Proceedings of the 15th European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering – 39

Geotechnics of Hard Soils – Weak Rocks (Part 4)

A. Anagnostopoulos et al. (Eds.)
IOS Press, 2013
© 2013 The authors and IOS Press. All rights reserved.
doi:10.3233/978-1-61499-199-1-39

Tunnelling and deep excavations:

Ground movements and their effects
Tunnels et excavations profondes:
Movements du terrain et leur effets
R.J. Mair1
University of Cambridge, UK

ABSTRACT
The paper focuses on ground movements associated with tunnelling and deep excavations in stiff to hard soils. The first part pre-
sents field data from case histories of earth pressure balance (EPB) tunnelling. It is shown that, with good control of face pres-
sure and tail void grouting, EPB tunnelling machines are now capable of achieving small volume losses, typically less than 1%
and often significantly smaller. An unusual case history is presented of a large diameter tunnel with very shallow cover, using
sprayed concrete linings (SCL); such tunnels can be safely constructed in hard soils with an open face, provided the undrained
shear strength is high enough to ensure adequate face stability. Ground movements associated with deep excavations in stiff to
hard clays are also reviewed. The second part of the paper concentrates on the effects of tunnelling and excavation-induced
ground movements on buildings, with particular emphasis on tunnelling. Centrifuge modelling of building response to tunnelling
is described; the results are consistent with both finite element analyses reported by Potts and Addenbrooke (1997) and Franzius
et al (2006), and with field data of building performance. A new simplified design approach is proposed to take account of rela-
tive building stiffness, defined in a new way, based on centrifuge model tests, finite element analyses and field data.

RÉSUMÉ
Cet article, structuré en deux parties, s'intéresse aux déformations dans les sols indurés ou les roches tendres, consécutives à la
percée de tunnels ou à l'excavation en zones profondes. La première partie présente des données de terrain issues de tunneliers à
pression de terre (EPB). Moyennant un contrôle approprié de la pression en front de taille et du remplissage des vides au niveau
des joints de queue, il est possible de limiter les pertes en volume à moins de 1%. Un cas classique est présenté pour un tunnel de
grand diamètre avec une peau en béton projeté de très faible épaisseur. Dans les sols indurés, ce type de tunnel peut être mis en
oeuvre sans risque particulier en absence de soutènement du front, à condition que la résistance au cisaillement
soit suffisamment élevée pour garantir la stabilité de la paroi. Enfin, les mouvements de sol associés au creusement d'excava-
tions sont aussi présentés dans cette partie. La seconde partie est consacrée aux effets de ces mouvements sur les constructions
et ouvrages. Le cas particulier de leurs réponse en terme de déplacement suite au creusement de tunnels est examiné avec atten-
tion. Dans ce contexte, on présente une méthodologie de modélisation s'appuyant sur la mise en oeuvre d'essais à la centrifugeu-
se. Les résultats montrent une bonne cohérence aussi bien avec les données obtenues sur le terrain qu'avec les conclusions d'ana-
lyses en éléments finis issues de travaux de la littérature (Potts et Addenbrooke, 1997; Franzius et al, 2006). Dans cet esprit, une
approche de conception simplificatrice est proposée pour intégrer les effets de la rigidité relative sol-structure. Cette approche
originale s'appuie à la fois sur des données en provenance d'essais en centrifugeuse, de mesures de terrain et
de simulations numériques en élément finis.

Keywords: tunnelling, deep excavations, stiff to hard soils, ground movements, volume loss, earth pressure balance tunnelling
machines, sprayed concrete linings, building response, centrifuge modelling, finite element analysis, field measurements, deflec-
tion ratio, building stiffness, design

1
Corresponding Author.
40 R.J. Mair / Tunnelling and Deep Excavations: Ground Movements and Their Effects

1 INTRODUCTION
S = Smax exp (-y2/2i2) (1)
This paper focuses on ground movements caused
by tunnelling and deep excavations in stiff to Integration of equation (1) gives the volume of
hard soils – these ground conditions being the ground excavated per unit length of tunnel
principal theme of this conference. The first part
of the paper reviews field data of ground move- Vs 2S ˜ i ˜ S max (2)
ments for tunnelling, with some case histories of
earth pressure balance (EPB) tunnelling in stiff
to hard soils. An unusual case history is pre- and this volume, expressed as a proportion of the
sented of a large diameter tunnel with very shal- theoretically excavated tunnel volume (usually
low cover, constructed using sprayed concrete expressed as a percentage) is the volume loss:
linings (SCL) in very stiff to hard soils (Goh and
Mair, 2009) [1]. Ground movement data associ- Vl = VS / ( D2/4) (3)
ated with deep excavations in stiff to hard soils
are also presented.
The second part of the paper is concerned
with the effects of tunnelling and excavation-
induced ground movements on buildings, with
particular emphasis on tunnelling. This is becom-
ing increasingly important as more tunnelling is
being undertaken world-wide in urban environ-
ments where buildings are potentially affected.
Some recent centrifuge modelling of tunnelling
effects on buildings at Cambridge is described
(Farrell, 2010) [2]. The results are compared Figure 1. Transverse settlement trough: Gaussian curve
with some comprehensive finite element analy-
ses by Potts and Addenbrooke (1997) [3] and
Franzius et al (2006) [4], and with field data of Typical volume losses for tunnelling in soft
the performance of a variety of building types in ground are generally in the range 1-3% (Mair,
different ground conditions. A new and simple 1996 [9]; Mair and Taylor, 1997 [8]). In the con-
design approach for evaluating the influence of text of tunnelling ‘soft ground’ can include stiff
building stiffness is proposed. to hard soils; the term is more closely related to
the need for support to be provided to prevent
potential instability. Closed face tunnelling, with
2 GROUND MOVEMENTS CAUSED BY significant face support, tends to result in lower
TUNELLING IN STIFF TO HARD SOILS values than open face tunnelling. Open face tun-
nelling in London Clay can in some circum-
2.1 Ground movements and volume loss stances give rise to higher values; for example in
A key parameter of major importance for tunnel- St James’s Park in London, volume losses as
ling in stiff to hard soils is volume loss. Exten- high as 3% were recorded, but this is exceptional
sive field measurements have shown that the set- and can be attributed to particular features of the
tlement trough, as shown in Figure 1, can be well geology and the operational methods of tunnel-
characterised by the Gaussian distribution ling (Standing and Burland, 2006 [10]; Dimmock
(Schmidt, 1969 [5]; Peck, 1969 [6]; Rankin,1988 and Mair, 2006 [11]).
[7]; Mair and Taylor,1997) [8]), with the settle-
ment given by the following equation:
 R.J. Mair / Tunnelling and Deep Excavations: Ground Movements and Their Effects 41

2.2 EPB tunnelling and some case histories pressure supporting the tunnel face is regulated
by controlling the rate of soil discharge and the
There have been considerable developments
pressure dissipation along the screw conveyor.
in earth pressure balance (EPB) tunnelling ma-
Laboratory tests using an instrumented model
chine technologies in recent years – excellent
screw conveyor with a range of soft clay samples
ground movement control in a wide variety of
and operating conditions, and their theoretical in-
ground conditions is now achievable, especially
terpretation, are reported by Merritt (2004) [12]
in ground that would be unstable in the absence
and Merritt and Mair (2006, 2008) [13,14]. The
of face support. The essence of an EPB machine
factors influencing the chamber pressure during
is provision of substantial support to the exca-
the excavation period are complex but the details
vated face at all times, thereby controlling
of the screw conveyor operation are of particular
ground movements.
relevance. It is important that the extraction of
the soil is well controlled, synchronised with the
speed of excavation, and that the soil mixture is
converted to a low shear strength paste (typically
in the range 20-30 kPa) by suitable soil condi-
tioning (Milligan, 2000 [15]; Merritt, 2004) [12].
Control of soil flow through the screw conveyor
is necessary to control the volume of soil dis-
charged, and the dissipation of pressure between
the head chamber (in which it is high) and the
conveyor outlet, which is at atmospheric pres-
Figure 2. Earth pressure balance tunnelling machine sure. If the soil is too ‘fluid’, control of the flow
rate and pressure gradient can be problematic,
Figure 2 shows the principal features of a mod- because proper face control requires that the
ern EPB tunnel boring machine (TBM). Face chamber is always filled with soil, whereas if the
support is provided by the cutterhead (1), pow- soil if too stiff, the conveyor can require exces-
ered by the drive motor (2), all of which is within sive power to operate or it can become jammed.
the circular steel skin (3) of the TBM. The soil, Natural soils do not usually have ideal properties
excavated by the rotating cutter wheel, passes when excavated, and soil conditioning is often
into the head chamber immediately behind the used to modify the properties to improve the op-
cutterhead. Access into the chamber, if neces- eration of EPB machines. This is especially the
sary, can be made by means of compressed air case for tunnelling in many stiff to hard soils.
via an air lock (4). A key feature of the EPB ma- Soil conditioning is achieved by injecting
chine is the extraction of the excavated soil by conditioning agents, most commonly foams or
means of a screw conveyor (5), which is an Ar- polymers, into the cutterhead to mix with the soil
chimedian screw within a cylindrical steel cas- during the excavation process. The effects of soil
ing. conditioning on soil properties are varied and
The screw conveyor plays an important role in complex; many of these are summarised by
the excavation process. As the machine advances Maidl (1995) [16], Leinala et al (2000) [17],
through the ground, the excavated soil enters the Milligan (2001) [18], Merritt et al (2003) [19],
pressurised head chamber. The soil is extracted Merritt (2004) [12], Boone et al (2005) [20],
from the head chamber and flows along the O’Carroll (2005) [21] and Borghi (2006) [22].
screw conveyor to the discharge outlet (7), where The properties of the soil-chemical mixtures
the soil is discharged at atmospheric pressure strongly depend on the type and quantity of the
onto a conveyor belt (9). The rotational speed of conditioning product, or combination of prod-
the screw and the restriction of the discharge out- ucts, mixed with the ground. Operation of the
let influence the soil flow rate and pressure gra- tunnelling machine may be significantly affected
dient along the conveyor. The head chamber by these different properties. The parameters that
42 R.J. Mair / Tunnelling and Deep Excavations: Ground Movements and Their Effects

