TECHNICAL | TUNNELLING IMPACTS
TUNNELLING
AND GENERAL
CONSTRUCTION
IMPACTS ON UTILITY
PIPELINES
Dr Cheong Kin Gary Choy and Dr Barry New (both of Geotechnical Consulting Group, UK)
provide a broad guide and structure to assess the impacts on utility pipelines
from various tunnelling and construction activities
1 INTRODUCTION This paper develops and extends
the content of the 2017 Harding Memorial lecture (New,
2019) and reflects the development of techniques used
on numerous recent projects including HS2 and Thames
Tideway. It is inevitable that many construction works
will give rise to ground movements which can have
adverse impacts on third party assets if these works
are not carefully designed, planned and carried out:
the presence of sensitive, vulnerable or ageing assets
exacerbates this problem. The impact of construction
works on buildings throughout the world have been
well-documented but there is a lack of literature
focusing on the impacts on utility assets.
Through the authors’ longstanding engagement with
the Research Working Group (WG2) of the International
Tunnelling and Underground Space Association (ITA), it
has become apparent that the approaches adopted by
both utilities and developers in different countries vary
significantly and are influenced by the prevailing social
and legal frameworks.
The objective of this paper is to provide a broad
guide to the assessment of utility pipelines which
are subject to impact from various construction
activities. It is intended to provide a structure to impact
assessment which includes utility requirements,
components of pipeline risk assessment, pipe failure
mechanism, masonry, concept of impact strain, and
the staged assessment process. The presented methods
and strategies are based on the authors’ experience,
particularly in London and the Thames Valley. The more
risk-based approach puts an emphasis on rationalising
the assessment process to reflect the uncertainties
about ground and asset conditions, consideration of the
consequence of asset failures (see extent of damages
shown on Figure 1), and implementation of control and
mitigation measures.
12 | February 2022
The paper cannot cover all types of utility assets
and the various conditions encountered throughout
the world. However, it is intended to be as informative
as possible so that assessors will be able to adapt
the presented principles and methods to suit local
conditions and construction methods.
2 UTILITY REQUIREMENTS
There are generally three key utility requirements that
will have to be considered by developers, designers
and contractors throughout the design and construction
phases of new development schemes:
● T
 he utility must be in compliance with its
statutory and regulatory obligations. In particular,
the serviceability to customers should not be
threatened in both short and long term. The failure to
protect an asset from any construction damage could
result in serious health and safety issues, substantial
third-party damages, and penalties from regulators.
● W
 hole-life asset value should be maintained.
There should be no damage, loss of capacity or
downgrade of an asset to ensure its value is retained
to protect stakeholders interests.
● T
 he proposed works should not inhibit or prevent
any maintenance or repair works that are required
for the asset.
In order to meet these key requirements, developers,
designers and contractors are expected to undertake
pipeline risk assessments to inform utilities regarding
the likely risk to their assets posed by the proposed
development, and how the risk might be eliminated,
minimised or otherwise mitigated. The assessment
cannot be completed without essential information
from the utility which includes asset maps (showing the
‘indicative’ alignment and material of the assets); repair
 TUNNELLING IMPACTS | TECHNICAL

Left, figure 1:
Images showing extensive
damage caused by asset
failures

and maintenance records; criticality and vulnerability of

the assets; as well as the potential consequence to their
assets of failure.
The pipeline risk assessment prepared by the
Conditions
developer’s team will be reviewed by the utility
engineers and their consultants in order to provide a
high-level assurance to senior managers within the
utility business.
Conciliation Calculations
3 COMPONENTS OF PIPELINE
RISK ASSESSMENT
A pipeline risk assessment is often a complex process
and some of the required input information may PIPELINE RISK
be uncertain or unobtainable. On many occasions, ASSESSMENT
an assessor will have to make certain informed
assumptions in order to complete the assessment.
Figure 2 shows the six key components of pipeline risk
assessment and further details are summarised below: Consent Consequences
1 Conditions (properties) of assets
a Type
i Water, gas, electric, telecoms and others
b Location
Control
i It is important to confirm the line and level (and
material) of the asset via survey and exploratory
excavations because information provided
on utility asset maps may not be accurate or
complete. For instance, since the 2011 Transfer of Above. figure 2:
Private Sewer Regulations, sewage undertakers Components of pipeline
were required to become responsible for many risk assessment
unmapped private sewers. (The Six Cs’ Principles)

February 2022 | 13
TECHNICAL | TUNNELLING IMPACTS
c. Material
i Iron (grey or ductile); clayware; brick; concrete
(unreinforced or reinforced); thermoplastic
(polyethylene (PE) or polyvinyl chloride (PVC));
glass reinforced plastic (GRP)
d. Size
i Outside and inside diameters; pipe section
length
e. Jointing
i Lead run; Cementitious; Flanged; Welded;
Flexible; Age
f. Present conditions
i Review of repair and maintenance (R&M) history
and night line flow records held by the utility
will give a better indication of the condition of
the pipe network than the occasional trial pit
investigation.
ii Internal survey of sewers allows identification
of existing defects which may require urgent
attention before commencement of the
proposed works.
g. Exclusion zone
i This is the minimum vertical and horizontal
clearances required between the extrados of the
asset and the outer face of the proposed works.
ii This is to allow sufficient space for any repair/
maintenance/upgrade works required for the
assets.
h. Ground conditions
i Geo-environment (e.g. chemical attack on pipe
material)
ii Problematic soil (e.g. alluvial deposits)
iii Bedding (e.g. poor workmanship)
i. Pre-existing strain (if known)
i Strain arising from ground movements or other
loadings caused by historic works (e.g. cross
trenching, tunnelling, basements)
2 Calculations (e.g. ground movements, changes in
loading)
a. Tunnels, shafts, basements, boxes and foundations
(including any demolition, piling, dewatering works
required and any use of heavy construction plant in
the vicinity of the assets) and associated vibration
issues
b. Geometries and construction sequences/
methods (including both temporary and permanent
works)
c. Ground movement and utility damage assessments
(e.g. strain, joint rotation and pullout)
3 Consequence of damage
a. Strategic, trunk or distribution main?
i Consequences of pipe failure are not necessarily
related to pipe size. For instance, a water supply
to a hospital or fire mains may be in a relatively
small diameter pipe (distribution main) but
nevertheless safety-critical in importance.
ii Failure of a pipe within a resilient network
(i.e. there are sufficient alternative supply
routes) will have less impact on the supply to
customers.
14 | February 2022
b. Failure to meet statutory service obligations?
i There can be a substantial penalty to the utility
if it cannot restore its service to customers
within a pre-defined period.
c. Loss of whole-life asset value (e.g. damage, loss of
capacity or downgrade)?
d. Damage to third-party assets and health and safety
issues (e.g. possible flood zones, explosion)?
e. Financial and reputational impact to the utility’s
business? The general public usually considers
the utility is at fault even though the cause of pipe
failure may be associated with other third-party
activities.
4 Control (and preparedness)
a. Mitigation
i Replacement, diversion or strengthening?
ii Temporary isolation? This will allow the asset
to be inspected and/or tested upon completion
of the proposed works before it can be safely
reopened for use.
iii Pre- and post-condition survey (including
additional inspection to be carried out at critical
phases of the works, where necessary).
iv Locate and exercise of valves controlling the
flows to minimise the extent of flooding/
damage associated with pipe failure.
v Potential risk to workers (e.g. substantial
periods of man entry to install structural lining
inside a sewer; collapse of brickwork during
removal of temporary support)?
vi Potential risk/disruption to public (e.g. traffic
diversion and intrusive traffic management,
traffic delays)?
vii Potential risk to projects (e.g. availability
of materials, pipes and plants; speed of
construction; unforeseen additional costs and
time to implement mitigation measures)?
viii Feasibility of developing a strategy for doing the
minimum to preserve serviceability of the assets
to reduce potential serious risks associated with
mitigation works?
ix ‘Do-nothing’ approach? This relies on a
robust emergency preparedness plan and
an undertaking from the developer that, on
completion of the works and stabilisation of the
ground movements, any damage will be either
repaired or the asset replaced.
b. Monitoring
i Validation of design assumptions relied upon by
the assessments
ii Type (e.g. ground/pipeline movements, leakage,
vibration)
iii Location of monitoring points
iv Frequency of data collection
v Data interpretation method
vi  Trigger levels
vii Action plan (e.g. termination and/or modification
of the construction / mitigation processes;
change in monitoring and data review
frequency)

