Tunnelling and

Underground Space
Technology
incorporating Trenchless
Technology Research
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 20 (2005) 514–524
www.elsevier.com/locate/tust

Back analysis for tunnelling induced ground movements and

stress redistribution
a,* b
M. Karakus , R.J. Fowell
a
Department of Mining Engineering, Inonu University, 44280 Malatya, Turkey
b
Department of Mining and Mineral Engineering, The University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK

Received 10 August 2004; received in revised form 14 February 2005; accepted 16 February 2005
Available online 3 June 2005

Abstract

Analysing tunnelling process in 2D plane strain conditions is widely used method to calculate tunnelling induced settlement pro-
files as well as soil structure interactions. Possibility of damage to the surface and/or underground structures can be estimated using
powerful finite difference method (FDM) and finite element method (FEM) of analysis. However, setting up a realistic model that
would be able to achieve this goal is rather difficult. In this paper, 2D FDM analysis has been conducted to assess tunnelling induced
settlement, stress redistribution phenomena along with movements around shallow soft ground tunnels excavated in accordance
with the New Austrian Tunnelling Method. Measurements recorded during construction of the Heathrow Express Trial Tunnel
in London Clay were compared with the predicted values to validate numerical estimations. As a soil model, the Mohr–Coulomb
plasticity model has been used in the FDM analysis. Results obtained from 2D FEM are also included in this paper for comparison
purposes to evaluate performance of both numerical analysis procedures. Predictions from both FDM and FEM analyses proved to
be procedures used within this work can be a tool in practical engineering applications to simulate tunnelling operations.
Ó 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: The Heathrow Express Trial Tunnel; FEM; FDM; London Clay; Surface and sub-surface settlement; Cable elements; Stress redistrib-
ution; NATM

1. Introduction There are empirical models developed to estimate sur-

Overpopulation leading to an increase in the number of
commuters in urban areas has caused acceleration in con-
structing underground Metro tunnels to overcome trans-
portation problems. Therefore, all the parameters having
influences on the magnitude and the profiles of the surface
settlement have to be investigated thoroughly as the ma-
jor concern in constructing such tunnels in urban areas
is to reduce and/or to control settlement. Using numerical
analysis can often predict the consequences without using
any full scale trial tunnels.
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +90 422 341 00 30; fax: +90 422 341 00
46.
E-mail address: mkarakus@inonu.edu.tr (M. Karakus).
face settlements in both transverse and longitudinal
directions to the tunnel axis (Peck, 1969; New and OÕR-
eilly, 1978; OÕReilly, 1988; Mair et al., 1993; New and
Bowers, 1994). These empirical models produce very
good surface settlement predictions. However, consider-
ing that the empirical models are mainly based on past
experience, these models are conservative for a ground
that has not had any tunnelling process conducted in.
In the preliminary tunnel design stage, not only
employing correct soil stiffness properties but also self-
weight of structures on the surface to numerical models
can predict the probability of damage to surface struc-
tures. Therefore, there have been large numbers of
numerical analyses in 2D and 3D conducted to assess
tunnelling induced damage (Swoboda, 1979; Gunn,

0886-7798/$ - see front matter Ó 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.tust.2005.02.007
 M. Karakus, R.J. Fowell / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 20 (2005) 514–524 515

1992; Shohrour and Ghorbanbeigi, 1994; Swoboda
et al., 1994; Dasari, 1996; Swoboda et al., 1999; Mroueh
and Shahrour, 2003; Karakus and Fowell, 2003). In
the present work, 2D plane strain Finite Difference
analyses have been conducted to investigate ground
movement profiles and stress redistribution around a
NATM tunnel. Fast Lagrangian analysis of continua
(FLAC) (Itasca, 1993) program has been utilized to sim-
ulate tunnel construction. Tunnel Excavation process
has been modelled using the hypothetical modulus of
elasticity (HME) soft lining approach (Powell et al.,
1997). Mroueh and Shahrour (2003) has studied interac-
tions of buildings with tunnels using 3D finite element
analysis. They concluded that self weight of buildings
on the surface has a major role on determination of ini-
tial stresses in the ground and neglecting this results in
underestimation of tunnelling induced forces leading
to less settlement predictions. Therefore, surcharge of
80 kPa (Bowers, 1997) due to existing car park over
the Heathrow Trial Tunnel excavation has been in-
cluded within the analysis.
Surface and subsurface transverse settlement troughs,
along with horizontal stress distributions measured dur-
ing the Heathrow Trial Tunnel construction in 1992 have
been compared with the predicted results (Bowers, 1997).
effective stress values effective Young modulus (E 0 ) and
effective poissonÕs ratio (v 0 ) (Burland and Kalra, 1986).
Made ground and Terrace gravel (Thames gravel) were
modelled using the drained material properties. Proper-
ties adopted for the numerical analysis are given in
Table 1. Grose and Eddie (1996) suggested that the
cohesion of the London Clay is 10 kPa and earth pres-
sure at rest, K0 = 1 when analysing the Heathrow Trans-
fer Baggage System tunnel. On the other hand, it was
found by Atzl and Mayr (1994) and Ryley and Carder
(1995) that the cohesion of the London Clay varies be-
tween 0 and 30 kPa. Earth pressure at rest (K0) value
for made ground and Thames gravel was predicted using
well known JakyÕs formula (Konc = 1
sin / 0 ) and
adopted in the FDM analysis (see Fig. 1).
According to the data derived from different sites in
London, Burland and Kalra (1986) proposed a relation
for the drained Young Modulus of London Clay in both
vertical and horizontal directions. These relationships
show that stiffness of the London Clay varies with depth
(z).
E0m ¼ 7.5 þ 3.9z ðMN=m2 Þ; ð1Þ
E0h ¼ 1.6E0m ðMN=m2 Þ. ð2Þ

