Muna Al Kaabi - Full-Text

Geologic Hazard Investigation for
Abu Dhabi
By
Muna Rashed Al Kaabi
A Dissertation Presented to the
Masdar Institute of Science and Technology
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the
Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
In
Interdisciplinary Engineering
© 2017 Masdar Institute of Science and Technology
All rights reserved

Abstract
Abu Dhabi is expecting a huge growth over the next 20 years and is planning a
massive integrated transportation system, including several modes of transportation to
ensure that Abu Dhabi becomes a sustainable city on a global scale. Most of these
structures are expected to encounter difficult ground and groundwater conditions,
which are a concern for construction both at the surface and underground. A first step
to manage the risks associated with this type of infrastructure is to manage the hazards
and the risk associated with the ground conditions. This research focuses on the study
of a particular ground hazard common in Abu Dhabi, gypsum dissolution and karst
formation, and its impacts on infrastructure development. This is done through the
development of two complementary tasks, and therefore the research includes two
parts. Part 1 focuses on the development of an up-to-date geologic model in
combination with a spatial inventory of karst-related features, based on an extensive
field survey and spatial statistical analysis. This allowed us to organize available data,
set up databases and catalogs of karst features and proposed a unified geologic
classification for Abu Dhabi subsurface. The developed 3D geologic model and the
spatial statistical analysis of the geologic data can serve as a tool for planning and
construction of urban systems in Abu Dhabi.
Part 2 of this research studies the effect of gypsum cavities on tunneling.
Geologic and construction data from the Strategic tunneling Enhancement programme
(STEP) tunnels, the largest pipeline infrastructure project in the GCC region, served
as the basis for the study. To investigate this problem, finite element analyses using
the software PLAXIS are conducted, where the size of the cavity, the location, and
ii
distance between the two openings is systematically varied. The simulations are
conducted in different ground types cohesive, granular and mixed ground. Results of
the analyses are presented graphically in charts that show the bending moment and
surface deformations as functions of the tunnel geometry, cavity characteristics,
construction parameters and properties of the ground. These graphs allow one to
identify the most critical scenarios for tunneling through the ground where cavities are
present.
iii
This research was supported by the Government of Abu Dhabi to help fulfill the
vision of the late President Sheikh Zayed Bin Sultan Al Nahyan for sustainable
development and empowerment of the UAE and humankind.
iv
Acknowledgments
Thanks to Allah for blessing me with all the beautiful things and the people in
my life. Thanks to Allah for reaching the moment where I am writing my Ph.D.
acknowledgment and the impossible becomes possible. Thank you for blessing me
with my biggest supporter and my strength during the whole time my lovely Mom
(May Allah bless her with long healthy life).
I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Rita Sousa for being the way she is. She
has been the beautiful caring sister and supportive advisor any student wishes to have.
Thank you for your trust, support and guidance which helped me to reach where I am
today.
I would like to thank my co-advisor, Dr. Hosni for his insightful comments
and encouragement. I would like also to thank my MIT RSC member, Professor
Herbert Einstein who I was honored to be under his supervision. Thank you,
Professor, for your Kindness, support, guidance and insightful feedbacks all the time.
I would like to thank the Municipality of Abu Dhabi city, Abu Dhabi
Sewerage Services Company (ADSSC) and Abu Dhabi General Services (Musanada),
for providing us with the needed data. Also, I would like to thank Eng. Nasser Al
Nuaimi, Deputy Programme Management Department Manager (ADSSC) as well as
Eng. Majed Al Marzouqi, Projects Engineer (ADSSC) for their continues support.
To my lovely and extraordinary friends, I am blessed with many good friends
who have been like a family to me, nothing can describe them. For me I see them as
different flavors because each one of them is a unique person that added a touch to my
v
life and all together bring a beautiful harmony. Wala my dearest friend and my sister I
will be always thankful for knowing you, thank you for you friendship and your
support since the beginning of my journey in Masdar. My Golden ladies Aamena,
Naeema, Meshayel, Shaikha, Vims and Cathy, I will always remember our times,
adventures, chats and all the precious moments we shared and for that I am thankful
to you. My soulmate and my sister Nahla, I truly appreciate your friendship, you
brought a different meaning to my life, you changed my perception about things and
today I am a better version of me because of your support. Tata Watita, you are the
most beautiful soul I have ever seen in my life, I am really grateful for knowing you,
meeting you and being a part of your family, love you so much. My lovely Amera, I
am thankful to know someone beautiful, sweet, caring and supportive like you, Allah
bless you my dear. My beautiful crazy twins Mzna and Mzoon, I have always enjoyed
my time with you girls, thank you so much for your friendship and your love. To
Azza and her lovely family, meeting you is one of the amazing things in my life. I
truly love you and I appreciate your love and your support especially during my study
time in Boston. Your presences there made my life easier and happier and no words
can express my feelings towards you people, may Allah bless you all.
Special Thanks to my precious friends who I was fortunate to know in my last
two years at Masdar Institute. Eman, Muhaira, Nora, Shaikha, Kholoud, Afra, Bota,
Abeer, Mona and Radia. You are something really extraordinary; I learned how to be
a true friend among other things from you guys. I am so lucky and beyond that
because I have you in my life and I consider your friendship as a major transaction
step in my life. Thank you for being there for me all the time, thank you million times
for entering my life and making it extra sweet.
vi
I would love also to thank a number of special friends for their friendship and
continuous support: Hessa, Kalthum, Ruqia, Hajar, Ryehana, Nassema, Al Naira,
Huda, Imen, Marwa, Abdullah Kaya, Abhishek Raj and Youssef Al Abd.
My Beautiful Saudi ladies: Haifa, Haya and Sara. It was a real pleasure to
know you girls and I will never forget our time in Boston, it will be always in my
heart and part of my special memories.
Finally, to my lovely family, thank you so much for your support whenever I
need it and for your understanding, May Allah bless you with happiness and long
healthy life.
Muna Rashed Al Kaabi,
Masdar City, December 20 2017
vii
Contents
_____________________________________________________________________
Contents
1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Executive summary ................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Contribution to Masdar Institute’s mission and research relevance to Abu Dhabi
and the UAE ........................................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Problem statement.................................................................................................... 2
1.4 Detailed Objectives.................................................................................................... 4
1.5 Scope of Work ........................................................................................................... 5
2 The 3D geologic model Methodology and Data Collection ............................................... 7
2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 7
2.2 GIS-based geologic and hydrogeological models ..................................................... 7
2.3 Developing a 3D geological model for Abu Dhabi area ......................................... 14
2.3.1 Abu Dhabi Surface Transportation plan .......................................................... 14
2.3.2 The Capital District, area Description, and geological setting ......................... 18
2.3.3 Framework of Abu Dhabi 3D geological Modelling ......................................... 21
3 3D Geologic Model and Spatial Data Analysis ................................................................. 38
3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 38
3.2 Spatial Interpolation ................................................................................................ 38
3.2.1 IDW .................................................................................................................. 40
3.2.2 Kriging .............................................................................................................. 41
3.2.3 Data characterization ...................................................................................... 42
3.2.4 Spatial statistical analysis ................................................................................ 47
3.3 Evaluation of the interpolation methods.................................................................. 58
3.3.1 Study area ........................................................................................................ 58
3.3.2 Creating cross-section “a” ............................................................................... 59
3.4 The Emirate Neighborhood Geologic Model .......................................................... 66
viii
4 Karst Hazard .................................................................................................................... 76
4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 76
4.2 Karst areas ............................................................................................................... 76
4.3 Mechanisms of developing karst features ............................................................... 78
4.4 Natural and anthropogenic geohazards hazards in karst areas and Society impact 80
4.4.1 Karst geohazards in Abu Dhabi city, UAE ........................................................ 82
5 Karst Cavity effect on Tunnel construction: STEP Project Case....................................... 87
5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 87
5.2 Strategic Tunnel Enhancement Programme (STEP) project in Abu Dhabi............. 87
5.2.1 Project description .......................................................................................... 87
5.3 Construction methods used by STEP ...................................................................... 92
5.3.1 Tunneling Boring Machine (TBM) .................................................................... 92
5.3.2 Pipe jacking and Micro-tunneling .................................................................... 96
5.4 STEP project cavity issues .................................................................................... 100
5.5 Cavity Grouting ..................................................................................................... 107
5.6 Summary ............................................................................................................... 111
6 Data and Methodology .................................................................................................. 113
6.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 113
6.2 Finite Element Method (FEM) ............................................................................... 114
6.3 PLAXIS 2D............................................................................................................... 116
6.4 Modelling 3D tunnel excavation using 2D plain strain analysis ............................ 116
6.5 Geometry and boundary conditions ....................................................................... 118
6.5.1 Model dimensions ......................................................................................... 118
6.5.2 Model Type and Elements ............................................................................. 119
6.5.3 2D meshing .................................................................................................... 121
6.5.4 Boundary conditions...................................................................................... 121
6.6 Material models and input data ............................................................................. 121
6.6.1 Hardening Soil model (HS) ............................................................................. 122
6.6.2 Hardening Soil model (HS) input data ........................................................... 124
6.6.3 Hoek-Brown model (HB)................................................................................ 125
6.6.4 Hoek-Brown model (HB) input data .............................................................. 127
6.6.5 Structural input data ..................................................................................... 129
6.7 Initial stress K0 and calculation stages .................................................................. 129
6.7.1 The role of Initial stress K0 ............................................................................ 129
ix
6.7.2 Calculation stages in PLAXIS 2D ..................................................................... 131
6.8 Empirical solution of surface settlement ............................................................... 142
7 Plaxis Results and Discussion......................................................................................... 145
7.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 145
7.2 Results of the Mudstone model ............................................................................ 146
7.2.1 Bending moment (BM) .................................................................................. 146
7.2.2 Surface Displacement .................................................................................... 149
7.2.3 Grouting effect on the value of bending moment and the displacement at the
surface 154
7.2.4 Settlements using empirical solution ............................................................ 156
7.3 Results of the Sand Model..................................................................................... 157
7.3.1 Bending moment (BM) .................................................................................. 157
7.3.2 Displacement at 0.5m cavity distance from tunnel wall ............................... 160
7.3.3 Grouting effect on the value of bending moment and the displacement at the
surface 162
7.3.4 Displacement at 0.5m comparing with empirical solution ........................... 164
7.4 Bending moment for a complex model using HB and HS models ......................... 165
7.5 Summary of the Bending moment results ............................................................ 166
7.6 Discussion .............................................................................................................. 168
7.6.1 The maximum Bending moment ................................................................... 169
7.6.2 Displacement at the surface .......................................................................... 174
7.6.3 Grouting effect............................................................................................... 180
7.6.4 Cavity/ Tunnel Collapse (“soil body collapse”) ........................................... 180
8 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 182
8.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 182
8.2 Three-Dimensional geologic model ...................................................................... 182
8.3 On the tunnel - Cavity interaction ......................................................................... 183
8.4 Recommendations and future work ....................................................................... 184
9 Bibliography ................................................................................................................... 186
x
List of Tables
_____________________________________________________________________
Table 2. 1. Final Geological unit codes followed in the current project ................................................. 32
Table 5. 1:STEP project sections[58, 68] ............................................................................................... 90

Table 5. 2: T02 contract STEP project characteristics [58] .................................................................... 93
Table 5. 3. Summary of Anomalies identified by the MASW-2D Survey: [74] .................................. 104
Table 5. 4. : Registered risks of STEP project LS-01[75]: ................................................................... 104
Table 6.1: Material properties of the soil layer ..................................................................................... 124

Table 6. 2: Material properties of the Mudstone layer.......................................................................... 127
Table 6. 3: Material properties of the Gypsum layer ............................................................................ 128
Table 6. 4: Material properties of the lining ......................................................................................... 129
Table 6. 5. Summary of the analysis .................................................................................................... 136
Table 6. 6. Summary of the analysis for grouting effect on the value of bending moment and the
displacement at the surface .......................................................................................................... 140
Table 6. 7. Summary of the analysis for Complex ground model ........................................................ 141
Table7. 1: Tunnel bending moment from all scenarios ........................................................................ 166
xi
List of Figures
_____________________________________________________________________
Figure 1.1. (a) Deep cavity encountered within sandstone (Abu Dhabi), (b) Cavity encountered within
sandstone (Al Falah area, Abu Dhabi), (c and d) Subsidence in Khalifa City leads to cracked
roads, walls, and houses. Adapted from[5, 6] .................................................................................. 3
Figure 1. 2. The Abu Dhabi capital district including the future developed area. The zoom box at the
right shows the area strategic location between the highways Adapted from [1] ............................ 4
Figure 2. 1. 3D geological modeling of a small area in the Capital District, Abu Dhabi, using Arc GIS.8
Figure 2. 2. Fence diagram generated by the GIS of the small area subsoil in the Capital District, Abu
Dhabi. .............................................................................................................................................. 9
Figure 2. 3. Areas covered by RIZZO 3D model. Adapted from [4]...................................................... 10
Figure 2. 4. Flow-chart of the proposed procedure in order to analyses the Turin city subsoil of urban
areas. Adapted from [10] ............................................................................................................... 12
Figure 2. 5: A) Traffic congestion in the2030 morning peak without the Plan. B) Traffic congestion in
the 2030 morning peak with the Plan. Green color represents under capacity areas while red is
over capacity. Adapted from [14] .................................................................................................. 16
Figure 2. 6. Abu Dhabi surface transportation plan. Adapted from[14, 15] ........................................... 17
Figure 2. 7. A) The map showed the location of the Emirati neighborhood within the capital district
area (blue triangle), adapted from [2]. B) Boreholes of the first (Musanada Company) and second
(the Spatial Data Division) data sets. ............................................................................................. 19
Figure 2. 8. A generalized stratigraphic column in the coastal sabkha area. Adapted from [4] ............. 20
Figure 2. 9. Proposed framework of The Abu Dhabi 3D geological model. .......................................... 22
Figure 2. 10. The frequency of the different Z-elevations of the Gypsum data from the first and second
data sets.......................................................................................................................................... 24
Figure 2. 11. The frequency of the different depths of the Gypsum data from the first and second data
sets. ................................................................................................................................................ 24
Figure 2. 12. The frequency of the Gypsum thickness data from the first and second data sets. ........... 25
Figure 2. 13. Gypsum thickness and depth relationship. ........................................................................ 25
Figure 2. 14 Classification of geological units followed by ACES. ....................................................... 27
Figure 2. 15 Classification of geological units followed by Swissboring............................................... 28
Figure 2. 16. Classification of geological units followed by NASA (BGP). .......................................... 28
Figure 2. 17. The classification of geological units followed by Fugro. ................................................ 29
Figure 2. 18. The classification of geological units followed by Costain. .............................................. 30
Figure 2. 19. Soil and rock type symbols by SPEKTRA JOETEK. Adapted from[2] .......................... 30
Figure 2. 20. Representative image for the spatial comparison between adjacent boreholes that was
followed over the 453 boreholes. ................................................................................................... 32
Figure 2. 21. Workflow for visualizing subsurface data and building 3D subsurface models. .............. 35
Figure 2. 22. Horizons assigned to contacts on boreholes. Adapted from [30] ...................................... 36
xii
Figure 2. 23: Example of A) Stratigraphic data, B) Sample data. Adapted from [30]............................ 37
Figure 3. 1. Search radius (in yellow). Adapted from [36] ..................................................................... 40

Figure 3. 2. Calculated surface using IDW based on power value and neighborhood search strategy.
Adapted from [36] ......................................................................................................................... 41
Figure 3. 3. The different types of semivariance curves. Adapted from [37] ......................................... 42
Figure 3. 4. Cavity Elevation distribution within the Abu Dhabi Municipality data. ............................. 44
Figure 3. 5. Cavity depth distribution within the Abu Dhabi Municipality data. ................................... 44
Figure 3. 6. Cavity Horizons show the distribution over the study area. ................................................ 45
Figure 3. 7. Distribution of gypsum Horizons from the bottom layers to the surface. ........................... 46
Figure 3. 8. A) Histogram of Horizon 28 .B) Histogram of Horizon 23. C) Histogram of Horizon 17
and D) Histogram of Horizon 9, with their descriptive statistic .................................................... 48
Figure 3. 9. Spatial trend direction A) Horizon _28, B) Horizon _23, C) Horizon_17 and D) Horizon_9
....................................................................................................................................................... 51
Figure 3. 10 Trend analysis A) Raster _28, B) Raster _23 C) Raster_17 and D) Raster_9. The green
dots are the projections of the data point’s elevations into W-E direction. The blue dots are the
projections of the data point’s elevations into N-S direction. ........................................................ 52
Figure 3. 11. Capital District history timeline of the surface change during the years 1996 and 1999-
2003. .............................................................................................................................................. 53
Figure 3. 12. Spatial autocorrelation report A) Horizon_28, B) Horizon _23, C) Horizon_17 and D)
Horizon_9 ...................................................................................................................................... 55
Figure 3. 13 Hotspot analysis A) Horizon_28, B) Horizon _23, C) Horizon_17, D) Horizon_9. For the
purpose of the current research, red color dots represent the high values (high values of elevation,
i.e. shallower depths) And the blue dots represent the lower values (low values of elevation, i.e.
higher depths). ............................................................................................................................... 56
Figure 3. 14. Semivariogram of Horizon # 28, at the top using the Gaussian function and at the bottom
using the Spherical function. ......................................................................................................... 57
Figure 3. 15. Zayed city .......................................................................................................................... 59
Figure 3. 16. Manual interpolation for the area surrounded section “a”. ................................................ 60
Figure 3. 17. Trials of modifying the cross-section “a” .......................................................................... 62
Figure 3. 18. A) sample of layers (Horizons) arranged by Horizon ID values. Geosection results by B)
default Fill and Clip option, C) using the clip option for the third horizon and D) using the Fill
option for the third horizon. Adapted from [29] ............................................................................ 63
Figure 3. 19 cross_ section “a”, after editing trial_4. ............................................................................. 63
Figure 3. 20. cross-section” a” using kriging ......................................................................................... 65
Figure 3. 21. resulted in the 3D model from Kriging ............................................................................. 65
Figure 3. 22. Data from Musanada of the Emirate Neighborhood. ........................................................ 66
Figure 3. 23. From the left the 3D geological model using kriging and from the right using IDW. ..... 68
Figure 3. 24. Comparing cross-section resulting from Kriging (top) and IDW (bottom) with
corresponding well-horizons (colors dots)..................................................................................... 68
Figure 3. 25. Cross-section (e), from the left using kriging interpolation and from the right using IDW.
The five selected boreholes used in this interpolation were at a distance of 20m from the cross-
section. ........................................................................................................................................... 69
Figure 3. 26. Cavity spatial distribution over the capital district from both data sets............................. 70
Figure 3. 27. The frequency of the different Z-elevations of the cavity data from the first and second
data sets over the Capital district. .................................................................................................. 70
Figure 3. 28. The Cavity depth distribution from the first and second data sets over the Capital district.
....................................................................................................................................................... 71
Figure 3. 29. The cavity thickness from the first and second data sets over the Capital district. ........... 71
Figure 3. 30. The relationship between the cavity size and depth. ......................................................... 72
xiii
Figure 3. 31. Mott MacDonald lithological model cross-section of Masdar city. Adapted from [41].... 73
Figure 3. 32. Cross- section resulting from using the entire data of the AD Municipality. ................... 74
Figure 4. 1 Some of the important karst features. Adapted from [44] .................................................... 77
Figure 4. 2 On the left (cavity/dissolution features in carbonate rock encountered during STEP project,
Abu Dhabi), and on the right (cavity in the weathered gypsiferous layer during site excavation,
Masdar city, Abu Dhabi).Adapted from [41, 48] ........................................................................... 78
Figure 4. 3. Karst formulation due to natural and human factors. Adapted from[49] ............................ 78
Figure 4. 4. The process of developing a stable cave chamber in a massive limestone layer over the
southern entrance chamber of Tham En, Laos. Adapted from[51] ................................................ 79
Figure 4. 5. The six types of sinkholes and their major parameters. Adapted from [51] ........................ 80
Figure 4. 6. On the left (giant sinkhole collapse in Fukuoka, Japan, on Nov. 8, 2016), and fixed a week
later on Nov. 15, 2016(on the right).Adapted from [57] ................................................................ 82
Figure 4. 7. Geological map of the Coastal Areas of Abu Dhabi.Adapted from [50] ............................ 83
Figure 4. 8.The geological profile of Working Shaft 5, STEP. Adapted from [58] ............................... 84
Figure 4. 9. Groundwater flows from cavities. Adapted from [50] ........................................................ 84
Figure 4. 10. Homes sit in Khalifa City where the ground has swelled under the pavement and cracked
the foundation.[6, 60] .................................................................................................................... 85
Figure 4. 11. sinkhole collapse due to rainwater infiltration. Adapted from [61] ................................... 86
Figure 5. 1. The layout of STEP. Adapted from [64] ............................................................................. 89

