An analysis of three-dimensional ground movements: the Thunder Bay tunnel

K. M. LEEAND R. K. ROWE
Geotechnical Research Centre, Faculty of Engineering Science, University of Western Ontario,
London, Ont., Canada N6A 5B9
Received May 28, 1990
Accepted October 16, 1990

A three-dimensional (3D) elastoplastic finite-element analysis, which is capable of simulating the advance of a tunnelling
shield and the associated ground losses resulting from the tunnelling process, is used to calculate the deformations
caused by the excavation of the Thunder Bay sewer tunnel. The soil parameters adopted in the analysis were based
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Université de Sherbrooke on 06/20/14

on the results determined from stress-dependent triaxial tests. The results of this analysis are compared with the measured
soil displacements. Reasonable agreement between the calculated and observed 3D settlement distribution and hori-
zontal displacements at different distances from the tunnel face is reported. This overall agreement for displacements
under 3D conditions suggests that the method of analysis may be applicable to design problems involving tunnelling
in soft clays similar to that at the Thunder Bay sewer tunnel provided that the soil parameters are reliably determined.
Key words: tunnelling, three-dimensional analysis, finite element, elastoplastic displacements, ground deformations,
Thunder Bay tunnel.

Une analyse tri-dimensionnelle (3D) Clasto-plastique en Climents finis, qui peut simuler I'avance du blindage d'un
tunnel et les pertes de sol qui risultent de l'opiration de percement d'un tunnel, est utilisie pour calculer les dCforma-
tions causCes par l'excavation du tunnel sanitaire de Thunder Bay. Les paramktres de sol adoptCs dans l'analyse ont
CtC bases sur les risultats obtenus dans des essais triaxiaux fonction des contraintes. Les rbultats de cette analyse sont
comparCs avec les diplacements mesurCs du sol. L'on fait Ctat d'une concordance raisonnable entre les valeurs calculCes
et observCes de la distribution 3D du tassement, de mCme que des diplacements horizontaux a diffkrentes distances
de la face du tunnel. La concordance gCnCrale pour les diplacements dans des conditions 3D donne a croire que la
mCthode d'analyse peut Ctre applicable aux problkmes de conception du tunnel dans les argiles molles similaires a celle
For personal use only.

du tunnel sanitaire de Thunder Bay a la condition que l'on puisse se fier aux paramktres de sol determines.
Mots cl&s : percement de tunnel, analyse tri-dimensionnelle, ClCments finis, deplacements Clasto-plastiques, dCfor-
mation de sol, tunnel de Thunder Bay.
[Traduit par la rCdaction]

Can. Geotech. J. 28, 25-41 (1991)

Introduction
To develop a simple, reliable, theoretically based method
for predicting surface settlements resulting from shield tun-
nelling in soft soils, it is necessary to understand the three-
dimensional (3D) nature of the stress changes and defor-
mations caused by the process of tunnel1 excavation. Field
studies (Peck 1969; Cording and Hansmire 1975) have
highlighted the 3D nature of the problem and the effect of
3D face loss on the subsequent deformations. Clough and
Leca (1989) have recently reviewed research into soft ground
tunnelling, and it is clear that, to date, very little theoretical
research has been conducted into the 3D behaviour of
ground movements ahead of the tunnel face, particularly
for soft soil, where nonlinear elastoplastic soil conditions
prevail. Consequently, there is currently very little informa-
tion to aid the design engineer in assessing these 3D effects.
The authors have developed a 3D elastoplastic finite-
element analysis (Lee 1989; Lee and Rowe 1990a) that is
capable of simulating the advance of a tunnelling shield and
the associated ground losses resulting from the tunnelling
process. The objective of this present paper is to illustrate
the applicability of the 3D model by comparing observed
and calculated behaviour for a well-documented case
history.
In 1976, a 3.3 km long sanitary trunk sewer was con-
structed through soft clay in the city of Thunder Bay,
Ontario. This tunnel was constructed using a tunnel-boring
machine together with a segmented, precast concrete tun-
nel lining. Since this was the first time that this construc-
Prlnted In Canada / lrnprlrne au Canada
tion technique had been used in North America, an exten-
sive field-instrumentation program was undertaken. Two
arrays of instrumentation, referred to as array 1 and array 2,
were installed. The comprehensive instrumentation and
monitoring program has been described in detail by Belshaw
and Palmer (1978) and Palmer and Belshaw (1980). A com-
prehensive test program, including special tests for the deter-
mination of deformation and strength parameters for appro-
priate stress paths, was also subsequently undertaken (Lo
and Rowe 1982; Ng and Lo 1985). The availability of both
appropriate soil parameters and detailed field monitoring
data makes this an excellent case for examining the strengths
and limitations of the proposed 3D analysis.
Rowe et al. (1983) and Ng et al. (1986) have described the
use of a two-dimensional (2D) elastoplastic cross-sectional
analysis for estimating the short- and long-term ground
displacements near the tunnel and have reported reasonable
agreement between the predicted and observed ground
displacements under plane-strain conditions. Thus this pres-
ent paper will focus on the 3D deformations by comparing
observed and calculated movements when the tunnel heading
was close to the instrumented sections of the Thunder Bay
tunnel. Subsequent papers (Lee et al. 1991; Rowe and Lee
1991a, 1991b) will discuss approximate methods of incor-
porating these 3D effects into simpler plane-strain analyses
as well as the development of simplified design guidelines
for use in predicting surface subsidence above shallow
tunnels in soft clays.
 CAN GEOTECH. J VOL. 28, 1991 i
I

SHEAR STRENGTH, kPa k

PENETRATION RESISTANCE, BLOWS W Y St

70 t l m
3
PV\T DARK BROWN
SOME SAND A N D SlLT

SAND - SILTY SAND

LOOSE TO DENSE
GREY
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Université de Sherbrooke on 06/20/14

OCCASIONAL CLAY
SEAMS

SILTY CLAY - CLAY

9
GREY
8.5
SOFT TO FIRM
53.5 11
.it5
OCCASIONAL
SlLT OR SAND
SEAMS
' 55.0
54.8 :
58.3
9.5
10
11
6.5
------------
For personal use only.

5.5
6
FIRM TO STIFF
7
GREY A N D RED
BROWN LAYERS

OCCASIONAL
LAYERS OF SlLT
OR FINE SAND

0 STANDARD PENETRATION TEST

A UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST
GEONOR VANE TEIT

SHALE, BLACK

FIG. 1. General soil properties at array 2 (after Palmer and Belshaw 1980).

