10 - Ground Movements

16/05/2012
GM
1
Design Issues for Tunnels

Requirements for tunnelling
The first requirement for tunnelling is that the tunnel is able to be built:
- advancing the hole safely;
- maintaining the integrity of the opening both temporarily and permanently.
A second requirement is that tunnel construction does not damage adjacent or overlying
buildings or utilities:
- preferred the techniques reducing the disturbance of the surrounding ground.
Ground
Movements
A third requirement is that it is capable of withstanding the external loads during its lifetime.
The actual stresses in the permanent lining are determined prevalently:
- by the details of the method of construction;
- by the sequence of the construction events;
- by the behaviour of the surrounding soil during the construction period.
GM
2
Ground Movements
Sources of ground movement around the excavation

The primary components of ground movement associated with shield tunnelling in soft ground are:
1. deformation of the ground towards the face resulting from stress relief;
2. radial ground movements due to the passage of the shield, possibly due to an
overcutting edge (bead) used to help steeering combined with any tendency of the
machine to pitch, yaw and roll (when trying to maintain the alignment);
3. tail void due to the existence of a gap between the tailskin of the shield and the lining;
4. deflection of the tunnel lining as it starts to take the ground loading;
5. time dependent consolidation in fine grained soils or creep.
(Mair & Taylor, 1997; Cording,1991)
In case of excavation without a shield ( e.g. NATM) the sources 1, 4 and 5 are present.
16/05/2012
GM
3
Ground Movements
Stress relief at the face

It is important wih open face tunelling method
backfill injections
For TBMs with pressurised face, such ad EPB Shield sor Slurry
Shields, is negligible, provided a good control.
shield
ground loss
at front
permanent lining
Over-pressurization at the face can lead to

outward movements heave at ground surface.
Radial ground movements
This component is in part due to the tapered shape of the
shield.
taper
It can increases if there is difficulty in keeping the right

alignment of the shield (for instance in curve) or if there is a
need to tilt the shield slightly up to prevent it from diving
(pitching).
Tail void
pitch angle
The effect of tail void can be minimized by immediate grouting.
GM
4
Ground Movements
Deflection of the tunnel lining

It is usually small compared to the other components, once the
ring has been competed.
Consolidation
It can be important for soft soil. It results from the fact that the
construction process changes the stress regime locally around
the tunnel.
The dissipation of the pore pressure changes induced by the
undrained excavation is a primary source of time-dependent
settlement.
Another source of delayed settlement may be the change of

pore pressures due to a draining effect of the tunnel in case of
permeable lining.
Creep may be a further cause of delayed settlement.
16/05/2012
GM
5
Ground Movements
Surface trough
For shallow tunnels in soft ground, these movements affect the ground
surface, producing a settlement trough .
This is particularly relevant in urban areas.
y
Importance of assessing ground
movements to optimize the tunnel
technique or to adopt measures to
prevent or control them.
trough extent
v
u
Semi-empirical methods, based on a

large collection of measurements from
case studies, are a simpler and reliable
alternative to numerical methods:
wmax
H=zo
allow a rapid initial estimate of ground displacements;

provide a conservative risk assessment of potential
damage to structures;
for flexible structures such as long masonry walls at
the ground surface, interaction effects may bevery low
realistic results from empirical methods.
GM
6
Empirical Method
Transverse profile of settlements

Peck (1969) and Schmidt (1969) first established that the greenfield profile in the
transverse section of the tunnel is well described by a Gaussian distribution curve.
-3
-2
-1
-0.5
-1.0
x/i
inflection point
w/wmax
w = wmax Hexp(-x2/2i2)
By integrating the curve, the volume of the settlement through (per metre lenght of tunnel) is:
VS 2 i wmax
Selecting the values of:

Vs and i
16/05/2012
GM
7
Empirical Method
Case Study
Measured settlements along the cross section of Naples Metro Line 1 First Tunnel
(Bilotta et al. 2005)
GM
8
Empirical Method
Longitudinal profile of settlements

According to Attewell an Woodman (1982) and Attewell et al. (1986) the profile of settlements
in longitudinal direction can be represented by the Cumulative Gaussian Distribution function
(or complementary error function)
y/iy
0.5
w/wmax
-1
-2
-3
y 1
w
1
erfc y
1 erf
2 i 2
2 i
wmax 2
y
y
1.0
Such a profile is close to that which can be caused by an unsupported cavity.
16/05/2012
GM
9
Empirical Method
Longitudinal profile of settlements

Depending on the kind of ground and excavation technique the source of ground
movement can be further back from the face and this leads to a profile of settlements
which complies with a translation of the cumulative curve.
-1
-2
-3
0.2
y/i
closed shield (e.g. sand or soft clay)
w = w max F(y/ i )
0.5
0.4
open shield (e.g. stiff clay)
1.0
w/wmax
Although it is a common assumption that iy=ix=i, many experimental measurements show that
iy is generally higher than ix.
GM
10
Empirical Method
Case Study
Measured settlements in the longitudinal section of Naples Metro Line 1 First Tunnel
distance from the tunnel face (m)

-40
-30
-20
-10
L21
-2
0
L23
10
20
2
wmax (mm)
L19
4
6
L17
8
10
L13
12
14
L15
16
16/05/2012
GM
11
Empirical Method
Estimating the trough width parameter i
2i
z
2K o
D
D
The parameter is largely independent of the

tunnel construction technique.
Sand above the
groundwater
10
n 0.8
K = 0.5
If C/D>1
i Kz o
zo
OReilly and New (1982)
(n = 1)
K = 0.6 to 0.7
Soft Clay
3 D
2i/D
Clough & Smith (1981)
Clay
Sand below the

groundwater
K = 0.4 to 0.5
2
Stiff Clay
K = 0.2 to 0.3
Sand above the
groundwater
0.5
10
zo/ D
GM
12
Empirical Method
Estimating the trough width parameter for layered ground

Tunnels are often constructed in ground which comprises layers of coarse and fine graded soils.
Selby (1988) and New and O Reilly (1991) suggested that in this case the trough width
parameter can be estimated as:
i K iz i
i
Field observations of surface settlement profiles of stratified soils where sand is overlain by a
clay layer indicate wider profiles than would be obtained if the tunnel were only in sand
(according to the equation).
Less evidence is available of sand overlying clay, where the narrowing predicted by the
equation has not been observed (e.g. Grant and Taylor, 1996).
16/05/2012
GM
13
Empirical Method
Volume loss
The volume of the settlement trough, VS, must be estimated.
This value will depends on the ground movement components caused by the excavation.
They occur mainly around tunnels during construction GROUND LOSS or VOLUME LOSS, VL.
If the excavation occur in undrained conditions, such as in clay, the volume of the ground above
the tunnel does not change and it can be assumed:
VS = VL
Volume loss is usually referred to as a percentage of the excavated volume of tunnel, VT:
V (%) = VL/VTH100
For over consolidated clays, Dimmock and Mair (2007) propose:

V (%) = 0.23 e 4.8LF (for LF 0.2)
where LF=N/Nc
GM
14
Empirical Method
Deformation field between the excavation and the ground surface

In coarse grained soils the excavation is performed in drained condition.
Hence, volumetric strain may occur.
0
1
1
0
-4 -2
Shear strain
(%)
-1
-0.5
Volume strain
(%) + dilatancy
16/05/2012
Empirical Method
Volume loss in drained conditions
In coarse grained soils the volume

of the settlement trough VS is
generally lower than the volume
loss VL, due to dilatancy.
Coarse-grained soils
(Attewell , 1977)
Empirical Method
Suggested trough parameters
ground
excavation
technique
parameter K
(i = KHzo)
volume of trough
VS (%)
stiff clay
open shield
NATM/SCL
0.4-0.5
0.5-3.0 (1-2)
0.5-1.5
glacial deposit
open shield
0.5-0.6
compressed air TBM
2.0-2.5
1.0-1.3
soft silty clay

(su=10-40kPa)
compressed air TBM 0.6-0.7
2.0-10
0.2-0.3
1.0-5.0
0.4-0.5
1.0-10
sand above GW
sand below GW
STMs/EPBs
VS 0.5%
(ITA/AITES, 2007)
The selection of the volume loss value is based on engineering judgement and
experience from previous project in similar ground.
16/05/2012
Empirical Method
Mixed face conditions or discontinuities
For TBM excavation in

complex conditions a matrix
approach for assessing the
trough parameters has been
proposed by Chiriotti et al.
(2001).
According to the Authors, in
the table VL=1% is assumed as
a reference value for
homogeneous conditions
(soil-like material), mainly
depending on ground loss
around the shield.
Should this value be changed,
all the rest have to be changed
accordingly.
GM
18
Empirical Method
Trough width below the ground surface

In urban areas there is often the need to estimate the settlements below the ground surface.
Gaussian profile can also reasonably approximate the subsurface settlement profiles, provided
that the narrowing of the settlement trough with depth is well modelled.
i K(zo z)
According to Mair et al. (1993), the parameter K is not
constant with depth, to get a more realistic wider
subsurface trough at depth. For clay they propose:
0.175 0.3251 z z 0
1 z z0
Moh et al. (1996) have proposed a slightly different

formulation for i(z):
D z
iz 0
2 D
0.8
z0 z
z0
with m=0.4 for silty sand and m=0.8 for silty clay
(in the latter case it

corresponds to substitute (z0-z) to z0 in the expression by Clough & Schmidt, 1981)
16/05/2012
GM
19
Empirical Method
Horizontal displacements
In the transverse direction to the tunnel construction, the surface (and subsurface) horizontal
displacements can be estimated by various assumptions.
The simplest is to assume that the ground movement are radial, i.e. directed toward the
tunnel axis.
u w
x
z0
x
x
u(x)
w(x)
w max exp
z0
z0
x2
2i 2
max u(x) occurs at x=i
GM
20
Empirical Method
Horizontal strains
Simply by derivation of the horizontal displacements the horizontal strain can be calculated.
h (x)
d
u(x)
dx
No strain point occurs at x=i
10
16/05/2012
GM
21
Empirical Method
Horizontal displacements
Based on experimental evidences, Taylor (1995) proposed that the vector of displacement
does not point to the tunnel axis but to a point below the tunnel axis.
GM
22
x
w
0.175
1
z0
0.325
Empirical Method
Long term settlements

Hurrel (1984) proposed that the long term settlement can be calculated by superimposing
to the short term settlement, two consolidation troughs centered at the sides of the tunnel
axis.
He proposed an empirical formula to evaluate the long term settlement as a function of the
short term settlement and the overload factor N.
The maximum settlement may be 2 to 4 times larger than the short term.
The width parameter may be 1 to 2.5 times larger.
Work in this area is still continuing (e.g. Wongsaroj et al. 2007)
11
16/05/2012
GM
23
Empirical Method
Multiple tunnels
Measured settlements along the cross section of Naples Metro Line 1 First and Second Tunnel
According to Hansmire & Cording, 1985, interaction between two tunnel excavation occurs
when the distance between the two tunnel axes is about two diameters, as in this case.
GM
24
Empirical Method
Limit of the empirical method

The empirical method for predicting ground movements induced by tunnelling is generally
suitable for:
greenfield conditions;
single tunnels of multiple tunnels without interaction;
homogeneous ground conditions;
in clay, undrained conditions (not reliable for consolidation settlements post construction).
A further limitation of the empirical method is that good judgement is required in the
selection of an appropriate value ov volume loss.
However the method has a particular high practical value in cases where previous tunnelling
in similar ground conditions and with similar construction techniques has been performed.
12
16/05/2012
GM
25
Sagasetas Method
Concentrated ground loss

If the soil is incompressible (no volume
change, e.g. undrained conditions) v=0,
regardless the constitutive model.
If for any reason the direction of the
displacement vector is known at each point,
this equation, with the appropiate boundary
conditions, is sufficient to determine the
dispalcement field.
The method by Sagaseta (1987) is based on the
elastic solutions, assuming =0.5.
The basic case considers the action of a point
sink which extracts a finite volume of soil at
some depth h below the top surface.
Real case
Surface
Step 1
Infinite medium
Surface (ignored)
s = so
t = to
Sink
Step 2 Image Sink/ Source
(b) Positive image
(a) Negative image
(suspended surface)
(paved surface)
Source image
s = -so
Surface (ignored)
t = to
Sink image
s = so
Surface(ignored)
t = -to
Sink
Sink
Step 3
(a)
s= 0
t=0
Sink
Surfaces Stresses
2 to
(b)
2 so
Solution = 1 + 2(a) + 3(a) = 1 + 2(b) + 3(b) = Real Problem
GM
26
Sagasetas Method
Procedure to work out the solution

