Bull Eng Geol Environ (2016) 75:485–501
DOI 10.1007/s10064-015-0788-8
ORIGINAL PAPER
Specifying the real value of volume loss (VL) and its effect
on ground settlement due to excavation of Abuzar tunnel, Tehran
Mohammad Reza Baghban Golpasand1 • Mohammad Reza Nikudel1
Ali Uromeihy1
Received: 11 November 2014 / Accepted: 29 April 2015 / Published online: 24 September 2015
 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015
Abstract Volume loss (VL) is one of the most important
geological and geotechnical features of ground settlement
due to tunneling. This parameter is mostly influenced by
engineering geological properties of the tunnel route. Pre-
ceding studies about this parameter have led to suggesting
approximate ranges of values that are specified based on
engineering geological characteristics of the tunnel route
and assigned for VL in semi-empirical methods. According
to those studies, a wide range of quantities are assigned for
volume loss, and considering other related factors, the
evaluated corresponding ground settlements also have a
wide range; then it is necessary to specify a definite
quantity for VL. In the present study, this parameter has
been evaluated using several methods including the semi-
empirical method, numerical method, and real values
obtained via performing back analysis on real settlements.
The real values of VL were determined based on the field-
measured settlements, obtained using instrumentation and
monitoring methods, and performing back analysis
according to other required parameters. In the next stage,
the obtained results have been compared, and finally the
real value of VL has been specified. According to the
numerical modeling performed using FLAC 3D code, the
resulting values for VL were 0.55–0.64 %. Measured
maximum settlements of ground (Smax), induced by Abuzar
tunnel excavation, were on average 8–12 mm, thus the
corresponding volume loss was calculated as about
0.34–0.62 %. Finally, considering the other factors affect-
ing the volume loss, the value of VL = 0.5 ± 1 % was
& Mohammad Reza Nikudel
nikudelm@modares.ac.ir; nikudelm@yahoo.com
1
Department of Engineering Geology, Tarbiat Modares
University, PO Box 14115-175, Tehran, Iran
•
specified as the real value of volume loss, which occurred
during Abuzar tunnel excavation.
Keywords Volume loss  Tehran alluvia  Abuzar tunnel 
Monitoring data  Ground settlement due to tunneling 
FLAC 3D
Introduction
The construction of new transport and utility infrastruc-
tures in urban environments frequently involves the exca-
vation of shallow tunnels in soft ground. Tunnel
construction, however, particularly in such conditions, can
cause ground movements and has the potential to damage
existing buildings and other structures.
Many surface and sub-surface structures make under-
ground construction works very delicate due to the influence
of ground deformation, which should be controlled to
acceptable levels. Independent of the excavation method, the
surface and sub-surface ground deformations should be pre-
dicted, and remedial precautions against any damage to the
existing structures should be planned prior to construction.
Ground settlement due to tunneling has been continually
studied by several researchers. Most of these studies are
based on the seminal work of Peck (1969), who analyzed
several case studies and illustrated that the transverse
profile of these surface settlements can be described by a
Gaussian curve. This topic has also attracted many
researchers in the last 40 years, and many notable review
papers have been published (e.g., Cording and Hansmire
1975; Mair 1996; Mair and Taylor 1997; Attewell et al.
1986; Rankin 1988; Franzius 2003; Leca and New 2007;
Guglielmetti et al. 2008; Palmer and Mair 2011; Marshall
et al. 2012; Chakeri et al. 2013).
123
486
Leca and New (2007) pointed out that the engineering
geological characteristics of soil, including its geological,
hydro-geological, and geotechnical conditions, in addition
to tunnel geometry and depth, excavation methods, and the
quality of workmanship and management, are the basic
parameters affecting the ground deformations due to
tunneling.
Tunnel construction method is dependent firstly on the
ground conditions (geological, geotechnical, and hydroge-
ological characteristics) and secondly on operational
parameters such as time and cost constraints and con-
struction requirements. Tunnels in soft ground (sands and
clays) often are excavated using TBM-EPB to prevent the
unexpected ground settlement. Moreover, application of
pressurized face tunneling techniques have had an efficient
consequence in poor soil conditions in recent years (Gol-
pasand et al. 2013).
Settlement analysis
Semi empirical predictions for maximum settlement have
been performed using the Gaussian curve approach, which
is a classical and conventional method (Peck 1969). The
settlement parameters used in semi-empirical estimations
and notations are presented in Fig. 1.
The theoretical settlement (Gaussian) curve is presented
by the following equation:
S ¼ Sv;max expðx2 =2i2 Þ
where S is ground surface settlement at selected point
(mm); Sv, max is the maximum ground surface settlement
above tunnel center line (Tunnel CL); x is the cross-sec-
tional distance from the selected point to the center line of
the tunnel (in meters), and i is the transverse distance
between the center line of the tunnel and the point of
inflection in meters (Hasanpour et al. 2012). Since that i
has been considered through x direction, it has been
marked with the ix symbol in Fig. 1. Several equations
have been proposed to calculate this parameter. O’Reilly
Fig. 1 Transverse aspect of ground settlement due to tunneling
123
M. R. B. Golpasand et al.
and New (1982) proposed a linear relationship between i
and z0, and suggested the simple historical relationship
between these two parameters:
i ¼ kz0 ð2Þ
where k as the trough width parameter is believed to be
largely independent of the construction method and is
estimated based on the engineering geological properties of
soil.
Mair and Taylor (1997) summarized a wide range of
field data and suggested that 0.4 \ k \ 0.6 for clays and
0.25 \ k \ 0.45 for sands and gravels are rational values.
Considering the cohesion of soil, Guglielmetti et al. (2008)
proposed that k = 0.5 for cohesive materials with c [ 0
and k = 0.3 for cohesionless materials with c = 0.
Maximum ground settlement
Several empirical methods have been suggested for the
prediction of the maximum surface settlement (Smax). A
simple and very applicable method to calculate Smax has
been proposed by O’Reilly and New (1982):