The Thunder Bay tunnel
A detailed description of the tunnelling procedure adopted
for the Thunder Bay tunnel has been given by Morton et al.
(1977); a brief summary is given below. A full face tunnell-
ing boring machine (TBM), equipped with a rotary excavator
that supported the face, was used to excavate the tunnel.
The rate of intrusion of spoil through the machine head
could be controlled by the size of the opening at the face.
The opening was generally kept small and was adjusted so
that the rate of advance of the machine was consistent with
the volume of soil excavated. The maximum rate of prog-
ress was 29 m/8-h shift.
A precast, segmented concrete lining was assembled in the
tailpiece, and the machine was advanced by thrusting on the
completed lining. The mined diameter was 2.47 m and the
outside diameter of the completed lining was 2.38 m, giv-
ing a physical gap clearance of 90 mm between the concrete
rings and the excavated surface. During the advance, a clay
grout was injected into the tail void; however, the grouting
was reported to be ineffective. This is to be expected, since
the rate of plastic deformation in soft clay is usually very
rapid. Without any internal support pressure, a soft clay
soil will fill the gap as soon as the lining leaves the shield
tail (Lo and Rowe 1982).
 LEE AND ROWE

1
t 9

DIRECTION OF
TUNNEL ADVANCE t8
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Université de Sherbrooke on 06/20/14

t 7

Is11
A A S12 AS13
AS8 VT6 VT7 As9 Aslo
I
+6 AG5 A 57
v T 4 VT5 gG4 AS6
1
VT1
AG3
VT2 VT3 AG2
AS1 AS2
A s3
mi LD mc A G1
mB A.
BM +30 +29 +28 +27 23nE OD OC O B O A
+ 2 6 ~ + o t ~ + ~ o t Oo ++ o +13 +12 +11 +lo
25 24 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14
For personal use only.

$ TUNNEL ---- + INSTRUMENTED R I N G OF

TUNNEL LINING
L
-

k
+3
TUNNEL
LINING
+ SURFACE SETTLEMENT AUGER
0 DEEP S E T T L E M E N T A U G E R

+ .DEEP BENCH MARK

[7 M A G N E T I C E X T E N S O M E T E R
SLOPE I N D I C A T O R
V THOR P I E Z O M E T E R
A G E O N O R PIEZOMETER
0

0
444" 10 20 ft
t
A S O L I N S T PIEZOMETER

I
FIG. 2. Plan of instrumentation at array 2 (after Palmer and Belshaw 1980).

Results of field measurement

Arrays 1 and 2 are about 1.25 km apart, but the
stratigraphy is similar. The depth, H, to the tunnel axis was
10.7 and 10.5 m at arrays 1 and 2, respectively, giving rise
to similar cover to diameter ratios, H/D, of 4.33 and 4.25,
respectively. The stratigraphy and soil properties for array 2
are shown in Fig. 1. The tunnel is located in a soft grey silty
clay deposit that underlies postglacial fluvial deposits of
loose sand and silty sand. Beneath the invert of the tunnel
is a layer of varved clay that extends to shale bedrock.
A plan view of the instrumentation for array 2 is shown in
Fig. 2.
The progress of the tunnel face and the induced set-
tlements are shown in Fig. 3. The tunnelling procedure at
arrays 1 and 2 was technically identical, but array 1 was only
60 m away from the first shaft. Since the workmen were not
yet familiar with the construction technique, advance at
array 1 was slow and intermittent, as may be seen in Fig. 3.
Palmer and Belshaw (1979) have reported that at array 1,
alignment difficulties and grouting problems were noted by
the site engineer. In contrast, good technique was reported
at array 2, and 21 rn of tunnel was completed in an 8-h shift
at this array.
 28 CAN.
TIPIE IN D A Y S
I I
A U G U S T 1976
19 30 2 2
I I
I ,
I I
1
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Université de Sherbrooke on 06/20/14
PIN 5 ( A R R A Y 2)
For personal use only.
FIG. 3. Time, settlement, and tunnel-progress relationships (after Ng 1984).
The development of vertical soil displacements with depth
is shown in Figs. 4 and 5 for arrays 1 and 2, respectively.
Three stages of movement may be identified during tunnell-
ing before the plane-strain condition was reached. In the
first stage, small downward movement to slight heaving
(especially for array 1) of the settlement points was observed
before the face reached the line of measurement. In the
second stage, a small amount of settlement occurred as the
shield passed the instrumentation section (i.e., between 0
and 5.6 m). However, after the tailpiece cleared the section
(i.e., at a distance greater than 5.6 m behind the tunnel face),
the third stage of settlement occurred rapidly as the soil
invaded the space between the circular tunnel boundary and
the lining. The rapid rate of vertical soil displacement began
to level off when the tunnel face was at 10-15 m from the
instrumented section. At this stage, the lined tunnel section
is considered to approach plane-strain conditions, with the
crown of the tunnel coming into contact with the lining. The
time required to reach this condition was less than 4 days
at array 1 and only 8 h at array 2. This corresponding set-
tlement may be considered to be the "undrained" settlement
for this soil (a similar definition is also given by Ng et al.
1986).
Selection of parameters for undrained analysis
A comprehensive test program including special tests for
the determination of deformation and strength parameters
appropriate to the direction and magnitude of stress changes
in tunnelling has been reported by Lo and Rowe (1982) and
Ng and Lo (1985), and a detailed discussion of the selection
GEOTECH. J. VOL. 28, 1991
,
I
ARRAY 2
3
2 24 25 2 4 C
I
1
I I
I
A T ARRAY 2
of soil parameters for the plane-strain analyses has been
given by Ng et al. (1986); only the important points con-
cerning the selection of undrained parameters appropriate
to the direction and magnitude of stress changes near the
tunnel heading will be included in the following discussions.
Since the stratigraphy at arrays 1 and 2 are similar, only the
results pertaining to array 2 are reported in detail. The
undrained results for array 1 are similar.
A number of elastoplastic 3D analyses were performed by
Lee (1989) and Lee and Rowe (1990a). These results suggest
that the stress path experienced by the soil element ahead
of the tunnel face is quite different from that at the plane-
strain section. In general, the trend of the stress path ahead
of the tunnel face is similar to that of triaxial compression.
Once the face advances beyond the point of interest, the
stress path above the tunnel quickly changes to one closer
to triaxial extension. The implication of these differences
of stress path should be considered in the selection of soil
parameters.
The results of CIU tests on vertical and horizontal samples
indicate that horizontal to vertical undrained strength,
cUh/cu,,is 0.84. As noted by Lo (1965), the vane strength
shown in Fig. 1 approximately corresponds to the strength
cuhof the undisturbed soil. The vertical undrained strength
in unconfined compression tests is also shown in Fig. 1. The
implication of the strength anisotropy on surface subsidence
induced by the construction of shallow tunnels has already
been discussed by Lee and Rowe (1989), where it is shown
that for a lined tunnel with a moderate value of "gap," the
detailed consideration of strength anisotropy may not be
necessary.
 LEE AND ROWE
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Université de Sherbrooke on 06/20/14
For personal use only.
DISTANCE TO TUNNEL FACE (m)
FIG. 4. Vertical soil displacement over centreline of tunnel at array 1 (after Belshaw and Palmer 1978).
Results of triaxial compression and extension tests for
drained and undrained conditions were reported by Ng and
Lo (1985). The undrained modulus profile ahead of the tun-
nel face adopted in the 3D analysis is based on the CKoU
compression tests obtained by Ng and Lo (1985). Behind
the tunnel face, the modulus profile for the clay layers is
represented by data obtained from anisotropically con-
solidated extension (CKoE) triaxial tests. The stress paths
of CKoE tests approximately correspond to the field stress
path experienced by th:: soil behind the tunnel face at and
near the crown. Near the springline of the tunnel, the stress
path is intermediate between compression and extension, and
the modulus lies between the compression and extension
values. A smooth transition in modulus profile (similar to
that of Ng et al. 1986) was adopted between the modulus
at the springline region, and a summary of soil parameters
adopted in this analysis is indicated in Fig. 6 (see Fig. 11
of Ng et al. 1986 for the undrained strength profile adopted
in the present analysis). Results from Ng and Lo (1985)
indicate that under undrained conditions, the Thunder Bay
clay has a ratio Eh/Evapproximately equal to unity. The
values of the independent shear modulus Gvhadopted in
this analysis were determined using the NGI simple shear
test and anisotropic parameter tests as reported by Lo and
Rowe (1982) and Ng and Lo (1985).
Parameters for overlying sands
The silt and silty sand strata for array 2 were divided into
three sublayers as shown in Fig. 1. The layers were assigned
soil parameters on the basis of soil densities, laboratory
testing, and empirical correlations with SPT data. Details
regarding the selection of parameters for these granular
strata were given elsewhere (Lo and Rowe 1982; Ng et al.
1986). The parameters adopted for these granular materials
in the present analysis are summarized in Fig. 6. The prop-
erties of the 1 m thick layer of peat were only estimated from
empirical correlations and are relatively uncertain. Fortu-
nately, the surface settlement points were located beneath
the bottom of the peat layer, and the properties of the peat
have practically no effect on the results.
Total gap parameter
The "gap" is a measure of the volume of material that
has been excavated in excess of the theoretical volume within
the outer diameter of the tunnel lining. The equation for
the "total gap parameter" that was originally proposed by
Rowe et al. (1983) and refined by Lo et al. (1984) has been
further extended by Lee et al. (1991); this will be briefly
outlined below. The total gap parameter (G) may be
expressed as (see Fig. 7)
As the tunnel face advances, the soil mass in front will move
towards the face, and some of the soil, which was originally
outside the zone to be excavated, moves into the excava-
tion zone and is subsequently removed. This gives rise to
a component of the gap GDthat represents the amount of
"over excavation" owing to the 3D movements ahead of
the tunnel face. This component of the "gap" arises
automatically from the 3D analysis and can be estimated
for use in 2D analyses as outlined by Lee et al. (1991).
The "over excavation" owing to 3D movements ahead
of the face, denoted by U;'D, is determined by assuming the
 CAN. GEOTECH. J. VOL. 28, 1991
,
J
\

