Fachthemen

Georgios Anagnostou DOI: 10.1002/gete.201100024

The contribution of horizontal arching

to tunnel face stability
The article revisits the classic problem of tunnel face stability the stability of the wedge; the term horizontal arching can
with special emphasis on the effect of horizontal stresses. These justifiably be used in this context because the direction of
are important for shear resistance and thus also for the equilibri- the shear and normal stresses acting upon the lateral
um of the potentially unstable body in front of the tunnel face, but boundaries of the wedge show that the principal stress tra-
they also present the difficulty of static indeterminacy. Starting jectories must be oriented as indicated by the dashed lines
from the computational model of Anagnostou and Kovári [1], an in Figure 1b.
alternative model is presented, which is based on the so-called
There are many publications dealing with theoretical
method of slices, and is consistent with silo theory, but does not
and experimental investigations into tunnel face stability.
need an a priori assumption as to the distribution of horizontal
Recent reviews may be found, for example, in Idinger et al.
stress. In addition, a simple design equation for estimating sup-
[2], Mollon et al. [3] and Perazzelli and Anagnostou [4].
port pressure under this model is presented and the results of
The present paper analyses the contribution of horizontal
comparative analyses concerning the average stresses in the
wedge and the effects of shear resistance at the lateral slip sur- arching to stability on the basis of the computational mod-
faces are shown. The analytical results obtained by the method el of Anagnostou and Kovári [1], which was developed in
of slices agree very well with published results of numerical the context of slurry shield tunnelling and is widely used
analyses and physical tests. in engineering practice. The model approximates the tun-
nel face by a rectangle (of height H and width B) and con-
Beitrag der räumlichen Tragwirkung zur Stabilität der Tunnel- siders a failure mechanism that consists of a wedge at the
brust. Der vorliegende Artikel untersucht das klassische Problem face and an overlying prism up to the soil surface (depth
der Stabilität der Ortsbrust unter besonderer Beachtung der Hori- of cover h, Figure 2).
zontalspannungen. Letztere sind zwar sehr wichtig für den Gleit-
widerstand und somit auch für die Stabilität von potenziellen
Bruchkörpern, können aber nicht allein aufgrund von Gleichge-
wichtsbetrachtungen ermittelt werden. Im Beitrag wird eine
Berechnungsmethode vorgestellt, die das Berechnungsmodell
nach Anagnostou und Kovári [1] insofern verbessert, dass sie
keine a priori Annahme über die Verteilung der Spannungen im
keilförmigen Bruchkörper vor der Ortsbrust benötigt und auf
konsistente Weise das Gleichgewicht im Keil und im darüber
liegenden prismatischen Bruchkörper analysiert. Basierend auf
der Lamellenmethode wird eine einfache Bemessungsformel auf-
gestellt und der Einfluss der horizontalen Verspannung auf den
erforderlichen Stützdruck der Ortsbrust aufgezeigt. Die Modell-
prognosen stimmen mit veröffentlichten Ergebnissen von
numerischen Spannungsanalysen sowie mit Versuchsresultaten
gut überein.

1 Introduction

In contrast to long excavations, where the relevant shear

stresses τ are mobilized only at the inclined slip surface
and the stability problem is practically two-dimensional
(Figure 1a), the load bearing action of the ground ahead of
the tunnel face is three-dimensional. This can best be il-
lustrated by considering the failure model of a potentially
unstable wedge at the face (Figure 1b): The shear stresses
τs developing at the two vertical slip surfaces contribute to
Fig. 1. a) Cross section and horizontal plan of a long pit
under plane strain conditions; b) longitudinal and horizontal
section of a tunnel
Bild 1. a) Querschnitt und Grundriss einer langen Baugrube
im ebenen Verformungszustand, b) Längsschnitt und Hori-
zontalschnitt eines Tunnels

34 © 2012 Ernst & Sohn Verlag für Architektur und technische Wissenschaften GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin · geotechnik 35 (2012), Heft 1

