Missouri University of Science and Technology

Scholars' Mine
International Conference on Case Histories in (2004) - Fifth International Conference on Case
Geotechnical Engineering Histories in Geotechnical Engineering

Apr 13th, 12:00 AM - Apr 17th, 12:00 AM

Empirical, Analytical Methods for Surface

Settlement Prediction Due to Tbm-Tunnelling in
Dutch Soft Soil
H. Netzel
CRUX Engineering b.v., Faculty of Architecture TU Delft, The Netherlands

Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarsmine.mst.edu/icchge

Recommended Citation
H. Netzel, "Empirical, Analytical Methods for Surface Settlement Prediction Due to Tbm-Tunnelling in Dutch Soft Soil" (April 13,
2004). International Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering. Paper 1.
http://scholarsmine.mst.edu/icchge/5icchge/session10/1

This Article - Conference proceedings is brought to you for free and open access by the Geosciences and Geological and Petroleum Engineering at
Scholars' Mine. It has been accepted for inclusion in International Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering by an authorized
administrator of Scholars' Mine. For more information, please contact weaverjr@mst.edu.
 Empirical, analytical methods for surface settlement prediction
due to TBM-tunnelling in Dutch soft soil
Dipl.-Ing H. Netzel
CRUX Engineering b.v.
Faculty of Architecture TU Delft
The Netherlands

ABSTRACT

TBM-tunnelling in soft soil causes a 3D-ground deformation field, developing in longitudinal direction (parallel to the axis of the tunnel)
and transverse direction (perpendicular to the axis of the tunnels). Empirical based methods are used for the prediction of the distribution of
ground movements in both directions. Consequently the differential settlements are used to predict the damage risks of adjacent buildings
due to TBM-tunnelling in the design stage. The Gaussian-curve is commonly applied for the prediction of green field ground movements
transverse to the tunnel axis. Different authors derived methods for determining the characteristic inputparameter i, being the point of
inflexion for the settlement trough on surface level for tunnelling projects all over the world. The i-value determines the steepness of the
trough. This paper presents a comparison between the different approaches derived from data of projects outside the Netherlands and the
field data from three recently bored Dutch tunnelling projects (i.e. the Second Heinenoord Tunnel, the Botlek Railway Tunnel and the
Sophia Railway Tunnel). Recommendations are suggested for the use of the empirical methods for Dutch soil conditions representing soft
soil and high groundwater level.

.
1. INTRODUCTION
Prediction of settlements and consequently the building damage
of the adjacent structures forms an important part of settlement
risk management of excavation works in urban surrounding
(Netzel et al. 1999). It should be emphasized, that the analytical,
empirical prediction methods are commonly used in the
preliminary design stage. To gain more insight in the influence of
boring process parameters (the tail void pressure and the front
pressure) on the settlement distribution , advanced numerical
calculations should be carried out in the definitive design stage.
These design considerations should, in combination with
(see Fig. 1). Both have to be considered regarding the potential
of damage on the adjacent buildings. It should be emphasized,
that the longitudinal trough is a temporary phenomena, which
occurs during the passage of the tunnel. The transverse
settlement trough is the definitive trough perpendicular to the
tunnelaxis, which is resting after the TBM passage.
Iso settlement lines 3D-trough in map view
Symmetric half of the transverse trough (B-B):
Axis bored tunnel
y
A

monitoring of soil and structure, be used during construction to B B

Wmax, transverse
control the settlements and consequently minimize its impact on W transverse(y)
the adjacent buildings (Netzel et al. 2001).
Several recently finished Dutch TBM tunneling projects are
assigned to be part of a national research program managed by Longitudinal trough (A-A): y

the COB (Center of underground works in the Netherlands). The

aim of this research program is, among other issues, to improve x

the settlement control of the TBM-boring process in Dutch soft Wmax,transverse x

soil with high groundwaterlevel. This paper considers the = W max,longitudinal

settlement field data of three COB-projects (two TBM-tunnels W longitudinal(x)

built with a slurry shield and one built with an EPB shield).
2.EMPIRICAL, ANALYTICAL SETTLEMENT PREDICTION
2.1General
TBM-tunnelling causes a 3D settlement wave consisting of the
transverse and the (temporary) longitudinal settlement trough
Paper No. 10.01 …
A
Fig.1: 3D settlements due to TBM tunnelling
It should be noted that due to varying ground conditions,
tunneldepth and workmanship a definitive longitudinal trough
can also occur. This longitudinal trough cannot be predicted with
the approaches given in this paper and is therefore not
considered.
1
Long term effects are also not referred to in this paper. Cluster is focused on deriving empirical and numerical supported
relationships between TBM-pressures and ground settlements
2.2 Transverse settlement trough (volume loss and point of inflexion).