Figure 5. 2. Layout Plan of Link Sewers A) Contract LS-01 and B) Contract LS-02. Adapted from[67]
....................................................................................................................................................... 91
Figure 5. 3. A) Tunnel and links sewer system (sewer links in yellow, deep tunnel in blue), B) Gravity
flow system, C&D) Pump station. Adapted from [62, 69] ............................................................ 92
Figure 5. 4Installation of TBM, STEP [64] ............................................................................................ 93
Figure 5. 5.Breakthrough of the TBM, STEP [64] ................................................................................. 94
Figure 5. 6. EPBM principles. Adapted from [70] ................................................................................. 95
Figure 5. 7. EPB machine. Adapted from [70] ....................................................................................... 95
Figure 5. 8. EPBM operation modes. Adapted from [70, 71] ................................................................. 96
Figure 5. 9. Jacking System, STEP [64] ................................................................................................. 98
Figure 5. 10. Pipe Jacking site setup, STEP. Adapted from [67]............................................................ 98
Figure 5. 11. Micro-tunneling Machine, STEP. Adapted from [64] ....................................................... 99
Figure 5. 12. Micro-tunneling Procedure, STEP. Adapted from [64] .................................................... 99
Figure 5. 13. Pipe Jacking and MTBM. Adapted from [73] ................................................................. 100
Figure 5. 14. The layout of the investigated site (LS-01).the Zoomed image to the right is the proposed
sewer line (2.8 km). Adapted from [74] ...................................................................................... 101
Figure 5. 15. Geophysical measurements for LS-01.adapted from[74] ................................................ 102
Figure 5. 16. Shear Wave (Vs) Measurements versus Depth [74] ........................................................ 103
Figure 5. 17. The approximate clearance between invert of pipe/TBM and cavity is 1.7m. Adapted from
[76] .............................................................................................................................................. 106
Figure 5. 18 Invert of pipe/TBM is within the cavity. Adopted from [76] ........................................... 106
Figure 5. 19. Cavity encountered during shaft excavation and mitigation measures [48] .................... 107
Figure 5. 20. Exploratory borehole box from STEP LS-01 Line J showing two cavities around 19-21m.
Adapted from [77] ....................................................................................................................... 108
Figure 5. 21. Grouting sequence at LS-01. Adapted from [77] ............................................................ 109
Figure 5. 22. Layout plan northwest link sewer line-J of the cavity Grouting work. Adapted from [77]
..................................................................................................................................................... 109
Figure 5. 23. Grouting operations at NWLS Line J. Adapted from [77] .............................................. 110
Figure 5. 24.Grouting operations at NWLS. Adapted from [78] .......................................................... 111
xiv
Figure 6. 1 Cavity distance from the invert of pipe/TBM, in NWLS – Lines L and J. Adapted from [76]
..................................................................................................................................................... 114
Figure 6. 2. Symmetrical half of a) 2D-FE mesh and b) 3D-FE mesh. Adapted from [79] .................. 115
Figure 6. 3 . Different FE shapes available for 2D and 3D FE-mesh. Adapted from [80] ................... 115
Figure 6. 4. Contraction method. A) The uplifting movement of lining during the excavation; B)
Tunnel contraction △R. Adapted from [79] ................................................................................. 118
Figure 6. 5. 2D FE meshing dimensions and boundary conditions. ..................................................... 119
Figure 6. 6. Examples of plain strain model (left) and Axisymmetric model (right). Adapted from[82]
..................................................................................................................................................... 120
Figure 6. 7. The position of nodes and stress points in a) 15-node triangle and b) 6-node triangle.
Adapted from [82] ....................................................................................................................... 120
Figure 6. 8. Hyperbolic stress-strain relation in primary loading for the standard drained triaxial test.
Adapted from [85]. ...................................................................................................................... 123
Figure 6. 9. Hoek-Brown failure criterion in principle stresses. Adapted by [82] ................................ 127
Figure 6. 10. Initial stresses magnitude and orientation. a) Homogeneous ground with horizontal
ground surface, b) Horizontally layered ground with horizontal ground surface, c) homogeneous
ground with non-horizontal ground surface. Adapted from [79] ................................................. 131
Figure 6. 11. The basic staged construction steps followed in this study and the location of the Before
grouting stage (BG) and After Lining (AL) stages. ..................................................................... 134
Figure 6. 12. The basic staged construction steps followed in this study ............................................. 134
Figure 6. 13. The complex ground model consists of three layers Sand, mudstone and Gypsum. ...... 135
Figure 6. 14. Schematic of the tunnel interaction simulations (a) Cavity diameter; (b) tunnel diameter;
(d) distance between tunnel and cavity walls; (α) angle cavity. At the right side, a schematic
showed the cavity inside mudstone and sand models. ................................................................. 136
Figure 6. 15. The naming system of the analysis cases followed in the current study. ........................ 136
Figure 6. 16. Normal probability curve used to describe transverse settlement trough. Adapted from
[95] .............................................................................................................................................. 144
Figure 7. 1. The bending moment of Cavity with the diameters of 0.5m, 1m, and 2m at two different
calculation stages; (BG) and (AL), the cavity is below at the tunnel invert (-90°). ..................... 148
Figure 7.2. The bending moment of Cavity with the diameters of 0.5m, 1m, and 2m at Two different
calculation stages; (BG) and (AL), the cavity is above the crown of the tunnel (90°)................. 148
Figure 7.3. The bending moment of Cavity with the diameters of 0.5m, 1m, and 2m ......................... 149
Figure 7. 4. The maximum bending moment in mudstone base case (4.035 kN m/m). ....................... 149
Figure 7.5. The surface displacement of the Cavity with a 1m diameter at the (AL) and (BG), at
different angles; invert (-90°), Crown (90°), and side (0°). ......................................................... 151
Figure 7.6. The surface displacement of the Cavity with 1m diameter, during the contraction stage, at
Figure 7.7 The surface displacement of the Cavity with a 2m diameter at the (AL) and (BG), at
different angles; invert (-90°), Crown (90°), and side (0°). ....................................................... 153
Figure 7.8 The surface displacement of the cavity with 2m diameter, during the contraction stage, at
Figure 7.9. The bending moment of 2m Cavity at (AL) using different grouting values, at different
angles; invert (-90°), Crown (90°), and side (0°). ........................................................................ 155
Figure 7.10. The displacement of 2m Cavity at the after lining (AL) using different grouting values, at
Figure 7.11. The displacement results from O'Reilly, Clough and the current study BC [Hoek-Brown]
(using two different grouting 432 and 250 KN/m2 ) ................................................................... 157
Figure 7.12. The bending moment of Cavity with the diameters of 0.5m, 1m, and 2m at two different
calculation stages; (BG) and (AL), the cavity is below the tunnel invert (-90°). ......................... 159
xv
calculation stages; (BG) and (AL), the cavity is above the crown (90°) of the tunnel................. 159
calculation stages; (BG) and (AL), the cavity is at the tunnel side (0°). ...................................... 160
Figure 7. 15. The maximum bending moment of tunnel lining in the sand model BC (5.626 kN m/m)
..................................................................................................................................................... 160
Figure 7. 16. The surface displacement of the Cavity with a 1m diameter at the (AL) and (BG), at
Figure 7. 17. The surface displacement of the Cavity with a 2m diameter at the (AL) and (BG), at
Figure 7.18. The bending moment of 2m Cavity at the after lining (AL) using different grouting values,
at different angles; invert (-90°), Crown (90°), and side (0°). ................................................... 163
Figure 7.19. The displacement of 2m Cavity at the after lining (AL) using different grouting values, at
different angles; invert (-90°), Crown (90°), and side (0°). ........................................................ 164
Figure 7.20. A) zoom into the displacement results from O’Reilly and Clough, B ) comparing the
empirical one with the results of the current study [HS] at the base case where no cavity
introduced into the calculation ..................................................................................................... 165
Figure 7. 21. The bending moment of 2m Cavity at the after lining (AL) for a complex geology model,
Cavity at different angles; invert (-90°), Crown (90°), and side (0°). ........................................ 166
Figure 7.22. The change of the Kt with distance (0.5m to 3m). For Two unequal circular holes (b=4m)
and (a=1m) in biaxial tension within the infinite plate. Adapted from [96] ................................ 170
Figure 7. 23. Total displacements in the sand model with a 2m cavity at 0.5m distance from tunnel A)
at final lining stage and B) after cavity occurrence. ..................................................................... 171
Figure 7.24. Displacement direction at 2m cavity during after-lining stage A) in sand medium and B)
Mudstone medium. ...................................................................................................................... 172
Figure 7. 25. The maximums BM and total displacement for the case (AL_2_90) in (A) mudstone
model and (B) Sand model. ......................................................................................................... 173
Figure 7. 26. Total displacement for The BC without activating the cavity in mudstone. A) tunnel
excavation step, B) Contraction, C) Grouting and D) Final lining. ............................................. 176
Figure 7. 27. Total displacement during (BG_2_0) in mudstone , A) Cavity activation step and B)
Grouting step. .............................................................................................................................. 177
Figure 7. 28. Total displacement during (AL_2_0) in mudstone, at the final stage after the cavity
occurrence. ................................................................................................................................... 178
Figure 7.29. A) Plastic points around a 2m cavity at BG stage in the sand model and B) the stress
response at the same stage of (A). ............................................................................................... 181
xvi
CHAPTER 1
1 Introduction
1.1 Executive summary
Urban systems and the transportation systems within them consist of many
subsystems that interact during construction and operation. Planning, implementing
and operating such systems require sufficient evaluation of the subsurface conditions
and uncertainties affecting them. The research intends to analyze some of these
uncertainty effects, which measure natural geological uncertainties and can be
extended to other natural hazards. Specifically, this research will focus on studying
the mechanics of gypsum rock hazard, through a field research study, and the
development of up to date 3D geological and hydrogeological models. In addition to
this, the interaction between tunneling and gypsum cavities (voids) will be studied by
considering different soil/rock material, cavity sizes, etc. The proposed analysis is an
important step toward evaluating the transportation system in Abu Dhabi and provides
an insightful look at tunneling through difficult ground conditions of Abu Dhabi,
through the analysis of a case study of the STEP programme tunnels.
1.2 Contribution to Masdar Institute’s mission and research relevance to Abu
Dhabi and the UAE
1
The proposed research contributes on the one hand to the better understanding of the
solution processes of gypsum rock seams located within the subsurface, contributing
factors as well as associated consequences to transportation planning and construction
both above and below ground. On the other hand, the analysis will provide a better
understanding to the uncertainties affecting tunneling and will serve as the basis for
stakeholders and decision makers to support decisions related to planning,
construction, and operation of transportation systems. The work can be extended to
other natural hazards and Emirates, and possibly create the framework for a program
at the Masdar Institute of Science and Technology that can have continuous value to
its host nation for years to come.
1.3 Problem statement
Abu Dhabi is expecting a huge growth over the next 20 years and is planning a
massive integrated transportation system, including several modes of transportation
such as bus, rail, and metro, to ensure Abu Dhabi becomes a sustainable city on a
global scale. Most of these structures are expected to encounter difficult ground and
groundwater conditions, which are of concern to construction both at the surface and
underground. In particular, the presence of gypsum that occurs within the tertiary
bedrock, as persistent quasi-horizontal bands, at different levels, may cause problems
because it is prone to volume change by dissolution, due to changes water chemistry
and flow. The dissolution of gypsum is also a cause for cavities that can be found
within this formation in greater Abu Dhabi, as shown in Figure 1.1.
The Abu Dhabi Capital District area has been chosen as one of the city centers in the
developed Transportation plan of Abu Dhabi, where it plays a role in connecting the
main areas of the Abu Dhabi, see Figure 1. 2. The Abu Dhabi Capital District area is
2
located between Mohammed Bin Zayed City and Abu Dhabi International Airport at
the southern side of Abu Dhabi Island. The area covers about fourty five (45) squared
kilometers of Abu Dhabi land and is strategically located between the highways E-20
and E-22 from north and West sides and the E-11 from the South side [1, 2], see
Figure 1. 2. This area will witness major surface and subsurface developments.
However the area is still under exploration and only limited subsurface studies have
done [3, 4]. It is, therefore essential to initiate a study focusing on studying the
subsurface conditions.
Figure 1.1. (a) Deep cavity encountered within sandstone (Abu Dhabi), (b) Cavity
encountered within sandstone (Al Falah area, Abu Dhabi), (c and d) Subsidence in
Khalifa City leads to cracked roads, walls, and houses. Adapted from[5, 6]
3
Figure 1. 2. The Abu Dhabi capital district including the future developed area. The
zoom box at the right shows the area strategic location between the highways Adapted
from [1]
In order to address some of the issues mentioned above, this research is divided into
two parts. The first part (part I) focuses on studying the phenomena of gypsum karst
for the Abu Dhabi capital district area through the development of an up to date
geologic database in combination with a spatial inventory of karst-related features
(cavities). The second part (part II) focuses on studying the interaction between
tunneling and cavities, specifically through different cases with respect to soil/rock
medium, cavity size, and location.
1.4 Detailed Objectives
The objectives of the research are as follows:
Part I Field Survey and Geologic Model
4
• Field Survey Study: Collection of geological data on the Abu Dhabi
subsurface.
• Spatial inventory: of gypsum rock hazard related incidents.
• Creation of a Database of geological data for the city of Abu Dhabi.
• Development of an updated 3D geological model for Abu Dhabi.
Part II tunneling/cavity interaction
• A comprehensive numerical study of the tunneling and cavity interaction
considering different parameters that might affect or trigger risks during
tunnel construction, such as ground properties, cavity size, angle and cavity –
tunnel distance.
1.5 Scope of Work
The study objectives will be achieved through the following tasks:
I. A field survey study to gain a better understanding of the geology, and to
develop an accurate and updated geologic mapping of the area. Available
information was collected from various sources such as existing borings, thin
section descriptions, and geologic maps, among others. The borehole logs data
for this research were provided by Musanada (68 Borehole logs) and the Abu
Dhabi Municipality (453 Borehole logs). The data organized and stored as an
interactive database. The description of the collected data is detailed in
Chapter 2.
II. Spatial inventory of gypsum rock hazard related incidents (cavities) using Arc
GIS and GMS software (Chapter 3). Information on gypsum rock hazard
related features was collected from the existing boreholes and mapped to
produce a spatial inventory of these features.
5
III. Build of an updated 3D geologic model for the Capital District area (Chapter
3). This task will make it possible to gain a better understanding of the
geology in this area, in particular, the distribution of the gypsum within the
bedrocks. Furthermore, it will serve as the basis for the development of
predictive tools for problems such as collapse, swelling, subsidence, etc. The
survey data (collected in task I) is used to develop the 3D geologic model.
IV. Numerical simulations of tunneling/cavity interactions are conducted using
data from STEP project of Abu Dhabi City provided by Abu Dhabi Sewerage
Services Company (ADSSC). The tunneling /cavity interaction simulations
will be done with finite element code PLAXIS 2D and consider different
parameters that might affect risks related to cavity presence during tunnel
construction (chapter 7).
6
CHAPTER 2
2 The 3D geologic model Methodology and Data
Collection
2.1 Introduction
This chapter includes, firstly, a background on studies done, using GIS methods, to
examine subsurface and karst terrain and a literature review on the development of 3D
geologic models. The second part of the chapter describes the steps followed to
develop the 3D geologic model of the Capital district area of Abu Dhabi. Specifically,
the framework followed will be discussed in detail such as data collection, database,
unifying the geologic units and the software used to analyze the data and to build the
3D models. An overview of the Abu Dhabi surface transportation plan will also be
included in the chapter.
2.2 GIS-based geologic and hydrogeological models
Geographic Information Systems (GIS) allows storing and managing spatial data that
are critical for karst collapse susceptibility. The ability of GIS to integrate many types
of data sources (geology, geophysics, geochemistry, wells, etc.) makes this tool
invaluable for subsurface modeling [7].The ArcGIS 3D modeling tool, a GIS for
7
working with maps and geographic information, is a valuable tool that can be used to
represent engineering geological subsurface data and build geologic models, as shown
in Figure 2. 1 and Figure 2. 2. This type of tool is particularly useful when assessing
geologic hazards, such as for example gypsum karstification, which we will be
addressing in this research. Gypsum karstification can result in different problems
such as destruction of engineering structures, produce settlement areas, cause
infiltration of a contaminant into the groundwater and produce natural lakes, and
therefore its assessment is crucial.[8]
Figure 2. 1. 3D geological modeling of a small area in the Capital District, Abu

Dhabi, using Arc GIS.
8
Figure 2. 2. Fence diagram generated by the GIS of the small area subsoil in the
Capital District, Abu Dhabi.
The development of 3D geologic models is an essential practice that serves
geotechnical and geological engineers. Limited work has been done in the
characterization of the subsurface of Abu Dhabi. One report by the Abu Dhabi
Municipality (ADM) presents the geological setting, a 3D lithostratigraphic model,
and a 3D lithologic model. The 3D lithostratigraphic model is an updated model by
RIZZO [4] to the existing lithostratigraphic model that was developed by the British
Geologic Survey (BGS) for the United Arab Emirates (UAE) Ministry of Energy
(MoE).The updated lithostratigraphic model by RIZZO was extended to covers more
areas using the same methodology as the existing model of (MOE). The RIZZO
model covers Al Wathba, Al Nahda, Al Khadim towards the east, Al Shamkha South,
Al Shahma, Al Rahba, Al Hanjurah, Al Taweelah, Al Samha, and Khalifa Industrial
City A and B towards the north, as shown in Figure 2. 3. The advantage of the 3D
model was to gain an understanding of the regional geological conditions as well as
visualizing the distribution, thickness, and elevation of stratigraphic units. The
lithologic 3D model (geotechnical model) is based mainly on lithologic descriptions
found in borehole logs from ADM Geotechnical Information Management System
(GIMS).[4]
9
Figure 2. 3. Areas covered by RIZZO 3D model. Adapted from [4]
One example of a GIS application for mapping is the study that was done for the city
of Paris, to improve an existent hazard map of the areas that are likely affected by
ground instability due to gypsum dissolution. For this purpose, different analyses
were carried out and a 3D geologic model was developed following three main steps.
The first step consisted of defining a geological frame reference to group the
lithostratigraphic formations into large homogeneous units considering their different
mechanical and hydrologic behavior. The second step consisted of building a database
containing the descriptions of existing borehole data after applying quality control on
the boreholes data to ensure its consistency. A control procedure included the
identification of duplicated boreholes, the examination of the borehole interfaces’
consistency and comparison with the geological boundaries, the comparison between
neighboring boreholes, among other measures. The third step consisted of choosing a
geological interpolation method to build a 3D model of the subsurface. In this case,
10
kriging was used because it can produce the estimated error corresponding to each
interpolated value. This is done by plotting iso-uncertainty curves which represent the
accuracy of the interpolation method along the study area. The developed geologic
model was used to study other issues such as sand flow and clay creep.[9]
The complex nature of the ground beneath the city of Turin in Italy showed the need
for the development of a 3D subsurface geological-geotechnical model that could be
used as a planning tool, for future underground development in the city. Rienzo.et al
[10] proposed a methodology that was used to build the 3D GIS geological-
geotechnical model for sustainable subsoil planning in the Turin city, see Figure 2. 4.
More than 300 boreholes were used to develop the geologic model to represent the
subsurface up to a depth of 60 m. The model development included various aspects
that ranged from stratigraphic analysis and evaluation of the geotechnical parameters
to the management of the model by the geographical information system (GIS). The
3D GIS geological-geotechnical model was successfully used in applications related
to underground engineering such as providing useful information for defining specific
characteristics of the excavation machines and construction strategies in general.
11
Figure 2. 4. Flow-chart of the proposed procedure in order to analyses the Turin city
subsoil of urban areas. Adapted from [10]
In 1993, with the goal of avoiding accidents and cost increases during the extensive
underground work construction that was planned for the city of the Stockholm, the
Geological Survey of Sweden (SGU) started a comprehensive investigation of the
geology of the Stockholm area. The reason for the investigation was to come up with
detailed maps of the surface conditions and a detailed 3D model based on existing
12
data that could be updated with underground information to be available during the
planning and construction phase of any future underground projects. For the purpose
of creating the model/database, different geological data were collected, from
boreholes and geophysical measurements, such as magnetic, radiation information
and very low-frequency data that shows electrical conductive horizons in the bedrock.
Through the combination of the geologic data with other subsurface and surface data,
such as utility lines, buildings, morphology, hydrography, a detailed map for the
surface was produced. The 3D model and the surface map allows one to match the
underground information with the surface information, this would provide useful
information on underground projects effects (environmental, social, etc) in the
populated areas. Additionally, the 3D model was used for other projects that have
been conducted in Stockholm region.[11]
Groundwater flow was modeled over the geologically complex area located into the
east of Basel on the southeastern border of the Upper Rhine Graben. The study
developed a novel approach based on integrating geological data into a hydrological
model. A 3D geological model was developed to combine all the geological
information from diverse sources such as borehole descriptions, geological maps, and
geological cross-sections. The resulting geologic model includes forty-seven faults
and six stratigraphic horizons related to groundwater flow. These faults and horizons
were later represented as separate elements to simulate the 3D groundwater flow
system within the modeled aquifers. The results of the groundwater modeling provide
information on the industrial pumping effects. Furthermore, the results of the model
will serve as a ground for future developments on models related to groundwater
contamination and land subsidence risks. [12]
13
In China, karst terrain covers large parts of the land which brought the need for
studying karst features. Wu, Q.et al [13], developed a 3D model to study karst
features in Huaibei, China. The study integrates geology, groundwater hydrology, a
geographic information system (GIS), a database management system (DBMS),
visualization and data mining. The study aimed at building 3D geological elements
from karst features, store them and handle them by DBMS, forming virtual
environment out of the 3D geological models and the stored data. The success of the
study provided the government and policy makers with a powerful tool to manage
water resources over the study area.
2.3 Developing a 3D geological model for Abu Dhabi area
2.3.1 Abu Dhabi Surface Transportation plan
Abu Dhabi plans to develop a world-class transportation system to support the Abu
Dhabi 2030 vision. The city is expected to have an impressive growth in population
within the next 20 years (up to 3.1 million). The Surface Transportation Plan will
address the increasing needs of regional transportation by residents, visitors and
businesses in a safe, smart and environmentally sustainable approach. Abu Dhabi’s
development has a dynamic nature that brings the need for a continuous monitoring of
the plan by the Department of Transport (DoT) to keep it updated. The plan will
efficiently use the available land as well as reducing existing jamming problems
shown in Figure 2. 5. Two City centers will be constructed to create a balanced traffic
flow into two directions; one will be located in the Abu Dhabi downtown area while
the other one will be in the new Capital District, as shown in Figure 2. 6. To
accommodate different needs, the integrated transportation network will consist of a
high-speed rail, a local metro railway, a cargo rail, a surface network of buses,
14
streetcars and a light rail, with a sufficient number of interconnected streets, as shown
in Figure 2. 6.[14, 15]
Abu Dhabi adopted two major themes to influence the integrated transportation
system and make it more sustainable. Sustainability is considered as the first essential
theme, with emphasis on reducing the current dependency on private transportation.
The developed plan should efficiently use available resources without damaging
natural and cultural resources and without unnecessarily destroying buildings. As a
second theme, Abu Dhabi wants to assure an efficient connectivity between different
areas with the emphasis on the connection between future sustainable land use
patterns and the influence of the transport network on Abu Dhabi. The newly
developed islands and the growing nodes will need a multi-layered transport network
to connect them with the downtown core, see Figure 2. 6 [14, 15]
15
Figure 2. 5: A) Traffic congestion in the2030 morning peak without the Plan. B)
Traffic congestion in the 2030 morning peak with the Plan. Green color represents
under capacity areas while red is over capacity. Adapted from [14]
16
Figure 2. 6. Abu Dhabi surface transportation plan. Adapted from[14, 15]
17
2.3.2 The Capital District, area Description, and geological setting
The Abu Dhabi Capital District area is located between Mohammed Bin Zayed City
and Abu Dhabi International Airport at the southern side of Abu Dhabi Island. The
area covers about forty-five (45) square kilometers of Abu Dhabi land and is
strategically bonded by the highways E-20 and E-22 from North and West sides and
E-11 from the South side, as shown in Figure 2. 7. The Capital District Area was
chosen as one of the two city centers in the developed Transportation plan for Abu
Dhabi, see Figure 2. 6. The area plays an important role in connecting the main areas
of the Abu Dhabi metropolitan area, such as the International Airport of Abu Dhabi,
Al Raha Beach, the Palaces District, Central Business District, Corniche District, the
Cultural District on Saadiyat Island , Masdar City, Sheikh Mohammed Bin Zayed
City and Sheikh Khalifa Cities A & B, see Figure 2. 3. Additionally, part of the area
will be developed to serve a community dominated by Emirati national families called
the Emirati neighborhood, see Figure 2. 7. [2]
18
Figure 2. 7. A) The map showed the location of the Emirati neighborhood within the
capital district area (blue triangle), adapted from [2]. B) Boreholes of the first
(Musanada Company) and second (the Spatial Data Division) data sets.
The general geological setting of the Khalifa City area where the Emirati
neighborhood located is represented by Miocene aged bedrock which is a repetitive
alternation of mudstone, siltstone, and beds of gypcrete (huge gypsum layers).
19
Occasionally, the Miocene bedrock outcropping with a gypsiferous weak sandstone
veneer and gypcrete.
Different deposits are known to cover the Miocene rock, where a deposit of thin
sandy fill and locally gravels initiating from the quaternary deposits of aged fluvial
gravels (weak conglomerate) and disjointed Aeolian weakly cemented sandstones, see
Figure 2. 8 . [2]
Figure 2. 8. A generalized stratigraphic column in the coastal sabkha area. Adapted

from [4]
Intertidal actions caused natural filling starting in the Capital District and north of
Sheikh Khalifa City )A(. Those actions lead to recent deposits of sand, gravel, and
fines (tidal flat Sabkha deposits) that were covered by man-made fill. Sea level has
fluctuated at the Arabian Gulf shorelines. It has transgressed and regressed through
time and progressively dropped more than 10m in the latest ice age. The groundwater
level in the area is believed to be tidally driven, in such a case the sea level
fluctuations will lead to fluctuation in groundwater flow through the siltstones and
mudstones and evaporate units. Leading to a dissolution of soluble rocks existing
20
between 5 and 20 m under the current ground level, which is one of the main reasons
for the existence of cavities within the subsurface in the area.[2]
2.3.3 Framework of Abu Dhabi 3D geological Modelling
In this research we developed a 3D geologic model for Capital District area following
the proposed Framework, as shown in Figure 2. 9 and detailed below:
Step 1 and 2: The data were collected and organized in a database according to their
source of origin (Musanada Company and ADM) with the main fields (attributes) as
borehole ID, drilling date, top/bottom elevations, geographic location, among others.
Step 3: The geological units used by the different drilling companies were compared
and a unified geological unit’s system was developed to be used for the current
project.
Step 4: Data tables with key attributes are extracted to be used in the ArcGIS (GIS
software) and in the GMS (Ground Modelling System) Software
Step 5: Horizon IDs are defined within GMS. Horizon ID is used to relate the
different boreholes. They define the interface between the geological layers. They are
numbered from bottom up as the order of strata deposited, following the convention
adopted by GMS.[16]
Step 6: The Arc GIS software is used to build the 3D model, geologic cross sections,
and longitudinal profiles. The data set follows the “WGS 1984 UTM Zone 40N”
horizontal datum and the NADD as a vertical datum commonly adopted in Abu
Dhabi.
21
Figure 2. 9. Proposed framework of The Abu Dhabi 3D geological model.
22
2.3.3.1 Data Collection and Database
Two geologic data sets are used in this research. The first data set (for the Emirati
neighborhood) was provided by the Musanada Company and it will be used to
develop the last version of the 3D model, as the data is most recent and believed to
have better engineering supervision than the second data set. The data provided by
Musanada cover the Emirati neighborhood (Package-3) which is located in the capital
district, see Figure 2. 7. The data were obtained during the period (2010-2011) by
SPEKTRA JOETEK geotechnical engineers and include 68 Borehole logs with a
depth of 20 m. The borehologs show that the subsurface includes alternating layers of
mudstone and gypsum overlay by sand and intrusion of other soil and rocks as
conglomerate and limestone. Moreover, the top layer mostly consists of Fill (man-
made ground).
The second data set has been provided by the Spatial Data Division of the Abu Dhabi
Municipality and obtained between 2000 and 2003 by five different companies. The
data consist of 453 borehole logs with the depth of 10 to 20 m. The data set covers the
Capital District and surrounded areas: Khalifa City, Zayed City, Mohamed Bin Zayed
City and Shakhbout City, as shown in Figure 2. 7. The drilling of the boreholes was
conducted by five different companies: Arab Center for Engineering Studies (ACES),
Swissboring, NASA international group (BGP), Fugro and Costain. This implies that
different naming systems were used for the geological units and, therefore, there is the
need to come up with our own naming system. This will be discussed in detail in the
following section. The geological layers are a sequence of sand, silt-clay, siltstone,
gypsum, calcarenite, claystone, clay, sandstone, mudstone, and limestone.
Gypsum layers from both data sets can be found at different elevations, as shown by
the histogram in Figure 2. 10. The main occurrence is around the elevations (-2.5 to -
23
5 m) and (-12.5m) which corresponds to depths of about 10 m and 20m, as shown in
Figure 2. 11. These gypsum layers are mostly associated with the occurrence of
mudstones. The gypsum layers range in thickness from a few meters up to 9.7 m, as
shown in Figure 2. 12. Additionally, the data shows no relationship between the
gypsum layer thickness and the gypsum layer depth, see Figure 2. 13.
Figure 2. 10. The frequency of the different Z-elevations of the Gypsum data from
the first and second data sets.
Figure 2. 11. The frequency of the different depths of the Gypsum data from the first
and second data sets.
24
Figure 2. 12. The frequency of the Gypsum thickness data from the first and second
data sets.
Figure 2. 13. Gypsum thickness and depth relationship.
Large geologic datasets can pose a difficulty when building a 3D geological model.
The issues are mainly related to data heterogeneity and the accuracy of the data
description. Consequently, accurate reviewing of the data is essential to assure the
reliability of the results. Controlling input data will add reliability through reducing
25
errors resulted from technical report, typing errors, interpretation errors. For these
reasons, the collected data were grouped based on the different drilling companies
which use different geologic classification systems. The 453 boreholes need to be
carefully reviewed to insure an adequate level of consistency within the input data.
The data controlling process included manual entering for the data to assure the
detailed accuracy included in the borehole logs reports (depths, reference elevation,
geological units, etc.), verifying duplicated boreholes and the borehole's X and Y
coordinates. In the next stage, the data were checked again using Groundwater
Modeling System software (GMS) to help to identify typing errors, duplicate
boreholes, and coordinates precision. This allows us to discover inconsistencies and
other anomalies in the data. The details of these boreholes are recorded in a database
containing main attributes as borehole name, coordinates, reference elevation, and top
and bottom elevation of the different layers and unique geological unit number for
different geological units.
2.3.3.2 Unifying Geological units
As mentioned in section 2.3.3.1, data inconsistencies can create difficulties when
building the 3D geologic model, in particular during the interpolation process. In
order to address this issue, we have performed some data controlling activities
(described previously). During this process we identified several different
classification systems, used by different companies. These classification systems were
compared to each other, and a new unified classification system is proposed for the
current project. Below we provide a brief description of the classification systems
used by the different drilling companies.
Description of classification system:
26
Arab Center for Engineering Studies (ACES):
In 1983, the company was founded in Jordan. It was specialized in a geotechnical and
materials testing, while today it offers additional different types of services as quality
control of projects, special studies, environmental studies and testing, and land and
marine surveying. [17]
In the current study, 107 out of the 453 boreholes were drilled by Arab Center for
Engineering Studies (ACES). The borehole logs by ACES were reviewed to
summarize the classification system, as shown in Figure 2. 14. It was noticed that the
company tends to use a detailed classification for different units which could create
complexity during building the model.
Figure 2. 14 Classification of geological units followed by ACES.
Swissboring:
The company was originated from Switzerland in 1952 and by 1973 their office was
established in Dubai. They work on different projects related to soil investigation,
underpinning, grouting projects and piling/shoring projects [18]. In the current study,
73 out of the 453 boreholes were done by Swissboring. The borehole logs were
reviewed to summarize the classification system, as shown in Figure 2. 15. It was
27
noticed that the company tend to use broad categories to classify rock and soil type,
providing less details to address the different geological units, and less alternative
names for the same units.
Figure 2. 15 Classification of geological units followed by Swissboring.
NASA international group (BGP):
NASA international group (BGP) is a company located in Abu Dhabi. In the current
project, 268 out of the 453 boreholes were done by BGP. The borehole logs were
reviewed to summarize the classification system, as shown in Figure 2. 16. It was
noticed that the company tends to use a similar classification system as Swissboring
to address the different geological units.
Figure 2. 16. Classification of geological units followed by NASA (BGP).
28
Fugro:
Fugro is a global company working mainly in energy and infrastructure market. The
company considers a leader in the offshore survey, offshore geotechnical and seabed
geophysical services. [19]
In the current project, two out of the 453 boreholes were done by Fugro. The borehole
logs were reviewed to summarize the classification system, as shown in Figure 2. 17.
It was noticed that, similar to ACES, Fugro tend to use a more detailed classification
Figure 2. 17. The classification of geological units followed by Fugro.
Costain:
The company was founded in 1865 in Liverpool and it provides services related to
highways, rails, water supply and energy. [20]
Only three out of the 453 boreholes were drilled by Costain in the current study. The
borehole logs were reviewed to summarize the classification system, as shown in
Figure 2. 18. It was noticed that the company tend to use a broader classification
system for the geologic units.
29
Figure 2. 18. The classification of geological units followed by Costain.
SPEKTRA JOETEK:
This company was used to provide the geotechnical borehologs (68) for the Emirati
neighborhood project. The classification system that was used by this company was
detailed for soil and rocks, providing information regarding texture, plasticity, particle
size. The classification system used by SPEKTRA is shown in Figure 2. 19.
Figure 2. 19. Soil and rock type symbols by SPEKTRA JOETEK. Adapted from[2]
Once the classification systems by the different drilling companies were identified,
the process of coming up with a unified geologic unit classification started. The
ultimate aim is to create a more basic classification which will allow one to build the
30
3D geologic model in a more efficient way, since a large amount of geologic unit
(some conflicting) may result in an unrealistic model. For this reason, lithologies with
minor physicals differences as, for example, particle size were combined into a single
representative unit, as shown Table 2. 1. The quality steps followed in this project are:
Step 1: Manual spatial comparison between adjacent boreholes, as shown in Figure
2. 20. The process was applied to the 453 borehole logs, to identify inconsistencies,
errors or outliers. Most of the inconsistencies found were related to classification
system used by the different companies. For example Figure 2. 20, the two boreholes
from Fugro and Swissboring separated by 21m and both boreholes at 5m ground
datum level with 10m depth below the surface. The two boreholes have different
geological units at the same depths, where Fugro used Siltstone and Swissboring used
Mudstone. By comparing the classification systems from both companies Figure 2. 15
and Figure 2. 17, it is clear that this is a classification issue.
Step 2: Extensive literature review to study the possibility of grouping different
geological units under the single representative unit, as shown in Table 2. 1. Unit 1
represents the made ground which covers most of the Abu Dhabi area. Unit 2
represents clayey silt, silty sand, clayey sand unit’s .Mudstone, Siltstone, and
Claystone considers as Murdock and their grain size is relatively between silt to clay,
therefore will be represented by Unit 3. Gypsum is the only evaporated rock and will
be represented by unit 4. Unit 5 represents Calcarenite and Limestone where both are
Carbonate sedimentary rock, as well as Calcarenite, is a clastic limestone. Unit 6
contains the clay which was not observed at a large range within the data. Sandstone
(Unit 7) is made of compacted sand particles (1/16 to 2-millimeter diameter)
combined together by mineral cement. The karst features (cavity) will be assigned to
Unit 8. Unit 9 represents the conglomerate (gravel), which is a clastic sedimentary
31
rock consist of rounded clasts with a diameter larger than 2 millimeter and the space
between them filled with cement or smaller soil/rocks.
Figure 2. 20. Representative image for the spatial comparison between adjacent
boreholes that was followed over the 453 boreholes.
Table 2. 1. Final Geological unit codes followed in the current project
Geological Categories Description References

