Araştırma Makalesi / Research Article Iğdır Üni. Fen Bilimleri Enst. Der. / Iğdır Univ. J. Inst. Sci.

Iğdır Üni. Fen Bilimleri Enst. Der. / Iğdır Univ. J. Inst. Sci. & Tech. 7(4): 95-102, 2017

Comparison of Mohr-Coulomb and Hardening Soil Models’

Iğdır Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi
Iğdır University Journal of the Institute of Science and Technology

Numerical Estimation of Ground Surface Settlement Caused

by Tunneling
Semet ÇELİK1

ABSTRACT: Due to in depth tunnel excavation, tensions in the soil are eased, causing elastic and plastic
deformations in the area of tunnel and leading to surface settlement at the ground level. Currently, along with
the use of numerical methods in analysis and design of engineering projects, it is known that this method has
used extensively in the analysis of problems related to geotechnical engineering and tunneling. Selection of the
appropriate parameters and soil model can have a significant impact on the results of numerical analysis. The
Mohr-Coulomb elastic-plastic model (MC) is one of the most widely used models, used in cases evaluating the
hardness of materials, independent of the surface tension. If the Mohr-Coulomb used for numerical modeling
of tunnel where in-depth tunneling excavation is involved and where an increase in maximum ground surface
settlement and decrease in the reliability of stability of tunnels can be seen, which may not be appropriate in some
conditions. The more appropriate model should be used to solve this problem, one that can model the hardness of
materials based on changes in the level of stress. In this study, the maximum ground surface settlement due to tunnel
excavation, obtained from Mohr- Coulomb model was compared with those of Hardening Soil (HS) Model results.
Therefore, the ground surface settlement because of an assumption tunnel in different depths was analyzed with
Mohr-Coulomb and Hardening Soil models by using PLAXIS 2D. As a result of the analyzes, it is observed that as
the depth of the tunnel increases, the settlements on the ground surface decrease according to Mohr-Coulomb and
approach the real values.
Keywords: Finite Element Method, Material models, PLAXIS, Surface settlement, Tunneling

Tünel Kazısından Dolayı Zemin Yüzeyindeki Oturmaların Mohr-

Coulomb ve Pekleşen Zemin Modelleriyle Nümerik Tahminlerinin
Karşılaştırılması
ÖZET: Zemin içinde yapılan tünel kazısı nedeniyle, zemindeki gerilmeler boşalarak kazı alanında elastik ve plastik
deformasyonlara yol açmakta ve zemin yüzeyinde oturmalar meydana gelmektedir. Günümüzde, mühendislik
projelerinin tasarım ve analizinde sayısal yöntemlerin kullanımı ile birlikte, Geoteknik mühendisliği ve tünel ile ilgili
problemlerin çözümünde bu yöntemin yaygın bir şekilde kullanıldığına tanıklık etmekteyiz. Uygun parametrelerin
ve zemin modelinin seçilmesi, nümerik analiz sonuçlarını üzerinde önemli etkiye sahiptir. Mohr-Coulomb (MC)
elasto-plastik model malzemelerin sertliğinin yüzey gerilmelerden bağımsız olarak tanımlandığı durumlarda
Cilt/Volume: 7, Sayı/Issue: 4, Sayfa/pp: 95-102, 2017

kullanılan en yaygın zemin davranış modellerinden biridir. Tünel modellemelerinde Mohr-Coulomb kullanılması
halinde, kazı derinliği arttıkça zemin yüzeyindeki oturmaların gerçek değerlerden fazla çıktığı ve güvenilirliğin
azaldığı görülmektedir. Bu problemin çözümü için, gerilme düzeyindeki değişikliklere bağlı olarak malzemelerin
sertliğini modelleyebilen daha uygun bir davranış modeli kullanılmalıdır. Bu çalışmada, tünel kazısından dolayı
Mohr-Coulomb modelinden elde edilen maksimum zemin yüzey oturmaları Pekleşen Zemin modeli (HS) ile
ISSN: 2146-0574, e-ISSN: 2536-4618 DOI:

karşılaştırılmıştır. Bu nedenle, varsayılan farklı derinliklerdeki bir tünelden dolayı zemin yüzeyinde oluşacak
oturmalar PLAXIS kullanılarak Mohr-Coulomb ve Pekleşen Zemin malzeme modelleriyle analiz edilmiştir.
Yapılan analizler sonucunda, Pekleşen Zemin modelinde tünelin derinliği arttıkça zemin yüzeyindeki oturmaların
Mohr-Coulomb’a göre azaldığı ve gerçek değerlere daha yaklaştığı görülmektedir.
Anahtar kelimeler: Malzeme modelleri, PLAXIS, Sonlu Elemanlar Metodu, Tünel, Yüzey oturması

1
Semet ÇELİK (0000-0002-9674-8579), Atatürk Üniversitesi, Mühendislik Fakültesi, İnşaat Mühendisliği Bölümü, Erzurum, Türkiye
Sorumlu yazar/Corresponding Author: Semet ÇELİK, scelik@atauni.edu.tr

Geliş tarihi / Received: 21.07.2017

Kabul tarihi / Accepted: 21.08.2017
 Semet ÇELİK

INTRODUCTION These methods have been categorized into three groups:

Due to depth
73 of tunnel
urbanization excavation,
and population growth in the settlement
experimental, of and
analytical thenumerical
groundmethods.
surfaceThe increas
recent decades, the topic of efficient use of urban spaces, experimental and analytical methods are only useable
including underground space, has been frequently in specific geological conditions, for in some geological
74 of the trough grows
discussed (Chakeri et al., 2013). Underground narrower (Chou
conditions they and
are not Bobet,
reliable 2002).
(Franzius, Most
2002). empir
space applications include development of urban Thanks to advancements in computer science and,
infrastructure, transportation, water supply lines, and accordingly, the development of advanced models for
75(Salimirelationships
so on et al., 2013). Groundare based
surface on studies
settlement introductionby Peck numerical
of materials, (Peck,methods
1969), which are
command
caused by tunnel excavation, especially in urban a high acceptance rate among designers.
76 equation 1.
areas, has special significance. The process of these
settlements differs according to the depth of excavation
According to measurements in place, analytical and
empirical relations, the geometry of circles settlement,
in different areas, increasing or decreasing depending
and the general pattern of movement of the ground
on the depth of excavating (Melis et al., 2002; Chakeri
surface due to 2tunneling is such that, after the increase
et al., 2013; Papastamos et al., 2015). Notably, when x
in excavation  2depth, the settlement of the ground
excavation exceeds a certain depth, ground surface
77the settlement
nel excavation,
settlement will decreaseof(Boscardin
the ground surface
and
S surface
increases,
Cording, 1989; vand
S is e
themax
shape
2i
low and ……………………………….…
the trough forms a wider depression.
Guglielmetti et al., 2008). In order to prevent damage to That is, by reducing the depth of tunnel excavation,
h grows surface
narrower (Chou and Bobet, 2002). Most empirically
structures and existing buildings due to tunnel thefunctional
settlement of the ground surface increases, and the
excavation, a correct and reliable estimate of ground shape of the trough grows narrower (Chou and Bobet,
are based on
78 studies by Peck (Peck, 1969), which are
surface settlement is necessary (Fasihnikoutalab et al., expressed
2002). inMostthe empirically functional relationships are
2012). A variety of different methods are provided to based on studies by Peck (Peck, 1969), which are
estimate ground surface settlement due to tunneling. expressed in the equation 1.
79 According to Peck, the trough settlement shape in a cross section is ap
x2

Sv  Smax e 2i2
……………………………….…………….. (1) (1)
80 acceptable accuracy by a normal distribution curve (curve of Gauss), a

According to Peck, the trough settlement shape in a the maximum settlement coincides with the axis of the
81section settlement
cross coincides
is approximated with with thetunnel
acceptable accuracy axisatof thelevel
ground tunnel
(Figureat
1). ground level (Figure 1
bytrough
o Peck, the a normal distribution
settlement curve
shape in a(curve
crossofsection
Gauss),is and
approximated with

ccuracy by a normal distribution curve (curve of Gauss), and the maximum

oincides with the axis of the tunnel at ground level (Figure 1).

