Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 11

Franzius, J. N., Potts, D. M. & Burland, J. B. (2005). Geotechnique 55, No.

3, 189199

The influence of soil anisotropy and K0 on ground surface movements

resulting from tunnel excavation
J. N. F R A N Z I U S * , D. M . P OT T S a n d J. B. B U R L A N D

Finite element (FE) analysis is now often used in engi- Lanalyse delements finis (FE) est souvent utilisee a`
neering practice to model tunnel-induced ground surface present dans la pratique industrielle pour modeliser le
settlement. For initial stress regimes with a high coeffi- tassement de surface de sol provoque par les tunnels.
cient of lateral earth pressure at rest, K0 , it has been Pour les regimes de contrainte initiaux, avec un fort
shown by several studies that the transverse settlement coefficient de pression terrestre laterale au repos K0 , il a
trough predicted by two-dimensional (2D) FE analysis is ete montre par diverses etudes que lauge de tassement
too wide when compared with field data. It has been transversal predit par une analyse FE bidimensionnelle
suggested that 3D effects and/or soil anisotropy could (2D) est trop large par rapport a` ce qui se passe sur le
account for this discrepancy. This paper presents a suite terrain. Il a ete suggere que les effets 3D et /ou daniso-
of both 2D and 3D FE analyses of tunnel construction in tropie du sol pourraient expliquer cet ecart. Cet expose
London Clay. Both isotropic and anisotropic non-linear presente une suite danalyses FE en 2D et 3D de la
elastic pre-yield models are employed, and it is shown construction dun tunnel dans de largile de Londres.
that, even for a high degree of soil anisotropy, the Nous employons deux mode`les elastiques non lineaires de
transverse settlement trough remains too shallow. By pre-ecoulement, un isotrope et un anisotrope, et nous
comparing longitudinal settlement profiles obtained from montrons que, meme pour un degre eleve danisotropie
3D analyses with field data it is demonstrated that the de sol, lauge de tassement transversal reste trop peu
longitudinal trough extends too far in the longitudinal profonde. En comparant aux donnees de terrain les
direction, and that consequently it is difficult to establish profils de tassement longitudinal obtenus a` partir des
steady-state settlement conditions behind the tunnel face. analyses 3D, nous demontrons que lauge longitudinale
Steady-state conditions were achieved only when applying setend trop loin dans la direction longitudinale et que,
an unrealistically high degree of anisotropy combined par consequent, il est difficile detablir des conditions de
with a low-K0 regime, leading to an unrealistically high tassement de regime permanent derrie`re la face du
volume loss. tunnel. Des conditions de regime permanent ont ete
obtenues uniquement en appliquant un degre anormale-
ment eleve danisotropie combine a` un regime de faible
KEYWORDS: ground movements; numerical modelling and K0 , ce qui provoque une perte de volume anormalement
analysis; settlement; tunnels elevee.

INTRODUCTION drawn by Gunn (1993). In contrast, Simpson et al. (1996)

Finite element (FE) analysis of tunnel construction in soft presented results of a plane strain FE study modelling the
soil has become widely adopted over recent years. Most of Heathrow Express trial tunnel in which they concluded that
the analyses are performed employing a plane strain model. soil anisotropy gives better surface settlement predictions for
It has been noted by several authors that the surface settle- overconsolidated clay. They compared results from a linear
ment trough in the transverse direction to the tunnel axis and a non-linear transversely anisotropic soil model with
obtained from such analyses is too wide when compared those of a non-linear isotropic model. However, only limited
with field data if the initial stress profile is described by a details about the applied soil model were given.
high value of the coefficient of lateral earth pressure at rest, Tunnel construction clearly is a three-dimensional pro-
K0 . blem, and one would expect that 3D FE analysis would
Addenbrooke et al. (1997) presented a suite of two- improve the surface settlement predictions, compared with
dimensional (2D) FE analyses including both linear elastic 2D modelling. Such a conclusion was drawn by Lee & Ng
and non-linear elastic pre-yield models, combined with a (2002) who compared results of a 3D study in which both
MohrCoulomb yield surface. By modelling the construction the degree of soil anisotropy and K0 were varied with the
of the Jubilee Line Extension beneath St Jamess Park, results of Addenbrooke et al. (1997). The surface settlement
London, they concluded that for K0 1.5 the predicted troughs from the 3D analyses by Lee & Ng (2002) were
surface settlement trough was too wide when soil parameters much more sensitive to changes in the ratio of horizontal to
appropriate for London Clay were included in the soil vertical Youngs modulus (defined as n9 E9h =E9v ) than
models. Their study also showed that modelling soil aniso- observed in the 2D study by Addenbrooke et al. (1997).
tropy did not significantly improve the results when realistic However, Lee & Ng (2002) adopted a linear elastic perfectly
soil parameters were adopted. Similar conclusions were plastic soil model in contrast to the non-linear elastic
perfectly plastic constitutive model adopted by Addenbrooke
et al. (1997). Moreover, the tunnel diameter D and the
Manuscript received 13 June 2004; revised manuscript accepted 29 tunnel depth z0 were different in the two studies.
November 2004.
Discussion on this paper closes on 3 October 2005, for further
The statement by Lee & Ng (2002) that 3D FE modelling
details see p. ii. leads to better surface settlement predictions than corre-
* Geotechnical Consulting Group, London; formerly Imperial sponding 2D analyses is in sharp contrast to the findings of
College of Science, Technology and Medicine, London. several other authors. Guedes & Santos Pereira (2000)
Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, London. presented a suite of FE studies (adopting an elastic soil

