PAPER
"ie )re< ic",iono 'o
uriIe ossa ue
",o",unne inc~ in
overconso is a",ec
cay )aset on
gaea( inc c leo@~le ~y
ant s",a)ii
~~
nues )er
SR Macklin, Brown 8 Root Services Consulting, Leatherhead
A re-assessment of the volume loss —stability number relationship for a
single tunnel in overconsolidated clay has been carried out. New case
history data have been added to the plot of volume loss versus load factor
originally proposed by Mair et al (1981), and this has been presented in
semi-log space to improve resolution at load factors below 0.5, the range
commonly encountered for tunnels in overconsolidated clay. Despite
some scatter in the plot due to uncertainties associated with P/D ratio
and the shear strength in the mass, good linearity of the data is evident
enabling a rational prediction of the potential volume loss to be made
within an upper and lower bound. This work suggests that the geometry
of the tunnel heading and stability ratio at the tunnel horizon appear to
be dominant factors in determining short term (undrained) volume loss.
lahoductlon
Traditional design procedures for the assessment of the risk of damage
due to tunnelling induced settlement involve the calculation of a
"greenfield" settlement trough. Such calculations would assume a
normal probability curve to describe the shape of the settlement trough
(Peck, 1969). Critical to such calculations is the assessment of volume
loss (V„), which is the ratio of the volume of the surface settlement
trough per metre run (V„m'/m) to the excavated face area (A, m'),
usually expressed as a percentage.
The selection of an appropriate value of the volume loss parameter in
overconsolidated clay is commonly based on engineering judgement and
experience from previous projects in similar ground using similar
techniques. O'Reilly and New (1982) list a number of case histories (their
Table 1) which can be used as a basis for assigning a suitable value of VL.
They state that, for tunnelling with or without a shield
in stiff fissured London Clay, V„ranges between
0.5%—3% with values normally falling between 1%—2%.
Alternatively Clough and Schmidt (1981), Mitchell
(1983) and Attewell et al (1986) have provided direct
correlations between V„and stability number (N)
where the stability number is defined (after Broms and
Bennermark, 1967)as: Mitchell (1983)
N = (a, —oT)/S„
o, is the total vertical stress at tunnel axis level, oT is
Attewell, Yeates
and Selby (1986)
the internal support pressure (compressed air for
example) and S„is the undrained shear strength of the
clay. O'Reilly (1988) correlated volume loss against load
factor (LF) for a number of London Clay case histories Table1: Expressions for empirical rela5onshlp of stability number to short term volume loss.
where LF was defined as the ratio of the working stability number over
the stability number at collapse (N, ), ie
LF = N/Nt, Mair et al (1981).
This paper proposes an expression relating LF and the short term volume
loss (VL) in overconsolidated clay, which may be used for design purposes.
Prerlous work
The volume loss observed during tunnelling in clay may be separated
into the following components (Attewell and Farmer, 1974, Cording and
Hansmire, 1975 and Attewell et al, 1986):
1. Ground lost at the face due to movements in an axial direction (face
intrusion or face "take")
2. Radial movements around the shield due to an overcut or the use of a
