Indian Geotechnical Journal, 41(2), 2011, 64-75

SETTLEMENT TROUGH DUE TO TUNNELING IN COHESIVE GROUND

Mohammed Y. Fattah1, Kais T. Shlash2 and Nahla M. Salim3

Key words Abstract: Surface settlements of soil due to tunneling are caused by stress relief and subsidence
Tunnel, clay, finite elements, due to movement of support by excavation. In this paper, the shape of settlement trough caused
by tunneling in cohesive ground is investigated by different approaches; namely, analytical
settlement, complex variable
solutions, empirical solutions and numerical solution by the finite element method. The width of
settlement trough was obtained through the finite element method by establishing the change in
the slope of the computed settlement profile. The results show that the finite element method
overpredicted the settlement trough width compared with the results of Peck for soft and stiff clay
but there is an excellent agreement with Rankin's estimation. The results show that there is a good
agreement between the complex variable analysis for z/D=1.5, while using z/D = 2 and 3, the
curve diverges in the region far away from the center of the tunnel.

Introduction Surface Settlement

The construction of a tunnel usually leads to There are two main causes for surface
some surface disturbance, particularly settlement. movements of soil due to tunneling:
These effects are often of little importance to green field
sites (i.e. those without structures), but where structures 1. The stress relief mechanism causes an upward
are present, significant damage can result. Continuous movement of soil. This is because, when soil is
research and advancement in technology towards removed from the ground, there is a reduction in
tunneling work will inevitably lead to safer and both soil weight.
economically and environmentally efficient construction 2. Subsidence due to the removal of support due
process. Besides obtaining field data to formulate to excavation: This causes a downward
empirical relationships of ground deformation, a major movement due to lack of support after the
difficulty is the inconsistency of soil condition and excavation.
applicability of the empirical formulas to different types
of soil. The available analytical solutions are not Several researchers have studied the patterns of
sufficient to include complex ground conditions and a settlement trough by using four different approaches:
hence a comprehensive analytical solution coupled with
numerical modelling is necessary to model the effect of 1. Analytical solutions (closed form solutions)
surface settlement due to soft ground tunneling. which include:

Soft ground may consist of cohesive or a) Elasticity solution

cohesionless material. Sites used as case histories are b) Sagaseta’s solution (Sagaseta, 1987)
frequently classified as one of these two types, although
in reality no site ever fits this definition exactly. Previous c) Modified analytical solution (Verruijt and
researchers have recognized a difference in ground Booker, 1996).
movements due to tunneling in two types of materials,
2. Empirical solutions.
with movements in cohesionless ground appearing to be
restricted to a narrower region above the tunnel than in 3. Numerical solutions.
cohesive soils.
4. Physical modelling approaches.
This paper discusses different approaches in
predicting the settlement. Reanalysis of the problem These four approaches in solving problems have
which was adopted by Chow (1994) is done to their own advantages and limitations.
understand tunneling. In addition, this paper deals with
analytical methods used to analyze the problem of
tunnels or cavities in soft ground.

1 Assistant Professor, University of Technology , Baghdad, Iraq, Email: [email protected]

2 Professor, University of Technology , Baghdad, Iraq
3 Assistant Professor, University of Technology , Baghdad, Iraq
65

Indian Geotechnical Journal, 41(2), 2011

γ D2 z 2
δz = − (2)
Analytical Solutions 4G (x2 + z 2 )

Elasticity Solution The theoretical solutions provided by Sagaseta

(1987), which other authors modified to predict soft
Analytical solution exists for a point load acting ground deformations due to tunneling, is essentially
beneath the surface of an infinite elastic half space based on incompressible soils. Hence, it might not
(Poulos and Davis, 1974). accurately predict the deformations in soft ground.
Elastic solutions are more applicable for hard rock
Chow (1994) used this solution to estimate conditions.
the settlement due to shallow tunneling, the effect of
the tunnel face is ignored, and the tunnel is assumed to Complex Variable Solution
have infinite length. The unloading of the soil mass due
to excavation is modelled as a line load along the tunnel Verruijt and Booker (1996) modified analytical
axis. It is not possible to obtain analytically the integral equations for estimation of surface settlement using
of the point load solution (i.e. the solution for a line complex variable method. They considered Mindlin’s
load), so relative differences in vertical displacement are problem of circular cavity in an elastic half plane loaded
derived which cancel the insoluble part of the integral. by gravity. The characteristics of this problem are that
The surface settlement over the tunnel, δz is then the stresses and strains due to the removal of the
calculated as the settlement relative to some distance material inside a circular cavity are to be determined,
point on the surface which will in practice experience with the stresses at infinity being determined by the
negligible settlement (Augard, 1997): action of gravity. This problem was solved by using
complex variable method with a conformal mapping of
γ D2 z 2 the region in the z-plane.
δz = − (1)
8G (x2 + z 2 ) Statement of Mindlin’s Problem
where, D is the tunnel diameter, γ is the unit weight of The problem is first be defined by giving all the
soil, G is the shear modulus of soil, x is the horizontal relevant equations and the boundary conditions. The
distance from tunnel’s centre, and z is the depth problem is solved by superposition of the three partial
measured from tunnel’s centre. solutions. These solutions are:

Sagaseta’s Method The first partial solution represents the stresses

due to gravity in the half plane z<0, without the cavity.
This is a simple elementary solution.
Sagaseta (1987) suggested that in problems
where the boundary conditions are only in terms of
displacements, and only displacements are required for σ z =γ .z ⎫
the solution, it is possible to eliminate the stresses from ⎪
σ x = K 0 .γ . z ⎬ (3)
the governing equations and work in terms of strain for
simple soil models. Example of this problem is the τ xz = 0 ⎪
⎭
determination of the displacement field in an isotropic
homogeneous incompressible soil when some material where Ko is the coefficient of lateral stress at rest.
is extracted from it at shallow depth and the
surrounding soil completely fills the void left by the In Mindlin’s problem, only the values Ko =0, Ko
extraction. Shallow tunneling in elastic homogeneous =1 and Ko = ν (1−ν) are considered in which ν is
soil can be regarded as this type of problem, where the Poisson’s ratio. Verruijt and Booker (2000) used the
extracted material is defined by ground loss. coefficient Ko as an independent parameter determined
by the geological history. The surface tractions along the
The advantage of Sagaseta’s method is that the cavity boundary can be related to the stresses. So the
strain field obtained is independent of soil stiffness, and surface tractions in this case are found to be:
is valid for incompressible material even for fluid.
Sagaseta showed that closed form solution for soil
deformed due to ground loss (such as in tunnel t x = − K 0 γ z sin β ⎫
excavation) can be obtained. Chow (1994) used this ⎬ (4)
approach to derive the solution for vertical displacement
t z = − γ z cos β ⎭
at the surface as:
 66

SETTTLEMENT TRO
OUGH DUE TO O TUNNELING IN I COHESIVE G GROUND
Mohammed Y. Fattah, Kaiis T. Shlash an
nd Nahla M. Sa
alim

The commplete solution n of the probleem consists of maximum vertical ssettlement, x is the transsverse
the
t sum of the e three partial solutions. In order
o to verify distance e from tunnel centerline, an nd i is the wid
dth of
the
t consistenccy and the accuracy of the solution, a settleme ent trough whiich is the dista
ance to the pooint of
computer proggram had been n developed by Verruijt and inflectio
on of the curve
e (corresponding to one standard
Booker (2000)). This program m, named MIND DLIN, enables deviatioon of the normal distribution curve), and is
the
t user to obtain
o numericcal results of stresses and determined by the e ground conditions.
c Va
arious
displacementss in each poin nt of the field,, to construct expressions have bee en proposed for calculatingg i In
different quanttities and to va
alidate the solu
ution. practicee, Rankin (19888) suggested that the relatioon will
be as foollows:
Empirical Solution
i = k zo (
(6)
Empirical Greenfield Settlem
ment Trough
w
where k is a dimensionless constant,
c depe
ending
Peck (1969)
( described settlemen nt data from on soil type
t (0.5 for clay
c & 0.25 forr cohesionless soils)
over twenty caase histories avvailable to him
m at that time. and z0 is the depth of the tunnell axis below gground
It was possible
e to deduce tha at the short-terrm transverse level.
settlement
s trrough in the e ‘Greenfield d’ could be
approximated by a normal distribution or Gaussian P
Peck (1969) and Cording an nd Hansmire (11975)
curve shown inn Figure 1. presente
ed a normalize ed relation of the width param
meter,
2i/D versus the tunne el depth, zo/D, for tunnels driven
d
The equation represe
enting the asssumed trough through different geolo
ogical conditionns. That is:
shape
s is as follows:
0.8
2i ⎛ z 0 ⎞
x2 =⎜ ⎟ (
(7)
δ = δ max expp( − 2 ) (5) D ⎝D⎠
2i
In which
h D is the diam
meter of the tunnel.
Where δ is the surfa
ace settlement, δmax is the

