You are on page 1of 84

THE UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM MALAYSIA CAMPUS

Surface Settlement Induced by Tunnelling


by
Yehya Shakeel Siddiqui 4/1/2011

A dissertation submitted in part consideration of the degree of Beng (Honours) in Civil Engineering

Abstract

A parametric study was performed to evaluate the effects of different parameters on surface settlements above tunnels in cohesive soils. The finite element program PLAXIS 2D was used to carry out the numerical analysis for a bored tunnel in unsaturated, homogenous sand. The three parameters that were varied were the tunnel diameter, soil friction angle and the ground loss. 40 different transverse settlement profiles were obtained. Results showed that there was a substantial increase in surface settlement as the tunnel diameter increased, but the soil friction angle had an insignificant effect on the surface settlement. Two different values of trough width parameters were obtained from the graphs and compared with the calculated trough width parameter. The values coincided for deeper tunnels, but for shallower tunnels the empirical values deviated from the values obtained from the settlement curves

Acknowledgements

My years at UNMC have been a unique and special experience. There have been so many people I have gotten to know and so many things that I have learned, and this especially has made my life at UNMC a very memorable experience. I would like to express my special thanks to all my friends who have encouraged me to keep going, especially my friend Yosef Teare, in completing this investigative project and also in getting through life at UNMC. Above all I am particularly grateful to Dr.Chan Swee Huat who supervised my research in this thesis, he provided me with his valuable suggestions and comments despite his very busy schedule. His very friendly nature was highly appreciated as it permitted me to visit him very frequently and allowed for us to have friendly discussions at any time of the day. Finally, I owe my deepest appreciation to my parents. Their prayers have been the greatest thing I could have asked for and have driven me to thrive in every goal I dream of.

Table of Contents
Abstract............................................................................................................ 2 Acknowledgements...........................................................................................3 Table of Contents..............................................................................................4 Chapter 1: Introduction.....................................................................................7 Chapter 2: Literature Review............................................................................8 2.1 Introduction.............................................................................................8 2.1.1 Causes...............................................................................................8 2.2 Stochastic and Empirical Methods...........................................................9 2.2.1 Litwinniszyn (1956).........................................................................10 2.2.2 Peck (1969).....................................................................................11 2.2.3 Cording and Hansmire (1972, 1975, 1989).....................................14 2.2.4 OReilly and New (1982)..................................................................17 2.2.5 Attewell and Woodman (1982)........................................................19 2.3 Laboratory Experiments........................................................................21 4

2.3.1 Atkinson and Potts (1977)...............................................................22 2.3.2 Kimura and Mair (1981)...................................................................24 2.4 Finite Element and Numerical Methods.................................................27 2.5 Summary...............................................................................................31 Chapter 3: Plaxis.............................................................................................33 3.1 Introduction...........................................................................................33 3.2 Material Properties................................................................................33 3.2.1 Mohr-Coulomb.................................................................................33 3.2.2 Drained versus Undrained...............................................................34 3.2.3 Structural Elements ........................................................................34 Chapter 4: Analysis.........................................................................................35 4.1 Introduction...........................................................................................35 4.2 Problem Geometry.................................................................................37 4.3 Fixities...................................................................................................37 4.4 Mesh......................................................................................................39 4.5 Material Properties................................................................................39 4.6 Boundary Conditions.............................................................................41 Chapter 5: Model Results................................................................................42 Chapter 6: Discussions...................................................................................44 6.1 Variation in Diameter............................................................................44 6.2 Variation in Soil Friction Angle...............................................................47 6.3 Comparison of Trough width parameters..............................................50 Chapter 7: Conclusion.....................................................................................53 Appendix A..................................................................................................... 55 Comparisons of Trough Width Parameter....................................................64 Appendix B..................................................................................................... 74 Project diary................................................................................................ 74 Week 1: 7th- 14th October 2010..............................................................74 Week 2: 14th- 21th October 2010............................................................74 5

Week 3: 21st - 28th October 2010...........................................................76 Week 3: 28th October- 4th November......................................................76 Week 4: 4th -11th November...................................................................77 Read the following thesis.........................................................................77 Week 5: 11th -18th November.................................................................78 Week 5: 18th -25th November.................................................................79 Semester Break : Finished 4000+ words of literature review.....................79 Week 1: 7th -13th November...................................................................79 Week 2: 12th -20th November.................................................................79 Week 3: 21th -27th November.................................................................80 Week 4 and Week 5: February 28th -13th March ....................................80 Week 6 and Week 7: 14th 27th March...................................................81 Week 8 : 28th March 3rd April................................................................81 Week 9 and Week 10: 4th 17th April.....................................................81 Week 11: .................................................................................................81 References......................................................................................................82

Chapter 1: Introduction

Majority of tunneling activities are conducted in developed locations and it is vital to shield surface structures from any structural or architectural damage during the process of tunneling. One of the chief problems during the planning and execution of underground tunnels is to estimate how much impact the ground movements are going to have on adjacent buildings and utilities. Aside from the evaluation of stability, the determination of settlements at the surface is one of the most crucial elements in tunneling. On the other hand, in geotechnical engineering, deformations of the soil can be predicted with lesser accuracy than stability of the soil structure. This is due to the fact that the ground has a nonlinear stress-strain relationship; this makes it difficult to evaluate the stress distribution of the soil. During the process of excavation, there are changes in the stress state in the ground mass around the excavation which in turn leads to ground loss. The ground losses and change in stress are expressed in terms of vertical and horizontal ground movements. These ground movements cause surface settlements which results in the structures supported by the affected ground to rotate, translate, deform, distort and possible sustain damage. Consequently, major tasks facing the engineer and the contractor are the evaluations of the distribution and degree of the ground movements resulting from the tunnelling process and then consequently having to assess the tolerance of the structures to the deformations and distortions sustained as a result of the ground displacements. In addition to that, utilities must be protected as damage to lines and mains can cause economic loss and even jeopardize the health and safety of the public. For these reasons ground deformations during the tunnelling process, generally manifested in the form of surface settlements, became a major design element.

Chapter 2: Literature Review

2.1 Introduction

The effects on surface settlements induced by tunnelling provided motive for researchers to develop new and improved methods for estimating surface settlements as well as settlement profiles and troughs. Most of the studies done so far were based chiefly on a large quantity of case studies and evaluated observations. By defining the spatial characteristics of the surface settlement profiles leads to a greater understanding of which structures will be affected and to what degree. Ground movements are an unavoidable result of excavating and constructing a tunnel. Tunnel excavation causes relaxation of in-situ stress, which is only partly constrained by the inclusion of the tunnel support. It is not possible to create a void instantly and provide an infinitely still lining to fill it exactly. Hence a certain amount of the ground deformation will take place at the tunnel depth; this will set off a chain of movements which will result in settlements at the ground surface.

2.1.1 Causes

Settlements are caused mainly due to three components: 1. The immediate settlements caused by the tunnel excavation, which is a function of: stability of the tunnel face, the time necessary to install the tunnel the rate of tunnel advance, the time required installing the tunnel lining and in the case involving mechanized tunnelling, the time required 8

to fill the tail-void. The immediate settlement alongside the tunnel axis starts at a certain distance in front of the tunnel face and comes to a stop when grout injection of the tail void has hardened a sufficient amount to counteract any additional radial displacement. 2. The settlements caused due to deformation of the tunnel lining. This constituent can be applicable for large diameter tunnels at shallow depth. But, it plays an insignificant role in mechanized tunnelling in urban environment, lining. 3. The long term settlements, due to : (i) Primary consolidation, this occurs normally in cohesive or where the loads are well predicted and excessive deformation can be easily avoided by correctly designing the segmented

compressible soils due the dissipation of excess pore pressures. (ii) Secondary consolidation is a form of soil creep which is principally controlled by the rate upon which the soil skeleton of compressible soils can yield and compress. The principal methods for estimating ground deformations around tunnel excavations can be grouped as follows: Stochastic and empirical methods Analytical methods Finite element and numerical methods Laboratory experiments

2.2 Stochastic and Empirical Methods

Empirically derived relationships are in the form of formulae, which have been based upon field observations. Empirical methods are widely used; on the other hand predictions of ground movements based on such methods are inadequate for most practical applications. The mathematical model for

predicting the subsidence of a stochastic medium was first proposed by Litwiniszyn (1956). Peck (1969) later proposed that the surface settlement distribution could be determined empirically using the normal probability curve, which has no theoretical basis. Which resulted in an inverted probability function, empirically derived, used to describe the transverse settlement trough. The method proposed for estimating the longitudinal settlement trough was done by Attewell and Woodman (1982) who adopted the stochastic theory. In reality, ground movements depend on a number of factors such as tunnel geometry and depth, tunnel construction method, the quality of the workmanship and management and the behaviour of the soil surrounding the tunnel. As a result the empirical methods are subjected to these significant limitations.