82
Figure 1. Ground surface settlement trough induced by a single tunnel (Ma et al., 2014)
ound surface settlement trough induced by a single tunnel (Ma et al., 2014)
83 Figure 1. Ground surface settlement trough induced by a single tunnel
96 Iğdır Üni. Fen Bilimleri Enst. Der. / Iğdır Univ. J. Inst. Sci. & Tech.
(1), “Sv” is the amount of ground surface settlement at a point of “x”

m the axis of84 In “Sequation

the tunnel; (1), “Sground
max” is the maximum v” is surface settlement
the amount of ground surface settlement a
 Comparison of Mohr-Coulomb and Hardening Soil Models’ Numerical Estimation of Ground Surface Settlement Caused by Tunneling

In equation (1), “Sv” is the amount of ground surface tunnel centerline to the point of inflection on the ground
settlement at a point of “x” distance from the axis of the surface settlement, estimated according to the depth
tunnel; “Smax” is the maximum ground surface settlement of the tunnel and the soil type. The value of “Smax” is
at “x = 0”; and “i” is the horizontal distance from the calculated from equation (2) (O’Reilly and New, 1982).

Vl D2
Smax  0.313 ……………………………….……………………………….. (2) (2)
k Z0

ation, “Vl” is the parameter of volume loos which is determined based on the
In this equation, “Vl” is the parameter of volume upwards, which leads to the creation of high-
loos which is determined based on the
of tunneling; “D” is the diameter of tunnel; “k” is a dimensionlessprocedure scurry trough
on the floor of the tunnel (Corp, 2002). This
of tunneling; “D” is the diameter of tunnel; “k” is conclusion is justified according to Newton›s Third
ameter anda “Z dimensionless trough width parameter and “Z0”
0” is the depth of the tunnel. Further studies
Law
haveandbeenthe principle of action and interaction. Of
is the depth of the tunnel. Further studies have course, on the run, high-scurry on the floor of the
by other researchers
been conductedand areby in lineresearchers
other with the conclusions of the tunnels,
and are in line Pack reports
especially at shallow depths, due to low side
with the conclusions of the Pack reports (Attewell pressure results in only a small amount of pressure.
nd Farmer,and1974; Attewell
Farmer, andAttewell
1974; Woodman, and1982; O’Reilly
Woodman, and New,
1982; 1982). modeling, especially with simple linear
In numerical
O’Reilly and New, 1982). models, such as linear elastic and the Mohr-Coulomb
al form of relationship “i” is
The general formset ofasrelationship
“i = kZ0”. “i”According to =this models,
is set as “i
the rate of high-scurry is expected to be
relationship,
higher than that found in reality. Thus, using simple
kZ0”. According to this relationship, with increasing
sing insertion depthdepth
insertion of theoftunnel, whenwhen
the tunnel, the value of “i”ofincreases,
the value “i” models causes a change in the expected pattern of
according
movement and the subsequent change of ground
increases, according to equation (1), the amount of
(1), the amount of ground surface settlement is reduced and, thus, the width
surface settlement (Leca et al., 2007). In this paper the
ground surface settlement is reduced and, thus, the
width of the trough settlement performance of numerical modeling in the estimation
gh settlement increases. Therefore, it is increases.
necessaryTherefore,
to determineofthe optimal
ground movement patterns caused by excavating
it is necessary to determine the optimal depth of
tunnelbased
excavation a hypothetical tunnel at various depths was modeled
nnel excavation on thebased
amount on the amount of settlement
of settlement in the preliminary design
with Mohr-Coulomb and advanced Hardening Soil
in the preliminary design of the track and the depth
