Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 103 (2020) 103443

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tust

Formula for predicting ground settlement induced by tunnelling based on T

Gaussian function
⁎
Dechun Lu, Qingtao Lin, Yu Tian, Xiuli Du , Qiuming Gong
Key Laboratory of Urban Security and Disaster Engineering of Ministry of Education, Beijing University of Technology, Beijing 100124, China

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: A formula for the variation of the maximum ground settlement with the depth above a tunnel is proposed based
Tunnel on data from 25 field project cases and 10 model test cases. The Gaussian function is developed by introducing
Ground settlement the proposed formula and an existing formula for settlement trough width coefficient, to predict the settlement
Gaussian function above the tunnel in the transverse section. There are two parameters, n and k, in the developed Gaussian
Model test
function, and determination methods of the new parameter n are provided for clay strata and sand strata,
respectively. The application method of the developed Gaussian function is demonstrated by a field project case.
Finally, applicability of the formula for the maximum ground settlement and the developed Gaussian function
are validated by 12 field project cases and 9 tunnelling model test cases conducted by the authors.

1. Introduction Many formulas of the width coefficient of the surface settlement

Many tunnels are excavated through areas where surface structures
and underground pipelines already exist. To assess the effect of tun-
nelling on existing structures, designers need to know how surface and
subsurface settlement troughs develop. Peck (1969) analysed field ob-
servation data and found that the Gaussian function can reasonably
describe surface settlement troughs. The Gaussian function includes
two parameters: the maximum ground settlement Smax and the width
coefficient of the settlement trough i. Mair et al. (1993) developed
Peck’s method and pointed out that the Gaussian function could also
provide an adaptable fit for the subsurface settlement trough in clay
strata. Applicability of the Gaussian function was verified by model test
results (Vorster et al., 2005; Lee, 2009; Wang et al., 2016; Zhou et al.,
2019). Marshall et al. (2012) checked the Gaussian function by cen-
trifuge testing and indicated that the correlation coefficients of the
fitting were greater than 0.93. Additionally, when the ground volume
loss was less than 20%, the Gaussian function could provide a reason-
able prediction for subsurface settlement troughs in both clay (Grant
and Taylor, 2000) and sand strata (Zheng et al., 2016). However, the
shortcoming of the Gaussian function is that the values of Smax and i
need to be redetermined when the depth changes. Therefore, estab-
lishing the formulas of i(z) and Smax(z) (z is the depth) is key to making
the Gaussian function available to predict the ground settlement at
arbitrary depths.
trough, i(0), have been proposed by considering several factors, such as
tunnel depth (Rankin, 1988; Mair et al., 1993; Marshall et al., 2012),
tunnel diameter (Peck, 1969; Attewell and Farmer, 1974; Loganathan
and Poulos, 1998; Lee et al., 1999), internal friction angle of soil (Han
et al., 2007) and excavation section volume loss (Marshall et al., 2012).
For the width coefficient of the subsurface settlement trough at any
depth, i(z), field measurements (Attewell and Farmer, 1974; O’Reilly
and News, 1982; Rankin, 1988) and experimental results (Mair et al.,
1993; Marshall et al., 2012; Wang et al., 2016; Zhou et al., 2019)
showed that this coefficient is a linear function of z. Therefore, the
formula of i(z) can be expressed by i(z) = i(0) – k·z (Marshall et al.,
2012), where k is the slope of i(z). For undrained clay strata, Mair
(1996) found that i(0) = 0.5·z0 and k = 0.325. For sand and gravel
strata, the value of i(0) typically ranges from 0.25·z0 to 0.45·z0 (Mair
and Taylor, 1997), and the value of k decreases with increasing volume
loss of the tunnel excavation section (Marshall, 2009).
When the Gaussian function is used to predict the ground settlement
trough, the maximum settlement at depth z can be calculated by
Smax (z ) = Vl (z )/[ 2π ·i (z )], where Vl(z) is the ground volume loss at
depth z and is equal to the volume of the ground settlement trough at
the same depth. In saturated undrained clay strata, the ground volume
loss values at different depths are equal. Therefore, Peck (1969) pointed
out that the formula of surface maximum settlement Smax can be ex-
pressed as Smax = Vl/( 2π ·i) , where Vl is the volume loss of the tunnel

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: dechun@bjut.edu.cn (D. Lu), lqt-026@emails.bjut.edu.cn (Q. Lin), tianyu@bjut.edu.cn (Y. Tian), duxiuli@bjut.edu.cn (X. Du),
gongqiuming@bjut.edu.cn (Q. Gong).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2020.103443
Received 1 April 2019; Received in revised form 7 April 2020; Accepted 11 May 2020
0886-7798/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
D. Lu, et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 103 (2020) 103443

Notations S(x, z) ground settlement trough

Vl(z) ground volume loss at depth z
D excavation diameter of the tunnel Vl(0) ground volume loss at the ground surface
e0 initial void ratio Vl(z0) ground volume loss at the tunnel crown
g gap parameter Vl ground volume loss of the tunnel section
i(0) settlement trough width coefficient at the ground surface Vl,r ground volume loss ratio of the tunnel section
i(z) settlement trough width coefficient at a depth of z Vw volume of the water bag
k slope of i(z) Vwd volume of discharged water
L water bag length z0 depth of the tunnel crown
Mf peak failure stress ratio z depth, measured from the ground surface
n parameter used in empirical formulas of Smax(z) φ internal friction angle
Smax(z) maximum settlement at depth z κ slope of the isotropic swelling curve
Smax(0) maximum settlement at the ground surface λ slope of the isotropic compression curve
Smax(z0) maximum settlement at the tunnel crown

excavation section and is equal to Vl(0). In the same ground conditions, x2 ⎤

Smax(z) at an arbitrary depth can be determined by-
Smax (z ) = Vl/[ 2π ·i (z )]according to Mair’s research. However, in the
field project, a certain degree of volumetric deformation may occur to
the ground, so that the ground volume loss varies with z (Attewell et al.,
1975; Mair et al., 1993; Yi et al., 1993; Toombs, 1995). Similar phe-
nomena are observed in model tests (Marshall, 2009; Marshall et al.,
2012; Wang et al., 2016; Zhou et al., 2019).
In this paper, a formula for Smax(z) is presented by analysing the
measured data from the field projects and model tests. Then the de-
veloped Gaussian function S(x, z) is obtained by combining the pro-
posed Smax(z) and the existing i(z). Finally, applicability of these for-
mulas to both clay strata (or complex strata containing a clay layer) and
sand strata is validated by the measured settlements from the new
added field projects and model tests, respectively.
S (x , z ) = Smax (z ) exp ⎡−
⎢ 2
⎣ 2i (z ) ⎥⎦ (1)
where x is the horizontal distance from the vertical tunnel centreline;
Smax(z) is the maximum settlement at depth z; and i(z) is the distance
from the vertical tunnel centreline to the inflection point of the Gaus-
sian curve at depth z, as shown in Fig. 1. Eq. (1) includes two variables:
i(z) and Smax(z). Determination of the two variables is the basis of
predicting the ground settlement trough.
2.1. Width coefficient of settlement trough i(z)
For different ground conditions, Mair et al. (1993) and Marshall
et al. (2012) proposed a linear formula for i(z) that can be expressed as
follows:

2. Formulas for ground settlement i (z ) = i (0) − k ·z (2)

Field observations (Peck, 1969; O’Reilly and News, 1982; Rankin,
1988; Mair et al., 1993; Moh et al., 1996; Dyer et al., 1996; Loganathan
and Poulos, 1998; Lee, 2009; Zhang et al., 2011) and model test results
(Marshall et al., 2012; Fang et al., 2012) show that, in a transverse
tunnel section, the ground settlement trough at a fixed depth can be
formulated by the Gaussian function as follows:
where i(0) is the settlement trough width at the ground surface and k is
the slope of i(z), as shown in Fig. 1. The values of i(0) and k are affected
by many factors, such as the geometric factor of the tunnel, ground
condition, and volume loss of the tunnel excavation section. Therefore,
for a specific tunnelling condition, values of i(0) and k need to be de-
termined by the measured ground settlement trough.

