Proc.

Instn
Unwin Memorial Lecturel992 Civ. Engrs
Civ. Engng, 1993,
Developments in geotechnical 93, Feb., 27-41

engineering research: application to Paper 10070

tunnels and deep excavations

R./. &fair,MA, PhD, FEng, FICE

The Unwin Memorial Lecture was instituted in 1948 in memoryof

William Cawthorne Unwin,a Past President and HonoraryMember of the
Institution. The lecture,which deals with engineering research, is
delivered from time to timeas Council may determine. The 1992 Lecture,
delivered bv- Dr Mair at theICE on 17 March 1992, is presented here in
abridged form.
Advances intechniques of site investiga-
tion, laboratory testing, modelling,
analysis and fieldmeasurements have
resulted in improved understandingof
ground behaviour in underground con-
struction. Some of these advances are
highlighted, and their application to
design andconstruction is illustrated by
case histories of bored tunnel construc-
tion and deepexcavations.
A key aspect of soil behaviour influ-
encing ground response around tunnels
and excavations is the variation of
stiffness with strain level. Examples are
given of the laboratory and insitu mea-
surement of stiffness properties at low
strain levels and the use of such measure-
ments in the prediction of ground
behaviour.
The use of electrolevels for observations
of deformationsof ground andretaining
structures is illustrated. Measurements
are described whichdemonstrate that
ground movements are significantly less
for hand-excavated large diameter bored
tunnels in stiff clay when a pilottunnel is
constructed.
Site investigation and laboratory
testing
There havebeen a number of important
recent advances in site investigation arising
from research by universities and by industry.I
will focus only on a few of these, selecting
those which have had a marked influenceon
engineering practice.
Soil sampling
Developments in rotary coring techniques
(such as the useof polymer mud-flushing fluids
and wireline techniques) have led to much
improved core recovery in complex, mixed soil
strata, suchas theWoolwich and Reading Beds.
In recent years there havebeen numerous
developments in London's Docklands, and a
major project being planned is London Under-
ground's Jubilee Line Extension. Thecomplex
clays, sands and gravelsof the Woolwich and
Reading Beds have a vital influence on the
foundations of these developments, and even
more so on tunnel construction and station
excavations.
Until recently, the detailed stratigraphy of
the Woolwich and Reading Beds has been
poorly understood from an engineering view-
point, and the strata have been widely regarded
as being unpredictable and difficult to charac-
terize. However, the latest developmentsin
rotary coring have enabled continuous cores to
be taken, allowinga detailed examinationof the
strata. This was undertakenfor the Jubilee Line
Extension project and has resultedin a rational
classification systemfor the Woolwich and
Reading Beds, based on work by Ellison,' as
shown onFig. 1.
In most geotechnical engineering applica-
tions, there isno substitute for being able to
examine in detail the continuous soil profile,
and this is particularly true for tunnelling and
deep excavations.A further advantageof the Robert Mair
improvements in rotary coringis that it isnow workedfor Scott
possible to obtaingood quality core samples of Wilson
clays and sandsfor laboratory triaxial testing Kirkpatrick and
immediately they arerecovered from the bore- Partners in the
hole (see Hight*). Careful attention needs to be UK and Hong
paid to detailsof wrapping, waxing and hand- Kong from1971
ling of the sample. to 1983, when he
Another major development in improving became one of the
founding
sampling of stiff clays is the use of thin-walled Principals of the
tubes. A number of commercial site investiga- Geotechnical
tion organizations now have equipment for Consulting Croup.
steadily pushing very thin-walled steel tube He is a member of
samplers into stiffclays. For example, it is gen- the Council ofthe
erallypossibletopushthesesamplersinto ICE.

Downloaded by [ AECOM] on [25/10/23]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

 c London Clay
r * e Y
I number of commercial laboratory testing organ-
izations. Mid-height pore pressure measure-
ment hasimproved the measurement of initial
effective stress in a specimen, and hasled to
improvements in stress path testingtechniques.
The important parameterK , , defining horizon-
I \U A tal stressin the ground, canbe assessed from
initial effective stress measurementsin high
quality specimens, such a s those obtained by
thin-walled tube amp ling.^
Another form of local instrumentation, which
allows the measurement of local axial strain, is
28 'Lower Mottled Clay shown in Fig. 2. The stiffnessof soils at small

. strain levelsis of great importance, particularly

so in the contextof tunnels and deep excava-

.. * '.
tions. Fig. 2 shows a pair of electrolevel devices
' Glauconitic Sayd attached toa triaxial test soil specimen (see
.c e
.a
6
a
Burland and Symes5). The articulatedmecha-
nism is designed so that axial strainof the
Thanet Beds sample isconverted to a change of inclination
London Clay at depthsof up to about30 m. Dis- of an electrolevel. There area number of avail-
Colour mottling
turbance to the sample is significantly less thanable local strain measuringdevices designed to
measure accurately small strainson soil speci-
Glauconitic in conventional thick-walled U100 sampling
mens. Most of these have been developed at UK
tubes driven by percussion methods, for two
universities. Twoof these are now used by a
o 0 . " ~ Flint pebbles reasons: the very thin walls of the sampling
number of commercial testing organizations:
tube cause smaller strains in the clays, and
c 5 Shells steady pushing induces less disturbance than
the electrolevel inclinometer of the type shown
on Fig. 2 (developed at Imperial College), and
Fig. 1 . Shutigraphy hammering tubes into the ground. Special
Hall-effect devices developed at theUniversity
of Woolwich and laboratory testing of a small numberof
superior qualitythin-walled tube samplescon- of Surrey (see Claytonand Khatrush6).
Reading Beds' The valueof local strain measurement is
siderably enhances thegeotechnical engineer's
illustrated in Fig. 3(a), which shows initial
assessment of the clay properties.
stress-strain data from a typical unconsoli-
Laboratory testing dated undrained triaxial test ona thin-walled
A significant development in laboratory sample of London Clay (see Jardine et U P ) . It
testing is the use ofa probe to measure pore shows a comparison between externally mea-
pressure at the mid-height of a triaxial speci- sured and locally measured stress-strain
men (see Hight)), rather than onlyat the curves at relatively small strains,well before
bottom. This device is now being used by a the onsetof gross plasticyielding. The stress-
strain curve determinedfrom external strain
measurement givesan apparently linear elastic
Young's modulus E. X 300 c, (where c, is the
undrained shear strength).In contrast, the
stress-strain curve determined from local
instrumentation shows much stiffer, non-linear
behaviour. Fig. 3(b) shows the resultsof the