2.2.1 Litwinniszyn (1956)

A stochastic process is the counterpart to a deterministic process. Rather than managing only one possible reality of how the process might evolve in time, in a stochastic process there is some indeterminacy in its future evolution described by probability distributions. This means that although the initial condition is known, there are numerous possibilities that the process might go to, but there are higher possibilities of some occurring and much lower of others.1 According to the stochastic theory the, the total effect of tunneling excavation on the ground surface is equivalent to the accumulated effects of the innumerable micro-element excavation. In the stochastic model, the ground is represented by a material composed of numerous equi-sized spheres in the three-dimensions or discs in two dimensions. By the removal of a sphere a movements is created at the base of the stacked assemblage. The model
1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_process

10

elements, acted upon my gravity alone move according to the laws of probability, which leads to an inverted bell shaped surface settlement trough in the form of a Gaussian curve. Litwinniszyn (1956) firstly applied the stochastic medium theory in excavation engineering. From this model, the settlement trough of normal probability form can be expressed as:

Eq. 2.1

For settlement over a thing tabular opening of width at a depth , and

and closure thickness is the

are empirical coefficients in the equation and

vertical coordinate. Litwinniszyn (1956) recommends and . It is found that settlement and values match up

curves calculated from the stochastic model using the

well to those measured over actual tunnels in clay soils (Attewell, 1978).

2.2.2 Peck (1969)

The most common empirical method to predict ground movements is based on the Gaussian distribution. Based on information from a range of sources, Peck observed that the settlement trough over a single tunnel could be represented within reasonable limits by the Gaussian curve. Peck (1969) mainly simplified the stochastic solution first proposed by Litwinniszyn (1956). The solution provides an approximation of the settlements that will be expected at laterally varying distances from the centerline of the tunnel.

11

Peck (1969) adopted the following expression to describe the settlement component due to the construction of shield tunneling.

Eq. 2.2

Where

is the vertical settlement of a point which is at a distance

from

the vertical plane containing the tunnel axis, directly above the tunnel, and

is the settlement of the point

is a parameter which defines the width of the is, according to the .

settlement trough, as shown in Fig. 2.1. The value of properties of the normal probability curve, equal to Values of

have been calculated for tunnels for which reasonably reliable

settlement data are available. They are illustrated in the dimensionless plot of against , (Figure 2.2). The plot shows trends and relates the results to soil

types. As expected the larger the depth of tunnel, the greater the width of the settlement trough.

Figure 2.1 Gaussian Curve for transverse settlement trough and ground loss

12

Figure 2.2 Relation between settlement trough width parameter and tunnel depth for different ground condition

The total volume of the subsidence trough

(for the unit length of the

tunnel) can be obtained from the integration of Eq. 2.2 and the result is:

Eq. 2.3

Peck produced a dimensionless plot of the observed width of the settlement profile where different types of soil areas where compared to the depth of the tunnel axis (Figure 2.3).

13

Figure 2.3 Relationship between trough width and tunnel depth (from Peck 1969)

2.2.3 Cording and Hansmire (1972, 1975, 1989)

Cording and Hansmire obtainable a method of estimating surface settlement based on geometric considerations. In this method, they assumed that the volume of ground loss around the tunnel opening will equal the volume of the settlement trough at the surface. They stated that the difference between the volume lost into the tunnel and the volume of the surface settlement trough is largely due to the compression of the soil at the side of the tunnel and the volume increase of granular material over the crown. Cording and Hansmire (1972, 1975, and 1989) where Pecks successors at the University of Illinois, they used the properties of the normal distribution curve (by Peck and Schmidt (1969)) as an expedient method for describing the trough widths of tunnels:

14

Eq. 2.4

Where

is the vertical settlement of a point which is at a distance

from

the vertical plane containing the tunnel axis, directly above the tunnel, and settlement trough.

is the settlement of the point

is a parameter which defines the width of the

Figure 2.4 shows that the volume of the settlement trough can be simply defined by the width ( ) and the maximum displacement ( ). Therefore the and

volume of the settlement trough can be calculated as a triangle with base a height as follows.

Eq. 2.5

Where tunnel,

is the volume of the settlement trough per unit length of the is the

is the half width of the base of the triangle trough, and

maximum displacement of the trough. More over their method includes an empirical relationship between the general soil type and the angle at which the element propagates from the tunnel opening to the surface, . Figure 2.4 and 2.5 relates to the different ground types.

15

Figure 2.4 Relation of

trough width (from Cording and Hansmire (1975))

Figure 2.5 Relationship between trough width and tunnel depth (from Cording and Hansmire (1975))

16

In addition, Cording and Hansmire (1975) stated that some settlement data might not fit the normal distribution curve, particularly granular soil. The settlement at the centre of the trough did not continue to increase in proportion to the settlement at the edge of the trough, after the settlement at the centre became large. Rather as increased, additional settlement was concentrated

just above the tunnel where the zone of high shear strain exists. After that, the settlement trough no longer fits the normal probability curve and the calculated values of decrease steadily. When applying the normal distribution curve for

predicting surface settlement, one should know the limitations, especially for cohesionless soil in which localized yield zones rapidly propagate from the tunnel sidewalls to the surface.

2.2.4 OReilly and New (1982)

OReilly and New (1982) proposed that surface settlements above tunnels cane be estimated using empirical methods, an error function curve of the form proposed by Schmidt and Peck (1969). O'Reilly and New (1982) assumed the radial flow of soil displacement in the direction of the tunnel axis and that conditions of plane strain constant volume deformation apply. The assumption is supported by data from field measurements and the results of centrifuge tests on model tunnels in soft clay. The agreement of radial flow means that the width of the zone deformed ground decreases linearly with depth below the ground surface. The information available tends to propose that the flow is directed towards a "sink", close to the invert level of the tunnel, which is located at a point somewhat beneath the axis level of the tunnel. 17

OReilly and New (1982) showed that

is broadly independent of tunnel

construction method and of tunnel diameter (except for very shallow tunnels where the cover to diameter ratio is less than one).They proposed that:

Eq. 2.6 Eq. 2.7 where is the trough width parameter at height above tunnel axis and is a

parameter that depends on the soil about 0.4 for strong clay and sand below water level, 0.7 for soft clay, and 0.2-0.3 for sand above water level -; and the tunnel diameter. is

Figure 2.6 Soil displacement model around model tunnel in clay (from Mair (1979)) In addition, the result is convincingly reliable with the findings of Fujita (1981) who examined data from a number of case histories in Japan for numerous tunnels excavated using wide-ranging techniques such as hand EPB shield, slurry shield, blind shield, and mined shield. Fujita (1981) established the conclusion of O'Reilly and New (1982) that the width of the surface settlement profile above tunnels in clays is independent of the construction method used.

18

Figure 2.7 Variation in trough width parameters of tunnels in clays The solution given above is for cohesionless soil and not applicable to granular soil, as the hypothesis, particle displacement away from the tunnel are directed toward the tunnel axis, is not supported by laboratory studies (Cording et al. 1976).In addition to that, the assumption of deformation at constant volume is untenable as some dilation or contraction of granular soils is almost expected during deformation. O'Reilly and New (1982) stated that ground movement in cohesionless soils leads to a deep and narrow settlement trough with high horizontal surface strain when associated with vertical ground strains in excess of 0.5%. Therefore, the Gaussian curve cannot always precisely approximate this type of ground movement. These assumptions also match up to the reports presented by Cording and Hansmire (1975) and Attewell (1978) that, in several case studies particularly in granular materials, the surface settlement trough cannot suitably be represented by a normal probability curve.

2.2.5 Attewell and Woodman (1982)

Apart from the transverse settlement profile, the longitudinal profile also plays a vital role in the tunneling process. In tunneling cases where 3D information is required for settlement, buildings in the zone of influence may be 19

subjected to twisting and torsional forces, therefore longitudinal settlements need to be analyzed. Attewell and Woodman (1982) examined a number of case histories of tunnel construction in clays and showed that the cumulative probability curves to be reasonably valid for both, the longitudinal settlement trough as well as the transverse settlement trough. Attewell and Woodman (1982) assumed that half of the maximum settlement occurs in the vertical plane of the shield face and that the point , located far behind the advancing face, has undergone the maximum surface settlement .

Figure 2.8 Tunnel co-ordinate systems for longitudinal surface settlement (after Attewell and Woodman (1982)) The equation for the settlement is given by Attewell and Woodman as:

Eq. 2.8 Where: : Surface vertical settlement at a location 20

: Distance of the considered point from the tunnel axis : Longitudinal position of the considered surface point : Volume of the settlement trough per meter of the tunnel advance : Initial position or starting section of the tunnel : Position of the tunnel face : Trough width parameter : Integrated normal probability function defined as

Eq. 2.9 :

However this method is only applicable for use in clayey soils because the approach was checked against data from just one tunneling project, the Jubilee Line Project in London clay.

2.3 Laboratory Experiments


21

This method involves the construction of scale models of a tunnel of specific diameter and depth in varying soil types. With this method the type and magnitude of soil deformation can be analyzed during the tunnel excavation. Laboratory experiments are an only way to study the actual mechanism of ground movement and collapse, but it is difficult to simulate the real environment and the effect of size sensitivity.

2.3.1 Atkinson and Potts (1977)

A centrifuge model for tunneling introduced by Atkinson and Potts (1977), which can be accelerated to 75g. This enabled the stresses in the soil around the tunnel to be the same as the stresses around a tunnel 75-times larger accelerated in earth's gravity alone. The tunnel model illustrated in Figure 2.9 was constructed in two types of soil: overconsolidated clay and dry sand. The sand was the fraction of Leighton Buzzard sand passing a No. 14 sieve (1.2 mm) and retained on a No. 25 sieve (0.6 mm) and the clay was kaolin, overconsolidated from slurry to an overconsolidation ratio of about 4.

22

Figure 2.9 Model tunnel tests - boundary conditions and dimensions (after Atkinson and Potts (1977))

The study is primarily concerned with radial ground losses and makes no provision for movements of ground into the tunnel face normal to the plane of section. Cylindrical tunnels are driven into the soil using a thin-walled cutter and an internal fluid pressure The tunnel pressure , applied to the sidewall through another membrane.

, is the equal of an excess air at the tunnel face through

construction. Due to the design rigidity, the back and front faces of the box force a condition of plane strain on the soil. The base is far enough from the tunnel lining so that there is no influence on the soil behavior around and above the tunnel as this might lead to inaccurate results. Two different types of tests have been conducted. In a series of "static tests" under normal gravitational acceleration, or , were changed slowly so that the

pore pressure which was caused by the increase in the loading was dissipated and the clay was drained. For the tests which were conducted in sand, the models were accelerated in a large diameter centrifuge which would increase the stresses due to body-weight forces. Steady accelerations of 75g were applied to induce stresses in the model equal to those in corresponding structure 75 times larger than the model. Therefore the 60 mm diameter tunnel model would have performed in the manner of a 4.5 m diameter tunnel stressed in the earth's gravitational field. Measurements of local deformations were made by photographic techniques. In a few of the experiments, thin metal tubes were used to line the tunnel instead of thin rubber membranes. Strain gauges were also used in order to measure the loads in the tubes. Atkinson and Potts (1977) reported that the magnitude of the surface settlement increases as the crown settles, but the magnitude of for a particular model tunnel depends on: the depth of tunnel soil characteristics presence of a surface surcharge 23

For model tunnels in sand without surface surcharge loading, Atkinson and Potts (1977) derived an expression for the point of inflection as:

Eq. 2.11

Where z is the depth to tunnel axis and R is the tunnel radius. For settlement above tunnels in dense sand and in overconsolidated kaolin, both with surface surcharge loading, the expression is:

Eq. 2.12

2.3.2 Kimura and Mair (1981)

Atkinson and Potts (1977) focused their research on the ground movement behavior in plane strain tunnel models; whereas Kimura and Mair (1981) used the same experimental techniques, but they also took into account the 3D problems of a tunnel heading near the ground surface. They conducted experiments in soft ground to investigate the relationship between the 2D and 3D models. Certain assumptions and a simplified model of a tunnel under construction were created in order to investigate the influence of parameters affecting tunnel stability and ground movement. For soft ground tunneling, the unlined heading is represented as shown in Figure 2.10. is the cover above the crown, represents the tunnel support pressure, is the distance

is the tunnel diameter and

from the tunnel face to the structural lining.

24

Figure 2.10 Tunnel heading in soft ground (after Kimura and Mair (1981))

For the 2D test, the experimental techniques and models were the exact same ones as those tunnel models which were introduced by Atkinson and Potts (1977). The schematic of the model is shown in Figure 2.11.However, for tests conducted in the 3D, Kimura and Mair (1981) developed a semicircular tunnel with the plane of symmetry being an almost frictionless interface between the clay and the Perspex window. The length of the semi-circular tunnel was lined, in such a way that only the heading of length was not lined; the ratio was

varied from 0 to 3. Kaolin clays with undrained shear strength of 26 kPa were used all through the test series.

25

Figure 2.11 Dimension of 3D test series (after Kimura and Mair (1981)) The 2D test series results showed a complete collapse of the tunnel, causing ground movement to occur, leading to the subsidence of the ground surface as shown in figure 2.12. Kimura and Mair (1981) observed that the width of the surface settlement trough to be in good agreement with the field data collected by Peck (1969). This result also agreed with the model tunnel tests that where conducted by Atkinson and Potts (1977).

Figure 2.12 Schematic diagram of the failure above the tunnel model

26

A result from the 3D test series after failure is shown in Figure 2.13, in which the cover-to-diameter ratio was 1.5 and the length of unlined heading was 0. It

can be seen in the figure that the soil moved toward to the tunnel face, which resulted in the formation of a sink hole at the ground surface. This behavior shows the three-dimensional ground movement ahead of the tunnel face.

Figure 2.13 Schematic diagram of the failure mechanism In summarize the centrifuge tests conducted on model tunnels revealed how the ground movement characteristics are affected strongly by the stability of the tunnel. In addition to that, these results may be helpful to aid the tunnel design and evaluation process based on the experimental behavior of ground movement

2.4 Finite Element and Numerical Methods

Conventional geotechnical design of tunnels has been carried out using empirical approaches. Majority of the available design code e.g. Euro Code, British Standard etc. are based on such approaches. The non-numerical ways of obtaining good predictions of the likely ground response to tunnelling and the likely loads in a tunnel lining are certainly cheaper and quicker to use. But they are characteristically uncoupled, that is the loads are determined by one technique (usually an elastic solution), and movement by another (usually empirical as described in chapter 2.2), the two not being linked together. In addition to that, the empirical predictions are limited to greenfield situations, 27

where there is no existing surface or subsurface structure to influence the pattern, or magnitude of ground displacement. In actual tunnelling, the problem is more complex, involving numerous parameters which include pore pressure changes, plasticity, lining deformations and existing structures and utilities. The finite element method involves the following steps: Element discretisation. Selection of nodal displacements as primary variable. Derivation of element equations to form global equations. Formulation of boundary conditions. Solution of global equations.

The finite element method has been used in numerous engineering fields for over thirty years, but has only relatively recently been introduced for the analysis of geotechnical problems. This is mainly because there are many complex issues which are specific to geotechnical engineering and which have only been determined recently. The finite element method can: Simulate the construction sequence Account for adjacent services and structures Deal with ground treatment Deal with complex ground conditions Model realistic soil behaviour Handle complex hydraulic conditions Simulate intermediate and long term conditions

28

Deal with multiple tunnels

The main limitation of the basic finite element theory is that it is based on the assumption of linear material behaviour, but soils do not behave in such a manner. Real soil behaviour is highly non-linear, with both strength and stiffness depending on stress and strain levels. Currently tunnels are modelled using 2D finite element methods. This is because of their simplicity and their ability to be carried out fairly quickly and economically. But a 3D model is more accurate because for 2D FE models, it is not so easy to estimate the stress reduction factors, which is a fraction of the load effecting on tunnels. With the 3D model, estimation of stress reduction factors is no longer required as excavation stages can be modeled not only in cross-section but also in the longitudinal section. For the purpose of performing a 2D plane strain analysis, the components of ground loss are represented quantitatively in terms of the gap parameter. Therefore, the idea of this technique is to simplify the spatial ground movements due to tunneling into a plain strain space. In order to convert from 3D to 2D, the gap parameter needs to be applied to obtain the equivalent volume of ground movements in the transverse section. Specifically, these effects can be approximately included in a 2D plane strain model by assuming a larger excavated tunnel diameter, with the additional volume corresponding to the volume of ground lost over the shield. There are numerous problems involved when only 2D analysis is done. The predicted settlement trough tends to be wider than the measured settlements, particularly for tunnels in heavily overconsolidated clays. Also when dealing with 2D analysis, the assumption is made that the end of the excavation is far away from the tunnel section being analyzed, this makes 2D analysis inadequate if 3D effect are considered significant.

Numerous boundary conditions are required to model the tunnel construction procedure. The boundary conditions include: displacement conditions, which are required to represent the far field conditions or any symmetry of the problem 29

surface tractions construction of structural shell elements excavation of solid soil elements hydraulic conditions at the far field boundaries soil strata interfaces tunnel lining

Adequate displacement conditions must be prescribed in order to maintain any rigid body modes, such as translations or rotations of the complete mesh. Analysis of tunneling in drained granular materials requires careful considerations of the hydraulic boundary condition, both during and after excavation, whereas excavation in clays is usually rapid enough to be treated as an undrained process, therefore the tunnel parameter may remain impermeable until after excavation is complete.

30

2.5 Summary

Based on the numerous researches, it can be concluded that the normal probability curve remains the most suitable method to determine the transverse settlement troughs. For that reason, in the practical world, it is fitting to use the empirical solution given by Peck (1969) and the parameter ( ) introduced by O'Reilly and New (1982) to determine the surface settlement trough induced by tunneling. Nevertheless, the restriction of empirical methods is that they need knowledge of the maximum surface settlement ( ) which can be obtained

from instrumentation reading only after the shield passes or it can be predicted from estimated ground loss ( ). Because the maximum settlement depends

on five components of ground loss which are; face loss, over-excavation, pitching, ground disturbance, and tail void, this makes prediction of the magnitude of ground loss exceptionally difficult particularly in the case of EPB tunneling. Therefore, to predict the surface settlement profile acceptably, one still needs other methods to find out the maximum settlement, or needs good judgment, which comes only from years of experience, in the selection of a suitable value of ground loss. This requires taking into consideration numerous aspects of the process of tunneling such as the ground conditions, tunnel alignment, operation control and tunneling techniques. The solution given by Attewell and Woodman (1982), for the longitudinal surface settlement which assumes that 50% of maximum surface settlement is coincident with the plane of the shield face, is valid only for open-faced shield. But this assumption is not true in the case of closed-face shields, as Nomoto et al. (1999) results from the centrifuge tests which simulated the ground response due to closed-face shield tunneling showed that the settlement in plane of the shield face was less than .

31

Even though the prediction of ground movement based on finite element and numerical methods are useful for representing the general form of the settlement, they also have considerable limitations. 2D analyses are not realistic enough for modeling three-dimensional behavior of shield tunneling and therefore cant get reasonable predictions of the surface settlement trough. Although 3D finite element analyses are used to improve these restrictions, the cost and time necessary for the full 3D analysis are significantly high. In addition, the 3D models cannot replicate all aspects of shield tunneling behavior, which is a lot more complex. For this reason, in the practical world, the use of the finite element method is still comparatively restricted. The laboratory models verify the solution proposed by Peck (1969) that the surface settlement trough matches well the normal probability curve. Only the inflection points from the tests are a bit different. The centrifuge tests on model tunnels done by Kimura and Mair (1981) show how tunnel stability has a major impact on the ground movement characteristic of the soil. Nevertheless, even the complicated models are unable to simulate the entire shield tunnelling procedure. Numerous other factors which have a major contribution to the amount of settlement were not modelled, such as pitching angle and tail void grouting. Therefore, the physical models can be used only to verify assumptions and to propose an overall picture of the mechanism of ground movement.

32

Chapter 3: Plaxis
3.1 Introduction

In the following analysis, Plaxis 2D was used to conduct a parametric study of the longitudinal settlement profile for a bored tunnel construction. Plaxis 2D is a robust finite element software that can handle complicated geometries and complex construction sequences.

3.2 Material Properties

3.2.1 Mohr-Coulomb

The model chosen for this analysis was the Mohr-Coulomb model, for a number of important reasons. Mainly because the model is simple enough which helps keep the computation times reasonable. The Mohr-Coulomb represents a first-order approximation of soil behavior. For each layer a constant average stiffness is assumed. Due to this assumption computations tend to be relatively fast and one obtains a first impression of deformations. Secondly, the MohrCoulomb model captures realistic material behavior unlike the linear elastic 33

model. Third, the soft soil model is not much better than the Mohr-Coulomb for unloading problems such as tunneling; therefore there are no benefits in its use. The five available input parameters in PLAXIS, that are and for soil plasticity and and for soil elasticity;

as and angle of dilatancy, are well-known to

geotechnical engineers who can easily obtain these datas from relatively simply and widely used tests, in contrast to the more advance parameters required for the more sophisticated models.

3.2.2 Drained versus Undrained

The program allows for a drained or an undrained analysis to be done using any of the material models. As is usually the case in geotechnical engineering design, a fully drained analysis will closely approximate long-term settlements while the undrained case will simulate the limiting case. In the following study the soil being studied was sand therefore using drained of undrained will not have a large effect on the final results.

3.2.3 Structural Elements

Plates and shells are can also be implemented into the analysis. Most of them are treated as linear elastic members as they are made of strong materials such as steel that yield only at very high stresses. Also, normal stiffness and flexural rigidity are used to define material behavior. The interfaces between the soil and structural element can also be set, is the interface strength reduction 34

factor, for rigid (

) or a reduced strength (

). For the case where

represents condtions in which the values of interface friction and adhesion are equal to the internal friction and cohesion of the soil, whereas signifies lower interface values than the strength parameters of the soil.

Chapter 4: Analysis

4.1 Introduction

The chosen problem geometry consists of a tunnel excavated through sand using the bored tunnel method. The aim of the analysis is to compare the maximum surface settlement by changing the friction angle of the soil, the ratio of depth/diameter and the volume loss to the surface settlement trough obtained using empirical methods. The input parameters for the analysis were chosen arbitrarily. Nevertheless, every effort was made to ensure that the tunnel dimensions, material properties, and boundary conditions were close to what might be encountered in the field. Moreover, if the input parameters are accurate, the modelled behaviour will

35

provide insight into the mechanism that will minimize the damage to surface structures. The aim of the analysis is to obtain the inflection point for the different simulations run. The inflection point is a vital parameter governing the settlement zone. It depends on numerous factors including the geometry of the tunnel and the ground conditions. Due to the limited number of boundary conditions available, which mainly include the geometry of the tunnel and the ground conditions, numerous different methods have been proposed to help determine the trough width parameter. The fastest and simplest way is to approximate the position of the inflection point at where on a graph of ,

the vertical displacement and x is the horizontal distance from the

tunnel axis. Another method to calculate the inflection point is by equating equations 4.1 and 4.2.

Eq. 4.1

Eq. 4.2 Where is the ground loss, the tunnel. is the volume condition and is the diameter of

The final method used to obtain the trough width parameter in this analysis is by reading the value of the inflection point from the graph. The three

diffrent values of the trough width parameter are then plotted on the graph proposed by Peck (1969), Figure 2.2 which shows the relation between settlement trough width parameter and tunnel depth. Using the methods mentioned above an attempt has been devoted to develop charts for estimating I-values and maximum settlements of tunnel sites.

36

4.2 Problem Geometry

The model geometry is based on a hypothetical tunnel located on a green field. The soil profile has been kept simple; homogenous isotropic linear elastic sand above ground water level was used. The depth of the tunnel has been kept constant throughout the simulations, but the diameter of the tunnel, the soil friction angle and the ground loss have been varied. The depth to the centre of the tunnel is 14 m. Figure 4.1 shows the problem geometry.

Figure 4.1 Problem geometry modeled in half-space Due to symmetry, only the half-space was modeled as shown in figure 4.1. Halving the number of elements significantly reduces the computational time.

4.3 Fixities

Standard fixities were applied to the boundaries of the symmetric half-space as shown in figure 4.2. These fixities consist of:

37

1) Vertical geometry lines for which the x-coordinate is equal to the lowest of highest x-coordinate in the model receive a horizontal fixity ( ).

2) Horizontal geometry lines for which the the y-coordinate is equal to the lowest of highest y-coordinate in the model receive a full fixity ( ). 3) Structural elements that extend to the boundary of the cross-section, just as the top and bottom of the shield in Figure 4.1, receive a rotation fixity where no rotation is allowed around the z-axis (longitudinal axis) if at least one of the displacement directions ( 2001). ) of that point is fixed. (PLAXIS,

Figure 4.2 Applied fixities for (a) vertical geometry lines, (b) horizontal geometry lines, and (c) structural plate at vertical geometry line

38

4.4 Mesh

The 2D mesh was created with a fine element configuration away from the tunnel, but near the tunnel boundary the mesh was refined to a very fine mesh. The mesh configuration for one of the tunnels is shown in Figure 4.3.

Figure 4.3 2D mesh The length of the mesh was increased as the diameter of tunnel increased due to the fact that the size of the mesh used in a finite element analysis has an important effect on the computed results. In cases where the mesh size is too small, the fixed boundaries restrict the movement of the soil, producing incorrect results.

4.5 Material Properties

To bring the behaviour of modelled sand into conformity of with what might be observed in real soils, the material properties were chosen carefully. They have been listed in the table below.

39

Table 4.1 Material Properties for soil


Mohr-Coulomb 4 Sand Type
unsat

Drained [kN/m] [kN/m] [m/day] [m/day] [-] [-] [kN/m] [-] [kN/m] [kN/m] [kN/m] [] [] [kN/m/ m] [m] [kN/m/ m] [kN/m] [-] 17.00 20.00 1.000 1.000 1.000 1E15 13000.000 0.300 5000.000 17500.000 1.00 25/30/35/40 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.00 1.00 Neutral

sat

kx ky einit ck Eref Gref Eoed cref Einc yref cincrement Tstr. Rinter.

Interface permeability

40

Table 4.2 Material Properties for the tunnel lining


No . Identification EA [kN/m] 1 Tunnel Lining 1.4E7 EI [kNm/m ] 1.43E5 w [kN/m/m ] 8.40 [-] 0.15 Mp [kNm/m] 1E15 Np [kN/m] 1E15

4.6 Boundary Conditions

As mentioned earlier the depth of the tunnel is kept constant during the simulations. The following parameters are varied: Diameter of tunnel Soil friction angle Ground loss

The third parameter, ground loss is expressed as a percentage of the notional excavated volume of the tunnel. In general the ground loss is defined as a fraction of the ratio of the surface settlement trough volume and the tunnel volume per unit length. These ground loss parameters are empirical and differ for different subsurface environments and tunnel configurations. To simulate ground loss during the simulation of the Tunnel, a contraction or volume strain can be applied. In this analysis the ground loss parameter is varied between 1%, 2% and 3%. The Diameter of the tunnel is varied between 2m, 4m, 6m, 8m and 10m and the soil friction angle is changed from 25, 30, 35 and 40. Table 4.3 gives information on the tunnels used in the simulation. Table 4.2 Tunnel No. 1 2 Depth (m) 14 14 Diameter (m) 2 4 Depth/Diamet er 7.00 3.50 41

3 4 5

14 14 14

6 8 10

2.33 1.75 1.40

Chapter 5: Model Results

The results obtained from 1% ground loss were ignored due to the fact that there was a heave in the soil surface instead of settlement. The maximum ground settlement obtained from the analysis is directly measured from the output graphs in the PLAXIS software. The resulting surface settlement curves are plotted with vertical settlements against the horizontal distance from the tunnel axis corresponding to the settlements. The trough width parameter for the graphs. See Appendix Figure A.1 to A.8 for the surface settlement curves. After the trough width parameters were obtained for all of the different tunnel simulations the relationship between settlement trough width parameter and tunnel depth were plotted to compare the results obtained with Pecks (1969) chart. graphs the plotted graphs refers to the i calculated from equations 4.1 and 4.2 refers to the graph plotted by Peck (1969) refers to the inflection point picked up from the refers to the i taken from from the plotted and the observed trough width paramater are taken from

See Appendix Figure A.17 to A.24.

42

43

Chapter 6: Discussions
6.1 Variation in Diameter

As expected with a decrease in the depth/diameter ratio there is a substantial increase in the surface settlement, this is because as the depth/diameter ratio decreases there is a decrease in the depth of cover.

FIGURE 6.1 Variation in surface settlement From Figure 6.1 it can be clearly seen that there is an exponential decrease in the surface settlement as the tunnel diameter decreases. The deformation behaviour around a shallow tunnel is often characterized by the formation of shear bands which develop from the tunnel shoulder and sometimes reach the ground surface. Figure 6.2 gives the strain-distribution model derived from the results of the measured displacements taken from a subway tunnel in Washington D.C. (Cording and Hansmire (1985). A possible justification of this deformational can be stated with the help of Figure 6.3. The region A, which is bounded by the slip plane k-k, can be regarded as potentially unsteady zone which can dislodge vertically due to the insufficient frictional support along the length of the k-k planes. The shear band a which has 44

formed along the k-k line separates the region A from the surrounding. The region adjacent to A, region B, follows the displacement of region A which leads to the formation of a second shear band b. The regions A and B indicate the primary and secondary regions of deformational behaviour pointed out by Murayam et. al. (1969, 1971). This effect is not seen for deeper tunnels and for deeper tunnels (C/D>2.5), the observed tunneling impact at the ground surface is usually restricted (Cording and Hansmire, l975; Leblais and Bochon, 1991; Pantet, 1991).

FIGURE 6.2 Stress distributions around a subway tunnel (after Cording and Hansmire (1985)).

45

Figure 6.3 Distinctive deformational mechanisms around a shallow tunnel.

Figure 6.4 Vertical displacements for -25, ground loss 2% and tunnel depth/diameter = 1.4

46

Figure 6.5 Vertical displacements for -25, ground loss 2% and tunnel depth/diameter = 7 From the two figures the difference is evident, for the shallower tunnel in Figure 6.4 the vertical displacements lines are much denser compared to the deeper tunnel. For the deeper tunnel there are sub-surface displacements at deeper depths, and as the depth decreases there is substantial decrease in the vertical displacement of the soil.

6.2 Variation in Soil Friction Angle

From the Figure 6.6 it can be seen that the soil friction angle does not seem to have a substantial effect on the maximum surface settlement.

47

Figure 6.6 Variation in maximum surface settlement against increasing soil friction angle for Ground Loss 3 % For shallower tunnels there seems to be an insignificant no difference in the maximum surface settlement of the soil, but as the tunnel cover depth increases there is a noticeable increase in the settlement.

48

Figure 6.7 Surface Settlement Curves for Z/D =7 and Ground Loss 3%

Figure 6.8 Surface Settlement Curves for Z/D = 1.4 and Ground Loss 3%

49

From Figures 6.7 and 6.8 there seems to be only a slight deviation between the surface settlement curves, thus indicating that the soil friction angle has a very minute effect on the surface settlement for tunnels with the surface settlement between 0.01m to 0.06m.

6.3 Comparison of Trough width parameters

The main aim of this analysis was to compare the obtained trough width parameters with Pecks (1969). From Figures 5.9 to 5.16 you can see that the deeper tunnels correspond with Pecks, but slowly deviate from Pecks values for shallower tunnels.