Missing brick
c. Network resilience
i Alternative supply routes within the network?
d. Emergency preparedness/contingency planning
i Review of impact models (possible flood zone
and other consequence)
ii Emergency preparedness plan (EPP) should
include an incident recovery plan that will allow
rapid repair of a pipe failure. R&M contractors
should be made aware of the works and have
emergency spares and equipment immediately
available for repairs.
iii Local operations staff notified of the works.
5 Consent
a. Has the appropriate level of analysis and checking
been carried out?
b. Is the risk ALARP (As Low As Reasonably
Practicable)?
c. Response from utility: ‘Approval in Principle’;
‘No further comments’, or ‘LONO’ (Letter of No
Objection)
6 Conciliation
a. Further negotiations with Developer
b. Court injunction (the last resort)
4 PIPE FAILURE MECHANISMS
Pipes do not fail randomly and there is always an
explanation for pipe failure. Generally, the following
three groups of causes may be attributed to pipe
failures:
1 Third-party intervention
a. road works; ground movements; compaction;
vibration; abnormal surface or other loads
2 Weakened pipe
a. Corrosion; casting defects (e.g. incorrect section,
wormholes, porosity, joint failure)
TUNNELLING IMPACTS | TECHNICAL
Left, figure 3:
Loss of mortar and
missing brick around the
Missing mortar arch of a masonry sewer
3 Operational overload (which is unlikely given a
pipe in serviceable condition)
a. Over pressurisation; surge
New (2019) illustrates typical failure mechanisms for
pipes made from brittle materials (e.g. cast iron, vitrified
clay, unreinforced concrete) and they can be grouped
into the following categories:
● B earing fracture due to concentration of reaction or
load (which may occur in any size of pipe)
● L ongitudinal cracking (splitting) due to overload (with
larger pipes tending to be more vulnerable)
● C ircumferential crack due to flexural bending (which
is most common in metal pipes with diameters of
300mm or less; or unreinforced concrete/vitrified clay
pipe with aspect ratio (pipe length/pipe diameter)
greater than two
● B urst socket due to excessive joint rotation and/or
shearing (which may occur in all pipe sizes)
● S piral failure due to a combination of longitudinal
flexural and transverse loading (which is commonly
found in pipes between 300 – 600mm diameter)
Experience has shown that the locations of pipe failures
rarely coincide with those pipe sections predicted to
have the most likely chance to fail. This is because pipe
failure depends on various factors which, when present
in an unfavourable combination, are sufficient to cause
the failure. Therefore, a probabilistic (rather than a
strictly deterministic) approach is more appropriate for
pipeline assessment.
5 MASONRY
Many early trunk sewers were constructed in
brickwork and took various geometrical forms (e.g.
February 2022 | 15
TECHNICAL | TUNNELLING IMPACTS
½d ½d ½d ½d
(A) (B)
Above, figure 4: Stress distributions across a masonry arch (after Heyman (1982)) with the thrust line acting:
(a) at the centre (b) at slightly off-centre (c) at the limit of ‘middle-third’ (d) outside the ‘middle-third’ limit
(Note: h/3 is the location of the thrust line measured from the edge of the arch)
egg, circular, horseshoe, arched crown and invert with
vertical sidewall). Analyses of such structures can be
analytically more difficult, more uncertain and highly
condition dependant. A basic understanding of masonry
arch theory (see Heyman (1982 & 1995), Szechy (1970) for
further reading) will assist in undertaking analyses for
assessment purposes.
Transverse stability is usually the primary concern for
masonry arch. Some forms of structural overloading or
asymmetrical loading often result in the development
of tension in the masonry. This can result in a loss of
mortar or bricks within the crown of the arch (see
Figure 3) or elsewhere between the springings, which
can subsequently result in collapse as the arch is no
longer functioning because it becomes kinematically
unstable.
Arch design seeks to resolve the loads upon the arch
into compressive stresses and thereby eliminate tension.
Figure 4 illustrates the stress distributions across a
masonry arch with the thrust line acting at various
locations. Compressive stress is developed across the
whole arch thickness when the thrust line is retained
within the ‘middle-third’ of the arch thickness. However,
tension is developed when the thrust line is outside
the ‘middle-third’ limit. This results in the formation of
cracks because masonry is assumed to have negligible
tensile strength for assessment purposes.
CIRIA C671 (2009) provides useful guidance for a
thrust line analysis of a circular masonry structure and
further details are provided in Appendix A. The aim for
the thrust line analysis is to confirm if the line of thrust
can be developed within an arch ring and equilibrate the
given loading. Figure 5 shows an example of a thrust
line analysis of a 2m internal diameter and 0.6m-thick
circular brick sewer located at a depth of 8m under
three different horizontal stress to vertical stress ratios
(KT).
The location of the thrust line is one of the
determining factors for masonry sewer transverse
stability:
16 | February 2022
⅓h
⅓d ⅓d ⅓d
(C) (D)
i Developed within the intrados-third of the
masonry arch thickness (see Figure 5a) – tension
will be developed at the extrados of the sewer.
However, the stability of the sewer could be
maintained if there is sufficient external ground
pressure to hold the arch in place.
ii Developed within the middle-third of the
masonry arch thickness (see Figure 5c) – tension
will not be developed within the arch and the
stability of the sewer is maintained.
iii Developed within the extrados-third of the
masonry arch thickness (see Figure 5e) – tension
will be developed at the intrados of the sewer
and this could result in the loss of mortar and/or
bricks around the crown of the sewer.
The ‘ULS envelopes’ shown on Figures 5b, 5d and 5f
indicate the minimum depths from the intrados and
extrados of the sewer at which the thrust line can be
located without exceeding the ULS masonry compressive
strength (assuming it to be 2.5MPa in the analysis). For
stability, the thrust line should remain within the ‘ULS
envelopes’ at all times and also cross the middle axis of
the arch at least twice.
The development of tension in the masonry can
also be caused by ground movements associated with
various construction activities. Given sewer arches are
considered to be semi-continuous linear structures, they
are potentially vulnerable to the longitudinal ground
movement curvatures in a similar way to pipes (see
Section 6.3). Further details with regard to transverse
strain analysis for masonry structures subject to
external ground movements are presented in
Section 6.8.
Published test results on tensile and compressive
strengths of masonry (see Backes (1985)) indicate that
maximum tensile strength can be less than 1% of
compressive strength whereas tensile modulus can
be significantly less than the compressive modulus.
However, there is a common mistake by assessors to
 TUNNELLING IMPACTS | TECHNICAL

