Sie sind auf Seite 1von 888

GEOTECHNICAL ASPECTSOF UNDERGROUNDCONSTRUCTIONINSOFT GROUND

PROCEEDINGS OF THE 6TH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM (IS-SHANGHAI 2008),


SHANGHAI, CHINA, 1012 APRIL 2008
Geotechnical Aspectsof
UndergroundConstruction
inSoft Ground
Editors
C.W.W. Ng
Hong Kong University of Science and Technology,
Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
H.W. Huang& G.B. Liu
Tongji University, Shanghai, China
CRC Press/Balkema is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
2009Taylor & FrancisGroup, London, UK
Typeset byCharonTecLtd(A MacmillanCompany), Chennai, India
PrintedandboundinGreat BritainbyCromwell PressLtd, Trowbridge, Wiltshire.
All rightsreserved. Nopart of thispublicationor theinformationcontainedhereinmaybereproduced, stored
inaretrieval system, or transmittedinanyformor byanymeans, electronic, mechanical, byphotocopying,
recordingor otherwise, without writtenprior permissionfromthepublishers.
Althoughall careistakentoensureintegrityandthequalityof thispublicationandtheinformationherein, no
responsibilityisassumedbythepublishersnor theauthor for anydamagetothepropertyor personsasaresult
of operationor useof thispublicationand/or theinformationcontainedherein.
Publishedby: CRC Press/Balkema
P.O. Box447, 2300AK Leiden, TheNetherlands
e-mail: Pub.NL@taylorandfrancis.com
www.crcpress.com www.taylorandfrancis.co.uk www.balkema.nl
ISBN: 978-0-415-48475-6(Hardback)
ISBN: 978-0-203-87998-6(eBook)
Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground Ng, Huang & Liu (eds)
2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-48475-6
Tableof Contents
Preface XIII
Sponsors XV
Special lectures
ProcessesaroundaTBM 3
A. Bezuijen &A.M. Talmon
Supportingexcavationsinclay fromanalysistodecision-making 15
M.D. Bolton, S.Y. Lam &A.S. Osman
Overviewof Shanghai YangtzeRiverTunnel Project 29
R. Huang
Undergroundconstructionindecomposedresidual soils 45
I.M. Lee & G.C. Cho
General reports
Safetyissues, riskanalysis, hazardmanagement andcontrol 67
C.T. Chin & H.C. Chao
Calculationanddesignmethods, andpredictivetools 77
F. Emeriault & R. Kastner
Analysisandnumerical modelingof deepexcavations 87
R.J. Finno
Constructionmethod, groundtreatment, andconditioningfor tunneling 99
T. Hashimoto, B. Ye & G.L. Ye
Physical andnumerical modelling 109
P.L.R. Pang
Casehistories 121
A. Sfriso
Theme 1: Analysis and numerical modeling of deep excavations
Optimizationdesignof compositesoil-nailinginloessexcavation 133
G.M. Chang
Three-dimensional finiteelement analysisof diaphragmwallsfor top-downconstruction 141
J. Hsi, H. Zhang &T. Kokubun
Numerical evaluationof dewateringeffect ondeepexcavationinsoft clay 147
L. Li & M. Yang
Analysisof thefactorsinfluencingfoundationpit deformations 153
Y.Q. Li, K.H. Xie, J. Zhou & X.L. Kong
V
Constructionmonitoringandnumerical simulationof anexcavationwithSMW
retainingstructure 159
Z.H. Li & H.W. Huang
A simplifiedspatial methodologyof earthpressureagainst retainingpilesof pile-row
retainingstructure 165
Y.L. Lin & X.X. Li
Considerationof designmethodfor bracedexcavationbasedonmonitoringresults 173
H. Ota, H. Ito, T. Yanagawa, A. Hashimoto, T. Hashimoto &T. Konda
Groundmovementsinstationexcavationsof Bangkokfirst MRT 181
N. Phienwej
Numerical modellingandexperimental measurementsfor aretainingwall of
adeepexcavationinBucharest, Romania 187
H. Popa, A. Marcu & L. Batali
3Dfiniteelement analysisof adeepexcavationandcomparisonwithinsitumeasurements 193
H.F. Schweiger, F. Scharinger & R. Lftenegger
Theeffect of deepexcavationonsurroundinggroundandnearbystructures 201
A. Siemi nska-Lewandowska & M. Mitew-Czajewska
Multi-criteriaprocedurefor theback-analysisof multi-supportedretainingwalls 207
J. Zghondi, F. Emeriault & R. Kastner
Monitoringandmodellingof riversidelargedeepexcavation-inducedgroundmovementsinclays 215
D.M. Zhang, H.W. Huang &W.Y. Bao
GPSheight applicationandgrosserror detectioninfoundationpit monitoring 223
H. Zhang, S.F. Xu &T.D. Lu
Studyondeformationlawsunder theconstructionof semi-reversemethod 227
J. Zhang, G.B. Liu &T. Liu
Comparisonof theoryandtest onexcavationcausingthevariationof soilmassstrength 235
J. Zhou, J.Q. Wang & L. Cong
Theme 2: Construction method, ground treatment, and conditioning for tunnelling
Tenyearsof boredtunnelsinTheNetherlands: Part I, geotechnical issues 243
K.J. Bakker &A. Bezuijen
Tenyearsof boredtunnelsinTheNetherlands: Part II, structural issues 249
K.J. Bakker &A. Bezuijen
Theinfluenceof flowaroundaTBM machine 255
A. Bezuijen & K.J. Bakker
Mechanismsthat determinebetweenfractureandcompactiongroutinginsand 261
A. Bezuijen, A.F. van Tol & M.P.M. Sanders
Researchof non-motor vehicle-rail transit-tubeinterchangingtransport systempattern 269
A.Z.G. Deng & Q.H. Zhang
Shotcreteexcavationsfor theMunichsubway Comparisonof different methods
of facesupport insettlement sensitiveareas 275
J. Fillibeck & N. Vogt
Fracturingof sandincompensationgrouting 281
K. Gafar, K. Soga, A. Bezuijen, M.P.M. Sanders &A.F. van Tol
VI
Historical casesanduseof horizontal jet groutingsolutionswith360

distributionand
frontal septumtoconsolidateveryweakandsaturatedsoils 287
G. Guatteri, A. Koshima, R. Lopes, A. Ravaglia & M.R. Pieroni
Theeffectsof sampledimensionandgradationonshear strengthparametersof
conditionedsoilsinEPBM 295
M. Hajialilue-Bonab, M. Ahmadi-adli, H. Sabetamal & H. Katebi
Experimental studyoncompressibilitybehavior of foamedsandysoil 301
M. Hajialilue-Bonab, H. Sabetamal, H. Katebi & M. Ahmadi-adli
Studyonearthpressureactinguponshieldtunnel lininginclayeyandsandygroundsbased
onfieldmonitoring 307
T. Hashimoto, G.L. Ye, J. Nagaya, T. Konda & X.F. Ma
Thedouble-o-tubeshieldtunnel inShanghai soil 313
C. He, L. Teng & J.Y. Yan
Frozensoil propertiesfor crosspassageconstructioninShanghai YangtzeRiverTunnel 319
X.D. Hu &A.R. Pi
Theinfluenceof engineering-geological conditionsonconstructionof the
radioactivewastedump 325
J. Kuzma & L. Hrustinec
Critical ventilationvelocityinlargecross-sectionroadtunnel fire 331
Z.X. Li, X. Han & K.S. Wang
MetrotunnelsinBuenosAires: Designandconstructionprocedures19982007 335
A.O. Sfriso
Studyontheearthpressuredistributionof excavationchamber inEPB tunneling 343
T.T. Song & S.H. Zhou
Backfill groutingresearchat GroeneHartTunnel 349
A.M. Talmon &A. Bezuijen
Longitudinal tubebendingduetogrout pressures 357
A.M. Talmon, A. Bezuijen & F.J.M. Hoefsloot
Theme 3: Case histories
Tunnel facestabilityandsettlement control usingearthpressurebalanceshield
incohesionlesssoil 365
A. Antiga & M. Chiorboli
Displacementsandstressesinducedbyatunnel excavation: Caseof BoisdePeu(France) 373
S. Eclaircy-Caudron, D. Dias & R. Kastner
Shieldtunnelingbeneathexistingrailwaylineinsoft ground 381
Q.M. Gong & S.H. Zhou
Casehistoryonarailwaytunnel insoft rock(Morocco) 385
A. Guiloux, H. Le Bissonnais, J. Marlinge, H. Thiebault, J. Ryckaert, G. Viel,
F. Lanquette, A. Erridaoui & M.Q.S. Hu
Observedbehavioursof deepexcavationsinsand 393
B.C.B. Hsiung & H.Y. Chuay
Environmental problemsof groundwater aroundthelongest expresswaytunnel inKorea 399
S.M. Kim, H.Y. Yang & S.G. Yoon
VII
Measurementsof grounddeformationsbehindbracedexcavations 405
T. Konda, H. Ota, T. Yanagawa &A. Hashimoto
Researchontheeffect of buriedchannelstothedifferential settlement of building 413
D.P. Liu, R. Wang & G.B. Liu
Performanceof adeepexcavationinsoft clay 419
G.B. Liu, J. Jiang & C.W.W. Ng
Deformationmonitoringduringconstructionof subwaytunnelsinsoft ground 427
S.T. Liu & Z.W. Wang
Theconstructionandfieldmonitoringof adeepexcavationinsoft soils 433
T. Liu, G.B. Liu & C.W.W. Ng
Excavationentirelyonsubwaytunnelsinthecentral areaof thePeoplesSquare 441
Y.B. Mei, X.H. Jiang, Y.M. Zhu & H.C. Qiao
Thebenefitsof hybridgroundtreatment insignificantlyreducingwall movement:
A Singaporecasehistory 447
N.H. Osborne, C.C. Ng & C.K. Cheah
3Ddeformationmonitoringof subwaytunnel 455
D.W. Qiu, K.Q. Zhou, Y.H. Ding, Q.H. Liang & S.L. Yang
Challengingurbantunnellingprojectsinsoft soil conditions 459
H. Quick, J. Michael, S. Meissner & U. Arslan
Supervisionandprotectionof Shanghai MassRapidLine4shieldtunnelingacross
theadjacent operatingmetroline 465
R.L. Wang, Y.M. Cai & J.H. Liu
KowloonSouthernLink TBM crossingover MTRTsuenWanLinetunnelsinHKSAR 471
K.K.W. Wong, N.W.H. Ng, L.P.P. Leung &Y. Chan
Applicationof pileunderpinningtechnologyonshieldmachinecrossingthroughpile
foundationsof roadbridge 477
Q.W. Xu, X.F. Ma & Z.Z. Ma
Characteristicsof tunneling-inducedgroundsettlement ingroundwater drawdownenvironment 485
C. Yoo, S.B. Kim &Y.J. Lee
Effect of long-termsettlement onlongitudinal mechanical performanceof tunnel insoft soil 491
H.L. Zhao, X. Liu, Y. Yuan &Y. Chi
Theme 4: Safety issues, risk analysis harzard management and control
Researchonstochasticseismicanalysisof undergroundpipelinebasedon
physical earthquakemodel 499
X.Q. Ai & J. Li
Riskassessment for thesafegradeof deepexcavation 507
X.H. Bao & H.W. Huang
Multi-factorsdurabilityevaluationinsubwayconcretestructure 513
C. Chen, L. Yang & C. Han
Theuseof artificial neural networkstopredict groundmovementscausedbytunneling 519
I. Chissolucombe, A.P. Assis & M.M. Farias
Researchandapplicationof roadtunnel structural optimization 525
W.Q. Ding &Y. Xu
VIII
Floor heavebehavior andcontrol of roadwayintersectionindeepmine 531
B.H. Guo &T.K. Lu
Squeezingpotential of tunnelsinclaysandclayshalesfromnormalizedundrained
shear strength, unconfinedcompressivestrengthandseismicvelocity 537
M. Gutierrez & C.C. Xia
Frameworkof performance-basedfireprotectiondesignmethodfor roadtunnel 545
X. Han & G.Y. Ding
Predictionof surfacesettlementsinducedbyshieldtunneling: AnANFISmodel 551
J. Hou, M.X. Zhang & M. Tu
Experimental studiesof ageological measuringsystemfor tunnel withultrasonictransducer 555
D.H. Kim, U.Y. Kim, S.P. Lee, H.Y. Lee & J.S. Lee
Performancereviewof apipejackingproject inHongKong 561
T.S.K. Lam
Geotechnical control of amajor railwayproject involvingtunnel worksinHongKong 567
W. Lee, S.S. Chung, K.J. Roberts & P.L.R. Pang
Researchonstructural statusof operatingtunnel of metroinShanghai andtreatment ideas 573
J.P. Li, R.L. Wang & J.Y. Yan
Maximisingthepotential of straingauges: A Singaporeperspective 579
N.H. Osborne, C.C. Ng, D.C. Chen, G.H. Tan, J. Rudi & K.M. Latt
Discussionondesignmethodfor retainingstructuresof metrostationdeepexcavationsinShanghai 587
R. Wang, G.B. Liu, D.P. Liu & Z.Z. Ma
Riskanalysisfor cutterheadfailureof compositeEPB shieldbasedonfuzzyfault tree 595
Y.R. Yan, H.W. Huang & Q.F. Hu
Riskassessment onenvironmental impact inXizangRoadTunnel 601
C.P. Yao, H.W. Huang & Q.F. Hu
Riskanalysisandfuzzycomprehensiveassessment onconstructionof shield
tunnel inShanghai metroLine 607
H.B. Zhou, H. Yao &W.J. Gao
Theme 5: Physical and numerical modelling
Tunnel behaviour under seismicloads: Analysisbymeansof uncoupledandcoupledapproaches 615
D. Boldini &A. Amorosi
Investigatingtheinfluenceof tunnel volumelossonpilesusingphotoelastictechniques 621
W. Broere & J. Dijkstra
Assessment of tunnel stabilityinlayeredground 627
P. Caporaletti, A. Burghignoli, G. Scarpelli & R.N. Taylor
Reinforcingeffectsof forepolingandfaceboltsintunnelling 635
K. Date, R.J. Mair & K. Soga
Mechanical behavior of closelyspacedtunnelslaboratorymodel testsandFEM analyses 643
J.H. Du & H.W. Huang
Stabilityanalysisof masonryof anoldtunnel bynumerical modellingandexperimental design 649
J. Idris, T. Verdel & M. Alhieb
IX
Excavationwithstepped-twinretainingwall: Model testsandnumerical simulations 655
N. Iwata, H.M. Shahin, F. Zhang, T. Nakai, M. Niinomi &Y.D.S. Geraldni
Stabilityof anunderwater trenchinmarineclayunder oceanwaveimpact 663
T. Kasper & P.G. Jackson
A studyonbehavior of 2-Archtunnel byalargemodel experiment 669
S.D. Lee, K.H. Jeong, J.W. Yang & J.H. Choi
Behavior of tunnel duetoadjacent groundexcavationunder theinfluenceof
pre-loadingonbracedwall 677
S.D. Lee & I. Kim
Twodistinctiveshear strainmodesfor pile-soil-tunnellinginteractioninagranular mass 683
Y.J. Lee & C.S. Yoo
Stabilityanalysisof largeslurryshield-driventunnel insoft clay 689
Y. Li, Z.X. Zhang, F. Emeriault & R. Kastner
Effectsof soil stratificationonthetunneling-inducedgroundmovements 697
F.Y. Liang, G.S. Yao & J.P. Li
Centrifugemodellingtoinvestigatesoil-structureinteractionmechanismsresultingfrom
tunnel constructionbeneathburiedpipelines 703
A.M. Marshall & R.J. Mair
Groundmovement andearthpressureduetocircular tunneling: Model testsand
numerical simulations 709
H.M. Shahin, T. Nakai, F. Zhang, M. Kikumoto, Y. Tabata & E. Nakahara
Analysisof pre-reinforcedzoneintunnel consideringthetime-dependent performance 717
K.I. Song, J. Kim & G.C. Cho
Vault temperatureof vehiclefiresinlargecross-sectionroadtunnel 725
K.S. Wang, X. Han & Z.X. Li
Effectsof different benchlengthonthedeformationof surroundingrockbyFEM 729
X.M. Wang, H.W. Huang & X.Y. Xie
Theeffectsof loadedboredpilesonexistingtunnels 735
J. Yao, R.N. Taylor &A.M. McNamara
3DFEM analysisongrounddisplacement inducedbycurvedpipe-jackingconstruction 743
G.M. You
Theme 6: Calculation and design methods, and predictive tools
Calculationof thethreedimensional seismicstressedstateof MetroStationEscalatorOpen
LineTunnels system, whichislocatedininclinedstratifiedsoft ground 751
R.B. Baimakhan, N.T. Danaev, A.R. Baimakhan, G.I. Salgaraeva, G.P. Rysbaeva,
Zh.K. Kulmaganbetova, S. Avdarsolkyzy, A.A. Makhanova & S. Dashdorj
A complexvariablesolutionfor tunneling-inducedgroundmovementsinclays 757
H.L. Bao, D.M. Zhang & H.W. Huang
Simulationof articulatedshieldbehavior at sharpcurvebykinematicshieldmodel 761
J. Chen, A. Matsumoto & M. Sugimoto
Deformationandporepressuremodel of thesaturatedsiltyclayaroundasubwaytunnel 769
Z.D. Cui, Y.Q. Tang & X. Zhang
Analytical solutionof longitudinal behaviour of tunnel lining 775
F.J.M. Hoefsloot
X
Designof tunnel supportingsystemusinggeostatistical methods 781
S. Jeon, C. Hong & K. You
Comparativestudyof softwaretoolsontheeffectsof surfaceloadsontunnels 785
D.K. Koungelis & C.E. Augarde
GeologicModel TransformingMethod(GMTM) for numerical analysismodelingin
geotechnical engineering 791
X.X. Li, H.H. Zhu &Y.L. Lin
Reviewandinterpretationof intersectionstabilityindeepundergroundbased
onnumerical analysis 799
T.K. Lu, B.H. Guo, L.C. Cheng & J. Wang
Analysisof surfacesettlement duetotheconstructionof ashieldtunnel insoft
clayinShanghai 805
Z.P. Lu & G.B. Liu
Urbantunnelsinsoil: Reviewof current designpracticeinBrazil 811
A. Negro
A studyonloadsfromcomplexsupport systemusingsimple2Dmodels 817
Z. Shi, W. Bao, J. Li, W. Guo & J. Zhu
Groundreactionduetotunnellingbelowgroundwater table 823
Y.J. Shin, J.H. Shin & I.M. Lee
Basal stabilityof bracedexcavationsinK
0
-consolidatedsoft claybyupper boundmethod 829
X.Y. Song & M.S. Huang
Analytical twoandthreedimensionmodelstoassessstabilityanddeformationmagnitudeof
undergroundexcavationsinsoil 837
L.E. Sozio
Dynamicresponseof saturatedsiltyclayaroundatunnel under subwayvibrationloading
inShanghai 843
Y.Q. Tang, Z.D. Cui & X. Zhang
Lateral responsesof pilesduetoexcavation-inducedsoil movements 849
C.R. Zhang, M.S. Huang & F.Y. Liang
Elastic-plasticanalysisfor surroundingrockof pressuretunnel withliningbasedonmaterial
nonlinear softening 857
L.M. Zhang & Z.Q. Wang
Modificationof keyparametersof longitudinal equivalent model for shieldtunnel 863
W. Zhu, X.Q. Kou, X.C. Zhong & Z.G. Huang
Author Index 869
XI
Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground Ng, Huang & Liu (eds)
2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-48475-6
Preface
Under theChairmanshipof Professor K. Fujita, thefirst symposiumpurposely addressinggeotechnical issues
relatedtoundergroundconstructioninsoftgroundwasheldin1994, priortothe13thInternational Conferenceon
Soil MechanicsandGeotechnical EngineeringheldinNewDelhi. Followingthesuccessof thefirstsymposium,
Professor R. Mair succeeded the Chairmanship of TC28 and he initiated a series of three-day International
SymposiaonGeotechnical Aspectsof UndergroundConstructioninSoft Groundincludingtechnical sitevisits
toundergroundconstructionprojects. Intotal, four three-dayInternational Symposiahavebeenheldverythree
yearssince1996.TheseincludetheonesheldinLondon, UK (1996), inTokyo, J apan(1999), inToulouse, France
(2002) andinAmsterdam, theNetherlands(2005).
This volume includes a collection of four invited special lectures delivered by Dr A. Bezuijen
(TheNetherlands), Mr HuangRong(China), Professor M.D. Bolton(UK) andProfessor I.M. Lee(Korea). The
titlesof theirlecturesareProcessesaroundaTBM, Overviewof Shanghai Yangtzerivertunnel project, Sup-
portingexcavationsinclay fromanalysistodecision-makingandUndergroundconstructionindecomposed
residual soils, respectively.
Inaddition, thisvolumecontains112papersgroupedunder sixthemesincluding(i) Analysisandnumerical
modelling of deep excavations; (ii) Construction method, ground treatment, and conditioning for tunnelling;
(iii) Casehistories; (iv) Safetyissues, riskanalysis, hazardmanagementandcontrol; (v) Physical andnumerical
modelling and (vi) Calculation and design methods, and predictivetools. Six general reports discussing and
commentingpapersgroupedunder thesixthemeswerecontributedorallyduringtheSymposiumbyProfessor
RichardFinno, Professor Tadashi Hashimoto, Mr Alejo Sfriso, Dr C.T. Chin, Dr RichardPangandProfessor
RichardKastner, respectively. Thewrittenversionsof their sixgeneral reportsarealsoincludedinthisvolume.
Y.S. Li
Chairman of the Symposium
C.W.W. Ng, H.W. HuangandG.B. Liu
Vice-Chairmen of the Symposium and Editors
XIII
Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground Ng, Huang & Liu (eds)
2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-48475-6
Sponsors
Organized by:
Tongji University
Under the auspices of:
ISSMGE
Technical Committee28of theInternational
Societyof Soil MechanicsandGeotechnical
Engineering(ISSMGE)
Supported by
ChinaCivil EngineeringSociety
ChineseSocietyfor RockMechanics
andEngineering
Geotechnical Division, theHongKong
Institutionof Engineers
HongKongGeotechnical Society
HongKongUniversityof Science
andTechnology
XV
ScienceandTechnologyCommissionof
Shanghai Municipality
Shanghai ChangjiangTunnel & Bridge
Development Co., Ltd.
Shanghai Societyof Civil Engineering
XVI
Special lectures
Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground Ng, Huang & Liu (eds)
2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-48475-6
ProcessesaroundaTBM
A. Bezuijen&A.M. Talmon
Deltares and Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands
ABSTRACT: Processesthatoccur aroundaTBMduringtunnellinghavebeeninvestigatedwhiletunnellingin
saturatedsand. Theporepressureinfront of theTBM increasesduetoalackof plasteringduringdrilling. This
hasconsequencesfor thestabilityof thetunnel face, or thesoil infront of thetunnel. A bentoniteflowislikely
alongsidetheTBMfromthetunnel face, and/or groutflowfromtheback. Itseemsthatvirtuallynoinvestigation
hasbeenmadeof thispart of theTBM, but it isimportant tounderstandthevolumelossthat occursarounda
tunnel. TheliningisconstructedbehindtheTBM andthetail voidgrout isapplied. Pressuresmeasuredinthe
tail voidgrout will bediscussed, aswell astheconsequencesfor loadingonthesoil andthelining. Most of the
resultsdescribedarebasedonfieldmeasurementsperformedat varioustunnelsconstructedintheNetherlands.
1 INTRODUCTION
Dutch experience of using TBM tunnelling is rela-
tively recent. Thefirst TBM tunnel was constructed
intheNetherlands between1997and1999(theSec-
ond Heinenoord Tunnel). In the early 1990s, Dutch
engineers were uncertain whether the soft saturated
soil in the western parts of their country was suit-
ablefor TBM tunnelling. Thedecisionwas therefore
taken to include a measurement programme in the
first tunnelling projects. An overview of this pro-
grammeandsomeresultsarepresentedby Bakker &
Bezuijen(2008). Intheprogramme, results fromthe
measurements werepredictedusingexistingcalcula-
tionmodels. Themeasurement results wereanalysed
at alater date, anddiscrepancieswiththepredictions
wereexplainedwherepossible.
An important part of the measurement and anal-
ysis programme was dictated by the processes that
occur around theTBM. This paper deals with some
of these processes. It does not cover all aspects of
TBM tunnellingasthiswouldnot fit withinthelimits
of this paper (seeBezuijen& vanLottum, 2006, for
moreinformation).Thepaper focusesoncertainareas
whereideasconcerningthemechanismsinvolvedhave
changed over the last decade, and where a better
understandingisnowapparent.
In order to structure this paper, we walk along
theTBM. Westart with aprocess at thefront of the
TBM:thecreationandstabilityof thetunnel faceunder
theinfluenceof excessporepressures. Thepaper then
discusses what happens next to the TBM. The last
part of the paper deals with the tail void grout that
isinjectedattheendof theTBM. Thepaper describes
thecurrent stateof theart of theseprocesses, anddis-
cusses howknowledgegained about theseprocesses
mayinfluencethedesignof aTBMtunnel insoftsoil.
2 PORE PRESSURESINFRONT OF A TBM
2.1 Flow in coarse and fine granular material
DuringTBM tunnelling, it isessential that thetunnel
faceisstabilisedby pressurisedslurry (slurry shield)
or muck (EPB shield). Thepressuremust beadapted
to theground pressureto stabilisethefront. If pres-
sureistoolow, thiswill leadtoaninstabletunnel front
resultingincollapseof thetunnel face. If pressureis
too high, a blow-out will occur. Various calculation
methods have been proposed to calculate the stabil-
ity of thetunnel face. Most of thesemethods do not
taketheinfluenceof porewater flowintoaccount. It
is assumed that the bentonite slurry or muck at the
tunnel facecreates aperfect seal that prevents water
flowfromthefaceintothesoil. Experiencewithtun-
nels built in areas wherethesubsoil contains gravel
hasshownthat thebentoniteslurrycanpenetrateinto
thesubsoil overmorethan7m(Steiner, 1996). Steiner
advises that thesandandfines shouldberetainedin
theslurry(insteadof removingthemintheseparation
plant),andthatsawdustshouldbeusedinthebentonite
(Steiner, 2007). Anagnostou&Kovari (1994) propose
acalculationmethodforsuchasituation.However,this
methodonlytakestheviscousbehaviour of theslurry
into account, and not the stiffening that occurs dur-
ing standstill. Theresults of this calculation method
may therefore lead to the prescription of bentonite
3
Figure1. Measuredexcessporepressureinfrontof aslurry
shieldandapproximation.
with viscosity that is too high (Steiner, 2007). The
stateof theart for such asituation involving coarse
granular material is still trial and error, but thetrial
canbeperformedinthelaboratory toavoiderrors in
thefield.
Usual tunnellingconditionsintheNetherlandsare
asaturated sandy soil in medium-finesand. In such
soil conditions, thegroundwater flow influences the
plastering. There will be virtually no plastering of
thetunnel faceby thebentoniteor themuck during
drilling, becausethegroundwater infrontof theTBM
prevents water inthebentoniteslurry or muck flow-
ing into the soil. Plastering will only occur during
standstill of theTBM process.
Figure1showsmeasuredporepressureinfront of
aslurry shieldas afunctionof thedistancefromthe
TBM front. Plasteringoccursduringstandstill, result-
inginapressureof 120kPa(thehydrostaticpressure).
Higher porepressuresweremeasuredduringdrilling,
becausetheTBMscutter headremovesacakebefore
it canformat thetunnel face.
Figure2showsthesamephenomenonmeasuredin
frontof anEPB shield. Here, onlythepressureduring
drillingwasrecorded.
Bezuijen (2002) shows that theamount of excess
pore pressure measured in the soil in front of the
TBM (apart frompressure at the tunnel face) also
depends onsoil permeability, thequality of theben-
tonite or muck, and the drilling speed. Where EPB
drilling takes place in sand with a low permeability
(k=10
5
m/s), theporepressuremeasuredinsandin
front of theTBM is virtually equal topressureinthe
mixing chamber. Thepressureis lower in sand with
higher permeability (k=3 10
4
m/s), becausesome
plasteringof thefaceoccursduringdrilling. Soil per-
meabilityalsoinfluencesthefoamproperties. Muckin
themixingchamberwill bedryerinsandwithahigher
permeability. Where the permeability of the sand is
lower, thewater content inthemuckisnearlyentirely
Figure 2. Measured excess pore pressure in front of an
EPBshield() andapproximation(BotlekRail Tunnel, MQ1
South). Relativelyimpermeablesubsoil.
determinedby water inthesoil andmuchlessby the
foamproperties(alsoseeBezuijen, 2002).
Figure1andFigure2alsoshowatheoretical curve
(Bezuijen, 2002):
Where
0
is thepiezometric headat thetunnel face,
the piezometric head at a distance x in front of
thetunnel face, and R theradius of thetunnel. This
relationship is valid for situations wheretheperme-
ability of soil around the tunnel is constant. In the
Netherlands, thesandy layers usedfor tunnellingare
sometimes overlain with soft soil layers of peat and
clay withalowpermeability. Insuchasituation, the
pressure distribution in the soil can be evaluated as
asemi-confinedaquifer. This is describedby Broere
(2001).
2.2 Influence on stability
Bezuijenet al (2001) andBroere(2001) haveshown
thatthegroundwater flowinfrontof theTBMimplies
that a larger face pressure is necessary to achieve a
stablefront.AccordingtoBezuijenetal (2001),thedif-
ferenceis approximately 20kPafor a10-m-diameter
tunnel constructed in sand, wherethetop is situated
15mbelowthegroundsurface.
Knowledge of this groundwater flow appeared
essential during the Groene Hart Tunnel (GHT)
project, not toprevent collapseof thetunnel facebut
toprevent aformof blow-out (Bezuijenet al, 2001).
Thistunnel entersadeeppolderwherethepiezometric
headinthesandlayersunderneaththesoftsoil layersis
higherthanthesurfacelevel (seeFigure3).Asaresult,
theeffectivestresses beneath thesoft soil layers are
extremely small. Thecalculatedexcessporepressure
4
Figure3. Geotechnical profileGHT tunnel inpolder. Tun-
nel isdrilledfromright toleft inthispicture.
in the sand layer induced by the tunnelling process
couldcausefloating of thesoft layers. Thecontrac-
tor madedetailednumerical calculations(Aimeet al,
2004). As aresult of thesecalculations, atemporary
sanddamwasconstructedatthepointwherethetunnel
enteredthepolder. This damdeliveredthenecessary
weight to prevent lifting of the soft soil layers due
to excess pore pressure generated at the tunnel face
duringdrilling.
3 FLOWAROUNDTHETBM
3.1 Calculation model
Until recently, only limited attention has been given
to pressure distribution and flow around the TBM
shield. It was assumed that the soil was in contact
withtheTBMshieldacrosstheshield. Duringdrilling
of theWestern Scheldt tunnel, however, it appeared
thattheTBMdeformedatlargedepthsandhighwater
pressures(thetunnel isconstructedupto60mbelow
the water line). This could not be explained by the
concept of a TBM shield in contact with the soil.
Furthermore, tunnelling technology has advanced to
a level where the ground loss due to tunnelling is
lessthanthevolumedifferencecausedbytaperingof
theTBM. TBMs areusually tapered, with a slightly
larger diameter at the head compared with the tail.
ThisallowstheTBM tomanoeuvreandtodrill witha
certaincurvature.Table1showsthevolumedifference
duetotaperingfor differentTBMs.
Thevolumelossesmeasuredduringtheseprojects
varied, but negative volume losses were sometimes
measuredinall theprojects(therewasactuallyheave).
It is clear that themeasuredvolumeloss canbeless
than the volume loss due to tapering. This leads to
Table 1. Percentage of tapering of the TBM in 3 tunnel
projectsinTheNetherlands.
Tunnel project Tapering%
SecondHeinenoord 0.95
Botlek 0.77
Sophia 0.79
theidea(Bezuijen, 2007) that thesoil is not in con-
tact with theTBM all over theTBM. Overcutting at
the tunnel face can lead to bentonite flow over the
TBMshieldfromthefacetowardsthetail. Groutpres-
sureduringgrout injectionisusuallyhigher at thetail
than the soil pressure. The soil is therefore pushed
away fromthe TBM, and grout will flow fromthe
tail over theshield. It is possibleto describeflowon
theshield, if it isassumedthat boththebentoniteand
thegrout areBinghamliquids, that theyieldstressis
dominant intheflowbehaviour, andthat thereislin-
ear elastic soil behaviour. A moreor less conceptual
model is developed, assumingacylindrical symmet-
rical situationaroundthetunnel axis. Changes inthe
soil radius for such a situation can be described as
(Verruijt, 1993):
WhereL is thechangein pressure, Lr thechange
inradius, r theradiusof thetunnel andthegrout, and
G theshear modulusof thesoil aroundthetunnel.
The flow around the TBM shield can be
describedas:
WhereLP is thechangeinpressuredueto theflow,
Lx alengthincrementalongtheTBM, s thegapwidth
betweenthetunnel andthesoil, and

theyieldstress
of thegrout aroundtheTBM. is acoefficient indi-
cating whether there is friction between the soil or
bentoniteandthegrout (=1) only, or alsobetween
theTBM andthegrout or bentonite(=2). Viscous
forcesareneglectedinthisformula.Thisispermissible
duetothelowflowvelocitiesthat canbeexpected.
Withno grout or bentoniteflowaroundtheTBM,
taperingwill leadtoaneffectivestressreductionpro-
ceedingfromtheTBMs faceto thetail accordingto
equation(2).Thegroutandbentoniteflowwill change
thispressuredistribution.Inordertocalculatethepres-
suredistributionunder flow, theflowdirectionof both
the bentonite and the grout must be known. These
flow directions can vary during the tunnelling pro-
cess(Bezuijen, 2007). Onaverage, however, theTBM
5
Table2. Inputparametersusedincalculationwithbentonite
andovercutting.
LengthTBM shield 5 m
Diameter 10 m
Diameter reduction 0.2 %
Overcutting 0.015 m
Asymmetric(1) or symmetric(2) 2
Grainstress 150 kPa
Grout pressure 400 kPa
Porepressure 200 kPa
Pressureontunnel face 250 kPa
Shear modulus(G) 90 MPa
Yieldstressgrout 1.6 kPa
Yieldstressbentonite 0.01 kPa
Figure4. PressuresandgapwidthalongaTBM.Groutpres-
suresandbentonitepressures. ParametersseeTable2. Plots
show pressures and gap width for the bentonite and grout
pressureseparatelyandthecombinedresult.
advances andthereforethebentoniteandgrout front
must also advanceinthesamedirectionto achievea
stablesituation. This means that grout andbentonite
onlymovewithrespecttothesoil, andnotwithrespect
totheTBM.Therefore=1forboththebentoniteand
thegrout. Theresult of anexamplecalculationusing
theparametersgiveninTable2isshowninFigure4.
The Figure shows that the gap width for a com-
pletelystiff soil masswouldincreasefrom0.015mat
thefrontto0.025matthetail of theTBM. If therewere
onlygrout pressures, thegapwidthwouldbe0.028m
at thetail of theTBM, dueto thegrout pressurethat
islarger thanthetotal stress. However, thegapwould
closeat3.4mfromthetail. If theinfluenceof theben-
toniteisincluded, thereisstill agapwidthof 0.01mat
thetunnel face(5mfromthetail).Thelinethroughthe
trianglespresentsthegapwidthduetothecombined
effects of both thebentoniteand thegrout. Theplot
abovepresentsthepressuresinthesameway.
3.2 Consequences and status
The model shows that the volume loss is not deter-
mined by tapering of the TBM (as suggested for
exampleby Kasper & Meschke, 2006), but is influ-
encedbythepressuredistributionof thebentoniteand
grout. Withsufficient grout pressure, it ispossibleto
haveanegative volumeloss (thesurfacelevel rises
aftertheTBMpasses). Italsoexplainsthatbentoniteis
sometimesfoundinthetail void, andgroutisfoundin
thepressurechamber. Thefirst situationoccurswhen
bentonitepressureisrelativelyhighandgroutpressure
is low(wewill seethat it is quitedifficult to control
grout pressure, especially during ring building). The
second situation occurs when grout pressures in the
tail voidarerelatively high(whichmay occur during
drilling).
Contrary, however, to themodel describedfor the
pore pressures in front of the TBM and the grout
pressure, tobedescribedinthefollowingsections, the
experimental evidenceforthismodel isstill limited.To
our knowledge, pressuredistributionaroundtheTBM
shieldhasneverbeenmeasured.Theshieldwasperfo-
ratedduringconstructionof theWesternScheldttunnel
butnogroutwasfoundbetweentheshieldandthesoil
(Thewes, 2007). Thefactthatnogroutwasfounddur-
ingthisinvestigationmaybecausedbythefactthat, in
reality, theTBMwill notbeplacedassymmetricallyin
thedrilledholeassuggestedinthissimplemodel.The
TBM must bein contact with thesoil at somepoint
tomaintainmechanical equilibrium. Therewill beno
grout aroundtheshieldat that location.
Guglielmetti (2007) rightfully argues that more
research is needed in this field, because: The topic
(flow of bentonite and grout around the TBM) is
definitely one of the most important in the field of
mechanisedtunnelling, beingthemanagement of the
voidaroundtheshieldof aTBM asoneof themajor
sourcesof concernfor bothdesignersandcontractors
involvedinurbantunnellingprojects.
Thereis someevidencefromtheresults of exten-
someter measurementscarriedout at theSophiaRail
Tunnel. The results of the extensometers (shown in
Figure5) arepresentedinFigure6duringpassageof
6
Figure5. SophiaRail Tunnel,soil stratificationandlocation
of extensometersat themeasurement location(pictureArne
Bezuijen).
Figure 6. Extensometer results. The vertical line shows
when the tail of theTBM passes. Soil above theTBM is
alreadycompressedbeforethetail passes.
theTBM. Theresultsshowthat thereisinitiallysome
extensionof thesoil infrontof theTBMduetotherela-
tivelylowstressesatthetunnel face. However, thesoil
abovethetunnel (seetheextensometer at 12.5m) is
compressedseveral rings beforethetail of theTBM
passes (thevertical line) indicating heave, and there
is thereforeno settlement dueto thetapering. When
theTBMhaspassed, theextensometer at12.5mfol-
lowsthecourseof thegroutpressuresmeasuredaround
thelining. Thiswill bediscussedinmoredetail inthe
nextsection, andshowsthatachangeingroutpressure
indeedleadstoachangeinsoil deformation.
We are currently working on the possibility of
measuringpressuresaroundtheshield.
4 TAIL VOIDGROUTING
4.1 Introduction tail void grouting
Coming at the end of theTBM, the tail void grout-
ingprocess is important. Theprocess determines the
loadingonthesoil andonthelining.
Thepressuredistributioncausedbytail voidgrout-
inghasbeenstudiedduringconstructionof theSophia
Rail Tunnel (Bezuijen et al, 2004) and the Groene
Hart Tunnel. Here, wewill describethefundamental
mechanismsusingmeasurementsfromtheSophiaRail
Figure 7. First tube Sophia Rail Tunnel: drilling velocity
andmeasuredgrout pressuresat theright sideof thetunnel
asafunctionof time.
Tunnel, astheyhaveprovidedthemost completedata
set until now.
Thestudyof groutpressureswasinitiatedbyearlier
measurements performed at the Second Heinenoord
Tunnel and the Botlek Rail Tunnel. These measure-
ments didnot matchthegenerally acceptedassump-
tionatthattime atleastintheNetherlands thatthe
vertical pressuregradient inliquidgrout must bedic-
tatedbythedensityof thegrout, andthat thepressure
distribution after hardening must reflect the K
0
(the
ratiobetweenthehorizontal andvertical soil pressure).
Inreality, thevertical pressuregradientwaslower and
theinfluenceof K
0
couldnot bedetected.
4.2 Measurements
TheSophiaRail Tunnel wasconstructedinsandysub-
soil overlainwithsoft soil layers (seeFigure5). The
water tableis closeto thesurface. During construc-
tionof theSophiaRail tunnel, tworingsinthelining
wereeachequippedwith14pressuresensors.Thepres-
sures measuredwithoneof theseinstrumentedrings
areshowninFigure7.
These measurements are discussed in detail in
Bezuijenet al (2004): wewill onlydescribethemain
phenomena here. The upper plot in Figure 7 shows
thedrillingvelocity, whendrillingoccurs, andwhen
therewasastandstill for ringbuilding. It canbeseen
thatanincreaseinpressureismeasuredassoonasthe
7
pressuregauges(builtintotheliningelements) moved
fromthegreaseinto thegrout. Pressureincreases as
longasdrillingcontinues, anddecreaseswhendrilling
stopsduringringbuilding.
4.3 Grout pressures
The mechanism that leads to these pressure varia-
tionsisexplainedinBezuijen&Talmon(2003). Grout
bleeding or consolidation of the grout leads to a
volume loss of grout. Experiments showed that this
volumelossisbetween3%and8%, dependingonthe
typeof grout(Bezuijen&Zon, 2007).Thisconsolida-
tionleadstostressreductionintherelativelystiff sand
layer. Thisstressreductionismeasuredasareduction
of groutpressure.Theeffectivestresseswill ultimately
beverysmall: theminimumstressthatisnecessaryto
keeptheholeinthegroundopen. Leca& Dormieux
(1990)calculatethisforatunnel openinginsand.They
calculatethatacylindrical cavityinthegroundremains
open when effective stresses of only a few kPa are
applied.
Theconsequenceisthatgroutpressuresaroundthe
liningwill decreasetovaluesthat areonly afewkPa
abovetheporewater pressure. Itisthereforeclear that
theoriginal K
0
cannolongerbefoundinthegroutpres-
sures. Thepressuredecreaseduetovolumelossinthe
grouthaschangedtheoriginal stressstate, andunload-
ingof thesoil leadstomuchlower stresses. Sincethe
stresses in the sand around the tunnel decrease, the
sandreactionwill bethereactionof averystiff mate-
rial. Only asmall volumedecreasein thegrout will
leadtoalargedecreaseinstresses. Calculationmeth-
odsquiteoftenstill usetheoriginal in-situstressesto
calculateloadingonthelining. For atunnel insand,
thisleadstoacalculatedloadingthatismuchtoohigh,
asshownbyHashimotoet al (2004).
For slow hardening or non-hardening grouts, the
strengthincreaseinthegroutiscausedbygroutbleed-
ing or consolidation. It should be realised that this
strength increase is only present when the tunnel is
drilledthroughapermeablesoil. Whendrillingtakes
placethrough less permeablesoils such as clay, this
consolidationwill bemuchlowerandthegroutwill be
inliquidformoveragreaterpartof thetunnelslength.
Thishasconsequencesfor loadingonthelining, aswe
will discusslater.
4.4 Pressure gradients
Thevertical pressuregradient over thetunnel lining
isimportantwhencalculatingthelongitudinal loading
onthelining. Thevertical pressuregradient that was
measuredduringconstructionof thefirsttunnel tubeof
theSophiaRail Tunnel isshowninFigure8.Thepres-
suregradient starts at nearly 20kPa/manddecreases
to values under the pore water pressure gradient of
Figure8. First tubeSophiaRail Tunnel: pressuregradient
over thetunnel liningat onelocation, andpumpactivity for
oneof theinjectionpoints(A1) asafunctionof time.
9.81kPa/m. The tail void grout used for this tunnel
had adensity of 2190kg/m
3
. If thevertical pressure
were to increase with depth in accordance with this
density, thepressuregradient should be21.5kPa/m.
Results showed that themeasured vertical density is
alwayslower. Thisisbecausethegrout isaBingham
liquid, with aviscosity and ayield stress. Thegrout
hastoflowdownwardsif moregroutisinjectedinthe
upper half of thetunnel. This downward flow needs
adriving forceto overcometheyield stress, and the
pressuregradient will thereforebeless thanthegra-
dient that iscalculatedfromthedensity. Talmonet al
(2001) developedanumerical programtocalculatethe
pressuredistributioninthetail voiddueto injection.
Weonlydescribesomeof theconsequenceshere. If the
viscosityisnottakenintoconsideration, themaximum
pressuregradient (dP/dz) that canbeexpectedis:
Where
gr
isthedensity of thegrout, g theaccelera-
tionof gravity,

theyieldstrengthof thegrout, ands


thewidthof thetail voidgapbetweenthesoil andthe
lining. If theyieldstressinthegroutislow, thevertical
pressuregradient is determined by thegrout density
(21.5kPa/mfortheSophiaRail Tunnel, slightlyhigher
thanthemaximumvaluemeasuredinFigure8). Con-
solidationor hardeningof thegrout leadstoahigher
yieldstress, andthustoalower gradient.
A complicating factor is that themaximumshear
stress that canbedevelopedis avector. If themaxi-
mumshear stressisdevelopedinonedirection, there
will be no shear stress perpendicular to that direc-
tion. Whendrillingstartsfor anewringandthegrout
pumpsareactivated, theelasticsoil reactionwill lead
toanincreaseof thetail voidandgrout will therefore
flow backwards fromtheTBM. Ring shear stresses
barelydevelopinthissituation, andthevertical gradi-
entsthereforeincreaseduringdrilling. Theydecrease
againwhendrillingstops(Figure8).
8
Further from the TBM, the vertical gradients
decrease and become equal to the gradient accord-
ing to the buoyancy forces. This has to be the case,
because the total force on the lining far away from
theTBM must be zero. The vertical pressure gradi-
entthereforecompensatesfor theweightof thelining.
Asaresult, thegradient becomeslower thanthegra-
dient in the pore water. This is because the average
density of theliningislower thanthedensity of pore
water. Oneremarkableresult isthat thevertical pres-
suregradientatsomedistancefromtheTBM(at12:00
inFigure8, 5ringsbehindtheTBM) decreasesduring
drilling. Theflownolonger has any influenceat this
point, but drilling and grout injection lead to higher
gradientsinthefirstpartof theliningandthereforeto
higher buoyancy forces. Thefirst rings havetheten-
dencytomoveupwards, whichmust becompensated
by theTBM and the rings further away. This partly
compensates for theweight of therings further from
theTBM, so that theeffectiveweight of theserings
andalsothevertical gradient isless.
5 INFLUENCE ONPORE WATER PRESSURES
Section2.1describeshownoplasteringoccursat the
front when drilling takes place in fine to medium-
finesaturatedsand, becausethebentonitefiltercakeis
destroyedbythecuttingwheel beforeitisabletoform.
Asaresult, water flowsfromthetunnel faceintothe
soil. Section 4.3 describes how consolidation of the
grout alsoleadstoawater flowfromthetunnel lining
into thesoil, becausewater expelled fromthegrout
will flowintothesurroundingsoil. A grout cakewill
formhowever, because the consolidated grout is no
longer disturbed. It isthereforereasonabletoassume
that examination of thevariation in porepressurein
soil nexttoatunnel under constructionwill showpore
pressures that aredominatedby pressures existingat
thetunnel face. This theory was testedat theGroene
Hart Tunnel. Pore pressure transducers (PTTs) were
installedascloseas0.75mfromthetunnel lining.The
PTTswereplacedinoneplane, withthegroutpressure
gaugesonRing2117of thetunnel (seeFigure9).
Figure10showsthemeasurementresults.Thegrout
pressuregauges on Ring 2117 giveno signal before
theyareinthegrout. ThePPTsshowaslight increase
during drilling due to the excess pore pressure gen-
erated at the tunnel face. As drilling stops, the pore
pressurereducestothehydrostaticpressure. Thevar-
iousconstructioncyclescanbeseen. Thereisasharp
increaseingrout pressurewhenRing2117leavesthe
TBM, followedby adecreaseduetoconsolidation. It
isremarkablehowever that thishasvirtuallynoinflu-
ence on the measured pore pressures at less than a
metrefromthesegauges. Thisresult isconfirmedby
numerical calculations.Thequantityof waterexpelled
Figure9. Positionof porepressuregaugesandgrout pres-
suregaugesat ring2117of theGHT.
Figure10. Porepressuresandgrout pressuresmeasuredat
GHT (alsoseetext).
fromthegrout isfar lessthanthewater flowfromthe
tunnel face. Thelatter dominatestheporepressures.
The measurements show another remarkable fea-
ture. Grout pressuregauge05followsthewater pres-
sureafter3.20:00, butthisisnotthecaseforgauge03.
Thismayindicatethat thereisnosealing grout layer
aroundgauge05, sothat it ispossibletomeasurethe
porewater pressure.
6 LOADINGONTUNNEL LINING
WehaveseeninSection4.4thatvertical pressuregra-
dients exist in the zone where the grout is not yet
consolidatedor hardenedwhicharehigher thancorre-
spondstotheweightof thelining.Measurementsatthe
SophiaRail Tunnel showedthatthegradientdecreases
moreor less linear withthedistance(seeFigure11).
Asaresult, thatpartof theliningispressedupwardsby
9
Figure11. Exampleof gradient inthegrout pressureas a
function fromthe distance (0 on the X-axis represents the
point wheretheliningis moreor less fixed. TheTBM is at
9m). ResultsfromSophiaRail Tunnel (Bezuijenetal, 2004).
Figure12. Calculated shear forceand moment in thelin-
ing, anddisplacement wherethegrout hasnot yet hardened.
Calculatedmomentsaredividedby10.
thebuoyancyforces. It isnecessarytomobiliseshear
forcesfromtheTBMtoachieveastabletunnel lining.
Thiswill leadtomomentsinthelining.
Bezuijen & Talmon (2005) have shown that the
momentsintheliquidgrout zoneincreasebackwards
fromtheTBM (see Figure 12). A positive moment
meansherethattheforceonthelower partof thetube
is higher than on the upper part. At the TBM, this
moment iscreatedbytheTBM itself. Thisisbecause
facepressureishigher at thebottomduetolarger soil
stresses.
At theGroeneHartTunnel thebendingmoment in
thelining was measured for a largedistancebehind
theTBM using strain gauges installed in the lining
segments.Thereisanincreaseinthemomentforafew
rings, inaccordancewiththecalculations previously
mentioned. Thereissubsequentlyadecrease, withthe
momentsbecomingnegativeatagreaterdistancefrom
thetunnel. Bogaards& Bakker (1999) andHoefsloot
(2008) arguethat theremainingbendingmoment isa
result of thestaged construction of thetunnel. They
developedacalculationmodel totakeintoaccountthe
different stagesinconstruction.
Figure13. Boundaryconditionfor beamcalculation.
200
150
100
50
0
50
100
150
200
20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Disance behind TBM [m]
Analytical model
Measurement Ring
2117
B
e
n
d
i
n
g

m
o
m
e
n
t

[
M
N
m
]
Figure14. Bendingmoment ring2117, measurement and
calculation. GroeneHartTunnel (Hoefsloot, 2008).
However, Talmon (2007) has shown that such a
staged calculationisnot necessary tofindthesame
results.
AccordingtoTalmon, thenegativemomentappears
at somedistancefromtheTBM becausethereaction
forceto compensatethebuoyancy in thefluid grout
zoneissituatedfurther fromtheTBM thanthebuoy-
ancy force itself. The tunnel lining is pushed a bit
higher inthesoil thanintheequilibriumsituationfar
behindtheTBM.
HoefslootandTalmonbothmodel thetunnel lining
as abeamonanelastic foundation, except for lining
elements insidetheTBM and lining elements in the
liquidgrout zone, seeFigure13. Theexact boundary
conditionsandthetransitionbetweenliquidandsolid
grout arestill thesubject of debate.
Althoughexamplecalculationshavebeenpresented
that show good correlation with measurements (see
Figure14), therearestill uncertainties withthis type
of calculationthat needfurther research:
An important input parameter is themoment and
shear forcethat istransferredfromtheTBM tothe
lining. Whilethemoment canbederivedfromthe
jackforces, theshear forceisnot determined.
Withgenerally-acceptedparameters for thelining
stiffnessandthesoilselasticparameters, thecalcu-
latedmovement of theliningismuchsmaller than
themeasuredmovement.
The grout pressures are only measured when the
groutismoreorlessintheliquidphase.Thisresults
10
Table 3. Specification of grout mixtures used in fracture
tests(WCR=water-cement ratio). CoclayD90Caactivated
bentoniteisused.
Bentonite k
Mixture WCR % (m/s)
1 1 7 5.10
8
2 10 7 6.10
0
in loading on the tunnel lining as shown in Fig-
ure11. However, loadingonthelininginsituations
wherethegrouthashardenedislessknown.Thisis
becausetheinstruments usedwerenot suitableto
measurepressureswhengrout hashardened.
Conclusions that can be drawn fromthis type of
calculationsare:
Thelengthof theliquidgrout zoneandthedensity
of the grout are extremely important parameters
whencalculatingbendingmomentsinthelining. If
thislengthistoolong, loadingwill betoohighand
tunnellingwill notbepossible(alsoseeBezuijen&
Talmon, 2005).
The shear force that is exerted on the lining by
theTBM isanimportant parameter. It istherefore
worthwhiletomeasurethisshear force.
7 COMPENSATIONGROUTING
Grout consolidation also appeared to be impor-
tant whendescribingcompensationgrouting. Exper-
iments (Gafar et al, 2008) showedthat thefracturing
behaviour in compensation grouting depends on the
specification of the grout. If more cement is added,
thepermeability of thegrout is higher andtherewill
bemoreconsolidationandleak-off duringgroutinjec-
tion. Gafar et al describe how this influences the
fracturingbehaviour. Recenttestscarriedoutaspartof
theresearchprojectoncompensationgroutingpresent
proof of thesuggestedgroutconsolidationmechanism.
AtDelftUniversity,thedensityof groutbodiesmadein
twocompensationgroutingexperimentswasanalysed
inaCT-scan. SuchaCT-scancanbeusedtodetermine
thedensity of thematerial tested. Thegrout mixtures
usedintheexperimentsareshowninTable3.
Theresultsof theCT-scansareshowninFigure15
and Figure16. Theresults of thefirst grout mixture
clearlyshowanincreaseindensityat theboundaryof
thegrout body. Grout at theboundary of thesample
isconsolidated. Thegroutbodymadewiththesecond
mixturehas amoreconstant density across thefrac-
ture(themiddlesection). In thesecond experiment,
theCT-scanwasperformedwhilethegrout bodywas
still in the sand. The more homogeneous density of
Figure 15. Density measured with a CT-scan. Raw data
(inset) anddensity. Correctionfor beamhardeningeffectand
calculated value of the density of the grout along the line
shownininset. Mixture1inTable3.
Figure 16. Grout density in a fracture measured with a
CT-scan. Mixture2inTable3.
the grout body in the second test is understandable
if thepermeabilities of thegrout areconsidered. The
lower permeabilityof thesecondgrout sampleresults
in much less grout consolidation within the limited
injectiontime. Thegroutdensityinthefracturethere-
foredoesnot increaseat theboundaryof thegrout as
isthecasefor mixture1.
Thepermeabilitiesweredeterminedusingthepro-
ceduresuggestedby McKinley andBolton(1999), a
formof oedometertestwithdrainageononeside.This
procedurecan also beused to test theconsolidation
properties of tail void grout. However, thethickness
of thegroutlayer inthetestshouldbeidentical tothat
inthefield. Thisistoavoidscalingeffectsthat occur
11
becausehardeningof thegrout is independent of the
samplesize(Bezuijen& Zon, 2007).
8 DISCUSSION
The research described above has increased under-
standing of the processes that occur around aTBM
duringtunnelling. Thishasalreadyhadconsequences
for practical aspects of tunnelling. Examples arethe
excessporepressuresinfront of theTBM: extrasand
was added locally above the planned tunnel trajec-
toryof theGroeneHartTunnel toprevent ablow-out,
and the grout was changed in a tunnel project in
Londonwhereit appearedthat theliquidzoneof tra-
ditional grout for a tunnel drilled in clay with no
possibility of consolidation was too long to achieve
thedesireddrillingspeed.However,theauthorsbelieve
that theresultscanmakeanevengreater contribution
toimprovingshieldtunnelling. Knowledgeabout the
influenceof excessporepressuresonfacestabilitycan
improvedefinitionof thepressurewindowat thetun-
nel face, sopreventingablow-out duetoexcessively
highpressuresandinstabilitycausedbypressuresthat
aretoolow. IncombinationwithresearchonEPBtun-
nellinginclay (Merrit & Mair, 2006), foamresearch
for EPB tunnellinginsandcanleadto better control
of theEPBprocess. Ithasalreadybeendiscussedhow
flowaroundtheTBMisimportantforTBMdesign,and
that moreexperimental evidenceisneeded. Research
into grouting can lead to smaller settlement troughs
and optimisation of loading on the lining. This last
aspect mayleadtocheaper liningconstruction.
Theresultsmust bediscussedwithtunnel builders
and contractors if improvements to the shield tun-
nellingprocess areto beachieved. Discussionabout
certain aspects has already started, but wehopethat
this paper will stimulate the involvement of more
parties.
9 CONCLUSIONS
To understandtheprocesses that areimportant when
tunnelling with aTBM, theflowprocesses around a
TBMmustbeconsidered: groundwaterflowatthetun-
nel face,bentoniteandgroutflowaroundtheTBM,and
grout flowandgrout consolidationaroundthetunnel
lining.Theresearchdescribedinthispaperhasbrought
about progress with regard to these flow processes
duringtunnellinginsoft ground:
The groundwater flow at the tunnel face is
described.
Themuck inthemixingchamber isdescribedasa
functionof drillingspeedandpermeability.
A conceptual model for theflowof bentoniteand
grout has been developed. Although this model
must still beverifiedusingtheresultsof measure-
ments, it showssomepromisingresults.
Considerableinformationhasbeenobtainedabout
the grouting process and the resultant lining
loading.
Although not unusual, it is interesting to see that
this research also raises new questions: what is the
exact positionof theTBM duringthetunnellingpro-
cess, whatistheinteractionbetweentheTBM andthe
lining, are the predicted pressures around theTBM
correct, andwhat aretheconsequencesfor our design
methods?Eveninarelativelysimplebeamcalculation
for calculatingloadingonthelininginalongitudinal
directionit appearsthat uncertaintiesintheboundary
conditions determinetheoutcomeof thecalculation.
As long as these uncertainties remain, more sophis-
ticated numerical calculations will present the same
uncertainties.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Theresearchdescribedinthispaper wassponsoredby
COB, the Dutch Centre for Underground Construc-
tion, andDelft Cluster. Wewouldliketo thank these
organisationsfor givingustheopportunitytoperform
thisresearch. Wealsowishtothanktheprojectorgan-
isationsof thedifferent tunnelsfor givingpermission
tousetunnellingdatainour research. Andlastbutnot
least, wewouldliketo thank our fellowmembers in
theCOB committeesfor their stimulatingdiscussions
onthevarioussubjects.
REFERENCES
Aime, R., Aristaghes, P., Autuori, P. & Minec, S. 2004. 15m
Diameter Tunneling under Netherlands Polders. Proc.
Underground Space for Sustainable Urban Development
(ITA Singapore), Elsevier.
Anagnostou, G. & Kovri, K. 1994. The face stability of
Slurry-shield-drivenTunnels.Tunelling and Underground
Space Technology 9(2): 165174.
Bakker, K.J. & Bezuijen, A. 2008. 10 years of bored tun-
nels in theNetherlands. Proceeding 6th Int. Symposium
on Underground Construction in soft Ground, Shanghai.
Bezuijen, A. 2002. Theinfluenceof soil permeabilityonthe
properties of afoammixturein aTBM. 3rd. Int. Symp.
on Geotech. Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft
Ground, IS-Toulouse.
Bezuijen, A. 2007. Bentoniteandgrout flowaroundaTBM.
Proc. ITA 2007, Prague.
Bezuijen,A., Pruiksma, J.P. &Meerten, H.H. van. 2001. Pore
pressures in front of tunnel, measurements, calculations
and consequences for stability of tunnel face. Proc. Int.
Symp. on Modern Tunneling Science and Techn. Kyoto.
12
Bezuijen, A. &Talmon, A.M. 2003. Grout thefoundationof
aboredtunnel. Proc ICOF 2003 Dundee.
Bezuijen,A.,Talmon,A.M.,Kaalberg,F.J.&Plugge,R.2004.
Fieldmeasurements of grout pressures duringtunneling
of theSophiaRail tunnel. Soils and Foundations 44(1):
4150.
Bezuijen, A. & van Lottum, H. (eds). 2006. Tunnelling A
Decade of Progress. GeoDelft 1995-2005, Taylor and
Francis/Balkema, Leiden, ISBN0415391134.
Bezuijen, A. & Zon, W. van der. 2007. Volumechanges in
groutusedtofill upthetail void. Proc. ITA 2007, Prague.
Bogaards, P.J. & Bakker, K.J. 1999, Longitudinal bending
momentsinthetubeof aboredtunnel. Numerical Models
in Geomechanics Proc. NUMOGVII: 317321.
Broere, W. 2001. Tunnel Face Stability & New CPT Applica-
tions. Ph.D. Thesis, Delft Universityof Technology, Delft
UniversityPress.
Gafar, K., Soga, K., Bezuijen, A., Sanders, M.P.M. & van
Tol, A.F. 2008. Fracturingof sandincompensationgrout-
ing. Proceeding 6th Int. Symposium on Underground
Construction in soft Ground, Shanghai.
Guglielmetti, V. 2007. Tunnels and Tunnelling International,
October, P32.
Hashimoto, T., Brinkman, J., Konda, T., Kano, Y. &
Feddema, A. 2004. Simultaneousbackfill grouting, pres-
suredevelopment in construction phaseand in thelong
term. Proc. ITA Singapore.
Hoefsloot, F.J.M. 2008. Analytical solution longitudinal
behaviour Tunnel lining. Proceeding 6th Int. Symposium
on Underground Construction in soft Ground, Shanghai.
Kasper, T. & Meschke, G. 2006. On the influence of face
pressure,groutingpressureandTBMdesigninsoftground
tunnelling.Tunn. and Undergr. SpaceTechn. 21: 160171.
Leca, E. &Dormieux, L. 1990. Upper andlower boundsolu-
tions for thefacestability of shallowcircular tunnels in
frictional material. Gotechnique 43: 519(inFrench).
Merritt, A.S. & Mair, R.J. 2006. Mechanics of tunnelling
machine screw conveyors: model tests. Geotechnique
56(9): 605615.
McKinley, J.D. &Bolton, M.D. 1999.Ageotechnical descrip-
tion of fresh cement grout Filtration and consolida-
tion behaviour. Magazine of Concrete Research 51(5):
295307.
Steiner, W. 1996. Slurry penetration into coarse grained
soils and settlements froma large slurry shield tunnel.
Proc. Geotech. Aspects of Underground Construction in
Soft Ground, London, Mair andTaylor (eds). Balkema,
Rotterdam, ISBN9054108568: 329333.
Steiner, W. 2007. Privatecommunication.
Talmon, A.M. 2007. Notes on analytical beam model. Delft
Hydraulicsreport Z3934/Z4145.
Talmon, A.M., Aanen, L. Bezuijen, A & Zon, W.H. vander.
2001. Grout pressures around a tunnel lining Proc. Int.
Symp. on Modern Tunneling Science and Techn. Kyoto.
Thewes, M. 2007. Privatecommunication.
Verruijt, A. 1993. Soil Dynamics. Delft University of Tech-
nology, b28.
13
Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground Ng, Huang & Liu (eds)
2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-48475-6
Supportingexcavationsinclay fromanalysistodecision-making
M.D. Bolton& S.Y. Lam
University of Cambridge, UK
A.S. Osman
Durham University, UK
ABSTRACT: FiniteElementAnalysis(FEA) isusedtocalibrateadecision-makingtool basedonanextension
of theMobilizedStrengthDesign(MSD) methodwhichpermits thedesigner anextremely simplemethodof
predicting ground displacements during construction. This newly extended MSD approach accommodates a
number of issueswhichareimportant inundergroundconstructionbetweenin-situwalls, including: alternative
base heave mechanisms suitable either for wide excavations in relatively shallow soft clay strata, or narrow
excavationsinrelativelydeepsoft strata; theinfluenceof support systemstiffnessinrelationtothesequenceof
proppingof thewall; andthecapability of dealingwithstratifiedground. Thesedevelopmentsshouldmakeit
possiblefor adesignengineer totakeinformeddecisionsontherelationshipbetweenpropspacingandground
movements, or theinfluenceof wall stiffness, or ontheneedfor andinfluenceof ajet-groutedbaseslab, for
example, without havingtoconduct project-specificFEA.
1 INTRODUCTION
TheMobilizableStrengthDesign(MSD) methodhas
developed following various advances in the use of
plasticdeformationmechanismstopredictgrounddis-
placements: (MilliganandBransby, 1975; Boltonand
Powrie, 1988; Boltonetal. 1989, 1990a, 1990b). MSD
isageneral, unifieddesignmethodology, whichaims
tosatisfy bothsafety andserviceability requirements
inasinglecalculationprocedure,contrastingwithcon-
ventional design methodology which treats stability
problems and serviceability problems separately. In
theMSD method, actual stress-strain datais used to
select a design strength that limits ground deforma-
tions,andthisisusedinplasticsoil analysesthatsatisfy
equilibriumconditions without the use of empirical
safetyfactors.
Simpleplasticmechanismsareusedtorepresentthe
workingstateof thegeotechnical system. Themecha-
nismsrepresentboththeequilibriumanddeformation
of thevarioussoil bodies, especially at their junction
with the superstructure. Then, raw stress-strain data
fromsoil testsonundisturbedsamples,takenfromrep-
resentativelocations, areuseddirectlytolinkstresses
and strains under working conditions. Constitutive
lawsandsoil parametersareunnecessary.
The MSD approach has been successfully imple-
mentedfor shallowfoundations (OsmanandBolton,
2005), cantilever retainingwalls(OsmanandBolton,
2005), tunneling-induced ground displacements
(Osman et al. 2006) and also the sequential con-
struction of braced excavations which induce wall
displacements andgrounddeformations (Osmanand
Bolton, 2006).
Consider theimpositionof certainactionsonasoil
body, duetoconstructionactivitiessuchasstressrelief
accompanyingexcavation, or to loads appliedinser-
vice. The MSD method permits the engineer to use
simplehand calculations to estimatetheconsequen-
tial ground displacements accounting for non-linear
soil behavior obtainedfromasinglewell-chosentest
of theundisturbedsoil.
TheMSDapproachfirstlyrequirestheengineer to
representtheworkingstatesof thegeotechnical system
byagenericmechanismwhichconveysthekinematics
(i.e. thepatternof displacements) of thesoil duetothe
proposedactions.Analysisof thedeformationmecha-
nismleadstoacompatibilityrelationshipbetweenthe
averagestrainmobilizedinthesoil andtheboundary
displacements.
Theaverageshearstrengthmobilizedinthesoil due
totheimposedactionsisthencalculated,eitherfroman
independent equilibriumanalysisusingapermissible
stressfield(equivalenttoalower boundplasticanaly-
sis),orfromanequationbalancingworkandenergyfor
thechosenmechanism(equivalent toanupper bound
plasticanalysis).
Thelocationof oneor morerepresentativesoil ele-
ments is then selected, basing this judgment on the
soil profile in relation to the location and shape of
15
the selected mechanism. The centroid of the mech-
anism can serve as a default location if a single
locationistobeemployed. Stress-strainrelationships
are then obtained fromappropriate laboratory tests
on undisturbed soil samples taken fromtheselected
locations and carried out with precise strain mea-
surements. Equivalentin-situtestssuchasself-boring
pressuremeter tests can alternatively be carried out.
Themodeof deformationinthesoil testsshouldcor-
respondascloselyaspossibletothemodeof shearing
intheMSDmechanism. Otherwise, anisotropyshould
somehowbeallowedfor.
Finally, the mobilized shear strength required for
equilibriumunderworkingloadsissetagainsttherep-
resentativeshear stress-straincurveinorder toobtain
the mobilized soil strain, and thereby the boundary
displacementsof thesimplifiedMSDmechanism.
2 MSDFOR DEEP EXCAVATIONPROBLEM
OsmanandBolton(2006) showedfor anin-situwall
supporting a deep excavation that the total defor-
mation could be approximated as the sum of the
cantilever movementprior topropping, andthesubse-
quent bulging movement that accretes incrementally
witheverysequenceof proppingandexcavation.
A methodfor estimatingthecantilever movement
had been suggested earlier in Osman and Bolton
(2004). Itbeginsbyconsideringthelateral earthpres-
sure distribution for a smooth, rigid, cantilever wall
rotating about a point some way above its toe, in
undrained conditions. A simple mobilized strength
ratioisintroducedtocharacterizetheaveragedegree
of mobilizationof undrainedshear strengththrough-
out the soil. By using horizontal force and moment
equilibriumequations, thetwo unknowns theposi-
tion of the pivot point and the mobilized strength
ratio are obtained. Then, a mobilized strain value
isreadoff fromtheshear stress-straincurveof asoil
element appropriatetotherepresentativedepthof the
mechanismatthemid-depthof thewall. Simplekine-
matics for a cantilever wall rotating about its base
suggeststhattheshearstrainmobilizedintheadjacent
soil isdoubletheangleof wall rotation. Accordingly,
fortheinitial cantileverphase, thewall rotationisesti-
matedasonehalf of theshearstrainrequiredtoinduce
thedegreeof mobilizationof shear strengthnecessary
to hold the wall in equilibrium. Osman and Bolton
(2004) usedFEA toshowthatcorrectionfactorsupto
about 2.0 could beapplied to theMSD estimates of
thewall crestdisplacement, dependingonavarietyof
non-dimensional groupsof parametersignoredinthe
simpleMSDtheory, suchaswall flexibilityandinitial
earthpressurecoefficient prior toexcavation.
A typical increment of bulging, ontheother hand,
was calculated in Osman and Bolton (2006) by
consideringanadmissibleplasticmechanismfor base
heave. Inthis case, themobilizedshear strengthwas
deduced fromthe kinematically admissible mecha-
nismitself, usingvirtual work principles. Theenergy
dissipatedbyshearingwassaidtobalancethevirtual
loss of potential energy dueto thesimultaneous for-
mation of a subsidence trough on the retained soil
surface and a matching volume of heave inside the
excavation.Themobilizedstrengthratiocouldthenbe
calculated,andthemobilizedshearstrainreadoff from
thestress-straincurveof arepresentativeelement, as
before. Thedeformation is estimated using therela-
tionshipbetweentheboundarydisplacementsandthe
averagemobilizedshear strain, inaccordancewiththe
original mechanism.
TheMSD solutions of Osman and Bolton (2006)
comparedquitewell withsomenumerical simulations
usingtherealisticnon-linear MIT-E3model, andvar-
ious case studies that provided field data. However,
theseinitial solutions arecapableof improvement in
threewaysthatwill contributetotheir applicabilityin
engineeringpractice.
1 Theoriginal mechanismassumedarelativelywide
excavation, whereascut-and-cover tunnel andsub-
wayconstructionsarelikelytobemuchdeeperthan
their width. TheMSDmechanismthereforeneeds
tobeadaptedforthecaseinwhichtheplasticdefor-
mationfieldsfor thesidewallsinterferewitheach
other beneaththeexcavation.
2 The structural strain energy of the support sys-
temcanbeincorporated. Thiscouldbesignificant
when the soil is weak, and when measures are
taken to limit base heave in the excavation, such
asby basegroutingbetweenthesupportingwalls.
In this case, the reduction of lateral earth pres-
suredueto grounddeformationmay berelatively
small, and it is principally the stiffness of the
structural systemitself that limitsexternal ground
displacements.
3 Progressively incorporating elastic strain energy
requiresthecalculationproceduretobefullyincre-
mental, whereas Osman and Bolton (2006) had
been able to use total energy flows to calculate
theresults of each stageof excavation separately.
A fullyincremental solution, admittinggroundlay-
ering, will permit the accumulation of different
mobilized shear strengths, and shear strains, at
different depths in theground, thereby improving
accuracy.
It istheaimof thispaper tointroduceanenhanced
MSDsolutionthat includesthesethreefeatures. This
is thencomparedwithexistingFEA of bracedexca-
vations which featured a range of geometries and
stiffnesses. It will be suggested that MSD provides
theideal meansof harvestingFEA simulationsfor use
indesignanddecision-making.
16
3 PLASTIC FAILURE MECHANISMS
Limitequilibriummethodsareroutinelyusedinstabil-
ity calculationsfor soft clay whichisidealised, unre-
alistically, as rigid-plastic. Slip surfaces areselected
astheassumedfocusof all plasticdeformations. Fail-
uremechanisms shouldbekinematically admissible,
meaningthat unwantedgapsandoverlapsshouldnot
be produced. Furthermore, in the case of undrained
shearingof clays, aconstant-volumeconditionshould
be respected at every point. A consequence is that
undrainedplane-strainfailuremechanismsmustcom-
priseonlyslipplanesandslipcircles.Thesoil onsuch
failuresurfacesistakentomobilizeitsundrainedshear
strength divided by a safety factor, to maintain the
mechanismin limiting equilibriumunder the action
of gravity, andany other appliedloads. Calculatedin
thisway, thesafetyfactorliterallyoffersanestimateof
thefactor bywhichthestrengthof thesoil wouldhave
to drop before the soil construction would collapse.
Suchestimatesmighterr either onthehighsideor the
lowside, dependingontheparticularassumptionsthat
weremade.
Inthecaseof baseheaveinbracedexcavations,plas-
tic solutions werederivedfromslip-linefields based
onthemethodof characteristics. Suchsolutionscom-
prise both slip surfaces, as before, and plastic fans
which distribute plastic strains over a finite zone in
the shape of a sector of a circle. Notwithstanding
these zones of finite strain, the additional presence
of slipsurfaces still restricts theapplicationof these
solutions to the prediction of failure. Furthermore,
no such solution can be regarded automatically as
anaccuratepredictor of failure, notwithstandingtheir
apparent sophistication. All that can be said is that
theywill leadtoanunsafeestimateof stability. Their
useinpracticecanonly bejustifiedfollowingback-
analysisof actual failures, whether inthefieldor the
laboratory.
Two typical failure mechanisms as suggested by
Terzaghi (1943) and Bjerrum and Eide (1956) are
showninFigure1. They haveeachbeenwidely used
for the design of multi-propped excavations. Terza-
ghi (1943) suggestedamechanismconsistingof asoil
columnoutsidetheexcavationwhichcreatesabearing
capacity failure. Thefailureis resistedby theweight
of acorrespondingsoil columninsidetheexcavation
andalso by adhesionactingalongthevertical edges
of themechanism. BjerrumandEide(1956) assumed
that thebaseof theexcavation could betreated as a
negativelyloadedperfectlysmoothfooting. Thebear-
ingcapacityfactorsproposedbySkempton(1951) are
useddirectlyinthestabilitycalculationsandaretaken
as stability numbers, N=H/c
u
. Eide et al. (1972)
modifiedthisapproachtoaccount for theincreasein
basal stabilityowingtomobilizedshearstrengthalong
theembeddedlengthof therigidwall.
Figure1. Conventional basal stabilitymechanismandnota-
tion(after Ukritchonet al. 2003).
ORourke(1993) further modifiedthebasal stabil-
itycalculationsof BjerrumandEide(1956) toinclude
flexureof thewall belowtheexcavationlevel. It was
assumed that the embedded depth of the wall does
not changethegeometry of thebasal failuremecha-
nism. However, anincreaseinstabilitywasanticipated
duetotheelasticstrainenergystoredinflexure. This
gavestabilitynumbersthatwerefunctionsof theyield
momentandassumedboundaryconditionsatthebase
of thewall.
Ukritchonet al. (2003) usednumerical limit anal-
ysis to calculate the stability of braced excavations.
Upper and lower bound formulations are presented
basedonSloanandKleeman(1995) andSloan(1988),
respectively.Thetechniquecalculatesupperboundand
lower boundestimates of collapseloads numerically,
by linear programming, while spatial discretization
and interpolation of the field variables are calcu-
lated using the finite element method. No failure
17
Figure2. Incremental displacements inbracedexcavation
(after ORourke, 1993).
mechanismneed beassumed and failureboth of the
soil andthewall aretakencareof. However, bothsoil
andwall areagainassumedtoberigidperfectlyplas-
tic so thefailuremechanismincludes aplastic hinge
at thelowest level of support.
All these collapse limit analyses provide useful
guidanceonthepossiblegeometryof plasticdeforma-
tion mechanisms for serviceconditions. But thekey
requirement for MSD mechanisms is that displace-
ment discontinuities (slip surfaces) must beavoided
entirely. Inthat way, small but finitegrounddisplace-
mentsareassociatedateveryinternal pointwithsmall
but finitestrains.
4 WALL DEFORMATIONS
Consider now the deformations of a multi-propped
wall supportingadeepexcavationinsoft, undrained
clay. At eachstageof excavationtheincremental dis-
placementprofile(Figure2)of thegroundandthewall
belowthelowest propcanbeassumedtobeacosine
function(ORourke, 1993) asfollows:
Herew is theincremental wall displacement at any
distance y below the lowest support, w
max
is its
maximumvalue, and l isthewavelengthof thedefor-
mation, regardedasproportional tothelengths of the
wall belowthelowest level of current support:
ORourke(1993) definedthewavelengthof thedefor-
mationasthedistancefromthelowestsupportlevel to
thefixedbaseof thewall. OsmanandBolton(2006)
suggestedadefinitionforthewavelengthof thedefor-
mationbasedonwall endfixity. For wallsembedded
into a stiff layer beneath the soft clay, such that the
wall tip is fully fixed in position and direction, the
wavelength was set equal to thewall length (=1).
For short wallsembeddedindeepsoft clay, themaxi-
mumwall displacementoccursatthetipof thewall so
thewavelengthwastakenastwicetheprojectingwall
length(=2). Intermediatecasesmight bedescribed
asrestrained-endwalls(1--2).
However, these definitions applied only to very
wideexcavations. Whenanarrowexcavationis con-
sidered, thewavelength will belimited by thewidth
of theexcavation. Inaddition, inthecaseof thepar-
tiallyrestrainedwall, thedepthof arelativelystiff soil
stratummay also limit thedepth of thedeformation
pattern.
5 GEO-STRUCTURAL MECHANISMS
Anincremental plastic deformationmechanismcon-
forming to Equation 1 was proposed by Osman and
Bolton (2006) for an infinitely wide multi-propped
excavation in clay. In this mechanism, the wall is
assumed to be fixed incrementally in position and
directionatthelowestprop, implyingthatthewall has
sufficient strength to avoid the formation of a plas-
tichinge. Thewall andsoil aredeformingcompatibly
andthesoil deformationalsofollowsthecosinefunc-
tionof Equation1.Thedimensionsof thismechanism
dependonthewavelengthl.
Figure3(a) showsthecompletedisplacement field
for the mechanismproposed by Osman and Bolton
(2006).Thesolutionincludesfourzonesof distributed
shear whichconsist of acolumnof soil adjoiningthe
excavationabovethelevel of thelowestprop,acircular
fanzonecentredatthelowestprop,anothercircularfan
zonewithits apex at thejunctionof thewall andthe
excavation surface and a 45 degree isosceles wedge
below the excavation surface. It is required that the
soil shearscompatiblyandcontinuouslywithnorela-
tiveslidingattheboundariesof eachzone. Thedotted
lineswitharrowsshowthedirectionof theflow.Along
each of theselines thedisplacement is constant and
is given by the cosine function of Equation 1. It is
assumedthat thezoneoutsidethedeformationzones
is rigid. This mechanismis simple and neat, but it
onlyappliestoverywideexcavations. Inthecaseof a
narrowexcavation, thewidthof thetriangular wedge
couldbebiggerthantheactual widthof theexcavation.
Inviewof this, anewmechanismfor narrowexcava-
tions is proposed in Figure 3(b). The mechanismin
the passive zone (zone EFHI) is replaced. The new
mechanismmeets theconditionfor undrainedshear-
ing, which means that thevolumetric strain remains
zerothroughout thezone.
The following solution approach is an extension
of Osman and Bolton (2006). In their original solu-
tion, soilsareassumedtobehomogenous.Theaverage
shear strain increment in each zoneis calculated by
taking the derivative of the prescribed displacement
18
equation. Then, theundrainedshear strength(c
u,mob
)
mobilized at any location for any excavation height-
was expressed using a single mobilization ratio
( =c
u,mob
,c
u
) tofactor thestrengthprofile. Withthe
use of the virtual work principle, the plastic work
donebyshearingof thesoil wasequatedtothevirtual
change of gravitational potential energy of the soil.
A factor can then be found so that a correspond-
ing mobilized shear strain can be read off fromthe
chosenstress-straincurve. Theincremental displace-
mentcanthenbecalculatedbythecorrelationbetween
theaverageshearstrainincrementandtheincremental
wall displacement.
Thisapproachofferedastraightforwardwaytoesti-
matethebulgingdisplacement of theretainingwall.
However, theapproachrequiresrefinementinorder to
includesomeadditional features that may besignifi-
cant indeepexcavations. Firstly, theapproachdidnot
consider theelasticstrainenergystoredinthesupport
system. Secondly, itiscommontofindanon-uniform
soil stratum with undrained shear strength varying
irregularly withdepth. Furthermore, thegeometry of
thedeformationmechanismchangesastheconstruc-
tion proceeds, so the representation of mobilization
of shear strength through the whole depth, using a
singlemobilizationratio, is only aroughapproxima-
tion. Inrealitytherewill bedifferencesinmobilization
of shear strength at different depths for calculating
incremental soil displacement. Lastly, the original
mechanismof Osman and Bolton (2006) shown in
Figure 3(a) only applied to wide excavations; nar-
row excavations called for the development of the
alternativemechanismof Figure3(b).
Inviewof theseissues, anewfullyincremental cal-
culationmethodhasbeenintroduced, allowingfor the
storageof elasticstrainenergyinthewall andthesup-
port system, andrespectingthepossibleconstriction
of theplastic deformations dueto thenarrowness of
anexcavation.
5.1 Deformation pattern in different zones
FromFigure 3, the soil is assumed to flow parallel
to thewall at theretainedsideabovethelevel of the
lowestsupport(zoneABDC) andtheincremental dis-
placement at anydistancexfromthewall isgivenby
thecosinefunctionof Equation1, replacingybyx.
By taking the origin as the top of the wall, the
deformation pattern of retained soil ABDC is given
inrectangular coordinatesasfollows:
Hard stratum
(a) Incremental displacementfield for wide excavation
Hard stratum
(b) Incremental displacement field for narrow excavation
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
5
4
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
4
5
F I
E H
t
H
h
s
B
L
Excavation
depth
l
dw
max
dw
max
dw
max
dw
max
A B
C D
F
H
I
E
l
w
max
2 ave


t
H
h
s
L
l
dw
max
dw
max
dw
max
A B
C D
F
E
I
H
Excavation
depth
l
B
l
w
max
2
l
w
max
ave 2 . 2

ave

Figure3. Incremental displacement fields.


