Analysis of Tunneling-Induced Ground Movements

Using Transparent Soil Models

Mahmoud Ahmed, Ph.D., P.E.1; and Magued Iskander, Ph.D., P.E., F.ASCE2

Abstract: Ground movements induced by shallow tunnels affect the safety of nearby underground and aboveground structures. Therefore,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Florida Atlantic University on 08/20/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

the reliable prediction of these movements is important. A transparent soil model is used to investigate not only the surface settlement profile
induced by shield tunneling, but also the distribution of soil deformation within the soil mass near the tunnel. The observed surface settle-
ments are consistent with the normal probability curve commonly used for predicting settlement, with only the inflection points or trough
width parameters somewhat different. The measured data are consistent with field measurements in that the trough width parameter is
independent of the volume loss and linearly proportional to the tunnel depth. An analysis of the displacement field inside the transparent
soil models indicates that the subsurface settlement trough at different depths can be approximated by a normal probability curve; and the
horizontal displacement can be expressed by the trough width parameter and the volume loss, at the point at which maximum horizontal
displacement occurs at the point of inflection. Additionally, the measurements indicate that subsurface ground movements can be in excess of
the observed surface settlement, which can adversely affect underground utilities. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000456. © 2011
American Society of Civil Engineers.
CE Database subject headings: Tunnels; Ground motion; Settlement; Imaging techniques; Correlation; Soft soils; Tunneling; Soil
deformation.
Author keywords: Settlement; Digital image correlation (DIC); Cross-correlation; Particle image velocimetry; PIV; Soft ground tunneling;
Subsurface; Deformation.

Introduction the ground response to tunneling. These techniques range from

Despite much improvement in tunneling technology over the past
five decades, tunneling inevitably leads to ground movements that
may influence overlaying buildings and nearby utilities. Therefore,
the reliable prediction of soil deformations attributable to tunneling
is required to take the most appropriate and economical counter-
measures to mitigate the risk of damage to surface or subsurface
structures.
Tunneling-induced ground movements depend on a number of
factors including geological and hydro-geological conditions, tun-
nel geometry, tunnel depth, excavation method, and the quality of
workmanship (Atkinson and Potts 1977). The relationship between
ground movements and these parameters is neither simple nor lin-
ear (Attewell et al. 1986).
Historically, field observations of surface settlement played an
important role in developing criteria for predicting expected surface
settlements. In the last three decades, physical modeling has played
an increasingly important role in predicting ground movements.
A variety of modeling techniques have been developed to study
1
Engineer, New York State Dept. of Transportation, 21 South End Ave.,
New York, NY 10280; formerly, Doctoral Candidate, Polytechnic Institute
of New York Univ., Six Metrotech Center, Brooklyn, NY 11201. E-mail:
mmahmoud@dot.state.ny.us
2
Associate Professor, Polytechnic Institute of New York Univ., Six
Metrotech Center, Brooklyn, NY 11201 (corresponding author). E-mail:
iskander@poly.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on March 8, 2010; approved on
September 30, 2010; published online on October 2, 2010. Discussion per-
iod open until October 1, 2011; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 137, No. 5, May 1, 2011. ©ASCE,
ISSN 1090-0241/2011/5-525–535/$25.00.
two-dimensional (2D) trap door tests in dry sand (Vardoulakis et al.
1981) to miniature tunnel boring machines that simulate the process
of tunnel excavation and lining installation in a centrifuge (Kim
1996; Chapman et al. 2006; Meguid et al. 2008). However these
techniques only measure ground movements at the model bounda-
ries. The numerical modeling of tunneling has been popular in the
last decade; it permits computing internal deformations throughout
the soil field. However, computed internal soil deformations are
difficult to validate against actual measurements for several rea-
sons. Sensors possess static and dynamic properties that are differ-
ent from those of the surrounding soils, and can thus change the
response of the model in laboratory and centrifuge experiments
by introducing a compliance error. Furthermore, although it is pos-
sible to install sensors that record soil movements, ahead of tunnel-
ing operations, the tunneling construction process makes it difficult
and expensive to do so. Accordingly, such measurements are dif-
ficult to come by.
The approach adopted in this research makes use of the recently
developed transparent soil technology and image processing tech-
niques to measure the ground response attributable to tunneling
(Iskander 2010). A tunnel is preplaced in a transparent soil model,
which represents saturated sand. Tunnel face support is simulated
by using an internal pressure, σT , applied inside the tunnel. Tests
are conducted by reducing σT in stages until collapse of the soil
occurs. Because the model is transparent, it can be sliced with a
laser light sheet at the location of the tunnel face. Images of the
soil at the tunnel face illuminated by the laser light were captured
after each decrement of σT reduction and used to obtain corre-
sponding 2D deformation fields. Although this technique might
not model tunnel construction precisely in the field; nevertheless,
it is capable of revealing patterns of behavior relevant to the me-
chanics of internal soil deformations induced by tunneling.

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2011 / 525

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2011.137:525-535.