Smax ¼ 0:313VL D2 =i ð3Þ
where, D is the diameter of the tunnel, and VL is the vol-
ume loss. i has been defined previously. In the present
study, this equation will be used to evaluate Smax .
ð1Þ
Volume loss (VL)
All sub-surface excavations give rise to ground movement
inward to the tunnel. Thus, it will always be necessary to
remove a larger volume of soil than the volume of the
finished void. The ratio of this extra volume of excavated
soil (DV) over the volume of finished void (At) per unit
length is termed the ‘‘volume loss’’ (VL).
DV
VL ¼  100 ð4Þ
At
Specifying the real value of volume loss (VL) and its effect on ground settlement due to…
This parameter stems from the relaxation and the con-
vergence of the soil around TBM inward the tunnel as
illustrated in Fig. 2. The volume loss causes the settlement
trough at the surface and in undrained conditions; the
volume of this settlement trough (Vs) is equal to (DV) in
unit length:
Vs ¼ DV
Then, considering Eqs. (4) and (5), the volume loss may
be expressed as:
VS
VL ¼  100
At
or
Vs
VL ¼
pD2 =4
Preceding studies indicates that the value of VL depends
mainly on the geological and geotechnical characteristics
of the soil as well as the method of excavation. Many
studies have been done around this issue, and several val-
ues (or ranges) have been proposed for it based on soil
types. Some of these studies are presented in Table 1.
As shown in this table, based on the geological and
geotechnical characteristics of soil and the method of
tunnel excavation, VL can be variable between 0.2 and 2 %.
According to the importance of variation of volume loss
(VL) on the prediction of ground settlement due to tun-
neling and high dependence of maximum ground settle-
ment (Smax) on this parameter, it is necessary to evaluate
this parameter exactly.
Loganathan (2011) stated that volume loss in mecha-
nized tunneling has three main components, including face
loss, shield loss, and tail loss. The total volume loss is
obtainable through the following equation.
Ground Surface
VS
Settlement Trough
Excavation Line
V materials of the adjacent projects, the results of this study
At
Fig. 2 Inward displacement of the ground around the tunnel due to
stress relief
487
VL ¼ VFace þ VShield þ VTail ð8Þ
where: VFace , VShield and VTail are the face loss, shield loss,
and tail loss, respectively. Physical concept and the posi-
tion of the volume loss components are shown in Fig. 3.
Lanathan proposed analytical methods to determine the
amount of each of the components of volume loss. The
ð5Þ methods are associated with the empirical parameters that
are obtainable using some geotechnical properties of soil
and geometrical dimensions of the shield. It should be
noted that some of these parameters are dependent on the
ð6Þ empirical values and are associated with high uncertainty.
Therefore, the use of this method has been limited in any
situations so another solution should be selected to specify
the real value of volume loss.
ð7Þ Measured (real) settlements of ground due to tunneling
could be used to achieve the goal. These settlements are
reliable and applicable data can be used to determine the
value of volume loss really taken place through tunnel
excavation. In present study, measured settlements derived
from Abuzar tunnel (east of Tehran) have been used to
specify the real value of volume loss. For this purpose, the
ground settlements are firstly evaluated using semi-empiri-
cal and numerical methods. In the next stage, the evaluated
settlements are compared to the measured settlements in
order to achieve the real value of volume loss that occurred in
the route of Abuzar tunnel located on Tehran’s recent alluvia.
Performing this method on Tehran’s recent alluvia to eval-
uate the real value of VL can be considered an innovation of
this study. In previous studies on ground settlement due to
tunneling in Tehran’s recent alluvia, the approximate values
of VL have been estimated according to the recommenda-
tions of researchers. Based on the estimated VLs, relatively
high values of settlements have been resulted in semi-em-
pirical method (e.g., Hosseini et al. 2012). As will be noted in
the present study, the real values of VL that occurred in
Tehran’s recent alluvia due to excavation of Abuzar tunnel
are less than the estimated values of VL.
The results of this study can be used in other tunneling
projects. Many urban tunnels, such as metro, transporta-
tion, and water conveyance tunnels, have been studied or
are being constructed on the Tehran Plain. Given the
similarities between geotechnical properties of the host
can be used in those projects.
Projects description
The Abuzar water conveyance tunnel, with a length of
approximately 4000 m, has been drilled (mechanized
excavation using EPB-TBM machine) in south-east Teh-
ran. The tunnel is circular shaped, and its outer and inner
123
488 M. R. B. Golpasand et al.

Table 1 Proposed values of VL (%)

References Excavation method Soil type Proposed VL (%)

O’Reilly and New EPB/slurry TBM Dense sand 0.2–1

(1982) Soft clay 1–2
Very sandy clay 0.5–1
Leblais and Bochon EPB TBM for 9.25 m diameter tunnels Dense, fine sands at depths ranging from 22 0.2–0.9
(1991) to 52 m
Dense, fine sands, tunnel crown being only 0.8–1.3
4.1–7.2 m below the ground surface
Mair (1996) Open-face tunneling Stiff clays, (London clay) 1–2
Closed-face tunneling earth pressure Soft clays 1–2
balance/slurry shields Sands 0.5
Ata (1996) Slurry shields Medium-to-dense sands below the water 0.2–1
table
Sugiyama et al. (1999) Slurry TBM, for 5.85 m diameter tunnels Sandy soil with low cohesion 0.85
Mostly cohesive soil 0.45–0.78
Guglielmetti et al. EPB/slurry TBM Sands (c = 0) 1
(2008) Clays (c [ 0) 0.8
Loganathan (2011) EPB/shield tunneling Clay 1.15
Toan (2012) Closed face tunneling (EPB or slurry shields) Sand \0.5
Soft clay 1–2
McCabe et al. (2012) EPB/slurry TBM Glacial tills such as DBCa 0.21–1.66
Zhang et al. (2013) EPB/shield tunneling Sandy cobble ground 0.78–0.96
Gui and Chen (2013) Double-O-Tube (DOT) shield tunneling (twin Silty clay (ML & CL) 0.71
tunnels) Silty Clayey sand (SM & CL) 1.05–1.82
a
Well-graded, stiff glacial outwash till containing about 35 % fines (particles smaller than 0.06 mm), large stone boulders, and lenses of sand or
gravel