A Gaussian normal probability curve is commonly used to 2.3 Longitudinal settlement trough
describe the form of the transverse settlement trough. Two
parameters are determining the shape and magnitude of the The method suggested by Attewell (Attewell et al. 1986) is
trough: The point of inflexion i and the volume loss V (see generally applied to determine the temporary settlement profile
Figure 2). in longitudinal direction on the surface level (“the settlement
wave”). The form of a cumulative probability curve is used based
on the statistical mean (wmax) and the standard deviation (itransverse)
y W transverse(y)
W max,transverse parameters as define the transverse Gaussian normal probability
profile.
Atrough

( x − xi ) (x − x f )
i transverse
w y,longitudinal ( x ) = w transverse ( y ) ⋅ G −G (3)
itransvrese itransverse
z0

soil The terms for G(x-xi) and G(x-xf) may be determined from a
soil
standard probability table. Attewell remarks that compared with
Tunneldiameter field data the use of equation (3) can lead to a slightly steeper
Dtunnel
Atunnel trough (especially for clay soil) than measured and is therefore
i = K*zo assumed to be conservative for the damage assessment of
adjacent buildings. It should be noted, that this conclusion has to
Volume loss = Atrough/ Atunnel be seen in relation with the length of the building undergoing the
longitudinal settlement trough.
Fig. 2: Transverse settlement trough Fig. 3 shows the normalized cumulative probability curve used
for the prediction of longitudinal TBM-settlements parallel to the
The equation describing the form of the trough is given with: tunnelaxis.
y2 Longitudinal trough along the tunnelaxis
- (cumulative probability curve)
2⋅ (i transverse )2
w transverse (y) = w max ⋅ e or -3.0 -2.5 -2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5
0%
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

Longitudinal trough with the

y2 cumulative probability curve -10%
V ⋅D 2 -
2⋅ (i transverse ) 2
w transverse (y) = 0.313 ⋅ ⋅e (1) -20%
settlements (in % of wmax transverse)

itransverse -30%

with -40%

i transverse = K ⋅ z 0 (2) -50%

+x
-60%

V the volume loss -70% w max transverse

D the tunneldiameter -80%
= w max longitudinal 50% of wmax transverse

-90%
The point of inflexion (i) is determining the distribution of -100%
differential settlements and thus the steepness of the settlement horizontal distance x in longitudinal ( * i transverse)
trough and has therefore an important influence in the prediction
of damage risks on adjacent buildings. The K-value presents a
dimensionless factor in determining i. Different empirical Fig. 3: Longitudinal settlement trough
approaches for K, derived form field data of international
tunneling projects are given in chapter 4 and compared to the 3. CASE STUDIES
field data of the Dutch projects presented in chapter 3 and 4.
The volume loss develops due to different processes during 3.1 General
tunneling (unbalance of the applied front and tail void pressures
in the TBM with the initial soil pressures, overcutting etc.) and To fit the measured settlement data with the empirical analytical
the conicity of the TBM.. The volume loss used as methods the following procedure is used. The volume loss of the
inputparameter for the settlement prediction in the preliminary monitored transverse settlement trough is calculated and used as
design stage generally varies between practical bandwidths of input for the empirical , analytical approach. Consequently two
0.5% to 2% and is used to judge the damage risk susceptibility k-values are derived for a fit of the maximum monitored
of the adjacent structures due to the tunneling works. settlement and the maximum monitored slope for the transverse
Current research of the Dutch organsations COB and Delft trough according to the equations 1 and 2. The measured

Paper No. 10.01 2

 longitudinal troughs are fit with the values derived for the
transverse trough according to equation 3.
Gaussian fit slopes
In the following chapters one example for the fit of the field data symmetric transverse settlement trough
for each of the three Dutch TBM-tunneling project is presented. 1500
1400
In Chapter 4 the fitted k-values for all considered monitoring 1300

sections of the three projects are given and compared to the 1200
1100
approaches suggested by other authors. The monitored volume 1000
losses are also summarized. 900

slope [1/…]
800
700
3.2 Second Heinenoord Tunnel 600
500
400
The characteristic soil profile and the variation of the tunnel 300
monitored transverse slopes

depth in the considered monitoring cross sections of the 200 Gaussian-fit K= 0.42 ;V= 1.20%

tunneltrack is shown in figure 4. The twin tunnels of the Second 100

0
Gaussian-fit K= 0.39 ;V= 1.20%

Heinenoord Tunnel are built close to Rotterdam in the 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

distance from the tunnelaxis [m]
Netherlands. The soil in the monitoring cross sections consists
mainly Holocene and Pleistocene sand layers. The Fig. 6: Fit of the slopes of the transverse tough
groundwaterlevel is ca. 3m below surface level. The TBM-
diameter is 8.3m. The twin tunnels are bored with a slurry shield.
monitored longitudinal settlements Fit longitudinal settlement trough
Second Heinenoordtunnel
0
Attewell K transverse 0.39 V= 1.2%