19
Infanzone, CDE, bytakingtheapexof thefanzone
astheorigin
For fanzoneEFHinverywideexcavationsasindi-
catedinFigure3(a), bytakingthejunctionof thewall
andthecurrent excavationlevel astheorigin:
For thetriangular zoneFHI in very wideexcava-
tions, againtakingthejunctionof theexcavationand
thewall astheorigin:
For narrowexcavationsasshowninFigure3(b), a
rectangular zone EFHI of 2D shearing is now pro-
posed. The origin is taken as the mid-point of FE,
mid-wavelengthintheexcavation, at thewall.
In order to get moreaccuratesolutions, it is sup-
posed that the soil stratumis divided into n layers
of uniformthickness t (Figure4). Theaverageshear
straind(m,n) is calculatedfor n layers inm excava-
tionstages. Theincremental engineeringshear strain
ineachlayer iscalculatedasfollows:
In order to get a better idea of the deformation
mechanism, the relationship between the maximum
incremental wall displacement andtheaverageshear
strainmobilizedineachzoneof deformationshould
l
A B
C D
F
E
H
I
s
1
s
1
s
1
s
1
DSS
DSS
PSA
PSP
Layer 1
Layer 2
Layer 3
Layer 4
Layer n
Layer (n-1)
Figure4. Mobilizableshear strengthprofileof anexcava-
tionstageinanlayeredsoil.
beobtained. Ontheactivesideof theexcavation, the
spatial scaleis fixed by thewavelength of deforma-
tion l, and all strain components areproportional to
dw
max
/l. Theaverageengineering shear strain incre-
ment
mob
mobilized in the deformed soil can be
calculatedfromthespatial averageof theshear strain
increments in the whole volume of the deformation
zone.Forawideexcavationi.e.Figure3(a),theaverage
shear strainis equal to 2dw
max
/l. For anarrowexca-
vation, theaverageshear strain (
ave
) of activezone
ABCDandfanzoneCDEis2dw
max
/l and2.23dw
max
/l,
respectively, while
ave
in the passive zone EFHI
dependsbothonthewavelengthl of thedeformation
and the width B of the excavation. The relationship
betweenthenormalizedaverageshear straininEFHI
andtheexcavationgeometryisshowninFigure5.The
correlationsareasfollows:
Apartfromthefirstexcavationstage,all subsequent
deformation mechanisms must partially overlay the
previous ones (Figure6). Dueto thenon-linearity of
soil itisimportanttocalculatetheaccumulatedmobi-
lized shear strain in each particular layer of soil in
order tocorrectlydeducethemobilizedshear strength
of that layer. This is doneby anareaaveragemethod
describedasfollows:
20
Figure 5. Correlation between normalized average shear
strainandexcavationgeometryfor anarrowexcavation.
A B
C D
F
E
H
I
C" D"
F"
E"
H"
I"
n th Layer
Deformation
mechanismof
Excavation stage
m-1
Deformation
mechanismof
Excavation stage
m
Enlarged strip of the nth layer
A(m-1,n)
A(m,n)
Figure6. Overlappingof deformationfield.
where(m, n) isthetotal shear strainof thenthlayer
in the mth excavation stage, and A(m, n) is the area
of deformationinthenthlayer inthemthexcavation
stage.
Withthehelpof somesuitablestress-strainrelation
for the soil (discussed in the following section), the
mobilizedstrengthratio(m,n) at excavationstagem
for soil layer ncanbefound(Figure7).
Figure7. Typical stressstrainrelationshipof soft clay.
5.2 Shear strength mobilized in mechanism
In soft clay, the undrained shear strength generally
varieswithdepth, andwithorientationof shear direc-
tion. The strength matrix c
mob
(m,n) mobilized for
excavationstagem for layer n canbeexpressedusing
a matrix (m,n) on the appropriate undrained shear
strengthprofile. Regardingorientation, anisotropy of
soft soil canbeasignificant factor for excavationsta-
bility. For example, Clough&Hansen(1981) showan
empirical factor basedontheobservationthat triaxial
extension tests give roughly one half the undrained
shear strength of triaxial compression, with simple
shear roughly half way between. Figure4 shows the
orientation of the major principal stress direction
within thevarious zones of shearing in theassumed
plasticmechanismforwideexcavations, andindicates
withacodethesoil test configurationthat wouldcor-
rectlyrepresent theundrainedshear strengthof at the
specific orientation. For locations marked DSS the
assume directions of shearing are either vertical or
horizontal, so the ideal test on a vertical core is a
direct simple shear test. In areas marked PSA and
PSP, shearing takes place at 45 degrees to the hori-
zontal and thesezones arebest represented by plain
strainactiveandpassivetests, respectively. Sincethe
undrainedshearstrengthof thedirectsimplesheartest
isroughlytheaverageof thatof PSA andPSP, therel-
ativeinfluenceof thePSA andPSP zones is roughly
neutral withrespecttodirectsimpleshear.Asaresult,
thedesignmethodfor bracedexcavationcanbest be
basedontheundrainedshearstrengthof adirectsimple
shear test. A similar decisionwasmadebyORourke
(1993).
Theequilibriumof theunbalanced weight of soil
insidethemechanismis achievedby mobilizationof
shearstrength.Foreachexcavationstage,mobilization
21
of shear strength of each layer is considered by the
following:
where c
u,mob
(m,n) is the mobilized undrained shear
strengthfor layer n inexcavationstagem; c
u
(n) isthe
undrainedshear strengthfor layer n; and(m,n) isthe
mobilized strength ratio for excavation stage m and
soil layer n.
5.3 Incremental energy balance
By conservationof energy, thetotal loss of potential
energy of thesoil (LP) must balancethetotal dissi-
patedenergy duetoplastic shearingof thesoil (LD)
andthetotal storedelasticstrainenergyinbendingthe
wall (LU).
Thepotential energy loss ontheactivesideof the
wall andthepotential energygainof soil onthepassive
sidecanbeestimatedeasily. Thenet changeof gravi-
tational potential energy (LP) isgivenby thesumof
thepotential energychangesineachlayer:
wheredw
y
(m, i) isthevertical componentof displace-
ment of soil intheithlayer for themthconstruction;

sat
(m, i) isthesaturatedunit weight of soil intheith
layer for themthconstruction.
Sincetherearenodisplacementdiscontinuities, the
total plasticwork donebyshearingof soil isgivenby
summingtheinternal dissipationineachlayer:
wherec
u
(m,i) is theundrained shear strength of soil
in the ith layer for the mth construction; d(m,i) is
theshear strain increment of soil in theith layer for
themthconstruction;andthecorrespondingmobilized
strengthratioisgivenby:
Thetotal elasticstrainenergystoredinthewall,LU,
canbeevaluatedbyrepeatedlyupdatingthedeflected
shapeof thewall. It isnecessarytodothissinceU is
aquadraticfunctionof displacement:
whereE andI aretheelasticmodulusandthesecond
moment of areaper unit length of wall, and s is the
lengthof thewall inbending. L canbethelengthof
wall s belowthelowest prop.
Byassumingthecosinewaveformequation(Equa-
tion1), thestrainenergy termcanbeshowntobeas
follows:
wherel isthewavelengthof deformation, dw
max
isthe
maximumdeflection of the wall in each excavation
increment.
5.4 Calculation procedure
Thefollowingcalculationprocedureisprogrammedin
Matlab2006b.
1 At eachstageof excavation, amaximumdeforma-
tionw
max
,whichisboundedbyanupperandalower
bound, isassumed. Thesoil stratumisdividedinto
n layers. Theareasonboththeactivesideandthe
passivesideineachlayer arecalculated.
2 For eachlayer, withthehelpof thenumerical inte-
gration procedurein Matlab, themobilized shear
strain and the change in PE on both active and
passivesidesindifferentzonesiscalculated.(Equa-
tion18)Thetotal mobilizedshear strainisupdated
accordingEquation15.
3 Withtheuseof asuitablestress-straincurve(Fig-
ure 7), the mobilizable strength ratio can be
found.
4 Total changeinPEandtotal energydissipationand
elasticbendingenergyinthewall canbecalculated
byEquations18, 19& 21, respectively.
5 By considering the conservation of energy of a
structure in statical equilibrium, the sumof total
energy dissipationandelastic strainenergy inthe
wall balances thetotal changeinPE. To facilitate
solvingthesolution, anerror termisintroducedas
follows:
6 Whentheerror issmaller thanaspecifiedconver-
gencelimit, theassumeddeformationis accepted
asthesolution; otherwise, themethodof bisection
isemployedtoassumeanothermaximumdisplace-
ment andtheerror termis calculatedagainusing
steps1to5.
7 Then, the incremental wall movement profile is
plottedusingthecosinefunctionof equation
8 Thecumulativedisplacementprofileisobtainedby
accumulatingtheincremental movement profiles.
22
6 VALIDATIONBY NUMERICAL ANALYSIS
Thefiniteelement method can provideaframework
for performingnumerical simulations to validatethe
extendedMSDmethodinevaluatingtheperformance
of bracedexcavations. However, finiteelement anal-
ysisof retainingwallsispotentiallyproblematic. One
themost difficult problems is theconstitutivemodel
usedfor thesoil. Thestress-strainrelationshipcanbe
verycomplicatedwhenconsideringstresshistoryand
anisotropyof soil (Whittle, 1993).
The validation of the extended MSD method is
examinedbycomparingitspredictionswithresultsof
comprehensiveFE analyses of aplanestrain braced
excavation in Boston Blue Clay carried out by J en
(1998). In these analyses, the MIT-E3 constitutive
model isused(Whittle, 1987). Themodel isbasedon
ModifiedCamclay(RoscoeandBurland1968). How-
ever, several modificationshadbeenmadetoimprove
thebasiccritical stateframework. Themodel cansim-
ulatesmall strainnon-linearity, soil anisotropyandthe
hysteretic behaviour associatedwith reversal of load
paths. Whittle(1993) alsodemonstratedtheabilityof
themodel toaccuratelyrepresentthebehaviour of dif-
ferent clays when subjected to a variety of loading
paths.
J en(1998) extendedtheuseof theMIT-E3model
for analyzing cases of deep excavation in a great
varietyof situations. Sheconsideredtheeffectof exca-
vationgeometrysuchaswall length, excavationwidth
anddepthof bedrock, theeffectof soil profilesuchas
c
u
/OCR ratioandlayeredsoil, andtheeffect of struc-
tural stiffnesssuchaswall stiffnessandstrutstiffness.
Thisprovidesavaluabledatabasefor validationof the
extendedMSDmethod.
6.1 An example of MSD calculation
ThefollowingexampleshowstheextendedMSDcal-
culationof wall deflections for a40mwall retaining
17.5mdeepand40mwideexcavation(Figure8).The
constructionsequencecomprisesthefollowingsteps:
1 The soil is excavated initially to an unsupported
depth(h) of 2.5m.
2 Thefirst support isinstalledat thegroundsurface.
3 Thesecondlevel of props is installedat avertical
spacingof 2.5m, and2.5mof soil isexcavated.
Theundrainedshearstrengthof thesoil isexpressed
bytherelationshipsuggestedbyHashashandWhittle
(1996) for BostonBlueClay(BBC) asfollows:
Thecantilevermodeof deformationandthebulging
movementsarecalculatedseparatelyusingthemech-
anismof Osman & Bolton (2006) and the extended
Retaining wall
(EI=1440,77 and 19MNm
2
/m)
OCR=1
BBC
properties
C=37.5, 50 and 100m
L=20, 25, 30, 35 and 40m
B/2=15,20,25 & 30m
C
L
h=2.5m
s=2.5m
Figure8. Scopeof parametricstudytoexamineexcavation
widtheffect.
Figure 9. Stress-strain response for Ko consolidated
undrained DSS tests on Boston blue clay (After Whittle,
1993).
MSDmethodasdescribedabove.Thetotal wall move-
mentsarethenobtainedbyaddingthebulgingmove-
ments to the cantilever movements to the cantilever
movement accordingtoCloughet al. (1989).
6.1.1 Cantilever movement
By solving for horizontal force equilibrium and
moment equilibriumabout the top of the wall, the
mobilizedshear stress(c
mob
) isfoundtobe11.43kPa.
Themobilizedstrengthratio is0.2886.Withthehelp
of directsimpleshearstress-straindataforBostonblue
claybyWhittle(1993) (Figure9), themobilizedstrain
is read off for an appropriatepreconsolidation pres-
sure

p
andanappropriateOCR. Themobilizedshear
23
Figure10. Wall deflectionsfromMSDwithdifferentexca-
vationdepths.
strain(
mob
) isfoundtobe0.2%. By consideringthe
geometrical relationship, thewall rotationisfoundto
be 0.1%. The displacement at the top of the wall is
foundtobe39mm.
6.1.2 Bulging movement
The first support is installed at the top of the wall.
The length of the wall below the support is 40m.
By adopting the iterative calculation procedure, and
usingthedeformationmechanismforanarrowexcava-
tion, thebulgingmovementateachstageof excavation
canbeobtained. Then, theincremental bulgingmove-
ment profileineachstageisplottedusingthecosine
function, using the maximumincremental displace-
ment in each stage together with the corresponding
wavelengths. The total wall movement is obtained
by accumulating cantilever movement and the total
bulgingmovement. Figure10shows thefinal defor-
mationprofileof theaccumulatedwall movement of
anexcavationwithawidthof 40m.Themaximumwall
deflectionatanexcavationdepthof 17.5mis115mm.
The position of the maximumwall displacement is
locatedat 0.75L, whereL isthelengthof thewall.
6.2 Effect of excavation width
The effect of excavation width on predicted ground
movements is thefocus of this section. Underground
transportation systems may have excavation widths
ranging from 25m (a subway station) to 60m (an
undergroundhighway). Themost widely useddesign
charts generally incorporatetheeffect of excavation
width in estimation of factor of safety against base
heave(BjerrumandEide, 1956) or asamultiplication
factor in estimating themaximumsettlement (Mana
andClough, 1981).
Thescopeof theexcavationanalysesareshownin
Figure8. Intheanalyses, theexcavationwas carried
out inundrainedconditions inadeposit of normally
consolidated Boston Blue Clay with depth C taken
to be 100m. A concrete diaphragm wall of depth
L =40m, and thickness 0.9m, supported by rigid
props spaced at h=2.5m, was used for supporting
thesimulatedexcavation. Theexcavationwidthvaries
from20mto 60m. The wavelength of deformation
is chosen according to the l =s rule, where was
takento be1.5ands is thelengthof wall belowthe
lowest prop. ComputedresultsbyJ en(1998) areused
forcomparison. Full detailsof theanalysisprocedures,
assumptionsandparametersaregiveninJ en(1998).In
thefollowingsection, onlyresultsof wall deformation
will betakenfor comparison.
Figure11(a) and(b) showthewall deflectionpro-
filewithdifferent excavationwidthsat anexcavation
depthof 17.5m, as calculatedby theextendedMSD
method and the MIT-E3 model. Figure 11(a) shows
that theexcavationwidthdoesnot haveany effect on
the deflected shape of the wall as calculated by the
extendedMSDmethod.Figure11(b),simularly,shows
alimitedeffectonthedeflectedshapeof thewall bythe
MIT-E3model. WhiletheMSD-predictedmaximum
wall deflectionincreasesbyafactorof 1.5asthewidth
isincreasedfrom30mto60m, theMIT-E3computed
maximumwall deformation increased by afactor of
1.6withthesameincreaseinexcavationwidth.
6.3 Effect of bending stiffness of the wall
In general, structural support to excavations is pro-
videdbyawall andbracingsystem. Soldier pilesand
lagging, sheet piles, soil mixandsoldier piles, drilled
piers(secantpiles),andreinforcedconcretediaphragm
wallsareexamplesof wall typesthathavebeenusedto
supportexcavations. Thevarioustypesof wall exhibit
asignificant rangeof bendingstiffnessandallowable
moment. Supportwallscomposedof soldier pilesand
sheet pilesaregenerallymoreflexibleandcapableof
sustaining smaller loads than the more rigid drilled
piersandreinforceddiaphragmwalls.
The preceding sections have all assumed a 0.9m
thick concrete diaphragmwall with elastic bending
stiffness EI =1440MNm
2
/m. Although it is possi-
ble to increase this bending stiffness by increasing
the wall thickness and reinforcement, or by using
T-panels(barettes), most of thewallsusedinpractice
havelower bendingstiffnesses. For example, thetypi-
cal bendingstiffnessof sheetpilewallsisintherange
of 50to80MNm
2
/m. Thissectionassessestheeffect
of wall bending stiffness on the excavation-induced
displacements.
24
Figure 11. Wall deflection profile of different excavation
widthsat H=17.5m.
Excavationinsoft clay withawidthof 40msup-
portedbyawall of length25mandof variousbending
stiffness(EI =1440, 70and20MNm
2
/m) arestudied.
Results generatedby theMSD methodandFEA are
compared. Figure12(a)and(b)presentsthedeflection
profilesof theexcavationspredictedbyextendedMSD
and theMIT-E3 model, respectively. As thebending
stiffnessof thewall decreases, thereisnopronounced
changeintheoverall shapeof thewall; themaximum
wall deflection increases and its location migrates
towardstheexcavatedgrade. AtH=12.5m, themax-
imumwall displacement is 47mmfor the concrete
diaphragmwall withthemaximumdeflectionlocated
at 7.5mbelow theexcavation level, whiletheresult
for the most flexible sheet pile wall shows 197mm
of maximumwall deflectionoccurringat5.5mbelow
theexcavationlevel. Inadditional to this, changes in
Figure12. Deflectionprofilesof wallswithvariousbending
stiffnesses.
wall stiffness also affect the transition froma sub-
gradebendingmodetoatoekicking-outmode.Asthe
wall stiffness decreases, theinfluenceof embedment
depth reduces, and hencethetendency for toekick-
out to occur is less. Again, a fairly good agreement
can beseen when comparing extended MSD results
and numerical results by theMIT-E3 model, though
kinks areusually foundat thewall toeinthenumer-
ical predictions, which implies localization of large
shear strainsdevelopedbeneaththewall toe.
6.4 Effect of wall length
Wall length is oneof thegeometrical factors affect-
ingthebehaviour of asupportedexcavation. Previous
analysesweredonebyOsmanandBolton(2006). The
studies showedthat thewall endconditionshouldbe
assumedtobefreefor short walls(L =12.5m) since
theclayisverysoftatthebaseandtheembeddedlength
isnot longenoughtorestrainthemovement at thetip
of thewall (kick-out modeof deformation). For long
walls (L =40m), the embedded depth was assumed
25
Figure13. Wall deflection profileof excavation with dif-
ferent support wall lengths, byExtendedMSDmethod.
to besufficient to restrain themovement at thewall
base (bulging model of deformation). However, the
effect of structural stiffnesswasnot consideredinthe
old MSD method, though similar observations were
madebyHashashandWhittle(1996)intheirnumerical
analyses.
Inthissection, theeffectof wall lengthwill becon-
sidered. Excavationswithwidthsof 40msupportedby
a 0.9mthick concrete diaphragmwall with varying
length (L =20, 25, 30 and 40m) are studied. Fig-
ure13 shows thewall displacement profiles against
depth with different lengths of wall. For H7.5m,
thedeflectedwall shapesarevirtuallyidentical for all
four wall cases of wall length. This agrees with the
conclusionmadeby Hashash(1992) that wall length
hadaminimal effectonpre-failuredeformations.AsH
increasesto10m, thetoeof the20mlongwall begins
tokick out withmaximumincremental deformations
occurring at the toe of the wall. The movements of
the25, 30 and 40mlong walls arequitesimilar. At
H=12.5m, the toe of the 20mand 25mlong wall
kickout, whilethetwolongerwalls(L =30and40m)
continue to deformin a bulging mode. The differ-
enceindeformationmodeshapedemonstratesthatthe
wall lengthhas asignificant influenceonthefailure
mechanismfor abracedexcavation.
Figure15showsasimilar set of analysesby using
theMIT-E3model.Similarobservationsaboutthewall
shapecanbemade.
Figure 14 summarizes the variation of the nor-
malizedexcavation-induceddeflection(w
max
,H) with
thewidth to length ratio (B/L) for different bending
stiffnessesof thesupport wall, for H=17.5m.
Figure 14. Variation of maximum wall deflection with
widthtolengthratioof wall.
Figure15. Wall deflection profileof excavation with dif-
ferent support wall lengths, by MIT-E3 method (After J en
(1998)).
For aflexiblewall (EI =12.3MNm
2
/m), thenor-
malized maximumwall deflection increases linearly
as theB/L ratio increases from1 to 2. Thegradient
changes andw
max
/H increases in agentlefashion as
the B/L ratio increases from2 to 2.8. For a rigidly
supportedwall, theincreaseinw
max
/Hratioislesssig-
nificant astheB/L ratioincreases. Inother words, the
maximumwall deflectionislesssensitivetoachange
of B/L ratiofor arigidwall.
26
Figure 16. Wall deflection profiles of excavation with
different depthstothefirmstratum.
6.5 Effect of the depth of bearing stratum
Thedepthto bedrock, C, is animportant component
of the excavation geometry. The preceding analyses
haveassumedadeepclay layer withbedrock located
at C=100mwhichrepresentsapractical upper limit
on C. In practice, however, the clay layer is usually
less than100mdeep. Thefollowingresults focus on
the discussion of the geometrical parameter C. The
analysis involves planestrainexcavationinnormally
consolidated Boston blue clay supported by a 0.9m
thickconcretediaphragmwall withrigidstrutsupports
spacedat 2.5m.
The wall deflection profiles for excavations pre-
dictedby bothMSD andMIT-E3withtwo depths of
theclaystratum(C=35mand50m) arecomparedin
Figure16(a) and(b).
Ingeneral, thedepthof thefirmstratumwouldonly
affect wall deformations below theexcavated grade,
hencethelargest effectscanbeseenat thetoeof the
wall. For situationswherethewavelengthof deforma-
tionisrestrictedlessby excavationwidththanby the
depth of thefirmstratum(B>C), themagnitudeof
maximumwall deflectionincreaseswiththedepthof
thefirmstratum(C). TheMSD methodpredicts that
thekick-out displacement of thewall toeis limited
by the restriction of developing a large deformation
mechanism. As a result, the maximumwall deflec-
tionis also limited. Theincreaseinincremental wall
deflectiondecreasesinlaterstagesof excavationwhen
H increases from12.5mto 17.5mdueto thereduc-
tionof wavelengthof deformation. Ontheother hand,
whenthedepthof thefirmstratumismuchlargerthan
thewidthof theexcavation(B-C), thedepthof the
bed rock has a minimal effect on the magnitude of
wall deflection. Results by FEA by J en (1998) (Fig-
ure16(b)) alsoshowedthesameobservation. Despite
theshortcomingof MSDnot beingabletomodel the
correctshapeof wall, themaximumwall deflectionis
predictedreasonablywell. Thenet differenceinmax-
imumwall displacement between MSD and the full
FEA isgenerallylessthan20%.
7 CONCLUDINGREMARKS
AnextendedMSD methodis introducedto calculate
the maximumwall displacement profile of a multi-
proppedwall retaininganexcavationinsoft clay. As
withtheearlierMSDapproach, eachincrementof wall
bulging generated by excavation of soil beneath the
current lowest level of support is approximated by a
cosinefunction. Thesoil isdividedintolayersineach
of whichtheaverageshear strainincrementsarecom-
pounded so that themobilized strength ratio in each
layercanbetrackedseparatelyasexcavationproceeds,
usingstress-straindatafromarepresentativeelement
test matchedtothesoil propertiesat mid-depthof the
wall. Theincremental lossinpotential energyassoci-
atedwiththeformationof asettlement trough, dueto
wall deformationandbaseheave, canbeexpressedas
afunction of thoseground movements at any stage.
By conservationof energy, this must always balance
theincremental dissipationof energythroughshearing
andtheincremental storageof elasticenergyinbend-
ingthewall. Byaniterativeprocedure, thedeveloping
profileof wall displacementscanbefound.
A reasonableagreement is found between predic-
tionsmadeusingthisextendedMSDmethodandthe
FEA resultsof J en(1998) whocreatedfull numerical
solutions usingtheMIT-E3soil model. Inparticular,
theeffectsof excavationwidth, wall bendingstiffness,
wall length, andthedepthof theclaystratum, wereall
quitecloselyreproduced.
It is important to drawtheright lessons fromthis.
Theexcellent work at MIT over many years, on soil
element testing, soil constitutive models, and Finite
27
ElementAnalysis, haveprovideduswiththemeansto
calibrateaverysimpleMSDpredictionmethod. This
was basedonanundrainedstrengthprofile, asingle
stress-strain test, and a plastic deformation mecha-
nism. Wereit not for themultiplelevel of props the
calculationof grounddisplacementscouldbecarried
out inhardly moretimethanis currently requiredto
calculateastabilitynumber or factor of safety. Allow-
ingfortheneedtorepresentvariouslevelsof props,the
calculationsthencall for aMatlabscript or aspread-
sheet, andthewholeprocessmight takehalf aday to
complete.
Anengineer canthereforeanticipatethatimportant
questionswill becapableof approximatebut reason-
ablyrobust answersinasensibleindustrial timescale.
For example:
Will apropspacingof 3mbesufficient for awall
of limitedstiffnessandstrength?
Shouldthebaseof thewall befixedbyjet-grouting
prior toexcavation?
Will aparticular construction sequencecausethe
soil tostrainsomuchthat it indulgesinpost-peak
softening?
Is it feasibleto propthewall at sufficiently close
spacingstorestrictstrainsintheretainedgroundto
valuesthatwill preventdamagetoburiedservices?
Thismayleadengineerstotakesoil stiffnessmore
seriously, andtorequest accuratestress-straindata. If
so, inadecadeperhaps, our Codes of Practicemight
beupdatedtonotethatMSDfordeepexcavationspro-
videsapractical wayof checkingfor theavoidanceof
serviceabilitylimit states.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Theauthorswouldliketoacknowledgetheearmarked
research grant #618006 provided by the Research
Grants Council of the HKSAR Government, and
alsothePlatformGrant (GR/T18660/01) awardedby
theUK EngineeringandPhysical Sciences Research
Council.
REFERENCES
Bjerrum, L. &Eide, O. 1956. Stabilityof struttedexcavations
inclay. Geotechnique 6: 115128.
Bolton, M.D. & Powrie, W., 1988. Behaviour of diaphragm
walls retaining walls prior to collapse. Geotechnique
37(3): 335353.
Bolton, M.D., PowrieW. & Symons, I.F. 1989. Thedesign
of stiff in-situwallsretainingoverconsolidatedclay part.
Ground engineering 22(8): 4448.
Bolton,M.D.,Powrie,W.&Symons,I.F.1990a.Thedesignof
stiff in-situwallsretainingover-consolidatedclay part 1,
short termbehaviour. Ground Engineering 23(1): 3439.
Bolton,M.D.,Powrie,W.&Symons,I.F.1990b.Thedesignof
stiff in-situwallsretainingover-consolidatedclay, partII,
longtermbehaviour. Ground engineering 23(2): 2228.
Clough, G.W. & Hansen, L.A. 1981. Clay anisotropy and
braced wall behavior. ASCE Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering 107(7): 893913.
Clough, G.W., Smith, E.W. &Sweeney, B.P. 1989. Movement
control of excavationsupport systemby iterativedesign.
Foundation Engineering Current Principles and Practices
Vol. 2ASCE, NewYork, NY: 869882.
Eide, O., Aas, G. & J osang, T. 1972. Special applicationof
cast-inplace walls for tunnels in soft clay. Proceedings
of the 5th European Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Madrid, Spain, 1: 485498.
Hashash, Y.M.A. & Whittle, A.J. 1996. Ground movement
predictionfordeepexcavationsinsoftclay.ASCE Journal
of Geotechnical Engineering 122(6): 474486.
J en, L.C. 1998.The design and performance of deep excava-
tions in clay. PhDthesis, Dept. of Civil andEnvironmental
Engineering, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
Mana, A.I. & Clough, G.W. 1981. Predictionof movements
for braced cut in clay. J. Geo. Engrg. ASCE 107(GT8):
759777.
Milligan, G.W.E. & Bransby, P.L. 1976. Combined active
andpassiverotational failureof aretainingwall insand.
Geotechnique 26(3): 473494.
ORourke, T.D. 1993. Base stability and ground move-
ment prediction for excavations in soft clay. Retaining
Structures, ThomasTelford, London: 131139.
Osman, A.S. &Bolton, M.D. 2004A newdesignmethodfor
retaining walls in clay. Canadian Geotechnical Journal
41(3): 451466.
Osman, A.S. & Bolton, M.D. 2005Simpleplasticity-based
predictionof theundrainedsettlementof shallowcircular
foundationsonclay. Geotechnique 55(6): 435447.
Osman,A.S. &Bolton, M.D. 2006Groundmovementpredic-
tionsforbracedexcavationsinundrainedclay.ASCEJour-
nal of Geotechnical and Geo-environmental Engineering
132(4): 465477.
Osman, A.S., Bolton, M.D. & Mair, R.J. 2006 Predicting
2Dgroundmovementsaroundtunnelsinundrainedclay.
Geotechnique 56(9): 597604.
Skempton, A.W. 1951. Thebearingcapacity of clays. Proc.,
Building Research Congress, London: 180189.
Sloan, S.W. 1988. Lower bound limit analysis using finite
elementsandlinear programming. International Journal
for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics
12(1): 6177.
Sloan, S.W. & Kleeman, P.W. 1995. Upper bound limit
analysis using discontinuous velocity fields. Computer
Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 127:
293314.
Terzaghi, K.1943. Theoretical soil mechanics, J ohnWiley&
Sons, Inc., NewYork, N.Y.
Ukritchon, B., Whittle, A.J. & Sloan, S.W. 2003. Undrained
stability of braced excavations in clay. ASCE Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 129(8):
738755.
Whittle,A.J. 1987.A constitutive model for overconsolidated
clays with application to the cyclic loading of friction
piles. PhD thesis, Dept. of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
Whittle, A.J. 1993. Evaluation of a constitutive model for
overconsolidatedclays. Geotechnique 43(2): 289313.
28
Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground Ng, Huang & Liu (eds)
2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-48475-6
Overviewof Shanghai YangtzeRiverTunnel Project
R. Huang
Commanding Post of Shanghai Tunnel & Bridge Construction, Shanghai, P.R. China
ABSTRACT: Inthepaper, anintroductionof theconstructionbackgroundandscaleof Shanghai YangtzeRiver
Tunnel andBridgeProject andnatural conditionsof Shanghai YangtzeRiverTunnel constructionaregiven. The
overall designconcept andsomecritical technical solutionssuchassegment structureof largediameter bored
tunnel, water proofingof segment under highdepthandwater pressure, longtunnel ventilationsystemandfire
fightingsystemaredescribed. Characteristicsof twomixedTBM withadiameter of 15,430mmaredescribed.
Theoverall constructionmethodsof tunnel, andcritical technical solutionsandriskprovisionmeasuresfor large
andlongriver-crossingtunnel suchasthefrontsurfacestabilityforboredtunnel construction, floatingresistance
of largediameter tunnel, longdistanceconstructionsurvey, synchronousconstructionof internal structure, and
crosspassageconstructionof fresh/saltyalternatinggeological/environmental conditionarediscussed.
1 INTRODUCTION
Shanghai YangtzeRiver Tunnel andBridgeproject is
located at the South Channel waterway and North
Channel waterway of Yangtze River mouth in the
northeast of Shanghai, which is a significant part
of national expressway, as shown in Figure 1. It is
anextremely major transport infrastructureproject at
seashore area in China at Yangtze River mouth and
alsothelargesttunnel andbridgecombinationproject
worldwide. Thecompletionof theproject will further
promotethedevelopmentspaceforShanghai, improve
the structure and layout of Shanghai traffic system,
develop resources on Chongming Island, acceler-
ate economic development in the north of J iangsu
Province, increasetheeconomy capacity of Pudong,
accelerate the economy integrity of Yangtze River
Delta, boomthe economic development of Yangtze
River areaand even thewholecountry and upgrade
thecomprehensivecompetenceof Shanghai inChina
andevenintheglobal economy.
ShanghaiYangtzeRiverTunnel andBridge(Chong-
ming Crossing) alignment solution is the planned
westernsolutionwhichisimplementedfirstlybasedon
theShanghai overall urbanplanning, andcomparison
betweeneast andwest alignment andincombination
of variousaspects. Thewesternalignment startsfrom
Wuhaogou in Pudong, crossingYangtzeRiver South
Channel waterwaytoChangxingIslandandspanning
Yangtze River North Channel waterway to east of
ChongmingIsland.
YangtzeRiver beginstobedividedinto3levelsof
branchesandhave4mouthsflowingintothesea: The
Figure1. Sitelocationof ChongmingCrossing.
South Channel waterway is mixed river trench. The
intermediate slow flow area forms Ruifeng shoal
whichisrelatively stablefor alongtime. Thenatural
water depthmakesit asthemainnavigationchannel.
However, the North Channel waterway is located in
the middle part of river, which is influenced by the
south part and branch transition into North Channel
waterway. So the trench varies alternatively and the
river mapisnot asstableasSouthChannel waterway.
Therefore, after iterativediscussionbyseveral parties,
finally thesolution of SouthernTunnel & Northern
Bridge isselected. Thetotal project is25.5kmlong,
among which 8.95kmis tunnel with adesign speed
of 80km/hand9.97kmisbridgeand6.58kmisland
connectionwithadesignspeedof 100km/h, asshown
29
Figure2. Diagramof Shanghai YangtzeRiverTunnel andBridge.
in Figure 2. The total roadway is planned as dual
6lanes.
2 CONSTRUCTIONBACKGROUNDAND
PLANNING
The planning study of Shanghai Yangtze River Tun-
nel and Bridge Project (Chongming Crossing) was
incepted from90s of last century. The preliminary
preparatoryworkhaslasted11years. InMay1993, the
National ScientificCommitteeheldtheYangtzeRiver
mouthcrossingsignificanttechnical-economical chal-
lenges earlystageworkmeeting.Afteroneyearspe-
cial investigation, thePreliminarystudyreportof sig-
nificanttechnical challengesof YangtzeRiver Cross-
ing wasprepared.Thepre-feasibilitystudyreportwas
prepared in March 1999. InAugust 2001, the inter-
national concept competition was developed and the
Southern Tunnel & Northern Bridge solution was
defined. TheNational PlanningCommitteeapproved
theprojectproposal inDecember2002.Thefeasibility
study report was approvedby theNational Develop-
ment andReformCommitteeinNovember 2004. The
preliminary design was approved by theMinistry of
CommunicationinJ uly 2005andtotal investment of
12.616billionRMB wasapprovedfor theproject.
For the project construction investment, 5 billion
wasfundedbyShanghai ChengtouCorporation(60%)
andShanghai RoadConstructionCooperation(40%),
and7.6billionwasfinancedfromBankConsortium.
Basedonthecharacteristics of thenational major
project, Commanding Post of Shanghai Tunnel &
BridgeConstructionwasestablishedwithapproval of
Shanghai Municipal Committee. Thepost is directed
bythevicemajor andcomposedof staff fromPudong
NewArea, ChongmingCountyandother committees
andbureaus. Themainresponsibilityistomakedeci-
siononsignificantproblemsandcoordinateimportant
items. Inorder toimprovethedepthof dailymanage-
ment, officewas set upunder thecommandingpost,
workingtogether withestablishedShanghai Yangtze
River Tunnel and BridgeConstruction Development
Co., Ltd. whichismainlyinchargeof theimplemen-
tation of theproject and daily work of commanding
post and performs the investment management on
behalf of theclient. Thespecific work is responsible
for thefinancing, investment, construction, operation
and transfer of the project. To detail the technical
assurancemeasures, theclients sets up thetechnical
consultant teamwhich provides theoretical support,
technical assistanceandconsultancyserviceforsignif-
icant technical challengesduringtheimplementation.
Meanwhile, theteamisinvolvedintheinvestigationof
significanttechnical solutions, reviewof construction
methodstatementandtreatmentof technical problems
to ensure the high quality and safety. International
well-knownconsultancy companies areentrustedfor
thepurposeof applicationof state-of-art philosophy,
mostsuccessful experience, optimal conceptandmost
maturemanagementtomaketheYangtzeRiverTunnel
andBridgeProject asCenturyEliteProject.
The project finally initiated on 28th, December
2004andplannedto beopento traffic inJ uly 2010.
Themaincivil structureof thebridgeisplannedtobe
closedinJ une2008, andtunnel inApril 2009.
3 NATURAL CONDITIONSOF TUNNEL
PROJ ECT
3.1 Environmental conditions
Shanghai YangtzeTunnel Project starts fromWuhao-
gou of Waigaoqiao in Pudong NewArea, connected
withShanghai mainfast roads suchas MiddleRing,
OuterRingandSuburbRingthroughWuzhouAveneu,
crossing southern water area and lands on Changx-
ingIsland400mwestof XinkaiheHarbour, connected
withChangxingIslandroadnetthroughPanyuanInter-
change.Themainbuildingonlandisthefloodpreven-
tionwall onPudongsideandChangxingIsland.Others
arefarmfields.Theriver-crossingsectionismainlythe
30
Figure3. Longitudinal profileof tunnel.
southernwater wayfor navigationwhichisanimpor-
tantpassagefor connectingYangtzeWaterswithother
seashoreareainChinaandoceansworldwide.
Therearetwoseacablesarrangedalongthebored
tunnel axis with a depth of 3mbelow natural river
bed. One cable is basically located at the west side
of thetunnel andgoes into theriver near Wuhaogou
on Pudong side, which is about 1,500maway from
thetunnel. It becomes closer to thetunnel gradually
tothenorthandcrossesthetunnel toitseast at 240m
fromChangxingIslandandlandsonChangxingIsland
at 350mwest of XinkaiheHarbour. Theother cable
goes into theriver near Wuhaogou, 1,300away from
thetunnel. Thenit turnstoNE first andN at 2,600m
wayfromPudongLandConnections, almostidentical
with the tunnel alignment. And it changes fromthe
west of tunnel to east of tunnel gradually and lands
on Changxing Island about 300mwest of Xinkaihe
Harbor.
Furthermore, two sunkenboats closeto Chainage
XK2+350 and XK1+500 have been salved before
boredtunnel construction. Earthwasalsofilledback
atcorrespondinglocations; however, theremaybestill
someremains.
3.2 River regime and hydrological conditions
Atthemouthof YangtzeRiveritistideareawithinter-
mediatelevel. Outsideof mouthisregularhalf daytide
andinsideisirregular half dayshallowtideduetothe
changeof tidewave.Averagefloodtidetimeis5hand
averageebbtidetimeis7h, sototal timefor ebband
fluxis12h. Theaveragecurrencyflowis1.05m/sfor
flood tide during flood season and 1.12m/s for ebb
tide. Themaximal flowfor floodtideis1.98m/sand
2.35m/sfor ebbtide.
The underground water type in the shallow stra-
tumat tunnel siteis potential water, whichhas close
hydraulicrelationwithriverwater.Thepotential water
level is mainly influenced by theYangtzeRiver flux
andebb. Theaveragewater level for Waigaoqiaoand
ChangxingIslandis2.8mand2.4m, respectively.
In the stratum and at site area, the con-
finedwater is rich. At most area, theconfinedwater
is directly continuous. The confined water level is
between 4.15mand 6.76m. Furthermore, slight
confined water distributes in
2
, which has certain
hydraulicrelationswithconfinedwater in.
3.3 Geological conditions
Therelief of onshoreareaof theprojectisrivermouth,
sandmouth,sandislandwhichiswithinthemajorfour
relief units in Shanghai. Theground surfaceis even
withanormal elevationof 3.5m(WusongElevation).
Thewater areaisclassifiedasriver bedrelief.
Theprojectsitehasaseismicfortificationintensity
of 7, classified as IV site. The stratum
3
and
2
sandysilt distributingonPudonglandareaisslightly
liquefied.
Main geological layers (refers to Figure 3) TBM
crosses are:
1
grey muddy clay,
1
grey muddy
clay,
2
grey clayey silt withthinsilty clay,
3
silty
clay,
3
tlens,
11
grey clay silt,
12
grey sandy
silt, etc. Unfavorablegeological conditions areexpe-
riencedalongtheaxisof thetunnel, suchasliquefied
soil, quick sand, piping, shallowgas (methane), lens
andconfinedwater, etc.
4 TUNNEL DESIGNSOLUTION
4.1 Scale
Shanghai Yangtze River Tunnel is designed as dual
6lanesexpressway, andrail traffic provisionismade
belowtheroaddeck. Seismic fortificationlevel is 7.
31
Figure4. Crosssectionof boredtunnel.
Design service life is 100 years. The project con-
sists of landconnections of Pudongside(657.73m),
river-crossingtunnel (east tube7,471.654mandwest
tube7,469.363m) andlandconnections on Changx-
ingIsland(826.93m). Total lengthis8,955.26mand
investmentis6.3billionRMB.Theriver-crossingpart
istwin-tubeboredtunnel.
4.2 Tunnel alignment
Thelongitudinal profileof boredtunnel isinashapeof
W withalongitudinal slopeof 0.3%and0.87%. The
landconnectionshavealongitudinal profileof 2.9%.
The minimal curvature radius of horizontal plane is
4,000mandvertical profile12,000m.
4.3 Building design
4.3.1 Cross section of bored tunnel
Basedonstructural limitof trafficpassageandequip-
ment layout requirement, the internal diameter of
lining for bored tunnel is determinated as 13.7m
considering the fitted tolerance of lining at curved
section,constructiontolerance,differential settlement,
and combining the design and construction experi-
ence. Onthetopof tunnel, smokedischargeductsare
arrangedforfireaccidentwithanareaof 12.4m
2
.Each
tunnel hasthreelaneswithastructural clear widthof
12.75mandroadlaneclear height of 5.2m. Thecen-
tral partbelowroaddeckisfor rail trafficprovisionin
future. Ontheleft side, besidetheburiedtransformer
arrangement, it alsoservesasmainevacuationstairs.
The right side is cable channel, including provision
spacefor 220kV power cable, asshowninFigure4.
4.3.2 Cross-section of land connections
Working shaft is underground four-floor building:
1 is for ventilation pipe and pump plant for fire
fighting; 2 is for road lanewith cross over; 3 is
for rail traffic provisionandpower cablegallery and
4isfor wastewater pumpplant.
The cut-and-cover is designed with a rectangular
shape consisting of two tubes and one cable chan-
nel. 3lanes arearrangedineachtube. Thestructural
limitis13.25minwidthand5.5minheight, asshown
inFigure5. Upper areawithaheight of 0.6mis for
equipmentprovision.Theupper partof central gallery
is for cablechannel, middlepart for evacuation and
lowerpartforpipeditch.Ventilationshaftandbuilding
for equipments arearrangedabovethecut-and-cover
tunnel closetotheworkingshaft.
Theapproachconsists of light transitionzoneand
openramp.Thestructural limitof crosssectionisiden-
tical withthatof cut-and-covertunnel. Bothsideshave
aslopesectionwithaslopeof 1:3withgreenplanting
for protection. Thelighttransitionzoneisdesignedas
steel archstructure.
4.4 Structural design
4.4.1 Structural design of bored tunnel
The external diameter of bored tunnel lining is
15,000mm and internal diameter 13,700mm, as
shown in Figure6. Thering width is 2,000mmand
thicknessis650mm. Precastreinforcedconcretecom-
montaperedsegments areassembledwithstaggered
joint. ConcretestrengthclassisC60andseepageresis-
tance class is S12. The lining ring consists of 10
segments, i.e. 7 standard segments (B), 2 adjacent
segments (L), and 1 key segment (F). According to
the different depth, segments are classified as shal-
lowsegments, middle-deepsegments, deepsegments
andextremelydeepsegments. Skewboltsareusedto
connect segmentsinlongitudinal andcircumferential
direction.38M30longitudinal boltsareusedtocon-
necttherings. 2M39circumferential boltsareused
toconnectthesegments. Shearpinsareaddedbetween
32
Figure5. Cross-sectionof cut-and-cover.
Figure6. Liningstructure.
liningringsatshallowcoverarea, geological condition
variationareaandcrosspassagetoincreasetheshear
strengthbetweenringsat special locationandreduce
thestepbetweenrings.
4.4.2 Structural design of land connections
Theworking shaft and cut & cover tunnel sharethe
same wall. The thickness of diaphragmof working
shaft is 1,000mm, and the inner wall is 500mm,
1,200mm, respectively. For thecut-and-cover tunnel,
the thickness of diaphragm is 1,000mm, 800mm,
and600mmrespectivelydependingontheexcavation
depth. Theinner structurethicknessis600mm.
For theopen cut ramp, thebottomplatestructure
thicknessisaround5001,100mm. Under thebottom
plate, boredpilesarearrangedasup-liftingresistance
piletofulfil thestructural floatingresistancerequire-
ment. Theslopeuses in-situcast reinforcedconcrete
grid and fill earth and green planting in thegrid for
protection.
4.5 Structural water-proof and durability design
4.5.1 Requirement and standard
Fortheboredtunnel andworkingshaft, thewaterproof
standardof slightlyhigherthanlevel II isrequired. For
33
(a) (b)
Figure7. Segment joint water proofingsketch.
theentiretunnel, theaverageleakageshould beless
than0.05L/m
2
d. For eachrandom100m
2
, theleak-
ageshouldbelessthan0.1L/ m
2
d. Theinner surface
wet spots shouldnot bemorethan4of total inner
specificsurfacearea. Ineachrandom100m
2
, thewet
spots shouldnot bemorethan4locations. Themax-
imal areaof individual wet spot should not belarge
than0.15m
2
.
Thechloridediffusioncoefficient of concretelin-
ing structure of bored tunnel is not more than
1210
13
m
2
/s. Concreteseepageresistanceclassis
notlessthanS12.Furthermore,itisrequiredthatunder
1MPawaterpressurewhichisequivalentto2timesof
waterpressureforthetunnel withthelargestdepth, no
leakageisoccurredwhentheliningjoint opens7mm
andstaggers 10mm. Thesafety servicelifeof water
proof material is100years.
The seepage resistance class of onshore tunnel
structureisnot lessthanS10.
4.5.2 Water proofing design
Thesegmentjointwaterproof arrangementconsistsof
EPDMrubberstripwithsmall compressivepermanent
deformation, small stress relaxation and good aging
resistanceperformanceand hydrophilic rubber strip,
asshowninFigure7.
Thedeformationjoint at cut-and-cover tunnel uses
embedded water stop gasket, outer pastegasket and
inserted sealing glue forming enclosed system. The
top plate uses water proof paint as outer water
proof layer.
4.6 Tunnel operation system
4.6.1 Ventilation system
The road tunnel uses jet fan induced longitudinal
ventilationcombinedwithsmokeventilation.
Thelongitudinal ventilationareaintunnel is82m
2
.
J et fansaresuspendedabovethedecklaneandbelow
thesmokedischargeduct, supportinginducedventi-
lation in normal operation and congested condition.
78jet fanswithadiameter of 1,000mmarearranged
ineachtubefromPudongaccesstoChangxingIsland
access, every3asagroup.
VentilationshaftsarearrangedonPudongsideand
ChangxingIsland, respectively, housinglargeventila-
tion machineandspecial smokedischargeaxial fan.
Thefans areconnectedwithmaintunnel throughair
inlet and ventilation duct. During normal operation
and congested condition, the ventilation machine is
turnedontodischargethepollutedair inthetunnel. 6
largeaxial fanswithacapacityof 75m
3
/s 150m
3
/s
arehousedintheworkingshaftonChangxingInsland
andPudong, respectively.
For normal operation of lower rail traffic, piston
ventilationmodeisused.
4.6.2 Water supply and drainage system
The fire water, washing waste water, and structural
leakagearecollectedby thewastewater sumpat the
lowest point of river. Sumpis arrangedat upper and
lower level, respectively. The lower waste water is
drainedby therelay of upper sump. Theupper sump
is arranged on two sides of rail traffic area, housing
34
four pumpswhichareusedalternativelyunder normal
operation and turned on entirely during fire fight-
ing. For lower level, 4 sumps with a dimension of
1,0001,000550mmare arranged at the lowest
point of tunnel whereSGI segment isusedandabove
thesumpwater collectiontrenchwithalengthof 7m
andawidthof 1misarranged. Onewastewater pump
is placed in each pit which are used alternatively at
normal conditionandthreeareused, onespareduring
firefighting.
At each access of tunnel, one rain water sump is
arrangedto stopwater anddrainit out of thetunnel.
Therainamount isdesignedbasedonareturnperiod
of 30yearsfor rainstorm.
4.6.3 Power supply system
Theelectricityloadintunnel isclassifiedasthreelev-
els: level I is for ventilation fan, valve, water pump,
lightingandmonitoring& control systemanddirect
currentscreen, etc; level II isfortunnel inspectionand
repair,andventilationfanintransformerplant;level III
isfor air conditioningcoldwater machines.
OnPudongsideandChangxingIsland, two trans-
formers arearranged. Two independent 35kV power
circuits are introduced respectively and can be used
as spare power for the other through two connec-
tioncables. Eachrouteensurestheelectricity loadof
level I and II in the tunnel. For the dynamical and
lighting load far away fromtransformers, thepower
is supplied through 10kV power supply network in
thetunnel andembeddedtransformersunderneaththe
tunnel toensurethelongdistancepower supplyqual-
ity andreduceenergy losses. 6kV power is supplied
for theconcentratedventilationfan. Lightingelectric-
ityissuppliedbyindependent circuit inpower supply
system.
4.6.4 Lighting system
Light belt isusedfor lightinginthetunnel. At portal
area, natural light transitionandartificial light com-
binationisusedfor lighting. Fluorescencelampisthe
mainlightsourceinthetunnel. Strengtheninglighting
uses thehigh pressuresodiumlamp. Takingaccount
of the energy consumption, the application research
of LEDwithhighpower isbeingdeveloped. Theshift
timefor emergency lightinginthetunnel shouldnot
belarger than0.1sandtheemergencytimeis90min.
4.6.5 Monitoring and control system
Thecomprehensivemonitoringsystemconsistsof traf-
ficmonitoringsystem, equipmentmonitoringsystem,
CCTV monitoring system, communication system,
fire automatic alarming system, central computer
management system, monitoring and control center.
Equipmentmonitoringsystemisclassifiedasventila-
tionsubsystem, water supplyanddrainagesubsystem,
lightingsubsystem, andelectrical monitoringsubsys-
tem.Monitoringsystemhasaccessprovisionforhealth
monitoringsystem, andexpressway net traffic moni-
toring emergency center, rail traffic monitoring and
220kV, etc.
The information collected by the tunnel monitor-
ingsystem, bridgemonitoringsystem, andtoll station
systemis transferred to the monitoring and control
center inthetunnel andbridgeadministrationcenter
on Changxing Island. Furthermore, one administra-
tioncenter is arrangedat WuhaogouonPudongside
assistingthedaily management andemergency treat-
ment, establishingthethreelevel frameof monitoring
andcontrol center administrationcenter outfield
equipment.
4.7 Fire-fighting system
The fire fighting sytemdesign cosists of balanced
and redundant design of safety and function for the
entire tunnel structure, building, water supply and
drainageandfirefighting, emergencyventilationand
smoke discharge, lighting, power supply and other
subsystems. Thedetailsareasfollows:
Crosspassageisarrangedevery830mconnecting
theupchainageanddownchainagetunnel for pas-
senger evacuationwithaheightof 2.1mandwidth
of 1.8m. Three evacuation ladders are arranged
betweentwo cross passages connectingtheupper
andlower level.
The passive fire proof design uses the German
RABT fireaccident temperaturerisingcurve. The
fire accident temperature is 1,200

C. Fire proof
inner lining which ensures the surface tempera-
tureof protectedconcretesegmentisnotmorethan
250

C within 120 minutes is selected to protect


thearchabovesmokeduct, smokeduct andcrown
above the finishing plate. For rectangular tunnel,
fireproof material whichensuresthestructuretop
platesafety within 90 minutes is selected to pro-
tect thetopplateand1.0mbelowthetopplate. To
ensurethepassengerevacuation,fireproof bursting
resistancefibreis mixedintheconcretebulkhead
to achieveno damageof structurewhenstructure
isexposedtofirefor 30minutes.
Theventilation systemis designed based on only
onefireaccidentinroadtunnel andrail trafficarea.
The marginal arch area of bored tunnel is used
for smoke duct. Special smoke ventilation valve
is arranged every 60mfor the smoke ventilation
incaseof fireaccidents onroadlevel. Whenfire
accidentoccursinlowerlevel, ventilationfaninthe
working shaft is turned on to ventilatethesmoke
tothesideof firesourcewhilepassengersevacuate
towardsthefreshair.
The emergency lighting is arranged on two sides
withthesametype. Asthebasic lighting, inserted
intothebasic lightinguniformly. Meanwhile, nor-
mal lightingandemergencylightingareinstalledin
35
thecablepassage. Evacuation guidancesigns are
arranged on the two sides of road, cross passage
andsafetypassage. Emergencytelephoneguidance
signsarearrangedabovethetelephonesintunnel.
Fire water supply at both ends of tunnel is from
theDN250water supplypipeintroducedfromtwo
different municipal water pipeswithout firewater
pond. One fire fighting pump plant is arranged
in working shaft on Pudong side and Changx-
ing Island, respectively. The fire hydrant system
is continuous in the longitudinal evacuation pas-
sage. Firehydrant groupisarrangedevery50mat
onelanesideineachtunnel andfireextinguisher
groupevery 25m. Foam-water sprayingsystemis
usedinthetunnel whichcanprovidedfoamliquid
continuouslyfor 20minandarrangedevery25m.
The communication and linkage of each sub-
systemof comprehensivemonitoring and control
system can realize the monitoring, control and
test of thewholetunnel suchas fan, water pump,
electrical and lighting equipment. Fire automatic
alarming systemcan detect the possible hazards
suchas firefast, real-timeidentify andalarmand
has the function of passage alarming and tunnel
closed. Furthermore, corresponding equipments
canbeautomaticallyactivatedtoextinguishthefire
at earlytimeandorganizethehazardpreventionto
reducethelosstotheminimumextent.
5 +15, 430MM SLURRY MIXEDTBM
Two large slurry pressurized mixed shield machines
withadiameter of 15.43mareusedfor theconstruc-
tionof 7.5mlongboredtunnels.
5.1 TBM performance and characteristics
TheTBM consistsof shieldmachineandbackupsys-
temwithatotal lengthof 13.4mandweightof 3,250t,
including cutter head system, shield body, tailskin,
main drive, erector, synchronized grouting system,
transportsystem,guidancesystemanddataacquisition
systemandslurrysystem.
The TBM has excavation chamber and working
chamber.Duringadvancing,theairbubbleinthework-
ing chamber is adjusted through the control unit to
stabilize the slurry level thus balance the water/soil
pressureinexcavationchamber, asshowninFigure8.
Thethrustsystemconsistsof 19groupsthrustcylin-
ders with a total thrust force of 203,066kN. Cutter
head is drived by 15 motors with 250kW power, so
thetotal power is 3,750kW. Installation position for
twosparemotorsisalsoprovided. Tailskinseal struc-
tureiscomposedof threerowssteel wirebrushesand
onesteel platebrush, forming3greasechambers. The
erector systemis centrally supportedwith6freedom
Figure8. Bulkheadof MixshieldTBM.
degrees. Vacuumsuction plated is used to grasp the
segment. 6-point grouting is used for simultaneous
grouting.
Backupsystemconsistsof 3gantries:gantry1hous-
ing thepower equipment and control system, gantry
2 housing 3 cranes and bridge section for segment,
road element, and other construction material trans-
port, gantry 3 is pipelaying gantry for carrying the
extensionof thedifferent servicessuchascablehose,
slurry, air andindustrial water pipes.
Excavated soil is transported from excavation
chamber to theslurry treatment plant (STP) through
theslurry pipeintheslurry circulationsystem. After
separationbythetreatment equipment, excavatedsoil
withlargesizeisseparatedandthentherecycledslurry
ispumpedbackintoexcavationchamber andworking
chamber.
5.2 Adaptability to the large, long and deep
characteristics
For theTBMconstruction, firstlytheprojectandcrew
safetyshouldbeensured.Thekeyforsafetyof TBMis
toprotectthecutterheadandtailskin,mainlyincluding
cutter headdesign, mainbearingseal andtailskinseal
assurance. Furthermore, the maintenance and repair
of theseparts arerisk and difficult to access, so the
inspectionandpossibility for maintenanceincaseof
failuremust beconsidered.
5.2.1 Cutter head and cutting tools
Cutter head is for soft ground and can berotated in
two directions. The cutter head is pressure resistant
steel structureandspecificwearprotectionisarranged
for theperipheryarea. Special wear protectionisalso
designedfor cuttingtools.
The closed type cutter head is designed with 6
main arms and 6 auxiliary arms, 12 large material
openingand12small material opening. Theopening
ratioisaround29%. 209cuttingtoolsarearrangedon
36
Figure9. Mainbearingseal arrangement.
thecutter head, amongwhich124fixedscrapers, 12
buckets, 2copycutters, 7replaceablecenter toolsand
64replaceabletools.
Thescrapersarecustommadelargetoolswithfea-
tures of 250mm width, wear-resistance body and
highquality carbidealloy cuttingedges whoseangle
matchestheparameterof excavatedground.Thescrap-
ers at theedgeareusedto removetheexcavatedsoil
at edgeand protect thecutter head edgefromdirect
wear.Copycuttercanautomaticallyextendandretract.
Themultipleover-cut areas can besetup in thecon-
trol cabinandcorrespondingcuttingtoolspositionare
displayed. Thereplaceablecuttingtools havespecial
seal topreventtheslurryatthefrontsurfaceenter into
thecutter headchamber. Duringoperation, thework-
ers can enter thecutter head chamber to replacethe
cutting tools under atmospheric condition with high
safety, goodoperationpossibilityandlowrisk.
In order to avoid clogging at cutter head center,
theopeningat center isdesignedaschutetoeasethe
material flowing. Meanwhile, one bentonite hole is
arrangedat each openingto easeflushingin caseof
clogging.
5.2.2 Main bearing seal
Two sets seal systemarearrangedfor themainbear-
ing seal design. The outer seal is for the excavation
chamber sideandinner seal for theshieldbody with
normal pressure. The special seal combination can
bear apressureof 8.5bar.
Outer seal istoseparatethemainbearingandexca-
vation chamber. Seal type is axial seal with large
diameter, totally 4 lip seals and one pilot labyrinth,
thusforming4separateareas, asshowninFigure9.
Theinner seal onethegear boxsideisspecial axial
seal whichcancarrythepressureof gear chamber.
The seal systemhas grease lubrication and leak-
agemonitoringsystemwhichcanmonitor thegrease
amountbypressureandflowmonitoring.Theseal sys-
temhasbeenprovedsuccessfullyinmanyprojectsfor
several yearsandbecomeastandardconfiguration.
5.2.3 Tailskin
Thetailskin is sealed off by 3 rows steel wirebrush
and 1 steel plate brush, as shown in Figure 10.
Figure10. Tailskinstructure.
Furthermore, 1 emergency seal is arranged between
the3rdrowsteel wirebrushandthesteel platebrush.
Theemergencyseal hasthefunctiontoprotectthering
buildingareafromwater ingress whilechangingthe
first threesteel brushseals. Duetonopractical appli-
cationreferencesof thistechnology, modelingtesthas
beencarriedoutfor theemergencyseal installationto
confirmthereliabilityof theemergencyseal whenthe
inflatableseal ispressurizedto1MPa.
Simultaneous grouting lines are arranged at the
tail skin, including one standard grout pipeline and
one spare pipeline for filling the annulus gap out-
side the segment after excavation. Furthermore, 19
chemical grout pipesareaddedfor special hardening
grout (simultaneous slurry penetrating into cement)
or polyurethanefor leakageblock inemergency con-
dition. 193greasepipes havethefunctionof steel
wirebrushlubricationandtail skinsealing. Theseal
systemiscontrolledfromthecabinetinautomaticand
manual modesthroughtimeandpressurecontrol.
Furthermore, freezingpipelinesarearrangedatthe
tailskintoeasethegroundtreatmentbymeansof freez-
ing measures in caseof leakageand ensuretheseal
treatment andrepair safety.
5.2.4 Man lock and submerged wall
Duringlongdistanceadvancing, thereisapossibility
of operation failure of mixing machine due to large
obstacles blockingsuchas stones, mainbearingseal
replacement due to wear, submerged wall closed or
leakageexaminationintheair bubblechamber. These
maintenance and repair work need workers access
theair bubblechamber withapressureupto 5.5bar.
Therefore, two manlocks arearrangedto ensurethe
maintenanceandrepair workerscanaccess.
Themainchamber of manlockcanhouseone1.8m
stretcher.Underpressure-reducingcondition,themed-
ical staff can access themain chamber and organize
rescueincaseof emergency.Meanwhile,theotherman
lock can transport thetools, material and equipment
fromTBM totheair bubblechamber.
Themanlockisequippedwithpoisonousgasdetec-
tion systemwhich can take the sample of enclosed
gas in the man lock. The system information will
be displayed at the working position where outside
37
staff is. The man lock also provides the flange con-
nection. Once the rescue and injuries enters into
temporary rescue chamber, the temporary chamber
can be disassembled fast and transported out of the
tunnel, connectedwithlargemedical chamber for the
convenienceof medical worktorescue.
The submerged wall uses hydraulic drive and is
equipped with air pressure seal strip. When normal
operationintheworkingchamber isneeded, thesub-
mergedwall canbeclosedthustheexcavationchamber
andworkingchamber canbeseparated, andthenthe
valvecanbeopenedfor reducingthepressure. At this
time, pipefor supplementingslurry whichpenetrates
workingchamber canmaintaintheslurry pressurein
theexcavationchamber.
6 TUNNEL CONSTRUCTIONMETHOD
6.1 Overall arrangement and time schedule
Basedontheoverall programming, theconstructionof
working shafts, bored tunnel, synchronous construc-
tionof roadstructure,operationequipmentinstallation
andcommissioningarethemainworksandsecondary
works such as receiving shaft and crosspassage in
parallel.
InMay2006, thelaunchingshaftandonshorestruc-
turesonPudongsidewerecompletedandsiteassembly
of twoTBMsstarted. Theeasttunnel startsadvancing
inSeptember2006, whilewesttunnel inJ anuary2007.
During construction of these two tunnels, the pre-
fabricatedroadelement erectionandTBM advancing
are synchronous, which on one hand resist the tun-
nel floatingduringconstructionstageandontheother
handprovidespecial truckpassagefor segments, pre-
fabricatedroadelements andmaterials to realizethe
fast boredtunnel construction. Inparallel withbored
tunnel construction, theroaddeckstructureconstruc-
tionisalsocarriedout200250mbackfromsegment
erectionandtopsmokeduct will start constructionin
J anuary, 2008, forminggraduallyworkingflowintun-
nel. After west tubeTBM advancing 3km, the first
crosspassage started construction in October, 2007.
After thetunnel is through, final connectionwork of
working shaft and road structure is carried out and
operationequipmentandfinishingandpavementwork
will start.
6.2 Main critical technical issues during bored
tunnel construction
6.2.1 TBM launching and arriving technology
6.2.1.1 TBM launching
(1) Tunnel eyestabilization
3-axial mixing pile and RJ P injection procedure is
used surrounding the working shaft to stabilize the
ground forming a stabilized area of 15min length.
6dewateringwellsforbearingwateraresupplemented
Figure11. Water stoptanksketch.
beyondthetreatedgroundareaandholesareboredfor
groutingtheannulus to ensurethesafety duringtun-
nel gateremoval.Thesethreemeasuresapplicationhas
achievedgoodperformance. DuringTBM launching,
thetreatedsoil isstable.
(2) Tunnel annulusseal
Thediameterof tunnel eyeisupto15,800mm.Topre-
vent theslurry entersintotheworkingshaft fromthe
circularbuildgapbetweentunnel eyeandshieldorseg-
mentduringlaunchingthusaffecttheestablishmentof
front facesoil andwater pressure, goodperformance
seal water stoppingfacilityisarranged. Thefacilityis
aboxstructurewith2layerswaterstoprubberstripand
chainplateinstalled, asshowninFigure11. Theout-
sidechainplateis adjustablewith50mmadjustment
allowance. Furthermore, 12grout holes arearranged
uniformly alongtheoutsidebetweentwo layer water
stoponthebox for thepurposeof sealingincaseof
leakage at the tunnel eye. The outer end surface of
water stopfacilityshall bevertical tothetunnel axis.
(3) Backsupport forTBM
Theback up shield support includes 7 rings, among
which-6is steel ringcomposedof 4largesteel seg-
ments with high fabrication quality to ensure the
circularityandstiffnessof thereferencering, asshown
inFigure12. After precisepositioningof steel ring, it
issupportedontheconcretestructureof cutandcover
tunnel by19steel strutswithalengthof 1.2m. Other
6 minus closed rings segments are assembled with
staggered joint. Inserts are embedded on the inside
andoutsidesurface. After eachringbuilding, thecir-
cumferential ringandlongitudinal ringareconnected
withsteel platetoimprovetheintegratestiffnessand
ensurethecircularityandringplaneevenness. Mean-
while, the circumferential plane of each minus ring
shall bevertical tothedesignaxis.
6.2.1.2 TBM receiving
(1) Arrangement inreceivingshaft
BeforeTBMreceiving, thediaphragmbetweenreceiv-
ing shaft and cut & cover tunnel and thediaphragm
inthereceivingshaft betweenupchainageanddown-
chainagetunnel shall becompletedtomakethereceiv-
ing shaft as an enclosed shaft structure. Then MU5
cementmortariscastintheworkingshaftwithaheight
38
Figure12. BacksupportsforTBM.
of 3mhigher thantheTBM bottom. Steel circumfer-
ential plateisarrangedalongthesteel tunnel annulus.
Theinner diameter of steel plateis 5cmlarger then
TBM. 18 grout holes are arranged surrounding the
tunnel annulus and inflatable bag is installed in the
tunnel eye.
(2) TBM arriving
Whenthecuttingsurfaceof TBM isclosetothecon-
cretewall of tunnel eye, advancing is stopped. Then
pumpwater inthereceivingshaft totheunderground
water level. Meanwhile, inject doublegrout into the
annulus 30mback fromtailskin through the preset
grout holeonthesegment tostabilizetheasbuilt tun-
nel andblockthewater/soil seepagepassagebetween
untreatedgroundandTBM.
After above work, the TBM starts excavation of
C30glass fibrereinforcedconcreteandaccesses the
working shaft. The cutting surface accesses into the
working shaft and thecutter head will cut theMU5
cementmortardirectlyandsitonthemortarlayer.Dur-
ingaccessinginto theworkingshaft, polyurethaneis
injectedthroughthechemical groutingholes.
(3) Tunnel eyesealingandwater pumping
When2/3of TBM accessesthereceivingshaft, water
pumping is started. After pumping the water in the
workingshaft, continuetheTBMadvancingandinject
the grout timely. When theTBM is in the working
shaft, fill air intheinflatablebagintimetomakethe
inflatedbagseal thecircumferential gap. Meanwhile,
groutingisperformedthroughthe18holesonthetun-
nel annulus. Grout material ispolyurethane. After the
gapisfullyfilledwiththegrout, theair ininflatedbag
could bereleased slowly under closeobservation. If
any water leakageisobserved, thepolyurethaneshall
beinjectedagainfor sealing.
Whenthetunnel gateringisout of thetailskin, the
weldingworkbetweenringsteel plate, seal steel plate
andembeddedsteel platesshall bedoneimmediately
tofill thegapbetweentunnel gateringandtunnel.
6.2.2 TBM advancing management
6.2.2.1 Mainconstructionparameters
DuringTBM construction, theconstruction parame-
tersshall bedefinedandadjustedbasedontheoretical
calculation and actual construction conditions and
monitoreddatatorealizedynamical parametercontrol
management.
Theadvancingspeedat beginningandbeforestop
shall not be too fast. The advancing speed shall be
increasedgraduallytopreventtoolargestartingspeed.
Duringeachringadvancing, theadvancingspeedshall
beas stableas possibletoensurethestability of cut-
tingsurfacewater pressureandsmoothness of slurry
supplyanddischargepipe. Theadvancingspeedmust
be dynamically matching with the annulus grout to
fill the build gap timely. Under normal boring con-
dition, the advancing speed is set as 24cm/min. If
obstacles varying geological conditions are experi-
encedat thefront face, theadvancingspeedshall be
reducedapproximatelyaccordingtoactual conditions.
Basedonthetheoretical excavationamount calcu-
latedfromformulaandcomparedtoactual excavated
amount whichiscalculatedaccordingtothesoil den-
sity, slurry discharge flow, slurry discharge density,
slurrysupplydensityandflow, andexcavationtime, if
theexcavationamountisobservedtoolarge, theslurry
39
density, viscosityandcuttingfacewater pressureshall
becheckedtoensurethefront surfacestability.
In order to control theexcavated soil amount, the
flowmeteranddensitymeterontheslurrycircuitshall
becheckedperiodically.Theslurrycontrol parameters
are: density =1.151.2g/cm
3
, viscosity=1825s,
bleedingratio-5%.
Single type grout is used to inject at 6 locations,
whichiscontrolledbybothpressureandgroutamount.
Thegroutpressureisdefinedas0.450.6Mpa.Actual
groutamountisaround110%of theoretical buildgap.
20h-shear strength of grout shall not be less than
800Paand28daystrengthshall beabovetheoriginal
soil strength.
6.2.2.2 Shallowcover construction
At the launching section, the minimumcover depth
is 6.898m, i.e. 0.447D, which is extremely shallow.
Toensurethesmoothadvancing, 12msoil isplaced
abovethetop. Meanwhile, inorder to prevent slurry
blow-out,leakage-blockingagentismixedintheslurry
andsurfaceconditioniscloselymonitored.
6.2.2.3 Crossingthebankof YangtzeRiver
Before theTBM crossing, the terrain and land fea-
tureintheconstructionsurroundingareaarecollected,
measuredandphotographedfor filing. 155monitor-
ingpointsarearrangedalongthebankin7monitoring
sections. During TBM crossing, the pressure is set
accordingtothewater pressureat excavationsurface
calculatedfor eachring. Theslurry parameter isalso
adjustedtimelybasedonthesurfacemonitoringinfor-
mation. Greaseinjectionattail skinisperformedwell
to avoidleakageandsynchronous grout amount and
qualityarestrictlycontrolled.
6.2.2.4 Adversegeological condition
(1) Shallowgas
When the TBM is crossing the deposit on Pudong
side, methane gas may be experienced in the shal-
low area. At this time, the ventilation in the tunnel
shall be increased to ensure good ventilation condi-
tionsof TBM. Theconcentrationtest of methaneand
combustiblegasarecarriedout.
(2) Lens
Prior to the construction, geological investigation is
carriedouttolearnthegeneral locationof prism. Dur-
ingconstruction, theTBMissetwithsuitablespeedto
crossthestratumasfast assafelypossible.
(3) Boredhole
Due to the tunnel alignment adjustment, 9 geologi-
cal bored holes will be experienced along theTBM
advancing. Duringcrossing, slurrywithlargedensity
is used and polyurethaneis injected surrounding the
tunnel after crossing.
6.2.3 Quality assurance technical measures for
large tunnel
6.2.3.1 Segment prefabrication
Nine sets steel formwork with high preciseness are
used for segment prefabrication to fulfill thetechni-
cal requirement to segment such as allowable width
tolerance0.40mm, thicknesstolerance+3/1mm,
arclength1.0mm, circular surfaceandendsurface
plainness 0.5mm. In order to control prefabrica-
tion preciseness strictly and ensure the production
quality, special laser survey system is introduced
to conduct accurate measurement of segment pro-
filedimensionbesidetraditional surveymeasurement
toolsandsegment trial assembly.
Fly ash and slag are mixed in the concrete
for segment prefabrication. Strictly concretecasting,
vibrating and curing procedures are used to control
cracks andachievethewater proofinganddurability
requirement.
6.2.3.2 Segment assembly
Thesegment assembly shall satisfy thefitted tunnel
designaxisrequirementbysegmentselection(rotation
angle) andmeanwhilemakethelongitudinal joint not
onthesameline. Duringthewholeassemblyprocess,
forstraightline,theprincipleistoerectonleftandright
at intervals. For curvedsection, thesuitablesegment
rotationangleshall beselectedbasedonTBMattitude,
andsegment lippingdata.
Secondly, therelativedimensionbetweensegment
andshieldshall becheckedtocorrect thepositioning
of eachringsegment.
Then, eachsegment buildingshall beclosely con-
tacted. TheringplaneandT joint shall beeven.
Finally, strictly control the lipping of ring. When
the segment lipping exceeds the control value, the
rotational angle of segment shall be adjusted timely
to ensuretheverticality betweensegment andtunnel
axis.
6.2.3.3 Floating-resistanceof tunnel
Due to the tunnel diameter up to 15m, the floating
resistance and deformation control during construc-
tion for large diameter tunnel are very challenging.
Thetechnical measureis mainly to improvethesyn-
chronous grouting management. Mortar type grout-
ingmaterial withcementationproperty is injectedat
multi-points. Furthermore, groutpackagewithcertain
strengthshall beformedsurroundingthetunnel timely
toresist thetunnel upfloating. Meanwhile, thetunnel
axisshall bestrictlycontrolledduringconstructionand
thetightconnectbetweensegmentsshall beimproved
toachievethetunnel-floatingresistance.
6.2.3.4 Grounddeformationcontrol
The ground settlement during TBM construction is
mainly contributed by the front surface slurry pres-
suresetup, annulusgroutingandshieldbody tamper.
40
Figure13. STP systemflowchart.
Therefore, thegroundsettlementvariationcandirectly
reflect theTBM construction parameters setup. The
crewcancorrect theconstructionparameter basedon
settlement monitoringtoincreasethedeformation.
6.2.4 Back-up technology for long distance TBM
construction
6.2.4.1 Slurrytreatment andtransport
Theslurry separation systemconsists of subsystems
of treatment, conditioning, new slurry generation,
slurry discharge and water supply; with a capacity
of 3,000m
3
/h to fulfill the advancing requirement
of 45mm/min, as shown in Figure 13. Based on
thegeological conditionsalongthetunnel alignment,
thetreatment systemselects 2 level treatment meth-
ods. The initial treatment uses two rolling shieve to
separatesoil withasizeof larger than7mm. For sec-
ondary treatment, firstly grain with a size of large
than 75 is separated by 4750mmcyclones and
thengrainwithasizeof largethan40misseparated
by 12300mmcyclones. Theslurry spilledat the
topof cycloneistransportedtoconditioningtank for
reuse. After adjustment, thedensityof suppliedslurry
is 1.051.35g/cm
3
. Themaintained optimal valueis
between 1.20 and 1.30 and d50 is between 40 and
50m. The STP systemcirculation efficiency is up
to70%. Dischargedslurryandwasteistransportedto
thebardgeatriversidebypipesandtrucks. Theslurry
supply pipehas adiameter of 600mmanddischarge
pipe500mm.Toensurethelongdistanceslurrysupply
velocity of 2.5m/s anddischargevelocity of 4.2m/s
toavoidslurrysettlementinpipeandmaintainnottoo
highpressureinthepipe, onerelaypumpisarranged
every1km. Thepressureat pumpoutlet iscontrolled
within10bar.
6.2.4.2 Axiscontrol andconstructionsurvey
guidance
Static measurement withGPS control net is usedfor
surfacecontrol survey. For elevationcontrol, GPSele-
vationfitmethodisusedfor elevationtransfer. Partof
basic traversemark every 500mis selected as main
traverse. Inthetunnel, level II subtraverseisusedfor
theplanecontrol, i.e. construction traverseand con-
trol parallel traverse. Thecontrol mark has aspacing
of 600900m. Theelevationcontrol survey intunnel
useslevel II. Thefixedlevel mark isarrangedwitha
spacingof 80m.
6.2.4.3 Constructionventilationandfireprotection
Duetothelargediameter, longdistanceandW lon-
gitudinal slope, especiallywhentheTBMisadvancing
withaupgradingslope, theheat andhumidity gener-
atedattheworkingfacecannotbedischargednaturally
thus concentrate at the working face in a shape of
fog. Meanwhile, heavy trucks for constructionmate-
rial transport also causealargeamount of wasteair
41
inthetunnel. Badenvironment will haveunfavorable
influenceonTBMequipmentandcrew, andalsoaffect
thesmoothprogressingof surveyactivity.
During construction stage, 2 special axial fans
(SDF-No18) are arranged on the surface to provide
fresh air to thespacebelowroaddeck in thetunnel,
then the relay fan and ventilation systemequipped
on the gantry will transport the fresh air to work-
ing surface. Meanwhile, other ventilation equipment
on the gantry provides fresh air to main secondary
equipments of TBM such as transformer, hydraulic
equipment andelectrical installations.
Adequate fire extinguishers are arranged in the
shield and gantry and also oxygen, poisonous gas
protection mask are equipped. Fire extinguisher is
equipped on each transport truck. Safety staff is
equippedwithportablegasanalysisdevicefor check
theair qualityintunnel everyday.
6.2.4.4 Material transport
Segment, grout and prefabricated elements, etc are
transportedtotheworkingareabyspecial trucksfrom
ramparea, throughcut & cover tunnel androaddeck
which is constructed synchronously. Truck transport
can avoid the derailing problems during traditional
electrical truck transport. Furthermore, thetruck has
twolocos, sothetransport efficiencyishigh.
Prefabricated road element is transported to the
gantry 2by trucks andthenliftedanderectedby the
craneonthebridgebeam. Segmentsaretransportedto
gantry2andthentransferredtothesegmentfeeder by
thecraneonthebridgebeamandthentransportedto
erectionarea.
6.2.5 Critical equipment examination and
replacement technology
6.2.5.1 Mainbearingsealing
Four supersonic sensors are installed in the seal
arrangementfor monitoringthemainseal wear condi-
tion. Oncetheabrasionreachescertainvalueorgrease
leakageismonitoredinthetank, it indicatesthemain
seal needstoberotatedtoanother oritentation.
Oncetheseal wearisobservedbeyondpresetvalue,
thesurfacecouldbemovedtoensurethereplacement
of mainbearingseal. Duringreplacing, theslurry in
thechambermustbedrainedandprovideeffectivesup-
port to excavation face. Theoperation staff shall go
totheslurry camber toreplacetheseal under certain
pressure.
6.2.5.2 Abrasionmeasurement andreplacement of
cuttingtools
Thesystemwill beinstalledon8selectedscraperposi-
tions as well as on two bucket positions. It will be
connected to a plug at the rear of the cutting wheel
to allowfor simpleconditiondiagnosis fromaread-
outdevice. Conductor loopisembeddedinthedevice.
Thewear condition of cuttingtools can beindicated
bycheckingtheclosed/openstatusof loops.
Theworker accesses thecuttingwheel arms from
thecenter of themain drive. Theworker installs the
lowering/ lifting frame (with bolts) and screws it to
the fixing plate of the tool. The fixing plate is then
unscrewed. Theworker will thenlower thetool using
the frame (with bolts). The pressure-tight gate will
be closed down. The worn out tool shall be then
exchangedwithanewone. Thetool will beliftedto
positionbehindthegate.Thegatewill beopened.Then
the tool will be put in its final position. The fixing
plateisthenscrewedtothetool support. Theframeis
transferredtothenext tool.
6.2.5.3 Tail seal andsteel wirebrushreplacement
When the leakage is experienced at tail skin, and
steel brushisdefinedtobereplacednecessarily, open
the emergency sealing and erect special segments.
Strengthenthesurroundingsoil attail skinwithfreez-
ing method and then replace first 2 or 3 rows steel
brush.
6.3 Synchronous construction of road deck
The synchronous construction of road structure
includes erectionof roadelement, segment roughen-
inganddrillingfor insertingrebar, prefabrication of
two sideballast, insitu cast corbel and road deck on
twosides.Accordingthevariationandtrendof asbuilt
ringdeformationandsettlement, andtheconstruction
progress of 12m(6 rings) per day and based on the
requirement of deformation joint arrangement every
30m, the construction is organized and arranged as
flowingoperationevery15m. AsshowninFigure14,
thebasicconstructionprocedureisasfollows:
Roadelement installation, 25ringslater thanseg-
ment erection.
Segment rougheningincludesthejunctionsurface
between ballast and segment and segment inner
surfaceat corbel. Theinsert bar placing includes
the+16bar at ballast and+20bar at corbel. The
rougheningworksatballastpositioniscarriedoutat
gantry2, andtherougheningoperationplatformat
corbel isfixedtogantry2. Insertbar placingisfol-
lowinggantry3.Theroughingmachineisequipped
withdust suctionfacility whichcaneliminatethe
dust tomaximumextent.
Reinforcement placing, formwork erection and
concretecasting for ballast is carried out at 15m
behindthegantry3and15mmorebehindfor cor-
bel,andthenanother15mforroaddeck.Roaddeck
concretecastingworksarelocatedat250m300m
fromthesegment erectionarea. After casting, the
curing with frame lasts 3 days and formwork is
removedonthe4thday. After 28days curing, the
roaddeckcanbeopentotraffic. Duringcuring, the
42
Figure14. Synchronousconstructionflowchart.
roaddeckareaisseparated. Concretemixingtruck
isusedfor concretecasting.
6.4 Cross passage construction
Thecross passagewhichconnects thetwo maintun-
nelshasalengthof around15manddiameter of 5m.
Theconstructionwill beby freezingmethodfor soil
strengtheningandminingmethodfor excavation.
Thefreezingholes arearrangedas insideandout-
side rows which are drilled from two sides. The
freezingisdonefromonesideorbothsides. Insiderow
holes aredrilledfromupchainagetunnel, 22in total
and outsiderowholes aredrilled fromdownchainge
tunnel, 18intotal.
Miningmethodwill beusedfor excavationbyarea
division. Firstly, pilot with a horn opening is exca-
vated, andthenthecrosspassageisexcavatedtodesign
dimension. Thefullsectionexcavationis donewitha
stepof 0.6mor 0.8m.
Whenthemainstructureconcretestrengthreaches
75%, enforced thawing will be carried out. The hot
brinefor thawing circulates in thefreezing pipeand
the frozen soil is thawed by section. Based on the
informational monitoringsystem, thesoil temperature
andsettlementvariationismonitored. Groutingpipeis
arrangedat shallowanddeeper areafor densegrout-
ing. Theoverall principlefor thawing is to thaw the
bottompart, thenmiddlepart, andlastly thetoppart,
as shown in Figure 15. When thawing by section is
doneinsequence, onesectionisbeingthawedandsub-
sequentsectionsmaintainthefreezingfor thepurpose
of maintaining thecross passagestructureand main
tunnel asanintegratedpart thussettlement avoidance
beforethesectiongrouted.
6.5 Land connections construction
Theprofiledimensionof workingshaftis22.449m,
with a depth of 25m. 1.0mthick diaphragmwith a
depthof 45misusedfor retainingstructure. Opencut
isusedfor excavation. Thesupport systemconsistsof
5layersreinforcedconcreteand1layer steel support.
Insidethepit, 3mbelowthebottom, injectionisdone
interval tomakethestrengthnot lower than1.2MPa.
13.516.0moutsidetheworkingshaft is treated. For
43
Figure15. Dividedthawingareaof crosspassage.
diaphragmat theTBM accessing into the receiving
shaft, GFPR isusedinsteadof normal reinforcement
so that theTBM can cut the retaining wall directly
and thus avoid the reinforcement cutting and tunnel
eyeconcreteremoval, whichsimplifies theconstruc-
tionprocedure, acceleratesconstructionprogressand
reducestheconstructionrisk.
The excavation depth of pit for Pudong cut-and-
cover is 23.19.9m, and Changxing cut-and-cover
17.2m8.4m. According to the excavation depth,
diaphragmwiththicknessof 1.0m, 0.8mand0.6mis
selectedrespectively.Thesupportsystemiscomposed
of reinforcedconcretesupport andsteel support. 3m
underneath the pit bottomis strengthened by rotat-
ing injection and also thejunction between working
shaft andcut-and-cut outsidethepit toensurethepit
excavationstability.
Therampisopencutwithaslopeof 1:3. Theslope
is protectedthroughgreenplantinginthereinforced
concretegridwhichisanchoredinsoil by anchorsto
prevent fromsliding. Inorder to avoidslopesliding,
theslopeisstrengthenedby cement mixedpileswith
adiameter of 700mm.
7 CONCLUSION
During the process from planning to implementa-
tion, Shanghai YangtzeRiver Tunnel hasexperienced
various challenges. Technical support of tunnel con-
struction fromChina and abroad is provided. With
indenpendently developed and owned IPR and fea-
turedTBM tunnel constructiontheory andcoretech-
nologyisestablished, formingthecoretechnologyof
large and long river-crossingTBM tunnel in China.
Special technical issuessuchasliningstructuredesign
of extremely large tunnel, long distance TBM con-
struction and hazard prevention systemfor long and
largetunnel achievetobeinternally state-of-art. Rel-
evant standards, codes, guidance, specification and
patenttechnologyaredevelopedtoimprovethetechni-
cal systemof tunnel constructioninChinaandupgrade
theinternal competenceof tunnel engineering.
REFERENCES
Cao,W.X. etal. 2006. Shanghai YangtzeRiverTunnel Project
design. Shanghai Construction Science andTechnology 5:
26.
Chen, X.K. & Huang, Z.H. 2007. Shanghai Yangtze River
Tunnel TBMcuttingtoolsweardetectionandreplacement
technology. The 3rd Shanghai International Tunneling
Symposium Proceedings: Underground project construc-
tion and risk provision technology: 152157. Tongji
UniversityPublicationCompany.
He, R. & Wang, J.Y. Shanghai Yangtze River Tunnel syn-
chronousconstructionmethodstatement. The 3rd Shang-
hai International Tunneling Symposium Proceedings:
Underground project construction and risk provision tech-
nology:168177.Tongji UniversityPublicationCompany.
Sun, J. & Chen, X.K. 2007. Discussion of TBM selection
for Shanghai Yangtze River Tunnel. The 3rd Shanghai
International Tunneling Symposium Proceedings: Under-
ground project construction and risk provision technol-
ogy: 9198. Tongji UniversityPublicationCompany.
Yu, Y.M. & Tang, Z.H. 2007. Shanghai YangtzeRiver Tun-
nel construction survey technology. The 3rd Shanghai
International Tunneling Symposium Proceedings: Under-
ground project construction and risk provision technol-
ogy: 158167. Tongji UniversityPublicationCompany.
Zhang, J.J. et al. 2007. Shanghai YangtzeRiver Tunnel TBM
launching construction technology. The 3rd Shanghai
International Tunneling Symposium Proceedings: Under-
ground project construction and risk provision technol-
ogy: 144151. Tongji UniversityPublicationCompany.
44
Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground Ng, Huang & Liu (eds)
2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-48475-6
Undergroundconstructionindecomposedresidual soils
I.M. Lee
Department of Civil Engineering, Korea University, Seoul, Korea
G.C. Cho
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, KAIST, Daejeon, Korea
ABSTRACT: Largescaleundergroundconstructionprojects, includingsubway constructionprojects insix
major cities, have been ongoing in Korea, where residual and granite soils are the most common soil type.
Characteristicsof decomposedgranitesoilsaredifferentfromthoseof puresandand/orclay.Thispaperpresents
an overview of geotechnical aspects of underground construction in urban areas where mostly decomposed
residual soils arepresent, focusing on mechanical properties, apparent earth pressure, effect of groundwater,
and effect of spatial variability in geotechnical properties. Although several important aspects are theoreti-
cally, numerically, and experimentally discussed herein, it remains a challenge to fully understand residual
soils, particularly in relation to the practice of underground construction, because of their complexity and
richness.
1 INTRODUCTION
Large scale subway construction projects have been
ongoing in six major cities in Korean peninsular.
Inparticular, undergroundconstructionwork of sub-
way line No.9 is being carried out under the Seoul
Metropolitan Government along with extension of
subway lines No.7 and No.3. Construction of anew
subway line(LineNo.2) will belaunchedinIncheon
thisyear andwill befinishedbeforetheAsianGames
areheldin2014.
Residual andgranitesoilsarethemostcommonsoil
typeinKorea. Characteristicsof decomposedgranite
soilsaredifferentfromthoseof sandand/orclay.Their
mechanical properties andbehaviors vary depending
on the parent rock types and weathering processes.
Moreover, theprofileof thegroundinKoreais gen-
erally not uniform, isotropic, or homogeneous; mul-
tilayeredconditions arecommon, withgroundbeing
composedof successivelayersof fill and/or sedimen-
tary layers, weatheredresidual soils, andsoft tohard
rock. Therefore, conventional/classic soil mechanics
cannot bedirectlyappliedtothesegroundconditions.
Inordertoprovidedataandmethodologiestoenhance
undergroundconstructioninareascharacterizedbythe
predominant presenceof decomposed residual soils,
thispaperpresentsanoverviewof geotechnical aspects
of underground construction in urban areas where
decomposedresidual soilsarethemaingroundcom-
ponent, focusing on mechanical properties, apparent
earth pressure, effect of ground water, and effect of
spatial variabilityingeotechnical properties.
2 MECHANICAL PROPERTIESOF RESIDUAL
SOILS
2.1 General
Wehaveintensively studiedthecharacteristics of the
following two residual soils: Shinnae-dong and Poi-
dong soils. The characteristics of the two soils are
documentedinTable1(i.e., thetypeof mineral, com-
pactionproperties, plasticity, andsoil classification).
The parent rock of the Shinnae-dong soil is a gran-
itewhilethat of thePoi-dongsoil is abandedbiotite
gneiss.TheShinae-dongsoil isclosertoacohesionless
soil, predominantly consisting of primary minerals,
with only about 10%of fineparticles. On theother
hand, thePoi-dongsoil showsclay-likecharacteristics
due to a large percentage of fine particles and sec-
ondaryminerals. Theparticlesizedistributionsof the
twosoilsareshowninFigure1.
Lee (1991) studied the behavior of a Bulamsoil
in his Ph.D. dissertation. The characteristics of the
Bulamsoil are similar to those of the Shinna-dong
soil, sincetwoareas arevery closetoeachother and
share the same rock origin. Kim(1993) studied the
mechanical behavior of Andong and Kimchun soils.
Thesesoils areclassified as SM in theUnified Soil
45
Table1. Characteristicsof tworesidual soils.
Characteristics Poi-dong Shinnae-dong
Primaryminerals
Quartz (%) 17.7 33.3
Feldspar (%) 15.0 50.0
Mica(%) 9.8 9.0
Secondaryminerals
Kaolinite(%) 23.5 6.0
Illite(%) 20.7
Vermiculite(%) 8.4 2.0
Chlorite(%) 4.5
Montmorilonite(%)
Porosity 0.409 0.358
Maximumdrydensity(kN/m
3
) 16.68 18.64
Percent passing#200sieve(%) 47.36 10.05
Plasticity Nonplastic
LI 34.0
PL 19.84
PI 14.16
Specificgravity 2.74 2.65
USCS SC SW-SM
Note: LI =liquidityindex; PL =plasticlimit; PI =plasticity
index; USCS=UnifiedSoil ClassificationSystem.
Figure1. Particlesizedistributionof tworesidual soils.
ClassificationSystemwiththepercentpassinga#200
sieve being 1417%, and are also included in the
followingdiscussiononmechanical characteristicsof
residual soils.
2.2 Strength characteristics
Figure2presentsasummaryof thepeakinternal fric-
tionangleof eachresidual soil. Theinternal friction
angledecreaseswithanincreaseof finecontents.
Becauseof capillarity, partial saturationaffectsthe
strengthof residual soils. Leeet al. (2005) performed
triaxial teststoobtainthestrengthpropertiesof unsat-
uratedresidual soils. Figure3presentstypical results
of failureenvelopes at different matric suctions. The
internal frictionangleaswell astheapparentcohesion
increasewith an increasein thematric suction (i.e.,
whenthesoil isunsaturated).
Figure2. Peak internal frictionangleversus finecontents
passingthe#200sieve.
Figure3. Failureenvelopesat different matricsuctions.
Lee et al. (2002) performed shear tests on unsat-
urated residual soils and found that the apparent
cohesioncanincreasefrom20kPaat asaturatedcon-
dition(i.e., matricsuction=0kPa) upto200kPaatan
unsaturatedcondition(i.e., matricsuction=400kPa).
As an unsaturated soil is re-saturated, its appar-
ent cohesion can beeliminated. Thus, during tunnel
construction, cohesion loss can be induced by re-
saturation(e.g., seepagehindrance, drainageclogging
and groundwater change), and may result in tunnel
faceinstability. Utilizingthelimit equilibriumanaly-
sisproposedbyLeca&Dormieux(1990), asshownin
Figure4, therequiredsupportpressuretostabilizethe
46
Figure 4. Collapse mechanismof a tunnel face with two
conical blocks.
Figure5. Groundconditionfor limit equilibriumanalysis.
tunnel facecanbecalculatedbyreplacingthespecific
apparentcohesionwithavalueof zero.Asanexample,
thegroundconditionof asiteisshowninFigure5.The
requiredsupportpressure

increasesfromzeroupto

=9.0kPaas thecohesiondecreases from120kPa


to0kPa. Theresultsshowthat theapparent cohesion
isakeyfactor intunnel facestability.
2.3 Deformation characteristics
Oneof themost difficult tasks ingeotechnical engi-
neering is estimating the deformation-related soil
properties properly. Typical material properties com-
monly usedat thedesignstageinKoreaaresumma-
rizedinTable2.
Cho et al. (2006) proposed an analytical method
toestimatesoil parametersfromrelativeconvergence
measurements. Asanexample, thegroundconditions
of theBusansubway siteareshowninFigure6. Ini-
tial estimates aretakenfromTable2. Thecrownand
sidewall convergencedatameasuredby atapeexten-
someter, presentedinFigure7, areusedas observed
values. Resultsobtainedfromback-analysesaresum-
marizedinTable3alongwithinitial estimates. There
isalargediscrepancybetweentheinitial inputproper-
ties and theproperties obtained fromback-analyses.
In particular, the initial inputs of Youngs modulus
and earth pressure coefficient at rest of the residual
Table2. Typical material properties.
E c
Layer (MPa) j (kN/m
3
) K
0
(kPa) (

)
Filling 19.6 0.35 18.6 0.5 0 35
Residual soil 29.4 0.33 18.6 0.5 49.1 35
Weather rock 196 0.23 21.6 0.5 98.1 35
Soft rock 981 0.2 23.5 0.7 196 40
Notation: E=Youngsmodulus, j=Poissonsratio, =unit
weight of soil, K
0
=lateral earth pressure coefficient,
c=apparent cohesion, and =internal frictionangle.
Figure6. Groundconditionsof theBusansubwaysite.
Figure7. Relativeconvergencebehindtunnel face.
Table3. Resultsof parameter estimation.
Properties E
r
(MPa) E
w
(MPa) K
ow
Initial input 29.4 196 0.5
Back-analysis 83.3 210 0.76
Notation: E
r
andE
w
=Youngsmoduli of theresidual soil and
weathered rock, respectively; and K
ow
=theearth pressure
coefficient of theweatheredrock.
47
Figure 8. Apparent earth pressure distribution for braced
andanchoredwalls.
soil aretoosmall. Thisexampleclearly demonstrates
theimportanceof theobservational methodintunnel
engineering.
3 APPARENT EARTHPRESSURE
3.1 Apparent earth pressure in braced and
anchored walls
Designof aninsituwall systemrequiresalateral earth
pressuredistributionbehindthewall toestimatesup-
portloadsandwall bendingmoments. Oneof themost
well-knownapparent earthpressuresisthat proposed
byPeck(1969); however, hissuggestionisonlyappli-
cabletoeither groundthat ispurely sandand/or clay,
and cannot bedirectly applied to cohesivesoils that
havecohesionaswell asaninternal frictionangle, or
tomultilayeredgroundconditions.
ManyKoreanresearchershaveattemptedtocollect
fielddatatoproposetheearthpressureinmultilayered
ground (for example, Lee & J eon 1993, Yoo 2001).
Figure8presentsatypical set of results, showingthe
apparent earth pressure distribution of a 33mdeep
excavation site along with the distribution proposed
by Peck (1969) (Yoo 2001). The actual (measured)
earthpressureisabout 68to83%of Peaks. Figure9
shows the maximumearth pressures obtained from
62 excavation sites. In this data, the weighted aver-
agevalues of theinternal friction angleand theunit
weight of soil areusedfor themultilayer ground. The
averagevalueof themeasured apparent pressures is
approximately 75% of Pecks suggestion (i.e., earth
pressure=0.65K
a
H).
Figure9. MaximumapparentearthpressureversusK
a
H.
3.2 Apparent earth pressure in a vertical shaft
Itiswell knownthattheearthpressureactingonaver-
tical shaftislessthanthatonaretainingwall, because
of thethreedimensional archingeffect. Theexisting
equations of earthpressures actingonvertical shafts
consider only either purely cohesionless or cohesive
soils. These solutions are not directly applicable to
estimationof earthpressuresformulti-layeredground.
Leeet al. (2007) proposedanequationtoestimate
earth pressures in multi-layered ground, assuming
that the failure shape is conical, as shown in Fig-
ure 10(a). For equilibriumof horizontal forces and
vertical forces, as shown in Figure 10(b), the earth
pressure(P
i
) canbeexpressedasfollows
and
where K
w
=the coefficient of radial earth pres-
sure, =thecoefficient of tangential earthpressure,
and =the wall friction angle. Figure 11 presents
schematic drawings of a construction site in multi-
layeredgroundandthreevertical shaftsalongwiththe
locations of measuring instruments. Earth pressures
aremeasured at different shafts. Theearth pressures
calculated fromEq. (1) arecompared with themea-
sured values, as shown in Figure 12. The measured
earth pressures areeven smaller than thoseobtained
fromthetheoretical equation.
48
Figure10. Derivationof earthpressureinvertical shaft.
4 EFFECT OF GROUNDWATER
4.1 Effect of seepage pressure
Unexpected groundwater inflow and seepage forces
oftencausetunnel failures duringconstruction. Shin
et al. (2006) presentedandreviewedfivecave-incol-
lapses that occurredwhileconstructingLineNo.5of
theSeoul Metropolitansubway. Figure13shows the
general features of the collapses and failure details
aresummarizedinTable4. A comprehensivereview
Figure 11. Schematic drawings of a construction site in
multi layeredground Threeshafts withlocations of mea-
suringinstruments.
on such collapse mechanisms reveals the following
commonfeatures:
1. Thin soil/rock cover and/or mixed faced ground
conditionsincludingdecomposedgranitesoils;
2. Collapse initiated at the tunnel shoulder during
excavationof theupper half of thetunnel section;
and
3. A considerableamountof groundwaterinflowwith
soil.
Inparticular, it is observedinthesesites that tun-
nel facecollapsesalwaysoccurredalongwithseepage
aheadof thetunnel face.
Leeet al. (2003) modified theupper bound solu-
tionoriginallyproposedbyLeca&Dormieux(1990),
takingintoaccountseepageforcesinastabilityassess-
mentof atunnel face(refertoFigure4).Thehorizontal
componentsof seepagepressuresactingonthetunnel
face,
S.F
, canbesimplyconsideredasanexternal load
49
Figure12. Earthpressuresmeasuredat vertical shafts.
Figure 13. Cave-in collapses in the Seoul Subway Line
No.5.
in theoppositedirection of thesupport pressure
T
.
A modifiedupper boundsolutionwithconsideration
of seepageforcesbecomes
whereP is thesurcharge,
c
is theunconfined com-
pressivestrengthof thesoil,
T
istherequiredsupport
pressureapplied to thetunnel face,
S.F
is theseep-
agepressureactingonthetunnel face, K
p
isRankines
earthpressurecoefficient for passivefailure, isthe
unit weight of soil, D is thetunnel diameter, and N
s
andN

aretheweightingcoefficients, respectively.
When tunnel excavation is performed below the
groundwater level, thestressconditioninfront of the
tunnel face becomes the summation of the effective
stress and the seepage pressure. The effective stress
canbecalculatedbytheupperboundsolutionwhilethe
seepagepressurecanbeobtainedfromnumerical anal-
yses. Theeffectivesupport pressureat thetunnel face
canbeobtainedbyEq. (4) withuseof thesubmerged
unit weight
sub
insteadof .
As an example analysis, consider a virtual tun-
nel with a diameter D driven horizontally under a
depth C, as shown in Figure 14. Ground material
properties used for the analysis are c=0,

=35

,
and
sub
=5.4KN/m
3
. Figure15showsthetotal head
distribution around the tunnel face, determined by
seepageanalyses, andthefailurezone, estimatedfrom
alimit equilibriumanalysis. Theseepagepressureis
calculatedbyusingJ =i
w
A, wherei isthehydraulic
gradient andA isthearea. Thetotal support pressure
isthenobtainedbysumminguptheeffectivesupport
pressureandtheseepagepressure. Figure16showsthe
supportpressurechangewithvariationof theH/Dratio
(For thecaseof adry condition, thedry unit weight

d
=15.2KN/m
3
isusedfor theanalysis). Theresults
suggestthatthetotal supportpressureislittleaffected
by the tunnel depth and increases significantly with
50
Table4. Collapsemechanisms, damage, andremedial work.
Case Failuremechanism Damage Remedial work
A 17Nov1991, 18:50: blasting nohumancasualties soil dumpingimmediatelyafter
21:05: total collapse(1,000m
3
) 2-1aneroadcollapsed collapse
thinweatheredrockcover stopof gassupply faceshotcreteandinvert Close
inflowof soil andgroundwater (5,000households) (t=1.52.0m)
weatheredgranite(WG) at theface damagetolightingpoles cement milkgroutingandcurtain
veryclosetoanexistingstream andtrafficlight poles wall grouting
B 27Nov1991, 10:40: blasting nohumancasualties grouting: cement mortal cement
16:00:rockfallsat theface 80householdsevacuated milkchemical grout
22:00: soil andwater inflow(D=25m) electricityandwater loweringof groundwater
28Nov1991, maincollapsed level(3m/day)
03:20:additional collapse(D=20m) (3-storybldg) slipped pumping/forepolingfor
WGat theface intocrater re-excavation
permeability: (1.010
4
remedial cost: $4.5million
2.010
5
cm/sec)
C 11Feb1992, roadheader excavation nohumancasualties dumpingsoilsintocollapsed
04:30: raveling 4-laneroadcollapsed area(240tons)
significant inflowof ground serviceculvert (6m3m) dumpingready-mixed-
water (100130/min exposed(including154kv concrete(105tons)
about 4.5tonof soil flewinto electricitycable) grouting
face: D=10m passengersdelay
heavilyWGat theface
D 7J an1993, 03:30: blasting nohumancasualties grouting: cement mortal, cement
collapseafter removingmaterials 2-laneroadcollapsed milkandLW(160holes)
collapsesize: 0.7m1.2m supplystopof water mortal injectionbeneathsewer culvert
startedat theleft sideof crown main(+=200mm) reduceinflowof groundwater
soil inflow: 900m
3
, groundwater: sewer culvertswerebroken usingchemical grouting
300/min 40householdsevacuated
WG& DGSat theface
E 1Feb1993, ringcut nohumancasualties soil dumpingintocollapsed
08:30: rockfall andcollapse 6itemsof excavation area(5,500m
3
)
(oval shapeD=1030m) equipment wereburied chemical grouting(76holes)
inflowof soil withgroundwater compactiongrouting(300holes)
alluvium& DGSat theface remedial cost: $1.7million
beneathanexistingstream
Figure14. Dimensional conditionfor seepageanalysis.
anincreaseinthegroundwater level ratio. Asthetotal
support pressure is related to the tunnel face stabil-
ity, theseepageforceseriouslyaffectsthetunnel face
stability. While the effective overburden pressure is
reduced slightly by the arching effect during tunnel
excavation, theseepagepressureremainsat thesame
level duringtunnel excavation. Thisexplainswhythe
Figure15. Hydraulicheaddistributionandfailurezone.
effectof seepageplaysanimportantroleintunnel face
stabilityproblems.
4.2 Particle transport characteristics of granite
residual soils
A soil issaidtobeinternallystableif itisself-filtering
andif its fineparticles do not move/migratethrough
51
Figure16. Changeof supportpressurewithvariationof the
H/DRatio.
Figure17. Schematicdrawingsof experimental set-up.
thepores of its owncoarser fraction. Previous inves-
tigations into the internal stability of cohesionless
soils suggest that soils with auniformity coefficient
(C
u
)>20andwithconcaveupwardgrainsizedistri-
butionstendtobeinternallyunstable(Leeetal. 2002).
Most residual soils in Korea, including those listed
inTable1, haveuniformitycoefficientsmuchgreater
than20, suggestingthat theyareinternallyunstable.
Lee et al. (2002) studied the nature of particle
transport and erosion in residual soils. Two types
of residual soils introduced in Section 2 are used:
Shinnae-dongsoil andPoi-dongsoil.Theexperimental
setupisshowninFigure17. Inselectedexperiments,
acylindrical hole7mmindiameter isdrilledintothe
compacted specimens to induce erosion only in the
holeandsimulatesurfaceerosionof thesoils.Anelec-
tronicpumpisusedtoachieveaconstant flowrateof
the influent fromthe water tank. The effluent from
Figure18. Cumulativemass versus (a) timeand (b) pore
volumefor Shinnae-dongsoil.
the cell is characterized with respect to its turbidity
(intermsof nephelometricturbidityunits, NTUs) and
particlesizedistribution.
The cumulative mass of particles in the effluent
eroded fromthebasesoils is plotted with respect to
timeinFigures18(a) &19(a) for thetworesidual soil
types. Someimportant differencescanbeobservedin
theinternal erosionbehaviorof thetwosoil types.The
Shinnae-dongsoil exhibitsalmostthesamerateof ero-
sionduringtheinitial stagesof theexperiment for the
threedifferent flow rates used (Figure18a). Particle
redepositioninthesoil sampleappearstocompensate
fortheincreasederodibilityathigherflowrates.Thisis
evenmoreapparentwhenthecumulativemassisplot-
tedintermsof porevolume(Figure18b). Itisseenthat
at lowflowratestheerosionratesarehigher, because
of thereducedparticledeposition.Thereappearstobe
amaximumlimit for thecumulativemassof internal
erosionforeachflowrate, beyondwhichthesoil pro-
tecteditself fromfurthererosion, perhapsthroughthe
formationof afilterbridge. Fortherelativelycohesive
Poi-dong soil (Figure 19a & 19b), self-protection
dueto particleredepositionis not apparent. Thereis
nocaponthemaximumerodedquantitiesduringthe
periodof testing.
Incontrasttotheinternal erosionbehavior, thesur-
face erosion fromthe two samples (as observed in
experiments where erosion is induced in a cylindri-
cal hole) follows almost linear trends, with therates
52
Figure19. Cumulativemass versus (a) time, and(b) pore
volumes, for Poi-dongsoils.
of erosion increasing as theflowrateincreases. The
ratesof erosionarealsoconsiderablyhigherthanthose
obtainedintheinternal erosionexperimentsdiscussed
above.
Particle transport characteristics of residual soils
mightbeamongthefactorsthatresultintheinstability
of undergroundstructures.
4.3 Difficulties in penetration grouting
Tunnelling works in soft ground frequently require
grouting technology, either to prevent groundwater
or to improve mechanical properties of the ground.
However, grouting is not availablein many cases in
decomposedresidual soilsduetolowgroutability.Bur-
well definesthegroutability(N) of suspensiongrouts
bythefollowingsimpleequation(Kimet al. 2007):
where D
15
is the particle size of base soils corre-
sponding to 15% finer and d
85
is the particle size
of grouts corresponding to 85%finer. If N is larger
than 25, grout can be successfully injected into the
soil formation. However, Burwell notes that even in
Figure20. Grain-sizedistributionof soilsandgrouts.
Table5. Soil andgroutpropertiesusedinchamberinjection
tests.
D
10
D
15
d
85
d
95
Material (mm) (mm) (m) (m) N
Soil A 0.60 0.64 32
Soil B 2.10 2.22 111
Finecement 16 27
Quicksettingagent 37 70
Finecement+Quick 20 39
settingagent
caseof N >25, thefollowingrequirement shouldbe
additionallysatisfiedfor thesoil tobegroutable:
where D
10
is the particle size of base soils corre-
spondingto 10%finer andd
95
is theparticlesizeof
groutscorrespondingto95%finer. Kimet al. (2007)
performedpilot-scalechamberinjectionteststoinves-
tigatethegroutabilityof twogranular soilsthatsatisfy
thegroutabilitycriteriaproposedbyBurwell.
Thegrain-sizedistributionsof soilsandgroutsare
shown in Figure20 and their properties aresumma-
rizedinTable5.Theexperimental set-upforpilot-scale
chamber injection tests is shown in Figure21. Typi-
cal resultsof theexperimentsareshowninFigure22.
AlthoughtheNvalueof thesoil A (N=32) isgreater
than25,thegroutcouldnotbesufficientlyinjectedinto
soil A.Meanwhile,groutabilityisfairlygoodforsoil B
(N=111).Theseresultssuggestthattheconsideration
of filtration phenomena is indispensable to reason-
ablyevaluatingthepotential of groutpenetration. The
Nvalueof theShinnae-dongsoil showninFigure1is
2.6andthat of thePoi-dongsoil is 0.2. Thesevalues
meanthatpenetrationgroutinginthesesoilsisalmost
impossible. Therefore, finding an appropriategrout-
ingmethodhaspresentedaconsiderablechallengein
graniteresidual soils.
53
Figure 21. Experimental set-up for pilot-scale chamber
injectiontest.
Figure 22. Maximum injection volume with injection
pressure.
4.4 Ground reaction curve with consideration of
seepage forces and grouting
Theoretical analyses of seepagearound tunnels sug-
gest that a loss in hydraulic heads occurs at the
shotcrete lining and concentration of seepage force
at theshotcreteliningintheradial directioninduces
unfavorablegroundreaction(Shin, 2007).Thus, when
seepageproblems areanticipated during tunnel con-
struction, proper groutingaroundtunnelscanprovide
effective reduction of seepage force acting on the
shotcrete lining and also increases the stiffness and
strength of the surrounding ground. When grouting
Figure 23. Hydraulic head at soil-grouting interface
dependingonthepermeabilityratio.
is applied around the tunnel, a loss of hydraulic
heads occurs inthegroutingzonearoundthetunnel;
thisreducestheseepageforceactingontheshotcrete
lining, andresultsinafavorablegroundreaction.
FollowingDarcyscontinuityequation,thehydraulic
head acting on the soil-grouting interface can be
writtenas
whereH
I
isthetotal headatthesoil-groutinginterface,
H
T
isthetotal headof asite, L
g
isthethicknessof the
grouting, L
s
is thelength across which water travels
throughthesoil media, and isthepermeabilityratio
betweenthesoil andgroutingarea(i.e., =K
g
,K
s
).
Figure23showsthevariationof thehydraulicheadat
the soil-grouting interface with different permeabil-
ityratios. Asthepermeabilityratiodecreasesandthe
groutingthicknessincreases, thehydraulicheadacting
ontheinterfaceincreases.
Finiteelement analyseswereperformedinorder to
exploretheeffect of groutingonthegroundreaction
with consideration of seepage. Seepageforceacting
onthegrouting-soil interfacecanbemodeledbyfully
coupled mechanical-hydraulic analyses, as shown in
Figure24. Material propertiesusedinthisanalysisare
summarizedinTable6. It wasassumedthat shotcrete
isnotapplied, thegroundwaterflowisinasteady-state
condition, thegroutingthickness is 1m, andtheper-
meability ratio is =0.1. Four cases weresimulated
numerically: 1) Grouting with seepage; 2) Grouting
without seepage; 3) No grouting with seepage; and
4) No grouting without seepage. Figure 25 presents
theeffectof groutingandseepageforceontheground
reaction curve as given by the numerical analysis
results. The caseof seepageforce without grouting
54
Figure24. Finiteelement model for seepageforceanalysis
withconsiderationof grouting.
Table6. Material propertiesusedinnumerical simulation.
E c
(MPa) j (kN/m
3
) K
0
(kPa) (