Fig.. 1 Properties of error function cu

urve to represen
nt cross-section settlement
s trough above tunnel

(after Peck, 1969)

67

India
an Geotechniccal Journal, 41
1(2), 2011

Fujita (1982)
( statisttically analyzed the maximu um T method off predicting the
The e settlement trough
t
surface
s ment caused by shield tunnelling based on 96
settlem due to tunneling
t is investigated, an
nd the effect ofo rigid
cases in Japa an. A reasonab ble range of δmax for differe
ent boundaries is explorred. In using and develop ping a
types
t of shieeld machines driven througgh different soils model, it is necessarry to ensure that each tech hnique
conditions, with
w or withou ut additional measures was w used is correct and the ey are mutuallyy compatible. This
T is
suggested.
s achieved by testingg and validattion using exxisting
solutions. The problem studied by b Chow (199 94) is
A comparison of th he various em mpirical metho ods reanalyzzed in the follo
owing sections using the com mputer
discussed above was mad de on the assumption
a off a programm Modf-CRISP (Salim, 2006).
hypothetical foour meter diam meter tunnel loocated at a dep pth
of thirty meterrs which experrience a ground volume losss of Geommetry of the Problem and
a Soil
one percent (TTan and Ranjitth, 2003). From comparison of
various
v empiriical solutions for surface seettlement trough, Prope
erties
t maximum settlement ran
the nges from 3-5 mm whereas tthe
T tunnel analyzed by Chow has a diamete
The er of 5
trough
t width i varies between n 10 and 15 m.
m This shows th hat
m and different deptths. The eleme
ents chosen in this
there
t are siggnificant disccrepancies between empirical
applicattion are six node trianggular and 8-node
8
solutions
s to predict surface settlement tro ough because of
isoparammetric quadrilateral eleme
ents for the e two
different inte erpretations and
a databasee collection by
dimensional plane strain proble em. The ma aterial
different authoors (Tan and Raanjith, 2003).
properties which are e used by Gunn
G (1993),, and
representative of Lon
ndon clay as confirmed by Chow
Analysis
A by the Finite Element Method
d (1994), are presented in Table 1. The finite ele
ement
mesh is shown in Figure 2.
Most off the earlier nu
umerical modeels used the fin
nite
element meth hod. Other posssible numericcal methods a are
finite
f differencce and boundarry element tech
hniques.

Note : All dim

mensions are in
n meters
Fig. 2 The finite element mesh
 68

SETTLEMENT TROUGH DUE TO TUNNELING IN COHESIVE GROUND

Mohammed Y. Fattah, Kais T. Shlash and Nahla M. Salim

The program Modf-CRISP is used in modelling tunnel axis. Values of z of 7.5 m, 10 m, and 15 m are
tunneling considering different soil models, as follows: used. The first analysis is carried out for short term
movement, undrained conditions; where the volumetric
1. Linear elastic. strain is zero. It follows that the value of undrained bulk
2. Nonlinear elastic. modulus must be infinite, and Poisson’s ratio equals
0.5. In finite element analysis, it is not possible to use
3. Elastic- perfectly plastic. an infinite undrained bulk modulus. To approximate
undrained conditions, a value of Poisson’s ratio of
Table 1 Soil properties for London clay (Chow, 1994)
0.495 is used. The soil stiffness is assumed to vary with
depth according to the following equation:
Property Value
E = Eo + m( zo − z ) (8)
Shear modulus, G (kPa) 33557
Where E is Young’s modulus, E0 is the initial
Poisson's ratio, ν 0.495
Young's modulus at datum elevation, m is the rate of
Unit weight of the soil, γ (kN/m3) 20 increase of Young's modulus with depth, z0 is the depth
of tunnel axis, and z is the depth to the point of interest.
Oteo and Sagaseta (1982) found that the bottom Mechanism of Short-Term Settlement Response
rigid base has the most significant effect on the
predicted settlements. When the depth of the rigid base Analytical approaches often require the
below tunnel axis, Hd, increases, the settlements identification of non-dimensional group of the important
decrease, resulting in surface heave for a value of parameters influencing a problem. One such group is
Hd/D>7. Hence in the present study, the depth of the the stability number N, which is defined by Broms and
bottom base of the mesh has been chosen accordingly. Bennermark (1967) as:

Computer Program (σ z − σ T )
N= (9)
Modf-CRISP allows elements to be removed to Su
simulate excavation and elements to be added to
simulate construction. The implied loading for both Where σz is the overburden pressure at the
these cases are automatically calculated by the tunnel axis, σΤ is the tunnel support pressure or internal
program. When performing a non-linear analysis pressure (if any), and Su is the undrained shear strength
involving excavation or construction, Modf-CRISP allows of clay. If σΤ =0 then N will be equal to σz /Su or γ z /Su.,
the effect of element removal or addition to be spread where z = C+D, C is the depth of tunnel’s crown. Three
over several increments in an "incremental block". An values of Su /γ z are used in the present analyses. The
increment block is just a series of ordinary increments values of Su /γ z and their corresponding Su for each z /D
grouped together in the input data for the program. are given in Table 2. These values are presented in
Element stiffness is always added or removed in the first Tables 3 and 4. The analyses were carried out using
increment of block, but the associated loads are homogeneous elastic analysis and homogeneous elastic
distributed over all the increments in the block. perfectly plastic analysis.
When a tunnel is excavated, unloading and stiffness
reduction occur simultaneously. The first results from Presentation of Results
removal of material having self weight. The second
occurs because the ground structure is altered. To
model the first of these processes, loads are applied to Linear Elastic Analysis
the mesh remaining after excavation. The second
process is modeled by excluding the stiffness of each The results obtained for three different depths of
element excavated from the calculation of structure the tunnel (z /D = 1.5, 2 and 3) using the program Modf-
stiffness. CRISP are shown in Figure 3, and presented in
dimensionless form as δ G / γ D2 versus x/D. Heave is
Linear Elastic and Elastic-Plastic Models noticed for z/D =1.5, 2 and 3. This is because the
movement of the soil is upward due to relief effect of
excavated soil in a purely elastic homogeneous medium.
The analyses are divided into two categories:
As x/D increases, the upward movement of the soil
elastic and elastic plastic. The analyses are carried out
decreases, this is because that the soil is remote from
for homogeneous soil and soil with properties varying
concentration of loading. These results conform with
with depth. For each soil type, an analysis is made for
Chow (1994) as illustrated in Figure 4.
three values of z, the depth below the surface of the
69

Indian Geotechnical Journal, 41(2), 2011

Table 2 Values of Su used for different depths of tunnel analysis

N 3.33 2.5 2.0

S u /(γ . z ) 0.3 0.4 0.5

1.0 1.5 2.5 1.0 1.5 2.5 1.0 1.5 2.5

C/D

z (m) 7.5 10 15 7.5 10 15 7.5 10 15

1.5 2.0 3.0 1.5 2.0 3.0 1.5 2.0 3.0
z/D

Su (kPa) 45 60 75 60 80 100 90 120 150

Table 3 Soil properties used for linear elastic model (from Chow, 1994)
Homogeneous Non homogenous
z (m) 7.5 10 15 7.5 10 15
1.5 2.0 3.0 1.5 2.0 3.0
z/D

G0 (kPa) 33557 33557 33557 0 0 0

m (kPa/m) 0 0 0 3355.7 3355.7 3355.7
Su0 (kPa) 100 100 100 100 100 100
Reference* 1.5eh 2eh 3eh 1.5en 2en 3en

*e = elastic, n = non homogeneous, h = homogeneous

Table 4 Soil properties used for elastic, perfectly plastic homogeneous analysis (from Chow, 1994)
Homogeneous
z (m)
7.5 10 15
z/D
1.5 2.0 3.0
G0 (kPa)
33557 33557 33557
m (kPa/m)
0 0 0
Su0 (kPa)
45 60 90 60 80 100 90 120 150

Su / γ z 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.5

Reference* 1.5 ph3 1.5 ph4 1.5 ph5 2 ph3 2 ph4 2 ph5 3 ph3 3 ph4 3 ph5

*e = elastic, n = non homogeneous, h = homogeneous, p = plastic

 70

SETTLEMENT TROUGH DUE TO TUNNELING IN COHESIVE GROUND

Mohammed Y. Fattah, Kais T. Shlash and Nahla M. Salim

0.25
1.5eh
Normalized Movement 0.2 2eh
3eh
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
-0.05
-0.1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
X/D

Fig. 3 Surface displacement for elastic-homogeneous soil model predicted by the finite element method for different z/D ratios.

