Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Tunnelling and
Underground Space
Technology
incorporating Trenchless
Technology Research

Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 23 (2008) 438450

www.elsevier.com/locate/tust

Eect of building stiness on tunnelling-induced ground movement

Paul Simon Dimmock
b

a,*

, Robert James Mair

b,1

a
Advanced Geomechanics, 4 Leura Street, Nedlands 6009, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Cambridge, Trumpington Street, CB2 1PZ Cambridge, UK

Received 23 April 2007; received in revised form 2 August 2007; accepted 6 August 2007
Available online 29 September 2007

Abstract
The progressive response of twothree storey masonry buildings to bored tunnelling on the Jubilee Line Extension in London is investigated in order to determine the eect of building stiness on tunnelling-induced ground movement. The masonry buildings, at Moodkee
Street and Keetons Estate, were aected by tunnelling with earth pressure balance machines on Contract 105 of the Jubilee Line Extension. Bending deformations and axial strain induced in these structures are compared to greeneld ground deformations and strain in
order to infer the eect of building stiness. The modifying inuence of the stiness of these buildings on ground movement is interpreted
using the Potts and Addenbrooke [Potts D.M., Addenbrooke, T.I., 1997. A structures inuence on tunnelling induced ground movements. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Geotech. Eng. 125 (2), 109125] method, which is based on a series of nite element analyses. The inferred
building stiness that can be used for design purposes with the Potts and Addenbrooke method is compared to an estimation for a Class
A [Lambe, T.W., 1973. Predictions in geotechnical engineering. Geotechnique 23 (2), 149202] prediction exercise by Mair and Taylor
[Mair, R.J., Taylor, R.N., 2001. Settlement predictions for Neptune, Murdoch and Clegg Houses and adjacent masonry walls. Building
response to tunnelling case studies from construction of the Jubilee Line Extension, London. In: Burland, J.B., Standing, J.R., Jardine,
F.M. (Eds.), Projects and Methods, vol. 1. CIRIA SP200, pp. 217228 (CIRIA and Thomas Telford, 2001). ISBN: 0 7277 30177] using
the same method. As a result an alternative approach is proposed for estimating the relative bending stiness of masonry structures for
future use with the Potts and Addenbrooke method when making simple predictions.
 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Building movement; Building Stiness; Tunnelling

1. Introduction
This paper presents an analysis of the progressive
response of low-rise masonry buildings at Moodkee Street
and Keetons Estate to construction of twin earth pressure
balance (EPB) tunnels on Contract 105 (C105) of the
Jubilee Line Extension. The progressive response of these
two to three storey masonry structures, pictured in Fig. 1,
is compared to the greeneld ground response of reference sites on C105, primarily at Southwark Park (Dimmock, 2003), in order to determine the inuence of
*

Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 8 9423 3305; fax: +61 8 9389 5066.
E-mail addresses: pdimmock@ag.com.au (P.S. Dimmock), rjm50@
eng.cam.ac.uk (R.J. Mair).
1
Tel.: +44 1223 332631.
0886-7798/$ - see front matter  2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.tust.2007.08.001

building stiness. The buildings at Moodkee Street and

Keetons Estate are of similar construction; both are
formed of two to three storeys of load bearing brick on
shallow strip foundations. The eect of a protective
grout slab is considered in the analysis of the Ben Smith
Way building response at Keetons Estate. Class A predictions (Lambe, 1973) of building response were made by
Mair and Taylor (2001) using the Potts and Addenbrooke
(1997) method for assessing a structures inuence on tunnelling induced ground movement. Such predictions are
true predictions performed ahead of the event. Based
on a back-analysis of measurements of building deformation at Moodkee Street and Keetons Estate a simple modication to the approach for predicting the deformation
of masonry structures on shallow strip foundations is
proposed.

P.S. Dimmock, R.J. Mair / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 23 (2008) 438450

439

Nomenclature
Symbols
A
cross-sectional area of linear elastic beam (m2/m
thickness)
B
width of linear elastic beam (m)
D
tunnel diameter (m)
DRsag deection ratio in sagging deformation
DRhog deection ratio in hogging deformation
DRgsag deection ratio in sagging deformation for
greeneld condition
DRghog deection ratio in hogging deformation for
greeneld condition
e
eccentricity of linear elastic beam to tunnel
centreline (m)
E
Youngs modulus of equivalent linear elastic
beam (Pa)
H
half-width of linear elastic beam (=B/2) (m)
i
oset to point of inection of settlement trough
(m)

2. Monitoring building movement

Monitoring points were installed along the base of the
long facades of each of the masonry buildings at Moodkee
Street and Keetons Estate to monitor the change in level
and horizontal displacement during passage of the running
tunnels (Withers, 2001a,b). Monitoring points were

I
K
M
S
Vl
x, y, z

z0
eht
ehc
eght
eghc
q*
a*

moment of inertia of equivalent linear elastic

beam (m4)
trough width parameter (=i/(z0  z))
modication factor
settlement (m)
volume loss (%)
coordinates longitudinal to tunnel face (x), oset to the tunnel centreline (y) and depth below
ground level (z) (m)
depth of tunnel axis below ground level (m)
horizontal tensile strain
horizontal compressive strain
horizontal tensile strain in greeneld condition
horizontal compressive strain in greeneld condition
relative bending stiness (m1)
relative axial stiness (dimensionless)

installed on the long facades of three buildings at Moodkee

Street: namely Neptune, Murdoch and Clegg Houses,
thus six facades in total. At Keetons Estate monitoring
points were installed along two facades, one on Ben Smith
Way (BSW) and the other on John Roll Way (JRW). The
position of the tunnelling machine at the time of surveys is
shown in plan in Fig. 2a (Moodkee Street) and Fig. 2b

Fig. 1. Building facades at Moodkee Street and Keetons Estate.

440

P.S. Dimmock, R.J. Mair / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 23 (2008) 438450

Fig. 3. Problem geometry for numerical analysis (Potts and Addenbrooke, 1997).

