(a) Case One (b) Case Two Figure 3 – The stress analysis results along the cut line analysis for (a) Case One and (b) Case Two. In both Case One and Case Two, the excavation of a second shaft inevitably introduced extra loading on the first shaft, elevating its stress-strain values. As a result, the single‑shaft configuration consistently showed the lowest stress values along the -450 -400 -350 -300 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 0.E+00 5.E+06 1.E+07 Depth (m) Stress (N/m2) VonMises Stress S1-U S2-U S3-U 1Sh-U -450 -400 -350 -300 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 0.E+00 1.E+06 2.E+06 3.E+06 4.E+06 Depth (m) Stress (N/m2) VonMises Stress S1-F S2-F S3-F 1Sh-F -450 -400 -350 -300 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 -1.E+07 -8.E+06 -6.E+06 -4.E+06 -2.E+06 0.E+00 Stress (N/m2) First Principal Stress S1-U S2-U S3-U 1Sh-U -450 -400 -350 -300 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 -5.E+06 -4.E+06 -3.E+06 -2.E+06 -1.E+06 0.E+00 Stress (N/m2) First Principal Stress S1-F S2-F S3-F 1Sh-F -450 -400 -350 -300 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 -1.E+07 -8.E+06 -6.E+06 -4.E+06 -2.E+06 0.E+00 Stress (N/m2) Second Principal Stress S1-U S2-U S3-U 1Sh-U -450 -400 -350 -300 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 -2.5E+05 -1.5E+05 -4.5E+04 5.5E+04 p () Stress (N/m2) Third Principal Stress S1-U S2-U S3-U 1Sh-U
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM0Mzk2