EDP Sciences logo
Subscriber Authentication Point
Search
Menu
Home Home (en) All issues No 173 (2022) Rev. Fr. Geotech., 173 (2022) 2 References
Free Access
Issue
Rev. Fr. Geotech.
Number 173, 2022
Article Number 2
Number of page(s) 16
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/geotech/2022015
Published online 29 September 2022
  • AFTES GT16. 2018. Prise en compte des effets induits par le creusement sur les constructions avoisinantes dans la conception et la réalisation des ouvrages souterrains. Recommandation GT16 R2F1, 68 p. [Google Scholar]
  • Aristaghes P, Autuori P. 2001. Calcul des tunnels au tunnelier. Rev Fr Geotech 97: 31–40. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  • Basile F. 2014. Effects of tunnelling on pile foundations. Soils Found 54: 280–295. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Bel J. 2018. Modélisation physique de l’impact du creusement d’un tunnel par tunnelier à front pressurisé sur des fondations profondes. Thèse de doctorat, Université de Lyon. [Google Scholar]
  • Berthoz N, Branque D, Subrin D. 2020. Déplacements induits par les tunneliers : rétro-analyse de chantiers en milieu urbain sur la base de calculs éléments finis en section courante. Rev Fr Geotech 164: 1–20. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  • Chen L, Poulos HG, Loganathan N. 1999. Pile responses caused by tunnelling. J Geotech Geoenviron 125(3): 207–215. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Demagh R, Emeriault F, Hammoud F. 2013. 3D modelling of tunnel excavation using pressurized tunnel boring machine in overconsolidated soils. Stud Geotech Mech 35(2): 4–17. [Google Scholar]
  • Dias D, Kastner R. 2013. Movements caused by the excavation of tunnels using face pressurized shields – Analysis of monitoring and numerical modeling results. Eng Geol 152: 17–25. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • El Jirari S. 2021. Modélisation numérique du processus de creusement pressurisé des tunnels. Thèse de doctorat de l’Université de Lyon, 196 p. [Google Scholar]
  • Finno RJ, Clough GW. 1985. Evaluation of soil response to epb shield tunnelling. J Geotech Eng 111: 155–173. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Franza A, Marshall AM, Haji T, Abdellatif AO, Carbonari S, Morici M. 2017. A simplified elastic analysis of tunnel-piled structure interaction. Tunnel Undergr Space Technol 61(1): 104–121. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Gilleron N, Bourgeois E, Chatellier P, Saïtta A. 2021. An anisotropic model for the numerical analysis of tunneling-induced settlements in the paris area. Geotech Geol Eng 39: 3133–3146. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Hong Y, Soomro MA, Ng CWW. 2015. Settlement and load transfer mechanism of pile group due to side-by-side twin tunnelling. Comput Geotech 64: 105–119. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Jacobsz SW, Standing JR, Mair RJ, Hagiwara T, Sugiyama T. 2004. Centrifuge modelling of tunnelling near driven piles. Soils Found 44(1): 49–56. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Jongpradist P, Kaewsri T, Sawatparnich A, et al. 2013. Development of tunneling influence zones for adjacent pile foundations by numerical analyses. Tunnel Undergr Space Technol 34: 96–109. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Kaalberg FJ, Teunissen EAH, van Tol AF, Bosch J. 2005. Dutch research on the impact of shield tunnelling on pile foundations. In: 5th International Symposium on Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground, pp. 123–131. [Google Scholar]
  • Karakus M, Ozsan A, Basarir H. 2007. Finite element analysis for the twin metro tunnel constructed in Ankara Clay, Turkey. Bull Eng Geol Environ 66: 71–79. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Komiya K, Soga K, Akagi H, Hagiwara T, Bolton MD. 1999. Finite element modelling of excavation and advancement processes of a shield-tunnelling machine. Soils Found 39(3): 37–52. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Liu C, Zhang Z, Richard AR. 2014. Pile and pile group response to tunnelling using a large diameter slurry shield – Case study in Shanghai. Comput Geotech 59: 21–43. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Loganathan N, Poulos HG, Stewart DP. 2000. Centrifuge model testing of tunnelling-induced ground and pile deformations. Geotechnique 50(3): 283–294. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Meschke G, Nagel F, Stascheit J. 2011. Computational simulation of mechanized tunneling as part of an integrated decision support platform. Int J Geomech 11: 519–528. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Meschke G, Ninic J, Stasheit J, Alsahly A. 2013. Parallelized computational modeling of pile-soil interactions in mechanized tunneling. Eng Struct 47: 35–44. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Michalski A, Branque D, Berthoz N, Mohamad W, Bourgeois E, Le Kouby A, Szymkiewicz F. 2022a. Full-scale experiment of the TBM / soil / pile interaction in Parisian subsoil. In: Actes du World Tunnel Congress, Copenhague, April 2022, 6 p. [Google Scholar]
  • Michalski A, Branque D, Berthoz N, et al. 2022b. TBM soft ground interaction during EPB tunnelling in Parisian soil. Geotechnique (under review). [Google Scholar]
  • Mohamad W, Bourgeois E, Le Kouby A, et al. 2022. Full scale study of pile response to EPBM tunnelling on a Grand Paris Express site. Tunnel Undergr Space Technol 124: 104492. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Mroueh H, Shahrour I. 2008. A simplified 3D model for tunnel construction using tunnel boring machines. Tunnel Undergr Space Technol 23: 38–45. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Nematollahi M, Dias D. 2019. Three-dimensional numerical simulation of pile-twin tunnels interaction – Case of the Shirazsubwayling. Tunnel Undergr Space Technol 86: 75–88. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Pang C, Yong K, Chow Y, Wang J. 2006. The response of pile foundations subjected to shield tunnelling. In: Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground – Proceedings of the 5th International Conference of TC28 of the ISSMGE, pp. 737–743. [Google Scholar]
  • Pardoen B, Levasseur S, Collin F. 2015. Using local second gradient model and shear strain localisation to model the excavation damaged zone in unsaturated claystone. Rock Mech Rock Eng 48: 691–714. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Rowe RK, Lo KY, Kack GJ. 1983. A method of estimating surface settlement above shallow tunnels constructed in soft ground. Can Geotech J 20: 11–22. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Schanz T, Vermeer PA, Bonnier PG. 1999. The hardening soil model: Formulation and verification. In: Beyond 2000 in Computational Geotechnics – 10 Years of PLAXIS, Proceedings of the 1st Symposium on Plaxis, CRC Press, 328 p. [Google Scholar]
  • Schweiger HF. 2002, Results from numerical benchmark exercises in geotechnics. In: Proceedings of the 5th European Conference Numerical Methods in Geotechnical Engineering, Presses Ponts et Chaussées, Paris, pp. 305–314. [Google Scholar]
  • Setec-Terrasol. 2022. Foxta v4 – Dimensionnement des fondations superficielles et profondes. Foxta v4 – Manuel en ligne sur www.terrasol.fr. [Google Scholar]
  • Soomro MA, Hong W, Ng CWW, Lu H, Peng S. 2015. Load transfer mechanism in pile group dut to sing tunnel advancement in stiff clay. Tunnel Undergr Space Technol 45: 63–72. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Standing JR, Selemetas D. 2013. Greenfield ground response to EPBM tunnelling in London clay. Geotechnique 63(12): 989–1007. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Swoboda G. 1979. Finite element analysis of the New Austrian Tunnelling Method (NATM). In: Proceedings of the 3rd International conference on Numerical Methods in Geomechanics, vol. 2, Aachen, pp. 581–586. [Google Scholar]
  • Swoboda G, Abu-Krisha A. 1999. Three-dimensional numerical modelling for TBM tunnelling in consolidated clay. Tunnel Undergr Space Technol 14: 327–333. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Vermeer PA, Brinkgreve R. 1993. Plaxis version 5 manual. Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema. [Google Scholar]
  • Zhang Z, Huang M, Xu C, Jiang Y, Wang W. 2018. Simplified solution for tunnel-soil-pile interaction in Pasternak’s foundation. Tunnel Undergr Space Technol 78: 146–158. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.