Below, figure 5 Example charts (all units in m) showing a thrust line analysis of a 2m ID circular masonry sewer
(0.6m thick, 8m depth to axis, 2.5MPa ULS masonry compressive strength) with various horizontal stresses to vertical stress ratios (KT)

2.0 2.0

1.5 1.5

1.0 1.0

0.5 0.5

0.0 0.0

-0.5 -0.5

-1.0 -1.0

-1.5 -1.5

-2.0 -2.0
-2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 -2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Intrados Intrados 1/3 Extrados Extrados 1/3 Thrust line Intrados Intrados ULS Extrados Extrados ULS Thrust line

(a) KT = 0.5 (Middle-third Envelopes) (b) KT = 0.5 (ULS Envelopes)

2.0 2.0

1.5 1.5

1.0 1.0

0.5 0.5

0.0 0.0

-0.5 -0.5

-1.0 -1.0

-1.5 -1.5

-2.0 -2.0
-2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 -2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Intrados Intrados 1/3 Extrados Extrados 1/3 Thrust line Intrados Intrados ULS Extrados Extrados ULS Thrust line

(c) KT = 0.7 (Middle-third Envelopes) (d) KT = 0.7 (ULS Envelopes)

2.0 2.0

1.5 1.5

1.0 1.0

0.5 0.5

0.0 0.0

-0.5 -0.5

-1.0 -1.0

-1.5 -1.5

-2.0 -2.0
-2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 -2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Intrados Intrados 1/3 Extrados Extrados 1/3 Thrust line Intrados Intrados ULS Extrados Extrados ULS Thrust line

(e) KT = 1.1 (Middle-third Envelopes) (f) KT = 1.1 (ULS Envelopes)

February 2022 | 17
TECHNICAL | TUNNELLING IMPACTS

Original brickworks
around sewer crown

Right, figure 6:
Collapse of masonry sewer
caused by a storm event

Collapsed sewer section

adopt numerical models (finite element or similar)
which assume masonry as linear elastic material with
‘unrestricted’ tensile strength and modulus of elasticity
equal in both tension and compression. It is important to
note that a numerical model must not assume tensile
properties that do not exist or cannot be justified.
Masonry sewers were generally designed for
sustaining gravity flows without surcharge. However, the
continuous expansion of population in cities has led to
a significant increase in volumes of sewage passing into
the network which can generate surcharge pressures.
This can result in unacceptable hoop tension in the

Δσvo

CPRin-situ CPRexcavation
σvo / P > 1.33 (σvo - Δσvo) / P < 1.33 Collapse

Above, figure 7: Illustration of failure mechanism associated with CPR dropping below 1.33 as a result of excavation
(Note: σvo = existing soil overburden pressure, Δσvo = change in soil overburden pressure due to excavation,
h = head of surcharge pressure, γw = unit weight of water & P = surcharge pressure)

