Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Underground Space 4 (2019) 289–301
www.elsevier.com/locate/undsp

Control of settlement and volume loss induced by tunneling

under recently reclaimed land
A.K.L. Kwong a, C.C.W. Ng a, A. Schwob b
a
AECOM, Hong Kong, China
b
Dragages – Bouygues Joint Venture, Hong Kong, China

Received 30 April 2018; accepted 1 March 2019

Available online 19 April 2019

Abstract

The proposed Tuen Mun–Chek Lap Kok Link (TM-CLKL) project comprises a 9-km-long dual two-lane carriageway between Tuen
Mun and North Lantau, Hong Kong. Construction of the two tunnels at the Northern Landfall Fall was carried out by two TBMs: the
northbound is referred to as ML03 and has an excavated diameter of 17.63 m, and the southbound is referred to as ML02 and has an
excavated diameter of 14.00 m. The use of TBMs minimized the amount of dredging and removal of soft marine deposits, resulting in less
impact to the environment within and near the work site of the project. Ground treatment in the form of deep vibro-compaction was
carried out at the sand fill and band drains installed in the marine deposit. A surcharge was also added above the final formation level
to limit the residual settlement and differential settlement of the reclaimed land to less than 500 mm and 1 in 300, respectively, for a
design life of 50 years. Finite element analyses were performed to predict the settlement trough under different confinement pressures
along the tunnel alignment. Extensive monitoring of the ground movement was carried out during the driving of the two TBMs to ensure
that the design confinement pressure of the slurry would not cause excessive settlement, heave, or blow out at the shallow tunnel sections
or different facilities along the tunnel alignment. The monitoring data was then used to back-calculate the percentage of volume loss,
which is a key index describing the behavior of the ground during excavation. The monitoring data showed that the measured settlement
and back-calculated volume loss were much lower than the predicted values.
Ó 2019 Tongji University and Tongji University Press. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Owner. This is an open access article
under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Keywords: TBM excavation; Settlement trough; Volume loss; Ground treatment; Confinement pressure

1 Introduction of the reclaimed HKBCF, the alignment turns north and

The proposed Tuen Mun–Chek Lap Kok Link (TM-
CLKL) project comprises a 9-km-long dual two-lane road-
way between Tuen Mun and North Lantau, Hong Kong
(see key plan in Fig. 1). The alignment commences at a con-
nection with the North Lantau Highway (NLH) at Tai Ho
in Lantau. It then heads northwest on a 1.6-km-long mar-
ine viaduct to the proposed Hong Kong–Zhuhai–Macao
Bridge at the Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities
(HKBCF) near the Hong Kong International Airport
(HKIA) at Chek Lap Kok. After reaching the eastern edge
heads into a 5-km-long sub-sea tunnel, which was con-
structed with large-diameter tunnel boring machines
(TBM), passing under Urmston Road in a southward
direction. After crossing Urmston Road, the alignment sur-
faces at a new reclamation just east of the Tuen Mun River
Trade Terminal (RTT) and then heads eastward on an ele-
vated structure over Lung Mun Road, before joining a pro-
posed toll plaza at Tuen Mun Area 46.
As shown in Fig. 1, the reclaimed land [referred to as the
Northern Landfall (NLF)] just east of the Tuen Mun RTT
was created to accommodate the launching shaft for the