unit codes
Unit 1 Made Ground Represents the upper [4]
layer where usually
made by people
during reclamation
where could be
mixed with natural
and non-natural
materials.
Unit 2 Silt/Sand Represents all the [21]
clayey silt, silty sand, clayey sand and silt sand
sand units ( silty sand,
32
clayey sand etc)
Unit 3 Siltstone/mudstone/claystone Sedimentary rocks [21, 22]
Unit 4 Gypsum Evaporate rocks [22]
Unit 5 Calcarenite/Limestone Carbonate [22-25]

sedimentary rocks
Unit 6 Clay fine-grained soil/ [21]

rock
Unit 7 Sandstone Medium-grained [21-23]
sedimentary rock
Unit 8 cavity gypsiferous features -
Unit 9 conglomerate Clastic sedimentary [4, 26]

rock
2.3.3.3 Arc hydro groundwater and GMS software
The geologic model was developed using two tools: 1) the Arc hydro groundwater
tool in Arc GIS to create the database, interpolation, geological cross sections and 3D
geological model; 2) the Groundwater modeling software (GMS) to assign horizon ID
and visualizing the boreholes.
Geographic information system (GIS) involves many important tools as Arc Hydro
Groundwater (AHGW). AHGW is a geographic data model with supplementary tools
(as interpolation tool, spatial statistical tools, etc) to represent spatial and temporal
geologic information in Arc GIS. It is useful to import, edit, and achieve data stored in
a geodatabase. AHGW can represent several types of data such as wells/boreholes, 3D
hydrogeological models, temporal information, and data resulting from simulated
models. [27, 28]
33
AHGW is useful in visualizing subsurface data and constructing 2D and 3D models of
the subsurface through associated tools such as subsurface analyst tool. The workflow
associated with the tool helps with visualization and classification of borehole
stratigraphy, building cross sections, and construction of fence diagrams and volume
models, as shown in Figure 2. 21. Generally, the steps of the followed workflow
(Figure 2. 21) in the current research are:
a) Adding wells/boreholes location through creating point features and link
vertical stratigraphic data by fundamental fields such as Well ID and
Hydrological units ID.
b) Arrange the boreholes stratigraphic data and visualize as 3D points and lines.
c) Create the GeoRasters file. The file will contain the different raster’s created
from the Horizon ID data (b). This file will be used to create the GeoSection
and GeoVolume feature classes
d) Create Section line features which will be used to derive the 3D features. The
section line polyline features will be used to determine the location of the
intended subsurface cross-sections.
e) GeoSection: create the cross sections or fence diagrams. The step is helpful to
check the interpolation quality before building the Geovolume features. To
create the GeoSection feature we will need section line polyline features (d)
along with the GeoRasters catalog (c) and the multipatch GeoSection feature
class to place the new created features. The GeoSection could be visualized
as 2D or 3D.
Transforming the 3D GeoSection into 2D cross-sections by using the XS2D
Editor tool in the Subsurface Analyst tool (AHGW). The tool transforms the
actual coordinate system (x, y, and z) to a 2D cross section coordinate
34
system. The x represents the length alongside the cross section line and y is
the vertical dimension. The tool creates a new feature classes based on a
specific section line to represents the 2D cross-section. Additionally, Wells
around the intended Section line could be selected to guide the creation of the
cross section dimensions. Also, the stratigraphy of the wells borehole data
will be added to the resulted cross section which help in evaluating the
interpolation quality.[29]
f) Create a projection TIN (Triangular Irregular Network) to define the extent of
the Geovolume features.
g) Creating the Geovolume and checking the quality of the interpolation (steps e
& f). The inputs for this step are the TIN, GeoRasters and GeoVolume
feature class.
Figure 2. 21. Workflow for visualizing subsurface data and building 3D subsurface
models.
35
For the purpose of the current research, boreholes module in groundwater modeling
software (GMS) was used to visualize the boreholes and create horizon ID’s, see
Figure 2. 22. The horizon ID represents the top of each stratigraphic unit is numbered
in the deposition order from bottom up. The boreholes module deals with different
boreholes data as stratigraphy data or sample data or both. Stratigraphy is data that
symbolize geologic layers that are encountered in borehole. Where, the segments and
contacts are used to represent the geologic layers, as shown in Figure 2. 23.The
sample data is acquired through the length of the hole by continuous sampling and
stored in a database to be used in GMS [30]. The borehole data can be created
manually using the borehole tool or automatically by importing borehole data. [16,
30]
Figure 2. 22. Horizons assigned to contacts on boreholes. Adapted from [30]
36
Figure 2. 23: Example of A) Stratigraphic data, B) Sample data. Adapted from [30]
37
CHAPTER 3
3 3D Geologic Model and Spatial Data Analysis
3.1 Introduction
In this chapter, spatial statistical analysis of the data is performed to examine the data
distribution, trends, and spatial patterns of the Abu Dhabi Municipality data. The
findings from the analysis will be used to choose a suitable interpolation method
which later will be tested over a small part of the study area. This will show which
interpolation method creates a more representative cross-section of the subsurface of
the study area. After defining the suitable interpolation method, the study area will be
adjusted based on the findings to have a better performance of the interpolation
method.
3.2 Spatial Interpolation
Interpolation of the geological data is used to predict unknown values for any point
data: elevation, geology, rainfall, chemical concentrations, and is critical step to create
representative surfaces for different purposes. The performance of a spatial
interpolation method depends on several factors, not only the method features itself,
but also on factors such as data variation. Therefore when choosing an adequate
38
interpolation method for a particular application one should take into consideration
some of the following factors [31]:
1. Density of the measurements (i.e. measurement points per unit area)
2. The distance between measurements and their distribution in the study area.
3. The number of points used to build cross-sections and the distance between
the points and the cross-section.
4. Geologic discontinuities such as faults and fractures.
5. The features of the interpolation model (assumptions, limitations)
In some situations, the results of the interpolation are independent of the method used
[32]. For instance, regardless of interpolation method:
1. Realistic results could be achieved when the measurement point’s locations
are dense and uniformly distributed over the specified area.
2. Unreliable results could be achieved in the case where the available
measurements are grouped in clusters with large distances between them.
3. Since most interpolation algorithms use some kind of averaging of the data,
high values will be underestimated, and low values will be overestimated.
In addition, most of the methods perform at an acceptable level for predicting soil
properties in a gentle terrain, but few perform well in a complex terrain.
Interpolation methods are categorized into two groups: deterministic and
geostatistical. Deterministic techniques such as the Inverse Distance Weight (IDW)
use mathematical functions to calculate values at unknown locations based on the
values of the neighboring data points. The geostatistical methods, such as kriging are
based on both mathematical and statistical methods, to predict values at all locations
within the region of interest and to provide probabilistic estimates of the prediction
accuracy [33].
39
3.2.1 IDW
Inverse distance weighted (IDW) is a deterministic interpolation method that uses a
linear weighted function of the inverse distance of a set of neighboring points (i.e. it
weights the points closer to the prediction location greater than those farther away) to
determine the unknown values in the region of interest, see Figure 3. 1. The weights
are proportional to the inverse distance raised to the power value p. Therefore, the
results from IDW interpolation depend greatly on the power value (p) as well as the
neighborhood search strategy, i.e. the neighboring radius. Figure 3. 1 shows a
schematic of the IDW neighborhood for a selected point. It illustrates the concept of
neighboring radius, neighborhood and prediction point. IDW is an exact interpolator,
where the maximum and minimum values (see Figure 3. 2) in the interpolated surface
can only occur at sample points. For this reason, the model is quite sensitive to
clustering and to the presence of outliers. IDW assumes that the surface is being
driven by the local variation that can be captured through the neighborhood. [33-35]
Figure 3. 1. Search radius (in yellow). Adapted from [36]
40
Figure 3. 2. Calculated surface using IDW based on power value and neighborhood
search strategy. Adapted from [36]
3.2.2 Kriging
Kriging is a method of interpolation assumes that the distances between data points
reflect the spatial autocorrelation of the data and uses that to build a mathematical
function which is used to create a prediction surface. Unlike, deterministic methods
kriging provides one with a measure of confidence of how likely that prediction will
be true by estimating the error of the prediction. Kriging is mostly used in soil
science and geologic applications where spatially correlated distance data is available
or directional bias in the data is known. Kriging minimizes the clustering effect on the
predictions by giving less weight for individual points within a cluster than the points
outside the clusters and this is more like treating clusters as single points. [32, 35]
[33]. Key to kriging is the semivariogram, which quantifies the autocorrelation of the
spatial data, as it graphs the variance of all pairs of data according to distance. Figure
3. 3 show the different types of semivariance curves.
41
Figure 3. 3. The different types of semivariance curves. Adapted from [37]
3.2.3 Data characterization
The available geologic data was analyzed to identify trends, patterns, and
relationships between data. Special emphasis was given to the analysis of the gypsum
related data. The Horizon IDs created by GMS results in the creation of surfaces that
represent the top of different geologic layers. The information associated with those
layers (i.e. elevation and the Horizon ID, which is associated with one specific
geologic material) are stored in Raster datasets. For that space is divided into discrete
square or rectangular cells laid out in a grid. Each cell has a value that is used to
represent some characteristic of that location. In our case, they represent the elevation
and geologic material.
In our analysis, we looked in detail at the data related to cavity and gypsum, in
particular to its spatial distribution. Figure 3. 4, shows the elevation distribution of the
cavity encountered during borehole drilling. One can see that most of the cavities are
located between elevations 5 and -5, i.e. within the first 10m of the subsurface. Figure
3. 5 shows the same data in terms of depths. Figure 3. 6 shows the spatial
42
distributions of the cavities in each raster. There are five Horizons for the cavities
which are associated with a range of elevations.
• Horizon # 8 contains 3 sample points with top elevations ( -2.2 to -12.4 m)
• Horizon # 19 contains 3 sample points with top elevations ( 0 to -5.2 m)
• Horizon # 22 contains 22 sample points with top elevations ( 1 to -7.5 m)
• Horizon # 25 contains 27 sample points with top elevations ( 1.6 t0 -4.7 m)
Regarding the gypsum layers, nine Horizons were identified at the elevations stated
below. Figure 3. 7 shows the sample points for each one of the nine-gypsum
Horizons.
• Horizon # 3 contains 14 sample points with top elevations (2.8 to -20.9 m)
• Horizon # 6 contains 37 sample points with top elevations ( 4.6 to -15.2 m)
• Horizon # 14 contains 4 sample points with top elevations (-2.3 to -5.5 m)
• Horizon # 17 contains 274 sample points with top elevations (6.5 to -15.9 m)
• Horizon # 23 contains 395 sample points with top elevations (7.3 to -15 m)
• Horizon # 28 contains 207 sample points with top elevations (6.5 to -7 m)
The distribution of gypsum Horizon ID’s from bottom layers to the surface is shown
in Figure 3. 7. Gypsum appears at different elevations; near to the surface (7_-2 m), at
the middle (-5 _-10m) and deep (-11_-20 m). However, as one moves towards the
surface, the gypsum presence increases towards NE and SW.
We believe that the low occurrence of gypsum in the NW is in part related to the
limited availability of boreholes data on that direction of the study area. The observed
43
distribution may indicate that the thickness of gypsum layers could be greater in the
NE/SW than it is in NW. Additionally, the intensity of the points will play a role
during interpolation process, where the part of NW could have less accuracy than the
rest of the area. To have a better understanding of the gypsum distribution, spatial
statistical analysis for the Horizons # 28, 23, 17 and 9 is performed. These Horizons
were chosen because they are the ones that contain the largest number of data points.
Figure 3. 4. Cavity Elevation distribution within the Abu Dhabi Municipality data.
Figure 3. 5. Cavity depth distribution within the Abu Dhabi Municipality data.
44
Figure 3. 6. Cavity Horizons show the distribution over the study area.
45
Figure 3. 7. Distribution of gypsum Horizons from the bottom layers to the surface.
46
3.2.4 Spatial statistical analysis
3.2.4.1 Data distribution
Figure 3. 8, shows histograms of the gypsum Horizons with the highest number of
sample points. Figure 3. 8.A, Horizon # 28 which is the nearest gypsum Horizon to
the surface. The data top elevation is between -7m up to 6.5 m. The data distribution
is bimodal but shows a slight right skewness, with some of highest data values, being
most probably pocket or lenses of gypsum. The mean is -0.695m and the standard
deviation is 2.598 m. The two modes indicate the presence of two groups, maybe
lenses at different elevations. Figure 3. 8.B, gypsum data elevations range between (-
15 to 7.3m), with left skewness, the data tend to have higher elevations which is
reasonable as we get closer to the surface. The mean is around -5.57m and standard
deviation (4.07 m) which means that the data is highly distributed around the mean.
Again here Figure 3. 8.C& D shows right skewness meaning that most of the data has
smaller elevations which makes sense since the Horizon’s located at the bottom.
Horizons 17 and 9 data elevations range from (-15.9_6.5m) and (-15.2_4.6m),
respectively. Additionally, the data seems to closely distribute around the means with
STD of 3.85 and 3.39, respectively. Overall, the Horizon’s mean and median are not
close which indicates that the data is not normally distributed (heterogeneous data).
47
Figure 3. 8. A) Histogram of Horizon 28 .B) Histogram of Horizon 23. C) Histogram of Horizon 17 and D) Histogram of Horizon 9, with
their descriptive statistic
48
3.2.4.2 Spatial trend direction
The spatial trend direction was examined using the Directional Distribution tool in
ArcGIS. This tool analyses the central tendency, dispersion, and directional trends by
creating a standard deviational ellipse. A standard deviational ellipse calculates
separately the standard deviation of the x-coordinates and y-coordinates from the
mean center to define the ellipse axes. The trend could be identifying through the
resulted ellipse elongation.[38]
Overall, the results from all the Horizons show an orientation in the data toward NE to
SW, as shown in Figure 3. 9. The elongation results indicate that Horizon 17 has the
strongest trend among the other Horizons. To confirm these results, a trend analysis
using top elevation values was performed with the Geostatistical Analyst tool, as
shown in Figure 3. 10. The Trend Analysis tool can help in identifying trends in the
input dataset. The tool provides a three-dimensional plot of the data in the study area.
The locations of the sample points are plotted on an x, y plane and the z-value of each
data point is represented by a vertical stick. Additionally, the data are projected into
two plan y-z (North-South direction, points blue in color) and x-z (East-West
direction, points green in color) so that you can isolate directional trends. From Figure
3. 10, one can observe that Horizons near to the surface (28 and 23) exhibit a clear
trend in the North-South direction and no trend in the East-West direction. The data
start with higher elevations and decreases as we move to the North. Horizon-17 shows
a strong trend in both directions where the elevations data start high at West and south
and decrease as we move to North and East with a slight increase at the end. Horizon-
9, the trend in the North-South direction is stronger than the East-West direction, in
49
both directions the trend starts high at West and South and decreases toward East and
North.
One possible reason for such a trend is the surface nature of the capital district. The
Municipality data used in the statistical analysis were collected during the years
(2000-2003). Figure 3. 11, demonstrate the surface changes over the study area during
the years 1996 and 1999-2003. Clearly, in the year 1996, the surface was not the same
along the study area. A zone at the South West of the study area exhibit a higher
elevation than the rest of the study area. By 1999, the lower parts started slowly to be
filled either re-elevated naturally or due human activities, as some developments
started in the area. By the year 2003 it was still clear that the elevations of the South
West part were higher than the rest of the area. This explains the boreholes data with
high elevations located in the South West area. Also, it might means that the original
lithological deposition over the Capital district area is characterized by increasing in
depth as we move to the North East direction. Subsurface geology is complex and
difficult to predict or interpret, a glance to it possible through surface characteristic.
The observed trend within the study area could also explain the cavity spatial
distribution (Figure 3. 6). In Figure 3. 6, one can observe that the cavities are
concentrated in the North East direction; the change in elevations could indicate a
slope in the subsurface layers. This could, in turn, impact the groundwater flow, i.e.
flow will take place towards the North West direction leading to more dissolution in
the area, and therefore explaining the higher concentration of cavities at the NE
part.
50
Figure 3. 9. Spatial trend direction A) Horizon _28, B) Horizon _23, C) Horizon_17 and D) Horizon_9
51
Figure 3. 10 Trend analysis A) Raster _28, B) Raster _23 C) Raster_17 and D) Raster_9. The green dots are the projections of the data
point’s elevations into W-E direction. The blue dots are the projections of the data point’s elevations into N-S direction.
52
Figure 3. 11. Capital District history timeline of the surface change during the years 1996 and 1999-2003.
53
3.2.4.3 Spatial Autocorrelation
In order to analyze the spatial autocorrelation among the data points within the
gypsum Horizons, we used the spatial autocorrelation (Morans I) tool in Arc GIS. The
tool provides statistical tests based on a null hypothesis of Complete Spatial
Randomness (CSR), i.e. homogeneous spatial point Poisson process, of the features or
their values. The resulting Z-scores and P-values will indicate whether the data have a
significant clustering or randomness, depending on whether the null hypothesis is
rejected. In this study, we used a 99 percent degree of the confident interval to reject
the null hypothesis. Figure 3. 12, shows the results of the spatial autocorrelation for
each Horizon. The results indicate a significant clustering with high Z-scores (> 2.58)
and very low p-value close to zero (less than 1%). This means the null hypothesis is
rejected, and therefore it is highly unlikely that the observed spatial patterns reflect a
complete random pattern, i.e. Complete Spatial Randomness (CSR). The clustering
intensity over the four Horizons differs, but in general, the clustering intensity
decreases with depth, for example, Horizon #9 exhibits less intense clustering with a
Z-score of 6.22 and Horizon 28 has the highest intense clustering with a Z-score of
33.35.
Where are those clusters? To answer this question, the Hotspot analysis tool in Arc
GIS was used. The Hotspot analysis is a tool that can be used to identify statistically
significant hot spots (spatial clusters of high values) and cold spots (spatial cluster of
low values) using the Getis-Ord Gi* statistic. For more details on this method see [39,
40]. Figure 3. 13 show the results of the Hotspot analysis for the gypsum Horizons.
The results show that the gypsum is found at higher elevation (red color) in the South
West direction and it becomes deeper (smaller elevation) as one move toward to the
North East.
54
Figure 3. 12. Spatial autocorrelation report A) Horizon_28, B) Horizon _23, C)
Horizon_17 and D) Horizon_9
55
Figure 3. 13 Hotspot analysis A) Horizon_28, B) Horizon _23, C) Horizon_17, D)
Horizon_9. For the purpose of the current research, red color dots represent the high
values (high values of elevation, i.e. shallower depths) And the blue dots represent the
lower values (low values of elevation, i.e. higher depths).
Semivariogram is another spatial autocorrelation tool in ArcGIS. This tool pairs every
two locations within the datasets and plots the squared difference between the values
of two points as a function of the distance that separates them, see Figure 3. 14. As the
distance between two locations becomes smaller the squared difference is also
smaller, showing a stronger correlation between points that are closer to each other,
inversely as the distance between the data points becomes larger, the squared
difference increases, i.e. the data points become less correlated with distance. Figure
3. 14, shows the performance of the Gaussian and the Spherical functions on Horizon
28. The functions play a key role during the interpolation and predicting the unknown
56
values. Some of the main points to take into consideration to determine the best
function for specific data are:
• The closest neighbor’s data points will have a high influence on the predicted
point as the curve near to the origin become steeper.
• On the semivariogram, it’s preferable to have the average crosses close to the
fitted line.
Based on the previous two points, the Spherical function in Figure 3. 14 shows a
steeper curve near to the origin and the average crosses are much closer to the
fitted model line than the Gaussian function.
Figure 3. 14. Semivariogram of Horizon # 28, at the top using the Gaussian function
and at the bottom using the Spherical function.
In summary, the spatial statistics of the data show that the data are clustered and trend
behavior is observed within the gypsum layers. The elevations for each Horizon tend
57
to decrease towards the NE/SW, which may relate to the geological deposition in the
area. The geologic deposition is believed to affect the flow direction within the study
area and leads to more cavity occurrences in the NE direction. These findings tend to
suggest that kriging is the most suitable interpolation algorithm for this particular
dataset. Furthermore, the data characterized by a significant clustering and applying
kriging will minimize the clustering effects. While using IDW for the presented data
might not suitable where it based on assigning weights, it tends to decrease weight
when separation distances increase. In order to test this hypothesis, i.e. that kriging is
a more suitable interpolation algorithm for this application, both interpolation
methods, Kriging, and IDW, were tested. The results are presented in the next section.
3.3 Evaluation of the interpolation methods
In this section, the study area around the Abu Dhabi planned metro line is chosen to
create a cross-section using both IDW and Kriging interpolation methods. The goal is
to test the performance of each method before proceeding to other areas. The
interpolation method showing a better performance will be used to create cross-
sections and a 3D geological model of the Emirate Neighborhood.
3.3.1 Study area
The study area chosen to test the interpolation algorithm is shown in Figure 3. 15 and
contains 15 borehole logs with maximum depth of 20 m. In this area, the gypsum
layers thickness were found to be up to 5m at different elevations, near the surface (-3
to -6m), middle (-4 to -7 m) and deep (-11to -16m).
58
Figure 3. 15. Zayed city
3.3.2 Creating cross-section “a”
Arc GIS and GMS (Groundwater Modeling System) was used to create the cross-
section “a” as shown in Figure 3. 15. The GMS was used to assign the Horizon ID for
different geological units/materials at contact points between geologies in boreholes,
as described in Section 2.3.3.3. ArcGIS was used to create the geodatabase which
includes wells table, borehole logs table, HGUID (material ID) table, cross-sections
and 3D geological model.
3.3.2.1 Step 1 (manual interpolation)
Started with manual interpolation for the selected boreholes with red dots around the
section line-a, shown in Figure 3. 15. The Boreholes within 100 m are used to create
the 2D cross sections in Step (1) and the Trials A and B. Cross Section “a” will be
59
created (Trials A and B) using the ArcGIS, following the procedure described in
chapter 2, Section 2.3.3.3.
Step (1) of manual interpolation was done to have an initial idea about the expected
output of section “a”, as shown in Figure 3. 16.
Figure 3. 16. Manual interpolation for the area surrounded section “a”.
3.3.2.2 Trial A: IDW
IDW interpolation method was used to create the different lithology surfaces. The
cross-section “a” (Figure 3. 15) was created using the ArcGIS, following the
procedure described in chapter 2, Section 2.3.3.3. The resulting cross-section from
IDW (Figure 3. 17,Trail 1) was compared to the manual interpolated cross-section “a”
(Figure 3. 16) as well as the remaining boreholes outside the green study area. The
resulted IDW was not as expected and therefore several trials using Clip/Fill option to
enhance the resulted cross-section”a” were performed, as shown in Figure 3. 17. The
Clip and Fill options in ArcGIS help to control the construction of 3D models through
controlling the appearance of geologic units and enhancing the results of the different
interpolation methods. Figure 3. 18, shows how to use the Clip and Fill option to
control the derived features from rasters.
60
Figure 3. 17, Trial (1), shows the resulting cross section using the default Clip and
Fill option where no clip (all layers will be shown) and all fill (all layers will be
shown), the resulting cross-section shows a bad result. When the resulting cross-
section is compared to the boreholes located within its proximity, it shows an
underestimation of both the gypsum and mudstone layers. Therefore another trial
using the Clip and Fill option is done in order to have a better representation for the
deposition of the gypsum and mudstone strata.
Figure 3. 17, Trial (2), clip cavity and sandstone (any horizons extend above the
clipped horizons will be also cut off but with fill), the resulting cross-section still
shows a poor results. The cavity is a localized event therefore in Trial (3), it was
cliped with no fill and the sandstone clipped but with fill, the resulting cross-section
shows a bad result. Trial (4), clip cavity with no fill and no clip/fill for sandstone
shows better results.
Trial (4) shows the best results among the other trials. However there was un issue
with showing the bottom layers therefor the resulting cross-section was improved
using the Eidtor toolbar in Arc GIS, as shown in Figure 3. 19. The bottom layers were
manually interpolated using the boreholes around the created cross-section.
61
Figure 3. 17. Trials of modifying the cross-section “a”
62
Figure 3. 18. A) sample of layers (Horizons) arranged by Horizon ID values.
Geosection results by B) default Fill and Clip option, C) using the clip option for the
third horizon and D) using the Fill option for the third horizon. Adapted from [29]
Figure 3. 19 cross_ section “a”, after editing trial_4.
63
3.3.2.3 Trial B: Kriging
Kriging method is used to create the model and the results are compared with those of
Trial A, i.e. the model obtained using IDW.
The first trial was done with the default Clip and Fill option (no clip and all fill). The
result was satisfactory and very similar to that obtained using the manual interpolation
in Figure 3. 16 as well as to the boreholes surrounding the study area. As mentioned
before in the study area description (section 3.2.3) that gypsum was noticed in three
different elevations which are also shown in Figure 3. 20, where gypsum appear
somewhere between the elevations of (-4 to -7m) and at -11 m. The issue with the
interpolation of the bottom layer of the cross-section will be addressed for the Emirate
Neighborhood model, because it affects the occurrence of the gypsum. One reason for
this issue is might be related to the fact that the data from the ADM were conducted
by different drilling companies. Each company used different horizontal datum
leading to a different coordinates. Therefore, the ADM transformed all coordinates to
the common horizontal datum that is used by Abu Dhabi (WGS 1984 UTM Zone
40N). In addition, each constructor was using different vertical references and the
ADM have generated Z values for all Boreholes using common vertical datum data.
These issues might leads to an issue during the transformation of the rasters into a
GeoSection.
64
Figure 3. 20. cross-section” a” using kriging
Figure 3. 21. resulted in the 3D model from Kriging
65
The 3D model in Figure 3. 21, shows a missing part of the gypsum bottom layer, just
like in the cross section of Figure 3. 17, Figure 3. 19 and Figure 3. 20‫ز‬
Overall, results from trial A and trial B shows that kriging interpolation provides more
reasonable results than IDW. This means that IDW may not be reliable for our case
since some rasters don’t contain enough data points. Both interpolation methods are
tested again while building a 3D geologic model for Emirate Neighborhood area in
the next section, using the Musanada dataset.
3.4 The Emirate Neighborhood Geologic Model
Borehole logs from Musanada were used in this section to develop the 3D geologic
model; data are shown in Figure 3. 22 . In total there are 68 boreholes all drilled by
the same company.
Figure 3. 22. Data from Musanada of the Emirate Neighborhood.
66
Kriging and IDW interpolation are tested again using Musanada data to confirm the
finding from the previous section, as shown in Figure 3. 23. The models follow the
common horizontal and vertical spatial reference systems which are the NADD for
the vertical datum and the WGS84 for the horizontal datum. As previously mentioned
in section 3.3, kriging is more suitable for our data and this finding was also when
using the Musanada data. The IDW interpolation tends to overestimate the sand layer,
and underestimate the mudstone and gypsum layers, as shown in Figure 3. 24 and
Figure 3. 25. While, in kriging, the interpolation was consistent, and more
representative of the actual borehole data used to create the model. This can also be
seen in Figure 3. 24 and Figure 3. 25. Moreover, the cavity points are not included
when building the Emirate Neighborhood 3D geological model. The cavity is a local
event and not lateral persistent therefore histograms were developed to have an
adequate analyze the cavity size and spatial distribution using both datasets from
Musanada and the Abu Dhabi Municipality, see Figure 3. 26. Figure 3. 27 show that
the main cavity occurrence is at the higher elevations between (2.5 m to -3.5 m)
which are between the depths (5.5m to 10 m) as shown in Figure 3. 28.This is might
be related to the presence of the groundwater at the elevations between 3.5m to 1.5m.
The groundwater fluctuations is within the range of those high elevations which
increase the chance for cavity occurring.
Additionally, the cavity size is mostly less than 1m however it could reach to 2m, see
Figure 3. 29. The cavity size does not depend on the depth as shown in Figure 3. 30.
67
Figure 3. 23. From the left the 3D geological model using kriging and from the right
using IDW.
Figure 3. 24. Comparing cross-section resulting from Kriging (top) and IDW (bottom)
with corresponding well-horizons (colors dots).
68
Figure 3. 25. Cross-section (e), from the left using kriging interpolation and from the
right using IDW. The five selected boreholes used in this interpolation were at a
distance of 20m from the cross-section.
69
Figure 3. 26. Cavity spatial distribution over the capital district from both data sets
Figure 3. 27. The frequency of the different Z-elevations of the cavity data from the
first and second data sets over the Capital district.
70
Figure 3. 28. The Cavity depth distribution from the first and second data sets over the
Capital district.
Figure 3. 29. The cavity thickness from the first and second data sets over the Capital
district.
71
Figure 3. 30. The relationship between the cavity size and depth.
The resulting kriging cross-section (Figure 3. 25) was compared to the results of Mott
MacDonald lithological cross-section of Masdar city, see Figure 3. 31. Our model
using kriging (ArcGIS) provides similar results to the Mott MacDonald reports [41].
Mott MacDonald model (Figure 3. 31) shows that the area mainly consists of sand
(from different formation/ types), Sabkha (silty clays and sand) and alternate layers of
siltstone and gypsum, which approximately resembling the resulting cross-section in
this study (Figure 3. 25).
72
Figure 3. 31. Mott MacDonald lithological model cross-section of Masdar city.
Adapted from [41]
In conclusion, performing spatial statistical analysis using the borehole logs data
provided by the Abu Dhabi Municipality, Spatial Data Division was helpful to
examine the distribution, trend and correlation within the data which was beneficial in
choosing the interpolation method. It was difficult to create 3 D geological modeling
on a large scale for the capital district using the data from the municipality due to
several reasons, Figure 3. 32. The first reason is the limited available information
about the quality of the Abu Dhabi Municipality borehologs data. As mentioned in
Chapter 2, the boreholes drilling were performed by different drilling companies and
this affects the lithologic descriptions quality and this in return will affect the
interpolation. Using multiple drilling companies will affect the quality of depth
control during, quality of boring location (X, Y, and Z) and recovered samples. As
mentioned previously (section 3.3.2.3), the drilling companies used different
horizontal datum and vertical references. The second reason is the layers lateral
73
consistency; there is a spatial lateral variation consistency between the mudstone and
gypsum alternating layers as well as the overlying sand layer. This consistency within
those layers makes the correlation during interpolation much easier, however, the
occurrence of unexpected geological units as cavity or lenses (sandstones) could
create difficulties during interpolation especially if the distance between boreholes is
not adequate.
Figure 3. 32. Cross- section resulting from using the entire data of the AD
Municipality.
74
The data used in developing the 3D geological model of the Emirati neighborhood is
believed to have a better-quality control per to the provided testing reports by
Musanada.
Therefore, the resulting 3D geologic model and the corresponding cross-section were
much consistency with the boreholes data, Figure 3. 24 (Top part). The advantage of
the Emirate Neighborhood model is giving a better visualization of the current
subsurface of the area as the used borehole logs extraction date is during the years
2010-2011 while the boreholes from Abu Dhabi Municipality were during years
2000-2003.
75
CHAPTER 4
4 Karst Hazard
4.1 Introduction
This chapter will be as an introduction to the karst hazard. It will cover the karst
formation as a type of the host bedrock and environmental conditions. The role of
urbanization and water fluctuations in inducing karst collapse will be presented. In
addition, mechanisms of developing some of the karst features as caves and sinkholes
will be addressed. Finally, the karst geohazards in Abu Dhabi will be presented.
4.2 Karst areas
Karsts are topographies formed through the dissolution of the bedrock caused by
surface or groundwater. Sinkholes, caves, large springs, dry valleys and sinking
streams are typical features of karst landscapes, as shown in Figure 4. 1 [42, 43].
Generally, occur within the certain bedrock-geologic formations such as Carbonate
rocks ( limestone, marble, dolomite) and evaporate rocks (gypsum and rock salts).[42]
76
Figure 4. 1 Some of the important karst features. Adapted from [44]
Gypsum is calcium sulfate dehydrate (CaSO4_2H2O), a highly soluble mineral and
the main component in large beds of evaporates. There are different sources for
gypsum accumulation such as lakes, seawater, hot springs, volcanic vapors, and
sulfate solutions in veins. Gypsum is one of the most soluble common rocks. When
gypsum is subjected to water flow, it dissolves 100 times faster than limestone. Even
though the karst features that form within gypsum are similar to the ones that form
within limestone or dolomite (Figure 4. 2), the main difference is that these features
form more rapidly within gypsum, within a matter of weeks or years. This higher
solubility of gypsum and the fact that voids within gypsum layers could occur at any
depth makes it quite dangerous foundation material for civil infrastructures. Voids are
openings where groundwater can be stored as well as providing the pathways for
groundwater flow when they are connected. The existence of discontinuities, such as
joints and faults within the soluble bedrocks in addition to other factors as rain and
groundwater pumping exacerbates the production of cavities and karstic features, see
Figure 4. 3. [43, 45-47]
77
Figure 4. 2 On the left (cavity/dissolution features in carbonate rock encountered
during STEP project, Abu Dhabi), and on the right (cavity in the weathered
gypsiferous layer during site excavation, Masdar city, Abu Dhabi).Adapted from [41,
48]
Figure 4. 3. Karst formulation due to natural and human factors. Adapted from[49]
4.3 Mechanisms of developing karst features
Geohazards features of karst areas may occur naturally with the different magnitude
depending on inducing factors and soluble bedrock mass (evaporates or/and
carbonates minerals). Sinkholes and caves among others are significant geohazards
types of karst formation that usually developed due to cavity enlargement. Experts
single out two steps in the formation of subsurface cavities, in the first stage evaporate
minerals and/ or carbonate mineral rocks are dissolved to form cavities due to the
78
flow and chemistry of groundwater. This occurs mainly just below the water table, in
a zone of constant groundwater movement. The second phase of cavity development
may occur after (if) the water table is lowered. In this phase the solution inside the
cavities becomes trapped and may be filled with air or fine materials, forming weaker
pockets within the subsurface. These pockets may cause subsidence of the overlying
geologic layers or eventually collapse (sinkholes). [50] Massive caves developed due
to the gravitational stress distortion around the cavity. Which leads to developing a
compression arch zone at the roof and cavity walls as well as a tension zone under the
compression arch, as shown in Figure 4. 4.[51]
Figure 4. 4. The process of developing a stable cave chamber in a massive limestone

