Tunnelling and Deep Excavations: Ground Movements and Their Effects

Proceedings of the 15th European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering
Geotechnics of Hard Soils Weak Rocks (Part 4)

A. Anagnostopoulos et al. (Eds.)
IOS Press, 2013
2013 The authors and IOS Press. All rights reserved.
doi:10.3233/978-1-61499-199-1-39
39
Tunnelling and deep excavations:

Ground movements and their effects
Tunnels et excavations profondes:
Movements du terrain et leur effets
R.J. Mair1
University of Cambridge, UK
ABSTRACT
The paper focuses on ground movements associated with tunnelling and deep excavations in stiff to hard soils. The first part presents field data from case histories of earth pressure balance (EPB) tunnelling. It is shown that, with good control of face pressure and tail void grouting, EPB tunnelling machines are now capable of achieving small volume losses, typically less than 1%
and often significantly smaller. An unusual case history is presented of a large diameter tunnel with very shallow cover, using
sprayed concrete linings (SCL); such tunnels can be safely constructed in hard soils with an open face, provided the undrained
shear strength is high enough to ensure adequate face stability. Ground movements associated with deep excavations in stiff to
hard clays are also reviewed. The second part of the paper concentrates on the effects of tunnelling and excavation-induced
ground movements on buildings, with particular emphasis on tunnelling. Centrifuge modelling of building response to tunnelling
is described; the results are consistent with both finite element analyses reported by Potts and Addenbrooke (1997) and Franzius
et al (2006), and with field data of building performance. A new simplified design approach is proposed to take account of relative building stiffness, defined in a new way, based on centrifuge model tests, finite element analyses and field data.
RSUM
Cet article, structur en deux parties, s'intresse aux dformations dans les sols indurs ou les roches tendres, conscutives la
perce de tunnels ou l'excavation en zones profondes. La premire partie prsente des donnes de terrain issues de tunneliers
pression de terre (EPB). Moyennant un contrle appropri de la pression en front de taille et du remplissage des vides au niveau
des joints de queue, il est possible de limiter les pertes en volume moins de 1%. Un cas classique est prsent pour un tunnel de
grand diamtre avec une peau en bton projet de trs faible paisseur. Dans les sols indurs, ce type de tunnel peut tre mis en
oeuvre sans risque particulier en absence de soutnement du front, condition que la rsistance au cisaillement
soit suffisamment leve pour garantir la stabilit de la paroi. Enfin, les mouvements de sol associs au creusement d'excavations sont aussi prsents dans cette partie. La seconde partie est consacre aux effets de ces mouvements sur les constructions
et ouvrages. Le cas particulier de leurs rponse en terme de dplacement suite au creusement de tunnels est examin avec attention. Dans ce contexte, on prsente une mthodologie de modlisation s'appuyant sur la mise en oeuvre d'essais la centrifugeuse. Les rsultats montrent une bonne cohrence aussi bien avec les donnes obtenues sur le terrain qu'avec les conclusions d'analyses en lments finis issues de travaux de la littrature (Potts et Addenbrooke, 1997; Franzius et al, 2006). Dans cet esprit, une
approche de conception simplificatrice est propose pour intgrer les effets de la rigidit relative sol-structure. Cette approche
originale s'appuie la fois sur des donnes en provenance d'essais en centrifugeuse, de mesures de terrain et
de simulations numriques en lment finis.
Keywords: tunnelling, deep excavations, stiff to hard soils, ground movements, volume loss, earth pressure balance tunnelling
machines, sprayed concrete linings, building response, centrifuge modelling, finite element analysis, field measurements, deflection ratio, building stiffness, design
Corresponding Author.
40
R.J. Mair / Tunnelling and Deep Excavations: Ground Movements and Their Effects
INTRODUCTION
S = Smax exp (-y2/2i2)
This paper focuses on ground movements caused

by tunnelling and deep excavations in stiff to
hard soils these ground conditions being the
principal theme of this conference. The first part
of the paper reviews field data of ground movements for tunnelling, with some case histories of
earth pressure balance (EPB) tunnelling in stiff
to hard soils. An unusual case history is presented of a large diameter tunnel with very shallow cover, constructed using sprayed concrete
linings (SCL) in very stiff to hard soils (Goh and
Mair, 2009) [1]. Ground movement data associated with deep excavations in stiff to hard soils
are also presented.
The second part of the paper is concerned
with the effects of tunnelling and excavationinduced ground movements on buildings, with
particular emphasis on tunnelling. This is becoming increasingly important as more tunnelling is
being undertaken world-wide in urban environments where buildings are potentially affected.
Some recent centrifuge modelling of tunnelling
effects on buildings at Cambridge is described
(Farrell, 2010) [2]. The results are compared
with some comprehensive finite element analyses by Potts and Addenbrooke (1997) [3] and
Franzius et al (2006) [4], and with field data of
the performance of a variety of building types in
different ground conditions. A new and simple
design approach for evaluating the influence of
building stiffness is proposed.
GROUND MOVEMENTS CAUSED BY

TUNELLING IN STIFF TO HARD SOILS
2.1 Ground movements and volume loss

A key parameter of major importance for tunnelling in stiff to hard soils is volume loss. Extensive field measurements have shown that the settlement trough, as shown in Figure 1, can be well
characterised by the Gaussian distribution
(Schmidt, 1969 [5]; Peck, 1969 [6]; Rankin,1988
[7]; Mair and Taylor,1997) [8]), with the settlement given by the following equation:
(1)
Integration of equation (1) gives the volume of

ground excavated per unit length of tunnel
Vs
2S i S max
(2)
and this volume, expressed as a proportion of the

theoretically excavated tunnel volume (usually
expressed as a percentage) is the volume loss:
Vl = VS / ( D2/4)
(3)
Figure 1. Transverse settlement trough: Gaussian curve
Typical volume losses for tunnelling in soft

ground are generally in the range 1-3% (Mair,
1996 [9]; Mair and Taylor, 1997 [8]). In the context of tunnelling soft ground can include stiff
to hard soils; the term is more closely related to
the need for support to be provided to prevent
potential instability. Closed face tunnelling, with
significant face support, tends to result in lower
values than open face tunnelling. Open face tunnelling in London Clay can in some circumstances give rise to higher values; for example in
St Jamess Park in London, volume losses as
high as 3% were recorded, but this is exceptional
and can be attributed to particular features of the
geology and the operational methods of tunnelling (Standing and Burland, 2006 [10]; Dimmock
and Mair, 2006 [11]).
2.2
EPB tunnelling and some case histories
There have been considerable developments

in earth pressure balance (EPB) tunnelling machine technologies in recent years excellent
ground movement control in a wide variety of
ground conditions is now achievable, especially
in ground that would be unstable in the absence
of face support. The essence of an EPB machine
is provision of substantial support to the excavated face at all times, thereby controlling
ground movements.
Figure 2. Earth pressure balance tunnelling machine
Figure 2 shows the principal features of a modern EPB tunnel boring machine (TBM). Face
support is provided by the cutterhead (1), powered by the drive motor (2), all of which is within
the circular steel skin (3) of the TBM. The soil,
excavated by the rotating cutter wheel, passes
into the head chamber immediately behind the
cutterhead. Access into the chamber, if necessary, can be made by means of compressed air
via an air lock (4). A key feature of the EPB machine is the extraction of the excavated soil by
means of a screw conveyor (5), which is an Archimedian screw within a cylindrical steel casing.
The screw conveyor plays an important role in
the excavation process. As the machine advances
through the ground, the excavated soil enters the
pressurised head chamber. The soil is extracted
from the head chamber and flows along the
screw conveyor to the discharge outlet (7), where
the soil is discharged at atmospheric pressure
onto a conveyor belt (9). The rotational speed of
the screw and the restriction of the discharge outlet influence the soil flow rate and pressure gradient along the conveyor. The head chamber
41
pressure supporting the tunnel face is regulated

