Indian Geotech J (August 2022) 52(4):799–814

https://doi.org/10.1007/s40098-022-00618-y

ORIGINAL PAPER

Numerical Investigation of the Horseshoe Tunnels Structural

Behavior
Tai Tien Nguyen1,2 · Ngoc Anh Do2 · Karasev Maxim Anatolyevich1 ·
Daniel Dias3,4 · Van Kien Dang2,5 · Vilner Maria Aleksandrovna1

Received: 15 October 2021 / Accepted: 18 April 2022 / Published online: 26 May 2022
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Indian Geotechnical Society 2022

Abstract Non-circular tunnels such as horseshoe tunnel,
constructed by tunnel boring machines (TBMs), are
increasingly used due to their large utilization area in cross
section, high mechanization degree of TBMs and high-
level developed material technology which allows the
lining structures with the high-stress capacity could be
manufactured. However, there is still a limited number of
studies carried out explicitly on the tunnel lining behavior
excavated by the horseshoe-shaped shield. The current
study is therefore aimed at presenting procedural steps for
the determination of appropriate cross sections in horse-
shoe tunnel structures. The construction clearance of a
double-track railway tunnel was taken into account as an
example. A set of horseshoe cross sections were investi-
gated using hyperstatic reaction method to estimate the
tunnel lining behavior and to determine the optimal cross
section in terms of structural forces. After that, a para-
metric investigation was conducted to highlight the effect
of Young’s modulus of soil (Es), the coefficient of lateral
earth pressure (K0), the thickness of lining (t) and the
tunnel depth (H) on the horseshoe tunnel linings. The
& Ngoc Anh Do
nado1977bb@gmail.com
1
Saint-Petersburg Mining University, Petersburg, Russia
2
Department of Underground and Mining Construction,
Faculty of Civil Engineering, Hanoi University of Mining
and Geology, Hanoi, Vietnam
3
Antea Group, Antony, France
4 [10–18], or experimental tests [9, 19, 20]. Wang et al. [20]
Laboratory 3SR, Grenoble Alpes University, Grenoble,
France
5 section shape (horseshoe and circular shape) on the crack
Sustainable Development in Underground Engineering
Research Team, Hanoi University of Mining and Geology,
Hanoi, Vietnam
results showed that the higher the tunnel depth and the soil
Young’s modulus, the greater the effect of the tunnel
geometry on the structural forces in the tunnel lining. The
horseshoe tunnel lining behavior, especially in terms of the
maximum bending moment, is significantly affected by the
radii of lining sections along the tunnel boundary.
Keywords Horseshoe tunnels · Lining behavior ·
Tunnel shapes
Introduction
Circular tunnels are usually used for the urban metro rail-
way system due to their structural stability and perfor-
mance of tunnel boring machines (TBM). However, the
main disadvantage of circular tunnels is the small space
utilization ratio. Because of the reduced excavated soil
volume, horseshoe-shaped tunnels usually have a higher
space utilization ratio in comparison with circular ones [1].
Horseshoe-shaped tunnels are usually excavated by con-
ventional methods such as drilling and blasting methods or,
road headers. Recently with increasing technology and
improved machinery in manufacturing industries, horse-
shoe-shaped tunnels can be constructed using TBMs
method. The world’s first horseshoe-shaped shield was
manufactured in China and used for the Baicheng tunnel in
the Menghua railway route [1, 2].
The behavior of horseshoe-shaped tunnels was investi-
gated using analytical methods [3–9], numerical methods
carried out model tests to investigate the influence of cross
propagation process under high-stress conditions. They
pointed out that continuous spalling usually occurs at

