EJGE Paper

Parameters and Considerations

in Soft Ground Tunneling

Wooi Leong Tan

School of Civil & Environmental Engineering
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore

and

Pathegama Gamage Ranjith

Department of Civil Engineering
Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
e-mail: ranjith.pg@eng.monash.edu.au

ABSTRACT
Construction of urban tunnels in soft soil or weak rocks requires meticulous considerations in terms of
geotechnical site investigations, construction methods, types of tunnel boring machines, tunnel support
systems, instrumentation and monitoring of surface subsidence and the subsequent impact on nearby
buildings and services. Among the considerations, the most important aspect is the control of surface
subsidence to minimize any disturbance to nearby buildings and services. The study of surface subsidence
is limited to mainly empirical solutions based on field studies, and very few analytical studies have been
carried out. The available analytical solutions are not sufficient to include complex ground conditions and
hence a comprehensive analytical solution coupled with numerical modeling is necessary to model the
effect of surface subsidence due to soft ground tunneling. This paper discusses a variety of parameters and
considerations that are required to formulate a theoretical solution to predict surface, sub surface and lateral
settlement due to tunneling induced ground movement. Moreover, the importance of considering the tunnel
support system as a parameter in determining the settlements is often neglected or excluded and thus is
highlighted in the paper. A number of empirical solutions to predict the settlements are also compared to
differentiate their effectiveness in various soil conditions.

Keywords: soft ground tunneling; soft soil; weak rocks; subsidence; tunnel support system.

INTRODUCTION
As infrastructure, buildings and services stretch through the densely populated and scarcely limited land space, ensuring

http://www.ejge.com/2003/Ppr0344/Ppr0344.htm (1 of 18)08.09.2007 11:37:51

EJGE Paper

minimum disturbance to the routine daily lives of the city is of utmost importance in tunnel design. In order to fully
understand the extent of disturbance due to tunneling in such tight conditions, a comprehensive knowledge of the
deformation caused by tunneling will be useful. Over the years, tunnel engineers and researchers have realized that
curbing the loss of ground is futile because of in-situ conditions and ground ambiguities. Hence the only solution is to
control the effects of deformation rather than to totally stop it. Through various field studies and experiences, empirical
methods have been developed over the years to predict the settlement caused by tunneling in soft ground by Peck
(1969), Attewell et al. (1986), New and O’Reilly (1991) and semi empirical methods were also developed by Lo et al.
(1984). Some important considerations for the prediction of settlement are presented in their solutions but may not
suffice in obtaining a total solution.

Continuous research and advancement in technology towards tunneling works will inevitably lead to safer and both
economically and environmentally efficient construction process. Besides obtaining field data to formulate empirical
relationships of ground deformation, a major difficulty is the inconsistency of soil condition and applicability of the
empirical formulas to different type of soil. Hence, an analytical solution is required to cater to all soil type and varying
site conditions. In order to formulate an analytical solution to represent ground surface and sub surface deformation,
several factors and parameters relating to soil type and characteristics, tunnel geometry and specifications, type of tunnel
boring machines (or TBMs) and advance rate, and type of tunnel support are primarily required. This paper will discuss
a variety of parameters and factors that will affect ground surface settlement as a result of tunneling induced ground
movement.

GROUND SUBSIDENCE

Surface settlement

Limiting the surface settlement produced by tunneling in shallow and soft ground is the major challenge of any tunnel
engineer. Surface subsidence can be caused by several factors and some of them have been discussed earlier such as
ground loss at the tunnel face, behind the tail of the shield and through the tunnel support or linings. Other factors
include the consolidation of the soil due to reduction of ground water level. Besides surface settlement, tunneling also
produce lateral deformation of the ground and longitudinal movement of the ground ahead of the tunnel face. Little
studies have been devoted to the theoretical aspects of deformations caused by tunneling. Most methods derived for
estimating surface or subsurface settlements are empirical in nature and based on field observations of mainly UK
tunnels. The most common method is by estimating the value of i, a parameter used to define the distance from the
tunnel centre line to the point of inflexion of the settlement trough of a normal probability curve as shown in Figure 1.
The distribution of the settlements or settlement trough at the level of the foundations approximated a normal probability
distribution function (Equation 1) described by Peck (1969).

(1)

where w = surface settlement at a transverse distance (y) from the tunnel centre line
wmax = maximum settlement at x = 0
i = location of maximum settlement gradient or point of inflexion.

New and O’Reilly (1991), Mair et al. (1996) and Attewell et al. (1986) have described the application of the Gaussian
distribution to the prediction of vertical and horizontal movements due to single and multiple tunnels. Bracegirdle and
Mair (1996) have also used the normal distribution function to evaluate the potential damage to cast iron services or

http://www.ejge.com/2003/Ppr0344/Ppr0344.htm (2 of 18)08.09.2007 11:37:51

 EJGE Paper

pipes induced by tunneling. Similarly, Yoshida and Kusakabe (1994) described the behavior of ground and adjacent
underground piping during shield tunneling. In addition, Durand et al. (1994) used the normal distribution function in
their design approach for the Toulon underground motorway crossing to predict surface settlements and their effects on
nearby buildings. Values of i have been calculated for tunnels based on reasonably reliable settlement data. The
calculated results have been assembled and illustrated in a dimensionless plot of i/R against z/2R for various tunnels in
different materials by Peck (1969). Using the relationship obtained from field observations, Peck (1969) formed the
following relationship to estimate the value of i,

(2)

where n = 0.8 to 1.0 and zo is the tunnel depth above the tunnel crown

Figure 1. Surface settlement profile.