18 | February 2022

masonry which can lead to sewer collapse (see Figure 6).
Stability of masonry sewers relies on sufficient
confinement during any surcharge events. The
consideration of the Confinement/Pressure Ratio (CPR)
gives an indication of the vulnerability of masonry
sewers when subject to surcharge pressure. CPR is
defined as the ratio of soil overburden pressure at the
sewer axis level (σvo) to the water pressure within the
sewer (P). For assessment purposes, the surcharge
pressure within a sewer is commonly taken as the
hydrostatic pressure to the levels of the controlling
nearby manholes or other sources of pressure relief.
If a masonry sewer is in good condition and other
significant destabilising loadings are absent, a CPR in
excess of 1.33 is generally considered to be acceptable.
This criterion is also applicable to sewers constructed
using materials vulnerable to surcharge pressures such
as unreinforced concrete (see Figure 7).
CPR check is also a useful tool for assessing
potential vulnerability of unbolted water transmission
tunnels. CPRs in excess of 1.33 under surge pressure
and 1.5 under operating pressure have been found to be
acceptable.
Reduction in soil overburden pressure is usually
caused by excavations for various structures (e.g.
stations, basements) and can produce potentially
damaging unload of confining compressive hoop loads
in both sewers and water tunnels. Therefore, this issue
should be considered at the earliest planning stage for
infrastructure and buildings in order to avoid a design
which is unacceptable to the utilities.
Many masonry sewers are commonly subject to
frequent cycles of large loadings from heavy traffic
and vibration. A fatigue-type racking motion within the
masonry, caused by rotation of principal stresses and
such loadings from a rolling axle, can result in sewer
failure.
6 CONCEPT OF ‘IMPACT STRAIN’
For assessment purposes, the parameter ‘strain’ rather
than ‘stress’ is adopted as the damage criteria. This is
because it is displacements both in the ground and of
the pipeline which are actually measured and used
to monitor and control the works. The conversion to
stress can be done but this introduces an unnecessary
uncertainty in the choice of appropriate moduli.
It is self-evident that a pipe will fail when the
movement/load imposed upon it exceeds its strain limit.
In order to assess the impacts on the pipe as a result
of the proposed construction works, it is important to
understand the existing state of strain within the pipe
which is unknowable in many circumstances. This leads
to the introduction of the concept of ‘impact strain’ for
assessment purposes.
‘Impact strain’ is defined as the strain arising from
ground movements or other loadings caused by the
proposed construction works. It does not include any
strains arising from any other causes (including pre-
existing ground movement, ground load, operating
pressures or normal vehicular loading). This ‘impact
TUNNELLING IMPACTS | TECHNICAL
strain’ may be that predicted during the assessment
process or back-calculated from field measurements
undertaken during the works.
The calculated impact strain should be compared
with the assessment criteria advised by the relevant
utility. This will provide an indication of the risk of
damage to the pipe associated with the proposed
construction works.
6.1 KEY ASSESSMENT ASSUMPTIONS
For Stages 1 and 2 of the assessment process (see
Section 7) it is conservatively assumed that:
1 ‘Green field’ ground movement is adopted.
2 Longitudinal flexural (bending) of the pipe follows
this ‘green field’ ground movement (i.e. stiffness of
the pipe is ignored).
3 The joints are stiff so that the pipe is assumed
to be a continuous linear structure. This allows
the calculation of maximum longitudinal flexural
(bending) stain.
4 The joints are fully flexible so that the limiting
condition is in joint rotation.
5 In the absence of site specific information, a 3.66m
(12ft) long pipe is used for the calculation of
joint rotation for UK metal pipes. It is also useful
to review dimensions provided in the Standards
and/or manufacturer specifications for other pipe
materials.
6 Flexural strain is calculated at the pipe extrados.
a Metal/plastic pipes – the neutral axis is at
the geometric centre (i.e. lever arm equal to
external pipe radius).
b Materials of low/negligible tensile strength (e.g.
masonry, vitrified clay, unreinforced concrete) –
the neutral axis is at the pipe extrados (i.e. lever
arm equal to external pipe diameter).
7 Total ground movements are simply obtained by
superposition, as appropriate.
6.2 SOURCES OF GROUND DISTURBANCES
6.2.1 Tunnels
Gaussian models (e.g. O’Reilly & New (1982) reprinted
in 2015; New & O’Reilly (1991); Leca & New (2007)) have
been commonly used to calculate green field tunnelling
induced movements and associated slope, curvature
and strain because they are straightforward to apply
and have stood the test of time in their application.
The authors are not aware of any body of data that
would contradict their general application for initial
assessment of near surface pipelines with a depth to
axis of less than say, 3m.
The ‘ribbon sink’ model by New & Bowers (1994) is
useful for calculating ground movement in stiff cohesive
materials at depth (especially for estimating movements
in the vicinity of the tunnel under construction).
Three dimensional movements from complex tunnel
geometries can be calculated using this model.
Volume loss (Vl) and trough width parameter (K)
are the two key input parameters for the calculation of
tunnelling-induced ground movements based on
February 2022 | 19
TECHNICAL | TUNNELLING IMPACTS
the Gaussian models. Recent experience in London
has confirmed that a volume loss of 1% for tunnelling
in stiff cohesive materials (e.g. London Clay) has usually
not been exceeded by using Earth Pressure Balance
Machines (EPBMs) and this is generally considered as
a ‘moderately conservative’ assumption for assessment
purposes: this relates to a single tunnel driven in ground
undisturbed by other tunnels. Historically however, it is
clear from the literature that for twin tunnels the driving
of a second tunnel parallel to the first yields larger
volume losses.
This is confirmed by recent measurements reported by
Wan et al. (2017) during the construction of twin tunnels
(7.1m bore diameter, axis depth of 34.5m and 16.3m
separation) below Hyde Park in London for Crossrail
(now the Elizabeth Line). The surface volume loss during
the excavations for the first tunnel being about 0.8%
but for the second tunnel increased to about 1.4%. This
increase is attributed to a softening of the clay caused
by the first tunnel excavations. This would indicate that
the impact assessment for the second of twin tunnels a
volume loss of greater than 1% should be considered by
designers.
It is important to note that the predicted ground
movements based on the Gaussian models cited above
are neither conservative nor un-conservative. It is the
assessors’ responsibility to establish and justify the
parameter values adopted in their analyses. Given the
uncertainties in the input parameters, more complex
models are unlikely to be beneficial/necessary to Stages
1 and 2 of the assessment processes (see Section 7).
6.2.2 Shafts, basements/boxes, dewatering
Tunnel construction often require construction of
shafts which are used for tunnel boring machine (TBM)
launching, access, and maintenance purposes and the
shaft construction itself can lead to significant ground
movements. Based on the original predictive equations
proposed by New & Bowers (1994) and an extensive
database of measurements taken in London, New
(2017) has proposed a generic equation for predicting
settlement at a distance from the shaft wall:
Sd = αH (1- d/nH)2
where
Sd is the settlement at a distance d from the shaft wall.
n is a simple multiple of the shaft depth H to a distance
d from the shaft wall where settlement becomes
zero. (Note: n = 1 for the original New & Bowers (1994)
equation).
α is an empirical constant and αH is the settlement at
the shaft wall.
The n and α values are dependent on shaft diameter,
ground conditions and construction method. The
assessors will have to establish and justify their
parameter choices based on appropriate empirical data
(e.g. case histories).
CIRIA C760 (2017) provides good guidance on ground
movements associated with construction of basements
and boxes.
20 | February 2022
Dewatering (either route wide, local, short-term or
long-term) is commonly required to facilitate excavation
for shafts, basements and boxes, and this can give rise
to significant ground movements. Local dewatering
(especially in the presence of alluvial deposits) can
result in damaging localised differential ground
movements. Designers for the dewatering system should
work with the assessors to minimise the risk of damage
to the pipelines and other utility assets.
6.2.3 Foundation & heavy/abnormal loading
The application of foundation loadings will result
in ground movements and potential overloading of
underlying utilities. The construction and use of piled
foundations in close proximity to a pipeline may result in
damage which can be caused by:
● E xcessive pile loading onto the pipeline (e.g. shaft
load shedding, end-bearing pressure)
● U ncontrollable ground loss during pile boring within
difficult ground conditions (e.g. water bearing gravels)
● E xcessive vibration during pile construction (e.g.
driven piles, encountering physical obstructions)
The use of temporary casings, sleeving, non-vibratory/
non-percussive piling methods (e.g. silent piling) and
redesign of the foundation layout, backed-up by the
calculation of associated impacts, are the common ways
to mitigate the risks mentioned above.
Construction works normally involve the use of
sizeable plant (e.g. cranes, piling rigs, load loaders,
self-propelled modular transporters (SPMTs)) which
can impose damaging loadings onto pipelines. The
ALARP risk approach is to ensure these heavy/abnormal
loads are positioned outside the zone of influence of the
pipeline, which is an area commonly defined by drawing
45 degree lines upward and away from the pipeline. This
can also be achieved by using bridging structures to
carry the load away from the pipeline.
If it is not possible to position the loads outside the
zone of influence, both longitudinal and transverse
analyses for the pipeline will be required. Simple
analytical solutions (e.g. Boussinesq approach) are
generally adopted for the assessment. It is unlikely to
be beneficial to undertake soil-structure interaction
analysis given the uncertainties regarding the ground
and pipe conditions.
6.2.4 Demolition
Analysis should be undertaken to assess the potential
ground movements and associated impacts on the
pipeline due to demolition works. Careful control of
demolition operation is important to minimise the
level of vibration and impact loads transmitted to the
pipelines.
6.2.5 Vibration
Construction works may generate vibrations (dynamic
ground strains) that can be damaging to local
structures, including utility apparatus. However, there
are now non-vibratory methods available that can
 TUNNELLING IMPACTS | TECHNICAL

Left, figure 8:
Calculation of longitudinal
radius of curvature based
Initial pipeline profile
on three consecutive
flexural displacement data
points

Flexural displacement
profile

build almost all structures without significant vibration
impact. In order to mitigate this risk, it is common for
major asset owners (e.g. Transport for London (TfL),
Thames Water Utilities Limited (TWUL)) to require an
exclusion zone around their assets and this is typically
15m from a vibratory source which is usually piling or
vibratory compaction.
Even at greater ranges, some piling works can present
difficulties but modern ‘city rigs’ and pre-augured
vibratory methods can often meet the requirements
of third-party asset owners in restricting PPVs (peak
particle velocities) to acceptable levels. Straightforward
predictive guidance is given in British Standard BS5228-
2:2009 for piling and tunnelling works and the Highways
Agency (Transport Research Laboratory TRL) has
published detailed predictive methods for a range of
vibratory sources caused by mechanised construction
works (Hiller & Crabb, 2000).
Threshold values relating damage to transient and
continuous vibration levels for various structural