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.undsp.2019.03.005
2467-9674/Ó 2019 Tongji University and Tongji University Press. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Owner.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
290 A.K.L. Kwong et al. / Underground Space 4 (2019) 289–301
Fig. 1. Site location plan and major facilities at the northern landfall.
two TBMs, ventilation/retrieval/re-launching shafts, slurry
treatment plant, grouting plant, the permanent tunnel
administration building, and tunnel portal.
Construction of the two tunnels at the NLF has been
carried out by two TBMs: the northbound TBM is referred
to as ML03, with an excavated diameter of 17.63 m, and
the southbound TBM is referred to as ML02, with an exca-
vated diameter of 14.00 m. The use of TBMs minimized the
amount of dredging and removal of soft marine deposits
required, and thus there was less impact to the environment
within and near the work site of the project.
1.1 Existing topography and bathymetry
The NLF is located in the water southeast of the existing
frontage of the RTT. According to the bathymetric survey
results, the existing seabed level around the site generally
varies between
5 and
13 mPD (mean principal datum).
1.2 Geological setting
As shown in Fig. 2, the sub-surface profile along the
reclamation area consists of a layer of marine deposits
overlaying a layer of alluvium, which is underlain by com-
pletely decomposed rocks. The general description of each
material stratum is summarized below.
A layer of marine deposits is encountered at the seabed
with a thickness varying from 0 to 7.5 m. This layer is pre-
dominantly clay, and is typically described as a very soft to
firm, grey, slightly sandy, silty clay with occasional shell
fragments.
A layer of alluvium, with a thickness varying from 0 to
13 m, underlies the marine deposits. The standard penetra-
tion test (SPT) ‘‘N” values range from 6 to 90. The allu-
vium is characterized by inter-bedded clays, silts, and
sands, and is typically described as a firm, grey, sandy silty
clay to sandy clayey silt (alluvial silt/clay) and a medium
dense to very dense, grey to brown, silty, fine to coarse
sand with some sub-angular to sub-rounded, fine to coarse
gravel of moderately strong quartz (alluvial sand).
Saprolitic soils, comprising Grade V to IV materials,
are encountered below the stratum of alluvium. The
thickness of the saprolite generally varies from approxi-
mately 2 to 33 m. It is generally extremely weak to very
weak, greenish-grey, brown or yellowish-brown, and
completely to highly decomposed (firm to very stiff,
sandy clayey silt).
The bedrock below the saprolitic soils varies from
5 to

55 mPD, and is approximately 0 to 45 m below the seabed.
Shallow bedrock at
5 mPD is encountered at the existing
sea frontage and then deepens gradually in the seaward
direction. The bedrock material is predominantly granite,
with andesite locally encountered at the northern portion.
The granite is a moderately strong to strong, pinkish-grey,
spotted dark green, dappled brown, moderately to slightly
decomposed, fine to coarse-grained granite. Joints are clo-
sely to medium-spaced, locally very closely and widely
spaced, rough stepped and rough planar with occasional
rough undulating, extremely narrow to very narrow, iron
and manganese-stained, and occasionally kaolin chlorite-
coated.
From the launching shaft towards the middle of the
NLF, the excavation mainly occurred in a variable thick-
ness of fill, marine deposits, and alluvium. Thereafter,
toward the ventilation shaft, the excavation mainly
occurred in Grade V to IV materials and bedrock.
2 Ground treatment
Vertical bands of drains with soil surcharge were used as
ground improvement measures to accelerate the consolida-
tion of the marine deposits and the underlying alluvial
 A.K.L. Kwong et al. / Underground Space 4 (2019) 289–301 291

Fig. 2. Sub-surface geological profile at the northern landfall.

clays in order to limit the residual and differential settle-
ment to less than 500 mm and 1 in 300, respectively, for
a design life of 50 years. After the site was formed to
+5.5 mPD, it was further raised to +10.00 mPD and sur-
charged for a period of six months. The surcharge near
the slurry treatment plant (STP) was kept in place for a
longer period, as far as permitted by the construction pro-
gram. At locations near the STP and at the shallow sec-
tions near the portal, deep vibro-compaction was also
carried out at the sand fill layer.
The undrained shear strength of the marine deposits and
alluvial clay for design after the ground treatment was
taken to be a minimum of 60 kPa (under general public fill)
to 70 kPa (under the vibro-compacted sand), which had to
be verified by a cone penetration test after the ground treat-
ment and before the tunnels were excavated.
292 A.K.L. Kwong et al. / Underground Space 4 (2019) 289–301