Step 1 + Step 2(a) (paved surface)
Displacement field due to a sink
Step 3(a)
For plane strain
n=2
For 3D conditions
n=3
(Cerrutis solution)
13
16/05/2012
GM
27
Sagasetas Method
Displacements at ground surface in trasverse section
D2
x
2 2
4 x h
D2
h
w V' 2 2
4 x h
u V'
D is the tunnel diameter

h is the tunnel axis depth
V is the volume loss, to be determined (on empirical basis or in correlation with overload factor N)
GM
28
Sagasetas Method
Displacements at ground surface in longitudinal direction

As the main interest is the
movement at the ground surface,
the ground loss can be
concentrated at the tunnel axis.
u V'
v V'
D2
x
y
2
2
2
4 x 2 h2
x y h
D2
1
4
x 2 y 2 h2
w V'
D2
h
y
2 2 1
4 x h
x 2 y 2 h2
14
16/05/2012
GM
29
Sagasetas Method
Case histories and calculations limit of the method

(weathered scists)
Caracas Metro. Profile of calculated and measured

displacements at surface (Oteo & Sagaseta, 1982)
San Francisco (plastic clay): development of surface settlements
Although the ratio between the horizontal and

vertical displacements is similar to what can be
obtained by the empirical method, the width of the
settlement through is much higher than the real.
limit of trivial linear elastic analysis
GM
30
Verruijt and Bookers Method
Compressible ground and Ovalization

Verruijt and Booker (1996) extend the solution of Sagaseta by
considering the ground compressible (0.5) and taking into
account ovalisation (the latter through a parameter )
wz0 D2 (1 )
ground
loss
ovalization
h
D2 h(x2 h2 )
x 2 h2
2 (x2 h2 )2
V' /2
The total area of the settlement trough is found by integrating the equation:
A (1 )
V'
D2
2
For =0.5 it corresponds to Sagasetas. Otherwise the area is larger than ground loss.
settlement due to ovalization
Although ovalisation of the tunnel may be an

explanation for the rather narrow settlement troughs
usually observed in practice, it does not seem an
important issue for e.g. TBM excavation.
settlement due to ground loss
15
16/05/2012
GM
31
GAP Parameter
The GAP parameter to simulate the undrained loss of ground

Lo and Rowe (1982), Rowe and Kack (1983) and
Lee et al. (1992) proposed an approach to
define the undrained ground loss based on a
GAP parameter.
GAP Gp u*3D
The method is based on the results of a 3D FE
analysis on an elastic perfectly plastic soil:
Eu/su =200 to 800, =20 kN/m3, H/D=1.5 to 4.
The method can be used to predict the ground
loss to be used in 2D FE analyses or with
empirical correlations.
GM
32
GAP Parameter
Physical gap Gp
The physical gap represents the geometric clearance between the outer skin of the shield
and the lining. It is cmposed of the thickness of the tail, , and the clearance required for
the installation of the lining inside the shield, :
Gp 2
16
16/05/2012
GM
33
GAP Parameter
Equivalent 3D ground loss at the tunnel face

The tunnel heading face loss can be simulated in a plane strain analysis by increasing the
maximum allowable radial displacement at the tunnel crown.
u* 2
x
Vf a k
a 3D a2
x
2
Assuming the step of advanced x=2a and the a uniform front inward displacement (k=1): u3D
x
2
The displacement x was calculated in the 3D analyses and represented as:
xE
xE
aPo a Kos 'v uw s T
GM
34
GAP Parameter
Ground losses over the shield

This corresponds to the
volume of soil that is displaced
in excess to the diameter of
the cutting shield.
The main source of such a radial
component of displacement are the
alignement problems encountered when
steering the shield, e.g. the excess pitch:
L pitch
Any other irregular motion (e.g. yawing) is source of similar ground loss
the overcutting problem is primarily related to workmanship and cannot be precisely
determined prior to construction
On the basis of 3D analyses of unlined tunnels (overcutting can be considered a temporary
unlined excavation over the shield) the Authors assume:
0.6 GP
If the shield is tapered or a bead is provided to reduce friction during advance, an extra gap
of width t is created, then:
0.6 GP t
17
16/05/2012
GM
35
Loganathan and Poulos Method
Ground loss
Loganathan and Poulos (1998) redifined the
ground loss with respect to the GAP parameter.
Equivalent undrained ground loss around the tunnel:
GAP
2
R
R
4 GAP R GAP2
2
2
R
4R2
The non-uniform radial movement around the tunnel influences the deformation pattern of the
surrounding soil. Hence, the contribution to the equivalent ground loss at the tunnel boundary is
not constant in the ground, but at any point (x,z) it can defined as:
x,z 0 Be Ax Ce Dz
2
The constants A and B are derived assuming that 75% of the

ground loss occurs on the upper tunnel arch and is
cumulative of the deformation in a wedge of soil reaching
the ground surface.
The constant C and D are derived assuming that the
component of ground loss due to the horizontal movement
at a distance x and a depth H is 50% of that at surface.
GM
36
Surface settlements
Since
x,z
1.38x 2 0.69z2
4gR g2
exp

2
4R2
H2
H R
g GAP
the solution by Verruijt and Booker (1996) was modified, also neglecting the long term ovalization :
w z 0
1.38x 2
4gR g2
H
exp
1 D2 2 2
2
2
4R
H x
H R
It follows that the trough width i reads:
i
H
1.15
R
2R
0.9
Such a value is somewhat higher than that estimated by the empirical relationships proposed by
Clough and Shmidt (1981) and Mair et al. (1981). However the settlement trough is narrower than
that by Sagaseta (1987) or Verruijt and Booker (1996).
18
16/05/2012
GM
37
Subsurface settlements and horizontal displacements

w
2
1.38x 2 0.69z2 D2
4gR g2
z -H
z H
2z x 2 z H
2
exp
3 4 2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
4R
H 4
x z H
H R
x 2 z H
x z H
1.38x 2 0.69z2 D2
4gR g2
1
1
4zz H
x 2
exp
3 4 2
2
2
2
2
2
2
4R
H2 4
H
x
H
H R
x z H
Case Study: Thunder Bay Tunnel (Ontario)
GM
38
Numerical Methods
General issues
The benefits of the numerical methods ove analytical or closed form solutions are
(Potts and Zdravkovic (2001):
simulate the construction sequence;
deal with complex ground conditions;
model realistic soil behaviour;
handle complex hydraulic conditions;
deal with ground treatment;
account for adjacent sevices and structures;
simulate intermediate and long-term conditions;
deal with multiple tunnels.
Although tunnelling is a three-dimensional problem, 2D analyses are stil very common.
There are a number of ways to represent a three-dimensional phenomenon (e.g. 3D
arching) in a 2D plane strain analysis.
19
16/05/2012
GM
39
Numerical Methods
GAP method
A predefined void is introduced into the finite element
mesh that represents the total volume loss expected.
The gap is greatest at te crown of the tunnel and zero at
the invert (Rowe et al. 1983)
Convergence-confinement method
This is the most suitable method for
tunnels excavated without a shield (e.g.
NATM).
The proportion of unloading of the
ground before the installation of the
lining construction is prescribed: the
volume loss is a predicted value.
The parameter (Panet and Guenot,
1982) is used to define stress release.
GM
40
Numerical Methods
Volume loss control method