Values of the London Clay Modulus, MPa

2. Geology at the site and construction processes
0 50 100 150 200 250
0
Materials encountered at the site consist of Thames
E'v (Burland, 1986)
Depth below clay surface (z),m

gravel, made ground and London Clay. The London 10 Bulk Modulus (K)
Clay is clearly dominant at the site and is found below Shear Modulus (G)
a depth of 4.2 m. This is overlain by coarse gravel, with 20
0.3 m of cement-stabilised material and above this a
bitumen covered car park (Ryley and Carder, 1995). 30
Dean and Basset (1995) reported that London Clay is
generally homogenous with very few major discontinu- 40
ities and it has a good stand up time of at least 18 h.
Trial tunnel construction was carried out approximately 50
16.8 m crown depth. The analyses were carried out in
terms of effective stress parameters, in other words, 60
drained analyses were conducted. Therefore, London Fig. 1. Variation of London Clay Modulus with depth adopted in
Clay properties were expressed in terms of equivalent FLAC analysis (Burland and Kalra, 1986).

Table 1
Drained material properties at the site (Powell et al., 1997; Burland and Kalra, 1986)
Parameters, units and symbols London Clay Thames Gravel
3
Bulk unit weight, kN/m , c 20 19
Cohesion, MPa, c 0 10 0
Earth pressure at rest, K0 1.15 0.43
Internal friction angle, / 0 (°) 25° 35°
Dilation angle, u 0 (°) 12.5° 17.5°
PoissonÕs ratio, m 0 0.125 0.3
Effective bulk modulus, MPa, K 0 See Fig. 1 23.8E3
Effective shear modulus, MPa, G 0 See Fig. 1 19.23E3
Effective YoungÕs modulus (in vertical), MPa, E0m See Fig. 1 50E3
516 M. Karakus, R.J. Fowell / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 20 (2005) 514–524

Construction of the trial tunnel started in February 1992
with the Type-1 (TS1) method of advance, a double side
drift sequence, followed by Type-2 (TS2), single side
drift sequence, and Type-3 (TS3), crown, bench, and in-
vert face excavation (Fig. 2). This work was completed
by 16 June 1992. Measurement and monitoring of the
construction process was conducted by the Transport
Research Laboratory (TRL). The project provided
information on ground movements in the London Clay
to tunnel designers.
Each trial section progressed for at least 30 m in or-
der to obtain adequate and meaningful data over each
section. Trial tunnel construction was carried out at
16.8 m crown depth below the surface with having
7.9 m height and 9.2 m width, producing a 100-metre
long running tunnel. From the field observations,
Type-2 (TS2) produced the minimum transverse surface
settlement profile among the Trial tunnels and TS2 was
subjected to the FDM analysis in this research.
The shotcrete has been represented by elastic beam
elements in the analysis. The elasticity modulus of the
beam elements was divided by (1
m2) in order to take
account the plane strain conditions since beam element
formulation is a plane stress formulation implemented
in the FLAC. Beam elements attached to the ground
and cable elements were used to simulate rock
bolts. Properties of these structural elements are given
in Table 2.
Cable elements are 1D axial structural elements an-
chored at a specific point in the grid or grouted so that
the cable element develops forces along its length as the
grid deforms. Cable elements are used to model rock
bolts, cable bolts. Cable element formulation in FLAC
considers deformations along entire length of bolts
rather than a specific point and thus it is useful model-
ling such reinforcement systems as rock bolts where
grout material may fail in shear in some length of the
reinforcement (Itasca, 1993). Fig. 3 illustrates the cable
element behaviour implemented in FLAC.
As the input parameters for cable elements, grout stiff-
ness (Kbond), grout shear strength (Sbond), and area (A),
YoungÕs Modulus (E), diameter (D), length (L) and ulti-
mate strength of cable are required. A 1D constitutive
model is used to model axial behavior of the reinforcing
element in FLAC. The axial stiffness is described in terms
of the reinforcement cross-sectional area, A, and YoungÕs
modulus, E(w), the incremental axial force, DFt, is calcu-
lated from the incremental axial displacement by
EA t
DF t ¼
Du ; ð3Þ
L
½b ½a ½b ½a
where Dut ¼ ðu1
u1 Þt1 þ ðu2
u2 Þt2 . The super-
scripts [a], [b] refer to the nodes in the grid. The cosines
t1, t2 are the tangential (axial) direction of the cable. As
a consequence of relative shear displacement, ut, be-
tween the tendon surface and the borehole surface, the
shear force, Ft, mobilized per length of cable is related
to the grout stiffness, Kbond – i.e. (Itasca, 1993),
F t ¼ K bond ut . ð4Þ