model) that showed that, for both K0 0.5 and 1.5, 3D and Reduced integration was used, with an accelerated modified
2D analyses give similar transverse surface settlement NewtonRaphson solution scheme with an error-controlled
troughs. Similar conclusions were drawn by Dolezalova substepping stress point algorithm for solving the non-linear
(2002), who used both a linear elastic perfectly plastic and a FE equations. All analyses were performed undrained,
non-linear elastic perfectly plastic constitutive model for the although the soil models applied are formulated in terms of
soil. Vermeer et al. (2002) presented results from linear drained parameters. Undrained conditions were enforced by
elastic perfectly plastic analyses that showed that the trans- using a high bulk modulus for the pore water (Potts &
verse settlement profile obtained from 3D analysis is similar Zdravkovic, 1999, 2001).
to that from a corresponding 2D study. They also showed
that in the longitudinal direction the tunnel has to be
constructed over a certain length in order to achieve a Geometry
steady-state settlement condition behind the tunnel face (i.e. Figure 1 shows the 3D finite element mesh for the Jubilee
settlement caused by the immediate undrained response). For Line Extension westbound tunnel beneath St Jamess Park,
their particular analysis with K0 0.66 the tunnel had to be London. This was the first of the twin tunnels to be
constructed over 80 m (10D) to achieve a sufficient distance constructed beneath the St Jamess Park greenfield measure-
from the vertical start boundary. Steady-state settlement ment site (Standing et al., 1996). The tunnel diameter D was
developed approximately 5D behind the tunnel face. 4.75 m and the tunnel depth z0 was approximately 30.5 m.
This paper investigates the differences between 3D and The subsequent construction of the eastbound tunnel was not
2D modelling on the prediction of tunnel-induced ground included in the analyses described here.
surface settlement troughs when varying soil anisotropy and
K0 . The analyses presented here are similar to the plane
strain study presented by Addenbrooke et al. (1997), which Modelling of tunnel excavation
compared results from numerical analysis with field observa- For the 3D analyses the tunnel was excavated in the
tions from the Jubilee Line Extension at St Jamess Park, negative y-direction, starting from y 0 m (see Fig. 1). Only
London. For K0 1.5 both isotropic and transversely aniso- half of the problem was modelled, as the geometry is
tropic non-linear elastic perfectly plastic soil models have symmetrical. On all vertical sides of the mesh normal
been adopted. The transverse surface settlement troughs horizontal movements were restrained, whereas for the base
from the 3D analyses are compared with corresponding 2D of the mesh movements in all directions were restricted. The
results and field data. Finally a K0 0.5 initial stress regime mesh shown in Fig. 1 consisted of 10 125 20-node hexadron
is incorporated in the study to highlight the significance of elements which had 45 239 nodes. For the 2D analyses the
the magnitude of the coefficient of lateral earth pressure at mesh in the x-z plane was adopted, and the soil was
rest on the predicted shape of the ground surface settlement modelled by 8-node quadrilateral elements.
trough. In the two-dimensional analyses tunnel excavation was
modelled using the volume loss method (see Potts &
Zdravkovic, 2001). The volume loss VL quantifies the
DETAILS OF ANALYSIS amount of over-excavation and is defined as the ratio of the
All FE analyses presented in this paper were carried out difference between the volume of excavated soil and the
using the Imperial College Finite Element Program (ICFEP). tunnel volume (defined by the tunnels outer diameter)

(x 0 m) Transverse
(y 50 m)

