TBM and Lining - Essential Interfaces

Nguyen Duc Toan

Prof. Daniele Peila

Dr. Harald Wagner

 TBM and Lining
Essential Interfaces

Student:
Nguyen Duc Toan

Dissertation submitted to the

Politecnico di Torino,
Consortium for the Research and Permanent Education (COREP), and
D2 Consult Dr. Wagner Dr. Schulter GmbH & Co. KG

in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

Master
in
Tunnelling and Tunnel Boring Machines

Academic Tutor: Company Tutor:

Prof. Daniele Peila Dr. Harald Wagner

Turin, Italy
October 2006
Abstract

Optimization of segmental lining design and construction, in close relation with proper
selection and operation of the tunnel boring machine (TBM), are the two among major
concerns for the owners, designers and contractors, in all tunnelling areas. The main
task of this work is to deal with this subject, using both qualitative and quantitative
approaches.

It is challenging to achieve the attractive and effective mechanized tunnelling

alternatives in saving both time and cost without a comprehensive and interdisciplinary
consideration. The Parties involved should be aware of the proper approaches in
adopting the mechanized tunnelling technology for a given tunnel project. Every TBM
tunnel project needs to be feasible from both operational and engineering points of
view, environmentally acceptable and value for money.

A significant scrutiny on the critical cases of TBM excavation has been conducted to
identify and rectify the obscure aspects that are often associated with TBM tunnelling,
in terms of risk management and project management. Difficult or critical cases of
excavation in various mechanized tunnelling techniques (with certain kinds of TBMs)
are analysed in connection with face stability and ground reinforcement issues.

The report identifies and describes both the technical aspects and the economic impact
of the critical interaction between the TBM and the tunnel lining. The interaction
between the soil and the TBM tunnelling process and a number of essential loading
cases for the segmental concrete lining has been investigated to comprehend the lining
behaviour, the risk of ground failure and the risk of surface subsidence. The parametric
study was restrictively applied to the hydroshield tunnelling technique.
Acknowledgement
I would like to express my sincere appreciation to the following people who have helped
make this master thesis materialized:

Politecnico di Torino:
I would like to sincerely thank my academic tutor, Prof. Daniele Peila for his nicely
arranging a good placement for my internship, for his kindly keeping track of my Stage
work in Linz, and for his support in writing of this thesis. Prof. Sebastiano Pelizza is
always an inspiration to my striving and achievements. The two of them, as being the
Director and Assistant Director of the master program, make the most contribution to its
successfully realization and accomplishment.
I would like to express my thankfulness to Prof. Pier Paolo Oreste and Prof. Claudio
Oggeri for the technical materials, for their help in exploring the university library and
their input in modelling. I would like to thank Prof. Marilena Cardu for the books on the
blasting technology. I would also like to thank other professors of Politecnico di Torino
for their useful lectures.

International Tunnelling Association (ITA) and Sponsor Companies/Societies:

I would like to gratefully acknowledge the ITA for its initiative and endeavour to activate
and sponsor this unique study course. The lectures at the master course in Turin are a good
source of reference for my work. I would like to convey my deep gratefulness to all my
lecturers from a good deal of companies/societies/universities (as shown on the back cover
of this report) and from different nationalities who have dedicated their time and efforts to
come to Turin and teach us international students very high-quality lessons.

Consortium for the Research and Permanent Education (Corep):

Special thanks are due to Ms. Irene Miletto and Ms. Giusy Favasuli the Corep’s
Organizational Coordinators of the Master course in Turin.
My sincere thanks are delivered to Mrs. Luisa Rosano the COREP Secretariat who always
ensures the insurance coverage for my movement within and outside Italy, as well a good
administration in general.

Master class:
I would like to thank all colleagues in the master tunnelling course in Turin, academic year
2005-2006, for maintaining a comfortable and pleasant atmosphere, and for their support
in my studying in terms of discussions and material exchange, particularly, Mr. Daniele
De Lazzari, Mr. Nick Chittenden, Mr. Kim Jin Ha, Mr. Bang Gyu Min, Mr. Nicola
Donadoni, Mr. Marco Della Casa, Mr. Ciprian Eduard Partenie, Miss Katia Efpraxia
Demirtzoglou, and Miss Lamprini Goli.
D2-Consult Team in Linz:
I would like to thank Ms. Katrin Pesendorfer, Ms. Margarete Prendl and Ms. Michaela
Zellner the D2-Consult secretariat, for their valuable assistance during the whole process
of my internship in Linz, Austria from beginning of May to mid-July 2006.
I would like to thank Mr. Ulrich Horny for allowing citations from his technical paper, and
for his wholehearted and effective guidance on numerical modelling during my Stage.
Thanks are due to Mr. Walter Pointner, without his explanation I could be hardly to
interpret the technical drawings of the BEG railway tunnel project which are presented
only in German language. I also highly appreciate his high sense of humour, which makes
my stay in the Danube city worth remembering.
Mr. Peter Ertl and Mr. Horst Wöger, who helped me to find and explore the necessary
contract documents and drawings, deal with computer problems and everyday life
difficulties. Accompanying them to the BEG Project in Innsbruck - Southern Austria is a
good memory of mine.
Finally, heartfelt gratitude is conveyed to Mr. Andreas Beil, Dr. Harald Wagner and Dr.
Alfred Schulter, Managing Directors of D2 Consult for their availability to any help I
need. Their partly but valuably covering for the living cost is indispensable to my Stage
period. A special point I would like to be grateful to them is that, they kindly allowed me
to freely utilize all the company resources, such as a rich library, photocopy machine,
scanner, printer, and limitless access to the Internet. The technical documents I collected in
Linz are much helpful to my thesis finalization in Turin and will be greatly beneficial to
my future career. The constant input through consultation with Dr. Wagner together with
his writings is a never-ending source for my work. And I am very proud of being a "close
friend of D2 Consult team" as allowed by Dr. Wagner and inspired from Mr. Martin Srb.
Thanks are also due to the Brenner Eisenbahn GmbH (BEG) for the kind permission to use
the company's respective information. Prof. Gunter Swoboda of the Innsbruck University
(Austria) is appreciated for the nice talking at his Laboratory and for his helpful input on
the analysis of the settlement induced by tunnelling, as well as other modelling aspects.

Institute of Transport Science and Technology (ITST):

My leaders in the Institute of Transport Science and Technology in Hanoi deserve my
sincere thanks for their support in the first steps of enrolling in this master course. I am
also thankful to my colleagues in the ITST’s Underground Structures Department for their
consistently being kind and willing to help me.

My family:
I am deeply grateful to my parents, who have provided most of finance for my stay in
Europe. I am greatly indebted to my wife Tran Thi Linh Chi for her support,
understanding and patience. Much love and thank is due to my son Nguyen Ung Bach for
his constantly missing me and passionately wanting me being back home. I would like to
dedicate this thesis to my parents, my wife and my son.
 Contents

Abstract
Acknowledgement
Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................1
1.1 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................1
1.2 OBJECTIVES ...................................................................................................................................3
1.3 CONTENTS OF THE THESIS ............................................................................................................4
2. CONSTRAINTS OF A NEW RAILWAY LINE ................................................................................6
2.1 BEG COMPANY APPROACHING THE PROJECT ............................................................................6
2.2 THE PROJECT ALIGNMENT ...........................................................................................................6
2.3 TBM CONTRACT LOT H3-4 AND H-8...........................................................................................9
3. ESSENTIAL INTERFACES OF EXCAVATION............................................................................12
3.1 OVERVIEW ON DIFFERENT TUNNELLING METHODS .................................................................12
3.1.1. General ...................................................................................................................................12
3.1.2. Classification of Mechanized Tunnelling Techniques..........................................................13
3.2 GLOBAL VIEW OF TBM TUNNELLING .......................................................................................15
3.2.1 TBM Types..............................................................................................................................15
3.2.2 Operation of TBMs.................................................................................................................21
3.2.3 Conventional Tunnelling Versus TBM Tunnelling ..............................................................28
3.3 CRITICAL CASES OF TBM EXCAVATION ...................................................................................32
3.3.1. Risk Management for Tunnels...............................................................................................32
3.3.2. Critical Cases of TBM Tunnelling in Soil .............................................................................37
3.3.3. Critical Cases of TBM Tunnelling in Rock ...........................................................................41
3.3.4. TBM Tunnelling in Mixed Face Conditions .........................................................................51
3.4 GROUND REINFORCING ..............................................................................................................52
3.4.1. General ...................................................................................................................................52
3.4.1.1 Face Support ............................................................................................................................... 52
3.4.1.2 Failure Mechanism ..................................................................................................................... 52
3.4.1.3 Countermeasures to Ground Failure ........................................................................................ 60
3.4.1.4 Grouted Bodies ........................................................................................................................... 61
3.4.2. Case History: Metro of Turin.................................................................................................65
3.4.2.1 Subsoil Conditions ...................................................................................................................... 66
3.4.2.2 Shield Machines .......................................................................................................................... 67
3.4.2.3 Tunnel Lining and Excavation .................................................................................................. 69
3.4.2.4 Ground Improvement................................................................................................................. 70
4. INTERFACE BETWEEN TBM AND LINING ...............................................................................75
4.1 TYPES OF LININGS .......................................................................................................................75
4.1.1 General ...................................................................................................................................75
4.1.2 Reinforced Concrete Linings .................................................................................................80
4.1.3 Steel Fiber Reinforced Linings ..............................................................................................82
4.2 LINING DESIGN PROCEDURE ......................................................................................................82
4.2.1 Design Steps............................................................................................................................83
4.2.2 Loading Conditions ................................................................................................................85
4.2.2.1 Geostatical Loads........................................................................................................................ 88
4.2.2.2 Thrust Jacking Loading ............................................................................................................. 89
4.2.2.3 Trailer Loading........................................................................................................................... 90
4.2.2.4 Grouting Loads ........................................................................................................................... 91
4.2.2.5 Storage Loads.............................................................................................................................. 92
4.2.2.6 Erection Loads ............................................................................................................................ 93

1
 4.2.2.7 Fire Loads.................................................................................................................................... 93
4.2.2.8 Other Loads ................................................................................................................................ 93
4.3 CONCEPT OF INTERFACE ............................................................................................................94
4.3.1 Contractual Interface .............................................................................................................95
4.3.1.1 General Aspects .......................................................................................................................... 95
4.3.1.2 Segmental Lining Optimization................................................................................................. 97
4.3.2 Physical Interface.................................................................................................................101
4.3.2.1 General ...................................................................................................................................... 101
4.3.2.2 Machine Operation................................................................................................................... 103
4.3.2.3 Guidance System....................................................................................................................... 105
4.3.2.4 Lining Ring Building ................................................................................................................ 106
4.3.2.5 Backfill Grouting ...................................................................................................................... 113
4.3.2.6 Back-up System......................................................................................................................... 115
4.3.2.7 Monitoring and Instrumentation............................................................................................. 116
5. INFORMATION FOR SETTLEMENT STUDY ...........................................................................118
5.1 GROUND CONDITIONS ...............................................................................................................118
5.2 EXCAVATION AND SUPPORT......................................................................................................120
5.2.1 Shield Machine.....................................................................................................................120
5.2.2 Ring Configuration ..............................................................................................................121
5.2.3 Lining Material.....................................................................................................................123
5.3 NUMERICAL ANALYSIS TOOL ...................................................................................................124
5.3.1 Soil Models in Plaxis ............................................................................................................124
5.3.2 Hardening Soil Model ..........................................................................................................125
5.4 FLOWCHART OF CALCULATION ...............................................................................................127
6. TUNNEL INDUCED GROUND DEFORMATION.......................................................................129
6.1 SETTLEMENT INDUCED BY TUNNELLING .................................................................................129
6.1.1 Volume Loss and Settlement ................................................................................................129
6.1.2 Settlement Calculation Approaches .....................................................................................132
6.1.3 Settlement Control Approach...............................................................................................134
6.2 EMPIRICAL CALCULATION FOR SETTLEMENT .........................................................................135
6.2.1 Formulae ..............................................................................................................................135
6.2.2 Calculated Results ................................................................................................................144
6.3 FINITE ELEMENT MODELLING .................................................................................................149
6.3.1 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................149
6.3.2 FE Analysis by Plaxis 2D Professional ...............................................................................150
6.3.2.1 Geometry ................................................................................................................................... 151
6.3.2.2 Calculations............................................................................................................................... 153
6.3.3 Face Stability by Plaxis 3D Tunnel .....................................................................................160
6.3.3.1 Geometry ................................................................................................................................... 161
6.3.3.2 Calculations............................................................................................................................... 164
6.4 SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................................171
7. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK .......................................................................................173

List of Acronyms
References
Appendixes
Curriculum Vitae

2
Chapter 1
1. Introduction

1.1 Background

Placement of the Internship

The Master course in Tunnelling and Tunnel Boring Machines Edition V 2005/2006 is
held by the Turin University of Technology (Politecnico di Torino) in partnership with
the Consortium for the Research and Permanent Education (Corep) in Turin, Italy. The
intense study period has brought rich and fruitful knowledge to all the international
students, including the author.
After that, the author has had a fruitful master trainee period (or internship/stage) in the
Headquarter of the D2 Consult Dr. Wagner Dr. Schulter GmbH & Co. KG, located in
Linz, Austria. The internship lasted more than two months. The author's host company
tutor is Dr. Harald Wagner - Managing Director of the D2 Consult GmbH, and his
academic tutor is Prof. Daniele Peila of the Politecnico di Torino.

The host company profile

D2 Consult Dr. Wagner Dr. Schulter GmbH & Co. KG
Hirschgasse 32
4020 Linz, Austria
Managing Directors: Harald Wagner, Ph.D., P.E.
Alfred Schulter, Ph.D., P.E.
Established: 1985
Natural Duality is the founding concept of D2 Consult. D2 Consult Linz is the Head
office of D2 Consult. Most projects have been being handled in Linz.
Branch Offices: 1986 - Foundation of Branch Office "USA"
1996 - Foundation "D2 Consult Colombia"
1998 - Foundation "D2 Consult Prague"

1
 2000 - Foundation "D2 Consult Berlin

Activities:
• Design and analysis of underground structures
• Tender documentation
• Technical assistance
• Construction supervision
• Project management
• Cost estimation
In the fields of Transportation, Energy, and Environment, with reference projects in all
over the world.
In connection with the purpose of the internship, two projects using tunnel boring
machines (TBM) and reinforced concrete segments completed in Paris and Boston are
introduced in the Appendix 1 and 2, respectively.

Jobsites
From Linz the author also went to visit the BEG (Brenner Eisenbahn GmbH) Railway
Project in Innsbruck, southern Austria. While gaining knowledge of the BEG project,
under the guidance of the persons responsible for the checking of the project design,
i.e. D2 Consult Linz Team, the author could have a thorough grasp of the upgrading
work of the railway line on the Brenner Railway Axis. The upgrading focuses on the
construction of the new high capacity line in the Lower Inn Valley in the Tyrol
province of Austria. The author has also found background information about the
project’s history and milestones as well as the data on the BEG company.
- Project Name: BEG (Brenner Eisenbahn GmbH) Railway Project
- Location: Lower Inn Valley, Tyrol province, Austria (between Kufstein and
Innsbruck)
- TBM (Tunnel Boring Machine) Tunnel Sections:
i) Contract Lot H3-4 from Münster at Km 33.1 to Wiesing at Km 38.9, length L =
5.818 km.
ii) Contract Lot H8 in Jenbach from Km 39.6 to Km 44.8, length L = 5.19 km.
Two these TBM Lots are both at the beginning stages of construction.

Purposes of the Internship

During the trainee period the author continued to gain greater knowledge of tunnelling
technology. This enabled for a better preparation of the present thesis.

2
The sector of reference for the traineeship is the tunnel design, on the general subject
Design and/or construction aspects of tunnel and underground works. The contents
include looking over the parameters of tunnel construction; studying critical cases of
TBM excavation; and studying interface between TBM and segmental concrete lining.
The overall objectives are enrichment of professional experience; check and widening
of the knowledge acquired during the lectures. The specific objective is project review
and evaluation.
The tasks are: Assistance in review and independent checking of structural tunnel
design, including calculations of lining segments, temporary and permanent loadings,
in coordination with actual construction and monitoring.

Investigation of technical aspects

The following tasks which partly comprise the content of the present report have been
accomplished during the internship period in D2 Consult Linz:
• Study of the BEG project’s contract documents and drawings, with techniques
in the field of conventional and mechanized tunnelling. This is a challenging
task because all the Contract Documents are in German, and only a few ones
are in English. This difficulty is partly released by the fact that, D2 Team,
especially Mr. A. Beil, has allowed me to make quotations from the company's
available English sources.
• Investigation of critical cases of TBM excavation and study on interface
between TBM and tunnel lining, including:
ƒ Review of details of structural lining aspects, during construction phase
and in the service condition
ƒ Review of ground movements and volume loss due to an advancing
tunnel heading
ƒ Performing some parametric studies on the tunnel lining calculation

After two months and a half from the beginning of May to mid-July 2006, an
Internship report has been submitted to the Corep, Politecnico di Torino, and D2
Consult the host company. After that, the Internship report has been further developed
into a full thesis as in the present form.

1.2 Objectives

This study is initiated in order to increase TBM applicability in both urban and
suburban areas, as well as in other fields of underground works, by reviewing
important engineering aspects of TBM tunnelling.

3
The report describes the critical cases of TBM excavation in general, and essential
loading cases for the segmental concrete lining in particular. Both the technical aspects
and the economic impact of the critical interaction/interface between the TBM and the
tunnel lining will be analysed. From that interfaces, necessary lessons and/or reactions
will be illustrated and envisaged, both from theoretical and practical point of view.
This report is intended to integrate as many as possible the parameters/interdependent
factors that come into play during lining design and subsequent construction of a
quality structure.
In order to illustrate part of that interfaces in the form of visible digits, numerical
analyses for the problems of tunnel face stability and surface subsidence are carried
out.

1.3 Contents of the Thesis

The thesis contains seven chapters followed by references, as described below:

• Chapter 2 introduces general information about the BEG company and the way
approaching the Brenner axis upgrade project within Austria territory. The
High-speed Railway Brenner in Austria is part of the European north-south
railway axis, and the TBM Contract Lot H3-4 within the project is the subject
of this study, among others.

• Chapter 3 describes the essential interfaces of TBM excavation, by first

briefing on different tunnelling methods, then going more detailed into TBM
tunnelling method, and addressing critical cases of TBM excavation. In briefing
different tunnelling methods, classifications of mechanized tunnelling
techniques are given. In running through the TBM tunnelling, available types of
TBMs and their basic operation are discussed, together with a short comparison
between conventional and TBM tunnelling. Finally, critical cases of TBM
excavation are dealt with in several subtopics such as project management, risk
management, and difficulties while driving tunnels in soil, rock and mixed
ground. A separate part is reserved for dealing with the face stability and
ground reinforcing problems in urban tunnelling, and presenting a case history
of Turin Metro Line 1.

• Chapter 4 presents the interface between TBM and lining. Looking at certain
types of tunnel lining will lead to the concept of contractual and structural
interface. The investigation on these two interlinked interfaces also leads to a
discussion on the possibility of segmental lining optimization. Next, critical

4
 loading cases, among others, for the lining of tunnels driven by TBMs, are
given.

• Chapter 5 contains the input data for parametric studies that will be performed
in the Chapter 6. These include a flowchart of calculation, very short
introduction to the numerical tool, ground conditions, lining configuration, and
the loads to be considered.

• Chapter 6 contains computations of the ground volume loss and surface

settlements induced by tunnelling. Both empirical approach and numerical
modelling are carried out to compare one another and extract necessary
conclusions. The numerical modelling can also gives member forces in the
tunnel lining.

• Chapter 7 contains several conclusions obtained from the thesis. These

conclusions have shown that the presented extensive analyses on project
interfaces sufficiently address the TBM processes with many influential factors.
These analyses are necessary to allow for economic and reliable technical
solutions and other requirements from the Client, within the scope of the
mechanized tunnelling techniques. This chapter also contains recommendations
for the author's future studies.

• List of Acronyms

• References

5
Chapter 2
2. Constraints of a New Railway Line

2.1 BEG Company Approaching the Project

The Brenner Eisenbahn GmbH (BEG) was founded as an infrastructure construction

company owned by the Republic of Austria and since 2005 it is a subsidiary of the
ÖBB Infrastruktur Bau AG, which is a company of the ÖBB group (Austrian Federal
Railway). Since 1996 the BEG has been working on the implementation on Austrian
territory of the European railway upgrade project for the Brenner axis. In the past years
the BEG has organized the finance, completed the environmental impact assessments
and obtained the necessary approvals for the first section of the project in the Lower
Inn Valley. Construction work for the new line began in the summer 2003. The
company’s headquarters are in Innsbruck, Austria.
For the southern leg of the new rail link, the BEG has been collaborating with the
Italian National Railway (RFI) on the Brenner Base Tunnel project. Since 2005 the
Brenner Base Tunnel SE has taken on the planning of the Tunnel.
The BEG's consent for visiting the construction site, the BEG staff's considerate guide
during the site visit, and its permission for use of the project information, are highly
appreciated.

2.2 The Project Alignment

History
In December 1994, the European Council pinpoints 14 priority infrastructure projects
for the development of a common transeuropean transport network (TEN-projects).
The upgrading of the railway line Berlin - Nuremberg - Munich - Kufstein - Innsbruck
- Brenner - Verona is classified project number 1.
In August and October 2003, the construction of the main lot between Vomp and
Terfens (near Innsbruck) was started.

6
Finance
The rail upgrade program in the Lower Inn Valley between Kufstein and Innsbruck is a
European project. As part of the Berlin - Palermo TEN axis, it occupies a key position
for future developments in international north - south traffic management. On the basis
of the decisions taken to develop the Trans-European Transport Networks (TEN), the
European Union (EU) is co-financing the Lower Inn Valley railway project, with 50
percent of planning costs and 10 percent of construction costs funded via the relevant
EU budgets.
At 2003 price levels, the first upgrade section of the Lower Inn Valley railway is
expected to cost about 1.85 billion euros. In addition to EU funding, the necessary
finance will be provided by the Austrian government.

Implementation
For the Brenner axis upgrade, the European Union’s transport-policy makers have
decided on a step by step approach. First priority has been given to the section between
Kundl and Baumkirchen in the Lower Inn Valley, a two-track line which currently
handles more than 300 trains a day and where a sustainable increase in the volume of
traffic is not an operative possibility with the existing infrastructure. To that extent the
Lower Inn Valley can be described as the bottleneck of international north-south rail
traffic over the Brenner and has to be upgraded to increase capacity. The new Kundl-
Baumkirchen section is already under construction, and the second upgrade section
from Kundl to Kiefersfelden is now in the planning stage.
The BEG began main construction work on the new Lower Inn Valley railway in
August 2003 with the award of the first main construction lot. Meanwhile six of ten
main construction lots are under construction (Lot H2-1, H3-4, H4-3, H5, H6, H7); the
ones to be awarded are on schedule (H2-2, H3-6, H8, H1). The tunnelling techniques
used vary from conventional drill and blast to hydro shield machines for the crossing
of the valley or special techniques like open cut with underwater concrete invert or
tunnel excavation with jet grouting.
Contract lots and state of construction works are shown in Figure 1.

7
Figure 1: Brenner axis upgrade project, its contract lots and state of construction works (BEG, 2006)
8
2.3 TBM Contract Lot H3-4 and H-8

Owner BEG Brenner Eisenbahn GmbH

BEG Project as a The High-speed Railway Brenner in Austria is part of the

Whole European north-south railway axis. This section has a total
length of 39 km and runs predominantly in the underground or
in trough structures.
The total length of the double track tunnels is about 28 km.
3 additional investigation tunnels have a total length of 9.8
km. During operation, they will be used as evacuation tunnels.
The design in the 3 stages - preliminary, tender, and final
design - comprises conventional methods within the principles
of NATM, the methods TBM, Jet grouting, and cut and cover
method under air pressure.

Details of Lot H3-4 Lot H3-4 Münster - Wiesing has a total length of 5.8 km, with
Münster - Wiesing a minimum overburden of approx. 8.5 m. The TBM tunnel
(Hydro-Shield-TBM) has an excavation diameter of approx.
12.90 m. The lining consists of concrete segments with 0.5 m
thickness and fire protection inner lining with 0.2 m thickness.
The tunnel crosses the river Inn with low overburden, as well
as the motorway A12 and the existing tracks of the Austrian
Railway.

Services Provided • Review of preliminary-, tender- and final design

by D2 Consult
• Review of statical calculation
• Structural analysis for the fire loading case
• Consultancy services during construction

Period of Work 01/2000 – 06/2009

Details of Lot H8 Lot H8 Jenbach - Stans has a total length of 5.19 km (3.5 km
with Hydro-Shield-TBM), with a minimum overburden of
Jenbach/Stans
approx. 6.0 m. The TBM tunnel has an excavation diameter of
approx. 12.90 m. The lining consists of concrete segments
with 0.5 m thickness and fire protection inner lining with 0.2
m thickness.
The tunnel crosses the motorway A12 and the existing tracks

9
 of the Austrian Railway with low overburden.

Services Provided • Review of preliminary-, tender- and final design

by D2 Consult
• Review of structural calculation
• Technical assistance
• Structural analysis for fire loading cases
• Consultancy services during construction

Period of work 03/2000 – 12/2008

Some preliminary information on the tunnel cross sections, anticipated TBMs and
lining segments are shown in Figure 2 to Figure 4. TBM for Lot H3-4 will be delivered
to the site in beginning 2007, and TBM for Lot H8 to be delivered in autumn 2007.

Figure 2: Cross section with escape tunnel and escape shaft. Lot H8 Jenbach

10
Figure 3: Normal cross-section, two tracks upgrading with fire prevention lining. Lot
H8 Jenbach

Figure 4: Anticipated TBM and segments (BEG, 2005)

11
Chapter 3
3. Essential Interfaces of Excavation

3.1 Overview on Different Tunnelling Methods

3.1.1. General
The large number of demanding infrastructural measures realized over the last thirty
years has brought numerous technical innovations to tunnelling.
Tunnelling methods and technology vary depending on geology, tunnel location,
length and geometry, local tradition etc.
In tunnelling there are essentially three different methods of construction:
• Open-cut method of construction
• Cut-and-cover method of construction
• Closed-face method of construction
Tunnelling using the open-cut method of construction initially works vertically from
the surface of the ground to the floor of the excavation pit. This is followed by the
actual tunnel structure, after which the excavation pit is filled in again. Only then does
work continue in a horizontal direction.
With the closed-face method of construction, also known as underground tunnelling,
the tunnel is driven horizontally from a starting shaft (e.g. in an urban area) or a tunnel
inset/adit (e.g. in the mountains). The cut-and-cover method is a hybrid method of
construction that combines both open-cut and underground methods of construction.
Tunnels with the overburden less than half a tunnel diameter are usually built by using
cut & cover methods.

With the closed-face method of construction, various tunnelling methods are possible:

- Tunnelling with mechanical means, ranging from excavators equipped with ripper
teeth, hydraulic rams, and roadheaders to TBMs of various designs. Excavation by
tunnel boring machine TBM is always referred to as full-face mechanized tunnelling.

12
According to the definition of the French Association of Tunnels and Underground
Space (AFTES, 2000), “mechanized tunnelling techniques” (as opposed to the so-
called “conventional” techniques) are all the tunnelling techniques in which
excavation is performed mechanically by means of teeth, picks, or discs. Within the
mechanized tunnelling techniques, all (or nearly all) categories of tunnelling machines
range from the simplest (backhoe digger) to the most complicated (confinement-type
shield TBM).

- Sprayed concrete methods of construction, such as Sprayed Concrete Lining (SCL) or

New Austrian Tunnelling Method (NATM), Norwegian Method of Tunnelling (NMT),
and Analysis of Controlled Deformation in Rocks and Soils (ADECO-RS). The
SCL/NATM and NMT usually involve drilling and blasting; these and ADECO-RS all
belong to the conventional group.

- Special construction methods (pipe jacking, Microtunnelling, Horizontal directional

drilling, Caissons). The special methods and above-said conventional methods are not
within the scope of this report.

Tunnels are built today where the public requests them and not necessarily where the
geological conditions would be more favourable. This makes construction technically
more difficult, more exposed to risks, and more expensive. In most projects, financial
factors and the related scheduling are the crucial elements for any decision which can
compromise both the excavation technique and safety consideration. However, all the
tunnelling methods should consistently aim at improving progress, cost, performance,
and safety.

3.1.2. Classification of Mechanized Tunnelling Techniques

Also according to AFTES (2000), it is vital to have an official classification of
mechanized tunnelling techniques in order to harmonize the terminology applied to the
most common methods.
The following Table 1 presents this classification. The table breaks the classification
down into groups of machines (e.g. boom-type unit) on the basis of a preliminary
division into types of immediate support (none, peripheral, peripheral and frontal)
provided by the tunnelling technique. To give more details on the different techniques,
the groups are further broken down into categories and types.

13
Table 1: Classification of mechanized tunnelling techniques (AFTES, 2000)

14
From the Table 1, different mechanized tunnelling techniques can be re-listed, with a
few relevant definitions provided in the next section:
¾ Machines not providing immediate support:
o Boom-type tunnelling machine (Out of the scope of this report)
o Tunnel reaming machine (Out of the scope of this report)
o Hard rock TBM
¾ Machines providing immediate support peripherally:
o Open-face gripper shield TBM
o Open-face shield TBM
o Double shield
¾ Machines providing immediate peripheral and frontal support simultaneously:
o Mechanical-support TBM
o Compressed-air TBM
o Slurry shield TBM
o Earth pressure balance machine (EPB)
o Mixed-face shield TBM

According to Swoboda (1990), the future of tunnel construction will certainly be

increasingly influenced by tunnel boring machines. A combination of excavation with
tunnel boring machines and blasting appears to be the most economic solution for the
future.
In line with the topic of this report, only tunnelling operations with tunnel boring
machines (TBM) will be considered.

3.2 Global View of TBM Tunnelling

3.2.1 TBM Types

A TBM is a complex set of equipment assembled to excavate a tunnel. The TBM

includes the cutterhead, with cutting tools and muck buckets; systems to supply power,
cutterhead rotation, and thrust; a bracing system for the TBM during mining;
equipment for ground support installation; shielding to protect workers; and a steering
system. Back-up equipment systems provide muck transport, personnel and material
conveyance, ventilation, and utilities.
List of main constitutive items:

15
 - Front face where the soil is excavated with special tools (shield or cutting
wheel/cutterhead)
- Steering mechanism part with drive engines for forward movement.
- Control mechanism for deviation and inclination
- Removal installation for transporting excavated material through the
machine to a separator or directly onto an independent transport system
- Installations behind the working chamber permitting either further soil
improvements (i.e. with rock bolts, shotcrete or injections) or are used for
preliminary investigations
- Support installations within the protection of the shield tail
- Eventually grouting the void at the shielded tail created between the lining
and the subsoil.

In addition to the above-said technical classifications of the machines by AFTES

(French Tunnelling and Underground Engineering Association), there exist other
national classifications, such as those of DAUB (German Committee for Underground
Construction) shown in Figure 5, JSCE (Japan Society of Civil Engineers) shown in
Figure 6, and SIG (Italian Tunnelling Association), etc.

TM
Tunnelling Machines

TBM SM
Tunnel Boring Machines Shielded Machines

SM-T SM-V
TBM TBM-S Shielded Machines Shielded Machines
TBM without Shield TBM with Shield with Part Heading Full-face

SM-T1 Face without support SM-V1 Face without support

SM-T2 Face with partial SM-V2 Face with mechanical

support support

SM-T3 Face with compressed SM-V3 Face with compressed

air application air application

SM-T4 Face with fluid SM-V4 Face with fluid

support support

SM-V5 Face with earth

pressure balance support

Figure 5: Tunnelling Machines (according to DAUB)

16
 Figure 6: Types of Shield (JSCE, 1996)

Some companies or even individuals also draw out specific classifications. The
following are TBM types, according to Rehm (2006):
• Hydroshield/Mixshield
• EPB-shield
• Hard-rock TBM
- Single/double-shield
- Gripper shield
• Shield with partial face excavation
• Micromachines

Range of diameter of TBM manufactured by Herrenknecht AG is shown in the Table 2

below. The world’s biggest TBM was used at the Groene Hart railway tunnel project in
The Netherland 2000-2004, with a diameter of Ø = 14.87 m. This record has been
recently broken by a new EPB TBM with a diameter of 15.20 m, manufactured by the
same company.