Figure 6.9 Relation between settlement trough width parameter and

tunnel depth for -40

50

As anticipated, the greater the depth of tunnel, the greater the width of the settlement trough. The values of the inflection point from the graph and the value from are close to each other, indicating that gives a good

approximation for calculating the trough width parameter. The trough width parameter calculated using the empirical formulae do not coincide well for shallower tunnels. The main reason behind this is because the empirical formulae used to calculate the trough width parameter assumes a Gaussian curve, but for shallower tunnels the settlement curve follows a much steeper curve. (See Appendix Figure A.17 to A.24)

Eq. 6.1

Figure 6.10 Surface Settlement Curves for -35, Z/D = 1.4 and Ground Loss 2%

51

Figure 6.12 Comparison of Trough Width Parameter for 35 and ground loss 2%

Figure 6.10 shows the comparison between the Plaxis Generated surface settlement curve and the settlement curve calculated from Equation 6.1. There is a clear difference between the two settlement curves, for shallower tunnels the surface settlement is more complex and doesnt follow the Gaussian curve. Furthermore the difference in the trough width parameters can be seen in Figure 6.12, for shallow tunnels there is a large deviation in the calculated trough width parameter.

52

Chapter 7: Conclusion

Surface settlement profiles were obtained using the finite element program PLAXIS 2D for a bored tunnel in sand. The friction angle, ground loss and diameter were varied to see how they might influence the surface settlement and trough width parameter. 1. As was expected the shallower tunnels tend to have a much larger settlement than deeper tunnels. 2. The soil friction angle does not seem to play a vital role in the surface settlement for cohesive soil, when the maximum surface settlements are between the ranges of 0.01m to 0.06m. 3. The trough width parameter taken from the graph and the trough width parameter corresponding to other, indicating that trough width parameter. 4. The trough width parameter calculated using empirical methods is suitable for tunnels with but for shallower tunnels with correspond well with each

gives a good approximation of the

the empirical formula gives varying values of the trough width parameter due to the difference in the settlement curves. The limitation with the empirical method is due to the fact it requires information of the maximum surface settlement to describe the settlement trough. The possible ways of obtaining the maximum settlement can be from instrumental readings only after the shield passes or it can be estimated using the ground loss parameter. But the main problem is that the ground loss parameter depends on many factors which include geological conditions, operational parameters, and tunnel geometry, therefore the estimation of the precise ground loss parameter is particularly complicated. The significance if the input parameters in predicting surface settlement was investigated. It was found that the ground loss has a more significant effect on

53

surface settlements than the other factors but that all input parameters play a role. Finally to conclude, the fact is that the simulation of reality still remains an estimate, which inevitable involves some numerical and modelling errors. Furthermore, the precision upon which reality is approximated depends significantly on the knowledge of the user concerning the modelling of the problem, the understanding of the soil models and their boundaries, the choice of model parameters, and the skill to judge the consistency of the computational results.

54

Appendix A
Table A.1 Results from analysis of 25 Friction angle

25%

Ground loss Depth (m) 14 14 14 14 14 Diameter (m) 2 4 6 8 10 Depth/Diame ter 7.00 3.50 2.33 1.75 1.40 Surface Settlement (m) 0.00207922 0.00710854 0.01078357 0.01383775 0.02403083

2% Calculated Trough Width parameter 12.056 14.105 20.920 28.983 26.077

Trough Width parameter from graph 12.110 11.090 11.110 9.830 10.530

(m) 0.00124753 0.00426512 0.00647014 0.00830265 0.01441850

correspondi ng i 10.100 9.800 12.200 10.360 10.590

Ground loss Depth (m) 14 14 Diameter (m) 2 4 Depth/Diame ter 7.00 3.50 Surface Settlement (m) 0.00365993 0.01233623

3% Calculated Trough Width parameter 10.273 12.192

Trough Width parameter from graph 12.080 11.011

(m) 0.00219596 0.00740174

correspondi ng i 12.000 12.200 55

14 14 14

6 8 10

2.33 1.75 1.40

0.02515356 13.453 11.110 0.03675908 16.366 11.050 0.05713479 16.452 10.990 Table A.2 Results from analysis of 30

0.01509213 0.02205545 0.03428087

11.100 11.050 11.000

Friction angle

30%

Ground loss Depth (m) 14 14 14 14 14 Diameter (m) 2 4 6 8 10 Depth/Diame ter 7.00 3.50 2.33 1.75 1.40 Surface Settlement (m) 0.00234092 0.00865539 0.01108608 0.01466543 0.02679271

2% Calculated Trough Width parameter 10.708 11.584 20.350 27.347 23.389

Trough Width parameter from graph 12.140 12.387 12.507 11.220 10.510

(m) 0.00140455 0.00519324 0.00665165 0.00879926 0.01607563

correspondi ng i 12.130 10.965 13.500 11.100 10.590

Ground loss Depth (m) 14 Diameter (m) 2 Depth/Diame ter 7.00 Surface Settlement (m) 0.00407179

3% Calculated Trough Width parameter 9.234

Trough Width parameter from graph 11.100

(m) 0.00244307

correspondi ng i 11.065 56

14 14 14 14

4 6 8 10

3.50 2.33 1.75 1.40

0.01388222 0.02582703 0.03885271 0.06149900

10.834 13.102 15.484 15.285

11.147 12.300 11.130 12.376

0.00832933 0.01549622 0.02331163 0.03689940

11.150 11.110 11.130 11.300

Table A.3 Results from analysis of 35 Friction angle

35%

Ground loss Depth (m) 14 14 14 14 14 Diameter (m) 2 4 6 8 10 Depth/Diame ter 7.00 3.50 2.33 1.75 1.40 Surface Settlement (m) 0.00272805 0.01369853 0.01206541 0.01612907 0.02920425

2% Calculated Trough Width parameter 9.188 7.319 18.698 24.866 21.458

Trough Width parameter from graph 11.060 9.990 9.640 7.800 8.730

(m) 0.00163683 0.00821912 0.00723925 0.00967744 0.01752255

correspondi ng i 11.060 9.978 9.700 11.100 10.000

Ground loss

3%

57

Depth (m) 14 14 14 14 14

Diameter (m) 2 4 6 8 10

Depth/Diame ter 7.00 3.50 2.33 1.75 1.40

Surface Settlement (m) 0.00420827 0.01455913 0.02656609 0.04102761 0.06517070

Calculated Trough Width parameter 8.935 10.330 12.738 14.663 14.423

Trough Width parameter from graph 10.680 9.290 9.790 10.670 10.490

(m) 0.00252496 0.00873548 0.01593965 0.02461657 0.03910242

correspondi ng i 10.685 10.730 10.100 10.300 10.600

Table A.4 Results from analysis of 40 Friction angle

40%

Ground loss Depth (m) 14 14 14 14 14 Diameter (m) 2 4 6 8 10 Depth/Diame ter 7.00 3.50 2.33 1.75 1.40 Surface Settlement (m) 0.00383956 0.00775537 0.01277986 0.01792904 0.03359109

2% Calculated Trough Width parameter 6.528 12.928 17.652 22.369 18.655

Trough Width parameter from graph 10.040 9.992 9.670 9.300 8.746

(m) 0.00230374 0.00465322 0.00766792 0.01075742 0.02015466

correspondi ng i 9.000 12.330 12.000 10.200 9.300

58

Ground loss Depth (m) 14 14 14 14 14 Diameter (m) 2 4 6 8 10 Depth/Diame ter 7.00 3.50 2.33 1.75 1.40 Surface Settlement (m) 0.00437154 0.01512545 0.02766883 0.04348045 0.07172888

3% Calculated Trough Width parameter 8.601 9.943 12.230 13.836 13.105

Trough Width parameter from graph 10.760 10.490 10.070 10.970 10.267

(m) 0.00262292 0.00907527 0.01660130 0.02608827 0.04303733

correspondi ng i 10.670 10.490 10.300 10.550 10.100

59

Figure A.1 Surface Settlement Curves for -25 and ground Loss 2%

Figure A.2 Surface Settlement Curves for -25 and ground Loss 3%

60

Figure A.3 Surface Settlement Curves for -30, Ground Loss 2%

Figure A.4 Surface Settlement Curves for -30, Ground Loss 3%

61

Figure A.5 Surface Settlement Curves for -35, Ground Loss 2%

Figure A.6 Surface Settlement Curves for -35, Ground Loss 3%

62

Figure A.7 Surface Settlement Curves for -40, Ground Loss 2%

Figure A.8 Surface Settlement Curves for -40, Ground Loss 3%

63

Comparisons of Trough Width Parameter

Figure A.9 Comparison of Trough Width Parameter for 25 and ground loss 2%

64

Figure A.10 Comparison of Trough Width Parameter for 25 and ground loss 3%

Figure A.11 Comparison of Trough Width Parameter for 30 and ground loss 2%

65

Figure A.12 Comparison of Trough Width Parameter for 30 and ground loss 3%

Figure A.13 Comparison of Trough Width Parameter for 35 and ground loss 2%

66

Figure A.14 Comparison of Trough Width Parameter for 35 and ground loss 3%

Figure A.15 Comparison of Trough Width Parameter for 40 and ground loss 2%

67

Figure A.16 Comparison of Trough Width Parameter for 40 and ground loss 3%

68

The graphs below are for 2% ground loss:

Figure A.17 Relation between settlement trough width parameter and

tunnel depth for -25

69

Figure A.18 Relation between settlement trough width parameter and

tunnel depth for -30

70

Figure A.19 Relation between settlement trough width parameter and

tunnel depth for -35

Figure A.20 Relation between settlement trough width parameter and

tunnel depth for -40

The graphs below are for 3% ground loss:

71

Figure A.21 Relation between settlement trough width parameter and

tunnel depth for -25

Figure A.22 Relation between settlement trough width parameter and

tunnel depth for -30 72

A.23 Relation between settlement trough width parameter and

tunnel depth for -35

73

A.24 Relation between settlement trough width parameter and

tunnel depth for -40

Appendix B
Project diary

Week 1: 7th- 14th October 2010


Had my first meeting with Dr.Chan Swee Huat: Dr.Chan gave me the topic Surface settlement induced by tunneling and I was asked to do a literature review. My second meeting with Dr.Chan: I had to get familiar on how to use Plaxis. During this week I did a few lessons using the tutorial manual but had problems using the software so I could not continue.

Week 2: 14th- 21th October 2010


Third meeting with Dr.Chan: figured out the problem with the software. This week concentrated more on literature review and less on learning how to use the software.

Read the following thesis:

-THREE

DIMENSIONAL

ANALYSIS

OF

SURFACE OF

SETTLEMENT

IN

SOFT

GROUND

TUNNELING

BY OF

JEDEDIAH DRURY GREENWOOD, BACHELOR MINNESOTA, 2001

GEOLOGICAL ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY

Chapter 3: Surface Settlements pg 22. o Different methods for estimating ground deformation around tunnel excavations: Stochastic and empirical methods. Analytical methods Finite element and numerical methods 74

Laboratory experiments
SETTLEMENT PREDICTIONS FOR AND

- SURFACE TBM
BY

ISTANBUL METRO

TUNNELS EXCAVATED BY

EPB-

S.G.ERCELEBI, H.COPUR

I.OCAK, RECEIVED: 13 JULY 2009 / ACCEPTED: 15

MARCH 2010 What should be looked at before excavation: o A thorough study of the ground by site investigations should be performed to find out o Physical and mechanical properties of the ground existence of underground water deformation characteristics such as stiffness

Technical parameters: Tunnel depth and geometry tunnel diameterlinegrade single or double track lines neighboring structures

Primary reason for ground movements: convergence of the ground into the tunnel after excavation

Three settlement prediction approaches for mechanized tunnel excavations: numerical analysis such as finite element method analytical method semi-theoretical (semi-empirical) method
FOR

-ANALYTICAL PREDICTION N. LOGANATHANL o


AND

TUNNELING-INDUCED GROUND MOVEMENTS IN CLAYS, BY

H. G. POULOS,Z FELLOW, ASCE

The settlements caused by tunneling are often characterized by the term "ground loss," expressed as a percentage of the notional excavated volume of the tunnel.

75

Ground Loss definition: a percentage of the ratio of the surface settlement trough volume and the tunnel volume per unit length o equivalent undrained ground loss Eo is defined with respect to the gap parameter

Gap parameter: magnitude of the equivalent two-dimensional void formed around the tunnel due to the combined effects of the three-dimensional (3D) elastoplastic ground deformation at the tunnel face, over excavation of soil around the periphery of the tunnel shield, and the physical gap that is related to the tunneling machine, shield, and lining geometry. o Verruijt and Booker (1996) for the estimation of the ground settlement due to a uniform radial ground loss

Week 3: 21st - 28th October 2010


No meeting with Dr.Chan was required as I was still getting familiar with the software. I completed tutorial lessons 1, 2 and 3 of Plaxis.

Did not understand the following from the software: Standard Fixities K0 Procedure Prescribed Displacements Plastic/Elastic analysis (rigid/flexible footing) Initial effective stress state

Week 3: 28th October- 4th November

Major software error could not continue with tutorial (not much work done this week due to coursework). 76

Fourth meeting with Dr.Chan: Very short brief meeting as Dr.Chan had to go for accreditation meeting. Software problem solved.

Week 4: 4th -11th November

Finished tutorial lessons 4 and 5. Did not understand the following from the software: Strength reduction factor inter. (pg 48) Dilatancy angle Mstage (pg 55) Undrained river embankment water level changes

Read the following thesis


-SETTLEMENTS
AND DAMAGE CAUSED BY CONSTRUCTION-INDUCED VIBRATIONS, BY

K. RAINER

MASSARSCH, GEO ENGINEERING AB, BROMMA, SWEDEN o The propagating waves expose buildings or installations in the ground to repeated distortion cycles (sagging as well as hogging). This effect is fundamentally a cyclic loading problem and not a dynamic effect. Distortion problems can also occur at very slow distortion rates, for example in connection with tunnelling work or as a result of seasonal ground water variations (swelling and shrinking of foundation soil). -REPRESENTING 40)
SETTLEMENT FOR SOFT GROUND TUNNELLING, BY

TAKAHIRO AOYAGI (PG1-

Factors Influencing ground movement

Geological conditions Tunnel dimensions Construction methods

77

page 16: Research by peck and schmidt

Basic equations

S = vertical settlement of a point x = distance from vertical plane containing tunnel axis I = parameter defining width of trough

Contains info on work done by other researchers

Week 5: 11th -18th November

Continuation of -REPRESENTING 40- ) Soft ground tunnelling Magnitude of settlement in cohesionless soil > cohesive soils Settlement trough width cohesionless soils < cohesive soils
SETTLEMENT FOR SOFT GROUND TUNNELLING, BY

TAKAHIRO AOYAGI (PG

Maximum surface settlement (eqn. 3.3)

Prediction of Ground Displacements (pg 49)

-other information regarding DAT not required. 78

-SURFACE

SETTLEMENT

PREDICTION

FOR

ISTANBUL

METRO

TUNNELS

VIA

3D FE

AND

EMPIRICAL METHODS, BY

S.G. ERCELEBI, H. COPUR, N. BILGIN & C. FERIDUNOGLU ,ISTANBUL


OF

TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY, FACULTY CONTAINS 165)

MINES, MINING ENG. DEPT., MASLAK, ISTANBUL, TURKEY in estimations for surface settlement (pg

NUMEROUS EQUATIONS USED

Started work on the essay.

Week 5: 18th -25th November

Finished tutorial lessons 5 and 6. Completed all the Plaxis tutorials. Fifth meeting with Dr.Chan: Dr.Chan gave me data that I needed to input into the software for analysis. This included shear strength parameters, depth of tunnel, Poissons ratio etc.

Continued work on the essay.

Semester Break : Finished 4000+ review.

words of literature

Week 1: 7th -13th November

Continued work on literature review, most research was done, only compilation of work needed.

Week 2: 12th -20th November

79

Had my first meeting of the semester with Dr.Chan Swee Huat: Dr.Chan read skimmed thru my literature review. We discussed the simulations that we will need to run for my research. Decided on using uniform layer of clay, and the parameters that would be varied during the analysis.

Week 3: 21th -27th November

Ran my first simulations with Plaxis, had a few problems regarding certain parameters to input into the system. Had my second meeting of the semester with Dr.Chan Swee Huat: Dr.Chan explained on how to choose my parameters for the analysis. These parameters included, and and for soil elasticity; and for soil plasticity

as an angle of dilatancy

Week 4 and Week 5: February 28th -13th March

Ran numerous simulations, then the case of drained and undrained came up. Had my third meeting of the semester with Dr.Chan Swee Huat: Expalined to him the drained and undrained problem, we then decided to use Sand for the analysis.