305 m

55 m

Tunnel diameter 475 m

80 m

Fig. 1. FE mesh for 3D analyses of tunnel excavation beneath St Jamess Park greenfield monitoring site
divided by the tunnel volume. Under undrained conditions an open face excavation procedure was adopted. Nyren
VL can also be obtained by dividing the volume (per running (1998) reports a maximum reach of the backhoe in advance
metre) of the surface settlement trough by the tunnel volume of the tunnel shield cutting edge of 1.9 m.
(per running metre). In London Clay values of VL between
1% and 2% have been reported by several authors (Attewell
& Farmer, 1974; OReilly & New, 1982). However, the Initial stress profile
volume loss measured during construction of the Jubilee The ground profile consisted of London Clay with a
Line Extension beneath St Jamess Park was higher. Standing saturated bulk unit weight of 20 kN/m3 . This is a
et al. (1996) reported a value of VL 3.3% for the construc- simplification compared with the work of Addenbrooke et
tion of the westbound tunnel, which is addressed in this al. (1997), who modelled the layers of Thames Gravel and
paper. Sand overlaying the clay. Comparison plane strain analyses
In the 2D analyses the tunnel was excavated over 15 were performed to assess the influence of this change in soil
increments. This was done by evaluating the stresses that act layering on the surface settlement behaviour. It was found
on the tunnel boundary within the soil and applying them in that modelling the gravel and the sand led to slightly
the reverse direction over the 15 increments. Elements with- narrower transverse settlement troughs.
in the tunnel boundary were not included in the analyses A constant value of the coefficient of lateral earth pres-
during this procedure. After each increment the volume loss sure at rest of K0 1.5 was applied during the first analyses.
was calculated and results were taken from that increment in Later, K0 0.5 was also considered. The value of K0 1.5
which the desired volume loss (i.e. VL  3.3%) was was given as an upper bound value by Hight & Higgins
achieved. (1995) for London Clay at a depth between 10 m and 30 m
The step-by-step approach (Katzenbach & Breth, 1981) below the ground surface. At St Jamess Park layers of
adopted in the 3D analyses was not volume loss controlled. Thames Gravel and Sand have been deposited on top of the
In this approach, excavation is modelled by successive London Clay in recent geological time. This has the effect
removal of elements in front of the tunnel while successively of reducing K0 at the top of the soil profile. Addenbrooke et
installing lining elements behind the tunnel face. The tunnel al. (1997) modelled a lower value of K0 0.5 in the gravel
lining was modelled by elastic shell elements (Schroeder, and the sand. Comparing the different initial stress profiles
2003) with a Youngs modulus of 28 3 106 kN/m2 , a Pois- in a set of plane strain analyses showed only marginal
sons ratio of 0.15, and a thickness of 0.168 m. influence in the choice of K0 in the top layer. It is the value
As noted above, in contrast to the 2D analyses there was of K0 at tunnel depth that has the major influence on the
no volume loss control in the 3D analyses. Specification of a surface settlements. Consequently the simplification of
certain volume loss to be achieved during the tunnel excava- adopting a constant value of K0 is unlikely to have a major
tion would require further assumptions, such as modelling influence on the results. A hydrostatic pore water pressure
the tunnelling technique in more detail. In the excavation distribution was prescribed, with a water table 2 m below the
model presented in this paper the magnitude of VL depends ground surface. Above the water table pore water suctions
on the excavation length Lexc , which is the length over which were specified. In all analyses the soil was modelled to
soil elements within the tunnel boundary are removed in behave undrained, by specifying effective stress soil para-
each excavation step. Over this length the soil around the meters and a high value of the bulk stiffness of the pore
tunnel boundary remains unsupported. Increasing Lexc leads water.
to higher values of VL . The choice of Lexc has serious
consequences for the computational resources (storage and
time) needed. For a given tunnel length to be modelled a SOIL MODEL
reduction in Lexc not only increases the number of elements Isotropic model
within the entire mesh but also requires more excavation The London Clay was represented by a non-linear elasto-
steps. plastic model that was also included in the study presented
For the analyses presented here the excavation length was by Addenbrooke et al. (1997). The model described by
set to Lexc 2.5 m, and therefore 40 excavation steps were Jardine et al. (1986) was used to model the non-linear
required to model the tunnel construction over a length of elastic pre-yield behaviour, and the yield surface and the
100 m (21.0D), as shown in Fig. 1. The distance in the plastic potential were described by a MohrCoulomb model.
longitudinal direction from the tunnel face to the remote The non-linear elastic model accounts for the reduction of
vertical boundary after the last excavation step was 55 m soil stiffness with strain. Trigonometric expressions describe
(11.5D). The mesh dimensions and the value of Lexc were G/p9 and K/p9 as a function of shear strain Ed and volu-
chosen after performing a number of analyses in which these metric strain v respectively in the non-linear region. G is
measures were varied (see Franzius, 2004). From this study the tangent shear modulus, K is the tangent bulk modulus,
it was concluded that the dimensions used in this paper and p9 is the mean effective stress. The non-linear region is
provided the best compromise between mesh size and a defined by maximum and minimum values of shear and
reasonable computational time (typical analyses took 15 days volumetric strain. More details of this model and the soil
to run on a Sun SF880 server). Furthermore, by varying Lexc parameters used are given in Appendix 1.
between 2.5 m and 2 m Franzius (2004) demonstrated that
similar surface settlement and horizontal surface strains were
obtained when normalising results against volume loss. Not- Anisotropic model
ing that a Lexc 2.0 m analysis took approximately 50% A new constitutive model was implemented into ICFEP to
more calculation time than the 2.5 m analysis, it was decided combine the transversely anisotropic stiffness formulation of
that it was not possible to model a more realistic (i.e. Graham & Houlsby (1983) with the non-linear stiffness
smaller) value of Lexc , and it was therefore not attempted to behaviour described above. It has been shown that transver-
simulate the actual tunnelling technique applied during the sely anisotropic material behaviour is fully described by five
construction of this part of the Jubilee Line Extension. In independent material parameters (Pickering, 1970): Ev , the
practice the value of Lexc is unlikely to be less than the vertical Youngs modulus; Eh , the horizontal Youngs mod-
width of the segmental lining (1000 mm), but its actual ulus; vh , the Poissons ratio for horizontal strain due to
value is likely to be larger, and depends on workmanship, as vertical strain; hh , the Poissons ratio for horizontal strain
due to horizontal strain in the orthogonal direction; and Gvh , Eh Gvh
n and m (2)
the shear modulus in the vertical plane. Ev Ev
Graham & Houlsby (1983) showed that only three of
these material parameters can be obtained from conventional
triaxial tests, as no shear stress can be applied to the sample. are often used. Similar expressions are defined for drained
They introduced a material model that uses only three stiffness properties. A relation between the drained and
parameters, namely Ev , hh , and an anisotropic scale para- undrained ratios is given by Hooper (1975). Lee & Rowe
meter that relates the remaining material properties as: (1989) showed that m influences the shape of the transverse
settlement trough. For K0 0.5 they concluded that a ratio
r of m 0.20.25 produced a reasonable match between FE
Eh hh Ghh
(1) results and centrifuge tests. Field data for London Clay
Ev vh Gvh summarised by Gibson (1974), however, give a ratio of
approximately m 0.38. In the same publication a ratio of
undrained Youngs moduli of n 1.84 is reported.
where Ghh is the shear modulus in the horizontal plane. Addenbrooke et al. (1997) included a transversely anisotro-
To implement this form of anisotropy into ICFEP, it was pic model in their 2D study. The anisotropic parameters in
combined with a small-strain formulation reducing the ver- that study were chosen to match field data reported by
tical Youngs modulus Ev with increasing deviatoric strain Burland & Kalra (1986) giving drained ratios of n9 1.6
(within the strain limits Ed,min and Ed,max defining the non- and m9 0.44 with 9vh 0:125 and 9hh 0:0. The
linear range). As an additional option the value of can be equivalent undrained ratios can be calculated to be n 1.41
varied linearly with strain level from its anisotropic value at and m 0.3 using the relations given by Hooper (1975).
Ed,min to the isotropic case of 1.0 at Ed,max . Appendix 2 Two parameter sets referred to as set 1 and set 2 were
presents more details of this soil model. Although this model applied to the anisotropic model. Table 1 summarises the
describes stiffness anisotropy, the strength parameters were ratios n9, m9, n and m for these sets. They were calculated
kept isotropic. Two parameter sets, referred to as set 1 and for small strains (i.e. Ed , Ed,min ), as they change with strain
set 2 and summarised in Table 1, were included in the level. The material parameters (listed in Table 3) were
analyses presented here. A further set (set 2v) adopted a derived from the isotropic model (Table 2) such that E9v
variable . The different parameter sets will be discussed in reduces with increasing , compared with the Youngs
the following section. modulus used in the isotropic model. The parameters were
chosen in order to obtain similar stressstrain curves when
simulating triaxial extension tests with the different materials
(as outlined below). Of the two parameter sets, the first one
Anisotropic material parameters represents a degree of anisotropy that is appropriate for
When using anisotropic soil parameters, the undrained London Clay. In contrast, the second set incorporates an
ratios extremely high degree of anisotropy, and is therefore more
of academic interest than for use in engineering practice.
In the first set, 1.265 was chosen to match the
Table 1. Stiffness ratios for the two sets of anisotropic soil
drained ratio of n9 adopted by Addenbrooke et al. (1997). A
Poissons ratio of 9hh 0:4 was adopted in order to
Isotropic model Anisotropic model achieve a ratio of m9 0.46, which is close to that used by
Set 1 Set 2 Addenbrooke et al. (1997) (0.44). Owing to the coupling of
the anisotropic stiffness parameters through the scale factor
n9 1.00 1.60 6.25
m9 0.55 0.46 1.14
(see equation (1)) the ratios n and m derived for set 1
n 1.00 1.18 1.66 differ slightly from those applied in the study of
m 0.33 0.33 0.28 Addenbrooke et al. (1997), where E9v , E9h , 9hh , 9vh and Gvh
were independent. The undrained ratio of n 1.18 is lower

Table 2. Input parameters for isotropic pre-yield model (M1)