Fig. 3 Various ground loss

components (Loganathan 2011)

diameters are 4.200 and 3.700 m, respectively. In this
study, part of the tunnel from chainage 0?100 to chainage
0?500 has been considered because of the low thickness of
tunnel overburden in this part and availability of instru-
mentation and monitoring data of the ground settlement
induced by Abuzar tunnel excavation.
Geological setting
The Tehran metropolitan area has developed on neogene
and quaternary sediments originating from adjacent hills
and mountains. Geological findings confirm that the qua-
ternary and Pliocene alluvia and moraine deposits have
developed in the Tehran desert. This quaternary overbur-
den typically consists of alluvial deposits with an extensive
range of grain sizes from cohesive fine-grained (clayey and
silty clay) to cohesionless coarse-grained (sand or gravel)
materials.
Rieben (1966) identified the Tehran alluvia into four
categories, based on geological factors as A, B, C, and D
alluvia. The A alluvia is the oldest, and D alluvia is the
youngest of them. Geological properties of Abuzar tunnel
in southeast Tehran is shown in Fig. 4. Simple descriptions
of the engineering geological characteristics of the men-
tioned four groups of alluvia are presented in Table 2.
According to Fig. 4 and Table 2, it is found that Abuzar
tunnel is located in the D alluvia. It is worth noting that due

123
Specifying the real value of volume loss (VL) and its effect on ground settlement due to…
Fig. 4 Geological properties of Abuzar tunnel route (JICA 2000)
to the proximity of the tunnel to the eastern mountains of
Tehran and low thickness of the alluvial layers, it is prob-
able that the tunnel route would encounter the C alluvia.
Engineering geological studies on the Tehran alluvia
have shown that grain size and shape, sedimentary age,
cementation, grain contact type, faults, fractures, and
weathering affect the geotechnical properties of these
materials (Cheshomi et al. 2009). Asghari et al. (2003) and
Fakher et al. (2007) discussed the effects of these factors.
Engineering behavior of each of these alluvia categories
is mainly dependent on the engineering geological char-
acteristics of them so specification of these characteristics
is necessary. Based on these requirements, subsurface
exploratory investigations have been done to specify their
geotechnical parameters.
Geotechnical studies
Because of the importance of the project and the high risk
to the existing buildings and other municipal utilities,
adequate geotechnical exploratory practice was conducted
before tunnel construction. These studies include site
investigations (borehole and test-pits drilling), in situ tests,
and laboratory geotechnical practices (physical and
mechanical tests).
Extensive in situ tests were performed during the field
investigations to evaluate shear strength parameters and
deformability modulus of host soil. Laboratory index and
489
engineering tests were also carried out on collected field
samples. Performing some in situ experiments have been
shown in Fig. 5. The results of some laboratory and in situ
tests are presented in Table 3.
Soil classification
The results of geotechnical studies were used to classify
the soils in the Abuzar tunnel route. Based on the rec-
ommendations of the ITA (2000) and DAUB (1997), fine
grain content is the main factor for soil classification in
mechanized tunneling. In this study, according to the
grain size distributions (content of fine and coarse parti-
cles) and other geotechnical parameters, soils were clas-
sified into three engineering geological types (soil types)
that are described in Table 4. The weak and unnatural soil
layer of FILL on top of the tunnel must also be consid-
ered. The graphs of particle size distributions of the
identified soil types are shown in Figs. 6, 7, and 8. As
seen in this figure, Since the Abuzar tunnel was excavated
using TBM-EPB, the particle size distribution graphs of
soil groups is superimposed on Thewes (2007) charts to
identify the method and necessities of soil conditioning
during mechanized excavation of the tunnel. As will be
noted later, the vast majority of Abuzar tunnel is located
in ET-2 and ET-3 groups that fall in parts IV and V in
Thewes charts; then the foam is mostly necessary for soil
conditioning. Thewes classification and his
123
490 M. R. B. Golpasand et al.

Table 2 Comparison of Tehran alluvia based on the Rieben (1966) classification (after Cheshomi et al. 2009)
Characteristic Alluvium
A B C D

Age 5 Ma 700 ka 50 ka 10 ka
Lithology Homogeneous Heterogeneous conglomerate Alluvial fan Recent alluvial
conglomerate
Cementation Strongly cemented Variable, but usually weekly cemented Moderately cemented Non-cemented
Grain size Clay to 100–250 mm Very variable up to several metres Clay to 100–200 mm Clay up to several
metres
Dip of layer () 0–90 0–15 0 0
Thickness Maximum 1200 m Maximum 60 m (thickness decreases Maximum 60 m \10 m
toward south)
Sedimentary Fluvial Fluvioglacial and periglacial Fluvial Fluvial
environment
Other name (local Hezardareh alluvial North Tehran heterogeneous alluvial Tehran alluvial Recent alluvial
name) formation formation formation

Fig. 5 Performing in situ tests

for the Abuzar project. Plate
load test, in situ shear test

Plate Load Test In situ Shear test

Table 3 Results of laboratory

Chainage (m) Level (m) In situ test Laboratory tests
and in situ test (SCE 2011)
In situ shear test Plate load test Direct shear test Triaxial test
c (kPa) u () E(MPa) c (kPa) u () c (kPa) u ()

0 1–3 20 33
245 6–8 40 22 40 30 25
500 2–4 19 35
0 1–3 75 10 22
245 1–3 50 17 15
500 1–3 16 18
500 8–10 45 28 20 20 20
0 3–5 8 28
0 3–5 16 18
245 3–5 12 30
500 3–5 15 30

123
Specifying the real value of volume loss (VL) and its effect on ground settlement due to… 491

Table 4 Properties of the engineering geological types (SCE 2011)

Engineering Fill ET-1 ET-2 ET-3
geological
types

Description Very soft sandy CLAY Clayey Silty clayey SAND with gravel & rarely Clayey SILT, silty CLAY with sand
or SILT (filled soil) GRAVEL sandy CLAY (or SILT) with gravel & very sandy CLAY (or SILT)
with SAND
Passing 200 Various 12–30 % 30–60 % [60 %
Soil type – GC, GM, GM- SC, SM & CL CL, ML & CL-ML (rarely CH)
(USCS) GC, GW

ET-1 Table 5 Recommendations for soil conditioning (Thewes 2007)

100
90 Group Conditioning necessities
80
70 I Not suitable for EPB tunneling
Passing (%)

60
II Foam ? Polymers ? Fines, no water pressure
50
Mean
40 III Foam ? Polymers, water pressure \2 bar
30 Cu=122
Cc=1.22
IV Foam
20
10
V Water for consistency, foam for stickiness
0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Grain Size (mm)
Table 6 Gradation properties of soil types
Fig. 6 Graphs of particle size distributions of ET-1
Soil types ET-1 ET-2 ET-3

