Missouri University of Science and Technology

Scholars' Mine
International Conference on Case Histories in (2008) - Sixth International Conference on Case
Geotechnical Engineering Histories in Geotechnical Engineering

Aug 11th - Aug 16th

Shape Optimization of Tunnel by Finite Element

Method
M. S. Ranadive
College of Engineering, Pune, India

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsmine.mst.edu/icchge

Part of the Geotechnical Engineering Commons

Recommended Citation
Ranadive, M. S., "Shape Optimization of Tunnel by Finite Element Method" (2008). International Conference on Case Histories in
Geotechnical Engineering. 12.
https://scholarsmine.mst.edu/icchge/6icchge/session06/12

This Article - Conference proceedings is brought to you for free and open access by Scholars' Mine. It has been accepted for inclusion in International
Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering by an authorized administrator of Scholars' Mine. This work is protected by U. S. Copyright
Law. Unauthorized use including reproduction for redistribution requires the permission of the copyright holder. For more information, please contact
[email protected].
 SHAPE OPTIMIZATION OF TUNNEL BY
FINITE ELEMENT METHOD
M. S. Ranadive
Assistant Professor
Department of Civil Engineering
College of Engineering, Pune.
India 411005

ABSTRACT

The stresses around the periphery of tunnel openings are in general independent of factors such as size of the opening and elastic modulus
of surrounding geotechnical material. The stresses however depend upon the shape of the opening and the residual stresses. At any point
over the periphery the significant stresses are the normal stresses in the direction tangential to the opening periphery. By trials involving
appropriate modifications to the finite element idealization, the shape of the opening could be derived such that the tangential tensile
stresses are minimized and simultaneously the compressive tangential stresses are below the permissible limits. Though, pure theoretical
analysis involving a trial process is available through the texts on structural optimization, the problem in case of tunnels has limitations.
Here, selection has been made from few practically feasible shapes of the openings. This concept has been demonstrated in detail through
nine different investigations for the case of a railway tunnel.

INTRODUCTION Amirsoleymani (1988) that with Ko other than = 1, an elliptic

profile comes out to be an optimum profile. But as discussed by
The field of shape optimization constitutes an important area of Parikh and Ranadive (2001) and also by Ranadive and Parikh
structural optimization. In general it can be stated that a (2001), the geotechnical materials are too complex to permit
structural component could be provided a shape, if such a application of such closed form solution characteristics. In
freedom exists in the development of the component, such that a practice therefore, shape optimization of a tunnel implies
fully stressed component gets developed by providing an selection of a suitable practical profile, which would develop
efficient profile for the component. Application of this concept is minimum tensile stress and also compressive stress below the
too wide to need a further emphasize. Even in case of a most permissible limits. Now, a systematic algorithm is not available
complex problem such as that of the of design of arch dams and based on practical experience few sectional profiles are
considerable saving in material could be achieved by designing analysed and the selection is made on the basis of the
the sectional profile of the dam through the application of the deformations and stresses developed in them by adhering to
concept of shape optimization. In fact in case of a simple system above mentioned criteria. For this purpose plane strain finite
it is easy to demonstrate that an arch profile is an optimum element analysis is used.
solution in comparison with a straight prismatic beam with
A practical problem of tunnel at Rayagada on South Eastern
identical spans.
Railway (India) was studied for the selection of the best profile
The concept of tunnel shape optimization and in-situ stress amongst the ones suggested by the railway authorities. The
conditions was investigated by Singh and Vardarajan (1988) present paper is devoted to the details of the investigation
considering fault planes. For this analysis boundary element conducted.
method was used. Further, they have presented stress contours to
show that, circular shape is the most desirable shape to eliminate
stress concentration; whereas, horseshoe shape has the most STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
desirable characteristics.
In case of Rayagada tunnel located over South Eastern Railway,
When it comes to the problem of tunnels, however, the problem it was observed that in a length of 300m the geotechnical
is not that easy to tackle with the available theories of shape materials are too fragile to deal with, without rigorous analysis.
optimization. It is evident that in a homogeneous isotropic strata In the 300m segment it has 5 critical locations as suggested by
with coefficient Ko of the lateral in situ stress = 1, the circular the authorities. These were referred to tunnel section Nos. 19, 22,
section of tunnel would provide an optimum profile. Extending 26, 29 and 45 at various chainages. (Fig. 1 a). For each section,
this concept further, it has been already demonstrated by they proposed 3 different profiles. These profiles are