)
Weatheredsoil 50 0.35 18.64 0.5 10 35
Groutedzone 500 0.33 18.64 0.5 100 35
Figure25. Effect of groutingandseepageforceonground
reactioncurve(i.e., =0.1).
yieldsaveryunfavorablegroundreactioncurve,which
induces alargedeformation and requires substantial
internal support. However, if theseepageforceisnot
considered, thegroundreacts almost elastically even
though grouting is not applied. This means that the
seepage force significantly affects the ground reac-
tion behavior. In thecasewheregrouting is applied,
unfavorablegroundreactionsinducedby theseepage
forcecouldbeconsiderablyreduced.
5 CHARACTERIZATIONANDMODELINGOF
GROUTEDRESIDUAL SOIL
5.1 Experimental study on time-dependent
characteristics of grouted residual soil
InKorea, inconventional tunnellinginresidual soils,
pre-reinforcement(groutinjection)istypicallyapplied
ahead of the tunnel face to enhance the construc-
tion safety. In addition, a 1 to 2 day time interval
is given between one face and the next face. Dur-
ing this time interval, it is known that changes in
the material properties occur due to effects of the
curing of the grouting material. However, the stiff-
ness and strength at 28 curing days after the grout
injection aregenerally applied as thematerial prop-
erties for pre-reinforced zones in the design stage
without consideringtheeffect of thetime-dependent
behavior of the injected grout material. Thus, this
paper present anewmethodtocharacterizethetime-
dependent behavior of pre-reinforced zones around
a large-section tunnel in residual soil using elastic
wavesandtoconsider time-dependent characteristics
innumerical modelingfortunnel design(Song, 2007).
Figure26presentsschematicdrawingsof theexper-
imental setupfor investigationof thetime-dependent
characteristics of grouted residual soils: (a) Setup
for elastic wave measurements; (b) Setup for shear
strength parameter measurements. Bimorph bender
elementswereinstalledinthetestingdeviceandused
tosendandreceiveP- andS-waves(Figure26a). The
specimenswerepreparedbymixingaresidual soil with
5%cement (by weight; thecement-water ratio is the
sameasthat usedinthefield).
Figure27showstypical resultsfor theelasticwave
velocity according to thecuring timewhen thenor-
mal stress is
n
=160kPa. Theresults showthat the
wave velocity increases drastically according to the
curingtimeandisalmostconstantafter7days. P-wave
velocity is faster than S-wavevelocity and Poissons
ratio can be readily determined fromthe two wave
velocities.
Figure 28 shows the time-dependent characteris-
tics of shear strength parameters obtained fromthe
direct shear test. As shown in Figure28(a), thefric-
tion angle does not change in accordance with the
curingtime. Ontheother hand, it isapparent that the
cohesion increases with thecuring time; after acer-
tainamountof curingtimethecohesionconverges, as
shown in Figure 28(b). It is deduced that the bond-
ing of cement increases thecohesion and, after with
55
Figure 26. Experimental setup for investigation of
time-dependent characteristicsof groutedresidual soils.
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Curing time (Days)
V
e
l
o
c
i
t
y

(
m
/
s
e
c
)
P-wave
S-wave
Figure27. Elastic wavevelocity accordingto curingtime
(
n
=160kPa).
theelapseof time, thecohesionmaintains auniform
valuewiththeendof cementation. Theearlystageof
this phenomenon is controlled by thenormal stress,
but ascuringtimeincreasesthecementationcontrols
thefrictionangleandcohesion.
Thewavevelocityandcohesionof groutedresidual
soils can be respectively correlated with the curing
timeasfollows:
0
10
20
30
40
50
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Curing time (Days)
F
r
i
c
t
i
o
n

a
n
g
l
e

(

)
(a) Friction angle
0
50
100
150
200
250
Curing time (Days)
C
o
h
e
s
i
o
n

(
k
P
a
)
(b) Cohesion
Figure28. Time-dependentcharacteristicsof shearstrength
parameters.
where , , A, and B are the fitting parameters and
t is the curing time. These fitting parameters can
be determined by best-fitting the experimental data
with Eq. (8) and Eq. (9). Also, the shear strength
and strength parameters (i.e., the cohesion and fric-
tion angle) can be uniquely correlated to the elastic
wavevelocities.
5.2 Numerical simulation of time-dependent
characteristics of grouted residual soil
The construction of underground space in residual
soil entails many risk factors such as difficulties in
predicting arching effects and determination of var-
ious uncertain underground properties. Researchers
havesuggestedvarious techniques for auxiliary sup-
portsystemssuchasthereinforcedprotectiveumbrella
method (RPUM), which has the advantage of com-
bining a modern forepoling systemwith a grouting
injection method (Barisone, 1982). This method is
used for pre-reinforcement design before the under-
groundexcavation: not only for small sectiontunnel-
ingwithinweatheredandcrashedzones, but alsofor
largeundergroundspaces. Inaddition, todecreasethe
riskof acollapseorfailureinlargeexcavationcaverns,
researchers have developed various techniques and
constructionmethods. Someexamplesinclude: atun-
nelingmethodusinganadvancedreinforcingsystem
whereadoublesteel pipeis usedfor water-proofing
56
Figure29. 3D tunnel model and time-dependent material
propertiesof thepre-reinforcedzoneafter 12mexcavation.
andaurethaneinjectionisusedfor reinforcement; the
Trevi jetmethod, whichinvolvesconstructinganarch-
shell structure around a tunnel crown with cement
grout; and steel pipereinforced multi-step grouting,
whereabeamarch is constructed around thetunnel
crownwithlargediameter steel pipes, andmultilayer
cement groutinginjectionisemployed.
Threedimensional FE analyseswereperformedto
examinethetime-dependent behavior of thegrouted
zone. Theresultsobtainedfromlaboratorytestswere
appliedto anumerical simulationof atunnel, taking
into account its construction sequence. Figure 29(a)
showsasimulated3D four-lanetunnel model, where
the same stress state and stress level as used in the
experiment were assumed. Figure 29(b) shows the
time-dependent elastic modulus andcohesionvalues
obtainedfromtheexperimental studyaswell asthose
usedinthenumerical analysis.
The time-dependent behavior of a pre-reinforced
zonecanbemodeledusingthefollowingprocedure.
Thematerial properties(i.e., stiffnessandstrength) of
thepre-reinforcedzoneareconsideredastheboundary
conditions fromDay 1toDay 28. Theregisteredini-
tial boundaryconditionsareappliedtoapre-assigned
mesh in pre-reinforcement construction. Thebound-
aryconditionsarethenupdatedaccordingtothefield
constructionsequence.
For a quantitative analysis, the displacements of
each casearenormalized with theresults of apipe-
onlycase. Figure30(a) showsthenormalizedvertical
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Excavation Length (m)
N
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
1D Stiffness and Strength
2D Stiffness and Strength
3D Stiffness and Strength
28D Stiffness and Strength
Time-Dependent Stiffness and Strength
(a) Vertical displacement on a tunnel portal
0.80
0.85
0.90
0.95
1.00
0 5 10 15 20 25
Excavation Length (m)
N
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

H
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l

D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
1D Stiffness and Strength
2D Stiffness and Strength
3D Stiffness and Strength
28D Stiffness and Strength
Time-Dependent Stiffness and Strength
(b) Horizontal displacement on a tunnel face
Figure30. Variationof normalizeddisplacement.
displacementattheportal.Thetrendof thenormalized
vertical displacement curve for the time-dependent
condition is similar to that of the one day curing
casewithintheinitial excavationsection(-8m). As
the excavation continues, the results of the time-
dependent condition become similar to those of the
23 days curing case, until vertical displacement
eventuallyconverges.Thestiffnessandstrengthof the
pre-reinforcedzonefor the12dayscuringcaseare
roughly3050%of thoseof the28dayscuringcase.
Inotherwords,areductionof thematerial propertiesof
thepre-reinforcedzonemakesitpossibletomodel the
time-dependenteffectof thepre-reinforcedzoneonthe
global tunnel behavior uponinitial tunnel excavation.
Figure 30(b) shows the normalized horizon-
tal displacement at the tunnel face. It is found
that the normalized horizontal displacement for the
time-dependent condition varies within a range of
0.940.98, whichisverysimilartothatof othercases
during excavation. Therefore, pre-reinforcement can
be considered for prevention of collapse rather than
as a means of displacement reduction control at the
tunnel face. Thus, it can beconcluded that grouting
reducesthehorizontal displacementbyapproximately
26%at thetunnel facewiththepre-reinforcement
method.
57
Figure31. Diagramof simplifiedpre-reinforcedzone.
An analysis method combining experimental
and numerical procedures that consider the time-
dependent effect onthepre-reinforcedzoneontunnel
behavior will provideareliableand practical design
basisandmeansof analysisfor tunnelsinsoftground.
5.3 Determination of equivalent design parameters
for the pre-reinforced zone in residual soil
The design and analysis of pre-reinforcement tech-
niquesrequiredesignassumptionsthatareproblematic
at best, resulting in increased uncertainty in tunnel
design.Thepre-reinforcementeffectistypicallymod-
eledbysimulatingtheconstructionsequenceof setting
thereinforcedzoneandthenincreasingthestiffness,
thereby obviating theneed for complex modeling of
eachbulbandsteel pipe. However, thisapproachhas
beenfoundtobeunsuitablewhenthecenter-to-center
distancebetweenpipesislarger thantheexpansionof
thegroutbulb.Thisapproachassumesthatthestiffness
of thepre-reinforcedzoneisthesameasthestiffness
of the grout bulb, which may be either completely
hardened or arbitrary, and that the pre-reinforced
zonebecomes twotofour times stronger thanbefore
reinforcement. Therefore, this study presents a new
technique for determining a reasonable equivalent
parameter of thepre-reinforcedzone.
A pre-reinforced zone consists of ground, grout
bulbs,andsteel pipes.Itmaybesimplified,asshownin
Figure31, toaconditionwherethespacebetweenthe
pipesiswiderthanthegroutexpansionrange. Insandy
soil andweatheredsoil, thebulbmay becylindrical.
Weassessedfivecasescomprisingvariousconditions
to model thepre-reinforced zone, as summarized in
Table7.
For thestrengthening of thegrout bulb reinforce-
ment, wefollowedthemethodof Kikuchi etal. (1995).
Thegrout injection consequently produced atenfold
increaseinthestiffnessof theweatheredsoil. Table8
shows the equivalent design parameters for the var-
ious compositions of the ground, the bulb, and the
steel pipes. A precisely-simulatedmodel (Figure32a)
Table7. Summaryof equivalent designmethods.
Table 8. Equivalent design properties used for numerical
modeling.
Equivalent designproperties E
eq
(MPa) C
eq
(kPa)
Case1 1748.21 1065.04
Case2 107.35 91.21
Case3 117.81 141.22
Case4 315.22 216.73
Case5 490.35 588.42
iscomparedwithvariousequivalent stiffnessmodels
(Figure32b).
Figure 33 shows the vertical displacement at the
tunnel crown, the horizontal displacement at the
springline, and ground surfacesettlement. To obtain
thesevalues, weaveragedthefivenodeslocatedatthe
center andleft areasof thetunnel crownat adepthof
4.5mfromtheportal. TheDRM/DEM parameter is
hereindefinedas thefractionof thedisplacement of
thereferential model (DRM) to thedisplacement of
theequivalent model (DEM):
The precisely-simulated model is represented by a
valueof 0%.
Fromthevertical displacement results, case1and
case2givetheclosestresulttotheprecisely-simulated
model in weathered soil. However, general methods
tend to overestimatetheeffect of pre-reinforcement.
Although there is only a slight difference between
Case 2 and Case 3, Case 2 predicts a similar
horizontal displacementatthespringlinerelativetothe
58
Figure32. 3DFE analysismodel for comparisonof equiv-
alent model andpreciselymodeled.
precisely-simulated model and the design is rather
safe. Theequivalent model offers asatisfactory pre-
diction of the ground surface settlement, as the
DRM/DEMvaluerangesfrom0.55%to0.7%inCase
1andCase2.
Case 1 exemplifies a proper equivalent modeling
technique for simulating the pre-reinforcing mecha-
nismin residual soils. Case 2, a SPSS in which the
stiffnessof thebulbandsteel pipesarecoupledinpar-
allel andthenconnectedtothestiffnessof theground
in series, exemplifies a simple equivalent modeling
technique that predicts the vertical displacement at
thetunnel crown, thehorizontal displacement at the
springline, andthegroundsurfacesettlement.
Whentheground, grout bulbs, andsteel pipes are
regarded as an individual support system, the pre-
reinforced zone is not a series or parallel stiffness
systembut aseries-parallel compound stiffness sys-
tem. Thus, asmall degreeof stiffnesssupportreceives
thelargest stress; moreover, alinear combination of
largestiffness supports resists ground displacement.
The SPSS explains the failure mechanism of the
Figure33. Comparisonbetweenequivalent cases.
pre-reinforced zone: namely, theruptureof thesteel
pipes and thegrout bulb follows theyielding of the
ground. TheSPSS shouldbeusedinvarious studies
relatedtotheanalysisof pre-reinforcedtunnels.
59
6 EFFECT OF SPATIAL VARIABILITY
The mean value of the measurements is often used
for design parameters even if there is a noticeable
variation. Theeffect of thevariation of geotechnical
parameters on tunnel safety or deformation is rarely
studiedorconsideredusingastatistical concept.There
are two kinds of sources for variation in the design
parameters: spatial distributionanduncertainty.
Uncertainty means that the material property of
the soil/rock has a characteristic unreliability. In
reliability-based designs, theuncertainty of thegeo-
material is significant for a specific site character-
ization. There are three major geotechnical uncer-
tainties governing the variability of geoproperties:
inherent soil characteristics, measurement errors, and
transformationfallacies(Phoon& Kulhawy, 1999).
The spatial distribution of soil has been consid-
eredforecological andenvironmental modeling(J ury,
1985) andvariouscharacterizationmethodshavebeen
suggested by Cho et al. (2004). Likewise, the spa-
tial distribution of the geoproperties is important
for the mechanical behavior of underground struc-
tures surrounded by variable soils. The soil itself
is not an isotropic material, but an anisotropic and
non-homogenous material. These characteristics are
inducedby theformationprocess andgroundstress.
Spatial distributiontakesthemacroscaleintotherange
of interest.Thus, itisexpectedthat, amongothersoils,
weatheredresidual soilshavehighspatial variabilityof
their geopropertiesduetotheir originandweathering
process.
Theeffectof thespatial distributiononthegeotech-
nical parameters of tunnel deformation is studied
through numerical analyses based on statistical con-
ceptsasshowninFigure34. Thegeotechnical param-
eters that cause the largest deformation of tunnels
whenthegroundmaterial followstheMohr-Coulomb
model andtheexpecteddisplacement variationchar-
acteristicsfor eachgeotechnical designparameter are
presentedinthisstudy.
Thecoefficient of variation (COV) has long been
commonlyusedtoquantifythevariabilityof soil and
rock properties (Harr, 1987). TheCOV is definedas
thestandarddeviation() dividedbythemean(j) of
theparameter:
Eachmaterial property of theresidual soil canbe
regardedas anormal randomvariablethat has acer-
tainprobabilisticerror. Inparticular, ithasbeenshown
that thespatial distribution of thefriction angleand
unit weight follows anormal distributionparameter-
ized with the mean and COV (Lumb, 1966; Hoeg
& Murarka, 1974; Lacasse& Nadim, 1996; Low &
Figure34. Numerical model of spatial distributionof geo-
property(cohesion, Range=3R, COV=40%).
Table9. Representativecoefficient of variation (COV) of
thegeotechnical parameters.
Properties COV(%) Reference
ElasticModulus 1545 Harr, 1987; Phoonand
Kul-hawy,1999
FrictionAngle 2432 Schultze, 1972
Cohesion 4068 Schultze, 1972; Tan
et al. 2000
Tang, 1997; Phoon & Kulhawy, 1999; Tanit et al.,
2004). Thus, it is assumed herein that all geotechni-
cal parameters, i.e., constitutive components of the
Mohr-Coulombmodel, havenormal distributionchar-
acteristics.TherepresentativeCOVof thegeotechnical
parametersissummarizedinTable9.
Thebulk modulus (B) andshear modulus (G) are
importantmaterial parametersandcanbealternatively
changedbytheelasticmodulus(E)andPoissonsratio,
respectively.Thenormallydistributedelasticmodulus
generatedwithaspecific COV isconvertedtoabulk
modulusandshearmodulustosimulatethespatial dis-
tribution effect of the elastic modulus on the tunnel
deformation.
Thenumerical analysisresultsareshowninFigure
35(a). A COV of 20%shouldbeconsideredacritical
variation of theelastic modulus effect on thetunnel
deformation, asaCOV of morethan30%causesarel-
atively significant deformation variation. Theelastic
modulusisaninfluential geopropertyintunnel defor-
mation. Thelargest NDVR is morethan0.075when
COV =40%andrange=3R. Thedisplacement vari-
ationinducedbytheelasticmodulusvariationcanbe
predictedfromFigure35(a), dependingontherange
fromthetunnel center.
60
Figure35. Effect of spatially distributedgeoproperties on
tunnel deformation.
Theeffectof spatial distributioninthefrictionangle
ontunnel deformationis showninFigure35(b). The
NDVR at the tunnel crown and springline reaches
0.0770.078whenthevariationrangeis 3R andthe
COV of thefrictionangleis40%. Therefore, thefric-
tionanglevariability is themost high-rankingfactor
for thecalculationof deformationinthetunnel com-
pared with other geotechnical parameters when the
Mohr-Coulomb material model is used. Thegeneral
COV of thefrictionangleis small at 12%(Schultze,
1972). Therefore, arangeof 10%20%variation of
the friction angle is critical for tunnel deformation
characteristics.Itcanbeseenthatasthevariationrange
increases, theslopeof thecurvatureincreases.
The COV of cohesion is near 40% (Fredlund &
Dahlman, 1972).AsshowninFigure35(c), theNDVR
enlarges inall cases as theCOV increases. However,
it canbeobservedthat thevariationof cohesionhasa
minor effect ondeformationinthetunnel. Themaxi-
mumNDVRinducedbythecohesionvariationislower
than0.00006whenthevariationrangeis 3R andthe
COV is40%. Fromtheanalysisresults, thespatial dis-
tributioneffect of cohesionontunnel deformationis
smaller than that of theelastic modulus and friction
angle. Therefore, thespatial distribution of cohesion
is not acritical parameter for thecharacterizationof
tunnel behavior.
7 CONCLUSIONS
Wepresentedanoverviewof geotechnical aspects of
undergroundconstructioninurbanareaswheremostly
decomposed residual soils are present, focusing on
mechanical properties, apparent earthpressure, effect
of ground water, and effect of spatial variability in
geotechnical properties.
The strength and deformation characteristics of
residual soils areaffectedby particle/poresize, fines
content, mineralogy, andunsaturation, amongothers:
Theinternal frictionangledecreaseswithanincrease
of fine content and partial saturation increases the
strengthof unsaturatedresidual soilsduetocapillarity.
Results of back analyses fromactual measurements
show that geotechnical properties of residual soils,
which are commonly used for design and modeling
inKorea, areinappropriateinthisregard, thusdemon-
stratingtheimportanceof theobservational methodin
tunnel engineering.
As an unsaturated soil is re-saturated, its appar-
ent cohesion can beeliminated. Thus, during tunnel
construction, cohesion loss can be induced by re-
saturation(e.g., seepagehindrance, drainageclogging
andgroundwaterchange)andmayresultintunnel face
instability.
The lateral earth pressure coefficient of residual
soils is smaller than the coefficient commonly sug-
gested in the literature (e.g., 7080% of Pecks
suggestion).
Unexpectedgroundwaterinflowandseepageforces
often cause tunnel failures during construction.
Several case histories suggest that tunnel face col-
lapses always occur alongwithseepageaheadof the
tunnel face. Analytical results suggest that the total
61
support pressureis littleaffectedby thetunnel depth
and increases significantly with an increase in the
groundwater level ratio. Asthetotal support pressure
isrelatedtothetunnel facestability, theseepageforce
seriouslyaffectsthetunnel facestability.
Particle transport characteristics of residual soils
mightbeamongthefactorsthatresultintheinstability
of undergroundstructures.Their phenomenaarecom-
plicatedandareinvolvedinerosionversusself-healing
(redeposition) processes.
Whilegroutabilityisaffectedbytheporesizeof the
residual soils, proper selectionof agroutingmethod
has proved a difficult task in granite residual soils.
When seepage problems are anticipated during tun-
nel construction, proper groutingaroundtunnels can
achieveeffectivereductionof seepageforceactingon
theshotcreteliningandcanincreasethestiffnessand
strengthof thesurroundingground.
An analysis method combining experimental
and numerical procedures that consider the time-
dependent effect onthepre-reinforcedzoneontunnel
behavior will provideareliableandpractical de-sign
basisandmeansof analysisfor tunnelsinsoftground.
It is expected that, among other soils, weathered
residual soilshavehighspatial variabilityof geoprop-
erties, becauseof their originandweatheringprocess.
The numerical results show that tunnel deformation
increaseswithanincreaseinthespatial variabilityof
geotechnical designparametersandisacceleratedwith
anincreaseintunnel size.
Research on decomposed residual soils has been
conductedthroughout thelast fewdecades. Nonethe-
less, thecurrentincreaseof undergroundconstruction
projects inurbanareas requires better understanding
of residual soilsfor safer undergrounduse.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
ThisstudywasfundedbytheKoreaInstituteof Con-
struction and Transportation Technology Evaluation
andPlanningunder theMinistry of Constructionand
TransportationinKorea(Grant No. 04-C01).
REFERENCES
Barisone, G., Pigorini, B. & Pelizza, S. 1982. Umbrellaarch
method for tunnelling in difficult conditions Analysis
of Italiancases. Proceedings of the 4th Congress Interna-
tional Association of Engineering Geology. NewDelhi, 4:
1527
Cho, G.C., Lee, J.S. & Santamarina, J.C. 2004. Spatial vari-
abilityinsoils: Highresolutionassessmentwithelectrical
needleprobe. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenviron-
mental Engineering. ASCE 130(8): 843849
Cho, K.H., Choi, M.K., Nam, S.W. & Lee, I.M. 2006.
Geotechnical parameterestimationintunnelingusingrel-
ativeconvergencemeasurement.International Journal for
Numerical and Analytical Method in Geomechanics 30:
137155
Fredlund, D.G. & Dahlman, A.E. 1972. Statistical geotech-
nical properties of glacial lake edmonton sediments, in
Statistics and Probability in Civil Engineering. Hong
KongUniversity Press, distributedby OxfordUniversity
Press. London.
Harr, M.E. 1987. Reliability Based Design in Civil Engineer-
ing, Dover Publications, INC.
Hoeg, H. & Murarka, R.P. 1974. Probabilistic analysis
and design of aretaining wall. Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering Division. ASCE 100(3): 349366
J ury, W.A. 1985. Spatial variability of soil properties.In:
Hern, S.C., Melancon, S.M. (Eds.), Vadose Zone Modeling
of Organic Pollutants, Lewis, Chelsea, MI, 245269
Kikuchi, K., Mito, Y. & Adachi, T. 1995. Case study on
themechanical improvement of rockmassesbygrouting.
Rock Foundation. Balkema393398
Kim, J.S., Choi,Y.K., Park, J.H.,Woo, S.B. &Lee, I.M. 2007.
Effectof viscosityandcloggingongroutpenetrationchar-
acteristics.Journal of Korean Geotechnical Society 23(4):
513
Kim, Y.J. 1993. Mechanical characteristics of decomposed
Koreangranites. Ph.D. Thesis, Seoul: KoreaUniversity
Lacasse, S. & Nadim, F. 1996. Uncertaintiesincharacteriz-
ingsoil properties.Uncertainty 96, Geotechnical Special
Publication, ASCE 58(1): 4975
Leca, E. &Dormieux, L. 1990. Upper andlower boundsolu-
tions for thefacestability of shallowcircular tunnels in
frictional material. Geotechnique 40(4): 581606
Lee, C.K. & J eon, S.K. 1993. earthpressuredistributionon
retainingwallsintheexcavationof multi-layeredground,
Journal of Korean Geotechnical Society 9(1): 59
Lee, I.K. 1991. Mechanical behavior of compacteddecom-
posedgranitesoil. Ph.D. Thesis, London: CityUniversity.
Lee, I.M., Moon, H.P., Lee, D.S., Kim, K.R. & Cho, M.S.
2007. Earth pressureof vertical shaft considering arch-
ingeffect inlayeredsoils. Journal of Korean Tunnelling
Association 9(1): 4962
Lee, I.M., Nam, S.W. & Ahn, J.H. 2003. Effect of seepage
forces on tunnel face stability, Canadian Geotechnical
Journal 40: 342350
Lee, I.M., Park, Y.J. & Reddi, L.N. 2002. Particletransport
characteristicsandfiltrationof graniticresidual soilsfrom
theKoreanpeninsula.Canadian Geotechnical Journal 39:
472482
Lee, I.M., Sung, S.G. &Cho, G.C. 2005. Effectof stressstate
ontheunsaturatedshear strengthof aweatheredgranite.,
Canadian Geotechnical Journal 42: 624631
Lee, S.J., Lee, S.R. & J ang, B.S. 2002. Unsaturated shear
strengthcharacteristicsof weatheredgranitesoils.Journal
of Korean Geotechnical Society 22(1): 8188
Low, B.K. & Tang, W.H. 1997. Reliability analysis of rein-
forcedembankmentsonsoft ground. Canadian Geotech-
nical Journal 34(5): 672685
Lumb, P. 1966. The variability of natural soils. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal 3(2): 7497
Peck, R.B. 1969, Deep excavations and tunneling in soft
ground, Proc., 7th Int. Conf. on Soil Mech. And Found.
Engrg., State-of-the-Art Rep., State-of-the-Art Vol:
225290
Phoon, K.K. & Kulhawy, F.H. 1999. Characterization of
geotechnical variability. Canadian Geotechnical Journal
36(4): 612624
62
Schultze, E. 1972. Frequency distributions andcorrelations
of soil properties. In Statistics and Probability in Civil
Engineering, HongKongUniversityPress, distributedby
OxfordUniversityPress, London.
Shin, J.H., Lee, I.K., Lee, Y.H. & Shin, H.S. 2006. Lessons
fromserial tunnel collapses during construction of the
Seoul SubwayLine5.Tunnelling and Underground Space
Technology 21: 296297
Shin,Y.J. 2007. Elasto-plasticgroundresponseof underwater
tunnels consideringseepageforces, Ph.D. Thesis, Seoul:
KoreaUniversity
Song, K.I., Kim, J. & Cho, G.C. 2007. Numerical anal-
ysis of pre-reinforced zones in tunnel considering the
time-dependentgroutingperformance. Journal of Korean
Tunnelling Association 9(2): 109120
Tanit, C. 2004. Reliability-based design for Internal sta-
bility of mechanically stabilized earth walls. Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering. ASCE
130(2): 163173
Yoo, C. 2001. Behavior of bracedandanchoredwallsinsoils
overlyingrock. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenviron-
mental Engineering. ASCE 127(3): 225233
63
General reports
Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground Ng, Huang & Liu (eds)
2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-48475-6
Safetyissues, riskanalysis, hazardmanagement andcontrol
C.T. Chin& H.C. Chao
Moh and Associates, Inc., Taipei, Taiwan
ABSTRACT: Theoccurrenceof hazardeventsingeotechnical practiceisoftenassociatedwithgeotechnical
uncertainties. Toprevent hazardeventsfromhappeningor reducetheimpactsof their consequence, sourcesof
geotechnical uncertainties needtobeidentifiedandtreated, andappropriatecontrol measurehas tobeimple-
mentedthroughout aproject. Theprobabilistic methodsarethedevicesdealingwithuncertaintiesandtherisk
managementisthetechniquetofacilitateachievingthegoal of projectsafety.Thepaperspresentedinthistheme
aresummarizedandbrieflydiscussedinthreecategories riskanddecisionanalysis, geotechnical control, and
analysisandcontrol of groundresponse. Inriskanalysis, geotechnical uncertaintiesneedtobetreatedexplicitly.
Resultsof riskanalysis, qualitativelyor quantitatively, not onlyprovideabaselinefor decisionmakingbut also
insightstotheproblemof concern. Inorder tomakebest useof availableanalysistools, morecasestudiesare
needed.
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Geotechnical uncertainty
Uncertainty is thelack of certainty, astateof having
limited knowledge where it is impossible to exactly
describe existing state or future outcome (Hubbard,
2007). If uncertainty requires tobetreated, probabil-
ity is thedevice. Therearetwo kinds of probability:
relative frequency and subjective, degree-of-belief
probability.Theprobabilityof anuncertaineventisthe
relativefrequency of occurrencewhen it is obtained
throughrepeatedtrialsor experimental sampling. The
subjective, degree-of-belief probability comes from
judgment wheretheprobabilityof anuncertainevent
isthequantifiedmeasureof onesbelief orconfidence,
accordingtotheinformationavailableandonesstate
of knowledgeat thetimeit isassessed(Vick, 2002).
In engineering practice, although uncertainty is
surelyacertaintyandmaycreatesomeimpact,itseems
theexistenceof which is not abother to many. As a
matter of fact, most of theengineers get alongquite
well without explicitly using the necessary device,
probability, to manageit. This probably attributes to
thecustomary practiceengineers have. By using the
establishedstandards, codes, factorsof safety, design
criteria,orproceduresinwhichtheuncertaintiessome-
how have been accounted for or somewhere hidden
behind, deterministic method by which answers are
either correct or wrongcancomfortablybeappliedin
solvingproblems.
However, the material in geotechnical engineer-
ing is widely known for its significantly abundant
Figure 1. Categories of uncertainty in soil property data
(Christianet al. 1994).
uncertainties. Sources of uncertainties can be
unknownpresenceof geologicdefects,uncertainvalue
of soil properties, limited knowledge to the mech-
anisms and processes, and much more. One of the
examples as presented by Christian el al. (1994) is
demonstratedin Figure1, in which theuncertainties
associated with the characterization of soil proper-
ties areattributeto systematic error anddatascatter.
Systematicerror resultsfromstatistical error inmean
valuearisingfromlimitednumbersof measurements
or bias inmeasurement procedures likethoseassoci-
atedwithfieldpermeabilitytestor fieldvantest. Data
scatter, ontheother hand, isaresultof randomtesting
errorsor actual spatial variationinthesoil profile.
Another sourceof geotechnical uncertaintyismod-
eling. A model is an appropriate simplification of
reality. Goodmodelingskill isreflectedintheability
toidentifytheappropriatelevel of simplification to
recognizewhatfeaturesareimportantandwhatarenot.
67
Very often engineers are unaware of the simplifica-
tions that they have made and problems may arise
preciselybecausetheassumptionsthathavebeenmade
are inappropriate in a particular application (Wood,
2004).
Thetypesof geomechanical model canbedivided
into thefollowingcategories: empirical model, theo-
retical model, analytical model, numerical model and
constitutive model. Model uncertainty is the extent
to which amodel incarnates auniquely correct rep-
resentation of the physical process it seeks to emu-
late. Model uncertaintiesarisefromitsrepresentative
degreeto thereal fieldprocesses, andfor aphysical
processdifferent modelsandoperationcanalwaysbe
found.
In conventional approach, effects of uncertainty
are generally accounted for, consciously or not, by
standards, codes, designcriteria, or factors of safety.
Theunderlying uncertainties may havealready been
consideredorevaluatedsomehowintheprocessdevel-
oping them. This simple strategy seems work quite
well forworkshavingbeenencounteredbeforeandlot
of experience accumulated. However, when circum-
stances areuniqueand uncertainties arenot routine,
whichareoftenthecasesingeotechnical engineering
practice, aforementionedproceduresor toolsmaynot
befullyapplicableanymore.
1.2 Geotechnical safety
Theoccurrenceof hazard event in major geotechni-
cal engineering projects such as tunneling or deep
excavationoftendrawsalotof attentionfromthegen-
eral public. Potential consequencesincludesignificant
financial loss to the client and contractor, schedule
delayandlossof confidencetothegeneral public, and
casualty. Thus, itisobviousthatsafetyisanimportant
issuethatrequiresspecial carestoensuretheobjectives
of aproject canbeachieved.
Safetyitself isinessencenotameasurablequantity.
Inpractice,itisevaluatedthroughthesafetyindicators.
Someof thephysical characteristicssuchasthesizeof
cracks, deformationsanddifferential settlements, are
selected to serve as safety indicators for evaluating
the safety status. This process requires analysis and
interpretation, and judgment plays an important role
init. If theuncertainty istobeaccountedfor andthe
effectsareaccommodated,sourcesof uncertaintymust
beunderstoodfirst. This is whereprobability comes
in. One of the most important tools in dealing with
probability is judgment. J udgment provides aninter-
pretativeframeworkthathelpsguidehowuncertainties
arecomprehendedandsubsequently managed. When
astructureis saidto besafeduringadjacent excava-
tion, itmeanstheassessorholdsomesufficientdegree
of belief.
In past decades, there has been a greater aware-
ness on need to treat and manage the geotechnical
Figure2. Geotechnical safety.
uncertaintyinarational andexplicit way. Inresponse
to this demand, active discussion and development
have been seen on topics that may be grouped into
fivecategories: soil variabilitycharacterization, relia-
bility analysis, newgenerationdesigncode, observa-
tional method, andrisk assessment andmanagement.
Advancementsinthesedisciplines, ontheother hand,
areintendedto address better issues ongeotechnical
safety. Theseconceptsareconveniently illustratedby
Figure2.
1.3 Risk assessment
Traditionally, risks weremanaged indirectly through
the engineering decisions taken during the project
development.Moreoftenthannot,theinformationand
knowledge used behind the decisions are inexplicit
and not easy to trace. To improve this, it is neces-
sary tointroduceformal risk management technique.
Inthispractice, riskisdefinedastheproductof failure
probabilityandconsequences:
Where, P
f
is probability of failure and C
f
is conse-
quencesof failure.
By definition, risk assessment must account for
both the probability and extent of adverse conse-
quencesof hazardeventsarisingfromagivenactivity.
Thus, risk assessment involves identificationof haz-
ardeventsandqualitativeor quantitativedescriptions
of risks. Thescopeof riskanalysiscontainstheentire
process of the causes and effect of adverse events.
Suchaprocessiscomposedof threesequential parts,
an initiator that starts it, response to the initiator
and the consequences (Vick, 2002) as illustrated in
Figure3.
Initiatoristhecausethatsetsapotential failurepro-
cessinmotion. Responseistheeventdirectlyresulted
fromthe initiator, and also called the hazard event
in some occasions. Response leads to failure if the
68
Figure3. Componentsof riskanalysis(Vick, 2002).
resistanceor capacity of astructureis unableto sus-
tain theeffects. In risk analysis, failureis treated as
consequenceandneedstobeaphysically observable
conditionlikeretainingwall collapse, utility pipeline
broken, roadwaydamageet al. Generally, failurecan-
not be evaluated meaningfully if it is not converted
to something measurable such as lives lost or dol-
lar cost. It is also important to realize there are
uncertaintiesassociatedwiththeresponse. Asshown
in Figure 3, probabilistic methods such as Bayes
approach, reliabilityanalysis, subjectivejudgmentand
othersareintroducedasthetoolsfor evaluatingthese
uncertainties.
As shownalso inFigure3, initiator, responseand
consequence are linked together by decomposition
techniquessuchaseventtreeandfaulttree. Eventtree
and fault treefacilitateenvision how failureprocess
occurs. As such, they are basic tool of risk identi-
fication and analysis. Figure 4(a) shows a two-level
of event tree and fault tress. The event starts with
initiator event I. If it occurs, the next event to hap-
pen is R
1
, followed by R
2
or R
3
or both. This event
tree contains two failure modes IR
1
R
2
and IR
1
R
3
.
Figure 4(b) presented the same failure progress by
Fault tree. Event uses a bottomup or forward
approach beginning with the initiator and taking it
to consequences. This captures failure process by
expressing its logical order. Fault tree, on the other
hand, usesatopdownorbackwardapproachstart-
ing fromthe top event and identifying the possible
eventsinthe2ndlevel throughasearchprocess. The
and andor logic gatesinstrumentedinFault tree
allowcomputations usingBooleanalgebraincoping
withcomplexproblem.
Figure4. Event treeandFault treeformat.
After riskisidentified, therestof workinriskanal-
ysis is to evaluate the probability and consequences
suchthat thecorrespondingrank-order canbedeter-
mined based on predefined criteria. Subjective,
degree-of-belief probability often areassessed using
expert investigation method incorporated with other
techniquessuchasDephi method, AnalyticHierarchy
Process(AHP), Fuzzysettheoryinriskanalysis. One
of thecontroversial issuesariseshereintheprocess
quantification of risks. According to Vick (2002),
qualitative approaches allows us to discern that one
thingismorelikelyor lesslikelythansomeother, but
animportantproperty byhowmuchmoreorless in
thequalificationprocessismissing. Other thanit, the
depthof theinsight totheproblemcanbereachedis
consideredinproportiontotheeffortsmadeinthepro-
cess of risk analysis wherenumerical quantification
usuallyrequiresmore.
Risk responsemeasureandreductionstrategy can
bedevelopedbasedonriskacceptablecriteriadefined
in risk policy (ITA, 2004). For risks with high rank-
order, itmaybenecessarytodevelopdesignoralterna-
tivesindeterminingriskreductionmeasure. Decision
analysis is essentially acomparativeapproach based
ondecisionrules andresults of risk analysis onvar-
ious alternatives. Similar techniques in risk analysis
69
0 1 2 3 4
Factor of safety, FS
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

D
e
n
s
i
t
y

F
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
FS=1.50
FS=2.00
(P
f
)
1
=0.6%
(P
f
)
2
=7.4%
Design alternative 1:
low uncertainty
Design alternative 2:
high uncertainty
Figure5. Effect of uncertainty.
can be applied to evaluate the risk associated with
each of the alternative. By comparing the results of
risk analysis, thealternativehaving thegreatest risk
effectiveness can be identified. Results of decision
analysis providea solid baselinefor decision maker
tomakedecisionwhendealingwithrisk.
1.4 Deterministic thinking versus probabilistic
thinking
Inengineering, adeterministicsystemisasystemthat
givenaparticularinput,itwill alwaysproducethesame
output, andtheunderlyingmachinewill always pass
through thesamesequenceof states. In this system,
results of thinking areeither right or wrong, mathe-
matic algorithms used are either correct or not, and
thereisnoneedtobebotheredbyuncertainty.
However,uncertaintyinfactexistsandtheeffectsof
whichmaybesignificant inmanyoccasionsandcan-
notjustbeneglected.Ashasbeenmentionedearlierin
this report, uncertainties ingeotechnical engineering
practicearemanagedthroughstandards, codes, design
criteria, factors of safety or established procedures.
Withsuchstrategies, thedeterministicthinkingworks
and functions well for situations where experience
androutineworksdominate. For uniquesituationsor
non-routineconditionsor inriskanalysis, uncertainty
becomes an unavoidableissuethat requires using of
the technique of probabilistic methods in obtaining
appropriatesolution.
Figure5demonstrates theeffect of uncertainty in
design results for two alternatives based on differ-
ent design models. The computed factors of safety
for alternative1andalternative2are1.50and2.00,
respective. In a deterministic system, the factor of
safety for alternative2is apparently higher, andthis
alternativeisalmost certaintobeselectedasthefinal
scheme. However, if theuncertaintiesassociatedwith
bothmodelsareconsidered, thefailureprobabilityof
alternative2is apparently higher eventhecomputed
factor of safetyseemsbetter.
Table1. Riskanddecisionanalysis.
ID Topic
IS-022 Riskanalysisandfuzzycomprehensive
assessment onconstructionof shield
tunnel inShanghai metroline
IS-294 Riskassessment onenvironmental impact in
XizangRoadTunnel
IS-293 Riskanalysisfor cutterheadfailureof composite
EPB shieldbasedonfuzzyfault tree
IS-070 Riskassessment for thesafegradeof deep
excavation
IS-055 Multi-factorsdurabilityevaluationinsubway
concretestructure
IS-383 Researchonstructural statusof operatingtunnel
of metroinShanghai andtreatment ideas
2 REVIEWOF PAPERS
2.1 Risk and decision analysis
As listed in Table 1, the papers related to risk and
decisionanalysisaregroupedintothissection.Among
thesepapers, IS-022, IS-294andIS-293discuss tun-
nelingriskanalysis, andIS-070introducesriskanaly-
sis for deepexcavation, andIS-055is about decision
analysis. Whiletheothers apply formal risk or deci-
sion analysis techniques in the evaluation approach,
theapproachpresentedinpaper IS-383canbetaken
as an informal risk management approach. As have
beenusedwidelyingeotechnical practice, risksasso-
ciated with the identified hazard events were not
presented. Nevertheless, thecauses of hazard events
were identified and the hazard prevention measures
weredeveloped.
Paper IS-022presentedarisk analysisapproachin
whichriskswereidentifiedthoroughthework break-
downandfaulttreemethod.Theassociatedrank-order
of theidentifiedriskswereanalyzedbyfuzzycompre-
hensive evaluation method. The expert investigation
method and AHP were used to determine the risk
indicators weight, evaluatetheprobabilitiesandcon-
sequences of the identified risks. The membership
function was applied to determine the membership
degreevalueof eachof theriskevents.Thecaseinves-
tigated in this paper was Shanghai metro, which is
a32.2kmlongshieldtunnel. For theconvenienceof
risk analysis, themetro linewas dividedinto 12sec-
tions. Resultsof theevaluationshowedtheidentified
riskeventsincludeobstruction, tunnel collapse, quick-
sand, groundwater ingress, ground settlement, et al.
The risk levels with respect to each of the sections
werefrommediumtosignificant. Thepossiblefinan-
cial lossisbetween100,000RMBto10,000,000RMB.
Basedontheriskclassificationcriteriaof thiscase, the
consequencesaregreat but compensable.
70
Paper IS-294 presented the risk analysis for the
constructionof Shanghai XizangRoadTunnel, ariver-
crossing tunnel built for the 2010 Shanghai Expo-
sition. Other special features included up-cross and
down-cross existing metro lines. Risk analysis was
based on expert investigation and confidence index
methods. The computer software TRM 1.0 devel-
oped by theTongji University was used as the tool
to analyzetherisk dataand thereafter determinethe
correspondingrisk level. Inthecaseinvestigated, the
work of risk analysis was focused on the environ-
mental impacts as a result of tunnel construction to
thesurroundingbuildings, roads, andutilitypipelines.
Basedontheanalysisresults, riskmitigationmeasures
focusedongroundsettlement control wereproposed.
Theauthorsalsopointedoutthattheriskisdynamicin
nature, whichrequiresconstantandcycledassessment
andtreatment.
Paper IS-293 presented for tunneling in adverse
groundcondition, thecutterheadof shieldmachineis
exposed to high risk of failure as a result of heavy
demand in machine operation. This paper presented
arisk analysis approach for cutterhead failureusing
the fault tree analysis method and fuzzy set theory.
In this study, risk identification was conducted by
thefault treeanalysis method. Results of theidenti-
fication indicated three major hazard events cuter
disk failure, cutter failure and other systemcompo-
nents failure will leadto cutterheadfailure. Expert
investigationmethodandfuzzyset theorywereintro-
ducedtoevaluatetheprobabilitiesandconsequences
of theoccurrences for thesehazardevents. Basedon
theresults of risk analysis, remediationmeasures for
thehazardeventswithhigherrisklevel weredeveloped
andpresented.
HistoricdatainpaperIS-070showedtheproportion
of accidentsindeepexcavationprojectsresultedfrom
designandconstructionrelatedproblemsis87%based
on344cases investigated. Becauseeffectivetools in
dealingwithgeotechnical uncertaintyandapplicabil-
ityof currentanalytical theoriesarelimited, engineers
tendtobeconservativeconsciously or not indealing
withgeotechnical problems. This is usually reflected
in high construction costs. To improvethis, aFuzzy
synthetic evaluation process was used in this study
for risk analysis. Thismethodfollowstheprocedures
in which the risk factors were identified first, and
expert investigationmethod, Analytic Hierarchy Pro-
cess(AHP) methodandDelphi methodwereadopted
todeterminetheweightfor eachof thefactorsandthe
safetyindex,andthesafetyrankingorderof anexcava-
tionproject canthusbedecided. Thecasevisitedwas
theShanghai international passenger transport center
project. The size of the excavation area, hydrogeol-
ogycondition, designfeature, constructionaspectand
surroundingenvironment areselectedas theprimary
factorsaffectingthesafetyof deepexcavation. Results
of the evaluation indicated that the level of safety
of the project as a whole was acceptable. However,
size of excavation area and hydrogeology condition
wereidentifiedasthefactorshavingmoresignificant
impactonthesafetyof theexcavationactivities. Mea-
sures to prevent hazard events fromhappening were
thusdevelopedbasedontheresultsof riskassessment.
Paper IS-055 presented a decision analysis
approach for determining the optimal design alter-
native for the concrete mixture of a subway tunnel.
Factors having significant influence on the durabil-
ity of subway concrete structure were identified to
be stray current corrosion, chloride ions ingression,
sulfate attack and carbonation. While the durability
attribution fromeach of the factors was determined
individually, thecombinedinfluenceof thesefactors
wasvague. Toobtaintheoptimal designscheme, five
designalternativesweredeveloped. Expert investiga-
tion method, AHP and Multiple Attribute Decision
Model incorporatedwithfuzzysettheorywereapplied
inassessingthejointinfluenceof thesefactors.Results
of the evaluation provided a baseline for decision
maker inselectingtheadequatedesignscheme.
PaperIS-383presentedthehealthdiagnosticresults
and hazard prevention or reduction measures for an
operating tunnel of Shanghai metro. Results of the
diagnosisshowedthetunnel structureissufferedfrom
detrimental events such as ingress of groundwater,
crackandconvergenceof tunnel lining, andsettlement
alongthetunnel alignment. Thecausesof thesedetri-
mental eventswereidentifiedtobeadversegeological
condition, sequela of the accidents during construc-
tion, local groundsubsidence, constructionactivities
in the proximity, etc. To prevent these detrimental
events fromgetting worseand reducetheassociated
riskstothetunnel andsurroundingenvironment,metro
passengersandthirdparties, control measuresinterms
of regulation, monitoringschemeswereproposed.
2.2 Geotechnical control
The geotechnical control is a process exercised
throughout the planning, design and construction
phasesof aprojecttofacilitateachievingprojectobjec-
tives. The control measures applied include regular
audit inspection, site supervision and risk manage-
menttoensureadequatedesignstandardsandeffective
safety protection beperformed such that theproject
can be completed in a manner of optimization. As
listedinTable2, twoof thepapersweregroupedinto
thissection.Thepaper IS-372introducedametrorail-
wayunderconstructionandthepaperIS-380presented
a retrospect study of a cable duct crossing project.
Bothof thecasesreportedwereconstructionprojects
inHongKong.
Paper IS-372 presented a geotechnical control
process exercised for a HK$8.3 billion subway
71
Table2. Geotechnical control.
ID Topic
IS-372 Geotechnical control of amajor railwayproject
involvingtunnel worksinHongKong
IS-380 PerformanceReviewof aPipeJ ackingProject
inHongKong
construction project in Hong Kong. This project is
packedintothreedesign-builtcontracts.Thecontentof
theprojectincludestheconstructionof shieldtunnels,
cut-and-cover tunnels and underground station. The
Geotechnical EngineeringOffice(GEO), Civil Engi-
neering and Development Department of the Hong
KongSpecial AdministrationRegion(HKSAR) is in
chargeof controllingthebuildingordinanceandreg-
ulations and issuing technical standards. Under of
auditingof GEO, theprivateowner of thisproject, the
KowloonCantonRailway corporation(KCRC) com-
mitted to follow theJ oint Codeof Practicefor Risk
Management of TunnelingWorksfor implementation
of risk management process. The geotechnical con-
trol process startedfromtheplanningstageandwill
be kept in effect throughout the construction stage.
Because the project is considered a private project,
thetunnel worksmaybeexemptedformtheadminis-
trativeprocedures. Thus, areviewpanel was formed
withinGEOintheplanningstage.TheKCRCdemon-
strated to GEO they had met the requirements for
instrument of exemption (IoE) in aspects including
risk management, design, and construction. TheIoE
wasissuedafter thedocument met withthespecified
requirements. Under the IoE, the KCRC is required
to appoint authorized personnel, employ assurance
system and control scheme, prepare site supervi-
sion plan, and keep appropriate records and reports
for regular GEO inspection during the construction
stage. Monthly meeting arescheduled between rele-
vantparties.Whensignificantchangesoccurindesign
or working methods, the KCRC needs to report to
GEO. The geotechnical control process is currently
inprogress.
Paper IS-380 review the performance of a cable
ductcrossingconstructionprojectinHongKong.With
theproject, thegeotechnical control processwasexer-
cised by the GEO, HKSAR. This project involved
theconstruction of a222mlong and 1.95mdiame-
ter tunnel to serveas cableduct crossingahighway,
two MRT tunnels, and twoAirport express link tun-
nels.Thiscableductwasconstructedwithpipejacking
method.Priortothecommencementof works,acondi-
tionsurveywasconductedforexistingutilitypipeline.
Duringconstruction, anautomaticmonitoringsystem
wasusedtotakereadingsfor monitoringrailwaytrack
settlement. Theworkof monitoringwascontrolledby
asystembasedonalert level, actionlevel andalarm
level management.Specifiedresponsescorresponding
toeachlevel of thesystemwerealsodefinedbeforethe
constructionstarted. Duringtheconstruction, aclose
to action level reading on the track settlement was
recorded. Under theframework of geotechnical con-
trol process, an urgent meeting was held among the
client, design and contractor. After the meeting, the
type of lubricant used for filling the gap between
thetunnel liningandsurroundingsoilswasreplaced.
Withthecontrol process, themaximumsettlement of
railway tracks was controlled within the maximum
allowable range throughout the whole construction
phase.
2.3 Ground response, analysis and design
Most of theengineeringdesignsarecomposedof two
major components determining the imposed load
and computing the resistance or capacity. Factor of
safety in a design problem is defined as the ratio
between the resistance and load. Because most of
thegeotechnical engineering projects areperformed
underground, theconstructionactivitiesinvolvingadd
or remove loads to the ground will inevitably result
in stress and strain redistribution. When theresulted
stresses exceed the resistance or capacity of the
ground,failurecouldoccur.However,groundresponse
beforereachingfailurestatemay drawmoreconcern
for underground construction project. In urban area,
underground construction induced ground deforma-
tion make the construction itself and the buildings,
utilitypipelinesandinfrastructuresadjacenttothecon-
struction siteexposed to therisk of being damaged.
Resultsof groundresponsepredictionandmonitoring
canbeusedas abaselinefor developingcontrol and
protectionschemes.
Thepapersinthisgrouparefurtherdividedintotwo
sub-groups groundresponse, analysis anddesign
for discussionpurposes.
2.3.1 Ground response
Table3liststhepapersrelatedtotheissueof ground
response. Paper IS-048 introduced a prototype and
laboratory scale non-destructive scanning technique
designed for detecting crack or cavity ahead of the
frontendof ashieldmachine. Paper IS-369presented
an analytical approach for evaluating the squeez-
ing potential of soft rock. Paper IS-247 presents a
numerical investigation for the floor heave behavior
at theT-sectionof adeepminingtunnel usingthree-
dimensional finiteelementmethod. Paper IS-376dis-
cusses the application of strain gauge in measuring
strut load in deep excavation project in Singapore.
Suggestionsfor maximizingitseffectivenessarealso
proposed. Paper IS-014andIS-339present theappli-
cation of fuzzy set theory and neural network in
predictinggroundsettlement inducedbytunneling.
72
Table3. Groundresponse.
ID Topic
IS-048 Experimental studiesof ageological measuring
systemfor tunnel withultrasonictransducer
IS-369 Squeezingpotential of tunnelsinclaysand
clayshalesfromnormalizedundrainedshear
strength, unconfinedcompressivestrength
andseismicvelocity
IS-247 Floor heavebehavior andcontrol of roadway
intersectionindeepmine
IS-376 MaximisingthePotential of StrainGauges:
A SingaporePerspective
IS-014 Predictionof surfacesettlement inducedby
shieldtunneling: anANFISmodel
IS-339 Theuseof artificial neural networkstopredict
groundmovementscausedbytunneling
Paper IS-048 presented an experimental model
developed for detecting multiple reflection sources
basedonrotational scanningtechniqueandultrasonic
wavereflectionmethod. Intheproposedtest config-
uration, theground was simulated by plaster blocks,
amongwhichthemaximumdimensionisof 1000mm
in height, 1200mmin width and 150mmin thick-
ness. Horizontal andinclinedcracksaresimulatedby
drilledholes. Various signal process techniques such
as stacking, signal compensation, and demodulation
wereappliedto obtainultrasonic imageof thespace
aheadof thescanningtransducer. Resultsof theexper-
imental evaluationshowedthat theproposedmethod
is ableto identify thelocation of multiplereflection
sources.
The tunnel squeezing phenomenon was first
describedbyTerzaghi (1946) whoassociatedsqueez-
ing mainly with clayrich rocks. One of the first
stability criteria to predict squeezing was developed
by Peck (1969) for tunnels in clays based on Broms
and Bennermarks (1967) stability criteria for open
excavation. For tunnel in rocks, most of thesqueez-
ingcriteriaproposedareempirical or semi-empirical
suchas Singhet al. (1992), Goel et al. (1995, 2000),
J ethwael al. (2000) andmore. Themainchallengein
useof thesesemi-empirical approachesisinthedeter-
minationof therock massstrength. Inaddition, most
of theproposedmethodologiesdevelopedthusfar are
mainlyfor claysor hardrocks. Fewstudieshavebeen
proposedfor intermediatematerial suchashardsoils
or soft rocks.
In paper IS-369, simple methods to evaluate the
squeezingpotential of intermediatesoil-rockmaterial
based on undrain shear strength, unconfined com-
pressivestrengthandP-wavevelocity was proposed.
Evaluation of field measurement and other empiri-
cal tunnel squeezing criteriawas also performed for
comparativepurpose.
For largecrosssectiontunnel, thegrounddeforma-
tion resulted fromexcavation work is usually much
moresignificant at thetunnel intersectionthanat the
regular part. Thus, special measures controllingpos-
sibleground movement that might bedetrimental to
the safety is necessary. Paper IS-247 presented an
investigationof thefloor heaveataT-sectionof aven-
tilationtunnel atthedepthof GL. 990mof Tongkou
colliery usingthree-dimensional finiteelement mod-
eling. Basedontheevaluationresults, suggestionsfor
controllingfloor heaveweregiven.
Instrumentation plays an important role in ensur-
ing that construction control is maintained during
excavation. Comparison between themonitored data
anddesignpredictions provides theopportunities for
verifying design results and refining design meth-
ods. Experiences indicate in most of the excavation
project, someof theinstrumentationreadingsaregen-
uineloadconditionswhilesomearenot. Itisimportant
togainclear understandingof theimpact of construc-
tionactivitiesanddatainterpretationandmakeeffort
tomaximizethequalityof thedata.
Accordingto paper IS-376, straingaugeis widely
used in measuring the change of strut load in deep
excavationinSingaporebecauseof theacceptablereli-
ability andlowcosts comparedto other instruments.
However, theperformanceof straingaugecaneasily
beaffectedbythelocationwhereitisinstalled, electro-
magneticinterference, temperature, preloading, weld-
ingandother constructionactivities. Tominimizethe
influence of these factors, measures such as use of
loadcell asacrossreference, protectionagainst con-
struction induced disturbance, and use of real time
systemwereproposed. For datainterpretation, skilled
personnel fullyawareof thedesignpredictionsfor the
excavation, the excavation process and the potential
impact of the excavation on the readings should be
assigned.
Duetothecomplexity andvariationof theground
composition, accuratepredictionof tunnelinginduced
ground settlement based on conventional geotechni-
cal approachessuchasempirical methods, analytical
methodsor numerical methodsisconsideredbymany
asachallenge. Empirical approachiseasy tousebut
oftenprecludestheconsiderationof groundresistance
anddeformability parameters. Analytical andnumer-
ical approach are generally using simplified ground
parameters for practical purposes rather than incor-
porating the complete ground conditions along the
wholerangeof atunnel alignment intothemodeling
approach. The applicability of available constitutive
models and simulation of three dimensional ground
responsewithin2dimensional spacefor groundset-
tlement predictionis controversial tomany. Analter-
nativeinsolvingtheproblemsmentionedaboveisthe
artificial intelligencetechnique. Artificial neural net-
work and fuzzy logic wereintroduced into this field
for predictioninrecent years.
73
Figure6. Conceptual model of aneural network withtwo
inputsandoneoutputs.
An artificial neural network (ANN), often just
called a neural network (NN), is a mathematical
model based on biological neural networks. A con-
ceptual model is showninFigure6. It consists of an
interconnected group of artificial neurons and pro-
cessesinformationusingaconnectionist approachto
computation. In most cases an ANN is an adaptive
systemthat changesitsstructurebasedonexternal or
internal information that flows through the network
duringthelearningphase. Inmorepractical termsneu-
ral networks arenon-linear statistical datamodeling
tools. They can be used to model complex relation-
shipbetweeninputsandoutputsor tofindpatternsin
data. Oneof themostimportantpropertiesof ANNsis
their abilitytolearnfromenvironmentandtoimprove
their performance with such learning. The learning
occurs when the NN reaches a generalized solution
for aparticular caseof problems.
Fuzzylogicisaformof multi-valuedlogicderived
fromfuzzy set theory to deal with reasoning that is
approximaterather than precise. J ust as in fuzzy set
theory theset membershipvalues canrangebetween
0and1,infuzzylogicthedegreeof truthof astatement
canrangebetween0and1andisnotconstrainedtothe
twotruthvalues, trueandfalse, asinclassicpredicate
logic.Whenlinguisticvariablesareused,thesedegrees
maybemanagedbyspecificfunctions.
The Adaptive Neural-Fuzzy Inference System
(ANFIS) isahybridintelligent systemcombiningthe
abilityof aneural networktofuzzylogic. Anillustra-
tivearchitect of ANFIS is given in Figure7. It uses
agiven set of input/output datato construct afuzzy
inferencesystemwithinwhichthemembershipfunc-
tion parameters are tuned or adjusted using either a
backpropagation algorithmalong or in combination
with aleast squaretypeof method. This adjustment
allows thefuzzy systemto learn fromdataand thus
it alsohasthepotential inprediction. Thispaper pre-
sentedanapplicationof anANFISbasedmodel inthe
predictionof shieldtunnel inducedsettlement.
Paper IS-339 presented an application of ANN in
predictinggroundsettlement inducedbytunnel exca-
vation. ThecasevisitedistheMetro-DF inthecityof
Brasiliaandthetunnel wasconstructedusingtheNew
Figure7. Architectureof ANFIS.
Table4. Input andoutput parameters.
Input parameters, x
i
Output parameter, y
Groundsettlementsalongthe Groundsettlement
centerlineof tunnel alignment alongthecenterline
0m, 5m, 10m, 20mand of tunnel alignment
30mrelativetofront endof +5mrelativeto
shieldmachine front endof shield
tunnel lininginstalledper dayin machine
termsof thenumber of rings
Austrian Tunneling Method (NATM). Two data sets
wereused for training theANN. Oneof thedataset
wasobtainedfromthemonitoreddataduringthetun-
nel constructionandtheother was establishedbased
on results of finite element modeling. Validating or
testingof theANN was performedafter thecomple-
tionof trainingphase. Results of theevaluationwith
monitored data show the average correlation coeffi-
cientsbetweenthepredictedandmeasuredvaluewere
about0.99and0.95atthecompletionof trainingphase
and at the validating phase, respectively. Although
the prediction with finite element method exhibited
better correlation between the results obtained from
thetrainingandvalidatingphases, precisionwas not
always achieved. Theauthors attributed thecauseof
lacking precision to inadequate constitutive model,
difficulty insimulatingthereal tunnel geometry, and
simulatethethreedimensional physical realityintwo
dimensional space. Based on the evaluation results,
the authors concluded that theANN is an effective
computational tool inpredictingsettlementinducedby
tunnelingwhengoodset of trainingdataisavailable.
Paper IS-014 presented the application of an
ANFIS model inthepredictionof groundsettlement
induced by shield tunneling. The case visited is the
Shanghai No.2subwayproject.Datasetobtainedfrom
field measurements was used in model training and
validating.
Results of the evaluation showed that theANFIS
predictionsareingoodagreement withthemeasured
data with relative error within the range from 2%
to 7%. For this particular case visited, the author
74
Table5. Analysisanddesign.
ID Topic
IS-083 Researchandapplicationof roadtunnel structure
optimization
IS-374 Frameworkof performance-basedfireprotection
designmethodfor roadtunnel
IS-125 Discussionondesignmethodfor retaining
structuresof metrostationdeepexcavation
inShanghai
IS-234 Researchonstochasticseismicanalysisof
undergroundpipelinebasedonphysical
earthquakemodel
also compared the ANFIS predicted results with
those derived fromPeck approach (1969), Pi-sigma
approach (Gupta and Rao, 1994) and Back Propa-
gation based neural network method. According to
theauthors, theANFISpredictionexhibitedrelatively
better accuracy and stablein terms of thecomputed
results.
2.3.2 Analysis and design
Thepapersrelatingtoanalysisanddesignaregrouped
inthissectionaslistedinTable5.
Accordingtopaper IS-083, conventional roadtun-
nelsaredesignedbasedonpassiveanalysisapproach.
This method follows the procedure (1) alternatives
development (2) computationandanalysis(3) select-
ing the best design scheme among alternatives. The
advantageof this methodis conceptually easy. How-
ever it is time consuming and may not be able to
identify the best alternative if it is not included in
the scheme developed. Thus, it is difficult to eval-
uate the performance of the structure. To improve
this, anoptimizationmethodisproposedinthispaper.
In this method, the dimensions of the tunneling are
treatedasinputvariables, andthestressof thespringis
theobjectivefunction. Algorithmof complexanalysis
programmedby C++ languagewasusedintheopti-
mizationprocess. Resultsof comparisonshowedboth
thestressdistributionalongthetunnel andtherelating
structural costwerereducedsignificantlybasedonthe
resultsevaluationfor thismethod.
Currently, performancebaseddesigncodehasbeen
usedinfireprotectiondesignfor buildings. However,
the design code for road tunnels is still prescrip-
tivebased. In viewof this, Paper IS-374 proposed a
frameworkof performancebaseddesigncodeforroad
tunnelswithlargecrosssections.
Although there is no significant variation in the
construction methods and geological condition for
Shanghai metro, results of diaphragmwall and strut
designinterms of diaphragmdepth, thickness, rebar
content, andstrut loadindeepexcavationareappar-
ently variedevenfor projectswithsimilar excavation
depth.ThepaperIS-125presentstheresultsof investi-
gationforprojectswithexcavationdepthfrom14.92m
to17.28m.Thecomparisonof thestrutloadsbetween
thedesignvalueandfieldmeasurement inShanghai
wasalsopresented. Causesof thedeviationwereiden-
tifiedtoberesultsof differentcomputationtools, anal-
ysisparameters, andlackingcommunicationbetween
designer and contractor. Over-design and unneces-
sary cost were often the consequences. Suggestions
ontheissues relatingto activeearthpressurecoeffi-
cients, vertical springcoefficient, k
v
, under thetoeof
thediaphragmwall, equivalent subgradecoefficient,
k
h
, strut load, diaphragmthickness, and monitoring
schemewereproposed.
3 CONCLUSIONANDREMARK
3.1 Treatment for geotechnical uncertainty
Inconventional approach, geotechnical uncertaintyis
managed through codes, standards, design criteria,
establishedproceduresandother devices. Uncertainty
is recognized somewhat indirectly and inexplicitly.
Engineering judgment plays an important role and
has beenusedcommonly indefiningandsettingthe
aforementioned management devices. For risk man-
agementandotheruniqueornon-routinegeotechnical
problems, judgment still plays an important rolebut
geotechnical uncertaintyneedstobetreatedexplicitly
for requirements such as safety evaluation. Proba-
bilistic methods includingBayes theorem, reliability
method, subjectiveprobability and moreprovidethe
necessarytoolsincopingwithit.
3.2 Qualification and quantification for risks
Expert investigationmethodwasusedextensivelyfor
risk analysis indeterminingtheprobability andcon-
sequencesof riskevents.Thismethodrequiresexperts
toexpresstheirjudgmentinqualitativetermsbasedon
predefinedcriteria, all informationavailable, andthe
uncertaintiesof therisktheyperceive.Theapplication
of elicitationtechniquesbasedoncognitiveprocessis
necessaryinfindingthetruebelief of theexperts. Itis
alsoimportanttoreducetheextentof whatconsidered
unavoidablebiaswhenusingelicitationtechniquesin
expert investigation.
Uncertainty is usually expressed qualitatively and
the use of verbal terms like possible, probable,
likely or unlikely seems to work well. However,
numerical quantificationprovidesthemissinglinkfor
qualitativeapproach. Theextent to which theuncer-
tainty of an event is greater than the other can be
determinedthroughquantitativeapproach. Itisimpor-
tant to note that probability, qualitatively or not, is
only averbal description or theoutput of numerical
quantification process. Theinsight obtained through
75
theprocess is what really matters. Theinsight helps
us understand the true meaning of the probability
associatedwiththeproblemandwhat behindit.
3.3 Decision analysis
Decision analysis is a technique developed on the
framework of risk analysis and comparative skills.
Throughthistechnique, arelativelybetterdesignalter-
nativecan bedetermined. Nevertheless, it shouldbe
notedthat decisionanalysis only provides abaseline
for decisionmaker. A well-informeddecisioncomes
about by consideringrisk magnitudes, risk reduction
measures,andfeasibilityinperformingthesemeasures
other thantheresultsof decisionanalysis.
3.4 Need for more case studies
Nonewtheory insoil mechanicscanbeacceptedfor
practical use without ample demonstration by field
observations that it is reasonable accurate under a
variety of conditions (Terzaghi and Peck, 1948). To
interpret theresults of observation, it is necessary to
incorporatejudgment. J udgment, or subjectiveproba-
bilityplaysanimportantroleforriskmanagementand
hazardcontrol. Theacquisitionof judgment relieson
experience and knowledge that can be derived from
field observation or diligent study of published case
histories. Becausetheopportunityof performingper-
sonal observationislimitedfor mostincontemporary
geotechnical practice, studyof casehistoriesbecomes
theprimarysourcefor accessinganddevelopingones
ownexperience.
Forriskmanagementandhazardcontrol, morecase
studies are needed. Geotechnical engineers should
makebestuseof availabletoolsandpresenttheircases
for further studies.
PAPER INTHEME 4
Ai, X.Q. &Li, J. 2008. Researchonstochasticseismicanaly-
sisof undergroundpipelinebasedonphysical earthquake
model.
Bao, X.H. &Huang, H.W. 2008. Riskassessmentforthesafe
gradeof deepexcavation.
Chissolucombe, I., Assis, A.P. &Farisa, M.M. 2008. Theuse
of artificial neural networkstopredictgroundmovements
causedbytunneling.
Cong, C. &Linde,Y. 2008. Multi-factordurabilityevaluation
insubwayconcretestructure.
Ding, W.Q. & Xu,Y. 2008. Researchandapplicationof road
tunnel structural optimization.
Guo, B.H. &Lu,T.K. 2008. Floorheavebehaviorandcontrol
of roadwayintersectionindeepmine.
Gutierrez, M. &Xia, C. 2008. Squeezingpotential of tunnels
inclaysandclayshalesfromnormalizedundrainedshear
strength, unconfined compressive strength and seismic
velocity.
Han, X. & Ding, G.Y. 2008. Framework of performance-
basedfireprotectiondesignmethodfor roadtunnel.
Hou, J., Zhang, M.X. & Tu, M. 2008. Predictionof surface
settlementinducedbyshieldtunneling: anANFISmodel.
Kim, D.H., Kim, U.Y., Lee, S.P., Lee, H.Y. & Lee, J.S. 2008.
Experimental studies of a geological measuring system
for tunnel withultrasonictransducer.
Lam, T.S.K. 2008. Performance review of a pipe jacking
project inHongKong.
Lee, W., Chung, S.S., Roberts, K.J. & Pang, P.L.R. 2008.
Geotechnical control of amajor railwayprojectinvolving
tunnel worksinHongKong.
Li, J.P., Wang, R.L. & Yan, J.Y. 2008. Research on struc-
tural statusof operatingtunnel of metroinShanghai and
treatment ideas.
Osborne, N.H., Ng, C.C., Chen, D.C., Tan, G.H., Rudi, J. &
Latt, K.M. 2008. Maximising the potential of strain
gauges: A Singaporeperspective.
Wang, R., Liu, G.B. & Liu, D.P. 2008. Discussionondesign
method for retaining structures of metro station deep
excavationinShanghai.
Yan, Y.R., Huang, H.W. & Hu, Q.F. 2008. Risk analysis for
cutterheadfailureof compositeEPBshieldbasedonfuzzy
fault tree.
Yao, C.P., Huang, H.W. &Hu, Q.F. 2008. Riskassessmenton
environmental impact inXizangRoadTunnel.
Zhou, H.B., Yao, H. & Gao, W.J. 2008. Risk analysis
andFuzzycomprehensiveassessment onconstructionof
shieldtunnel inShanghai Metroline.
REFERENCES
ABI/BTS. 2004. A J oint Codeof Practicefor theProcure-
ment, DesignandConstructionof TunnelsandAssociated
Underground Structures, London: The Association of
BritishInsurer, TheBritishTunnelingsociety.
Douglas Hubbard Howto MeasureAnything: Finding the
Value of Intangibles in Business, J ohn Wiley & Sons,
2007.
David Muir Wood. 2004. Geotechnical Modeling, Spon
Press, NewYork.
Gupta, M.M. & Rao, D.H. 1994. Ontheprinciplesof fuzzy
neural network. FuzzySetsandSystems, 61(1): 18.
Huang, H.W. etal. 2006. Guidelinesof riskManagementfor
MetroTunnellingandUndergroundEngineeringWorks,
Tongji University.
Internatinal tunnel Association. 2002. WorkingGroupNo. 2,
Guidelinesfor tunnelingriskmanagement, Balkema.
Peck, R.B. 1969. Deep excavation and tunneling in soft
ground. Proceedingsof the7thInternational Conference
onsoil MechanicsandFoundationEngineering, Mexico.
StevenG. Vick. 2002. Degrees of Belief-SubjectiveProba-
bilityandEngineeringJ udgment, ASCE Press, American
Societyof Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia, USA.
Terzaghi, K. &Peck, R. 1948. Soil mechanicsinengineering
practice, Wiley, NewYork.
Whitman, R.V. 2000. Organizing and Evaluating Uncerat-
intyinGeotechnical Engineering,J ournal of Geotechnical
andGeoenvironmental Engineering,Vol. 126, No. 7, J uly,
2000.
76
Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground Ng, Huang & Liu (eds)
2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-48475-6
Calculationanddesignmethods, andpredictivetools
F. Emeriault & R. Kastner
LGCIE, INSA-Lyon, F-69621, France
ABSTRACT: This general report covers 19papers that areincludedinsession6of thesymposium, related
to thedesignor calculationmethods andpredictivetools for tunnelinganddeepexcavations. For this report,
thepapers havebeenclassifiedin3mainsubjects: i) excavations, ii) tunneling, iii) general papers ondesign
methods andtools. Thereareagreater number of papers concerningtunnelling, coveringalargenumbers of
subjects, subdividedinthefollowingtopics: T.B.M. simulation, Groundreactioncurve, Longitudinal behaviour
of segmentedlining, Settlement troughs, Effect of vibrations.
1 INTRODUCTION
This session with a very broad theme, contains 19
papers. Tables1and2presentaclassificationof these
papers, by countriesandby themes. Therearepapers
from8 countries, but more than half of the papers
(11/19) arefromChina.
Table1. Classificationbycountries.
Countries Number of papers
Brazil 2
China 11
J apan 1
Kazakstan 1
Korea 1
Netherlands 1
UK 1
USA 1
Table2. Classificationbysubjects.
Number
Topics Sub-topic of papers
Excavations 3
Tunnels TBM simulation 1
Groundreactioncurve 2+2(rock)
Settlement trough 2
Longitudinal behaviour 2
Effect of vibrations 3
General 4
Thecontent of thepapers can bebroadly divided
intocalculationanddesignof tunnellingworks, exca-
vations, andmoregeneral papers. 3papers deal with
excavation, considering3different aspects: basal sta-
bility, strut loads, and effect on nearby piles. There
areagreater number of papersconcerningtunnelling,
covering a large number of subjects. Among these
12 papers, 1 reports onTBM numerical simulation,
2present analytical methods for thegroundreaction
curve, 2 deal with the assessment of the settlement
trough, 2 consider the problem of the longitudinal
behaviour of thesegmentedtunnel lining, 3report on
theeffectof vibrationsor ontheseismicresponse, the
2remainingconcerningmoreproblemsrelatedtorock
tunnels. Finallythereare4general papersconcerning
thesimulationtoolsor presentinganational report.
Consideringthislargenumber of subjects, it isnot
reallypossibletohighlight amainemphasis, someof
thepapers covering very narrowsubjects and others
concerningverygeneral topics.
In thefollowing sections of this report, themajor
findingsandkeyfeaturesof eachpaper arepresented
andbrieflydiscussed.
2 EXCAVATIONS
Song and Huang studiedthebasal stabilityof anexca-
vationinsoft clay by anupper boundapproach. The
failuremechanismconsidered(Figure1) is basedon
theclassical Prandtl failuremechanism.Theiroriginal
contributiontothisproblemistoconsider thedepen-
denceof theshorttermshearresistanceof softclayson
thelocal orientationof thefailuresurface. They pro-
poseananalytical upper boundsolutionbasedonthis
77
H
D
T
B B1
i

R
Figure1. Definitionof geometricparameters.
0. 3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0. 8 0. 9 1
Anisotropy Ratio
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
S
a
f
e
t
y

F
a
c
t
o
r
D=6m
D=8m
D=10m
D=12m
Figure 2. Influence of D/H on the factor of safety
( =18kN/m
3
, undrained shear strength S
uv
(z)=0.33

v
,
width of the excavation B=15m, depth of the excavation
H=12m).
kinematical mechanismandontheequationproposed
by CasagrandeandCarillo (1944) for describingthe
anisotropyof shear strength:
whereS
uh
andS
uv
areobtainedby undrainedtriaxial
compressionandextensiontests.
Figure2presentstheresultsof aparametric study
ontheevolutionof thesafetyfactorwiththeanisotropy
ratio, for different values of the embedment depth.
It appears clearly that theanisotropy ratio has more
influencethantheembedment depthwhichincreases
onlyslightlythesafetyfactor.Theauthorsstudiedalso
the influence of the depth of the bedrock, when the
bedrocklimitstheextensionof thefailuremechanism.
Thisapproachcomparedwell witha2DFEanalysis
of adeepexcavationinBostonBlueClayapresentedby
Figure3. Comparisonof freeheadpilegroup.
HashashandWhittle(1996) usinganadvancedeffec-
tivestress soil model, MIT-E3. Theauthors analysed
also a case of failure in Shanghai where the stan-
dardcodesledtosafety factorsof morethan1.4and
wherethis approach leads to asafety factor of 0.97,
explainingthebasal instability.
Zhang and co-authors present a method for esti-
matingtheresponseof pilestolateral soil movements
inducedbyanearbyexcavation.
Forasinglepile,themethodisbasedontheclassical
two-stageapproach(Poulos& Chen1997):
in afirst step, thefree-field soil movement must
bedeterminedeither bymeasurement or bycalcu-
lation;
inasecondstep, thesesoil movementsareimposed
to the piles through aWinkler subgrade reaction
model: thepileis representedby anelastic beam,
the pile-soil interaction is modeled using linear
elastic soil springs, the effect of axial load on
thepileisignored. TheWinkler subgradereaction
equationissolvedbyaFDapproach, permittingto
takeintoaccount heterogeneoussoils.
This classical method has been extended by the
authorstopilegroups. Inthecaseof pilegroups, the
shielding effect of piles is modelled by superposing
to the free field soil movement the reduction of the
displacement dueto neighbouringpiles. This shield-
ingeffect is calculatedusinganattenuationfunction
basedonsimplifiedMindlinsequation.
Theauthorspresentacomparisonof their approach
withcentrifugemodel tests andfiniteelement simu-
lationpublishedbyLeunget al (2000).
A comparisonof calculatedandmeasuredbending
moments is given on Figures 3 and 4 in thecaseof
78
Figure 4. Comparison of front pile in capped head pile
group.
Figure5. Exampleof strut system.
pilegroups: thissimplifiedmodel fitsquitewell with
theexperimental resultsforfreeheadedpilesbutthere
aresomedifferencesinthecaseof cappedpiles. The
authors explainthat this differencecouldbereduced
by using a non-linear elastic spring hypothesis, but
perhapsisit duetotheWinklershypothesisitself.
Finally, itmustbenotedthatthismethodisnotspe-
cifictoexcavations, andcouldbeusedforotherworks
inducinglateral soil movements, suchastunnellingor
embankmentsonsoft clays.
Shi and co authors presentamethodfor estimating
byback-analysisthestrutloadsinacomplexconcrete
strutsystem, suchasthesystempresentedonFigure5.
The proposed method is based on measured dis-
placements of thewall inthehorizontal planeof the
Figure6. ForcesactingontheTBM.
strut system, the load distribution between the dif-
ferent struts at the same level being calculated by
back-analysis.
Astherearenodirectloadmeasurements, themag-
nitudeof theloadsobtainedbythisapproachdepends
stronglyontheapriori hypothesisconcerningthedis-
tributionof soil pressureactingonthewall. Therefore
thismethodcanonlygiveanindicationontherelative
distributionof theloads.
3 TUNNELING
3.1 T.B.M. simulation
Chen and co-authors present aninterestingpaper on
thebehaviourof aTBMwhenfollowingacurvedalign-
ment.Theyproposeacomprehensivenumerical model
of an articulated shield which is an extension of a
kinematic shield model proposed for a single circu-
lar shield(Sugimoto & Sramoon2002). Their model
isfocusedonthetunnel boringmachine, considering
all theforcesactingontheshield, suchasfor example
(Figure6)
thedifferent jackthrust forces,
thepressureactingontheface,
theforcesactingontheshieldperiphery.
Theselatterforcesrepresenttheinteractionbetween
theshieldandthesurroundingsoil.Theyaresimulated
by aspringmodel. Therefore, inthis model, thetun-
nellingoperationisseenmainlyfromthepointof view
of theTBM.
Thesimulationof theTBMbehaviourisobtainedby
imposingtothemodel themainoperationparameters
of theshield.
A comparisonbetweenanobservedandsimulated
behaviour is presentedinFigure7. Theactual shield
trajectory, inthevertical andhorizontal plane, andin
79
29.6
29.7
29.8
29.9
20 40 60 80 100
Distance (m)
x

(
m
)
-6940
-6920
-6900
-6880
-8740 -8720 -8700 -8680 -8660 -8640
z (m)
y

(
m
)
Observed
Simulated
start
end
start
end
Vertical plane
Horizontal plane
R =20 m
Figure7. Simulatedandobservedbehaviour.
extremeconditionsof asharpcurve, iswell simulated
bythisverycomprehensivemodel.
Thismodel givesalsothefieldof soil pressureact-
ing on theshield, derived fromthespring model, as
shownonthisfigure. Inafurtherstep, itcouldbeinter-
estingtousethesecalculatedcontactstressesbetween
theshieldandthesoil inacontinuummodel of thesoil
massfor modellingthesoil deformationandtocheck
if thesecalculated contact stresses lead to arealistic
simulationof observeddisplacements andsettlement
troughs.
3.2 Ground reaction curve
Shin and co-authors proposean analytical model of
the ground reaction curve taking into account the
seepageforces.Thefollowingclassical hypothesesare
adopted:
Thetunnel isboredinaninfinitesoil masssubjected
toahydrostaticinsitustress,
Thesoil is linear elastic perfectly plastic withthe
Mohr-Coulombyieldcriteria,
Radial seepage forces are taken into account, as
indicatedintheequilibriumequation:
The hydraulic gradients are calculated separately,
consideringasteadystateof seepage.
Basedonthesehypotheses, theauthorsproposean
analytical solutionof theelasto-plasticstateof stress,
expressed in terms of stress state and displacement.
Duetotheseassumptions, thismodel ismoreadapted
todeeptunnels.
Theauthors present an application of their model
for a50mdeeptunnel, withadiameter of 5meters.
Different cases are examined: fully drained or with
Figure8. Effect of radial seepageon theground reaction
curve.
asemi impervious lining, havingthesamemechani-
cal propertiesthanthesurroundingsoil.A comparison
betweenthedrysoil caseandthefullydrainedcaseis
presentedinFigure8:
in dry conditions, the pressure decreases rapidly
with the convergence, as the soil resistance is
mobilised,
when fully drained seepage is considered, there
is a marked increase of the convergence for a
given internal pressure, as the seepage forces do
not depend on the soil convergence and remain
constant.
Despitethediversesimplificationsof suchanana-
lytical model, this paper gives interestingindications
ontheinfluenceof seepageforces andshows clearly
that they should be taken into account for mod-
elling the ground reaction curves and for assessing
thestabilityof theexcavation.
Inasecondpaper ongroundreactioncurves, Sozio
presentsa2Dor 3Danalytical model representingthe
tunnel andthesoil cover by athick sphereor athick
cylinder (Figure 9). The soil model is the classical
linear elastic-perfectlyplasticMohr-Coulombmodel.
The originality of this model is that the gravity
forcesareemulatedbyradial bodyforces.Thisenables
totakeintoaccount alimitedcover depth, withasur-
faceloadandaninternal pressure.Theauthorproposes
to use this 3D model for a preliminary assessment
of thestability of theunlined length of atunnel, the
problembeing to estimate the radius of the sphere
equivalent tothetunnel unsupportedheading.
Such analytical models are generally based on
restrictive hypotheses. It is the case for this model,
butithastobehighlightedthatinhispaper, theauthor
indicates very clearly thelimitations of theproposed
models. Itshouldbeinterestingtocomparethismodel
totheclassical approachbasedontheassumptionof a
tunnel boredinaninfinitesoil mass.
80
Figure9. Representationof thesoil tunnel interaction.
ThepaperspresentedbyZhang &Wang andLu et al
concernmorespecificallydeeprocktunnels.
Zhang &Wang studythegroundreactioninthecase
of apressuretunnel, therockmassbeingnotunloaded
but loaded by the internal pressure. In this specific
situation, quitefar fromurbantunnelsinsoft ground,
thesofteningof therockconsideredbytheauthorscan
leadtoabrokenzonearoundthetunnel.
Lu et al studied by 3D numerical simulations the
stability of different types of intersections between
deepminetunnelsandtheinfluenceof theconstruction
sequences. Themethodof simulationisnot precisely
described. If this study is not directly applicable to
shallowtunnels in soft ground, someof their results
can be considered froma qualitative point of view
suchas thefact that excavatingtowards theintersec-
tionappearsmoredangerousthanexcavatingfromthe
excavation.
3.3 Longitudinal behaviour of segmented lining
The paper proposed by Hoefsloot is based on the
observationthatthestagedconstructionof segmented
tunnel liningsinducesapermanentlongitudinal bend-
ingmomentinthelining. Basedonsolutionsproposed
byBogaards&Bakker(1999), andBakker(2000), the
author proposesananalytical solutionbyconsidering
thesegmented tunnel lining as abeamon an elastic
foundation.
Thelongitudinal loadingscheme(Bendingmoment
andshearforcefromjackforces, shearforcefromsteel
brushes, weight of lining segments, uniformly dis-
tributedloadof limitedlength: backuptrain)advances
withtheprogressof theTBM(Figure10).Thisanalyt-
ical model hasbeenbuiltinaspreadsheet, andverified
usingPLAXIS2D.
The result of this model is compared with strain
measurements made in the lining of the GROENE
HART tunnel in the Netherlands. As illustrated on
Figure11,abendingmomentisinducedintheliningby
D
br

l
i
l
u
x
q
w
M
jack
D
jack
q
l
q l
Figure10. Model usedbyHoefsloot torepresent thestage
constructionof thetunnel lining.
Figure11. Groenehardt tunnel evolutionof thebending
moment withtheadvanceof theTBM.
theadvancementof theTBMandbecomespermanent
afterabout60meters. Despitethesimplehypothesisof
aspringmodel,theevolutionof thebendingmomentis
quitewell modelled. Neverthelessthisresult hasbeen
obtainedbyadjustingsomeparameterswhicharedif-
ficult to assess, such as the lining bending stiffness
andtheeffect of grouting(Talmonet al. 2008).
Finally, this analytical model, validated on field
measurements, shows that thestagedconstructionof
thesegmental lininginastraightalignmentresultsina
permanent longitudinal bendingmoment, that should
beconsideredinthedesignof theliningandfor the
installationof thesegments.
A second paper on the longitudinal behaviour of
segmented lining is presented by Zhu et al. The
authors examinetheproblemof theactual longitudi-
nal stiffnessof segmentedliningswhichisoneof the
parameterswhichwasnecessarytoadjustinthemodel
proposedbyHoefsloot.
Theassessment of thelining stiffness is based on
a 3D numerical model, composed of shell elements
(Figure12) andjointswithshear andnormal stiffness
at all theinterfaces betweentheindividual elements.
Thecompletenumerical model, loadedasacantilever
beam, is comparedtoasimplifiedequivalent contin-
uous model, which is not precisely described in the
paper.
The stiffness deduced fromthe numerical model
appears on their example to depend on the segment
length and to be lower than the stiffness obtained
81
Figure12. Liningmodel.
2.U
0
U
0
/2
U
0
/2
Figure13. ConvergenceschemeproposedbyHeli Baoetal.
by the equivalent continuous model. But both mod-
els are based on hypothesises concerning the joint
behaviour, which need to be measured or assessed
based on the observation of the actual behaviour of
full scalesegmentedlinings.
3.4 Settlement troughs
Thereis generally alargeconsensus about theuseof
theGaussiantypecurvefor describingthesettlement
trough.
Thedirectestimationthroughelasticcalculationsor
by numerical simulations oftenleads to larger settle-
menttroughsthanobserved.Theresultdependsinfact
ondifferent assumptions, onebeingtheconvergence
profileof thegroundaroundthetunnel.
Heli Bao and his co-authors present an analyti-
cal solution, using conformal mapping of an elastic
half space. In order to fit with the observed settle-
ment troughs, they proposeanelliptical convergence
shape, basedonthesolutionproposedbyPark(1974),
asindicatedonFigure13.
This approachis comparedwiththeobservedset-
tlements duringtheconstructionof a6.2mdiameter
tunnel inShanghai. Thecalculatedsettlement trough
fitsquitewell withtheobservedone. Butnoindication
is givenconcerningtheassessment of themagnitude
of theconvergence, theauthorsindicatingsimply the
gapbetweentheTBM andthelining, gapwhichisin
fact certainlypartiallyfilledbygrouting.
Intheirpaper, Zu and Liu compareddifferentmeth-
odsforsettlementtroughassessment: Pecksempirical
approach(Peck1969), stochasticmediumtheory, and
thesolutionproposedbyVerruijt andBooker (1996).
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Distance to the center of tunnel (m)
s
u
r
f
a
c
e