 Evaluation of Ground Movements
Peck (1969) proposed that the surface settlement distribution can be
determined empirically by using a normal probability Gaussian
curve. The properties of the normal probability function and its re-
lationships to the dimensions of the tunnel are shown in Fig. 1. The
maximum ordinate of the normal probability curve at the center,
x ¼ 0, is the maximum settlement, Sv max . Thus, surface settlement,
Sv , at any point is
2
ð
x 2 Þ
Sv ¼ Sv max e 2x
i ð1Þ
where xi = inflection point, also known as trough parameter. The
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Florida Atlantic University on 08/20/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
magnitude of ground movements increases linearly with depth
below the surface. O’Reilly and New further developed a relation-
ship between the settlement trough parameter, xi , and depth to the
tunnel axis:
xi ¼ kH ð3Þ
where k = empirical constant of proportionality that ranges between
0.4 and 0.7 for cohesive soils and between 0.2 and 0.3 for granu-
lar soils.
A variety of different empirical solutions of the settlement
trough parameter, xi , have been proposed by Mair et al. (1981),
Attewell and Farmer (1974), Clough and Schmidt (1981), and

values for xi reported by Peck (1969), Lake et al. (1992), Mair and
Taylor (1997), and for tunnels based on reasonably reliable settle-
ment data are shown in Fig. 2. By using his data, Peck (1969) esti-
mated the value of xi as
 
xi H monly used to determine the surface settlement trough induced by
¼ ð2Þ
R 2R
where n = dimensionless factor that ranges from 0.8 to 1.0. Later,
O’Reilly and New (1982) collected field measurements from tun-
nels in a variety of soils. Their data suggest that the soil deforma-
tions are directed toward a “sink” located below the tunnel axis at a
point close to the tunnel invert. Assuming that (1) all movements in
the soil occur along radial paths toward the tunnel axis; (2) condi-
tion of plane strain; and (3) constant volume deformation; O’Reilly
and New concluded that the width of the zone of deformed ground
increases linearly with the increase in tunnel depth, and that the
Atkinson and Potts (1977). Despite discrepancies among the
xi -values estimated by each method, they all agreed that xi is related
to the tunnel depth and geometry.
In practice, the empirical solution given by Peck (1969) and the
parameter k introduced by O’Reilly and New (1982) are most com-
tunneling. However, a significant limitation of these methods is that
they require knowledge of the expected ground loss volume, V L ,
which is usually estimated as a percentage of the theoretical exca-
vation volume.
Predicting the magnitude of ground loss is extremely difficult,
especially in shield tunneling because it depends on various com-
ponents that cause the excavated volume to be larger than the theo-
retical tunnel volume, including face loss, overexcavation, pitching,
ground disturbance, and tail void closure. Experience can be used if
a history of tunneling and taking measurements exist. When no re-
cord exists, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) recommen-
dations can be employed (Table 1). In soft ground conditions, it is
typically assumed that the volume of surface settlement, V s , is
equal to the volume of ground loss at the tunnel, V L (Fig. 1). There-
fore, the volume of the settlement trough per unit length can be
estimated by using the property of the normal probability curve
as (Peck 1969)

V s ¼ 2:5xi Sv max ð4Þ

For a circular tunnel of diameter D

 2
V L% D
Vs ¼ π ð5Þ
100 4
Fig. 1. Properties of Gaussian function used in prediction of surface Other principal methods for the evaluation of ground move-
settlement ments include numerical models (e.g., Anagnostou and Kovári
1996; Potts and Addenbrooke 1996; Mair et al. 1996; Addenbrooke
12
Soft to stiff clay (Mair & Taylor,1997)
et al. 1997; Viggiani and Atkinson, 1995; Bohac et al. 2002; Masin
Soft to stiff clay
Sand, gravel (Lake et al, 1992) (Peck, 1969) and Herle 2005). Clough and Leca (1989) reviewed recent work on
10
Table 1. Relationship among Volume Loss, Construction Practice, and
Rock, hard clay, sand Ground Conditions
8 above groundwater
Sand, submerged
(Peck, 1969) (Peck, 1969) Case V L (%)
H/D

6
Good practice in firm ground; tight control of face 0.5
pressure within closed face machine in slowly
4 raveling or squeezing ground
Usual practice with closed face machine in slowly 1.0
2 raveling or squeezing ground
Poor practice with closed face in raveling ground 2
0 Poor practice with closed face machine in poor 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
2i/D
(fast raveling) ground
Poor practice with little face control in running 4.0 or more
Fig. 2. Variation of settlement trough parameter, xi , and tunnel depth ground

526 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2011

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2011.137:525-535.

 the application of FEM to soft ground tunneling. They pointed out
that tunneling has proved to be difficult and complex for FEM mod-
eling because it often involves many parameters that could be
poorly estimated if both the soil and the construction procedure
are not properly modeled. Peck’s (1969) normal probability curve
continues to be the most widely used predictive measure for fitting
settlement troughs and has been adopted to compare results of this
research.

Experimental Modeling Technique

Transparent silicas suitable for simulating the geotechnical proper-

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Florida Atlantic University on 08/20/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ties of a wide range of soils have been developed (Sadek et al.

