Computers and Geotechnics 107 (2019) 110–127

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers and Geotechnics

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

Research Paper

Face stability analysis of shallow circular tunnels driven by a pressurized T

shield in purely cohesive soils under undrained conditions
Wantao Dinga,b, Keqi Liub, Peihe Shib, Mingjiang Lib, Minglei Houb
a
School of Qilu Transportation, Shandong University, Jinan, China
b
Research Center of Geotechnical and Structural Engineering, Shandong University, Jinan, China

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Based on the slip line and limit analysis theories, this paper presents a new 3D collapse mechanism to analyze the
Slip line face stability of a circular shield-driven tunnel in purely cohesive soil. The new collapse mechanism is a 4-
Limit analysis variable multizone mechanism that depends on cover-to-diameter ratios (C/D). The proposed mechanism sug-
Face stability gests that failure zones at the tunnel face are primarily formed by shear failure. A comparison of this approach
Collapse mechanism
with numerical methods and other kinematic approaches shows that the proposed failure mechanism sig-
Purely cohesive soils
nificantly improves the existing upper-bound solutions for the face stability of circular tunnels in purely cohesive
soils.

1. Introduction
In shield tunnel projects, face stability is always an important issue
when tunnel heading. Face stability analysis aims to ensure the safety of
the project with regard to soil collapse in front of the tunnel face. Thus,
the minimum supporting force (air, slurry, or earth) required for the
tunnel face needs to be determined to prevent collapse. As a tunnel is
excavated, new rings of the lining behind the shield are installed ra-
pidly, and the collapse of the tunnel face is often sudden due to a
sudden loss of the supporting force. Hence, it is reasonable to describe
the strength of soils using the undrained shear strength cu . This paper
focuses on a case in which the support pressures σT applied on the
tunnel face are uniform and the soils are purely cohesive. Additionally,
the soils around the tunnel are assumed to be homogeneous, and the
undrained shear strength cu is assumed to be constant with depth.
Face stability during the excavation of soft clay ground tunnels has
been investigated by many contributors to the relevant body of litera-
ture. Based on field observation data collected during tests, the so-
called stability ratio, N , was proposed by Broms et al. [1], and it is used
to analyze the stability of the tunnel face. The stability ratio is defined
as N = [σS − σT + γ ·(C + D /2)]/ cu , where σS is the possible surcharge
loading acting on the ground surface, σT is the uniform pressure applied
on the tunnel face, γ is the soil unit weight, C is the cover depth of the
tunnel, D is the diameter of the circular tunnel, and cu is the undrained
soil cohesion. Schofield [2] carried out a centrifuge model test and
presented a general stability criterion that depended on the tunnel
cover. Considering the results of the centrifuge test, Kimura et al. [3]
reported that the critical value of N depends on the tunnel depth when
N is between 5 and 10. An analytic solution of N was obtained by
Ellstein [4] using the limit equilibrium analytical method for
homogeneous cohesive soils, and this solution was in good agreement
with the experimental results by Kimura et al. [3]. Based on the upper
and lower-bound theorems of plasticity, Davis et al. [5] proposed de-
sign values for the stability of a shallow heading in soft clay under
undrained conditions. When conducting an upper-bound analysis using
the finite element method (FEM), predetermination of the failure me-
chanism is not required. Thus, Sloan et al. [6] examined the undrained
stability of a shallow heading under plane strain loading using two
numerical techniques that employ finite elements in conjunction with
the limit theorem of classical plasticity. Augarde et al. [7] investigated
the stability of a heading under plane strain undrained conditions by
means of the finite element limit analysis method in the framework of
classical plasticity theory. Combining the results of a series of centrifuge
model tests with corresponding numerical simulations, Lee et al. [8]
studied the face stability of a tunnel and the influence of soil arching
effects in soft clay soils and determined the boundaries of the positive
and negative arching zones. Recently, several kinematic methods for
limit analysis that consider a continuous velocity field were proposed
by various authors. For example, Klar et al. [9] derived 2D and 3D
upper-bound solutions to analyze the face stability of circular tunnels in
purely cohesive soils by means of an admissible continuous velocity
field, which is achieved using elasticity theory. Mollon et al. [10]
suggested two new continuous velocity fields for analyzing the face
stability of a tunnel driven by pressurized shields, and these velocity
fields more closely represented the actual failures observed in un-
drained clay. Wu et al. [11] discussed the workface stability of shield
tunnels, considering the horizontal arching effect in front of the tunnel
face. Hu et al. [12] presented a novel wedge model for the analysis of
face stability, taking into consideration the observed failure modes, the
character differences in layered soil and the arching effect of soils. Lu