s
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t
(
m
m
)
Peck's method
Stochastic medium theory
Verruijt and Booker's method (v=0.1)
Verruijt and Booker's method (v=0.2)
Figure 14. Settlement trough calculated using 3 different
methods(ZuandLiu).
TheexamplepresentedonFigure14exhibitsverylarge
differences, but it is in fact an extremecase, with a
coverdepthof lessthanonemeterforatunnel 6meters
indiameter.
Theypresentalsosomeobservedsettlementtroughs
fromShanghai metroline7construction.Itwouldhave
been interesting to have more details on the tunnel
worksleadingtothesesettlementtroughsandtocom-
paretheobservedsettlementtroughstothecalculation
methodspresentedinthefirst part of thepaper.
3.5 Effect of vibrations
Intheir 2complementarypapers, Cui and co-authors
investigate experimentally the dynamic loading and
the development of pore pressure of saturated silty
claysnearShanghai subwayLineNo.2, duringthepas-
sageof metrotrains. Ontheobservedsite, settlements
exceeding20cmwhereobserved, butnodetailsonthe
evolutionof thesesettlementsisgiven.
Theexperimental study is basedonfieldobserva-
tionsanddynamictriaxial tests.
Based on in situ measurements, the authors pro-
poseanexperimental lawof attenuationof thedynamic
loadingwiththedistancetothetunnel.Thislaw, dueto
thepolynomial approximationadopted, has certainly
alimited domain of validity, and cannot beextrapo-
lated outsidetherangeof distancecorresponding to
themeasurement points.
They studied also the development of pore pres-
surewiththedynamic loading, bothinthefieldand
by triaxial tests; but the relation of field measure-
mentsresultswithdynamictriaxial testsisnot clearly
described.
It would have been interesting to have more
details concerning the long termevolution of pore
pressureinsitu, combinedalso withtheevolutionof
soil deformationsduringcyclingloadingtests,inorder
toexplaintheobservedlargesettlements.
Baimakhan and co-authors propose a coupled
approach(analytical andnumerical) todeterminethe
82
stresses induced by earthquakes on the lining of
tunnelsof subwaylines.
Usingaconceptof homogeneousanisotropicelastic
mediumthey consider theeffect of thesuccessionof
different soil or rocklayers.
They analyse in a more specific way the case of
tunnel or gallerieswithalongitudinal axismakingan
anglewiththemajor directionof anisotropy.
4 GENERAL PAPERSONDESIGN
METHODSANDTOOLS
Koungelis &Augarde compare, onanacademicexam-
ple, theresultsgivenby2differentFE codes, Strand7
andPlaxis.Theyinvestigatetheeffectof surfaceload-
ingonwishedinplacetunnelsinsoftgroundassuming
planestrainconditions.
The initial conditions and soil characteristics are
thesameinall their simulations, except for dilatancy.
Thetwo meshes used in their comparativestudy are
quitedifferent: inPlaxisthemeshismorerefinedand
consistsof fifteen nodedtriangular elements, andin
Strand7themeshiscoarser, andmoreover consistsof
simple6nodedtriangular elements.
Theauthorscomparethechangesinhorizontal and
vertical diametersfor different positionof thesurface
load. There are actually small differences although
thereis agreat differencebetweentherefinement of
themeshesandthetypeof triangular elements.
Although no indication is given in thepaper, one
can suppose that in this example, plastic zones are
certainly very limited or absent around the tunnel.
Therefore, this paper compares essentially theinflu-
enceof themeshrefinementandof thetypeof element
inalinearelasticcase,whichexplainsthefactthatonly
minordifferenceisnoted.Suchcomparisonsshouldbe
extended to less academic situations, wherethetun-
nel construction is simulated and wheresmall strain
behaviour ismodelledor wherelargeplasticzonesare
mobilised.
Jeon and coauthors present an interesting com-
munication on the use of geostatistical methods for
assessingthespatial distributionof therockmasschar-
acteristicnamedRMR.Theycompareamethodnamed
SIS(J uanget al., 2003, Fenget al., 2006) tothemore
classical kriging (Marinoni, 2003; Pardo-Igzquiza
andDowd, 2005).
Theproblemconsideredhere, ishowtoassess, on
the base of limited bore holes, the ground charac-
teristics along thetunnel alignment. Theapplication
presented concerns deep rock tunnels, where geo-
statistical estimations of RMR around a tunnel are
compared.
Compared to kriging which gives a deterministic
value at each point considered, SIS gives a statisti-
cal distribution of theunknown valuewith different
Figure15. Distributionof estimatedvalue.
characteristics of this statistical distribution as illus-
tratedonFigure15.
Such a distribution is important information for
tunnelling projects, based on a limited number of
investigationpoints, inorder toevaluatethelimitsof
thedesignandfor riskassessment.
One of the difficulties for multiplying 2D or 3D
numerical simulations on tunnelling projects is that
thepre-processingtasksaremuchtimeconsuming.
Li and co-authors proposeintheir paper amethod-
ologytoderiveaFEMmodel fromnumerical geologi-
cal models, whicharemoreandmoreusedintheframe
of largegeotechnical projects.
The figures presented Figure 16 show some of
thestages, beginningfromthegeological model and
ending to a 3D finite element mesh and where the
soil characteristics areimported fromthegeological
model.
Insuchanapproach, couplingthegeological model
withthegeostatistical methodpresentedintheprevi-
ouspaper couldbecertainly avery powerful tool for
helpingthedesigner totestdifferenthypothesisof the
soil parameters.
Negro presentstheresultsof acomprehensivesur-
vey of current designpracticeinBrazil. Theanalysis
of this survey is basedontheanswers of 20experts.
Thetopics of thesurvey concernthemainaspects of
tunnel design:
Tunnel headingstability,
Settlement,
Damagetoexistingstructures,
Liningdesign,
Account of groundwater loading,
2D/3DFEM or FDM models,
Soil modelsinFEM/FDM models,
Soil investigations,
Monitoring.
Theresults of this survey areclearly summarized
andanalysedinthepaper byNegro, therefore, inthis
report aregivenonlysometypical examples.
Fromthissurvey, it resultsthat thetypical scenario
for tunnel projects inBrazil is thefollowing: tunnels
withequivalentdiameter larger than6m, drivenunder
83
Figure16. Somestages fromthegeological model to the
3DFE model.
Figure17. Soil modelsusedinnumerical analyses.
mixedfacecondition, incohesivesoils, belowwater
table, andusingsprayedconcreteaslining(NATM).
Concerning the assessment of tunnel face stabil-
ity, the survey shows that there is a large range of
methodscurrentlyused, andit isnoticedthat someof
thesemethodssuchaslimit equilibrium, upper bound
solutionsor empirical methodscanbeunsafe.
It is highlighted also that Practitioners arein fact
unhappywiththeavailablemethodsfor stabilityanal-
ysis, which certainly explains this broad range of
methodsusedinpractice.
Another interestingresultconcernstheconstitutive
modelsusedinnumerical analysis(Figure17).
A largemajority still usethelinear elastic/plastic
Mohr Coulombmodel whichis well known, but cer-
tainlyoftennotadaptedtoshallowurbantunnelswhere
thelimitationof soil movementsleadtosmall strains.
Very few or no plasticity will be mobilised, and the
model will be equivalent to a simple linear elastic
model which very poorly describes the small strain
behaviour of thesoil. It canbeaddedthat thissimple
model canbeunsafeincoupledanalysis, asthevolume
changesinthesoil arenot correctlydescribed.
Thisexampleshowsthat, withthelargeavailability
of 2D or 3D Finiteelement or finitedifferencepow-
erful codes, thereiscertainlyaneedfor clarifications
concerningthetypesof soil modelstobeusedindif-
ferent situationsandalsoaneedfor disseminationof
thisknowledge.
Therichconclusionsof suchasurveycouldbecer-
tainlyagoodbasefor developingandenhancinggood
practicesinthefieldof tunnel design. For thisreason
TC28has proposedto launchnational surveys based
ontheexampleproposedbyNegro, tobecollectedand
analysedfor thenextTC28symposium.
5 CONCLUSION
After excludingthe4general papers, the15remain-
ingpapersallocatedtothissession, wererelatedto9
different specifictopics.
This highlights that tunnels and deep excavations
arecomplexworks, withstronginteractionwiththeir
environment, and that there is obviously a demand
for simplecalculationtoolsaddressingspecificprob-
lems, easytouse, especiallyatthepreliminarydesign
phases.
Concerning the calculation methods, it can be
noticed that 9 papers concern analytical or mixed
approaches as only 5 concern numerical methods.
Therefore, considering the limits of the analytical
approaches, duegenerallytotherestrictivehypotheses
necessary to obtainaclosedformsolution, it should
becertainly useful nowto developsimplenumerical
tools, easy to useand timesaving, dedicated to lim-
itedspecificproblems. Thesetoolscouldbebasedon
existingcodesandthereforeabletotakeintoaccount
advanced soil models and realistic geometries. Such
tools, after acomprehensiveevaluationof their limits,
couldbecertainlyuseful for practitioners.
Another way to beconsidered is thedevelopment
of easytousepre-processingtools, suchastheexam-
ple presented in this session, to facilitate the use of
complex3Dmodels.
Andfinally, it shouldbestressedthat all thesecal-
culation methods have to be validated carefully and
in a scientific way against comprehensive measure-
ments, andthatthelimitationsof thesemodelsshould
beclearlyindicated.
84
LIST OF PAPERSWITHINSESSION
Baimakhan, R.B., Danaev, N.T., Baimakhan, A.R.,
Salgaraeva, G.I., Rysbaeva, G.P., Kulmaganbetova, Zh.K.,
Avdarsolkyzy, S., Makhanova, A.A. & Dashdorj, S. Cal-
culation of the three dimensional seismic stressed state
of MetroStationEscalatorOpenLineTunnelssystem,
whichislocatedininclinedstratifiedsoft ground.
Bao,H.,Zhang,D.&Huang,H.AComplexVariableSolution
forTunneling-InducedGroundMovementsinClays.
Chen, J., Matsumoto,A. &Sugimoto, M. Simulationof artic-
ulatedshieldbehavior at sharpcurvebykinematicshield
model.
Cui, Z.D., Tang, Y.Q. & Zhang, X. Deformation and pore
pressuremodel of thesaturatedsiltyclayaroundasubway
tunnel.
Hoefsloot, F.J.M. Analytical solution of longitudinal
behaviour of tunnel lining.
J eon, S., Hong, C. & You, K. Design of tunnel supporting
systemusinggeostatistical methods.
Koungelis, D.K. & Augarde, C.E. Comparative study of
softwaretoolsontheeffectsof surfaceloadsontunnels.
Li, X.X., Zhu, H.H. & Lin, Y.L. Geologic model transform-
ingmethod(GMTM) for numerical analysismodelingin
geotechnical engineering.
Lu, T.K., Guo, B.H., Cheng, L.C. & Wang, J. Review and
interpretation of intersection stability in deep under-
groundbasedonnumerical analysis.
Lu, Z.P. &Liu, G.B.Analysisof surfacesettlementduetothe
constructionof ashieldtunnel insoft clayinShanghai.
Negro, A. UrbanTunnelsinSoil: Reviewof Current Design
PracticeinBrazil.
Shi, Z., Bao, W., Li, J., Guo, W. & Zhu, J. A study onloads
fromcomplexsupport systemusingsimple2Dmodels.
Shin, Y.J., Shin, J.H. & Lee, I.M. Ground Reaction due to
TunnellingbelowGroundwaterTable.
Song, X.Y. & Huang, M.S. Basal Stability of BracedExca-
vations in K0-consolidated Soft Clay by Upper Bound
Method.
Sozio, L.E. Analytical Two and Three Dimension Mod-
els to Assess Stability and Deformation Magnitude of
UndergroundExcavationsinSoil.
Tang,Y.Q., Cui, Z.D. &Zhang, X. DynamicResponseof Sat-
uratedSiltyClayaroundaTunnel underSubwayVibration
LoadinginShanghai.
Zhang, C.R., Huang, M.S. & Liang, F.Y. Lateral Responses
of PilesduetoExcavation-InducedSoil Movements.
Zhang, L.M. & Wang, Z.Q. Elastic-plastic analysis for sur-
rounding rock of pressure tunnel with lining based on
material nonlinear softening.
Zhu,W.,Kou,X.,Zhong,X.&Huang,Z.Modificationof Key
Parametersof Longitudinal Equivalent Model for Shield
Tunnel.
REFERENCES
Bakker, K.J. 2000. Soil Retaining Structures. Rotterdam:
Balkema.
Bogaards, P.J. & Bakker, K.J. 1999. Longitudinal bending
momentsinthetubeof aboredtunnel. Numerical Models
in Geomechanics Proc. NUMOGVII: p. 317321.
Casarande,A. &Carillo, N. 1944. Shearfailureof anisotropic
soil. J. of the Boston Society of Civil Engineers, 31(4).
Feng, Y., Tang, S. & Li, Z. 2006. Application of improved
sequential indicator simulation to spatial distribution
of forest type. Forest Ecology and Management 222:
391398.
Hashash, Y.M.A. & Whittle, A.J. 1996. Ground movement
prediction for deep excavations in soft clay. Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,ASCE,
122(6): 474486.
J uang, K., Chen, Y. & Lee, D. 2003. Usingsequential indi-
cator simulation to assess theuncertainty of delineating
heavy-metal contaminatedsoils. Environmental Pollution
127: 229238.
Leung, C.F., Chow, Y.K. & Shen, R.F. 2000. Behavior of
pilesubjectedtoexcavation-inducedsoil movement.Jour-
nal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,
126(11): 947954.
Marinoni, O. 2003. Improving geological models using a
combinedordinaryindicatorkrigingapproach.Engineer-
ing Geology 69(12): 3745.
Pardo-Igzquiza, E. & Dowd, P.A. 2005. Multipleindicator
cokrigingwithapplicationtooptimal samplingfor envi-
ronmental monitoring. Computers & Geosciences 31(1):
113.
Park, K.H. 2004. Elastic solution for tunneling-induced
ground movements in clays. International Journal of
Geomechanics 4(4): 310318.
Peck, R.B. 1969. Deep excavations and tunneling in soft
ground. Proceeding of 7th international conference on
soil mechanics and foundation engineering. MexicoCity:
Stateof theArt Report.
Poulos, H.G. & Chen, L.T. 1997. Pile response due to
excavation-induced lateral soil movement. Journal of
Geotechnical and geoenvironmental engineering, ASCE,
123(2): 9499.
Sugimoto, M. & Sramoon, A. 2002. Theoretical model of
shield behavior during excavation I: Theory. Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 128(2):
138155.
Talmon, A.M., Bezuijen, A. & Hoefsloot, F.J.M. 2008. Lon-
gitudinal tubebendingduetogrout pressures. Shanghai:
TC28.
Verruijt, A. & Booker, J.R. 1996. Surface settlements due
to deformation of a tunnel in an elastic half plane.
Geotechnique 46(4): 753756.
85
Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground Ng, Huang & Liu (eds)
2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-48475-6
Analysisandnumerical modelingof deepexcavations
R.J. Finno
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA
ABSTRACT: Thesixteenpapers comprisingthegeneral themeAnalysis andNumerical Modelingof Deep
Excavationsof the6thInternational SymposiumonGeotechnical Aspectsof UndergroundConstructioninSoft
Groundaresummarizedherein. General characteristicsof all papersarepresentedasarebrief summariesof each
paper. Mostpapersincludedpresentationof resultsof finiteelementsimulationsandattendantcomparisonswith
variousaspectsof observedfieldperformance. Someof thepitfallsfor makingcomparisonsbetweennumerical
resultsandfieldobservationsof deepexcavationperformancearediscussedbriefly. Inparticular, theeffectsof
modelingconstructiondetailsandselectionof appropriateconstitutivemodelsarepresented. Recommendations
aretenderedregardingtheessential informationthatshouldbeconveyedinpapersthatpresentresultsof numerical
calculations.
1 INTRODUCTION
Sixteen papers concerning analysis and numerical
modeling of deep excavations werepublished in the
Proceedings of the 6th International Symposiumon
Geotechnical Aspectsof UndergroundConstructionin
SoftGround.Of thesepapers,tenwerepresentedorally
atthesymposium.Anoverviewof thepapersismadeto
provideasnapshotof thestateof thepracticeasregards
to this topic. All papers are summarized and trends
in the contents are discussed. Because most papers
includedpresentationof resultsof finiteelementsimu-
lationsandattendantcomparisonswithvariousaspects
of observed field performance of deep excavations,
general commentsregardingfactorsthatcanbeimpor-
tant inorder to makeanaccurateprediction. Finally,
recommendationsaretenderedregardingtheessential
information that should be conveyed in papers that
present resultsof numerical calculations.
2 OVERVIEW
The sixteen papers covered the broad topics sum-
marized in Table 1. The classification is somewhat
arbitrary andseveral papers couldhavefit into more
thanonetopic. Itisclear, however, thatthemajorityof
papers explicitly included comparisons of computed
resultsandsometypeof performancedata.
Of these16papers, resultsof finiteelement analy-
seswerereportedintenof them. Table2summarizes
theFE codesthat wereused. Theseresultsagreewith
the authors experience that the commercial codes
Table1. Topicsandnumber of papers.
Topic No. of papers
Numerical analysisandmeasurements 7
Numerical analysis 3
Back-analysis 2
Measurements 1
Design 1
Stresspath 1
Earthpressure 1
Table2. Summaryof finiteelement codesusedinpapers.
Analyses Number andcodeused
Three-dimensional simulations 2-Plaxis3DFoundations
2- FLAC3
2-Researchcode(?)
Planestrainsimulations 6-Plaxis
1-GeoTunnel
1-Researchcode(?)
FLAC andPLAXISaremost commonlyusedinboth
geotechnical practiceandresearch. Theeaseof useof
thesecodes has progressedto thepoint wherethree-
dimensional analyseshavebecomemorecommon, as
suggested by thenumber of such analyses presented
inthepapersinthissession.
Whiletheuseof finiteelementanalyseshasbecome
more common in practice, likely as a result of the
87
Table3. Constitutivemodel summary.
Model No. of applications
Mohr-Coulomb 6
HardeningSoil 3
Duncan-Chang 1
improvedi/oof commercial codes, theaccuracyof the
resultsdependsthefaithful representationof activities
that inducestresschangesinthegroundduringexca-
vation and on theconstitutiveresponses assumed in
theanalyses. Simplemodels areeasy to use, but are
limited in thetypes of computed responses that will
agreewithobservations.
A keyaspect toapplyingfiniteelement analysisto
practical problems in geotechnics remains theselec-
tion of thesoil model and its individual parameters.
Of thetenpapersthatpresentedresultsof FEanalyses,
sixassumedsoil respondedasaMohr-Coulombmate-
rial, as shown inTable3. This assumption limits the
predictivecapabilitiesof aFEsimulationof deepexca-
vationsortunnelinginthatelasticresponseisassumed
until thesoil fails. Presumably, thischoicewasmade
becauseof lack of detailed laboratory or field char-
acterizationsof thesoilsconsideredbytheauthorsin
their papers. At thecost of simplicity, theHardening-
Soil and Duncan-Chang models are non-linear and
can account for different responses in loading and
unloading. But thesemodels also arelimitedintheir
predictivecapabilitiesinthat they donot account for
theincremental non-linearityandsmall strainstiffness
responsesthatall soilsexhibit. Inanycase, thefactors
leadingtotheselectionof asoil model shouldbedis-
cussedinapaper to put theresults incontext. Inthe
same spirit, the parameters and a rationale for their
selectionalsoshouldbeincludedinapaper.
3 SUMMARY OF PAPERS
3.1 Numerical analysis and measurements
Li and Huang presented Construction monitoring
andnumerical simulationof anexcavationwithSMW
retainingstructure. A SMW retainingstructurewas
used to support two long excavations in Shanghai.
Bearing and deformation mechanisms of the SMW
were analyzed briefly and the structural analysis of
SMWwasdiscussed. Basedonthein-situexcavation
procedures, theauthorssimulatedconstructionof the
wall numerically using the FE code FLAC3D. They
representedsoil behaviorwithaMohr-Coulombmodel
andconsideredtwocases. Case1wasthetypical con-
structionsituationatthesitewhereinthesupportswere
installed in a timely fashion. Case 2 considered the
situationwhereinthesupportswerenot installedina
timelyfashioninthelateral direction, therebyleaving
excessivelylargeamountsof wall without lateral sup-
port. They compared the computed deformations of
theretainingstructure, thehorizontal displacement at
thetopof SMWandtheaxial forcesof steel pipesup-
portswiththefieldobservationdataforbothinstances.
The authors concluded good agreement was shown
between thecomputed and observed results. Froma
practical point of view, they showed that thenormal
constructionsequencingincase1resultedinastable
andsafeexcavation; theaxial forces werelower than
the alarmvalues and the displacement due to exca-
vation werewithin thepermissiblerange. In case2,
however, thecomputedresultsshowedtheexcavation
wasclosetobecomingunstable, andmeasureshadto
betakentoprotecttheretainingstructurefromfailure.
Popa et al. presented Numerical modeling and
experimental measurements for aretainingwall of a
deepexcavationinBucharest, Romania. They sum-
marized a case history of a diaphragm wall for a
deep basement of a new building in the center of
Bucharest. Theexcavationimpactedanumber of his-
toric structures, leading to the use of top-down
techniques to support theexcavation. Thenumerical
results obtained by plane strain FE simulation were
compared with measurements recorded during con-
struction. Soil behavior was assumed to bethat of a
Mohr-Coulomb material. The computed lateral dis-
placementswere15%and75%of theobservedvalues,
depending on if the comparisons were made in an
area with or without a grouted wall not explic-
itly modeled in theFE simulations adjacent to the
diaphragmwall.
Schweiger etal. presented3Dfiniteelementanal-
ysisof adeepexcavationandcomparisonwithinsitu
measurements.Thepaper describestheresultsof FE
analyses usingPlaxis of adeepexcavationproject in
clayeysilt inSalzburg. Theexcavationwassupported
byadiaphragmwall, ajetgroutpanel andthreelevels
of struts. Thesoil responses wererepresentedby the
Hardening-Soil model. Becauseof insufficient infor-
mationavailableat thetimeof designonthematerial
properties of the jet grout panel, the authors varied
itsstiffnessinaparametricstudy. Theeffect of taking
intoaccountthestiffnessof acrackeddiaphragmwall
on the deformations also was investigated. In some
of the 3D calculations, the authors simulated non-
perfectcontactbetweenthediaphragmwall andastrut
by means of anon-linear behaviour of thestrut. The
evaluationof theresults andcomparisonwithinsitu
measurements showed that analyses which took into
account the reduced stiffness of the diaphragmwall
duetocrackingachievedthebest agreement withthe
measurements. Furthermoresettlements of buildings
could be best reproduced by the three-dimensional
model, althoughthepredictedsettlementswerenot in
goodagreement withtheobservations.
88
Zhang and Huang presented Monitoring and
modeling of riversidelargedeep excavation-induced
ground movements in clays. They discussed adeep
excavationlocatedat theShanghai international pas-
sengercenterthatwas800mlongand100150mwide
with the depth of 13m. The south side of the deep
excavation was within 4.6mof aparallel flood wall
of the Huangpu River. The north side of the exca-
vation was 5mfromahistoric building. Becauseof
thedifferences in theconditions on thetwo sides of
the excavations, Plaxis FE analyses were conducted
which explicitly included both sides of the excava-
tion, ratherthanacenterlinesymmetriccondition. Soil
responses were assumed to correspond to that of a
Mohr-coulombmaterial. Computeddifferencesof lat-
eral wall movementsoneachsidedifferedbyasmuch
as 50%, as was verified by field observations made
duringconstruction.
Hsi et al. presentedThree-dimensional finiteele-
ment analysis of diaphragmwalls for top-downcon-
struction. They discussed theTugun BypassTunnel
inGoldCoast, Australia. Thetunnel wasconstructed
using diaphragmwalls with the top-down cut-and-
cover method to allow simultaneous construction of
an airport runway extension above the tunnel, and
excavation of the tunnel beneath. The tunnel was
built indeepdeposits of saturated, alluvial andestu-
arine soils with the toes of the walls founded in
soil deposits. Therewas apotential risk for differen-
tial settlements between the diaphragmwall panels,
caused by the runway fill placed over the tunnel
roof duringexcavation. Three-dimensional numerical
modelingwasundertakenwithPlaxis3DFoundation
to predict the differential settlements of the tunnel
arising fromthe variable subsurface profile, staged
excavationanddewatering, non-uniformloadingand
soil-structureinteraction. Soil wasassumedtobehave
as a Hardening-Soil material. Settlements measured
after construction were within the range of those
computedwiththefiniteelement simulations.
Phienwej presentedGroundmovementsinstation
excavationsof Bangkok first MRT. Thecharacteris-
tics of thelateral movements of thediaphragmwalls
at excavations for 18 stations of the first Bangkok
undergroundMRT linewereevaluated. Threemodes
of deflectedshapesof thewallswereobservedat dif-
ferent excavation depths, namely a cantilever mode
andbracedmodeswithabulgeinsoftclayandabulge
instiff clay. Theratioof maximumlateral wall deflec-
tionasafunctionof excavationdepthandtheratioof
groundsurfacesettlementtoexcavationdepthandthe
normalizedgroundsurfacesettlement variedwiththe
modeof wall deflection. UndrainedundrainedYoungs
moduli for aMohr-Coulombconstitutiveresponsefor
different soil layers were back-calculated fromwall
movement dataof threeselectedstationsusingthe2-
D Plaxis FE code. Themodulus values, which were
higher than those commonly obtained fromconven-
tional triaxial tests, canbeusedasguidelinefor future
excavationsinBangkok.
Ota et al. presented Consideration of design
method for braced excavation based on monitoring
results. They comparedobservedanddesignvalues
of wall deflections at several cut-and-cover exca-
vations through soft and sensitive clay ground at
theOsakaSubway LineNo.8. A beam-springmodel
was employed in the braced design method which
accounted for the characteristics of the Osaka soft
ground. Whiletherewasgoodagreementbetweenthe
observed data and design values in past results, the
observed wall deflections in this study were larger
thanthat expectedfor constructionsites whereinthe
excavations encountered 10 to 20mthick, soft and
sensitiveclaylayer.Theauthorsdiscusshowtheyeval-
uatedthehorizontal coefficient of subgradereaction
k
h
ontheexcavationsideof softclaylayer.Theauthors
makenewrecommendationregardingselectionof k
h
,
andshowthatthecalculatedwall movementswiththe
revisedvaluesagreewiththeobservations. Theserec-
ommendationsareapplicabletothesoft andsensitive
Osakaclays.
3.2 Numerical analysis
Li andYangpresentedthepaperNumerical evaluation
of dewateringeffect ondeepexcavationinsoft clay.
They described a FLAC3D analysis that modeled
top-downconstructionof a33.7mdeepunderground
transformersubstationinthedowntownareaof Shang-
hai. Therearebothunconfinedandconfinedaquifers
onthesiteof thisproject anddrainagebydesiccation
inthefoundationpit wasadopted. AssumingaMohr-
Coulomb soil response, the effective stress methods
of analysisincorporatedexcavationanddewateringof
thefoundationpitaspartof thesimulationof construc-
tion activities. Thecomputed wall deflections, basal
heavesandsurfacesettlementsbasedonanalysesthat
didnot consider dewateringwerecomparedto those
that did. Results of analyses that considered leakage
throughthewall andleakagebetweentheaquifersare
presentedaswell.Theanalysisshowsthatalthoughthe
computed differences in lateral wall movement and
basal heaveweresmall, dueto thelowpermeability
of thesoil, dewateringincreasedtheamount of com-
putedsurfacesettlements as aresult of drawdownof
thewater outsidethewallsof theexcavation.
Li et al. contributedthepaper Analysisof thefac-
tors influencing foundation pit deformations. They
presented results of FE computations based upon
3-D Biots consolidation theory, assuming the soil
responded as a nonlinear Duncan-Changs material.
The finite element equations explicilty considered
thecoupling of groundwater seepageand soil skele-
ton deformation during excavation. They presented
89
resultsthat showedtheindividual effectsof theinflu-
enceof soil permeability, rigidityandlevelsof lateral
supports, rigidity of retaining wall and excavation
durationongroundsurfacesettlement, wall horizontal
displacement andbasal heaveof anexcavation.
Siemiska-Lewandowsk and Mitew-Czajewska
presented the paper The effect of deep excavation
onsurroundinggroundandnearby structures. They
describedproblemsrelatedwiththeconstructionof a
29mdeep excavation of Nowy Swiat Station (S11)
of 2nd metro line in Warsaw. A critical section of
theproject consistedof 7stationsand6runningtun-
nels 6kmlength in total. Running tunnels will be
constructed usingTBM while the stations are to be
constructed using cut and cover techniques. Deep
excavation will be made with diaphragmwalls sup-
ported by several levels of slabs and struts. They
presentedresults of 2-D Plaxis FE analyses interms
of ground surfacesettlements, displacements of sur-
rounding foundations and lateral wall movements,
assumingthesoil behavesasaMohr-Coulombmate-
rial. Additionally, settlements of the surface were
calculatedabovetheTBM (runningtunnels). Result-
ingvaluesof settlementsinbothcaseswerediscussed,
andformedthebasisof designpredictionsthatwill be
verifiedduringconstruction.
3.3 Back analysis
Zghondi et al. presented the paper, Multi-criteria
procedure for the back-analysis of multi-supported
retaining walls. They described a numerical back-
analysis procedurefor multi-supported deep excava-
tions basedontheoptimizationof several indicators,
taking in account the forces in the struts and the
differential pressures derivedfromthewall displace-
ment. The evaluation of the procedure is based on
results of 1g small scale laboratory experiments on
semi-flexibleretainingwalls embeddedinaSchnee-
belli material. Theproposednumerical procedurewas
appliedtoanexcavationwith2levelsof strutswithlow
stiffness.TheoptimizedHardeningSoil Model param-
etersformthebasisof calculationsof responseof 14
different tested configurations. Theresults arecom-
paredwiththeclassical methods, SubGradeReaction
Method, FiniteElement analysiswithMohr Coulomb
model and with the back-analysis using Hardening
Soil Model parametersbasedonbiaxial testsresults.
Zhangetal. contributedthepaper Studyondefor-
mation laws under the construction of semi-reverse
method. Taking a 24.1-m-deep foundation pit of
Shanghai Metro Line1 which uses thesemi-reverse
construction process of three open excavating-one
tunneling as anexample, they determineddeforma-
tionlawsof afoundationpitunder theconstructionof
asemi-reversemethodbasedonanalysisof fieldmon-
itoringdataandforwardandback analyses methods.
They employedPlaxis v8andassumedthesoil acted
as a Hardening-Soil material in their computations.
Theauthors stated that results of this approach indi-
catedthatthesemi-reversemethodisaneffectiveway
toimproverigidityof theexterior support, control the
deformation of excavation, and ensure safety of the
surroundingbuildingsandpipelines.
3.4 Measurements
Zhanget al. contributedthepaper GPSheight appli-
cation and gross error detection in foundation pit
monitoring. The authors introduced a deformation
monitoring model that combined traditional survey
technology and GPS measurements. They illustrated
foundationpit deformationmonitoringbasedontheir
experienceof deepfoundationpit constructionof an
underground tunnel in Lishui Road, Hangzhou city.
WhenanalyzingGPSheightconversiontoimprovethe
reliability of theGPS datum, they employedDixons
test in the GPS datummark to determine potential
height anomalies. The authors concluded that this
approachisaconvenientwaytosearchanddeleteraw
datathat includesgrosserrors.
3.5 Design
Changcontributedthepaper Optimizationdesignof
compositesoil-nailing in loess excavation. Excava-
tions through loess haveuniquecharacteristics com-
pared with theothers dueto its structural properties
andcollapsibility. Toevaluatethemechanismsof sup-
port and to develop reasonable methods to design
compositesoil-nailinginloessexcavation, theauthors
usedresultsof finiteelement analysistodesignasoil
nail support system. Their optimizationdesignmeth-
odsarebasedontheresultsof finiteelement analysis
apparently assuming Mohr-Coulomb soil responses.
Theyconductedthesimulationstodeterminetheregu-
larityof deformationandthesafetyfactor, asfunctions
of selecteddesignvariables.Theauthorsjustifiedtheir
methodsby reportingthat thelateral deformationsof
theexampleexcavationwerelimitedto16mm.
3.6 Stress path
Zhouetal. contributedthepaper Comparisonof the-
oryandtestonexcavationcausingthevariationof soil
mass strength. Inviewof thecharacteristic unload-
ingcausedby excavations, they deducedthestrength
ratioof theunloadedsoil tosoil subjectedtocompres-
sionloadings. Laboratorytestssimulatingexcavation
werecarriedout basedonHvorslevsstrengththeory.
By comparingtheoretical results withthelaboratory
data, theyconcludedthatthesoil massisoverconsoli-
dated.Asaconsequence,theauthorsstatedthatthesoil
microstructureisdamaged, andthesoil massstrength
90
isreducedintheunloadingprocess. Theauthorscon-
cluded that analyses of theresults arehelpful to the
understanding of the effect of excavation unloading
onthevariationof thesoil massstrength.
3.7 Earth pressure
LinandLeecontributedthepaper A simplifiedspa-
tial methodology of earth pressure against retaining
piles of pile-row retaining structure. When using a
pile-rowretainingstructuretosupport excavation, the
authorsstressedtheimportanceof obtainingthemag-
nitude and distribution of the earth pressure against
the retaining piles. Based on the mode of failure, a
new methodology is proposed to evaluate the earth
pressure against the retaining piles of such a struc-
ture. In theproposed method, both thespatial effect
andintermediateprincipal stresseffectareconsidered.
Theauthors provideanexampleof themethodology
applied to engineering practice. They demonstrated
that thestrength theory has moreinfluenceon earth
pressure.
4 COMMENTSREGARDINGCOMPUTED
ANDOBSERVEDRESULTS
Many factors affect ground movements caused by
excavations, including stratigraphy, soil properties,
support systemdetails, construction activities, con-
tractual arrangementsandworkmanship.Inthistheme,
most papers described numerical simulations that
analyzed ground response arising from excavation.
Finiteelement predictions always contain uncertain-
ties related to soil properties, support systemdetails
andconstructionprocedures. Furthermore, whilesup-
portedexcavations commonly aresimulatednumeri-
cally by modeling cycles of excavation and support
installation, it generally is necessary to simulate all
aspectsof theconstructionprocessthataffectthestress
conditionsaroundthecuttoobtainanaccuratepredic-
tionof behavior.Thismayinvolvesimulatingprevious
construction activities at the site, installation of the
supportingwall andanydeepfoundationelements, as
well astheremoval of cross-lotsupportsor detension-
ingof tiedbackgroundanchors. Issuesof timeeffects
causedbyhydrodynamiceffectsor material responses
may be important. The following sections summa-
rize some of the factors that may impact computed
responsesof groundmovementsassociatedwithexca-
vations. Proper consideration must be given to such
factors whenmakingsuchanalyses, as well as when
criticallyevaluatingpublishedresultsof thesame.
4.1 Drainage conditions
Animportantpreliminarydecisioninanyanalysisisto
match theexpected field drainageconditions, which
impacts theformulation required. Clough and Mana
(1976) and field data have shown that for excava-
tions throughsaturatedclays withtypical excavation
periods of several months, the clays remain essen-
tially undrainedwithlittledissipationof excess pore
pressures.
For undrainedconditions, onecanemploy either a
coupled finite element formulation where both dis-
placements and pore water pressures are solved for
explicitly(e.g. Carter et al. 1979) or apenaltyformu-
lation(e.g. Hughes1980) whereinthebulkmodulusof
water or asufficientlylargenumber thatdependson
theprecisionof themachinemakingthecomputation-
isaddedtothediagonal termsintheelement stiffness
matrixduringglobal matrixassembly. Thisadditional
termconstrains thevolumetric strain to nearly zero,
i.e., undrained. Inboththeseapproaches, theconstitu-
tiveresponseof thesoil isdefinedintermsof effective
stress parameters. A simpler, alternateapproachis to
defineundrainedconstitutiveresponseintermsof total
stress parameters, withcarebeingtakento makethe
diagonal terms of theelement stiffness matrix large,
typicallybyusingaPoissonsratiocloseto0.5. Inthis
case, aYoungsmoduluscorrespondstoanundrained
valueandfailureisexpressedintermsof anundrained
shear strength, S
u
(e.g., =0andc=S
u
).
However, theremay becases (e.g., ORourkeand
ODonnell 1997) wheresubstantial delaysduringcon-
struction occur and excess pore pressures partially
dissipate, andinthesecasesonemustuseamixedfor-
mulationtoaccount for theporewater effects. When
usingtop-downtechniquestoexcavate,itcantakeupto
several yearstoreachfinal gradeforlargeexcavations,
and hence partially drained conditions would apply
therein, requiringacoupledfiniteelementsimulation.
4.2 Initial conditions
A reasonable prediction of the ground response to
construction of adeepexcavation starts with agood
estimate of the initial stress conditions, in terms of
botheffectivestresses andporewater pressures. The
effective stress conditions for excavations in well-
developed urban areas rarely correspond to at-rest
conditionsbecauseof themyriadpastusesof theland.
Existenceof deepfoundationsand/or basementsfrom
abandonedbuildings andnearby tunnels changes the
effectivestresses fromat-rest conditions prior to the
start of excavation. For example, Calvello andFinno
(2003) showedthatanaccuratecomputationof move-
ments associated with an excavation could only be
achievedwhenall thepre-excavationactivitiesaffect-
ing the site were modeled explicitly. They used the
caseof theexcavationfor theChicago-Statesubway
renovation project (Finno et al. 2002), wherein con-
structionof bothatunnel andaschool impactedthe
groundstressespriortothesubwayrenovationproject.
91
Ignoringtheseeffectsmadeadifferenceof afactor of
3inthecomputedlateral movements.
One also must take care when defining the ini-
tial ground water conditions. Even in cases where
thegroundwater level isnot affectedby near surface
constructionactivities, non-hydrostaticconditionscan
existfor avarietyof reasons. For example, Finnoetal.
(1989) presentedpneumaticpiezometerdatathatindi-
cated thepresenceof adownward gradient within a
20mthick sequence of saturated clays. This down-
ward flow arose froma gradual lowering since the
1950s of thewater level intheupper rock aquifer in
theChicago area. A non-hydrostatic water condition
affects themagnitudeof theeffectivestresses at the
start of anexcavationproject.
An engineer has two choices to define such con-
ditions tomeasurethein situ conditionsdirectly or
tosimulateall thepast constructionactivitiesat asite
startingfromappropriateat-rest conditions. Because
bothapproachespresentchallenges, itisadvantageous
todobothtoprovidesomeredundancyintheinput. In
any case, careful evaluation of the initial conditions
is required when numerically simulating supported
excavationprojects, especiallyinurbanareas.
4.3 Wall installation
Manytimestheeffectsof installingawall areignored
inafiniteelementsimulationandthewall iswished-
into-place with no change in the stress conditions
in the ground or any attendant ground movements.
However, there are abundant data that show ground
movementsmaydevelopasawall isinstalled.
ORourke and Clough (1990) presented data that
summarized observed settlements that arose during
installationof fivediaphragmwalls. They notedset-
tlementsaslargeas0.12%of thedepthof thetrench.
Theseeffectscanbeevaluatedby3-dimensional mod-
elingof theconstructionprocess(e.g., Gourvenecand
Powrie 1999), but not without several caveats. The
specificgravityof thesupportingfluidusuallyvaries
duringexcavationof apanel as aresult of excavated
solids becomingsuspended increasingthespecific
gravityabovethevalueof thewaterandbentonitemix-
tureand subsequently decreasing when theslurry is
cleanedprior totheconcretebeingtremiedintoplace.
Consequently,itisdifficulttoselectonevaluethatrep-
resentsanaveragecondition. Furthermoretheeffects
of thefluidconcreteonthestressesinthesurrounding
soil dependuponhowquicklytheconcretehardensrel-
ativetoitsplacementrate. Someguidanceinselecting
thefreshconcretepressureisprovidedbyLingset al.
(1994).
Itislessstraightforwardwhenmodelingdiaphragm
wall installation effects in a plane strain analysis
becausethearchingcausedbytheexcavationof indi-
vidual panels cannot be taken directly into account.
Toapproximatetheeffectsof thisarchingwhenmak-
ing such an analysis, an equivalent fluid pressure,
generallyhigher thanthelevel of thefluidduringcon-
struction, canbeappliedtothewallsof thetrenchto
maintainstability.Thus, somedegreeof empiricismis
requiredtoconsidertheseinstallationeffectsinaplane
strainanalysis. Onecanback-calculateanequivalent
fluidpressurecorrespondingto theobservedground
responseif good records of lateral movements close
to the wall are recorded during construction. More
dataof thistypeareneededbeforeanyrecommenda-
tionscanbemaderegardingmagnitudesof appropriate
equivalent pressures.
Theeffects of installing asheet pilewall aredif-
ferent thanthoseof adiaphragmwall, yet theeffects
on observed responses also can be significant. In
this case, ground movements may arise fromtran-
sient vibrationsdevelopedasthesheetingisdrivenor
vibratedintoplaceandfromthephysical displacement
of the ground by the sheeting. The former mecha-
nismis of practical importance when installing the
sheeting through loose to mediumdense sands, and
canbeestimatedby procedures proposedby Clough
et al. (1989). However, theseeffects arenot included
in finite element simulations. The latter mechanism
inclayswasillustratedby Finnoet al. (1988). Inthis
case, thesoil wasdisplacedawayfromthesheetingas
it wasinstalled. Thismovement wasaccompaniedby
anincreaseinporewaterpressureandagroundsurface
heave. As theexcess porewater pressures dissipated,
the ground settled. The maximumlateral movement
andsurfaceheavewasequal toone-half theequivalent
width of the sheet pile wall, defined as the cross-
sectional areaof thesheetpilesectionperunitlengthof
wall. Sheet-pileinstallationcanbesimulatedinplane
strainby usingprocedures summarizedinFinno and
Tu(2006).
Inadditionto themovements that occur as awall
isinstalled, installingthewallscanhavealargeinflu-
enceonsubsequentmovements, especiallyif thewalls
areinstalledrelatively closetoeachother, as may be
the case in a cut-and-cover excavation for a tunnel.
Sabatini (1991) conducted a parametric study as a
function of thedepth, H, to width, B, of an excava-
tion, whereintheeffectsof sheet-pilewall installation
in clays were compared with simulations where the
wallswerewishedintoplace. Theresultsof thestudy
areshowninFigure1wherethecomputednormalized
maximumlateral movements, H
(max)
/H, are plotted
versusH/B.
It is apparent for wide excavations (H/B0.25)
that the decision to include installation effects in
a simulation is not critical. However, these effects
becomepronouncedfor narrowexcavations(H/B1)
andshouldbeexplicitly considered. Theresults also
show that for the wished-in-place case when the
sheet-pile installation effects are ignored, the lateral
92
0
1
2
3
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
H/B

H
(
M
A
X
)
/
H

[
%
]
Sheet-pile effects
No sheet-pile effects
Figure 1. Effects of sheet-pile installation on computed
lateral movements.
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Distance From South End of Excavation (m)
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
Day 28
Day 57
Day 58
Day 60
Day 75
Day 80
Day 88
Day 89
Day 95
Day 110
Day 113
Day 163
Tiebacks
Struts
Inclinometer 2
Location
Inclinometer 1
Location
Strut 1
(56)
Strut 2
(58)
Strut 3
(59)
Strut 4
(60)
Strut 5
(74)
Strut 6
(79)
North
South Scale (m)
0 5
Note:
Upper level tiebacks stressed between Day 81 and Day 105
Lower level tiebacks stressed between Day 98 and Day 113
Initial
Grade
East
Escalator Pit
Figure2. Construction progress at excavation in Chicago
(Finnoet al. 2002).
movementsarelarger for wider excavations, asimilar
trendreportedbyManaandClough(1981).
Sheet-pileinstallationhastwomaineffects: thesoil
adjacent to theexcavationis preloadedandtheshear
strength on the passive side is (partially) mobilized
prior to the beginning of the cycles of excavation.
Wall installationtendstopreloadthesoil ontheactive
sideof theexcavation as aresult of thereduction in
shear stress at approximately constant mean normal
effectivestress.Thismechanismprovidesthesoil out-
sidethewallswithmoreavailableshearingresistance
whenthecyclesof excavationstart. However, thesoil
betweenthewallshaslessavailablepassiveresistance
as a result of the preloading and this promotes the
larger movements during excavation as compared to
thecaseof ignoringthesheet-pileeffects (Finnoand
Nerby1989).
4.4 Plane strain versus 3-dimensional analyses
Figure 2 illustrates some of the challenges of using
field observations to calibrate numerical models of
anykind, evenwhendetailedrecordsexist.Thisfigure
summarizestheconstructionprogressattheChicago-
State excavation in terms of excavation surface and
support installationononeof thewallsof theexcava-
tionfor selecteddays after constructionstarted. Also
shown arethelocations of two inclinometers placed
several meters behind the wall. If one is making a
computation assuming plane strain conditions, then
it is clear that onemust judiciously choosedatasets
sothat planar conditionswouldbeapplicabletothose
selected.
Evenwhenasufficientlyextensivehorizontal exca-
vatedsurfaceisidentified, 3-dimensional effectsmay
still arisefromthehigher stiffnessatthecornersof an
excavation.Theseboundaryconditionsleadtosmaller
groundmovementsnear thecornersandlarger ground
movementstowardsthemiddleof theexcavationwall.
Another, andlessrecognized, consequenceof thecor-
ner stiffeningeffectsisthemaximummovement near
thecenter of anexcavationwall may not correspond
to that found froma conventional plane strain sim-
ulation of the excavation, i.e., 3-D and plane strain
simulations of the excavation do not yield the same
movementatthecenterportionof theexcavation, even
if themovementsinthecenterareperpendiculartothe
wall (Ouet al. 1996). Thisaffect canbequantifiedby
theplanestrainratio, PSR, definedhereinasthemax-
imummovement in thecenter of an excavation wall
computedby 3-D analyses dividedby that computed
byaplanestrainsimulation. Finnoetal. (2007) devel-
opedthefollowingexpressionforPSRfromtheresults
of a finite element parametric study of excavations
throughclay:
whereL istheexcavationlengthalongthesidewhere
themovement occurs, B istheother areal dimension,
andH
e
istheexcavationdepth.Thevalueof C depends
onthefactor of safetyagainst basal heave, FS
BH
, and
istakenas:
Thevalueof k dependsonthesupportsystemstiffness
andistakenas:
whereEI isthebendingstiffnessof thewall, isthe
total unitweightof thesoil andh istheaveragevertical
spacingbetweensupports. WhenL,H
e
isgreater than
6, thePSRisequal to1andresultsof planestrainsim-
ulationsyieldthesamedisplacementsinthecenter of
anexcavationasthosecomputedbya3-Dsimulation.
WhenL,H
e
islessthan6, thedisplacementcomputed
fromtheresultsof aplanestrainanalysiswill belarger
than that froma 3-D analysis. When conducting an
inverseanalysis of an excavation with aplanestrain
93
simulationwhenL,H
e
is relatively small, theeffects
of thiscorner stiffeningisthat anoptimizedstiffness
parameter will be larger than it really is because of
the lack of the corner stiffening in the plane strain
analysis. Thiseffectbecomesgreater asanexcavation
is deepenedbecausetheL,H
e
valueincreases as the
excavatedgradeis lowered. This trendwas observed
intheoptimizedparametersforthedeeperstrataatthe
Chicago-State subway renovation excavation (Finno
andCalvello2005).
5 CONSTITUTIVE MODEL
CONSIDERATIONS
Whenoneundertakesanumerical simulationof adeep
supportedexcavation, oneof thekey decisions made
earlyintheprocessistheselectionof theconstitutive
model. Ingeneral, thisselectionshouldbecompatible
withtheobjectivesof theanalysis. If theresultsform
thebasisof apredictionthat will beupdatedbasedon
fieldperformancedata, thenthetypesof fielddatathat
formthebasisof thecomparisonwill impacttheappli-
cability of a particular model. Possibilities include
lateral movements based on inclinometers, vertical
movements at various depths and distances froman
excavationwall, forcesinstructural supportelements,
porewaterpressuresoranycombinationsof thesedata.
Whenusedfor acasewherecontrol of groundmove-
ments is akey design consideration, theconstitutive
model must beabletoreproducethesoil responseat
appropriatestrainlevelstotheimposedloadings.
5.1 Incremental non-linearity
It is useful to recognizethat soil is an incrementally
nonlinear material, i.e., itsstiffnessdependsonload-
ing direction and strain level. Real soils are neither
linear elastic nor elastic-plastic, but exhibit complex
behavior characterized by zones of high stiffness at
very small strains, followed by decreasing stiffness
withincreasingstrain.Thisbehaviorunderstaticload-
ingwasidentifiedthroughback-analysisof foundation
and excavation movements in the United Kingdom
(Burland, 1989). The recognition of zones of high
initial stiffnessunder typical fieldconditionswasfol-
lowedby efforts to measurethis ubiquitous behavior
inthelaboratoryfor varioustypesof soil (e.g., J ardine
et al. 1984; Clayton and Heymann 2001; Santagata
et al. 2005; CalistoandCalebresi 1998, Cho2007).
To illustrate this behavior, Figure 3 shows the
resultsof drained, triaxial stressprobesconductedon
specimens cut fromblock samples of lightly over-
consolidated glacial clays obtained at an excavation
in Evanston, IL. Each specimen was reconsolidated
under K
0
conditions to the in-situ vertical effective
stress

v0
, subjected to a 36 hour K
0
creep cycle,
followed by directional stress probing under drained
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Local Triaxial Shear Strain,
sl
(%)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
S
e
c
a
n
t

S
h
e
a
r

M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,

G
s
e
c

(
M
P
a
)
FB3AL1
FB1TC2
FB1CMS2
FB1RTC2
FB1RTE1
FB1TE1
FB2CMSE1
unloading
loading
G
BE
Range
Figure3. Secant shear modulus as afunctionof direction
of loading.
axisymmetric conditions. Bender element (BE) tests
were conducted during all phases of the tests. The
secant shear moduli areplotted versus triaxial shear
straininFigure3for natural specimens whosestress
probes involved changes in the shear stress q. The
overconsolidation ratio of these specimens was 1.7,
soif oneassumestheresponseisisotropicandelasto-
plastic, thenGshouldbethesameforatleasttheinitial
portionof all curves. Thestressprobeswhereinqand
the stress ratio, =q,p

, is increased ( loading)
are clearly softer than those where q and initially
decrease( unloading). Therearenoobviouszones
of constant G
sec
at shear strainsgreater than0.002%,
andthusnoelastic zoneisobservedinthesedatafor
strainlevels.Completedetailsandresultsof thetesting
programarepresentedbyCho(2007).
Burland(1989) suggestedthatworkingstrainlevels
insoil aroundwell-designedtunnelsandfoundations
areontheorder of 0.1%. If oneuses datacollected
with conventional triaxial equipments to discern the
soil responses, onecanreliably measurestrains0.1%
or higher. Thus inmany practical situations, it is not
possibleto accurately incorporatesite-specific small
strainnon-linearityintoaconstitutivemodel basedon
conventionally-derivedlaboratorydata.
5.2 Model selection
There are a number of models reported in litera-
turewhereinthevariationof small strainnonlinearity
can be represented, e.g., a three-surface kinematic
model developfor stiff Londonclay (Stallebrass and
Taylor 1997), MIT-E3(WhittleandKavvadas 1994),
hypoplasticity models (e.g. Viggiani and Tamagnini
1999), andadirectional stiffnessmodel (Tu2007). To
derivethenecessaryparameters, thesemodelsrequire
eitherdetailedexperimental resultsorexperiencewith
themodel in agiven geology. Whilethemodels can
beimplementedinmaterial librariesinsomecommer-
cial finiteelementcodes, theseroutinesarenotreadily
94
Figure 4. Shear strains behind excavation: 57mmmaxi-
mumlateral movement (contoursin%).
availabletomost practitioners. Thusfor most current
practical applications, oneusessimpler, elasto-plastic
models containedinmaterial libraries incommercial
codes.
For these models, a key decision is to select the
elastic parameters that are representative of the
secantvaluesthatcorrespondtothepredominantstrain
levels inthesoil mass. Examples of thestrainlevels
behindawall for anexcavationwithamaximumlat-
eral wall movement of 57mmareshowninFigure5.
Thesestrainlevelswerecomputedbasedontheresults
of displacement-controlledsimulationswherethelat-
eral wall movements and surface settlements were
incrementallyappliedtotheboundariesof afiniteele-
ment mesh. Thepatterns of movements weretypical
of excavationsthroughclays, andwerebasedonthose
observedatanexcavationmadethroughChicagoclays
(FinnoandBlackburn2005). Becausethesimulations
weredisplacement-controlled,thecomputedstrainsdo
not dependontheassumedconstitutivebehavior.
AscanbeseeninFigure4, maximumshear strains
as high as 0.7% occur when 57mm of maximum
wall movement develop. The maximum strains are
proportional maximum lateral wall movement; for
example, when 26mmmaximumlateral wall move-
ment develops, the maximumshear strain is about
0.35%. These latter strain levels can be accurately
measuredinconventional triaxial testing, andthus if
onecanobtainspecimensof sufficientlyhighquality,
thensecantmoduli correspondingtothesestrainlevels
canbedeterminedviaconventional laboratorytesting.
Becausethemaximumhorizontal wall displacement
can be thought of as a summation of the horizontal
strains behindawall, themaximumwall movements
canbeaccurately calculatedwithaselectionof elas-
tic parameters that corresponds to these expected
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.2
Maximum Shear Strain (%)
M
a
x
i
m
u
m

L
a
t
e
r
a
l

M
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
(
m
m
)
1
Figure5. Relationbetweenmaximumwall movement and
shear strain.
strain levels. In this case, the fact that small strain
non-linearityisnotexplicitlyconsideredwill nothave
alargeimpact on thecomputed horizontal wall dis-
placements because the maximumhorizontal move-
ment at thewall is dominatedby thelarger strains in
thesoil mass. Thesecomputedmovements wouldbe
compatible with those measured by an inclinometer
locatedclosetothewall.
However, if oneneedstoobtainanaccuraterepre-
sentationof thedistributionof groundmovementswith
distancefromthewall, then this approach of select-
ing strain-level appropriate elastic parameters is not
applicable. Small strainnon-linearity of soil must be
explicitly considered to find theextent of thesettle-
ment becausethestrains in theareaof interest vary
fromthemaximumvalueto zero. As aconsequence,
many cases reported in literature indicate computed
wall movementsagreereasonablywell withobserved
values, buttheresultsfromthesamecomputationsdo
not accurately reflect thedistribution of settlements.
Indeed, thiswasthecaseinseveral paperspresentedas
part of thistheme. Goodagreement at distancesaway
froma wall can be obtained only if the small stain
non-linearity of thesoil is adequately represented in
theconstitutivemodel.
Therelationbetweenlateral wall displacementsand
shear strain levels in the soil behind the wall can
beevaluatedfromresults of displacement-controlled
finiteelementsimulations.Similartotheresultsshown
inFigure4, differentdisplacementprofileswerestud-
iedbyimposinglateral wall displacementsandsettle-
mentprofiles, representingconditionswithmaximum
lateral movementsattheexcavatedsurface, cantilever
movements, deep-seatedmovementsandcombination
of thelatter two(Andrianis2006). Thestratigraphies
used in the models were based on typical Chicago
soils. Theresults in Figure5 show that therelation-
ship between maximumshear strain behind thewall
andmaximumdisplacementof thewall isalmostlinear
forlateral wall displacementsbetween10and110mm.
Figure 5 also shows that the results forma narrow
95
band, suggestingthat therelationbetweenstrainand
wall displacement is not greatly affectedby thetype
of movement.
Figure5canbeusedtoestimateshear strainsfor a
specifiedmaximumwall movement.Withthisvalueof
shearstrain, thesecantshearmoduli foruseinconven-
tional elasto-plasticmodelscanbeestimatedbasedon
strain-stressdatafromhighqualitylaboratoryexperi-
ments. Thevaluesof maximumshear strains, evenin
the cases with the relatively low values of displace-
ments, areabout 0.2%and increaseas thespecified
displacement becomeslarger. Thisisimportant when
onedetermines soil stiffness in thelaboratory. Con-
ventional soil testingwithoutinternal instrumentation
allows one to accurately measure strains as low as
0.1%. Thus for many cases, the secant shear mod-
uli can be determined fromconventional laboratory
testsonhighqualitysamples. However, if strainlevels
are0.1%or less, then onemust select thesemoduli
fromtest resultsbasedoninternally-measuredstrains
in equipment not normally available in commercial
laboratories.
In summary, using a simulation based on con-
ventional elasto-plastic models limits the type and
location of the data that can be used as observa-
tions inaninverseanalysis. Bothvertical andlateral
movements measured at some distance froma wall
cannot becalculated accurately in this casebecause
thevariationof stiffnesswithstrainlevelsmustbeade-
quatelyrepresentedinthesoil model. Onlythelateral
movementsclosetoasupport wall canbereasonably
computedwithconventional modelssincethatresultis
dominatedbythezonesof highstrainsbehindthewall.
6 CONCLUDINGREMARKS
The papers presented at the symposium included
widely variable levels of information regarding the
details of the finite element analyses. As such, the
author tentatively proposes that the following infor-
mationbeincludedinanypaper describingtheresults
of any finite element simulation of geotechnically-
relatedconstruction.
1 Thefiniteelement codeused.
2 The assumed drainage conditions, e.g., drained,
undrainedor partiallydrained.
3 The dimensionality of the problem, e.g., plain
strain, axisymmetricor three-dimensional.
4 Theconstitutivemodel(s) employedfor bothsoils
andstructural elements.
5 Theparametersfor eachmaterial andadiscussion
of thebasisof their selection.
6 A descriptionof themesh, includingboundarycon-
ditionsandtypeof elementsusedforsoil, structural
componentsandinterfaces.
7 Constructionrecords, simulationsteps anddetails
of howeachconstructionactivity wasidealizedin
thefiniteelement simulation.
Finally, comparisons between computed and
observedresults, as well as adiscussionof thecom-
parisons, shouldbeincluded.
REFERENCES
Andrianis, G.E. 2006. Excavation-induced Strains and Can-
tilever Deflections in Compressible Clays. MS thesis,
NorthwesternUniversity, Evanston, IL.
Burland, J.B. 1989. Small isbeautiful thestiffnessof soils
atsmall strains: NinthLauritsBjerrumMemorial Lecture.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal 26: 499516.
Calisto, L. & Calebresi, G. 1998. Mechanical behavior of a
natural soft clay. Geotechnique 48(4): 495513.
Calvello, M. & Finno, R.J. 2003. Modeling excavations in
urbanareas: effectsof pastactivities. Italian Geotechnical
Journal 37(4): 923.
Carter, J.P., Booker, J.R. & Small, J.C. 1979. Theanalysisof
finiteelasto-plastic consolidation. International Journal
for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics
3: 107129.
Cho, W.J. 2007. Recent stress history effects on compress-
ible Chicago glacial clay. PhD thesis, Northwestern
University, Evanston, IL.
Clayton, C.R.I. & Heymann, G. 2001. Stiffnessof geomate-
rialsat verysmall strains. Geotechnique 51(3): 245255.
Clough, G.W. & Mana, A.I. 1976. Lessons learnedinfinite
element analysisof temporaryexcavations. Proceedings,
2nd International Conference on Numerical Methods in
Geomechanics, ASCE, Vol. I: 496510.
Clough, G.W., Smith, E.M. & Sweeney, B.P. 1989. Move-
ment control of excavation support systems by iterative
design. Current Principles and Practices, Foundation
Engineering Congress, Vol. 2, ASCE: 869884.
Finno, R.J., Atmatzidis, D.K. & Nerby, S.M. 1988. Ground
response to sheet-pile installation in clay. Proceedings,
Second International Conference on Case Histories in
Geotechnical Engineering, St. Louis, MO.
Finno, R.J.,Atmatzidis, D.K. &Perkins, S.B. 1989. Observed
Performance of a Deep Excavation in Clay. Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 115(8): 10451064.
Finno, R.J. & Blackburn, J.T. 2005. Automated monitor-
ing of supported excavations. Proceedings, 13th Great
Lakes Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Conference,
Geotechnical Applications for Transportation Infrastruc-
ture, GPP 3, ASCE, Milwaukee, WI.: 112.
Finno, R.J., Blackburn, J.T. & Roboski, J.F. 2007. Three-
dimensional Effects for Supported Excavations in Clay.
Journal of Geotechnical andGeoenvironmental Engineer-
ing, ASCE, 133(1): 3036.
Finno, R.J., Bryson, L.S. & Calvello, M. 2002. Performance
of astiff support systeminsoft clay. Journal of Geotech-
nical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,ASCE, 128(8):
660671.
Finno, R.J. &Calvello, M. 2005. Supportedexcavations: the
observational method and inverse modeling. Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering.ASCE,
131(7).
96
Finno, R.J. & Nerby, S.M. 1989. Saturated Clay Response
DuringBracedCutConstruction. Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, ASCE, 115(8): 10651085.
Finno, R.J. &Tu, X. 2006. SelectedTopicsinNumerical Sim-
ulation of Supported Excavations. Numerical Modeling
of Construction Processes in Geotechnical Engineer-
ing for Urban Environment, International Conferenceof
ConstructionProcesses inGeotechnical Engineeringfor
Urban Environment, Th. Triantafyllidis, ed., Bochum,
Germany, Taylor & Francis, London: 320.
Gourvenec, S.M. & Powrie, W. 1999. Three-dimensional
finite element analysis of diaphragm wall installation.
Geotechnique, 49(6): 801823.
Hughes, T.J.R. 1980. Generalizationof selectiveintegration
procedures to anisotropic and nonlinear media. Interna-
tional Journal of Numerical Methods in Engineering 15
(9): 14131418.
J ardine, R.J., Symes, M.J. & Burland, J.B. 1984. Themea-
surementof small strainstiffnessinthetriaxial apparatus.
Geotechnique 34(3): 323340.
Lings, M.L., Ng, C.W.W. & Nash, D.F.T. 1994. Thelateral
pressure of wet concrete in diaphragmwall panels cast
under bentonite. Geotechnical Engineering, Proceedings
of theInstitutionof Civil Engineers, 107: 163172.
Mana,A.I.&Cough,G.W.1981.Predictionof movementsfor
bracedcut inclay. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
ASCE, NewYork, 107(8): 759777.
ORourke, T.D. &Clough, G.W. 1990. Constructioninduced
movementsof insituwalls. Proceedings, Design and Per-
formance of Earth Retaining Structures, Lambe, P.C. and
HansenL.A. (eds). ASCE: 439470.
ORourke, T.D. & ODonnell, C.J. 1997. Deep rotational
stability of tiedback excavations in clay. Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 123(6): 506515.
Ou, C.Y., Chiou, D.C. & Wu, T.S. 1996. Three-dimensional
finite element analysis of deep excavations. Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 122(5): 473483.
Sabatini,P.J.1991.Sheet-pile installationeffects oncomputed
ground response for braced excavations in soft to medium
clays. MSthesis, NorthwesternUniversity, Evanston, IL.
Santagata, M., Germaine, J.T. & Ladd, C.C. 2005. Factors
AffectingtheInitial Stiffnessof CohesiveSoils.Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,ASCE,
131(4): 430441.
Stallebrass, S.E. &Taylor, R.N. 1997. Thedevelopment and
evaluation of a constitutive model for the prediction of
ground movements in overconsolidated clay. Geotech-
nique 47(2): 235253.
Tu, X. 2007.Tangent stiffness model for clays including small
strain non-linearity. PhDthesis, NorthwesternUniversity,
Evanston, IL.
Viggiani, G. & Tamagnini, C. 1999. Hypoplasticity for
modelingsoil non-linearity inexcavationproblems. Pre-
failure Deformation Characteristics of Geomaterials,
M. J amiolkowski, M, Lancellotta, R. and Lo Presti, D.
(eds.), Balkema, Rotterdam: 581588.
Whittle,A.J. &Kavvadas, M.J. 1994. Formulationof MIT-E3
constitutivemodel for overconsolidatedclays. Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,ASCE,
120(1): 173198.
97
Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground Ng, Huang & Liu (eds)
2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-48475-6
Constructionmethod, groundtreatment, andconditioningfor tunneling
T. Hashimoto& B.Ye
Geo-Research Institute, Osaka, Japan
G.L.Ye
Department of Civil Engineering, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai, P.R. China
ABSTRACT: This general report reviews a selected group of papers of Session 2 which is related to
ConstructionMethod, GroundTreatment, andConditioningforTunneling.Thepapersaredividedinto5groups
basedontheir topics: (1) constructionmethodswithcasestudies, (2) groundtreatment, (3) loadandpressure,
(4)conditioningadditivesforEPB,(5)others.Beforereviewing,thegeotechnical aspectsinthesefieldsarefirstly
summarized, andthentheessencesof thesepapersarepresented. Thedeficienciesandfuturedevelopmentsare
alsodiscussed.
1 INTRODUCTION
Session2includes19papersfromChina, J apan, UK,
theNetherlands, Germany, Iran, Slovakia, Argentina
and Brazil. Especially, Tongji University, Shanghai
and GeoDelft, the Netherlands contribute to present
somepapers respectively. It is becausethat Shanghai
andtheNetherlands havebeenperformedmany tun-
nelsduringthepast decadeinthesoft ground. These
papers are divided into 5 groups and 8 subgroups
based on their topics, which are shown in Table 1.
Althoughall thesepaperhascontributedtosomespec-
ifiedaspectof constructionmethod, groundtreatment,
andconditioningfor tunneling, somepaperswithsig-
nificantimportanceareselectedtobereviewedinthis
General Report.Thereviewwill becarriedoutaccord-
ing to thegrouping of thepaper. Beforethereview,
the geotechnical aspects in these fields are firstly
summarized.
2 CONSTRUCTIONMETHODWITH
CASE STUDIES
2.1 Bored tunnel by TBM
More and more practices of bored tunnels by TBM
bringforwardmoreandmorerequirementsfor shield
tunnel. Table2displaysthecurrent trendof develop-
ment of shieldtunnel basedontherequirementsfrom
theworldmarket of tunneling.
To meet theserequirements, technologies of TBM
are also developed at the same time. The recent
Table1. Groupingof thepapersinSession2.
Num. of
Topics papers Authors
1. Constructionmethods 6papers
withcasestudies
1.1Boredtunnel by (3) Bakker & Bezuijen
TBM (shield (A, B) Heet al.
tunneling)
1.2Shotcretemethod (3) SfrisoGuatteri et al.
(mountaintunneling Fillibeck&Vogt
method, NATM)
2. GroundTreatment 5papers
2.1Groundfreezing (2) Hu& Pi
Fillibeck&Vogt
2.2Grouting (4) Guatteri et al.
Bezuijen& vanTol
Gafar et al
Fillibeck&Vogt
3. Loadandpressure 7papers
3.1Liningpressure (5) Hashimotoet al.
Talmon& Bezuijen
Talmonet al.
Bakker & Bezuijen
(A, B)
3.2PressureonTBM (4) Bezuijen& Bakker
Song& Zhou
Bakker & Bezuijen
(A, B)
4. Conditioning 2papers Hajialilue-Bonab
additivesfor EPB et al. (A, B)
5. Ohters 3papers Deng& Zhang
Kuzme& Hrustinec
Li et al.
99
Table2. Current trendinshieldtunneling.
Longdistance 3km10km
Highspeedexcavation 300m1000m/month
Deepexcavation 40m100m
Largecrosssection 10m15mof diameter
Deformedcrosssection 2faces4faces, non-circular
Highdurabilityof tunnel 100years
Cost performance Not cheapbut highquality
withreasonablecost
Table3. Geotechnical aspects for bored tunneling (shield
tunneling).
TBM type Bothof slurryandEPB typeinthe
soft soil withgroundwater
Applicableground Soft tostiff clay, loosetodensesand,
gravel
Groundloss Possibletobecontrolledlessthan
0.11%innormal condition
Facestability Needsomecontrollingtechnologies
for eachslurrytypeor EPB type
Fillingtail void Simultaneousgroutingcanreduce
groundlossandgiveanuniform
distributionof liningpressure
Segmental lining Manytypesof segmental lininghave
beendeveloped
development of TBM andits technologies areshown
asfollowing:
Durabilityof TBM
Durabilityof cutter bits
Exchangeablecutter bits
Installationof linings, newsegmental linings
Drivingcontrol system
Dockingmethod
Backfill grouting
In the practice of bored tunneling by TBM, the
geotechnical aspectsshowninTable3areof themost
importanceandshouldbewell considered.
Bakker & Bezuijen (A, B) shared their invaluable
experiences and findings on shield tunneling in soft
groundobtainedinlasttenyears. Duringtheconstruc-
tion of the 2nd Heinenoord Tunnel that is approxi-
matelyinthemiddleunderneaththeriver OudeMaas
intheNetherlands.Theyfoundoutthatbecauseblow-
out occurred during TBM driving under the river,
facesupportpressuredroppedwithin15secondsafter
thecutter faceworking, shownasFigure1.According
totheirinvestigation,theypointedoutthatfacesupport
pressureshouldbecontrolledbetweenlowerandupper
limits for situations withlittleoverburdenor thesoil
cover itself isrelativelylight. Wealsoareinterestedin
the15seconds, whichindictedthat thefront insta-
bility occuredwithout any omen, acareful control of
front pressureis necessary. Someanalysis results of
Figure 1. Support pressures before, during and after the
Blow out at the 2nd Heinenoord tunnel (by Bakker &
Bezuijen (A)).
Figure 2. Surface settlements; measured and back-
calculated with different material models (by Bakker &
Bezuijen (A)).
surfacesettlement werealsodisplayed, showninFig-
ure2. Itwasconcludedthatfor anadequateprediction
of deformationsit isimportant tomodel thegrouting
pressureasaboundarycondition, incombinationwith
theuseof small strainmaterial model.
As to the structure issues of the 2nd Heinenoord
Tunnel, Bakker & Bezuijen (B) investigatedthecrack-
ingandpallingthatoccurredduetoconstructionload,
seeFigure3. Thenalargescaletunnel ringtestswas
carried out, shown as Figure 4. By combining the
model tests as well as numerical tests, it was found
that theusageof kaubit intheringjoint wasthemain
reason.Thecompressionof theflexiblekaubitstripsby
jackingforceresultedinaslippingof differentsegment
piece, leadingtolocal stressconcentrationandirreg-
ular deformation. Byreplacingitwithstiffer plywood
plates, thedamagewasprevented.Theinfluenceof the
durationof plywoodtothelong-termbehavior of tun-
nel, however, isstill questionable. Duringconstruction
of thefirst tubefor theWesternscheldt Tunnel, they
foundout that highgrout pressuresandinabsenceof
beddingmaycausethebucklingof theTBM.Certainly,
100
Figure3. Damageto thedowel and notch sockets during
thefirst 150mof constructionof the2ndHeinenoordtunnel
(byBakker & Bezuijen (B)).
Figure 4. Large-scale tunnel ring testing (by Bakker &
Bezuijen).
someotherfactorsthatwerenotdiscussedinthepaper
mayalsocauseTBM deformation.
He et al. studiedthefirst applicationof DOT tun-
neling in Shanghai. They conducted an in-situ test
to investigatethedistribution of stress and displace-
ment around thetunnel. Figure5 shows thevertical
soil stress increment ahead of cutter face. Beauti-
ful distribution of vertical earth pressure increment
andsettlement troughs wereobserved. It is expected
that more detailed information about the measuring
methodscanbegivenout. They alsoreportedaDOT
shield passed under afive-floor building with adis-
tanceof 1msuccessfullybycareful operation, shown
as Figure6. Themaincountermeasures wererelative
lowadvancingspeedandextrabackfill grouting.
Figure5. Thevertical stressincrementin1.5maheadof the
openingface(byHe et al.).
Figure 6. Dot shield tunnel run across the buildings
(byHe et al.).
2.2 Shotcrete method (Mountain tunnel
method, NATM)
Thegeotechnical aspectsof shotcretemethod(Moun-
taintunnel method,NATM)aresummarizedinTable4.
Thedesign and construction procedures of Metro
tunnels in Buenos Aires from 19982007 were
reported by Sfriso. The characterization of Buenos
Airessoilsfortunnelingisoverconsolidatedcemented
101
Table4. Geotechnical aspectsof shotcretemethod(moun-
taintunnel method, NATM).
Facestability Prelining, facebolt, horizontal
grouting, piperoof, shotcrete,
et al.
Settlement mitigation Facestabilization, shotcrete,
foot pile, rockbolt, minibench,
groundimprovement (jet
grouting, chemical grouting,
compensationgrouting, et al.)
Geological survey Geophysical survey(elastic
wave, sonicwave, electric
resistivity, et al.), pilot boring
Monitoringtechnology Extensometer, 3Dlaser
scanning, optical fiber sensing,
digital photogrammetric
system, et al.
Predictionof groundwater Loweringof groundwater
inflowandpreservation table, subsidence, dryingwell
of groundwater
soil withN
spt
>20, whichisvery favorablefor exca-
vation. As shown in Figure 7, shotcrete tunneling
methods evolved from German method to Belgian
method, and reached an optimal full face excava-
tion. Cut & cover methodandundergroundexcavated
methodwereusedfor stations. Accordingtothefiled
measurement, the surface settlement is in the range
28mmingeneral, 415mmat stations.
Guatteri et al. described the state-of-the-art of
application of ground improvement with all round
(360

) horizontal jet grouting in Sao Paulo and


Barcelona, shown as Figure 8. Horizontal jet grout-
ing columns were executed around the excavated
section, including the invert, and at the far end of
the conical treatment, to create a watertight cham-
ber. This ground improvement achieves good results
of pre-consolidation, settlement mitigation, reduction
of water flow, and keep of face stability. Accord-
ing to field measurement, ground movements were
controlledwithin2030mm.
Shotcrete excavations with ground freezing, jet
grouting, pipescreenandcompressedair supporting
methods wereappliedintheconstructionof Munich
Subway. Fillibech & Vogt made a comparison of
different methods of facesupport in settlement sen-
sitiveurbanareasbasedonthegrounddeformations.
In the case of heading with ground freezing under
important structure, measurementsfor reducingfrost
heaves were taken, namely reducing operation time
and careful temperaturecontrol. Therecorded verti-
cal displacements inFigure9showthat amaximum
heaveof 35mmwasachieved.Thereportof jetgrout-
ing displayed alargeheavedueto installation of jet
groutingcover, as shown in Figure10. Although the
facestabilityincreases,thesettlementisnotreducedso
Figure7. Various shotcretetunnelingmethods inthecon-
structionof MetrotunnelsinBuenosAires(bySfriso).
muchasexpected.Inthepaper,itispointedoutthatthe
installation of crown supporting measures must lead
to higher safety potential, but it is difficult to judge
whether thesespecial measuresarenecessaryor not.
3 GROUNDTREATMENT
The geotechnical aspects of the two sub-subjects of
ground treatment, ground freezing and grouting, are
summarizedinTable5andTable6.
102
Section Tunnel
Septum
ColumnCCPh
ColumnsCCPh
Figure 8. Ground improvement with all round horizontal
jetgroutingappliedinSaoPauloandBarcelona(byGuatteri
et al.).
Figure 9. Vertical ground surface displacement along a
tunnel protectedbygroundfreezing(byFillibech &Vogt).
TheworkbyBezuijen &vanTol aimedtomakeclear
againstthequestionwhyfracturescanoccurmoreeas-
ilyinthefieldthaninmodel testswiththesameW/C
ratio. Startingfromaconceptual model that shownin
Figure11, theydemonstratedinananalytical waythat
heterogeneityof soil inthefieldandthestressreduc-
tionby theinstallationof pipes (so-calledTAM) and
other causesbeforeinjectionaremainreasons.
Garfa et al. performedasereiesof laboratoryscale
grout injection tests in which various factors affect-
ingfracturingof sandwerestudied. Figure12shows
theschematicdiagramof theexperimental setup. The
experimental resultsconfirmedthatfractureinitiation
Figure10. Largeheavedueto horizontal jet grouting (by
Fillibech &Vogt).
Table5. Geotechnical aspectsongroundfreezing.
Mechanismof freezing Segregationpotential, icelens,
processandevaluationof structureof soil, et al.
laboratoryfreezingtest
Propertyof frozensoils Strength, stiffness, freezing
point, temperature, thermal
conductivity, salinity
consistency, et al.
Frost heaveandthaw Laboratorytesting, prediction,
settlement countermeasure
Applicationof freezing Crosspassage, dockingof
methodonunderground TBMs, launchandarrival of
construction TBM
Table6. Geotechnical aspectsongrouting.
J et grouting Uniformityof improvedsoil, ground
deformationduringjet grouting,
applicablegroundcondition
(boulder, obstacle, et al.)
Groundinjection
Material Chemical grout, micro-cement,
CB, LW, polyurethane, et al.
Grouting Penetrationgrouting,
method compactiongrouting, double
packer, et al.
Evaluationof Fracturing, compactioneffects,
improvement uniformity, strengthening, reduction
of permeability
Settlement Compensationgrouting
control
insandrequiressomelocal inhomogeneityaroundthe
injectionpoint, rapiddevelopmentof afiltercakewith
alimitedthicknessandagroutwithlowviscosityand
a limited yield stress. Grouts with high w/c (water-
cement) ratiowill exhibitfractureswiththeformation
of filter cake. If thew/c is low, no fractures will be
formed.
103
Figure11. Sketchwithpossibledeformationmodesof the
injectionhole(byBezuijen & van Tol ).
Figure12. Schematicdiagramof theexperimental setup(by
Safar et al.).
4 LOADANDPRESSURE
Geotechnical aspects onliningpressureandpressure
actingonTBM aresummarizedinTable7.
Hashimoto et al. analyzedaseriesof observedearth
pressuremeasuredbyPADtypeearthpressurecell in
soft clay, stiff clayandsandrespectively. It wasfound
thatthedistributionsof earthpressureareveryuniform
ineachkindof soils. Intheverysoft clay, alargepor-
tionof theoverburdenwill act uponthelining, while
inthestiff clayandthedensesand, themagnitudeand
distribution of earth pressurealso depend largely on
thebackfill grouting, shownasFigures13& 14.
Talmo &Bezuijen presentedaveryinterestingpaper
onthepredictionof thegroundpressure(liningpres-
sure) based on the flow theory of backfill grout in
combinationwiththetimedependentconsolidationof
groutmaterial.Themeasuredresultsandthepredicted
resultsareshowninFigure15. Intheirpaper, theydis-
playedtheresultsthattheliningpressuredropslargely
withtime, shownasFigure16. However, accordingto
theresearch by Hashimoto et al. thelining pressure
Table7. Geotechnical aspectsonliningpressureandpres-
sureactingonTBM.
Liningpressure Liningpressureduringconstruction
for design andat longterm, magnitudeand
distributionof pressure, effectsof
backfill grouting(groutingpressure
andmaterials), soil typesandground
condition
Longitudinal Backfill grouting, liveloadanddead
deformationand loaddistribution, subsoil reaction, et al
bendingof tube
PressureonTBM Backfill groutingpressure, jackforce,
slurrypressure, greasepressureat tail
seal, earthpressureat aface, driving
control of TBM, shapeandrigidityof
shield, subsoil reaction, tround
deformationbypressureandload
fromTBM
Figure 13. p

v
,p

v0
vs. 2C,p
v0
in clayey ground (by
Hashimoto et al.).
dropisverysmall.Themaindifferencesareconsidered
tobethegrout material andinjectionmethods.
Talmon et al. studied the longitudinal tube bend-
ing due to grout pressure. They carried out beam
actioncalculationusinginputparametersof thebend-
ingmoment byTBM jacks, transverseforcebyTBM,
vertical grout pressure gradient behind TBM, load-
ingdiagramandunsupportedlengthof tunnel lining
inTBM, et al. Thecalculatedresult fitstheobserved
onestosomeextent, shownasFigure17.
Bezuijen & Bakker described the interaction
betweentheslurry fromthefaceandthegrout from
thetail, seeFigure18. Thepressuredistributionalong
thelongitudinal directionof TBM iscalculatedtheo-
retically based on thepressureloss (LP) dueto the
flow.ThecalculatedresultisshowninFigure19.They
104
Figure14. p

v
,p

v0
vs.SPT-Ninsandyground(byHashimoto
et al.).
Figure 15. Meausred and calculated grout pressures (by
Talmo & Bezuijen).
foundthatLP dependsontheshear stressof thegrout
along theTBM (
r
), gap betweenTBM and ground,
andlengthincrement alongtheTBM.
Song & Zhou did a research work on the earth
pressure distribution of excavation chamber in EPB
tunneling. Accordingtotheir work, thetotal support-
ingpressurecanbecomposedbytwoparts: (1) Earth
supportingpressureP
E
inworkingchamber; (2) Cut-
ter head plane supporting pressure P
P
. The authors
proposedanestimationmethodof earthpressureratio
based on the empirical relation among cutter head
torque, trapezoidal shape of pressure distribution,
Figure16. Dropsof liningpressurewithtime(byTalmo&
Bezuijen).
Figure 17. Measured and calculated bending moments
compared (Groene Hart Tunnel, the Netherlands) (by
Talmon et al.).
opiningratioof cutter face. They foundthat EPSR in
clayislarger thanthat incobbleandsand.
5 CONDITIONINGADDITIVESFOR EPB
Required properties of conditioned soil for EPB are
summarized in Table 8. Until now, there are many
types of conditioningadditives havebeenutilizedin
practice, including slurry, foam, polymer, water (for
clayeyground), cellulose, sodiumalginate, et al.
TherearemanydataintheworldespeciallyinJ apan
for this subject, but thesedatahas not been summa-
rized in general. In Session 2, there are two papers
by Hajialiue-Bonal et al. concerningconditionaddi-
tivesfor EPB. Thetwopapersdescribedthefollowing
resultsfromlaboratorytest for foamandconditioned
sandybyfoam:
1 Polymer typefoamshowsagoodstability;
2 Withsomecombination, foam/sandmixtureshave
highcompressibility;
105
Figure18. Possibleflowdirections andsketchedpressure
distributionsalongtheTBM.
Figure19. Pressuresandjoint widthalongaTBM.
3 The soil conditioning by foamcause decrease of
shear strength(c, +);
4 WhenFoamExpansionRatiois10-FER-18,the
changeof strengtharenegligible.
6 CONCLUSIONS
Thepapersinthissessionprovideabundantcasestud-
iestoadvanceour knowledgeof tunnel constructions,
Table8. Requiredpropertiesof conditionedsoil for EPB.
Highflowability Lowshear strength, reductionof
cuttingtorqueandwear of cutter bits,
stableandprecisemonitoringof earth
pressureinworkingchamber
Impermeability Preventionof water inflowandpiping
High Reducingearthpressurefluctuation
compressibility duringexcavation
Uniformity Preventionof water inflowandpiping,
precisemonitoringof earthpressure
and many new technologies developed in recent
yearswereintroduced. Thisisparticularly important,
because through case study, we can understand the
advantage,disadvantage,applicablefield,andfeasibil-
ityof thenewconstructionmethodsandtechnologies.
Somepapersintroducednewmonitoringandmea-
suringtechnologies. This is also animportant aspect
for tunnel construction. On-time and accurate mon-
itoring and measuring can maketunnel construction
workquicker, safer, andmoreeconomical. Of course,
abundance of measuring data help us analyze and
understand the mechanism and the essence of the
interactionbetweentunnel structureandground.
Predictionandtheoretical analysis was concerned
in some papers. In general, prediction and analysis
results were compared with observed results to ver-
ify their validity. But weshould pay attention to the
limitationandapplicablefieldof thesemethods.
REFERENCES
Bakker K.J. & BezuijenA. 10 years of bored tunnelling in
the Netherlands: Part I geotechnical issures.
Bakker K.J. & BezuijenA. 10 years of bored tunnelling in
the Netherlands: Part II structureal issures.
BezuijenA. & Bakker K.J. The influence of flow around a
TBM machine.
Bezuijen A. & van Tol A.F. Mechanisms that determine
betweenfractureandcompactiongroutinginsand.
ChongH., Li T. &YanJ. The double-o-tube shield tunnel in
Shanghai soil.
DengZ.G. &ZhangQ.H. Research of non-motor vehicle -rail
transit-tube interchanging transport system pattern.
FillibeckJ. &Vogt. N. Shotcrete excavations for the Munich
subway Comparison of different methods of face support
in settlement sensitive areas.
Gafar K., Soga K., Bezuijen A., Sanders M.P.M. &
vanTol A.F. Fracturing of sand in compensation grouting.
Guatteri G., Koshima A., Lopes R., Ravaglia A. &
Pieroni M.R. Historical cases and use of horizontal
jet grouting solutions with 360 distribution and frontal
septum to consolidate very weak and saturated soils.
Hajialilue-Bonab M., Ahmadi-adli M., Sabetamal H. &
Katebi H. The effects of sample dimension and grada-
tion on shear strength parameters of conditioned soils in
EPBM.
106
Hajialilue-Bonab M., Sabetamal H., Katebi H. & Ahmadi-
adli. M. Experimental study on compressibility behavior
of foamed sandy soil.
Hashimoto T., Ye G.L., Nagaya J., Konda T. & Ma X.F.
Study on earth pressure acting upon shield tunnel lining
in clayey and sandy ground based on field monitoring.
Hu X.D. & Pi A. Frozen soil properties for cross passage
construction in Shanghai Yangtze River Tunnel.
Kuzma K. The influence of engineering-geological condi-
tions on the construction of radioactive waste dump.
Li Z.X., HanX. &WangK.S. Critical ventilation velocity in
large cross-section road tunnel fire.
Sfriso A. O. Metro tunnels in Buenos Aires: Design and
onstructionprocedures19982007.
SongT.T. & ZhouS.H. Study on the Earth Pressure Distri-
bution of Excavation Chamber in EPB tunneling.
TalmonA.M. & BezuijenA. Backfill grouting research at
Groene Hart Tunnel.
TalmonA.M., BezuijenA. &HoefslootF.J. Longitudinal tube
bending due to grout pressures.
107
Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground Ng, Huang & Liu (eds)
2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-48475-6
Physical andnumerical modelling
P.L.R. Pang
Geotechnical Engineering Office, Civil Engineering and Development Department,
Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, HKSAR
ABSTRACT: This General Report has been prepared based on areviewof twenty papers submitted to the
session on Physical and numerical modelling related to geotechnical aspects of underground construction.
The papers cover a wide range of model feature types in different materials. The problems studied include
ground/tunnel facestability, ground/tunnel deformationandearthpressures, ground/tunnel-structureinteraction,
seismicbehaviour, andvehiclefiresinaroadtunnel. Thisreport highlightsanddiscussestheapproachesused
inmodellingandpresentsthekey findings. Someremarksaregivenat theendontheobjectivesof modelling
andtheworkof TC28.
1 INTRODUCTION
20papershavebeensubmittedtothissession(Table1).
Threeof thepapersarejointcontributionsfromauthors
of twocountries.
The papers cover a wide range of model feature
types (Table 2). These include tunnels in clay, sand,
aluminumrods (modellingagranular mass), layered
soils, aswell astunnelsinsoftorweakrock.Thereisa
paper onmodellingof deepexcavationswithstepped-
twinretainingwalls, andapaper onvehiclefiresina
roadtunnel.
2 PHYSICAL MODELLING
Eleven papers present results of physical modelling
(Table3). Theseincludesix models at 1g, aphotoe-
lasticmodel andfour centrifugemodels.
Table1. Geographicdistributionof thepapers.
Country Papers
China 5
China/France 1
Denmark 1
France 1
Italy 1
Italy/UK 1
J apan 2
J apan/UK 1
Korea 4
TheNetherlands 1
UK 2
20
For thethreemodels that usealuminumrods, the
testswerecarriedoutat1g. Numerical modellingwas
also carried out to compare with the results of the
1gtests.
Thesandmodel at1gwaspreparedbycompaction
of the sand using a plate vibrator. The compaction
could have created locked-in compaction stresses
on the model braced wall and the adjacent tunnel
thus influencing themodel test results. This was not
discussedinthepaper.
Twopaperspresentresultsof modellingof rocktun-
nel problemsusing1gtests. Oneusedbaritepowder,
sandandplaster mixedwithwater, andtheother used
concretebrickstomodel thesoftrock.Therewassome
discussiononthemodellinglawsinthepapers. While
theconclusionsonthequalitativebehaviour seemrea-
sonable, and arenot unexpected, it is not sureif the
quantitativeresultsarevalidat prototypescalewhere
discontinuitiesintherockandthehigher stresslevels
couldinfluencethemagnitudeof thedeformations.
Table2. Featuretypescoveredinthepapers.
Featuretype Papers
Tunnelsin:
(a) Clay 5
(b) Sand 3
(c) Aluminumrods/crushedglass 4
(d) Layeredsoils 3
(e) Soft/weakrock 3
Deepexcavation(aluminumrods) 1
Vehiclefiresinroadtunnel 1
20
109
Table3. Papersonphysical modelling.
Techniqueandscale 2D/3D Materialsused Papers
Laboratory1gmodel 2D Aluminumrods 3
(scales: 1/10, Sand 1
1/19, 1/80) Baritepowder/ 1
sand/ plaster
Concretebricks 1
Photoelasticmodels 2D Crushedglass 1
Centrifugemodels 3D Clay 1
(75g, 100g, 160g) Sand 2
Sandoverlying 1
clay
There are four papers on centrifuge tests. One of
thepapersistostudytheeffectsof pileloadingonan
existingtunnel inanoverconsolidatedclay, twoareon
centrifugetestswheredrysandwasusedtoconstruct
themodels for studyingtheinteractionmechanisms,
and one on tunnelling in an overconsolidated clay
overlainbysandunder thewater table.
3 NUMERICAL MODELLING
18 papers present numerical modelling results
(Table4). Different numerical modelling techniques
wereused.
14 out of these 18 papers used either 2D or 3D
codes based on the finite difference method (FDM)
or the finite element method (FEM). Some of the
codes, e.g. CRISP, FLACandPLAXIS, arewell estab-
lishedcodesandthe2Dversionsarecommonlyusedin
current engineeringpractice. Intheanalyses, thesoil
was modelled either as alinear elastic or an elastic-
perfectly plastic material withtheMohr-Coulombor
Drucker Prager failurecriterion. Whereacomparison
was made, the elastoplastic model performed better
thantheelasticmodel.
In one paper, a slope stability analysis program
SLOPE/W based on the limit equilibrium method
was used to compute the factors of safety of a clay
slope. Theresults werecomparedwiththeresults of
FLACandPLAXISwhichusedthestrengthreduction
method. However, noinformationisgivenonthethe-
oretical method used (afew options areavailablein
SLOPE/WsuchasJ anbu, BishopandMorgenstern&
Price) and the choice of slip surfaces, which could
affect thecomputedsafety factors. Also, noinforma-
tionisgivenonwhattheslopedeformationandthesoil
shear strainwere, whenthesoil strengthisreducedfor
thefactor of safetytoapproachunity.
A visco-elastic model adopting a nonlinear rela-
tionshipbetweenthenormalizedshear modulus (and
dampingratio)andtheshearstrainamplitudewasused
for a 1D ground dynamic shear response analysis.
The code EERA was used for the analysis, the
objective of this study was to calibrate a linear
visco-elastic, effectivestressbased, constitutivemodel
for use in coupled 2D dynamic analyses using the
finiteelement programPLAXIS. Theviscous damp-
ingwasaccountedfor usingtheRayleighformulation
(Woodward& Griffiths, 1996).
Thesubloadingtij finiteelementmodel (developed
by Nakai & Hinokio (2004)) was used in two cases
to provideresults for comparing with physical mod-
ellingat 1gwhichusedaluminumrods inthemodel
tests. Thetij model takes into account theinfluence
of theintermediateprincipal stress by introducing a
modifiedstresstij. Also, thesubloadingconcept(pro-
posedbyHashiguchi (1980)) isadoptedtomodel the
influence of soil density. Five of the seven param-
eters in the tij model are the same as those in the
Cam-clay model, with onemoreparameter added to
describe the influence of soil density and confining
pressure, andanother parameter addedtocharacterize
theshapeof theyieldsurface. Laboratorybiaxial tests
were carried out to compare the stress-strain curves
obtained from the finite element program FEMtij-
2D. In the biaxial tests, shearing of the aluminum
rods, whichhadlowfrictionangles, induceddilatant
behaviour.Thematchbetweenthebiaxial testsandthe
finiteelement analysisresultsappearsreasonablebut
this is up to ashear strain level of about 12%only
(Figure1).
TheDistinct Element codeUDEC wasusedinone
casetocomparewiththeresultsof large-scalemodel
testscarriedout usingconcretebrickstomodel rock.
However, thepaper doesnot indicatehowthediscon-
tinuitiesintherock weremodelled. For theother two
papers ontunnels inrock, thenumerical simulations
werecarriedout usingfiniteelement codes adopting
an elastoplastic rock model with theDrucker-Prager
failurecriterion. It seemsthat theneedfor modelling
the discontinuities that may be present in the rock
was not considered. It is not too clear fromthetwo
papers howtherock parameters weredeterminedfor
thecontinuummodelsandthefieldprototypes.
Results obtained from closed form solutions
derived using upper bound limit analysis were pre-
sented in two of the papers, for comparison with
the results of centrifuge modelling and numerical
modellingrespectively.
The Fire Dynamics Simulator code incorporating
alargeeddy simulationmodel was usedto carry out
computational fluiddynamics modelling. Theobjec-
tive of this work was to study the heat release rates
fromvehiclefiresinaroadtunnel of 15mindiameter.
Thecomputedresultswerecomparedwithanempiri-
cal equation.Thisindicatesthattheempirical equation
requiresimprovementforthecaseof small firesinroad
tunnelswithalargecrosssection.
110
Table4. Papersonnumerical modelling.
Constitutivelaw Modelling Program Papers
Linear elastic 2DFEM PLAXIS 2
Nonlinear visco-elastic 1Dshear EERA 1
Elasto-plastic 2DFEM CRISP, Msc.MARC 2
(Mohr Coulomb) 2DFDM FLAC 1
3DFEM MIDAS-GTS 1
3DFDM FLAC3D 3
Elasto-plastic 3DFEM MARC 2
(Drucker Prager)
Elasto-plastic(Cam 2DFEM FEMij-2D 2
clay+2parameters)
Distinct element 2DDEM UDEC 1
Rigid-plastic Limit analysis Closedformsolution 2
Largeeddysimulation CFD FireDynamicsSimulator 1
Figure1. Stress-strain-dilatancyrelation.
4 PROBLEMSSTUDIED
Theproblemsstudiedasreportedinthepapersinclude:
1. ground/tunnel facestability(5papers),
2. ground/tunnel deformationandearthpressures (8
papers),
3. ground/tunnel-structureinteraction(5papers),
4. seismicbehaviour (1paper), and
5. vehiclefiresinaroadtunnel (1paper).
A brief reviewof selectedpapersisgivenbelow.
4.1 Ground/tunnel face stability
Thesubject of facestability is avery important one.
If thefacepressureappliedistoolow, therecouldbe
acollapseor excessivegroundsettlement, andif the
facepressureis too high, therecould bea blow-out
failureor excessivegroundheave.
A number of researchers have studied this prob-
lem(e.g. Anagnostou&Kovri, 1994). Thefollowing
papershaveaddedtotheknowledgebase.
Li et al investigated the failure of a large slurry
shield-driven tunnel using upper bound limit anal-
ysis and numerical modelling. The study is for the
15.43mdiameterShanghai YangtzeRiverTunnel con-
structedinsoft clay. A shallowgroundcover section,
with a ground cover to tunnel diameter (C/D) ratio
of 0.7, was selected for thestudy. Undrained condi-
tions wereassumed in themodelling. A multi-block
failuremechanismwithauniformfacepressure(sug-
gestedbySoubra,2002)wasusedforthelimitanalysis.
FLAC3Dwasusedforthenumerical modelling(which
adoptedanelastic-perfectlyplasticconstitutivemodel
withaMohr-Coulombfailurecriterion).Theresultsof
theupper boundlimit analysis andthe3D numerical
modellingshowedthat partial blow-out failureof the
upper part of thetunnel faceoccurs whentheslurry
pressureislarge, whereasglobal collapseof thewhole
tunnel faceoccurs when theslurry pressureis small
(Figure2).
Theauthors noted that thedifferencebetween the
slurry pressure and earth pressure at the crown and
invert for alargediameter slurryTBM tunnel canbe
large and this could have a significant effect on the
failuremechanismandthecritical slurrypressure.The
failuremechanismsandthecritical slurrypressuresat
the tunnel axis level obtained fromthe limit analy-
sisandthenumerical modellingagreewell witheach
other (Figure3).
Caporaletti et al reviewedthepast researchontun-
nel stability in undrained conditions (Davis, et al,
1980; Kimura& Mair, 1981; Sloan&Assadi, 1992),
in drained conditions (Atkinson & Potts, 1977) and
inlayeredground(Grant & Taylor, 2000). They con-
ductedcentrifugeteststoinvestigatethestabilityof a
circular tunnel in layered ground, with clay overlain
byamediumdensesandylayer, belowthewater table.
TheC/Dratioof thetunnel was2.38.Theclaywascon-
solidated fromaslurry, to givean overconsolidation
ratiorangingbetween1.4and2.8withdepth.All tests
111
Figure2. Twokindsof partial failuremechanisms.
werecarriedoutat160g. Theconditionof tunnel col-
lapsewas takenas volumeloss greater than20%. In
thecentrifugetests themechanismof failurefor the
layered ground involved a wide area of soil both in
sand and in clay, with pseudo-vertical settlements at
thesand-clayinterface(Figure4).
Itwasfoundthatthecontributiontostabilitydueto
frictionactingwithintheupper sandlayer represented
asignificant contribution. A significant overestimate
of the tunnel support pressures to prevent collapse
might result if the theoretical solutions obtained for
homogenousclaysareusedwiththesandlayer treated
as a surcharge. The authors proposed a new failure
mechanismwhich provided an upper bound to the
experimental data obtained (Figure 5). It would be
interesting to examine whether the proposed mech-
anismisapplicablefor thecaseof aloosesandlayer.
Date et al carried out a series of centrifuge tests
at 75g to investigate the ground deformation pat-
terns during excavation of tunnels in dry sand. The
C/Dratioof themodel tunnelswasone, andsomeof
themodels incorporatedreinforcements. Theground
deformation was found to be small even when the
facepressurewas reducedto half theinitial pressure
of 100kPa, but oncemovement started upon further
reductionof thefacepressureitincreasedsharplylead-
ingto instantaneous collapse(i.e. abrittlefailure).
Figure 3. Comparison of failure mechanisms of Case 2
(velocitycontour for FLAC
3D
analysis).
Figure 4. Mechanism of failure from centrifuge tests
(VL

