Tunnel Face Stability for Conventional Underground Excavation

Pooyan Asadollahi
Parsons Corporation, Washington, District of Columbia, USA

Jon Kaneshiro
Parsons Corporation, San Diego, C, USA

Marco Invernizzi
ALPI Engineering LLC, Austin, Texas, USA

ABSTRACT
Maintaining stability of tunnel face is an essence to ensure safety during underground construction at any depth, through
any ground condition and excavated conventionally or using TBM. This is especially the case in urban environments,
where tunnels are typically shallow and often driven in increasingly difficult ground conditions. While a progressive
collapse of the tunnel face may lead into a chimney caving mechanism, the influence of a tunnel collapse or extensive
deformations in urban environment can be catastrophic, and even limited soil deformations may damage buildings.
Keeping the tunnel face stable becomes more challenging when the ground is soft, non-cohesive and permeable with
groundwater seepage. TBMs with advanced technologies maintain face stability by using earth or slurry pressure on the
excavation face; but not all tunnels can be excavated using TBM due to site limitations. In conventional excavation
methods, the tunnel face should be stabilized by using face dowels, face shotcrete, jet grouting, staggered excavation
sequences and other techniques, so called “tools in the toolbox” in the tunneling industry.

This paper discusses some case histories of tunnel collapses due to face instability followed by a literature review on
exiting stability analysis approaches for tunnel face. Different approaches and tools that are common and innovative and
used to increase the safety factor of face stability in conventional mined tunnels are discussed. After demonstrating the
importance of monitoring the face deformation, some guidelines are recommended to control this deformation to ensure
safety and minimize impacts on exiting urban infrastructure.

1 INTRODUCTION principal stress, σ1, direction is parallel to the tunnel drive

and crown failure is more prevalent when the tunnel drive
With the continuous increase in underground urban is perpendicular to σ1 direction. Figure 3 illustrates
development, tunnels need to be built in increasingly diagrammatic core failure mechanism.
difficult ground conditions. In most cases, the ground by
itself is not stable and face stability is achieved by earth or
slurry pressure on the excavation face, in bored tunnels,
and by using tools such as face dowels, face shotcrete,
jet grouting, and staggered excavation sequences, in
conventionally mined tunnels.
Maintaining the stability of tunnel face becomes more
(a) Stable (b) Stable in short term (c) Unstable
challenging when the ground is soft, non-cohesive and
Figure 1. Ground Behavior Categories
permeable with groundwater seepage. Typically, ground
can be classified into three main categories as depicted in
Figure 1 based on their core-face stability.
In general, we would categorize tunnel failures into
three main failure modes: (1) crown failure, (2) core
failure, and (3) crown-core failure. Figure 2 schematically
depicts these failure modes for an SEM tunnel. The (1) Crown failure (2) Core failure (3) Crown-core failure
principal stress directions affect the stability of the tunnel
Figure 2. Tunnel Failure Categories (Health and Safety
face. Core failure is more prevalent when the maximum
Executive, 1996)
 shale layers weakened mostly by oblique slip surfaces
and fissures damped with water (Vlasov et al. 2001).