17
Table 2: Range of diameter of different TBMs (Rehm, 2006)

Another classification of TBM types and operational modes can be summarized as in

Table 3 (Grandori, 2006).

18
Table 3: TBM types and operational modes (Grandori, 2006)

DSU = Double Shield Universal TBM

19
According to Pelizza (2006), mechanized excavation methods can be briefed in two
groups:
- full face mechanized continuous excavation method, using TBM for the
excavation of tunnels in rock. The main problem is to break the rock;
- full face mechanized continuous excavation method, using mechanized
shields and with counterpressure against the face for the excavation of
tunnels in soil above and below the water table. The main problem is the
stability of the tunnel as well as the control of the groundwater.
Both the TBM (hard rock applications) and SM (Shield Machine, soft ground) fulfill
the same purpose:
- ensuring systematic and automated subsoil excavation;
- providing an effective protection (the shield) for the labour force at the
front;
- stabilizing the tunnel through quickly closing of the support ring;
- transportation of the excavated material

Shields with Special Shaped Cross-section

Shields with special shaped cross-section are divided into two types: Compound
circular shield (or multi-head circular shields, multi-circular face shield - MFS), and
non-circular shield (Figure 7).

Twin circular face

Compound
circular face
Compound triple
Shield with special circular face shield
shaped cross-section
Elliptical face shield

Non-circular face Rectangular face

shield
Horseshoe face shield

Half-circular face

Figure 7: Shields with special shaped cross-section (JSCE, 1996)

20
Selection of TBM
The tunnelling strategy is based on using different types of TBMs. Each machine
should be able to deal the best with the ground conditions expected. They must allow a
pressure to be exerted by the machine against the ground in front of the tunnel to
limiting ground movement and settlement.
The size of the tunnel and the geological conditions of the rock determine the type and
the configuration of TBM that is used. Relevant geological factors for the TBM
selection are: grain size distribution, type of predominant mineral (quartz contents),
soil strength (cohesion), overburden, heterogeneity (mix ground, weathering), and
piezometric pressure (Kovari et al, 2004).
The effect of unexpected geological conditions can be strongly amplified if the TBM
has been wrongly selected.

3.2.2 Operation of TBMs

Generally, tunnel construction using tunnel-boring machines (TBM) involves three

main processes: excavation, dirt/muck removal, and tunnel support.
TBMs’ key specifications may include: shield diameter, machine weight, maximum
torque (that is needed for the cutterhead rotation under the maximum thrust), machine
installed power, cutterhead/cutting wheel speed RPM, gripper force, penetration, cutter
diameter, number of cutters on the cutting wheel, thrust per cutter, etc.
A distinction is basically made between open-type machines, hard-rock TBMs, slurry-
shield TBMs (hydroshields), and earth pressure balance (EPB) tunnel boring machines.
Below is the briefing on the operation of several TBM types.

Hard-rock TBMs
The machines for rock are built to advance through a hard material that is usually self
supporting, and have tools made for breaking even the hardest rocks. The excavation is
carried out at atmospheric pressure, and the extraction of the material is performed
using trains, trucks or conveyor belts to minimize wear (Figure 8).

21
 Figure 8: Unshielded gripper TBM schematic drawing (COE, 1997)

The application of the standard TBM types for long and large diameter tunnels in
variable ground conditions would be risky, in particular:
• Open gripper type TBMs are too sensitive to poor rock conditions especially in
large diameter range;
• Single shield TBMs cannot reach high performances in hard rock and are
sensitive to squeezing ground and face instabilities;
• Double shield TBMs, while can achieve very good performance in good to fair
rock, are still sensitive to squeezing ground and to face instabilities.
The extremely difficult geological conditions was a good reason to develop a new type
of TBM, that is the Double Shield Universal TBM (Figure 9) which, starting from a
main general design concept, can be configured into different specialized versions to
suit the particular project requirements and geology (Grandori, 2006).

22
 Figure 9: Double shield universal type TBM (Concilia, 2006)

Compressed air (Air pressure) TBM

A compressed-air TBM can have either a fullface cutterhead or excavating arms like
those of the different boom-type units. Confinement is achieved by pressurizing the air
in the cutting chamber.
Muck is extracted continuously or intermittently by a pressure-relief discharge system
that takes the material from the confinement pressure to the ambient pressure in the
tunnel (Figure 10).
It is possible for TBM to work by air pressure, when the soil itself is nearly
impermeable against the air. This is only possible in rare cases. In addition, the use of
compressed air introduces the risk of a blowout, that is, a sudden reduction of support
pressure on account of rapid loss of air; in this case the air may escape to the surface
by leakage through soils pores or by a heaving of the ground mass above the shield.
In recent years, thanks to advances in technology together with increasing reluctance,
mainly for medical reasons, to use compressed air working methods, slurry shield and
EPB tunnelling machines have become widely used for tunnelling in unstable ground
conditions.

23
a Excavation arm g Tailskin seal
b Shield h Airlock to cutting chamber
c Cutting chamber i Segment erector
d Airtight bulkhead j Screw conveyor (or
e Thrust ram conveyor and gate)
f Articulation (option) k Muck transfer conveyor

Figure 10: Compressed air TBM - Boom type (AFTES, 2000)

Slurry or fluid support machines (Hydroshield)

The Slurry Shield and the Earth Pressure Balanced shield (EPBS) have been developed
in the recent decades for managing the instability of the excavation profile in
unfavourable geotechnical and hydrogeological conditions, with challenge external
constraints (see Figure 11 and 12).
With a Slurry TBM, the unstable ground at the front is supported by liquid mixture
(bentonite suspension) under increased pressure generating an even counterpressure. A
filter between the existing ground and the support liquid (i.e. using bentonite
suspension) prevents the liquid from penetrating and disappearing into the ground.
Depending on the subsoil permeability, density and viscosity can be varied, pressure
can be regulated by controlling the speed of the delivery and feed pumps.
The excavation is done by a turning cutting wheel. The excavated ground material and
suspension liquid is mixed by hydraulic conveyance via tubes with subsequent
separation of the two materials.
The most important deviating design feature of hydroshields from the slurry shields is
the presence of a compressed air buffer through which the support pressure at the fluid
supported working face is controlled by means of a compressed air regulating
installation.

24
 1 3

2
4

6 5

Figure 11: Hydroshield/ Mixshield with double-chamber system. c Cutterhead, d

Bulkhead, e Air-cushion, f Submerged wall, g Slurry line, h Stone crusher, i
Feeding line, j Erector (Rehm, Herrenknecht 2006)

Figure 12: Typical spoke type cutterhead of the Hydroshield/Mixshield

(Hamburg ∅14.2 m, Berlin ∅8.9 m)

25
EPB - Earth Pressure Balance machines
Instead of a hydraulic/bentonite suspension as in Slurry TBMs, the excavated ground
in EPB is used as part of the supporting liquid and forms a ground slurry. This method
requests ground which is homogeneous, soft and cohesive (see Figure 13 and 14).
If the water content is too low or if small particles are absent in the grain size
distribution, they must be added artificially (bentonite, polymers, foam). This is called
soil conditioning. In this case, the environmental compatibility of the material for
landfill purposes must be taken into consideration.
EPB machine has the technical advantage compared to the Hydro-Shield that a
separation plant is not required, hence - space and cost for these systems are
unnecessary.

1
8

4
7
2
6
3

Figure 13: Shield machine - EPB technique. c Face, d Cutterhead, e Working

chamber, f Bulkhead, g Thrust cylinder, h Screw conveyor, i Erector, j Segments
(Rehm, 2006)

26
Figure 14: EPB TBM ∅ = 9755 mm used for Botlekspoort Tunnel project 1999-2000
(Rehm, Herrenknecht 2006)

The original single chamber design of the traditional Slurry shield was developed into
a two-chamber system (Mixshield) in Germany by the companies Wayss& Freytag and
Herrenknecht in the 1980s. The mechanical concept of the Mixshield is a very unique
tunnel boring machine considering it size and type, which allows a conversion between
the operation modes EPB shield and Hydro shield in a very short time.
The geological range of application for slurry shield and EPBM is given in Figure 15.

Figure 15: Relevant grain size distribution for EPB and Slurry TBM drives

27
Mixed-face shield TBM / “Universal” TBM
Modern technology has enabled us to design mixed (versatile) machines able to deal
with different (even extremely heterogeneous) soils during a single project, which can
operate both as EPB machines or Hard Rock TBMs with a few modifications to the
cutting wheel and extraction system. Changeover from one work mode to another
requires mechanical intervention to change the machine configuration. The universal
machines are best used with the universal ring.
The biggest challenge that the tunnelling industry is going to face in the new
millennium is related to the design and the use of large diameters TBMs for the
construction of long road and railway tunnels.
One point deserves mention is that, because of the magnitude of the risk associated
with rock mass conditions, a new double shield universal TBM design has been
realized. However, DSU TBMs could be uneconomical where systematic treatment of
the face is required for the whole length of the tunnel; in this case the use of an EPB
machine equipped with advanced conditioned and fine compensation systems might be
more convenient (Concilia, 2006).

3.2.3 Conventional Tunnelling Versus TBM Tunnelling

TBM tunnelling is characterized by a less adaptability to geology, better progress rates,

possibly continuous tunnelling, and relating to longer tunnels.
More and more tunnel projects are going to be mined by the safety TBM technique
which in the past would have been excavated by the conventional method with all its
uncertainties for the personnel.
The advantages and disadvantages of using a TBM include the following:

Advantages of using a TBM Disadvantages of a TMB

• Higher advance rates • Fixed circular geometry

• Continuous operations • Limited flexibility in response
to extremes of geologic
• Less rock damage
conditions
• Less support requirements
• Longer mobilization time
• Uniform muck characteristics
• Higher capital costs
• Greater worker safety
• Potential for remote, automated
operation

28
Concilia (2006) stated that the mechanised method of excavation can be 4 times (small
and medium diameter tunnels) faster than D&B, providing the correct machine has
been selected.

Although any tunnel excavation will influence the immediate surroundings to some
extent, the aim of mechanized tunnelling which includes excavation and support
installation processes is to avoid and minimize stress relaxation. A comparison on the
general aspects between conventional and mechanized tunnelling could be tabled as
follows (Assis, 2006):

Conventional Tunnelling Mechanized Tunnelling

• Geometry Flexibility • Lower impact to ground

• Geology Flexibility • Higher and more constant
quality (industrial process)
• Contractual Flexibility
• Lower load to workers
• Political Flexibility
• Safer
• Lower costs for short tunnels and
cheaper labour • More accurate costs and
schedule

Table 4 below gives another comparison between conventional shotcreting measures

and mechanical drives in terms of constructional engineering and operational terms.

29
Table 4: Comparison of major criteria for shotcrete tunnelling methods and TBMs
(after A. Haack, 1996)

Shotcrete
Item
Phase Assessment criteria tunnelling TBM
no.
method
1 Supporting agent in face zone variable safer
2 Lining thickness variable constant
3 Safety of the tunneling crews lower higher
4 Working and health protection lower higher
5 Degree of mechanization limited high
Construct
6 Degree of standardization conditional high
ion phase
7 Danger of break higher lower
8 Construction time - short tunnel shorter longer
9 Construction time - long tunnel longer shorter
10 Construction cost - short tunnel lower higher
11 Construction cost - long tunnel higher lower
12 Tunnel cross-section variable constant
13 Operation Cross-section form as desired generally circular
al phase Degree of utilization of the drive- generally
14 generally lower
related tunnel cross-sections higher

With respect to the question of comparative costs between conventional/hand mining

and mechanized tunnelling, Sauer (2004) made a diagrammatic representation as
shown in Figure 16. The diagram shows that conventional tunnelling is more cost
effective than mechanized tunnelling for the cases of short tunnels (< 2.4 km), shafts
and tunnels with changing geometry, and/or substantially changing geotechnical
behaviour. There is an overlapped area where hand and mechanical mining may be
equally considered and where a dual design is recommended. With tunnels longer than
3.2 km, Sauer showed a little difference of construction costs between hand mining
and mechanized tunnelling.

30
 Figure 16: Tunnel cost of Mechanized Tunnelling (MT) versus Hand Mining (HM)
over tunnel length (Sauer, 2004)

In addition, according to Wagner (2006, oral consultation), the statements on the

tunnel cost must be more related to ground conditions. It is impossible to establish a
general rule on the cost, because it relates to geological conditions and to work
progress (i.e. advance per day or per month). The tunnel costs may also need to be
estimated using special TBM cost estimating software and cost database.
Below Figure 17 shows a comparison of excavation and ring installation times
between the TBM “serial” tunnelling and TBM “continuous” tunnelling. The first
technique uses traditional ring type; the second uses unified rings, featured by
simultaneous excavation and ring erection. The erection time of the first is twice
longer than the second.

"SERIAL" TUNNELLING CONTINUOUS TUNNELLING

TUNNEL LENGTH

RING 3 RING 3

RING 2 RING 2

RING 1 RING 1

ERECTION TIME ERECTION TIME

EXCAVATION TIME PER RING INSTALLATION TIME PER RING

TE,C = 0,5 . TE,S

Figure 17: Modes of tunnelling with unified rings (Wagner, 2006)

31
Given the Hai Van Pass Tunnel in Vietnam (2000-2005) as an example; this is a
double lane highway tunnel, the width is 11.9 m, excavation area is 95.2 m2, opening
area is 73.3 m2, the length 6.2 km, excavated in accordance with the principles of
NATM. If a combination of TBM and conventional excavations had been done, then
the progress would have been faster 2 ÷ 3 times. The scheme for this combination
would be: both sides are excavated with NATM in lengths of 50 ÷ 100 m, so that the
max. conventional length is about 250 m, and the remaining main section is driven
with TBM. It may be interesting if the same scheme is considered for the upcoming
tunnel on the same highway No. 1A in Vietnam, namely Deo Ca Tunnel.

3.3 Critical Cases of TBM Excavation

Although the conventional tunnelling holds certain critical cases, they will not be
considered in details in the present report. Other special methods of tunnelling such as
open trenches, cut-and-cover structures (direct and inverse excavation), door-frame
method, and immersed tunnels (caisson and door-frame methods), etc. are also beyond
the scope of this project. However, it is possible to name a few of difficult conditions
in conventional tunnelling such as: heavy groundwater leakage/high pressure inflow,
very low overburden, soft ground, mixed face, swelling, squeezing, and rock burst, etc.
It is recognized that the TBM performance is influenced by the rock mass quality, the
selected machine type and the tunnel diameter. Advances in TBM technology and
reliability have resulted in bored tunnels being successfully driven through ground
conditions historically considered difficult. However, critical cases of TBM excavation
from which risks emanate do not disappear. During excavation, the situation can
become critical at any minute, meter, and under any circumstance.

3.3.1. Risk Management for Tunnels

It is well known, that tunnelling is not a risk-free technology. Tunnels are regarded as
so called “heavy risks”, because each tunnel is a specific unique project on its own in a
unique combination of ground / soil. The “right” construction method with the “right”
experience parties involved are crucial for the success. The main most important factor
however, the geology, is only known to a limited extent. Any accident during
construction as well as in use provokes a substantial interruption and often a standstill
till the problems are solved (Andreossi, 2001).
The construction of tunnels and underground works are affected by potential risks not
only for the different active Parties/main Actors (Owner/Client, Consulting Engineers,
Contractor, Supplier), but also for the Public, especially in urban areas. Tunnelling
projects must now consider numerous underlying political and environmental factors

32
which add to the overall complexity of a given project (IMIA, 2001). This is in
conformity with the statement by Parker (2005), that “realistically, not all risks
associated with complex construction projects can be entirely avoided or mitigated”,
which calls for the need of risk management.
According to its definition risk has two components: probability of occurrence w and
amount of damage D. In a quantitative appraisal the product of these two factors
defines the risk: R = w x D.
In other words:

Risk = Probability x Impact

= Likelihood x Consequences
= Probability of Happening x Cost of Event

Figure 18 shows the concept of reducing an initial risk by reducing its probability and
impact. It is clear that residual risks are unavoidable and they should be shared among
the Parties and systematically controlled by countermeasures.

initial
risk
consequences or
effect/impact

NOT
ACCEPTABLE

residual risk
ACCEPTABLE

likelihood or probability

Figure 18: Concept of reducing initial risk by reducing its probability and impact

Several kinds of risks include (ITA, 2004):

- significant cost overrun risk
- work delay risk
- environmental risks
- risk of spectacular tunnel collapses and other disasters (potential for large scale
accidents during tunnelling work)
- risk of damage to a range of third party persons and property in urban areas, (a
particular concern with heritage designated buildings)

33
 - risk of public protests, caused by the problems of tunnelling projects

“Risk management” is the overall term which includes risk identification, risk
assessment, risk analysis, risk elimination and risk mitigation and control.
Risk management for tunnels is now routine for major projects worldwide. Tunnel
construction imposes risk not only on all parties involved, but also on those not
directly involved (note, that third parties - person or companies - have become much
more “claims conscious”). Traditionally, risks have been managed indirectly through
the engineering decisions taken during the project development. However, ITA
Guidelines (2004) now recommend Systematic Risk Management Techniques instead.
And through the use of a robust and transparent Risk Management Plan (RMP)
adopted from the early design stages to the construction and operation phases, most
risks can be effectively managed.
Risk management tools include (ITA, 2004):
- Fault tree analysis
- Event tree analysis
- Decision tree analysis
- Multirisk
- Monte Carlo simulation

In a broader context, we could mention a Code of Practice for Risk Management of

Tunnel Works, drafted by BTS (British Tunnelling Society) in association with
Insurers, such as ABI (Association of British Insurers), IMIA (International
Association of Engineering Insurers), and ITIG (International Tunnelling Insurance
Group). This is a joint effort to face the more demanding challenge of future tunnelling
projects. It is hoped that the risks will not be solely transferred to the insurer, but be
fairly shared between the Parties involved.
An international version of the Code is being prepared by BTS and likely to be
completed soon. Its project stage basis is worth mentioning: 1. project development
stage, 2. construction contract procurement stage, 3. design stages, and 4. construction
stage. Of which, in the construction contract procurement stage, three highlights are: i)
the use of FIDIC (International Federation of Consulting Engineers), ICE (Institution
of Civil Engineers), National or Proven Form of Contract; ii) including of GBR
(Geotechnical Baseline Report) in Contract Documents, and also in Subcontract
Documents; and iii) including risk clauses in contract. The risk of unforeseen ground
conditions (differing site conditions) and contractual claims cannot be overlooked;
these can be administered fairly with the help of Disputes Review Board (DRB).

Below is given a brief introduction to a cost-risk estimating procedure (CEVP) and a

decision making tool (DAT) in tunnelling.

34
The cost-risk estimating procedure CEVP® (Cost Estimate Validation Process) recently
developed by the Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT). CEVP
develops a probabilistic cost and schedule model to comprehensively and consistently
define the probable ranges of cost and schedule required to complete each project, by
incorporating uncertainty (uncertainty includes both risk and opportunity) (Reilly,
2005) (Figure 19).

Figure 19: Future costs are a “range of probable costs” (Reilly, 2005)

Because risks are explicitly defined, a risk management plan can be quantified earlier.
This allows significant management and control of cost and schedule earlier in a
project and allows a more explicit communication of cost and schedule (and changes
thereto) with the public and key political decision makers.
Obviously, it is desirable to use some decision making tools in tunnelling like DAT
(Decision Aids in Tunnelling) to make more rational, informed, and effective decisions
in tunnel design and construction. The software DAT is the product of a long research
effort by: MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA), EPFL (l’Ecole
Politechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, CH), and GEODATA - Turin (I) for estimating
the cost and duration of the construction of an underground project. The most
important element of DAT is the possibility to consider diverse sources of geotechnical
and construction uncertainties and variabilities (Grasso et. al. 2001, 2002).
In Figure 20, the deterministic estimation and result of DAT simulations of a project
duration and cost are visibly compared.

35
 Figure 20: Scatter plots of a project duration and cost (after Grasso, 2001)

Both RMP and DAT have been successfully applied in recent years to a series of
important deep and long tunnel projects like the California high-speed rail, the Pajares
and Guadarrama high-speed railway tunnels in Spain, the new Lyon-Turin high-speed
railway link (Grasso, 2006).

Experience with risk management for the Copenhagen Metro in Denmark (opening in
turn 2002, 2003 and 2007) (ITA, 2004):
◊ The Contract defined the construction risk assessment work to be carried out by
the Contractor. There were general requirements for all the construction risk
assessments to be carried out for all construction sites and some further
requirements to the construction risk assessment for the TBMs.
◊ The TBM construction risk assessment had to start immediately after signing of
the Contract with an assessment of the conceptual design followed by an
assessment of the detailed design with the purpose to contribute to the design of
the TBMs. Furthermore, risk assessment of the TBM operation was carried out
- providing input to the operation procedures.
◊ Risk identification and management (applied for the “tunnel project xyz”):

36
 • Installation risk resulting from TBM rotation
• TBM advance pressure
• Twisted thrust shoes
• Rigid erector hydraulics
• Transport conditions
• Sequence of installation
• Eccentricity of thrusters
• Sectional tension forces

Risks are related to both TBM tunnelling in soil (soft ground, e.g. urban area) and to
TBM tunnelling in rock, therefore below is shown a number of critical cases that bring
about risks.

3.3.2. Critical Cases of TBM Tunnelling in Soil

Basic soil classification

Ground categories are broken down roughly according to the following table:

Table 5: Simple soil classification for construction purpose

Soft soil Soft soil
Hard rock Soft rock
(without cohesion) (with cohesion)
Dolomite Marl Sand, fine gravel, Expansive or
Limestone Hard clay gravel, swelling ground
Sandstone Slate coarse-grained, such as clay-stones,
Granite Dolomite stones anhydrite rock in
Basalt Flowing ground = contact with water,
Lava soil with high water silt
Gneiss content
Quartzite

Generally, in soft ground, majors concerns are opening stability and control of
displacement field. Soft ground tunnelling is likely dominated by failure and
admissible displacement criteria. Ground conditioning (improvement and
reinforcement) might play an important role. In consolidated clay, the optimization of
values and quantities of the slurry pressure and grouting pressure is required for TBM
technology.
In urban environment, major concerns are related to: shallow overburden, existence of
nearby structures, foreign objects inside the ground, constraints for alignment,

37
restrictions for auxiliary works, and high visibility of damage. Ground conditions are
normally challenging, characterized by recent weak geological formations near the
ground surface, by frequently changing conditions due to the occurrence of lenses,
layers, boulders, etc., and by presence of ground water above the tunnel or crossing the
tunnel profile. Kovari et al (2004) listed the following specific features of metropolitan
areas:
• Shallow overburden: Low overburden may be combined with a large tunnel
diameter to create ground deformations (settlements) and collapse up to surface
(Figure 21).

Figure 21: Full face mechanized excavation of shallow tunnel (Maidl et al. 1996)

• Existence of nearby structures: The next structures may consist of buildings,

roads, railroads, bridges, underground networks, subways, etc. (Figure 22). The
sensitivity of these structures to ground settlements as well as the potential
damage to ground collapse may vary within extremely wide ranges. Surface
monitoring in urban environment is fundamental to control the effects and the
potential damages on pre-existing buildings, utilities and infrastructures. For
example, in the first stage of settlement assessment, if the predicted settlement
from bored tunnels is less than 10mm and the predicted ground slope is less
than 1/500 (equivalent to damage risk category 1 as defined by Rankin, 1988),
then buildings are not subject to further assessment.

38
 Figure 22: Influence of a TBM drive on the neighbour buildings (Gruebl, 2006)

• Foreign objects inside the ground: The presence of frequently hidden

subterranean obstacles is also one of the specific features of urban tunnelling
using TBM’s. These may include historical wells, ground anchors, sheet-piles,
erratic blocks, archeological artifacts, abandoned utilities such as for gas and
sewage, but also tree trunks, artificial fillings, etc.
• Constraints for alignment: Selection of both horizontal and vertical alignment
generally meets with constraints. The tunnel is usually driven in public ground
under main roads or streets. But it is not always possible to avoid under-passing
buildings, roads and other structures, and this may cause various difficulties.
For example, land acquisition costs would be very high and the foundations of
the existing buildings would create complications during construction. Figure
23 shows the Brisbane North-South Bypass Tunnel alignment within the city
central area.

39
 Figure 23: Brisbane North-South Bypass Tunnel, Central Connection Option 7
(SKM Connell Wagner JV, 2005)

• Restrictions for auxiliary works: It is practically important to note the serious

restrictions when selecting places of attack (launching shaft, access to TBM)
and planning material transport from and to the construction site. Other
restrictions include sinking drill holes for explorations, for ground water control
or ground consolidation.
• High visibility of damage: In the urban environment damage to buildings and
roads has a high visibility. The risk aversion is very pronounced, which may
lead to a strong opposition to further underground projects in towns or even
elsewhere. The loss of public confidence in the technology can be looked upon
as a kind of damage.

Other difficult cases (in a general nature, after JSCE, 1996):

- Underground tunnel connection: Two shield tunnels can be connected head-on,
or one tunnel is connected into the side of the other tunnel. For head-on
connection, auxiliary measures such as chemical grouting, high-pressure jetting
and mixing method or ground freezing are generally used. For side-by-side
connection, reinforcement of the existing tunnel must be studied to prevent any
damage to it.
- Underground space enlargement: Construction of an underground station
between two tunnels, a space for shield machine assemble or underground
space establishment, a branch-off tunnel or connection of a tunnel with some
angle. Because the ground is already loosened by the preceding tunnel
construction work, the ground shall be stabilized by auxiliary method as
required. The tunnel shall then be carefully enlarged by excavating a partial
face and by supporting the ground with steel supports or special segments.

40
Kovari et al (2004) then summarized the main features permitting safe and economic
tunnelling in soft ground under urban conditions using TBM´s with slurry or EPB type
of face support as follows:
• Efficient TBM technology
• Reliable design procedure
• Improved methods of conditioning
• Advanced grouting technology
• Reliable risk management

Practically, Cross London Rail Links (Crossrail, U.K.) can be referred to as a large
tunnel project in urban area today. The project has plans to ensure that the tunnel
boring machines are performing as required, the TBM parameters together with the
information from the ground movement monitoring need be relayed to a tunnel
monitoring and settlement control room. This will be in addition to the contractors’
monitoring arrangements and will be in place and operated throughout the tunnelling
activity. The control room will have displays of real time surface, subsurface and
tunnel movement monitoring together with TBM tunnel progress and TBM
parameters.

3.3.3. Critical Cases of TBM Tunnelling in Rock

Some of the (obvious) high-risk factors (multiple unexpected events) that TBM
tunnels may suffer from include (Barton, 2006):
• significant fault zones
• adversely oriented planar clay-coated joints
• very weak rock, or very hard massive rock (high UCS rocks)
• very abrasive rock
• very low stress, very high stress
• exceptional stress anisotropy
• highly fractured or karstic zones with high volumes of stored water (severe
water inflows)
• high permeability
In addition, Barla & Pelizza (2000) wrote, that important or difficult ground
conditions for TBM tunnelling include boreability limits (when boring through rocks
with very high strength), instability of excavation walls (a clear limit for open type
TBMs), instability of excavation face, fault zones and squeezing.

41
It is hoped that the majority of the limit conditions will be coped with by adopting
special methods and procedures of advance.
Below are selected and explained to more details some of the above high-risk factors.

9 Significant fault zones

The cause(s) of a tunnel collapse or TBM cutter-head blockage (machine is trapped) in
a tunnel are usually clear to the tunnelling engineer only after they have happened.
Fault zone stoppages and difficulties/delays in making drill-and-blast by-passes for
TBM/cutterhead release may eventually lead to the abandonment of TBM itself or
abandonment of TBM option. So, before the event it would often be necessary to be
exceptionally pessimistic to have foreseen the ‘unthinkable’. The ‘unthinkable’ is often
the combination of several adverse factors, which separately are ‘expected’ though
serious events, but when combined are, quite logically, ‘unexpected events’ (Barton,
2006).
Figure 24 shows a TBM stuck in a bulk of caving-in materials; this implies, that
"risky" means to free up the trapped TBM cutter head or shield.

Figure 24: By-pass situation for the double-shield (11.7m) TBM at Pinglin tunnel,
Taiwan (Shen et al. 1999)

Short sections of crushed shear zones with clay and gouge material may cause serious
time delays for TBM excavation. Spiling rock bolting is very efficient under such
circumstances, provided the fully grouted rebar bolts can be placed efficiently, which
requires proper drilling equipment. Figure 25 exhibits a situation of TBM pull back
and liner disassembly due to debris flow from a fault gauge zone.

42
 Figure 25: TBM pull back and lining removal to overcome the debris flow (Oggeri,
2006)

Figure 26 shows the TBM utilization while boring through a fault zone. The utilization
factor is an important parameter, and it varies according to the actual geological
conditions.

Figure 26: Geological conditions and productivity (Concilia, 2006)

43
Pre-grouting has been proposed by Barton as a measure to reduce risks, because pre-
injection can increase Q index of the rock mass.
It is well known, that the Q-values (the rock tunnelling quality) are estimated from the
following expressions:
RQD Jr Jw
Q= x x
Jn Ja SRF
RQD0 Jr Jw SIGMA 20 q σ θ
QTBM = x x x x x x
Jn Ja SRF F10 / 209 CLI 20 5
where:
- RQD = Rock Quality Designation, is characterization of the degree of jointing;
- Jn = number of joint sets.
- RQD/Jn = quotient representing a crude measure of relative block size ;
- Jr = rating for the roughness of the least favourable of the joint sets or filled
discontinuities;
- Ja = rating for the degree of alteration or clay filling of the least favourable
joint set or filled discontinuity.
- Jr/Ja = quotient representing the roughness and frictional characteristics of the
joint walls with or without filling materials. It is crude measure of inter-block
shear strength;
- Jw = joint water reduction factor;
- SRF = Stress Reduction Factor;
- Jw/SRF = quotient representing a crude measure of active stresses;
- RQDo = RQD (%) measured in the tunnelling direction;
- SIGMA = rock mass strength estimate (MPa) found from a complicated
equation including the Qo value measured in the tunnel direction (the same as
the six first parameters);
- F = average cutter load (ton, ~10kN ) through the same zone, normalised by
20 tons;
- CLI = Cutter Life Index;
- q = quartz content in percentage terms, %;
- σθ = induced biaxial stress on tunnel face (MPa) in the same zone, normalised
to an approximate depth of 100 m.

44
Pre-injection/pre-grouting may cause moderate, individual effects to every parameter
(6 parameters) contained on the first expression, thus increase Q index of the rock
mass.
The concept of multilayer pregrouting is represented in Figure 27. The first grouting
operation is to create around the tunnel an outer reduced-permeability zone using
"blocker" grout. The second grouting is to make an inner permanent strengthened, low
permeability zone using stable ultra/microfine cementitious grout. The third is an
extended, strengthened, low permeability zone ahead of the excavation face.

Figure 27: One of ELKEM’s Multigrout concepts

The idea of reducing risks by pre-grouting also lies behind the fact that, the relative
time for tunnelling and the relative cost of tunnelling normally decrease in accordance
with the increase of rock classes quality. So, if Q could be detected before tunnelling,
and if Q could be improved during tunnelling, then both time and cost could be
reduced accordingly (Figure 28).

Figure 28: Relative time expenditure (left) and relative cost (right) of tunnelling in
relation to Q value

45
Finally, Barton drew out the following comments on the risk to TBM tunnelling from
faults:
- High risk factors are often combined in an ‘unexpected’ combination when
TBM get stuck;
- Risk can be reduced by appropriate use of standard techniques (geological
logging and rock mass characterization, core logging, hydraulic testing, seismic
profiles between holes);
- When tunnel depth is great, each of the above require ‘extrapolation’ and risk
increases, making probe drilling (even) more important;
- Barton stated that: “Don’t automatically assume that long tunnels need TBM -
this will also reduce risk!” The assumption that TBM go faster than drilling-
and-blasting in long tunnels introduces several increased risks:
a) adverse rock quality statistics (extreme-Q-value problem)
b) need ‘central’ rock qualities to improve TBM deceleration (negative
gradient) of the penetration rate and advance rate with increased tunnel
length or time of measurement
c) less favourable ‘problem solving’ conditions for the contractor in TBM
tunnel
- Seismic velocity probing needs careful correction for stress/compaction effects
as the longitudinal wave velocity VP in front of TBM may increase without rock
quality improvements (e.g. the deeper rock does not always mean better quality,
but just more highly stressed);
- A way to improve effective rock quality and control water, and therefore to
reduce risk, is to (try to) perform pre-injection ahead of the face.