2002). The developed transparent clays (Iskander et al. 1994,
2002a) have been used to model a number of geotechnical prob-
lems including flow around wick drains (Welker et al. 1999), pile
penetration (Gill and Lehane 2001; Ni et al. 2010), ground
improvement using sand columns (McKelvey et al. 2004), and off-
shore foundations (Song et al. 2009). The developed transparent
sands used in this study have been used previously to study pile
penetration (Liu and Iskander 2010) and shallow foundations
(Iskander and Liu 2010).
One of the materials developed to simulate the behavior of sand
is particulate materials resembling angular white sand, 0.5–1.5 mm,
called SG1. In this study SG1 is saturated with a matched refractive
index fluid to achieve transparency. Detailed properties of SG1 and
the pore fluid are available in Iskander et al. (2002b). SG1 proper-
ties for the test conditions are summarized in Table 2.
A Plexiglas acrylic model (Fig. 3) 30.48 cm (12 in.) long,
25.4 cm (10 in.) wide, and 20.32 cm (8 in.) high was used to con-
tain the transparent soil. The dimensions of the model were chosen
in such a way that the influence of the boundaries was minimized.
The tunnel was modeled by a PVC tube 2.54 cm (1 in.) in diameter
and preinstalled inside the model at a depth of 12.7 cm (5 in.). This
allowed testing tunnels with cover-to-diameter ratio, C=D, ranges
from 1 to 4.5. A 0.3 mm thick latex membrane of negligible
strength was attached to the end of the tube to represent the tunnel
face. The membrane was left slack to prevent the mechanical in-
fluence on the displacement of the face. The tube (tunnel) was then
filled with air under pressure to simulate the tunnel support pres-
sure, σT , which could be read and controlled by the pressure board.
In reality, such a support can be achieved by using compressed air,
bentonite slurry, or earth pressure balance (E.P.B. shield). In this
study, σT was assumed to be constant over the tunnel face, which
best models the case of compressed air support but also provides
valuable information for slurry or E.P.B. shields.
For the application of surcharge or surface pressure, σS , the
Plexiglas acrylic model container was placed between two identical
metal plates (Fig. 3) connected by four threaded rods. A rubber tire
with an internal pressure σS was placed on top of the transparent
Fig. 3. Tunnel modeling technique (photo courtesy of the writers)
soil and connected to the pressure board. The tunnel support pres-
sure, σT , was increased such that σT ¼ σS at the beginning of the
test. The tire was placed on to the top of the transparent soil, which
was well leveled to assure a uniform pressure distribution. The tire
covered all area on the top of the tunnel face, with its center (hole)
placed at a distance > 4D from the tunnel face, a distance deemed
far enough according to the Attewell et al. (1986) study of settle-
ment along tunnel axes.
In addition to the tunnel container, the setup also included a
Cohu 2622 black and white charge-coupled device (CCD) camera,
a 35 mW Melles Griot laser light source, a line generator lens, a
loading frame, a test table, and a PC for image processing (Fig. 4).
The camera has a resolution of 640 × 480 pixels and is controlled
by the PC through a Matrox Meteor 2=4 frame grabber. A macro-
zoom lens with a variable focus length from 18 to 108 mm was
mounted on the CCD camera.
The tests were conducted by reducing the tunnel pressure, σT , in
stages until collapse occurred. After each decrement of tunnel pres-
sure, the model was sliced optically by using a laser light sheet to
illuminate the plane of measurements inside the model, and an im-
age was captured by the CDD camera. Later, these images were
processed to obtain corresponding deformations relative to pressure
drop and volume loss in the soil mass induced by the tunnel. Com-
plete strain and deformations fields were obtained from the set of
images captured during each test.

Table 2. Tests Conditions and Properties of SG1

Parameter Value
Surcharge pressure 69 kPa
Unit weight 8:53 kN=m3
Friction angle 36°
Particle size range 0.5–1.5 mm
Particle shape Angular
Specific gravity 2.2
Modulus of elasticity 32 MPa
Cohesion 0 Fig. 4. Experimental setup (photo courtesy of the writers)

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2011 / 527

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2011.137:525-535.

