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

net/publication/265291754

Tunnels in sands: The effect of size, depth and volume loss on greenfield
displacements

Article  in  Géotechnique · May 2012

DOI: 10.1680/geot.10.P.047

CITATIONS READS

195 3,136

4 authors, including:

Alec M Marshall Assaf Klar

University of Nottingham 125 PUBLICATIONS   3,080 CITATIONS   
165 PUBLICATIONS   2,007 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Robert Mair
University of Cambridge
114 PUBLICATIONS   3,609 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

The use of retaining structures to protect buildings from tunnelling induced damage View project

MISSTER View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Assaf Klar on 16 September 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Marshall, A. M. et al. (2012). Géotechnique 62, No. 5, 385–399 [http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/geot.10.P.047]
Tunnels in sands: the effect of size, depth and volume loss on greenfield
displacements
A . M . M A R S H A L L  , R . FA R R E L L † , A . K L A R ‡ a n d R . M A I R §
This paper examines the effect that tunnel size, depth
and volume loss have on greenfield soil displacements
above tunnels in sandy ground. The results of a series of
plane-strain centrifuge tests performed on tunnels in a
dry silica sand are examined. The cover-to-diameter
ratio, C/D, of the tunnels ranged from 1.3 to 4.4. Features
of greenfield settlement trough shape, both surface and
subsurface, are illustrated by examining soil displacement
data obtained using an image-based deformation meas-
urement technique. The effects of tunnel size, depth and
volume loss are demonstrated, and the suitability of
typical fitting curves is discussed. The complex volu-
metric behaviour of drained soil is illustrated by compar-
ing tunnel volume loss with the volume loss experienced
by the soil. A set of equations is developed that provide a
method of evaluating the change of settlement trough
shape with tunnel size, depth and volume loss.
KEYWORDS: centrifuge modelling; sands; settlement; tunnels
INTRODUCTION
Engineers need to be able to assess the likely effect that
tunnel construction will have on existing structural assets,
both above and below ground. In order to do this, it is
necessary to evaluate the magnitude and shape of the settle-
ments that are expected to occur.
For tunnels in undrained clay, where the soil conforms to
constant-volume conditions, there is generally a good under-
standing of the relationship between tunnel construction and
resulting greenfield ground deformations. Settlement trough
shape generally matches well to a Gaussian curve (Peck,
1969), with the maximum settlement, Smax , and the horizon-
tal distance to the inflexion point, i, defining the shape of
the curve. The value of i has been found to vary with the
vertical distance between the tunnel and the depth of interest
(O’Reilly & New, 1982; Mair et al., 1993; Mair & Taylor,
1997). Several authors, however, have provided data suggest-
ing that i is also a function of tunnel diameter, especially for
low cover-to-diameter ratios (Clough & Schmidt, 1981; Moh
et al., 1996).
Mair & Taylor (1997) showed, based on data from Lake
et al. (1996), that the value of i for a Gaussian curve fitted
to settlement data above tunnels in sands and gravels is also
a function of tunnel depth. The level of scatter in the data,
Manuscript received 26 April 2010; revised manuscript accepted 26
September 2011.
Discussion on this paper closes on 1 October 2012, for further details
see p. ii.
 Faculty of Engineering, University of Nottingham, UK.
† Laing O’Rourke Infrastructure, Dartford, UK.
‡ Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Technion – Israel
Institute of Technology.
§ Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge, UK.
385
La présente communication examine l’effet de la taille du
tunnel, la profondeur et la perte de volume sur les
déplacements de sol dans les sites vierges à sols sableux.
Elle se penche sur les résultats d’une série d’essais
centrifuges avec déformation dans le plan effectués
sur des tunnels dans un sable siliceux secs. Le ratio
couverture/diamètre – C/D – des tunnels était compris
entre 1,3 et 4,4. Les caractéristiques de la forme des
dépressions d’affaissement de sites vierges, de surface et
sub-surface, sont illustrées par le biais de l’examen de
données de déplacement du sol obtenues avec une tech-
nique de mesure des déformations à base d’images. On
démontre les effets de la taille du tunnel, de la profon-
deur et de la perte de volume, et on discute sur l’aptitude
de courbes d’ajustement. La communication illustre le
comportement volumétrique complexe du sol drainé en
comparant les pertes de volume du tunnel aux pertes de
volume subies par le sol, et on développe une série
d’équations fournissant une méthode d’évaluation des
variations de la forme de la dépression d’affaissement en
fonction de la taille du tunnel, la profondeur et la perte
de volume.
however, is quite high, suggesting that there may be addi-
tional factors affecting trough shape. For example, Sugiyama
et al. (1999) showed that i increases with the cover-to-
diameter ratio (C/D) of the tunnel; Hergarden et al. (1996),
Jacobsz (2002) and Vorster (2005) showed that i decreases
with the magnitude of volume loss; and Cording (1991)
stated that i decreases with the overall magnitude of dis-
placements due to the formation of a chimney-like mechan-
ism. In addition, it has also been observed that the Gaussian
curve does not always provide a good fit to settlement
trough data in drained soils (Celestino et al., 2000; Jacobsz
et al., 2004; Vorster et al., 2005), which may also explain
some of the scatter in the published i values for tunnels in
sands and gravels.
In the analysis of real tunnel data, such as those provided
by Lake et al. (1996), it is difficult to establish the effect
of individual parameters, since the variability of such
factors as soil type, construction method and measurement
errors between tunnelling projects inevitably affects results.
This paper presents data that illustrate the effect of key
parameters on settlement troughs above tunnels in sands.
The current work is based on laboratory tests using a
geotechnical centrifuge. Geotechnical centrifuge technology
provides a method of reproducing full-scale ground stress
profiles (and therefore behaviour) within small-scale models
in a controlled laboratory environment (Taylor, 1995). Cen-
trifuge modelling has provided significant and useful data
relating to the problem of tunnels in both clays (Mair,
1979; Davis et al., 1980; Mair et al., 1993; Grant & Taylor,
2000; Loganathan et al., 2000; Osman et al., 2006a, 2006b)
and sands (Potts, 1976; Atkinson & Potts, 1977; Kutter et
al., 1994). The focus of this work was to isolate the effect
of geometric and tunnelling-related parameters on settlement
trough shape. For this reason, material parameters (soil
386 MARSHALL, FARRELL, KLAR AND MAIR
type, relative density) were kept constant throughout the
tests.
BACKGROUND
Figure 1 illustrates a typical plane-strain settlement trough
above a tunnel. Of particular importance is the shape of the
settlement trough and the volume loss parameter, Vl ¼ Vs /At
3 100%, where Vs is the volume of the settlement trough
per metre length and At is the area of the tunnel face. For
undrained clays, the volume of the settlement trough does
not vary with depth (Vs, s ¼ Vs, z in Fig. 1, where s and z refer
to surface and an arbitrary depth respectively).
Peck (1969) showed that a Gaussian distribution curve
(Table 1) provided a reasonable fit to tunnel-induced surface
settlements. The study of trough shape has received consid-
erable attention in the literature (O’Reilly & New, 1982;
Mair et al., 1993; Mair & Taylor, 1997; Cooper et al.,
2002). A feature of the Gaussian curve is that the value of
vertical settlement, Sv , at the inflexion point is fixed (i.e.
Sv (i) ¼ exp(0.5) Smax ¼ 0.606Smax ).
The value of i is generally expressed as
i ¼ K ð zt  zÞ
where zt is tunnel axis depth, and K is a dimensionless
empirical constant referred to as the trough width parameter
(O’Reilly & New, 1982; Mair et al., 1993). Values of K for
Gaussian curves fitted to surface settlement data have been
found to be close to 0.5 for tunnels in undrained clay, and
typically range between 0.25 and 0.45 for tunnels in sands
and gravels (O’Reilly & New, 1982; Mair & Taylor, 1997).
Mair et al. (1993) showed, using centrifuge experiment
and case-study data, that subsurface settlement troughs in
x x⫽0
Surface is
z
z Sv,s
Smax,s
Slope ∂i /∂z
Sv,z Smax,z
Inflexion
point
iz
zt Tunnel D cylinder and the membrane was filled with water. The
Vs,s ⫽ volume of settlement trough at surface
Vs,z ⫽ volume of settlement trough at depth z
Fig. 1. Greenfield settlement trough
Table 1. Curves used to fit settlement trough data above tunnels
Reference
(curve name, symbol)
Peck (1969)
Sv (x) ¼ Smax exp  2
(Gaussian, G)
Jacobsz et al. (2004)
Sv (x) ¼ Smax exp 
(Jacobsz, J)
Celestino et al. (2000)
(yield density, YD)
Vorster et al. (2005)
Sv (x) ¼
(modified Gaussian, mG)
undrained clays can also be fitted well with a Gaussian
curve, and that the value of i decreases approximately
linearly with depth at a slope of @i/@z ¼ 0.325, as illus-
trated in Fig. 1. A partial differential is used here and
throughout this paper to imply that only the effect of z on i
is considered (which is generally acceptable for undrained
soils), with other possibly influential variables held constant.
Mair et al. (1993) provided equation (2), which indicates
that K varies non-linearly with depth for tunnels in clay.
0:175 þ 0:325ð1  z=zt Þ
K¼ (2)
1  z=zt
GEOTECHNICAL CENTRIFUGE MODELLING OF
TUNNELS IN SANDS
In order to study the problem of tunnels in sands, a series
of geotechnical centrifuge experiments was conducted. A
single sand was used and prepared consistently throughout
the tests in order to isolate the effects of geometric and
tunnelling-related parameters on the observed settlement
trough shapes.
(1) The centrifuge model is shown in Fig. 2. Tests were
performed on the University of Cambridge 10 m diameter
geotechnical centrifuge (Schofield, 1980). A dry silica sand
known as Leighton Buzzard Fraction E, with a typical D50
of 122 ìm, a specific gravity of 2.67, and maximum and
minimum void ratios of 0.97 and 0.64 respectively, was used
for testing. The sand was poured using an automatic sand
pourer calibrated to achieve a relative density, Id , of 90%.
The model strongbox had plan dimensions of 770 mm 3
147.5 mm. Three digital cameras were used to obtain images
of a large field of view of the soil above and to the sides of
the tunnel. An image-based displacement measurement tech-
nique (geoPIV: see White et al., 2003) was used to measure
surface and subsurface soil displacements. The precision of
the geoPIV measurements was evaluated to be of the order
of 0.01 mm based on the magnitude of scatter observed in
the data. This value was sometimes greater near the sides of
the box, where lighting was not optimal, and near the edges
C of the digital images where errors in the photogrammetric
calibration parameters were amplified.
The cross-sectional views in Figs 2(b) and 2(c) illustrate
the design of the model tunnel, which consisted of a rigid
brass cylinder with enlarged ends that was sealed within a
flexible latex membrane. The annulus between the brass
central shaft of the brass cylinder was positioned eccentri-
cally near the bottom of the tunnel to ensure that displace-
ments around the model tunnel were similar to those
expected for real tunnels (Loganathan & Poulos, 1998). The
volume of water within the model tunnel was controlled
Equation of curve Additional details
 