DLSTANCE TO TUNNEL FACE (m)

\

-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
-30 I I I I I I I I
INITIAI, DEPTH ( m )
-20 - 2
0 4.5
-10 - A 6.0
+ 7.6
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Université de Sherbrooke on 06/20/14
For personal use only.

FIG. 5. Vertical soil displacement over centreline of tunnel at array 2 (after Palmer and Belshaw 1980).

machine is advanced in perfect alignment. If the machine
is pitched upward or downward, additional material will be
excavated. This quantity is related to workmanship and is
denoted by w in [I]. The term w, which takes into account
the quality of workmanship, is a factor for engineering
judgement and may be related to local experience or to
empirical corrections derived from case histories such as
those discussed by Lo et al. (1984) and Rowe and Kack
(1983). For the Thunder Bay tunnel there was significant
loss of ground owing to workmanship effects (i.e., w) at
array 1 but negligible loss owing to workmanship at array 2
(i.e., w=O).
The physical gap denoted by (2A + 6) represents the
geometric clearance between the outer skin of the shield and
the lining, and it is composed of the thickness of the tail
piece (A) and the clearance required for erection of the lin-
ing (6). It may be seen that the physical gap is readily deter-
mined once a machine and lining system are chosen. For
the Thunder Bay tunnel the physical gap was 90 mm.
Method of analysis
The analyses reported in the present paper were performed
using the authors' 3D elastoplastic finite-element program
(FEM3D).
The soil is assumed to have an elastic - perfectly plastic
constitutive relationship that (for undrained conditions) was
defined by three independent elastic variables Ev, Eh, and
Gvh (vvh = 0.5 and vhh = 1.0 - 0.5 Eh/Evas noted by
Gibson 1974), a Mohr-Coulomb type failure criterion
(Tresca type for the undrained case) and a flow rule of the
form proposed by Davis (1968). The problems associated
with the sharp corners of the Mohr-Coulomb surface were
overcome by representing it in a slightly modified continuous
and differentiable form as proposed by Gudehus (1973).
Details regarding this form of the soil model, the choice of
finite element, the construction simulation, and solution
technique have been described by Lee and Rowe (1990a) and
will not be repeated herein.
One way to simulate the interaction between the soil and
the tunnel shield or lining support is the use of the soil-
structure interaction theory proposed by Rowe et al. (1983).
However, because of the high cost associated with imple-
menting this incremental technique in 3D analysis, an
approximation as illustrated in Fig. 8 is adopted in this
study. The soil around the tunnel boundary is initially
allowed to deform freely into the excavated area, once the
radial convergence of the soil reaches a predefined value
(which corresponds to the so-called "total gap parameter"),
a ring of lining element is activated, and full contact between
the soil and the lining support is assumed. A similar tech-
nique is also used to simulate the closure of the soil around
the tunnel shield. The weight of this shield-lining system
is then simulated by activating the body force of the struc-
tural elements. (The resulting nodal forces owing to body
weight of the lining-shield elements are only allowed to
apply to the soil elements below the springline of the tun-
nel.) The validity of this simplified approach under plane-
strain condition has been discussed by Lee (1989), and the
approach is found to be adequate for tunnelling techniques
similar to the Thunder Bay tunnel case.
The continuous advance of tunnel face is simulated by
a two-stage analysis. In the first stage, the axial pressure
ahead of the tunnel face is released, and the radial pressure
 LEE AND ROWE