Material capable of sustaining tension under bending (e.g. cast iron, ductile iron, steel)

D
Bending (compression)

y = D/2
Left, figure 9:
Neutral axis Development of flexural
Bending (tension)
tensile strains for pipe
material either capable or
D incapable of sustaining
tension under bending
y=D

Bending (tension)
Material incapable of sustaining tension under bending (e.g. masonry, vitrified clay, unreinforced concrete)

February 2022 | 21
TECHNICAL | TUNNELLING IMPACTS

Circumferential crack

Circumferential crack

Vitrified Clay Pipe Masonry Sewer

Above, figure 10: Examples of circumferential cracks caused by longitudinal flexure (bending)

types are given by British Standards BS7385-2:1993. where

An important factor often overlooked is the possibility
that vibration can increase the density of, and cause
settlement, in some soils, which can put structures at
risk (see BS5228-2:2009 Section B.3: Note 3).
6.3 Longitudinal flexural (bending) strain
Longitudinal flexural (bending) strain (εb) along a
pipeline is calculated from simple beam theory and is
given by:
εb = y / R
where
R is the longitudinal radius of curvature and y is the
lever arm to the neutral axis of a pipe.
The calculation of longitudinal radius of curvature (R) is
given by:
R = i2 / [2dn – (dn-1 + dn+1)]
dn is the flexural displacement predicted at the nth data
point along the assessment line and i is the interval
between the data points (see Figure 8). An interval of 1m
is generally adopted for assessment purposes. However,
a smaller interval may be required to capture any abrupt
changes in curvature along the pipeline.
The lever arm y is a function of the pipe extrados
diameter (D) and is dependent on pipe material. Figure
9 illustrates the definition of lever arm for pipe material
either capable or incapable of sustaining tension under
bending. Examples of circumferential cracks caused by
longitudinal flexure (bending) are shown in Figure 10.
6.4 Axial Strain
The calculation of axial strain (εa) along a pipeline is
given by:
εa = [(S + ΔS) / S]

P1 P2

Initial positions

Right, figure 11: P1 P2

Development of axial
S - ∆S
tensile and compressive
strains along a pipeline
Axial compression

P1 P2

S + ∆S

Axial tension

22 | February 2022

Flexural
displacement
profile
where
S is the initial distance between P1 and P2, and ΔS is the
change in the axial distance between P1 and P2. Axial
compression and tension are represented by negative
and positive ΔS values respectively (see Figure 11).
The bending strain (εb) and axial strain (εa) are usually
combined together to calculate the total ‘impact strain’
for a pipeline when undertaking assessments. This
can sometimes result in very significant impact strain
even after the axial strain reduction factor proposed by
Attewell et al. (1986) has been applied.
Following review of field experience and various
calculation methodologies, New (2019) concludes that
axial strain may be regarded as negligible for various
types of pipes at relatively shallow depths (say 2m) for
the Stage 1 and Stage 2 assessment processes. However,
assessors may still wish to include axial strain when
assessing pipes of critical importance. It is important
to note that the potential axial compressive and tensile
strains cannot be relied on to reduce flexural tensile and
compressive strains respectively (i.e. the beneficial axial
strains are ignored) for assessment purposes.
Zone of fracture associated
with socket bursting
TUNNELLING IMPACTS | TECHNICAL
D Left, figure 12:
Assessment of joint
ꞵ
rotation
6.5 Joint rotation
Assessment of joint rotation (ꞵ) is typically undertaken
by tracking two pipes along the predicted flexural
displacement profile with the left and right end of
the two pipes and the joint following the flexural
displacement profile (see Figure 12) until the point of
maximum rotation has been established. The magnitude
of joint rotation is dependent on the pipe length L which
is usually assumed to be 12ft (3.66m) if as-built records
are not available.
Joint rotation is an important cause of failure in larger
cast iron pipe (with diameter in excess of about 300mm
or 12in) because of its higher bending stiffness. This
allows the generation of very large bursting forces as
the spigot rotates within the socket. Figure 13 shows an
image of a reconstructed cast iron pipe after suffering
from socket bursting caused by joint rotation.
6.6 Joint pullout
The axial ground strain may induce relative movement
between pipe lengths resulting in joint pullout (see Figure
14) which should be assessed because excessive joint
Left, figure 13:
Reconstructed cast iron
pipe after suffering from
socket bursting caused by
joint rotation
February 2022 | 23
TECHNICAL | TUNNELLING IMPACTS
J Initial spacing between mid-points
Initial Position
Right, figure 14:
Joint pullout
J + ΔJ
Final Position
displacement can cause leakage. Assuming the
pipeline is rigid and the joint is free to accommodate
axial movement, the joint pullout will not be more than
the differential ground movement between mid-points
of adjacent pipes (see Attewell et al. (1986)).
For an optimally aligned spigot and socket
connection, a pullout limit of 3mm can be considered
for cast iron pipes as a joint leakage criterion for
assessment purposes.
For non-flexible joints (e.g. bolted flanges), the
pipelines should be considered as continuous linear
structures with a check that the connections are not
overstressed.
6.7 Transverse (crushing) strain for pipe
The problem with large diameter pipe subject to load
from concentrated sources from above is crushing. This
can result in longitudinal cracking (see Figure 15) which
Longitudinal crack
Vitrified Clay Pipe Cast Iron Pipe
Above, figure 15: Longitudinal cracks observed along vitrified clay pipe and cast iron pipe due to crushing failure
24 | February 2022
of adjacent pipe J
Joint pullout ΔJ
is usually developed at the quarter points of the pipe
wall. The maximum transverse bending strain (εt) at the
quarter points of the pipe wall is given by New (2019) as:
εt = 3 σv r2 (1 - K0) /2 E t 2
where
σv is the vertical stress at the pipe axis level. This can be
estimated by Boussinesq-based analyses.
K0 is the ratio of horizontal to vertical ground stress.
r is the mean radius of the pipe.
E is the Young’s modulus of the pipe (typically 80GPa
for cast iron pipe).
t is the pipe wall thickness.
6.8 Transverse strain for masonry sewer
For assessment purposes, it is conservative to assume
that masonry has negligible tensile strength and each
part of the outer circumference of the masonry sewer
moves with the ground (full bond). The transverse sewer
Longitudinal crack
 TUNNELLING IMPACTS | TECHNICAL

Vertical, z

α=90°

δz+
δT+

δN+
δy+

Int
ern
al r
adiu α+ Left, figure 16:
s
Notation for a transverse
α=180° α=0°
Lateral, y strain analysis of a circular
masonry sewer
s
iu
ad
lr
na
r
te
Ex