Fig. 2. Failure mechanism
Bild 2. Bruchmechanismus
Fig. 3. Assumption of Anagnostou and Kovári [1] concerning
the vertical stress distribution (solid line) as well as alterna-
tive formulations discussed by Broere [7] (dashed lines)
Bild 3. Annahme von Anagnostou und Kovári [1] über die
Verteilung der Vertikalspannung (durchzogene Linie) sowie
alternative Annahmen nach Broere [7] (gestrichelte Linien)
Fig. 4. Forces acting upon an infinitesimal slice
Bild 4. Kräfte auf einer infinitesimalen Lamelle
The central problem of horizontal arching is associ-
ated with the estimation of shear resistance at the vertical
slip surfaces of the wedge (τs in Figure 1): The frictional
part of the shear resistance depends on the horizontal
stress σy, which nevertheless cannot be derived from the
equilibrium conditions (it is statically indeterminate). This
problem is due to the spatial geometry of the failure mech-
anism and it also arises in stability analyses of slurry wall
trenches or excavations with large depth to width ratios.
In order to overcome this difficulty in the analysis of deep
excavations, Walz and Pulsfort [5] assumed, (i), that the
horizontal stress σy (which governs the frictional resis-
G. Anagnostou · The contribution of horizontal arching to tunnel face stability
tance at the vertical slip surfaces) is linearly proportional
to the vertical stresses σz, i.e.
σy = λ σz (1)
where λ is a constant (the so-called lateral stress coeffi-
cient), and, (ii), that the vertical stress σz changes linearly
with depth. This assumption was also made in the Ger-
man specifications for slurry wall design [6] and was made
by Anagnostou and Kovári [1] in their computational
model:
⎛
z z⎞
σ z(z) = σ z(H) + γH ⎜1 − ⎟ (2)
H ⎝ H⎠
where γ denotes the unit weight of the soil. The stress
σz(H) at the top boundary of the wedge is obtained by ap-
plying silo theory to the overlying prism. The solid line in
Figure  3 represents the stress distribution under this as-
sumption, while the dashed lines show alternative formu-
lations discussed by Broere [7]: Line 1 disregards arching
effects in respect of the wedge, line 2 assumes that arching
in respect of the wedge can also be approximated by the
classic silo equation (in spite of its non-constant horizon-
tal cross-section) and line 3 represents a compromise be-
tween model 1 and 2.
The advantage of all these approaches is their sim-
plicity. The disadvantage, however, is the a priori nature of
the assumption concerning the vertical stress σz and the
lack of consistency regarding the analysis of the prismatic
body, which faces exactly the same problem, but solves it
in a different way, i.e. on the basis of Janssen’s silo theory
[8].
A more consistent way of calculating the frictional
part of the shear resistance at the lateral slip surfaces of
the wedge is to proceed by analogy with silo theory, i.e. to
keep the assumption of proportionality between horizon-
tal and vertical stress (Equation 1), but, in order to calcu-
late the distribution of the vertical stresses σz inside the
wedge, to consider the equilibrium of an infinitesimally
thin slice (Figure  4). Walz and Prager [9] first proposed
such an approach for the stability assessment of slurry
walls. This so-called method of slices eliminates the need
for an a priori assumption as to the distribution of the ver-
tical stress and makes it possible to analyse cases with
non-uniform face support and heterogeneous ground con-
sisting of horizontal layers. The method of slices also
makes it possible to estimate on a more consistent basis
(similarly to silo theory) the vertical stresses within the
wedge. It should be noted that the stresses (σy, σz) within
the wedge are important not only with respect to the fric-
tional resistance at the vertical slip surfaces but also with
respect to the pull-out resistance of the bolts which may be
installed in order to stabilise the face (a high confining
stress increases the strength of the bond between bolts
and soil).
The paper in hand analyses tunnel face stability us-
ing the method of slices (Section 2), discusses the results
of comparative analyses concerning the stresses in the
wedge (Section 3) and their effects on the required sup-
port pressure (Sections 4 to 6), and proposes a simple de-
sign equation (Section 7).
geotechnik 35 (2012), Heft 1 35
G. Anagnostou · The contribution of horizontal arching to tunnel face stability

2 Computational model where dA denotes the area of the lateral boundary of the
2.1 Outline infinitesimal slice:

In the mechanism under consideration (see Figure 2), fail- dA= z tan ω dz . (9)
ure will occur if the load exerted by the prism upon the
wedge exceeds the force which can be sustained by the The support force is
wedge at its upper boundary taking into account the shear
strength and the own weight of the ground. At limit equi- dS = s B dz (10)
librium the prism load is equal to the bearing capacity of
the wedge. The prism load is calculated on the basis of si- where s denotes the support pressure.
lo theory (Section 2.2), while the bearing capacity of the According to the Mohr-Coulomb criterion, the shear
wedge is calculated by considering the equilibrium of an resistance dT of the inclined slip surface is connected to
infinitesimal slice (Section 2.3). Both the load of the prism the normal force dN:
and the bearing capacity of wedge depend on the inclina-
tion of the inclined slip plane. The critical value of the an- B dz
dT = c + dN tan φ (11)
gle ω (see Figure 2), i.e. the value that maximizes the sup- cos ω
port pressure, will be determined iteratively.
The shear resistance of the two lateral slip surfaces reads
2.2 Prism loading as follows:

Assuming that the ground is homogeneous and obeys the (

dTs = 2 dA c + λ σ z tan φ ) (12)
Mohr-Coulomb failure condition with cohesion c and an-
gle of internal friction φ, the vertical force at the wedge- where λσz represents the horizontal normal stress (Equa-
prism interface reads as follows: tion 1). Taking into account equation (9) and that the ver-
tical stress
⎧⎪ ⎛ h⎞ h⎫
Rγ − c ⎜ −λ tanφ −λ tanφ ⎪ V
Vsilo = min ⎨0, 1−e R⎟+ σ e R⎬ (3) σz = (13)
surf
⎪⎩ λ tanφ ⎜⎝ ⎟
⎠ ⎪⎭ Bz tan ω
BH tan ω we obtain:

