See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/272040296

A new equation for estimating the maximum surface settlement above

tunnels excavated in soft ground

Article  in  Environmental Earth Sciences · April 2013

DOI: 10.1007/s12665-013-2707-2

CITATIONS READS

24 1,804

2 authors:

Hamid Chakeri Bahtiyar Ünver

Sahand University of Technology Hacettepe University
23 PUBLICATIONS   177 CITATIONS    60 PUBLICATIONS   695 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Line 2 tunnel of Tabriz Metro, Iran View project

Investigation of Various Parameters Effect on Cerchar Abrasivity Index with PFC3D Modeling View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Bahtiyar Ünver on 01 February 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Environ Earth Sci (2014) 71:3195–3210
DOI 10.1007/s12665-013-2707-2
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
A new equation for estimating the maximum surface settlement
above tunnels excavated in soft ground
Hamid Chakeri • Bahtiyar Ünver
Received: 8 February 2013 / Accepted: 30 July 2013 / Published online: 25 August 2013
 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013
Abstract Nowadays, due to urbanization and population
increase, need for metro tunnels, has been considerably
increased in urban areas. Common characterization of urban
area tunnels is that they are excavated in very shallow depths
and soft ground. In such excavations, main challenge for
tunneling is low bearing capacity and easy deformation
characteristic of the ground. Tunnel face instability and the
potential surface settlement are the most hazardous factors
that should be considered in all tunneling methods applied in
urban areas. Incorrect estimation of the maximum surface
settlement value can lead to irreparable damages to the
buildings and other nearby structures. There are several
published relationships concerned with field measurements
and analytical solutions to estimate the amount of the
maximum surface settlement value due to tunneling. These
relationships are not precise for calculating the aimed val-
ues. Therefore, providing accurate equations for estimation
of these values is certainly useful. First purpose of this study
is to determine the effective parameters such as geotechnical
factors (cohesion, internal friction angle, density, Young’s
modulus and Poisson’s ratio), and engineering factors (tun-
nel depth, tunnel diameter and face support pressure) on the
maximum surface settlement value. In this study, three
metro project constructions namely Istanbul, Tehran,
Mashhad in the Middle East were chosen. FLAC3D (Itasca
Consulting Group 2002) was used for detailed numerical
analysis. The second aim is to present better equations in
estimating the maximum surface settlement-based actual
data set from several tunnel projects and numerical model-
ing. The results from the new estimation equation are
H. Chakeri (&)  B. Ünver
Department of Mining Engineering, Hacettepe University,
Beytepe, 06800 Ankara, Turkey
e-mail: h.chakeri@gmail.com
compared with results of empirical and field observations.
The maximum surface settlement values obtained from the
new equation have good agreement with the actual results
for three different metro case studies.
Keywords Numerical modeling  Maximum
surface settlement  Earth pressure balance shield
(EPBS)  Empirical-analytical methods
Introduction
There are many effective geotechnical and geometrical
parameters that can be considered in the prediction of the
exact amount of maximum surface settlement value. These
parameters can be a combination of cohesion, angle of
internal friction, tunnel depth, tunnel diameter, Poisson’s
ratio, Young’s modulus, unit weight, face support pressure
and surface surcharge. Several methods such as numerical,
empirical and field observation methods have been devel-
oped to investigate the effects of these parameters on surface
settlements. These methods for prediction of surface settle-
ment can be listed as follows: (i) Empirical method based on
empirical formulas derived from past observations and
mostly limited to some field measurements (Martos 1958;
Peck 1969; Schmidt 1969; Attewell and Farmer 1974;
Atkinson and Potts 1977; O’Reilly and New 1982; Mair
1983; Herzog 1985; Vermeer and Bonnier 1991; Arioğlu
1992; Hamza et al. 1999; Macklin 1999) (ii) Analytical
method for the prediction of short-term maximum surface
settlements is useful to calculate this value. However, these
methods cannot accommodate all important parameters (Lo
et al. 1984; Verruijt and Booker 1996; Loganathan and
Poulos 1998; Chi et al. 2001; Bobet 2002; Chou and Bobet
2002; Park 2005) (iii) Numerical analysis by finite
123
3196
difference and finite element methods (Rowe et al. 1983;
Lee et al. 1992; Addenbrooke and Potts 2001; Vermeer et al.
2002; Melis et al. 2002; Mroueh and Shahrour 2002; Su-
wansawat and Einstein 2006; Ocak 2009; Ercelebi et al.
2011; Chakeri et al. 2010, 2013). With the rapid develop-
ment of computer hardware and software, numerical method
based on finite differential techniques has made great pro-
gress and has become a more flexible and powerful tool for
surface settlement analysis (iv) In recent years, new methods
such as artificial neural network (Shi et al. 1998; Suwansa-
wat 2002; Suwansawat and Einstein 2006; Santos Ovı́dio
and Celestino Tarcı́sio 2008; Ocak and Seker 2013) and
support vector machines (Neaupane and Adhikari 2006; Yao
et al. 2010) have been developed for analysis of surface
settlement caused by tunneling. Until now, only some
effective parameters have been taken into account in these
studies. Suggesting a new relationship requires a compre-
hensive investigation of more parameters. Thereof, in this
paper we use both field and detailed numerical modeling
approaches to investigate effects of different parameters on
maximum surface settlement. Three-dimensional finite dif-
ference (3D-FD) code FLAC3D is used to model all con-
ditions. Finally, new relationship is formulated to estimate
the maximum surface settlement which might be caused by
tunneling excavation. Then, the pervious empirical results
and actual data from three case studies are compared to the
results of new relationship.
Empirical-analytical methods for maximum surface
settlement estimation
Determination of ground movements during tunnel exca-
vation is a significant matter for most engineers. Over the
past 50 years, many researchers have attempted to develop
methods for determination of ground movements. Purpose
of this section is to present a review of these methods
which are used to describe the maximum surface settle-
ment. According to pervious researches, most commonly
used approach is the assumption of a point source leading
to a settlement trough approximating to a Gaussian distri-
bution. Martos (1958) firstly observed that the shape of the
surface settlement trough above mining excavations can
usually be represented by a Gaussian curve. Later, Peck
(1969) and Schmidt (1969) investigated surface settlement
data from a large number of tunnels and proposed that the
Gaussian function as shown in Eq. (1) can be applied for
describing the surface settlement trough. This conclusion
was based on statistical evaluation of field observed data
over twenty case histories.
 
