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

net/publication/265741030

Ground movement and tunnel stability when tunneling in sandy ground

Article  in  Journal of the Chinese Institute of Engineers · November 2004

DOI: 10.1080/02533839.2004.9670957

CITATIONS READS

34 1,355

3 authors, including:

Chung-Jung Lee
National Central University
67 PUBLICATIONS   1,038 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Earthquake-induced permanent settlement of shallow foundation of bridges rested on liquefiable sand: centrifuge and numerical modeling View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Chung-Jung Lee on 13 March 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of the Chinese Institute of Engineers, Vol. 27, No. 7, pp. 1021-1032 (2004) 1021

GROUND MOVEMENT AND TUNNEL STABILITY WHEN

TUNNELING IN SANDY GROUND

Chung-Jung Lee*, Kuo-Hui Chiang, and Chia-Ming Kuo

ABSTRACT
Tunneling may cause ground movements and damage to adjacent buildings and
overlying facilities. In this study, the failure mechanism and ground movement
behavior around tunnels embedded in sandy soil below the water table were investi-
gated in a series of model tunnel tests in a centrifuge. The magnitudes and extents of
the surface settlement troughs for the cases of various ground loss for tunnels buried
at various depths are provided. A new failure mechanism is proposed and validated
by comparison with the test results. The proposed mechanism enables accurate pre-
diction of two of the key quantities in the design of linings for tunnels embedded in
sandy soils, namely the minimum supporting pressure needed to retain tunnel stabil-
ity and the vertical soil pressure acting on the tunnel crown.

Key Words: failure mechanism, surface settlement trough, tunnel.