123
800
corners between the vertical walls and the tunnel bottom.
Cracks are then developed upward to the foot of the arch
roof to form a conjugate sliding shape. The depth and
length of cracks in the rock surrounding the horseshoe
tunnel are eight times the circular tunnel ones. He et al. [9]
conducted physical tests with small-scale models (1/30) in
the laboratory to investigate the effect of the lateral earth
pressure coefficient (K0) on the tunnel lining behavior for
horseshoe-shaped tunnels (double tracks). Their results
showed that the most favorable lining in terms of
mechanical behavior occurs when K0 value varied from 0.6
to 1.2. In the study by He et al. [9], the effect of the tunnel
depth, Young’s modulus of soil and the lining thickness
have not been considered. Furthermore, the remarkably
high cost and complexity of experiment models mean that a
limited number of tests are conducted.
Analytical or semi-analytical methods, using the con-
formal mapping function and the complex function method
presented in Muskhelishvili [21], have been used to
investigate stresses and displacements in the rock-mass
surrounding a non-circular tunnel (horseshoe shape) and in
tunnel lining considering support delay at the great depth
[4], and to estimate the shape and size of the plastic zone
surrounding the horseshoe-shaped tunnels with several
arches [6]. By using the mapping function, the non-circular
hole boundary may be mapped to another plane of the unit
circle. Then, the stress and displacement can be solved by
the analytical function [6]. Nevertheless, it is still chal-
lenging to estimate the optimal mapping function, allowing
exactly mapping a non-circular shape into a circular one in
complex variable theory.
Du et al. [18] conducted a series of numerical studies to
investigate the effect of different parameters on the
U-shaped (horseshoe) lining structure. The lateral earth
pressure coefficient (K0), the lining thickness, the tunnel
dimension and the soil type were considered. In this study,
Du et al. [18] considered only 3 cases of tunnels with
different dimensions without regard to their use function.
On the other hand, the effect of tunnel shape on the
mechanical behavior of the tunnel lining was not taken into
account in the study. To investigate the influence of the
invert part on the behavior of U-shaped tunnel lining, Du
et al. [22] presented a numerical model. The results showed
that the intersection parts between the invert and sidewalls
are vulnerable as they are locations where high stress was
concentrated. High bending moments and shear force were
observed in the tunnel lining. In studies by Du et al.
[18, 22], the U-shaped tunnel was designed with two ver-
tical sidewalls. Ravandi and Rahmannejad [10] performed
the 3D numerical simulations in different stress fields and
depths to predict the wall displacement of three tunnel
shapes (circular, modified horseshoe and D-shaped tun-
nels). By using numerical models, Potts and Zdravkovic
123
Indian Geotech J (August 2022) 52(4):799–814
[23], Yoon et al. [11] studied the effect of tunnel shape
(circular, horseshoe-shaped and egg-shaped) on the lining
behavior. The considered shapes were determined from the
same tunnel construction clearance. It should be noted that
Du et al. [22] and Yoon et al. [11] did not take into account
the effect of the geometrical parameters of the horseshoe
cross section on the tunnel lining behavior. Bhattacharya
and Sriharsha [17] investigated the stability of the horse-
shoe tunnel under different conditions of the tunnel depth,
the ratio between tunnel height and tunnel width, the
friction angle of soil by using finite element limit analysis.
Similar to the studies by Du et al. [22], the tunnel walls
were vertical.
The hyperstatic reaction method (HRM) used in this
study for horseshoe-shaped tunnel analysis is part of the
numerical methods category. It is particularly suitable for
the design of tunnel linings because of the small calculation
time needed [12, 13, 26]. The horseshoe-shaped cross
section used in this study consists of several arches with
different centers [6, 9]. An algorithm used to determine the
horseshoe tunnel cross section covering the double-track
metro construction clearance [24] has been introduced. The
determined horseshoe tunnels have a smooth shape at the
inverted part and tunnel walls to avoid stress concentration
at the sharp corners. By using a combined procedure based
on the hyperstatic reaction method (HRM) and the algo-
rithm for determining the cross section of horseshoe tunnel,
the influence of geometry parameters on the tunnel lining
behavior in terms of deformation and structural forces can
be determined. A parametric study was then carried out to
investigate the effect of some factors, such as the tunnel
depth, the tunnel lining thickness, the lateral earth pressure
coefficient (K0) and the soil Young’s modulus (Es) on the
tunnel lining behavior.
Hyperstatic Reaction Method
The hyperstatic reaction method (HRM) [25, 26] is suit-
able to estimate the structural forces and deformations
induced in tunnel linings. This method developed by Oreste
[25] and Do et al. [26] is based on the finite element
method. The support structure is divided into one-dimen-
sional elements. The lining structure interacts with the
surrounding soil through normal and tangential springs
linked to the structure nodes and through the external loads
applied to the structure.
This method has been applied in tunnel shapes, such as
circular [26, 27], U-shaped (with or without invert part)
[18, 22] and sub-rectangular tunnels [28, 29] to study the
lining behavior. Unlike in Du et al. [12, 18] where the
U-shaped tunnels and vertical walls were used, in this study
curved walls are adopted.
Indian Geotech J (August 2022) 52(4):799–814 801

 
Active Vertical Loads ðLi1 þ Li Þ
kn;i ¼gn;i :1
2
According to Terzaghi’s formula [30], active vertical load !
pn;lim pn;lim ðLi1 þ Li Þ
σv applied on a deep tunnel with an overburden of 2 times ¼ 1 :
larger than the tunnel width can be determined by the dn;i pn; lim þ gn; 0 :dn;i 2
  ð4Þ
following formulas: ðLi1 þ Li Þ
ks;i ¼gs;i :1
rv ¼ ch0 ð1Þ 2
!
B1 ð1  ðc=B1 cÞÞ

¼
ps; lim
1
ps;lim
:
ðLi1 þ Li Þ
h0 ¼ 1  eK0 tan /ðH=B1 Þ ds;i ps; lim þ gs; 0 :ds;i 2
K0 tan /
P0
K0 tan /ðH=B1 Þ 
þ e ð2Þ where Li is the distance from node ith to node (i 1)th, δn,i
c
  and δs,i are the normal and tangential displacements of the
ðp=4Þ þ ð/=2Þ ith node, pn,lim and ps,lim are the maximum radial and tan-
B1 ¼ Rc cos ð3Þ
2 gential reaction pressures, ηn,0 and ηs,0 are the initial nor-
where h0 is the effective overburden thickness, B1 is the mal and shear soil stiffness [26].
trapdoor width half, c, φ and γ are the soil cohesion, the In the HRM model, the unknown parameters are the
internal friction angle, and the unit weigh of soil, respec- node displacements that must be determined. The global
tively, Rc is the radius of crown of horse-shoe tunnels, P0 is stiffness matrix is deduced by assembling the local stiff-
the surface load, and K0 is the lateral earth pressure ness matrices of each element. Therefore, the structure
coefficient. node stresses could be calculated based on the node dis-
placements [31]. The unknown displacements q could be
Soil-Support Interaction estimated by using the following relationship [31]:
Kq ¼ F ð5Þ
The soil/structure interaction was simulated through nor-
where K is the global stiffness and (F) the external forces
mal and tangential springs linked to the support structure
applied to the lining structure.
nodes (Fig. 1) which are, respectively, defined by the kn
Equation (5) could then be rewritten as follows:
and ks parameters. The stiffness of each spring is taken
from formulas:

Fig. 1 Calculation scheme for horseshoe tunnel linings with the use of HRM method