bead on the shield, or due to "diving", "pitching", "yawing" or
ovalisation of the shield (radial "take")
3. Radial movements due to temporary loss of support at the rear of the
shield or tunnelling machine during lining construction (only where no
"tailskin" is used);
4. Closure of the ungrouted annulus around the newly completed ring
(non-expanded type of linings)
5. Closure of the grouted annular gap due to "bleeding" and curing of
the grout, insufficient grout or loss of grout
6. Time dependent and consolidation effects in the ground
7. Subsequent permanent distortion of the lining
In this note the short term volume loss (V„), is considered to comprise
items 1 to 5 above, in a two dimensional sense. Long term consolidation
volume loss has not been considered.
When estimating a value of volume loss it is difficult to separate the
radial ground displacement components and axial movements. Attewell
et al (1986) provide guidance on estimating the magnitude of the various
components of volume loss as listed above, however this requires a
detailed knowledge of the construction methodology and ground
response prior to commencement of the project.
A number of authors have attempted to empirically relate stability
number (N) directly to V„such as Clough and Schmidt (1981), Mitchell
(1983) and Attewell et al (1986). Expressions suggested by these workers
are summarised in table 1.
Based on a series of centrifuge tests of model tunnels taken to failure,
Mair et al (1981)produced a plot of V„versus LF for C/D ratios of 3.11,
1.67 and 1.5, and P/D ratios = (ie plane strain tests). The geometric
variables C/D and P/D are illustrated in Figure 1.
These data demonstrated that a relationship between volume loss, the
geometry of the tunnel heading and the stability number existed within
an upper and lower bound for C/D between 3.11 and 1.5. This plot is
reproduced in Figure 2, with additional data from Atkinson and Potts
(1977). It can be seen that for C/D = 0.77 (Atkinson & Potts, 1977) the data
poin ts fall outside the bounds established by Mair et al (1981). This
appe ars to suggest that the relationship between LF and V„ illustrated
by M air et al (1981) does not hold for C/D ratios below approximately 1
whe reP/D =
P revious work by Kimura and Mair (1979)provided a series of curves
rela ting N„ to P/D and C/D, and is reproduced in Figure 3. Data from
actu al case histories where collapse has occurred has been added, which
1I1 g eneral confirms the original work and extends the values of
N„ for
C/D ratios <1(P/D = 0 only). O'Reilly (1988) proposed that by using this
plot , the load factor for a site could be determined and a prediction of
volu me loss obtained from Mair et al's (1981)plot (Figure 2). Also shown
in Figure 3 is O'Reilly's proposed extension of the relationships for
vari ous P/D ratios greater than C/D = 3. Kimura and Mair (1979)originally
Expression Comments
V„=m*exp(N-1)
V„=
¹I),
(for
m*N
and
(forN<1)
Equations calculated assuming
E„/S„=500-1500, with m = 0.002-0.006.
Data points plotted in their Figure 8.24 show
a wide scatter, for both overconsolidated
and normally consolidated clays
VL = (SQ/EU)* An E„/S„ratio of between 200-700 is
exp(N/2) generally used and for "poor workmanship"
V„should be increased by a factor of 3
Vc = 1.33*N-1.4 Applicable for 1.5<N<4. An alternative
plot after Leach (1985)gives a design
range of V„versus N within which 75%
of cases maybe expected to lie
 PAPER