Table 1. Different empirical solutions of settlement trough, i.

Reference i Basis for empirical solution

Peck (1969) i/R = (zo/2R)n (n=0.8 - 1.0) Field observations

Attewell and Farmer (1974) i/R = (zo/2R)n (a=1, n=1) Field observations of UK tunnels

Clough and Schmidt (1981) i/R = (zo/2R)n (a=1, n=0.8) Field observations of UK tunnels

http://www.ejge.com/2003/Ppr0344/Ppr0344.htm (3 of 18)08.09.2007 11:37:51

 EJGE Paper

i = 0.43zo + 1.1m
(cohesive soil (3 ≤ zo ≤ 34m))
i = 0.43zo + 1.1m
Field observations
O’Reilly and New (1982)
(cohesive soil (3 ≤ zo = 34m)) of UK tunnels
i = 0.28zo - 0.1m
(granular soil (6 ≤ z0 ≤ 10m))

i = 0.25(zo + R) (loose sand)

i = 0.25(zo + R) (loose sand) Field observations
Atkinson and Potts (1977)
and model tests
i = 0.25(1.5zo + 0.5R) (dense and OC clay)

i = (0.57 + 0.45zo) ±1.01m For sites where consolidation

Leach (1985)
effects are insignificant

i = 0.5zo Field observations

Mair et al. (1983)
and centrifuge tests

A comparison of the various empirical methods discussed above was made on the assumption of a hypothetical four
meter diameter tunnel located at a depth of thirty meters which experience a ground loss volume of one percent. The
results are shown graphically in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Comparison of surface settlement troughs.

From the comparison of various empirical solutions for surface settlement trough, the maximum settlement ranges from
3-5 mm whereas the trough width (i) varies between 10 and 15 m. This shows that there are significant discrepancies
between empirical solutions to predict surface settlement trough because of different interpretation and database

http://www.ejge.com/2003/Ppr0344/Ppr0344.htm (4 of 18)08.09.2007 11:37:51

EJGE Paper

collection proposed by different authors.

Longitudinal settlement

Very limited analytical studies have been conducted to understand the longitudinal behavior of the ground along the
tunnel axis because field studies using extensometers or probes experience difficulty in installation thus few intensive
monitoring of this behavior had been carried out. Attewell and Woodman (1982) assumed that the longitudinal profile of
tunneling induced settlement could be modeled as a cumulative probability curve and drew a conclusion that the
settlement directly above the tunnel face is half of Smax, which is the maximum transverse surface settlement.

However, Attewell et al. (1986) conducted lab extrusion tests using undisturbed clay soil forced through a hole whilst
applying a constant axial pressure to analyze the intrusion at the tunnel face. The extrusion displacement profile
developed is shown in Figure 3. Romo and Diaz (1981) used finite element method to find the stress and deformation of
different degrees of face yielding and established a relationship between safety factor, stability ratio and surface
settlement at different depths that are attributable to face yielding. The settlement along a tunnel alignment due to face
yielding as the tunnel progressed between two points can be calculated by Equation 3.

(3)

where wx = the settlement at a distance x from initial point of reference,

Z = H + D/2,
H = tunnel depth above the crown,
D = tunnel diameter,
σh = initial horizontal stress at tunnel axis,
σf = mean compressive soil strength from ground surface to depth of tunnel invert,
p = fluid pressure at excavation face,
εf = mean axial strain at failure of soil samples from ground surface to depth of tunnel invert and
F1 = a function related to x/(Z + D).

Figure 3. Longitudinal profile of surface settlement (Attewell et al., 1986).

Lateral settlement
http://www.ejge.com/2003/Ppr0344/Ppr0344.htm (5 of 18)08.09.2007 11:37:51
EJGE Paper

Studies involving the lateral movement of the ground due to tunneling were comparatively more extensive than studies
conducted on the longitudinal behavior. Norgrove et al. (1979) derived an empirical equation that relate the sub surface
settlement to the lateral deformations as shown below

(4)

where wy is the lateral deformation, w is the surface settlement at a distance y from the tunnel axis, zo is the tunnel depth
above the tunnel crown and y is the horizontal distance from the tunnel axis. However, these empirical equations are
subjected to certain limitations and assumptions in terms of ground applicability, excavation methods and inadequate
site information, thus making them inaccurate to a certain extent. O’Reilly and New (1982) assumed that the resultant
vectors of ground movements are directed to the tunnel axis and proposed an empirical similar equation to Norgrove et
al. (1979) with the vertical and horizontal components of the ground movements as Sv and Sh, and the horizontal surface
settlement can be calculated as

(5)

where Sv is the settlement at a distance y from the tunnel axis, y is the horizontal distance from the tunnel axis and zo is
the tunnel depth above the tunnel crown.