Fig. 2. The Heathrow Express Trial Tunnel, Type-2 (Bowers, 1997).

Table 2
Structural element properties used in the FDM analysis (Itasca, 1993; Bowers, 1997)
Parameters, symbols and units Beam elements Cable elements
Inner lining Outer lining
Area, A, m2 0.15 0.25 0.0005
PoissonÕs ratio, m 0.15 0.15 –
YoungÕs modulus, E, MPa 5000 5000 40000
Moment of inertia, I, m4 0.000281 0.0013 –
Cable diameter, D, m n/a 0.025
Cable length, L, m n/a 3
Ultimate strength of cable (force), MN n/a 0.225
Bond stiffness of grout, Kbond, MN/m/m n/a 6000
Bond strength of grout, Sbond, MN/m n/a 0.320
n/a: not applicable.
 M. Karakus, R.J. Fowell / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 20 (2005) 514–524
Fig. 3. Cable element behaviour in FLAC (Itasca, 1993).
If laboratory pull-out tests are available, Kbond can be
measured directly, else the stiffness can be calculated
from a numerical estimate for the elastic shear stress,
sG, obtained from an equation describing the shear
stress at the grout/rock interface (Itasca, 1993):
G Du
sG ¼ ; ð5Þ
ðD=2 þ tÞ lnð1 þ 2t=DÞ
where Du is relative displacement between the element
and the surrounding material; Gw is grout shear modu-
lus; Dw is reinforcing diameter; and tw is the annulus
thickness.
Consequently, the grout shear stiffness, Kbondw ( N/
m/m ‘ w, is simply given by
2pG
K bond ¼ . ð6Þ
lnð1 þ 2t=DÞ
Other important parameter which has to be defined is
Sbond. This may also be deduced from the following
expressions when ignoring frictional confinement effects
(Itasca, 1993):
S bond ¼ pðD þ 2tÞspeak ;
speak ¼ sI QB ;
where speak is the maximum shear force per cable length
in the grout, sI is about 50% of the uniaxial compressive
strength of the weaker of the rock and grout, and QB is
the quality of the bond in between grout and rock
(QB = 1 is for perfect bonding) (Itasca, 1993).
2.1. The Heathrow Express Trial Tunnel Type-2 and
instrumentation methodology
Sub-surface measuring equipment consists of extens-
ometers, inclinometers and push-in pressure cells and
piezometers. Magnetic probe extensometers were used
to measure vertical displacement. Horizontal soil stress
517
was measured using spade cells and push-in soil stress
cells that were inserted near to the tunnel crown and
at axis level. To measure the horizontal total stresses,
these cells were incorporated with the pneumatic piez-
ometers to record pore water pressures. Pneumatic piez-
ometers were installed in sand cells within the spade cell
boreholes with bentonite plugs above and below. Three
extensometers were placed over the axis perpendicular
to the Tunnel Type-2 and one on the tunnel centreline.
The magnetic rings located at various depths, which
were ranged from 3 to 27 m depth. Biaxial inclinometers
with automatic loggers were used to record the horizon-
tal movements using techniques developed by TRL
(Bowers, 1997). A detailed location drawing for the
inclinometers are given in Fig. 4.
As in-tunnel instrumentation, convergence-measuring
pins were used to measure horizontal and vertical move-
ments of the shotcrete with time. These were installed
on the tunnel periphery when the shotcrete was installed.
2.2. General numerical analysis procedure
Mohr–Coulomb plasticity model has been adopted
throughout the FLAC analysis to represent stress–strain
behaviour of not only London Clay but also Thames
gravel and made ground.
Mohr–Coulomb criterion has a linear failure surface
corresponding to shear failure as described in the follow-
ing equations:
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
fs ¼ r1
r3 N / þ 2c N / ; ð9Þ
N / ¼ ð1 þ sin /Þ=ð1
sin /Þ; ð10Þ
where r1 is major principal stress; r3 is minor principal
stress; / is friction angle and c is the cohesion. Shear
yield is detected if fs<0 (Itasca, 1993).
For modelling of the tunnelling process in 2D, an ap-
proach has to be adopted to take into account the defor-
mation occurring prior to shotcrete installation and the
ð7Þ
ð8Þ
Fig. 4. Surface, subsurface and in-tunnel instrumentation around the
Heathrow Trial Tunnel Type-2 (Bowers, 1997).
518 M. Karakus, R.J. Fowell / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 20 (2005) 514–524