from other sites. This plot is shown in Figure 4, and the field data are
o', = Internal support pressure
summarised in Table 2.
Top of clay P = Length of unsupported tunnel
i = Total length of shield plus tail
L
P/D ratio
When calculating individual site data the P/D ratio was generally based
on the dimensions of the shield or TBM where a bead has been employed
annulus
(Kimura and Mair, 1981) and it was considered that this would give a
ungrouted
P man reasonable estimate of P/D at load factors less than 0.5. However as
M
L Grout Attewell and Farmer (1974) noted, due to the time dependency of the clay
P min movements, the clay may close in on the shield carcass prior to reaching
the tail, reducing the P/D ratio. In this case P/D will be some value less
Gap caused '- lfi ~ than that determined from the shield dimensions (P
DD
in Figure 1),
Similarly where the "stand-up" time is high (particularly at low load
by bead

Overcutting ~ L
factors) and the grouting cycle lags behind the advancement of the
shield P/D maybe higher(P „in Figure 1).
~
bead
Where a tunnel was advanced without a shield, P/D was derived from
Tunnelface the estimated overdig ahead of the completed crown section of the lining.
overdig
I C/D ratio
Shield and tail
Ring constructed
within tail
~ Lining rings ~ The depth of cover (C) was in all cases taken as the thickness of clay
above the tunnel crown. This approach is consistent with that taken by
Atkinson and Pot ts (1977).
25- A minimum value of LF = 0.2 is shown on Figure 4 which reflects the
~ seneviralne (1979) 0/D = 1 5 P/D = inf range of the centrifuge test data used and also defines the approximate
~ Mair et al (1981) 0/D — 1 67 P/D - inf load factor at which ground movements will be essentially elastic. This
assumption is based on the work of Mair and Taylor (1993) where for a
20-
typical (three-dimensional) tunnel heading in an elastic-perfectly plastic
soil, with C/D = 1.Sand N„= 6, elastic behaviour can be expected at N =4/3.
Data from Atkinson and Potts'1977) lg plane strain model tests on
15- overconsolidated kaolin clay have been included for the C/D ratio = 1.2
only. These data lie on the lower curve in Figure 2. It is inferred that at
lower values of C/D (say less than 1) the ground movements may not
10-
conform to those commonly observed for deeper tunnels and the linear
relationship suggested in Figure 4 may not be valid for such cases.

Stability number at collapse(N,J

Data from plane strain centrifuge tests carried out and quoted by Mair et
al (1981, 1982) are also included in Figure 4. Mair et al's tests comprised
the gradual deflation of a rubber membrane representing the internal
~ ~ support pressure for an unlined tunnel, thus modelling volume loss due
0
02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 to radial displacements only. These tests cover a wide range of stability
LP
number and associated volume losses, within a carefully controlled
model set-up, where the vagaries of in-situ conditions such as varying
P/D = 2.0 strength with depth, soil structure and anisotropy could be eliminated.
P/D =1.0 Despite limitations in the ability of such tests to replicate actual
P/0 = 0.5 construction effects in situ (Taylor, 1998), it is possible to determine
O'Reilly (1988)
P/D = 0 directly the actual value of stability number at collapse (N„) for that
10
given geometry. As such, by calculating a load factor the effects of the
model geometry are effectively "normalised" and the results of the tests
Mair (1993) can be compared against other case history data.
P/D = 0
6 Values of N„were determined directly from Figure 3 for each case
~' history examined, in order to determine the value of LF.
4 ~ m

y)
+P/0 = ~
0
0 4
C/0
suggested that the values for N„may become constant beyond C/D = 3.
O'Reilly (1988) proposed that the shear strength of the clay to be used
to calculate stability number and load factor should be taken as the mass
(or "bulk" ) shear strength (S„„,)
which accounts for the presence of
fissures and bedding plane partings etc in the clay. He proposed a general
S„„, design line for London Clay based on a statistical analysis of
Skempton's (1959) correlation for the results of 38mm diameter triaxial
tests. The value of S„„,
was to be calculated as an average value
between tunnel axis and the surface for C/D < 2.8, or as an average value
within a diameter above and below the tunnel crown for C/D > 2.8.
The proposedmethod for theeslmathm of short term volume hss
Field monitoring data have been obtained from recent research and
development work carried out by Brown & Root. In order to check the
validity of the results these data were used to construct a plot of V~
versus LF. To enhance the clarity of the plot at LF<0.5, typical of most
London Clay tunnelling projects, a semi-log plot was employed.
Additional data points were also added from recently published data
Case history data
Vaughan et al(1993) Table 2 summarises 22 case histories (27 individual records) of tunnels
P/D = 5
in stiff overconsolidated clay, 15 of which are London Clay sites. Three
case histories from recent work undertaken by Brown 85 Root are also
5 included. These data were obtained from the Longford Street spur
tunnel in Central London, the Crown Wharf research site in east London
(Macklin and Field, 1998) and above a utility tunnel beneath Regents
Park. For each site details of the tunnel heading geometry, and shear
strength from both 100mm diameter unconsolidated undrained triaxial
(UUT) tests and correlations from SPT determinations were known. The
values of mass shear strength (S„„,) were based on both UUT test data
and SPT correlations, as the SPT data was considered to be
representative of the fissured strength of the clay (Clayton, 1995).
Where this approach to estimating S„„, in London Clay was used, an
estimate based on the S „, versus depth correlation proposed by
O'Reilly (1988) was also calculated, which was found to be approximately
30% lower in all but one case. As such a range of LF based on these two
estimates of S„„, are shown on Figure 4. In addition, in some of the
London Clay case histories, it was not stated how the quoted values of
shear strength were determined and whether the values represented
mass or intact sample shear strengths. In these cases the quoted value
and the O'Reilly (1988)estimate were used.
Seven of the cases describe tunnels where no shield or tunnelling
machines were used and support was provided by ribs with cast insitu
concrete linings. Three of these are from the Heathrow express trial
tunnel (Bowers et al, 1996) constructed using NATM techniques. These
 PAPER