It is similar to the convergence-confinement method: the
expected volume loss at the end of construction is
prescribed. The support pressure at the tunnel boundary
is reduced in increments and the generated volume loss
can be monitored. Once the prescribed value is reached
the lining is installed. Further deformation may occur
depending on the lining stiffness.
Progressive softening method
It was developed for NATM tunelling by Swoboda (1979). The method involves reducing the
ground stiffness in the heading by a certain amount. The lining is installed before the
modellede excavation is complete. This method can cope with crown and invert construction
or side drifts.
20
16/05/2012
GM
41
Numerical Methods
Important issues
When modelling the process of tunnelling to predict the displacement field induced by the
excavation, the choice of the constitutive law for soil is very important.
In particular the following features of the stress-strain behaviour of soil should be taken into
account:
non-linearity;
anisotropy of the elastic matrix;
small strain stiffness;
recent stress history.
GM
42
Numerical Methods
Anisotropy of the elastic matrix

(Lee & Rowe, 1989)
(Cam Clay)
Cross-anisotropic elastic matrix:

Eh, Ev, vh, hh, Gvh
vh/ hv= Ev/Eh
Ghh = Eh/2(1+ hh)
D = 4.5 m
@ real scale
The ratio Eh/Ev has a small influence

Settlement prediction is very sensitive to Gvh
21
16/05/2012
GM
43
Numerical Methods
Anisotropy vs non linearity of the elastic matrix

(Addenbrooke et al, 1997)
Non-linearity
Model J4 (Jardine et al., 1986) and Model L4

(Burland e Puzrin, 1996): both are elastic nonlinear isotropic perfectly plastic models.
Both are able to model stiffness decay with the
strain level.
(Mair, 1993)
Non linearity + Anisotropy
AJ4: model J4 + anisotropic elastic matrix

AJ4i Gvh as measured by lab tests
AJ4ii considerably lower than lab tests
GM
44
Numerical Methods
Influence of recent stress history

(Jovicic, 1994)
Model 3-SKH (Stallebrass, 1990) is able

to account for the dependency of
stiffness on the strain level and the
recent stress history (cf. different
relative position of bubbles in the
stress space).
Very different settlement pattern are
predicted, depending on the assumed
recent stress history.
22
16/05/2012
GM
45
Numerical Methods
Influence of the primary stress state

(Addenbrooke et al, 1997)
(a)
(a)
Anisotropic linear
Anisotropic
linear
elastic
pre-yield
model
elastic pre-yield model
(b)
(b)
Isotropic non-linear
Isotropic
non-linear
elastic
pre-yield
model
The effect of the ratio K0 can be such to

hide the combined effect of anisotropy
and non-linearity of the elastic matrix.
Ko = 0.5
Ko = 1.5
For instance, to model 3D stress

rearrangement around the heading in a
2D analysis, in a OC soil the initial K0
may be arbitrarily reduced around the
tunnel cavity.
(c)
(c)
GM
46
Isotropic non-linear
Isotropic
non-linear
elastic
pre-yield
model
Effects of tunnelling on structures
Deformation pattern of buildings due to tunnelling in soft ground

The impact of ground movements on structures depends on the size, shape and material of the
structure, as well as its position relative to tunnel.
Short buildings tend to rise the forward
settlement wave. They experience tilt
as a rigid body, not sagging or hogging.
A stiff long building experiences

progessive deformation and differential
settlements as far as the tunnel heading
advances.
A long building may sag or hog across

the transverse settlement trough,
depending on its relative position to the
tunnel axis.
(Attewell, 1995)
23
16/05/2012
GM
47
Effects of tunnelling on piled foundations

Studies on both small scale models and full-sale field monitoring indicated that there are zones of
influence that affect the pile in different ways depending on their relative position to the tunnel.
Piles settle more than ground surface in zone A, less in zone C, of the same amount as ground in zone B.
Piles in zone A experience a considerable reduction in their base loads during tunnelling.
GM
48
Definitions of the foundation movements
(Burland and Wroth, 1974)
(a)
Settlement s, relative settlement s,

rotation , angular strain ;
(b)
Relative deflection and deflection

ratio /L;
(c)
tilt and relative rotation (or

angular distorsion) .
The average horizontal strain h is defined as

the change of length L over the length L
24
16/05/2012
GM
49
Relevant building dimensions
The height H is taken from the foundation level to

the eaves (i.e. the roof is usually ignored).
The building can be divided in two parts, each at a
side of the point of inflection of the settlement
profile at the foudation level.
The length of the building is not considered
beyond the practical limit of the settlement trough
(for a single tunnel it can be taken as 2.5 i).
In calculation of building strain, the building span
length is defined as the length of building in a
hogging or sagging zone (Lh or Ls).
GM
50
Effect of the building stiffness on the settlement profile

Potts & Addenbrooke (1997) carried out a
parametric study of the influence of
building stiffness on ground movemnts
induced by tunnelling using FE analyses
with a non-linear elastic-plastic soil model.
0.5B
The building was represented by an

equivalent beam with EA and EI.
The axial stffness * and bending
stiffness * are defined as:
* EA/Es (0.5 B)
* EI/ Es (0.5 B)4
(Potts & Addenbrooke, 1997)
25
16/05/2012
GM
51
Modification factors
The inherent stiffness of the building is often such that its foundations will interact with the
supporting ground, tending to reduce both the deflection ratio and the horizontal strains.
On the basis of their study,

Potts & Addenbrooke (1997)
proposed modification
factors for deflection ratio
DR (or /L) in sagging and
hogging.
Similar charts were

produced for h.
* EI/ Es (0.5 B)4
(Potts & Addenbrooke, 1997)
GM
52
Relative stiffness parameters for masonry load bearing walls