The spacing of the installed band drains was generally
1.5 m center-to-center, but was decreased to 1.2 m center-
to-center from the launching shaft toward the middle part
of the reclaimed area in order to accelerate the consolida-
tion of the thicker marine deposits at this location.
A layer of sand blanket (1–2 m thick) with a geotextile
layer underneath was laid over the soft marine deposits.
Fill material was placed in a layer above the sand blanket
by bottom dumping or end tipping to prevent generation
of mud waves due to slip failures within the soft marine
deposits.
For ground treatment of the seawall foundation, a sand
blanket with a geotextile layer underneath served as an ini-
tial confinement over the top of the very soft marine depos-
its to improve the strength through consolidation. The
sand blanket also acts a protective layer to prevent dis-
turbed marine mud from being mixed into and polluting
the marine environment during the ground treatment
process.
Public fill consisting of rocks, concrete, asphalt, rubble,
bricks, stones, and earth was used as a preloading sur-
charge to accelerate the consolidation process of the soft
marine deposits.
Rock fill was required for the construction of the verti-
cal and sloping seawall. For the vertical seawall, the rock
base consisted of Grade 400 rock fill, while rock fill with
a smaller size was used as a rock wedge and granular filter
behind the seawall. The core of the rubble mound sloping
seawall was made of Grade 400 rock fill; rock fill of smaller
size was used as a granular filter.
3 Design parameters
The design parameters used in the finite element pro-
gram for predicting the settlement are described in the fol-
lowing sections.
The Young’s modulus of the concrete is taken as
27,700 MPa.
Eq. (1) below is adopted from Wood (1975) to calculate
the moment of inertia of the ring, taking into consideration
the number of segments (n) per ring.

2
4
I ring ¼ I joint þ I segment ; ð1Þ
n
where Iring is moment of inertia of the ring, Ijoint is moment
of inertia of the joint, and Isegment is moment of inertia of
the segment.
3.2 Mechanical properties of the tunnel linings
Table 2 summarizes the mechanical properties of the
tunnel linings.
3.3 Geotechnical properties of the soils
Table 3 lists the geotechnical properties of the soils used
for the finite element modeling.
4 Surface settlement induced by the TBMs
The surface settlement induced by the tunnel boring
process and installation of the segmental lining depends
on the geological strata and their engineering properties:
the height of the tunnel cover, the excavated diameter,
the confinement pressure exerted by the TBM at the front
face (around the shield, and in the annular void around the
lining), and the rate of advance of the TBM.
In this project, the overpressures exerted by the two
TBMs must be set and monitored at different cross-
sections along the tunnels in order to ensure that the sur-
face settlement remains below the following acceptable
levels:

3.1 Geometry of the tunnel linings (1) Maximum surface settlement: (i) 500 mm in the long
term; (ii) 100 mm during excavation; (iii) 50 mm
Table 1 summarizes the geometric characteristics of the under the STP.
tunnel linings.

Table 1
Geometric characteristics of the tunnel linings.
Tunnel Internal diameter (m) External diameter (m) Excavated diameter (m) Lining thickness Number of segments
ML02 12.40 13.50 14.00 0.55/0.37 m at joints 9
ML03 15.60 17.00 17.63 0.70/0.50 m at joints 12

Table 2
Mechanical properties of the tunnel linings.
Tunnel Density Poisson’s Concrete Grade Young’s Modulus (GPa) Axial Stiffness, EA (kN/m) Bending Stiffness, EI (kN∙m/m)
(kN/m3) ratio (MPa)
Short Term Long Term Short Term Long Term Short Term Long Term
ML02 24.5 0.2 55 28.9 14.45 1.59  107 7.95  106 2.01  105 1.01  105
ML03 24.5 0.2 55 28.9 14.45 2.023  107 1.011 5  107 3.93  105 1.97  105
Table 3
Geotechnical properties of the soils.
Soil Type Unit Weight Drained Young’s Modulus, Undrained Young’s Poisson’s Undrained shear Peak frictional Apparent Coeff. of earth
0
(kN/m3) E (MPa) Modulus, Eu (MPa) ratio strength, Cu (kPa) angle, /0 (°) cohesion, c0 pressure at rest, K0
(kPa)
Reclamation (sand fill) 19 35 (vibro-compacted) — 0.25 — 33 0 0.46
Marine deposits or alluvial clay 15 Eu/1.2 z 
12 mPD: 23.7 0.36 z 
12 mPD: 26 0 0.56