Theoretical solutions

The normal probability curve proposed by Peck (1969) to model the observed profile had no theoretical basis and solely
based on the fact that the curves resembled each other in shape. The normal probability curve can be effectively used to
predict the actual surface settlement profile but it does underestimate the actual deformations when applied to granular
soils (New and O’Reilly, 1991) and to overconsolidated clays (Eisentien et al., 1981). In addition, the normal probability
profile does not provide intuitive solutions for the sub surface and lateral soil movements due to tunneling.

A small number of authors presented analytical predictions of tunneling induced ground movement in clay. The most
significant is by Sagaseta (1987) who proposed closed form solutions for obtaining the strain field in incompressible soil
by combining fluid flow with elastic solutions for half space. Sagaseta (1987) solved for a singularity at a point of an
elastic half plane and by adding the image solution for the singularity at a point located symmetrically above the soil
surface, the normal or shear stresses are made to neutralize. A negative mirror image of the point with respect to the top
surface will produce opposite normal stresses and the same shear stresses similar to the actual point. Conversely, a
negative image will produce the same normal stresses and opposite shear stresses. However, these elastic solutions
might not be effectively applicable for soft ground since elastic solutions are more applicable for rock. Verruijt and
Booker (1996) modified the elastic solutions by Sagaseta (1987) and applied various values of Poisson’s ratio and
included the effect of ovalization of the tunnel opening. However, the solutions yielded slightly wider profiles of lateral
deformations induced by tunneling with tunnel boring machines. Hence, Loganathan and Poulos (1998) redefined the
ground loss parameter with respect to gap parameter and used it in the solutions provided by Verruijt and Booker (1996).
Their results yielded more accurate profiles of surface, sub surface and lateral deformations as illustrated in five case
studies provided by Loganathan and Poulos (1998). The gap parameter can be estimated based on a theoretical method

http://www.ejge.com/2003/Ppr0344/Ppr0344.htm (6 of 18)08.09.2007 11:37:51

EJGE Paper

developed by Lee et al. (1992) as given below

(6)

The generalized modified analytical equations based on Verruijt and Booker (1996) for the estimation of the surface
settlement (Uz=0), sub surface settlement (Uz) and the lateral deformation (Ux) are:

(7)

(8)

(9)

http://www.ejge.com/2003/Ppr0344/Ppr0344.htm (7 of 18)08.09.2007 11:37:51

EJGE Paper

The ground deformation due to the ovalization term was deliberately omitted since the analysis was concerned only with
short term undrained conditions. According to Strack and Verruijt (2000), ovalization of a shallow tunnel is unlikely to
exist since the stresses accommodating an ovalization of the tunnel cavity did not correspond to an ovalization of the
tunnel lining. Figure 4 illustrates the boundary conditions used in the derivation of the ground loss.

The theoretical solutions provided by Sagaseta (1986), on which other authors modified to predict soft ground
deformations due to tunneling, is essentially based on incompressible soils. Hence, it might not accurately predict the
deformations in soft ground. Elastic solutions are more applicable for hard rock conditions.

Figure 4. Ground deformation patterns and ground lost boundary conditions (Loganathan et al, 2001)

TUNNEL FACE STABILITY

Tunnel face stability were investigated by Broms and Bennermark (1967), who had proposed using a face stability index
(N) which is the ratio between the difference of the natural pressure and the pressure applied to the tunnel face, and the
undrained shear strength to analyze tunnel face stability. The stability ratio is devised based on cohesive ground (clay)
and it was found that the tunnel face would be stable when the index is less than six.

(10)

http://www.ejge.com/2003/Ppr0344/Ppr0344.htm (8 of 18)08.09.2007 11:37:51

EJGE Paper

The claims made by Broms and Bennermark (1967) of N<6 for stability of tunnel face were substantiated by Mair
(1979), Schofield (1980) and Davis et al. (1980) who concluded that the stability ratio depends on the depth of cover to
diameter (H/D) ratio and that stability ratio (N) is equal to between five and seven for depth of cover to diameter ratio of
1.5. However, Davis et al. (1980) found that their results estimated from the limit theorems of plasticity yield critical
values of N that showed a significant variation of the depth of cover to diameter ratio from that stated in Broms and
Bennermark (1967). A larger range of N for tunnel face stability was given by Kimura and Mair (1981) who carried out
tests in centrifuge on reconsolidated clay and verified that the stability of the tunnel face can be confirmed for values of
N between five and ten depending on the depth.

However, Romo and Diaz (1981) felt that the stability ratio does not explicitly reflect the actual stability of the tunnel
face and so they devised a safety factor (which is defined as the ratio between shear strength of the soil and maximum
shear stress) for the stability ratio. A series of plots of contours and critical surfaces corresponding to a number of
stability ratios and tunnel depth to diameter ratios were devised and the relationship between the safety factor and
stability ratio was obtained. Results correlated well with the reported case histories from Peck (1969) whereby tunnel
face failure occurs in the range between six and seven. The reported stability ratio at safety factor of one is
approximately 6.5. Although their results showed good correlation with case histories by Peck (1969), it should be noted
that they had assumed that the soil behaved as a non linear elastic material having a hyperbolic stress strain curve and
that no slippage would occur at the shield-soil interface during the tunnel face excavation.

Tunnel face stability in sandy and pervious water bearing grounds was investigated by Leca and Dormieux (1990). They
proposed a support pressure (σT) to be applied to the tunnel face using a three-dimensional failure mechanism as
described in Leca and Dormieux (1990) involving the rigid body movement of 2 conical blocks. They had proposed a
limiting face pressure (σT*) for dry cohesionless soils as shown in Equation 11.