2.2 National Highway A16 Project, Switzerland

Mont Russelin Tunnel located in Delemont, Switzerland,

had an incident of face collapse with water inrush in 1989
while being excavated using TBM through limestone and
Figure 3. Failure Mechanisms: (a) and (b) are typical face tectonized marlstone with overlapping planes and faulted
collapses; and (c) refers to blow-out failure (Leca and zones formed of alternating sub-horizontal layers. The
Dormieux, 1990) progress of the drive was halted after about ten meters
because of subsidence caused by incoming water with
This paper discusses some case histories of tunnel the molasses. Furthermore, the TBM cut into a major
collapses due to face instability followed by a literature karst causing major problems. Moreover, an unstable or
review on exiting stability analysis approaches for tunnel collapsing cutting face and a trapped shield occurred
face in Sections 2 and 3, respectively. Section 4 briefly when traversing the marls of the anticline. The overbreak
discusses common conventional sequential and full-face in front of the head reached 5 to 6 meters and sometimes
excavation methods as well as tools that are used to risky human intervention was necessary in front of the
increase the safety factor of face stability in conventional head of the TBM (Kovari and Descoeudres, 2001).
mined tunnels. Section 5 presents a guideline for
controlling deformation and face stabilization in full-face 2.3 Grauholz Project, Bern, Switzerland
conventional excavation.
A face collapse with settlement at the surfaced occurred
2 CASE HISTORIES OF TUNNEL COLLAPSES in 1990 during construction of the Tunnel. The tunnel was
excavated using a mix-shield TBM. The geology includes
This section briefly discusses some case histories of difficult, constantly changing subsurface condition with
tunnel collapses due to face instability found in literatures. varying glacial moraine deposits, ice-marginal deposits of
Table 1 summarizes the case histories and potential silt, sand, and gravel. Various problems such as collapse
causes of their face collapses. of the face and settlements of the surface in shape of
craters led to a low average advance rate. The face
Table 1. Case Histories of Tunnel Collapses collapse occurred when the bentonite slurry was pumped
out, such that the upper part of the face was supported by
Case History Cause of Face Failure overpressure. The reason for the collapse was
combination of three factors: the thin layer of overburden,
Trans-Caucasian Railway Local coaly & clayey shale layers
partially cohesionless soil in layers, and changing the face
weakened by oblique slip surfaces
& fissures damped with water support from bentonite to air. A further collapse occurred,
blocking the cutterhead during an attempt to return to
National Highway A16 Geology
hydraulic support after changing the cutters (Isaksson,
Grauholz Project Thin layer of overburden, partially 2002; Herrenknecht, 1992).
cohesionless soil layers, &
changing the face support from
bentonite to air 2.4 Seoul Metro – Phase 2, Korea
Seoul Metoro Weathered granite at the tunnel
In January 1993, during construction of Seoul Metro
face & high groundwater pressure
tunnel near Yongdungop in soft rock using NATM (New
Vereina Tunnel High ratio of UCS/σ1 was high & Austrian Tunneling Method) by drill-and-blast, a
principle stress direction
face/daylight collapse occurred. Figure 4 presents a photo
Laerdal Tunnel Principle stress direction of the collapse at the surface.
Tala Hydroelectric Poor control of groundwater at
crown