--
E
Descrlptlon of S o l 1 Properties
i

\
u EU (PlPa)
sol1 proflle
aJ Y ? C I
61
n
l,O 2P 3q 4Q 5,O KX/6 KO L ~ / EG ~ ~ E : vhh vVh a
0 Peat
G.M.T& 14 .5 1 .2 .33 .30 0 30"
- 2 L o o s e S l l t y Sand
18.7 .57 -8 .2 .33 .35 0 25"
-4
Medlum Sand \ 20.8 .45 .8 .25 .33 .4 0 34'
-6
19.8 .50 .8 .25 .33 .4 0 32'
-8
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Université de Sherbrooke on 06/20/14

- 10
16.2 .88 1.0 .3 .49 .49 - -
- 12 Transition 18.7 .87 1.0 .25 .49 .49 - -

- 14
Varved C l a y behlnd 18.7 .8 1.0 .25 .49 .49 - -
- 16

- 18
i
- 20
- 22 tunnel face

- 24
For personal use only.

Bedrock

FIG. 6. Soil profile adopted in the analysis of array 2 (modified from Ng et al. 1986). The ratio Gvh/Evrepresents the condition
behind the tunnel face and was adjusted according to the modulus profile adopted ahead of the tunnel face.

INITIAL POSITION OF POINTS ON WHAT

W I L L BECOME THE CROWN AFTER A = GEOMETRIC LOSS OF
EXCAVATION

\
GROUND OVER SHIELD
6 = LOSS OF GROUND
-A'7- - -- -- - \ DUE TO CLEARANCE

GAP = 2 ~ + 6 +u
u = u ; ~+ W

FIG. 7. Definition of gap (modified from Lo et al. 1984).

around the periphery is released until the total radial con-
vergence of the soil at tunnel crown and invert corresponds
to the physical gap (i.e., 90 mm for the case of the Thunder
Bay tunnel). The 3D movements ahead of the face into the
zone to be excavated can then be determined, and hence
GDcan be evaluated and used to calculate the total gap.
Once the total-gap parameter is determined, a second 3D
computation is then performed to approximately simulate
the complete tunnel-excavation process where the radial con-
vergence behind the shield corresponds (see Fig. 8) to the
total gap G (which now includes the 3D ground-loss effect,
GD,as well as the physical gap). Once the tail void closure
reaches the value of G, the lining elements are activated and
soil-lining interaction is allowed to develop. The interact-
ing effect between the soil and the tunnelling shield is also
simulated along the portion of soil directly behind the tun-
nel face and around the shield (see Fig. 8).
The actual amount of 3D movement may be reduced if
pressure is maintained at the tunnel face during excavation;
this will lead to a corresponding decrease in total gap com-
pared with that calculated with full stress release. The radial
deformation of the soil found over the tunnel shield will
depend on the physical thickness of the cutting bead or hood
attached to the tunnelling machine, alignment difficulty
(pitching or diving), and the type of ground; typically this
is up to 40% (see Table 1) of the total gap parameter G.
 32 CAN. GEOTECH. J. VOL. 28, 1991 1
\

Losses Over
Shield Losses lnto Tall Vold i
t=f

Three-Dimensional
"..-
Losses Ahead -*
of the Face

I TUNNEL StlEILD
I LINING SUPPORT SYSTEM I
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Université de Sherbrooke on 06/20/14

Full Release of
Axial Stress to
-
----

-
Simulate Face
Loss
&
----
I I I

FIG. 8. Approximate technique to simulate 3D soil-structure interaction.

For personal use only.

TABLE1. Typical partition of the total settlement to the ground

loss at a shield-driven tunnel (after Craig 1975)

Ahead of Over the Tail of

shield shield shield
Ground ("70) ("70) ("70)
Sand above
water table 30-50 10-20 60-80
Sand below
water table 0-25 0-20 50-75
Stiff clay 30-60 0-20 50-75
Silts and
soft clay 0-25 10-40 30-50