The building can be modelled by an elastic beam located on the ground surface.
It has a Youngs modulus E, a second moment of area I and cross sectional area A.
The length of the beam, L, is assumed equal to the full length of the building faade, B.
The height of the beam is H, its thickness t.
Iwall
t H3
12
A wall t H
Hence:
* EA wall /Es (0.5 B)
* EIwall / Es (0.5 B)4
In hogging, due to the inability of the masonry in the upper part of the wall to withstand significant
tensile stresses, the neutral axis is likely to be nearer to the foundations (Mair et al, 1996).
Dimmock and Mair (2008) suggest therefore to estimate the relative bending stiffness in hogging by
considering the foundation only (thickness d) as opposed to the full height of the faade, H.
t d3
Ifoundation
12
26
16/05/2012
GM
53
Relative stiffness parameters for framed structures

The building can be modelled by an elastic beam located on the ground surface.
It has a Youngs modulus E, a second moment of area I and cross sectional area A.
Assume a concrete frame structure consisting of a certain number of storeys.
m storeys m+1 slabs
Islab
t3slab 1
12
Aslab tslab 1
The second moment of area for the equivalent single beam can be calculated using the parallel axis
theorem (Timoshenko, 1955) assuming the neutral axis to be at the mid-height of the building (smooth base).
EIbuilding Ec Islab A slabhm2

m 1
1
Where hm is the distance between the building

neutral axis and the slab neutral axis.
The axial stiffness is given by:
EAbuilding m 1Ec Aslab

Hence: * EA building/Es (0.5 B)
* EIbuilding/ Es (0.5 B)4
(Franzius, 2003)
GM
54
Relative stiffness parameters for masonry faades with openings (Pickhaver, 2006)
This approach assumes appropriate bending and shear stiffness for the beam considering openings, by
investigation of geometric properties A and I.
It differs from the approach of Burland and Wroth (1974) who note that differing amounts of openings
may be allowed for by manipulation of the ratio E/G directly.
This approach (Pickhaver, 2006) results in a better assessment of equivalent stiffness when the
percentage of opening is high and dominates the behaviour.
Determination of appropriate effective values, A and I from the geometry of any given faade
A from consideration of shear:
n vertical strips of
net cross section Ai
and length Li
A*
n
i1
Li
Ai
Vs
FL
A *G
I from consideration of bending:

n horizontal strips of
n t h3
height hj
j
I*
t h j b2j
and thickness t.
12
j1
bj is the distance to the neutral axis
27
16/05/2012
GM
55
Case study 1: Elizabeth House (Mair & Taylor, 2001)

The EB and The WB tunnels (5.6 m diameter) were constructed with NATM.
Then a 5.6 m-diameter crossover tunnel was constructed connecting the two running tunnels. It was
located beneath the Elizabeth House.
The largest span of the excavation was 12.4 m.
The largest eccentricity of the building to the

tunnel is e/B1 but it reduces rapidly in a northeast direction along the building.
GM
56

The building can be modelled as follows:
HB = 12*3.5+1.4 = 43.4 m
B = 18 m
ILB slab = 1.43/12 = 0.23 m4/m

I slab =0.33/12 = 2.3H10-3 m4/m
Assume (EI)building=E Islab (i.e. neglect infill walls contribution)
Take Econcrete = 23 Gpa
(EI)building = 23H106 (13H2.3H10-3 + 0.23) = 23H106H0.26
6 H106 kN/m
Tunnel axis depth 23 m below LB floor slab i.e. approx.
30 m bgl. At 18.5 m bgl E0.01% 180 MPa
6 106
5 10 3 m1
180 103 94
Taking into account only LB, B and ground floor slab:
23 106 (1.4 2 0.3)

28.1
180 103 9
Considering e/B 0.4:
MDRsag 0.2
MDRhog 0.2
In a transverse direction the building

behaves almost rigidly, with negligible /L.
28
16/05/2012
GM
57

In longitudinal direction:
Assume B = 50 m
6 106
8 10 5 m1
180 103 254
23 106 (1.4 2 0.3)

10.1
180 103 25
Considering e=20m, e/B 0.4:
MDRsag 0.8
MDRhog 1
In a longitudinal direction the building behaves almost perfectly flexibly.
GM
58
Ground Movements
Influence of the building stiffness on the settlement trough

As the building was relatively flexible in longitudinal direction, it tent
to follow the greenfield profile of settlement .
Jubilee Line Extension:

settlements of Elizabeth House
(Standing, 2001)
29
16/05/2012
GM
59
Case study 2: Neptune House (Mair & Taylor, 2001)

The EB and The WB tunnels were constructed by EPB (5.03 m OD).
They passed under a group of masonry buildings among which the
Neptune House, a 3-storey building, 39 m 8 m in plan.
Both tunnels were approx. perpendicular to its long dimension.
Estimate height of load-bearing brickworks walls to be 9 m.

Assume B = 39 m.
Assume foundations are strip footings founded at approx. 1.5 m bgl.
Depth of tunnel axis is 17 m bgl.
MDRsag 0.2
MDRhog 0.2
for a nye/B
At z = 10 m, E0.01% 200MPa
E for masonry lies between 5 and 10 GPa: take 7.5 GPa.
1 93 7.5 106
1.6 10 2 m1
12 200 103 19.54
1 9 7.5 106
17.3
200 103 19.5
GM
60
The building behaves rigidly for any value of e/B.
Ground Movements
Influence of building stiffness on the settlement trough

Since the building is relatively stiff it changes the settlement
trough, showing a rigid deformation.
Jubilee Line Extension:
settlements of Neptune House
(Mair, 2001)
measured 26.07.96
settlement (mm)
stiff building
greenfield prediction
distance from 5031 (m)
30
16/05/2012
GM
61
Cracking of a simple beam in bending and in shear (Burland & Wroth, 1974)
The building is represented by a rectangular beam of length L and height H.
The problem is to calculate the tensile strains in the beam for a given deflected shape of the building
foundations and so obtain the sagging or hogging ratio /L at which cracking is initiated.
Little can be said about the distribution of strains within the beam unless its mode of deformation is
known: two extreme modes are bending only about a neutral axis at the centre and shearing only.
In bending only, the maximum tensile strain occurs in the bottom extreme fibre, which is where
cracking will initiate.
For shear only, the maximum tensile strains are inclined at 45, initiating diagonal cracking.
GM
62
Classification of visible damage to walls