ET-2 D10 (mm) 0.018 0.0035 0.0022

100
90 D30 (mm) 0.22 0.018 0.007
80
D50 (mm) 1.2 0.1 0.02
70
Passing (%)

60 D60 (mm) 2.2 0.22 0.03

50 Coefficient of uniformity (Cu) 122.22 62.85 13.63
40
Mean Coefficient of curvature (Cc) 1.22 0.42 0.74
30
20 Cu=62
10 Cc=0.42
0 Based on the boreholes and test-pits information and the
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Grain Size (mm) results of the geotechnical studies, also considering the
classification of soils in the tunnel route, the engineering
Fig. 7 Graphs of particle size distributions of ET-2 geological profile of the Abuzar tunnel route is designated
and illustrated in Fig. 9. According to this figure, Abuzar
ET-3
tunnel has been driven mainly into ET-2 and ET-3 soil
100
types; then it can be said that the tunnel face and over-
90
80 burden are made up of over 30 % fine grain materials. It is
70 also seen that the groundwater level is lower than the
Passing (%)

60
50
tunnel route. In other words, excavation of Abuzar tunnel
40 has been conducted in a dry and unsaturated zone.
30 Mean
Physical and mechanical properties of the engineering
20 Cu=13.6
10 Cc=0.74 geological types are presented in Table 7. The data in this
0 table have been edited and refined according to the pre-
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Grain Size (mm) ceding studies and the information derived from adjacent
boreholes and test-pits. According to the results of
Fig. 8 Graphs of particle size distributions of ET-3
geotechnical studies and the engineering geological profile
of tunnel route, it can be said that physical and mechanical
recommendations for soil conditioning are presented in properties of soils in the tunnel route are relatively the
Table 5. The gradation parameters of the soil types are same and significant changes in geotechnical properties of
presented in Table 6. soil through Abuzar tunnel are not seen.

123
492 M. R. B. Golpasand et al.

Fig. 9 Engineering geological section of study area (SCE 2011)

Table 7 Geotechnical parameters of the engineering geological types (SCE 2011)

Unit Cohesion (kPa) Angle of internal friction () Young’s modulus (MPa) Poisson’s ratio Density (kg/m3)

Fill 8 20 15 0.35 1700

ET-1 15 35 65 0.3 1900
ET-2 20 30 40 0.32 1800
ET-3 30 25 25 0.35 1800

Ground settlement due to Abuzar tunnel
excavation
To evaluate the ground settlement induced by Abuzar tun-
nel excavation using the semi-empirical method, the pro-
cedures introduced by Peck (1969) and O’Reilly and New
(1982) were used. Three hypothetical points with various
depths on the tunnel route were selected for the settlement
evaluation, and the required parameters were determined
based on geological and geotechnical characteristics of the
soil. According to Guglielmetti et al. (2008) and O’Reilly
and New (1982), and considering the engineering geologi-
cal section of the tunnel route, the following values were
selected to evaluate the ground displacement:
k ¼ 0:43
z0 ¼ 5:0; 6:0 and 7:0 m
D ¼ 4:35 m
To evaluate exactly the ground displacement, it is neces-
sary to specify a deterministic value of VL. Several and
relatively different values suggested for this parameter
were presented in Table 1. According to the engineering
geological characteristics of the materials in the Abuzar
tunnel route, a wide range of values can be assigned to VL,
consequently, varied corresponding maximum ground set-
tlements (Smax) can be obtained based on the estimated
values of VL. Given Eq. (3) and the studies of Ercelebi
et al. (2011), there is a simple linear relationship between
the two parameters of VL and Smax. Figure 10 shows the
linear variation of Smax against VL for various z0 in the
Abuzar tunnel route. The settlement toughs in various
values of VL and z0 have been shown in Figs. 11, 12, and
13.
As shown in Fig. 10, the maximum ground settlements
(Smax) vary between around 4 to 55 mm. These resultant
values are assumed to be the predicted maximum ground
settlement.
According to main aim of this study, the predicted
maximum ground settlement must be compared with the
results of numerical methods and the real (measured) set-
tlements to specify the real value of VL.

123
Specifying the real value of volume loss (VL) and its effect on ground settlement due to… 493

variaon of maximum ground selement the finite difference method, was used for modeling. It was
60
assumed that the soil layers are homogeneous and iso-
50
tropic. A model was constructed based on the recommen-
40 dations of Lambrughi et al. (2012) and Dias and Kastner
Smax (mm)

30 (2013). Geometrical characteristics of the model are shown

20 z0=5m in Fig. 14. Because of symmetry conditions (geometry and
Z0=6m loading), only half of the tunnel has been modeled.
10 Z0=7m
This model is made up of 18,600 zones and 20,418 grid
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 points and has been fixed by appropriate boundaries along
VL (%) the x, y, and z directions to prevent of any movement,
whereas the upper surface in the z direction is free to move.
Fig. 10 Linear variation of Smax against to the VL with various Z0
In addition, the bottom boundary in the z direction has been
fixed too. Boundary conditions of the model are indicated
Numerical method in Fig. 15.
Excavation and advancing of TBM were simulated with
Numerical modeling is one of the most useful and current respect to the actual processes that take place during the
methods used to evaluate the ground settlement induced by tunnel construction. The mechanized tunneling is a
shallow tunneling. In this study, FLAC 3D (Fast Lagrange sequential process, thus all of its sequences have been
Analysis of Continua in 3-Dimensions), which is based on considered during numerical modeling. The excavation

Fig. 11 Variation of predicted Distance from Center Line (m)

values of Smax against VL in 0.0
Abuzar project (Z0 = 5 m) -10 -5 0 5 10

-10.0 VL=0.2
VL=0.4
VL=0.6
-20.0
VL=0.8
VL=1
-30.0
VL=1.2
Z0=5 m
VL=1.4
-40.0
VL=1.6
VL=1.8
-50.0 VL=2

Selement (mm)
-60.0

Fig. 12 Variation of predicted Distance from Center Line (m)

values of Smax against VL in 0.0
Abuzar project (Z0 = 6 m) -10 -5 0 5 10

-10.0 VL=0.2
VL=0.4
VL=0.6
-20.0
VL=0.8
VL=1
-30.0
VL=1.2
Z0=6 m
VL=1.4
-40.0
VL=1.6
VL=1.8
-50.0 VL=2

Selement (mm)
-60.0

123
494 M. R. B. Golpasand et al.