by controlling the rate of soil discharge and the
pressure dissipation along the screw conveyor.
Laboratory tests using an instrumented model
screw conveyor with a range of soft clay samples
and operating conditions, and their theoretical interpretation, are reported by Merritt (2004) [12]
and Merritt and Mair (2006, 2008) [13,14]. The
factors influencing the chamber pressure during
the excavation period are complex but the details
of the screw conveyor operation are of particular
relevance. It is important that the extraction of
the soil is well controlled, synchronised with the
speed of excavation, and that the soil mixture is
converted to a low shear strength paste (typically
in the range 20-30 kPa) by suitable soil conditioning (Milligan, 2000 [15]; Merritt, 2004) [12].
Control of soil flow through the screw conveyor
is necessary to control the volume of soil discharged, and the dissipation of pressure between
the head chamber (in which it is high) and the
conveyor outlet, which is at atmospheric pressure. If the soil is too fluid, control of the flow
rate and pressure gradient can be problematic,
because proper face control requires that the
chamber is always filled with soil, whereas if the
soil if too stiff, the conveyor can require excessive power to operate or it can become jammed.
Natural soils do not usually have ideal properties
when excavated, and soil conditioning is often
used to modify the properties to improve the operation of EPB machines. This is especially the
case for tunnelling in many stiff to hard soils.
Soil conditioning is achieved by injecting
conditioning agents, most commonly foams or
polymers, into the cutterhead to mix with the soil
during the excavation process. The effects of soil
conditioning on soil properties are varied and
complex; many of these are summarised by
Maidl (1995) [16], Leinala et al (2000) [17],
Milligan (2001) [18], Merritt et al (2003) [19],
Merritt (2004) [12], Boone et al (2005) [20],
OCarroll (2005) [21] and Borghi (2006) [22].
The properties of the soil-chemical mixtures
strongly depend on the type and quantity of the
conditioning product, or combination of products, mixed with the ground. Operation of the
tunnelling machine may be significantly affected
by these different properties. The parameters that
42
have to be selected for the soil conditioning

comprise the type of product (water, bentonite,
polymer, foam or any combination of these), as
well as their quantities. Further details of soil
conditioning, definitions of injection parameters
and typical quantities used for different ground
conditions are summarised by Mair (2008) [23].
Effective control of volume loss in modern
tunnelling can be attributed to a number of important advances in EPB technology (British
Tunnelling Society, 2005 [24]; OCarroll, 2005
[21]). There have been significant developments
in the technique of tail skin grouting; good control of pressure and volume of grout injection is
essential for effective control of ground movements. Also, annulus grouting by filling the annulus around the EPB shield with a bentonite
paste can significantly reduce ground movements.
An example of very effective control of
ground movements when tunnelling through a
wide variety of stiff to hard soils was reported by
Mair (2008) [23]. A simplified view of the geology for Contract 220 of the Channel Tunnel Rail
Link (CTRL), now known as HS1, in London is
shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3. Geology of tunnelling project CTRL Contract 220
The tunnelling works comprised 7.5km of twin

tunnels of diameter 8.1m OD excavated with
EPB machines westwards from the Stratford Box
to the portal near St Pancras station in London.
Full details of the project are given by Woods et
al. (2007) [25]. A very wide range of ground
conditions was encountered, as can be seen from
Figure 3; full details are given by Borghi (2006)
[22]. Upon launching from Stratford Box the tun-
nelling machines first encountered about 80m of

mixed face conditions of the Lambeth Group
(Upnor Formation (UF), comprising very dense
sands, silts, stiff to hard clay, gravels and pebbles
and the Woolwich and Reading Beds, comprising very stiff to hard clays). The proportion of
the Lambeth Group soils then gradually reduced
for the next 140m while the very dense silty
Thanet Sand appeared in the invert; full face
Thanet Sand was encountered after 560m of tunnel drive. Subsequently chalk was encountered in
the invert, before the tunnels started rising in
elevation crossing the full sequence of tertiary
soils, including the gravels of the Harwich Formation (HF) at the base of the London Clay, with
full face London Clay in the final 1000m of the
drive. The tunnels were thus driven in a very
wide variety of ground conditions, varying from
dense sands and gravels, to stiff to hard clays and
chalk, often in mixed face conditions.
Surface settlement measurements from 48 instrumentation arrays were analysed (Wongsaroj
et al., 2005) [26] and the results in terms of volume loss measured at the ground surface are
shown on Figure 4.
Figure 4. Observed volume loss for CTRL Contract 220

(Wongsoroj et al, 2005) [26]
It can be seen that, with only two exceptions, the

measured volume loss was always less than 0.8%
and often as low as 0.2%.
A key aspect of ground movement control in
EPB tunnelling is the control of chamber pressure. Figure 5 shows an example of difficult
chamber pressure control during three cycles of
excavation and ring build during tunnelling in
the very stiff to hard clays and dense sands of the
Lambeth Group illustrated in Figure 3 (Borghi

and Mair, 2006 [27]; Mair, 2008 [23]). The average chamber pressure (recorded by 5 pressure
sensors) is plotted against time for the three construction cycles, each comprising two phases: the
excavation phase, when the EPB machine is advancing, and the ring-build phase, when the machine is stationary during erection of the tunnel
lining. The foam and liquid injection ratios (see
Appendix A for the definitions) recorded for
these cycles were in the range 84 - 92% and 14 -
43
tion rate, as well as injection of significant quantities of pressurised foam into the excavation
chamber (Mair, 2008) [23]. In contrast, Figure 6
shows an example of good control of chamber
pressure (Borghi, 2006) [22]. A number of cycles
of excavation and ring-build in a full-face of
London Clay are shown; the tunnel axis was at a
depth of 31m. Typically the ring-build phase was
less than 30 minutes.
There has been considerable experience of
EPB tunnelling in stiff to hard soils in recent
years. Tunnelling in dense or very dense ce-
Figure 5. Example of difficult EPB face pressure control in mixed stiff to hard clays and dense sands of the Lambeth Group
(Borghi and Mair, 2006) [27]
18% respectively. The duration of the excavation phase was typically 0.7-1 hour the time
taken for the EPB machine to advance 1.5m,
which is the length of one ring of the tunnel
segments. During this excavation period it can be
seen that the chamber pressure fluctuates significantly, sometimes rising substantially there is
no clear explanation for this, but it may be a consequence of variations in screw conveyor extrac-
mented clayey sands - the Old Alluvium in

Singapore has been reported by Shirlaw et al
(2001) [28]. Some properties of the Singapore
Old Alluvium are shown in Figure 7 (Ni Q, 2005
[29]. Observed volume losses are found to be
generally less than 1%, and often considerably
less, and there is little or no dependency on the
ratio of face pressure to overburden pressure, as
shown in Figure 8.
44
Figure 6. Example of good EPB face pressure control in London Clay (Borhi and Mair, 2006) [27]
Table 1. Large settlement/sinkhole incidents during EPB tunnelling for 7 major projects in Singapore (Shirlaw and Boone,
2005) [30]
Figure 7. Singapore Old Alluvium: cemented

and uncemented clayey sands, mainly dense or very dense
(Ni Q, 2005) [29]
Tunnelling in stiff to hard soils can be problematic, expecially when there are mixed ground
condition. Shirlaw and Boone (2005) [30] report
large settlement or sinkholes for 7 major projects
in Singapore and break these down into various
causes (risk areas), as shown in Table 1.
It can be seen that many of the problems were

associated with mixed faces of rock, or hard
clays, and granular soils.
Mixed faces of rock and hard clays or granular

soils are often associated with variable weathering profiles. Observed volume losses in the Singapore Jurong Formation, comprising variably
weathered mudstones, siltstones and sandstones,
are shown in Figure 9.
45
15m wide and 11m high to meet the operational

requirements of a 3-lane vehicular traffic width
and headroom, as shown in Figure 10.
Figure 10. Three-lane road tunnel with very shallow cover

constructed with SCL (Goh and Mair, 2009) [1]
Figure 8. EPB tunnelling in Singapore Old Alluvium (Shirlaw et al, 2001) [28]
Figure 9. EPB tunnelling in Singapore Jurong Formation

variably weathered mudstones, siltstones and sandstones
(Shirlaw et al, 2001) [28]
For good control of volume loss in variably

weathered mudstones, siltstones and sandstones
the minimum face pressure should be in the
range 0.3-0.5 x the total overburden pressure at
the tunnel axis. Shirlaw et al (2001) [28] also
conclude that the face pressure should be at least
equal to the piezometric pressure at the tunnel
axis to minimise the risk of large settlements, especially at soil/rock interfaces.
2.3
Large and shallow SCL tunnel in very
stiff to hard clay
Construction of the Fort Canning Tunnel in Singapore using the Sprayed Concrete Lining (SCL)
method in very stiff to hard clay is described by
Goh and Mair (2009) [1]. The tunnel is about
With a soil overburden ranging from only 3m to

