Geotech Geol Eng
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-020-01585-y (0123456789().,-volV)
( 01234567
89().,-volV)
ORIGINAL PAPER
Effect of Seepage Force on Tunnel Face Stability Using
Limit Analysis with SRM
Yonglin An . Jiahao Li . Jian Yue . Jin Zhou
Received: 22 June 2020 / Accepted: 25 September 2020
Ó Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020
Abstract The seepage force is of importance on
tunnel face stability. The formulas to determine the
seepage force are introduced based on Darcy’s Law.
The formula of the stability safety factor containing
the tunnel face of the seepage force is derived and
applied to the actual tunnel engineering using the
upper bound limit analysis combining with the
strength reduction method. The results show that: as
the water level increases, the average seepage force
increases, and the safety factor decreases. If the
horizontal seepage force is considered only and the
vertical seepage force is ignored, the result is unsafe.
The stability of the tunnel face can be improved by
reducing the excavation height and adopting some
reinforcement, such as grouting or rock bolt to
increase the cohesion and friction angle of the rock.
Y. An (&)  J. Li  J. Yue  J. Zhou
Hunan Provincical Key Laboratory of Geotechnical
Engineering for Stability Control and Health Monitoring,
School of Civil Engineering, Hunan University of Science
and Technology, Xiangtan 411201, China
e-mail: aylcsu@163.com
J. Li
e-mail: 1079596166@qq.com
J. Yue
e-mail: 472137670@qq.com
J. Zhou
e-mail: 335401438@qq.com
Keywords Tunnel face stability  Seepage force 
Limit analysis  Strength reduced method
1 Introduction
There are many cases of collapse due to instability of
the tunnel face, especially in the water-rich area. With
the development of China’s economy and the con-
struction of ‘‘The Belt and Road’’ and ‘‘the Yangtze
River economic zone’’, the scale of engineering
construction in highway, railway, rail transit, water
conservancy, energy and other fields will continue to
expand, and rich water tunnels will also emerge.
Therefore, it is of great theoretical significance and
engineering application value to study the stability of
water-rich tunnel face.
At present, there are many studies on the stability of
shield tunnel excavation face, mainly using limit
analysis method (Davis et al. 1980; Anagnostou and
Kovári 1994; Salvador et al. 2020), limit equilibrium
method (Nomikos et al. 2002), test method (Lo-
ganathan et al. 2000; Bilotta and Taylor 2005), and
numerical simulation by software (Yasletty et al.
2019), etc. For water-saturated strata, the influence of
water on tunnel stability is studied by numerical
software and limit method (De Buhan et al. 1999;
Broere and Van 2000; Callari 2004; Lee and Nam
2001, 2004; Lee et al. 2004; Rong and Cheng 2004; Li
123
 Geotech Geol Eng

et al. 2004; Cao et al. 2016; Hu 2018; An et al. 2016; 3 Limit Analysis Method for Tunnel Face Stability
Yi et al. 2019).
In this paper, based on strength reduction method 3.1 Stability Analysis Principle of Tunnel Face
and limit analysis method, the influence of seepage Excavated by Mine Method
force on the stability of tunnel face excavated by
mining method is analyzed under the condition of The principle of limit analysis is clearly introduced in
seepage. the literature review (Chen 1975). In this paper, the
formula for calculating support force in the literature
review (Lu et al. 2011) is used to analyze the influence
2 Method for Determining Seepage Force of seepage force on the stability of tunnel face by
combining strength reduction method.
The governing equations of steady seepage are as For shield tunnels, it is necessary to use earth soil
follows: pressure to maintain the stability of tunnel face.
Therefore, it is reasonable to use support force to judge
o2 W o2 W o2 W
kx þ k y þ kz ¼0 ð1Þ the stability of tunnel face and determine the ultimate
ox2 oy2 oz2 support force, which also has engineering guiding
Where the permeability coefficients in x, y and z significance. But for the mining method (NATM)
directions are kx , ky and kz respectively, and W is the tunnel, the author thinks that it is not reasonable to
head height function. judge the stability of the tunnel face by the support
For two-dimensional isotropic seepage (kx = ky ), force, because after the tunnel excavation, the tunnel
Eq. (1) becomes Laplace equation. face does not provide support force, the support force
is 0, that is r3 = 0, as shown in Fig. 1.
o2 W o2 W In order to apply the results of limit analysis to
þ 2 ¼0 ð2Þ
ox2 oy mining method, the support force is called virtual
Formula (1) is a partial differential equation. By support force here. Strength reduction method is used
means of numerical analysis and combined with to reduce the strength parameters of surrounding rock.
seepage boundary conditions, the head height of each The reduced parameters are used to solve the virtual
point around the tunnel can be obtained, and then the support force of the tunnel face. When the virtual
hydraulic gradient of each point and the size of the unit support force is zero, the reduction coefficient is the
seepage force can be obtained. stability safety factor of the tunnel face. In this way,
the concept of supporting force is avoided and the
oW oW oW safety factor obtained is easily recognized in engi-
ix ¼ ; iy ¼ ; iz ¼ ð3Þ
ox oy oz neering application.