Fig. 13 Variation of predicted Distance from Center Line (m)

values of Smax against VL in 0.0
Abuzar project (Z0 = 7 m) -10 -5 0 5 10

-10.0 VL=0.2
VL=0.4
VL=0.6
-20.0
VL=0.8
VL=1
-30.0
VL=1.2
Z0=7 m VL=1.4
-40.0
VL=1.6
VL=1.8
-50.0 VL=2

Selement (mm)
-60.0

• Repeating the above steps.

Fig. 14 Geometric dimensions of the constructed numerical model
sequences, which were integrated into the model, are
explained below:
• Excavation of the tunnel equal to the length of segment
(1.5 m) having diameter of 4.352 m;
• Generation of EPB machine elements for new excava-
tion length of the tunnel;
• Application of the face pressure on the new excavation
face of the tunnel;
• Allowing for relaxation and movement (convergence)
of the soil, equal to the gap between the outer diameter
of shield and the inner diameter of the tunnel;
• Application of the grout pressure on the converged
section of the tunnel;
• Generation of lining ring elements performed after 9 m
excavation of the tunnel;
• Solving the model to reach the unbalanced forces to
10E-5;
In this study, according to the technical data obtained
from the Abuzar tunnel project, the required input infor-
mation was prepared, and construction and solving of the
model was performed accordingly. Technical parameters of
EPB, lining rings, and injection grout are as follows:
The presence of the shield has been simulated for a
longitudinal extension of 9 m, and the distance between
front-shield and segment was considered to be equal to
7.5 m. Its interaction with the soil is modeled by interface
elements that represent planes along which sliding or
separation can occur. The tunnel lining (segment) was set
at 9 m from the tunnel face. It consists of concrete pre-
fabricated lining rings with an outer diameter of 4.20 m
and a length of 1.5 m. For such a segment, one can adopt
curved shell elements to simulate its action. Technical
properties of the shield and segment elements are presented
in Table 8. Geotechnical properties of soil layers, used for
construction of the model, were presented previously in
Table 7.
The grouting pressure was modeled as a linearly varied
normal stress applied to the excavation wall 1.5 m in
length (length of a segmental ring) behind the shield. Value
of grouting pressure was selected according to the site
information. Given the low thickness of overburden in the
studied area, the pressure of the grouting was applied equal
to 65 kPa. Vertical stress was applied corresponding to
gravitational loading, and the ratio of horizontal to vertical
stress was considered at the rest of pressure coefficient
(k0 = 1-sin u). Soil layers were modeled by an elastic-
perfectly plastic constitutive model based on Mohr–Cou-
lomb failure criterion. The constitutional equation of
Mohr–Coulomb failure criterion is given following:

123
Specifying the real value of volume loss (VL) and its effect on ground settlement due to…
Fig. 15 Boundary conditions of
constructed model
Table 8 Technical properties
Thickness (m)
of the shield and segment
Segment 0.25
Shield 0.35
sf ¼ c þ rn tanðuÞ ð9Þ
where sf and rn are the shear strength and total vertical
stresses that have been related together using the soil shear
strength parameters, cohesion (c), and friction angle (u).
Deformability characteristics of materials are expressed in
terms of the following equations:
E Instrumentation and monitoring of the ground
K¼ ð10Þ
3ð1  2#Þ
E
G¼ ð11Þ
2ð1 þ #Þ
where K and G are the elastic constants including bulk
modulus and the shear modulus of soil, respectively, rela-
ted to the soil elasticity characteristics, Young’s modulus
(E), and Poisson’s ratio, (t). The elastic constants, K and G,
are used in FLAC3D rather than Young’s modulus and
Poisson’s ratio because it is believed that bulk and shear
moduli correspond to more fundamental aspects of material
behavior than do Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio
(Itasca 2006). To model the weight of over-ground neigh-
boring structures, 20 kPa uniform pressures were applied
on the upper surface of the model.
The balanced condition was obtained at the end of each
excavation stage, and the specified displacements were
taken over the whole model. The results of numerical
modelling are presented in Figs. 16, 17, and 18. As shown
in Fig. 16, maximum z-displacement on the ground surface
(Smax) is between 8 and 10 mm. To evaluate exactly the
displacement of ground surface in the transverse section,
six points were selected in the ground surface areas of the
model, and z-displacements of these points were recorded.
495
Young’s modulus (GPa) Poisson’s ratio Density (Kg/m3)
18.0 0.25 2500
200 0.20 7800
Location of the selected points and their maximum z-dis-
placements are shown in Figs. 17 and 18, respectively. The
trough of the settlement was created using the results of
numerical modelling (ground settlements in the transverse
section shown in Figs. 17 and 18), and is shown in Fig. 19.
settlement
Tunneling in urban areas causes ground settlement that
leads to displacement and deformation in buildings and
pipelines. Because of the high sensitivity of the existing
structures along the tunnel route, advanced instrumentation
and precise monitoring systems are necessary. The objec-
tives for instrumentation during tunnel excavation will
change depending on the size and type of construction,
geotechnical conditions, and the project schedule (Ghor-
bani et al. 2012). In the present research, maximum
Greenfield settlement of the ground (Smax) occurring due to
Abuzar tunnel excavation, was measured using leveling
and instrumentation methods. For this purpose, several
benchmarks, called LPS, were selected on the natural
ground surface along the tunnel centerline and levelling
devices were installed on these benchmarks. Installation of
benchmarks and leveling of the point were implemented
with respect to the principals recommended by Dunnicliff
(1993). Locations of the leveling points are shown in
Fig. 20. Measurement of the displacements of the points
was started before the passing of TBM from the point and
continued until the level of the points reached a constant
value, so the maximum settlement of the points (Smax) was
123
496 M. R. B. Golpasand et al.

Fig. 16 Contours of
z-displacements in the end of
tunnel excavation (units in
meters)

Fig. 17 Location of selected

points

recorded. The values of maximum settlement of leveling
points and corresponding actual VL in each of points are
presented in Table 9.
Discussion on real VL
As seen in Table 9, the maximum settlements of the points
(Smax) induced by Abuzar tunnel excavation are between 8
and 12 mm. The quantities of VL, corresponding to each of
the LPS points are presented in final, right-hand column of
Table 9. These quantities have been calculated using
measured settlements induced by Abuzar tunnel excavation
and solving Eq. (3), considering the linear relationship
between Smax and VL. In this process, the trough width
parameter (k) was assumed: k = 0.43.
It is seen that the real volume losses that have occurred in
the surrounding soil are between 0.36 and 0.62 %. This
means that for ground displacement equal to 8–12 mm due to
Abuzar tunnel excavation, the VL must be between 0.36 and
0.62 % in the surrounding soil. Column diagram of actual VL
in each of the measuring points is shown in Fig. 21.