have to be selected for the soil conditioning nelling machines first encountered about 80m of
comprise the type of product (water, bentonite, mixed face conditions of the Lambeth Group
polymer, foam or any combination of these), as (Upnor Formation (UF), comprising very dense
well as their quantities. Further details of soil sands, silts, stiff to hard clay, gravels and pebbles
conditioning, definitions of injection parameters and the Woolwich and Reading Beds, compris-
and typical quantities used for different ground ing very stiff to hard clays). The proportion of
conditions are summarised by Mair (2008) [23]. the Lambeth Group soils then gradually reduced
Effective control of volume loss in modern for the next 140m while the very dense silty
tunnelling can be attributed to a number of im- Thanet Sand appeared in the invert; full face
portant advances in EPB technology (British Thanet Sand was encountered after 560m of tun-
Tunnelling Society, 2005 [24]; O’Carroll, 2005 nel drive. Subsequently chalk was encountered in
[21]). There have been significant developments the invert, before the tunnels started rising in
in the technique of tail skin grouting; good con- elevation crossing the full sequence of tertiary
trol of pressure and volume of grout injection is soils, including the gravels of the Harwich For-
essential for effective control of ground move- mation (HF) at the base of the London Clay, with
ments. Also, annulus grouting by filling the an- full face London Clay in the final 1000m of the
nulus around the EPB shield with a bentonite drive. The tunnels were thus driven in a very
paste can significantly reduce ground move- wide variety of ground conditions, varying from
ments. dense sands and gravels, to stiff to hard clays and
An example of very effective control of chalk, often in mixed face conditions.
ground movements when tunnelling through a Surface settlement measurements from 48 in-
wide variety of stiff to hard soils was reported by strumentation arrays were analysed (Wongsaroj
Mair (2008) [23]. A simplified view of the geol- et al., 2005) [26] and the results in terms of vol-
ogy for Contract 220 of the Channel Tunnel Rail ume loss measured at the ground surface are
Link (CTRL), now known as HS1, in London is shown on Figure 4.
shown in Figure 3.

Figure 4. Observed volume loss for CTRL Contract 220

Figure 3. Geology of tunnelling project CTRL Contract 220
(Wongsoroj et al, 2005) [26]

The tunnelling works comprised 7.5km of twin It can be seen that, with only two exceptions, the
tunnels of diameter 8.1m OD excavated with measured volume loss was always less than 0.8%
EPB machines westwards from the Stratford Box and often as low as 0.2%.
to the portal near St Pancras station in London. A key aspect of ground movement control in
Full details of the project are given by Woods et EPB tunnelling is the control of chamber pres-
al. (2007) [25]. A very wide range of ground sure. Figure 5 shows an example of difficult
conditions was encountered, as can be seen from chamber pressure control during three cycles of
Figure 3; full details are given by Borghi (2006) excavation and ring build during tunnelling in
[22]. Upon launching from Stratford Box the tun- the very stiff to hard clays and dense sands of the
 R.J. Mair / Tunnelling and Deep Excavations: Ground Movements and Their Effects 43

Lambeth Group illustrated in Figure 3 (Borghi tion rate, as well as injection of significant quan-
and Mair, 2006 [27]; Mair, 2008 [23]). The aver- tities of pressurised foam into the excavation
age chamber pressure (recorded by 5 pressure chamber (Mair, 2008) [23]. In contrast, Figure 6
sensors) is plotted against time for the three con- shows an example of good control of chamber
struction cycles, each comprising two phases: the pressure (Borghi, 2006) [22]. A number of cycles
excavation phase, when the EPB machine is ad- of excavation and ring-build in a full-face of
vancing, and the ring-build phase, when the ma- London Clay are shown; the tunnel axis was at a
chine is stationary during erection of the tunnel depth of 31m. Typically the ring-build phase was
lining. The foam and liquid injection ratios (see less than 30 minutes.
Appendix A for the definitions) recorded for There has been considerable experience of
these cycles were in the range 84 - 92% and 14 - EPB tunnelling in stiff to hard soils in recent
years. Tunnelling in dense or very dense ce-

Figure 5. Example of difficult EPB face pressure control in mixed stiff to hard clays and dense sands of the Lambeth Group
(Borghi and Mair, 2006) [27]

18% respectively. The duration of the exca- mented clayey sands - the Old Alluvium – in
vation phase was typically 0.7-1 hour – the time Singapore has been reported by Shirlaw et al
taken for the EPB machine to advance 1.5m, (2001) [28]. Some properties of the Singapore
which is the length of one ring of the tunnel Old Alluvium are shown in Figure 7 (Ni Q, 2005
segments. During this excavation period it can be [29]. Observed volume losses are found to be
seen that the chamber pressure fluctuates signifi- generally less than 1%, and often considerably
cantly, sometimes rising substantially – there is less, and there is little or no dependency on the
no clear explanation for this, but it may be a con- ratio of face pressure to overburden pressure, as
sequence of variations in screw conveyor extrac- shown in Figure 8.
44 R.J. Mair / Tunnelling and Deep Excavations: Ground Movements and Their Effects

Figure 6. Example of good EPB face pressure control in London Clay (Borhi and Mair, 2006) [27]

Table 1. Large settlement/sinkhole incidents during EPB tun-

nelling for 7 major projects in Singapore (Shirlaw and Boone,
2005) [30]

Figure 7. Singapore Old Alluvium: cemented

and uncemented clayey sands, mainly dense or very dense
(Ni Q, 2005) [29]

Tunnelling in stiff to hard soils can be problem-

atic, expecially when there are mixed ground
condition. Shirlaw and Boone (2005) [30] report It can be seen that many of the problems were
large settlement or sinkholes for 7 major projects associated with mixed faces of rock, or hard
in Singapore and break these down into various clays, and granular soils.
causes (‘risk areas’), as shown in Table 1.
 R.J. Mair / Tunnelling and Deep Excavations: Ground Movements and Their Effects 45

Mixed faces of rock and hard clays or granular 15m wide and 11m high to meet the operational
soils are often associated with variable weather- requirements of a 3-lane vehicular traffic width
ing profiles. Observed volume losses in the Sin- and headroom, as shown in Figure 10.
gapore Jurong Formation, comprising variably
weathered mudstones, siltstones and sandstones,
are shown in Figure 9.