123
802 Indian Geotech J (August 2022) 52(4):799–814

2 3 
kn;a þ k1;a k1;b 0 0 0 kn;c K3i2;3i2 ¼K3i2;3i2
6
6 k1;c k1;d þ k2;a k2;b 0 0 0 7
7
a ai p
6 7 þ kn;i  cos2
iþ1
þ 
6 0 k2;c k2;d þ k3;a k3b 0 0 7
6 7
6
6 k3;d þ k4;a ::: 7
7

2 2 2
a i p
2 aiþ1
0 0 k3;c 0
6
4 0 0 0 0 ::: kn1;b
7
5 þ ks;i  sin þ 
2 2 2
kn;b 0 0 0 kn1;c kn1;d þ kn;a 
K3i1;3i1 ¼K3i1;3i1
2 3 3 2
q1 F1
a a i p
6q 7 6F 7 þ kn;i  sin2
iþ1
þ 
6 27 6 27
6 7 6 7
6 q3 7 6 F3 7
2 2 2
a i p
:6 7 6 7
6 ::: 7 ¼ 6 ::: 7 2 aiþ1
6 7 6 7 þ ks;i  cos þ 
6 7 6 7 2 2 2 ð9Þ
4 ::: 5 4 ::: 5 
K3i1;3i2 ¼K3i1;3i2
qn Fn

a a i p
iþ1
ð6Þ þ kn;i  ks;i  sin þ 

a 2 2 2
iþ1 ai p 
where F1, F2, F3, … Fn are the sub-vectors external forces  cos þ 
of each node; q1, q2, q3, … qn are the sub-vectors dis- 2 2 2

placements of each node. K3i2;3i1 ¼K3i2;3i1

a a i p
ki,a, ki,b, ki,c, ki,d are the sub-matrices of matrix ki, and iþ1
þ kn;i  ks;i  sin þ 

a 2 2 2
ai p 
each sub-matrices is a 393 dimension one:
   cos
iþ1
þ 
ki;a ki;b
ki ¼ 2 2 2
ki;c ki;d
2EA EA 3 Once the vector of the nodal displacements q of the
0 0  0 0
6 Li Li 7 whole structure is obtained from Eq. 6, it is possible to
6 7
6 12  E  J 6EJ 12  E  J 6EJ 7
6 0  7 evaluate the displacements at two nodes of each beam
6 L3i L2i L3i Li
2 7
6 7 element. The internal forces, i.e., bending moment, normal
6 7
6 4EJ 6EJ 2EJ 7
6 0  7 forces and shear forces induced at the nodes of the beam
T6
6 Li L2i Li 7
¼ki 6 7ki element, are determined by using the following relationship
EA 7
6 7
6 0 0 7 [25, 26]:
6 Li 7
6 7
6 12  E  J 6EJ7 T i ¼ k i  qi ð10Þ
6  7
6 L3i Li 7
2
6 7
4 4EJ 5 where Ti: vector of structural forces induced at two nodes
SYM
Li of element i;
ð7Þ ki: the local stiffness matrix of element i;
qi: nodal displacement vector of the beam element i.
where Li is the length of element i; EJ and EA are the
The details of the HRM method are well outlined in
bending and normal stiffness of the lining elements;
studies [18, 25, 26] and therefore were not discussed in this
ki is the
2 transformation matrix: ki 3 study. The readers are suggested to refer to Do et al.
cosai sinai 0 0 0 0 [26, 27], Oreste [25], Du et al. [12, 18, 29] for further
6 sinai cosai 0 0 0 07
6 7 reading.
6 0 0 1 0 0 07
¼6 6 0
7 ð8Þ
6 0 0 cosai sinai 077
4 0 0 0 sinai cosai 05 Cross Section Determination Procedure
0 0 0 0 0 1
with αi the inclination angle of the i element relative to the In this study, the double-track tunnel clearance for electric
horizontal (Fig. 1). trains indicated in the Vietnamese specification [24] is
Along the tunnel lining boundary, normal and tangential taken as the reference case (Fig. 2). The internal cross
springs at each element node cause stiffness changes of section of horseshoe tunnels is determined based on the
structural elements in their respective directions. These principle that it should at least cover the tunnel clearance
changes were taken into consideration by means of area (Fig. 3). In fact, there are a lot of tunnel cross sections
adjusting the corresponding elements along the diagonal of satisfying this criterion. In previous studies [10, 22, 32], the
the local stiffness matrix and then of the global stiffness horseshoe-shaped tunnel had sharp locations, which are the
structure matrix: intersection between the sidewalls and the inverted arch.
These positions are potential in causing high-stress con-
centration in the tunnel lining. Therefore, horseshoe cross

