See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/269163120

Settlement Analysis of Box Jacking Projects

Conference Paper · July 2014

DOI: 10.1061/9780784413692.063

CITATIONS READS
3 880

2 authors:

Babak Mamaqnai Mohammad Najafi

University of Texas at Arlington University of Texas at Arlington
6 PUBLICATIONS   7 CITATIONS    150 PUBLICATIONS   381 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Structural Design Methodology for Spray Applied Pipe Liners in Gravity Storm Water Conveyance Conduits View project

Evaluation of Potential Release of Organic Chemicals in the Steam Exhaust and Other Release Points during Pipe Rehabilitation using the Trenchless Cured-In-Place Pipe
(CIPP) Method View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Babak Mamaqnai on 22 October 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Settlement Analysis of Box Jacking Projects

Babak H. Mamaqani1, Ph.D. Candidate, E.I.T., S.M. ASCE,

Mohammad Najafi2, Ph.D., P.E., F. ASCE
1
Graduate Research Assistant, Email: Mamaqani@uta.edu
2
Director, Email: Najafi@uta.edu

Center of Underground Infrastructure Research and Education (CUIRE),

The University of Texas at Arlington, Box 19308, Arlington, TX,
Phone: (817)272-9177, Fax: (817)272-2630.

Abstract

Box jacking (BJ) is a trenchless method to install reinforced concrete boxes

underground. Over excavation (overcut) is required during box installation to reduce
friction force between box segments and surrounding soils. Surrounding soils may
collapse during project execution or after project completion and cause surface
disturbances and potentially damage road embankment. The main objective of this
paper is to develop a statistical model to estimate maximum surface settlement
associated with box jacking using eight factors including 1) soil modulus of elasticity
(E), 2) soil friction angle (), 3) soil unit weight (), 4) soil cohesion (c), 5) box
culvert height (h), 6) box culvert width (w), 7) overcut size (s), and 8) depth of box
culvert from the surface (H). PLAXIS 2D, a finite element modeling software, was
used to generate box jacking models under different site and project conditions.
Totally, 300 box jacking models were generated and corresponding maximum surface
settlements were recorded. Then, Multiple Linear Regression (MLR) analysis was
conducted to investigate the relation between considered factors and maximum
surface settlement. The minimum depth of box from the surface (H) was assumed to
be at least 2h. Therefore, the suggested MLR model is not applicable for box culverts
installed in depth less than 2h. It was concluded that the soil cohesion (c) was the
most significant factor in determining maximum surface settlement. Results showed
that soil friction angle () did not have any correlation with maximum surface
settlement.

1
Introduction

Box jacking is a trenchless construction method for installing a prefabricated

box culvert through the ground from a drive shaft to a receiving shaft. The use of pipe
or box jacking method to install new pipe/box underground is increasing since it
minimizes social costs and environmental impacts (Najafi, 2013). The space between
box and bore (overcut) is required in BJ projects to reduce friction, and allow for
minor steering. Soils around overcut may collapse and cause damages to pavement or
underground utilities. As a result, the need to better understand ground movements
induced by box jacking process is important to be able to complete project without
causing damage to adjacent infrastructures and facilities (Wallin et al., 2008).
Box Jacking (BJ)
Box jacking (BJ) is a unique trenchless construction method for installing a
box culvert underground from a drive shaft to a receiving shaft beneath critical
facilities such as railways, major highways and airport runways with minimum
surface disruptions (Hung et al., 2009).
The basic process of installing a box culvert includes setting a box culvert in a
launch shaft and then jacking into the ground with excavation taking place within an
open face shield (Najafi, 2013). Figure 1 shows a BJ project in process.

Figure 1. Box Jacking Project in Progress

Dependent on box culvert size, excavation in BJ method can be implemented

by hand mining, small size backhoe or roadheader (Hung et al, 2009). Figure 2 and

2
Figure 3 show box jacking operations with hand mining and roadheader excavation
respectively.

Figure 2. Box Jacking (BJ) Operation with Hand Mining Excavation

Figure 3. Box Jacking (BJ) Operation with Roadheader Excavation

(Hung et al, 2009)

Overcut excavation is required to reduce the friction forces and facilitate

steering during construction. Bentonite slurry is pumped into the overcut space to
reduce the friction forces between box culverts and surrounding soils. Overcut space
needs to be grouted after completion of the project to prevent soils from collapsing
into the overcut space.