k and the depth oftunnel
the tunnel insertion. models using PLAXIS 2D, and a comparison was
of the insertion.
made between the general trend of ground surface
Numerical modeling of the tunneling with settlement and high-scurry on the floor of the tunnel.
modeling of the tunneling
simple models has withproven
simpleinaccurate
models hasdue proven
to the inaccurate due to
Features of the Mohr-Coulomb model
lack of ability to properly simulate the phenomenon
ability to of
properly simulate
unloading and thethe lack
phenomenon of unloading
of distinction between and theInlack the of
discussion of numerical modeling, it will
the hardships of initial loading and unloading/ be determined that the model and corresponding
between the hardships of initial loading and unloading/reloading; thus, the
reloading; thus, the pattern of movement of the input parameters have critical effects on the results
ground and settlement values have been incorrectly of analysis. In fact, models suggest a mathematical
movement of the ground and settlement values have been incorrectly and
and illogically expressed (Schanz et al., 1999; Boháč description of the mechanical behavior of materials,
et al., 2002). The process of excavating
expressed (Schanz et al., 1999; Boháč et al., 2002). Thewhich a tunnel in affect
process ofimportant aspects of material behavior.
the ground is such that, along with the excavating, The Mohr-Coulomb model is a perfect linear elastic-
a tunnel inthethefulcrum
groundportion
is suchofthat, along
the soil with
will be the excavating,
removed. In the fulcrum
plastic model requiring five input parameters to
other words, the weight of excavated soil is like a express the stress-strain behavior. Among models,
the soil willbody
be removed. In other words, the weight
force downward, which disappears after the of excavated soilmodel,
this is like because
a of the simplicity of formulation
tunnel is created. Consequently, when excavating as well as the lesser data input determined by simple
downward,and which disappears
removing a body after the downward
force tunnel is created. Consequently,
on the floor tests, haswhen
more applications than other models. With
of the tunnel is equivalent to adding a body force this model, problems such as the bearing capacity of
and removing a body force downward on the floor of the tunnel is equivalent
Cilt / Volume: 7, Sayı / Issue: 4, 2017 97
a body force upwards, which leads to the creation of high-scurry on the floor

nel (Corp, 2002). This conclusion is justified according to Newton's Third

137 unloading/loading of materials, especially in soil. The difference between prediction of
Semet ÇELİK
138 the stiffness in this model and that of actual tests such as triaxial and consolidation on a
soil or slope stability can easily have designed. In materials, especially in soil. The difference between
139 sample of soil is shown in Figure (2). In prediction
contrast, this model has fundamental flaw with respect
this figure, it is seen that there is a considerable
of the stiffness in this model and that of
to analyzing deformation problems such as tunneling actual tests such as triaxial and consolidation on a
140 difference
and between
excavation (Obrzud, 2010).the
Oneactual behavior sample
of the weaknesses of material and inthat
of soil is shown predicted
Figure by the
(2). In this figure, it Mohr-
of this model on issues related to excavating has to do is seen that there is a considerable difference between
with the constant of stiffness and lack of distinction the actual behavior of material and that predicted by the
141 Coulomb model.
between initial loading and unloading/loading of Mohr-Coulomb model.