i P local measurements of stiffness from the same

test, plotted in terms of normalized stiffness
E J c . versus axial strainon a logarithmic scale.
The stronglynon-linear nature is evident. E J c .
decreases from about 1700 at 0.003% strain to a
more commonly accepted value of about 200 at
0.5% strain.
Research has shown that all soils generally
exhibit stronglynon-linear stress-strain
behaviour, a s illustrated in Fig. 4, where elastic
stiffness (shear modulus G)is plotted against
Fig. 2. Electrolevel shear strain.* At very small strains the
devices set up to stiffness is approximately constant. Thiscan
measure small strains be measured by pulse tests usingbender ele-
on a 38 mm diameter ments in triaxial tests or by resonant column
soil specimen in a apparatus (see, for example, Baldi et al.'). For
triaxial test' all other strains there is a marked reduction of

Downloaded by [ AECOM] on [25/10/23]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

 UNWINMEMORIAL
LECTURE 1992

stiffness with increasing strainlevel. As can be 40 -

seen from Fig. 4, typical strain rangesfor
retaining walls, foundations and tunnels are
over the rangewhere there is the greatest varia- 30 -
tion of stiffness. Over this range, local strain m
4 Stralns determined from external
measuring devices are necessaryin order to stralns corrected for load cell
measure the variation in stiffness relevantto compliance
these engineering applications.Conventional
testing is only capable of measuring levels of 3
strain which generally are larger than therele- Apparent linear modulus from
vant levels for practical problems. external measurements E, = 3 0 0 ~ "

In situ testing 29
The variation of soil stiffness with strain
level can also be determined from some forms
of in situ testing. Pressuremeter testing is par- 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Axial strain: %
ticularly promising in this respect. The basis of
(a)
the usual form of pressuremeter test is thehori-
zontal expansion of a long cylindrical mem-
brane installed verticallyin the ground. Fig.
5(a) shows the typicalform of data from a self-
boring pressuremeter test,in which pressure in
the expanding cavity isplotted against cavity
strain. Of particular significance are the
unload-reload loop and the early partof the
30001
2500

2ooo\
final unloading phase: non-linear curves are
obtained during these phasesof the test, and
these can be interpreted to give the variationof
stiffness with strainlevel (for example, see
Muir Wood'O and Jardine").
Figure 5(b) illustrates the consistencyof
stiffness measurements obtainedfor a London
Clay site from a self-boring pressuremeter test
and from laboratory triaxial tests on thin-
walled samples." The Young's modulus (E,)
Axial strain: %
normalized by the mean effective stress (P;) is
(b)
plotted against shear strain. The figure shows
data interpreted from a pressuremeter test
together with resultsof an anisotropically con. cantly lower stiffness values were generally Fig. 3. Typical
solidated triaxial teston a high quality thin- obtained from the unconsolidated undrained London Clay UU test
walled sample ( K oTC test) with local strain tests (VU tests), even with local strain measure- data': (a) initial
measurement. Fig. 5(b) also illustrates the ment. stress-strain
importance of anisotropic consolidation to the The results shownin Fig. 5(b) are particu- behaviour; ( b )
estimated in situ effective stresses, if represen- larly significant. There hasbeen a tendency stiffness-strain
tative stiffness properties are required. Signifi- amongst research workersin the geotechnical characteristics
engineering community to be aligned either in
the laboratory testing campor in the in situ
Typical strain ranges:
testing camp.Those in the former group argue
+-q Retaming walls that in situ tests arenot capable of applying
U well-defined stresses and boundaryconditions
to the soil in the ground, whilst the latter group
Tunnels argue that the process of sampling and setting
up specimens for laboratory testing involves
too much disturbance to the soil. The results
L I I I l
shown in Fig. 5(b) indicate that laboratory
10 *
I L
0~0001 0.001 0.10.01 1 small-strain measurementson high quality
Shear strain F ~ %: samples are in fact remarkably consistent with
Bender
data obtained from careful interpretation of in
Resonant column --- situ self-boring pressuremeter tests. This is
__ Local extremely valuablefor the practitioner, because Fig. 4 . Approximate
l
there is always amuch higher level of con- strain limits for
_ _ Special triaxial fidence in design parameters if similar values reliable measurement
- - - Conventional are derived from completely different tests. of soil stiffness8

Downloaded by [ AECOM] on [25/10/23]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