V
where σsurf denotes the surface load and R is equal to the dTs = 2 c tan ω z dz + 2 λ tan φ dz (14)
ratio of the volume of the prism to its circumferential B
area: Due to equations (7), (8), (10), (11) and (14), the equilibri-
um condition in the sliding direction (Equation 6) be-
B H tan ω (4) comes:
R=
(
2 B + H tan ω )
dV z
B −ΛV =M +P (15)
Equation (3) ensures that the load exerted by the prism dz B
will be set equal to zero (rather than becoming negative) if
the cohesion exceeds the critical value: where

ccr = R γ (if σ surf = 0) (5) 2 λ tan φ

Λ= (16)
cos ω − sin ω tan φ
2.2 Bearing capacity of the wedge
M = Mc B2c − M γ B3γ (17)
Consider the equilibrium of an infinitesimal slice (see Fig-
ure 4). In the plane of movement, the following forces act P = Pc B2c + Ps B2 s (18)
upon the slice: Its weight dG; the “supporting” force V(z)
exerted by the underlying ground; the “loading” force V(z) Λ tan ω
+ dV exerted by the overlying ground; the forces dN and Mc = (19)
λ tan φ
dT at the inclined slip surface; the shear force dTs at the
two vertical slip surfaces; and the supporting force dS. M γ = tan ω (20)
The equilibrium conditions parallel and perpendicular to
the sliding direction read as follows: Λ
Pc = (21)
2 λ tan φ cos ω
dTs + dT + dS sin ω = (dV + dG)cos ω (6)
(
Ps = tan φ + ω ) (22)
dN = (dV + dG)sin ω + dS cos ω (7)
Equation (15) is a differential equation for the vertical
The slice weight is force V(z). Assuming a homogeneous ground and uniform
support pressure distribution, the coefficients Λ, Μ and Ρ
dG = γ B dA (8) do not depend on the co-ordinate z and the solution to

36 geotechnik 35 (2012), Heft 1

 G. Anagnostou · The contribution of horizontal arching to tunnel face stability
equation (15) for the boundary condition V(0) = 0 reads as
follows: σ z(H) 1 Vsilo
= =
V(z) = Cs(ξ)B2s + Cc(ξ)B2c − C γ(ξ)B3 γ (23) γH γH BH tan ω

where ξ is the normalized z co-ordinate, ⎧ R c ⎫

⎪⎪ − ⎛ h⎞ h⎪ , (36)
H γH −λ tanφ σ −λ tanφ ⎪
z min ⎨0, ⎜1 − e R ⎟ + surf e R⎬
ξ= (24) λ tanφ ⎜ ⎟ γH
H ⎪ ⎝ ⎠ ⎪
⎪⎩ ⎪⎭
and Cs, Cc and Cγ are dimensionless functions of ξ:
⎛B h c σ surf ⎞
C v(ξ) = e( )
ΛH/B ξ = f7 ⎜⎜ , λ, φ, ω, , , ⎟
(25)
⎝H H γH γH ⎟⎠

C v(ξ) − 1
Cs(ξ) = Ps (26) It can easily be verified that with increasing depth of cov-
Λ
er h the exponential term in equation (3) decreases rapid-
ly to zero with the consequence that the silo pressure and
C v(ξ) − 1 F (ξ)
Cc(ξ) = Pc + 2 Mc (27) the necessary face support pressure become practically in-
Λ Λ dependent of the depth of cover (quantitative examples
are given in Section 4). With the exception of very shallow
F(ξ)
C γ(ξ) = M (28) tunnels, and provided that the cohesion is lower than Rγ
Λ2 γ (i.e. that the prism needs support in order to be stable),
both the expression (36) for the silo loading and the ex-
ΛH
F(ξ) = C v(ξ) − 1 − ξ (29) pression (32) for the support pressure become consider-
B
ably simpler for large values of h:
σ z(H) R c
The bearing capacity of the wedge is obtained from equa- = f81 − f81 (37)
γH H γH
tion (23) with z = H:

V(H) = Cs(1)B2s + Cc(1)B2c − C γ(1)B3 γ (30) Where

1
The coefficients Cs, Cc and Cγ express the effect of support f81 = (38)
pressure, cohesion and unit weight, respectively, on the λ tanφ
bearing capacity of the wedge. and
s c
2.4 Support pressure =f −f (39)
γH 51 52 γH
At limit equilibrium the load exerted by the prism is equal
to the bearing capacity of the wedge: where
! ⎛B ⎞
R
V(H) = Vsilo (31) f51 = f1 + f3f81 = f ⎜ , λ, φ, ω⎟ (40)
H 51 ⎝ H ⎠
As V(H) depends linearly on s (Equation 30), equation
(31) represents a linear equation for the support pressure s. ⎛B ⎞
f52 = f2 + f3f81 = f52 ⎜ , λ, φ, ω⎟ (41)
Its solution reads as follows: ⎝ H ⎠

s c σ (H) It can readily be verified that for λ = 1 equation (41) sim-

= f1 − f2 + f3 z (32)
γH γH γH plifies to:

where 1
f52 = − (42)
tan φ
B C γ(1) ⎛B ⎞
f1 = = f ⎜ , λ, φ, ω⎟ (33)
H Cs(1) 1 ⎝ H ⎠ It is remarkable that this result is identical to the numeri-
cal results by Vermeer and Ruse [10] and Vermeer et al. [11]
⎛B ⎞ (note that f52 = ds/dc). As mentioned by Ruse [12], the re-
Cc(1)
f2 = = f ⎜ , λ, φ, ω⎟ (34) lationship (42) is theoretically founded and close to the
Cs(1) 2 ⎝ H ⎠ equation ds/dc = 0.5π cotφ proposed by Krause [13] on the
basis of a completely different failure mechanism (the slid-
tan ω ⎛B ⎞ ing of a semi-spherical body at the face).
f3 = = f3 ⎜ , λ, φ, ω⎟ , (35)
B ⎝H ⎠
C (1) 2.5 Distribution of the vertical stress
H s

and, according to equation (3), From equations (13), (23) and (32) we obtain the average
vertical stress σz of the wedge slice at elevation z:

geotechnik 35 (2012), Heft 1 37

G. Anagnostou · The contribution of horizontal arching to tunnel face stability

B Cs(ξ)s + Cc(ξ)c − C γ(ξ)B γ 2 1

σ z(z) =
H ξ tan ω
= σ z,av,lin =
3 z
( )
σ H + Hγ .
3
(54)

= f11 σ z(H) + f12 Hγ − f13 c (43) Note that, although the stress distribution of equation (2)
is linear, the average vertical stress according to equation
where (54) corresponds to the stress prevailing at elevation z =
2H/3 rather than to the stress at the tunnel axis. This is
1 Cs(ξ)
f11 = (44) due to the larger contribution of the upper part of the
ξ Cs(1)
wedge.
2

f12 =
(B / H) ⎛ C (ξ)⎞
⎜f11C γ(1) − γ ⎟ (45) 3 Comparative calculations concerning
tan ω ⎜⎝ ξ ⎟⎠ stress distribution

The linear approximation under equation (2) has been ex-

B/H⎛ C (ξ)⎞
f13 = ⎜⎜f11Cc(1) − c ⎟⎟ (46) amined by Walz and Pulsfort [5] in the context of slurry
tan ω ⎝ ξ ⎠
wall stability. In this paper, the results of comparative cal-
culations for the problem of tunnel face stability will be
At the wedge foot, the nominators and the denominators discussed.
of these equations become equal to zero. The stress can be Consider a tunnel with width B  = 10  m, height
computed by applying L’Hôpital’s rule: H = 10 m and cover h > H in a homogeneous ground with
γ = 20 kN/m3. Figure 5 shows the vertical stress σz over
1 dV(z) Pc c + Ps s (47) the face height z obtained using the method of slices
σ z(0) = lim =
B tan ω z→0 dz tan ω (Equation 43, solid lines) or assuming the linear distribu-
tion of equation (2) (dashed lines) for three sets of shear
2.6 Frictional resistance of the vertical slip surfaces strength parameters: cohesionless soil with φ = 25° or 35°
and cohesive soil with φ = 25° and c  = 20 kPa. In both
As an overall measure for the frictional resistance, the av- models, the stress at the upper boundary of the wedge is
erage frictional stress τav,φ may be considered. According equal to the silo pressure. The latter was calculated as-
to Coulomb and equation (1), suming the coefficient of lateral stress λ = 0.8. This value
is supported by the results of trap-door tests by Melix [14],
τ av,φ = λ tan φ σ z,av (48) which indicate that λ is between 0.8 and 1.0, which is
slightly lower than the value of 1 suggested by Terzaghi
where σz,av is the average vertical stress. The latter can be and Jelinek [15]. The computation of the vertical stress σz
calculated via integration over the lateral wedge bound- using the method of slices also necessitates an assumption
ary: concerning the coefficient λ for the wedge. On account of

∫ σ zz tan ω dz 2
H
σ z,av = 0
H
=
H2
∫ σ zz dz
0
∫ z tan ω dz
0

= f21 s + f22c − f23Hγ (49)

where

f21 =
(
tan φ + ω )f (50)
25
tan ω

1 ⎛ Λ f25 ⎞
f22 = ⎜⎜ + f25 − 1⎟⎟ (51)
λ tan φ ⎝ 2 sin ω ⎠

B
f23 = f −1
ΛH 25
( ) (52)

B ⎛ B ΛH/B ⎞
f25 = 2 ⎜
ΛH ⎝ ΛH
e (
− 1 − 1⎟
⎠
) (53)
Fig. 5. Distribution of vertical stress σz over the height of
the tunnel face for a wedge with ω = 30° (other parameters:
For comparison, the average vertical stress in the case of a γ = 20 kN/m3, B = H = 10 m, h > H, λ = 0.80)
linear distribution according to equation (2) reads as fol- Bild 5. Verteilung der Vertikalspannung σz über die Orts-
lows: brusthöhe für einen Keil mit ω = 30° (sonstige Parameter:
γ = 20 kN/m3, B = H = 10 m, h > H, λ = 0,80)

