The Paradox of the Gaussian Subsidence

Trough

John Burland
Imperial College London

Introduction
Ever increasing tunnelling in urban areas.
Impacts of tunnelling induced movements on
buildings and infrastructure growing in importance.
Complex and challenging ground-structure
interaction problems.
Realistic soil-like constitutive models are now
available.
Numerical methods of analysis are advancing at an
immense pace.
We have been very successful in predicting ground
movements around deep excavations and complex
buildings.

The Palace of Westminster

Underground car park at the Palace of Westminster

JLE Station box and tunnels at the Palace of

Westminster

Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre

Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre

North-South Cross Section

The Leaning Tower of Pisa

Comparison between the deduced and computed history of

inclination of the Leaning Tower of Pisa

Cylindrical tunnel at depth H beneath surface

Cylindrical tunnel at depth H beneath surface

Cylindrical tunnel at depth H beneath surface

Cylindrical tunnel at depth H beneath surface

Existing tunnel

On the face of it we should have the constitutive

models and computational ability to successfully
model ground movements around tunnels
We have a huge data base against which to validate
and calibrate such modelling

Transverse Gaussian settlement trough

-y
s = smax exp 2
2i
2

Case history data for trough width parameter i and tunnel

depth (after Rankin, 1988)

K = i/H
K = 0.4 to 0.6 for clayey
soils and residual soils
K = 0.3 to 0.5 for
granular soils

Normalised Gaussian settlement trough

The Gaussian settlement trough is usually expressed as:

It is very useful to express it in normalised form as:

By plotting this normalised subsidence curve for K varying

from 0.4 to 0.6 we see just how well defined it is

Normalised Gaussian settlement trough

with K varying from 0.4 to 0.6

JLE tunnels beneath St Jamess Park

JLE Westbound at St Jamess Park

Depth of axis H = 31m; External diameter = 4.85m;

Measured surface volume loss Vsl = 3.43%

The Challenge

Given the volume loss, how well are we able

to predict the shape of the subsidence trough
using modern numerical methods?

Modelling the tunnel excavation process

The initial stresses are applied within the soil mass.

The stiffness of the material within the tunnel is then
progressively reduced until the prescribed volume loss
is obtained.
A lining is then inserted.

JLE Westbound at St Jamess Park

Comparison with non-homogeneous, isotropic nonlinear models. (Addenbrooke, Potts and Puzrin, 1997)

JLE Westbound at St Jamess Park

Comparison with non-homogeneous, anisotropic,

non-linear models. (Addenbrooke, Potts and Puzrin, 1997)

JLE Westbound at St Jamess Park

FE mesh for 3D analysis: non-homogeneous, non-linear,

anisotropic model. (Franzius, Potts and Burland, 2005)

The influence of Ko (Dolealov, 2002)

Ko=0.5

Ko=1.0

Ko=1.5

To date the response to the challenge is

not encouraging
Dolealov (2002): No satisfactory explanation of
the discrepancy between the numerical and empirical
prediction of the settlement trough has been
obtained
Franzius, Potts and Burland (2005): . . . Neither 3D
effects nor elastic soil anisotropy can account for the
over-wide settlement curves obtained from FE tunnel
analysis in a high Ko regime

The Paradox

The paradox lies in the fact that the observed

shape of the subsidence trough is remarkably
insensitive to a wide range of variables
whereas numerical predictions have proved to
be very sensitive to such variables.

The work of Verruijt and Booker (1996)

They obtained closed form solutions by

approximating a tunnel to a line sink in an
isotropic, homogeneous elastic half space.
Their work may show a way forward

Deformations around a line sink in a half space

(Verruijt and Booker, 1996)

A circle reduces in radius

and translates

A circle becomes an oval and

translates

Definitions of change of shape of an initial circle

(Verruijt and Booker, 1996)

r
R

= r /R

= /R

Predicted undrained normalised surface settlement

troughs from Verruijt and Booker (1996)

= 0: Radial convergence only

= 0: Ovalisation only
= 1.5.: Superposition of radial convergence and ovalisation compared
with Gaussian curve for K = 0.5.

Variation of trough width factor K with depth for

subsurface settlement profiles above tunnels in
clay (Mair, Taylor and Bracegirdle, 1993)

Predicted normalised settlement with depth compared with

empirical results obtained by Mair et al (1993)

What evidence is there for ovalisation or

squatting ?

7ft diameter C.I. lined tunnel in London Clay

Measurement of change in diameter with micrometer tube

(Cooling, 1962)

7ft diameter C.I.tunnel in London Clay

Diameter changes in newly constructed tunnel in London Clay

(Cooling, 1962)

Horizontal diameter changes in eastbound JLE at

St Jamess Park (Nyren, 1998)

Cylindrical tunnel at depth H beneath surface

Why, in the presence of high Ko

stresses, does the ground around
the tunnel squat?
H

Unlike many other problems,

tunnelling involves reducing
support from below
We treat the ground as a
continuum. Are there structural
and fabric effects we are
overlooking?

We have an intriguing and important

paradox that is in urgent need of resolution