 MATR
I
30
- 0
c is a 6 m diameter tunnel in Singapore, which
c
400 -
200 -
I l
0.001 0.01
Fig. 5. Interpretation
of soil stiffness from
a pressuremeter test:
( a ) typical form of test
data; ( b ) interpreted
stiffness forLondon
Clay compared with
measurements from
triaxial tests (after
Jardine")
Fig. 6. Collapse of
tunnels with thin clay
cower
Downloaded by [ AECOM] on [25/10/23]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
\ sponsored by the Transport Research Labor-
',Final atory (TRL). Tests to failure of model tunnel
I unloading
/ headings under high gravitationalforces were
undertaken, and the failure mechanisms were
clearly demonstrated. The valueof centrifuge
model tests is that a dangerous tunnelcollapse
can be studied under well-controlled and safe
conditions. The resultsof such tests (and other
1 g model t e ~ t s ) ' ~have
* l ~been used to assist
definition of the critical stability ratioN , , as
shown in Fig. 7. Also shown is the envelopeof
Cavity strain tc: %
two lower bound plasticity solutions for thecol-
(a)
lapse of a tunnel heading.'' The term ' lower
bound' means that the actual value of N , must
theoretically lie above the envelope.
Figure 7 also shows the resultsof back-
Data Inferred from analyses of two case-histories of tunnel col-
pressuremeter test
lapses. One is the Brook Green sewer tunnel
-+ Unload-reload loop
collapse, described by Harding,I6 where the
- o Finalunloadtng small cover of London Clay led to collapse of a
2.1 m diameter tunnel. The second case history
was constructed withcompressed air and
encountered a buried valleyof soft clay over-
lain by loose sand.17 A major tunnel collapse
I 1
0.1 1 .o 10.0
Shear straln: %
(b)
Modelling, analysis and design
To illustrate the roleof physical modelling
and plasticity solutionsin assisting design, I
A-A
have chosen the problemof the collapse of
tunnels with thin claycover. Fig. 6 shows a
tunnel under construction with a relatively
small cover of clay. Above the clay, there is
gravel and fill, with a water table in the gravel;
rA
for the purpose of calculating tunnel stability,
it is often reasonable to assume the gravel and
fill act simplyas a surcharge. The stability
ratio during tunnelling,N , is defined as shown
in Fig. 6 ; y is the average bulk unit weightof
the soil and S, is the undrained shear strength
of the clay. (If the tunnel is beneath a river,
the stress from the weight of water above the
river bed should be added to the yz term.) The
tunnel will collapse whenN reaches a critical
value, N,; the factor of safety against collapse
is given by the ratioN J N ,
Definition of N , is a good example of the
application of physical modelling to a design Stability ratio, N = ' U T
S"
problem. In this case the physicalmodelling
employed the technique of centrifuge modelling (uT= face support pressure, if applicable)
(pioneered by Schofield"): this was undertaken At tunnel collapse, N = N,
for a research projectat Cambridge University (N, = critical stability ratio)
 UNWINMEMORIAL
LECTURE 1992

occurred, resultingin an approximately 8 m

diameter circular depression,which was 3 m
deep, developing at the ground surface.Based
on the physical modelling, plasticity solutions 7

and back-analyses of tunnel collapses, it is rea-

sonable to adopt the design line in Fig. 7.
Recent advances in numerical modelling of
soil behaviour have also made major
a impact
on geotechnical analysis and design.In the past
few years there havebeen extraordinary
advances in computer technology: complex
analyses that nottoo long ago requiredcon-
@
siderable mainframe computer resources can 31

v
now be undertaken on a personal computer.
Coupled with this, there havebeen major devel-
Y ' N . = 2 f 2 log. (2C/D+1)
opments in realistic numerical modelling of soil
behaviour and this hasled to an increasing use
of finite element analysis in design (see, for 2
example, Potts and KnightsI8). A Centrifugemodel
tests (Mair, 197913)
Field observations 1- m l g modeltest
(Casarin and Mair, 198114)
A most important and often neglected area of
research is that of field observations. Measure- I I I I I I I l
ments of actual performance represent the vital 01 I
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
link between theory and practice, particularly CID
so in underground construction. A major Line tunnels. BRE installed a 12 m long string Fig. 7. Tunnel
research development for field observations is of electrolevels from the Northern Line station stability ratio at
the use of electrolevels, which I have already tunnel at a distance of about 5 mabovethe collapse f o r thinclay
mentioned in the context of small strain mea- DLR station concoursetunnel. The concourse cover (P/D= 0)
surements in triaxial testing. The useof tunnel was constructed first by excavating a
electrolevels has been developed by Mr G . Price 2.81 m diameter pilot tunnel and then by
at theBuilding Research Establishment (BRE) enlargement to a diameterof 5.47 m.
in his pioneering work on measurement of Measured movements perpendicular to the
movements of ground and structures. line of electrolevels are shown inFig. 8. Rod
Figure 8 illustrates their usein recent con- extensometers were also installed at threeloca-
struction of the Docklands Light Railway (DLR) tions (shownin Fig. 8), so that total vector
tunnels beneath Bank Station in the City of movements were obtained at thesepositions.
London. I am grateful to Dr W. H. Wardlg for The movements shown are only those associ-
providing this information, andto the contrac- ated with the enlargementfrom the pilot tunnel.
tor Nuttalls, their consultingengineers, The movements are very small: the significance
G. Maunsell and Partners, andto London of this point will be discussed in a later section.
Underground Ltd. The purposeof the electro- Electrolevels such as these are capable of dis-
levels was to measure sub-surface ground
movements caused by construction of large
diameter tunnels beneath the existingNorthern

Strina of electrolevels,

Pilot Fig. 8. Use of

tunnel electrolevels f o r
(2.81 m OD) DLR station
concourse tunnel measurement of
(5.47 m OD) sub-surface ground
movements caused by
W t~nnelling'~

Downloaded by [ AECOM] on [25/10/23]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

 MATR

Ground level
/A Y A A
CC
0- <,
E
Sands

l m
2

!f
1L

Shaft-

Boom
Clay
1 E
LD
m

&-
Test drift
Gallery
(3.5 m ID, 4.7 m OD)

Fig. 9. Underground
experimental facility
at Mol, Belgium”
Fig. 10. Variation of
stiffness of Boom clay
with strain level
- 2 52 m
l+
criminating movements over a whole 12 m
length, as shown here, to about 0.1 mm. This is
a major development in the measurement of
sub-surface ground deformations. Electrolevels
are also very stable with time and this isimpor-
tant for the taking of long-term readings.
The long-termperformance of underground
construction is of great interest. Agood
example is the measurement by TRL of the
build-up of stresses with time on tunnel linings
in clay (see Barratt andO’ReillyZ0):measure-
ments have been made on a tunnel in London
Clay over a period of 173 years. These indicate
a levelling out in recent years at ahoop load in
the lining equivalentto about 60% of the total
overburden pressure. Long-term monitoring
such as this is invaluable, butit is all too often
omitted. It forms a vital part of research having
a direct impact on design practice.
L \--3 ’
Experimental ----
shaft Experimental
Bored tunnel construction
Deep tunnels in hard clayat Mol
The Belgian Nuclear Energy Authority is
exploring the possibility of storing nuclear
waste in repository tunnels constructed at a
depth of 223 m in hard Boom clay at Mol. Boom
clay is ahigh plasticity clay; at a depth of 223
m it has an overconsolidation ratio of 1.3,and a
K, close to 1.0. Its undrained shear strength
varies from 800 kPa in triaxial extension to 900
kPa in triaxial compression. Of particular
importance is the stability ratio,defined as the
total overburden pressuredivided by the
undrained shear strength: at a depthof 223 m
the stability ratio is relativelyhigh, ranging