38 geotechnik 35 (2012), Heft 1


Fig. 6. Support pressure s as a function of the angle ω
for the parameters of Figure 5 and (a) φ = 25° and c = 0;
(b) φ = 35° and c = 0 kPa; (c) φ = 25° and c = 20 kPa
Bild 6. Stützdruck s in Abhängigkeit des Winkels ω für
die Parameter des Bildes 5 und (a) φ = 25°, c = 0;
(b) φ = 35°, c = 0 kPa; (c) φ = 25°, c = 20 kPa
the similarity of this model to the silo theory, the same val-
ue of λ = 0.8 was assumed for the wedge and the prism.
According to the equations in Section 2.5, the verti-
cal stress distribution depends essentially on the angle ω,
while this parameter has a minor effect when assuming the
simplified linear distribution of equation (2) (it affects on-
ly the silo load Vsilo). Figure 5 was obtained for ω = 30°. In
G. Anagnostou · The contribution of horizontal arching to tunnel face stability
Fig. 7. a) Ratio of the average vertical stresses σz,av/σz,av,lin
and, b), necessary support pressure s according to the me-
thod of slices as a function of cohesion c for diferent values
of the friction angle φ and of the angle ω (other parameters:
γ = 20 kN/m3, B = H = 10 m, h > H, λ = 0.80)
Bild 7. a) Verhältnis der mittleren Vertikalspannungen
σz,av/σz,av,lin und, b), erforderlicher Stützdruck s nach der
Lamellenmethode in Abhängigkeit der Kohäsion c für ver-
schiedene Werte des Reibungwinkels φ und des Winkels ω
(sonstige Parameter: γ = 20 kN/m3, B = H = 10 m, h > H,
λ = 0,80)
addition to each line, the diagram also shows the value of
the average vertical stress (calculated on the basis of Eqs.
49 and 54). It can easily be seen that the assumption of
equation (2) leads to vertical stresses that are considerably
higher than the stresses obtained using the method of
slices. This is particularly true in the case of the higher
strength soils (φ = 35° or c = 20 kPa), because the lateral
shear resistance does not allow the stress to increase with
depth in the method of slices, while the linear stress distri-
bution of equation (2) does not explicitly consider the
shear strength of the ground.
Due to the higher vertical stress in the simplified
model, the lateral frictional resistance will also be higher
than with the method of slices. The simplified model thus
predicts a lower support pressure. This is clearly illustrat-
ed by the diagrams of Figure 6, which present the neces-
geotechnik 35 (2012), Heft 1 39
G. Anagnostou · The contribution of horizontal arching to tunnel face stability

sary support pressure as a function of the angle ω for the

three sets of shear strength parameters of Figure 5. The
thick solid curves were calculated for λ = 0.8 using the
method of slices (Equation 32), while the other curves
were obtained assuming the distribution of equation (2)
with λ = 0.8 for the prism and different values λw of this
coefficient for the wedge. Making the same assumption as
in the method of slices (i.e. λw = λ = 0.8), the simplified
model leads to a lower support pressure. In order to ob-
tain the same frictional resistance (and consequently the
same support pressure), the simplified model of equation
(2) should be applied in combination with a lower coeffi-
cient λw at the lateral wedge planes. In fact, Figure 6a
shows that when reducing the λw-value according to the
ratio of the average vertical stresses of Figure 5 (i.e., taking
λw = λ σz,av/σz,av,lin = 0.8 x 112/132 = 0.68) the simplified
model agrees well with the method of slices.
Similar remarks apply to the case of a higher friction
Fig. 8. Normalized support pressure s/γH as a function of
angle (Figure 6b) or of a cohesive ground (Figure 6c), the
the normalized depth of cover h/H for a granular soil (c = 0)
main difference being that horizontal arching is more pro-
and a circular tunnel (B/H=1)
nounced in these cases and consequently the difference Bild 8. Normierter Stützdruck s/γH in Abhängigkeit der
between the two models is bigger. In the case of φ = 35° normierten Überlagerungshöhe h/H für einen rolligen Boden
(Figure 6b), the simplified model predicts about the same (c = 0) und einen kreisförmigen Tunnelquerschnitt (B/H=1)
support pressure if the λw-value is taken to be 0.55. The re-
duction factor λw/λ = 0.55/0.80 = 0.69 agrees well with the
ratio of the average stresses (σz,av/σz,av,lin = 74/110 = 0.67
according to Figure 5). This is true also for the cohesive
ground (according to Figures 5 and 6c, σz,av/σz,av,lin =
58/96 = 0.60 and λw/λ = 0.49/0.80 = 0.61, respectively).
Figure 7a shows the results of a parametric study
concerning the ratio of the average vertical stresses of the
two models, which at the same time represents the reduc-
tion factor to be applied to the λw-value of the simplified
model. The diagram shows the stress ratio as a function of
the cohesion for different values of the friction angle and
of the angle ω. For the parameter combinations of wedges
needing support (i.e. parameter combinations leading to
positive values of support pressure, Figure 7b), the reduc-
tion factor amounts to 0.50 – 0.85. Taking λw as equal to
0.5λ (as suggested by Anagnostou and Kovári [1]) there-
fore represents a reasonably conservative assumption. As
mentioned above, the same is true with regard to a λ-value
of 0.8.