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of the ground settlement trough.

2
D. Lu, et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 103 (2020) 103443

Table 1
Cases of tunnelling and related maximum ground settlement.
Case NO. Project name Ground conditions Excavation method z0 (m) D (m) z (m) Smax(z) Vl.r Reference
(mm)

1 Heathrow Express, Trial Tunnel, 0–2 m fill ground, > 4 m Open face 19.0 8.5 0.0 39.0 1.4% Loganathan and
U.K. still London clay tunneling shield 4.0 42.0 Poulos (1998)
8.0 44.2
12.0 48.1
14.75 58.0*

2 The HEX Trial tunnel Type 3 London clay NATM tunneling 15 9 m wide 0.0 38.57 1.79% Zymnis et al. (2013)
methods and 8 m high 2.0 41.19
5.0 43.81
10.0 49.77
13.0 53.70
15.0 85.74☆

3 Taipei Metro Clay EPB shield 15.5 6.05 0.0 20.3 1.3% Moh et al. (1996)
6.0 22.9
9.5 26.0
14.5 36.0
15.5 39.4△△

4 Green Park Tunnel, U.K. 0–2 m sand and gravel, Shield 27.3 4.14 0.0 6.1 1.6% Loganathan and
> 2m stiff fissured clay 4.0 6.5 Poulos (1998)
8.0 6.5
14.0 6.9
20.0 9.9
24.0 11.8
27.3 13.8△

5 Shanghai Huangpu river walking Mud Silt Shield 12.14 7.48 0.0 60.0 1.21% Zhang et al. (2002)
tunnel 2.0 64.0
4.0 68.0
6.0 70.0
8.0 74.0
10.0 90.0
12.14 135.0△

6 N.W.A Sewerage Scheme Clay / 7.50 2.01 0.0 8.0 2% Attewell and Farmer
Tyneside, Hubburn, U.K 2.5 10.0 (1974)
4.0 11.0
5.0 12.0
7.5 20.2△△

7 Milwaukee Sewer, Section CT-7, Organic clay EPB shield 7.44 3.57 0.0 19.0 2% Ilsley et al.(1991)
U.S.A 4.9 27.0
7.44 35.9△△

8 Rengent Park Tunnel North line, Clay Shield 17.9 4.416 0.0 7.0 1.3–1.4% Chou and Bobet
UK London Transport Fleet Line 2.0 7.7 (2002)
4.0 7.7
6.0 7.7
8.0 8.2
10.0 8.7
12.0 9.7
14.0 12.0
16.0 13.8
17.9 17.0△

9 Mexico Sewerage System, Line B Soft clay Slurry shield 13.0 4.00 0.0 31.0 2% Romo (1997)
5.0 24.0
10.0 36.0
13.0 40.2△△

Case NO. Project name Ground condition Excavation method z0 (m) D (m) z (m) Smax(z) Vl.r Reference
(mm)

10 Tianjin Metro, Line 1, China Silty clay Shield 8.65 6.4 0.0 36.8 1.56% Li (2004)
3.0 40.4
5.0 46.6
7.0 64.5
8.65 200.0△

11 Shanghai Metro Line 2, China Mud Silt / 9 3.22 0.0 28.2 /7.60% Yi (1999)
2.5 30.2
4.0 30.8
6.0 33.7
8.5 81.8
9.0 124.7*

(continued on next page)

3
D. Lu, et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 103 (2020) 103443

Table 1 (continued)

Case NO. Project name Ground condition Excavation method z0 (m) D (m) z (m) Smax(z) Vl.r Reference
(mm)

12 Hangzhou Metro Right line, China Silty clay EPB shield 15.90 6.20 0.0 12.0 1.5% Chen et al.(2011)
3.0 13.1
7.0 15.0
15.9 46.7△△

13 Guangzhou Metro Line 2, China Clay and weathered Shield 23 6.0 0.0 4.0 0.63% Wang et al. (2009)
rock 1.2 4.6
4.3 5.7
6.5 6.6
7.1 8.6
12.6 7.7
14.5 7.7
15.1 10.6
18.3 11.7
20.5 13.7
21.7 17.6
23.0 19.0△

14 Japan Clay / 15.1 3.63 0.0 6.0 2% Toombs (1995)

4.3 8.0
6.1 9.0
9.1 10.0
12.3 16.0
15.1 36.5△△

15 Rengent Park Tunnel South line, UK Clay Shield 31.9 4.416 0.0 5.6 1.3–1.4% Chou and Bobet
London Transport Fleet Line 4.0 5.6 (2002)
8.0 5.6
12.0 5.6
16.0 6.1
20.0 6.5
24.0 8.1
26.0 10.0
28.0 13.0
30.0 16.7
31.9 27.0△△

16 London Transport Fleet Line Green PK, y1 Clay Hand-excavated 29.3 4.416 0.0 6.0 2% Attewell and Farmer
UK shield 9.5 7.0 (1974)
15.4 8.0
22.0 10.0
25.2 11.0
27.1 15.0
29.3 44.4△△

Case NO. Project name Ground Excavation method z0 (m) D (m) z (m) Smax(z) (mm) Vl.r Reference
condition

17 London Transport Fleet Line Green PK, y1 Clay Hand-excavated 4.416 0.0 6.0 2% Attewell and Farmer (1974)
UK shield 8.5 7.7
14.9 8.0
20.9 8.0
26.5 15.0
29.3 44.4△△

18 London Bank Station, UK London clay EPB shield 37.1 7.8 0.0 11.0 2% Mair et al. (1993)
5.3 11.0
25.7 19.0
33.3 32.0
37.1 78.4△△

19 Bangkok Sewer Tunnel, Thailand Soft to stiff clay EPB shield 16.67 2.66 0.0 10.6 5.6% Loganathan and Poulos
2.0 11.4 (1998)
4.0 12.8
6.0 15.6
8.0 17.5
10.0 21.5
12.0 24.4
14.0 33.5
15.0 41.7
16.67 74.0△

20 Taipei MRT CH218, B1 RE33, Taiwan Clay EPB shield 15.5 6.0 0.0 20.00 1.3% Moh et al. (1996)
10.0 27.00
18.5 60.92△

(continued on next page)

4
D. Lu, et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 103 (2020) 103443

Table 1 (continued)

Case NO. Project name Ground Excavation method z0 (m) D (m) z (m) Smax(z) (mm) Vl.r Reference
condition

21 WB Crossrail tunnel below Hyde Park London clay EPB tunnel 29.9 7.1 0.0 6.8 1.0% Ieronymaki et al. (2016,
Section F 4.0 8.1 2018)
9.0 8.8
14.0 9.0
19.0 9.6
23.0 13.6
28.0 20.7
29.9 25.0☆
22 EB Crossrail tunnel below Hyde London clay EPB tunnel 29.9 7.1 0.0 10.1 0.9%
ParkSection F 4.0 10.3
9.0 10.9
14.0 12.2
19.0 14.0
23.0 16.9
28.0 22.4
29.9 35.0☆

23 JLE tunnel below St James Park London clay Mechanical backhoe 31 4.85 0.0 20.27 2.97% Zymnis et al. (2013)
5.0 19.94
9.0 19.94
13.0 21.00
17.0 24.29
22.5 30.10
27.0 44.36
29.6 72.57△△

Case NO. Project name Ground condition Excavation method z0 (m) D (m) z (m) Smax(z) (mm) Vl.r Reference

24 Bangkok Sewer Tunnel, Soft to stiff clay EPB shield 17.17 2.66 0.0 12.0 / Park (2004)
Thailand 2.0 12.0
4.0 14.0
6.0 16.0
8.0 18.0
10.0 22.0
12.0 25.0
14.0 35.0
17.17 81.0△

25 Thunder Bay Tunnel, Silty sand (0-8m) –hard clay Tunnel-boring 9.47 2.47 0.0 46.9 13.7% Loganathan and Poulos
Canada (8–9.47m) machine 2.0 47.7 (1998)
4.0 52.5
6.0 57.7
8.0 70.1
9.47 164.0△
26 Model test Sandy gravel EPB tunnel 1.3 0.8 0.00 18.93 / Jiang et al. (2013)
0.45 22.63
0.90 23.89
1.30 35.86*
27 Model test Sandy gravel EPB tunnel 1.3 0.8 0.00 8.06 / Hu et al.(2016)
0.45 15.86
0.90 16.45
1.3.0 30.00*
28 Model test Sandy gravel / / / 0.0 2.3 / Wang et al. (2016)
0.1 2.3
0.2 2.5
0.4 2.9
1.0 6.0
1.2 7.5
1.5 10.9*
29 Model test Dense sand / 0.151 0.062 0.000 0.075 0.5% Marshall (2009)
0.070 0.084
0.120 0.089
0.151 0.100*
30 Model test Dense sand / 0.151 0.062 0.000 0.180 1.0% Marshall (2009)
0.070 0.191
0.120 0.210
0.151 0.250*
31 Model test Dense sand / 0.151 0.062 0.000 0.337 2.5% Marshall (2009)
0.070 0.359
0.120 0.516
0.151 0.600*
(continued on next page)

5
D. Lu, et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 103 (2020) 103443

Table 1 (continued)

Case NO. Project name Ground condition Excavation method z0 (m) D (m) z (m) Smax(z) (mm) Vl.r Reference

32 Model test Dense sand / 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.14 0.66% Pan (2015)
0.1 0.16
0.2 0.17
0.3 0.20
0.4 0.24
0.5 0.32*

Case NO. Project name Ground condition Excavation method z0 (m) D (m) z (m) Smax(z) (mm) Vl.r Reference

33 Model test Sand / 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.18 1.97% Pan (2015)
0.1 0.21
0.2 0.28
0.3 0.41
0.4 0.51
0.5 0.70*

34 Model test Sand / 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.35 3.29% Pan (2015)
0.1 0.56
0.2 0.76
0.3 1.40
0.4 1.56
0.5 1.98*

35 Model test Sand / 0.2 0.2 0.0 1.02 5.26% Pan (2015)
0.1 1.82
0.2 2.03
0.3 2.64
0.4 2.73
0.5 3.02*

Note: * represents the measured Smax(z0); △represents values of g provided by references; △△represents Smax(z0) calculated by Eq. (4); ☆represents Smax(z0) obtained
by analytical method.

2.2. Maximum ground settlement Smax(z)
A total of 35 tunnel excavation cases are collected in Table 1 to
study the distribution of Smax(z), in which Cases 1–25 are from field
project in clay strata, while Cases 26–35 are from model tests of sand or
gravel. In addition, the tunnelling method, ground condition, tunnel
diameter D, tunnel crown depth z0 and ground volume loss ratio of the
tunnel excavation section Vl,r are presented in this table. The data of
Smax(z) normalized by Smax(z0) are denoted by points in Fig. 2, which
shows that the distribution of Smax(z)/Smax(z0) has the following fea-
tures:
(1) At the tunnel crown (z = z0), Smax(z)/Smax(z0) is equal to 1;
(2) At the ground surface (z = 0), Smax(z)/Smax(z0) is equal to Smax (0)/
Smax(z0); and
(3) As z increases from 0 to z0, the value of Smax(z)/Smax(z0) increases.
Based on the above features, a power function is adopted to describe
the relationship between Smax(z)/Smax(z0) and z/z0:
1 which means the soil collapses in this range, as illustrated by Case 35 in
Smax (z ) S (0) z n
= ⎡ max −1⎤ ⎛1− ⎞ + 1
⎜ ⎟
section and equals the ratio of Vl to the area of the excavation section.
In Table 1, values of Smax(z0) in most cases are directly obtained
from the references, while others are calculated by Eq. (4). For example,
in Cases 3, 12 and 23, Smax(z0) is directly calculated by the collected
Vl,r; in Cases 6, 7, 9, 14, 16, 17, and 18, the references do not provide
the value of Vl,r, so Vl,r is conservatively assumed to be 2% since sta-
tistical data show that Vl,r induced by shield excavation is generally no
more than 2% (Marshall, 2009).
The effect of n on Smax(z) is illustrated in Fig. 4, in which Smax(0)
and Smax(z0) refer to Case 1. Fig. 4 indicates that Smax decreases from
the tunnel crown to the ground surface, and the decreasing rate of Smax
increases as n increases at the position near z0. Thus, a larger n corre-
sponds to better surrounding rock or to a larger cover-to-diameter ratio
z0/D for tunnelling conditions in which the Vl,r values are the same. In
addition, three points should be noted for Fig. 4. First, when n = 1, the
relation between Smax and z is linear. Second, when n is relatively large,
curves of Smax(z)/Smax(z0) become horizontal at z/z0 = 1, which means
a gap occurs between the soil and the lining. Third, when n < 1, Smax
(z)/Smax(z0) is close to 1 within a certain range above the tunnel crown,
Fig. 2.

Smax (z 0) ⎢
⎣ S max (z 0 ) ⎥
⎦⎝ z 0⎠ (3) For each case in Table 1, the value of n is determined by fitting the
collected data using Eq. (3). Because the ratio between Smax(0) and Smax
where n is a parameter whose value is positive. It synthetically reflects
(z0) can reflect the effect of both ground conditions and z0/D on Smax(z),
the effects of the ground condition and geometric factor of the tunnel
the relationship between n and Smax(0)/Smax(z0) is illustrated in Fig. 5.
on the maximum ground settlement.
For the clay strata or the complex strata containing the clay layer (i.e.,
In fact, Eq. (3) is an interpolation function of Smax(z), i.e., when
Cases 1–25), n decreases nonlinearly as Smax(0)/Smax(z0) increases
z = 0, Smax(z) = Smax (0); when z = z0, Smax(z) = Smax(z0). Smax(0) can
(Fig. 5(a)), so that the value of n can be estimated by the following:
be measured at the ground surface. For a non-shield tunnel, Smax(z0)
can be obtained by measuring the settlement of the tunnel crown. For a n = (Smax (0)/ Smax (z 0)) - 0.97 (5)
shield tunnel, Smax(z0) equals the gap parameter g, i.e., the gap between
the tunnel excavation section and the finial section of the tunnel lining For the sand and gravel stratum, the soil above the tunnel does not
(Lee et al., 1992), as shown in Fig. 3. Smax(z0) can be calculated by the collapse in Cases 26–33. For these cases, n changes relatively little with
following formula: variation in Smax(0)/Smax(z0), as shown in Fig. 5(b). The distribution of
n can be adequately described by the following:
Smax (z 0) = D ·(1− 1−Vl,r ) (4)
n = 0.53(Smax (0)/ Smax (z 0)) + 1.88 (6)
where Vl,r is the ground volume loss ratio of the tunnel excavation

6
D. Lu, et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 103 (2020) 103443

Fig. 2. Comparison between the measured data of Smax(z) and the predicted curves of Eq. (3).

In Cases 34 and 35, the sand collapses in a limited range near the formula.
tunnel crown. For the condition where collapse occurs, the value of n Values of n corresponding to Cases 1–33 are calculated according to
should be less than 1, and more cases are needed to determine its the suggested methods. Then, Eq. (3) is used to calculate the maximum

7
D. Lu, et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 103 (2020) 103443

Fig. 2. (continued)

Fig. 3. Schematic diagram of ground volume loss induced by tunnelling (Lee

et al., 1992).

ground settlement based on the calculated n, and the calculated curve

and its correlation coefficient R2 for each case are shown in Fig. 2.
Apart from Cases 9 and 13 where the values of R2 are relatively small,
the agreement between the measured and predicted results in the first
25 cases indicates that Eq. (5) is suitable for clay strata, as well as
complex strata containing a clay layer. In Cases 26–33, all of the R2 are
larger than 0.90, which indicates that Eq. (6) can be used to determine
n for sand strata. For Cases 34 and 35, when n is respectively taken as Fig. 4. Influence of the parameter n on Smax(z).
0.98 and 0.65, the calculated curves are consistent with the measured
data, as illustrated in the last two subfigures in Fig. 2.

8
D. Lu, et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 103 (2020) 103443

Fig. 5. Distribution of n in Cases 1–35 in (a) clay strata or the complex strata
containing clay layer (b) sand and gravel strata.

2.3. Developed Gaussian function S(x, z)

The ground settlement trough can be formulated by substituting

Eqs. (2) and (3) into Eq. (1) as follows:

S (x , z )
1
⎧ z n ⎫ x2
= [Smax (0) − Smax (z 0 )] ⎛1− ⎞ + Smax (z 0) exp ⎧−
⎜ ⎟
2
⎫
⎨ ⎝ z0 ⎠ ⎬ ⎨
⎩ 2[i (0) − k ·z ] ⎬⎭
⎩ ⎭
(7)
In a transverse section, Eq. (7) can predict the settlement field of the
soil above the tunnel just by determining parameters k and n. The two
parameters determine the development law of the settlement trough
shape from the ground surface to the tunnel crown. Taking Case 1 as an Fig. 6. Influence of parameters n and k on the ground settlement trough. (a)
example, the effects of n and k on the ground settlement trough are Effect of n; (b) effect of k.
analysed, respectively. In this case, i(0) = 0.5z0, Smax(0) = 39.0 mm,
and Smax(z0) = 58.0 mm. Fig. 6(a) illustrates the subsurface settlement
troughs corresponding to different values of n, where k is a constant and
equals 0.325. It indicates that n has no effect on the width of the ground

9
D. Lu, et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 103 (2020) 103443

Fig. 7. Flowchart of the prediction procedure.

settlement, but the predicted maximum ground settlement decreases
with the increase of n for the fixed depth. The effect of k on the ground
settlement trough is presented in Fig. 6(b), where n is a constant and
equals 1.45. Fig. 6(b) shows that the maximum settlement does not
change with k. Meanwhile, the width of the ground settlement trough
decreases as k increases at a fixed depth.
3. Application of the developed Gaussian function: An example
The developed Gaussian function is applied to predicting the set-
tlement field of the soil above the tunnel, and the prediction procedure
is demonstrated by a field project.

10
D. Lu, et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 103 (2020) 103443

Fig. 8. Prediction of the ground settlement field in Heathrow Express Trial Tunnel (Type-2).

11
D. Lu, et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 103 (2020) 103443

Table 2
Information of the investigated tunnelling cases and parameter values adopted for prediction.
Case No. Project name Tunnel information Known quantities Parameters references

xf (m) z0 (m) D (m) Vl,r (%) Smax(0) Smax(z0) (mm) i(0)/z0 k n

(mm)

36 The Jubilee Line Extension (JLE) project, ST. James 1.5 28.60 4.85 2.97 9.25 72.57△△ 0.43 0.33 7.37 Nyren (1998)
37 Park tunnel, westbound 7.5 13.23 0.42 0.29 5.21
38 11.5 15.28 0.43 0.30 4.53
39 18.5 17.83 0.39 0.27 3.90
40 25.0 19.48 0.42 0.30 3.58

41 The Crossrail project, Hyde Park tunnel, westbound 11.2 30.65 7.10 0.78 3.31 27.74△△ 0.39 0.25 7.86 Wan et al. (2017a)
42 14.0 3.71 0.40 0.21 7.04
43 19.5 4.32 0.40 0.21 6.08
44 28.6 5.37 0.41 0.22 4.91
45 34.9 5.67 0.42 0.23 4.67

46 Furongjiang tunnel / 3.50 4.20 / 26.84 130.00△ 0.82 0.25 4.62 Yi et al. (1993)

47 Second Heinenoord tunnel / 12.50 8.30 / 26.50 46.80☆ 0.50 0.16 2.18 Federico et al.
(2014)

△ △△
Note: represents values of g provided by references; represents Smax(z0) calculated by Eq.(4); ☆represents Smax(z0) obtained by analytical method.

3.1. Application procedure
There are two parameters in the developed Gaussian function: k and
n. Calibration of k and n is of vital importance during the prediction of
ground settlement. If the tunnel has been excavated, these two para-
meters can be calibrated by the measured data at some specific posi-
tions. If the excavation is not conducted, the parameters can be sug-
gested by organizing the existed data from similar project.
The parameter calibration procedure is shown in Fig. 7. First, the
Gaussian curves at z = 0 and z = C are needed to be calibrated by the
measured data, respectively, and values of i(0) and i(C) are obtained by
the inflection point of the calibrated Gaussian curves, then the value of
k is calculated by substituting i(0) and i(C) into Eq. (2). Simultaneously,
the Smax(0) and Smax(z0) provided by field observations are substituted
into Eq. (5) for clay strata or Eq. (6) for sand or gravel strata to calibrate
the value of n. Finally, the ground settlement field can be obtained by
substituting parameters (k and n) and known quantities (Smax(0), Smax
(z0), i(0), and z0) into Eq. (7).
3.2. Case application
Karakus and Fowell (2005). n = 1.92 is obtained by substituting Smax
(0) and Smax(z0) into Eq. (5). Based on the calibrated parameters and
known quantities, the predicted ground settlement field is presented in
Fig. 8(c). Besides, the black curves in Fig. 8(a) illustrates the predicted
ground settlement troughs at z = 3.0 m and 11.0 m, while Fig. 8(b)
shows the calculated result of maximum ground settlement. The
agreement between the predicted curves and the field data indicates
that the ground settlement field shown in Fig. 8(c) is reasonable.
4. Field project cases validation
A total of 12 sets of data (i.e., Cases 36–47), among which 11 sets
are from clay strata (or complex strata containing a clay layer) and the
other is from sand strata, are investigated from 4 field tunnel projects to
validate the proposed formulas for Smax(z) and S(x, z). Parameters and
known quantities are listed in Table 2. For each case, both k and n are
calibrated by the methods in Section 3, while the data points used for
calibration are circled in the corresponding figure. In addition, xf in
Table 2 represents the distance from the shield face to the monitored
section behind it.

Taking the Heathrow Express (HEX) tunnel as an example, the
prediction procedure of the ground settlement field is demonstrated.
HEX tunnel, which links central London to Heathrow Airport, was ex-
cavated using New Austrian Tunneling Method. In advance of the main
works, a trial tunnel with 100 m long was constructed to research the
performance of three different excavation sequences in controlling
ground settlements. In this paper, the measured settlements induced by
the Type-2 excavation sequence (i.e., single side drift sequence) are
extracted to demonstrate the application of the developed Gaussian
function. At the monitored section, the excavated cavity was 9.2 m
wide and 7.9 m high, and the crown depth was approximately 16.8 m
(Deane and Bassett, 1995). The tunnel was constructed in a 45-meter-
thick strata of London clay underlying a 4.2-meter-thick stratum of
Made ground and Thames gravel, as shown in Fig. 8. The groundwater
table is approximately 2.0 m below the ground surface.
Parameters k and n are calibrated by the measured data circled in
Fig. 8(a) and (b), respectively. Fig. 8(a) shows the measured settlements
at depths of 0.0 m, 3.0 m, 7.0 m, and 11.0 m, among which the data of
z = 0.0 m and 7.0 m are used to determine the red calibrated Gaussian
curves. Values of i(0) and i(7) are gotten by the calibrated Gaussian
curves, and then, k = 0.23 is obtained by substituting i(0) and i(7) into
Eq. (2). Fig. 8(b) shows the measured Smax(z) at z = 0.0 m, 3.0 m,
7.0 m, 11.0 m, together with Smax(z0) whose value is provided by
4.1. The Jubilee Line Extension (JLE) project
The JLE project included two tunnels constructed using an open-
face shield with the diameter of 4.85 m. Field settlements were ob-
tained from a well-instrumented section in St. James’s Park (Nyren,
1998; Zymnis et al., 2013). The ground settlements induced by the
westbound (WB) tunnel excavation are adopted to validate the formula
for Smax(z) and S(x, z). At the monitored section, the axis of the WB
tunnel located at approximately 31.0 m below the ground surface. The
excavation section volume loss of the WB tunnel is approximately
2.97% (Ieronymaki et al., 2018). London clay is dominant at the site
and is found beneath a layer of alluvium and terrace gravels with a
thickness of 12.0 m. The groundwater table is approximately 2.0 m
below the surface.
The measured settlements when the shield driven to different po-
sitions, i.e., xf = 1.5 m, 7.5 m, 11.5 m, 18.0 m, and 25.0 m (respec-
tively corresponding to Cases 36, 37, 38, 39, and 40) are shown in
Fig. 9(a)–(e). Take Case 36 as an example. The measured settlements at
z = 0.0 m, 5.0 m, 9.0 m, 13.0 m, 17.0 m, 22.5 m, 27.0 m, together with
the Smax(z0) calculated by Eq. (4) are presented in Fig. 9(a). In this case,
the measured data at z = 0.0 m and 22.5 m are used to calibrate
parameter k, while Smax(0) and Smax(z0) are substituted into Eq. (5) to
calibrate parameter n. Values of k and n are listed in Table 2.

12
D. Lu, et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 103 (2020) 103443

Fig. 9. Surface and subsurface settlement troughs in St. James’s Park (a) Case 36 xf = 1.5 m, (b) Case 37 xf = 7.5 m, (c) Case 38 xf = 11.5 m, (d) Case 39
xf = 18.5 m, and (e) Case 40 xf = 25.0 m.

13
D. Lu, et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 103 (2020) 103443

4.3. Furongjiang Sewer Tunnel

Furongjiang Sewer Tunnel was excavated by an EPB shield with a

diameter of 4.33 m in Shanghai. The outside diameter of the lining was
4.2 m, and its axis was 5.6 m below the ground surface. The tunnel was
constructed in the organic loam and clay, with a thin layer of fine sand
(0.9 m thick). The ground layer that the tunnel is located overlain by
the brownish-yellow plastic loam with 2.0–3.0 m thick and above this a
thin crust. The groundwater table was 0.8 m below the ground surface.
Settlement gauges were installed in a transverse section to measure the
ground settlements at different depths when the shield passed (Chen
et al., 2011).
Fig. 11 shows the measured settlements at z = 0.0 m, 0.91 m, 1.8 m,
2.5 m, and the approximate Smax(z0) which is assumed equal to g.
Parameters k and n are calibrated by the same method with the above
cases and listed in Table 2, where the measured data at z = 0.0 m and
1.8 m are used to determine parameter k. Fig. 11 compares the pre-
dicted and measured results of Smax(z) and S(x, z), indicating the ef-
fectiveness of the proposed formulas.

4.4. Second Heinenoord tunnel

The second Heinenoord tunnel is the first shield tunnel in

Netherlands, and it crosses under the Oude Maas River, south of
Rotterdam. The diameter of the tunnel is 8.3 m, and the depth of its axis
line is 16.65 m. Ground movements induced by the tunnel excavation
were monitored by extensometers and inclinometers. The soil profile at
the instrumented site comprises a 17.0 m deep Holocene layer that
mainly consists of loose to medium sands, overlying an 8.0 m deep layer
of dense to very dense sands. The average groundwater table is 3.0 m
Fig. 9. (continued)
below the ground surface (Federico et al., 2014).
Fig. 12 presents the measured settlements at depths of 0.0 m, 6.0 m,
Subsequently, the predicted maximum ground settlement and subsur-
9.0 m, 12.0 m, and the Smax(z0) calculated by analytical method
face settlement troughs based on Eqs. (7) and (3) are respectively
(Federico et al., 2014). In this case, parameter k is calibrated based on
presented, as shown by the black curves in Fig. 9(a). This figure in-
the measured data at z = 0.0 m and 9.0 m, and parameter n is de-
dicates that predicted curve of Smax(z) has a good agreement with the
termined by Eq. (6). Comparison between the predicted curves and the
field data, and the predicted ground settlement troughs well capture the
data points are shown in Fig. 12. It can be seen that the formulas for
distribution of the measured settlements at different depths. Similar
Smax(z) and S(x, z) reasonably describe the settlements of the sand
consequence can also be acquired for Cases 37–40, as shown in
strata in field project.
Fig. 9(b)–(e), respectively.

5. Model test validation

4.2. The Crossrail project
Because only one set of field data in sand strata is adopted in the last
section, three groups of tunnelling model tests are conducted to further
The Crossrail project, which involved two tunnels, was built be-
validate the applicability of the proposed formulas in the sand strata.
neath central London from west Paddington to Bethnal Green. The
tunnels were excavated using Earth Pressure Balance (EPB) shields with
5.1. Test design
the diameter of 7.1 m. Ground displacements were gathered as the
tunnels advanced beneath Hyde Park (Wan et al., 2017a). In this paper,
The 2D model test can qualitatively reflect the ground deformation
ground settlements induced by the WB tunnel excavation are collected
law caused by tunnel excavation although the scaling effect cannot be
to validate the formulas for Smax(z) and S(x, z). In Hyde Park, the depth
ignored, so that an instrument is designed to conduct 2D tunnelling
of the WB tunnel axis is approximately 34.5 m. A typical London Basin
model test. The test instrument consists of a model strongbox, a model
stratigraphy is found here with Made ground and Terrace gravels (4.6 m
tunnel and a ground deformation monitoring system. The transverse
thick) overlying the London clay formation (57.0 m thick) (Wan et al.,
section of the model strongbox is rectangular with a Perspex window on
2017b). The groundwater table is located at the top of the clay.
its front face, as shown in Fig. 13. The internal dimensions of the
The measured ground settlements of Cases 41–45, in which
strongbox are 1500 mm wide, 1500 mm high and 400 mm thick. The
xf = 11.2 m, 14.0 m, 19.5 m, 28.6 m, and 34.9 m, respectively, are
Perspex window is 900 mm high and 1000 mm wide. The tunnel is in
shown in Fig. 10(a)–(e). For each case, field settlements at z = 0.0 m,
the horizontal centre of the strongbox. The diameter D of the tunnel is
4.0 m, 9.0 m, 14.0 m, 17.0 m, 20.0 m, 23.0 m, 26.0 m, 29.0 m , and the
200 mm. The distance between the tunnel crown and the top of the
Smax(z0) calculated by Eq. (4) are presented. Parameter k is calibrated
strongbox is 600 mm. The maximum cover-to-diameter ratio z0/D of the
based on the measured data at z = 0.0 m and 26.0 m, and parameter n
model tunnel can reach 3.0.
is calibrated by using the same method with Case 36. Their values are
Reducing the area of the tunnel transverse section to achieve a
listed in Table 2. Then, the predicted Smax(z) and S(x, z) are presented
ground volume loss is the usual approach for simulate the tunnelling
in Fig. 10(a)–(e), which indicate that the proposed formulas reasonably
process in model tests (Taylor and Grant, 1998; Loganathan et al., 2000;
describe the distribution of the field settlements in Cases 41–45.
Jacobsz et al., 2004; Vorster et al., 2005; Marshall et al., 2012; Ritter
et al., 2018). In this paper, a model tunnel was designed to realize

14
D. Lu, et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 103 (2020) 103443

Fig. 10. Surface and subsurface settlement troughs in Hyde Park (a) Case 41 xf = 11.2 m, (b) Case 42 xf = 14.0 m, (c) Case 43 xf = 19.5 m, (d) Case 44 xf = 28.6 m,
and (e) Case 45 xf = 34.9 m.

15
D. Lu, et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 103 (2020) 103443

Fig. 12. Surface and subsurface settlement troughs in Second Heinenoord

Tunnel (Case 47).
Fig. 10. (continued)

Fig. 13. Dimensions of the model strongbox and the layout scheme of the dial
indicators (unit: mm).

on the roundness of the effective part (400 mm long) of the water bag.
Vl,r is equal to the ratio between the volume of the discharged water
and that of the model tunnel, namely:
Vwd 4Vwd
Vl,r = =
Vw πD 2L (8)
Fig. 11. Surface and subsurface settlement troughs in Furongjiang Sewer
Tunnel (Case 46). where Vw is the initial volume of the model tunnel, Vwd is the volume of
the discharged water, D (=200 mm) is the diameter of the model
different Vl,r by releasing water from the water bag, as shown in Fig. 14. tunnel, and L (=500 mm) is the length of the model tunnel. During the
The diameter of the water bag is 200 mm. The length of the water bag is test procedure, some specific values of Vl,r are realized in each test
designed to be 500 mm, which eliminates the influence of the boundary condition (Table 3).
The ground settlement corresponding to the specific Vl,r was

16
D. Lu, et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 103 (2020) 103443

Fig. 14. Model tunnel. (a) Vertical central plane A-A; (b) cross-section of the model tunnel; and (c) image of the model tunnel.

Table 3 measured. The digital speckle correlation method (DSCM) (Li et al.,
Realized Vl,r in T101–T103. 2014) was chosen to measure the subsurface settlement. The basic
Test conditions Vl,r
principle of DSCM is to match the geometric positions of the digital
speckle images and then track the movement of each point. DSCM
T101 0.66% 1.32% 1.97% 2.63% computational software was used to conduct the correlation operation
T102 0.66% 1.32% 1.97% / to calculate the displacement of monitored points. Currently, the DSCM
T103 0.66% 1.32% / /
can achieve a precision of 0.01 pixels. Dial indicators were used to
Note: Vl,r = 0.66% when 100 ml water is discharged from the water bag. monitor the surface settlement, as shown in Fig. 13. The measurement
range of the dial indicator is 30 mm, and the maximum precision is
Table 4 10 μm. Plastic film is stuck on the inner wall of the strongbox to reduce
Mechanical parameters of the sand. the friction between the sand and the wall. When a similar friction
reduction method is conducted, the surface settlement of the boundary
Parameters Mf λ κ e0
cross-section and that of the middle cross-section is largely consistent in
Value 1.8 0.0125 0.0044 0.65 2D model tests (Marshall, 2009).
Additionally, sand was chosen to establish the test model. The
material parameters are listed in Table 4. In three tests, the water
content is 5%, while the buried depth of the tunnel crown is 300 mm,
400 mm and 500 mm for test numbers T101, T102 and T103, respec-
tively. The sand with fixed water content was immediately filled into
the strongbox and compacted layer by layer. Every layer was tamped
down to 100 mm with the same quality sand. The dry density of the
sand was controlled at 1634 kg/m3. To collect the ground settlement
information by DSCM, a white quartz sand strip with 10 mm thickness
is set at the position closed to the acrylic plate glazing after each layer
was finished, as shown in Fig. 13. Data collection points, which are
symmetrical about the vertical central plane A-A, were set at the silica
sand strip.
In the three tests, Vl,r increases step by step with a gradient of
0.66%, which is realized by discharging water with a certain volume
from the water bag. The stable ground settlement corresponding to each
gradient of Vl,r was measured during the test procedure. The measured
results indicate that Smax(0) increases as Vl,r increases and tends to
converge when Vl,r increases to a certain value, as shown in Fig. 15. The
certain Vl,r is 2.63%, 1.97% and 1.32% for T101, T102 and T103, re-
spectively. The test was stopped when Smax(0) no longer increases with
Fig. 15. Maximum settlement of the ground surface. the increase of Vl,r. The test results corresponding to the realized Vl,r

17
D. Lu, et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 103 (2020) 103443

Table 5
Parameters and known quantities for all test conditions.
Test No. Test information Known quantities Parameters

Vl,r (%) z0 (cm) D (cm) Smax Smax i(0)/z0 k n

(0) (z0)
(mm) (mm)

T101 0.66 30 20 0.010 0.050 0.32 0.098 1.99

1.32 0.015 0.080 0.41 0.195 1.98
1.97 0.018 0.100 0.37 0.143 1.98
2.63 0.022 0.120 0.39 0.168 1.98
T102 0.66 40 0.010 0.050 0.17 0.031 1.99
1.32 0.020 0.080 0.22 0.074 1.99
1.97 0.025 0.100 0.25 0.101 2.01
T103 0.66 50 0.007 0.070 0.12 0.001 1.93
1.32 0.018 0.100 0.13 −0.009 1.98

(Table 4) are presented to validate the proposed formulas.

5.2. Validation of the proposed formulas

In T101–T103, each realized Vl,r represents a test condition.

Parameters k and n are calibrated by the methods suggested in Section 3
for each test condition, and the data used for calibration are circled in
Fig. 16. Values of k and n are listed in Table 5 for all test conditions.

5.2.1. Maximum ground settlement

The formula for Smax(z) (i.e., Eq. (3)) is the basis for the developed
Gaussian function(i.e., Eq. (7)), so we first validate Eq. (3) using the test
results. For all test conditions, comparison between the predicted
curves and the test results are shown in Fig. 16. It can be found that Eq.
(3) can capture the distribution feature of the maximum ground set-
tlement of the sand strata above the tunnel.

5.2.2. Ground settlement trough

The developed Gaussian function is used to predict the subsurface
settlement troughs in T101–T103, as shown in Fig. 17. Taking the test
conditions in T101 as an example, the predicted settlement troughs at
z = 10 cm and 20 cm are shown by the black curves in Fig. 17(a), and
have good agreement with the test results. For test conditions in T102
and T103, the correlation degree between the predicted and test results
are also presented in Fig. 17(b) and (c), respectively. The comparison
demonstrates that the developed Gaussian function can describe the
ground settlements at different depths in the sand strata.

6. Conclusions

Fig. 16. Maximum ground settlements in the sand strata (a) T101, (b) T102,
and (c) T103.
By analysing the data from many field projects and model tests of
tunnel excavation, this paper reveals the nonlinear variation of the
maximum ground settlement with depth, and proposes an interpolation
formula, i.e., Smax(z), to quantify this variation law. On this basis, the
developed Gaussian function, i.e., S(x, z), can predict the transverse
ground settlement at different depths using one set of parameters, in-
stead of redetermining the parameters’ values according to the depth.
Determination methods of the new parameter n are given for clay strata
and sand strata, respectively.
Application procedure of the developed Gaussian function is in-
troduced by taking the HEX tunnel as an example. Before the tunnel
excavation, S(x, z) can provide an estimated ground settlement based
on the existing data from similar projects. After the tunnel is excavated,
the real ground settlement can be predicted by S(x, z) based on the
settlements at some specific positions. The proposed formulas well
capture the measured data from 12 field project cases and 9 model test
cases, which indicates that the suggested method has the ability to
predict the tunnelling-induced settlement in different ground condi-
tions.

18
D. Lu, et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 103 (2020) 103443

Fig. 17. Surface and subsurface settlement troughs in the sand strata (a) T101, (b) T102, and (c) T103.

CRediT authorship contribution statement acquisition, Resources. Qingtao Lin: Conceptualization, Methodology,
Data curation, Writing - original draft. Yu Tian: . Xiuli Du: Writing -
Dechun Lu: Methodology, Writing - review & editing, Funding review & editing, Formal analysis. Qiuming Gong: Project

19
D. Lu, et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 103 (2020) 103443

Fig. 17. (continued)

20
D. Lu, et al.
Fig. 17. (continued)
administration, Supervision.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge financial support from the
National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 51421005;
51538001; 51778026).
References
Attewell, P.B., Farmer, I.W., 1974. Ground deformations resulting from shield tunnelling
in London Clay. Can. Geotech. J. 11 (3), 380–395.
Attewell, P.B., Farmer, I.W., Glossop, N.H., Kusznir, N.J., 1975. A case history of ground
deformation caused by tunneling in laminated clay. Proceeding Conference on
Subway Construction. Budapest-Balatonfured.
Chen, R.P., Zhu, J., Liu, W., Tang, X.W., 2011. Ground movement induced by parallel EPB
tunnels in silty soils. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 26 (1), 163–171.
Chou, W.I., Bobet, A., 2002. Predictions of ground deformations in shallow tunnels in
clay. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 17 (1), 3–19.
Deane, A.P., Bassett, R.H., 1995. The Heathrow express trial tunnel. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng.
Geotech. Eng. 113 (3), 144–156.
Dyer, M.R., Hutchinson, M.T., Evans, N., 1996. Sudden valley sewer: a case history. In:
Mair, R.J., Taylor, R.N. (Eds.), International Symposium on Geotechnical Aspects of
Underground Construction in Soft Ground. Balkema, London.
Fang, Y.S., Wu, C.T., Chen, S.F., 2012. An estimation of subsurface settlement due to
shield tunneling. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 44, 121–129.
Federico, P., Despina, M., Zymnis, S.M., Andrew, J.W., 2014. Ground movements due to
shallow tunnels in soft ground. II: Analytical interpretation and prediction. ASCE J.
Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 140 (4), 04013041.
Grant, R.J., Taylor, R.N., 2000. Tunnelling-induced ground movements in clay. Proc.
Instit. Civ. Engineers-Geotech. Eng. 1 (143), 43–55.
21
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 103 (2020) 103443
Han, X., Li, N., Standing, J.R., 2007. Study on subsurface ground movement caused by
urban tunneling. Chin. J. Rock Soil Mech. 28 (3), 609–613 (in Chinese).
Hu, X.Y., Yan, Q.X., He, C., Yang, X.Y., 2016. Study on the disturbance and excavation
face failure feature of granular mixtures stratum due to EPB shield tunneling. Chin. J.
Rock Mech. Eng. 35 (8), 1618–1627 (in Chinese).
Ieronymaki, E.S., Whittle, A.J., Sureda, D.S., 2016. Interpretation of free-field ground
movements caused by mechanized tunnel construction. ASCE J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng. 143 (4), 04016114.
Ieronymaki, E.S., Whittle, A.J., Einstein, H.H., 2018. Comparative study of the effects of
three tunneling methods on ground movements in stiff clay. Tunn. Undergr. Space
Technol. 74 (4), 167–177.
Ilsley, R.C., Hunt, S.H., Komurka, V.E., Doyle, B.R., Ramage, J., 1991. Ground movements
around tunnels excavated in Milwaukee, .S.A., using slurry shield and earth pressure
balance methods. Proceeding the 4th International Conference on Ground
Movements and Structures, Cardiff, Wales.
Jacobsz, S.W., Standing, J.R., Mair, R.J., Hagiwara, T., Sugiyama, T., 2004. Centrifuge
modelling of tunnelling near driven piles. Soils Found. 44 (1), 49–56.
Jiang, Y.C., He, C., Hu, X.Y., Fang, Y., 2013. Laboratory test study of soil disturbance
caused by shield tunnelling in sandy strata. Chin. J. Rock Mech. Eng. 32 (12),
2550–2559 (in Chinese).
Karakus, M., Fowell, R.J., 2005. Back analysis for tunnelling induced ground movements
and stress redistribution. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 20, 514–524.
Lee, K.M., Rowe, R.K., Lo, K.Y., 1992. Subsidence owing to tunneling. I. Estimating the
gap parameter. Can. Geotech. J. 29 (6), 929–940.
Lee, C.J., Wu, B.R., Chiou, S.Y., 1999. Soil movements around a tunnel in soft soils.
Proceedings of the National Science Council, Part A, Physical Science and
Engineering, Taiwan, China.
Lee, Y.J., 2009. Investigation of subsurface deformations associated with model tunnels in
a granular mass. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 24 (6), 654–664.
Li, Y.J., Zhang, D.L., Fang, Q., Yu, Q.C., 2014. Xia L A physical and numerical in-
vestigation of the failure mechanism of weak rocks surrounding tunnels. Comput.
Geotech. 61 (3), 292–307.
Li, Y., 2004. The 3D FEM simulation and experimental research on ground deformation
by shield driven. PHD Thesis. Tianjin University (in Chinese).
Loganathan, N., Poulos, H.G., 1998. Analytical prediction for tunneling induced ground
movement in clays. ASCE J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 124 (9), 846–856.
Loganathan, N., Poulos, H.G., Stewart, D.P., 2000. Centrifuge model testing of tunnelling
induced ground and pile Deformations. Géotechnique 50 (3), 283–294.
Mair, R.J., Taylor, R.N., Bracegirdle, A., 1993. Subsurface settlement profiles above
tunnels in clays. Géotechnique 43 (2), 315–320.
Mair, R.J., 1996. Settlement effects of bored tunnels. Proceedings of International
Symposium on Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground,
London, UK.
D. Lu, et al.
Mair, R.J., Taylor, R.N., 1997. Bored tunnelling in the urban environment. Proceeding of
the 14th International Conference of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
Hamburg, UK.
Marshall, A.M., 2009. Tunnelling in sand and its effect on pipelines and piles. PhD thesis.
University of Cambridge.
Marshall, A.M., Farrell, R., Klar, A., Mair, R.J., 2012. Tunnels in sands: the effect of size,
depth and volume loss on greenfield displacements. Géotechnique 62 (5), 385–399.
Moh, Z.C., Ju, D.H., Hwang, R.N., 1996. Ground movements around tunnels in soft
ground. Proceeding of the International Symposium on Geotechnical Aspects of
Underground Construction in Soft Ground, London, UK.
Nyren, R.J., 1998. Field measurements above twin tunnels in London clay. PhD thesis.
University of London.
O’Reilly, M.P., News, B.M., 1982. Settlements above tunnels in the United Kingdom their
magnitude and prediction. Proceeding of Tunnelling ’82 Symposium. Institution of
Mining and Metallurgy, London, UK.
Park, K.H., 2004. Elastic solution for tunnelling-induced ground movements in clays. Int.
J. Geomech. l4 (4), 310–318.
Peck, R.B., 1969. Deep excavations and tunnelling in soft ground. Proceedings of the 7th
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, State of the
Art Volume, Mexico.
Pan, Z.G., 2015. Study on the ground deformation of soil tunnel excavation. PhD thesis.
Beijing University of Technology (in Chinese).
Rankin, W.J., 1988. Ground movement resulting from urban tunnelling: Predictions and
effects. . Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Conference on the Engineering Group of the
Geological Society. Nottingham University, Nottingham, UK.
Ritter, S., Giardina, G., DeJong, M.J., Mair, R.J., 2018. Centrifuge modelling of building
response to tunnel excavation. Int. J. Phys. Modell. Geotech. 18 (3), 146–161.
Romo, M.P., 1997. Soil movements induced by slurry shield tunneling. Proc. 14th
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Hamburg,
Germany.
Toombs, A.F., 1995. Settlement caused by tunnelling beneath a motorway embankment.
Supplementary Report 547. Transport and Road Research Laboratory, Department of
Transport, London, UK.
Taylor, R.N., Grant, R.J., 1998. Centrifuge modelling of the influence of surface structures
22
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 103 (2020) 103443
on tunnelling induced ground movements. World Tunnel Congress 98 on Tunnels and
Metropolises, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Vorster, T.E., Klar, A., Soga, K., Mair, R.J., 2005. Estimating the effects of tunneling on
existing pipelines. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 131 (11), 1399–1410.
Wan, M.S.P., Standing, J.R., Potts, D.M., Burland, J.B., 2017a. Measured short-term
ground surface response to EPBM tunnelling in London Clay. Géotechnique 67 (5),
420–445.
Wan, M.S.P., Standing, J.R., Potts, D.M., Burland, J.B., 2017b. Measured short-term
subsurface ground displacements from EPBM tunnelling in London Clay.
Géotechnique 67 (9), 748–779.
Wang, Z.S., Wang, M.S., Zhang, M., 2009. Methods for estimating subsurface ground
movements induced by shield tunneling. Rock Soil Mech. 30 (6), 1699–1703 (in
Chinese).
Wang, F., Miao, L.C., Yang, X.M., Du, Y.J., Liang, F.Y., 2016. The volume of settlement
trough change with depth caused by tunneling in sands. KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 20 (7),
2719–2724.
Yi, H.W., 1999. Research on the disturbance of soil and ground movements induced by
shield tunnelling. PHD Thesis. Tongji University (in Chinese).
Yi, X., Kerryrowe, R., Lee, K.M., 1993. Observed and calculated pore pressures and de-
formations induced by an earth balance shield. Can. Geotech. J. 30, 476–490.
Zhang, Y., Yin, Z.Z., Xu, Y.F., 2002. Analysis on three-dimensional ground surface de-
formations due to shield tunnel. Chin. J. Rock Mech. Eng. 21 (3), 388–392 (in
Chinese).
Zhang, Z.G., Huang, M.S., Zhang, M.X., 2011. Theoretical prediction of ground move-
ments induced by tunnelling in multi-layered soils. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 26
(2), 345–355.
Zheng, G., Dai, X., Diao, Y., Zeng, C.F., 2016. Experimental and simplified model study of
the development of ground settlement under hazards induced by loss of groundwater
and sand. Nat. Hazards 82 (3), 1869–1893.
Zhou, M., Wang, F., Du, Y.J., Liu, M.D., 2019. Laboratory evaluation of buried high-
density polyethylene pipes subjected to localized ground subsidence. Acta Geotech.
14 (4), 1081–1099.
Zymnis, D.M., Chatzigiannellis, Y., Whittle, A.J., 2013. Effect of anisotropy in ground
movements caused by tunneling. Géotechnique 63 (13), 1083–1102.