I. INTRODUCTION Various research groups have performed 1 g

Increasing traffic congestion in urban areas in
Taiwan has prompted transportation authorities to
propose the construction of a mass rapid transit sys-
tem to slow the growth in traffic volume. When such
subway systems are constructed in soft ground, shield
tunneling has become a popular method on account
of its low impact on traffic congestion in the streets
above the tunnels. The construction of subways has
also been driven through restricted public areas be-
neath existing streets or buildings due to the high
density of development and the difficulty of land ex-
propriation in crowded cities.
When a tunnel is excavated, the ground around
the tunnel inevitably moves towards the tunnel open-
ing. The engineer must estimate the margin of safety
against tunnel collapse and evaluate the magnitude
of the soil deformation and its effects on nearby struc-
tures and public lifeline facilities. The stability of a
tunnel with temporary support (e.g., fluid pressure
from air or bentonite slurry) and the deformations that
occur during excavation are the primary concern of
the engineer.
*Corresponding author. (Tel: 886-3-4227151 ext 34135; Fax:
886-3-4252960; Email: cjleeciv@cc.ncu.edu.tw)
The authors are with the Department of Civil Engineering, Na-
tional Central University, Chungli, Taiwan 320, R.O.C.
model tests and/or centrifuge model tests to evaluate
tunnel stability and soil movement in soft ground
(e.g., Atkinson and Potts, 1977; Zhou et al., 1998).
The collapse mechanisms derived from the upper-
bound theory of plasticity for a single tunnel and par-
allel tunnels buried in clayey soils were correlated
with the observed ground movements in the model
tests (Lee et al., 1999; Wu and Lee, 2003).
Nomoto et al. (1998) developed a miniature cen-
trifugal shield tunneling machine to simulate the ac-
tual shield tunneling process as closely as possible in
the centrifuge. The sophisticated and bulky tunneling
machine occupied too much room in the container;
therefore, the model tunnel was limited to a small size
(2.5 m diameter in prototype scale) and was only
tested at an acceleration of 25 g. In their shield tun-
nel tests, the shield tube was pulled back to expose
the inner tube and the clearance between the shield
tube and the inner tube created a tail void. Even so
sophisticated a machine used in tests was still not
capable of exactly modeling the actual tunnel con-
struction process. They reported that the experimen-
tal equation of the settlement trough to express the
surface settlement profiles was a function of the tail
void ratio (the difference between the radius of the
shield tube and that of the inner tube divided by the
radius of the shield tube) and cover-to-diameter ratio
(C/D).
1022 Journal of the Chiness Institute of Engineers, Vol. 27, No. 7 (2004)
Rubber bag Tunnel deformation gauge
Fig. 1 Rubber bag and tunnel deformation gauge
The construction operation for shield tunneling
consists of excavation of a tunnel face using miners
and machinery protected within a shield. A perma-
nent tunnel lining is erected with the tail skin as the
shield advances. An examination of field records of
subsidence near soft ground tunneling operations in-
dicates that the majority of soil deformations occur
due to the ground loss during construction. The
ground loss caused by overcutting, due to (1) the dif-
ference between the diameter of tunnel machines and
that of the lining; (2) alignment problems encountered
when steering the shield; (3) the effectiveness of tail
void grouting; (4) three dimensional soil movements
ahead of the tunnel face. The net effect of these fac-
tors may be approximately incorporated into a 2-D
plane strain case in terms of annual voids. In the study,
the annual void is defined as the tail void. Because
the construction process is very complicated, it is ob-
viously impossible to duplicate all the details of the
tunnel process within a small-scale centrifuge model.
Approximations need to be made in the model so that
key features in engineering practice can be easily in-
vestigated. If the model is constructed properly, it
will be useful for examining the mechanisms under-
lying tunnel stability and ground deformation. Hence,
it should be possible to evaluate the surface settle-
ment trough caused by tunneling by constructing a
relation between the subsidence above a shallow tun-
nel and the magnitude of the ground loss. In the
present study, a series of centrifuge model tunnel tests
was conducted at an acceleration of 100 g on systems
with tunnels embedded in sandy soil at various cover-
to-diameter ratios. Under these conditions, the
behavior of a 60-mm diameter model tunnel should
mimic the behavior of a 6-m diameter tunnel in the
Earth’s gravitational field. This paper examines the
stability of, and surface subsidence above, shallow
tunnels in sandy ground below the water table.
100g
D
480
30
10
Tunnel
820
LVDT Colored sand Tunnel deformation
layer gauge
Spaghetti Potentiometer
Unit: mm
Fig. 2 Test setup and instrumentation configuration used in the
model tests
II. CENTRIFUGE MODELING
Experiments were carried out in the geotechnical
centrifuge at the National Central University (NCU),
Taiwan. This geotechnical centrifuge has a nominal
radius of 3 m and is capable of accelerating a 1-tonne
model package to 100 g, and 0.55 tonne to 200 g. All
tests reported here were conducted at an acceleration
of 100 g. The layout and dimensions of the model
systems are described in model units; however, the
test results are presented in terms of prototype units.
1. Model Tunnel
The model tunnel was a 1.5-mm-thick cylindri-
cal rubber bag on which a sheet of filament tape of
thickness 0.1 mm was pasted to enhance tunnel stiff-
ness in an attempt to ensure that the tunnel maintained
a diameter of 60 mm during increase of supporting
pressure. It represented a 6-m diameter tunnel at pro-
totype scale. Four deformation gauges, made of four
thinly sliced strain-gauge cantilevers, were placed
inside the rubber bag (see Fig. 1). The free end of
each cantilever was bonded to the appropriate posi-
tion (see Fig. 2) on the inner surface of the bag, mak-
ing it possible to measure deformations of the crown,
invert, and two sidewalls of the tunnel during the tests.
2. Preparation of Saturated Sand Bed
The model tunnel and the sand around it were
contained in a rigid strong box constructed from
aluminum alloy (see Fig. 3). The test setup is illus-
trated in Fig. 2. The internal dimensions of the strong-
box were 820 mm (length) × 225 mm (width) × 480
mm (height). To reduce wall friction, the surfaces of
 C. J. Lee et al.: Ground Movement and Tunnel Stability When Tunneling in Sandy Ground
Fig. 3 Sand bed preparation using traveling pluviation apparatus
the strongbox walls were thoroughly greased and thin
latex membranes were attached. The front and back
faces of the strongbox imposed a condition of plane
strain on the soil, and the bottom and side faces were
sufficiently far removed from the model tunnel that
they did not influence the behavior of the soil around
the tunnel. After the model tunnel was set at the de-
sired elevation, crushed quartz sand was pluviated
into the strongbox with a regular path from a hopper
from a falling height of 700 mm and at a constant
flow rate (Fig. 3). Details of the apparatus are given
elsewhere (Chen et al., 1998). The characteristics of
the crushed quartz sand are summarized in Table 1.
