1

Abstract
A numerical technique capable of adequately representing the states of stress release
associated with shield tunnelling in clay is presented. Tunnel excavation is simulated
using a deconfinement method characterised by differential unloading scheme in
terms of tangential and radial components. The former is intended to simulate the
effect of the machine driving through clays, whereas the later is intended to simulate
the gap closure behind the shield tail. A test problem previously solved by
Burghignoli et al. [1] is resolved here. The results obtained from the proposed
procedure using the finite-element method were found in very good agreement with
their measured counterparts, and superior to those obtained previously for the
subsurface movements.

Keywords: shield tunnelling , deconfinement method, tunnel excavation, gap
closure, ground movement, finite-element analysis.




1 Problem Statement

Predictions from the conventional numerical techniques for simulating shallow-
tunnel excavation are normally found in poor agreement with the measured ground
response . These techniques (e.g., the deconfinement method) usually predict ground
settlement troughs that are relatively wider and flatter than those of the normal
Gaussian distribution, proved to be in good agreement with the observed response.
In the commonly-used deconfinement method (e.g., Panet and Guenot [2]; Bernat
and Cambou [3]; Bernat et al. [4]; Abdel-Fattah [5]), the initial geostatic loads
acting on the tunnel perimeter prior to excavation are progressively reduced till a
predefined ground loss (a predefined settlement trough volume) takes place.


Paper 276

Enhancing Numerically-Predicted Ground
Movement Patterns due to Shield Tunnelling in Clays

T.T. Abdel-Fattah, A.Y. Akl, H.A. Hodhod and A.M. Abdel-Rahman
Department of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering
Housing and Building Research Centre, Giza, Egypt
Department of Civil Engineering
Faculty of Engineering, Cairo University, Giza, Egypt
Civil-Comp Press, 2005.
Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference
on Civil, Structural and Environmental
Engineering Computing,
B.H.V. Topping (Editor),
Civil-Comp Press, Stirling, Scotland.
2
2 Numerical simulation of the excavation process

Simulation of the excavation process using the finite-element method may be carried
out through removal of the soil elements that represent the soil mass excavated
during a certain excavation stage. The equivalent nodal forces caused by the removal
of these elements may be expressed as:
{ } [ ] [ ] [ ] { } [ ] { } [ ] { } { }
E w
v
T
w
v
T
v
T
v
T
f dv N dv P B dv N dv B f + + =

(1)
where
{ } f
= equivalent nodal forces vector,
[ ] B
= strain-displacement transformation matrix,
[ ]
= effective stress matrix before excavation,
{ }
= vector of effective body forces,
{ }
w
P
= vector of pore pressure before excavation,
{ }
w

= vector of fluid weight forces, and

{ }
E
f
= vector of nodal forces equivalent to external loading (e.g., pressure).

The third and fourth terms in Equation (1) account for the effect of the presence of a
ground water table during excavation. For excavation through water-bearing
layers, the effect of the hydrostatic water pressure has to be incorporated in the
calculations of the loads acting on the excavation perimeter. This is true regardless
of the type of analysis (i.e., effective stress or total stress) performed. In some earlier
research works (e.g., Esmail [6]; Mansur [7]; Bernt and Cambou [3]), the effect of
the water pressure was neglected simply because the excavation loads were
calculated from an effective stress analysis.
In the general-purpose finite-element codes with techniques for performing
phased analyses (e.g., DIANA[8]), the excavation process can directly be simulated
by specifying the elements that are active at the beginning of each analysis phase,
and adopting a deconfinement ratio equivalent to the volume loss desired. But, the
use of this procedure does not usually result in predictions for the ground
movements that agree well with the field observations. Better predictions for the
ground movements can be obtained if the excavation equivalent nodal forces are
known in terms of either vertical and horizontal components, or radial and tangential
ones. This allows for applying these force components with their desired ratios
either simultaneously or independently on the excavation perimeter or even part of
it. These force components have to be calculated using a special-purpose F.E. code
since this is not featured in most general-purpose F.E. codes such as DIANA which
3
is used here to conduct the F.E. analyses. Accordingly, a self-developed F.E. code
namely DIATUN is used here as will be presented in the following section. It is
proposed to incorporate the effect of excavation in the F.E. analysis using the radial
and tangential components of the excavation equivalent nodal forces since this is
more representative to the construction stages.


3 Proposed excavation technique (DIATUN)

In order to determine the equivalent nodal forces that develop around the excavation
boundary due to a specific deconfinement scheme, a F.E. code namely, DIATUN
[5] has been developed. This code is used concurrently with the programme DIANA
as follows. First, the nodal numbering, joint coordinates and element topologies are
inputted into DIATUN, such that the nodal connectivity and Gauss point numbering
in both DIATUN and DIANA are consistent. Second, the DIANA outputs for the
gauss point stresses, and pore pressures calculated during the phase that precedes the
excavation one, are inputted into DIATUN. Integration of Equation (1) is performed
using the Gauss-Legendre numerical integration scheme. Two sets of the equivalent
nodal force components are then outputted by DIATUN. The first is due to effective
stresses, whereas the second is due to pore water pressures. In this way, different
deconfinement percentages can be assigned to these two sets if desired by the user.
The outputs can optionally be obtained due to either the global coordinate system or
the tunnel local cylindrical coordinate system. The use of the later coordinate system
allows for applying different deconfinement percentages for both the radial and
tangential directions, if required. The equivalent nodal forces determined by
DIATUN are then inputted into the subsequent DIANA's excavation phase.

4 Available techniques for enhancing numerically-
predicted settlement trough shape

A number of simplified procedures were introduced to obtain better numerical
predictions for the ground response. Burghignoli et al. [1] suggested the use of two
different reduction factors for both the vertical and horizontal components of the
initial geostatic loads acting on the tunnel perimeter prior to excavation. Further, two
sets of factors may independently be applied to both lower and upper tunnel halves.
The results obtained using the finite-difference method using this procedure were
found in very good agreement with their measured counterparts.
Bloodworth [9] proposed the introduction of an additional external restraint
to the tunnel lining at either the spring line or invert, (Figure 1). This procedure, that
involves volume loss modelling via shrinkage of the tunnel lining, aimed at
improving the agreement between the finite-element results and the centrifuge
observations, since the former predicted yielding and large displacements of a
significant region of the soil beneath the tunnel. The results obtained from the F.E.
analyses showed that both options of fixity may result in better estimations for the
4
settlement trough. Yet, the trough resulting from imposing fixity at the invert was
found to be a better approximation to the Gaussian model.
Brinkgreve and Broere [10] argued that the flatter settlement troughs
obtained from the F.E. analyses are due to the underestimation of the soil stiffness in
the small-strain region (region away from the tunnel). To validate this statement, the
results obtained from a F.E. analysis were reproduced using soil stiffness five times
higher than the original stiffness. This resulted in development of plasticity in a zone
around the tunnel, and consequently reduced soil stiffness in that zone. In other
words, the soil stiffness is lower around the tunnel and higher away from it. The
results obtained using this procedure showed somewhat improved shape of the
settlement trough.




Figure1: Options for external restraint to tunnel lining to improve settlement trough
width predictions (Bloodworth [9])



5 Proposed Technique for enhancing numerically-
predicted settlement trough shape

In most cases, the ground settlement trough obtained from a numerical analysis does
not satisfactorily agree with the measured ground response. This is likely due to the
use of techniques for simulating excavation that are not capable of sufficiently
describing the unloading pattern associated with the excavation process. It is,
therefore, attempted here to introduce a technique in which the unloading pattern
adopted is adequately representative to the states of stress release caused by
excavation, and this may result in better estimations for the ground response from
F.E. analyses. Due to its relevance to the technique proposed here, the ground
behaviour due to tangential unloading is briefly described below.
5
5.1 Patterns of ground movements due to tangential unloading

Bernat et al. [4] presented the results of pure shear unloading as part of the 2-D
numerical analyses carried out for Lyons metro tunnel in France. They mentioned
that the fluid behaviour of the grouting material implies that this material cannot
sustain any shear stresses, and thus the actual shear deconfinement at the excavation
periphery is certainly higher than the radial one. Bernat et al. [4] concluded that the
whole tunnelling process cannot be modelled by a shear-only deconfinement, but it
can be modeled by increasing the shear release factor relative to the radial one,
provided that the lateral outward movement that relate to the shear-only
deconfinement calculation is correctly predicted.

It is proposed here to simulate the excavation process by independently
deconfining both the radial and tangential components of the nodal forces acting on
the excavation boundary.

An investigation into the pattern of ground movement due to pure tangential
unloading was carried out. Figure 2 presents the ground movements that result
around the tunnel opening at the end of the unloading phase. As can be seen from
this figure, the tangential movements are dominant around the tunnel shoulders, with
maximum amplitude in the vicinity of the positions of maximum in-situ tangential
stresses. On the other hand, the radial movements are dominant at the tunnel crown,
invert, and spring line with maximum outward amplitude at the spring and
maximum inward amplitude at the crown. Figure 2 shows that for the soil above and
below the tunnel, the ground movements are almost vertical and directed towards
the tunnel opening. However, it can be noted that for soil elements above and below
the tunnel shoulders, the displacement vectors are inflected at two points making an
angle of about 45
o
with the tunnel vertical axis (zone of maximum tangential
stresses).

Figure 3 plots the vertical displacement along the tunnel vertical axis. It can
be seen from this figure that the vertical displacement increases towards the tunnel
opening until it reaches maximum at two points located above and below the tunnel
boundary having the same elevation of the two inflection points. Therefore, unlike
the total unloading which is associated with a maximum vertical displacement at the
tunnel crown/invert, the tangential unloading is characterised by a maximum vertical
displacement away from the tunnel crown/invert.

Indeed, the tangential unloading results in no volume loss, and this is shown in
Figure 4 which plots the vertical settlement trough under an undrained condition
where the settlement and heave areas are equal. In the light of the aforementioned
discussion, it can be concluded that the displacement pattern associated with
tangential unloading can be expected in practice during the shield machine passage
assuming that there are no ground losses due to pitching, yawing, or due to the
conical shape of the shield, and in the same time ignoring the effect of the difference
in weight between the machine and excavated soil.
6



Figure 2: Ground movements due to tangential unloading around tunnel opening













Figure 3: Settlements along vertical axis of tunnel due to tangential unloading
around tunnel opening
7

Figure 4: Settlement trough at ground surface due to tangential unloading around
tunnel opening



5.2 Description of the technique proposed
Based on the previous conclusion, it is suggested here to simulate the deconfinement
of a tunnel constructed in clays using the shield tunnelling method by differential
unloading in terms of tangential and radial components. The former is intended to
simulate the effect of the machine driving through clays, whereas the later is
intended to simulate the gap closure behind the shield tail.

5.3 Verification of the technique proposed
In this section, the validity of the technique proposed for predicting the ground
movements is examined through comparisons between the predictions from this
technique, and those obtained from published finite-element and analytical solutions
and experiments.
5.3.1 Vertical movements at ground surface, S
y

In order to examine this procedure, the test problem previously solved by
Burghignoli et al. [1] using a differential unloading scheme in terms of horizontal
and vertical excavation force components is resolved here. The problem F.E. mesh
and geometry are plotted in Figure 5, whereas the material properties are listed in
Table 1. A number of solutions with different combinations between the radial and
tangential deconfinement ratios were obtained. The uniform radial unloading (i.e.,
constant deconfinement ratio around the whole tunnel perimeter) is denoted here by
, whereas the variable radial unloading (i.e., different deconfinement ratios for the
upper and lower tunnel halves) is denoted by
u
for the upper tunnel half, and
l
for
the lower tunnel half.
8



Figure 5: 2-D problem for comparison of the predictions for the undrained shear
strength from Mohr-Coulomb and Cam-clay models: F.E mesh and geometry




Total unit weight (kN/m
3
) 20
Cohesion (kPa) 15
Friction angle (degree) 28
Slope of isotropic unloading line 0.0905
Tensile pressure (kPa) 155
Slope of isotropic compression line 0.272
Initial void ratio 0.7
Poissons ratio,
ur

0.15
Ko, lateral earth pressure coefficient 0.6
Over consolidation ratio 1.2

Table 1: Delft-clay model soil parameters




Solution 1:
The problem was solved due to 100% tangential unloading followed by incremental
uniform radial unloading up to a specified volume loss VL of 1.4%. The settlement
troughs obtained together with those due to Gaussian distribution using trough shape
parameters of 0.5 and 0.6 are shown in Figures 6 and 7, respectively.
9
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 2 4 6 8 10
X/D
S
y
/
S
m
a
x
Gauss(k=0.5)
Uniform unloading
Diffrential unloading-Solution1

Figure 6: Normalised settlement trough at ground surface due to: present unloading
scheme (using 100% tangential unloading followed by radial unloading), uniform
unloading, and Gaussian distribution with K=0.5

0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 2 4 6 8 10
X/D
S
y
/
S
m
a
x
Gauss(k=0.6)
Uniform stress unloading
Diffrential unloading-Solution1


Figure 7: Normalised settlement trough at ground surface due to: present unloading
scheme (using 100% tangential unloading followed by radial unloading), uniform
unloading, and Gaussian distribution with K=0.6
Also shown in these two figures for comparison are the settlement troughs
due to uniform unloading. The general trend in Figures 6 and 7 is that the use of the
partial deconfinement scheme proposed here yields better estimations for the
normalised settlement S
y
/S
ymax
than does the uniform deconfinement scheme. The
ratios S
y
/S
ymax
at tunnel axis obtained from the former are 0.586 and 0.70, for K=0.5
and K=0.6 respectively compared to 0.438 and 0.525 from the latter. This means that
the use of the partial deconfinement scheme results in enhancing the predictions of
S
y
/S
ymax
by about 33% for both K=0.5 and K=0.6.
10
Solution 2:
This solution was obtained due to 100% tangential unloading combined with a low
uniform radial unloading ratio, which is proposed to account for the effect of
ground loss that takes place around the shield machine since the assumption of no
ground loss is merely theoretical. This was followed by increasing the uniform
radial unloading ratio till the specified volume loss V
L
of 1.4% was reached.
The settlement troughs obtained from both solution 1 and solution 2 are
plotted in Figures 8-a and 8-b, respectively. A comparison between these two
figures shows that the results obtained from both solutions are indistinguishable.
This implies that the use of a low uniform radial unloading ratio in combination with
a full tangential unloading seems not to result in better estimations for the vertical
settlements. Therefore, it is suggested here to examine the use of different radial
unloading ratios for both upper and lower tunnel halves as shown below.

(a) (b)
Figure 8: Settlement troughs at ground surface obtained using the present unloading
scheme: (a) Solution 1, and (b) Solution 2.

Solution 3:
In this solution, the radial unloading is applied to the tunnel upper half only since
that of its lower half is practically offset by the machine selfweight. Therefore, the
deconfinement ratio,
l
for the tunnel lower half is set to zero.
The results obtained from this solution due to deconfinement ratios
u
for the
tunnel upper half of 0.10, 0.15, and 0.20 for Gaussian distribution shape parameters
K of 0.50 and 0.60 are plotted in Figures 9 and 10, respectively. Also shown in these
two figures for comparison, are the results obtained from uniform stress unloading.
It can be seen from Figures 9 and 10 that the use of a variable deconfinement ratio
around the tunnel perimeter can significantly enhance the settlement trough shape
predicted, and this is dependent on the selected deconfinement ratio,
u
selected. For
11
instance, the best estimates for the settlement trough shape for K=0.50 and K=0.60
were obtained for deconfinement ratios
u
of 0.20 and 0.15, respectively.
For the sake of comparison, the results obtained here for K=0.5 and
u
= 0.2
and their counterparts from the F.E. solution using the unloading scheme by
Burghignoli et al. [1] shown in Figure 11, are plotted in Figure 12. It can be seen
from this figure, that the results obtained from both solutions are in very good
agreement, and that they compare well to those from the Gaussian distribution
solution.

-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 2 4 6 8 10 X/D
S
y
/
S
m
a
x
Gauss(k=0.5)
Uniform stress unloading
=0.1
=0.2
=0.15


Figure 9: Normalised settlement troughs resulting from F.E solutions using: (1) the
uniform unloading scheme (2) the proposed unloading scheme (solution 3) with
different
u
ratios, compared to the Gaussian distribution solution with K=0.5
-0.15
0
0.15
0.3
0.45
0.6
0.75
0.9
1.05
1.2
0 2 4 6 8 10
X/D
S
y
/
S
m
a
x
Gauss (k=0.6)
Uniform stress unloading
=0.1
=0.2
=0.15

Figure 10: Normalised settlement troughs resulting from F.E solutions using: (1) the
uniform unloading scheme (2) the proposed unloading scheme (solution 3) with
different
u
ratios, compared to the Gaussian distribution solution with K=0.6
12


Figure 11: Unloading scheme used by Burghignoli et al. [1] for enhancing the
settlement trough of the test problem


-0.20
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
0 2 4 6 8 10
x/D
S
y
/
S
y
m
a
x
Gauss(k=0.5)
Proposed
Burghhibnoli et al. (2001)

Figure 12: Normalised settlement troughs resulted from F.E solutions due to:
(1) proposed unloading scheme (solution 3), and (2) Burghignoli et al. [1] unloading
scheme, compared to the Gaussian distribution solution with K=0.5



5.3.2 Horizontal movement at ground surface, S
x


OReilly and New [11] suggested that the horizontal ground surface movement
under an undrained condition can be expressed by

,
o
y x
z
x
S S = (2)
13
provided that the Gaussian distribution shape parameter, K is constant with depth.
Taylor [12] introduced the following enhanced relation for predicting the horizontal
ground movement in clays taking into account the variation of K with depth:

( ) z Z
y
S S
o
v h

+
=
325 . 0
175 . 0
1
, (3)

which reduces to

o
y x
z
x
S S 65 . 0 = (4)

at the ground surface
Equation (3) implies that the displacement vectors focus on a point located
on the tunnel vertical centerline having a Z-coordinate of
o
z
325 . 0
175 . 0
below the
springline.
Contrary to the assumption that the horizontal movements can be described
in near-surface regions using Equation (3), the centrifugal tests conducted by Grant
and Taylor [13] showed that these movements are not well described by assuming
an average vector focus. The results obtained from these tests for four different
subsurface levels together with those predicted using Equation (3) are plotted in
Figure 13. Although a good agreement between the two sets of results can be
observed from Figure 13-b, 13-c, and 13-d, the predictions for the horizontal
movements near the ground surface using Equation (3) (Figure 13-a) are
considerably less than the observed ones. Also, the predictions obtained using
Equation (2) were found to be less than the observed movements. This is despite the
fact that the estimations from Equation (2) are 50% higher than those from Equation
(3). Also, the horizontal ground movements profile predicted at the ground surface
using either Equation (2) or Equation (3) is found to be narrower than the observed
one. Therefore, it can be concluded that neither Equation (3) nor Equation (2) can
adequately represent the horizontal ground movements at, or near to, the ground
surface, since it significantly underestimates the magnitudes of these movements.
The finite-element results obtained form the present study for the horizontal
ground movements assuming a deconfinement ratio,
u
of 0.20 are plotted in Figure
14. Also shown in the same figure are the results obtained form the analytical
solutions by ORielly and New [11] and Grant and Taylor [13], as well as those
obtained from the finite-element solution by Burghignoli et al. [1].
It can be seen from Figure 14 that the lowest estimations for the horizontal
ground movements at the ground surface are obtained from the analytical solution
by Grant and Taylor [13], shown previously in this section to underestimate the
magnitudes of these movements. On the other hand, the predictions from the present
finite-element solution are higher than those from the other three solutions. This
implies that the present solution may be the most representative one when compared
to field data.
14

Figure 13: Induced vertical and horizontal movements from the centrifugal test in
clay with predicted curves by Grant and Taylor [13] at subsurface levels of:
(a) 10 mm below ground surface (near ground surface) (b) 30 mm below ground
surface (c) 70 mm below ground surface (d) 100 mm below ground surface

5.3.3 General pattern of ground movements

In order to examine the general pattern of ground movements predicted using the
solution technique proposed here, the vectors of the ground movements due to a
ground loss percentage V
L
of 1.4%, are obtained and compared to the results of
Burghignoli et al. [1] in Figure 15. It can be seen that the general patterns of the
ground movements obtained from both solutions are somewhat similar above the
tunnel crown.

0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0 2 4 6 8 10
x/D
S
x
/
S
y
m
a
x
O'Reilly & New (1982)-K=0.5
Proposed
Burghhibnoli et al. (2001)
Grant & Taylo (2000) - K=0.5

Figure 14: Horizontal ground movements at the ground rface.
15
A comparison between the ratios of the magnitudes of the ground
movements at the invert and those at the crown predicted from both solutions shows
that the ratio obtained from the present solution is much lower than that obtained
from the solution by Burghignoli et al. [1]. This is supported by the observed ground
response (Figure 16) when tunnelling in clays.


(a) (b)
Figure 15: Vectors of tunnelling-induced ground movements in clay from F.E
analyses using: (a) Burghignoli et al. [1] unloading scheme, and (b) present
unloading scheme.




Figure 16: Vectors of tunnelling-induced ground movements in clay from
centrifugal test (Grant and Taylor, [13])
16
6 Conclusions

A numerical simulation of excavation process is proposed to incorporate the effect
of excavation in the finite element analysis using the radial and tangential
components of the excavation equivalent nodal forces.
In order to determine the equivalent nodal forces that develop around the
excavation boundary due to a specific deconfinement scheme, a finite element code
has been developed. This code is used concurrently with the F.E. software DIANA.
The validity of the technique proposed for predicting the ground movements
is examined through comparisons between the predictions from this technique, and
those obtained from published finite element and analytical solutions and
experiments.
Generally the use of the partial deconfinement scheme proposed yields better
estimations for the normalised settlement S
y
/S
ymax
than does the uniform
deconfinement scheme.
The use of a variable deconfinement ratio around the tunnel perimeter can
significantly enhance the predicted settlement trough shape , and this is dependent
on the selected deconfinement ratio.
Predictions of the horizontal movements at the ground surface from the
present finite-element solution are higher than analytical olutions by ORielly and
New [11] and Grant and Taylor [13], as well as those obtained from the numerical
solution by Burghignoli et al. [1]. This implies that the present solution may be the
most representative one when compared to experimental data.
Generally, the ground movment pattern around the tunnel predicted using the
present solution is in good agreement with experimental data compared with other
solutions available in literature.


References

[1] A. Burghignoli, A. Magliocchetti, S. Miliziano, and F.M. Soccodato, A
simple technique to improve the prediction of surface displacement profiles
due to shallow tunnel construction In Adachi et al. (eds.), Modern tunnelling
science and technology. Rotterdam-Balkema, 2001.
[2] M. Panet and A. Guenot, Analysis of convergence behind the face of a
tunnel, Proceeding of Tunnelling 82 symposium, London, pp. 197-204,
1982.
[3] S. Bernat, and B. Cambou, Soil-structure interaction in shield tunnelling in
soft soil, Computers and Geotechnics, Vol. 22, No. 3/4 pp. 221-242, 1998.
[4] S. Bernat, B. Cambou and P. Dubois, Assessing a soft soil tunnelling
numerical model using field data Geotechnique, Vol. 49, No. 4, pp. 427-452,
1999.
[5] T.T. Abdel-Fattah, Material modelling and 3-D finite-element simulation for
shield tunnelling in soft clay, Ph.D. thesis, Cairo University, Egypt, 2004.
[6] A.E. Esmail, Numerical modelling of deformations around closed-face
tunnelling machines, Ph.D. thesis, Ain Shams University, Cairo, 1997.
17
[7] M.A.M. Mansour, Three-dimensional numerical modelling of hydroshield
tunnelling, Thesis presented to university of Innsbruck, in partial fulfilment
of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of engineering science, 1996.
[8] DIANA, A Finite-Element Analysis Programme, Users Manual-Release 8.1
(2nd ed.), TNO DIANA BV., Delft, The Netherlands, 2003.
[9] A.G. Bloodworth, Three-dimensional analysis of tunnelling effects on
structures to develop design method, Ph.D. thesis, University of Oxford,
2002.
[10] R.B.J. Brinkgreve and W. Broere, The influence of tunnel boring on
foundations and buildings in urban areas A numerical study, Int. workshop
on geotechnics of soft soils - Theory and practice. Vermeer, Schweiger,
Karstunen & Cundy (eds.), pp. 257-263, 2003.
[11] M.P. OReilly, and B.M New, Settlements above tunnels in the United
Kingdom-their magnitude and prediction, Proceeding of Tunnelling 82
symposium, London, pp. 173-181, 1982.
[12] R.N. Taylor, Tunnelling in soft ground in the UK. Under ground
conastruction in soft ground, Fujita & kusakabe (eds.) Balkema, Rotterdam,
pp. 123-126, 1995.
[13] R.J. Grant and R.N. Taylor, Tunnelling-induced ground movements in clay.
Proc. Inst. Civ. Engng., Vol. 143, pp. 43-55, 2000.