c
from 4.9 to 5.5, depending on whether the tri-
axial compression strength or triaxial extension
strength is used.
800 Figure 9 shows a major underground experi-
mental facility which has been constructed at
the Belgian Nuclear Research Centre at Mal.*'
One of the purposes of this is to measure the
response of the clay to heating and radiation
from simulated stored waste. Another key
LA
..
Mean 01
purpose is to measure the mechanical response
pressuremeter tests of the clay during and after tunnel construc-
tion, and itseffect on tunnel linings. A number
of shafts and tunnelswere constructed in the
Assumed IF first partof the experiment, but of most interest
analysis
is the test drift,shown on the left-hand sideof
Fig. 9. This is some 50 m long, and has an inter-
nal diameter of 3.5 m. The tunnel was con-
structed by hand excavation methods, using
L 1 I 1 l
pneumatic clay spades. It was lined with con-
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 crete blocks, which are 0.6 m thick and 0.33 m
Axial strain: % in length in the longitudinal direction of the

Downloaded by [ AECOM] on [25/10/23]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

 UNWINMEMORIAL
LECTURE 1992

tunnel. With this type of lining the construction about 35% of the total overburden pressure.
progress was inevitably very slow, the rate of Results of two finite element analyses are
progress being about 1 m every 4 days. The shown in Fig. l l ( a ) for comparison. Both
test drift has extensive instrumentation to analyses assumed elastic-plastic soil models.
measure lining loads and deformations, ground Model A assumed the variationof stiffness
movements and pore pressure changes. with strain level shown in Fig. 10. Model B
During construction of the test drift, high- assumed a more simple linear elasticperfectly
quality block samples of clay were obtained plastic soil model (E" = 400 c").Both analyses
from the face. Compression and extension tri- are in reasonable agreement, underpredicting
axial tests were performed on 50 mm diameter the averagemeasured lining pressure by
specimens in a high-pressure stress path appar- 20-25%. Fig. ll(b) shows the measurements
atus atCity University, using Hall-effect local and predictions of lining convergence, which is
strain measuring devicesof the type mentioned the reduction of tunnel diameter as the tunnel 33
earlier. All of the specimens were consolidated deforms when the pressure from the ground
to the in situ effective stress level at the depth builds up. The measured steady increase with
of the test drift before being sheared in time is almost certainly dueto creep compres-
undrained tests. In situ self-boring pressure- sion of wood packing placed between the lining
meter tests were undertaken from within the blocks; this wasnot modelled in the analysis.
test drift (see Clarke and Allanzz); the tests The convergence is reasonably well predicted
were carried out horizontally and vertically to a by the finite element analyses; the slight over-
distance of 11 m and 18 m respectively beyond prediction is linked to the underprediction of
the tunnel lining. lining pressure shownin Fig. 1l(a). The results
Figure 10 shows the variationof stiffness of in Fig. 11show that reasonable predictions of
the Boom clay with strain level measured in the tunnel lining pressure andconvergence can be
laboratory tests and interpretedfrom the pres- achieved both by Model A and by Model B.
suremeter tests. The rangeof laboratory tests Pore pressure changes play a major part in
shown isfrom the triaxial extension test data. the time-dependent behaviour of the clay.Fig.
These were obtained from tests undertaken on 12 shows the changesin pore pressure mea-
both vertical andhorizontal samples. Extension sured during constructionof the test drift. The
tests are of most relevance for a tunnel excava- pore pressure changes shown are thosemea-
tion. Significant scatter was evidentfrom the sured when the lining was installed and also at
pressuremeter tests; themean of the test data is the end of the tunnel construction; these are
shown in Fig. 10. Earlier in the lecture I generally very similar. Finite element predic-
described how stiffness measurements from tions are shownfor Model A (non-linear elastic,
high quality sampling and laboratory tests are perfectly plastic properties, assuming the
found to be consistent with interpretedmea- relationship shown in Fig. 10); these arein
surements from pressuremeter tests in situ (see broad agreement with the measurements,
Fig. 5(b)). Reasonably good agreement is also although there are significant differences at
indicated by the test datain Fig. 10. distance from the tunnel. In contrast, Model B
Finite element analysis was undertakenof (linear elastic,perfectly plastic soil behaviour)
the test drift construction,modelling the Boom predicts zero pore pressure change beyond 7 m,
clay asbeing non-linear elastic,perfectly which is the extentof plastic straining. The
plastic. The non-linear elastic behaviour-the measurements show very significant changes
variation of stiffness with strainlevel-was well beyond 7 m. An important feature of non-
modelled assuming the relationship shown in linear elastic soilbehaviour is that pore pres-
Fig. 10. The analysis treated the tunnelcon- sure changes arepredicted well beyond the
struction as undrained and assumed axisym- plastic zone.
metric conditions, which is reasonable for a This case history has demonstrated the value
tunnel at this depth. of research comprisingcomprehensive field
Figure l l ( a ) shows the datafrom load cells measurements during tunnel construction,
measuring the load developing in the lining, detailed laboratory andin situ testing of the
compared with predictions from the finite clay, and a n a l y ~ i s . 'The
~ observed behaviour of
element analysis. The loads havebeen con- the ground iswell explained in terms of the soil
verted to equivalent radial pressure actingon mechanics framework of effective stress and
the lining. The time taken to construct a length plasticity. The ground deformations and pore
of tunnel equal to an excavated diameter (4.7 pressure changes that havebeen observed are
m) was about 20 days. The measurements show consistent with themeasured variation of soil
a build-up of lining pressure to an approx- stiffness with strainlevel. These canbe reason.
imately constant value after about60 days, ably well predicted by finite element analysis.
which is equivalent to a lengthof about three
tunnel diameters. There is significant scatter in Escalator tunnel at Angel, Islington
the measurements, with the mean equivalent An important finding from the measurements
lining pressure being about1500 kPa, which is around the London Underground escalator

Downloaded by [ AECOM] on [25/10/23]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

 MAIR

2500r ground tries to yield into the face of the

enlarged tunnel, shear stresses (7)between the
ground andthe pilot tunnel restrict thatmove-
ment.