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2018.11.025
Received 1 April 2018; Received in revised form 22 November 2018; Accepted 28 November 2018
Available online 07 December 2018
0266-352X/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
W. Ding et al.
Nomenclature
C cover depth of the tunnel
D diameter of the tunnel
C/D relative depth of the tunnel
γ soil unit weight
cu undrained soil cohesion
φ internal friction angle
N stability ratio
σS possible surcharge loading
et al. [13] proposed 3D numerical and analytical solutions of limit
support pressure at a shield tunnel face by using the elasto-plasticity
FEM.
This paper aims to analyze the face stability of a tunnel in purely
cohesive soil within the framework of a kinematic limit analysis
method. At present, one of the most frequently used methods based on
limit analysis for analyzing the face stability of a tunnel is the rigid
block failure mechanism method. For example, Davis et al. [5] reported
an upper-bound solution for a plane strain heading. Subsequently, Leca
et al. [14] proposed failure mechanisms based on the assumption of
rigid conical blocks and achieved three lower and upper-bound solu-
tions of the critical support pressure for frictional materials. Combining
this work with the results of real projects in cohesive and frictional
soils, Mollon et al. [15–17] improved these mechanisms and obtained
more accurate solutions. More recently, based on numerical simulations
and experimental studies, several analysis models of collapse face
pressure have been proposed. Zou et al. [18,19] developed a new nu-
merical model by combining the innovative mesh-dividing optimization
technology with the 3D rotational failure mechanism to analyze the
face stability of tunnels. Chen et al. [20] established a 3D discrete
element method (DEM) model to calculate the critical support pressure
of shallow shield tunnels. Later, combining this work with an experi-
mental study, Chen et al. [21] carried out a numerical simulation of
face stability by means of a 3D finite difference method (FDM) model
and proposed a two-stage failure pattern. Considering a series of tunnel
diameter-to-depth ratios and corresponding soil properties, Zhang et al.
[22] conducted a face stability analysis of a circular tunnel and pro-
posed a new 3D failure criterion that consists of four truncated cones on
which a distributed force is imposed. The existing studies show that the
rigid block failure mechanisms are a simple and intuitive approach for
achieving the critical support pressure of shield tunnels and that they
are often assumed to be translational or rotational. The rigid block
failure mechanisms are adopted to analyze the face stability of shield
tunnels in cohesive and frictional materials. In addition, the shapes of
these blocks adhere to the normality condition. Another commonly
used method based on limit analysis for analyzing the face stability of a
tunnel is to use the continuous velocity field. For example, Mollon et al.
[10] suggested that the rigid block failure mechanisms were quite dif-
ferent from the actual velocity field and proposed two new continuous
velocity fields for analyzing the collapse pressure of a tunnel face in
purely cohesive soil. Later, Zhang et al. [23] proposed lowest upper-
bound solutions for undrained clays by carrying out an optimization
procedure based on the continuous velocity field proposed by Mollon
et al. [10]. Huang et al. [24] proposed a new 3D upper-bound method
to analyze the undrained clay based on the total loading extended
mobilizable strength design(T-EMSD). Considering the linear increase
in undrained shear strength with depth, Ukritchon et al. [25] analyzed
3D undrained tunnel face stability in clay. Although these new con-
tinuous velocity fields can significantly improve the best existing
bounds for the collapse pressure, they are still unable to describe a
reasonable failure zone in front of the tunnel face based on these me-
chanisms. In particular, there are ongoing disputes about the failure
area on the tunnel face. For example, the failure mechanisms proposed
111
Computers and Geotechnics 107 (2019) 110–127
σT uniform support pressure or the critical collapse pressure
qV equivalent uniformly distributed load pressure
PT power of the critical collapse pressure
PS power of the possible surcharge loading
Pγ power of the soil weight of three zones (I, II and III)
Pq power of the uniform distributed load pressure
Pe power of the external forces
PV power of internal energy dissipation
H possible collapse thickness
by Davis et al. [5] show that the failure zone on the tunnel face in
cohesive materials covers only part of the circular tunnel face. Leca
et al. [14] suggested that the shape of the failure area in frictional
materials is an inscribed ellipse with a major semi-axis length equal to
half of the diameter of the circular tunnel face. The mechanisms pre-
sented by Mollon et al. suggest that the shape of the failure zone on the
tunnel face is an entirely circular tunnel face. According to the results of
the centrifuge model tests conducted by Idinger et al. [26], Zhang et al.
[22] proposed that the failure plane of the tunnel face in cohesive-
frictional soils is formed due to shear failure and that its shape is similar
to a semi-ellipse with a major semi-axis length equal to the diameter of
the circular tunnel face. Thus far, the above studies have shown that the
failure zone on the tunnel face or in front of the tunnel face is not clear
for cohesive or frictional materials.
The purpose of this study is to construct an admissible continuous
velocity field using the slip line and limit analysis theories, to analyze
the critical collapse face pressure and to find more precise failure zone
boundaries in undrained clay. This study focused on purely cohesive
soils (e.g. saturated undrained clay), in which the internal frictional
angle φ is equal to zero. The results are compared with existing upper-
bound solutions and illustrated in the form of practical equations that
facilitate their application in practice. This study should provide a
theoretical basis for the more accurate calculation of the support force
acting on the shield tunnel excavation face and the more accurate
prediction of the surface influence area on the top of the excavation
face for clay stratum to facilitate better tunnel design.
2. Slip line and limit analysis theories
2.1. Slip line theory
The Coulomb criterion is widely used as the yield condition of soils.
In this paper, the Coulomb criterion is simplified as the Tresca criterion
because the internal friction angle, φ , of a purely cohesive soil is zero.
Taking into account the equations of equilibrium and the yield condi-
tion, a group of plastic equilibrium solutions can be obtained for the
yield zone. Considering the stress boundary conditions, these solutions
can be used to analyze the stress distribution of the yield zone in front
of the tunnel face. Therefore, assuming that the stress characteristics
are the same as the velocity characteristics for purely cohesive soils, the
slip line method can be used to construct the slip line field. In the slip
line method, the constitutive equation of the soil is omitted, while the
equilibrium and yield conditions are included. Thus, to avoid addres-
sing the plastic equilibrium issue, the theory of limit analysis is used to
analyze the collapse face pressures of the tunnel.
2.2. Upper-bound method of limit analysis
The theorems on which limit analysis is based are established by
assuming that soil is a perfectly plastic material whose flow rule is as-
sociated. A considerable amount of test evidence shows that this as-
sumption is feasible for purely cohesive soils. Within the framework of
this assumption, the critical collapse pressure of a tunnel face can be
W. Ding et al.
obtained by using the rigorous limit analysis approach (or the upper-
bound theorems) for purely cohesive soils. Application of the bound
theorems involves the calculation of an admissible stress field, in which
case the external loads cannot cause collapse, and then the selection of
a mechanism of collapse and an appropriate work rate calculation, in
which case the external loads must cause collapse.
This paper focuses on analyzing the face stability of a tunnel in
purely cohesive soil using the kinematical method of limit analysis. For
a purely cohesive soil, the internal friction angle φ is equal to zero.
Since the internal friction angle φ is equal to the dilatancy angle due to
the associated flow rule, there is no volume change with plastic de-
formation, and the normality condition is followed. Thus, it is assumed
that the actual sliding surface is described by both a velocity char-
acteristic and a stress characteristic.
3. Admissible continuous velocity field
Fig. 1 shows that the Coulomb yield criterion can be simplified to
the Tresca yield criterion because the internal friction angle φ is zero for
a purely cohesive soil.
To satisfy the normality condition and obey the yield criterion, the
feasible slip line field needs to be analyzed when establishing the ad-
missible continuous velocity field. For purely cohesive soils, when the
material is in the plastic state, four orthogonal shear planes (planes χ ,
η , ξ and ζ )may exist at each point, as shown in Fig. 2. The possible shear
planes are connected to form the so-called slip line network.
For purely cohesive soils, it is assumed that the stress characteristics
are the same as the velocity characteristics. This paper aims to find the
accurate failure zone (failure mechanism) in front of the tunnel face and
obtain the critical collapse pressure when tunnel heading, as shown in
Fig. 3.
Thus, the stress state of the soil in front of the tunnel face needs to
be analyzed. To accurately classify the different stress state zones in the
soil, that is, the components of the failure mechanism, the following
assumptions are made; and the assumed failure mechanism and its
components are shown in Figs. 4 and 5:
(a) The friction on the tunnel face caused by the rotation of the cutter
head of the shield machine is ignored.
(b) The effect of Terzaghi arching in the upper soil on the lining at the
rear of the tunnel face is ignored (C / D ⩽ 0.5) for purely cohesive
soils.
(c) σS / cu + γC / cu ⩾ 2 is satisfied.
Fig. 4(a) shows that the failure mechanism consists of four zones.
The shape of the failure mechanism can be optimized with respect to
the four variable angles, as shown in Fig. 4(b). In the present failure
mechanism, since a purely cohesive soil satisfies the Tresca yield cri-
terion and the internal friction angle φ is zero, angles α , β , and θ are
equal to π/4 , and angle δ is π/2. Since the geometry of a circular tunnel
and the distribution of the possible surcharge loading on the ground
surface are symmetrical along the longitudinal axis of the tunnel in the
half-space, all failure zones of the present failure mechanism are also
symmetrical. Due to 3D equilibrium conditions around the tunnel face,
the orientation of the principal stress axes in the soil varies among the
failure zones. Considering the yield criterion and the normality condi-
tion (e.g., associate flow rule), each failure zone in front of the tunnel
face can be determined as follows, as shown in Fig. 5.
The fourth zone, zone IV, is in the Rankine zone, a possible failure
zone that is affected by the vertical soil arching effect at the top of zone
III. The shape of zone IV is a circular truncated cone [see Fig. 5(d)].
The third zone, zone III, is also in the Rankine zone. Based on the
second assumption mentioned above, the orientation of the principal
stress axes in the soil in zone III remains unchanged. Zone III is formed
by three planes and two curved surfaces, e.g., the plane MFNOM, the
plane MENOM, the plane created by the circle with diameter EF, the
112
Computers and Geotechnics 107 (2019) 110–127
⌢ ⌢
curved surface FNE and the curved surface FME , as shown in Fig. 5(c).
The plane MFNOM is formed by cutting the cone [as shown in the
dashed line in Fig. 5(c)] with a vertical plane at point F. The circular
plane is formed by cutting the cone with a horizontal plane at point F.
The plane MENOM is formed by cutting the cone with a sloping plane
(at point E) at an angle of δ + α − π/2 (equal to π/4 ) from the hor-
izontal plane. The curved surfaces are formed by cutting the cone with a
vertical plane (at point F), a horizontal plane (at point F) and a sloping
plane (at point E). Using the Cartesian coordinate system shown in
⌢
Fig. 5(c), the hyperbola MFN can be expressed as
(z − 3D /4)2 /(D /4)2 − y 2 /(D /4)2 = 1 (1)
where 0 ⩽ z ⩽ D /2 .
⌢ ⌢
The curved surfaces FNE and FME are expressed as
(z − 3D /4)2 = (x + D /4)2 + y 2 (2)
where − D /2 ⩽ x ⩽ 0 and − 2 D/2 ⩽ y ⩽ 2 D/2 .
The second zone, zone II, is a transitional zone [27]. Due to the
constraint of the soil in zone I, zone III and the elastic area in front of
zone II, the principal stress axes of the soil in zone II rotate. Hence, zone
II is formed by rotating the points on the plane MENOM 90 degrees
clockwise around axis MN. The curved surface MBNEM is expressed in a
Cartesian coordinate system by the equation
y 2 = D2 /2 − 2 D x 2 + z 2 /2 (3)
where − 2 D /2 ⩽ x ⩽ 0 and − D/2 ⩽ z ⩽ D/2 , as shown in Fig. 5(b).
Meanwhile, zone II obeys the normality condition.
The first zone, zone I, is also in the Rankine zone. Since the tunnel
face can be regarded as a movable surface when the support force
acting on the tunnel face is not enough to maintain the stability of the
tunnel face, the direction of the principal stress axes of the soil in zone I
remains unchanged [28]. Thus, zone I can be formed by projecting the
points on plane MBNOM to the z-coordinate plane through a rotation of
45 degrees in the positive direction of the z-axis; the curved surface
MANBM is expressed in the Cartesian coordinate system by the equa-
tion
y 2 = D 2 /2 + D (x + z )/2 (4)
where − D /2 ⩽ x ⩽ 0 and - D ⩽ z ⩽ 0 , as shown in Fig. 5(a).
The admissible continuous velocity field with an axially symmetric
surface is constructed using the slip line and limit analysis theories, as
shown in Fig. 6. This admissible continuous velocity field respects the
normality condition and obeys Tresca’s yield criterion.
4. Limit collapse thickness criterion
Fig. 4(a) shows that two possible fracture mechanism shapes exist
under different values of C / D . For values of C / D greater than 0.5, the
Fig. 1. Tresca’s representation of stress and a yield criterion.
W. Ding et al. Computers and Geotechnics 107 (2019) 110–127

Fig. 2. Possible slip planes at one point of the Tresca yield criterion.