Most buildings experience a certain amount of
cracking, often unrelated to foundation
movement, which can be dealt with
during routine maintenance and decoration.
If an assessment of risk of damage due to ground
movement is to be made, the classification of
damage is key.
This classification provides 6 classes, on the basis of

the ease of repairing plaster and brickwork or
masonry walls.
categories 0, 1 & 2 relate to aesthetic damage;
categories 3 & 4 relate to serviceability damage;
category 5 represents damage affecting stability.
(Burland et al., 1977)
31
16/05/2012
GM
63

Class 1 -2 (very slight or slight)
Fine cracks which are easily treated during
normal decoration / Cracks easy filled
Class 3 (moderate)
Some brickwork requires replacing above and
below windows
GM
64

Class 4 (severe)
Some loss of bearing in beams.
Replacing sections of walls, especially over windows
Class 5 (very severe)

Instability, complete rebuilding required
32
16/05/2012
GM
65
Relationship between (/L) and

Timoshenko (1957) gives the expression for the total mid-span deflection of a
centrally loaded beam having both bending and shear stiffness as:
PL3
18EI
1
48EI L2HG
Where E is Youngs modulus, G is the shear modulus, I is the second moment of area and P is
the point load.
The equation can be re-written in terms of the deflection ratio /L and the maximum extreme
fibre strain bmax as follows:
L
3I E
b,max
L 12t 2tLH G
where t is the distance of the neutral axis from the edge of the beam in tension.
Similarly, for the maximum diagonal strain dmax, it becomes:
HL2 G
d,max
1
L
18I E
Similar expressions are obtained for the case of a uniformly distributed load.
Therefore, the maximum tensile strains are much more sensitive to the value of /L than to the
distribution of loading.
GM
66
Relationship between (/L)/lim and L/H

By setting max = lim, the two equations define the limiting values of /L for the
deflection of simple beams.
In general, both modes of deformation will occur simultaneously and it is necessary to calculate
both bending and diagonal tensile strains to check which type is limiting
L/H, E/G, position of neutral axis
Rectangular isotropic beams with the
neutral axis at the bottom edge
HL2 G
d,max
1
L
18I E
L
3I E
b,max
L 12t 2tLH G
33
16/05/2012
GM
67
Relationship between category of damage and limiting tensile strain

Boscardin and Cording (1989) introduced two important advances:
1. The influence of horizontal ground strain h was added to the beam model of Burland and
Wroth by simple superposition. They then developed an interaction diagram relating
angular distortion (2/L) and h for different categories of damage.
This interaction diagram strictly relates only to L/H = 1 for a hogging mode of deformation
(Boscardin & Cording, 1989)
GM
68
Relationship between category of damage and limiting tensile strain
2. From their work it is possible to assign a range of values of limiting tensile strain lim to
the different categories of damage defined by Burland et al (1977). This may introduce
a serviceability approach.
Category of
damage
0
1
2
3
4-5
Degree
of severity
negligible
very slight
slight
moderate
severe to very severe
Limiting tensile
strain, lim (%)
0 - 0.05
0.05 - 0.075
0.075 - 0.15
0.15 - 0.3
> 0.3
(Boscardin & Cording, 1989)
34
16/05/2012
GM
69
Superimposition of the horizontal ground strain

It is assumed that the deflected beam is subjected to uniform extension over its full depth.
The resultant extreme fibre strain br is given by:
br b,max h
In the shearing region, the resultant diagonal tensile strain dr can be evaluated using the Mohrs
circle of strain.
/2
dr
d,max
- h
The value of dr is then given by:
1
2 1
2
dr h
h
d,max
2
2
2
where is Poissons ratio.

The maximum tensile strain is the greater of br and dr.
Thus, for a beam of length L and height H, the maximum value of tensile strain max for a given value
of /L and h can be computed in terms of t, E/G and .
This value of max can then be to assess the potential associated damage.
GM
70
Superimposition of the horizontal ground strain

bending
shear
(Burland, 1997)
bending + shear
/L= 0 h=lim
As h increases towards the value of lim, the limiting values of /L for a given L/H reduce linearly,
becoming zero when h = lim.
As h increases, the limiting values of /L decrease non-linearly at an increasing rate towards zero.
35
16/05/2012
GM
71
Relationship of damage category to deflection ratio and horizontal tensile strain for hogging
By adopting the values of lim associated with the various categories of damage (serviceability
approach), an interaction diagram can be developed showing the relationship between /L and h for
a particular value of L/H.
L/H=1
GM
72
Relationship of damage category to deflection ratio and horizontal tensile strain for hogging
To determine the deflection ratio
(/L) to apply to each faade to
achieve a level of damage,
interaction charts for each value of
L/H for the masonry faades can be
produced using the same approach
as Burland (1997).
(Pickhaver, 2006)
36
16/05/2012
GM
73
Evaluation of risk of damage to buildings due to subsidence (Burland, 1995)

Preliminary assessment
It is based on a consideration of both maximum slope and maximum settlement of the ground surface
at the location of each building. According to Rankin (1988), a building experiencing
maximum slope of 1/500
settlement of less than 10 mm
has negligible risk of any damage.
By drawing contours of ground surface settlement along the route of the proposed tunnel and its
associated excavations it is possible to eliminate all buildings having negligible risk.
GM
74

Second-stage assessment
After having identified those buildings along the route requiring
further study, in a second-stage assessment the faade of a building is
represented by a simple beam whose foundations are assumed to
follow the displacements of the ground in accordance with the
greenfield.
The maximum resultant tensile strains are calculated, if necessary
partitioning the building, and the corresponding potential category of
damage, or level of risk, is then obtained.
Since in calculating the tensile strains, the building is assumed to have

no stiffness so that it conforms to the greenfield site subsidence
trough, this approach is usually still very conservative.
37
16/05/2012
GM
75

Second-stage assessment with
relative stiffness approach
The inherent stiffness of the building
can be considered at this stage by
making use of the charts by
Addebroke and Potts (1997),
obtaining more realistic predictions.
GM
76

Detailed evaluation
Detailed evaluation is carried out on those buildings that, as a
result of the second-stage assessment, are classified as being
at risk of category 3 damage or greater.
Because each case is different and has to be treated on its
own merits it is not possible to lay down detailed guidelines
and procedures.
Particular attention should be paid to the previous
movements experienced by the structure for different causes,
as they may reduce the tolerance of the building to future
movements .
38
16/05/2012
GM
77
Protective Measures
Types of protective measures