A B C: %  Ed,min : % Ed,max : % Gmin : kPa
373.3 338.7 .
1 0 3 104 .
1 335 .
0 617 .
8 66025 3 104 0.69282 2333.3
R S T: %   v,min : % v,max : % Kmin : kPa
549.0 506.0 .
1 0 3 103 .
2 069 .
0 42 5 3 10 3
0.15 3000.0

Table 3. Input parameters for anisotropic pre-yield model (M2)

Parameter set 1
Aa Ba C: %  Ed,min : % Ed,max : % Ev,min : kPa 9hh
373.3 338.7 1.0 3 104 1.335 0.617 8.66 3 104 0.69282 5558.8 1.265 0.4
Parameter set 2 and set 2v
Aa Ba C: %  Ed,min : % Ed,max : % Ev,min : kPa 9hh
308.8 280.2 .
1 0 3 104 .
1 335 .
0 617 .
8 66 3 104 0.69282 5558.8 .
25 0.1
than n 1.41, which was calculated from their parameters. corresponds to the upper limit of non-linear elastic behav-
It is also below the value of n 1.84 given by Gibson iour of Ed,max 0.69%. Different curves are given for
(1974). In contrast the ratio m 0.33 is higher than in the deviatoric stress q and excess pore water pressure u. It can
work of Addenbrooke et al. (1997) and closer to the value be seen that for ax < 0.3% the isotropic analysis and that
of 0.38 reported by Gibson (1974) for London Clay. based on the anisotropic parameter set 1 are in very good
The second set was chosen in order to reduce the un- agreement with the laboratory data, whereas that based on
drained ratio m close to a value adopted by Lee & Rowe parameter set 2 slightly over-predicts the data. The pore
(1989) and bringing n close to the ratio reported by Gibson water pressure curves in this plot highlight the anisotropic
(1974). This was achieved by increasing the anisotropy behaviour of parameter sets 1 and 2 (note: no laboratory
factor to 2.5. Such a high value for London Clay is not data were available). Higher excess pore pressure is gener-
supported by any literature. Both Simpson et al. (1996) and ated owing to the coupling of deviatoric and volumetric
Jovicic & Coop (1998) reported ratios of approximately Ghh / strains, in contrast to isotropic behaviour, where volumetric
Gvh 1.5. The results of this parameter set can be seen, strain and therefore changes in pore water pressure are
however, as an extreme example of how anisotropy affects induced only by changes in p9 whereas deviatoric strain is
tunnel-induced settlement predictions. caused only by changes in q.
If, in the anisotropic model, the vertical Youngs modulus This coupling is further illustrated in Fig. 3, which shows
E9v was set to a similar magnitude as in the isotropic model the stress paths obtained during the single element analyses
(calculated from K9 and G for very small strains), E9h for the different soil models. For the isotropic model the
would be increased by 2 , hence leading to an overall path is vertical (showing no change in mean effective stress
stiffer behaviour. In order to obtain a similar overall p9) until it reaches the MohrCoulomb yield surface. For
stiffness response of the anisotropic model compared with the anisotropic model p9 changes during the tests, leading to
the isotropic one, E9v has to be reduced. The input para- inclined stress paths before the yield surface is reached. The
meters Aa and Ba listed in Table 3 for the anisotropic figure also includes the stress path for an additional analysis
model were chosen in order to give a similar response to with the same input parameters as set 2 but with being
the isotropic model when used to simulate the behaviour of varied linearly with deviatoric strain from 2.5 at Ed,min to
an ideal undrained triaxial extension test. These tests were 1.0 at Ed,max . It can be seen that the stress path from this
simulated in a single-element FE analysis by prescribing analysis (referred to as set 2v) initially shows an anisotropic
vertical displacement at the top of the element (i.e. they response but then becomes vertical.
were strain controlled). The initial stress state within the
sample was isotropic, with p9 750 kPa. Fig. 2 presents
stressstrain curves from these tests. The deviatoric stress,
defined as 0

q  ax   r (3)
where ax and r are the axial and radial stress in the sample
respectively, is plotted against the axial strain ax . Note that
q: kPa

the values of q in the plots are negative, as triaxial extension 26000

has been considered. The results from the isotropic model
are referred to as M1, and M2 denotes the anisotropic M1
results. Laboratory data reported by Addenbrooke et al. 29000 M2, set 1
(1997) are also shown. M2, set 2
M2, set 2v ( variable)
Figure 2(a) shows the strain up to ax 0.01%. For this 212000
strain range the results of the anisotropic parameter set 2 0 3000 6000 9000 12000 15000
coincide with the those from the isotropic model. The p: kPa
results of the anisotropic parameter set 1 are in slightly
better agreement with the laboratory data. Fig. 2(b) presents Fig. 3. Stress paths for isotropic (M1) and anisotropic (M2,
the results for a strain range up to ax 0.4%, which constant and variable) soil models

2600 25000 5000

M1 M1, q
M2, set 1 M2, set 1, q
2500 M2, set 2 M2, set 2, q
Test data 24000 Test data, q 4000
M1, u
2400 M2, set 1, u
23000 M2, set 2, u 3000
q: kPa

q: kPa

u: kPa

22000 2000

21000 1000

0 0 00
0 0002 0004 0006 0008 0010 0 01 02 03 04
Axial strain: % Axial strain: %
(a) (b)

Fig. 2. Stressstrain curves for isotropic (M1) and anisotropic (M2) soil models subjected to triaxial extension
tests: (a) strain range up to ax 0.01%; (b) strain range up to ax 0.4%
Settlement profiles from the 3D analyses are presented