 Soil Displacement Measurement
The interaction between laser light and transparent soils produces a
distinctive speckle pattern. This speckle pattern manifests the inter-
actions among the transparent soil matrix, impurities, entrapped air,
and the laser. Small particle movement will result in a change in the
speckle distribution in the plane of measurement. If the deformation
is small, the contrast distribution resulting from the speckle effect
will follow the particle movement. Images captured before and after
deformation were analyzed by using the cross-correlation function
(DIC), which is a classic pattern recognition technique based
on using the correlation function to locate the best matching posi-
tion of two images and thus predicting movements. Sadek et al.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Florida Atlantic University on 08/20/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
(2003) studied the accuracy of DIC application in transparent soil
models. The results indicate that the calculated deformation using
the developed system has an error on the order 0.1 pixel, which is
equivalent to a deformation of 0.01 mm for the optical setup em-
ployed in this study.
For displacements measurements with the DIC, the camera im-
ages were divided into rectangular regions called interrogation
areas or interrogation windows. For each of these interrogation
windows, the image before and after each decrement of tunnel pres-
sure were correlated to produce an average particle displacement
vector. Doing this for all interrogation windows produced a vector
map of average particle displacements. The position of the peak in
the correlation plane corresponds directly to the average particle
displacement within the interrogation area investigated. The vector
from the center of the region to the peaks of the cross-correlation
function gives the magnitude and direction of the relative move-
ment between two images. An advanced form of DIC that employs
window shifting and window sizing called adaptive cross-
correlation (ACC) has been used (Liu et al. 2004). ACC is imple-
mented in Flow Manager software, which is the software used in
this research.
The parallax effect observed by White et al. (2003) was checked
during camera calibration. An image consisting of a rectangular
pattern of crosshair targets was placed in the plane of measurement
(the laser sheet plane). A scaling factor was determined by com-
paring the measured and distance between cross hairs according
to Taylor et al. (1998) and Paikowsky and Xi (2000). Unlike the
White et al. (2003) setup, our camera was positioned perpendicular
and centered to the plane of measurement (Sadek et al. 2005).
Therefore, the image is slightly distorted, except at the center of
the image. A maximum shift of 0.01pixels (0.005 mm) was mea-
sured. Therefore, the parallax effect was deemed negligible.
Results and Discussion
The three-dimensional (3D) problem can be idealized by con-
sidering a circular rigid tunnel of diameter D driven at a depth
H (Fig. 5). To understand the influence of important parameters,
σs
C Lining
H Although the tests were performed under drained conditions, the
σTT
D
Fig. 5. Important parameters in tunnel construction
528 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2011
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2011.137:525-535.
it is necessary to make certain assumptions and to formulate a sim-
plified model for tunnel construction. The unsupported length be-
hind the face is assumed equal to zero, which is a reasonable
assumption for shield-driven tunnels. The self-weight of the soil,
γ:C, above the tunnel is small and thus, neglected. A surcharge,
σs , is applied at the surface. Plane strain is assumed. To insure that
the surcharge pressure was well distributed at the surface, an image
was captured before and after the surcharge pressure was applied
and then processed by DIC. The uniformity was assured by the
displacement vectors showing uniform consolidation of the trans-
parent soil.
Surface Settlement
The observed vertical surface settlement, Sv , at various stages dur-
ing the tests was normalized by the tunnel diameter, D, for four
different tunnel depths, as shown in Fig. 6. Cording (1991) noted
that the width of the transverse settlement trough for tunnels in
granular soil depends on the magnitude of settlement, with larger
settlements tending to cause a narrower trough width. Results
shown in Fig. 6 verify this mechanism; deeper tunnels tended to
produce lesser settlement and a wider trough than shallow ones.
In the experiment, volume loss was imposed manually by lowering
the tunnel pressure, so it was difficult to achieve the same volume
loss to compare tunnels with different H=D ratios, particularly be-
cause the relationship between pressure drop and volume loss is
non linear. Transparent soil models results were compared with
the empirical solution proposed by Peck (1969) and incorporated
by O’Reilly and New (1982). The measured and predicted surface
settlements are presented in Fig. 7 for four depth-to-diameter
(H=D) ratios for a volume loss of 2:25%  0:25%. This ratio
was selected for presentation because it is a volume loss that is
typical of the expectation for shield tunneling in saturated sand
(Mair and Taylor 1997 and Huang et al. 2009). The predicted
movement was based on the measured volume loss obtained from
the analysis of the transparent soil models; therefore, excellent
agreement exists between the measured and computed surface set-
tlement. A k-factor is required by O’Reilly and New (1982) for
predicting surface settlement. In our tests, calculations for k were
derived by using Eq. (3) from xi , which was measured from the
settlement troughs shown in Fig. 7 and found to range from
0.27 to 0.31. However, these values were slightly different than
the k-values that produced the best-fit to our data. The k-factors
that resulted in the best-fit to our data ranged between 0.24 and
0.26. The measured settlement trough parameters, xi , were plotted
along with data reported by Peck (1969), Lake et al. (1992),
and Mair and Taylor (1997) in Fig. 8. The measured trough param-
eters were in good agreement with data reported by Lake et al.
(1992) for tunnels in sand. The measured data (Fig. 6) also confirm
Peck (1969), O’Reilly and New (1982), and Lake et al. (1992) sug-
gesting that xi is independent of the volume loss and linearly pro-
portional to H, where an equation of xi ¼ kH can always fit the
measured data. The measured data are also consistent with Mair
and Taylor’s (1997) data in clays. Peck’s (1969) data showed con-
siderably wider troughs for tunnels in submerged sand. Never-
theless, the transparent soil models’ data satisfy Peck’s (1969)
recommended boundaries for an estimated settlement trough
parameter in sand given by the range xi ¼ 0:25–0:45H.
results were compared with empirical methods that use the esti-
mated volume loss to fit Peck’s Gaussian curve. The Gaussian
curve may be different for drained and undrained situations. For
tunneling in undrained ground, the volume of the settlement trough,
Vs, is more or less equal to the ground loss attributable to soil mov-
ing into the tunnel face, V L . However, Vs tends to be somewhat
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Florida Atlantic University on 08/20/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 6. Variation of surface settlement profiles with volume loss

smaller for drained excavations (Cording and Hansmire 1975) be-
cause dilation may result in soil expansion such that Vs < V L , de-
pending on the soil’s density. Mair and Taylor (1997) reported that
these differences tend to remain small, and it is reasonable to as-
sume that Vs ¼ V L . Therefore, the volume loss used for compari-
son was obtained by measuring the volume of the settlement trough
in AutoCAD.
Subsurface Settlement
The typical displacement vectors observed in transparent soil mod-
els are shown in Fig. 9 for four tunnel depths. Soil movements in
and around the tunnel face tend to manifest at the surface in a sink-
hole extending from the tunnel axis. Vertical soil movements below
the tunnel invert were found to be minimal. The entire movement
was confined above the tunnel level. In tunnels with a shallow

Fig. 7. Predicted and measured surface settlement profiles

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2011 / 529

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2011.137:525-535.