9m above the tunnel crown, this is one of the
largest soft ground SCL tunnels under shallow
cover in the world to date.
The tunnel was excavated in the Fort Canning
Boulder Bed (FBB) geological formation. As
reported by Shirlaw et al. (2003) [31], the FCBB
is a colluvial deposit of Pleistocene age and typically consists of boulders in a hard sandy clayey
silt or sandy silty clay matrix. The soil matrix
contains high clay and silt content and has low
permeability values of 10-8m/s or less with high
undrained shear strength (at least 150 kPa and often considerably higher). The boulders are
quartzite with unconfined compressive strengths
in the range 100-200 MPa and can be up to about
3m in size. Cores of the FBB showing characteristic sequences of quartzite boulder alternating
with a hard clay matrix are shown in Figure 11.
Figure 11. Cores of Fort Canning Boulder Bed showing characteristic sequence of quartzite alternating with hard clay matrix (Shirlaw et al, 2003) [31]
46
Figure 12. SPT N values obtained in stiff to hard clay matrix

of Fort Canning Boulder Bed
Figure 13. Construction sequence for 15m wide Fort Canning

Tunnel
Figure 14. Development of surface settlements for Fort Canning Tunnel (Goh and Mair, 2009) [1]
Figure 12 shows the distribution of SPT-N values obtained in the very stiff to hard clay matrix.
The very large scatter is partly attributed to the
presence of quartzite boulder fragments in the
matrix. Back analysis of settlements of buildings
on rafts founded on the FBB indicate undrained
Youngs modulus Eu in the region of 500MPa,
consistent with pressuremeter and plate loading
tests (Wong et al, 1996) [32].
The top heading excavation was preceded by a

pre-support forepoling umbrella, and then followed by bench and invert excavation, as shown
in Figure 13.
The tunnel support system was provided by shotcrete with lattice girders and wire mesh reinforcement for good constructability. A preexcavation support system was provided by
47
Figure 15. Observed transverse surface settlement profiles for Fort Canning Tunnel (Goh and Mair, 2009) [1]
means of grouted steel pipes forming a forepoling arch above the tunnel crown.
A typical surface settlement plot against time
is shown in Figure 14, from which the major
causes of ground movements can be interpreted
in terms of pre-excavation relief, top heading excavation, and bench/invert excavation. The
ground was observed to be settling even before
the top heading excavation arrived below the settlement markers. The pre-excavation settlements
started at about 10m ahead of the tunnel face.
The casting of the temporary invert followed 23m behind the face of the heading excavation.
Subsequent top heading excavation caused more
surface settlements but at a decreasing rate.
When the bench/invert excavation approached
the settlement array (typically from around 20m30m away the array), there was an increase in the
rate of ground settlement again. However, the
settlement stabilised soon after the bench/invert
was cast below the settlement array to achieve
the final ring closure of the tunnel.
Observed transverse surface settlement profiles are shown in Figure 15. Experience in Singapore suggested that volume loss in the Fort
Canning Boulder Bed could vary from 0.5-1.5%
based on observations of SCL excavation for
tunnels up to 6.6m diameter in Singapores Jurong Formation and Fort Canning Boulder Bed.
Volume losses observed in the much larger Fort
Canning Tunnel varied from 0.4 to 2.1%, with
the volume loss increasing for the tunnel with
larger cover. This may be due to the stability ratio N = z/cu increasing with depth and the load
factor N/Nc reducing; Mair (1989) [33] suggested that volume loss can be related to the load
factor. Using data from several case histories in
overconsolidated clays, including centrifuge
model test data from Mair et al (1981) [34],
Macklin (1999) [35] fitted a linear regression between volume loss and load factor.
From the plots of settlement troughs in Figure
15, the observed ground settlement was Gaussian
in nature and can be described by the trough
width parameter i = K*zo as suggested by
48
Figure 16. Surface settlements for excavations in stiff to hard clays (CIRIA, 2003 [44]; GCG, 2007 [45])
OReilly and New (1982) [36], where zo is the

depth to tunnel axis and a K value of 0.5 was appropriate for the clayey soils of FCBB.
In summary, the 15m diameter Fort Canning
Tunnel was constructed safely with an open face
using SCL with very low cover (3-9m) only because of the high undrained strength of the very
hard clay soils. It had been proposed as an economic alternative to a cut-and-cover tunnel,
which would have been environmentally much
more intrusive. The volume losses (0.4-2.1%)
and associated settlements (up to a maximum of
150mm) were acceptable for the overlying road,
although some re-surfacing was needed.
Summary
With good control of face pressure and tail
void grouting, EPB tunnelling machines are now
capable of achieving small volume losses, typically less than 1% (and in many cases significantly less), in a wide variety of ground conditions including variably weathered hard soils
and weak rocks. Mixed face conditions remain

vulnerable to higher volume losses, and it is especially important to have good face pressure
control to minimise this risk. Large diameter
bored tunnels, such as the Fort Canning Tunnel
in Singapore, can be safely constructed in hard
soils with an open face using sprayed concrete
linings (SCL), provided the undrained shear
strength is high enough to ensure adequate face
stability.
3 GROUND MOVEMENTS CAUSED BY

DEEP EXCAVATIONS IN STIFF TO HARD
SOILS
Comprehensive summaries of field data of
ground movements caused by deep excavations
in stiff to hard soils have been produced by many
authors, including Peck (1969) [6], Clough et al
(1989) [37], Clough and ORourke (1990) [38],
St John et al (1992) [39], Carder (1995) [40],
49
Figure 17. Surface settlements for deep basement excavations (16-24m) in very stiff to hard London Clay and Lambeth Group
(GCG, 2007) [45]
Fernie and Suckling (1996) [41], Carder et al

(1997) [42], Long (2001) [43], CIRIA (2003)
[44] and GCG(2007) [45]. Figure 16 shows settlements for a wide variety of excavations of
varying depths in stiff to hard clays, with the data
plotted against distance from the wall and normalised by the excavation depth. Boundaries of
high stiffness and low stiffness systems are
shown, the former being well propped stiff walls
such as diaphragm walls and the latter being anchored sheet pile walls.
Data from Figure 16 relating to deep basement excavations, ranging in depth from 16m to
24m, in very stiff to hard London Clay and the
Lambeth Group in London are replotted in Figure 17. A curve has been proposed for the purposes of assessing the likely effects on adjacent
buildings and this can be simplified as a Gaussian settlement distribution relating to an equivalent tunnel, as shown in Figure 18 (GCG, 2007)
[45].
The hogging zone of the Gaussian curve can

used to evaluate effects of deep excavations in
stiff to hard soils on adjacent buildings in a very
similar way to the method commonly used for
bored tunnels outlined by Mair et al (1996) [46].
Observed surface horizontal movements for excavations in stiff to hard clays are plotted in Figure 19, and the proposed curve can be used to
evaluate the potential effects of horizontal
movements on adjacent buildings, using the
same approach of combining deflection ratio and
horizontal strain as outlined by Mair et al (1996)
[46] for bored tunnels. This is considered further
in the next section.
50
Figure 18. Simplified Gaussian settlement distribution for deep basement excavations in very stiff to hard London Clay and Lambeth
Group (GCG, 2007) [45]
Figure 19. Surface horizontal ground movements for excavations in stiff to hard clays (CIRIA, 2003 [44]; GCG, 2007 [45])
4.1
51
EFFECTS OF TUNNELLING AND

EXCAVATION INDUCED GROUND
MOVEMENTS ON BUILDINGS
Definitions
The deformation of a building above a tunnel is

depicted in Figure 20 and the deflection ratio is
as defined in the figure. It is commonly assumed
that the building is separated into hogging and
sagging zones, with each zone being treated as if
they are separate buildings; this is clearly a simplification. The horizontal displacement and
strain profiles for a bored tunnel can be simply
derived from the assumption that the resultant
ground movement vectors are directed towards
the centre of the tunnel, as shown in Figure 21;
this can be refined, as discussed by Taylor
(1995) [47] and Mair and Taylor (1997) [8] but
in many cases the horizontal strain induced in
buildings by tunnelling is often very small (Mair,
2003) [48], and so the simplifying assumption
depicted in Figure 21 is often adequate.
Buildings adjacent to deep excavations potentially experience both vertical and horizontal
components of ground movements, as depicted
in Figure 22.
The relationship of building damage to induced tensile strain can be expressed in terms of
deflection ratio and horizontal strain, as shown in
Figure 23. This is strictly for buildings with a
length to height ratio of 1; other geometries can
be evaluated using the equations given by Burland (1995) [49] and Mair et al (1996) [46].
Figure 20. Deformation of building above a tunnel (Mair et