Paper No. 6.10a 1

demonstrated by case I, case II and case III. The geometrical pertaining to the vertical displacements and stresses suffered by
profiles are as shown in Fig. 1(b, c and d). Thus in all, 5 sections the opening boundaries are presented in Table Nos. 2, 4, and 6.
x 3 profiles =15 cases have been investigated for obtaining the These are corresponding to the tunnel sections at locations 19, 26
optimum profile through comparative studies of the proposed and 45 respectively and the corresponding cases I, II and III. The
sections, out of which 3 sections x 3 profiles = 9 have been node numbers corresponding to the cases have been illustrated in
presented in this work. The three sections presented are at 19, 26 Fig. 4, 6 and 7 for the tunnel sections at locations 19, 26 and 45
and 45 with three profiles each. respectively.
Fig. 5 illustrates the effect of shape on major principal stress
contours around the D-shape tunnel. The major principal stress
DATA FOR ANALYSIS contours show maximum concentration at the corners with
maximum value of the order of 60 t/m2 0.6 (MPa) at node No.
1) A two dimensional plane strain finite element analysis is 199 (Fig. 4 Case -I). The value of minor principal stress at this
performed to determine the displacements and stresses node is obtained as 266 t/m2 (2.66 MPa) compressive (Table 2).
arising from the geotechnical overburden. The details of This value reduces to of the order of 40 t/m2 (0.4 MPa) (Fig. 5 c)
continuum considered in the analysis are presented in Fig. 2 whereas the minor principal stress value drops down to 228 t/m2
(a), (b) and (c) for tunnels at section 19, 26 and 45 (2.28 MPa) (Table 2) which is compressive in nature. Thus there
respectively. is reduction in stress of about 15% of the original value for D-
2) As the openings are symmetrical about a central vertical axis shape in case I. It is observed that almost at all nodes on the
and hence only the half portions as shown in Fig. 2 (a), (b) periphery there is substantial reduction in values of stresses.
and (c) for tunnels at section 19, 26 and 45 respectively are
From Fig. 5 and Table 2, 4 and 6 it is observed that the tension
considered for the analysis. The layers are numbered as 1, 2,
zone developed at the crown and invert portion of the D-shape
…….etc. (Fig. 2).
tunnel, in case I, has been minimised in Case II and Case III
3) Modulus of elasticity ‘Es’, Poisson’s ratio ‘µs’ and density
gradually. The crown displacement shows negligible changes
‘γs’ required for the analysis are taken as per the values
from case I to Case III for a particular section.
given in Table 1, 3 and 5 for tunnels at sections 19, 26 and
45 respectively. The same exercise was repeated for tunnel section 26 and 45,
three cases each. The observations are tabulated in Table 4 and 6
respectively. Thus from all this discussion it is concluded that
FINITE ELEMENT IDEALIZATION Case III in each section under consideration is of optimum shape.

For all the openings considered it is assumed that the

TABLE 1: Details of Geotechnical Material Properties for
deformations arise from the overburden upto R.L. 60m and
Tunnel Section No. 19
material density ‘γs’ as given in Table 1, 3 and 5 for tunnel at
section 19, 26 and 45 respectively. The layered strata at various Depth Material γs Es µs
Below No. KN/m3 MPa
depths have been shown in Fig. 2 (a, b and c) for tunnel at Description of strata
G.L.
section 19, 26 and 45 respectively. By the way of illustration the Weathered and disintegrated fine
7.0m 7 grained charnokite 20 12.84 0.3
idealization for the tunnel at section 19 is presented in Fig. 3. Black and white coloured
Total number of nodes = 496 and total number of elements = 10.2m 6 completely weathered and
disintegrated medium and coarse 21.6 13.04 0.3
446. The idealization is shown in two pieces to accommodate the grained schist
Yellowish brown, completely
total depth = 60m under consideration, as shown in Fig. 3 (A and 15.0m 5 weathered medium to coarse 21.6 17.00 0.3
B) with 2 as the common layer. grained schist
Grayish white completely
17.5m 4 weathered and disintegrated 27 120.00 0.25
quartzite with mica
It may be noted that the region is idealized through the Yellowish black and green
employment of three noded triangular and four noded 3 coloured completely weathered
26.0m and disintegrated fine to medium 27 18300.00 0.25
quadrilateral first order isoparametric elements, wherein, the grained granitised gneiss with
problems are solved by considering following boundary mica
Grayish white coloured
conditions (Fig. 3): 26.9m 2 completely weathered and 27 9600.00 0.3
(a) Axis of symmetry in X-direction corresponds to a boundary disintegrated medium to coarse
grained quartzite Hard dense
with restrained vertical displacement, v = 1. Completely weathered medium to
(b) Axis of symmetry in Y-direction corresponds to a boundary 60.0m 1 coarse grained loose dense schist 27 46500.00 0.2

with restrained horizontal displacement, u = 1.