layer over the southern entrance chamber of Tham En, Laos. Adapted from[51]
Sinkholes can be formed of inter-connected processes such as bedrock dissolution,
rock collapse, soil down-washing and soil collapse. Figure 4. 5, the six main types of
sinkholes as well as their main parameters; formation process, host rock type,
engineering hazard and the maximum predictable size. [51]
79
Figure 4. 5. The six types of sinkholes and their major parameters. Adapted from [51]
4.4 Natural and anthropogenic geohazards hazards in karst areas and Society
impact
80
Karst geohazards formulated naturally or/and anthropogenic with significant negative
outcomes on society in term of economic losses, safety threatens and hydrological
hazards. Karst areas responsible for about 25% of the drinkable water supply in the
world. The soluble bedrocks nature characterized by discontinuities, joints, caves, etc
works on accelerate water infiltration into the ground and accumulate in aquifers. On
the other hand, these pathways could also transfer sewage runoff, fertilizers,
pesticides, herbicides, dead livestock, industrial chemicals and trash that contaminate
groundwater causing health issues and damaging water natural resources [43] [52].
In the recent years, Karst collapse tends to happen more often due to the continuing
developments and human engineering activities. Human activities could trigger some
of the karst collapse inducing factors such as geological conditions, development
levels of karst, depth of overlying soil, groundwater dynamic which might lead to
major economic losses [53]. Study at suburban Pretoria, South Africa, shows that
human activities such as groundwater pumping and mine dewatering were responsible
for 96% of nearly 400 sinkholes collapses [43]. Groundwater pumping leads to
increasing water infiltrations into the subsurface as well as reducing the fluid pressure
that supports the karst overlying soil and accelerating the karst collapse phenomenon
leading to major consequences on the economy and human life, see Figure 4. 3. In the
southern Italy, suffusion sinkholes were formulated over the years affecting the
gypsum coastal aquifer of Lesina Marina. Previous studies in that area confirmed that
the suffusion sinkholes were induced by the canal excavation within the evaporate
formation and changing the groundwater dynamic conditions[53, 54]. Urbanization
could induce sinkhole collapse in different ways, such as heavy traffic above the
surface, changing land use and impoundments which rapidly increase the downward
movement of water into bedrock openings beneath the soil as well as water table
81
fluctuation due to groundwater pumping and injection during construction, Figure 4. 6
and Figure 4. 3. One of the most historically tragic sinkhole collapses happened in
1962 at West Driefontein, South Africa when buildings suddenly disappeared in a
55m sinkhole and Twenty-nine lives were lost [43, 55]. 1928 in Los Angeles, in the
United States of America, the city witnessed one of the most severe catastrophes with
the destruction of the St. Francis Dam as a result gypsum dissolution. The city suffers
from economic consequences as well as losing 400 people in the incident [56].Some
of the United States dam damage incidents due to the karst problems, the repair coast
for five large dams coast $140 million [43]. China society and economy have affected
by the large collapse numbers, 60 families were moved at the Zhongshan South Road
collapse in 1985. In 1997, series of more than 60 collapse pits, four houses destroyed
and economic losses reached to 1.2 million Yuan resulting from collapse at Zhemu
Town.[53]
Figure 4. 6. On the left (giant sinkhole collapse in Fukuoka, Japan, on Nov. 8, 2016),
and fixed a week later on Nov. 15, 2016(on the right).Adapted from [57]
4.4.1 Karst geohazards in Abu Dhabi city, UAE
82
The United Arab Emirates (UAE) is located in the eastern part of the Arabian
Peninsula between Latitudes 22° 40’ N and 26° 00’N and Longitudes 51° 00’ E and
56° 00’ E (Figure 4. 7). The geology of the United Arab Emirates is greatly
influenced by the deposition of marine sediments associated with numerous sea level
changes during relatively recent geological time. With exception of mountainous
areas at the border with Oman, the topography of the country is relatively flat. The
geology of Abu Dhabi comprises superficial deposits of marine sands and silts, and
Sabkha deposits which overlay alternating beds of claystone and mudstone,
calcarenite, sandstone, and gypsum (see a typical stratigraphic column in Figure 4. 8,
at tunnel depth). Historical observations identify cavities associated with the presence
of evaporate and carbonate minerals within the Abu Dhabi subsurface and considered
to be a significant hazard for tunnel construction. The formation of subsurface cavities
is normally triggered by groundwater flow. Figure 4. 9, shows groundwater flow from
cavities within the rock mass in Abu Dhabi.[50]
Figure 4. 7. Geological map of the Coastal Areas of Abu Dhabi.Adapted from [50]
83
Figure 4. 8.The geological profile of Working Shaft 5, STEP. Adapted from [58]
Figure 4. 9. Groundwater flows from cavities. Adapted from [50]
Cavities have been found in the coastal areas of Abu Dhabi Island, Khalifa City, Al
Raha Beach and around Abu Dhabi International airport, among others, see Figure
1.1, Figure 4. 2 and Figure 4. 10. Geotechnical surveys performed prior to the
construction of the Strategic Tunnel Enhancement Programme (STEP) also identified
typical indicators for karstic features, such as voids, loss of drilling fluid, along with
84
several stretches of the project. Some of the negative consequences of cavities were
noticed in Khalifa city (A&B), road subsidence issues occurred in Khalifa City (A)
[59]. While in Khalifa City B, some villas started to sink due to subsidence and
sinkholes which in turn affected roads and damaged sewerage pipes. [6, 60]
Figure 4. 10. Homes sit in Khalifa City where the ground has swelled under the
pavement and cracked the foundation.[6, 60]
In conclusion, there are several conditions and factors that might trigger karst
geohazards, and can be used to predict possible karst collapse; 1) availability of
soluble bedrocks (carbonate or evaporate rocks) that contains karst features such as
caves or cracks which facilitate groundwater movement, 2) the presence of a karst
cover such as weak rock layer or loose soil and 3) ﬂuctuation of the water table and
inﬁltration of surface water, see Figure 4. 11.[55] Certain signs at the surface can
indicate a possible karst collapse. For example, soil depression, linear and circular
cracks in soil or floor, sinking or oriented of some vertical or horizontal feature such
as trees, roads, rails, fences, pipes, also cracks in building foundations and walls, see
Figure 4. 10 [43]. Sustainable management of human activities in karst area will
control the negative outcomes of karst geohazards.
85
Figure 4. 11. sinkhole collapse due to rainwater infiltration. Adapted from [61]
86
CHAPTER 5
5 Karst Cavity effect on Tunnel construction: STEP
Project Case
5.1 Introduction
This chapter describes the Strategic Tunnel Enhancement Programme (STEP) project,
which was developed by the Abu Dhabi Sewerage Services Company (ADSSC) to
improve the sewerage systems in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. In the first part
of the chapter, the project and its major components will be described. In the second
part of the chapter, the focus will be on the geotechnical issues faced during
construction, in particular, the occurrence of karst voids. Finally, the STEP project
will be used, in subsequent chapters, as a case study to investigate the effect of karst
cavities on tunneling.
5.2 Strategic Tunnel Enhancement Programme (STEP) project in Abu Dhabi
5.2.1 Project description
The Abu Dhabi Sewerage Services Company (ADSSC) has developed a
comprehensive Capital Investment Plan (CIP). The key aspects of the plan are two
major investment programs that cover important strategic and conceptual aspects,
which support the Urban Planning Council's (UPC) goal to manage Abu Dhabi’s
growth in a sustainable manner and accommodate the projected sewage flow in the
87
future. The first is the tactical investment plan (TIP), a program that focuses on
infrastructure rehabilitation and construction projects. The second major capital
investment is the Strategic Tunnel Enhancement Programme (STEP), which has been
launched by ADSSC to address the aging sewerage infrastructure and rapid
population growth.[62]
The conceptual layout of STEP, as shown in Figure 5. 1, consists of [63]
• Deep sewer tunnel extending from Abu Dhabi Island (ADI) to the Al Wathba
Independent Sewage Treatment Plant (ISTP).
• One large pumping station adjacent to AL Wathba ISTP at the end of the deep
tunnel sewer.
• Linking the existing sewerage system with the new deep sewer tunnels
through a series of link sewers. This will make it possible to removing of
several of the existing pumping stations.
88
Figure 5. 1. The layout of STEP. Adapted from [64]
More specifically, the STEP project consists of 41 km long deep sewer tunnel running
from the northern part of Abu Dhabi Island to the Mainland, drilled by eight
Tunneling Boring Machine (TBM). The tunnel depth will start from 27m underground
and reach to 100 m depth at Al Wathba. The entire deep tunnel will be divided into 3
contracts: T-01, T-02, and T-03, as shown in Figure 5. 1.T-02, covers 14.5 km out of
the entire tunnel (see Table 5. 1), and the excavation of this part is mainly in
mudstone and gypsum with the presence of underground water, as shown in Figure 4.
8.[58, 65]
In a move toward eliminating the existing pumping stations (up to 35) on the Abu
Dhabi Island and the mainland, the STEP will include link sewers totaling 50 km long
with varying diameters (max. of 3.1 m), a 100m deep pumping station as well as new
wastewater treatment plants at Al Wathba. The link sewers will be constructed under
89
two contracts, one will cover Abu Dhabi Island (LS-01) and the other (LS-02) will
cover Abu Dhabi mainland (Residential and Industrial Area) as shown Figure 5. 2.
These link sewers are intended to stop the flow into the existing pumping stations and
divert it to the deep tunnel using gravity, ( Figure 5. 3). LS-01 covers about 35.7 km
of the whole link sewer system with diameters ranging from 200 mm to 2800 mm.
while LS-02 will consist of 15.4 km sewerage network with diameters varying from
200 mm to 3100 mm. Furthermore, LS-01 and LS-02 will include 247 and 95 shafts,
respectively, for manholes with a depth between 8 m to 26 m. Micro-tunneling and
pipe jacking methods were adopted for the deep link sewers while open cut
excavation was used for the shallow ones [66, 67]. Figure 5. 2, shows the layout and
location of Contract LS-01 ( Figure 5. 2.A) and Contract LS-02 ( Figure 5. 2.B).
Table 5. 1:STEP project sections[58, 68]
Sections
T-01 T-02 T-03 LS-01/LS-02 Pump
Link tunnels Station
Total length 16 km 14.5 km 10.5 km 50 km n/a
Number of 3 3 2 n/a n/a
shaft
Number of 3 3 2 n/a n/a
TBMs
Tunnel 4m 6.3 m 7m 200mm-3.1m n/a
diameter
Company Samsung Impregilo Impregilo Züblin Odebrecht
Value 270 243 200 385 572
(US$m)
90
Figure 5. 2. Layout Plan of Link Sewers A) Contract LS-01 and B) Contract LS-02.
Adapted from[67]
91
Figure 5. 3. A) Tunnel and links sewer system (sewer links in yellow, deep tunnel in
blue), B) Gravity flow system, C&D) Pump station. Adapted from [62, 69]
5.3 Construction methods used by STEP
During the STEP project different construction methods, such as Tunneling Boring
Machine (TBM), Micro-tunneling and pipe jacking, were used depending on the
needs and depths of tunnel/links.
5.3.1 Tunneling Boring Machine (TBM)
There are several different types of tunnel boring machines, which differ in the
support type they provide during excavation, as None, Peripheral and Frontal support.
In this section, we will focus on the Earth Pressure Balance (EPB) Tunnel Boring
Machine (TBM), which was the one used to construct STEP’s deep sewer tunnel. The
specification of the EPBM used for T-02 is presented in Table 5. 2. Figure 5. 4 and
Figure 5. 5, show pictures of the EPBM machines used during the STEP project.
Figure 5. 4 shows a picture of the installation of one of the TBM’s through a work
92
shaft along the deep sewer tunnel alignment, and Figure 5. 5, shows one of the TBM’s
breaking through a working shaft.
Table 5. 2: T02 contract STEP project characteristics [58]
T02 contract Tunnel Approx. 15 WS5-5251 WS6-5159 WS7-4809