(11)

where αS and αγ are weighting factors dependent on friction angle and depth of cover to tunnel diameter ratio (H/D) and
σS is the overburden pressure.

This approach was further investigated by Chambon and Corte (1994) who formed a relationship between the tunnel
face axial deformation and the pressure applied to the tunnel face based on centrifuge tests of Fontainebleau sand as
shown in Figure 5. They observed that the critical and collapse pressure (Pc) increases with the tunnel diameter.
Einsenstein and Ezzeldine (1994) also carried out a study to investigate ground behavior with respect to stress reduction
at the face of an excavation using a shield by means of two separate analyses involving an axisymmetrical and a three
dimensional finite element analysis in an ideal elasto-plastic field. The results obtained were compared to results
obtained from Chambon and Corte (1994) and it was found that the face pressure (Pf) (Figure 5) was very close to the
value of Rankine’s active pressure.

http://www.ejge.com/2003/Ppr0344/Ppr0344.htm (9 of 18)08.09.2007 11:37:51

EJGE Paper

Figure 5. Schematic trend of the tunnel face axial displacement (δ)

with reference to the applied pressure (P) (after Chambon and Corte, 1994).

CONSIDERATIONS FOR PREDICTION OF TUNNELLING INDUCED

GROUND MOVEMENT
It is difficult and maybe impossible to incorporate every single factor that influences deformation of the ground as a
result of tunneling into a theoretical solution for predicting the settlement. The aim of this study is to present every factor
that causes or controls ground deformation induced by tunneling in soft and weak ground. The following presents a
comprehensive list of these influencing factors:

(a) Comprehensive site investigation (i.e., physical properties of soil and deformation parameters, permeability,
composition of strata, groundwater table, existence of nearby services or pilings or existing tunnels, surface
loadings, existence of rocks and boulders etc)

(b) Tunnel requirements (i.e., depth, diameter, purpose, linings, single or parallel tunnels, duration of
construction, project cost etc)

(c) Construction methods (i.e., cut and cover, New Austrian Tunneling Method (NATM), tunnel boring machines
such as slurry or earth pressure boring machines or open face types, pre-support reinforcements, concrete linings,
tunnel support systems, tunnel face reinforcement and drainage)

(d) Instrumentations and monitoring (i.e., ground surface and lateral deformations, ground water intrusion,
linings, cavity convergence, face stability and long term settlement)

(e) Environmental impact (i.e., pollution, ecological impact and health)

Site Investigations

The type of soil, grain size, density and moisture content will affect the amount of settlement induced by tunneling. Peck
(1969) gave a comprehensive description of the soft soils ranging from cohesionless granular soil to saturated stiff hard
clay and the corresponding settlement induced. The settlements above and lateral to the tunnels in plastic clays of soft to
medium consistency are relatively larger than in stiffer, more brittle cohesive granular soils. Currently, most research
works only consider a homogenous type of soil material but through experience, the site conditions usually do not hold
true for this homogeneity. For example, in predicting surface settlement due to ground movement induced by tunneling,

http://www.ejge.com/2003/Ppr0344/Ppr0344.htm (10 of 18)08.09.2007 11:37:51

EJGE Paper

the settlement trough width is empirically calculated using solutions derived mostly from case studies of London Clay
(Attewell et al., 1977; and Clough and Schmidt, 1981) and in addition, there are several different solutions for the
determination of settlement trough width in London clay. Such ambiguity often leads tunnel designers to use the solution
that has a good track record rather than one that really symbolizes the actual ground conditions. In the past, drill and
blast methods were used when hard rocks were encountered. Nowadays, TBMs are designed specifically to work
efficiently in a particular type of ground. However, in practice, the most common problem faced was encountering a
mixture of soil types which would diminish the efficiency of the designed TBMs. Usually such problem occur when a
TBM specifically designed to bore through soft soil suddenly encounters hard rocks or boulders. However, this could be
minimized if every tunnel is bored with a road header with extremely strong drill bits. Consequently, extra cost has to be
incurred and cost efficiency is compromised. These problems will surface if a thorough site investigation was not
performed. Analytical studies with respect to mixed face tunneling, are also limited due to the complexity of the problem
and hence most of the time, decisions are made on site when the actual problems occur. The most common solution will
be to blast the rocks and drill through the softer part of the soil so that the shield can progress but shielding the soft soil
whilst blasting the rocks can pose major difficulties. As such, a two phase cutting wheel, which can disintegrate the
boulders and remove them from the spoils, was developed to counter the problem of mixed face tunneling where hard
rocks and soft soil are encountered (Eisenstein, 1995). Rock disc cutters are incorporated ahead of the soil pick scrapers
to disintegrate the rocks, which are then transported concurrently with the soil mix.