(c) The vertical boundary at 15m from vertical centerline is
supposed to be of negligible influence, hence it is assumed
that displacement in X-direction over that boundary is
restrained, u =1.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

On the basis of the above mentioned analysis, the results

Paper No. 6.10a 2

 G. L.

5 m Y (m) Y (m)
c 3.
04 Y (m)
R
TUNNEL G.L. G.L. 60.00 G.L.
60.00 60.00

7
7
SECTIONS 19 22 26 29 45
11 55.00
53.00 6
6 51.00
49.80 50.00
c c 10

4.22m
5 47.50

45.00 9 5
4 44.45
42.50
8 42.00
4
19 22 39.67
26 29 45 39.00
3 3
7 36.80
Length of tunnel = 300m 6.09m 34.00 34.50
33.10
2
6 2
32.00
a) KEY PLAN FOR TUNNEL SECTIONS b) CASE I 5 30.00
29.00
m m 4
5 0 45 26.40 27.50 26.40
c 04 c 3.
3. R
R 23.355 23.355
3

1 19.62
19.13 19.13
TUNNEL 18.40 TUNNEL
16.575
2
13.80 1
2.11m

12.35
r TUNNEL
4.22m
4.22m

R R R
R r 1

X (m) X (m)
X (m)
0 15.00 0 15.00 0 15.00

6.09m 6.09m
a) SECTION 19 b) SECTION 26 c) SECTION 45

c) CASE II d) CASE III

Numbers 1, 2, 3 ......etc. indicate the layered strata.

FIG. 1 : PROPOSED GEOMETRICAL PROFILE OF TUNNEL FIG. 2 : DETAILS OF GEOTECHNICAL CONTINUUM

CONTINUED IN (B)
C
C
Y (m)
34.00
2
33.10
G.L.
60.0

26.40

53.0
23.355
6
TUNNEL
49.8
OPENING
19.13 1
5
NO. OF NODES= 486
NO. OF ELEMENTS= 446
45.0
4
42.5
u=1, v=0

u=1, v=0

34.0
2
33.1

CONTINUED FROM (A)

X (m)
(B)
(0, 0) 15.00
(A) u=0, v=1

NOTE : 'u' AND 'v' INDICATE BOUNDARY CONDITIONS IN X AND Y DIRECTION.

Paper No. 6.10a '0' INDICATES FREE AND '1' INDICATES FIXED BOUNDARY.
3
FIG. 3 :TYPICAL IDEALIZATION FOR TUNNEL
AT SECTION 19 CASE I
TABLE 2: Peripherial Nodal Displacements and Stresses TABLE 3 : Details of Geotechnical Material Properties for
for

