9TH SOUTHEAST ASIAN GEOTECHNICAL CONFERENCE

BANGKOK, THAILAND
7-11 December 1987

CASE STUDIES OF THE USE OF GROUTING TO PROTECT BUILDINGS

J.N. SHIRLAW
Singapore Mass Rapid Transit Corporation
Singapore

SUMMARY Three case studies of the use of grouting to protect

buildings from the effects of tunnelling are presented. It is
shown that the effects of the installation of the grout tubes can be
significant, and that there is a danger of usjng compounding factor
of safety in assessing the effect of tunnelling.

INTRODUCTION

The use of bored tunnelling for the construction of main

sewers and mass transit systems has been widespread in Asia over the
last decade. One aspect of bored tunnels that has been of particu-
lar concern in an urban environment, is the effect of the tunnelling
on adjacent structures and utilities. A considerable body of work
has been published both on the surface effects of tunnels ( WARD
& PENDER, 1981, ATTEWELL et al 1986) and on the likelihood of these
effects causing building damage (BURLAND & WROTH 1975).

When it is predicted that tunnelling could cause significant

damage to a building, then means to avoid that damage have to be
found. Alternatives include:-

(a) Relocating the tunnel, either laterally away from the

building, or downwards into better ground.

(b) Underpinning the building. By taking the foundations

below the zone of influence of the tunnel, its effects
will be reduced.

(c) Improving the ground around the tunnel, which should

reduce the surface effect.

Alternative (a) is generally the cheapest, but is often not

practical either because the route is constrained for practical
reasons, or because in a dense urban environment it merely substi-
tutes one building under threat for another.

Alternative (b) is, generally, both extremely expensive and

disruptive to the use of the building. Alternative (c) is there-

8-159
fore often selected.

During the construction of the Island Line of the Hong Kong

Mass Transit Railway many politically, economically or structurally
sensitive buildings lined the route of the tun~els. Predictions on
the effect of tunnelling were made, and buildings at risk were iden-
tified. Case studies of three such buildings, and the methods used
to minimise settlements are presented below.

CASE A

Case A was a building founded on strip footings. Two tunnels,'

a 6m ~ running tunnel and an 8m ~ station tunnel, were to pass close
to one corner of the building as shown in figure 1. The diameter
used here is the excavated, not the final, lined diameter. The
upper tunnel was located mainly in alluvial deposits, with the lower
tunnel almost entirely in completely weathered granite (c.w.g.)
containing relict boulders.

BUILDING A

FILL
DRILLED-IN SLEEVED
MARINE TUBES
BUILDING A DEPOSITS

LIMIT OF GROUTED ZONE

ALLUVIUM TUNNEL EXTRADOS

E/B TUNNEL
A
WEATHERED
GRANITE W/B TUNNEL

SCALE
()n 10m
L-...J

SECTION A-A

FIGURE 1 PLAN AND SECTION FOR CASE A

8-160
 Calculations for the likely settlement of the building were
based on the 'error function' curve proposed by Peck (1967). Peck
suggested that the surface settlement over tunnels could be repre-
sented by an error function curve, shown in figure 2.

FIGURE 2 ERROR FUNCTION CURVE

Peck's equation is:-

Area of settlement trough = 2.5i Smax
where i distance from centre line to point of inflection.
S max Maximum settlement.
It is generally assumed that, everything else being equal,
the area of the settlement trough will be in a constant ratio with
the area of the tunnel face. This ratio can be called 'tunnel
settlement ratio'.

From records taken during the construction of the earlier MTR

lines it was calculated that the maximum tunnel settlement ratio due
to soft ground tunnelling in Hong Kong was 3%. This ratio, applied
to Building A, would result in a maximum stttlement of about 80mm
due to tunnelling, with a maximum slope of 1 in 200. Calculations
were made for the relative rotation, differential angular rotation
and relative deflection ratio (as defined in BURLAND and WROTH).
In addition. consideration was given to the divergence of the tunnel
alignment and the building line, which would cause distortion of
the building along its frontage. As the tunnel alignment diverged
from the building line, there was a likelihood of severe distortion
of the building due to tunnel driving.

