19

Settlement of the surface

19.1 Estimation of settlement

Apart from the assessment of stability, the determination of settlements at

the surface is very important in tunnelling. However, in geotechnical engi-
neering, deformations can be forecast with less accuracy than stability. This
is mainly because the ground has a nonlinear stress-strain-relationship, so
that one hardly knows the distribution of the stiffnesses. We consider here
some rough estimations of the settlement of the ground surface due to the
excavation of a tunnel. One should be aware of their limited accuracy.
For the determination of the distribution of the surface settlements let us take
first Lamé’s solution (see Equ. 14.8) of the problem of a cylindrical cavity in
a weightless elastic space, loaded by the hydrostatic stress σ∞ . We regard the
vertical displacement uv of the ground-surface shown in Fig. 19.1.

Fig. 19.1. Vertical displacement at the ground surface

The vertical component uv of the displacement u reads

H
uv = ·u . (19.1)
r
342 19 Settlement of the surface

With r2 = H 2 + x2 we obtain from Lamé’s solution

σ∞ − p r2 H
uv = · 20 2 . (19.2)
2G H +x
The maximum settlement uv,max is obtained at x = 0, and the distribution of
the settlement reads:
uv,max
uv = .
1 + (x/H)2

This distribution1 is not realistic, when compared with measurements.2 It is

also inconsistent, because it uses a solution for the full space for a problem
of the halfspace. A more realistic description of the measured settlement is
obtained according to Peck by the Gauss-distribution
2
/2a2
uv = uv,max · e−x .

The parameter a (standard deviation) is to be determined by adjustment to

measurements. It equals the x-coordinate at the inflection point of the Gauss-
curve. It can be estimated with the diagram of Peck (Fig. 19.2)3 or according
to the empirical formula:4

2a/D = (H/D)0.8 . (19.3)

D is the diameter of the tunnel and H is the depth of the tunnel axis
(Fig. 19.3). For clay soils is a ≈ (0, 4 . . . 0, 6)H, for non-cohesive soils is
a ≈ (0, 25 . . . 0, 45)H.
Another estimation of a is given in table 19.1.5

1
It also follows from more complicated computations for a linear-elastic material,
see A. Verruijt and J.R. Booker: Surface settlements due to deformation of a tunnel
in an elastic half space. Géotechnique 46, No. 4 (1996), 753-756
2
see e.g. J.H. Atkinson and D.M. Potts: Subsidence above shallow tunnels in
soft ground. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Volume 103,
No. GT4, 1977, 307-325
3
Peck, R.B., Deep excavations and tunnelling in soft ground. State-of-the-Art
report. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Mexico City, State-of-the-Art Volume, 1969, 225-290
4
M.J. Gunn: The prediction of surface settlement profiles due to tunnelling. In
’Predictive Soil Mechanics’, Proceedings Wroth Memorial Symposium, Oxford, 1992
5
J.B. Burland et al., Assessing the risk of building damage due to tunnelling -
lessons from the Jubilee Line Extension, London. In: Proceed. 2nd Int. Conf. on Soil
Structure Interaction in Urban Civil Engineering, Zürich 2002, ETH Zürich, ISBN
3-00-009169-6, Vol. 1, 11 -38.
 19.1 Estimation of settlement 343

Fig. 19.2. Estimation of A by Peck

Soil a/H
granular 0.2 - 0.3
stiff clay 0.4 - 0.5
soft silty clay 0.7
Table 19.1. Estimation of a

The horizontal displacements uh of the ground-surface follow from the obser-

vation that the resultant displacement vectors are directed towards the tunnel
axis (as shown in Fig. 19.1) i.e.
x
uh = uv
H
The distribution of the settlements in longitudinal direction of a tunnel under
construction is represented in Fig. 19.3.
The volume of the settlement trough (per current tunnel meter) results from
the Gauss-distribution to
√
Vu = 2π · a · uv,max (19.4)

and is usually designated as volume loss6 (ground loss). The volume loss
amounts to some percent of the tunnel cross-section area per current meter. If

6
This designation is based on the conception that the soil volume Vu is dug
additionally to the theoretical tunnel volume
344 19 Settlement of the surface

Fig. 19.3. Settlement trough over a tunnel (left); Approximate distribution of the
surface settlements in tunnel longitudinal direction.
Z x The shown curve coincides rea-
1 2
sonably with the function y = erf x = √ e−y /2 dy (right).
2π 0

this ratio is known by experience for a given soil type, then the maximum set-
tlement uv,max can be estimated with (19.3) and (19.4). Mair and Taylor7
give the following estimated values for Vu /A:
Unsupported excavation face in stiff clay: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2%
Supported excavation face (slurry or earth mash), sand: . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.5%
Supported excavation face (slurry or earth mash), soft clay: . . . . . . . . . 1-2%
Conventional excavation with sprayed concrete in London clay: . . . 0.5-1.5%

The volume loss depends on the skill of tunnelling. Due to improved technol-
ogy the volume loss has been halved over the last years.
The evaluation of numerous field surveys and lab tests with centrifuge leads to
an empirical relationship8 between the volume loss Vu related to the area A of
the tunnel cross section and the stability number N := (σv −σt )/cu . Herein, σv
is the vertical stress at depth of the tunnel axis, σt is the supporting pressure
(if any) at the excavation face, and cu is the undrained cohesion. If NL is the
value of N at collapse, then:

Vu /A ≈ 0.23 e4.4N/NL .

The estimations represented here refer to the so-called greenfield. If the surface
is covered by a stiff building, then the settlements are smaller9 .
7
R.J. Mair and R.N. Taylor, Bored tunnelling in the urban environment. 14th
Int. Conf. SMFE, Hamburg 1997
8
S.R. Macklin, The prediction of volume loss due to tunnelling in overconsoli-
dated clay based on heading geometry and stability number. Ground Engineering,
April 1999
9
’Recent advances into the modelling of ground movements due to tunnelling’,
Ground Engineering, September 1995, 40-43
 19.1 Estimation of settlement 345

The maximum settlement uv,max can also be roughly estimated by the follow-
ing consideration: Let εr0 and εv0 be the radial strain and the volume strain
at the crown, respectively. We can determine these values by a triaxial or bi-
axial extension test in the laboratory. Then we have εϑ0 = εv0 − εr0 = u0 /r0 ,
whereby u0 is the displacement (settlement) of the crown and r0 is the radius
of the tunnel. We now assume
 r d
0
u = u0 (19.5)
r
for the distribution of the displacement above the crown10 (Fig. 19.4). With
dr |r0 = εr0 it follows from Equ. 19.5
du

u0
εr0 = −d .
r0
With

u0 = εϑ0 r0 = (εv0 − εr0 )r0

it follows
εr0
d=− .
εv0 − εr0

Fig. 19.4. Distribution of the vertical displacement u above the crown

The settlement of the surface (r = r0 + h) results then via

#  r d−1 r ##
du ## 0 0# d
εr0 = = −u d = −u0 = −d εϑ0
dr #r0 r2 #r=r0
0
r r0

to
10
cf. C. Sagaseta: Analysis of undrained soil deformation due to ground loss.
Géotechnique 37 , No. 3 (1987), 301-320; R. Kerry Rowe and K.M. Lee: Subsidence
owing to tunnelling. II. Evaluation of a prediction technique. Can. Geotech. J.
Vol. 29, 1992, 941-954
346 19 Settlement of the surface
 d
r0
u1 = (εv0 − εr0 )r0 .
r0 + h

The surface settlement is therefore smaller, the larger h is and the smaller the
crown displacement u0 is. One can keep the surface settlement small, if one
keeps the strain εr0 (and, consequently εv0 ) at the crown small. This can be
obtained by rapid ring closure. Müller-Salzburg reported that he could
always keep the crown displacement u0 between 3 and 5 cm.11

19.2 Reversal of settlements with grouting

With shield driving the surface settlements result mainly from the tail gap, if
the excavation face is suitably supported (e.g. by pressurised slurry). Grout-
ing of the tail gap is expected to reverse the surface settlement. However, it
is observed that even if the grouted mass exceeds the theoretical gap volume,
the surface settlement is not reversed.12 This fact can be explained in terms of
soil mechanics: A cycle of loading and unloading leaves behind a net volume
change, usually a compaction (Fig. 19.5). The effect of soil compaction due to
a loading-unloading cycle in shield tunnelling is shown in Fig. 19.6 which rep-
resents the surface settlement due to closure of a 7 cm thick tail gap (curve a)
and the one obtained after the grouting of the gap (i.e. reversing of the conver-
gence of 7 cm). This result is obtained with the FEM programme ABAQUS
and use of the hypoplastic constitutive equation calibrated for medium dense
sand.13