Various methods are used to protect both surface and subsurface structures from the effects of ground
movements generated by tunnelling.
First of all: make sure that the structure is outside the zone of significant ground movements.
Consideration of ground movements within the design process can influence the location and layout of
stations and tunnels. Tunnel alignment design is therefore considered to be a form of protective
measure.
Another method of reducing the impact of ground movements on an overlying structure is specifying
the tunnel construction sequence.
Once the geometry of the stations and tunnels is fixed and the potential damage assessment has identified
the need for protective measures, the available protective measures can be considered in three categories:
In-tunnel measures: actions taken from within the tunnel during its construction;
Ground treatment measures: methods for improving the engineering response of the ground;
Structural measures: methods increasing the capacity of the structure to resist/accommodate ground movements.
GM
78
Protective Measures
In-Tunnel measures
Reduce at source the magnitude of movements or distortions attributable to volume loss.
In general, where the ground is capable of supporting itself during excavation, advantage is taken of
this property by tunnelling in open-face conditions.
There is then the possibility of undertaking measures to reduce movements from within the tunnel,
which include:
face support measures;
excavation in parts;
pilot tunnels;
barrel vaulting;
mechanical pre-cutting .
39
16/05/2012
GM
79
Protective Measures
In-Tunnel measures
Line 1 Naples Underground
Excavation of a chamber in pyroclastic soil where two running
tunnels converge.
Above there is a 3-storey building.
The chamber roof is about 20 m deep.
Actions:
pilot tunnel;
jet-grouting forepoles;
chemical and grout injections in radial longitudinal directions.
(Maiorano e Viggiani, 2003)
GM
80
Protective Measures
Ground treatment methods

Improve the mechanical behaviour of the ground (stiffness).
ground improvement;
compensation grouting;
permeation grouting
soil compaction
soil replacement
freezing
...
ground reinforcement.
40
16/05/2012
GM
81
Protective Measures
Compensation Grouting
It is defined in the current practice as the introduction of a medium to high viscosity particulate
suspension into the ground between a subsurface excavation and a structure, in order to negate or
reduce the settlement of the structure due to ongoing excavation (Littlejohn, 2003).
Corrective compensation grouting
It is triggered when a threshold value
of settlement or distortion of the
structure is measured.
Concurrent compensation grouting
It is be adopted during the excavation
following a pre-determined plan to
limit the occurring settlement or
distortion to a given value.
Sometimes, a pre-treatment grouting
(cement or chemical injections) is
adopted to stiffen the soil and set up
the fracture system before the actual
compensation.
Careful positioning
Observational approach
GM
82
Protective Measures
Tube--Manchettes (TAMs)
Tubes with ports at regular intervals along them are
installed and grouted into drillholes.
The grout is injected by inserting a probe into the tube

and isolating the port to be injected by inflating packers
at either side of the injection nozzle and then applying
sufficient pressure to open the port and initiate flow
into the ground.
The ports comprise four holes spaced equally around

the circumference of the tube and usually covered with
a rubber sleeve (the manchette).
41
16/05/2012
GM
83
Protective Measures
The grouting techniques need to minimise the extent to which grout can penetrate or permeate
into the soil structure since filling voids within the ground will not generate displacements.
Fine-grained cohesive soils penetration does not occur,
Granular soils a wide range of grout mixes will penetrate the soil.
Compaction grouting is obtained with sand and silt mortar using large
diameter grout tubes and consists in a series of injected bulbs.
The term compaction grouting originally was adopted to improve the
strength and stiffness of the ground by compaction.
However, it has become associated with the controlled injection of a
mortar to create an expanding bulb, which displaces loose granular soils.
v
v
Fracture grouting is obtained by hydro-fracturing the soil with

v (TAMs).
relatively fluid grout injected from tubes--manchettes
It forms a sheet of grout frequently only 12 mm in thickness,
the extent of which is limited only by the volume of grout
injected.
GM
84
Protective Measures
Vienna Underground. A station (30 m wide, 8 m high) was excavated by NATM 12 m beneath a
5-storey building in silty clay.
Actions:
grouting between the
excavation and the building.
sLIM: 40 mm
this was exceeded due to
dewatering;
(/L)LIM : 1/1000
the deflection ratio of the
structure was contained
below the permitted value.
(Pototschnik, 1992)
42
16/05/2012
GM
85
Protective Measures
London Underground. Fracture grouting was performed at various locations along the 15.5 km of
mainly twin 4.4 m internal diameter tunnels
Westminster Station of Jubilee Line Extension close to the Big Ben.
Actions:
pre-treament grouting
fracture grouting
Tilt control
Pre-treatment was needed in a
layer of gravel to make effective
the following fracture grouting.
5 shafts
363 TAMs (10470 m)
27550 injections (2052 m3 grout)
Monitoring
GM
86
(Harris, 2003)
Protective Measures
Ground Reinforcement
Inclusions between the tunnel and the structures to be protected can be used to reduce their
movements:
by stiffening ground
by acting as a barrier between the source of the movement and the structure
damage to building
diaphragm walls
line of piles
43
16/05/2012
GM
87
Protective Measures
Ground Reinforcement
Shanghai Observatory.
The ancient astronomical observatory, about 50 m high, needed to be
protected from the excavation of a shield tunnel with 11 m diameter
and 20 m axis depth, passing about 15 m away from the building
foundation .
Actions:
root piles wall to reduce tilt.
Piles about 30 m deep (20 cm diameter),
constructed 14 m away from the tunnel axis
and capped by a reinforced concrete beam.
This beam was tied at its edges by tension
cables which extended to the rear of the
observatory and was anchored to blocks
founded on additional root piles.
assessed tilt: 0.5 to 110-2

measured tilt: 10-3
(Chen et al., 1998)
GM
88
Protective Measures
Ground Reinforcement: barriers

Madrid Metrosur.
10 m
1.5
8m
3.6 m
Sola et al. (2003) report:

5 cases of jet-grouting portals,
6 cases of jet-grouting walls,
4 cases of inverted-V treatments
which were undertaken along
two lines of the Madrid
underground.
Actions:
wall-type jet-grouting reinforcement to reduce the
building settlements.
10.1
D=8m
45
maximum measured settlement in the nearby

untreated zones: 10 to 12 mm
2m
29.1
maximum measured settlement : ~ 2 mm

(Sola et al., 2003)
44
16/05/2012
GM
89
Protective Measures
Ground Reinforcement: barriers