Tunnel Section No. 19 Tunnel Section No. 26

Node
No.
Case I Node No. for Case II
and III
Case II Case III
Depth Material γs Es µs
Vert. Max. Stress Vert. Max. Stress Vert. Max. Stress
Below No. Description of strata KN/m3 MPa
Displ. MPa Displ. MPa Displ. MPa G.L.
(mm) (mm) (mm)
Yellowish brown and white
193 - 0.515 182 - 0.408 - 0.394 9.0m 11 coloured silt with fine to 20 152.4 0.3
0.390 0.382 0.378 medium sand few gravels 4
194 - 0.501 183 - 0.373 - 0.360 medium dense
0.392 0.384 0.380
Yellowish brown and white
195 - 0.479 184 - 0.305 - 0.294
12.5m 10 silt with fine to medium 20 233.1 0.3
0.397 0.390 0.385
sand hard dense 0
196 - 0.437 185 - 0.0836 - 0.0826
0.405 0.399 0.394 Yellowish brown coloured
197 - -0.378 193 - -0.171 - -0.166
completely weathered and
0.419 0.415 0.409
15.55m 9 disintegrated quartz, 27 370.0 0.3
198 - -0.599 194 - -101 - -0.897
sillinamite schist medium 0
0.438 0.436 0.429
to coarse grained
199 - -2.66 195 - -2.71 - -2.28
Yellowish green coloured
0.481 0.482 0.469
20.33m 8 completely weathered and 27 370.0 0.3
210 - -2.56 206 - -2.54 - -2.51
0.514 0.514 0.499
disintegrated fine grained 0
215 - -1.86 211 - -1.86 - -2.23
charnocite rock
0.535 0.536 0.524 Completely weathered and
226 - -1.63 222 - -1.64 - -2.16 25.50m 7 disintegrated fine grained 27 382.5 0.3
0.554 0.554 0.548 charnokite 8
231 - -1.54 227 - -1.55 - -2.08 Brownish black and white
0.571 0.571 0.571 28.0m 6 coloured completely
242 - -1.51 238 - -1.51 - -2.01 weathered and 27 388.5 0.3
0.587 0.588 0.593 disintegrated medium and 0
247 - -1.54 243 - -1.53 - -1.99 coarse grained schist
0.604 0.604 0.615 Yellowish brown,
258 - -1.65 254 - -1.65 - -1.96 31.0m 5 completely weathered 27 382.5 0.3
0.621 0.622 0.637 medium to coarse grained 8
263 - -1.87 259 - -1.88 - -1.81 schist
0.640 0.640 0.659
Grayish white completely
274 - -2.03 270 - -2.05 - -1.64
32.5m 4 weathered and 27 296.0 0.3
0.661 0.662 0.679
disintegrated quartzite with 0
285 - -1.99 281 - -2.01 - -1.68
mica
0.684 0.685 0.698
Yellowish black and green
296 - -1.77 292 - -1.78 - -1.63
0.706 0.707 0.718
3 coloured completely
309 - -1.41 305 - -1.41 - -1.34
41.6m weathered and 27 235.3 0.3
0.726 0.727 0.737
disintegrated fine to 2
320 - -1.02 316 - -1.00 - -0.970
medium grained granitised
0.744 0.745 0.754 gneiss with mica
330 - -0.621 326 - -0.596 - -0.587 Grayish white coloured
0.759 0.760 0.769 46.2m 2 completely weathered and 27 193.1 0.3
340 - -0.286 336 - -0.262 - -0.263 disintegrated medium to 4
0.770 0.771 0.779 coarse grained quartzite
350 - -0.070 346 - 0.055 - -0.058 Hard dense
0.776 0.778 0.786 Completely weathered
359 - 0.118 355 - 0.138 - 0.128 47.93m 1 medium to coarse grained 27 108.7 0.3
0.779 0.780 0.788 loose dense schist 5

Notes for Table 2, 4 and 6 :

(1) Negative sign of displacement indicates downward direction,
(2) Negative sign of stress indicates compression,
(3) Maximum compressive or maximum tensile stress value at the
particular node is selected as maximum stress.

Paper No. 6.10a 4

 C C C
355 346
359 350 355 346 336
340 336
326
330 326
316
320 316
305
309 305
292
296 292 9 SECTORS OF
9 SECTORS OF 9 SECTORS OF 10 DEGREES EACH 281
10 DEGREES EACH 285 281
10 DEGREES EACH
270
274 270

259
263 259

254 254
258

8 EQUAL DIVISIONS, 4.225m

8 EQUAL DIVISIONS, 4.225m

8 EQUAL DIVISIONS, 4.225m

243 243
247

238 238
242

231 227 227

226 222 222

211 211
215

206 206
210

199 195 195

195

196

197

198
194
193

194
193
194

185
182
193

184
185

183
182

183

184

6 EQUAL DIVISIONS , 3.045m 6 EQUAL DIVISIONS , 3.045m

6 EQUAL DIVISIONS , 3.045m
CASE I CASE III
CASE II

FIG. 4 : DETAILS OF NODE NUMBERS AT THE PERIPHERY OF TUNNEL @ SECTION 19

20
10
20
10
20
0 10 0
26.40m

20
23.355
10
10
TUNNEL
TUNNEL
10
20

30
30 20
19.13 40 10 50 40
50 60 40 30 60
40 30 10 40
20 20 10 30
0 20 0
10 10 20
20 10 0