Based on this analysis a decision was made to treat an annu-

lus of soil around the tunnels, as shown in figure 1, so as to re-
duce the maximum slope below the target value of 1 in 500. Treat-
ment was specified to be by the injection of a sequence of cement/
bentonite and silicate reagent grouts. This sequence of grouting
had been found to be effective in Hong Kong soils (HASWELL & U.MNEY

8-161
1978). Analysis of short lengths of tunnel driven through similarly
treated ground suggested that the maximum tunnel se~tlement ratio
would be reduced by the treatment to under 1%, although the informa-
tion was limited.

Rows of tubes-a-manchette (ISCHY & GLOSSOP 1962) were install-

ed at 1.2m centres to inject the grout. A total of over 550 tubes,
with a maximum length of 32m, were installed. Rotary percussion
drill rigs were used as was common practice in Hong Kong because of
the presence of relict boulders in the c.w.g. A 76mm ID casing was
first drilled into the ground using water as a flushing medium. The
casing was then filled with sleeve grout, a 40mm ID PVC sleeved tube
installed and the casing withdrawn. Grouting followed using 5
10% of cement/bentonite grout (by volume of ground treated) and 25%
to 40% of a low viscosity silicate/organic reagent grout.

During the drilling significant settlements were measured on

the building. Despite various measures being taken to reduce this
settlement, such as pre-grouting with cement-bentonite grout, after
installation of all the tubes 24mm of settlement had occurred at the
corner of the building. The settlement along the end wall is shown
in figure 3. As can be seen the maximum slooe caused by the drill-
ing settlement, 1 in 600, was more severe than the absolute magni-
tude of the settlement. Cracking and other signs of strain became
evident following the drilling.

i ,"" BUILDING A .," from i

0 W~/B~--------~1~0----------~~~.-----_,~----------T~

20

~30

70 FIGURE 3 SETTLEMENTS ALONG A LINE ORTHOGONAL

TO THE DIRECTION OF TUNNELLING
80

90

8-162
 The lower westbound tunnel was driven using the NA!M (New
Austrian Tunnelling Method). A combination of steel arches, shot-
crete and rockbolts was used for temporary support. The tunnel was
driven in free-air, relying on the chemical treatment to stabilize
the ground. It was found that the rock bolts, which penetrated to
the edge of the treated zone, allowed slight drainage into the tunn-
el. Total water make due to seepage both at the face and at rock
bolt positions was estimated at 25 to 45 /minute. After driving
48.6m in free air, the tunnel was lined with SGI segments, an air-
lock was installed and the rest of the tunnel was driven in comp-
ressed air. The settlement due to the free air drive is shown in
figure 3. Quite clearly the settlement bears little relation to
an error function curve, and CATER et al (1984) have suggested that
most of this settlement was due to dewatering. Even though the
absolute magnitude of settlement on building A, at 41mm, was double
the settlement due to drilling, the angular distortion was small.

The Eastbound tunnel was driven using a semi-mechanical shield

and a compressed air pressure of 0.9 bars. This pressure was lower
than the ground water pressure at invert level, and some face seep-
age was recorded. The settlement due to both the tunnelling and
removal of the compressed air is shown in figure 3. The settlement
appears to have a significant component due to dewatering rather
than ground loss. This is confirmed by the graph for point B in
figure 4, which shows that only about 60% of the llmm total settle-
ment was associated with the passage of the shield under the surface
point.

....__
M AHEAD OF FACE M BEHIND FACE
---..
10 10 20 30
(TREATED ZONE)

...z
u.J
::;:
u.J

......
-l
POINT BllS (UNTREATED)
u.J
(Jl
~
E
E
50

FIGURE 4 SETTLEMENT DEVELOPHENT OVER TREATED AND UNTREATED

AREAS

8-163
 During tunnelling, a thick layer of uniform alluvial sand was
found in the upper third of the face, which, when treated, was
strong and stable. However, once the shield was driven on out of
the treated area the sand was unstable as it became dried by the
compressed air. Despite the use of timbers and movable gates, voids
developed over the shield. In addition when grout plugs were re-
moved to grout the rings, sand poured in through the grout holes.
Figure 4 shows the development of settlement with the passage of the
shield on points B (treated area) and point B115 (untreated area).