However, it should be noted, that Blindheim (2005) already recommended the QTBM-
system not be used. In addition, Palmstrom and Broch (2006) also think it is not likely
that Q is suitable to express the effects of pre-grouting. They went further that QTBM is
complex and partly misleading and is not recommended for use in its present form, i.e.
to allow estimates of penetration and advance rate for TBM (Figure 29).

46
 Figure 29: Suggested relation between penetration rate (PR), advance rate (AR) and
QTBM values (Barton, 1999b)

9 Very high stress

Serious problems of high rock stress phenomena in TBM tunnels involve intense rock
spalling in hard and massive rock, which causes significant safety hazards (e.g. during
cutter change) and delays in work progress (e.g. loss of support for the TBM gripping
pads). Rock stress may also lead to occurrences of mild buckling of schistose rock.
It is important to be able to perform rock bolting efficiently immediately behind the
cutter head in order to maintain work safety and firm gripping for continued boring.
The need to handle rock stress problems in bored tunnels has been due to rapid
development and application of tunnel boring. The experience on this issue should be
applied from the planning stage of TBM projects where such problems may be
encountered, and the well preparedness should be highlighted. In massive and strong
rocks the spalling can occur in a concentrated and intense manner in bored tunnels,
therefore utilizing TBMs with an open configuration and not shielded TBMs could be
an advantage.

9 High volumes of stored water, under pressure

The only available tunnelling technique that can keep the ground water in-leakage near
zero, is the Earth Pressure Balance Machine (EPBM), full face mechanical excavation
using a pressurized shield and gasketed concrete segment installation. Such machines
are for soil excavation and are limited to shallow depths (typically less than 15 meters)
(Garshol, 2003).

47
In hard rock tunnelling this alternative is not available, even if a TBM and concrete
segments are used for the excavation and support. Without pre-injection the leakage
volume could locally become far too large, between the time of exposure and the time
of segment erection and efficient annular space backfilling. With a serious local water
inrush at hand, such segment handling and grouting would also be very difficult.
Environmental restrictions are also a part of TBM tunnel excavation projects. Even
such tunnelling may require a strict ground water control, because of the normal
potential consequences on the ground surface.
There are two ways of handling water inflow problems:
1. Pumping out of the water
2. Injection
There are clear limits as to the quantities of water that can be pumped through pipes, or
that can be handled by gravity drainage systems, provided that reasonable practical and
economical frameworks are applied. The limitations are even more pronounced when
considering the face area. Tunneling on a decline will experience problems already at
inflow rates of only 1 to 2 m3/min. Water at a high static head may cause water jets
spraying the whole face area, causing very difficult working conditions, especially at
low water temperatures. If inflows have already occurred (through cracks and joints),
post grouting is very difficult, costly and often unsuccessful, especially at high
pressure.
To take advantage of spiling rockbolts and to execute pre-injection, it is an obvious
prerequisite to be able to drill the necessary boreholes in the right positions and at the
correct angle. In drill and blast excavation this is simple, but in TBM projects it has
repeatedly turned out to be difficult. The owners should accept only bids that contain
the drilling method proposed by the contractor. The drilling method should be sorted
out before start of the TBM operation (Figure 30 and 31).

Figure 30: Tailor made hydraulic drilling equipment mounted on hard rock TBM
(Garshol, 2003)

48
 Figure 31: Borehole length and net coverage per grouting stage, plan view (Garshol,
2003)

In short, a well planned use of probe drilling, pre-injection locally and pumping will
normally be the optimum solution. The risk of major water inrushes can be virtually
eliminated.

9 Squeezing rock conditions

Excessive rock pressure may cause the failure of the tunnel support resulting in large
rock deformations, with the tendency to reduce the cross-section of the opening. This
phenomenon is referred to as squeezing rock behaviour. Low strength and high
deformability of the rock as well as the presence of porewater pressure facilitate
squeezing. The following rock types are specially prone to developing large pressure
and large deformations: altered gneiss (chemically altered/metamorphic igneous
rocks), schist, phyllite, serpentine, shale, clay, mudstone, tuff, and certain kinds of
flysch (Kovari, 1998).
Mechanized excavation (use of Tunnel Boring Machines) in squeezing rock conditions
is characterized by a certain degree of difficulty. It is generally agreed at the present
stage that experience and technology have not progressed far enough to recommend
without some reservations machine excavation in such conditions. The major
difficulties can be listed as follows:
- Instability of the face;
- Relative inflexibility in the excavation diameter;
- Problems with the thrust due to reduced gripper action, for gripper type
machines;
- Difficulty to control the direction of the machine, in soft or
heterogeneous ground.
Instability of the face may be a problem only when severe squeezing conditions exist,
which exert important face extrusion that could be difficult to be controlled. It is also
difficult to anticipate precisely the type and magnitude of tunnel convergence (i.e. the
reduction in size of the opening in course of time). With a slow advance rate, the
danger of TBM blockage in a squeezing zone (i.e. a fault zone) is increased. Stoppage
of the TBM can be brought out by a number of factors such as inflow of water,

49
advancing face, overbreak, or machine breakdowns. In the worst case as such, with a
continuing displacement the machine may be squeezed, leading to difficulty or
impossibility to restart the machine.
The type of machine, i.e. shielded or not shielded TBM, will be selected based on the
degree and extent of squeezing rock conditions along the tunnel length. Both shielded
and open TBMs may be sensitive to rapid or large convergences plus wall instabilities,
causing the problems of support installation and gripping. Therefore, increasing the
diameter of the cutter head (overcutting) is often foreseen, so that the gap between the
shield and the excavation contour from the usual value of 6-8 cm can be adjusted to
15-25 cm (Figure 32).
Mediate squeezing conditions could be coped with by TBMs that are specifically
developed to accommodate some radial deformation of the tunnel perimeter as the
machine advances (Barla & Pelizza, 2000).

Figure 32: Solution for radial overcut by increasing the excavation diameter -
Controlled overcutting device

Squeezing ground behaviour is characterized by the occurrence of large rock pressure

which may lead to the failure of the lining. Therefore, there have been attempts to limit
the loads on the lining ring by means of installed strain elements. The plastically
deformed joints cannot be sealed watertightly. Loads can also be limited through the
use of substances of a defined firmness which collapse when a certain resistance limit
is passed. These substances are either fitted on the outside of the segment or added to
the grouting material.

In another development, for the squeezing type of deformation phenomenon the

following are possible counter-measures for mechanised excavation (Grasso, 2006):
- plane head;
- overcutting;
- requalification of the rock mass ahead;
- bolts in shotcrete layer 1 (Open TBM);

50
 - short shield/absent/ with loopholes (Open TBM);
- conical shield (Double shield);
- bentonite injections (Double shield);
- deformable support (Open TBM);
- extended gripper surfaces (Open TBM)/ thrust on segments (Double shield);
- shotcrete in layer 2 (Open TBM).

3.3.4. TBM Tunnelling in Mixed Face Conditions

For a specific long tunnel project with changing geological conditions in different
segments/sections, the tunnelling can be completed in phases using TBMs. Successful
and economical completion of each section of tunnel requires the proper choice of
TBM type and ground support, based on the ground conditions expected. Several
different TBM types with various ground support methods may be needed to
accommodate the various ground conditions.
Development of TBMs during the past over 20 years has brought about so-called
universal machines (polyshields, multipurpose shield, Figure 33), used for both soft
ground and hard rock. The continual improvement of various extraction techniques
have led to machine types capable of penetrating more heterogeneous subsoil, that is
respectively a mixture of soft soils, unconsolidated ground and rock, thereby
enhancing their rather limited flexibility.

Figure 33: Polyshield machine, EOLE Lot 35 B, Paris, France (Wagner, 2006)

51
To end up this section, it is fair to cite the following statement by Barla and Pelizza
(2000):
“The unfavourable conditions can be produced by either a rock mass of very poor
quality causing instability of the tunnel or a rock mass of very good quality (i.e.
strong and massive rock mass) determining very low penetration rates. However,
it is to be observed that when using the full face mechanized excavation method,
the influence of the rock mass quality on the machine performance has not an
absolute value: the influence is in fact to be referred to both the TBM type used
and the tunnel diameter”.

3.4 Ground Reinforcing

3.4.1. General
This part is devoted to the problems of face stability and ground reinforcement for
TBM drives in cohesive and cohesionless soils.

3.4.1.1 Face Support

Face stability is fundamental to avoid failure. In closed shield tunnelling, there are
three main ways to support the face: by compressed air, by slurry, and by excavated
soil (EPB) (Figure 34).

Figure 34: Face support in closed shield tunnelling (Kovári et al, 2004)

3.4.1.2 Failure Mechanism

Ground and groundwater pressures at a workface can be unbalanced: If the shield
advancement rate and muck discharge rate are not synchronized in an EPB shield or a
slurry shield, the pressure inside the chamber becomes different from the ground and
groundwater pressure, at the face become unbalanced. If the pressure in the chamber is

52
smaller than the ground pressure, surface settlement occurs. In cases of contrary,
ground heave occurs.
Explaining and predicting face stability by statical calculations has already been
addressed by a number of authors, of which some are mentioned here. Upper and
lower bound 2D solutions for clays (limit equilibrium solutions) can be founded in the
work of Davis et al (1980). Limit-state-design-based solutions have also been proposed
by Leca and Dormieux (1990) for sands. A three dimensional failure scheme
consisting of a soil wedge (lower part) and a soil silo (upper part) has been given by
Jancsecz and Steiner (1994). Anagnostou et al (1994, 1996), based upon the silo theory
according to the tridimensional model of sliding mechanism proposed by Horn (1961),
provided a good understanding of the mechanics of face failure and determined face
support pressures when using a bentonite slurry support as well as EPBM.
In the following only two methods will be briefly introduced, i.e. Leca and Dormieux
(1990) and Anagnostou and Kovari (1994, 1996).

a) Limit-state-design-based solutions by Leca and Dormieux (1990)

Leca and Dormieux (1990) proposed upper and lower bound solutions for the face
stability of shallow circular tunnels in frictional materials (sandy soils) (Figure 35).
The question of determining the retaining fluid pressure to apply to the tunnel front is a
three-dimensional problem, and was studied by using limit state design method. Such
retaining/supporting pressure σT can be achieved by using compressed air, bentonite
slurry or earth pressure (EPB shield).
A
σS σS = surcharge σS

σC = unconfined
γ = unit weight of soil
C γ compression strength
H
P P = unsupported span c ' cos φ '
σC = 2
1 − sin φ '
D σT
σT

σT = retaining pressure c' = cohesion

φ' = friction
angle
A Section A-A

Figure 35: Simplified geometry for the front stability of a shallow tunnel
(after Leca and Dormieux, 1990)

Both safety against face collapse and blow-out were considered based on the motion
mechanisms of rigid conical blocks in front of the face, then a failure criteria was
proposed for a cohesive and frictional soil.

53
Three failure mechanisms have been considered namely MI, MII and MIII, which are
shown in Figure 36, with the assumption that the unsupported span behind the face P is
zero. MI and MII are failure mechanisms due to the collapse of one conical block and
two blocks, respectively, whereas MIII refers to blow-out failure in case of very
shallow tunnels bored in weak soils with the pressure σT becoming so great that soil is
heaved in front of the shield.

Ω
σS
f'
H C γ, c', φ'

V α c' = cohesion
D σT φ' = friction angle

(a) Failure mechanism MI

Δ
Δ
Ω2 (π')
σS
φ' φ'
H C V2 γ, c', φ'
Ω1
2
D σT α
Σ12
V1 1
(π)
Δ
Δ1 Δ2 (b) Failure mechanism MII

σS

Δ γ, c', φ'
H C V

α
D σT
φ'

(c) Failure mechanism MIII

Figure 36: Conical failure mechanisms (a) MI, (b) MII and (c) MIII (after Leca and
Dormieux, 1990)

54
Both MI and MII are characterized by only one parameter, the angle α between the
axis of the cone adjacent to the tunnel and the horizontal. MIII is also characterized by
α; the geometry is similar to that of MI except that the cone is inverted and the
discontinuity velocity V along the failure surface reversed.
The problem is analyzed in terms of five dimensionless parameters: C/D, σS/σC, σT/σC,
γD/σC and Rankine earth pressure coefficient for passive failure KP (or KA for active
failure). An upper bound solution is then found, given that in order for the set of
external loads {σS/σC, σT/σC, γD/σC} to be stable, the power ℘e of the loads applied to
the system and the power PV that can be dissipated inside the system during its
movement must satisfy

℘e ≤ PV
or in the form

N S QS + Nγ Qγ ≤ QT
for collapse mechanisms MI and MII and

N S QS + Nγ Qγ ≥ QT
for blow-out mechanism MIII, where the parameters associated with mechanism MI
are given below as an example.
NS and Nγ are weighting coefficients that depend on the angle α, as in the following
relations:

1 RD2
NS = tgα
cos ( 2φ ' ) − cos ( 2α ) RE

1 ⎡ RD3 ⎤
Nγ = RB ⎢1 − 3 ⎥ tgα
3 ⎣ RE ⎦
QS, QS and Qγ are three loading parameters as in the following relations:
σS
QS = ( K P − 1) +1
σC
σT
QT = ( K P − 1) +1
σC
γD
Qγ = ( K P − 1)
σC
RB, RD, and RE are parameters for the simplification of expressions (i.e. "convenient
coefficients"):

55
 cos (α − φ ' ) cos (α + φ ' )
RB =
sin 2φ '

2H
RD = sin 2α − sin 2φ '
D

RE = sin 2 (α − φ ' ) sin 2 (α + φ ' )

KA and KP are Rankine earth pressure coefficients for active failure and for passive
failure, respectively:
1 − sin φ '
KA =
1 + sin φ '

1 + sin φ '
KP =
1 − sin φ '

The amount of material involved in the three above failure mechanisms is limited, but
such geometries could be representative of initial ground movements that could lead to
larger scale failures. These solutions can provide reasonable estimates of critical face
pressures.

b) Analysis method of limit equilibrium by Kovári and Anagnostou (1996)

The stability of the face involves the assumption of a simplified failure mechanism in
the ground ahead of the face. The three-dimensional model of Horn (1961) shown in
Figure 37 is close to reality and is simple to handle, which will be used for both slurry
and EPB modes of operation. It consists of a wedge in front of the face and a prism
extending up to the surface in the state of limit equilibrium. The support force S as a
function of the inclination of slip surface ω is also shown on the right side of Figure
37. Geometrical parameters and notations of the computational model for face stability
design are given in Figure 38.

56
 S

support force
Smax

ωcritical ω
inclination of the slip surface

Figure 37: Failure mechanism consisting of a wedge and a prismatic body (after Horn,
1961, adopted by Kovári and Anagnostou, 1996)

Figure 38: Computational model for face stability design - Geometrical parameters

i) For slurry-shield-driven tunnels, Mohr-Coulomb failure condition and drained

conditions is assumed. Complex interrelations between the various parameters (shear
strength and ground permeability, suspension parameters, slurry pressure, geometric
data of the tunnel, and safety factor) are given below.

57
Considering the failure mechanism, at each point on the slip surface, the mobilized
shearing resistance τ is given by
c tan φ
τ= +σ
F F
where σ and F denote the normal stress and the safety factor, respectively.
The mean effective vertical stress σv along the interface plane between the prismatic
body and the wedge (i.e. the silo pressure at the tunnel crown elevation) is given by

σv =
γ 'r − c
λ tan φ
(1 − e− λ tan φ H w /r
) + λγ tan
t r −c
φ
(e − λ tan φ H w / r
− e − λ tan φ H / r )
where parameter r = 0.5 D tan ω / (1 + tan ω ) is the ratio of the volume to the
circumference of the prism.
In view of the stabilizing effect of a bentonite slurry, to prevent a seepage flow
towards the excavation face, the pressure pb in the slurry must exceed the pore water
pressure pw in the soil. The effectiveness of slurry support depends on the infiltration
distance of the suspension into the ground e. The suspension will come to a standstill
after the penetration reaches a distance emax, owing to its yield strength.
e 1
= ≤1
emax n μbγ w v
1+
μw f s 0 k
Δp Δp d10
emax = = (DIN 4126)
fs0 2τ f

where,
n = soil porosity;
μb = dynamic viscosity of slurry;
μw = dynamic viscosity of water;
v = excavation rate;
k = soil permeability with respect to water;
Δp = pb - pw is the excess fluid pressure, a main feature of slurry shield tunnelling; it
can be varied by adjusting the air-cushion pressure in a hydro-shield;
fs0 is the stagnation pressure gradient which is an experimentally measurable constant;
2τ
f s 0 = f , with τf is the yield strength of the slurry, and d10 is the effective grain size
d10
(characteristic grain diameter) of the soil.
The membrane-model can be assumed with the formation of an impervious membrane
(a seal or a filter cake) on the face. In this case, face instabilities are hardly to occur
when a slurry shield is used, even when the ground has extremely low shear strength.

58
But when the slurry penetrates into the ground, the validity extent of the membrane-
model will be questioned.
With slurry penetration into the ground, face stability assessment will be different. The
support force S can be derived by following simple expression:
S e
= 1− if e < Dtanω
S0 2 D tan ω

S D tan ω
= if e > Dtanω
S0 2e

where S0 denotes the support force of the membrane-model (i.e., at e = 0).

The stabilizing effect of the slurry is attributed to the mass forces associated with the
pressure gradient inside the suspension saturated ground. Relationship between the
pressure gradient fs and the stagnation gradient fs0 is given by
μb v
f s = f s 0 + nγ w
μw k
The lower the pressure gradient, the lower the safety factor, and face instability occurs
when the pressure gradient is lower than a critical value fcr.
But of interest is that a slurry shield machine can cause significant ground heave
(upward movements), e.g. during the construction of tunnels through very soft silty
clay and peat, if the pressure gradient is excessive.

ii) For EPBM, at limit equilibrium, the necessary effective support pressure s'
(acting on the tunnel face) is a function of the tunnel diameter D, the overburden H, the
piezometric head in the chamber hF, the elevation of water table h0, the shear strength
parameters c and φ, the submerged unit weight of soil γ' and dry unit weight γt,
included the effect of seepage flow:

s ' = f ( D, H , hF , h0 , c, φ , γ ' , γ t , λwedge , λ prism )

with λprism = ratio of horizontal stress σh to vertical stress σv within the prismatic body
and λwedge = ratio of horizontal to vertical stresses within the wedge
The effective stabilizing pressure in the working chamber (s') is in the general form of
the limit equilibrium condition:
Δh
s ' = F0γ ' D − F1c + F2γ ' Δh − F3c
D
⎛ D⎞
⎜ h0 − ⎟
⎛ D⎞
s ' = F0γ ' D − F1c + F2γ ' ⎜ h0 − ⎟ − F3c ⎝
2⎠
⎝ 2⎠ D

59
The theoretical minimum face support pressure for tunnelling in dry soil is given by
the following equation:

s = F0γ t D − F1c
where F0, F1, F2, F3 = dimensionless factors from nomograms, as function of H/D and
φ'; h0 is water level, hF is the piezometric head in the chamber, Δh = h0 - hF is head
difference between chamber and ground, and it should be kept as low as possible. If
the material in the working chamber is in a fluid state, s' = 0 and solving the equation
for Δh the necessary water pressure for equilibrium is derived.
The stability of the tunnel face is guaranteed through the joint effects of the effective
stress s' and the pore water pressure p in the working chamber. Stabilization measures
will depend on the interplay/compromise of the tunnel geometry, ground improvement,
and support of face.

3.4.1.3 Countermeasures to Ground Failure

Ground settlement has the potential to damage overlying buildings and other
installations/infrastructure including utilities. This can range from small internal cracks
in plaster to effects on the structural integrity of the building (e.g. due to excessive
differential settlement/angular distortion), although in most cases there is no
discernible effect on the structure itself. The application of the appropriate measures to
control and mitigate against the effects of settlement can reduce this impact to
acceptable levels.
Constructional measures to reduce the risk of ground failure include:
• Prevention of unbalanced pressure at the face.
• Ground improvement: Consists of grout injections; jet grouting; and freezing.
Grouting operations aim at increasing the strength and stiffness and/or reducing
the permeability of the ground.
• Prepared stations for TBM: These are predetermined stopping locations for EPB
or slurry TBM for maintenance purposes in densely urbanized areas on a long
stretch and under difficult geotechnical conditions.
• Grouting for block (boulder) stabilization: To treat loosened blocks between the
cutterhead and the face, which may damage the tools on the head and cause over-
excavation leading to local instabilities.
• Real underground structures: Such as forepoling, jet grouting arch, pipes
umbrella (pipe jacking of a series of tubes filled up by concrete), or even
heavier/more complicated structures to allow an adequate reduction of risk.

In the following only one ground reinforcement technique will be discussed, that is the
execution of grouted bodies.

60
3.4.1.4 Grouted Bodies
Generally, TBM drives should avoid the involvement of extra work (ground
improvement) as much as possible. But in specific cases, grouted body may form an
integral part of EPB and slurry shield drives.
Figure 39 shows six possible cases of executing grouted bodies. Case 1 has only a
modest grouting in the roof area, since the ground has a sufficient average cohesion but
locally mixed with materials possessing no cohesion. This unsystematic consolidated
body needs not statical calculation.
Cases 2 to 5 indicate the grouted bodies with a well defined shape and size and clearly
defined shear strength parameters. The most important and most frequently applied
body is presented by case 2 and 3. Case 2 is considered preferable by Kovári, however,
Kochen (1992) deemed that geometry in Case 3 is better. Grouted bodies according to
the cases 4 and 5 are extremely work intensive and costly. The case 6 shows the
prepared stations for the preplanned maintenance work in the TBM's working
chamber.

Figure 39: General layout of grouted bodies (Kovári, 2004)

Systematic grouting operations can be executed from inside or outside the TBM as
shown in Figure 40.

61
 a) b)

c) d)
Figure 40: Injection schemes: a) From inside TBM; b) from the surface; c) from an
auxiliary adit; d) from a vertical shaft (Kovári, 2004)

Grouted bodies have to achieve the minimum required strength and a satisfactory
homogeneity. Figure 41 shows a simplified sketch of virtual arches within the grouted
slab (according to Case 2 in Figure 39) used for design considerations. The assumption
here is that, the grouted material is stressed to its limit state. The uniaxial strength of
the grouted body will govern the state of stress in such virtual arches under a uniformly
distributed vertical load q.
In failure state (state of limit equilibrium), by assuming that the bending moments at
the supports and in the centre of the arch are zero, then there exists the following
simple relation between the load, the uniaxial strength of the grouted body and the
geometrical parameters:

hd
q* = 8σ c
b2
where: q* = load in limit state
σc = uniaxial strength of grouted body
b, h, d = the width/span, height, and thickness of the virtual arch

62
 Figure 41: Statical action of a grouted body above the tunnel, both in transverse and
longitudinal directions (Kovári, 2004)

In designing a grouted body, a good relationship between its geometry (shape and size)
and its uniaxial strength σc (degree of homogeneity) should be achieved. For a given
load q and a factor of safety SF it can be beneficial to increase the size of the body in
favour of a reduction of the requested uniaxial strength σc of the body.
The planning of the grid of drill holes and the grouting intervals along the individual
drill holes will depend on the shape and size of the grouted body as well as the type of
grout and the amount per cubic meter of soil.

In practice, the face support pressure p is often considered together with the cohesion c
of the untreated ground and the safety factor FS. The consolidated slab should be
properly designed with its thickness h and span ℓ. Thanks to the grouted slab in the
roof area of the tunnel, the support pressure needed to stabilize the face will
consequently be smaller than the case having no grouted body. With the presence of
the slab, the weight of the prismatic body in the failure mechanism has been isolated;
therefore, support pressure is only required to sustain the wedge part (see Figure 42).

63
 ground surface

W1
D = 10 m
H q H = 19 m
annular grouting φ = 300

W2
D p

lining shield a) without grouted body

consolidated slab
h
W2
D p

lining shield a) with grouted body

Figure 42: Support pressure in cases of with and without grouted body

The practical meaning here is that, in the case of an EPB machine above the water
table and a small value of ground cohesion and without important objects to be under-
passed, an open mode of operation can be envisaged.
In the case of collapse of the working face, the main purpose of grouted body is to
bridge over the resulting void thus avoiding a failure reaching up to the ground surface.
But a through-going grouted body also reduces to some extent the risk of failure of the
working face.
In summary on the discussion about the grouted bodies, following major benefits can
be pointed out:
- reduction of support pressure
- high safety against collapse
- reduced ground settlements
- safety during work in the chamber

64
 - control of time schedule
It should be recalled that, grouting operations for ground improvement in TBM
tunnelling are uncommon and always expensive; therefore this kind of work should be
specified in the technical specifications.

3.4.2. Case History: Metro of Turin

GTT and Overview on the Project

GTT (Turin Transportation Group) is the company that manages the Torino public
transport network. GTT is the concessionary for design, construction and management
of the Metro Line 1. The construction of Torino Metro Line 1 is one of the main
infrastructures in the public transportation plan for the Torino area. The first section
from Collegno (depot) to Porta Nuova includes 9.5 km tunnel and 15 stations (Figure
43).

Figure 43: Alignment of Torino Metro Line 1 (Crova R., 2006)

The civil works design was governed by the VAL (Automated Light Vehicle) system
characteristics shown in Figure 44. The train is 2.08 m wide, 52 m long; and its
maximum passenger capacity is 440 people (6 pass./m2). Because the train width is
2.08 m, then a single 6.8-metre diameter circular tunnel contains the double track line
has been chosen, which was bored by TBM. The tunnel Metro construction works has
been divided into Lot 3, Lot 4, and Lot 5. At the lowest point of the longitudinal
profile, the tunnel runs at significant depths (approximately - 28 meters). Not to
mention the advantages and/or constraints for these deep tunnels, their disadvantages
include deeper and more expensive stations, and excavation work below the water
table.

65
 Figure 44: Rubber wheel trains of Turin Metro (Crova R., 2006)

3.4.2.1 Subsoil Conditions

The first section of Line 1 has been completely excavated in the upper part of the
fluvial-glacial and fluvial deposits. These deposits present horizontal and vertical
discontinuous levels (lens) with different grain size distribution and varying degrees of
cementation. Figure 45 shows the grain size distribution obtained from macro-samples
(0,5m3) from stations/ventilation shafts excavation.
“Geo” constraints in construction method choices were:
- soil: gravel with sand and a high percentage of hard rock blocks and pebbles,
from low to very low percentage of silt and clay;
- presence of random layers (lens) of loose material (sand and/or gravel);
- random degree of cementation;
- groundwater table

66
 Figure 45: Grain size distribution (Crova R., 2006)

The ground grain size distribution was abnormal and different from the design
forecasts, due to the absence of fine materials (less than 2%), and the almost
systematic presence of cobbles and boulders in very high percentages. This extreme
ground grain distribution did not allow to efficiently operate the TBMs in EPB mode;
significant soil conditioning problems were encountered with segregations of the muck
in the excavating chamber and consequent operational and face stability problems
(Grandori et al, 2003).

3.4.2.2 Shield Machines

From those "geo" constraints, all the contractors chose EPB TBMs to carry out
excavation beneath the water table under the railway links, for the best rate of
construction, and for lower costs compared to traditional methods. However,
disadvantage here is that, this is the first use of TBMs in the very coarse Torino soil.
The TBMs used in Lots 3 and 4 are new models from LOVAT Inc., the third one used
in Lot 5 is a second hand one produced by NFM.

67
The following table gives the main characteristics of the shield machines.

TBM model LOVAT RME NFM TBM - EPB

306 Series 20600 Mod. 13310506/001
Tecnical data (Lots 3 and 4) (Lot 5)

Excavation diameter 7,802 mm 8,030 mm

Cutter head power 2,100 kW 2,000 kW

Cutter head speed Variable: 1 - 2 rpm Variable: 0 - 2.4 rpm

Propulsion thrust 76,000 kN 91,350 kN

Torque 20,400 kNm 15,000 kNm

Shield length 10.0 m 9.1m
Back-up length 98 m 100 m

Figure 46: TBM LOVAT RME 306 Series 20600 used for Torino Metro Line 1

68
3.4.2.3 Tunnel Lining and Excavation
The tunnels were lined with pre-cast 30 cm thick segments in reinforced concrete,
connected by bolts and EPDM gaskets to insure water tight conditions. Even with
rather small curves and consequent assembly offsets of the segment ring, there is no
water passage within the tunnel.
Each 1.5 m long ring consists of 6 “normal” elements plus one “key” element that
enables the closure of the ring, a “universal” lock that permits to adapt the ring to any
kind of radius, from the minimum to the linear one, by a simple rotation of every ring
compared to the previous one along the tunnel axis at a given angle (Figure 47).
The injection of mortar behind the segments, performed immediately at the beginning
of the excavation procedures, ensures the reduction of superficial collapse and the
correct confinement/bedding of the lining.

Figure 47: Tunnel lining configuration of Torino Metro Line 1

Tunnel excavation with TBM started in October 2003 from Fermi station (Lot 3). It
has been necessary to find a correct balance of consolidating agents within the
excavated materials in the excavation chamber, to make the excavated material
homogeneous. Because the subsoil of Turin is extremely varied in terms of grain size
distributions and mechanical behaviour, soil conditioning was done to
• better the support pressure at the excavation face;
• lubricate the muck material in order to facilitate its passage through the screw
conveyor;
• reduce the engine power at the excavation shield;
• avoid TBM engine overburden

69
A large quantity of conditioning agents (emulsions of water, air and foams with
addiction of polymers) has been used.
Lot 3 and Lot 4 run completely outside the water table and underneath the central aisle
of Francia Street. A light consolidation treatment was carried out in the tunnel crown
area, in order to avoid a collapse of the excavation face. The EPBM was operated with
a partially filled working chamber, even under low or very low pressure (partial close
mode). The TBM of Lot 4 was operated with an empty excavation chamber (open
mode). There were no problems with face stability, partly because of the favourable
soil condition, which is in average more cemented than the prevision.
Lot 5 was executed in more difficult conditions: below the water table; below the old
buildings; with very small radius curve; and simultaneous horizontal and vertical
curves. Various consolidation techniques were planned for the protection of building
foundations and reducing or cancelling the influence of the excavation on the pre-
existing structures, and to improve the soil mechanical characteristics where necessary.
The TBM performance with a negligible pressure applied at the face, with provision of
a small slab of grouted soil at the crown, is characterized by an effective average
advancement of 10 meters per day.
The first Metro section of Lot 4 had been completed in time for the Winter Olympics
held in Torino in February 2006.

3.4.2.4 Ground Improvement

Soil improvement solutions have been implemented where the assessments indicate
potential risk of damage to the pre-existing structures. Such interventions include
improving the properties of the ground and mitigating the deforming effects induced
by tunnelling by means of low-pressure cement injection grouting. A consolidated slab
is created above the tunnel section in order to avoid any localized instability from
developing around it.
Different grouting geometry have been defined, based on relative position between the
tunnel and pre-existing structures, as well as site accessibility and surface site areas
use.
The project includes full-face cement grouting in the areas adjacent to the stations
where the TBM will enter into or exit from the stations: the diaphragm walls in these
particular areas will be partially demolished to let the TBMs in and out. In accordance
with the environmental conditions, the drilling and grouting operations were done from
the surface and/or from in service shafts and tunnels (Figure 48).

70
 a) b)

c)
Figure 48: Some schemes of grouting works (Crova, 2006)

It was required that the EPB technique be used to its maximum capacity. In addition to
the injection of bentonite, a new plant was also set up for the preparation and injection
of heavier substances obtained by mixing calcareous filler mixtures with water, to
integrate the ground conditioning with foams by way of optimized FIR (foam injection
rate/ratio) and FER (foam expansion ratio). All the critical points and most of the
obstacles were overcome successfully; the excavation was carried out always in close
mode (pressure at the top of the tunnel around 20÷30 kPa).
A systematic consolidation of a slab over the tunnel section was decided to be
associated with EPB 02 operating mode (i.e., the pressure in the top of the excavation
chamber was kept between 0.1 and 0.3 bar, the penetration rate up to 50 mm/rev, and
the quantity of conditioning agents FIR 30%). Professor Kovari as expert of the
Contractor then determined two type of slabs (Grandori et al, 2003) for Lot 3:

71
o Light slab: “non structural” (too lightly consolidated and too small to be
able to form a structure that can be taken into account in a statical
calculation) having just the function of increasing the ground cohesion in
the most critical crown area of the tunnel. The depth from the surface to the
tunnel axis is approx. 16 m in average (Figure 49).