A.K.L. Kwong et al. / Underground Space 4 (2019) 289–301

under 76 kPa surcharge z <
12 mPD: 23.7– 59.2
0.4(z + 12) z <
12 mPD:
59.2–1.1(z + 12)
Marine deposits or alluvial clay 15 Eu/1.2 z 
12 mPD: 28.5 0.36 z 
12 mPD: 26 0 0.56
under 130 kPa surcharge z <
12 mPD: 28.5– 71.2
0.4(z + 12) z <
12 mPD:
71.2–1.1(z + 12)
Marine deposits or alluvial clay 15 Eu/1.2 z 
12 mPD: 30.08 0.36 z 
12 mPD: 75 26 0 0.56
under 150 kPa surcharge z <
12 mPD: 30.08– z <
12 mPD: 75–
0.4(z + 12) 1.1(z + 12)
Alluvial sand 19 z 
11 mPD: 54 — 0.25 — 34 0 0.44
z <
11 mPD: 54–2.8(z
+ 11)
Completely decomposed granite 20 z  -25 mPD: 20–0.6(z — 0.25 — 34 5 0.44
(CDG) + 25)

25mPD > z >
35 mPD:
20–3(z + 25)
z <
35 mPD: 50–15(z
+ 35)
Note:
z 
12 mPD: 23.7 indicates that at and above
12 mPD, the value is 23.7 MPa.
z <
12 mPD: 23.7–0.4(z + 12) indicates that below
12 mPD, the value begins at 23.7 MPa and increases linearly with the depth with a slope of 0.4.

293
294 A.K.L. Kwong et al. / Underground Space 4 (2019) 289–301

Table 5
Summary of equivalent overpressures.
0
Section Equivalent overpressure, P f (kPa)
ML02 ML03
Section A–A 150 170
Section B–B 170 190
Section C–C 80 100
Section D–D 100 110
Section E–E 50 50

(2) Maximum differential settlement: (i) 1/300 mm in the

long term; (ii) 1/500 mm under the STP.
(3) Maximum volume loss: 2%.

Many methods can be used to predict the ground move-

Fig. 3. Failure surface for identifying the minimum confinement pressure
in frictional soils.
Table 4
Summary of minimum confinement pressures.
Tunnel
ML02 (excavated diameter 14.00 m)
ML03 (excavated diameter 17.63 m)
ment due to tunneling. These methods can be broadly cat-
egorized into three groups: empirical, analytical, and
numerical methods. The empirical methods, developed
from the early work of Peck (1969), assume that the trans-
verse settlement trough resembles an inverted normal
Gaussian distribution curve that depends on two parame-
ters: dmax, the maximum settlement at the tunnel center
line, and i, the distance to the inflection point. The analyt-
ical methods are based on an elastic approach (Loganathan
& Poulos, 1998). The numerical methods are based on the
finite element method (FEM), and take into account the
interaction between the soil and the structural lining as well
as accommodating realistic soil behavior (Potts, 2003).
This study back-calculates the percentage of volume loss
achieved during tunneling based on the method developed
by Peck (1969) by analyzing the measured settlement
Minimum confinement pressure, trough; the corresponding dmax and i were calculated at
0
P s (kPa) various sections along the tunnel alignment. From general
Fill, marine deposits, CDG experience and site observations, the observed settlement
alluvial clay profile typically closely follows the distribution assumed
40 30 by Peck (1969).
50 40 The percentage of volume loss is given by the following
expression:

Fig. 4. TBM front face pressure, shield pressure, and grout pressure.
Table 6
Total grout and slurry pressures for ML02.
ML02 Design slurry Hydrostatic Grouting pressure applied behind the Hydrostatic Slurry pressure used in Slurry pressure applied at the
0
overpressure, P slurry , at pressure at crown shield during construction pressure at axis computer model tunnel face during construction
Axis (kPa) (kPa) Set grout overpressure, Total Grout (kPa) Equivalent overpressure at Slurry total pressure, P slurry , at
0
0 axis, P f , from Eq. (5) (kPa) axis (kPa)
P grout , at crown (kPa) Pressure, P grout
(kPa)
Various locations [1] [2] [3] [4] = [2] + [3] [5] [6] = 0.5[1] + 0.5[3] [7] = [1] + [5]
Section A–A: 80 > minimum 254 220 474 322 150 402
Marine deposit and requirement 30
CDG
Section B–B: 100 > minimum 244 240 484 311 170 411
Alluvial clay and requirement 30
CDG
Section C–C: 60 > minimum 181 110 291 248 80 308