Z=12m Attewell K transverse 0.42 V= 1.2% -5

-10

Tunnel Z=28mm settlement [mm] -15

diameter
8.3m -20

Pleistoceen sand (20 > qc >10 Mpa) -25

Holoceen clay, peat layers (qc < 1 Mpa)

-30

Holoceen sand layers (qc ca. 10 Mpa)

-35
-30 -28 -26 -24 -22 -20 -18 -16 -14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
Location monitoring sections
distance in longitudinal direction [m]

Fig. 4: Second Heinenoord Tunnel Fig. 7: Fit of the longitudinal settlement trough

The figures 5 to 8 show an example of the fit of the monitoring

data with the analytical, empirical approaches for the symmetric Fit slopes longitudinal
monitored longitudinal settlements

transverse trough and the longitudinal trough along the tunnelaxis settlement trough Attewell K transverse 0.39 V= 1.2%

on surface level. The transverse trough (V=1.2%) shows a good 2000 Attewell K transverse 0.42 V= 1.2%

fit for a bandwidth of the K-value between 0.39 en 0.42. 1800

1600

Gaussian fit symmetric

1400
transverse settlement trough
0 1200
slopes [1/...]

1000
-5

800
-10
600
settlement [mm]

-15 400

200
-20 distance in longitudinal direction [m]
0
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
-25
monitored transverse settlements
Fig.8: Fit of the slopes of the longitudinal trough
-30 Gaussian-fit K= 0.42 ;V= 1.20%

-35
Gaussian-fit K= 0.39 ;V= 1.20% The Attewell approach gives a good fit for the longitudinal
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 trough, although the maximum slope is underestimated with 20%
distance from the tunnelaxis [m]
(for the transverse fit with K=0.39) to 40% (for the transverse
Fig. 5: Fit of the symmetric transverse settlement trough trough fit for K=0.42).

Paper No. 10.01 3

3.3 Botlek Railway Tunnel
Gaussian fit slopes
symmetric transverse settlement trough, Botlek Railway tunnel
The characteristic soil profile and the variation of the tunnel 1500
depth in the considered monitoring cross sections of the 1400

tunneltrack is shown in figure 9. The twin tunnels are built 1300

1200
close to Rotterdam and are part of the Betuwe cargo line. 1100

The soil in the monitoring cross sections consists mostly of 1000

soft Holocene sand/clay layers and Pleistocene sand layers. 900

slope [1/…]
800
The groundwaterlevel is ca. 3m below surface level. The 700

TBM-diameter is 9.65m. The twin tunnels are bored in the 600

EPB (Earth pressure balance)-mode. 500

400 monitored transverse slopes
300
Gaussian fit K= 0.39 V= 1.3%
Botlek Railway Tunnel 200
100
Gaussian fit K= 0.4 V= 1.3%
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
distance from the tunnelaxis [m]
Z=11m

Fig. 11: Fit Slopes transverse trough

Tunneldiameter Z=26m
9.65m

monitored longitudinal settlements Fit longitudinal settlement trough

Botlek Railway tunnel
Location monitoring sections Attewell K transverse 0.4 0
Pleistoceen sand (qc = 10-20 Mpa)
-5
Holoceen sand, clay layers (qc ca. 10 Mpa)
-10
Holoceen clay, peat and sand layers
(qc < 3 Mpa)
settlement [mm]
-15

-20
Fig. 9: Botlek RailwayTunnel
-25

The figures 10 to 13 show an example of the fit of the monitoring -30

data with the analytical, empirical approaches for the symmetric

-35
transverse trough and the longitudinal trough along the tunnelaxis
on surface level. -40
-30 -28 -26 -24 -22 -20 -18 -16 -14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
The transverse trough (V=1.3%) shows a good fit for a
distance in longitudinal direction [m]
bandwidth of the K-value between 0.39 en 0.4. The Attewell
approach gives a good fit for the longitudinal trough. Fig. 12: Fit of the longitudinal settlement trough

Gaussian fit symmetric

transverse settlement trough, Botlek Railway tunnel monitored longitudinal slopes Fit slopes longitudinal
0 settlement trough
Attewell K transverse 0.4 Botlek Railway tunnel
-5
2000
1900
-10 1800
1700
-15 1600
settlement [mm]

1500
-20 1400
1300
1200
slopes [1/...]