Figure 10. Three-lane road tunnel with very shallow cover

constructed with SCL (Goh and Mair, 2009) [1]

Figure 8. EPB tunnelling in Singapore Old Alluvium (Shir- With a soil overburden ranging from only 3m to
law et al, 2001) [28] 9m above the tunnel crown, this is one of the
largest soft ground SCL tunnels under shallow
cover in the world to date.
The tunnel was excavated in the Fort Canning
Boulder Bed (FBB) geological formation. As
reported by Shirlaw et al. (2003) [31], the FCBB
is a colluvial deposit of Pleistocene age and typi-
cally consists of boulders in a hard sandy clayey
silt or sandy silty clay matrix. The soil matrix
contains high clay and silt content and has low
permeability values of 10-8m/s or less with high
undrained shear strength (at least 150 kPa and of-
Figure 9. EPB tunnelling in Singapore Jurong Formation – ten considerably higher). The boulders are
variably weathered mudstones, siltstones and sandstones quartzite with unconfined compressive strengths
(Shirlaw et al, 2001) [28]
in the range 100-200 MPa and can be up to about
3m in size. Cores of the FBB showing character-
For good control of volume loss in variably
istic sequences of quartzite boulder alternating
weathered mudstones, siltstones and sandstones
with a hard clay matrix are shown in Figure 11.
the minimum face pressure should be in the
range 0.3-0.5 x the total overburden pressure at
the tunnel axis. Shirlaw et al (2001) [28] also
conclude that the face pressure should be at least
equal to the piezometric pressure at the tunnel
axis to minimise the risk of large settlements, es-
pecially at soil/rock interfaces.
2.3 Large and shallow SCL tunnel in very
stiff to hard clay
Figure 11. Cores of Fort Canning Boulder Bed showing char-
Construction of the Fort Canning Tunnel in Sin-
acteristic sequence of quartzite alternating with hard clay ma-
gapore using the Sprayed Concrete Lining (SCL) trix (Shirlaw et al, 2003) [31]
method in very stiff to hard clay is described by
Goh and Mair (2009) [1]. The tunnel is about
46 R.J. Mair / Tunnelling and Deep Excavations: Ground Movements and Their Effects

Figure 13. Construction sequence for 15m wide Fort Canning

Figure 12. SPT N values obtained in stiff to hard clay matrix Tunnel
of Fort Canning Boulder Bed

Figure 14. Development of surface settlements for Fort Canning Tunnel (Goh and Mair, 2009) [1]

Figure 12 shows the distribution of SPT-N val-

ues obtained in the very stiff to hard clay matrix. The top heading excavation was preceded by a
The very large scatter is partly attributed to the pre-support forepoling umbrella, and then fol-
presence of quartzite boulder fragments in the lowed by bench and invert excavation, as shown
matrix. Back analysis of settlements of buildings in Figure 13.
on rafts founded on the FBB indicate undrained The tunnel support system was provided by shot-
Young’s modulus Eu in the region of 500MPa, crete with lattice girders and wire mesh rein-
consistent with pressuremeter and plate loading forcement for good constructability. A pre-
tests (Wong et al, 1996) [32]. excavation support system was provided by
 R.J. Mair / Tunnelling and Deep Excavations: Ground Movements and Their Effects 47

Figure 15. Observed transverse surface settlement profiles for Fort Canning Tunnel (Goh and Mair, 2009) [1]

means of grouted steel pipes forming a fore- Observed transverse surface settlement pro-
poling arch above the tunnel crown. files are shown in Figure 15. Experience in Sin-
A typical surface settlement plot against time gapore suggested that volume loss in the Fort
is shown in Figure 14, from which the major Canning Boulder Bed could vary from 0.5-1.5%
causes of ground movements can be interpreted based on observations of SCL excavation for
in terms of pre-excavation relief, top heading ex- tunnels up to 6.6m diameter in Singapore’s Ju-
cavation, and bench/invert excavation. The rong Formation and Fort Canning Boulder Bed.
ground was observed to be settling even before Volume losses observed in the much larger Fort
the top heading excavation arrived below the set- Canning Tunnel varied from 0.4 to 2.1%, with
tlement markers. The pre-excavation settlements the volume loss increasing for the tunnel with
started at about 10m ahead of the tunnel face. larger cover. This may be due to the stability ra-
The casting of the temporary invert followed 2- tio N = z/cu increasing with depth and the load
3m behind the face of the heading excavation. factor N/Nc reducing; Mair (1989) [33] sug-
Subsequent top heading excavation caused more gested that volume loss can be related to the load
surface settlements but at a decreasing rate. factor. Using data from several case histories in
When the bench/invert excavation approached overconsolidated clays, including centrifuge
the settlement array (typically from around 20m- model test data from Mair et al (1981) [34],
30m away the array), there was an increase in the Macklin (1999) [35] fitted a linear regression be-
rate of ground settlement again. However, the tween volume loss and load factor.
settlement stabilised soon after the bench/invert From the plots of settlement troughs in Figure
was cast below the settlement array to achieve 15, the observed ground settlement was Gaussian
the final ring closure of the tunnel. in nature and can be described by the trough
width parameter i = K*zo as suggested by
48 R.J. Mair / Tunnelling and Deep Excavations: Ground Movements and Their Effects

Figure 16. Surface settlements for excavations in stiff to hard clays (CIRIA, 2003 [44]; GCG, 2007 [45])

O’Reilly and New (1982) [36], where zo is the and weak rocks. Mixed face conditions remain
depth to tunnel axis and a K value of 0.5 was ap- vulnerable to higher volume losses, and it is es-
propriate for the clayey soils of FCBB. pecially important to have good face pressure
In summary, the 15m diameter Fort Canning control to minimise this risk. Large diameter
Tunnel was constructed safely with an open face bored tunnels, such as the Fort Canning Tunnel
using SCL with very low cover (3-9m) only be- in Singapore, can be safely constructed in hard
cause of the high undrained strength of the very soils with an open face using sprayed concrete
hard clay soils. It had been proposed as an eco- linings (SCL), provided the undrained shear
nomic alternative to a cut-and-cover tunnel, strength is high enough to ensure adequate face
which would have been environmentally much stability.
more intrusive. The volume losses (0.4-2.1%)
and associated settlements (up to a maximum of
150mm) were acceptable for the overlying road, 3 GROUND MOVEMENTS CAUSED BY
although some re-surfacing was needed. DEEP EXCAVATIONS IN STIFF TO HARD
SOILS
Summary
With good control of face pressure and tail Comprehensive summaries of field data of
void grouting, EPB tunnelling machines are now ground movements caused by deep excavations
capable of achieving small volume losses, typi- in stiff to hard soils have been produced by many
cally less than 1% (and in many cases signifi- authors, including Peck (1969) [6], Clough et al
cantly less), in a wide variety of ground condi- (1989) [37], Clough and O’Rourke (1990) [38],
tions – including variably weathered hard soils St John et al (1992) [39], Carder (1995) [40],
 R.J. Mair / Tunnelling and Deep Excavations: Ground Movements and Their Effects 49

Figure 17. Surface settlements for deep basement excavations (16-24m) in very stiff to hard London Clay and Lambeth Group
(GCG, 2007) [45]

Fernie and Suckling (1996) [41], Carder et al The hogging zone of the Gaussian curve can
(1997) [42], Long (2001) [43], CIRIA (2003) used to evaluate effects of deep excavations in
[44] and GCG(2007) [45]. Figure 16 shows set- stiff to hard soils on adjacent buildings in a very
tlements for a wide variety of excavations of similar way to the method commonly used for
varying depths in stiff to hard clays, with the data bored tunnels outlined by Mair et al (1996) [46].
plotted against distance from the wall and nor- Observed surface horizontal movements for ex-
malised by the excavation depth. Boundaries of cavations in stiff to hard clays are plotted in Fig-
‘high stiffness’ and ‘low stiffness’ systems are ure 19, and the proposed curve can be used to
shown, the former being well propped stiff walls evaluate the potential effects of horizontal
such as diaphragm walls and the latter being an- movements on adjacent buildings, using the
chored sheet pile walls. same approach of combining deflection ratio and
Data from Figure 16 relating to deep base- horizontal strain as outlined by Mair et al (1996)
ment excavations, ranging in depth from 16m to [46] for bored tunnels. This is considered further
24m, in very stiff to hard London Clay and the in the next section.
Lambeth Group in London are replotted in Fig-
ure 17. A curve has been proposed for the pur-
poses of assessing the likely effects on adjacent
buildings and this can be simplified as a Gaus-
sian settlement distribution relating to an equiva-
lent tunnel, as shown in Figure 18 (GCG, 2007)
[45].
50 R.J. Mair / Tunnelling and Deep Excavations: Ground Movements and Their Effects

Figure 18. Simplified Gaussian settlement distribution for deep basement excavations in very stiff to hard London Clay and Lambeth
Group (GCG, 2007) [45]

Figure 19. Surface horizontal ground movements for excavations in stiff to hard clays (CIRIA, 2003 [44]; GCG, 2007 [45])
 R.J. Mair / Tunnelling and Deep Excavations: Ground Movements and Their Effects 51