100m

3 3

1 2
50 m

1-Outer lining300 mm, 2-Inner lining250 mm, 3-Cablebolts

Fig. 5. Model grid used in the FLAC.

3D tunnelling problem. There are different approaches
to consider aforementioned deformations such as the
convergence confinement method (Panet and Guenot,
1982), the progressive softening method (Swoboda,
1979), volume loss control method (Potts and Zdravko-
vic, 2001). The hypothetical modulus of elasticity
(HME) soft lining approach, a relatively new technique
developed for the simulation of Heathrow Express tun-
nel at Terminal 4 by Powell et al. (1997), has been em-
ployed in the analysis. Essential to this approach is to
introduce a lower elasticity modulus for the shotcrete
to represent the excavation process and subsequently in-
crease it to the assumed short-term modulus of elasticity
for the shotcrete. The approach is believed to model the
shotcrete behaviour until it gains strength. More de-
tailed explanation of this approach is given by Karakus
(2000) and Karakus and Fowell (2003).
The model grid used in the analysis is shown in Fig. 5.
The model was fixed in the horizontal direction at each
side, which means that vertical movement was allowed,
Offset from tunnel centreline, m
50 30
and the bottom part of the boundary was pinned, so nei-
ther vertical nor horizontal movements were allowed. As
can be seen in Fig. 5, the top surface of the model was
free in both directions. The construction process of the
Trial Tunnel Type-2 consists of a left hand heading,
bench and invert excavation. This was followed by the
excavation of the right hand heading, bench and finally
closing the ring of support. In order to imitate the same
construction process in FLAC analysis, sequential exca-
vation model (SEM) was employed (Karakus and Fo-
well, 2003). The SEM excavation process was
modelled with the following main stages:
1. Establishing the equilibrium condition for the model
body by setting up a gravitational stress field and
introducing 80 kPa surcharges owing to the car park.
Offset from tunnel centreline, m
50 40 30 20 10 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50
0
10 -10 -30 -50
0 5
Surface settlement, mm

5 10
Surface settlement, mm

15
10

20
15
Sidewall with cable
25
20 Sidewall without cable
FLAC_SEM sidewall Enlargement with cable 30
Measurements sidewall 25
FLAC_SEM enlargement
Measurements enlargement 35
30
Fig. 7. Predicted surface settlement with and without cable elements
Fig. 6. Predicted surface settlement profiles by FDM. by FDM analysis.
 M. Karakus, R.J. Fowell / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 20 (2005) 514–524 519

Horizontal Displacement, mm
0 10 20 0 20 40 -5 0 5 10 15 -40 -20 0
0 0 0 0
IB1 IB2 IB3 IB4
(10.04m) 5 (7.62m) 5 (4.35m) (-7.69m) 5
5

10 10 10
10

Depth, m
15 15 C
15 15
16.8m
20 20
20 20
25 25 Tunnel
25 25
30 30
30 FLAC predictions 30
35 Field measurements
35
35 35

Fig. 8. Predicted horizontal movements compared to field measurements.

Subsurface settlement, mm Subsurface settlement, mm

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
0 0
FLAC MB1
Measurement MB1 FLAC MB2
5 5 Measurement MB2

10 10
Depth, m

15 15

20 20

25 25

30 30

Subsurface settlement, mm Subsurface settlement, mm

-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0 0
FLAC MB4
FLAC MB3
5 5 Measurement MB4
Measurement MB3
10 10
Depth, m

15 15

20 20

25 25

30 30

Subsurface settlement, mm
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
0
2
4
6
Depth, m

8
10
12
14
FLAC MT1
16 Measurement MT1
18

Fig. 9. Predicted subsurface settlements profiles.