x2
Sv (i) ¼ 0:606Smax
2i
"  : #
15
1 j xj
Sv (i) ¼ 0:717Smax
3 i
 1=b
Smax b1
Sv (x) ¼ i ¼ aB; B ¼
1 þ (j xj=a) b bþ1
nSmax 2Æ  1
n ¼ exp (Æ) þ1
(n  1) þ exp [Æ(x 2 =i2 )] 2Æ þ 1
 TUNNELS IN SANDS 387
Model tunnel
Camera field
of view Surface
Perspex Steel
wall Soil wall
(front) (back)
147·5

zi (varied)
Latex
Fluid membrane
extraction
Fitting ring Latex
membrane D
(varied)

D Water
(varied)
Brass cylinder
Water
Model tunnel
Digital Brass cylinder
cameras Length of box ⫽ 770

Strongbox
(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 2. Centrifuge model package illustrating plane-strain set-up and geoPIV cameras: (a) model package; (b) cross-section
through model (units mm; not to scale); (c) cross-section through tunnel

using a motor-driven actuator that moved the piston of a
fluid-filled sealed cylinder. The lower chamber of the cylin-
der was connected by pipes to the model tunnel. A measur-
able displacement of the actuator and cylinder piston thus
correlated to a known volume of water (and therefore tunnel
volume loss, Vl,t ) extracted from the model tunnel. Plane-
strain displacements were achieved at the Perspex wall by
setting the end of the model tunnel within the Perspex,
which ensured that any curvature of the membrane around
the end of the brass cylinder did not affect displacements
along the inner surface of the Perspex wall. Surface and
subsurface measurements were also made within the middle
third of the box using linear variable differential transfor-
mers (LVDTs) in order to quantify boundary effects and to
check that measurements of displacement at the Perspex wall
were representative of plane-strain conditions. An investiga-
tion of the effect of boundary friction on the centrifuge
results was conducted using discrete-element modelling
(DEM), where displacements for a frictionless wall were
compared with those for a wall with a friction angle of 158
(Marshall et al., 2009). It was found that the boundary
friction did not have a significant effect on settlement trough
shape, and that the DEM results agreed well with the
geoPIV data. Comparison of geoPIV displacements with the
LVDT measurements within the middle of the box showed
good agreement, with geoPIV values being over 85% of the
LVDT values. Further details can be found in Marshall
(2009), Marshall et al. (2010), and Farrell (2010).
Three centrifuge tests are reported, and are labelled
according to their cover-to-diameter ratio: a relatively small
and deep tunnel with C/D ¼ 4.4 (CD4.4), an intermediate
sized tunnel with C/D ¼ 2.4 (CD2.4), and a relatively large
and shallow tunnel with C/D ¼ 1.3 (CD1.3): see Fig. 3. All
three tunnels were located at approximately the same depth
at prototype scale. Tests CD2.4 and CD1.3 were performed
at a centrifuge acceleration level, N, of 75 times gravity, and
test CD4.4 was performed at N ¼ 40.
TUNNELS IN DRAINED SOILS
For drained soils, such as sands and gravels, the volume
of the soil is not constrained, and shearing causes contrac-
tion and dilation to occur. This causes the volume of the
settlement trough, Vs , to vary with depth (Vs, s 6¼ Vs, z in Fig.
1), and means that an assessment of volume loss based on
surface measurements will not provide an entirely accurate
measurement of subsurface volume loss.
In order to analyse trends in settlement trough shape, a
curve must be fitted to settlement data. The use of a curve
that gives a good fit to settlement data is important in order
to perform an effective analysis of trough shape, and when
evaluating the effect of tunnelling on nearby infrastructure
or buildings (Celestino et al., 2000). It has been reported
that the Gaussian curve does not always provide a good fit
to settlement trough data (Celestino et al., 2000; Jacobsz et
al., 2004; Vorster et al., 2005), and indeed this was found to
be the case for the centrifuge test data acquired from this
work. Alternative curves, illustrated in Table 1, have been
suggested. Jacobsz et al. (2004) used a slightly different
version of the Gaussian curve that, like the Gaussian curve,
has two degrees of freedom, represented by Smax and i.
Celestino et al. (2000) and Vorster et al. (2005) used curves
with one additional degree of freedom compared with the
Gaussian curve, thus giving more flexibility to the shape of
the curve.
An evaluation of the goodness of fit of the curves in Table
1 is illustrated in Figs 4 and 5, based on the value of
coefficient of determination, R2 (calculated using the curve-
fitting functions in Matlab). The data in Fig. 4 were obtained
from Dyer et al. (1996) for a 1.43 m diameter tunnel
constructed at a depth to axis level of 9.95 m in sand. The
sand was overlain by a 4 m thick layer of clay and 2.5 m of
made ground. Fig. 5 presents data from the centrifuge test
CD1.3 at two different depths and two volume losses. The
value of Vl,t is the actual tunnel volume loss determined
from the known volume extracted from the model tunnel.
The value of Vl,s is the volume loss of the soil calculated as
the area of the fitted modified Gaussian curve. Details of the
fitted curve parameters are provided in each figure (x is
explained later in the paper).
Figures 4 and 5 illustrate several key characteristics. In
general, the data show that the Gaussian and Jacobsz curves
do not provide a good fit to all of the data, and that the
modified Gaussian and yield density curves both provide a
good fit. Comparing Figs 5(a) and 5(b) with Figs 5(c) and
5(d) shows that the goodness of fit of the Gaussian curve
388 MARSHALL, FARRELL, KLAR AND MAIR
Model scale
x x
z z
CD1·3
zt: mm
0·150
0·182
CD2·4
0·295 CD4·4
Tunnel
diameter,
D: m*
CD4·4 0·060 [2·40]
CD2·4 0·062 [4·65]
CD1·3 0·082 [6·15]
Fig. 3. Details of centrifuge tests ( prototype scale dimension in square brackets)
decreases with increased tunnel volume loss. In addition,
comparing Figs 4(a)–(d) with Figs 5(a), 5(c) and Figs 5(b),
5(d) shows that, in general, the goodness of fit of the
Gaussian curve decreases with depth. Figs 4 and 5 also show
that the curves, although fitted to the same data and being
quite similar in shape for a given set of data, can give
considerably different values of i. The data demonstrate that
the value of i decreases with depth, as expected. Also, by
comparing Figs 5(a) and 5(b) with Figs 5(c) and 5(d), it can
be seen that the value of i decreases with volume loss.
Finally, from Figs 4(c) and 5(d) (for measurements made
within sand) and Figs 5(a), 5(c) and 5(b), 5(d), it can be
seen that the volume loss of the soil (calculated using the
fitted modified Gaussian curve) decreases with depth.
These observations support the following conclusions for
tunnels in sands.
(a) The Gaussian curve does not always provide an adequate
fit to settlement data above tunnels in sands.
(b) The goodness of fit of the Gaussian curve decreases with
increased displacements, either resulting from an increase
in volume loss or by considering settlements at greater
depths.
(c) The value of i decreases with depth.
(d ) The value of i decreases with volume loss.
(e) The value of soil volume loss decreases with depth
(although this will depend on the volumetric behaviour of
the soil when sheared, which is discussed later in the
paper).
As the magnitude of displacements of the settlement
trough increases, either by considering depths closer to the
tunnel or as a result of increased volume loss, the shape of
the settlement trough changes, signified by a decrease in the
goodness of fit (R2 ) of the Gaussian curve. Examining the
value of R2 for the Gaussian curve therefore provides a
simple method of evaluating the degree of change of settle-
Prototype scale
CD1·3
zt: mm
11·25
CD4·4
11·80
13·65 CD2·4
Tunnel Cover to Acceleration,
cover, diameter, N
C: m* C/D
0·265 [10·60] 4·4 40
0·151 [11·32] 2·4 75
0·109 [8·18] 1·3 75
ment trough shape. Fig. 6 presents the trend of R2 with
tunnel volume loss for the Gaussian and modified Gaussian
curves for two of the centrifuge tests. At low volume loss
and at the surface, the Gaussian curve generally fits the data
as well as the modified Gaussian curve. At depth, or as
volume loss is increased, the fit of the Gaussian curve
becomes less good. This is more noticeable in the relatively
large and shallow tunnel test, CD1.3, than in the relatively
deep and small tunnel test, CD4.4. This indicates that the
cover-to-diameter ratio also has an effect on the shape of the
settlement trough.
The subsurface geoPIV displacement data obtained from
the centrifuge tests were analysed in order to study the
underlying mechanism of displacement responsible for the
change in settlement trough shape. Fig. 7 presents contours
of normalised vertical displacement, Sv /Scrown , where Scrown
is the maximum measured settlement just above the tunnel
crown, for tests CD1.3 and CD4.4 at Vl;t ¼ 5%. The contours
illustrate a chimney-like displacement mechanism, where the
majority of displacements occur in the region directly above
the tunnel (also noted by Potts, 1976). This mechanism
propagates from the tunnel crown towards the surface as
volume loss increases. Fig. 7 also shows that the chimney-
shaped mechanism is more prominent for the relatively large
and shallow CD1.3 tunnel than for the relatively small and
deep CD4.4 tunnel at the given volume loss. For example, in
test CD1.3, Sv /Scrown ¼ 0.4 at the surface above the tunnel,
whereas for test CD4.4 the Sv /Scrown ¼ 0.4 line propagates
only to a depth of about z/zt ¼ 0.7. It is reasonable to
conclude that the formation of this chimney-like displace-
ment mechanism is responsible for the change in settlement
trough shape that causes a poor fit of the Gaussian curve.
Cording (1991) also reasoned that the formation of a chim-
ney-like mechanism was responsible for the decrease of i
values for fitted Gaussian curves. The mechanism is most
prominent just above the tunnel (explaining the decrease in
 TUNNELS IN SANDS 389
0 0

5
Dyer et al. (1996) data 10
10

15 20 Curve: i: m; x*: m; R 2
Curve: i: m; x*: m; R 2
Settlement: mm

Settlement: mm
G: 2·11; 2·11; 0·9543
20 G: 2·87; 2·87; 0·9925
30 J: 1·50; 1·62; 0·9817
25 J: 1·99; 2·16; 0·9999
mG: 1·39; 1·89; 0·9907
30 mG: 2·05; 2·61; 0·9999
40
YD: 1·48; 1·92; 0·9917
YD: 2·20; 2·63; 0·9977
35
50
40

45 60
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
Offset from tunnel centreline: m Offset from tunnel centreline: m
(a) (b)

0 0

10 10

20 Curve: i: m; x*: m; R 2 20
G: 1·48; 1·48; 0·9162 Curve: i: m; x*: m; R 2
Settlement: mm

30 Settlement: mm 30
J: 1·02; 1·11; 0·9644 G: 1·25; 1·25; 0·9511
40 40
mG: 0·91; 1·25; 0·9887 J: 0·87; 0·93; 0·9771
50 50 mG: 0·76; 1·05; 0·9949
YD: 0·60; 1·10; 0·9957

60 60 YD: 0·61; 0·96; 0·9974

70 70

80 80
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
Offset from tunnel centreline: m Offset from tunnel centreline: m
(c) (d)

z/zt
Made ground
0·25
Clay
0·65

Sand

Fig. 4. Curves fitted to settlement data from Dyer et al. (1996): (a) z/zt 0, Vl,s 20.5%; (b) z/zt 0.4, Vl,s 21.9%; (c) z/zt 0.7,
Vl,s 20.0%; (d) z/zt 0.85, Vl,s 17.9%. Vl,s , soil volume loss calculated using fitted mG curve; G, Gaussian; J, Jacobsz;
mG, modified Gaussian; YD, yield density

R2 for the Gaussian curve with increased depth), and
becomes more distinct as volume loss increases (hence the
decrease in R2 for the Gaussian curve as volume loss
increases).
The above analysis illustrates that the key geometric and
tunnelling parameters that affect settlement trough shape in
sands are relative depth (zt  z), C/D and Vl,t : A quantitative
assessment of the effects of these parameters on settlement
trough shape, based on the centrifuge experiment data, is
presented after the next section.
FITTING CURVES TO SETTLEMENT DATA ABOVE
TUNNELS IN SANDS AND GRAVELS
It has been shown that the Gaussian curve does not always
provide an adequate fit to settlement data above tunnels in
sands. The modified Gaussian and yield density curves were
shown to give a consistently good fit to settlement data. For
the Gaussian curve, much attention has been placed on
evaluating the value of i of the fitted curve. There is an
abundance of data related to i (and K) in the literature based
on a fitted Gaussian curve. However, it is likely that the
Gaussian curve has been used to evaluate trough shape
parameters in cases where the curve does not provide a good
fit to the settlement data, such as in Dyer et al. (1996). In
these cases, the stated values of trough shape parameters
may not necessarily be accurate. This may be a contributing
factor to the high level of scatter in published data relating
to settlement trough shape parameters above tunnels in sands
and gravels.
Curves with three degrees of freedom, such as the mod-
ified Gaussian and yield density curves, can provide a good
fit to the settlement data. However, the use of these curves
means that analysing settlement trough shape parameters in
a way that allows comparison with other published data
becomes more complicated. The standard use of i or K
values is not sufficient since, as shown in Fig. 8, curves of
considerably different shape can have the same value of i.
This may cause confusion, since in practice the value of i or
K is associated with the width of the settlement trough. The
problem is therefore to determine which shape parameters
for non-Gaussian fitting curves should be considered.
One option is that a single fitting curve is used for
settlement data above tunnels in sands and gravels. The
390 MARSHALL, FARRELL, KLAR AND MAIR
0 Centrifuge test data 0

0·2 0·2

Curve: i /Dt; x*/Dt; R 2

0·4 0·4 G: 0·82; 0·82; 0·9776
Curve: i /Dt; x*/Dt; R 2

Sv /Smax
Sv /Smax

J: 0·56; 0·61; 0·9935

G: 0·96; 0·96; 0·9870
mG: 0·54; 0·71; 0·9966
0·6 J: 0·64; 0·70; 0·9970 0·6
YD: 0·70; 0·76; 0·9766
mG: 0·69; 0·86; 0·9952
0·8 YD: 0·86; 0·91; 0·9713 0·8

1·0 1·0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
x /Dt x /Dt
(a) (b)

0 0

0·2 0·2

Curve: i /Dt; x*/Dt; R 2

0·4 Curve: i /Dt; x*/Dt; R 2 0·4
Sv /Smax

G: 0·33; 0·33; 0·9592

Sv /Smax
G: 0·52; 0·52; 0·9720
J: 0·23; 0·25; 0·9764
0·6 J: 0·36; 0·39; 0·9900 0·6 mG: 0·21; 0·28; 0·9884
mG: 0·33; 0·44; 0·9938
YD: 0·24; 0·29; 0·9844
YD: 0·40; 0·47; 0·9840
0·8 0·8

1·0 1·0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
x /Dt x /D t
(c) (d)

Fig. 5. Curves fitted to settlement data from test CD1.3: (a) z/zt 0, Vl,t 1%, Vl,s 0.96%; (b) z/zt 0; Vl,t 2.5%,
Vl,s 1.8%; (c) z/zt 0.6, Vl,t 1%, Vl,s 0.7%; (d) z/zt 0.6, Vl,t 2.5%, Vl,s 1.6%. Vl,t , tunnel volume loss calculated
from volume extracted from model tunnel; Vl,s , soil volume loss calculated using fitted mG curve; G, Gaussian;
J, Jacobsz; mG, modified Gaussian; YD, yield density

parameters of that curve could then be studied: for example,
the values of i and Æ for the modified Gaussian curve or a
and b for the yield density curve. This approach is consid-
ered to be overly prescriptive.
Another option is to develop a method to study the shape
of the settlement curve that allows the determination of the
parameters of a three-degree-of-freedom curve, regardless of
the type of curve used. In order to do this, knowledge of the
position of three points on the curve is required. Since most
of the available data related to settlement trough shape are
based on the fit of a Gaussian curve, it seems sensible to
use the two points of the Gaussian curve: that is, Smax and
Sv (ig ) ¼ 0.606Smax , where ig is the offset to the inflexion
point on the Gaussian curve. A reasonable choice for the
third point is at half the settlement of Sv (ig ): that is,
0.5 Sv (ig ) ¼ 0.303Smax : The offsets to Sv (ig ) and 0.5 Sv (ig ) are
referred to as x and x** respectively.
Figure 9 is a reproduction of Fig. 8, again with all curves
having the same value of i. Fig. 9 illustrates how the use of
this method allows the proper characterisation of the differ-
ent shaped curves. The values of x and x** all vary
considerably for the curves, even though they have the same
value of i. A trough width parameter K, based on x and
x**, can be calculated, and is referred to as K and K**.
The values of x and K can be used to give a qualitative
comparison of trough width with published data for i and K
based on the fit of a Gaussian curve, since they give a
measure of the width of the trough at the same value of
Sv ¼ 0.606Smax : However, this should be done with caution,
for the reason illustrated in Fig. 8.
An evaluation of the effect of the key parameters (zt  z,
C/D, Vl,t ) on settlement trough shape, based on x and x**,
for the centrifuge experiment data is presented next.
VARIATION OF TROUGH SHAPE BASED ON
CENTRIFUGE EXPERIMENTS
One of the most widely used relationships for trough
width parameter above tunnels is that of Mair et al. (1993),
presented as equation (2), which provides an empirical
method of evaluating the location of the inflexion point on a
fitted Gaussian curve. Equation (2) can be rewritten in the
form
K s þ ð@i=@zÞð z=zt Þ
K¼ (3)
1  z=zt
where Ks is the value of K at the surface, and @i/@z is the
slope of i with depth when all other parameters are kept
constant. As mentioned, standard values for the Mair et al.
(1993) relationship are @i/@z ¼ 0.325 and Ks ¼ 0.5 for
clays. For sands and gravels, due to the scatter in the
available data, the value Ks typically ranges from 0.25 to
0.45 (Mair & Taylor, 1997).
A modified Gaussian curve was used to determine the
values of x and x for the settlement trough data obtained
 TUNNELS IN SANDS 391
1·00

Coefficient of determination, R 2

Modified
Gaussian Gaussian
CD4·4 CD4·4

CD1·3 CD1·3
0·95
0 1 2 3 4 5
Tunnel volume loss, Vl,t: %
(a)

1·00
Coefficient of determination, R 2

0·95

Modified
0·90 Gaussian Gaussian
CD4·4 CD4·4

CD1·3 CD1·3
0·85
0 1 2 3 4 5
Tunnel volume loss, Vl,t: %
(b)

Fig. 6. Goodness of fit for Gaussian and modified Gaussian curves: (a) surface; (b) z/zt 0.65

0·2
0·2
0·2
0·3

0·4
0·1 0·4
z /zt

0·3
0·2
0·6
0·70·8
0·6
0·2 0·9 0·4 0·3
0·6 0·5
0·8 0·7 0·1
0·9 0·8

1·0
⫺2·0 ⫺1·5 ⫺1·0 ⫺0·5 0 0 0·5 1·0 1·5 2·0
x /D x /D
(a) (b)

Fig. 7. Contours of Sv /Scrown at 5% volume loss for: (a) test CD1.3, Scrown 1.32 mm; (b) test CD4.4, Scrown 1.23 mm

from the three centrifuge tests. Fig. 10 presents the x and
x data at four values of tunnel volume loss, and shows
that the values decrease approximately linearly with depth
(as did the data on which the Mair et al. (1993), equation is
based). The data show that the rate of change of x and x
with depth is not significantly different for tunnels of differ-
ent C/D ratios, but that there is a slight decrease of values
with volume loss. In order to study the effect of C/D and
volume loss more closely, linear lines were fitted to the
complete set of x and x data to obtain trends of @x /@z
and @x**/@z with volume loss for the three tests, as shown
in Fig. 11(a). In general, the data show that the values of
@x /@z and @x**/@z stay reasonably constant with volume
loss, and do not differ considerably for different C/D ratios.
The @x**/@z data for test CD4.4 are somewhat anomalous.
This is probably due to the fact that displacements for the
CD4.4 tunnel at low volume losses were very small, and
measurements were therefore susceptible to proportionally
392 MARSHALL, FARRELL, KLAR AND MAIR
0 x /i
x**/i

0·2
0 1 2 3 4
0
0·4
Sv /Smax

0·2
Sv ⫽ 0·303 Smax
0·6
Gaussian, i ⫽ 3 0·4

Sv /Smax
Jacobsz, i ⫽ 3
0·8 Sv ⫽ 0·606 Smax
Modified Gaussian, i ⫽ 3, α ⫽ 2 0·6
Yield density, i ⫽ 3, a ⫽ 4·2, b ⫽ 2·5 Gaussian, i ⫽ 3
1·0 Jacobsz, i ⫽ 3
0 1 2 3 4 0·8
x /i Modified Gaussian, i ⫽ 3, α ⫽ 2
Yield density, i ⫽ 3, a ⫽ 4·2, b ⫽ 2·5
1·0
Fig. 8. Various fitting curves with same value of i 0 1 2 3 4
x /i
higher levels of error. In addition, the size of the centrifuge x*/i
container was such that the full extent of the trough width
Fig. 9. Various fitting curves with same value of i and showing
could not be measured at the surface for test CD4.4, so zero location of x and x**
settlement was assumed at an offset of 1.7zt (based on
observations from other tests), and this assumption did have
some effect on the fitted curve parameters. et al. (1996), Jacobsz (2002) and Vorster (2005), and
Figure 11(b) shows the values of trough width parameters implied by Cording (1991), who stated that large settlements
calculated at the surface of the soil, K s and K s , where tend to result in smaller trough widths.
K s ¼ x=zt : Settlement trough width is observed to decrease Included in Fig. 11 are the values of @i/@z and Ks that
as tunnel volume loss increases, as also noted by Hergarden were reported by Mair et al. (1993) and Mair & Taylor

x*/zt and x**/zt x*/zt and x**/zt

0 0·2 0·4 0·6 0·8 1·0 0 0·2 0·4 0·6 0·8 1·0
0 0

0·1 0·1

0·2 0·2

0·3 0·3
z /zt
z /zt

0·4 0·4

0·5 0·5

0·6 0·6

0·7 0·7

0·8 0·8
(a) (b)

x*/zt and x**/zt x*/zt and x**/zt

0 0·2 0·4 0·6 0·8 1·0 0 0·2 0·4 0·6 0·8 1·0
0 0

0·1 0·1

0·2 0·2

0·3 0·3
z /zt
z /zt

0·4 0·4 x**/zt

x*/zt
CD4·4
CD4·4
0·5 0·5 CD2·4
CD2·4
0·6 0·6 CD1·3
CD1·3

0·7 0·7

0·8 0·8
(c) (d)

Fig. 10. Variation of x and x** with depth (normalised by tunnel depth, zt ): (a) Vl,t 0.5%; (b) Vl,t 1%; (c) Vl,t 2.5%; (d) Vl,t 5%
 TUNNELS IN SANDS
⫺0·2
⫺0·4
∂x*/∂z; ∂x**/∂z
⫺0·6
⫺0·8
0 1
Tunnel volume loss, Vl,t: %
1·0
0·8
Ks ⫽ 0·5 (clays)‡
s K *s*
0·6
K *;
0·45
0·4
Ks ⫽ 0·25–0·45 (sands)‡
0·25
0·2
0 1
Tunnel volume loss, Vl,t: %
Fig. 11. Trend of fitted curve parameters with volume loss: (a) fitted slope of x and x** with
depth; (b) trough width parameters at the surface (y Mair et al., 1993; { Mair & Taylor, 1997)
(1997), and which are based on the location of the inflexion
point on a fitted Gaussian curve. As discussed earlier, a
qualitative comparison of trough widths from Gaussian and
non-Gaussian fitted curves can be made using values of i
and x , since they are both located at a value of
Sv ¼ 0.606Smax : Taking @i/@z ¼ 0.325 to represent un-
drained clays, it can be seen that the width of the settlement
troughs in sands at Sv ¼ 0.606Smax decreases faster with
depth compared with clay, as illustrated by the average value
of @x /@z ¼ 0.436. This narrowing effect is the result of
the chimney-like displacement mechanism noted in Fig. 7.
The data in Fig. 11(b) indicate that the widths of the
settlement troughs in the centrifuge experiments at low
volume loss and for the relatively small and deep CD4.4
tunnel are higher than the typical range of 0.25–0.45 for
sands provided by Mair & Taylor (1997). As discussed in
Cording (1991), for very small settlements (i.e. surface
settlements at low volume loss, especially for relatively
small and deep tunnels) the settlement trough can be very
wide, and may be approximated by elastic soil behaviour
(e.g. solutions by Sagaseta, 1987; Verruijt & Booker, 1996).
A modified Gaussian curve was fitted to the elastic solution
provided by Verruijt & Booker (1996), and it was found that
K ¼ 0.87 for r ¼ 0 (no tunnel ovalisation; see Sagaseta,
1998) and K ¼ 0.58 for r ¼ 0.5 (inward movement at
tunnel springline ¼ half inward movement of crown and
invert). This may explain the high values of K for the
393
∂i /∂z ⫽ ⫺0·325†
∂x*
∂z
∂x**
∂z
2 3 4 5
(a)
x* x**
CD4·4 CD4·4
CD2·4 CD2·4
CD1·3 CD1·3
K *s*
K *s
2 3 4 5
(b)
CD4.4 tunnel in Fig. 11(b). Other examples of wide troughs
exist in the literature to support this observation: for exam-
ple, Sugiyama et al. (1999) reported Ks ¼ 0.6 (found to give
Ks  ¼ 0.63 by fitting a modified Gaussian curve) for a
tunnel beneath gravel with C/D ¼ 1.86 and Vl,s ¼ 0.45%; and
O’Reilly & New (1982) reported Ks ¼ 0.55 for a tunnel in
sand with C/D ¼ 1.9 and Vl,s ¼ 0.32%. Other factors could
also contribute to the difference between the Ks  values
from the centrifuge tests and the expected range of
Ks ¼ 0.25–0.45. First, the Ks  values are based on x data
derived from fitted modified Gaussian curves, whereas the
case-study data are based on i values from fitted Gaussian
curves (called ig ). As discussed earlier, and illustrated in
Figs 4 and 5, ig and x values can vary for different curves
fitted to the same data. Second, volume loss is not consid-
ered within the case studies in which the typical Ks value
range is based. As Fig. 11(b) indicates, volume loss in sands
does have an effect on trough width, and higher volume
losses result in lower trough widths. The magnitude of
volume loss in the case-study data may have skewed the K
data towards lower values (the majority of the cases consid-
ered by Mair & Taylor (1997), have Vl,s values in the range
1.5–3%).
Figure 12 plots the values of the intercept of K s with
int ) from Table 2 against the cover-to-diameter
Vl,t ¼ 0 (K s,Vl
ratio, C/D. These values have no physical meaning, since
they are at zero volume loss, but they do imply that rel-
394 MARSHALL, FARRELL, KLAR AND MAIR
K *s,slope
C /D
0·70

CD4·4
int
K *s,V l
⫽ 0·440 ⫹ 0·055(C /D)

int
Intercept of K *s with V l,t ⫽ 0 ( K *s,V l
)
0·60 K *s,intC /D

CD2·4

CD1·3
0·50

0·40
0 1 2 3 4 5
C/D

int 
Fig. 12. Relationship between K s,V l
and C/D, based on data from Table 2

Table 2. Features of curves in Fig. 11

Test Average value of @x /@z Average y slope )

Slope of K s with Vl,t (K s,V y
Slope of y
Intercept of Ks  with Vl,t ¼ 0 y
Intercept of
value of
l
K  with Vl,t int )
(K s,V K s with
s  l
@x**/@z (K s,Vlslope ) Vl,t ¼ 0
(K  int
s,Vl )

CD4.4 0.474 0.543 0.038 0.030 0.686 0.932

CD2.4 0.443 0.649 0.040 0.043 0.568 0.871
CD1.3 0.391 0.676 0.046 0.064 0.517 0.877
Average 0.436 0.623 0.041

@x**/@z ¼ @x /@z  0.20{ K 

s ¼ K s þ 0:29{
y
Based on linear fit to data in Fig. 11(b).
{
Representative values.

atively small and deep tunnels result in very wide settlement the centrifuge test data in Fig. 14. The agreement is
troughs. Although based on only three data points, the plot generally good, as expected, since the parameter values are
suggests a somewhat linear relationship between K s,V int and based on the centrifuge experiment results. Although equa-
l
C/D, with trough width decreasing as tunnel diameter in- tion (4) is certainly less user-friendly than the traditional
creases for tunnels of the same depth (the three tunnels were Gaussian curve with constant K value, it does, importantly,
at approximately the same prototype depth). This result capture the variable nature of the settlement trough shape
agrees with the observation of Cording (1991) that as above tunnels in sand as it is affected by depth, volume loss
magnitudes of displacements increase (larger tunnels will and C/D.
cause larger displacements than smaller tunnels for a given
volume loss), the width of the settlement trough decreases.
Considering the data from the centrifuge tests presented in FURTHER DISCUSSION ON VOLUME LOSS AND C/D
Table 2 and Figs 11 and 12, the following relationship can The analysis of the centrifuge test data thus far has
be used to determine, with reasonable accuracy, the shape of focused on the change of settlement trough shape parameters
the settlement trough as it changes with depth, C/D, and with tunnel volume loss, Vl,t : Tunnel volume loss is a
tunnel volume loss. convenient reference for the centrifuge tests, but it is not a
  practical parameter for real tunnels, since it cannot be
 K s þ @x =@z ð z=zt Þ
K ¼ calculated directly. Engineers need to be able to evaluate the
1  z=zt (4) volume loss experienced by the soil, Vl,s :
  int slope  slope Figure 15 compares Vl,s and Vl,t from the three centrifuge
K s ¼ K s,C= D þ K s,C= D ð C=DÞ þ K s,Vl ð Vl,t Þ tests at four normalised depths. The 1:1 line indicates
equality between the two volume losses. When the tangent
int ¼ 0:440; K slope ¼ 0:055; K slope ¼ 0:041;
where K s,C=D to a line is greater than 1:1, it indicates that the behaviour
s,C= D s,Vl

@x /@z ¼ 0.436; and the location of x** can be found of the soil at the given depth, including the cumulative
using K s ¼ K s þ 0:29 and @x**/@z ¼ @x /@z  0.20. effect of the soil beneath the level of measurement, is
For the modified Gaussian curve used in this analysis, Fig. contractive (i.e. the soil volume loss is increasing faster than
13 allows determination of the values of i and Æ based on the tunnel volume loss). When the tangent is less than 1:1,
the calculated values of x and x**. The profile of Sv /Smax the soil behaviour is dilative. As mentioned earlier, boundary
can then be plotted using the modified Gaussian equation friction had some effect on geoPIV measurements, so the
(Table 1), and the value of Smax adjusted until the area of the values of Vl,s may be slightly underestimated in Fig. 15.
curve (calculated by numeric integration) equals the desired Figure 15 shows that at low tunnel volume losses there is
volume loss. little difference between the soil and tunnel volume loss,
The results obtained using equation (4) are compared with indicating that very little volumetric strain occurs within the
 TUNNELS IN SANDS 395
1·4

冪
⎡ eα(√e ⫺ 1)(2α ⫺ 1)
1·2 ⎢
x*
⫽⫾ ln ⎢√e ⫹ ⎡
⎣ 2α ⫹ 1
i
α

x*/i
1·0

0·8

0·6
0 0·5 1·0 1·5 2·0
α
(a)
0·8

0·7
x*/x**

冪
0·6 ⎡ eα(2√e ⫺ 1)(2α ⫺ 1) ⎢
x**
⫽⫾ ln ⎢2√e ⫹ ⎡
⎣ 2α ⫹ 1
i
α
0·5
0 0·5 1·0 1·5 2·0
α
(b)

Fig. 13. Variation of x and x** with modified Gaussian curve parameters: (a) variation
of x /i, where Sv (x ) 0.606Smax ; (b) variation of x /x** with Æ, where Sv (x**)
0.303Smax

K* K*
0 0·2 0·4 0·6 0·8 1·0 0 0·2 0·4 0·6 0·8 1·0
0 0
Vl 0·1
0·1 Vl
0·5%
0·2 1·0% 0·2 Equation (4) 0·5%
2·5% 0·5% 1·0%
0·3 0·3
5·0% 1·0% 2·5%
z /zt 0·4 Equation (4) z /zt 0·4 5·0%
2·5%
0·5 0·5% 0·5 5·0%
1·0%
0·6 2·5% 0·6
5·0% 0·7
0·7
0·8 (a) 0·8 (b)

K*
0 0·2 0·4 0·6 0·8 1·0
0
Vl
0·1
0·5%
0·2 1·0%
0·3 2·5%
5·0%
z /zt 0·4
0·5 Equation (4)
0·5%
0·6 1·0%
0·7 2·5%
5·0%
0·8 (c)

Fig. 14. Trough width parameter against depth, compared with prediction using equation (4): (a) CD4.4; (b) CD2.4; (c) CD1.3

soil. At the surface, the soil volume loss increases faster
than the tunnel volume loss for the CD4.4 and CD2.4
tunnels, whereas for the CD1.3 tunnel soil volume loss is
never greater than tunnel volume loss. Nearer the tunnel, the
difference between soil and tunnel volume losses is generally
less than at the surface. At higher tunnel volume losses, the
overall effect of soil dilation is evident, with Vl,s eventually
becoming less than Vl,t for all tests at all depths. Comparing
Figs 15(a) to 15(d), the value of soil volume loss is noted to
decrease with depth, except for the CD1.3 tunnel at high
396 MARSHALL, FARRELL, KLAR AND MAIR
5 5

4 4
1:1 line 1:1 line

3 3

Vl,s: %
Vl,s: %

2 2

CD4·4 CD4·4
1 1
CD2·4 CD2·4
CD1·3 CD1·3

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Vl,t: % Vl,t: %
(a) (b)
5 5

4 4
1:1 line 1:1 line

3 3

Vl,s: %
Vl,s: %

2 2

CD4·4 CD4·4
1 CD2·4 1 CD2·4
CD1·3 CD1·3

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Vl,t: % Vl,t: %
(c) (d)

Fig. 15. Variation of soil volume loss with tunnel volume loss: (a) z/zt 0; (b) z/zt 0.15; (c) z/zt 0.4; (d) z/zt 0.54

Vl,t : Based on these results, volume loss derived from surface
displacement measurements in dense sands is likely to over-
predict soil volume loss at depth for most practical values of
tunnel volume loss. Predictions of tunnelling effects on
buried structures will therefore tend to be conservative (at
least with respect to the assumed value of volume loss)
when using surface displacements to estimate volume loss.
This would also be the case in a loose sand that is expected
to undergo contraction when sheared. Surface displacements
will not provide conservative estimates of subsurface dis-
placements if the overall soil behaviour is dilative, but these
results suggest that this occurs at very high values of tunnel
volume loss.
Cording (1991) suggested that, for a dense soil in which
dilation is expected, soil volume loss should be least near
the surface and greatest near the tunnel, which is a reason-
able conclusion based on a uniformly dilating soil. The
centrifuge experiment data, which were obtained on a dense
soil (Id ¼ 90%), do not entirely agree with this. Volume loss
at the surface of the centrifuge experiments tended to be
greater than the tunnel volume loss, except for the relatively
large and shallow CD1.3 test at higher values of Vl,t : This
can be explained by examining the strains within the soil
during the tests. Fig.
p 16 shows a contour of shear strain,
calculated as ª ¼ [( xx   zz )2 þ 42xz ] (the diameter of the
Mohr circle of strain) determined from the geoPIV displace-
ment data from test CD2.4 at tunnel volume losses of 1%
and 2.5%. The magnitude of shear strains is shown to vary
considerably with depth and lateral distance from the tunnel
centreline, with the majority of strains being quite low and
the main shear strains concentrating at the shoulders of the
tunnel. Fig. 17 shows triaxial compression test data for the
Fraction E sand used in these tests at a relative density of
70% (Zhao, 2008). Although the data were obtained for a
different relative density, they do illustrate the tendency for
compression at shear strains less than 1%, depending on
confining pressure. A relatively small and deep tunnel
(CD4.4), which is characterised by small shear strains, can
therefore result in Vl,s greater than Vl,t , even for a dense soil.
For larger tunnels, where strains are greater, the overall
behaviour of the soil becomes dilatant at lower values of Vl,t
than for smaller tunnels, resulting in Vl,s being less than Vl,t :
However, even for the large and shallow CD1.3 tunnel, the
value of Vl,s at the surface is less than near the tunnel for
most of the range of values of Vl,t considered, because shear
strains near the surface and to the sides of the tunnel are
low, and therefore the soil in these areas undergoes volu-
metric contraction. The volumetric behaviour of the soil
under shear clearly has a direct impact on the relationship
between soil and tunnel volume loss and the variation of soil
volume loss with depth.
Interestingly, the relationship between soil and tunnel
volume loss at the surface (Fig. 15) can be normalised
reasonably well by the value of (C/D) , where  in this case
is 0.5, as illustrated in Fig. 18. The fitted relationship in Fig.
18 could be used to determine Vl,s for an assumed value of
Vl,t and an arbitrary value of C/D. Of course, this relationship
is based on only a small dataset, and needs further valida-
tion. The value of  and the shape of the curve in Fig. 18
are dependent on the dilatancy of the soil, and will therefore
 TUNNELS IN SANDS 397
0 1·0
0·3 0·4
0·2 0·3
0·11 0·9
0·3
0·2 0·4
0·22 0·3 0·8
0·2 0·1
0·6 0·4
0·2 0·3 0·3 0·1 0·7
0·33
0·1