Normalised settlement, S v /S v,max

along a longitudinal monitoring profile above the tunnel
centre line and along a transverse monitoring profile at
y 50 m, as indicated in Fig. 1. Initially a 3D analysis
was performed with the isotropic soil model and K0 1.5.
The development of the longitudinal settlement profile as the VL S v,max
tunnel heading is advancing is shown in Fig. 4. Different 2D, inc. 8 17% 5 mm
08 3D, y 5 250 m
curves are given for every 10 m of tunnel progress. The 12% 4 mm
2D, inc. 12 33% 10 mm
position of the tunnel face for each curve is indicated by an 10 3D, y 5 2100 m 21% 6 mm
arrow. This figure demonstrates that initially the settlement Field data (set 22) 16% 12 mm
Field data (set 29) 33% 20 mm
trough has a similar shape to that of the cumulative error 12
curve, which is often applied to describe the longitudinal 0 200 400 600 800 1000
settlement behaviour (Attewell & Woodmann, 1982). How- x-Coordinate (transverse): m
ever, with further tunnel excavation, and in particular when
the tunnel face reaches approximately y 80 m, the settle- Fig. 5. Transverse normalised settlement profiles for different
ment does not continue to follow this anticipated trend. stages of isotropic 2D and 3D analyses together with field data
Instead the profile indicates that some reverse curvature is
developing at approximately y 60 m (as indicated in the field data from the St Jamess Park monitoring site (Standing
figure). et al., 1996; Nyren, 1998). Field data are given for the
However, the main concern that is evident from Fig. 4 is tunnel face being just beneath the monitoring profile (re-
that for all stages of excavation additional settlement occurs ferred to as set 22) and for a distance between tunnel face
over the whole mesh length. One would expect that, once and monitoring section of 41 m (set 29). Nyren (1998)
the tunnel heading had reached a certain y-position, there reports no further short-term settlement after this survey.
would be no further settlement remote from the tunnel face These results therefore represent the end of the immediate
as a result of any additional tunnel excavation (note: only settlement response. Comparing the two sets of field data
the short-term response is considered in the undrained FE shows that the shape of the settlement trough does not
analysis). It can be seen in Fig. 4 that such a steady-state change as the tunnel face moves away from the monitoring
settlement condition is not established during the analysis. section. The 3D FE results included in this figure are taken
There is still additional settlement at the y 0 m boundary from the increment when the tunnel face was just beneath
when the tunnel is excavated from y 90 m to 100 m. the transverse monitoring section at y 50 m and for the
Also, the remote boundary at y 155 m settles over the largest possible distance between tunnel face (y 100 m)
whole analysis, although settlements for the first few incre- and monitoring section of 50 m corresponding to the last
ments are negligible on an engineering scale. The additional increment of the analysis. The figure also includes results
settlement over the whole mesh length obtained in the last from a similar 2D analysis where the results were taken
increments of the analysis indicates that the longitudinal from increments where volume losses were close to those
distance from the last excavation step to both the start and calculated from the field data (as listed in the figure). It can
remote vertical boundaries is too small to obtain steady-state be seen that all curves obtained from the FE analyses,
conditions. An increase in the longitudinal dimension of the regardless of whether 2D or 3D, are very similar, indicating
mesh, however, would lead to excessive computational time, that 3D effects cannot account for the discrepancy between
and therefore could have been achieved only in combination plane strain results and field data. The results also show that
with a drastic increase of element size within the transverse in the FE analysis the shape of the settlement trough does
mesh plane, leading to a substantial loss in accuracy. It not change with VL (or face position) over a certain range of
should be noted that the longitudinal dimension of the FE VL. Similar conclusions were drawn by Potts & Addenbrooke
mesh used here and shown in Fig. 1 is considerably larger (1997) when analysing tunnel-induced building deformation.
than in most 3D studies recently published by other authors
(e.g. Dolezalova, 2002; Lee & Ng, 2002; Vermeer et al.,
Figure 5 presents transverse settlement profiles normalised Initially a set of 2D FE analyses were performed with the
against maximum settlement, and compares the results with anisotropic soil model. In all cases an initial stress regime

10 3 10

20 3 1023
Vertical settlement: m

30 3 1023 Position of tunnel face

y 5 210 m
40 3 10 y 5 220 m
y 5 230 m
50 3 1023 y 5 240 m
y 5 250 m
60 3 1023 y 5 260 m
y 5 270 m
y 5 280 m Reverse
70 3 1023 y 5 290 m Soil model M1 (isotropic)
K 0 = 15 curvature
y 5 2100 m
80 3 1023
21600 21400 21200 21000 2800 2600 2400 2200 0
y-Coordinate (longitudinal): m

Fig. 4. Longitudinal settlement profiles from isotropic 3D analysis

0 the choice of . This parameter choice also leads to a lower
value of Gvh (compared with the isotropic shear modulus),
Normalised settlement, S v /S v, max

whereas Ghh increases with the degree of anisotropy. Para-
meter sets 2 and 2v show initially the same stiffness proper-
ties. However, as the deviatoric strain increases from Ed,min
to Ed,max , the reduction of leads to an additional decrease
of E9h and Ghh with deviatoric strain compared with that
inc. VL S v,max
obtained for the constant- case. When the material with
M1 12 33% 10 mm
M2 set 1, const. 10 31% 10 mm variable becomes isotropic at Ed,max it shows softer
10 M2 set 2, const. 10 31% 13 mm stiffness properties than the corresponding isotropic material
M2 set 2v, variable 9 36% 15 mm (M1). During tunnel excavation the largest strains occur
Field data, set 29 33% 20 mm
12 close to the tunnel. The material with variable therefore
0 200 400 600 800 1000 behaves as softer in this region, which explains the narrow
x-Coordinate (transverse): m settlement trough.
The figure demonstrates that even the narrowest settlement
Fig. 6. Transverse normalised settlement profiles for isotropic trough obtained from the FE analysis is still too wide when
(M1) and anisotropic (M2) soil models compared with field data. As parameter set 2v gave the best
results of all plane strain analyses shown in Fig. 6 it was
adopted in a 3D greenfield analysis. The boundary condi-
with K0 1.5 was adopted. Fig. 6 shows the normalised tions of the 3D mesh were the same as described previously
transverse ground settlement troughs for these analyses taken for the isotropic 3D model.
from increments that achieved a volume loss of approxi- Figure 7 shows the development of longitudinal settlement
mately VL 3.3% (as listed in Fig. 6). This amount of profiles during this 3D analysis (K0 1.5). Comparing this
volume loss was obtained from the field data for a tunnel figure with the isotropic results of Fig. 4 it can be seen that
face position approximately 41 m beyond the monitoring the anisotropic 3D analysis yielded settlement values that
section (which were previously included in Fig. 5 and are nearly one order of magnitude higher than those ob-
labelled set 29). The figure also lists the increments in tained with the isotropic model. Such behaviour is consistent
which the desired volume loss was achieved. These incre- with the 2D results presented in Fig. 6, in which results
ment numbers show that, for the anisotropic analyses, vo- were presented for earlier increments than in the isotropic
lume losses in the range 3.13.6% were obtained in analyses in order to achieve similar volume losses (i.e. the
increment 10 (of 15 excavation steps) for constant and variation in percentage of unloading, indicated by the differ-
increment 9 for variable . In contrast, results for the ent increments in Fig. 6, is consistent with the observed
isotropic analysis are presented for increment 12. This trend of the variation of volume loss in the 3D analyses).
indicates that, when comparing same stages in the analysis However, as discussed earlier, the higher volume losses are
(i.e. same percentage of unloading), the anisotropic model unlikely to affect the normalised shapes of the settlement
predicts higher values of VL . Values of maximum settlement troughs.
are also listed in the figure. The maximum settlement The general shape of the longitudinal settlement troughs
obtained for parameter set 1 is 10 mm and lies close to the during the initial stages of tunnel excavation is similar for
maximum settlement (approx. 12 mm, VL 3.2%) obtained both isotropic and anisotropic analyses. The reverse curva-
by Addenbrooke et al. (1997) in their anisotropic analysis ture behind the tunnel face developing from a face position
with similar ratios of n9 and m9. of approximately y 60 m is magnified in the anisotropic
Comparing the settlement curve for the isotropic model analysis.
with those for the anisotropic parameter sets 1 and 2 (with a Previously it was shown that a high degree of anisotropy
constant value of ) shows that the surface settlement trough leads to a narrower transverse settlement trough. A similar
becomes narrower with increasing degree of anisotropy. effect would be expected for the longitudinal curve, and
Adopting a variable (parameter set 2v) improves the settle- comparison of Figs 4 and 7 indicate that this is so. With a
ment curve further. The reason for this behaviour is the fact narrower and steeper trough steady-state conditions should
that the anisotropic parameters were chosen such that E9v develop earlier than for the wide trough obtained from the
was reduced (compared with the isotropic Youngs modulus isotropic analysis. However, no steady-state conditions are
for very small strains) whereas E9h increased according to reached in Fig. 7.