Figure 2. Typical schematic results from compression tests. (a) one-dimensional (b) triaxial (Schweiger, 2008)
142 Figure 2. Typical schematic results from compression tests. (a) one-dimensional (b)
Features of Hardening Soil model and plastic) are calculated based on the hardness of the
143 triaxial (Schweiger, 2008)
Advanced models, despite representing important
surface tension and this hardness is different for the
initial loading and unloading/loading (Obrzud, 2010). In
behavioral aspects of materials and having fewer
this model, the behavior of material is nonlinear before
parameters and simpler equations, are acceptable to
144 Features
most designers.ofOneHardening
of these modelsSoil
is themodel
Hardening
the break, and after defeating, behavior is determined
based on Mohr-Coulomb strength parameters (cohesion
Soil model. The Hardening Soil model was established and angle of internal friction). The overall behavior
in 1999 by (Schanz et al., 1999) in the framework of of the stress-strain, along with a variety of stiffness
145 Advanced
the models,
theory of elasticity. In this despite
model, the representing
strains (elastic important
parameters behavioral
is shown in Figure 3.aspects of materials and

146 having fewer parameters and simpler equations, are acceptable to most designers. One

147 of these models is the Hardening Soil model. The Hardening Soil model was established

148 in 1999 by (Schanz et al., 1999) in the framework of the theory of elasticity. In this

149 model, the strains (elastic and plastic) are calculated based on the hardness of the

150 surface tension and this hardness is different for the initial loading and
155
151 unloading/loading (Obrzud,
Figure 3. Hyperbolic 2010).
stress-strain In this
relationship used inmodel, themodel
Hardening Soil behavior of material is nonlinear
(Obrzud, 2010)

156 Figure 3. Hyperbolic stress-strain relationship used in Hardening

152 98before the break, and after defeating, Iğdır behavior is determined
Üni. Fen Bilimleri based
Enst. Der. / Iğdır on Sci.
Univ. J. Inst. Mohr-Coulomb
& Tech.

157 2010)
153 strength parameters (cohesion and angle of internal friction). The overall behavior of the
 Comparison of Mohr-Coulomb and Hardening Soil Models’ Numerical Estimation of Ground Surface Settlement Caused by Tunneling

Three types of stiffness have been defined in this ground surface settlement caused by tunnel excavating
model: loading stiffness , based on the results of triaxial at various depths and to investigate the pattern of
pressure test; unloading stiffness , based on the results movement in the area around the tunnel, the geometry
of triaxial unloading pressure test; and stiffness loading , of the tunnel with a diameter of 7 meters for different
based on the results of a one-dimensional consolidation depths was modeled, as shown in Figure 4. The intent
test. The approximate relationship between the hardness was to investigate the effect of depth factors (h/d) for
parameters is suggested by and for most soil materials different values ​​1, 2, 3 and 4. Simulations for different
(Obrzud, 2010; Brinkgreve and Al-Khoury, 2016). In depths for both types of models, Mohr-Coulomb and
this paper, the performance Coulomb
174of this model and Hardening
compared to Soil, was done. The distance between the boundary of the floor
Hardening Soil, was done. The distance between
the Mohr-Coulomb model in tunneling projects and
175 of the model and the lower the boundary
boundary of tunnel
of the the floor of an
plays theimportant
model androlethe
in lower
the pattern
ground motion pattern prediction is investigated. boundary of the tunnel plays an important role in the
of displacement, particularly
176 withof high-scurry
pattern on particularly
displacement, the floor of thehigh-scurry
with tunnels in the
on the floor of the tunnels in the simulation (Schweiger,
MATERIALS and METHOD
177 simulation (Schweiger, 2008). To eliminate the effect of this factor, the bottom line
2008). To eliminate the effect of this factor, the bottom
Plane Strain Soil Model line intended
178 intended at a fixed distance (2d) for allatmodels
a fixedand
distance (2d)variable
the only for all models
is the and
depth of
To evaluate the performance of the Mohr- the only variable is the depth of tunnel placement in
Coulomb and Hardening179 tunnel placement
Soil models in the
to estimate each model.
each model.

