Table 5. Comparison of finite-element... | Emerald Publishing

Table 5.

Comparison of finite-element parametric study results to physical model test

	EHP_centr./γH	M_central/γHB²
Prototype stage 4* (Chan et al., 2022a)	0·45	0·022
Prototype stage 6† (Chan et al., 2022b)	0·57	0·039
Finite-element scenario 2 (BUC, MC model)	0·45–0·47 (Fig. 4)	0·020 (Fig. 7)
Finite-element scenario 3 (tunnel geometry, MC model)	0·42–0·48 (Fig. 8(d))	—
FE scenario 4 (tunnel geometry, SClay1S and CSClay1S)	0·43–0·45 (Fig. 9(c))	—

	EHP_centr./γH	M_central/γHB²
Prototype stage 4* (Chan et al., 2022a)	0·45	0·022
Prototype stage 6† (Chan et al., 2022b)	0·57	0·039
Finite-element scenario 2 (BUC, MC model)	0·45–0·47 (Fig. 4)	0·020 (Fig. 7)
Finite-element scenario 3 (tunnel geometry, MC model)	0·42–0·48 (Fig. 8(d))	—
FE scenario 4 (tunnel geometry, SClay1S and CSClay1S)	0·43–0·45 (Fig. 9(c))	—

*Before applying 22 MN load on basement box.

†Long-term, 4 years after load application.