oW oW oW 3.2 Virtual Support Force Formula

j x ¼ cw ; jy ¼ cw ; j z ¼ cw ð4Þ
ox oy oz
Where the hydraulic gradients in the three direc- As shown in Fig. 2 , the failure mode of the tunnel face
tions of x, y and z are ix , iy and iz , cw is the unit weight consists of two rigid blocks , ´ and a shear zone `
of water, and the unit permeability in the three (Lu et al. 2011) Block  is a triangular OO0 B with a
directions of x, y and z is jx , jy and jz , respectively.

Tunnel f ace

Fig. 1 Stress state of tunnel face using NATM

123
Geotech Geol Eng

Fig. 2 Limit analysis method on tunnel face stability

top angle 2u. Block ´ is an isosceles triangle OAE, r0 h  lB ðh  HÞ

and the angle between AE line and horizontal line is p/ N c0 ¼ 2 ðp=4þu=2Þ tan u sinðp=4
2D e þ u=2Þ
4 ? u/2. The shear zone ` is the OBE surrounded by 3ðp=4þu=2Þ tan u
þ fe ½3 tan u cosðp=4 þ u=2Þ
logarithmic helix BE, point O is the center of
logarithmic helix, and point B and point E are the þ sinðp=4 þ u=2Þ  3 tan ugr02 =
starting and ending points of logarithmic helix, ½2D2 eðp=4þu=2Þ tan u sinðp=4 þ u=2Þ=
respectively.
ð1 þ 9 tan2 uÞ þ 0:5D2 =
0
rT ¼ c DNc0 þ rs Ns  cN
c ½2D2 eðp=4þu=2Þ tan u sinðp=4 þ u=2Þ
W j v0
þ ðp=4þu=2Þ tan u ð5Þ tanðp=4  u=2Þ cosðp=4 þ u=2Þeðp=4þu=2Þ tan u
De sinðp=4 þ u=2Þ
ð6Þ
Where rT is the virtual support force of tunnel face.
c0 is the effective unit weight of surrounding rock. D is lB
Ns ¼ ð7Þ
the excavation height of tunnel. rs is surface overload. Deðp=4þu=2Þ tan u sinðp=4 þ u=2Þ
Nc0 , Ns and Nc are load-carrying coefficients of unit
weight, overload and cohesion, respectively. Wj is the 2h  lB cot u
Nc ¼
work power of the seepage force in the whole damage Deðp=4þu=2Þ tan u sinðp=4 þ u=2Þ
cos u
range and v0 is the velocity of the arch collapse body. þ 2
2 sin ðp=4 þ u=2Þ 
r0 cot u eðp=4þu=2Þ tan u  1
þ ðp=4þu=2Þ tan u ð8Þ
De sinðp=4 þ u=2Þ