=20%).
The model tests without reinforcement collapsed at
a support pressure which agrees with the centrifuge
test results of Chambon & Cort (1994). The study
found that introduction of face bolts and forepoling
yieldeddifferent tunnel collapsemechanisms, which
dependedonthedensityof thefaceboltsandforepol-
ingbolts. Surprisingly, thereinforcementscontributed
112
Figure5. Mechanismof failurefor layeredground.
Figure6. Tunnel failurepatternsonthelongitudinal section.
to only a slight reduction in the support pressure
requiredtokeepthetunnel facestable,comparedtothe
case without reinforcement. The face bolts installed
stiffenedthegroundaheadof thefaceandwerefound
to beableto reducethefaceextrusion. Theforepol-
ingdividedthegroundaroundthetunnel faceintotwo
zones, withtheouterzoneforminganarchcomprising
the forepoling bolts. The geometries of the collapse
mechanisms are similar to those observed by other
researchers for tunnels in sands, e.g. as reported by
Chambon& Cort(1994) andMair &Taylor (1997).
They all involve a narrow chimney, propagating
almost vertically fromthe tunnel up to the ground
surface(Figure6).
FLAC3Danalyseswerealsocarriedout.TheMohr-
Coulomb soil model with strain softening/hardening
wasfoundtogiveabetter matchtothecentrifugedata
thantheMohr-Coulombmodel without strainsoften-
ing/hardening.Thedeformationpatternobtainedfrom
theanalysisforamodel reinforcedwithfaceboltswas
similar tothatof thecentrifugetestbutthemagnitude
was smaller. Theauthors recommendedto study fur-
ther theeffectof meshshapeandtheeffectof changes
Figure7. Measuredexcessporepressureinfrontof aslurry
shieldandapproximation.
insoil-bolt interactionproperties uponexcavationin
thenumerical analyses.
Theinformationonfailuremechanisms presented
intheabovepapersisinterestinganduseful. Thereis
recent improvement inunderstandingof theground-
tunnellinginteractionprocessesassociatedwithinflu-
ence of grouting pressures, removal of the filter
cake and the pore pressures generated during the
advanceof aslurryTBM(Figure7).Thiswasachieved
throughfieldmeasurementsobtainedduringconstruc-
tion (Bezuijen & Talmon, 2008). Further data and
study in this area will no doubt augment theresults
of existinglaboratoryandanalytical modelling, which
havenotaccountedfor suchprocesses. Further under-
standing of theprocesses could help to evaluatethe
needtorefinethecalculationmodelsanddesignmeth-
odsforestimationof facepressuresrequiredtoprevent
collapseandblow-out.
4.2 Ground/tunnel deformation and earth
pressures
A number of papers inthis sessionpresent results of
modellingtostudy thegrounddeformationandearth
pressuresaroundatunnel.
Shahinet al developedanewcircular tunnel appa-
ratus and conducted 1g model tests to examine the
groundmovementsinducedbytunnellingandtheearth
pressures around the tunnels. Aluminumrods were
usedtomodel agranular soil mass.Thesurfacesettle-
ment was measured using a laser typedisplacement
transducer with an accuracy of 0.01mm, and pho-
tographs were taken during the experiments which
were later used as input for the assessment of the
groundmovementsusingtheParticleImageVelocime-
try technique (White et al, 2003). To compare with
the model test results, numerical simulations were
carried out using 2D finite element analyses under
plane strain and drained conditions. The computer
program FEMtij-2D was used. The initial stresses
113
Figure8. Distributionof shear strain: tunnel invertisfixed.
appliedcorrespondto theself-weight condition. Two
C/Dratios, viz. 1and2, wereexamined.Theeffectsof
full faceexcavation(withthecentreof theexcavation
keptfixed) andtopdriftexcavation(withtheinvertof
thetunnel kept fixed) werealso studied. Thesurface
settlement andearthpressuresaroundthetunnel were
foundto besignificantly influencedby thedisplace-
mentatthetunnel crownfor thesameoverburdenand
samevolumeloss.Thevolumelosswaslesssignificant
comparedtothecrowndrift inthecaseof theshallow
tunnel.Thefull faceexcavationcaseproducedawider
shear deformationregionthanthat for thecaseof top
driftexcavation(Figure8). Theuseof anelastoplastic
soil model producedbetter matchwiththemodel test
surfacesettlement profilethananelastic soil model.
Thedistributionof earthpressures aroundthetunnel
dependedontheexcavationpattern. Theauthorsindi-
catedthatthenumerical simulationsweregenerallyin
goodagreement withthemodel test results. However,
it is no clear whether thetij finiteelement model is
capable of describing the behaviour of tunnels con-
structedinreal soilsespecially insoilswhichexhibit
contractilebehaviour.
Lianget al studiedtheeffectsof soil stratification
on tunnelling-induced ground movements. 3D anal-
yses were carried out using the computer program
FLAC3D.Thebehaviourof the2.47mdiameter Thun-
der Bay sewer tunnel inCanada, constructedusinga
TBM withsegmental concretelining, insoft to firm
clayswithsiltandsandseams, wassimulated.TheC/D
ratioof thetunnel was3.8.Thesoil strataweredivided
into four sub-layers for thepurposeof theanalyses.
Figure9. Lateral displacement15mbehindthetunnel face.
The ground surface settlement, lateral displacement
profileat 15mbehindthetunnel faceandthesubsur-
facesettlement withdepthabovethetunnel axisfrom
theanalyses werecomparedwiththeanalysis results
obtained by Lee & Rowe (1991) using the FEM3D
program(also based on an elastoplastic soil model).
Theywerealsocomparedwiththefielddatareported
byBelshaw&Palmer(1978).Additional comparisons
werecarriedout withtheanalytical solutiongivenby
Loganathan& Poulos (1998). Thestudy showedthat
theelastoplastic soil model couldsimulatethedefor-
mationprofilesbetter thanthosebasedontheelastic
model.Theresultsof theelastoplasticsoil model indi-
cated that soil stratification had little effects on the
groundsurfacesettlementbutsignificantlyinfluenced
the lateral displacement and subsurface settlement
profiles (Figure9). This was different fromtheelas-
tic soil model whichpredictedthat soil stratification
had significant effects in all cases. This is an inter-
esting casehistory of benchmarking a3D computer
programusing data froma past project, illustrating
the value of documenting good data and making it
availablefor research.
Song et al studied the time-dependent behaviour
of soft ground tunnels constructed using steel rein-
forcementsgroutedintothegroundaheadof atunnel
114
Figure10. Time-dependent characteristics of elastic wave
velocitiesof asand-cement mixture.
(atechniquewhichtheauthorscalledthereinforced
protectiveumbrellamethod). Laboratorydirectshear
testsandPandSwavevelocitytests(usingpiezoelec-
tric bender elements) were carried out to determine
thestrengthandstiffnessof thesand-cement mixture
at different curingtimes. Thetest resultsshowedthat
thesand-cement mixturegainedsignificant increases
in stiffness after about 6 hours whereas the appar-
ent cohesion increased to about 2MPa after 7 days
(Figure10).
3D finiteelement analyses werecarriedout using
acomputer programMIDAS-GTS(2005) tosimulate
thebehaviour of such atunnel. Thetunnel is 18.8m
wideand10.4mhigh, at 15mbelowground. It was
constructedinweatheredrock, using12mlongsteel
pipesasreinforcement. Thewater tablewasatground
surface.Theanalysesincorporatedthetime-dependent
material properties of thesand-cement mixture. The
excavation rate was taken as 0.75m per day. The
studyconcludedthat useof the23daysstrengthand
stiffness parameters was adequatefor predicting the
time-dependent deformation behaviour, for practical
designpurposes, providedthatthereissufficientover-
lapbetweenthereinforcements. Nocomparisonwith
anyfieldperformancemonitoringresultswashowever
presented.
Leeet al studiedthebehavior of a2-archrocktun-
nel usingalarge-scaletestmachine(6mwide6.5m
high). Themodel tests(1/19scale) wereconductedat
1g.Therockwasmodelledusingconcretebricks.The
tests showed that the ground displacements induced
by tunnelling were mainly within a zone of 0.25D
fromthetunnel, whereD is thetunnel width. Hori-
zontal displacements of morethan 40%and vertical
displacements more than 20% of the total displace-
mentsoccurredduringexcavationof thepilot tunnel.
Theauthors suggestedthat thestability of the2-arch
tunnel couldbedominatedbythestabilityof thepilot
tunnel excavationandthat therockbolt lengthshould
be longer than 0.25D. Displacements obtained from
UDEC analyses werepresented. Whiletheseshowed
the same pattern, details of the analyses were not
given. Based on thelimited measurements obtained,
theauthorssuggestedthat therock loadactingonthe
centrepillar of the2-archtunnel may betakento be
0.15Wfor preliminarydesign, whereWisthecentre-
to-centredistancebetweentheleft andright tunnels,
whentheRMR of therock massismorethan60. No
numerical analyses were carried out. More research
wasrecommendedtoconfirmtheproposedempirical
relationship. It wouldbeuseful toexaminetheinflu-
enceof rockdiscontinuitiesandtheeffectof rockblock
sizerelativetothetunnel diameter.
4.3 Ground/tunnel-structure interaction
Broere&Dijkstrainvestigatedtheinfluenceof tunnel
volumelossonpilesusingthephotoelastictechnique.
2Dplanestrainmodel testswereconductedtoexamine
the tunnel-pile interaction. Crushed glass (a photo-
elasticmaterial)wasusedtomodel thesoil.Theeffects
of volume loss were simulated by making the tun-
nel diameter contract vertically. Fromthetests, it was
found that significant stress changes occurred close
tothepiletips. Thetests withavolumeloss of 0.6%
showed a clear influence of the volume loss on the
stresses near thepiletips up to onetunnel diameter
away. Thestudysuggestedthat theinfluencezonefor
displacementpileswithbothendbearingandskinfric-
tion, might beslightlylarger thanfor boredpileswith
endbearingalone. Theauthors indicatedthat further
fieldobservations, model testingandnumerical mod-
ellingarerequiredtodeterminetheinfluencezone.
Lee & Yoo studied the ground shear strain pat-
ternsdevelopedaroundatunnel andtheexistingpiles
nearby dueto tunnel construction. Small-scalelabo-
ratory model tests at 1gwereconducted. Aluminum
rods wereused to model thesoil mass and thepiles
embedded in it. A tunnel diameter reduction system
capable of achieving a tunnel volume loss of up to
20%wasspeciallydeveloped. Thestrainedcontrolled
testscarriedout usingthissystemresultedinground
shear strainswhichwerecapturedbycloserangepho-
togrammetry. 3Dnumerical analyseswerealsocarried
outusingthefiniteelementprogramCRISP. Compar-
ison between thephysical model tests and thefinite
element analysesshowedgoodagreement intermsof
shear strain patterns. Based on the maximumshear
115
Figure11. Schematicillustrationof shear strainmodesfor
pile-soil-tunnellinginteraction.
straincontours, twodistinctshear strainpatternswere
observed, viz. withandwithouttunnel-pileinteraction
(Figure11). Theboundary betweenthesetwo modes
of behaviour dependedonthelocationof thepiletip
fromthetunnel andthemagnitudeof thetunnel vol-
ume loss. The authors suggested that this boundary
might serveasauseful guideintheplanningthetun-
nel alignment inareaswherepilesarepresent. It may
beworthwhileto comparetheresults given in these
paperswiththefindingsof J acobszetal (2004; 2005)
fromcentrifugetestsandSelemetaset al (2005) from
fieldtests.
Yao et al studied the effects of loading of bored
pilesonexistingtunnels. Centrifugemodel testswere
carried out at 100g. The model tunnel was formed
in firmto stiff clay consolidated froma slurry. The
tunnel liningdeformation, porepressures intheclay,
pileloadapplied, pilesettlementsandtunnel facepres-
suresweremonitoredwhilethepileloadingwasbeing
applied.TwoC/Dratios, viz. 2and3, werestudied.The
tests examined thebehaviour after pileconstruction.
Theinfluenceof pileexcavationwasnotconsidered.In
theteststhepilebasewassetattwodifferentpositions:
tunnel crownandinvert level. Therateof loadingwas
designedtocreateundrainedconditions. Preliminary
analysisof theresultsindicatedthatthepilesettlement
hadalinear relationshipwithincreaseinappliedload
whentheloadexceedshalf thedesignedultimateload.
Thetunnel centrealwaysmoveddownwardsandaway
fromthe pile. Increasing the pile-tunnel clear spac-
ingreducedthedeformationof thetunnel lining. The
longpilehadmoreeffectonthetunnel liningthanthe
shortpileregardlessof theC/Dratio.Thetunnel crown
wasalwayssubjecttosignificantmovementduetopile
loading.
Marshall & Mair investigated the soil-structure
interaction mechanisms resulting from tunnel con-
struction beneath buried pipelines using centrifuge
modelling. The study aimed to validate visually the
interaction mechanisms that account for pipeline
behaviour. Particle Image Velocimetry was used to
measure displacements for characterising the soil-
structure interaction. The model tests were carried
out at 75g, using sand prepared to a relative den-
sityof 90%. TheC/Dratioof thetunnel was2.4. The
studyshowedthatestimationof thetunnel volumeloss
(defined as change in tunnel volume divided by the
original total tunnel volume) usingsoil displacement
data was not simple for sands. This was due to the
uncertainty ontheextent of thedilationandcontrac-
tilebehaviour of thesandaroundthetunnel. Thesoil
volumeloss(definedasthevolumecalculatedbyinte-
gratingthesoil settlement profileanddividingbythe
original total tunnel volume) wasnot alwaysthesame
asthetunnel volumeloss.Themagnitudeof theformer
calculatedat thegroundsurfacecanbegreater or less
thanthelatter. Thecentrifugepipelinetest illustrated
that agapformedbelowthepipelineat atunnel vol-
umeloss of between1and2%. Thegapgrewas the
tunnel volumeloss increased. Thebendingmoments
inducedinthepipeincreasedfromtheonsetof tunnel
volumeloss but didnot appear to besensitiveto the
growthof thegapheight (Figure12).
Lee&Kimstudiedthebehaviour of abracedexca-
vation in sand adjacent to atunnel using large-scale
(1/10 scale) model tests at 1g. Thebraced wall was
subjected to preloading to limit the wall deflections
during the ground excavation. The tunnel was at a
distanceof half thetunnel diameter fromthebraced
wall. Thesand was prepared to arelativedensity of
56%.2Dnumerical analyseswerecarriedoutusingthe
finiteelement programPLAXIS. It is not clear what
constitutivemodel was used for thesand. Thestudy
found that if the wall deflections were significantly
reduced by preloading, the stability of the adjacent
tunnel wouldgreatlyincrease. Themaximumbending
momentandshear forceinthetunnel liningdecreased
duetothepreloading. Thegroundsurfacesettlement
also decreased as a result of preloading. The wall
deflection profiles fromthemodel tests agreed well
withthenumerical analysisresults. Itisnotedthatthe
116
Figure12. Derivationof bendingmomentsfromdeformed
shapeof pipeline(fromPIV data).
sandwascompactedtoconstructthemodels.However,
itisnotclear whatinitial soil stresseswereusedinthe
numerical analyses. Also, noinformationis givenon
whether thewall installationandexcavationsequence
intheanalysesmatchedthoseinthemodel tests.
5 CONCLUDINGREMARKS
In the papers submitted to this session, the mod-
ellingobjectivesaregenerallynotexplicitlystatedbut
they probably include one or more of the following
objectives:
Toobserve/understandcollapsemechanisms
To observe/understand deformation patterns and
interactivebehaviour
Toassess/verifytheusefulnessoraccuracyof theo-
retical solutions,softwareorempirical rulesagainst
laboratory(1gor Ng) model test data
Same, but against fieldmeasurement data
Tobenchmarktheoretical solutionsor software
Topredict fieldperformance
Other than to gain knowledge and to understand
the problem, an important goal of the modelling
researchshouldbetoprovideuseful andreliabletools
or to enhance the existing tools for prediction of
fieldperformance, for useinengineeringpractice. In
this regard, some of the papers have contributed to
thisgoal.
TC28hasrecently set uptwoworkinggroups, one
on databases on underground works and another on
preparingguidelines for comparingfieldor physical
modelling with numerical simulations. Thefirst ini-
tiativewill beuseful formodellersinthatgoodquality
datawill bearchivedsystematicallyfor easyreference
andretrieval, physical modellers couldusetheinfor-
mationtoplantheirresearchandchecktheirmodel test
resultsagainstothersworkforbenchmarkingpurpose,
andnumerical modellers couldusethedatato check
thereliability andlimitations of theexistingtheoret-
ical closed formsolutions and numerical codes. The
secondinitiativewill beuseful for thosewhoarecar-
ryingoutmodellingtounderstandreal behaviour or to
validatenumerical codes.
Oneof thedatabasesonundergroundworkscould
includefailures observedinmodel tests andfailures
inactual projects. Datainthelatter categoryaremore
difficult toobtainunlessthereisaforensicinvestiga-
tionandtheinformationissubsequentlymadepublicly
available. Information on failures would be invalu-
abletoprovidelessonslearnt, forcalibrationof design
methods andfor providinginsights for risk manage-
ment. If thisistoproceed, thentheremaybemerit to
collect dataonthesizeof thefailureinfluencezones
for different groundandgeometrical conditions, and
alsothetimefor anycavitycreatedatdepthtomigrate
tothegroundsurface. Suchinformationispotentially
useful forriskmanagement,inparticular,forpreparing
monitoring plans, planning of risk mitigation mea-
sures, andpreparationof emergencypreparednessand
contingencyplans.
Another database will be on monitoring results.
For such databases, the monitoring data should be
accompanied by the necessary data on ground and
groundwater conditions, the way the soil and rock
parameterswasmeasuredandinterpreted, themethod
of wall installation, informationongroundtreatment
and the sequence of construction. Such data would
allow numerical modellers to check the capabilities
and limitations of the existing computer programs.
Fromapractisingengineerspoint of view, it isoften
not practical to use overly sophisticated software
requiringmultipleparameterstocharacterizethesoils
for design. Thisisbecauseof thecost, timeanddiffi-
cultiesinobtaininghighquality groundinvestigation
data, theuncertainties associatedwithmodellingthe
ground and the hydrogeological conditions (includ-
ing the boundary conditions), the effort needed to
model therangeof designsituationsandtocarry out
sensitivityanalyses, theneedforhavingrelativelysim-
pletools for undertaking design reviews in atimely
manner duringconstruction, thedifficulties inincor-
porating effectively the wall installation and ground
treatment effectsintheanalyses, andthelackof com-
petent personnel intheuseof sophisticatedcodesand
checking of the computed results fromsuch codes.
117
Thereisalackof systematiccomparisonontheresults
obtainedfromsophisticatedsoftwarewiththosefrom
lesssophisticatedones. Theavailabilityof goodqual-
itymonitoringdataandbenchmarkingof theexisting
numerical codes using good quality monitoring data
couldhelptoaddressessomeof theseissues.
TC2onphysical modellingingeotechnicshassim-
ilar initiatives ondatabases (seehttp://www.tc2.civil.
uwa.edu.au). Cross committee communication will
createsynergy.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Theauthor isgrateful toPaul Wufor hisassistancein
preparingthisGeneral Report.
LIST OF PAPERSREVIEWED
Boldini, D. & Amorosi, A. Tunnel behaviour under seis-
mic loads: analysis by means of uncoupledandcoupled
approaches.
Broere, W. &Dijkstra, J. Investigatingtheinfluenceof tunnel
volumelossonpilesusingphotoelastictechniques.
Caporaletti, P., Burghignoli, A., Scarpelli, G. &Taylor, R.N.
Assessment of tunnel stabilityinlayeredground.
Date, K., Mair, R.J. & Soga, K. Reinforcing effects of
forepolingandfaceboltsintunneling.
Du, J.H. & Huang, H.W. Mechanical behavior of closely
spacedtunnelslaboratorymodel testsandFEManalyses.
Idris, J.,Verdel,T. &Alhieb, M. Stabilityanalysisof masonry
of anoldtunnel bynumerical modellingandexperimental
design.
Iwata, N. Shahin, H.M., Zhang, F., Nakai, T., Niinomi, M. &
Geraldni, Y.D.S. Excavationwithstepped-twinretaining
wall: model testsandnumerical simulations.
Kasper, T. & J ackson, P.G. Stabilityof anunderwater trench
inmarineclayunder oceanwaveimpact.
Lee, S.D., J eong, K.H., Yang, J.W. & Choi, J.H. A study on
behavior of 2-archtunnel byalargemodel experiment.
Lee,S.D.&Kim,I.Behaviorof tunnel duetoadjacentground
excavationunder theinfluenceof pre-loadingonbraced
wall.
Lee, Y.J. &Yoo, C.S. Twodistinctiveshear strainmodesfor
pile-soil-tunnellinginteractioninagranular mass.
Li, Y., Zhang, Z.X., Emeriault, F. & Kastner, R. Stability
analysisof largeslurryshield-driventunnel insoft clay.
Liang, F.Y., Yao, G.S. & Li, J.P. Effectsof soil stratification
onthetunneling-inducedgroundmovements.
Marshall, A.M. & Mair, R.J. Centrifugemodelingtoinvesti-
gatesoil-structureinteractionmechanismsresultingfrom
tunnel constructionbeneathburiedpipelines.
Shahin, H.M., Nakai, T., Zhang, F., Kikumoto, M.,
Tabata, Y. & Nakahara, E. Ground movement and earth
pressureduetocirculartunneling: model testsandnumer-
ical simulations.
Song, K.I., Kim, J. & Cho, G.C. Analysis of pre-reinforced
zone in tunnel considering the time-dependent perfor-
mance.
Wang, K.S., Han, X. &Li, Z.X. Vaulttemperatureof vehicle
firesinlargecross-sectionroadtunnel.
Wang, X.M., Huang, H.W. & Xie, X.Y. Effects of different
benchlengthonthedeformationof surroundingrock by
FEM.
Yao, J., Taylor, R.N. & McNamara, A. Theeffectsof loaded
boredpilesonexistingtunnels.
You, G.M. 3DFEManalysisongrounddisplacementinduced
bycurvedpipe-jackingconstruction.
REFERENCES
Anagnostou, G. & Kovri, K. 1994. The face stability of
slurry-shielddriventunnels.Tunnelling and Underground
Space Technology. 9(2), 165174.
Atkinson, J.H. & Potts, D.M. 1977. Stability of a shallow
circular tunnel incohesionlesssoil. Gotechnique, 27(2),
203215.
Belshaw, D.J. &Palmer, J.H.L. 1978. Resultsof aprogramof
instrumentationinvolvingaprecast segmentedconcrete-
linedtunnel inclay. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 15,
573583.
Bezuijen,A. &Talmon,A.M. 2008. ProcessesaroundaTBM.
KeynoteLecture. Pre-printVolumeof theProceedingsof
the6thInternational SymposiumonGeotechnical Aspects
of UndergroundConstructioninSoft Ground, Shanghai.
Chambon, P. & Cort, J.F. 1994. Shallow tunnels in cohe-
sionlesssoil: Stabilityof tunnel face. Journal of Geotech-
nical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 120(7),
11481165.
Davis, E.H., Gunn, M.J., Mair, R.J. & Seneviratne, N.
1980. Thestability of shallow tunnels and underground
openings in cohesive material. Gotechnique, 30(4),
397416.
Grant, R.J. & Taylor, R.N. 2000. Stability of tunnelsinclay
withoverlyinglayersof coarsegrainedsoil. Proceedings
of GeoEng2000. Melbourne, Australia.
Hashiguchi, K. 1980. Constitutiveequationof elastoplastic
materialswithelasto-plastictransition. Journal of Applied
Mechanics, ASME, 102(2), 266272.
J acobsz, S.W. Standing, J.R., Mair, Soga, K., Hagiwara, T. &
Sugiyama, T. 2004. Centrifuge modelling of tunnelling
near drivenpiles. Soils and Foundations, 44(1), 5158.
J acobsz, S.W., Bowers, K.H. and Moss, N.A. 2005. The
effectsof tunnellingonpilestructuresontheCTRL. Pre-
print Volumeof theProceedings of the5thInternational
Symposium on Geotechnical Aspects of Underground
ConstructioninSoft Ground, Amsterdam.
Kimura, T. & Mair, R.J : 1981. Centrifugal testingof model
tunnels in soft clay. Proceedings of 10th International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineer-
ing. Stockholm, 1, 319322.
Lee, K.M. & Rowe, R.K. 1991. An analysis of three-
dimensional groundmovements: theThunder Baytunnel.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 28, 2541.
Lee, K.M., Rowe, R.K. & Lo, K.Y. 1992. Subsidenceowing
totunnelling. I. Estimatingthegapparameter. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 29, 929940.
Loganathan, N. & Poulos, H.G. 1998. Analytical prediction
for tunnelling-inducedgroundmovementsinclays. Jour-
nal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineeing,
ASCE, 124(9), 846856.
Mair, R.J. & Taylor, R.N. 1997. Themelecture: Bored tun-
nelling in the urban environment. Proceedings of 19th
118
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foun-
dation Engineering, Hamburg, 23532384.
MIDAS-GTS. 2005. Geotechnical &Tunnel Analysis System,
MIDASInformationTechnologyCo., Ltd.
Nakai, T. & Hinokio, M. 2004. A simpleelastoplasticmodel
for normally and over consolidated soils with unified
material parameters. Soils and Foundations, 44(2), 5370.
Selematas, D., Standing, J.R., & Mair, R.J. 2005. The
responseof full-scalepilestotunnelling.Pre-printVolume
of the Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium
onGeotechnical Aspectsof UndergroundConstructionin
Soft Ground, Amsterdam.
Sloan, S.W. &Assadi,A. 1992. Stabilityof shallowtunnelsin
soft ground. Predictive Soil Mechanics, ThomasTelford,
London, 1993, 644662.
Soubra,A.H.2002.Kinematical approachtothefacestability
analysis of shallow circular tunnels. Proceedings of 8th
International Symposiumon Plasticity, BritishColumbia,
Canada, 443445.
Wang, J.N. 1993. Seismic Design of Tunnels: A State-of-
the-art Approach. Monograph 7, Parsons, Brinckerhoff,
Quade& DiuglasInc., NewYork.
White, D., Take, A. Bolton, M.D. 2003. Soil deformation
measurementusingparticleimagevelocimetry(PIV) and
photogrammetry. Gotechnique, 53(7), 619631.
Woodward, P.K. &Griffiths, D.V. 1996. Influenceof viscous
damping in thedynamic analysis of an earth damusing
simpleconstitutivemodels. Computers and Geotechnics
19(3), 245263.
119
Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground Ng, Huang & Liu (eds)
2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-48475-6
Casehistories
A. Sfriso
Department of Estabilidad, University of Buenos Aires, Argentina
ABSTRACT: Twentypapersacceptedfor publicationunder IS-Shanghai 2008Session3onCaseHistoriesare
classifiedandsummarized. Papers deal with open pit excavations, groundimprovement, tunnels, monitoring
systemsandimpact onsurroundings, most of themrelatedtoprojectsperformedinchallengingurbanenviron-
ments. Ithasbeenfoundthatdifferentauthorsfollowdifferentapproacheswhenreportingcasehistories, mainly
withrespect to thequantitativedescriptionof groundconditions andbehavior. Whilethis canbeattributedto
different scientific andprofessional schools, it isjudgedthat ahigher degreeof consistency andcompleteness
of thebasicinformationisrequiredfor abetter usabilityof theinformeddata. Tocontributetothisgoal, ashort
guidelineonreportingcasehistoriesisproposed.
1 INTRODUCTION
IS-Shanghai 2008becameamajoropportunitytoshare
recentexperiencerelatedtoundergroundconstruction
in soft ground. In Session 3, devoted to case histo-
ries,manyprojectsreflectingadvancesingeotechnical
engineering related to challenging urban conditions
werediscussed.
Eightcountriescontributedatotal of twentypapers
to this session: eleven fromChina, one fromJ apan,
two from Korea, one from Singapore, one from
Taiwan, onefromItaly, twofromFranceandonefrom
Germany.
In the following sections, the twenty papers are
classifiedandsummarized. Thepurposeof this clas-
sificationis toguidetheinterestedreader tospecific
informationthat might beuseful for his/her research.
Papers aregrouped as follows: i) seven papers deal-
ingwithopenpit excavations; ii) four papersdealing
with NATM and drill&blast tunnels; iii) fivepapers
dealing withTBMs and shield tunnels; and iv) four
papersdealingwithmonitoringsystemsandtheeval-
uation of the impact of under-ground projects on
surroundings.
Almost all kindof difficult groundconditionsdue
to existing infrastructureand spaceconstraints were
described. For instance, papers dealing with TBM
tunnelling describe crossing beneath a shield tunnel
and arailway line, across thefoundations of ahigh-
waybridgeandaboveexistingtunnelsof anoperating
metroline. Openpit excavationprojects arenot sim-
pler, showing thechallenges that urban construction
posestogeoengineering.
Twofacts becameevident duringtherevisionpro-
cess, asfollows: i) groundconditionsaredescribedin
widelydifferent waysandwithhighlyvaryingdegree
of completeness; andii) groundandstructurebehavior
are characterized by some representative numbers
selectedwithampleliberty. Whilethereporteddatais
veryvaluable,someeffortmustbedonetofullyexploit
itsusability.
Itisremarkablethatsevenoutof twentypapersdeal
with either recent or on-going underground projects
in Shanghai, thus reflecting the impresive rate of
infrastructuredevelopmentof thecity.A largeamount
of information is provided with respect to Shanghai
soils, including laboratory and field tests and exten-
sivereportingof groundbehaviorduringconstruction.
It is desirable that this valuable information be fur-
ther analyzed by researchers to produceaconsistent
andcompleteset of material parametersfor Shanghai
soils, astherawdataprovidedbythepapersdoesnot
allowfor acompleteunderstandingof soil conditions
andsoil behavior.
In each section, the list of papers is listed in a
table and a brief description is presented for each
paper.Thedescriptionmerelystatesthetypeof project,
geology conditions whereknownandthedescription
of a few selected contributions. These contributions
canbeof anytype, fromanoverall descriptionof con-
structionprocessestoaquantitativemeasureof ground
behavior or detailed monitoring data. The writer
recommends the reading of all papers, as the valu-
ableinformationcontainedthereisonlysuperficially
grasped by the short descriptions that follow in this
report.
121
Table1. Papersonopenpit excavations.
Author Project
Hsiung& Threeexcav. 20mdeepinKaohsiung,
Chuay Taiwan
Kondaet al Elevenbracedexcavationsat Osaka, J apan
Liu, D. et al 18mdeepproppedexcavationinShanghai
Liu, G. et al 21mdeepproppedexcavationinShanghai
Liu, T. et al 40mdeepproppedexcavationinShanghai
Mei et al 6mdeepproppedexcavationinShanghai
Osborneet al J MM groundtreatment inSingapore
2 OPENPIT EXCAVATIONS
Thelist of papersdealingwithopenpit excavationsis
giveninTable1.
2.1 Hsiung and Chuay. Observed behaviour of
deep excavations in sand
The behavior of three excavations in Kaohsiung,
Taiwan, isdescribed.Theexcavationsareapprox. 20m
deep, supported by propped diaphragmwalls 1.0m
thick and36mlong, andexcavatedinmediumdense
silty sand with clay layers (N
SPT
: 530). The water
tableisreportedat 3mto6mbelowgroundsurface.
Themaximumlateral wall displacement
hmax
and
surfacesettlement
vmax
arereported. Valuesarenor-
malizedbytheeffectiveheightof theexcavationH
e
for
comparison among thethreeprojects. It is observed
that
hmax
/H
e
falls in the range 0.03% to 0.3% and
that
vmax
isabout onehalf of
hmax
. Theeffect of the
constructionsequenceandremedial effectstoreduce
surfacesettlementsarediscussed.
2.2 Konda et al. Measurement of ground
deformations behind braced excavations
The paper reports surface and wall deformations of
braced support systems used at eleven sites of the
OsakaSubway L8 project in J apan. Whiledetails of
the support systems are not informed, the geotech-
nical conditions are reported to vary widely among
the sites analyzed, fromgravels to soft clays. Wall
deformationandsurfacesettlementsaredescribedby
areaindices as shown in Fig. 1. It is concluded that
theground settlement areaA
s
is about 20%30%of
the wall deflection area A

for excavations approx.


21mdeep, but can be much higher if consolidation
settlementsoccur.
2.3 Liu, D. et al. Research on the effect of buried
channels to the differential settlement of
building
The paper deals with the impact of a deep excava-
tion on adyacent structures in Shanghai, China. The
Figure1. Symbol definition(Kondaet al 2008).
Table2. Descriptionof thesoils(Liu, D. et al 2008).
Shear pars
Bottom e
Name level [m] % kN/m
3
- c[kPa] [

]
Fill 2.93
Clay 0.33 34.6 18.2 0.99 21 17.5
Siltyclay 3.87 43.0 17.3 1.21 13 17.0
Siltyclay 11.87 49.1 16.8 1.39 14 11.0
Clay 14.87 38.9 17.6 1.12 16 14.0
Siltyclay 21.37 34.9 17.9 1.02 15 18.5
Sandysilt 35.87 32.2 18.0 0.94 4 29.0
Siltysand 26.3 18.8 0.77 1 32.0
excavation is 18mdeep, supported by a diaphragm
wall 0.8mthick and 26mlong with steel supports,
excavatedinShanghai soft clays. Groundconditions
aredescribedas showninTable2. Thewater tableis
assumedtobe1mbelowgroundlevel.
The maximumlateral wall displacement
hmax
is
reported to be 60mm, or 0.33% of the excavation
height. Extensive analysis of the settlement behav-
ior of an adyacent building is reported in thepaper,
withemphasisonthenon-uniformsettlementratedur-
ingtheexcavationstage. Whilethecomplexityof the
geological conditionsisassessed, nodataonthecom-
pressionandpermeability parametersof thesoft clay
layersisgivenandtheconsolidationprocessisnotdis-
cussed, despitethefact that thereportedsettlement of
thebuildingwasupto125mm.
2.4 Liu, G. et al. Performance of a deep excavation
in soft clay
Thedeformationbehavior a21mdeepexcavationin
Shanghai, China, isdescribed. Thegeologicprofileis
the quaternary soft alluvial and marine clay deposit
typical of Shanghai City. The authors brief on the
geologyandpresentFig. 2thatallowsforafirstunder-
standingof thesiteconditions. GWL isreportedtobe
1mbelowgroundsurface.
122
Figure2. Soil profileandparametersinShanghai (Liu, G.
et al 2008).
Figure3. Thetwo-drill-onegrabmethodfortheconstruc-
tionof thediaphragmwall (Lui, T. et al 2008).
The support system is a 0.8m40m propped
diaphragmwall withbasecompensationgroutingand
prestressedstruts.Themaximumlateral wall displace-
ment
hmax
is reportedto be55mm, or 0.32%of the
excavationheight. Thisresult iscomparedwithother
measured values in Shanghai and other sites having
rather similar soil conditions.
Theeffectof thestiffnessof multi-proppedsupport
systemsisanalysedandthethreedimensional behavior
of theexcavationisassessed. Itisconcludedthatacor-
ner effect existsthat reducesthelateral wall displace-
mentcorner-to-center ratio
hmax(corner)
/
hmax(center)
to
about 0.390.74.
2.5 Liu, T. et al. The construction and field
monitoring of a deep excavation in soft soils
Thepaper describes theconstruction procedureof a
verylargeanddeepexcavationperformedinShanghai
clays. Theexcavationwas263mlong, 23mwideand
38m41mdeep, supportedbya1.2mthickand65m
longmulti-proppeddiaphragmwall.
Thedeepdiaphragmwall constructionprocedureis
describedindetail, includingthesocalledtwo-drill-
onegrabconstructionmethodshowninFig. 3andthe
employmentof acounterweighttobetter cleanthelast
panels lateral surfacebeforepouringthenext panel,
asshowninFig. 4.
J et groutingwas extensively employedto improve
soil conditions in the passive zone. Reported incli-
nomenter data shows wall behavior along the
Figure4. Procedureusedtocleanthelateral surfaceof the
last panel (Lui, T. et al 2008).
construction stages. The max lateral wall deflection
was
hmax
=50mm, or0.12%of thetotal heightof the
excavation. Surface settlements are reported but not
associatedby theauthors to aconsolidationprocess.
Moreover, neitherasetof compressionparametersnor
ananalysisof compressionbehaviorof Shanghai clays
isreported.
2.6 Mei et al. Excavation entirely on subway
tunnels in the central area of the Peoples
Square
Thedesignandconstructionof ashallowexcavation
6mdeep in Shanghai, China, is described. Thepar-
ticular challengeof this project was that thebottom
of theexcavationwas placed3maboveexistingtun-
nels. A support systemconsisting in a soil-cement
pilewall 3.2mthickwithdirectional jet groutingwas
designed and passivetension piles wereprovided to
control uplift.
2.7 Osborne et al. The benefits of hybrid ground
treatment in significantly reducing wall
movement: a Singapore case history
The paper reports the first major use in Singapore
of ahybridgroundimprovement procedurecalledJ et
Mechanical Mixing (J MM). J MM is a large diame-
ter deep mixing method that forms acentral coreof
mixedsoil combinedwithajet-groutedouter annulus.
A schematic diagramof thedrillingtool is shownin
Fig. 5.
Thesystemwas employed in theNicoll Highway
Station Project. Theexcavation was 27mdeep, sup-
portedbya1.5mthickand51mlongdiaphragmwall.
TheJ MM wasusedtomakeabaseplugof improved
soil 7mthickbelowtheexcavation.Groundconditions
includefill,fluvial sand,fluvial clayandnormallycon-
solidatedmarineclay. Theauthorsconcludedthat the
groundimprovementtechniqueemployedreducedthe
lateral wall displacements
hmax
byafactor of three.
123
Figure5. Schematic diagramof thedrilling tool showing
themixingarmof theJ MM machine(Osborneet al 2008).
Table3. Comparisonof wall deformationdata.
H
e

hmax
/H
e
Author Soil m %
Hsiung& Chuay Sand 20 0.030.30
Kondaet al Varies 21 0.100.24
Liu, D. et al Clay 18 0.33
Liu, G. et al Clay 20 0.32
Liu, T. et al Clay 40 0.12
Osborneet al Clay 27 0.09
2.8 Comparison between wall deformation data
Table3lists thelateral wall displacement
hmax
as a
fractionof theexcavationheight H
e
for thedifferent
projects and construction procedures described. No
correlation can be observed between H
e
and
hmax
,
confirming the well-known fact that wall deflection
heavily depends on the particular construction pro-
cedure, to the extent that it might be concluded
that diaphragmwallsandconstructionproceduresare
designed to accomplish lateral wall deflections that
balance the performance requirements of engineers
andclients.
3 NATM/DRILL&BLAST TUNNELS
Thelist of papersdealingwithNATM anddrill&blast
tunnelsisgiveninTable4.
3.1 Eclaircy-Caudron. Displacements and stresses
induced by a et al tunnel excavation: case of
Bois de Peu (France)
Thepaper describes theground responseduring the
constructionof thetwotwindrill&blasttunnelsinBois
dePeu, France.Thetunnelshaveacrosssectionareaof
130m
2
, alengthof 520m, andwereexcavatedthrough
Table4. Papersondrill&blast andNATM tunnels.
Author Description
Eclaircy- Drill&blast tunnel inBoisdePeu, Fr.
Caudronet al
Guilouxet al Drill&blast tunnel inMorocco
Quicket al NATM tunnel inMainz, Germany
Yooet al Subsidenceduetowater drawdown
claysandsoft rocksunder 8mto140mof overburen.
Thesupportsystemwasformedbyshotcrete, steel ribs
and radial bolts. Unfavourable ground conditions in
theclaysoilsdemandedtheuseof astructural invert,
forepolingandfacebolting.
An interactive design and construction procedure
wasemployed, wheremonitoringdatawasusedinan
adaptive design process. The paper reports the con-
structionsequence, theuseof monitoringinformation
toadjust design, andextensivedataonfacedisplace-
ments measured at four instrumented sections. It is
shownthat extrusionextendedonediameter aheadof
thetunnel faceandthat highfaceextrusionprovedto
beagoodindicator of poor groundperformanceand
riskof facefailure.
3.2 Guiloux et al. Case history on a railway tunnel
in soft rock (Morocco)
The construction process of the Ras RMel tunnel
in Morocco is described. The tunnel is 2.6kmlong
and has a cross section of 60m
2
. It was excavated
throughweak flyschunder 50mto150moverburden
bydrill&blastmethod. Thesupportsystemconsistsin
23cmof shotcreteandsteel ribs. A particular feature
of theconstructionprocedureistheuseof aformwork
toreduceshotcreteloss, asshowninFig. 6. Stress-to-
UCSratiosupto3.5andconvergencesupto300mm
werereported, valueshigher thanusual for drill&blast
tunnelsinrock.
3.3 Quick et al. Challenging urban tunnelling
projects in soft soil conditions
Thedesignandconstructionof theNewMainz Tun-
nel inGermanyispresented. NewMainzTunnel runs
parallel to Old Mainz Tunnel, built in 1884, with a
clearanceof 4mto 50 meters. Thetunnel is 1250m
long, with across section of 140m
2
andruns below
buildings with 10m to 23m overburden. Soils are
marly clays, silts and sand, and the support system
isacomplex combinationof bolting, umbrellas, face
boltingandreinforcedshotcrete.Groundimprovement
techniques employedat somesections to reducesur-
face settlements are described. It is reported that a
reductionof settlementsfrom11cmto1.5cm2.5cm
wasachievedbygroundimprovement.
124
Figure6. Constructionof RasRMel tunnel (Guilouxet al
2008).
Figure7. Constructionprocedurefor OldandNewMainz
Tunnels(Quicket al 2008).
It is very interesting to note the differences and
similitudes in construction procedures used in two
similar tunnels separated in time by one century, as
showninFig. 7.
3.4 Yoo et al. Characteristics of tunneling-induced
ground settlement in groundwater drawdown
environment
The paper studies the effect on surface settlements
of groundwater drawdownduetotunnel construction.
The case analyzed consists in a 70m
2
tunnel exca-
vated through weathered granite with 20mto 30m
overburden formed by fill, alluviumand weathered
rock. The support systemconsisted in pre-grouting,
pipeumbrellas, rockboltsandshotcrete.
Water drawdownproducedsurfacesettlementsthat
started approximately six diameters ahead of tunnel
faceand that stabilized six diameters behind it. The
problemwas analyzedby aparametric study usinga
2Dfiniteelement model withMohr-Coulombconsti-
tutivemodel. Itwasconcludedthatsurfacesettlements
duetotunnel constructionhavedifferentpatternswhen
ground-waterdrawdownispresent, whencomparedto
thenormal case.
It must be noted that surface settlements due to
groundwater drawdown are a well-known problem
Table5. PapersonshieldtunnelsandTBMs.
Author Description
Antiga& EPB tunnelsinMilano, Italy
Chiorboli
Gong&Zhou Tunnel beneathrailwaylineinShanghai
Wanget al Crossingbelowexistingtunnel inShanghai
Wonget al Crossingaboveexistingtunnel inHKSAR
Xuet al Crossingbridgefoundations, Shanghai
of geotechnical engineering that is accounted for by
consolidationtheoryandthatissimulatedwithconsti-
tutiveequationsthataccountforinelasticcompression.
TheMohr-Coulombconstitutivemodel reportedtobe
usedinthemodel, however, neithersimulatesinelastic
compressionnor includescompressionparameters.
4 SHIELDTUNNELSANDTBMS
The list of papers dealing with shield tunnels and
TBMsisgiveninTable5.
4.1 Antiga and Chiorboli. Tunnel face stability and
settlement control using earth pressure balance
shield in cohesionless soil
Thepaperanalyzesandcomparestwocasehistoriesof
EPBtunnelsdriveninMilano, Italy. Bothtunnelswere
excavatedthrough50mto 60mof medium-denseto
densealluvial sandsandgravels.
Theauthors provideacomprehensivesummary of
factorsaffectingsubsidenceof shieldtunnelsinsands.
They concludethat ahighadvancerateproducesless
volume loss and reduces subsidence and show that
EPB face pressure is poorly correlated to surface
settlements but depends on technological aspects of
backfillingoperations.
4.2 Gong and Zhou. Shield tunneling beneath
existing railway line in soft ground
The design and construction of the Metro Line 11
tunnel running below the Hu-Ning railway line in
Shanghai, Chinais described. Thetunnel was driven
throughShanghai soft clays below11moverburden.
Waterlevel isreportedtobe1mbelowgroundsurface.
Thetunnel hasacrosssectionof 30m
2
andissup-
ported by asegmental lining 35cmthick. Extensive
soil improvement, including jet-piles and grouting,
was performed to control surface settlements. It is
reportedthatsettlementsintheimprovedsectorswere
85%lowerthanthoseof theunimprovedsectors. Fig. 8
shows thelongitudinal irregularity of thetracks after
thetunnel wasdrivenbelowtherailway.
125
Figure 8. Longitudinal irregularity of the tracks by
tunneling-induceddeformation(GongandZhou2008).
4.3 Wang et al. Supervision and protection of
Shanghai Mass Rapid Line 4 shield tunneling
across the adjacent operating metro line
Thepaper reportsthedesign, constructionandmoni-
toringprocedureof thecrossingof MassRapidLine4
(MRL4) shieldtunnelsbelowexistingL2Metrotun-
nels inShanghai, China. MRL4tunnels haveacross
sectionof 32m
2
andweredriveninShanghai softclays
onlyonemeter beneathL2tunnelsat asmall crossing
angle. Noinformationisprovidedwithrespect tosoil
parameters and support systems of both theexisting
andnewtunnels.
Groundcontrol measurestakentoreducedisplace-
ments in the existing tunnels are described. It is
remarkable that, despite the short distance between
thenewandexistingtunnels, control measuresdidnot
include ground improvement due to lack of surface
space.
Extensivemonitoringdatawasgeneratedduringthe
operation, andsomeof it issummarizedinthepaper.
It was foundthat astrict control of shielddeviation,
careful tail groutingandaslowadvancerateaidedin
controllingL2tunnel displacements. Shieldtail grout-
ingisreportedtohaveinfluencedsettlementssometen
to fifteenmeters aboveandbehindthegroutingsec-
tion, dependingongroutpressureandgroutingstages.
Asageneral conclusion,authorsrecommendveryslow
advanceratestominimizetunnel inducedsubsidence.
4.4 Wong et al. Kowloon Southern Link TBM
crossing over MTR Tsuen Wan Line tunnels in
HKSAR
Thepaper describestheconstructionof MassTransit
Railway(MTR) Crossing. MTR Crossingisthepoint
where the new Kowloon S. Link twin tunnels cross
(2mabove) theexistingMTR tunnelsinHongKong.
KowloonS. Linktunnelshaveacrosssectionof 51m
2
andweredriventhroughdecomposedandsoundgran-
ite under 6.8moverburden by a shield-slurry TBM
withanhorizontal clearanceof 900mm. Water table
isreportedtobe2.5mbelowgroundlevel.
No restrictions to service of MTR tunnels were
allowed, andthereforeaseriesof groundimprovement
Figure9. Horizontal umbrellaplacedbetweenthenewand
existingtunnels(Wonget al 2008).
and ground control measures had to be undertaken.
Thesemeasuresincludedextensivejet-groutingof the
whole area and the installation of a physical bar-
rier made by an umbrella of horizontal pipe piles
placed below the new tunnel as shown in Fig. 9.
Whileasophisticatedmonitoringsystemisreportedto
havebeeninstalled, thereisnoinformationof ground
or tunnel behavior during the construction of MTR
Crossing.
4.5 Xu et al. Application of pile underpinning
technology on shield machine crossing through
pile foundations of road bridge
Thepaper deals with thedesign problemof a39m
2
EPB tunnel hiting 14 piles of a bridge foundation.
The tunnel belongs to Metro Line 10 in Shanghai,
China. Soil conditions are described as fill, organic
soil,clayleysiltsandclays.Twounderpinningschemes
areproposedinthepaper: i) thebridgesfoundations
be reinforced before eliminating the existing piles;
and ii) the existing piles be replaced after founda-
tion reinforcement. It is unclear whether the project
iscompletedor not.
5 MONITORINGANDIMPACT TO
SURROUNDINGS
Thelistof papersdealingwithmonitoringsystemsand
impact tosurroundingsisgiveninTable6.
5.1 Kim et al. Environmental problems of
groundwater around the longest expressway
tunnel in Korea
A 3D hydrogeologic model that simulates theimpact
of Injetunnel on grounwater level is presented. Inje
tunnel is in fact two 14.5m wide by 11km long
drill&blast twin tunnels, claimed by the authors to
formthelongest expressway in Korea. Thegeologic
126
Table 6. Papers on monitoring systems and impact to
sourroundings.
Author Description
Kimet al Hydrogeological model for InjeTunnel, Korea
Liu&Wang Descriptionof deformationmonitoringsystems
Qiuet al Monitoringsystemappliedat Beijing
SubwayL1
Zhaoet al Math. model of settlement inducedliningstress
Figure 10. 3D model of fracture network and tunnel for
steadystatesimulationof groundwaterflow(Kimetal 2008).
profiles is composed by methamorphic rocks with
somesuperficial debris.
AMODFLOWcontinuousmodel wasimplemented
for thefar fieldsimulationof groundwater flow, while
a MAFIC discontinuous model was developed for
thenear fieldmodel includingtheeffect of grouting
on water flow, as shown in Fig. 10. The conclusion
is that grouting might reduce groundwater inflow
to the tunnel by 53% to 3.6m
3
/h/km, and that the
expecteddrawdownmightbereducedby65%toabout
0.61.1meters.
5.2 Liu and Wang. Deformation monitoring during
construction of subway tunnels in soft ground
The objectives, methods and required precision for
open field and urban tunnel ground monitoring are
discussed in this paper. Tunnel Profile Scanners are
introduced.Thesearetwodigital camerasmountedon
arigidframethatproduceastereoscopicdigital image
of thetunnel surface.
A highamount of low-precisiondisplacement data
isrecorded,withanestimatederrorof 5mm.Statistical
analysisof thisdata, however, isreportedtobeuseful
asamonitoringtool.Anautomaticdeformationdevice
using an advanced Geodetic Monitoring Software,
capableof managinghighprecisionmonitoringdata,
isalsodescribed.
5.3 Qiu et al. 3D deformation monitoring of
subway tunnel
Thepaper describes theapplication of LIDAR tech-
nology to Beijing Subway L1 tunnel. LIDAR tech-
nology allows for a rate of 3D data acquisition of
100.000 points/sec by 3D laser scanning. With this
technology, expensivereflectingprismsdonotneedto
beusedandcanbereplacedbyreflectionsheetsplaced
onthetunnel walls. NURBS(nonuniformrational B
splines) technologyisusedtointerpolatetheobtained
data, andamathematical model is developedfor the
analysisof theinformation.Anexampleisgivenwhere
adifferential settlementof 0.29mmcouldbemeasured
usingthistechnology.
5.4 Zhao et al. Effect of long-term settlement on
longitudinal mechanical performance of tunnel
in soft soil
Thepaper presentsastructural model for theinduced
longitudinal stress developed in a segmental tunnel
duetononuniformsettlementsandapplythetheoryto
acasehistory.
Asreportedbytheauthors, anunspecifiedhighway
shieldtunnel 30yr old, settled/heavedupto30mmin
thelast10years.Themathematical model wasusedto
evaluatethestructural performanceof thetunnel based
onlongitudinal curvatureradiusR. Itisconcludedthat
R-27300mmayinduceleakage; stressesinducedby
R-18800mmayfail segments; bolt yieldingshould
beexpectedfor R-15000m; andthat tensilefailure
wouldprobablyoccur for R-302m.
6 SUMMARY OF CASE HISTORIESRELATED
TOPROJ ECTSINSHANGHAI
Seven out of the twenty case histories presented at
Session 3 are related to challenging underground
projectsinShanghai,China.Thisisanuniqueopportu-
nity toadvanceintechnology andtocalibratedesign
procedures for soft soils with valuableexperimental
evidence.
However,itmustbenotedthatnocompleteandcon-
sistent description of Shanghai soils has been found
amongall papers. Thereis almost no informationon
basic index parameterslikeliquidlimit, compression
or recompression indexes and apparent OCR due to
ageing.
The shear strength parameters as reported by the
different authorsarelistedinTable7andcanbeused
as an exampleto further illustratetheobserved lack
of information. WhileparameterslistedinTable7are
127
Table7. Strengthparametersreportedfor Shanghai clays.
Depth: 1015m Depth: 2025m
c c
Author kPa

kPa

Gong&Zhou 8 24.0 45 15.0
Liu, D. et al 14 11.0 15 18.5
Liu, G. et al Fig. 2.
Liu, T. et al 7 32.0 43 15.5
Mei et al nodata
Wanget al nodata
Xuet al nodata
not and cannot be either undrained or effective
stressparameters, noneof theauthorsexplainedwhat
theseparametersactuallymean.
Shanghai clays are normally consolidated clays
withsomedegreeof ageing. Strengthof thesesoilsis
universallycharacterizedbyundrainedshear strength
s
u
, either determined by in situ testing or lab test-
ing. While it might be argued that there are many
undrainedshearstrengthsforagivenclayduetostress-
pathdependencyof shearstrength, itmustbeaccepted
thatthegeotechnical communitywouldappreciateany
reportedvalueof shear strength. Theoverall lackof a
completedescriptionof Shanghai clayshighlightsthe
valueof Fig. 2.
Drained shear strength parameters are probably
fewer inquantity, thoughalsopresumedtobewidely
available, given the impressive pace of city growth
andtheexcellent degreeof geoengineeringinvolved.
Unfortunately, noclear discussiononthecritical state
frictionangleof Shanghai soilswasfoundamongall
papers.
7 SHORT, DRAFT GUIDELINE ON
REPORTINGCASE HISTORIES
After the experience of reviewing papers submitted
to Session 3 to write this report on Case Histories,
thewriter believesthat ashort anddraft guidelineon
reportingcasehistoriesfor projectsdealingwithsoft
soils might be useful. The guideline neither intends
to becompletenor definitive, as it is only based on
theinformationsearchedbut not foundinthepapers
duringtheprocessof writingthisreport.
1. Nameof theproject andlocation.
2. State of the project by the time of submittal of
the paper: design phase, under construction, or
completed.
3. Basic information on geometry: i) for tunnels,
length,areaandapictureshowingthecrosssection
with main dimensions; ii) for excavations, type,
dimensions, structural descriptionof thesupport
systemandapictureshowingthesupport system
andsoil profile.
4. A description of geological/geotechnical ground
conditionsandwater table.
5. Acomprehensivesetof clearlydefinedsoil param-
eters. Ideally, SPT and/or CPT profiles should
beincluded. Bothtotal stress andeffectivestress
shear parameters should be indicated, either as
measured or estimated values. If other strength
parametersarealsoreported, theirmeaningshould
befully explained. For problems involving large
subsidenceor other compression-drivenphenom-
ena, compressionparametersandmaterial perme-
abilityshouldalsobeindicated.
6. A brief descriptionof theconstructionprocess.
7. Description of ground behavior and unexpected
changesingroundconditionsduringconstruction
activities.
8. Monitoringinformationwhenavailable, orastate-
ment otherwise. Someamount of basic rawdata
should beincluded to better understand and use
somederivedparameterslikeA

, seeFig. 1. Fig8
is agoodexampleof informationrelevant to the
subject beingdiscussed.
9. Forunusal equipmentsorconstructionprocedures,
somefigures/picturesthat better explaintheidea,
seeFigs. 3to7and9.
10. For nonconventional calculationsandmodels, an
illustrativepicture, seeFig. 10.
Inall cases, thesourceanddegreeof confidenceof
theprovidedinformationshouldbeassessed.
A goodexampleof reportingacasehistorycanbe
foundinapaperbyShaoandMacari (ShaoandMacari
2008), selectedbecauseitdealswithadeepexcavation
inShanghai clays. Twentythreekeyparametersiden-
tify each of the six main layers that formShanghai
soils profile, including water content and void ratio,
classificationdata, shearandcompressionparameters,
permeabilityandSPT values(ShaoandMacari 2008).
8 CONCLUSIONS
Session 3 of IS-Shanghai 2008 becamean excellent
opportunity to share experience related to under-
ground construction in soft ground in challenging
urbanconditions.
Twenty papers fromeight countries, dealing with
openpit excavations, NATM anddrill&blast tunnels,
TBMs and shield tunnels, and monitoring systems
wereclassifiedandsummarizedinthisreport. While
thereporteddataisveryvaluable, someeffortmustbe
donetofullyexploititsusabilitybecausenoconsistent
procedurewasfollowedbytheauthorstoreportground
conditions and ground behavior during construction
activities.
128
A largeamount of informationwas providedwith
respect to Shanghai soils, including laboratory, field
testsandgroundbehaviorduringconstruction. Lackof
definitionof thereportedparametersisjudgedtomaje
theinterpretationof thereportedinformationnoteasy.
Toallowfor abetter consistencyandcompletenessof
reporteddata, ashortdraftguidelineonreportingcase
historiesisproposed.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thewriter wishes to acknowedgetheauthors of the
summarized papers for sharing valuableinformation
withthegeo-community andtheorganizingcomittee
for invitinghimtodeliver thisgeneral report.
REFERENCES
Antiga, A. andChiorboli, M. 2008. Tunnel facestabilityand
settlement control usingearthpressurebalanceshieldin
cohesionlesssoil. IS-039.
Eclaircy-Caudron, S., Dias, D. and Kastner, R. 2008. Dis-
placements andstresses inducedby atunnel excavation:
caseof BoisdePeu(France). IS-107.
Gong, Q. and Zhou, S. 2008. Shield tunneling beneath
existingrailwaylineinsoft ground. IS-013.
Guiloux, A., LeBissonnais, H., Marlinge, J., Thiebault, H.,
Ryckaert, J., Viel, G., Lanquette, F., Erridaoui, A. and
Hu, M. 2008. Case history on a railway tunnel in soft
rock(Morocco). IS-367.
Hsiung, B. andChuay, H. 2008. Observedbehaviour of deep
excavationsinsand. IS-005.
Kim,S.,Yang,H.andYoon,S.2008.Environmental problems
of groundwater aroundthelongest expressway tunnel in
Korea. IS-087.
Konda, T., Ota, H., Yanagawa, T. and Hashimoto, A. 2008.
Measurements of ground deformations behind braced
excavations. IS-337.
Liu, D., Wang, R. andLiu, G. 2008. Researchontheeffectof
buriedchannelstothedifferential settlement of building.
IS-118.
Liu, G., J iang, J. and Ng, C. 2008. Performanceof adeep
excavationinsoft clay. IS-082.
Liu, S. andWang, Z. 2008. Deformationmonitoringduring
constructionof subwaytunnelsinsoft ground. IS-120.
Liu, T., Liu, G. andNg, C. 2008. Theconstructionandfield
monitoringof adeepexcavationinsoft soils. IS-029.
Mei, Y., J iang, X., Zhu, Y. and Qiao, H. 2008. Excavation
entirely on subway tunnels in the central area of the
PeoplesSquare. IS-140.
Osborne, N., Ng, C. and Cheah, C. Thebenefits of hybrid
ground treatment in significantly reducing wall move-
ment: aSingaporecasehistory. IS-378.
Qiu, D., Zhou, K., Ding,Y., Liang, Q. andYang, S. 2008. 3D
deformationmonitoringof subwaytunnel. IS-151.
Quick, H., Michael, J., Meissner, S. and Arslan, U. 2008.
Challengingurbantunnellingprojects insoft soil condi-
tions. IS-358.
Shao, Y. andMacari, E. 2008. Informationfeedback analy-
sisindeepexcavations. ASCE Int. J ou. Geom. Vol. 8, 1,
91103.
Wang, R., Cai,Y. andLiu, J. 2008. Supervisionandprotection
of Shanghai MassRapidLine4shieldtunnelingacrossthe
adjacent operatingmetroline. IS-033.
Wong, K., Ng, N., Leung, L. and Chan, Y. 2008. Kowloon
Southern Link TBM crossing over MTR Tsuen Wan
LinetunnelsinHKSAR. IS-370.
Xu, Q., Ma, X. andMa, Z. 2008. Applicationof pileunder-
pinning technology on shield machinecrossing through
pilefoundationsof roadbridge. IS-326.
Yoo, C., Kim, S. and Lee, Y. 2008. Characteristics of
tunneling-induced ground settlement in groundwater
drawdownenvironment. IS-329.
Zhao, H., Liu, X., Yuan, Y. andChi, Y. 2008. Effect of long-
termsettlement onlongitudinal mechanical performance
of tunnel insoft soil. IS-199.
129
Theme 1: Analysis and numerical modeling of
deep excavations
Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground Ng, Huang & Liu (eds)
2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-48475-6
Optimizationdesignof compositesoil-nailinginloessexcavation
G.M. Chang
Urban Construction and Environment Engineering Department, West Anhui University, LuAn, Anhui, P.R. China
School of Civil Engineering, ChangAn University, XiAn, Shanxi, P.R. China
ABSTRACT: Theloess excavation has its uniquecharacteristics comparedwith theothers dueto its struc-
tural property and collapsibility. In order to acquire the work mechanismand design methods of composite
soil-nailinginloessexcavation, areasonablefiniteelement analysismodel isselected. Theoptimizationdesign
methods areintroduced based on theresults of finiteelement analysis conducted to determinetheregularity
of deformation, thesafety factor andtheendogenforceof thestructurealongwiththechangeof designvari-
able. Finally, the optimization design methods are validated contrasted with the data measured in an actual
project.
1 INTRODUCTION
Composite soil-nailing combined soil nails with
other forms of supporting measures has avoided the
soil-nailing technology from excessive dependence
onthesoil andexpandeditsapplicationfield. Among
the different kinds of composite soil-nailing forms,
theanchor compositesoil-nailing support method is
widely appliedfor its powerful location adaptability,
easyconstruction, lowcostandreducingthepitdefor-
mationremarkably. However, itsworkmechanismand
designmethod, especially theLoess Pit anchor com-
posite soil-nailing research, fall behind the project
practicebyfar. Inthefirst instance, thispaper aimsat
studyingnail designparameter selectioninplainsoil-
nailingonthepremiseof maintainingsoil-nailingtotal
length, andthenreplacingaanchor for asoil nail to
researchtheparametervalueof anchorcompositesoil-
nailing structure and optimization design under the
circumstancesof maintainingplainsoil-nailingdesign
parametersamoreoptimal value.
2 PARAMETERANALYSIS
Theoverall stabilityandworkingperformanceof exca-
vation supporting is closely related to the design
parameters. Understandingandgraspingtherelations
of theoverall stabilitysafetyfactor withthechangeof
thesedesignvariables, particularlythiskindof sensi-
tivity degreethat variety, havespecial andimportant
meaningfor guidingengineeringpractice.
2.1 Hypothesis
To simplify thecalculations, wemakethefollowing
assumptionswhencarry onthenumerical analysisto
thecompositesoil-nailingnumerical analysis:
1 Composite soil-nailing problems are plane strain
problems;
2 Soil-nailingandassistancereinforcementmaterials
areelasticmaterials;
3 Thesoil ispresumedastheelastic-plasticmaterial.
2.2 Computation diagram and parameter
of material
2.2.1 Computation diagram
Engineering experience shows that the influence of
excavationwidthisabout 3to4timesof theexcava-
tion depth, influence depth is about 2 to 3 times of
excavation depth. Thecaseassumes that theexcava-
tiondepthis9.5m,thetotal lengthof thefiniteelement
model is 45m, thetotal height is 25mandtheslope
gradient is1:0.1(Fig. 1).
2.2.2 Boundary conditions and loads
Ontheleftandrightboundaryof themodel, wesetthe
X-directiondisplacementtozeroandallowtheY direc-
tiondeformation; theX andY directiondisplacement
of thebottomboundaryarezero; thetopisafreesur-
face. Initial stressfieldisgravitystressfield; thevalue
of Gravitational Accelerationis 9.8m/s
2
. Sincecom-
positesoil-nailingisusuallyconstructedafter precip-
itation, theimpact of groundwater isnot considered.
133
Figure1. Finiteelementanalysismodel (Anchoratmiddle).
2.2.3 Material parameters
This research was completed against theloess exca-
vations and the soil parameters were provided from
a engineering investigation report in Xian City.
Because the soil distributes in certain scope are
uneven, it isdiscommodioustocarry ontheNumeri-
cal Calculationandtakethesoil strengthaveragevalue
of eachlevel. Soil nailsandanchorstaketheformof
thecommonly used procedurein Xian: Soil-nailing
110mmdiameter bored, steel bar 1 22; theanchor
holediameter 150mm, steel bar 2 18, surface100
for C25 thick concrete, reinforced with distribution
steel bar network. Soil nail andanchor weremadeof
steel bars that wrappedwithcement slurry composi-
tion. Slurry tightly wrappedtheexternal part of steel
bars, andoccludedwiththesoil indogtooth. Inorderto
simulatethemechanical behavior of soil-nailingand
anchors correctly and simplify finiteelement analy-
sis process, we regard the steel bar and the cement
pastebodyasakindof compoundmaterial. Materials
geometricandmechanical parameters, asfollows:
Soil: c =30kpa, =18

, gravity =18KN/m
3
,
deformation modulus E
0
=1.810
7
Pa, Poissons
ratio j=0.3; Soil-nailing: diameter 0.11m, sec-
tional area is 0.0094985m
2
, moment of inertia
1.832410
6
m
4
, equivalent modulus of elasticity
E
eq
=210
10
Pa, Poissonsratioj=0.3;
Anchor: the sectional area of free segment is
5.086810
4
m
2
, moment of inertia is 1.030077
10
8
m
4
, elastic modulus E
s
=210
11
Pa, thesec-
tional area of anchorage segment is 0.0176625
10
4
m
2
, moment of inertia is 2.48378910
5
m
4
,
equivalent elastic modulus E
eq
=2.0310
10
Pa.
Poissons ratio j=0.3; Surface (unit length) :
The sectional area is 0.1m
2
, moment of inertia
is 8.3333310
5
m
4
. Equivalent elastic modulus
E
eq
=2.110
10
Pa, Poissonsratioj=0.3.
Contact surfacefriction: Accordingtotheresearch
of reference(Chen, 2000, Wang, 1997), thesoil-nail
contact surface and the soil-anchor contact surface
frictionvalueis60kPa.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
28 24 20 16 12 8 4
lateral deformation/mm
d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

t
o

g
r
o
u
n
d
/
m
0 5 10
15 20 25
Figure 2. Relations of soil-nailing angle and pit
displacement.
Table1. Relationsof soil-nailingangleandsafetyfactor.
Soil-nailing 0 5 10 15 20 25
angle
Safety 1.593 1.623 1.654 1.615 1.568 1.53
factor
2.3 Soil-nailing support
2.3.1 The angle of soil-nailing
Concerning with theconstruction method, theangle
of soil-nailing has great influence on the pit
displacement, the safety factor and the surface sub-
sidence.Takingthetotal lengthof soil-nailingis40m,
establishingfiverowsof soil-nailing, takingthesoil-
nailinglevel andthevertical spacingtakes1.8m, the
first row of soil-nailing depth of burying is 1.8m.
Dividing fivesteps excavates, thefirst step of exca-
vation depth is 2.3m, and the other step of cutting
depthis1.8meach. Soil-nailingobliquitiesarecalcu-
latedby inclinationof 0

, 5

, 10

, 15

, 20

and25

respectively.
Figure2andTable1showthat thehorizontal dis-
placement isgradually increasingandchangingat an
increasingly rapid pace as soil-nailing angle from0
degreesto25changesgradually. Whenthepit design
requiresstrict control of thehorizontal displacement,
they should use a smaller angle. Safety factor in
soil-nailing angle reduces 10 degrees at the largest
and declines rapidly with the angle increases after
10degrees.
On the other hand, Soil-nailing angle is related
withconstructionmethods andsoil-nailingconstruc-
tion usually adopt the self grouting methods, in the
hopeof soil-nailinghasmoreinclinationtomakethe
cement grout fill soil-nailingholes under theweight
easily.
134
Figure3. Longat upper rowandshort at lower row.
Figure 4. Long at middle row and short at upper and
lower row.
Figure5. Short at upper rowandlongat lower row.
Soafterconsideringthepitdisplacement, thesafety
factor and construction factors, the angle should be
about 1015degrees.
2.3.2 Scheme of soil-nailing layout
Other researchersdomoreabout theschemesof soil-
nailinglayout (Hu& Song, 1997, Li & Zhang, 1999).
But their studies focus moreoncomparisonbetween
longatupperrowandshortatlowerrowscheme(long-
shortscheme) andshortatupperrowandlongatlower
rowscheme(short-longscheme). But inpractice, we
oftenuselongatmidrowandshortatupper andlower
rowscheme(mid-longscheme), especially whenthe
soil-nailingisusedwithanchor together (Figs. 35).
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
25 20 15 10 5
lateral deformation/mm
d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

t
o

g
r
o
u
n
d
/
m
long-short
mid long
short-long
Figure6. Relationsof soil-nailinglayoutanddisplacement.
Table 2. Relations of scheme of soil-nailing layout and
safetyfactor.
Schemeof layout Long-short Short-long Mid-long
Safetyfactor 1.478 1.447 1.376
Selecting nail angleis 10 degrees then calculates
and analyzes on three different layouts, we get the
resultsFigure6andTable2below.
FromFigure6andTable2wecanfindthatthereare
smallest displacement andlargest safety factor when
using long-short scheme. On the contrary, there are
largest displacement andsmallest safety factor when
usingshort-longscheme.Asthesameconclusionwith
our forerunners, displacement and safety factor that
use short-long short scheme are between the other
two modes and we can see that when using plain
soil-nailing support a long-short scheme should be
adopted.
2.4 Anchored soil-nailing support
At present, the application of prestressed anchor in
compositesoil-nailingdesignisoftenusedempirically
and there has not a determinate calculative method
to set the anchor position, the length of anchorage,
prestressedvalue.
Basedonpreviousstudies, wechosethenailsangle
of 10degreesandlong-shortlayoutschemetoresearch
theanchoredsoil-nailingsupport.
2.4.1 Location of prestressed anchor
After replacingthe1st and3rdrowsandthefifthrow
of soil nailswithanchor, let usstudytheinfluenceof
blotlocationonthepitslevel displacementandsafety
factors. Diagrams shows in Figures 78, 1, and the
resultsareshowninFigure11andTable2below.
135
Figure7. Anchor at upper row.
Figure8. Anchor at lower row.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
25 20 15 10 5 0
lateral deformation /mm
d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

t
o

g
r
o
u
n
d
/
m
soil
upper anchor
mid anchor
lower anchor
Figure9. Relationsof anchor locationsanddisplacement.
Table3. Relationsof anchor locationsandsafetyfactor.
Anchor locations Upper Middle Lower
Safetyfactor 1.496 1.546 1.511
Figure 9 and Table 3 show that add prestressed
anchor into soil-nailing can significantly reduce the
maximumhorizontal displacement, especially inand
near theanchor location. Inaddition, comparedwith
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
25 20 15 10 5 0
lateral deformation/mm
d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

t
o

g
r
o
u
n
d
/
m
0kN
100kN
150kN
200kN
250kN
Figure10. Relationsof prestressinganddisplacement.
Table4. Relationsof prestressingandsafetyfactor.
Prestressing
value/kN 0 100 150 200 250
Safetyfactor 1.546 1.597 1.617 1.624 1.628
plain soil-nailing, it can significantly reduce the
level of surface displacement through adding pre-
stressed anchor, particularly the top-anchor scheme
and bottom-anchor schemehavethemost obviously
effect on the surface of the horizontal displacement
control. Anchor locations also affect the safety fac-
tor. It hasthebiggest safetyfactor whenanchor at the
central pit.
Therefore, tocontrol thepit deformation, theangle
of anchor wouldfavor theupper-anchor scheme; the
mid-anchor schemeisthemost beneficial toimprove
the safety factor. However, in the engineering prac-
tice, becauseexcavationsconcentratemoreandmore
onurbanareas andtheanchor may into thepit slope
outsidemoredistance, theremay affect anchor con-
structionfor theadjacent buildingswhenusedthetop
anchor scheme.
2.4.2 Level of prestressing value
Used prestressed anchor replace with the 3rd soil-
nail, taking the anchor free segment length is 10m,
anchoragesegment length is 8m, prestressing value
is 0kN, 150kN, 200kN and 250kN respectively for
calculating. Theresults calculated fromthehorizon-
tal displacement and thesafety factors areshown in
Figure10andTable4.
Figure 10 and Table 4 show that the impact of
prestressing value on the horizontal displacement
is greater. When the magnitude of prestressing is
100kN, horizontal displacement decreasesmorethan
plain soil-nailing from the maximum displacement
of 23.1mmto 17.6mmlower. If prestressing value
136
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
20 16 12 8 4 0
lateral deformation/mm
d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

t
o

g
r
o
u
n
d
/
m
6m
8m
10m
12m
14m
Figure 11. Relations of anchorage segment length and
displacement.
Table5. Relationsof anchoragesegment lengthandsafety
factor.
Anchorage
length/m 6 8 10 12 14
Safety 1.586 1.617 1.629 1.637 1.641
factor
increases to 150kN, the maximum horizontal dis-
placementwill decreaseto15.3mm.If theprestressing
valueis morethan 150kN, such as 200kN, 250kN,
horizontal displacement will continueto decline, but
the reduction range is insignificant. As the value of
the prestressing increases, the Pit safety factor will
gradually increase in a limited extent, which means
thevalueof prestressinghasnosignificant impact on
safetyfactor.
2.4.3 The length of anchorage segment
Selecting a middle-anchor scheme, the prestressing
value is 150kN, taking the length of anchorage for
6mand8m, 10m, 12m, 14mtocalculate, theresults
areshowninFigure11andTable5.
Figure11andTable5showthat thehorizontal dis-
placementof Pitgraduallydiminishesastheanchorage
lengthincreases, butthereductionismodest. Pitsafety
factorwouldincreaseasthelengthof anchorincreased
either, but not markedly.
3 ANCHORANDSOIL-NAILINGWORKING
TOGETHER MECHANISM
Plain soil-nailing support is a passive support sys-
temandsoil-nailingwouldhavearoleonlywhenthe
soil generatessufficientdeformation. Anchor belongs
to the initiative support system and through pre-
stresstocontrol soil deformation.Anchoredcomposite
soil-nailingisaspecial kindof support,whichbetween
plain soil-nailing and prestressed anchoring sup-
port. It has the advantages of both the plain soil-
nailing support and the prestressed anchor support
simultaneously.
3.1 Anchor and soil-nailing working together
It isat theinitiativestressful conditionasanchor sup-
port constructioncompletedbecauseof theexistence
of prestressing. As a result of the anchor prestress-
ing reaction, the soil is caused to be at the pressed
condition, reduced soil lateral deformation. On the
other hand, anchor is wrapped in the cement paste,
andadhibitedwithcementpaste. Becauseof theholes,
pores and crannies existed in soil; the cement and
thesoil assumethezigzaglinking. After anchor ten-
sion deformation, there will have a shear stress due
to elastic deformation and retraction in the anchor-
soil interface, whichdirectiononthesoil deformation
under shear stressisthecontrary. Itreducessoil inter-
nal tensilestress, andwill alsolimitthedeformationof
soil. Theaxial forceof soil-nailingisrelatedwiththe
deformation of theearth. Becausestress reduces the
soil deformation, soil-nailinginternal forceisreduced
more remarkably than plain soil-nailing .The closer
the anchor approaches the soil nails, the more the
axial forcedecreases.Therefore,theroleof restrictions
pit deformationisthebaseof anchor andsoil-nailing
workingtogether.
3.2 Anchor contribution to resistance moment
When thePit Slopein theevent of damage, theslip
surface have too much plastic deformation to make
slidemassalongfor destructionunder sliding. Gener-
ally, theslidingmomententirelydependsonthedepth
of excavationandthesoil gravity. For acertainpit, the
soil depthandits weight usually areconstant andits
slidingmoment canbeseenasaconstant. Meanwhile
resistancemomentisprovidedbytheundisturbedsoil,
shear strength, soil nailsandanchor.
Thecontribution of soil nails performancelies in
three main aspects: soil-nailing presence gives the
slip surfaceplaceto thepost-transfer slip, improves
theslidingareaandincreases thefrictionof slipsur-
face. Upliftroleof thesoil-nailingthatoutsidetheslip
surface, andthebendingresistanceroleof soil-nailing.
Thecontributionof anchor mainfeatures (Chang,
2007):
1 The anchors anchorage is long in general and
extendsintothesteadysoil massincentral slipaway
fromtheexcavation surfaceto provideastronger
uplift capacity.
2 Theanchorsprestressingmakesslideandstability
soil mass tightly squeezed each other to improve
the friction resistance to sliding and increase the
resistancemoment.
137
3 When the slip surface crosses the anchorage
segment, the anchor resistance to bending has
somecontribution, but thecontributionisweak in
general.
3.3 The impact of prestressing to soil-nailing
axis force
Therearemanystudiesabout theimpact of prestress-
ingto soil-nailingaxis forceandtheconclusions are
thesame. Generally, theprestressingwill significantly
reducesoil-nailingforcesandthegreater thevalueof
prestressing, thesmallerthesoil-nailinginternal force.
And moreover, thecloser theanchor, thegreater the
internal force reduction (Zhang & Liu, 2002, Zhen
et al. 2005).
4 DESIGNOPTIMIZATION
1. Soil-nail design. Recommending taking the soil-
nailings long-short layout and it is advisable to
select 1015degrees.
2. Loess has strong structure, which should beused
asmuchaspossible.
3. Anchorshouldbeinstalledclosetothecentral verti-
cal partof thepit, whichcanachieveahighersafety
factor andrestrict thepit deformation.
4. Itdoesnotprovideagreatersafetyfactorandbetter
control deformationeventheanchor lengthis too
long. Soit hadbetter beabout 812m.
5. Since the anchor prestressed reaction limits soil
lateral deformation, reduces the lateral displace-
ment of compositesoil-nailingretainingandaxial
force of the-soil-nailing near the anchor. On the
premise of meeting deformation control request,
wecanshortenthelengththat several soil-nailing
topof thepit appropriately inlong-short scheme,
long-short-long scheme while forming to reduce
projectcost. However, inorder nottoreducesafety
factor, it isnot recommendedtoshortenthelength
of soil nailsinthelower side.
6. Thefixingontheprestressedvaluemustbeaccord-
ingtothesoil shearstrengthvalues, itwill beabout
100kN to 200kN as well. Dueto theprestressed
valuehasnoobviousinfluenceonproject cost, we
caninclinesafetytochoosethevaluesgreater. But
toomuchprestressedhasnosignificant impact on
pit retainingperformance.
5 ENGINEERINGANALYSIS
5.1 Project overview
AprojectinXian,theexcavationdepthis11.0m,both
thePitslengthandwidthareabout 100m. Intheeast
Table 6. Site layer structure and geotechnical
characteristics.
Unit Angleof
Soil Thickness/ weight Cohesion/ internal
class (m) (kN/m3) kPa friction/

Miscellaneous 0.90 18.20 25.00 18.00


LoessQ3
2EOL
6.60 16.20 28.00 18.00
LoessQ3
2EO
L 1.70 18.00 26.80 18.10
Ancient soilQ3lal 3.40 18.90 32.20 17.60
LoessQ3
al+PL
8.00 19.50 20.00 18.00
bynorthfromthepit 6.3misaseven-storeymasonry
structureresidential buildings, thelimesoil founda-
tion depth is about 3m.On the south-east there is a
18-storeyhigh-risebuildingwithone-storeybasement
whichdepthis 6m, reinforcedconcretepilefounda-
tionsare36mlong, fromPit 9.10m, andtheadjacent
side of the project pit used soil-nailing in the con-
struction;northof theseven-storeyresidential building
masonry structure, androughly parallel to pit edges,
buildingslengthis42mandthewidth13m, thenear-
est to excavationis 5.3m; thewest sideof theSouth
andanadjacent hotel podiumwhichis atwo storeys
buildingwithanundergroundlayer fromtheedgeof
pit 4m, framework and infrastructure end elevation
is 7.13m; the south side is close to a main road,
therearewater andgaspipelinesunder thesidewalks.
5.2 Engineering geological conditions
According to geotechnical engineering investigation
reportthattheprojectsitegeomorphicunitsbelongto
theLoessbeam-swamplandscape. Proposedsitelayer
structureandgeotechnical characteristicsareinrange
of 30.0mdeepinTable5.
5.3 Retaining design
Thedesignof anchoredcompositesoil-nailingadopts
themethodsproposedinpart 4of thispaper, whichis
the excavation depth was 11.0mand the slope was
1:0.1. The basic design parameters were shown in
Table6.Therearesixlayersof soil nailsandthelayout
is cinquefoil. Wealso set aprestressedanchor at the
depthof 6.0mtoreducethelateral displacementand
ensurethehigh-risebuildings insafety andstability.
Using two 18mmdiameter grade 60 bars in anchor
(10mfree, 8manchorage); Usingone22mmdiame-
ter grade60bar insoil-nailingwith1.5mspacingand
inclinationof 15degrees, prestressingvalueis150kN.
(Fig. 12).
5.4 Monitoring results
ThisprojectwasconstructedsinceMarch20, 2006and
lasted75days. Monitoringresultsshowedthegreatest
138
Figure12. Compositesoil-nailingsupport diagram.
lateral displacementoccurredintheeastcentral pitand
thelargest displacement was16mm. It wasnoexces-
sivelateral deformationandearthsurfacesubsidence
andsurroundingbuildingswerenogreater settlement.
6 CONCLUSIONS
Inthis paper, theauthor analyzedtheparameter sen-
sitivity of compositesoil-nailing in loess excavation
using the finite element method. The optimization
designmethodsareintroducedbasedontheresultsof
finiteelementanalysis.Thewriterbelievesthatanchor
should be installed in the pit in the central vertical,
whichcanachieveahigher safety factor andrestrict
thepit deformationobviously.
Wecanshortenthelengththat several soil-nailing
topof thepitappropriatelyinlong-shortscheme, mid-
long scheme while forming to reduce project cost.
Anchor lengthshouldnotbetoolongandprestressing
alsoshouldnot betoolarge. Practical project proved
thatthisoptimizationmethodinloesspitisapplicable.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This paper was supported by Youth Foundation of
Anhui Education Committee (No. 2007jql181), and
supportedbyYouthFoundationof WestAnhui Univer-
sity(No. wxzq2006018).
REFERENCES
Chang, G.M. 2007. Study on theApplication of Compos-
itesoil-nailing in Loess Excavations. XiAn: ChangAn
University
Chen, Z.Y. 2000. The application of soil-nailing in excava-
tions. Beijing: ChinaArchitecture& BuildingPress
Hu, K.G. & Song, Q.G. 1997. Nonlinear analysis of action
mechanismof soil-nailingwall . Industrial Construction
27(11): 1013
Li, S.H. & Zhang, Y.J. 1999. Numerical simulations by 2D
FEM in process of excavation and supporting of deep
foundationditch. Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and
Engineering 18(3):342345
Wang, B.Y. 1997. Designof soil-nailing. Geotechnical Engi-
neering Technique (4): 3041
Zhang, F., Liu, Z.C. & Chen, G.G. 2002. The mechanical
workingmechanismresearchontheunitedsupportingof
prestressed soil anchor and soil-nailing. Rock and Soil
Mechanics 23(3): 292296
Zheng, Z.H., et al. 2005. In-situ testing study on retaining
miscellaneousfill slopebyusingcompoundsoil-nailing.
Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering
24(5): 898904
139
Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground Ng, Huang & Liu (eds)
2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-48475-6
Three-dimensional finiteelement analysisof diaphragmwallsfor
top-downconstruction
J. Hsi, H. Zhang&T. Kokubun
SMECAustralia Pty Ltd, Sydney, NSW, Australia
ABSTRACT: TheTugunBypassTunnel inGoldCoast, Australiawasconstructedusingdiaphragmwallswith
thetop-downcut-and-cover methodto allowsimultaneous constructionof anairport runway extensionabove
thetunnel, whilst excavation of thetunnel continued underneath. Thetunnel was built in an environment of
high groundwater table and deep deposits of alluvial and estuarine soils with the toes of the walls founded
in soil deposits. There was a potential risk for differential settlements between the diaphragmwall panels,
causedbytherunwayfill placedoverthetunnel roof duringexcavation.Three-dimensional numerical modelling
was undertakento predict thedifferential settlements of thetunnel withconsiderations of varyingsubsurface
profile, stagedexcavation anddewatering, non-uniformloadingandcomplex soil-structureinteraction. Field
instrumentationandmonitoringwasimplementedtoconfirmnumerical predictions.
1 INTRODUCTION
The 7km long Tugun Bypass forms part of the
PacificHighway, andconnectssouth-eastQueensland
to northern NewSouthWales, Australia. Oneof the
keyfeaturesof theprojectwasatunnel of about334m
in length (Ch5588 to Ch5922.4), constructed below
theproposedrunwayextensionof theGoldCoastAir-
port. Figure1presentstheproject routeplanshowing
thelocalityof theproject.
Figure1. Project routeplan.
Asthetunnel wastobeconstructedintheproximity
of theairport runway, therewasastrict height restric-
tion for the construction activities. Low headroom
plant and equipment were chosen to construct the
diaphragmwalls for thecut andcover tunnel. As the
constructionof therunway extensioncoincidedwith
the tunnel construction, the top-down construction
methodwasadopted.
Thesubsurfaceof thetunnel sitecomprisedmainly
alluvial and estuarine soils up to depths of about
35munderlainby weatheredrock of NeranleighFer-
nvaleformation. To minimizeconstructioncosts, the
diaphragmwallswerefoundedinsoil depositswhich
weresubjected to settlement under theloading from
therunwayextension.
Excessivedifferential settlement of thediaphragm
walls couldoverstress thetunnel structureandaffect
the tunnel serviceability. Detailed numerical mod-
ellingwascarriedoutusingthefiniteelementpackage
PLAXIS3DFoundation(Version1.6) wherethespa-
tial subsurface variation and non-uniform loading
patternscouldbetakenintoconsideration.
Instrumentation and monitoring were undertaken
todemonstratethefieldperformance, whichwasthen
comparedwiththenumerical predictions.
2 SITE GEOLOGY
The tunnel was situated in a flood plain which was
subjected to periodical flooding. Thegeology of the
site comprised Neranleigh Fernvale Beds overlain
by Cenozoic estuarine and coastal deposits. These
141
Figure2. Siteinvestigationplan.
depositswereupto35minthickness, comprisingriver
gravels, sandsandclays, andfloodplainandtidal delta
mudsandsilts. At thetunnel location, thesubsurface
horizons consisted of dune sands, Coffee Rock
(local termgiven to cemented silty sands), estuarine
interbeddedclaysandsands, andresidual soilsderived
fromtheweatheredbedrock.Groundwaterwasslightly
saline due to the close proximity to the ocean. The
water tablewas influenced by both tidal movements
and rainfall events recharging Cobaki Broadwater.
Dueto low-lying ground surfaces, potentials existed
for acidsulphatesoils.
3 GEOTECHNICAL MODEL
Asthesubsurfaceconditionsvariedspatiallyalongthe
lengthandwidthof thetunnel, extensivesiteinvesti-
gationsusingboreholes(BH) andpiezocones(CPTU)
were undertaken at the wall and barrette locations.
Withinthefootprintof therunwayextension,theinves-
tigationsweredoneataspacingof approximately20m
intervals.Theplanof thesiteinvestigationisshownin
Figure2.
The geotechnical model of the site included sub-
surface stratigraphy and geotechnical parameters.
The subsurface was divided into discrete soil units,
classifiedaccordingtomaterial typeandconsistency
or densityandissummarizedasfollows(topdown):
Top soil thin skinned (-1m) comprising peaty
sandy organic topsoil, having loose consistency.
The ground surface was marshy and generally
untrafficable;
Dunesands asequenceof generallyloosetovery
loosesands of upto about 8to 10minthickness,
finetomediumgrainedsands;
Coffee Rock (CR) a sequence of medium
densetovery densecementedsilty sandsof about
7 to 10m in thickness with occasional loose
consistency;
Estuarine a sequence of about 15mthickness
comprising shell fragments, sand and silty sand,
clayandsandyclay, siltandclayeysilt, clayeysilty
sandandgravels. Relativedensityvariedfromvery
loosetodense, andconsistencyvariedfromfirmto
verystiff;
Figure3. Subsurfaceprofile.
Table 1. Typical soil profile and key geotechnical
parameters.
E
ref
50
&
RL

k E
ref
oed
E
ref
ur
(m) Soil (deg) (m/day) (MPa) (MPa)
0.5 Sand(VL) 30 1.0 10 30
4.0 CR (MD) 32 0.1 50 150
11.2 CR (D) 34 0.1 80 240
13.5 Sand(L) 32 1.0 30 90
17.5 Clay(St) 28 110
4
10 30
21.1 Sand(L) 32 1.0 30 90
23.0 Clay(F) 24 110
4
7 21
28.6 Clay(VSt) 29 110
4
25 75
30.8 Bedrock
Note: RL (reducedlevel) is at topof eachlayer; VL is very
loose; L islose; MDismediumdense; Disdense; F isfirm;
St isstiff; VSt isvery stiff;

isdrainedfrictionangle; k is
permeability; E
ref
50
is secantYoungs modulus at areference
pressureof 100kPa; E
ref
oed
istangentYoungsmodulusfor pri-
mary odometer loading at areferencepressureof 100kPa;
and E
ref
ur
is unloading/reloadingYoungs modulus at a ref-
erence pressure of 100kPa. Refer to PLAXIS manual for
HardeningSoil (HS) model.
Residual soil comprising clay and silty clay
with some sands, and with residual fragments of
extremely weathered and extremely low strength
interbeddedargilliteandgreywackeof theNeran-
leighFernvaleBeds.Thethicknessrangedbetween
about 1mand6m;
Bedrock comprising extremely weathered to
moderately weathered and extremely low to low
strengthinterbeddedargilliteandgreywacke, hav-
inganirregular contact withtheoverlainresidual
material at adepthof approximately30to35m.
The subsurface profile based on the boreholes
along the centre line of the tunnel is presented in
Figure3. Thegeotechnical parametersfor eachof the
unitsweredeterminedfrominterpretationof thefield
and laboratory test results, and based on local expe-
rience. Thetypical soil profileand key geotechnical
parametersassumedareshowninTable1.Theground
142
surfacelevel was approximately at RL 0.5mandthe
groundwater tablewasat thesurface.
4 ISSUESANDCONSTRAINTS
Construction of a tunnel in soft ground at shallow
depthsisconventionallyundertakenusingthecutand
cover method. However, to allow for construction
of the runway extension that occurred concurrently
withthetunnel excavation, thetop-downconstruction
methodhadtobeadopted. Diaphragmwallsandcast
insitutunnel roof slabshadbeenchosentofacilitate
the construction requirements and time constraints.
Figure2showsthefootprint of therunway extension
obliquetothetunnel alignment.
Following the handover of ground surface, up to
23mof fill for the airport runway extension was
placed above the tunnel roof. Loads acting over the
entirewidthof theroof slabsweretransferreddirectly
to the diaphragm walls and the barrettes. The site
investigationsrevealedpresenceof estuarinedeposits
consisting of loose materials below the toe of the
walls. Therefore, therewas apotential for thetunnel
to settleduringexcavation. Oneof thecritical issues
wasthedifferential settlementsbetweenthewallsand
thecentral barrettes, andalongthewalls.Thesediffer-
ential settlementscouldpotentiallyinducesignificant
stressesintheroof structuresandinthewalls.
Other issues in relation to thetunnel construction
arelistedbelow:
ObstacleLimitationSurface(OLS) appliedat
bothendsof therunwaytoprovidesafeairspacefor
approaching aircrafts. This required all construc-
tionactivitiestobeundertakenwithinaheadroom
of as low as 8m. Use of cranes or heavy-lifting
equipment was only allowed outside the airport
operatinghours;
Highgroundwaterlevel duetoitscloseproximity
totheseaandCobaki Broadwater.Thegroundwater
waspracticallyatthegroundsurfacelevel. Reliable
dewateringsystemwasessential duringexcavation;
Environmental requirements strict environmen-
tal controls wereenforcedsuchthat drawdownof
thegroundwater tableoutsidethediaphragmwalls
was insignificant. Also, all acidic sulphate soils
excavated from the tunnel had to be dried and
neutralizedwithlimeprior to placement as fill in
embankments.
5 CONSTRUCTIONMETHOD
Suitableconstructionmethodswerechosentoaddress
theissuesandconstraintsmentionedabove. Inorderto
adheretotheOLSrequirements,special lowheadroom
hydraulic grab(Leibherr HS852HD) and2.8mwide
trenchcutter(CBC25)wereused.Theguidewallswere
Figure4. Diaphragmwall constructionsequence(courtesy
of Bauer/PilingContractors).
built first followed by construction of the 6mwide
primary panels (Steps 1 to 5 of Figure4) and 2.8m
widesecondarypanels(Steps6to8). Theopentrench
wassupportedbymixtureof bentoniteslurry,whenthe
cutterundertookfull excavation(Steps2to3and6).A
steel reinforcement cagewasloweredwhenthepanel
wasexcavatedtofull depth(Steps4and7). Concreting
of thepanelswasthenachievedbythetremiemethod
(Steps 5 and 8). Figure 4 presents the construction
sequenceof thediaphragmwall.
Following completion of the diaphragm walls
andbarrettes, dewateringandexcavationcommenced
insidethewalls. Excavationwas initially undertaken
to depths of up to about RL 2mto allowfor con-
structionof theroof slab. Water-tight membranewas
installedas part of thewater-proofingsystem. When
theroof slabwascompleted, it wasbackfilledandthe
sitewas clearedfor handover to theGoldCoast Air-
port. Theseactivities commencedinApril 2006after
environmental approvalsweregranted, andwerecom-
pleted by November 2006 which was the scheduled
dateof handover of thesitesurface. Excavationbelow
the runway extension continued through to J anuary
2007, and the remaining construction of the tunnel
continued.
6 STRUCTURAL DETAILS
The tunnel structure consisted of diaphragm walls
andbarrettes locatedat thecentreof thetunnel. The
diaphragmwallswere1minthickness, andextended
from the Northern Portal (Ch5588) to the South-
ern Portal (Ch5922.4). The walls were installed to
the depth of RL 17m, fromthe top of the guide
wall at RL 2m. The internal width between the
diaphragm walls ranged from about 25.7m at the
northern portal to 28mat the southern portal. Bar-
rettes were 0.8mthick and 2.8mwide with a clear
spacingof 2.8mthroughoutthecentral axisof thetun-
nel, extendingtoRL 17mindepth.Thesestructures
hada100year designlife, usingN-gradereinforcing
143
Figure5. Typical tunnel crosssection.
steelsand50MPahighstrengthconcrete. Therewere
nomechanical joints at theinterfaceof theprimary
and secondary panels in the longitudinal direction.
However, thebarrettesandthediaphragmwallswere
rigidlyconnectedtothe1mthickroof slab.Therewere
threejetfannicheswheretheroof slabwasslightlyele-
vated.Thebaseslabwasalso1mthickwithafounding
level rangingfromRL 5.5mtoRL 9.5m. Figure5
showsthetypical crosssectionof thetunnel.
7 DESIGNCONSIDERATIONS
Geotechnical design of the tunnel was required to
satisfythefollowingthreekeyissues:
Excavation support during construction the
diaphragmwall structuresweredesignedtoensure
stability of the excavation. Issues included struc-
tural design of the walls, base heave, hydraulic
uplift, piping, andliquefaction;
Longtermstabilityof thetunnel buoyancyof the
tunnel whenthegroundwater tablewasclosetothe
surface;
Serviceability assessment duetosettlement of the
tunnel during construction the tunnel was sub-
jected to loading fromairport runway fill which
resulted in settlements. The influences of dif-
ferential settlements on structural capacity were
assessed.
8 NUMERICAL MODELLING
8.1 Two-dimensional numerical modelling
Design of the tunnel was initially undertaken using
thefiniteelement softwarePLAXIS (Version8.4) at
selected sections. This numerical package was used
to analyze two-dimensional plane-strain problems
involving complex soil-structure interaction for the
design of the structural members. Structural beam
elements wereusedtosimulatethediaphragmwalls.
Global factorof safetyduringeachof theconstruction
stages was calculated based on the c

reduction
methodtoensuretheminimumFoSwasachieved.The
softwareallowedmodellingof constructionsequence,
changinggroundwater levels, andvaryingsubsurface
conditionsacrossthewidthof thetunnel.
8.2 Three-dimensional numerical modelling
A three-dimensional numerical modelling package,
PLAXIS3DFoundation(Version1.6), wasemployed
topredict thesettlementsof thetunnel causedbyrun-
wayfill loadingandexcavation. Duetothelimitation
of theprogram, settlement analyses wereundertaken
in sections, each of approximately 40 to 60m in
length. The major advantages of the 3D modelling
wereasfollows:
Abilitytomodel thephysical dimensionsof thewall
andbarrettestructures.Thisimprovedtheaccuracy
of settlement prediction, asit accountedfor longi-
tudinal stiffnessof thetunnel whichassistedinload
redistributionandtoeresistanceof thestructures;
Ability tosimulate3D loaddistributionwherethe
runway fill wasplacedobliquetothelongitudinal
axisof thetunnel;
Ability to model 3D subsurface profile based on
probeholesat discretelocations;
Ability to simulate dewatering within the tunnel
excavationarea.
The Hardening Soil (HS) model was considered
mostappropriatetosimulatesoil behaviourinanopen
excavation.TheHSmodel tookintoaccountunloading
andreloadingbehavior andirreversibleplasticstrains
of soil.TheHSstiffnessparametersweredefinedwith
respect to a reference pressure of 100kPa. The key
parameters included E
ref
50
, E
ref
oed
, and E
ref
ur
as shown in
Table1. Thepublisheddataindicatetheratio of E
ref
oed
toE
ref
50
isabout 0.7to1.4andtheratioof E
ref
ur
toE
ref
50
varies from2to 4. Theanalysis adoptedE
ref
50
=E
ref
oed
,
andE
ref
ur
=3E
ref
50
.
Presentedhereisa41.2mlongsectionof thetun-
nel between Ch5728.8 and Ch5770. This section of
the tunnel was of the deepest location of the tun-
nel, beneaththethickest layer of therunway fill, and
underlainbyslopingbedrock level andchangingclay
thickness. A jet fannicheof approximately12mlong
alsoliedwithinthecentreof thissectionwhichhadalso
beenincorporatedinthemodel. Withinthischainage
range, thereweresevenboreholes. Duetothecapacity
of theprogram, four representativeboreholes, which
wereevenlydistributedspatially, wereselectedfor the
analysis. Theassumedsubsurfaceprofiles areshown
inTable2.
8.3 Assumptions of analysis
Theconstructionsequencewasconsideredintheanal-
ysis to simulate the load transfer fromthe runway
fill tothediaphragmwalls. Theassumedconstruction
sequenceisdescribedbelow:
1. Applicationof loads exertedonthevirginground
fromthe working platformbuilt to RL 2m(for
construction of theguidewalls) and construction
loadof 10kPa;
144
Table2. Subsurfaceprofiles.
Borehole #1 #2 #3 #4
Location LHS RHS LHS Centre
Chainage 5730 5737 5757 5768 Soil type
(density/
Unit RL at topof eachlayer consistency)
1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Sand(VL)
2 4.8 3.4 5.0 2.8 CR (MD)
3 10.8 14.4 9.8 9.7 CR (D)
4 13.8 15.9 12.6 11.7 Sand(L)
5 17.8 17.1 17.5 17.5 Clay(St)
6 24.3 21.8 20.8 17.5 Sand(L)
7 27.3 25.1 21.8 18.0 Clay(F)
8 33.3 30.8 25.0 25.2 Clay(VSt)
9 36.3 32.0 27.4 27.4 Bedrock
Note: LHS is left hand side of tunnel facing increasing
chainage direction; RHS is right hand side of tunnel; and
Centreiscentrelineof tunnel.
2. Installationof diaphragmwallsandbarrettestoRL
17m;
3. Removal of theworkingplatform, andapplication
of 10kPaconstructionloadonsurface;
4. Dewateringandexcavationtoundersideof theroof
slab;
5. Installationof theroof slab(andjetfanniche), and
backfill toexistinggroundsurface;
6. Placement of runway fill todesignheights (simu-
latedaspressures) with10kPaliveloadabovethe
runway;
7. Staged dewatering and excavation within the
diaphragmwallstoundersideof thebaseslab;
8. Casting of the base slab and completion of the
tunnel structure;
9. Return of the groundwater table to the ground
surfaceandremoval of 10kPasurfaceloads.
The settlement assessment was undertaken at
stage 7, which was considered most critical with
maximumexcavationunder full runwayloading.
The assumed levels within the modeled chainage
rangearesummarizedinTable3.
8.4 Results of analysis
Thedeformedmeshof the3Dfiniteelement analysis
under thefull runway loading and at thefinal stage
of theexcavationisshowninFigure6. Thepredicted
settlementprofilesatthetopof theroof slabalongthe
diaphragmwalls andbarrettes prior to castingof the
baseslabarepresentedinFigure7.
Thepredictedsettlementof thetunnel duringexca-
vation was about 45mmon theLHS, 43mmon the
RHS, and 35mm along the central barrettes. The
maximumdifferential settlement was predictedto be
12mmbetweenthewalls andthebarrettes. To allow
Table3. Assumedgeometryduringconstruction.
5728.8 5737.6 5743.6 5755.2 5761.2
to to to to to
5737.6 5743.6 5755.2 5761.2 5770.0
Chainagerange
Feature RL (m)
Natural Ground 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Level
Topof Roof Slab 0.8 0.25 +0.4 0.25 0.8
Bottomof Roof 1.8 1.25 0.6 1.25 1.8
Slab
Initial Excavation 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8
Initial Dewatering 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8
Intermediate 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Excavation
Intermediate 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Dewatering
Topof BaseSlab 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4
Bottomof Base 9.4 9.4 9.4 9.4 9.4
Slab
Final Excavation 9.7 9.7 9.7 9.7 9.7
Final Dewatering 11.7 11.7 11.7 11.7 11.7
Toeof Diaphragm 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0
Wall
Figure6. Deformed3Dfiniteelement mesh.
for uncertainties, thetunnel wasdesignedfor amaxi-
mumdifferential settlement of 25mm. Thestructural
analysisshowedthatthelongitudinal in-planestiffness
of thetunnel wouldsmoothoutdifferential settlements
alongthetunnel alignment, withthepresenceof thejet
fannicheandvariabilityof thesubsurfaceconditions.
9 FIELDPERFORMANCE
The performance of tunnel during construction was
assessed based on the field monitoring results. This
wasameanstoconfirmthatthestructural integrityof
thediaphragmwallsandbarretteswerenot adversely
affectedby differential settlements. Threeinstrumen-
tation arrays were set up at Ch5655, Ch5718, and
Ch5770correspondingtolocationsof therunwayfill
(seeFigure8).
Each array consisted of three settlement plates
placed above the LHS and RHS diaphragm walls
145
55
50
45
40
35
30
45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0
Distance along Centre Line (m)
S
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)
Central Barrettes
RHS Diaphragm Wall
LHS Diaphragm Wall
CH5728.8 CH5770
Figure7. Predictedsettlement profilesat topof roof.
Figure8. Planof instrumentationarrays.
Figure9. Typical instrumentationsection.
and the central barrettes (see Figure 9). These were
installed prior to runway fill placement and excava-
tionof thetunnel inorder tocaptureall construction
induced movements. In addition to the settlement
plates, surveytargetswerealsoinstalledatinner walls
tothetunnel torecordtunnel movement duringexca-
vation. This informationhadto becalibratedagainst
thesettlementplatemeasurementsastheinitial tunnel
movement recordwasnot available.
Figure 10 shows a summary of construction
activities, recorded settlements, and the predicted
settlements at diaphragmwall and barrettelocations
at Ch5718. Thesettlement predictionadoptedhereis
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
10
26/11/2006 16/12/2006 5/01/2007 25/01/2007 14/02/2007 6/03/2007 26/03/2007 15/04/2007
Date
S
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)
10
8
6
4
2
0
2
4
R
L

o
f

E
x
c
a
v
a
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

T
o
p

o
f

F
i
l
l

(
m
)
Measured at LHS
Measured at Centre
Masured at RHS
RL of Excavation
RL of Top of Fill
Predicted 35mm (Center)
Predicted 43mm (RHS)
Predicted 45mm (LHS)
Figure10. Settlement monitoringresultsat Ch5718.
theresult of analysisbetweenCh5728.8andCh5770.
Monitoring commenced at thebeginning of Novem-
ber 2006. Excavationof thetunnel commencedinmid
December 2006fromtheNorthernPortal at Ch5588.
TheexcavationprocessreachedCh5718inearlyJ an-
uary.Placementof runwayfill aboveCH5718followed
in mid J anuary, which had resulted in visiblesettle-
mentsof thetunnel. Thesettlementsappearedtohave
ceasedafter theexcavationreachedfinal depthinmid
February. Themonitoring datashowed that thefield
performanceof thetunnel wasconsistentwiththepre-
dictions obtained fromthe PLAXIS 3D Foundation
modelling.Maximumdifferential settlementsbetween
thebarrettes andthediaphragmwalls wereless than
25mmat all stagesof construction.
10 CONCLUSIONS
TheTugunBypasstunnel hadtobeconstructedunder
many strict constraints in a challenging geotechni-
cal environment. Extensive site investigations were
undertaken to better characterize ground conditions
and reduce risks of geotechnical uncertainties. The
top-downconstructionmethodwas adoptedto allow
extension of the airport runway to occur simultane-
ouslyduringtunnel construction.Theadditional loads
fromtherunwayfill inducedsettlementsof thetunnel
duringconstruction. Settlement analysisof thetunnel
using 3D numerical modelling techniques had been
undertaken. Thedifferential settlementsof thetunnel
weresuccessfully predicted. Theperformanceof the
tunnel wasmonitoredduringconstructionandthefield
measurements were consistent with the numerical
predictions.
REFERENCES
PLAXIS2D, Version8.4, PLAXISBV Netherlands, 2006.
PLAXIS 3D Foundation, Version 1.6, PLAXIS BV
Netherlands, 2006.
146
Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground Ng, Huang & Liu (eds)
2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-48475-6
Numerical evaluationof dewateringeffect ondeepexcavationinsoft clay
L. Li
Tianjin Institute of Ubran Construction, Tianjin, P.R. China
Tianjin Key Laboratory of Soft Soil Characteristics and Engineering Environment, Tianjin, P.R. China
M.Yang
Key Laboratory of Geotechnical and Underground Engineering of Ministry of Education, Tongji University,
Shanghai, P.R. China
Tongji University, Shanghai city, P.R. China
ABSTRACT: Thispaper describestheapplicationof FLAC3Danalysisfor modelingatop-downconstruction
of a four-story (33.7mdepth), underground transformer substation in downtown of Shanghai city. There is
unconfinedaquifer andconfinedaquifer onthesiteof thisprojectanddrainagebydesiccationinthefoundation
pit isadopted. Theeffectivestressmethodsof analysisincorporateexcavationanddewateringof thefoundation
pitfor real-timesimulationof constructionactivities. Theresultsnotconsideringdewateringarecomparedwith
theresult consideringdewatering, includingwall deflections, basal heave, surfacesettlement. Theanalysis of
considering leakage of the wall and leakage between confined aquifer is provided also. The analysis shows
that although thedifferenceis small in soft clay dueto thelowpermeability of thesoil, dewatering enhance
thedeformationof thefoundationpit andthefoundationpit is inclinedto benot security if dewateringis not
considered, theeffect of leakageof thewall canbeobviousonthesurfacesettlement.
1 INTRODUCTION
Fordeepexcavationincongestedurbanenvironments,
designers are particularly interested in making reli-
able prediction of the magnitudes of movements in
thesurroundingsoil (Peck 1969, Cloughet al. 1989,
ORourke 1981) and then estimating the effects of
thesemovementsonadjacent structuresandfacilities
(Burland&Wroth1974, Boscardin&Cording1989).
In principle these prediction can be achieved using
powerful numerical methods such as finite element
analyses, but there is difficulties in achieving reli-
ableanalytical predictionsof soil deformationswhich
can be attributed to a variety of factors including
dewatering.
Dewateringisnecessaryintheexcavationunderthe
ground water level in soft clay, which provideadry
environment for theexcavationandis benefit for the
slopestability andreducingtheharminducedby the
groundwater, but dewateringhaveimportant effect on
thebehaviour of thefoundationpit andthesurround-
ingsoils, seepageinducedbydewateringfromoutside
to theinsideof thefoundationpit haveeffect onthe
stabilityandthedeformationof thefoundationpitand
surfacesettlementforthevertical consolidationbythe
underground-water drawdown out of the foundation
pit, so effective stress methods of analysis distinct
fromvast majority of analyses relies on total stress
methods of analysis andreal-timesimulationof cou-
plingbetweenground-water flow(porepressure)and
soil deformations is adoptedinthis numerical analy-
sisconsideringdewatering. Inthispaper, considering
dewateringmeansconsideringthedifferencebetween
inandout of thefoundationpit inthesimulating, and
notconsideringdewateringmeansnotconsideringthe
difference.
This paper describes the application of FLAC3D
programfor predictingsoil deformationsandground
water flowassociatedwiththetop-downconstruction
of acolumniformundergroundtransformersubstation
indowntownof Shanghai city.Themodel incorporates
anumber of advancedfeaturesof analysisincluding:
(1) A FLAC3Dmodel whichcanconsider interaction
betweensupport systemof thefoundationpit andthe
surroundingsoil;(2)Dewateringandexcavationareall
consideredinthenumerical analysisatthesametime;
(3) The drawdown of the ground water and the sur-
facesettlementduetodewateringinthefoundationpit;
(4) Thesurfacesettlement inducedby theleakageof
thediaphragmwall. Sitestratigraphy, material proper-
ties, andinitial ground-waterconditionareall selected
usinginformationprovidedprior toconstruction, the
simulation of theconstruction sequenceis based on
thescheme.
147
82.3m
77.4m
60.3m
45.3m
73.4m
37.5m
31.6m
26.5m
21.3m
16.5m
10.5m
3.2m
2.0m
100.0m
11
1
1
2.0m
7.0m
Roof slab
Temporary bracing
Floor slab
Floor slab
Floor slab
Temporary bracing
Temporary bracing
11.5m
16.5m
22.0m
26.5m
31.0m
33.7m Floor slab
1
7
1
2
3
4
5
12
5
6
7
1
8
2
8
3
8
1
9
2
9
2
7 2
7
Figure 1. Soil profile and the location of the wall and
bracing.
2 GENERAL SITUATIONOF THE PROJ ECT
2.1 Project description
Thecolumniformundergroundtransformersubstation
of afour floor and33.7mhighundergroundstructure
occupies aplanareaof 13000squaremeter (interior
diameter is130m) inthedowntownof Shanghai city
and is bounded by buildings and viaduct and lots of
undergroundpipeline.
The underground transformer substation design
uses a cast in situ, reinforced concrete, diaphragm
wall (1.2mthick) extendingdown into theelevation
57.5m (With respect to the Shanghai City Base
datum), the circular wall is braced internally by the
floorslabsand3temporaryannularbracing(Figure1),
which arein turn supported by theinterior columns
(steel and reinforced concrete & angel iron lattice)
foundedonthebearingpile(boredfillingpile, thepile
tipat depths8090mbelowgroundlevel. Both
thediaphragmwall andinterior columnsareinstalled
prior to excavationusingslurry trenchmethods. The
roof andfourfloorlevelsarecastinsequencefromthe
top-downbyexcavatingthesoil frombeneaththemost
recentlyconstructedslab. Duringexcavation, dewater-
ingisaccomplishedusingdrainagebydesiccation.
2.2 Engineering geological and groundwater
conditions
Table 1 shows an averaged profile of subsurface
stratigraphyinterpretedfromboringsconductedatthe
site. It shouldbenotedthat theborings logs actually
Table1. Input parametersinMohr-coulombmodel.
E j C D
Stratum MPa kPa (