520 M. Karakus, R.J. Fowell / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 20 (2005) 514–524

2. Having reached equilibrium conditions, elements in crete. Total amount of reduction in stiffness of shotcrete
the left hand heading were removed, followed by acti- is (1
d) which is 92% in this case. This value indicates
vation of the beam elements in this section with a that beam elements used to represent shotcrete behaves
lower elasticity modulus of 0.40 GPa assigned which in a very stiff manner as supported by Augarde and
was found from the back analysis. Burd (2001) who reported that structural elements such
3. Removing elements in the left hand bench and invert as shell elements to model liner may behave in an over-
and activating the beam elements for this section with stiff manner when embedded in a mesh of continuum
an elasticity modulus of 0.40 GPa. At the same time element.
the HME value of the left heading beam elements
was increased to 5 GPa, assumed to be the short-term
modulus of the shotcrete. Offset from tunnel centreline, m
50 40 30 20 10 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50
4. The same procedures in stage 2, and stage 3 have
0
been applied to the right hand heading, bench and
invert excavations.
5

Surface settlement, mm
5. Removing the inner wall was the final step of the
FDM analysis.
10

0.40 GPa of HME value found from back analysis.

15
According to Karakus and Fowell (2003), HME value
can be found from the following expression which is
20
similar to the progressive softening method (Swoboda, ABAQUS sidewall
1979): FLAC sidewall
Measurements sidewall
25
Cable elements were ABAQUS enlargement
FLAC enlargement
HME ¼ dEShort term ð11Þ included in FLAC analysis Measurments enlargement
30

where d is the reduction factor as percentage and the Fig. 11. Predicted transverse surface settlement profiles by FLAC and
EShort term is the Short term YoungÕs modulus of shot- ABAQUS.

700 800

600 FLAC SB1 700 FLAC SB2

Measurement SB1 Measurement SB2
500 600
500
Stress, kPa

Stress, kPa

400
400
300
300
200
200
100 100
0 0
04/11/92 04/18/92 04/25/92 05/02/92 05/09/92 05/16/92 04/11/92 04/18/92 04/25/92 05/02/92 05/09/92 05/16/92
Dates Dates

04/11/92 04/18/92 04/25/92 05/02/92 05/09/92 05/16/92 04/11/92 04/18/92 04/25/92 05/02/92 05/09/92 05/16/92
500 600

400 500
300
400
200
Stress, kPa

Stress, kPa

100 300

0 200
-100
100 FLAC ST 1
-200 FLAC SB3
Measurement SB3 Measurement ST 1
-300 0

Fig. 10. Predictions for the horizontal stress redistribution around the tunnel.
 M. Karakus, R.J. Fowell / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 20 (2005) 514–524 521

3. Evaluation of the results fully grouted. The material properties adopted for the
cable elements and beam elements are summarised in
3.1. Transverse surface settlement analysis Table 2.
Fig. 7 illustrates the effects of cable elements on the
Results of the analyses have been shown in three surface settlement. The settlement profiles were not af-
main parts as surface settlement profiles, sub-surface set- fected 1.5-diameter away from either side of the tunnel
tlement profiles and stress redistribution around tunnel. centreline in both including and excluding cable ele-
Surface settlement analysis has been carried out in ments in the numerical analysis. However, the settle-
accordance with the field measurements corresponding ment profiles for the sidewall and the enlargement of
to the completion of the left sidewall excavation and the tunnel are greatly influenced within 1.5D of either
the enlargement of the tunnel as illustrated in Fig. 6. side of the tunnel when no cable elements were present.
Karakus and Fowell (2003) reported that 0.40 GPa of Therefore, the use of cable elements reduced the ground
HME value produced the best results for sequential movements within 1.5D of either side of the tunnel.
excavation model. Thus, for this analysis, 0.40 GPa va- Without cable elements, approximately 2 and 4 mm
lue was taken as HME value. As can be seen from Fig. 6, more surface settlements have been predicted for side-
surface settlement profiles for both sidewall excavation wall and enlargement, respectively. Hence, the use of
and enlargement of the tunnel are in very close agree- cable elements for NATM analysis is considered
ment with the field measurements. important.
Maximum surface settlement predicted by the SEM
model for sidewall excavation and enlargement are 3.2. Subsurface settlement analysis
15.3 and 27.6 mm, respectively. Including cable elements
during numerical analysis prevented excessive settlement The horizontal movements and subsurface settlement
at the either side of the tunnel headings as shown in Fig. 7. predictions from the FLAC are compared with the cor-
Cable elements included in the analysis and assumed to be responding inclinometers measurements and magnetic
ring measurements, respectively. Thus, these compari-
sons provide a verification of the predictions obtained
Table 3 from the finite difference analysis.
Comparison of the maximum surface settlements Fig. 8 illustrates the calculated horizontal movements
Numerical models used Maximum surface towards the tunnel. Although calculated movements for
settlement at tunnel the IB3 was two times greater than the measured values,
centreline predicted horizontal movements are in good agreement
Sidewall Enlargement with the inclinometer measurements IB1, IB2, and
(mm) (mm) IB4. Besides, predictions corresponding to IB1 and
Field measurement 14.6 26.8 IB2 became greater initiating from a depth of 15 m to
FLAC with cable elements 15.3 27.6 the ground surface. On the other hand, predicted sub-
FLAC without cable elements 17.3 31.4 surface settlements for all magnetic measurements are
ABAQUS without cable elements 11.4 27.4
in very good agreement with the measurements (Fig. 9).