Shear strain, γ: %
0·3
0·44 0·6
0·4
0·7
0·1 0·5
z /zt 0·55 0·2 0·6
1·0 0·1 0·4
0·66
0·7 0·2
0·8 0·3
0·77 0·1 0·6
0·2
0·88
Vl,t ⫽ 1% Vl,t ⫽ 2·5% 0·1
0·99
0
⫺4·0 ⫺3·2 ⫺2·4 ⫺1·6 ⫺0·8 0 0·8 1·6 2·4 3·2 4·0
x /Dt

Fig. 16. Contours of shear strain from test CD2.4 at Vl,t 1% and 2.5%

0·6 be a function of relative density, which was not varied in the

p⬘ ⫽ 100 kPa
0·5 tests presented here. More research is required to substanti-
p⬘ ⫽ 200 kPa ate this hypothesis.
0·4

0·3 High C/D Low C/D

Overall εvol ⬍ 0 Overall εvol ⬎ 0
εvol: %

0·2
APPLICABILITY OF RESULTS
Vl,s ⬎ Vl,t Vl,s ⬍ Vl,t
The variation of trough width with volume loss is invari-
0·1 ably a function of the dilatancy of the soil, and therefore the
Dilation reported values of parameters used in equation (4) and the
0
Contraction shape of the curve and  value shown in Fig. 18 will not be
⫺0·1
Id ⫽ 70% unique; they will depend on the type of soil in question and
⫺0·2 its relative density. Appropriate judgement should therefore
0 0·2 0·4 0·6 0·8 1·0 1·2 be used before applying the reported values to real tunnel-
Triaxial shear strain: % ling scenarios. The data and relationships provided here do,
High C/D Low C/D however, provide a useful framework in which further data
can be used to calibrate the parameter values for different
soil and geometric conditions. In addition, the work pre-
sented here could be used in conjunction with soil–structure
Low shear High shear interaction analyses (e.g. Klar & Marshall, 2008; Klar et al.,
strains/ strains/ Low shear
strains/ 2008) to evaluate the effect of tunnelling in sands on nearby
contracting soil dilating soil
contracting soil buried structures.
Fig. 17. Illustration of effect of contraction/dilation on soil
volume loss (data from Zhao, 2008)
CONCLUSIONS
This paper has presented the results of three centrifuge
tests performed to study ground displacement patterns above
3 tunnels in sands. Centrifuge modelling was done in order to
a ⫹ b exp{⫺[(Vl,t ⫺ c)/d ]2} isolate the effect of key geometrical and tunnelling-related
a ⫽ 2·0 b ⫽ ⫺3·7 parameters on settlement trough shape. The effect of varying
c ⫽ ⫺2·8 d ⫽ 3·6 the type of sand or relative density was not considered.
Results showed that the prediction of the shape of tunnel-
2 ling-induced ground movements in sands is very complex,
Vl,s /(C/D) β: %