0.25 Z/D=1.5 eh present work

Z/D=1.5 eh Chow (1994)
0.2
Normalized Movement

Z/D=3 eh present work

Z/D=3 eh Chow (1994)
0.15

0.1

0.05

-0.05

-0.1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
X/D

Fig. 4 Comparison of the analysis results with Chow's results for different z/D ratios using elastic homogeneous model

Figures 5, 6 and 7 show a comparison of the Elastic Non-Homogeneous Soil Model

surface settlement predicted by different analytical
methods. The results show that there is a good Modf-CRISP provides a non-homogeneous
agreement between the complex variable analysis model in which the material properties can vary with
and the finite element for z/D = 1.5, while using z/D depth. This method is used in the present work,
= 2 and 3, the curves diverge in the region far away dimensionless plot of δ G / γ D2 against x/D is
from the center of the tunnel, but the behaviour is shown in Figure 9. The results show that settlements
similar to that of the curve using complex variable are predicted for z/D = 2 and 3 while heave can be
method. A good agreement with elastic and noticed for z/D = 1.5.
Sagaseta's solution is shown in the region far away
from the center of the tunnel while heave can be
noticed in the region near the center of tunnel using Elastic-plastic Analysis
the finite element analysis.
The dimensionless settlement profile
A comparison between the results of the obtained using elastic-plastic homogeneous soil is
finite element method and the complex variable shown in Figure 10, corresponding to a constant
method is clearly shown in Figure 8 for a z/D value of value of Su / γ z of 0.3. It is observed that for Su / γ z
1.5. It is observed that the maximum horizontal =0.3, settlements are obtained above the tunnel for
movement tends to be towards the tunnel as z/D z/D = 2 and 3 (2ph3, 3ph3) while heave can be
decreases in the complex variable method while the obtained at z/D = 1.5. Increasing Su / γ z to 0.4
maximum horizontal movement moves away from caused heave when z/D = 2 and 3, while settlement
the center of the tunnel as z/D decreases in the is noticed at z/D =1.5. Further increase in Su / γ z to
finite element method. 0.5 caused heave to be obtained for three values of
z (1.5 ph5, 2 ph5, 3 ph5).
71

Indian Geotechnical Journal, 41(2), 2011

4
3

Surface settlement (mm)

2
1
0
-1
-2
Finite Element Analysis
-3 Complex Variable Solution
Elastic Solution
-4
Sagaseta Solution
-5
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225
X (m)

Fig. 5 Comparison between different approaches in predicting the surface settlement (z / D = 1.5)

1
Surface Settlement (mm)

-1

-2
Finite Element Analysis
Complex Variable Analysis
-3 Elastic Solution
Sagaseta Solution
-4
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225
X (m)

Fig. 6 Comparison between different approaches in predicting the surface settlement (z/D = 2)

1
Normalized Movement

-1

-2

Finite Element Analysis

-3 Complex Variable Solution
Elastic Solution
Sagaseta Solution
-4
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
X (m)

Fig. 7 Comparison between different approaches in predicting the surface settlement (z/D = 3)
 72

SETTLEMENT TROUGH DUE TO TUNNELING IN COHESIVE GROUND

Mohammed Y. Fattah, Kais T. Shlash and Nahla M. Salim

Horizontal movement (mm)

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8
Finite Element Analysis
Complex Variable Solution
-1
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
x (m)

Fig. 8 Comparison of the surface settlement obtained by the finite element method with complex variable results (z/D =1.5)

0.2
Z/D=1.5en
Normalized Movement

0.15 Z/D=2.0en
Z/D=3.0en
0.1
0.05
0
-0.05
-0.1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
X/D

Fig. 9 Surface displacement predicted by the finite element method using elastic nonhomogeneous soil model
for different z/D ratios and Su / γ z=0.3

0.2
Normalized Movement

0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3 1.5ph3
2ph3
-0.4
3ph3
-0.5
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44
X/D

Fig. 10 Surface displacement using elastic-plastic homogeneous soil model predicted by the finite element method
for different z/D ratios and Su / γ z=0.3
73