Groundwater considerations in tunnel design is an important parameter as groundwater seeps into the tunnel through the
tunnel face or cavity, or water pressure on the tunnel arches might incur the problem of cavity collapse. Soil materials
are washed into the tunnel and water can also cause flooding of the tunnel as a result of water inflows. This is especially
true when fine grained soil clusters are encountered in clay or rock formations. In such cases, techniques to lower
groundwater level must be implemented using pumps or drainage pipes. However, lowering groundwater level can cause
damage to surrounding building foundations and hence extra measures should be taken prior to that. Locations of
buildings, foundation piles and services have to be identified thoroughly before excavations begin. Extra support system
might have to be used if tunneling is executed under a building to control any deformation. Surface settlement will also
caused inconvenience to roadways or services due to deformation induced by tunneling works as seen in reports by
Attewell and Farmer (1974), O’Reilly and New (1982), Lo et al. (1984), Mair et al. (1993) and Bracegirdle and Mair
(1996). On the other hand, surface loading will also determine the amount of load acting on the tunnel in addition to
overburden when considering a tunnel built on shallow ground. Internal tunnel support has to be erected upon
consideration of surface loads and overburden ground loads.

Construction methods

There are many methods available for tunneling in soft and weak ground such as New Austrian Tunneling Method
(NATM), tunnel boring machines (TBM), cut and cover method, shield with concrete or segmental linings, micro
tunneling technique for small diameter tunnels etc. The most advanced tunneling methods used in urban area are the
bentonite slurry balance shield and the earth pressure balance shield (EPB). These methods have revolutionized the
conventional methods of tunneling and had replaced the cut and cover method although the latter method is still used in
certain cases. Fujita (1989) featured the construction of the tunnel for the Metropolitan Expressway interconnecting
Tokyo and Yokohama which was built using the cut and cover method. The construction produced large settlement and
caused displacement of the nearby piers which resulted in great environmental problems to the surrounding ground and
buildings. Though the shield was invented by Brunel in 1819 in Britain, the technological advancement in shield
tunneling was extensively developed in Japan where the first EPB shield was designed in the early 1960s. The EPB and
the bentonite slurry shield could minimize the ground settlement greatly to produce a smooth excavation although health
hazards were reported by workers due to the high pressured working condition in the enclosed shield which could cause
respiratory problems and other defects. The working principle of the EPB shield is in balancing the pressure of the soil
inside the chamber with the earth pressure and water pressure acting on the face. The bentonite slurry shield machine
works in the same manner except that the earth pressure is used to balance the overburden pressure and the tunnel face is
acted solely by the ground water pressure. Although the EPB and bentonite slurry shields are used extensively in urban
tunnel construction, their applicability is limited when hard materials or unusual soils are encountered or when large
diameter tunnels are required as shown in the construction of the Athens Metro which is underlain by Athenian schists,
which consists of a complex mixture of sandstones, limestones, marls, siltstones and slates (Kavvadas et al.,1996). Thus,
the construction process is divided into NATM (or shotcreting) and using TBM shield for different segments of the

http://www.ejge.com/2003/Ppr0344/Ppr0344.htm (11 of 18)08.09.2007 11:37:51

EJGE Paper

tunnel. Clough and Leca (1993) described the use of two EPB shields for tunneling in a mixed face of sand or sand and
gravel overlying clay. Farias and Assis (1996) had also described a case study of tunnel construction in collapsible
residual soil whereby NATM was used instead of slurry or EPB shields. When these situations occur, conventional
methods of mechanical shield machines or excavator machines are used. Such inconsistencies in tunnel works cause
unnecessary wastage of time and resources which will add to extra cost. However, the use of the EPB or bentonite slurry
shields is still preferred in difficult and urban grounds for its low cost and risk. Table 2 shows some examples of past
projects that involve EPB, slurry shields, NATM, and conventional hand excavation.

Tunnel support system

Tunnel construction has gone through major advancement in excavation techniques over the years with the use of hi-tech
machineries, ground reinforcement or ground improvement to stabilize the tunnel face and prevent any tunnel collapse.
The advance rate of tunnel excavation has consequently increased significantly with the introduction of the tunnel boring
machines (TBM) and newer tunneling methods like the New Austrian Tunneling Method (NATM) or using Earth
Pressure Balanced shield (EPB) and slurry shield to stabilize the tunnel face during excavation. There exist many types
of ground improvement and reinforcement methods to stabilize the cavity and every individual method will produce
different action on the cavity or tunnel face to effect the necessary stabilization. Lunardi (2000) conducted field
investigations of Italian tunnels excavated in rocks and subsequently, he categorized these support methods into three
different groups whereby each group would exert a different kind of effect on the cavity.

Table 2. Different tunneling projects involved in EPB, NATM

Slurry shields and cut and cover method.

http://www.ejge.com/2003/Ppr0344/Ppr0344.htm (12 of 18)08.09.2007 11:37:51

EJGE Paper

In his study, he found that the rigidity of the core will determine the stability of a tunnel since the deformation of the
advanced core causes the extrusion of the face, pre convergence behind the face and the convergence of the cavity as
shown in Figure 6. Table 3 shows the categorization of the different kinds of stabilization instruments. The use of
ground reinforcement to maintain the stability of the tunnel face during excavation will usually reduce the problem of
the weakening of the ground that will cause tunnel collapse and consequently, produce disturbance to existing surface
structure. The problem of tunnel collapse will cause the land above the tunnel to subside especially when the excavation
is carried out at shallow depth and in weak and soft soils.

Figure 6. Types of deformation in tunnel excavation (longitudinal cross sectional view).