2.1 Trans-Caucasian Railway Project, Russia

Dilizhan Tunnel experienced two face collapse incidents

while the tunnel was being excavated using TBM through
coaly and clayey shales. In June 1983, while driving the
tunnel, a rock-fall from the face and the roof took place
3
with about 270 m of the rock fall-out. In July 1983, while
finishing the work with a seemingly stable condition at the
face, the front part of the decks had a sudden fall. Two
miners were completely covered with earth. The collapse
was caused by the existence of local coaly and clayey
Figure 4. Seoul Metro Daylight Collapse (From Lee and
Cho 2008)
 The tunnel collapsed starting from the left side of the
3 2
crown after removing spoil. Approximately 900m of loose
material flowed into the tunnel and water inflow of up to
300 liters/minutes was recorded. Possible cause of failure
was weathered granite at the tunnel face and high
groundwater pressure. Remedial measures consisted of
backfilling the crater with soil followed by cement grouting
and chemical grouting. Lessons learnt was insufficient
ground investigation, unexpected groundwater inflow, no
tunnel face stability analysis, and no consideration of
blasting effects close to weathered zone with shallow
cover (Lee and Cho 2008).
2.5 Vereina Tunnel of Central Station, Switzerland
The tunnel located in Klosters, Switzerland, had an
incident of face collapse with roof caving in 1994 while
being excavated using TBM through crystalline rock with
sections of severely sheared and altered rock; and
another section of stable crystalline rock with a tendency
for brittle fracture. There were cave-ins on more than one
occasion both above and in front of the cutterhead.
Indeed the TBM became jammed at certain spots.
Therefore, the TBM drive was extremely time-consuming
(Kovari and Descoeudres, 2001).
Since the crown seems to be generally stable, this is
face stability issue where the ratio of UCS/σ1 was high
and due to principle stress direction. This is a problem
when tunneling in glacial moraine parallel to principal
stress direction. It is believed they may have cause
excessive wear on machine when tunneling parallel to
principal stress. It should be mentioned that there are
terminal or end moraines and lateral moraines. Lateral
moraines are in general parallel to principal stress
whereas end moraines are perpendicular to principal
stress.
2.6 Laerdal Tunnel, Norway
In June 1999, Laerdal Tunnel in Sogn and Fjordane had
an incident of face collapse with rock burst while being
excavated conventionally by drill-and-blast through
banded and veined Precambrian gneisses with gabbroitic
composition and massive syenitic or monzonitic augen
gneisses. The tunnel suffered rock burst over much of its
route. The scheduled breakthrough had been delayed
because of an 18 m long, up to 10 m deep tunnel collapse
at the face. A fall of rock 10 km from the Aurland portal
was grouted in place and remined. Approximately 1200
3
m of collapsed materials filled the excavated area. Due
to adverse rock conditions there are high stresses, which
have necessitated the application of heavy support with
rockbolts and fiber reinforced shotcrete (Seidenfuss,
2006).
2.7 Tala Hydroelectic Project, Bhutan
In 1999, Tala Hydroelectic Project had a face collapse in
their tunnel while excavating through moist crushed rock
by drill-and-blast. Because of geological problems, the
commissioning of the plant had been delayed and the
2
costs escalated. The project required 22.25 km x 50 m
headrace tunnel, 2 x 992 m long pressure shafts, a 2.2
km x 60 m tailrace tunnel and an underground
powerhouse. Around 80% of the strata were classified as
poor or very poor, which caused considerable tunneling
delays. Blockages in inclined and vertical shafts delayed
completion. The excavation at the 6 km mark had to deal
with a 15 m long face collapse when it intersected and
aquifer 122 m from the portal. Geologists described the
conditions as the worst for tunneling that had been met
anywhere in the world yet. The excavation of the tunnel
took about 20 months, which in normal condition would
have taken about two months (Seidenfuss, 2006).
3 FACE STABILITY ANALYSIS APPROACHES
A number of authors has described external failure
mechanisms of the tunnel face and derived formulas to
calculate a suitable support pressure by analytical or
empirical means. Historically, the first models were upper
and lower bound plasticity solutions for an associated
cohesive material. Later, solutions for non-associated
Mohr-Coulomb material and limit-equilibrium models were
published. The different models will be described briefly in
this section (Broere 2001).
Broms and Bennermark (1967) derived one of the first
models by deriving a relationship describing the stability
of unsupported vertical openings in an undrained
cohesive material. With this relationship they define the
stability ratio N to be equal to the difference between total
overburden stress and support pressure divided by the
undrained shear strength. They found that an opening in
such conditions would become unstable for N > 6. While
Broms’ and Bennermark’s stability number is for soft
ground tunnels, Hendron and Fernandez (1983) used
ratio of σ1/UCS for rock tunnels.
Davis et al. (1980) investigate the stability of an
idealized partially unlined tunnel heading in a Tresca
material and introduce the distance P between the face
and the point where a stiff support is provided. They use
the vertical opening as presented by Broms &
Bennermark as one of three limit cases for their stability
analysis. They further derive upper and lower bound
plasticity solutions for the stability of a plane strain unlined
cavity and a plain strain ‘long wall mining’ problem,
obtained by taking P goes to infinity.
Atkinson and Potts (1977) derived the minimal support
pressure for an unlined cavity in a dry cohesionless