180
Figure 4. Geometry of the tunnel for different depths
181 Figure 4. Geometry of the tunnel for different depths
In Table 1, the physical and mechanical parameters is shown (Das and Sobhan, 2016; Brinkgreve and Al-
of a medium dense sand 182 sampleInused for1,both
Table the models Khoury,
physical and 2016). parameters of a medium dense sand sample
mechanical

183 used for both models is shown (Das and Sobhan, 2016; Brinkgreve and Al-Khoury,
Table 1. Properties of dense sand for MC and HS models

γwet184 2016).
γ υ cref φ Ψ m
sat
Material Type
kN m-3 kN m-3 kN m-2 kN m-2 kN m-2 - kN m-2 [˚] [˚] -
185 Table 1. Properties of dense sand for MC and HS models
Medium HS 16.5 18 34e3 34e3 102e3 0.35 0.2 32 0 0.5
dense Sand MC γwet γsat 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟
𝐸𝐸50
𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟
𝐸𝐸𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟
𝐸𝐸𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢 υ cref φ Ψ m
16.5 18
Material 34e3
Type - - 0.35 0.2 32 0 -
-3 -3 -2 -2 -2 -2
kN m kN m kN m kN m kN m - kN m [˚] [˚] -
HS 16.5 18 34e3 34e3 102e3 0.35 0.2 32 0 0.5
Medium
One of the reasons for using
dense the Hardening Soil
MC 16.5
model, 34e3
parameters
-
such as
-
cohesive
0.35
strength,
0.2
friction
32 0 -
18
model is its association withSand
the parameters of the angle, and angle of dilation control failure area. As
Mohr-Coulomb model. 186 As with the Mohr-Coulomb mentioned before, the major difference between these

Cilt / Volume: 7, Sayı / Issue: 4, 2017 99

9
 193 RESULTS and DISCUSSIONS

Semet ÇELİK
194 Results of the modeling are presented in Figure (5) and Figure (6). In Figure (5),

modelsmaximum
two 195 ground of
is the definition surface settlement
soil stiffness and in Figure
during (6), theforpattern
displacement of values
different displacement
​​of (h/d) for
are presented
loading/unloading and behavior of stress-strain before for both models.
196 different values of (h/d) are presented for both models. It can be observed from Figure
nonlinear failure. It can be observed from Figure (5a) that in
197 (5a) that in simulations with the Mohr-Coulomb model with
simulations the increase in settlement
the Mohr-Coulomb doesthe increase
model
in settlement does not occur along with reduction in
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
not occur along with reduction in depth. In this way,
198 depth. In the
thismaximum amount ofamount
way, the maximum surface of surface
Results of the modeling are presented in Figure settlement is estimated for (h/d =1), but the process of
199 settlement is estimated for (h/d =1),
(5) and Figure (6). In Figure (5), maximum ground but the process of settlement reduction is not be
settlement reduction is not be repeated along with the
surface settlement and in Figure (6), the pattern of ratio of (h/d).
200 repeated along with the ratio of (h/d).

10

Figure 5. Surface settlement curves due to tunneling in different depths (a) MC model (b) HS model (c) Peck equation
201 Figure 5. Surface settlement curves due to tunneling in different depths (a) MC model
The pattern of deformation around the tunnel the surface settlement of the ground. In this case, the
202 (b) HS model (c) Peck equation
in Mohr-Coulomb model is shown in Figure (6a). upward force in the area of ​​the floor (uplift) has reduced
According to the figure, it is observed that the high- deformation down the tunnel walls and the crown.
The pattern of deformation around the
scurry on the floor of the tunnels modeled with Mohr-
203 tunnel in Mohr-Coulomb
Thus, model
in the Mohr-Coulomb is shown
model, in of surface
the value
Coulomb occurs even for shallow depths of tunnel settlement is less than the Hardening Soil model. On
204 Figure (6a). According to the figure, it is observed that the high-scurry on the floor of
insertion, and this makes the paradigm shift in the the other hand, according to Figure (5b) by using the
movement of the crown of the tunnel and, as a result, Hardening Soil model, with reducing the depth of the
205 the tunnels modeled with Mohr-Coulomb occurs even for shallow depths of tunnel

100206 insertion, and this makes the paradigm shiftIğdır

in the
Üni.movement
Fen BilimleriofEnst.
the Der.
crown of Univ.
/ Iğdır the tunnel
J. Inst. Sci. & Tech.