123
Specifying the real value of volume loss (VL) and its effect on ground settlement due to… 497

Fig. 18 Displacements of
selected points (units in meters)

2
shows the comparison between predicted and measured
(real) parameters of ground settlement due to Abuzar tun-
0 nel excavation. Evaluation of VL using the results of
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
-2
numerical modelling will be discussed in next part.
The difference between predicted and measured settle-
-4
ments, takes place because the real VL occurring in the
-6 surrounding soil is lower than predicted. It seems that this
phenomenon occurred due to local cementation of Tehran
-8
alluvia (Table 2) and the lower diameter of Abuzar tunnel.
-10 As cited previously, local natural cementation has taken
place in Tehran’s recent alluvia through geological factors.
Fig. 19 Settlement trough of ground displacement in transverse
section This phenomenon has caused an increase in the strength
and deformability characteristics of soil and reduction of
soil movement (relaxation) around the outer skin of shield,
Comparison of the real quantities of VL with the values and consequently, causes a decrease in VL for the sur-
in Table 1 indicates that the real VLs are relatively lower rounding soil of Abuzar tunnel. Golpasand et al. (2014)
than the ranges of this parameter proposed in Table 1. In studied the effect of the engineering geological character-
other words, the actual values of VL in the surrounding soil istics of Tehran’s recent alluvia on ground settlement due
during Abuzar tunnel excavation are lower than the aver- to excavation of the EWL7TM tunnel (East–West lot of
age value of this parameter given in Table 1. Table 10 line 7 Tehran Metro). They concluded that natural

Fig. 20 Location of monitoring

points on the tunnel profile
(SCE 2011)

123
498 M. R. B. Golpasand et al.

Table 9 Measured displacements of check points

Leveling point Chainage (m) Depth to tunnel axis, Z0 (m) Z0/D Overburden (m) Smax (mm) Actual VL (%)

LPS-1 0?100 5.04 1.16 2.86 10 0.39

LPS-2 0?140 5.15 1.18 2.97 9 0.36
LPS-3 0?190 5.35 1.23 3.17 10 0.41
LPS-4 0?220 5.63 1.29 3.45 9 0.39
LPS-5 0?280 6.86 1.58 4.68 12 0.62
LPS-6 0?330 6.69 1.54 4.51 10 0.51
LPS-7 0?375 6.56 1.51 4.38 8 0.40
LPS-8 0?450 6.86 1.58 4.68 9 0.47
LPS-9 0?500 7.07 1.63 4.89 8 0.43
Tunnel diameter D = 4.35 m

0.70 0.62
confining stresses and results in further relaxation of soil
0.60 0.51 0.53 toward the shield and segment that eventually leads to an
0.47 increase of the VL.
0.50 0.41 0.40
0.39 0.39
0.36
0.40
VL (%)

0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
Meassuring Points
Fig. 21 Variations of VL through the tunnel route
Table 10 Comparison between the predicted and measured values of
V Ls
Predicted (Semi-empirical methods) Measured (Occurred)
VL (%) Smax (mm) VL (%)
0.2–2 5–55 0.36–0.62
cementation of the alluvia caused a decrease in ground
displacement.
According to Leca and New (2007) the diameter of the
tunnel is one of the most important factors of tunnel sta-
bility and ground settlement due to tunneling. Therefore, it
can be said that the relatively lower diameter of Abuzar
tunnel is one of the main factors that has caused a decrease
in ground displacement by reducing the VL.
Variation of VL with depth of tunnel is another impor-
tant objects about this parameter. According to Table 9, VL
mostly increases with depth. This is shown in Fig. 22. This
can be explained by the increase of the initial confining
stresses with the increase of depth. In other words,
increasing the depth causes an increase of the initial
Evaluation of VL using the concept of gap
Gap is an effective parameter in ground displacement due
to mechanized tunneling. Lee et al. (1992) have explained
the concept of this parameter and the method to calculate it.
Physical scheme of the gap parameter, its creation in
mechanized tunneling, and displacement of soil inward this
space are shown in Fig. 23.
According to Loganathan (2011), it is possible to eval-
uate VL using the gap parameter and geometrical charac-
teristics of TBM. In this approach, VL can be estimated
using the degree of soil movement toward the shield and
segment with acceptable proximity. Since the measurement
of this movement is not possible during mechanized
Smax (mm)
excavation, the results of numerical modeling are used in
8–12 this approach. This subject has been illustrated previously
in Figs. 2 and 3 with emphasis on the main effect of the
changes in initial stresses due to tunnel excavation. Based
on this and using the geometrical characteristics of a cir-
cular tunnel and TBM, Loganathan (2011) suggested the
following equation to calculate VL.

2
p R þ g2 pR2
VL ¼  100 ð12Þ
pR2
where
g is the gap parameter and R is the tunnel radius.
According to Loganathan (2011), the volume loss
obtained from Eq. (12) involves the volume losses that
took place at the face of the tunnel, around the shield, and
around the segment as shown in Fig. 3.
Given the Figs. 2, 3, and 12, Eq. (12) can be represented
in simpler notation as below:

123
Specifying the real value of volume loss (VL) and its effect on ground settlement due to… 499

0.70 Geometrical dimensions of TBM used in the Abuzar

y = 0.0823x - 0.0534 project is from site information. The outer diameter of the
0.60 R² = 0.6234
front shield is 4.352 m. Considering the convergence of the
VL (%)

0.50
inner wall of the tunnel toward the shield and segment is as
much as 12–14 mm, the quantity of VL can be evaluated
0.40 according to following equation:
A0  A1
0.30 VL ¼  100
4 5 6 7 8 A1
Z0 (m) p  2:1762  p  ð2:169  2:170Þ2
¼  100
Fig. 22 Variations of VL with increasing of the depth p  ð2:169  2:170Þ2
¼ 0:55 %  0:64 % ð14Þ