123
Indian Geotech J (August 2022) 52(4):799–814
Fig. 2 Tunnel construction clearance (mm) of a double-track tunnel
Fig. 3 Schematic diagram of horseshoe shape tunnels (d2 =B0/2=h1
s1 =h3 s3; h1 =H0/2=h2 s2)
section without sharp intersections between the wall and
the inverted arch is presented in this study (see Fig. 3). The
change in the geometrical parameters of the horseshoe
cross section leads to a change in the applied loads acting
on the tunnel lining as well as its behavior. A proposed
procedure for determining the horseshoe tunnel cross sec-
tion combined with the study of tunnel lining behavior,
using HRM method, is the basis for selecting an optimal
cross section (Fig. 4). For each case of horseshoe cross
section, HRM method is used to calculate the internal
forces induced in the tunnel lining. Because the critical
instability circumstance of the tunnel lining is usually
concerned with the large bending moment induced in the
lining, the best horseshoe cross section is therefore chosen
when the smallest maximum bending moment is reached.
In Fig. 3, the purple line and blue line represent,
respectively, the tunnel clearance area and internal cross
803
Fig. 4 Optimization procedure of horseshoe tunnels
section. To obtain the internal tunnel cross section with the
smallest structural forces induced in the tunnel lining, an
algorithm allowing to estimate the structural tunnel lining
forces depending on the tunnel cross section change was
implemented.
It should be noted that a horseshoe shape is symmetric
over the tunnel vertical axis, a half of a horseshoe shape is
therefore considered in the algorithm. Once a half of
horseshoe shape tunnel is determined, the whole tunnel
boundary can then be defined (Fig. 3). The crown part of
the horseshoe shape corresponds to the upper half of a
circle.
The centers O1 (0, y1) of the invert part and O3 (0, y3) of
the crown part are located on the vertical axis; the center
O2 (x2, y2) of the sidewall part is the intersection point
along the line defined by the following equation y=y3 and
the line O1A. The algorithm for the tunnel horseshoe shape
determination includes the following steps:
1. Selection of the center O3 and calculate the radius R3.
2. Determination of the O2 center location.
3. Determination of the O1 center location.
Step1: Assuming that the y3 value of the center O3 is
known (on the vertical axis, -h2\y3\0). The radius R3 is
determined by the O3 center circle through point C (d3, h1),
using the following equation:
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
R3 ¼ ðd32  ðh1  y3 Þ2 Þ: ð11Þ
R3 must satisfy the following condition: R3[O3B;
Step 2: The location of center O2 is unknown. The circle
with center O2 passes through 2 points A(d1, -h1) and D(R3,
y3). Point D is the intersection point of the line y=y3 and
circle O3 of radius R3 on the right side. Thus, the position
of O2 must ensure the condition:
123
804
O2A=O2D.
The length of O2A is determined using the following
equation:
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
O2 A ¼ ða21 þ b21 Þ ¼ ða21 þ ðh1 þ y3 Þ2 Þ;
where b1 = h1 y3.
The length of O2D is equal to the following equation:
O2 D ¼ a1 þ a2 ; where a2 ¼ R3  d1
In both of the above Eqs. (12) and (13), the a1 value is
unknown. Based on condition O2A=O2D, it can be
expressed as:
ðb21  a22 Þ
a21 þ b21 ¼ ða1 þ a2 Þ2  [ a1 ¼
ð2a2 Þ
From the above calculations, one can obtain the value x2
of point O2.
x2 ¼ d1  a1
y2 =y3.
The radius R2 is determined by using the circle which
center is O2 through point A (d1, -h1), using the following
equation:
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
R2 ¼ ðx2  d1 Þ2  ðy2 þ h1 Þ2 or R2 ¼ R3  x2
R2 must satisfy the following condition: R2[O2B.
Step 3: Then, the location of center O1 is determined.
The coordinate y1 at center O1 is the intersection point of
the vertical axis y with the O2A line.
Linear equation of O2A: y=ax b.
y 2 þ h1
a ¼  slope of linear equation;
x 2  d1
b ¼ h1  a  d1  initial value:
When line O2A intersects the vertical axis (x=0), the
coordinate y1 at center O1: y1 =b. The radius R1 can then be
determined by the following equation:
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
R1 ¼ d12  ðh1  y1 Þ2 ð18Þ
When y3 value is known, the unknown parameters, such
as x2, y2 and y1, will be determined. Corresponding to each
value of y3, a unique coordinate of center O1 and O2 is
defined. Provided that θ1 is the angle of O3O1O2; θ2 is the
angle of AO2D and θ3 is the angle of DO3O1. Therefore,
the formulas below can be obtained:
123
Indian Geotech J (August 2022) 52(4):799–814
x2 d1  a1
h1 ¼ arctan ¼ arctan
y1 h1  a:d1
ð19Þ
b1
h2 ¼ arctan
a1
ð12Þ
The area Ahors of the horseshoe tunnel internal cross
section (blue line) (Fig. 3) is equal to:
 
ðR23 Þ ðR21 Þ ðR22 Þ 1
ð13Þ Ahors ¼2 p þ h1 þ h2  x2 ðy1  y3 Þ
4 2 2 2
ðR23 Þ
¼p þ R21 h1 þ R22 h2  x2 ðy1  y3 Þ
2
ð20Þ
Figure 4 presents the procedure for determining the
ð14Þ
horseshoe tunnel cross section and the structural force
generated in the tunnel lining based on HRM model. In this
procedure, the behavior of the horseshoe tunnel lining in
terms of structural forces and displacement is deduced by
ð15Þ changing the geometrical parameters of the tunnel shape
under specific soil properties. From the derived HRM
model results, an optimal internal cross section of the
horseshoe tunnel in terms of bending moment could be
selected.
ð16Þ Validation of the HRM Method with Numerical
Models.
To validate the HRM method and to highlight the effect of
tunnel shape on tunnel behavior, a horseshoe and a circular
tunnel having the same tunnel construction clearance are
investigated. Based on the construction tunnel clearance
[24], the minimal circular tunnel cross section is deter-
mined (Fig. 5b and Table 1). Taking into consideration that
ð17Þ
y3 =−0.8, the cross section and horseshoe tunnel shape are
determined (Fig. 5a and Table 1).
Both circular and horseshoe tunnels (Fig. 6) were
modeled using the HRM and a 2D finite element model.
For the latter model, the finite element code Plaxis2D [33]
was used to develop a 2D plane strain model. Tables 2 and
3 show the soil and tunnel lining properties [16].
2D Numerical Model
The numerical model has a width of 100 m and a height of
50 m (Fig. 7). The soil is discretized into 15-node trian-
gular finite elements, and a finer mesh is used close to the
tunnel area. The adopted numerical model consists of
approximately 165.600 nodes. Two-noded beam elements
are used to model the tunnel lining. The beam elements are
assumed to behave in a linear elastic way.
Indian Geotech J (August 2022) 52(4):799–814 805