4 EFFECTS OF TUNNELLING AND

EXCAVATION INDUCED GROUND
MOVEMENTS ON BUILDINGS

4.1 Definitions
The deformation of a building above a tunnel is
depicted in Figure 20 and the deflection ratio is
as defined in the figure. It is commonly assumed
that the building is separated into hogging and
sagging zones, with each zone being treated as if
they are separate buildings; this is clearly a sim-
plification. The horizontal displacement and
strain profiles for a bored tunnel can be simply
derived from the assumption that the resultant
ground movement vectors are directed towards Figure 20. Deformation of building above a tunnel (Mair et
the centre of the tunnel, as shown in Figure 21; al, 1996) [46]
this can be refined, as discussed by Taylor
(1995) [47] and Mair and Taylor (1997) [8] but
in many cases the horizontal strain induced in This chart has been developed using simple
buildings by tunnelling is often very small (Mair, beam theory proposed by Burland and Wroth
2003) [48], and so the simplifying assumption (1974) [50] and assuming limiting tensile strains
depicted in Figure 21 is often adequate. for different damage categories as proposed by
Buildings adjacent to deep excavations poten- Boscardin and Cording (1989) [51]. Categories
tially experience both vertical and horizontal of damage, ranging from 0-5, have been defined
components of ground movements, as depicted by Burland et al. (1977) [52] and represent an es-
in Figure 22. calation from negligible damage to severe struc-
The relationship of building damage to in- tural damage.
duced tensile strain can be expressed in terms of The inherent stiffness of a building may well
deflection ratio and horizontal strain, as shown in modify the settlement shape. Modification fac-
Figure 23. This is strictly for buildings with a tors were proposed by Potts and Addenbrooke
length to height ratio of 1; other geometries can (1997) [3] and these are defined in Figure 24.
be evaluated using the equations given by Bur-
land (1995) [49] and Mair et al (1996) [46].
52 R.J. Mair / Tunnelling and Deep Excavations: Ground Movements and Their Effects

Figure 21. Transverse settlement trough, horizontal dis- Figure 23. Relationship of building damage category to de-
placements and horizontal strain flection ratio and horizontal strain

Figure 24. Modification of settlement shape by stiffness of

building

As shown in Figure 24, for the hogging zone the

modification factor MDR,hog is simply the ratio of
Figure 22. Typical ground movements affecting buildings ad- the deflection ratio experienced by the building,
jacent to deep excavations DRhog, to the deflection ratio for the ‘greenfield’
case, DRgfhog. A similar definition applies for the
sagging zone. For a fully flexible building,
MDR,hog =1 and the building follows exactly the
greenfield settlement profile. For a fully rigid
building , MDR,hog = 0 and the deflection ratio ex-
perienced by the building is zero.
 R.J. Mair / Tunnelling and Deep Excavations: Ground Movements and Their Effects 53

Figure 25. Centrifuge modelling of tunnelling and soil-structure interaction effects on building response (Farrell, 2010) [2]

4.2 Centrifuge modelling of tunneling effects

on buildings
A series of centrifuge tests were carried out on
the 8m diameter centrifuge at the University of
Cambridge to investigate the response of build-
ings to tunnelling in sands (Farrell, 2010 [2];
Farrell and Mair, 2011 [53]). Figure 25 shows
the package used for this series of tests. Model
aluminium, masonry and micro-concrete beam Figure 26. EI and EA values for centrifuge model buildings
(prototype scale) compared with field data (Farrell, 2010) [2]
structures of varying stiffness and geometry (in-
cluding tunnels eccentric to the building centre- A greenfield test was also carried out, the re-
line) were subjected to tunnelling-induced sults of which are used to quantify the modifica-
ground movements. Bending and axial stiff- tion to greenfield distortions that the various
nesses of the model buildings (at prototype scale) buildings displayed.
shown in Figure 26 for comparison with a range
of field cases; centrifuge models tested by Taylor
and Grant (1998) [54] and Taylor and Yip (2002)
[55] are also shown.
54 R.J. Mair / Tunnelling and Deep Excavations: Ground Movements and Their Effects

Figure 27. Response of different stiffness model buildings to tunnelling, compared with ‘greenfield’ settlement GF-1, (Farrell
2010) [2]

The measured settlement profiles of the dif- EI

ferent stiffness buildings at 2% volume loss are U *mod (4)
illustrated in Figure 27. The greenfield settle- Es B 2 z0 L
ment profile (GF-1) is also shown in Figure 27
for reference. Model building STR-1 is seen to where z0 (= zt) = depth to the tunnel axis
behave fully flexibly, with the settlement profile
being very similar to the greenfield profile, while EA
model building STR-4 demonstrates the most D *mod (5)
rigid response. Depending on a building’s stiff- E s BL
ness, the settlement response can be fully flexi-
ble, fully rigid or somewhere in between. Clearly where EI and EA are the bending stiffness and
a more rigid response implies correspondingly the axial stiffness of the structure respectively, Es
smaller distortion and deflection ratio and, con- is the secant stiffness of the soil at 0.01% axial
sequently, less damage. strain, at a depth of z = z0 / 2, B is the building
Potts & Addenbrooke (1997) [3] conducted a width and L is the length parallel to the tunnel
parametric finite element analysis investigating heading; dimensions are illustrated in Figure 28.
the response of buildings to tunnelling. Two pa-
rameters were defined to explain the modifica-
tion to the settlement and axial response of build-
ings; these were the relative bending stiffness
(*) and the relative axial stiffness (*). The pa-
rameters * and * were later modified by Fran-
zius et al (2006) [4], the former to be dimen-
sionless. Expressions for *mod and *mod, defined
by Franzius et al (2006) [4] are as follows:
 R.J. Mair / Tunnelling and Deep Excavations: Ground Movements and Their Effects 55

A new definition of relative bending stiffness

has been proposed by Goh and Mair (2011) [56]
as follows:

EI (6)
Usag =
E S * L3sag

EI (7)
U hog =
E S * L3hog

Figure 28. Definitions of relative building stiffness These are dimensionless, and defined in terms of
the elastic stiffness of the building EI (in
Results of the extensive parametric FE analyses kNm2/m run), divided by a representative soil
undertaken by Potts and Addenbrooke (1997) [3] stiffness (Es), and divided by the cube of the sag-
and Franzius et al (2006) [4] are shown in Figure ging or hogging lengths in the greenfield condi-
29, in which the modification factors are plotted tion corresponding to the building’s location
against relative building stiffness. (Lsag; Lhog); (these are the same as Bsag, Bhog in
Figure 28). The representative soil stiffness is de-
fined as the weighted average of the elastic
modulus of the soil above the tunnel (or excava-
tion level in the case of a deep excavation),
whilst the sagging and hogging lengths are esti-
mated by identifying the inflexion point i on the
greenfield settlement profile (see Figure1).
When the modification factors derived from the
centrifuge tests are plotted against the new defi-
nition of relative bending stiffness, for both hog-
ging and sagging, as shown in Figure 30, the data
points fall into a relatively narrow envelope.
Also shown on Figure 30 are results from the FE
analyses of Potts and Addenbrooke (1997) [3]
and Franzius et al (2006) [4] for a wide variety of
buildings, where the data can be plotted in terms
of the new definition of relative bending stiffness
(requiring details of the building and tunnel ge-
ometries); both the hogging and sagging results
fall into the same relatively narrow envelope.
The centrifuge test data and the FE results are
Figure 29. FE results illustrating relationship between modi- broadly consistent, and indicate a fully flexible
fication factors and relative building stiffness, with proposed
design curves (Potts and Addenbrooke, 1997 [3]; Franzius et building response (M=1) if hog or sag <10-4 and
al, 2006 [4]) a fully rigid response (M=0) if hog or sag > 1.
Finite element parametric analyses of effects
It can be seen that there is significant scatter, and of deep excavations in soft clay on adjacent
there are different proposed design curves for buildings, using the Modified Cam Clay soil
hogging and sagging, as well as there being dif- model (Goh, 2010 [57]), give very similar re-
ferent proposed design curves for various build- sults, as shown in Figure 31; the results
ing eccentricities e/B.
56 R.J. Mair / Tunnelling and Deep Excavations: Ground Movements and Their Effects

fall within the same relatively narrow envelope

as found for the centrifuge tests and FE results
by Potts and Addenbrooke (1997) [3] and Fran-
zius et al (2006) [4] shown in Figure 30. Table 2
indicates the range of parameters assumed by
Goh (2010) [57] (excavation depth, soft clay
thickness, wall depth and thickness, and numbers
of props).

4.3 Case history of building responses to

tunnelling
The response of two buildings to the construction
of a 12m diameter tunnel in Bologna, Italy is re-
ported by Farrell (2010) [2] and Farrell et al
(2011) [58]. The tunnel in this case history
passed beneath two buildings of very different
stiffness. The tunnel was constructed using the
sprayed concrete lining (SCL) method, as part of
a high speed railway line.