A.K.L. Kwong et al. / Underground Space 4 (2019) 289–301

Marine deposits, requirement 30
alluvial sand, and
CDG
Section D–D: 60 > minimum 143 140 283 211 100 271
Fill, marine requirement 30
deposits, and CDG
Section E–E: 50 > minimum 19 60 79 86 55 136
Fill and marine requirement 40
deposits

Table 7
Total grout and slurry pressures for ML03.
ML03 Design slurry Hydrostatic Grouting pressure applied behind Hydrostatic Slurry pressure used in Slurry pressure applied at
0
overpressure, P slurry , pressure at the shield during construction pressure at axis computer model the tunnel face during
at Axis (kPa) crown (kPa) (kPa) Equivalent overpressure construction
Set grout Total Grout 0
at axis, P f , from Eq. (5) Slurry total pressure, P slurry ,
overpressure, Pressure, P grout
0
P grout , at crown (kPa) (kPa) at axis(kPa)

Various locations [1] [2] [3] [4] = [2] + [3] [5] [6] = 0.5[1] + 0.5[3] [7] = [1] + [5]
Section A–A: 100 > minimum 243 240 483 328 170 428
Marine deposit and CDG requirement 30
Section B–B: 120 > minimum 232 260 492 317 190 437
Alluvial clay and CDG requirement 30
Section C–C: 75 > minimum 176 125 301 261 100 336
Marine deposits, alluvial sand, and requirement 30
CDG
Section D–D: 75 > minimum 154 145 299 224 110 299
Fill, marine deposits, and CDG requirement 30
Section E–E: 50  minimum 49 50 99 99 50 149
Fill and marine deposits requirement 50

295
296 A.K.L. Kwong et al. / Underground Space 4 (2019) 289–301

Fig. 5. Computer model for settlement prediction (Section E–E in Fig. 2).

pffiffiffiffiffiffi
100 2pS max i 5 Confinement pressures exerted by the TBM
V L ð% Þ ¼ ; ð2Þ
S exc
The confinement pressures exerted by the TBM during
where VL is percentage of volume loss, Smax is maximum excavation must be controlled above a minimum value to
settlement in the section of interest, I is position of the prevent instability of the excavation face, but below a max-
inflection point of the settlement curve, and Sexc is exca- imum value to prevent heaving of the ground.
vated area. For cohesive soils, the method developed by Kimura
The measured settlement, s, at various locations, y, is fit- and Mair (1981) was adopted.
ted with a curve to identify and locate the position of the 0
The minimum confinement pressure, P s , in cohesive soils
inflection point using the following relationship:
uses the recommendation in Report (2009), given as