Fig. 5 Geometry of the horseshoe and circular tunnels

Table 1 Geometrical parameters of tunnel shape cases

Case Width (B) (m) Height (Ht) (m) B/Ht ratio R1 (m) R2 (m) R3 (m) Area (m2) Tunnel shape

1 9.38 9.38 1.000 4.69 – – 69.1 Circular

2 9.83 7.69 1.278 7.79 2.16 4.92 60.3 Horseshoe

Table 2 Geotechnical soil properties [16] (MC) model was, however, employed to facilitate the
Parameter Symbol Value Unit
comparison with the HRM model. The MC model has
some advantages, such as a limited number of parameters,
Unit weight γs 18 kN/m3 a good representation of the shear failure behavior and the
Young’s modulus Es 3.6 MPa calculation time is lower than that of more advanced
Poisson’s ratio νs 0.495 – constitutive soil models [37]. Many finite-element calcu-
Internal friction angle φ 16.5 degrees lations [27, 28, 38–42] are still executed using this simple
Cohesion c 25.6 kPa model.
The lateral earth pressure factor K0 0.6 – Regarding the boundary conditions, two types of con-
Overburden H 10 m straints were applied: (1) the model bottom was restricted
in both vertical and horizontal directions; (2) vertical
movements are allowed at both sides of the model.
The interaction between the lining and soil was modeled
Table 3 Tunnel lining properties using the Rinter coefficient. It allows reducing the shear
Parameter Symbol Value Unit strength of soil simply. Nevertheless, to consider the worst
lining stress case, a Rinter value of 1 was introduced. This
Material type Linear elastic; Isotropic
value allows considerable soil shear resistance.
Young’s modulus E 35 GPa
It should be noted that soil stress relaxation taken after
Poisson’s ratio ν 0.15 –
the soil excavation and before the installation of tunnel
Lining thickness m 0.5 m linings was not considered in this study. It may result in the
worst possible situation when structural forces are induced
in the tunnel lining.
The advanced elastoplastic constitutive Hardening-Soil The structural forces comparison is shown in Table 4
(HS) model is more accurate than the linear Elastic-per- and Fig. 8. The derived structural forces in the HRM
fectly plastic constitutive model (Mohr–Coulomb) when models are compared with the results obtained from the 2D
modeling the soil behavior [34–36]. The Mohr–Coulomb numerical ones. Based on the observations, a good

123
806
Fig. 6 Layout of the investigated tunnel
Fig. 7 Geometry and finite element mesh of the tunnel model
agreement was found, both for the shape and magnitude of
the structural forces.
Figure 8 presents a comparison between the structural
forces induced in the circular and horseshoe tunnel linings.
The differences in maximum bending moments between
the HRM and 2D numerical models in the horseshoe and
circular tunnel were, respectively, equal to 7.33% and
1.81%. The minimum bending moments induced in the
horseshoe and circular tunnels derived from the HRM
model are, respectively, higher (up to 5.08% and 0.77%)
than those obtained by the 2D numerical model. The same
shape and a slight difference can be observed for the
magnitude of the values. It is interesting to note that the
bending moments at the bottom and sidewall parts of the
horseshoe tunnel lining are higher than those at the crown
parts. This is contrary to what had been observed in cir-
cular tunnels. Indeed, according to Terzaghi [43] and Blom
[44], the upward pressure at the bottom is usually smaller
than the vertical pressure at the tunnel roof. Therefore, the
123
Indian Geotech J (August 2022) 52(4):799–814
maximum bending moments are found at the circular tun-
nel crown. Meanwhile, considering horseshoe tunnels, the
invert part radius is larger than the crown one. In other
words, the invert part is flatter and the upward pressure
could therefore cause a larger maximum bending moment
compared with the tunnel crown one.
The maximum normal forces induced in the horseshoe
and circular tunnels determined in HRM model are,
respectively, 4.97% and 5.46% and are much lower than
the values obtained with the 2D numerical simulations. The
minimum normal forces induced in the horseshoe and
circular tunnels by using HRM model are 1.77% and
6.31%, respectively, greater than those observed in 2D
numerical model.
The differences between the minimum and maximum
shear force values induced in the circular tunnel deter-
mined by HRM and 2D numerical models are negligible
(less than 1.38%). However, the differences between the
maximum and minimum shear forces induced in the
horseshoe tunnel obtained by these two methods are more
important; differences of, respectively, 9.91% and 10.06%
were found.
In both HRM and 2D numerical models, the maximum
bending moments in the horseshoe tunnel lining are 2 times
higher than in a circular tunnel. The maximum shear forces
induced in the horseshoe tunnel are 3 times higher than in
circular ones. There is a little difference between the
maximum normal forces induced in the circular tunnel and
the horseshoe tunnels. Although the structural forces pro-
duced in the circular tunnel lining are smaller than those in
horseshoe tunnel lining, the horseshoe cross section inter-
nal area is 0.87 times smaller than the circular one,
respectively, equal to 60.3 m2 and 69.1 m2.
From the above analysis, it can be seen that the differ-
ence in results obtained between the HRM and 2D
numerical model is small (lower than 10%). There is a
good agreement in terms of structural forces both in
magnitude and form in both (2) cross-sectional cases when
applied to HRM and Plaxis model. This agreement indi-
cates that the presented HRM model is valid for the tunnel
lining behavior evaluation of horseshoe tunnels.
Parametric Analyses
In this section, a parametric study is performed to inves-
tigate the effect of different geometry configurations on the
behavior of horseshoe tunnel linings. Horseshoe tunnels
with different dimensions are investigated. An iteration
step of -0.01 m for the distance change between center O3
(0,y3) and the origin coordinate O (0,0) is adopted. The
location modification of O3 leads to a crown radius R3
change and then to other radii R2, R1. A parametric study
Indian Geotech J (August 2022) 52(4):799–814 807

Table 4 Comparison of the lining structural forces given by HRM and the 2D numerical models
Cases Model Circular Horseshoe

Maximum bending moments (MN.m/m) HRM 0.543 1.260

2D numerical 0.553 1.174
Difference of Max. bending moments (%) –1.81 7.33
Minimum bending moments (MN.m/m) HRM –0.524 –1.138
2D numerical –0.520 –1.083
Difference of Min. bending moments (%) 0.77 5.08
Maximum normal forces (MN /m) HRM 1.263 1.301
2D numerical 1.336 1.369
Difference of Max. normal forces (%) –5.46 –4.97
Minimum normal forces (MN /m) HRM 0.758 0.632
2D numerical 0.713 0.621
Difference of Min. normal forces (%) 6.31 1.77
Maximum shear forces (MN /m) HRM 0.221 0.710
2D numerical 0.218 0.646
Difference of Max. shear forces (%) 1.38 9.91
Minimum shear forces (MN /m) HRM –0.220 –0.711
2D numerical –0.218 –0.646
Difference of Min. shear forces (%) 0.92 10.06
Bold values indicate the small difference between methods’ result

concerning the soil Young’s modulus, the lateral earth
pressure coefficient at rest K0, the horseshoe tunnel lining
thickness and the tunnel depth is presented.
Figure 9 shows the change of radii of different curved
parts in the horseshoe cross section when changing the
position of the center O3. For each y3 coordinate, a cor-
responding horseshoe cross section with the radii R1, R2,
R3 is determined. According to the cross section determi-
nation procedure presented in Sect. 3, the coordinate y3 of
the O3 center changes in the range from -0.41 m to -
1.17 m. The smaller the y3 coordinate, the larger the radii
R1 and R3 (the invert and crown part), the smaller the
sidewall part radius R2. However, it can be found that the
change of the y3 coordinate has a significant effect on the
radius R1 rather than on the radius R3. Thus, the following
parts will consider the relationship between the geometry
parameter (the radius R1) and other parameters (Young’s
modulus of soil, the lateral earth pressure, the lining
thickness and the tunnel depth).
Effect of the Soil Young’s Modulus (ES)
The effect of the soil Young’s modulus on the maximum
bending moments, normal forces and maximum normal
displacements induced in the tunnel lining for different
geometry configurations is investigated. Values of the soil
Young’s modulus varied from 3.6 to 200 MPa, corre-
sponding to very different ground conditions (from soft
soils to soft rocks). Other soils and tunnel lining parameters
are presented in Tables 2 and 3. Figure 10 shows the
numerical results obtained using the HRM model.
The maximum bending moments (Mmax) are always
observed at the invert horseshoe tunnel (R1) part for all
studied cases. Therefore, relations between the structural
forces, normal displacements and tunnel invert radius are
considered (Fig. 10).
For each soil Young’s modulus (Es), an increase in the
invert radius R1 causes an increase in the maximum
bending moments. The R1 radius effect on the maximum
bending moments is significant. The curvature difference
(1/R) or flatness of the tunnel parts causes a change in the
reaction forces acting on the tunnel lining from the soil
surrounding. The smaller the curvature, the higher the
normal upward loads (Pun) acting on the tunnel structure,
but the smaller the shear upward loads (Pus). The normal
upward loads acting on the invert part are higher than the
normal vertical loads acting on the crown part. The max-
imum bending moments are always larger than the absolute
minimum bending moments and reached at the horseshoe
tunnel bottom. On the other hand, a R1 value increase (R3 –
crown radius increase, see Fig. 9) causes a tunnel width
increase. Thus, the total vertical and upward loads applied
to the tunnel will increase.
Besides, the curvature of each tunnel part changes, the
axial load transfer mechanisms in the lining will also
change. Therefore, the tunnel shape has a significant effect
on the tunnel lining structural forces. As the radius R1 is
smaller than 10 m, an increase in radius R1 will greatly

123
808
Fig. 8 Structural forces in the tunnel lining: a bending moment;
b normal force; c shear force
increase the maximum bending moments in the tunnel
lining.
Figure 10a shows that the maximum bending moments
strongly depend on the soil Young’s modulus (Es). The
maximum bending moments decrease as Es increases.
Figure 10b indicates that the maximum normal forces
decrease as Es increases. However, the maximum normal
123
Indian Geotech J (August 2022) 52(4):799–814
Fig. 9 Dependence of the radii R1, R2, R3 on the O3 center location
forces dependency on the soil’s modulus Es and radius R3
is not so important as the bending moment one. The soil
Young’s modulus (Es) has a significant effect on the
maximum normal displacements induced (Fig. 10c). When
the Es values are smaller than 25 MPa, the maximum
normal displacements are strongly affected. For Es values
higher than 25 MPa, the Es effect on the maximum normal
displacements is smaller.
An increase in the R1 radius will lead to a lining
structure stability decrease.
Effect of the Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient
at Rest K0
To investigate the lateral earth pressure coefficient at rest
(K0) effect on the tunnel lining behavior, the K0 value was
varied in a range between 0.25 and 1.5. The other soil and
tunnel lining parameters were taken from Tables 2 and 3.
The derived results from these analyses are shown in
Fig. 11. The main conclusions from these results are the
following ones:
When K0 is less than unity, the higher the value of K0,
the smaller the maximum bending moments (Fig. 11a) and
the higher the maximum normal forces (Fig. 11b). How-
ever, K0 has insignificant effect on the maximum normal
forces as seen in Fig. 11b. The maximum bending moment
is always observed at the invert part of horseshoe tunnel
lining. An increase in K0 value causes a smaller difference
between the vertical and horizontal loads acting on the
tunnel lining decrease. Consequently, a lower the maxi-
mum bending moments could be predicted. Furthermore,
the larger radius of invert part leads to the smaller reaction
forces acting on this part. Hence, for any value K0 of
smaller than unity, an increase in the invert part radius (R1)
leads to an increase in the maximum bending moments as
indicated in Fig. 11a. Concurrently, the larger invert part
Indian Geotech J (August 2022) 52(4):799–814
Fig. 10 Effect of the R1 radius and soil modulus (Es) on the tunnel lining structural forces and normal displacements
radius results in a smaller transference of lining forces from
side walls to the bottom of tunnel and therefore which
cause an increase in the maximum normal forces, as seen in
Fig. 11b, observed at the tunnel sides.
When K0 value is higher than unity, the horizontal loads
are higher than the vertical ones. An in increase in K0 value
induces a considerable increase of the maximum normal
forces (Fig. 11b).
When the invert radius R1 is less than 5.8 m and 7.6 m,
corresponding to the K0 value of 1.25 and 1.5, the maxi-
mum value of bending moments was reached at the tunnel
sidewall. An increase in the radius R1 will lead to a flatter
invert lining which results in smaller horizontal loads
transferred from the sidewall to the invert part and vice
versa. In addition, an invert flatter lining means the active
pressure acting from the soil to the tunnel lining increase.
Hence, the bending moments at the invert part increase,
while that at the sidewall part decreases as indicated in
Fig. 11a. When the invert radius R1 is higher than the
809
above values, the maximum bending moments occur at the
inverted center.
The higher the K0 values, the lower the maximum
normal displacements (Fig. 11c).
Effect of the Tunnel Lining Thickness (m)
In this section, the influence of the lining thickness on the
maximum structural forces and maximum lining displace-
ments is investigated. Values of the tunnel lining thickness
(m) varied from 0.3 m to 0.6 m. The other soil and tunnel
lining parameters are taken from Tables 2 and 3. Based on
Fig. 12, it could be said that:
The higher the lining thickness, the higher the maximum
bending moments, the maximum normal forces and the
smaller the normal displacements. An increase in the tun-
nel lining thickness results in a stiffness lining increase and
an increasing capability to resist deformations.
123
810
Fig. 11 Effect of the radius R1 and K0 on the structural tunnel lining forces and displacements
Figure 12 shows that when lining thickness is small (m=
0.3 m), the maximum normal displacements significantly
increase as the radius R1 increases.
Effect of the Tunnel Depth (H)
The tunnel depth varies from 1 to 10 B0 (B0 represents the
tunnel construction clearance height). The other soil and
tunnel lining parameters are taken from Tables 2 and 3.
Figure 13 presents the results obtained by using the HRM
model. Based on this figure, it can be seen that:
The higher the tunnel depth, the higher the maximum
bending moments (Fig. 13a) and the higher the maximum
normal forces (Fig. 13b). The increasing tunnel depth leads
to higher loads applied to the tunnel. For the large tunnel
depth, the dependency of the radius R1 on the maximum
bending moments in tunnel lining is greater than that of the
radius R1, when the tunnel is located at the small depth. In
other words, the geometrical parameters of the tunnel cross
section greatly affect the maximum bending moments
produced in the tunnel lining under great loads. As
123
Indian Geotech J (August 2022) 52(4):799–814
mentioned above, for the small radius R1 (\10 m), the
increase in R1 significantly increases the maximum bend-
ing moments in the lining. It is also true in all cases of
tunnel depth, especially the influence of the increase in
radius R1 (\10 m) on bending moment is even stronger
when the tunnel depth becomes greater.
When the tunnel depth is smaller than 2D (D represents
the tunnel width), the tunnel depth change has a strong
effect on the maximum bending moments (h0 the reduced
earth pressure is equal to H). The ground vertical loads
increase proportionally to the tunnel depth (H). When the
tunnel depth is higher than 2D, h0 is taken from formula
(2).
Therefore, the maximum bending moments are strongly
dependent on the tunnel depth when this parameter is
smaller than 2D. For higher tunnel depths (H[2D), the
tunnel depth effect is lower on the maximum bending
moments.
For tunnel depths lower than 2D, no dependency
between the normal maximum normal forces on the radius
R1 is observed. However, for tunnel depths higher than 2D,
Indian Geotech J (August 2022) 52(4):799–814
Fig. 12 Dependency of the radius R1 and tunnel thickness on the structural forces and normal displacements
the normal maximum normal forces increase as the radius
R1 increases.
Conclusions
Horseshoe tunnel cross sections are often considered due to
their high space utilization ratio. However, analyses related