Madrid French Institute.
A tunnel (8.4 m diameter, 14-15 m axis depth) was
excavated by using an EPB shield partly in sand and
partly in the overlying 1018 m fill cover.
The building of the Institute was only 8-9 m away
from the tunnel axis.
Actions:
two close rows of adjacent jet-grouting columns to
reduce settlements. (70 cm spacing between rows, 90 cm spacing
between columns in the row).
maximum predicted settlement beneath the building:

7 to 10 cm
maximum measured settlement beneath the building:
~ 5 mm
GM
90
(Oteo et al., 1999)
Protective Measures
t
Ground Reinforcement: diaphragm wall as a barrier

Small scale (centrifuge) tests and FE analysis shown the influence of several parameter
on the effectiveness of a diaphragm wall.
d
EXC
(scale factor N=160)
Influence of length
A wall has to be deepened below the tunnel axis;
Influence of roughness
Smooth walls acts like a strong discontinuity in shear stress

transmission, thus reducing noticeably ground movements behind them;
Thick
Thin
Influence of thickness
No significant influence of the wall thickness
Influence of location
The offset of the wall is not influencing its effects
(Bilotta, 2008)
45
16/05/2012
GM
91
Protective Measures
Ground Reinforcement: diaphragm wall as a barrier

The wall weight must be limited
Influence of weight
LF
s 0 sT
s 0 s TC
+25%
(Bilotta & Taylor, 2005)
Provided that the ground loss during the construction is controlled, a

diaphragm wall can be effective in reducing settlements, depending mainly on
its length, weight and roughness.
The analyses have also shown that it can be effective in reducing horizontal
displacements, depending mainly on its roughness and length.
GM
92
Protective Measures
Ground Reinforcement: line of piles as a barrier

distance from tunnel axis (m)
-20
0
20
0
-40
d
EXC
w
b
pile spacing
settlement (mm)
40
-5
greenfield
s/b=12
s/b=6
s/b=3
continous wall
-10
-15
-20
-25
-30
-35
(Bilotta & Russo, 2011)
46
16/05/2012
GM
93
Protective Measures
Ground Reinforcement: line of piles as a barrier

The efficiency of the protective method is
dependent on the spacing ratio.
loose piles, s/b=12 to s/b=6:
low efficiency and no significant benefits
by the reduction of the spacing
dense piles,s/b =6 to s/b=2:
constant increase in efficiency use of rows
of closely spaced piles
Effect on potential damage
(Bilotta & Russo, 2011)

0.4%
0.4%
L/H=1
L/H=1
L/H=3.33
4&5
0.3%
L/H=3.33
4&5
0.3%
greenfield
greenfield
s/b=12
0.2%
/L
/L
s/b=12
s/b=6
0.2%
s/b=6
s/b=4
s/b=4
0.1%
s/b=3
0.1%
s/b=3
s/b=2
s/b=2
2
2
0
0.0%
0.0%
diaphragm wall
0.1%
0.2%
0.3%
0.4%
a)
V'=1%
0.0%
0.0%
diaphragm wall
0.1%
0.3%
0.4%
b)
V'=2.5%
GM
94
0.2%
Protective Measures
Structural measures
Structural measures include a range of techniques to reduce the impact of ground movements.
They are applied to the structure to be protected.
Their mode of operation can be to:
increase the ability of the foundations to resist the predicted movement;
stiffen the structure such that it modifies the predicted movement;
make the structure less sensitive so that it can accommodate the anticipated movement;
control the movement of the structure by isolating it from its foundation.
Examples are:
deep underpinning such that the piles extend
below the zone of ground movements and
thereby reduce the movements of the structure;
increasing the tensile capacity of the structure
where this is small or unreliable. This is achieved
by installing tension elements such as tie bars or
ring beams;
Shallow underpinning techniques
47
16/05/2012
GM
95
Protective Measures
Structural measures
Further examples:
installation of jacks within structural elements to enable the movements of
the superstructure to be controlled independently of the foundation;
planned maintenance (e.g. railway tracks) or contingency measures (such as
propping or repair) to be implemented on the basis of observed performance.
Typical layout of structure jacking
48

10 - Ground Movements

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

10 - Ground Movements

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

16/05/2012

Design Issues for Tunnels

Sources of ground movement around the excavation

(Mair & Taylor, 1997; Cording,1991)

Stress relief at the face

Over-pressurization at the face can lead to

It can increases if there is difficulty in keeping the right

The effect of tail void can be minimized by immediate grouting.

Deflection of the tunnel lining

Another source of delayed settlement may be the change of

Semi-empirical methods, based on a

allow a rapid initial estimate of ground displacements;

Transverse profile of settlements

Selecting the values of:

(Bilotta et al. 2005)

Longitudinal profile of settlements

Such a profile is close to that which can be caused by an unsupported cavity.

Longitudinal profile of settlements

closed shield (e.g. sand or soft clay)

distance from the tunnel face (m)

Estimating the trough width parameter i

The parameter is largely independent of the

OReilly and New (1982)

Clough & Smith (1981)

Sand below the

Estimating the trough width parameter for layered ground

For over consolidated clays, Dimmock and Mair (2007) propose:

Deformation field between the excavation and the ground surface

In coarse grained soils the volume

soft silty clay

compressed air TBM 0.6-0.7

For TBM excavation in

Trough width below the ground surface

Moh et al. (1996) have proposed a slightly different

(in the latter case it

max u(x) occurs at x=i

No strain point occurs at x=i

Long term settlements

(Bilotta et al. 2005)

Limit of the empirical method

Concentrated ground loss

Solution = 1 + 2(a) + 3(a) = 1 + 2(b) + 3(b) = Real Problem

Procedure to work out the solution

Displacement field due to a sink

For plane strain

Displacements at ground surface in trasverse section

D is the tunnel diameter

Displacements at ground surface in longitudinal direction

Case histories and calculations limit of the method

Caracas Metro. Profile of calculated and measured

San Francisco (plastic clay): development of surface settlements

Although the ratio between the horizontal and

Verruijt and Bookers Method

Compressible ground and Ovalization

Although ovalisation of the tunnel may be an

settlement due to ground loss

The GAP parameter to simulate the undrained loss of ground

Equivalent 3D ground loss at the tunnel face

The displacement x was calculated in the 3D analyses and represented as:

aPo a Kos 'v uw s T

Ground losses over the shield

Loganathan and Poulos Method

The constants A and B are derived assuming that 75% of the

Loganathan and Poulos Method