Figure 49: Light grouted slab on top of tunnel

o Structural slab: having sufficient dimension and subject to heavier

consolidation in order to assure a structural behaviour to be taken into
account in the static verification of the tunnel stability (Figure 50).

Figure 50: Structural grouted slab on top of tunnel

72
The light slab associated to EPB 02 operating mode systematically all along the metro
tunnel drive. The structural slab associated to the EPB 02 operating mode in the most
critical area nearby important buildings and under important subsurface and surface
services.
The continuous control of the weight of the excavated muck furthermore allowed to
detecting in real time few local small over-excavations that were immediately filled by
additional grouting.

For the purpose of completeness, we also like to mention the execution of special
grouted soil structural bodies to protect the main buildings during the construction of
Lot 5 of the Turin Metro Line 1 tunnel.
Grouting design had to be extremely accurate since it had to take into consideration
various aspects such as:
o the presence of underground lines not to be hit by drillings works;
o the presence of buildings, structures, underground constructions that were
limiting the drilling possibility;
o to limit the disturbance caused by the drilling and grouting operations on
surface;
o the presence and level of the underground water table.
Four different shapes of injected body were finally designed as in Figure 51. The shape
(51.a) is the treatment scheme for the top part only for the passage of the TBM. The
shape (51.b) is the treatment scheme on the crown and at both sides up to the
springline for driving under street. The shape (51. c) is the grouting scheme on the
crown and at both sides below the springline for building areas. The shape (51.d) is the
treatment scheme completely around the tunnel for the maintenance of TBM. The first
three schemes are the intervention of preventive consolidation by means of cement
injection. The last scheme shows preventive consolidation and waterproofing by means
of cement and silicate injection.
All these shapes were designed to form tridimensional structural bodies to avoid that
any over-excavation and/or instability occurred at tunnel level could be transmitted to
the surface buildings.

73
Figure 51: Different grouting bodies schemes at Lot 5 of Turin Metro Line 1 (Concilia,
2005)

During grouting execution all injection parameters were recorded to increase the
knowledge and behaviour of soil and to detect the local presence of fine lenses in case
of low absorption of injected fluids. Quality of injected mixture was controlled during
operations both in terms of density and of compressive strength, in order to compare
with the designed values (γ = 1.25 t/m3 and σf = 0.10 - 0.12 MPa).

74
Chapter 4
4. Interface Between TBM and Lining

4.1 Types of Linings

4.1.1 General

Lining is a structure to secure a tunnel space by withstanding the earth and water
pressures. Lining consists of primary and secondary one. The lining is in general a ring
structure assembled with prefabricated segments, but is built in some cases with cast-
in-place concrete. The secondary lining may be placed mainly with cast-in-place
concrete if required.
Segment is lining material for the shield tunneling. In general, it is made of reinforced
concrete or of steel. Several segments are assembled to form a circle, multi-circle or
other shape.

Tunnel lining should be designed and constructed to high standards across the project.
This will cover issues including, how intermediate construction stages need to be taken
into account, settlement mitigation measures and the impact of backfill grouting. It
should satisfy the principles and requirements for safety, serviceability and durability.
The following types of lining need to be distinguished:
- pipe lining (pipe jacking)
- “in situ” lining
- segmental lining

With pipe jacking, behind the shield and guided by means of a pilot head, pre-
fabricated pipes, which are pushed forward from a launch shaft, constitute the final
lining. With machine drives, excavation and installation of the pipe are not normally
concurrently operations. The lining is constituted of individual pipes inserted in the

75
launch shaft, and the ever growing string of pipes is jacked forward by means of push
cylinders. Without a tailskin and an erector, the shield is very compact (Figure 52).

Figure 52: Pipe jacking diagram. Typical job sites (Herrenknecht)

“In situ” linings do not require pre-fabrication. They are cast right in the shield area.
The most modern and promising variant is “extruded” concrete, where the concrete is
applied under pressure. Behind the shield the tunnel lining is concreted in rings behind
a shuttering (the lining is slipcast behind a sliding form). To advance, the shield can
push against the hardened concrete section, which must have reached the required
strength (Figure 53).

Figure 53: Hydroshield with telescopic trailing shield for concrete extrusion, Métro de
Lyon, 1993 (Maidl et al, 1996)

76
TBM tunnels can also utilize sprayed concrete for initial (with steel fibres) and final
lining (without reinforcement). Integrated concepts for TBM’s and mechanized
excavation systems has been shown by Melbye (2005), where design and build are
based on modular concepts to meet most sprayed concrete requirements and
specifications in tunnelling and shaft sinking. The example of a TBM tunnel with a
full, circular sprayed concrete lining is given in Figure 54 & 55. In this case, the arch
effect can be calculated and the bond strength is no longer a factor.

Figure 54: The example of a TBM tunnel with a full, circular sprayed concrete lining
(Melbye, 2005)

Figure 55: Robot spraying manipulator is integrated into a large diameter TBM
(Melbye, 2005)

With segmental lining, which is the focus of this report, rings made from a number of
segments are installed within the protection of the shield tail. The lining segments are
pre-cast and transported to the place where they will be positioned.

Following are the segment and ring nomenclature (Figure 56 & 57).

77
 Figure 56: Ring nomenclature

Figure 57: Segment nomenclature

Segments and rings can have various types: segments can take one of the rectangular,
trapezoidal, or honeycomb forms (see Figure 58); rings can take one of the straight,
right/left, or universal forms. Segments are connected together by some types of joint
design (conservative with tongue and groove or advanced with plain surface) and joint
connector (bolt or dowel) (Figure 59).

78
 Figure 58: Segment shapes

Figure 59: Circumferential and radial joint connectors. Plabutsch Double Lane
Highway Tunnel in Austria (1998) (Wagner, 2006)

Activities that affect one single segment include pre-cast process, handling, storage,
and assembling to constitute a ring. Activities that affect on the ring include TBM
drive / tunnel excavation, tail void injections, and “ground” loads.
Many kinds of materials are used to constitute the segmental lining: concrete, steel,
steel fiber, connectors-bolts (plastic and/or steel made), gaskets for the waterproofing
(elastomeric neoprene rubber and/or hydro swelling material). For compressive
EPDM-sealing gaskets, it is better to use a wide and flat than a narrow and high
gasket.
In designing the segmental lining, one can use different Norms and Standards, such as
European standards or local standards of the specific country (ACI - American
Concrete Institute, DIN - German Institute for Standardization, BS - British Standards,
SNiP - Russian Construction Norms and Regulations, etc.). Generally, just a right tune
of the various coefficients is adequate to meet all the requirements in different
locations, since the basic materials are well known (concrete and steel). However,

79
specific attention must be paid to the new generation of the “well known” materials,
i.e. high performance concrete, and steel fiber reinforced concrete.

4.1.2 Reinforced Concrete Linings

Reinforced concrete segments are by far the most commonly used. The segmental
reinforced concrete lining is used to satisfy many construction and/or environmental
requirements, for instance:
¾ the need for an immediate support (mainly for an excavation in an instable
ground);
¾ the need to control carefully the ground movements induced by the tunnel
excavation;
¾ to avoid the drainage of the groundwater and therefore to build a waterproof
tunnel;
¾ provide the counterbalance for the TBM advance;
¾ to avoid the installation of a secondary lining.

With respect to a segmental lining installed in the rear of a single or double shielded
TBM with or without the face pressure control (Figure 60), the essential issues are to
make choice of it, to pre-dimension it, and to perform the static verifications for it.
The basic elements that must be known include: a) the geometry (general and detailed)
of the chosen segmental lining; b) the actions undertaken by the single segment and by
the full ring all along their life; c) the characteristics of the materials constituting the
various parts; and d) the norms and standards to be applied.

Figure 60: Area near to the face where tunnelling operations with the use of a TBM
occur

80
Geometry and relevant tolerances of a lining segment are given in the following Table
6 and Figure 61.

Table 6: The segment tolerances - limit deviation

Description Tolerances
Width: ±1.0mm
Thickness: -0/+3.0mm
Length of an arc of circumferences: ±1.0mm
Radius of intrados: ±2.0mm
Diagonal of the segment: ±1.0mm
Position of the holes for the connections: ±0.5mm
Position of the hole for the erector: ±2.0mm
Depth of the groove for the gasket: -0.5+0.1mm
Planarity of the faces which meet other
±1.0mm
elements:

Figure 61: Geometry and relevant tolerances of a lining segment

Nevertheless, the most important principle must be to keep the assembly tolerances as
generous as possible so that they can be maintained on site, bringing about the ring
erection personnel's work as easy as possible.

81
4.1.3 Steel Fiber Reinforced Linings

Using Steel Fiber Reinforced Concrete (SFRC) for precast tunnel segments has several
advantages, because of the following (Plizzari & Tiberti, 2006):
¾ SFRC is a tough material
¾ Smaller crack width (durability)
¾ High resistance to impact loading (as it may occur during transportation or
the segment placement)
¾ Better control of possible detachments of concrete cover
¾ Industrialization of the production process
¾ Smaller area for stockpiling conventional reinforcement (rebars or wire
mesh)
¾ Steel fiber reinforcement is present in the cover, narrow corners or holes
where conventional reinforcement can hardly be placed
However, attention needs still be given to the SFR lining subject to loading conditions.
Loading conditions range from the transient phases to the serviceability phase.
Transient phases include storage, transportation and placement of segments, and thrust
phase. Under serviceability phase (i.e. during the expected life of the tunnel), the lining
sustains ground and water action. During pushing of the hydraulic jacks, an optimized
reinforcement should include rebars (for localized stresses under the jack) and fibers
(for diffused stresses in the segment), so that bending cracks and concrete spalling will
not occur. Because of the FRC toughness, the load increment on the segment could be
achieved; in other words, the FRC toughness allows for an increase of the segment
bearing capacity.

4.2 Lining Design Procedure

There exist various competent methods of designing shield tunnel linings, and this
report does not give priority to any one method. Today, the design and dimensioning
of a reinforced concrete segmental ring are still carried out under consideration of its
ultimate state. Limit states analysis allows checking of both the structure's factor of
safety with respect to failure and its satisfactory behaviour with respect to
serviceability. The main characteristics of the two limit states are recalled in the
following table.

82
 Ultimate limit states Serviceability limit states

Failure of a section due to crushing of Excessive opening of cracks

concrete
Excessive deformation of steel
Instability of shape (buckling, bulging)
Loss of static equilibrium at ring erection
(infiltration, corrosion)
Excessive compression of concrete
causing microcracking
Excessive ring deformation

However, this subsection only introduce a few basic concepts of TBM lining design, so
as to help understand better the TBM/lining interface which will be presented later.

4.2.1 Design Steps

Generally, design steps for TBM tunnels could be as follows (ITA, 2000):
Step 1: Define geometric parameters
Alignment, excavation diameter, lining diameter, lining thickness, width of
ring, segment system, joint connections
Step 2: Determine geotechnical data
Shear strength of soil, deformation modulus, earth pressure coefficient
Step 3: Select critical sections
Influence of overburden, surcharge, groundwater, adjacent structures
Step 4: Determine mechanical data of TBM
Confinement pressure, overcut, shield tail conicality, TBM length, total thrust
pressure, number of thrusts, number of pads, pad dimensions, grouting pressure,
space for installation. All these structural parameters associated with TBM
characteristics may have potential impact on ring stress analysis.
Step 5: Define material properties
Concrete: compressive strength, modulus of elasticity
Reinforcement: type, tensile strength
Gasket: type, dimensions, allowable gap, elastic capacity
Step 6: Design loads
Soil pressure, water pressure, construction loads etc.
Step 7: Design models
Empirical model, analytical model, numerical model
Step 8: Computational results

83
 Response: axial force, moment, shear
Deformation: deflection
Detailing: reinforcement, joints, groove

The design of a shield tunnel lining often follows the planning works, according to a
sequence as shown in Figure 62.

Planning of Tunnel Project

Alignment Survey/Geology Function/Capacity to

Plan/Profile be given to Tunnel
Cross Section
Specification/Code/Standard to be used
Inner Diameter

Load Condition Assumption of Lining Condition

(Thickness, etc.)

Model to Compute Member Forces

Computation of Member Forces

Safety Checking for Lining

NO
Safe and Economical

YES
NO
Approval

YES
Execution of Construction Works

Figure 62: Flow chart of shield tunnel lining design (ITA, 2000)

84
4.2.2 Loading Conditions
The tunnel lining behind the TBM must be capable of withstanding all loads/actions
and combined actions without deforming, especially during ring erection and advance.
Single-shell reinforced concrete segmental rings behind the TBM, can be designed to
fulfill those demands. Secondary lining can also be constructed with cast-in-place
concrete as a structural member of the segmental lining.
There are many loading cases for the segmental lining of tunnels driven by TBMs.
This part provides information on some actions that should normally be considered in
the design and construction of tunnel lining.
The following loads shall normally be considered in designing the lining of the shield
tunnel (JSCE, 1996):
(1) Vertical and horizontal earth pressure
(2) Water pressure
(3) Dead weight
(4) Effects of surcharge
(5) Soil reaction
(6) Internal loads
(7) Construction loads
(8) Effects of earthquakes
(9) Effects of two or more shield tunnels construction
(10) Effects of working in the vicinity
(11) Effects of ground subsidence
(12) Others
Various combinations of the loads can be considered according to the purpose of the
tunnel usage. Table 7 gives a classification of these loads from the design point of
view.
Table 7: Classification of the loads for shield tunnelling
Primary loads 1. Vertical and horizontal loads
2. Water pressure
3. Dead weight
4. Effects of surcharge
5. Soil reaction
Secondary loads 6. Internal loads
7. Construction loads
8. Effects of earthquakes

Special loads 9. Effects of two or more shield tunnels

construction
10. Effects of working in the vicinity
11. Effects of ground subsidence
12. Others

85
Figure 63 below shows the excavation process of TBM in order to analyze the
necessary loading cases. Cross section 0 is far away from the face, the initial state of
stress in ground is not affected. Cross-section 1 is right at the face, where TBM cutting
wheel is in interaction with the ground. Cross section 2 shows the loading condition
due to convergence of the ground on the TBM shield. In the cross section 3, lining is
subjected to the grouting loading Pg. Cross section 4 is within the part of hardened
grout, the lining is subjected to permanent equilibrium loading Peq.

Figure 63: Excavation process of TBM

Concerning the segment loading, the steps which involve a specific verification for the
single segment are: handling in the TBM; assembling to built-up the ring; thrust for the
advance; longitudinal injections (primary grouting); and radial injection (secondary
grouting) - but normally no more used nowadays.
Figure 64 gives the notations in the usual calculation method and the modified usual
calculation method (Effective stress method).

86
 Figure 64: Notations in the usual calculation method and the modified usual
calculation method (JSCE, 1996)

The notations used for the structural calculation of lining are defined as follows:
Bending moment (N), axial force (N) and shear force (Q) (for member forces, the
directions indicated in Fig. 65 are assumed to be positive).

Figure 65: Notations of bending moment, axial force and shear force

The temporary loads during segment transport, ring assembly and TBM advance with
grouting pressure in many cases are more important than the final loads from earth and
water pressure. Therefore, the following different groups of loadings may have to be
carefully considered.

87
4.2.2.1 Geostatical Loads
This load case analyses the load effects on lining segments and ground. An example is
shown in Figure 66.

Figure 66: Example load cases

Dead weight is a load in the vertical direction, distributed along the centroid of lining,
and is included in this geostatical load case.
Dead weight of the primary lining shall be calculated by the following equation.
W1
g1 =
2π .Rc

where,
g1 = Dead weight in unit length of the primary lining exerting along the centroid of
lining (per unit length in longitudinal direction);
W1 = Dead weight of the primary lining (per unit length in longitudinal direction);
Rc = Radius of centroid of the primary lining.

88
The water load is set according to the associated water levels with consideration of a
density of γw = 10 kN/m3. If the problems of geotechnical engineering (stability and
settlements) are combined with groundwater/pore pressure considerations, it would be
rather difficult to deal with, as it increases the complexity considerably.

4.2.2.2 Thrust Jacking Loading

The functions of the linings during tunnel construction are to sustain jack thrust for
advancing a shield machine and to withstand the back-fill grouting pressure. The
linings have also the function as a tunnel lining structure immediately after the shield
is advanced.
Thrust force of shield jacks (Figure 67) is a temporary load which acts on the segment
as a reaction force against it while advancement the shield machine and is the most
influential load to the segment among the construction loads. Several verifications
must be done for the jacking load effects on the segment, such as contact pressure,
bursting forces in the radial direction, and bursting forces in the circumferential
direction.

Figure 67: Thruster pads distribution and spalling and cracking of concrete cover

Segments can be analyzed using FEM-method principles organized, for example, in

the Structural Analysis Program SAP2000 (Computers and Structures, Inc. - CSI,
2004) to investigate the behaviour of the lining following linear elastic Hooke law.
Modelling can be done with barrel shell elements. Boundary conditions of model are
restrained on side of segment where it has contact with already installed ring. Loads
from thrust jacking shoes are distributed over the length of thrust shoe (Figure 68).

89
 Figure 68: Shell element generation (SAP2000 package)

With regard to the BEG tunnel, thrust jacking forces could be redistributed to the
lining over thrust shoes contact area. Different extents of assumed forces are presented
in Appendix 3. Two maximal pressures (10,345 tons and 9,052 tons) would be used as
basis for loading analysis and further on for dimensioning of segments.
Thrust jacking loads are the design criteria to define necessary reinforcement for the
lining.

4.2.2.3 Trailer Loading

Trailer chassis and other service loads can be applied on lining, including main bearing
loads, divided by number of wheels (Figure 69). The loads induced by the trailer and
by any fixations in the segments normally do not influence the reinforcement. During
discussions with TBM manufacturer, it is necessary to state whether "Main Bearing
Load" will be included in this type of analysis or not.

Figure 69: Trailer load distribution

Considering the BEG Lot H3-4, for instance, if after excavation of the tube the TBM
will be dismantled and transported back through tunnel, then "Main Bearing Load"

90
could be assumed e.g. as approx. 165 tons. Also, additional assumptions may have to
be defined as follows:
a) "Main Bearing" forces are acting on same distance as trailer load wheels (3500 mm)
b) 165 tons will be divided over 4 wheels (41.1 tons/wheel); additionally a horizontal
load which is on the safe side is set of 15%.
c) Not more than 1 wheel is acting on ring width (2.0 m), that means along the tunnel
wagon wheels are on distance that is more than 2.0 m.
As a result, "Trailer Wheel Loads" might be taken as unfavourable one and as criteria
for definition of reinforcement (41 tons/wheel/ring width) regarding service load
conditions.

4.2.2.4 Grouting Loads

Primary grouting pressure applied to fill up the tail void behind the TBM is believed to
govern both deformations and internal lining forces, as well as affect surface
settlements. The grouting pressure acting on the outer surface (extrados) when the ring
leaves the shield. For normal conditions, when a highly flowable mortar is used, the
grouting pressure can be calculated constant around the ring. The annular grouting of
the ring, with a grouting pressure minimum one bar (1 bar) higher than the surrounding
water pressure, prestresses the ring and the enclosing ground.
Secondary grouting pressure is an extending regular grout pressure. These transient-
type loads result from a localized increase in grouting pressure ("local pumping
thrust") directly behind the segment grouting holes (Figure 70).

Figure 70: Secondary grouting pressure

91
As an example, the influence of gap grouting can be analyzed with accidental extent of
grouting pressure of 4 bars (400 kN/m2 or 0.4 MPa).
In cross-section load will be distributed in the form of triangular plane, acting in the
range of 0 - 400 kN/m wide strip of ring. Value of loading is changing linearly from
zero (0) to maximal pressure and back to zero (0) bar in range of middle angle of 45
degrees.
In longitudinal section the extent of loading is continuous and has extent of 4 bars, or
is acting also as a type of triangular loading (used in two-, three-dimensional model).
Influences from the geostatical and backfill grouting load cases need to be combined to
give adverse resultant moment and shear forces.

4.2.2.5 Storage Loads

After mould stripping, segments are set down and stacked on supports. Timber blocks
are usually placed between segments taking care that they are aligned with the supports
(Figure 71). Storage and handling (e.g. turning, packing and then loading-out
operations, supply to the workface…) influence the bending moment.

Figure 71: Loads for storage of segments

As an example, two situations could be considered for the segments self weight on
stock of the BEG Lot H3-4 tunnel:
a) Storage of segments as simple beam: moment is calculated by
Ma = 0.125 x γ x b x d x l2 = 0.125 x 25 x 1.00 x 0.50 x 3.52 = 19.14 kNm/m width
b) Erection of segment - middle support: moment is calculated by
Mb = 0.5 x γ x b x d x l2 = 0.5 x 25 x 1.00 x 0.50 x 2.72 = 45.56 kNm/m width

Because Mb > Ma, therefore Mb will be taken into account as maximal influence during
this loading case.

92
4.2.2.6 Erection Loads
During erection, the lining is subjected to a number of loads such as: compressive
(possibly eccentric) loads from the longitudinal thrust of the TBM; shear forces due to
differential deformations between adjacent rings; forces resulting from segments
overhanging during ring assembly; possible bumping impact loads; loads applied by
the assembly systems retained (bolts, anchor bolts or plugs).
i) Eccentric Loads during Shield Drive
+ Geometric Eccentricity of Thrust Shoe Action
For BEG project tunnel, loadings equal to maximal possible thrust jacking pressure
over ring circumference of 10345 tons may have to be applied on segments. Thrust
pressures are defined in same way as for case of thrust jacking loads. Eccentricity
varies between 0 / + 5 cm toward tunnel center and 0 / -2 cm outward tunnel center and
applied on segment edge as distributed moment over thrust pressure length.
+ Variable Thrust Jacking Pressure
The same loadings as for the case of regular Thrust Jacking Loads are to be applied on
the segment edge but the level of forces as well as the location of application is varied
(see Fig. "Eccentric Loads during Shield Drive").
ii) Eccentric Loads During Installation
Loading of 15 tons per only one thrust shoe can be applied on the segment edge. This
load is equal to force necessary to properly install segment with plastic dowels (plastic
dowel insertion force).

4.2.2.7 Fire Loads

Additionally, when fireproof concrete is used, an important aspect for the construction
phase is that each segmental ring must be provided with adequate fire protection
immediately following assembly. According to Haack (2003), the considerable effects
of the machine fire during the construction of the rail tunnel below the Great Belt in
Denmark would not have occurred, namely causing splintering up to 27 cm deep given
40 cm thick segments, if such resistant segment concrete had existed at the time.
However, loading of tunnel fire in construction is not further considered in this report.

4.2.2.8 Other Loads

Evaluation of the surrounding ground dynamic characteristics may be necessary in
high seismic risk areas.
Temperature influence in the final state is avoided by the shielding effect of the fire
protection lining layer. However, in the case of certain structures (very deep tunnels,
energy conveyance tunnels, etc.), climatic temperature-induced actions (such as
uniform temperature variations and temperature gradients) must be considered.

93
Concrete shrinkage is neglected. Other unusual load cases/accidental actions such as
impact by railway vehicles, explosions, fire loads, disaster load case of flooding inside
the tunnel, buoyancy or "waterhammer" etc. will also not be dealt with further.

4.3 Concept of Interface

In a specific tunnelling project, the main Client requirements are related to asset
performance, asset management, capital delivery (cost & time), and environmentally
sustainable. To fulfill these requirements, a strategy (to set up a proper organization) is
needed, that is to clearly identify the disciplines to be dealt with, the specific studies to
be developed, the interfaces, the sources of risk. By and large, the project interfaces
can be shown as in Figure 63, which are characterized by the coordination of technical
and functional design, aiming at minimum cost and reliable time schedule.

Exploitation
Equipment
and
Maintenance

Environment Project Interfaces Civil Works

Safety
and Geology
Ventilation and
Hydrogeology

Figure 72: Identification of project interfaces (after Grasso, 2006)

More specifically, the TBM/lining interface implies both contractual and physical
meanings and these two fields have certain extent of overlapping. The same is the strict
linking between the tunnel design and the tunnel construction. This reflects the
statement by ITA (2003): “Even the best TMBs cannot function efficiently if they are
not properly guided and the tunnel is not properly designed and managed”.

94
4.3.1 Contractual Interface

Within the contractual discussions we can talk about several aspects. Those are the
interacting activities between the Parties to improve the execution of a TBM tunnel
project in general, to optimize the segmental lining, and to improve the interface
between TBM and lining in particular.

4.3.1.1 General Aspects

Success for mechanised excavation depends upon correct planning and accurate
activities monitoring. Following main issues should be regarded in consideration of the
general essential interfaces (Grasso, 2006):
◊ the support of a strong political will;
◊ the public understanding;
◊ the financial pressures;
◊ the design of construction of logistics;
◊ the contract management;
◊ the risk sharing and management;
◊ the durability and serviceability;
◊ the technical feasibility
◊ the constructability

By way of illustration, tunnelling in urban environment could be mentioned, which

involves the following key elements (Chiriotti, 2006):
- adequate excavation method
- consciousness of risks (all the Parties)
- strategy for mitigating risks
- competent personnel (all the Parties)
- organization & responsibilities (all the Parties)
- development and implementation of ad hoc procedures
- identification of key indicators and implementation of consistent controls
(monitoring)
As we can see from the above list, there are three fields that represent a close
interaction between all the Parties involved to enhance the general quality of the
project (i.e. consciousness of risks, competent personnel, and organization &
responsibilities).

95
Regarding the consciousness of risks, a common understanding will help to reduce the
sources of initial risks in urban tunnelling, including:
- geological risk
- design risk
- construction risk
- financial risk, and
- operation risk.
Going further into some details of consciousness risks, design risk can be due to:
ƒ lack of experience of the Designer,
ƒ uncompleted prediction of risk scenarios
ƒ insufficient definition of countermeasures
ƒ non-constructability of proposed solutions
ƒ design flexibility vs. actual ground conditions
ƒ loading conditions of the lining
ƒ definition of TBM’s operational parameters
ƒ inadequate monitoring controls
ƒ inadequate threshold limits
And construction risk can originate from:
ƒ learning curve (a period at the beginning of every job for the tunnelling crew to
develop into a team and learn the idiosyncrasies of the new job)
ƒ incompatibility of the machine with the ground
ƒ major mechanical failures
ƒ inadequate logistics
ƒ lack of Contractor’s experience
ƒ lack of personnel training
ƒ lack of TBM’s parameter controls
ƒ lack of TBM’s parameter review
ƒ insufficient probing ahead
ƒ inadequate procedures

The construction risk is illustrated by considering this case: When tunnelling with
EPB-TBMs in a non-conventional medium (i.e., no uniform granulometry, no uniform
density and no uniform groundwater head), the possible failure mechanisms may

96
involve the global failure, local failure, piping, and progressive failure. Ground and
surface monitoring are effective provided that they are integrated by TBM and
construction data to allow a proper interpretation. Collapses may happen if:
‰ TBM data are just accessible to the Contractor
‰ The Designer is just receiving the in-ground and surface monitoring results
‰ No effective back-analysis is in place because of difficulties in accessing data

With regard to the lining of EPB-TBM tunnelling in such a non-conventional medium,

one can see that, the lining should be quality controlled by a checklist of events as
follows:
- water leakage
- steps between segments
- lips/offsets between rings
- cracking after installation
- installation of defective segments/rings
- connectors, and
- erector failure
Regarding another key element on organization and responsibilities, a standard TBM
lining implementation plan must be prepared which details how the design and
construction of TBM lining is to be managed. This will be adopted by all TBM lining
designers and contractors.

4.3.1.2 Segmental Lining Optimization

Segmental lining systems offer a number of opportunities for optimization in detail
within any phase of design. Because of the huge number of segments to be produced
and because of the multiplying effect of any measure carried out, any optimization
becomes rather effective. Within the tender phase the fundamental features of a lining
system are to be established. But within the detailed design phase for construction,
when the excavation system together with the segment production and the site logistics
are established, a number of opportunities to optimize the segments in detail become
due again (Walter et al 2005).
The segment geometry, the geometry of the lining ring, and the application of the
reinforcement can be taken into the optimizing consideration. Furthermore, segments
can also be modified considering an integrated invert track in the railway tunnels in
order to optimize the construction logistics. The fundamental basis to enable this
process is a proper contract which manifests the design key figures at the one hand but
also enables optimization in detail at the other hand. And a proper collaboration
between the client, the designer and the contractor to serve for the continuity of the
project philosophy and to serve for the input of the construction method is as essential.

97
During all steps of design, the dialogue and the contractual basis between the people
and parties involved should only manifest the main basics in view of the final result,
and leave open the opportunity to optimize the segments in terms of the best technical,
practical and economical results (see Table 8).
In the preliminary design phase, the main decisions are taken to establish the
fundamental tunnel system design, concerning the following questions: Tunnel system
consisting of two single or one double track? Rescue system consisting of cross
passages between two tubes or separate rescue tunnels? Lining system consisting of
mono-shell or double shell, shell sealed or unsealed? Fire safety is secured by
separated or integrated fire protection? What kind of dewatering and ventilation
system? Use of conventional tunnelling or TBM, or both? And, segments or not?
In the tender design phase, the one system which is actually tendered has to be
designed further into detail. This design includes: specification of the external loads
and load combinations to be considered; dimensioning of a suitable segment system to
derive a typical section including all details concerning the intermediate and final load
bearing system; definition of all salient lining features concerning the sealing system,
dewatering, fire protection, niches, cross passage interfaces; bill of quantities (BOQ) as
a basis for tendering.

Table 8: Options of segmental lining optimization in relation to the individual design

phases (Walter et al 2005)

Design phases
Detailed design for
Preliminary design Tender design
construction
Purpose of tunnel, Tunnel diameter, Typical section, lining
Basics construction lining system, system, quality
method ground, related requirements, loads and
requirements load combination
Segment geometry,
Tunnel diameter,
Best practice installation related
Options for lining system,
solutions, final features, reinforcement
optimization preliminary
dimensioning design, logistics related
dimensioning
features

In the phase of detailed design for construction, the contractor shall be allowed to
consider the following: i) Final segment geometry, including segment width (ring
width) and segment length (ring intersection), taking into account all belongings of
handling, manipulation and installation; ii) Logistics related features concerning the
backup- and transport system as well as the construction method and construction
sequence; iii) Reinforcement detailed design which must cover the loadings defined
within the tender and the loadings related to production, transport, installation and
TBM drive, but still suit the best practice of reinforcement manufacturing and of
reinforcement cage suitability.

98
So, it is the contract that should manifest completely the client’s requirements but
should not restrict the contractor’s opportunity to fulfill such requirements in the most
economical way and in a way which is most suitable to the TBM and backup system
available.

Structural concept on segment/lining

Statically speaking, the shell segmental lining should be dimensioned to maintain for
the required support during excavation and over the entire lifetime load bearing.
Kinematically, it should be designed to cope with all handling loads during each stage
of segments production, manipulation, storage, transport and installation. The statically
concept and dimensioning of the segment lining system involve the following tasks
(generic segment design):
- ground characteristics;
- segment partition (ring division); segment weight; outer and inner
convergence of the lining;
- joint connection (tongue and groove design, or advanced design of plain
joint, connectors, gaskets);
- minimum segment thickness;
- segment manufacturing (finishing, chamfer in the corners, allowable
tolerances on lining and on moulds, ensured by QA/QC measures - i.e.
quality assurance and quality control, etc.);
- external loads and load combinations;
- non-cracked segments during installation (‘uncracked’ concrete);
installation precision;
- thrust forces undertaking.

Looking at the relation of the lining and high flexible (universal) machines, it is
worthwhile to refer to the universal tapered ring (unified ring, Figure 73). Each project
is specific, but as a general rule one can say that unified ring can be used on a
systematic basis for every alignment/situation. The tapers of one ring compensate for
those of another ring, thereby cancelling out the overall tapering effect. In regard to
kinematic control of the segments, unified ring makes it easier to install owing to its
longitudinal and ring joints. The ovalisation tolerances of 1/1000 ÷ 1/2000 can be
ensured.

99
 Figure 73: Unified ring types (Wagner, 2006)

The unified ring is usually associated with the single gasket system for waterproofing.
Here single gasket system is preferable to the double system, since the later has strong
compression characteristics. For example, the double sealing gaskets used for the Elbe
Tunnel (Germany) did not show real advantages and the costs are very high.