A 0  A1 This means that, due to soil displacement inward to the

VL ¼  100
A1
where:
A0 is the tunnel area in cross section before tunnel
excavation and soil convergence, and A1 is the tunnel area
in cross section after tunnel excavation and soil conver-
gence. This equation was presented formerly by Attewell
et al. (1986). In this method, the difference between
diameters of the front shield and the shield (Fig. 23) is a
significant parameter; then Eqs. (12) and (13) are arranged
on the basis of the geometrical parameters.
In this study, soil movement into the tunnel has been
considered the main factor to evaluate VL. For this purpose,
the results of the numerical method should be noted again
(Fig. 16). As seen in this figure, radial displacement of the
tunnel’s inner wall toward the shield and segment through
the tunnel’s length, occurred in the range of 12 to 14 mm.
In other words, considering the geometrical characteristics
of the any parts of the tunnel and the several stages of
mechanized tunneling, such as grout injection, equal dis-
placement occurred through the entire length of the tunnel,
both at the shield and segment districts, so it can be written:
VShield ¼ VTail . This means that equal volume loss occurred
around the shield and around the segment.
ð13Þ tunnel as much as 12–14 mm, volume loss equal to
VL = 0.55–0.64 % occurred in the surrounding soil. It
should be noted that due to the application of a rational
value of face pressure, soil displacement in the tunnel face
is negligible, thus it has no considerable influence on the
total quantity of volume loss. Figure 24 shows the soil
displacement that occurred in the tunnel face. It is seen that
soil displacement into the tunnel is between 0 and 2 mm.
This value is lower than the soil displacement around the
shield and segment. This means that the major portion of
volume loss in Abuzar tunnel occurred due to soil dis-
placement toward the shield and segment, as seen by the
results obtained from numerical modelling.
Comparison of findings
Various values of VL have been obtained in the preceding
parts of the paper, and we next compare them. As cited
previously, engineering of the geological situation of tun-
nel route is one of the most important factors affecting the
value of VL. According to Table 1, VL = 0.2–2 % was
suggested. These values are mostly in relation with semi-
empirical methods. Using numerical methods,

Shield
0.019
Soil Displacement
Gap

Front Shield
Shield
4.352

TBM
4.314

Front Shield

Fig. 23 Soil displacement inward the space between the shield and the tunnel’s inner wall

