See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281669614

Face stability analysis of shallow circular

tunnels in cohesive–frictional soils

Article in Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology · August 2015

DOI: 10.1016/j.tust.2015.08.007

CITATIONS READS

4 459

3 authors:

Zhang Cheng-ping K. Han

11 PUBLICATIONS 16 CITATIONS Beijing Jiaotong University
8 PUBLICATIONS 13 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE

SEE PROFILE

Dingli Zhang
Beijing Jiaotong University
23 PUBLICATIONS 88 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Analysis model for face stability of shield tunnel and corresponding solution View project

All content following this page was uploaded by K. Han on 14 September 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
 Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 50 (2015) 345–357

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tust

Face stability analysis of shallow circular tunnels

in cohesive–frictional soils
Chengping Zhang ⇑, Kaihang Han, Dingli Zhang
Key Laboratory for Urban Underground Engineering of the Education Ministry, Beijing Jiaotong University, Beijing 100044, China
School of Civil Engineering, Beijing Jiaotong University, Beijing 100044, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The face stability of a circular tunnel in cohesive–frictional soils was numerically and theoretically inves-
Received 6 March 2015 tigated. Three-dimensional (3D) numerical simulations were first performed to analyze the face stability
Received in revised form 29 June 2015 of a circular tunnel with a series of tunnel diameter-to-depth ratios and soil properties. The limit support
Accepted 11 August 2015
pressure on the tunnel face and the failure zone in front of the tunnel face were both obtained from the
numerical simulations. A simple and feasible criterion was suggested to outline the boundary strip of the
failure zone at collapse in displacement clouds under different conditions. Based on the numerical sim-
Keywords:
ulation results, a new 3D failure mechanism was proposed using the kinematic approach of limit analysis
Shallow tunnel
Face stability
theory to determine the limit support pressure of the tunnel face. The new 3D failure mechanism was
Failure mechanism composed of four truncated cones on which a distributed force acts. Finally, the limit support pressures
Numerical simulation and failure zones obtained from the new failure mechanism and the numerical simulations were com-
Limit analysis pared. In addition, comparisons between the results of this work and those of existing approaches were
Face collapse performed. Overall, the new failure mechanism is substantially more consistent with the shapes of the
failure zones observed in numerical simulations and experimental tests than the existing multi-block
failure mechanisms. The new failure mechanism is more effective and reasonable.
Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction undrained soil cohesion. From an experimental perspective,

Because of the continuous expansion of cities and decrease in
available land, new transportation and service networks must be
placed underground (e.g., metro tunnels). Shield machines (earth,
slurry and air) are widely used in urban shallow tunnel construc-
tion in soft ground. However, if the support pressure in the cham-
ber is not sufficient to balance the external earth and water
pressure, the tunnel face may become unstable or collapse. Thus,
the stability analysis of the tunnel face is essential for guaranteeing
the safe construction of shallow shield tunnels. The primary con-
cerns in stability analysis are the failure zone and the limit support
pressure of the tunnel face.
In purely cohesive soils, the so-called load factor N has been used
to investigate the stability of the tunnel face. This load factor N was
first defined by Broms and Bennermark (1967) as N = (rs + cH
rt)/
cu, where rs is the possible surcharge loading acting on the ground
surface, rt is the uniform pressure applied on the tunnel face, H is
the depth of the tunnel axis, c is the soil unit weight, and cu is the
⇑ Corresponding author at: School of Civil Engineering, Beijing Jiaotong Univer-
sity, No. 3 Shangyuancun, Haidian District, Beijing 100044, China.
E-mail addresses: chpzhang@bjtu.edu.cn, zcpbjtu@gmail.com (C. Zhang).
Broms and Bennermark (1967) derived the stability condition for
N values between 6 and 7. Kimura and Mair (1981) found that the
limit value depends on the tunnel cover when N is between 5 and
10 based on the centrifuge test results. Based on a limit equilibrium
analytical approach, Ellstein (1986) gave an analytical expression of
N for homogeneous cohesive soils, which agreed with the results of
Kimura and Mair (1981). Davis et al. (1980) obtained upper and
lower bound stability solutions for heading collapse under
undrained conditions, which were based on three different shapes
of shallow underground openings relevant to tunneling. More
recently, a promising numerical approach (the finite element limit
analysis) was proposed by Augarde et al. (2003) to investigate the
stability of a plane strain heading in undrained soil conditions
based on lower- and upper-bound theorems. This approach is cur-
rently limited to a 2D analysis. In contrast with the rigid block fail-
ure mechanisms, several kinematic approaches based on
continuous velocity fields in limit analysis theory have been pro-
posed. The difference between these approaches lies in the methods
that are used to generate the continuous velocity fields. Klar et al.
(2007) suggested a new kinematic approach in limit analysis theory
for two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) stability
analyses of circular tunnels in a purely cohesive soil based on an

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2015.08.007
0886-7798/Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
346 C. Zhang et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 50 (2015) 345–357
admissible continuous velocity field. The velocity field from the 2D
stability analysis was based on work performed by Verruijt and
Booker (1996). The velocity field in the 3D stability analysis was
based on work performed by Sagaseta (1987). More recently,
Mollon et al. (2013) developed two continuous velocity fields for
the collapse and blowout of a pressurized tunnel face in purely
cohesive soil. Those continuous velocity fields were based on the
normality condition, which states that any plastic deformation in
a purely cohesive soil develops without any volume change. The
continuous velocity field results have shown significant improve-
ments compared with the other approaches.
In cohesive–frictional soils, analytical approaches are primarily
based on limit equilibrium methods or limit analysis methods.
Limit equilibrium methods are widely used in the theoretical anal-
yses of tunnel face stability. Murayama et al. (1966) proposed a 2D
logarithmic spiral model. Krause (1987) derived the limit support
pressure for tunnel face failure by assuming that the failure zone
was a half sphere, a half circle, or a quarter circle. In addition,
Horn (1961) introduced a 3D wedge model that assumed a sliding
wedge loaded by a soil silo. Anagnostou and Kovári (1996) applied
the wedge model to calculate the limit support pressure in the
homogeneous stratum. Broere (2001) extended the wedge model
to a layered stratum. The other theoretical methods are the limit
analysis methods (based on the upper- and lower-bound theorems
of plasticity). Atkinson and Potts (1977) derived the limit support
pressure for an unlined cavity in a dry cohesionless material. In
addition, Lyamin and Sloan (2000) investigated the stability of a
plane strain circular tunnel in cohesive–frictional soils using finite
element limit analysis methods. Leca and Dormieux (1990)
assumed that the failure zone in front of the tunnel face consisted
of a series of conical bodies and derived lower- and upper-bound
solutions for the limit support pressure in a dry Mohr–Coulomb
material. Subsequently, by assuming different failure zone shapes
in front of the tunnel face, Soubra (2000, 2002), Subrin and
Wong (2002) and Mollon et al. (2011) derived the upper-bound
limits for the limit support pressure in a dry Mohr–Coulomb mate-
rial. Experimental tests can be used to study tunnel face stability
problems and the failure modes of the surrounding rock. These
tests have played important roles in tunnel face stability studies.
Chambon and Corté (1994) conducted a series of centrifuge model
tests to determine the tunnel face stability in dry sandy ground.
Their results indicated that the relative depths of the tunnels and
the density of sand had little influence on the limit support pres-
sure. In addition, their results indicated that the failure zone in
front of the tunnel face was bulb-shaped. Takano et al. (2006) per-
formed 1g experimental tests in which an X-ray computed tomog-
raphy scanner was used to visualize the 3D shape of the failure
mechanism. Kirsch (2010) performed small-scale model tests
under normal gravity (1g) to investigate the face stability of shal-
low tunnels and to show that the necessary support pressure is
independent of the overburden and of the initial soil density.
Numerical simulation is considered as an important method for
investigating the stability of tunnel faces using both continuum
and discrete approaches due to their good reproducibility. The con-
tinuum numerical analysis can be performed using the Finite
Element Method (FEM) or the Finite Difference Method (FDM),
whereas the discrete numerical analysis can be carried out using
the Discrete Element Method (DEM). Vermeer et al. (2002) devel-
oped a series of 3D FEM simulations for tunnel face stability anal-
yses and demonstrated that the friction angle of the sand affects
the failure zone in front of the tunnel face and that the limit sup-
port pressure decreases as the friction angle of the sand increases.
Based on 3D FEM simulations, Lu et al. (2014) considered the influ-
ence of seepage on the face stability and analyzed the relationship
between the support pressure and displacement of the shield tun-
nel face. Chen et al. (2013) conducted numerical simulations of the
tunnel face failures using the 3D FDM and compared the results of
the limit support pressure with those obtained from their experi-
mental tests. Senent et al. (2013) proposed a model with the 3D
FDM to analyze the tunnel face failures in fractured rocks under
two different distributions of normal stresses along the slip sur-
face. Later on, Senent and Jimenez (2015) extended the model pro-
posed by Senent et al. (2013) to layered soils and studied the
possibility for partial collapse of tunnel faces. Recently, several
researchers have begun using DEM to analyze the stability of the
tunnel face. Funatsu et al. (2008) investigated the stability of a sin-
gle tunnel and two parallel tunnels by using a series of 2D DEM
simulations. Subsequently, Zhang et al. (2011) developed a 2D
DEM simulation to study the behaviors of cohesive–frictional soils
during the slurry shield tunneling process. Chen et al. (2011) con-
structed a 3D DEM model to analyze the face stability of shallow
shield tunnels in dry sand. The limit support pressure, failure zone
and soil arching were obtained and discussed in terms of the pro-
cess of tunnel face failure.
This paper focuses on a face stability analysis of cohesive–fric-
tional soils in the framework of the kinematic approach of limit
analysis theory. The rigid block failure mechanisms provide a sim-
ple and intuitive approach and are either translational or rota-
tional. Fig. 1 depicts various 3D rigid block failure mechanisms.
These failure mechanisms only consider a portion of the tunnel
face (an ellipse on a circular tunnel face) as the failure zone.
Mollon et al. (2011) generated new failure mechanisms to extend
the failure zone to include the entire circular tunnel face using a
spatial discretization technique. In those cases, the shapes of the
blocks in the failure mechanisms are constrained by the normality
condition (Chen, 1975), which implies that each velocity disconti-
nuity should occur at an angle u from the corresponding velocity
discontinuity surface, with u representing the internal friction
angle of the soil. In some sense, the normality condition causes
the 3D rigid block failure mechanism to consist of cones and/or
logarithmic-spiral-shaped rigid blocks. The upper shapes of the
failure zone are cusp-angle-shaped rather than arch-shaped.
However, the results of the centrifuge tests proposed by
Chambon and Corté (1994) indicated that an arch effect occurs in
the upper part of the failure zone and that the failure soil mass
resembles a chimney for the cover-to-depth ratios C/D = 0.5, 1
and 2, as shown in Fig. 2. There are some differences between
the assumptions in the limit analysis theory and the actual situa-
tions in the upper parts of the failure mechanisms (cf. Fig. 1).
To address these issues, a numerical model is developed in this
study. The goal of the model is to accurately assess the limit sup-
port pressure of tunnel face without any a priori assumption
regarding the shape of the failure mechanisms. Furthermore, a cri-
terion is suggested to outline the boundary strip of the failure zone
at collapse in the displacement clouds. These results will serve as a
reference to develop a suitable collapse failure mechanism in the
limit analysis for the cohesive–frictional soils. Next, a new 3D fail-
ure mechanism is proposed based on the results of numerical sim-
ulations in the framework of the kinematic approach of limit
analysis theory. Finally, the limit support pressures and failure
zones of a tunnel face obtained from the present failure mecha-
nism and the numerical simulations are compared. In addition, a
comparison between the results of the present study and existing
approaches is performed.
2. Numerical simulations with FLAC3D
2.1. FLAC3D numerical simulations
Among the numerical simulation methods, the FEM suffers
from the shortcoming of the pathological mesh-dependency for
analyzing localization problems. The DEM is very time-
 C. Zhang et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 50 (2015) 345–357
(a)
Fig. 1. Some existing 3D rigid block failure mechanisms: perspective views. (a) The two-block failure mechanism defined by the rigid conical blocks (Leca and Dormieux,
1990); (b) the multi-block failure mechanism defined by rigid conical blocks (Soubra, 2002); and (c) the rhinoceros horn failure mechanism defined by logarithmic spirals
(Subrin and Wong, 2002).
Fig. 2. Failure pattern of a shallow tunnel in experimental tests (Chambon and
Corté, 1994).
consuming for simulating the failure of a tunnel face by compar-
ison with the computational efficiency of FEM and FDM (Chen
et al., 2011). Moreover, the micro-parameters input into the DEM
obtained from parameter calibration are difficult to represent the
real characteristics of the soils. The 3D finite difference code
FLAC3D (Itasca Consulting Group, 2006) used explicit Lagrangian
calculation scheme and a mixed discretization zoning technique.
This is a forward scheme for nonlinear problem, which does not
require iteration, unlike other techniques such as FEM that uses
implicit solution methods. Moreover, FLAC3D could deal with the
large deformation problem very well. Therefore, FLAC3D is adopted
347
(b) (c)
in this research aiming at outlining the failure zone and determin-
ing the limit support pressure.
Because symmetrical tunnels are considered, the calculations of
the limit support pressure are based on half of a cylindrical tunnel
cut lengthwise along the central axis. The model is sufficiently large
to avoid boundary effects (cf. Fig. 3). A 3D non-uniform mesh is
used. The present model is composed of approximately 45,823
zones (‘zone’ is the FLAC3D terminology for each discretized ele-
ment). A conventional elastic–plastic model based on the Mohr–
Coulomb failure criterion is adopted to represent the soil. The shells
are simulated by a ‘‘liner” structural element. The boundary condi-
tions in the model are as follows: the ground surface is free to dis-
place, the side surfaces have roller boundaries, and the base is fixed.
The parameters of the soils adopted in the numerical simula-
tions are given in Table 1. The four types of soils are loose sands,
dense sands, soft clays and stiff clays, as suggested in Mollon
et al. (2011). According to the studies proposed by Anagnostou
et al. (2011) and Ibrahim et al. (2015), the Young’s Modulus has
no influence on the limit support pressure. Therefore, a Young’s
Modulus of 20 MPa is adopted for all the soils. The thickness,
Young’s Modulus and Poisson’s ratio of the lining shells are
35 mm, 33.5 GPa and 0.2, respectively.
In practical engineering, the excavation process during the con-
struction of a shield tunnel is performed step by step. However, this
study focuses on the active failure zone and limit support pressure
of a tunnel face. Therefore, the excavation process was simulated
using a simplified single-step excavation scheme that assumes part
of the tunnel (10 m in length) is excavated instantaneously.
Simultaneously, lining shells are installed, and trapezoidally dis-
tributed support pressures that are equal to the initial ground hor-
izontal stress in the reversed direction are applied at the tunnel
face. Then, the active limit support pressure is found by gradually
decreasing the support pressure until the tunnel face collapses. At
each pressure, several cycles are performed until a steady state of
static equilibrium or plastic flow is developed in the soil.
2.2. Numerical simulation results
2.2.1. Limit support pressure
Fig. 4 shows the curves of the support pressure ratio (i.e., the
ratio of the specified face support pressure to the initial ground
348 C. Zhang et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 50 (2015) 345–357

Fig. 3. Numerical model for the analysis of tunnel face stability.

Table 1
Soil parameters.

C/D c (kN/m3) K0 m c (kPa) u (°) Soil type

1.0
0.5 18 0.658 0.397 0 20 Loose sands C/D = 0.5, c = 0 kPa, ϕ = 20ο
18 0.357 0.263 0 40 Dense sands C/D = 0.5, c = 0 kPa, ϕ = 40 ο
ο
18 0.708 0.414 7 17 Soft clays C/D = 1.0, c = 0 kPa, ϕ = 20
0.8
18 0.577 0.366 10 25 Stiff clays C/D = 1.0, c = 0 kPa, ϕ
Support pressure ratio

ο
= 40
1 18 0.658 0.397 0 20 Loose sands
18 0.357 0.263 0 40 Dense sands 0.6
18 0.708 0.414 7 17 Soft clays
18 0.577 0.366 10 25 Stiff clays 0.35
0.4
0.24
horizontal stress for the center of the tunnel) versus the horizontal 0.2
displacement of the corresponding central point of the tunnel face 0.20
for various relative depths (C/D = 0.5 and 1.0) in different soils 0.14
0.0
(sands or clays). As shown in Fig. 4, as the horizontal displacement 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
of the tunnel face increases, the support pressure ratios gradually Horizontal displacement of the central point of tunnel face / mm
decrease to a constant value. Specifically, the slopes of the curves (a) Sands;
will reach zero. In Fig. 4, the dotted lines denote the horizontal tan-
gents of the curves, and the y-intercepts indicate the limit support
pressure ratios. Smaller friction angles u, cohesion c and relative 1.0
C/D = 0.5, c = 7 kPa, ϕ
ο
= 17
ratios C/D correspond with greater limit support pressure ratios. C/D = 0.5, c = 10 kPa, ϕ = 25
ο

C/D = 1.0, c = 7 kPa, ϕ

ο

0.8 = 17
C/D = 1.0, c = 10 kPa, ϕ
Support pressure ratio

2.2.2. The range of the failure zone on the limit condition = 25

The failure zone in front of the tunnel face is another main con-
0.6
cern. Displacement contours of the limit conditions are plotted in
Figs. 5 and 6 for all cases. In these figures, the incremental displace-
ments are shown as graded shades from blue to red. An ellipsoid- 0.4
shape or truncated ellipsoid-shape is obtained in the upper part of 0.24 0.17
the failure zone, as indicated in Figs. 5 and 6. 0.2 0.11
The specific boundaries of the failure zone obtained from
numerical simulations based on the FEM would not be obtained 0.08
0.0
immediately in displacement clouds. Therefore, it is very impor- 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
tant to quickly set up criteria for outlining the boundary strip of Horizontal displacement of the central point of tunnel face / mm
the failure zone based on the displacement contours.
(b) Clays.
A simple and feasible criterion to outline the boundary strip of
the failure zone at collapse in displacement clouds is proposed as Fig. 4. Relations between the horizontal displacement and the support pressure
follows: ratio of a tunnel face. (a) Sands; (b) clays.
 C. Zhang et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 50 (2015) 345–357
Fig. 5. Displacement contours of the limit conditions observed in the sands.
(i) For the condition with no outcropping of the failure zone at
the ground surface, most curves in the displacement clouds
will close (cf. Fig. 7a). In addition, the position within a sud-
den increase gradient can be defined as the boundary strip of
the failure zone.
(ii) For the outcropping condition of the failure zone at the
ground surface, most curves in the displacement clouds will
not close and will intersect the ground surface (cf. Fig. 7b).
However, the ‘‘close” and ‘‘divergent” tendencies are still
obvious. The position within the perpendicularly intersect
with the ground surface can be defined as the boundary strip
of the failure zone.
The criterion was used to outline the boundary strip of the fail-
ure zone at collapse rather than to predict the accurate boundary of
the failure zone. Therefore, even though the interval of the contour
lines changed from 0.2 to 0.1, or to another value, the boundary
strip of the failure zone was consistent using the criterion.
3. Limit analysis of the face stability of shallow circular tunnels
3.1. The new failure mechanism
According to the results from the numerical simulation, there
are some differences between the model and the actual situations
in terms of the existing failure mechanisms (cf. Fig. 1), especially in
the upper parts of the failure mechanisms.
The shapes of the blocks in the failure mechanism are con-
strained by the normality condition (Chen, 1975), which implies
that each velocity discontinuity should form an angle u with the
corresponding velocity discontinuity surface, i.e., the internal
349
friction angle of the soil. The normality condition implies that
the 3D rigid-block failure mechanism should consist of cones
and/or logarithmic spiral-shaped rigid blocks.
Although the upper shape of the failure zone should be simu-
lated with an ellipsoid, the ellipsoid does not fulfill the normality
condition (Chen, 1975). Therefore, other improved treatments
should be considered. In this study, to propose an improved 3D
failure mechanism, the failure causes are analyzed and some
improved treatments are proposed.
3.1.1. Failure causes
According to the results of centrifuge model tests performed by
Idinger et al. (2011) (cf. Fig. 8), the lower failure plane is primarily
formed by shear failure, while the upper failure plane (arch-
shaped) is more complicated and is likely affected by the combined
action of tension and shear stresses. Hence, the upper and lower
failure mechanisms are developed separately. Fig. 9 shows the fail-
ure causes in longitudinal and crosswise profiles of the slip surface.
3.1.2. Improved treatments
In the limit equilibrium method, the upper part of the failure
zone, an ellipsoid block, is transformed into a distributed force
based on the Terzaghi pressure-arch theory (cf. Fig. 10).
Considering the failure causes and referring to the treatment of
the upper part of failure zone in the limit equilibrium method,
the new 3D failure mechanism is composed of four truncated cones
and a distributed force acting on those truncated cones (cf. Fig. 11).
The distributed force q is caused by the weight of the upper part of
the failure zone, and the lower part of the failure zone is modeled
as a multi-block failure mechanism [Blocks (1)–(4)].
350 C. Zhang et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 50 (2015) 345–357

Fig. 6. Displacement contours of the limit conditions observed in the clays.

This treatment, which transforms the effects of Blocks (5) and The velocity of block i and the relative velocity between blocks i
(6) into distributed forces, allows the failure mechanism to prop- and i + 1 are described by the following equations:
erly satisfy the normality condition.  
Yi
cos Wk
1;k þ u
vi ¼ v1 ðfor i P 2Þ ð1Þ
k¼2
cosðWk;kþ1
uÞ
3.2. Geometric properties
sinðWi;iþ1 Þ
v i;iþ1 ¼ v i ðfor i P 1Þ ð2Þ
The face stability analysis relevant to a circular rigid tunnel of cosðWi;iþ1
uÞ
diameter D driven under a depth of cover C could be idealized. A
surcharge rs is applied on the ground surface, and rt is the uniform where

support pressure on the tunnel face. Fig. 12 shows the two possible W0;1 ¼ a
combinations of the improved 3D failure mechanism. When the ðfor i P 1Þ ð3Þ
Wi;iþ1 ¼ bi
Wi
1;i ; ði P 1Þ
strength of the surrounding rock is low, or the cover depth of the
tunnel is small, the tunnel face readily collapses and is likely to The intersections of adjacent blocks are ellipses and are called
spread to the ground surface (cf. Fig. 12a). As the cover depth R1, Ri,i+1 [1 6 i 6 4], R5 and R6. The semi-axis lengths of the
increases, a collapsing arch can be formed before the tunnel face ellipses are a1(b1), ai,i+1(bi,i+1) [1 6 i 6 4], a5(b5) and a6(b5).
(cf. Fig. 12b). In general, the improved failure mechanism is com- The intersection of the first truncated cone (adjacent to the tun-
posed of four rigid blocks with elliptical cross-sections and a dis- nel face) with the circular tunnel face is an ellipse, with semi-axis
tributed force caused by oblique elliptical cylinders [Block (5)] lengths of a1 and b1 that are calculated as follows (cf. Fig. 11):
and truncated ellipsoids or ellipsoids [Block (6)]. D
Moreover, the improvement (related to the ellipsoid shape) is a1 ¼ ð4Þ
2
similar to the ellipsoid theory of particle flows in sublevel cave
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
mining. Janelid and Kvapil (1966) developed the classical concept D cosða
uÞ cosða þ uÞ
of the gravity flow of ore in sublevel caving operations, which b1 ¼ ð5Þ
2 cos u
states that the loosening zone of a tunnel is an ellipse or a portion
of an ellipse. To make the axis of the (truncated) ellipsoid vertical, where u defines the opening angles of the four truncated rigid cones
the oblique elliptical cylinder [Block (5)] is added. The four trun- that are equal to 2u and a is the angle between the axis of the first
cated rigid cones have opening angles that are equal to 2u, which truncated rigid cone adjacent and the horizontal.
are the same as the descriptions of the most popular multi-block Therefore, the area A1 of the first truncated cone base is as
failure mechanism proposed by Soubra (2000, 2002). follows:
The four truncated rigid cones are translated with velocities pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
pD2 cosða
uÞ cosða þ uÞ
with different directions, which are collinear with the cones’ axes A1 ¼ ð6Þ
4 cos u
and are at an angle u to the discontinuity surface (cf. Fig. 13).
 C. Zhang et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 50 (2015) 345–357 351

ground surface The volumes V1 and Vi (for 2 6 i 6 4) of the truncated cones are
as follows:

0.2
A1 h1
A1;2 h2
V1 ¼ ð10Þ
units: % 3

Ai
1;i hi
Ai;iþ1 hiþ1

Vi ¼ ð11Þ
3

0.4
0.2 where
8
C/D =1.0 >
> h1 ¼ D cosðaþsin
uÞ cosða
uÞ
>
< 2u
c = 0 kPa h2 ¼ D cosðaþusin
Þ cosðb1
aþuÞ
ð12Þ
2u
φ = 20° >
>
: hi ¼ h2 Qi
1 cosðWk;kþ1 þuÞ ;
>
ði P 3Þ
0.2
k¼2 cosðW
uÞ
k
1;k

Tunnel
1.4

.8

The intersection of a truncated ellipsoid with an oblique elliptic

0.6 0

cylinder and the ground face forms an ellipse with semi-axis

lengths of a5, b5, a6 and b6 as follows:
1.0

suggested boundary
4 strip of failure zone a5 ¼ a4;5 sinðb1 þ b2 þ b3 þ b4 Þ ð13Þ
0.
b5 ¼ b4;5 ð14Þ
(a) C/D=1.0, φ = 20°, c=0 kPa sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
C2
a6 ¼ a5 1
2 ð15Þ
ground surface C0
0.2
0.6

sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
1.0

C2
b6 ¼ b5 1
2 ð16Þ
units: % C0
0.4

The upper rigid cone could intersect the ground surface,

0.4

depending on C/D. Based on the theory of elasticity, the potential

collapsing blocks are upright ellipsoids in the ground of the grav-
itational stress field, i.e., if the coefficient of the horizontal pres-
C/D =0.5 sure of the ground K0 is less than 1 (Li and Wu, 1996). The axial
c = 0 kPa ratio of the upright ellipsoid is equal to K0. Thus, the vertical length
0.8
1.4

Tunnel φ = 20° of the truncated ellipsoid is assumed to be C0, which is defined as

0.2

follows:
0.6

a5
C0 ¼ ð17Þ
K0

0.4 K 0 ¼ 1
sin u ðJaky’s empirical formulaÞ ð18Þ

suggested boundary
strip of failure zone In addition, the area Ai (i = 5, 6) of intersections of the truncated
ellipsoid with the oblique elliptic cylinder and the ground face is as
follows:
(b) C/D=0.5, φ = 20°, c=0 kPa
A5 ¼ pa5 b5 ð19Þ
Fig. 7. The suggested criteria for outlining the boundary strip of the failure zone for !
the limit conditions in the displacement clouds. C2
A6 ¼ pa5 b5 1
ð20Þ
In addition, the areas of the contact elliptical surfaces between C 20
two successive truncated cones i and i + 1 are ellipses with semi-
To obtain the resultant force of the distributed force q, which is
axis lengths of ai,i+1 and bi,i+1 (for 1 6 i 6 4) are described as
caused by the weight of the ellipsoid and the oblique elliptical
follows:
cylinder, the volumes V5 of the truncated ellipsoid and V6 of the
DY i
cosðWk
1;k þ uÞ oblique elliptical cylinder are first obtained as follows:
ai;iþ1 ¼ ð7Þ
2 k¼1 cosðWk;kþ1
uÞ " #
C3 a45 cosðb1 þ b2 þ b3 þ b4 Þ
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi V 5 þ V 6 ¼ pa5 b5 C
2

ð21Þ
cosðWi;iþ1 þ uÞ cosðWi;iþ1
uÞ 3C 0 2
bi;iþ1 ¼ ai;iþ1 ð8Þ
cos u In general, the angles a, h1, h2, h3, and h4 are the five parameters
In addition, the area Ai,i+1 (1 6 i 6 4) between two successive that define the specific geometry of the collapse mechanism.
blocks i and i + 1 is as follows:
3.3. Limit support pressure
pD2 Y
i
cosðWk
1;k þ uÞ
Ai;iþ1 ¼
4 k¼1 cosðWk;kþ1
uÞ To satisfy the stability conditions of the tunnel face according to
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi the upper bound theorem, the following relation is considered:
cosðWi;iþ1 þ uÞ cosðWi;iþ1
uÞ
 ð9Þ Pe 6 Pv ð22Þ
cos u
352 C. Zhang et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 50 (2015) 345–357

Fig. 8. The causes of failure zones: (a) C/D = 1.5; (b) C/D = 0.5 (Idinger et al., 2011).

vertical sliding
zone

lateral sliding
zone

slip surface with

no friction
Longitude profile Cross profile
slip surface with
friction

Fig. 9. Longitudinal and crosswise profiles of the slip surface.

where Pe represents the power of the external loads and Pv denotes For the new failure mechanism, the limit support pressure was
the dissipation power. The power of the external loads, Pe, is the calculated from Eqs. (24) and (25) with Eqs. (26) and (27) as
sum of three components, PT, the power of the support pressure follows:
rT, Ps, the power of the surcharge rs, and Pc, the power of the soil P1 þ P2 þ P3 þ P4 þ P5
unit weight c. Nc ¼ ð26Þ
D
Pe ¼ Pc þ Ps þ PT ð23Þ
By equating the total rate of external work to the total rate of
internal energy dissipation, as shown in Eq. (23), the pressure rT
at the face of the tunnel is obtained by Eq. (23) as follows:

rT ¼ NS  rS þ Nc  cD þ Nc  c ð24Þ

where Nc, Nc and Ns are non-dimensional coefficients that represent

the effects of soil weight, cohesion and surcharge loading, respec-
tively. For the collapse mechanism, the rate of external work of
the surcharge loading should only be calculated when the mecha-
nism outcrops on the ground surface, i.e., C0 P C.
The numerical results indicate that Nc and Ns are related by the
following classical formula when considering mass conservation:

Nc tan u þ 1
Ns ¼ 0 ð25Þ

In Eq. (24), rT, Nc, Nc and Ns depend on the mechanical and geomet-
rical characteristics c, u, and C/D and on the angular parameters of
the failure mechanism a and bi (for 1 6 i 6 4). These parameters
were obtained by maximizing rT in Eq. (24) with respect to the
angles a and bi. An upper-bound solution can be found by numeri- Fig. 10. Log-spiral shaped sliding wedge adopted in the limit equilibrium method
cally optimizing Eq. (24) with respect to the five angles. (Murayama et al., 1966).
 C. Zhang et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 50 (2015) 345–357 353

Fig. 11. The new 3D improved failure mechanism.

(a) Outcrop of the mechanism at the ground surface (b) No outcrop of the mechanism at the ground surface.

Fig. 12. Combinations of the improved 3D failure mechanism.

A6 sinð2b1 þ 2b3
aÞ vv 41 The above results only apply when the ground surface is
Ns ¼ ð27Þ reached by the failure mechanism [C0 P C], i.e., when the following
A1 cos a
is true:
where
8 Y
4
cosðWk
1;k þ uÞ C
sin a
>
> P ¼ AV11 cos sinðb1 þ b2 þ b3 þ b4 Þ P 2 ð28Þ
> 1
>
>
a cosðWk;kþ1
uÞ D
>
>
v
V 2 sinð2b1
aÞv 2
k¼1
>
> P2 ¼ 1
>
> A1 cos a
>
< v b1 þ b2 þ b3 þ b4 6 p=2 ð29Þ
V 3 sinð2b2 þaÞv 3
P3 ¼ A1 cos a
1
>
>
>
> v
V 4 sinð2b1 þ2b3
aÞv 4
>
> ¼
>
> P4 A1 cos a
1
>
>
>
> v
ðV 5 þV 6 Þ sinð2b1 þ2b3
aÞv 4
:P ¼ 1
5 A1 cos a

Fig. 14. Comparisons of the limit support pressures between the present mecha-
Fig. 13. The velocity field of the new 3D failure mechanism. nism and the numerical simulations.
354 C. Zhang et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 50 (2015) 345–357

Fig. 15. Comparisons of the failure zones between the present mechanism and the numerical simulations in sands.

When no outcropping of the mechanism occurs at the ground present mechanism in the limit analysis. The results are shown
surface, i.e., relation (28) reversed, Eqs. (24) and (25) are valid if in Fig. 14. In all cases, a maximum difference of approximately
C is replaced by C0 in the above equations. 19.2% was obtained.

4. Comparisons 4.1.2. Failure zone

4.1. Comparisons of the present mechanisms with the numerical
simulation
The limit support pressures and failure zones obtained from
both the present failure mechanism and the numerical simulations
are compared in this section.
4.1.1. Limit support pressure
The limit support pressures obtained from the numerical simu-
lations using FLAC3D were compared with those given by the
The failure zones obtained from the numerical simulations
using FLAC3D were also compared with those given by the present
mechanism in the limit analysis. The results are shown in Figs. 15
and 16. The failure zones given by the present mechanism agree
with those of the numerical simulation, especially for the high fric-
tion angle case.
4.2. Comparisons with existing approaches
To further validate the results obtained from the numerical sim-
ulations and the limit analysis developed in this paper,

Fig. 16. Comparisons of the failure zones between the present mechanism and the numerical simulations in clays.
 C. Zhang et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 50 (2015) 345–357 355

C/D=1.0 4.2.1. Comparisons with a centrifuge test

The results from a centrifuge test (Chambon and Corté, 1994)
were compared with the present mechanism. As shown in
0.33D Fig. 17, the outlines of the failure zone obtained from the present
mechanism are similar to the results of the centrifuge test.
0.3D experimental mechanism Specifically, on the longitudinal profile, the boundary of the failure
σt =4.2 kPa zone obtained from the present mechanism is approximately
1D
0.33D in front of the tunnel face and 0.46D above the tunnel crown.
The centrifuge test results show that the boundary of the failure
0.6D zone is approximately 0.3D in front of the tunnel face and 0.6D
0.46D above the tunnel crown. In addition, the limit support pressure
of the present mechanism is equal to 3.8 kPa, while that of the cen-
trifuge test is 4.2 kPa. According to the above analysis, the failure
zone and limit support pressure given by the present mechanism
corresponds with the results of the centrifuge test.
present mechanism
σt =3.8 kPa
4.2.2. Comparisons with existing multi-block mechanisms
1D Tunnel The outlines of the failure zone obtained from the numerical
face simulations (adopting the proposed criteria) were compared with
those given by the present mechanism and by Mollon et al.
(2009) using the multi-block mechanisms in the limit analysis.
The results are shown in Fig. 18. For the upper-bound solutions
in the limit analysis, higher limit support pressure values indicate
better solutions (Mollon et al., 2011). The limit support pressure
obtained from this present mechanism is greater than that
Fig. 17. Comparison of the limit support pressure and the failure zone between the
present work and the centrifuge test (Chambon and Corté, 1994). obtained from the multi-block mechanism, which indicates that
the present mechanism provides a better solution than the
multi-block mechanisms. In addition, the results show that the
comparisons between the results of this work and existing present mechanism is more consistent with the outline of the fail-
approaches were performed. ure zones that were observed in the numerical simulations.

Fig. 18. Comparisons of the limit support pressure and the failure zone between the present work and the multi-block mechanism.
356 C. Zhang et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 50 (2015) 345–357
5. Conclusions
To study the face stability of circular shield tunnels in cohesive–
frictional soils, both numerical simulations and limit analyses were
performed. The limit support pressure and failure zone of the tun-
nel face for the limit conditions are the main concerns. A series of
3D numerical simulations in different soils (clays or sands) for var-
ious relative depths (C/D) were first performed. Considering the
results of the numerical simulation, a new 3D failure mechanism
was proposed in the framework of the kinematical approach of
limit analysis theory. Then, the limit support pressures and failure
zones obtained from both the present mechanism and the numer-
ical simulations were compared. Moreover, the comparisons
between the results of the present study and those of existing
approaches were provided. The main conclusions are presented
as follows:
(1) Numerical simulations were performed with FLAC3D to
investigate the tunnel face stability as the support pressure
gradually decreased. The limit support pressures of a tunnel
face in different soils (clays or sands) for various relative
depths (C/D) were obtained. Based on the displacement
clouds for the limit conditions, a simple and feasible crite-
rion was suggested to outline the boundary strip of the fail-
ure zone at collapse in displacement clouds under different
conditions. These results serve as a reference for exploring
suitable failure mechanisms in the limit analysis in cohe-
sive–frictional soils.
(2) Based on the numerical simulation, a new 3D failure mech-
anism was proposed in the framework of the kinematical
approach of limit analysis theory. The new 3D failure mech-
anism is composed of four truncated cones and a distributed
force acting on those truncated cones. The distributed force
is caused by the weight of the ellipsoid-shaped (or truncated
ellipsoid-shaped) blocks.
(3) The support pressure and failure zone results of a tunnel face
derived from the present mechanism using limit analysis are
compared with those obtained from the numerical simula-
tions using FLAC3D. A maximum difference of approximately
19.2% is observed for all cases. Moreover, the failure zones
are compared, and the results corresponded with one
another.
(4) The failure zone predicted by the present mechanism corre-
sponds with that of a centrifuge test (Chambon and Corté,
1994). Specifically, in the longitudinal profile, the boundary
of the failure zone obtained from the present mechanism is
approximately 0.33D in front of the tunnel face and 0.46D
above the tunnel crown. The centrifuge test shows that the
boundary of the failure zone is approximately 0.3D in front
of the tunnel face and 0.6D above the tunnel crown. In addi-
tion, the limit support pressure of the present mechanism is
equal to 3.8 kPa, while that obtained from the centrifuge
tests is equal to 4.2 kPa.
(5) The outlines of the failure zone obtained from the numerical
simulations (adopting the proposed criteria) were compared
with those given by the present mechanism and by the
existing multi-block mechanism in the limit analysis. For
the upper bound solutions in the limit analysis, the higher
value of the limit support pressure indicates that the solu-
tion is better. The limit support pressure obtained from the
present mechanism is higher than that obtained from the
existing multi-block failure mechanisms, which shows that
the present mechanism provides a better solution than the
existing multi-block failure mechanisms. In addition, the
results show that the present mechanism is substantially
more consistent with the shapes of the failure zones that
are observed in the numerical simulations than the existing
multi-block failure mechanisms, which shows that the pre-
sent mechanism is more effective and reasonable.
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge the financial support provided by the
National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos.
51008015, 51378002), and the Program for New Century
Excellent Talents in University of China (Grant No. Ncet-12-0770).
References
Anagnostou, G., Kovári, K., 1996. Face stability condition with earth pressure
balanced shields. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 11 (2), 165–173.
Anagnostou, G., Perazzelli, P., Schürch, R., 2011. Comments on ‘‘Face stability and
required support pressure for TBM driven tunnels with ideal face membrane:
drained case’’. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 26, 497–500.
Atkinson, J.H., Potts, D.M., 1977. Stability of a shallow circular tunnel in
cohesionless soils. Géotechnique 27 (2), 203–215.
Augarde, C.E., Lyamin, A.V., Sloan, S.W., 2003. Stability of an undrained plane strain
heading revisited. Comput. Geotech. 30, 419–430.
Broere, W., 2001. Tunnel Face Stability and New CPT Applications. Ph.D. Thesis,
Delft University of Technology. The Netherlands: Delft University Press.
Broms, B.B., Bennermark, H., 1967. Stability of clay at vertical openings. J. Soil Mech.
Found. Eng. 193 (SM1), 71–94.
Chambon, P., Corté, J.F., 1994. Sallow tunnels in cohesionless soil: stability of tunnel
face. J. Geotech. Eng. 120 (7), 1148–1165.
Chen, R.P., Tang, L.J., Ling, D.S., Chen, Y.M., 2011. Face stability analysis of shallow
shield tunnels in dry sandy ground using the discrete element method. Comput.
Geotech. 38, 187–195.
Chen, R.P., Li, J., Kong, L.G., Tang, L.J., 2013. Experimental study on face instability of
shield tunnel in sand. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 33, 12–21.
Chen, W.F., 1975. Limit Analysis and Soil Plasticity. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam,
The Netherlands.
Davis, E.H., Gunn, M.J., Mair, R.J., Seneviratne, H.N., 1980. The stability of shallow
tunnels and underground openings in cohesive material. Geotechnique 30,
397–416.
Ellstein, A.R., 1986. Heading failure of lined tunnels in soft soils. Tunnels Tunn. 18,
51–54.
Funatsu, T., Hoshino, T., Sawae, H., Shimizu, N., 2008. Numerical analysis to better
understand the mechanism of the effects of ground supports and reinforcement
on the stability of tunnels using the distinct element method. Tunn. Undergr.
Space Technol. 23 (5), 561–573.
Horn, N., 1961. Horizontal earth pressure on the vertical surfaces of the tunnel
tubes. In: National Conference of the Hungarian Civil Engineering Industry,
Budapest, November, pp. 7–16 (in German).
Ibrahim, E., Soubra, A.H., Mollon, G., Raphael, W., Dias, D., Reda, A., 2015. Three-
dimensional face stability analysis of pressurized tunnels driven in a
multilayered purely frictional medium. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 49, 18–
34.
Idinger, G., Aklik, P., Wu, W., Borja, R.I., 2011. Centrifuge model test on the face
stability of shallow tunnel. Acta Geotech. 6, 105–117.
Itasca Consulting Group Inc, 2006. FLAC3D Manual, third ed. (FLAC3D Version 3.1).
Janelid, I., Kvapil, R., 1966. Sublevel caving. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 3 (2), 129–
153.
Kimura, T., Mair, R.J., 1981. Centrifugal testing of model tunnels in soft soil. In: Proc.
10th Int. Conf. Soil Mech. Found. Eng, vol. 1. Blakema, pp. 319–322.
Kirsch, A., 2010. Experimental investigation of the face stability of shallow tunnels
in sand. Acta Geotech. 5, 43–62.
Klar, A., Osman, A.S., Bolton, M., 2007. 2D and 3D upper bound solutions for tunnel
excavation using ‘elastic’ flow fields. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech. 31
(12), 1367–1374.
Krause, T., 1987. Schildvortrieb mit flüssigkeits-und erdgestützter ortsbrust. PhD
Thesis, Technical University Carolo-Wilhelmina, Brunswick.
Leca, E., Dormieux, L., 1990. Upper and lower bound solutions for the face stability
of shallow circular tunnels in frictional material. Géotechnique 40 (4), 581–606.
Li, S.P., Wu, Z.Y., 1996. Introduction to Rock Mechanics. China Coal Industry
Publishing House, Beijing, pp. 105–108 (in Chinese).
Lu, X.L., Wang, H.R., Huang, M.S., 2014. Upper bound solution for the face stability of
shield tunnel below the water table. Math. Probl. Eng. Article ID: 727964
Lyamin, A.V., Sloan, S.W., 2000. Stability of a plane strain circular tunnel in a
cohesive frictional soil. In: Proc. J.R. Booker Memorial Sym., Sydney, pp. 139–
153.
Mollon, G., Dias, D., Soubra, A.H., 2013. Continuous velocity fields for collapse and
blowout of a pressurized tunnel face in purely cohesive soil. Int. J. Numer. Anal.
Methods Geomech. 37, 2061–2083.
Mollon, G., Dias, D., Soubra, A.H., 2009. Probabilistic analysis and design of circular
tunnels against face stability. Int. J. Geomech. 9 (6), 237–249.
 C. Zhang et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 50 (2015) 345–357
Mollon, G., Dias, D., Soubra, A.H., 2011. Rotational failure mechanisms for the face
stability analysis of tunnels driven by pressurized shields. Int. J. Numer. Anal.
Methods Geomech. 35 (12), 1363–1388.
Murayama, S., Endo, M., Hashiba, T., Yamamoto, K., Sasaki, H. (Eds.), 1966.
Geotechnical aspects for the excavating performance of the shield machines.
In: The 21st Annual Lecture in Meeting of Japan Society of Civil Engineers.
Sagaseta, C., 1987. Analysis of undrained soil deformation due to ground loss.
Geotechnique 37 (3), 301–320.
Senent, S., Mollon, G., Jimenez, R., 2013. Stability of tunnel face in rock masses with
the Hoek-Brown failure criterion. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 60, 440–451.
Senent, S., Jimenez, R., 2015. A tunnel face failure mechanism for layered ground,
considering the possibility of partial collapse. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 47,
182–192.
Soubra, A.H., 2002. Kinematical approach to the face stability analysis of shallow
circular tunnels. In: Proc. 8th Int. Sym. Plasticity., Canada, British Columbia, pp.
443–445.
View publication stats
357
Soubra, A.H., 2000. Three-dimensional face stability analysis of shallow circular
tunnels. In: Proc. Int. Conf. Geotech. Geo. Eng., Australia, Melbourne.
Subrin, D., Wong, H., 2002. Tunnel face stability in frictional material: a new 3D
failure mechanism. C.R. Mecanique 330, 513–519 [in French].
Takano, D., Otani, J., Nagatani, H., Mukunoki, T., 2006. Application of X-ray CT on
boundary value problems in geotechnical engineering-research on tunnel face
failure. In: Proc. Geo. ASCE, Atlanta.
Vermeer, P.A., Ruse, N., Marcher, T., 2002. Tunnel heading stability in drained
ground. Felsbau 20 (6), 8–18.
Verruijt, A., Booker, J.R., 1996. Surface settlements due to deformation of a tunnel in
an elastic half plane. Geotechnique 46 (4), 753–756.
Zhang, Z.X., Hu, X.Y., Scott, K.D., 2011. A discrete numerical approach for modeling
face stability in slurry shield tunnelling in soft soils. Comput. Geotech. 38, 94–
104.