al, 1996) [46]
This chart has been developed using simple

beam theory proposed by Burland and Wroth
(1974) [50] and assuming limiting tensile strains
for different damage categories as proposed by
Boscardin and Cording (1989) [51]. Categories
of damage, ranging from 0-5, have been defined
by Burland et al. (1977) [52] and represent an escalation from negligible damage to severe structural damage.
The inherent stiffness of a building may well
modify the settlement shape. Modification factors were proposed by Potts and Addenbrooke
(1997) [3] and these are defined in Figure 24.
52
Figure 21. Transverse settlement trough, horizontal displacements and horizontal strain
Figure 23. Relationship of building damage category to deflection ratio and horizontal strain
Figure 24. Modification of settlement shape by stiffness of

building
Figure 22. Typical ground movements affecting buildings adjacent to deep excavations
As shown in Figure 24, for the hogging zone the

modification factor MDR,hog is simply the ratio of
the deflection ratio experienced by the building,
DRhog, to the deflection ratio for the greenfield
case, DRgfhog. A similar definition applies for the
sagging zone. For a fully flexible building,
MDR,hog =1 and the building follows exactly the
greenfield settlement profile. For a fully rigid
building , MDR,hog = 0 and the deflection ratio experienced by the building is zero.
53
Figure 25. Centrifuge modelling of tunnelling and soil-structure interaction effects on building response (Farrell, 2010) [2]
4.2
Centrifuge modelling of tunneling effects

on buildings
A series of centrifuge tests were carried out on

the 8m diameter centrifuge at the University of
Cambridge to investigate the response of buildings to tunnelling in sands (Farrell, 2010 [2];
Farrell and Mair, 2011 [53]). Figure 25 shows
the package used for this series of tests. Model
aluminium, masonry and micro-concrete beam
structures of varying stiffness and geometry (including tunnels eccentric to the building centreline) were subjected to tunnelling-induced
ground movements. Bending and axial stiffnesses of the model buildings (at prototype scale)
shown in Figure 26 for comparison with a range
of field cases; centrifuge models tested by Taylor
and Grant (1998) [54] and Taylor and Yip (2002)
[55] are also shown.
Figure 26. EI and EA values for centrifuge model buildings

(prototype scale) compared with field data (Farrell, 2010) [2]
A greenfield test was also carried out, the results of which are used to quantify the modification to greenfield distortions that the various
buildings displayed.
54
Figure 27. Response of different stiffness model buildings to tunnelling, compared with greenfield settlement GF-1, (Farrell
2010) [2]
The measured settlement profiles of the different stiffness buildings at 2% volume loss are
illustrated in Figure 27. The greenfield settlement profile (GF-1) is also shown in Figure 27
for reference. Model building STR-1 is seen to
behave fully flexibly, with the settlement profile
being very similar to the greenfield profile, while
model building STR-4 demonstrates the most
rigid response. Depending on a buildings stiffness, the settlement response can be fully flexible, fully rigid or somewhere in between. Clearly
a more rigid response implies correspondingly
smaller distortion and deflection ratio and, consequently, less damage.
Potts & Addenbrooke (1997) [3] conducted a
parametric finite element analysis investigating
the response of buildings to tunnelling. Two parameters were defined to explain the modification to the settlement and axial response of buildings; these were the relative bending stiffness
(*) and the relative axial stiffness (*). The parameters * and * were later modified by Franzius et al (2006) [4], the former to be dimensionless. Expressions for *mod and *mod, defined
by Franzius et al (2006) [4] are as follows:
U *mod
EI
Es B 2 z0 L
(4)
where z0 (= zt) = depth to the tunnel axis
D *mod
EA
E s BL
(5)
where EI and EA are the bending stiffness and

the axial stiffness of the structure respectively, Es
is the secant stiffness of the soil at 0.01% axial
strain, at a depth of z = z0 / 2, B is the building
width and L is the length parallel to the tunnel
heading; dimensions are illustrated in Figure 28.
55
A new definition of relative bending stiffness

has been proposed by Goh and Mair (2011) [56]
as follows:
Figure 28. Definitions of relative building stiffness
Results of the extensive parametric FE analyses

undertaken by Potts and Addenbrooke (1997) [3]
and Franzius et al (2006) [4] are shown in Figure
29, in which the modification factors are plotted
against relative building stiffness.
Figure 29. FE results illustrating relationship between modification factors and relative building stiffness, with proposed
design curves (Potts and Addenbrooke, 1997 [3]; Franzius et
al, 2006 [4])
It can be seen that there is significant scatter, and

there are different proposed design curves for
hogging and sagging, as well as there being different proposed design curves for various building eccentricities e/B.
Usag =
EI
E S * L3sag
(6)
U hog =
EI
E S * L3hog
(7)
These are dimensionless, and defined in terms of

the elastic stiffness of the building EI (in
kNm2/m run), divided by a representative soil
stiffness (Es), and divided by the cube of the sagging or hogging lengths in the greenfield condition corresponding to the buildings location
(Lsag; Lhog); (these are the same as Bsag, Bhog in
Figure 28). The representative soil stiffness is defined as the weighted average of the elastic
modulus of the soil above the tunnel (or excavation level in the case of a deep excavation),
whilst the sagging and hogging lengths are estimated by identifying the inflexion point i on the
greenfield settlement profile (see Figure1).
When the modification factors derived from the
centrifuge tests are plotted against the new definition of relative bending stiffness, for both hogging and sagging, as shown in Figure 30, the data
points fall into a relatively narrow envelope.
Also shown on Figure 30 are results from the FE
analyses of Potts and Addenbrooke (1997) [3]
and Franzius et al (2006) [4] for a wide variety of
buildings, where the data can be plotted in terms
of the new definition of relative bending stiffness
(requiring details of the building and tunnel geometries); both the hogging and sagging results
fall into the same relatively narrow envelope.
The centrifuge test data and the FE results are
broadly consistent, and indicate a fully flexible
building response (M=1) if hog or sag <10-4 and
a fully rigid response (M=0) if hog or sag > 1.
Finite element parametric analyses of effects
of deep excavations in soft clay on adjacent
buildings, using the Modified Cam Clay soil
model (Goh, 2010 [57]), give very similar results, as shown in Figure 31; the results
56
fall within the same relatively narrow envelope

as found for the centrifuge tests and FE results
by Potts and Addenbrooke (1997) [3] and Franzius et al (2006) [4] shown in Figure 30. Table 2
indicates the range of parameters assumed by
Goh (2010) [57] (excavation depth, soft clay
thickness, wall depth and thickness, and numbers
of props).
4.3
Case history of building responses to

tunnelling
The response of two buildings to the construction

of a 12m diameter tunnel in Bologna, Italy is reported by Farrell (2010) [2] and Farrell et al
(2011) [58]. The tunnel in this case history
passed beneath two buildings of very different
stiffness. The tunnel was constructed using the
sprayed concrete lining (SCL) method, as part of
a high speed railway line.
Table 2. Finite element parametric studies of effects of deep
excavations in soft clay on adjacent buildings (Goh, 2010
[57]; Goh and Mair, 2011 [56])
Figure 30. Summary of centrifuge model tests compared with
results of finite element analyses by Potts and Addenbrooke
(1997) [3] and Franzius et al (2006) [4] using new definition
of relative building stiffness
Figure 31. Finite element analyses of effects of deep excavations in soft clay on adjacent buildings (Goh, 2010 [57]; Goh
and Mair, 2011 [56])
Figure 32. Tunnel passing between a two-storey and a fivestorey building in Italy: aerial view of site (Farrell et al,
2011) [58]
The tunnel passed beneath two load bearing masonry buildings, shown in an aerial view in Figure 32 one of two storeys (Building 106) and the
other of five storeys (Building 107). A longitudinal section through the tunnel with the soil strata
and the two buildings is shown in Figure 33.
57
a depth of 14mbgl, can be observed. A subsequent drop in cu to around 70kPa was observed
in several CPT tests and may arise due to historical variations in the deposition process and water
level. Below 30mAD, cu again increases linearly
and can be estimated as 120kPa at the tunnel
Figure 33. Longitudinal profile of tunnel and ground stratigraphy beneath buildings for tunnel in Bologna (Farrell et al,
2011) [58]
The ground conditions consist of overconsolidated fluvial deposits from the Quaternary period. The ground is highly stratified with layers
of silty clays and clayey silts, termed the T1 formation, with lenses of sandy silt and silty sand,
termed the T2 formation. The range of particle
size distribution (PSD) curves for the T1 formation shows negligible sand and gravel content
while PSD curves for the T2 formation show
sand contents to range from 25 to 70%.
Laboratory testing indicate the T1 formation to
be a medium to high plasticity clay. The overconsolidation ratio (OCR) ranges from 1 to 2.
Other properties of the clay of the T1 formation
are summarised in Figure 34. A linear increase in
undrained strength cu with depth to roughly
200kPa just above the tunnel crown (30mAD) at
axis. SPT and undrained unconsolidated (UU)

triaxial tests indicate lower strengths of around
80kPa, although this may be due to sample disturbance. Profiles of the shear stiffness at zero
strain (G0) with depth obtained from resonant
column tests and cross hole geophysics are also
shown in Figure 34.
Pore pressure readings prior to construction
show a hydrostatic profile from 5m below
ground level (BGL) to the tunnel axis. Decreasing pore pressures below the tunnel axis are due
to regional pumping from the underlying sandy
gravel layer.
Extensive protective measures were adopted to
maintain stability of the tunnel excavation and to
reduce ground movements. Over the initial 33m
of the excavation (see Figure 35), vertical jet
grouting was carried out from the surface to form
58
Figure 34. Geotechnical data for tunnel in Bologna, Italy
a jet grout canopy around the tunnel. Subsequent

further reinforcement of the soil directly above
the crown and into the face was carried out prior
to tunnelling using horizontal jet grouting, as
shown in Figure 35.
Horizontal jet grouting was initially carried out
from the excavation from which construction of
the tunnel was started and was later conducted
from within the tunnel itself. In total, over 2,000
vertical jet grout columns were installed around
the tunnel from the surface. Grout was injected
using a single fluid system at a pressure of
400bar. Subsequently, due to operational constraints, the ground ahead of the tunnel crown
and ahead of the tunnel face was reinforced using
only 500mm diameter horizontal columns, as illustrated in Figure 35. These columns were
formed by horizontal jet grouting from within the
tunnel and were 20m in length into the face and
14m in length above the crown. The number of
horizontal jet grout columns installed into the
tunnel face was reduced over the course of the
project. Where this was the case, additional fi-
breglass face anchors and drains were installed

into the face instead. Fibreglass face anchors
were 20m in length and were easily dug out during the excavation. The face anchors were later
altered to allow for compensation grouting
through tubes manchette (TAMs). Extensive
monitoring of the effects of the tunnelling works
on the ground and overlying buildings was carried out throughout the construction period. The
instrumentation layout is illustrated in Figure 36.
Total stations were used to obtain building settlements in addition to movements in the northsouth and east-west directions. Reflective prisms
were placed on the first floor level of the facades
of the buildings 106 and 107, as shown in Figure
36. Ground settlements were measured from settlement studs placed on the ground surface in arrays perpendicular to the tunnel axis (arrays S-9,
S-10 and S-TE).
59
Figure 35. Details of protective measures: vertical and horizontal jet grouting, steel forepoles and drains (Farrell et al, 2011) [58]
Figure 36. Monitoring instrumentation (Farrell et al, 2011) [58]
60
Subsurface ground settlements were measured

using magnetic extensometers at 1m intervals to
depths of up to 40mbgl. Figure 37 shows the
greenfield settlement profile for the section STE at various stages during the excavation.
Gaussian curves fitted to the settlement data are
also presented. Settlements can be seen to increase as the excavation face proceeds towards
the section S-TE (d<0). As the excavation passes
beyond section S-TE (d>0) the contribution of
further tunnel construction to the maximum settlement (196mm) can be seen to be relatively
small, indicating that the majority of settlements
occur ahead of the excavation face. The trough
width parameter, K, was found to increase from
0.45 to 0.55 as the excavation passed beyond
section S-TE . This agrees well with the value of
0.5 often observed for tunnelling in clays
(OReilly & New, 1982 [36]; Mair and Taylor,
1997 [8]). The variation in K with time may be
attributed to consolidation of the T1 formation
resulting from drainage.
horizontal jet grouting, which generated large

excess pore pressures and their dissipation
caused very significant ground movements; further details are given by Farrell (2010) [2] and
Farrell et al (2011) [58].
The bending stiffnesses (EI) of buildings 106
and 107, details of which are shown in Figure 38,
have been estimated by summing the individual
stiffness of each structural component, including
walls, slabs and footings, as indicated by Eqn 8.
As the buildings are constructed from load bearing masonry it is assumed that shear transfer between the walls and slabs is negligible. Consequently, the neutral axis of each component is
taken about that of the individual member itself.
Figure 38. Details of buildings and estimated bending stiffnesses
Figure 37. Observed greenfield settlement response (Farrell

et al, 2011) [58]
The volume loss corresponding to the settlement

trough in Figure 37 amounted to 5%. Bearing in
mind that typical volume losses for open face
tunnelling in stiff clays are in the range 1.0-2.0%
(Mair & Taylor, 1997 [8]), this is a very large
volume loss for an urban tunnelling project. The
high value can be principally attributed to the
The stiffness of all components are reduced to

per metre length values in the plane of bending.
E values for load bearing masonry and reinforced
concrete are taken as 3x106kN/m2 and as
27x106kN/m2 respectively. Dimmock and Mair
(2008) [59] have demonstrated the importance of
accounting for the effect of openings on the
building stiffness. These effects are accounted
for by applying the reduction factors in Table 3
(Melis and Ortiz, 2001 [60]) to the EI values for
walls.
EI building EI walls EI slabs EI footings (8)
Using this approach, the bending stiffness, EI,
of the western section of building 106 in the
plane transverse to the tunnel heading was
estimated as 4.9x106kNm2/m. EI for building 107

was estimated to be almost two orders of magnitude higher, at 2.3x108kNm2/m. For both buildings the internal and external walls were found to
contribute to the majority of the bending stiffness. By summing the axial stiffness of each
component in a similar manner to that outlined
above, the estimated overall axial stiffness EA
for buildings 106 and 107 has been estimated as
9.3x106kN/m and 2.5x107kN/m respectively.
Observed settlements of the western faade of
building 106 and the eastern faade of building
107 are illustrated in Figure 39. It is apparent
that building 107 responded rigidly and simply
tilted with no discernible hogging or sagging regions.
61
Comparison of the behaviour of the two buildings with the greenfield response at section STE
are shown in Figure 40. The rigid tilt response of
building 107 is observed to result in settlements
at the northern edge that are significantly larger
(265mm) than the equivalent greenfield settlements (130mm). Settlements of building 107
around the trough shoulders are also larger than
the greenfield values, indicating that the building
embeds into the soil. This embedment is likely to
have resulted from a redistribution of the building weight as the tunnel progressed towards the
building.
Figure 39. Response of the building to tunneling (Farrell et al, 2011) [58]
62
Table 3. Reduction factors () for EI based on the percentage

wall openings (from Melis and Ortiz, 2001 [60])
Percentage
Openings
0
0-15
15-25
25-40
>40
4.4
Reduction factor,
L<H
L>2H
1
0.7
0.4
0.1
0
1
0.9
0.6
0.15
0
Field data of performance of buildings

affected by tunneling
Detailed response to tunnelling has been reported

for the following buildings which are shown in
Figure 41:
Figure 40. Comparison of settlement response of the two

buildings with greenfield response S-TE (Farrell et al,
2011) [58]
Figure 41. Buildings with detailed monitoring of settlement response to tunnelling
x Elizabeth House, London

A reinforced concrete framed 10 storey
building constructed in the 1960s. Tunnelling beneath the building was in very stiff
London Clay (Mair and Taylor, 2001 [61];
Standing, 2001 [62]).
x Treasury Building, London
A stone-clad brick-masonry building constructed at the beginning of the 20th century,
comprising a sub-basement, a basement, a
sub-ground floor, and four storeys above
ground level, with a light concrete slab
foundation with localised pads and strip
footings. Tunnelling beneath the building
was in very stiff London Clay (Viggiani
and Standing, 2001 [63]).
x Moodkee Street, London
Three storey buildings of load bearing brick
on shallow strip foundations. Tunnelling
beneath the buildings was in dense silty
sands (Withers, 2001 [64]; Dimmock and
Mair, 2008 [59]).
x Pasir Panjang shophouses, Singapore
Two-storey, reinforced-concrete framed
buildings with brick infill, founded onshallow foundations of individual footings on
wooden piles. Tunnelling beneath the buildings was in mixed ground conditions, comprising soft clays and sands and variably
weathered stiff to hard mudstones, siltstones and sandstones (Goh and Mair, 2011
[56]).
x 2 storey and 5 storey buildings, Bologna,
Italy with basements, reinforced concrete
slabs and load bearing masonry walls
founded on strip footing foundations. Tunnelling beneath the buildings was in stiff
clays (Farrell et al, 2011 [58]).
The modification factors and relative bending
stiffness (using the new definition as given in
eqns (6) and (7)) have been plotted for the above
buildings in Figure 42. The majority of the data
fall into the same envelope as found from centrifuge model tests and finite element analyses (see
Figure 30). There is reasonable consistency between the centrifuge model tests, the finite element analyses by Potts and Addenbrooke (1997)
[3] and Franzius et al (2006) [4], and the field
data of building performance.
4.5
63
Observed damage for buildings 106 and