2ooot M
,+-
/B (
-,c-
: -
-
+-.-=4
---X-

-
-%- -- At the Angel Station site there is a new six-
storey building with atwo-storey basement (the
Angel Square development). London Under-
ground Ltd and the Developer have co-operated
to achieve the construction of a new escalator
tunnel from the basement of this building. The
@ foundations of the building were constructed
first and theinclined tunnel was then exca-
34
- Model A

Model B
vated between the piled foundations, as shown
in Fig. 15. The tunnel was constructed bythe
method illustrated in Fig. 13: first a 3.7 m
III
diameter pilot tunnel was excavated, and this
was then enlarged to a diameter of 7.5 m.
The tunnel was driven from the basement of
0 25 50 75 100 125
T m e . days
the building at an angleof 30" to the horizontal
(a) down towards the base of the London Clay,
40 r where the tunnel becomes the horizontal lower
Test drlll data
machine chamber. The building is founded on
1.2 m diameter piles with enlarged basesin the
0 Rlng 15 Upper Mottled Clay of the Woolwich and
Reading Beds. The Developer's Consulting
+ Rlng 29 Engineer, Ove Arup and Partners,designed the
0 Rmg 43 piles to be slip-coated to 4 m above their base,
A Rlng 52 in order to minimize the effect of settlements
caused by the tunnel construction. Theclear
X Rlng 71
spacing between the outside of the enlarged
V Rlng 83 tunnel and the nearestpile is only 1 m. Of
0 Rlng 105 primary interest was thepossible horizontal
movements of the piles caused by construction
of the tunnel. Inclinometers were installed in
Model A
the ground and also in number
a of piles prior
to construction of the tunnel. London Under-
Y
Model B
ground Ltd specified a monitoring programme,
and readings of the inclinometers were super-
0 25 50 75 100 125 vised by Ove Arup and Partners."
Tlme: days
(W
Figure 16 shows the positions of four incli-
nometers installed in the ground prior to tunnel
Fig. 11. Predicted tunnel recently constructed as partof the Angel construction, togetherwith the maximum hori-
and measured lining Station reconstruction project,24 has been the zontal ground movements measured. Inclinom-
performance: ( a ) effect of pilot tunnels in reducing total ground eter B is at ageometrically identical position in
development of lining movements. Fig. 13 shows a view of construc- relation to the pilot tunnel as isinclinometer A
pressure; ( b ) lining tion of one of the tunnels on the project: the in relation to the enlarged tunnel. The
convergence enlargement from the 3.7 m diameter pilot maximum movement measured by inclinometer
tunnel to the 8.25 m diameter tunnel for the B during constructionof the pilot tunnel was 15
escalator lower machine chamber. mm. Assuming undrained and axisymmetric
For a hand excavated tunnelin stiff clay conditions, the magnitude of the movement, 6,
without a shield, the principal source of ground would be proportional to the excavated tunnel
movement is yield of ground into the face of the radius,Theradius of theexcavated pilot
heading, as shownin Fig. 14(a). This is because tunnel is 2.0 m, and that of the enlarged tunnel
the segmental lining iserected close to the face; is 3.9 m. On this basis, a totalhorizontal move-
if good construction practice isfollowed and ment of about 30 mm would have been expected
each ring is grouted as soon as possible after at inclinometer A after theenlargement was
erection, the component of radial ground move- completed. In fact, much smaller movements
ment towards the lining is very small. Fig. took place: only 7 mm occurred during enlarge-
14(b) shows theeffect of a pilot tunnel in ment in addition to the 4 mm that had taken
reducing the ground movement; thepilot tunnel place during pilot tunnel excavation.
has already been constructed and the enlarge- These measurements show that proportion-
ment is proceeding. The pilot tunnel acts asa ally much larger movements took place when
dowel in restricting ground movements. As the the pilot tunnel was constructed thanwhen the

Downloaded by [ AECOM] on [25/10/23]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

 UNWIN MEMORIAL
I.ECTIJRE 1WZ

enlargement was undertaken. For undrained

and axisymmetric conditions, the ground move- 0
0 2 4 6
/ -
__--
nadius: m
.- 8 10 12 14
1
ment 6 at a radius I would be proportional to
l/r. Fig. 17 shows measurements of horizontal
ground movements (normalized by tunnel -5w -
radius) at the level of the tunnel axisfor a
number of different tunnels in London m
Clay.2’-30 The daiafrom the five tunnels of B.. -1000-
I
about 4 m diameter (including thepilot tunnel 2
at Angel) are consistent andlie close tothe line
drawn on the figure. In contrast, the data
obtained from the 7.8 m diameter enlargement
at Angel fall well below the line, as do the
E
P
g -1500-
0
a
.-c
0
P -2000 -
Ten drifi data -
observations for the 10.9 m diameter Heathrow
Cargo tunnel. 6
The ground movements caused by tunnelling
are often characterized by the term ‘volume -2500 - -Model A
loss’ (sometimes termed ‘ground loss’) Model B
expressed a s a percentage of the notional exca-
vated volume of the tunnel. For the five 4 m
diameter tunnels in Fig. 17, this was generally
observed tobe about 1.5%.For the Angel ground loss for these large tunnelsbeing sig- Fig. 12. Predicted
enlargement, however, vertical and horizontal nificantly smaller than themore usual figure of and measured
movement measurements indicated thevolume approximately 1.5%for the 4 m diameter changes in pore
loss (expressed a s a percentage of the volume of tunnels. The sub-surfacemovements measured pressure
the excavated annulus) tobe only 0.5%. The during constructionof the Docklands Light
observed volume loss for the Heathrow Cargo Railway tunnel, shown in Fig. 8, indicated the
tunnel was only about 0.2% (there was no pilot volume loss during the enlargementfrom the
tunnel, but an unusually high degree of face pilot tunnel was only about 0.5%. It seems
support). clear from the measurementsat Angel and also
The smallhorizontal ground movements from Bank that, when there is an approximately
observed for the large diameter tunnels both for concentric pilot tunnel constructed first, the
the Angel enlargement andfor the Heathrow volume loss during the enlargement operation
Cargo tunnel appear tobe directly related to the is much smaller. This is of important practical