Horizontal Displacement, mm
0 10 20 0 0 40 -10 0 10 20 -40 -20 0
0 0 0 0
IB1 IB2 IB3 IB4
5 5 (7.62m) 5 (4.35m) (-7.69m) 5
(10.04m)

10 10 10 10
C
Depth, m

15 15 15 15
16.8m

20 20 20 20

25 Tunnel
25 25 25

30 30 FLAC predictions 30
30 ABAQUS predictions
Field measurements
35 35 35 35

Fig. 12. Comparison of FLAC and ABAQUS predictions for horizontal movements corresponding to inclinometer measurements.
522 M. Karakus, R.J. Fowell / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 20 (2005) 514–524

This is believed to be due to adopting variation of
London clay Elasticity modulus with depth, which was
suggested by Burland and Kalra (1986), in the FLAC
analysis.
3.3. Stress analysis around the tunnel
The locations of the spade cells are illustrated in Fig. 4.
The real time of construction was not considered in the
analysis. However, the stresses at the end of each main
excavation sequences were used for comparison with
the corresponding field measurements. Thus, only re-
lated measurements were used in this analysis. Fig. 10
shows the horizontal stress redistribution around the
tunnel.
General trend of stress changes for both FLAC pre-
dictions and the field measurements can be explained
as follows:
1. When the first heading is excavated, the horizontal
stresses are decreasing sharply from the geostatic
stress condition to a lower stress level.
2. Then, the application of the shotcrete stabilises the
stress distribution around the tunnel until a new sec-
tion was excavated.
This phenomenon continues until the entire tunnel
construction is completed and the support ring is closed.
Calculated horizontal stresses are in close agreement
with the spade cells measurements, SB1, SB2, and
ST1, while predictions for the spade cell SB3 is greater

Subsurface settlement, mm Subsurface settlement, mm

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
0 0
FLAC MB1
5 5 FLAC MB2
ABAQUS MB1
ABAQUS MB2
Measurement MB1 Measurement MB2
10 10
Depth, m

15 15

20 20

25 25

30 30

35 35

Subsurface settlement,mm Subsurface settlement, mm

-5 5 15 25 35 -10 0 10 20 30 40
0 0
FLAC MB4
5 FL AC MB3 5 ABAQUS MB4
ABAQUS MB3 Measurement MB4
10 Measurement MB3 10
Depth, m

15 15

20 20

25 25

30 30

Subsurface settlement, mm
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
0
2
4
6
Depth, m

8
10
12
14 FLAC MT 1
ABAQUS MT 1
16 Measurement MT 1

18

Fig. 13. Comparison of predicted subsurface settlement profiles with magnetic ring measurements.
 M. Karakus, R.J. Fowell / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 20 (2005) 514–524 523

700 800
FLAC SB1 700 FLAC SB2
600 ABAQUS SB1 ABAQUS SB2
Measuremenst SB1 Measurement SB2
600
500
500
Stress, kPa

400
400
300
300
200
200
100 100

0 0
04/11/92 04/18/92 04/25/92 05/02/92 05/09/92 05/16/92 04/11/92 04/18/92 04/25/92 05/02/92 05/09/92 05/16/92
Dates Dates
04/11/92 04/18/92 04/25/92 05/02/92 05/09/92 05/16/92 04/11/92 04/18/92 04/25/92 05/02/92 05/09/92 05/16/92
600 600
FLAC SB3
500 ABAQUS SB3
Measurement SB3 500
400
400
Stress, kPa