Indian Geotechnical Journal, 41(2), 2011

Since the computed settlement profile was

Trough Width Parameter (i) plotted by joining the vertical displacement of each
node on the surface of the mesh using straight lines,
As explained previously, the trough width
therefore the change in the slope of the settlement
parameter i describes the width of settlement
profiles were represented by a change in the
trough. In transverse settlement profile, it is defined
gradient. This method considers the whole range of x
as the distance of the point of inflection (i.e. the
and it is more reliable than the first method.
point of maximum slope) from the tunnel center line
as shown in Figure 1. The second method was used and plots of i /
D against z/D are presented in Figure 11. The results
To evaluate the width of the settlement
are obtained from Peck's field investigation for the
trough, i, there are two methods:
values of i / D for the range of values for z/D (1.5 to
1. Using linear regression to obtain the gradient 3) for soft to stiff clays and the results are also
of the plot of ln δ/δmax versus x2 for each obtained using different equations to estimate the
settlement profile, the value of the gradient is settlement trough width (i). The results reveal that
equal to -1/(2 i2) the finite element analysis overpredicts the
settlement trough width (i). This may be due to the
2. Establishing the change in the slope of the plastic behaviour of the soil.
computed settlement profile.
Elastic analysis was carried out with C/D >3
The first method assumes that the predicted
to represent a deep tunnel behaviour with σh = σv
settlement profiles follow the shape of an error
and unit weight of soil taken as 20 kN/m3. The
function curve:
settlement trough obtained in the analysis is

ln δ = ln δ max − x 2 / 2i 2( ) compared with different analyses explained early. A

good agreement is obtained between the finite
δ = δ max exp(− x 2
/ (2i ))
2
(10)
element analysis and elastic analysis.

The surface settlement values calculated

Taking natural log for the above equation gives: using different approaches are shown in Figure 12.
The conclusion drawn is that there is a good
ln δ = ln δ max − x 2 / (2i 2 ) (11) agreement between the finite element results and
the elastic solution in the region near to the center
By plotting ln δ/δmax versus x2, the gradient of the tunnel, but the settlement trough is wider than
obtained would be equal to -1/(2 i2), and the value Peck's solution and narrower than Sagaseta’s elastic
of i can be evaluated. The disadvantage of this solution. The estimation of the settlement trough
method lies in the assumption made for the shape of (i) for deep tunnel using different approaches is
the predicted settlement trough. listed in Table 5.

Although field investigations carried out by The results show that there is a good
Peck (1969) showed that surface settlements in agreement with Rankin (1988), O'Reilly and New
tunneling problems could fit with this type of (1982) but there is an approximately 36 %
probability function, computed settlements did not difference from Peck's estimation. This difference is
necessarily produce results that could be due to the fact that Peck used the probability
represented by this type of probability function. This function in the estimation of i which may not
is due to the fact that the data from field necessarily fit with the present results.
investigations were usually obtained in a region
Figure 13 shows the horizontal surface
comparatively close to the tunnel (e.g. < 20 m).
displacement obtained from the finite element
The predicted value of i becomes inaccurate results and empirical (Gaussian) solution (equation
since it is obtained from the gradient of ln δ/δmax 11). Here, the Gaussian model prediction is based
versus x2 plot, and is taken as the best fit line for the on the assumption that the vectors of ground
total horizontal width of the finite element mesh movement are oriented towards the tunnel axis
(200 m in this case).The second method was (O'Reilly and New, 1982). For the tunnel model, both
achieved by establishing the point where the change the form (allowing for the trough being too wide) and
the magnitude of maximum movement are similar to
in the slope of the settlement profile from positive to
negative occurs. the Gaussian model.
 74

SETTLEMENT TROUGH DUE TO TUNNELING IN COHESIVE GROUND

Mohammed Y. Fattah, Kais T. Shlash and Nahla M. Salim

3.5
CRISP (pn3)
3 Stiff Clay (Peck)
2.5 Soft Clay (Peck)
O'Reilly and New (1982)
2
i/D

Atkinson and Potts (1977)

1.5 Leach (1986)

1
0.5
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Z/D

Fig. 11 Plot of i/D against z / D using different methods in estimation of the settlement trough width (i)

X/D
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150
0
Surface Settlement (mm)

-1

-2

-3

-4
Finite elements (CRISP)
Peck, 1969
-5 Poulos and Davis, 1980
Sagaseta Solution
-6

Fig. 12 Surface settlement obtained from different approaches (deep tunnel) z 0 = 30 m , diameter = 4 m.