Wj ¼ Wjax þ Wjay þ Wjbx þ Wjby þ Wjcx þ Wjcy ð9Þ

Where

123
 Geotech Geol Eng

Wjax ¼ 0 ð10Þ If rT [ 0, indicating the need for supporting force,

if the surrounding rock of the tunnel face is not
Wjay ¼ jay  v0  0:5 ½r0 h  lB ðh  H Þ ð11Þ supported, it will collapse. If rT B 0, it means that no

jbx  v0  r02 n 3ðp=4þu=2Þ tan u o

Wjbx ¼ e ½ 3 tan u sin ð p=4 þ u=2 Þ  cos ð p=4 þ u=2 Þ  þ 1 ð12Þ
2ð1 þ 9 tan2 uÞ

jby  v0  r02 n 3ðp=4þu=2Þ tan u o

Wjby ¼ 2
e ½3 tan u cosðp=4 þ u=2Þ þ sinðp=4 þ u=2Þ  3 tan u ð13Þ
2ð1 þ 9 tan uÞ

Wjcx ¼ jcx  v0  0:25D2 tanðp=4  u=2Þ sinðp=4 þ u=2Þeðp=4þu=2Þ tan u ð14Þ

Wjcy ¼ jcy  v0  0:25D2 tanðp=4  u=2Þ cosðp=4 þ u=2Þeðp=4þu=2Þ tan u ð15Þ

For damage area , the average seepage force in x support force is needed, that is, the surrounding rock of
P the tunnel face is stable.
direction is: jax ¼ jaxi Aai =Aa .
For damage area , the average seepage force in y
P  3.3 Strength Reduction Method
direction is: jay ¼ jayi Aai Aa .
For damage area `, the average seepage force in x Based on the strength reduction method, there are:
P
direction is: jbx ¼ jbxi Abi =Ab . 8 c
For damage area `, the average seepage force in y < c0 ¼
P  F   ð16Þ
direction is: jby ¼ jbyi Abi Ab . : u0 ¼ arctan tan u
For damage area ´, the average seepage force in x F
P
direction is: jcx ¼ jcxi Aci =Ac . Where F is the reduction factor, that is, the
If the effect of seepage force is not considered, the minimum stability safety factor of tunnel face. c0 is
effect of water is only considered according to the cohesion of surrounding rock reduced by F value,
hydrostatic pressure, then the method mentioned u0 is the internal friction angle of surrounding rock
above is followed. reduced by F value.
For damage area ´, the average seepage force in y
P 
direction is: jcy ¼ jcyi Aci Ac . 3.4 Safety Factor of Tunnel Face Stability
Among them, the area of damage area , ` and ´
are Aa ,Ab and Ac , respectively. Aai is the area of the i By substituting c0 and u0 into Eq. (5) and making
unit in the destroyed area . Abi is the area of the i unit rT = 0, then.
in the destroyed area `. Aci is the area of the i unit in c0 DNc0 0 þ rs Ns0  c0 Nc0
the destroyed area ´. jaxi is the seepage force in the x Wj =v0
direction of the i unit in the destroyed region . jayi is þ ðp=4þu0 =2Þ tan u0
De sinðp=4 þ u0 =2Þ
the seepage force in the y direction of the i unit in the ¼0 ð17Þ
destroyed region . jbxi is the seepage force in the x
direction of the i unit in the destroyed region `. jbyi is Where Nc0 0 is the bearing coefficient Nc0 of the
the seepage force in the y direction of the i unit in the effective weight of the surrounding rock when u0 is
destroyed region `. jcxi is the seepage force in the x replaced by u.Ns0 is the bearing coefficient Ns of
direction of the i unit in the destroyed region ´. jcyi is overload on the ground surface when u0 is replaced by
the seepage force in the y direction of the i unit in the u.Nc0 is the bearing coefficient Nc of cohesion of
destroyed region ´. surrounding rock when u0 is replaced by u.