19.3 Risk of building damage due to tunnelling

For rough assessments of damage risk it is assumed that surface buildings are
completely flexible, i.e. they have no stiffness and undergo the same deforma-
tion as the ground surface of the ’greenfield’. This is a conservative assump-
tion, because the real deformation will be reduced due to the stiffness of the
building as compared to the one of the greenfield.14 Evaluating the predicted
11
L. Müller-Salzburg und E. Fecker: Grundgedanken und Grundsätze der
’Neuen Österreichischen Tunnelbauweise’. In: Grundlagen und Anwendungen der
Felsmechanik. Felsmechanik Kolloquium Karlsruhe 1978, Trans Tech Publications,
Clausthal 1978, 247-262
12
S. Jancsecz et al., Minimierung von Senkungen beim Schildvortrieb am Beispiel
der U-Bahn Düsseldorf. Tunnelbau 2001, VGE Essen, 165-214
13
M. Mähr, Settlements from tail gap grouting due to contractancy of soil, Felsbau,
in print, 2004
14
This section is based mainly on the book ”Building Response to Tunnelling.
Case Studies from Construction of the Jubilee Line Extension, London”, Vol. 1,
edited by J. B. Burland et al, Telford, London, 2001
 19.3 Risk of building damage due to tunnelling 347

σ −σ
1 2

εv ε
1

ε1

Fig. 19.5. A loading-unloading cycle (here shown for the example of triaxial test)
leaves behind a permanent densification

1
0
settlement [cm]

-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0
distance from axis [m]

Fig. 19.6. Surface settlement due to gap closure (full line) and after grouting of
the gap (dashed). Numerically obtained results.

settlements of the greenfield, we can assess that buildings with a maximum tilt
of 1/500 and a settlement of less than 10 mm have negligible risk of damage.
For the remaining buildings, a risk assessment must be undertaken which is
still based on the greenfield deformation and, therefore, is quite conservative
(because settlements are over-estimated). Damage of buildings is assessed in
terms of tensile strain ε according to Table 19.2. The strain of the building
348 19 Settlement of the surface

is to be inferred from the settlement trough. Burland and his co-authors

consider a building as Timoshenko beam15 and derive its strains from the
deflection Δ (Fig. 19.7). Possible cracks (due to shear and due to bending, as
shown in Fig. 19.8) are perpendicular to maximum tensile strains.

Fig. 19.7. Deflections Δ in sagging and hogging zones.

Fig. 19.8. Deformation and cracks due to pure shear (a, b) and pure bending (c,
d).

However, the estimation of the strain in the building, assuming that it behaves
like a beam is more or less academic, because (i) it contradicts the starting
assumption that the building is infinitely flexible, and (ii) the shear and bend-
ing stiffnesses of this beam can hardly be assessed, especially for old masonry
buildings with vaults, timbering etc. For a rough estimation it appears reason-
able to use table 19.2 with the assumption that the maximum tensile strain
in a building situated over the inflexion point has the order of magnitude of
uv,max /a. For more elaborate estimations, a method is used in the cited book
that attempts to take the stiffness of the building into account. This method

15
Contrary to the ’classical’ or Euler-Bernoulli beam, where shear forces are
recovered from equilibrium but their effect on beam deformation is neglected, in the
Timoshenko beam cross sections remain plane but do not remain normal to the
deformed longitudinal axis. The deviation from normality is produced by transverse
shear.
 19.3 Risk of building damage due to tunnelling 349

is based on the results of FEM computations. It should be added that time-

dependent settlements may be observed several years after the damage of the
tunnel. Thereby, the settlement through expands laterally.

Degree of Description of typical damage Tensile strain ε (%)

severity
Negligible
Hairline cracks less than about 0.1 mm. 0 - 0.05
Very Damage generally restricted to internal wall fin- 0.05 - 0.075
slight ishes. Close inspection may reveal some cracks in
external brickwork or masonry. Cracks up to 1 mm.
Easily treated during normal decoration.
Slight Cracks may be visible externally and some repoint- 0.075 - 0.15
ing may be required to ensure weather-tightness.
Doors and windows may stick slightly. Cracks up
to 5 mm.
Moderate Doors and windows sticking. Service pipes may 0.15 - 0.30
fracture. Weather-tightness often impaired. Cracks
from 5 to 15 mm.
Severe Windows and door frames distorted, floor slop- > 0.30
ing noticeably. Walls leaning or bulging noticeably,
some loss of bearing in beams. Service pipes dis-
rupted. Cracks 15. . . 25 mm. Extensive repair work
involving breaking-out and replacing sections of
walls, especially over doors and windows.
Very Beams lose bearing, walls lean badly and require
severe shoring. Windows broken with distortion. Danger
of instability. Cracks > 25 mm. Major repair is
required involving partial or complete rebuilding.
Table 19.2. Relation between damage and tensile strain (according to Burland
et al.)