Fig. 13. View of

enlargement of 3 . 7 m
diameterpilot tunnel
to 8.25 m diameter
escalator tunnel a t
Angel Station

Downloaded by [ AECOM] on [25/10/23]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

 MAIR

Segmental lining erected

A close to face, and
I grouted

Yield of ground
Into face of
heading

36 A-A
A

Tunnel
Reduced yield of "7
enlargement

Fig. 14. Effect of

pilot tunnel in
reducing ground
movements: (a)
principal source of
ground movementf o r l
hand-excavated Pilot
tune1 ' acts as dowel
tunnel in stiffclay
without a shield;( b )
pilot tunnel restricts
A-A
restricting
ground movements A J
movements (W

Fig. 15. Section

through Angel
escalator tunnel and
building foundations

Downloaded by [ AECOM] on [25/10/23]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

 UNWINMEMORIAL
LECTURE 1992

significance in relation to settlements associ- Fig. 16. Maximum

ated with large diametertunnels. horizontal ground
The measurements atAngel have also movements observed
2.6 m
demonstrated that thehorizontal movements of during construction
the piles and the ground were very similar. of Angel escalator
l
They have shown that it possible
is to tunnel tunnel
very close to piled foundations in London Clay
and only to cause smallhorizontal movements.
This is alsoof important practical significance
for future tunnel construction.
The immediate practical value of research in
the form of detailed field observations is clearly
demonstrated by such measurements asthose 37
around the tunnels atAngel, Bank and other
sites.

I Deep excavations
Victoria Embankment
The geotechnical engineering aspectsof a
new seven-storey building with four basement
levels at No. 60 Victoria Embankment, London,
(designed by the Building Design Partnership),
are described in detail by StJohn et al.31The
excavation extended to a depth of 19 m below
ground level, through up to 14 m of superficial
A B C D deposits and 5 m of London Clay. The develop-
Pilot (a = 2.0m) ment is on a complex riverside site and there
h (mm) 114 15 3 was a requirement to retaina listed building
and its facades. Topdown construction tech-
Enlargement ( a = 3.9 m)
niques were used, whereby the permanent
h (mm) 7 - - 4 perimeter walls were installed using secant
Total piles and, as excavation proceeded, the walls
0 (mm) 11 15 11 7 were strutted by the installationof permanent
floor structures from the top downwards.
In view of the 19 m deep excavation and the

Location
Fig. 17. Horizontal
ground movements at
T Brixton axis level of tunnels
+ Netherton Rd in London Clay
0 Green Park
Farmer (1974”)
A Regent’s Park
Tyler (1976”)
B Angel pilot
Angel
enlargement
A Heathrow
L
D12 = a B

Downloaded by [ AECOM] on [25/10/23]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

 MAIR
Horizontal movement: mm
0 20 40 60 80
a I I I
Basement floor
levels
0
5 25 mm.
-1
38
-2
-3
20
Fig. 18, Predicted
and measured
horizontal movement
of main retaining
wall at 60 Victoria
25
Embankment”
proximity of a number of important and sensi-
tive buildings, predictionsof ground movement
were an important partof the design process.
Thin-wall sampling of the soil strata was
undertaken, and small strain measurements
were made in triaxial tests on London Clay
specimens. Self-boring pressuremeter tests
were also carried out. Finiteelement analyses
incorporating a non-linear small strain stiffness
model were undertaken for a number of differ-
ent sections across the site.
Inclinometers were installed in the secant
bored pile retaining wall. Fig. 18 shows the
measured and predicted horizontal movements
of the retaining wall at one of the critical loca-
tions. Reasonable agreement for design pur-
poses was obtainedbetween the predicted and
observed wall deflections.
Predicted surface settlement contourswere
also established from the finite element
analyses, as shownin Fig. 19(a). These allowed
for the three-dimensionaleffects arising from
the shape of the excavation in plan. The finite
element analyses are necessarilytwo-
dimensional plane strain analyses through par-
ticular sections of the excavation, such as
section 1-1 shown in Fig. 19(a). The predicted
settlement close to the wall at this section was
30 mm. Fig. 19(b) shows the resultsof the finite
element analysis predictions of surface settle-
ment along section 1-1, together with the mea-
Downloaded by [ AECOM] on [25/10/23]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
sured settlements atlocations close to the
section. The maximum predicted settlement
was 36 mm, but allowing for three-dimensional
effects this was reduced to 30 mm in deriving
the predicted settlement contours in Fig. 19(a).
The range of measurements is given in Fig.
19(b): themaximum measured was about
Taking into account the three-dimensional
effects, the predicted surface settlementprofile
from the finite element analyses is in reason-
able agreement with the measured settlement
profiles. The settlements aresomewhat over-
estimated, but this is reasonable for design
purposes. The shapeof the predicted surface
settlement profile, which is a featureof non-
linear small strain modelling, is in good agree-
ment with the observations. This is important
from the viewpoint of assessing differential set-
tlement and distortion of buildings.
The stiffness of the ground atsmall strain
levels has a dominant influence on ground
behaviour in general, including ground move-
ments around deep excavation^.^^^^ High
quality sampling and laboratory testingto
measure the variation of stiffness with strain
level, combined with finite element analyses
which can model this small strain stiffness
behaviour, provide a powerful design tool for
major projects such asthe Victoria Embank-
ment development.
Harewood Avenue
Figure 20 shows a cross-section through part
of the sub-structureof a development at Hare-
wood Avenue, London; consulting engineers for
the project were Cameron Taylor Bedford. The
proposed building was a seven-storey structure
with two basement levels. For clarity, bearing
piles are not shown in Fig. 20. There were
sands and gravelsto a depth of 11.5 m, at
which London Clay was encountered. As the
water table in the sands and gravels was at a
depth of 9.5 m, which is below the deepest part
of the excavation, a temporary king post wall
was proposed as ameans of retaining the exca-
vation. An existing two-storey building is very
close to the proposed building. The clear
distance between the king post wall and the
shallow foundations of the existing building is
only 0.5 m.
Steel universal columns were embedded in
600 mm diameter continous flight auger
grouted piles at a spacingof 1.5-1.8 m. The
total depth of the main wall was 13.5 m and the
general depth of excavation was 8 m. Infill
mass concrete was placed in lifts of about 1 m
as the excavationproceeded; the wall was ini-
tially propped by the ground floor slab and
subsequently also by the lower ground floor
and basement slabs. This is a rare example of a
king post wall used in top down construction.
The form of wall is very economic in compari-
 UNWIN MEMORIAL
LECTURE 1992