-25
1100
-30 1000
900
monitored transverse settlements 800
-35
700
Gaussian fit K= 0.39 V= 1.3%
600
-40
500
Gaussian fit K= 0.4 V= 1.3%
400
-45
300
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
200
distance from the tunnelaxis [m] 100 distance in longitudinal direction [m]
0
Fig. 10: Fit of the transverse settlement trough -24 -22 -20 -18 -16 -14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Fig.: 13: Fit of the slopes of the longitudinal trough

Paper No. 10.01 4

3.4 Sophia Railway Tunnel Gaussian fit slopes
symmetric transverse heave
Sophia Railway tunnel
The characteristic soil profile and the variation of the tunnel 1500
depth in the considered monitoring cross sections of the monitored transverse heave 1400

tunneltrack is shown in figure 14. The twin tunnels of the Gaussian curve K= 0.3 V= 0.9%
1300
1200
Sophia Railway Tunnel are built close to Rotterdam and are Gaussian curve K= 0.32 V= 0.9% 1100

part of the Betuwe cargo line. The soil in the monitoring cross 1000
900
sections consists mostly of soft Holocene sand/clay layers and

slope [1/…]
800

Pleistocene sand layers. The groundwaterlevel is ca. 3m below 700

surface level. The TBM-diameter is 9.65m. The twin tunnels 600

500
are bored in the slurry-mode. 400
300
200
Sophia Railway Tunnel 100
0
-20 -18 -16 -14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0
Z=11m distance from the tunnelaxis [m]

Fig. 16: Slopes in the transverse heave distribution

Z=19.5mm
Fit longitudinal heave
Sophia Railway tunnel
Tunneldiameter
9.5m 50
monitored longitudinal heave
45
Attewell K transverse 0.3 V= 0.9%
Clay layer of Kedichem (qc ca. 5 Mpa) 40

Pleistoceen sand (qc > 10 Mpa) Attewell K transverse 0.32 V= 0.9%

settlement (heave) [mm]

35

Holoceen clay, peat layers (qc < 1 Mpa) 30

Sandy toplayer (qc ca. 2-3 Mpa) 25

Location monitoring sections 20

Fig. 14: Sophia Railway tunnel 15

10

The figures 15 to 18 show an example of the fit of monitoring tunnelling direction

5

data with the analytical, empirical approaches. It should be noted, 0

that the field data in this specific example represents heave of the -14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6

distance in longitudinal direction [m]

8 10 12 14 16 18 20

ground surface instead of a trough, as shown in the previous

examples. The empirical methods given in chapter are also
Fig. 17: Longitudinal settlement trough (heave)
applied for fitting the heave monitoring results by using a
negative “volume loss” (of 0.9%).
Fit slopes
The transverse heave shows a good fit for a bandwidth of the longitudinal heave
K-value between 0.33 en 0.32. Sophia Railway tunnel
1500
1400
1300
Gaussian fit symmetric 1200
transverse heave 1100
Sophia Railway tunnel
50
1000
monitored transverse heave 900
slope [1/...]

45
800
Gaussian curve K= 0.3 V= 0.9%
40 700
Gaussian curve K= 0.32 V= 0.9% 600
settlement (heave) [mm]

35
500

30 400
monitored longitudinal heave
300
25
200 Attewell K transverse 0.3 V= 0.9%

20 100
Attewell K transverse 0.32 V= 0.9%
0
15 -15 -12 -9 -6 -3 0 3 6 9 12 15

10 distance in longirudinal direction [m]

5 Fig.18:Slopes of the longitudinal settlement trough

0
-22 -20 -18 -16 -14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0
The Attewell approach gives a reasonable good fit for the
distance from the tunnelaxis [m]
longitudinal heave wave, although the maximum slope is
Fig. 15: Transverse (heave) underestimated with 12% (for the transverse fit with K=0.3) up to
30% (for the transverse trough fit for K=0.32). The Attewell
approach shows a clearly better fit in the “sagging” part of the