 12
Soft to stiff clay (Mair & Taylor,1997) Similar observations of subsurface settlement profiles above
Sand, gravel (Lake et al, 1992) Soft to stiff clay tunnels in silty sands below the water table in Taipei were made
10 (Peck, 1969)
Transparent soil models by Moh et al. (1996) and in loose sands overlain by a firm-to-
stiff clay layer by Dyer et al. (1996). Measured displacements in
Sand, submerged Rock, hard clay, sand
8 the transparent soil model were consistent with available measure-
(Peck, 1969) above groundwater
(Peck, 1969) ments and can be approximated by a Gaussian curve (Fig. 11).
H/D

6 Values of k obtained from measurements of xi for the subsurface

profiles for four different tests for volume loss, V L ¼ 2  0:25%,
4 are shown in Fig. 12. The measured data are plotted along with data
from Moh et al. (1996), Dyer et al. (1996), and calculated k-values
2 from Eq. (7) for the test condition. The transparent soil modeling
results were found to be in good agreement with the data reported
by Dyer et al. (1996) in sand. However, the k observed by Moh
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Florida Atlantic University on 08/20/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 et al. (1996) in silty sand and calculated per Mair et al. (1993)
2i/D by using Eq. (7) were somewhat different. This is primarily because
Fig. 8. Variation of measured settlement trough parameter, xi , with tun- Eq. (7) is based on the data of subsurface settlement profiles for
nel depth plotted with available data tunnels in clay (Mair and Taylor 1997).

depth (i.e., less than or equal to 3D), movement at the tunnel level is
transmitted to the surface, whereas deeper tunnels, at depth greater
than 3D, show less transmission of movement from the tunnel level
to the surface. This fact is illustrated by the contour of vertical dis-
placement shown in Fig. 10 for four tunnel depths with volume
loss, V L ¼ 2  0:25%. Similar displacement patterns have been re-
ported by Cording et al. (1976), Atkinson and Potts (1977), Wu and
Lee (2003), Kimura and Mair (1981), and Mair et al. (1993) for a
variety of soils. Mair et al. (1993) showed that the subsurface set-
tlement profiles in clay can also be approximated in the form of a
Gaussian distribution in the same way as surface settlement pro-
files, according to the following equations:
xi ¼ kðH
zÞ
0:175 þ 0:325ð1
Hz Þ
k¼
1
Hz
where z = depth below the ground surface, above a tunnel of
depth H.
Internal Strains
The vertical component of strain is important for analyzing the af-
fect of tunneling on buildings and underground utilities. Vertical
strains were calculated by using MATLAB functions originally de-
veloped by Eberl et al. (2006) and modified by the writers. The
vertical strain for four tests conducted with a volume loss, V L ¼
2  0:25% is shown in Fig. 13. The calculated vertical strains
ranged between 2.2% at the tunnel level to 1.3% at the surface.
This result emphasizes the importance of predicting subsurface
movements because they tend to be of greater magnitude than sur-
face displacements, especially in deeper tunnels (i.e., H > 3D).
The dilation of dense sand at a low confining stress is usually cred-
ited with the reduction of surface displacements. This phenomenon
ð6Þ is observed in very dense soils but is usually neglected in the design
of tunnels, with adverse effects on tunnel liners (Leca et al. 2000).
Conversely, in loose or compressible soils, settlement could be
larger at the ground surface than at the tunnel depth. In any case,
ð7Þ dilation is not expected to affect the predicted surface settlement in
this study because the equivalent ground loss volume was not esti-
mated but computed from the measured settlement trough, assum-
ing no dilation or contraction of the soil.

Fig. 9. Displacement vectors observed in transparent soil models (V L : 2–2:5%)

530 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2011

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2011.137:525-535.

 0.7 0.9
3 1.1
0.7

0.6 0.6
1.5 0.9
2 0.9 1.8 2 1.2
x10 -2
1 2 x10 -2
1

H/D

H/D
25 mm 25 mm
0 0

5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Normalized distance from tunnel centerline Normalized distance from tunnel centerline
0.51 0.3 0.16
5 0.3 0.4 0.4
0.16
0.65 0.63
4 0.5 0.5 0.2 4
0.2
0.35
3 0.95 3 0.75
0.35
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Florida Atlantic University on 08/20/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0.9
2 2 x10 -2
H/D

H/D
1.1 x10 -2
1 1
25 mm 25 mm
0 0

5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Normalized distance from tunnel centerline Normalized distance from tunnel centerline

Fig. 10. Contour of vertical displacement (V L : 2–2:5%)

Ground Displacement Vectors
Deane and Bassett (1995) analyzed subsurface movement measure-
ments for two sections of the Heathrow Express trial tunnels in
London clay. They concluded that the displacement vectors were
directed toward a point midway between the tunnel axis level and
the invert level in one case, and toward a point at, or possibly even
below, the invert in the second case. For tunnels in sands, Cording
(1991) suggested that the assumption of ground movements
directed toward the tunnel axis may lead to significant underesti-
matations of horizontal ground movement at the ground surface
near the edge of the settlement trough. The measurements of total
displacement in transparent soil models indicate that, for tunnels at
H ≤ 3D, the ground displacement vectors were found to be directed
toward a point below the tunnel axis and closer to the tunnel invert.
Conversely, for tunnels at H ≥ 4, the ground displacement vectors
were found to be directed toward the tunnel axis (Fig. 14).
Horizontal Displacements
Damage to structures and services can arise from horizontal
movements. However, relatively few case histories exist of tun-
nels for which horizontal ground or structural movements are
measured. Attewell (1978) and O’Reilly and New (1982) pro-
posed that, for tunnels in clays, ground displacement vectors are

Fig. 11. Observed subsurface settlement profiles (V L : 2–2:5%)