Reinforcement design
The reinforcement design can be completely open for the contractor to be established
within the detailed design phase. In view of the huge number of the segments (e.g.
about several thousands of segment rings, and dozen thousands of pre-cast segments
and steel cages), a significant potential to reach an optimum between minimum overall
reinforcement weight, efficient reinforcement cage production, and sufficient overall
reinforcement cage quality is really worth to be taken full advantage of. Three main
components of the cages need to be kept an eye on (not to mention the specific local
reinforcement such as additional bars, stirrups, and helix elements):
- principal inner and outer field reinforcement;
- tensile splitting reinforcement in the longitudinal joints;
- tensile splitting reinforcement in the radial joints.

Potential for geometry optimization

For tunnel construction, the effort of optimizations by designer and contractor in
proper and innovative cooperation with the client is an open end matter. For that
reason, the optimization process has to be followed up in all design phases. Within a
specific railway tunnel project, for instance, apart from above improvements three
other considerations for geometry modification can be mentioned:

100
 - intersection of the segment ring (span width of the roof segment);
- thickness reduction of the invert segment; and
- integrated track in the invert segment.

As a final aim, optimization process must successfully realize the benefits in terms of
the segments geometry, the segment and reinforcement production and the best site
logistics.

Remarks
It is well recognized, that if the cost of construction and operation are increased and
the rate of return on investment is inevitably reduced, then the viability of the
tunnelling project will be threatened.
Following statement by Wagner (2006) is quoted as concluding remarks for the said
contractual interface:
“It has been proven that, the length of a tunnel driven by TBM normally should
exceed approx. 2,000 m for the sake of economy. The TBM designer and the
segment designer should join their effort to fix the common concepts before the
start of design work. Both designers may need to show minimum 10 years of
relevant experience. The Client should specify generic design of TBM and lining;
and responsibilities should be specified at interface of TBM and lining”.

4.3.2 Physical Interface

4.3.2.1 General
TBM/ground interaction
Interaction between TBM and ground is first briefed, because the type of excavation
method and support that is used dictates the behaviour of the ground. Upon excavation
of the face, the need for self-bearing time and the stability of unsupported span (free
span) are of our concerns. Concerning this, a general rule to remember is that, "the
tunnel is built at the face". The concept of unsupported span and self-bearing time are
valid both for conventional and full face mechanized excavations.
In Figure 74, the free span coincides with the last stretch of the tunnel where the rock
is being excavated and the supports cannot be installed yet (very variable length,
depending on the TBM type: open, shielded, with or without face counter-pressure).
The advance is performed in two steps:
- Active stroke of the cutting head for the excavation (and the spoil
extraction) usually 1.4 ÷ 1.8 (2.0) m;
- Advance of the whole machine when the cutting head has been stopped.

101
 Figure 74: Free span in full face mechanized tunnelling (continuous rock excavation
and spoil/muck extraction) (Pelizza, 2006)

Apart from the unsupported span, other concerns include the disturbance of the ground
ahead of the face due to the cutting wheel rotation, and the shear failure of the ground
along the TBM skin due to friction when the machine is advancing.

Lining/ground interaction
As it is well known, the lining of the TBM tunnel has a number of functions, which put
varying demands on the form and the material of the lining. The following two
requirements need to be fulfilled with very little deformation over the whole working
life of the tunnel:
- securing the inside of the tunnel against the surrounding ground and
watertightness in either direction
- taking up permanent or mobile loads resulting from installation and traffic.
The main parameters influencing behaviour of the tunnel lining in contact with the
ground (soil-structure interaction) are:
- lining/back grouting material and ground/back grouting material contact
conditions;
- environment: nearness of existing or planned structures underground or at
the surface; and superimposed loads.

Lining/TBM interaction
The segmental ring is erected in the shielded TBM and during the advance, the rams
act on the ring; therefore, the ring never can be seen independent from the TBM
(Gruebl, 2006). The interaction between machine, thruster configuration and geometry

102
of the segments will influence the kinematics of erector and segments. The design of
the TBM and the segmental ring must be harmonized in terms of:
• Rams must act on prepared sections of the ring (in correspondence with the
longitudinal joints and in regions where special tensile splitting
reinforcement is placed). Rolling of the tunnel shield and the ring must be
taken into account.
• The ram axis should be identical with the ring axis. The rams axis radius may
be slightly smaller (<10% of the segment thickness) than the middle ring
radius. This gives the tendency to close the ring during advance.
• The segmental rings must be able to follow the TBM. The ring taper should
be designed according to the TBM curve drive capabilities and not only
according to the designed tunnel axis.
• The tail gap should be more than 30 mm to avoid ring constrains in the
region of the tail sealing.
• No steel sheets or timbers should be inserted in the tail of the tunnel shield.
The new ring should be erected “free” on the last erected ring
It is also necessary to list the following general factors which play an important role
for a successful TBM advance:
¾ Correctly working TBM with all devices and aggregates
¾ Guidance system, showing the correct position in correspondence with the
theoretical alignment/the designed tunnel axis (DTA)
¾ Segmental ring, interacting with the TBM, the structural requirements and
the DTA
¾ Well organized infrastructure (supply and disposal)
¾ Tunnelling team, knowing and controlling the equipment
¾ Tunnel management and supervision, assisted by DAT (Decision Aids in
Tunnelling)
In the following paragraphs, detailed discussions will be given on: machine operation,
TBM guidance system, ring building, backfill grouting, back-up system, and lining
instrumentation. The purpose is to highlight the TBM/lining physical interface in every
process/operation.

4.3.2.2 Machine Operation

As already mentioned, important devices of the TBM are:
• Excavation system and excavation tools
• Systems for face stabilization according to ground conditions
• Transport devices for excavated ground

103
 • Steering equipment (rams, articulation cylinders)
• Ring erector
• Grouting system
The experience and technical skills of tunnelling machine operators as well as the
availability and use of experienced foremen are important factors in the reduction of
risks.
If the ground quality is insufficient, the subsoil must be grouted, vibrator compression,
injections or freezing to adapt it to the characteristics of the selected TBM.
TBM mechanical excavation is rather continuous, generates less dust, noise or
vibrations, and provides superior protection. The profile accuracy of the cavity cross
section is particularly high provided the TBM is driven within its operating tolerances.
Problems concerning advance control include:
• Inaccurate survey of the TBM before start of tunnelling
• Incorrect definition of tunnel axis in reference to rail axis (consider of cant)
• Mistake during input of DTA (designed tunnel axis); snaky advancing;
• Problems with control of direction (refraction at tunnel wall, laser near
lining)
• Incorrect driving back to the DTA after a deviation
Problem concerning lining is related to a particular limit condition of boreability in
hard rocks. It is because of the fact, that in order to overcome the boreability problem,
there is a tendency to optimize the ratio between cutterhead revolution and the thrust
(lower speed higher thrust), which can give better penetration and less cutter
consumption (as a result of less vibration). However, higher thrust can adversely affect
the lining bearing capacity (Figure 75).

Figure 75: TBM's thrust system affecting segments

104
Driving the bore through the critical curves may create detrimental contact between the
shield tail and the newly-built segments. Problem concerning subsidence in very
critical areas, i.e. under sensitive buildings with low cover, may be mitigated by filling
the conical void around the machine with bentonite slurry, which is continuously
injected through ports located along the shield. This provided additional help to further
reduce volume loss due to the TBMs’ passage.
Hopefully, it is expected that the modern-day control cabin full of machine data plus
Controlled Boring Process (CBP) could facilitate the operators' work and achieve ever
better performance. Such an advance is one of many efforts to comply with
production- and automation/robotization-related demands imposed by the concept of
precast concrete segments tunnel linings.

4.3.2.3 Guidance System

Guidance of full-face TBMs is vital. Guidance system is to help showing the correct
position of TBM in correspondence with the designed tunnel axis. Here are some basic
definitions of terms:
ƒ TBM survey: Measuring and calculation of the real TBM-position and
direction in relation to the designed tunnel axis. A coordinated site system
with fixed survey points should be set up on the field. In practice, only a small
direction fault in the starting pit can result in big error in the far end shaft
ƒ Steering: Corrections of the TBM-drive resulting from real deviation
ƒ Monitoring and control: Record of the TBM-drive history (graphic and
numeric) and calculation, storing and analysis of all TBM and ring data
Main components of TBM guidance system are shown in Figure 76 below.

Figure 76: Components of TBM guidance system (Gruebl, 2006)

105
It is highly recommended (for the double shield TBM is indispensable) that TBMs are
equipped with a guidance system that provides in real time information on the actual
alignment to the TBM operator (Concilia, 2006).
Apart from calculating the exact position and tendency (rolling and inclination) of the
TBM for proper monitoring of tunnel alignment, the guidance system also measures
the segmental ring for correct assembly (Figure 77).

Figure 77: Guidance system - measuring of the segmental ring

For any kind of the guidance system, it is necessary to know how quickly (speed and
distance) the TBM can react to modifications to the trajectory it is on.

4.3.2.4 Lining Ring Building

To add to the previous subsection dealing with the segment optimization, hereinafter
are given some additional points in view of lining's interaction with TBM, in terms of
segment selection, erection and bolting.

The tunnel lining is discontinuous and its structural properties depend on those of the
segments and contact joints between lining parts. Segment structural properties
include: sectional area, inertia; modulus of deformation; and Poisson's ratio.
Intersegment contact joint structural properties include: sectional area, inertia; and ring
composition.

106
The choice of the adequate segment width (measured in the direction of tunnel axis) of
the segment/ring is influenced by different and sometimes opposite exigencies:
- time of excavation;
- weight of the single segment;
- risk of damaging the segments while handling;
- geometrical compatibility with the rear of the TBM while the ring is coming
out in the condition of the minimum radius of curvature.
The average width is varying between 1.00 m and 1.25 m (even 2.0 m) for big rings
(diameter > 10 m) and between 1.25 m and 1.60 m for smaller rings. Large precast
concrete segments may weigh from 1 ton up to 15-19 ton.

Segment height is the height of main girders of segments measuring in the direction of
tunnel radius, for the flat type segment, it is also called "Segment thickness”.
Segment length is the arc length of segment measured in the transverse direction of
tunnel axis. Distinction is made between the external arc length (A), the arc length at
bolt pitch circle (B), and the internal arc length (C). The geometry (length, width,
shape, inner conicity, etc) of the segments is defined by the interface between the TBM
tail configuration and ring parameters.
The choice of the number of segments per ring is dependent on the tunnel diameter
(Figure 78), and is also influenced by almost the same factors listed for the length of
the ring:
- time of excavation;
- weight of the single segment;
- risk of damaging the segments while handling;
- available space for handling in the back-up.

Figure 78: Choice of number of segments versus tunnel diameter (Pescara 2006)

Examples of lining in some actual projects are given in the Table 9 below.

107
Waterproofing of the ring is assured by the following factors which must be considered
all with the same degree of importance:
- very good quality of the concrete (compressive strength fck is generally greater
than 40 MPa) and of the curing process;
- careful handling to avoid any damage or formation of “latent” cracks;
- choice and positioning of the gasket;
- careful assembling of the ring;
- filling of the tail void with proper material in due time, volume and pressure.

Table 9: Ring and segment geometry (Wagner, 2006)

Ring
Diameter Thickne Width Form/ Length Weight
division
[m] ss [cm] [m] shape [-] [m] [ton]
[-]
Groene Hart Rectangular
13.3 60 2 9+1 4.37 12
NL - Railway + key
Plabutsch Trapezoidal/
11.1 40 2 6+0 6.02 12
A - Highway Rhomboidal
SOCATOP Rectangular
10.4 42 2 7+1 4.45 9.4
F - Highway + key
Seattle Trapezoidal/
9.42 40 1.6 8+0 3.86 6.2
USA - Subway Rhomboidal
Wanjiazhai
4.3 25 1.4 4+0 Hexagonal 3.57 3.1
PRC - Water

With regard to the ring assembling, the following should be noted:

- The order of arrival of the segments near the erector must respect the order of
handling for the assembling process.
- The dimensions of the segment and of the backup are inter-related with respect
to the movements (rotation and translation) that the segment itself must
undertake.
- The segments can arrive to the erector both in the upper and in the lower part.

Ring erector may be of several types, such as vacuum-sucking erector, mobile erector
(mechanical system) with remote control panel, etc. having many active movements
necessary for ring assembly (Figure 79). It is recognized that TBM erector capabilities
are closely related to the learning-curve phase as well as sensitivity and assembly
precision.

108
 Figure 79: Erector arm of TBM, 6 necessary active movements for ring assembly
(Gruebl, 2006)

The quality of lining depends not only on the erection of regular segments but also on
the installation of the key block (K segment). With all the segments in the ring as a
whole, deformations such as offset, ovalization can happen as in Figure 80. In soft soil
conditions, lining failure can occur before or even after ring closure, including:
- shear failure
- compression failure
- combined bending and thrust
- punching failure
- watertightness of segments

For K segment, there are two types in terms of the direction of insertion. One is to
insert from the inside of tunnel, in which the longitudinal side faces of a K segment are
tapered in the direction of funnel radius ("K segment inserted in radial direction"). The
other is to insert in the direction of tunnel axis, in which the longitudinal side faces of a
K segment are tapered in the direction of tunnel axis ("K segment inserted in
longitudinal direction") (Figure 81).
• With trapezoidal tapered ring, key position selection in curved tunnels is of the
essence;
• Keystone condition during the assembly: The k-segment is the last to be
inserted and thus the precision of the movements must be higher.
The movement of the k-segment during the insertion and its geometrical characteristics
form the basis to define the length of the TBM’s thrust system.

109
Figure 80: Schematic view of ring ovalisation (Wagner, 2006)

Figure 81: Insertion of the k-segment (Pescara, 2006)

110
The following Table 10 quoted from AFTES recommendations (1997) considers an
example of building a lining ring comprising rectangular- (standard) and trapezoidal-
shaped (key and counter) segments. It details:
- the successive segment erection stages;
- recommendations associated with the operating environment for each
erection stage;
- remarks of a general nature for each erection stage.

Finally, robotic control of tunnel lining installation is an actual need for mega tunnel
projects, in view of lining quality and tunnel excavation progress rate. Computer
controlled precast segments tunnel lining erection will harmonize segment geometry
and machine configuration, aiming at automation, high quality and economy. Figure
82 shows the moduli of the operational program, using a recording, warn and alarm
system for higher advance rates and lower running cost.
The trend toward fully automated installation of segmental lining associates with
dowel connectors. Future development of TBMs for large tunnel diameters leads
toward new products particularly larger dowels for automation of segmental lining.

DATABASE DATABASE PROCESS TUNNEL/RING

LINING TBM CONTROL DATA

CALCULATED STATE

"KNOWLEDGE" OF SURVEYING
SYSTEM ABOUT CENTRAL
TUNNELLING/ TBM PRESENT STATE
PROCESSING

SENSOR DATA

NEXT STATE

MACHINE
RECORDING MONITORING INSTRUCTIONS FOR
WARNING &
OPTIMIZED TUNNEL
ALARMS
OPERATION

Figure 82: SW robotic control system for segment erection, basic structure (Schulter,
1996)

111
 Table 10: Lining ring building stages (AFTES, 1997)
SCHEDULE OF
OPERATIONS
1) Supply of first segment to
erector.
2) First segment pick-up.
3) Retraction of thrust
cylinders corresponding to
placement of first segment.
4) Positioning of first
segment by rotating erector.
5) Radial approach of first
segment.
6) Final approach with
rotational, longitudinal and
transverse balance
adjustment.
7) Holding of first segment
on ring.
8) Fixing of first segment
9) Installation and fixing of
standard segments.
10) Installation of counter
segments.
11) Key segment
installation.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Detailed analysis of loads in each pick-up
system position and of indirect loads on
segments.
Control of approach speeds by selection
of proportioning hydraulic controls.
Pads of other thrust cylinders remain
under pressure in contact with other
segments to safely ensure:
- segments holding and assembly
- compression of waterproofing gaskets
and prevention of their decompression.
-stability of the machine under the
confinement pressure.
Same recommendation as for the first
segment.
Provide alternate installation of segments
in each ring to minimize tube roll effects.
Use of template to calibrate gap between
counter segments.
Use of template prevents:
- tearing of waterproofing gaskets.
- concrete chipping.
- greasing of waterproofing gaskets.
REMARKS
Supply possible from:
- upper level;
- lower level.
Pick-up possible using suction
pads, grippers, bolts.
Light ray guidance systems can
facilitate approach and final
positioning of segment.
TBM main cylinder thrust on the
other segments must prevent any
forward displacement of the
machine.
At this time, the segment is
simultaneously held by the erector
and the thrust from the main
cylinders.
By ring/ring (longitudinal),
segment/segment (transverse)
connection.
Same remark as for the first
segment.
Same remark as for first segment.
It should be noted that on
completion of erection, the ring is
stabilized by the prestress between
the erection jacks and the
previously installed ring.
The only contact between the
shield tail and 1 the segmental
lining is the shield tail seal.
112
4.3.2.5 Backfill Grouting
Backfill grouting is the grouting work to fill the annular void between segments and
the ground (tail void) by grout injection. In the case of segmental TBMs, the lining and
its backgrouting are inseparable from the operation of the machine. Because of their
interfaces with the machine, they must be designed in parallel and in interdependence
with the TBM.
Mix alternatives could be:
- Cement water
- Cement mortar (sand)
- Slurry (cement - bentonite)
- Inert mortar
- Pea-gravel and cement
- Clay (Russia)
In the early days backfilling consisted of either pea gravel or fast-setting or fast-
hardening cement slurry or mortar that was injected intermittently through holes in the
segments.
There has been a constant trend to continuously and directly inject products with
retarded set and low compressive strength into the annular space directly behind the
TBM tailskin by means of grout pipes routed through the tailskin (Figure 83). Given
the shield wall/can thickness of 45 ÷ 60 mm, grouting pipes diameter may be in the
range of 20 ÷ 25 mm. Consideration should be given to preventing backflow of soil
and grout or water into the injection piping as grouting takes place; grease is so
injected between tail seals as a tail packing material. Tail seals should be replaceable in
case tail seals are damaged and grout material intrudes into the tail shield.

Figure 83: Longitudinal grout injection through the tail

of slurry shield (Gruebl, 2006)

113
Requirements for the filling material may be as follows:
- Good pumpable (high content of fine parts, bentonite)
- Enough strength (> 10 MN/m2) but lower than concrete strength and to keep
volume under loads
- Mortar must loose parts of mixing water to get an early setting behaviour (to
avoid flowing around the tail skin to the front)
- Early hardening to avoid movements of the invert segment, when the first
trailer arrives
- Support of the segment sealing to make the ring watertight

Machine advance is only possible if grouting mortar is available in the required

amount and at the specified pressure. Carefully controlled grouting will help to avoid
almost entirely significant settlements at the ground surface in the region of the TBM.
For slurry shields, both slurry and grout pressures have impact on ground control
during construction. Mansour (1996) has found that, the grout pressure is responsible
for the control of final ground settlements. Although these settlements are always
attributed to low grout pressure, extremely high grout pressure that causes local
yielding for soil at the crown level, may cause ground surface settlements as well.
Therefore, optimization of grout pressure value is essential to efficiently control the
final ground settlements. The slurry pressure is also responsible for controlling
excessive deformations at the tunnel face and maintaining its stability against plastic
failure.
From experience, it is found that 80 ÷ 90% damage to the segment was due to grouting
(e.g. excessive grouting pressure). So control of the grouting pump as well as assembly
of tailsealing (wire brush) is very important (Figure 84).
Because of the permeation to the ground, penetration to the ground by the injection
pressure, dehydration, and over cut, the injection volume often becomes 150 - 200 %
of the theoretical void volume (sectional area of the shield machine minus sectional
area of the segment ring). It is desirable to control backfill grouting using both pressure
and volume.
In the absence of annular grouting, bending tensile cracks of the segments may happen.
Incorrect grouting can cause steps in annular joints between the segments.
It is common that after lining is grouted on the shield tail (primary grouting), grouting
volume will settle, opening a gap on the upper part of cross section. This gap space
should be grouted again, it is called secondary grouting. Secondary grouting may have
bad effects on the tunnel lining segments, therefore this must be taken into account.
Secondary grouting is usually undertaken within 20 m of the last ring built. Usually
voids will be found in the crown but other areas also need to be checked particularly if
fast setting grouts are used.

114
 Figure 84: Key segment is pushed out by excessive grouting pressure
(Dal Negro, 2006)

Tertiary grouting is sometimes necessary too. It is carried out following evidence of

voids in secondary grouting. Other evidences include tunnel leaks, lining movement,
previous high amounts pumped in, grout washed out, grout shrinks. Tertiary grouting
is also decided based on the result of drilling through the lining to check for voids.

4.3.2.6 Back-up System

The equipment needed to enable the TBM to perform the excavation are located on
mobile platforms which follow the machine and as a whole are called back-up. Some
of the back-up equipment and plants installed include:
- Mucking out system (conveyors)
- Muck cars movers or muck conveyor extension system
- Segmental lining handling and erection system or supports erection system
- Equipment for rails and service lines extension
One of the functions of the lining is to support the back-up equipment and construction
plant required for carrying out the work. The railway track needs to be placed in the
working area on the back-up, or a temporary roadway in the case of transport of muck
by truck. The track should be properly anchored to the invert segment in order to
minimize the derailment hazard.
The following operations within the back-up which may result in potential risks to the
lining must be taken into account:
- segment delivering to erection machine;
- erector movement;
- segment positioning and erection;

115
 - back-up maintenance;
- mucking train arriving/leaving;

4.3.2.7 Monitoring and Instrumentation

Monitoring consists of a set of several in-situ measurements of the displacements, the
stresses and the strains variations which occur in the ground and in the tunnel supports
during the excavation procedures. Monitoring is the only mean, in a context of great
variability and uncertainty, of allowing the excavation of a tunnel to be adjusted in an
objective way during work procedures. By employing this kind of observational
method, safety in underground construction could be ensured at the highest level.
Therefore monitoring has an essential role in tunnelling. A tunnel design and the
tunnel construction cannot exist without monitoring. Monitoring is the mirror that
reflects the soul of a tunnel (Pelizza, 2006).
Conditions of the works during shield driving shall be monitored or measured to secure
the safety of construction. In other words, during construction of tunnel tubes, the
interaction between tunnel segments, and the influence of the surrounding soil on the
tunnel lining and vice versa, should be registered. This can be done by incorporating
measuring systems in some tunnel rings of the tube.
The monitoring and measurement in shield tunneling works include the following
(JSCE, 1996):
1) Monitoring:
i) For a closed-face type shield: Earth pressure in the cutter chamber, slurry
pressure at the face, characteristics of the slurry
For an open-face type shield: Conditions of the face, the amount and quality of
water inflow
ii) Hydraulic pressure of the jacks, torque of the cutter, meandering and balance of
the shield machine, control of the volume and pressure of backfill grout, control of the
volume of excavated soil discharge
iii) Deformation of the shield tunnel and the deviation of the centerline from the
designed alignment
iv) Deformation of the structures and/or underground facilities, displacement of
the ground and variation of groundwater level
2) Measurement: Stress and displacement occurring within the shield machine or
lining, and earth pressure and water pressure acting upon the shield machine or lining
Tunnel lining monitoring is now being challenged by automatic data acquisition,
which offers many advantages. But, several drawbacks inherent in the use of automatic
data acquisition should also be mentioned. These include the danger of systematic loss
of data, the recording box spatial requirements, and possible problem of energy supply
and independence. Further, all monitoring schedules must specify for the interpretation

116
of results; if this interpretation stage is neglected, the validity of the monitoring system
must be questioned.

Concluding Notes
The installation and long term stability of the segmental lining are possible only
because the lining is installed with the use of a TBM. The lining is loaded in such a
way which is strictly linked to the excavation and installation process (thrust of the
jacks, longitudinal grout injection, waterproofing). This observation has an apparent
implication if a final and optimized design is to be achieved.
Gruebl (2006) emphasized that, in a circular bedded segmental ring, deformations
further than about 50 m behind the TBM hardly ever occur. Virtually all the significant
damage occurs during ring installation and advance of the TBM in the last 3 to 4, at
most 10, rings. The bearing strength of the segmental ring is rarely exceeded, but
damage can occur to the lining due to incorrect ring erection or insufficient grouting.
The cost of repairing the damage may rather high and make a well calculated
construction project into an economic failure.
We may conclude that none of the above presented contractual and physical interfaces
can be underestimated and overlooked.

117
Chapter 5
5. Information for Settlement Study

5.1 Ground Conditions

Lot H3-4 has a total length of 5.8 km, with a minimum overburden of approx. 8.5 m.
Figure 85 shows the geometry of the typical cross section with the details of every soil
layers. Maximum calculation water level is 28.4 m; minimum calculation water level is
17.5 m

Figure 85: Typical cross-section RQ2, homogeneous zone Nr.4

Km 33+480 to 33+800

118
In Table 11 the ground layers and the corresponding soil characteristic values are
listed.

Table 11: Geomechanical parameters of Lot H3-4

GA_T1 GA_T2 GA_T3 GA_T4 GA_T6

Soil type / Coarse- Mixed Fine sand Silt - Valley
Parameters grained sand - - medium fine sand sand and
Gravel gravel sand silt

Wet γ
21 21 21 20 20
density [kN/m3]

Submerged γ’
12 12 11 10 10
density [kN/m3]

Dry γd
18,64 18,64 18,64 17,66 17,0
density [kN/m3]

Voids [−] 0,43 0,43 0,43 0,54 0,54

Friction
φ [°] 37 35 33 30 30
angle

c
Cohesion 0 0 0 0 0
[kN/m2]

E
E-Modulus f(z) f(z) f(z) 22,5 10
[MN/m2]

Poisson's
μ [-] 0,3 0,3 0,3 0,3 0,3
ratio

The depth-dependent moduli of elasticity of soil layers GA_T1, GA_T2, and GA_T3
are provided by the formula:
f(z) = 0.1 v (0.13 z)w [MN/m2]
determined with v = 373 and w = 0,65 and will be given in Appendix 4.

119
5.2 Excavation and Support

5.2.1 Shield Machine

The tunnel has an outside diameter of 12.63 m, to be driven by a Herrenknecht Hydro-

Shield TBM with a diameter of approx. 12.98 m, a length of 11.35 m. The total
excavation area is approx. 132 m2 (Figure 86).

Figure 86: TBM intended for use in Lot H3-4 of the BEG tunnel project

The TBM will be designed, manufactured and operated in accordance with the
Contract Specification which will define “best practice” for the project. The time
required to procure, manufacture and deliver a TBM is more than one year. Delivery of
the TBM to the Lot H3-4 worksite can be expected in the middle of 2007.

The hydraulic jacks push the TBM forward against the lining of the tunnel behind the
machine while excavation is in progress. There are 21 groups (pairs) of hydraulic
jacks, over 21 pads, equally distributed over the circumference of the shield. Each pair
consists of two thrust jacks. The feet of the jacks are placed onto the rings. When the
jacks are extended, the TBM is pushed forward. After the length of one ring is bored,
the jacks are relaxed and the next ring installed.

Excavation diameter : 12.98 m

Outer diameter of structural lining : 12.63 m
Inner diameter of structural lining : 11.63 m
Inner diameter of fireproof lining : 11.23 m

120
 Weight of TBM
Total thrust pressure
No. of thrusts
No. of pads
Pressure/pad
Pad geometry (supposed only)
Pressure of the support fluid
Grouting pressure (regular)
Grouting pressure (accidental)
: 2,350 T
: 10,345 kN
: 42
: 21
: 4,926 kN
: 197 mm x 950 mm
: 3.5 bars (350 kN/m2)
: 2.5 bars (250 kN/m2)
: 4 bars (400 kN/m2)

Allowable space for segment installation is about 2.5 m, including the width of
segment (2.0 m). Grouting is provided on the shield tail.

5.2.2 Ring Configuration

The linings will be designed to withstand temporary and permanent loading including
loads from the surrounding ground, groundwater, a surcharge/traffic live load of about
100 kN/m2 from the Highway A12, and to meet fire and durability requirements.
The lining's internal diameter of 11.23 meters is sufficient to accommodate the cross
section of the two trains plus lateral movement tolerances, overhead power supply,
evacuation and access walkways, resilient and floating track slab, signalling
equipment, cables and cable brackets and construction tolerances.
The pre-cast concrete segments reinforced with traditional steel reinforcement will be
designed to provide a robust solution capable of dealing with the handling loads from
construction and the permanent loads from the ground. Segments are to be bolted
together with suitable gaskets, and the annulus between the lining and the excavated
ground is to be filled with grout.
The 0.5 m thick outer structural lining comprises of 7 main segments (with 5
rectangular segments and 2 trapezoidal segments) and one keystone segment. Lining
geometry is defined through segment types A1-A5, B, C and K. Segment length is 5.44
m, segment width is 2.0 m.
The inner fire protection lining has a thickness of 0.2 m, made of cast-in-place
concrete. Between the two lining layers is a thin layer of shotcrete for the levelling
purpose. The tunnel inner radius is 5,615 m (diameter 11.23 m), and the opening area
is 99.00 m2.
Figure 87 shows the interior fittings inside a cross-section of the Lot H3-4; the rescue
tunnel and escape shaft as shown in Figure 88 will not be considered here.

121
 Figure 87: Typical cross-section of Lot H3-4, Münster - Wiesing

Figure 88: Cross section with rescue tunnel and escape shaft. Lot H3-4 Münster -
Wiesing

122
5.2.3 Lining Material

Concrete material is specified to be Class C 50/60. The steel grade is considered with
class BSt 550. Concrete cover for reinforcement is basically 4 cm thick. Effective
height h1 is determined in accordance with Austrian Standard ÖNorm B 4700
depending on the used reinforcement. Dead specific weight of the concrete tunnel
lining of 25 kN/m3 will be used for computation. Gasket will be of Phönix M 385 73
Type (Figure 89).
Material properties are defined as follows:

Concrete class : C 50/60

Compressive strength
Specific weight
Concrete elasticity modulus
Steel elasticity modulus
Gasket type
Gasket width
Elastic capacity
Max. tested closed gap
fc28 : 50/58 MPa
(MN/m2)
γ : 25 kN/m3
Eb : 37,000 MPa
Es : 200,000 MPa
: Phönix M 385 73 Typ
"Wesertunnel" 618g/m
: 44 mm
: 46 kN/m
: 15 mm

Figure 89: Gasket dimensions for Lot H3-4

123
5.3 Numerical Analysis Tool

The tunnel of the BEG Lot H3-4 crosses the Inn River with low overburden, as well as
the motorway A12 and the existing tracks of the Austrian Railway. Some information
on the statical calculations of the tunnel is presented in the following.
For the purpose of reference only, below are given the software actually utilized by the
Designer for the BEG project:
- Z_SOIL.PC 2003 V 6.24 Professional software: "Soil, rock and Structural
Mechanics in dry or partially saturated media" (Zace services Ltd.)
- RSTAB V 5.12.058: "statics of general structures". The designing firm made
calculations of the lining by this RSTAB program (Ing. - software Dlubal
GmbH)
- RFEM 2 V 2.01.135: "spatial lining units according to the method of the finite
elements" (Ing. - software Dlubal GmbH)
- ConDim 5 concrete calculation, version: 5.04 (DI Dr. Lorenz)
However, in this work, the author will make use of PLAXIS, a finite element code for
soil and rock analyses of Plaxis B.V. Netherlands, to perform independent parameter
studies. The parametric calculations are to partly illustrate the theoretical points that
have been presented in the previous parts of this report. Calculations focused on the
Austrian BEG project's TBM Lot H3-4.

5.3.1 Soil Models in Plaxis

Plaxis offers a variety of soil models in addition to the Mohr-Coulomb model. The
logarithmic compression behaviour of normally consolidated soft soils can be
accurately analysed by Cam-Clay type model (Soft Soil model), or by an improved
version of it for secondary compression (creep). For stiffer soils, such as
overconsolidated clays and sand, an elastoplastic type of hyperbolic model is available,
which is called the Hardening Soil model.
Short descriptions of the available models are given below.

Linear elastic model:

This model represents Hooke's law of isotropic linear elasticity. The model involves
two elastic stiffness parameters, namely Young's modulus, E, and Poisson's ratio, ν.
The linear elastic model is very limited for the simulation of soil behaviour. It is
primarily used for stiff massive structures in the soil.

124
What is stiffness? The link between strain increments ε and stress increments σ will be
required for performance of numerical analysis of geotechnical systems; then a
stiffness matrix D is formally required to be developed and populated: δσ = Dδε, and
this incremental link between stress and strain is the most useful definition of stiffness.