123
500
Fig. 24 Soil displacement in
the tunnel face (units in meters)
Table 11 Comparison between values obtained from different
methods
Parameter Predicted values Measured (real) values
Semi-empirical Numerical
Smax (mm) 5–55 8–9 8–12
VL (%) 0.2–2 % 0.64–0.55 % 0.36–0.62 %
VL = 0.64–0.55 %, and based on measured (real) settle-
ments and executing the back analysis, VL = 0.36–0.62 %
was derived. Comparison of these quantities is illustrated in
Table 11. It is seen that the results of numerical modelling
show high consistency with real values in both Smax and
VL. According to Table 11, it can be simply deduced that
due to excavation of Abuzar tunnel, volume loss approxi-
mately equal to VL = 0.5 ± 0.1 % has taken place in the
tunnel route. In other words, VL = 0.5 ± 1 % can be
accepted as the real volume loss in Abuzar tunnel.
Conclusion
It is important to specify the real value of volume loss (VL) in
mechanized tunneling. This parameter significantly controls
the ground settlement due to tunneling and is affected highly
by engineering geological factors. Several methods have been
suggested to determine this parameter. In this study, the real
value of this parameter, occurring due to excavation of
Abuzar tunnel (Tehran) and its influence on ground settle-
ment due to excavation of this tunnel, was investigated.
123
M. R. B. Golpasand et al.
For this objective, the VL was evaluated using semi-
empirical and numerical methods and their results were
compared to the calculated VLs obtained using back anal-
ysis methods performed on the real settlements. The real
settlements were obtained via measurement of ground
displacements along Abuzar tunnel performing installation
and monitoring methods.
Analysis of findings indicates high similarity between
the results of numerical modelling with the measured (real)
settlements. This means that the volume losses obtained
from real settlements and numerical modelling are true and
credible values for this parameter.
Comparison of the real VLs, obtained both from mea-
sured settlements and from numerical modelling, with the
VLs proposed in semi-empirical methods, shows that the
real VLs are lower than the average of this parameter
suggested by semi-empirical methods. These differences
can occur for two reasons:
1. Local cementation of Tehran alluvia due to geological
agents;
2. Relatively lower diameter of Abuzar tunnel.
Eventually, considering the results obtained from sev-
eral methods and comparing them, the volume loss equal to
VL = 0.5 ± 0.1 % is recommended as the real value of VL
that took place due to Abuzar tunnel excavation.
Acknowledgments Authors would like to express their sincere
appreciation to SCE Institute for providing access to the instrumen-
tation database of the Abuzar project.
Specifying the real value of volume loss (VL) and its effect on ground settlement due to…
References
Asghari E, Told DG, Haeri SM (2003) Triaxial behavior of cemented
gravelly sand, Tehran alluvia. J Geotech Geol Eng 21:1–28
Ata AA (1996) Ground settlement induced by slurry shield tunneling
in stratified soils. Proc North Am Tunn 1:43–50 (Ozdemir I. L.
(ed.))
Attewell PB, Yeates J, Selby AR (1986) Soil movements induced by
tunneling and their effects on pipelines and structures. Blackie
and Son Ltd., Glascow
Chakeri H, Ozcelik Y, Unver B (2013) Effects of important factors on
surface settlement prediction for metro tunnel excavated by EPB.
Tunn Undergr Space Technol 36:14–23
Cheshomi A, Fakher A, Jones CJFP (2009) A correlation between
friction angle and particle shape metrics in quaternary coarse
alluvia. Q J Eng GeolHydrogeol 42:145–155. doi:10.1144/1470-
9236/07-052
Cording EJ, Hansmire WH (1975) Displacements around soft ground
tunnels. Proc 5th pan American conf soil mechanics and
foundation engineering, Buenos Aires (4):571–633
DAUB (Deutscher Ausschuss für unterirdisches Bauen) (1997)
Recommendations for selecting and evaluating tunnel boring
machines. Tunnel 5(97):20–35
Dias D, Kastner R (2013) Movements caused by the excavation of
tunnels using face pressurized shields—analysis of monitoring
and numerical modeling results. Eng Geol 152:17–25. doi:10.
1016/j.enggeo.2012.10.002
Dunnicliff J (1993) Geotechnical instrumentation for monitoring field
performance. Wiley, New York
Ercelebi SG, Copur H, Ocak I (2011) Surface settlement predictions
for Istanbul metro tunnels excavated by EPB-TBM. Environ
Earth Sci 62(2):357–365. doi:10.1007/s12665-010-0530-6
Fakher A, Cheshomi A, Khamechian M (2007) The addition of
geotechnical properties to a geological classification of coarse grain
alluvia in a pediment zone. Q J Eng GeolHydrogeol 40:163–174
Franzius JN (2003) Behavior of buildings due to tunnel induced
subsidence. PhD thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering. Imperial College of Science, Technology and
Medicine. London, SW7 2BU
Ghorbani M, Sharifzadeh M, Yasrobi S, Daiyan M (2012) Geotech-
nical, structural and geodetic measurements for conventional
tunnelling hazards in urban areas–the case of Niayesh road
tunnel project. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 31:1–8
Golpasand MRB, Nikudel MR, Uromeihy A (2014) Effect of
engineering geological characteristics of Tehran’s recent alluvia
on ground settlement due to tunneling. Geopersia 4(2):185–199
Golpasand MRB, Nikudel, Uromeihy A (2013) Predicting the
occurrence of mixed face conditions in tunnel route of Line 2
Tabriz metro, Tabriz, Iran. In: Wu, Qi (eds) Global view of
engineering geology and the environment. Taylor & Francis
Group, London, pp 487–492
Guglielmetti V, Grasso P, Mahtab A, Xu S (2008) Mechanized
tunnelling in urban AREAS—design methodology and construc-
tion control. Geodata S.p.A, Turin
Gui Meen-Wahand, Chen Shong-Loong (2013) Estimation of trans-
verse ground surface settlement induced by DOT shield tunnel-
ing. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 33:119–130
Hasanpour R, Chakeri Hamid, Ozcelik Yilmaz, Denek Hasan (2012)
Evaluation of surface settlements in the Istanbul metro in terms
of analytical, numerical and direct measurements. Bull Eng Geol
Environ 71(3):499–510. doi:10.1007/s10064-012-0428-5
Hosseini SAA, Mohammadnejad M, Hoseini SM, Mikaeil R,
Tolooiyan A (2012) Numerical and analytical investigation of
ground surface settlement due to subway excavation. Geo-
sciences 2(6):185–191
501
I.T.A. Working Group No. 2. (ITA) (2000) Guidelines for the design
of shield tunnel lining. Tunn Undergr Space Technol
15(3):303–331
Itasca (2006) FLAC 3D Fast Lagrangian analysis of continua in 3D
dimensions. User’s and Theory Manuals, Minneapolis
JICA (Japan International Cooperation Agency) (2000) The Study on
seismic microzoning of the greater Tehran area in the Islamic
Republic of Iran. Pacific Consultants International OYO
Corporation
Lambrughi A, Medina Rodrı́guez L, Castellanza R (2012) Develop-
ment and validation of a 3D numerical model for TBM–EPB
mechanised excavations. Comput Geotech 40:97–113
Leblais Y, Bochon A (1991) Villejust tunnel: slurry shield effects on
soils and lining behaviour and comments on monitoring
requirement. Tunnelling 91:65–77 (London. IMM)
Leca E, New B (2007) Settlements induced by tunneling in soft
ground. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 22:119–149 (ITA/AITES
report 2006)
Lee KM, Rowe RK, Lo KY (1992) Subsidence owing to tunnelling.
I. Estimating the gap parameter. Can Geotech J 29(6):929–940
Loganathan N. (2011) An innovative method for assessing tunnelling-
induced risks to adjacent Structures. PB 2009 William Barclay
Parsons Fellowship Monograph 25. Parsons Brinckerhoff Inc. p 92
Mair RJ (1996) General report on settlement effects of bored
tunnels. In: International conference of geotechnical aspects on
underground construction in soft ground, London, UK pp 43–53
Mair RJ, Taylor RN (1997) Bored tunnelling in the urban environ-
ment (State-of-the-art report and theme lecture). In: The 14th
international conference on soil mechanics and foundation
engineering, pp 2353–2385
Marshall AM, Farrell R, Klar A, Mair RJ (2012) Tunnels in sands: the
effect of size, depth and volume loss on greenfield displace-
ments. Géotechnique 62(5):385–399
McCabe BA, Orr TLL, Reilly CC, Curran BG (2012) Settlement
trough parameters for tunnels in Irish glacial tills. Tunn Undergr
Space Technol 27:1–12
O’Reilly MP, New BM (1982) Settlements above tunnel in the united
kingdom- their magnitude and prediction. Tunnelling. The
Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, London
Palmer AC, Mair RJ (2011) Ground movements above tunnels: a method
for calculating volume loss. Can Geotech J 48(3):451–457
Peck RB (1969) Deep excavation and tunneling in soft ground. Proc.
Of the 7th int. conference on soil mechanics and foundation
engineering. State of the art Volume. Mexico, pp 225–290
Rankin WJ (1988) Ground movements resulting from urban tun-
nelling: predictions and effects. Eng Geol Undergr Mov 5:79–92
Rieben EH (1966) Geological observations on alluvial deposits in
northern Iran. Geological survey of Iran. p 39
SCE (2011) Engineering geology report of Abuzar water conveyance
tunnel (Lot 1). SCE. (in persian)
Sugiyama T, Hagiwara T, Nomoto T, Nomoto M, Ano Y, Mair RJ,
Bolton MD, Soga K (1999) Observations of Ground movements
during tunnel construction by slurry shield method at the
Docklands light railway Lewishman extension-East London.
Soils Found 39(3):99–112 (Japanese Geotechnical Society)
Thewes M (2007) TBM tunneling challenges—redefining the state-
of-the-art. keynote lecture at the 2007 ITA World tunnel
congress, Prague. Mag Tunel 16(extra issue):13–21
Toan ND (2012) TBM and lining-essential interfaces. Dissertation
submitted to the Politecnico di Torino, consortium for the
research and permanent education (COREP), and D2 Consult Dr.
Wagner Dr. Schulter GmbH & Co. KG, Turin, Italy p 183
Zhang ZX, Zhang H, Yan JY (2013) A case study on the behavior of
shield tunneling in sandy cobble ground. Environ Earth Sci
69:1891–1900. doi:10.1007/s12665-012-2021-4
123