x2
Sx ¼ Smax exp  2 ð1Þ
2i
123
Environ Earth Sci (2014) 71:3195–3210
where x is the horizontal distance from the tunnel
centerline (m) and i is the horizontal distance from the
tunnel centerline to the point of inflection on the surface
settlement trough (m).
According to Fig. 1, the maximum surface settlement
(Smax) is the one of effective parameters describing the
nature of surface settlement. This parameter (Smax) has
been studied by different researchers.
Mair (1983) proposed below equation to calculate the
value of Smax:
Vs V L R2
Smax ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ¼ 1:252 ð2Þ
2pi i
where Vs is the volume loss; VL is the percentage of volume
loss if soil is incompressible and R is the tunnel radius (m).
Macklin (1999) used the load factor parameter
(LF ¼ N=Nc ) for prediction of volume loss.
 
N
VL ¼ 0:23 exp 4:4 ð3Þ
Nc
where N is the stability number and Nc is the critical sta-
bility number (dimensionless parameters).
According to Broms and Bennermark (1967), in exca-
vation of undrained clay, the stability number, N, can be
expressed as follows:
rs þ cZ0  rT
N¼ ð4Þ
Cu
where rs total surcharge acting on the ground surface, c
unit weight (kN/m3), Z0 Tunnel depth (m), rT face support
pressure applied at the tunnel face (kPa), Cu undrained
cohesion of the soil (kPa) estimated by:
E ¼ 600Cu ð5Þ
where E is the elasticity modulus of formation (kPa).
According to the graph of Dimmock and Mair (2007),
critical stability number (Nc) can be defined in terms of P/
D and H/D ratios (Fig. 2). In this figure, P (m) is the length
of unsupported tunnel (this is zero for a tunnel excavated
Fig. 1 Surface settlement profile
Environ Earth Sci (2014) 71:3195–3210 3197

 
with EPBS), H the overburden thickness (m) and D the R2
tunnel diameter (m). Smax ¼ 0:0125K ð7Þ
i
Volume loss is the sum of various ingredients which
cumulate during the excavation of a tunnel. For tunnels where i is the horizontal distance from the tunnel centerline
excavated by EPBS, the volume loss can be occurred in to the point of inflection on the surface settlement trough
three main components: (m) and R is the tunnel radius (m). Work carried out by
Arioğlu (1992) found out that the value of the K parameter
– Volume loss at the tunnel face (Vf), can be obtained from Eq. 6:
– volume loss around shield (Vs),
– tail loss (Vt). K ¼ 0:87e0:26N ð8Þ

These parameters are described in Fig. 3. Using the where N is the stability number which is calculated from
results of a series of experimental investigations, Herzog Eq. 4. There are only a few attempts to develop analytical
(1985) proposed an equation to calculate the maximum methods for determining ground movements induced by
surface settlement for a single tunnel. The equation took tunnel excavation.
the form of: Verruijt and Booker (1996) developed an analytical
 2 solution and proposed the following relationship for
D
Smax ¼ 0:785ðc:Z0 þ rs Þ: ð6Þ determination of surface settlement:
i:E
Z0 Z0 ðx2  Z02 Þ
where E is the elasticity modulus of formation (kPa), c is S ¼ 4ð1  #ÞeR2  2dR2  2 ð9Þ
Z02 þx 2
Z 2 þ x2
the unit weight (kN/m3), rs is the surface surcharge (kPa) 0

and Z0 is the tunnel depth (m).
Schmidt (1969) developed the following equation to
calculate the maximum surface settlement for a single
tunnel:
Fig. 2 Critical stability number (Nc)
where R is the tunnel radius (m), Z0 is the depth of tunnel
axis (m), t is Poisson’s ratio, e is a equivalent undrained
ground loss, d is shape ovalization and x is the distance
from the central line of a tunnel (m).
Loganathan and Poulos (1998) proposed a method to
estimate the volume loss value based on the gap parameter
(g) and developed the ‘‘equivalent undrained ground loss,
e,’’ as shown below:
4gR þ g2
e¼  100 % ð10Þ
4R2
where g is the gap parameter presented by Lee et al. (1992)
as follow:
g ¼ GP þ u3D þ x ð11Þ
where Gp is the physical gap that represents the difference
between maximum outside diameter of the tunneling
machine and the outside diameter of the lining for a cir-
cular tunnel.