CASE B

Case B was a politically sensitive structure founded on short

piles. Two 6m ~ running tunnels were to be driven past building B
through weathered granite, as shown in figure 5. The piles support-
ing the building were founded above the level of the crown of the
upper tunnel. It was predicted that the building would suffer a
maximum settlement of 66mm, and a maximum slope of 1 in 180, if it
followed the expected ground profile. Both of these values are con-
sidered unacceptable, and it was decided to carry out annular grout-
ing to minimise movement. The estimated settlement after treatment
was 22mm, with a maximum slope of 1 in 538.

The treatment was carried out using tubes-a-manchette and two

phase injection, as described previously. Settlement due to drill-
ing, however, was negligible this time. This was probably due to
the fact that the ground was generally much better, without 'the sand
fill or thick alluvial sand lenses which probably caused much of the
trouble in CaseA.

BASEMENTS OF
BUILDING B FILL

ALLUVIUM

WEATHERED.
TUNNEL GRANITE
SCALE
EXTRADOS
0 4m
L-.....J

LIMIT OF
TREATMENT

FIGURE 5 SECTION SHOWING TREATMENT IN CASE B

8-164
 OCT. NOV. DEC. JAN. FEB. MAR.
w
~
w 5
:r:

+
PASSES
0

POINT 331 (TREATED ZONE)

10
POINT 506 (UNTREATED ZONE)

(NB. INITIAL 5mm SETTLEMENT AT 506 CAUSED BY ADJACENT DEVELOPMENT)

FIGURE 6 SETTLEMENT/TIME OVER TREATED AND UNTREATED AREAS

The tunnels were both driven using semi-mechanical shields

and compressed air. The treated c.w.g. proved to be extremely hard
and well grouted. The settlement of Building B was very small, with
11mm recorded at the front of the building and 2mm at the back.
Superficially, then, the treatment had been extremely effective in
reducing the settlement. However, it is extremely interesting to
compare the development of settlement with time on points 331 and
506, the first being over the treated area, the second 30m beyond.
These are shown in figure 6. As can be seen, there is no signifi-
cant difference in the effect due to the passage of the lower,
W/B tunnel. There was apparently slightly more settlement in the
treated zone with the passage of the E/B, although whether the diff-
erence between 3mm and 5mm is significantand highly debatable. Nor
was point 506 an isolated case, as the seven settlement points on
either side of the treated area all recorded total settlements of
between 4mm.and 7mm due to the passage and decompression of both
tunnels.

CASE C

Case C is for a building where a single tunnel passed directly

under it. The building was founded on piles driven into the c.w.g.
stopping about 4m above the crown of the tunnel. The behaviour of
piles, literally "undermined" in this way, is a matter of some de-
bate. MORTON and KING (1979), for example, have produced some fair-
ly al~rming laboratory data in one of the few papers on this subjecc.

8-165
 BUILDING C

0 SCALE 10m

FIGURE 7 PLAN OF WORKS AREAS

BUILDING C 57mm SETTLEMENT

FILL

MARINE
DEPOSITS

ALLUVIUM

WEATHERED
GRANITE

FIGURE 8

8-166
They suggested that the settlement of individual piles could be
greater than the ground surface settlement. The simple predictive
methods based on the error function curve are obviously inappro-
priate in this case, and more sophisticated techniques are needed.
However, one simple method of analysis is to estimate the settlement
of the pile to be equal to the soil movement just above the tunnel
crown. Based on a 3% settlement ratio, a movement of about 100mm
can be postulated at crown.

It was therefore decided to treat around the tunnel as shown

in figure 8.