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2011 / 531

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2011.137:525-535.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Florida Atlantic University on 08/20/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 12. Variation of k with depth for subsurface settlement profiles

directed toward the tunnel axis. This leads to the following x = horizontal distance from the tunnel axis; H = tunnel depth;
relationships: and xi = settlement trough parameter.
x Sh max is theoretically equal to 0:61kSv max . This theoretical value
Sh ¼ S ð8Þ was confirmed by field observations in a variety of soils (Cording
H v
and Hansmire 1975; Attewell 1978).
  Hong and Bae (1995) reported horizontal displacements at the
Sh x x2
¼ 1:65 exp
2 ð9Þ ground surface for a 10 m diameter tunnel built by using the new
Sh max xi 2xi Austrian tunneling method (NATM) in predominantly sandy soil.
where Sh = horizontal displacement; Sh max = maximum horizontal Their data are presented with the horizontal component of the mea-
displacement that usually occurs at the point of inflection; sured displacement in transparent soil models in Fig. 15 together

Fig. 13. Vertical strain inside transparent soil models (V L : 2–2:5)

532 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2011

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2011.137:525-535.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Florida Atlantic University on 08/20/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 14. Direction of ground displacement vectors (V L : 2–2:5%)

Fig. 15. Distribution of horizontal ground surface movements

with Eq. (9) for the test conditions. The distribution of the plotted
data is in reasonable agreement with Eq. (9), except in the region
near the edge of the settlement trough (i.e., x ¼ 2–3xi ), where
ground surface movements are generally very small.
Limitations of this Study
Although the tunneling process can be well modeled by transparent
soils, the use of the described procedure has the following
limitations:
• The study was performed at a low confining stress, so the effect
of dilation may have been overemphasized.
• The effect of the pore water pressure was small because of the
small size of the model.
• The soil-tunnel interaction was studied with one tunnel size
only, like most studies. The use of different tunnel sizes would
confirm the lack-of-a-size effect.
• SG1 has a smaller unit weight than natural soils but has a similar
stress-strain behavior. The discrepancy in unit weight may affect
the scaling of stress-based problems such as scaling of face sup-
port pressures to natural soils. For deformational problems such
as the ones presented in this paper, it is believed that the role of
geometry is more significant than that of self-weight, but small
differences in failure geometry may occur because of the dis-
crepancy in unit weight. At any rate, a surcharge has been used

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2011 / 533

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2011.137:525-535.