length km m m m
T02 Contract- Tunnel Boring Machines Characteristics
Machine type Earth pressure balance shield
Bore diameter 6.340 mm
Length TBM + Back- Aprox.106 m
Up
Power 3 x 315 kW
Cutter head speed 0-4.5 rotation/min
Max. working pressure 6.0 bars
Lining type Pre-casted segments
Intern ring diameter 5500 mm
Segment length 1400 mm
Number of segments for 5 plus crown
ring
Figure 5. 4Installation of TBM, STEP [64]
93
Figure 5. 5.Breakthrough of the TBM, STEP [64]
The Earth Pressure Balanced Machine (EPBM), is one of the TBM types that is used
to construct tunnels located partly or completely in soft soil under the water table. The
principle behind this method is to use the pressure at the machine face so that the
supporting pressure ps at the face balances the horizontal ground pressure ph and the
water pressure pw ( Figure 5. 6 shows the EPBM’s principles).[70]
Figure 5. 7 show a schematic of an EPBM and its different components. The face
stability is maintained by pressurizing the excavated material in the cutter-head
chamber (2). Excavated material is located behind the cutter-head and in front of the
pressure bulkhead (3). Then, the excavated material is removed through auger
conveyer (5). Operators control the speed and material discharge rates through the
conveyer, which in turn control the face pressure and balance the EPBM advance rate.
With the erectors (6), the tunnel is lined with steel reinforced concrete lining segments
(7) behind the pressure bulkhead. Then grout is injected into the tail skin or openings
in the segments to close the gap between the segments and ground. [70]
94
Figure 5. 6. EPBM principles. Adapted from [70]
Figure 5. 7. EPB machine. Adapted from [70]
Based on the support needed to be provided during the excavation, an EPBM can
operate at three different modes (see Figure 5. 8) [70, 71]:
95
• Open mode: depends only on the passive support from the cutter-head.
• Semi-closed mode: mostly in the stable ground with sufficient cohesion. The
excavation chamber is partially filled with excavated material and the rest is
occupied by compressed air. This compressed air provides support to the face
to achieve stability.
• Closed mode: the excavation chamber is fully occupied with the pressurized
excavated material, which is controlled by the cutter-head and auger conveyor
to provide the face pressure level.
Figure 5. 8. EPBM operation modes. Adapted from [70, 71]
5.3.2 Pipe jacking and Micro-tunneling
96
The pipe jacking method is currently used to create man-entry size diameter tunnels
that could reach to 900mm. This method needs two shafts/pits, an entry (thrust) pit
and receiving pit. The pipes are pushed through the ground by the hydraulic rams in
the thrust pit. Hydraulic jacking systems (pipe jacking method) are often used with
Microtunnelling Boring Machines (MTBM). [72]
Figure 5. 9 and Figure 5. 10shows the pipe jacking system used during the STEP and
one of the pipe jacking set up sites.
Microtunnelling is described as a remotely-controlled, guided, pipe-jacking operation.
This method is used to install pipes in different locations under highways, runways,
etc. The Microtunnelling Boring Machines (MTBM), consist of rotating cutting head
to excavate the ground along with crushing cone to smash large material to create a
mothy remove of the excavated material through the slurry lines. To achieve face
stability, there is a pressurized slurry mixing chamber in the back of the cutting head.
Hydraulic/electric motors direct the cutting head, for steering corrections. Figure 5. 11
shows one of the MTBM used during the construction of the link sewers of STEP.
Figure 5. 12 shows a schematic of the micro-tunneling procedure used during STEP
construction.[73]
97
Figure 5. 9. Jacking System, STEP [64]
Figure 5. 10. Pipe Jacking site setup, STEP. Adapted from [67]
98
Figure 5. 11. Micro-tunneling Machine, STEP. Adapted from [64]
Figure 5. 12. Micro-tunneling Procedure, STEP. Adapted from [64]
The MTBM needs a jacking system and two shafts (entry and receptor). The MTBM
is lowered into the jacking shaft and pushed through the ground by the hydraulic
99
jacking (see Figure 5. 12 and Figure 5. 13). After the jacking of each pipe element, the
slurry lines and control cables which connect the container (at the surface) and the
MTBM are disconnected, the jack frame returns to the original position and a new
pipe is lowered down into the shafts to be pushed into the ground while the MTBM
advances. The equipment, such as slurry lines and power and control cable
connections are used to remove the excavated material and achieve a safety
excavation progress. The process is repeated until the excavation concluded and the
MTBM reach to the receptor shaft. [73]
Figure 5. 13. Pipe Jacking and MTBM. Adapted from [73]
5.4 STEP project cavity issues
In order to evaluate the potential presence of cavities within the construction sites of
the STEP project, a surface geophysical survey was performed. The layout of the
investigated site (LS-01) is shown in Figure 5. 14. The geophysical investigation
extended to the maximum depth of drilled geotechnical boreholes (20-40m) and the
length of the sewer line surveyed was about 2.8 km. The main goal of the study was
100
to identify possible features that may indicate the presence of cavities/karts such as
subsurface cavities, fractured zones, and zones with important discontinuities within
the area of interest.
Figure 5. 14. The layout of the investigated site (LS-01).the Zoomed image to the
right is the proposed sewer line (2.8 km). Adapted from [74]
As shown in Figure 5. 14, ten sections were chosen for the investigation and twenty
five (25) survey lines were established for the geophysical measurements to cover the
proposed project area using a Multi-Channel Analysis of Surface Wave (MASW-2D),
which was determined to be an adequate geophysical survey technique for the site
conditions. A Seismic Surface Wave (MASW-2D) survey was conducted with Geode
–Ultra –Light Exploration Seismograph (24- Channels), manufactured by Geometrics,
Inc. (U.S.A), utilizing Vertical Geophones (4.5) Hz, spacing 3m apart. The data were
processed using SurfSeis Version (3) from Kansas Geological Survey. A number of 1-
D Vs profiles were produced for each shot point from the inversion results. The
101
resulting 1-D Vs profiles were placed at a surface location consistent with the middle
of the receiver line to construct a 2-D (surface and depth) (Vs ) maps. The X-axis
shows the distance (station= 3) along the survey line and the Y-axis represents the
depth in meters. Figure 5. 15, shows one of the 2D maps of Shear Wave Velocity
(m/sec) versus depth (m). The Images use a color scale, with blue showing areas of
low velocity and red areas of high velocity.
a) Satellite Image for Layout of MASW-2D Line Section A
b) Shear Wave Velocity (m/sec) versus depth (m) for Line Section A (A3)
Figure 5. 15. Geophysical measurements for LS-01.adapted from[74]
102
A summary of the analyses of the shear wave results from the MASW-2D survey is
shown Figure 5. 16. The figure combines all the shear wave values measurements
(about 2737), taken during this particular survey. They are plotted versus depth.
Relatively wide variations of measured velocities were generally obtained, however
the general trend of the results indicated an increase in velocity with depth with a
significant decrease in velocities at depths (8-10) m, (11-15) m, (15-20) m, (24-26) m
and (32-35) m, which could be an indication of the subsurface cavity or fractures
zones. [74]
Figure 5. 16. Shear Wave (Vs) Measurements versus Depth [74]
Several anomalies (i.e. a small area of low velocity embedded within a zone of high
velocity) which might indicate cavities or solution/geologic features in-filled with
water / soluble material were identified and they are summarized in Table 5. 3.
103
Table 5. 3. Summary of Anomalies identified by the MASW-2D Survey: [74]
Depth (m) Number of anomalies
15-17 14
20-25 16
33-37 23
Some of the potential risks of cavities that the tunnel excavation might face during the
execution of the stretch of the STEP project LS-01(Figure 5. 14) are listed in Table 5.
4 . Also listed in this table are the mitigation measures.
Most cavities encountered during tunneling of the link sewer were either within or
below the invert of the pipe/TBM, as shown in Figure 5. 17 and Figure 5. 18.
Table 5. 4. : Registered risks of STEP project LS-01[75]:
104
105
Figure 5. 17. The approximate clearance between invert of pipe/TBM and cavity is
1.7m. Adapted from [76]
Figure 5. 18 Invert of pipe/TBM is within the cavity. Adopted from [76]

106
In addition, cavities were also found during the construction of shafts as shown in
Figure 5. 19, which contains a picture of a cavity encountered during the excavation
of a shaft, and the mitigation measures used.
Figure 5. 19. Cavity encountered during shaft excavation and mitigation measures
[48]
5.5 Cavity Grouting
During the exploration drilling and geophysical surveys of link sewer Contract LS-01
(see Figure 5. 2.A) for LS-01 layout) several cavities were suspected to exist at depths
(at the level and below the planned sewer tunnel) that may influence the excavation of
link sewers tunnels (see Figure 5. 20). To mitigate potential adverse consequences
posed by cavity hazard and to ensure a safe and uninterrupted tunnel drive, additional
exploratory drilling for cavity grouting were performed at several locations of the link
sewer Contract LS-01. These works were performed during the period of February-
July 2015. [77, 78]
107
The boreholes were drilled and grouted in a sequence as shown in Figure 5. 21, Figure
5. 22. The grouting is executed in two stages (stage 1: boreholes A, C, and E; stage 2:
boreholes B and D), in order to ensure a safe distance between boreholes and
minimize or prevent the possibility of by-pass or connection between boreholes,
which could result in insufficient grouting. The grouting of each borehole is done
from a grouting station through grouting pipes. The grouting of each borehole is
considered finished after the upper section of the borehole has been filled and the
grout settlement is less than 2.5L over 5 min.
The results of the grouting operations seem to indicate that the possible cavities are
mainly isolated. However, the water inflow observed during shaft constructions
within this area seem to indicate that there is some connectivity through
fractures/fissures within the rock mass.[78]
Figure 5. 20. Exploratory borehole box from STEP LS-01 Line J showing two cavities
around 19-21m. Adapted from [77]
108
Figure 5. 21. Grouting sequence at LS-01. Adapted from [77]
Figure 5. 22. Layout plan northwest link sewer line-J of the cavity Grouting work.
Adapted from [77]
109
There were only a few of instances of where a high volume of cement grout intake
was observed (i.e. approx. 72m3, 45m3 , and 56m3), the other cavities were much
smaller. Even though, the smaller features would be less likely to cause large
movements of the TBM, however, they are likely to cause the problem of excessive
water inflow [77, 78]. Figure 5. 23 and Figure 5. 24show pictures of the grouting
operations at the North West Link Sewer (NWLS).
Figure 5. 23. Grouting operations at NWLS Line J. Adapted from [77]
110
Figure 5. 24.Grouting operations at NWLS. Adapted from [78]
5.6 Summary
In this chapter, one of the largest tunnel projects in the Gulf and Middle East region
was presented. The Strategic Tunnel Enhancement Programme (STEP), consists of
41 km long deep tunnel extending across Abu Dhabi city out to the desert where is the
deepest underground pumping station (100 m) in depth. STEP is considered as the
core of a large subterranean sewer system that will divert all the wastewater from the
city into the pump station that is located in the desert. A total of eight TBMs were
used to excavate the deep tunnel. Microtunnelling and jack piping methods were used
for sewage links. During the excavation different issues related to cavity, presence
was encountered. Cavities that were found during the construction of shafts were
either within or below the invert of pipe/TBM. To mitigate potential adverse

111
consequences posed by cavity hazard and to ensure a safe and uninterrupted tunnel
drive, additional exploratory drilling for cavity grouting was performed at several
locations. The STEP project and the karts issues it faced will be used as a case study
in this research to analyze the effect of the presence of cavities in tunnel construction.
112
CHAPTER 6
6 Data and Methodology
6.1 Introduction
Previously in Chapter 5, STEP project and the issues encountered during its
construction were detailed. Overall, Geophysical surveys show that the cavities found
during tunneling were within or below the pipe/TBM of the sewer links, reaching
dimensions of up to 3 m in diameter, as shown in Figure 6. 1.
Tunnel excavation near to existing cavities may lead to important interaction effects,
affect stress-distribution and ground deformation around the tunnel. Therefore, in the
present study, the Cavity and tunnel interaction will be performed through numerical
simulations of a shield (TBM) tunnel construction, using the STEP tunnels ground
material data. The analyses are done using Finite Element Method (FEM) in Plaxis
2D software. This chapter describes the methodology and data used in the tunnel-
cavity interaction cavity. The chapter will include a brief description of the numerical
software used, modeling approach, input data and the empirical solutions. The
empirical solutions will be used to compare the surface settlements.
113
Figure 6. 1 Cavity distance from the invert of pipe/TBM, in NWLS – Lines L and J.
Adapted from [76]
6.2 Finite Element Method (FEM)
In 1960’s the finite element term was introduced and today several different
numerical tools such as Finite Element Method, Finite Difference Method, Boundary
Element Method and Discrete Element Method provide efficient tools for tunneling
engineers for tunnel design. With time, the numerical method known as finite element
(FE) has been used in a wide range of soil and rock mechanics problems for which a
suitable analytical solution is difficult or not available. FEM gives several options to
model various aspects of tunneling and provides useful information about deformation
field with the advancing in computer capacity and friendly user soft wares. FEM
could be applied for different one, two or three dimensions, where it divides the
required area or volume into small numbers of areas or volumes called finite
elements, as shown in Figure 6. 2, and are obtained through discretization. Several
types of 2D and 3D shapes can be used to discretize the space, as seen in Figure 6. 3.
2D. [79-81]
114
Figure 6. 2. Symmetrical half of a) 2D-FE mesh and b) 3D-FE mesh. Adapted from
[79]
Figure 6. 3 . Different FE shapes available for 2D and 3D FE-mesh. Adapted from

[80]
Presently, numerical FEM provides significant support for tunneling projects all
around the world. Numerical models allow studying the complex material behavior
and boundary conditions as well as conducting different parametric effects. [79]
Tunnel deformation is a 3D problem, however, for simplicity; it is often simulating as
a 2D problem. However, modelling the tunneling process in 2D plane strain analysis
requires an approach that can consider 3D tunneling effect. There are several methods
that can be used to consider this effect in terms of a loss of volume. The next sections
will describe the FE software used in this study (PLAXIS 2D), as well as the approach
used to simulate the tunnel construction in 2D.
115
6.3 PLAXIS 2D
In 1987, the Dutch Ministry of Public Works and Water Management
(Rijkswaterstaat) started an initiative by developing PLAXIS at the Delft University
of Technology. The original purpose of this initiative was to support river
embankments analysis in the lowlands part of Holland by providing an easy to use 2D
FEM code. Later, PLAXIS Company (Plaxis bv) was established in 1993 as a result
of the continuous development of the product [82].
By 1998, the first PLAXIS 2D for windows was released. It is two-dimensional FE
software, used by geotechnical engineers to perform different analysis such as
deformation, stability, and flow in geotechnical engineering. The program is equipped
with a broad range of material models (from Mohr-coulomb to complex user-defined
soil models). Modelling and interaction between structures is a critical issue in
tunneling and geotechnical engineering in general. PLAXIS contains various features
that allow for analysis of various aspects of complex geotechnical structures,
including a user-friendly interface that guides the user through fast and efficient finite
element model creation, with a possibility of importing geometric details from Cad
files and automatic meshing. Finally, PLAXIS 2D contains powerful postprocessor
offering different possibilities of presenting results such as forces, displacements,
stresses. Furthermore, the results can be easily extracted from tables for further
processing outside PLAXIS. [82]
6.4 Modelling 3D tunnel excavation using 2D plain strain analysis
Tunnel excavation is a three-dimensional problem, and even though computer
software and storage have seen a huge development in the past years, 3D modeling
116
includes complex calculations which are time-consuming and require large data
storage. For this reason, many of tunnel excavation simulations tend to model the
tunneling process using 2D plane strain analyses. [79]
Modelling tunnel installation with 2D model requires different approaches to capture
the missing behavior in the third dimensions. Some of these approaches include the
contraction method, stress reduction method and modified grout pressure method.
[83] In this study, the contraction approach developed by Vermeer and Brinkgreve
[79, 84]will be used to allow for the 3D tunneling effect to be taken into consideration
in the 2D numerical models. The approach consists of simulating ground loss by
specifying a tunnel contraction value. This is done through two different calculation
phases. The first calculation step consists of deactivating the soil clustering inside the
tunnel to simulate excavation and at the same time activate the tunnel lining. The
removal of ground weight from inside the tunnel will affect the tunnel lining and
cause some uplifting movement of the lining. In the second phase of calculation, the
tunnel lining is stepwise contracted until it reaches the pre-assigned (i.e. user defined)
contraction value. These two steps are shown in Figure 6. 4 [79] [83]. Note that this
contraction should be the same as the volume loss in undrained conditions.
117
Figure 6. 4. Contraction method. A) The uplifting movement of lining during the
excavation; B) Tunnel contraction △R. Adapted from [79]
6.5 Geometry and boundary conditions
6.5.1 Model dimensions
Two-dimension Finite Element modeling requires an adequate modeling dimensions
to eliminate boundary effects. In this study, the dimensions of the 2D mesh
dimensions were calculated using equation 1 and 2. Figure 6. 5 show the model
dimensions used (h=17.6m, W=60m)
The distance from the tunnel crown dimension to the bottom boundary (h), was
calculated as following [79, 83]:
h = 2.2*D Equation 1
Where, D is the tunnel diameter, in this case, it is 8 m.
The minimum width of the FE model was calculated following [79, 83]:
H
W = 2D(1 + D) Equation 2
Where W is the model width, H is the distance from the ground surface until the
tunnel crown (18m) and D is the tunnel diameter.
118
Figure 6. 5. 2D FE meshing dimensions and boundary conditions.
6.5.2 Model Type and Elements
Two types of models can be used to define the 2D FE modeling, plain strain and
axisymmetric, as shown in Figure 6. 6. In this study, the 2D FE model was defined as
plane strain, which assumes that out-of-plane geometry is characterized by a large
uniform cross-section and that loading does not vary in the out-of-plane direction (Z)
such that Z displacements are neglected, while the normal stresses are fully taken into
account. [82]
119
Figure 6. 6. Examples of plain strain model (left) and Axisymmetric model (right).
Adapted from[82]
The study used the default soil element number in PLAXIS 2D which is a 15- node
triangle, as shown in Figure 6. 7. The 15-node provides a fourth order interpolation
for displacement and numerical integration which involves twelve stress points, and is
therefore more accurate than the lower node elements (e.g. 6-node triangle). This is
especially important in the more complex problems. [82]
Figure 6. 7. The position of nodes and stress points in a) 15-node triangle and b) 6-
node triangle. Adapted from [82]
120
6.5.3 2D meshing
Once the geometry of the model is defined, the process of meshing, which consists of
dividing the model into finite elements, starts. PLAXIS 2D provides automatic FE
mesh generation which is used in this study. An example of a mesh is shown in Figure
6. 5. The mesh generation process takes into consideration the soil stratigraphy,
structural objects, loads and boundary conditions. In addition, the process is based on
a robust triangular procedure[82]. Fine to very-fine 2D meshing was used in the
present study to provide more accurate numerical results, especially around structural
elements, loads and prescribed displacement.
6.5.4 Boundary conditions
The model boundary fixities (i.e. boundary restraints) were set as following, also
shown in Figure 6. 5.:
• The model vertical boundaries (at right and left side) are fixed in their normal
x-direction (guaranteeing that the horizontal displacement is zero) and are kept
free in the y-direction. This will allow only for normal stress σ but no shear
stress τ.
• The horizontal ground surface has no fixities and left free to displace.
• The bottom boundary is fixed so that both displacements in y and x-direction
are zero. Normal stress σ and shear stress τ may occur.
• Tunnel elements at the left boundary set to zero rotation øz and bending
moment M can occur.
6.6 Material models and input data
121
PLAXIS contains different model options to simulate the soil and rock behavior. In
this study, Hardening soil model (HS) and Hoek-Brown model (HB) were used to
simulate the ground’s behavior. A brief description of both models is provided below.
6.6.1 Hardening Soil model (HS)
HS is an elasto-plastic model that can be used to simulate the behavior of different
soils such as sands, gravel, clays, and silts. HS model is different from elastic
perfectly-plastic models where the yield surface of hardening plasticity is not fixed in
principal stress space. In contrast to others model, such as Mohr-Coulomb for
example, the Hardening Soil model also accounts for stress-dependency of stiffness
moduli. Two types of hardening can be identified in HS model. The first one is the
shear hardening, as soil goes under deviatoric loading it shows an irreversible plastic
strain which is modeled using this type of hardening. While, irreversible plastic
strains resultant from initial compression in oedometer loading and isotropic loading
are simulated by the second type, compression hardening. [82, 85]
The hardening soil model is an advanced hyperbolic soil model which differs from the
well-known hyperbolic Duncan and Chang model by three things. First, it uses
plasticity theory instead of the elasticity theory. Second, it considers the soil
dilantancy and the third one consists of presenting the yield cap to close elastic region
in the p-direction (hydrostatic direction). The hardening soil model is characterized by
[82]
• Stress dependent stiffness according to a power law (input parameter m)

𝑟𝑒𝑓
• Plastic strain resultant from main deviatoric loading (input parameter 𝐸50 ).
122
𝑟𝑒𝑓
• Plastic strain resultant from main compression (input parameter 𝐸𝑜𝑒𝑑 ).
𝑟𝑒𝑓
• Elastic unloading/reloading (input parameter 𝐸𝑢𝑟 𝑣𝑢𝑟 ).
• Failure according to Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion (parameters c, φ, ѱ).
The hyperbolic relationship observed between the vertical strain ε1 and the deviatoric
stress q in triaxial loading is the main idea behind the formulation of the hardening
soil model, as shown in Figure 6. 8. The resultant curve for a standard drained triaxial
test is described by:
𝐪 (𝛔𝟏 −𝛔𝟑 )
𝛆𝟏 = 𝟐𝐄𝐚 For q< qf Equation 3
𝟓𝟎 𝐪𝐚 −(𝛔𝟏 −𝛔𝟑 )
Where the ultimate deviatoric stress qf and the quantity qa can be defined from:
𝟔 𝐬𝐢𝐧 𝛗𝐩 𝐪
𝐪𝐟 = 𝟑−𝐬𝐢𝐧 𝛗 (𝐩 + 𝐜 𝐜𝐨𝐭 𝛗𝐩 ) 𝐪𝐚 = 𝐑𝐟 Equation 4
𝐩 𝐟
The ultimate deviatoric stress is derived from the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion,
which includes the strength variables c and φp . Perfectly plastic yielding will occur
when the failure criterion is satisfied (q=qf). The failure ratio (Rf) is the ratio between
qf and qa and it should be smaller than 1.
Figure 6. 8. Hyperbolic stress-strain relation in primary loading for the standard

drained triaxial test. Adapted from [85].
123
6.6.2 Hardening Soil model (HS) input data
In our study, we model tunneling through sand. Sand is a loose granular material and
its stiffness increase with depth. As shown before in Chapter 3, the sand layer located
below the made ground and cover all the Abu Dhabi area. Therefore, HS model will
be used to simulate tunneling through sand as it’s suitable for granular material and
accounts for stress-dependency of stiffness moduli. The data used in this study was
obtained directly from the geotechnical report of STEP project [86] and from
technical literature review [87]. These are shown in Table 6.1.
Table 6.1: Material properties of the soil layer
Parameter Name Sand units

General
Material model Model Hardening -
soil
Drainage type type Drained -
Soil unit weight above phreatic level 𝛾unsat 19 KN/m3
Soil unit weight below phreatic level 𝛾sat 19.5 KN/m3
Parameters
Secant stiffness in standard drained triaxial 𝑟𝑒𝑓 35000 KN/m2
𝐸50
test
Tangent stiffness or primary oedometer 𝑟𝑒𝑓 35000 KN/m2
𝐸𝑜𝑒𝑑
loading
unloading/reloading stiffness 𝑟𝑒𝑓 105000 KN/m2
𝐸𝑢𝑟
power for stress-level dependency of stiffness m 0.5 -
,
Cohesion 𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑓 0 KN/m2
Friction angle 𝜑, 34 °
Dilatancy angle Ψ 0 °
Poisson’s ratio 𝑣, 0.2 -
Groundwater
Horizontal permeability 𝐾𝑥 298.08 m/day
Vertical permeability 𝐾𝑦 298.08 m/day
Interfaces
Interface strength type type Rigid Unit
124
Interface strength * 𝑅𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟 1.0 -
Initial
K0 determination - Manual units
lateral earth pressure coefficient 𝐾0,𝑥 0.44 -
over- consolidation ratio OCR 1 -
Pre-overburden ration POP 0 -
• Interface strength: is modeling the soil-structure interaction through choosing a
reduction strength factor Rinter.
6.6.3 Hoek-Brown model (HB)
Rock behavior is different from the soil behavior as it is stiffer and stronger in
general. Rock stiffness considers constant as the stiffness dependency on stress level
is minor. In contrast, the shear strength is highly dependent on the stress level. Mohr-
Coulomb failure criterion is usually chosen as a first approach to simulate the shear
strength of the rock material. However, rock material could be under a wide range of
stress level where linear stress- dependency of Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion is not
appropriate. In that case, a non-linear approximation of rock strength by Hoek–Brown
failure criterion is sufficient where it contains shear strength as well as tensile strength
in a continuous formulation, see Figure 6. 9. Hoek- Brown model for rock mass
behavior is formulated by combining the Hoek-Brown failure criterion and Hooke’s
law of isotropic linear elastic behavior.[82]
General Hoek-Brown failure criterion is generated as a non-linear relationship
between the major and minor effective principal stresses, where tension (+) and
pressure (-), [82]:

𝒂
−𝝈′𝟑
𝝈′𝟏 = 𝝈′𝟑 − 𝝈𝒄𝒊 (𝒎𝒃 + 𝒔) Equation 5
𝝈𝒄𝒊
125
Where mb is a reduced value intact rock parameter mi, which depend on the geological
strength index (GSI) and the Disturbance factor (D), as follows:
𝐆𝐒𝐈−𝟏𝟎𝟎
𝐦𝐛 = 𝐦𝐢 𝐞𝐱𝐩 ( 𝟐𝟖−𝟏𝟒𝐃 ) Equation 6
S and a constant for the rock mass and could be calculated as follows:
𝐆𝐒𝐈−𝟏𝟎𝟎
𝐬 = 𝐞𝐱𝐩 ( ) Equation 7
𝟗−𝟑𝐃
𝟏 𝟏 −𝐆𝐒𝐈 −𝟐𝟎
𝐚 = 𝟐 + 𝟔 [𝐞𝐱𝐩 ( ) − 𝐞𝐱𝐩 ( )] Equation 8
𝟏𝟓 𝟑
σc is the uniaxial compressive strength of the specific rock under consideration and it
could be calculated from the uniaxial compressive strength of the intact rock material
(σci ):
𝛔𝐜 = 𝛔𝐜𝐢 𝐬𝐚 Equation 9
Furthermore, the tensile strength of the specific rock under consideration (σt ):
𝐒𝛔𝐜𝐢
𝛔𝐭 = Equation 10
𝐦𝐛
Hoek-Brown failure criterion is rewritten for the plasticity theory as:
′ 𝐚
−𝛔
𝐟𝐇𝐁 = 𝛔′𝟏 − 𝛔′𝟑 + 𝐟(̅ 𝛔′𝟑 ) where 𝐟(̅ 𝛔′𝟑 ) = 𝛔𝐜𝐢 (𝐦𝐛 𝛔 𝟑 + 𝐬) Equation 11
𝐜𝐢
126
Figure 6. 9. Hoek-Brown failure criterion in principle stresses. Adapted by [82]
6.6.4 Hoek-Brown model (HB) input data
In this study, the Hoek-brown model was used to model the behavior of mudstone
which is a predominant layer within the underground of Abu Dhabi. This is layer is
normally associated with the existence of an adjacent gypsum layer which will be
represented by Hoek-brown. At the interface of these two layers, it is common for
voids to exist. The material properties were obtained from STEP [86] as well as from
a technical literature review [3, 88]. The values used for both materials are shown in
Table 6. 2 and Table 6. 3
Table 6. 2: Material properties of the Mudstone layer
Parameter Name Mudstone units

