PROCEEDINGS OF THE

FOURTEENTH INTERNATIONAL
CONFERENCE
ON SOIL MECHANICS AND
FOUNDATION ENGINEERING
HAMBURGl6-12 SEPTEMBER 1997
EDITOR: PUBLICATIONS COMMITTEE OF XIV ICSMFE

OFFPRINT
POST CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS
COMPTES RENDUS D'APRES CONGRES

COMPTES RENDUS DU
QUATORZIEME
CONGRES INTERNATIONAL DE
MECANIQUE DES SOLS ET DES
TRAVAUX DE FONDATIONS
HAMBOURGl6-12 SEPTEMBRE 1997
EDITEUR: COMITE DES PUBLICATIONS DU XIV CIMSTF

A.A. BALKEMA/ROTTERDAM/BROOKFIELD/1999
 Theme lecture: Bored tunnelling in the urban environment
Expose sur le theme: Tunnels for& dans un environnement urbain

R. J. Mair - Geotechnical Consulting Group, London, UK

R. N.Taylor - Cify Univers& London, UK

ABSTRACT: The Report reviews the state-of-the-art and recent developments in geotechnical aspects of bored tunnelling in the urban
environment. Various advances in tunnel construction techniques are highlighted, notably the increasing use of slurry and earth pressure
balance shields. Methods of calculating the stability of tunnels are reviewed. In the context of tunnelling in the urban environment, particular
emphasis is given in the Report to ground movements associated with tunnel construction, their modelling and prediction, and their effects
on buildings. Reference is made to case histories of tunnels constructed in a wide variety of ground conditions. Ground loading acting on
tunnel linings is discussed. The Report focuses on three areas in which there have been significant developments in ground treatment in recent
years: h e reinforcement, sluny and earth pressure balance shield technology, and compensation grouting.

RESUME: Ce rapport examine l'etat de I'art et les developments kcents concernant les aspects gbtechniques des tunnels creuds en milieu
urbain. Un certain nombre de progres dans les techniques de construction sont illusm5s, notamment I'augmentation de I'utilisation des
boucliers a pression de boue et des boucliers a contrepression de tern. Les diffkrentes methodes de calcul de stabilite des tunnels sont
examinees. Dans le contexte du creusement de tunnel en milieu urbain, une attention toute particulikre est accordee dans ce rapport aux
mouvements du sol associes a la construction du tunnel, leur mod6lisation, leur pnidiction et leurs effets sur les bAtiments. I1 est fait dference
a plusieurs projets de tunnels construits dans une grande varitte de type de terrain. Le chargement sur le soutbement du tunnel par le sol est
traitt. Le rapport se concentre sur trois domaines du traitement des sols dans lesquels des dtveloppements significatifsont eu lieu au cows
des dernieres annees: le renforcement du front, la technique des boucliers a pression de boue et des boucliers a contrepression de terre, et les
injections de compensation.

1. INTRODUCTION Modelling and prediction of ground movements

The title of Plenary Session 4 of this Conference, Underground
Works in the Urban Environment, principally involves bored
tunnel construction and deep excavations. This Report focuses only
on bored tunnel construction, primarily because Professor
Nussbaumer in his Report for Plenary Session 3 has addressed the
subject of Retaining Structures and Excavated Slopes, and the
associated Discussion Sessions have been concerned with the
subject of deep excavations.
It should be made clear that the term "bored" tunnel
construction means any kind of mined tunnel. as distinct from cut-
and-cover tunnels.
At the 7" ICSMFE in Mexico in 1969, Professor Ralph Peck
presented his seminal state-of-the-art paper on Deep Excavations
and Tunnelling in Soft Ground. Since then there have been
significant developments in the theory and practice of geotechnical
engineering applied to underground construction, and there have
been various major review papen devoted to the subject (Peck,
1969; Cording and Hansmire, 1975; Clough and Schmidt, 1981 ;
Ward and Pender. 1981;O'Reilly and New, 1982; Schlosser et al,
1985; Anewell et al, 1986; Konda, 1987; Rankin, 1988; Uriel and
Sagaseta, 1989; Clough and Leca, 1989; Cording, 1991; Fujita,
1989,1994).There have also been various International Tunnelling
Association Conferences (held annually) and National Tunnelling
Conferences.
In particular there have been two recent Symposia organized by
ISSMFE Technical Committee 28: the first in New Delhi in 1994
and the second in London in 1996 (Fujita and Kusakabe, 1995;
Mair and Taylor, 1996).
The topics addressed in this Report are:
Advances in tunnel construction techniques
Principal design and construction requirements
Stability
Ground movements
Effects of ground movements on buildings
Ground loading on tunnel linings
Developments in ground treatment
All of these topics are of particular importance in the context
of tunnelling in the urban environment.
2 ADVANCES IN TUNNEL CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES
In recent years there have been considerable advances in
techniques of bored tunnel construction in soft ground. It is
convenient to highlight some of these in terns of open face and
closed face tunnelling. Open face tunnelling covers all cases where
there is easy access to the tunnel face, in contrast to closed face
tunnelling.
(a) Open Face Tunnelling
There is increasing use of sprayed concrete in soft ground
tunnelling to form linings, particularly for tunnels of shorter
lengths and of non-circular cross-section. These are usually
temporary, but may be the sole means of support for significant
periods (sometimes more than a year) before the permanent lining
is installed. Recent developments have involved composite sprayed
concrete linings, in which sprayed concrete is used for both the
temporary and permanent linings (e.g. Winke, 1995; Grose and
Eddie, 1996; Negro et al, 1996). Non-circular cross-sections and
divided faces are often adopted when using sprayed concrete, as
shown in Figure 1, and this allows considerable flexibility in terms
of modifying the construction sequence in response to
observations. The use of sprayed concrete to form linings is
sometimes referred to as the New Austrian Tunnelling Method
(NATM).
Ground treatment is more easily undertaken from within tunnels
with open faces. Advances have been made in reinforcement of the
 Cutter driving Erector drivinc
motor motor
\

~gureI. Example of divided tunnel face using sprayed concrete

linings (Institution of Civil Engineers, 1996)
)il ahead of the face to improve stability and to control ground
lovements (Figure 2a). Improvements in jet grouting techniques
-e being made to form "umbrella arches" (Figure 2b) as a pre-
ning in difficult ground conditions.
An extension of the concept of the umbrella-arch is the pre-
adt, developed in France and Italy, which is sometimes referred
as the mechanical pre-cutting method (Cazenave and Le Goer,
996). This involves the cutting of overlapping slots around the
vrnel periphery in advance of the excavation, and filling them by
leans of sprayed concrete (Figure 2c). The technique is often used
I conjunction with face reinforcement and other forms of ground
eatment.
I) Closed Face Tunnelling
bnsiderable advances have been made over the last decade in the
se of sophisticated closed face tunnelling machines which operate
n the principle of a pressurized face. These machines are used in
nstable mound conditions where the face requires support at all
mes; this principally applies to permeable gro*d belowthe water
tble (i.e. mainly sands or mixtures of sands, silts and clays) or soft
lays.'The slur& shield machine, illustrated in Figure 3,'is most
ommonly used in water bearing granular soils. The face is
lpported by a pressurized bentonite or polymer based slurry,
hich is circulated so that it and the excavated soil are removed to
ieparation plant.
Earth pressure balance (EPB) machines are being used more
/Agitat\or ShLhld j a c k s \ Erel
Cutter face Segments
Figure 3. Principle of the slurry shield machine (Fuj
universally for d l types of unstable ground; the princil
in Figure 4. By controlling the entry of soil and water
cutter face by means of earth pressure balance doc
conditioning the spoil so that it can easily be removeo
screw conveyor, it is possible to control the presst
excavated soil in the chamber to balance the earth 2
pressures in the ground.
Recent developments have centred around the injt
special slurries, foams and other materials in EPB mac
improve the properties of the excavated soil and facil~
proper control of the pressure in the chamber. This is essei
the control of face stability and for minimising ground movt
In the case of slurry shields, more is now understood a b
factors affecting the efficiency of the sluny support of the
face. These are discussed further in Section 4.
Cutter driving
% motgr
Screw conveyc
, d r i v i n g mot01

I
1 Face reinforcement Cutter \ Bulkhead
face C u t t e r frame ' s h i e l d jacks
Figure 4. Principle of the earth pressure balance machine (I
1989)

3. PIUNCIPAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUC

t grouting "umbrella arches" REQUIREMENTS

As presented by Peck (1 969). and developed by Ward and F

(1981), the three most important requirements for the succ
design and construction of a tunnel can be summarised as fol

(i) Stability

,auk (pre-cutting) The choice of excavation and construction technique mi

suited to the ground conditions so that it is feasible to bui
aund treatment and pre-lining techniques tunnel safely. Of prime importance is the stability of the OF
ter Schlosser and Guilloux, 1995) prior to installation of the lining.

(ii) Ground movemenrs and their effects
Of particular relevance to the urban environment, construction of
the tunnel should not cause unacceptable damage to surrounding
or overlying structures and services. Prior to construction the
ground movements should be predicted and their effects on the
structures and services assessed.
(iii) Performance oflinings
The tunnel lining, whether it be temporary or permanent, must be
capable of withstanding all the influences to which it may be
subjected during its design life. This requires predictions of the soil
loading acting on the lining and of the deformations of the lining,
the latter being of particular significance in the case of external
influences such as adjacent tunnel construction.
These three principal requirements, which are closely related,
form the basis of this Report. The first two are of particular
importance in the urban environment and therefore more emphasis
is placed on these. The subject of this Report is restricted to
tunnelling in soft ground, but the meaning of "soft" ground can
differ according to the perspectives of the tunnelling engineer and
the geotechnical engineer. It is appropriate to define "soft" ground
as that which requires some form of support in the tunnel to
prevent instability of the ground, either in the short term or long
term. In this context even materials such as stiff to hard clays, and
weak rocks, are classified as "soft" ground.
4. STABILITY
4.1 Introduction
In any tunnelling project adequate stability during construction is
clearly of prime importance, and this is particularly the case in
urban environments where the consequences of a major tunnel
collapse can be catastrophic. In recent years there have been a
number of major tunnel collapses associated with the use of
sprayed concrete linings (Anderson, 1996; HSE, 1996), although
collapses also occur with other forms of tunnelling.
Stability of a tunnel heading (with circular cross-section) can be
considered in terms of the idealized geometry shown in Figure
5(a). The heading may be supported by a fluid pressure, 4, such as
compressed air or pressurized slurry (in the case of a sluny shield).
It may be excavated in free air in open face mode, in which case a,
= 0.The dimension P represents the distance from the face to the
point where stiff support is provided; in the absence of a tunnelling
shield, this is the distance from the face to the lining. In most cases
when a tunnelling shield is in use in ground of low stability, the
ground is in contact with the shield and therefore P can be taken to
be zero. An exception is when a shield is being used in ground of
higher stability, such as stiff clays; in this case there is often dn
oversized cutting edge at the front of the shield to ensure a gap
between the ground and the length of the shield and thereby
facilitate easy steerage. Determination of P then requires some
judgement.
The issue of whether undrained or drained conditions are more
applicable to the tunnel stability problem depends principally on
the permeability of the soil, the excavation advance rate, and the
size of the tunnel. Based on parametric studies of seepage flow into
tunnel excavations, Anagnostou and Kovari (1996) concluded that
for most tunnels drained conditions are to be expected when the
soil permeability is higher than 10' to 10" mls and the excavation
advance rate is 0. l -I& or less. Hence, in a predominantly sandy
soil, drained stability should be considered. In low permeability
clayey soils undrained stability is of more importance during tunnel
excavation, but in the case of a standstill drained conditions could
become more relevant. Factors influencing whether undrained or
drained conditionsare more applicable are also discussed by Negro
and Eisenstein (1991).
LL
/A\VA\
C tunnel lining
D
Figure 5. (a) Tunnel heading in soft ground; (b) two-dimensional
idealization of tunnel heading
-.2 Undrained Stability
Based on the concept introduced by Broms and Bennermark (1967)
the stability ratio, N can be defined as;
O$ + yz - OT
N =
S"
where
y = unit weight of the soil
z = depth to the tunnel axis
(=C + Dl2, see Figure 5)
0, = surface surcharge pressure (if any)
o, = tunnel support pressure (if any)
s, = undrained shear strength at tunnel axis level
On the basis of laboratory extrusion tests and field observations,
Broms and Bemermark (1967) concluded that the critical stability
ratio at collapse, N, ,is about 6. Similar conclusions were reached
by Peck (1 969).
Davis et a1 (1980) derived plasticity solutions employing
kinematic upper bounds and statically admissible lower bounds for
the two-dimensional idealization of a tunnel heading shown in
Figure 5(b), assuming constant undrained shear strength profiles.
Reasonably close agreement was obtained between the upper and
lower bounds. Their results are summarized on Figure 6, which
shows the derived values of critical stability ratio, N, , in terms of
the dimensionless ratios C/D and yD/s,. Slight improvements to
the upper bound for the case of weightless soil (yD/s,=O) have
. , A com~rehensiveset of solutions
been made bv Antao et al(1995).
for the more general two-dimensional case where the undrained
shear strength increases with depth was derived by Sloan and
Assadi (1993), using finite element formulations of the upper and
lower bound plasticity theorems.
Of most relevance to practical tunnel stability problems is the
three-dimensional heading, shown in Figure S(a). Based on
centrifuge model tests, the design curves in Figure 7 showing the
critical stability ratio, N, ,in terms of the dimensionless ratios PID
and C/D were proposed (Mair, 1979; Kimura and Mair, 1981). The
special case of PID=O is of particular relevance, and Figure 8
shows part of the design line taken from Figure 7. together with
data from laboratory and centrifuge tests, and also from back-
 - --- - Lwer bound
- Upper bound
Figure 6. Upper and lower bound critical stability ratios for plane
strain circular tunnel (Davis et al, 1980)
analysis of tunnel heading failures in the field (Mair, 1993). Also
shown on Figure 8 is an envelope of lower bound plasticity
solutions derived by Davis et a1 (1980); in contrast to the two-
dimensional case, upper bound solutions (not shown) give N,
values which are much higher than those given by the lower bound
solutions. Similar high upper bound values were obtained by Leca
and Dormieux (1992).
The stability numbers summarized in Figures 7 and 8 can also
be used to estimate the risk of "blow-out", which can occur if the
tunnel face pressure is too high in soft clays (Mair, 1987; De Moor
and Taylor, 1991).
4.3 Drained Stability
Atkinson and Potts (1977) derived kinematic upper bound and
statically admissible lower bound plasticity solutions for the two-
dimensional idealization shown in Figure 5(a) for dry cohesionless
soils. Their results are presented in Figure 9, for the case of 4' =
35", where the tunnel support pressure o, required to prevent
collapse is expressed as the dimensionless ratio odyD plotted
against C D . It should be noted that the upper bound plasticity
solution (being inherently unsafe) gives a lower value of 4/yD
than the lower bound solution which is inherently safe. Centrifuge
model tests in dry sands reported by Atkinson and Potts were
consistent with these plasticity solutions, and tests on model tunnel
headings ( P D = 0) showed that the support pressure required to
Figure 7. Dependence of critical stability ratio on tunnel heading
geometry (Mair, 1979; Kimura and Mair, 1981)
Figure 8. Critical stability ratio values for lined tunnel headings
(P/D=O) with thin clay cover (Mair, 1993)
prevent collapse was only slightly lower than for the two
dimensional case (P/D = -). Their experimental results, together
with their plasticity solutions for 4' = 50" (which was evaluated by
the authors for the low stress levels around the tunnel), are shown
on Figure 10. The experimental data and the plasticity solutions
indicate the support pressure to be independent of the ratio C D .
Similar findings are reported by Charnbon and Corte (1994),
who performed centrifuge tests on lined tunnel headings in dry
sand; their results are shown in Figure 11. As found by Atkinson
and Potts, the required support pressure was almost independent of
CD.
Upper and lower bound plasticity solutions for the stability of
the three-dimensional tunnel heading ( P D = 0) in dry soils in
terms of c' and 4' were derived by Leca (1989) and Leca and
Dormieux (1990). Their results are also presented in Figure 9 for
the case of c' = 0, 4' = 35" for comparison with the two-
dimensional results of Atkinson and Potts (1977). Leca and
Dormieux found that their upper bound solution was in good
agreement with earlier centrifuge model tests reported by Chambon
and Corte (1989), the support pressure required to prevent collapse
being independent of the ratio C D . It is of interest to note that, in
contrast to the presently available undrained ( 4 = 0) stability
solutions, the lower bound solution for the tunnel heading shown
on Figure 9 gives si&ficantly higher support pressures than the
upper bound, and these increase with C/D, differing from
-
W tunnel headi[lp
- upperbod Leca(1989).
' - -..x. - lower bound
limit equilibrium
End D o ~ ~ (l990)
Anqnoniou and
~ u x
/
0
K a ~ r(1998)
i
-
0
Plane strain t m 4
0.8. , uppet b o d ALldneonand 0
) Poml (ISTI)0
lower bound
. 0
Figure 9. Drained stability solutions for plane strain tunnels
(PID=oo) and lined tunnel headings (PD=O); 4'=35O

laboratory modela
O.'= l bwer bound
0.~1 upper bound
Figure 10. Centrifuge model tests on lined tunnel headings in dry
sand (Atkinson and Potts, 1977)
experimental observations. Anagnostou and Kovari (1996) present
a limit equilibrium solution for a lined tunnel heading in terms of
c' and 41'.Their solution for c ' 4 , 41'=3S0 is shown in Figure 9 and
shows the support pressure being independent of C/D, as obtained
by Leca and Dormieux (1990) for their upper bound plasticity
solution.
The principal conclusion arising from the stability solutions
illustrated in Figure 9, and from the centrifuge model test data in
Figures 10 and 1 1, is that the effective support pressure required to
prevent collapse of a tunnel in dry cohesionless soil is very small,
irrespective of whether it is a two-dimensional circular tunnel or a
three-dimensional heading. It is also independent of tunnel depth.
All of the foregoing applies to dry cohesionless soils, which are
not often encountered in practice in tunnelling. In many cases even
soils above the water table contain sufficient moisture to behave as
if they exhibited significant values of c'; then even smaller support
pressures are required, as shown by the stability solutions of Leca
and Dormieux (1990) for c', @' soils.
In practice, tunnelling is frequently undertaken below the water
table, in which case positive measures are necessary to prevent
water inflow and ensure adequate drained stability of gravels, sands
and silts. Compressed air can be used for this purpose, although it
has become less attractive in recent years as more is understood
about its potential adverse effects on tunnel workers (especially at
high pressures). Its decline in use is also associated with the
increasing adoption of full face slurry or EPB machines.
Face stability in slurry and EPB tunnelling is considered by
Anagnostou and Kovari (1996). Based on a limit equilibrium
approach, they developed computational models which provide a
useful framework for quantifying the mechanics of tunnel face
failure. For a slurry machine, the stabilising force capable of being
exerted by the slurry depends on the extent of its infiltration into
the ground. Under optimum conditions, the sluny seals the face by
forming a filter cake and acts like a membrane; the support force
then results from the excess slurry pressure over and above the
ground water pressure. When the soils are of high permeability, or
when the shear resistance of the slurry is low, the slurry will
penetrate the ground and the force it is capable of exerting depends
on the depth of infiltration. Stability solutions for face stability of
slurry machines, based on limit equilibrium methods, have also
been derived by Jancsecz and Steiner (1994).
Figure 11. Centrifuge model tests on lined tunnel headings in dry
sand (Chambon and Cortd, 1994)
filter cake
\ 5lurry shield
water
pressure, pressure, p
Stability depends on:
excess pressure Ap = p - u
yield strength of slurry 7,
grain size d,,
membrane model
(Ap = 40 kPa)
membrane model
0 0.2 0.6 2 6 20
grain size d,, (mm)
sand I gravel
A: Ap = 20 kPa, 4% bentonite (7, = 15 Pa)
B: Ap = 40 kPa, 4% bentonite (T, = 15 Pa)
C: Ap = 20 kPa, 7% bentonite (T, = 80 Pa)
Figure 12. Safety factor against face instability for a slurry shield
(after Anagnostou and Kovari, 1996)
An example of the approach by Anagnostou and Kovari is
illustrated in Figure 12, in which the safety factor against face
instability for a 10m diameter tunnel is shown to be a function of
the excess slurry pressure (Ap), the concentration of bentonite and
the associated yield strength of the sluny (z,), and the characteristic
grain size of the soil (d,,). The following practical points emerge:
1. An increase in safety can be achieved by raising the excess
slurry pressure, but only in the finer grained soils. Above a d,, size
of approximately 2mm, increasing the slurry pressure results in
deeper infiltration and fluid loss, and is of little benefit.
2. Increasing the bentonite content of the slurry for the coarser
soils results in more effective support.
In EPB machines, the muck chamber is filled with excavated
soil under pressure. Face instability is potentially a problem only
when the piezometric head in the muck chamber is lower than the
piezometric head in the ground, so that seepage forces act towards
the tunnel face. Anagnostou and Kovari provide normalised charts
for assessing the tunnel face stability under these conditions.
As noted by Cording (1991), tunnelling machines are most
efficient when operated in a single ground condition. For this case,
it is possible to quantify the tunnel face stability using the soil
mechanics principles and the methods of analyses reviewed in this
Report. For mixed face conditions, however, the situation is very
different. A particularly adverse combination is when potentially
unstable soils, such as sands and silts below the water table, are
encountered together with harder materials such as very stiff clays
or rock (boulders) which are difficult to excavate. In these
circumstances, the stability of the tunnel face may be difficult to
quantify, although it is often possible to establish upper and lower
limits by making simplifying assumptions about the geometry of
the different strata and applying the methods of analyses referred

(8) d a ~ (b) rands
Figure 13. Observed failure mechanisms based on centrifuge
model tests (Mair, 1979; Chambon and C o d , 1994)
to above. The difficulty of applying soil mechanics theories to
practical geotechnical engineering involving mixed ground
conditions is a common problem not unique to tunnelling, and
considerablejudgement is often required.
4.4 Failure Mechanisms
The geometries of failure mechanisms for tunnels in clays and
sands or gravels are markedly different. Figure 13 illustrates the
type of observed failure mechanism based on centrifuge model
tests on tunnel headings in clays (Mair, 1979) and in sands
(Chambon and CortC, 1994). In the case of clays, the mechanism
propagates upwards and outwards from the tunnel invert becoming
significantly wider than the tunnel diameter. In contrast, failure in
sands involves a narrow "chimney", propagating almost vertically
from the tunnel up to the ground surface. This same narrow
funnelling behaviour has also been observed in laboratory Ig
model studies on tunnels in sands by Cording et al(1976) and Potts
(1976). Experience of cases of tunnel failures in the field are
generally consistent with the mechanisms depicted in Figure 13.
5. GROUND MOVEMENTS
5.1 Introduction
The construction of bored tunnels in soft ground inevitably causes
ground movements. In the urban environment these may be of
particular significance, because of their influence on buildings,
other tunnels and services. The prediction of ground movements
and the assessment of the potential effects on the infrastructure is
therefore an essential aspect of the planning, design and
construction of a tunnelling project in the urban environment.
The important subject of ground movements associated with
bored tunnel construction in soft ground has been addressed by
many authors. Notable review papers have been produced by Peck
(1969), Cording and Hansmire (1975), Clough and Schmidt
(1981), Ward and Pender (1981), O'Reilly and New (1982),
Attewell et a1 (1986), Rankin (1988), Uriel and Sagaseta (1989),
Cording (1991), New and O'Reilly (1991), and Fujita (1989,
1994). In 1996, ISSMFE Technical Committee 28 organised an
International Symposium on Geotechnical Aspects of Underground
Construction in Soft Ground in London; 35 papers submitted to
the Symposium concerning settlement effects of bored tunnels
were reviewed by Mair (1996).
-'
Figure 14. Primary components of ground movement associated
with shield tunnelling (after Cording, 1991)
5.2 Components of Ground Movement
The primary components of ground movement associated with
shield tunnelling are depicted in Figure 14. These are as follows:
1. Deformation of the ground towards the face resulting from
stress relief.
2. Passage of the shield: the presence of an over-cutting edge
(bead) combined with any tendency of the machine to plough or
yaw will lead to radial ground movements.
3. Tail void: the existence of a gap between the tailskin of the
shield and the lining means that there will be a tendency for further
radial ground movements into this gap.
4. Deflection of the lining as ground loading develops.
5. Consolidation: as pore water pressures in the ground change to
their long-term equilibrium values the associated changes in
effective stress lead to additional ground movements.
Component 1 is of major importance in many cases, part~cularly
in open-faced tunnelling in clays. In London Clay, for example,
significant ground movements are observed ahead of the face due
to stress relief (Ward, 1969; Mair and Taylor, 1993). When
pressurized face tunnelling machines are used, however, either in
slurry shield or EPB mode, this component can be negligible if the
face pressure is carefully controlled. Component 2 can be
appreciable, particularly if the over-cutting edge (bead) is of
significant thickness, and if there are steering problems in
maintaining the alignment of the shield. Component 3 can be
minimised by immediate grouting to fill the tail void (or, in the
case of expanded linings, by expanding the lining against the soil
at the earliest opportunity). Component 4 is generally small in
comparison to the other components once the lining ring is
completed. Component 5 can be of importance, particularly when
tunnelling in soft clays, as discussed in Section 5.9.
In cases where there is no tunnelling shield, for example when
sprayed concrete linings are used, components 1.4 and 5 are still
applicable.
5.3 Swface Settlement
For the case of a single tunnel in "green field" conditions, the
development of the surface settlement trough above and ahead of
the advancing heading is as shown in Figure 15. Following work
by Martos (1958) on field observations of settlements above mine
openings, Schmidt (1969), Peck (1969) and subsequently many
other authors have shown that the transverse settlement trough
Figure 15. Settlement above advancing tunnel heading (Attewell
et al, 1986)
 horizontal and Schmidt, 1981; Fujita, 1981; O'Reilly and New, 1982;
2i disten08, Y
Rankin, 1988). In a s w e y of UK tunnelling data O'Reilly and
New (1982) showed that i is an approximately linear function of
the depth of tunnel, z, , and is broadly independent of tunnel
construction method and of tunnel diameter (except for very
infiexion shallow tunnels where the cover to diameter ratio is less than one).
They proposed the simple approximate relationship:
settlement
Figure 16. Gaussian curve used to describe the transverse
settlement trough
where K is a frough width parameter, and they recommended that
immediately following tunnel construction is welldescribed by a for practical purposes K could be taken as 0.5 for tunnels in clays
Gaussian distribution curve (shown in Figure 16) as: and 0.25 for tunnels in sands and gravels; the database for tunnels
in sands was confined to shallow tunnels with depths to axis level
in the range 6-10m. The validity of equation (5) was generally
confumed by Rankin (1988) for a wide variety of tunnels and for
most soil types kom around the world. Most of the data presented
where S, = settlement by Rankin (and subsequently by Lake et al, 1992), together with
S, = maximum settlement on the tunnel centre-line more recent data, are shown in Figure 18 for tunnels in clays and
y = horizontal distance from the tunnel centre-line in Figure 19 for tunnels in sands and gravels. The details of the
i = horizontal distance from the tunnel centre-line to tunnels, the ground conditions and the excavation methods are
the p i n t of inflexion of the settlement trough given in Tables 1 and 2 respectively. The reference numbering on
the figures and the tables are consistent with that used by Lake et
The volume of the surface settlement trough @er metre length of al(1992), but data have only been included on Figures 18 and 19
tunnel), V, ,can be evaluated by integrating equation (2) to give and the tables where the ground profile is either predominantly
clays or predominantly sands and gravels. Case histories have been
excluded where, for example, a tunnel in clay is overlain by
significant thicknesses of granular deposits, or vice-versa.

The volume loss, V,, (sometimes referred to as ground loss) is

the amount of ground lost in the region close to the tunnel, Offsetto point of inflection, i (m)
0 5 10 15 20
primarily due to one or more of the components 1-4 in Figure 14.
When tunnelling under drained conditions, for example in dense
sands, V, is less than V, because of dilation (Cording and
Hansmire, 1975). When tunnelling in clays, ground movements
usually occur under undrained (constant volume) conditions, in
which case V, = V, . Whatever the soil type, it is convenient to
express the volume loss in terms of the volume of the surface
.
settlement trough, V, expressed as a percentage fraction, V, , of
the excavated area of the tunnel, i.e. for a circular tunnel

Peck (1969) suggested a relationship between the parameter i,

unnel depth and tunnel diameter, depending on the ground
onditions, as shown in Figure 17. Many authors have investigated
milar relationships (e.g. Cording and Hansmire, 1975; Clough

.
02
3
C1 4
5
&wdl and F a m r (1974)
A'lavnll(lS78)
-st al. (1979)
TMnlballSg))
w* at il(1961)
AUawan el a1 (1978)
M u k W and Glbb (1971)
Glcuop and WRaiNy (1982)
Eden and Borozuk ( l W )
Hemy (1974)
Montto (1969)

'
Lab 01 a1 (1882)
Hama llS77l
nocn, naro c v 20 p.ci(r'sss,'
sands above 21 Pock(l969)

\
0 22 ORdNy and New (1982)
groundwater level

.
gl 23
24
25
26
ORelNy and New (1982)
(YRdlly and New (1982)
Atlsmrl(l978)
m a n and Tyler (1976)
27 McCliuI(1878)
e 28 NEW and Bowem (1904)

re 17. Relation between settlement trough width parameter

and depth of tunnel for different ground conditions Figure 18. Variation in surface settlement trough width parameter
(Peck. 1969) with tunnel depth for tunnels in clays
 Table 1. Details of tunnels in clays for which data are plotted in Figure 18 (based on Lake et al, 1992)
Tun& D.nh lo twn* In(ldan
no. IOUF. Looalo" OwmdoonWOn E.urtMnn*lkods dl-81 lml a
d.. m lml Smu lmml gnu(. 1lml
I iimv 119771 Sm
11 8Ull ~ o h i -w
1 llvm shda 7.1 18.3 I8 9.2
I0 atill e o w w .oY mum (hM 7.5 21.8 43 11.2
IC 8UIl EOWH #oil hM.hnhl .XC(YIM 0 19.0 22 8.8
2 Ian*+ m d -F ll@741 BmM.UK atin OC d," .hi##, hnd usamre 4.2 29.3 6 12.8
3 rnn**ltmm nr#mcw M IIsuv
NC &a, hwld ~rcavatea 2.0 7.5 (1 3.9
4 Mo- . l a. llB7SI UW. Wu*
48 8011 .IN d.y .hi.ld, hme .*cnalaa 2.7 4.9 17 2.7
ID w11 unr ar .him,hnd us.va1.d 2.7 4.6 20 1.4
6 T&llWOI Aronnouh. UI -11 W d dQodl W ,bond .ruWH.d 3.4 8.0 13 4.8
a W..lM.lllWll VM WW. U# Iml OC dn Wad. M M m l 1 . d 4.1 14.1 3 7.5
7 hnwd n .ll l e 7 m nm,M*. UI 1011 i l w ,urn, cl.v Wd. hnd .runw 4.3 13.6 23 6.6
8 H h W d ndM18 l l ~ 7 l l Huhnw. U 16(1 N : d," 1LOMOn 0.~1 W.hnd I~wNM 10.9 12.9 1I 8.6
I U I I ~Ws' O~ ~ - w n . ~
9. s.c~ion I 8011 ,I
d a y" .hi*. hmd .xswatd 3.0 5.5 40 3.6
OD lMonA wll rndlv .hiNd, hM .aum.d 3.0 8.5 M) 1.6
9c vnbnC lOIt +n dn W. hvld u u r a l a d 3.0 8.0 88 4.3
(1 ~n(lo.oyLI1oI.l Olm",W. Rrm OC d," W. C4Y) .mm.lv ""Ww RU, r ow 3.0 18.3 0 8.4
I2 H*rrlI@W emUWmdl.UI WII w m M II 1 ~ ~ n . l . dMI* dn (NW. hmd l x o n U d 2.45 10 2 10.0 26 4. I
I4 ~llW@l m.10,
W .A' lllk mR 10 IhSUV *Wd, n . o M n i b 4baw 4.7 18.4 1W 7.1
17 L.L.n.IlM1 -.Urn IVm d n , I m i n l l M hmd a-Ud with m
o., IM4m . I S 6.3 37 3.7
I# nrrp llS77l a Rrm o o h u h . MI .wd,hmd us.v.1.d 7.3 18.8 83 (1.3
20
21
PWIIUII
hoLllUII
-. UI
Tom.mo. cI*d.
h u m d.v I0K.W W l 01~i
dW4.l #I1
h n d S.~MI@
hme ursmUd
0.1
5.3
11.9
13.1
23
9
4.9
6.1
a O'khndW.rrll(UI * . r e .UI Hnn s d f #w dm. d.SIY LI 0lll.l ME- 5.2 14.2 8 7.0
W O'Rm"ndlkrrllrn1 *mon.lm
21. 1611 (uwd day u.ondOn OM hand * i u v a ~ a a I.a 17.1 4 10.0
2% IVm to still *nnh.nd dn U M o n Uavl MM u-1.d 1.8 3.4 4 2.0

271 a011 10 1111-11 ~ t d*v

v rrilh und MP, h n d ~uv.1.d 1.3 8.3 U 3.5
27b all to mW ail*" dv. ~ l sand h 1- hwld u s l v a t M
M, 1.3 5.9 56 3.7
211 *.rmd~.nll~l Hrtha.UI
281 1611 OC day ammn aavi wwd -eta t i d w me IICd.4 odyl . 22.0 21 8.5
2& sull OC c l n l l . 0 4 ~ 1 ) Wyi 0mv.*.d c o n m e linw m m I 1mWn.l 11.3 22.0 28 9.9
28c UII oc dev U M CUYI (~ m w -a li* P *.I H L.ia.wal WI . 22.0 IS 10.6
2M Y N n p m I1 Isorny*nel
M
31
*urmune(lsn
Y*(nrm.lltSEEl
-.
Ikgg0n.M
uu
(tillOC dm" I- UavI
t tinn ~ I I V cl.v chicwo d.y~
. o ~ to
W Y . ~ 1
uwd
-. 11.3
3.7
22.0
10.7
27
18.30
9.9
5.0

~uMOOUMNnnll. line 7 m ruff to b r a &v. rnln ~ o a m l01nId -Ill lhm~ '8.9 M.0 6 10.1

Offset to point d inflection, i (m) Figure 18 confirms the conclusion of O'Reilly and New (1982)
0 5 10 15 20 that for the majority of cases i = 0.5% for practical purposes,
irrespective of whether the tunnel is in soft or stiff clay. There is
some scatter in the data, generally within the envelope bounded by
i = 0.4% and i = 0.6%. The expression i = 0.5% for tunnels in clays
is reasonably consistent with the findings of Fujita (1981), who
examined data from a large number of case histories in Japan for
tunnels constructed using hand mined shields, blind shields, slurry
shields and EPB shields. Fujita generally confirmed the conclusion
of O'Reilly and New (1982) that the width of the surface
settlement profile above tunnels in clays is independent of
construction method.
It should be noted that equations (2) and (5) are normally
applied to the immediate surface settlements associated with tunnel
construction. Additional post-construction settlement due to
consolidation tends to cause wider settlement troughs (as discussed
in Section 5.9) and this complicates the interpretation of the
settlement data. Softer clays are more susceptible to appreciable
consolidation settlement, which often develops rapidly and can be
difficult to separate from the immediate construction settlement;
this may partly explain the observation by Peck (1 969) that wider
settlement troughs are observed above tunnels in soft clays than in

.
(a) below Me water table
1
3
4
6
Boden and McCeul(1974)
O'ReUly et al(l981)
O'Rellly et a1 (1981)
Eadle (1977)
stiff clays.
The data for tunnels in sands and gravels in Figure 19 exhibit
rather more scatter than for the tunnels in clays. Two of the data
points (Peck, 1969; Yoshikoshi et al, 1978), show considerably
r 7 Yoohishi et a1 (1978)
8 O'Railly et a1 (1981) wider troughs. Nevertheless, the majority of the data fall within the
*11 Peck (1989)
bounds of i = 0.25% and i = 0.45%, with a mean line of i = 0.35%.
+ 15 Mohetal(lgs6)
X 16 Cording and Hanmire (1975) Cording (1991) has noted that the width of the transverse
I ~ above
J me water table o r h w a e r e d settlement trough above tunnels in granular soils depends to some
O 2 Butler and ami ion
(1975) extent on the magnitude of settlement, with larger settlements
3 5 MacPherson (1978)
A 7 Yoshikoshi et al (1978) tending to cause a narrower overall width of the trough consistent
0 9 Chamboore (1972) with the "chimney" mechanism in sand shown in Figure 13. Figure
v 10 Wnnel and ~ e r m a n(1969)
6 11 Peck (1969) 19 shows that there appears to be no significant difference between
e 12 MacPherson (1978) tunnels below or above the water table, contrary to the suggestion
13 MacPherson(1978)
O 17 Cording end Hansmim (1975) by Peck (1969).
Tunnels are often constructed in layered strata comprising both
Figure 19. Variation in surface settlement trough width parameter clay and granular soils. It has been suggested by Selby (1988) and
with tunnel depth for tunnels in sands and gravels New and O'Reilly (1991), that the equations for tunnels in clays
Table 2. Details of tunnels in sands and gravels for which data are plotted in Figure 19 (based on Lake et al, 1992)
Tuvl* D l h w W Innon
d u n m l r el &,lo lml
I
2
M. W1S.
bden LOU M o U H9741
M Hn d m m p ~ ll97Sl
a
-.
Loudan

W
.-
UI
UU
O& cen6moru
u4.m a b m to m w . . m0n3
~
Ex- mnh.d.
Mnloninsrdw 4.1 10.1
hlrml
22
olk.l. I lml
6.0

--
1.
2b warn~~. %re
m r n d mnd .iltv UM
amwi w t h ml*b.MM .HYund.
m i ~ vlm
u . h e vlm
~ berm
d kk.1 --
dam* 8.5
64
14.4
I!6
86
113
2.9
45
3 O ' ~ ~ ~ d I l O M 1 W n M o n . UI

--
eb hr ~INM w n hmr rwu .hM, h.M exurct.4 29 67 18 16
7 VWo.NUdI197a Tern. Pn
7. lit. I1 UM. Im uw w n smM 30 85 II 70
7b d l * 111 UM. 11n YW bYM .hM 37 22 1 32 82
7~ wm IV m4. o m dm LM 3e 10s IS 4 I
8 D'khUUltgOl W d l w I m . U(I
8. Acmn Om- u- urn. hnm lo durn, tndv utitorm, 0-W p m 1-. Warn 29 88 20 I 8
8b bntrml. Md 28 88 I4 20

9b
I0
I1

12
12.
Wnrylnd-llW
WIIWOI

U.dh.no"l187rn
T-to.

w-swmn. UI*
-
h n k M m9w. mmtit.-.
LUWs.ULn
wed '4th .om I m l o n . W dar r w i 1-

UM.dmu
Yn4 11 nown, t o m in W

Uld. d m d- UN r i t h-i
ewld
Und. u t i l m 11- h d l ol Iml.dww M to d n v r WM, hma rrunth

Ma,hma .-ld
N M . MM . x s ~ t W

u M v d. m u d . rtiaUt.d rnth dim* nn

6.5
10.0

6.4
6.4

8.0
10.5
18.0

12.0
10.7

11.0
85
I2

48
1%
160
3.9
6.1

2.0
7.8

3.5
12b und, m ~ u w
m *W n l h r n t ~ . UMY
d d. .NU, rocuhled with ainwr m 8.0 11.0 58 5.9
13 M.dnmnll9781 M s . USA

131 mhW .hM 30 10 2 15 28

16 Mok.f~llBD81 TdW. R O r r und, *I? IWU ln 01 twn* l ~ . l . b l rin MW SI EPBM 8I 18 5 29 74
10 W L O U -1IS76l WuNnpmn. U(il
I81 A LN M.mu Clv*. ~ h ~ u .hM c d 84 14 6 76 54
I88 B hm UMSand g,lv*r m h v m den". m t * b . d d ~ w # l hm h u r s d *liM 84 14 (1 139 42
1 6 ~ C hne U M s and a r w d s M d w m d m . mt*b.M.d rnm m h a d c l i slued 84 I 48 152 46
17 Cordnp nd W m I19761 WasMmn. W Y M S m dmlvh .hM 64 118 2wJ -
IS

and tunnels in sands be simply combined taking account of the i

Tmugh vlidth parameter, K =
thicknesses of the different strata, so that for a two-layered system 67

.-
where K, is the trough width factor for the soil type in layer 1 of
thickness z,, and K, is the trough width factor for the soil type in 0.2
layer 2 of thickness q. Field observations of surface settlement
profiles above stratified soils where the tunnel is in sands overlain 0.4
by clay layers (e.g. Ata, 1996; Atahan et al, 1996) indicate wider
profiles than would be obtained if the tunnels were only in sands.
There is less evidence, however, of cohesionless layers overlying 0.6
tunnels in clays causing a narrowing of the surface settlement
profile, as implied by equation (6). Indeed, centrifuge model
studies by Grant and Taylor (1996) indicate that in the case of a 0.8
tunnel in soft clay overlain by sand, the surface settlement profile
is wider than would be the case if the tunnel were only in the soft
clay. This is probably a consequence of the overlying sand layer
being significantly stiffer than the soft clay, and also the reduced
influence of movements in the sand resembling a "chimney"
failure mechanism, which can affect the overall settlement trough.
I A
ID~MI
ml**
,2?z%
W(YP
-oeV
LrranOay
~ ~ nqrn
42
42
29
l
-dF-(1974)
20
-
BBnndTI(a(1878)
,

5.4 Subsurface Settlements

In the urban environment, constraints of existing tunnels and deep

foundations often result in new tunnels having to be constructed
close beneath such structures. It is becoming increasingly
important to predict how subsurface settlement profiles develop
and how they relate to surface settlement troughs. Mair et a1 (1993)
analysed subsurface data from various tunnel projects in stiff and
soft clays, together with centrifuge model test data in soft clays.
They showed that subsurface settlement profiles can also be
reasonably approximated in the form of a Gaussian distributionin Figure 20. Variation of trough width parameter K with depth for
the same way as surface settlement profiles. At a depth z below the subsurface settlement profiles above turfi~clsin clays
ground surface, above a tunnel at depth q,, the trough width (after Mair et al, 1993)
parameter i can be expressed as
and the value of K increases with depth as shown in Figure 20.
This shows that subsurface settlement profiles at depth are
significantly wider than would be predicted by assuming a constant
value of K. Figure 20 is taken from Mair et al(1993) with some
additional data points obtained from the Heathrow Express trial
tunnel (New and Bowers, 1994), and the Jubilee Line Extension
project in London (Nyren, 1998).
The expression for K proposed by Mair et al(1993), and shown
in Figure 20, is
0.175 + 0.325(1 - zlz,)
K = (8)
1 - zlz,
Similar observations of subsurface settlement profiles above
tunnels in silty sands below the water table in Taipei were made by
Moh et a1 (1996), and above a tunnel in loose sands overlain by a
firm to stiff clay layer (Dyer et al, 1996). Figure 21 shows the
variation with depth of K (defined as in equation 7) presented by
Dyer et al, together with the variation derived from the data
reported by Moh et al. A similar pattern of increasing K with depth
is evident, as observed for tunnels in clays.
L possibly even below) the invert in the second case.
0.4. Moh et a1 (1998)
06.
2/20 Dyer et PI (1996)
08.
1 -
Figure 2 1. Variation of trough width parameter K with depth for
subsurface settlement profiles above tunnels in sands
5.5 Horizontal Movements
Damage to structures and services can arise from horizontal
movements. However, there are relatively few case histories of
tunnels where horizontal ground or structure movements are
measured. Attewell(1978) and O'Reilly and New (1982) proposed
that, for tunnels in clays, ground displacement vectors are directed
towards the tunnel axis, as shown in Figure 22a. This leads to the
simple relation:
Y s,.
Sh = -
zo
This assumption leads to the distribution of surface horizontal
ground movement given by
- sh
-
~ h m a
- 1.65 4 exp ( 3)
The theoretical maximum horizontal movement, Shx, occurs at
,the point of inflexion of the settlement trough and is equal to
0.61 KS,,. This is consistent with field observations by Cording
and Hansmire (1 975) and Attewell(1978).
Assuming equation (9) to be valid, and if it is also assumed that
the trough width parameter K is constant with depth, the vertical
and horizontal strains determined by differentiating expressions for
vertical and horizontal movement are equal and opposite. This is
a necessary condition for undrained (constant volume) movements
.. ,.
s,
(a) Vector8dirsded M s uls @) V
- d&ed toward8 point 0
( ~ w a i1078:
i . O'Reilly and NW, 1982) CTnllor. 1-1
'
Figure 22. Direction of ground displacement vectors above tunnels
in clays
around tunnels in clays. A variation of K with depth, such as
illustrated in Figure 20 and defined in equation (a), affects the
related vertical and horizontal strains. For a constant volume
condition, applicable to tunnelling in clays, it turns out that for this
variation in K the displacement vectors should be directed towards
a point on the tunnel centre line 0.175 zd0.325 below tunnel axis
level (Taylor, 1995b), as shown in Figure 22b. This gives
horizontal movements of 65% of those that would be obtained by
assuming the ground movements to be directed towards the tunnel
axis. Deane and Bassett (1995) analysed subsurface movement
measurements for two sections of the Heathrow Express trial
tunnels in London Clay. They concluded that the displacement
vectors were directed towards a point midway between tunnel axis
level and invert level in one case, and towards a point at (or
For tunnels in sands, even the assumption of ground movements
being directed towards the tunnel axis may lead to significant
underestimates of horizontal ground movement at the ground
surface near the edge of the settlement trough (Cording, 1991).
This was also observed by Hong and Bae (1995) for a 10m
diameter NATM tunnel in predominantly sandy strata in Korea.
Their data are presented in Figure 23, together with equation (10).
The distribution is in reasonable agreement with equation (10)
except in the region near the edge of the settlement trough (2i < y
< 3i). However this is usually of Little practical significance
-
because the macnitude of both horizontal and vertical around
surface movements are generally very small near the edge of the
-
settlement trough.
Subsurface horizontal ground movements at tunnel axis level in
stiff clays are generally inwards towards the tunnel, when open
face tunnelling methods are used. Figure 24 shows measurements
for 5 tunnels of approximately 4m in diameter constructed in
London Clay and lined with segments; 4 of the tunnels were
constructed using a shield, and one of them by hand methods
without a shield. For undrained and axisymmetric conditions, the
ground movement 6 at a radius r would be proportional to llr;
0 upper excavat~on
lower excavation
- equation 10
0s 10 I S 20 2s 30
lateral distance from tunnel centreline, yli
Figure 23. Distribution of horizontal ground surface movements
above a tunnel (after Hong and Bae. 1995)

Figure 24. Horizontal movements at axis level of tunnels in
London Clay (Mair and Taylor, 1993)
Figure 24 shows the movements plotted normalised by tunnel
radius (Mair and Taylor, 1993). Zero movement is implied at
distances in excess of 1.5 tunnel diameters beyond the tunnel
boundary at tunnel axis level.
In the case of EPB tunnelling in soft clays, subsurface horizontal
movements at tunnel level may be either inwards or outwards,
depending on the bulkhead pressure. Clough et a1 (1983) measured
horizontal movements at 4 instrument lines for a 3.7m diameter
EPB shield in San Francisco Bay Mud. Where the bulkhead
pressures were high, initial outward movements exceeded the
subsequent inward movements into the tail void, whereas the
reverse was the case elsewhere. Both inward and outward
movements around EPB shields in soft clay are also reported by
Fujita (1994).
5.6 Longitudinal Settlement Trough
In the urban environment there may be cases where a structure
close to or directly above the tunnel centre-line might experience
more damage from the progressive longitudinal settlement trough
generated ahead of the tunnel face, as shown in Figure 25, than
from the final transverse settlement profile after the tunnel face has
passed beneath the structure. Also, construction works may
comprise various intersecting tunnels of short lengths in different
directions and of different diameters (for example an underground
station complex); in such cases the development of settlement
ahead of any particular tunnel face is of importance, because the
effects of a number of finite length tunnels can then be estimated
and summated.
It follows from the assumption that the transverse settlement
profile has a Gaussian shape that the longitudinal profile should
have the form of a cumulative probability curve, assuming all
ground deformation takes place at constant volume (New and
O'Reilly, 1991), which is applicable to tunnelling in clays. By
examining a number of case-histories of tunnel construction in
clays, Attewell and Woodman (1982) showed the cumulative
probability curve to be reasonably valid for the longitudinal
translated longitudinal
settlement profile -
original ground level with face support
\ \ I-
j settlement profile
: (cumulative
advancing tunnel + probability form)
- without face support
tunnel face
we 25. Longitudinal surface settlement trough
settlement trough. They found that the surface settlement directly
above the tunnel fa* generally corresponds to about 0.5s- for
tunnels constructed in stiff clays without face support. However,
for tunnels constructed in soft clays with face support provided by
compressed air, the surface settlement directly above the tunnel
face was considerably less than 0.5Sm. Pressurized face tunnelling
tends to restrict ground settlements developing ahead of the tunnel
face (indeed significant heave can be observed in soft clays). Field
observations of settlements above EPB or slurry shield tunnelling
machines indicate that the majority of the construction settlement
is associated with the tail void (component 3 in Figure 14) and that
the surface settlement directly above the tunnel face is generally
much less than 0.5S,.
Settlement observations on the centre-line above a 6.05m
diameter EPB shield in loose silty sands and soft clay in Taipei
reported by Moh et al (1996) are shown in Figure 26. Settlements
are shown for the ground surface and at three depths. Most of the
construction settlement is associated with the tail void; very little
settlement has occurred at the time when the tunnel face is directly
beneath the instrumentation. Similar observations for EPB and
slurry shield tunnelling in predominantly sands or silts are reported
by Nomoto et al (1995) in their survey on Japanese shield
tunnelling. Figure 27 shows surface settlement observations above
a 9.48111 diameter slurry shield in Cairo at a depth of about 16m in
medium to dense sands overlain by a clay layer (Ata, 1996). The
settlement above the tunnel face was found to be in the range of
0.25-0.33,.
It can be concluded that the longitudinal settlement trough
having the form of the cumulative probability curve illustrated in
Figure 25 is generally reasonable, but it has only been validated for
tunnels in clays. The surface settlement equal to 0.5s- above the
tunnel face is strictly only applicable to open-faced tunnelling
techniques in stiff clays. Where there is significant face support, as
in EPB or sluny shield machines, the major source of ground
movement is further back fiom the face and this leads effectively
to a translation of the cumulative curve, as shown in Figure 25.
5.7 Volume Loss
The magnitude of volume loss, V,, (defined in equations (3) and (4)
depends principally on the type of ground and on the tunnelling
method. Many authors have reviewed volume loss values from
tunnelling projects (e.g. Peck, 1969; Cording and Hansmire, 1975;
Clough and Schmidt, 1981;O'Reilly and New, 1982; Attewell et
al, 1986; Uriel and Sagaseta, 1989; Mair, 1996).
For tunnels in clays, Clough and Schmidt (1981) proposed a
relationship between stability ratio (or overload factor) N and V,
based on the closed form solution for the unloading of a circular
cavity in a linear elastic-perfectly plastic continuum under
axisymmetric conditions. Attewell et a1 (1986) and Uriel and
Sagaseta (1 989) presented field data of volume losses related to
stability ratio, based on Clough and Schmidt's proposal; the results
Days after (he Passing of the Head
Figure 26. Settlements above EPB shield in silty sands in Taipei
(Moh et al. 1996)

TBM
-40-30-20-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Distance from TBM (m)
Figure 27. Settlements above EPB shield in sands in Cairo (Ata,
1996)
show a very wide scatter. The wide scatter is probably associated
with many construction details and differing standards of
workmanship. Another important factor is the value of undrained
shear strength assumed in the calculation of stability ratio, N. In a
number of cases, the influence of sample disturbance and the
method of laboratory testing (usually triaxial compression tests)
may have led to erroneous values of s, being adopted. Extension
stress paths on vertically orientated specimens are generally more
relevant to the unloading of the ground around and above a tunnel
than compression stress paths; in soft clays, triaxial extension tests
typically give significantly lower undrained shear strengths than
triaxial compression tests.
Based on centrifuge model test data and finite element analyses,
Mair et a1 (198 1) and Mair (1989) proposed that V, should be more
properly related to the Load Factor, defined as N/N, (N, being the
critical stability ratio), rather than to N alone. Despite the different
stress histories and C/D ratios, which meant that the volume losses
were markedly different at the same stability ratio, there was a
reasonably well-defined relationship between volume loss and load
factor. O'Reilly (1988) used the approach to provide good
predictions of volume loss at 6 different tunnelling sites in London
Clay.
When closed face tunnelling methods are employed, using EPB
or sluny shields, good control of the face pressure can result in the
stability ratio being close to zero, in which case the component of
ground movement resulting from stress relief at the face would be
very small, leading to smaller volume losses (less than 1%). In
such cases in soft clays the principal cause of volume loss is
usually the tail void (Broms and Shirlaw, 1989).
Recent experiences with EPB and slurry shield machines in
sands and gravels have generally shown small volume losses.
Leblais and Bochon (1991) report volume losses in the range 0.2-
0.9% for 9.25m diameter tunnels driven through dense fine
Fontainebleau sands at depths ranging from 22m to 52m; values
of 0.8-1.3% were observed when the tunnels were very shallow
with the tunnel crown being only 4.1-7.2m below the ground
surface. Volume losses reported by Ata (1996) for a 9.48m
diameter sluny shield in Cairo at a depth of about 16m in medium
to dense sands below the water table were in the range 0.2-I%,
with a mean of about 0.5%.
In a review of 35 papers submitted to the recent TC28
Symposium in London on the subject of settlement associated with
bored tunnels (Mair, 1996), the following main conclusions were
drawn:
1. For open face tunnelling, volume losses in stiff clays such as
London Clay are generally between 1% and 2%.
10
0 FRW TRANSVERSAL SECTIONS
X FROM POINTS O N THE AXIS
I SIT. T 1
-
I
Figure 28. Influence on volume loss of cover of competent soil in
mixed ground conditions (Melis et al, 1997)
2. Construction with sprayed concrete linings (NATM) is effective
in controlling ground movements. Recent construction in London
Clay, for example, has resulted in volume losses varying from
0.5%-IS%, which compares favourably with well-controlled
shield tunnelling in which there is little or no face support.
3. For closed face tunnelling, using EPB or sluny shields, a high
degree of settlement control can be achieved, particularly in sands
where volume losses are often as low as 0.5%. Even in soft clays,
volume losses (excluding consolidation settlements) of only 1%-
2% have been reported.
Volume losses may be higher in mixed face conditions for EPB
or slurry shields, particularly where sands or gravels overlie stiff
clays, or where the cover of competent soil above the tunnel crown
is low. This is illustrated by Melis et a1 in their paper to this
Conference, as shown in Figure 28. A 7.4m diameter EPB shield
was used in very stiff to hard sandy clays in Madrid with varying
cover (H,) to overlying sands or fills. The EPB was used in open
face mode when the ratio HdD exceeded 0.6, and they state that
the observed volume losses were in the range 0.03-1%. Larger
volume losses were observed for lower HT/D ratios, and
significantly larger values (generally 2-4%) were obtained for
mixed face conditions.
5.8 Multiple Tunnels
When two or more tunnels are constructed it is commonly assumed
that the ground movements that would have occurred for each
tunnel acting independently can be superimposed. For two tunnels
constructed side by side at the same level this would lead to a
symmetrical combined surface settlement profile. Cording and
Hansmire (1975) presented evidence of asymmetry above twin
tunnels of 6.4m diameter with a clear separation of 4.6m driven
through medium dense silty sands and for the Washington
Metro. A degree of asymmetry of the surface settlement profile was
also reported by Sfanding et a1 (1996) in the case of twin tunnels of
4.8m diameter constructed in London Clay with a clear separation
of as much as 16x11. Asymmetric surface settlement profiles above
twin tunnels are also reported by Lo et a1 (1987).
Interaction of tunnels in close proximity was observed by
Shirlaw et a1 (I 988) for tunnels constructed using sprayed concrete
linings in a very stiff to hard clay in Singapore, as shown in Figure
29. The clear separation of the 6m diameter tunnels was only 1.7m.
The volume loss observed for the first (south bound) tunnel was in
the range 0.5-I%, and the surface settlement trough width
 1
18
lm)
?z Depth
Dirtonce fmm centre point Iml Distance from centre point Im)
Southbound tunnel only
Northbound tunnel only
Figure 29. Settlement troughs for closely spaced tunnels in
Singapore (Shirlaw et al, 1988)
parameter i was found to be close to 0.5%. However, in the case of
the second (north bound) tunnel the volume loss observed was
generally much larger, in the range 2-4%, and the settlement
troughs were unexpectedly wide for the shallower tunnel (it%
values of about 1).
Significant interaction effects are evident. It is clear that, when
tunnels are very closely spaced, the ground in the region where the
second tunnel is to be constructed will already have been subjected
to appreciable shear strains associated with construction of the first
tunnel, resulting in reduced stiffness, and hence a higher volume
loss is likely for the second tunnel. In the case of 5.6m diameter
tunnels in weathered schists, sands and gravels in Caracas, volume
losses for the second tunnel were generally in the range 80-125%
larger than for the first tunnel, for a clear spacing of between 0.5
and 1 tunnel diameter (Perez Saiz et al, 1981).
5.9 Post-construction Settlements
Post-construction settlements can be significant, particularly in the
case of tunnels in soft, compressible clays. These arise from
changes of pore pressures (and hence effective stresses) following
construction of the tunnel, and take the form of increasing
settlements (sometimes referred to as consolidation settlements)
but generally with very little increase in the horizontal component
of the ground movements. A comprehensive review of field data
of consolidation settlements above tunnels in soft clays by Shirlaw
(1995) concluded that typically the increase in settlement over the
long term is of the order of 30-90% of the total settlement, and that
in many cases a widened settlement trough develops. This is
illustrated by settlement observations over a period of 11 years
reported by O'Reilly et al (1991) for a 3m diameter tunnel
constructed in normally consolidated silty clay in Grimsby. The
centre-line settlement at one of the locations is shown in Figure 30.
The tunnel was constructed with compressed air to provide the
necessary face support for stability. On removal of the compressed
air approximately 100 days after tunnel construction, further
Figure 30. Long term settlement observations above tunnel in soft
clay (after O'Reilly et al, 1991)
settlement was observed for a considerable period with final
equilibrium being achieved only after about 10 years. The
corresponding transverse surface settlement profiles for one of the
arrays are shown in Figure 31, which shows a significant widening
of the profile with time. Similar widening has been reported by a
number of authors (e.g. Glossop, 1978; Howland, 1980; Shirlaw,
1995).
The major factors influencing the development of post-
construction settlements above tunnels are as follows:
1. The magnitude and distribution of excess pore pressure, Au,
generated by construction of the tunnels.
2. The compressibility and permeability of the soil.
3. The pore pressure boundary conditions, particularly the
permeability of the tunnel lining relative to the permeability of the
soil.
4. The initial pore pressure distribution in the ground prior to
tunnel construction.
The magnitude and distribution of Au depends to a large degree
on whether the ground is unloaded during construction, as is often
the case for open face tunnelling, or whether it is subject to an
increase in loading, such as in sluny shield or EPB tunnelling
when the face pressure exceeds the in-situ stresses or when
excessive grouting pressures are used. Clough et a1 (1983)
observed evidence of high excess pore pressures being generated
in soft clay near the spring line of the tunnel as the EPB machine
approached. The complexity of the dependency of the pore
pressure response on details of the construction process is clearly
illustrated in Figure 32 for a 4.2m diameter tunnel constructed at
a depth of 5.6m in soft clay in Shanghai with an EPB shield (Yi et
al, 1993). The observed variation in excess pore pressures at tunnel
axis level with distance from the tunnel is shown for 9 different
positions of the shield face in relation to the instrumented section.
The excess pore pressures are seen to fluctuate in response to the
position of the shield. An increase of face pressure (between
positions 5 and 6) and grouting of the tail void (between positions
7 and 8) each resulted in significant increases in positive excess
pore pressures. The detailed ground movement observations show
that the subsequent consolidation settlements associated with
dissipation of these positive excess pore pressures resulted in an
additional settlement trough of similar width to the immediate
Distance to in metres
Array '0'
Y
Final
Figure 3 1. Long term transverse surface settlement troughs above
tunnel in soft clay (O'Reilly et al. 1991)
 Lqend:

0 Driving of Up Track Tunnel

( not h e peuk value8 )
Driving of Dom Trock Tunnel
Damaged before peok war reached

10 15 20 25
Distance ( m )
Figure 34. Excess pore pressures observed at axis level of EPB
tunnel in soft silty clay in Taipei (Hwang et al, 1995)

Approaching -- Moving away

Instrumented section
- troughs, i.e. the incremental settlements developing after
D~stancebetween shield face ond instrumented section
Figure 32. Excess pore pressures observed during passage of EPB
shield in soft clay in Shanghai (Yi et al, 1993)
trough caused by tunnel construction, rather than a wider trough as
was observed at Grimsby (see Figure 3 1). Similar behaviour was
reported by Shirlaw and Copsey (1987) and Shirlaw (1995) for
EPB tunnels in soft clay in Singapore, where the face pressures
were 1.2-1.5 times the overburden pressure.
Similar observations of positive excess pore pressures around
tunnels where the ground was subjected to an increase in loading
are reported by Hwang et al(1996), who contrast the pore pressure
responses around EPB tunnels in silty sands and silty clays in
Taipei. They concluded that, provided the face pressures are close
to the in-situ ground stresses, the predominant source of excess
pore pressures induced in the ground is the grouting of the tail
void. Whilst in sands these excess pore pressures dissipate rapidly,
in clays they may take months to dissipate fully. At another site in
Taipei, shown in Figure 33, Hwang et a1 (1995) recorded positive
excess pore pressures around 6.05111 diameter tunnels in soft silty
clay (s,= 30-40 kPa), as shown in Figure 34. The measured excess
pore pressures at tunnel axis level were limited to a zone extending
about 6m, or one tunnel diameter, tiom the edge of the tunnels; a
similar pattern was observed by Yi et al (1993), as indicated in
Figure 32.
It is evident from the above examples that two distinct patterns
of behaviour can be distinguished for long term consolidation
settlement troughs for tunnels in soft clay, as shown on Figure 35
(Shirlaw, 1995). This shows the post-construction settlement
completion of the tunnel. The data are shown in normalized form.
Three of the case histories (the Furongjuang Sewer Line B, the
Singapore Subway Line TA265-273 and Thunder Bay) involved
tunnel construction methods where there was very significant face
support, either by an EPB machine or a full-face TBM. This caused
appreciable positive excess pore pressures to be generated, and in
all three cases dissipation of these excess pore pressures resulted
in post-construction settlement troughs very similar to the classical
Gaussian curve associated with short-term settlement (assuming
i=0.5q,).
The other 4 case histories on Figure 35 have much wider post-
construction settlement troughs. These are associated with the
tunnel lining acting as drain and the development of steady state
seepage towards the tunnel. The result is a widespread reduction of
pore pressures around and above the tunnel leading to
consolidation settlements developing over a wide area.These wider
consolidation settlement troughs often result in no additional
damage to buildings, because the differential settlementsassociated
with consolidation are very small.
Theoretical analyses of pore pressures induced around tunnels
in clays where there is unloading (e.g. Clough and Schmidt, 1981;
Schmidt, 1989; Samarasekera and Eisenstein, 1992; Mair and
Taylor, 1993) demonstrate the dependence of the magnitude and
distribution of the excess pore pressures on the degree of unloading
and the strength and stress history of the clay. In open face
tunnelling in clays when there is significant unloading of the
ground, the excess pore pressures induced during tunnel
construction are generally always negative; this is in response to
the unloading and, in the case of overconsolidated soils, to a
distance from centre line
H depth to tunnel spring line
-=E
-

f!
Qrn L4
2;c E
;g
-2 " 0.4

-
C
fci .a
lid u
Lo .
S I I I S W M WUI UNE T A M - 2 1 3 . M S . Y h W

ir 6RlUsY A M A . WEN SHIELD, 3 . M M

P E N MUD ICOYII(OE0
m O M Y I D Y U(W I. AM. 3.OOI DU
.-SINSYORE SUBWAY UWE TL94-100. WEN YIIfLD &
CW~~LSSLD AIR. 5.3). MA win TWLS.
A-WAN s w a uwm, sz , a u Icancrrco AIR,
1.Ok DU. RVI N W L L .
.--.--
SAUSWN CURVEmTn I. 0.5 I D u r n TO s r w t L*E .
Figure 35. Normalized post-construction surface settlement
Figure 33. Piezometer m y around EPB tunnel in soft silty clay in troughs due to consolidation of soft clays (Shirlaw,
Taipei (Hwang et al, 1995) 1995)
tendency for dilation to occur. An example of pore pressure
reduction close to a 8.7m diameter tunnel lined with sprayed
concrete at a depth of 21m in London Clay is shown in Figure 36
(New and Bowers, 1994). For normally consolidated clays,
significant zones of positive excess pore pressure can be generated
even for a tunnel where unloading occurs, as shown by Schmidt
(1989); negative excess pore pressures are induced near the tunnel,
but positive excess pore pressures due to shearing may result a
short distance away. In overconsolidated clays, however, the excess
pore pressures generated are generally always negative when the
ground is unloaded during tunnel construction.
The permeability of the lining relative to the soil determines
whether or not the tunnel acts as a dram.Ward and Pender (1981)
concluded that in most cases segmentally-lined tunnels in London
Clay acted as drains, despite the linings having been grouted; the
permeability of the London Clay at the depth of the tunnels is
typically in the range 101° -10'" d s e c . In contrast, O'Reilly et a1
(1991) found that long term piezometric obsewations showed no
evidence of reduced pore pressures close to the tunnel in Grimsby
for which the long term consolidation settlements are shown in
Figures 30 and 3 1. In a back-analysis using finite elements, the
closest match to these observed consolidation settlements was
obtained by assuming the permeability of the combined primary
segmental lining and secondary in-situ concrete lining to be 5 x
10-"mlsec (Mair et al, 1991). The permeability of the clay at
Grimsby deduced from in-situ constant head tests was about 10"
mtsec. Negro (1994) draws attention to the influence of tunnel
lining imperfections on water infiltration into tunnels. It is clear
that in many cases tunnel linings in clay soils may act as drains,
either fully or partially. In such cases, the development of steady
state seepage towards the tunnel may result in a widespread
reduction of pore pressures around and above the tunnel, with
associated consolidation settlements developing over a wide area
(Howland, 1980).
An example of a wider consolidation settlement trough above
a tunnel in stiff clay is given by Bowers et al(1996). They present
post-construction settlement data obtained over a 3 year period for
an 8.7m diameter tunnel at a depth of 21m in London Clay, the
tunnel lining being sprayed concrete. Figure 37 shows surface
settlement measurements obtained immediately after construction
(short term data) and 3 years later just before installation of the
secondary concrete lining (long term data). There is a relatively
uniform settlement increase across the whole settlement profile in
the 3 year period, similar to the observations above the tunnel in
soft clay at Grimsby shown in Figure 3 1. In particular it should be
noted that there are only very small increases in distortion or
\ _ * - -
0 equation (2) of this Report. Assumptions are made about the width
0 of the settlement trough and the volume loss, both determined by
4/4/92 18/4/92 2/5/92 16/5/92 30/5/92
Time
Movement (182) Stress (SB2) Porewater pressure (SBPP)
Figure 36. Pore pressure and total horizontal stress changes
together with horizontal ground movement during
tunnel construction in London Clay (New and Bowers,
1994)
-15 40 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 50 35
-
HorironM offset from centdim (m)
Longtrrmdata -- ~Gamrbntum
Figure 37. Immediate and post-construction surface settlements
above tunnel in London Clay (Bowers et al, 1996)
deflection ratio. Bowers et al show that there is also very little
change in horizontal strain in the 3 year period.
In summary, the following conclusions can be drawn about
post-construction settlements:
1. When tunnelling in soft clays, particularly with EPB shields,
significant positive excess pore pressures may be generated. These
can be induced through shearing even when unloading of the
ground occurs in terms of reduced face support, but the most
marked positive excess pore pressures are observed when over-
pressurization of the face takes place or when tail void grouting
pressures are high.
2. These positive excess pressures are generated locally in the
ground immediately surrounding the tunnel, generally within about
one tunnel diameter. If the tunnel lining .is of low permeability
relative to the clay, consolidation settlements are only associated
with dissipation of these local excess pore pressures, resulting in
an additional settlement trough of similar width to the immediate
trough caused by construction of the tunnel.
3. In stiffer clays only negative excess pore pressures generally
result from tunnel construction. If the tunnel lining is of low
permeability relative to the clay, swelling rather than consolidation
would be expected, resulting in no discernible post-construction
surface settlements.
4. If the tunnel lining is permeable relative to the permeability of
the clay, the tunnel acts as a drain and the resulting consolidation
settlements lead to a significantly wider surface settlement trough
than the short term trough associated with construction of the
tunnel. Very small increases in distortion, deflection ratio and
horizontal strain are observed.
6. MODELLING AND PREDICTION OF GROUND
MOVEMENTS
6.1 Empirical Method
The method most commonly used to predict ground movements
associated with tunnelling is based on the Gaussian distribution
proposed by Schmidt (1969) and Peck (1969), as defined in
empirical means. The width of the settlement trough is determined
from the parameter K, which is a function of the tunnel depth, as
shown in Figures 18 - 21. The magnitude of volume loss depends
on a number of factors, as discussed in Section 5.7, and its
selection requires considerable experience and judgement. This
approach is often referred to as the empirical method. At its
simplest, it is used in two dimensions to predict the magnitude and
shape of the transverse surface settlement profile. The method can
be easily extended to predict surface ground movements in three
dimensions by incorporating the longitudinal settlement trough in
the form of a cumulative probability curve, as proposed by
Anewell and Woodman (1982) and discussed in Section 5.6.
Details of the relevant equations are given by New and Bowers
(1994) and shown to be capable of realistic predictions of surface
ground movements.
Subsurface ground settlements can also be predicted by
empirical methods if account is taken of the observed variation of
trough width parameter K with depth (see Figures 20 and 2 1). The
horizontal components of the surface and subsurface ground
movements can be calculated from the simple assumption that all
ground movement vectors are directed towards the tunnel axis, or
as a refinement, towards a point below the axis for tunnels in clays,
as indicated in Figure 22b. An alternative assumption, in which the
ground movements are directed towards a ribbon-shaped zone of
ground at tunnel invert level, has been proposed by New and
Bowers (1994) and shown to correlate well with field observations.
The limitations of the empirical method are that it is generally
only applicable to:
Single tunnels, or multiple tunnels for which there is no
significant interaction.
Short term construction ground movements in the case of
tunnels in clays (post construction consolidation settlements
are less amenable to prediction by empirical methods).
Greenfield sites (the presence of structures of significant
stiffness are difficult to take into account).
A further limitation of the empirical method is that good
judgement is required in the selection of an appropriate value of
volume loss. This requires consideration of such aspects as the
tunnelling technique, geometry of the tunnel in relation to the
various ground strata, groundwater conditions and soil properties.
Nevertheless, the empirical method has considerable practical
value, particularly in instances where there are previous case
histories of tunnelling in similar ground conditions using similar
construction techniques.
6.2 Closed Form Solutions
Predictive methods based on the closed form solution for
unloading of a circular cavity in a linear elastic-perfectly plastic
continuum under axisymmetric conditions have been described by
Clough and Schmidt (1981) and Lo et a1 (1984). Mair and Taylor
(1993) describe a simple approach for predicting ground
deformations ahead of an advancing tunnel face in terms of the
closed form solution for unloading of a spherical cavity in a linear
elastic-perfectly plastic continuum; the approach was found to
provide a reasonable approximation for prediction of axial ground
movements ahead of an advancing tunnel face in London Clay. A
limitation of these approaches is the assumption of axisymmetry,
which is often not applicable - particularly for shallow tunnels.
Sagaseta (1987) presented a two-dimensional theoretical
analysis of ground deformations towards tunnels based on
solutions for incompressible fluid flow (the strain path method
proposed by Baligh, 1985). The analysis requires an assumption of
a value for the volume loss. The predicted lateral spreading and
width of the surface settlement trough are considerably greater than
observed in practice (Schmidt, 1988); a possible way of accounting
for this is proposed by Sagaseta (1988), but it involves assuming
volumetric dilatant strains for the soil which is clearly in conflict
with the behaviour of clay soils under undrained conditions.
6.3 Finite Elemenr Analysis
Finite element (FE) analysis offers considerable possibilities of
modelling many aspects of bored tunnel construction. A
comprehensive review of FE analysis of bored tunnel construction
was undertaken by Clough and Leca (1989). It is evident that the
development of ground movements around an advancing tunnel
heading is fully three-dimensional (see Figure 15). Clough and
Leca identified a number of reasons hindering the successful
development of FE analysis for analysis of this complex problem:
1. The cost of a full 3D analysis, which properly simulates
construction aspects and the 3D geometry, with a realistic non-
linear constitutive soil model, is substantial and difficult to justify
for many tunnelling applications. (This remains the case at present
despite the rapid increase in computer power and reduction in
costs.)
2. Many of the parameters influencing the results are difficult to
define, for example o w e l lining properties, tail void size and soil
model parameters (for the particular constitutive model assumed).
3. Multiple analyses would often be required for any given project,
in view of the usual changes of geology and alignment geometry
along the length of the tunnel.
4. No constitutive soil model has been shown to be successful at
simulating all aspects of soil behaviour important to tunnelling.
All of these reasons still prevail, but considerable progress in FE
modelling has been made in recent years. Two-dimensional (2D)
FE modelling remains at present more common. Many 2D analyses
are based on the ground reaction curve concept (Peck, 1969),
sometimes referred to as the Convergence-Confinement method
(Panet and Guenot, 1982). As shown in Figure 38,3D effects are
approximated by reducing a proportion of the stresses imposed by
the soil to be excavated acting on the tunnel boundary, and then
installing the tunnel lining. This can be simplified by considering
the radial stresses applied to the tunnel boundary, or.Following the
concept of Panet and Guenot (1982), this can be expressed as
where o, is the initial total ground stress prior to tunnelling, and A
is an unloading parameter (0 < A < 1). The stress removed from the
soil prior to installation of the lining is ha,, and correspondingly
the stress applied to the installed lining is (I - L)a,. As the stress is
1
*.- f -.*
: r
'
f >'
--A---#
I
'4I volume ~OSS
Figure 38. Application to 2D FE analyses of principle of
convergence-confinement method (Panet and Guenot,
1982)
removed from the tunnel boundary, radial displacements occur Horizontal distance x
Tunnel diameter D
which are equivalent to volume loss. The resulting volume loss V,
is related to the reduction in stress, Aa,. The remaining excavation
of soil continues after installation of the lining, but in cases where
the completed lining ring is installed further changes in soil
deformation or lining stresses are generally very small.
Two approaches are commonly used. The first is to install the
tunnel lining after a prescribed amount of unloading, i.e, to select
an appropriate value of A. This requires considerable judgement
and experience; axisymmetric analyses can usefully assist the
selection of 1(e.g. Panet and Guenot, 1982). The resulting volume
loss will depend on the value of 1selected. The second approach
is to prescribe the volume loss, V,, and install the tunnel lining
after a suitable degree of unloading to achieve the prescribed
volume loss. In this case the resulting lining stress will depend on
the prescribed volume loss. Whichever approach is used, it is
important that the calculated lining stress (1 - A)a, and volume loss Horizontal distance
V, should be reasonably compatible with field measurements for Tunnel diameter D
similar tunnels in comparable ground conditions. They should lie
within the realistic range of values expected for the tunnel in the
ground conditions analysed; if they do not, the analysis should be
viewed with caution.
An alternative method of analysis, known as the Progressive
Softening approach (Swoboda, 1979), involves reducing the
stiffness of the soil within the tunnel area prior to excavation and
placement of the tunnel lining. The amount by which the stifhess
is reduced requires considerable experience and judgement.
Rowe et al (1983) proposed the concept of the "gap" parameter
to define the ground displacements that should be prescribed in a
2D FE analysis prior to installing the lining. This is illustrated ir.
Figure 39. The "gap" represents the physical clearance between the
outer s k i of the shield and the lining (G,) plus an allowance for
out-of-plane (3D) ground movements (u,,), together with an
allowance for workmanship (a).Lee et al (1992) used 3D elasto- Figure 40. FE predictions by Lee and Rowe (1989) of surface
plastic finite element analysis to develop a means of quantifying settlement troughs observed in centrifuge models of
the gap parameter for use in a 2D analysis; these were shown by tunnels in soft clay (Mair, 1979)
Rowe and Lee (1992a) to lead to reasonable predictions of field
observations using 2D analyses. When closed face techniques such
as EPB or sluny shields are used to provide full support to the face, Gunn (1993) found that isotropic non-linear elastic perfectly
the gap parameter is simply the physical clearance between the plastic "small-strain" stiffness soil models (Simpson, 1979;
outer skin of the shield and the lining (i.e. u,,=O) and thus the 2D Jardine et al, 1986) improved the 2D FE predictions for tunnels in
idealization becomes closer to reality. However, where stress relief heavily overconsolidated London Clay tunnels compared with
occurs at the face, as in open faced tunnelling, 2D idealizations are linear elastic-perfectly plastic models, but even these predicted
inevitably more approximate. wider settlement troughs than observed in practice. In contrast,
In 2D FE analysis, considerable attention has been paid to the Simpson et a1 (1996) reported 2D FE predictions for a tunnel in
difficulty in predicting the Gaussian surface settlement distribution London Clay showing the shape of the settlement trough to be little
defined in equation (2). Isotropic linear elastic-perfectly plastic soil influenced by non-linearity but substantially influenced by shear
models lead to predictions of much wider surface settlement modulus anisotropy (as suggested by Lee and Rowe, 1989). They
troughs than the observed Gaussian distribution (Mair et al, 1981; reported bender element tests on undisturbed London Clay samples
Lee and Rowe, 1989; Gunn, 1993). Lee and Rowe (1 989) showed and referred to in-situ shear wave tests in London Clay, both of
that the use of anisotropic elastic properties significantly improves which demonstrate significantly anisotropic shear moduli; the in-
the prediction. Figure 40 shows their 2D FE predictions of situ shear wave data are shown in Figure 4 1.
centrifuge model tests on tunnels in lightly overconsolidated soft Figure 42 shows a series of 2D FE predictions by Addenbrooke
clay (Mair, 1979). Their isotropic linear elastic-plastic model et al(1997) of surface settlement profiles above a 4.75m diameter
(G,,,/E, = 113) predicts a significantly wider settlement trough than tunnel at a depth of 34m in London Clay compared with the field
anisotropic models with smaller G,JEVratios. measurements reported by Standing et al (1996). The same volume
loss (3.3%), as measured, was prescribed for each of the
predictions. All three predictions used a non-linear elastic,
perfectly plastic model, the non-linear elastic ("small strain")
response being described by Jardine et a1 (1986). Two of these
assumed different degrees of anisotropy. The non-linear models all
predict deeper and narrower troughs, and the predictions improve
with increasing degrees of assumed anisotropy.Addenbrooke et a1
note, however, that the ratio G,JE/E: = 0.2 assumed for the higher
degree of anisotropy does not appear to be consistent with
presently available laboratory or field test data for London Clay,
such as presented in Figure 4 1. The apparent relative importance
Figure 39. Definition of gap pararneler (Kowe et al, 1983) of anisotropy may be linked to the constitutive soil model assumed
in the analysis.
 SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY (mla)
Figure 4 1. In situ shear wave tests in London Clay (from Simpson
et al, 1996)
The effect of K, on the predicted width of surface settlement
trough is surprisingly often neglected (Gens, 1995). The wider
settlement trough predicted by 2D FE analyses for tunnels in
heavily overconsolidated clays may be linked to K, generally being
assumed to be significantly greater than 1. Reducing K, locally
either side of the tunnel to account for unloading associated with
3D effects leads to narrower, more realistic settlement troughs
being predicted by 2D FE analyses (Addenbrooke, 1996). Figure
43 illustrates the influence of KO on the predicted surface
settlement profile for the same tunnel for which results of analyses
are shown on Figure 42. K,was reduced to 0.5 in a zone of depth
D and width 1.5D either side of the tunnel of diameter D, and this
had a marked influence on the shape of the settlement trough
(Addenbrooke, 1997).
Stallebrass et a1 (1994) carried out a parametric study using a
three-surface kinematic hardening soil model; they concluded that
the recent stress history of the soil, described by anisotropic
unloading or re-loading, has an important effect on the predicted
surface settlement trough. However, the value of K,, was similar in
all their analyses.
In summary, it is clear that sophisticated soil models are
required to achieve realistic predictions of the transverse surface
settlement trough using 2D FE analyses, particularly for tunnels in
heavily overconsolidated clays.
Clough and Leca (1989) suggest that the use of 2D analyses to
represent 3D effects is itself one of the reasons for the shape of the
settlement trough not being well predicted. Non-linear 3D FE
analyses have been undertaken of NATM construction (e.g.
Swoboda et al, 1989; Katzenbach and Breth, 1981), but detailed
comparisons with surface settlement data were not presented. 3D
Figure 42. Influence of anisotropy on FE predictions of surface
settlement trough (Addenbrooke et al. 1997)
Pmn J *..:
Figure 43. Influence of K,on FE predictions of surface settlement
trough (Addenbrooke, 1996,1997)
FE analysis of ground movements during NATM construction in
London Clay was reported by Dasari et al (1996), using a strain
dependent Modified Cam Clay soil model, but the predicted
transverse surface settlement trough was significantly wider than
the field observations, as in the 2D FE analyses referred to earlier.
As noted by Clough and Leca (1989), NATM poses fewer
problems for 3D finite element modelling than does shield
tunnelling which is generally a more complex process to model.
Akagi and Komiya (1996) report a 3D FE analysis of an EPB
shield tunnel constructed in soft clay, using a critical state soil
model. The shield machine and its advance were modelled in what
clearly was an extremely complex analysis. Only a few field
measurements were presented for comparison with the predictions,
but the analysis appeared capable of reproducing many of the
features observed in practice. De Borst et al(1996) describe 2D
and 3D FE analyses of a pipe jack tunnel in soft clay. 3D FE
analyses are also reported by Rowe and Lee (1992b) and Gioda et
al(1994).
3D FE analyses are reported in several papers to this
Conference, but there are still very few examples of published 3D
FE analyses of tunnel construction in the field where detailed
comparisons are made between the predictions and the
measurements. 3D FE analysis of tunnel construction with elasto-
plastic soil models remains a major undertaking despite the recent
rapid increases in computer power and the decreases in cost.
Nevertheless it is likely to become increasingly common in the
future.
A general difficulty in comparing FE analyses with field data is
that discrepancies could be due to one or more of the following: (a)
deficiencies in the soil model (b) the soil parameters adopted (c)
idealizations in the modelling, especially with respect to the
boundary conditions, and (d) possible uncertainties in the field
measurements. As discussed by Clough and Leca (1989), the
tunnel construction process is extremely complex, particularly if
shield tunnelling is involved, and it therefore represents almost the
ultimate challenge to geotechnical analysts.
6.4 Physical Modelling
Physical models have been used to study ground movements
associated with tunnel construction, either to provide detailed data
against which numerical prediction methods can be calibrated or
in cases where numerical analysis is impractical. Self-weight of the
soil is a major factor influencing tunnel stability and associated
ground deformations, and hence centrifuge model tests are
appropriate, particularly for shallow tunnels. A review of the
application of centrifuge model testing to tunnels is given by
Taylor (1995a). Tests on tunnels in soft clays to investigate
stability and ground movement patterns are summarised by Mair
et a1 (1984). Centrifuge model studies investigating the ground
deformation mechanisms of tunnels in soft clay overlain by sand

Figure 44. Failure mechanism observed in centrifuge model test of
tunnel with a pre-vault (Skiker et al, 1994)
layers are described by Grant and Taylor (1996). The use of digital
image analysis, as described by Grant and Taylor (1996), is an
important development for detailed and accurate measurements of
ground movements in centrifuge model tests.
Centrifuge model tests on tunnels in sands to investigate
stability were reported by Atkinson et al (1977), Atkinson and
Potts (1977) and by Chambon and Corte (1989,1994), as described
in Section 4.3. These have been extended recently by S k i e r et al
(1994) to study the face stability and deformation mechanisms of
tunnels constructed using the mechanical pre-cutting method
illustrated in Figure 2(c); the failure mechanism observed in the
tests is shown in Figure 44. Failure was initiated at the tunnel face
and it then propagated to the crown of the pre-vault, but there was
little propagation or soil deformation above the pre-vault. Further
insight into this is provided by Leca et al in their paper to this
Conference. The use of centrifuge modelling to investigate specific
construction issues has also been undertaken by Imamura et al
(1996) and Nomoto et a1 (1996), who designed a miniature EPB
tunnelling machine of lOOmm diameter for use in a centrifuge.
Tests were undertaken at 25g in loose dry sand, modelling a 2.5m
diameter shield machine at prototype scale. The influences of face
excavation and tail void closure on earth pressures induced on the
tunnel lining were investigated, both independently and in
combination. A miniature tunnelling machine was also used by
Kim et al(1996) for tests at I g in soft clay with a surface surcharge
to investigate interaction effects of closely spaced tunnels.
Physical modelling has a valuable r6le in investigating complex
three dimensional soil-structure interaction problems. An example
of this is described by Hergarden et al(1996), who used centrifuge
model testing to study the influence of tunnel construction on
deformations of adjacent pile foundations. Centrifuge testing was
also used by Bolton et a1 (1996) to investigate the mechanics of
compensation grouting close to a tunnel face in soft clay.
7. EFFECTS OF GROUND MOVEMENTS ON BUILDINGS
7.1 Introduction
In the urban environment the effects of underground construction
on buildings are of paramount importance. Despite the wealth of
case records of ground movement measurements associated with
bored tunnel construction, there are remarkably few published
records of the detailed performance of buildings affected by
tunnelling.
7.2 Classificafionof Damage and Assessment Criteria
The subject of settlement damage to masonry buildings was
addressed by Burland and Wroth (1974) and Burland et a1 (1977),
who introduced a damage classification system, together with the
concept of limiting tensile strain. In an important development,
Boscardin and Cording (1989) analysed case histories of
excavation induced subsidence and showed that the damage
categories put forward by Burland et al are related to the magnitude
of estimated tensile strain in the building. Ranges of strain were
identified for different damage categories, as shown in Table 3.
Figure 45 was derived for buildings with length (L) to height (H)
ratios of 1 in terms of angular distortion (P) and horizontal strain;
shear deformation was assumed to be dominant, and bending
strains less critical.
Burland (1995) and Mair et al (1996) categorised building
damage in terms of deflection ratios A/L for sections of the
building in hogging or sagging mode, as shown in Figure 46. A
damage category chart for buildings in a hogging mode with LM
= 1 is shown in Figure 47; this takes into account strains due to
both shear and bending modes and is broadly equivalent to the
chart produced by Boscardin and Cording, since generally f3
approximately equals 2 - 3 times (AL).The evaluation of P from
settlement measurements is not always straightforward because the
tilt of the building needs to be identified; in practice the evaluation
of A L is easier. Figure 48 shows the more general results given by
Burland (1995) (in terms of the limiting tensile strain, E,,,) for a
range of LM ratios. Based on this approach, a methodology for
assessment of risk of building damage due to bored tunnelling is
described by Mair et al (1996). This approach has been used
successfully for a number of major tunnelling projects.
Table 3. Relationship between category of damage and limiting
tensile strain, elim(after Boscardin and Cording, 1989)
' ~ o t e : Boscardin and Cording (1989) describe the damage
corresponding to eli, in the range 0.15 - 0.3% as "Moderate to
Severe". However, none of the cases quoted by them exhibit severe
damage for this range of strains. There is therefore no evidence to
suggest that tensile strains up to 0.3% will result in severe damage.
Figure 45. Building damage categories relating to horizontal strain
and angular distortion (after Boscardin and Cording,
1989)
 lrogging
zone -+- sagging
Figure 46. Deformation of building above a tunnel (Mair et al,
1996)
7.3 Influence of Building St~mess
In assessing possible effects on buildings it is commonly assumed
that the structure conforms to the "greenf~eld site" settlement
trough, i.e. its stiffness is neglected. This is often conservative,
because in reality the inherent stifmess of the building will tend to
reduce both the deflection ratio and the horizontal strains. This was
well illustrated by Breth and Chambosse (1974) who recorded
settlement behaviour of a number of buildings in response to tunnel
construction in Frankfurt Clay. Figure 49 shows how the stiffness
of the buildings (of reinforced concrete framed construction)
modified their deformed shape compared with that of the adjacent
ground. Figure 50 shows the actual measured settlement profile for
Horizontal stroin (%I
Figure 47. Building damage categories relating to horizontal strain
and deflection ratio for LiH=I, hogging mode (Burland,
1995; Mair et al, 1996)
(a) bending strain (b) diagonal strain minimum of (a) and (b)
Figure 48. Generalized building damage categories relating to
horizontal strain and deflection ratio for different L/H
values (Burland, 1995)
the Mansion House in London (a fragile building more than 200
years old) when a tunnel was constructed beneath it (Frischmann
et al, 1994). The observed profile is much wider than the predicted
"greenfield" profile, with correspondingly much lower deflection
ratios and distortions. As discussed by Boscardin and Cording
(1989) and Geddes (1990), in many cases the foundations of a
building will modify the horizontal ground movements so that the
horizontal strain induced in the building is considerably reduced.
Buildings on continuous foundations such as rafts are likely to
experience negligible horizontal strain from bored tunnel
construction; the same may apply to strip foundations, depending
on their orientation.
Potts and Addenbrooke (1996, 1997) used finite element
analyses incorporating a non-linear elastic plastic soil model to
study parametrically the influence of building stiffness on ground
movements induced by tunnelling, as shown in Figure 5 1. About
100 analyses were undertaken of different configurations of tunnel
and building dimensions. Two important dimensionless parameters
were introduced: the relative bending stiffness, p*, which
expresses the relative stiffness between the building and the
underlying ground, and the correspondingrelative axial stiffness,
a*. These are defined as
'a
-I.
-
, '1
1.-I
Figure 49. Influence of building stiffness on settlement profile
associated with tunnel in Frankfurt Clay (Breth and
Charnbosse. 1974)
 --e M a
.--.-
Precleed preen llcld
14 I
0 10 20 Jo 40 50 6
bsrana from ~ r t wr!ia:
h m
r'igure 50. Influence of building stiffness on settlement profile .
associated with tunnel in London Clay (after
Frischmann et al, 1994)
where H is the half-width of building (= B/2) and EI and EA are
the equivalent bending and axial stiffness of the building. E, is a
representative soil stiffhess taken by Potts and Addenbrooke to be
the undrained secant stiffness at 0.01% axial strain in a triaxial
compression test on a soil sample at a depth of 212. The expression
for p* is similar to that used by Fraser and W a d e (1976) and by
Potts and Bond (1994) in soil-struchw interaction analyses of rafts
and retaining walls respectively. The expression for a* is similar
to that used by Boscardin and Cording (1989).
The results of the study by Potts and Addenbrooke are
summarised in Figure 52. Modification factors to the deflection
ratios (AIL)that would be obtained from the "greenfield site"
settlement profiles are shown as different curves for sagging and
hogging deformation modes for different e/B ratios (e being the
eccentricity of the tunnel from the centre line of the building, see
Figure 51). These vary with the relative bending stiffness, p*. In
practice, many buildings have p* values exceeding 1W2and for
these cases Figure 52 indicates low modification factors in the
range 0.1-0.2, i.e. the deflection ratio that would be predicted if the
building were perfectly flexible is reduced to only 10-20% of that
value by the stiffhess of the building. Similar modification factors
were produced by Potts and Addenbrooke for horizontal strain.
The study by Potts and Addenbrooke is a valuable contribution
to methods of prediction of potential damage due to tunnelling and
to understanding how buildings may behave in response to
tunnelling. The approach has been successfully used for prediction
and interpretation of measurements of building response for the
Jubilee Line Extension in London; these measurements have been
the principal focus of a major research programme described by
Burland et a1 (1996).
Experience and judgement are required in the assessment of the
equivalent bending and axial stiffness of the building, EI and EA.
In particular, the contribution to the bending stiffness of different
floors of a multi-storey building will depend on the presence and
Figure 51. Geometry of problem analysed by Pons and
Addenbrooke ( I 996)
Figure 52. Modification factors for deflection ratio according to
relative building stiffness (Potts and Addenbrooke,
1996)
stiffness of any shear walls. Changes of stiffness that might occur
as a result of cracking are highlighted by Simpson and Grose
(1996).
7.4 Piled Buildings
The response of buildings on piled foundations to ground
movements induced by tunnelling poses a major challenge to
engineers concerned with underground construction in the urban
environment. Very few published case histories exist. Forth and
Thorley (1996) present a case history of the effects of tunnel
construction in Hong Kong on a piled building. Figure 53 shows
two 7.9m diameter tunnels constructed adjacent to piles using open
face tunnelling shields and compressed air in completely weathered
granite below the water table. The 3 1 storey building was founded
on 2m diameter bored piles varying in length from 41m to 64m.
The maximum recorded settlement of the building at the side
closest to the tunnels due to tunnel construction effects alone
(including removal of compressed air) was 12mm; this was
probably largely due to redistribution of shaft friction caused by
vertical ground movements towards the tunnels.
The effects of construction of a 7.5 m diameter tunnel (in stiff
London Clay) between bored pile foundations for a six-storey
building were reported by Mair (1993) and by Lee et a1 (1994). The
clear spacing between the extrados of the tunnel and the nearest
pile (1.2 m diameter) was only 1 m, as shown in Figure 54. The
piled foundations were designed to take account of the future
tunnel construction; slip coating was incorporated along the entire
length of the pile shafts to 4 m above the base, so that the piles
-m.. +3.7 1 BUILDING 1
Figure 53. Tunnelling adjacent to piled building in Hong Kong
(Forth and Thorley, 1996)

Figure 54. Tunnelling between piled foundations in London Clay
(Mair, 1993)
would behave essentially as end-bearing piles. Inclinometers were
installed in the ground, and in some of piles. The deflected profiles
of the piles and ground were very similar, indicating that the piles
acted as slender members and deformed with the ground. The
maximum horizontal displacement of the nearest piles to the tunnel
was only about 10 mm, and the measured settlement of the
building due to tunnel construction was negligible.
Piles with bases located above or close to tunnel axis level are
potentially more adversely affected. Vermeer and Bonnier (1991)
undertook finite element analysis of potential effects of shield
tunnelling on piled foundations in Amsterdam. The piles in
question were driven down to a sand layer, and the analyses
predicted that the piles would follow the settlement of this sand
layer. Centrifuge model tests by Hergarden et al(1996) on a similar
configuration, modelling construction of a 7 m diameter tunnel,
showed piles at a distance of 2 tunnel diameters from the edge of
the tunnel to be unaffected; at distances in the range 0.25-1 times
tunnel diameter, pile settlements varied in proportion to the volume
loss imposed in the tests, and closer than 0.25 times tunnel
diameter, severe settlements occurred. These effects, together with
reductions in pile resistance, are illustrated by Figure 55 derived
from similar tests by Bezuijen and van der Schrier (1994).
It is clear that the mechanisms of ground movement and soil-
structure interaction are particularly complex in the case of bored
tunnel construction beneath piled foundations. There is a need for
more field measurements.
Figure 55. Centrifuge modelling of influence of tunnel
construction on settlement of adjacent piles (Bezuijen
and van der Schrier, 1994)
8. GROUND LOADING ON TUNNEL LININGS
8.1 Introduction
Peck (1969) defined the two principal requirements of a tunnel
lining as (a) being able to withstand the direct compressive forces
that develop circumferentially as a result of the ground loading,
and (b) being able to withstand whatever bending may occur. He
clearly illustrated the factors influencing the development of
ground loading on the lining. Key points highlighted by Peck can
be summarized as follows:
1. By the time the lining is installed, soil displacements have
inevitably occurred (the ground having moved radially towards the
tunnel and axially towards the face). This is particularly the case
for open face tunnelling. In closed face tunnelling, however, soil
displacements could be very small.
2. The short-term ground loading experienced by the tunnel lining
is inversely proportional to the magnitude of soil displacements
that have occurred prior to its installation.
3. The circumferential flexibility of the lining may allow a further
reduction in the loading, although this is generally small since most
completed rings are generally relatively stiff circurnferentially.
4. The short-term ground loading acting on the tunnel lining can
be taken to correspond to when the tunnel face has moved away
from the lining by approximately 2 tunnel diameters, i.e. when the
three-dimensional effects of the tunnel heading are no longer
evident.
5. Any further increase in ground loading on the lining depends on
the soil type. In the case of sandy soils, tunnel excavation and
lining erection take place under drained conditions, and hence little
or no increase in ground loading would be likely (unless caused by
additional grouting). In clays, however, the ground loading will
increase as excess pore pressures dissipate.
8.2 Linings in Clays
Data on lining load measurements for tunnels in clays were
presented by Peck, the majority being in London Clay. Several of
these measurements indicated a rapid build-up of ground loading,
within a few weeks to a year, to a value equivalent to the full
overburden pressure. It should be noted, however, that these
measurements were on tunnels in close proximity to other tunnels
(typically within one tunnel diameter).
Measurementshave been made by the UK Transport Research
Laboratory of loads in tunnel linings by installing vibrating-wire
load cells between the segments to measure the thrust at intervals
around the ring. One example of these measurements, reported by
Barratt et al (1994), is for a 4m diameter tunnel lined with
expanded concrete segments with its axis at a depth of 20m in
London Clay at Regent's Park. The measurements made for a
period of 20 years, as shown in Figure 56, indicate that the vertical
loads (measured at axis level) shortly after construction were
equivalent to about 30% of the total overburden pressure, and then
have steadily built up to about 60% of the overburden pressure and
appear to have almost stabilized.The horizontal load (measured at
the crown ) is about 70% of the vertical load. despite the fact that
K, would have been in the range 1.5-2 prior to tunnel construction,
the London Clay being highly overconsolidated. A similar ratio of
horizontal to vertical load has been measured at another site by
Bowers and Redgers (1996, 1997), also using load cells installed
between segments; details of these are given by Davies and
Bowers (1996), as shown in Figure 57. These measurements
confirm the important point highlighted by Peck that in reality the
tunnel lining is not subjected to the original in-situ ground stresses
as if it had been "wished into place". The soil displacements that
occur prior to installation of the lining clearly have a major
influence in reducing both the short-term and long-term ground
loading to much lower values than the original in-situ stresses.
Particularly in the case of highly overconsolidated clays for which
 full overburden

I ,week&
lining installed
11

time in days
Figure 56. Measurements by load cells in tunnel lining in London
Clay over 20 years (Barratt et al, 1994)
K, is usually considerably greater than 1, in general it is erroneous
to consider the tunnel lining being subjected to higher horizontal
than vertical ground loading (Mair, 1994).
Figure 58 shows a collection of data from the monitoring of
relatively short term lining loads for 12 different segmentally lined
tunnels in London Clay. The lining loads were either measured
directly as a circumferential thrust by means of load cells between
the segments (shown as solid symbols) or interpreted from
vibrating wire strain gauges. The Victoria Line data reported by
Smyth-Osborne (1969) were obtained from photo-elastic stress
gauges cast into the concrete segments. The lining loads are
expressed as a percentage of the load equivalent to the overburden
pressure (yz) at the tunnel axis. These are plotted against the C/D
ratio for each tunnel, where C is the cover above the tunnel crown
and D is the tunnel diameter. Except in the case of the Regent's
Park measurements reported by Barratt et a1 (1994), most of the
data are only available for a period of about a year after installation
of the lining; in several of the cases measurements were taken for
an even shorter period. The data in Figure 58 are for one week after
lining installation, and also (where available) for one year after
installation. In all cases the linings were either for single tunnels,
or where adjacent tunnels were at least one diameter apart so that
interaction effects were small. The tunnel diameter was about 4m
in all cases, except for the Heathrow Cargo Tunnel which was
10.9m. Some of the tunnels were lined with either cast iron or
concrete bolted segments, which were grouted, and others were
lined with expanded concrete or cast iron segments for which no
grouting was undertaken.
The data in Figure 58 show a trend of decreasing immediate
short-term lining load (one week after installation) with increasing
SIDE ELEVATION
Sleel plales
- -
0 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
cover to diameter ratio (CID)
Muir Wood (1969)
A Barratt et a1 (1994)
Tedd et al(l991)
I Bowers and Redgen (1997)
data from strain gauges
v Thomas (1978)
D Ward and Thomas (1965)
Figure 58. Short-term ground loading on segmental tunnel linings
in London Clay (single tunnels)
C/D ratio. The data one year after lining installation shows a less
clear trend; generally the lining loads at one year vary from about
40-60% of the overburden pressure. The measurements obtained
by Barratt et al(1994) over a 20 year period, shown in Figure 56,
indicate only a relatively small increase in load in the years
following the first year.
Prediction of the development of lining loads with time in clay
soils is complex and requires, amongst other things, knowledge of
the drainage boundary conditions (i.e. whether or not the tunnel
acts as a drain) and of the variations of permeability of the ground
with distance from the tunnel. Several authors report pore pressure
measurements around tunnels in clays indicating the lining to be
acting as a drain (Terzaghi, 1942; Eden and Bozozuk, 1969;
Palmer and Belshaw, 1980; De Lory et al, 1979; Ward and
Pender, 1981). However, there is a need to verify the development
and distribution of pore pressures around tunnels, for which lining
loads are also measured. If tunnels in clays do act as drains, as is
probably the case for many situations, the distribution of pore
pressure corresponding to long teim seepage will depend on the
relative permeabilities of the lining and surrounding clay. Factors
influencing lining permeability, pore pressures, water heads and
flow through tunnel linings are discussed by Mueser Rutledge
(1988), Atwa and Leca (1 994) and Negro (1994).

I - .
~ ~ 3 6 0 x 1 0 c..
-
radiused lo fit lining. Load cell and bearing plate
in podtet ~nsegment
Evidence of the short-term lining loads being inversely related
m 12mm recass - 380 / 20 to the delay in installation of the lining is presented in Figure 59 by
20 separalion Negro et a1 (1996). They reviewed measurements of lining loads by
segments
means of flat jack tests, embedded strain gauges and load cells for
a variety of tunnels in Sao Paolo, Brazil, the majority being lined
.....- . with sprayed concrete (NATM). Most of the tunnels were in stiff
to hard fissured Tertiary clays. The delay in installation was

M24 x
100 boll
..
,--
I. -
35 0 d SlWl lube
wUl M24 lnlemrtl
lhread

_ '
1000
700

. . _ - _--All dmensmnsan mm
I Ic--1

Figure 57. Details of load cells installed between tunnel lining

x

I
Beanng plate
188 x 20

--
defined by means of the distance (P) behind the excavation face to
where the lining could be considered an effective ring, i.e. the
location at which the sprayed concrete invert was closed or where
the segmental lining was erected. The lining loads in Figure 59 are
plotted as proportions of the equivalent load corresponding to fill
overburden pressure at tunnel axis level (yz); these are plotted
segments (Davies and Bowers, 1996) against the ratio P/D, where D is the equivalent tunnel diameter. A
Figure 59. Relationship between average lining loads and delay in
installation of lining in stiff to hard clays (after Negro
et al, 1996)
reasonably clear trend is evident of decreasing loads with
increasing delay in installation of the linings; the point no. 10 on
Figure 59 corresponds to a measurement in an expanded concrete
segmental lining and may not be representative due to local jacking
forces (Negro, 1997).
8.3 Linings in Sands and Gravels
Peck (1969) and Ward and Pender (1981) drew attention to the
scarcity of published measuremenls of lining loads for tunnels in
sands and gravels. In their review of available data, Ward and
Pender concluded that the ground loading and deformations of
tunnels in dense sand and gravelly soils are much smaller than in
clays and silts, provided any adverse water conditions are dealt
with effectively during excavation. They showed that the effective
stress loading from the sol1 on the lining is often very low, and is
comparable to the tunnel support pressure required to maintain
drained stability (see Section 4.3 of this Report). In cases of deeper
tunnels below the water table, the majority of the ground loading
is from water pressure, the effective stress component being very
low. This was also concluded by Ohta et a1 (1995) in their review
of measurements on tunnels in Japan.
Examples of low effectwe stresses acting on tunnel linings in
sands are illustrated in two case histories reported by Inokuma and
Ishimura (1995). F~gure60 shows total soil pressures (measured
with pressure cells) and water pressures around a concrete
segmental lining for a 7. lm diameter tunnel, which is at a depth of
17m, constructed with a slurry shield in loose clayey silty sands
below the water table. The calculated effective soil pressures are
also shown, and these are very low, particularly at the invert of the
U~wrcd".lue of lhr
hydroslatr water penwe
::::z
0
%=
ell^,,". n n h pcuurc
(kPa1 ~Msa.urcdearth p-w
ronrclcd h,dr.u(~
pLYLYe1
Figure 60 Total soil and water pressures acting on 7 Im diameter
tunnel lining at a depth of 17m in clayey silty sands
(Inokuma and Ishimura, 1995)
Figure 6 1. Total soil and water pressures acting on 5m diameter .
tunnel lining at a depth of 32m in clayey silty sands
(Inokuma and Ishimura, 1995)
tunnel where they are almost zero. Figure 61 shows the total soil
pressures and water pressures around a concrete segmental lining
for a 5m diameter tunnel at a depth of 32x11, also constructed with
a slurry shield in loose clayey silty sands below the water table. A
similar pattern is evident, with very low effective stresses acting on
the lining.
In contrast, Atahan et a1 (1996) report a case history in which
measurements by strain gauges cast into the concrete segments
indicated the lining loads for a 3.4m diameter tunnel constructed
with a slurry shield in sands and gravels to correspond almost to
the full overburden pressure. The water table was only just above
the tunnel, and hence the effective stress imposed by the soil was
the major component of the loading. However the tunnel was at a
shallow depth of 7.5m with a layer of silt close to the crown, and
this may explain the h ~ g hproportion of the overburden pressure
experienced by the tunnel.
8.4 Methods of Measurement
Ward and Pender (1 98 I) concluded that the technique of measuring
lining thrusts by installing load cells between segments, as
illustrated in Figure 57, is the most reliable method. It is only
applicable to segmental linings in clayey soils; in other ground
conditions different techniques have to be used. The use of earth
pressure cells, for example, to measure radial soil pressures acting
on the lining is often problematic. as concluded by Ohta et al
(1 995) in their comprehensive survey of measurements made on
tunnel linings in Japan. The relative advantages and disadvantages
of earth pressure cells and strain gauges attached to reinforcement
(in the case of concrete segments) are discussed by Ohta et al and
by Barratt et a1 (1 994).
Particularly problematic is the use of pressure cells to deduce
loads in sprayed concrete linings (NATM). Pressure cells filled
with oil or mercury are often Installed against the ground. as shown
in Figure 62, to measure the earth pressure (i.e. radial stress a,)
acting on the sprayed concrete lining. The same type of pressure
cells are often also installed to measure the hoop or tangential
stress (a,) transmitted through the sprayed concrete, as shown in
Figure 62. Key factors potentially affecting the measurements
made by such pressure cells are:
(a) cell action effects related to differences In stiffness between
the cell and the surrounding material
(b) temperature effects
(c) stress non-uniformities in the sprayed concrete
(d) accuracy of positioning of the cell
(e) cracklng in the sprayed concrete.
Factors (a) and (b) can usually be taken account of in the deslgn
and calibration of the pressure cells. but factors (c), (d) and (e) are
 zone of significant
ground movement

--
'I-L tunnel face shear stresses
acting on nail

Figure 63. Tunnel face reinforcement using soil nails

diameter of the nails, as well as the nail stiffness in relation to the

Figure 62. Typical layout of pressure cells in sprayed concrete
linings (Kimmance and Allen, 1996)
more difficult to allow for. Experience shows that measurements
from pressure cells used for sprayed concrete linings often show
considerable scatter, and interpretation of absolute earth pressure
or concrete stress values must be viewed with caution. The main
use of such cells is to record changes in pressure which, together
with strain gauge and lining deformation measurements, allow any
changes of behaviour of the sprayed concrete lining to be closely
monitored. Frequency of reading of pressure cells is an important
factor during the early stages of tunnel construction following
installation of the cells (Pacovsky, 1996).
The rate of development of ground loading on sprayed concrete
tunnel linings is of particular importance in cases where only a thin
temporary shell is installed for reasons of economy. The temporary
lining may be required for a significant period, possibly up to a
year, before the permanent inner lining is installed. Further
research is needed to develop reliable methods of measuring
loading induced in sprayed concrete linings so that predictions and
performance can be compared.
9. DEVELOPMENTS IN GROUND TREATMENT
When open face tunnelling is undertaken, there is increasing use of
soil reinforcement to improve face stability, particularly in France
and Italy (e.g. Schlosser and Guilloux, 1995, Lunardi et al, 1992).
The technique can also be effective in reducing ground
movements, because the use of long soil nails restrains the ground
ahead of the tunnel face, thereby limiting deformations towards the
ground stiffness. The type of grout used also influences the nail
stiffness. Barley and Graham (1997) present results of a series of
pull-out tests on trial fibreglass and steel soil nails used for tunnel
face support in London Clay. The more extensible fibreglass nails
were found to be less efficient than the steel nails, but they are
clearly easier to cut during tunnel excavation. Numerical analysis
of soil nailing of tunnel faces has been undertaken by a number of
authors (e.g. Jassionnesse et al, 1996; Peila et al, 1996).
~ l u & yand Earth Pressure Balance Shield Technology
9.2
Closed face tunnelling machines, either slurry shields or earth
pressure balance (EPB) shields, are increasingly used in soft
ground. The choice between these two types of shield (see Figures
3 and 4) and their successful operation depends critically on the
characteristics of the ground. Steiner (1996) reviewed the major
geotechnical factors influencing the choice of machine by reference
to case histories, and stresses the importance of Atterberg limits
and grading. Figure 65 illustrates the applicability of the two types
of system according to the soil grading when tunnelling below the
water table. Steiner also notes that EPB machines can be used in
more granular soils than indicated in Figure 65 if suitable foam
additives are injected into the tunnel face working chamber. In a
paper to this conference, Jancsecz discusses the applicability of
slurry shields in relation to the ground properties.
Kanayasu et a1 (1995) describe the use of slurry admixtures and
foams to improve the performance of an 8.7111 diameter EPB
machine in gravels mixed with boulders below the water table; the
maximum ground movements were less than 1Omm. Foams may
also be injected into the working chamber to prevent clogging or
"balling" of clay soils. Additional conditioning of the excavated
-

1
~ 1 - r n - 1 -
face. The zone of potentially significant ground movement I
I
I
I
I I
I I
I I I
I I I
immediately ahead of the tunnel face is restrained by the soil nails, I
I
I
I
I I
I I
I I I
I I I
provided that they extend a sufficient length into the ground I
I I I I I I

beyond the zone, as illustrated in Figure 63. Lunardi et al(1992)

. o L. o Ir aL * *U L -
describe the use of 15m long fibreglass soil nails to reinforce the re Kg

entire face area of a 12m diameter tunnel constructed in stiff clays

interbedded with layers of water bearing silty sands. Horizontal jet
grouting was used to create a horizontal grout column of about
150mm in diameter, into which a 15m long fibreglass tube was
pushed. In several experimental sections, strain gauges were
attached to the fibreglass tubes at 2.5m intervals. Figure 64 shows
the measured strains (and the derived axial load in the tube) as the
tunnel face advanced in Im lengths. The strain distribution is seen 0 1.5 4 6.5 9 11.5 14 (m)
to change along the fibreglass tube as the tunnel face advanced. 1-1000
The efficiency of soil nailing in limiting ground movements Figure 64. Strain measurements on instrumented fibreglass soil
depends on a number of factors, notably the spacing, length and nails (Lunardi et al. 1992)

Figure65 Applicability of sluny or EPB shield tunnelling
according to soil grading (Steiner, 1996)
soils passing through the screw of EPB machines (see Eigure 4)
can be achieved by injecting suitable additives through the screw
casing to enable smooth flow and prevent either plugging or too
high a slurry content.
The choice and applicability of foam and polymer additives,
depending on the ground conditions, is a relatively new challenge
to geotechnical engineers concerned with closed face pressurised
tunnelling machines. The environmental aspects of disposal of
excavated soil containing foam and polymer additives are
becoming increasingly important. Mixed face tunnelling in layered
ground makes the choice of suitable additives especially difficult.
An illustration of the complexity of modem slurry shield
machine technology is given in Figure 66 by K m o et al(1996).
They describe a remarkable method of constructing a 17m wide
station tunnel complex close beneath a building in clays and sands
below the water table. A triple circular face slurry shield machine
was constructed for this purpose, in order that the entire cross
section was simultaneously excavated. The maximum settlement
of the building amounted to only 7mm.
9.3 Compensation Grouting
Compensation grouting is a relatively new technique which is
being used increasingly to control ground settlements during bored
tunnel construction in soft ground. The principles of the method
and a review of its applications are presented by Mair and Hight
(1994). The basic principle is illustrated in Figure 67. Grout is
iniected between the tunnel and the building foundations (not
shown) to compensate for ground loss and stress relief caused by
tunnel excavation. Grout injection is undertaken simultaneously
with tunnelling in response to detailed observations, the aim being
Figure 66. Use of triple circular face sluny machine (Kuzuno et al,
1996)
Figure 67. Basic principle of compensation grouting
to limit building settlements and distortions to specified amounts.
The success of the technique relies on proper real time use of
monitoring data (Leca and Clough, 1994).
The technique was used successfully in Baltimore USA to
protect about 40 masonry buildings (Baker et al, 1983) and in
Minneapolis USA to protect a masonry arch culvert (Cording et al,
1989). In both cases this was achieved by means of compaction
grouting above tunnels constructed in dense sands. Fracture
grouting with a fluid grout is usually adopted for compensation
grouting in clay soils and examples of its successful use are
described by Pototschnik (1992), Wittke (1995), Hanis et al(1996)
and Osborne et a1 (1997). Injection of a fluid grout with a high
solids content into granular soils, thereby allowing the grout to
bleed rapidly (sometimes termed "intrusion grouting"), was
successfully used to protect two sensitive masonry structures in
London (Mair et al, 1994; Harris et al, 1994).
Figure 68 shows a cross section through the tubes a manchettes
(TAMs) installed about 8m above the tunnels for grouting during
construction of two 9. lm diameter platform tunnels and a 11.8m
diameter concourse tunnel beneath the foundations of Waterloo
Station in London (Harris et al, 1996). The tunnels were supported
by temporary sprayed concrete linings (NATM). A plan view of the
grouting shafts and layout of the TAMs is shown in Figure 69. The
settlements of the foundations were generally controlled to less
than I Omm, compared with up to 60mm expected in the absence
of compensation grouting. Harris et al(1996) showed that the total
volume of grout injected into the clay was well in excess of the
volume loss associated with tunnel construction. Based on a likely
volume loss of around IS%, this implied an "efficiency" of about
0.3 (efficiency being defined as the ratio of volume of ground loss
to the volume of grout injected). Comprehensive measurements
and further research are required to explain this relatively low
efficiency.
Foundation Level +98.0m TD
Terrace Gravels
London Clay TAM Level +88.5m TD
Woolwich and Reading Beds Clay
Figure 68. Cross-section through tunnels and compensation
grouting tubes (TAMs) at Waterloo Station. London
(Harris et al. 1996)

Figure 69. Shaft and grout tube layout for compensation grouting
at Waterloo Station, London (Hanis et al, 1996)
r
deep oettlmmt pina
I face, has resulted in increasing use of sprayed concrete linings.
tunnelm
- -
London
P Clay n g TAMS
concourse - 'grouting
shaft
pilot tunnel
scale
e wide variety of ground conditions is becoming increasingly
Figure 70. Deep settlement pins for monitoring compensation
grouting (after Osbome et al, 1997)
17X)5/96 18108198 I 6/07196
date
Figure 7 1. Settlement of deep pins and building during tunnelling
and compensation grouting (after Osbome et al, 1997)
An exclusion zone imposed on the grouting in close proximity
to the sprayed concrete linings is described by Harris et a1 (1996).
However, field trials reported by Kimmance and Allen (1996) and
Falk (in a paper to this Conference) indicated that the increase in
total stress imposed on the tunnel lining by compensation grouting
operations was relatively minor. Finite element analysis by
Kovacevic et a1 (1996) showed that compensation grouting using
fracture grouting would have little effect on the lining if the grout
tubes are more than one tunnel diameter above the tunnel.
Osbome et a1 (1997) describe compensation grouting close to
the crown of a 10m diameter tunnel to control settlement of an
overlying masonry building, as shown in Figure 70. Deep
settlement pins were installed above and below the level of the
TAMS through which grout was injected during tunnel
construction. Figure 71 shows the observed settlement of these pins
during enlargement of the tunnel from a 5.75m diameter pilot
tunnel to the final size by hand-mining methods. The settlement
pin below the level of grouting settled by almost 90mm. In contrast
the settlement pin immediately above the grouting layer, and the
building, settled by no more than 20mrn.
In recent years the technique of compensation grouting has been
increasingly used to control ground and building movements above
tunnels. Although a very effective technique, it should not be
regarded as a panacea for all potential settlement problems, nor
should it be regarded as a substitute for good quality tunnelling
practice aimed at minimizing settlement.
10. PRINCIPAL CONCLUSIONS
The principal conclusions arising from the main sections of this
Report are listed below:
10.I Advances in Tunnel Construction Techniques
(i) Open face tunnelling, where there is easy access to the tunnel
Other advances include further developments of the pre-cutting
method and of various ground treatment techniques such as soil
nailing.
(ii) There have been considerable advances in the technology of
closed face tunnelling, which operates on the principle of a
pressurized tunnel face. The use of slurry and EPB shields for a
common.
10.2 Stability
(i) Kinematic upper bound and statically admissible lower bound
plasticity solutions now exist for the stability of tunnel headings,
both for undrained and drained conditions.
(ii) Limit equilibrium solutions are available for assessing stability
of tunnel faces pressurized by sluny or EPB shields.
(iii) Model tests have demonstrated markedly different failure
mechanisms for tunnels in clays and sands or gravels. Failure
mechanisms of tunnel headings in clays are ~ i ~ c a n twider
l y than
the narrow "chimney" or "funnelling" mechanisms observed in
sands or gravels.
10.3 Ground Movements
(i) Transverse short term surface settlement trough widths are
- linearly proportional to tunnel depth (i = Kz,,)
- independent of tunnel size and tunnelling method
- similar for all clays (whether soft or stiff), with most data
being reasonably consistent with K = 0.5, as proposed by
O'Reilly and New (1982)
- similar for sands and gravels, whether the tunnel is above or
below the water table, generally with smaller values of K
than for clays (K ranging from 0.25 to 0.45, with a mean of
0.35).
(ii) Subsurface transverse short term settlement troughs can be
reasonably approximated as Gaussian curves in the same way as
surface settlement troughs. For tunnels in clays and sands, K
increases with depth below the ground surface.
(iii) Longitudinal settlement troughs have the general form of a
cumulative probability curve. The surface settlement being 0.5 S,,
above the tunnel face appears to be only applicable to open-faced
t u ~ e l l i n gtechniques in stiff clays. In cases of significant face
support, as in pressurized face tunnelling machines, there is a
translation of the cumulative probability curve with the settlement
equal to 0.5 S, further back from the face.
(iv) Small values of volume loss (often as low as 0.5%) are
achievable using sluny or EPB shields in sands and gravels. Higher
values are usually obtained for tunnels in clays.
(v) Post-construction settlement troughs above tunnels in clays
depend on the magnitude and distribution of excess pore pressures
induced by tunnelling and on the tunnel drainage boundary
conditions. In many cases, these troughs are significantly wider
than the short term settlement troughs and consequently only very
small increases in distortion, deflection ratio and horizontal strain
are observed. Exceptions can be when appreciable positive excess
pore pressures are generated, for example in soft clays when over-
pressurization of the face occurs or when tail void grouting
pressures are high.
10.4 Modelling and Prediction of Ground Movements
(i) The empirical method of predicting ground movements has
considerable practical value, particularly where there are previous
case histories of tunnelling in similar ground conditions using
similar construction techniques. A major limitation is that good
judgement is required in the selection of an appropriate value of
volume loss.
(ii) Closed form solutions for unloading of circular and spherical
cavities in linear elastic- perfectly plastic continua under
axisyrnmetric conditions can provide useful methods of prediction,
albeit approximate.
(iii) 2D finite element analysis is still commonly used in present
engineering practice. However, sophisticated soil models are
required to achieve realistic predictions of the shape and width of
the transverse settlement trough. Non-linearity and K, have
important influences on the predictions, and anisotropy may also
be important. Good judgement is required in selection of either an
appropriate value of volume loss (as in the case of the empirical
method) or a suitable amount of unloading prior to installation of
the tunnel lining.
(iv) 3D finite element analysis with sophisticated soil models
remains a major undertaking, particularly for shield tunnelling,
despite the rapid increase in computer power in recent years.
(v) Physical modelling provides detailed data against which
numerical prediction methods can be calibrated. Centrifuge testing
is particularly appropriate since self-weight of the ground is a
major factor influencing tunnel stability and associated ground
deformations. It is valuable for investigating ground movement
patterns and potential failure mechanisms.
10.5 Effects of Ground Movements on Buildings
(i) Damage to masonry buildings is linked to the level of tensile
strain (Burland and Wroth, 1974; Boscardin and Cording, 1989).
(ii) It is commonly assumed that a building has no stifmess and
conforms to the "greenfield site" settlement trough. In reality in
many cases the inherent stiffness of the building will tend to reduce
both the deflection ratio (AIL) and the horizontal strains.
(iii) The relative stiffness of the building with respect to the soil
determines how the building modifies the "greenfield site" ground
movements (Pons and Addenbrooke, 1996).
(iv) There remains a pressing need for detailed monitoring of the
behaviour of buildings during tunnelling, particularly in the case of
buildings on piled foundations.
10.6 Ground Loading on Tunnel Linings
(i) Linings for single tunnels constructed by open face tunnelling
in stiff clays experience short term soil loading equivalent to
significantly less than the full overburden at tunnel axis level. In
many cases the percentage of overburden acting on the lining is
less than 50%. The percentage of overburden reduces with
increasing cover to diameter ratio. The long term soil loading
increases very slowly in low permeability clays.
(ii) Tunnel linings in sands and gravels generally experience very
low effective stresses; most of the total ground loading is water
pressure.
(iii) Measurement of ground loading acting on sprayed concrete
linings remains problematic.
10.7 Developments in Ground Treatment
(i) Success in controlling stability and ground movements during
tunnelling in the urban environment can often be ensured by the
application of suitable ground treatment techniques. This Report
has focused on 3 areas in which there have been significant
developments in recent years: face reinforcement, sluny and earth
pressure balance shield technology, and compensation grouting.
(ii) Face reinforcement by soil nailing can be an effective means
of improving face stability and controlling ground deformations.
The efficiency of soil nailing in limiting ground movements
requires further research on the influence of spacing, length,
diameter and stiffness of the nails.
(iii) In closed face tunnelling there have been significant
developments in slurry and earth pressure balance shield
technology, particularly in the use of special slumes, foams and
polymer additives. Assessment of their applicability to different
types of ground is important.
(iv) Compensation grouting has been increasingly used with
success for control of ground and building movements above
tunnels. This is of particular relevance to tunnelling in the urban
environment.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors are grateful to Rob Nyren for his assistance in
preparation of Figures 18 and 19 and the accompanying tables, and
to Annette Nielsen for her help in production of this Report.
REFERENCES
Addenbrooke, T. 1. (1996). Numerical analysis of tunnelling in stiff clay.
PhD Thesis, Imperial College of Science Technology and Medicine.
Addenbrooke, T. 1. (1997). Tunnels and building damage. Lecture 9,
Notes for Short Course on Numerical Analysis in Geotechnical
Engineering, June 1997, Soil Mechanics Section, Dept. of Civil
Engineering, Imperial College.
Addenbrooke, T. I., Potts, D. M. and Puzrin, A. M. (1997). The
influence of pre-failure soil stiffness on the numerical analysis of
tunnel construction. Geotechnique 47, No. 3, pp. 693-712.
Akagi, H. and Komiya, K. (1996). Finite element simulation of shield
tunnelling processes in soft ground. Proc. Int. Symposium on
Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground,
London (eds R. J. Mair and R. N. Taylor) Balkema, pp. 447-452.
Anagnostou, G. and Kovari, K. (1996). Face stability in sluny and EPB
shield tunnelling. Proc. Int. Symposium on Geotechnical Aspects of
Underground Construction in Soft Ground, London (eds R. J. Mair
and R. N. Taylor), Balkema, pp. 453-458.
Anderson, J. M. (1996). Reducing risk and improving safety with
particular reference to NATM. Proc. North American Tunnelling '96
(ed. L. Ozdemir), Balkema, pp.35-42.
Antao, A., Leca, E. and Magnan, J. P. (1995). Finite element
determination of upper bound solutions for the stability of shallow
tunnels, based on a regularization principle. Proc loth Danube-
European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering.
Ata, A. A. (1996). Ground settlements induced by slurry shield
tunnelling in stratified soils. Proc. North American Tunnelling '96,
ed. L Ozdemir. Vol. 1, pp. 43-50.
Atahan, C.. Leca. E. and Guilloux, A. (1996). Performance of a shield
driven sewer tunnel in the Val-de-Marne. France. Proc. Int.
 Symposium on Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction
in Soft Ground, London (eds R. J. Mair and R. N. Taylor), Balkema,
pp. 641-646.
Atkinson, J. H, and Potts, D. M. (1977). Subsidence above shallow
tunnels in soft ground. Proc. ASCE Geotechnical Eng. Div. Vol.
103, GT 4, pp. 307-325.
Atkinson, J. H., Potts, D. M. and Schofield, A.N. (1977). Centrifugal
model tests on shallow tunnels in sand. Tunnels and Tunnelling, Vol.
9, NO. 1,59-64.
Anewell, P. B. (1978). Ground movements caused by tunnelling in soil.
Proc. Int. Conf. on Large Movements and Structures (ed. J. D.
Geddes), Pentech hess, London, pp. 812-948.
Attewell, P. B. and Farmer, I. W. (1974). Ground deformations resulting
from shield tunnelling in London Clay. Canadian Gcotech. J. Vol.
1I, No. 3, pp. 380-395.
Attewell, P. B., Glossop, N. H. and Farmer, I. W. (1978). Ground
deformations caused by tunnelling in a silty alluvial clay. Ground
Engineering, Vol. I I, No. 8, pp. 32-41.
Attewell P. B. and Woodman, J. P. (1982). Predicting the dynamics of
ground settlement and its derivatives caused by tunnelling in soil.
Ground Engineering, Vol. 15, No 8, pp. 13-22 and 36.
Attewell, P. B., Yeates, J. and Selby, A. R. (1986). Soil Movements
Induced by T u ~ e l l i n gand their Effects on Pipelines and Structures.
Blackie, Glasgow.
Atwa, M. and Leca, E. (1994). Analysis of ground water seepage
towards tunnels. Tunnelling and Ground Conditions (ed M. E. Abdel
Salam), Balkema, pp. 303-3 10.
Baker, W. H., Cording, E. J. and MacPherson, H. H. (1983). Compaction
grouting to control ground movements during tunnelling.
Underground Space, Vol. 7, pp. 205-212.
Baligh, M. M. (1985). Strain path method. J. Geotech. Engng. Div.
ASCE, Vol. I1 1, GT9: 1108-1136.
Barley, A. D. and Graham, M. (1997). Trial soil nails for tunnel face
support in London Clay and the detected influence of tendon
stiffness and bond length on load transfer. Ground Improvement
Geosystems - Densification and Reinforcement (eds M.C.R. Davies
and F. Schlosser), Thomas Telford, pp. 432-444.
Barratt, D. A., O'Reilly, M. P. and Temporal, J. (1994). Long term
measurements of loads on tunnel linings in overconsolidated clay.
Tunnelling 94, Proc. 7th International Symposium of lnst. of Mining
and Metallurgy and British Tunnelling Society, London, pp. 469-
481.
Barran, D. A. and Tyler, R. G. (1976). Measurements of ground
movement and lining behaviour on the London Underground at
Regents Park. TRRL Laboratory Report 684.
Bezuijen, A. and van der Schr~er,J. S. (1994). The influence of a bored
tunnel on pile foundations. Centrifuge '94 (eds. C.F. Leung, F. H.
Lee, and T. S. Tan), Balkema, pp. 681-686.
Boden. J. B. and McCaul. C. (1974). Measurement of ground
. ,
mdvements during a bentdnite tunnelling experiment. ~ r a n s G rand t
Road Research Laboratory, Laboratory Report 653.
Bolton, M.D., Lu, Y. C. and Sharma, J. S. (1996). Centrifuge models of
tunnel construction and compensation grouting. Proc. Int.
Symposium on Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction
in Soft Ground, London (eds R. J. Mair and R. N. Taylor), Balkema.
pp.47 1-478.
Boscardin, M. D. and Cording, E. J. (1989). Building response to
excavation-induced settlement. ASCE, Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, Vol. 115, No. 1, pp. 1-21.
Bowers, K. H., Hiller, D. M. andNew, B. M. (1996). Ground movement
over three years at the Heathrow Express Trial Tunnel. Proc. Int.
Symposium on Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction
in Soft Ground, (eds Mair, R. J. and Taylor, R. N.), Balkema, pp.
647-652.
Bowers, K. H. and Redgers, J. D. (1996). Discussion: Observations of
lining load in a London Clay tunnel. Proc. Int. Symposium on
Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft ground,
London (eds R. J. Mair and R. N. Taylor) Balkema. pp. 335.
Bowers, K. H. and Redgers, J. D. (1997). Personal communication.
Breth, H. and Chambosse, G. (1974). Settlement behaviour of buildings
above subway tunnels in Frankfurt Clay. Proc. Conf. Settlement of
Structures, cambridge, Pentech Press (published 1975, London), pp.
329-336.
Broms, B. B. and Bennermark, H. (1967). Stability of clav at vertical
openings. ASCE Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering Division SM I, Vol. 93, pp. 7 1-94.
Broms, B. B. and Shirlaw, J. N. (1989). Settlements caused by earth
pressure balance shields in Singapore. In Tunnels et Micro-tunnels
-
en Terrain Meuble Du Chantier a la Theorie. Presse de I'Ecole
Nationale des Ponts et ChaussCs, Paris, pp. 209-219.
Burland, J. B. (1995). Assessment of risk of damage to buildings due to
tunnelling and excavations. Invited Special Lecture to lSTokyo '95:
I* Int. Conf. on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering.
Burland, J. B., Broms, B. B. and de Mello, V. F. (1977). Behaviour of
foundations and structures. 9th International Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Tokyo, State-of-the-Art
Report. Vol. 2, pp. 495-546.
Bwland, J. B., Mair, R. J., Linney, L. F., Jardine, F. M. and Standing, J.
R. (1996). A collaborative research programme on subsidence
damage to buildings: prediction, protection and repair. Proc. Int.
Symposium on Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction
-
in Soft Ground. London (eds. R. J. Mair and R. N. Tavlor).,.Balkema.
pp. 773-778.
Burland, J. B. and Wroth, C. P. (1974). Settlements of Buildings and
Associated Damage. Conference on Settlement of Structures,
Cambridge, Pentech Press (published 1975, London), pp. 61 1-654.
Butler, R. A. and Hampton, D. (1975). Subsidence over soft ground
-
tunnel. Proc. Am. Soc. Civ. Engrs. J. Geotech. Engng. Div. Vol.
100, No. GT1, pp. 35-49.
Cazenave, B. and Le Goer, Y. (1996). Mechanical pre-cutting. Proc.
North American Tunnelling '96 (ed. L. Ozdemir), Balkema, pp.71-
79
~h&bon, J. F. and C o d , J. F. (1990). StabilitC du front de taille d'un
tunnel faiblement enten+: modelisation en centrifugeuse. Colloque
internationale Tunnels et Microtunnels en Terrain Meuble: du
Chantier a la Theorie, Paris, pp 307-3 15.
Chambon, J. F. and Colt&,J. F. (1994). Shallow tunnels in cohesionless
soil: stability of tunnel face. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
ASCE, Vol. 120, NO. 7, July 1994, pp. 1150-1163.
Chambosse, G. (1972). Das Verfonnungsverhalten des Frankfurter Tons
beim Tunnel. vortrieb. Mitt. Versuchanstalt Bodenmech. Grundbau,
Tech. Hochschule Dannstadt, No. 10, pp. 103.
Clough, G. W. and Leca, E. (1989). With focus on use of finite element
methods for soft ground tunnelling. Review paper in Tunnels et
Micro-Tunnels en Terrain Meuble-du Chantier a la Thkorie. Presse
de I'Ecole Nationale des Ponts et Chaussees, Paris, pp. 531-573.
Clough, G. W. and Schmidt, B. (1981). Design and performance of
excavations and tunnels in soft clay. In Soft Clay Engineering,
Elsevier. pp. 569-634.
Clough, G. W., Sweeny, B. P. and Finno, R. J. (1983). Measured soil
response to EPB shield tunnelling. Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 109, No. 2, February, pp. 131- 149.
Cording, E. J. (1991). Control of ground movements around tunnels in
soil. General Report, 9" Pan-American Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Chile.
Cording, E. J. et a1 (1976). Displacements around tunnels in soil. Report
to US. Department of Transportation prepared at the University of
Illinois at Urbana - Champaign. DOT-TST-76T-22, 1976.
Cording, E. J., Brierley, G. S., Mahar, J. W. and Boscardin, M. D.
(1989). Controlling ground movements during tunnelling. Art and
Science of Geotechnical Engineering at the Dawn of the 21"
Cenhuy. Ch. 25 (pp. 477-505), Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, USA, ed.
E. J. Cording et al.
Cording, E. J. and Hansmire, W. H. (1975). Displacements around soft
ground tunnels - General Report 5th Pan American Conference on
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering Buenos Aires, Session
IV, pp 571-632.
Dasari, G. R., Rawlings, C. G. and Bolton, M. D. (1996). Numerical
modelling ofaNATM tunnel construction In London Clay. Proc. Int.
Symposium on Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction
in Soft Ground, London (eds. R. J. Mair and R. N. Taylor). Balkema.
pp 491-496.
Davies, H. R. and Bowers, K. H. (1996). Design and installation of
special tunnel rings to monltor long term ground loading. Proc Int
Symposium on Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction
in Soft Ground, London (eds. R. J. Mair and R. N. Taylor), Balkema,
pp. 257-262.
Davis, E. H.. Gunn, M. J., Mair, R. J. and Seneviratne, H. N. ( I 980). The
 stability of shallow tunnels and underground openings in cohesive
material. Geotechnique, Vol. 30, No. 4, pp 397-419.
De Boorst, R., Van den Broek, W. L. A. H. and Groen, A. E. (1996).
Two and three-dimensional numerical modelling of a guided pipe-
jacking in soft soil. Proc. Int. Symposium on Geotechnical Aspects
of Underground Construction in Soft Ground. London (eds. R. J.
Mair and R. N. Taylor), Balkema, pp. 497-500.
De Lory, F. A., Crawford, A. M. and Gibson, M. E. M. (1979).
Measurement on a tunnel lining in very dense till. Can. Geot. Jnl.
Vol. 16, pp. 190-199.
De Moor, E. K. and Taylor, R. N. (1991). Ground response to
construction of a sewer tunnel in very soft ground. Proc. conf.
Tunnelling '91. Inst. Min. and Metallurgy, London. pp. 43-54.
Deane, A. P. and Bassett, R. H. (1995). The Heathrow Express Trial
Tunnel, Proc. Inst. Civil Engineers, Vol. 113, July, 144- 156.
Dyer, M. R., Hutchinson, M. T. and Evans, N. (1996). Sudden Valley
Sewer: a w e history. Proc. Int. Symposium on Geotechnical
Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground, London (eds
R. J. Mair and R N. Taylor), Balkema, pp 671-676.
Eadie, H. S. (1977). Settlements observed above a tunnel in sand.
Tunnels and Tunnelling, Vol. 9, No. 5, pp. 93-94.
Eden, W. J. and Bozozuk, M. (1969). Earth pressures on Ottawa outfall
sewer tunnel. Canadian Geotech. J. Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 17-32.
Falk, E. (1997). Underground works in urban environment. Proc. 14'
Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Hamburg,
VoL 3, pp. 1401-1406.
Forth, R. A, and Thorley, C. B. B. (1996). Hong Kong Island Line -
Predictions and performance. Proc. Int. Symposium on Geotechnical
Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground, London (eds.
R. J. Mair and R. N. Taylor), Balkema, pp. 677-682.
Fraser, R. A. and Wardle, L. J., (1976). Numerical analysis of
rectangular rafts on layered foundations. Geotechnique, Vol. 26, No.
4, pp. 613-630.
Frischmann, W. W., Hellings, J. E., Gittoes, G. and Snowden, C. (1994).
Protection ofthe Mansion House against damage caused by ground
movements due to the Docklands Liaht Railwav Extension. Proc.
Inst. Civil Engineers, Geotechnical ~ n g i n e e r i nqol.
~ , 107, pp. 65-76.
Fujita, K. (1981). On the surface settlements caused by various methods
- of shield tunnelling. Proc. I l h Int. Conf. on ~ d i Mechanics
l and
Foundation Engineering,Vol. 4,609-610.
Fujita, K. (1989). Special lecture B: Underground construction, tunnel,
underground transportation. 12th International Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Rio de Janeiro, Vo1.4, pp.
2 159-2 176.
Fujita, K. (1994). Soft ground tunnelling and buried structures. State-of-
the-Art Report, Proc. 13' Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, New Delhi, Vol. 5, pp. 89-108.
Fujita, K. and Kusakabe, 0. (1995). Underground Construction in Soft
Ground. (Proceedings of International Symposium) Balkema, 376
PP.
Geddes, J. D. (1990). Discussion on Boscardin and Cording (1989), Jnl
Geo Engrg, ASCE, pp. 1276- 1278.
Gens, A. (1995). General Report: Prediction, performance and design.
Pre-failure Deformation of Geomaterials (eds S. Shibuya, T. Mitachi
and S. Miura), Bakema, Vol. 2, pp. 1233-1247.
Gioda, G., Sterpi, D. and Locatelli, L. (1994). Some examples of finite
element analysis of tunnels. Proc. 8' Int. Conf. on Computer
Methods and Advances in Geomechanics, Morgantown. Vol. 1, pp.
165-176.
Glossop, N. H. (1978). Ground movements caused by tunnelling in soft
soils. PhD Thesis, University of Durham.
Glossop, N. H. and O'Reilly, M. P. (1982). Settlement caused by
tunnelling through soft marine silty clay. Tunnels and Tunnelling,
Vol. 14, No. 9, pp. 13-16.
Glossop, N. H., Saville, D. R., Moore, J. S., Benson, A. P. and Farmer,
I. W. (1979). Geotechnical aspects of shallow tunnel construction in
Belfast estuarine deposits. Proc. Tunnelling '79, London, pp. 45-56.
Grant, R. J. and Taylor, R. N. (1996). Centrifuge modelling of ground
movements due to tunnelling in layered ground. Proc. Int.
Symposium on Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction
in Soft Ground, London (eds. R. J. Mair and R. N. Taylor), Balkema,
pp. 507-5 12.
Grose, W. J. and Eddie, C. M. (1996). Geotechnical aspects of the
construction of the Heathrow Transfer Baggage System tunnel. Proc.
Int. Symposium on Geotechnical Aspects of Underground
Construction in Soft Ground, London (eds R. J. Mair and R. N.
Taylor), Balkema. pp. 269-276.
Gunn, M. J. (1993). The prediction of surface settlement profiles due to
tunnelling. Predictive Soil Mechanics, Proc. Wroth Memorial
Symposium, Oxford 1992, Thomas Telford. pp. 304-3 16.
Hanya, T. (1977). Ground movements due to construction of shield-
driven tunnel. Proc. P lnt. Conf. Soil. Mech. and Found. Engng.
Tokyo, Case History Vol., pp. 759-90.
Harris, D. I., Mair, R. J., Love, J. P., Taylor, R. N. and Henderson, T.
0 . (1994). Observations of ground and structure movements for
compensation grouting during tunnel construction at Waterloo
Station. Geotechnique, Vol. 44, No 4, pp. 691-713.
Harris, D. I., Pooley, A. J., Menkiti, C. 0. and Stephenson, J. A. (1996).
Construction of low-level tunnels below Waterloo Station with
compensation grouting for the Jubilee Line Extension. Prof. Int.
Symposium on Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction
in Soft Ground, London (eds R. J. Mair and R. N. Taylor), Balkema,
pp 361-366.
Hergarden, H. J. A. M., van der Poel, T. J. and van der Schrier, J. S.
(1996). Ground movements due to tunnelling: influence on pile
foundations. Proc. Int. Symposium on Geotechnical Aspects of
Underground Construction in Soft Ground. London (eds. R. J. Mair
and R. N. Taylor), Balkema. pp. 519-524.
Henry, K. (1974). Grangemouth tunnel sewer. Tunnels and Tunnelling,
Vol. 6, NO. 1, pp. 25-29.
Hong, S. W. and Bae, G. J. (1995). Ground movements associated with
- subway tunnelling in Korea. Underground Cosntruction in Soft
Ground (eds K. Fujita and 0. Kusakabe), Balkema, pp. 229-232.
Howland, A. F. (1980). The prediction of the settlement above soft
ground tunnels by considering the groundwater response with the aid
of flow net constructions. Ground Movements and Structures, Proc.
2"* International Conference, The University of Wales Institute of
Science and Technology, (eds. J. D. Geddes et a]), Pentech Press
1981,345-358..
HSE (1996). Safety of New Austrian Tunnelling Method (NATM)
Tunnels - A review of sprayed concrete lined tunnels with particular
reference to London Clay. Health and Safety Executive, UK, HSE
Books, 87pp.
Hwang, R. N., Moh, Z-C. and Chen, M. (1996). Pore pressures induced
in soft ground due to tunnelling. Proc. Int. Symposium on
Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground,
London (eds. R. J. Mair and R. N. Taylor), Balkema, pp. 695-700.
Hwang, R. N., Wu, D. J. and Lee, C. J. (1995). Pore pressure response
to shield tunnelling in soft clay. Proc. S. E. Asian Symposium on
Tunnelling and Underground Space Development, Bangkok, 1995,
Japan Tunnelling Association, pp 33-40.
Imarnura, S., Nomoto, T., Mito, K., Ueno, K. and Kusakabe, 0. (1 996).
Design and development of underground construction equipment in
a centrifuge. Proc. Int. Symposium on Geotechnical Aspects of
Underground Construction in Soft Ground, London (eds. R. J. Mair
and R. N. Taylor), Balkema, pp. 53 1-536.
Inokuma, A. and lshimura, T. (1995). Earth pressure acting on shield
driven tunnels in soft ground. Underground Construction in Soft
Ground ( 4 s . K. Fujita and 0. Kusakabe). Balkema. pp. 221-224.
Institution of Civil Engineers (1996). Sprayed concrete linings (NATM)
for tunnels in soft ground. Thomas Telford, 88 pages.
Jancsecz, S. (1997). Modern shield tunnelling in the view of
geotechnical engineering: a reappraisal of experiences. Proc. 14' Int.
Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Hamburg,
Vol. 3, pp. 1415-1420.
Jancsecz, S. and Steiner, W. (1994). Face support for a large mix-shield
in heterogeneous ground conditions. Proc. Tunnelling '94, IMM
London, 531-550.
Jardine, R. J., Pons, D. M., Fourie, A. B. and Burland, J. B. (1986).
Studies of the influence of non-linear stress-strain characteristics in
soil-structure interaction. Geotechnique 36, Vol. 3, pp. 337-396.
Jassionnesse, C., Dubois, P. and Saitta, A. (1996). Tunnel face
reinforcement by bolting: soil bolts homogenization. strain approach.
Proc. Int. Symposium on Geotechnical Aspects of Underground
Construction in Soft Ground, London (eds R. J Mair and R. N.
Taylor), Balkema, pp. 373-378.
Kanayasu, R., Yamamoto, Y. and Kitahara, Y. (1995). Stability of
excavation face in earth pressure balanced shield. Proc. Int.
Symposium on Underground Construction in Soft Ground, New
Delhi. 1994 (eds. K. Fuiita and 0. Kusakabe). Balkema. DD. 265-
 268.
Katzenbach, R. and Breth, H. (1981). Nonlinear 3D analysis for NATM
in Frankfurt Clay. Proc. 1@ Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Stockholm, Vol. 1, pp. 3 15-318.
Kim, S. H., Burd, H. J. and Milligan, G. W. E (1996). Interaction
between closely spaced tunnels in clay. Proc. Int. Symposium on
Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Consfmction in Soft G m d ,
London (eds. R. J. Mair and R. N. Taylor), Balkema, pp. 543-548.
Kimmance, J. P, and Allen, R. (1996). The NATM and compensation
grouting trial at Redcross Way. Proc. Int. Symposium on
Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground,
London ( 4 s . R. J. Mair and R. N. Taylor), Balkema, pp. 385-390.
Kimura, T. and Mair, R. J. (1981). Centrifugal testing of model tunnels
in soft clay. Proc. 10th International Conference on Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Engineering, Stockholm, Vol.1, pp. 319-322.
Konda, T. (1987). Tunnelling and excavation in soils, 8th Asian.
Regional Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Kyoto, pp. 151-170.
Kovacevic, N., Edmonds, H. E., Maw, R. J., Higgins, K. G. and Potts, D.
M. (1996). Numerical modelling of the NATM and compensation
grouting trials at Redcross Way. P m . Int. Symposium on
Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground,
London (eds. R. J. Mair and R. N. Taylor), Balkema, pp. 553-559.
Kuwamura, N. (1997). Shield tunnelling in Chicago clay. Research
Proposal, University of Illinois.
Kuzuno, T., Takasaki, H, Tanaka, M. and Tamai, T. (1996). Driving
control and ground behaviour of triple circular face shield machine.
Proc. Int. Symposium on Geotechnical Aspects of Underground
Construction in Soft Ground, London (eds R. J. Mair and R. N.
Taylor), Balkema, pp. 283-288.
Lake, L. M., Rankin, W. J. and Hawley, J. (1992). Prediction and effects
of ground movements caused by tunnelling in soft ground beneath
urban areas. CIRIA Project Report 30, Construction Industry
Research and Information Association, London.
Leblais, Y. and Bochon, A. (1991). Villejust Tunnel: sluny shield
effects on soils and lining behaviow and comments on monitoring
equipment, Tunnelling 91, London IMM, pp. 65-77.
Leca, E. (1989). Analysis of NATM and shield tunnelling in soft
ground. PhD Thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University, Blacksburg.
Leca, E. and Clough, G. W. (1994). Constructionand instrumentation of
underground excavations. Proc. 13th International Conference on
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,New Delhi, Vol. 5 pp.
303-3 10.
Leca, E. and Dormieux, L. (1990). Upper and lower bound solutions for
the face stability of shallow circular tunnels in frictional material.
Geotechnique, Vol. 40, No 4, pp. 581-605.
Leca,E. and Dormieux, L. (1992). Contribution B I'Ctude de la stabilite
du front de taille d'un tunnel en milieu coherent. (Contribution to the
analysis of the face stability of a tunnel excavated in cohesive
ground). Revue Fran~aisede Geotechnique, No. 61, pp 5-16 (in
French).
Leca, E., Gamier, J., Atwa, M., Chambon, P., Skiker, A., Dormieux, L.,
Gamier, D. and Maghous, S. (1997). Analyse thbrique et
expbimentale de la stabilitt du front de taille des tunnels A faible
profoundeur (theoretical and physical modelling of the face stability
of shallow tunnels). Proc. 14" Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Hamburg, Vol. 3, 1421-1424 (in French).
Lee, K. M. and Rowe, R. K. (1989). Deformations caused by surface
loading and tunnelling: the role of elastic anisotropy. Geotechnique,
Val. 39, NO. 1, pp. 125-140.
Lee, K. M. and Rowe, R. K. (1992). Subsidence due to tunnelling: Part
I1 - Evaluation of a prediction technique. Can. Geot. Jnl. Vol. 29,
NO. 5, pp. 941-954.
Lee, R. G., Turner, A. J. and Whitworth, L. J. (1994). Deformations
caused by tunnell~ngbeneath a piled structure. Proc. 13' Int. Conf.
on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, New Delhi, Vol. 2,
pp. 873-878.
Lo, K. Y., Ng, M. C. and Rowe, R. L. (1984). Predicting settlement due
to tunnelling in clays. Proc. Geotech '84 - Tunnelling in Soil and
Rock, Atlanta, Georgia (ASCE), pp. 47-76.
Lo, K. W., Lee, S. L., Makino, H., Chang, L. K., Leung, C. F. and
Mihara, T. (1987). Tunnels in close proximity. Proc. Singapore Mass
Rapid Transit Conference, Singapore 1987, pp. 275-281.
Lunardi, P., Fowacci, A., Giorgi, P. and Papacella, A. (1992). Tunnel
face reinforcement in soft ground: design and control during
excavation. Towards New Worlds in Tunnelling. Balkema, pp. 897-
908.
McCaul, C. (1978). Settlements caused by hlnnelling in weak ground at
Stockton-on-Tees. Department of the Environment, Department of
Transport, TRRL Supplementary Report 383: Crowthome, 1978
(Trans~ortand Road Research Laboratow).
~a&her&n,H. H. (1978). Settlementsarouni k e l s in soil: three case
histories. Final report by University of Illinois to Depamnent of
Transportation,Washington DC,Report No. UMTA-IL06-0043-78-
1.
Mair, R. J. (1979).Centrifugal modelling of tunnelling construction in
soft clay. PhD Thesis, University of Cambridge.
Mair, R. J. (1987). Tunnel face presswe in soft clay. Proc. 8th Asian
'
Regional Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
Kyoto, Vol. 2, pp. 290.
Mair, R. 1. (1989). Discussion Leader's report on Session 9: Selection
of design parameters for underground construction. Proc. 12th Int.
Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Rio de
Janeiro, Vol. 5, pp. 2891-2893.
Mair, R. J. (1993). Developments in geotechnical engineering research:
application to tunnels and deep excavations. Proc. Inst. Civil
Engineers, Civil Engineering. Vol. 93, pp. 27-41.
Mair, R. J. (1994). Discussion on Ehatt, O'Reilly and Temporal (1994)
in Tunnelling '94, Transactions of the Institution of Mining and
Metallurgy, Vol. 103, Sept-Dec 1994, A. pp. 188-189.
Mair, R. J. (1996). Settlement effects of bored tunnels. Session Report,
P m . Int. Symposium on Geotechnical Aspects of Underground
Construction in Soft Ground, London (eds. R. J. Mair and R. N.
Taylor), Balkema, pp. 43-53.
Mair, R. J., GUM,M. J. and O'Reilly, M. P. (1981). Ground movements
around shallow tunnels in soft clay, 10th International Conference
on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. Stockholm. Vol. 1,
pp. 323-328.
Mair, R. J., Harris, D. I., Love, J. P., Blakey, D. and Kettle, C. (1994).
Compensation grouting to Limit settlements during tunnelling at
Waterloo Station. Proc. Tunnelling '94, London, Institution of
Mining and Metallurgy, 279-300, Chapman and Hall.
Mair, R. J. and Hight, D. W.(1994). Compensation grouting. World
Tunnelling, November, pp. 36 1-367.
Mair, R J., Hight, D. W. and Potts, D. M. (1991). Finite element
analyses of settlements above a tunnel in soft ground. Contractor
Report 265, Transport and Road Research Laboratory, UK.
Mair, R. J., Phillips, R., Schofield, A. N. and Taylor, R. N. (1984).
Application of centrifuge modelling to the design of tunnels and
excavations in soft clay. Proc. Symposium on Application of
Centrifuge Modelling to Geotechnical Design, Manchester, 1984,
Balkema, pp. 357-380.
Mair, R. J. and Taylor, R. N. (1993). Prediction of clay behaviour
around tunnels using plasticity solutions. Predictive Soil Mechanics.
P m . Wroth Memorial Symposium, Oxford, 1992, Thomas Telford,
pp. 449-463.
Mair, R. J. and Taylor, R. N. (1996). Geotechnical Aspects of
Underground Construction in Soft Ground, (lnt. Symposium
Proceedings), Balkema, 786 pp.
Mair, R. J., Taylor, R. N. and Bracegirdle, A. (1993). Subsurface
settlement profiles above tunnels in clay. Geotechnique, Vol. 43. No.
2, pp 3 15-320.
Mair, R. J., Taylor, R. N. and Burland, J. B. (1996). Prediction of ground
movements and assessment of risk of building damage due to bored
tunnelling. Proc. Int. Symposium on Geotechnical Aspects of
Underground Construction in Soft Ground, London (eds Mair, R. J.
and Taylor, R. N.), Balkema, pp. 713-718.
Martos, F. (1958). Concerning an approximate equation of the
subsidence trough and its time factors. In International Strata
Control Congress, Leipzig, 1958 (Berlin: Deutsche Akadamie der
Wissenshaften zu Berlin, Sektion Wr Bergbau, 1958). pp. 191-205.
Melis, M., Amaiz, M., Oteo, C. S. and Mendana, F. (1997). Ground
displacements in Madrid soils due to tunnel excavation with earth
pressure T.B.M. Proc. 14th Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Hamburg, Vol. 3, pp. 1433-1436.
Moh, Z-C., Ju, D. H. and Hwang, R. N. (1996). Ground movements
around tunnels tn soft ground. Proc. Int. Symposium on
Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground,
 London (eds R. J. Mair and R. N. Taylor), Balkema, pp. 725-730.
Moreno, 0. (1969). Deep excavations and tunnelling in soft ground.
Proc. 7" Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
Mexico City, Vol. 3, discussion pp. 3 11-315.
Mueser Rutledge (1988). Water intrusion in underground structures.
Final Report (UMTA-DC-06-0374-88-1) to U.S. Dept. of
Transportation, UMTA Technical Assistance Program.
Muir Wwd, A. M. (1969). Notes on Heathrow Airport Cargo Tunnel,
Session 4, Proc. 7th Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Mexico, Vol. 3, pp. 363-365.
Muir Wood, A. M. and Gibb, F. R. (1971). Design and construction of
the cargo tunnel at Heathrow Airport, London. Proc. Instn. Civ.
Engrs. January, Vol. 48, Paper, 7357, pp. 11-34.
Negro, A. (1994). Soil tunnels and their supports. Invited Lecture to the
I@ Brazilian Conf. Soil Mech. and Found. Eng. (Iguacu Falls), Vol.
5, pp. 33-60.
Negro, A. (1997). Personal communication.
Negro, A. and Eisenstein, Z. (1991). Shallow tunnels in soft ground.
General Report. Proc. 9" Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering,
- - Panamanian Conference, Vol. 4, pp. 2245-
2275.
Negro, A., Sozio, L. E. and Ferreira, A. A. (1996). Tunnelling in Sao
Paulo, Brazil. Proc. int. Symposium on Geottchnical Aspects of
Underground Construction in Soft Ground, London (eds R. J. Mair
and R. N. Taylor), Balkema, pp. 295-300.
New, B. M. and O'Reilly, M. P. (1991). Tunnelling induced ground
movements; predicting their magnitude and effects. 4th International
Conference on Ground Movements and Structures, Cardiff, invited
review paper, Pentech Press, pp. 671-697.
New, B. M. and Bowers, K. H. (1994). Ground movement model
validation at the Heathrow Express trial tunnel. Tunnelling 94, Proc.
7th Int. Symposium of Inst. of Mining and Metallurgy and British
Tunnelling Society, London, Chapman and Hall pp. 310-329.
Nomoto, T., Mito, K., Imamura, S., Ueno, K. and Kusakabe, 0. (1996).
Centrifuge modelling of construction processes of shield tunnel.
Proc. Int. Symposium on Geotechnical Aspects of Underground
Constmction in Soft Ground, London (eds. R. J. Mair and R. N.
Taylor), Balkema, pp. 567-572.
Nomoto, T., Mori, H. and Matsumoto, M. (1995). Overview on ground
movements during shield tunnelling - a survey on Japanese shield
tunnelling. Underground Construction in Soft Ground (eds K. Fujita
and 0 . Kusakabe), Balkema, pp. 345-351.
Nyren, R. J. (1998). Field measurements above twin tunnels in London
Clay. Forthcoming PhD thesis, Imperial College of Science
Technology and Medicine.
Ohta, H., Takeuchi, T, and Nishiwaki, Y. (1995). Performance of linings
for shield driven tunnels- a survey on Japanese shield tunnelling.
Underground Construction in Soft Ground (eds. K. Fujita and 0.
Kusakabe), Balkema, pp. 367-374.
O'Reilly, M. P. (1988). Evaluating and predicting ground settlements
caused by tunnelling in London Clay, Tunnelling 88, London, IMM.
pp. 23 1-24 1.
O'Reilly, M. P., Mair, R. J. and Alderman, G. H. (1991). Long-term
settlements over tunnels; an eleven year study at Grimsby,
Tunnelling 91, London, IMM, pp. 55-64.
O'Reilly, M. P. and New, B. M. (1982). Settlements above tunnels in the
United Kingdom - their magnitude and prediction. Tunnelling 82,
London, IMM, pp. 173-181.
O'Reilly, M. P.. Ryley, M. D., Barratt, D. A. and Johnson, P. E. (1981).
Comparison of settlements resulting from three methods of
tunnelling in loose cohesionless soil. Proc. 2" Int. Conf. Ground
Movements and Structures, Cardiff (ed J. D. Geddes), Pentech Press,
Plymouth, pp. 359-76.
Osborne, N., Murray, K., Chegini, A. and Harris, D. I. (1997).
Construction of Waterloo Station upper level tunnels, Jubilee Line
Extension Project. Proc. Tunnelling 97, London, Institution of
Mining and Metallurgy, pp. 639-662.
Pacovsky, J. (1996). Some aspects of contact stress measurements
around tunnels. lnt. Symposium on Geotechnical Aspects of
Underground Construction in Soft Ground, London (eds. R. J. Mair
and R. N. Taylor), Balkema, pp. 307-3 10.
Palmer, J. H. L. and Belshaw, D. J. (1980). Deformations and pore
pressures in the vicinity of a precast, segmented, concrete-lined
tunnel in clay. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 17, pp. 174-184.
Panet, M. and Guenot, A. (1982). Analysis of convergence behind the
face of a tunnel. Proc. Tunnelling 82, lnstitut~onof Mining and
Metallurgy, London, pp. 197-204.
Peck, R. B. (1969). Deep excavations and tunnelling in soft ground.
Proc. 7th International Conference Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Mexico City, State of the Art Volume, pp. 225-290.
Peila, D., Oreste, P. P., Pelizza, S. and Poma, A. (1996). Study of the
influence of sub-horizontal fiber-glass pipes on the stability of a
tunnel face. North American Tunnelling '96 (ed. L. Ozdemir),
Balkema, Vol. 1, pp. 425-432.
Perez Saiz, A., Garami, J., Arcones, A. and Soriano, A. (1981).
Experience gained through tunnel instrumentation. Proc. 10b
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Stockholm, Vol. I, pp. 345-352.
Pototschnik, M. J. (1992). Settlement reduction by soil fracture grouting.
ASCE Speciality Conf. on Grouting, Soil Improvement and
Geosynthetics, New Orleans, pp. 398-409.
Potts, D. M. (1976). Behaviour of lined and unlined tunnels in sand.
PhD Thesis, University of Cambridge.
Potts, D. M, and Addenbrwke, T. 1. (1996). The influence of an existing
surface structure on the ground movements due to tunnelling. Proc.
Int. Symposium on Geotechnical Aspects of Underground
Construction in Soft Ground, London (eds R. J. Mair and R. N.
Taylor), Balkema, pp. 573-578.
Potts, D. M. and Addenbrooke, T. 1. (1997). A structure's influence on
tunnelling-induced ground movements. Proc. Instn. Civ. Engrs,
Geotechnical Engineering, 1997, 125, April, pp. 109- 125.
Potts, D. M. and Bond, A. J. (1994). Calculation of structural forces for
propped retaining walls. 13th International Conference Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, New Delhi, Vol. 2, pp. 823-
826.
Rankin, W. J. (1988). Ground movements resulting from urban
tunnelling; prediction and effects. Conference on Engineering
Geology of Underground Movements, Nottingham. BGS. pp. 79-92.
Rowe, R. K. and Lee, J. M. (1992a). Subsidence due to tunnelling: Pan
-
11 evaluation of a prediction technique. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, Vol. 29, No. 5, pp. 94 1-954.
Rowe, R. K. and Lee, J. M. (1992b). An evaluation of simplified
techniques for estimating three-dimensional undrained ground
movements due to tunnelling in soft soils. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, Vol. 29, No. I, pp. 39-52.
Rowe, R. K., Lo, K. Y. and Kack, G. J. (1983). A method of estimating
surface settlement above tunnels constructed in soft ground.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal. Vol 20, No. 8: pp. 1 1-22.
Sagaseta, C. (1987). Analysis of undrained soil deformation due to
ground loss. Geotechnique. Vol. 37. No. 3. pp. 301-320.
Sagaseta, C. (1988). Discussion on "Analysis of undrained soil
deformation due to ground loss" by C. Sagaseta. Geotechnique, Vol.
38, NO. 4, pp. 647-649.
Samarasekera, L. and Eisenstein, 2. (1992). Pore pressures around
tunnels in clay. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol, 29, pp. 819-
831.
Schlosser, F. and Guilloux, A. (1995). Exemples Francais recents de
tunnels dans des conditions diMiciles (Recent French cases of
tunnelling under difficult conditions). Proc. I l h African Regional
Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Cairo, 1995,
Vol. 1, pp. 56-84 (in French).
Schmidt, B. (1969). Settlements and ground movements associated with
tunnelling in soils, PhD Thesis, University of Illinois, Urbana.
Schmidt, B. (1988). Discussion on "Analysis of undrained soil
deformation due to ground loss" by C. Sagaseta. Geotechnique. Vol.
38, NO. 4, pp. 647-649.
Schmidt, B. (1989). Consolidation settlements due to soft ground
tunnelling, 12th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Rio. Vol. 2, pp. 797-800.
Selby, A. R. (1988). Surface movements caused by tunnelling in two-
layer soil. Engineering Geology of Underground Movements (ed.
Bell, F. G, et al), Geological Society Engineering Geology Special
Publication. No. 5, 71-77.
Shirlaw, J. N. (1995). Observed and calculated pore pressures and
deformations induced by an earth pressure balance shield:
Discussion. Canad~anGeotechnical Journal. Vol. 32, pp. 181-1 89
Shirlaw, J. N. and Copsey, J. P. (1987). Settlements over tunnels In
Singapore marine clays. Proc. 5" Int Geotechnical Seminar Nanyang
Technological Institute, Singapore "Case Histories in Soft Clay", pp.
59-72.
Shirlaw, J. N., Doran, S. and Benjamin, B.(1988). A case study of two 320-325.
tunnels driven in the Singapore!'Boulder Bed" and in grouted coral Ward, W. H.and Pender, M. J. (1981). Tunnelling in soft ground -
sands. EngineeringGeology of Underground Movements (eds F. G. General Report, loth lnternational Conference on Soil Mechanics
Bell et al), Geological Society Engineering Geology Special and Foundation Engineering, Stockholm, Vol. 4. pp. 261-275.
Publication, No. 5, pp. 93-103. Ward, W. H. and Thomas, H. S. H. (1965). The development of earth
Simpson, B., Atkinson, J. H.and Jovicic, V. (19%). The influence of loading and deformation in tunnel linings in London Clay. Proc. 6th
anisotropy on calculations of ground settlements above tunnels. International Conference Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Proc. International Symposium on Geotechnical Aspects of Engineering, Toronto, Vol. 2, pp. 432-436.
Underground Construction in Soft Ground, London (eds. R. J. Mair West, G., Heath, W. and McCaul, C. (1981). Measurements of the
and R. N. Taylor) Balkema, pp 591-594. effects of tunnelling at York Way, London. Ground Engineering,
Simpson, B., O'Riordan, N. J. and Croft, D. D. (1979). A computer VOI. 14, NO. 5, pp. 45-53.
model for the analysis of ground movements in London Clay. Wittke, K. (1995). German national report on tunnelling in soft ground.
Geotechnique, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 149-175. Proc. Int. Symposium on Underground Construction in Soft Ground,
Skiker, A., Chambon, P., Leca, E. and Gamier, J. (1994). Face stability New Delhi ( 4 s . K. Fujita and 0. Kusakabe), Balkema, pp.101-106.
of tunnels constructed using the mechanical precutting tunnelling Yi, X., Rowe, R. K. and Lee, K. M.(1993). Observed and calculated
method. Centrifuge '94 (eds. C. F. Leung, F. H.Lee, and T. S. Tan), pore pressures and deformations induced by an eartb balance shield,
Balkema, pp.713-718. Canadian Geotechnical Journal. Vol. 30, pp. 476-490.
Sloan, S. W,and Assadi, A. (1993). Stability of shallow tunnels in soft Yoshikoshi, W., Watanabe, 0. and Takagi, N. (1978). Prediction of
ground. Predictive Soil Mechanics. Proc. Wroth Memorial ground settlements associated with shield tunnelling. Soils and
Symposium, Oxford, 1992, Thomas Telford, pp. 644-663. Foundations, J. of Japanese Soc. Soil Mech. and Found. Engng, Vol.
Smyth-Obsourne, R. (1969). Discussion on the Victoria Line. Proc. 18, NO. 4, pp. 47-59.
Instn. Civ. Engn. Paper 7270S, Suppl. pp. 3 19-323.
Stallebrass, S. E., Jovicic, V. and Taylor, R. N. (1994). The influence of
recent stress history on ground movements around tunnels. Pre-
failure Deformation of Geomaterials (eds S. Shibuya, T. Mitachi,
and S. Miura), Balkema, Vol. 1, pp. 615-620.
Standing, J. R., Nyren, R. J., Longworth, T. 1. and Burland, J. B. (1996).
The measurement of ground movements due to tunnelling at two
control sites along the Jubilee Line Extension. Proc. Int. Symposium
on Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft
Ground, London (eds R. J. Mair and R. N. Taylor), Balkema, pp.
751-756.
Steiner, W. (1996). Criteria for selecting mechanized Nnnelling systems
in soft ground. Proc. North American Tunnelling '96 (ed. L.
Ozdemir), Balkema, pp. 483-49 1.
Swoboda, G. (1979). Finite element analysis of the New Austrian
Tunnelling Method (NATM). Proc. 3d Int. Conf. on Numerical
Methods in Geomechanics, Aachen, Vo1.2, pp. 581-586.
Swoboda, G., Mertz, W. and Schmid, A. (1989). Three dimensional
numerical models to simulate tunnel excavation. NUMOG 111, ed. S.
Pietruszczak and G. N. Pande, Elsevier Science Publishers Ltd,
London, pp. 536-548.
Taylor, R. N. (1995a). Buried structures and underground excavations.
In Geotechnical Centrifuge Technology, editor Taylor, R. N.,
Blackie Academic and Professional. pp. 93-1 17.
Taylor, R. N. (1995b). Tunnelling in soft ground in the UK.
Underground Construction in Soft Ground (eds. K. Fujita and 0.
Kusakabe), Balkema, pp. 123- 126.
Tedd, P., Holton, 1. R. and Thomas, H. S.H. (1991). Monitoring of the
SG iron tunnel segments in a running tunnel at the Angel Station
Reconstruction project. BRE Report, Project No. TCR27191, dated
June 1991.
Terzaghi, K. (1942). Shield tunnels of the Chicago subway. Jnl. Boston
Soc. Civ. Engrs, Vol. 29,3, pp. 163-2 10.
Thomas, H. S. H. (1976). Structural performance of a temporary tunnel
lined with spheroidal graphite cast iron. Proc. Insm. Civ. Engrs, Part
2, Vol. 61, pp. 89-108.
Toombs, A. F. (1980). Settlement caused by tunnelling beneath a
motorway embankment. Transport and Road Research Laboratory.
Supplementary Report 547 pp.
Uriel, A. 0. and Sagaseta, C. (1989). General Report: Discussion
Session 9; Selection of design parameters for underground
construction. 12th lnternational Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Rio de Janeiro, Balkema, Vol. 4, pp. 2521-
255 1.
Vermeer, P. A. and Bonnier, P. G. (1991). Pile settlements due to
tunnelling. Proc. 10' European Conf. on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Florence, Balkema,Vol. 2, pp. 869-872.
Vinnel, C. and Herman, A. (1969). Tunnel dans le sable de Bmxelles par
la methode du bouclier. Proceedings 76 International Conference on
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Mexico, 1969, Vol. 2,
pp. 487-494; discussion. Vol. 3, pp. 369-370.
Ward, W, H. (1 969). Discussion on Peck, R. B. Deep excavations and
tunnelling in soft ground. Proc. 7th International Conference Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Mexico Citv. Vol 3. DD.