207 and, as a result, the surface settlement of the ground. In this case, the upward force in
215 movement concentration is on the crown of the tunnel, and with increasing excavation
Comparison of Mohr-Coulomb and Hardening Soil Models’ Numerical Estimation of Ground Surface Settlement Caused by Tunneling
216 depth, part of the movement is seen in the range of the tunnel excavation (as the high-

tunnels,scurry
217 the settlement
on thesteadily
floor).increased and theare
These values more of
trough the movement
rationally is seen
obtained than inthose
the range
from of
thethe tunnel
shape became narrower and deeper, a position also excavation (as the high-scurry on the floor). These
Mohr-Coulomb
demonstrated
218 according tomodel. Compared
the empirical analysiswith
of theHardening Soilmore
values are model, the Mohr-Coulomb
rationally obtained than those from
settlement, as mentioned in the introduction and shown the Mohr-Coulomb model. Compared with Hardening
model
in Figure
219 shows a large
(5c). According amount
to Figure (6b), of
it isuplift, even at
observed shallow
Soil model, depths, less often seen
the Mohr-Coulomb modelinshows
the a large
that the movement concentration is on the crown of amount of uplift, even at shallow depths, less often seen
implementation
the tunnel,
220 of shallow
and with increasing tunnels.
excavation depth, part in the implementation of shallow tunnels.

(a)
(a)

(b)
(b)

Figure 6. Pattern of deformation around tunnel (a) Mohr-Coulomb model (b) Hardening Soil model
221 Figure 6. Pattern of deformation around tunnel (a) Mohr-Coulomb model (b)
CONCLUSION on the floor is the most important issue in numerical
222 Hardening Soil model simulation of underground excavating. In this paper, it
Materials behavior in numerical modeling of
geotechnical engineering problems has an important role will be evident that the pattern of movement represented
CONCLUSION
in predicting
223 movement patterns. Overall, a reasonable by the Hardening Soil model is a more accurate
estimate of the ground movement, especially in urban representation of reality than that rendered by the Mohr-
areas, due to the impact of underground excavating, Coulomb model for a number of reasons having to do
224 Materials behavior in numerical modeling of geotechnical engineering
with factors such problems
as: stiffness has
definition andifference
and
requires use of suitable models having the ability to
simulate the behavior of the most important aspects of in loading/unloading stiffness, high-scurry on the
225 important role in predicting movement patterns. Overall, a reasonable estimate of the
the soil. Stiffness of stress in the behavioral models and floor of the tunnel, and its focus of movement of the
distinguishing tunnel’s crest and walls. In the Hardening Soil model,
226 groundofmovement,
stiffness between initial loading
especially in urbanandareas, due to the impact of underground
unloading/reloading are important aspects of simulation increases in ground surface settlement have been well
in the discussion of excavation issues, anticipated along with a decrease in depth. Therefore, it
227 excavating, requires use of all which play
suitable modelsan having the ability to simulate the behavior
important role in the prediction of ground movement. is recommended that analysts employ advanced models
The overall
228 of thepattern of movement
most important due to
aspects high-scurry
of the to simulate
soil. Stiffness excavation
of stress issues. models and
in the behavioral