10 3 1022
Vertical settlement: m

20 3 1022
Position of tunnel face
y 5 210 m
30 3 10 y 5 220 m
y 5 230 m
y 5 240 m
40 3 1022 y 5 250 m
y 5 260 m
y 5 270 m
50 3 1022 y 5 280 m
y 5 290 m Soil model M2 set 2v (anisotropic)
y 5 2100 m K 0 5 15 curvature
60 3 10
21600 21400 21200 21000 2800 2600 2400 2200 0
y-Coordinate (longitudinal): m

Fig. 7. Longitudinal settlement profile from anisotropic 3D analysis

The zone of reversed curvature behind the tunnel face the settlement at this point does not change: that is, steady-
forms a settlement crater at the vertical starting boundary (at state settlement develops. However, comparing the magni-
y 0 m). This arises because, owing to the symmetry condi- tude of settlement developing during this analysis with the
tion at the start boundary, tunnel construction essentially settlement values obtained in the anisotropic K0 1.5 analy-
commences simultaneously in both the negative and positive sis reveals high values of settlement. At steady-state condi-
y-directions (although only the negative y-part is modelled). tions the settlement above the tunnel centre line is 85.8 mm.
A similar longitudinal settlement profile, including this This is high compared with field data, where a steady-state
settlement crater, was presented by Vermeer et al. (2002), settlement of approximately 20 mm developed. The volume
who performed 3D analyses for a K0 0.65 situation. loss for the anisotropic K0 0.5 is therefore significantly
Applying an isotropic elasto-plastic soil model, they showed higher than that observed in field measurements:
that steady-state conditions were established approximately VL 18.1% compared with 3.3%. It is clear that such a high
5D behind the face after the tunnel was constructed over a volume loss is unacceptable engineering practice. However,
length of approximately 10D (with a tunnel diameter the results highlight the two effects that a reduction of
D 8 m and z0 16 m). The present analysis indicates that K0 has on tunnel-induced surface settlement. It has been
a much greater length of tunnel is required to reach steady- noted by other authors that in a low-K0 regime the transverse
state conditions in a high-K0 regime. settlement trough is narrower (Dolezalova, 2002) owing to
smaller lateral stress at tunnel depth. Such an effect is also
evident when normalising the longitudinal settlement profiles
INFLUENCE OF K0 of the different analyses and comparing them with normal-
The anisotropic 3D analysis was repeated with K0 0.5 ised field data. Fig. 9 shows such a plot. The FE results are
in order to investigate at which state of the analysis steady- normalised against the settlement at y 50 m, for which
state behaviour develops in a low-K0 regime. Fig. 8 shows Fig. 8 indicated steady-state conditions for the anisotropic
the development of longitudinal surface settlement profiles. K0 0.5 analysis. For consistency the same normalisation
It can be seen that points close to the start boundary settle was applied to the corresponding results from the other 3D
during the first excavation steps but then show small values analyses (also including an isotropic K0 0.5 case),
of heave. It is interesting to note that no settlement crater as although no steady-state settlement conditions were achieved
observed for the K0 1.5 case developed in this analysis. there. The field data from St Jamess Park, London (Nyren,
More importantly, a horizontal plane of vertical settlement 1998), are normalised against maximum settlement and are
emerges at about y 40 m after a face position of plotted such that the face position corresponds to
y 80 m was reached. As tunnel construction continues, y 100 m to compare them with the FE results. The figure

20 3 1022
Vertical settlement: m

40 3 1022 Position of tunnel face

y 5 210 m
y 5 220 m
y 5 230 m
60 3 1022 y 5 240 m
y 5 250 m
y 5 260 m
80 3 1022 y 5 270 m
y 5 280m
y 5 290 m Soil model M2 set 2v (anisotropic)
y 5 2100 m K 0 = 05
10 3 1021
21600 21400 21200 21000 2800 2600 2400 2200 0
y-Coordinate (longitudinal): m

Fig. 8. Longitudinal settlement profile from anisotropic 3D analysis with K0 0.5

S v at
02 normalisation
Normalized settlement, S V /S V,250m


04 Isotrop (M1), K 0 5 15 62 mm
Anisotrop (M2, set 2v), K 0 5 15 435 mm
Isotrop (M1), K 0 5 05 124 mm
06 Anisotrop (M2, set 2v), K 0 5 05 858 mm
Field data 203 mm



