A Review on Methods of Predicting

Tunneling Induced Ground Settlements

S. M. Yahya

Department of Geotechnics & Transportation, Faculty of Civil Engineering,

Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 81310 Johor Bahru, Johor, Malaysia.
e-mail: yahya.sarder@live.com

R. A. Abdullah

Department of Geotechnics & Transportation, Faculty of Civil Engineering,

Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 81310 Johor Bahru, Johor, Malaysia.
e-mail: asnida@utm.my

ABSTRACT
The purpose of this review paper is to present the techniques, approaches and methods for
assessing the ground settlements induced by tunneling. Tunneling operation poses threat to
adjacent structures by creating subsidence, heave, and vibrations which make the structure
more vulnerable. With the advent of urbanization and innovative technologies, utilizing
underground space is becoming a sustainable practice day by day. The assessment of ground
settlement induced by tunneling is significant to policy makers, practitioners and designers
associated with tunneling. The versatility of geological strata and condition has led the
practice even more challenging. The multidimensional aspects and problems of tunnel
applications has made the practice a complex one requiring incorporation of interdisciplinary
nature of this study such as geology, civil engineering, mining engineering specially rock
engineering and rock mechanics. This paper also addresses the issues regarding various
methods, constitutive models, different ground conditions for instance, mixed faced soil and
rock interface ground), roles effect of dimensions on analysis and prospects of multi and
interdisciplinary roles.

KEYWORDS: Ground settlement, empirical method, analytical method, numerical

method, mixed faced ground.

INTRODUCTION
The continuously growing development projects in various cities around the world having
limited available surface space and now they are relying on underground space such as tunnels.
Tunnels are constructed to facilitate rapid transit, water supply, sewerage system and various
others facilitates. These tunnels are generally situated in populated cities and constructed in soil
or rock or mixed ground. The construction of these underground infrastructures is complex in
nature. And the construction will inevitably induce ground settlement due to convergence of the
ground after tunnel excavation, which changes the in-situ stress of the ground and disturbing the
original condition by stress release (Ocak, 2008). The ground settlement is a significant issue in
urban areas because excessive settlements can trigger potential damage to surrounding roads,
structures, underground pipelines and facilities and with a view to decreasing this adverse impact,
it is essential to analyze, forecast and control the ground settlement that develops during
tunnelling process. Therefore, the prediction of ground settlement is of great significance to
- 5813 -

Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. T

5814

protect these existing structures in urban areas prior to tunnel construction. The information will
not only ensure safety but also will work as a tool for decision making in order to avoid excessive
settlement by taking take appropriate countermeasures (Wang et al., 2013). Therefore, the careful
use of methods for predicting the ground settlements induced by tunnelling is crucial. The scope
of this review paper is limited to TBM and NATM tunnelling methods. Different methods are
adopted for this prediction and other associated issues regarding the methods are discussed in this
paper. This paper deals with short term settlement only. Usually the short-term settlements occur
during or after excavation within a certain period of time, assuming that the state of the ground is
in the dominant undrained condition (Latif et al., 2013). Long term settlements which include
consolidation, creep behaviour and other factors are not within the scope of this paper.

METHODS FOR PREDICTING TUNNELING INDUCED

GROUND SETTLEMENTS
Currently several methods and approaches are available for estimating and predicting ground
movements caused by tunnelling. Generally, study on the prediction of ground settlement has
been carried out by these following three methods:

Empirical methods
Analytical methods and
Numerical methods.

The methods and commonly used computation tools used for numerical methods are shown
in Figure 1. The computational tools include only 3D versions.
Computational
Tool

Method

Empirical
Method

Analytical
Method

Numerical
Method
FEM

PLAXIS 3D,
ABAQUS,

FDM

FLAC3D

Continuum
Model

Discontinuum
Model

DEM

3DEC

Figure 1: Different methods for prediction of settlements & computational tools

Empirical Method
Empirical method provides the most simple calculation and thus extensively used in practical
applications. The most common and widely used empirical method for predicting settlement

Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. T

5815

induced by tunnel is the Pecks formula (Peck, 1969) (Equation 1). This classical empirical
method is useful for preliminary estimation and initial idea about surface settlement. The formula
is as follows:
y2

(1)
Sv (y) = Sv max . e 2i
where, Sv (y) is the surface settlement, Sv max is the maximum settlement above tunnel axis, i is
2

the horizontal distance from the tunnel axis to the point of inflection of the settlement trough, y is
the horizontal distance from the tunnel axis.
Many researches have been conducted involving field investigation and tests regarding
estimating i. The estimation of i values by various researchers are shown in Table 1.
Name
Peck (1969)