123
Geotech Geol Eng
Formula (17) is a non-linear equation. The mini-
mum stability safety factor F of tunnel face can be
obtained by trial calculation or programming. By
changing the position of the water level line, the safety
factor of the stability of the tunnel face considering the
seepage force under different water levels can be
obtained.
4 Implementation Case
4.1 Safety Analysis Under Fixed Constant Water
Level
Taking Yingpan Road Underwater Tunnel in Chang-
sha, Hunan Province as an example, a certain mileage
section is constructed by three bench excavation
method. The upper step height D = 4.07 m, the tunnel
Fig. 3 Numerical simulation of water pressure and hydraulic gradient around the tunnel face
depth H = 16.9 m, the internal friction angle of
surrounding rock is 25°, the cohesion c of surrounding
rock is 150 kPa, the permeability coefficient is
0.000003125 m/s, the effective weight of surrounding
rock is 13 k N/m3, the water weight is 10 kN/m3, the
constant water level height is taken, and the distance
between water level and vault is Hw = 25.9 m.
The results of numerical simulation are shown in
Fig. 3, and the average seepage force in each damage
area is further obtained, as shown in Table 1.
By substituting the parameters into formula (5), the
required supporting force can be obtained, rT ¼
264.52 kPa \ 0. This means that no support force
is required, that is to say, the surrounding rock of the
tunnel face is stable. By strength reduction method, the
safety factor of the stability of the tunnel face is 3.83,
as shown in Fig. 4. The in-site photo of tunnel face is
shown in Fig. 5, and the nearby in-site monitoring
123
 Geotech Geol Eng

Tablse 1 Average seepage force Units: kN/m3 result of the crown settlement is shown in Fig. 6. The
 ` ´
tunnel face is stable and the settlement curve of the
crown tends to be stable gradually. To some extent,
x direction 4.48 35.81 48.81 these correspond with the numerical analysis.
y direction 43.47 32.13 15.57
4.2 Safety Analysis Under Different Water Levels

The water level of underwater tunnels may be

400
changing due to the rain influence. Next, the seepage
virtual supporting

300
force and the stability of the tunnel face under
pressure/kPa

200
100 different water levels are further analyzed, as shown
0 in Figs. 7 and 8.
-100
3.83 (1) With the increase of water level, the average
-200
-300 seepage force per unit increases, the gradient of
1 2 3 4 5 6 seepage force increases in different damage
strength reduction factor parts and directions is different. The horizontal
average seepage force of the tunnel face area ´
Fig. 4 Virtual support pressure vs. reduction factor increases the most, followed by the vertical
average seepage force of the arch area .
Horizontal average seepage force of arch area 
and palm area ´ increases less.
(2) With the increase of water level, the safety
factor of tunnel face decreases, showing a
negative exponential decrease (the correlation
coefficient reaches 0.9963). At constant water
level, the safety factor is 3.83, while at maxi-
mum water level, the safety factor is reduced to
2.9. From the point of view of the stability of the
tunnel face, the reasons why the tunnel stability
can be maintained by using precipitation pres-
sure relief in some high-pressure water-rich
strata are explained. Therefore, tunnels should
Fig. 5 The in-site photo of the tunnel face

Monitoring Day/d
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
0.00
-0.50
Crown settlement/cm

-1.00
-1.50
-2.00
-2.50
-3.00
-3.50

Fig. 6 The in-site monitoring result of the crown settlement

Fig. 7 Seepage forces vs. water level

123
Geotech Geol Eng

That is to say, loose low cohesion surrounding rock

makes the tunnel face more vulnerable to instability.

4.5 Effect of Internal Friction Angle

With the increase of the internal friction angle, the

Fig. 8 Safety factor vs. water level
safety factor of the palm surface stability increases,
but when the internal friction angle is greater than 25°,
the increase gradient decreases a lot. Comparing with
Figs. 10 and 11, it can be seen that for weak
surrounding rock (low cohesion, low internal friction
angle), strengthening measures can improve the
stability of the tunnel face better.

4.6 Discuss

(1) From Table 1 and Fig. 6, it can be seen that the

horizontal seepage force is dominant near the
tunnel face. This is consistent with the literature

9
8
7
safety factor

6
5
4
Fig. 9 Safety factor vs. excavation height
3
be constructed in low water level and dry 2
season. 1
0 100 200 300 400

4.3 The Influence of Excavation Height of Tunnel cohesion/kPa

Face Fig. 10 Safety factor vs. cohesion

With the increase of the excavation height of the

tunnel face, the safety factor decreases and the 5
gradient decreases; that is to say, the stability of the
tunnel face can be improved by reducing the excava- 4
safety factor

tion height of the step. That is, the influence of

excavation height on tunnel face stability is shown in 3
Fig. 9.
2
4.4 The Influence of Cohesion

1
With the increase of cohesion, the safety factor of
0 10 20 30 40 50
stability of the tunnel face increases, but the gradient
decreases. When cohesion is less than 10 kPa, the friction angle/°

safety factor of stability is less than 1, which is unsafe. Fig. 11 Safety factor vs. friction angle

123
 Geotech Geol Eng

review (Lee et al. 2004). At constant water level, 5 Conclusion

the average seepage force per unit in horizontal
x direction is 48.81 kN/m3 in the area of tunnel
(1) There are some defects in judging the stability
face, while the average seepage force per unit in
of the tunnel face by the support force, because
vertical y direction is 15.57 kN/m3. The differ-
the actual tunnel face has no support force,
ence between horizontal and vertical seepage
therefore, it is proposed to use the virtual
force increases with the increase of water level.
support force to express it. Based on the analysis
(2) Fig. 6 also shows that the vertical seepage force
of seepage field, combined with strength reduc-
of vault failure zone  is the second largest and
tion method and upper limit method, the
the horizontal seepage force is the smallest. The
formula of safety factor for stability of face
horizontal seepage force of logarithmic spiral
with seepage force is deduced.
failure zone ` is slightly larger than the vertical
(2) The safety factor of the tunnel face is 3.83 in the
seepage force, so the horizontal seepage force is
tunnel mileage section. The actual tunnel face
only considered in the literature review (Lee
has not collapsed in this section, so it is in good
et al. 2004), while the vertical seepage force is
agreement with in-site situation. With the
neglected. The result is unsafe.
increase of water level, the average seepage
(3) In the literature review (Lee et al. 2004), the
force per unit increases, and the safety factor of
horizontal seepage force is transformed into the
tunnel face decreases with a negative exponent.
distributed force on the excavation face. In
The gradient of the increase of seepage force is
addition, the discussion of seepage force and
different in each destructive part and direction.
pore water pressure has always been a hot topic,
The maximum increase of the average horizon-
and there are controversies. According to the
tal seepage force is in the area of tunnel face,
Gauss integral formula, the two can be equiv-
followed by the average vertical seepage force
alent to each other. In this paper, pore water
in the area of arch.
pressure varies on the failure surface. It is very
(3) The horizontal seepage force is dominant near
difficult to solve the work of pore water, so the
the tunnel surface, which is consistent with the
seepage force is considered.
conclusions of In-Mo Lee et al. The vertical
(4) Bishop (Bishop 1954) put forward the concept
seepage force is the second largest and the
of pore water pressure coefficient: u ¼ cu ch, in
horizontal seepage force is the smallest in the
which cu is pore water pressure coefficient. It
vault failure area. The horizontal seepage force
can be seen from the formula that the pore water
in the logarithmic spiral damage zone is slightly
pressure distribution is linear, but when consid-
larger than that in the vertical direction, so it is
ering seepage, the pore water pressure distribu-
unsafe to consider only the horizontal seepage
tion is not linear (As shown in Fig. 4a, the pore
force and neglect the vertical seepage force. For
pressure isoline is a horizontal distribution far
the weak surrounding rock, the effect of
from the tunnel face, which can be considered as
improving the stability of the face is better after
a linear part; but near the tunnel face, because
taking reinforcement measures.
the pore pressure of the tunnel face is 0, water
(4) The stability of the tunnel face can be improved
seeps into the palm surface and the isoline
by reducing the excavation height of the step.
bends, it can not be considered linearly). When
With the increase of cohesion and internal
considering seepage, there are errors in calcu-
friction angle, the safety factor of the tunnel face
lating pore water pressure of tunnel and judging
stability increases, but the gradient of the
stability of tunnel face.
increase decreases.
(5) According to Gauss integral formula, perme-
ability and pore water pressure can be equiva-
lent to each other, but it is necessary to
distinguish the research aspects of the problem.
Bishop put forward the coefficient of pore water