21600 21400 21200 21000 2800 2600 2400 2200 0
y-Coordinate (longitudinal): m

Fig. 9. Normalised longitudinal settlement profile at end of analyses compared with field data
shows that the normalised anisotropic results for K0 0.5 K0 on the tunnel-induced ground settlement trough. The 3D
have a shape similar to that of the normalised field data. All excavation process was modelled by successive removal of
other settlement troughs are too wide, with the isotropic elements in front of the tunnel while successively installing
K0 1.5 analysis giving the widest trough. lining elements behind the tunnel face.
A low value of K0 , however, influences not only the shape In a first step the London Clay was modelled by a non-
but also the magnitude of settlement, as listed in Fig. 9. linear elasto-plastic isotropic soil model and a coefficient of
Decreasing K0 reduces the mean effective stress p9 around lateral earth pressure at rest of K0 1.5. Comparing 3D
the tunnel. Both the isotropic and the anisotropic non-linear with 2D results showed that 3D modelling has a negligible
pre-yield models normalise the soil stiffness against p9. A effect on the shape of the transverse surface settlement
low K0 value therefore shows a reduction of soil stiffness trough, which remained too wide when compared with field
compared with high-K0 situations. This reduction of stiffness data. In the longitudinal direction the surface settlement
around the tunnel results in an increase in volume loss. trough did not develop steady-state settlement conditions.
Combining K0 0.5 with an extreme (and unrealistic) aniso- The curve extended too far when compared with field data.
tropic scale factor of 2.5 leads to a longitudinal settle- Settlement was obtained on the vertical boundaries during
ment profile that shows steady-state settlement behind the the entire analysis, although the total length of tunnel
tunnel face, but also results in an unsatisfactory degree of construction was chosen as 21.0D. Such mesh dimensions
volume loss, which is further demonstrated in Fig. 10. This are considerably larger than most FE models used in
graph compares the transverse settlement troughs at the end recently published studies. Soil anisotropy was included in
of the 3D analyses (from the anisotropic model M2, set 2v, the study to investigate whether this additional soil charac-
K0 0.5, the isotropic model M1 with K0 1.5) with their teristic could improve results. Plane strain results showed
2D counterparts and with the field data (set 29). The graph little improvement in the transverse trough when a level of
indicates that the 2D analysis with the anisotropic model anisotropy appropriate for London Clay was adopted. The
and with K0 0.5 coincides well with the field measure- transverse settlement trough improved when an unrealisti-
ments. However, this analysis is volume loss controlled, and, cally high degree of anisotropy was included. With this high
as pointed out above, this parameter set is not realistic for level of anisotropy a 3D analysis was carried out. The
London Clay. Furthermore, this model is not applicable in longitudinal profile of this analysis was still too wide when
3D analysis as it results in an unrealistic value of volume compared with field data, although it was steeper than the
loss, and hence exceeds the maximum measured settlement settlement curve obtained from the isotropic analysis. This
by more than four times. Applying an isotropic model with analysis was then repeated with a low value of K0 0.5.
K0 1.5, in contrast, predicts too small a maximum settle- Only this combination of a high degree of anisotropy and a
ment that is only one third (3D analysis) or half (2D) of the low K0 , both unreasonable assumptions for London Clay,
field measurements. The results of the other analyses are not produced steady-state settlement conditions at the end of the
shown in the diagram but lie within the range of settlement analysis. The magnitude of settlement, however, was too
curves presented in Fig. 10. high, as unrealistically high values of volume loss developed
The wide range in volume losses observed in this study during the analysis.
shows that both 3D modelling and anisotropy do not resolve The study demonstrates that incorporation of 3D model-
the problem that numerical analysis predicts settlement ling and elastic soil anisotropy in the prediction of tunnel-
troughs that are too wide when compared with field data. It induced ground surface settlement in London Clay does not
furthermore demonstrates the difficulty in modelling 3D significantly improve the settlement profile. Adopting realis-
tunnelling. As pointed out earlier, the high volume losses tic soil parameters brings only marginal improvements, and
are also a result of the chosen excavation length adopting an extreme case of soil anisotropy can lead to
Lexc 2.5 m. Owing to computational resources at the time excessive values of volume loss. This indicates that neither
of the analyses it was not possible to reduce this value of 3D effects nor elastic soil anisotropy can account for the
Lexc . With increasing computational power a refined 3D over-wide settlement curves obtained from FE tunnel analy-
tunnelling model should be addressed in future research. sis in a high-K0 regime.


A suite of 2D and 3D FE analyses was performed to The non-linear elastic model (Jardine et al., 1986) describes the
investigate the influence of 3D effects, soil anisotropy and secant soil stiffness as depending on strain level using a
trigonometric expression. To use this model in a finite element
analysis, the secant expressions are differentiated and then normal-
ised against mean effective stress, giving the following tangent
values (Potts & Zdravkovic, 1999):
20 3 1022  
G BX 1 Ed
Vertical settlement: m