son to a diaphragm wall or a contiguous bored

pile wall. It was only possiblebecause the
water table wasbelow the deepest excavation
level, and the soils tobe retained were dense
sands and gravels with high strength and
stiffness.
In view of the novel nature of the retaining
wall and its proximity to an existing building,
electrolevels were installed by BRE to measure
the deflections of the wall during construction.
The deflected profiles are shown in Fig. 21 at
the stage of excavation to lower ground floor
level and also at final excavation level. The 39
monitoring of this unusual economic wall
demonstrated that the horizontal movements
were very small. Settlementsof the adjacent
building were less than 5 mm, and no damage
was observed.

Future research needs

Performance of buildings subjected to
settlement
There is a pressingneed for research on the
performance of buildings when caused to settle
by tunnelling or by deep excavations. It is
usually assumed at present that there isper- a Settlement contours: mm
fectly flexible building response to settlement (a)
of the ground caused by tunnelling; thebuild-
ing is assumedto follow the ground settlement Distance from excavation: m
trough.
There are,however, many buildings which
are not so flexible, and little isknown about
how they respond to settlement caused by tun-
nelling. There are very few case records of the
influence of building stiffness on the shape and
magnitude of the subsidence trough. By

New development 60L (b)

Wall of existing two-
storey building
neglecting the stiffness of the building, engi- Fig. 19. Predicted
neers are tending to overestimate the extent of and measured
Ground likely building damage. In predicting and ana- settlements at60
floor lysing the performance of buildings in response Victoria
to settlement, there is need
a to develop the use Ernbankmet~t:~' (a)
of three-dimensional non-linear analyses. Predicted settlement
41 1J-l Another important gap in our knowledge is contours; ( b )
Lower ground iI Il 0.5 m the response of buildings on piled foundations predicted and
floor to settlement. There is aneed for detailed mea- measured settlements
.I l E Sands and surements of the performance of a wide range along section 1 - 1
I I gravels
1 1 E
of buildings when subjected to settlement
I1 'D
.-
7
caused by tunnelling and deep excavations.

Compensation grouting
There has been little experience in this
- !f
country in the use of compensation grouting
methods to limit settlement caused by tunnel-
-P ling. There has been more experience in North
- E
2 America and continental Europe. Compaction Fig. 20. Cross-section
grouting in sands and gravelsor fracture grout- through part of
ing in clays arewell-established techniques in sub-structure of
London
their own right. These areused to recompact seven-storey building
Clay loosened soils and can also be used to cause at Harewood Avenue,
ground heave. Compensation grouting is the London

Downloaded by [ AECOM] on [25/10/23]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

 Horizontal movement
towards excavation: mm
At stage of excavation to
l w e r ground floor level
40 At stage of excavation to
basement R001 level
There is now an improved understanding of
the factorsinfluencing bored tunnel stability
and ground deformations. Research has shown
that volume loss and ground movements for
hand-excavated tunnels in stiff clays are s i g
nificantly less for large diameter tunnelsin
cases when a pilot tunnel is constructed.
My aim in this lecture has been to highlight
recent developments in geotechnical engineer-
ing research that are improving engineering
practice in the design and construction of
tunnels and deep excavations. There are many
further advances tobe made, but the develop-
ments I have described have contributed s i g
nificantly to improved design and construction
practice.

Acknowledgements
1 would like to acknowledge the invaluable
support and advicefrom all my colleagues at
the Geotechnical Consulting Group in the prep-
aration of the materialfor this lecture; particu-
lar thanks are due to Dr D. W. Hight, Dr H. D.
Fig. 21. Horizontal St John and Dr R. N. Taylor. The finiteelement
movement of king analyses referred to in this lecture were under-
post wall measured by
taken by Mr K.G . Higgins using the program
electrolevels ICFEP, developed by Dr D. M. Potts of Imperial
College. I would like to acknowledge London
Underground Ltd for their permission to
use of one or other (or a combination) of these present material relatingto their projects.
techniques during tunnellingto compensate for
ground loss into the tunnel, thereby controlling
ground movements. There isa need to research
at fundamental level, and through field mea-
surements, the detailedmechanics of com-
pensation grouting, becauseof its value in
controlling tunnelling settlement and thereby
minimizing damage to buildings.

Conclusions
In recent years there havebeen significant
developments in site investigation and labor-
atory testing. There havebeen advances in
sampling techniques, and there have been
improvements in laboratory andin situ mea-
surements of stiffness propertiesof soils atlow
strain levels.
Physical models (such a s centrifuge models)
combined with plasticity solutionsplay an
important rble in design, for examplein deter-
mining tunnel stability. There is also an
increasing useof finite element analysis in
design of tunnels and deep excavations.With
the improved understanding of soil stress-
strain behaviour-particularly in respect of
stiffness properties at low strain levels-finite
element analysis can be invaluable in predic-
tion of ground movements and effects on struc-
tures.
A major development in field observations
has been the useof electrolevels for accurate
and stable measurementsof deformations of
both ground and structures.

Downloaded by [ AECOM] on [25/10/23]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.


References
R. A. Lithostratigraphy ofthe Woolwich
1. ELLISON
and Reading Beds along the proposed Jubilee Line and cover tunnel. Proc. Tunnelling ’85Sympo-
Extension, south-east London.British Geological
Survey Technical Report WA/91/5C, 1991.
2. HIGHTD. W. A review of sampling effects in clays
and sands. Proc. Int. Conf.on Offshore Site Inves- 20. BARRATT
tigation and Foundation Behaviour, 1992, Society
for Underwater Technology, London.
3. HIGHTD. W. A simple piezometer probe for the
routine measurement of pore pressure in triaxial
tests on saturated soils. Geotechnique, 1982, 32,
No. 4,396-401.
4. BURLAND J. B. and MASWOSWEDiscussion.
J.
GCotechnique, 1982,32, No. 3,285-286.
5. BURLAND J. B. and SYMES M.A simple axial dis-
placement gauge for usein the triaxial apparatus.
Gtotechnique,l982, 32, No. 1, 62-65.
6. CLAYTONC. R. I. and KHATRUSH S. A. A new
device for measuring local axial strains on tri-
axial specimens. Geotechnique, 1987, 37, No. 3,
413-417.
7. JARDINE R. J., FOURIEA., MASWOSWEand J.
BURLAND J. B. Field and laboratory measurements
of soil stiffness.Proc. 11th Int. Conf. Soil Mecha-
nics and Foundation Engineering, San Francisco, 24. MORIARTY
1985,2,511-514.
8. ATKINSON J. H. and SALLFORS G. Experimental
determination of stress-strain-time character-
istics in laboratory and in situ tests.Proc. 10th
Eur. Conf. Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engin-
eering, 1991, Florence,111, 915-956.
9. BALDIG., HIGHTD. W. and THOMAS G. E. A re-
evaluation of conventional triaxial test methods.
A S T M Symposium on Advanced Triaxial Testing
of Soil and Rock, Louisville, Kentucky 1988. 1988,
ASTM, STP 977,219-263.
10. Mum WOODD. Strain-dependent moduli and
pressuremeter tests. Gbotechnique, 1990, 40, No.
3,509-512.
11. JARDINE R. J. Non-linear stiffness parameters from
undrained pressuremeter tests. Canadian Geo-
technical Journal,1992,29, No. 3,436-447.
12. SCHOFIELDA. N. Cambridge Geotechnical Centri-
fuge Operations. (20th RankineLecture).
GCotechnique, 1980, 30, No. 3, 227-268.
13. MAIRR. J. Centrifugal modelling of tunnel con-
struction in soft clay. PhD thesis, University of
Cambridge, 1979.
14. CASARINC. and MAIRR. J. The assessment of
tunnel stability in clay by model tests. Soft
ground tunnelling-failures and displacements
(eds. D. Resendiz and M. P. Romo), 1981,
Balkema, Rotterdam. 33-44.
15. DAvls E. H.,GUNNM. J., MAIRR. J. and SENEVI-
RATNE H. N. The stability of shallow tunnels and
underground openings in cohesive material.
Gbotechnique, 1980, 30, No. 4, 397-416.
16. HARDING H. B. Tunnelling history and my own
involvement. Golder Associates, Toronto, 1981.
17. MAIRR. J. and SHIRLAW J. N. Collapse of tunnels
with thin clay cover. In preparation.
Downloaded by [ AECOM] on [25/10/23]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
UNWINMEMORIAL
LECTURE 1992
18. POTTSD. M. and KNIGHTS M. C. Finite element
techniques for preliminary assessmentof a cut
sium, Institutionof Mining and Metallurgy,
London, 1985,83-92.
19. Ward W. H. Personal communication, 1992.
D. A. and O’REILLYM. P. Long-term
measurements of loads on tunnel linings in
overconsolidated clay. To be published,
1993.
21. NEERDAELB. and DE BRUYN D. Geotechnical
research in the test drift of the HADES under-
ground research facility at Mol. Proc. CEC Tech-
nical Session on Geomechanics of clays for 41
radioactive waste disposal. Commission of the
European Communities Report EUR 12027
EN/FR, 1989,83-94.
22. CLARKE B. G. and ALLAN P. G. Self-boring
pressuremeter tests from a gallery a t 220 m below
ground. Proc. 3rd Int. Symposium on Pres-
suremeters, Oxford, 1990. 73-84.
23. MAIRR. J., TAYLOR R. N. and CLARKEB. G. Reposi-
tory tunnel constructionin deep clayformations.
Commission of the European Communities Report
EUR 13964 EN, 1992.
J. M. and COOPER M. L. Reconstruction
of London Underground’s Angel Station.Proc.
Tunnelling ‘91 Symposium, Institutionof Mining
and Metallurgy, London, 1991.233-248.
25. OVEARUPAND PARTNERS. Angel Square, Isling-
ton: displacement of inclinometers around tunnel
enlargement. Report to London Underground Ltd.
1991.
26. MAIRR . J. and TAYLOR R. N. Prediction of clay
behaviour around tunnels using plasticity solu-
tions. Proc. Wroth Memorial Symposium, Oxford,
1992.
27. ATTEWELL P. B. and FARMER I. W. Ground defor-
mations resulting from shield tunnelling in
London Clay. Canadian Geotechnical Journal
1974,11,380-395.
28. BARRATT D. A. and TYLER R. F. Measurements of
ground movement and lining behaviouron the
London Underground at Regents Park.Transport
and Road Research Laboratory Report LR 684,
1976.
29. MUIRWOODA. M. Discussion. Proc. 7th Int. Conf.
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
Mexico, 1969, 3,363-365.
30. WARDW. H. Some field techniques for improving
site investigation and engineering design.Proc.
Roscoe Memorial Symposium, Cambridge, 1971.
676-682.
31. ST JOHNH. D., P o n s D. M., JARDINE R. J. and
HIGGINS K. G. Prediction and performance of
ground response due to constructionof a deep
basement at 60 Victoria Embankment. Proc.
Wroth Memorial Symposium, Oxford, 1992.
32. BURLAND J. B. Small is beautiful-the stiffness of
soils at small strains. (9th Laurits Bjerrum Memo-
rial Lecture). Canadian Geotechnical Journal,
1989,26,499-516.