 in lieu of the self-weight to minimize the effect of the small unit
weight.
• Although the centrifuge is better at scaling the parameters in-
volved in tunneling, the method presented in this paper is less
costly and permits visualizing internal deformations without the
use of sensors that may affect the measured deformations.
Conclusions
With the increasing use of soft ground tunneling in urban areas,
situations more often arise in which construction may affect
existing nearby utilities and structures, including other tunnels,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Florida Atlantic University on 08/20/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
piles, or buried foundations. The use of a transparent soil revealed
the characteristics of ground movement. These results, which in-
clude full field displacement vectors, contours of ground deforma-
tion, and internal strains, may be useful to the tunneling community
for the preliminary assessment of the affect of tunneling on under-
ground utilities, foundations, and surface structures. Additionally,
the observed surface movements can be correlated with internal soil
deformations based on this work.
The results of transparent soil models confirm the empirical sol-
ution originally proposed by Peck (1969) that the surface settlement
trough conforms to the normal probability curve. Only the maxi-
mum settlement and inflection points were somewhat different. The
measured data also confirm previous studies and field measure-
ments by Peck (1969), O’Reilly and New (1982), and Lake et al.
(1992), suggesting that xi is independent of the volume loss and
linearly proportional to the tunnel depth.
An analysis of the displacement field inside the transparent soil
models indicated that the subsurface settlement trough at different
depths can be approximated by a normal probability curve, and that
the horizontal displacement can be expressed by the trough width
parameter and the volume loss, where maximum horizontal dis-
placement occurs at the point of inflection. The equations proposed
by Mair et al. (1993) for predicting subsurface settlement and hori-
zontal deformations in clay yield acceptable results in sand.
Acknowledgments
Transparent soils were originally developed with NSF Support un-
der Grant No. CMS 9733064: “CAREER: Modeling 3D Flow and
Soil Structure Interaction Using Optical Tomography.” Continued
NSF support under Grants Nos. DGE 0337668 and DGE 0741714
is gratefully acknowledged. Research using transparent soils is pre-
sently funded by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA)
Grant No: HDTRA1-10-1-0049.
References
Addenbrooke, T. L., Potts, D. M., and Puzrin, A. M. (1997). “The influence
of pre-failure soil stiffness on the numerical analysis of tunnel construc-
tion.” Geotechnique, 47(3), 693–712.
Anagnostou, G., and Kovàri, K. (1996). “Face stability in slurry and EPB
shield tunneling.” Proc., Int. Symp. Geotechnical Aspects of Under-
ground Construction in Soft Ground, R. Mair and R. Taylor, eds.,
Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 453–458.
Atkinson, J. H., and Potts, D. M. (1977). “Subsidence above shallow cir-
cular tunnels in soft ground.” J. Geotech. Engrg. Div., 103(GT4),
307–325.
Attewell, P. B. (1978). “Ground movements caused by tunneling in soil.”
Proc., Int. Conf. on Large Movements and Structures, J. Geddes, ed.
Pentech, London, 812–948.
Attewell, P. B., and Farmer, I. W. (1974). “Ground deformations resulting
from shield tunneling in London clay.” Can. Geotech. J., 11, 380–395.
534 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2011
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2011.137:525-535.
Attewell, P. B., Yeates, J., and Selby, A. R. (1986). Soil movements induced
by tunneling, Chapman and Hall, New York.
Bohac, J., Herle, I., and Masin, D. (2002). “Stress and strain dependent
stiffness in a numerical model of a tunnel.” Proc., 2nd Int. Conf. on
Soil Structure Interaction in Urban Civil Engineering, Swiss Federal
Institute of Technology Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland, 357–364.
Chapman, D. N., Ahn, S. K., Hunt, D. V. L., and Chan, A. H. C. (2006).
“The use of model tests to investigate the ground displacement associ-
ated with multiple tunnel construction in soil.” Tunnels Tunneling,
21(3), 413.
Clough, G. W., and Leca, E. (1989). “Models and design methods with
focus on use of finite element methods for soft ground tunneling.”
Proc., Int. Conf. on Tunnelling and Micro-tunnelling in Soft Ground,
Presse de l’Ecole Nationale des Ponts et Chaussées, Paris, 531–573.
Clough, G. W., and Schmidt, B. (1981). “Excavation and tunneling.”
Soft clay engineering, Chapter 8, E. Brand and R. Brenner, eds.,
Elsevier, 13.
Cording, E. J., Hansmire, W. H., MacPherson, H. H., Lenzini, P. A., and
Vonderohe, A. D. (1976). “Displacements around tunnels in soil.” Final
Rep. to Department of Transportation, Contract No. DOT-TST-76T-22,
Univ. of Illinois, Urbana, IL, 211.
Cording, E. J. (1991). “Control of ground movements around tunnels in
soil.” Proc., 9th Pan American Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Founda-
tion Engineering, Sociedad Chilena de Geotecnia (Chilean Society of
Geotechnics), Santiago, Chile.
Cording, E. J., and Hansmire, W. H. (1975). “Displacements around soft
ground tunnels.” Proc., 5th Pan American Conf. on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Session IV, Sociedad Argentina de Mecánica
de Suelos e Ingenieria de Fundaciones (Argentinian Society of Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering), Buenos Aires, Argentina,
571–632.
Deane, A. P., and Bassett, R. H. (1995). “The Heathrow Express trial
tunnel.” Proc. - Inst. Civ. Eng.: Geotech. Eng, 113(3), 144–156.
Dyer, M. R., Hutchinson, M. T., and Evans, N. (1996). “Sudden Valley
sewer: A case history.” Proc., Int. Symp. Geotech. Aspects of Under-
ground Construction in Soft Ground, R. Mair and R. Taylor, eds.,
Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 671–676.
Eberl, C., Thompson, R., Gianola, D., Sharpe, W., Jr., and Hemker, K.
(2006). “Digital image correlation and tracking.” 〈http://www
.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/12413〉 (Mar. 5, 2010).
Flow Manager [Computer software]. Dantec Dynamics, Tonsbakken,
Denmark.
Gill, D., and Lehane, B. (2001). “An optical technique for investigating soil
displacement patterns.” Geotech. Test. J., 24(3), 324–329.
Hong, S. W., and Bae, G. J. (1995). “Ground movements associated
with subway tunneling in Korea.” Under ground construction in soft
ground, K. Fujita and O. Kusakable, eds., Balkema, Rotterdam, The
Netherlands, 229–232.
Hung, C. J., Monsees, J., Munfah, N., and Wisniewski, J. (2009). “Tech-
nical manual for design and construction of road tunnels.” Rep. FHWA-
NHI-09-010 prepared for U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Parsons