'Iaido fb Smnmary fable of dale for otmrconsolldated clay sNos

ftoference andlocaffon C/ff rafts P/ff rafts S, Stablllty Load factor tf„% Comments
hPa number(ff) (short tenn)
O'Reilly (1988):Sutton(5) 1.4 0.39 (34.0) 2 (0.32)'.l London Clay S„„, estimated
from O'Reilly's fig 1
O'Reilly (1988):Sutton (7) 2.7 3.3 (37.6) 1.8 (0.53) 2.9 London Clay S„„, estimated from
O'Reilly's fig.l. C/D ratio marginal
-LF selected to give best correlation.
O'Reilly (1988):Kings Cross 2.9 0.17 (99.6) 2.8 (0.33) 0.6 London Clay
O'Reilly's figl
S„„,estimated from

O'Reilly (1988):Regents Park 4.3 0.81 (126.9) 3.1 (0.40) 1.3 London Clay S„„estimated
(high tunnel) from O'Reilly's fig.l
O'Reilly(1988): Regents Park
(low tunnel)
7.7 0.81 (173.4) 3.8 (0.44) 1.4 London Clay S„„,
from O'Reilly's fig.1
estimated

O'Reilly (1988):Green Park 6.6 0.81 (160.5) 3.6 (0.43) 1.4 London Clay S„„, estimated
from O'Reilly's fig.l
Macklin and Field (1998): =1.0 105 2 0.40 2.4 TBM3 with partial face support up
Crown Wharf (100) (2.5) (0.43) to 50kPa, plus tail in London Clay.
S„„based on SPT and UUT values
Bloodworth and Macklin 2.2 0.4 100 2 0.26 0.8 Inclined hand drive in London Clay.
(in prep): Longford St (70) (2.9) (0.37) P = length of 2 rings assumed.
S„„, based on SPT values.
In house unpublished data 8 =1.0 225 2.3 0.30 1.15 Open face TBM'(no tail) in London
—utility tunnel under Regents Park (155) (2.5) (0.46) Clay. S„„, based on SPT values.
et al (1996),
Standing 5.9 1.0 (170) (3.7) 0.52 3.3 London Clay. P/D=I for dimensions of
Green Park the Howden backhoe shield used
(Wallis 1994).
Umney & Heath (1996) 0.67 27(P 3 0.40 1.8 Herrenknecht back hoe shield,
DLR, Bank. (200) (4) (0.46) length (inc. tail) = 4.9m.
Bowers et al(1996), 1.9 0.1 140 3 0.4 1.15 London Clay. P/D = 0.1 assumed for
New and Bowers (1994):
HEX4Type1
NATM. S„,
estimated from
Powell et al (1997).
Bowers et al (1996), 1.9 0.1 140 0.4 1.05 London Clay. P/D = 0.1assumed for
New and Bowers (1994):
HEX Type 2
NATM.
Powell et
S„„,
estimated from
al(1997).
Bowers et al(1996), 1.9 0.1 140 0.4 1.3 London Clay. P/D =0.1assumed for
New and Bowers (1994): NATM. Su mass estimated from
HEX Type 3 Powell et al (1997).
Harris et al (1994) Waterloo 1.3 125 2.6 0.44 London Clay. Hand driven pilot tunnel
beneath Victory arch using SGI lining

