GOUW Tjie-Liong

Seminar on Tunnel Technology in Civil Engineering Page 1 of 11

Hotel Peninsula, Jakarta, March 22, 2005
The Prediction of Tunneling Induced Settlement and
Its Effect to the Public Utilities

Gouw Tjie-Liong
Senior Geotechnical Consultant
limara65@singnet.com.sg

ABSTRACT: The prediction of ground surface settlement due to tunneling plays an important role in
tunnel engineering. Especially, when the tunnel is constructed in an urban area where there are many
buildings and public utilities, e.g.: electrical, telephone, water supply, sewer and gas lines. The total
settlement and the differential settlement can cause damage to the above facilities. This paper elaborates the
experience in adopting the available methodology for the assessment of utility deformation induced by
tunneling in Singapore's old alluvium formation.


1. INTRODUCTION

As we know, ground excavation and tunneling inevitably will cause ground surface to settle. The ground
movement may induce damage to the existing buildings and the public utilities around the construction
area. Therefore, the excavation technology, the prediction of ground movement and the assessment of the
risk of damage play an important role in the success of a tunneling project in an urban area.

This paper elaborates the methodology adopted for the prediction of the ground movements and the
assessment of utility deformation due to bored tunneling through old alluvium formation in Singapore. The
tunneling stretches about 1.3 km long between Kovan and Hougang stations. It is a part of the on going
North-East Lines Project of the Singapore Mass Rapid Transit system. It is a twin tunnel of 6.3m diameter
spanning 15.2m from center to center. The location plan and the tunnel lines are shown in Figs. 1 and 2
below.

Fig.1 Location of the Project and Part of Singapore MRT Lines
The
Project
GOUW Tjie-Liong
Seminar on Tunnel Technology in Civil Engineering Page 2 of 11
Hotel Peninsula, Jakarta, March 22, 2005

Fig. 2 The Site Plan


2. SUBSURFACE CONDITION

The subsurface condition along the bored tunnel route generally consists of fill layer followed by the Old
Alluvium Formation. The Old Alluvium is divided into four sub-layers according to their SPT N-values,
consistency and shear strength. The soil type is predominantly silty and clayey sand. Thickness of the soil
layers and the initial design parameters are shown in the Table 1 below. The depth of the center axis of the
tunnels in the entire route vary between 12.7 to 24.2 m below ground level and this makes the tunneling
works totally carried out in Old Alluvium formation.

Table 1 The Soil Layers and The Initial Design Parameters


Layer Soil Layer Range of Bulk Unit Buoyant Modulus of Effective Effective Angle Permeability
No. Type Thickness SPT Weight Unit Elasticity Cohesion Of Shearing
N-Value Weight Resistance
(m) (kN/m
3
) (kN/m
3
) (kN/m
2
) (kN/m
2
) (deg) (m/sec)
Fill Clayey 3.0 - 5.0 8 18.0 8.0 5000 0 30 10
-6
SAND
OA1 Clayey 6.0 5 - 9 19.5 9.5 10000 0 32 10
-6
SAND
OA2 Silty SAND/ 9.5 25 - 34 19.5 9.5 25000 0 35 10
-7
Silty CLAY
OA3 Silty SAND/ 8.0 47 - 67 19.5 9.5 60000 3 35 10
-8
Clayey SILT
OA4 Silty > 20 > 100 20.0 10.0 90000 14 35 10
-9
SAND
GOUW Tjie-Liong
Seminar on Tunnel Technology in Civil Engineering Page 3 of 11
Hotel Peninsula, Jakarta, March 22, 2005
3. PREDICTION OF GROUND MOVEMENT

Tunnel construction will induce ground movements with a settlement trough developing above and ahead
of the tunnel. The prediction of the ground movement at this particular project is performed by adopting the
method elaborated by Mair et al (Mair et al, 1996). Figure 3 shows the shape of the transverse settlement
trough at the depth of a pipeline.