In order to install the 228 tubes required for treatment, two

works areas were available as shown in figure 7. The extremely
concentrated drilling from Area B, with up to 21 holes in a row
angled under the building resulted in a maximum recorded settlement
on the building of 58mm. This was despite the use of bentonite as
a drilling fluid and the injection of cement/bentonite grout at the
point of greatest concentration of drill holes.

The tunnel was driven using compressed air and a shield. The
settlement of the building due to tunnelling was just 7mm. However,
ground surface point G4 (see figure 7), which was located over the
centre line of the tunnel 15m before it reached the treated zone,
suffered only 8mm settlement due to tunnelling.

DISCUSSION

Some of the evidence given above, particularly from the sur-

face points outside the treated zones in Cases B and C, suggests a
discrepancy between the prediction and the event. Based on a 3%
tunnel settlement ratio, surface settlements of 81mm should have
occurred over the tunnels in Case B, not the 4 to 7mm recorded.
Similarly, in Case C, 27mm was expected, while only 8mm was record-
ed. Because of this discrepancy, CATER et al studied the monitoring
results of some 200 surface settlement points on the Island Line.
The results were summarised in figures 9 and 10. These confirm the
use of 3% as an upper limit for settlement Nhen tunnelling in Hong
Kong. However the large volume of data available shows that when
tunnelling in c.w.g., in most cases the tunnel settlement ratio was
under 1% and in almost all cases under 2%. Much higher ratios were
obtained when tunnelling in unstable sands, Category (d), or c.w.g.
containing core boulders, Category (b).

From this review of settlements it is apparent that, even for

just c.w.g •. , there was a very wide range of settlements experienced,
despite the face that the tunnelling methods used were essentially
the same. One reason is that c.w.g., although treated for conve-
nience as a homogeneous engineering material is, in practise, var-
iable. Relict joints, in particular, can have a significant effect
on its behaviour. Apart from purely geological factors, it is pro-
bable that the skill of individual tunnel gangs can have a major
influence on the surface settlements experienced.

It can be seen that there was a degree of conservatism in the

choice of tunnel settlement ratio, with 70% of cases in c.w.g. re-
cording less than one third of the predicted value. At a tunnel

8-167
 SHIELD DRIVEN TUNNELS IN COMP. AIR
BEFORE DECOMPRESSION

0
z 10

0·5 1·0 1· 5 2·0 2·5 3·0 > 3·0

As/At x 100% TUNNEL SETTLEMENT RATIO

FIGURE 9

SHIELD DRIVEN TUNNEL IN COMP. AIR

BEFORE DECOMPRESSION

CAT. (a) - c.w.g.

CAT. (b) - c .\v.g. + boulders
CAT. (c) - surficial deposits
- no instability
CAT. (d) - surficial deposits
- unstable sands
(d)

0·5 1-0 1·5 2.0 2·5 3-() 3·5

As/At x 100% TUNNEL SETTLEMENT RATIO
FIGURE 10

8-168
settlement ratio of 1%, the surface settlement over a typical 6m dia
tunnel, 20m deep, would be 11mm. Based on the work of ATKINSON and
MAIR (1981) with model tunnels in granular materials, the factor of
safety against failure of the tunnels in untreated c.w.g. would have
generally been high, at least 2. In these circumstances the bene-
fits of the treatment in this soil must be doubted.

Where the effectiveness of the treatment is certain is in app-

lication to the uniform alluvial sands in Case A. The difference
between the settlements over the treated and untreated sections was
most marked, as shown in figure 4.

Treatment of the ground beneath all the buildings was under-

taken mainly because of the predicted maximum slope on the buildings
was more than 1 in 500 without the treatment. However in case A
there was a maximum slope of 1 in 367 after drilling and tunnelling.
Yet, although there was some evidence of cracking, the structural
integrity of the building was not impaired. CATER et al (1986) re-
corded the case of another building which experienced an average
slope of 1 in 160 without any significant structural problems. It
appears, therefore, that the criterion of 1 in 500 was, itself,
conservative.