Table 1: Recommendation for value of i by various researchers

Value of i

i z
=

R 2R

Comment
Based on field observations

n=0.1 to 0.8

Atkinson and Potts (1977) =

i 0.25 ( z + R )

Based on field observations

In case of loose sand

=i 0.25 (1.5 z + 0.5R )

OReilly and New (1982)

In case of dense sand and over

consolidated clay

=
i 0.43 z + 1.1

In case of cohesive soil

Based on field observations of

UK tunnels

=
i 0.28 z 0.1
Mair (1993)
Attewell (1977)

Clough and Schimdt (1981)

In case of granuar soil

i = 0.5 z

i
z
=
R
2R

i
z
=
R
2R

=1 and n=1

Based on field observations

worldwide
Based on field observations of
UK tunnels
Based on field observations
USA tunnels

=1 and n=0.8
[Note: Here, z is the depth of tunnel below ground and R is the tunnel radius.]
The estimation of maximum settlement can be done by Equation 2 (Mair, 1993). Where, VL
is ground loss (ratio of ground loss volume/tunnel volume per meter length) and D is the tunnel
diameter.

Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. T

5816

S max =

0.313VL D 2
i

(2)

However, the empirical method which is derived from 20 case histories have no theoretical
background and assumes the vertical settlement profile in the ground same as the Gaussian
distribution. Moreover, this method is limited by few parameters and unable to address complex
situations and other parameters which induce settlement. It also does not cover horizontal
displacement and do not consider the impact on any structure interaction. Several authors (Chi et
al., 2001, Gonzlez and Sagaseta, 2001) pointed out some important limitation of this method
such as inapplicability to various ground conditions, construction techniques, horizontal
movements and subsurface settlements. They are not able to provide solution of tunnel with
support. Numerical method provides better solution to overcome these problems. However, the
empirical method is useful for comparing the results with the numerical method for validation
purpose of a model.

Analytical Method
Analytical method provides a better solution and advantageous over numerical method
because it can take into consideration of various other relevant parameters affecting ground
surface settlement. Unlike empirical method, analytical method can address both horizontal
vertical displacements. It also provides a better understanding of the inter-relationship between
these affecting parameters. Analytical solutions provided by various authors are limited in
number. As some initial assumptions are to be made prior to find a solution, these are applicable
for specific type of case and condition. Sagaseta (1987) presented a closed-form solution for
isotropic and homogeneous incompressible soil due to near-surface ground loss from tunnelling.
Verruijt and Booker (1996) presented a generalization of Sagasteas solution in homogeneous
elastic half spaces for the case of ground loss having arbitrary values of Poissons ratio which
also included the effect of long term tunnel lining deformation or ovalization. However, the
analytical solution of Verrujit and Booker was unable to provide a satisfactory agreement with the
measured settlement profile. Later Loganathan and Poulos (1998) attempted to refine Verrujit
and Bookers solution by incorporating ground loss parameter for tunnels in clay. The refined
solution provided better results for tunnels in stiff clay but overestimated for tunnels in soft clay.
More recently, Chi et al. (2001) extended the equivalent ground loss model of Loganathan and
Poulos to clayey and sandy soils and the analytical solution was used to conduct back analyses for
29 cases which were performed using optimization principle to obtain key parameters of
influence zone angle and gap parameter that provide the best fit to the measured ground
settlement profiles.
Bobet (2001) presented an analytical solution for shallow tunnel in saturated ground. Based
on method proposed by Bobet (2001), Chou and Bobet (2002) studied short term settlement at the
ground surface and found good agreement comparing between predictions and actual
observations along with correlation between soil and liner, tunnel geometry, and construction
procedure. At the tunnel centreline is the gap parameter was mostly responsible for the maximum
surface settlements. The limitation of this analytical solution is that it only gives reasonable
predictions for shield driven tunnels in medium to stiff clays, or in soils and soft rocks where
plastic deformations around the tunnel are small. And also because the analytical solution is
based on the assumption of elasticity, it tends to underpredict maximum soil deformations and
overestimate the settlement trough. The analytical solution is derived for a specific type of case

Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. T

5817

and problem. Since the ground condition, physical and mechanical properties of soil and rock,
also the geometrical properties of tunnel varies from site to site, it is not applicable to all type of
case and cannot deal with complex unique different situation which is a limitation of analytical
method.