y 2 follows:
s ¼ S max e 2i2 : ð3Þ


 
0 D Su
The settlement trough was measured perpendicular to Ps ¼ c H þ þq
N c; ð4Þ
the cross-sections at the first passage of the ML03 TBM, 2 k FOS
and the measurement was repeated when the ML02 TBM
passed approximately six weeks later. The inflection point where c is bulk unit weight of the ground, H is cover over
is found by overlapping the two settlement troughs to rep- the tunnel, D is excavated diameter of the tunnel, q is aver-
resent the worst combined effects of both tunnel age surcharge pressure at the ground surface, Su is
constructions. undrained shear strength of the ground, Nc is stability
 A.K.L. Kwong et al. / Underground Space 4 (2019) 289–301
Fig. 6. Actual applied slurry pressure vs. the design total slurry pressure.
number at collapse, obtained from charts in Kimura and
Mair (1981), and kFOS is partial factor of safety.
For frictional soils, the method developed by
Anagnostou and Kovari (1996) was adopted.
The minimum confinement pressure in frictional soils is
derived from the ‘‘silo model” developed by Horn (1961),
in which a 3D sliding mechanism in limiting equilibrium
is assumed to occur along slip plane AB–EF–LM, as shown
in Fig. 3. The sliding surface is assumed to be bounded
within a wedge (volume inside ABDCEF) plus the silo
above (volume inside DCEF-KNLM).
An iterative process is applied to the limit equilibrium
method to derive a balance between the driving force from
the wedge and the silo and the resistance force from sliding
planes ABEF (back), ADE (side) and BCF (side). The min-
imum confinement pressure is determined by varying the
inclination angle, x, until the maximum driving shear force
is obtained.
Table 4 lists the minimum confinement pressures for
tunnels excavated in fill, marine deposits, alluvial clays,
and CDG.
297
The maximum confinement pressure is calculated
through a conservative approach based only on the dead
weight of the soil above the tunnel, without consideration
of additional surcharge loading at the ground surface. A
maximum confinement pressure of 120 kPa is determined
by assuming that the shallowest location governs the whole
tunnel alignment.
Both the ultimate limit state (ULS) and serviceability
limit state (SLS) are evaluated to assess which state con-
trols the design of the confinement pressures.
The partial factors applied to the shear strength param-
eters in the ULS design are as follows:
(1) On tan /0 (frictional angle): divide by 1.2.
(2) On c0 (cohesion intercept): divide by 1.2.
(3) On Su: divide by 1.5.
(4) On the unit weight: divide by 1.0.
Different partial factors are applied for different materi-
als based on the statistical reliability of the average
strength.
298 A.K.L. Kwong et al. / Underground Space 4 (2019) 289–301
Fig. 7. Prediction of settlement from the simulation results.
For SLS calculations, a partial factor of 1.0 is applied to
all of the soil parameters.
A partial factor of 1.5 is also applied to the surcharge in
the ULS calculation, while a partial factor of 1.0 is applied
in the SLS calculation.
The slurry pressure was controlled by an ‘‘air bubble
control” system within ±5 kPa around the target pressure.
The slurry density is defined as 11 kN/m3.
6 Confinement pressure modeling using finite element
analysis
The confinement pressures exerted by the TBM during
excavation are modeled using 2D finite element analysis
to ensure that the surface settlement remains below accept-
able levels.
As the actual excavation and installation of the segmen-
tal lining is a 3D problem, the use of a 2D model necessi-
tates some simplifications. It is assumed that the
confinement pressures applied at the tunnel boundaries in
the mesh are overall averages of the front face pressure in
the slurry, shield pressure around the shield, and grout
pressure around the lining (see Fig. 4).
The face pressure is the horizontal pressure exerted on
the front face of the excavation by the slurry in the cham-
ber of the TBM.
The shield pressure is the radial pressure exerted on the
shield of the TBM by the slurry. It is assumed that the
shield pressure is the same as the face pressure.
The grout pressure is the radial pressure exerted by the
injection of grouting material through the tail skin into
the annular void between the ground and the installed
segment.
The overall average pressure is based on the work by
Aristaghes and Autuori (2003), who suggested that the
0
equivalent overpressure, P f , applied to the tunnel crown
that satisfies the settlement and volume loss criteria can
be described as follows:
0 0 0
P f ¼ 0:5P grout þ 0:5P slurry ; ð5Þ
0 0
where P grout is grout overpressure, and P slurry is slurry
overpressure.
0 0
P grout is set to between 50 and 150 kPa above P slurry at the
axis to prevent any slurry leakage from the tail skin to the
shield and to ensure the annular space between the ground
and the segment are in direct contact.
 A.K.L. Kwong et al. / Underground Space 4 (2019) 289–301
Fig. 8. Comparison of the predicted vs. measured settlement results.