Mohr-Coulomb model:
This well known model is used as a first approximation of soil behaviour in general.
The model involves five parameters, namely Young's modulus, E, Poisson's ratio, ν,
the cohesion, c, the friction angle, φ, and the dilatancy angle, ψ. What is dilatancy? If
the arrangement of the soil particles is disturbed by distorting the boundary of the soil
sample then rearrangement will be accompanied by some change in the volumetric
packing: this is dilatancy.
All different soil layers can be modelled by the simple Mohr-Coulomb model. For
settlement analyses, the Hardening Soil model may be preferred, but for tunnel
heading stability the focus is on soil strength and not on soil stiffness

Hardening Soil (HS) model:

This is an elastoplastic type of hyperbolic model, formulated in the framework of
friction hardening plasticity. This second-order model can be used to simulate the
behaviour of sands, gravel and overconsolidated clays.

Soft Soil model:

This is a Cam-Clay type model which can be used to simulate the behaviour of soft
soils like normally consolidated clays and peat. The model performs best in situations
of primary compression.

Soft Soil creep model:

This is a second order model formulated in the framework of viscoplasticity. The
model can be used to simulate the time-dependent behaviour of soft soils.
In the following parts, only Hardening Soil model will be utilized for the purpose of
this report's parametric studies.

5.3.2 Hardening Soil Model

The Hardening-Soil model (isotropic hardening) is used for simulating the behaviour
of different types of soil, both soft soils and stiff soils. This model uses the theory of
plasticity rather than the theory of elasticity; it also includes soil dilatancy and
introduces a yield cap.

125
The Hardening-Soil model represents a much more advanced model than the Mohr-
Coulomb model. As for the Mohr-Coulomb model, limiting states of stress are
described by means of the friction angle, φ, the cohesion, c, and the dilatancy angle, ψ.
Soil stiffness is described much more accurately by using three different input
stiffnesses:
¾ the triaxial loading stiffness, E50 (characteristic of plastic straining due to
primary deviatoric loading);
¾ the triaxial unloading stiffness, Eur (characteristic of elastic unloading /
reloading, Figure 90); and
¾ the oedometer loading stiffness, Eoed (characteristic of plastic straining due to
primary compression, Figure 91).

Figure 90: Hyperbolic stress-strain relation in primary loading for a standard drained
triaxial test. qa is the asymptotic value of the shear strength, qf is ultimate deviatoric
stress

ref
Figure 91: Definition of tangent stiffness modulus Eoed in oedometer test results

126
As average values for various soil types, we have Eur ≈ 3 E50 and Eoed ≈ E50, but both
very soft and very stiff soils tend to give other ratios of Eoed / E50. In contrast to the
Mohr-Coulomb model, the Hardening-Soil model also accounts for stress-dependency
of stiffness moduli. This means that all stiffnesses increase with pressure. Hence, all
three input stiffnesses relate to a reference stress, pref or σref, being usually taken as 100
kPa (1 bar).
For virgin oedometer loading, soil behaviour simulated by the HS-Model implies an
increasing tangent stiffness modulus according to

. ⎡⎣(σ 1 + a ) /(σ ref + a ) ⎤⎦

m
Eoed = Eoed
ref

where a = c.cotφ, σ 1 is the major principal stress, and Eoed

ref
is the reference tangent
stiffness for primary oedometer loading. We adopted the exponent m = 0.5 (stress
dependent stiffness according to a power law). Within the HS Model unloading-
reloading is described on the basis of Hooke’s law. Young’s unloading-reloading
modulus for increments of stress and strain is:
m
⎛ σ 3 + c cot ϕ ⎞
Eur = Eurref . ⎜ ref ⎟
⎝ σ + c cot ϕ ⎠
where σ 3 is the minor principal stress, Eurref is the reference Young's modulus for
unloading and reloading, corresponding to the reference pressure σref. In many
practical cases it is appropriate to set Eurref equal to 3 E50ref .

For many problems, especially excavation problems, there is a preference to use the
Hardening-Soil model (HS-model) rather than the Soft-Soil model (SS-model).

5.4 Flowchart of Calculation

Surface settlements will be checked both with analytical and numerical methods.
Variation of input parameters based on “greenfield” condition will be performed in
order to check the respective output results, using the Hardening Soil model
(symmetrical).
Parameter studies for the “greenfield” cross-section will be carried out as follows:
1) Using semi-empirical methods to calculate the surface settlement, with the actual
geological and lining information of the BEG project.
2) By using Plaxis code, the factor of contraction (volume loss) will be gradually
varied, starting with a value of 0.5 %, then stepwise increasing with an increment
of 0.25% until convergence is achieved. The number of elements of the FE net
(the mesh) will be varied starting from about 500 elements up to approx. 1,000
elements, with an increment of around 200 elements for each step. The

127
 combination of the two varying variables (the contraction and the mesh
coarseness) will involve many computation cases.
3) Variation of the lining thickness will be carried out in the range of 0.30 m ÷ 0.60
m, stepwise thickness increase = 0.10 m (i.e. t = 30, 40, 50, and 60 cm). The
mesh coarseness is also varied accordingly. Next, final settlements will be
calculated, using the design lining thickness of 50 cm and with the converged
contraction value attained at the step 1.
4) Compare the calculated results of settlements by both analytical and numerical
methods for the case of actual project input data.
5) 3D modelling of the shield tunnel face stability is performed.

Such variations help to check the sensitivity and reliability of the results of face
stability and ground settlements corresponding to the input parameters associated with
the various analysis methods. These parameter studies supplement some interface
aspects concerning the tunnel design and construction presented in the previous
chapters.

128
Chapter 6
6. Tunnel Induced Ground
Deformation

6.1 Settlement Induced by Tunnelling

6.1.1 Volume Loss and Settlement

- Ground movements and volume loss due to tunnelling

All sub-surface excavations give rise to ground movement. In other words, ground
movements are an inevitable consequence of constructing a tunnel. These movements
manifest themselves, in particular, as settlement. It is not possible to create a void
instantaneously and provide an infinitely stiff lining to fill it exactly. In the time taken
to excavate, the ground around the tunnel is able to displace inwards as the stress relief
is taking place (Figure 92). Thus it will always be necessary to remove a larger volume
of ground than the volume of the finished void. This extra volume excavated is termed
the "Volume Loss" (or "ground loss", "soil loss") VL (Chiriotti, 2006).

Figure 92: Inward displacement of the ground around the tunnel

due to stress relief (Chiriotti, 2006)

129
For the construction of tunnel, the overall volume loss VL consists of two components:
face loss and radial loss (radial displacements around the shield section and around the
lining section, Figure 93) [m3/meter advance of the tunnel drive].

RADIAL LOSS - annulus RADIAL LOSS - shield

RADIAL INJECTION BEAD

SHIELD
FACE
SCREW EXCAVATION
LOSS
INSTALLED RINGS CHAMBER
CONVEYOR

Figure 93: Components of the volume loss or the convergence generated by tunnelling
work (Chiriotti, 2006)

In a properly supported non-TBM tunnel, 70-80% of total surface settlement is due to

deformations ahead of tunnel face. In a shield-driven excavation, the fraction varies
significantly (<< 70%) depending on the method. As an example, until a recent date,
the following distribution of settlements to the surface was observed:
- 10 to 20 % caused by the face;
- 40 to 50 % caused by the void along the shield;
- 30 to 50 % caused at the end of the tail seal.
But thanks to the current technological and methodological evolutions, these are
changing and settlements at the tail seal exit may only stand for a small part of the total
settlements (AFTES, 1995).
The net volume of the surface settlement trough will be approximately equal to the
volume loss at the tunnel in most ground conditions. If the ground response is at
constant volume (i.e. undrained), the relationship will be exact. The hypothesis will be
checked especially if the ground is clayish and the overburden is thin. Otherwise,
relationship between the displacement in the tunnel crown (Urcrown) and the middle
surface settlement (Smax) can be referred to Figure 94 as an example, where C is
overburden thickness above the crown, and D is excavation diameter.

130
 Figure 94: Softening coefficient according to the geometry of the tunnel
bored with a shield (AFTES, 1995)

VL is normally expressed as a percentage VL% of the gross area of the finished tunnel.
Assuming a circular tunnel of outside diameter d, then
VL × 100% VL × 100%
VL % = =
Vtunnel πd2 4
The magnitude of the volume loss VL depends on many different factors:
‰ soil type
‰ tunnelling method
‰ rate of tunnel advance
‰ tunnel size
‰ form of temporary and primary support
Before the magnitude of ground movements can be predicted it is necessary to estimate
the expected ground loss. This estimate will be based on case history data and should
include an engineering appraisal that takes into account the proposed tunnelling
method and site conditions.
NATM:
London Clay → VL% = 0.5% - 1.5%
which compares favourably with controlled shield tunnelling

131
Open face tunnelling
Stiff clay → VL% = 1% and 2%
Closed face tunnelling (EPB or slurry shields): A high degree of settlement control can
be achieved.
Sands → VL% < 0.5% (0.35% can be achieved with slurry shield and EPB
TBM tunneling).
Soft clays → VL% = 1% - 2% (excluding consolidation settlements)

- Short, medium and long term movements

SHORT-TERM ground movements are identified to occur during the excavation, at a
timescale that is comparable with the time taken by the advance of the tunnel heading
that is the cause of ground movements.
MEDIUM and LONG-TERM settlements are thought to be the result of creep, ageing
and consolidation, i.e. alterations in the properties of the soil at constant load. The
timescale over which they occur depends on the ground conditions, ranging from
weeks or months (sands and soft clays) to years (stiff clays).
The magnitude of long-term movements is hard to generalise. The long-term
settlement trough widths are observed to have tendency to be wider than that of the
short-term settlement trough widths. This means that the curvature of the trough, the
factor most likely to cause damage to the structures on the surface, is smoother.
In addition, surface structures are more able to accommodate long-term settlements by
creep and stress redistribution. Thus it is the short-term movements that remain the
chief issue of concern for engineers, and are the subject of this study.

- Rock-tunnelling movements
Rock tunnels may not be immune from causing unacceptable ground movements
where water inflow may, by way of the jointing system, cause draw-down in
overlaying fine sediments (Peila, 2006).

6.1.2 Settlement Calculation Approaches

Short literature review

Leca and Dormieux (1990) have used the upper and lower bound theorems of plasticity
to estimate the pressure, which can be provided by compressed air, slurry or an earth
pressure balance (EPB) tunnelling machine, needed either to ensure stability or obviate
blow-out of the tunnel heading in soft ground.

132
Suwansawat (2002) and Suwansawat & Einstein (2006) have attempted to predict
ground response and the maximum surface settlement caused by EPB shield tunnelling
using artificial neural networks (ANN), at the same time to evaluate the potential as
well as the limitations of ANN for that purposes.
The empirical method have been proposed by a number of authors, such as New &
O'Reilly (1982, 1991), Attewell and Woodman (1982), etc. to predict the settlement for
“green-field” site conditions induced by bored tunnels. Semi-empirical method uses
the parameters for ground loss determined from case histories and take into account the
method of tunnelling and ground conditions; they are still being widely used today.
Recently, a generic area-wide assessment of settlement identifies zones in which
buildings might be at risk of sustaining damage in excess of acceptable levels based on
correlation with the calculated maximum tensile strain values (Franzius 2003, 2005).
The potential for damage in this area-wide assessment can be defined using the
procedure described by Mair et al (1996).
On the other hand, numerical methods, mainly the Finite Element Method (FEM),
provide a flexible tool for a prediction of surface settlement, which have been adopted
by many authors. FEM could be performed in two-dimensional (2D) or three-
dimensional (3D).
In the past, Selby (1988) recommended that the empirical equations should be used for
predictive purposes as they compared well with field measurements and were much
easier to use than the finite element model.
Clough and Leca (1989) have pointed out that the soil tunnelling problem has proved
resistant to finite element (FE) modelling because it is complex, often involves
parameters that are not well defined and is unforgiving if the analyst does not properly
model both the soil and the tunnel supports, as well as the construction process. The
sensitivity of the FE method to these factors has meant that it is a less reliable method
for ground movement prediction than the empirical approach.
However, New and Reilly (1991) deemed that the flexibility of FE models can be
exploited when back analyzing ground movements and can assist in understanding the
movements at particular sites and by extending conventional design techniques.
Indeed, the numerical methods (e.g. FEM) have been being more and more powerful
and reliable as a consequence of advances in computer technology.

Selected Calculation Approach

In the following, the author will try to apply the two main settlement prediction
approaches: (i) analytical/semi-empirical, based on empirical formulas derived from
past observations; and (ii) finite element analysis, which is now rather popular method.

133
6.1.3 Settlement Control Approach

After prediction of settlements is completed, the other considerations to minimize

settlement affecting buildings above include:
¾ Monitoring;
¾ Protective works;
¾ Defects surveys; and
¾ Repairs

i) Monitoring
Design for a plan of ground and surface monitoring plays a significant role in
managing settlement and damage. The scope of monitoring should be set up for the
two main categories: ground and buildings. In the monitoring plan, the governing
parameters shall be defined, and the necessary instruments shall be selected. The
criteria for the attention and alarm limits (threshold values) shall also be established.
Then, based on monitoring, if any critical scenario is detected, counter-measures will
be triggered accordingly. Relation between the three main elements: design
hypotheses, monitoring, and countermeasures, is given in Figure 95.

Design
hypotheses

Countermeasures
Monitoring

Figure 95: Monitoring in relation with other procedures (after Chiriotti, 2006)

ii) Protective measures

Tunnelling-induced subsidence can be mitigated and controlled by means of (Cross
London, 2005):

134
 • Good tunnelling practice (including continuous working, erecting linings
immediately after excavation and providing tight control of the tunnelling
process to reduce the magnitude of settlement);
• At-source measures (including all actions taken from within the tunnel
during its construction to reduce the magnitude of ground movements
generated at source, such as face stability, backfill grouting at shield tail,
etc.);
• Ground treatment measures (including compensation grouting, permeation
or jet grouting, control of ground water, etc.);
• Structural measures (to reduce the impact of ground movements by
increasing the capacity of a building or structure, typically including
underpinning or jacking/shoring).

iii) Defect surveys (condition of properties)

Defect surveys are typically undertaken 1 month before construction starts in the area
to capture the condition of all properties immediately prior to tunnel construction. It is
necessary to use a reliable damage classification system for masonry structures with
the concept of limiting tensile strain. A staged process of assessing risk may be
adopted, including preliminary assessment, second stage assessment, and detailed
evaluation. In this process, buildings are eliminated from further stages depending on
the potential degree of damage predicted (Mair et al, 1996).

iv) Repairs
If the damage is caused by the nominated undertaker’s works, the nominated
undertaker has to reimburse property owners for the reasonable cost they incur in
remedying material physical damage arising from ground settlement caused by the
authorized works.

6.2 Empirical Calculation for Settlement

6.2.1 Formulae

Single tunnels:
Usually, the first stage of settlement assessment is based on "green-field" site
conditions. This means that there is no existing surface building or underground
structure, or the effect of building foundations on the pattern of settlement is ignored.

135
Peck (1969) described settlement data from over 20 case histories available to him at
that time, and was able to deduce that the short-term transverse settlement trough in the
"greenfield" could be approximated by a Gaussian curve (same as O’Reilly, 1982)
(Figure 96):
⎛ − y2 ⎞
S = S max exp ⎜ 2 ⎟ (O’Reilly, 1982)
⎝ 2i ⎠
where,
S = theoretical surface settlement (the Gauss error function, or normal
probability curve) (m)
Smax = maximum surface settlement (over tunnel axis, i.e. the settlement trough
depth) (m)
VS π .D 2 1 0.313VL (%) D 2
Smax = = VL (%). . = (New & O’Reilly, 1991/
2π i 4 2π i i
Mair et al, 1996)
⎛ D2 ⎞
S max = 0.785. ( γ .Z 0 + Ps ) . ⎜ ⎟ (Herzog, 1985)
⎝ i.E ⎠
This equation for Smax was derived from both shield excavated and NATM tunnel data
(Arioglu, 1992, quoted by Ercelebi, 2005).
y = transverse horizontal distance from the tunnel centerline (m)
i = standard deviation of the curve (point of inflexion of the curve) (m); a
trough width parameter which can be calculated after O’Reilly and New
(1982) or Arioglu (1992) as in the following section
γ = (average) natural unit weight of formation (ton/m3)
z0 = tunnel axis depth (m)
Ps = total surcharge load (ton/m2)
D = equivalent tunnel excavation diameter (m)
E = (average) elasticity modulus of formation (ton/m2)
The settlement ordinate at distance i is, according to the properties of the probability
curve, equal to 0.61 Smax.

136
Figure 96: Gaussian distribution curve of the short-term transverse settlement trough in
the ‘greenfield’

* Note: According to Martins (2001), another closed-form analytical solution to

predict surface settlements has also been proposed:

H ⎛ 1.38 y 2 ⎞
S z =0 = 4ε 0 (1 −ν ) R 2 exp ⎜− ⎟ Loganathan and Poulos (1998)
H 2 + y2 ⎜ ( H + R )2 ⎟
⎝ ⎠
where ε0 is the ground loss (ratio), ν is the Poisson's ratio of the soil above the tunnel,
R is the tunnel radius, H the tunnel depth and y is the lateral distance from the tunnel
centre-line. On the basis of centrifuge testing Loganathan, Poulos and Stewart (1999)
claim that this equation gives better results than the Peck's equation.

The Peck/O'Reilly's equations are based on the assumption that the settlement profile
above a single tunnel is of normal probability or Gaussian form. Ground deformation
is assumed to take place at constant volume.
The Gaussian curve shown above is used at all levels in the ground above the tunnel.
For the combined effect of multiple tunnels, the movements induced by each tunnel are
simply added.
The width of the settlement trough perpendicular to the tunnel is defined in terms of
distance 'i' in meters from the tunnel centre-line to the point of inflexion on the curve.
Peck noticed that soils of different classes - e.g. cohesionless or cohesive - gave
distinct ratios of trough width parameter ‘i’ to tunnel depth ‘z0’.

137
Following from this, O’Reilly and New (1982) expressed the trough width parameter
‘i’ in the form:
i = K zo

where,
K = dimensionless empirical constant, depending on the soil type
z0 = depth of the tunnel axis below ground level

Based on data from both cohesive and cohesionless locations, all in the UK, O’Reilly
and New (1982) proposed the empirical relationships:
i = 0.43z0 + 1.1m (for cohesive soils)
and
i = 0.28z0 - 0.1m (for non-cohesive soils)
The data used covered a wide range of tunnel axis depths. It thus appeared justified to
take K as a constant value, independent of both tunnel depth and diameter. Later work
by other researchers has confirmed that K is usually in the range:
K = 0.4 ÷ 0.5 for cohesive soils,
K = 0.25 ÷ 0.35 for cohesionless soils

K values when tunnelling in stratified soils:

If we assume that, all the strata influence the settlement phenomena to the same extent,
then keq is the average weighted value of the various ki:

z0 < 1.5D ⇒
z1k1 + ... + zn kn
keq =
ztot

z1
k1
z2 k2 ztot<1.5D

zn D
kn

Figure 97: K values when tunnelling in stratified soils with z0 < 1.5D

138
If we assume that, the strata within 1.5D influence are the ones that mainly influence
the settlement phenomena, then ki can be weighted according to their distance from the
tunnel.
z0 >1.5D ⇒
0.35( z1k1 + ... + zm km ) + 0.65( zm +1km +1 + ... + zn kn )
keq =
0.35( z1 + ... + zm ) + 0.65( zm +1 + ... + zn )

z1 k1
z2 k2
zm
zm+1 km+1 ztot≥1.5D

km 1.5D
zn kn D

Figure 98: K values when tunnelling in stratified soils with z0 > 1.5D

Otherwise, i can be calculated by following formulae:

i1 + i2 + i3
i=
3
i1 = 0.386. Z 0 + 2.84 (Arioglu, 1992)

i2 = 0.5. Z 0 (Glossop, 1978)

0.704
⎛D⎞ ⎛Z ⎞
i3 = 1.392. ⎜ ⎟ . ⎜ 0 ⎟ (Arioglu, 1992)
⎝2⎠⎝D⎠
Under undrained conditions, e.g. in materials with a low permeability such as stiff
clay, the volume of the surface settlement trough is equal to the volume of soil which
is excavated in excess of the theoretical volume of the tunnel (constant volume), we
have:
Vs π .D 2
Vs = VL ⇒ VL (%) = ⇔ VS = VL (%).
Vtunnel 4

where Vs = volume of the settlement trough (per metre length of tunnel), so, the loss at
the tunnel level is completely transferred to the surface.
‘Vs’ can also be evaluated as the integral of the Gaussian distribution curve:

139
 ⎛ - y2 ⎞
S = Smax exp ⎜ 2 ⎟ ⇒ Vs = 2π iSmax = 2.51iSmax
⎝ 2i ⎠

VS π .D 2 1 0.313VL (%) D 2
Smax = = VL (%). . =
2π i 4 2π i i

The expression for the total vertical settlement due to tunnelling S may be rewritten,
substituting for Smax, as:
⎛ - y2 ⎞ VL ⎛ - y2 ⎞
S = Smax exp ⎜ 2 ⎟ = exp ⎜ 2 ⎟
⎝ 2i ⎠ i 2π ⎝ 2i ⎠
NOTE:
• Under drained conditions (e.g. dense sands) Vs is usually less than VL because
of dilation. Sometimes (e.g. loose granular soil) Vs could be greater than VL in
case of negative dilation.
• The trough width widely depends on the ground characteristics and the project
geometry (C/D, i.e. overburden thickness C above the crown/excavation
diameter D) and much less on deconfinement which, on the contrary, strongly
influences Smax.

It is also conceived that, settlements are a 3D problem. We can be interested in

evaluating (i) the transversal settlements trough in a certain section while it is
developing; or (ii) the longitudinal settlement trough (Figure 99 and Fig. 100).

Figure 99: 3D view of settlement trough due to tunnelling (after Attewell et al., 1986)

140
 Figure 100: Evolution of settlements along a shield (AFTES, 1995)

Attewell and Woodman (1982) extended this model to derive a settlement trough in the
longitudinal direction, as presented in Figure 101.
According to Attewell and Woodman (1982), the generalized expression for surface
settlements can be written:
y2
Vs − ⎧ ⎡ x − xi ⎤ ⎡ x − xF ⎤ ⎫
S= ⋅e 2i 2
⋅ ⎨G ⎢ ⎥ − G ⎢⎣ i ⎥⎦ ⎬
2π ⋅ i ⎩ ⎣ i ⎦ ⎭
where:
S = surface vertical settlement at a location defined by the coordinates (x,y) [m];
y = transverse distance of the considered surface point from the tunnel centerline [m];
x = longitudinal position of the considered surface point [m];

Vs = volume of the settlement trough per meter of tunnel advance [m3/m], defined as a
percentage VL of Vtunnel;
xi = initial position or starting section of the tunnel [m];

xf = considered position of the tunnel face [m];

‘G’ is a function defined as:

α α 2
1 −
G (α ) = ⋅ ∫ e 2 dα , with α = (x-xi)/i
2π −∞
G(0) = 0.5 when x = xf (point above the tunnel face)

G(1) = 1.0 when (x-xi) → ∞

141
 Initial Considered section for Tunnel
section subsidence calculation in face
a cross-section
xi xf

Tunnel axis

G1=1 and G0= 0 G1=1 and G0≠ 0

xi x xf X

½ Smax

Smax
LONGITUDINAL SETTLEMENT
S

i Y

TRANSVERSAL SETTLEMENT
Smax

Figure 101: Settlement trough in the longitudinal and transversal direction

g[(x-xf)/i]

G[(x-xf)/i]

(x-xf)/i

0 3

Figure 102: Definition of ‘G’ function

142
Values of the G function have been already calculated for different values of (x-xi)/i
and they are available in the format of table.
The subsidence profile in a longitudinal section is evaluated on the basis of the above
general equation. Being y = 0 along the tunnel axis the expression becomes:
Vs ⎧ ⎡ x − xi ⎤ ⎡ x − xF ⎤ ⎫
S= ⋅ ⎨G ⎢ ⎥ −G ⎢ ⎬ = Smax ⋅ ( G1 − G2 )
2π ⋅ i ⎩ ⎣ i ⎦ ⎣ i ⎥⎦ ⎭
If the starting tunnel position xi and the position of the face xF are known, then it is
possible to calculate the vertical displacement for different points located ahead (x >
xF) or behind (x < xF) the tunnel face.

When G1 = 1 and G0 ≠ 0 the longitudinal displacement is a percentage of Smax, being

the difference G1 - G2 < 1. The settlement directly above the tunnel face corresponds
to 0.5Smax (Figure 56).

For completeness, we like to mention a personal opinion of Prof. Swoboda (personal

communication), that for Smax one has to use FEM; he found out only with 3D models
one can get good displacement results for TBM; for NATM one can do it with a 2D
model.

* Horizontal surface displacements:

Damages to above ground structures could also result from horizontal ground
deformations induced by tunneling. It is assumed (Mair et al., 1996) that the horizontal
surface displacement sh(y) at a distance y from the tunnel center-plane can be
reasonably expressed as:
y
sh ( y ) = S ( y)
H
where H is the depth to tunnel axis and S(y) the settlement at a distance y from the
tunnel center-plane.

Twin tunnels:
The construction of twin tunnels is a common requirement for underground railways
and there exist useful equations for making preliminary ground movement predictions.
In practice the tunnels will rarely be driven simultaneously and one tunnel is likely to
have been excavated significantly before the other. In some cases this will give rise to
an asymmetry which is not modelled by the equations.
It is generally assumed that the predicted ground movements for each tunnel can be
superimposed. For twin tunnels with reduced transversal distance between the axes this
assumption may be unconservative. Disturbance due to the first tunnel drive can be

143
simulated by assuming a greater volume loss for the second bore and superimposing
the resulting ground movements.
For the configuration shown in Figure 103 the settlement resulting from the combined
effects of the twin tunnels is given by

VS ⎡ ⎛ y2 ⎞ ⎛ ( y − D )2 ⎞ ⎤
S( y , z ) = ⎢exp ⎜ − 2 ⎟ + exp ⎜ − ⎟⎥ (New and O'Reilly, 1991)
i 2π ⎢⎣ ⎝ 2i ⎠ ⎜ 2i 2
⎟⎥
⎝ ⎠⎦

Figure 103: Surface settlement profile for twin tunnels (New and O'Reilly, 1991)

If two or more shield tunnels are constructed side by side or on top of one another,
ground movement and tunnel movement shall be carefully observed. If necessary,
auxiliary methods shall be taken in order to prevent ground relaxation and tunnel
deformation.

6.2.2 Calculated Results

TBM machine has an excavation diameter of De = 12.98 m, and tunnel lining has an
outside diameter of Dl = 12.63 m. Therefore, the ground loss due to overcut (in the
worst case possible, i.e. without control by annular grouting) is given by:
De2 − Dl2 π .D 2
VL % = 2
x100% = 5.62 % ⇒ VS = VL (%). = 7.04 m3/m
Dl 4

144
 Settlement
Ground loss Annular
De (m) Dl (m) trough volume
VL (%) 3 gap (cm)
VS (m /m)

12.98 12.63 5.62 7.04 17.5

Area (m2) 132.32 125.28 7.04

Using the empirical formula of Herzog (1985)

⎛ D2 ⎞
S max = 0.785. ( γ .Z 0 + Ps ) . ⎜ ⎟
⎝ i.E ⎠
The maximum settlements Smax are shown in Table 12. In this calculation, average
modulus of elasticity of the overburden E is taken from Appendix 4 as 32.4 MN/m2 or
3,240 ton/m2 and average specific weight γ is taken as 2.06 T/m3.
The maximum settlement Smax = 148 mm seem to be rather large. The deduced volume
of the settlement trough Vs = 4.35 m3/m, and the ground loss VL = 0.035 %. Although
the volume loss is small, but the maximum settlement is in practice large; therefore,
the settlement must still be controlled by high quality backfill grouting during
construction. Figure 104 shows the shape of settlement trough.

Table 12: Estimation of settlement by empirical formula of Herzog (1985)

Input Estimations (m)
D = 12.63m i1 = 11.25
Z0 = 21.8m i2 = 10.90
γ = 2.06tonne/m3 i3 = 12.91
2
E = 3,240tonne/m i = 11.69
2
Ps = 0.0tonne/m Smax = 0.148
C = 15.5m
VS (m3/m) = 4.35
C/D = 1.23shallow tunnel V % = 0.035
L

z /D = 1.73
0

145
 Distance from Tunnel Center Line (y), m

-3 5.1
-2 .7
-2 .2
-2 .9
-1 .4
-1 .2
-1 .7
-1 .2
-9 .7

14 .7
16 .2
19 .7
23 .2
25 .4
29 .9
31 .2
35 .7
.1
-6 2
-4 7
-1 2
0 7
1
9
5
3
9
6
4
1

Settlement (S), mm 1.0

.7
2
7
2
.
.
.
.

11
-3

4.
6.
9.
0
20
40
60
80
100
"Greenfield" Cross 120
Section 140
160
E = 3240 tonne/m2 Empirically predicted
γ = 2.06 tonne/m3
Ps = 0 tonne/m2
Smax = 148 mm
Z0 = 21.8 m

Empirically predicted Settlement Curve, volume loss = 0.035%

Figure 104: Settlement prediction for BEG Lot H3-4 tunnel by Herzog formula

Table 13 represents the dependence of the maximum settlements and volume loss on
the modulus of elasticity of soils used in the Herzog formula. Modulus of elasticity E
is varied from 10 MPa to 100 MPa, while keeping surcharge Ps as zero. As a result, the
maximum settlements Smax range from 481 mm to 48 mm, and the ground losses VL
range from 0.113 % to 0.011 %.

Table 13: Dependence of the maximum settlements and volume loss on the modulus of
elasticity of soils used in the Herzog formula, without surcharge (Ps = 0)

E (MPa) Ps (MPa) Smax (mm) Vs (m3/m) VL (%)

10 0 481 14.10 0.113
20 0 241 7.05 0.056
25.1 0 192 5.62 0.045
30 0 160 4.70 0.038
32.4 0 148 4.35 0.035
40 0 120 3.52 0.028
50 0 96 2.82 0.023
60 0 80 2.35 0.019
70 0 69 2.01 0.016
80 0 60 1.76 0.014
90 0 53 1.57 0.013
100 0 48 1.41 0.011

Next, we impose a surcharge of 0.1 MPa on the surface. As a result, the maximum
settlements Smax range from 588 mm to 59 mm, and the ground losses VL range from

146
0.138 % to 0.014 %. From Table 14, it is found that the maximum settlements Smax are
too large, but the associated volume losses VL are too small. Considering the actual
database achieved in practice by the slurry TBM technology, we can conclude that
Herzog formula does not give a good compatibility between the maximum settlements
and the ground losses.

Table 14: Dependence of the maximum settlements and volume losses on the elastic
modulus of soils, Herzog formula, with surcharge Ps = 0.1 MPa

E (MPa) Ps (MPa) Smax (mm) Vs (m3/m) VL (%)

10 0.1 588 17.23 0.138
20 0.1 294 8.62 0.069
24.47 0.1 240 7.04 0.056
30 0.1 196 5.74 0.046
30.65 0.1 192 5.62 0.045
32.4 0.1 182 5.32 0.042
40 0.1 147 4.31 0.034
50 0.1 118 3.45 0.028
60 0.1 98 2.87 0.023
70 0.1 84 2.46 0.020
80 0.1 74 2.15 0.017
90 0.1 65 1.91 0.015
100 0.1 59 1.72 0.014

Using O'Reilly & New (1982)/Mair et al (1996) formula

Because Lot H3-4 tunnel is driven through a stratified soil, and because z0 = 21.8 m >
1.5D = 18.945 m, so if we choose individual k factor for each layer, after that use the
weighted formula of O'Reilly & New (1982) for equivalent k factor, then we have keq =
0.338 (see Table 15).

Table 15: The equivalent factor "K" and the trough width parameter "i" by using
O'Reilly & New (1982) formula

zi (m) ki zi x ki keq i (m)

Layer 1 GA_T6 1.80 0.40 0.72
Layer 2 GA_T1 4.70 0.35 1.65
Layer 3 GA_T2 6.00 0.32 1.92

GA_T3
Layer 4 4.30 0.34 1.46
Layer 5 GA_T3 5.00 0.34 1.70 0.338 7.37
z0 = 21.80

147
Since i = Kz0 therefore we have i = 0.34 x 21.8 m = 7.37 m, much smaller than that of
Herzog (1985) formula (i = 11.69 m).