Table 3. Kinds of stabilization instruments and the type of effect exerted (reproduced from Lunardi, 2000)

Figure 7 shows a schematic diagram of the conventional support system for a large scale excavation. The pre-support

http://www.ejge.com/2003/Ppr0344/Ppr0344.htm (13 of 18)08.09.2007 11:37:51

EJGE Paper

methods such as steel pipe umbrella, jet grouting, pipe- roof, mechanical pre-cutting and sub horizontal fiber glass face
reinforcement, whereby reinforcements are installed prior to excavations, are widely used in large scale excavations in
urban areas where subsidence have to be limited. In particular the pre-support capabilities of the umbrella method, which
consists of the steel pipe umbrella arch, jet grouting and pipe roof method, have gained popularity and are shown in
Figure 8. Numerous field cases of tunnels excavated using the umbrella method were reported by Barisone et al. (1982),
Gangale et al. (1992), Borchi et al. (1992), Murata et al. (1996), Shin et al. (1999), Haruyama et al. (2001) and Sekimoto
et al. (2001).

Figure 7. Schematic diagram of typical tunnel support system.

Figure 8. Steel pipe Umbrella, Pipe Roof and Jet grouting method.

Although the umbrella method is popular and widely used, one of the difficulties facing tunnel designers is that there are
no simple approximations to simulate these methods in numerical analyses. Most researchers tend to crudely
approximate the reinforced umbrella arch as a composite material with a combined strength. These crude
approximations tend to produce inaccurate surface settlement results. However, Tan and Ranjith (2003) modeled the
steel pipes individually for a test model to study the behavior of the ground excavated in soft ground using pipe roof
method as a pre-support. Their study shows that surface settlement can be significantly reduced by using a pre-support
method. However, further research should be focused on producing simple but reliable and accurate approximations for

http://www.ejge.com/2003/Ppr0344/Ppr0344.htm (14 of 18)08.09.2007 11:37:51

EJGE Paper

tunnel support system.

Environmental impact

Health hazards for tunnel workers due to the working conditions in high pressured shields, collapsing of the tunnel face,
cave-ins and flooding of tunnels are important factors to be considered before undergoing any tunnel constructions.
Surface subsidence also causes safety concerns for the public because of roadway cave-ins or structures and buildings
tilting or even collapsing. Services carrying water, gas or sewage pipes are also vulnerable to ground deformation caused
by tunneling. Studies have been made by Bracegirdle and Mair (1996) where they looked into the effect of tunneling on
nearby services and described a methodology for evaluating the potential damage to cast iron pipes where settlements
were due to tunneling in London clay. Mair et al (1993) derived a value of i at the depth of the services, (zp) to estimate
settlements for tunnels in clay.

(12)

Attewell et al. (1986) also gave comprehensive analysis on strain field calculations for pipes lying transverse or parallel
to the tunnel axis due to ground movements induced by tunneling. However, Yoshida and Kusabuka (1994) discovered
that existing services and tunnels were influenced more significantly by the additional earth pressure from shield
tunneling than by the subsidence due to stress release. They also proposed that the displacement and deformation of the
existing services and tunnels are affected primarily by the ratio of the cross section area of the underground pipe and the
cross section area of the shield, and the distance between the shield and the underground pipe.

CONCLUSION
Although empirical methods of predicting soil settlement due to tunneling induced ground movements have been used
extensively and successfully over the years, a theoretical solution is still relevant and important considering variations in
site conditions and soil ambiguity. In addition, tunneling methods and tunnel support systems also differs depending on
site conditions and tunnel geometry and hence empirical solutions have their limitations. A comprehensive theoretical
solution will require primarily the consideration of soil characteristics, tunnel geometry, site investigations, tunnel
support systems and construction methods. This solution should be substantiated by calibrating with field case histories
and 3-D numerical analyses.

references
1. Atkinson, J.H. and Potts, D.M., 1977, “Subsidence above shallow circular tunnels in soft ground,” Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol.103, G.T.4, pp.307-325.
2. Attewell, P.B., Yeates, J. and Selby, A.R., 1986, “Soil movements induced by Tunneling,” Chapman and Hall,
New York.
3. Attewell, P.B and Woodman, J.P., 1982 “Predicting the dynamics of ground settlement and its derivatives caused
by tunneling in soil,” Ground Engineering, Vol.15 (8), pp.13-22, 36.
4. Attewell, P.B. and Farmer, I.W., 1974, “Ground deformations resulting from shield tunneling in London clay,”
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 11, pp.380-395.
5. Barisone, G., Pigorini, B. and Pelizza, S., 1982, “Umbrella Arch method for tunneling in difficult conditions-
Analysis of Italian cases,” Proceedings of the 4th Congress International Association of Engineering Geology,
New Delhi, Vol. 4, pp. IV 15- IV 27.
6. Boden, J.B. and McCaul, C., 1974, “Measurement of ground movements during a bentonite tunneling

http://www.ejge.com/2003/Ppr0344/Ppr0344.htm (15 of 18)08.09.2007 11:37:51

EJGE Paper

experiment,” Transport Road Research Laboratory, No. 653, pp. 8.