and that estimates made using traditional empirical methods

may not be adequate. The following conclusions can be
drawn, based on the results of this work.
1 (a) A Gaussian curve does not always provide a good fit to
CD4·4 vertical settlements above tunnels in sands, especially at
CD2·4
higher volume losses and at depths closer to the tunnel.
Curves with three degrees of freedom, such as the
CD1·3
modified Gaussian curve, can provide a good fit, but add
0 a level of complexity to the analysis of trough shapes. A
0 1 2 3 4 5
Vl,t: % method of settlement trough shape analysis was presented
that is based on the location of three points on the curve.
Fig. 18. Normalised soil volume loss at the surface against tunnel (b) The effect of three key parameters on settlement trough
volume loss (z/zt 0;  0.5) shape was evaluated: zt  z, C/D, and Vl,t : Trough width
398 MARSHALL, FARRELL, KLAR AND MAIR
was shown to decrease with (i) an increase of Vl,t , (ii) an
increase in depth, z, and (iii) a decrease in C/D ratio. The
narrowing of the settlement trough was shown to be a
result of the formation of a chimney-like displacement
mechanism above the tunnel.
(c) A set of equations was provided that account for the
effect of the three key parameters identified.
(d ) The effect of shear strains and their relationship to soil
volume loss, Vl,s , was considered. The soil used in this
work was shown to contract at low shear strain, resulting
in values of Vl,s being greater than Vl,t : It is clear that the
results of the centrifuge tests are also related to the
volumetric strain behaviour of the soil, which was not
varied. The effect of material type and relative density is
an area that requires further research.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank the following for financial
support: the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research
Council of Canada (NSERC), the Engineering and Physical
Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), the Cambridge Com-
monwealth Trust, the Cambridge European Trust and the
Joan and Reginald Coleman-Cohen Fund.
NOTATION
At area of tunnel face
a shape parameter used in yield density curve
b shape parameter used in yield density curve
C cover: distance from surface to tunnel crown
D tunnel diameter
Id relative density
i horizontal distance from x ¼ 0 to the inflexion point of a
fitted curve
@i/@z change in i with respect to depth (slope)
K trough width parameter
Ks trough width parameter for surface displacements based
on i
K s trough width parameter for surface displacements based
on x
K  s trough width parameter for surface displacements based
on x**
K s,C=
int
intercept of K s,Vslope values with C/D ¼ 0
D l
K s,C= D slope of K s,Vslope
 slope
l
values with C/D line
K s,Vslope
l
slope of K  against V
s l,t
N centrifuge acceleration
n shape parameter used in modified Gaussian curve
R2 coefficient of determination
Scrown maximum measured settlement just above tunnel crown in
centrifuge tests
Sv vertical settlement
Smax maximum vertical settlement at x ¼ 0
Vl volume loss
Vl,s volume loss of soil (numerical integration of settlement
trough)
Vl,t volume loss of tunnel (volume of water extracted from
model tunnel)
Vs area of settlement trough (per m length)
x horizontal offset distance from tunnel centreline
x horizontal distance from x ¼ 0 to point on fitted curve
where Sv ¼ Smax exp(0.5)
@x /@z change in x with respect to depth (slope)
x** horizontal distance from x ¼ 0 to point on fitted curve
where Sv ¼ 0.5Smax exp(0.5)
@x**/@z change in x** with respect to depth (slope)
z depth, measured from ground surface
zt depth of tunnel axis
Æ shape parameter used in modified Gaussian curve
 parameter used to normalise Vl,s with C/D
ª shear strain
r ovalisation parameter used in Verruijt & Booker (1996)
REFERENCES
Atkinson, J. H. & Potts, D. M. (1977). Stability of a shallow
circular tunnel in cohesionless soil. Géotechnique 27, No. 2,
203–215, http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/geot.1977.27.2.203.
Celestino, T. B., Gomes, R. A. M. P. & Bortolucci, A. A. (2000).
Errors in ground distortions due to settlement trough adjustment.
Tunnel. Undergr. Space Technol. 15, No. 1, 97–100.
Clough, W. & Schmidt, B. (1981). Design and performance of
excavations and tunnels in soft clay. In Soft clay engineering
(eds E. W. Brand and R. P. Brenner), pp. 569–634. Amsterdam:
Elsevier.
Cooper, M. L., Chapman, D. N., Rogers, C. D. F. & Chan, A. H. C.
(2002). Movements in the Piccadilly Line tunnels due to Heath-
row Express construction. Géotechnique 52, No. 4, 243–257,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/geot.2002.52.4.243.
Cording, E. J. (1991). Control of ground movements around tunnels
in soil. Proc. 9th Pan-American Conf. Soil Mech. Found. Engng,
Valparaiso, 2195–2244.
Davis, E. H., Gunn, M. J., Mair, R. J. & Seneviratne, H. N. (1980).
The stability of shallow tunnels and underground openings in
cohesive material. Géotechnique 30, No. 4, 397–416, http://dx.
doi.org/10.1680/geot.1980.30.4.397.
Dyer, M. R., Hutchinson, M. T. & Evans, N. (1996). Sudden Valley
Sewer: a case history. Proceedings of the international sympo-
sium on geotechnical aspects of underground construction in
soft ground, London, pp. 671–676.
Farrell, R. P. (2010). Tunnelling in sands and the response of
buildings. PhD thesis, Engineering Department, Cambridge Uni-
versity.
Grant, R. J. & Taylor, R. N. (2000). Tunnelling-induced ground
movements in clay. Proc. Inst. Civ. Engrs Geotech. Engng 143,
No. 1, 43–55.
Hergarden, H. J. A. M., van der Poel, J. T. & van der Schrier, J. S.
(1996). Ground movements due to tunnelling: Influence on pile
foundations. Proceedings of the international symposium on
geotechnical aspects of underground construction in soft ground,
London, pp. 519–524.
Jacobsz, S. W. (2002). The effects of tunnelling on piled founda-
tions. PhD thesis, Engineering Department, Cambridge Univer-
sity.
Jacobsz, S. W., Standing, J. R., Mair, R. J., Hagiwara, T. &
Sugiyama, T. (2004). Centrifuge modelling of tunnelling near
driven piles. Soils Found. 44, No. 1, 49–56.
Klar, A. & Marshall, A. M. (2008). Shell versus beam represent-
ation of pipes in the evaluation of tunneling effects on pipelines.
Tunnel. Undergr. Space Technol. 23, No. 4, 431–437.
Klar, A., Marshall, A. M., Soga, K. & Mair, R. J. (2008). Tunneling
effects on jointed pipelines. Can. Geotech. J. 45, No. 1, 131–
139.
Kutter, B. L., Chang, J. D. & Davis, B. C. (1994). Collapse of
cavities in sand and particle size effects. Proc. Centrifuge 94,
Singapore, 809–815.
Lake, L. M., Rankin, W. J. & Hawley, J. (1996). Prediction and
effects of ground movements caused by tunnelling in soft ground
beneath urban areas, CIRIA Project Report 30. London: Con-
struction Industry Research and Information Association.
Loganathan, N. & Poulos, H. G. (1998). Analytical prediction for
tunneling-induced ground movements in clays. J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Engng 124, No. 9, 846–856.
Loganathan, N., Poulos, H. G. & Stewart, D. P. (2000). Centrifuge
model testing of tunnelling-induced ground and pile deforma-
tions. Géotechnique 50, No. 3, 283–294, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1680/geot.2000.50.3.283.
Mair, R. J. (1979). Centrifuge modelling of tunnel construction in
soft clay. PhD thesis, Engineering Department, Cambridge Uni-
versity.
Mair, R. J. & Taylor, R. N. (1997). Bored tunnelling in the urban
environment. Proc. 14th Int. Conf. Soil Mech. Found. Engng,
Hamburg 4, 2353–2385.
Mair, R. J., Taylor, R. N. & Bracegirdle, A. (1993). Subsurface
settlement profiles above tunnels in clays. Géotechnique 43, No.
2, 315–320, http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/geot.1993.43.2.315.
Marshall, A. M. (2009). Tunnelling in sand and its effect on
pipelines and piles. PhD thesis, Engineering Department, Cam-
bridge University.
Marshall, A. M., Elkayam, I. & Klar, A. (2009). Ground behaviour
 TUNNELS IN SANDS
above tunnels in sand – DEM simulations versus centrifuge test
results. Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. on Computational Methods in
Tunnelling, Bochum, 183–190.
Marshall, A. M., Klar, A. & Mair, R. J. (2010). Tunneling beneath
buried pipes: a view of soil strain and its effect on pipeline
behavior. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Engng ASCE 136, No. 12,
1664–1672.
Moh, Z.-C., Hwang, R. N. & Ju, D. H. (1996). Ground movements
around tunnels in soft ground. Proceedings of the international
symposium on geotechnical aspects of underground construction
in soft ground, London, pp. 725–730.
O’Reilly, M. P. & New, B. M. (1982). Settlements above tunnels in
the United Kingdom: their magnitude and prediction. Proc.
Tunnelling ’82, Brighton, 173–181.
Osman, A. S., Mair, R. J. & Bolton, M. D. (2006a). On the
kinematics of 2D tunnel collapse in undrained clay. Géotech-
nique 56, No. 9, 585–595, http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/geot.
2006.56.9.585.
Osman, A. S., Bolton, M. D. & Mair, R. J. (2006b). Predicting 2D
ground movements around tunnels in undrained clay. Géotechni-
que 56, No. 9, 597–604, http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/geot.2006.
56.9.597.
Peck, R. B. (1969). Deep excavations and tunnelling in soft ground.
Proc. 7th Int. Conf. Soil Mech. Found. Engng, Mexico City,
225–290.
Potts, D. M. (1976). Behaviour of lined and unlined tunnels in sand.
PhD thesis, Engineering Department, Cambridge University.
Sagaseta, C. (1987). Analysis of undrained soil deformation due
to ground loss. Géotechnique 37, No. 3, 301–320, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1680/geot.1987.37.3.301.
View publication stats
399
Sagaseta, C. (1998). Discussion of Verruijt, A. and Booker, J.
R. (1996) ‘Surface settlements due to deformation of a
tunnel in an elastic half plane’. Géotechnique 48, No. 5,
709–713, http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/geot.1998.48.5.709.
Schofield, A. N. (1980). Cambridge geotechnical centrifuge opera-
tions. Géotechnique 30, No. 3, 227–268, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1680/geot.1980.30.3.227.
Sugiyama, T., Hagiwara, T., Nomoto, T., Nomoto, M., Ano, Y.,
Mair, R. J., Bolton, M. D. & Soga, K. (1999). Observations of
ground movements during tunnel construction by slurry shield
method at the Docklands Light Railway Lewisham extension –
east London. Soils Found. 39, No. 3, 99–112.
Taylor, R. N. (1995). Geotechnical centrifuge technology. London:
Blackie Academic and Professional.
Verruijt, A. & Booker, J. R. (1996). Surface settlements due to
deformation of a tunnel in an elastic half plane. Géotech-
nique 46, No. 4, 753–756, http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/geot.
1996.46.4.753.
Vorster, T. E. B. (2005). The effects of tunnelling on buried pipes.
PhD thesis, Engineering Department, Cambridge University.
Vorster, T. E. B., Klar, A., Soga, K. & Mair, R. J. (2005).
Estimating the effects of tunneling on existing pipelines. J.
Geotech. Geoenviron. Engng 131, No. 11, 1399–1410.
White, D. J., Take, W. A. & Bolton, M. D. (2003). Soil deformation
measurement using particle image velocimetry (PIV) and photo-
grammetry. Géotechnique 53, No. 7, 619–631, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1680/geot.2003.53.7.619.
Zhao, Y. (2008). In situ soil testing for foundation performance
prediction. PhD thesis, Engineering Department, Cambridge
University.