material. They differentiate between two limit cases. The
first case is a tunnel in a weightless medium with a
surface load, the second a tunnel in a medium with γ > 0
but without surface loading. For this second case, they
derive two lower bound solutions. For cases where c > 0
and ϕ > 0, which include all practically relevant cases, it
can be shown however that, in these solutions, the
overburden is independent lower bound solution.
Leca and Dormieux (1990) propose a series of conical
bodies. Combined with different stress states, similar to
those proposed by Davis et al. (1980), they derive lower
and upper bound limits for both the minimal and maximal
support pressure of a lined tunnel in a dry Mohr-Coulomb
material. They present two sets of graphs for the
dimensionless load factors, one for minimal and one for
maximal support pressures. Using these graphs the
resulting support pressures can be calculated. Their
[unsafe] upper bound solution for the minimal support
pressure is in good correspondence with the results from
laboratory and centrifuge tests on tunnels in sand by
Atkinson et al. (1975) and centrifuge tests by Chambon &
Corté (1994), which all fall between the bounds set by
Leca’s upper bound solution and Atkinson’s lower bound
solution. The accompanying lower bound solution,
however, shows a depth dependence of the support
pressure not observed in laboratory tests.
The minimal support pressures needed for a semi-
circular and spherical limit equilibrium mechanism, which
roughly resembles the mechanism used by Broms &
Bennermark have been calculated by Krause (1987) in a
limit-equilibrium analysis using the shear stresses on the
sliding planes. Of the three mechanisms proposed, the
quarter circle will always yield the highest minimal support
pressure. As Krause already indicates this may not
always be a realistic representation of the actual failure
body. In many cases, the half-spherical body will be a
better representation.
An often-encountered limit-equilibrium model is the
wedge model, which assumes a sliding wedge loaded by
a soil silo. A number of slightly different implementations
have been described in the literature. Murayama (1966)
calculated the minimal support pressure using a two-
dimensional log-spiral shaped sliding plane (Krause
1987). A three-dimensional model as sketched in Figure 5
was already been outlined by Horn (1961), using a
triangular wedge with a straight instead of log-spiral
shaped front. His article offers no practical elaboration
and an implementation of this model is first published by
Jancsecz and Steiner (1994). They incorporate the
influence of soil arching above the crown and present
their results in the form of a three-dimensional earth
pressure coefficient for different values of overburden and
angle of internal friction ϕ. These results are valid for a
homogeneous soil only. Anagnostou and Kovári (1994
and 1996) show the eroding influence of slurry infiltration
on face stability using a similar model. Mohkam and
Wong (1989) described a limit equilibrium model using a
roughly log-spiral shaped wedge, which has to be
obtained from a variational analysis over the unknown
position of the failure plane.
Figure 5. Wedge and Silo Model (Broere 2001)
A problem common to all global stability models
mentioned above is that they are only suited for isotropic,
homogeneous soil conditions, nor do they consider the
state of stress. While practical experience shows that the
stability of the face is often a problem in heterogeneous
soils (Mair and Taylor 1997; Broere and Polen 1996),
more so than in homogeneous soils, it cannot be
quantified straightforwardly by any of those models. In
such conditions, one may attempt to establish upper and
lower limits to the support pressure by simplifying the
geometry of the problem or using averaged ground
properties. There are no clear methods to make such
simplifications or obtain such averages and a certain
amount of engineering judgement is necessary. To deal
with this problem Belter et al. (1999) introduced a two-
dimensional wedge model that can include layered soils
above crown, but not in front of the face. It remains
unclear from the brief description, however, whether this
model includes arching effects of the soil above the tunnel
or to what extent these heterogeneities influence the
required support pressure. The effect of layered soils
above the face can easily be included in Terzaghi’s
arching formulae (1943) and thereby in the wedge models
described by Jancsecz & Steiner or Anagnostou & Kovári.
The model sketched by Katzenbach is a two-dimensional
simplification of such a model.
The global stability models summarized above allow
one to approximate the minimal and/or maximal support
pressure, mostly by upper and lower bound inclusion, but
give no insight in the safety margins present in these
calculations or the safety margins that should be applied
during the actual execution of the tunneling works.
The stability ratio N defined by Broms & Bennermark
(1967) can of course be viewed as a safety factor, but
with the somewhat confusing effect that a higher stability
ratio corresponds with a lower factor of safety, and the
actual margin of safety is not easily established. Romo
and Diaz (1981) have made a correlation between the
stability ratio and the safety factor, but related the concept
of safety to the occurrence of settlements at the surface
and not to the stability of the face. Definitions of the
(partial) factor of safety specific to a wedge stability model
have been made by Jancsecz (1997) and Sternath and
Baumann (1997).
A more precise assessment of the safety margins
available under field conditions is hindered by the
practical problems as well as the financial consequences
of a full-scale tunnel face collapse, and most efforts in this
direction have been made using laboratory models.
Establishing a relation between (partial) safety factors and
an acceptable risk level for the entire tunneling project is
also complicated by the fact that most stability models
have no explicit dependence on time, excavation speed or
excavation distance.
Apart from the analytical models mentioned above, a
number of numerical models have also been described in
literature. The lion’s share are finite element calculations
tailored to a certain project and are hardly adaptable for
general cases. An exception is the model reported by
Buhan et al. (1999). They describe the framework for a
three-dimensional finite element model of the face of an
EPB machine, where the drag forces of seepage flow
towards the face have been included. This model is
applied to an 8m diameter tunnel, and the influence of
varying overburdens on stability has been studied. They
also find that the stability safety factor depends solely on
the ratio of horizontal to vertical permeability and not on
their individual magnitudes.
4 CONVENTIONAL EXCAVATION METHODS
This section briefly discusses two common conventional
excavation methods: SEM and full-face followed by a
comparison of core-face stabilization design for a tunnel,
which is currently under construction in Slovakia. Face
stabilization toolboxes are briefly explained at the end of
this section.
4.1 Sequential Excavation Method (SEM)
SEM, also commonly referred to as NATM, is a concept
that is based on understanding of the behavior of the
ground as it reacts to the creation of an underground
opening. In its classic form, the SEM/NATM attempts to
mobilize the self-supporting capability of the ground to an
optimum. Initially formulated for application in rock
tunneling in the early 1960’s, NATM has found application
in soft ground in urban tunneling in the late 60’s and has
since enjoyed a broad international utilization in both
rural and urban setting. Depending on size of the opening
and quality of the ground, a tunnel cross-section is
subdivided into multiple drifts. Refer to AFTES (1978) and
Chapter 9 of “Technical Manual for Design and
Construction of Road Tunnels – Civil Elements” by
Federal Highway Administration of the US Department of
Transportation (Publication # FHWA-NHI-10-034;
December 2009) for history, background and guideline of
SEM/NATM.
4.2 Full-face Excavation Method
Full-face excavation method, also known as ADECO-RS,
is based on the analysis and control of the deformation
response of the tunnel during excavation. Full scale
testing, laboratory testing and numerical analysis carry
out the analysis. The scope of the analysis is to achieve a
theoretical evaluation of the deformation response by
classifying the deformation response of the tunnel core-
face in three main categories as detailed in Figure 1. The
control part of the method consist in adopting stabilization
measures of the core-face of the tunnel, which could be
pre-confinement actions and/or confinement actions.
Ultimately, the experimental onsite measurements of the
deformation response are compared with the theoretical
evaluation of the deformation response determined during
the analysis to arrive to the final design calibration.
Full-face excavation approach can be described by
the following assumptions: (a) The ground is considered
as a construction material; (b) the importance of the
ground deformational response during excavation; (c) the
advantage of driving the tunnel always full face in every
stress-strain situation; (d) the importance of the invert in
difficult ground conditions (to “close the ring”); and (e) the
relevance and value of stress-strain monitoring during
face advance.
The complexity of the deformation response it is not
simply limited to the tunnel cavity but it extend beyond it,
involving the volume of ground ahead of the face. This
region, which is called “advance core”, is affected by two
types of deformation response: “extrusion” and “pre-
convergence” (see Figure 6). The extrusion manifests
itself on the surface of the face along the longitudinal axis
of the tunnel while the pre-convergence of the cavity can
be described as the convergence of the theoretical profile
of the tunnel ahead of the face. These primary
components are functions of the relationship between the
strength and deformation properties of the advance core
and its original stress state.
The full-face excavation approach has been applied
for the first time in the Tasso Tunnel (Italy, 1988), then
San Vitale (Italy, 1990) and Vasto Tunnel (Italy, 1991).
Starting from its very beginning, this method has aroused
considerable interest and rapidly established itself as an
advantageous alternative. See Lunardi (2000, 2015a and
2015b) for more information about ADECO-RS.
Figure 6. Tunneling Induced Deformations (Asadollahi
and Kaneshiro 2013)
4.3 Core-face Stabilization Design
The Visnove tunnel is a double lane tunnel of the D1
Highway Lietavska Lucka – Visnove – Dubna Skala,
about 7,450 m long, located in the Zilina district, Slovakia.
The tunnel is currently under construction. Figure 7
effectively compares core-face stabilization design using
SEM and Full-face excavation method.
4.4 Face Stabilization Toolboxes
Staggered excavation, which is a principal of sequential
excavation method, is known to be an effective measure
in reducing construction impacts of conventional
excavation on existing structures because it provides
early ring closure. On the other hand, face dowels can be
effectively used to stabilize the face while excavation can
be done full-face which means even faster closure of a
stiffer ring. Nowadays, face dowels are being used in
sequential excavation method as well; although the ring
will be closed slower than full-face approach. Figure 8
depicts isometric of staggered excavation method versus
full-face with face dowels.
 To design the fiberglass face dowel, temporary
support pressure on the face can be determined as (Peila
1994):
 ್  ್  ್ ೗
್


 min  , [1]
 మ  మ

Where Nb is number of dowels, A is cross section of the

GFRP dowels, Sl is lateral surface of the dowels,
 is
shear stress on the lateral surface of the dowels, and σb is
yielding stress of the dowels material.
Spiling or pipe-canopy became an essential part of
conventional excavation regardless of full-face or
sequential method. The spiling increases face stability by
reducing the weight of ground silo on the top of the wedge
(See Figure 5 for definition of Silo and Wedge).
Other tools such as face shotcrete and jet grouting
are also being used in conventional excavation. Face
Full-face Excavation Method shotcrete is common in both Sequential and Full-face
excavation method to prevent from localized face failure
at each round of excavation. When ground is granular and
cohesion-less, jet grouting are utilized to improve the
ground and provide stability during tunnel excavation.

5 GUIDELINE FOR CONTROLING DEFORMATION

Figure 1 classified ground into three different categories

Sequential Excavation Method
Figure 7. Core-face Stabilization Design Comparison for
Full-face and Sequential Excavation Methods
based on their behavior during underground construction
with some photos of tunnels under construction. Figure 9
below presents the ground-reaction curve for each of
these categories. Before starting the excavation,
numerical and/or closed-form analyses are performed and
the tunnel alignment will be divided into reaches and each
reach will be categorized based on the ground condition.

(a) Stable core-face (b) Stable core-face in (c) Unstable core-face

short term

Staggered Excavation
Elastic Behavior Elasto-Plastic Behavior

Figure 9. Ground-reaction Curves for Different Ground

Categories

During excavation, the extrusion and convergence

Full-face Excavation with Face Dowels
Figure 8. Staggered Excavation versus Face Dowels
(Invernizzi 2016)
are measured with proper instrumentations such as
sliding micrometer. The ground, which was categorized
during design stage, then, will be verified or re-
categorized, based on results of measured deformations.
Figure 10 presents an outline/example of such monitoring.
Figure 10. Core Deformation Control; Combining Reading
of Extrusion and Convergence (Invernizzi 2016)

Based on ground category, defined during the design

stage and verified by measuring deformation, the pre-
support and initial support are specified. Figure 11
effectively summarizes a guideline for controlling
deformation in conventional excavation using full-face
method. The ground types correspond to Figure 1
definition.

6 SUMMARY

This paper discussed some case histories of tunnel

collapses due to face instability. A literature review on
exiting stability analysis approaches for tunnel face was
presented. Common conventional sequential and full-face
excavation methods were discussed together with “tools
in the toolbox” that are used to increase the safety factor
of face stability in conventional mined tunnels. A guideline
was given for controlling deformation and face
stabilization in full-face conventional excavation.

7 REFERENCES

AFTES, French Association for Underground Works 1978.

Tunnel stability by convergence-confinement method
series of papers. Published in 1980 in Underground
Space (Tunnelling and Underground Space
Technology) Vol. 4, Nos. 4, 5, 6.
Anagnostou, G. and Kovári, K. 1994. The face stability of
slurry-shield-driven tunnels. Tunneling and
Underground Space Technology, 9(2):165–174.
Anagnostou, G. and Kovári, K. 1996. Face stability in
slurry and EPB shield tunneling. In Mair and Taylor,
pages 453–458.
Asadollahi, P. and Kaneshiro, J. 2013. Tunnel and
Ground Support Design. Tunneling Short Course,
Colorado School of Mine, September 18-20.
Atkinson, J.H. and Potts, D.M. Stability of a shallow
circular tunnel in cohesionless soil. Géotechnique, Figure 11. Full-face Excavation Guideline for Controlling
27(2):203–215. Deformation (Invernizzi 2016)
Atkinson, J.H., Orr, T.L.L. and Potts, D.M. 1975.
Research studies into the behaviour of tunnels and
tunnel linings in soft ground. Technical Report 176
UC, Transport and Road Research Laboratory.
Belter, B., Heiermann, W., Katzenbach, R. Maidl, B.,
Quick, H. and Wittke, W. 1999. NBS Köln- Rhein/Main
- Neue Wege bei der Umsetzung von
Verkehrsprojekten. Bauingenieur, 74(1):1–7.
Buhan, P., Cuvillier, A., Dormieux, L. and Maghous, S.
1999. Face stability of shallow circular tunnels driven
under the water table: A numerical analysis.
International Journal for Numerical and Analytical
Methods in Geomechanics, 23:79–95.
Broere, W. and Polen, B. 1996. Risico’s en storingen bij
geboorde tunnels. Technical Report 02, Delft
University of Technology/Centrum Ondergronds
Bouwen.
Broere, W. 2001, Tunnel Face Stability & New CPT
Applications. PhD Thesis, Technische Universiteit
Delft.
Broms, B.B. and Bennermark, H. 1967. Stability of clay at
vertical openings. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and
Foundations Division, 93(1):71–94.
Bessolow, W. and Makarow, O. 1992, Erfahrungen beim
Vortrieb des Severomuisk Tunnels and der Baikal-
Amur-Magistrale. In Probleme bei maschinellen
Tunnelvortrieben? Geratechersteller and Anwender
berichten Beitrage zum Symposium vom 22/23.
Oktober 1992. TU Munchen.
Chambon, P. and Corté, J.F., 1994. Shallow tunnels in
cohesionless soil: Stability of tunnel face. ASCE
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 120:1148–1165.
Davis, E.H., Gunn, M.J., Mair, R.J. and Seneviratne. H.N.
1980. The stability of shallow tunnels and
underground openings in cohesive material.
Géotechnique, 30(4):397–416.
Health and Safety Executive. 1996. Safety of New
Austrian Tunneling Method (NATM) Tunnels. HSE
Health & Safety Executive Books, Sheffield, UK.
Hendron, A.J. and Fernandez, G. 1983. Dynamic and
Static Design Considerations for Underground
Chambers. In Proc. of a Symposium on Seismic
Design of Embankments and Caverns, ASCE National
Convention. Philadelphia.
Herrenknecht, M. 1992, Entwurf des Mixschildes fur den
Grauholztunnel. In Probleme bei maschinellen
Tunnelvortieben? Geratehersteller und Andwender
berichten. Beitage zume Symposium vom 22/23
Oktober 1992. TU Munchen.
Horn, N. 1961. Horizontaler Erddruck auf senkrechte
Abschlussflächen von Tunnelröhren. In
Landeskonferenz der Ungarischen Tiefbauindustrie,
pages 7–16.
Isaksson, T, 2002. Model for estimation of time and cost
based on risk evaluation applied on tunnel projects.
Doctoral Thesis, Stockholm.
Invernizzi, M. 2016. Tunnel Face Stability for
Conventional Underground Excavation. Underground
th
Solutions Seminar. Washington-DC, USA. June 8 .
Jancsecz, S. and Steiner, W. 1994. Face support for a
large mix-shield in heterogenous ground conditions. In
Tunneling ’94, London. Institution of Mining and
Metallurgy.
Jancsecz, S. 1997. Modern shield tunneling in the view of
geotechnical engineering: A re- appraisal of
experience. In of XIV ICSMFE, pages 1415–1420.
Kovari, K. and Descoeudres, F. 2001. Tunneling
Switzerland. Swiss Tunneling Society, Bertelsmann
Fachzeitschriften GmbH, Gutensloh, Germany.
Krause, T. 1987. Schildvortrieb mit flüssigkeits- und
erdgestützter Ortsbrust. PhD thesis, Tech- nischen
Universität Carolo-Wilhelmina, Braunschweig.
Lee, I.M. and Cho, G.C. 2008, Underground construction
th
in decomposed residual soils. The 6 International
Symposium on Geotechnical Aspects of Underground
Consrtuction in Soft Ground (IS-Shanghai 2008),
Tongji University, Shanghai, China.
Leca, E. and Dormieux, L. 1990. Upper and lower bound
solutions for the face stability of shallow circular
tunnels in frictional material. Géotechnique,
40(4):581–606.
Lunardi P., 2000. The design and construction of tunnels
using the approach based on the analysis of control
deformation in rocks and soils. T&T International
Lunardi P., 2015a. Extrusion control of the ground core at
the tunnel excavation face as a stabilization
instrument for the cavity. Muir Wood Lecture 2015
Lunardi P., 2015b. The ADECO-RS approach and the full
face excavation for Visnove Tunnel
Mair, R.J. and Taylor, R.N. 1997. Theme lecture: Bored
tunnelling in the urban environment. In of XIV ICSMFE
, pages 2353–2385.
Mohkam, M. and Wong, Y.W. 1989. Three dimensional
stability analysis of the tunnel face under fluid
pressure. In G. Swoboda, editor, Numerical Methods
in Geomechanics, pages 2271–2278, Rotterdam.
Balkema.
Murayama, S., Endo, M., Hashiba, T., Yamamoto, K. and
Sasaki, S. 1966. Geotechnical aspects for the
excavating performance of the shield machines.
st
in Proc. of the 21 Annual Lecture in Meeting of Japan
Society of Civil Engineers, Tokyo, Japan.
Peila, D. 1994. A theoretical study of reinforcement
influence on the stability of a tunnel face. Geotechnical
and Geological Engineering, pp145-168.
Romo, M.P. and Diaz, C. 1981. Face stability and ground
settlement in shield tunneling. In of X. ICSMFE, pages
357–360.
Seidenfuss, T., 2006. Collapses in Tunneling. Master
Thesis, Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne.
Sternath, R. and Baumann, Th. 1997. Face support for
tunnels in loose ground. In J. Golser, W.J. Hinkel, and
W. Shubert, editors, Tunnels for People, pages 317–
323, Rotterdam. Balkema.
Terzaghi, K., 1943, Theorectical Soil Mechanics, John
Wiley and Sons
Vlasov, S.N., Makovsky, L.V. and Merkin, V.E. 2001.
Accidents in Transportation and Subway Tunnels –
Construction to Operation. Russian Tunneling
Association, Elex-KM Publishers, Moscow.