Fig. 3 Example of a typical

longitudinal section of EPBS
machine and volumes less

123
3198 Environ Earth Sci (2014) 71:3195–3210

Rowe and Lee (1989) defined the physical gap as: In this section, the geotechnical properties of each case
GP ¼ 2D þ d, where D is thickness of the tailpiece and d is study are presented:
clearance required for erection of the lining; if grouting is
employed to fill the physical gap, the value of Gp is Tehran metro (Line 7)
assumed to amount to 0.07–0.1 times its original values
(Park 2005). x takes into account the quality of work- Tehran metro Line 7 is almost 27 km in length with 26
manship and is the minimum of 0.6 Gp and 1/3 ui. stations. It starts from Shahrak-e-Mir-al-momenin in the
According to Lo et al. (1984), where ui is the elasto-plastic east of Tehran and is extended parallel to Navvab Safavi
condition (N [ 1) radial displacement at the crown and is Highway toward the north and reaches to Saadat Abad
approximately given by district in the north of Tehran. The line excavation began in
!1=2 2009. The Line 7 tunnel can be divided into Lots: one
ui 1 running in East–West Lot has 13 stations, and the other
¼1   2 ð12Þ
R 1 þ 2ð1þtÞC exp N1
E 2
along North–South Lot has 13 stations. Based on this, the
drilling work for the two sections starts at Station N7
where E is the undrained modulus and N is the stability located at the intersection of Ghazvin Street and Navab
number. u3D represents the equivalent 3D elasto-plastic Highway by two EPBS devices and continues toward north
deformation at the tunnel face. u3D in Eq. (11) equals to and toward east. In this study, maximum surface settlement
zero in the case where the earth pressure balance shield is investigated for Line 7 tunnel, South-North Lot, which is
(EPBS) machine is adopted for tunneling (Chi et al. 2001). to be excavated in the chainage of 12 ? 600–12 ? 710 m
Loganathan and Poulos (1998) presented an equation to between N7 and O7 stations of Tehran Metro Line (Fig. 4).
estimate the surface settlement by closed-form solution According to the proposed plan, the centerline of Line 7
(Eq. 13). tunnel in the study area is to be situated 20.8 m below the
" #
Z0 1:38x2 surface.
2
S ¼ 4ð1  #ÞeR 2 exp  ð13Þ The field explorations and surveying were performed by
Z 0 þ x2 ðH þ RÞ2
boring 37 boreholes. The underground in Tehran along the
where e, mentioned in Eq. 10 is the equivalent undrained tunnel axis consists of a series of alluvial layers with var-
ground loss. iable grain size distribution from clay to course gravel with
Numerical methods are widely used when the surface cobbles and erratic blocks.
settlements induced by tunnel excavation are investigated. Figure 5 shows the geological section for this region. In
Some of the limitations in empirical and analytical methods this zone, two boreholes were drilled. The first borehole
may be overcome by numerical methods. In recent two
decades, many researchers have tried to simulate the tun-
neling excavation process using these methods. Most of
these researchers applied the numerical methods and
reported successful predictions of soil movements. For
instance, (Rowe et al. 1983) used a very large number of
case histories and proposed that their finite element anal-
ysis generally yielded estimates of soil settlements which
are compatible with measured values. But unfavorable
comparisons were found in some cases.

Site geology

Tunnels with different geotechnical properties were selec-

ted for numerical modeling and verification of new equa-
tion. These tunnels are as follows:
– Tehran metro (Line 7, for numerical modeling)
– Istanbul metro (Esenler, for verification of new
equation)
– Mashhad metro (Line 2, for verification of new
equation) Fig. 4 Main route of Tehran Metro Line 7

123
Environ Earth Sci (2014) 71:3195–3210
(BH-27E) was drilled with depth of 34.20 m and second
borehole (BH-31E) with depth of 35.20 m.
To establish a geotechnical model for the project area,
the soil layers have been grouped into four main categories,
regarding the soil classification and geotechnical test
results. These grouping results and geotechnical data are
presented in Table 1.
The geotechnical parameters shown in Table 1 have
been assumed to be the design values. The bored diameter
of line 7 tunnel is 9.14 m, whereas the outer and inner
diameters are 8.85 and 8.15 m, respectively. Thickness of
segment, injection grout, spacing between segment and
tunnel face are 35 cm, 15 cm and 9 m, respectively.
In this study, to compare the actual result of EPBS and
surface settlement to the results of experimental and
numerical analysis, sections A–A (Dena building) and B–B
have been chosen. Figure 6 shows the maximum surface
settlement and situation of those sections along the
Chamran-Navvab highway.
Istanbul metro (Esenler)
The first construction phase of the Istanbul Metro line
began in 1992 and was put into service in 2000. This line is
being gradually extended, and additions are being con-
structed in other locations. One of these metro lines is the
twin line between Otogar and Kirazlı-1 (5.77 km). The
metro line consists of a 3.87 km tunnel; 0.62 km cut and
cover station, and 1.28 km at-grade crossing. The exca-
vation of this section began in May 2006 and was com-
pleted in June 2008. This metro line will integrate the
Fig. 5 Geological section of
Tehran Metro Line 7 chainage
of 12 ? 600 to 12 ? 800 m
(ZAFA 2007)
3199
Kirazlı-1–Basaksehir–Olimpiyat Koyu Metro Project that
is currently under construction with a length of 15.8 km. At
the same time, the Otogar and Kirazlı-1 Metro Line will
integrate the Aksaray–Ataturk Airport light metro line that
is under service at present.
The study area includes the twin tunnels between km
0 ? 890 and 0 ? 940 of Otogar-Kirazlı-1 metro line which
are opened generally in Güngören formation of the Mio-
cene age. The subsurface soil was characterized by inves-
tigating geotechnical drilling and in situ data and
laboratory test results. The geology of the study area is
given in Fig. 7 (Mahmutoğlu 2010).
Characteristics of lithology of the ground around tunnels
are presented in Table 2. Güngören formation consists of
fill, very stiff clay, and dense sand, and hard clay sequen-
ces. The overburden thickness above the tunnels varies
between 9.7 to 16 m.
Figure 8 shows the locations and number of monitoring
points. Measured surface settlements of those points are
presented in Table 3.
Mashhad metro (Line 2)
The holy city of Mashhad is the second largest metropol-
itan area in Iran, and the capital of the north-eastern
province of Khorasan. It has a population of more than 2.2
million. The Mashhad Urban Railway Line 2 project
comprises the construction of the second line of the envi-
sioned metro network that will facilitate passenger trans-
port in the city of Mashhad, Iran. The line excavation
began in 2011. The metro line will be situated under street
123
3200 Environ Earth Sci (2014) 71:3195–3210

Table 1 Soil grouping and geotechnical design data in the project area (ZAFA 2007)
Layer Engineering classification Thickness (m) Unit weight ‘‘Mohr–Coulomb’’ shear Deformability Coefficient of
symbols (BSCS) total (kN/m3) strength parameters parameters earth pressure
Cohesion Angle of internal Young’s Poisson’s
(kPa) friction () modulus ratio
(MPa)

Layer 1 Fill 1.2 19 29 35 15 0.30 0.42

Layer 2 ML, CL 8 19 40 27 30 0.35 0.55
Layer 3 GML, GCL 11.6 19 30 35 80 0.27 0.43
Layer 4 GWM, GML Base 19 20 38 100 0.27 0.38
CL Clay, ML silt, GML silt with gravel, GCL clay with gravel, GWM well graded silty gravel

Fig. 6 Contour of surface settlements around the tunnel (TUSRC

2011)

level in a tunnel running in a Northeast—Southwest

direction. The metro line will connect a total of 12 stations,
and will be linked with the existing metro line 1 and the
future lines 3 and 4 as well as with the national railway line
of Iran. The total length of line 2 is approximately 14.3 km
of which approximately 10.8 km will be constructed using
a tunnel boring machine (TBM). One twin-track tunnel-
tube is to be drilled with an outer diameter of 9.4 m. The
tunnel-tube be bored using a TBM with an earth pressure
balance shield (EPB). The tunnel is bored through stiff to
hard clay with, mainly in the south west section of the line,
lenses of sand and coarse to very coarse gravel with
boulders. Geotechnical and geometrical properties of
Mashhad metro (Line 2) which is required for checking the
accuracy of the new equations, are respectively presented
in Table 4 and Fig. 9.
Fig. 7 Geological section of Güngören area (Mahmutoğlu 2010)
Figure 10 shows the observed surface settlement and
point of inflection values for Mashhad metro (Line 2) in
chain age of 40–370 m.
Three-dimensional modeling of tunnel
Tunnel construction has been simulated with a 3D mod-
eling performed with code FLAC3D based on the finite
difference method. It is assumed that the soil is homoge-
neous and isotropic, with an elastic-perfectly plastic con-
stitutional link with a Mohr–Coulomb resistance criterion,
while the lining rings are modeled with an elastic behavior.

123
Environ Earth Sci (2014) 71:3195–3210 3201

Table 2 Soil grouping and geotechnical design data in the Güngören (Ayson 2005)
Layer Soil type Thickness (m) Unit weight total (kN/m3) ‘‘Mohr–Coulomb’’ shear strength Deformability parameters
parameters
Cohesion (kPa) Angle of internal Young’s Poisson’s
friction () modulus (MPa) ratio

Layer 1 Fill 2.5 19.8 1 20 8 0.3

Layer 2 Very stiff clay 4 18.2 20 9 51 0.25
Layer 3 Dense sand 9.26 19.0 1 35 24 0.35
Layer 4 Hard clay Base 18.6 25 15 90 0.4

simulated for a longitudinal extension of 9.0 m. So the

tunnel lining was set in place 9 m from the tunnel face. It
consists of concrete prefabricated lining rings with an outer
diameter of 8.85 m, a thickness of 35 cm and a length of
1.5 m. For such a segment, one can adopt curved shell
elements to simulate its action. For the injection grout
backfill grouting, a Young’s modulus of 1 GPa, a unit
weight of 1,200 kg/m3 and an unconfined compressive
strength of 1.1 MPa is adopted. The Poisson’s ratio is
estimated to be 0.25. Live burdens exerted on tunnels were
divided into two parts: 20 kN/m3 is applied in Avenue
direction for traffic burden effect, and 30 kN/m3 for Dena
building with three floors (Fig. 12).

Verification of numerical modeling

The most important factor in assessment of the results by

Fig. 8 The locations of monitoring points and the numbers for
Güngören formation (Mahmutoğlu 2010)
In all the FLAC3D outputs, units of measurement are
Newton (N) for force and meter (m) for length. The model
has a longitudinal dimension (in y direction) of 60 m
(approximately 6.5D, D tunnel diameter), an extension
under the tunnel axis (in z direction) of 30 m (approxi-
mately 3D) and a transverse extension (in ?x direction)
that is at least five times greater than the cover on the
tunnel axis (Fig. 11).
To simulate the excavation phases, strokes of 1.5 m
length have been reproduced, which is the same length as
the actual stroke of the machine. Technical parameters of
the EPBS, lining rings and injection grout are as follows:
Shield machine was modeled with shell elements with
elastic modulus of 200 GPa, Poisson’s ratio of 0.25 and the
density of 7,840 kg/m3. The presence of the shield has been
numerical modeling is to ensure whether the numerical
results are correct or incorrect. To verify and assess the
accuracy and applicability of FLAC3D program for geo-
technical condition modeling, a sample problem with a
known analytical solution is solved (Fig. 13).
Displacement around a single tunnel can be determined
from Kirsch solution, assuming conditions of plane strain
by using following equations (Harrison and Hudson 2006):
 
p1 þ p2 a2 p1  p2 a2 a2
ur ¼ þ 4ð1  tÞ  2 cos2h ð14Þ
4G r 4G r r
where p1 and p2 are principal stresses in the plane per-
pendicular to the tunnel (kPa), a is the tunnel radius (m),
G is the shear modulus (kPa), t is the Poisson’s ratio and
r is the distance from the circle center (m).
A simple model is created in homogeneous, isotropic,
continuous, linearly elastic material. The modeled domain
was 120 m in length, 50 m in width and 29 m in depth, as
shown in Fig. 14
Material properties used in numerical modeling are
shown in Table 5.
Tabel 6 shows the displacement results obtained from
numerical and theoretical analysis.

123
3202 Environ Earth Sci (2014) 71:3195–3210

Table 3 Measured surface

Monitoring points Offset from left SR settlement after right SL settlement after left
settlement at the monitoring
tube centerline (m) tunnel excavation (mm) tunnel excavation (mm)
points in Güngören formation
(Mahmutoğlu 2010) SMP-26 1.75 Not reported 30
SMP-31 5.13 Not reported 28.6
SMP-32 7.20 Not reported 27.5
SMP-33 8.96 6 24
SMP-34 11.98 7 20.1
SMP-35 15.6 9 14.3
SMP-36 15 10 18.8
SMP-37 14.6 10 13.3
SMP-38 16.12 14 11
SMP-39 16.35 Not reported 10
SMP-40 20.38 4 7.6
SMP-41 24.18 3 5

Table 4 Geotechnical properties of Mashhad metro Line 2 (MURC 2012)

Layer Soil type Unit weight total cdry (kN/m3) ‘‘Mohr–Coulomb’’ shear strength parameters Deformability parameters
Cohesion (kPa) Angle of internal Young’s Poisson’s
friction () modulus (MPa) ratio

Layer 1 CL-ML 17.5 30 20 30 0.32

Layer 2 SC-SM 19 15 30 80 0.30
CL clay, ML silt, SC clayey sand, SM silty sand

By using the analytical (Kirsch) solution, theoretical

Fig. 9 Geometrical properties of Mashhad metro (Line 2)
computation is 4.85 mm. Results from numerical computa-
tion indicate that the amount of this displacement is 4.68 mm
(Fig. 15). Percentage difference is around 3 %. It means that
FLAC3D numerical model generates a significantly close
result to analytical solution. So FLAC3D can be reliably used
for the computations throughout this study work.
Before investigating the effects of different parameters
on maximum surface settlement using numerical modeling,
the accuracy of results obtained from the numerical mod-
eling should be tested. For Line 7 metro tunnel, actual
conditions around A–A0 and B–B0 sections (Fig. 6)
between N7 and O7 stations were modeled. Settlement
value above the tunnel centerline (Smax) and face dis-
placement in tunnel center are presented in Table 7.

Fig. 10 Observed surface

settlement and point of
inflection values for Mashhad
metro (Line 2)

123
Environ Earth Sci (2014) 71:3195–3210 3203

Fig. 11 Three-dimensional
views of the finite difference
mesh and block property

Fig. 13 Verification problem sketch (Goodman 1989)

Fig. 12 Line 7 tunnel section and excavation system

As it can be seen at Table 7, the calculated maximum

surface settlement from the 3D-FD model is compatible
with field measurements. Thus, the 3D-FD model can
safely be used for investigating the effect of different
parameters on face support pressure and surface settlement.

Parametric studies
Fig. 14 Three dimensional finite difference model

Numerical modeling has been done for investigate the var- modulus, unit weight, face support pressure and surface
ious parameters such as cohesion, angle of internal friction, surcharge affecting the maximum surface settlement value.
tunnel depth, tunnel diameter, Poisson’s ratio, Young’s In analysis for investigating the effects of each parameter,

123
3204 Environ Earth Sci (2014) 71:3195–3210

Table 5 Material properties used in numerical modeling

Tunnel depth (m) Tunnel diameter (m) Unit weight (kN/m3) Young’s modulus (MPa) Poisson’s ratio Coefficient of earth pressure

20.8 9.14 19 570 0.3 0.5

Table 6 Comparison of numerical and theoretical roof displacement results

Tunnel radius (m) Shear modulus (MPa) P1 (kPa) P2 (kPa) ur (roof) h = 90
Theoretical Numerical

4.575 219.23 193,845.6 387,691.2 4.85 mm 4.68 mm

Fig. 15 Contour of z-
displacement after excavation of
tunnel

Table 7 The surface settlement results obtained from 3D-FD method
and field measurements for section A–A0 (Chakeri et al. 2013)
Face support pressure (kPa) Smax Smax
FLAC3D (mm) Observed (mm)
75 8.584 7.1
the value of one parameter is changed, while the other
parameters are kept constant. Whole of numerical model is
considered as a layer with uniform geotechnical properties.
So in 3D-FD model, the average values of the geotechnical
design data for layer of the soil given in Table 1 are used in
the model. An example for determining the average value of
the cohesion is given in Eq. 15. This type of calculations
was performed for every parameter and the results are given
in Table 8. The geotechnical values given in this table were
taken as design data for numerical model.
Caverage
ðClayer1  Thicknesslayer1 þ    þ Clayer4  Thicknesslayer4 Þ
¼
Thicknesslayer1 þ    þ Thicknesslayer4
ð15Þ
Results of parametric studies
As it is mentioned before, several empirical equations had
been presented in the literature for estimating amount of
maximum surface settlement value. Because of various
problems during tunnel excavation, closer look at these
equations and investigation of influence of various

Table 8 Geotechnical design data for parametric studies

Thickness of model (m) Unit weight (kN/m3) ‘‘Mohr–Coulomb’’ shear strength Deformability parameters Coefficient of earth
parameters pressure
Cohesion Angle of internal Young’s modulus Poisson’s
(kPa) friction () (MPa) ratio

50.8 19 34 32 57 0.3 0.47

123
Environ Earth Sci (2014) 71:3195–3210 3205

Fig. 16 Effect of various parameters on maximum surface settlement

123
3206 Environ Earth Sci (2014) 71:3195–3210

Table 9 Percentage of parameters effect on maximum surface – Cohesion values are considered as 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30,
settlement 35 and 40 kPa
Smax (mm) Percentage (%) – Angle of internal friction values are considered as 15,
20, 25, 30, 35 and 40
Tunnel diameter (6.15–12.15 m) 4.66–24.02 29 – Unit weight values are considered as 17, 17.5, 18, 18.5,
Young’s modulus (30–100 MPa) 19.97–6.8 19 19, 19.5, 20 and 20.5 kN/m3
Poisson’s ratio (0.2–0.35) 17.24–7.41 14 – To investigate the effect of tunnel diameter on these
Tunnel depth (14.8–35.8 m) 7.15–13.5 9 values some numerical analyses were performed for
Angle of internal friction (15–40) 14.74–8.76 9 various tunnel diameters equal to 6.15, 7.65, 9.14,
Cohesion (10–40 kPa) 14.76–10.19 7 10.65 and 12.15 m
Surface surcharge (0–100 kPa) 9.54–13.53 6 – For numerical modeling, we entered 0, 5, 10, 15, 20,
Face support pressure (0–75 kPa) 10.37–7.88 4 25, 30, 35, 40,…, 100 amounts to surface surcharge
Unit weight (17–20.5 kN/m3) 9.17–11.13 3 parameter to find maximum surface settlement value
– Different values with minimum of 20 MPa and max-
imum of 100 MPa and at intervals equal to 10 MPa
were taken as Young’s Modulus to investigate its effect
– To investigate the effects of Poisson’ ratio, we have
taken 0.2, 0.25, 0.3, 0.35 values to this parameter
– Tunnel depth values are considered as 14.8, 17.8, 20.8,
23.8, 26.8, 29.8, 32.8 and 35.8 m
– Face support pressure values are considered as 0, 5, 10,
15, 20,…., 0.80 and 85 kPa.
Relationship between various parameters and maximum
surface settlement value obtained from 3D-FD numerical
modeling are shown in Fig. 16.
Main conclusions which could be derived from Fig. 16
are listed below:
– An increase in cohesion value from 10 to 40 kPa leads
to a reduction in the amount of maximum surface
settlement from 14 to 10 mm.
Fig. 17 Effect of all parameters on maximum surface settlement at
– There is an obvious relationship between the maximum
0–1 scale surface settlement and the angle of internal friction.
Similar to cohesion parameter, there is an inverse
relationship between angle of internal friction and
parameters on estimating amount of maximum surface maximum surface settlement. However, reduction in
settlement are necessary. the amount of maximum surface settlement value by
There are several parameters that are effective on angle of internal friction is more significant in
amount of maximum surface settlement and recognizing comparison to effect of cohesion.
effects of these parameters can be very helpful for accurate – There is a direct relation between maximum surface
measurement of maximum surface settlement and present a settlement and unit weight. For example, in this case,
better empirical equation for maximum surface settlement increase in the amount of unit weight from 17 to
measurements. According to the numerical and experi- 20.5 kN/m3 causes 20 percent increase in the maximum
mental investigations, cohesion, angle of internal friction, surface settlement.
tunnel depth, tunnel diameter, Poisson’s ratio, Young’s – It could be claimed that the tunnel diameter is the most
modulus, unit weight, face support pressure and surface important factor in the prediction of maximum surface
surcharge are the most effective parameters. In this section, settlement value. Decrease in tunnel diameter from
the influence of each parameter in determining the amounts 12.15 to 6.15 m leads to a reduction of nearly 80 % in
of maximum surface settlement has been discussed. the maximum surface settlement value.
According to Table 1, Line 7 condition and the literature – There is a direct relationship between the values of
given in the previous sections, the different parameters maximum surface settlement and surface surcharge.
values which were used in the numerical model are – The maximum surface settlement decreases with an
explained below: increase in the value of Young’s Modulus.

123
Environ Earth Sci (2014) 71:3195–3210 3207

– Increase in the value of Poisson’s ratio causes reduction – Angle of internal friction
in the value of maximum surface settlement. – Cohesion
– Maximum surface settlement values increases with an – Surface surcharge
increase in the value of tunnel depth for tunnels with – Required face support pressure
constant face support pressure – Unit weight
– By increasing in the value of face support pressure, the
volume loss at the tunnel face (Vf in Fig. 2) decreases
to zero. Basic surface settlement (Sbase) continues to New equation for estimation of maximum surface
remain because of persistency in the values of the settlement value
volume loss around shield and tail loss.
In this section a new equation for the estimation of the
After completing the numerical parametric study, per- maximum surface settlement during tunnel excavation is
centage of parameters effect on maximum surface settle- presented using 3D-FD modeling. Equation for estimating
ment are calculated and shown in Table 9. the maximum surface settlement value based on numerical
To better illustrate the effects of all parameters on and observed results are given by:
maximum surface settlement, the range of all parameters is
considered in the scale of 0–1. An example for changing Smax ¼ ðA  SÞ ð17Þ
the range of tunnel diameter from normal scale to 0–1 scale where Smax is the maximum surface settlement, A is the
is given in Eq. 16. factor related to tunnel diameter and tunnel depth and S is
Tunnel diameter at 0  1scale related to unit weight, tunnel depth, surface surcharge,
Interval of tunnel diameter in FD models ð1:5mÞ cohesion, face support pressure, Young’s modulus,
¼ Poisson’s ratio and angle of internal friction parameters.
Upper value ð12:15mÞ  Lower value ð6:15mÞ
Relationships which require the estimation of the amount
ð16Þ
of A and S are presented in Eqs. 18–19:
Effects of all parameters on maximum surface  
D
settlement at 0–1 scale is shown in Fig. 17. A ¼ 1:8825 ð18Þ
Z0
– According to the results, effective parameters on  
cZ0 þ rs  ðc þ 0:3rT Þ
maximum surface settlement can be classified as follow S ¼ 1699:2
E
(in decreasing order): 0:8361
– Tunnel diameter ð1  #Þð1  sinuÞ ð19Þ
– Young’s modulus
– Poisson’s ratio where c is the unit weight (kN/m3); Z0 is the tunnel depth
– Tunnel depth (m); rs is the surface surcharge (kPa); c is the cohesion

Fig. 18 Relationships needed to calculate the amount of A and S

123
3208 Environ Earth Sci (2014) 71:3195–3210

(kPa); rT is the required face support pressure (kPa); E is Conclusions

the Young’s modulus (kPa); t is the Poisson’s ratio; u is
the angle of internal friction () and D is the tunnel
diameter (m). The unit of S is assumed as mm.
Considering previously obtained parameters from rela-
tionships 18 and 19 and putting them into Eq. 17, we can
obtain more accurate relationship for estimating maximum
surface settlement value (Eq. 20).
    helpful to understand and apply these methods to different
D cZ0 þ rs  ðc þ 0:3rT Þ
Smax ¼ 3198:744  conditions. For this purpose, a finite difference analysis and
Z0 E
0:8361
ð1  #Þð1  sinuÞ :
ð20Þ
where Smax is the maximum surface settlement (mm).
Figure 18 presents a graphic representation of the rela-
tionships to calculate A and S.
Verification of maximum surface settlement equation
Table 10 shows a comparison of the maximum surface
settlement values calculated by different empirical
methods, by the new equation and actual data for all
three case studies. Findings presented in Table 10 indi-
cate that the values obtained from the new equation are
in compliance with actual results. This suggests that
previous relationships presented for estimation of maxi-
mum surface settlements can be reliably replaced with
the new equation.
Because of the effect by different parameters, prediction of
the maximum surface settlement is among the critical
problems in metro tunneling excavation. There are some
empirical methods to predict the maximum surface settle-
ment value. In those methods, several important factors are
influential. Investigation of the effect of each factor can be
some empirical methods are used to parametric investiga-
tion to identify potentially significant factors affecting the
prediction of the maximum surface settlement. In this
study, the results of empirical and numerical methods are
compared with observed data. Then a new and accurate
equation for estimating the maximum surface settlement
value is presented. Main conclusions which could be
derived from this study are listed below:
– Measured results after tunneling are compared to 3D-
FD method result. This indicates that the numerical
predictions were found to comply with the surface
settlement monitoring results performed in the fields.
– Results show that the significant factors in maximum
surface settlement of importance are tunnel diameter,
Young’s modulus, Poisson’s ratio, tunnel depth, angle
of internal friction, cohesion, face support pressure,
surface surcharge, and unit weight
– Considering numerical results, we can obtain more
accurate relationship for estimating the maximum
surface settlement (Smax):

Table 10 Maximum surface settlement values calculated from empirical relations and the new equation
Case studies
Istanbul metro (Esenler) Mashhad metro (Line 2) Tehran metro
(Line 7)

Depth (m) 14.65 14.1 20.8

Diameter (m) 6.56 9.14 9.45
Face support pressure (kPa) 300 140 75
Smax The deviation of Smax The deviation Smax The deviation
value (mm) the actual value value (mm) of the actual value value (mm) of the actual value

Actual data 10 6–8 7.1

Schmidt (Arioğlu) 70.9 609 % 30.6 337 % 54.9 673 %
Loganathan and Poulos 22.1 121 % 32.5 364 % 13.3 87 %
Verruijt and Booker 29 190 % 48.2 587 % 22.8 221 %
Herzog 46.5 564 % 81.6 1065 % 42.7 501 %
New equation 10.9 9% 10.5 31 % 8 12 %

Bold values highlight the difference between actual values and calculated values from new formula for maximum surface settlement in
millimeters for three case studies (Istanbul, Mashhad and Tehran metro). However the difference between the these two values of each case study
is given in the second row in %