From the minimum confinement pressures listed in
Table 4, the grout overpressures are adjusted and substi-
0
tuted into Eq. (5) to calculate P f at the different section
locations shown in Fig. 2; the resulting values are input
into the finite element analysis (Table 5).
Based on the estimated hydrostatic pressures, the total
grout pressure at the crown and the total slurry pressure
at the axis are then calculated and applied as the tunnel
advances (Tables 6 and 7).
The computer program Plaxis was used in this study.
The magnitudes of the vertical stress and the pore water
pressure were estimated with regard to the tunnel overbur-
den and water head above the tunnel. Boundary conditions
and displacements were fixed at the lateral and lower
boundaries. For example, Section E–E in Fig. 5 shows
the computer model for a location where there is 10 m of
overburden with the excavation occurring partially in
vibro-compacted sand and partially in marine deposits.
To simulate the construction phases and their effects on
the ground surface, the following modeling steps were
applied to all of the sections:
0
(1) Initialize the in situ stresses, ro ;by turning on gravity
(normally referred to as the Ko procedure);
299
(2) Apply the surcharge at the ground surface, and install
the diaphragm wall or other ground treatment works
as structural members where appropriate;
(3) Excavate the northbound tunnel, ML03, and apply a
0 0
radial pressure of k(ro
P f ) with k = 0.8. In the pro-
gram, k is a confinement ratio describing the propor-
tioning of the overburden stresses applied to the
lining based on the distance between the tunnel face
and the point  where the tunnel lining is erected.
For the convergence-confinement method, k is rec-
ommended in AFTES (2002) based on the following
assumptions:
For ML03 (excavated diameter 17.63 m, x = 10 m),
k  0.8 for 2x
D
 1;
For ML02 (excavated diameter 14.00 m, x = 13.2 m),
k  0.9 for 2x  2.
D
An additional calculation is performed as a sensitivity
check by assuming a small degree of stress relaxation
between the face and the lining erection. In this sensitivity
check, a relaxation factor (1
k) equal to 0.2 is applied,
representing that the in situ overburden stresses are par-
tially taken up by the ground and partially taken up by
the lining segments after the confinement pressure is
300 A.K.L. Kwong et al. / Underground Space 4 (2019) 289–301
reduced to zero at the time the lining segments are
installed. Therefore, a relaxation factor of 0.2 (for
k = 0.8) indicates that 20% of the overburden stresses are
taken up by the ground and 80% are taken up by the lining
segments. It is assumed that after the TBM has excavated
the face, the lining segments behind the shield are usually
installed immediately behind the excavation within a short
period of time (less than 24 h), such that the overburden
stresses are transferred primarily to the lining segments
rather than to the ground. This modeling assumption is
conservative for the lining design, as it leads to higher stres-
ses within the lining. However, it is robust in terms of
reducing soil instability, thus resulting in less yielding of
the soils and less ground movement.
(4) Install the northbound ML03 tunnel linings;
(5) Excavate the southbound tunnel, ML02, and apply
0
the equivalent overpressure P f with k = 0.9;
(6) Install the southbound ML02 tunnel linings;
(7) Add the permanent surcharge loading to simulate the
long-term conditions.
Fig. 9. Comparison of the predicted vs. measured volume losses.
7 Settlement trough and volume loss measured during TBM
excavation
Controlling the slurry pressure at the axis during
advancing of the TBM and installation of the lining seg-
ments is very important for minimizing settlement within
the allowable limit.
Figure 6 shows that the actual slurry pressure applied is
close to the design total slurry pressure. In the ML02 tun-
nel, the confinement pressure from Ring 245 to Ring 280
was increased slightly during excavation to compensate
for the larger settlement observed in this area due to the
slow advance of the TBM resulting from planned satura-
tion trials and equipment calibration.
The predicted settlement in Section E–E is shown in
Fig. 7. Section E–E is located immediately behind the
break-in plug (ML03 Ring 27; ML02 Ring 22) with a sur-
charge level at +10 mPD when the TBM passed. The soil
cover above the tunnel was 10 m. The maximum predicted
settlement at the final stage was 146 mm, with a maximum
predicted volume loss of 1.1% after completion of both
tunnels. At this location, the settlement at the ML02 side
 A.K.L. Kwong et al. / Underground Space 4 (2019) 289–301
was reduced from 116 mm after the lining was installed at
ML02 to 80 mm after the excavation and lining installation
was completed for both ML02 and ML03 owing to the sur-
charge removal at the long-term stage.
Figure 8 shows a comparison of the predicted settlement
versus the measured settlement in Section E–E.
