Professional Documents
Culture Documents
D is the diameter of the tunnel and H is the depth of the tunnel axis
(Fig. 19.3). For clay soils is a ≈ (0, 4 . . . 0, 6)H, for non-cohesive soils is
a ≈ (0, 25 . . . 0, 45)H.
Another estimation of a is given in table 19.1.5
1
It also follows from more complicated computations for a linear-elastic material,
see A. Verruijt and J.R. Booker: Surface settlements due to deformation of a tunnel
in an elastic half space. Géotechnique 46, No. 4 (1996), 753-756
2
see e.g. J.H. Atkinson and D.M. Potts: Subsidence above shallow tunnels in
soft ground. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Volume 103,
No. GT4, 1977, 307-325
3
Peck, R.B., Deep excavations and tunnelling in soft ground. State-of-the-Art
report. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Mexico City, State-of-the-Art Volume, 1969, 225-290
4
M.J. Gunn: The prediction of surface settlement profiles due to tunnelling. In
’Predictive Soil Mechanics’, Proceedings Wroth Memorial Symposium, Oxford, 1992
5
J.B. Burland et al., Assessing the risk of building damage due to tunnelling -
lessons from the Jubilee Line Extension, London. In: Proceed. 2nd Int. Conf. on Soil
Structure Interaction in Urban Civil Engineering, Zürich 2002, ETH Zürich, ISBN
3-00-009169-6, Vol. 1, 11 -38.
19.1 Estimation of settlement 343
Soil a/H
granular 0.2 - 0.3
stiff clay 0.4 - 0.5
soft silty clay 0.7
Table 19.1. Estimation of a
and is usually designated as volume loss6 (ground loss). The volume loss
amounts to some percent of the tunnel cross-section area per current meter. If
6
This designation is based on the conception that the soil volume Vu is dug
additionally to the theoretical tunnel volume
344 19 Settlement of the surface
Fig. 19.3. Settlement trough over a tunnel (left); Approximate distribution of the
surface settlements in tunnel longitudinal direction.
Z x The shown curve coincides rea-
1 2
sonably with the function y = erf x = √ e−y /2 dy (right).
2π 0
this ratio is known by experience for a given soil type, then the maximum set-
tlement uv,max can be estimated with (19.3) and (19.4). Mair and Taylor7
give the following estimated values for Vu /A:
Unsupported excavation face in stiff clay: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2%
Supported excavation face (slurry or earth mash), sand: . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.5%
Supported excavation face (slurry or earth mash), soft clay: . . . . . . . . . 1-2%
Conventional excavation with sprayed concrete in London clay: . . . 0.5-1.5%
The volume loss depends on the skill of tunnelling. Due to improved technol-
ogy the volume loss has been halved over the last years.
The evaluation of numerous field surveys and lab tests with centrifuge leads to
an empirical relationship8 between the volume loss Vu related to the area A of
the tunnel cross section and the stability number N := (σv −σt )/cu . Herein, σv
is the vertical stress at depth of the tunnel axis, σt is the supporting pressure
(if any) at the excavation face, and cu is the undrained cohesion. If NL is the
value of N at collapse, then:
Vu /A ≈ 0.23 e4.4N/NL .
The estimations represented here refer to the so-called greenfield. If the surface
is covered by a stiff building, then the settlements are smaller9 .
7
R.J. Mair and R.N. Taylor, Bored tunnelling in the urban environment. 14th
Int. Conf. SMFE, Hamburg 1997
8
S.R. Macklin, The prediction of volume loss due to tunnelling in overconsoli-
dated clay based on heading geometry and stability number. Ground Engineering,
April 1999
9
’Recent advances into the modelling of ground movements due to tunnelling’,
Ground Engineering, September 1995, 40-43
19.1 Estimation of settlement 345
The maximum settlement uv,max can also be roughly estimated by the follow-
ing consideration: Let εr0 and εv0 be the radial strain and the volume strain
at the crown, respectively. We can determine these values by a triaxial or bi-
axial extension test in the laboratory. Then we have εϑ0 = εv0 − εr0 = u0 /r0 ,
whereby u0 is the displacement (settlement) of the crown and r0 is the radius
of the tunnel. We now assume
r d
0
u = u0 (19.5)
r
for the distribution of the displacement above the crown10 (Fig. 19.4). With
dr |r0 = εr0 it follows from Equ. 19.5
du
u0
εr0 = −d .
r0
With
it follows
εr0
d=− .