3
Ground Movements Associated with Box and Pipe Jacking

Settlement associated with BJ and PJ methods are dependent on project and

site conditions and can be divided into two main categories:
1) Advance settlement in front of working face
2) Trailing settlement (Stein, 2005).

Advance Settlement: Depending on jacking methods, penetration resistance

may include cutting edge resistance (Ps), contact pressure force (Pa), and support
pressure (Pst). Cutting edge resistance (Ps) is defined as a force generated during
pushing the cutting edge of jacking machine into the soil. Type and position of
excavating equipment greatly influence cutting edge resistance. The contact pressure
force (Pa) is referred to the force generated due to pushing excavation tool in the
boring direction. The support pressure (Pst) is the pressure applied manually,
mechanically or by compressed air at the working face to support the earth pressure
and soil from collapsing inside the bore. Figure 4 presents penetration pressure in PJ
method which includes support pressure at the working face (Pst) and contact pressure
(Pa).

Jacking Pipe
TBM

Figure 4. Penetration Resistance Combinations for Pipe Jacking Using TBM

Advance settlement, as illustrated in Figure 5; occurs because of soil

movements towards the face of the boring (working face) due to little head pressure
(Pa), too little support pressure at the working face (Pst), or loosening of soil as a
result of excavation (Stein, 2005). As illustrated in Figure 4, advance settlement may
reach the ground surface and causes surface settlement.

4
 Figure 5. Advance Settlement in front of Working Face (Duan, 2001)

The possibility of advance settlement can be reduced by grouting, freezing, or

chemical stabilization of the soil (Najafi, 2013). However, earth-pressure balance or
slurry support tunneling machines cannot be used in BJ method due to rectangular
shape of the box culverts. Figure 6 illustrates an example of mechanical support of
work face by pressing trapezoidal flaps of steel plate against the soil with hydraulic
jacks.

Figure 6. Work Face Protection by Means of Plate Flap Pressed by Hydraulic Jacks
(Najafi, 2013)

5
 Trailing Settlement: Overcut is required to reduce the frictional loads, to
inject lubricants, and to facilitate steering the pipe or box. Therefore, soils around the
pipe or box may collapse and cause surface and subsurface settlements. This type of
settlement is called trailing settlement which occurs exactly above the jacking pipe or
box segment (Stein, 2005). Figure 7 (a and b) illustrates trailing settlement due to
pipe and box installation underground respectively. As illustrated in Figure 6,
installing a box culvert influences wider area than a pipe culvert due to its cross
sectional shape. The amount of trailing settlement depends on several factors such as
overcut size, shape of the culvert (e.g., circular or rectangular), soil properties,
lubrication and grouting pressure during and after project execution.

Surface Settlement

Soil
Displacement

Overcut

(a) (b)

Figure 7. Trailing Settlement: a) Pipe Culvert, and b) Box Culvert

The possibility of trailing settlement can be reduced by injecting bentonite

slurry into the annular space (overcut) during project execution or by grouting after
project completion.

Three categories are recognized to model pipe jacking and tunneling project
and to estimate surface ground movement listed below:

1. Empirical methods
2. Analytical methods
3. Numerical methods

Empirical Methods: Empirical methods use measured values from previous

project and regression analysis to relate project factors such as soil properties and
project specifications to ground movements. Bennett (1998) conducted a research to
estimate maximum surface settlement (Smax) associated with microtunneling. Bennett
assumed that soils around the overcut collapse fully into the annular space which is
referred as ground loss. Figure 8 illustrates a schematic settlement associated with
microtunneling.

6
 Figure 8. Schematic Settlements above Microtunneling (Bennett, 1998)

Where the variables are as follow:

w = Settlement half-width
hmax = Maximum settlement depth at centerline
Vs = Settlement volume per unit of bore length
VL = Volume loss around tunnel ((db2 - dp2)/4)
hc = Depth of clearance above crown of bore
db = Diameter of the bore
dp = Diameter of the pipe

Maximum settlement at centerline, hmax, can be calculated using Equation 1

hmax = Vs / w Equation 1

It was assumed that the volume of annulus is transferred directly to the

surface and is equal to the settlement trough volume, (VL = Vs), and w is defined as
Equation 2.

w = db/2 + (hc + db/2) . tan (45 - /2) Equation 2

Where:
 = Friction angle of soil

Analytical Method: Analytical methods are based on theoretical soil

mechanics and fluid mechanics and generally are limited to mathematical
assumptions. Rogers and O’Reilly (1991) suggested Equation 3 to estimate ground
movements in pipe jacking projects.