123
Environ Earth Sci (2014) 71:3195–3210
 
D
Smax ¼ 3198:744
Z0
 
cZ0 þ rs  ðc þ 0:3rT Þ
 Illustrative worked examples. Elsevier, pp 362
E
0:8361
ð1  sinuÞ
– The results indicate that the maximum surface
settlement values obtained from the new equation
have good agreement with the actual results. This
suggests that previous relationships presented for
estimation of point of inflection can be reliably
replaced with the new equation.
Finally, it is suggested that further experimental and
numerical studies should be performed to investigate the
accuracy of new equation.
References
Addenbrooke TI, Potts DM (2001) Finite element analysis of St.
James Park greenfield reference site. In: Burland JB, Standing
JR, Jardine FM (eds) Building response to tunnelling, vol 1.
Thomas Telford, London, pp 177–194
Arioğlu E (1992) Surface movements due to tunnelling activities in
urban areas and minimization of building damages (in Turkish)’.
Short Course, Istanbul Technical University, Mining engineering
department
Atkinson JH, Potts DM (1977) Subsidence above shallow tunnels in
soft ground. ASCE Geotechnical Eng Div, pp 59–64
Attewell PB, Farmer IW (1974) Ground disturbance caused by shield
tunnelling in a stiff. Can Geotech J 11:380–395
Ayson (2005) Drill research and build, A.S. Otogar-Bagcılar Station
Geological-Geotechnical Report (in Turkish)
Bobet A (2002) Analytical Solutions for Shallow Tunnels in Saturated
Ground. J Eng Mech ASCE 12:1258–1266
Broms BB, Bennermark H (1967) Stability of clay at vertical
openings. Soil Mech Found Eng (Engl Transl) 193(SM1):71–94
Chakeri H, Hasanpour R, Hindistan MA, Unver B (2010) Analysis of
interaction between tunnels in soft ground by 3D numerical
modeling bulletin of engineering geology and the environment.
Springer, Berlin
Chakeri H, Ozcelik Y, Unver B (2013) Effects of important factors on
surface settlement prediction for metro tunnel excavated by EPB.
Tunn Undergr Space Technol 36:14–23
Chi SY, Chern JC, Lin CC (2001) Optimized Back-Analysis for
Tunneling-Induced Ground Movement Using Equivalent Ground
Loss Model. Geotechnical Engineering Research Center, Sino-
tech Engineering Consultants, Taipei
Chou WI, Bobet A (2002) Predictions of ground deformations in
shallow tunnels in clay. Tunn Undergr Space Technol, pp 3–19
Dimmock PS, Mair RJ (2007) Estimating volume loss for open-face
tunnels in London Clay. ICE Geotech Eng 160(1):13–22
Ercelebi SG, Copur H, Ocak I (2011) Surface settlement predictions
for Istanbul Metro tunnels excavated by EPB-TBM. Environ
Earth Sci 62(2):357–365. doi:10.1007/s12665-010-0530-6
Goodman RE (1989) Introduction to rock mechanics. In: 2nd edn.
Wiley
3209
Hamza M, Ata A, Roussin A (1999) Ground movements due to
construction of cut-and-cover structures and slurry shield tunnel
of the Cairo Metro. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 14(3):281–289
Harrison J, Hudson J (2006) Engineering rock mechanics, Part 2.
Herzog M (1985) Surface subsidence above shallow tunnels (in
German). Bautechnik 62:375–377
Itasca Consulting Group, Inc. (2002) FLAC3D (Fast Lagrangian
Analysis of Continua in 3Dimensions.) Version 2.10–224
Lee MK, Kerry Rowe R, Lo KY (1992) Subsidence owing to
tunnelling (I. Estimating the gap parameter). Can Geotech J 29
Lo KY, Ng RMC, Rowe RK (1984) Predicting settlement due to
tunnelling in clays. In: Tunnelling in soil and rock, American Society
of civil engineers. Geotechnics conference, Atlanta pp 48–76
Macklin SR (1999) The prediction of volume loss due to tunnelling in
overconsolidated clay based on heading geometry and stability
number. Ground Eng 32(4):30–33
Mahmutoğlu Y (2010) Surface subsidence induced by twin subway
tunnelling in soft ground conditions in Istanbul. Bulletin of
Engineering Geology and the Environment, Springer
Mair RJ (1983) Geotechnical aspects of soft ground tunnelling. In:
Proceedings of international symposium on construction prob-
lems in soft soils, Nanyang Technological Institute, Singapore
Martos F (1958) Concerning an approximate equation of the
subsidence trough and its time factors. International Strata
Control Congress, Leipzig, pp 191–205
Melis M, Medina L, Rodriguez JM (2002) Prediction and analysis of
subsidence induced by shield tunnelling in the Madrid Metro
extension. Can Geotech J 39:1273–1287
Mroueh H, Shahrour I (2002) Three-dimensional finite element
analysis of the interaction between tunneling and pile founda-
tions. Int J Numer Anal Meth Geomech 26:217–230
MURC (2012) Mashhad urban railway company, back analysis of
ground settlements between north shaft and station A2 report
Neaupane KM, Adhikari NR (2006) Prediction of tunneling-induced
ground movement with the multi-layer perception. Tunn Under-
gr Space Technol 21:151–159
O’Reilly MP, New BM (1982) Settlement above tunnels in the United
Kingdom-their magnitude and prediction. In: Proceedings of the
tunnelling conference, Brighton, pp 173–181
Ocak I (2009) Environmental effects of tunnel excavation in soft and
shallow ground with EPBM: the case of Istanbul. Environ Earth
Sci 59(2):347–352. doi:10.1007/s12665-009-0032-6
Ocak I, Seker SE (2013) Calculation of surface settlements caused by
EPBM tunneling using artificial neural network, SVM, and
Gaussian processes. Environ Earth Sci 69(5):1673–1683. doi:10.
1007/s12665-012-2002-7
Park KH (2005) Analytical solution for tunneling-induced ground
movement in clays. Tunn Undergr Space Technol, pp 249–261
Peck RB (1969) Deep excavations and tunnelling in soft ground. In:
7th International conference on soil mechanics and foundation
engineering, State of the Art Volume, pp 225–290
Loganathan N, Poulos, HG (1998) Analytical prediction for tunnel-
ling-induced ground movements in clay. J Geotech Geoenviron
Eng pp 846–856
Rowe RK, Lee KM (1989) Parameters for predicting deformations
due to Tunnelling. 12th ICSMFE, vol 2. Balkema, Rio de
Janeiro, pp 793–796
Rowe RK, Lo KJ, Kack GJ (1983) A method of estimating surface
settlement above tunnels constructed in soft clay. Can Geotech J
20(1):11–22
Santos Ovı́dio J, Celestino Tarcı́sio B (2008) Artificial neural
networks analysis of São Paulo subway tunnel settlement data.
Tunn Undergr Space Technol 23(5):481–491
Schmidt B (1969) A method of estimating surface settlement above
tunnels constructed in soft ground. Can Geotech J 20:11–22
123
3210
Shi J, Ortigao JAR, Bai J (1998) Modular neural networks for
predicting settlement during tunneling. J Geotech Geoenv Engrg
ASCE 124(5):389–395
Suwansawat S (2002) Earth pressure balance (EPB) shield tunneling
in Bangkok: ground response and prediction of surface settle-
ments using artificial neural networks. PhD thesis, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, Department of civil and environmental
engineering
Suwansawat S, Einstein HH (2006) Artificial neural networks for
predicting the maximum surface settlement caused by EPB
shield tunnelling. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 21:133–150
TUSRC (2011) Tehran Urban and Suburban railway company,
Excavation report
123
View publication stats
Environ Earth Sci (2014) 71:3195–3210
Vermeer PA, Bonnier PG (1991) Pile settlements due to tunnelling.
In: 10th European Conference on Soil mechanics and foundation
engineering, Florence, Balkema, vol 2. pp 869–872
Vermeer PA, Möller SC, Ruse N (2002) On the application of
numerical analysis in tunneling institute of geotechnical engi-
neering, Germany
Verruijt A, Booker JR (1996) Surface settlement due to deformation
of a tunnel in an elastic half plane. Geotechnique 46(4):753–756
Yao BZ, Yang CY, Yu B, Jia FF, Yu B (2010) Applying support
vector machines to predict tunnel surrounding rock displace-
ment. Appl Mech Mater 29–32:1717–1721
ZAFA (2007) Zaminfanavaran Consulting Engineer, Geotechnical
investigations, Final report