10
20

a) SECTION 19 CASE I b) SECTION 19 CASE II

20
10
0
10

20
10

HATCHED STRESS CONTOURS

INDICATE TENSION
TUNNEL
ALL STRESS VALUES ARE IN t/m2

20
10 40
30 30
30
10
0 0 20

20 10 10
Paper No. 6.10a c) SECTION 19 CASE III 5

FIG. 5 : EFFECT OF SHAPE ON MAJOR PRINCIPAL STRESS CONTOURS

AROUND TUNNEL AT SECTION 19
 TABLE 4 : Peripheral Nodal Displacements and Stresses
Tunnel Section No. 26 TABLE 5 : Details of Geotechnical Material Properties for

Tunnel Section No. 45

Node Case I Node Case II Case III

No. Nos. Depth
Vert. Max. Vert. Max. Vert. Max. γs
for Belo Materia Es
Description of KN/m3 µs
Displ. Stress Case Displ. Stress Displ. Stress w l MPa
strata
G.L. No.
(mm) MPa II (mm) MPa (mm) MPa
Completely
and 5.0m 7 weathered and 27 382.58 0.3
III disintegrated fine
grained charnokite
157 -0.0835 0.496 146 - 0.218 - 0.202 Brownish black
0.0810 0.0792 10.0m 6 and white coloured
158 -0.0845 0.470 147 - 0.145 - 0.130 completely 27 388.50 0.3
weathered and
0.0821 0.0803 disintegrated
159 -0.0876 0.441 148 - 0.071 - -0.628 medium and coarse
grained schist
0.0855 0.0836
Yellowish brown,
160 -0.0931 0.388 160 - - - -0.193 18.0m 5 completely 27 382.58 0.3
0.0914 0.184 0.0892 weathered medium
to coarse grained
161 -0.102 0.183 161 -0.101 - - -0.603
schist
0.619 0.0981 Grayish white
162 -0.114 -1.25 162 -0.114 -1.91 -0.111 -1.77 21.0m 4 completely 27 296.00 0.3
weathered and
163 -0.143 -4.42 163 -0.144 -4.36 -0.137 -3.81 disintegrated
174 -0.168 -3.49 174 -0.168 -3.44 -0.162 -3.81 quartzite with mica
Yellowish black
179 -0.184 -2.65 179 -0.184 -2.63 -0.183 -3.54
3 and green coloured
190 -0.192 -2.45 190 -0.192 -2.45 -0.195 -3.46 23.2m completely 27 235.32 0.3
weathered and
195 -0.200 -2.35 195 -0.200 -2.35 -0.205 -2.98
disintegrated fine
206 -0.207 -2.42 206 -0.208 -2.41 -0.214 -2.54 to medium grained
211 -0.215 -2.67 211 -0.216 -2.67 -0.222 -2.34
granitised gneiss
with mica
222 -0.222 -2.88 222 -0.222 -2.88 -0.228 -2.34 Grayish white
233 -0.229 -2.80 233 -0.229 -2.80 -0.234 -2.40 30.0m 2 coloured 27 193.14 0.3
completely
244 -0.235 -2.38 244 -0.235 -2.38 -0.239 -2.19 weathered and
256 -0.240 -2.02 256 -0.241 -2.03 -0.244 -1.92 disintegrated
medium to coarse
267 -0.245 -1.55 267 -0.245 -1.55 -0.248 -1.50 grained quartzite
277 -0.248 -1.12 277 -0.248 -1.12 -0.251 -1.10 Hard dense
Completely
286 -0.251 - 286 -0.251 - -0.254 -0.756
60.0m 1 weathered medium 27 108.75 0.3
0.752 0.756 to coarse grained
295 -0.252 - 295 -0.252 - -0.255 -0.527 loose dense schist
0.512 0.514
304 -0.253 - 304 -0.253 - -0.256 -0.463
0.445 0.448