4 Comparative calculations concerning support pressure

Figure 8 shows the effect of the depth of cover h on the
support pressure s. It can readily be seen that, with the ex-
ception of soils of very low friction angle, the support
pressure has practically reached its maximum value al-
ready at a depth of h = H. In the remaining part of the pre-
sent paper all calculations assume that the depth of cover
is larger than this (h > H), which in practical terms means
that the overburden amounts at least to one tunnel diame-
ter.
Figure 9 shows the normalized support pressure
s/γD (for the most unfavourable angle ω) as a function of
the normalized cohesion c/γD for different friction angles
φ and for λ = 0.8 or 1. The diagram applies to a circular
tunnel face of diameter D. It was calculated by means of
equation (39) considering a quadratic cross section of
equal area (H = B = 0.886 D). Figure 10 compares (for a
Fig. 9. Normalized support pressure s/γD as a function of
the normalised cohesion c/γD for φ = 15 – 35° and λ = 0.8 or
1.0 according to the method of slices (h > H, B/H = 1,
D = 2H/√ ⎯π )
Bild 9. Normierter Stützdruck s/γD in Abhängigkeit der
normierten Kohäsion c/γD für φ = 15 – 35° und λ = 0,8 bzw.
1,0 nach der Lamellenmethode (h > H, B/H = 1, D = 2H/√ ⎯π )
specific value of the friction angle) the results obtained us-
ing the method of slices with the predictions under the
model of Anagnostou and Kovári [1] and with the results
of Krause [13] and Vermeer et al. [11]. As mentioned above,
the method of Anagnostou and Kovári [1] assumes the
simplified distribution of equation (2) with a reduced lat-
eral pressure coefficient for the wedge (λw = 0.5 λ). The re-
sults of Vermeer et al. [11] are based upon three-dimen-

40 geotechnik 35 (2012), Heft 1

 G. Anagnostou · The contribution of horizontal arching to tunnel face stability

Fig. 10. Normalized support pressure s/γD as a function
of the normalised cohesion c/γD for φ = 25° according to
different methods (h > H, B/H = 1, D = 2H/√⎯π )
Bild 10. Normierter Stützdruck s/γD in Abhängigkeit der
normierten Kohäsion c/γD für φ = 25° nach verschiedenen
Berechnungsmethoden (h > H, B/H = 1, D = 2H/√ ⎯π )
sional numerical stress analyses and can be summarised
as follows:
Fig. 11. Gradient ds/dc as a function of the friction angle φ
according to different computational models (h > H, B/H =
1, D = 2H/√ ⎯π ). Remark: The results after Vermeer et al. [11]
are practically identical with the results after the method of
slides for λ = 1.0
Bild 11. Gradient ds/dc in Abhängigkeit des Reibungs-
winkels φ nach verschiedenen Berechnungsmethoden
(h > H, B/H = 1, D = 2H/√ ⎯π ). Bemerkung: Die Ergebnisse
nach Vermeer et al. [11] sind praktisch identisch mit den
Ergebnissen nach der Lamellenmethode für λ = 1.0

s c
= N γ − Nc (55)
γD γD

where
1
Nγ = − 0.05 (for φ ≥ 20°, h > H) (56)
9 tan φ

1
Nc = (for φ ≥ 20°, h > 2H) (57)
tan φ

Equation (56) is based upon the results of a comprehen-

sive parametric study, while equation (57) is, as mentioned
above, theoretically founded [12] and was also confirmed
by the numerical results of Vermeer et al. [11]. Krause [13]
investigated a semi-spherical failure mechanism and pro-
posed the following coefficients:
1
Nγ = (58)
9 tan φ
π
Nc = (59) Fig. 12. Normalized support pressure s/γD of a granular
2 tan φ
material (c = 0) as a function of the friction angle φ accor-
ding to different computational models (h > H, B/H = 1,
As observed by Vermeer et al. [11], the method of Anagnos-
D = 2H/√ ⎯π )
tou and Kovári [1] leads to slightly higher support pres-
Bild 12. Normierter Stützdruck s/γD für einen rolligen
sures than the numerical analyses. This is true particularly Boden (c = 0) in Abhängigkeit des Reibungswinkels φ nach
for λ = 0.8 and to a lesser degree also for λ = 1.0. The me- verschiedenen Berechnungsmethoden (h > H, B/H = 1,
thod of slices leads to support pressures which are much D = 2H/√ ⎯π )
closer to the numerical predictions of Vermeer et al. [11],
and for λ = 1.0 the difference is irrelevant. These results in-
dicate that the reason for the differences from the numeri- Due to the linearity of the relationship between
cal results is the simplified way of considering horizontal support pressure s and cohesion c (Figure 9), the results
arching in the model of Anagnostou and Kovári [1] [16]. of the method of slides can be expressed in terms of only