Paper No. 10.01 5

 longitudinal heave wave than in the “hogging” part. (around 0.2%) in only a few other monitoring sections.
The heave in this monitoring section occurred due to locally high The volume changes vary between 0.15 and 1.5% with an
applied front pressures and tail void pressures in the TBM. average value of all three projects of 0.6% and a standard
Current research comprises detailed analyses of the relationship deviation of 0.4.
between TBM-pressures and surface settlements cq. heave. Second Heinenoordtunnel
Botlek railway tunnel
TBM-performances for surface settlements
4. COMPARISON FIELD DATA WITH LITERATURE 1.6
Sophia railway tunnel
Average value Second Heinenoordtunnel
Average value Botlek railway tunnel

4.1 K-values 1.4 Average value Sofia railway tunnel

Average value three Dutch tunnelling projects

volume loss or heave [%]

1.2
The fitted K-values of all considered surface monitoring sections
of the three Dutch tunneling projects are given in figure 19, 1

dependant of the depth of the tunnel in the considered sections.

0.8
Different approaches for K-values for surface settlement troughs
of other authors (Clough et al 1977, New et al 1991and Peck 0.6

1969) derived from international tunnelling projects (in sandy

0.4
soils) are also included in the figure 19.
0.2
Clough/Schmidt
O'Reilly/New for granular soils
K-values for surface settlements Peck lower bound for sand below watertable 0
Peck lower bound sand above watertable 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Peck upper bound sand above watertable
Second Heinenoordtunnel
depth of the tunnel zo [m]
0.6
Botlek railway tunnel
Sophia railway tunnel
0.55
average value Second Heinenoordtunnel
average value Botlek railway tunnel
Fig. 20: Monitored volume changes for Dutch TBM projects
0.5
average value Sophia railway tunnel

0.45 average value Dutch tunnelling projects

CONCLUSION
0.4 bandwidth Dutch
tunnelling projects in soft
K-value

0.35
soil below
groundwatertable
The settlement field data of three TBM-projects could be
0.3 properly fit with empirical, analytical methods.
0.25
An average K-value (determining the point of inflexion and thus
0.2
the steepness of the trough) of 0.35 with a standard deviation of
0.05 is suggested for prediction of the surface transverse trough
0.15
for comparable Dutch soil conditions.
0.1
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
The fit of the longitudinal wave using the cumulative probability
depth of the tunnel zo [m]
curve showed slight underestimations of the steepness of the
(temporary) longitudinal troughs.
Fig.19 : K-values for surface ground deformations due to Current research is focused on deriving relationships between
TBM-tunnelling in sandy soils the field data of the TBM-processparameters (face pressures
and tail void injection quantities and pressures) and the
For the three Dutch tunnelling projects a bandwidth for the K- settlement profile.
value of 0.28 to 0.43 covers the whole range of the monitored
surface settlements (see shaded are in figure 19). This bandwidth REFERENCES
fits well within the approaches suggested by Clough/Schmidt and
New/O’Reilly for sandy soils. The average K-value for all Dutch Netzel H., Kaalberg F.J.[2001] “Settlement Risk Assessment
projects is 0.35 with a standard deviation of 0.045. of the North-South Metroline in Amsterdam”, Proceedings of
CIRIA conference Response of buildings to excavation-
4.2 TBM performance (volume loss cq. heave) induced ground movement.

The monitored volume changes on surface level are shown in H. Netzel, F.J. Kaalberg, “Settlement Risk Management with
figure 20. It should be noted that heave effects (see example GIS for the North/South Metroline in Amsterdam”, Proc. World
chapter 3.4) are also included in the figure as positive values, Tunnel Congres 1999, Oslo.
because the figure is meant to show the overall performance of
TBM-tunnelling compared to the initial undisturbed situation Attewell, Yeates, Selby [1986]; “Soil Movements induced by
regardless if the perfomance is a negative or a positive volume tunnelling and their effects on pipelines and structures”.
change. Both effects can cause damage to the adjacent buildings,
it should however of course be taken into account that hogging Clough G.W., Schmidt B.[1977]; “Design and Performance
and sagging parts are oppositely for a settlement trough cq. a of excavation and tunnels in soft clay:state of the art report”,
heave effect. It should be noted that the heave of 0.9% shown in presented to international symposium on soft clay, Bangkok
chapter 3.4 was an exception. Small heave values were observed

Paper No. 10.01 6

New B.M., O’Reilly M.P.[1991], “Tunnelling induced ground
movements; predicting their magnitude and effects”; Invited
review paper to 4th International Conference on ground
movement and structures, Cardiff.

Peck R.B.[1969], “Deep Excavations and tunnelling in soft

ground, State of the art report”, Proc. Of 7th ICSMFE, Mexico

COB-onderzoeksrapport K100-W-105A [1999], “Eerste orde

evaluatie K100”, in Dutch

Paper No. 10.01 7