A fairly uniform sand bed (D r=65±2%) was achieved
and its friction angle was around 38°. The pluviating
process was interrupted as needed to rain a layer of
colored sand at specified elevations, as shown in Fig.
2. Finally a row of marked spaghetti with gradua-
tions of 10 mm was vertically implanted into the sand
bed along the central line of the model at regular, pre-
determined positions. Spaghetti was used because,
after absorbing water, it softens and deforms together
with the surrounding sand. The colored sand layers
(2 mm in thickness) and the implanted spaghetti were
good indicators of the ground deformations caused
by the imposed test conditions.
After the model was prepared, the package was
mounted on the centrifuge platform and the top of
the strongbox was tightly covered with an acrylic
plate. A vacuum pump then continuously pumped
air out of the strongbox and the model tunnel simul-
taneously. At the same time, de-aired water was care-
fully dripped into the strongbox until the water level
1023
Table 1 Characteristics of the quartz sand used
in the model tests
D 50, in γ max1 γ min1
Sand Gs Cu
(mm) (kN/m ) (kN/m 3)
3
Quartz sand 2.65 0.18 1.58 16.6 14.1
1
The maximum and minimum sand densities were
measured in the dry state according to the method
(JSF T 161-1990) specified by the Japanese
Geotechnical Society.
rose to 2 mm above the sand surface. This saturation
process required 7 hours. The acrylic plate was then
removed and six LVDTs (linear variable displacement
transformers) and one potentiometer (PM) were at-
tached to a mounting unit to measure surface settle-
ments (Fig. 2).
3. Test Procedures
The model tunnel was connected to an air pres-
sure line and the centrifuge was accelerated to 100 g
in steps of 5 g. The air pressure was carefully regu-
lated to balance the overburden pressure at the tun-
nel center to ensure that no crown settlement occurred
during the acceleration of the centrifuge. Two pore
water pressure transducers were used in the pilot tests,
which were located at the middle of the sand bed near
the model tunnel at different elevations, to monitor
the elapsed time needed to reach full self-weight con-
solidation and pore water pressure changes during
the tunnel collapse tests later on in the sand bed at an
acceleration of 100 g. The test results show that it
took about 2 minutes to reach full consolidation at an
acceleration of 100 g and no excess pore water pres-
sure was monitored while reducing the air pressure
at a rate of 20 kPa/min. in the rubber bag. In the later
tests, no pore water transducer was used because the
embedded transducers would considerably interfere
with the ground deformation during tunnel collapse.
But all the test packages in the later tests stayed 5
minutes at an acceleration of 100 g to ensure the sand
bed reaching full consolidation before reducing the
air pressure in the model tunnel. The tunnel diam-
eter was then reduced by gradually lowering the air
pressure to zero at a rate of 20 kPa/min. Tunnel de-
formation and surface settlement were continuously
measured during the test.
The tunnel stability and surface settlements dur-
ing closure of the tail voids were assessed for tunnels
embedded at various cover-to-diameter ratios (C/D=1,
2, 3, and 4, where C is the distance between the ground
surface and the tunnel crown, and D is the tunnel di-
ameter, and z is the depth of the tunnel axis), as shown
1024 Journal of the Chiness Institute of Engineers, Vol. 27, No. 7 (2004)
Fig. 4 Surface and subsurface settlement troughs
in Fig. 4. Details of the test arrangements and condi-
tions are given in Table 2.
The sand bed was cautiously excavated to ex-
pose the implanted spaghetti and the colored sand
layers after the model test. The graduations on the
spaghetti and the positions of the colored sand layers
were then traced onto a transparency, and changes in
the positions of these marks before and after testing
revealed ground displacements around the tunnels.
These measurements allowed investigation of the col-
lapse mechanism.
III. TEST RESULTS
1. Surface Settlement Profile
The transverse surface settlement trough is com-
monly approximated by a Gaussian distribution (Peck,
1969):
2 zontal ordinate of this critical point is defined as the
S(x) = S maxexp( – x2 )
2i
where Smax is the maximum surface settlement at the
tunnel center-line, x is the lateral distance from the
tunnel center-line, and the width parameter i is the
distance from the center-line to the inflection point
of the curve and may be employed as a measure of
the shape and extent of the settlement trough (see Fig.
4). Two and half times i is commonly used to repre-
sent the half width of the settlement trough. In prac-
tice, a key concern of construction engineers is ground
movement prior to tunnel collapse. Hence, a load
factor (LF), defined as below, is regarded as the re-
ciprocal of the safety factor.
σ –p
LF = σ vo – p
vo c
where σ vo is the overburden pressure at the depth of
the tunnel axis, and p and p c are the current support-
ing pressure and the supporting pressure at collapse,
Table 2 Test arrangements and the estimated i/D
Test No. C/D Depth, z (m) Estimated i/D
STEST1 1 9 0.94
PTEST2 1 9 0.97
STEST4 2 15 1.56
PTEST3 2 15 1.51
STEST3 3 21 1.73
STEST5 4 27 1.92
respectively. The determination of p c will be ex-
plained in detail in the next section. As the tunnel
stability varies from stable to critical, the value of
LF varies from 0 to 1.
As the supporting pressure was reduced during
the model tunnel test, the crown settled, leading to
an increase in the magnitude of the surface settlement
measured by each of the LVDTs. Fig. 5 shows the
plots of the measured surface settlements along a tun-
nel transverse section versus the supporting pressure,
p, and the plots of the deformations at the crown, in-
vert, and side walls versus p, for the tunnel with C/D
= 2. The LVDT array and the positions of the tunnel
deformation gauges (gauges 1, 2, 3, and 4) are dis-
played on the right-hand side of Fig. 5. The crown
deformation, δ c, and the surface settlements at vari-
ous lateral distances from the centerline, S(x), increase
slowly with decreasing supporting pressure up to the
onset of tunnel collapse, after which they increase
rapidly. The following procedure was used to define
the supporting pressure at collapse, p c. Extending the
straight-line portions of the first and the second parts
of the S(x) ~ p curve measured at the tunnel centerline
to intersect at the point as shown in Fig. 5, the hori-
(1) supporting pressure at collapse, p c.
Figure 6 shows the surface settlement troughs
measured in STEST4 (represented by symbols) to-
gether with the settlement troughs estimated from Eq.
(1) (represented by solid lines) at various supporting
pressures along with the corresponding load factors.
Comparison of the measured and predicted data re-
veals that Eq. (1) quite accurately predicts the settle-
ment trough. The estimated value of i did not appear
to change during a particular model test before the
tunnel collapsed. However, as shown in Table 2, the
magnitude of i derived from the model tests increased
with increasing tunnel burial depth. Numerous em-
pirical methods have been developed to evaluate the
width of the settlement trough. For instance, Mair et
(2) al. (1981) proposed the formula for clay soil
2i = z (3)
D D
where z is the depth of the tunnel axis, and Clough
 C. J. Lee et al.: Ground Movement and Tunnel Stability When Tunneling in Sandy Ground 1025

Supporting pressure, (kPa)

pc
300 250 200 150 100 50 0
0.0
LVDT48 LVDT44 LVDT43
Surface settlement, (m)

0.5 STest4 (C/D=2) LVDT41 LVDT47 LVDT42 PM5

LVDT41
1.0 LVDT42
LVDT43 6.5 4.5 4 4 4.5 6.5
LVDT44
1.5
LVDT47
LVDT48 unit: m 12
2.0 PM5

2.0 6
Tunnel deformation, (m)

1.5 Gage1
Gage2
Gage3
1.0 Gage4
Gage1

0.5
Gage4 Gage2

0.0 Gage3
300 250 200 150 100 50 0
Supporting pressure (kPa)

Fig. 5 Surface settlements and tunnel deformations at various supporting pressures

Normalized distance from tunnel center-line, X/D 2i/D

0 1 2 3 4 5
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 0
0.000 Eq. (4)
Normailzed settlement, S/D

Eq. (3)
STEST4 Peck (1969)
0.005 (C/D=2) 1 peck (1969)
Eq. (5)
0.010 Eq. (7) in the study
Pi LF Eq. (6)
308.03 kPa 0.5 2 Chang et al. (1997)
0.015 288.41 kPa 0.6 measured in the study
z/D

268.79 kPa 0.7

0.020 249.17 kPa 0.8 3 Rock, hard clays,
229.55 kPa 0.9 Estimated from Eq. (1) sands above
210.10 kPa 1.0 ground water table
0.025 Sands below
4 ground water table
Fig. 6 Evolution of surface settlement trough with changing sup-
porting pressure (STEST4 C/D=2)
5
Soft clay to
stiff clays

and Schmidt (1981) suggested the empirical relation Fig. 7 Relations of the width of the settlement trough and the
in clay tunnel depth

2i = ( z ) 0.8 (4)
D D embedded in soft clayey soils:
Atkinson and Potts (1977) derived the following em-
2i = 1 + 0.58( z ) (6)
pirical equation from centrifuge model tests on a tun- D D
nel buried in dry sand
Figure 7 shows the above empirical relations be-
i=0.25(C+D) (5) tween the tunnel depth and the width of the settle-
ment trough [i.e., Eqs. (3), (4), (5), and (6)] along
and Lee et al. (1999) derived yet another empirical with the test results obtained in the present study
relation from centrifuge model tests on a tunnel (solid circles). Also shown in this figure are the
1026 Journal of the Chiness Institute of Engineers, Vol. 27, No. 7 (2004)
Load factor, LF
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
0.000
0.005
STEST4 (C/D=2)
Smax/D, δ c/D
0.010
0.015
Smax/D
δ c/D
0.020
0.025
Fig. 8 Load factor versus S max /D and δ c/D
curves derived by Peck (1969), who obtained the
value of i from field observations of settlement caused
by tunneling in a variety of soils, and related these
values empirically to the burial depth and the soil
type. The i values measured in the present study lie
above the upper bound for clayey soils suggested by
Peck, indicating that the settlement trough of a tun-
nel embedded in sandy ground below the water table
is wider than that in clayey soils. On the basis of the
measurements reported here, we developed the fol-
lowing empirical relation for the settlement trough
width of tunnels embedded in sandy soils below the
water table:
( 2i ) = 1.602( z ) 0.6113
D D
This empirical relation shows good agreement with
field data (represented by hollow squares in Fig. 7)
measured at Contracts CH218, CT210, and CH221
of the Taipei MRT project (Chang et al., 1997; Ou et
al., 1998), where the tunnels were mainly driven
through sandy ground. This agreement confirms that
the proposed relationship can be used to predict the
width of surface settlement troughs in sandy ground
below the water table in engineering practice.
2. Maximum Surface Settlement and Crown De-
formation
The maximum surface settlement, S max, and the
crown deformation, δ c , were continuously measured
during the model tests. The measured crown settle-
ment can be taken as a measure of the annulus clear-
ance between the cutting surface and the lining dur-
ing tunneling. The closure of the clearance (tail voids)
was the primary cause of ground movement. Fig. 8
shows the dependence of S max/D and δ c/D on the load
factor for STEST4 (C/D=2). Both S max/D and δ c/D
vary linearly with increasing load factor up to a load
1.0
Measured in this study
1.0 Smax/ δc=0.29+0.97exp(-0.50*C/D)
R2=0.98
0.8 dry sand (Atkinson & Potts, 1979)
Soft clay (Lee, et al., 1999)
0.6
Smax/δ c
0.4
0.2
0.0
0 1 2 3 4
Cover-to-diameter ratio, C/D
Fig. 9 Relation of S max / δ c and cover-to-diameter ratios
factor of 0.6, which corresponds to a safety factor of
1.7. However, on further increase of the load factor,
the values of both S max/D and δ c /D measured in sandy
soil increase faster than has been previously observed
in experiments on model tunnels embedded in clayey
soils (Lee et al., 1999). Similar findings were ob-
tained in model tests on tunnels with different cover-
to-diameter ratios. Fig. 9 shows the variation of the
ratio of S max to δ c in a tunnel with changing cover-to-
diameter ratio obtained from the model tests. The
measured data are well fitted by the expression:
S max
= 0.29 + 0.97 × exp(– 0.50 × C ) (8)
δc D
(7) Comparison of the present results with those obtained
by other researchers (Lee, et al., 1999; Atkinson and
Potts, 1977), which are also shown in Fig. 9, reveals
that the sandy soil considered here gives larger values
of Smax/ δc. This indicates that the closure of tail voids
in a tunnel embedded in sandy ground below the wa-
ter table produces a greater degree of surface settle-
ment than in a tunnel embedded in other soil types.
The magnitude of δ c depends on many factors,
including the volume of the tail voids, construction
method, quality of workmanship, the presence or lack
of back grouting, and the time delay of grouting op-
erations. However, the crown settlement may be more
difficult to evaluate in engineering practice than in
the model tests. Instead, contractors can estimate the
ground loss in advance by taking into account past
experience and the tunneling method used. In fact,
designers often use the ground loss, V t, in place of
δ c. The ground loss is defined as the ratio of the soil
volume flowing into the tunnel, ∆ V, during tunneling
divided by the volume of the tunnel per unit tunnel
length, V, expressed as a percentage. Prior to tunnel
collapse, the magnitude of δ c is relatively small com-
pared with the tunnel diameter; therefore, V t can be
written as:
 C. J. Lee et al.: Ground Movement and Tunnel Stability When Tunneling in Sandy Ground 1027

Load factor, LF
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.020
0 CH218 (Ou et al., 1998) Vt=0.5%
CH221 (Chu, 1995) Vt=1%
CT201 (Chang et al., 1997) Vt=2%
2
Ground loss, Vt (%)

0.015 CN218 (Chang et al., 1997) Vt=3%

4

Smax/D
STEST5 (C/D=4) 0.010
6 (2.20%)
STEST3 (C/D=3)
STEST1 (C/D=1) (1.73%) (2.38%)
8
0.005 (1.64%) (1.35%)
(1.11%)
10 (0.799%)

Fig. 10 Load factor versus ground loss at various cover-to-diam- 0.000

eter ratios 0 1 2 3 4
Cover-to-diameter ratio, C/D

π D 2 – π (D – 2δ ave) 2 4Dδ ave – δ ave

V t = ∆V × 100 =
V πD 2
400δ ave 220δ c
× 100 ≅ = (9)
D D
Here δ ave is defined as the average of the tunnel
deformations measured at the crown, invert, and two
sidewalls ( δ ave ≈0.55 δ c in the model tests). As indi-
cated in Fig. 10, the ground loss increased rapidly at
load factors larger than 0.7. The test results also show
that surface settlement increases rapidly once the
ground loss exceeds 3%.
Substituting Eq. (9) into Eq. (8) gives
S max
( ) = (0.29 + 0.97exp(– 0.50 × C )) × t
D D
where 0≤V t ≤3%
Fig. 11 shows the solutions of Eq. (10) for the cases
of Vt=0.5%, 1%, 2%, and 3% for various burial depths,
together with the values of Smax measured at contracts
CN218, CT201, CH218, and CH221 (Sung, 1995) of
the Taipei MRT project. Those tunnels were driven
mainly through sandy ground. For each of the se-
lected contracts, the value of the ground loss esti-
mated directly from the volume of the measured sur-
face settlement trough is shown in parentheses next
to the corresponding symbol. The results predicted
using the empirical equations developed in the present
study are in good agreement with the measurements
from the field projects. This agreement confirms that,
in situations where the ground loss can be determined
in advance, Eq. (10) together with Eq. (4) provide a
viable empirical approach for predicting the magni-
tude and extent of the surface settlement trough dur-
ing tunneling in sandy ground below the ground wa-
ter table.
3. Tunnel Stability and Failure Mechanism
To evaluate the stability of a tunnel buried in
2
Fig. 11 S max /D versus cover-to-diameter ratio at various values
= of ground loss
D2
sandy ground below the ground water table, a stabil-
ity number, N s, is defined as:
pc – pw pc′
Ns = = (11-a)
σ v′ σ v′
where pw and σ v′ are the measured pore water pres-
sure and the effective overburden pressure at the level
of the crown, respectively, and pc′ is the measured
effective supporting pressure. For a tunnel buried in
sandy ground above the ground water table, Eq. (11-
V a) can be rewritten as:
220 pc
Ns = (11-b)
γC
(10)
where γ is the unit weight of sand above the tunnel
axis. A larger value of N s corresponds to a higher
ratio of the supporting pressure to the overburden
pressure, which promotes tunnel stability. Table 3
summarizes the supporting pressures at tunnel col-
lapse and the values of Ns measured in the present
study. As shown in Fig. 12, the measured stability
number (solid circles) decreases with increasing C/D
ratio. The variation in Ns with changing C/D is well
fitted by the equation
N s = 0.095 + 0.7198exp(– 0.6234 C )
D
C
for 1≤ ≤4 (12)
D
The test results show no apparent decrease in N s as
the C/D ratio is increased above a value of 3.
Direct observation of the test by CCTV through
the window of the strongbox revealed that, as the sup-
porting pressure was lowered, failure planes first ap-
peared slightly above the tunnel crown and then pro-
gressively grew upward before finally reaching the
ground surface. The collapse mechanisms for tunnels
buried at various depths (C/D from 1 to 4), as obtained
1028 Journal of the Chiness Institute of Engineers, Vol. 27, No. 7 (2004)

Table 3 Stability numbers and supporting pressures at collapse under the different experimental condi-
tions
Test pc pw pc′ Ns Ns
C/D Ns*
No. (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (measured) Eq. (18)
STEST1 1 89.1 60.7 28.4 0.48 0.36 0.64
PTEST2 1 89.5 60.7 28.8 0.48 0.36 0.64
STEST4 2 155.1 117.6 37.5 0.32 0.28 0.44
PTEST3 2 154.6 117.6 37 0.31 0.28 0.44
STEST3 3 210.1 176.4 33.7 0.19 0.23 0.32
PTEST6 3 212.8 176.4 36.4 0.20 0.23 0.32
STEST5 4 274.9 235.2 39.7 0.17 0.19 0.25
*
The values of N s were calculated by substituting the effective supporting pressure at collapse into Eq. (11-a).

0.7

0.6
Stability number, Ns

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2 Ns (meaured)
Ns (predicted with Eq. (24))
0.1 Ns (predicted with Eq. (18))
Ns=0.095+0.7198exp(-0.6234C/D) R2=0.99
0.0
0 1 2 3 4
Cover-to-diameter ratio, C/D

Fig. 12 Stability number versus cover-to-diameter ratio

Fig. 14 Deformation pattern on the colored sand layers for the tun-
nel embedded at a depth of C/D=4

implanted spaghetti and the colored sand layers for

Fig. 13 Deformation pattern on the colored sand layers for the tun-
nel embedded at a depth of C/D=2
from the movements of the colored sand layers (Fig.
13 for C/D=2 and Fig. 14 for C/D=4) after the tests,
are depicted in Figs. 15-a to 15-d. The tunnels buried
at greater depths show the highest number of failure
planes; however, regardless of the depth at which the
tunnel is buried, the region showing major downward
movement is confined to about ±5 m from the tunnel
centerline. Fig. 16 shows the profile containing the
the model tunnel buried at the depth of
C/D=4. The displacement field taken after the test for
a tunnel buried at the depth of C/D=4 is shown in Fig.
17. The displacement vectors developed in the area
confined by the dashed lines are mainly downward.
Taking this into account, the failure mechanism can
be simplified to the geometry depicted in Fig. 18.
The failure mechanism for a tunnel buried in
sand consists of three sliding wedges (Wedge abcd,
Wedge ebgh, and Wedge edfm), as depicted in Fig.
18. Wedge abcd moves vertically downward along
the sliding interfaces ab and cd. On the other hand,
Wedges ebgh and edfm move along the correspond-
ing sliding interfaces df and bg, where these sliding
interfaces lie at a tangent to the tunnel. We can rea-
sonably assume that reducing the supporting pressure
in the tunnel will result in active failures in Wedges
edfm and ebgh. Therefore both the sliding interfaces
bg and df were in the Rankine active state.
Below we analyze only the mechanism of the right-
hand side of the system due to the symmetry of the
system about the tunnel centerline. The magnitude of
 C. J. Lee et al.: Ground Movement and Tunnel Stability When Tunneling in Sandy Ground 1029

Horizontal distance from tunnel center, (m) Horizontal distance from tunnel center, (m)
-20 -10 0 10 20 -20 -10 0 10 20
0 0

-5 -5

-10 -10
Elevation, (m)

-15 -15

-20 -20

-25 -25

-30 -30

(a) C/D=1 (c) C/D=3

Horizontal distance from tunnel center, (m) Horizontal distance from tunnel center, (m)
-20 -10 0 10 20 -20 -10 0 10 20
0 0

-5 -5
Elevation, (m)

-10 -10

-15 -15

-20 -20

-25 -25

-30 -30
(b) C/D=2 (d) C/D=4

Fig. 15 Tunnel failure mechanisms at various C/D raios

Distance from the the center line (m)

-20 -18 -16-14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Depth (m)

14
16
18
20 scale: 1m
22
24
26
28
Fig. 16 Profile containing the colored sand layers and the im- 30
planted spaghetti for a model tunnel buried at the depth of
C/D=4 Fig. 17 Velocity field of soil around a tunnel (C/D=4). Dashed
line marks the region within which the velocity vectors
are predominantly directed downwards
∠dfn is equal to 45°+1/2φ and the length of ed can be
expressed as
with an effective friction angle of 38°, the length of
B1 = ed = D (13) ed is 4.80 m according to Eq. (13). This value is rea-
π
2tan( + 1 φ) sonably consistent with the measured value of 5 m.
8 4
The effective vertical stress on a horizontal section
For a 6 m diameter tunnel embedded in sandy soil (Element ijkl in Fig. 18) at any depth z below the
1030 Journal of the Chiness Institute of Engineers, Vol. 27, No. 7 (2004)
Fig. 18 Failure mechanism for a tunnel buried in sandy ground
surface is σ v′ , and the corresponding effective normal
stress on the vertical sliding surface (interfaces ab
and cd) is
σ h′ = kσ v′
where k is the ratio between the effective horizontal
and the effective vertical pressures.
The weight of Element ijkl with a thickness dz
at a depth z is 2B 1 γ ′dz per unit of length perpendicu-
lar to the plane of the drawing. The forces acting on
Element ijkl are indicated in Fig. 18. Invoking the
condition that the sum of the vertical components of
the forces acting on Element ijkl must equal zero
yields the expression
2B1γ ′dz = 2B1(σ v′ + dσ v′ ) – 2B1σ v′ + 2kσ v′ dz tanφ
or
dσ v′ tanφ
= γ ′ – kσ v′
dz B1
If the sliding surfaces (ab and cd) that develop dur-
ing tunnel collapse reach the ground surface, as oc-
curs for shallow tunnels, the effective vertical pres-
sure on the surface is equal to zero, i.e.,
σ v′ =0 for z=0
Fig. 19 Stress state of an element on the sliding surfaces ab and
cd
Solving Eq. (15-b) we obtain
B1 γ ′
σ v′ = (1 – e – kz/B1tanφ ) (16)
k tanφ
The effective vertical pressure (loosening earth pres-
sure) on the elevation of the crown for a tunnel with
a cover thickness of C is given by
B1 γ ′
(σ v′ ) z = C = (1 – e – kC/B1tanφ ) (17)
k tanφ
This pressure can be regarded as the minimum sup-
(14) porting pressure needed to retain tunnel stability or
as the loosening soil pressure acting on the tunnel
crown. By substituting Eq. (17) into Eq. (11-a), the
stability number of the tunnel can be expressed as:
(σ v′ ) z = C B1
Ns = = (1 – e – kC/B1tanφ ) (18)
γ ′C Ck tanφ
Terzaghi (1943) suggested that k has a value of
1. However, the estimates of Ns as a function of tunnel
burial depth (square symbols in Fig. 12) obtained from
Eq. (18) using k=1 differ considerably from the values
obtained in the model tests. This discrepancy prompted
us to develop a new approach to derive the stability
(15-a) number for the case of sandy ground based on analysis
of the failure modes in the system shown in Fig. 18.
First, we examine the importance of the ratio k
in the evaluation of the stability number. The shear-
(15-b)
ing resistances are fully mobilized on the interfaces
ab and cd; thus, the stress state of a soil element on
the vertical plane along the interfaces ab and cd would
be on the Mohr-Coulomb failure line, as shown in
Fig. 19. Hence the ratio k can be expressed as:
sinφcosφ
k= (19)
2tanφ – sinφcosφ
 C. J. Lee et al.: Ground Movement and Tunnel Stability When Tunneling in Sandy Ground
The variation of k with φ is quite obvious and it is
equal to 0.451 for the sand ( φ =38°) used in the tests.
Thus, contrary to the suggestion of Terzaghi (1943)
that k=1, the value of k varies markedly with φ , tak-
ing on a value of k=0.451 for the sand used in the
model tests ( φ =38°). Now, substituting k=0.451 into
Eq. (17) to calculate the vertical pressures (σ v′ ) z = C
and assuming that those pressures act uniformly on
the interfaces ed and eb, the forces acting on Wedge
edfm are found to be those indicated in Fig. 20. The
forces per unit length perpendicular to the plane of
the drawing are as follows:
B12γ ′
N = (σ v′ ) z = C × B1 = (1 – e – kC/B1tanφ )
k tanφ
P = pc′D sin(67.5 – 1/4 φ)
π (135 – 1/2φ)
W = 1 γ ′D 2[cot(π /8 + 1/4φ) –
4 360
T 1=N 1tan φ
where N is the vertical force acting on the interface
cd, W is the submerged weight of soil of Wedge edfm,
P is the force provided by the supporting pressure at
collapse, N 1 is the normal force acting on the sliding
surface fd, and T 1 is the frictional force mobilized on
the sliding surface fd.
The force equilibrium equations for the vertical
and horizontal directions are expressed as
W+N=Psin(22.5+1/4 φ )+N 1cos(45+1/2 φ )
+T 1 sin(45+1/2 φ )
Pcos(22.5+1/4 φ )+T 1cos(45+1/2 φ )
=N 1sin(45+1/2 φ )]
Substituting Eq. (23) into Eqs. (24-a and 24-b), we
obtain the following two equations with two un-
knowns (P and N 1):
Psin(22.5+1/4 φ )+N 1[cos(45+1/2 φ )
+tan φ sin(45+1/2 φ )]=W+N
Pcos(22.5+1/4 φ )+N 1 [tan φ cos(45+1/2 φ )
–sin(45+1/2 φ )]=0
After solving for the unknown P, the effective sup-
porting pressure at collapse, pc′, is
P
pc′ =
D sin(67.5 – 1/4 φ)
Finally the stability numbers can be found by
substituting this estimate for pc′ into Eq. (11-a); the
1031
N
e
d
45+1/2 φ
T1
m
o
P
N1
f
W
(20)
D
(21) Fig. 20 Forces acting on the wedge edfm
] (22)
resulting stability numbers are listed in Table 3. As
(23) indicated in Fig. 12, the stability numbers obtained
from Eq. (26) (hollow circles in Fig. 12) are in rea-
sonable agreement with those measured in the model
tests. Thus, the proposed failure mechanism provides
a viable method for estimating the supporting pres-
sure at collapse and the stability number when
tunneling in sandy soils.
IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
The ground movement behavior around tunnels
embedded in sandy soils below the ground water ta-
(24-a) ble was investigated in a series of model tunnel tests
in a centrifuge. The degree of ground movement was
closely related to the load factor and increased dra-
matically when the load factor exceeded 0.7. The
(24-b) relation between i and the ratio C/D was derived by
regression of the centrifuge model test data; this re-
lation can be used to estimate the width of the sur-
face settlement trough for a tunnel of a particular
depth. The maximum surface settlement can be evalu-
ated using the proposed relations of S max/D and C/D
ratio at various ground loss. Importantly, the pro-
(25-a) posed relations are simple and easy to use in engi-
neering practice. A new failure mechanism was also
proposed and validated by comparison with the test
results. The proposed failure mechanism enables ac-
(25-b) curate prediction of two of the key quantities in the
design of linings for tunnels embedded in sandy soils,
namely the minimum supporting pressure needed to
retain tunnel stability and the vertical soil pressure
acting on the tunnel crown.
(26)
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial
 1032 Journal of the Chiness Institute of Engineers, Vol. 27, No. 7 (2004)

support of the National Science Council of the Repub- Tunnel Excavation by Shield Machine,” Techni-
lic of China (Grant NSC 89-2211-E-008-101). cal Report, Sinotech Engineering Consultants,
Ltd. (in Chinese).
NOMENCLATURE Chen, H. T., Lee, C. J., and Chen, W. H., 1998, “The
Traveling Pluviation Appartus for Sand Specimen
B1 half width of failure wedge, m Preparation,” Proceedings of the International
C distance between ground surface and tunnel Conference Centrifuge 98, Kimura, Kusakabe and
crown, m Takemura (eds.), Balkema, Tokyo, pp.143-148.
C/D cover-to-diameter ratio Clough, G. W., and Schmidt, B., 1981, “Excavation
Cu uniformity coefficient and Tunneling,” Soft Clay Engineering, Brand &
D tunnel diameter, m Brenner (eds.), Chap. 8, Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Dr relative density, % Lee, C. J., Wu, B. R, and Chiou, S. Y., 1999, “Soil
D 50 diameter corresponding to 50% finer, mm Movements around a Tunnel in Soft Soils,” Pro-
Gs specific gravity of soil solids ceedings of the National Science Council, Part
i width parameter, m A: Physical Science and Engineering. Vol. 23,
k ratio between effective horizontal and effec- No. 2, pp. 235-247.
tive vertical pressure Mair, R. J., Gunn, M. J., and O’Reilly, M. P., 1981,
LF load factor “Ground Movements around Shallow Tunnels in
N vertical force on Interface cd, kN Soft Clay,” Proceedings of the 10th International
N1 normal force on sliding surface fd , kN Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Ns stability number Engineering, pp. 323-328.
P force provided by supporting pressure at col- Nomoto, T., Imamura, S., Hagiwara, T., Kusakabe,
lapse, kN O., and Fujii, N., 1998, “Shield Tunnel Construc-
p supporting pressure, kPa tion in Centrifuge,” Journal of Geotechnical and
pc supporting pressure at collapse, kPa Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 125,
pc′ effective supporting pressure at collapse, kPa No. 4, pp. 289-299.
pw pore water pressure, kPa Ou, C. Y., Hwang, R. N., and Lai, W. J., 1998, “Sur-
S(X) surface settlement at lateral distance x from face Settlement during Shield Tunneling at
tunnel center-line, m CH218 in Taipei,” Candian Geotechnical Jour-
Smax maximum surface settlement, m nal, Vol. 35, No.1, pp. 159-168.
T1 horizontal force on sliding surface fd, kN Peck, R. B., 1969, “Deep Excavations and Tunneling
Vt ground loss, % in Soft Ground,” Proceedings of the 7 th Interna-
V volume of tunnel per unit tunnel length, m3/m tional Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foun-
W submerged weight of soil of wedge edfm, kN dation Engineering, Mexico City, State-of-the-
x lateral distance from tunnel center line, m Art Volume, pp. 225-290.
z depth of tunnel axis, m Sung, C. L., 1995, “Ground Movements due to Shield
∆V soil volume flowing into tunnel, m 3 Tunnelling of Construction CH221 for Taipei
γ unit weight of sand, kN/m 3 MRT System,” Master Thesis, Department of
γ max maximum unit weight of sand, kN/m 3 Civil Engineering, National Chiao Tung Univer-
γ min minimum unit weight of sand, kN/m 3 sity, Taiwan, R.O.C. (In Chinese)
γ′ submerged unit weight of sand, kN/m 3 Terzaghi, K., 1943, Theoretical Soil Mechanics,
δc crown deformation, m Willey, New York, USA.
δ ave average crown deformation, m Wu, B. R., and Lee, C. J. , 2003, “Ground Movements
σ vo overburden pressure, kN/m 2 and Collapse Mechanisms Induced by Tunneling in
σ v′ effective overburden pressure, kN/m 2 Clayey Soil,” International Journal of Physical
σ h′ effective horizontal stress, kN/m 2 Modelling in Geotechnics, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 13-27.
φ friction angle Zhou, X., Pu, J., and Yin, K., 1998, “A Study of Sta-
bility and Failure Mechanism of Sand around a
REFERENCES Tunnel,” Proceedings of the International Con-
ference Centrifuge 98, Kimura, Kusakabe and
Atkinson, J. H., and Potts, D. M., 1977, “Subsidence Takemura (eds.), Balkema, Tokyo, pp. 727-731.
above Shallow Tunnels,” Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 103, No. 4, pp. 307-325. Manuscript Received: Jun. 12, 2003
Chang, C. T., Wang, J. J., Chen, C. C., and Wu, Revision Received: Jan. 06, 2004
T. C., 1997, “Acquisition and Interpretation of and Accepted: Feb. 09, 2004
Monitored Data of Ground Subsidence due to

View publication stats