229 distinguishing of stiffness between initial loading

REFERENCES and unloading/reloading
Boscardin are important
MD, Cording EJ, 1989. Building response t o excavation-
induced settlement. Journal of Geotechnical Enginering,
Attewell PB, Farmer IW, 1974. Ground disturbance caused by 115:1–21.
aspects
230 shield of insimulation
tunnelling in the
a stiff. Canadian discussion
Geotechnical of11:
Journal, excavation issues, all which play an important
Brinkgreve RBJ, Al-Khoury R, 2016. PLAXIS version 2016
380–395.
reference manual.
Attewell
231 role in the prediction
PB, Woodman of ground
JP, 1982. Predicting movement.
the dynamics of The overall
Chakeri pattern
H, Ozcelik of B,movement
Y, Unver 2013. Effectsdue to
of important factors
ground settlement and its derivatives caused by tunneling in on surface settlement prediction for metro tunnel excavated
soil. Ground Engineering, 15:13–22. by EPB. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 36:
Boháč J, Herle I, Mašín D, 2002. Stress and strain dependent stiffness12 14–23.
in a numerical model of a tunnel. Proc 2nd International Chou WI, Bobet A, 2002. Predictions of ground deformations in
Conference on Soil Structure Interaction in Urban Civil shallow tunnels in clay. Tunnelling and Underground Space
Engineering, 7-8 March 2002, Zurich. Technology, 17: 3–19.

Cilt / Volume: 7, Sayı / Issue: 4, 2017 101

 Semet ÇELİK
Corp IC, 2002. Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua, Flac 2D
Manual, Minneapolis, 3058 p.
Das BM, Sobhan K, 2014. Principles of Geotechnical Engineering.
8th Edition, Cengage Learning, Stamford, USA, 746 p.
Fasihnikoutalab MH, Huat BBK, Asadi A, Daneshmand S, 2012.
Numerical stability analysis of tunnel by PLAXIS. Electronic
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 17: 451–461.
Franzius JNN, 2002. Behavior of building due to tunnel induced
settlement. University of London, Imperial College of Science
Technology and Medicine, PhD thesis, 360p.
Guglielmetti V, Grasso P, Mahtab A, Xu S, 2008. Mechanized
tunnelling in urban areas : design methodology and
construction control, Taylor & Francis, Turin, Italy, 504p.
Leca E, New B, Reporter G, 2007. Settlements induced by
tunneling in Soft Ground. Tunnelling and Underground Space
Technology, 22:119–149.
Ma L, Ding L, Luo H, 2014. Non-linear description of ground
settlement over twin tunnels in soil. Tunnelling and
Underground Space Technology, 42:144–151.
Melis M, Medina L, Rodríguez, JM, 2002. Prediction and analysis of
subsidence induced by shield tunnelling in the Madrid Metro
extension. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 39:1273–1287.
O’Reilly MP, New BM, 1982. Settlement above tunnels in the United
Kingdom-their magnitude and prediction. In Proceedings of
the 3th tunnelling conference, London.
102
Obrzud R, 2010. On the use of the Hardening Soil Small Strain
model in geotechnical practice. Numerics in Geotechnics and
Structures, 16p.
Papastamos G, Stiros S, Saltogianni V, Kontogianni V, 2015. 3-D
strong tilting observed in tall, isolated brick chimneys during
the excavation of the Athens Metro. Applied Geomatics, 7:
115–121.
Peck RB, 1969. Deep excavations and tunneling in soft ground.
In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Mexico City.
Salimi AR, Esmaeili M, Salehi B, 2013. Analysis of a TBM Tunneling
Effect on Surface Subsidence : A Case Study from Tehran-Iran,
International Journal of Environmental, Chemical, Ecological,
Geological and Geophysical Engineering, 7: 1131–1135.
Schanz T, Vermeer A, Bonnier P, 1999. The hardening soil model:
formulation and verification. Beyond 2000 Computional
Geotechnics-10 years PLAXIS, Amsterdam, Netherlands,
281p.
Schweiger HF, 2008. The Role of Advanced Constitutive Models
in Geotechnical Engineering. Geomechanik und Tunnelbau,
1: 336–344.
Iğdır Üni. Fen Bilimleri Enst. Der. / Iğdır Univ. J. Inst. Sci. & Tech.