Eden and Bozozuk (1969). 5.6 1.5 176 3.1 0.22 1.5 Sensitive Leda Clay. P/D ratio assumed
Ottawa. for "rotary tunnelling machine". Only
3 month surface settlements recorded.
Derivation of S„unknown.
Sauer and Lama (1973)- 0.8 150 1.85 0.37 1.8 Frankfurt clay-marl. NATM
Baulos 25
Bourke(1957), Lane(1957), 1.5 >0.3 480 1.5 0.23 0.9 Clay-shale and lignite, unit weight
Peck (1969)Garrison Dam assumed 23 kN/m', drill & blast,
test tunnel ribs at 1m c/c and lagging
Shirlaw et al(1988)- 2.1 =0 1.6 0.2 0.27 NATM through Singapore boulder
extensometer 1, Singapore bed clay
Shirlaw et al (1988)- 2.1 =0 250 1.6 0.2 0.48 NATM through Singapore boulder
extensometer 2, Singapore bed clay
Attewell & Farmer (1974) 6.5 0.5 266 2.2 0.28 Hand excavated shield tunnel in
(170) (3.5) (0.38) London Clay.
Temporal and Lawrence 3.6 =1 1.2 0.17 0.5 Oxford Clay. S„t „,>estimated from
(1985), Oxford lower bound of 38mm undrained tests
Simic and Craig (1997) 3.0-4.0 2 1.03-1.37 0.2 0.42 P/D ratio assumed. Average volume
P38 —P59, Lisbon Metro loss and load factor quoted for 6cases
Notes
i. values in brackets based on O'Reilly's proposed 3„, versus depth relationship
of S „based on SPT data from in-house 5atabaseat a nearby site
Z. estimate
3.TBM = tunnel Soring machine.
4. HEX = Heathrow Express trial tunnel
 PAPER

value to provide confirmation of the values

of N„at C/D ratios outside this range.
Figaro 4:Field monltorlng data
from otferconsogdated clay sites AcknowledgemelNs
Thanks go to my colleagues at Brown &
Root, in particular Dr Y C Lu, for critical
10
Zg, ~
review of this paper. In addition the
Upper bound design lme w ~ opportunity to publish this work under the
auspices of the R&D budget made available
~ ~
r by Brown & Root is gratefully acknowledged.
ee e~~ Lower bound design hne
~w References
Attewell PB and Farmer IW (1974). Ground
we tz Ce'
deformations resulting from shield tunnelling in
m ~ O'Reigy (1 988) London Clay Can. Geotech.J. 11,pp 380-395.

1f
~ .. ~ a i ~~
~n
Centrduge test data
Crown Wharf
Longlord Street
~ Regents Park
Atteweg and Farmer (1974)
Umney and Heath (1996)
~ Eden and Bozozuk[1969)
~ Simic and Craig (1997)
~ Harris et al (1994)
~~~
Attkinson and Pons 0/0 = 1.2
Garrison Dam tunnel
Bowers et al (1 994)
~ Garrison Dam
0 Shirlaw et al (1988)
~ Sauer and Lama (1973)
0 Burke HH (1957). Garrison Dam —tunnel test section
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
LF
data points suggest that despite considerable differences in the
construction method, a good correlation may be obtained with data from
the cases constructed using more traditional methods.
The case quoted from Simic and Craig (1997) comprises an average of
six individual records covering the measured ground losses due to earth
pressure balance tunnelling through hard Miocene silty clay and marl.
A single average S„„,
of 500kPa was quoted. Records of the average
earth pressure in the chamber at the face enabled an estimate of the
stability number. While lying near the "elastic" limit of the range of
load factors the average value of VL appears to lie within the upper and
lower bound design lines drawn on Figure 4. Two of the records do lie
below the lower bound for V„, however this might be expected at such
marginal load factors. It would thus appear that earth pressure balance
tunnelling, if detailed records are available, might also be assessed
using this approach.
Conclllslons
It is clear from Figure 4 that, despite potential variation during the
selection of C/D, P/D and S„„„,
the majority of the field and laboratory
data lie within a distinct range enclosed within dashed lines on the plot.
These lines may be taken to represent upper and lower bound design
lines to estimate volume loss for a given load factor, for C/D ratios in
excess of 1. The bounds have been based on a visual assessment of the
scatter of data around a linear regression line given by the equation:
V„('/.) = 0.23e'a"P'or LF>0.2
However it is recommended that for design purposes the range of values
should be considered. It is encouraging that good agreement has been
achieved with the general guidelines quoted by O'Reilly and New (1982)
for overconsolidated London Clay.
The calculation of an appropriate value of P/D for shield or
TBM driven tunnels may be subject to approximation. However all
things considered, a value of P less than or equal to the dimensions of
the shield or machine would appear to give reasonable results.
Nonetheless, attention should be given to the excavation sequence and
techniques employed at the face and to the time dependent behaviour of
the clay.
The selection of an appropriate value of would appear to be
another area where a consistent approach is required. It is considered
S„„,
that reliance on the SPT test and 100mm diameter triaxial tests would
provide a reasonable approach and would lead to repeatable estimates of
volume loss during the risk assessment stage.
This work suggests that geometric properties of the tunnel heading
and the insitu stress/undrained strength ratio are equally as important
as workmanship in estimating the volume of short term ground loss
during tunnelling. However the design charts presented by Kimura and
Mair (1979)upon which this method is based covered the limited range of
C/D ratios between about 1 and 3. Additional centrifuge work would be of
Attewell PB and Farmer IW (1974). Ground
disturbance caused by shield tunnelling in a stiff
overconsolidated clay Engineering Geology 8, 361-381.
Attewell PB, Yeates J and Selby AR (1986). Soil
Movements Induced by Tunnelling and their Effects
on Pipelines and Structures. Blackie, Glasgow.
Atkinson JH and Potts DM (1977). Subsidence above
shallow tunnels in soft ground. J. Geot. Eng. Div.
ASCE, Vol. 103 No. GT4, Proc paper 12872, April 1977,
pp307-325.
Brojns BB and Bennermark H (1967). Stability of clay
at vertical openings. J.Soil Mech. Found. Div. ASCE,
94(SMI), January 1967.
0.9 1 investigation. ASCE J. of Soil Mech. And Found. Div.,
83, SM4, paper 1438.
Bowers KH, Hiller DM and New BM (1996). Ground
movement over three years at the Heathrow Express
Trial TunneL Geotechnical Aspects of Underground
Construction in Soft Ground (eds. RJ Mair and RN
Taylor). Balkema, pp 647-652.
Clayton CRI (1995). Report 143. The standard penetration test (SPT): Methods and use.
CIRIA,London.
Clough GW and Schmidt B (1981).The design and performance of excavations and tunnels
in soft clay. In: Soft clay engineering, Developments in Geotechn ical Engineering, Elsev ier.
Cording EJ and Hansmire WH (1975).Displacements around soft ground tunnels. Proc. 5th
Pan American Conf. Soil Mech. and Found. Eng., ISRMFE, Buenos Aires.
Eden W J and Bozozuk M (1969).Earth pressures on Ottawa outfall sewer tunnel. Canadian
Geotech.J. 6(17), pp17-32.
Kimura T and Mair R J (1981).Centrifugal testing of model tunnels in soft clay. Proc. Xth
Int. Conf. SMFE, Stockholm. Vol. 2.
Lane KS (1957). Effect of lining stiffness on tunnel loading. Proc. 4th Int. Conf. Soil Mech.
And Found. Eng., Vol. 2., London.
Leach G (1985). Pipeline response to tunnelling. Unpublished paper pt'esented to the North
of England Gas Association, January 1985.
Lu YC (1997).Compensation grouting in clay. PhD Thesis, Cambridge University.
Macklin SR and Field GR (1998).The response of'ondon Clay to full-face TBM tunnelling
at West Ham, London. Proc. International Conference on Urban Ground Engineering,
Hong Kong, November 1998.
Mair R J (1993).Unwin memorial Lecture 1992. Developments in geotechnical engineering
research: application to tunnels and deep excavations. Proc. Instn Civ. Engrs Civ. Engng,
1993, 93, Feb., 27-41.
Mair R J and Taylor R N (1993). Prediction of clay behaviour around tunnels using
plasticity solutions. Predictive soil mechanics. Thomas Telford, London.
Mair R J, Gunn M J and O'Reilly M P (1981).Ground movements around shallow tunnels in
soft clay. Proc. Xth Int. Conf. SMFE, Stockholm. Vol.2.
Mair R J, Gunn M J and O'Reilly M P (1982).Ground movements around shallow tunnels in
soft clay. Tunnels & Tunnelling, June 1982.
Mair RJ, Taylot RN and Bracegirdle A(1993). Subsurface settlement profiles above tunnels
in clays. Geotechnique 43, No. 2, 315—320.
Mitchell R J (1983).Earth Structure Engineering, Allen and Unwin, Boston.
New BM and Bowers KH (1994). Ground movement model validation at the Heathrow
Express trial tunnel. Proc. Tunnelling '94. IMM, London.
O'Reilly MP (1988). Evaluating and predicting ground settlements caused by tunnelling in
London Clay. Proc. Tunnelling '88. IMM, London.
O'Reilly MP and New BM (1982). Settlements above tunnels in the United Kingdom —their
magnitude and prediction. Proc. Tunnelling '82. IMM, London.
Peck RB (1969). Deep excavations and tunnelling in soft ground. Proc. 7th Int. Conf. Soil
Mech. And Found. Engng, Mexico, 1969, State-of-the-art volume.
Powell DB, Sigl 0 and Beveridge JP (1997).Heathrow Express —design and performance of
platform tunnels at Terminal 4. Proc. Tunnelling '97, IMM, London.
Seneviratne HN (1979). Deformations and pore pressures around tunnels in soft clay. PhD
Thesis, University of Cambridge.
Shirlaw JN, Doran S and Benjamin B (1988). A case study of two tunnels driven in the
Singapore 'Boulder Bed'nd in grouted coral sands. In: Culshaw et al (eds), Engineering
Geology of Underground Movements, Geological Society Engineering Geology Special
Publication No. 5, pp 93 —103.
Simic D and Craig RN (1997).Lisbon Metro —settlement behaviour of large diameter shield
driven and NATM tunnels. Proc. Conf. Tunnelling '97, IMM, London.
Skempton AW (1959).Cast in situ bored piles in London Clay. Geotechnique, 9 (4).
Standing JR, Nyren R J, Longworth TI and Burland JB (1996). The measurement of ground
movements due to tunnelling at two control sites along the Jubilee Line Extension.
Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground (eds. RJ Mair and RN
Taylor). Balkema, pp 751-756.
Taylor RN(1998). Modelling of tunnel behaviour. Proc. Instn. Civ Engng, 1998, 131,July pp 127—132.
Temporal J and Lawrence GJL (1985). Tunnelling machine performance in the Oxford
Clay. Proc. Conf. Tunnelling '85, IMM, London
Umney AR and Heath GR (1996). Recorded settlements from the DLR tunnels to Bank.
Geotechn ical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground (eds. RJ Mair and RN
Taylor). Balkema,pp757-761.
Vaughan PR, Kennard RM and Greenwood DA (1983). Squeeze grouting of stiff-fissured
clay after a tunnel collapse. Proc. 8th ECSMFE, Vol i. 171-176.
Wallis S (1994). Jubilee Line Extension. The underground perspective. World Tunnelling
supplement, July 1994.