Table 2. Finite element parametric studies of effects of deep

excavations in soft clay on adjacent buildings (Goh, 2010
[57]; Goh and Mair, 2011 [56])
Figure 30. Summary of centrifuge model tests compared with
results of finite element analyses by Potts and Addenbrooke
(1997) [3] and Franzius et al (2006) [4] using new definition
of relative building stiffness

Figure 31. Finite element analyses of effects of deep excava-

tions in soft clay on adjacent buildings (Goh, 2010 [57]; Goh
and Mair, 2011 [56])

Figure 32. Tunnel passing between a two-storey and a five-

storey building in Italy: aerial view of site (Farrell et al,
2011) [58]
 R.J. Mair / Tunnelling and Deep Excavations: Ground Movements and Their Effects 57

The tunnel passed beneath two load bearing ma- a depth of 14mbgl, can be observed. A subse-
sonry buildings, shown in an aerial view in Fig- quent drop in cu to around 70kPa was observed
ure 32 one of two storeys (Building 106) and the in several CPT tests and may arise due to histori-
other of five storeys (Building 107). A longitudi- cal variations in the deposition process and water
nal section through the tunnel with the soil strata level. Below 30mAD, cu again increases linearly
and the two buildings is shown in Figure 33. and can be estimated as 120kPa at the tunnel

Figure 33. Longitudinal profile of tunnel and ground stratigraphy beneath buildings for tunnel in Bologna (Farrell et al,
2011) [58]

axis. SPT and undrained unconsolidated (UU)

The ground conditions consist of overconsoli- triaxial tests indicate lower strengths of around
dated fluvial deposits from the Quaternary pe- 80kPa, although this may be due to sample dis-
riod. The ground is highly stratified with layers turbance. Profiles of the shear stiffness at zero
of silty clays and clayey silts, termed the T1 for- strain (G0) with depth obtained from resonant
mation, with lenses of sandy silt and silty sand, column tests and cross hole geophysics are also
termed the T2 formation. The range of particle shown in Figure 34.
size distribution (PSD) curves for the T1 forma- Pore pressure readings prior to construction
tion shows negligible sand and gravel content show a hydrostatic profile from 5m below
while PSD curves for the T2 formation show ground level (BGL) to the tunnel axis. Decreas-
sand contents to range from 25 to 70%. ing pore pressures below the tunnel axis are due
Laboratory testing indicate the T1 formation to to regional pumping from the underlying sandy
be a medium to high plasticity clay. The over- gravel layer.
consolidation ratio (OCR) ranges from 1 to 2. Extensive protective measures were adopted to
Other properties of the clay of the T1 formation maintain stability of the tunnel excavation and to
are summarised in Figure 34. A linear increase in reduce ground movements. Over the initial 33m
undrained strength cu with depth to roughly of the excavation (see Figure 35), vertical jet
200kPa just above the tunnel crown (30mAD) at grouting was carried out from the surface to form
58 R.J. Mair / Tunnelling and Deep Excavations: Ground Movements and Their Effects

Figure 34. Geotechnical data for tunnel in Bologna, Italy

a jet grout canopy around the tunnel. Subsequent breglass face anchors and drains were installed
further reinforcement of the soil directly above into the face instead. Fibreglass face anchors
the crown and into the face was carried out prior were 20m in length and were easily dug out dur-
to tunnelling using horizontal jet grouting, as ing the excavation. The face anchors were later
shown in Figure 35. altered to allow for compensation grouting
Horizontal jet grouting was initially carried out through tubes á manchette (TAM’s). Extensive
from the excavation from which construction of monitoring of the effects of the tunnelling works
the tunnel was started and was later conducted on the ground and overlying buildings was car-
from within the tunnel itself. In total, over 2,000 ried out throughout the construction period. The
vertical jet grout columns were installed around instrumentation layout is illustrated in Figure 36.
the tunnel from the surface. Grout was injected Total stations were used to obtain building set-
using a single fluid system at a pressure of tlements in addition to movements in the north-
400bar. Subsequently, due to operational con- south and east-west directions. Reflective prisms
straints, the ground ahead of the tunnel crown were placed on the first floor level of the facades
and ahead of the tunnel face was reinforced using of the buildings 106 and 107, as shown in Figure
only 500mm diameter horizontal columns, as il- 36. Ground settlements were measured from set-
lustrated in Figure 35. These columns were tlement studs placed on the ground surface in ar-
formed by horizontal jet grouting from within the rays perpendicular to the tunnel axis (arrays S-9,
tunnel and were 20m in length into the face and S-10 and S-TE).
14m in length above the crown. The number of
horizontal jet grout columns installed into the
tunnel face was reduced over the course of the
project. Where this was the case, additional fi-
 R.J. Mair / Tunnelling and Deep Excavations: Ground Movements and Their Effects 59

Figure 35. Details of protective measures: vertical and horizontal jet grouting, steel forepoles and drains (Farrell et al, 2011) [58]

Figure 36. Monitoring instrumentation (Farrell et al, 2011) [58]

60 R.J. Mair / Tunnelling and Deep Excavations: Ground Movements and Their Effects

Subsurface ground settlements were measured horizontal jet grouting, which generated large
using magnetic extensometers at 1m intervals to excess pore pressures and their dissipation
depths of up to 40mbgl. Figure 37 shows the caused very significant ground movements; fur-
‘greenfield’ settlement profile for the section S- ther details are given by Farrell (2010) [2] and
TE at various stages during the excavation. Farrell et al (2011) [58].
Gaussian curves fitted to the settlement data are The bending stiffnesses (EI) of buildings 106
also presented. Settlements can be seen to in- and 107, details of which are shown in Figure 38,
crease as the excavation face proceeds towards have been estimated by summing the individual
the section S-TE (d<0). As the excavation passes stiffness of each structural component, including
beyond section S-TE (d>0) the contribution of walls, slabs and footings, as indicated by Eqn 8.
further tunnel construction to the maximum set- As the buildings are constructed from load bear-
tlement (196mm) can be seen to be relatively ing masonry it is assumed that shear transfer be-
small, indicating that the majority of settlements tween the walls and slabs is negligible. Conse-
occur ahead of the excavation face. The trough quently, the neutral axis of each component is
width parameter, K, was found to increase from taken about that of the individual member itself.
0.45 to 0.55 as the excavation passed beyond
section S-TE . This agrees well with the value of
0.5 often observed for tunnelling in clays
(O’Reilly & New, 1982 [36]; Mair and Taylor,
1997 [8]). The variation in K with time may be
attributed to consolidation of the T1 formation
resulting from drainage.

Figure 38. Details of buildings and estimated bending stiff-

nesses

The stiffness of all components are reduced to

per metre length values in the plane of bending.
E values for load bearing masonry and reinforced
concrete are taken as 3x106kN/m2 and as
27x106kN/m2 respectively. Dimmock and Mair
(2008) [59] have demonstrated the importance of
accounting for the effect of openings on the
Figure 37. Observed ‘greenfield’ settlement response (Farrell building stiffness. These effects are accounted
et al, 2011) [58]
for by applying the reduction factors in Table 3
The volume loss corresponding to the settlement (Melis and Ortiz, 2001 [60]) to the EI values for
trough in Figure 37 amounted to 5%. Bearing in walls.
mind that typical volume losses for open face EI building ¦ EI walls  ¦ EI slabs  ¦ EI footings (8)
tunnelling in stiff clays are in the range 1.0-2.0%
(Mair & Taylor, 1997 [8]), this is a very large Using this approach, the bending stiffness, EI,
volume loss for an urban tunnelling project. The of the western section of building 106 in the
high value can be principally attributed to the plane transverse to the tunnel heading was
 R.J. Mair / Tunnelling and Deep Excavations: Ground Movements and Their Effects 61

estimated as 4.9x106kNm2/m. EI for building 107 Comparison of the behaviour of the two build-
was estimated to be almost two orders of magni- ings with the greenfield response at section STE
tude higher, at 2.3x108kNm2/m. For both build- are shown in Figure 40. The rigid tilt response of
ings the internal and external walls were found to building 107 is observed to result in settlements
contribute to the majority of the bending stiff- at the northern edge that are significantly larger
ness. By summing the axial stiffness of each (265mm) than the equivalent greenfield settle-
component in a similar manner to that outlined ments (130mm). Settlements of building 107
above, the estimated overall axial stiffness EA around the trough shoulders are also larger than
for buildings 106 and 107 has been estimated as the greenfield values, indicating that the building
9.3x106kN/m and 2.5x107kN/m respectively. embeds into the soil. This embedment is likely to
Observed settlements of the western façade of have resulted from a redistribution of the build-
building 106 and the eastern façade of building ing weight as the tunnel progressed towards the
107 are illustrated in Figure 39. It is apparent building.
that building 107 responded rigidly and simply
tilted with no discernible hogging or sagging re-
gions.

Figure 39. Response of the building to tunneling (Farrell et al, 2011) [58]
62 R.J. Mair / Tunnelling and Deep Excavations: Ground Movements and Their Effects

Table 3. Reduction factors () for EI based on the percentage

wall openings (from Melis and Ortiz, 2001 [60])

Percentage Reduction factor, 

Openings L<H L>2H
0 1 1
0-15 0.7 0.9
15-25 0.4 0.6
25-40 0.1 0.15
>40 0 0

4.4 Field data of performance of buildings

affected by tunneling
Detailed response to tunnelling has been reported Figure 40. Comparison of settlement response of the two
for the following buildings which are shown in buildings with ‘greenfield’ response S-TE (Farrell et al,
Figure 41: 2011) [58]

Figure 41. Buildings with detailed monitoring of settlement response to tunnelling

 R.J. Mair / Tunnelling and Deep Excavations: Ground Movements and Their Effects 63

x Elizabeth House, London 4.5 Observed damage for buildings 106 and
A reinforced concrete framed 10 storey 107 in Bologna, Italy
building constructed in the 1960s. Tunnel-
Figure 43 summarizes the observed deflection ra-
ling beneath the building was in very stiff
tios and horizontal strains for buildings 106 and
London Clay (Mair and Taylor, 2001 [61];
107 in Italy. Building 106 was almost fully flexi-
Standing, 2001 [62]).
ble in bending (with modification factors for de-
x Treasury Building, London flection ratio up to 0.8), but experienced smaller
A stone-clad brick-masonry building con- horizontal strains than the ‘greenfield’ horizontal
structed at the beginning of the 20th century, strains, most of these being associated with jet
comprising a sub-basement, a basement, a grouting (Farrell, 2010) [2]. Damage to building
sub-ground floor, and four storeys above 106 was found to cause jamming of doors and
ground level, with a light concrete slab windows and significant cracking. Re-pointing of
foundation with localised pads and strip brickwork was also required. Based on defini-
footings. Tunnelling beneath the building tions of levels of damage proposed by Burland et
was in very stiff London Clay (Viggiani al (1977) [52], the observed level of damage to
and Standing, 2001 [63]). building 106 can be classified as category 3
x Moodkee Street, London (‘Moderate’).
Three storey buildings of load bearing brick In contrast, very little damage was observed
on shallow strip foundations. Tunnelling for building 107 despite it settling by up to
beneath the buildings was in dense silty 260mm (see Figure 39). It responded rigidly and
sands (Withers, 2001 [64]; Dimmock and simply tilted, experiencing only some small hori-
Mair, 2008 [59]). zontal strains, and displayed only minor cracking
x Pasir Panjang shophouses, Singapore of internal plastering resulting from shear strains.
Two-storey, reinforced-concrete framed Cracking of the external façade was minimal and
buildings with brick infill, founded onshal- the maximum measured crack width was about
low foundations of individual footings on 1mm. No significant structural damage was ob-
wooden piles. Tunnelling beneath the build- served. The observed level of damage can be
ings was in mixed ground conditions, com- classified as category 1 to 2 (‘Very Slight to
prising soft clays and sands and variably Slight’).
weathered stiff to hard mudstones, silt- As indicated in Figure 43, an assessment of
stones and sandstones (Goh and Mair, 2011 the risk of damage to buildings 106 and 107 us-
[56]). ing the approach summarised by Burland (1995)
x 2 storey and 5 storey buildings, Bologna, [49] and Mair et al (1996) [46], suggests that had
Italy with basements, reinforced concrete the buildings been subjected to ‘greenfield’ dis-
slabs and load bearing masonry walls tortions, the damage in both cases would have
founded on strip footing foundations. Tun- been in the ‘Severe to Very Severe’ category.
nelling beneath the buildings was in stiff This is clearly a significant overestimation of the
clays (Farrell et al, 2011 [58]). damage to both buildings, especially in the case
The modification factors and relative bending of the stiffer building 107, and highlights the im-
stiffness (using the new definition as given in portance of considering the soil-structure interac-
eqns (6) and (7)) have been plotted for the above tion when estimating potential tunnelling-
buildings in Figure 42. The majority of the data induced damage.
fall into the same envelope as found from centri-
fuge model tests and finite element analyses (see
Figure 30). There is reasonable consistency be-
tween the centrifuge model tests, the finite ele-
ment analyses by Potts and Addenbrooke (1997)
[3] and Franzius et al (2006) [4], and the field
data of building performance.
64 R.J. Mair / Tunnelling and Deep Excavations: Ground Movements and Their Effects

Figure 42. Field data of building response to tunnelling using new definition of relative building stiffness (Goh, 2010 [57];
Farrell, 2010 [58])

timated, and this will indicate whether the build-

ing is likely to behave fully flexibly, partially
flexibly or fully rigidly. The procedure for doing
this is in the following 5 steps:

1. Estimate volume loss (VL) and trough

width parameter i (=Kz0) to define the
greenfield surface settlement trough
2. From the greenfield surface settlement
trough, define the partitioned building
lengths Bsag, Bhog (see Figure 28)
3. Estimate the building’s bending stiff-
ness
4. Estimate the soil stiffness and hence
new relative bending stiffnesses hog,
sag
Figure 43. Observed response of two Bologna buildings - im- 5. From the design envelope in Figure 42,
plications for design in terms of settlement assessment obtain the modification factor, M, and
hence evaluate Building Deflection Ra-
tio = M x Greenfield Deflection Ratio
4.6 A new design approach
The envelope in Figure 42 can be used for de- For step 3, estimating the building’s bending
sign. By estimating the relative bending stiffness stiffness requires some judgements to be made
of the building, the modification factor can be es- about the structural details of the building
 R.J. Mair / Tunnelling and Deep Excavations: Ground Movements and Their Effects 65

(Dimmock and Mair, 2008 [59]; Goh and Mair, 3. Relative building stiffness, as proposed by
2011 [56]). Likewise for step 4, estimating the Potts and Addenbrooke (1997) [3], is a very
soil stiffness requires some judgement, not least important parameter. Stiff buildings experi-
because of the dependence of the stiffness on ence much less differential settlement than
strain level. However it should be noted that the flexible buildings; in such cases protective
relative bending stiffness axis in Figure 42 is measures are not necessary.
plotted on a log scale. This means that provided 4. In many cases very small horizontal strains
that the orders of magnitude of the building and are induced in buildings.
soil stiffness values are reasonably estimated, the 5. A new simplified design approach is pro-
proposed design approach can be applied with posed to take account of relative building
reasonable confidence. stiffness. This is based on centrifuge model
Assuming the buildings to conform to ‘green- tests, finite element analyses and field data of
field’ ground movements may very often be building performance.
overly conservative. As illustrated in Figure 43, 6. Building response to tunnelling-induced
building category damage 4/5 (‘Severe’ to ‘Very ground movements can now be predicted
Severe’) would have been been predicted for the with greater certainty.
Buildings 106 and 107 in Bologna, Italy if they
had been assumed to be fully flexible and fol-
lowed the ‘greenfield’ settlement profile. More- ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
over, in reality most buildings, however flexible
in bending, experience significantly smaller hori- The author is grateful to Goh Kok Hun and
zontal strain, unless they are on isolated footings. Ruaidhri Farrell, former PhD students, for their
Many buildings are on continuous strip footings assistance in preparation of this paper. He also
or pile caps perpendicular to the tunnel axis or acknowledges the support of Geotechnical Con-
the line of the retaining wall for a deep excava- sulting Group (GCG), and the collaboration of
tion, or on raft foundations, and in such cases Italferr of Italy, the Land Transport Authority of
they will experience significantly smaller hori- Singapore, London Underground Ltd and Cross-
zontal strains than the ‘greenfield’ case (Mair, rail of London.
2003 [48]). An example is the Treasury Building,
for which horizontal strain measurements within
the building were negligible compared to the REFERENCES
‘greenfield’ horizontal strains measured close to
the building, (Viggiani and Standing, 2001 [63]). [1] Goh, K.H. and Mair, R.J. (2009). Geotech-
nical observations of construction of a large
shallow SCL tunnel in soft ground. South
5 CONCLUSIONS East Asian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 40,
No. 2, pp. 67-80.
1. Ground movements caused by tunnelling and [2] Farrell, R. P. 2010. Tunnelling in sands and
deep excavations in stiff to hard soils can the response of buildings. Ph.D Thesis,
now be reasonably well predicted for design University of Cambridge.
purposes – there is a large database of field [3] Potts, D. M. and Addenbrooke, T. I. (1997).
records. Structure’s influence on tunneling induced
2. Centrifuge modeling has provided new in- ground movements. Proceedings of the In-
sights into building response to tunnelling. stitution of Civil Engineers, Geotechnical
The results are consistent with both finite Engineering, pages 109-125, 125, no. 2.
element analyses reported by Potts and Ad- Thomas Telford, London.
denbrooke (1997) [3] and Franzius et al [4] Franzius, J. N., Potts, D. M. and Burland, J.
(2006) [4], and with field data of building B. (2006). The response of surface struc-
performance. tures to tunnel construction. Proceedings of
66 R.J. Mair / Tunnelling and Deep Excavations: Ground Movements and Their Effects

the Institution of Civil Engineers: Geotech- and microtunnelling: A state-of-the-art re-

nical Engineering, 159, no. 1, pages 3-17. view. Geotechnical Consulting Group,
[5] Schmidt, B. (1969). Settlements and ground London, UK. www-
movements associated with tunnelling in civil.eng.ox.ac.uk/research/pipejack/soilcon
soils. Ph.D thesis, University of Illinois. d.html.
[6] Peck, R. B. (1969). Deep excavations and [16] Maidl, U. (1995). Erweiterung der Einsatz-
tunnelling in soft ground. 7th International bereiche der Erddruckschilde durch
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Founda- Bodenkonditionierung mit Schaum. PhD
tion Engineering, Mexico City. 225–290. thesis, Ruhr University, Bochum. (In Ger-
[7] Rankin, W.J. (1988). Ground movements man).
resulting from urban tunnelling: predictions [17] Leinala, T., Grabinsky, M., Delmar, R. and
and effects. Engineering Geology of Un- Collins, J.R. (2000). Effects of foam soil
derground Movement, Geological Society, conditioning on EPBM performance. Proc.
Engineering Geology Special Publication North American Tunnelling ’00, Balkema,
No. 5, 79-92. Rotterdam, pp 514-524.
[8] Mair, R. J. & Taylor R. N. (1997). Bored [18] Milligan, G.W.E. (2001). Soil conditioning
tunnelling in the urban environment. State- and lubricating agents in tunnelling and
of-the-art Report and Theme Lecture. Pro- pipe jacking. Proc. Underground Con-
ceedings of 14th International Conference struction Symposium 2001, London Dock-
on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engi- lands, UK: 105-116.
neering, Hamburg, Balkema, Vol. 4., 2353- [19] Merritt, A. S., Borghi, F. X. & Mair, R. J.
2385. (2003). Conditioning of Clay soils for earth
[9] Mair, R. J. (1996). General report on set- pressure balance tunnelling machines. Proc.
tlement effects of bored tunnels. Geotechni- Underground Construction, London Dock-
cal Aspects of Underground Construction land, UK: 455-466.
in Soft Ground (eds R. J. Mair & R. N. Tay- [20] Boone, S. J., Artigiani, E., Shirlaw, J. N.,
lor), Balkema, Rotterdam, 43-53. Ginanneschi, R., Leinala, T. &
[10] Standing, J. R. & Burland, J. B. (2006). Kochmanova, N. (2005). Use of ground
Unexpected tunnelling volume losses in the conditioning agents for earth pressure bal-
Westminster area, London. Geotechnique, ance machine tunnelling. Proc. AFTES In-
56 (1), 11-26). ternational Congress, Cambery.
[11] Dimmock, P. & Mair, R. J. (2006). Volume [21] O’Carroll, J.B.(2005). A guide to planning,
loss experienced on two open-face London constructing and supervising earth pressure
Clay tunnels. Proceedings of the Institution balance TBM tunnelling. Monograph 18
of Civil Engineers, Geotechnical Engineer- published by Parsons Brinkerhoff, New
ing. Vol. 160 (1) 3-11. York.
[12] Merritt, A. S. (2004). Soil conditioning for [22] Borghi, F. X. (2006). Lubrication and soil
earth pressure balance machines. PhD The- conditioning in pipejacking and tunnelling.
sis, Cambridge University. PhD Thesis, Cambridge University.
[13] Merritt, A. S. & Mair, R. J. (2006). Me- [23] Mair, R. J. (2008). Tunnelling and geotech-
chanics of tunnelling machine screw con- nics: new horizons. 46th Rankine Lecture,
veyors: model tests. Géotechnique 56 (9) Géotechnique 58, No, 9, 695-736.
605-615. [24] British Tunnelling Society (2005) Closed
[14] Merritt, A. S. & Mair, R. J. (2008). Me- face tunnelling machines and ground stabil-
chanics of tunnelling machine screw con- ity – a guideline for best practice. Thomas
veyors: a theoretical model. Géotechnique Telford, London.
58, No.2, 79-94. [25] Woods, E., Battye, G., Bowers, K. and
[15] Milligan, G.W.E. (2000). Lubrication and Mimnagh, F. (2007). Channel Tunnel Rail
soil conditioning in tunnelling, pipe jacking Link Section 2: London Tunnels. Proc. ICE.
 R.J. Mair / Tunnelling and Deep Excavations: Ground Movements and Their Effects 67

Civil Engineering, 160, November 2007, and Foundation Engineering. Stockholm,

24-28, paper 700008. 1981, Vol. 1, 323-328.
[26] Wongsaroj, J., Borghi, F. X., Soga, K., [35] Macklin S.R. (1999). The prediction of vol-
Mair, R. J., Sugiyama, T., Hagiwara, T. & ume loss due to tunnelling in overconsoli-
Bowers, K. J. (2005). Effect of TBM driv- dated clay based on geometry and stability
ing parameters on ground surface move- number. Ground Engineering, 32 (4), 30-
ments: Channel Tunnel Rail Link Contract 33.
220. Geotechnical Aspects of Underground [36] O’Reilly, M.P. and New, B.M. (1982). Set-
Construction in Soft Ground - Bakker et al tlements above tunnels in the United King-
(eds) © 2006 Taylor & Francis Group, dom – their magnitude and prediction. Tun-
London, ISBN 0 415 39124 5, pp 335-341. nelling ’82, London, IMM, 173-181.
[27] Borghi, F. X. & Mair, R. J. (2006) Soil [37] Clough, G. W., Smith, E. M. and Sweeney,
conditioning for EPB tunnelling machines B. P. (1989) Movement control of excava-
in London ground conditions. Tunnels and tion support systems by iterative design
Tunnelling International. September 2006, procedure. ASCE foundation engg: current
18-20. principles and practices, vol 1, pp 869-884.
[28] Shirlaw, J.N., Ong, J.C.W. Rosser, H.B., [38] Clough, G. W. and O'Rourke, T. D. (1990).
Osborne, N.H., Tan, C.G. and Heslop P.J.E. Construction induced movements of insitu
(2001). Immediate settlements due to tun- walls. ASCE Special Publication 15, Proc
nelling for the North East Line. Proc. Un- design and performance of earth retaining
derground Singapore 2001, pp 76 – 90. structures, Cornell University, pp 439-470.
[29] Ni, Q (2005). Engineering Properties of [39] St John, H. D., Potts, D. M., Jardine, R. J.
Singapore Old Alluvium. PhD thesis, Na- and Higgins, K.G. (1992) Prediction and
tional University of Singapore. performance of ground response due to
[30] Shirlaw, J.N. and Boone, S. (2005). The construction of a deep basement at 60 Vic-
risk of very large settlements due to EPB toria Embankment. Proc Wroth mem symp.
tunnelling. Proc. 12th Australian Tunnelling Predictive soil mechanics, Oxford, pp 581-
Conference, Brisbane, Australia. 608.
[31] Shirlaw, J.N., Ong, J.C.W., Rosser, H.B., [40] Carder, D. R. (1995). Ground movements
Tan, C.G., Osborne, N.H. and Heslop, P.E. caused by different embedded retaining
(2003). Local settlements and sinkholes due wall construction techniques Report 172,
to EPB tunneling. Proc. Institution of Civil TRL, Crowthorne.
Engineers, Geotechnical Engineering, [41] Fernie, R. and Suckling, T. (1996) Simpli-
156(4), 193-211. fied approach for estimating lateral wall
[32] Wong, I.H., Ooi, I.K. and Broms, B. movement of embedded walls in UK
(1996). Performance of raft foundations for ground. Geotechnical Aspects of Under-
high-rise buildings on the Bouldery Clay in ground Construction in Soft Ground (eds R.
Singapore. Can. Geotech. J. 33: 219-236 J. Mair & R. N. Taylor), Balkema, Rotter-
(1996). dam, pp 131-136.
[33] Mair, R. J. (1989). Introduction and sum- [42] Carder, D. R., Morley, C.H. and Alderman,
mary of Session 9: selection of design pa- G. H. (1997) Behaviour during construction
rameters for underground construction. of a propped diaphragm wall founded in
Proceedings of 12th Conference on Soil London Clay at Aldershot road underpass
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Report 239, TRL, Crowthorne.
Rio de Janeiro, Vol. 4, 2891-2893. [43] Long, M (2001). Database for retaining
[34] Mair, R. J., Gunn, M. J., & O'Reilly, M. P. wall and ground movements due to deep
(1981). Ground movements around shallow excavations. ASCE J Geotech and geoenv
tunnels in soft clay. Proceedings of 10th In- engg, vol 127, no 3, pp 203-224.
ternational Conference on Soil Mechanics
68 R.J. Mair / Tunnelling and Deep Excavations: Ground Movements and Their Effects