107 in Bologna, Italy
Figure 43 summarizes the observed deflection ratios and horizontal strains for buildings 106 and
107 in Italy. Building 106 was almost fully flexible in bending (with modification factors for deflection ratio up to 0.8), but experienced smaller
horizontal strains than the greenfield horizontal
strains, most of these being associated with jet
grouting (Farrell, 2010) [2]. Damage to building
106 was found to cause jamming of doors and
windows and significant cracking. Re-pointing of
brickwork was also required. Based on definitions of levels of damage proposed by Burland et
al (1977) [52], the observed level of damage to
building 106 can be classified as category 3
(Moderate).
In contrast, very little damage was observed
for building 107 despite it settling by up to
260mm (see Figure 39). It responded rigidly and
simply tilted, experiencing only some small horizontal strains, and displayed only minor cracking
of internal plastering resulting from shear strains.
Cracking of the external faade was minimal and
the maximum measured crack width was about
1mm. No significant structural damage was observed. The observed level of damage can be
classified as category 1 to 2 (Very Slight to
Slight).
As indicated in Figure 43, an assessment of
the risk of damage to buildings 106 and 107 using the approach summarised by Burland (1995)
[49] and Mair et al (1996) [46], suggests that had
the buildings been subjected to greenfield distortions, the damage in both cases would have
been in the Severe to Very Severe category.
This is clearly a significant overestimation of the
damage to both buildings, especially in the case
of the stiffer building 107, and highlights the importance of considering the soil-structure interaction when estimating potential tunnellinginduced damage.
64
Figure 42. Field data of building response to tunnelling using new definition of relative building stiffness (Goh, 2010 [57];
Farrell, 2010 [58])
timated, and this will indicate whether the building is likely to behave fully flexibly, partially
flexibly or fully rigidly. The procedure for doing
this is in the following 5 steps:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Figure 43. Observed response of two Bologna buildings - implications for design in terms of settlement assessment
4.6
A new design approach
The envelope in Figure 42 can be used for design. By estimating the relative bending stiffness
of the building, the modification factor can be es-
5.
Estimate volume loss (VL) and trough

width parameter i (=Kz0) to define the
greenfield surface settlement trough
From the greenfield surface settlement
trough, define the partitioned building
lengths Bsag, Bhog (see Figure 28)
Estimate the buildings bending stiffness
Estimate the soil stiffness and hence
new relative bending stiffnesses hog,
sag
From the design envelope in Figure 42,
obtain the modification factor, M, and
hence evaluate Building Deflection Ratio = M x Greenfield Deflection Ratio
For step 3, estimating the buildings bending

stiffness requires some judgements to be made
about the structural details of the building
(Dimmock and Mair, 2008 [59]; Goh and Mair,

2011 [56]). Likewise for step 4, estimating the
soil stiffness requires some judgement, not least
because of the dependence of the stiffness on
strain level. However it should be noted that the
relative bending stiffness axis in Figure 42 is
plotted on a log scale. This means that provided
that the orders of magnitude of the building and
soil stiffness values are reasonably estimated, the
proposed design approach can be applied with
reasonable confidence.
Assuming the buildings to conform to greenfield ground movements may very often be
overly conservative. As illustrated in Figure 43,
building category damage 4/5 (Severe to Very
Severe) would have been been predicted for the
Buildings 106 and 107 in Bologna, Italy if they
had been assumed to be fully flexible and followed the greenfield settlement profile. Moreover, in reality most buildings, however flexible
in bending, experience significantly smaller horizontal strain, unless they are on isolated footings.
Many buildings are on continuous strip footings
or pile caps perpendicular to the tunnel axis or
the line of the retaining wall for a deep excavation, or on raft foundations, and in such cases
they will experience significantly smaller horizontal strains than the greenfield case (Mair,
2003 [48]). An example is the Treasury Building,
for which horizontal strain measurements within
the building were negligible compared to the
greenfield horizontal strains measured close to
the building, (Viggiani and Standing, 2001 [63]).
CONCLUSIONS
1. Ground movements caused by tunnelling and

deep excavations in stiff to hard soils can
now be reasonably well predicted for design
purposes there is a large database of field
records.
2. Centrifuge modeling has provided new insights into building response to tunnelling.
The results are consistent with both finite
element analyses reported by Potts and Addenbrooke (1997) [3] and Franzius et al
(2006) [4], and with field data of building
performance.
65
3. Relative building stiffness, as proposed by

Potts and Addenbrooke (1997) [3], is a very
important parameter. Stiff buildings experience much less differential settlement than
flexible buildings; in such cases protective
measures are not necessary.
4. In many cases very small horizontal strains
are induced in buildings.
5. A new simplified design approach is proposed to take account of relative building
stiffness. This is based on centrifuge model
tests, finite element analyses and field data of
building performance.
6. Building response to tunnelling-induced
ground movements can now be predicted
with greater certainty.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author is grateful to Goh Kok Hun and
Ruaidhri Farrell, former PhD students, for their
assistance in preparation of this paper. He also
acknowledges the support of Geotechnical Consulting Group (GCG), and the collaboration of
Italferr of Italy, the Land Transport Authority of
Singapore, London Underground Ltd and Crossrail of London.
REFERENCES
[1] Goh, K.H. and Mair, R.J. (2009). Geotechnical observations of construction of a large
shallow SCL tunnel in soft ground. South
East Asian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 40,
No. 2, pp. 67-80.
[2] Farrell, R. P. 2010. Tunnelling in sands and
the response of buildings. Ph.D Thesis,
University of Cambridge.
[3] Potts, D. M. and Addenbrooke, T. I. (1997).
Structures influence on tunneling induced
ground movements. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Geotechnical
Engineering, pages 109-125, 125, no. 2.
Thomas Telford, London.
[4] Franzius, J. N., Potts, D. M. and Burland, J.
B. (2006). The response of surface structures to tunnel construction. Proceedings of
66
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
the Institution of Civil Engineers: Geotechnical Engineering, 159, no. 1, pages 3-17.
Schmidt, B. (1969). Settlements and ground
movements associated with tunnelling in
soils. Ph.D thesis, University of Illinois.
Peck, R. B. (1969). Deep excavations and
tunnelling in soft ground. 7th International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Mexico City. 225290.
Rankin, W.J. (1988). Ground movements
resulting from urban tunnelling: predictions
and effects. Engineering Geology of Underground Movement, Geological Society,
Engineering Geology Special Publication
No. 5, 79-92.
Mair, R. J. & Taylor R. N. (1997). Bored
tunnelling in the urban environment. Stateof-the-art Report and Theme Lecture. Proceedings of 14th International Conference
on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Hamburg, Balkema, Vol. 4., 23532385.
Mair, R. J. (1996). General report on settlement effects of bored tunnels. Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction
in Soft Ground (eds R. J. Mair & R. N. Taylor), Balkema, Rotterdam, 43-53.
Standing, J. R. & Burland, J. B. (2006).
Unexpected tunnelling volume losses in the
Westminster area, London. Geotechnique,
56 (1), 11-26).
Dimmock, P. & Mair, R. J. (2006). Volume
loss experienced on two open-face London
Clay tunnels. Proceedings of the Institution
of Civil Engineers, Geotechnical Engineering. Vol. 160 (1) 3-11.
Merritt, A. S. (2004). Soil conditioning for
earth pressure balance machines. PhD Thesis, Cambridge University.
Merritt, A. S. & Mair, R. J. (2006). Mechanics of tunnelling machine screw conveyors: model tests. Gotechnique 56 (9)
605-615.
Merritt, A. S. & Mair, R. J. (2008). Mechanics of tunnelling machine screw conveyors: a theoretical model. Gotechnique
58, No.2, 79-94.
Milligan, G.W.E. (2000). Lubrication and
soil conditioning in tunnelling, pipe jacking
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
and microtunnelling: A state-of-the-art review.