geotechnik 35 (2012), Heft 1 41

G. Anagnostou · The contribution of horizontal arching to tunnel face stability
Fig. 13. Normalized support pressure s/γD of a granular
material (c = 0) as a function of the friction angle φ
(part of Figure 12): Comparison of the method of slides
with experimental data and other computational models
(h > H, B/H = 1, D = 2H/√ ⎯π )
Bild 13. Normierter Stützdruck s/γD für einen rolligen
Boden (c = 0) in Abhängigkeit des Reibungswinkels φ
(Ausschnitt des Bildes 12): Vergleich der Lamellenmethode
mit Versuchsergebnissen und anderen Berechnungs-
methoden (h > H, B/H = 1, D = 2H/√ ⎯π )
two parameters – the normalised support pressure of a
cohesionless soil and the gradient of the s(c) line (cf.
Equation 3 in [16] as well as Eqs. 39 and 55). Figures 11
and 12 show these parameters in the function of the fric-
tion angle φ and compare the different models. The re-
sults obtained by the method of slices with λ = 1.0 agree
very well with the numerical results over the entire para-
meter range. The gradient ds/dc is exactly equal to cotφ
(Equation 42).
5 Comparison with experimental data
The computational predictions of the method of slides al-
so agree very well with published results of small-scale
centrifuge- [2] [17] [18] or 1g-model tests [19] [20] for tun-
nels in cohesionless sand. Figure 13 shows the part of Fig-
ure 12 for which test data are available (φ -range of 30 to
42º). The marked rectangles show the range of experimen-
tal values. The thick solid line was obtained using the
method of slides. The lines according to Vermeer et al. [11]
42 geotechnik 35 (2012), Heft 1
Fig. 14. Normalized support pressure s/γH as a function of
the normalized width B/H (c = 0, φ = 25°, h > H)
Bild 14. Normierter Stützdruck s/γH in Abhängigkeit der
normierten Tunnebreite B/H (c = 0, φ = 25°, h > H)
and Krause [13] were calculated with equations (62) and
(64), respectively. The computational results using the
models of Leca and Dormieux [21] and Kolymbas [22]
have been obtained from Kirsch [19].
6 Shape of tunnel cross-section
The enormous influence of horizontal arching can best be
illustrated by plotting the necessary support pressure over
the width B of the tunnel face. Figure 14 shows that the
narrower the face, the lower will be the necessary support
pressure. Horizontal arching and the contribution of later-
al shear resistance are more pronounced if the face is nar-
row. As indicated by the lower curves of Figure 14, a re-
duction in width (by partial excavation and vertical subdi-
vision of the tunnel cross section; see inset of Figure 14)
may be sufficient for stabilizing the face, provided that the
ground exhibits some cohesion. In terms of stability, the
effect of reducing width is therefore similar to that of re-
ducing the height of the tunnel face. Moreover, compara-
tive calculations show that if the cross section area is kept
constant, the ratio B/H has little influence on the neces-
sary support pressure: Figure 15 shows the support pres-
sure s (normalized by the diameter D of a circle having the
same area as the face) as a function of the friction angle
for a cohesionless ground (as mentioned above, the effect
of cohesion on support pressure is given by ds/dc=cotφ).
The curves apply to markedly different width to height ra-
tios B/H but are nevertheless very close together. Conse-
quently, the square tunnel cross-section model is reason-
ably precise for practical purposes, even for non-circular
tunnel cross sections.