0.313VL D 2
Using the expression S max = and varying the values of factor K = 0.25 ÷
K z0
0.5 (K = 0.25 for tunnels in sands or gravels, and K = 0.5 for tunnels in clay) and
volume losses VL = 0.2 % ÷ 5 %, we can obtain the maximum settlements Smax as
shown in Table 16.

Table 16: Maximum settlements for various volume loss and K factor values. New and
O'Reilly (1991)/Mair et al (1996) empirical formula

Smax (mm)
VL
D (m) Z0 (m) K
(%)
0.25 0.30 0.338 0.40 0.45 0.50
12.63 21.8 0.20
2 2 1 1 1 1
12.63 21.8 0.25 2 2 2 1 1 1
12.63 21.8 0.30
3 2 2 2 2 1
12.63 21.8 0.35 3 3 2 2 2 2
12.63 21.8 0.40 4 3 3 2 2 2
12.63 21.8 0.45 4 3 3 3 2 2
12.63 21.8 0.50 5 4 3 3 3 2
12.63 21.8 1.00 9 8 7 6 5 5
12.63 21.8 1.30 12 10 9 7 7 6
12.63 21.8 1.50 14 11 10 9 8 7
12.63 21.8 2.00 18 15 14 11 10 9
12.63 21.8 2.50 23 19 17 14 13 11
12.63 21.8 3.00 27 23 20 17 15 14
12.63 21.8 3.50 32 26 23 20 18 16
12.63 21.8 4.00 36 30 27 23 20 18
12.63 21.8 4.35 39 33 29 25 22 20
12.63 21.8 4.50 41 34 30 26 23 20
12.63 21.8 5.00 45 38 33 28 25 23
12.63 21.8 5.62 51 42 38 32 28 25

Taking an average value of 0.338 for K factor, we have four settlement prediction
curves corresponding to volume losses of 0.5%, 1 %, 1.3 %, and 2 % as shown in
Figure 105.

148
 Distance from Tunnel Center Line (y), m

1
9
4
2
7
4

.7

.4
.9
.1
.4

.2
2.
0.
8.
7.
4.
2.
.9

.9
.4

.4

Settlement (S), mm 0
4
9
4
9
12
14
17
18
20
22
-7
-4
-2
-2
-2
-1
-1
-1
-1
-9

0.
2.
4.
7.
9.
0

10

15

Volume loss = 0.5 %

Volume loss = 1 %
Volume loss = 1.3 %
Volume loss = 2%

Figure 105: Settlement predictions for BEG Lot H3-4 tunnel by formula of New and
O'Reilly (1991)/Mair et al (1996)

The prediction method of O'Reilly & New (1982)/Mair et al (1996) does not account
for the modulus of elasticity of the soil E as that of Herzog (1985). Therefore, the
maximum settlements Smax obtained from two methods are quite different, and they can
not be reasonably compared with one another, because the volumes losses deduced
from the Herzog formula are always too small.

It should be recalled that, with closed face tunnelling (EPB or slurry shields),
settlement is well controlled and volume loss VL is only < 0.5% in sands and VL = 1% -
2% in soft clays. The tunnel at the BEG project Lot H3-4 will be bored by slurry TBM
in stratified soils ranging from silt-sand to sand and sand-gravel. Therefore, assuming a
practically maximum volume loss of 2.0 % is reasonable.
Moreover, the theoretical volume loss due to overcut is 5.62 % corresponding with the
maximum surface settlement of 38 mm (if K = 0.338 is taken), or 51 mm (if K = 0.25
is assumed). If the tunnelling crews carefully control the backfill grouting work at the
shield tail to achieve a volume loss less than 2 %, then settlement can be reduced
further.

6.3 Finite Element Modelling

6.3.1 Introduction
New and O'Reilly (1991) already commented that: "Desktop computers can quickly
provide detailed predictions of ground movements due to the most complex
underground excavations. (But) considerable care must be taken in the application of

149
these models and their apparent numerical precision should never be confused for
accuracy in the field. The complex interaction of ground conditions and tunnelling
method demands that engineering judgement and experience will always be required to
determine the appropriate data input to the models and to evaluate the predictions
provided".
In practice, numerical analysis technique must include credible representation of the
tunnelling process, in particular the volume loss occurring, including:
• gap between lining and excavated surface;
• internal forces progressively reduced;
• excavated material with reduced strength and deformation properties.
It must also use an appropriate constitutive model for the soil. Linear elastic soil
models usually give trough widths that are too wide. The heave of the tunnel invert due
to the stress relief may be encountered, which has a dramatic effect in reducing the
resulting settlements. Models based on hardening plasticity involving kinematic
hardening are appropriate, as they can model small strain behaviour, the effect of stress
history and cyclic loading (Chiriotti, 2006).
Numerical modelling is often carried out to get back-analysis for experimental data, to
verify the input parameters that had been assumed in the planning and design phases of
the works.
According to Ercelebi et al (2005), 3D model is preferable because for 2D FE models,
it is not so easy to estimate pre-relaxation factors (sometimes called stress reduction
factors), which is fraction of load effecting on tunnels, and purely based on practical
experience. With the 3D model, estimation of pre-relaxation factor is no longer
required when excavation stages can be modelled not only in cross-section but also in
the longitudinal section.
Through oral communication, Prof. Swoboda suggested the author, that to calculate the
displacement of TBM with a 2D model is not recommended. TBM is a really 3D
problem, but 2D can give good results for the lining forces. On the other hand,
Vermeer and Möller (2001, 2003) has proposed a smart use of FEM in tunnelling, in
which the results from a full 3D analysis can match with that from a 2D analysis, with
the use of a so-called β-value (unloading factor) according to the Load Reduction
Method.
In this report, Plaxis code will be used to model and predict the development of surface
settlements.

6.3.2 FE Analysis by Plaxis 2D Professional

Plaxis 2D program will be used to simulate the volume loss by applying a contraction
to the shield tunnel lining (uniform 'shrinkage' of the lining elements in a plane normal
to the tunnelling centreline). This contraction is defined during the creation of the
tunnel in the input program. A contraction can be specified here because the Lot H3-4

150
tunnel is a circular tunnel (all sections having the same radius) with a homogeneous
tunnel lining.

6.3.2.1 Geometry

Geometry
Since the situation here is more or less symmetric, only one symmetric half (the right
half) of the cross-section is taken into account in the plane strain model. From the
center of the tunnel the model extends for 40 m in horizontal direction (Figure 106).
The 15-node element is adopted for this analysis. Beam elements are used in Plaxis
software to model the bending of tunnel lining. The behaviour of these beam elements
is defined using a flexural rigidity, a normal stiffness and an ultimate bending moment.
A plastic hinge may develop for elastoplastic beams, as soon as the ultimate moment is
mobilized.
Interfaces are joint elements which are needed for calculations involving soil-structure
interaction. They are used to simulate the thin zone of intensely shearing material at
the contact of tunnel lining.

Figure 106: Geometry of model, right half of the cross-section

151
Material Properties
The depth-dependent moduli of elasticity of soil layers GA_T1, GA_T2 and GA_T3
are calculated by the formula f(z) = 0.1 v (0.13 z)w [MN/m2] with v = 373 and w =
0,65. Results are given in Appendix 4, together with other parameters needed for the
numerical model. Average moduli of elasticity of these three soil layers are 23.9
MN/m2, 42.6 MN/m2, and 63.2 MN/m2, respectively.
Properties of other soil layers GA_T4 and GA_T6 are given in Table 11 of Section
5.1. Two cases will be tested: wet density, and dry density.
Properties of the precast concrete segments lining are given in Table 17.

Table 17: Material properties of support system

Name/
Parameters Value Unit Formula
Symbol
Type of behaviour Material type Elastic -
Thickness tc 0.5 m
Area of the cross section A 0.5 m2

m4 tc 3 .1
Inertia of cross section I 0.0104 I=
12
Specific weight of
γc 25 T/m3
concrete
Specific soil weight γs 20 T/m3
Young's modulus E 37,000,000.00 kPa (37 kN/mm2)
Axial/Normal stiffness EA 18,500,000.00 kN/m
Flexural rigidity (bending
EI 385,416.67 kNm2/m
stiffness)

Equivalent beam EI
d 0.5 m d eq = 12
thickness EA

tc
Equivalent beam weight w 7.5 kN/m/m w = γ c .tc − γ s .
2
Poisson's ratio ν 0.2 -
(1x105 units by
Maximum moment Mp N/A kNm/m
default)
(4.33x106 units by
Maximum axial force Np N/A kN/m
default)

152
2D mesh generation
The 15-node element is used as the basic element type. The global coarseness will be
varied from coarse to very fine, i.e. from around 500 to 1000 elements for the right half
of the given cross section.

Initial conditions
Before the generation of the initial stresses the tunnel lining is to be deactivated. The
initial stress generation (K0-procedure) can be used to generate the initial effective
stresses with the appropriate values of K0.
The initial stresses in a soil body are influenced by the weight of the material and the
history of its formation. This stress state is usually characterised by an initial vertical
stress σv,0 which is related by the coefficient of lateral earth pressure K0 (σh,0 = K0.σv,0).
In reality, the coefficient, K0, represents the ratio of the horizontal and vertical
effective stresses:
σ xx'
K0 =
σ yy'

In practice, the default K0-value is based on Jaky (1944) formula (K0 = 1 - sinϕ) as an
empirical expression for a normally consolidated soil.
In PLAXIS initial stresses may be generated by specifying K0 or by using Gravity
loading. The K0-procedure should be used in cases with a horizontal surface and with
any soil layers and phreatic lines parallel to the surface. For all other cases Gravity
loading shall be used.
Very low or very high K0-values may cause initial plasticity. Using K0-values which
differ substantially from unity may sometimes lead to an initial stress state which
violates Coulomb's failure criterion.

6.3.2.2 Calculations

The construction of the tunnel is stimulated by a staged construction calculation in

which the tunnel lining is activated and the soil clusters inside the tunnel are
deactivated. Deactivating the soil inside the tunnel only affects the soil stiffness and
strength and the effective stresses. Following are the calculation steps in Plaxis.
The first calculation phase is a plasticity calculation, applying load advancement
ultimate level. For the loading input, Staged construction is selected. Within the staged
construction mode, activate the tunnel lining and deactivate the two soil clusters inside
the tunnel.
In addition to the installation of the tunnel lining, the excavation of the soil and the de-
watering of the tunnel, the volume loss is simulated by applying a contraction to the
shield tunnel lining.

153
The Contraction parameter is defined as the reduction of the tunnel area as a
percentage of the original tunnel area. Activation of the contraction procedure results
in a homogeneous 'shrinkage' of the tunnel lining, which reduces the cross section area
of the tunnel.
In order to activate this contraction, the procedure is:
• Select a plastic calculation, load advancement ultimate level and select Total
multipliers as loading input.
• Enter a contraction value of 0.5 ÷ 2.5 for the parameter ΣMcontrA. This is the
multiplier that controls the contraction of the tunnel referred to as 'A' in the
geometry model.
• Select some characteristic points for load-displacement curves (for example the
corner point at the ground surface above the tunnel, and the point on top of
lining).
• Start the calculations.
It is noted that, the contraction of the shield tunnel lining by itself does not introduce
forces in the tunnel lining. Eventual changes in lining forces as a result of the
contraction procedure are due to stress redistributions in the surrounding soil or to
changing external forces.

Through many runs with variations of lining thickness (from 30 to 60 cm), mesh
coarseness (500 ÷ 1000), and contraction value (0.5 ÷ 2.5), it is observed that the soil
body collapses at different contraction values, and settlements as well as lining
member forces also fluctuate accordingly.
Finally, plane strain computation is made for the actual structure as follows:
- lining thickness of = 50 cm;
- number of elements = 959;
- number of nodes = 7868;
- number of stress points = 11508

Computed results:
- contraction converged (soil body collapses) at 1.3 % for the case of
using wet density of soil; extreme total displacement is 82 mm (Figure
107)
- contraction converged at 1.01 % if the dry density of soil is used;
extreme total displacement is 64 mm (Figure 108)

154
Figure 107: Deformed mesh (displacement scaled up 50 times)

Figure 108: Shadings of vertical displacements

155
It can be seen from Figure 109 that, the vertical displacements on the surface (52 mm)
are smaller that that on the tunnel crown (64 mm). But the trough width at the tunnel
crown level is narrower and steeper than at ground level.

a)

b)

Figure 109: Settlement troughs on the surface a) and at crown level b)

Figure 110 shows the development of settlements of four different points in the ground
when the contraction is increased. When the contraction reaches 1.01 %, soil body
collapses, the settlement of Point A at the tunnel bottom attains 10 mm, the settlement
of Point B on top of tunnel (crown) is 64 mm, the settlement of Point C on the side of
tunnel (haunch) is 40 mm, and the settlement of Point D near the ground surface is 52
mm.

156
 Figure 110: Development of vertical displacements of different points

In Table 18 and 19 are compared the settlements obtained from the empirical analysis
and from 2D modelling, at the same values of volume loss of 1.3 %, and 1.0 %,
respectively. The settlement given by 2D modelling is greater than that of empirical
formula.

Table 18: Comparison of settlement results between empirical methods and 2D

analysis, VL = 1.3 % (using wet density of soil)

O'Reilly & New

2D Plaxis
(1982)/Mair et al
modelling
(1996) formula

Max settlement (mm) 9 82

Volume loss (%) 1.30 1.3
(k=0.338)

157
Table 19: Comparison of settlement results between empirical methods and 2D
analysis, VL = 1.0 % (using dry density of soil)
Mair et al (1996) 2D Plaxis
formula modelling
Max settlement (mm) 7 64
Volume loss (%) 1.00 1.01
(k=0.338)

Lining forces
Normal force and bending moment in tunnel lining are shown in Figure 111. Extreme
axial force is -947.08 kN/m, extreme shear force is 110.80 kN/m, and extreme bending
moment is -329.78 kN/m. These member forces can be used to design the
reinforcement for the lining.

a) Axial forces b) Shear forces

158
 -2.50 0.00 2.50 5.00 7.50 10.00 12.50 15.00 17.50

7.50

5.00

2.50

0.00

-2.50

-5.00

Bending moment

c) Extreme bending moment -329.78 kNm/m

Figure 111: Axial forces a), shear forces b), and ending moment c) in the lining

Stress paths

A stress path represents the development of the stress state at a local point of the
geometry. The visualization of stress paths provides a valuable insight into local soil
behaviour. The stress paths of four points are shown in Figure 112: Point F at the
tunnel bottom, Point G on top of tunnel (crown), Point H on the side of tunnel
(haunch), and Point I near the ground surface.

Figure 112: Stress paths of different points

159
6.3.3 Face Stability by Plaxis 3D Tunnel

Tunnel heading stability, ground deformation/surface settlements, and loads on lining

are the three main focuses of tunnel analyses (Vermeer, 2001).
The shield tunnel construction can be modelled as a stepwise process. During the
erection of the tunnel lining the tunnel boring machine (TBM) remains stationary.
Once a tunnel lining ring has been fully erected, excavation is resumed, until enough
soil has been excavated to erect the next lining ring. As a result, the construction
process can be divided in construction stages (slices) with a length approximately
equal to a tunnel ring.
The excavation process in each staged construction phase is: the support pressure at the
tunnel face needed to prevent active failure at the face, the conical shape of the TBM
shield, the excavation of the soil and pore water within the TBM, the installation of the
tunnel lining and the grouting of the gap between the soil and the newly installed lining
(Figure 113).

contraction of shield

grout TBM
final lining pressure
face pressure

Figure 113: Construction stages of a shield tunnel

Although runs of the 3D phased excavation of a shield tunnel with limited excavation
steps can only be completed in approximately several hours, it is worth performing,
considering the value of the information it is able to provide and the complexity of the
model.
However, in this subsection only the stability of the tunnel face will be investigated.
Only the TBM is included in the model and the tunnel lining is not modelled. The
purpose is to search for the minimum face pressure that is required to keep the tunnel
heading stable by lowering the original face pressure until collapse occurs.

160
6.3.3.1 Geometry
In the model, again only one symmetric half is included, but it is the left half in this
case. The model is 40.0 m wide, it extends 55.0 m in the z-direction and it is 52.0 m
deep. With these dimensions (over three times of tunnel diameter in three directions),
the model is sufficiently large to allow for any possible collapse mechanism to develop
and to avoid any influence from the model boundaries.
The tunnel excavation process is simulated in one excavation stage. The interaction
between the TBM and the soil is modelled by means of an interface. The tunnel face
pressure is modelled by means of a z-load, which is applied in the excavation stage.

Boundary conditions
Standard fixities function of the program will generate full fixities at the bottom,
vertical rollers at the vertical sides and rotation fixities at the ends of the tunnel. The
geometry model is shown in Figure 114.

Figure 114: Geometry model in the Input window

Material properties
The material properties of the soil clusters and other geometry objects are entered in
data sets. Interface properties are included in the data sets for soil.
In addition to the material data sets for soil and interfaces, a data set of the plate type is
created for the TBM, with the properties as given in Table 20.

161
Table 20: Material properties of the TBM
TBM Parameters Name Value Unit
Type of behaviour Material type Elastic -
Axial/Normal stiffness EA 12,600,000 kN/m
Flexural rigidity
EI 85,000 kNm2/m
(bending stiffness)
Equivalent thickness d 0.285 m
Weight w 50.77 kN/m/m
Poisson's ratio ν 0.00 -

Mesh generation
The 2D mesh should be made fully satisfactory before proceeding to the 3D mesh
extension. The basic volume elements of the 3D finite element mesh are the 15-node
wedge elements. In addition to the basic volume elements, there are special elements
for structural behaviour (plates, geogrids and anchors). PLAXIS allows for a fully
automatic generation of 2D finite element meshes and a semi-automatic generation of
3D meshes.
The standard very coarse mesh is used first. 2D mesh is shown in Figure 116. Model:
plane strain; Elements: 6-noded; number of elements: 68; number of nodes: 170;
number of stress points: 204.

Figure 115: 2D finite element mesh

162
3D mesh is shown in Figure 116. Model: 3D parallel planes; Elements: 15-noded
wedge; number of elements: 612; number of nodes: 2168; number of stress points:
3672.

Figure 116: 3D finite element mesh

Initial conditions
The initial conditions of the current project require the generation of water pressures
and the generation of initial stresses. The generation of water pressures (i.e. pore
pressures and water pressures on external boundaries) is based on the input of phreatic
levels of 17.5 m (Figure 117). The initial stresses are generated by means of the K0-
procedure (Figure 118).

163
 Figure 117: Active pore pressures (initial)

Figure 118: Effective mean stresses (initial)

6.3.3.2 Calculations
We concentrate on the tunnel heading stability and consider that the TBM has already
advanced its own length (11.35 m) into the soil. The first construction phase will
consist of the excavation of the soil to allow the installation of the TBM, the

164
application of the TBM itself, the lowering of the water level in the TBM, the
application of the tunnel face pressure and the application of contraction to simulate
the fact that the TBM is conical towards its tail (0.5 %). The adapted material sets
(with reduced interface friction and adhesion) are assigned to the first slice in which
the tunnel is excavated.
The tunnel face pressure needs to be applied to the face of the TBM, and is maintained
by a fluid (bentonite) with a unit weight of 14.0 kN/m3. The tunnel face pressure is
120.0 kN/m2 in the negative z-direction at the top of the tunnel (+6.49 m) and 302.0
kN/m2 at the bottom (-6.49 m). The pressure gradient is 14.0 kN/m2/m. A reference
ordinate yref of +6.49 m (corresponding to the top of the tunnel), a reference pressure
pref of -120.0 kN/m2 and a pressure increment pinc of -14.0 kN/m2/m are introduced.
A contraction value will be introduced to model a shortening of the tunnel shell and
thus a reduction of the tunnel radius during the calculation, i.e., to simulate the soil
volume loss around the tunnel due to overcutting, conicity of the TBM, or any other
cause. The value of contraction defines the cross section area reduction as a percentage
of the whole tunnel cross section area. Here, the tail of the TBM will be given a
contraction of 0.5% to simulate the conicity of the TBM.
Inside of the tunnel will be set dry in the first excavation phase. Active pore pressures
are given in Figure 119.

Figure 119: Active pore pressures in the first excavation phase

165
The minimum required tunnel face pressure can be found by reducing the tunnel face
pressure until the tunnel heading collapses. Calculation type is 3D plastic. Calculation
phase 2 starts from Phase 1. All loads defined as load system A (in this case only the
Z-Load representing the tunnel face pressure), will gradually be reduced to 0.
Several nodes and stress points will be selected for a later generation of load-
displacement curves and stress and strain diagrams. On the TBM workface plane are
chosen:
• Nodes for load-displacement curves: Point A is at the bottom, point B at tunnel
haunch, point C on top of tunnel and point D at the ground surface right above
the tunnel.
• Stress points for Stress/Strain curves: Point E is at the bottom, point F at tunnel
haunch, point G on top of tunnel and point H near the ground surface right
above the tunnel.
The first calculation phase should successfully finish (Figure 120). It can be seen that
the original face pressure is sufficiently high to keep the tunnel face stable. The
displacements at the tunnel face are very small. The largest deformations 30 mm occur
above the tail of the TBM. This is due to the applied contraction.

Figure 120: Deformed mesh at the end of phase 1

The total and incremental values of the realised contraction can be seen from Figure
121. The total realised contraction of 0.52 % almost corresponds to the input value of
0.5 %.

166
 Figure 121: Realized value of contraction, at Front Plane (left) and Face Plane (right)

The second calculation phase should not successfully finish, because the Prescribed
ultimate state not reached, and Soil body collapses (Figure 122).

Figure 122: Finish of the calculation phases

167
The Multipliers parameter Σ-MloadA has reached a value of 0.9058, so the minimum
tunnel face pressure required to prevent failure is 0.9058 x 120.0 = 108.7 kN/m2 at the
top and 0.9058 x 302.0 = 273.3 kN/m2 at the bottom of the tunnel. This gives an idea
about the safety of the tunnel heading against active failure.
The total displacement is 31 mm.

Safety Analysis
It is important to consider not only the final stability, but also the stability during
construction. The stability against failure can be defined by means of a safety factor. A
safety factor can be defined as the ratio of the available shear strength to the computed
minimum strength required for equilibrium:
Savailable
Safety factor =
Sneeded for equilibrium

By introducing the standard Coulomb condition, the safety factor is obtained as:
c + σ n tan ϕ
Safety factor =
cr + σ n tan ϕr

Where c and ϕ are the input strength parameters and σn is the actual normal stress
component. The parameters cr and ϕr are reduced strength parameters that are just
large enough to maintain equilibrium. The principle described above is the basis of the
method of Phi-c reduction that can be used in PLAXIS to calculate a global safety
factor. In this approach the cohesion and the tangent of the friction angle are reduced
in the same proportion:
c tan ϕ
= = ΣMsf
cr tan ϕ r
The reduction of strength parameters is controlled by the total multiplier ΣMsf. This
parameter is increased in a step-by-step procedure until failure occurs (calculation
phase 3). The safety factor is then defined as the value of ΣMsf at failure.
To calculate the global safety factor for the situation of the original face pressure, the
first increment of the multiplier for strength reduction (Msf ) is preset to 0.1.
The deformations obtained for the second and the third phase will be shown below for
comparison. Both the second and the third phase represent a collapse situation. The
second phase (face pressure reduction) shows the soil locally moving inwards (Fig.
123), whereas the third phase (phi-c reduction) shows a chimney-like failure
mechanism reaching to the ground level (Fig. 124).

168
 Figure 123: Displacement increments at the end of Phase 2 (face pressure reduction)

Figure 124: Displacement increments at the end of Phase 3 (Phi-c reduction)

The development of the Σ-MloadA multiplier and the development of the Σ-Msf
multiplier can be viewed in Figure 125 and Figure 126.
Figure 125 shows that, in the second phase, ΣMloadA reaches a value of 0.9058, at
which large inward movements of the tunnel face occur.
Figure 126 shows that, in the third phase, ΣMsf (may be regarded as a global safety
factor) reaches a value of 2.027, at which large inward movements of the tunnel face
occur.

169
However, in this type of application the procedure of phi-c reduction does not give a
realistic safety factor. This is because the problem is very much dominated by the
tunnel face pressure, which is not reduced in the phi-c reduction procedure. The
method of phi-c reduction is much more applicable for embankment or slope stability
problems, and does give a realistic safety factor in such cases.

Figure 125: Development of Sum-MloadA as a function of the displacements

170
 Figure 126: Development of Sum-Msf as a function of the displacements

Concluding notes
It should be noted, that this type of tunnel face stability can only be justified if the
material properties of the TBM are correctly given by the machine manufacturer.
In order to avoid mistakes in the modelling of face stability as well as phased
excavation of a shield tunnel with the use of Plaxis 3D Tunnel program, it is desirable
to:
• prescribe enough displacements on active mesh;
• avoid very slender elements;
• refine around tunnel(s); and
• reduce stiffness differences.

6.4 Summary

Surface settlements were predicted for the tunnel to be excavated in the section of Km
33+480 to 33+800 of BEG project line using both empirical and numerical prediction
methods.

171
With the analytical methods, different empirical formulae result in different
settlements with the same volume loss.
2D analysis presented the bigger values of settlement with the same volume loss.
However, these may give some useful indications before construction begins.
Although 3D analysis of face stability gave out a total settlement of 31 mm, it is
unsuitable to make a comparison with the aforementioned results, since it did not
account for staged excavation and grouting pressure as well as lining installation.

Limitations of the analytical/empirical methods are that, they are specific to soil type
and unable to account for soil-lining interaction. Empirical methods may be useless for
the complex structural configurations. Actual construction works commonly comprise
a variety of intersecting excavations where tunnels may change diameter (e.g. stations)
and where cross connecting adits occur. It is often difficult to readily calculate
important 3D ground movements at these complex locations.
Limitations of the numerical method are that, when modelling the shield tunnelling
problem in 2D, the extrusion of the face may hardly be modelled directly, and the users
may have to rely on some "tricks" during generating the mesh and base on
approximations of the lining behaviour. Phased construction also has never been
exactly modelled. For 2D FE models, it is not so easy to estimate pre-relaxation
factors (sometimes called stress reduction factors), which is fraction of load effecting
on tunnels, and purely based on practical experience.
The Plaxis software's assumption that the contraction of the tunnel lining (applied to
simulate the ground loss) by itself does not introduce forces in the lining is somewhat
artificial. It could be interesting if some correlation is made to the load reduction
method and the stiffness reduction method used for taking into account 3D effects in
2D analyses (Schweiger et al, 1997). Also, one can have recourse to the explanation of
Augarde et al, in that the hoop shrinkage is achieved by the application of a suitable set
of radial forces within the tunnel liner. The process leads to fictitious stresses within
the liner, but the liner is elastic and so this does not affect the way in which the ground
and the liner interact.
The two methods can be used together for a given project to cross-check one another.
The FEM is a strong tool but it still depends on the qualification of the users, not
including specific adaptations or approximations. And it is vital that the output from
the analysis is checked carefully. It is hoped that the future developments and
enhancement of the presently available specialist codes will help to address the
outstanding problems.

172
Chapter 7
7. Conclusions and Future Work

Conclusions
In preparation of this final project, the author has investigated both theoretical and
practical aspects of interactions within TBM excavations as well as interfaces between
TBM and lining. The theoretical part attempted to make clear a number of critical
points that have to be paid due attention in the design and construction of tunnels.
Numeral calculations have been conducted to illustrate the theoretical part. In review
of the report, a few points are recapped below.
• A rather comprehensive investigation has been performed on the interface
between TBM and lining, from a practical engineering standpoint, which helps
to make clear many outstanding issues relating to TBM tunnels design,
construction and project management.
• High performance TBMs are essential for the successful construction of tunnel
projects. The TBMs will be purpose built machines using proven “state of the
art” technology and designed specifically for the project to a minimum
specification to ensure their reliability in terms of performance and settlement
control. They should be designed to cater for the range of ground conditions
anticipated.
• Given the advances in tunnelling technology today, tunnels can be excavated in
virtually all types of soil and environment, but there are still numerous
unknown parameters. One of the most important is the knowledge of the ground
through which the tunnel will be routed. Therefore, geotechnical design should
be based on adequate geotechnical investigation, then data evaluation provided,
and monitoring program elaborated.
• Risk management procedures should be provided for to cover all the possible
risks; prepare measures to deal with that risks including corresponding cost
estimate. Risks have to be considered from the first steps of the tunnel project,
through installation process to its operation. Budget for risk management
should be allocated and defined in tender documents and contract requirements.
• For the purpose of understanding and managing the surface settlement, the
problem of face stability has been reviewed. Countermeasures to ground failure
due to urban tunnelling are also given, with the particular use of grouted bodies.
A case history of Metro Torino has been presented to show the application of
those grout-consolidated slabs.

173
 • Ground settlements caused by shielded tunnelling operations have been
examined with both analytical and numerical approaches, then results
compared. Face heading stability has also been analyzed by 3D numerical tool.
Numerous parameter studies have helped the author to gain a critical view on
the use of the available approaches. Semi-empirical methods must be applied
with caution, and finite element analysis with geomechanical software must be
used toward an effective way.

Recommendations for future studies

• Simulation of the subsidence induced by the excavation of single, twin tunnels
or even more complex configurations, taking into account the presence of
surface structures or structures within the zone of influence of the tunnels. A
clear presentation of the effects of tunnelling on overlying structures is
obviously the next step to pursue.
• Design of segmental concrete linings for tunnels in soft soils using 3-D
numerical modelling, with the reasonable consideration of soil-structure
(ground-lining) interaction. It would be useful if different commercial packages
such as PLAXIS, FLAC, Phase2, etc. are used together with analytical methods
to compare and validate the respective results.
• Otherwise, study in the feasible alternatives for the realization of deep and long
tunnels coming from various markets, such as the railway link beneath the
Strait of Gibraltar, which have an essential need for implementation of flexible
responses due to observations and definitely involves the discussed critical
interfaces, both contractually and technically.