( ) ( ) ( ) Equation 3
( )

Where:
R = Radius of pipe (m)
R = Overcut size (m)

7
 x, y = Considered point coordinates, whereby the origin of the coordinate
system lies on the pipe axis (m)
h = Depth of pipe axis
√
√ ( )

Numerical method: Different numerical methods such as Finite Element

Methods (FEM), Finite Difference Methods (DFM), and Kinematic Element Methods
(KEM) are available to study the soil behavior during jacking and tunneling (Stein,
2005).

The FEM is extensively used due to its capability of modeling stress and
strain in different types of soils associated with complicated geometrics. Duan (2001)
numerically analyzed ground movements associated with microtunneling. FLAC 3D,
a finite element modeling software, was used to simulate microtunneling procedure.
Soil behavior was modeled by Mohr-Coulomb and plain strain condition was
assumed. Since the model was symmetric, the advantage of half-symmetry geometry
was taken as presented in Figure 9.

Figure 9. Numerical Modeling (Duan, 2001)

The numerical model results were then compared with results collected form
two case studies to assure the numerical models were able to predict surface
settlement. As illustrated in Figure 10, a comparison of results obtained from a case
study and numerical model is presented. The scope of the case study was installing an
8 meter diameter subway tunnel in red clay with sand and gravel.

8
 Figure 10. Observed and Predicted Surface Settlement (Duan, 2001)

This research is focused on trailing settlement in BJ projects since the advance

settlement can be controlled using available techniques such as freezing, grouting,
and chemical stabilization.

Scope of Research

This study is focused on evaluation of surface settlement due to trailing

settlement associated with BJ in sandy soils with small amount of cohesions. Table 1
shows the minimum and maximum range of soil properties considered in this
research.

Table 1. Minimum and Maximum Soil Properties Considered in this Research

Modulus of
Friction Angle () Cohesion (c), Unit Weight (),
Property Elasticity (E),
(Degree) kPa (psi) kN/m3 (lb/ft3)
kPa (psi)
Min 9,000 (1,305) 30 0 (0) 14 (89.1)
Max 32,000 (4,640) 40 24 (3.5) 20 (127.3)

Box culverts sizes, considered in this research, cover wide range of standard
box dimensions produced by manufacturers and are presented in Table 2. All
dimensions are outside measurements.

Table 2. Considered Box Dimensions

Width (w), Height (h),
No.
m (ft) m (ft)
1 1.8 (6) 1.2 (4)
2 1.8 (6) 1.8 (6)
3 2.4 (8) 1.2 (4)
4 2.4 (8) 2.4 (8)
5 3 (10) 1.5 (5)
6 3 (10) 3 (10)

To analyze the effects of box depth from ground surface to top of the box
culvert on surface settlement (H), different culvert depths ranging from 2h, 3h, 4h, 5h

9
and 6h, where h is the height of the box, were considered. Installing box culverts at
the depth of less than h is either not economical compared with open-cut method or
required special caution since it may causes large surface settlement.

Since an overcut size (s) of 25 to 5 mm (1 to 2 in.) is required to install box

culverts, the overcut sizes (s) of 30 mm (1.18 in.), 40 0m (1.57 in.), and 50 mm (1.97
in.) were considered in this research to generate box jacking models.

Methodology

PLAXIS is geotechnical finite element analysis software that is mainly used

to model soil stability, and deformation (PLAXIS, 2011). In this research, PLAXIS
2D was used to generate BJ finite element models with different site conditions and
project specifications. Each model properties and associate surface settlement were
recorded to be used in a database to develop regression model.

The database was used to develop a regression model to estimate settlement

due to trailing using 8 parameters including 1) modulus of elasticity (E), 2) friction
angle (), 3) unit weight (), 4) cohesion (c), 5) box culvert height (h), 6) box culvert
width (w), 7) overcut size (s), and 8) depth of box culvert from surface (H).