Fig. 3. 3D graph of tunnel heading.

circular truncated cone (JKEF) with height H may be the fourth pos-
sible fracture zone influenced by the vertical soil arching effect, as
shown in Fig. 4(a). This fracture model is in good agreement with the
experimental phenomena obtained by Schofield [2].
In Fig. 4(a), three critical factors, namely, the weight of the soil in
the circular truncated cone (JKEF), the uniform surcharge loading σS on
the ground surface, and the undrained soil cohesion cu , determine the
stability of the circular truncated cone (JKEF). Thus, to calculate the
critical collapse pressure, that is, to determine the limit collapse
thickness (C = H + D/2 ), the stability of the circular truncated cone
needs to be evaluated. Assuming that the fracture reaches the ground
surface, the soil in the circular truncated cone should be loose, and the
equivalent pressure acting on the circle with diameter EF can be ob-
tained based on Terzaghi’s soil pressure relation. Fig. 7 shows the
modified theory of Terzaghi’s soil pressure relation.
Fig. 7 shows that the equivalent uniformly distributed load pressure
qV acting on the circle with diameter EF can be given by Fig. 4. Assumed failure mechanism: (a) all failure zones; (b) failure zones in the
plane of symmetry of the tunnel.
H
qV = γH − 2cu ln(1 + 4 ) + σS
D (5)
4.1. Analysis of the limit collapse thickness
where H is the possible collapse thickness.
D 4.1.1. No uniform surcharge loading σS on the ground surface
In Fig. 4(a), H = C − 2 , and Eq. (5) then becomes
In this case, Eq. (6) reduces to
qV = γD (C / D − 1/2) − 2cu ln(4C / D − 1) + σS (6) qV = γD (C / D − 1/2) − 2cu ln(4C / D − 1) (7)

When qV ⩽ 0 , that is, γD / cu ⩽ 2 ln(4C / D − 1)/(C / D − 1/2) , the soil

in the circular truncated cone (JKEF) is stable. Therefore, the range of

113
W. Ding et al.
Fig. 5. Components of the assumed failure mechanism: (a) zone I of the failure zones; (b) zone II of the failure zones; (c) zone III of the failure zones; and (d) zone IV
of the failure zones.
the failure mechanism includes zones I, II and III, and the limit collapse
thickness is equal to 0.5D ; otherwise, the limit collapse thickness is
equal to C (i.e., H + D/2 ). Fig. 8 more intuitively indicates the limit
collapse thickness.
Fig. 8 shows that, for a certain value of C / D , the soil in the circular
truncated cone (JKEF) is stable when the value of γD / cu is located to the
left of the curve or along the curve. Thus, the limit collapse thickness is
equal to 0.5D . Additionally, when the value of γD / cu is located to the
right of the curve, the soil in the circular truncated cone (JKEF) is
Fig. 5. (continued)
114
Computers and Geotechnics 107 (2019) 110–127
unstable, and the equivalent uniformly distributed load pressure, qV ,
must be considered when calculating the critical collapse pressure.
Therefore, the limit collapse thickness is equal to C (i.e., H + D/2 ).
4.1.2. Uniform surcharge loading, σS , on the ground surface
In this case, for qV ⩽ 0 , that is,
γD (C /D − 1/2) − 2cu ln(4C/ D − 1) + σS ⩽ 0 , the soil in the circular
truncated cone (JKEF) is stable. Therefore, the range of the failure
mechanism includes zones I, II and III, and the limit collapse thickness
is equal to 0.5D . Otherwise, the limit collapse thickness is equal to C
(i.e., H + D/2 ). To more intuitively determine the limit collapse
thickness, a chart describing the relationships among C / D , γD / cu and
σS / cu is used, as shown in Fig. 9.
The soil in the circular truncated cone (JKEF) is stable when the
point with coordinates (C / D , γD / cu , σS / cu ) is located to the left of the
curved surface in Fig. 9 or the curved surface described by Eq. (6) and
when the limit collapse thickness is equal to 0.5D . Otherwise, the limit
collapse thickness is equal to C (i.e., H + D/2 ).
5. Critical collapse pressure
The critical collapse pressure of the face of a circular tunnel con-
structed by a pressurized shield is the main issue in a purely cohesive
soil. Based on the kinematical approach of LA (limit analysis) and the
slip line theory, a 3D multizone failure mechanism is proposed. As
mentioned in the previous sections, the shape of the fracture me-
chanism depends on the values of C / D . Therefore, for a failure me-
chanism shape, the critical collapse pressure of the face of a circular
W. Ding et al. Computers and Geotechnics 107 (2019) 110–127

Fig. 5. (continued)

tunnel under different values of C / D is given as follows.
5.1 C/D. equal to 0.5
Fig. 10 shows the fracture mechanism for values of C / D equal to 0.5.
This fracture mechanism consists of three zones. To calculate the
critical collapse pressure, the power of the internal and external forces
is obtained. The external force consists of the weight of three zones, the
possible uniform surcharge loading on the ground surface and the cri-
tical collapse pressure acting on the tunnel face. The internal force
mainly refers to the undrained cohesion. The power of the external
forces and the internal energy dissipation associated with this fracture
mechanism are detailed in the Appendix A.
Therefore, the work equation equates the power of the external

115
W. Ding et al. Computers and Geotechnics 107 (2019) 110–127

collapse pressure becomes

σT = 0.9706γD − 4.9577cu + σS (14)
When σT = 0, Eq. (14) becomes
[σS + 0.9706γD]/ cu = 4.9577 (15)

5.2 C/D. greater than 0.5

The fracture mechanism for values of C / D greater than 0.5 is shown

in Fig. 4(a). This fracture mechanism consists of four zones. To calculate
the critical collapse pressure, the power of the internal and external
forces is obtained. The external force consists of the weight of four
zones, the possible uniform surcharge loading on the ground surface
and the critical collapse pressure acting on the tunnel face. Again, the
internal force mainly refers to the undrained cohesion, and the power of
the external forces and the internal energy dissipation associated with
this fracture mechanism are detailed in the Appendix A.
Thus, the work equation equates the power of the external forces to
Fig. 6. Admissible continuous velocity field with an axially symmetric surface. the power of internal energy dissipation, and it is given by Eq. (8). In
this case, Eq. (8) can be expressed by
forces Pe to the power of internal energy dissipation PV and it is given as Pcu, I + Pcu, II + Pcu, III + Pcu, MNF = Pγ , I + Pγ , II + Pγ , III + Pq + PT (16)
follows:
where Pq is the power of the uniform distributed load pressure, qV .
Pe = PV (8) After some simplifications, the tunnel collapse pressure can be ex-
Eq. (8) can be rewritten as pressed as

Pcu, I + Pcu, II + Pcu, III + Pcu, MNF = Pγ , I + Pγ , II + Pγ , III + PS + PT (9) σT = γDNγ − cu Nc + σS NS (17)

where Pcu, I , Pcu, II , Pcu, III and Pcu, MNF are the contributions of zone I, zone II, where Nγ , Nc , and NS are nondimensional coefficients that represent the
zone III, and plane MNF , respectively; Pγ , I , Pγ , II andPγ , III are the powers effects of soil weight, cohesion, and surcharge loading, respectively. In
of the soil weight of zones I, II, and III, respectively; PS is the power of this case, the expressions of coefficients Nγ , Nc , and NS are given as
the possible uniform surcharge loading σS ; and PT is the power of the follows:
critical collapse pressure σT . Nγ = Nγ′ + Nγ″ = 0.9706 + (C / D − 1/2) (18)
After some simplifications, the tunnel collapse pressure can be ex-
pressed as Nc = Nc′ + Nc″ = 4.9577 + 2 ln(4C / D − 1) (19)
σT = γDNγ − cu Nc + σS NS (10) NS = 1 (20)
where Nγ , Nc , and NS are nondimensional coefficients that represent the where Nγ′ = 0.9706 is the effect of the soil weight of zones I, II and III;
effects of soil weight, cohesion, and surcharge loading, respectively. Nγ″ = (C / D − 1/2) is the possible effect of the soil weight of zone IV;
The expressions of coefficients Nγ , Nc , and NS are given as follows: Nc′ = 4.9577 is the effect of cohesion along the surfaces in zones I, II and
Nγ = 0.9706 (11) III; Nc″ = 2 ln(4C / D − 1) is the possible effect of cohesion of the soil in
zone IV; and NS = 1.0 is the effect of a possible uniform surcharge
Nc = 4.9577 (12) loading on the ground surface.
Notably, whether the influences of Nγ″, Nc″ and NS need to be con-
NS = 1.0 (13)
sidered in Eqs. (18), (19) and (20) depends on dimensionless para-
Substituting Eqs. (11), (12) and (13) into Eq. (10), the critical meters, such as γD / cu , σS / cu and C / D . Thus, the calculation of the

Fig. 7. Modified theory of Terzaghi’s soil pressure relation.

116
W. Ding et al. Computers and Geotechnics 107 (2019) 110–127

In this case, the equivalent uniform distribution load, qV , is less than

or equal to zero, and Eq. (20) becomes
NS = 0 (23)
Substituting Eqs. (21), (22) and (23) into Eq. (17), the critical col-
lapse pressure is given as follows:
σT = 0.9706γD − 4.9577cu (24)
When σT = 0, Eq. (24) is given by
γD / cu = 5.108 (25)

(b) γD / cu (C / D − 1/2) + σS / cu − 2 ln(4C / D − 1) > 0

In this case, Nγ″, Nc″ and NS must be considered. Substituting Eqs.

(18), (19) and (20) into Eq. (17), the critical collapse pressure is given
as follows:

Fig. 8. Design chart for the relationship between γD / cu and C / D . σT = [0.9706 + (C / D − 1/2)] γD − [4.9577 + 2 ln(4C / D − 1)] cu + σS
(26)
When σT = 0, Eq. (26) is given by
[σS + γD (C / D + 0.4706)]/ cu = 4.9577 + 2 ln(4C / D − 1) (27)

6. Analytical comparisons

For purely cohesive soils, it is sufficient to analyze the face stability

Fig. 9. Design chart for the relationships among C / D , γD / cu and σS / cu .
of a circular shield-driven tunnel using six variables, i.e., σT , σS , C , D , cu
and γ . Dimensional analysis is often used as a tool for addressing
multiparameter problems that arise in practical projects by reducing
groups of variables, e.g., σT / cu , σS / cu , C / D and γD / cu . Since undrained
behavior is assumed for purely cohesive soils, σT / cu and σS / cu can be
replaced by (σS − σT )/ cu . For purely cohesive soils, the method com-
monly used to evaluate the stability of a circular tunnel face is based on
the so-called stability ratio, N , which is defined by Broms et al. [1].
Hence, to validate the results of the present analysis model, the
comparisons of the stability ratio, N , between the present model and
the existing models, including analytical, numerical and experimental
solutions, are analyzed. Because several researchers believe that the
contribution of the soil weight to the stability ratio, N , of (C / D + 1/2) is
not strict enough, analytical comparisons are made under different
values of γD / cu , as discussed below.

6.1. γD / cu = 0

In this case, the stability ratio, N , becomes

N = (σS − σT )/ cu (28)
In this study, the stability ratio can be expressed as
N = Nc = 4.9577 + 2 ln(4C / D − 1) (29)
Thus, a comparison of the stability ratio N between the present
model and the existing solutions is shown in Fig. 11.
Fig. 11 shows that the upper-bound solutions proposed by the pre-
Fig. 10. Fracture mechanism forC / D = 0.5.
sent model are between the upper-bound solutions and the lower-bound
solutions proposed by Davis et al. [5]. Therefore, the upper-bound so-
critical collapse pressure for the different values of C / D according to Eq. lutions proposed by the present model are better than those proposed
(6) is discussed below. by Davis et al. [5]. Fig. 11 shows that the upper-bound solutions pro-
posed by the present model are closer to the lower-bound solutions
(a) γD / cu (C / D − 1/2) + σS / cu − 2 ln(4C / D − 1) ⩽ 0 (thick cylinder) proposed by Davis et al. [5] for values of C / D < 0.86,
whereas for values of C / D > 0.86, the upper-bound solutions proposed
Under this condition, Nγ″ and Nc″ are equal to zero; thus, Eqs. (18) by the present model are closer to the lower-bound solutions (thick
and (19) are reduced to sphere) proposed by Davis et al. [5] The maximum difference between
Nγ = 0.9706 the upper-bound solutions proposed by the present model and the
(21)
lower-bound solutions proposed by Davis et al. [5] is 2.76 for
Nc = 4.9577 (22) C / D = 1.0 . For C / D > 1.0 , the difference between the upper-bound so-
lutions proposed by the present model and the lower-bound solutions

117
W. Ding et al. Computers and Geotechnics 107 (2019) 110–127

values of γD / cu on the stability ratio N is insignificant; hence, the sta-

bility ratio N of the present model can be approximated by Eq. (29). For
the M2 model proposed by Mollon et al. [10], the maximum influence
degree δ is 6.98% when C / D ⩽ 5.0 . Thus, the effect of γD / cu needs to be
taken into account when calculating the stability ratio N of the M2
model proposed by Mollon et al. [10]. Fig. 13 shows the analytical
comparisons of the stability ratio N between the present model and the
existing solutions.
Fig. 13 shows that the upper-bound solutions proposed by the pre-
sent model are lower than those proposed by other models for values of
C / D from 0.5 to 3.0 when γD / cu > 0 . The upper-bound solutions pro-
posed by the present model are closer to the analytical solutions, ex-
perimental solutions and lower-bound solutions than those proposed by
other models. This result illustrates that the upper-bound solutions
proposed by the present model are better than those proposed by other
models. Additionally, the upper-bound solutions proposed by the pre-
sent model provide a safer estimate of the tunnel pressure required to
Fig. 11. Comparisons of N between the present model and the existing solu-
maintain stability than those proposed by other models. It can be seen
tions
from Fig. 13 that the stability ratioN of the present model increases with
increasing values of γD / cu for a certain value of C / D , whereas the sta-
proposed by Davis et al. [5] decreases with increasing C / D . When bility ratio N of the M2 model proposed by Mollon et al. [10] decreases
C / D = 5.0 , this difference is 1.26. Thus, for the present model, the with increasing values of γD / cu , corresponding to a certain value of
greater the values of C / D are, the safer the tunnel face. Meanwhile, the C / D . For the actual project in purely cohesive soils with the same
present model should be closer to the failure mechanism in the actual parameters cu , C and D , it is obvious that the greater the values of γ are,
project. the more unsafe the actual project. That is, the stability ratio N should
be large. Thus, the variation in stability ratio N of the M2 model pro-
6.2. γD / cu > 0 posed by Mollon et al. [10], with the values of γD / cu corresponding to a
certain value of C / D , may conflict with the actual situation. Meanwhile,
For the more general case of a cohesive soil, the traditional method Fig. 13 indicates that the effect of the stability ratio of the present
used to assess the critical collapse pressure uses the following equation: model on the values of γD / cu corresponding to a certain value of C / D is
σT = γDNγ − cu Nc + σS NS (30) insignificant. The reason for this phenomenon is that the three-di-
mensional equilibrium conditions around the tunnel face can improve
Since the critical coefficient, NS , is equal to 1.0 for purely cohesive the stability of the tunnel face and weaken the effect of the unit weight
soils under undrained conditions, Eq. (30) becomes γ of soils on the stability of the tunnel face. Thus, the stability ratio N
σT − σS = γDNγ − cu Nc (31) defined by Broms et al. [1], is reasonable and safe, neglecting the effect
of γD / cu .
Eq. (31) can be transformed into The initial shape of the failure zone in front of the tunnel face is
[(σS − σT ) + γDNγ ]/ cu = Nc (32) difficult to observe using experimental methods. Hence, the critical
collapse pressure obtained by the centrifuge model test should be
Adding γD (C / D + 1/2−Nγ )/ cu to both sides of Eq. (32), it becomes greater than that required in an actual project. In this study, the present
[(σS − σT ) + γD (C / D + 1/2)]/ cu = Nc + γD [(C / D + 1/2) − Nγ ]/ cu failure mechanism is constructed based on the slip line and limit ana-
lysis theories, and it satisfies the yield criterion and the normality
(33)
condition (associate flow rule). Thus, this mechanism may accurately
After simplifying Eq. (33), the stability ratio, N , can be expressed as explain the progressing failure of the soil in front of the tunnel face. The
N = Nc + γD [(C / D + 1/2) − Nγ ]/ cu upper-bound solutions proposed by the present model significantly
(34)
improve the best existing upper-bound solutions for critical collapse
Eq. (34) shows that the stability ratio N is dependent on γD / cu when pressure.
considering the effect of the self-weight of the soil. To analyze the effect Fig. 14 illustrates comparisons of the critical coefficients (i.e., Nc , Nγ
of the self-weight of the soil, the influence degree δ of the self-weight of and NS ) between the existing models and the present model. In Fig. 14,
the soil on the stability ratio N is defined as
δ = {1 + γD [(C / D + 1/2) − Nγ ]/(cu Nc )} × 100% (35) Table 1
The stability ratio, N , of the present model in this study.
In this study, the stability ratio N and the influence degree δ cor-
responding to different values of C / D , can be obtained according to Eqs. γD/cu
N
(34) and (35), as shown in Tables 1 and 2.
Based on the research data of the M2 model proposed by Mollon C/D 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
et al. [10], the stability ratio N and the influence degree δ calculated by
Eqs. (34) and (35) are shown in Tables 3 and 4 at certain values of C / D . 0.5 4.96 4.99 5.02 5.05 5.08 5.10
0.6 5.63 5.66 5.69 5.72 5.75 5.78
Table 1 shows that the stability ratio N of the present model in-
0.8 6.53 6.56 6.59 6.62 6.65 6.68
creases with increasing C / D and γD / cu . However, Table 3 shows that 1.0 7.15 7.18 7.21 7.24 7.27 7.30
the stability ratio N of the M2 model increases with increasing C / D , 1.3 7.83 7.86 7.89 7.92 7.95 7.97
whereas it decreases with increasing γD / cu . Tables 2 and 4 show that 1.5 8.18 8.21 8.24 8.26 8.29 8.32
the influence degree δ of the self-weight of the soil on the stability ratio 1.6 8.33 8.36 8.39 8.42 8.45 8.48
2.0 8.85 8.88 8.91 8.94 8.97 9.00
N decreases with increasing C / D , whereas it increases with increasing
2.5 9.35 9.38 9.41 9.44 9.47 9.50
γD / cu . For the present model, the maximum influence degree δ is only 3.0 9.75 9.78 9.81 9.84 9.87 9.90
2.97% when C / D ⩽ 5.0 . Meanwhile, Fig. 12 shows that the effect of the