300

200 300

100 200
0 FLAC ST 1
100 ABAQUS ST 1
-100 Measurement ST 1
-200 0

Fig. 14. Comparison of FLAC and ABAQUS stress predictions corresponding to spade cell measurements.

than the measured stress. Similar predictions were found
for SB3 with the finite element analysis (Karakus and
Fowell, 2003). This implies that the accuracy of the
spade cell measurement SB3 might not be as accurate
as the other spade cell measurements.
3.4. Comparison of FDM and FEM analysis results
In this section, overall comparison of the finite ele-
ment and finite difference analysis, is made so that the
differences between these two powerful modelling tools
can be examined. In addition, this comparison will pro-
vide an insight into the effects of using different plasticity
models for London Clay. For the Finite element analy-
sis, ABAQUS program has been utilized detailed analy-
sis procedure is given elsewhere (Karakus and Fowell,
2003). During FEM analysis, London Clay stress strain
behaviour was represented by Modified Cam-clay plas-
ticity with porous elasticity. The Drucker–Prager plas-
ticity model was used for Thames gravel and made
ground.
As can be seen from Fig. 11 and Table 3, surface set-
tlement predictions by FLAC and ABAQUS for the
tunnel enlargement are in very close agreement with
each other and with field measurements as well. Con-
versely, FDM analysis produced better settlement pre-
dictions for sidewall excavation. This is believed to be
due to variation of London Clay elasticity modulus with
depth, which was considered in the FDM analysis.
Horizontal displacements towards tunnel and subsur-
face settlements profiles are illustrated in Figs. 12 and
13, respectively. Finite element and finite difference pre-
dictions for horizontal movement are in good agreement
with each other. Nevertheless, FDM analysis failed to
predict the horizontal movement 4.35 m away from
the tunnel centreline. Also, FDM analysis overestimated
these movements for IB1 and IB2 from above 15 m
depth towards the ground surface. This can be attrib-
uted to the use of different soil models considered for
both analyses.
Subsurface settlement calculated from both models is
well matched to the field measurements. Apparently, the
contradictions between surface settlement and horizon-
tal movements from both analyses show that anisotropy
in the London clay should be considered in the numeri-
cal analysis. However, plasticity models especially the
Modified Cam-clay model did not take into account
anisotropy in ABAQUS program as it was originally
developed for isotropic conditions.
Stress redistribution around the tunnel predicted by
FDM and FEM are in agreement with the field measure-
ments. However, predictions obtained from the finite
element analysis are much closer to the field measure-
ment than the finite difference analysis predictions. Both
analyses have failed to predict the horizontal stresses for
the SB3 spade cell measurement as can be seen from
Fig. 14. As explained earlier, this could be due to failure
in spade cell measurements. Bowers (1997) reported that
524 M. Karakus, R.J. Fowell / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 20 (2005) 514–524
some of the stress cells failed before tunnelling was
started. According to both numerical analyses results,
there would be a possibility of damage in this particular
stress cell, SB3.
4. Conclusions
HME approach which is used in both FDM and
FEM analysis to account for volume loss during tunnel-
ling operations proved to be a practical tool for numer-
ical modeller. The 0.40 GPa of HME value found from
back analysis of FEM produced very good predictions
in FDM analysis as well. As different soil plasticity mod-
els considered viz. Modified Cam-clay and Mohr–Cou-
lomb plasticity for FEM and FDM, respectively, it
can be proposed that HME approach can be used in
which different plasticity models apart from above ones
considered in a numerical analysis.
The results of present analyses showed that both
methods of analyses using the sequential excavation
model could be used for the preliminary design of
NATM tunnelling for the conditions used in this
research.
It was found that the variation of elasticity modulus
of London clay with depth is very important for accu-
rate numerical modelling. Thus, FDM analysis pre-
dicted much closer surface settlement for the sidewall
excavation than the finite element predictions. Con-
tradictions between subsurface settlement and horizon-
tal displacements suggest that considering anisotropic
behaviour of London clay could improve predictions
in both FEM and FDM analyses. Thus, this problem
should be subjected to further analysis to examine their
effects on NATM tunnelling.
FDM analysis has also shown the importance of
cable elements adopted in the numerical analysis. With-
out considering cable elements in the numerical analysis
led to greater settlements.
Acknowledgments
Grateful acknowledgement is given to Inonu Univer-
sity, Turkey for providing financial support during the
research undertaken in the Department of Mining and
Mineral Engineering at the University of Leeds, UK.
References
Augarde, C.E., Burd, H.J., 2001. Three-dimensional finite element
analysis of lined tunnels. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Meth. Geomech. 25,
243–262.
Atzl, G.V., Mayr, J.K., 1994. FEM-analysis of Heathrow NATM trial
tunnel. In: Numerical Methods in Geotechnical Engineering.
Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 195–201.
Bowers, K.H., 1997. An appraisal of the New Austrian Tunnelling
Method in soil and weak rock. Ph.D. Thesis, The University of
Leeds, 240 pp.
Burland, J.B., Kalra, J.C., 1986. Queen Elizabeth II Conference
Centre: geotechnical aspects. Proc. Inst. Civil Eng. 80 (1), 1479–
1503.
Dasari, G.R., 1996. Numerical modelling of a NATM tunnel
construction in London Clay. In: International Symposium on
Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft
Ground. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 491–496.
Dean, A.P., Basset, R.H., 1995. The Heathrow Express Trial Tunnel.
Proc. Inst. Civil Eng., Geotech. Eng. 113, 144–156.
Grose, W.J., Eddie, C.M., 1996. Geotechnical aspects of the construc-
tion of the Heathrow Transfer Baggage System tunnel. In:
International Symposium on Geotechnical Aspects of Under-
ground Construction in Soft Ground. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp.
269–276.
Gunn, M.J., 1992. The prediction of surface settlement profiles due to
tunnelling. In: Proceedings of the Wroth Memorial Symposium
held at St. CatherineÕs College, Oxford, pp. 304–316.
Itasca Consulting Group Inc., 1993. FLAC UserÕs Manual I, Minne-
apolis, MN.
Karakus, M., 2000. Numerical modelling for NATM in soft ground.
Ph.D. Thesis, The University of Leeds, 240 pp.
Karakus, M., Fowell, R.J., 2003. Effects of different tunnel face
advance excavation on the settlement by FEM. Tunnelling
Underground Space Technol. 18 (5), 513–523.
Mair, R.J., Taylor, R.N., Bracegirdle, A., 1993. Subsurface settlement
profiles above tunnels in clays. Geotechnique 43 (2), 315–320.
Mroueh, H., Shahrour, I., 2003. A full 3-D finite element analysis of
tunnelling – adjacent structures interaction. Comput. Geotech. 30,
245–253.
New, B.M., Bowers, K.H., 1994. Ground movement model validation
at the Heathrow Express trial tunnel. In: TunnellingÕ94, IMM,
London, pp. 301–329.
New, B.M., OÕReilly, M.P., 1978. Tunnelling induced ground move-
ments; predicting their magnitude and effects. In: Proceedings of
the Conference on Large Ground Movements and Structures.
Pentech Press, Cardiff, pp. 671–693.
OÕReilly, M.P., 1988. Evaluating and predicting ground settlements
caused by tunnelling in London Clay. In: TunnellingÕ88, IMM,
London, 1988, pp. 231–241.
Panet, M., Guenot, A., 1982. Analysis of convergence behind the face
of a tunnel. In: TunnellingÕ82, IMM, London, pp. 197–204.
Peck, R.B., 1969. Deep excavations and tunnelling in soft ground. In:
Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Engineering, Mexico, pp. 225–290.
Potts, D.M., Zdravkovic, L., 2001. Finite Element Analysis in
Geotechnical Engineering Application. Thomas-Telford, London,
427 pp.
Powell, D.B., Sigl, O., Beveridge, J.P., 1997. Heathrow–Express-design
and performance of platform tunnels at Terminal 4. In: Tunnelling
Õ97, IMM, London, pp. 565–593.
Ryley, M.D., Carder, D.R., 1995. The performance of push-in spade
cells installed in stiff clay. Geotechnique 45 (3), 533–539.
Shohrour, I., Ghorbanbeigi, S., 1994. Calculation of tunnels in soft
ground. In: Numerical Methods in Geotechnical Engineering.
Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 229–234.
Swoboda, G., 1979. Finite element analysis of the New Austrian
Tunneling Method (NATM). In: Proceedings of the 3rd Interna-
tional Conference on Numerical Methods in Geomechanics,
Aachen, vol. 2, pp. 581–586.
Swoboda, G., Marence, M., Mader, I., 1994. Finite element modelling
of tunnel excavation. Int. J. Eng. Modell. 6, 51–63.
Swoboda, G., Ichikawa, Y., Dong, Q., Zaki, M., 1999. Back analysis
of large geotechnical models. J. Numer. Anal. Meth. Geomech. 23,
1455–1472.