Geotechnical Consulting Group,
London,
UK.
wwwcivil.eng.ox.ac.uk/research/pipejack/soilcon
d.html.
Maidl, U. (1995). Erweiterung der Einsatzbereiche der Erddruckschilde durch
Bodenkonditionierung mit Schaum. PhD
thesis, Ruhr University, Bochum. (In German).
Leinala, T., Grabinsky, M., Delmar, R. and
Collins, J.R. (2000). Effects of foam soil
conditioning on EPBM performance. Proc.
North American Tunnelling 00, Balkema,
Rotterdam, pp 514-524.
Milligan, G.W.E. (2001). Soil conditioning
and lubricating agents in tunnelling and
pipe jacking. Proc. Underground Construction Symposium 2001, London Docklands, UK: 105-116.
Merritt, A. S., Borghi, F. X. & Mair, R. J.
(2003). Conditioning of Clay soils for earth
pressure balance tunnelling machines. Proc.
Underground Construction, London Dockland, UK: 455-466.
Boone, S. J., Artigiani, E., Shirlaw, J. N.,
Ginanneschi,
R.,
Leinala,
T.
&
Kochmanova, N. (2005). Use of ground
conditioning agents for earth pressure balance machine tunnelling. Proc. AFTES International Congress, Cambery.
OCarroll, J.B.(2005). A guide to planning,
constructing and supervising earth pressure
balance TBM tunnelling. Monograph 18
published by Parsons Brinkerhoff, New
York.
Borghi, F. X. (2006). Lubrication and soil
conditioning in pipejacking and tunnelling.
PhD Thesis, Cambridge University.
Mair, R. J. (2008). Tunnelling and geotechnics: new horizons. 46th Rankine Lecture,
Gotechnique 58, No, 9, 695-736.
British Tunnelling Society (2005) Closed
face tunnelling machines and ground stability a guideline for best practice. Thomas
Telford, London.
Woods, E., Battye, G., Bowers, K. and
Mimnagh, F. (2007). Channel Tunnel Rail
Link Section 2: London Tunnels. Proc. ICE.
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32]
[33]
[34]
Civil Engineering, 160, November 2007,

24-28, paper 700008.
Wongsaroj, J., Borghi, F. X., Soga, K.,
Mair, R. J., Sugiyama, T., Hagiwara, T. &
Bowers, K. J. (2005). Effect of TBM driving parameters on ground surface movements: Channel Tunnel Rail Link Contract
220. Geotechnical Aspects of Underground
Construction in Soft Ground - Bakker et al
(eds) 2006 Taylor & Francis Group,
London, ISBN 0 415 39124 5, pp 335-341.
Borghi, F. X. & Mair, R. J. (2006) Soil
conditioning for EPB tunnelling machines
in London ground conditions. Tunnels and
Tunnelling International. September 2006,
18-20.
Shirlaw, J.N., Ong, J.C.W. Rosser, H.B.,
Osborne, N.H., Tan, C.G. and Heslop P.J.E.
(2001). Immediate settlements due to tunnelling for the North East Line. Proc. Underground Singapore 2001, pp 76 90.
Ni, Q (2005). Engineering Properties of
Singapore Old Alluvium. PhD thesis, National University of Singapore.
Shirlaw, J.N. and Boone, S. (2005). The
risk of very large settlements due to EPB
tunnelling. Proc. 12th Australian Tunnelling
Conference, Brisbane, Australia.
Shirlaw, J.N., Ong, J.C.W., Rosser, H.B.,
Tan, C.G., Osborne, N.H. and Heslop, P.E.
(2003). Local settlements and sinkholes due
to EPB tunneling. Proc. Institution of Civil
Engineers, Geotechnical Engineering,
156(4), 193-211.
Wong, I.H., Ooi, I.K. and Broms, B.
(1996). Performance of raft foundations for
high-rise buildings on the Bouldery Clay in
Singapore. Can. Geotech. J. 33: 219-236
(1996).
Mair, R. J. (1989). Introduction and summary of Session 9: selection of design parameters for underground construction.
Proceedings of 12th Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
Rio de Janeiro, Vol. 4, 2891-2893.
Mair, R. J., Gunn, M. J., & O'Reilly, M. P.
(1981). Ground movements around shallow
tunnels in soft clay. Proceedings of 10th International Conference on Soil Mechanics
[35]
[36]
[37]
[38]
[39]
[40]
[41]
[42]
[43]
67
and Foundation Engineering. Stockholm,

1981, Vol. 1, 323-328.
Macklin S.R. (1999). The prediction of volume loss due to tunnelling in overconsolidated clay based on geometry and stability
number. Ground Engineering, 32 (4), 3033.
OReilly, M.P. and New, B.M. (1982). Settlements above tunnels in the United Kingdom their magnitude and prediction. Tunnelling 82, London, IMM, 173-181.
Clough, G. W., Smith, E. M. and Sweeney,
B. P. (1989) Movement control of excavation support systems by iterative design
procedure. ASCE foundation engg: current
principles and practices, vol 1, pp 869-884.
Clough, G. W. and O'Rourke, T. D. (1990).
Construction induced movements of insitu
walls. ASCE Special Publication 15, Proc
design and performance of earth retaining
structures, Cornell University, pp 439-470.
St John, H. D., Potts, D. M., Jardine, R. J.
and Higgins, K.G. (1992) Prediction and
performance of ground response due to
construction of a deep basement at 60 Victoria Embankment. Proc Wroth mem symp.
Predictive soil mechanics, Oxford, pp 581608.
Carder, D. R. (1995). Ground movements
caused by different embedded retaining
wall construction techniques Report 172,
TRL, Crowthorne.
Fernie, R. and Suckling, T. (1996) Simplified approach for estimating lateral wall
movement of embedded walls in UK
ground. Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground (eds R.
J. Mair & R. N. Taylor), Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 131-136.
Carder, D. R., Morley, C.H. and Alderman,
G. H. (1997) Behaviour during construction
of a propped diaphragm wall founded in
London Clay at Aldershot road underpass
Report 239, TRL, Crowthorne.
Long, M (2001). Database for retaining
wall and ground movements due to deep
excavations. ASCE J Geotech and geoenv
engg, vol 127, no 3, pp 203-224.
68
[44] CIRIA (2003). Embedded retaining walls guidance for economic design. Gaba, A.R.,
Simpson, B., Powrie, W., and Beadman,
D.R. CIRIA report C580, London, 2003.
[45] GCG, (2007). Settlement Estimation Procedure: Box Excavations & Shafts; Report for
Crossrail, 1D0101-G0G00-01004.
[46] Mair, R. J., Taylor, R. N. & Burland, J. B.
(1996). Prediction of ground movements
and assessment of risk of building damage
due to bored tunnelling. Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft
Ground (eds R. J. Mair & R. N. Taylor),
Balkema, Rotterdam, 713-718.
[47] Taylor, R.N. (1995). Tunnelling in soft
ground in the UK. Underground Construction in Soft Ground (eds. K.Fujita and
O.Kusakabe), Proceedings of the 1994 International Symposium on Underground
Construction in Soft Ground, New Delhi,
India, Balkema, pp 123-126.
[48] Mair, R.J. (2003). Research on tunnellinginduced ground movements and their effects on buildings-lessons from the Jubilee
Line Extension. Keynote Lecture, Proceedings of International Conference on Response of Buildings to Excavation-induced
Ground Movements, held at Imperial College, London, UK, July 2001, pp 3-26, Jardine F M (ed), CIRIA Special Publication
199, RP620, ISBN 0 86017 810 2.
[49] Burland, J.B. (1995). Assessment of risk of
damage to buildings due to tunnelling and
excavation. Proc. 1st Int. Conf. Earthquake
Geot. Eng., IS-Tokyo '95.
[50] Burland, J. B. & Wroth, C. P. (1974). Settlement of buildings and associated damage.
In: Settlement of Structures, Cambridge.
Pentech Press, London, pages 611-654.
[51] Boscardin, M. and Cording, E. (1989).
Building response to excavation-induced
settlement. ASCE Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, 115, no. 1, pages 121.
[52] Burland, J. B., Broms, B. B. & De Mello,
V. F. B. (1977). Behaviour of foundations
and structures. In: Proceedings of the 9th
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundations Engineering, pages
495-546, Tokyo.
[53] Farrell, R.P. and Mair, R.J. (2011). Centrifuge modelling of the response of buildings
to tunnelling. Proceedings of 7th International Symposium on Geotechnical Aspects
of Underground Construction in Soft
Ground, May, Rome.
[54] Taylor, R.N. and Grant, R. J. (1998). Centrifuge modelling of the influence of surface
structures on tunnelling-induced ground
movements. Tunnels and Metropolises,
Vol.1, pp 261-266.
[55] Taylor, R.N. and Yip, D-P. (2001). Centrifuge modelling of the effect of a structure
on tunnel-induced ground movements. Proceedings of International Conference on the
Response of Buildings to ExcavationInduced Ground Movements, Imperial College, London, pp 601-611, CIRIA SP201.
[56] Goh, K.H. and Mair, R.J. (2011). The horizontal response of framed buildings on individual footings to excavation-induced
movements. Proceedings of 7th International Symposium on Geotechnical Aspects
of Underground Construction in Soft
Ground, May, Rome.
[57] Goh, K.H. 2010. Response of ground and
buildings to deep excavations and tunnelling. Ph.D thesis, University of Cambridge,
UK.
[58] Farrell, R.P., Mair, R. J., Sciotti, A.,
Pigorini, A. & Ricci, M. (2011). The response of buildings to tunnelling: a case
study. Proceedings of 7th International
Symposium on Geotechnical Aspects of
Underground Construction in Soft Ground,
May, Rome.
[59] Dimmock, P.S. and Mair, R.J. (2008). Effect of building stiffness on tunnellinginduced ground movement. Tunnelling and
Underground Space Technology, Volume
23, July 2008, Issue 4, 438 - 450.
[60] Melis, M. and Rodriguez Ortiz, J. (2001).
Consideration of the stiffness of buildings
in the estimation of subsidence damage by
EPB tunnelling in the Madrid subway.
Proc. International Conference on the Response of Buildings to Excavation-Induced
Ground Movements, Imperial College,
London, pp 387-394, CIRIA SP201.
[61] Mair, R. J. and Taylor, R. N. (2001). Elizabeth House: settlement predictions. Building Response to tunnelling - Case studies
from construction of the Jubilee Line Extension, London. Vol. 1: Projects and
Methods, Burland J B, Standing J R, and
Jardine F M, (eds) CIRIA SP200, pp 195215 (CIRIA and Thomas Telford, 2001).
ISBN 0 7277 30177.
[62] Standing, J.R. (2001). Elizabeth House,
Waterloo. Building response to tunnelling.
Case studies from the Jubilee Line Extension, London. Volume 2, Case studies. Burland, J.B.; Standing, J.R.; Jardine, F.M.
(editors). CIRIA Special Publication 200.
ISBN 0 7277 3017 7.
[63] Viggiani, G. and Standing, J.R. (2001). The
Treasury. ln:Building response to tunnelling: case studies from the Jubilee Line Extension, London: volume 2: case studies,
Editor(s): Burland, Standing, Jardine,
CIRIA and Thomas Telford, 2002, Pages:
401-432, ISBN:9780727730176.
[64] Withers A.D., Murdoch, Neptune and
Clegg Houses in Moodkee Street, Rotherhithe. Building response to tunnelling - case
studies from construction of the Jubilee
Line Extension, London. Volume 2: Case
Studies, Burland J B, Standing J R, and Jardine F M, (eds). CIRIA SP200, 2001, pp.
811-828 (CIRIA and Thomas Telford,
2001). ISBN 0 7277 30177.
69
[65] Mair, R. J., Merritt, A. S., Borghi, F. X.,

Yamazaki, H. & Minami, T. (2003) Soil
conditioning for clay soils. Tunnels and
Tunnelling International, April 2003, pp
29-32.
[66] EFNARC (2005). Specification and guidelines for the use of specialist products for
soft ground tunnelling. European Federation for Specialist Construction Chemicals
and Concrete Systems, Surrey, UK.
www.efnarc.org/pdf/TBMGuidelinesApril0
5.pdf.
[67] Kusakabe, O., Nomoto, T. and Imamura, S.
(1997). Geotechnical criteria for selecting
mechanised tunnel systems and DMM for
tunnelling. Panel discussion, Proc. 14th
Int.Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Hamburg, Vol. 4, 24392440.
[68] Jancsecz, S., Krause, R. and Langmaack, L.
(1999). Advantages of soil conditioning in
shield tunnelling: experiences of LRTS Izmir. Proc. ITA Conference, Oslo, pp 865875.
70
APPENDIX A
Soil conditioning for EPB tunnelling general

principles and definitions
The quantities of soil conditioning agents used
in EPB tunnelling machines are expressed in
terms of the ratio of the volume of conditioning
agent to the volume of ground to be excavated.
Polymer injection ratios (PIR) and foam injection
ratios (FIR), usually expressed as a percentage,
are defined as follows:
For a given foam agent a range of FER values

can be achieved by varying a number of factors
in the foam production (Mair et al, 2003 [65];
Merritt, 2004 [12]). Typically FER values are
around 10 for many conditioning foams. The total liquid injection ratio (LIR) for a foam and/or
polymer conditioner injection is given by:
LIR = (Vfl + Vp)/Vs = FIR/FER + PIR
(A.4)
PIR = Vp/Vs.100
(A.1)
In addition the concentration of surfactant and

polymer (cs and cp respectively) used in the preparation of the foaming liquid and the polymer solution are defined as follows:
FIR= Vf/Vs.100
(A.2)
cs = Vsurf/Vfl.100
(A.5)
where Vp is the volume of polymer solution, Vf

is the volume of foam at atmospheric pressure
and Vs is the volume of soil. The properties of
the foam strongly depend on its proportion of air
and surfactant solution, which is characterised by
the foam expansion ratio (FER), expressed as a
percentage:
cp = Vpol/Vp. 100
(A.6)
FER= Vf/Vfl.100
(A.3)
where Vfl is the volume of foaming liquid solution and Vf the volume of foam.
The values of cs and cp affect the properties of

the foam and polymer solutions, thereby affecting the properties of the conditioned soil.
Limited guidelines on appropriate soil conditioning have been published by EFNARC, based
on soil particle distribution only (EFNARC,
2005) [66]. Other guidelines have been published
by Maidl (1995) [16], Kusakabe et al (1997)
[67], Jancsecz et al (1999) [68], Milligan (2001)
[18] and Merritt (2004) [12].

Tunnelling and Deep Excavations: Ground Movements and Their Effects

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

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

Tunnelling and Deep Excavations: Ground Movements and Their Effects

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Proceedings of the 15th European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering

Geotechnics of Hard Soils Weak Rocks (Part 4)

Tunnelling and deep excavations:

This paper focuses on ground movements caused

GROUND MOVEMENTS CAUSED BY

2.1 Ground movements and volume loss

Integration of equation (1) gives the volume of

and this volume, expressed as a proportion of the

Figure 1. Transverse settlement trough: Gaussian curve

Typical volume losses for tunnelling in soft

EPB tunnelling and some case histories

There have been considerable developments

Figure 2. Earth pressure balance tunnelling machine

pressure supporting the tunnel face is regulated

have to be selected for the soil conditioning

Figure 3. Geology of tunnelling project CTRL Contract 220

The tunnelling works comprised 7.5km of twin

nelling machines first encountered about 80m of

Figure 4. Observed volume loss for CTRL Contract 220

It can be seen that, with only two exceptions, the

Lambeth Group illustrated in Figure 3 (Borghi

mented clayey sands - the Old Alluvium in

Figure 7. Singapore Old Alluvium: cemented

It can be seen that many of the problems were

Mixed faces of rock and hard clays or granular

15m wide and 11m high to meet the operational

Figure 10. Three-lane road tunnel with very shallow cover

Figure 9. EPB tunnelling in Singapore Jurong Formation

For good control of volume loss in variably

With a soil overburden ranging from only 3m to

Figure 12. SPT N values obtained in stiff to hard clay matrix

Figure 13. Construction sequence for 15m wide Fort Canning

The top heading excavation was preceded by a

OReilly and New (1982) [36], where zo is the

and weak rocks. Mixed face conditions remain

3 GROUND MOVEMENTS CAUSED BY

Fernie and Suckling (1996) [41], Carder et al

The hogging zone of the Gaussian curve can

EFFECTS OF TUNNELLING AND

The deformation of a building above a tunnel is

Figure 20. Deformation of building above a tunnel (Mair et

This chart has been developed using simple

Figure 24. Modification of settlement shape by stiffness of

As shown in Figure 24, for the hogging zone the

Centrifuge modelling of tunneling effects

A series of centrifuge tests were carried out on

Figure 26. EI and EA values for centrifuge model buildings

where z0 (= zt) = depth to the tunnel axis

where EI and EA are the bending stiffness and

A new definition of relative bending stiffness

Figure 28. Definitions of relative building stiffness

Results of the extensive parametric FE analyses

It can be seen that there is significant scatter, and

These are dimensionless, and defined in terms of

fall within the same relatively narrow envelope

Case history of building responses to

The response of two buildings to the construction

axis. SPT and undrained unconsolidated (UU)

Figure 34. Geotechnical data for tunnel in Bologna, Italy

a jet grout canopy around the tunnel. Subsequent

breglass face anchors and drains were installed

Figure 36. Monitoring instrumentation (Farrell et al, 2011) [58]

Subsurface ground settlements were measured

Table 3. Reduction factors () for EI based on the percentage