General
Material model Model Hoek-Brown -
127
Soil unit weight below phreatic level 𝛾sat 20 KN/m3
Initial void ratio 𝑒𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑡 -

Parameters
young's modulus 𝐸, 163200 KN/m2
,
Poisson’s ratio 𝑣𝑢𝑟 0.3 -
uniaxial compressive strength σci 1600 KN/m2
Material constant for the intact rock 𝑚𝑖 9 -
Geological strength index GSI 50 -
Disturbance factor D 0 -
Dilatancy parameter Ψmax 0 °
Dilatancy parameter σΨ 0 KN/m2
Interfaces
Interface strength 𝑅𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟 1.0 -
Initial
lateral earth pressure coefficient 𝐾0,𝑥 1 -
Table 6. 3: Material properties of the Gypsum layer
Parameter Name Gypsum units

General
Material model Model Hoek-Brown -
Soil unit weight below phreatic level 𝛾sat 21 KN/m3
Initial void ratio 𝑒𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑡 -

Parameters
young's modulus 𝐸, 621400 KN/m2
,
Poisson’s ratio 𝑣𝑢𝑟 0.3 -
uniaxial compressive strength σci 4300 KN/m2
Material constant for the intact rock 𝑚𝑖 16 -
Geological strength index GSI 50 -
Disturbance factor D 0 -
Dilatancy parameter Ψmax 0 °
Dilatancy parameter σΨ 0 KN/m2
Interfaces
Interface strength 𝑅𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟 1.0 -
128
Initial
lateral earth pressure coefficient 𝐾0,𝑥 1 -
6.6.5 Structural input data
The properties of the structural elements used to model the tunnel lining are presented
in Table 6. 4, which are the typical values for concrete that were collected from
literature review [83, 89].
Table 6. 4: Material properties of the lining
Parameter Name lining unit
Material type Type Elastic, Isotropic -
Normal stiffness EA 8000,000 kN/m
Flexural rigidity EI 56000 kNm2/m
Weight w 8.4 kN/m/m
Poisson's ratio v 0.15 -
6.7 Initial stress K0 and calculation stages
6.7.1 The role of Initial stress K0
Prior to the tunnel excavation, the ground is already pre-stressed. Therefore, in
various geotechnical engineering issues and tunneling domain, these initial stresses
must be taken into consideration. Generally, material weight and geologic formation
history affect the initial stresses. The stress state is characterized by two stresses, the
initial vertical effective stress (σ′v,0 ) and the initial horizontal effective stress (σ′h,0 ).
129
The horizontal stress can be related to the vertical stress by the lateral earth pressure
coefficient K0, through the equations: [79, 82]
𝛔′𝐯,𝟎 = 𝛔𝐯 − 𝐮 = 𝛄. 𝐡 − 𝐮 Equation 12
𝛔′𝐡,𝐨 = 𝐊 𝟎 . 𝛔′𝐯,𝟎 Equation 13
′
Where 𝜎v,0 is the initial vertical effective stress at depth h, 𝜎v is the corresponding
total stress, u is the pore water pressure and 𝛾 is the unit ground weight. Equations 12
and 13 are also known as K0 procedure.
PLAXIS 2D provide the users with K0 procedure or gravity loading option to
generate the initial stresses. In gravity loading, the initial stresses are generated from
the volumetric weight of the soil.
As shown in Figure 6. 10, there are different possibilities for the stress magnitude and
orientation. K0 procedure is recommended to be used when we have homogeneous
ground or horizontal layers with the horizontal ground surface (Figure 6. 10a and b).
In the case of the ground in the non-horizontal ground surface the gravity loading
procedure is preferable because in this case, K0 calculation is not sufficient as the
initial stress around tunnel will be different at different region depending on soils self-
weigh (Figure 6. 10c).
If the tunnel is constructed below the groundwater then water pressure must be taken
into consideration in the deformation analysis by subtracting the pore pressure from
the total stresses. While for tunnels constructed above the water table and
characterized by drained ground behavior, the effective vertical stresses will be equal
to the total since the pore water pressure is zero. In addition, if the geological profile
contains different horizontal layers, as shown in Figure 6. 10.b, then the vertical
130
stresses could be generated as summation of vertical stresses with respect to the
ground layer i :[79]
𝛔′𝐯,𝟎 = ∑𝐢 𝛄𝐢 . ∆𝐡𝐢 − 𝐮𝐢 Equation 14
Figure 6. 10. Initial stresses magnitude and orientation. a) Homogeneous ground with
horizontal ground surface, b) Horizontally layered ground with horizontal ground
surface, c) homogeneous ground with non-horizontal ground surface. Adapted from
[79]
For this research, the values of K0 used are those determined in the field and the
method used to calculate the initial stress is the K0 procedure [86]
6.7.2 Calculation stages in PLAXIS 2D
In this study, we modeled different scenarios of cavity-tunnel interaction by varying
the ground materials, cavity location and dimensions, see
Figure 6. 11. In addition, we consider two scenarios for the cavity-tunnel interaction:
1) the cavity occurs during initial states of tunneling. 2) The cavity occurs after the
tunnel has been completed. The plastic calculation was used for the analyses to carry
out an elastic-plastic deformation analysis.
Staged construction mode controls the loading process where loads, soil volume
clusters or structural objects can be activated or deactivated during the tunneling
131
simulation process. In this study, different scenarios will be generated to simulate the
cavity-tunnel interaction at different stages of the tunnel construction. The stages used
for the baseline calculation are shown in
Figure 6. 11 and Figure 6. 12, and described below:
1) Initial phase: This step is only used to set the initial stresses of the model as a
starting point for numerical calculation. Deformations are zeroed at the end of
this phase.
2) Tunnel excavation: the ground is removed from inside the tunnel to simulate
the excavation and at the same time tunnel lining is placed. This is the first
step of the contraction method (see Figure 6. 4)
3) Lining contraction: The tunnel lining is stepwise contracted until it reaches
the pre-assigned (i.e. user defined) contraction value of 0.5%. This constitutes
the second step of the contraction method (see Figure 6. 4)
4) Grouting: This step is used to account for the tail void injection effect. It is
modeled through a pressure which is applied to the gap between soil and
tunnel lining, in our model. To be able to apply this pressure, in this stage the
tunnel lining and interface are deactivated. Since we do not have the exact
values of grouting pressure that were used during the STEP tunnel
construction, we have estimated the grouting pressure to be [90]:
𝛔𝐢𝐧𝐣 = 𝟏. 𝟐. 𝛔𝐯 Equation 15
This is a common valued adopted in this type of tunnel construction.
5) Final lining: Final lining and interface are activated to present the final tunnel
shape and size.
132
In addition to these steps we have a cavity step, i.e. a step in which we active a cavity
of certain dimensions at a specified distance and angle from the tunnel. For the two
cases mentioned above the construction steps are as follows (see Figure 6. 11):
Cavity at initial states of the construction (Before Grouting (BG))
1) Initial phase
2) Tunnel excavation
3) Lining contraction
4) Cavity
5) Grouting
6) Final lining
Cavity after tunnel construction (After-Lining (AL))
1) Initial phase
2) Tunnel excavation
3) Lining contraction
4) Grouting
5) Final lining
6) Cavity
The basic aim of the construction stages is to analysis the tunnel and soil interaction
without the effect of cavity presence. This procedure will help us to measure the
cavity effect on tunneling in different soil material as will be shown in chapter 7.
133
Figure 6. 11. The basic staged construction steps followed in this study and the
location of the Before grouting stage (BG) and After Lining (AL) stages.
Figure 6. 12. The basic staged construction steps followed in this study
Different finite element analyses were conducted, where the size of the cavity, of the
tunnel, the depth and distance between the two openings were varied, as shown in
Figure 6. 14. The simulations are conducted in a two-different ground (cohesive and
granular) as well as complex ground materials, see Figure 6. 11 and Figure 6. 13 .
Table 6. 5 contains a summary of the analyses, Table 6. 6 contains a summary of the
analysis for specific cases of the grouting effect and Table 6. 7 for the analysis of the
134
complex ground model. The Cases naming in Tables are following the order in Figure
6. 15
Figure 6. 13. The complex ground model consists of three layers Sand, mudstone and
Gypsum.
As shown in Figure 6. 14, in mudstone the cavity was created as a hole in the medium
and due to the high cohesion of the medium no support was needed. While in the sand
model, it has a low cohesion, therefore, it was not realistic to create a hole in the
medium as it will collapse directly. We are assuming that the void (cavity) is located
within the mudstone intrusion. Because as we know, there are alternating layers of
mudstone and gypsum located under the sand over Abu Dhabi (This was discussed in
chapter3).
135
Figure 6. 14. Schematic of the tunnel interaction simulations (a) Cavity diameter; (b)
tunnel diameter; (d) distance between tunnel and cavity walls; (α) angle cavity. At the
right side, a schematic showed the cavity inside mudstone and sand models.
Figure 6. 15. The naming system of the analysis cases followed in the current study.
Table 6. 5. Summary of the analysis
scenario Case Cavity size Distance to Angle Grouting

(m) tunnel (m) (°) (KN/m2)
Base Case BC _ _ _ -432
BG BG_0.5_-90 0.5 0.5 -90 -432
BG BG_1_-90 1 0.5 -90 -432
BG BG_2_-90 2 0.5 -90 -432
BG BG_0.5_-90 0.5 0.75 -90 -432
BG BG_1_-90 1 0.75 -90 -432
BG BG_2_-90 2 0.75 -90 -432
BG BG_0.5_-90 0.5 1 -90 -432
BG BG_1_-90 1 1 -90 -432
BG BG_2_-90 2 1 -90 -432
136
BG BG_0.5_-90 0.5 1.5 -90 -432
BG BG_1_-90 1 1.5 -90 -432
BG BG_2_-90 2 1.5 -90 -432
BG BG_0.5_-90 0.5 2 -90 -432
BG BG_1_-90 1 2 -90 -432
BG BG_2_-90 2 2 -90 -432
BG BG_0.5_-90 0.5 2.5 -90 -432
BG BG_1_-90 1 2.5 -90 -432
BG BG_2_-90 2 2.5 -90 -432
BG BG_0.5_-90 0.5 3 -90 -432
BG BG_1_-90 1 3 -90 -432
BG BG_2_-90 2 3 -90 -432
BG BG_0.5_0 0.5 0.5 0 -432
BG BG_1_0 1 0.5 0 -432
BG BG_2_0 2 0.5 0 -432
BG BG_0.5_0 0.5 0.75 0 -432
BG BG_1_0 1 0.75 0 -432
BG BG_2_0 2 0.75 0 -432
BG BG_0.5_0 0.5 1 0 -432
BG BG_1_0 1 1 0 -432
BG BG_2_0 2 1 0 -432
BG BG_0.5_0 0.5 1.5 0 -432
BG BG_1_0 1 1.5 0 -432
BG BG_2_0 2 1.5 0 -432
BG BG_0.5_0 0.5 2 0 -432
BG BG_1_0 1 2 0 -432
BG BG_2_0 2 2 0 -432
BG BG_0.5_0 0.5 2.5 0 -432
BG BG_1_0 1 2.5 0 -432
BG BG_2_0 2 2.5 0 -432
BG BG_0.5_0 0.5 3 0 -432
BG BG_1_0 1 3 0 -432
BG BG_2_0 2 3 0 -432
BG BG_0.5_90 0.5 0.5 90 -432
BG BG_1_90 1 0.5 90 -432
BG BG_2_90 2 0.5 90 -432
BG BG_0.5_90 0.5 0.75 90 -432
BG BG_1_90 1 0.75 90 -432
BG BG_2_90 2 0.75 90 -432
BG BG_0.5_90 0.5 1 90 -432
137
BG BG_1_90 1 1 90 -432
BG BG_2_90 2 1 90 -432
BG BG_0.5_90 0.5 1.5 90 -432
BG BG_1_90 1 1.5 90 -432
BG BG_2_90 2 1.5 90 -432
BG BG_0.5_90 0.5 2 90 -432
BG BG_1_90 1 2 90 -432
BG BG_2_90 2 2 90 -432
BG BG_0.5_90 0.5 2.5 90 -432
BG BG_1_90 1 2.5 90 -432
BG BG_2_90 2 2.5 90 -432
BG BG_0.5_90 0.5 3 90 -432
BG BG_1_90 1 3 90 -432
BG BG_2_90 2 3 90 -432
AL AL_0.5_-90 0.5 0.5 -90 -432
AL AL_1_-90 1 0.5 -90 -432
AL AL_2_-90 2 0.5 -90 -432
AL AL_0.5_-90 0.5 0.75 -90 -432
AL AL_1_-90 1 0.75 -90 -432
AL AL_2_-90 2 0.75 -90 -432
AL AL_0.5_-90 0.5 1 -90 -432
AL AL_1_-90 1 1 -90 -432
AL AL_2_-90 2 1 -90 -432
AL AL_0.5_-90 0.5 1.5 -90 -432
AL AL_1_-90 1 1.5 -90 -432
AL AL_2_-90 2 1.5 -90 -432
AL AL_0.5_-90 0.5 2 -90 -432
AL AL_1_-90 1 2 -90 -432
AL AL_2_-90 2 2 -90 -432
AL AL_0.5_-90 0.5 2.5 -90 -432
AL AL_1_-90 1 2.5 -90 -432
AL AL_2_-90 2 2.5 -90 -432
AL AL_0.5_-90 0.5 3 -90 -432
AL AL_1_-90 1 3 -90 -432
AL AL_2_-90 2 3 -90 -432
AL AL_0.5_0 0.5 0.5 0 -432
AL AL_1_0 1 0.5 0 -432
AL AL_2_0 2 0.5 0 -432
AL AL_0.5_0 0.5 0.75 0 -432
AL AL_1_0 1 0.75 0 -432
138
AL AL_2_0 2 0.75 0 -432
AL AL_0.5_0 0.5 1 0 -432
AL AL_1_0 1 1 0 -432
AL AL_2_0 2 1 0 -432
AL AL_0.5_0 0.5 1.5 0 -432
AL AL_1_0 1 1.5 0 -432
AL AL_2_0 2 1.5 0 -432
AL AL_0.5_0 0.5 2 0 -432
AL AL_1_0 1 2 0 -432
AL AL_2_0 2 2 0 -432
AL AL_0.5_0 0.5 2.5 0 -432
AL AL_1_0 1 2.5 0 -432
AL AL_2_0 2 2.5 0 -432
AL AL_0.5_0 0.5 3 0 -432
AL AL_1_0 1 3 0 -432
AL AL_2_0 2 3 0 -432
AL AL_0.5_90 0.5 0.5 90 -432
AL AL_1_90 1 0.5 90 -432
AL AL_2_90 2 0.5 90 -432
AL AL_0.5_90 0.5 0.75 90 -432
AL AL_1_90 1 0.75 90 -432
AL AL_2_90 2 0.75 90 -432
AL AL_0.5_90 0.5 1 90 -432
AL AL_1_90 1 1 90 -432
AL AL_2_90 2 1 90 -432
AL AL_0.5_90 0.5 1.5 90 -432
AL AL_1_90 1 1.5 90 -432
AL AL_2_90 2 1.5 90 -432
AL AL_0.5_90 0.5 2 90 -432
AL AL_1_90 1 2 90 -432
AL AL_2_90 2 2 90 -432
AL AL_0.5_90 0.5 2.5 90 -432
AL AL_1_90 1 2.5 90 -432
AL AL_2_90 2 2.5 90 -432
AL AL_0.5_90 0.5 3 90 -432
AL AL_1_90 1 3 90 -432
AL AL_2_90 2 3 90 -432
139
Table 6. 6. Summary of the analysis for grouting effect on the value of bending
moment and the displacement at the surface
scenario Case Cavity Distance to Angle (°) Grouting

size (m) tunnel (m) (KN/m2)
AL AL_2_-90_432 2 0.5 -90 -432
AL AL_2_-90_432 2 0.75 -90 -432
AL AL_2_-90_432 2 1 -90 -432
AL AL_2_-90_432 2 1.5 -90 -432
AL AL_2_-90_432 2 2 -90 -432
AL AL_2_-90_432 2 2.5 -90 -432
AL AL_2_-90_432 2 3 -90 -432
AL AL_2_-90_350 2 0.5 -90 -350
AL AL_2_-90_350 2 0.75 -90 -350
AL AL_2_-90_350 2 1 -90 -350
AL AL_2_-90_350 2 1.5 -90 -350
AL AL_2_-90_350 2 2 -90 -350
AL AL_2_-90_350 2 2.5 -90 -350
AL AL_2_-90_350 2 3 -90 -350
AL AL_2_-90_250 2 0.5 -90 -250
AL AL_2_-90_250 2 0.75 -90 -250
AL AL_2_-90_250 2 1 -90 -250
AL AL_2_-90_250 2 1.5 -90 -250
AL AL_2_-90_250 2 2 -90 -250
AL AL_2_-90_250 2 2.5 -90 -250
AL AL_2_-90_250 2 3 -90 -250
AL AL_2_0_432 2 0.5 0 -432
AL AL_2_0_432 2 0.75 0 -432
AL AL_2_0_432 2 1 0 -432
AL AL_2_0_432 2 1.5 0 -432
AL AL_2_0_432 2 2 0 -432
AL AL_2_0_432 2 2.5 0 -432
AL AL_2_0_432 2 3 0 -432
AL AL_2_0_350 2 0.5 0 -350
AL AL_2_0_350 2 0.75 0 -350
AL AL_2_0_350 2 1 0 -350
AL AL_2_0_350 2 1.5 0 -350
AL AL_2_0_350 2 2 0 -350
AL AL_2_0_350 2 2.5 0 -350
AL AL_2_0_350 2 3 0 -350
140
AL AL_2_0_250 2 0.5 0 -250
AL AL_2_0_250 2 0.75 0 -250
AL AL_2_0_250 2 1 0 -250
AL AL_2_0_250 2 1.5 0 -250
AL AL_2_0_250 2 2 0 -250
AL AL_2_0_250 2 2.5 0 -250
AL AL_2_0_250 2 3 0 -250
AL AL_2_90_432 2 0.5 90 -432
AL AL_2_90_432 2 0.75 90 -432
AL AL_2_90_432 2 1 90 -432
AL AL_2_90_432 2 1.5 90 -432
AL AL_2_90_432 2 2 90 -432
AL AL_2_90_432 2 2.5 90 -432
AL AL_2_90_432 2 3 90 -432
AL AL_2_90_350 2 0.5 90 -350
AL AL_2_90_350 2 0.75 90 -350
AL AL_2_90_350 2 1 90 -350
AL AL_2_90_350 2 1.5 90 -350
AL AL_2_90_350 2 2 90 -350
AL AL_2_90_350 2 2.5 90 -350
AL AL_2_90_350 2 3 90 -350
AL AL_2_90_250 2 0.5 90 -250
AL AL_2_90_250 2 0.75 90 -250
AL AL_2_90_250 2 1 90 -250
AL AL_2_90_250 2 1.5 90 -250
AL AL_2_90_250 2 2 90 -250
AL AL_2_90_250 2 2.5 90 -250
AL AL_2_90_250 2 3 90 -250
Table 6. 7. Summary of the analysis for Complex ground model
scenario Case Cavity Distance to Angle Grouting

size tunnel (m) (°) (KN/m2)
(m)
AL AL_2_-90_432 2 0.5 -90 -432
AL AL_2_-90_432 2 0.75 -90 -432
AL AL_2_-90_432 2 1 -90 -432
AL AL_2_-90_432 2 1.5 -90 -432
AL AL_2_-90_432 2 2 -90 -432
AL AL_2_-90_432 2 2.5 -90 -432
141
AL AL_2_-90_432 2 3 -90 -432
AL AL_2_0_432 2 0.5 0 -432
AL AL_2_0_432 2 0.75 0 -432
AL AL_2_0_432 2 1 0 -432
AL AL_2_0_432 2 1.5 0 -432
AL AL_2_0_432 2 2 0 -432
AL AL_2_0_432 2 2.5 0 -432
AL AL_2_0_432 2 3 0 -432
AL AL_2_90_432 2 0.5 90 -432
AL AL_2_90_432 2 0.75 90 -432
AL AL_2_90_432 2 1 90 -432
AL AL_2_90_432 2 1.5 90 -432
AL AL_2_90_432 2 2 90 -432
AL AL_2_90_432 2 2.5 90 -432
AL AL_2_90_432 2 3 90 -432
6.8 Empirical solution of surface settlement
The results of the model surface settlement were compared results from empirical
models. One of the most commonly used empirical equations to estimate settlements
due to tunneling is the one developed by Peck [91] [92]. Peck observed by studying
several tunnel projects that Gaussian curves could use to represent settlement trough
over a single tunnel. The finding of Peck was supported by O'Reilly and New [92-94].
In the modified empirical solution by Peck gives an approximation of the settlement
at different horizontal distances from the centerline of a tunnel which is important to
the safety of the adjacent building. As shown in Figure 6. 16, a Gaussian curve along
with its related properties as well as its relationships to the tunnel dimensions is
assumed, where R represents the tunneling radius, Z represents the depth to the tunnel
center. The ground surface settlements of the Gaussian curve are determined
empirically from Peck equation at any point: [92-94]
142
𝐲𝟐 𝐬 𝐕
𝐒 = 𝐒𝐦𝐚𝐱 𝐞𝐱𝐩 [− 𝟐𝐢𝟐 ] , 𝐒𝐦𝐚𝐱 = 𝐢.√𝟐𝛑 Equation 16
And O’Reilly and New proposed a linear relationship for the “i” : [92]
i = Kz0 Equation 17
Where
𝑆 is the ground surface settlement at a distance y from the tunnel center. y is the
horizontal distance from the tunnel axis. Inflection points” i” of the curve are located
at a distance y on either side of the centerline.
Based on the normal probability curve properties, (i) is equal to 0.61 Smax, (Vs) is the
settlement volume which usually assumed to be equal to the volume loss as the
difference between them is very small. z0, is the vertical distance from the surface to
the center of the tunnel, K material constant; o.4-0.7 for soft, silty clay and 0.2-0.3 for
granular materials. To account for subsurface settlements z0 is replaced by(z0 − z),
where z is the depth at which the trough is to be determined. [79, 93]
Also, Clough and Schmidt [93] proposed a formulation that relates the trough width
(i0) in soft ground to the tunnel diameter (D) and depth to the center z:
𝐢𝟎 = 𝟎. 𝟓 𝐃𝟎.𝟐 𝐙𝟎𝟎.𝟖 Equation 18
143
Figure 6. 16. Normal probability curve used to describe transverse settlement trough.
Adapted from [95]
144
CHAPTER 7
7 Plaxis Results and Discussion
7.1 Introduction
In this chapter, the simulation results from PLAXIS 2D are presented and analyzed, to
provide an insight into the different parameters that may affect the tunnel and cavity
interaction. The interaction was analyzed in terms of the tunnel maximum bending
moment (absolute value) and surface displacement. The effect of cavity size (0.5 m,
1 m, and 2 m diameter), cavity distance from the tunnel, cavity angle (-90°,90°,0°)
and stage of occurrence (AL or BG) and grouting values effect were tested in both
soil models (Hardening soil and Hoek-Brown).
In addition, the surface settlements resulting from the base cases (without cavity) of
both models (Hardening soil and Hoek-Brown) were compared with the empirical
solutions Peck[94] O’Reilly[92] and clough[93].
In all the scenarios as shown in Table 6. 5, Table 6. 6,and Table 6. 7 the tunnel has a
diameter of 8 m at a depth of 22m below the surface and the cavity is filled with
water.
145
7.2 Results of the Mudstone model
7.2.1 Bending moment (BM)
The effect of cavity size (0.5 m, 1 m, and 2 m diameter), cavity distance from the
tunnel, angle and stage of occurrence (AL) and (BG) on the resulting maximum
bending moments (BM) on the tunnel lining were calculated.
Results are presented in Figure 7. 1 (cavity at -90o, i.e. below the invert of the tunnel),
Figure 7.2 (cavity at 90o, i.e. above the crown of the tunnel), and Figure 7.3 (cavity at
0o, i.e. at the side of the tunnel. The maximum bending moment during the base case
scenario (no cavity) at the final stage was 4.035 kN m/m, as shown in Figure 7. 4. The
unusual shape of the bending moment diagram has to do with the grouting phase. The
grouting is applied as an internal pressure to the tunnel and causes the bending
moment to have the same sign along the tunnel lining.
From Figure 7. 1, one can observe that in the case of the (BG), at the distance of
0.5 m away from the tunnel invert, both cavities (1m and 2m) show a soil body
collapse message at the grouting stage while at the case of the cavity (0.5m diameter)
no body collapse was observed. The “body collapse” message is related to excessive
settlement and premature collapse due to the absence of stiffness. In general, the
bending moment decreases with distance and the highest bending moments were
observed with (AL_2_-90) case with the highest value at 0.5m distance from the
tunnel (63.26 kN m/m).
From Figure 7.2, one can observe that soil body collapse occurred at distance 0.5 and
0.75 m for the case (BG_2_90). The maximum bending moment decreases with
distance expect at the case (AL_0.5_90) at a 1m distance that could be related to
technical reasons or model limitation. The highest bending moments were observed
146
with (AL_2_90) with the highest value at 0.5m distance from the tunnel (84.27 kN
m/m).
From Figure 7.3, one can observe that soil body collapse occurred only during the
calculations of the (BG_2_0) at distance 0.5 and 0.75 m. The largest maximum
bending moments were observed with the case (AL_2_0) with the highest value
occurring at a 0.5m distance from the tunnel (82.3 kN m/m).
In general, comparing the results of the figures Figure 7. 1, Figure 7.2, and Figure 7.3
shows that:
• The highest bending moment occurs with the cavity (AL_2_90), located at 0.5
from the crown (90°) of the tunnel.
• For all cases, the maximum bending moment decreases as the distance
between cavity and tunnel increases, as expected.
• For each cavity location (i.e. -90°, 90° and 0°), the highest bending moment
occurs always, as expected, with the 2 m cavity and at AL stage.
• When the cavity occurs after the final tunnel lining (AL stage), the effect on
the value of the maximum bending moment is larger than when the cavity
occurs during the grouting stage.
• Cavity with 0.5m diameter has almost no effect on the bending moment.
• Soil body collapse regularly happens during the BG stage with cavity size of
2m at distance 0.5 m and 0.75 m. This is probably related to the excessive
deformations occurring around the tunnel and cavity.
147
Figure 7. 1. The bending moment of Cavity with the diameters of 0.5m, 1m, and 2m
at two different calculation stages; (BG) and (AL), the cavity is below at the tunnel
invert (-90°).
Figure 7.2. The bending moment of Cavity with the diameters of 0.5m, 1m, and 2m at
Two different calculation stages; (BG) and (AL), the cavity is above the crown of the
tunnel (90°).
148
Figure 7.3. The bending moment of Cavity with the diameters of 0.5m, 1m, and 2m
at two different calculation stages; (BG) and (AL), Cavity is at the tunnel side (0°).
Figure 7. 4. The maximum bending moment in mudstone base case (4.035 kN m/m).
7.2.2 Surface Displacement
149
The displacement at the surface was analyzed for the worst-case scenarios, i.e. for the
cases where the cavity is 0.5m away from the tunnel, and only for cavity sizes of 1m
and 2m in diameter. Figure 7.5, shows the resulting surface displacements for a 1m
diameter cavity, occurring both BG and AL. The results are also compared with the
base case scenario, i.e. tunnel construction with no cavity (BC). Clearly, there is an
uplifting movement resulting from all cases. The maximum uplift at the centerline of
the tunnel is 0.001278m and the minimum value is 0.00067m. They both occur when
the cavity appears at the BG cases, and is located at the crown and at the side of the
tunnel, respectively. Note that uplift displacement at the centerline of the tunnel for
the base case is very close to the maximum value. The observed uplifting movement
is due to the grouting stage. This is confirmed by the results from Figure 7.6, which
shows the surface displacements for the same cases, immediately after the contraction
stage, and prior to grouting. It is clear from this Figure 7.6 that the grouting as a
strong effect on the final displacement. From Figure 7.6, one can observe that the
largest displacement (settlement) is 0.00312. One can observe that the values are
similar, for all cases. In fact, they should be the same, since at this stage the cavity has
not yet been activated.
150
Figure 7.5. The surface displacement of the Cavity with a 1m diameter at the (AL)
and (BG), at different angles; invert (-90°), Crown (90°), and side (0°).
Figure 7.6. The surface displacement of the Cavity with 1m diameter, during the
contraction stage, at different angles; invert (-90°), Crown (90°), and side (0°).
151
Figure 7.7 shows the surface displacements for a cavity with 2 m diameter size
introduced into the system at different orientations and calculation stages, as well as
the surface settlements resulting from the base case (no cavity). The results show two
types of displacements, uplift, and settlement. The uplift movement occurs for the BC
and for all the AL cases. The remaining cases show a settlement. The largest
settlement is 0.004m and occurred for the case (BG _2_0). The largest uplifts
occurred for the case of the BC, (AL_2_-90) and (AL_2_ 90) with values of 0.00125
m, 0.00119m, and 0.00116 m, respectively. Here again, the uplift is caused by the
grouting phase. However, in this case, due to the fact that we are dealing with a larger
cavity with a diameter of 2m, in certain cases, i.e. BG cases, the grouting stage is not
sufficient to uplift the ground at the surface. This is because, for the BG cases, the
occurrence of a cavity with a diameter of 2m, right after the contraction stage will
induce further displacement at the surface. These displacements caused by the cavity
are less pronounced when the cavity appears after tunnel construction, i.e. after the
final lining.
Figure 7.8 shows the displacement at the surface after the contraction stage. The
downward displacements are for the cases of (BG) in different directions which are
the cases of soil body collapse and settlements curves were produce at the grouting
stage. It’s noticeable from Figure 7.5, that the grouting effect on the settlements when
cavity size is 2m is lower than the 1m cavity cases. This has to do with the fact that a
larger cavity will induce larger settlements at the surface.
152
Figure 7.7 The surface displacement of the Cavity with a 2m diameter at the (AL) and
(BG), at different angles; invert (-90°), Crown (90°), and side (0°).
Figure 7.8 The surface displacement of the cavity with 2m diameter, during the
contraction stage, at different angles; invert (-90°), Crown (90°), and side (0°).
153
In general, comparing the results of the two sections 7.2.1 and 7.2.2 shows that there
is no clear relationship between the bending moment values and the displacement at
the surface. However, there is a relationship between the cavity angle and the
displacement, as well as the cavity angle and the bending moment. The highest
bending moment value is always when the cavity is located at the crown (90°) and the
maximum upward displacement at the centerline of the tunnel occurs also always
when the cavity is located at the crown (BG_1_90).
7.2.3 Grouting effect on the value of bending moment and the
displacement at the surface
In this section we consider the effect of grouting in the maximum bending moment of
the tunnel and the surface displacements. This is done only for the AL scenario and
for a cavity of 2m diameter (see Table 6. 6), since this is the scenario that yielded the
largest bending moments. Figure 7.9 shows the results of the maximum bending
moment on the tunnel lining for different grouting values. One can observe the
following:
• The grouting stage as a significant effect on the bending moment. One can see
that as the grouting value decreases the bending moment decreases. In the case
of (AL_2_90) a decrease of 19% in the grout (432 to 350 KN/m2) yielded a
decrease of 42% in the BM. Further reduction in the grouting of 42% (432 to
250 KN/m2) yield a decrease of 81% in the BM.
• During all the grouting scenarios, the lowest bending moment at distance 0.5m
is always at the invert (-90°) direction during all the grouting scenarios and the
highest mostly at the crown (90°) direction.

154
Figure 7.9. The bending moment of 2m Cavity at (AL) using different grouting
values, at different angles; invert (-90°), Crown (90°), and side (0°).
Figure 7.10, shows the displacement of the different 2m cavity scenarios when the
cavity at the 0.5 m distance from the tunnel. The displacement results show that:
• Grouting has a significant effect on the displacements at the surface; As the
grouting values decrease, the settlements at the tunnel centerline increase.
• A grouting value of 432 kN/m2 resulted in the largest upward displacement
when the cavity is at the crown (90o) and invert direction (-90o).
• Smaller grouting values (350 and 250 kN/m2) produced the largest
displacement when the cavity is at the side direction.
• If the cavity occurs at the tunnel side (0°), there is a higher possibility for a
higher settlement curve than occurring of the cavity in the other two directions
when using an appropriate grouting pressure, this will be addressed in the
discussion (Section 7.6).
• There is no clear relationship between the BM values (Figure 7.9 ) and the
displacements (Figure 7.10).

155
Figure 7.10. The displacement of 2m Cavity at the after lining (AL) using different
grouting values, at different angles; invert (-90°), Crown (90°), and side (0°).
7.2.4 Settlements using empirical solution
Results of the surface displacement from the base case were compared to the ones
obtained using empirical solutions, as shown in Figure 7.11. For this purpose, we
used the empirical solutions by Peck, to calculate the ground settlements, and the
empirical formulas proposed by O'Reilly and Clough to calculate the (i) values of the
inflection point (Section6.8). It is shown that the results of the empirical (O’Reilly
and Clough) are very similar for a k =0.4 (cohesive material) and they yield a surface
displacement of approximately -0.0116m. While the resulting ground surface
displacement curve corresponding to base case for Mudstone (Hoek-Brown model)
with grouting value of 432 KN/m2 shows a heave movement (0.0013 m) which is due
to the grouting effect and the material properties. Using a smaller grouting value of
250KN/m2 in the BC calculations show a settlement of (0.0004m). Overall, the
empirical solutions show an overestimation for the maximum settlements above the
156
tunnel centerline and a narrower settlement trough width. This has mainly to do with
the fact that the empirical formulas do not account for the (uplifting) grouting effect.
Figure 7.11. The displacement results from O'Reilly, Clough and the current study BC
[Hoek-Brown] (using two different grouting 432 and 250 KN/m2 )
7.3 Results of the Sand Model
7.3.1 Bending moment (BM)
A similar analysis to what has been presented in section 7.2 was done for the sand
model. The results of the maximum bending moment are presented in Figure 7.12
(cavity at -90o, i.e. below the invert of the tunnel), Figure 7.13 (cavity at 90o, i.e.
above the crown of the tunnel), and Figure 7.14 (cavity at 0o, i.e. side of the tunnel.
The maximum bending moment for the BC scenario (no cavity) at the final stage was
5.626 kN m/m, as shown in Figure 7. 15.
Figure 7.12 shows that soil body collapse happens during the calculations of the
(BG_2_-90) for all cavity distances from the tunnel. The highest bending moment
157
value in the tunnel lining for the cases when the cavity is at a distance of 0.5m was
observed for AL_2_-90 with a value of (113.3 kN m/m) and the lowest was observed
for two cases (BG_0.5_-90) and (BG_1_-90) with the value (5.65 kNm/m). Figure
7.13, cavity introduced at (90°) direction shows that at the case of the ( BG_2_90) a
soil body collapse occurs at all distance and for (BG_1_90) at distance 0.5m during
the grouting stage. The highest BM value is 128.1 kNm/m for (AL_2_90) and the
lowest is (BG_0.5_90) with the value 5.6 kNm/m. Again, in Figure 7.14, one can
observe that soil body collapse occurred for (BG_2_0) for all cavity distances. The
highest BM value is 183.6 kNm/m and occurs for (AL_2_0) and the lowest value is
5.6 kNm/m and occurs for (BG_0.5_0).
A comparison between Figure 7.12, Figure 7.13 and Figure 7.14 shows that:
• The highest bending moment value occurs for 2m cavity at (AL).
• Soil body collapse happens regularly for the BG scenario with cavity size of
2m, for all distances from the tunnel, at the grouting stage.
• The values of the bending moment are greater when the cavity at the (AL),
than when the cavity at the (BG).
• The maximum bending moment observed at the tunnel lining decreases with
increasing distance between cavity and tunnel.
• The highest bending moment value is observed for the case of (AL_2_0).
• The cavity with a diameter of 0.5m has a negligible effect on the resulting
bending moment values.
158
at two different calculation stages; (BG) and (AL), the cavity is below the tunnel
invert (-90°).
at two different calculation stages; (BG) and (AL), the cavity is above the crown (90°)
of the tunnel.
159
at two different calculation stages; (BG) and (AL), the cavity is at the tunnel side (0°).
Figure 7. 15. The maximum bending moment of tunnel lining in the sand model BC
(5.626 kN m/m)
7.3.2 Displacement at 0.5m cavity distance from tunnel wall
160
Figure 7. 16, shows the resulting surface settlements when cavity of 1m diameter is
introduced into the system at different orientations and different calculation stages.
The settlements were compared to the surface settlements resulting from the BC. The
maximum surface settlement was observed for (BG_1_ 0) with a value of (-0.017 m).
Figure 7. 17 shows the surface displacement of the cavity with a 2m diameter at the
(AL) and (BG). The maximum surface settlements were observed at cases (BG_2_0)
and (AL_2_0) with values of -0.022m and -0.0195 m, respectively.
As previously mentioned in section 7.2.2, the cavity orientation has an effect on the
BM and displacement but no direct relationship between the BM and the surface
displacement was identified. In the sand model, the highest BM and displacement
were when the cavity occurs at the tunnel side direction (0°).
Figure 7. 16. The surface displacement of the Cavity with a 1m diameter at the (AL)
161
Figure 7. 17. The surface displacement of the Cavity with a 2m diameter at the (AL)
7.3.3 Grouting effect on the value of bending moment and th e
displacement at the surface
In this section, we consider the effect of grouting on the maximum bending moment
of the tunnel lining and the surface displacements. This is done only for the AL
scenario and for a cavity of 2m diameter (see Table 6. 6) since this is the scenario that
yielded the largest bending moments (Section 7.3.1). Figure 7.18, shows the results
of the maximum bending moment on the tunnel lining for different grouting values.
One can observe the following:
• As the grouting value decreases the maximum bending moment of the tunnel
lining decreases as well. In the case of (AL_2_0) decreases of 19% in the
grout (432 to 350 KN/m2) yield a decrease of 22% in the BM. Further
reduction in the grouting up to 42% (432 to 250 KN/m2) yield a decrease of
45% in the BM.
162
• For all the grouting scenarios, the lowest bending moment at distance 0.5m
occurs always at the invert (-90°) and the highest bending moment occurs
always at the side (0°) direction.
Figure 7.18. The bending moment of 2m Cavity at the after lining (AL) using
different grouting values, at different angles; invert (-90°), Crown (90°), and side
(0°).
Figure 7.19 shows the surface displacements for different 2m cavity scenarios, for a
cavity at the 0.5m distance from the tunnel. The results show that:
• The largest surface settlement (0.024 m) occurs when using the grouting value
is 250 kN/ m2 .
• As the grouting values decrease the displacement curve becomes wider, and
the settlement at the tunnel centerline increases (i.e. more loss of volume due
to tunneling process)
• For all grouting scenarios, the maximum surface displacement occurs when
the cavity is located at the tunnel side (0°).
163
Figure 7.19. The displacement of 2m Cavity at the after lining (AL) using different
grouting values, at different angles; invert (-90°), Crown (90°), and side (0°).
7.3.4 Displacement at 0.5m comparing with empirical solution
Results of the surface displacement of the BC were compared to the empirical
calculations, as shown in Figure 7.20. The parameters used in the calculations of the
empirical solutions are shown in Figure 7.20. O’Reilly shows a higher settlement
value than Clough results above the tunnel centerline (0.00036 m) and narrower curve
width with inflection points equal to 5.5m.
The resulted settlement curve from our simulations of the BC using Hardening soil
model shows maximum settlements of (0.016 m) that is less than O’Reilly (0.018m)
and larger than Clough (0.011m). The resulted in BC trough width similar to Clough,
while O'Reilly shows a much steeper and narrower curve.
164
Figure 7.20. A) zoom into the displacement results from O’Reilly and Clough, B )
comparing the empirical one with the results of the current study [HS] at the base case
where no cavity introduced into the calculation
7.4 Bending moment for a complex model using HB and HS models
The complex geologic model consists of sand, mudstone, and gypsum layers, and has
the goal of representing a more realistic geologic cross section of the Abu Dhabi
subsurface. The model and the numerical investigation cases are presented in Figure
6. 13 and Table 6. 7, respectively. Since the results for the sand and mudstone models
have shown a maximum BM with 2m cavity during AL stage, the numerical
simulations using the complex model, were done only for a 2m cavity during AL
stage. The results of the simulations are presented in Figure 7. 21. The highest
bending moment occurred for a cavity located at the crown direction (110kN m/m) of
the tunnel and the lowest bending moment occurred when the cavity is located at the
invert direction. This agrees with the findings from the sand and mudstone models.
165
Figure 7. 21. The bending moment of 2m Cavity at the after lining (AL) for a complex
geology model, Cavity at different angles; invert (-90°), Crown (90°), and side (0°).
7.5 Summary of the Bending moment results
In this section a summary of the tunnel highest bending moments value and their
location in the tunnel lining is presented for all models (sand, mudstone, and
complex) in Table7. 1. The results correspond only to the worst case scenarios in
terms of cavity distance, i.e. when the cavity is at a 0.5m distance from the tunnel.
Table7. 1: Tunnel bending moment from all scenarios
BM
Distance Grouting BM (kN
to tunnel ( (kN m/m)
Model scenario Case (m) KN/m2) m/m) location
Base
Case BC _ -432 -4.035 side
Mudstone
BG BG_0.5_-90 0.5 -432 -4.016 side

*BG BG_1_-90 0.5 -432 -11.88 invert
*BG BG_2_-90 0.5 -432 -13.49 invert
BG BG_0.5_0 0.5 -432 -6.103 side
BG BG_1_0 0.5 -432 -6.541 side
166
*BG BG_2_0 0.5 -432 -12.8 side
BG BG_0.5_90 0.5 -432 -4.018 side
*BG BG_1_90 0.5 -432 -8.846 crown
*BG BG_2_90 0.5 -432 -11.42 crown
AL AL_0.5_-90 0.5 -432 -8.907 invert
AL AL_1_-90 0.5 -432 -19.97 invert
AL AL_2_-90 0.5 -432 -63.26 invert
AL AL_0.5_0 0.5 -432 -14.61 side
AL AL_1_0 0.5 -432 -32.63 side
AL AL_2_0 0.5 -432 -82.3 side
AL AL_0.5_90 0.5 -432 -4.042 crown
AL AL_1_90 0.5 -432 -35.53 crown
AL AL_2_90 0.5 -432 -84.27 crown
AL_2_-
AL 90_432 0.5 -432 -63.26 invert
AL_2_-
AL 90_350 0.5 -350 -31.64 invert
AL_2_-
AL 90_250 0.5 -250 -11.26 invert
AL AL_2_0_432 0.5 -432 -82.3 side
AL AL_2_0_350 0.5 -350 -46 side
AL AL_2_0_250 0.5 -250 -18.6 side
AL AL_2_90_432 0.5 -432 -84.27 crown
AL AL_2_90_350 0.5 -350 -49.41 crown
AL AL_2_90_250 0.5 -250 -16.62 crown
Base
Case BC _ -432 -5.626 side
BG BG_0.5_-90 0.5 -432 -5.654 side
BG BG_1_-90 0.5 -432 -5.651 side
*BG BG_2_-90 0.5 -432 -92.69 side
BG BG_0.5_0 0.5 -432 -5.693 side
BG BG_1_0 0.5 -432 -6.932 side
*BG BG_2_0 0.5 -432 -173.6 side
Sand
BG BG_0.5_90 0.5 -432 -5.642 side

*BG BG_1_90 0.5 -432 -92.42 side
*BG BG_2_90 0.5 -432 -90.18 side
AL AL_0.5_-90 0.5 -432 -9.787 invert
AL AL_1_-90 0.5 -432 -39.18 invert
AL AL_2_-90 0.5 -432 -113.3 invert
AL AL_0.5_0 0.5 -432 -15.27 side
AL AL_1_0 0.5 -432 -34.75 side
167
AL AL_2_0 0.5 -432 -183.6 side
AL AL_0.5_90 0.5 -432 -11.93 crown
AL AL_1_90 0.5 -432 -54.95 crown
AL AL_2_90 0.5 -432 -129 crown
AL_2_-
AL 90_432 0.5 -432 -113.3 invert
AL_2_-
AL 90_350 0.5 -350 -66.53 invert
AL_2_-
AL 90_250 0.5 -250 -16.09 invert
AL AL_2_0_432 0.5 -432 -183.6 side
AL AL_2_0_350 0.5 -350 -143.2 side
AL AL_2_0_250 0.5 -250 -101.1 side
AL AL_2_90_432 0.5 -432 -129 crown
AL AL_2_90_350 0.5 -350 -74.29 crown
AL AL_2_90_250 0.5 -250 -30.07 crown
AL_2_-
Complex
AL 90_432 0.5 -432 -32.89 invert

AL AL_2_0_432 0.5 -432 -91.42 side
AL AL_2_90_432 0.5 -432 -110 crown
*Calculation stopped at the grouting stage.
7.6 Discussion
From the analysis of the results from both models Mudstone (HB) and Sand (HS), the
discussion of the results can be divided into four sections. The first section (7.6.1)
consists of general observations related to the maximum bending moment, and the
impact of several parameters, such as construction stage at which cavity occurs: BG,
AL; cavity size; angle; ground type; and cavity distance, in the resulting bending
moment. The second section (7.6.2) discusses the behavior of surface displacement
with respect the model parameters (construction stage at which cavity occurs: BG,
AL; cavity size; angle; ground type; and cavity distance) and a comparison with
empirical models. In third section (7.6.3) the effect of grouting stage in the bending
moment and surface displacements is analyzed and the last section (7.6.4) discusses
the issue of soil body collapse during the simulations.

168
7.6.1 The maximum Bending moment
For both models (Sand and Mudstone) the highest bending moment occurs in the
after-lining scenario (AL) for a cavity of 2m diameter, when the cavity is at a distance
of 0.5m from the tunnel. For the sand, the highest maximum bending moment occurs
when the cavity is located at the side (0°), however for the mudstone model the, the
highest maximum bending moment on the lining occurs either when the cavity is
located at the side (0°) or at the crown (90°). There is a very small difference between
the two cases.
The fact that cavity with 2 m diameter has more effect on the stresses around the
tunnel, and therefore on the bending moment is supported by stress concentration
factor analysis. Figure 7.22 shows the stress concentration factor Kt for two unequal
circular holes in an infinite plate, in function of the ratios b/a and s/a. One can observe
that as the ratio b/a increases the Kt (increases to ∞) and as the ratio (s/a) increases, Kt
decreases [96], i.e for the same diameter tunnel, the closer and the larger the diameter
of the cavity, the higher the Kt, and therefore the higher the stresses around the tunnel.
When the cavity occurs during the After linning stage (AL), the bending moment
(BM) is higher than when the cavity occurs during the before grouting stage (BG).
This is because when cavity introduced after the final lining it creates a stress relieve
around it and displacement occurs, and stresses on the lining occur see Figure 7. 23.
Figure 7. 23 shows the displacement around the tunnel (A) before the cavity
occurrence the maximum displacement is 0.016 m, and (B) after the cavity occurs it
increases the displacement to 0.023m. In the case of cavity occurring before grouting
(BG), the cavity occurrence will definitely increase the displacements on the tunnel
169
and at the surface, however this will not affect the lining as much as when the
construction is done.
In the sand model, highest bending moment occurs at the side (0°) and at the crown
(90°) for the mudstone model. This is mostly related to the displacement direction as
shown in Figure 7.24. Where in sand most displacement is coming from surface and
bottom of the tunnel toward the side direction which it’s believed leads to more
horizontal stress which increases the bending moment. In mudstone, the soil is
moving toward the tunnel centerline to develop a heaving surface which increases the
loads on the tunnel crown , so once the cavity occurs it creates some stress relieve at
the cavity boundary and it increases the vertical stresses which lead to higher BM at
the (90) direction more than the other sides.
Figure 7.22. The change of the Kt with distance (0.5m to 3m). For Two unequal
circular holes (b=4m) and (a=1m) in biaxial tension within the infinite plate. Adapted
from [96]
170
Figure 7. 23. Total displacements in the sand model with a 2m cavity at 0.5m
distance from tunnel A) at final lining stage and B) after cavity occurrence.
171
Figure 7.24. Displacement direction at 2m cavity during after-lining stage A) in sand
medium and B) Mudstone medium.
7.6.1.1 Mudstone model vs Sand model
In general, the maximum bending moments resulting in the sand (HS) model are
higher than those resulting from the mudstone (HB) model. This most likely due to
172
the largest displacements in the rock mass around tunnel boundary, see Figure 7. 25.
The figure shows an example of the surface displacements for the (AL_2_90) in sand
and mudstone and the corresponding BM.
Figure 7. 25. The maximums BM and total displacement for the case (AL_2_90) in
(A) mudstone model and (B) Sand model.
7.6.1.2 Before grouting scenario (BG) vs After Lining Scenario (AL)
As previously mentioned, in general, cavity occurring after the final tunnel lining has
more effect on the bending moment than when the cavity occurs during the grouting
stage. For a more detailed explanation see section 7.6.1.
7.6.1.3 Cavity distance
The maximum bending moment decreases as the distance between cavity and tunnel
increases. As mentioned above, this due to the stress concentration around the tunnel
due to the presence of cavity. This effect is larger the closer , the cavity is to the
173
tunnel as one can see from Figure 7.22. Moreover, the effect of the cavity effect on
the BM doesn’t show after a distance of 2m from the tunnel.
7.6.1.4 Cavity size
The presence of the cavity with a size of 0.5m has almost no effect on the Bending
Moment. While, as mentioned in previously in section 7.6.1, the cases of cavity with
2m diameter resulted in a higher maximum bending moments (BM).
7.6.1.5 Cavity location
If we focus on the results of when the cavity is at distance of 0.5 m away from
tunnels, one can observe that cavity orientation has a clear effect the maximum BM.
This is because the cavity location can change the displacement amount around the
tunnel which impacts the stresses around it, and the loading on the tunnel lining.
7.6.1.6 The maximum surface displacement
There is no clear relationship between the maximum BM and the maximum
displacement. The results show that the cases where the highest maximum BM occur,
do not necessarily correspond to the cases where maximum displacements occur. For
example, when comparing the results of Figure 7.14 and those of Figure 7. 17. One
can observe that Figure 7. 17 shows that the the highest maximum displacement
occurs in in the case of BG_2_0, where the highest maximum BM occur in the case
AL_2_0 (Figure 7.14).
7.6.2 Displacement at the surface

174
The surface displacements curves are presented only for the case of Cavity (1 and 2m
diameter) at distance of 0.5m from the tunnel wall. The resulting surface displacement
curves from both models (mudstone and sand) were different. The surface
displacement in mudstone shows a heave movement because of grouting, see Figure
7.7 (i.e. displacement after grouting) and Figure 7.8 (i.e. displacement before grouting
at contraction stage). The maximum uplifting displacement value occurred in the case
of (BG_1_90), 0.00128m, close to the maximum value resulted in the BC, 0.00125m.
As the cavity size increases, the upward displacement behavior was reduced and in
some cases, one observes settlements. For example the case (BG_2_0) which was the
highest settlement with a maximum displacement value at the tunnel centerline of
0.004m. In the sand model the maximum surface settlement is 0.022m and occurs at
the (BG_2_0). This is higher than all the mudstones settlements results.
Overall, in both models higher settlements occur with a cavity of 2m diameter and at
the side (0°) of the tunnel.
7.6.2.1 Mudstone vs Sand model
Displacements in sand models tend to be higher than the mudstone. This is mostly
because the mudstone is stiffer than the sand and therefore, sand will always result in
more displacement, see Figure 7. 25 (i.e. maximum surface displacement in sand and
mudstone for the case (AL_2_90)).
7.6.2.2 Before grouting scenario (BG) vs After Lining Scenario (AL)
Overall, for both the sand and the mudstone models, when cavity occurs at BG, this
leads to higher settlements than when the cavity occurs at AL. In the case of BG, the
175
tunnel is still not supported by grout and, therefore displacements around the tunnel
are still occurring. Therefore when the cavity is introduced in BG, larger
displacements are observed when compared with AL cases, see Figure 7. 26 and
Figure 7. 27. In contrast, when the cavity occurs after final lining (AL), grouting
stage has already occurred and less displacement will take place around the tunnel,
see Figure 7. 26 and Figure 7. 28
Figure 7. 26. Total displacement for The BC without activating the cavity in
mudstone. A) tunnel excavation step, B) Contraction, C) Grouting and D) Final lining.
176
Figure 7. 27. Total displacement during (BG_2_0) in mudstone , A) Cavity activation
step and B) Grouting step.
177
Figure 7. 28. Total displacement during (AL_2_0) in mudstone, at the final stage after
the cavity occurrence.
7.6.2.3 Cavity size
As expected, for both the sand and mudstone models, the higher displacements at
tunnel centerline occur always with a 2m cavity. In particular, the role of the cavity
size in the resulted surface displacement curve was very clear in mudstone, i.e. the
larger the cavity size in mudstone had the effect of minimizing the the grouting effect
and lead to settlements instead of the heave movement at the surface, see Figure 7.5
(displacement for a 1m cavity in mudstone) and Figure 7.7 (displacement for a 2m
cavity in mudstone).
7.6.2.4 Cavity location
178
In general, for both the sand and mudstone models, the highest settlement curves with
maximum value are always encountered for the cases of the cavity at the tunnel side
(0°).
7.6.2.5 Empirical solutions
Overall the settlement curves of the BC numerical simulations and those obtained
through empirical models don’t match. In mudstone and due to the high grouting
value there are no settlements and a heaving surface developed instead of (0.0013m)
above the surface. The corresponding empirical solutions show only settlement. In
sand, O’Reilly shows steeper curve than Clough and this due to the K value used
(0.25), since a higher K value would result in a less deep and wider settlement trough.
The results of sand model show a settlement curve similar to that obtained using
Peck-Clough empirical solution. However, the later overestimates Smax (0.016 m).
This can be explained by the effect of grouting in the surface displacements, which
counteracts the settlement induced by the excavation. In addition, to the effect of K0
may explain the differences between the sand and the mudstone models. As shown in
[79], as the K0 values decrease it will lead to a steeper settlement trough and in the
present HS model the value of K0 is 0.44 which might be one of the reasons for the
resulted steeper curve in the sand model. These effects are not included in the
empirical solutions by Peck, O’Reilly and Clough, as they don’t take into
consideration the construction stages and the effect of all input parameters. Finally, it
is worth noting that the difference between both solutions is just a few millimeters.
Real field data is needed to confirm which models gave a better estimation or how
much we are far from reality.

179
7.6.3 Grouting effect
For both models, as the grouting increase the maximum BM increases. This because
as the grouting increases the net loading on the tunnel lining increase.
Regarding the surface displacement, as the grouting pressure decreases the settlement
increases. The grouting effect, in terms of uplift at the surface, was larger in
Mudstone, where higher grouting values led to larger heave movement at the surface.
This may be related the stiffness of the material and the constitutive model used (HB
vs HS).
7.6.4 Cavity/ Tunnel Collapse (“soil body collapse”)
Soil body collapse regularly happens during BG stage with a cavity diameter of 2m.
This behavior occurs in both models, but it was more pronounced in the Sand model,
where it happened for all cavity distances.
In sand, the failure criteria are controlled by Hardening Soil regime. The cavity in
soil is surrounded by layer of mudstone (HB) and filled with water which introduced
more stress. Figure 7.29, shows hardening soil around the cavity which means
increasing the stiffness of the sand around the mudstone (HB). We believe that in the
case of the 2m diameter cavity the mudstone layer, which represent the remains of a
gypsum/mudstone lens, is not thick enough to provide support to the cavity and
collapses causing the “soil body collapse” warning.
180
Figure 7.29. A) Plastic points around a 2m cavity at BG stage in the sand model and
B) the stress response at the same stage of (A).
181
CHAPTER 8
8 Conclusion
8.1 Introduction
The objectives of this thesis (part I) were to examine the gypsum rock layer
distribution over the Capital district (Abu Dhabi) and the related karst features
(cavity). In addition, it aimed at providing a suitable methodology to develop an up-
to-date 3D geologic model for the Capital district, which can be applied to the whole
of the Abu Dhabi city. The aim of the part II of this thesis was to study the interaction
between tunnel and cavity in different soils using real data from the STEP project.
The interaction between tunnel and cavity was analyzed based on the resulted bending
moment and transverse surface displacement resulting from parametric studies where
different inputs were varied systematically (e.g. cavity size, cavity distance, cavity
angle, and grouting). The main findings of this study are summarized in following
sections. In addition future work recommendations are presented.
8.2 Three-Dimensional geologic model
182
Spatial statistical analyses were performed over the dataset of capital district using
different tools in the ArcGIS. The spatial statistical analysis shows a trend in the data
where the gypsum raster’s oriented toward the NE/SW. In addition, a clustering
behavior within the data as shallower depths located at the SW and as we move to the
NE it’s getting deeper. Cavities located in the NE part of the Capital District area with
sizes of 0.5 to 2m diameter. The trend and clustering behavior was justified by the
geological nature of the area using real images from the google earth map.
Furthermore, it was shown that gypsum layers and cavities presences increase at
shallower depths, but that there is no apparent relationship between the depth and
cavity size.
The proposed methodology for the developed 3D geologic models shows good
results. The resulted cross sections were consistent with the borehole data as well as
with the cross-sections form a study conducted by The Mott MacDonald Company for
Masdar city. It was also shown that kriging interpolation shows better results than the
IDW interpolation method.
8.3 On the tunnel - Cavity interaction
The results of the tunnel- cavity interaction in two medium sand and mudstone show
some similarities and differences. Two different models were used to study the
tunnel-cavity interaction; the Hoek-Brown model (for Mudstone) and The Hardening
soil (for sand).
The findings show that as the cavity size increases, bending moment increases and it
is much higher if the cavity occurs after the final lining. Also, cavity angle or
orientations influence settlements trough and bending moments. In sand, the largest
183
cavity diameter, i.e. 2m at an angle (0°) has more effect while in mudstone the 2m
cavity at (90°) and (0°) have a larger impact on the results. There is no clear
relationship between the bending moment and the surface displacements. The
Bending moment has a positive relationship with both cavity distance from tunnel and
grouting value. Generally, the higher bending moments are likely to occur in sands
(HS) than mudstone (HB) due to the lower stiffness of the sand. High grouting values
could be problematic especially in stiffer rock mass where it can cause heave at the
surface.
Finally, when comparing the surface displacements from the numerical results with
that of the empirical solutions, one can observe a different response. The differences
were justified by the possible effect of the numerical model's input values as k0 and
grouting. And the empirical inputs as Vs and K values. Changing those parameters
could affect the resulted settlements curve however it is beyond the scope of the
current work.
8.4 Recommendations and future work
The 3D geologic model: One of the limitations in our data is the poor quality of the
Borehole logs data. Using a data with a better quality control will lead to enhancing
the statistical spatial analysis over the area and the performance of the interpolation
methods. Comparing the resulted geologic section with real field data such as tunnel
face mapping and/ or seismic profiles. In addition, using different software’s as
RockWorks™ software and GMS to creates geologic cross- sections and compare it
with the performance of the Arc GIS. Finally, developing hazard and risk maps for
gypsum dissolution.
184
The tunnel- cavity interaction: The work on this part could be extended in diverse
ways. Firstly, using data with quality control to eliminate the effect of unsuitable data.
The numerical calculations could be improved through using different models as
Mohr-Coulomb model and compare the BM and settlement results with the present
study. Analyzing the effect of input data such as the K0 (initial stresses) on the
heaving surface in Mudstone (HB) model. Analyzing the effect of the cavity at
different angles as 45°, varying the VL (volume loss) value, tunnel depths. In
s
185
u
s
9 Bibliography
1. UPC, Abu Dhabi vision 2030, Capital District.

2. Jeotek, S., Abu Dhabi CAPITAL DISTRICT EMIRATI NEIGHBOURHOOD PACKAGE-
3,Geotechnical Investigation Factual Report (Final), 2011.
3. El Ganainy, H., et al., Stability of Solution Cavities in Urban Developments: A Case
Study Towards Enhancing Geohazard Risk Assessment. Geotechnical and Geological
Engineering, 2016. 34(1): p. 125-141.
4. division, A.D.c.m.o.s.d., Geotechnical, Geophysical, and Hydrogeological
Investigation Project (GGHIP) Geologic Characterization and 3D Geological Modeling
Report, M.E. Adib, Editor 2014.
5. Roberts, T. Typical Geotechnical Risks in the Middle East.
6. News, G. Living on the edge: Holed up in a crack 2008 [cited 2015 20-April];
Available from: http://gulfnews.com/news/uae/general/living-on-the-edge-holed-
up-in-a-crack-1.448917
7. Szukalski, B.W., Introduction to cave and karst GIS. Journal of Cave and Karst Studies,
2002. 64(1): p. 3.
8. Yilmaz, I., M. Marschalko, and M. Bednarik, An assessment on the use of bivariate,
multivariate and soft computing techniques for collapse susceptibility in GIS environ.
Journal of earth system science, 2013. 122(2): p. 371-388.
9. Thierry, P., et al., 3D geological modelling at urban scale and mapping of ground
movement susceptibility from gypsum dissolution: The Paris example (France).
Engineering Geology, 2009. 105(1): p. 51-64.
10. De Rienzo, F., P. Oreste, and S. Pelizza, Subsurface geological-geotechnical modelling
to sustain underground civil planning. Engineering Geology, 2008. 96(3): p. 187-204.
11. Morfeldt, D. and L. Persson, Research and documentation on the importance of
engineering geology in some underground projects in Stockholm. Tunnelling and
Underground Space Technology, 1997. 12(4): p. 473-477.
12. Spottke, I., E. Zechner, and P. Huggenberger, The southeastern border of the Upper
Rhine Graben: a 3D geological model and its importance for tectonics and
groundwater flow. International Journal of Earth Sciences, 2005. 94(4): p. 580-593.
13. Wu, Q., H. Xu, and W. Zhou, Development of a 3D GIS and its application to karst
areas. Environmental geology, 2008. 54(5): p. 1037-1045.
14. Transport, D.o., Surface Transport Master Plan, A Vision for Connecting Abu Dhabi
2009.
15. Council, A.D.U.P., Abu Dhabi urban street design manual 2030. 2005.
16. Aquaveo, Stratigraphy Modeling – Horizons and Solids, 2017. p. 1-18.
186
17. ACES. About ACES. [cited 2017 16/January]; Available from: http://www.aces-
int.com/content/about-aces.
18. swissboring. [cited 2017 16/January]; Available from:
http://www.swissboring.com/viewdoc.asp?co_id=1014
19. Fugro. Fugro at a glance. [cited 2017 16/January]; Available from:
http://www.fugro.com/about-fugro/group-overview/fugro-at-a-glance
20. costain. [cited 2017 16/January]; Available from: http://www.costain.com/
21. Picard, M.D., Classification of fine-grained sedimentary rocks. Journal of Sedimentary
Research, 1971. 41(1).
22. SedimentaryRocks. [cited 2017 16/January]; Available from:
http://pages.geo.wvu.edu/~kammer/g100/SedimentaryRocks.pdf
23. Mibei, G., Introduction to types and classification of rocks. 001374011, 2014.
24. Orme, G., CALCARENITECalcarenite, in Beaches and Coastal Geology1982, Springer.
p. 186-186.
25. Folk, R.L., Spectral subdivision of limestone types. 1962.
26. Conglomerate. [cited 2017 17/Jun]; Available from:
http://geology.com/rocks/conglomerate.shtml.
27. Strassberg, G., N.L. Jones, and A. Lemon, Arc hydro groundwater data model and
tools: overview and use cases. AQUAmundi, 2010. 1(2): p. 101-114.
28. Aquaveo. Subsurface Analyst – Creating GeoRasters from borehole data. [cited 2017
25/January]; Available from: http://www.aquaveo.com/software/ahgw-learning-
tutorials.
29. Aquaveo. Building 3D models with the horizons method. [cited 2017 4-November];
Available from: http://ahgw.aquaveo.com/Horizons.pdf.
30. Aquaveo. The Groundwater Modeling System. [cited 2017 25/January]; Available
from: http://gmsdocs.aquaveo.com/GMS_User_Manual_v9.1.pdf.
31. Merwade, V., A. Cook, and J. Coonrod, GIS techniques for creating river terrain
models for hydrodynamic modeling and flood inundation mapping. Environmental
Modelling & Software, 2008. 23(10): p. 1300-1311.
32. Bohling, G., Kriging. Kansas Geological Survey, Tech. Rep, 2005.
33. Childs, C., Interpolating surfaces in ArcGIS spatial analyst. ArcUser, July-September,
2004. 3235.
34. Ziary, Y. and H. Safari, To Compare Two Interpolation Methods: IDW, Kriging for
Providing Properties (Area) Surface Interpolation Map Land Price. District 5,
Municipality of Tehran area 1. Proceedings of FIG Working Week. Hong Kong, 2007.
13.
35. Esri. ArcGIS Help 10.1. 2012 [cited 2017 27-September]; Available from:
http://resources.arcgis.com/en/help/main/10.1/index.html#/How_Kriging_works/0
09z00000076000000/.
36. ESRI. How Inverse Distance Weighted (IDW) interpolation works. [cited 2017 2-
November]; Available from:
http://webhelp.esri.com/arcgisdesktop/9.2/index.cfm?TopicName=How_Inverse_Di
stance_Weighted_(IDW)_interpolation_works.
37. gisgeography. Kriging Interpolation – The Prediction Is Strong in this One. [cited
2017 2-November]; Available from: http://gisgeography.com/kriging-interpolation-
prediction/
38. ESRI. How Directional Distribution (Standard Deviational Ellipse) works. [cited 2017
3-November]; Available from:
187
http://resources.arcgis.com/en/help/main/10.1/index.html#/How_Directional_Distr
ibution_Standard_Deviational_Ellipse_works/005p0000001q000000/.
39. Getis, A. and J.K. Ord, The Analysis of Spatial Association by Use of Distance
Statistics. Geographical Analysis, 1992. 24(3): p. 189-206.
40. Ord, J.K. and A. Getis, Local Spatial Autocorrelation Statistics: Distributional Issues
and an Application. Geographical Analysis, 1995. 27(4): p. 286-306.
41. MacDonald, M., MASDAR Site-wide Infrastructure Design Geotechnical Interpretive
Report, 2010.
42. Williams, P., World heritage caves and karst. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, 2008: p. 57.
43. Veni, G., Living with karst2001: American Geological Institute.
44. Currens, J.C., Kentucky is Karst Country!: What You Should Know about Sinkholes and
Springs2002: Kentucky Geological Survey, University of Kentucky.
45. Yilmaz, I., M. Marschalko, and M. Bednarik, Gypsum collapse hazards and
importance of hazard mapping. Carbonates and evaporites, 2011. 26(2): p. 193-209.
46. Gypsum. [cited 2015 20-April]; Available from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gypsum.
47. What is Karst? [cited 2015 20-April]; Available from:
http://www.esi.utexas.edu/outreach/caves/karst.php
48. blp. Geotechnical Risk Management for Water Engineering Projects. 2013 [cited
2017 3-April]; Available from:
http://www.equipegroup.com/pdfs/Simon%20Atkinson%20-
%20Geotechnical%20Risk%20Management%20for%20Water%20Engineering%20Pro
jects.pdf.
49. Sinkholes 101. [cited 2017 6-october]; Available from:
http://www.saveoursuwannee.org/sinkholes-101/.
50. Studies, A.C.f.E., Geotechnical Investigation for 15.3 Km of Mainland Link Sewers
between Officer City and Al Wathba Project, Abu Dhabi, UAE, in S08000364 – Link
Sewer Contract june,2009.
51. Waltham, T., F.G. Bell, and M. Culshaw, Sinkholes and subsidence: karst and
cavernous rocks in engineering and construction2007: Springer Science & Business
Media.
52. Parise, M. and J. Gunn, Natural and anthropogenic hazards in karst areas: an
introduction, 2007, Geological Society of London.
53. Dai, J., et al., An assessment of karst collapse hazards in Guilin, Guangxi Province,
China, in Sinkholes and the engineering and environmental impacts of Karst2008. p.
156-164.
54. Campana, C. and M.D. Fidelibus, Reactive-transport modelling of gypsum dissolution
in a coastal karst aquifer in Puglia, southern Italy. Hydrogeology Journal, 2015.
23(7): p. 1381-1398.
55. He, K., C. Liu, and S. Wang, Karst collapse related to over-pumping and a criterion for
its stability. Environmental geology, 2003. 43(6): p. 720-724.
56. Yılmaz, I., Gypsum/anhydrite: some engineering problems. Bulletin of Engineering
Geology and the Environment, 2001. 60(3): p. 227-230.
57. Katz, A. That 'Unprecedented' Sinkhole in Japan? It's Already Fixed. 2016 [cited 2017
19-Jun]; Available from: http://time.com/4571934/japan-massive-sinkhole-fixed/.
58. Dal Negro, E., et al. Ground conditioning: STEP Abu Dhabi sewer project. 2013.
International Tunnelling Association, Switzerland, proceedings of the World Tunnel
Congress.
188
59. Abu Dhabi investigates shock road collapse. [cited 2015 20-April]; Available from:
http://www.arabiansupplychain.com/article-3715-abu-dhabi-investigates-shock-
road-collapse/.
60. The-National. 'It looks like the street was hit by an earthquake'. 2009 [cited 2017 20-
jun]; Available from: http://www.thenational.ae/news/uae-news/it-looks-like-the-
street-was-hit-by-an-earthquake. .
61. mail-online. The science of sinkholes. [cited 2017 20-Jun]; Available from:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3915562/Parts-street-collapse-
southern-Japan-city-no-injuries.html.
62. CH2MHILL3DVisualizationStudio, STEP - The Sequel 2014.
63. ZUBLIN, Geotechnical Design Basis Report. Strategic tunnel enhancement
programme (STEP)- Link sewer contract LS-01, 2013.
64. Eng. Nasser Khalfan Ali Al Nuaimi (ADSSC), D.P.M., April,2017.
65. water-technology.net. Strategic Tunnel Enhancement Programme details. [cited
2017 10-October]; Available from: http://www.water-
technology.net/projects/strategic-tunnel-enhancement-program-abu-dhabi/.
66. ZUBLIN, Additional cavity borehole grouting report at NWLSL between shafts L01 to
L02. Strategic tunnel enhancement programme (STEP) - Link sewer contract LS-01,
2015.
67. ZUBLIN. STEP LINK SEWER CONTRACT 01 AND 02. [cited 2017 3 -April ]; Available
from: http://www.zublin.com.sg/databases/internet/_public/content.nsf/web/EN-
ZUEBLIN.SG-CURRENTPROJECTS-
STEP%20LINK%20SEWER%20CONTRACT%2001%20AND%2002
68. Kenyon, P.a.W., S. Final tunnel awards on giant STEP project. [cited 2017 3-April];
Available from: http://www.tunneltalk.com/Abu-Dhabi-STEP-Jan12-Final-tunnel-
contracts-awarded.php
Saleh, H., ‫ظب هياكل عمالقة‬ ‫ر‬ ‫ر‬
69. ‫اتيج يف ابو ي‬
‫( _مشوع النفق االست ي‬STEP Project Abu- Dhabi),
2016.
70. L. Sousa, R., Risk Analysis for Tunneling Projects, 2010, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology.
71. Babendererde, S., et al. EPB-TBM face support control in the Metro do Porto project,
Portugal. in Proceedings, Rapid Excavation and Tunnelling Conference (RETC), Online
geoengineering library. Available from:< www. geoengineer. org. 2005.
72. Marshall, M., A. EPB-TBM Face Support in the Metro do Porto Project, Portugal,
1998, University of Oxford.
73. Technology, T.I.S.f.T. Pipe Jacking & Microtunneling. [cited 2017 3-April]; Available
from: http://www.istt.com/guidelines/pipe-jacking-microtunneling
74. ZUBLIN, Final draft report on surface geophysical survey for lines G to L. Strategic
tunnel enhancement programme (STEP) - Link sewer contract LS-01, 2014.
75. ZUBLIN, Project Risk Register for the STEP Project LS-01. STRATEGIC TUNNEL
ENHANCEMENT LINK SEWER CONTRACT PROGRAMME 0-1859 LS01, 2016.
76. ZUBLIN, Presentation: Cavities NWLS Line L.
77. ZUBLIN, Additional Exploratory Borehole (AEB) Grouting report at NWLS Line J
between Shaft J01 to L01. Strategic Tunnel Enhancement Program Link Sewer
Contract LS-01, 2015.
78. ZUBLIN, Additional Exploratory Borehole (AEB) Grouting report at NWLS Line L
between Shaft L01 to L02. Strategic Tunnel Enhancement Program Link Sewer
Contract LS-01, 2015.
189
79. Möller, S.C., Tunnel induced settlements and structural forces in linings2006: Univ.
Stuttgart, Inst. f. Geotechnik.
80. Manchester, T.U.o., Introduction to Finite Element Analysis, 2008.
81. De Weck, O.a.Y.K., Il, Presentation: Engineering Design and Rapid Prototyping :Finite
Element Method, 2004, MIT.
82. Brinkgreve, R.B.J., Kumarswamy,S. and Swolfs, W.M., Plaxis 2016. PLAXIS bv, 2016:
The Netherlands.
83. Likitlersuang, S., et al., Simplified finite-element modelling for tunnelling-induced
settlements. Geotechnical Research, 2014. 1(4): p. 133-152.
84. Vermeer, P. and R. Brinkgreve, Plaxis version 5 manual. AA Balkema, Rotterdam,
1993.
85. Schanz, T., P. Vermeer, and P. Bonnier, The hardening soil model: formulation and
verification. Beyond 2000 in computational geotechnics, 1999: p. 281-296.
86. ZUBLIN, Strategic tunnel enhancement programme (STEP) - Link sewer contract LS-
01, 2015.
87. Möller, S. and P. Vermeer, On numerical simulation of tunnel installation. Tunnelling
and Underground Space Technology, 2008. 23(4): p. 461-475.
88. Alejano, L. and E. Alonso, Considerations of the dilatancy angle in rocks and rock
masses. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 2005. 42(4):
p. 481-507.
89. Royal, A., et al., Numerical simulation of the creation and performance of extruded
concrete linings in microtunnelling. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology,
2010. 25(6): p. 745-753.
90. Do, N.-A., et al., 2D tunnel numerical investigation: the influence of the simplified
excavation method on tunnel behaviour. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering,
2014. 32(1): p. 43-58.
91. Peck, R.B. Deep excavations and tunnelling in soft ground. in Proc. 7th int. conf. on
SMFE. 1969.
92. Mair, R., R. Taylor, and A. Bracegirdle, Subsurface settlement profiles above tunnels
in clays. Geotechnique, 1993. 43(2).
93. Moh, Z., D.H. Ju, and R. Hwang. Ground movements around tunnels in soft ground. in
Proceedings International Symposium on Geotechnical Aspects of Underground
Construction in Soft Ground. 1996. London: Balkema AA.
94. Fang, Y.-S., et al., An estimation of subsurface settlement due to shield tunneling.
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2014. 44: p. 121-129.
95. Suwansawat, S., Earth pressure balance (EPB) shield tunneling in Bangkok: ground
response and prediction of surface settlements using artificial neural networks, 2002,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
96. Pilkey, W.D. and D.F. Pilkey, Peterson's stress concentration factors2008: John Wiley
& Sons.
190

Muna Al Kaabi - Full-Text

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Muna Al Kaabi - Full-Text

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Muna Al Kaabi - Full-Text

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Geologic Hazard Investigation for

© 2017 Masdar Institute of Science and Technology

All rights reserved

massive integrated transportation system, including several modes of transportation to

structures are expected to encounter difficult ground and groundwater conditions,

parts. Part 1 focuses on the development of an up-to-date geologic model in

combination with a spatial inventory of karst-related features, based on an extensive

construction of urban systems in Abu Dhabi.

Part 2 of this research studies the effect of gypsum cavities on tunneling.

surface deformations as functions of the tunnel geometry, cavity characteristics,

development and empowerment of the UAE and humankind.

(May Allah bless her with long healthy life).

Nuaimi, Deputy Programme Management Department Manager (ADSSC) as well as

To my lovely and extraordinary friends, I am blessed with many good friends

support since the beginning of my journey in Masdar. My Golden ladies Aamena,

Special Thanks to my precious friends who I was fortunate to know in my last

for entering my life and making it extra sweet.

continuous support: Hessa, Kalthum, Ruqia, Hajar, Ryehana, Nassema, Al Naira,

heart and part of my special memories.

Muna Rashed Al Kaabi,

Masdar City, December 20 2017

Table 5. 1:STEP project sections[58, 68] ............................................................................................... 90

Table 6.1: Material properties of the soil layer ..................................................................................... 124

Table7. 1: Tunnel bending moment from all scenarios ........................................................................ 166

Figure 3. 1. Search radius (in yellow). Adapted from [36] ..................................................................... 40

Figure 5. 1. The layout of STEP. Adapted from [64] ............................................................................. 89

1.1 Executive summary

subsystems that interact during construction and operation. Planning, implementing

uncertainty effects, which measure natural geological uncertainties and can be

development of up to date 3D geological and hydrogeological models. In addition to

an insightful look at tunneling through difficult ground conditions of Abu Dhabi,

through the analysis of a case study of the STEP programme tunnels.

1.2 Contribution to Masdar Institute’s mission and research relevance to Abu

Dhabi and the UAE

factors as well as associated consequences to transportation planning and construction

stakeholders and decision makers to support decisions related to planning,

construction, and operation of transportation systems. The work can be extended to

its host nation for years to come.

1.3 Problem statement

massive integrated transportation system, including several modes of transportation

bedrock, as persistent quasi-horizontal bands, at different levels, may cause problems

because it is prone to volume change by dissolution, due to changes water chemistry

within this formation in greater Abu Dhabi, as shown in Figure 1.1.

geologic database in combination with a spatial inventory of karst-related features

medium, cavity size, and location.

1.4 Detailed Objectives

The objectives of the research are as follows:

Part I Field Survey and Geologic Model

• Spatial inventory: of gypsum rock hazard related incidents.

• Creation of a Database of geological data for the city of Abu Dhabi.

• Development of an updated 3D geological model for Abu Dhabi.

Part II tunneling/cavity interaction

• A comprehensive numerical study of the tunneling and cavity interaction

considering different parameters that might affect or trigger risks during

1.5 Scope of Work

The study objectives will be achieved through the following tasks:

I. A field survey study to gain a better understanding of the geology, and to

develop an accurate and updated geologic mapping of the area. Available