Fig. 3 The Settlement Trough and The Strain Induced to a Pipe Line


According to the method, the formula for estimating the induced settlement is (also see Fig. 3 above):



. (1)

where: S
v
= vertical settlement
S
max
= maximum settlement above the tunnel center line
y = horizontal distance from the tunnel center line
i = horizontal distance from the tunnel center line to the point of inflection on the settlement
trough; this i parameter is approximately a linear function of depth Z
o
and broadly
independent of tunnel construction method. The relationship is:


. (2)


K = trough width parameter; on ground surface K=0.5 for clay and K=0.25 for sands or gravels



z
p
is the depth of the utility from ground surface.

2
2
2
max
i
y
v
e S S

=
0
KZ i =
( )
0
z
p
z
1 0.325 0.175 K ,
p
z services of depth at the K value clay the for + =
Ground Surf ace
S
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t

T
r
o
u
g
h

(
m
m
Pipe
Z
p
i i
Z
0
Center Line
y = i
Point of Inflection = Point of
Maximum Horizontal Movement
Point of Max.
Curvature, y = 1.73 i
y, Distance from
the tunnel center line
Compressive Strain
(Sagging Zone)
Tensile Strain
(Hogging Zone)
Tensile Strain
(Hogging Zone)
GOUW Tjie-Liong
Seminar on Tunnel Technology in Civil Engineering Page 4 of 11
Hotel Peninsula, Jakarta, March 22, 2005
For a Circular tunnel, the maximum settlement above the tunnel center line is:




. (3)


where D is the tunnel diameter and V
L
is volume loss. The volume loss, normally expressed as percentage,
is the ratio of the area of the settlement trough to the excavated area of the tunnel. Its magnitude depends on
the soil type and the tunneling method. Historical data shows that the volume loss is: 1-2% for Shield
Tunneling in London clay; 1-1.5% for NATM; up to 3% for Earth Pressure Balance (EPB) method in soft
marine clay of Singapore; about 0.2% for EPB machine in gravels below water table in Tokyo.

Apart from the vertical movement (settlement), the horizontal movement of the ground can also cause
building or utility damage. The ground horizontal movement, S
h
, is estimated by using a simple equation
as follows:


. (4)


The settlement along the tunnel line, i.e. the longitudinal settlement trough (Fig. 4), directly above the
tunnel head is estimated as follows:

. (5)











Fig. 4 Longitudinal Settlement Trough


When two or more tunnels are constructed it is generally assumed that the predicted ground movements for
each tunnel acting independently can be superimposed. Where the clear separation of the tunnels is less
than one tunnel diameter, the above assumption may be unconservative. Interaction can be taken into
account by assuming a greater volume loss for the second tunnel and superimposing the resulting ground
movement.

As in any empirical formula, the success in applying the above formulas depends on the engineering
judgment of the soil condition as well as the pass experiences in similar soil condition and construction
method. At this particular project, the tunnel was excavated by using the Earth Pressure Balance (EPB)
shield method. Since there is no direct precedent for tunneling in the Old Alluvium formation in Singapore,
no typical values of volume loss is available. Therefore, an assumed volume loss value was adopted in the
analysis. During the design stage, K = 0.25-0.45 and a conservative value of 2% volume loss were adopted.
This value assumes that good workmanship which involves: prevention of the material into the face of the
shield, no adverse steering problems or severe alignment corrections by the shield and timely and effective
grouting of the tail void skin. The resulting transverse settlement trough and the settlement contour are
shown in Figs. 5 and 6, respectively.
0
2
max
31 . 0
KZ
D V
S
L
=
( )
v
p
h
S
Z Z
y
S

=
0
S
max
0.5 S
max
TUNNEL
hogging zone
sagging zone
max max
5 . 0 S SL =
GOUW Tjie-Liong
Seminar on Tunnel Technology in Civil Engineering Page 5 of 11
Hotel Peninsula, Jakarta, March 22, 2005




















Fig. 5 Typical Predicted Transverse Settlement Trough







Fig. 6 Predicted Settlement Contour



0
50
100
150
200
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
y>0 y
Settlement Trough
Right
Tunnel
Lef t
Tunnel
m
mm
GOUW Tjie-Liong
Seminar on Tunnel Technology in Civil Engineering Page 6 of 11
Hotel Peninsula, Jakarta, March 22, 2005
4. UTILITIES DEFORMATION AND THEIR POTENTIAL DAMAGE

The deformation of underground utilities, e.g.: water pipes, gas pipes, sewer pipes and underground cables,
are calculated by using the following formulas (Bracegirdle et al, 1996):

For underground utilities lie TRANSVERSE to the tunnel lines, there are two areas, i.e. the area that
subjects to compression strain (the sagging zone) and the area subjects to tensile strain (the hogging zone).
The maximum sagging curvature occurs at the center of the trough and the maximum compressive strain is
calculated as follows:




... (6)


The maximum hogging curvature or the maximum horizontal tensile strain occurs a the a distance of 1.73i
from the tunnel center line (see Fig. 3), the magnitudes of the angle of distortion and strains are:




... (7,8)




... (9,10)



For underground utilities lie PARALLEL to the tunnel lines:




... (11,12)





... (13,14)


where: = pipe joint rotation
S
vmax
= maximum vertical settlement
i = distance from tunnel center line to inflection point (see Eq. 2)
R = S
h
= horizontal pullout (horizontal movement) of joint

b
= tensile strains

h
= compressive strains
z
o
= depth of tunnel from ground surface
z
p
= depth of pipe from ground surface

=
i
v
S
2
max 1
tan 2

=
i
v
S
max
4 . 0
1
tan

=
p
z z
v
S
h
0
max
446 . 0

=
2
max
446 . 0
i
v
S
b

=
2
max
242 . 0
i
v
S
b

=
p
z z
v
S
h
0
max
242 . 0

=
2
max
i
v
S
h

( )
max
446 . 0
v
S
h
S R = =
( )
max
242 . 0
v
S
h
S R = =
GOUW Tjie-Liong
Seminar on Tunnel Technology in Civil Engineering Page 7 of 11
Hotel Peninsula, Jakarta, March 22, 2005
The magnitude of the maximum vertical settlement between two reference points of a pipe or cable is the
differential settlement between those two points. The differential settlement is derived from the settlement
calculated by using Eqs. 1 to 3 that yields to settlement contour as shown in Fig. 6.

The magnitudes of the deformations calculated are then compared with the criteria set for each pipe or
cable to assess for the potential damage of the underground utilities. Bracegirdle et al gives a typical
guideline for setting the limits to utilities deformation against their potential damage (Bracegirdle et al,
1996) as shown in Tables 2 to 5.


Table 2 Allowable Pipe Distortion (Bracegirdle et al, 1996)


Table 3 Allowable Joint Rotation and Pull-out (Bracegirdle et al, 1996)


Table 4 Typical Design Strain (Bracegirdle et al, 1996)



Table 5 Recommended Allowable Increase in Strain (Bracegirdle et al, 1996)
* can be up to 200 me for pipe in grey iron > 300mm diameter and
150 for smaller pipe


Table 6 below shows the example of the assessment of the water supply pipe deformation against its
potential damage due to tunneling work.


Description of Pipe S
max
/ i
limit
0.012 relatively rigid pipes, more than
200 mm diameter (1 : 140 slope)
0.012 - 0.040
(1 : 40-140 slope)
relatively flexible pipes, less than
200 mm diameter
Rotation Pull-out
(degrees) R (mm)
1 10
1.5 15
2.5 25
Description
rubber gasket joint in gas or water mains
lead-yarn joint in water mains
none
lead-yarn joint in sound gas main
lead-yarn joint in gas main with history of leaks none
tensile compressive
380 1550
430 - 490 1770 - 2040
820 1020
Material
Design Strain ()
pit cast grey iron
spun cast grey iron
ductile iron
tensile compressive
500 700
Material
1200
pit cast and spun cast grey
iron
Allowable Strain ()
ductile iron
100 *
GOUW Tjie-Liong
Seminar on Tunnel Technology in Civil Engineering Page 8 of 11
Hotel Peninsula, Jakarta, March 22, 2005
Table 6 Example of Assessment of Potential Damage of Water Lines against Deformation



15.20 m
0.00 m
Max. Depth
Diameter Vertical of
D = 6.30 m Settl. Utility
NB Track SB Track Z
0
i S
max
S
V max
Z
p
dist ortion _all di stortion distort ion
Chainage Chainage m m mm mm m degrees degrees
39143 39138 12.72 3.18 77.4 77.4 1.00 1.97 0.034 2.50 0.012 OK EXCEED!!
39160 39155 13.22 3.31 74.5 74.5 1.00 1.83 0.031 2.50 0.012 OK EXCEED!!
39185 39180 14.72 3.68 66.9 66.9 1.00 1.47 0.025 2.50 0.012 OK EXCEED!!
39210 39205 15.22 3.81 64.7 64.7 1.00 1.38 0.024 2.50 0.012 OK EXCEED!!
39235 39230 16.22 4.06 60.7 60.7 1.00 1.21 0.021 2.50 0.012 OK EXCEED!!
39260 39255 17.72 4.43 55.5 55.7 1.00 1.02 0.017 2.50 0.012 OK EXCEED!!
39285 39280 18.22 4.56 54.0 54.2 1.00 0.96 0.016 2.50 0.012 OK EXCEED!!
39310 39305 19.72 4.93 49.9 50.3 1.00 0.83 0.014 2.50 0.012 OK EXCEED!!
39335 39330 20.22 5.06 48.7 49.2 1.00 0.79 0.013 2.50 0.012 OK EXCEED!!
39360 39355 20.22 5.06 48.7 49.2 1.00 0.79 0.013 2.50 0.012 OK EXCEED!!
39385 39380 21.22 5.31 46.4 47.2 1.00 0.72 0.012 2.50 0.012 OK EXCEED!!
39410 39405 21.72 5.43 45.3 46.2 1.00 0.69 0.012 2.50 0.012 OK EXCEED!!
39435 39430 22.22 5.56 44.3 45.3 1.00 0.66 0.011 2.50 0.012 OK OK
39460 39455 22.22 5.56 44.3 45.3 1.00 0.66 0.011 2.50 0.012 OK OK
TWIN TUNNEL DISTANCE (Single Tunnel = 0)=
Utility Di stance to Tunnel Cent er Lines =
Tunnel Parameters
PREDICTED MOVEMENT OF UTILITY LOCATED TRANSVERSE TO THE
TUNNEL LINE
Additional
Condition
Trough Width Parameter Volume Loss ROTATION
K = 0.25 VL = 2.0% Predicted Allowable
15.20 m
0.00 m
Max. Predicted
Diameter Vertical Horizontal
D=6.30 m Settl. Movement Allowable Predicted Allowable
NBTrack SBTrack Z
0
i S
max
S
Vmax
S
h R Condition b b_all Condition
Chainage Chainage m m mm mm mm mm
39143 39138 12.72 3.18 77.4 77.4 34.5 25 EXCEED!! 3.42 100 OK
39160 39155 13.22 3.31 74.5 74.5 33.2 25 EXCEED!! 3.05 100 OK
39185 39180 14.72 3.68 66.9 66.9 29.8 25 EXCEED!! 2.21 100 OK
39210 39205 15.22 3.81 64.7 64.7 28.8 25 EXCEED!! 2.00 100 OK
39235 39230 16.22 4.06 60.7 60.7 27.0 25 EXCEED!! 1.65 100 OK
39260 39255 17.72 4.43 55.5 55.7 24.8 25 OK 1.27 100 OK
39285 39280 18.22 4.56 54.0 54.2 24.1 25 OK 1.17 100 OK
39310 39305 19.72 4.93 49.9 50.3 22.4 25 OK 0.93 100 OK
39335 39330 20.22 5.06 48.7 49.2 21.9 25 OK 0.86 100 OK
39360 39355 20.22 5.06 48.7 49.2 21.9 25 OK 0.86 100 OK
39385 39380 21.22 5.31 46.4 47.2 21.0 25 OK 0.75 100 OK
39410 39405 21.72 5.43 45.3 46.2 20.6 25 OK 0.70 100 OK
39435 39430 22.22 5.56 44.3 45.3 20.2 25 OK 0.66 100 OK
39460 39455 22.22 5.56 44.3 45.3 20.2 25 OK 0.66 100 OK
TWIN TUNNEL DISTANCE(Single Tunnel = 0)=
Utility Distance to Tunnel Center Lines =
Additional Axial & Bending Tunnel Parameters
PREDICTEDMOVEMENT OFUTILITYLOCATEDTRANSVERSETOTHETUNNEL
LINE
JOINT PULL-OUT TENSILESTRAINS Trough Width Parameter Volume Loss
K=0.25 VL=2.0%
15.20 m
0.00 m
Max.
Di amet er Ver t i cal
D = 6.30 m Settl. Pr edi ct ed Al l owabl e
NB Track SB Track Z
0
i S
max
S
V max
h h_al l Condi t i on
Chainage Chainage m m mm mm
39143 39138 12.72 3.18 77.4 77.4 2945 1200 EXCEED!!
39160 39155 13.22 3.31 74.5 74.5 2718 1200 EXCEED!!
39185 39180 14.72 3.68 66.9 66.9 2175 1200 EXCEED!!
39210 39205 15.22 3.81 64.7 64.7 2030 1200 EXCEED!!
39235 39230 16.22 4.06 60.7 60.7 1780 1200 EXCEED!!
39260 39255 17.72 4.43 55.5 55.7 1486 1200 EXCEED!!
39285 39280 18.22 4.56 54.0 54.2 1405 1200 EXCEED!!
39310 39305 19.72 4.93 49.9 50.3 1200 1200 EXCEED!!
39335 39330 20.22 5.06 48.7 49.2 1142 1200 OK
39360 39355 20.22 5.06 48.7 49.2 1142 1200 OK
39385 39380 21.22 5.31 46.4 47.2 1041 1200 OK
39410 39405 21.72 5.43 45.3 46.2 995 1200 OK
39435 39430 22.22 5.56 44.3 45.3 954 1200 OK
39460 39455 22.22 5.56 44.3 45.3 954 1200 OK
TWI N TUNNEL DI STANCE (Si ngl e Tunnel = 0)=
Ut i l i t y Di st ance t o Tunnel Cent er Li nes =
Addi t i onal Hor i zont al Gr ound Tunnel Par amet er s
COMPRESSI VE STRAI NS
PREDI CTED MOVEMENT OF UTI LI TY
(TRANSVERSE)
Tr ough Wi dt h Par amet er Vol ume Loss
K = 0.25 VL = 2.0%
GOUW Tjie-Liong
Seminar on Tunnel Technology in Civil Engineering Page 9 of 11
Hotel Peninsula, Jakarta, March 22, 2005
When the design criteria was exceeded it was proposed to provide either additional support to the pipes or
improved the ground below the water pipes. Similar calculations were also performed to sewer, gas,
electrical, and telephone lines.

5. ACTUAL MONITORED SETTLEMENT

Prior to the actual tunneling work, in order to measure the transverse ground settlement profile, a set of
settlement markers were installed above the tunnels at the location of 20m and 40m from the temporary
launching shaft. The other geotechnical instrumentation includes borehole extensometers, settlement
markers, piezometers and inclinometers. Fig. 7 shows the typical layout of the soil instrumentation.
Fig. 7 Typical Layout of The Geotechnical Instrumentation


Fig. 8 Initial Monitoring Results
SB
TUNNEL
NB
TUNNEL
Old Alluvium layer 1
Old Alluvium layer 4
Old Alluvium layer 2
-22.0m
-16.0m
-8.0m
Ground level
L247 L246 L245 L244
-4.0m
Old Alluvium layer 3
L242
I18 P23 MX17 P22 I51 MX16
L243 L241
Fill
0
20
40
60
80
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
DISTANCE IN TRANSVERSE SECTION (m)
S
E
T
T
L
E
M
E
N
T

(
m
m
)
PREDICTED SETTLEMENT
WITH ASSUMED VOLUME
LOSS OF 2% AND k=0.45
PREDICTED SETTLEMENT
WITH ASSUMED VOLUME
LOSS OF 2% AND k=0.25
MEASURED GROUND
SETTLEMENT
NB
CENTRELINE
SB
CENTRELINE
GOUW Tjie-Liong
Seminar on Tunnel Technology in Civil Engineering Page 10 of 11
Hotel Peninsula, Jakarta, March 22, 2005
The monitoring of all the instrumentation was carried out once a day. The key monitoring points at the
distances of one, two and three times the tunnel diameter before and after advancement of shield machines.
Figure 8 shows the monitoring results of the soil instrumentation installed at 20m from the tunnel shaft.
The data was measured when the tunneling work has reached 52m for northbound tunnel and 37m for
southbound tunnel. The figure also shows the predicted settlement trough at that particular section.


6. DISCUSSIONS

The monitoring data, which was taken when the both of the parallel tunnels had reached beyond 3 to 5
diameters of the tunnels, shows that the predicted settlement was about 10 to 13 times larger. Back analysis
shows that the actual volume loss taken place at the monitoring time was only in the order of 0.2%.

When the tunnels had reached the said distance, the tunneling work on one side was purposely stopped, the
EPB drill head was retracted back leaving a gap of about 80 cm within the excavated tunnel and the shield
machine. The gap was left open, i.e. unsupported, for about a week. During that period, it was observed that
there was no collapse of the alluvium soil from within the gap. The old alluvium was also practically
impermeable, as there was no accumulation of ground water observed during that period. On that occasion,
the author had a chance to enter the gap that left open for a week to inspect the soil condition. It was found
that the alluvium soil is very hard and stable. Fig. 9 shows the soil condition inside the excavated ground.





















Fig. 9 The Soil Condition Inside the Excavated Tunnel


Based on the monitored data and the observation made during the soil inside the excavated tunnel was left
unsupported, it can be concluded that the initial design parameters were very conservative. This experience
shows that, for tunneling conducted by Earth Pressure Balancing Shield Method in Singapore's very stiff to
hard old alluvium formation, it is appropriate to take a K value of 0.5 and a volume loss of 0.5%.

Although this paper shows that the initial design parameters were too conservative, when there is lack of
reliable informative data gathered from pass experiences in similar soil condition, it is always good to be
careful in designing the tunneling and underground construction work. Especially, when the work shall be
conducted in a crowded urban area. It is suggested, whenever possible, to start the work at the area where
the soil condition is in the worst condition and there is no danger of damaging surrounding
facilities/utilities.

GOUW Tjie-Liong
Seminar on Tunnel Technology in Civil Engineering Page 11 of 11
Hotel Peninsula, Jakarta, March 22, 2005
7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The author would like to thank Parsons Brinckerhof & Merz and McLellan and Samsung Corporation for
giving the author a chance to get involved in this particular interesting project.



8. REFERENCES

Mair, R.J, Taylor, R.N., and Burland, J.B., 1996, Prediction of Ground Movements and Assessment of Risk
of Building Damage due to Bored Tunneling, Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in
soft Ground, Mair & Taylor (eds.), Balkema, Rotterdam, p. 713-718, ISBN 90 5410 856 8

Bracegirdle, A, Mair, R.J. Nyren, R.J., Taylor, R.N., 1996, A Methodology for Evaluating Potential
Damage to Cast Iron Pipes Induced By Tunneling, Proc. Geotechnical Aspects of Underground
Construction in Soft Ground, Balkema, Rotterdam, p. 659-664, ISBN 90 5410 856 8

Mair, R.J., 1997 (unpublished), Building and Utility Damage Assessment in Relation to Tunneling and
Deep Excavation, Lecture Notes, Singapore.

Fujita, K., and Kusakabe, O., 1994 (eds.), Underground Construction in Soft Ground, Proc. of the Int.
Symp. on Underground Construction in Soft Ground, New Delhi, India.