123
Geotech Geol Eng
pressure to calculate pore water pressure, which
is linear. When considering the seepage situa-
tion, there are errors in calculating the pore
water pressure of the tunnel and the stability of
the tunnel face when it is used to calculate the
pore water pressure of the tunnel.
Acknowledgements Research projects funded by Hunan
Provincial Department of Education and funded by National
Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 51408216 and
51308209) are gratefully acknowledged. We are also grateful to
our peer reviewers and the journal editors.
References
An YL, Hu WX, Yue J (2016) Effect of the subsequent driving
tunnel on the advanced tunnel of underwater parallel tun-
nels. J Hunan Univ Sci Technol (Nat Sci Edtion)
31(02):66–70 (in Chinese)
Anagnostou G, Kovári K (1994) The face stability of slurry
shield-driven tunnels. Tunn Undergr Space Technol
9(2):165–174
Bilotta E, Taylor RN (2005) Centrifuge modelling of tunnelling
close to a diaphragm wall. Int J Phys Model Geotech
5(1):27–41
Bishop AW (1954) The use of pore-pressure coefficients in
practice. Geotechnique 4(4):148–152
Broere W, Van TA (2000) Influence of infiltration and
groundwater flow on tunnel face stability. Geotech Asp
Undergr Constr Soft Ground 1:339–344
Callari C (2004) Coupled numerical analysis of strain local-
ization induced by shallow tunnels in saturated soil.
Comput Geotech 31(3):193–207
Cao CY, Shi CH, Lei MF et al (2016) Limit support pressure for
excavation face of shallow slurry shield-driven tunnel in
water permeable strata. J Cent South Univ (Sci Technol)
47(9):3131–3139 (in Chinese)
Chen WF (1975) Limit analysis and soil plasticity. Elsevier
Scientific Publishing Company, New York, p 1975
Davis EH, Gunn MJ, Mair RJ et al (1980) The stability of
shallow tunnels and underground openings in cohesive
material. Geotechnique 30(4):397–416
De Buhan P, Cuvillier A, Dormieux L et al (1999) Face stability
of shallow circular tunnels driven under the water table: a
numerical analysis. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech
23(1):79–95
Hu WX(2018) Analysis of tunnel face stability of water- rich
tunnel. XiangtanSch Civ Eng, HunanUniv Sci Technol 1-6
(in Chinese)
Lee IM, Nam SW (2001) The study of seepage forces acting on
the tunnel lining and tunnel face in shallow tunnels. Tunn
Undergr Space Technol 16(1):31–40
Lee IM, Nam SW (2004) Effect of tunnel advance rate on
seepage forces acting on the underwater tunnel face. Tunn
Undergr Space Technol 19(3):273–281
Lee IM, Nam SW, Ahn JH (2004) Effect of seepage forces on
tunnel face stability. Can Geotech J 19(3):273–281
Li ZL, Ren QW, Wang YH (2004) Elasto-plastic analytical
solution of deep-buried circle tunnel considering fluid fluid
flow field. Chin J Rock Mech Eng 08:1291–1296 (in
Chinese)
Loganathan N, Poulos HG, Stewart DP (2000) Centrifuge model
testing of tunnelling-induced ground and pile deforma-
tions. Geotechnique 50(3):283–294
Lu XL, Wang HR, Huang MS (2011) Limit theoretical study on
face stability of shield tunnels. Chin J Geotech Eng
33(1):57–62 (in Chinese)
Nomikos PP, Sofianos AI, Tsoutrelis CE (2002) Symmetric
wedge in the roof of a tunnel excavated in an inclined stress
field. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 39(1):59–67
Rong CX, Cheng H (2004) Stability analysis of rock around
tunnel with ground water permeation. Chin J Rock Mech
Eng 23(5):741–744 (in Chinese)
Salvador S, Congke Y, Rafael J (2020) An upper bound solution
for tunnel face stability analysis considering the free span.
Tunn Undergr Space Technol 103:1–14
Yasletty ZH, Aldo DF, André PA (2019) Three-dimensional
analysis of excavation face stability of shallow tunnels.
Tunn Undergr Space Technol 92:103062
Yi C, Salvador S, Rafael J (2019) Effect of advance drainage on
tunnel face stability using Limit Analysis and numerical
simulations. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 93:103105
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with
regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.
123