Finite Element Modeling

Since the model was symmetric, half of the model was generated in PLAXIS
2D. Also, strain in the perpendicular plate is assumed to be negligible and therefore,
model was generated in plane strain condition. Standard boundary conditions were
considered for all models which included roller supports on both right and left sides
and pinned support at the bottom of the models. Roller support restrains any
movements in x direction whereas pinned support fixes movements in both x and y
directions. Figure 11 illustrates a PLAXIS schematic model of BJ where a box
culvert is located at the depth of H from the surface.
Ground Surface

H
w/2
Box Culvert
h

Roller Supports

Pinned Supports
y

x
Figure 11. PLAXIS Schematic Model

10
 Fifty random sets of data were generated considering the minimum and
maximum values presented in Table 1 and box culvert depth and overcut sizes for
each six box culverts presented in Table 2. Totally, 300 models were generated and
associated maximum surface settlements (Smax) were recorded.

Multiple Linear Regression (MLR) Analysis

Regression is used to approximate relationships between a quantitative

response and one or more variables which are called regressors, predictors or
independent variables. Multiple Linear Regression (MLR) analysis is broadly used in
statistical analysis. The general form of a multiple linear regression model with p-1
predictors is as follows (Kutner et al., 2004):

Equation 4

Where
i = 1,…,n observations
Yi = Response when the p-1 regressors are set to (xi1, xi2,…, xi,p-1)
xi = Predictors
 = Coefficients (unknown parameters)
i = Error

In this research, the response variable is maximum surface settlement

(Spred, max) and all eight factors discussed in methodology section are predictors. MLR
analysis was then conducted to study the relation between eight predictors and
maximum vertical surface displacement as response variable.

Results

MLR analysis was conducted using the generated data set to find the relations
between factors (predictors) and response variable (Spred, max). Table 3 presented each
factor coefficients.

Table 3. MLR Model Coefficients

Factors Units Coefficients
Y Axis Intercept in the MLR Model - -0.58
Box Width (w) – Outside Measurements m 2.50
Box Height (h) – Outside Measurements m 0.49
Overcut (s) mm 0.18
Depth from Pavement to Top of Box Culvert (H) m -0.36
Soil Modulus of Elasticity (E) kN/m2 -9.1E-5
Soil Friction Angle () Degree 0
Soil Unit Weight () kN/m3 0.21
Soil Cohesion (c) kN/m2 -0.37

11
 Therefore, the statistical model to predict maximum surface settlement
(Smax, pred) is as follows:

Smax, pred (mm) = -0.58 + 2.5 w + 0.49 h + 0.18 s – 0.36 H – 9.1*10-5 E +

0.21  – 0.37 c Equation 5

Since each factor (predictors) had different unit, data was normalized between
0.1 and 0.9. The MLR model generated based on standardized data is appropriate for
interpreting associate coefficients with each factor and for evaluating factor
participation in determining results (i.e. maximum surface settlement). Equation 6
was used to normalize data.
( )( )
Equation 6
( )

Where:

xi = ith data

a = 0.1 (normalized scale minimum)

b = 0.9 (normalized scale maximum)

A = Data set minimum

B = Data set maximum

Table 4 presents the MLR analysis outputs, conducted on normalized data,

which relate each predictor variable to response variable.

Table 4. MLR Model Coefficients for Normalized Data

Factors Coefficients
Box Width (w) – Outside Measurements 3.75
Box Height (h) – Outside Measurements 1.09
Overcut (s) 4.45
Depth (H) -7.06
Soil Modulus of Elasticity (E) -2.56
Soil Friction Angle () 0
Soil Unit Weight () 1.54
Soil Cohesion (c) -10.90

Coefficients presented in Table 3 are divided into two main categories:

1) Negative coefficients

2) Positive coefficients

12
 Negative coefficients imply that inverse relation exists between factors with
negative coefficients and response variable. This means that any increase in these
types of factors result in decrease in maximum surface settlement. On the contrary,
positive coefficients imply a direct relation between factors with positive coefficients
and maximum vertical surface displacement and therefore, any increase in their
values result in increase in maximum surface settlement.

As Table 4e 4 presents, overcut size (s) and box height (h) have the highest
and lowest positive impact on determining maximum surface settlement respectively.
Cohesion (c) and modulus of elasticity (E) have the highest and lowest negative
impact on maximum surface settlement. It is observed that the soil friction angle ()
does not have any correlation with maximum surface settlement and can be ignored.

If absolute values of coefficient are considered, factor participation percentage

in determining maximum surface settlement can be drawn as illustrated in Figure 12.
Soil friction angle is not presented in the figure since its participation is zero.