A B cosX  sin X
with X log 10 p

p9 2:303 3C
40 3 1022
60 3 1022 K9 SY j j
R S cos Y   sin Y  with Y log10
VL : %
M2 set 2v, 2D, K 0 5 05 35 p9 2:303 T
M2 set 2v, 3D, K 0 5 05 181 (5)
80 3 1022 M1, 2D, K 0 5 15 33
M1, 3D, K 0 5 15 21
Field data, set 29 33 where G and K9 are the tangent shear and bulk moduli respectively,
10 3 1021 p9 is the mean effective stress, Ed is the deviatoric strain invariant,
0 200 400 600 800 and v is the volumetric strain. A, B, C, R, S, T, , , , and  are
x-Coordinate (transverse): m constants, which are listed in Table 2. Ed,max, Ed,min , v,max and v,min
define strain limits above or below which the stiffness varies only
Fig. 10. Transverse settlement profiles of isotropic and aniso- with p9 and not with strain. Minimum values of tangent shear and
tropic 2D and 3D analyses compared with field data bulk moduli are given by Gmin and K9min respectively.
The transversely anisotropic formulation by Graham & Houlsby r radial stress
(1983) was combined with a small-strain behaviour based on the  angle of shearing resistance
isotropic model described in Appendix 1. The tangent vertical angle of dilation
Youngs modulus E9v is expressed as 9 index denoting effective parameter
E9v Ba X 1
Aa Ba cos X  sin X
p9 6:909
with X log10 p (6) Addenbrooke, T. I., Potts, D. M. & Puzrin, A. M. (1997). The
influence of pre-failure soil stiffness on the numerical analysis
where p9 is the mean effective stress and Ed is the deviatoric strain of tunnel construction. Geotechnique 47, No. 3, 693712.
invariant. The input parameters given in Table 3 are the same as Attewell, P. B. & Farmer, I. W. (1974). Ground deformations
used for the isotropic shear modulus in equation (4) apart from the resulting from tunnelling in London Clay. Can. Geotech. J. 11,
values of Aa and Ba , which were chosen to be different from A and No. 3, 380395.
B. With the anisotropic scale parameter and the Poissons ratio 9hh Attewell, P. B. & Woodmann, J. P. (1982). Predicting the dynamics
being further input parameters the remaining stiffness properties can of ground settlement and its derivatives cause by tunnelling in
be calculated from soil. Ground Engng 15, No. 7, 1322, 36.
E9h 2 E9v (7a) Burland, J. B. & Kalra, J. C. (1986). Queen Elizabeth II Conference
Centre: geotechnical aspects. Proc. Instn Civ. Engrs 80, No. 1,
9hh 14791503.
9vh (7b)
Dolezalova, M. (2002). Approaches to numerical modelling of
2 E9v ground movements due to shallow tunnelling. Proc. 2nd Int.
Gvh (7c) Conf. on Soil Structure Interaction in Urban Civil Engineering,
21 9vh
Zurich 2, 365373.
Franzius, J. N. (2004). The behaviour of buildings due to tunnel
induced subsidence. PhD thesis, Imperial College, University of
The MohrCoulomb yield surface and plastic potential are Gibson, R. E. (1974). The analytical method in soil mechanics.
expressed in terms of effective stress invariants (Potts & Zdravkovic, Geotechnique 24, No. 2, 115140.
1999). The input parameters are the angle of shearing resistance 9, Graham, J. & Houlsby, G. T. (1983). Anisotropic elasticity of a
the cohesion c9 and the angle of dilation 9, which are summarised natural clay. Geotechnique 33, No. 2, 165180.
in Table 4. Guedes, R. J. & Santos Pereira, C. (2000). The role of the soil K0
value in numerical analysis of shallow tunnels. Proc. Int. Symp.
Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft
Ground, IS-Tokyo99, Tokyo, 379384.
NOTATION Gunn, M. J. (1993). The prediction of surface settlement profiles
A, Aa , B, Ba , constants for non-linear soil models due to tunnelling. Predictive soil mechanics: Proceedings
C, R, S, T of the Wroth Memorial Symposium (eds G. T. Houlsby and
c cohesion A. N. Schofield), pp. 304316. London: Thomas Telford,
D outer tunnel diameter London.
Ed deviatoric strain Hight, D. W. & Higgins, K. G. (1995). An approach to the
Ed,min , Ed,max deviatoric strain range of non-linear behaviour prediction of ground movements in engineering practice: back-
Ev vertical Youngs modulus ground and application. Proc. 1st Int. Conf. Pre-failure Defor-
Eh horizontal Youngs modulus mation of Geomaterials, Sapporo 2, 909945.
G shear modulus Hooper, J. A. (1975). Elastic settlement of a circular raft in
Gvh shear modulus in vertical plane adhesive contact with a transversely isotropic medium. Geotech-
Ghh shear modulus in the horizontal plane nique 25, No. 4, 691711.
K bulk modulus Jardine, R. J., Potts, D. M., Fourie, A. B. & Burland, J. B. (1986).
K0 coefficient of lateral earth pressure at rest Studies of the influence of non-linear stressstrain character-
Lexc excavation length of step-by-step tunnel excavation istics in soilstructure interaction. Geotechnique 36, No. 3,
m Gvh /Ev 377396.
n Eh /Ev Jovicic, V. & Coop, M. R. (1998). The measurement of stiffness
p9 mean effective stress anisotropy in clays with bender element tests in the triaxial
q deviatoric stress apparatus. Geotech. Test. J. 21, No. 1, 310.
Sv vertical ground settlement Katzenbach, R. & Breth, H. (1981). Nonlinear 3D analysis for
VL volume loss NATM in Frankfurt Clay. In Proc. 10th Int. Conf. Soil Mech.
x, y, z coordinates of FE mesh Found. Engng, Stockholm 1, 315318.
z0 tunnel depth (centre line to soil surface) Lee, G. T. K. & Ng, C. W. W. (2002). Three-dimensional analysis
anisotropic scale factor of ground settlements due to tunnelling: role of K0 and stiffness
, , ,  constants for non-linear soil models anisotropy. Proc. Int. Symp. on Geotechnical Aspects of Under-
soil bulk unit weight ground Construction in Soft Ground, Toulouse, 617622.
ax axial strain Lee, K. M. & Rowe, R. K. (1989). Deformations caused by surface
v volumetric strain loading and tunnelling: the role of elastic anisotropy. Geotechni-
v,min , v,max volumetric strain range of non-linear behaviour que 39, No. 1, 125140.
vh Poissons ratio for horizontal strain due to vertical Nyren, R. J. (1998). Field measurements above twin tunnels in
strain London Clay. PhD thesis, Imperial College, University of Lon-
hh Poissons ratio for horizontal strain due to horizontal don.
strain in orthogonal direction OReilly, M. P. & New, B. M. (1982). Settlements above tunnels in
the United Kingdom: their magnitude and prediction. Proc. 3rd
Int. Symp. Tunnelling 82, London, 5564.
Table 4. Input parameter for MohrCoulomb model Pickering, D. J. (1970). Anisotropic elastic parameters for soil.
Geotechnique 20, No. 3, 271276.
9: deg c9: kPa 9: deg Potts, D. M. & Addenbrooke, T. I. (1997). A structures influence
25 5 12.5 on tunnelling-induced ground movements. Proc. Instn Civ. Engrs
Geotech. Engineering 125, 109125.
Potts, D. M. & Zdravkovic, L. (1999). Finite element analysis in Proc. Int. Symp. Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Con-
geotechnical engineering. Vol. 1: Theory. London: Thomas struction in Soft Ground, London, 591594.
Telford. Standing, J. R., Nyren, R. J., Burland, J. B. & Longworth, T. I.
Potts, D. M. & Zdravkovic, L. (2001). Finite element analysis in (1996). The measurement of ground movement due to tunnelling
geotechnical engineering. Vol. 2: Application. London: Thomas at two control sites along the Jubilee Line Extension. Proc. Int.
Telford. Symp. Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in
Schroeder, F. (2003). The influence of bored piles on existing Soft Ground, London, 751756.
tunnels. PhD thesis, Imperial College, University of London. Vermeer, P. A., Bonnier, P. G. & Moller, S. C. (2002). On a smart
Simpson, B., Atkinson, J. H. & Jovicic, V. (1996). The influence of use of 3D-FEM in tunnelling. Proc.8th Int. Symp. on Numerical
anisotropy on calculations of ground settlements above tunnels. Models in Geomechanics NUMOG VIII, Rome, 361366.