R.S., CHANDLER, N.A., AND DZIK, E.J. 1998, In situ strength criteria for tunnel design in highly-stressed rock
masses. Int.Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 35(3), 261-278.
KJARTANSON, G.A., HEILERS, R.A., LOHNES, AND KLAIBER, F.W., 1998.Soil-Structure Interaction - Analysis of the
Longitudinal Uplift of Culverts. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineerin, 124(2), 128-139.
ARUP., 2003. Finite Element Modeling of 3D Geotechnical Problems and Comparison with Simple Solutions, A Research
Project of the Department of Civil, Environmental and Geomatic Engineering of University College London.
FRANZIUS, J.N. AND POTTS, D. M., 2005. Influence of Mesh Geometry on Three-Dimensional Finite-Element Analysis
of Tunnel Excavation, Iternational Journal of Geomech, 5(3), 256-266.
LEE, K.M. AND ROWE, R.K., 1990. Finite element modeling of the three-dimensional ground deformations due to
tunneling in soft cohesive soils. Computers and Geotechnics, 10(2), 111-138.
EBERHARDT, E., 2001. Finite Element modeling of three-dimension stress rotation ahead of an advancing tunnel face. Int.
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 38(4), 499-518.
MIGLIAZZAA, M., CHIORBOLIB, M. AND GIANIA, G.P., 2008. Comparison of analytical method, 3D finite element
model with experimental subsidence measurements resulting from the extension of the Milan underground. Available
online
QASSUN, S., MOHAMMED SHAFIQU, MOHAMMAD TAHA, R. AND ZAMRI, H. 2008. Finite Element Analysis of
Tunnels using Elastoplastic-Viscoplastic Bounding Surface Model. ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences,
3(3), 178-188.
SURJADINATA, J., HULL, T.S., CARTER, J.P., AND POULOS, H.G., 2006. Combined Finite- and Boundary-Element
Analysis of the Effects of Tunneling on Single Piles, International Journal of Geomechanics, 6 (5), 245-252.