A typical finite-element mesh used in the analysis con-

sisted of 4824 11-noded nonconforming brick elements as
shown in Fig. 9 (see Lee and Rowe 1990a for the descrip-
tion of this nonconforming element). Because of symmetry
only half the tunnel is considered. In this study, the struc-
tural behaviour of the tunnel shield and lining were
simulated by continuous rings of 11-noded nonconforming FIG. 9. Finite-element mesh used in the analysis of the Thunder
elements. Theoretically, 3D thin shell elements should be Bay tunnel. Tunnel diameter (D) = 2.47 m.
used if accurate determination of the structural responses
(e.g., bending moment, thrust force) of the lining are
required. However, since the present study is directed and invert, the moment of inertia of the continuous ring was
towards the understanding of the 3D stress and deforma- reduced by a factor of 10 to provide the appropriate flex-
tion behaviour of the soil around the tunnel heading, the ibility for the lining. A similar technique was used by Kasali
use of 11-noded nonconforming elements to simulate the and Clough (1982) and Lo and Rowe (1982) to simulate
structural behaviour of the supporting shield or lining is con- segmented tunnel linings.
sidered to be acceptable.
The tunnel lining was modelled with parameters appro-
priate t o the concrete lining (E = 20 GPa; A = Results of analysis
0.11 m2/m; I = 1.11 x m4/m). Since there were For the Thunder Bay tunnel, the physical gap (24 + 6)
segment joints and crack inducers at the crown, springline, or the minimum gap parameter is 90 mm. Overcutting
 LEE AND ROWE
-
APPROACHING MOVING AWAY
-5 0 5
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Université de Sherbrooke on 06/20/14
FIG. 10. Predicted and observed surface settlement over centreline of tunnel at array 2.
resulted from 3D face-take, and other construction activi-
ties would result in a larger gap parameter. For the case of
array 2, since good tunnelling technique was reported, the
term w, which takes into account the quality of workman-
ship, has been assumed as zero. (However, it should be noted
that under normal operating conditions, the tunnel operator
is frequently adjusting the pitch of the shield. Therefore in
For personal use only.
practical design situations, it is suggested that as a conser-
vative measure a nominal value of the workmanship factor
w of say 10 mm should be allowed for good workmanship.)
In this case it only remains to determine the equivalent 3D
radial displacement, GD.A preliminary 3D analysis was
performed, as previously described, from which the
equivalent 3D radial displacement, G D , was determined to
be 32 mm for full stress relief at the face of the tunnel. For
this case the total-gap parameter G becomes 122 mm.
(A similar value of the total-gap parameter was adopted by
Ng et al. (1986) to predict the plane-strain behaviour of the
Thunder Bay tunnel; however, Ng et al. had to estimate
GDusing engineering judgement, whereas in this paper it
was determined directly from a 3D analysis.)
To model the interaction between the soil and the tunnel
shield, a value of annular void over the shield is required.
However, information on this parameter was not available.
Observations from previous case histories (see Table 1)
indicate that the radial displacement of soil developed over
the tunnel shield is usually in the range of 10-40% of the
final settlement.
In this study, because of the uncertainty regarding the
amount of overcutting over the shield, two cases were
examined.
(1) The tunnel is assumed to be excavated under perfect
alignment, and the tunnelling machine is pressed hard
against the face so that 3D movements will be minimized.
The only source of ground loss is assumed to be the physi-
cal clearance between the diameter of the excavated surface
and the lining. Under this condition, the equivalent 3D radial
displacement, G D , is assumed to be zero. The radial
displacement of soil developed over the tunnel shield has
also been assumed as zero. The total-gap parameter,
therefore, is equivalent to the value of physical gap of
90 mm. (In the remainder of the paper, this construction
simulation will simply be referred to as "gap of 90 mm.")
i
/ t
DISTANCE OF T U N N E L FACE (m) h
10 15 20 30.5
(2) Full release of axial stress at the tunnel face is assumed,
which would result in the full development of 3D ground
loss ahead and over the tunnel shield. For this case, a value
of annular void over the tunnel shie!d of 32 mm is assumed,
which is similar to the value of the equivalent 3D radial
displacement, uTD, and represents 30% of the total-gap
parameters. The total-gap parameter, which now includes
the 3D ground-loss effect,-@& as well as the physical gap,
is assumed to be 122 mm (referred to as "gap of 122 mm").
These two cases will represent the bounds of the possible
construction conditions where deformation can occur owing
to various degrees of stress release at the tunnel face and
radial movement of the soil to fill the gaps between the
excavated surface and tunnel shield-lining support system.
The findings from these two cases would be expected to
bracket the possible response of a full construction condi-
tion (provided that the tunnelling machine is not pushed into
the soft soil).
Vertical soil displacement along centreline of tunnel
Observed surface-settlement profiles along the
longitudinal axis from plan of instrumentation numbers
(PIN) 1-5 (see Fig. 2 for the location of each surface settle-
ment PIN) are shown in Fig. 10 together with the predicted
profiles with gap parameters of 90 and 122 mm. The
predicted settlement profiles are generally in good agreement
with the observed settlements, and the measured range of
settlement profiles are generally within the bounds of
calculated settlements. The data for centreline surface set-
tlement reported by Palmer and Belshaw (1980) are shown
in Fig. 11. It may be seen that substantial variations occurred
along the centreline of the instrumented array. The range
of centreline surface settlements predicted by the 3D anal-
yses with the total-gap parameters of 90-120 mm is also
plotted in Fig. 11. Within the instrumented array the
measured range of centreline settlements lies within the
bounds of calculated settlements. Since the minimum settle-
ment measured corresponds very well to that predicted by
the physical gap (i.e., minimum gap) of 90 mm, it indicates
that the adjustable size of opening at the machine face
(through which the spoil intrudes into the bulkhead) was
effectively controlled so that the rate of advance of the
machine was consistent with the volume of soil excavated.
 CAN. GEOTECH. J. VOL. 28, 1991
PIN LOCATION (m)
10
I
20
I
30
ARRAY 2
Q1 #2 113 t4 85 #6
PREDICTED FOR GAP = 90mm
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Université de Sherbrooke on 06/20/14
For personal use only.
I
FIG. 11. Predicted and observed ranges of surface centreline settlement at array 2.
I The variation of settlements between each PIN may therefore
I be attributed to the variation of 3D face-take owing to dif-
ferent degrees of face control at various sections or
variability of the shield alignment during excavation. In this
paper, this can be simulated by varying the value of the
equivalent 3D displacement, GD, in the range of 0 (full
face support) and 32 mm (full stress release at the face). It
may be noted that the detailed instrumented section at array 2
is located in the area where maximum settlement was
recorded. This leads to the use of a gap parameter of 122 mm
for evaluating the performance at the detailed instrumented
section for the rest of the analysis.
The calculated vertical-settlement profiles with a gap
parameter of 122 mm that occurred at the ground surface
and along the tunnel crown axis are shown together with
the observed settlements in Fig. 12. The predicted settlement
profiles are in encouraging agreement with the observed
settlements. Near the tunnel the finite-element result
overestimates the soil settlement as compared with the
observed behaviour. This discrepancy may be partially
attributed to the approximate technique adopted in the
simulation of soil-shield interaction and the uncertainty
regarding the maximum allowable value of annular displace-
ment over the tunnel shield. However, as the soil clears the
tailpiece of the tunnel shield (at a distance of about 5.6 m
behind the working face), the general trend of the settlement
profile predicted by the 3D finite-element analysis is very
close to the observed profile. The rapid rate of vertical soil
displacement begins to level off at a distance of about 15 m
behind the tunnel face (i.e., about six tunnel diameters
behind the tunnel face). At this stage, the lined tunnel sec-
tion is considered to attain plane-strain conditions with the
\
i
I
40
I
50
I
'
#7 #8 #9
crown coming into contact with the lining. The calculated
maximum surface settlement behind this point is in very
good agreement with the observed settlement.
For the case of array 1, substantial variations of surface
settlement were observed along the instrumented area, and
the measured settlements were consistently larger than those
of array 2. Palmer and Belshaw (1979) suggested that the
difference in behaviour can be attributed to a difference in
workmanship at the two arrays. Since at array 1 the crew
was not yet familiar with the tunnelling technique, steering
and alignment problems were experienced. This "workman-
ship" factor can be incorporated into the total-gap param-
eter in terms of o as indicated in [I]. An approximate tech-
nique to estimate the maximum value of this
"workmanship" factor under plane-strain conditions has
been developed by Lee et al. (1991) and Rowe and Lee
(1991a). 3D simulation of this "w~rkmanship'~ factor, how-
ever, is a complex and expensive task and is beyond the scope
of this paper. It is likely that the steering and alignment
problems encountered in array 1 would result in deviation
from its original design alignment. Furthermore, the
adjustable size of opening at the machine face may not have
been controlled in a proper manner. For instance, if the
opening size is too small so that the rate of advance of the
machine is inconsistent with the volume of soil excavated,
high outward pressure would be developed ahead of the face.
This would result in the outward displacement of soil in front
of a progressing advanced shield. This is evident by the heav-
ing of soil up to 10 mm ahead of the face, as shown in Fig. 4
for array 1; however, a similar phenomenon was not
observed for array 2 (see Fig. 5). The heaving process at the
shield face would induce positive excess pore pressure and
 LEE AND ROWE ,\
,, ' I \

LONGITUDINAL DISTANCE TO TUNNEL FACE (m)

"?
-1 5 -10 -5 FACE 5 10 15 LO 25 30 35
-30 I I I I I I I I
-20 -
-10 -
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Université de Sherbrooke on 06/20/14
For personal use only.