) (

)
1.2 0.36 0.32 22.5 0
9.3 0.36 25.9 17.4 0
8.9 0.37 5.1 21.2 0
8.2 0.39 8.0 19.7 0

1
11.4 0.38 13.4 15.7 0

2
14.9 0.37 27.1 15.8 0
26.8 0.34 42.7 13.7 0

1
44.9 0.32 5.0 31.2 0

2
80.2 0.31 0.0 33.0 0

1
16.4 0.34 21.2 23.1 0

2
28.3 0.33 16.9 24.1 0

3
72.2 0.33 22.1 20.3 0

1
99.2 0.31 0.0 35.0 5

2
133.4 0.29 0.0 37.0 7
Table2. Porosityandcoefficient of permeability.
Coefficient of
permeability
Vertical Horizontal
Stratum Soil name Porosity m/s m/s
Artifical soil 0.56
Siltyclay 0.49 2.510
9
5.510
7
Muckysilt 0.57 1.710
8
3.510
6
Muckysilt 0.58 7.210
9
8.110
8

11
Clay 0.52 3.910
9
4.110
8

12
Siltyclay 0.51 4.010
8
3.210
8

1
Siltyclay 0.43 5.810
9
4.110
8

1
Siltysilt 0.46 2.610
6
2.610
5

2
Silt sand 0.44 5.410
6
3.810
5

1
Silt clay 0.51 8.210
9
4.010
6

2
Silt sand 0.50 6.210
8
2.810
6

3
Silt sand 0.47 1.710
6
3.010
4

1
Mediumsand 0.37 5.710
6
3.010
4

2
Coarsesand 0.35 7.910
6
3.010
4
showsignificantvariationsinthethicknessof theindi-
vidual strata across the site, The assumption of an
averageprofileisconsistent withthelimitedareaand
uncertainties in engineering properties of individual
strata.Thematerial parameterof thelayersisintable1.
Thereis unconfined aquifer and confined aquifer
inthesite. Thegroundwater level of theunconfined
aquifer is 12munder thegroundandthe6thlayer
is relative impervious layer. The confined aquifer is
dividedintothe1st confinedaquifer andthe2ndcon-
fined aquifer by the
1

2
layer. The 1st confined
aquiferliesinthe
1
and
2
layerandthe2ndconfined
aquifer lieinthe
3
andlayer, theremay besome
relationshipbetweenthe1stand2ndconfinedaquifer.
Theporosityandthecoefficientof permeabilityof the
layersisintable2.
148
2.3 FLAC3D model description
The three dimensional numerical analysis program
FLAC3D is developed by Itasca Consulting Group,
Inc. Thegroundwater flowmodel may becoupledto
the stress model. The finite element model extends
far beneaththeexcavation(to100mdepth) andlater-
ally a distance of 200mbeyond the perimeter wall
where soil displacements, due to the simulation of
undergroundtransformer substationconstruction, are
negligible. Constitutivemodelingof soil behavior and
selectionof inputparametersrepresentamajor source
of uncertaintyinfiniteelementanalysis.Thesoil con-
stitutive model use Mohr-coulomb failure criterion
andinorder tomodel realisticallythedepthvariations
in properties theelastic shear and bulk modulus are
assumedtobeproportional tothemeaneffectivecon-
finingstress. Theunloadingmodulusof thesoil inthe
foundationpitistrinal loadingsandthemodulusof the
soil undertheultimatebaseof excavationadoptmixed
modulus because of tension pile. The parameters of
thesoil areshownintable1.
The soil and diaphragmwall adopt 8 nodes solid
element and the permanent floor slab adopted shell
element and the temporary annular bracing adopted
beamelement, and interface is adopted in the joint
of the diaphragm and soil. Elastic model is used
for the diaphragmwall and the youngs modulus is
2.310
4
MPa, andthePoissonsratiois0.167. Elastic
model isalsousedforfloorslabandtemporaryannular
bracingandtheparameter of themis consistent with
thescheme. TheFLAC3D model of this project is in
Figure2.
Boundariesconditionissummarizedasfollows: (1)
Theundersidedisplacement of themodel iszero, the
horizontal displacement of the side of the model is
zero, theuppersurfaceisfree; (2)Theundersideof the
model isimperviousboundary, thesideof themodel is
perviousboundaryandtheporepressureisfixed, the
porepressureof theupper surfaceis fixedas zeroin
theformationof theinitial stressfieldandhydrostatic
pressureandisfreeduringdewateringandexcavation.
Dewateringinthefoundationpit issimulatedbycon-
trolling the saturation and pore pressure at specific
locationsintheelement model.
2.4 Construction sequence
Based on the actual record of site activities and the
sequenceof events occurs in thefiniteelement sim-
ulation, this process is simulated by 17 stages. Each
stage in the analysis represents a distinct change
in either the geometry, boundary conditions or time
elapsedbetweenevents.Thefirststageistheformation
of the initial stress field and hydrostatic pressure
andafter every dewateringandexcavation(including
addingbracing) is astage. Thenumerical simulation
assumes that theconstruction of thediaphragmwall
Figure2. FLAC3Dmodel of theproject.
has no effect on the surrounding soil (i.e., the wall
iswished-inplace)anddoesnot consider theinstal-
lation of load-bearing elements used to support the
internal column.
3 RESULT ANDANALYSIS
3.1 Analysis of the seepage field
Duetounconfinedaquifer andconfinedaquifer exist-
inginthesite, thereisdifficultyinsimulatingthemat
thesametime. Theconfinedaquifer isnot takeninto
149
Figure3. Theneural pressurecontour andflowvector.
Figure4(a). Lateral deflectionof wall.
Figure4(b). Contrast of thewall deflection.
accountwhenanalyzingtheseepageof theunconfined
aquifer, whichhavenoinfluenceonthephreaticline.
Theneutral pressurecontourandtheflowvectorwhen
excavatingto33.7misasFigure3. Itshowsthatthe
drawdownof thephreaticwaterissmall andthedepres-
sionconeis not obvious dueto thelowpermeability
of thesoft clay.
3.2 Analysis of the lateral deflection of wall
Figure4(a)isthecomputingresultof thelateral deflec-
tions of thediaphragmwall alongthedepthat every
Figure4(c). Contour of thelateral deflection.
excavationstage. Themaximumlateral deflectionof
thewall is23.3mm, theratioof themaximumlateral
deflection to theend excavation depth is 0.07%, the
top-downandthehighrigidityof theslabisthereason
forthesmall ratio.Thelocationof thelateral deflection
is alittlehigher thantheexcavationfaceandfalling
withtheexcavatingandthelocationof themaximum
lateral deflectionisat28.1m. Figure4(b) isthecon-
trast of thelateral deflection considering dewatering
andnot inthelast 3excavationstage. Themaximum
lateral deflection considering dewatering is 27.7mm
andhigher thantheresultnotconsideringdewatering.
Thedifferencemostlyhappeninthemiddleandunder-
sidewall andis increasingwiththeexcavationdepth
fortheseepageforceisconcentratedinthemiddleand
underside wall and the hydraulic head is increasing
withtheexcavationdepth. Figure4(c) is thecontour
of lateral displacement of thediaphragmwall.
3.3 Analysis of the basal heave formation
The basal heave is including the elastic rebounding
andthelocal plasticfailureandthedeep-seatedplastic
failure. Theelastic reboundisbecauseof theunload-
ing, the local plastic failure is that the soil near the
wall yield, and thedeep-seated plastic failureis that
thesoil inthebottomisshort of bearingpower. When
the excavation depth is little, the elastic rebound is
themost, themaximumheaveliesinthecenter, with
theexcavation depth increasing theheavein thecir-
cumferencepreponderateover theheaveinthecenter
becauseof thefailureinthecircumference, Figure5(a)
isthecurveof thebasal heave, Figure5(b) isthecon-
tour of thebasal heavewhenexcavatingto 33.7m.
Figure5(c)isthecontrastof thebasal heaveresultcon-
sideringdewateringandnot inthelast twoexcavation
stages, it showsthebasal heaveconsideringdewater-
ingishighthanthenotandthedifferenceisincreasing
withtheexcavationdepth.
3.4 Analysis of the surface settlement
Figure 6(a) shows the surface settlement after the
every excavation stage. The surface settlement and
150
Figure5(a). Thedeformationof thebasal heave.
Figure5(b). Contour of thebasal heave.
Figure5(c). Contrastof thedeformationof thebasal heave.
thedistancebetweenthemaximumsurfacesettlement
andthefoundationpit is increasingwiththeexcava-
tiondepth. Themaximumsettlement is 15.7mmand
the maximumdistance is 44mwhen excavating to
33.7mdepth.Thediaphragmwall moveupandraise
thesoil near thefoundationpitbecauseof theunload-
ing, whichhasaeffectonthelocationof themaximum
surfacesettlement .
Figure6(a). Surfacesettlement at stages.
Figure6(b). Contour of thesurfacesettlement.
Figure6(c). Contrast of thesurfacesettlement.
Figure6(b) isthecontour of thesurfacesettlement.
Figure6(c)showsthecontrastof thesurfacesettlement
consideringdewateringandnot. Itshowsthatthemag-
nitudeandrangeof thesurfacesettlement inducedby
thedewateringissmall forthereasonof thelowperme-
abilityof thesoil andthesmall descentof groundwater
level induced by dewatering. The location of max-
imum surface settlement induced by dewatering is
closer tothefoundationpitthanbyexcavationandthe
151
Figure7. Leakageinthe6thlayer.
maximumsurfacesettlement consideringdewatering
is15.9mm.
3.5 Analysis of leakage
By the excavation experience in Shanghai city, the
leakageof diaphragmwall oftenoccur whenthedepth
beyond 28m and the probability increase with the
excavationdepth. Themaincauseisthat thebadjoint
of the wall and the dimension error in construction
andthedistortionof thediaphragmwall. Theleakage
will inducethedeclineof thegroundwater level and
theadditional surfacesettlement, so theeffect of the
leakagehavetobetakenintoaccount.
If the leakage occurs in the sixth layer, Figure. 7
showstheneutral pressureandtheflowvelocity vec-
tor, by the contour of the neutral pressure, only the
groundwater level near thefoundationpit descendlit-
tle, sotheleakageinthe6thlayer havelittleeffect on
thesettlementaroundthefoundationpitbecauseof the
lowpermeabilityandsmall discharge.
If the leakage occurs in the 1st confined aquifer
which of the water pressure is 56m under the
ground, thewater pressureof the1stconfinedaquifer
descendclearly andthesurfacesettlement is distinct
for thepermeabilityof the1stconfinedaquifer ishigh
andthedischargeismuch.
The2ndconfinedaquifer canleaktointerior of the
1st confined aquifer for the fall of the neutral pres-
sureinthe1stconfinedaquifer duetodewateringand
excavatingin
1
layer. Thenumerical analysisshows
leakageoccurs, but thedischargeislittle, sotheleak-
agehavelittleeffectonthesettlementforpermeability
of theof the
1
grayclayislow(8.2110
9
m/s) and
thethicknessof
1
layer reachto15m.
4 CONCLUSIONS
This paper introduce the FLAC3D model for simu-
lating the top-down construction of an underground
transformer substationat Shanghai city. Results con-
sideringdewateringarecomparedwiththeresult not
considering including wall deflection, basal heave,
and surface settlement, the effect of leakage is also
analyzed. Themain conclusions of this study areas
follows:
1. Dewatering by desiccation in the foundation pit
haveeffectonthebehaviorof thefoundationpit,the
seepagecouldenhancethewall deflectionandthe
deformation of thebasal heave, thedrawdown of
thegroundwater level outsideof thefoundationpit
couldresultinthevertical consolidationandaddthe
surfacesettlement.Thefoundationpitisinclinedto
benot securityif dewateringisnot considered.
2. Thewall deflectionandbasal heaveduetotheseep-
ageislittlebecauseof thelowpermeabilityof the
soil insoftclay. Thedrawdownof thegroundwater
level duetodewateringislittle, whichresultinlittle
surfacesettlement for thesamereasonabove.
3. Theleakageof thewall haveimportant effect on
thesurfacesettlement, whichisaproblemneeded
tosolve.
REFERENCES
Andrew J. Whittle, Youssef M. A. Hashash & Robert V.
Whitman. 1993. Analysis of deep excavation in boston,
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 119(1): 6990.
Chang-Yu, Ou, Tzong-Shiann Wu & Hsii-Sheng Hsieh,
1996. Analysis of deep excavation with column tye of
groundimprovementinsoftclay. Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering 122(9): 709716.
Itasca Consulting Group, Inc. 2002.6. FLAC3D (Fast
LagrangianAnalysis of Continua in 3DDimensions) User
Manuals, Version2.1. Minneapolis, Minnesota.
ItascaConsultingGroup, Inc.2005.5. FLAC(Fast Lagrangian
Analysis of Continua )User Manuals, Version 5.0. Min-
neapolis, Minnesota.
J acob Bear, 1983. Dynamics of Fluids in Porous Media.
Beijing: ChinaArchitecture& BuildingPress.
Lin Li, 2007. Studies on the behavior of deep excavation
and surroundings due to dewatering effect, Ph.D, Thesis,
Universityof Tongji, Shanghai, China.
LinLi & MinYang, 2007. Theanalysisof deformationchar-
acteristicsof thedeepexcavationinsoft clay. China Civil
Engineering Journal, 40(4): 6672.
Sunil S.Kishnani &RonaldoI.Borja,1993.Seepageandsoil-
structureinteractioneffectsinbracedexcavtion. Journal
of Geotechnical Engineering, 119(5): 912927.
Youssef M.A. Hashash & AndrewJ Whittle, 1996. Ground
movement prediction for deep excavations in soft clay.
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 122(6): 474486.
Yuqi Li, 2005. Studies on the behavior of foundation pit with
excavation considering seepage, Ph.D,Thesis,University
of Zhejiang, Hangzhou, China.
152
Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground Ng, Huang & Liu (eds)
2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-48475-6
Analysisof thefactorsinfluencingfoundationpit deformations
Y.Q. Li
Department of Civil Engineering, Shanghai University, Shanghai, P.R. China
K.H. Xie
Institute of Geotechnical Engineering, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, P.R. China
J. Zhou& X.L. Kong
Key Laboratory of Geotechnical and Underground Engineering of Ministry of Education,
Tongji University, Shanghai, P.R. China
Department of Geotechnical Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai, P.R. China
ABSTRACT: Due to the complexity of excavation and groundwater seepage, the behavior of foundation
pitsisnot yet well understood. Inthispaper, basedonthree-dimensional (3D) Biotsconsolidationtheory and
nonlinearDuncan-Changsmodel, finiteelementequationsconsideringthecouplingof groundwaterseepageand
soil skeletondeformationduringexcavationarededucedandacorrespondingthree-dimensional finiteelement
programis developed. Using the program, the influence of soil permeability, rigidity and tiers of supports,
rigidity of retainingwall andconstructionperiodof excavationongroundsurfacesettlement, wall horizontal
displacement and pit baseheaveareanalyzed in detail. Someuseful conclusions aredrawn by analyzing the
influenceof thesefactors on theexcavation deformations, which arevery significant for guiding design and
constructionof excavations.
1 INTRODUCTION
Inurbanareas, moreandmoreundergroundspaceis
utilized with the fast development of city construc-
tion, andthusalotof excavationengineeringappears.
However, the pit deformations induced by excava-
tion greatly influence the safety of not only the pit
itself but also the buildings and municipal facilities
around it. Therefore, study of the behavior of foun-
dationpitshasreceivedmuchattention. Whittleet al.
(1993) described the application of a finite element
analysis for modelling thetop-down construction of
a seven-storey, underground parking garage at Post
OfficeSquareinBoston.Theresultsdemonstratedthat
reliableandconsistentpredictionsof soil deformations
and groundwater flow can beachieved by advanced
methods of analysis without recourse to parametric
iteration, but emphasizedtheneedfor adequatechar-
acterizationof engineeringpropertiesfortheentiresoil
profile.Vaziri (1996) describedasimple, efficientand
practical numerical model for analysisof cantilevered
and strutted flexible retaining walls. The model had
incorporated a variety of features that affected the
performance of the retaining walls in the field such
as installation and removal of struts, application of
surcharge, changes in groundwater table, changes in
soil properties andsimulationof stagedexcavations.
Themodel canbeusedeffectivelytoperformabroad
suite of parametric studies in the design stage and
also as a reliable tool for predicting performance.
Ou et al. (1996) further proposed a nonlinear, 3D
finite element technique for deep excavation analy-
sis. Thetechniqueaswell astheanalytical procedures
formodelingtheexcavationprocesseswerecodedinto
acomputer program, andtheaccuracyof theprogram
wasassessed. Thecaseof anirregularly-shapedexca-
vationwithfieldmeasurementsof wall deflectionwas
studiedandtheresults showedcloseagreement with
field measurements. Zdravkovic et al. (2005) stud-
iedtheeffect of excavationonthesurroundingareas
andprovidedadetailedassessmentof wall andground
movements.
Therehavebeen afew studies on theinfluencing
factors of foundationpit deformations. Inthis paper,
3Dconsolidationfiniteelementequationsarederived,
andthecorrespondingfiniteelementprogramisdevel-
oped. Someuseful conclusionsaredrawnbyanalyzing
the influence of factors such as soil permeability,
rigidity and tiers of supports, rigidity of retaining
wall andconstructionperiodof excavationonthepit
153
deformations, whicharebeneficial tooptimisationof
excavationdesign.
2 FINITE ELEMENT EQUATIONS
BasedonBiots3Dconsolidationfiniteelementequa-
tions(Xie&Zhou2002),andconsideringgroundwater
seepageinducedbythewaterheaddifferencebetween
the inside and outside of a pit, the finite element
equationsof excavationareasfollows:
where is an integral constant; Lt is the time
increment; [K
eij
] and[K
cij
] arerespectively thesub-
matrices of the stiffness matrix and the coupling
matrix; K
sij
is an element of seepage matrix; Lu
i
,
Lv
i
andLw
i
arethedisplacement incrementsof ele-
ment node i; P
i(n+1)
is the soil water potential of
element nodei at t =t
n+1
; LR

xi
=LR
xi
+[K
cij
]P
i(n)
,
LR

yi
=LR
yi
+[K
cij
]P
i(n)
, LR

zi
=LR
zi
+[K
cij
]P
i(n)
,
andLR

pi
=LR
pi
LtK
sij
P
i(n)
, LR
xi
, LR
yi
andLR
zi
are the equivalent load increments of element node
i, and LR
pi
is theequivalent water runoff increment
of element nodei, P
i(n)
is thesoil water potential of
element nodei at t =t
n
.
The soil water potential of a saturated soil can
beexpressed using thefollowing equation when the
solutepotential of thesoil isneglected:
wherethespatial coordinatez isupwardspositive; P is
soil waterpotential of saturatedsoil; p isthesumof the
pressurepotential andtheloadpotential, i.e. thetotal
porewater pressure; and
w
z isthegravitypotential.
3 ANALYSISOF THE INFLUENCING
FACTORSOF PIT DEFORMATIONS
Inorder toanalyzetheparametricinfluenceonthepit
deformations, a3D consolidationfiniteelement pro-
gramis developedon thebasis of thefiniteelement
equations derived. Usinganumerical examplegiven
below, themain factors influencing thepit deforma-
tions such as soil permeability, rigidity and tiers of
supports, rigidity of retaining wall and construction
periodof excavationareanalyzedrespectively.
Figure1. Meshof finiteelements.
Table 1. Duncan-Chang model parameters
of soil.
Parameters Values
K 150
n 0.7
R
f
0.85
c

15kPa

35

F 0.15
G 0.35
D 3.5
K
ur
300
3.1 Reference case numerical example
Theexcavatedlength, widthanddepthof thefounda-
tionpitinacertainhomogenousandisotropicstratum
of soft soil are60m, 50mand8mrespectively. The
soilsvertical andhorizontal permeabilitycoefficients
areboth2.010
6
cm/sandtheeffectiveunit weight
of the soil is 9.0kN/m
3
. The retaining wall is 0.6m
thickandembedded16mdeepinsoftsoil. Reinforced
concretesupportsareinstalledat different excavation
stages and the horizontal spacing between supports
along the pits long side (i.e. y-direction) and short
side (i.e. x-direction) is 6mand 5mrespectively in
everytier.
In order to minimize the boundary effects and
improvethecomputational efficiency, thecalculation
domainsinx-, y- andz-directionare100m, 100mand
40mrespectively in consideration of the symmetry
about the pit centerline. The finite element mesh of
thesoil massandretainingwall areshowninFigure1.
All soil units are discretized using eight-node
hexahedral isoparametric elements, modelled using
thenonlinear Duncan-Changmodel with parameters
listed in Table 1, where c

and

are the effective


cohesion and the effective friction angle of the soil
respectively, R
f
is the failure ratio, and K, n, F,
G, D and K
ur
are some parameters determined by
tests. Theretainingwall adoptsWilsonnon-harmony
154
elements, modelled as alinear elastic model, whose
modulus of elasticity and Poissons ratio are25GPa
and0.167respectively.A rowof 0.1mthickinterfaces,
connectingthesoil massandtheretainingwall isatthe
twosidesof retainingwall, adopting3Dthininterface
elements derivedfromYins rigidplastic model (Yin
et al. 1995) with the outer friction angle=1.0

and
cohesion=0.5kPa,anditsothermodel parametersare
thesameasthoseof thesoil masselements. Thesup-
ports are modelled using a linear elastic model and
spatial bar elements, with0.6m0.6mcrosssection,
whoseelasticitymodulusis23GPa.
Theexcavationinvolves threestages. Thedetailed
description of the staged excavation of the pit is as
follows:
1. Stage1: 2.0mexcavationdepthwithout supports
for four days, andfour days excavationintermis-
sionfor installingsupports at thenext excavation
stage.Thezvalueis1.5mforthefirsttierof sup-
portsand2.0mfor thecorrespondingexcavation
level belowthesupports.
2. Stage 2: 3.0m excavation depth (excavation to
5.0mdeep) with a tier of supports in six days,
andsixdays excavationintermissionfor installing
the next tier of supports. The z value is 4.5m
for thesecondtier of supportsand5.0mfor the
correspondingexcavationlevel belowthesupports.
3. Stage 3: 3.0mexcavation depth (full excavation
to 8.0mdeep) with two tiers of supports in eight
days, andtwentydays excavationintermissionfor
castingthepit baseconcrete.
3.2 Influencing factors
3.2.1 Soil permeability
In this section, theinfluenceof soil permeability on
the pit deformations at the y =0 section after the
thirdexcavationstageis studied. Thesoil permeabil-
ity for the reference case is 2.010
6
cm/s. Four
more analyses are carried out for soil permeability
of 2.010
5
cm/s, 5.010
6
cm/s, 5.010
7
cm/s
and2.010
7
cm/s. Figures 24showtheinfluence
of soil permeabilityrepresentedbypermeabilitycoef-
ficient k onthewall horizontal displacement, ground
settlementandpitbaseheave.Withthesoil permeabil-
ity increasing, the vertical effective stresses outside
thefoundationpit alsoincrease, but thosebeneaththe
pit basedecrease, so ground settlement and pit base
heaveincrease, whichareshowninFigures 34. For
the wall horizontal displacement, with the soil per-
meability increasing, thehorizontal effectivestresses
insideandoutsidethepit bothincrease, andthewall
horizontal displacement decreases as a result of the
greaterinfluenceof lateral pressuresactingonthewall
insidethepit, whichcanbeseeninFigure2.
-16
-12
-8
-4
0
5 6 7 8 9
Wall horizontal displacement/cm
D
e
p
t
h
/
m
k=2e-7cm/s
k=5e-7cm/s
k=2e-6cm/s
k=5e-6cm/s
k=2e-5cm/s
Figure 2. Influence of soil permeability on wall
displacement.
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
0 20 40 60 80
Distance from the wall/m
G
r
o
u
n
d

s
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t
/
c
m
k=2e-7cm/s
k=5e-7cm/s
k=2e-6cm/s
k=5e-6cm/s
k=2e-5cm/s
Figure 3. Influence of soil permeability on ground
settlement.
0
3
6
9
12
0 5 10 15 20 25
Distance from the pit center/m
P
i
t

b
a
s
e

h
e
a
v
e
/
c
m
k=2e-7cm/s k=5e-7cm/s
k=2e-6cm/s k=5e-6cm/s
k=2e-5cm/s
Figure4. Influenceof soil permeabilityonpit baseheave.
3.2.2 Rigidity of supports
The influence of support rigidity on wall horizontal
displacement, ground settlement and pit base heave
at the y =0 section after the third excavation stage
are shown in Figures 57. When the support rigid-
ity becomes larger, the retaining wall movement is
more restricted, so the wall horizontal displacement
is smaller. However, theinfluenceof support rigidity
ongroundsettlement andpit baseheaveis relatively
insignificant.
3.2.3 Tiers of supports
The influence of support tiers on the pit deforma-
tions at the y =0 section after the third excavation
155
-16
-12
-8
-4
0
5 6 7 8 9 10
wall horizontal displacement/cm
D
e
p
t
h
/
m
5GPa
10GPa
23GPa
50GPa
100GPa
Figure 5. Influence of support rigidity on wall
displacement.
-6
-4
-2
0
0 20 40 60 80
Distance from the wall/m
G
r
o
u
n
d

s
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t
/
c
m
5GPa 10GPa
23GPa 50GPa
100GPa
Figure 6. Influence of support rigidity on ground
settlement.
0
3
6
9
12
0 5 10 15 20 25
Distance from the pit center/m
P
i
t

b
a
s
e

h
e
a
v
e
/
c
m
5GPa 10GPa
23GPa 50GPa
100GPa
Figure7. Influenceof support rigidityonpit baseheave.
stageis studied. Thereferencecasehas two tiers of
support. Threemoreanalysesarecarriedout: nosup-
port, onetier at 2.0mexcavationdepthandonetier at
5.0mexcavationdepth. Figures810showtheinflu-
enceof support tiersonwall horizontal displacement,
groundsettlementandpitbaseheaverespectively.The
deformationsof thefoundationpit duringexcavation
withnosupport arethelargest, andtheyevidentlyare
smallerwithaddingsupporttiers.Tiersof supportalso
influencethepitdeformations, whichfortwo-tiersup-
ports are less than those with one-tier. In addition,
-16
-12
-8
-4
0
0 10 20 30 40
wall horizontal displacement/cm
D
e
p
t
h
/
m
two tiers
one tier at
upper depth
one tier at
lower depth
no support
Figure8. Influenceof support tiersonwall displacement.
-15
-12
-9
-6
-3
0
0 20 40 60 80
Distance from the wall/m
G
r
o
u
n
d

s
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t
/
c
m
two tiers
one tier at upper depth
one tier at lower depth
no support
Figure9. Influenceof support tiersongroundsettlement.
0
5
10
15
20
0 5 10 15 20 25
Distance from the pit center/m
P
i
t

b
a
s
e

h
e
a
v
e
/
c
m
two tiers
one tier at upper depth
one tier at lower depth
no support
Figure10. Influenceof support tiersonpit baseheave.
the position of the supports also greatly influences
thepit deformations. Thedeformationswithsupports
installed at a higher level are less than those with
supportsinstalledatalower level under thesamecon-
ditions, so theformer approachis moreeffectivefor
controllingthepit deformations.
3.2.4 Rigidity of retaining wall
Figures 1113 show the influence of rigidity of the
retainingwall onwall horizontal displacement,ground
settlementandpitbaseheaveatthey =0sectionafter
the third excavation stage. The wall horizontal dis-
placement will obviously decrease with an increase
in the rigidity of the retaining wall. However, the
156
-16
-12
-8
-4
0
0 3 6 9 12
wall horizontal displacement/cm
D
e
p
t
h
/
m
5GPa
10GPa
25GPa
50GPa
100GPa
Figure 11. Influence of rigidity of retaining wall on wall
displacement.
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
0 20 40 60 80
Distance from thewall/m
G
r
o
u
n
d

s
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t
/
c
m
5GPa 10GPa
25GPa 50GPa
100GPa
Figure12. Influenceof rigidityof retainingwall onground
settlement.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0 5 10 15 20 25
Distance fromthe pit center/m
P
i
t

b
a
s
e

h
e
a
v
e
/
c
m
5GPa 10GPa 25GPa
50GPa 100GPa
Figure13. Influenceof rigidityof retainingwall onpitbase
heave.
influenceof rigidityof retainingwall ongroundsettle-
ment andpit baseheaveisnot significant. Therefore,
increasingtherigidityof theretainingwall caneffec-
tively reducethewall horizontal displacement andis
beneficial tothesafetyof excavations.
3.2.5 Construction period
Theconstructionperiodincludestheexcavationperiod
andintermissionsatall excavationstages,whichis48d
inthereferencecase. Four moreanalyseswerecarried
outforconstructionperiodof 24d, 36d, 60dand72d.
-16
-12
-8
-4
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
wall horizontal displacement/cm
D
e
p
t
h
/
m
t=24d
t=36d
t=48d
t=60d
t=72d
Figure14. Influenceof construction period of excavation
onwall displacement.
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
0 20 40 60 80
Distance from the wall/m
G
r
o
u
n
d
s
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t
/
c
m
t=24d t=36d t=48d
t=60d t=72d
Figure15. Influenceof construction period of excavation
ongroundsettlement.
4
6
8
10
0 5 10 15 20 25
Distance from the pit center/m
P
i
t

b
a
s
e

h
e
a
v
e
/
c
m
t=24d t=36d
t=48d t=60d
t=72d
Figure16. Influenceof construction period of excavation
onpit baseheave.
Theinfluenceof constructionperiodonwall horizon-
tal displacement, groundsettlementandpitbaseheave
at they =0sectionafter thethirdexcavationstageis
shown in Figures 1416. On the one hand, with the
constructionperiodincreasing, theexcessporewater
pressureshavealonger timetodissipate, andthesoil
strata can achieve a higher degree of consolidation,
gaining higher strength and stiffness, thus the wall
horizontal displacement decreasestoacertainextent.
On theother hand, thepit baseheaveincreases with
an increase in construction period. The influence of
constructionperiodongroundsettlement isrelatively
insignificant.
157
4 CONCLUSION
Based on Biots consolidation theory, finiteelement
equationswerededucedandacomputer programwas
developed.Theinfluenceof thekeyparameterssuchas
soil permeability,rigidityandtiersof supports,rigidity
of theretainingwall, andtheconstruction periodon
pit deformations is studied using the finite element
program. The study and the results reported in this
paper arehelpful toguideexcavationengineering.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
ThisresearchprojectwassupportedbytheChinaPost-
doctoral ScienceFoundation(No. 20060400672) and
InnovationFundof Shanghai University, China.
REFERENCES
Ou, C.Y., Chiou, D.C. & Wu, T.S. 1996. Three-dimensional
finite element analysis of deep excavation. Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE 122(5):337345.
Vaziri, H.H. 1996. A simplenumerical model for analysisof
proppedembeddedretainingwalls. International Journal
of Solids Structures 33(16):23572376.
Whittle,A.J.,Hashash,Y.M.A.&Whitman,R.V.1993.Analy-
sisof deepexcavationinBoston. Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, ASCE 119(1):6990.
Xie, K.H. & Zhou, J. 2002. Theory and Application of Finite
Element Analysis in Geotechnical Engineering. Science
Press, Beijing.
Yin, Z.Z., Zhu, H. &Xu, G.H. 1995. A studyof deformation
intheinterfacebetweensoil andconcrete. Computers and
Geotechnics 17:7592.
Zdravkovic, L., Potts, D.M. & St J ohn, H.D. 2005. Mod-
elling of a 3D excavation in finite element analysis.
Geotechnique 55(7):497513.
158
Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground Ng, Huang & Liu (eds)
2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-48475-6
Constructionmonitoringandnumerical simulationof anexcavation
withSMWretainingstructure
Z.H. Li & H.W. Huang
Key Laboratory of Geotechnical and Underground Engineering of Ministry of Education, Tongji University,
Shanghai, P.R. China
Department of Geotechnical Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai, P.R. China
ABSTRACT: The soil mixing wall (SMW) retaining structure is applied in two long strip excavations in
Shanghai. Firstly, thebearinganddeformingmechanismof SMWisanalyzedinbrief. Thestructural analysis
methodof SMWisdiscussed. Secondly, basedonthein-situexcavatingconstructionprocedures, theconstruction
stepsof excavatingandsupportingaresimulatedinthenumerical calculationwiththemethodof FastLagrangian
Analysisof Continua3D. Therearetwocasessimulatedinnumerical calculation, case1isthenormal casein
whichthesupportsareinstalledtimely, andcase2isacaseinwhichthesupportsarenotinstalledtimelybecause
of somereasons.Then, thedeformationof theretainingstructure, thehorizontal displacementatthetopof SMW
andtheaxial forces of steel pipesupports areanalyzedandcomparedwiththeactual observationdataintwo
cases. A goodagreement canbefoundbetweenthecalculationresultsandobservationdata. It canbeseenthat
incase1theexcavationisstableandsafe; theaxial forcesarelower thanthealarmvaluesandthedisplacement
duetoexcavatingisinthepermissiblerange. Incase2, however, theexcavationisindanger of instability and
somemeasuresshouldbetakentoprotect theSMWretainingstructurefromfailure.
1 INTRODUCTION
The composite structure with H-shaped steel and
deepcemented-soil pilesiscalledSMWmethod. This
methodcanbeappliedincohesivesoil, sandysoil and
sandy gravel layers. It has been widely accepted in
China, whichismainlyappliedtodeepexcavationsin
soft soilsof easternandsouthernChina.
Thispaperstudiesthebearinganddeformingmech-
anismof SMW. Basedonthein-situexcavationcon-
structionprocedures of theengineeringexample, the
construction steps of excavating and supporting are
simulated in the numerical simulation method with
FLAC3D. Becausetheexcavations aretoo long, the
methodof excavatingissimilar totunnel excavating,
whichis fromonesidetoanother. Andtherearetwo
cases simulated, oneis thenormal caseinwhichthe
supports areinstalled timely. However, in middleof
March 2007 during excavating, because of the bad
weatherandsomeotherreasons, thesupportswerenot
installedtimely so that theexcavationwas indanger
of collapse. Therefore, another caseisacaseinwhich
thesupportsarenot installedtimely.
Through comparing the actual observation data
in-situ and the calculation results, some useful con-
clusionsareachieved.
2 THE PROJ ECT GENERAL SITUATION
ANDMONITORINGSCHEME
2.1 The project general situation
Theundergroundchannels project contains two long
stripexcavations, theeasternandwesternexcavations,
which are similar to each other. The length is both
820.5m, andthewidthis16.5m.Theexcavationdepth
is between 6.645m8.039m. It is clear around the
constructionsite.
The foundation soil layers belong to Quater-
nary Pleistocene-Holocene deposit, including cohe-
sive soils, silt and sandy soils which distribute in
planes. The physico-mechanical parameters of soils
insiteareshownonTable1.
The650 SMW method is applied and steel pipe
supports are installed. The SMW retaining struc-
ture is 17m long in depth, which is inserted with
5002001016H-shapedsteels.Inordertofacil-
itatetheearthwork excavating, twosteel pipesupport
tiers including theupper and thelower supports are
installedconsideringthecharacteristic of theexcava-
tions. Theupper steel supportslocate1.0mbelowthe
groundsurface. Thelower steel supportslocate2.5m
above the excavation bottom. The sizes of the steel
159
Table1. Physico-mechanical parametersof soilsinsite.
Thesoil Depth C E
layers (m) (kN/m
3
) (KPa) (

) (MPa) j
Siltyclay 3 17.8 10.0 23.0 4.38 0.3
andclayey
silt
Sandysilt 2 18.2 4.0 29.0 4.78 0.33
Siltyclay 2 17.3 10.0 21.5 3.84 0.35
Sandysilt 2 17.6 3.0 25.5 5.08 0.3
andsilty
clay
Siltyclay 10 16.2 11.0 11.0 13.62 0.3
Clay 11 17.3 13.0 12.0 17.0 0.3
Figure1. General layoutof monitoringpoints: (a)Thesouth
section of the excavations; (b) The strain gauges welded
aroundthesupport.
supportsareall 60912. Thedistancebetweenthe
adjacent supportsis5m.
2.2 The monitoring scheme
Aroundthetwoexcavations, themonitoringpointsfor
thehorizontal displacement andsettlement at thetop
of theretainingstructurearelocatedaboutevery10m.
And they are numbered using E and W, in which E
denotes the eastern excavation, W denotes the west
excavation. There are all 324 monitoring points for
thetophorizontal displacement andsettlement of the
SMW in two excavations, as shown in Figure 1(a).
Because the excavations are so long that the south
sectionisgivenonly.
14 inclinometer tubes for lateral deformation of
SMW are set in every excavation. They are located
in the same distance about 100m symmetrically.
The location of every monitoring point is shown in
Figure1(a), in which ECX denotes theinclinometer
tubeintheeasternexcavationandWCX denotes the
inclinometer tubeinthewesternone.
In every excavation there are 6 pairs of monitor-
ing points for axial forces of supports, and every
pair hastwopointsincludingtheupper andthelower
supports.AsshowninFigure1(a), for example, EZC1
includestheupperEZC1andthelowerEZC1supports.
Therefore, there are 12 monitoring points for every
excavation, EZC denotes the axial force monitoring
pointsintheeasternexcavation, andWZCdenotesthe
western one. The distance between each pair moni-
toringpoints is about 120m. Thesteel straingauges
areweldedaroundthesteel pipesupportsasshownin
Figure1(b).
3 BEARINGANDDEFORMING
MECHANISM OF SMW
The cemented soil material that is produced gener-
ally has a higher strength, lower permeability, and
lower compressibility thanthenativesoil. Therefore,
theSMWmethodcanmakeit possibletoformwater-
preventingandearth-retainingwallsquicklybymixing
earth collected at a construction site with cement
slurry.Therigidityof theearthretainingwallswasfur-
ther enhancedbyformingacompoundearth-retaining
wall withH-shapedsteel materialsweldedwithstuds
thatactasstressmaterial arrangedwithintheimproved
soil walls. And under the suitable conditions, the
H-shapedsteelscanberecycled.
Stress-straincharacteristicsof SMWareextremely
complex duringthecourseof thepit excavation. The
curves of H-shaped steel strain are under the linear
elasticscope, butcemented-soil isnonlinearresponse,
andtherigiditychangesof compositestructuremainly
by thecemented-soil. It iscommonly consideredthat
theH-shapedsteelsbear all thelateral water andearth
pressureandthecementdeepmixingpilesareusedto
prevent water. However, it istestifiedthroughexperi-
mentsthatcementsoil canenhancetheH-shapedsteels
to reduce the deformation. In addition, the cement
soil can also haveconfinement effect to prevent the
H-shaped steels instability. The composite flexural
stiffnessis20%greaterthanonlyH-shapedsteels.The
stiffnessenhancingcoefficient candenotethedegree
of stiffnessenhancingasfollows:
whereE
cs
and E
s
aretheelastic modulus of cement
deepmixingpilewithH-shapedsteel andtheelastic
modulusof H-shapedsteel, respectively; I
cs
andI
s
are
theinertiamoment of cement deepmixingpilewith
H-shaped steel and the inertia moment of H-shaped
steel.
In this numerical calculation, the cement deep
mixing pile with H-shaped steel is equivalent to
diaphragmwall andtheinfluenceof stiffnessenhanc-
ing coefficient is considered. According to the
principlethat thestiffness is equal to eachother, the
equationisgivenby
160
Figure 2. The stiffness equivalence between SMW and
diaphragmwall.
Figure3. Elementsof model incase1.
Basedonequation(1), thus
Here, is considered as 1.2. The equivalent thick-
ness of diaphragm wall in this numerical calcu-
lation is h =0.65m and the Young modulus is
E =12.6GPa.Theequivalent figurefromSMWwith
H-shaped steels to diaphragmwall in this project is
shownasFigure2shown.
The interfaces are installed to simulate the inter-
face characteristics between the retaining structure
and thesoils. In FLAC3D, Interfaces havetheprop-
ertiesof friction, cohesion, dilation, normal andshear
stiffness, andtensileandshear bondstrength, which
are characterized by Coulomb sliding and/or tensile
andshearbonding. Inthiscomputation, theequivalent
diaphragmwall isconsideredaselasticity.
4 CALCULATIONCASE
4.1 Case 1
Becausetherearetwolongstripexcavationsandthey
aresimilar, onepartof theeasternexcavationischosen
tobesimulated.Themodel sizeis60minextent, 60m
inbreadthand30minheight. Themodel isshownin
Figure3.
Theearthworkssoilsforexcavatingaredividedinto
3layers. Thefirst layer is from0.0mto 2.0m, the
second layer is from2.0mto 6.5m, the third is
from6.5mto 8.0m. There are upper and lower
twosupportsinstalled, theupper supportsarelocated
at 1.0mandthelower supportsareat 6.5m. And
thedistancebetweentwoadjacentsupportsinydirec-
tionis5m. Therefore, thelengthof soilsexcavatedin
every layer is 5min y direction in every excavating
step.Becausetheexcavationistoolong,theexcavating
methodissimilar totunnel excavatingmethodwhich
is fromonesideto another. Theconstruction proce-
dureof excavatingandsupportingisdividedintolots
of steps, asfollows:
Theconstructionof SMW.
Thefirst layer is excavated5miny directionand
thefirst upper steel support isinstalled.
Thefirst andsecondlayersareexcavated5miny
directionandthesecondupper andthefirst lower
supportsareinstalled.
All thethreelayersareexcavated5minydirection,
andthethirdupper andthesecondlower supports
areinstalled.
Do this until the earthworks excavation is
completed.
The whole procedure of excavating steps and
installing supports is simulated by 3D numerical
method. Thereare11excavatingandsupportingsteps
except theconstructionof SMW.
In this numerical simulation calculation, the
mechanical soil behavior is modeled with Mohr-
Columnmodel andthesupportingstructuresarecon-
sidered as elastic model. Theinterfaces areinstalled
between SMW and soils. The top of the model, at
z=30m, is afreesurface. Thebaseof themodel, at
z=0m, is fixedinthez-direction, androller bound-
ariesareimposedonthesidesof themodel, atx=0m,
x=60m, andy=0m, y=60m.
4.2 Case 2
Inmiddleof March2007, becauseof thebadweather
and other reasons, the steel pipe supports were not
installedintime.Therewereabout30minlengthwith-
outsupportsfromtheexcavatingfacetothelattermost
supportsfor alongtime. Meanwhile, accordingtothe
in-situmeasurements, therewasasharpincrement in
horizontal displacement of thesoil mixingwall. This
caseissimulatedtoanalyzetheinfluence.
Inthis case, thematerial properties andboundary
conditions are same to case 1. The excavating and
supportingproceduresaresame, too.
5 RESULTS
5.1 Case 1
Inordertoanalyzethecalculationresultsconveniently,
some key points are set in the model, as shown in
161
Figure4. Thehorizontal displacement at pointA incase1.
Figure3. Firstly, thehorizontal displacementatthetop
of SMWisanalyzed.Thecurveof horizontal displace-
mentsatpoint A isshowninFigure4(a). Itcanbeseen
that thehorizontal displacement increasesbeforestep
6butthendecreasesinthefollowingsteps. Themaxi-
mumvalueis6.76mmatstep6andtheultimatevalue
is4.63mm. Accordingtotheexcavatingstepsincalcu-
lation,whentheexcavatingfaceexceedspoint Aabout
15m, thevalueof thehorizontal displacement begins
todecline. Theactual observationdatafor point A is
showninFigure4(b). Itcanbeseenthattheactual val-
uesarebigger thanthecalculationresults. Thecurve
ismonotoneincreasingby stepsandtendstobecon-
stant after havingreachedacertainlevel. Itsultimate
valueis 10.4mm. Thecalculation result of thehori-
zontal displacement at point A is muchless thanthe
observationvalue.
The curves of calculation results with excavating
stepsandtheobservationdatawithdatefor thehori-
zontal displacement of theretainingstructureinline
B areshowninFigure5. Accordingtothecalculation
results, its maximumhorizontal displacement of the
SMWoccursatthepointof 6.5mdepth,anditsvalueis
22.35mm.AsshowninFigure5(a), whentheexcavat-
ingfacereachesthelineBatstep3, thedeformationof
SMWincreasesdramatically.Whenithaspassedaway
fromline B about 20m, the deformation increases
Figure5. Thehorizontal displacement of theSMWinline
B incase1.
slowly.Figure5(b)showstheobservationcurveof hor-
izontal displacement of SMWinlineB withthedate.
A rathergoodagreementcanbefoundbetween(a) and
(b). Accordingtotheobservationdata, themaximum
horizontal displacement inlineB occurredat point of
5.0mdepthanditsvalueis26.8mm, whichisgreater
thanthemaximumcalculationvalueby4.45mm.With
theexcavatingfaceadvancing, thedeformationincre-
mentisbecomingsmaller. Fromtheactual observation
dataandcalculationresults, itcanbeseenthatthehori-
zontal displacementof theSMWmainlyoccurreddur-
ingtheperiodof excavatingsurfacepassingthisline.
The curves of axial forces of the steel pipe sup-
ports C and D with excavating steps are shown in
Figure6(a). Thefinal axial forceof theupper support
C is657.60kN, andthelower support Dis1467.7kN
in calculation results. As shown in Figure 6(b), the
observationdataisgreaterthanthecalculationresults.
Themaximumaxial forceof theupper support C is
995.83kN, andthelowersupportDis1575.7kN. Both
C andDhaveanascendingfirstlyandthendeclining
processwithlapseof timeinactual observation. This
isbecausethefoundationmat boreapart of soil pres-
surewithitspouringandstrengthening. However, the
procedureof pouringandstrengtheningof foundation
matisnotsimulatedinnumerical calculation. Sothere
162
Figure6. Theaxial forceof supportsC andDincase1.
is no decliningtrendof axial forces. But intheearly
stage, thetrendandshapeof calculationresultscurve
withexcavatingstepsandobservationdatacurvewith
dateisagreedgenerally.AsshowninFigure6(b),on28
April thelower support Dwasremoved, therefore, the
axial forceof theuppersupportChadasignificantrise
by102.5kN. However, incalculationthisprocedureis
not simulated.
Through analysis, it can be seen the values of
observation data are greater than the calculation
results universally. The main discrepancy between
calculation and measure can be explained that the
physico-mechanical parametersof soilsarenot accu-
rateenough. However, inreality, thisareawaslessstiff
thaninitiallyplanned.Accordingtothenumerical sim-
ulationandtheactual observationdata, theexcavation
is stableif thesteel pipesupports canbeinstalledin
time. The numerical results and actual data of axial
forces arelower thanthealarmvalues. Thedisplace-
ment duetoexcavatingisinthepermissiblerange.
5.2 Case 2
In case2, thenumerical calculation model is shown
in Figure7. Figure8 shows thehorizontal displace-
ment of themodel and theaxial forces of steel pipe
supportsatlaststep. Itcanbeseenthemaximumhori-
zontal displacementatthetopof SMWoccursatpoint
Figure7. Elementsof model incase2.
Figure8. Thehorizontal displacement andtheaxial forces
of steel pipesupportsincase2.
Figure9. Thehorizontal displacement of point E incase2.
E with 48.96mm, as shown in Figure 7. The curve
of horizontal displacementsat point E whenexcavat-
ing fromstep 1 to step 11 is shown in Figure 9. It
canbeseenthedisplacement at point E isnearlyzero
before step 6 until the excavating face passes point
E. With the excavating face advancing after step 6,
thedisplacementincreasessignificantly.Accordingto
calculationresults, themaximumhorizontal displace-
ment of SMWoccursat thepoint of 3mdepth, which
is in lineF, and its valueis 50.44mm. As shown in
Figure10, thehorizontal displacementof SMWinline
Fdevelopsslightlyuntil theexcavatingfacepassesthis
lineat step6. Becausethesupports arenot installed
nearthisline, thedeformationof SMWdevelopsmore
rapidly. Inactual observation, therearethreepointsof
which horizontal displacements in lineF aregreater
than the alarmvalue with 50mm. The axial forces
163
Figure10. Thehorizontal displacementof theSMWinline
F incase2.
Figure11. Theaxial forcesof supportsGandHincase2.
of lastly installedsupports G andH aremuch larger
becauseof withoutinstallationof subsequentsupports.
The axial force of support G is 1924.50kN, and H
is 2095.60kN. Thecurves of theaxial forces of sup-
portsGandH withtheexcavatingstepsareshownin
Figure11. Accordingto calculationresults, theaxial
forces of G and H are much greater than the adja-
cent supports by 903.75kN for upper support and
546.00kN for lower support. Compared with Figure
6(a), themagnitudeis much greater. Theaxial force
of Gexceedsthealarmvaluewiththeupper supports
for 1500kN and H exceeds thealarmvalueof lower
supportsfor 2000kN.
TherearetwoinclinometertubesECX2andECX13
for lateral deformation of SMW around this site.
According to the observation data of 19 March
and 20 March, the velocity of horizontal displace-
ment exceeded the alarmvalue of 3mm/d for two
days between the depth of 5m8m at ECX13.
The velocity values were 4.18mm/d, 3.97mm/d,
3.64mm/d and 3.20mm/d when the depths are 5m,
6m, 7mand 8mrespectively on 19 March. More-
over, thevelocity valueswere5.18mm/d, 5.66mm/d,
4.98mm/dand3.44mm/dinthenextday. Meanwhile,
thevelocitiesof horizontal displacement weregreater
than3mm/dinthedepthfrom1mto12matECX2on
19March, whichwereover 10mm/dwithin3mfrom
thetopof SMW.
According to the results of numerical simulation
andactual observationdata, itwaspossibletocollapse
for this excavation because the supports were not
installed in time. The risk was existent so the cor-
responding measures should be taken. After being
alarmed, the construction team stopped excavating
and installed the supports speedily. Its turned out
that themeasures arevery effectiveaccordingto the
subsequent observeddata.
6 CONCLUSIONS
Inthispaper, firstly, thebearinganddeformingmech-
anism of SMW is analyzed in brief; secondly, the
constructionmonitoringschemeisintroduced; thirdly,
a 3D numerical simulation of this long stripe exca-
vation is described, including all the components of
theproject(theSMWconstruction,steppedexcavation
andsupports installation); thenthenumerical results
arecomparedwiththeactual datain-situobservation.
The3D numerical methodcansimulatethewhole
excavation construction very well. A good agree-
ment can befound between thenumerical results
and the actual observation data except for some
small deviations.
Theexcavationisstableandthedisplacement due
toexcavatingisinthepermissiblerangeif thesteel
pipesupportsarestalledtimely. However, because
of badweatherandotherreasonsthesteel pipesup-
portsarenotinstalledintimeandwithoutsupports
for alongtime, suchascase2, theexcavationisin
danger of collapse.
Accordingtothein-situobservationdata, thecon-
structionteamcantakecorrespondingmeasuresto
protecttheexcavationawayfromsomeundesirable
eventsandrisks.
REFERENCES
Commend, S. Geiser, F. & Crisinel, J. 2004. Numerical sim-
ulation of earthworks and retaining systemfor a large
excavation. Advances in Engineering Software Vol. 35:
669678.
Li, J.C. Zhang, Z.Y. & Xu, Q 2005. Study on three-
dimension numerical simulation of deformation of the
deep-foundationpit withexcavation. Journal of Nanjing
University of Technology 27(3): 17.
Liu, H.Y. et al 2006. Numerical analysis on excavation
safety of deep foundation engineering. Chinese Journal
of Geotechnical Engineering 28(Supp): 14411444.
Liu, J.G. & Zeng, Y.W. 2006. Application of FLAC3D to
simulation of foundation excavation and support. Rock
and Soil Mechanics 27(3): 505508.
Liu, J.H. & Hou, X.Y. 1997. The Handbook of Founda-
tion Engineering, Beijing: ChinaArchitecture&Building
Press. 569572.
Zhang,P&Liu,R.H.2000.TheApplicationof SMWMethod
inFoundationPit.Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and
Engineering 19(Supp): 11041107.
164
Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground Ng, Huang & Liu (eds)
2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-48475-6
A simplifiedspatial methodologyof earthpressureagainst
retainingpilesof pile-rowretainingstructure
Y.L. Lin
Geotechnical Research Institute, Hohai University, Nanjing, P.R. China
Key Laboratory for Geotechnical Engineering of Ministry of Water Resource, Hohai University, Nanjing, P.R. China
X.X. Li
Key Laboratory of Geotechnical and Underground Engineering of Ministry of Education, Tongji University,
Shanghai, P.R. China
Department of Geotechnical Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai, P.R. China
ABSTRACT: Pile-rowretainingstructureiswidelyadoptedintheexcavationof deepfoundationpit. Inthesup-
portingsystem, retainingpilesarethemainbearingmembers. Itisextremelyimportanttoobtainthemagnitude
anddistributionof earthpressureagainstretainingpiles. Basedonthemodeof failure, anewmethodologyispro-
posedtoevaluatetheearthpressureagainstretainingpilesof pile-rowretainingstructure.Intheproposedmethod,
bothspatial effect andintermediateprincipal stresseffect areconsidered. Finally, themethodologyisappliedto
practiceengineering. It is demonstratedthat thestrengththeory has moreinfluenceonearthpressureandthe
potential strengthof fillingmaterialsissufficientlydevelopedunder theguidanceof theunitedstrengththeory.
1 INTRODUCTION
Thepressureagainst theback of aretainingstructure
causedbybackfill andsurchargeonthegroundsurface
is a classical problemof soil mechanics. It is influ-
enced by retaining structuretypes, movement mode,
stiffnessandcontactconditionsbetweensoil andstruc-
ture(Fang& Ishibashi, 1986; Harrop-Willrams,1989;
Zhou,1990; Fang et al., 1994; Wang, 2000; Pal &
Salgado, 2003). Inaddition, thedistortionof soil mass
has acertaineffect ontheearthpressure. Beforethe
soil achievesbreakage,themagnitudeof earthpressure
cannotbedetermined. Evenif itreacheslimitstate, the
earthpressurecannotalsobecalculatedbecauseinner
soil masscannotsynchronouslyarriveatlimitequilib-
riumstate. Sothereliableparameter of soil cannot be
acquired. Thus, to apply inpracticeexpediently, it is
usuallyassumedthesoil isonideal failurestate.
In theexcavation of deep foundation pit pile-row
retainingstructureiswidelyadopted.Inthesupporting
system, retaining piles are the main bearing mem-
bers. It isveryimportant toobtainthemagnitudeand
distribution of earth pressureagainst retaining piles.
Because of failure mechanismof soil behind piles,
theinfluenceof interactionbetweenretainingstructure
andsoil onearthpressurecantbeachievedaccurately
accordingtoclassical earthpressuretheory. Soearth
pressureshouldbetakenasthespatial problemrather
thanplaneproblem. Mohr-Coulombstrengththeoryis
usually introducedinto thecomputationanalysis and
theinfluenceof intermediateprincipal stressisomit-
ted. However, plenty of experiments reveal the soil
strength varies with theintermediateprincipal stress
(Yu,2004),whichisquitedifferentfromwhathasbeen
depicted in the conventional Mohr-Coulomb theory.
Theunified strength theory is asystemof yield and
failurecriteriaof material sunder complexstresses. It
hasaclear physicsandmechanicsbackground, auni-
fied mathematical model, and a simple and explicit
criterion which includes all independent stress com-
ponentsandsimplematerial parameters(Yu, 2002).
In this study, a new methodology based on the
plasticslimitanalysisisproposedtoevaluatetheearth
pressureagainst retaining piles of pile-rowretaining
structurebasedonthemodeof failure. Intheproposed
method, bothspatial effect andintermediateprincipal
stresseffect areconsidered. Thesolutionof theequa-
tionisobtained, givingatheoretical resultfortheearth
pressureonretainingpiles.
2 UNIFIEDSTRENGTHTHEORY
Based on atwin-shear element and themultipleslip
mechanism,YuandHe(1992) establishedtheunified
strength theory. It has a unified model and simple
165
Figure1. Varietiesof theunifiedstrengththeoryondevia-
toricplane(Yu, 2004).
unified mathematical expression that is suitable for
various materials (Yu, 1994). The unified strength
theory covers all the regions fromthe lower bound
to upper bound, as shown in Figure 1. The unified
strength theory considers the different contributions
of all stress components actingonthestress element
totheyieldor failureof materials.
Themathematical modelingisexpressedasfollows
(Yuet al., 2002):
If it is prescribed that press stress is positive,
Equation(1) andEquation(2) canberewrittenas
wherec
0
=cohesion,
0
=frictionangle, b =unified
strength parameter that reflects theinfluences of the
intermediate principal stress on the yielding of the
material (0b1),
t
and
c
are uniaxial tensile
strength and compressive strength, respectively, and
istensile-compressivestrengthratio.
IntroducingLodeparameter j

, thus
SubstitutingEquation(5) intoEquation(3) and(4),
letting
The unified cohesion c
t
and the unified friction
angle
t
canbedefinedas
According to Mohr circularity of stress state at a
point, theunifiedexpressionof shear strengthcanbe
obtained
3 FAILURE MODE OF SOIL HEHINDPILES
For pile-rowretainingstructure, thearchingeffect in
the retaining soil mass occurs (Hu et al., 2000). It
is a stress redistribution process by which stress is
transferred around a region of the soil mass, which
then becomes subject to lower stresses. So theearth
pressureactingon piles is enhanced, whiletheearth
pressureonsoil aroundpilesisdepressed.Thesmaller
ispilespace, thestronger issoil archingeffect. Andit
ismorepropitioustothestabilityof foundationpit.
3.1 Simple shear failure mode
Figure2showsthefailuremodeA homogeneousfoun-
dationpitof depthH andthenetspaceBisconsidered.
166
Figure2. Simpleshear failuremodeof soil mass between
piles.
Figure3. Rip-shearfailuremodeof soil massbetweenpiles.
Thesoil wedgeisassumedtoberigidandslidealonea
planar surface. Thecritical inclinationof failureplane
isexpressedas.
WhenB2b 0,simpleshearfailuremodeoccurs,
letting
AccordingtoEquation(10), thefailureconditionof
simpleshear failuremodecanbeobtainedas
whereH
cr
=critical height of failuremode.
3.2 Rip-shear failure mode
Rip-shear failure mode will arise when H >H
cr
, as
showninFigure3.Thesoil massbehindpilesisdivided
into two portions fromthecritical height H
cr
. Above
theheight H
cr
, thesoil is rip failure, and it is shear
failurebelowtheheight H
cr
.
4 CALCULATIONOF ACTIVE EARTH
PRESSURE
4.1 Earth pressure of simple shear failure mode
Figure4(a) showsthemechanismof simpleshear fail-
ure. Thesinglepileendures theearthpressureof the
Figure 4. Schematic for earth pressure of simple shear
failure.
regionsoil of blockBCDB

. Itisassumedthatthe
soil is perfectly plastic andtheir deformationis gov-
ernedbytheassociativeflowrule. Then, Kinematical
admissibility requires thevelocity jumpvector, v, be
inclined to the velocity discontinuity at angle
t
, as
presentedinFigure4(b).
The Cartesian coordinates systemestablished for
the present analysis is shown in Figure 4(a). The
point C istheoriginof theCartesiancoordinatessys-
tem, andplaneXY islevel plane. SectionAC (or A

)
isslippagetangentof fracturesurfaceBCC

, anditis
inclinedtothevelocitydiscontinuityatangle
t
. Slim-
ily, thevelocityof fracturesurfaceBCDandB

is
atanangle
t
totheslippagetangentDC andD

. In
theplaneBCD, accordingtothedirectional derivative
of thevelocityv, theangle canbeobtainedas
Therateof workof soil weightcanbecalculatedas
theworkrateof blockABC-A

plustheworkrates
for blocks C-BAD andC

-B

. Consequently, this
workratetakestheform
where =the soil unit weight, d =the diameter of
pile, f
1
isafunction, it canbedeterminedas
Duetothehomogeneoussoil massesbeingrigid,the
internal energyisonlydissipatedalongtheslidingsur-
face.Theworkdissipationratecanbecalculatedasthe
167
work dissipationrateof block CC

DD

plusthework
dissipationratesfor blocks DBC andD

. Conse-
quently, thisdissipationworkratecanbecalculatedas
where
Sincesoil-pileinterfacecanbeconsideredasveloc-
itydiscontinuityrather thanstresscharacteristic, ideal
plastic model is not applicableto theinterfacemate-
rial. The relative movement between soil and pile,
whichdependsontheinterfacecharacteristicsandthe
property of theadjacent soil, is not always of purely
frictional sliding. If it is assumedthat thetotal hori-
zontal earthpressureinducedbysoil massisP
au
. The
frictionangleof soil-pileinterfaceis.Twoconditions
areconsideredinthefollowing.
1 Smoothpile( <
t
)
Theexternal work ratecontributedbytheresultant
horizontal earthpressureP
au
is
Theworkdissipationratealongpilesurfaceis
Equatingtherateof internal energy dissipationto
therateof theexternal work, wecanobtain
2 Roughpile(
t
)
Theexternal work ratecontributedbytheresultant
horizontal earthpressureP
au
is
Theworkdissipationratealongpilesurfaceis
Similarly, equatingtherateof internal energy dis-
sipationtotherateof theexternal work, theresultant
horizontal earthpressurecanbeobtained
Figure5. Schematicfor earthpressureof rip-shear failure.
4.2 Earth pressure of rip-shear failure mode
Therip-shear failuremechanismfor thepresent anal-
ysisisshowninFigure5.Theearthpressureactingon
singlepileisinducedbytheregionsoil massFCDG-
G

.Similartotheearthpressureof simpleshear
failure mode, the rate of work due to the soil mass
weight canbeexpressedas
where
whereS =thecenter distanceof twoadjacent piles.
For the rigid material considered, the internal
energy is only dissipated along the sliding surface
and the interface surface of soil-pile. The rate of
energy dissipation along the sliding surface can be
expressedas
168
Figure6. Relationsbetweentheunifiedstrengthparametersandthesoil strength.
where
Theratedissipationalongtheinterfacesurfaceof
soil-pile is similar to the Equation (16) and (19).
For Smooth pile ( -
t
), according to the energy
conversationlaw, wecanobtain
Similarly,forroughpile(
t
),thetotal horizontal
earthpressureP
au
canbederivedas
Accordingly, thecorrespondingresultant P
a
acting
onthepileis
The magnitude of active earth pressure can be
obtained fromEquation (25). Obviously, for agiven
example, theresultant P
a
is only determinedby fail-
ureangle. Bytakingthefirstderivativesof Equation
(25) with respect to , and equating it to zero and
solving it, wecan obtain thecritical angle
cr
. Sub-
stituting
cr
intoEquation(25), wehavethemaximal
upper-boundfor theactiveearthpressure.
5 RESULTSANDDISCUSSION
Toevaluatethevalidityof theproposedmethod, apile-
row retaining structure without anchor is analyzed.
Numerical resultsarepresentedandcompared.
5.1 Effects of the unified strength parameters on
soil parameters
Theinfluences of theunifiedstrengthparameters on
soil mass strength are represented in Figure 6 for

0
=15

. It is observed that the soil mass strength


varies with the variety in the value of the unified
strengthb. Thesoil mass parameters of c
t
and
t
are
piece-wisefunctionsandtheyachieveextremumwhen
j

=sin
0
.
5.2 Effects of the unified strength parameters on
failure mode
Figure 7 presents the effects of the unified strength
parameters on critical height H
cr
for =17kN/m
3
,

0
=15

, H =10m. As a whole, the critical height


H
cr
decreases with the increase in the value of b.
Figure7(a) and Figure7(b) also show theinfluence
of S andpilediameter d. For c
0
=0, thecritical height
increases with the increase in the value of S, while
it decreases with the increase of d. It is also clear
169
Figure7. Influenceof theunifiedstrengthparametersoncritical height H
cr
.
that under thesameconditionsH
cr
decreaseswiththe
increaseof c
0
or inFigure7(c) andFigure7(d).
5.3 Effects of the unified strength parameters on
active earth pressure
Based on the unified strength theory, the values
of active earth pressure is shown in Table 1 for
=17kN/m
3
,
0
=15

, H =10m, d =1.0m, c
0
=0.
The proposed formula can be degenerated into the
expressions inducedby Mohr-Coulombstrengththe-
ory. From the table, it is found that the strength
Table1. Effectsof theunifiedstrengthparametersonactive
earthpressure.
b =0 b =0.5 b =1

Deg (1) (2) (1) (2) (1) (2)


0 483.6 483.6 414.9 396.3 378.8 350.0
15 364.1 364.1 305.4 378.8 275.5 252.0

b =0issimplifiedtoMohr-Coulombtheory; b =1istwin
shear theory. Situation (1) represents j

=0, and situation


(2) isj

=sin
0.
170
theory has moreprodigious influences on theactive
pressure. The resultant earth pressure P
a
decreases
withtheincreaseinunifiedstrengthparameter b. For
j

=0, when b changes from0 to 1, the resultant


earth pressure P
a
decreases by about 21.7%. Simi-
larly, theearth pressureP
a
is also influenced by the
Lodeparameter j

.
6 CONCLUSIONS
The estimation of active earth pressures acting on
retaining piles is very important in geotechnical
design. However, unlike the assumption used in the
analysisof Coulomb, whichgenerallycalculatesearth
pressureaccordingto planestrain, theearthpressure
behindthepiles shouldbetakenas thespatial prob-
lem.Thisisduetoarchingeffectsintheretainingsoil,
whichresultfromthefrictional resistancebetweenthe
pilesandthesoil.
In this paper, a new methodology is proposed to
evaluatetheearth pressureagainst retaining piles of
pile-rowretainingstructure.Theadvantageof thepro-
posedmethodliesinthefactthatbothspatial effectand
intermediateprincipal stresseffectareconsidered. Itis
indicatedthat thestrengththeory has moreinfluence
onearthpressureandthepotential strengthof filling
materialsissufficientlydevelopedunder theguidance
of the united strength theory. But the methodology
requiresexperiment or fieldverification.
REFERENCES
Fang, Y. & Ishibashi, I. 1986. Static earth pressures with
various wall movements. Journal of Geotechnical Engi-
neering, ASCE, 112(3):317333.
Fang,Y.S.,Chen,T.J.&Wu,B.F.1994.Passiveearthpressures
with various walls movements. Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, ASCE, 128(8):651659.
Harrop-Willrams, K.O. 1989. Geostaticwall pressures. Jour-
nal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 115(9):1321
1325.
Hu, M.Y., Xia, Y.C. & Gao, Q.Q. 2000. Calculationprinci-
ple of earth pressure against retaining piles of pile-row
retaining structure. Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics
and Engineering, 19(3):376379.
Palk, K.H. & Salgado, R. 2003. Estimation of activeearth
pressureagainst rigidretainingwallsconsideringarching
effects. Geotechnique, 53(7):643653.
Wang,Y.Z. 2000. Distributionof earthpressureonaretaining
wall. Geotechnique, 50(1):8388.
Yu, M.H. 2004. Unifiedstrengththeoryanditsapplications.
Berlin: Springer.
Yu, M.H. 2002.Advanceinstrengththeoryof materialsunder
complex state in the 20th Century. Applied Mechanics
Reviews, 53(3):159218.
Yu, M.H. 1994. Unified strength theory for geomaterials
and its applications. Chinese Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, 14(2):110.
Yu, M.H., He, L.N. & Liu, C.Y. 1992. Generalized twin
shear stressyieldcriterionanditsgeneralization. Chinese
Science Bulletin, 37(24):20852089.
Yu, M.H., Zan, Y.W. & Zhao, J. 2002. A unified strength
criterionfor rock material. International Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 39:975989.
Zhou, Y.Y. & Ren, M.L. 1990. Experimental study of the
active earth pressure on rigid retaining wall. Chinese
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 12(2):1926.
171
Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground Ng, Huang & Liu (eds)
2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-48475-6
Considerationof designmethodfor bracedexcavationbasedon
monitoringresults
H. Ota, H. Ito&T.Yanagawa
Osaka Municipal Transportation Bureau, Osaka, Japan
A. Hashimoto
Kotsu Service Co., Ltd., Osaka, Japan
T. Hashimoto&T. Konda
Geo-Research Institute, Osaka, Japan
ABSTRACT: A comparisonbetweenobserveddataanddesignvalueof earthretainingwall deflectiondueto
bracedexcavationwascarriedoutinsoftandsensitiveclaygroundof someconstructionsitesof OsakaSubway
LineNo.8.Thebeam-springmodel wasemployedinthebraceddesignmethod, anditwastakenintoaccountthe
characteristicsof theOsakasoft ground, andtherewasgoodagreement betweentheobserveddataanddesign
valueinpast results. Accordingtothis comparison, theobservedwall deflectionwas larger thanthedesigned
oneinsomeconstructionsites consistedof thesoft andsensitiveclay layer with10to 20mthickness. Inthis
paper, themeasuringprocessof thehorizontal coefficient of subgradereactionk
h
intheexcavationsideof soft
claylayer isdiscussed.Asthevalueof k
h
becamesmall dependedonthewall deflection, thenewknowledgehas
beenemployedonthedesignmethod. It isfoundthat thecalculationwiththereviseddesignmethodagreewell
withthemonitoringdata.
1 INTRODUCTION
In densely populated city, it is necessary to use the
undergroundspacehighlyandeffectivelyforthedevel-
opment of city. It is believed that the demand for
much deeper underground excavation will increase
gradually. Therefore an applicable design method is
demandedfor deep, safeandeconomical excavation.
OsakaMunicipal TransportationBureau(OMTB)sug-
gested an original design method for braced exca-
vation based on the characteristics of the Osaka
groundandsubway constructions. At eachconstruc-
tion site (elevens stations and railway depot) where
opencut methodwasadoptedinOsakaSubway Line
No.8, bracedexcavationdesignbasedonthisoriginal
designguidelinewascarriedout,andtheobservational
methodwasalsoutilizedeffectively.
Inthispaper, somecomparisonsbetweenobserved
dataanddesign valueof earth retainingwall deflec-
tionduetobracedexcavationhavebeencarriedouton
softandsensitiveclaygroundof twoconstructionsites
of OsakaSubway LineNo.8. Theevaluationmethod
for design has been described based on the ground
properties.
2 CHARACTERISTICSOF THE MODIFIED
BEAM SPRINGMODEL
East andWest sides of Osaka ground areconsistent
withtheHolocenelayers(softclayandloosesand),but
Pleistocenelayersexist aroundthegroundsurfaceof
Uemachi plateau. Thewater levelsarehighinuncon-
finedandconfinedaquifers, alsothepermeability of
theseaquifersarelarge.
Thebeam-springmodel for thebracedexcavation,
whichisindicatedinStandardSpecificationsforTun-
nel [OpenCutTunnel]publishedbytheJ apanSociety
of Civil Engineers(J SCE, 2006), isfrequentlyimple-
mentedasawidelyusablemethodinJ apan. However,
sincetheresultof thepredictionof wall deflectionand
strut forcearenot alwaysconsistent withtheobserva-
tiondata, OMTB proposedthemodifiedbeamspring
design method (OMTB, 1993) (Kishio et al., 1997)
173
which can consider the characteristics of Osaka
groundandtheconditionsof subwayconstruction.
Theoutlineof theOMTB model isshowninFigure1.
2.1 Active lateral pressure above the excavation
bottom
Becausetherearesomepossibilities of gap between
the braced wall and back ground, the active earth
pressureisestimatedbyRankine-Resalsequationwith
thewater pressure. Insandy layer, thewater pressure
isassumedashydrostaticpressure. Inclayeylayer, the
water headof theupper sandylayer isextendedinthis
clayeylayer.
2.2 Active lateral pressure below the excavation
bottom
In thecaseof sufficient penetration depth of braced
wall, the wall deflection near the tip is small and
the lateral pressure is kept as the initial condition.
So, if theactivelateral pressureis defined basically
only by thelimit equilibriumtheory, therearesome
cases which the wall deflection is overestimated by
givingmuchlateral pressure.Therefore, theactivelat-
eral pressurewhichisdeeper thanthebottomlayer of
excavationisgraduallydecreasingintheareaof trian-
gleformedfromthelateral pressureat thebottomof
theexcavationtothetipof wall.
2.3 Resisting lateral pressure of the excavated
ground
Resisting lateral pressure of the excavated ground
is the multiplication of the coefficient of horizontal
Figure1. Theconcept of themodifiedbeamspringmodel
(presentedbyOMTB, 1993).
subgradereaction and thewall deflection. However,
this value should not exceed the coefficient of the
passivelateral pressurewhichisthesubtractionfrom
limit passive lateral pressure defined by Coulombs
equationtothelateral pressureat rest.
2.4 Water pressure in clayey ground
Sinceit is difficult to distinguish thewater pressure
fromthelateral pressureinclayeyground, lateral pres-
sureis often identified as theintegration of soil and
water. Ontheother hand, it is consideredthat soil is
separatedfromwater inmodifiedbeam-springmodel.
Because the pore water pressure acts on the braced
wall hydrostatically, thewater pathispossiblyformed
betweenthewall andtheback grounddueto braced
excavation.
For these reasons, the effective stress method is
adopted in both sandy layer and clayey layer. The
groundwater table in clayey ground is taken on the
higher gravitational pressuredistributionbycompari-
sonbetweentheupper water-bearinglayer anddown
sidewater-bearinglayer.
2.5 Supported effect of covering plates
Becausetheeffectof depressingthewall deflectionis
recognized when thecovering plates areconstructed
inthesamedirectionasstruts, thesupportedeffect of
coveringplatesisconsideredby reducing10%of the
spring-beamcoefficient.
2.6 Horizontal coefficient of subgrade reaction of
excavated side
The coefficient of subgrade reaction k
h
used in the
J SCE model is taken into consideration the geo-
metrical effect related to the difference of loaded
width based on some plate loading test results per-
formednear thegroundsurface. However, thelateral
pressure acts on the horizontal direction against the
earth retaining wall, because the wall is installed
to thevertical direction in subway construction site.
Therefore, it is not always appropriate to apply the
coefficient of subgrade reaction used in the J SCE
model tobracedexcavationdesigndirectly. Sointhe
OMTB model, the coefficient of subgrade reaction
is expressedas equation(1) and(2) (Yanagidaet al.,
1981) empirically.
174
3 COMPARISONSBETWEENOBSERVATION
ANDDESIGNOF BRACEDWALL
DEFLECTION
The comparison between observed data and design
valueof earthretainingwall deflectionduetobraced
excavation was carried out in soft and sensitiveclay
groundof No.8Lineconstructionsites.
In general, the design value can estimate the
observeddataappropriatelyinmostconstructionsites.
Butinsomesensitiveandsoftalluvial claylayer accu-
mulate from10mto 20mthick, observed data are
larger than the design value due to braced excava-
tion. The causes for these phenomena are described
asfollows.
Figure2. Crosssection(A site).
Table1. Earthretainingwall andeachstrut (A site).
Soil mixingwall (H-steel) condition
Size Pitch Length EI Area
(mm) S(m) L(m) (kNm
2
/m) A(m
2
)
H-5883001220 0.60 27.25 399000 0.01925
Excavationcondition Strut condition
Depth Depth
Size Span Pitch Area
Step (GL-m) Stage (GL-m) (mm) L(m) S(m) A(m
2
)
0th 1.51 Cover beam 0.51 H-5883001220 16.25 2.00 0.01925
1st 4.50 1st 3.50 H-3003001015 14.76 2.50 0.01048
2nd 7.00 2nd 6.00 H-3003001015 14.86 2.50 0.01048
3rd 8.70 3rd 7.70 H-3003001015 14.66 2.50 0.01048
4th 11.20 4th 10.20 H-3003001015 14.76 2.50 0.01048
5th 13.90 5th 12.90 H-3503501219 14.46 2.50 0.01549
6th 16.45 6th 15.45 H-3503501219 14.46 2.50 0.01549
7th 19.05 7th 18.05 H-3503501219 14.46 2.50 0.01549
8th 21.55
3.1 A-site
Thelayer of thisA-sitegroundconsistsof thealluvial
layer,upperlowerPleistocenefromthegroundsurface.
The uniformity coefficient of this fine sand Aus
is small, and is called the first water-bearing layer.
Thealluvial clayeylayerAucissensitive(N-value =0
to 3, liquid limit I
L
=0.4 to 1.0, cohesion c =20 to
100kN/m
2
),andistypical softgroundinthisconstruc-
tionsite. Ontheother hand, under thealluvial layer,
theupper Pleistocenesandyandgravel layer Tsg(the
secondwater-bearinglayer),thelowerPleistoceneclay
layer Oc3(OsakaGroup, MarineClayMa3, c =about
400kN/m
2
) and the lower Pleistocene sandy layer
Os3 (OsakaGroup, thethird water-bearing layer, N-
value >60) aredeposited continuously to horizontal
direction.
Thecrosssectionof A-siteisshowninFigure2, the
wall andstrutsconditionsareshowninTable1andthe
soil parametersareshowninTable2. Inthisconstruc-
tionsite, theseepagecontrol methodwasadoptedby
extendingtheearthretainingwall tothelowpermeable
layer Oc3, excavationwidthis16.2m, thefinal exca-
vationdepthis GL-21.5mandthepenetrationdepth
is4.8m.
Figure3shows thecomparisonbetweenobserved
dataanddesignvalueof theearthretainingwall deflec-
tion. Theobserved wall deflections in east and west
sidesaresymmetrictill the4thstep.Itisconfirmedthat
thedesignvaluecanestimatestheactual phenomenon
adequately. However, sincethe5thstep, theobserved
wall deflection of west sidewas larger than theeast
side, whichcanbeseenfromtheresultsof the8thstep
175
in Figure3. It can beassumed that thecauseof this
phenomenonwas thedifferenceof constructionpro-
cessanddevelopmental patternof creepdeformation.
Moreover,theobserveddataexceededthedesignvalue
at thewest side. It was consideredthat this disparity
occurredfor thereasonthat theplasticzoneunder the
excavationbottomexpandedintheAmcandTsglayer
fromthe5thstepdrastically. Inaddition, it was con-
firmedthatthestressinthewall wascontrolledwithin
theallowablestress.
In theexcavation stageat theAmc layer, thecal-
culation result considering the 75%stress reduction
under the5mfromtheexcavationbottomwasshown
together inFigure3. Duringanexcavationincohesive
Table2. Soil parameters(A site).
Bottom Internal
Soil depth Cohision friction E
50
layer (GL-m) N-value c (kN/m
2
) angle (

) (MN/m
2
)
B 1.8 2 0 19.3
Auc 4.9 4 42 0 4.1
Aus 8.3 2 0 19.3
Amc1 13.8 0 29 0 4.7
Amc2 16.8 1 60 0 6.9
Amc3 19.4 4 91 0 15.9
Alc 21.8 6 108 0 15.9
Tsg 25.4 26 0 32.7
Oc3 31.6 14 360 0 83.6
Figure3. Comparisonbetweenobservationanddesignvalueof bracedwall deflection(B site, (a) : the4thstep, (b) : the8th
step).
soil, if anexcavationstagetakesalongtime, thesuc-
tionof thesubgradesoil will disappearduetoswelling
causedbythewater infiltrationfromcontinuousrain-
fall, whichleadstoreductioninstrength(Hashimoto
et al., 1997). In conjunction with this arrangement,
the ultimate passive lateral pressure and coefficient
of subgradereactionwerereduced. Thisphenomenon
wasverifiedbytheconsolidationwithun-drainedtri-
axial compressiontest,inwhichshearstrengthreduced
to 70% after the suction was disappear completely
and after measuring the water pressure and suction.
Inshort, it isprovedthat thereisapossibilitythat this
phenomenonmayoccur (Katoet al., 2006).
Inthe8thstep, thecalculationresultconsideringthe
stressreductionexceededthedesignvaluewhichcould
explaintheobserveddataappropriatelytosomeextent.
However, under the bottomof the excavation, espe-
cially inTsglayer, thetendency that thedesignvalue
andcalculationresultexceededtheobserveddata.The
wall deflectiondistributionwasdifferent betweenthe
observeddataanddesignvalueandcalculationresult.
It wouldappear that oneof thereasonsfor theseten-
dencies is thedeformation at thebottomof thewall
towardstheexcavationside.
3.2 B-site
The layer of this B-site ground constitutes the
alluvial layer, upper lower Pleistocene from the
176
groundsurface. Especially, thisconstructionsitewas
located in the Neyagawa lowland, and it is peculiar
that the very soft and sensitive alluvial clay layer
(N-value

=0, liquid limit I


L
=0.6 to 1.5, cohesion
c =30 to 100kN/m
2
), which is specific for theEast
side of Osaka Plain, deposited with 15 to 20m
thickness. The upper Pleistocene sandy and gravel
layer Ts & Tgandthelower Pleistocenesandy layer
Os3 (Osaka Group) constitute the second water-
bearinglayer under thealluvial layer.
Thecrosssectionof B-siteisshowninFigure4, the
wall andstrutsconditionsareshowninTable3andthe
soil parametersareshowninTable4.
Inthisconstructionsite,theseepagecontrol method
was adoptedby extendingtheearthretainingwall to
the low permeable layer Oc7 (about GL-42m), too.
Thebottomdepthof Soil MixingWall (H-steel) was
extendedtotheOs8. Theexcavationwidthis17.2m,
Figure4. Crosssection(B site).
Table3. Earthretainingwall andeachstrut (B site).
Soil mixingwall (H-steel) condition
Size Pitch Length EI Area
(mm) S(m) L(m) (kNm
2
/m) A(m
2
)
H-5883001220 0.60 27.52 399000 0.01925
Excavationcondition Strut condition
Depth Depth
Size Span Pitch Area
Step (GL-m) Stage (GL-m) (mm) L(m) S(m) A(m
2
)
0th 1.42 Cover beam 0.42 H-4883001118 17.15 2.00 0.01592
1st 2.81 1st 1.81 H-3003001015 16.55 2.59 0.01048
2nd 5.96 2nd 4.96 H-3503501219 16.45 2.59 0.01549
3rd 8.26 3rd 7.26 H-3503501219 16.45 2.59 0.01549
4th 11.51 4th 10.51 H-3503501219 16.45 2.59 0.01549
5th 14.51 5th 13.51 H-3503501219 16.45 2.59 0.01549
6th 17.21 6th 16.21 H-4004001321 16.35 2.59 0.01977
7th 19.61 7th 18.61 H-4004001321 16.35 2.59 0.01977
8th 21.70
thefinal excavationdepthis about GL-22mandthe
penetrationdepthisabout 5m.
Figure 5 shows the comparison between the
observeddataanddesignvalueof theearthretaining
wall deflection in the 4th and 8th excavation steps
(Oota et al., 2007). The wall deflection distribution
modewassimilar bothsideinthe4thexcavationstep.
However theamount of theobservedwall deflection
was two times of thedesign value. Moreover, in the
8th excavation step, the wall deflection distribution
modewasdifferent inbothandobserveddataexceed
thedesignvalue. Inaddition, itwasconfirmedthatthe
stress inthewall was controlledunder theallowable
stress.
Table4. Soil parameters(B site).
Bottom Internal
Soil depth Cohision friction E
50
layer (GL-m) N-value c (kN/m
2
) angle (