Read numerous research papers from the book: -GEOTECHNICAL SYMPOSIUM


ON ASPECTS OF UNDERGROUND CONSTRUCTION IN SOFT GROUND OF

: INTERNATIONAL

GEOTECHNICAL ASPECTS

UNDERGROUND CONSTRUCTION

IN

SOFT GROUND

Proved very helpful in my literature review and gave me a deeper insight in the complicated techniques used for underground construction. Another important book which provided additional information for my literature review was: -MECHANIZED
TUNNELLING IN URBAN AREAS

80

Week 6 and Week 7: 14th 27th March

Ran 60 different simulations on Plaxis. Most of the results matched with each other, but there were a few errors with my simulations. Had my fourth meeting of the semester with Dr.Chan Swee Huat: Explained to him the errors that I had with my analysis, found out the problem, I had made a mistake with the Continued running my simulations. procedure.

Week 8 : 28th March 3rd April

Had my fifth meeting of the semester with Dr.Chan Swee Huat: Showed all my results to Dr.Chan, he agreed that I can continue with my analysis.

Week 9 and Week 10: 4th 17th April

Started work on my analysis. The plotting of the surface settlement curves was the most tedious part of the analysis phase. Worked on my report, e-mailed my draft to Dr.Chan who checked it thoroughly and told on the parts I needed to improve on. Finished 7000+ words of my report.

Week 11:

Continued work on my report, couldnt meet Dr.Chan during the week as he had work, and therefore had to meet up with him on a Saturday. Had my final meeting of the semester with Dr.Chan Swee Huat: Showed him my finally rough draft. He gave me advice on where there was still room for improvement.

81

Made a few changes to my report, proof read it twice and was ready for printing.

References

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, Balkema, pp. 447-452. Atkinson, J. H., Brown, E. T., and Pottss, D. M. (1975). "Collapse of Shallow Unlined Tunnels in Dense Sand". Tunnel & Tunnelling, May 1975, pp. 81-87. Atkinson, J. H. and Pottss, D. M. (1977). "Subsidence above Shallow Tunnels in Soft Ground". Proc. ASCE Geotechnical Engineering Division, Vol. 103, GT 4, pp. 307-325. Attewell, P. B. and Farmer, I. W. (1974). "Ground Deformations resulting from Shield Tunnelling in London Clay". Canadian Geotech. J., Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 380395. Attewell, P. B. (1978). "Ground Movements caused by Tunnelling in Soil". Proc. hit. Conf. o Large Movements and Structures (ed. J. D. Geddes), Pentech Press, London, pp. 812-948. 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. Baligh, M. M. (1985). "Strain Path Method". Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 111, GT9, pp. 1108-1136. Clough, G. W. and Schmidt, B. (1981). "Design and Performance of Excavations and Tunnels in Soft Clay". Soft Clay Engineering, Elsevier, pp. 569-634. Cording, E. J., and Hansmire, W. H. (1975). "Displacements around Soft Ground

Tunnels". General Report 5'h Pan American Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Buenos Aires, Session IV, pp. 571-632

Cording, E. J. et al. (1976). "Displacement around Tunnels in Soil". Report to US. Department of Transportation prepared at the University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign, DoT-TST-76T-22. Cording, E. J., Brierley, G. S., Mahar, J. W., and Boscadin, M. D. (1989). "Controlling Ground Movements during Tunnelling". Art and Science of Geotechnical Engineering at the Dawn of the 21" Century, Prentice-Hall, Ch. 25, pp. 477-505.

82

Eberhardt, E. (2001). "Numerical Modelling of Three-Dimensional Stress Rotation Ahead of an Advancing Tunnel Face". International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences. Vol. 38, pp. 499-518. Fujita, K. (1981). "On the Surface Settlement caused by Various Methods of Shield Tunnelling". Proc. 1] the Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. Vol. 4, pp.609-610. Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground: Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium TC28. Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 15-17 June 2005 Gonzalez, C. and Sagaseta, C. (2001). "Patterns of Soil Deformations around Tunnels. Application to the Extension of Madrid Metro". Computer and Geotechnique. Vol. 28, pp. 445-468. Hudson, J. A. et al. (1976). "Understanding Ground Movements caused by Tunnelling". Proc. of Conf. on Underground Engineering, Paper No. D2 1 G 1, London. Kimura, T. and Mair, R. J. (1981). "Centrifugal Testing of Model Tunnels in Soft Clay". Proc. 1Oh"'Int. Conf. of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Stockhonlm,V ol. 1, pp. 319-322. Lee, K. M. and Rowe, R. K. (1991). "An Analysis of Three-Dimensional Ground Movements: the Thunder Bay Tunnel". Canadian Geotech. J., Vol. 28. pp. 25-41. Lee, K. M., Rowe, R. K., and Lo. K. Y. (1992). "Subsidence owing to Tunnelling. I: Estimating the Gap Parameter". Canadian Geotech. J., Vol. 29, pp. 929-940. Litwinsizyn, J. (1956). "Application of the Equation of Stochastic Processes to Mechanics of Loose Bodies". Arch. Mech. Stosow, Vol. 8, pp. 396-411. 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, ASCE, Atlanta, Georgia, pp. 47-76. Lo, K, Y., Ng, R. M., and Rowe, R. K. (1984). "Predicting Settlement due to Tunnelling in Clays". Proc. Tunnelling in Soil and Rock, Geotech III Conf., ASCE, Reston, VA, pp. 48-76. Loganathan, N. and Poulos, H. G. (1998). "Analytical Prediction for TunnellingInduced Ground Movements in Clays". Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 124, No. 9, pp. 846-856. Loganathan, N. and Poulos, H. G. (1999). Tunneling Induced Ground Deformations and their Effects on Adjacent Piles". Proc. of IO"' Australian Tunnelling Conference, Melbourne, pp. 241-250. Maidl, B., Herrenknecht, M., and Anheuser, L. (1996). Mechanised Shield Tunneling, Ernst & Sohn, Berlin.

83

Mair, R. J. and Taylor, R. N. (1993). "Prediction of Clay Behaviour around Tunnels using Plastic Solution". Proc. Worth Memorial Symposium, Oxford, 1992, Thomas Telford, pp. 449-463. Mair, R. J. and Taylor, R. N. (1997). "Bore Tunneling in the Urban Environment". Theme Lecture, Plenary Session 4, Proc. 14"h1 it. Conf. of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Hamburg, Vol. 4, pp. 2353-2385. Nomoto, T., Imamura, S., Hagiwara, T., Kusakabe, O., and Fujii, N. (1999). "Shield Tunnel Construction in Centrifuge". Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 125, No. 4, pp. 289-300. O'Reilly, M. P. and New, B. M. (1982). "Settlement above Tunnels in the United Kingdom - Their Magnitude and Prediction". Tunneling 88, London, pp. 231-241. Peck, R. B. (1969). "Deep Excavations and Tunneling in Soft Ground". Proc. 7' mIt. Conf on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Mexico City, State of the Art Volume, pp. 225-290. Pinto, F. (1999). "Analytical Methods to Interpret Ground Deformations due to Soft Ground Tunneling". SM Thesis, MIT, Cambridge, MA. Potts, D. M. (1976). "Behaviour of Lined and Unlined Tunnels in Sand". Ph.D. Thesis, University of Cambridge. Rowe, R. K. and Kack, G. J. (1983). "A Theoretical Examination of the Settlements induced by Tunneling: Four Case Histories". Canadian Geotech. J., Vol. 20, pp.2 9 9 -3 14 . Rowe, R. K. and Lee, K. M. (1992). "Subsidence owing to Tunneling. II. Evaluation of a Prediction Technique". Canadian Geotech. J., Vol. 29, pp. 941-954. Sagaseta, C. (1987). "Analysis of Undrained Soil Deformations due to Ground Loss". Geotechnique, Vol. 37, No. 3, pp. 301-320. Shirlaw, J. N., Doran, S. and Bejamin, B. (1988). "A Case Study of Two Tunnels Driven in the Singapore 'Boulder Bed' and in Grout Coral Sands". Engineering Geology and Underground Movements, Geological Society Engineering Geology Special Publication, No. 5, pp. 93-103. Verruijt, A. and Booker, J. R. (1996). "Surface Settlements due to Deformation Tunnel in Elastic Half Plane". Geotechnique, Vol. 46, No. 4, pp. 753-756. Verruijt, A. (1997). "A Complex Variable Solution for a Deforming Circular Tunnel in an Elastic Half Plane". International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, Vol. 21, pp. 77-89.

84