FIG. 12. Comparison of predicted and observed settlement profiles along the longitudinal axis.

a mechanically disturbed zone in the clay where subsequent
consolidation would occur. If the positive outward pressure
in front of the face is controlled in a proper manner, as in
the case of the slurry shield and the Earth Pressure Balance
shield, reduction of the overall surface settlements would
result (Kasali and Clough 1982; Finno 1983). This heaving
process is apparently designed to partially offset the inward
movements due to collapse of the soil into the tail void.
However, very large heaving displacements would likely have
a detrimental effect on the soil adjacent to the tunnel owing
to its remoulding. Terzaghi (1942) observed such problems
where a shield was shoved blind into Chicago clay. As much
as 250 mm of heave was induced, and subsequent set-
tlements up to 300 mm occurred over a 2-year period.
Surface-settlement troughs along transverse sections
The development of transverse surface-settlement troughs
(i.e., settlement profile along the ground-surface perpen-
dicular to the direction of tunnelling) at various distances
behind the tunnel face are shown in Fig. 13. A relatively
flat settlement profile is initially developed ahead of the face.
This gradually changes to the well-recognized bell-shaped
profile as the tunnel passes the section. The predicted set-
tlement troughs are in relatively good agreement with the
observed settlements for all five distances behind the face.
The shapes of the predicted surface-settlement troughs are
consistently slightly wider than the observed troughs. Near
the tunnel face, results predicted by finite-element analysis
slightly overestimate the maximum centreline settlements.
However, at distances farther away from the face, the max-
imum settlements predicted by the finite-element analysis
are very close to the observed values.
The calculated surface-settlement profiles at a plane strain
section are shown together with the observed settlement in
Figure 14a. The normalized shape of the curves, obtained
by dividing the settlements by the centreline settlement, are
shown in Fig. 14b. These normalized plots provide a more
direct comparison of the trough shapes.
It may be seen from Fig. 14a that the maximum surface
settlement is underestimated if a gap parameter of 90 mm
is adopted. The settlement curve for a gap parameter of
122 mm is in good agreement with the observed settlements.
(Similar results were also obtained by Ng et al. 1986 by a
plane-strain finite-element method. However, it should be
noted that the gap parameter of 120 mm adopted by Ng
et al. was based on engineering judgement, whereas in this
paper it was determined directly from a 3D analysis.) Both
curves have the appearance of an error function. The shape
of the observed surface-settlement profile is slightly narrower
than the predicted profiles. The width of the settlement
trough can be more directly compared by considering the
trough width i at various distances from the tunnel face. The
observed and calculated values at various distances from the
tunnel face are shown in Table 2. The values of the trough
width gradually reduce as the distance behind the tunnel face
increases. The calculated width of the settlement trough con-
sistently overestimates the observed values by 10-20%.
 CAN. GEOTECH. J. VOL. 28, 1991 3
i
f

DISTANCE I'ROII CI:>II'REI,I'iE 01.' 1'IJNSl:L 1t;i)

Field llensurcmont
( 1 . 5 rn f r o n ~ t t i n n e l f a c e )
F-L l'rediction

(b) SJUTtl +- I --) NORTH

Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Université de Sherbrooke on 06/20/14

DIS'rAYCE FRO:! CENTRELINE OF TUNNEL (nl)

10 - 8 6 2 0 2 4 6 8 10

F i e l d >leasurc:nent

- ki::
m frotn t u n n e l f a c e )
4 0 precliction

SOUTtl I NORTli

1)ISTANCE FROil CENTRELINE OF TUiJNEL (m)

10 - 8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6

h e l d >leasuremerrt
For personal use only.

(6.7 m from t u n n e l f a c e )
F-E Pred~ction

(d )
VERTICAL SCALE: SETTLEEIENT (mm)

-- I NORTH

DISTANCE FRON CENTRELINE OF TUNNEL (m)

F i e l d Neasurement
(9.8m from t u n n e l f a c e )

(el SOUTH L( -
DISTANCE FROEl CENTRELINE OF TUNNEL
NORTH

(m)

F i e l d Measuremen:
X= 15.2. (15.2m from tunnel f a c e )

VERTICAL SCALE: SETTLE'iENT

"-f-"'
(mm)

-L
60
\F-E Prediction

FIG. 13. (a-e) Predicted and observed surface-settlement troughs at various distances from the tunnel face (array 2). F-E, finite
element.
 LEE AND ROWE \

I _ . \

(a) DISTANCE FROM CENTRELINE (m) x

Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Université de Sherbrooke on 06/20/14

Array 2
"Undrained"

L o c a t i o n = PIN 5
T u n n e l F a c e a t 15.2111 I
(b) DISTANCE FROM CENTRELINE (m) ;-

I n i t i a l Ground S u r f a c e I
For personal use only.

FIG. 14. ( a ) Surface-settlement troughs: ( b ) Normalized surface-settlement troughs at the plane-strain section (predicted with
GAP = 90 and 122 mm).

TABLE
2. Observed and calculated trough widths at array 2

Distance behind
the tunnel face Observed (obs), Calculated (cal), -
*,,I
(m) i/a i/a i~bs
1.5 3.2 3.5 1.1
4.6 3.1 3.3 1.1
6.7 2.9 3.1 1.1
9.8 2.5 3.0 1.2
15.2 2.4 2.9 1.2
NOTE: The trough width i is the distance from the centre of the trough t o a point where the
settlement is 0.606 of the maximum settlement at the centre; a is the radius of the tunnel.