The upper part of Fig. 8 shows the measured settlement
at monitoring stations nearest to Section E–E. The results
show the settlement trough located transversely across the
section when the ML03 TBM first passed underneath and
subsequently when the ML02 TBM passed underneath
one month later. After the settlement was stabilized, which
was taken as the final stage, the settlement recorded above
ML03 was 45 mm, whereas that recorded above ML02 was
37 mm. This shows that both of the measured settlements
are less than the design settlement, and the actual volume
loss is smaller than the design prediction.
Figure 9 shows the predicted settlement and volume loss
compared to the measured maximum settlement and vol-
ume loss along the longitudinal tunnel alignment. It can
be seen that the measured settlement and volume loss were
much less than the predicted values, with only a small
exception at Rings 270–360 resulting from a slowing of
the TBM excavation due to tasks such as changing of the
disc cutters, scrappers, and buckets on the TBM, satura-
tion trials, and other routine maintenance functions that
accounted for approximately 20 days of intermittent stop-
page. Except for Rings 270–360, which exhibited volume
losses in the range of 0.68 to 1.31, the back-calculated vol-
ume loss was less than 1.3%, which is below the specifica-
tion of 2%.
8 Conclusion
Finite element analyses were carried out to predict the
settlement trough under different confinement pressures
along the tunnel alignment. Extensive monitoring of the
ground movement was carried out during the driving of
the two TBMs to ensure that the design confinement pres-
sure of the slurry would not cause excessive settlement,
heave, or blow out at shallow tunnel sections and at differ-
ent facilities along the tunnel alignment. The monitoring
data showed that the measured settlement and back-
calculated volume loss were much lower than the antici-
pated values. The exception was five locations where the
volume loss exceeded the design value and reached a max-
imum of 1.3%; however, there was still no sign of distress to
the ground or impact on the nearby facilities. The higher
settlement and volume loss was a result of a slowing of
the TBM advance due to scheduled maintenance.
301
Acknowledgements
The writers are grateful for the support of Highways
Department, HKSARG. Their support contributed in
expediting the approval process. However, the contents
of this paper do not necessarily reflect the views and poli-
cies of these supporting organizations, nor does the men-
tion of trade names or commercial products constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use. The writers are
also grateful to the Dragages-Bouygues Joint Venture for
the use of the monitoring data and site record.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest on the con-
tent, materials and parties presented in this paper.
References
AFTES (2002). Recommendations for the convergence–confinement method.
GT7R6A1. French Tunnelling and Underground Engineering Associ-
ation, 16 p.
Anagnostou, G., & Kovari, K. (1996). Face stability in slurry and EPB
shield tunneling. In Proceedings of the symposium on geotechnical
aspects of underground construction in soft ground, London
(pp. 379–384).
Aristaghes, P., & Autuori, P. (2003). Confinement efficiency concept in soft
ground bored tunnels. Amsterdam: Claiming the Underground Space
(pp. 909–913). Amsterdam: Claiming the Underground Space.
GEO Report & No. 249 (2009). Ground control for slurry TBM tunnelling.
CEDD. Government of the Hong Kong SAR, 57 p.
Horn, N. (1961). Horizontaler erddruck auf senkrechte abschlussflachen von
tunnelrohren. Dusseldorf: Landeskonferenz der ungarischen tiefbauin-
dustrie. Deutsche Uberarbeitung durch STUVA (pp. 7–16). Dussel-
dorf: Landeskonferenz der ungarischen tiefbauindustrie. Deutsche
Uberarbeitung durch STUVA.
Kimura, T., & Mair, R. J. (1981). Centrifugal testing of model tunnels in
soft clay. Proceedings of the 10th international conference on soil
mechanics and foundation engineering, Stockholm (1, pp. 319–322).
Loganathan, N., & Poulos, H. G. (1998). Analytical prediction for
tunneling-induced ground movements in clays. Journal of Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 124(9), 846–856.
Peck, R. B. (1969). Deep excavations and tunneling in soft ground.
Proceedings of the 7th international conference on soil mechanics and
foundation engineering, Mexico City (3, pp. 225–290).
Plaxis v.9.02. www.plaxis.nl/.
Potts, D. M. (2003). Numerical analysis: A virtual dream or practical
reality? Géotechnique, 53(6), 535–573.
Wood, M. A. M. (1975). The circular tunnel in elastic ground. Géotech-
nique, 25(1), 115–127.
Further Reading
BTS/ICE. (2000). Specification for tunneling. British Tunnelling Society
with the Institution of Civil Engineers, Thomas Telford, 77 p.
Panet, M., & Guenot, A. (1982). Analysis of convergence behind the face
of tunnel. In International symposium tunnelling’ 82 (pp. 197–204).
London: The Institution of Mining and Metallurgy.