Numerical Method
Recently, with the rapid development of computational tools, user-friendliness and ability to
solve the complex problems the numerical methods are becoming more popular. Many limitations
of empirical methods and analytical methods can be overcome by the numerical method. Apart
from geotechnical properties of ground, tunnel geometry and depth the stress-strain condition of
both tunnel structure and ground which affect the settlement also rely on the construction process.
Numerical method can take into account this construction process called step-by-step method
(Katzenbach and Breth, 1981, Galli et al., 2004). As shown in Figure 1, the numerical method
which constitutes continuum and discontinuum modelling are useful tool for predicting tunnel
induced ground settlement. Continnum model includes Finite Element Method (FEM) and FDM
(Finite Difference Method) and Discontinnm model include Distinct Element Method (DEM). Li
and Zhu (2007) indicated that various factors of affecting ground settlement can be
comprehensively considered by the numerical method, which could forecast ground settlement
caused by the tunnel excavation accurately. Numerical methods can deal with various soil and
rock properties, geometrical properties, complex boundary condition and time dependent
calculation. Auto generation of mesh is one of the very useful features of the modelling software
and another attractive feature is colourful output of the graph and results. Vafaeian and Mirmirani
(2003) reported that the advantage of using the finite element program is that it can be applied to
any special cases as well, for example for a layered soil of different density or different elasticity
modulus, or non-circular sections.
For some cases, authors found numerical analysis useful to estimate the settlement, although
unfavourable results were found in some cases. Giving for example, Rowe et al. (1983) found that
FEM generally gave good estimates of ground settlements in their analyses of some case
histories. Mair (1993) reported that finite element analysis gave poor predictions for surface
settlements even with a refined constitutive soil model and found that the surface settlement
trough was too wide and shallow compared with those given by the empirical methods and field
measurements. A comparative advantages and limitations of these three methods are showed in
Table 2.

Table 2: Advantages and limitations of empirical, analytical and numerical methods.

Methods
Empirical

Advantages
Very simple calculation
Provide initial idea and estimation of
settlement
Useful for comparing results with other
methods.

Analytical

Can address various other parameters

Cover both horizontal and vertical
displacement.
Relationship between affecting
parameters could be understand.
Applicable to any type of complex

Numerical

Limitations
Consider few parameters
Dont cover horizontal displacement and
subsurface settlement.
Cannot address complex and different
ground condition.
Doesnt include construction techniques.
Limited number of solutions available.
Applicable to specific type of ground
condition.

Construction of model and analysis is time

Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. T

ground and site condition.
Construction process and support can be
included.
Cover both horizontal and vertical
displacement.
Can address many parameters.
Parametric study possible.
User friendly computational tool
available.
Better graphic visualization possible.
Chart and graph can be generated easily.
Auto generation of mesh.

5818
consuming.
May lead to misleading results if user
doesnt have in-depth understanding of
modeling process and software.
Not easy to verify and validate the results.

Effect of Dimensions on Numerical Methods: 2D vs 3D

modeling approaches
For simplicity, time constraints and easy understanding of settlement induced by tunnelling,
many authors prefer to use two-dimensional (2D) analysis. Besides, 2D analysis is handy for
studying parameters affecting ground settlement if there are any significant changes in condition
regarding boundary, ground, geometry, meshing. However, the tunnelling process is definitely
three-dimensional (3D) process. Therefore, the surface settlement induced by tunnelling also
needs to be investigated by 3D analysis. Regardless, it should be noticed that the 3D analysis
requires additional efforts and data, therefore, more expensive, yet gives a more reliable and
realistic results comparing to 2D analysis. In tunnel modelling the excavation length of the tunnel
slice is a significant aspect in 3D analysis whereas in 2D analysis the cross-section of the tunnel
through infinite length has to be considered. 3D analysis also provides better visualization and the
user get a feel about the overall underground structure.
There are some significant differences between the 2D and 3D approach. During the
tunnelling process a 3D stress-deformation state develops at the heading. The simulating of
partial relaxation of stress at the tunnel heading or deformation of the excavated surface at the
tunnel heading, which occurs prior to installation of lining plays a significant role in the analysis
of stress-strain state in the tunnel along with its surroundings. The three dimensional approach
provide a better and adequate analysis by simulating the progress of works, stress changes, and
deformations in the vicinity of the tunnel heading. The tunnel construction process is usually
simulated in the numerical analysis by the "step-by-step" simulation. The first step is the analysis
of the initial or in-situ stress condition in the ground, which is followed by step by step simulation
of excavation and support work sequences.
During the 2D analysis of tunnel, some assumptions have to be made to consider the partial
relaxation of stress at the tunnel heading, i.e. deformations that occur at the tunnel heading prior
to installation of lining or support which is also known as plane strain condition. Several
methods have so far been proposed in literature for the simulation of tunnel construction using 2D
models: stress relief method or convergence confinement method (Panet and Guenot, 1982),
stiffness reduction method/softening method (Swoboda, 1979), disk calculation method (Schikora
and Ostermeier, 1988), Hypothetical modulus of elasticity (HME) soft lining method, volume
loss control method (Potts and Zdravkovic, 2001) and the gap method (Rowe et al., 1983).
Field observations by Finno and Clough (1985) indicated that the ground response during
tunnelling is both three-dimensional and time-dependent. An advancing tunnel face creates a
complex 3D stress path (Eberhardt, 2001). An investigation by Franzius and Potts (2005) on the

Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. T

5819

influence of geometry and dimensions of a 3D finite element model for predicting tunnel-induced
surface settlement showed how the vertical boundaries can influence the results. This study
explained the prospects of 3D analysis which gives reasonable results if simulated in specific way
like increasing the length of incremental tunnel excavation. Also, the results obtained by Lee and
Rowe (1990) studying a hypothetical tunnel indicate that the general three-dimensional stress and
displacement patterns around a tunnel are very different as compared to those obtained at the
plane strain transverse section. The distance required for the ground displacement to reach the
plane strain condition will depend on the amount of plasticity developed around the tunnel
opening. Vlachopoulos and Diederichs (2014) also noted that tunnelling in yielding ground
generates 3D, bullet shaped plastic zone in soft rock. Qureshi et al. (2012) indicated that although
there are many simplified modelling solutions available, there are still uncertainties regarding
these simplifications. In an attempt to study the soil-structure interaction of buried structures
using finite element modelling software MIDAS GTS (Geotechnical and Tunnel Analysis
System), both 2D and 3D finite element analysis were performed on the basis of transverse
moments and shear forces on same cross sectional horseshoe shaped tunnel under loading of
overlaying rocks. Comparing the two results of moments and shear forces in top slab, walls and
base slab of both typical sizes of tunnels, it was found that, in 3D finite element analysis of
tunnels, the values of forces and moments are less than 2D finite element analysis. Therefore, it
can be concluded that, the tunnel designed by using 2D finite element analysis is on the
conservative side but uneconomical. Also, when the difference in values of forces and moments
are compared between 3D and 2D finite element analyses, it has been found to be more in large
sections than small sections. This implies that 3D analysis more accurate and safer than 2D
analysis. Mara-Dragojevi (2012) compared settlement cross sections obtained by 2D and 3D
finite element analyses of a tunnel for clayey-marly terrain of Belgrade and concluded that both
3D and 2D analyses provide similar cross-sectional profiles of settlement, given that proper
assumptions (for example, stress reduction coefficient in this study) has been made in 2D analysis
to take into account partial relaxation of stress at the tunnel heading. So, it is evident that either
2D or 3D analysis is acceptable as long as it answers the objective of modelling.

Choice of Model in Numerical Analysis

In numerical analysis, several common models have been widely used namely, LinearElastic, Mohr-Coulomb, Drucker-Prager, Modified Cam-Clay Model. Karakus and Fowell (2003)
used modified Cam-Clay model to simulate London clay behaviour and to consider settlement
due to tunneling process. Man (2009) studied the accuracy of the 3D finite element predictions
of displacement field induced by tunneling using new Austrian tunnelling method (NATM) in
stiff clays with two different constitutive models, one of them being Modified Cam-Clay Model.
Lambrughi et al. (2012) studied ground displacements induced by tunnelling comparing Linear
Elastic, MohrCoulomb model and Modified CamClay model. The study found better fitted
results using the Modified Cam Clay model whereas the MohrCoulomb models showed higher
fluctuations around measured data. However, Modified Cam-Clay model may allow
unrealistically high shear stress and applicable for critical state condition and therefore its scope
is limited to theoretical purpose; in case of practical applications like tunnelling it may be
misleading. Potts and Zdravkovic (2000) also concluded that use of modified Cam clay model in
advanced numerical analysis can be problematic. They indicated that the model was originally
developed for triaxial stress and strain conditions and therefore must be extended into generalised
stress and strain space for use in numerical analysis. At present there is no universally accepted
way of performing this extension and consequently there are many different forms of the model
implemented in the various available computer codes. In many of these cases the finer details of

Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. T

5820

the model are not documented. Consequently many potential errors are associated with a users
lack of in depth understanding of the constitutive model being employed.
Many authors used Mohr-Coulomb criteria in their FE model for prediction of settlements
(Migliazza et al., 2009, Huang and Zhou, 2011, Fattah et al., 2013). But the applicability of these
models is limited to tunnelling in soft ground. Numerical modelling of tunnels in hard rock or
mixed faced ground or soil-rock interface ground is different because the deformation of
surrounding rock in a tunnel is complex due to non-elastic, discontinuous and heterogeneous
characteristics of rock. Therefore, the Mohr-Coulomb law is not suitable for a rock mass
(Simanjuntak et al. 2012). For unusual conditions, in the numerical analysis models in
compliance with rock mechanics need to be incorporated. The predicted behaviour of rock mass
as a result of excavation is therefore based on the non-linear yield function given by Hoek-Brown
criterion. The use of Hoek-Brown model which incorporates Geological Strength Index (GSI) can
provide a reliable and better solution for this type of case. The GSI system and the Hoek-Brown
failure criterion were implemented in practical applications of many engineering projects across
the world and gave reasonable estimates of the strength of a wide variety of rock masses (Hoek,
2006). However, the Hoek-Brown criterion and GSI chart have to be applied with caution. It is
applicable for rock masses which have isotropic behaviour. It is not recommended to assign GSI
value in case of rock masses having highly anisotropic mechanical behaviour, for instance,
undisturbed slate (Marinos et al., 2005). Marinos et al. (2005) also indicated that it is not
appropriate to assign GSI values to excavated faces in strong hard rock having few discontinuities
spaced at distances of similar magnitude to the dimensions of the tunnel because in these cases
the stability of the tunnel will be governed by the three-dimensional geometry of the intersecting
discontinuities and the free faces created by the excavation.

Versatility of Ground: Special case of Mixed Faced Ground

Not all sites have homogeneous soft ground. The geology of site is uncertain one. Schmidt
(1989) pointed out that, in general, tunnel engineers face difficulties in considering the potential
for subsidence, but that enough cases have now been reported to compile an experience-base for
better understanding of the this settlement. These cases, however, almost exclusively involve
shallow tunnels excavated in soft, unconsolidated soils (Zangerl et al., 2008). Many researchers
have emphasized on settlement prediction by tunnelling in soft ground (Lambrughi et al., 2012,
Wang et al., 2012, Hajihassani et al. 2013). The special case is the mixed faced ground which
needs further comprehensive study. Mixed-face conditions could be characterized by two or more
geological formations present simultaneously on the tunnel face (Zhang et al., 2010). Tth et al.
(2013) provided a definition of mixed-faced ground:
Mixed-face ground is the ground, where there are two or more geological materials
simultaneously present on the tunnel face with significant differences in material properties that
influence significantly, (a) penetration rate of the tunnel boring machine (TBM), or (b)
operational parameters of the TBM or (c) support system installed behind the TBM.
There are several cases reported around the world regarding this ground condition. As
reported by Klados and Yeoh (2006), the Storm water Management and Road Tunnel (SMART)
in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia provided more experiences in mechanized tunnelling in mixed-face
ground condition. The tunnel was constructed in the Kuala Lumpur limestone formation covered
with silt and sand. Two 13.26 m diameter slurry shield TBM excavated the tunnel in mixed and
karstic conditions. Due to the tropical weathering and the abandoned and refilled tin mines, the
surface of the bedrock was extremely irregular. A large section of the tunnel was excavated in

Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. T

5821

mixed ground conditions. Zhao et al. (2007) also reported a similar mixed-faced condition with a
changing ground from hard rock to mixed face and soft ground (and vice versa) in Kranji Tunnel,
Singapore. The ground consisted of granite with different weathering grades (from fresh rock to
residual soil). Bai et al. (2013) also stated a case of combination of soil and rock strata. As this
type of condition is relatively rare and the settlement behaviour induced by tunnelling will be
different. More extensive study is thus required in the field incorporating knowledge of rock
mechanics and rock engineering as most of the studies emphasized on soil only. Integrative study
of rock and soil in tunnel modelling may solve this issue.

PROSPECTS OF MULTI AND INTERDISCIPLINARY

APPROACH
The modern era of globalization and information technology has made the flow of sharing
knowledge and information very easy and quick. The incorporation of multi and interdisciplinary
approach in studying tunnel is of great importance to increase efficiency and avoid confusion.
Multi and interdisciplinary approach obviously can provide solution practical and new emerging
problems associated with tunnelling, variety of geotechnical condition and uncertainties and
reduce the communication gap between professionals of various discipline. This will increase
effectiveness, efficiency, reliability of real-life challenges. The integrative collaboration of
disciplines like geology, mining engineering, rock mechanics and rock engineering, geotechnical
engineering is necessary to address wide range of challenges. The help of various other
disciplines may be needed but the major role playing subjects are shown in Figure 2. The
disciplines shown here are closely related to each other but as they emerged as different mature
subjects they are shown separately. Confusion should be avoided between two terms.
Multidisciplinary approach means different disciplines working together, each drawing on their
disciplinary knowledge and interdisciplinary approach implies integrating knowledge and
methods from different disciplines, using a real synthesis of approaches.
Geology

Rock Mechanics &

Rock Engineering

Integrated Solution

Mining Science &

Engineering

Geotechnical
Engineering

Figure 2: Various disciplines needed to be collaborated

Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. T

5822

Different disciplines have their respective roles and contribution in the theoretical and applied
field of knowledge. The knowledge of geology is essential because it deals with the study of solid
earth material comprising three types of rocks (igneous, sedimentary and metamorphic) and their
structural properties, behaviour, geological mapping. Geotechnical engineering which is a
speciality of civil engineering deals with the engineering aspects of all type of construction on or
below the ground. Rock mechanics is a broader part of geomechanics (includes both soil and
rock mechanics) which is concerned with the mechanical behaviour of rock masses. The
experience of mining engineers encountered in underground mining excavations, for instance,
rockburst, can also contribute to the integrated knowledge base. Single-discipline approaches
usually do not produce comprehensive and successful solutions (Grigg, 2014). So undoubtedly,
multi and interdisciplinary approach of these mentioned fields will be able to address not only
present existing problems, but also will make the engineers and geologists to become proactive to
new changing situations.

CONCLUDING REMARKS
The prediction of ground settlements induced by tunnelling is very important task. The
methods and approaches need to be chosen and used carefully. Also, deep understanding
regarding the various aspects and issues related to these methods is necessary. Improper use can
lead to discrepant results and potential hazard if used in decision making. Although the abovementioned methods have their respective pros and cons, practical engineering judgement must be
applied according to the context and type of problem case encountered. In this age of advanced
computer technology, numerical method can be very useful over other methods if utilized and
handled properly. Numerical method needs better user expertise, knowledge and skill in terms of
modelling and interpreting with a view to achieving accurate results of settlements induced by
tunnelling. Following points can be concluded:

3D numerical analysis has more advantages than 2D analysis and is recommended.

However, 2D analysis can also give better results if appropriate procedures and ground
model are used.

As most studies were done on tunnelling in soft ground, more comprehensive studies are
required for tunnelling in different ground conditions such as rocky ground and mixed
faced ground.

Appropriate choice of models and associated input data play a significant role in the
numerical modelling results. The model should be carefully chosen in such a way that
they can represent the relevant ground condition as to get a practical result of settlement.
If necessary the model can also be user optimized.

Multi and interdisciplinary approach can resolve various issues by creating a bridge of
knowledge between various disciplines related to tunnelling. This could benefit both
researcher and practitioner by easing the job and contributing more in the knowledge
base of tunnel.

Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. T

5823

REFERENCES
1. Atkinson, J. H. and Potts, D (1977) Subsidence above Shallow Tunnels in Soft Ground,
Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, 103(4), 307-325.
2. Attewell, P.B (1977) Ground movements caused by tunnelling in soil, Cardiff J.D.
Geddes (Ed.), 1st Conf. on Large Ground Movements and Structures. Pentech Press,
London pp. 812948.
3. Bai, X., Yan, N., Kou, H. and Zhang, J.-F (2013) Study on Deformation Prediction of
Metro-Running Tunnel under Building of Soil and Rock Strata, Architectural
Engineering, 1(1), 6-11.
4. Bobet, A. (2001) Analytical Solutions for Shallow Tunnels in Saturated Ground,
Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 127(12), 1258-1266.
5. Chi, S.-Y., Chern, J.-C., and Lin, C.-C. (2001) Optimized back-analysis for tunnelinginduced ground movement using equivalent ground loss model, Tunnelling and
Underground Space Technology, 16(3), 159-165.
6. Chou, W.-I., and Bobet, A. (2002) Predictions of ground deformations in shallow
tunnels in clay, Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 17(1), 3-19.
7. Clough G W and Schmidt B (1981) Design and performance of excavations and tunnels
in soft clay, In: Soft Clay Engineering, Chapter 8, Edited by E W Brand and R P
Brenner, Elsevier.
8. Eberhardt, E. (2001) Numerical modelling of three-dimension stress rotation ahead of an
advancing tunnel face, International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences,
38(4), 499-518.
9. Fattah, M., Shlash, K., and Salim, N. (2013) Prediction of settlement trough induced by
tunneling in cohesive ground, Acta Geotechnica, 8(2), 167-179.
10. Finno, R., and Clough, G. (1985) Evaluation of Soil Response to EPB Shield
Tunneling, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 111(2), 155-173.
11. Franzius, J., and Potts, D. (2005) Influence of Mesh Geometry on Three-Dimensional
Finite-Element Analysis of Tunnel Excavation, International Journal of Geomechanics,
5(3), 256-266.
12. Galli, G., Grimaldi, A., and Leonardi, A. (2004) Three-dimensional modelling of tunnel
excavation and lining, Computers and Geotechnics, 31(3), 171-183.
13. Gonzlez, C. and C. Sagaseta (2001) Patterns of soil deformations around tunnels.
Application to the extension of Madrid Metro, Computers and Geotechnics 28(67):
445-468.
14. Grigg, N. (2014). Broad, Global, and Multidisciplinary Civil Engineering Education,
Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 140(1), 02513002.
15. Hajihassani, M., Armaghani, D. J., and Faizi, K. (2013) Effects of Geotechnical
Conditions on Surface Settlement Induced by Tunneling in Soft Grounds, Electronic
journal of geotechnical engineering (EJGE), 18, 1163-1170.
16. Hoek, E. (2006) Practical Rock Engineering 13.

Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. T

5824

17. Huang, L.-C., and Zhou, C.-Y. (2011) Simulation of Tunnel Surrounding Rock Mass in
Porous Medium with Hydraulic Conductivity Tensor, In: I. A. Dar and M. A. Dar
(Eds.), Earth and Environmental Sciences, 423-434.
18. Karakus, M., and Fowell, R. J. (2003) Effects of different tunnel face advance
excavation on the settlement by FEM, Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology,
18(5), 513-523.
19. Katzenbach, R., and Breth, H. (1981) Nonlinear 3-D analysis for NATM in Frankfurt
Clay, Paper presented at the Proceedings of the International Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, 10th.
20. Klados, G., and Yeoh, H. K. (2006) Uniqueness of SMART project in the logistic and
construction challenges encountered during TBM North and South drive, Paper
presented at the 7th International Congress on Rock Mechanics.
21. Lambrughi, A., Medina Rodrguez, L., and Castellanza, R. (2012) Development and
validation of a 3D numerical model for TBMEPB mechanised excavations, Computers
and Geotechnics, 40(0), 97-113.
22. Latif, M. F. A., Ismail, M. A. M., Selamat, M. R., and Ng, S. M. (2013) Effects of Pipe
Roof Supports and the Tunnels Excavation on the Ground Settlement, Electronic Journal
of Geotechnical Engineering, 18, 1045-1056.
23. Lee, K. M., and Rowe, R. K. (1990) Finite element modelling of the three-dimensional
ground deformations due to tunnelling in soft cohesive soils: Part I Method of
analysis, Computers and Geotechnics, 10(2), 87-109.
24. Li, X.-q., and Zhu, C.-c. (2007) Numerical Analysis on the Ground Settlement Induced
by Shield Tunnel Construction, Journal of Highway and Transportation Research and
Development (English Edition), 2(2), 73-79.
25. Loganathan, N. and Poulos, H. (1998) Analytical prediction for tunneling-induced
ground movements in clays, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, 124(9), 846-856.
26. Mair, R. J. (1993) Developments in Geotechnical Engineering Research: Application to
Tunnels and Deep Excavation, Unwin Memorial Lecture 1992, Proceedings of the ICE Civil Engineering, 97, 27-41.
27. Mara-Dragojevi, S. (2012) Analysis of ground settlement caused by tunnel
construction,. Graevinar, 64(07.), 573-581.
28. Marinos, V., Marinos, P., and Hoek, E. (2005) The geological strength index:
applications and limitations, Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment,
64(1), 55-65.
29. Man, D. (2009) 3D Modeling of an NATM Tunnel in High Clay Using Two Different
Constitutive Models,.Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,
135(9), 1326-1335.
30. Migliazza, M., Chiorboli, M., and Giani, G. P. (2009) Comparison of analytical method,
3D finite element model with experimental subsidence measurements resulting from the
extension of the Milan underground, Computers and Geotechnics, 36(12), 113-124.

Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. T

5825

31. Ocak, I. (2008) Control of surface settlements with umbrella arch method in second
stage excavations of Istanbul Metro Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology,
23(6), 674-681.
32. OReilly, M.P. and B.M. New (1982). Settlements above tunnels in the United Kingdom
their magnitude and prediction, Proceedings of the International Conference
Tunnelling 82Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, London pp. 5564.
33. Panet, M., Guenot, A., (1982) Analysis of convergence behind the face of a tunnel, In:
Tunnelling82. IMM, London, 197203.
34. Peck, R. B. (1969). Deep excavations and tunnelling in soft ground, Paper presented at
the 7th international conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering, Mexico
City.
35. Potts, D.M., and Zdravkovic, L. (2000) Some Pitfalls when using Modified Cam Clay,
Imperial College, London, UK.
36. Potts, D.M., Zdravkovic, L., (2001) Finite Element Analysis in Geotechnical
Engineering: Application, Thomas Telford, London, 427.
37. Powell, D.B., Sigl, O., Beveridge, J.P., (1997) Heathrow-Express-design and
performance of platform tunnels at Terminal 4. In: Tunnelling97. IMM, London, 565
593.
38. Qureshi, L. A., Amin, K., Sultan, T., and Sh, M. I. (2012) Comparison of 2D and 3D
finite element analysis of tunnels based on soil-structure interaction using GTS, Paper
presented at the 14th International Conference on Computing in Civil and Building
Engineering, Moscow, Russia.
39. Rowe, R. K., Lo, K. Y., and Kack, G. J. (1983) A method of estimating surface
settlement above tunnels constructed in soft ground, Canadian Geotechnical Journal,
20(1), 11-22.
40. Sagaseta, C. (1987) Analysis of undraind soil deformation due to ground loss,
Gotechnique, 37(3), 301-320.
41. Schikora, K., Ostermeier, B., (1988) Two-dimensional calculation model in tunnelling.
Verification by measurement results and by spatial calculation, In: Proceedings of the
6th International Conference on Numerical Methods in Geomechanics, Innsbruck, 1499
1503.
42. Schmidt, B. (1989) Consolidation settlement due to soft ground tunneling, Paper
presented at the Proceedings of the International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering.
43. Simanjuntak, T.D.Y.F., Marence, M., Schleiss, A.J., Mynett, A.E. (2012b) Design of
Pressure Tunnels Using a Finite Element Model, Hydropower and Dams, 19(5): 98-105.
44. Swoboda, G., (1979) Finite element analysis of the New Austrian Tunnelling Method
(NATM), In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Numerical Methods in
Geomechanics, vol. 2, Aachen, 581586.
45. Tth, ., Gong, Q., and Zhao, J. (2013) Case studies of TBM tunneling performance in
rocksoil interface mixed ground, Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology,
38(0), 140-150.

Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. T

5826

46. Vafaeian, M., and Mirmirani, S. (2003) Applicability of Elastic Aanalysis for Predicting
the Settlement Distribution around Tunneling in Soft Ground (Technical Note), IJE
TRANSACTIONS B: Applications, 16(3), 217-234.
47. Verruijt, A., and Booker, J. (1996) Surface settlements due to deformation of a tunnel in
an elastic half plane, Gotechnique, 46(4), 753-756.
48. Vlachopoulos, N., and Diederichs, M. (2014) Appropriate Uses and Practical
Limitations of 2D Numerical Analysis of Tunnels and Tunnel Support Response,
Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 32(2), 469-488.
49. Wang, F., Gou, B., and Qin, Y. (2013) Modeling tunneling-induced ground surface
settlement development using a wavelet smooth relevance vector machine, Computers
and Geotechnics, 54(0), 125-132.
50. Wang, Z., Wong, R. C. K., Li, S., and Qiao, L. (2012) Finite element analysis of longterm surface settlement above a shallow tunnel in soft ground, Tunnelling and
Underground Space Technology, 30(0), 85-92.
51. Zangerl, C., Evans, K. F., Eberhardt, E., and Loew, S. (2008) Consolidation settlements
above deep tunnels in fractured crystalline rock: Part 1Investigations above the
Gotthard highway tunnel, International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining
Sciences, 45(8), 1195-1210.
52. Zhang, K., Yu, H., Liu, Z., and Lai, X. (2010) Dynamic characteristic analysis of TBM
tunnelling in mixed-face conditions, Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory, 18(7),
1019-1031.
53. Zhao, J., Gong, Q. M., and Eisenstein, Z. (2007) Tunnelling through a frequently
changing and mixed ground: A case history in Singapore, Tunnelling and Underground
Space Technology, 22(4), 388-400.

2014 ejge