The plots of calculated normalized settlement (Fig. 14b)
show that their shapes do not vary significantly with the gap
parameter. This is consistent with the observation that the
shape of the surface-settlement trough is similar from sec-
tion to section (Belshaw and Palmer 1978) and also with the
numerical results obtained by Rowe et al. (1983) and Ng
et al. (1986).
Variation of lateral displacement with depth
The observed and calculated lateral deformations when
the tunnel face was 5 m away from the slope indicators (i.e.,
- 5 m) and 4 and 20 m past the slope indicators are shown
in Figs. 15a-15c. Noticeable deformations begin to occur
when the face is at a distance of 5 m (two tunnel diameters)
away from the slope indicators and gradually increases as
 CAN. GEOTECH. J. VOL. 28, 1991
i
I

HORIZONTAL klOVPIENT (mm)

Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Université de Sherbrooke on 06/20/14
For personal use only.

RELATIVE HORIZONTAL LOCATION (m)

HORIZONTAL PIOVEMENT (mm)

RELATIVE HORIZONTAL LOCATION (m)

FIG. 15. Predicted and observed lateral displacement (a) 5 m ahead of the tunnel face, (b) 4 m behind the tunnel face, and (c) 20 m
behind the tunnel face. F-E finite element.
 LEE AND ROWE \

FIORIZONTAL I\IOVE~IENT ( r n ~ n )
,
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Université de Sherbrooke on 06/20/14

Distance of + 2 0 rn from the Tunnel Face

t o the L i n e of Slope Indicators

- - - - - - - Field Measurement

F-E Prediction
For personal use only.

RELATIVE HORIZONTAL LOCATION (rn)

FIG.15. Continued.

VERTICAL DISPLACEMENT (mm)

the tunnel approaches. Once the tunnel passes the

il'l
instrumented section, rapid development of lateral displace-
ment occurs. The results predicted at 15 m from the tunnel
face (Fig. 15c) are very similar to those obtained by Ng et al. 8 Observed (Undrained)
(1986) using plane-strain finite-element analysis. This,
together with previously presented results, indicates that for F-E Prediction
the case of the Thunder Bay tunnel, plane-strain conditions (GAP= 122 mm)
are reached at a distance of about 15 m (six tunnel 3 Undrained Analysis
diameters) behind the tunnel face. Thus, once the tunnel face
advances beyond this distance, plane-strain analysis can be
used to predict the resulting ground deformations (such as
Rowe et al. 1983; Ng et al. 1986). Furthermore, it is noted
that the observed deformation are not symmetric. This may
reflect nonhomogeneity of this soil and (or) nonuniform
excavation by the TBM owing to "workmanship" problems.
The calculated results were found to closely follow the trend
of the measured displacements. The magnitude of movement
was slightly underestimated before the face reached the
instrumented section and slightly overestimated after the face
passed the instrumented section. Both the observed and
calculated displacements indicated that the maximum lateral
soil deformation occurred close to the springline. The
magnitude of soil displacement decreases very rapidly below FIG.16. Predicted and observed vertical displacement along
this level. Similar behaviour involving maximum horizon- the vertical centre axis with depth. F-E, finite element.
tal movement towards the tunnel at the axis level has been
reported for a number of other tunnelling case histories Variation of centre settlement with depth above the tunnel
(Barrett and Tyler 1976; Attewell et al. 1986) and has been axis
examined theoretically, as discussed by Lee and Rowe The observed and calculated undrained settlement
(1990b). distributions with depth at 15 m from the tunnel face are
 40 CAN. GEOTECH. J. VOL. 28, 1991
0 4 (m)
L 2 L J
SCALE
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Université de Sherbrooke on 06/20/14
SETTLEMENT CONTOUR
ALIGNMENT \
For personal use only.
0 2 4 (m)
u
SCALE
FIG. 17. Predicted and observed surface-settlement contour (settlement bowl) above the advancing tunnel.
shown in Fig. 16. The observed and calculated settlements
agree well, except within a distance of one tunnel diameter
from the crown where the observed settlements are some-
what higher. As suggested by Ng et al. (1986), the
discrepancy may be due to an overestimation of the strength
of the sand immediately above the clay cover adopted in the
analysis. Lowering the friction angle of the sand would lead
to an increase of calculated settlement in this region. It
should be noted that the entire clay layer above the crown
is within the plastic zone; therefore, decreasing the shear
strength of clay above the crown would not result in a sig-
nificant increase in centreline displacements.
Settlement contour at the ground surface
A contour plot of the surface settlement predicted by the
finite-element analysis is shown in Fig. 17. A similar plot,
which was deduced from field observations by Ng (1984),
is also shown for comparison. The general trend of the sur-
face contour is very similar between the predicted and
observed behaviour. The finite-element analysis
overestimates the extent of 3D displacement ahead of the
face and to the sides of the tunnel. Both the calculated and
observed contours indicate that the maximum undrained set-
tlement occurred at a distance about 15 m behind the tun-
nel face (i.e., about six tunnel diameters).
Summary and conclusions
A 3D elastoplastic finite-element undrained analysis of
the displacement caused by excavation of the Neebing-
McIntyre Thunder Bay tunnel in Thunder Bay, Ontario, has
been performed. The findings from the 3D finite-element
\
analysis and the comparison of observed and calculated
deformations can be summarized as follows.
(1) The maximum 3D radial displacement, GD,was
32 mm, giving rise to a maximum total-gap parameter of
122 mm. This value if very similar to the gap parameter
estimated by Ng et al. (1986).
(2) The observed and calculated displacement profiles
along the longitudinal and transverse cross sections were in
reasonable agreement.
(3) The calculated shape of the surface-settlement trough
is relatively insensitive to moderate changes in the gap
Darameter. The s h a ~ e of
s the observed and calculated set-
ilements at various distances from the tunnel face are in rea-
sonable agreement.
(4) Both the observed and calculated horizontal
displacements at various distances from the tunnel face
indicate that the maximum lateral displacement occurs near
the springline level. The calculated profiles of horizontal
displacements compare reasonably well with the observed
data.
(5) Reasonably good agreement is also observed between
the calculated distribution of undrained settlements with
depth and the corresponding observed field settlements.
Reasonable agreement has been obtained between
calculated and observed 3D settlement distribution and hor-
izontal displacements at different distances from the tun-
nel face. This overall agreement for displacement under 3D
conditions suggests that the method of analysis is applicable
to design problems involving tunnelling in soft clays similar
to that at the Thunder Bay sewer tunnel.
 LEE ANID ROWE
Furthermore, the results of the study indicate that foun-
dations o r structures are subjected t o a wave of 3D
displacements and strains before the tunnel reaches the
plane-strain conditions. Thus, information based o n plane-
strain analysis of a transverse section of a tunnel (e.g., Ng
et al. 1986) only represents part of the required informa-
tion. 3D finite-element analysis such as that described in this
study can be used t o predict the spatial 3D ground
displacements within the soil mass. However, because of the
high cost and processing time associated with this analysis,
simplified procedures a n d (or) empirical techniques are
usually adopted. T h e validity o f various simplified
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Université de Sherbrooke on 06/20/14
approaches has been evaluated by Rowe a n d Lee (1991b)
using, in part, the 3D results presented in this paper.
Acknowledgement
This paper forms part of a general programme of research
into soft ground tunnelling being conducted by the
Geotechnical Research Centre a n d made possible by the
award of grant A1007 and a Steacie Fellowship to R.K. Rowe
by the Natural Sciences a n d Engineering Research Council
of Canada.
ATTEWELL,P.B., YEATES,J., and SELBY,A.R. 1986. Soil
movements induced by tunnelling and their effects on pipelines
and structures. Blackie and Son Ltd., Glasgow.
BARRATT, D.A., and TYLER,R.G. 1976. Measurements of ground
For personal use only.
movements and lining behaviour on the London Underground
at Regents Park. TRRL Laboratory Report No. LR684.
BELSHAW, D. J., and PALMER, J.H.L. 1978. Results of a program
of instrumentation involving a precast segmented concrete-lined
tunnel in day. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 15: 573-583.
CLOUGH, G.W., and LECA,E. 1989. Models and design methods
with focus on use of finite element methods for soft ground tun-
nelling. General report. Proceedings, International Conference
on Tunnelling and Microtunnelling in Soft Ground-from Field
to Theory, session IV, Paris, pp. 531-573.
CORDING, E.J., and HANSMIRE, W.H. 1975. Tunnels in soils-
General Report. Proceedings, 5th Pan American Conference of
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, session IV,
Buenos Aires, Argentina.
CRAIG,R. 1975. Discussions at the meeting of the British Tun-
nelling Society. Tunnels and Tunnelling, 7: 61-65.
DAVIS,E.H. 1988. Theories of plasticity and the failure of soil
masses. In Soil mechanics selected topics. Edited by I.K. Lee.
Butterworths, Sydney, Australia.
FINNO,R.J. 1983. Response of cohesive soil to advanced shield
tunnelling. Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
GIBSON,R.E. 1974. The analytical method in soil mechanics.
GCotechnique, 24: 115-140.
GUDEHUS,G. 1973. Elastoplastiche stoffgleichungen fur
trockenen sand. Ingenieur Archiv. 42.
KASALI,G., and CLOUGH, W. 1982. Three dimensional finite ele-
ment analysis-Advanced and conventional shield tunnelling.
Development of a design technology for ground support for tun-
nels in soils, vol. 2, United States Department of Transportation.
LEE, K.M. 1989. Prediction of ground deformations resulting
from shield tunnelling in soft clays. Ph.D. thesis, University of
Western Ontario, London, Ont.
LEE, K.M., and ROWE,R.K. 1989. Effects of undrained strength
anisotropy on surface subsidences induced by the construction
of shallow tunnels. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 26: 279-291.
-1991a. Finite element modelling of the three-dimensional
ground deformations due to tunnelling in soft cohesive soils.
Part I - Method of analysis. Computers and Geotechnics,
in press.
-1991b. Finite element modelling of the three-dimensional
41
ground deformations due to iunnelling in soft cohesive soils.
Part I1 - Results. Computers and ~eotecknics,in press.
LEE, K.M., ROWE,R.K., and LO, K.Y. 1991. Subsidence due to
tunnelling: Estimating the "Gap" parameter. ASCE Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering Division, submitted.
Lo, K.Y. 1965. Stability of slopes in anisotropic soils. ASCE Jour-
nal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, 91(SM4):
85-106.
Lo, K.Y., and ROWE,R.K. 1982. Prediction of ground subsidence
due to tunnelling in clays. Research Report GEOT-10-82, Faculty
of Engineering Science, University of Western Ontario, London,
Ont .
Lo, K.Y., NG, M.C., and ROWE,R.K. 1984. Predicting settlement
due to tunnelling in clays. Tunnelling in Soil and Rock, ASCE
Geotech I11 Conference, Atlanta, GA, pp. 46-76.
MORTON, J.D., DUNBAR, D.D., and PALMER, J.H.L. 1977. Use
of a precast segmented concrete lining for a tunnel in soft clay.
Proceedings, International Symposium on Soft Clay, Bangkok,
Thailand, pp. 587-598.
NG, R.M.C. 1984. Ground reaction and behaviour of tunnels in
soft clays. Ph.D. thesis, University of Western Ontario, London,
Ont .
NG, R.M.C., and LO, K.Y. 1985. The measurements of soil
parameters relevant to tunnelling in clays. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, 22: 375-391.
NG, R.M.C., Lo, K.Y., and ROWE,R.K. 1986. Analysis of field
performance - the Thunder Bay tuinel. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, 23: 30-50.
PALMER,J.H.L., and BELSHAW,D.J. 1980. Deformations and
pore pressures in the vicinity o t a precast, concrete-lined tunnel
in clay. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 17: 174-184.
PECK,R.B. 1986. Deep excavations and tunnelling in soft ground.
Proceedings, 7th International Conference on Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Engineering, Mexico City, Mexico, pp. 225-290.
ROWE,R.K., and KACK,G.J. 1983. A theoretical examination of
the settlements induced by tunnelling: four case histories. Cana-
dian Geotechnical Journal, 20: 229-314.
ROWE,R.K., and LEE, K.M. 1991a. Subsidence due to tunnell-
ing: Evaluation of a prediction technique. ASCE Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering Division, submitted.
-1991b. An evaluation of simplified techniques for
estimating 3-dimensional undrained ground movements due to
tunnelling in soft soils. Canadian Geotechnical Journal,
submitted.
ROWE,R.K., LO, K.Y., and KACK,G.J. 1983. A method of
estimating surface settlement above shallow tunnels constructed
in soft ground. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 20: 11-22.
TERZAGHI, K. 1942. Shield tunnels of the Chicago Subway. Jour-
nal of the Boston Society of Civil Engineers, 29: 163-210.
List of Symbols
horizontal undrained shear strength
vertical undrained shear strength
anisotropically consolidated extension triaxial test
horizontal elastic modulus
vertical elastic modulus
independent shear modulus
total-gap parameter
physical gap
equivalent 3D movement ahead of t h e tunnel face
0 workmanship parameter
A thickness of the tail piece
6 clearance required for erection of the lining
W water content
Y unit weight of soil
st sensitivity of clayey soil
SPT standard penetration test