It is a natural engineering reaction to apply a degree of con-

servatism to such a potentially hazardous enterprise as tunnelling
past the foundations of tall buildings. The conservative estimates,
for both the magnitude of settlement and the effect on the buildings
used above are essentially in line with the recommendations given Ln
ATTEWELL (1986). This conservatism can be defended in terms of the
unknowns involved in the variability of soils, the precise condition
of buildings and the behaviour of the buildings. However there
appears to be a danger of compounding factors of safety, such that
actual settlements or effects are likely to be very significantly
smaller than predicted. This can lead to unnecessary underpinning
or ground improvement. If such work were wholly beneficial then it
could be justified as an 'insurance policy' against the unknown.
However, as in two of the cases outlined above, the drilling of large
numbers of holes itself carries a risk of causing settlement.

Although the cases quoted specifically deal with chemical

grouting, other methods of soil improvement can also lead to sig-
nificant ground movements. For instance BERRY et al (1987) describe
the use of jet grouting to minimise settlements due to tunnelling in
marine clay. The settlements due to tunnelling were indeed small,
but at the cost of up to 550mm heave due to the jet grouting.
Because the use of soil improvement carries with it the risk of
causing the effects it is designed to prevent, it is apparent that
it should be considered only if the beneficial effects exceed the
possible harmful effects, and if no other means exists to reduce
settlements. Consideration should first be given as to whether
settlements can be minimised by changing the procedures or means of
tunnelling. This CATER et al have shown that the use of NATM is to
be preferred to shield tunnelling in weathered rock with boulders.
ATKINSON and MAIR (1981) have highlighted the importance of correct-
ly choosing compressed air pressures to minimise settlement.

Soft ground tunnels often encounter variable soil conditions,

and settlements may vary greatly depending on those conditions. As

8-169
shown in figure 4 the benefits of treatment in certain specific soil
layers can be significant. However in these cases it is important
to accurately define the precise location of the layer to be treated.
This will help minimise the need for treatment and any resulting soil
movements, while also minimising costs.

CONCLUSIONS

It has been shown that the decision to treat around the tunnels
in the three cases studied was based on conse•vative assumptions.
Because of this it is likely that the real benefit of the treatment
was minor, except in the case where uniform sands were encountered
in the crown of the tunnel. Installation of the treatment, however,
itself caused significant g•ound movements.

It is concluded that the old aphorism 'when in doubt, grout'

should, in the use of grouting to control tunnel settlements, be
changed to read 'when in doubt, do not grout'.

REFERENCES

ATKINSON, J H and MAIR, R J (1981), "Soil Mechanics aspects of soft

ground tunnelling' Ground Engineering Vol. 14(5) pp20-24.
ATTEWELL, P B, YEATES, J and SELBY, A R (1986), "Soild Movements
induced by tunnelling and their effects on pipelines and
structures" Blackie, 325p.
BERRY, G L, SHIRLAW, J N, HAYATA, K and TAN, S H (1987), "A review of
the grouting techniques utilised for bored tunnelling with
emphasis on the jet grouting method". Proceedings,
Singapore Mass Rapid Transit Corporation, pp207-214.
BURLAND, J Band WROTH, C P (1975), "Settlement of Buildings and
associated damage". BRE Current paper CP33/75.
CATER, R W, SHIRLAW, J N, SULLIVAN, C A and CHAN, W T (1984), "Tunnels
constructed for the Hong Kong Mass Transit Railway", Hong
Kong Engineer, October 1984 pp37-49.
HASWELL, C K and UMNEY, A R (1978), "Trial tunnels for the Hong Kong
Mass Transit Railway". Hong Kong Engineer, 6, February
1978, pp15-23.
ISCHY, E and GLOSSOP, R (1962), "An introduction to alluvial grouting"
Proceedings Institution of Civil Engineers, Vol. 21, pp449-
474.
WARD, W Hand PENDER, M J (1981), "Tunnelling in Soft Ground",
Proceedings of 10th International Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Stockholm.

8-170