1
Horizontal Movement (mm)

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6 Finite Elem ents (CRISP)
-0.8 O'Reilly and New ,1982
-1
-125 -100 -75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100 125
X (m)

Fig. 13 Horizontal movement using different approaches for deep tunnel z 0 = 30 m , diameter = 4 m.
75

Indian Geotechnical Journal, 41(2), 2011

Table 5 Estimation of the settlement trough width (i) using different approaches.

i (m)
z (m) D (m) Finite Elements Peck O'Reilly and New Rankin
(Present study) (1969) (1982) (1988)
30 4 15 9.48 12.69 15

Conclusions Gunn, M. (1993): ‘The prediction of surface settlement

profiles due to tunneling’, Predictive Soil Mechanics,
This paper tries to estimate the surface
Proc. Worth Mem. Symp., Thomas Telford, London. , pp.
settlement due to tunneling. The surface settlements 304-316.
were estimated using different methods, analytical,
empirical and the finite elements. The conclusions O'Reilly, M. P. and New, B. M. (1982): ‘Settlements above
drawn from this analysis are as follows: tunnels in the uk-their magnitude and prediction’,
Tunneling, 82, pp. 173-181.
• In elastic homogeneous medium, the upward
movement of the soil is due to relief effect of the Oteo, C.S. and Sagaseta, C., (1982): ‘Prediction of
excavated soil above the tunnel but this movement settlements due to underground openings’, Proceeding
decreases as x/D increases. This is because the soil International Symposium on Numerical Models in
is remote from concentration of loading. Geomechanics, Zurich, pp. 653-659.
• The results show that there is a good agreement Peck, R. B. (1969): ‘Deep excavations and tunneling in soft
between the complex variable analysis for z/D=1.5, ground’, Proceedings of the 7th international
While using z/D = 2 and 3, the curve diverges in the Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
region far away from the center of the tunnel. Engineering, Mexico, pp. 225-290.
• The finite element method overpredicted the Poulos, H. G. and Davis, E.H. (1974): Elastic solutions for
settlement trough width i compared with the results soil and rock mechanics, John Wiley and Sons, New
of Peck for soft and stiff clay but there is an York.
excellent agreement with Rankin's estimation.
Rankin, W. (1988): ‘Ground movements resulting from
References urban tunneling - prediction and effects’, Proc. 23rd
Conf. of the Engg. Group of the Geological Society,
Augard, C. E. (1997): ‘Numerical modeling of tunneling London Geological Society, London, pp. 79-92.
processes for assessment of damage to building’, Ph.D.
thesis, University of Oxford. Sagaseta, C., (1987): ‘Analysis of undrained soil
deformation due to ground loss’, Geotechnique, 37 (3),
Broms, B. B. and Bennermark, H. (1967): ‘Stability of clay pp. 301-320.
at vertical openings’, Journal of Soil Mechanics and
Foundations Division, ASCE, 93 (1), pp. 71-95. Salim, N. M. N., (2006): Time-dependent analysis of
tunnels in clays using the finite element method, Ph.D.
Broms, B. B. and Bennermark, H. (1967): ‘Stability of clay thesis, University of Technology, Iraq.
at vertical openings’, Journal of Soil Mechanics and
Foundations Division, ASCE, 93 (1), pp. 71-95. Tan, W.L. and Ranjith, P.G. (2003): ‘Numerical analysis of
pipe roof reinforcement in soft ground tunneling’,
th
Chow, L. (1994): ‘Prediction of surface settlement due to Proceeding of the 16 International Conference on
tunneling in soft ground’, M.Sc. thesis, University of Engineering Mechanics, University of Washington,
Oxford. Seattle.
Cording, E.J. and Hansmire, W.H. (1975): ‘Displacement Verruijt, A. and Booker, J.R. (1996): ‘Surface settlements
around Soft Ground Tunnels’, General Report: Session due to deformation of a tunnel in an elastic half- plane’,
IV, Tunnels in Soil", Proceedings 5th Panamerican Geotechnique, London, England, 46 (4), pp. 753-756.
Congress on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, pp. 571-632. Verruijt, A. and Booker, J.R. (2000): ‘Complex Variable
Solution of Mindlin's Problem of an Excavated Tunnel’,
Fujita, K. (1982): ‘Prediction of surface settlements caused In Developments in Theoretical Geomechanics”, A.A.
by shield tunneling’, Proceedings of the International Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 3–22.
Conference on Soil Mechanics, vol. 1, pp. 239-246.,
Mexico City, Mexico.