Brinckerhoff, New York.
Iskander, M. (2010). Modelling with transparent soils, visualizing soil
structure interaction and multi phase flow, non-intrusively, Springer-
Verlag Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany.
Iskander, M., and Liu, J. (2010). “Spatial deformation measurement using
transparent soil.” Geotech. Test. J., 33(4), 8.
Iskander, M., Lai, J., Oswald, C., and Mannheimer, R. (1994). “Develop-
ment of a transparent material to model the geotechnical properties of
soils.” Geotech. Test. J., 17(4), 425–433.
Iskander, M., Liu, J., and Sadek, S. (2002a). “Transparent amorphous silica
to model clay.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 128(3), 262–273.
Iskander, M., Sadek, S., and Liu, J. (2002b). “Optical measurement of de-
formation using transparent silica gel to model sand.” Int. J. Phys.
Modell. Geotech., 2(4), 13–26.
Kim, S. H. (1996). “Interaction between closely spaced tunnels in clay.”
Ph.D. thesis, Oxford Univ., Oxford, UK, 242.
Kimura, T., and Mair, J. R. (1981). “Centrifugal testing of model tunnels in
soft clay.” Proc., 10th Int. Conf. of Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Vol. 2, Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 319–322.
 Lake, L. M., Rankin, W. J., and Hawley, J. (1992). “Prediction and effects
of ground movements caused by tunneling in soft ground beneath urban
areas.” CIRIA Project Rep. 30, Construction Industry Research and
Information Association, London.
Leca, E., Leblais, Y., and Kuhnhenn, K. (2000). “Underground works in
soil and soft rock tunneling.” Proc., Int. Conf. on Geotech. and Geolog.
Eng., Vol. 1, Australian Geomechanics Society, Institution of Engi-
neers, Melbourne, Australia, 220–268.
Liu, J., and Iskander, M. (2004). “Adaptive cross correlation for imaging
displacements in soil.” J. Comput. Civ. Eng., 17(2), 88–96.
Liu, J., and Iskander, M. (2010). “Laboratory investigation of the modeling
capacity of synthetic transparent soils.” Can. Geotech. J., 47(4),
451–460, .
Mair, R. J., Gunn, M. J., and O’Reilly, M. P. (1981). “Ground movements
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Florida Atlantic University on 08/20/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
around shallow tunnels in soft clay.” Proc., 10th Int. Conf. on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Balkema, Rotterdam, The
Netherlands, 323–328.
Mair, R. J., and Taylor, R. N. (1997). “Theme lecture: Bored tunneling in
the urban environment.” Proc., 14th Int. Conf. Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands,
2352–2385.
Mair, R. J., Taylor, R. N., and Bracegirdle, A. (1993). “Surface settlement
profiles above tunnels in clays.” Geotechnique, 43(2), 315–320.
Mair, R. J., Taylor, R. N., and Burland, J. B. (1996). “Prediction of ground
movements and assessment of the risk of building damage due to bored
tunneling.” Proc., Symp. on Geotechnical Aspects of Underground
Construction in Soft Ground, R. Mair et al., eds., Balkema, Rotterdam,
The Netherlands, 713–718.
Masin, D., and Herle, I. (2005). “Numerical analyses of a tunnel in London
clay using different constitutive models.” Proc., 5th Int. Symp. TC28
Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground,
K. Bakker et al., eds., Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 595–600.
McKelvey, D., Sivakumar, V., Bell, A., and Graham, J. (2004). “Modeling
vibrated stone columns in soft clay.” Proc., Institution of Civil Engi-
neers-Geotechnical Engineering, Thomas Telford, London, 157(3),
137–149.
Meguid, M., Saada, O., Nunes, M., and Mattar, J. (2008). “Physical mod-
eling of tunnels in soft ground: A review.” Tunnelling Underground
Space Technol., 23(2), 185–198.
Moh, Z., Ju, D. H., and Hwang, R. N. (1996). “Ground movements around
tunnels in soft ground.” Proc., Int. Symp. Geotech. Aspects of Under-
ground Construction in Soft Ground, R. Mair and R. Taylor, eds.,
Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 725–730.
Ni, Q., Hird, C., and Guymer, I. (2010). “Physical modeling of pile
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2011 / 535
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2011.137:525-535.
penetration in clay using transparent soil and particle image velocim-
etry.” Geotechnique, 60(2), 121–132, [10.1680/geot.8.P.052].
O’Reilly, M. P., and New, B. M. (1982). “Settlements above tunnels in the
UK—Their magnitude and prediction.” Proc., Tunnelling ’82, IMM,
London, 173–181.
Paikowsky, S., and Xi F. (2000). “Particle motions tracking utilizing a high-
resolution digital CCD camera.” Geotech. Test. J., 23(1), 123–134.
Peck, R. B. (1969). “Deep excavations and tunneling in soft ground.” Proc.,
7th Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Socie-
dad Mexicanna dé Mecánica de Suelos (Mexican Society of Soil
Mechanics), Mexico City, 225–290.
Potts, D. M., and Addenbrooke, T. L. (1996). “The influence of an existing
surface structure on the ground movements due to tunnelling.” Proc.,
Int. Conf. on Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in
Soft Ground, R. Mair and R. Taylor, eds., Balkema, Rotterdam, The
Netherlands, 573–578.
Sadek, S., Iskander, M., and Liu, J. (2002). “Geotechnical properties of
transparent material to model soils.” Can. Geotech. J., 39, 111–124.
Sadek, S., Iskander, M., and Liu, J. (2003). “Accuracy of digital image cor-
relation for measuring deformations in transparent media.” J. Comput.
Civ. Eng., 17(2), 88–96.
Sadek, S., Iskander, M., and Liu, J. (2005). “Closure to accuracy of digital
image correlation for measuring deformation in transparent media.”
J. Comput. Civ. Eng., 19(2), 219–222.
Song, Z., Hu, Y., O’Loughlin, C., and Randolph, M. (2009). “Loss of
anchor embedment during plate keying in clay.” J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng., 135(10), 1475–1485.
Taylor, R., Grant, R., Robson, S., and Kuwano, J. (1998) “An image analy-
sis system for determining plane and 3D displacements in soil models.”
Proc,. Centrifuge ’98, Taylor and Francis, London, 73–78.
Vardoulakis, I., Graf, B., and Gudehus, G. (1981). “Trap-door problem with
dry sand: A statistical approach based upon model test kinematics.” Int.
J. Numer. Anal. Meth. Geomech., 5(1), 57–78.
Viggiani, G., and Atkinson, J. H. (1995). “Stiffness of fine-grained soil at
very small strains.” Geotechnique, 45(2):249–265.
Welker, A., Bowders, J., and Gilbert, R. (1999). “Applied research using
transparent material with hydraulic properties similar to soil.” Geotech.
Test. J., 22(3), 266–270.
White, D., Take W., and Bolton M. (2003). “Soil deformation measurement
using particle image velocimetry (PIV) and photogrammetry.” Geotech-
nique, 53(7), 619–631.
Wu, B., and Lee, C. (2003). “Ground movements and collapse mechanisms
induced by tunneling in clayey soil.” Int. J. Phys. Modell. Geotech.,
3(4), 15–29.