[44] CIRIA (2003). Embedded retaining walls - [53] Farrell, R.P. and Mair, R.J. (2011). Centri-
guidance for economic design. Gaba, A.R., fuge modelling of the response of buildings
Simpson, B., Powrie, W., and Beadman, to tunnelling. Proceedings of 7th Interna-
D.R. CIRIA report C580, London, 2003. tional Symposium on Geotechnical Aspects
[45] GCG, (2007). Settlement Estimation Proce- of Underground Construction in Soft
dure: Box Excavations & Shafts; Report for Ground, May, Rome.
Crossrail, 1D0101-G0G00-01004. [54] Taylor, R.N. and Grant, R. J. (1998). Cen-
[46] Mair, R. J., Taylor, R. N. & Burland, J. B. trifuge modelling of the influence of surface
(1996). Prediction of ground movements structures on tunnelling-induced ground
and assessment of risk of building damage movements. Tunnels and Metropolises,
due to bored tunnelling. Geotechnical As- Vol.1, pp 261-266.
pects of Underground Construction in Soft [55] Taylor, R.N. and Yip, D-P. (2001). Centri-
Ground (eds R. J. Mair & R. N. Taylor), fuge modelling of the effect of a structure
Balkema, Rotterdam, 713-718. on tunnel-induced ground movements. Pro-
[47] Taylor, R.N. (1995). Tunnelling in soft ceedings of International Conference on the
ground in the UK. Underground Construc- Response of Buildings to Excavation-
tion in Soft Ground (eds. K.Fujita and Induced Ground Movements, Imperial Col-
O.Kusakabe), Proceedings of the 1994 In- lege, London, pp 601-611, CIRIA SP201.
ternational Symposium on Underground [56] Goh, K.H. and Mair, R.J. (2011). The hori-
Construction in Soft Ground, New Delhi, zontal response of framed buildings on in-
India, Balkema, pp 123-126. dividual footings to excavation-induced
[48] Mair, R.J. (2003). Research on tunnelling- movements. Proceedings of 7th Interna-
induced ground movements and their ef- tional Symposium on Geotechnical Aspects
fects on buildings-lessons from the Jubilee of Underground Construction in Soft
Line Extension. Keynote Lecture, Proceed- Ground, May, Rome.
ings of International Conference on Re- [57] Goh, K.H. 2010. Response of ground and
sponse of Buildings to Excavation-induced buildings to deep excavations and tunnel-
Ground Movements, held at Imperial Col- ling. Ph.D thesis, University of Cambridge,
lege, London, UK, July 2001, pp 3-26, Jar- UK.
dine F M (ed), CIRIA Special Publication [58] Farrell, R.P., Mair, R. J., Sciotti, A.,
199, RP620, ISBN 0 86017 810 2. Pigorini, A. & Ricci, M. (2011). The re-
[49] Burland, J.B. (1995). Assessment of risk of sponse of buildings to tunnelling: a case
damage to buildings due to tunnelling and study. Proceedings of 7th International
excavation. Proc. 1st Int. Conf. Earthquake Symposium on Geotechnical Aspects of
Geot. Eng., IS-Tokyo '95. Underground Construction in Soft Ground,
[50] Burland, J. B. & Wroth, C. P. (1974). Set- May, Rome.
tlement of buildings and associated damage. [59] Dimmock, P.S. and Mair, R.J. (2008). Ef-
In: Settlement of Structures, Cambridge. fect of building stiffness on tunnelling-
Pentech Press, London, pages 611-654. induced ground movement. Tunnelling and
[51] Boscardin, M. and Cording, E. (1989). Underground Space Technology, Volume
Building response to excavation-induced 23, July 2008, Issue 4, 438 - 450.
settlement. ASCE Journal of Geotechnical [60] Melis, M. and Rodriguez Ortiz, J. (2001).
Engineering, 115, no. 1, pages 1–21. Consideration of the stiffness of buildings
[52] Burland, J. B., Broms, B. B. & De Mello, in the estimation of subsidence damage by
V. F. B. (1977). Behaviour of foundations EPB tunnelling in the Madrid subway.
and structures. In: Proceedings of the 9th Proc. International Conference on the Re-
International Conference on Soil Mechan- sponse of Buildings to Excavation-Induced
ics and Foundations Engineering, pages Ground Movements, Imperial College,
495-546, Tokyo. London, pp 387-394, CIRIA SP201.
 R.J. Mair / Tunnelling and Deep Excavations: Ground Movements and Their Effects 69

[61] Mair, R. J. and Taylor, R. N. (2001). Eliza- [65] Mair, R. J., Merritt, A. S., Borghi, F. X.,
beth House: settlement predictions. Build- Yamazaki, H. & Minami, T. (2003) Soil
ing Response to tunnelling - Case studies conditioning for clay soils. Tunnels and
from construction of the Jubilee Line Ex- Tunnelling International, April 2003, pp
tension, London. Vol. 1: Projects and 29-32.
Methods, Burland J B, Standing J R, and [66] EFNARC (2005). Specification and guide-
Jardine F M, (eds) CIRIA SP200, pp 195- lines for the use of specialist products for
215 (CIRIA and Thomas Telford, 2001). soft ground tunnelling. European Federa-
ISBN 0 7277 30177. tion for Specialist Construction Chemicals
[62] Standing, J.R. (2001). Elizabeth House, and Concrete Systems, Surrey, UK.
Waterloo. Building response to tunnelling. www.efnarc.org/pdf/TBMGuidelinesApril0
Case studies from the Jubilee Line Exten- 5.pdf.
sion, London. Volume 2, Case studies. Bur- [67] Kusakabe, O., Nomoto, T. and Imamura, S.
land, J.B.; Standing, J.R.; Jardine, F.M. (1997). Geotechnical criteria for selecting
(editors). CIRIA Special Publication 200. mechanised tunnel systems and DMM for
ISBN 0 7277 3017 7. tunnelling. Panel discussion, Proc. 14th
[63] Viggiani, G. and Standing, J.R. (2001). The Int.Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Geotech-
Treasury. ln:Building response to tunnel- nical Engineering, Hamburg, Vol. 4, 2439-
ling: case studies from the Jubilee Line Ex- 2440.
tension, London: volume 2: case studies, [68] Jancsecz, S., Krause, R. and Langmaack, L.
Editor(s): Burland, Standing, Jardine, (1999). Advantages of soil conditioning in
CIRIA and Thomas Telford, 2002, Pages: shield tunnelling: experiences of LRTS Iz-
401-432, ISBN:9780727730176. mir. Proc. ITA Conference, Oslo, pp 865-
[64] Withers A.D., Murdoch, Neptune and 875.
Clegg Houses in Moodkee Street, Rother-
hithe. Building response to tunnelling - case
studies from construction of the Jubilee
Line Extension, London. Volume 2: Case
Studies, Burland J B, Standing J R, and Jar-
dine F M, (eds). CIRIA SP200, 2001, pp.
811-828 (CIRIA and Thomas Telford,
2001). ISBN 0 7277 30177.
70 R.J. Mair / Tunnelling and Deep Excavations: Ground Movements and Their Effects

APPENDIX A For a given foam agent a range of FER values

can be achieved by varying a number of factors
Soil conditioning for EPB tunnelling – general in the foam production (Mair et al, 2003 [65];
principles and definitions Merritt, 2004 [12]). Typically FER values are
around 10 for many conditioning foams. The to-
The quantities of soil conditioning agents used tal liquid injection ratio (LIR) for a foam and/or
in EPB tunnelling machines are expressed in polymer conditioner injection is given by:
terms of the ratio of the volume of conditioning
agent to the volume of ground to be excavated. LIR = (Vfl + Vp)/Vs = FIR/FER + PIR (A.4)
Polymer injection ratios (PIR) and foam injection
ratios (FIR), usually expressed as a percentage, In addition the concentration of surfactant and
are defined as follows: polymer (cs and cp respectively) used in the prep-
aration of the foaming liquid and the polymer so-
PIR = Vp/Vs.100 (A.1) lution are defined as follows:

FIR= Vf/Vs.100 (A.2) cs = Vsurf/Vfl.100 (A.5)

where Vp is the volume of polymer solution, Vf cp = Vpol/Vp. 100 (A.6)

is the volume of foam at atmospheric pressure
and Vs is the volume of soil. The properties of The values of cs and cp affect the properties of
the foam strongly depend on its proportion of air the foam and polymer solutions, thereby affect-
and surfactant solution, which is characterised by ing the properties of the conditioned soil.
the foam expansion ratio (FER), expressed as a Limited guidelines on appropriate soil condi-
percentage: tioning have been published by EFNARC, based
on soil particle distribution only (EFNARC,
FER= Vf/Vfl.100 (A.3) 2005) [66]. Other guidelines have been published
by Maidl (1995) [16], Kusakabe et al (1997)
where Vfl is the volume of foaming liquid solu- [67], Jancsecz et al (1999) [68], Milligan (2001)
tion and Vf the volume of foam. [18] and Merritt (2004) [12].