) (MN/m
2
)
B 0.8 2 0 19.9
Auc 2.0 0 27 0 2.2
Aus 4.0 2 0 19.9
Amc1 8.0 0 42 0 2.2
Amc2 13.0 0 63 0 5.5
Amc3 16.0 0 76 0 7.4
Alc 19.0 3 73 0 5.6
Tc 20.8 7 129 0
Ts 23.3 42 0 37.5
Tg 26.0 45 0 38.2
Os8 39.1 60 0 41.8
177
Figure5. Comparisonbetweenobservationanddesignvalueof bracedwall deflection(B site, (a) : 4thstep, (b) : 8thstep).
As the ground condition under the bottom of
the excavation is considered as the plastic zone in
thecalculationusingJ SCE model, thebottomof the
wall deformedtowardstheexcavationsideinalarger
valueandthewall deflection distribution haddiffer-
ent phenomenoncomparedtotheobservation. Inthe
excavationstageattheAmclayer, thecalculationcon-
sideringthe75%stressreductionunder the5mfrom
theexcavationbottomwasshowntogetherinFigure5.
Unlike the comparison result inA-site, this calcula-
tionwassimilar tothedesignbecausewall deflections
around thebottomof theexcavation arein theplas-
tic zone. It was impossible to explain the observed
phenomenon adequately used by some calculation
model.
Thehorizontal coefficientof subgradereactionk
h
of
clayeygroundforexcavationsideintheOMTBmodel
isdeterminedbyequation(2). Thissettingmethodof
k
h
wastheempirical equationbasedonmanyobserved
datainthecasethatthewall deflectionwasabout3cm
(Yanagida et al., 1981). This reference bring up the
problemthat k
h
istendtodecreaseduetotheincrease
of thewall deflection.
In the actual construction site, as k
h
is depended
on the ground mechanical characteristics and some
boundary conditions and so on, it is known that
k
h
changes every second due to braced excavation.
For example, k
h
is determined as solid line by the
wall deflectionfunctiontakingintoconsiderationthe
nonlinearity(J apanRoadAssociation, 1986).
Theinverseanalysisbasedonsomeearthretaining
monitoringresultswascarriedouttoestimatethevalue
of k
h
. ModifiedPawell Methodwasemployedfor the
inverseanalysis. It ispossibletoobtaintheoptimized
solutionstablyonthemanyunknownparameter prob-
lem(Kishio, et al., 1995). Input valuesfor theinverse
analysis areearth retaining wall deflection (angleof
inclination) andaxial forceof struts, andoutputvalues
arelateral pressureontheearthretainingwall andk
h
.
Figure 6 shows the inverse analysis results based
on themonitoring datain OsakaSubway LineNo.8
touchedtotheKishio, et al., 1997.Thevertical scaleis
theratioof theestimationvaluek
h
bytheinverseanal-
ysistodesignvalueof k
h0
. Inother words, k
h
,k
h0
=1
meanstheinverseanalysisresultsanddesignvalueare
thesame.
Inthecasethat thewall deflectionwasabout 1cm,
the relation between k
h
and k
h0
was about the same
in both past actual results and Line No.8 results. In
short,theapplicabilityof k
h
inthedesignisreasonable.
178
Figure 6. Dependence for brace wall deformation of k
h
(touchinKishio, et al., 1997).
However inthecasethatthewall deflectionwasabout
2to4cm, inverseanalysisresultsk
h
aresmaller than
the design value k
h0
, the ration k
h
,k
h0
decreased to
about 0.5.
The relation of =1/40 was presumed on the
assumption that k
h
decrease due to the increase of
thewall deflection. Figure5shows therecalculation
resultsunder thisrelation.
Inthecaseof the4thexcavationstep, therelation
between observation and recalculation was in good
agreement. Inthecaseof the8thexcavationstep, the
wall deflectiondistributionmodebetweenobservation
andrecalculationwasstill different, butthemaximum
amount of wall deflection was similar. It is believed
that the cause of differences in the wall deflection
distributionmodeis thelimit explainedby thebeam
springmodel indesign.
In accordancewith theseestimations results, it is
preferabletoconsider thek
h
settingmethodcarefully
asequation(3) withconsideringthetraditional design
ideainthecaseof earthretainingdesigninthesoftand
sensitiveclayey layer, whichN-value is about 0to 2,
withthicklayer (about 10to20m).
4 CONCLUSIONS
Theresultsareshownasfollows;
1. At theA-site, theobserved wall deflection in the
east andwest sidearesymmetric till the4thstep,
and it is confirmed that the design value esti-
matestheactual phenomenonadequately. However
since the 5th step, the observed data exceeded
the design value. It was assumed that the plastic
zoneexpanded drastically to thepenetration area
indesign.
2. It was possiblethat thecalculation result consid-
eringthe75%stressreductionunder the5mfrom
thebottomof theexcavationexplainedtheobserved
datatosomeextent. However, under thebottomof
theexcavation, thetendency that thedesignvalue
andcalculationresult exceededtheobserveddata.
It wasconsideredthat oneof thereasonsfor these
tendenciesisthedeformationatthebottomof wall
towardstheexcavationside.
3. At theB-site, thewall deflectiondistributionwas
similar betweentheobservationanddesigninthe
4th excavation step. However the observed wall
deflectionistwotimesof thedesign. Inthe8thstep,
thewall deflectiondistributionmodewasdifferent
inboth, andobservedwall deflectionexceededthe
designvalue.
4. Owingthat=1/40waspresumedontheassump-
tionthatk
h
decreaseduetotheincreaseof thewall
deflection, the relation between observation and
recalculation was in good agreement in the case
of the 4th excavation step. In the 8th excavation
step, thewall deflectiondistributionmodeinboth
wasstill different, butthemaximumwall deflection
wasclose.
5. It isrecommendedthat thek
h
settingmethodcare-
fullyasequation(3)withconsideringthetraditional
design idea in the case of earth retaining design
in the soft and sensitive clayey layer, which N-
value is about 0 to 2, with thick layer (about 10
to20m).
REFERENCES
Hashimoto,T.,J.Nagaya,J.KishioandT.Shiotani : Investiga-
tionof StrengthDegradingduetoSwellingof theGround
in Excavation, Proc. of the Int. Conf. on Foundation
Failures, pp.393398, 1997.
J apanRoadAssociation: DesignGuidelinefor Underground
Multipurposeduct, 1986(inJ apanese).
J SCE : StandardSpecificationsforTunneling-2006, Cutand
CoverTunnels, pp.142181, 2006(inJ apanese).
Kato, S., T. KondaandH. Shinkai: Effect of SuctionReduc-
tionCausedbyWettingProcessonShear StrengthChar-
acteristicsUnderLowConfiningPressure, JSCEJournals
C, Vol.62, No.2, pp.471487, 2006(inJ apanese).
Kishio, T., N. Nakai, H. Arimoto, T. KondaandK. Takami :
Inverseanalysisexampleof BracedWall usedbyModified
Pawell Method, Proc. of the50thJ SCE Annual Meeting,
III-520, pp.10401041, 1995(inJ apanese).
Kishio, T., H. Oota, T. Hashimoto, T. Konda, E. Saito
and N. Kobayashi : Estimation of Lateral Pressure and
Coefficientof SubgradeReactionduringExcavationWork
in Osaka, JSCE Journals, No.560, VI-34, pp.107116,
1997(inJ apanese).
179
Kishio, T., H. Oota, T. Hashimoto and T. Konda : Some
Aspects of Designing Earth Pressures for Braced Wall
under the Bottom of Excavation, Tsuchi-to-Kiso JGS,
Vol.45, No.10, pp.2022, 1997(inJ apanese).
Oota, H., H. Ito, T. Yanagawa, T. KondaandT. Hashimoto:
Considerationof DesignMethodfor BracingExcavation
BasedonMonitoringResults, Proc. of the 42nd JNCSFE,
2007(inJ apanese).
OsakaMunicipal TransportationBureau: DesignGuideline
for temporarystructure(draft), 1993(inJ apanese).
Yanagida, S., T. Watanabe, I. Yamaguchi, H. Nakamuraand
S.Mizutani :TheStudyof Lateral EarthPressureforEarth
Retaining Design (Part II), Proc. of the 16th JNCSFE,
14491452, 1981(inJ apanese).
180
Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground Ng, Huang & Liu (eds)
2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-48475-6
Groundmovementsinstationexcavationsof Bangkokfirst MRT
N. Phienwej
Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok, Thailand
ABSTRACT: Thecharacteristicsof movementsof diaphragmwall andgroundintheexcavationof 18stations
of thefirst BangkokundergroundMRT linewereevaluated. Threemodesof deflectedshapesof thewallswere
observedatdifferentexcavationdepths, namelycantilever mode, bracedmodeswithbulgeinsoftclayandbulge
in stiff clay. Theratio of maximumlateral wall deflection developing with excavation depth and theratio of
groundsurfacesettlement toexcavationandthenormalizedzoneof groundsurfacesettlement variedwiththe
modeof wall deflection. Back-calculationof undrainedsoil moduli for differentsoil layersweremadefromwall
movementdataof threeselectedstationsusingthe2-Dlinear elasto-plasticFEM analyses. Themodulusvalues,
whichwerehigher thanthosecommonlyobtainedfromconventional triaxial tests, canbeusedasguidelinefor
futureworksinBangkok.
1 INTRODUCTION
Deep excavation by means of strutted concrete
diaphragm walls is often used for construction of
multi-level buildingbasements inBangkok soft soil.
It is superior to theexcavation with steel sheet piles
for control of groundmovement toavoiddamagesto
adjacentstructures.Priortotheconstructionof thefirst
Bangkok MRT project, fewstudiesweremadeonthe
characteristics of the ground movement and its pre-
diction (e.g. Phienwej and Gan, 2003 andTeparaksa
et al, 1999. etc.). However, it was the implemen-
tation of the first Bangkok MRT subway line that
provided systematic and comprehensive monitoring
dataontheexcavationof stationboxesthatallowedin-
depthevaluationonthecharacteristicsof thewall and
groundmovementsassociatedwithdeepexcavationin
Bangkok subsoil conditionsusingstrutteddiaphragm
walls.Theprojectinvolvedthedeepesteverexcavation
madeinBangkoktodate.Theexcavationsof all station
boxeswerefully instrumented. Monitoringdatafrom
18stationexcavationswerecompiled,summarizedand
interpreted.
The construction of the first MRT underground
projectinBangkok,theMassRapidTransitInitial Sys-
temProject(MRT ISPBlueLine) wasstartedin1998.
Prior tothattherewerepublicdoubtsontechnical via-
bilityof theconstructionandoperationsafetyof under-
ground MRT in Bangkok soft soil. That pessimistic
outlookledtoacall foranin-depthinvestigationonthe
applicationandperformanceof theexcavationmethod
andsupportsystemstobeintegratedintheexcavation
insoft andsubsidingBangkok ground. Thecontracts
madeitscompulsorythatfull instrumentationprogram
beimplemented during excavation for design verifi-
cationandsafety assurance. Evaluationontheactual
performanceatsiteswasperformedtoconfirmthesuf-
ficiency inthedesignof thesupport systems for the
MRT stationexcavations.A comprehensivestudywas
madeontheaspectof thewall andgroundmovements
(Hooi, 2003) andthesalient pointsfromthestudyare
reportedherein.
2 PROJ ECT DESCRIPTION
TheISP BlueLineisthefirst undergroundMRT line
constructedinBangkok.Itcomprises22-km-longtwin
single-tracktunnels, 18stationsandadepot.Thehori-
zontal alignmentmainlyfollowstherightof wayof city
roads. Constructionof theundergroundstructureswas
implemented under two fast track design-built con-
tracts, each having approximately thesameamounts
of work. TheSouthContract involvedconstructionof
atwinboredtunnelsfromtheinter-cityrailwaytermi-
nal at HuaLamphongeastwardsfor 5kmbeneaththe
busyRamaIV roadtotheQueenSirikitNational Con-
ventionCenter, then4.5kmnorthbeneaththenarrow
businessAsokeroad, andRatchadaphisekroadending
onthesurfacenearthedepot.Worksof theNorthCon-
tractcontinuedfor4.5kmnorthalongRatchadaphisek
roadtoLadPhraoroadthenturnedwesttoChatuchak
Park and finally terminated beneath the Bang Sue
181
railway station. The18 stations of theproject areas
follows:
South Contract North Contract
1. HuaLamphongStation 1. ThiamRuamMit Station
2. SamYanStation 2. Pracharat BumphenStation
3. SilomStation 3. SutthisanStation
4. Lumphini Station 4. RatchadaStation
5. BonKai Station 5. LadPhraoStation
6. Sirikit CentreStation 6. PhahonyothinStation
7. Sukhumvit Station 7. MoChit Station
8. Phetchaburi Station 8. KamphaengPhet Station
9. RamaIX Station 9. BangSuStation
3 GROUNDCONDITIONS
Bangkok is situated on thesouthern part of thelow
lyingChaoPhrayaplain, whichextendsnorthfromthe
coast lineat theGulf of Thailanduptoapproximately
350kmand spans east-westward up to 150km. The
flat topography plain is covered with athick marine
clay layer, whichoverlies avery thick series of allu-
vial depositsof alternatingstiff tohardclayanddense
toverydensesandtogravel. Thethick soft claylayer
generallyextendsfromthegroundsurfacetoadepthof
12to15m.ThesoftclaywhichisknownasBangkok
soft clay has high water content (70120%), high
plasticity, lowstrengthandhighcompressibility.
Theshallowsubsoil of theupper 35mzoneisrela-
tivelyuniformandgenerallyconsistsof layersof soft
tomediumclay, stiff tohardclayandsand. Belowthis
shallowzone,alternatinglayersof stiff tohardclayand
densesandexist toagreat depth. Bedrock isfoundat
depths morethan 450m. Thetypical subsoil profile
for thefirst 50mdepthislistedasfollows:
MadeGround
BangkokSoft Clay
First Stiff Clay
MediumDenseClayeySand, SandyClayandSilty
Clay
VeryStiff SandyClay/First BangkokSand
SecondHardClay
SecondBangkokSand
Maconochie (2001) summarized the general soil
profileandpropertiesat theBangkok MRT ISP Blue
Line. The variation in soil profile along the align-
ment was observedprimarily intheVery Stiff Sandy
Clay/First Bangkok Sandlayer andthesoilsimmedi-
atelybelowit. Figure1showthesoil profilealongthe
MRT alignment andat thestations.
Deep well pumping in Bangkok and its environs
hasreducedtheporewaterpressuresinthesandlayers
by approximately 23mfromtheoriginal hydrostatic
profile. The groundwater pumping has also created
regional subsidencethroughout Bangkok metropolis.
At thelocations of theproject, aperchedwater table
istypically encounteredinMadeGround. Belowthis
horizon, hydrostaticconditionsaregenerallyfoundto
adepth of approximately 8mto 10mdepending on
thelocation and thickness of First and Second Sand
layers. Typically, theupper fewmetres of sandlayers
underlying First Stiff Clay andVery Stiff Clay have
beendewatered.
4 STATIONCONSTRUCTION
TheMRT stationshadfollowingfeatures:
Typically,threelevelsof structure,withacentreplat-
formthatisfedbystairsandescalatorsbetweentwo
linesof columnsdownthemiddleof thestation.
Up to 230mlong and approximately 25 mwide,
excavateduptoadepthof 25mto30mbelowthe
groundsurface.
Theperimeterswereof diaphragmwalls,1.0mthick
and30mto35mdeepandsolidin-situreinforced
concrete slabs, typically 0.9mthick for the roof
slabs, 0.7mthick for the intermediate slabs and
1.75mthick for the base slabs, which were used
as the excavation support systemand permanent
structureslater on.
Therewerethreestackedstations, atSamyan, Silom
and Lumphini Stations, due to space constraints
causedbytheexistenceof thefoundationpilesof the
longroadflyover andawater transmissiontunnel at
thesebusyintersections.
Therewas asideplatformstationat BangSuSta-
tion, withtwolevelsonly, toaccommodatethetrack
alignment for futureelevatedextensionof theline
tothenorth.
TheremainingstationswereconstructedasCentre
IslandPlatformstations.
PracharatBamphenandSutthisanStationsincorpo-
ratedintersectionroadunderpassesontheroofsof
thestations.
Silom, LadPhraoandPhahonyothinStationswere
excavated underneath foundation piles of existing
road flyovers and thus, the station structures and
foundation were designed to support the flyovers
viacross-beamandunderpinningboredpiles.
Thetopdownconstructiontechniquewasadopted
for all stationbox excavations withdiaphragmwalls
andconcreteslabs as theexcavationsupport system,
which was later utilized as thepermanent structures
of the stations. The designs were made with an aid
of FEM analyses. Theexcavationdepths andthetoe
depthof thediaphragmwallsof all stationexcavations
182
Figure1. Soil profilealongMRT alignment andat thestations.
aresummarizedinFig. 2. It shouldbenotedthat the
ratioof thedepthof thewall embedment tothedepth
of excavationwas significantly different betweenthe
two contracts, primarily due to the difference in the
designcriteriaadoptedbythetwodifferent designers.
5 INSTRUMENTATIONDATA
The measurement data frominclinometers and sur-
facesettlement pointswerecompiledandinterpreted
toevaluatetheoverall performanceof thestationexca-
vations in Bangkok subsoil using diaphragmwalls.
The data were screened to preclude movements not
expresslyrelatedtotheexcavationandsupport instal-
lation, such as diaphragmwall construction, tempo-
rarydeckingworksandtheinitial 2.3mexcavationthat
involved driving sheet piles, backfilling and extract-
ingthesheetpilessubsequently.Adetailedstudyof the
instrumentationdataobtainedwasundertakenbycom-
paringobservedgroundmovement amongthestation
excavations. Factors that may result in such patterns
of datawasexaminedanddeduced, suchas:
Stationboxconfigurationanddimension
Constructionsequences
183
Figure2. Depthof excavationandtoedepthof D-wall.
Figure3. Modesof wall deflection.
Variationinsoil profileandproperties
Temporaryworksor presenceof structuresadjacent
toexcavationbox
5.1 Lateral wall movement
Ingeneral, most inclinometersall stationexcavations
showedthatthecantilevermodewasthemostpredom-
inant of wall deflectionshapeat theinitial excavation
stage, whilethebracedexcavationmodedevelopedin
thesubsequent stages as theexcavations weredeep-
ened. Figure 3 shows the three modes of deflected
shape of wall movement, which occurred at differ-
ent excavationdepths. Thecantilever modewasmost
commonduringthefirstexcavationstage. Thebraced
excavationmodewithbulgeinsoftsoil prevailedatthe
second and third excavation stages. This mode con-
tinued to dominatethepattern of lateral movements
for NorthContract, butdataof SouthContractexhibit
that the braced mode with bulge in the underlying
NORTH CONTRACT
0
5
10
15
20
25
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Maximum Lateral Wall Movement/Excavation Depth, d
Hmax
/H
E
x
c
a
v
a
t
i
o
n

D
e
p
t
h
,

H

(
m
)
Cantilever mode (H=1.6m-4.0m) Braced mode-soft soil (H=6.5m-10.8m)
Braced mode-stiff soil (H=12.4m-16.7m) Braced mode-stiff soil (H=20.0m-32.6m)
SOUTH CONTRACT
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Maximum Lateral Wall Movement/Excavation Depth, d
Hmax
/H
E
x
c
a
v
a
t
i
o
n

D
e
p
t
h
,

H

(
m
)
Cantilever mode (H=1.6m-4.0m) Braced mode-soft soil (H=6.5m-10.8m)
Braced mode-stiff soil (H=12.4m-16.7m) Braced mode-stiff soil (H=20.0m-32.6m)
Figure 4. Normalized maximum wall deflection versus
excavationdepth.
stiff soil layers was more predominant. This differ-
entbehavior maybeattributedtothedifferenceinsoil
profiles. In addition, South Contract had three deep
stationexcavationsof verticallystackedplatforms.
Themaximumlateral wall deflectionof the18sta-
tionexcavationswereintherangeof 1047mm. The
monitoring data also showed that there were signif-
icant variations in the shape and magnitude of the
lateral wall movementwithinsomeof thestationexca-
vations. Thevariationmay beattributedto anumber
of factors including the variation in soil profile and
properties over theplan areaof thestation, adjacent
temporarysurfaceworks, andconfinement fromroad
pavements and buried utility structures. The area of
theexcavationwas quitelarge(about 25mwideand
200mlong). For the three stations adopted for the
detailed analysis in this study, the variations in the
maximumlateral wall movementswereasfollow: 28
38mmfor the deepest SilomStation, 15 to 40mm
for Sirikit Station, and 1827 for ThiamRuamMit
Station. Figure4summarizestherangesof thenormal-
izedmaximumlateral wall movementwithexcavation
depth(
Hmax
/H) versusexcavationdepthsrecordedby
all inclinometers at the 18 stations. The plots show
that inthefirst stagecantilever modeexcavationthe
value of
Hmax
/H was as high as 1.60. The maxi-
mumvalue of
Hmax
/H decreased with the increase
in the excavation depth in the braced modes of the
184
Figure5. Normalizedsettlementversusdistancefromwall.
walls. Thedecreaseinthevaluewithdepthwasdueto
thechangeinsoil conditionat theexcavationbottom
fromsoft clay to stiff clays as the excavation depth
increased. Whentheexcavationdepthreachedstiffer
soils,
Hmax
/H decreased and the range of the value
becamenarrow. Whentheexcavationbottomwasstill
inthesoft clay layer, themaximumvalueof
Hmax
/H
wassmaller than0.5. Thevaluewassmaller than0.2
whentheexcavationsweredeeper, instiff clays.
5.2 Ground surface settlement
The maximum ground surface settlement was
observedat 58mmat BonKai Stationand75mmat
Pracharat Bumphen, in South and North Contracts,
respectively. Figure5showsplot of theratioof maxi-
mumsettlement toexcavationdepth(
vmax
/H) versus
thedistancefromexcavationnormalizedbytheexca-
vation depth (D/H). For shallow excavations under
cantilever modeof wall deflection, thezoneof ground
settlement may extend up to D/H of 7 to 10. As for
the excavation depths while the wall deflection was
under thebracedmodewithbulgeinsoft clay layer,
the
vmax
/H may extend up to D/H of 7. For deeper
excavations while the wall was deflected under the
modeof bulgeinstiff clay layer, thezoneof ground
settlement may extend up to adistanceof D/H of 4
and
vmax
/H valuemay beas highas 0.35Under the
bracedmodeinsoftclay,
vmax
/Hvaluemayreach0.55.
For shallowexcavationunder thecantilever modethe
value of
vmax
/H can be higher. The characteristics
of ground surface settlement behind the excavation
withdiaphragmwallscanbecategorizedaccordingto
themodeof wall deflectionof excavationdepth. The
zonesof groundsettlementforthethreemodesof wall
deflection in Bangkok soil are marked in figure. In
addition, thethreecategoriesof groundmovement in
bracedwall excavationforflexiblewalls(sheetpilesor
soldierpiles) suggestedbyPeck(1969) arealsoshown
intheplot. Thelevel of groundsettlement inexcava-
tionwithdiaphragmwall inBangkoksoftsoil ismuch
smaller thanthatpredictedbyPeckschartfor flexible
wall. However, theinfluencezones of ground settle-
ment werewider thanthosesuggestedbyPecks. This
findingcanbeusedasageneral guidelinefor predic-
tiongroundsurfacesettlement fromdeepexcavation
withdiaphragmwallsinBangkoksubsoil condition.
6 PREDICTIONOF MOVEMENTS
For the design of the MRT station excavations of
both contracts, FEM analysis were made to deter-
minegroundmovement andforcesonthediaphragm
walls andbracings. Theanalyses mainly utilizedlin-
earelasto-plasticMohr-Coulombsoil parameters.The
parameters wereobtainedfromthesoil investigation
andtestingprogrammadefor eachstationexcavation.
Triaxial compression tests as well as pressuremeter
tests wereconducted to determinethevalues of soil
modulusfordesignanalysis.Theinstrumentationdata
providedvaluableinformationto evaluatetheappro-
priateness of thesoil model and thesoil parameters
usedinthedesigncalculation. Inthisstudy, monitor-
ingdatafromthreerepresentativestationexcavations,
i.e. Silom, Sirikit and Thiam Ruam Mit Stations,
were examined in details and suitable soil parame-
ters were back-calculated using a continuum FEM
analysis. Computer codePLAXIS2Dwasadoptedin
the study. Effective stress strength parameters were
adoptedintheundrainedanalysis.Thedrawdownphe-
nomenonof thepiezometric levelswasconsideredin
thesimulation.
Silom Station was the deepest excavation in
Bangkok to date (32.6m deep), with a vertically
stackedplatformsthusithadfour levelsof slabbelow
the roof. The station was designed to underpin the
existing flyover roadway running over the station
length. A densesandlayer of thefirst Bangkok Sand
was encountered fromdepth 8.5mabove the final
excavationlevel.Hence,theexcavationrequireddewa-
tering. Thediaphragmwall wastoedintotheSecond
Sandlayer.
Sirikit Stationhadthetypical configurationof the
centreislandplatformwiththreelevelsbelowtheroof
slab. The first stage and final excavation depths of
185
3.65mand23.6mrespectively, whichweresimilar to
majorityof other stations.
ThiamRuamMit Stationwasselectedbecausethe
soil profilewasslightlydifferent fromthosefoundin
thefirsttwostations. Theareahadathicker FirstStiff
Claylayer withlensesof clayeysands. Inaddition, the
first stageexcavationwasveryshallowwithroof slab
wasonlyat 1.8mdepth.
Theback-calculationusingthelateral groundmove-
ment datafromtheexcavations of thethreestations
suggestedthesuitableundrainedsoil modulusparam-
etersasfollows.
Soft andMediumClay : E
u
=500C
u
kN/m
2
First Stiff Clay : E
u
=700N
60
kN/m
2
ClayeySandandSilty/ : E
u
=900N
60
kN/m
2
SandyClay
SecondHardClay : E
u
=1600N
60
kN/m
2
ThirdHardClay : E
u
=2500N
60
kN/m
2
whereC
u
isthecorrectedfieldvaneshearstrengthand
N
60
isthecorrectedSPT N valueaccordingtoLiao
andWhitman(1986).
These back-calculated values of soil modulus are
higher than those commonly obtained fromconven-
tional laboratorytriaxial tests. It reflectsthemodulus
valuesatlowstrainlevel whichwouldbethedominat-
ingresponseof soil intheexcavationproblem(Mair,
1993). The soils would be mainly under unloading
conditionof stresses.
Insimilar early studies, Phienwej andGan(2003)
andTeparaksa(1999) both proposed thesamemod-
ulus parameter of thesoft clay as E
u
=500c
u
. While
for stiff clay, thevalueof E
u
=1200C
u
and 2000C
u
were suggested, respectively. Based on the relation-
shipof C
u
=0.6N
60
kN/m
2
typicallyusedforBangkok
subsoil, theparametersareequivalent toE
u
=720N
60
and1200N
60
kN/m
2
,respectively.Theback-calculated
values from this study were comparable to those
suggestedbyPhienwej andGan(2003).
7 CONCLUSIONS
Thefollowingconclusionscanbedrawnfromthestudy
of thewall andgroundmovementsintheexcavationof
thestationsof thefirst BangkokMRT underground.
Threemodesof deflectedshapesof thewall move-
ment were observed at different ranges of exca-
vation depth. Mode 1: Cantilever mode (H=1.6
m4.0m), Mode2: Bracedmodewithbulgeinsoft
clay layer (H=6.5m11m), and Mode3: Braced
modewithbulgeinstiff soil (H=12.4m32.6 m).
Themaximumlateral wall movement (
Hmax
) was
smaller than47mminbothcontracts. Thenormal-
izedwall deflection,
Hmax
/Hinthecantilevermode
of movement was as high as 1.60, while it was
reducedtonomorethan0.60and0.40inthelatter
stagesof excavationwhenthewall deflectiondevel-
opedinthebracedmodewithbulgeinsoftclayand
bracedmodewithbulgeinstiff soil, respectively.
The maximumground surface settlement (
Vmax
)
was58mmfor SouthContractand75mminNorth
Contract. Thenormalizedmaximumgroundsettle-
ment with excavation depth,
vmax
/H, was smaller
than 0.55 and 0.35 for Modes 2 and Mode3 wall
deflection, respectively. The normalized distance
fromexcavationof thezoneof groundsettlement,
D/H, varied from7.0 and 4.0 for the two modes
of wall deflection. In the initial excavation stage
of cantilever mode, thevalues of bothnormalized
settlement anddistanceof groundmovement were
higher that thoseinthebracedmodes.
Back-calculation of soil moduli of different soil
layers using monitoring data fromthree selected
stations showed higher values than those com-
monly obtained for conventional laboratory tests.
Thevaluesare: SoftandMediumClay: E
u
=500c
u
,
First Stiff Clay E
u
=700N
60
kN/m
2
, Clayey Sand
andSilty/SandyClayE
u
=900N
60
kN/m
2
, Second
HardClay E
u
=1600N
60
kN/m
2
, ThirdHardClay
E
u
=2500N
60
kN/m
2
REFERENCES
Hooi, K.Y. 2003. Ground Movements Associated with Station
Excavations of the First Bangkok MRT Subway. Master
Thesis, AsianInstituteof Technology, Bangkok.
Liao, S. &Whitman, R.V. 1986. OverburdenCorrectionFac-
torforSPT inSand. J ournal of Geotechnical Engineering.
American Society of Civil Engineers 112(3): 373377.
Mcconochie, D. 2001. Geotechnical Completion Report
MRTA Chaloem Ratchamongkhon Line. A CSC Report
submittedtotheMRTA.
Mair, R. 1993. Developments in geotechnical engineering
research: application to tunnels and deep excavations.
UnwinMemorial Lecture1992,Proceedings of Institution
of Civil Engineers, Civil Engineering, 93, Feb: 2741
Phienwej, N. & Gan, C.H. 2003. Characteristics of
GroundMovements inDeepExcavations withConcrete
Diaphragm Walls in Bangkok Soils and their Predic-
tion. Journal of The Southeast Asian Geotechnical Society
34(3): 167175.
Teparaksa, W.,Thasnanipan, N. &Tanseng, P. 1999.Analysis
of Lateral Wall Movementfor DeepBracedExcavationin
Bangkok. Proc. of AIT 40thAnniversary Conference,AIT,
Bangkok, Thailand.
186
Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground Ng, Huang & Liu (eds)
2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-48475-6
Numerical modellingandexperimental measurementsfor aretainingwall
of adeepexcavationinBucharest, Romania
H. Popa, A. Marcu& L. Batali
Technical University of Civil Engineering, Geotechnical and Foundations Department, Romania
ABSTRACT: Althoughcivil engineers disposeof various calculationmethods for retainingstructures, none
of themhavedefinitelyimposeditself, eachonebringingitsownbenefitsor limitations. FiniteElementMethod
(FEM) offers the benefits of complex models allowing taking into account the majority of soil structure
characteristic parameters. However, theexperienceshows that thedifferences between theexperimental and
thecalculationresults areoftenquiteimportant. Thepaper presents thecasehistory of adiaphragmwall for
adeepbasement of anewbuildingincentreof Bucharest. Nearby thenewbuildingthereis anancient cathe-
dral historic monument. Thedeepexcavationisalsoneighboringat different distanceswithanother existing
buildingsandaheavy traffickedroad. All theseconditionsledtochoosethetop-down technology inexecu-
tionof thebasement. Thenumerical results obtainedby FEM arecomparedwiththemeasurements recorded
duringtheconstruction. Thedifferences betweentheobtainedvalues (displacements) arecomprisedbetween
15%and 75%, depending on the enclosure sides. The main factors leading to these differences are the soil
parameters.
1 INTRODUCTION
Theeffect of deepexcavations onneighboringstruc-
tures can become important and therefore special
measureshavetobetakeninthedesignandmonitoring
of retainingwalls.
Calculation of such structures must be based on
methodstakingintoaccount thesoil structureinter-
action and, with this respect good soil knowledgeis
indispensable.
Paper presents the case of a diaphragmwall for
a deep basement in the very centre of Bucharest.
The basement is developed on 4 underground lev-
els andneeds anexcavationof about 15mdeep. The
groundwater level is at about 6mdepth. Theground
iscomposedof alluviumslayerscomprisingmedium
soft silty clays, as well as fine to coarse medium
densesand. Near thenewconstruction, at about 6m
distance, there is an ancient cathedral, classified as
historical monument. As well, thepit has onanother
sidesomebuildings, whileon theother two sides it
is delimitedby aheavy traffic road. All thesecondi-
tions led to choosethetop down technology for
buildingtheinfrastructure, inorder tohaveminimum
deformations and displacements of the wall, so that
the integrity of the neighboring buildings not being
affected.
2 WORK ANDSITE DESCRIPTION
2.1 Site and geometrical characteristics
Thenewbuildingislocatedatthecentreof Bucharest,
next to theRomano Catholic Cathedral St. J oseph.
Figure1presentsaphotoof thesite.
Asit canbeseenonthephoto, ontheWesternside
thepitisveryclosetotheSt. J osephCathedral (about
Figure1. Locationof thedeepexcavation.
187
Figure2. Crosssectionthroughthediaphragmwall.
6mdistance), ontheSouthernsidethereisabuilding
complexatabout10mdistance, whileonthetwoother
sidesthereisapublicroadwithheavytraffic.
Figure 2 shows a cross section through the
buildings infrastructure, presenting also the ground
lithology.
Thediaphragmwall ismadeof panels80cmthick
and21mdeep. Theembedmentdepthhasbeenestab-
lished considering the wall stability and excavation
bottom imperviousness. Dewatering has been per-
formed only inside the enclosure, the groundwater
level outsidebeing left unchanged to avoid undesir-
ablesettlements of theground around thepit dueto
dewatering, whichwouldbeinadditionto theinher-
ent settlementsduetoexcavationinsidetheenclosure
andtotheerectionof thenewstructure, whichcould
affect especiallySt. J osephCathedral.
2.2 Geotechnical characteristics of the ground
Thegeotechnical parametersarespecificforBucharest
area, whichischaracterizedbyalluviumsoils.Thetri-
axial testsperformedwithimposedstresspathallowa
direct determinationof theshear strengthparameters
(, c), of thesecantmodulus(E) andof theearthcoef-
ficient at rest (k
0
) for theclayey layers; for thesands
theseparametershavebeenestablishedbasedonSPT
tests.
Table1. Designvaluesfor thegeotechnical parameters.
Thickness, E,

K
0
Stratum m kN/m
3
MPa (

) kPa
Clay(1) 4.00 19 25 25 30 0.7
Sand& gravel 5.50 20 40 38 0 0.4
Clay(2) 7.50 20 50 22 50 0.7
Siltyclayey 2.00 20 75 28 20 0.5
sand
Clay(3) 4.00 20 75 22 50 0.4
Finesand 7.00 20 75 36 0 0.4
Thegroundlithology andthedesignvalues of the
geotechnical parameters are shown in table 1 (level
0.00mrepresentsgroundlevel).
Thegroundwater level is +74.0mand, according
to the site investigations, it can vary with 1.00m.
A secondaquifer, confined, has beenfoundbetween
+63.0+61.0m(withinthesandylayer).
3 NUMERICAL MODELLING
3.1 Numerical model
Numerical modeling has been performed using 2-D
FEM, the model having 1933 elements and 5866
nodes.
For thesoil, aperfectelasto-plasticconstitutivelaw
hasbeenused,withMohr Coulombcriteria,usingthe
geotechnical parameters issued fromlaboratory and
insitutests.
3.2 Calculation stages
Calculationshavebeenorganizedin6stages, follow-
ingthetechnological phases:
phase 0 initialization of the stress state in the
ground;
phase 1 excavationdowntothelower level of the
first floor slab; executionof thefirst floor slab;
phase 2 excavationbelowthefirstfloorslabdown
tothelowerlevel of thesecondfloorslabanddewa-
teringinsidetheenclosure; executionof thesecond
floor slab;
phase 3 excavation between floor slabs no. 2
and3; executionof floor slabno. 3;
phase 4excavationbelowthethirdfloorslabdown
tothefinal level (15.00m).
3.3 Results
Figure3presents theevolutionof thehorizontal dis-
placement of thewall as afunction of theexecution
stages.
188
Figure3. Horizontal displacementsfunctionof calculation
phases.
Figure4. Bendingmoment functionof calculationphases.
Figure5. Shear forcefunctionof calculationphases.
Table2. Floor slabreactionforces.
Force, kN/ml
Floor 1 Floor 2 Floor 3
Phase1
Phase2 142.2
Phase3 2.3 456.5
Phase4 6.7 249.2 729.2
Accordingto thecalculations, themaximumhori-
zontal displacementsof thewall areof about 15mm,
at 15mdepth. Duetothetop-down technology, the
shapeof thedisplacementcurvesshowsgreatervalues
inthelower part of thewall. Thedisplacementsof the
upper part arepracticallyblockedbythealreadybuilt
floor slabs.
Theupper maximumhorizontal displacements are
estimatedtobeof 56mm.
Bendingmomentandshear forcegraphsareshown
figures4and5, respectively.
Thereaction forces on thebasements floor slabs
areshowntable2.
4 MEASUREMENTS
In order to record theinfluencethedeep excavation
and, moreover the whole new building, has on the
189
Figure6. Experimental measurements.
neighbouring structures, a monitor of the displace-
mentshasbeenperformed.
Theretainingwall wasequippedoneachsidewith
inclinometers for measuring thehorizontal displace-
mentsand, thus, thewalls deformation.
Markswereinstalledonthesurroundingbuildings
to monitor their settlements. As well, extensometers
were installed, just behind the wall for measuring
grounds settlements.
Another monitoring concerned the groundwater
level outside the enclosure. For this purpose, wells
weredrilledandequippedaspiezometers, locatedon
eachsideof theenclosure. Themeasurementsshowed
that thedewateringworks insidetheenclosuredidnt
affect thegroundwater level outside.
Figure6showsthemonitoringequipment usedfor
theSt. J osephCathedral side.
It canbeseenthat, inorder toreducefurthermore
therisksof anegativeinfluenceof theretainingwall on
theCathedral, betweenthesetwo first astabilization
wall wasbuilt usingcement-basedinjections.
Figure6showsalsothemeasuredlateral displace-
mentsof thewall duringthelastexcavationstage(stage
4). It canbeseenthat theshapeof thedisplacement
190
curvecorresponds to theoneobtained by numerical
calculation. But the values are much less than the
estimatedones.
So, at theupper part of thewall, themaximumdis-
placementsareof about2mm,representingabout50%
of theestimatedones, whileatthelowerpartthediffer-
encesaremoreimportant, themeasuredvaluesbeing
only25%of thecalculatedones.
Thisimportantdifferencebetweencalculationsand
measurementscanbeduealsototheprotectioninjec-
tion screen locatedon this sideof theenclosure. On
the other sides, where no such protection has been
installed, themaximumwalls displacementswereof
about13mm, beingquiteclosedtotheestimatedvalue
(85%).
Anyway, estimations arestill higher thanthemea-
suredvaluesfor all excavationstages.
Concerning the ground settlement behind the
retainingwall (at about 1mdistance), extensometers
showed a maximumvalue at ground level of about
7mm. Thesettlement evolutionversus thedepthcan
alsobeseeninfigure6andonecannotethatitbecomes
negligibleat about 23mbelowwalls toe.
MarksfixedontheSt. J osephCathedral indicateda
maximumsettlementof 0.7mm, itsintegritynotbeing
endangered.
Fromthis point of view it can also be noted the
beneficial roleof theinjectionscreen, thedifference
of settlementsononesideandtheother of thescreen
beingsubstantial.
Concerningtheotherneighboringbuildingslocated
atabout10mdistance, maximumsettlementsof about
3mmwererecorded, insignificant for their stability.
5 CONCLUSIONS
Retaining structures imply complex soil structure
interactionphenomena. A correct estimationof their
behavior is possible only by using numerical mod-
els, allowing a complex modeling of the system
formedby theretainingwall, foundationgroundand
neighbouringbuildings.
Evenwhensuchmethods areused, theresults can
present significant differences fromthe real behav-
ior.Thereasonsforthesedifferencesaremany, among
them:
incertituderegarding thegeotechnical parameters
usedfor thecalculations, especiallywhencomplex
constitutivelawsareusedfor theground;
difficulty inestimationof theinitial stressstatein
the ground, taking into account its lithology, the
presenceof neighbouringstructures, theexecution
of theretainingwall itself etc.;
complexity of thenumerical model itself, consid-
eringall impliedparameters;
three-dimensional behaviour of the retaining
structure.
In order to obtain reliable results using numeri-
cal modelingit is important to calibrateandvalidate
themodel basedonexperimental measurements per-
formedonsimilar structures andinsimilar sitecon-
ditions. The experience in such modeling is also an
important aspect.
REFERENCES
Marcu, A., Popa, H., Marcu, D., Coman, M., Vasilescu, A. &
Manole, D. 2007. Impactdeepexcavationsonneighboring
buildings, National ConferenceAICPS, 1J une2007(in
Romanian).
Marcu, A. &Popa, H. 2004. Calculationsandmeasurements
of deformations and displacements of a retaining wall
for adeepexcavationandof theneighboringstructures.
10th National Conferenceof Soil Mechanics and Foun-
dation Engineering, 1618 September 2004, Bucharest,
Romania, pp. 311322(inRomanian).
Popa, H. 2002. Contributions to the study of the soil
structure interaction in case of underground structures,
PhD thesis, Technical University of Civil Engineering
Bucharest, p. 311.
191
Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground Ng, Huang & Liu (eds)
2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-48475-6
3Dfiniteelement analysisof adeepexcavationandcomparison
withinsitumeasurements
H.F. Schweiger
Computational Geotechnics Group, Institute for Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Graz
University of Technology, Austria
F. Scharinger & R. Lftenegger
GDP Consulting Engineers, Graz, Austria
ABSTRACT: Thepaper describes theanalysis of adeep excavation project in clayey silt in Salzburg. The
excavationwassupportedbyadiaphragmwall, ajetgroutpanel andthreelevelsof struts. Becauseof insufficient
informationonthematerial propertiesof thejetgroutpanel thestiffnessof itwasvariedinaparametricstudy.The
effectof takingintoaccountthestiffnessof acrackeddiaphragmwall onthedeformationswasalsoinvestigated.
Insomeof the3Dcalculationsanon-perfectcontactbetweendiaphragmwall andstrutwassimulatedbymeans
of anon-linear behaviour of thestrut. Theevaluationof theresultsandcomparisonwithinsitumeasurements
showedthatanalyseswhichtookintoaccountthereducedstiffnessof thediaphragmwall duetocrackingachieved
thebest agreement withthemeasurements. Furthermoresettlementsof buildingscouldbebest reproducedby
thethree-dimensional model.
1 INTRODUCTION
Softsubsoil depositsinAustriaaremainlyfreshwater
deposits, sedimentedinthepost-glacial lakesafter the
boulder periods. Thesedeposits areknown as lacus-
trineclays onthefoothills of theAlps. Oneexample
for awidespread lacustrineclay deposit is thebasin
of Salzburg, where the city of Salzburg is situated
on subsoil sediments, which partly showathickness
upto70m, calledSalzburger Seeton, whichcanbe
classifiedasclayeysilt.
Inthedesignstageof deepexcavationsinsuchprob-
lematic soils finiteelement calculations areauseful
tool toobtainreasonablyrealisticpredictionsof defor-
mationsexpected. Inpractical engineering2D-models
arestill prevailing, but3D-model becomeincreasingly
attractive. It will beshown, andthis is themainpur-
poseof thispaper, that thebest overall matchwithin
situmeasurements,inparticularwithrespecttosurface
displacements behindthewall, is achievedwith 3D-
models. If only wall deflectionisconsideredalso2D
analysesshowreasonableagreement. Themechanical
behaviourof thesoil ismodelledwithanelasto-plastic
constitutivemodel, namelytheHardeningSoil model
as implemented in the finite element code Plaxis
(Brinkgreve2002). For theproject theclass A 2D
analysis predictedtheoverall deformationbehaviour
withsufficientaccuracyfromapractical pointof view,
but amoredetailedcomparisonwithinsitumeasure-
mentshasbeenmadeafter constructioninvolving3D
finiteelementanalyses.Furthermoresomedetailswith
respecttothestruttinghavebeenchangedduringcon-
struction which havenot been taken into account in
theoriginal analysis.
The input parameters for the constitutive model
have been determined not solely from site investi-
gations but also fromprevious experience of finite
element analyses under similar conditions (see e.g.
Schweiger & Breymann2005).
Inthefollowingabrief descriptionof theproblem
will be provided together with the material parame-
ter used. The different assumptions with respect to
modellingthediaphragmwall andthejet grout panel
arediscussed. Finallyresultsfromvarious2Dand3D
analyses arecomparedwithinsitumeasurements of
wall deflectionandsurfacedisplacements.
2 PROBLEM DESCRIPTIONANDMATERIAL
PARAMETERS
2.1 Project description
A cross section of the excavation with strut levels
and final excavation depth is shown in Figure 1. In
plantheexcavationis roughly square, approximately
193
Figure1. Crosssectionof excavationandstrut levels.
1920m, whichof coursemustraisedoubtswhether
a2Danalysisisatall appropriateinthiscase.Attention
ispaidtothefact that ajet grout panel just belowthe
final excavation level has been constructed to act as
lateral support. This has beenconstructedbeforethe
startof theexcavationandallowedexcavationwithout
installing afourth strut level. Groundwater lowering
insidetheexcavationwas achievedby vacuumwells
(commonly usedinSalzburg) whichextendedbelow
theexcavationlevel inorder toreduceuplift.
The construction sequence is closely reflected in
the analysis. Starting from the initial stress state
(K
0
=0.55 for all layers) and theloads of thefoun-
dations of theneighbouring buildings (80kN/m
2
for
the Novotel, 200 and 250kN/m
2
for the strip foot-
ings of Object 24) the wall and jet grout panel
havebeenintroducedwish-in-place. Thenexcavation
steps, groundwater changes andinstallationof struts
have been modelled in a step by step analysis. Soil
behaviour below20mis assumedto beundrained,
above20m, duetothepresenceof thinsandylayers,
asdrained.
2.2 Material parameters
The soil parameters used in the analysis for the top
soil layer (04mbelow surface) and the clayey silt
aresummarizedinTables1and2. Asmentionedpre-
viously, parameter determinationisnot onlybasedon
siteinvestigationsandlaboratoryexperimentsbutalso
fromexperienceof back analysesof other deepexca-
vations in Salzburg. Therfeore soil parameters have
not been varied in this study. In Table 1 E
50
, E
oed
and E
ur
are the reference stiffness in primary load-
ing (for deviatoric and oedometric stress paths) and
unloading/reloadingrespectively.
Theaxial stiffnessof thestruts(Table3) differsfor
thethreelevels, thematerial behaviour isassumedto
Table1. Stiffnessparametersfor soil layers.
E
50
E
oed
E
ur
m p
ref

ur
(MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (kPa)
Soil layer 3 3 12 0.0 40 0.2
(04m)
Clayeysilt 37.6 37.6 150.4 0.30 100 0.2
Table2. Strengthparametersfor soil layers.
c
(kPa) (

) (

)
Soil layer (04m) 5 28 0
Clayeysilt 1 30 26 0
Table3. Axial stiffnessof struts.
EA spacing
(kN) (m)
Strut level 1 3.234E6 3
Strut level 2 1.067E7 3
Strut level 3 5.334E6 3
Table4. Parameters for wall, jet grout panel and founda-
tions.
E R
inter
UCS
(kN/m
2
) (N/mm
2
)
Diaphragmwall 2.9E7 0.2 0.7 18.8
J et grout panel 5.0E5 0.2 0.7 2.25
Foundations 3.0E7 0.2 0.7
belinear elastic. Table4lists thebasic set of param-
eters used for diaphragmwall, jet grout panel and
the foundation structures of Novotel and Object 24.
Inthe2D analysesaMohr-Coulombfailurecriterion
hasbeenusedfor wall andjetgroutpanel whereasthe
cohesionwaschoseninsuchaway toobtaintheuni-
axial compressivestrength(UCS) aslistedinTable4,
assuming

=45

.Tensioncut-off wassettoUCS/10.
R
inter
denotes thereductionof soil strengthto model
wall friction. In the 3D analyses the wall was elas-
tic andstiffnesswaseither assumedtocorrespondto
uncrackedconditions or crackedconditions. The
stiffnesspropertiesof thejetgroutpanel havebeenvar-
iedbecauseof thesignificantuncertaintyinobtaining
reliablevaluesfor theinsitustiffnessof suchpanels.
194
Figure2. Locationof pointsusedfor comparison.
3 INSITU MEASUREMENT PROGRAMME
Theexistenceof structuresintheclosevicinityof the
excavationrequiredacareful observationof deforma-
tions duringconstruction. Therefore, about 30settle-
mentgaugeswereinstalledtomonitor thesettlements
outside the excavation, in particular of the adja-
cent buildings. In addition, four inclinometers were
installedin thediaphragmwalls in order to measure
thehorizontal deflectionof thewall inall construction
stages.Twoof themwerelocatedapproximatelyinthe
cross section chosen for the 2D analysis, i.e. along
thecentrelineof theexcavation. Figure2depictsthe
pointschosenfor thecomparisonof measurementand
analysisfor settlements.
4 NUMERICAL MODELS
As mentioned previously 2D and 3D analyses have
beenperformedusingPlaxis2DandPlaxis3DFoun-
dations.The2Dmodel consistsof approximately2,300
15-noded elements (Figure 3) and the 3D model of
approximately11,00015-nodedwedgeelements(Fig-
ure 4). Lateral boundaries are fixed in horizontal
direction and the bottom boundary in vertical and
horizontal direction in both models. It can be seen
that the 3D mesh is much coarser as compared to
the2D meshbut studiesperformedonthe3D model
showedthat ameshwithmorethan20,000elements
resultedinonlymarginal differencesindisplacements.
However, bendingmomentsaremoresensitivetodis-
cretisationandastabilityanalysiswouldcertainlynot
yieldcorrectresultswiththemeshadoptedfor the3D
analyses.
5 RESULTSOF 2DMODEL
Four different analyseshavebeenperformedwiththe
2Dmodel:
Variation 1 (V1): Wall and jet grout panel elastic
withelasticpropertiesaccordingtoTable4.
Figure3. 2Dfiniteelement mesh.
Figure4. 3Dfiniteelement mesh.
Variation 2 (V2): Diaphragm wall modelled as
elastic-perfectly plastic material with UCS as given
inTable4.
Variation3(V3): V2andincreaseof stiffnessof jet
grout panel byafactor of 3.
Variation4(V4):V3andincreaseof tensioncut-off
indiaphragmwall byafactor of 2.
Figures 5 and 6 compare the deflection of the
wall for the final construction stage for all four
analyses with the measurements obtained fromthe
inclinometers.
Itfollowsthatthedifferentassumptionsmadehave
littleinfluenceontheresults intheupper part of the
wall becauseinthispartthedeformationsaregoverned
by thestruts. Results for theright wall comparewell
withmeasurementsintheupper part, for theleft wall
thisisnot thecase. For thelower part onlyV3andV4
produceareasonably match and it turned out that it
isdifficulttoobtainthewall curvatureasmeasuredat
thelocationof thejet grout panel.
Figures7to9showacomparisonof calculatedand
measuredvertical displacements at various points on
thegroundsurface.Thetwosetsof squaresineachdia-
gramrepresentpairsof settlementgaugeswhicharein
closedistancetothepointspickedfromthenumerical
analysisatvariousstagesof construction(thedatesare
givenwithinthediagram, theaxisrepresentscalcula-
tion steps, representing the progress of construction
195
Figure5. 2Danalysis: wall deflection left wall.
with time). Only for point H a reasonable agree-
mentbetweencalculationandmeasurementscouldbe
achieved, although onehas to mention that absolute
values are very small, with about 10 mmas maxi-
mumsettlement. InpointI theanalysispredictsheave
whereassettlementshavebeenmeasured, butforpoint
E settlementsareoverpredicted.
6 RESULTSOF 3DMODEL
Inthissectionresultsfrom3Danalysesarepresented.
These analyses have been performed because the
geometry of theexcavation(approximately quadratic
inplanview)andalsopartof thebracingsystem(struts
across thecorners of theexcavation) cannot beade-
quately representedinplanestrainconditions. Inthe
first series of analyses emphasis has beenput onthe
stiffnessof thediaphragmwall and3different calcu-
lationshavebeenperformed: thefirst assumedlinear
elasticbehaviour for thewall withastiffnessassigned
representingstiffness I (uncrackedconditions), the
secondoneassumedstiffnessII(crackedconditions)
andthethirdoneintroducedanon-linearbehaviourby
Figure6. 2Danalysis: wall deflection right wall.
Figure7. 2Danalysis: surfacedisplacements Point I.
meansof apre-definedcurverelatingallowablebend-
ingmomentstothecurvatureof thewall. InFigures10
and11thesearedenotedwithZ1, Z2andnon-linear
respectively. It has been observed already in the2D
analysesthattheassumptionfor thestiffnessof thejet
groutedpanel has asexpected asignificant influ-
ence on the curvature of the wall. The inclinometer
measurementsindicatethatthelower value obtained
fromlaboratoryexperiments seemstounderestimate
thesupportinsitu. Thishasbeenconfirmedalsofrom
196
Figure8. 2Danalysis: surfacedisplacements Point H.
Figure9. 2Danalysis: surfacedisplacements Point E.
Figure10. 3Danalysis: wall deflection left wall.
Figure11. 3Danalysis: wall deflection right wall.
3D analyses and thereforeonly results assuming the
highstiffness(1,500MPa, asusedinV3andV4of the
2Dcalculations) arepresentedinthefollowing.
Thecomparisonof horizontal displacements (Fig-
ures10and11) clearlyshowtheeffect of varyingthe
stiffness of the diaphragmwall in the unsupported
zone whereas the assumption of cracked stiffness
is closer to the measured curvature than the analy-
siswithhighwall stiffness, at least for theright wall.
In theupper part theinfluenceof varying wall stiff-
nessismuchlesspronouncedbecausethebehaviouris
dominatedbythestruts, however predictedhorizontal
displacementsarelessthanmeasured. Thenon-linear
model is, not surprisingly, between the two extreme
cases.
Finally, after some discussion with the designer,
an additional analysis was performed assuming a
non-perfect connection of struts and wall, i.e. it was
assumedthat thereis animperfectionbeforethefull
support of thestrut can bemobilised. This has been
achieved by a nonlinear model for the strut which
197
Figure12. Comparison2D-3Danalysis left wall.
results ina0.25mm/mgap tobeclosedbeforethe
full support is activated (this variation is denoted as
V7 in the following diagrams). The consequence of
thisfollowsformFigures12and13, inwhichresults
fromthe2Danalysis(Variation4) arealsoplottedfor
comparison. For theleftwall thecurvatureattheposi-
tion of the grout panel is still not in full agreement
with measurements but the upper part corresponds
much better than in previous analyses. For the right
wall thecurvatureandtheupper part arenowinrea-
sonablegoodagreement withmeasurements (for the
right wall the2Danalysisisalsoingoodagreement).
Figures14to17plot settlementsat variousobserved
points. It is immediately noticedthat incontrast to
the2D model the3D analysis predicts settlements
alsoforPointI, althoughtheyarestill slightlyloweras
comparedtomeasuredvalues. PointHcorrespondsin
thesensethatmeasuredandcalculatedsettlementsare
almostzero. PointE showsslightlyhigher settlements
for later stagesof constructionthanmeasuredandthe
sameholdsfor point G.
Figure13. Comparison2D-3Danalysis right wall.
Figure14. Comparison2D-3Danalysis: Point I.
Figure15. Comparison2D-3Danalysis: Point H.
198
Figure16. Comparison2D-3Danalysis: Point E.
Figure17. Comparison2D-3Danalysis: Point G.
7 CONCLUSIONS
Results form2D and 3D finite element analyses of
a deep excavation have been compared to in situ
measurements. The excavation is supported by a
diaphragmwall, 3rowsof strutsandajet grout panel
locatedjustbelowthefinal excavationdepth.Inapara-
metricstudythestiffnessof thediaphragmwall andthe
jetgroutpanel havebeenvaried.Thestudyshowedthat
a 2D analysis would reasonably predict wall deflec-
tions(inparticular for theright wall) but if bothwalls
and vertical displacements of all surface points are
consideredthe3Danalysisproducesasomewhatbetter
overall agreement withthemeasurements.
REFERENCES
Brinkgreve,R.B.J.2002.PLAXIS, Finite element code for soil
and rock analyses, usersmanual. Rotterdam: Balkema.
Schweiger, H.F. & Breymann, H. 2005. FE-analysis of
fivedeepexcavations inlacustrineclay andcomparison
within-situmeasurements. In(K.J. Bakker, A. Bezuijen,
W. Broere, E.A. Kwast, eds.), Proceedings 5th Int. Symp.
Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in
Soft Ground, Amsterdam, June 1517, 2005, Taylor &
Francis/Balkema, Leiden, 887892.
199
Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground Ng, Huang & Liu (eds)
2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-48475-6
Theeffect of deepexcavationonsurroundinggroundandnearbystructures
A. Siemi nska-Lewandowska& M. Mitew-Czajewska
Warsaw University of Technology, Warsaw, Poland
ABSTRACT: Inthepaper problemsrelatedwiththeexecutionof 29mdeepexcavationof NowySwiatStation
(S11) of 2ndmetrolineinWarsawarediscussed. Inthecentral section, Warsaw2ndmetrolinerunsbelowthe
center of thecity(officeandhousingbuildingsandhightrafficroads) aswell asbelowVistulariver.Thiscentral
sectionconsistsof 7stationsand6runningtunnels 6kmlengthintotal. Runningtunnelswill beconstructed
usingTBM, stations cut andcover method. Deepexcavationwill beexecutedwithindiaphragmwalls. The
stabilityof thewallswill beprovidedbyseveral levelsof slabsandstruts. Theanalysisof settlementsof ground
surface, surroundingfoundations anddisplacements of walls of theexcavationhavebeenmade. Additionally,
settlementsof thesurfacewerecalculatedabovetheTBM (runningtunnels). Resultingvaluesof settlementsin
bothcaseswerecomparedanddiscussed.
1 INTRODUCTION
Constructionof 2ndMetrolineinWarsawisscheduled
tobegininJ anuary2008, announcementof designand
buildtender hasbeenalreadypublished. Inthecentral
section,Warsaw2ndMetrolinecrossesbelowthecen-
ter of thecity (officeandhousingbuildingsandhigh
trafficroads)aswell asbelowVistulariver.Thiscentral
sectionconsistsof 7stationsand6runningtunnels
6kmlengthintotal.
Figure1. Longitudinal sectionof thecentral part of the2ndMetrolineinWarsaw.
Running tunnels will be constructed usingTBM,
stations cutandcovermethod. Inthepaperproblems
relatedwiththeexecutionof 29mdeepexcavationin
Quarternarysoils(siltysands, sands, clayeysandsand
Plioceneclays) arediscussed. Within theexcavation
Nowy Swiat Station(S11) of the2ndmetrolinewill
bebuilt.TheS11stationwill befoundedatthedepthof
29mbelowgroundsurface(b.g.s.) inthevicinityof so
calledWarsawSlope, wherethedenivelation(differ-
enceingroundsurfacelevels) reaches30m(Figure1).
201
Figure2. Longitudinal sectionof thecentral part of the2ndMetrolineinWarsaw.
Thedepth of thestation is aconsequenceof sud-
denloweringof thetunnel fromtheupper slopelevel
to the level below the bottomof the river with the
considerationof appropriatesoil cover resultingfrom
TBM technology. Deep excavation will be executed
within100cmthickdiaphragmwalls. Thestabilityof
thewalls will beprovided by several levels of slabs
andstruts. Intheclosevicinity of theexcavationand
abovethetunnel therearemanyoldbuildings, suchas:
historic buildingsbuilt inXIXthcentury, partially
destroyed during the 2nd World War and rebuilt
after thewar. PolishAcademyof Sciences, Warsaw
University andaHospital arelocatedthere. These
buildings arefounded on spread foundations at a
depth of 4,80mb.g.s. Shortest distance between
theexcavationwall andfoundationof thebuilding
amountsto3m;
residential buildings constructed in 30. of XXth
century,probablyfoundedonpiles.Thesebuildings
arelocatedabovethetunnel drilledusingTBM;
residential andofficebuildings constructedin50.
and 60. of XXth century on old pre-war foun-
dations. These buildings are founded on spread
foundations at adepth of 4,00mb.g.s., 6mapart
fromtheexcavationwall;
masonryandconcreteresidential andofficebuild-
ings constructedin 60. of XXth century, founded
at a depth of 6,00m b.g.s., 5m apart from the
excavationwall.
Polish Central State Bank and the Ministry of
Financearelocatedthere.
Thesesbuildingsaremostlymasonryor reinforced
concretestructuresingoodtechnical state.Themajor-
ity of themis protected by the heritage conservator
law. The location of the excavation of S11 Station,
running tunnels and surrounding buildings is shown
onFigure2.
Theanalysisof settlementsof groundsurface, sur-
roundingfoundationsanddisplacementsof excavation
wallshavebeenmade.Additionally, settlementsof the
surfacewerecalculatedabovetheTBM, T11running
tunnel (cross-sectionmarkedby greenline). Figure2
showsthelocationof all calculationcross-sectionsin
thevicinityof S11StationandT11runningtunnel.
2 GEOLOGY
ThereareQuaternaryandTertiarysoilsintheareaof
thedeepexcavationof thestationandrunningtunnels.
According to the geotechnical investigations report,
followinggeotechnical layersaredistinguished:
layer I uncontrolledfills 1,52mthick, insome
placesupto3m;
layer II morainedeposits reachingdepthof 4m
b.g.s., consistingof mediumandstiff sandy clays
andclayeysandsof Wartaglaciation;
202
Figure3. CalculationsectionN

3.
layer III mediumsands and silty sands of Odra
glaciation, tothedepthof 10mb.g.s.;
layer IV morainedepositsreachingdepthof 13m
b.g.s. consistingof mediumandstiff sandyclaysof
Odraglaciation;
layerV pliocenclaystill thedepthof 50mb.g.s.
Therearethreelevels of groundwater table. Con-
sidering temporary stability of the bottom of the
excavation, it wasassumedthat thewater tablewould
beloweredduringconstructionof thestation.Geotech-
nical conditions,distributionof soil layersandlocation
of foundationsareshownonFigure3andFigure4.S11
stationandT11runningtunnel arebothlocatedwithin
thelayer of stiff andverystiff Plioceneclays.
3 DESCRIPTIONOF THE DEEP EXCAVATION
OF THE S11STATION
It was designedthat thedeepexcavationof S11Sta-
tionwill beexecutedwithin100cmthick diaphragm
walls, founded10mbelowthebottomof theexcava-
tion(thatmeanstheheightof wallsis39m). Duetothe
greatdepthof theexcavation, amountingto29m, slab
methodof theexecutionof theexcavationwaschosen
inordertoprovidemaximumsafetyof theconstruction
works. Thestability of diaphragmwalls will bepro-
vided by 8 levels of 35cmthick underground slabs.
Vertical spacingof slabsis3m, whichgivesanoppor-
tunitytoadopt undergroundsurfacefor car parksand
retail. Constructionstagesareconsideredasfollows:
execution of guide-walls, 1m thick diaphragm
walls and 1mhigh reinforced conretegirt on the
entireperimeter of theexcavation,
excavation till the depth of 2mb.g.s., i.e. below
the slab at level 1, execution of barrettes and
temporaryslabsupports,
constructionof theslabatlevel 1, backfillingthe
excavationandallowtrafficback,
excavationtill thedepthof 5mb.g.s., i.e. belowthe
slabat level 2,
constructionof theslabat level 2,
excavationtill thedepthof 8mb.g.s., i.e. belowthe
slabat level 3,
constructionof theslabat level 3,
excavationtill thedepthof 11mb.g.s., i.e. below
theslabat level 4,
constructionof theslabat level 4,
excavationtill thedepthof 14mb.g.s., i.e. below
theslabat level 5,
constructionof theslabat level 5,
excavationtill thedepthof 17mb.g.s., i.e. below
theslabat level 6,
constructionof theslabat level 6,
excavationtill thedepthof 20mb.g.s., i.e. below
theslabat level 7,
constructionof theslabat level 7,
excavationtill thedepthof 23mb.g.s., i.e. below
theslabat level 8,
constructionof theslabat level 8,
excavationtill thedepthof 26,5mb.g.s.,
installationof temporarystrutsatthedepthof 26m
b.g.s.,
final excavationtill thedepthof 29mb.g.s.,
constructionof 1,5mthickfoundationslab,
deinstallationof thetemporarystruts.
Calculations were made in 3 sections, chosen
becauseof thevicinityof significant buildings.
Figure 3 presents example cross-section N

3,
located close to the beginning of the running tun-
nel (for thelocationof thesectionrefer toFigure2),
showinggeotechnical conditionsandsurcharges.
4 DESCRIPTIONOF THET11TUNNEL
Two versions of the tunnel structure has been
considered: 1tubeincluding2tracksand2tubes, sin-
gletrackeach.
The lining of the tunnel was assumed to be con-
structedof 40cmthicksegments. Followingstagesof
theexecutionof thetunnel weremodeled:
initial stress includingoverburdenandsurcharges
(buildingsandtraffic),
203
excavation of the tunnel and construction of the
liningof thetunnel.
Figure4showscalculationcross-sectionN

I-I (for
thelocationof thesectionrefer toFigure2) including
geotechnical conditions, tunnels(2tubes)andlocation
of existingbuildings.
5 CALCULATIONS
5.1 Calculations of the excavation of S11 station
Finiteelement plain strain analysis werecarried out
usingPLAXIS v. 8software, Coulomb-Mohr consti-
tutive soil model was chosen for modeling the soil
body,diaphragmwallsaswell asslabsweremodeledas
3-nodes, linearbeamelements. Non-associatedplastic
flowlawwasconsidered. For modelingwall frictions
Coulomb-Mohr lowwasused. Model dimensionsare:
65m (vertical), 100m (horizontal), they were esti-
matedtakingintoaccountpolishregulationsaccording
totherangeof influencezoneof theexcavation.
FEM model mesh, generated automatically, was
built of 807 15-nodes triangle elements and 9773
nodes. For thepurposeof thepaper 3rdcross-section
waschosentobepresentedanddiscussedbecauseof
Figure4. CalculationsectionNoI-I (T11).
its vicinity to theT11 running tunnel. Geotechnical
conditionsandlocationof existingbuildingshasbeen
presentedonFigure3, FEM model is shownonFig-
ure5. Figure6presentsmaximumdeformationsof the
model inthefinal constructionstage. Maximumcal-
culatedlateral displacement of thediaphragmwall in
section3amountsto49,3mm; maximumfoundation
displacement 30,6mm.
Table 1 presents maximum calculated values of
horizontal and vertical displacements of the wall as
well as settlements of thesurroundingbuildings in3
cross-sectionschosenfor calculation.
Figure5. Numerical model section3(PLAXIS).
204
5.2 Calculations of the T11 running tunnel
PlaceFiniteelementplainstrainanalysiswerecarried
out usingGEO4TUNNEL software, Coulomb-Mohr
constitutivesoil model was chosen for modeling the
soil body, tunnel lining was modeled using 3-nodes,
linearbeamelements. Non-associatedplasticflowlaw
wasconsidered. Formodelingwall frictionsCoulomb-
Mohr lowwasused.
SectionI-I, 1tube, 2tracks:
model dimensions: 60m (vertical) and 240m
(horizontal);
Figure6. Final displacements section3(PLAXIS).
Table1. Resultsof calculationsof deepexcavationS11.
Maximum Maximum
displacementsof settlements
diaphragmwall of buildings
Ux Uy U
Section [mm] [mm] [mm]
1-1 46,1 32,8 24,5
2-2 61,0 52,8 35,2
3-3 49,3 53,3 30,6
Figure7. FEM model, T11tunnel 2tubes, (GEO4TUNNEL).
FEM model mesh, generated automatically, was
built of 70606-nodestriangleelementsand15011
nodes.
SectionI-I, 2tubes, singletrackeach:
model dimensions: 60m (vertical) and 240m
(horizontal);
FEM model mesh, generated automatically, was
built of 81786-nodestriangleelementsand17284
nodes.
Geotechnical conditions, tunnelslocation(2tubes,
singletrackeachcase) andlocationof existingbuild-
ings has been presented on Figure 4, corresponding
FEM model is shownonFigure7. Figure8presents
maximumdeformationsof that model.
Table 2 presents maximum calculated values of
bending moments, and displacements of the lining
aswell assettlementsof thesurfaceandsurrounding
buildings.
6 CONCLUSIONS
Taking into consideration results of analysis of the
excavationof S11Stationaswell astheresultsof T11
runningtunnel calculationsfollowingconclusionsare
formed:
1. Inthevicinity of the29mdeepexcavation, which
will be executed during the construction of S11
MetroStationestimatedsettlementsof thesurface
andsurroundingbuildingsamountto24,535mm.
2. Calculated settlements of theground surfaceand
surroundingbuildingsabovetheT11runningtun-
nel constructedby themeansof TBM, takinginto
consideration both cases 1 two track tunnel and
2 single track tunnels are similar and amount to
37,537,8mm.
3. Theoretical values of settlements as well as dis-
placements and forces in the structures were
205
Figure8. Maximumdeformationsof themodel, T11tunnel.
Table2. Resultsof calculationsof runningtunnel T11.
Finiteelementsmethod
Maximum
bendingmoments, Maximum Maximum
displacements surface settlements
of tunnel lining settlements of buildings
Typeof Mmax Umax Umax Umax
tunnel [kNm/m] [mm] [mm] [mm]
1-1 306,6 24,2 37,7 37,8
(1tunnel)
1-1 290,2 8,1 37,5 37,6
(2tunnels)
calculatedconsideringthat thevalueof themodu-
lusof deformationof Plioceneclays, withinwhich
thestructuresarelocated,isE=50MPa.Thisvalue
must beverifiedbymeansof in-situtestsandthen
thecalculationswill beadjusted.
4. Due to the expected differences in the values of
settlementsof thegroundsurfaceclosetothedeep
excavation and above the tunnel further analysis
of thecaseincluding 3D modeling of thecontact
of 2types of tunnel structure(runningtunnel and
station) will beperformed.
5. During the construction, the results of analysis
describedinthepaperwill becarefullyverifiedand
discussed.
REFERENCES
FINE Ltd. 2007. GEO4 Users manual. Prague: FINE Ltd.
Geoteko Sp. z o.o. 2004. Evaluation of the technical state
of buildings in the influence zone of 2nd metro line in
Warsaw, section Rondo Daszy nskiego Station Powi sle
Station. Warsaw: GeotekoSp. z o.o.
Geoteko Sp. z o.o. 2004. Geotechnical and hydrological
report for theconstructionof 2ndmetro lineinWarsaw,
Nowy

SwiatStation. Warsaw: GeotekoSp. zo.o., SGGW,


Geoprojekt Sp. z o.o.
Grodecki, W., Siemi nska-Lewandowska, A. & Lejk, J. 2007.
Second metro line in Warsaw possibility and meth-
ods of realization, In zynieria i Budownictwo 7-8/2007:
365368.
Kotlicki, W. &Wysoki nski L. 2002. Protection of structures
in the vicinity of deep excavations (376/2002). Warsaw:
BuildingResearchInstitute.
PLAXISBV. 2005. PLAXIS Users manual. Roterdam: A. A.
Balkema.
Polish Committee of Standardisation. 2002. PN-EN 1538-
2002 Execution of special geotechnical works. Diaphragm
walls. Warsaw: PolishCommitteeof Standardisation.
206
Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground Ng, Huang & Liu (eds)
2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-48475-6
Multi-criteriaprocedurefor theback-analysisof multi-supported
retainingwalls
J. Zghondi
Arcadis, Lyon, France and LGCIE, INSA-Lyon, France
F. Emeriault & R. Kastner
LGCIE, INSA-Lyon, France
ABSTRACT: A numerical back-analysis procedurefor multi-supporteddeepexcavations is proposedbased
ontheoptimizationof several indicators, takinginaccount theforcesinthestrutsandthedifferential pressures
derivedfromthewall displacement. Theevaluationof theprocedureisperformedon1gsmall scalelaboratory
experiments(Masrouri 1986) onsemi-flexibleretainingwallsembeddedinSchneebelli material. Theproposed
numerical procedurewasappliedonanexcavationwith2passiveslowstiffnessstruts. TheresultingHardening
Soil Model parametersarefurther usedtoback-calculatethe14different testedconfigurations. Theresultsare
comparedwiththeclassical methods, SubGradeReactionMethod, FiniteElementanalysiswithMohr Coulomb
model withparameters proposedby Masrouri (1986) andwiththeback-analysis usingHardeningSoil Model
parametersbasedontriaxial testsresults.
1 INTRODUCTION
Numerical back-analysisof insitumonitoringresults
of multi-supported deep excavations is generally
extremelycomplex(Hashash&Whittle1996,Finno&
Calvello2005, Delattre1999): soil characteristicscan
beheterogeneousor determinedwithalowdegreeof
confidence, thedifferent stagesof theexcavationcan
bedifficult toreproduceina2Dnumerical approach,
keymechanical parameterscanbeunknown(forexam-
ple the actual stiffness of the strut-to-wall contact)
and thenumber of measured quantities such as wall
displacements, settlements and strut forces is gener-
allytoosmall toperformacomprehensivecomparison
betweentheactual behavior andthenumerical results.
Thus thefull validationof aback-analysis numer-
ical procedure (including in particular the choice of
theconstitutivelaw and thedetermination of all the
requiredparameters) israrelydirectlypossibleonreal
casehistories.Therefore,thenumerical procedurepro-
posedinthispaperisvalidatedon1gsmall scalelabo-
ratoryexperimentsperformedbyMasrouri (1986) on
semi-flexibleretainingwallsembeddedinSchneebeli
material (mixtureof steel rods of different diameters
representingin2Dthebehaviorof acohesionlesssoil).
The14consideredexperimentscorrespondtoaretain-
ingwall, whoselengthandmechanical propertiesare
keptconstant, supportedbyoneor twolevelsof active
or passivesteel strutswithvariousaxial stiffnessand
prestressing.
Even for such simple comprehensive laboratory
experiments, usual design method like SubGrade
Reaction Method(SGRM) or classical limit equilib-
riummethodsdonotcaptureall theobservedbehaviors
andtest results. It isthusnecessary toproposeauni-
fied numerical procedure to back calculate with an
acceptabledegreeof confidence, all theresultsof the
excavationstestsof Masrouri (1986).
2 EXPERIMENTSANDCOMPARISONWITH
CLASSICAL/SGRM CALCULATIONS
Theexperimentscorrespondtosmall scale2Dmodels
of flexibleretainingwalls(Figure1).
Figure1. Masrourisexperimental set up.
207
Table1. Summaryof Masrouri (1986) experiments.
First strut Secondstrut
Prestressed Stiffness Prestressed Stiffness
Experiments (kN/m.ml) (kN/m.ml) (kN/m.ml) (kN/m.ml)
B1 2.133 83333 (not used)
B2 3.025 83333 (not used)
B3 0.208 816 (not used)
B4 2.1 816 (not used)
B5 3 816 (not used)
B6 0.191 404 (not used)
B7 2.016 404 (not used)
B8 2.916 404 (not used)
B10 0.383 83333 0.333 83333
B11 1.330 83333 2.691 83333
B12 0.366 816 0.400 816
B13 2.075 816 2.700 816
B14 1.733 816 4.041 816
Schneebelli 2D analogic soil was used: this mate-
rial offer a good repeatability and enables to build
a homogeneous 2D soil model with quick handling
for the experiments. However Schneebeli materials
havesomeinconvenients: theunit weight is closeto
6.5kN/m
3
, theangleof frictionissmaller thanthat of
most of thesoils (21

) andit only presents adilatant


behavior.
While maintaining the same geometrical and
mechanical characteristics for the wall (EA =1.2
10
6
kN/mand EI =14.4kN/m
2
/m), a wide range of
configurations(1or 2struts, withdifferent prestress-
ing and stiffness) was considered, see Table 1. The
phases used in all the excavations were planned as
follows;
1. strut cases: 10cmof excavation, installationof the
first strut at 5cmfromthe top and prestress-
ing, then3excavationsof 10cmeachtill 40cm,
then several excavations of 5cmuntil failure is
obtained.
2. struts cases: the same procedure as for the 1
strut casesisfolloweduntil theexcavationreaches
40cmfromthetop, thenthe2ndstrutisinstalled
at thelevel 25cmandprestressed. Thestep-wise
excavation(byincrementof 5cm) isresumeduntil
failureoccurs.
Thestruttowall contactishingedinordertoprevent
bending moment to betransmitted to thestruts. For
eachexcavationphase,thehorizontal displacementsof
thetopor bottomof thewall aremeasured.Thecurva-
tureisalsomeasuredin26locations(bothsidesonthe
wall)allowingtodeterminewithareasonableaccuracy
thedifferential pressureactingonthewall fromthetop
to thebottom(polynomial approximation performed
bythePalpanprogramcreatedbyBoissieret al. 1978).
Photographswerealsotakentodeterminethedisplace-
ment fieldswithastereophotogrammetric technique.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
-15 -5 5 15
Differential pressure (kN/m2)
exc -45cm
Experiment
SGRM
B3
Passive strut
low stiffness
Figure2. Differential pressurecalculatedwithSGRMcom-
pared to experimental values: Case B3 low stiffness
passivestrut (45cmexcavationlevel).
Load cells determine the forces on the cylindrical
struts.
2.1 Classical and SGRM calculations
Thewholeseriesof experimentswerefirst compared
with classical (modified Blummethod) and SGRM
calculations (Terzaghi 1955). The subgrade reaction
modulus used in RIDO calculations (Fages 1996) is
increasingwithdepthinthefollowingmanner:
K
h
= K +K

v
. withK = 0, K
h
= K

v
Classical methods calculation totally neglects the
influence of the stiffness of the wall, construction
steps, stiffnessandprestressingonthestruts, arching
effect, etc. OntheoppositeSGRMexplicitlyconsiders
thestiffnessof thewall, theconstructionstepsandthe
stiffnessof thestrut.
In thecaseof onepassivestrut with lowstiffness
(tests B3, B6), the SGRM method reproduces in an
acceptable manner the differential pressures results
(Figure2).
208
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
-20 -10 0 10 20
Differential pressure (kN/m2)
exc -45cm
Experiment
SGRM
B10
Passive stiff
strut
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
-20 -10 0 10 20
Differential Pressure (kN/m2)
exc -45cm
Experiment
SGRM
B14
Active low
stiffness
Figure3. Calculated (SGRM Method) and measured dif-
ferential pressurefor B10andB14at 45cmof excavation.
Figure4. Meshusedfor thePlaxiscalculationsof 2struts
supportedwalls.
Withonestiff or activestrut or inthecaseof exca-
vations with 2 struts, both the SGRM and the limit
equilibriummethodsfail toreproducetheexperiment
differential pressures(Figure3a Test B10). Insome
cases, a good description of the pressure diagrams
seemstobeobtained(Figure3bTestB14). Itactually
results fromtwoerrors compensatingeachother: the
overestimationof thepressureinducedbyprestressing
andthelackof abilitytoreproducethearchingeffect.
2.2 Finite element back calculation with Mohr
Coulomb model
Itappearsthattheclassical andSGRMmethodsdonot,
eveninsimplecasesof excavation, accuratelydescribe
all theobservedresults. A finiteelement approachis
thereforeproposed.
The finite element calculations were performed
withPlaxisV8.2, themodel representsavertical slice
of Masrouris experiment. Themesh is composed of
triangular 15nodeselements(Figure4).
For thesecalculations, thesamecharacteristics of
the Schneebelli material were used (c=0, =21

,
=65kN/m
3
), taking into account for the soil-wall
interfaceaninterfacefactor R
int
=0.55(relatedtothe
frictionanglevaluenotedbyMasrouri).
Masrouri (1986) estimated theelastic modulus at
4500kPa with an increment of 26830kPa/m after
Figure 5. Strut forces for cases B1 to B8 with 1 strut
variationduringthelast 4excavationphasesbeforefailure.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0,00 1,00 2,00 3,00 4,00 5,00
200 kPa
300 kP a
400 kPa
D
e
v
i
a
t
o
r
i
c

S
t
r
e
s
s

k
P
a
200 kPa
300 kPa
400 kPa
Axial Strain %
Experiments
HSM1
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0 6
500Kpa
200Kpa
400Kpa
200Kpa
1 2 3 4 5
Axial Strain%
500Kpa
200Kpa
400Kpa
200Kpa
V
o
l
u
m
e
t
r
i
c

s
t
r
a
i
n
/
1
0
0
0
Experiments
HSM1
Figure6. SimulationwithHSM1parametersof thebiaxial
testswith200, 300and400kPa.
0.6mof depth(valuesbackcalculatedontestB4with
1activestrut of lowstiffness).
Inall thepresentedcalculationsthedifferencewith
themeasuredstrut forces andwall displacements do
not exceed20%(seeFigure5for the1-strut casesB1
toB8).
A sensibility analysis is performed considering
all the parameters of the Mohr Coulomb model. It
appears that the differences between calculated and
experimental results can not besatisfyingly reduced
(especiallyinthecaseswith2struts).Thereforeamore
sophisticated constitutivelaw is required (Figure6):
theHardeningSoil model.
209
Figure7. Differential pressurefor test B12andexcavation
at 50cm: comparisonof theexperimental values withthe
resultsof SGRM, FEwithMohrCoulomblawandHardening
Soil Model (HSM1andHSM2).
2.3 FE back-calculation with Hardening soil model
parameters based on triaxial tests
Hardeningsoil model (Shanz et al. 1999) cancapture
soil behavior inaverytractablemanner. Thevaluesof
thedifferentparameterswerefirstfittedonthebiaxial
testsresults(under a200Kpaconfiningpressure) per-
formedon2010cmsamplesbyKastner(1982).The
200kPaconfiningstressisgreaterthanthemeanstress
generally observedinMasrouri experiments, but ina
firstapproachitwasconsideredasmorerepresentative
of thesoil behavior thanthebiaxial testsusinglower
confining pressures: the size of the sample and the
highvalueof theunit weight of Schneebelli material
inducesanonhomogeneousstressstateinthesample
that could greatly affect the accuracy of the results.
The obtained set of parameters noted HSM1 in the
sequel providesasatisfyingdescriptionof thebiaxial
test with200kPaor moreconfiningstress(Figure6).
Thissetof parameterswasfurther usedtobackcal-
culatethewholeseriesof Masrourisexperiments(14
cases). It appearsthat thesecalculationsdonot repro-
duce well the test results in termof strut forces or
differential pressuresonthewall (Figure7represents
onlytheresultsof differential pressures).
3 PROPOSEDBACK ANALYSISPROCEDURE
The aimof this procedure is to find the proper set
of parameters for the constitutive soil model (Mohr
CoulomborHardeningSoil models) consideredinthe
Finite Element simulations. Considering one partic-
ular test configuration, the parameters will be first
obtained fromthe minimization of indicators based
on differential pressures and struts forces errors.
The resulting set of parameters will then be con-
frontedwiththeresults of thebiaxial tests andof 14
Figure 8. Differential pressure curves for indicator
explication.
configurationsconsideredexperimentallybyMasrouri
(1986).
3.1 Definition of indicators
Inorder toconsider themainfeaturesof theretaining
wall behaviour, two indicators were defined: E
sm
is
relatedtothestrutforcesandE
pd
relatedtothediffer-
ential pressureonthewall (linkedtothedisplacement
profile).
whereE
b1
=f
1
f

1
andE
b2
=f
2
f

2
andwithf
1(2)
and
f

1(2)
thestrut forcecalculatedor measuredinthe1st
(2nd) strut level.
TheE
sm
indicator isbasedontheerror of thesum
of strutsforces: thereforeanerror onthestrutforcef
1
canbecompensatedbyf
2
.
TheE
pd
indicator (Figure8) takesintoaccount the
absolutevalueof thedifferencebetweenthemeasured
andcalculateddifferential pressures (respectively P
1
andP
2
), dividedby theintegral of themeasureddif-
ferential pressureP
1
. Integralsarecalculatedfromthe
top of the wall to 10cmbelow the final excavation
level.
E
pd
isthemainindicator whilethepossibleinaccu-
racy of thestrut forcemeasurement especially at the
beginningof theexcavationmakestheE
sm
indicator a
secondvalidationindicator.
3.2 Parameter optimization for Mohr Coulomb
model based on a 2 strut excavation test
Thedetermination of asecond set of parameters for
Mohr Coulomb model is performed by fitting the
final resultsof a2strutsexcavationcase(excavation
level 50cm). Theparticular caseof test B12 (cor-
responding to passive struts with low stiffness) was
selectedbecauseitclearlyappearsthattheSGRMfail
210
Figure9. Variationsof indicatorsE
sm
andE
pd
withE
ref
50
.
toreproducethedifferential pressurediagramobtained
insuchconfiguration.
Only oneindependent parameter was usedfor fit-
ting the results, the elastic modulus E. The other
parameters arekept constant (c, , . . .). Thefinal
valueof E is determinedthroughtheoptimizationof
theindicatorsE
sm
andE
pd
. Actually, alinear variation
of E withthedepthisconsidered:
Both the initial value of the elasticity E
0
and its
variation with depth were considered in the opti-
mization procedure. It appeared that none of these
parameterscouldbemodifiedtoimprovethedescrip-
tion of the experimental results, indicating that the
Mohr Coulombmodel is unableto reproduceimpor-
tantfeaturesof thesoil behaviourinvolvedintheglobal
behaviour of theretainingwall.
3.3 HSM model optimized by fitting on a 2 strut
excavation test
Thedetermination of asecond set of parameters for
HardeningSoil Model (notedHSM2inthesequel) is
performed by fitting the final results of the same 2
strutsexcavationcase(B12excavationlevel 50cm)
asinsection3.2.
Onlyoneparameter wasusedfor fittingtheresults,
thereferencestiffnessmodulusE
ref
50
.Theotherparam-
eters areeither constant (c, , ) or keepadirect
relationshipwithE
ref
50
. For example:
Thefinal valueof E
ref
50
isdeterminedthroughtheopti-
mization of theindicators E
sm
and E
pd
. Considering
theaccuracy of theexperimental results (in particu-
lar theprocedureleading to thedifferential pressure
diagrams), E
ref
50
is determined with a precision of
1000kPa(Figure9).
Thevalueof E
ref
50
=6000kPais chosenbecauseit
appearstominimizebothindicators. HSM2isfurther
usedto simulatethebiaxial tests withlowconfining
stress(50and100kPa). Figure10showsagoodagree-
ment with theexperimental results, even though the
latter canbeaffectedby thenon-homogeneity of the
initial stressstatein20cm10cmsamples.
Figure 10. q-
1
biaxial curves: experimental results and
calculatedvalueswithHSM2.
The proposed back analysis procedure shows its
ability to verify or justify the HSM parameters that
accuratelydescribethebiaxial test results.
3.4 Back calculation of the 14 configurations tested
by Masrouri (1986)
TheHSM2set of parametersisnowusedtobackcal-
culatethe14different tests(Table1). Figures11and
12presentthedifferential pressurediagramsobtained
withHSM2andother methodsandtheratios f ,f

of
thecalculatedtothemeasuredstrutforcesrespectively
for tests B1 to B8 (1 strut) and tests B10 to B13 (2
struts).
The strut forces and the differential pressure are
well represented compared to theclassical methods,
the SGRM method or Finite element analysis with
a simpler constitutive model (Mohr Coulomb). The
effectof theprestressingof thestrutiswell reproduced
bythat procedure(comparingB3andB5inFigure11
or B10andB11inFigure12), as well as thearching
effect (caseof B10inFigure12) andtheinfluenceof
thestrutstiffness(comparingB1andB7inFigure11).
The proposed back analysis procedure and the
resulting set of parameters HSM2 show their effi-
ciency in all the configurations (unlike the SGRM
wherethearching effect and theprestressing on the
strutsarenot well reproduced).
3.5 Summary
Figure13presentsacomparisonof thevaluesobtained
for theselectiveindicator E
pd
in3casesof excavation
andfortheSGRM, MohrCoulomb, HSM1andHSM2
models:
B3correspondstoasinglepassiveandlowstiffness
strut
B12uses2passivelowstiffnessstruts
andB102passiverigidstruts.
In all of these 3 cases, it appears that the HSM2
set of parametersclearlyminimizestheerror between
experimental andnumerical results.
211
Figure11. Differential pressurediagrams andstrut forces
obtained with HSM2 (excavations with 1 strut at 50cm)
compared with experiments, Mohr Coulomb, and classical
methodsresults.
Figure12. Differential pressurediagrams andstrut forces
obtainedwithHSM2(excavations with2struts at 50cm)
comparedwithexperimentsandclassical methodsresults.
Figure13. E
pd
indicator calculatedfor testsB3, B12, B10
(excavation 50cm), for the SGRM, HSM1, HSM2 and
Mohr Coulombcalculation.
With the same constitutive model (HSM1 and
HSM2) andwiththesameparametersexceptE
ref
50
, the
error isdividedby3to5.
4 CONCLUSION
A comprehensive series of 14 small scale experi-
ments on flexibleretaining walls with different strut
212
stiffnessandprestressingisusedtovalidateanumeri-
cal back calculationusingtheHardeningSoil Model.
The final set of parameters HSM2 is fitted on one
single test (B12 at the final excavation level). The
proposed model is based on the simultaneous mini-
mization of two indicators E
sm
and E
pd
respectively
relatedtothestrutforcesanddifferential pressuredia-
gram. Theverificationof theproposedback analysis
procedureshowedthattheHSM2model givesthemost
acceptabledescriptionof thedifferential pressuresand
forcesonthestrutsinall of the14testedconfigurations
compared to theSGRM method or aFiniteElement
approachwitheitherMohrCoulombmodel orHarden-
ingSoil model withparametersbasedonbiaxial tests
(HSM1).
Further developmentswill includetheverification
of theability of proposedback-analysis procedureto
determinedtheHSM parametersnot onlyonE
sm
and
E
pd
at thefinal excavationlevel but alsooninterme-
diatelevels, for examplethefirstexcavationstepafter
theinstallationandprestressingof thelower strut.
Despite the already mentioned difficulties, fur-
ther validationof theprocedureonwell-instrumented
excavationsiteswill alsobetested.
REFERENCES
Boissier, et al. 1978. Dtermination des moments et des
pressions exercs sur uncranpartir demesures incli-
nomtrrique.Revue Canadienne de Gotechnique, 15,(4),
522536.
Brinkgreve, R.B.J. & Broere, W. 2004. PlaxisV8manuel.
Delattre, L. 1999. Comportementdescransdesoutnement-
Exprimentations et calculs. PhD dissertation, ENPC,
Paris, ENPC, 498p.
Fages, J. 1996Rido Users manual, RFL, Miribel, France.
Finno, R. & Calvello, M. 2005. Supported excavations:
observational methodandinversemodeling. J. Geotech.
Geoenv. Eng. ASCE, 131, (7): 826836.
Hashash,Y. M. A. &Whittle, A. J. 1996. GroundMovement
Predictionfor DeepExcavations insoft Clay. Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, 122(6): 474486.
Kastner, R. 1982. ExcavationprofondeensiteurbainProb-
lmes lis la mise hors deau- Dimensionnement des
soutnements butonns. PhD dissertation, INSA Lyon &
Universit Claude Bernard-Lyon 1, 409p.
Masrouri, F. 1986. Comportement DesRideaux desoutne-
ment Semi- Flexibles. PhD dissertation, INSA Lyon,
France.
Schanz, T., Vermeer, P.A., Bonnier, P.G., 1999. The
Hardening-Soil Model: Formulation and verification.
In: R.B.J. Brinkgreve, Beyond 2000 in Computational
Geotechnics. Balkema, Rotterdam: 281290.
Terzaghi, K. 1955. Evaluation of coefficients of subgrade
reaction, Gotechnique, 5: 297326.
213
Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground Ng, Huang & Liu (eds)
2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-48475-6
Monitoringandmodellingof riversidelargedeep
excavation-inducedgroundmovementsinclays
D.M. Zhang& H.W. Huang
Key Laboratory of Geotechnical and Underground Engineering of Ministry of Education, Tongji University,
Shanghai, P.R. China
Department of Geotechnical Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai, P.R. China
W.Y. Bao
China State Construction Engineering Corporation (SH), Shanghai, P.R. China
ABSTRACT: TheRiversidelargedeepexcavationof Shanghai international passenger center was800mlong
and100150mwidewiththedepthof 13m. Thesouthlongsideof thedeepexcavationwas at adistanceof
4.6mfromtheparallel floodwall of HuangpuRiver. Thenorthlongsidewas5mawayfromahistoricbuilding.
Problemsresultedfromthelargedeepexcavationwastheasymmetricgroundmovementsalongthelongsides
duetothecomplexsurroundingconditionandsurfacesurcharge.Themonitoringduringtheexcavationprovided
numerousdatatostudythecharacteristicsof thegroundmovementandearthpressure.Thenumerical modelling
wasalsoadoptedaimtopredict thegroundmovements.
1 INTRODUCTION
Thedevelopmentof undergroundspacealongthebund
of HuangpuRiver inShanghai, Chinahasresultedin
excavationsbecomingprogressivelylarger andcloser
totheRiver, wherethegroundwatertablewasjustnear
thegroundsurfaceandagreatnumberof underground
works are within a few meters of the surface. The
riversideexcavationswereall locatedclosetotheexist-
ing buildings, network and the city lifeline of flood
wall. It hasbecomeagreat challengetoprotect these
neighboringbuildings andpublic utilities fromdam-
age during the deep excavation due to the complex
geotechnical constraints and thesmall opening from
theHuangpuRiver. Thesoilsnear theHuangpuRiver
wasusuallyweakwithaverylowstrengthandhigher
water content, which were a potential causes of the
largergroundmovement.Meanwhile,thecomplexand
denseenvironments put forward astrict requirement
onthegroundmovement controlling. It was difficult
todeterminetheearthpressureactedontheretaining
wall withanyconventional earthpressuretheorycon-
sideringthesmall soil bodyleftbetweenretainingwall
andfloodwall. Besides, theretainingwall of riverside
deep excavation was usually asymmetrically loaded
with much higher earth pressureon oneside, which
wascausedbygreatsurfacesurchargeduetotheexist-
ingbuildingsandthepileof theconstructionmaterial.
Thestability of thedeep excavation as a wholewas
worth considering to avoid any kinds of failure of
the deep excavation and consequent damage on the
environments.
However, there were few references for the con-
struction of the large deep excavation because of
thegeotechnical conditionandcomplex environment
alongthebundof HuangpuRiver. Thedeepexcava-
tionof Shanghai international passengercenter(SIPC)
wasthelargestandclosestonetoHuangpuRiversofar.
Theconstructionandtheanalysismethodof thedeep
excavationof SIPCandtheinducedgroundmovement
aswell will beauseful andpractical referencefor the
subsequent riversidelargedeepexcavation.
2 PROJ ECT OUTLINEANDSOIL CONDITIONS
2.1 Project outline
Thedeepexcavationof SIPCwas800mlongwiththe
widthof 100150mandthedepthof 13m. Thelarge
deepexcavationwasdividedintotwosub-excavations
with thelengths of 480mand 218mrespectively to
reducetheriskof damagefortheexistingstructureand
thefailureof deepexcavation. Thestudypresentedin
thispaperwascarriedoutbasedonthedeepexcavation
withthelengthof 480m.Thesketchviewof theproject
wasillustratedinFigure1.Thespacebetweenthedeep
excavationandfloodwall of HuangpuRiver wasonly
215
Figure1. Sketchviewof theproject.
Figure2. Theplaneviewof strut arrangement.
4.6mat south side. A number of existing buildings,
including ahistoric building, werelocated along the
north sideof thedeep excavation with adistanceof
about 5m.
BoredpilessupplementedbySMWpileswall were
used as the retaining structure. The bored pile was
950mmindiameter withacenter-to-center spaceof
1150mm. Theeffectivelengthof theboredpilewas
26mandtheembedmentwasadequatetoprovidesuf-
ficient passiveearthpressureto keepthestability of
the retaining wall. The SMW piles were 850mmin
diameter withaneffectivelengthof 20.8m. Thedis-
tancebetweenSWM piles was 600mmto guarantee
thewaterproof performance. Themixratioof cement
wasashighas20%for SMWpiles. Threereinforced
concretestrutsweresetatthedepthof 0.9m, 5.7m
and9.6mwiththecrosssectionof 1250800mm
forthefirststrutandof 1200800mmforthesecond
andthirdstrut. Theplanespaceof thestrut wasabout
1.2mand illustrated in Figure2. Thecross sections
of the deep excavation were presented in Figure 3a
and3b.
The jet grouting belt of 4mwide and about 4m
high was employed closely above the bottomof the
deepexcavationalongtheretainingwall.Thegrouting
could significantly increase the capacity of the soil
resistancefor theretainingwall duringtheexcavation.
Theboredpilewas extendedfrom26mto27mnear
Figure3a. A-A crosssectionof deepexcavation.
Figure3b. B-B crosssectionof deepexcavation.
thehistoricbuildingtoprotectthebuildingfromcrack
andtilting. Besides, theisolationpileswerespecially
designedtoreducetodeepexcavation-inducedeffect
onthehistoricbuilding.
2.2 Soil conditions
Thesoil profilethroughout thedeepexcavationcom-
prises the mixed filling to a depth of 6.4m, which
containsmanyobstaclesandmadealot of troublefor
thedeep excavation, underlain by silt, silty clay and
mucky clay. The retaining wall including the water-
proof wall wasembeddedinthesiltyclay.Thedetailed
characteristicsof thesoilswerepresentedinTable1.
216
Table1. Soilscharacteristicsthroughout thedeepexcavation.
Water Bulk Compression Cohesion Friction
Depth content density modulus kPa angle
Soil m % kN/m
3
kPa

Mixedfilling 6.38
Silt 4.89 31.7 18.2 8170 8 28.5
Muckyclaywithsilt 4.96 40.5 17.5 4130 11 22
Muckyclay 7.17 49.7 16.6 2580 14 13
Siltyclay1 7.31 34.0 18.0 4570 17 17
Siltyclay2 4.05 33.3 17.8 8130 8 29
Siltyclay3 17.23 33.2 17.9 5240 17 23.5
Figure4. Monitoringlayout of lateral displacements.
Table2. Progressof excavation.
corresponding
excavation
Date depth(m)
11/5/200511/11/2005 3
11/11/200512/2/2005 6.2
12/2/20051/3/2006 13
1/13/2006 completionof
bottomplate
3 MONITORINGOF EXCAVATION
As showninFigure4, 14inclinometers, whichwere
denoted by CX1 to CX14, were set into the retain-
ingwall aroundthedeepexcavation. 2earthpressure
gaugesdenotedasTY1andTY2inFigure4werealso
installedclosetotheretainingwall tostudytheevolu-
tionof earthpressureof thesmall soil body between
retainingwall andfloodwall duringexcavation. The
earthpressuregaugeswereinstalledevery 5minthe
vertical overall 25m.
Theprogressof excavationwaspresentedinTable2.
3.1 Monitored lateral displacements
Figures 58 showed the lateral displacements at
monitoring points of CX1, CX3, CX12 and CX10
correspondingtothestudiedexcavationstages. These
inclinometerswereclosetothecenter of thelongside
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 10 20 30 40 50
11/ 11/ 2005
12/ 2/ 2005
1/ 3/ 2005
1/ 13/ 2006
d
e
p
t
h
/
m
lateral displacement/mm
Figure5. Lateral displacement at inclinometer CX1.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 10 20 30 40
12/2/2005
1/3/2005
1/13/2006
d
e
p
t
h
/
m
lateral displacement/mm
Figure6. Lateral displacement at inclinometer CX12.
of the deep excavation and thus the readings were
representative of the maximumdisplacement of the
retaining wall. It could be found fromfigures 58
that themaximumlateral displacement was less than
60mmduringthewholeexcavationstage. Meanwhile,
217
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
11/11/2005
12/2/2005
1/3/2005
1/13/2006
d
e
p
t
h
/
m
lateral displacement/mm
Figure7. Lateral displacement at inclinometer CX3.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 10 20 30 40 50
11/11/2005
12/2/2005
1/3/2005
1/13/2006
d
e
p
t
h
/
m
lateral displacement/mm
Figure8. Lateral displacement at inclinometer CX10.
thelateral displacement exhibitedasymmetricbehav-
ior along the two long sides of the deep excavation
becauseof thefollowingtworeasons. Firstly, theearth
pressure acted on the retaining piles was asymmet-
ric becauseof thesmall soil body betweenHuangpu
River anddeepexcavation. Secondly, thesurfacesur-
chargewasasymmetric duetotheexistingbuildings.
Comparingtherecordsof CX1withCX12, CX3with
CX10, it couldbefoundthat lateral displacement of
retainingwall was 1529%smaller at thesouthside
than north side. Unfortunately, thelarger lateral dis-
placement at north side would result in a potential
damageto theneighboring historic building. Conse-
quently, thejetgroutingshouldbeimmediatelycarried
out toimprovethefoundationof thehistoricbuilding
andit was provedtobeaneffectiveway toavoidthe
damageof crackandtilt of thebuilding.
Therecordedlateral movementsatthetopof retain-
ingwall werepresentedinFigure9.Thefivemovement
Figure 9. Distribution of lateral movement at the top of
retainingwall.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
11/11/2005
12/2/2005
1/3/2005
1/13/2006
active pressure
d
e
p
t
h
/
m
earth pressure/kPa
Figure 10a. Comparison of recorded earth pressure with
calculatedactiveearthpressureatTY1.
curves fromoutsideto insidewerecorresponding to
theexcavationdepthof 2.3m, 6.2m, 13m, completion
of bottomplateandcompletionof undergroundstruc-
turerespectively. Themaximumlateral movement at
thetopof retainingwall reached106.5mmatthenorth
side, whileit wasonly50mmat thesouthside, when
theundergroundstructurewascompleted. Thesephe-
nomenaalso confirmedtheinfluenceof asymmetric
earthpressureonthemovement of theretainingwall.
3.2 Evolution of earth pressure
The monitored earth pressure was illustrated in
Figure 10a and 10b with calculated one. The calcu-
latedactiveearthpressurewasobtainedusingRankine
earthpressuretheory.
Fromfigure10aandfigure10b, it couldbefound
thatthemonitoredearthpressureattop15mwasvery
218
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
11/11/2005
12/2/2005
1/3/2005
1/13/2006
active pressure
d
e
p
t
h
/
m
earth pressure/kPa
Figure 10b. Comparison of recorded earth pressure with
calculatedactiveearthpressureatTY1.
closetotheactivepressurefor bothmonitoredpoints.
Itbecamemuchlargerthanactivepressurebelow15m.
Two factors could be contributed to the distribution
of theearthpressure. Onewas that themagnitudeof
lateral displacementof theretainingwall waslarger in
thetop15mthanthat of below15m, andit couldbe
verifiedfromFigures58.Theothercausewasthatthe
small bulkof thesoil bodyagainsttheretainingwall at
top15m. It couldbefoundfromFigure3that thesoil
bodyinthetop15mwasmuchsmaller thaninbelow
15m. Bothfigure10aandfigure10bimpliedthat the
soil bodyhadasignificanteffectonthedistributionof
earthpressureagainst theretainingwall.
However, theearthpressureatnorthsideof thedeep
excavationwas not monitored. No comparisoncould
beperformedbetweenthetwosides.
4 MODELLINGOF DEEP EXCAVATION
2-Dnumerical modellingwascarriedout usingFEM
codeof Plaxisv8consideringthenarrowplanechar-
acteristic of the deep excavation. The cross section
11showninFigure2was adoptedinFEM analysis
becauseitwasalmostthecenterof thedeepexcavation
andnear thehistoricbuildingaswell.
4.1 Numerical model
Theoverall widthof deepexactionatcrosssection11
was100mwithexcavationdepthof 13m.Thewidthof
thenumerical model was240m, whichwas18times
as wide as the depth of the excavation. The vertical
dimensionwas50m, whichwasmorethan3.5times
thedepthof theexcavation.Themodel dimensionwas
Figure11. TheFEM mesh.
Table3. Parametersof retainingpilesandgroundimprove-
ment.
Elasticmodulus
kPa Poisonsratio
Retainingpiles 3.310
7
0.15
Strut 3.010
7
0.15
Groundimprovement 1.410
5
0.20
large enough to lower the boundary effect. A linear
elastic model was adopted for the ground improve-
ment. The retaining wall as well as the strut was
simplified as elastic beamin numerical modelling.
ThesoilsweresimulatedwithMohr-coulombmodel.
Thenumerical simulationwasperformedwith15-node
isoparametricfiniteelementsunder theassumptionof
planestrainconditions.TheFEMmodel waspresented
inFigure11.
The boundary conditions in the numerical simu-
lation contain the following two types, one was the
displacement boundary condition, and theother was
thedrainagecondition. A freedisplacementboundary
condition was adopted at theground surface. It was
assumedthat nohorizontal nor vertical displacement
takenplaceat thelower boundary, for it was beyond
theinfluenceof deepexcavation. Thelateral displace-
ments at left andright handboundary wereboth
fixed as zero. The drainage condition at the ground
surfacewasassumedtobefree, hencetheexcesspore
pressurewas kept as zero along theground surface;
meanwhile the lower boundary as well as the left
andright handboundaryconditionwereconsidered
tobekept ashydrostaticporepressureduringexcava-
tion. Theinitial effectivestressesandhydrostaticpore
pressurewerecalculated based on theweight of the
soil andtheundergroundwater condition.
4.2 Parameters used in numerical modelling
The parameters of retaining structure and ground
improvement used in the numerical analysis were
listedinTable3. Thesoil parameters couldberefer-
encedasTable1.Theinterfacebetweenretainingpiles
andsoil wasadoptedandtheinterfaceparameterswere
determinedaccordingtoPlaxismanual. Themodulus
219
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 10 20 30 40 50
1.4 m
6.2 m
13 m
lateral displacement/ mm
d
e
p
t
h

/
m
Figure12. Evolutionof lateral displacementsat southside
of deepexcavation.
Figure13. Evolutionof lateral displacementsat northside
of deepexcavation.
of resilience was adopted for soils. The modulus of
resilience was obtained by back-analyzing the mon-
itored lateral displacements of the first excavation
progressshowninTable2. Itwasfoundthatthemodu-
lusof resiliencewasas5timeshighasthecompression
modulusfor soils.
4.3 Numerical modelling procedure
Theexcavationwasmodeledwith7consecutivesteps
shownasfollowing: STEP1wastodeterminetheini-
tial stressstateduetothegravityof soils. STEP2was
usedtoexert theloadingof existingbuildingsonthe
surface with the magnitude of 6070kPa according
tothetypeof thebuildings. Themovements induced
inSTEP 1and2werereset tozerointhemodelling.
STEP 3representedtheconstructionof retainingwall
andgroundimprovement, thesurchargeof 20kPawas
alsoloadedat thisstep. STEP 4meant thefirst exca-
vationto1.4mdeepandtheconstructionof firststrut.
InSTEP5, thesecondstrutwassetafter excavatingto
6.2mdeep. Excavatingto10mdeepandthethirdstrut
wasfinishedinSTEP6.Theexcavationwascompleted
andbottomplatewasconstructedinSTEP7. Dewater-
ingwasconsideredduringtheexcavationbychanging
water table.
4.4 Calculated lateral displacements
Figures 1213 presented the evolution of lateral
displacements with excavation progress. The lateral
displacements of south side of the retaining piles
reached 28.8mm, 38.4mmrespectively when exca-
vatedtothedepthof 6.2mand13m.Theyweresmaller
than thoseof north sideof theretaining wall, which
were 32mmand 60mm. It could be found that the
maximumlateral displacement at northsidewas 1.5
timeslargerthanthatof southsideof theretainingwall
bycomparingfigure12andfigure13.
Thecomparisonbetweencalculatedandmonitored
lateral displacementcouldbecarriedoutbecausecross
section 11 was coordinate with inclinometer CX3
andCX10. Themonitoredlateral displacementswere
57.8mmand 35mmat monitored points CX3 and
CX10correspondingtotheexcavationdepthof 13m,
whiletheaccordinglycalculatedoneswere60mmand
38.4mmrespectively. Theagreement betweencalcu-
lation and monitoring implied the validation of the
simulation procedure of FEM modelling with back-
analysisonthemodulusof resilienceof soils. Besides,
theconsiderationof maininfluential facts, suchassur-
facesurchargedueto existing loading and piling of
construction material, theprocess of excavation, the
supplemented techniques of dewatering and ground
improvement, wasessential intheFEM modellingto
reasonablypredict thebehavior of theretainingpiles.
5 CONCLUSIONS
Thelateral displacementof Riversidedeepexcavation
with complex surrounding environment was studied
withmonitoringdataandFEM modelling. Thelateral
displacements of theretainingwall wereasymmetric
becauseof theasymmetric earthpressure. Themaxi-
mumlateral displacementatnorthsidewasalmost1.5
220
timesaslargeasthatof southsideof thedeepexcava-
tion. Theearthpressurewas closeto theactiveearth
pressureintop15mduetothelargelateral displace-
ment and small soil body against theretaining wall.
Theearthpressurewas muchlarger thanactivepres-
surebelow15m. Itwasfoundthesoil bodybulkhada
noticeableeffect onthedistributionof earthpressure
against retainingwall.
REFERENCES
Chang, C. T. & Sun, C. W. et al. 2001. Responseof aTaipei
rapidtransit systemTRTS tunnel toadjacent excavation.
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 16:
151158.
Yamagushi, I. &Yamazaki, I. et al. 1998. Studyof ground
tunnel interactions of four shieldtunnels driveninclose
proximity, in relation to design and construction of par-
allel shield tunnels. Tunnelling and Underground Space
Technology 13(3): 289304.
Zhang, D. M. & Huang, H. W. 2007. Ground movements
and controlling measurements in deep excavation under
asymmetricloading. Proceeding of 10th national confer-
ence on soil mechanics. Chongqing, 14 Novermber 2007
(in press). (inChinese).
221
Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground Ng, Huang & Liu (eds)
2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-48475-6
GPSheight applicationandgrosserror detectioninfoundationpit
monitoring
H. Zhang
School of Safety and Resource Engineering, China University of Mining &Technology, Beijing, P.R. China
S.F. Xu
College of Architecture & Civil Engineering, Zhejiang University of Technology, Hangzhou, P.R. China
T.D. Lu
Department of Survey, East China University of Technology, Fuzhou, P.R. China
ABSTRACT: Theauthorintroducesadeformationmonitoringmodel combinedbytraditional measuringtech-
nology and modern GPS measuring technology based on technical attribute of foundation pit deformation
monitoringandauthorsexperienceof deepfoundationpit constructionproject of undergroundtunnel inLishui
Road, Hangzhoucity. WhenanalyzingGPSheightconversion, inorder toimproveGPSdatummarksreliability,
onecan useDixons test in GPS datummark reliability test to find out height anomaly, thus provideconve-
nienceto searchanddeletemarks withgross error. This test also improves deformationmonitoringprocesss
efficiency.
1 BACKGROUNDPROJ ECT INTRODUCTION
Lishui Road(fromHuzhouRoadto QingfangRoad)
projectisoneof HangzhouCitygovernments33929
engineeringproject. Thetunnel of theproject iscom-
posedbyU-tanksandboxculverts.1+5681+638,
1+7941+864 are U-tanks. Each tank is 70m
long and the width of banks is summed to 22m.
1+6381+794areboxculverts.Thesumof lengths
of all box culverts reaches 156m. Equally dividedit
into4parts, eachboxculvert is38.25mlongandthe
widthof all box culvertsissummedto21.4m. Rein-
forced concrete piles with diameter of + 100 steel
pipeweretakenas support. They are21mlongwith
concrete outside. The concrete piles with +60@30
wereusedtokeepdry fromwater. Thedepthof con-
cretepileis 10m. They areconnected to each other
side by side. The steel in the shape of I is used as
the inside supports. The distance between two sup-
ports is 6mwide. Thedepthof thefoundationpit is
8m. Thisfoundationpit islevel 2foundationpit. The
constructions 0.000mlevel is equal to Huanghai
height+4.125m.Thesituationaroundsiteareaisquiet
complex,especiallyJ inghangCanal onthewestsideof
siteandancientmunicipal heritageGongchengBridge
whichisclosetothenadirof undergroundlot, smallest
distanceisabout 2m.
2 GPSHEIGHT APPLICATION
GPS positioning technology has advantages such as
no need of keeping vision between measuring sta-
tions, not restrained by weather conditions, able to
measuring the targets 3D displacement and highly
automated. Theaccuracy of short distancedeforma-
tion monitoring can reach minor millimeter level
[1]
,
thusprovidesanewmethodfor high-accuracy defor-
mationmonitoringof largeconstructionandfounda-
tion pit. In Lishui Road projects case the visibility
condition in foundation pit construction site is bad
and most datummarks cant share vision, monitor-
ing marks and datummarks are in different height,
and also thereis a across-river benchmark problem.
To solve these problems above, this project take a
monitoring plan using both modern and traditional
measuring technology: using GPS technology to set
up a 3D datummark network, and using traditional
measuring methods to monitor after the network is
established
[2]
.
AfteradjustingGPSmeasuringresults,theoutcome
height is geodetic height H
GPS
relevant to WGS-84
ellipsoid. Sincethebenchmarkheight(normal height)
is using in foundation pit engineering application,
the geodetic height H
GPS
should be transferred into
normal height H
0
in this project. The difference
223
between normal and geodetic height is called height
anomaly
[3]
:
In solving GPS height anomaly, known marks
height anomalyvaluesreliabilityiscrucial tosolving
result accuracy. Becauseof restraint fromsitecondi-
tion, it isimpossibletohaveenoughGPSmarksmeet
benchmarks or taking benchmark co-measuring. So
every singlemarks height anomaly valuewill make
considerable affect to calculating result accuracy, a
markwithgrosserrorheightanomalyvaluecouldeven
lead to a totally useless result and complete failure.
Thustheinitial datashouldtakeagrosserrortest. Dur-
ingthetest, thedataisnormallycheckedbygeometric
conditional closure, like triangle closure in triangle
network or pole condition closure, which monitor-
ing valuemust meet or by residual fromadjustment
error. Since gross error is hard to distinguish from
limited error, this method is hard to discover small
grosserror. Alsoit ishardtofindapplicablegeomet-
ric conditionclosureduringGPS height transferring.
To solvethis problem, onecanpick upsometrustful
geometricbenchmarkspot height andgeodeticheight
in the GPS network to fit other benchmark height,
or pick somespot separately to processingrepetitive
trail calculation, thenobtainother measuredgeomet-
ric benchmarks trail height with mathematic model
fromfit and using the equation below to obtain fit
residual:
H

i
,

i
is trail height and trail height anomaly, H
i
,
i
is measured benchmark height and measured height
anomaly. Then, one can use residual to process rel-
evant spots measured benchmark height gross error
test, after carefully analysis of measured value with
gross error, select enoughreliablemeasuredvalueto
runfit again.
3 HEIGHT ANOMALY GROSSERRORTEST
METHOD
Accordingto DixonTest
[4]
, assumetherereaset of
residual V
1
, V
2
, V
n
, sortthemfromlowtohigh, and
get asequencelikebelow:
Thenwehave:
If onefromr
10
, r
11
, r
21
, r
22
andr

10
, r

11
, r

21
, r

22
islarger
than critical value, then wecan consider V
(n)
or V
(1)
as anomaly value. After analyzes the sensitivity of
anomaly inr statistics test, Dixonclaimedthat when
3n 7, itisbettertouser
10
orr

10
; when8n 10,
user
11
or r

11
; when11n 13, user
21
or r

21
; when
14n 25, user
22
or r

22
.
It isnatural tousedifferent statisticsdependingon
different n. When n is small, rangeestimation has a
betterefficiency, butwhilen becomelarger, rangeesti-
mations efficiency decreaseaccordingly. So when n
is relevant large, userangeV
(n)
V
2
or V
(n)
V
(3)
to
estimate. Statistics r
ij
or r

ij
s critical value is given
inr(n, ) inreference
[4]
. isType1probability, also
calledsignificance. Itsvalueusuallyis0.05or 0.01.
Whenrunningthetest, onecancalculateanddis-
criminatefrombothends of residual sequencesepa-
rately, until thereis no gross error suspicion in both
endsof thetest.
4 GROSSERRORTEST EXAMPLE
InLishui Roadundergroundtunnel foundationpitcon-
structionproject, thedatummarksarethedeformation
monitoringdatumcontrol system. Sotheyareusually
built in the area outside and far fromthe construc-
tionsitetomaintaintheir stability. Theyshouldnotbe
too far though for theconsideration of havingbetter
monitoringaccuracy andalsofor our convenienceof
work. Our monitoringnetworkisdividedintotwolev-
els.Thefirstlevel of monitoringnetworkiscomposed
bythedatummarksandworkingspots, measuredonce
a week to maintain its stability. Thesecond level of
thenetwork is set upby workingspots andmonitor-
ingspots, usingstabledatummarkstoverifyworking
spots. Six datummarks were set up: four are at the
eastbankandother twoareatwestbankof theancient
J inghangCanal.UsingGPStointroducethetwodatum
marks at west bank of thecanal tothecanals east in
favor of monitoring network. The datumnetwork is
surveyedfour times; followingtheofficial construc-
tionstandardsentitledGlobal PositioningSystemfor
UrbanSurveyTechniquestandards CJ J 73-97. Three
224
Trimble4600LSGPSsingle-frequencyreceiverswere
setuptoreceivethesignal atthesametime.Theobser-
vationtimelastedmorethan90min. Informationfrom
510satelliteswereefficientlyreceived.Theelevation
angleof satellitesis15degreeandabreakof 20sec
wassetfor everytwoobservations. 12baselineswere
observedandfourof themaretherepeatones. Specific
softwareprovidedbyAmericasupplier wasemployed
toprocessthedataandtocarryout theeffectivesolu-
tions. Themaximumof error is about 5mmwhile
theminimumis2mm.Theobservationresultswere
further checkedbytimesynchronizedandunsynchro-
nizedcircle. Datumheightnetworkmonitoringdatais
fitfrom4spotsand16setsof dataof GPSbenchmarks
geometricbenchmarkheight residual.
Running Dixon test, first discriminate the largest
residual V
(16)
, since n =16, so take r
22
and r

22
as
statistics.
Using n =16, =0.05 as argument, according to
table
[4]
, r
0
(16, 0.05)=0.507, sincer
22
-r
0
(16, 0.05),
the conclusion is the geometric benchmark height
whichV
(16)
referstodoesnthavegrosserror. Discrim-
inationof smallest residual V
(1)
:
Asr

22
>r
0
(16, 0.05), theconclusionisthegeometric
benchmarkheightwhichV
(1)
referstohasgrosserror,
shouldbeeliminated.
After theeliminationof residual V
(1)
, thebothends
test shouldberunagain.
First discriminatethelargest residual V

(15)
Using n =16, =0.05 as argument, according to
table
[4]
, r
0
(15, 0.05)=0.525, sincer
22
-r
0
(15, 0.05),
the conclusion is the geometric benchmark height
which V

(15)
refers to doesnt have gross error. Then
test thesmallest residualV

(1)
:
Since r

22
>r
0
(15, 0.05)=0.525, and r

22
-r
0
(15, 0.01)=0.616 it can be concluded that the geo-
metric benchmark height whichV

(1)
referstodoesnt
havegrosserror.
5 CONCLUSION
WithGPStechnologyswidelyapplication, peoplecan
simply and efficiently obtain horizontal accuracy of
certainspot onminor millimeter level, but still cant
obtain the spots height on same accuracy level. So
in order to extend GPSs superior ability in survey-
ing 3D displacement, we should put our efforts on
researchinghowto improveGPS survey accuracy of
vertical displacement, thus it can match with survey
accuracyof horizontal displacement. Thereasonwhy
GPS has alowsurvey accuracy of vertical displace-
mentisthatthoughGPScouldprovideahighaccuracy
geodetic height, thelack of ageodic model withrel-
evant accuracy lead to a serious accuracy decrease
duringtransferringfromGPS geodetic height tonor-
mal height. To seek theGPS height anomalys value,
thereliabilityof knownspots heightanomalyvalueis
critical toresultsaccuracy
[5]
,isthekeytoimprovever-
tical deformation accuracy. To apply theGPS height
survey inour projectsfoundationpit monitoring, the
questionsbelowshouldbeconsidered:
1. Height anomaly is unstable, it maybe smooth in
small range or flat-contour region, where height
datumnetworkof foundationpitmonitoringisoften
established, thusiseasytoseekanomalyvalue; but
it isveryvariant inwiderangeor complexcontour
region, possible to occur several value with high
residual. Soinorder toimprovereliabilityof gross
error detection, when discriminated an anomaly
value, oneshouldanalyzecarefullybeforedeleteit.
2. Incalculationof GPSheightanomaly, thesourceof
error isvarious; itcouldbesurveyingerror of GPS
geodeticheight or GPSgeodeticheight difference,
orerrorfromgeometricbenchmarksurveying.This
problemdirectly leads to adifficulty of deciding
error distributionpatternfor heightanomaly. Since
test methodusually runinacertainerror distribu-
tion pattern, (e.g. Dixon test, requires residual is
randomsamplefromnormal distribution) thecred-
ibilityof usingthistesttorungrosserror detection
isdecreasedinreal application.
3. Many factors couldaffect GPS height component
accuracy.Variousmeasuresshouldbetakentoguar-
anteetheaccuracy in specific projects. Minimize
themultipath effect when surveying with GPS in
urbanarea, choosinggeodetictypeof GPStomon-
itoring datumduring foundation pit construction
period. Experienceprovedthatusingthesemethods
notonlyavoidtherestrictionsbroughttositecondi-
tionsfromconventional methods, butalsoimprove
workingefficiencyandassureconstructionquality.
GPS static relativepositioningsurvey hastremen-
douspractical significancetopreciseengineeringsur-
vey. Withthereasonablemonitoringplanaccordingto
engineeringconditionandpurpose, itsaccuracycould
225
meetalmosteveryrequirementsof preciseengineering
survey. It also has multiple advantages such as low
cost, highefficiencyandahighdegreeof automation.
TheapplicationinLishui Roadfoundationpit project
isauseful experience.
REFERENCES
Li, Z.H. & Huang, J.S. GPS measurement and date process.
Wuhan: WuhanUniversityPress, 2005
Lu, T.D. Zhou, S.J. GuanY.L. Height anomaly Gross Error
Test andAnalysisinGPSHeight Conversion. Geotechni-
cal Investigation & Surveying, 2004(4) 5154
Yang, J.T. J iang Y.X. Zhou J. Analysis on Reliability and
Accuracy of Subsidence Measurement with GPS Tech-
nique. Journal of Geodesy and Geodynamics, 2006(1)
7075
Zhang, H. &Gu, J.S. Deformationmonitoringanddataanal-
ysis of foundation in municipal engineering. Journal of
Zhejiang University of Technology, 2003(5) 571574
Zhang, F.G. &ZhangJ.Y. Statistical Distribution and Test of
Survey Error. Beijing: ChinaMeasurement Press, 1991
226
Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground Ng, Huang & Liu (eds)
2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-48475-6
Studyondeformationlawsunder theconstructionof semi-reversemethod
J. Zhang, G.B. Liu&T. Liu
Key Laboratory of Geotechnical and Underground Engineering of Ministry of Education, Tongji University,
Shanghai, P.R. China
Department of Geotechnical Engineering Tongji University, Shanghai, P.R. China
ABSTRACT: Takinga24.09-m-deepfoundationpit of Shanghai Metro Line1whichuses thesemi-reverse
constructionprocessof threeopenexcavating-onetunneling asanexample, throughgatheringandanalyzing
fieldmonitoringdataandmakinguseof forwardandbackanalysismethods, wefoundout deformationlawsof
foundationpitundertheconstructionof semi-reversemethod.Theimplementationresultsof thisprojectindicated
thatthesemi-reversemethodisaneffectivewaytoimproverigidityof theexteriorsupport,control thedeformation
of excavation, and ensuresafety of thesurrounding buildings and pipelines. Meanwhile, theresults coincide
essentiallywithtime-spaceeffect.Thedeformationof theexcavationiscloselycorrelativewithexcavationspeed
andexposuretime. It providedsomeuseful referencefor thedesignof deepexcavationinsoft soil.
1 INTRODUCTION
With the development of urban construction, more
attentions havebeenpaidto theutilizationof under-
ground space, and theconstruction technology level
of foundationengineeringhasbeenimprovedcontin-
uously. At the existing construction process of deep
foundation engineering, open excavation method is
the most common construction method at present.
Because it boasts many advantages, such as more
constructionoperationsurface, short periodandless
cost. However intheapplicationof somedeepexcava-
tions which havecomplicated adjacent environment,
narrow operation space, and complicated geological
conditions, openexcavationmethodwouldcausegreat
influence on the traffic flow. At the same time, the
pollution of mud fluid, dust particle, acoustic noise,
andvibrationwhichcausedintheconstructionwould
inducediscommoditytotheresidents life. Especially,
openexcavationmethodwouldgoagainst withdefor-
mationcontrol of pits, whichwouldcauseperimeter
buildings and structures cracking, and bring great
economic loss or unfavorable social influence. The
completereversemethodhas littleeffect onadjacent
environment, but itsspeedof excavationisslow, con-
structiontechnologic process is complicated, andthe
cost of pillar pilesishigh.
Combined with advantages of open excavation
method and complete reverse method, semi-reverse
constructionmethodemergesasthetimerequire, and
hasbeenusedmoreandmorewidelyinShanghai deep
foundation constructions. Taking a pit of Shanghai
metro line 1, which uses semi-reverse construction
method, asanexample, throughgettingfieldmonitor-
ingdataandsettingupthefiniteelement model, this
paper has given an evaluation for thecharacteristics
of semi-reversemethodsuchasconstructiontechnol-
ogyanddeformationcontrol laws, kindlyexpectedto
provide with a beneficial reference to those similar
projectsinfuture.
2 ENGINEERINGCASE
2.1 General engineering situation
A railwaystationof Shanghai Rail TransitLineNo. 10
(metroline1) issituatedattheintersectionof SouthXi
ZangRoadandFuXingRoad, andcrosstransferred
with metro line8. Thegeographical position of this
stationisshowninFigure1.
Thestationof metroline1isbelowthatof line8.The
structureformof thissubwaystationwiththreefloors
is two pillars andthreespans, theoutsidedimension
are 179.2m(length) 23.8m(width). And the size
of east and west end well is 27.8m16.1m, which
bottomfloor burieddepthare24.06m, 24.09m.
Accordingtotherequirementsof waterproof design
andconstructionplan, thewholerailwaystationmain
bodystructureisdividedintotwoconstructionregion
witheight parts. Thesubsectionconstructiondrawing
of thisstationisshowninFigure2. Thewest endwell
is the first construction part, which requires higher
environment protection. Thisendwell approachesthe
227
Figure1. Geographical positionof thestation.
Figure2. Subsectionconstructionof thestation.
Figure3. Distributionof monitoringpointsinwestendwell.
International Squire(28floors) andShenNengInter-
national Building (26 floors), and surrounding with
lotsof pipelines. Accordingtotherequirementsof the
firstclassenvironmentprotectionspecifiedforShang-
hai subway station, the horizontal deformation of
diaphragmwall shouldbe1.4H(Histhedepthof
excavation), andthemaximumsettlement of perime-
ter groundsurfaceshouldbe1H. Theexcavation
depthof thewest endwell isabout 24.09m. It adopts
theundergrounddiaphragmwall withwidth1000mm
anddepth44m.Thebracesystemapplies1piececon-
cretebraceof 900800and7piecessteel tubebrace
of +60916. Thedistributionof monitoringpointsis
showninFigure3.
2.2 Geological condition
Basing on the geological prospecting data, the soils
of engineeringsitearedividedinto 9layers fromup
to bottom. They arefill soil layer, silt clay layer,
mud-silt clay layer, muddy clay layer,
11
clay
layer,
12
silt clay layer,
3
silt clay layer,
4
silt
clay layer,
2
finesandlayer. Table1shows physical
andmechanical characteristicsof differentsoil layers.
Figure4showsGeotechnical sectionof excavation.
Mainhydrology conditionof this stationis as fol-
lows:theshallowgroundwaterfieldisphreaticaquifer,
whichmainlycomesfrominfiltrationof precipitation
andseepageof surfacewater.Theannual averagewater
stage of Shanghai ranges from0.50m0.70m, and
generally0.5mischosenasdesignvalue.
Inthereportof geological prospectingdata, thesoil
of
2
finesandlayer is distributedinthesite, whose
buried depth is 4446mand confined water head is
10.511.0m. Consideringtheworst factors, whenthe
pit excavated to 24m, thecoefficient of upheaval in
thebottomof thepit wouldnot meet therequirement
of safetyfactor, soit shouldbeadoptedmeasurement
for decreasingconfinedwater head.
2.3 Construction procedure
Considering the actual factors such as construction
period,trafficorganization,undergroundpipelinesand
environmentprotection, thesemi-reverseconstruction
processof threeopenexcavating-onetunnelingwas
adoptedinthisproject.
Thedetail of theprocessisasfollows: Firstlyexca-
vatethesoil tothefifthbrace, andthenconstruct the
secondmedianplatebetweentheforthandfifthbrace.
With thetop reinforced concretebrace, thereversed
medianplateandundergrounddiaphragmwall formed
aframesystem. Whilethepavement maintenanceof
median plate has been finished, utilize two shield
structureholes of theend well to dig thesoil below
theplateuntil thebottomplatefinished.
Thesemi-reversedconstructionhasbrought lotsof
inconveniencetoexcavatingandsupportingof thepit
under the second median plate. This inconvenience
generallyreflectsatthenarrowperpendicular channel
andthecomplicatedsupportsinstallation. Commonly,
installationprocedureof supportsunder theconstruc-
tionof semi-reversedmethodisthat, dividethebrace
into several pieces, bring thesepieces to thebottom
one after another, and then assemble themtogether
to thedesignelevation. For theprocess as it is men-
tioned, installing one straight brace generally needs
7hours, and installing one diagonal brace needs 10
hours, whichfar fromtherequirement of time-space
effect. Time-space effect requires that the exca-
vation width should be no more than 6m, and the
excavation plus supporting time should be no more
than24h(excavationtime-16h; supportingtime-8h).
Thedeformationshouldbecontrol ineffectively, if the
pit was not supportedwithinsuchtime. So basedon
theengineeringtraits, theproject excavatethesoil as
soonaspossiblewhileintheopencut period. It uses
opencutmethodtoexcavatethesoil until 0.5mbelow
228
Table1. Physical andmechanical characteristicsof different soil layers.
peakvalueof
Permeability
Buried consolidated Compression
coefficients(m/s)
depth gravity quickshear moduleEs(MPa)
No. (m) r (kN/m
3
) C (kPa) (

) Kv Kh
2.31
3.41 18.6 18 14 4.80
9.21 17.5 11 16 3.51 1.97E-92.18E-9 2.08E-09
19.81 16.7 13 12 2.27 1.17E-91.48E-9 1.33E-09

11
22.91 17.5 16 14 3.93 1.77E-9 1.77E-9

12
27.81 18.1 15 17.5 4.98 1.52E-9 1.52E-9

3
42.11 18.2 15 19.5 5.08 1.60E-92.13E-9 1.87E-09

4
44.71 19.7 39 15.0 8.00 9.3E-101.46E-9 1.20E-09

2
19.3 0 31 15.11 2.48E-82.57E-8 2.53E-08
Figure4. Geotechnical sectionof excavation.
thefifthbrace(3mbelowthesecondmedianplate).
Whentheseventhsoil wasexcavated, disassemblethe
supportsformthelocationof thefifthbraceandinstall
themtothelocationof theseventhbrace. Sotheinstal-
lationof everybracejustneeds0.5hours,whichshould
acceleratetheconstructionspeedaswell ascontrol the
deformationof thepit effectively.
3 FINITE ELEMENT MODELING
Combinedwithfieldmonitoringdata, thefiniteele-
ment softwarePLAXIS 8.2(Brink Greve& Vermeer
1998) was used to compute the response of the soil
aroundtheexcavationforeffectiveanalysis.Theprob-
lemwas simulated assuming plane-strain conditions
andchosenhalf of thepit astheresearchsubject. The
sideboundaries of themesh(total size90m75m)
wereestablishedbeyondthezoneof influenceof the
settlements induced by the excavation (Caspe 1966;
Hsieh & Ou 1998). Thefiniteelement mesh bound-
aryconditionswereset usinghorizontal restraintsfor
theleftandrightboundariesandtotal restraintsforthe
bottomboundary. Thesoil stratigraphy was assumed
tobeuniformacrossthesite. Thosesoilswithsimilar
propertieswouldbecombinedbyweightedsimilarity
method. Sosixsoil layerswerecompartmentalizedfor
thecalculationsimplify.
Thesoil model usedtocharacterizetheclaysinthe
PLAXISsimulationof theexcavationisthehardening-
soil (H-S) model (Schanz et al. 1999).
Thiseffectivestressmodel isformulatedwithinthe
framework of elastoplasticity. Plastic strains arecal-
culatedassumingmultisurfaceyieldcriteria. Isotropic
hardening is assumed for both shear and volumetric
strains. Theflowruleis nonassociativefor frictional
shearhardeningandassociativeforthevolumetriccap.
Theinitial valuesof thebasicH-Sinputparametersfor
thesoil layersarereferencedasTable1andcalibrated
byinverseanalysis.
Thelinear spring-layer model is adopted to simu-
late the braces; the plate element model is adopted
tosimulatetheundergrounddiaphragmwall, reversed
medianplateandbottomplate. Consideringthebuild-
ingsaroundthepit, 50kN/m
2
overloadisappliedfor
calculation.
Figure5showsthecalculationmodel.Table2shows
11calculationphasesandtheconstructionstagesused
in the finite element simulations. PLAXIS employs
a penalty formulation so that undrained conditions
canbeexplicitly modeled. Becausetherewas along
timeinterval between Phase6 and Phase7, thedis-
placementsareduetopartiallydrainedconditions. So
consolidationshouldbeconsideredinthisstage. Other
stages whichnot notedas consolidation inTable2
weremodeledasundrainedandtheexcessporewater
pressureswerecomputedrelativetosomesteady-state
value(1m) that changeswithdredgelinelevel.
229
Table2. Calculationphasesandtheconstructionstagesusedinthefiniteelement simulations.
Identification Phaseno. Calculation Stages
Initial equilibrium 0 Plastic construction
Set updiaphragmwall andapplyoverload 1 Plastic construction
Excavatethefirst soil andsupport thefirst brace 2 Plastic construction
Excavatethesecondsoil andsupport thesecondbrace 3 Plastic construction
Excavatethethirdsoil andsupport thethirdbrace 4 Plastic construction
Excavatetheforthsoil andsupport theforthbrace 5 Plastic construction
Excavatethefifthsoil andsupport thefifthbrace 6 Plastic construction
Construct medianplate 7 Plastic constructionand
consolidation
Excavatethesixthsoil andsupport thesixthbrace 8 Plastic construction
Excavatethelast soil 9 Plastic construction
Construct bottomplate 10 Plastic construction
Figure5. Calculationmodel.
4 COMPARISONOF FIELDDATA WITH
CALCULATIONRESULTSOF FINITE
ELEMENT SOFTWARE
Inorder tostudythedeformationlawsunder thecon-
structionof semi-reversedmethod, lotsof fieldmoni-
toringdataof west endwell havebeenfinishedfrom
thesecondbracehasbeensupportedtotheroof plate
hasbeenfinished. Choosetheinclinationsurveypoint
CX3andthesettlement points J 6-1, J 6-2, J 6-3, J 6-4,
J 6-5 which have the same cross section with CX3
as representative points. Combined with calculation
results of finite element software, it could be got
detailedanalysis.
4.1 Inclination deformation of underground
diaphragm wall
Intheconstructionprocessof foundationpit, thedis-
placement curveof inclinationpoint CX3at different
depth which changed with the working condition is
showninFigure6.
FromFigure 6, it could be found that the maxi-
muminclination displacement of diaphragmwall is
only33.69mmwhenthebottomplatehasbeenpoured,
which is satisfied with the requirement of Class 1
accumulative displacements (mm)
-2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36
d
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
support second brace
support third brace
support fourth brace
support fifth brace
construct median plate
support sixth plate
support seventh brace
construct bottom plate
Figure 6. Displacement curve of CX3 at different depth
whichchangedwiththeworkingcondition.
environment protection. Basedontheexperiences of
Shanghai underground works these years, with the
similar excavation depth, excavation size, geological
conditionsandperipheral circumstance, if thefounda-
tionpitadoptsopencutmethod, thedeformationvalue
couldnot becontrolledat sosmall range.
Calculation results of finiteelement softwareand
field data were compared from the time that fifth
braceshadbeeninstalled, whichisshowninFigure7.
In the figure, dashed line represents the calculation
value, andsolidlinewithcirclerepresents measured
value. Table3showsthespecificcomparativevalue.
230
Theshapeof calculationcurvewasingoodagree-
mentwiththemeasuredcurve,andthemaximumvalue
of calculation deformation was in accordance with
fielddatawhilethebottomplatehasbeenconstructed.
Theresults showthat finiteelement methodcancor-
rectly reflect excavation deformation regularity. It
shows that thediaphragmwall engenderedcompara-
tivelargerdeformationwithintheperiodfromthefifth
bracesupportedtothemedianplateconstructed. This
isbecausethediscrepancyof thetwoworkconditions
lasts as long as 20 days. Though soils werent exca-
vated, exposuretimeforthefoundationpitwithbraces
wascomparativelong. Theexcavationfaceissituated
inmuddyclaylayerwhichhasverystrongflowprop-
erty, andthepermeabilityof thesoil isrelativelylarge
(

=1.7710
9
m/s). For abovereasonsthediaphragm
wall engenderedlarger deformation. Inthefiniteele-
ment calculation, consolidationhas beenconsidered,
soit couldcorrectlyreflect theactual deformation.
-2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
d
e
p
t
h
(
m
)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
measured value
calculation value
accumulative displacement(mm)
accumulative displacement(mm)
-2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
d
e
p
t
h
(
m
)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
measured value
calculation value
Support the fifth brace Construct the median plate
accumulative displacement(mm)
-2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34
d
e
p
t
h
(
m
)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
measured value
calculation value
accumulative displacement(mm)
-2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40
d
e
p
t
h
(
m
)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
measured value
calculation value
Support the sixth brace Support the bottom plate
Figure 7. Measured versus computed horizontal
displacements.
Table3. Specificvaluesof measuredversuscomputedhorizontal displacements.
Project database Fifthbrace Medianplate Sixthbrace Seventhbrace Bottomplate
Completiontime 06-11-16 06-12-6 06-12-29 07-1-1 07-1-15
MeasuredValue Maximumvalue 12.33 27.94 30.25 31.85 33.69
Depth 14 19 19 21 21.5
Calculationvalue Maximumvalue 13.19 27.32 31.05 35.35 37.68
Depth 15 20 21 21 22
Inorder toanalyzetherelationshipbetweendefor-
mation of diaphragm wall and time, we chose the
department of the maximum deformation for filed
data CX3 (CX3-43 point whose depth is 21.5m) as
akey point. Thevariations of deformationwithtime
for thispointinthewholeexcavationconstructionare
inspectedasFigure8shows.
From Figure 8, we can find that though the
diaphragmwall engendered large deformation from
the fifth brace supported to the median plate sup-
ported, in the process of concrete maintenance, the
deformation stopped to growand it even had alittle
falling,andalsowhenthesoil underthereversedmedia
plate was excavated, the deformation rate is smaller
thanthatof previous. Withthetopreinforcedconcrete
supports, thereversedmedianplateandunderground
diaphragmwall could beformed as aframesystem,
whichconstrainedthespreadingof soil deformation.
The reduction of deformation rate in this phase has
releasedthecomparatively largedeformation, which
engenderedasaresult of soil creepinforwardphase.
This is beneficial for the reduction of foundation
deformationandassuranceof pit stability.
4.2 Ground settlement
Groundsettlement points J 6-1, J 6-2, J 6-3, J 6-4, J 6-5
areinthesamesectionwiththeinclinationpointCX3,
whichisdistributedwiththedistanceof 3mfor every
point fromtheedgeof pit. Figure9 shows thefield
settlement curvesintheprocessof construction.
From Figure 9, it shows that ground settlement
increased with excavation depth. When the bottom
plate has been finished, the maximumsettlement is
only 7.1mm. Thesoil presented alittleuplift at 6m
fromthe edge of excavation. With reference to the
actual engineeringproject, highpressurejet grouting
was used in the end well for the stability of shield
accesstotunnel. Itmightbethereasonthatcausedthe
soil uplifting.
4.3 Building settlement and pipeline settlement
ToMarch2007, whiletheroof platehasbeenfinished,
themaximumbuildingsettlementwasonly3.3mm,
whichis at F05point. Thevariations of deformation
231
-5.00
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
40.00
10-20-06 10-30-06 11-9-06 11-19-06 11-29-06 12-9-06 12-19-06 12-29-06 1-8-07 1-18-07 1-28-07
d
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)
second
brace
third
brace
fourth
brace
fifth
brace
median
plate
sixth
brace
seventh
brace
bottom
plate
Figure8. Variationsof displacement withtimefor CX3-43inthewholeexcavationconstruction.
Figure9. Fieldsettlementsintheprocessof construction.
Figure10. Variationsof deformationwithtimefor F05.
withtimefor F05areshowninFigure10. Asaresult
of highpressurejet grouting, intheformer phasesof
constructionthevertical deformationof F05presented
anupliftingtrend. It was not until J anuary 2007that
the soil deformation fell back. This was one of the
main reasons for theso small accumulativebuilding
settlement.
The conditions of pipeline settlement were as
follows: the maximum deformation point of gas
pipe was M01, whose accumulative settlement was
8.6mm; themaximumdeformation point of water
supply pipe was S02, whose accumulative settle-
ment was8.4mm; themaximumdeformationpoint
of rain pipe is Y01, whose accumulative settlement
Figure11. Time-historycurvesof M01, S02andY01.
was8.2mm. ChoosingpressurepipepointM01, S02
andnon-pressurepipepointY01askey point, whose
time-historycurvesisshowninFigure11.
Thesettlement trends of thesepipelines wereuni-
form,andthesetime-historycurveshapesweresimilar
tothat of inclinationpoint inFigure8. FromDecem-
ber 6thtoDecember 29th, whenthemedianplatehas
been maintained, thedeformation valueof pipelines
alsopresentedastableperiod. In1969, Peck put for-
ward stratumcompensation theory, which indicated
that theshapesandtheenclosedareaof lateral defor-
mationcurvescausedbyfoundationpitexcavationare
similar tothatof groundsettlementcurves. FromFig-
ure 11, it can be found that this similarity changed
uniformlywithtime, thatitistosaythegroundsettle-
mentchangedwiththelateral deformationatanytime,
whichisfavorablefor theenvironment protection.
5 CONCLUSION
1. Adopting semi-reverse construction method in
metro foundation pit could control the deforma-
tion of pit effectively, and decrease the influence
of excavationconstructiononitssurroundingenvi-
ronment. Semi-reverseconstructionmethodowns
a deep foundation support technology with prac-
tical value and brilliant prospects, which would
232
be further developed and applied in rail transit
construction.
2. The reversed median plate and underground
diaphragmwall formedaframesystem. Inthepro-
cessof medianplatemaintenance, thedeformation
of soil behindretainingwall wasstable. Whenthe
platemaintenancefinishedandthesoil excavated,
thedeformationratewas smaller thanthoseengi-
neeringworks whichadoptedopen-cut methodof
thesameconditions.
3. Intheprocessof reversedmedianplatesupporting,
alongperiodwasneededfor reinforcementassem-
bleand scaffold erection. As aresult of soil flow
property, larger deformation may begenerated at
thisperiod.
4. As theexcavation is in clay, longer times of con-
struction may result in partial drainage as well.
Consolidation of thesoil should beconsidered in
finiteelement calculation.
5. The shapes of lateral deformation curves caused
by foundation pit excavation are similar to that
of groundsettlement. Thissimilaritychangeduni-
formly together with time pass. It is conjectured
thatthegroundsettlementchangedwiththelateral
deformationshapeat anymoment.
REFERENCES
Brinkgreve, R.B.J. &Vermeer, P.A. 1998. Finite element code
for soil and rock Analysis. PLAXIS7.0manual, Balkema,
Rotterdam, TheNetherlands.
Liu, J.H. &Hou, X.Y. 1997. Foundation engineering manual.
Beijing: ChinaConstructionIndustryPress.
Richard, J., Finno, M. &Michele, C. 2005. Supportedexcava-
tions: observational methodandinversemodeling. Jour-
nal of geotechnical and geoenvironmental engineering
10.1061:826836.
Zhao, G.W. &Guo, H.B. 2006. Applicationof semi-reversed
constructionmethodtorail transit construction. Building
Construction 28(10):815818.
233
Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground Ng, Huang & Liu (eds)
2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-48475-6
Comparisonof theoryandtest onexcavationcausingthevariation
of soilmassstrength
J. Zhou& J.Q. Wang
Key Laboratory of Geotechnical and Underground Engineering of Ministry of Education,
Tongji University, Shanghai, P.R. China
Department of Geotechnical Engineering Tongji University, Shanghai, P.R. China
L. Cong
Key Laboratory of Geotechnical and Underground Engineering of Ministry of Education,
Tongji University, Shanghai, P.R. China
ABSTRACT: Inviewof theexcavationunloadingcharacteristic, thevariationof soilmassstrengthisstudied
throughthetheoretical deductionandthetestanalysis. BaseedontheHvorslevsreal strengththeory, thestrength
ratioof theunloadingsoil andthenormal compressedsoil consideringthepore-water pressureisdeducedand
thetest simulating excavation is carried out. Through comparing dataof thetheory and test, thesoilmass is
causedtobeat theoverconsolidatedstate, andthesoil microstructureisdamaged, thenthesoilmassstrengthis
reducedintheunloadingprocess. Theanalysisresult of theoryandtest arehelpful tothefurther understanding
of theeffect of unloadinginexcavationonthevariationof thesoilmassstrength, whichareverysignificant for
avoidingproject accidents.
1 INTRODUCTION
With the rapid and remarkable development of city
construction, an increasingly large number of the
exploitationof theundergroundspaceshaveemerged,
suchas high-story building, theundergroundmarket
andundergroundgarageetc., whichneedtoexcavate
for buildingfoundation.Theexcavation, includingthe
influenceof thesoilmasss engineering property and
thevariation of theenvironment characteristic, have
been systematically studied by numerous scholars.
Rutledge(1944) summarized thesoil sampledistur-
bancetotheinfluenceof theunconfinedcompression
strength and the initial tangential modulus in stress
and strain curve, and the result showed that the ini-
tial tangential modulus of theremouldedsoil sample
is smaller than the one of the undisturbed value by
about 20%, some were only even 3%4%. On res-
onant column test, Drnevich & Massarsch (1979)
discoveredthat evenif thesoil samplesufferedfrom
the small disturbance, its initial tangential modulus
also obviously reduced. Broms (1980) pointed out
that the soil sample disturbance in the brittle soil
to the stress and strain curves influence was much
bigger than in the plastic soil. Zeng (1995) studied
the subway double lines shield tunnel construction
to the influence of the surface, the buildings and
the underground pipelines, and analyzed the tunnel
interval to the influence of stress and the displace-
ment of surrounding soilmass. Zeng & Pan (1988)
studied stress path to theinfluenceof theundrained
strength in excavation. Wei (1987) has studied the
relationof theexcavationunloadingandpassivesoil
pressure.
Several examplesof thecollapseof foundationpits
inthepasthadveryseriousconsequences,whichurged
thepeopletostudythedesignandconstructionof foun-
dationpitdeeply.Atpresentthemaintenancestructure
of foundationpit isdesignedandcalculatedby using
theelastic foundation beamlawor theelastoplastic-
ityfiniteelementmethod.Theroutine-testparameters
generally were adopted as the computation parame-
ters, which had not really considered theexcavating
and unloading to theinfluenceof soilmass strength.
Thevariationof soilmassstrengthafterexcavatingand
unloadingisstudiedthroughtheanalysisof theoryand
testinthispaper. Theresultof thestudyindicatesthat
theunloadinginexcavationhasinfluenceonthevari-
ationof soilmassstrength, whichcanbeof somehelp
toavoidproject accidents.
235
2 THEORETICAL DEDUCTIONOF SOILMASS
STRENGTHUNDER UNLOADING
After excavation, the surrounding soil can be seen
as the overconsolidated soil layer, and Wei (1987)
deduced the undrained strength of the excavation
unloadingsoft clay accordingtotheHvorslev (1960)
real strengththeory, whichwasthesameformulathat
Mayne(1980)obtainedtheundrainedstrengthof over-
consolidatedclay soil accordingto thestatistics of a
largenumber of testdata.After theexcavation, infact,
theeffectivestressof bottomsoil layer of foundation
pitisinunceasinglydevelopingandchangingprocess,
rather thanthestaticoverconsolidatedstatethatabove
formula derives. In this process, becauseof unload-
ing, thenegativeporewaterpressuredissipatesslowly,
andeffectivestressdecreasesgradually,andeventually
stops at theoverconsolidated state. According to the
Hvorslev real strengththeory, theundrainedstrength
of thesoilsafter excavationandunloadingisdeduced.
TheHvorslevstrengthformulaisasfollows:
where c
e
= p
e
; In normal consolidated soil, p
e
is
equal to the current effective stress (drained shear
strength) or the consolidation pressure (undrained
shear strength); In overconsolidated soil, p
e
is the
consolidation pressure that the test specimen fail-
uresporosityratiocorrespondsinthenormal pressure
dense curve. tg
e
is the increment ratio which the
shearing strength increases along with the effective
stresschangewhenthewater content isconstant; P is
theeffectivestress.
Accordingtothereal strengththeoryandthecritical
states concept, when soilmass has withstood a sim-
ple loadingunloading cycle in stress history, it can
beassumedthat thefailurepoint of overconsolidated
soil is coincidencewith thefailurepoint of thenor-
mal consolidatedsoil at thesamewater content when
stress path reaches at critical stateline, as shown in
Figure1andFigure2. Thentheeffectivestressof the
overconsolidatedsoil isasfollows:
Based on the confirmation of a large number of
tests, it can be considered approximately that the
shapes of undrained stress path of the normal com-
pacting soil sample is geometrical similarity under
thedifferent consolidationpressure, andthevariation
valueof effectivestressandconsolidationpressureare
inproportion(Wei 1987). Thereforetheir relationcan
beproposedfromthefollowingequation:
p
e c
A
E
C
B
p'
a
p'
b
p'
e
p' p p
over-compacting soil
normal compacting soil
normal compacting soil
c
r
i
t
i
c
a
l

s
t
a
t
e

l
i
n
e
initial compressed line
p
Figure 1. The constant consolidation pressure and the
undrained stress path for the normal consolidated soil and
theoverconsolidatedsoil (Wei 1987).
p
c
p
e
p log p
A
E
C
B
Figure2. Therelationcurves for thenormal consolidated
soil andtheoverconsolidatedsoil.
The undrained shear strength of overconsolidated
soil sampleB isasfollows:
Takingtheequation(2),(3),(5) intotheequation(4),
then:
236
The undrained shear strength of normal consoli-
datedsoilmassA ininitial consolidationpressureP
c
isasfollows:
InFigure2:
Ontheinitial compressionlineAEC,
The equation (12) is the undrained strength ratio
of the excavation unloading soil and the normal
consolidationsoil.
Figure3. Thediagramof thestressvariationforexcavation.
Intheabovedeductionprocess:
S
ub
The undrained strength of the excavation
unloadingsoils;
S
ua
Theundrainedstrengthof thenormal consol-
idatedsoils;
u
t
Thenegativepore-waterpressureof theunload-
ingsoilmass, withtimedissipation;
P
t
Thesoilmassconsolidationpressureof current
state;
p
c
The soilmass consolidation pressure under
natural state;
C
c
, C
s
Thecompressionindexandswellingindex
of soilmass.
Thelawis reflectedintheequation(12) that soil-
mass strength reduces gradually with the negative
pore-water pressuredissipationafter unloading. when
u
t
=0, soil is at thecompleteover-compactingstate.
The key that estimates the soilmass strength after
unloading is to determine the parameter i. Because
of theerrors of thesamplingdisturbanceandinstru-
mentation equipment, the computed result of the
parameteri whichisdeterminedbyconsolidationtests
result C
c
, C
s
, isbigger thanthereal value, needingto
calculatetheparameter i bythestrengthtest.
After the synthetical comparison, Mayne (1980)
propose that 1C
s
,C
c
takes the statistical average
value 0.64 to be quite reasonable according to the
statistics of a large number of experimental data
andinsitumeasurement; Furthermore, Zhang& Wei
(1987) haveconfirmedthis viewpoint. Thereforethe
parameter i istaken0.64inthispaper.
3 EXPERIMENT ANALYSISOF SOILMASS
STRENGTHAFTER UNLOADING
3.1 Test plans
In theexcavation process, as shown in Figure3, the
soilmassunitA of aroundfoundationpitwall islateral
237
Table1. Thetriaxial testplansof constantpressureconsol-
idation.
Consolidationpressure

v
=
H
(kPa)
Variationmodeof
thestress 100 200 300 400
Unloading
v
unloading I01 I02 I03 I04
failure
Unloading
v
loading J 01 J 02 J 03 J 04
failure

v
unloadingfailure K03

v
loadingfailure L03
Table2. Thetriaxial test plansof K
0
consolidation.
Consolidationpressure

v
=
H
/K
0
(kPa)
Variationmode
of thestress 180 240 400

H
unloadingfailure M01 M02 M03
unloading, and vertical pressureis nearly invariable;
ThesoilmassunitBof thelateral andvertical inthebot-
tomof foundationpitsimultaneouslyunloads, andthe
vertical stress drops morequickly thanlateral stress,
but still retains quiteapart of incompleteunloading
stress, therefore the influence of the unloading only
possiblyexistsinacertainscopebelowfoundationpit
bottomsurface.Thestageexcavationmethodisgener-
allyselectedforthefoundationpit.Thefirstsupporting
structureimmediatelybetakenwhenthefirstlayersoil
isexcavatedtoreachat thedesignelevation; Thenthe
secondlayer soil isexcavated. Duringtheexcavation,
the soilmass units are in the process that the soil is
unloadingandexpandingandthenegativepore-water
pressureisdissipatingslowly.
Accordingtotheunloadingcharacteristicof above
soilmassunitA, B, testplansaredesignedasshownin
Table1andTable2.
I, J grouptests simulatethestress pathof theunit
B, andthesoil samplesareconsolidatedfor 24hours
under constant pressure; thenaccordingto thestress
pathL
v
=
v
,3, L
v
,L
H
=2, thetestspecimenare
unloaded simultaneously on thevertical and thelat-
eral, and the value was recorded when the negative
pore-water pressure are stable after unloading; This
processneedsfor 23hour fromstartingunloadingto
stabilityof readingvalue, thenturnsonthedrainvalve,
and makes thenegativepore-water pressuredissipa-
tion, the soil sample completes consolidation under
thenewlowstresscondition, theconsolidationtimeis
8hours.ThentheI groupisloadedtothetestspecimen
compression failureon thevertical, and theJ group
is unloadedto thetest specimenextrusionfailureon
Table3. Thebasicindexof mechanical propertyof Siltclay.
Parameters Values
w 52.6%
16.9KN/m
3
e 1.487
Sr 97.3%
I
p
23.2
I
L
1.231

1-2
1.20MPa
1
c 11kPa
9.3

Table 4. The negative pore-water pressure data of soil


sampleafter unloading(kPa).
Serial number I (J ) 01 I (J ) 02 I (J ) 03 I (J ) 04
Negative 30.9 34.1
pore-water
pressure(kPa)
Note: Becauseof instrument failure, thedataof 01 and 02
cannotbedetected, thelatter twodataareaveragevalueof I,
J group.
thevertical. Asareferencetest, K groupandL group
specimen areconsolidated in theconfining pressure
of setting, withoutunloadingdisturbance, andrespec-
tively are loaded and unloaded to the test specimen
failureonthevertical.
Theunloadingstressvariationprocessof unitA is
simulatedbyMgrouptest. K
0
=0.6, theconsolidation
pressureisexertedbystagedloading; Foravoidingthe
accidental failureof thetestspecimen, thestagedload-
ingis divided10levels to exert; Theaxial stress L
isexertedineachlevel loading, at thesametime, the
confiningpressureL
H
=K
0
L
v
isexerting, consol-
idationtime24hours. After consolidationcompletes,
L
v
ismaintainedinvariable, andthetestspecimenis
compressedtofailurebythelateral unloading.
3.2 Test results
Thesoil samplesof testsarethetypical softsoil of the
Shanghai area, itsbasicindexof mechanical property
asshowninTable3.
After unloading, thenegativepore-water pressure
isshowninTable4.
4 THE COMPARISONANALYSISBETWEEN
THEORY RESULT ANDTEST RESULT
OF THE SOILMASSSTRENGTHAFTER
EXCAVATINGANDUNLOADING
The theory deduction and the test simulation about
soil strength of the excavation has been discussed.
238
Figure4. Thenormalizationstressof theunloadingsoil of
I group.
Figure5. Thenormalizationstressof theunloadingsoil of
J group.
Nowwewill discuss thecomparisonreuslt of theory
andtest.
Thestressstrainrelationcurveof differentconfin-
ing pressureof I, J two groups tests arenormalized,
and
m
=(
1
+2
2
),3=233kPa, thenthecurvescan
bedrawnasshowninFigure4andFigure5, inwhich
K Line, L linearethesoil stress-straincurvesof natu-
ral compactionafter normalization, andI02, I03, J 01,
J 02, J 04 are the normalizing stress-strain curve of
over-compactingsoil after theunloading.
After excavationunloading, thestress valueof the
soil samplestress-strainrelationscurveapproachesor
surpassesthestressvalueof thenatural normal com-
pacting soil as shown in Figure4 and Figure5; For
eliminating the test error, after unloading, soil sam-
plepeak value(
1

3
)
max
canbetakentheaverage
valueof eachnormalizedcurvepeak value, asshown
Table 5. The soil strength contrast between theory result
andtest result after unloading.
Project
Peakvalue
(
1

3
)
max
(kPa)
Natural Soil sample Test Theory Difference
Test soil of unloading result result value
number sample disturbance S
ub
/S
ua
S
ub
/S
ua
(%)
I 208.2 219.0 1.052 1.175 12.3
J 205.1 212.5 1.040 1.175 13.5
inTable5; For comparingwithtest result, theoretical
calculationis takenby theformula(12), theparame-
ter P
c
=300kPa, P
t
=233kPa, thetestresultsandthe
theoretical formularesults, areshowninTable5.
In the Table 5, S
ub
is the undrained strength of
excavation unloading soil in I, J series tests by
normalization; S
ua
is the undrained strength of the
normal compressed soils in K, L series tests by
normalization.
In above tests, the influence of negative pore-
water pressure(Table4) isconsideredinsoil sample.
According to the computation of the formula (12),
thesoilmassstrengthratioS
ub
/S
ua
is1.229and1.235,
which is higher about 5%6%than theratio of the
pore-water pressuredissipatingcompletely.
ThecomparisonfromTable5canbefoundthatthe-
oretical calculation result is bigger about 10% than
testresult. NotonlyThesoilmassiscausedtobeatthe
overconsolidatedstate, butalsothesoil microstructure
isdamaged, andthesoilmassstrengthisreducedinthe
unloadingprocess. Inthistriaxial test, soil samplesis
unloadedaccordingtothestress pathof thetest, soil
stress is redistributed, andconsolidated, theovercon-
solidatedsoil isformated, soil structureof theoriginal
systemisalsodamaged.
5 THEVARIATIONOF SOILMASSSTRENGTH
PARAMETERSAFTER EXCAVATINGAND
UNLOADING
Based on the stress-strain relation curves of tests,
according to the Mohr-Coulomb criterion, the soil-
mass strength parameters c$$ of the simulating
excavation unloading and the parameters c$$ of
routine-test arelistedinTable6.
The cohesion, the angle of internal friction that
unloadingfailureof I andM groupobtainedarequite
close, their c value is bigger than J group, but the
value is smaller, furthermore, the values of c$$
are obviously different from the result of conven-
tional consolidatedquick shear test. Becauseof lack
239
Table6. Thestrengthparameter valuec$$ of thesoilmass
failure.
Test number
A unit of B unit of B unit of Theresult of
M group I group J group conventional
(unloading (unloading (loading consolidated
Parameter failure) failure) failure) quickshear
Cohesion 26.5 24.3 7.36 11
c (kPa)
Angleof 15 13 16 9.3
internal
friction
(

)
of thesufficienttestdata, therelationshipbetweenthe
unloadingstressandthestrengthparametersc$$ can
not beobtained, whichneedsfurther test todetermine
whether theseparametershavetheinevitablerelation.
6 CONCLUSION
This paper chooses thetypical excavationas thetest
study object, designs and carries out different stress
pathsindoor triaxial testsinI, J, K, L, M grouptests.
Someuseful conclusions aredrawnby analyzingthe
influence of excavation on the result of theory and
test, which are very significant for avoiding project
accidents:
1. Bytheassumptionthatthesoil asoverconsolidated
soil with dissipation of the negative pore-water
pressure after unloading, the undrained strength
ratiobetweenthesoilsof excavationunloadingand
thenormal consolidated soils is deduced, namely
theformula(12). Withthedissipationof soil neg-
ativepore-water pressure, thesoilmass strengthis
reduced.Accordingtotheanalysisresult, thescope
of reductionisnotlarge. Undertheaboveteststress
condition, the strength ratio range of variation is
about 5%6%.
2. TheundrainedstrengthratioS
ub
/S
ua
fromthetests
issmaller about 10%thanundrainedstrengthratio
fromthe above theoretical formula computation.
Thedifferencevalueinthetestcanbeidentifiedas
theresult that of unloadingdisturbance.
3. Intheunloadingprocess, thesoilmassiscausedto
beattheoverconsolidatedstate,thesoil microstruc-
ture is damaged, and the soilmass strength is
reduced.
4. Thetotal stressstrengthparametersc$$ obtained
fromthe different stress path tests are much dif-
ferent fromthe parameters fromthe routine-test.
Due to the insufficiency of data, the relation-
shipbetweentheunloadingstressandthestrength
parametersc$$ cannot beobtained, whichneeds
further test todeterminewhether theseparameters
havetheinevitablerelation.
REFERENCES
Broms, B.B. 1980. Soil Sampling in Europe: State-of-the-
Art. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Div. 106:
6598.
Drnevich, V.P. & Massarsch, K.R. 1979. Sample Distur-
bance and Stress Strain Behaviour. ASCE Journal
of the Geotechnical Engineering Division 105(GT 9):
10011016.
Hvorslev, M.J. 1960. Physical component of the shear
strengthof saturatedclays. Research Conference on Shear
Strength of Cohesive Soils, ASCE: 169274.
Mayne, P.W. 1980. Cam-clay prediction of undrained
strength. Geotech Engrg Div ASCE 106(GT11):
12191242.
Rutledge, P.C. 1944. Relation of undisturbed sampling to
laboratorytest. Transactions ASCE, (109): 11551183.
Wei, R.L. 1987. Soft clay strength and deformation. Beijing:
Chinacommunicationspress.
Zeng, X.Q. 1995. Subway project double thread tunnel
parallel advancement interaction and construction
mechanics research. Shanghai:Tongji Universitydoctoral
dissertation.
Zeng, G.X., Pan, Q.Y. & Hu, Y.F. 1988. The Behavior of
Excavation in Soft Clay Ground. Chinese Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering 10: 1322.
240
Theme 2: Construction method, ground treatment,
and conditioning for tunnelling
Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground Ng, Huang & Liu (eds)
2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-48475-6
Tenyearsof boredtunnelsinTheNetherlands: Part I, geotechnical issues
K.J. Bakker
COB, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands
A. Bezuijen
Deltares, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands
ABSTRACT: Ten years have passed since in 1997 for the first time construction of bored tunnels in the
Netherlands soft soil was undertaken. Before that date essentially only immersed tunnels and cut-and-cover
tunnelswereconstructedintheNetherlands.ThefirsttwoboredtunnelswerePilotProjects, the2ndHeinenoord
tunnel and theBotlek Rail tunnel. Sincethen aseries of other bored tunnels has been constructed and some
arestill under constructiontoday. At thebeginningof thisperiod, amongst othersBakker et al (1997), gavean
overviewof therisksrelatedtoboredtunnelsinsoft groundandaplanfor researchrelatedtothepilot projects
was developed. After that in1999the2ndHeinenoordtunnel openedfor thepublic, theJ ointedplatformfor
Boredtunnelling, inshortGPB, wasorganized, tocoordinatefurther researchandmonitoringof boredtunnels.
This platformis supervisedby theCenter for UndergroundConstruction. Inthis paper asummary is givenof
someof themost characteristicobservationsonthese10yearsof undergroundconstructionintheNetherlands.
Inthefirst part of thispaper thefocusisongeotechnical interactions, andstability, whereaspart twowill focus
moreonstructural relatedissues.
1 INTRODUCTION
In 1992 afact-finding mission was sent to J apan by
theDutchgovernment, whichreportedthat it should
be possible to construct bored tunnels in the Dutch
soft soil conditions. Up to that timeessentially only
immersedandcut-and-cover tunnelswereconstructed
intheNetherlands,asboringof tunnelsinsoftsoil con-
ditions, atthattime, wasconsideredtobetooriskfull.
Afterthisconclusionthingswentquitefast; in1993
the Dutch minister of Transport and Public works
orderedtheundertakingof twopilot projects, the2nd
HeinenoordTunnel and theBotlek Rail Tunnel. The
projects were primarily aimed at constructing new
infrastructure and besides that for monitoring and
researchinorder to advancethedevelopment of this
new construction method for the Netherlands. The
projects started in 1997 and 10 years have passed
sincethen.
Atthestartof thepilotprojects, thedifficultieswith
respect toconstructingboredtunnelsinsoft soil con-
ditionswereevaluatedandaplanfor monitoringand
research was put forward, see Bakker et al (1997).
Sincethen, the2ndHeinenoordtunnel, seeFig. 1, and
aseriesof other boredtunnelswereconstructed.
After the completion of the pilot projects a J oint
PlatformforBoredtunnelswasestablished(GPB) that
coordinatesthemonitoringandresearchatthevarious
Figure1. Geological profileat the2ndHeinenoordtunnel.
otherDutchtunnellingprojects.TheGPB, aninitiative
of thelarger clientsfor undergroundinfrastructureon
thegovernmentside, wasorganisedunder supervision
of theNetherlandsCentrefor UndergroundConstruc-
tion; COB. Theresearchwasorganisedinsuchaway
that resultsof aproject wouldbebeneficial for anext
project startingalittlelater.
Unquestionablyalothasbeenlearnedfromtheper-
formed monitoring and research. The results of this
processhavebeennoticedabroad. In2005theNether-
lands hosted the fifth International symposium of
TC28onUndergroundConstructioninSoftGround.
Researchersandexpertsfromall over theworldcame
toAmsterdam, tolearnabout theDutchobservations
ontunnellingandto visit theconstructionworks for
thenewNorth-SouthcitymetrosysteminAmsterdam.
243
Table1. Boredtunnelscompletedafter 1997intheNetherlands.
Completion Boredlength Depth OutwardDiameter
(Year) (m) (m) (m)
2ndHeinenoordtunnel Road 1999 945(dual) 30 8.3
WesternScheldt tunnel Road 2003 6700(dual) 60 11.30
BotlekRail tunnel Rail 2004 1835(dual) 26 9.60
SophiaRail tunnel Rail 2005 4000(dual) 27 9.60
PannerdenschCanal Rail tunnel Rail 2005 1615(dual) 25 9.60
GreenHart tunnel Rail 2006 8.620(single) 30 14.90
The above event was also the occasion for the
presentationof abook; A decadeof progressintun-
nellingintheNetherlands by BezuijenandvanLot-
tum(2006), wherethis researchis describedinmore
detail.
This paper(s) gives some highlights of the main
researchresult of thepast decade.
2 REVIEWOF THE 1997SITUATIONAND
WHAT CAMEAFTER
Inthedesignphasefor the2ndHeinenoordtunnel a
main concern were the soft soil conditions in com-
binationwithhighwater pressures. Ingeneral inthe
Netherlandsthewater tableisjust belowthesoil sur-
face. Furthermorethe8.3moutwarddiameter for this
first largediameter tunnel was amajor stepforward,
comparedtopastexperienceintheNetherlands; expe-
rience that was mainly based on constructing bored
tunnels, pipesor conduitsuptoabout 4.0mdiameter.
Thisgavesomeconcernwithrespecttotheamountof
extrapolationof empiricknowledge.
Withrespecttothesoft-soil conditions,thelowstiff-
nessof theHoloceneclayandpeatlayersandthehigh
groundwater table; nearlyuptothesoil surface, were
consideredapotential hazardandachallengeforbored
tunnels.Thesoil profileatthe2ndHeinenoordtunnel,
seeFig. 1, isindicativefor theheterogeneouscharac-
ter and on occasion sudden changes in underground
soil layeringthat onemight encounter. Inadditionto
theheterogeneityandthegroundwater, deformations
dueto tunnellingmight influencethebearingcapac-
ity of any existing piled foundations in the vicinity.
And as the common saying is that the Amsterdam
Forest is underground, one might realize the poten-
tial risksinvolvedfor theNorth/SouthMetroworksin
Amsterdam.
Characteristic for ahigh water tableis buoyancy;
theeffect that thetunnel might befloatingupintothe
softupperlayersabovethetunnel duetothegradientin
thegroundwaterpressure. Besidestheriskof breaking
upof thesesoil layers, therather flexiblebeddingof
thetunnel and thedeformations that this may cause
needtobeanalysed.
Therefore research was aimed at clarifying the
effects of thesoft underground, groundwater effects,
andtheeffect of tunnellingonpiledfoundations.
After thesuccessful construction of thetwo Pilot
projects, anumber of other boredtunnellingprojects
followed, seeTable1. MentionworthisthattheGreen
Hart Tunnel holds until recently the record as the
largest diameter boredtunnel intheworld.
Still under construction arethetunnels for Rand-
stadRail inRotterdam, theHubertusTunnel for aroad
in The Hague and the North/South metro works in
Amsterdam.
Withrespecttotheconstructionof theNorth/South
metro works in Amsterdam, the station works have
madequitesomeprogress andtheboredtunnel is in
a preparation phase. The elements of the immersed
tunnel; theextension toAmsterdamNorth under the
river IJ, arewaitingfor thecompletionof theimmer-
siontrenchunder theAmsterdamCentral Station. For
theboredtunnellingpart, theTBMisexpectedtostart
excavationat theendof 2008.
Tenyearsafterthepilotprojects, thequestionarises
whether the observations and related research have
confirmedtheaboveissues to bethecritical ones or
that advancinginsight mayhaveremovedtheseissues
fromthestage and swapped thesefor other topics
givingmoreconcern.
Inthispaper someof thecharacteristic eventsand
resultsof thispastdecadewill bedescribed.Thechoice
for the topics being discussed is influenced by the
projects that both authors wereinvolved with, with-
outintenttominimizetheimportanceof otherresearch
thatisnotdiscussedinthispaper.Furtherissuesrelated
to groundwater effects andgroutingaredescribedin
moredetail inaseparatepaper inthissymposiumby
Bezuijen&Talmon(2008).
3 EXPERIENCESWITHBOREDTUNNELSIN
THE NETHERLANDSINTHE PAST DECADE
3.1 An instability of the bore front
Duringtheconstructionof the2ndHeinenoordTunnel,
approximatelyinthemiddleunderneaththeriverOude
Maasaninstabilityat theexcavationfront developed,
244
Figure 2. Support pressures before, during and after the
Blowout at the2ndHeinenoordtunnel.
see Fig. 2; afterward commonly referred to as The
Blow-out (seealsoBezuijen& Brassinga, 2001).
Backtrackingthesituationlearnedthat after that a
pressuredrop was observed, in his efforts to restore
frontal support, themachinedriver first pumpedben-
tonitetotheexcavationchamber; consideringadefi-
ciencyinthebentonitesystem.Whenthisdidnothelp,
air waspumpedtotheborefront; notrealizingthatthe
front itself already had collapsed. This collapsecre-
ated ashortcut between theexcavation chamber and
the river. The action of pumping air was noticed by
shipmasters on theriver, which reported air bubbles
risingtothewater surface, whichcausedthefailureto
beknownastheblow-out. Inthiscasethepumping
of air hadnotbeenbeneficial totherestorationof sta-
bilitybecausepressurelosswasnot thecausebut one
of theresultsof theevent.
This frontal stability at the 2nd Heinenoord tun-
nel has attracted some public attention. Presumably
it is less knownthat loss of frontal stability has also
occurredsincethenwithsomeregularity at theother
tunnelsunder constructionintheyearsafter, e.g. dur-
ing construction of the Sophia Rail Tunnel and the
Green Hart Tunnel, however without much delay-
ingtheconstructionprocess. At the2ndHeinenoord
Tunnel, construction work was delayed for several
weeks beforethecrewsucceededinrestoringfrontal
stability, fillingupthecrater intheriver bottomwith
clay and bringing in swelling clay particles in the
excavationroom.
From the evaluation of the monitored pressures
in the excavation room, it appeared that before the
developmentof theinstability, thefrontal pressurewas
raisedabovetheadvisedpressurefor frontal support;
i.e. at about 470kPa instead of about 310kPa. see
Fig.2(pressuregaugeP15isintheexcavationchamber
at tunnel axislevel).
In retrospect it was understood that during stand-
still,thepressureswereraisedtogetalargergradientin
thepipesinordertoimprovethetransportof excavated
Figure 3. Pore water pressure distribution in front of
theTBM.
material;i.e.Kedichemclaythatwasfoundinthelower
partof theexcavationfrontandappearedtobedifficult
topumpthroughthehydraulicmucktransportsystem.
The measurements indicate that excavation had
startedwithoutreleasingpressuretothestandardsup-
portlevel duringexcavation. Inthatconditioninstabil-
ity developedwithin15seconds after that thewheel
startedcutting. Atstandstill, whensufficienttimehas
passedfor aproper vertical cakesealingof bentonite
to build up at the front, a high support pressure is
not muchof aproblem, asthepressuresusedareway
belowthosethatmightoverridethepassiveresistance
at the front. However, as the pressure itself is fluid
pressure, whenthecake-sealingistakenaway during
excavation, andwater canpenetratethefront, accord-
ingto Pascals lawfor afluidwithout shear stresses,
thepressurealso works inthevertical direction, and
if this pressureexceeds thevertical soil pressurethis
will triggeranupliftandpossiblyabreakingoutof soil
layers, andapparentlythat iswhat hashappenedhere.
In their paper on face support J ancsecz and Steiner
(1994), for thisreasongaveawarningaboutthelimits
to thefacesupport pressure, for situations withlittle
overburden.
Researchlearnsthat for thefinesandthat wehave
in the Pleistocene sands layers in the Netherlands,
penetration of bentonite in the pores is negligible.
Excavationthereforemeansremoval of thecakeseal-
ing; Research by Bezuijen and Brassinga (2001),
indicatesthatitnormallytakesabout4to5minutesto
buildupanewcakesealingafter theexcavationwheel
has removedthesealingduringexcavation. Thetime
betweenpassingsof chisels, intheorderof 20seconds
is too short for that. It must beemphasized that this
effect isnot onlyimportant for theupper limit toface
support pressures, but may also give a limitation to
thelower limit of thesupport pressure. A methodto
discount for this effect was given by Broere(2001),
seealsoFig. 4.
245
Figure 4. The effect of removal of the cake sealing dur-
ingexcavationonpore-pressuresinthefront. Theinfluence
zonefor excess pore-pressures may belarger that thezone
normallyconsideredinstabilityanalysis.
Thesituationof alowsoil coverunderneaththeriver
bottomisnottheonlysituationthatmightbecritical to
theaboveeffect, alsoif thesoil coveritself isrelatively
light, suchas inthecaseof thethicker layers of peat
overlayingthesandwheretheGreenHartTunnel was
excavated, thismightleadtoacritical situation.Alocal
failuremight betriggeredwherethegeneratedexcess
porepressureinfrontof thetunnel facecanliftthesoft
soil layers.
Theknowledgegainedwiththemonitoringof the
2ndHeinenoordtunnel wasappliedfortheGreenHart
tunnel, and may have prevented instabilities at the
borefront at larger scales; seeBezuijenet al. 2001&
Autuori & Minec(2005).
3.2 Tail void grouting and grouting pressures
Tomeasurethesoil pressuresonatunnel liningisdiffi-
cult. Inthestart-upphaseforthemonitoringof the2nd
HeinenoordTunnel, anumber of international experts
on tunnel engineering advised not to put too much
effort onthistopic, astheresultswouldprobablybe
disappointing. Duetothehardeningof thegrout, the
periodfor meaningful pressuremeasurements would
beshort andtoprevent bridgingeffectsthesizeof the
pressure cells would have to be large and therefore
costly.
Still, against this advice, the measurement of
grouting pressures was undertaken, and repeated for
a number of tunnel projects. It appeared that the
interpretationwas difficult whenthegrout has hard-
ened,butforthefreshgroutuntil 17hourafterinjection
Figure5. Under circumstancestheGroutmaterial fromthe
tail voidmight flowintothegapbehindthetail of theTBM,
givingcausetoincreasedloads.
itwaspossibletogiveanacceptedinterpretationof the
measurement results (Bezuijen & Brassinga, 2004),
and a lot of experience has been gained that has
contributedto abetter understandingof thegrouting
processandthepressuresactingonthetunnel lining.
Withtheseresults it was possibleto predict grouting
pressuresandtunnel loading, seeTalmon& Bezuijen
(2005).
Basedonvariousevaluationsof theforcedistribu-
tioninthetunnel lining, seeamongst others, Bakker
(2000), it came forward that the initial in-situ soil
stresses around the tunnel do not have a dominant
influence on the compressive loading of the tunnel.
Duetothetaperingof theTBM andinspiteof thetail
voidgroutingthereisasignificantreleaseof theradial
stressesaroundthetunnel, seeFig. 5.
Thefinal loadingontheliningrelates moretothe
effectivenessof thegroutingprocess, thedistribution
of thegroutopeningsandtheconsolidationof thegrout
than to the initial in-site soil stresses, see Bezuijen
et al. (2004). Whether this reduction of the in-situ
radial stresses is alasting effect that will remain for
thefull lifespanof thetunnel maydependonthecreep
sensitivityof thesoil, seealsoBrinkgreveandBakker
(2001), andHashimotoet al. (2008).
3.3 Surface settlements
Hoefsloot et al. (2005), haveshownthat theapplica-
tion of a stress boundary condition between tunnel
and soil in 3D tunnel analysis has a better corrobo-
ration between measurement and calculation of soil
deformations around thetunnel and subsequently of
theloadingonthetunnel, thantheapplicationof the
socalledcontractionmethod.
Althoughthiseffectwasknownintheliterature, see
for exampleMair andTaylor (1997), for theresearch
teamthat worked at the 2nd Heinenoord tunnel the
observationthat thenumerical predictions of surface
settlementslackedaccuracywasdisappointing.Atthe
start theexpectationsonnumerical analysishadbeen
quite high. Shortly after the first observations were
evaluatedit wasrealizedwithintheteam, that it were
only the empirical predictions by Peck (1969) for a
246
Figure 6. Surface settlements; measured and
back-calculatedwithdifferent material models.
volumeloss of about 1%that gaveareasonablecor-
roborationwiththemeasurements. Thefiniteelement
calculations, at that time mainly based on an appli-
cationof theelastic-plastic Mohr-Coulombmodel in
combinationwithacontractiontypeof modellingfor
thetail voidloss, predictedatoowideandtooshallow
surfacesettlement.
Thisdisappointingresult createdaproblemfor the
intentionstoapply3Dnumerical analysisindeforma-
tionpredictionsfortunnel projectsinurbanareas, such
asfor theAmsterdamNorth-Southlinemetroworks.
Since then, however, a lot of effort has been put
in the improvement of the numerical prediction of
soil deformations. To begin with it was the project
teamfor theAmsterdamMetroworks, seeVanDijk&
Kaalberg (1998), that gave a first indication for an
improvement, withtheproposal tomodel thestresses
atthetunnel soil interfaceinsteadof thedeformations.
Withtheintroductionof thisgroutpressuremodel the
resultsimproved.Lateron,whenthephysicsinthepro-
cessbecamebetter understood, i.e. theimportanceto
account for thehighstiffnessof thesoil inunloading,
double hardening was introduced with the develop-
mentof HardeningSoil, asamaterial model; withthis
development, thecalculationresultslargelyimproved
comparedtothemeasurements, seeFig. 6. Thelatest
development is theintroduction of small strain stiff-
ness in theHardening Soil Model, seeBenz (2006),
which up to now gives the best results, see Mller
(2005).
Theoretically theresult might further beimproved
introducing anisotropy in the model; such models
are being developed nowadays, e.g. in the frame-
work of European Research; AMGISS, e.g. see
www.ce.strath.ac.uk/amgiss.
4 EVALUATIONOF THE LEARNINGISSUES
Nowadays its not the soil deformation during nor-
mal excavation process that makes us worry about
surfacesettlements. Withanaveragetail voidloss of
about 0.5%of thediameter or less, thedeformation
might only be a problem for situations of under-
excavationof buildingsor if thestructuresarelocated
veryclosetotheexcavationtrack. Fortunnelsinurban
area, thereismoreconcernwithrespect tobore-front
stability; especiallywhentheupper stratumof thesoil
above the Pleistocene layers, where the tunnels are
usually positioned in, consists of soil with arelative
lowdensity, asintheNetherlands. For thesesituations
withrelativelylight upper layersof peat or clayswith
organic parts, onehas to bevery careful controlling
thesupportpressuresduringexcavation, asontheone
hand there is a lower bound value of the support to
prevent cavein, but ontheother hand, theupper limit
triggeredbyanupliftof lightupper layersmayalsobe
notfar.Thiswill limitthepressurewindowtoworkin.
Front instabilityhasoccurredat varioustunnelling
projects in the Netherlands. If the tunnel is outside
anyurbanareathismightnotgivetoomuchproblems;
however if the tunnel is underneath a city road sys-
tem, or closetopilefoundationsthismaycausesevere
problems, asinstability might causeasinkholeinthe
pavement andfoundationsettlements.
With respect to the accuracy in the prediction of
soil deformations:Apartfromthewell knownempiric
model of Peck (1969) that predicts the shape of the
settlementtroughbutnotthevolumeloss, thenumeri-
cal models have become quite reliable in predicting
surface and subsurface deformations, both vertical
and horizontal. The improvement, mainly achieved
in 2D analysis has opened up the possibility for a
reliable deformation analysis in 3D of tunnelling in
urban areas. For an adequateprediction of deforma-
tionsitisimportanttomodel thegroutingpressuresas
aboundaryconditiontotheexcavation,incombination
withtheapplicationof ahigher order material model,
that takes into account the small strain deformation
behaviour of sand, seeBenz (2006).
Furtheritisrecommended, andplannedfor, tointe-
grate the Delft Cluster Grout pressure model in the
Plaxis3DTunnel software.Thelatterwouldcontribute
totheapplicabilityof thenumerical modelsasamore
general tool forundergroundconstruction.Thiswould
enableabetter analysis for theloadingonthetail of
theTBM andof thetunnel lining.
Within certain limits some cost saving structural
improvements areexpected to bepossibleand, even
moreimportant, insight isobtainedinthemechanism
involved.
5 CONCLUDINGREMARKS
TenYears have passed since the first large diameter
boredtunnellingprojectintheNetherlandsinSoftsoil
was undertaken. Sincethensomeworldrecords with
respect totunnellinghavebeenbrokenintheNether-
lands; i.e. the largest diameter (for the Green Hart
247
Tunnel), thehighest outsidepressureonasegmental
tunnel (fortheWesternscheldtTunnel), theapplication
of an Earth Pressure Balance shield in coarse sand,
andthelargest lengthof constructedtubeinoneday,
(PannerdenschCanal Tunnel).
Before the underground construction works were
started,andthetunnellingprojectswereinapre-design
stage, the softness of the Netherlands underground
attracted a large part of the attention, see Bakker
(1997). In retrospect theinfluenceof alowstiffness
asasourceof riskandinfluenceonundergroundcon-
structionwasconfirmed, but sometimesinadifferent
perspective, orrelatedtootherphysical processesthan
foreseen.
Withrespect thesenewinsightsthefollowingcon-
clusionsweredrawn:
1 The low stiffness of the soil may also lead to
increasedflexibility of thetunnel tube. Thedefor-
mationof thetubeduringhardeningof thegrout,
andtheadditional Eigenstressesthatthismaycause
isstill aresearchtopic.
2 For aproper predictionof surfacesettlementsand
soil deformations, it is important to model the
groutingpressuresattheinterfacebetweensoil and
tunnel (or grouting zone). Further to improvethe
prediction of the width of the settlement trough,
theuseof small strainanalysisisadvised.
3 Duringexcavationinfinesand, suchas thePleis-
tocenesandlayersintheNetherlands, thesupport-
ing cake fluid will be removed by the chisels on
theexcavationwheel.Therefore, incasesof limited
overburdentheupperboundtothesupportpressure
must becarefullydeterminedtoprevent instability
of theoverlayingsoil.
4 Inaddition; for thedeterminationof thelower limit
tothesupportpressure,theincreasedporepressures
inthefront alsoneedstobetakenintoaccount.
With acknowledgement to the Netherlands Cen-
tre for Underground Construction for their consent
topublishabout theresearchthey commissionedand
coordinated.
REFERENCES
Autuori,P.&Minec,S.2005.Largediametertunnellingunder
polders, Proceedings 5th Int. Symposiumon Underground
Construction in soft Ground, IS-Amsterdam2005.
Bakker, K.J., v.d. Berg, P. & Rots, J. 1997. Monitoringsoft
soil tunnellingintheNetherlands; aninventoryof design
aspects, Proc. ISSMFE, Hamburg.
Bakker, K.J. 2000. Soil Retainingstructures, developmentof
modelsforstructural analysis,Balkema,2000,Rotterdam.
Benz, T. 2006. Small strain stiffness of soils and its conse-
quences, DoctorThesis, IGSUniversitt Stuttgart.
Bezuijen,A.&Brassinga,H.E.2001.Blow-outpressuremea-
sured in a centrifuge model and in the field. Proc. Int.
Symp. on Modern Tunnelling Science and Techn. Kyoto.
Bezuijen,A.,Talmon,A.M.,Kaalberg,F.J.&Plugge,R.2004.
Fieldmeasurementsof grout pressuresduringtunnelling
of theSophiaRail Tunnel. Soils and Foundations vol, 44,
No1, 4150, Feb.
Bezuijen, A. & Talmon, A.M. 2005. Grout properties and
their influenceonback fill grouting. Proceeding 5th Int.
Symposiumon Underground Construction in soft Ground,
IS-Amsterdam2005.
Bezuijen, A., Pruiksma, J.P. &vanMeerten, H.H. 2001. Pore
pressures in front of tunnel, measurements, calculations
and consequences for stability of tunnel face. Proc. Int.
Symp. on Modern Tunnelling Science and Techn. Kyoto.
Bezuijen, A. & van Lottum, H. (eds). 2006. Tunnelling A
Decade of Progress. GeoDelft 19952005.
Bezuijen, A. & Bakker, K.J. 2008. The influence of flow
aroundaTBM machine. Proceeding 6th Int. Symposium
on Underground Construction in soft Ground, Shanghai.
Bezuijen, A. & Talmon, A.M. 2008. Processes around a
TBM. Proceeding 6th Int. Symposium on Underground
Construction in soft Ground, Shanghai.
Brinkgreve, R.B.J. & Bakker, K.J. 2001. Time-dependent
behaviour of bore tunnels in soft soil conditions; a
numerical study, Proceedings, ICSMGE Istanbul, Turkey.
Broere, W. 2001. Tunnel facestability & newCPT applica-
tions, Delft UniversityPress.
Hashimoto, T., Ye, G.L., Nagaya, J., Konda, T. & Ma, X.F.
2008. Study onearthpressureactinguponshieldtunnel
lininginclayey andsandy grounds basedonfieldmon-
itoring. Proceeding 6th Int. Symposium on Underground
Construction in soft Ground, Shanghai.
Hoefsloot, F.J.M. & Verweij, A. 2005. 4D grouting pres-
suremodel PLAXIS. Proceeding5thInt. Symposiumon
UndergroundConstructioninsoftGround, IS-Amsterdam
2005.
J ancsecz,S.&Steiner,W.1994.FaceSupportforalargeMix-
Shieldinheterogeneousgroundconditions.Tunnelling 94,
BritishTunnellingAssociation, 57J uly1994.
Mair, R.J. & Taylor, R.N. 1997. ThemeLecture: Boredtun-
nelling in the urban environment. Proc. 14th ICSMFE,
Balkema, Rotterdam.
Mller, S.C. &Vermeer, P.A. 2005. Predictionof settlements
andstructural forcesinliningsduetotunnelling. Proceed-
ing 5th Int. Symposium on Underground Construction in
soft Ground, IS-Amsterdam2005.
Pachen, H.M.A., Brassinga, H. & Bezuijen, A. 2005.
Geotechnical centrifuge tests to verify the long-term
behaviour of aboredtunnel, Proc. 5th Int. Symposium on
UndergroundConstructioninsoft Ground,IS-Amsterdam
2005.
Peck, R.B. 1969. Deep excavations and Tunnelling in soft
Ground. Proceedings 7th ICSMFE Mexico.
Talmon, A.M. &Bezuijen, A. 2005. Groutingthetail voidof
boredtunnels: theroleof hardeningandconsolidationof
grouts. Proceeding 5th Int. Symposium on Underground
Construction in soft Ground, IS-Amsterdam.
vanDijk, B. & Kaalberg, F.J. 1998. 3-Dgeotechnical model
for the North/Southline in Amsterdam. In A. Cividini
(Ed.), Applicationof numerical methods togeotechnical
problems, Wien, 739{750. Springer-Verlag.
248
Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground Ng, Huang & Liu (eds)
2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-48475-6
Tenyearsof boredtunnelsinTheNetherlands: Part II structural issues
K.J. Bakker
COB, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands
A. Bezuijen
Deltares, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands
ABSTRACT: In1997for thefirst timeconstructionof boredtunnelsintheNetherlandssoft soil wasunder-
taken. Beforethat dateessentially only immersed tunnels and cut-and-cover tunnels wereconstructed in the
Netherlands. Thefirst two boredtunnels werePilot Projects, the2ndHeinenoordtunnel andtheBotlek Rail
tunnel. Sincethenaseries of other boredtunnels has beenconstructedandsomearestill under construction
today. At thebeginningof this period, amongst others Bakker (1997), gaveanoverviewof therisks relatedto
boredtunnelsinsoft groundandexplainedabout aplanfor researchrelatedtothePilot projects. Tenyearshave
passed, alot of monitoring and research has been done. In this paper that is split in two parts asummary is
givenof someof themost characteristicobservationsof thesepast 10yearsof undergroundconstructioninthe
Netherlands. Inthissecondpart, theemphasiswill beonstructural relatedissuesdiscussedwhereasinpartone,
frontal stability, groutingandsoil deformationsarediscussed.
1 INTRODUCTION
In1992theDutchgovernmentsentafact-findingmis-
siontoJ apan, toreport onthepossibilitytoconstruct
boredtunnelsintheDutchsoft soil conditions. Upto
thattimeessentiallyonlyimmersedandcut-and-cover
tunnels wereconstructed in theNetherlands, as bor-
ingof tunnelsinsoft soil conditions, at that time, was
consideredtobetooriskfull.
After thereport, that advisedpositive, thingswent
quite fast; in 1993 the Dutch minister of Transport
and Public works ordered the undertaking of two
pilot projects, the 2nd Heinenoord Tunnel and the
BotlekRail Tunnel.Theprojectswereprimarilyaimed
at constructing new infrastructure and besides that
for monitoring and research in order to advancethe
development of thisnewconstructionmethodfor the
Netherlands.Theprojectsstartedin1997and10years
havepassedsincethen.
Atthestartof thepilotprojects, thedifficultieswith
respecttotheconstructionof boredtunnelsinsoftsoil
conditions wereevaluatedandaplanfor monitoring
andresearchwasputforward,seeBakker(1997).Since
then, the2ndHeinenoordtunnel, andaseriesof other
boredtunnelswereconstructed. Unquestionablyalot
hasbeenlearnedfromall themonitoringandresearch
that wasperformed.
Figure1. Trumpet effect intunnel ringconstruction.
Theresultsof thisprocesshavebeennoticedabroad.
In2005theNetherlandshostedthefifthInternational
symposiumofTC28onUndergroundConstructionin
Soft Ground. Theaboveevent wasalsotheoccasion
for thepresentationof abook; A decadeof progress
intunnellingintheNetherlands byBezuijenandvan
Lottum(2006), where this research is described in
moredetail.
In the present paper some highlights of the main
researchresult of thepast decadewill begiven. The
paper is split in two parts, where part one includes
somegeneral observationsanddiscussesfacesupport,
249
groutingandsurfacesettlements, whereaspart twois
moreabout structural issues.
2 REVIEWOF THE 1997SITUATIONAND
WHAT CAMEAFTER
A mainconcernwithrespect toboringtunnels inthe
Netherlandswerethesoftsoil conditions; thelowstiff-
nessof theHoloceneclayandpeatlayersandthehigh
groundwater table; nearly upto thesoil surfacewere
consideredapotential hazardandachallengeforbored
tunnels.
Furthermore the 8.3moutward diameter for the
first largediameter tunnel was amajor stepforward,
comparedtopastexperience; experiencethatuptothat
timewasmainlybasedonconstructingboredtunnels,
pipesor conduitsuptoabout 4.0mdiameter.
Inadditiontothat, ingeneral deformations dueto
tunnellingmightinfluencethebearingcapacityof any
existingpiledfoundations inthevicinity. Andas the
commonsayingisthattheAmsterdamForestisunder-
ground, onemight realizethepotential risksinvolved
for theNorth/SouthMetroworksinAmsterdam.
Characteristic for ahighwater tablearebuoyancy
effects.Besidestheriskof breakingupof thesoftupper
soil layers, theratherflexiblebeddingof thetunnel and
thedeformationsthatthismaycauseneedtobeanaly-
sed. Therefore research was aimed at clarifying the
effects of thesoft underground, groundwater effects,
andtheeffect of tunnellingonpiledfoundations.
Ten years later, the question arises whether the
observationshaveconfirmedtheaboveissuestobethe
critical ones. Inthis paper someof thecharacteristic
eventsandresultsof thispastdecadewill bedescribed.
Thechoiceforthetopicsbeingdiscussedisinfluenced
by theprojects that bothauthors wereinvolvedwith,
without intent to minimize the importance of other
researchthat isnot discussedinthispaper.
3 EXPERIENCESWITHBOREDTUNNELS
INTHE NETHERLANDSINTHE PAST
DECADE
3.1 Structural damage
Anearlyexperiencewiththedifficultiesforboredtun-
nels insoft groundwas thedamagetotheliningthat
occurred during thefirst 150 metres of construction
of the2ndHeinenoordTunnel. Onaveragethedam-
agewastoohighcomparedtoexperiencesfromabroad
andwasconsideredtobeunacceptable. Although, the
integrityof thetunnel wasnotatstake, therewasworry
aboutthedurabilityof thetunnel andthelevel of future
maintenance.
Characteristic to the damage was cracking and
spalling of concrete near the dowel and notches see
Fig. 2. Quite often the damage was combined with
Figure2. DamagetotheDowel andnotchsockets.
Figure3. Large-scaletunnel ringtestingintheStevinLab-
oratoriesatDelftUniversity(thediameter of the(gray) inner
ringis8.3m).
differential displacements between subsequent rings
and with leakage. Theevaluation report, seeBakker
(2000), attributed thedamageto irregularities in the
constructionof theliningat therear of theTBM and
subsequent loading duringTBM progress. Further a
correlation of thedamagewith high jack forces was
observed; theseappearedtobenecessarytoovercome
thefrictioninthis part of thetrack, whichprevented
smoothprogress.
With respect to the tunnel ring construction, it is
difficulttoerectastressfreeperfectcircular ring. The
250
Figure4. Test sitefor thePile-tunnel interactiontest.
ring needs to bebuilt onto theend of aformer ring
that already has undergonesomeloading and defor-
mation fromthe tail void grouting while it partially
has left the tail of theTBM, see Fig. 3. The further
deformationis characterisedby thetrumpet shapeof
thetubingthatdevelops, seeFig. 1, withtheinevitable
relatedstress development inthelining. Thetrumpet
shapeandthehighjackingforces leadtolocal stress
concentrations andirregular deformations inthelin-
ing and occasional to slipping between thedifferent
tunnel elements.Theslippingof elementswasblamed
to theuseof abituminous material called Kaubit in
theringjoint.<