Unit Weight Box Height

5% 3%
Modulus of
Elasticty
8%

Cohesion
35%
Box Width
12%

Overcut Size
14%

Depth
23%

Figure 12. Factors Participation Percentage

Model Validation

To show how the maximum settlement can be calculated using Equation 5, an

example is provided in the section. The example includes a box culvert with outside
width of 2.4 m (7.9 ft) and outside height of 1.2 m (3.9 ft) which is located at the
depth of 3.6 m (11.8 ft) from the ground surface. The overcut size in this example is
50 mm (1.97 in). Soil properties for this example project are presented in Table 5.

13
 Table 5. Example Project Soil Properties
Modulus of
Friction Angle () Cohesion (c), Unit Weight (),
Property Elasticity (E),
(Degree) kPa (psi) kN/m3 (lb/ft3)
kPa (psi)
Value 16,000 (2,320) 33.1 7.3 (1.06) 16.7 (0.11)

According to the finite element modeling, the maximum surface settlement

(Smax) was 12 mm (0.47 in.). Considering Equation 5 and using available soil
properties and project specifications, the predicted maximum surface settlement
(Smax, pred) can be calculated as follows:

Smax, pred (mm) = -0.58 + 2.5 (2.4 m) + 0.49 (1.2 m) + 0.18 (50 mm) –
0.36 (3.6 m) – 9.1*10-5 (16,000 kPa) + 0.21 (16.7 kN/m3) – 0.37 (7.3 kPa)
= 13 mm or 0.51 in.

Above result shows that predicted maximum surface settlement (i.e., 13 mm

or 0.51 in.) agrees with the finite element model output (i.e., 12 mm or 0.47 in.).

Conclusions

A Multiple Linear Regression (MLR) model was developed in this paper to

predict maximum surface settlement. Results showed that the MLR model was able
to predict the maximum surface settlement (Spred, max) accurately compared to results
obtained from finite element models.

It was concluded that soil cohesion (c) had the most significant impact on
determining maximum surface settlement. This means that cautious needs to be taken
when a box jacking project is conducted in soils with low amount of cohesion to
prevent any damages to pavement or any other adjacent infrastructure. Results
showed depth of culver from the surface (H), overcut size (s), box width (w), soil
modulus of elasticity (E), soil unit weight (), and box height (h) were subsequent
important factors on determining maximum surface settlement.

Factors such as box dimensions, overcut size can be changed before the main
BJ project starts to limit or prevent surface settlement and damages to existing
facilities or utilities. If none of mentioned factors are changeable, bentonite injection
during project execution, grouting the annular space after completion, freezing, or
chemical stabilization should be considered to limit or prevent settlement.

14
 References

Bennett, D. (1998). Jacking Force and Ground Deformations Associated with

Microtunneling. Urbana, IL.: Ph.D. Dissertation, The University of Illinois.
Duan, Z. . (2001). “Ground Movement Associated with Microtunneling.” Master
Thesis, Louisiana Tech University. Ruston, Louisiana.
Hung, J., Monsees, J., Munfah, N., & Wisniewski, J. (2009). Technical Manual for
Design and Construction of Road Tunnels - Civil Element. New York, NY:
Parsons Brinckerhoff, Inc.
Kutner M., Nachtsheim C., Neter J., and Li W. (2004). Applied Linear Statistical
Models. 5th ed., McGraw-Hill, New York.
Najafi, M. (2013). “Trenchless Technology; Planning, Equipment, and Methods.”
McGraw-Hill, New York.
PLAXIS (2011). “PLAXIS 2D Reference Manual.” Houston, TX.
Rogers, C., & O'Reily, M. (1991). “Ground Movements Associated with Pipejacking
and Trenching.” Proceedings of the International Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering (pp. 907-910). Florence, Italy.
Stein, D. (2005). Trenchless Technology for Installation of Cables and Pipelines.
Bochum: Stein & Partnet GmbH, Germany.
Taylor, S., & Winsor, D. (1998). Developments in Tunnel Jacking. Jacked Tunnel
Design and Construction. American Soceity of Civil Engineering (ASCE).
Wallin, M., Wallin, K., & Bennett, D. (2008). “Analysis and Mitigation of Settlement
Risks in New Trenchless Installations.” No-Dig Conference and Exhibition,
Dallas, TX.

15

View publication stats