118
W. Ding et al. Computers and Geotechnics 107 (2019) 110–127

Table 2
The influence degree of the weight of soil on the stability ratio of the present
model in this study.
γD/cu
δ/%

C/D 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

0.5 0.60 1.19 1.78 2.37 2.97

0.6 0.53 1.04 1.57 2.09 2.61
0.8 0.45 0.90 1.35 1.80 2.25
1.0 0.42 0.82 1.23 1.64 2.05
1.3 0.38 0.75 1.13 1.50 1.88
1.5 0.36 0.72 1.08 1.44 1.80
1.6 0.36 0.71 1.06 1.41 1.76
2.0 0.34 0.66 1.00 1.33 1.66
2.5 0.32 0.63 0.94 1.26 1.57
3.0 0.30 0.60 0.90 1.21 1.51

Table 3
The stability ratio N of the M2 model proposed by Mollon et al. [10].
Fig. 12. Curved surface of the relationships among C / D , γD / cu and N .
γD/cu
N

C/D 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

0.6 6.45 6.36 6.27 6.18 6.09 6

0.8 7.19 7.1 7.01 6.92 6.83 6.74
1.0 7.87 7.78 7.69 7.6 7.51 7.42
1.3 8.81 8.71 8.61 8.51 8.41 8.31
1.6 9.64 9.54 9.44 9.34 9.24 9.14
2.0 10.64 10.53 10.42 10.31 10.2 10.09
2.5 11.73 11.61 11.49 11.37 11.25 11.13
3.0 12.68 12.56 12.44 12.32 12.2 12.08

Table 4
The influence degree δ of the M2 model proposed by Mollon [10].
γD/cu
δ/%

C/D 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

0.6 1.40 2.79 4.19 5.58 6.98

0.8 1.25 2.50 3.76 5.01 6.26 Fig. 13. Analytical comparisons of N between the present model and the ex-
1.0 1.14 2.29 3.43 4.57 5.72 isting solutions (γD/cu > 0).
1.3 1.14 2.27 3.41 4.54 5.68
1.6 1.04 2.07 3.11 4.15 5.19
2.0 1.03 2.07 3.10 4.14 5.17 stability ratioN is independent of γD / cu when a kinematically permis-
2.5 1.02 2.05 3.07 4.09 5.12 sible mechanism is used and that a safe upper-bound solution to assess
3.0 0.95 1.89 2.84 3.79 4.73 the critical collapse pressure required to maintain a stable tunnel face is
obtained.

the critical coefficient NS (i.e., the effect of surcharge loading) of each

model is equal to 1.0, which shows that the effect of surcharge loading
on the critical collapse pressure does not vary with C / D . Since these
methods for cohesive materials involve no volume change, the decrease
in area of the tunnel must equal the area of ground loss at the surface.
Fig. 14(a) shows that the order, from high to low, of the critical coef-
ficients corresponding to a certain value of C / D is Nc , Nγ and NS when
0.5 ⩽ C / D ⩽ 3.0 , indicating that the effect of cohesion on the critical
collapse pressure is the most remarkable, followed by the effect of the
soil weight; the weakest effect is due to surcharge loading. Fig. 14(b)
shows that the critical coefficient Nγ of all models linearly increases
with C / D . The critical coefficient Nγ of these models, excluding the
present model and the M2 model proposed by Mollon et al.[10], is fixed
(C / D + 1/2 ). It can be seen from Fig. 14(b) that the increase in the
critical coefficient Nγ with respect to Nγ = C / D + 1/2 when using the
M2 model proposed by Mollon et al. [10] is smaller than 6.98% when
C / D ⩾ 0.5. In addition, the decrease in the critical coefficient Nγ with
respect to Nγ = C / D + 1/2 when using the present model is smaller
than 2.97% when C / D ⩾ 0.5. Hence, it is reasonable to assume that the
7. Case analysis
In this case, the geometrical and material parameters of the circular
tunnel example in purely cohesive soil include the following: dia-
meterD = 10 m, soil unit weight γ = 18 kN/m3, and undrained soil
cohesioncu = 20 kPa or 30 kPa. Hence, the two corresponding di-
mensionless parameters γD / cu are 9.0 and 6.0, respectively. Meanwhile,
the uniform surcharge loading σS on the ground surface is not con-
sidered in this case. To calculate the critical collapse pressure, a suitable
fracture mechanism that depends on C / D and the corresponding
equations need to be determined. ForC / D = 0.5, the fracture me-
chanism of the two cu values is shown in Fig. 10 (σS =0). The critical
collapse pressures σT calculated using Eq. (14) withσS = 0 are 75.55 kPa
and 25.98 kPa. When C / D > 0.5, whether the soil in zone IV is stable
needs to be assessed using Eq. (7) for certain values of γD / cu . When
γD / cu is 9.0, the soil in zone IV is unstable, and the equivalent uniform
distribution load qV is greater than zero; the fracture mechanism is
shown in Fig. 4(a) (whereσS = 0). The critical collapse pressure σT can

119
W. Ding et al. Computers and Geotechnics 107 (2019) 110–127

zone in front of the tunnel face has a clear physical meaning and sa-
tisfies the abovementioned conditions. Hence, the present model should
significantly improve the best existing upper-bound solutions for the
collapse pressure. Additionally, the present model can effectively ex-
plain the failure mechanism of the shield-driven tunnel face.
Comparisons of the sizes of the failure zones of various models in a
half-space with various values of C / D are shown in Fig. 16.
Fig. 16 shows that the upper boundary of the failure zones of the
present model appears above, behind and in front of the tunnel face,
whereas those obtained by Davis et al. [5] and Mollon et al. [10] is only
in front of the tunnel face. Additionally, Fig. 16 shows that those of
Mollon et al. [10] suggest that the entire circular tunnel face is failing,
and those of Davis et al. [5] suggest that part of an ellipse inscribed in
the circular area is failing. However, in the present model, the area of
failure at the circular tunnel face consists of two parts: the upper half of
the circular area, and the area above the intersection of the lower half
(a) Nc-N -Ns of the circular tunnel face and plane MANOM (as shown in Fig. 22). The
shape of the failure zones at the tunnel face obtained by the present
model agrees well with the results of the centrifuge model tests per-
formed by Idinger et al. [26] and the results of the numerical simula-
tions proposed by Zhang et al. [22]. These results illustrate that the
present model is closer to the failure mode observed in actual en-
gineering than that of other models. Because it considers the yield
criterion and the normality condition (e.g., associate flow rule), the
present model can effectively explain the progressive failure of the
shield-driven tunnel face. Meanwhile, more accurate failure zone

(b) N -Ns
Fig. 14. Comparison of Nc, Nγ and Ns between the existing 3D models and the
present model: (a) Nc-Nγ-Ns; (b) Nγ-Ns.

be calculated using Eq. (26) withσS = 0. WhenγD / cu = 6.0, the soil in

zone IV is stable for values of C / D from 0.5 to 0.6834, and the
equivalent uniform distribution load qV is equal to zero. The fracture
mechanism is shown in Fig. 10 (σS =0). The critical collapse pressure σT
calculated using Eq. (14) withσS = 0 is 25.98 kPa [see Fig. 15(b)].
ForC / D > 0.6834, the soil in zone IV is unstable forγD / cu = 6.0, and
the equivalent uniform distribution load qV is greater than zero. The (a) cu = 20kPa
fracture mechanism is shown in Fig. 4(a) (σS =0). Therefore, the critical
collapse pressure σT should be calculated using Eq. (26) with σS = 0.
For this case, the solutions of the critical collapse pressure obtained
by Davis et al. [5], Klar et al. [9] and Mollon et al. [10,15–17] and the
present approach are given in Fig. 15(a) and (b). In addition to the
numerical solution, note that the other results are based on the kine-
matical approach of LA.
Fig. 15 shows that the solutions of the M2 model and the present
model are the two solutions that fit the numerical model best. In
Fig. 15(a), when γD / cu is 9.0, the values of σT provided by M2 are very
satisfying for C/D ⩽ 1.5, whereas the values of σT provided by the
present model are very satisfying for C/D > 1.5. Fig. 15(b) shows that
the values of σT provided by the present model are very satisfying for
values of C/D from 0.5 to 3.0 when γD / cu = 6.0. Since the failure shape
in front of the tunnel face from the M2 model was roughly constructed
as a simple geometrical object that envelopes the plastically deformed
region of the soil mass observed in numerical simulations, the M2
model is inaccurate and includes many uncertainties. In the present
model, the yield criterion, the normality condition (e.g., associate flow (b) cu = 30kPa
rule), and the vertical soil arching effect are considered. Each failure
Fig. 15. Comparisons of collapse pressures from various models.

120
W. Ding et al.
(a) C/D =0.5
(b) C/D =1.0
Fig. 16. Comparisons of the failure zones of various models in a half-space: C/
D = 0.5; (b) C/D = 1.0.
volumes can be obtained using the present model. Hence, the proposed
failure mechanism significantly improves the existing upper-bound
solutions for the face stability of circular tunnels in purely cohesive
soils.
8. Discussion
The shape of the failure zone at the tunnel face has been described
from various points of view. For cohesive or frictional material, it has
been reported in the literature [5,14] that the shape of the failure zone
at the tunnel face is an ellipse inscribed on the circular tunnel face. This
failure zone has a major semi-axis length equal to D /2, where D is the
diameter of the circular tunnel. Subsequently, based on the results
observed in their experimental test [29] and numerical simulation [30]
work, Mollon et al. [10,15–17] proposed that the shape of the failure
zone at the tunnel face was the entire circular tunnel face. However,
increasingly more evidence from centrifuge model tests [26,31], and
numerical simulations [22,32,33] shows that the envelope of the tunnel
face failure should be bulb-shaped, indicating that the failure plane at
the tunnel face is primarily formed by shear failure. In this paper, the
shape of the failure zone at the tunnel face is in agreement with the
latter point of view.
9. Conclusion
A new 3D multizone translational failure mechanism based on the
slip line theory and kinematical approach of LA was proposed in this
study to improve the existing solutions of the critical collapse pressure
of a circular shield-driven tunnel. Compared with the existing limit
analysis mechanisms, the present model represents a significant ad-
vantage in terms of the accurate determination of the critical collapse
pressure. Since this model takes into account the yield criterion, the
normality condition and the vertical soil arching effect, the failure
121
Computers and Geotechnics 107 (2019) 110–127
zones in front of the tunnel face in the present model are closer to those
observed in actual projects than those of other models. Moreover, we
provided comparisons of the results from the present model and other
approaches. The main conclusions are as follows:
1. The present failure mechanism is a 4-variable multizone mechanism
that consists of four zones, e.g., zones I, II, and III and a possible
zone IV. Since the geometry of the tunnel and the distribution of the
possible surcharge loading on the ground surface are symmetric
along the longitudinal axis of the circular tunnel, the shapes of these
four zones are also symmetric. While zones I, III, and IV are in the
Rankine zone, zone II is a transitional zone. Whether zone IV is a
failure zone needs to be determined by assessing the stability of the
soil in zone IV using Terzaghi’s soil pressure relation.
2. The proposed failure mechanism indicates that the critical values of
the stability ratio N vary with the burial depth (i.e., C / D ) of the
tunnel and the weight (i.e., γ D/ cu ) of the soil. However, Figs. 12 and
13 show that the variation in the critical values of the stability ratio,
N , caused by the weight (i.e., γ D/ cu ) of soil is insignificant. Thus,
the tunnel stability estimate is reasonable when using the stability
ratio N . The comparisons of the collapse pressures between the
present model, numerical simulations and other theoretical ap-
proaches show that a good agreement was attained with the results
of the numerical simulation, especially for values ofC / D > 1.5.
3. The proposed failure mechanism suggests that the failure zones at
the tunnel face consist of the upper half of the circular tunnel face
and an inscribed parabola on the lower half of the tunnel face in-
stead of the entire circular tunnel face or an inscribed ellipse on the
tunnel face, as shown in Fig. 22. This result agrees well with the
results of Idinger et al. [26] and Zhang et al. [22]. Moreover, this
result demonstrates that the failure zones at the tunnel face are
primarily formed by shear failure.
4. Comparisons of the critical values of Nγ , Nc , and NS between the
present model and other approaches are given in this paper. The
present model significantly improves the critical values of Nc com-
pared with other limit analysis mechanisms. The critical values of Nc
were improved by using the proposed failure mechanism, showing
good agreement with the results of the analytical [4] and experi-
mental [3] approaches. Although the critical values of Nγ are im-
proved, the difference is insignificant. Moreover, Fig. 14 indicates
that the critical values of NS from all approaches are independent of
the values of C/D. When 0.5 ⩽ C / D ⩽ 3.0 , the contribution of the
critical values of Nc to the collapse pressure is more significant than
those of the other two critical values.
5. Equations to express the external envelope surface of the failure
zones are proposed, allowing the precise boundary of the failure
zones to be plotted. These analytical equations may also be used to
calculate the critical collapse pressure required to maintain the
stability of a tunnel face. Since the yield criterion, the normality
condition and the vertical soil arching effect are considered in the
proposed failure mechanism, the failure zones obtained using the
present model may be very similar to those in actual projects.
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the financial support provided by the
National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 41572275)
and the Natural Science Foundation of Shandong Province (Grant No.
ZR2012EEM006).
W. Ding et al. Computers and Geotechnics 107 (2019) 110–127

Appendix A. Derivation of the external power and dissipation power

A.1 Geometric properties

This study considered two types of fracture mechanisms corresponding to different values of C / D . For C / D equal to 0.5, the first fracture
mechanism consists of three zones, i.e., zones I, II and III (see Fig. 10). For C / D greater than 0.5, the second fracture mechanism involves four zones,
i.e., zones I, II, III and possibly IV [see Fig. 4(a)]. The geometric properties of three zones (i.e., zones I, II and III) of the two fracture mechanisms are
the same. Because of the contribution to the collapse loads of the surcharge loading on the ground surface of the top of the possible zone IV, the soil
weight and the undrained soil cohesion of the possible zone IV can be equivalent to the uniformly distributed load pressure, qV , acting on the circle
with diameter EF based on Terzaghi’s soil pressure relation (see Fig. 7). The geometric properties of the possible zone IV can be disregarded. Thus,
the geometric quantities of zones I, II and III need to be determined to deduce the power of the external force and the internal dissipation energy. The
geometric properties include the volumes of the zones (i.e., zones I, II and III), the area of the discontinuous surfaces (i.e., the curved surfaces of
zones I, II and III; and the plane MFN) and the area of failure on the tunnel face, which are calculated as follows.

A.2 Volumes of zones

A.1.1 Volume of Zone I

Zone I is shown in Fig. 5(a). The curved surface of zone I can be expressed as Eq. (4) in the Cartesian coordinate system. The space domain Ω1,
which is enclosed by the curved surface MANBM, and the planes MAN and MBN in zone I, consist of the space domains Ω11 and Ω12 .

D2 D (x + z ) D2 D (x + z )
Ω11 = {(z , x , y )| − D /2 ⩽ z ⩽ 0, z ⩽ x ⩽ 0, − + ⩽y⩽ + }
2 2 2 2 (36)

D2 D (x + z ) D2 D (x + z )
Ω12 = {(z , x , y )| − D ⩽ z ⩽ −D /2, −D − z ⩽ x ⩽ 0, − + ⩽y⩽ + }
2 2 2 2 (37)
where Ω1 = Ω11 ∪ Ω12 .
Thus, the volume of zone I is given by
2 2 3
V1 = ∭ dV = ∭ dV + ∭ dV = 15
D
Ω1 Ω11 Ω12 (38)

A.1.2 Volume of Zone II

Zone II is shown in Fig. 5(b). The curved surface of zone II can be expressed as Eq. (3) in the Cartesian coordinate system. Since the planes xoy and
xoz are the symmetric surface of zone II, one quarter of the volume of zone II is calculated, and the local cylindrical coordinate system ( ρ , θ , y ) is
used, as shown in Fig. 17.
The space domain Ω2 occupied by one quarter of the volume of the zone II can be expressed as

Ω2 = {(ρ , θ , y )| 0 ⩽ ρ ⩽ 2 D /2, 0 ⩽ θ ⩽ π /4, 0 ⩽ y ⩽ D 2 /2 − 2 Dρ /2 } (39)

Therefore, the volume of zone II is given by
2π 3
V2 = 4 ∭ dV = 4 ∭ ρdρdθdy = 15
D
Ω2 Ω2 (40)

A.1.3 Volume of Zone III

Zone III is shown in Fig. 5(c). The curved surface of zone III can be expressed as Eq. (2) in the Cartesian coordinate system. Thus, the space

Fig. 17. Local cylindrical coordinate system in zone II.

122
W. Ding et al. Computers and Geotechnics 107 (2019) 110–127

domain Ω3 can be defined as

Ω3 = \{ (z , x , y )| 0 ⩽ z ⩽ D /2, −z ⩽ x ⩽ 0, - (z − 3D /4)2 − (x + D /4)2 y ⩽ (z − 3D /4)2 − (x + D /4)2 \} (41)

Therefore, the volume of zone III is given by

V3 = ∭ dxdzdy = 0.0972D3
Ω3 (42)

A.3 Areas of the discontinuous surfaces

A.3.1 Area of the curved surface of zone I

The curved surface of zone I is shown in Fig. 18 (gray shaded area).
The curved surface in the Cartesian coordinate system can be expressed as Eq. (4).
Thus, the area of the curved surface S1 of zone I is given by

S1 = ∬ 1 + D /16(D + x + z ) dA = 0.6323D 2
Γ1 (43)
where Γ1 is the projection domain of the curved surface in the coordinate plane xoz .

A.3.2 Area of the curved surface of zone II

The curved surface of zone II is shown in Fig. 19 (gray shaded area).
The curved surface in the Cartesian coordinate system can be expressed as Eq. (3). Given the symmetry of the curved surface, the area of the
curved surface S2 of zone II is calculated as follows:
4D (4 − 2 2 ) π 2
S2 = 4 ∬ 1+
D − 2ρ
dA =
3
D
Γ2 (44)
where Γ2 = {(ρ , θ)| 0 ⩽ ρ ⩽ 2 D /2, 0 ⩽ θ ⩽ π /4} .

A.3.3 Area of the curved surface of zone III

The curved surface of zone III is shown in Fig. 20 (gray shaded area).
The curved surface in the Cartesian coordinate system can be expressed as Eq. (2). Given the symmetry of the curved surface, the area of the
curved surface S3 of zone III is calculated as follows:

2a2 32 − 3 2 π 2
S3 = 2 ∬ a2 − b2
dA =
48
D
Γ3 (45)
where Γ3 = {(a, b)| − b − D /2 ⩽ a ⩽ D /4, −D /4 ⩽ b ⩽ D /4} , a = z − 3D /4 , and b = x + D/4 .

A.3.4 Area of the plane MFN

The plane MFN is shown in Fig. 21.
The hyperbola MFN in the Cartesian coordinate system can be expressed by Eq. (1).
Thus, the area of the plane MFN is given by
SMNF = [6 2 − ln(3 + 2 2 )] D 2 /16 (46)

Fig. 18. Curved surface of zone I.

123
W. Ding et al. Computers and Geotechnics 107 (2019) 110–127

Fig. 19. The whole curved surface and 1/4 of the curved surface of zone II.

A.4 Area of failure on the tunnel face

The area of failure on the tunnel face is shown in Fig. 22.

The parabola MAN in the Cartesian coordinate system can be expressed by
y 2 = D2 /2 + Dz /2 (47)
Thus, the area of failure on the tunnel face is given by
A = (1/3 + π /8) D 2 (48)

A.5 Velocity field

Based on the slip line theory and the kinematical approach of limit analysis, a kinematically admissible velocity field with an axially symmetric
surface is constructed, as shown in Fig. 23.
Since the failure mechanism is assumed to be translational, the magnitudes of the velocity of the soils in the failure zones are the same. The soil in
failure zone IV is assumed to follow Terzaghi’s soil pressure relation. Thus, the magnitude of the kinematic velocity in the failure zones can be
expressed as follows:
v1 = v 2 = v 3 = v (49)
The magnitudes of the kinematic velocity at points B, E and F are given by
v1 = vB = vE = vF = v (50)
The magnitude of the kinematic velocity of the tunnel face can be written as
vT = 2 v1/2 = 2 v /2 (51)
The dissipation of plastic energy occurs only along discontinuous surfaces, and the dissipation energy per unit area dPv / d Σ is
dPv / d Σ = cu v∙n (52)
where n is the unit vector normal to the discontinuous surface at the point where dPv / d Σ is computed. Since the angles between the velocity v and the
discontinuity surfaces S1, S2 and S3 are zero, Eq. (52) can be written as
dPv / d Σ = cu v (53)
Since the angle between the velocity v and the discontinuity surface MNF is π/4 , Eq. (52) can be written as
dPv / d Σ = 2 cu v /2 (54)

Fig. 20. Curved surface of zone III.

124
W. Ding et al. Computers and Geotechnics 107 (2019) 110–127

Fig. 21. Plane MFN.

Fig. 22. Area of failure on the tunnel face.

A.6 Power of the external forces

A.6.1 C / D equal to 0.5

In this case, the power of the external forces Pe consists of three components
Pe = PT + PS + Pγ (55)
where PT is the power of the critical collapse pressure σT ; PS is the power of the possible uniform surcharge loading σS ; and Pγ is the power of the soil
weight of three zones, i.e., zones I, II and III.

Fig. 23. Kinematically admissible velocity field with an axially symmetric surface.

125
W. Ding et al. Computers and Geotechnics 107 (2019) 110–127

PT = − ∬Σ T
σT vT d Σ = −σT vT A
(56)
Substituting expressions (48) and (51) into (56), we find:
PT = − 2 (1/3 + π /8) σT D 2v /2 (57)
The power of a possible uniform surcharge loading, σS , on the ground surface can be expressed as follows:

PS = ∬Σ s
σS vns dΣ
(58)
where vns
is the downward normal velocity of the surface and Σs is the deforming area of the surface.
In this study, since undrained behavior is assumed, the soil deforms at a constant volume [6] and

∬Σ s
vns dA = ∬Σ T
vT dA
(59)
Substituting Eq. (59) into (58), the power of a possible uniform surcharge loading σS on the ground surface becomes

PS = σS ∬Σ T
vT dA= 2 (1/3 + π /8) σS D 2v /2
(60)
The power of the soil weight of the three zones can be expressed as follows:

Pγ = Pγ , I + Pγ , II + Pγ , III = ∭V 1
γvn1 dV + ∭V
2
γvn2 dV + ∭V
3
γvn3 dV
(61)
where vn1, vn2 and vn3 are the downward normal velocities of the centroid of zones I, II and III, respectively, as shown in Fig. 5(a), (b) and (c); and V1, V2
and V3are the volumes of zones I, II and III, respectively. The magnitudes of the downward normal velocity vn1, vn2 and vn3 are given as follows:
vn1 = 2 v /2 (62)

vn2 =v (63)

vn3 = 2 v /2 (64)
Substituting Eqs. (38), (40), (42), (62), (63) and (64) into (61), Eq. (61) can be rewritten:
2 2π 3
Pγ = γD3v + γD v + 9.7218 × 10−2 2 γD3v /2 = 0.4983γD3v
15 15 (65)
Substituting Eqs. (57), (60) and (65) into (55), Eq. (55) can then be expressed as
Pe = 0.5134(σS − σT ) D 2v + 0.4983γD3v (66)

A.6.2 C / D greater than 0.5

In this case, the fracture mechanism consists of four zones, as shown in Fig. 4(a). In the fracture mechanism, zone IV is a possible fracture zone.
The stability of the fourth zone depends on three factors: the weight of zone IV, the uniform surcharge loadings on the ground surface and the
undrained cohesion of the soil in zone IV. To obtain the power of these factors of zone IV, Terzaghi’s soil pressure relation is used to calculate the
uniform distributed load pressure qV , which is caused by these factors. The pressure acts on a circle with diameter EF, as shown in Fig. 7. In addition,
the uniform distributed load pressure qV can be expressed as Eq. (6).
Thus, the power of the external force Pe in the fracture mechanism should be given by
Pe = PT + Pq + Pγ (67)
where PT and PS are the same as those in Eq. (55) and Pq is the power of the uniform distributed load pressure qV .
The method for determining Pq is the same as the method for determining PS in Eq. (60).