Fig. 2. Plan of tunnel passage and position of monitoring points at (a)

Moodkee Street buildings and (b) Keetons Estate.

to assess the dierence between greeneld ground movements and those modied by the structure. The problem
geometry for the series of numerical analyses performed
by Potts and Addenbrooke is shown in Fig. 3. The building
deformation parameters of deection ratio and horizontal
strain were expressed as a fraction of those obtained for
greeneld conditions and the resulting values termed modication factors. The modication factors are dened separately for deection ratios in sagging and hogging (see
Fig. 4), and for horizontal strain in compression or tension,
and are as follows:
M DRsag

(Keetons Estate). Fig. 2a and b also show the positions of

monitoring points (studs) along the building facades. The
two tunnelling episodes at Moodkee Street (westbound
and eastbound tunnel construction) occurred over 5
months apart, hence the eects of tunnel construction for
each episode are clearly distinguishable; the westbound
tunnel was bored beneath the buildings in January 1996
and the eastbound tunnel in July 1996. However this was
not the case for the twin tunnels at Keetons Estate, which
were constructed almost simultaneously beneath the
facades, in June 1995. The observed settlement and horizontal displacement for each building are reported by
Withers (2001a,b).

M ehc

DRsag
;
DRgsag

ehc
;
eghc

M DRhog

M eht

eht
eght

DRhog
DRghog

1; 2
3; 4

A design approach to predicting building deformation was

proposed, which is based on factors of relative structure/
soil stiness. The relative bending stiness, q*, and relative
axial stiness, a*, are dened by Potts and Addenbrooke as
follows:
EI
Es H 4
EA
a
Es H

q

5
6

3. Potts and Addenbrooke method

The Potts and Addenbrooke (1997) method addresses
the inuence of a surface structure on the ground movements due to tunnelling and has proved to be a useful tool
in the prediction of potential building damage (Mair and
Taylor, 1997). A series of 2D numerical analyses of tunnel
construction in greeneld conditions and beneath surface
beams of varying linear elastic stiness, oriented transverse
to the tunnel, were performed by Potts and Addenbrooke

Fig. 4. Denition of deection ratios (DR) in sagging and hogging (Potts

and Addenbrooke, 1997).

P.S. Dimmock, R.J. Mair / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 23 (2008) 438450

Fig. 5. Design curves for modication factors for (a) deection ratio and
(b) horizontal strain (Potts and Addenbrooke, 1997).

where H is half the width of the building (=B/2), Es is a

representative soil stiness and E, A and I are an equivalent
Youngs modulus, cross-sectional area and second moment
of area for the beam. (It should be noted that q*, as dened
above, is not dimensionless, but has the dimensions m1 in
plane strain; this is discussed by Franzius et al. (2006) who
propose a revised dimensionless form for q*). Based on the
numerical analyses for 5-storey, 3-storey and 1-storey
buildings and for a single slab, Potts and Addenbrooke
presented a series of upper bound design curves for the variation of modication factor with relative bending stiness
and relative axial stiness, each curve representing a
dierent eccentricity ratio (e/B) (see Fig. 5). A modication
factor of 1 (or greater, as discussed by Potts and Addenbrooke) represents fully exible behaviour, because the
building follows the greeneld settlement prole, whereas
a modication factor close to zero represents very sti
behaviour (the deection ratio of the building being almost
zero).
4. Greeneld ground movement
Greeneld settlement and horizontal strain proles for
the masonry buildings at Moodkee Street and Keetons
Estate, are estimated from measurements at the reference

441

sites on C105 Southwark Park, Old Jamaica Road and

Niagara Court. At the reference sites tunnelling was by
the same machine and through similar ground conditions.
A simplied ground prole is presented against a cross-section of the tunnels and instrumentation at Southwark Park
in Fig. 6. The sequence comprises Made Ground and
clayey Alluvium underlain by Terrace Gravels, the Lambeth Group and the Thanet Sands. The Lambeth Group,
in sequence of increasing depth, typically consists of Upper
Mottled Clay (although this was missing at Southwark
Park), Laminated Sands and Silts (LSS), Lower Mottled
Clay (LMC), Pebble Beds and Glauconitic Sand. A
perched aquifer is present in the Terrace Gravels and a separate lower aquifer exists in the Chalk, Thanet Sands, and
the lower part of the Lambeth Group (Linney and Page,
1996). From July 1994, until towards the end of 1996,
(i.e. throughout the period of tunnel construction), the
lower aquifer was depressed in the area by means of direct
pumping from the Thanet Sands and under drainage by
pumping from the deeper Chalk formations. This resulted
in little or no pore pressure being recorded at tunnel level
at both Southwark Park and Niagara Court. The water
level recorded at Old Jamaica Road equated to a piezometric head of 3 m above the tunnel crown.
Southwark Park is regarded as the primary reference site
because the monitoring was performed on an open grassed
area, free of man-made structures, whereas the monitoring
points at Niagara Court were on a low masonry wall and
at Old Jamaica Road on pavement, tarmac and a thin concrete slab. Although the conditions at Niagara Court and
Old Jamaica Road were not those of an ideal greeneld site,
the proles of settlement transverse to the tunnel closely
approximated a Gaussian shape and thus appeared to be
greeneld in nature (Withers, 2001c). Furthermore, the wall
and pavement were predicted to deform exibly (Withers,
2001c). The nature of ground movement observed at the reference sites is summarised in Table 1. The measurements at
Southwark Park are analysed in detail by Dimmock (2003).
The greeneld settlement at a point along the base of the
building facades relative to the position of the shield face,
identied in plan coordinates x  y, is estimated assuming
a Gaussian distribution for the transverse settlement prole
and a cumulative probability distribution for the longitudinal settlement prole. The equation can be expressed in
terms of volume loss (Vl), the trough width parameter K
(assuming the trough length Kx and trough width Ky both
equal to K), and the dierence in depth between the tunnel
axis and the base of the building foundations (z0  z), and
is as follows (New and OReilly, 1991)
V l pD2
1
S x;y p
400
2pKz0  z


h
i  x  x 
x  xf
s
2
2
 exp y =2Kz0  z F
F
Kz0  z
Kz0  z

7
where F represents the cumulative distribution function.

442

P.S. Dimmock, R.J. Mair / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 23 (2008) 438450

Fig. 6. Cross-section at Southwark Park showing position of instrumentation and simplied ground prole.
Table 1
Summary of observed ground movements at the reference sites (Dimmock, 2003)
Location,
tunnelling
episode

Depth of
tunnel
axis
(m bgl)

Separation
of tunnel
axes (m)

Tunnelling
conditions

Max surface
settlement,
Smax (mm)

Volume
loss at
surface,
Vl (%)

Trough
width
parameter,
Ky, at surface

Longitudinal
trough
parameter,
Kx

S/Smax:
tunnel
face at
section
line (%)

Old Jamaica Road

WB (Apr/May 1995)
EB (May 1995)

19.5
19.5

26

Dense clayey silt at crown,

sti silty clay at axis and
coarse gravel within sandy
clay at invert; 3 m water
head at invert, 10 m water
head at crown

6.8

0.7 (combined
eect of
twin tunnels)

0.5 (based on
outer arms
of trough)

Insucient
data

40
55

Southwark Park
WB (Jan 1996)
EB (June 1996)

20.8
20.8

27.5

Dewatered dense silty sands

4.0
4.1

0.49
0.51

0.45
0.45

0.45
0.45

25
25

Niagara Court
WB (Feb 1996)
EB (July 1996)

17.2
17.2

20

Dewatered, sti sandy clay

at invert and crown, dense
clayey sand through most
of face

5.5
5.0

0.6
0.55

0.5
0.5

Insucient
data

10
23

The greeneld horizontal strains in the plane transverse

to the tunnel are predicted assuming that ground movement vectors near the surface are directed towards the tunnel axis (New and OReilly, 1991). The equation may be
expressed as follows:
V l pD2
1
eh p

2
400
2pKz0  z
"
h
i
2
2
 exp y =2Kz0  z 1 

y2
Kz0  z

This equation is likely to underestimate the greeneld horizontal strains because ground movement vectors near the
surface at Southwark Park were directed towards a point
above the tunnel axis (Dimmock, 2003). However, the theoretical prole obtained from Eq. (8) is sucient to demon-

strate that negligible horizontal strain and a corresponding

response of high axial stiness was observed along the masonry facades at both Moodkee Street and Keetons Estate
(Dimmock, 2003).
The trough width parameter, K, used for predicting
greeneld settlement along the facades of the Moodkee
Street buildings is that observed at all reference sites near
the surface, a value of 0.5. A slightly higher value for K of
0.55 is assumed for the building facades at Keetons Estate
by virtue of the deeper foundations (approx. 3 m deep). This
is in accordance with the increase in K with depth observed
at Southwark Park, which was well modelled by the equation of Mair et al. (1993) near the surface (Dimmock, 2003).
A volume loss of 0.8% is estimated for the westbound
tunnel and 0.6% for the eastbound tunnel beneath the
Moodkee Street buildings; these matched the volume loss

P.S. Dimmock, R.J. Mair / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 23 (2008) 438450

Tunnel face position (m)

-40 -30 -20 -10

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1
Pt 13

Pt . 37
Pt . 38

-1

Pt . 39

-2

Pt . 40

-3

Cumulative dist, Kx=0.45

S/Smax at shield face 25%

-4

Vertical
displacement
(mm)

-5
-6
-7

Tunnel face position (m)

-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
1
0

60

70

80

Pt .24
Pt . 33

-1
-2

Pt . 34
Pt . 35
Pt . 36

-3

Cumulative dist, Kx=0.45

S/Smax at shield face 25%

-4
Vertical
displacement
(mm)

-5
-6

Fig. 7. Southwark Park Longitudinal t to surface settlement trough for

(a) westbound tunnel and (b) eastbound tunnel; assumed Kx = Ky = 0.45
and S/Smax = 0.25 at tunnel face passage.

inferred from the settlements of the buildings. The volume

losses are similar to those measured at the Niagara Court
reference section, which is adjacent to the Moodkee Street
buildings (Withers, 2001c).
At Keetons Estate, the volume loss for the westbound
tunnel is estimated to be 1.4% based on the settlement measured above the westbound tunnel at the junction of the
Ben Smith Way and John Roll Way facades. The estimate
assumes a Gaussian transverse settlement prole with
trough width K of 0.55. A volume loss of 0.6% (assuming
K = 0.55) is estimated for the eastbound tunnel because
the cumulative greeneld settlement prole from the westbound and eastbound tunnels assuming this value beneath
section II of Ben Smith Way facade is consistent with the
observed settlement prole (Dimmock, 2003).
The longitudinal prole of greeneld settlement for the
Moodkee Street buildings and Keetons Estate is described
by a cumulative probability distribution with length, Kx,
equal to the trough width, Ky (assumed to be 0.5 for

443

Moodkee Street and 0.55 for Keetons Estate). This provides

a good t to the longitudinal settlement prole near the
ground surface at Southwark Park as shown in Fig. 7. The
value assumed for the proportion of settlement at tunnel face
passage (S/Smax) at Moodkee Street is equal to that observed
at Southwark Park (25%). This is believed to be justied
given that the tunnelling parameters and ground conditions
were similar at both sites (Dimmock, 2003). The value
assumed for the proportion of settlement at tunnel face passage (S/Smax) for the greeneld prole at Keetons Estate is
the observed proportion of settlement at the position of the
tunnel face along John Roll Way facade of 15%. The John
Roll Way facade is positioned parallel to and almost directly
above the westbound tunnel. The approximation assumes a
fully exible response of the facade.
5. Estimation of modication factor and relative building
stiness
In order to estimate the modication factors for each facade at Moodkee Street and Keetons Estate, the progressive
settlement observed along each facade is compared with
the estimated greeneld settlement proles, as shown in Figs.
810. The modication factor is estimated for two proles
for each tunnelling episode. The rst is for a survey during
tunnel passage, when the facade is subjected to the longitudinal settlement prole in addition to the transverse settlement
trough (termed intermediate in Figs. 12 and 13); the second
is for when the tunnelling machine has passed the facade and
thus the transverse settlement prole has fully developed
(termed nal in Figs. 12 and 13). The deection ratio of
the building facade in sagging and hogging is estimated in
the manner shown in Fig. 11. The modication factors corresponding to each settlement prole are then calculated
according to Eqs. (1,2) and are presented in Fig. 12. Approximate relative bending stinesses for the building facades are
estimated from the modication factors through the Potts
and Addenbrooke (1997) design charts, which are shown
in Fig. 5a. It should be made clear that the approximate stinesses inferred from the Potts and Addenbrooke upper
bound design curves, which are shown in Fig. 13, do not represent actual stinesses and can only be used for design purposes in the context of the Potts and Addenbrooke design
charts. Not all facades are represented in Fig. 13 since some
are at greater eccentricity from the tunnel than analysed by
Potts and Addenbrooke (1997). Modication factors and
hence relative bending stinesses were not estimated for
the John Roll Way facade because the building and greeneld settlement proles were too dissimilar. This is due to a
change in volume loss aecting the settlement along the facade (a constant volume loss was assumed for the greeneld
settlement prole), and the eect on actual ground movements of the nearby Bermondsey station box (see Fig. 2b).
Keetons Estate has four construction joints, which were
assumed to divide the building into ve separate sections
(see Fig. 2b). Each section appeared to respond to the

444

P.S. Dimmock, R.J. Mair / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 23 (2008) 438450

-5

Offset from stud 5031 (m)

10
15
20
25
30

35

40

45

a
1

Vertical displacement (mm)

(-settlement / + heave)

Vertical displacement (mm)

(-settlement / + heave)

-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
12/02/1996

-6

15/02/1996

-7

Offset from stud 5008 (m)

5
10
15

20

25

Offset from stud 5008 (m)

5
10
15

20

25

-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
15/02/1996

-6

16/02/1996
6/03/1996

-8
-5

Offset from stud 5031 (m)

10
15
20
25
30

35

40

45

-1
-2
-3
-4
-5

18/07/1996

-6

19/07/1996

-7

26/07/1996
combined WB + EB

-8

Fig. 8. Progressive settlement proles compared to greeneld movement

for west facade of Neptune House (stud 50315025), due to (a) the
westbound tunnel and (b) the eastbound tunnel. Greeneld settlement
proles are represented by hollow symbols.

tunnelling-induced ground movement relatively independently; thus the response of each section was assessed as
such.
6. Discussion of building response
6.1. Bending deformations
The response of Clegg House in sagging appears to be
stier than for Murdoch House and Neptune House as is
evident from the smaller modication factors for Clegg
House shown in Fig. 12. The corresponding estimated relative bending stinesses are shown in Fig. 13. The relative
magnitude of these stinesses is of interest, since in order to
be consistent with the Potts and Addenbrooke denition of
relative bending stiness (see Eq. (5) of this paper) the
response of Clegg House would be expected to have 16
times the relative bending stiness of Neptune and Murdoch House by virtue of being half the length (assuming
all other parameters being equal). Indeed, the estimated relative bending stiness of Clegg House in sagging (for
design purposes) is approximately one order of magnitude
greater than that of Murdoch and Neptune Houses.
Neptune and Murdoch House are very similar buildings,
and consequently are expected to exhibit similar relative

Vertical displacement (mm)

(-settlement / + heave)

Vertical displacement (mm)

(-settlement / + heave)

-7

16/02/1996

-8

-5

-5

-1
-2
-3
-4

23/07/1996
26/07/1996
combined: WB + EB

-5
-6
-7
-8

Fig. 9. Progressive settlement proles compared to greeneld movement

for west facade of Clegg House (stud 50085004), due to (a) the westbound
tunnel and (b) the eastbound tunnel. Greeneld settlement proles are
represented by hollow symbols.

bending stiness. As expected the building facades, excluding the south facade of Murdoch House, display a similar
inferred relative bending stiness in sagging for design purposes, approximately 1 103 m1, and a similar relative
bending stiness in hogging, approximately 1 104 m1
(see Fig. 13). The apparent fully exible response of the
south facade of Murdoch House both in sagging and hogging may be attributed to the section between monitoring
points 5013 and 5012, which required reconstruction following bomb damage in World War II (Withers, 2001b).
In the case of both Murdoch House and Neptune House
there is a strong indication that the building stiness is
greater in sagging than hogging (see Fig. 13). Such a comparison is not possible for Clegg House or Ben Smith Way
(BSW) facade at Keetons Estate because the facades only
display either sagging or hogging deformation but not a
combination of the two. The evidence in Fig. 12 is inconclusive with regard to whether the stiness of the response
in sagging reduces from the intermediate to nal settlement
prole, with 4 of 7 cases showing this trend. Note that the
modication factors estimated for Murdoch House (north
facade) for the eastbound tunnel, Murdoch House (south
facade) for the westbound tunnel, and Clegg House (east
and west facades) for the westbound tunnel increase from

P.S. Dimmock, R.J. Mair / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 23 (2008) 438450

a
-5

Offset from stud 2002 (m)

10 15 20 25 30 35

40

45

50

Offset from stud 2012 (m)

20 25 30 35 40 45 50

55

60

445

0
Vertical displacement (mm)
(-settlement / + heave)

-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
construction joint

-12

section I

-14

construction joint
section II

15/06/1995

-16

16/06/1995

-18

section III

30/06/1995

-20

b
Vertical displacement (mm)
(-settlement / + heave)

0
-2
-4

10

15

21/06/1995
26/06/1995
30/06/1995

-6
-8
-10
-12
-14

Stepped feature
in facade

-16
-18
-20

Fig. 11. Estimating deection ratio from measurements of settlement

along facade.

construction joint
construction joint
section IV
section VI
section V

Fig. 10. Progressive settlement proles compared to greeneld movement

for (a) Ben Smith Way facade (stud 20022011) and (b) John Roll Way
facade (stud 20122025) due to both running tunnels. Greeneld settlement proles are represented by hollow symbols.

the intermediate to the nal settlement proles. This

implies increasing exibility with progressive deformation.
In hogging deformation the response appears to be almost
fully exible throughout the progression of movement and

hence the inferred stiness is generally similar for both

intermediate and nal settlement proles.
The stiness of response of Ben Smith Way (BSW) section II in sagging is comparable to the west and east
facades of Clegg House (see Fig. 13). The building facades
are similar in height and length, and a similar proportion of
facade area is occupied by window and door openings, see
Fig. 1. However, the Ben Smith Way facade of Keetons
Estate has deeper foundations (the foundations are
approximately 2.7 m deep below Ben Smith Way facade
as compared to approximately 1 m deep at Clegg House,
see Fig. 1) and on this basis alone might be expected to display greater stiness. Thus the presence of the 1.7 m thick
protective grout slab between the footprint of Section II
of Ben Smith Way and the running tunnels (Withers,
2001a) appears to have little eect on the stiness of
response. Analysing the stiness of the grout slab according to the Potts and Addenbrooke (1997) method, as if it
were a surface structure subjected to tunnelling-induced

Fig. 12. Modication factors relating to deection ratio (D/L) for the masonry facades at Moodkee Street and Keetons Estate.

446

P.S. Dimmock, R.J. Mair / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 23 (2008) 438450

Relative Bending Stiffness, *

1.E+00
1.E-01
1.E-02
1.E-03
1.E-04
1.E-05
1.E-06
1.E-07
Neptune-west
EB

prediction

Neptune-east
EB

intermediate-sagging

Murdochnorth EB

Murdochsouth WB

final-sagging

Clegg-west
WB

intermediate-hogging

BSW-section
II EB

final-hogging

Fig. 13. Approximate relative bending stiness (Potts and Addenbrooke, 1997) estimated from modication factor for the masonry facades at Moodkee
Street and Keetons Estate.

movement, a semi-rigid response is predicted with modication factors in the range 0.20.4 (see Appendix A). However, the analysis is performed assuming a continuous
grout slab and it is unlikely that the grout slab was of this
quality, especially bearing in mind the silty nature of the

sands and the diculty of achieving permeation of the

grout; fracture grouting would have been a more likely outcome. Thus the actual stiness of the grout slab is likely to
be lower than assessed.

150

Horizontal strain (microstrain)

(-compression / + tension)

6.2. Horizontal strain

100

6/02/1996

50

9/02/1996

1/02/1996

19/02/1996

12/03/1996

-50

9/07/1996

-100

15/07/1996
20/09/1996

-150

greenfield

-200
-250
0

Horizontal strain (microstrain)

(-compression / + tension)

10

20
30
Offset from 5016 (m)

40

50

100

The modication factor in horizontal strain is inferred

from the measurements of distance between monitoring
points along the base of the south facade of Murdoch
House, the west facade of Clegg House and along the
Ben Smith Way facade of Keetons Estate. The proles of
building and greeneld horizontal strain for the south facade of Murdoch House and the west facade of Clegg House
are shown in Fig. 14. In both cases the horizontal strain is
negligible and appears to be unrelated to the trend of horizontal strain in the greeneld prole. A similar observation was made for the Ben Smith Way facade of Keetons
Estate (Dimmock, 2003). The modication factor is thus
very close to zero, indicating that the relative axial stiness
of all these masonry buildings is high.

1/02/1996

7. Estimated building stiness

6/02/1996
9/02/1996

19/02/1996
12/03/1996
9/07/1996

-100

15/07/1996
20/09/1996

-200

greenfield

-300
05

10
15
Offset from 5008 (m)

20

25

Fig. 14. Horizontal strains inferred from tape extensometer readings

compared to corresponding greeneld prole for (a) south facade of
Murdoch House (stud 50165010) and (b) west facade of Clegg House
(stud 50085004).

Class A predictions (Lambe, 1973) of deformation of the

Moodkee Street buildings were made by Mair and Taylor
(2001) using the Potts and Addenbrooke (1997) method.
In order to estimate relative bending stiness and relative
axial stiness for the monitored facades, Mair and Taylor
(2001) assumed an equivalent linear-elastic beam to be
the height of the load bearing walls, which is approximately
9 m. An elastic modulus of 7.5 106 kPa was assumed to
be representative for the masonry. The soil stiness, of
200 103 MPa, was estimated to be that of the soil at
mid-depth to tunnel axis for 0.01% strain (the strain level
dened by Potts and Addenbrooke). This was adjusted to
240 103 MPa to account for the increase in eective stress
level associated with the dewatering that occurred, but the

P.S. Dimmock, R.J. Mair / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 23 (2008) 438450

adjustment was found to have negligible eect on the predicted response. The length of the beam was assumed to
be the full length of the building facade.
The relative bending stiness of Neptune House was
estimated by Mair and Taylor (2001) to be
1.3 102 m1. On the Potts and Addenbrooke design
charts (see Fig. 5a), M DRsag and M DRhog are less than 0.2
for this value of q* and hence the building was predicted
to behave almost rigidly in bending for any value of e/B.
Since the long dimension of Murdoch House is closer to
being parallel with the tunnels than Neptune House (see
Fig. 2) and possesses similar dimensions, Mair and Taylor
(2001) reasoned that the performance of the long facades of
Murdoch House should be even more rigid owing to the
inuence of the shorter dimension. The relative bending
stiness of Clegg House, by virtue of being half the length
of Neptune and Murdoch Houses, was predicted by Mair
and Taylor to have 16 times the relative bending stiness
(refer to Eq. (5)). Hence the relative bending stiness of
Clegg House was estimated to be 0.2 m1.
The relative axial stiness was estimated by Mair and
Taylor (2001) to be over 10 for Murdoch, Neptune and
Clegg Houses; hence an extremely rigid axial response
was predicted in all cases, ie. negligible axial strain was predicted to develop in the building.
Following the same procedure as adopted by Mair and
Taylor (2001) for the Moodkee Street buildings, estimates
of relative bending stiness and relative axial stiness were
made for the building facades along Ben Smith Way and
John Roll Way at Keetons Estate. These estimates are
given in Appendix B. The relative bending stiness of
Ben Smith Way section II is estimated as 0.6 m1 and
the relative bending stiness of John Roll Way section
V is 0.25 m1. The relative axial stiness of Ben Smith
Way section II is estimated as 53 and John Roll Way
section V as 39. Hence both sections are predicted to be
rigid in bending and in horizontal strain, regardless of
e/B ratio.
8. Comparison of observed response to predictions
The observed settlement proles of the Moodkee Street
buildings displayed more exibility than predicted by Mair
and Taylor, particularly in the hogging mode of deformation (Mair, 2003). This is also the case for the Keetons
Estate buildings if the same prediction approach is used
as adopted by Mair and Taylor. This is most notable in
the case of Neptune House, Murdoch House, and the John
Roll Way facade of Keetons Estate.
By taking the modication factors back-analysed from
the observed settlement proles using the Potts and Addenbrooke design charts, the inferred relative bending stiness
in sagging (which is obtained solely for design purposes in
the context of the Potts and Addenbrooke method) is
found to be generally one order of magnitude less than
originally predicted by the Mair and Taylor approach,
and the equivalent inferred relative bending stiness in

447

hogging appears to be at least two orders of magnitude less

than predicted. These comparisons are made with the aid
of Fig. 13 in which the predicted stinesses are plotted
against those inferred.
The negligible axial (i.e. horizontal) strains observed at
Moodkee Street and Keetons Estate suggested a very sti
axial response, as predicted. However, it still remains possible that the axial stiness was over-estimated (by Mair
and Taylor, 2001) for the Moodkee Street buildings and
as presented in Appendix B for Keetons Estate since
according to the Potts and Addenbrooke (1997) design
charts (Fig. 5b) the modication factor for horizontal
strain in tension and compression is low (< 0.01) for all levels of realistic axial building stiness (i.e. a* > 10). In addition there is the possibility that the interface between the
shallow strip foundations and the underlying soil is not
rough as assumed in the FE analyses of Potts and Addenbrooke, thus there may be some slippage of soil beneath the
building foundations which contributes to the apparently
high axial stiness observed.
A number of possible reasons for the apparent overprediction of the relative bending stiness along the
facades at Moodkee Street and Keetons Estate are
suggested:
 Calculation of stiness for building. The Potts and
Addenbrooke analyses were plane strain, hence a beam
subjected to uniform strain out of plane is assumed. In
reality the building is not subjected to uniform strain
out of plane and the deformation of the facade may
be aected by the stiness of structural elements out of
plane. Hence three-dimensional eects should be considered. Franzius et al. (2006) have found that modication
factors obtained from analyses of 3D tunnel excavations
were in good agreement with results from corresponding
plane strain analyses; however, it should be noted that
their analyses did not model a dierent building stiness
out of plane. One should also account for openings in
the facade, such as windows and doors, which would
tend to reduce the stiness of the masonry facade. Furthermore, a history of disturbance, deformation and
cracking would reduce the relative building stiness.
 Bending stiness in hogging versus sagging. The bending
stiness is likely to be dependent on whether the
masonry building is in hogging or sagging (Burland
and Wroth, 1974). In hogging, due to the inability of
the masonry in the upper part of the wall to withstand
signicant tensile stresses, the neutral axis is likely to
be nearer to the foundations (Mair et al., 1996). It
may be appropriate to assume that the entire masonry
wall oers little or no tensile resistance in the case of
hogging deformations (especially with the presence of
signicant window and door openings), and therefore
only the foundations need be considered in the estimation of bending stiness. In the sagging mode, however,
the lower part of the masonry wall tends to be capable
of withstanding tensile stresses due to the restraint

448

P.S. Dimmock, R.J. Mair / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 23 (2008) 438450

provided by the foundations, and therefore the neutral

axis can be taken as being at mid-height of the wall
(Mair et al., 1996).
 Assessment of Youngs modulus for the building. In the
Potts and Addenbrooke method, the building is idealised as a linear elastic beam, which means that no
account is made of possible changes in stiness due to
the development of cracking. Studies by Simpson
(1994) and Burd et al. (1994), in which the mechanical
properties of the masonry were modelled, suggest that
damage might develop more quickly once cracking in
the unreinforced masonry has initiated.
 Failure to account properly for building skew. For a facade skewed to the tunnel axis the transverse settlement
prole is assumed to be stretched along the facade. If
modication factors are taken from the Potts and
Addenbrooke design charts according to the assessed
relative bending stiness of the building, it is assumed
that the results from numerical analysis for a beam
of the same eccentricity to the tunnel axis (measured
along the facade for the case of skewed building), stiness and length but oriented transverse to the tunnel
axis are applicable. If these modication factors are
valid for the response of the same beam to a wider settlement trough, then the use of these modication factors to infer the stiness of the building is acceptable.
The original set of numerical analyses, which are the
basis for the Potts and Addenbrooke (1997) method,
were based on only two dierent tunnel depths, which
made it dicult to deduce the eect of trough width on
modication factor. However, the suite of analyses
have been extended by Franzius et al. (2006) to include
two additional tunnel depths and their results show a
consistent trend of increasing modication factor with
increasing tunnel depth (i.e with wider settlement
trough). The implications of this from the perspective
of applying the Potts and Addenbrooke design charts
is that, as long as the settlement trough does not
exceed the trough widths analysed, the upper bound
design line should provide a conservative estimate
(conservative meaning higher modication factor i.e.
more exible response) for the deection ratio modication factor based of course on the relevant relative
bending stiness. Should the upper bound design line
given by Potts and Addenbrooke, however, be applied
to wider settlement troughs than those analysed then
an unconservative assessment of building response
may result.
 Inuence of vertical loads. The Potts and Addenbrooke
(1997) suite of numerical analyses assumed that no vertical loads were applied to the surface beam; intuitively it
might be thought that the modication factor charts
would tend to underestimate the movement and therefore underestimate the exibility of the building
response. However, Franzius and Addenbrooke (2002)
showed that the addition of weight in the numerical analyses performed originally by Potts and Addenbrooke

(1997) has only a small inuence on the calculated deection ratios for both hogging and sagging modes.

9. Proposals to improve future predictions

Several simple improvements are proposed to improve
the unconservative predictions of relative bending stiness
for use with the Potts and Addenbrooke (1997) method;
these have been identied for the low rise masonry structures on shallow strip foundations at Moodkee Street
and Keetons Estate. The rst is to only include the foundations in the estimation of relative bending stiness in hogging. Such a calculation is demonstrated in Appendix C
and in the case of the Moodkee Street buildings results in
an estimated bending stiness several orders of magnitude
less than predicted. The second proposed modication is to
perform the calculation of bending stiness in sagging as
before (i.e. by assuming the neutral axis to be at the midheight of the wall) but reduce the estimated stiness
according to the presence of window and door openings
in the facade. It is accepted that allowing for window
and door openings is far from straightforward. In the cases
considered in this paper the eect of windows and doors
appeared to result in a reduced relative bending stiness
of the facade in sagging of approximately one order of
magnitude.
10. Conclusions
This paper has focused on the progressive response to
tunnelling-induced ground movement of twothree storey
masonry structures founded on shallow strip foundations.
Comparisons of the observed settlement proles of the
Moodkee Street and Keetons Estate buildings with equivalent greeneld settlement proles revealed that these structures display close to fully exible behaviour in hogging but
were semi-exible in sagging. There was some evidence that
the exibility in sagging increased with increasing movements but the response in hogging displayed close to fully
exible behaviour throughout the response. The horizontal
strains measured at the base of the building facades were
negligible, indicating that the relative axial stiness of these
masonry buildings is high.
The similarity of response observed between Clegg
House and the Ben Smith Way facade of Keetons Estate,
which are similar structures, suggests that the contribution
of the 1.7 m thick protective grout slab to the relative stiness of the Ben Smith Way facade was insignicant. This is
supported by an estimate of the relative stiness of the
grout slab according to the Potts and Addenbrooke
(1997) method.
Simple predictions, similar to the Class A predictions
made by Mair and Taylor, of building deformation using
the Potts and Addenbrooke (1997) method tended to
over-predict the stiness of response of these masonry
structures in bending, particularly in hogging. An alterna-

P.S. Dimmock, R.J. Mair / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 23 (2008) 438450

tive approach to the calculation of relative bending stiness

for similar masonry structures is proposed. Assuming that
the brickwork oers little or no resistance in tension due to
hogging deformation appears to reasonably account for the
apparent dierence in bending stiness between hogging
and sagging modes of deformation. Also, reducing the estimated relative bending stiness in sagging by one order of
magnitude is proposed to account for the presence of door
and window openings (although it must be accepted that
this is approximate, and will depend in general on the number, size and layout of the openings).
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to Dr. Jamie Standing, Professor John Burland and Dr. Graham Taylor, all from Imperial College, for their help in obtaining data that was
important to the research. The work presented in this paper
was supported by a research grant from the EPSRC.

449

The relative bending stiness of the slab equates to a

M DRsag 0:4 and M DRhog 0:2 (assuming e/B is <0.2) (see
Fig. 5). This is equivalent to a semi-rigid response.
Appendix B. Derivation of relative bending and axial
stinesses for Ben Smith Way and John Roll Way of Keetons
Estate
The strip foundations along Ben Smith Way and along
John Roll Way are at a depth of approximately 2.7 m.
The depth from the base of the foundations to the tunnel
axes is approximately 11.5 m, i.e. the mid-depth between
the base of the foundations and the tunnel axis is approx.
8.5 m bgl.
For the representative soil stiness, Es, at mid-depth,
which is in the Upper Shelly Clay, it is assumed that
Es =p00 1000 for 0.01% strain
3

rr0v 8:5 m  20 kN=m 170 kPa

assuming zero water head at this depth due to a
depression in the water table during the period

Appendix A. Assessment of the inuence of grouting beneath

Ben Smith Way facade of Keetons Estate
Grouting beneath Keetons Estate was performed prior
to tunnel construction (Withers, 2001a). The aim was to
create a 1.7 m thick semi-rigid grout slab beneath the footprint of Keetons Estate at a level just above the contact
between the Terrace Gravel and the underlying London
Clay or Lambeth Group. The grout slab was to protect
the overlying building from the full greeneld site ground
deformation.
The grout slab beneath Ben Smith Way is in two sections, the one above the EB tunnel and predominantly
beneath section II of the building is of primary interest.
Width, B
20 m

Slab

Assume for the masonry that E = 7.5106 kPa

Ben Smith Way
section II : 20 m long  6:25 m wide  9 m high
11:7 m high including foundations H B=2 10 m
relative bending stiffness; q EI=Es H 4
7:5  106  1  11:73 =12=227  103  104 0:44 m1
relative axial stiffness; a EA=Es H

John Roll Way

16500 MPa 1 m 1.7 m /12

section V : 20 m long  6:25 m wide  6 m high

Midway between the grout slab and tunnel, there is a

depth below ground level of approx. 9.5 m, water pressures
were depressed associated with the construction of Ben
Smith Way shaft to approx. 8.5 m bgl (Withers, 2001a),
i.e. pore pressure u  10 kPa,
3

9:5 m  20 kN=m  10 180 kPa

assuming K 0 1:5

EIslab =

r0v =3

r0v =3  1 2K0 170=3 4 227 MPa

7:5  106  11:7  1=227  103  10 39 m1

Thickness, t
1.7 m
note: H = B/2

r0v
p00

of tunnel construction
p00

 1 2K0 240 kPa

assuming K 0 1:5

Assume for Lambeth Group clays that Es =p00 1000 for

es = 0.01% (Mair and Taylor, 2001), so Es 240 MPa.
For slab
q EIslab =Es H 4 16; 500  1  1:73 =12=240  104
0:003

8:7 m high including foundations H B=2 10 m

relative bending stiffness;q EI=Es H 4
7:5  106  1  8:73 =12=227  103  104 0:18 m1
relative axial stiffness; a EA=Es H
7:5  106  8:7  1=227  103  10 29 m1
section IV : 16 m long  6:25 m wide  6 m high
8:7 m high including foundations H B=2 8 m
relative bending stiffness; q EI=Es H 4
7:5  106  1  8:73 =12=227  103  84 0:36 m1
relative axial stiffness; a EA=Es H
7:5  106  8:7  1=227  103  8 30 m1

450

P.S. Dimmock, R.J. Mair / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 23 (2008) 438450

Appendix C. Modied approach to estimating relative

bending stiness

d1

For masonry facades, it is proposed to estimate the relative bending stiness in hogging by considering the foundations only (thickness d1) as opposed to the full height of
the facade (d).
Assume Econcrete 16; 500 MPa and
Emasonry 10; 000 MPa:
In hogging; I bd 31 =12
In sagging; as predicted previously by
Mair and Taylor 2001 for both
sagging and hogging deformation; I bd 3 =12
Thus the ratio EIsag =EIhog 10  bd3 =12=16:5  bd31 =
3
12 10=16:5d=d 1
If d=d 1 10 as is approximately the case for the
Moodkee Street buildings
EIsag =EIhog  600
If d=d 1 3 for the Keetons Estate buildings
EIsag =EIhog  16
Hence, where the foundations are only shallow, as is particularly the case for the Moodkee Street buildings, the relative bending stiness considering only the contribution of
the foundations is several orders of magnitude lower than
that predicted using the full height of the building facade.
References
Burd, H., Houlsby, G., Whow, L., Augarde, C., Liu, G., 1994. Analysis of
settlement damage to masonry structures. In: Smith (Ed.), Numerical
Methods in Geotechnical Engineering. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 203
208.
Burland, J.B., Wroth, C.P., 1974. Settlement of buildings and associated
damage. State-of-the-Art Review, Conference on Settlement of Structures, Cambridge. Pentech Press, London, pp. 611654.
Dimmock, P.S., 2003. Tunnelling-induced ground and building movement
on the Jubilee Line Extension. PhD thesis, University of Cambridge.
Franzius, J.N., Addenbrooke, T.I., 2002. The inuence of building weight
on the relative stiness method of predicting tunnelling-induced

building deformation. In: Proceedings of Third International Symposium on Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft
Ground, Toulouse, France, October 2002.
Franzius, J.N., Potts, D.M., Burland, J.B., 2006. The response of surface
structures to tunnel construction. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Geotech. Eng.
159 (1), 317.
Lambe, T.W., 1973. Predictions in geotechnical engineering. Geotechnique 23 (2), 149202.
Linney, L.F., Page, D., 1996. Site investigation for the tunnels and stations
of the Jubilee Line Extension, London. In: Mair, R.J., Taylor, R.N.
(Eds.), Proceedings of International Symposium on Geotechnical
Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground. Balkema,
London, pp. 779784.
Mair, R.J., 2003. Research on tunnelling-induced ground movements and
their eects on buildings-lessons from the Jubilee Line Extension.
Keynote Lecture. In: Jardine, F.M., (Ed.), Proceedings of International Conference on Response of Buildings to Excavation-induced
Ground Movements, held at Imperial College, London, UK, July
2001. CIRIA SP199. pp. 326, RP620. ISBN: 0 86017 810 2.
Mair, R.J., Taylor, R.N., 1997. Bored tunnelling in the urban
environment. State-of-the-art report and theme lecture. In:
Proceedings 14th International Conference Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Hamburg, vol. 4. Balkema, Rotterdam,
pp. 23532385.
Mair, R.J., Taylor, R.N., 2001. Settlement predictions for Neptune,
Murdoch and Clegg Houses and adjacent masonry walls. Building
response to tunnelling case studies from construction of the Jubilee
Line Extension, London. In: Burland, J.B., Standing, J.R., Jardine,
F.M. (Eds.), Projects and methods, vol. 1. CIRIA SP200, pp. 217228
(CIRIA and Thomas Telford, 2001). ISBN: 0 7277 30177.
Mair, R.J., Taylor, R.N., Bracegirdle, A., 1993. Subsurface settlement
proles above tunnels in clay. Geotechnique 43 (2), 315320.
Mair, R.J., Taylor, R.N., Burland, J.B., 1996. Prediction of ground
movements and assessment of risk of building damage due to bored
tunnelling. In: Mair, R.J., Taylor, R.N. (Eds.), Geotechnical Aspects
of Underground Construction in Soft Ground. Balkema, Rotterdam,
pp. 713718.
New, B.M., OReilly, M.P., 1991. Tunnelling induced ground movements;
predicting their magnitude and eects. In: Fourth International
Conference on Ground Movements and Structures, Cardi, invited
review paper. Pentech Press, pp. 671697.
Potts, D.M., Addenbrooke, T.I., 1997. A structures inuence on
tunnelling induced ground movements. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Geotech.
Eng. 125 (2), 109125.
Simpson, B., 1994. A model of interaction between tunnelling and
masonry structure. In: Proceedings of Third European Conference on
Numerical Methods in Geotechnical Engineering, Manchester. pp.
221228.
Withers, A.D., 2001a. Keetons Estate, Bermondsey. Building response to
tunnelling case studies from construction of the Jubilee Line
Extension, London. In: Burland, J.B., Standing, J.R., Jardine, F.M.,
(Eds.), Case Studies, vol. 2. CIRIA SP200. pp. 755774 (CIRIA and
Thomas Telford, 2001). ISBN: 0 7277 30177.
Withers, A.D., 2001b. Murdoch, Neptune and Clegg Houses in Moodkee
Street, Rotherhithe. Building response to tunnelling case studies from
construction of the Jubilee Line Extension, London. In: Burland, J.B.,
Standing, J.R., Jardine, F.M., (Eds.), Case Studies, vol. 2. CIRIA SP200.
pp. 811828 (CIRIA and Thomas Telford, 2001). ISBN: 0 7277 30177.
Withers, A.D., 2001c. Surface displacements at three reference sites above
twin tunnels through the Lambeth Group. Building response to
tunnelling case studies from construction of the Jubilee Line
Extension, London. In: Burland, J.B., Standing, J.R., Jardine, F.M.,
(Eds.), Case Studies, vol. 2. CIRIA SP200. pp. 735754 (CIRIA and
Thomas Telford, 2001). ISBN: 0 7277 30177.