7. Borchi, A., Formis, L., Pelizza, S, Ricci, D. and Forlani, E., 1992, "The road tunnels of the SanRemo "corniche'
through complex rocks," Towards New Worlds in Tunneling, Vieitez-Utesa & Montanez-Cartaxo (eds), pp. 889-
895.
8. Bracegirdle, A. and Mair, R.J., 1996, “A methodology for evaluating potential damage to cast iron pipes induced
by tunneling,” Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground, Mair & Taylor (eds), 1996,
Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 659-664.
9. Broms, B.B. and Bennermark, H., 1967, “Stability of Clay at Vertical Openings,” ASCE Journal of Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Division 1993, pp. 71-95.
10. Chambon, P. and Corte, J.F., 1994, “Shallow tunnels in cohesionless soil: Stability of tunnel face,” Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, American Society Civil Engineers, Vol. 120, pp. 1148-1165.
11. Clough, G.W. and Leca, E., 1993 “EPB shield tunneling in mixed face conditions,” Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 119, 10. pp. 1640-1656.
12. Clough, G.W. and Schmidt, B., 1981 “Excavation and Tunneling,” Soft Clay Engineering, Chapter 8, edited by E.
W. Brand and R.P. Brenner, Elsevier.
13. Davis, E.H., Gunn, M.J., Mair, R.J. and Seneviratne, H.N., 1980, “The stability of shallow tunnels and
underground openings in cohesive material,” Géotechnique, Volume 30, No. 4, pp. 397-419.
14. Durand, J.P., Deffayet, M., Jassionnesse, C. and Reith, J.L., 1994, “Surface settlements in urban tunneling works:
Design approach for Toulon underground motorway crossing,” Tunneling and Ground Conditions, Abdel Salam
(ed.), 1994, Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 97-103.
15. Eisenstein, Z., 1995, “Tunneling in the age of high technology,” South East Asian Symp. on Tunneling and
Underground Space Development, JTA, Bangkok, pp. 1-12.
16. Eisenstein, Z. and Ezzeldine, O., 1994, “The role of face pressure for shields with positive ground control,”
Tunneling and Ground Conditions, Abdel Salem (ed.), pp.557-571.
17. Eisentien, Z., El-Nahhas, F. and Thomson, S., 1981, “Strain field around a tunnel in stiff soil,” Proceedings of the
10th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 1, Rotterdam, The
Netherlands, pp. 283-288.
18. Farias, M.M. and Assis, A.P., 1996, “Numerical simulation of a tunnel excavated in porous collapsible soil,”
Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground, Mair & Taylor (eds), 1996, Balkema,
Rotterdam, pp. 713-718.
19. Fujita, K., 1989, “Special Lecture B: Underground construction, tunnel, underground transportation,”
Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Rio De
Janeiro, Brazil, Vol. 4, pp. 2159-2176.
20. Gangale, G., Corona, G. and Pelizza, S., 1992, “The Messina-Palermo motorway: Complex rock masses and
tunneling problems,” Towards New Worlds in Tunneling, Vieitez-Utesa & Montanez-Cartaxo (eds), pp. 873-880.
21. Hanya, T., 1977, “Ground movements due to construction of shield-driven tunnel,” Proc. 9th Int. Conf. Soil
Mech. and Found. Eng. Case History Vol., Tokyo, pp. 759-790.
22. Haruyama, K., Teramoto, S., Harada, H. and Mori, M., 2001, “Construction of urban expressway tunnel with
special large cross section by NATM-Metropolitan Inter-city Highway (ken-O-Do) Ome Tunnel,” Modern
Tunneling Science and Technology, Adachi et al. (eds.), pp.693-698.
23. Itoh, T., Isozaki, T., Iwata, M., Oniki, K. and Fujimoto, K., 2001, “A new urban tunneling method adopted to the
soft ground with high groundwater level,” Modern Tunneling Science and Technology, Adachi et al (eds), Swets
& Zeitlinger, pp.745-750.
24. Kavvadas, M., Hewison, L.R., Laskaratos, P.G., Seferoglou, C. and Michalis, I., 1996, “Experiences from the
construction of the Athens Metro,” Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground, Mair &
Taylor (eds), 1996, Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 273-278.
25. Kimura, T. and Mair, J.R., 1981, “Centrifugal testing of model tunnels in soft clay,” 10th International
Conference of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Stockholm, Vol. 2, pp. 319-322.

http://www.ejge.com/2003/Ppr0344/Ppr0344.htm (16 of 18)08.09.2007 11:37:51

EJGE Paper

26. Leach, G., 1985, “Pipeline response to tunneling,” Unpublished paper.

27. Leca, E. and Dormieux, L., 1990, “Upper and lower bounds solutions for the face stability of shallow circular
tunnels in frictional material,” Geotechnique, Vol. 40, No. 4, pp.581-606.
28. Lee, K.M., Rowe, R.K. and Lo. K.Y., 1992, “Subsidence owing to tunneling. I: Estimating the gap parameter,”
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Ottawa, Canada, Vol. 29, pp. 929-940.
29. Lo, K.Y, Ng, R.M. and Rowe, R.K., 1984, “Predicting settlement due to tunneling in clays,” Proceedings of
Tunneling in Soil and Rocks, ASCE, Vancouver, pp. 48-76.
30. Loganathan, N. and Flanagan, R.F., 2001, “Predictions of tunneling-induced ground movements: Assessment and
Evaluation,” Proc. Of Underground Singapore 2001, pp.102-113.
31. Loganathan, N. and Poulos, H.G., 1998, “Analytical prediction for tunneling induced ground movements in
clays,” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol.124, No.9, pp.846-856.
32. Lunardi, P., 2000, “The design and construction of tunnels using the approach based on the analysis of controlled
deformation in rocks and soils,” Tunnels and Tunneling International, May 2000, pp. 3-30.
33. Mair, R.J., 1979, “Centrifugal modeling of tunneling construction in soft clay,” PhD Thesis, University of
Cambridge.
34. Mair, R.J., Gunn, M.J. and O’Reilly, M.P., 1983, “Ground movements around shallow tunnels in soft clay,” 10th
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Stockholm, pp. 323-328.
35. Mair, R.J., Taylor, R.N. and Bracegirdle, A., 1993, “Subsurface settlement profiles above tunnels in clay,”
Geotechnique, Vol.43, pp.315-320.
36. Mair, R.J., Taylor, R.N. and Burland, J.B., 1996, “Prediction of ground movements and assessment of the risk of
building damage due to bored tunneling,” Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground,
Mair & Taylor (eds), 1996, Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 713-718.
37. Murata, M, Okazawa, T., Harunaka, K. and Tamai, A., 1996, “Shallow twin tunnel for six lanes beneath densely
residential area,” North American Tunneling '96, Ozdemir (ed), pp.371-380.
38. New, B.M. and O’Reilly, M.P., 1991, “Tunneling induced ground movements,” Proceedings of the 4th
International Conference on Ground Movements and Structures, Cardiff, pp. 671-697.
39. Norgrove, W.B., Cooper, I. and Attewell, P.B., 1979, “Site investigation procedures adopted for the
Northumbrian Water Authority’s Tyneside Sewearge Scheme, with special reference to settlement prediction
when tunneling through urban areas,” Proc. Tunneling ’79, ed. M.J. Jones, IMM, London, pp.79-104.
40. O’Reilly, M.P. and New, B.M., 1982, “Settlements above tunnels in the UK- their magnitude and prediction,”
Tunneling ’82, pp. 173-181.
41. Palmer, J.H.L. and Belshaw, D.J., 1980, “Deformations and pore pressures in the vicinity of a precast, concrete
lined tunnel in clay,” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 17, pp. 174-184.
42. Peck, R. B., 1969, “Deep Excavations and Tunneling in Soft Ground,” State of the Art Volume, Seventh
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, pp. 225-290, Mexico City.
43. Raju, G.V.R., Ng, C.C. and Kumar, B.S., 2001, “Damage assessment of adjacent structures due to bored
tunneling for Changi Airport Line,” Proceeding Underground Singapore 2001, pp. 123-133.
44. Romo, M.P. and Diaz, C.M., 1981, “Face stability and Ground settlement in Shield Tunneling,” Proc. Of the 10th
Int’l Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 1, Stockholm, pp.357-360.
45. Sagaseta, C., 1987, “Analysis of undrained soil deformation due to ground loss,” Geotechnique, Vol.37, pp.301-
320.
46. Schofield, A.N., 1980, “Cambridge Geotechnical Centrifuge Operations,” Geotechnique, Vol. 30, No. 3, pp. 227-
268.
47. Sekimoto, H., Kameoka, Y. and Takehara, H., 2001, “Countermeasures for surface settlement in constructing
shallow overburden urban tunnels penetrated through active fault,” Modern Tunneling Science and Technology,
Adachi et al. (eds.), pp. 711-716.
48. Shin, H.S., Han, K.C., Sunwoo, C., Choi, S.O. and Choi, Y.K., 1999, “Collapse of a tunnel in weak rock and the

http://www.ejge.com/2003/Ppr0344/Ppr0344.htm (17 of 18)08.09.2007 11:37:51

EJGE Paper

optimal design of the support system,” Proc. of the 9th Int'l Congress on Rock Mechanics, Paris, France, ISRM.
49. Strack, O.E. and Verruijt, A., 2000, “A complex variable solution for the ovalization of a circular tunnel in an
elastic half plane,” Proceedings of the International Conference GeoEng 2000, Melbourne, Australia.
50. Tan, W.L. and Ranjith, P.G., 2003, “Numerical Analysis of Pipe Roof Reinforcement in Soft Ground Tunneling,”
Proc. of the 16th International Conference on Engineering Mechanics 2003, (in CDRom) ASCE, Seattle, USA.
51. Verruijt, A. and Booker, J.R., 1996, “Surface settlement due to deformation of a tunnel in an elastic half plane,”
Geotechnique, Vol.46, pp.753-756.
52. Yoshida, T. and Kusabuka, M., 1994, “Behaviors of ground and adjacent underground piping during shield
tunneling,” Tunneling and Ground Conditions, Abdel Salam (ed.), 1994, Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 201-206.
53. Yang, T., Woo, J. and Lee, S., 2001, “Ground reinforcement for a tunnel in weathered soil layer beneath Han
riverbed in Korea,” Modern Tunneling Science and Technology, Adachi et al. (eds.), pp.493-496.

© 2003 ejge

http://www.ejge.com/2003/Ppr0344/Ppr0344.htm (18 of 18)08.09.2007 11:37:51