Pq = qV ∬Σ T
vT dA= 2 (1/3 + π /8) qV D 2v /2
(68)
Substituting Eq. (6) into Eq. (68), we obtain
C 1 4C
Pq = 2 (1/3 + π /8)[γD ( − ) − 2cu ln( − 1) + σs ] D 2v /2
D 2 D (69)
Substituting Eqs. (57), (65) and (69) into (67), Eq. (67) can then be written as
Pe = 0.5134[σS + γD (C /D − 1/2) − 2cu ln(4C / D − 1) − σT ] D 2v + 0.4983γD3v (70)

A.7 Dissipation power

Whether or not the values of C / D are equal to zero or greater than zero, the dissipation energy can be written as
Pv = Pcu, I + Pcu, II + Pcu, III + Pcu, MNF (71)
where Pcu, I , Pcu, II , Pcu, III and Pcu, MNF are the contributions of zone I, zone II, zone III, and plane MNF , respectively.
Pcu, I = cu vS1 (72)

Pcu, II = cu vS2 (73)

126
W. Ding et al.
Pcu, III = cu vS3
Pcu, MNF = 2 cu vSMNF /2
Eqs. (43), (44), (45) and (46) allow one to write (72), (73), (74) and (75) in the form:
Pcu, I = 0.6323cu vD 2
(4 − 2 2 ) π
Pcu, II = cu vD 2
3 (77)
32 − 3 2 π
Pcu, III = cu vD 2
48
[12 − 2 ln(3 + 2 2 )]
Pcu, MNF = cu vD 2
32
Substituting Eqs. (76), (77), (78) and (79) for Pcu, I , Pcu, II , Pcu, III and Pcu, MNF in Eq. (71) leads to
Pv = 2.5453cu vD 2
References
[1] Broms BB, Bennermark H. Stability of clay at vertical openings. J Soil Mech Found
Div 1967;SM1(93):71–94.
[2] Schofield AN. Cambridge geotechnical centrifuge operations. Geotechnique
1980;30(3):227–68.
[3] Kimura T, Mair RJ. Centrifugal testing of model tunnels in clay. Proceedings of the
10th international conference of soil mechanics and foundation engineering,
Stockholm, Rotterdam: Balkema, V1. 1981. p. 319–22.
[4] Ellstein AR. Heading failure of lined tunnels in soft soils. Tunnels and Tunnelling
1986;18(6):51–4.
[5] Davis EH, Gunn MJ, Mair RJ, Seneviratne HN. The stability of shallow tunnels and
underground openings in cohesive material. Geotechnique 1980;30(4):397–416.
[6] Sloan SW, Assadi A. Undrained stability of a plane strain heading. Can Geotech J
1994:443–50.
[7] Augarde CE, Lyamin AV, Sloan SW. Stability of an undrained plane strain heading
revisited. Comput Geotech 2003;30(5):419–30.
[8] Lee CJ, Wu BR, Chen HT, Chiang KH. Tunneling stability and arching effects during
tunneling in soft clayey soil. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 2006;21(2):119–32.
[9] Klar A, Osman AS, Bolton M. 2D and 3D upper bound solutions for tunnel ex-
cavation using ‘elastic’ flow fields. Int J Numer Anal Meth Geomech
2007;31(12):1367–74.
[10] Mollon G, Dias D, Soubra AH. Continuous velocity fields for collapse and blowout of
a pressurized tunnel face in purely cohesive soil. Int J Numer Anal Meth Geomech
2013;37(13):2061–83.
[11] Wu J, Liao SM, Shi ZH. Workface stability of shield tunnel considering arching
effect. J Tongji Univ (Nat Sci) 2015;43(2):213–20.
[12] Hu XY, Zhang ZX. Calculation model of shield tunneling stability based on real face
failure models. J Shanghai Jiao Tong Univ 2013;47(9). 1469–1456.
[13] Lu XL, Li FD, Huang MS, Wan JL. Three-dimensional numerical and analytical so-
lutions of limit support pressure at shield tunnel face. J Tongji Univ (Nat Sci)
2012:1469–73.
[14] Leca E, Dormieux L. Upper and lower bound solutions for the face stability of
shallow circular tunnels in frictional material. Geotechnique 1990;40(4):581–606.
[15] Mollon G, Dias D, Soubra AH. Probabilistic analysis and design of circular tunnels
against face stability. Int J Geomech, ASCE 2009;9(6):237–49.
[16] Mollon G, Dias D, Soubra AH. Face stability analysis of circular tunnels driven by a
pressurized shield. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng, ASCE 2010;136(1):215–29.
[17] Mollon G, Dias D, Soubra AH. Rotational failure mechanisms for the face stability
analysis of tunnels driven by pressurized shields. Int J Numer Anal Meth Geomech
127
Computers and Geotechnics 107 (2019) 110–127
(74)
(75)
(76)
(78)
(79)
(80)
2011;35(12):1263–388.
[18] Zou JF, Ze HQ. Face stability analysis of tunnels excavated below groundwater
considering coupled flow deformation. Int J Geomech, ASCE 2018;18(8). https://
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0001199.
[19] Zou JF, Chen KC, Pan QJ. An improved numerical approach in surrounding rock
incorporating rockbolt effectiveness and seepage force. Acta Geotech
2018;13(3):707–27.
[20] Chen RP, Tang LJ, Ling DS, Chen YM. Face stability analysis of shallow shield
tunnels in dry sandy ground using the discrete element method. Comput Geotech
2011;38(2):187–95.
[21] Chen RP, Li J, Kong LG, Tang LJ. Experimental study on face instability of shield
tunnel in sand. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 2013;33(1):12–21.
[22] Zhang CP, Han KH, Zhang DL. Face stability analysis of shallow circular tunnels in
cohesive-frictional soils. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 2015;50:345–57.
[23] Zhang F, Gao YF, Wu YX, Zhang N. Upper-bound solutions for face stability of
circular tunnels in undrained clays. Géotechnique 2018;68(1):76–85.
[24] Huang MS, Li S, Yu J, Tan Wen JQ. Continuous field based upper bound analysis for
three-dimensional tunnel face stability in undrained clay. Comput Geotech
2018;94:207–13.
[25] Boonchai K, Kongkit Y, Suraparb K. Three-dimensional undrained tunnel face sta-
bility in clay with a linearly increasing shear strength with depth. Comput Geotech
2017;88:146–51.
[26] Idinger G, Aklik P, Wu W, Borja RI. Centrifuge model test on the face stability of
shallow tunnel. Acta Geotech 2011;6(2):105–17.
[27] Chen WF. Limit analysis and soil plasticity. Elsevier Press; 1975.
[28] Chevalier B, Takano D, Otani J. Comparison of X-ray CT and discrete element
method in the evaluation of tunnel face failure, GeoX2010: Advances in Computed
Tomography for Geomaterials. John Wiley & Sons Inc; 2013. p. 397–405.
[29] Takano D, Otani J, Nagatani H, Mukunoki T. Application of X-ray CT on boundary
value problems in geotechnical engineering-research on tunnel face failure. Proc
Geocongr, Proc ASCE, Atlanta 2006;187:1–6.
[30] Eisentein AR, Ezzeldine O. The role of face pressure for shieldswith positive ground
control. Tunneling and Ground conditions. Balkema: Rotterdam 1994:557–71.
[31] Chambon P, Corte JF. Shallow tunnels in cohesionless soil: stability of tunnel face. J
Geotech Eng 1994;120(7):1148–65.
[32] Chen RP, Tang LJ, Ling DS, Chen YM. Face stability analysis of shallow shield
tunnels in dry sandy ground using the discrete element method. Comput Geotech
2011;38:187–95.
[33] Wang J, He C, Wang C, Chen ZQ, Tang R. Face stability analysis of EPB shield tunnel
in sand. Chinese J Geotech Eng 2018;40(1):177–84.