Fig. 15. Normalized support pressure s/γD of a granular
material (c = 0) as a function of the friction angle φ
for different values of the normalized width B/H
(h > H, D = 2H/√ ⎯π )
Bild 15. Normierter Stützdruck s/γD für einen rolligen
Boden (c = 0) in Abhängigkeit des Reibungwinkels φ
für verschiedene Werte der normierten Bandbreite B/H
(h > H, D = 2H/√ ⎯π )
7 Design equation
In conclusion, the method of slices when applied with λ =
1.0 (Terzaghi’s initial assumption) leads to predictions that
agree well with numerical and experimental results. It can
be verified readily that, for λ = 1.0 and h > H (a tunnel that
is not too shallow), the coefficient f51 using the method of
slices (Equation 40) can be approximated with sufficient
accuracy by the following equation:
s [6] DIN 4126. Ortbeton-Schlitzwände; Konstruktion und Aus-
f51 = ≅ 0.05cot φ1.75 (60)
γD
Inserting equations (60) and (42) into (39) leads to a sim-
ple formula, which can be used for estimating the support
pressure:
s = 0.05( cot φ)1.75 γD − cot φ c (61)
If the tunnel cross-section is non-circular, equation
(61) can be applied by considering the equivalent diam-
eter
D = 2 AT / π (62)
where AT denotes the cross-sectional area of the tunnel.
8 Conclusions
The safety against failure of the 3D mechanism under con-
sideration (the wedge and prism model) depends essential-
ly on the frictional resistance at the lateral shear plane of
the wedge and thus on the horizontal stresses. Following
silo theory, the horizontal stresses can be handled as a
constant percentage of the respective vertical stresses.
The simplified model suggested by [6] necessitates, howev-
er, an additional assumption concerning the vertical stress
σz. Comparative calculations show that this model leads
G. Anagnostou · The contribution of horizontal arching to tunnel face stability
to results similar to those of the method of slices or nu-
merical analyses, provided that it is applied in combina-
tion with a lower coefficient of lateral stress λw. The as-
sumptions of λ = 0.8 and λw = 0.4 (suggested in [1] and un-
derlying the nomograms [16]) are reasonably conservative.
The method of slices does not require an assumption
concerning the vertical stress σz because the latter results
from the equilibrium equations of the infinitesimal slices
in exactly the same way as in silo theory. For λ = 1.0, i.e.
the value suggested in Terzaghi and Jelinek [15], the
method of slices leads to results that are almost identical
to those of spatial stress analyses, confirming the numeri-
cal and theoretical predictions of Vermeer and Ruse [10]
regarding the effects of cohesion and tunnel shape, and al-
so agreeing well with the experimental data.
References
[1] Anagnostou, G., Kovári, K.: The face stability of slurry-shield
driven tunnels. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technolo-
gy 9 (1994), No. 2, pp. 165–174.
[2] Idinger, G., Aklik, P., Wu, W., Borja, R.I.: Centrifuge model
test on the face stability of shallow tunnel. Acta Geotechnica 6
(2011), pp. 105–117.
[3] Mollon, G., Dias, D., Soubra, A.-H.: Rotational failure me-
chanisms for the face stability analysis of tunnels driven by a
pressurized shield. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Meth. Geomech. 35
(2010), pp. 1363–1388.
[4] Perazzelli, P., Anagnostou, G.: Comparing the limit equilibri-
um method and the numerical stress analysis method of tunnel
face stability assessment. In 7th Int. Symp. on „Geotechnical
Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground“. Rome,
2011.
[5] Walz, B., Pulsfort, M.: Rechnerische Standsicherheit suspen-
sionsgestützter Erdwände, Teil 1. Tiefbau, Ingenieurbau, Stra-
ßenbau (1983), No. 1, pp. 4–7.
führung. Berlin: Beuth, 1986.
[7] Broere, W.: Tunnel Face Stability and New CPT Applications.
PhD thesis, Delft University of Technology, 2001.
[8] Janssen, H.A.: Versuche über Getreidedruck in Silozellen.
Zeitschrift des Vereines Deutscher Ingenieure (1895), p. 1045.
[9] Walz, B., Prager, J.: Der Nachweis der äusseren Standsicher-
heit suspensionsgestützter Erdwände nach der Elementschei-
bentheorie. Veröffentlichung des Grundbauinstituts der TU
Berlin, 4, 1978.
[10] Vermeer, P.A., Ruse, N.: Die Stabilität der Tunnelortsbrust
in homogenem Baugrund. geotechnik 24 (2001), No. 3, pp.
186–193.
[11] Vermeer, P.A., Ruse, N., Marcher, Th.: Tunnel Heading Sta-
bility in Drained Ground. Felsbau 20 (2002), No. 6, pp. 8–18.
[12] Ruse, N.: Räumliche Betrachtung der Standsicherheit der
Ortsbrust beim Tunnelvortrieb. Universität Stuttgart, Institut
für Geotechnik, Mitteilung 51, 2004.
[13] Krause, T.: Schildvortrieb mit flüssigkeits- und erdgestützter
Ortsbrust. Mitt. des Instituts f. Grundbau und Bodenmechanik
der TU Braunschweig, 1987.
[14] Melix, P.: Modellversuche und Berechnungen zur Standsi-
cherheit oberflächennaher Tunnel. Veröffentlichung des Insti-
tuts für Boden und Felsmechanik der Universität Fridericiana
in Karlsruhe, 103, 1987.
[15] Terzaghi, K., Jelinek, R.: Theoretische Bodenmechanik. Ber-
lin: Springer-Verlag, 1954.
[16] Anagnostou, G., Kovári, K.: Face stability conditions with
Earth Pressure Balanced shields. Tunnelling and Underground
Space Technology 11 (1996), No. 2, pp. 165–173.
geotechnik 35 (2012), Heft 1 43
G. Anagnostou · The contribution of horizontal arching to tunnel face stability

[17] Chambon P., Corte J.F.: Shallow tunnels in cohesionless Author

soil: stability of tunnel face. J Geotech Eng 120 (1994), No 7, Prof. Dr. sc. techn. Georgios Anagnostou
pp. 1148–1165. Professur für Untertagbau
[18] Plekkenpol J.W., van der Schrier J.S., Hergarden H.J.: Shield ETH Zürich
8093 Zürich
tunnelling in saturated sand–face support pressure and soil de-
Switzerland
formations. In Tunnelling: a decade of progress. GeoDelft, 2006.
georg.anagnostou@igt.baug.ethz.ch
[19] Kirsch, A.: Experimental investigation of the face stability of
shallow tunnels in sand. Acta Geotechnica 5 (2010), pp. 43–62.
[20] Messerli, J., Pimentel, E., Anagnostou, G.: Experimental stu-
dy into tunnel face collapse in sand. In Physical Modelling in
Geotechnics, Vol. 1, pp. 575–580. Zurich, 2010.
[21] Leca, E., Dormieux, L.: Upper and lower bound solutions
for the face stability of shallow circular tunnels in frictional ma-
terial. Geotechnique 40 (1990), No. 4, pp. 581–606.
[22] Kolymbas, D.: Tunnelling and Tunnel Mechanics. Berlin: Submitted for review: 9. November 2011
Springer, 2005. Accepted for publication: 25. January 2012

44 geotechnik 35 (2012), Heft 1