174
List of Acronyms

ENGLISH
ABI : Association of British Insurers
ACI : American Concrete Institute
ANN : Artificial Neural Networks
AR : Advance Rate
BOQ : Bill Of Quantities
BS : British Standards
BTS : British Tunnelling Society
CBP : Controlled Boring Process
CEVP : Cost Estimate Validation Process
CHD : Cutter Head Drive
CLI : Cutter Life Index
COE : U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
CSI : Computers and Structures, Inc.
D&B : Drill & Blast / Drilling and Blasting method
DAT : Decision Aids in Tunnelling
DRB : Disputes Review Board
DSC : Differing Site Condition
DSU : Double Shield Universal
DTA : Designed Tunnel Axis
ELS : Electronic Laser System
EPB : Earth Pressure Balance
EPBM/EPBS : Earth Pressure Balance Machine/Shield
EPDM : Ethylen-Propylen-Dien Material
EPFL : Ecole Politechnique Fédérale de Lausanne
EU : European Union
FEM : Finite Element Method
FER : Foam Expansion Ratio
FIR : Foam Injection Ratio/Rate
FLAC : Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua
GBR : Geotechnical Baseline Report
GIS : Geographical Information System
GTS : Gyro Tunnelling System
HM : Hand Mining
HS : Hardening Soil model
ICE : Institution of Civil Engineers
IMIA : International Association of Engineering Insurers
ITA-AITES : International Tunnelling Association - Association
Internationale des Travaux en Souterrain
ITIG : International Tunnelling Insurance Group
JSCE : Japan Society of Civil Engineers
MFS : Multi-circular Face Shield
MIT : Massachusetts Institute of Technology
MT : Mechanized Tunnelling
NATM : New Austrian Tunnelling Method
NMT : Norwegian Method of Tunnelling
PLAXIS : PLasticity AXISymmetry
PR : Penetration Rate
QA/QC : Quality Assurance/Quality Control
RMP : Risk Management Plan
RPM : Revolutions Per Minute
RQD : Rock Quality Designation
SCL : Sprayed Concrete Lining
SFRC : Steel Fiber Reinforced Concrete
SM : Shield Machine
SRF : Stress Reduction Factor
SS : Soft Soil model
TBM : Tunnel Boring Machine
TEN : Trans-European Transport Network
UCS : Uniaxial Compressive Strength
VAL : Automated Light Vehicle
WSDOT : Washington Department of Transportation
 FRENCH
AFTES : Association Française des Travaux en Souterrain (French
Association of Tunnels and Underground Space)
FIDIC : Fédération Internationale des Ingéniers-Conseils (International
Federation of Consulting Engineers)

GERMAN
AVN : Automatischer Vortrieb Naß (Automatic/remote controlled
Wet/slurry Driving/tunnelling machine)
BEG : Brenner Eisenbahn GmbH (Brenner Railway Ltd.)
: Deutscher Ausschuß für unterirdisches Bauen (German
DAUB
Committee for Underground Construction)
: Deutsches Institut für Normung e.V. (German Institute for
DIN
Standardadization, registered society)
ÖBB : Österreichisches Bundesbahn (Austrian Federal Railway)
Österreichisches Normungsinstitut (Austrian Standards
ÖNORM :
Institute)

ITALIAN
ADECO-RS : Analisi delle Deformazioni Controllate nelle Rocce e nei Suoli
(Analysis of Controlled Deformation in Rocks and Soils)
COREP : Consorzio per la Ricerca a l’Educazione Permanente
(Consortium for the Research and Permanent Education)
GTT : Gruppo Torinese Trasporti (Turin Transportation Group)
RFI : Rete Ferroviaria Italiana SpA (Italian Railway Network; or
National Railway Infrastructure Administration)
: Società Esecuzione Lavori Idraulici S.p.A. (Hydraulic Works
SELI
Construction Company)
SIG : Società Italiana Gallerie (Italian Tunnelling Society)
S.p.A : Società per Azioni (Joint stock company)

RUSSIAN
СНиП (SNiP) : Строительные Нормы и Правила (Construction standards
and regulations)
References

[1] AFTES (1995) Settlements induced by tunnelling. Association Française des

Travaux en Souterrain (The French Association of Tunnels and Underground
Space).
[2] AFTES (1999). Recommendation for the design, sizing and construction of
precast concrete segments installed at the rear of a tunnel boring machine
(TBM). The French Association of Tunnels and Underground Space.
[3] AFTES 2000. New recommendations on Choosing mechanized tunnelling
techniques. French Tunnelling and Underground Engineering Association.
[4] Anagnostou G., Kovari K. (1994). The Face Stability of Slurry-shield-driven
Tunnels. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, Volume 9, Issue 2,
165-174.
[5] Andreossi E. 2001. Costs - The Insurers Point of View. International Centre for
Geotechnics and Underground Construction (CUC). BEMA, Switzerland.
[6] Arrigoni G.A. 2006. Project management - Contractual and legislative aspects.
Lecture at Master Course in Tunnelling and TBMs, Edition V 2005-2006,
Politecnico di Torino, Italia.
[7] Assis A. P. 2006 - Examples of Underground Excavations in Rock (Part 1);
Gibraltar Strait Crossing (Part 4). Lecture series at Master Course in Tunnelling
and TBMs, Edition V 2005-2006, Politecnico di Torino, Italia.
[8] Augarde C.E., Burd H.J. and Houlsby G.T. Some experiences of modelling
tunnelling in soft ground using three-dimensional finite elements. 4th European
Conference on Numerical Methods in Geotechnical Engineering.
[9] Barla G. 1998. Tunnelling under squeezing rock conditions. Department of
Structural and Geotechnical Engineering, Politecnico di Torino, Italia.
[10] Barla G. & Pelizza S. 2000. TBM tunnelling in difficult ground conditions. Proc.
GeoEng2000, Melbourne.
[11] Barton N., 1999b: TBM performance estimation in rock using QTBM. Tunnels &
Tunnelling, September 1999, pp. 30-34.
[12] Barton N. TBM tunnelling in jointed and faulted rock. Taylor & Francis; 1
edition (January 1, 2000).
[13] Barton N. 2006. Rock Engineering with Q. Series of 5 Lectures at Master Course
in Tunnelling and TBMs, Edition V 2005-2006, Politecnico di Torino, Italia.
[14] BEG (Brenner Eisenbahn GmbH - Ein Unternehmen der ÖBB). Brenner Railway
Axis Tunnels, Bau-Information 2005. http://www.beg.co.at/.
[15] Beil A., Horny U. (2005). Design of Final Lining on BEG Railway Project - high
speed railway in Inn valley. Seminar on Tunnel Final Lining - Design,
Construction, Maintenance, Praha, Czech Republic.
[16] Bickel J. O., Kuesel T. R., and King E. H. (1996) Tunnel Engineering
Handbook. Second Edition, Chapman & Hall, ITP 1996.
[17] Brinkgreve R.B.J., Vermeer P.A. et al (1998). Plaxis, Version 7, Complete set of
manuals, Finite element code for soil and rock analyses. PLAXIS B.V. A.A.
Balkema Publisher.
[18] Brinkgreve R.B.J., Vermeer P.A. (2001). Plaxis 3D Tunnel, Version 1, Complete
set of manuals, Finite element code for soil and rock analyses. PLAXIS B.V.
A.A. Balkema Publishers.
[19] Chiriotti E. & Romano M. 2006. Ground and surface monitoring in urban
environment. PART 3 & 7 - Methods for predicting settlements and deformations
due to tunnelling. Turin-based GEODATA Spa. Lectures at Master Course in
Tunnelling and TBMs, Edition V, Politecnico di Torino, Italia.
[20] COE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). Tunnels and shafts in rock, 1997.
[21] Concilia M. 2005. Construction of Lot 5 of the Turin Metro Line 2 Tunnel.
"Injection of fines into the cutterhead chamber extends the ground range of
application of EPB TBMs". FELSBAU_2005.
[22] Concilia M. 2006. Hard Rock Tunnelling - TBM types, Facilities and work sites
organization. SELI S.p.A, Lectures at the Master Course in Tunnelling and
TBMs, Edition V, Politecnico di Torino, Italia, Feb.
[23] Cross London Rail Links Ltd. 2005. D12 - Ground Settlement. Crossrail Bill
supporting documents. Available on the websites http://www.crossrail.co.uk/;
http://billdocuments.crossrail.co.uk/
[24] Crova R. 2006. Example of Turin Metro Line 1. Gruppo Torinese Trasporti
(GTT), Lectures at the Master Course in Tunnelling and TBMs, Edition V,
Politecnico di Torino, Italia, April.
[25] Dal Negro E. 2006. Backfill grout. UTT Mapei, Lecture at the Master Course in
Tunnelling and TBMs, Edition V, Politecnico di Torino, Italia, Feb.
[26] Duddeck H. (ed.) (1988). Guidelines for the design of tunnels. ITA Working
Group on General Approaches to the Design of Tunnels. Tunneling and
Underground Space Technology 3, pp 237-249.
[27] Eisenstein Z. The Future of Mechanized Tunnelling: Introduction to the ITA
Open Session at the Toronto Congress 1989. Tust_Vol_6_2_167-189.
[28] Ercelebi S.G., Copur H., Bilgin N. & Feridunoglu C. Surface settlement
prediction for Istanbul metro tunnels via 3D FE and empirical methods.
Underground Space Use: Analysis of the Past and Lessons for the Future –
Erdem & Solak (eds) © 2005 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 04 1537
452 9.
[29] Franzius J. N. 2003. Behaviour of buildings due to tunnel induced subsidence.
Doctoral thesis. University of London.
[30] Garshol K.F. 2003. Pre-Excavation Grouting in Rock Tunneling. MBT
International Underground Construction Group, Division of MBT (Switzerland)
Ltd.
[31] Grandori, R., De Biase, A., Busillo, A., Ciamei, A. 2003. Turin Metro System -
Design and Operation of EPB-TBMs beyond the Limits of this Technology.
Felsbau 21(6): 34-42.
[32] Grasso P. 2001. Risk analysis for long tunnels at great depth - Works Planning
& Financing Engineering - Design of the Safety and Smoke Control System.
ITA-WG17.
[33] Grasso, P., Mahtab, M., Kalamaras, G. & Einstein, H. 2002. On the Development
of a Risk Management Plan for Tunnelling. Proc. AITES-ITA Downunder 2002,
World Tunnel Congress, Sydney, March.
[34] Grasso P.G. 2006. Requirements for Deep and Long Tunnels. International
Seminar on Tunnels and Underground Works. LNEC, Lisbon, 29-30 June 2006.
[35] Gruebl F. 2006. Driving of full face machines. Lecture at Master Course in
Tunnelling and TBMs, Edition V, Politecnico di Torino, Italia.
[36] Gruebl F. 2006. Modern design aspects of segmental lining. International
Seminar on TUNNELS AND UNDERGROUND WORKS. LNEC, Lisbon, 29 -
30 of June 2006.
[37] Haack A. 1996. Comparison between conventional tunnel driving method and
TBM drives. Worldwide demand of tunnel constructions. Tunnel Boring
Machines - Trends in Design and Construction of Mechanized Tunnelling.
Hagenberg Austria 14-15 Dec. 1995, Wagner & Schulter (eds), pp. 89-98.
Balkema/Rotterdam 1996.
[38] Haack A. 2003. Technical options for fireproof tunnel linings - Limits,
advantages and disadvantages of the various solutions. 1° Congresso Brasileiro
De Túneis E Estruturas Subterrâneas. Semináriointernacional South American
Tunnelling.
[39] IMIA-wgp18. Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM) applications in soft ground
conditions. IMIA (International Association of Engineering Insurers) Meeting
2001, Sydney.
[40] ITA-WG14. 2000. Recommendations and Guidelines for Tunnel Boring
Machines (TBMs). International Tunnelling Association, Working Group No. 14
- Mechanized Tunnelling.
[41] ITA-WG2. 2000. Guidelines for the Design of Shield Tunnel Lining.
International Tunnelling Association, Working Group No. 2 - Research.
[42] ITA-WG2. 2004. Guidelines for tunnelling risk management. International
Tunnelling Association, Working Group No. 2 - Research.
[43] ITIG - EP24. A Code of Practice for Risk Management of Tunnel Works.
International Tunnelling Insurance Group. Jan. 2006.
[44] JSCE 1996. Japanese standard for shield tunnelling. Japan Society of Civil
Engineers. The third edition.
[45] Kochen R. 1992. Pre - Supported Soft Ground Tunnels. Canadian Tunnelling.
An Annual Publication of the Tunnelling Association of Canada.
[46] Kovari K., Anagnostou G. 1996. Face stability in slurry and EPB shield
tunnelling. Proc Int. Symp. on Geotechnical Aspects of Underground
Construction in Soft Ground, City University, Balkema, 453-458.
[47] Kovari K. 1998. Tunnelbau in druckhaftem Gebirge / Tunneling in Squeezing
Rock. Tunnel 5/1998.
[48] Kovari K., Ramoni M. 2004. Urban tunnelling in soft ground using TBM's. Key
note lecture at International Congress on Mechanized Tunnelling: Challenging
Case Histories. Politecnico di Torino, Italy – 16-19 November 2004.
[49] Leca E., Dormieux L. 1990. Upper and lower bound solutions for the face
stability of shallow circular tunnels in frictional material. Géotechnique,
Volume 40, No. 4, pp. 581-606.
[50] Leca E., Leblais Y. & Kuhnhenn K. 2001. Underground works in soils and soft
rock tunneling.
[51] Maidl B., Herrenknecht M., Anheuser L. Mechanized Shield Tunnelling. Ernst &
Sons, 1996.
[52] Mair R.J., Taylor R.N. and Burland J.B. (1996). Prediction of ground movements
and assessment of risk of building damage due to bored tunnelling. In: Proc. of
the Int. Symp. on Geotech. Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft
Ground, 713-718, Balkema, Rotterdam.
[53] Mansour M.A.M. Three-dimensional numerical modelling of hydroshield
tunnelling. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Innsbruck, 1996.
[54] Martins J.B. 2001. A Short Survey on Construction Problems and Numerical
Modelling of Shallow Tunnels. Depart. Eng. Civil, Universidade do Minho, 4800
Guimarães, Portugal. Engenharia Civil - UM, Número 11, 2001.
[55] Mayreder Consult (D2 Consult). Paris EOLE - Est Ouest Liaison Express - Lot
35 B. CONEX® - Tunnel Lining System. Structural analysis. 1993.
[56] Muir Wood A. M., Fischer H. C., Girnau G., Lemley J., Broch E., Kirkland C.,
Eisenstein Z., Pelizza S., Haack A. Past, Present and Future of Tunnelling.
Published in "1974 - 1999 ITA - AITES 25 Years", pp. 1 - 50, Year 1999 by ITA
- AITES, www.ita-aites.org.
[57] Munich Reinsurance Company 2004. Underground transportation systems,
Chances and risks from the reinsurer’s point of view.
[58] New B.M, O'Reilly M.P. 1991. Tunnelling induced ground movements;
predicting their magnitude and effects. J.D. Geddes Ground movements and
structures, Proc. of 4th International Conference, University of Wales College of
Cardiff 1991, London. Pentech Press, 1992. pp. 671-697.
[59] Oggeri C. 2006. Tunnel monitoring. Lecture at Postgraduate master course in
Tunnelling and Tunnel Boring Machines, V Edition 2005-06, Politecnico di
Torino, Italia.
[60] Oreste P.P., Peila D. and Poma A. 1999. Numerical Study of Low Depth Tunnel
Behaviour. Proc. Int. World Tunnel Congress ’99, Oslo, pp. 155-162.
[61] Palmström A. & Broch E. 2006. Use and misuse of rock mass classification
systems with particular reference to the Q-system. (Unpublished).
[62] Parker H. W. 1999. Geotechnical investigations for tunnels. AFTES - Journées
d’études internationales de PARIS - 25 au 28 octobre 1999.
[63] Parker H. W. 2005. Risks and Choices are plentiful - George Fox Seminar
[64] Peck R.B. (1969). Deep excavations and tunneling in soft ground. Proceedings
7th International Conference. Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
Mexico, State-of-the-Art Volume, pp. 225-290.
[65] Peila D. 2006. Guidelines for tunnelling design and construction. Postgraduate
master course in Tunnelling and Tunnel Boring Machines, V Edition 2005-06,
Politecnico di Torino, Italia.
[66] Peila D. 2006. Ground reinforcing in tunnelling. Postgraduate master course in
Tunnelling and Tunnel Boring Machines, V Edition 2005-06, Politecnico di
Torino, Italia.
[67] Pelizza S. 2006. General aspects of tunnel construction. Postgraduate master
course in Tunnelling and Tunnel Boring Machines, V Edition 2005-06,
Politecnico di Torino, Italia.
[68] Pelizza S. and Peila D. 2006. Rock TBM Tunnelling. Postgraduate master course
in Tunnelling and Tunnel Boring Machines, V Edition 2005-06, Politecnico di
Torino, Italia.
[69] Pescara M. (2005). Dimensioning of segmental lining. Geodata Spa. (Turin-
based). Postgraduate master course in Tunnelling and Tunnel Boring Machines,
V Edition 2005-06, Politecnico di Torino, Italia.
[70] Plizzari G. A., Tiberti G. 2006. Fibers for Concrete Reinforcement. Lectures at
Master Course in Tunnelling and TBMs, Edition V 2005-2006, Politecnico di
Torino, Italia.
[71] Rehm U. 2006. Global Overview of Shields Machines. Postgraduate master
course in Tunnelling and Tunnel Boring Machines, V Edition 2005-06,
Politecnico di Torino, Italia.
[72] Reilly J.J. 2005. Cost estimating and risk management for underground projects.
Proc. International Tunneling Association Conference, Istanbul, May 2005.
[73] Schulter A. (1996). The importance of geometry for computer controlled
segment erection. Tunnel Boring Machines - Trends in Design and Construction
of Mechanized Tunnelling. Hagenberg Austria 1995, Wagner & Schulter (eds),
pp. 89-98. Balkema/Rotterdam.
[74] Schweiger H.F., Schuller H. & Pöttler R. 1997. Some remarks on 2-D-models for
numerical simulation of underground constructions with complex cross section.
Computer methods and Advances in Geomechanics, Yuan (ed.) Balkema,
Rotterdam.
[75] Suwansawat S., Einstein H.H., 2006. Artificial neural networks for predicting
the maximum surface settlement caused by EPB shield tunneling. Tunnelling and
Underground Space Technology 21 (2006) 133–150.
[76] Swoboda G. and Mansour M. (1996). Three-dimensional numerical modelling of
slurry shield tunnelling. Tunnel Boring Machines - Trends in Design and
Construction of Mechanized Tunnelling. Hagenberg Austria 1995, Wagner &
Schulter (eds), pp. 89-98. Balkema/Rotterdam.
[77] Swoboda G. and Abu-Krisha A. (1999). Three-dimensional numerical modelling
for TBM tunnelling in consolidated clay. Tunnelling and Underground Space
Technology 14(3), 327 - 333.
[78] Vermeer P.A. (2001). On a smart use of 3D-FEM in tunnelling. Plaxis Bulletin
(11), 2-7.
[79] Wagner H. 2003. Design aspects of mechanical excavation. Scavo Meccanizzato
di Gallerie, Master Universitario di II Livello, Politecnico di Torino, Italia.
[80] Wagner H. 2005. Tunnels for Tomorrow in Soils, Rock and Water.
Documentation of Publications on Tunnel Design and Construction. (Tunnels für
Morgen in Boden, Fels und Wasser. Eine Dokumentation von Publikationen über
Planung und Bau von Tunnels von Harald Wagner). Jan. 2005.
[81] Wagner H. 2006. Contractual aspects and work site management. Lecture at
Master Course in Tunnelling and TBMs, Edition V, Politecnico di Torino, Italia.
[82] Wagner H. 2006. Examples of Lining Design in Mechanized Tunnelling. Lecture
at Master Course in Tunnelling and TBMs, Edition V, Politecnico di Torino,
Italia.
[83] Walter A., Brasser J.P., Lemmerer J. and Lutz H. 2005. Optimization of the
lining segments of a double shell railway tunnel. Felsbau - Rock and Soil
Engineering No.6/Nov. 2005.
 Appendix 1A

EOLE Lot 35B Project

Paris / France

Years of construction: 1992 - 1995.

The subway line (EOLE) is running 35 m deep under the city center of Paris.

Job description
Detail design and construction consultancy for an innerurban railway tunnel which
connects the two stations of “St. Lazare - Condorcet” and “Nord - Est”.
The tunnel has a length of 2 x 1.670 m, an inner diameter of 6.4 m, a segment thickness
of 35 cm and an overburden between 22 m and 28 m.

Services provided by D2-Consult for DG Construction Paris

- Detailed design of tunnel lining
- Geometry of regular cross section
- Alignment study by ring rotations
- Segment installation sequences
- Joint Configurations
- Segment dimension - "Mould" drawings
- Segment reinforcement
- Structural analysis
- Thrust jacking loads
- Trailer loads
- Secondary grouting
- Eccentricity during segment installation
- Construction consultancy on site
- Analysis of segment quality
- Twisting of segments
- Offsets in circumferential joints
- Observation of segment installation and recommendations
Back analysis of the segmental ring elements of one pass lining for 2 TBM connecting
tunnels, 1.700 m length and 6.4 m inner diameter. Tunnels are excavated 30 m beneath
the surface. Transition structure is located on the level of Saint-Ouen limestone as well as
water saturated Beauchamp sands. Connecting tunnels are crossing successive horizons
of marl, gravel and heavy limestone beneath the ground water table.
Appendix 1B

EOLE LOT 35 B / FRANCE

INNERURBAN RAILWAY TUNNEL
OWNER: SNCF

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
DETAIL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION CONSULTANCY FOR AN
INNERURBAN RAILWAY TUNNEL WHICH CONNECTS THE TWO
STATIONS OF ”ST.LAZARE - CONDORCET“ AND ”NORD - EST”.
THE TUNNEL HAS A LENGTH OF 2X1.670M, AN INNER DIAMETER
OF 6,4 M, A SEGMENT THICKNESS OF 35CM AND AN
OVERBURDEN BETWEEN 22M AND 28M.

PARIS SERVICES PROVIDED

- DETAILED DESIGN OF TUNNEL LINING
- GEOMETRY FO REGULAR CROSS SECTION
- ALIGNMENT STUDY BY RING ROTATIONS
- SEGMENT INSTALLATION SEQUENCES
- JOINT CONFIGURATIONS
- SEGMENT DIMENSION – ”MOULD” DRAWINGS
LOCATION - SEGMENT REINFORCEMENT
- STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS
- THRUST JACKING LOADS
- TRAILER LOADS
- SECONDARY GROUTING
- ECCENTRICITY DURING SEGMENT INSTALLATION
- CONSTRUCTION CONSULTANCY ON SITE
- ANALYSIS OF SEGMENT QUALITY
- TWISTING OF SEGMENTS
- OFFSETS IN CIRCUMFERENTIAL JOINTS
- OBSERVATION OF SEGMENT INSTALLATION AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

PERIOD OF WORK: 1992 - 1997

VOLUME OF WORK: 206.150 EURO

INSTALLATION OF A RHOMBOIDAL SEGMENT

TBM – POLYSHIELD TBM TUNNEL – CROSS SECTION

Appendix 2A

Boston Outfall Tunnel Project

Boston / USA

Owner Water Resources Authority Massachusetts

Client Sehulster Tunnels Inc. Concrete Systems Inc. JV

Contact: Mr. Joseph P. Sehulster, Tel. +1 603 8894-163

Project The tunnel underneath Boston Harbour and brings cleaned waste water from
the Deer Island treatment plant over discharger pipes to the open sea. The 55
outfall tunnel diffusers, located at regular intervals over the final 2km, were
drilled from the sea-bed and connections made by probe drilling from the
tunnel.
The main tunnel was driven by TBM through hard rock Cambridge Argillite and
lined with pre-cast concrete segments

Project Details Inner diameter 7.4 m

Tunnel length 14 km
Overburden 45 m
Segment thickness 25 cm

Services • Detailed lining design („Conex System“)

• Engineering for in-situ testing
• Construction consultancy

Period of Work 10/1990 – 12/1995

Volume of Work EUR 223,000

TBM Tunnel – segment supply

Appendix 2B

BOSTON EFFLUENT OUTFALL TUNNEL / USA

DETAILED DESIGN OF LINING SEGMENTS
OWNER: WATER RESOURCES AUTHORITY MASSACHUSETTS

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
TBM DRIVEN AND SEGMENTAL LINED WATER TUNNEL IN ARGELITIC
ROCK UNDERNEATH BOSTON HARBOUR.
INNER DIAMETER 7,40 M
BOSTON
LENGTH 14 KM
OVERBURDEN 45 M
SEGMENT THICKNESS 25 CM

SERVICES PROVIDED
- DETAILED LINING DESIGN CONEX SYSTEM
- ENGINEERING FOR IN-SITU TESTING
- CONSTRUCTION CONSULTANCY
PERIOD OF WORK: 10/1990 – 12/1995
VOLUME OF WORK: 223,000 EURO
LOCATION

CROSS SECTION LONGITUDINAL SECTION

SEGMENT SUPPLY SEGMENT WITH TIMBER DOWELS IN RING JOINT

Appendix 3

JACKING THRUST PRESSURE ON LINING, BEG TUNNEL

8 Segment Rings (5 rectangular, 2 Trapezoids, 1 Keystone)
Concrete Safety
Force per Pressure Factor in
Force per No. of Thrust Shoe Thrust Necessary
Type of Pressure Thrust on Thrust Compression C
Ring Shoes Dimentions Shoe Area Safety Factor
Shoe Shoe 50/60 fc = 500
[kg/cm2]
[-] [t] [-] [t] [cm] [cm2] [kg/cm2] [-] [-]
Installed advance pressure
10344.6 21 492.60 95 x 17 1615 305.0 1.64 1.5
(max. machine)
Excavation in Sand-Gravel
9051.5 21 431.02 95 x 17 1615 266.9 1.87 1.5
(max. force)
Excavation in Coarse
Gravel (approx. 60% of 5430.9 21 258.61 95 x 17 1615 160.1 3.12 2
max. force)
Excavation in Fine Gravel
(approx. 33% of max. 2987.0 21 142.24 95 x 17 1615 88.1 5.68 2
force)
Average Installation (15
315 21 15.00 95 x 17 1615 9.3 53.83 2
ton/dowel)
Remarks: Thrust shoe dimensions are supposed only as machine has not yet been officially delivered.
Appendix 4

BEG LOT H3-4. INPUT PARAMETERS FOR HARDENING SOIL MODEL

"GREEN-FIELD" CROS-SECTION
E-Modul
Volumetric Friction Dilactancy 2 Coefficient of
Real depth Cohesion c Poison's [MN/m ],
Soil Layer weight gamma angle φ angle ψ lateral stress
3 [m] [kN/m2] ratio νur f(z) =
γ [kN/m ] [deg] [deg] w Ko=1-sinφ
0.1v(0.13z)
GA_T1 21 21.8 0 37 0.20 0.000 0.398
GA_T1 21 21.3 0 37 0.20 6.311 0.398
GA_T1 21 20.8 0 37 0.20 9.903 0.398
GA_T1 21 20.3 0 37 0.20 12.889 0.398
GA_T1 21 19.8 0 37 0.20 15.540 0.398
GA_T1 21 19.3 0 37 0.20 17.965 0.398
GA_T1 21 18.8 0 37 0.20 20.226 0.398
GA_T1 21 18.3 0 37 0.20 22.357 0.398
GA_T1 21 17.8 0 37 0.20 24.384 0.398
GA_T1 21 17.3 0 37 0.20 26.325 0.398
GA_T1 21 16.8 0 37 0.20 28.190 0.398
GA_T1 21 16.3 0 37 0.20 29.992 0.398
GA_T1 21 15.8 0 37 0.20 31.737 0.398
GA_T1 21 15.3 0 37 0.20 33.432 0.398
GA_T2 21 14.3 0 37 0.20 36.691 0.398
GA_T2 21 13.3 0 37 0.20 39.801 0.398
GA_T2 21 12.3 0 37 0.20 42.785 0.398
GA_T2 21 11.3 0 37 0.20 45.661 0.398
GA_T2 21 10.3 0 37 0.20 48.442 0.398
GA_T2 21 9.3 0 37 0.20 51.140 0.398
GA_T3 21 8.8 0 37 0.20 52.461 0.398
GA_T3 21 8.3 0 37 0.20 53.764 0.398
GA_T3 21 7.8 0 37 0.20 55.050 0.398
GA_T3 21 7.3 0 37 0.20 56.320 0.398
GA_T3 21 5.8 0 37 0.20 60.041 0.398
GA_T3 21 4.3 0 37 0.20 63.642 0.398
GA_T3 21 2.8 0 37 0.20 67.137 0.398
GA_T3 21 1.3 0 37 0.20 70.536 0.398
GA_T3 21 -0.2 0 37 0.20 73.849 0.398
GA_T3 21 -1.2 0 37 0.20 76.014 0.398
GA_T3 21 -2.2 0 37 0.20 78.146 0.398
 BEG LOT H3-4. INPUT PARAMETERS FOR HARDENING SOIL MODEL (continued)
"GREEN-FIELD" CROS-SECTION
Unloading
Reference Secant Tangent
Power in Primary loading /reloading Pref E50,ref
Soil pressure Failure stiffness stiffness
stiffness stiffness E50 oedometer (average) (average) E,z [kN/m2]
Layer pref ratio Rf E50,ref 2
Eoed,ref
laws m [kN/m ] stiffness Eur,ref [kN/m2] [kN/m2]
[kN/m2] [kN/m2] [kN/m2] 2
[kN/m ]
GA_T1 0.000 0.5 0.9 0.000 #DIV/0! 0.000 0.000 6.271 7,275.885 0.000
GA_T1 4.181 0.5 0.9 6,311.063 6,311.063 6,311.063 18,933.189 6,311.063
GA_T1 8.362 0.5 0.9 9,903.119 9,903.119 9,903.119 29,709.358 9,903.119
GA_T1 12.543 0.5 0.9 12,889.359 12,889.359 12,889.359 38,668.078 12,889.359
GA_T1 16.724 0.5 0.9 15,539.660 15,539.660 15,539.660 46,618.980 15,539.660
GA_T1 20.905 0.5 0.9 17,965.240 17,965.240 17,965.240 53,895.719 17,965.240
GA_T1 25.086 0.5 0.9 20,225.573 20,225.573 20,225.573 60,676.718 20,225.573
GA_T1 29.267 0.5 0.9 22,357.140 22,357.140 22,357.140 67,071.419 22,357.140
GA_T1 33.448 0.5 0.9 24,384.340 24,384.340 24,384.340 73,153.020 33.448 23,912.549 24,384.340
GA_T1 37.628 0.5 0.9 26,324.501 26,324.501 26,324.501 78,973.502 26,324.501
GA_T1 41.809 0.5 0.9 28,190.483 28,190.483 28,190.483 84,571.448 28,190.483
GA_T1 45.990 0.5 0.9 29,992.161 29,992.161 29,992.161 89,976.483 29,992.161
GA_T1 50.171 0.5 0.9 31,737.325 31,737.325 31,737.325 95,211.976 31,737.325
GA_T1 54.352 0.5 0.9 33,432.257 33,432.257 33,432.257 100,296.770 33,432.257
GA_T2 62.714 0.5 0.9 36,691.193 36,691.193 36,691.193 110,073.579 79.438 42,564.749 36,691.193
GA_T2 71.076 0.5 0.9 39,801.030 39,801.030 39,801.030 119,403.090 39,801.030
GA_T2 79.438 0.5 0.9 42,785.081 42,785.081 42,785.081 128,355.242 42,785.081
GA_T2 87.800 0.5 0.9 45,660.962 45,660.962 45,660.962 136,982.885 45,660.962
GA_T2 96.162 0.5 0.9 48,442.395 48,442.395 48,442.395 145,327.185 48,442.395
GA_T2 104.524 0.5 0.9 51,140.329 51,140.329 51,140.329 153,420.988 51,140.329
GA_T3 108.704 0.5 0.9 52,460.834 52,460.834 52,460.834 157,382.502 145.985 63,175.115 52,460.834
GA_T3 112.885 0.5 0.9 53,763.677 53,763.677 53,763.677 161,291.030 53,763.677
GA_T3 117.066 0.5 0.9 55,049.735 55,049.735 55,049.735 165,149.205 55,049.735
GA_T3 121.247 0.5 0.9 56,319.814 56,319.814 56,319.814 168,959.442 56,319.814
GA_T3 133.790 0.5 0.9 60,041.288 60,041.288 60,041.288 180,123.864 60,041.288
GA_T3 146.333 0.5 0.9 63,642.428 63,642.428 63,642.428 190,927.285 63,642.428
GA_T3 158.876 0.5 0.9 67,136.988 67,136.988 67,136.988 201,410.963 67,136.988
GA_T3 171.419 0.5 0.9 70,536.194 70,536.194 70,536.194 211,608.581 70,536.194
GA_T3 183.961 0.5 0.9 73,849.363 73,849.363 73,849.363 221,548.089 73,849.363
GA_T3 192.323 0.5 0.9 76,014.266 76,014.266 76,014.266 228,042.797 76,014.266
GA_T3 200.685 0.5 0.9 78,146.462 78,146.462 78,146.462 234,439.385 78,146.462 2
 Curriculum Vitae

Name Nguyen Duc Toan

15.9.1974 Born in Hanoi, Vietnam
June 1991 Graduated from Dan Phuong secondary school, Hanoi, Vietnam
1991-1996 Enrolled at Bridge and Tunnel Engineering Section, Faculty of
Engineering, University of Communication and Transport, Hanoi,
Vietnam
June 1996 Bachelor Degree of Civil Engineering from University of
Communication and Transport, Vietnam
1996-1998 Employed as an Assistant Bridge Engineer by Taisei-Rotec Joint-
Venture, Hanoi, Vietnam
1998-2000 Enrolled at Pedagogic English Section, Faculty of Continuing
Education, College of Foreign Language - Vietnam National
University, Hanoi
April 2000 Bachelor Degree of Foreign Language from College of Foreign
Language - Vietnam National University, Hanoi
1998-2001 Employed as a Bridge Engineer by Louis Berger Inc., Hanoi,
Vietnam
2001-2004 Employed as a Tunnel Inspector by Transport Engineering Design
Inc. (TEDI), Hanoi, Vietnam
March 2004 Consulting Engineer Certificate (Construction Supervision) by
Ministry of Transport of Vietnam
Since 2004 Employed as a Civil Engineer by Institute of Transport Science and
Technology (ITST), Hanoi, Vietnam
Since 2005 Study for Master Degree at University of Technology of Turin, in
partnership with Consortium of Research and Permanent Education
of Turin, Italy
Contact ngdtoanhanoi@yahoo.com; toan_ngd@itst.gov.vn
Post Graduate Master Course by Politecnico di Torino (University of
Technology)

TUNNELLING AND TUNNEL BORING

MACHINES
V EDITION 2005-06

Master endorsed by ITA/AITES

Under the patronage of SIG ITALIAN TUNNELLING SOCIETY

in partnership with TUSC

Sponsored by: