ANALYSIS OF TBM TUNNELLING USING

THE CONVERGENCE-CONFINEMENT
METHOD
 
 

Dr. Ashraf ABU-KRISHA

)National Authority for Tunnels )NAT
 Tunnel Liner Design

Convergence – Confinement Method )C – C)

Progressive Softening Method

Phases of Design
Phase )1) : initial stresses
Phase )2) : excavation
Phase )3) : end of excavation and lining erection
 Convergence – Confinement
Method )C – C)
P: internal tunnel pressure
U: radial displacement
Po: Initial stress
Peq : Stress acting on support
Pmax : Stress at plastic failure )Convergence curve)

K: Support stiffness
Uin: Initial displacement of support
Uel: displacement of support at elastic
Umax: displacement at collapse )Confinement curve)

A : equilibrium point of tunnel-

support system
 TBM tunnel excavation

σo x
σo σi R
σo
λ Depends On The Degree Of Soil Plastification And The
Confinement Support Pressure Pf

σo Isotropic Initial Stresses

σi Fictive Internal Pressure )slurry pressure)

σi = )1 - λ) σo
 Decomposition of cases with drainage and
no-drainage.
σ = σ + u ,σ = σ + u
' '
v v f h h f
 Models of Analysis
Model )1) : )without ground water )dry condition
Model )2) : drainage at the ground-liner interface

Model )3) : no-drainage conditions at the ground-liner interface

 Material properties. and parameters of soil
Table 1. Material properties and parameters of soil.
Parameter Name Unit Fill Clay Sand
Levels m 0.0 – 3.0 3.0 – 7.0 7.0 – 35.0
Material model Model - Elastic CC MC
Material behavior Type - Drained Drained Drained
Dry soil weight γ dry KN/m3 15 16 18
Wet soil weight γ wet KN/m3 17 18 20
Hll Permeability Kx m/day 1.0 e-5 1.0 e-7 1.0 e-2
Vll Permeability Ky m/day 1.0 e-5 1.0 e-7 1.0 e-2
Young’s modulus E MPa 6 15 18
Liner increment of E Eincr MPa - - 2
Reference level Yref m - - -9.0
Poisson’s ratio ν - 0.35 0.4 0.33
Cohesion C Kpa 10 40 1
Friction angle ϕ Degree 15.0 25.0 35.0
Dilatancy angle ψ Degree 0.0 1.0 5.0
Normal consolidation slope λ* - - 0.25 -
Elastic swelling line slope κ* - - 0.05 -
Lateral earth pressure at rest Ko - 1.0 0.577 0.45
Interface strength Rinter - Rigid Rigid 0.80
Interface permeability Perm - Neutral Neutral Neu./Ipmr.
/ Drain
-24.000 -16.000 -8.000 -0.000 8.000 16.000 24.000 32.0

Finite Elements Mesh

Plane strain
Results Total deformation of the mesh
Model )2)
Model )1)

Deformed Mesh
Extreme total displacement 48.87*10-3 m
(displacements scaled up 50.00 times)
Deformed Mesh
Extreme total displacement 52.56*10-3 m
(displacements scaled up 50.00 times)

)Model )3
Deformed Mesh
-3
Results Total displacements of the mesh
Model )2)
Model )1)

)Model )3
 Results Load –Displacement curve at surface point
Model )1) Chart 1 Model )2)
Sum-McontrA
Sum-McontrA
1.2
1.2
Point A

0.9
0.9

0.6
0.6

0.3
0.3

0.0
0 5.00E-03 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030
0.0
|U| [m] 0 5.00E-03 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035
Chart 1
|U| [m]
Sum-McontrA
1.2
Point A

0.9

0.6

0.3

0.0
0 5.00E-03 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025

)Model )3 |U| [m]

Results
Normal Forces in Lining
Model )1) Model )2)

Axial forces
Extreme axial force -340.14 kN/m

Model )3)
Results
Shearing Forces in Lining
Model )1) Model )2)

Shear forces
Extreme shear force -53.31 kN/m

)Model )3
Results
Bending Moments in Lining
Model )1) Model )2)

)Model )3
 Results
Deformation in Lining
Model )1) Model )2)

Total displacements
-3 Total displacem ents
Extreme total displacement 48.87*10 m -3
Extreme total displacement 52.56*10 m

Total displacements
-3

)Model )3
Extreme total displacement 37.89*10 m
Results
Effective Stresses
Model )1) Model )2)

)Model )3
Results
plastic zones around the tunnel
Model )1) Model )2)

Plastic P oints
Plastic P oints
Plastic Mohr-Coulomb point
Plastic Mohr-Coulomb point
Plastic cap point Tension cut-off point
Plastic cap point Tension cut-off point

)Model )3
Plastic Points
 Comparison Results of the analysis
Table 2. Results of the analysis for comparison.
Model type Model (1) Model (2) Model (3)
Descriptions Without ground water Drainage No-Drainage
Surface settlements 27.5 mm 32.0 mm 22.0 mm
Tunnel deformations 48.0 mm 52.5 mm 38.0 mm
Normal forces -340.2 KN/m -202.2 KN/m -667.7 KN/m
Shearing forces -53.3 KN/m -48.8 KN/m -30.1 KN/m
Bending moments 96.3 KNm/m 87.3 KNm/m 56.5 KNm/m
Iteration steps 8 65 43
 Conclusions
The interaction of support system with soil in TBM tunneling has been studied in this
work using the convergence-confinement method. The effects of drainage and no-
drainage conditions at the ground liner interface are investigated and compared with
the case of no ground water )dry condition). It is observed that the ground
displacements and total stresses at the ground liner interface depend on the drainage
.conditions
The analysis shows that the current practice of applying the full water pressure to an
impermeable liner is acceptably and conservative while for liner drainage it is quite
significant. So, the choosing of the materials that are used to close the tail gap of TBM
processing is an important issue. Also, the water-tightness material of the liner segments
. is playing an important role to control the drainage of ground water through liner
The existence of groundwater condition may seriously affect the internal forces of liner
and its deformations. Also, it affects the soil mass stresses and strength and its
deformations. The relationship between the effective stress and the groundwater
.pressure is inversely proportional
The consolidation analysis however may be more reasonable for the groundwater
. condition
THANK YOU