εv0 − εr0
to
10
cf. C. Sagaseta: Analysis of undrained soil deformation due to ground loss.
Géotechnique 37 , No. 3 (1987), 301-320; R. Kerry Rowe and K.M. Lee: Subsidence
owing to tunnelling. II. Evaluation of a prediction technique. Can. Geotech. J.
Vol. 29, 1992, 941-954
346 19 Settlement of the surface
d
r0
u1 = (εv0 − εr0 )r0 .
r0 + h
The surface settlement is therefore smaller, the larger h is and the smaller the
crown displacement u0 is. One can keep the surface settlement small, if one
keeps the strain εr0 (and, consequently εv0 ) at the crown small. This can be
obtained by rapid ring closure. Müller-Salzburg reported that he could
always keep the crown displacement u0 between 3 and 5 cm.11
With shield driving the surface settlements result mainly from the tail gap, if
the excavation face is suitably supported (e.g. by pressurised slurry). Grout-
ing of the tail gap is expected to reverse the surface settlement. However, it
is observed that even if the grouted mass exceeds the theoretical gap volume,
the surface settlement is not reversed.12 This fact can be explained in terms of
soil mechanics: A cycle of loading and unloading leaves behind a net volume
change, usually a compaction (Fig. 19.5). The effect of soil compaction due to
a loading-unloading cycle in shield tunnelling is shown in Fig. 19.6 which rep-
resents the surface settlement due to closure of a 7 cm thick tail gap (curve a)
and the one obtained after the grouting of the gap (i.e. reversing of the conver-
gence of 7 cm). This result is obtained with the FEM programme ABAQUS
and use of the hypoplastic constitutive equation calibrated for medium dense
sand.13
σ −σ
1 2
εv ε
1
ε1
Fig. 19.5. A loading-unloading cycle (here shown for the example of triaxial test)
leaves behind a permanent densification
1
0
settlement [cm]
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0
distance from axis [m]
Fig. 19.6. Surface settlement due to gap closure (full line) and after grouting of
the gap (dashed). Numerically obtained results.
settlements of the greenfield, we can assess that buildings with a maximum tilt
of 1/500 and a settlement of less than 10 mm have negligible risk of damage.
For the remaining buildings, a risk assessment must be undertaken which is
still based on the greenfield deformation and, therefore, is quite conservative
(because settlements are over-estimated). Damage of buildings is assessed in
terms of tensile strain ε according to Table 19.2. The strain of the building
348 19 Settlement of the surface
Fig. 19.8. Deformation and cracks due to pure shear (a, b) and pure bending (c,
d).
However, the estimation of the strain in the building, assuming that it behaves
like a beam is more or less academic, because (i) it contradicts the starting
assumption that the building is infinitely flexible, and (ii) the shear and bend-
ing stiffnesses of this beam can hardly be assessed, especially for old masonry
buildings with vaults, timbering etc. For a rough estimation it appears reason-
able to use table 19.2 with the assumption that the maximum tensile strain
in a building situated over the inflexion point has the order of magnitude of
uv,max /a. For more elaborate estimations, a method is used in the cited book
that attempts to take the stiffness of the building into account. This method
15
Contrary to the ’classical’ or Euler-Bernoulli beam, where shear forces are
recovered from equilibrium but their effect on beam deformation is neglected, in the
Timoshenko beam cross sections remain plane but do not remain normal to the
deformed longitudinal axis. The deviation from normality is produced by transverse
shear.
19.3 Risk of building damage due to tunnelling 349