α=270°

movements are calculated around the periphery of the
brickwork at appropriate intervals.
Figure 16 provides the nomenclature used in the
calculations of transverse strain of a circular masonry
sewer. The vertical and horizontal movements derived
from the methods described in Section 6.2 are resolved
into movement in the radial (δN) and hoop (δT)
(circumferential) directions:
δN = δy cos α + δz sin α
δT = -δy sin α + δz cos α
The sewer is divided into a number of segments
at appropriate intervals anticlockwise around the
circumference as shown. The axial strain in each
segment is calculated from the change in length of
each segment indicated by δT and flexure is derived by
analysis of a triplet based on δN (see Figure 8).
A similar assessment approach can be applied to
non-circular masonry sewers.
The key to masonry sewer stability is to prevent
excessive tensile strains in the haunches and crown
so as to prevent bricks falling out giving rise to arch
instability. Depending on the sewer position relative to
the proposed construction works, the sewer may be
in either egging (i.e. increase in vertical and decrease
in horizontal dimensions of the sewer) or squatting
mode (i.e. decrease in vertical and increase in horizontal
dimensions of the sewer) and both have to be
considered during the analyses of the transverse strains
so as to ensure that the worst case is detected.
Example charts showing the predicted distortion,
displacement and tensile strain profiles of a circular
masonry sewer, which runs normal to the tunnel
direction including assumed parameters, are shown
in Figure 17. Note that the maximum transverse tensile
strains are found to be in the crown/invert section and
springings, with the sewer under ‘squatting’ and
‘egging’ modes respectively. The hoop compressive
strain in the sewer due to the existing ground load is
to be considered and this reduces the maximum
transverse tensile strains currently shown on the
charts.
6.9 Assessment guidance and criteria
Early consultation between the developers and the
relevant utilities (especially during the initial project
planning stage) is highly recommended. This will
allow the developers to get a better understanding of
the acceptable procedures and criteria which can be
applied for the impact assessment. This can reduce the
risk of abortive work and the associated delays and
unexpected costs to projects.

February 2022 | 25
TECHNICAL | TUNNELLING IMPACTS

Thames Water Utilities Limited (TWUL), the largest

water and wastewater services company in UK, offers
‘Guidance on piling, heavy loads, excavations, tunnelling
Brick Sewer (2m ID, 0.6m thick) z
and dewatering’ on their website (https://www.
Depth to axis (8m) =90°
thameswater.co.uk/developers). The assessment criteria
provided in that document are summarised in Tables
z+
1 and 2 and they assist developers in preparation of T+
N+
impact assessment reports. The criteria are for guidance y+
only, and it is based on early work by Attewell et al.
1m
(1986) and years of experience by TWUL. It is intended +

to represent a level of risk of damage which may be =180° =0° y

1.6m
reasonably regarded as negligible for a pipe in average
to good condition. It is a fact however that any pipe is
potentially vulnerable to any increase in strain and joint
rotation. The developers’ designers may adopt alternative
criteria values, provided they can justify that the risk of
damage remains negligible. =270°
Attewell et al. (1986) and Bracegirdle et al. (1996) also
offer useful guidance on the assessment of strain in
cast iron pipelines.

7 THE STAGED ASSESSMENT PROCESS 4

Position change in vertical (z) direction (mm)

A more risk based, three-stage approach for pipeline 2

assessment has been proposed by New (2019). The 0
aim is to demonstrate the risk balance between the -2
likelihood (based on evaluation of ground movement -4
and ‘impact strain’ presented in Section 6) and -6
consequences of an adverse event, and the ability to -8
recover (i.e. emergency preparedness and resilience) -10
during and after the works. -12
Details for this staged assessment approach will not -14
be repeated here. However, a comprehensive summary -16
of this staged assessment process is presented on Figure -18
18 and the key considerations are listed below: -20
Stage 1 (Assessment scope and information -16 -14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
retrieval) Position change in lateral (y) direction (mm)
a. Identification of all utility assets which may be 10° Interval Original Prediction
affected by the proposed works:
i Calculation of likely green field ground
movements based on conservative assumptions.
ii Assets falling outside the 1mm settlement 4
Position change in vertical (z) direction (mm)

contour are likely to be excluded from further 2

analysis. 0
iii Contours indicating minimum radius of -2
curvature (R) or maximum curvature (1/R) can -4
assist in identifying those assets most likely to -6
need mitigation at this earliest stage. -8
b. Gathering of information needed for subsequent -10
stages of the risk assessment (see ‘Conditions -12
(properties) of assets’ and ‘Consequence of damage’ -14
in Section 3 for further details). -16
Stage 2 (More detailed analysis)
-18
a. Longitudinal and transverse analyses (based
-20
on moderately conservative assumptions and -16 -14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
calculation methodologies as presented in Sections 5 Position change in lateral (y) direction (mm)
and 6) for those assets not eliminated by the Stage 10° Interval Original Prediction
1 preliminary assessment.
b. Produce charts showing (axial, lateral, vertical and
flexural) displacements, curvature, (axial, flexural,
combined tensile and compressive) strains, joint

26 | February 2022
 TUNNELLING IMPACTS | TECHNICAL

Below, figure 17: Example charts showing distortion, displacement and tensile strain profiles of
a circular masonry sewer, which runs normal to the tunnel direction including assumed parameters

0.1
Excavated diameter (8m)
(%, -ve = squat; +ve = elongate)

Depth to axis (32m)

Diametrical distortion

0.05 Volume loss (1%)

K = 0.5

-0.05

-0.1
40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
Distance along sewer (m)

Vertical (z) Lateral (y) Squatting Egging

Transverse Notation & Diametrical Distortion Profile

1.0 1500
0.8
1250
0.6
0.4
Displacement (mm)

1000
0.2
Strain (με)

0.0 750
-0.2
500
-0.4
-0.6
250
-0.8
-1.0 0
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360
Degree α (°) Degree α (°)

δy δz δT δN Tensile (Intrados) Tensile (Extrados)

'Squatting Mode' - Distortion, Displacement & Tensile Strain Profiles

1.0 1500

0.8
1250
0.6
0.4
Displacement (mm)

1000
0.2
Strain (με)

0.0 750

-0.2
500
-0.4
-0.6
250
-0.8
-1.0 0
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360
Degree α (°) Degree α (°)

δy δz δT δN Tensile (Intrados) Tensile (Extrados)

'Egging Mode' - Distortion, Displacement & Tensile Strain Profiles

February 2022 | 27
TECHNICAL | TUNNELLING IMPACTS
Table 1: Assessment criteria for existing TWUL pipeline and sewer assets
Allowable increase in strain (µε)
Pipe type Diameter (mm)
Tension
Brick Sewer (red/yellow/blue brick) N/A 500
Cast Iron (lead-yarn joints) N/A 100
Ductile Iron (lead-yarn gasket joints) N/A 500
Ductile Iron (rubber gasket joints) N/A 500
Steel N/A 450
<125 80
Vitrified clay
>125 80
<225 20
Concrete (unreinforced) 225 – 750 40
>750 60
Table 2: Maximum rotation for existing TWUL vitrified clay and concrete pipes
Diameter (mm)
<375
375 – 750
750 – 1400
>1400
rotation and pullout along the particular section
of the pipe under consideration.
c. Identify those assets likely to be particularly
vulnerable based on R&M history, night line flow
history and condition survey.
d. Identify those assets which are of critical
importance and with high consequence of failure.
e. Those assets which fail to meet the utility
assessment criteria and/or with high criticality/
vulnerability are further considered in the Stage 3
risk analyses.
Stage 3 (Evaluation of risk)
a. Risk/remedy based approach
i Acceptable level of risk? ALARP concept (i.e. the
risk shall be ‘As Low As Reasonably Practicable’)
ii Importance of collaboration between developer
and utility to develop a ‘reasonable and
optimised’ solution which is acceptable to both
parties
iii Establish/justify the need for intrusive
diversionary or mitigation works (see ‘Control
(and Preparedness)’ in Section 3 for further
details regarding inherent risks associated with
these works and alternative options).
iv Consideration of consequential losses (in terms
of ‘health and safety’, failure to meet statutory
requirements, and ‘commercial’).
v Risk of incorrect analysis or human errors
during the formal checking and approval of
reports.
b. Need for soil-structure analysis?
i Use of numerical models can be helpful
for certain applications but it is generally
considered to be unnecessary for pipeline
assessment, given the uncertainties about the
ground and pipe conditions and difficulties
in establishing an appropriate set of input
parameters.
28 | February 2022
Rotation (degree)
Compression
25% of the allowable stress N/A
1200 0.1
700 0.5
700 2.0
450 1.5
400 0.5
400 See Table 2
400 0.5
400
See Table 2
400
Rotation (degree)
2.0
1.0
0.5
0.3
ii Assessors should justify the necessity of
undertaking numerical analysis (finite
element or similar) and the results should
be corroborated by closed form (analytical)
solutions together with case history data
where possible. Further guidance on the
management of advanced numerical modelling
in geotechnical engineering can be found in
CIRIA C791 (2020).
Mitigations
a. There are various engineering solutions to
mitigate risk to pipelines. However, there will
be risks associated with the implementation
of the mitigation measures. Further details are
summarised under ‘Control (and Preparedness)’ in
Section 3.
b. Pre- and post-work inspections of the assets
are recommended. This can inform the assessors
regarding the current condition of the asset so that
an appropriate set of criteria will be adopted in
the impact assessment. Also, any damages/defects
identified after the completion of the proposed
works can then be repaired in order to restore the
whole-life asset value.
c. It is important to have an Emergency Preparedness
Plan (EPP) in place throughout various phases of
the construction works. An incident recovery plan
should be included that will allow rapid repair
of a pipe failure and have provision of equipment
and spares required to restore serviceability to
customers promptly while repair works are being
undertaken (e.g. overpumping equipment covering
a sewer failure scenario).
d. It is important for developers to provide a RAMS
(Risk Assessment and Method Statement) package
for early review by the utility to ensure the works
will be carried out within the constraints defined
by the utility and be ALARP.
 TUNNELLING IMPACTS | TECHNICAL

Conservative Green field

assumptions settlement contour
Assessment scope

Limits of deviation Maximum curvature

STAGE 1
Current state
Location? Type? R&M History? Criticality? Exclusion zone?
of strain?
Information
retrieval
Consequence
Material? Size? Condition? Geo-environment?
of damage?
Asset not eliminated by
Stage 1 assessment

Curvature? Joint rotation?

Longitudinal
analysis
Moderately
conservative Strain? Pullout?
assumptions
More detailed
analysis
Green field analysis Distortion? CPR?

Transverse analysis

STAGE 2 Vulnerability? Strain? Middle-third rule?

Statutory or
Asset fails to meet the assessment criteria,

Health & Safety commercial

issues? obligations?
or high criticality/vulnerable asset

Consequence
of failures?
Financial impacts?

Collaboration Incorrect analysis/

ALARP Concept (Developer & Utility) human errors
Risk/remedy-
based approach
Risk to life and/or H&S risk to work Retain whole life Do nothing & repair
other third parties? around utilities? asset value? when required?
Need for
diversionary/
mitigation works?
Inconvenience Maintain
Network resilience?
to public? serviceability?
STAGE 3 Consequential losses
(H&S/Statutory
Requirements/
Commercial)?

Uncertainties
& Difficulties
Soil-structure
analysis?
Corroboration
(closed-form
solutions/case
history data)

Further considerations

Emergency
Type? Frequency? Trigger level? Preparedness Strengthening? Replacement?
Plan?
Monitoring, control Mitigation
& validation
Data Do minimum
Pre & Post work
Location? interpretation Action plan? Diversion? to maintain
inspection?
method? serviceability?

Review of
RAMS Package

Above, figure 18: Summary of staged assessment process

February 2022 | 29
TECHNICAL | TUNNELLING IMPACTS

Monitoring, Control, and Validation of Design 8 CONCLUSIONS

Assumptions
a. A well-thought-out and carefully planned
monitoring system will provide useful information
for validation of the design assumptions relied upon
by the assessors and provide ongoing assurance to
the utility. The monitoring results will also be used
to confirm adequacy of the measures controlling
the works.
b. The Instrumentation and Monitoring (I&M) plan
should include the type and location of monitoring
points, frequency of data collection, data
interpretation method, trigger levels and action
plan.
c. The action plan should include a strategy to cover
what to do in an event of a breached trigger
level (e.g. termination and/or modification of
the construction/mitigation processes; change in
monitoring and data review frequency).
d. Continuation of post-work monitoring until
cessation of significant ground movements has
become normal practice. For some recent major
infrastructure projects, the monitoring works have
been terminated when the settlement rate is less
than 2mm/year.
This paper provides a guide to the assessment of
pipelines subject to impact from various construction
activities. In summary, a pipeline risk assessment
comprises six key components including ‘Conditions’,
‘Calculations’, ‘Consequences’, ‘Control’, ‘Consent’ and
‘Conciliation’, and these form the components of the
three-stage assessment processes. The presented
methods and strategies are drawn from the authors’
experience of the assessment processes developed
through their works in London and the Thames Valley
over the last two decades.
This paper is intended to be as general and
informative as possible so that the assessors will be
equipped with appropriate tools to go through the
impact assessment processes and have a positive
dialogue with the utility. The ultimate goal is to
achieve a ‘reasonable and optimised’ solution which
is acceptable to both parties, is truly ALARP and most
importantly, takes a holistic view of risk.
9 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Any views expressed in this paper are those of the
authors and not necessarily those of Thames Water
Utilities Limited or any other utility.

REFERENCES ● H
 iller, D. M. and Crabb, G. I. (2000). Groundbourne vibration
● A
 ttewell, P. B., Yeates, J. and Selby, A. R. (1986). Soil caused by mechanised construction works. TRL Report 429.
movements induced by tunnelling and their effects on pipelines Transport Research Laboratory (Highways Agency) Crowthorne.
and structures. Blackie. ● L
 eca, E. and New, B. M. (2007). Settlements induced by
● B
 ackes, H. P. (1985). Tensile strength of masonry. Proceeding tunnelling in soft ground. ITA Report. Tunnelling and
of the 7th International Brick Masonry Conference. Frank Underground Space Technology, Elsevier, 22, pp. 119-149.
Dnaiels Pty, Australia, pp. 779-789. ● N
 ew, B. M. (2017). Shaft settlements. Tunnels and Tunnelling
● B
 racegirdle, A., Mair, R. J., Nyren, R. J. and Taylor, R. N. International, September, pp. 16 -17.
(1996). A methodology for evaluating potential damage to cast ● N
 ew, B. M. (2019). The 2017 Harding Memorial Lecture (BTS/
iron pipes induced by tunnelling. Geotechnical aspects of ICE). Tunnel construction impacts on utility pipelines. Tunnels
underground construction in soft ground. Balkema, Amsterdam, and Tunnelling International, February, pp. 20-42.
pp. 659-664. ● N
 ew, B. M. and Bowers, K. H. (1994). Ground movement
● B
 ritish Standards Institution (1993) BS7385-2:1993. model validation at the Heathrow Express Trial Tunnel. Proc.
Evaluation and measurements for vibrations in buildings – Part Tunnelling ‘94, Inst. Mining & Metallurgy, Chapman & Hall,
2: Guide to damage levels from Groundbourne vibration. London.
● B
 ritish Standards Institution (2009) BS5228-2:2009. Code of ● N
 ew, B. M. and O’Reilly, M. P. (1991). Tunnelling induced
practice for noise and vibration control on construction and ground movements: predicting their magnitude and effects.
open sites – Part 2: Vibration. Invited review paper to: Int. Conf. Ground Movements and
● C
 IRIA (2009). C671 Tunnels: inspection, assessment and Structures, Univ. Wales, July (ICE, London).
maintenance. CIRIA, London. ● O
 ’Reilly, M. P. and New, B. M. (1982). Settlements above
● C
 IRIA (2017). C760 Guidance on embedded retaining wall tunnels in the United Kingdom – their magnitude and
design. CIRIA, London. prediction. Proc. Tunnelling 82, pp. 173-181. Instn. Min. and
● C
 IRIA (2020). C791 The management of advanced numerical Metal, London. (Reprinted in May 2015 Tunnels and Tunnelling
modelling in geotechnical engineering: good practice. CIRIA, International)
London. ● Szechy, K. (1970). The art of tunnelling. Akademiai Kiado,
● H
 eyman, J. (1982). The masonry arch. Ellis Horwood, Budapest.
Chichester. ● W
 an, M. S. P., Standing, J. R., Potts, D. M., and Burland, J. B.
● H
 eyman, J. (1995). The stone skeleton. Cambridge University (2017). Measured short-term ground surface response to EPBM
Press. tunnelling in London Clay. Geotechnique 67, No 5, 420-445.

30 | February 2022
 TUNNELLING IMPACTS | TECHNICAL

A1 σv A2 σv

Y
Y Far left, figure A1:
External loading on the
t HH
masonry sewer
re
X σH
rc Left, figure A2:
M(θ) RX(θ) σH Consideration of ¼ of the
θ masonry sewer
RY(θ) AA(θ)
re
rc
X

APPENDIX A: dmin = 2 HH
THRUST LINE ANALYSIS OF A CIRCULAR 3 σm
MASONRY SEWER which is based on the compressive stress distribution
Background shown on Figure A.3
The thrust line analysis aims to confirm if the line where
of thrust can be developed within an arch ring and 1
equilibrate the given external loading (see Figure A.1) 3 h = dmin
without exceeding the masonry compressive strength. If
this is the case, the arch ring will not collapse under this This defines the locations of the ULS intrados and
loading in accordance with the lower bound theorem of extrados envelopes around the arch.
limit analysis. The following calculation is mainly based Within the bounds of the ULS envelopes, a further
on the methodology documented in CIRIA C671 (2009). check is undertaken to confirm if the thrust line can be
developed within the ‘middle-third’ of the arch thickness
Assumptions (i.e. dmin = t/3) so that there will be no tension within
The self-weight of the brickwork is ignored for the arch.
simplicity. Also, a quarter of the masonry sewer Bending moment at a given section located by the angle
is considered in the thrust line analysis because of (θ) is given by:

{ [ 2t – d [{
symmetry (see Figure A.2). The tensile strength of the
masonry is considered to be negligible for assessment M(θ) = HH × min + (1 – cosθ) × rc

[ [
purposes. r
+ – σv × rc – e × re × (sinθ) 2
2
Input parameters
re External radius of the sewer { [ r + r 2× cosθ
+ –σ ×H
e e
[
– rc × cosθ × re
rc Radius along centerline of the sewer
t Sewer thickness × (1 – cosθ) {
σm Masonry compressive strength
σH External horizontal pressure at sewer axis level Axial force at a given section located by the angle (θ) is
σV External vertical pressure at sewer axis level given by:
KT Ratio of external horizontal pressure to external AA (θ) = RX (θ) × cosθ + RY (θ) × sinθ
vertical pressure (σH/σV)
Eccentricity of the thrust line (i.e. offset from the
Calculations centerline of the arch) at a given section located by the
Thrust at crown is: angle (θ) is given by:
HH = σH × re M(θ)
ecc (θ) =
AA(θ)
Horizontal and vertical force components at a given
section located by the angle (θ) are: Worked example
RX(θ) = HH – σH × (1 - cosθ) × re Thrust line analysis of a 2m internal diameter masonry
RY(θ) = σV × re × sinθ sewer with an axis depth of 8m:
Step 1 Calculation of input parameters
The minimum depth from the intrados/extrados of the re External radius of the sewer = 1.6m
sewer at which the thrust line can be located (dmin) rc Radius along centerline of the masonry arch = 1.3m
without exceeding the masonry compressive strength is: t Sewer thickness = 0.6m

February 2022 | 31
 TECHNICAL | TUNNELLING IMPACTS

2.0 2.0

1.5 1.5

1.0 1.0

0.5 0.5

0.0 0.0

-0.5 -0.5

-1.0 -1.0

-1.5 -1.5

-2.0 -2.0
-2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 -2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Intrados Intrados ULS Extrados Extrados ULS Intrados Intrados 1/3 Extrados Extrados 1/3

Right: Step 2 (all units in m) Step 3 (all units in m)

Calculation results from 2.0 2.0
the thrust line analysis
1.5 1.5

1.0 1.0

0.5 0.5

0.0 0.0

-0.5 -0.5

-1.0 -1.0

-1.5 -1.5

-2.0 -2.0
-2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 -2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Intrados Intrados 1/3 Extrados Extrados 1/3 Thrust line Intrados Intrados ULS Extrados Extrados ULS Thrust line

Step 4 (all units in m) Step 5 (all units in m)

HH KT Ratio of external horizontal pressure to external

A3
⅓h vertical pressure = 0.7
σV External vertical pressure at axis level =
20kN/m3 × 8m × 1.4 = 224kN/m2 (ULS, load factor
of 1.4 for overburden with soil unit weight of
20kN/m3)
σH External horizontal pressure at axis level =
KT σV = 156.8kN/m2 (ULS)
σm Masonry compressive strength = 2.5MPa (ULS)
Step 2 Calculation of ULS envelopes
h Step 3 Calculation of ‘middle-third’ envelopes
Step 4 Calculation of thrust line based on dmin = t/3
Step 5 Checking if the thrust line is compatible with
the masonry compressive strength
Step 6 Conclusions
The analysis indicates that the thrust line:
i Remains within the ‘middle-third’ of the
masonry arch thickness and no tension will be
developed within the arch.
ii Remains within the ULS envelopes at all times.
iii Crosses the middle of the arch at least twice.

σm
Therefore, the arch ring will not collapse under this
Above, figure A3: loading case in accordance with the lower bound
Stress distribution (after Heyman (1982)) theorem of limit analysis.

32 | February 2022