Paper No. 6.10a 6

 TABLE 6: Peripheral Nodal Displacements and Stresses an optimum shape in comparison with case I and case II. It
should however be emphasised that the construction through
forTunnel Section No. 45
case III would be relatively more difficult as compared to
case I and case II.
4. So far as the deflections are concerned the maximum
Node Case I Node Case II Case III vertical deflection at the crown of the opening is more or
No. No. less same for all the opening profiles.
Vert. Max. Vert. Max. Vert. Max.
Displ Stress
for
Displ Stress Displ Stress 5. As far as the maximum principal compressive stresses and
Case maximum principal tensile stresses are concerned, the
(mm) MPa (mm) MPa (mm) MPa
II opening profiles Case II and Case III score over opening
and
III
profile Case I. In this manner the opening profile Case III
205 -0.745 0.22 194 -0.734 0.0782 - 0.0722 has advantage over the opening profile Case II. The
0.725 difference however is not of higher order.
206 -0.749 0.199 195 -0.739 0.0446 - 0.0415
0.730
207 -0.761 0.175 196 -0.752 -0.130 - -0.134 CONCLUSIONS
0.742
208 -0.782 0.146 208 -0.775 -0.227 - -0.228
0.764
The stresses around tunnels depend upon the shape of the
209 -0.815 -0.146 209 -0.811 -0.508 - -0.492 opening and the residual stresses. By trials involving appropriate
0.798 modifications to the finite element idealization, the shape of the
210 -0.862 -0.863 210 -0.861 -1.26 - -1.16 opening could be derived such that the tangential tensile stresses
0.846 are minimized and simultaneously the compressive tangential
211 -0.971 -2.73 211 -0.973 -2.66 - -2.29 stresses are below the permissible limits. The selection has been
0.943 made from few practically feasible shapes of the openings. This
223 -1.07 -2.11 223 -1.07 -2.08 -1.04 -2.28
concept can be generalized to any other shape of tunnel for
228 -1.13 -1.50 228 -1.13 -1.50 -1.12 -1.97 getting its optimized shape keeping in mind its utility while
240 -1.18 -1.31 240 -1.18 -1.31 -1.18 -1.73 construction.
245 -1.23 -1.27 245 -1.23 -1.27 -1.25 -1.61
257 -1.28 -1.36 257 -1.28 -1.36 -1.31 -1.49
262 -1.33 -1.60 262 -1.33 -1.60 -1.36 -1.46 REFERENCES
274 -1.38 -1.84 274 -1.38 -1.84 -1.41 -1.54 AMIRSOLEYMANI, T. (1988), “Geometric Design of Tunnel in
286 -1.43 -1.87 286 -1.43 -1.87 -1.45 -1.66
Highly Stressed Rock”, International Symposium on Tunnelling
for Water Resources and Power Projects, New Delhi, India.
298 -1.48 -1.74 298 -1.48 -1.74 -1.50 -1.65
310 -1.53 -1.50 310 -1.53 -1.50 -1.54 -1.46 PARIKH, S. K. AND RANADIVE, M. S., (Dec. 2001),
323 -1.57 -1.20 323 -1.57 -1.20 -1.58 -1.19
“Modelling of Geotechnical Materials in Respect of Finite
Element Analysis of Tunnel Deformations”, Journal of The
335 -1.60 -0.898 335 -1.60 -0.90 -1.62 -0.898 Institution of Engineers, (India), Vol. 82, pp. 139-144.
347 -1.63 -0.643 347 -1.63 -0.646 -1.64 -0.652
359 -1.64 -0.473 359 -1.64 -0.475 -1.66 -0.486
RANADIVE M. S., AND PARIKH, S. K. (April 2001),
“Analysis of Tunnel Openings in Soft Geotechnical Formations”,
379 -1.74 -0.516 379 -1.74 -0.517 -1.75 -0.515 5th International Conference on ‘Deep Foundation Practice’,
Singapore, pp. 341-348.

OBSERVATIONS SINGH R. K. AND VARDARAJAN A., (1988), “The Effect of

Tunnel Shape and Fault Plane”, International Symposium on
1. For all the cases investigated, the tunnel inverts suffer from Tunneling for Water Resources and Power Projects, New Delhi,
the tensile stresses. The magnitude of these stresses as also India, pp. 125-130.
the zone of these stresses reduce from case I to case II to
case III of the opening geometry. ZIENCKIEWICZ, O. C., (1977), “The Finite Element Method in
2. The walls and roofs of all the cases considered suffer from Structural and Continuum Mechanics”, McGraw Hill Book Co;
the compressive stresses. As far as the roof is concerned, New York.
however, the advantage witnessed for the opening profiles
as in (1) above is no more observed. ZIENCKIEWICZ, O. C., TAYLOR, R.L., (1989),“The Finite
3. Considering the factors such as vertical displacements at the Element Method”, 4th Edition VOL.I, McGraw Hill Book Co;
periphery of opening and both the tensile and compressive (International Editions) New York.
stresses over the periphery it is clear that case III constitutes

Paper No. 6.10a 7

NOTATIONS USED
Ko : Coefficient of the lateral in situ stress,
Es : Modulus of elasticity of strata,
µs : Poisson’s ratio of strata,
γs : Density of strata,

Paper No. 6.10a 8