to horseshoe tunnel designs are limited. Taking as an
example, a double-track tunnel clearance based on the
Vietnamese standards, several mathematical relations were
developed to build the horseshoe tunnel shapes. In this
paper, a combination based on the HRM model and the
cross section determination procedure of horseshoe tunnels
has been developed to estimate the structural forces of the
tunnel lining. This combined procedure was validated by
comparison with finite elements calculations, Plaxis 2D.
The results derived from the developed algorithm based on
the HRM model have good agreement both in the shape
and the magnitude with that from 2D numerical model.
Based on the procedure for determining the horseshoe cross
811
section, a series of calculations based on the HRM method
was performed to estimate the structural forces and
deformation in the tunnel lining. The results showed that
the smaller the radius of invert part R1 (or R3—the crown
radius because the radius R1 and R3 values are correlated),
the smaller the structural forces generated in the tunnel
lining. In other words, the closer the y3 coordinate is to the
origin, the more stable a horseshoe-shaped cross section is
in terms of structural forces.
Based on a parametric study, the following findings are
summarized:
● Except for horseshoe tunnels with K0 higher than 1, an
increase in the radius R1 causes greater tunnel lining
structural forces. The radius R1 impact on the maximum
bending moments is higher than on the maximum
normal forces.
● When K0 is higher than unity, the radius R1 increases,
the maximum bending moments and normal forces
decrease. The maximum bending moments are located
at the side tunnel walls. When R1 continuously
123
812
Fig. 13 Dependency of the radius R1 and tunnel depth on the tunnel lining structural forces and normal displacements
increases, the bottom part becomes flatter, the reaction
soil forces surrounding the tunnel acting on the bottom
part increase and become higher than the horizontal
loads acting on the sidewall parts. In this configuration,
the maximum bending moments and normal forces
increase.
● The tunnel shape has a significant effect on the
structural forces induced in the lining, especially on
the maximum bending moments.
● An increasing of Es leads to a decrease in the maximum
bending moments, normal forces, and normal
displacements.
● The maximum bending moments and normal forces of
horseshoe tunnels increase with the lining thickness
increase, while the maximum normal displacements
decrease as the lining thickness increases.
Using the horseshoe tunnel cross section in double-track
railway tunnels allows decreasing the soil volume exca-
vated compared to circular cross sections. However, the
structural forces induced in horseshoe tunnels are higher
123
Indian Geotech J (August 2022) 52(4):799–814
than in circular ones. The magnitude of structural forces
depends on many factors such as the tunnel geometry,
Young’s modulus of soil, tunnel depth, and the lining
thickness. The larger the tunnel depth and Young’s mod-
ulus of soil, the higher the effect of tunnel geometry on the
structural forces in tunnel lining. It is not recommended to
use a large radius for the invert part of the horseshoe
boundary. The center of O3 (y3 coordinate) should be
positioned as close to the origin of coordinates as possible
to achieve the smallest structural forces generated in the
horseshoe tunnel lining. However, the closer the distance
between the center of O3 and the origin of coordinates O
(0,0) is followed by the larger the horseshoe cross section
when applying the determination cross section procedure in
this paper.
Acknowledgements The first author is supported by the Saint
Petersburg Mining University.
Funding This research was funded by the Vietnam Ministry of
Education and Training under grant number B2022-MDA-06. This
funding is greatly appreciated.
Indian Geotech J (August 2022) 52(4):799–814
Declarations
Conflicts of interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of
interest.
References
1. Li J (2017) Key technologies and applications of the design and
manufacturing of non-circular TBMs. Engineering 3(6):905–91.
Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eng.2017.12.002
2. Wang J-H, Qiu W-G (2018) Mechanized tunnelling with large
section horseshoe shape EPB-TBM first applied in loess moun-
tain tunnel at Mengxi Huazhong Railway Line Baicheng Tunnel.
In ITA-AITES, Chuzhou-Nanjing
3. Sammal A, Fotieva N, Bulychev N, Khrenov S (2004) Design of
tunnel lining with variavle thickness located new ground surface
(in Russian). J Min Inst 156:24–26
4. Lu A-Z, Zhang N, Kuang L (2014) Analytic solutions of stress
and displacement for a non-circular tunnel analytic solutions of
stress and displacement for a non-circular tunnel. Int J Rock
Mech Min Sci 70:69–81. Ćhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijrmms.2014.04.008
5. Protosenya AG, Karasev MA, Belyakov NA (2016) Elastoplastic
problem for noncircular openings under Coulomb’s Criterion.
J Min Sci 52(1):53–61
6. Shi H, Bai M (2017) Plastic zone analysis of deep-buried, non-
circular tunnel and application on the high-speed railway in the
Karst Area. Math Prob Eng, pp 1–10. Doi: Ćhttps://doi.org/
10.1155/2017/9523267
7. Gospodarikov P, Zatsepin M (2019) Mathematical modeling of
boundary problems in geomechanics. Gornyi Zhurnal 12. Doi:
Ćhttps://doi.org/10.17580/gzh.2019.12.03
8. Zhang C, Li W, Zhu W, Tan Z (2020) Face stability analysis of a
shallow horseshoe-shaped shield tunnel in clay with a linearly
increasing shear strength with depth. Tunnell Underground Space
Technol 97. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2020.103291
9. He B-G, Li H-P, Zhang Z-Q (2020) The effect of earth pressure
on the failure mode of high-speed railway tunnel linings. Eng
Failure Anal 110. Doi: Ćhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.
engfailanal.2020.104398
10. Ravandi EG, Rahmannejad R (2013) Wall displacement predic-
tion of circular, D shaped and modified horseshoe tunnels in non-
hydrostatic stress fields. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 34:54–60.
Ćhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2012.11.001
11. Yoon J-U, Han J-W, Joo E-J, Shin J-H (2014) Effects of tunnel
shapes in structural and hydraulic interaction. KSCE J Civ Eng 18
(3):735–741. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-014-1325-1
12. Du D, Dias D, Do N (2018) Designing U-shaped tunnel linings in
stratified soils using the hyperstatic reaction method. Eur J
Environ Civ Eng 24(14):1–18. Ćhttps://doi.org/10.1080/
19648189.2018.1506827
13. Du D, Dias D, Do N (2020) Effect of surcharge loading on
horseshoe-shaped tunnels excavated in saturated soft rocks.
J Rock Mech Geotech Eng 12(6):1339–1346. Ćhttps://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jrmge.2020.08.001
14. Nguyen C, Gospodarikov AP (2020) Hyperstatic reaction method
for calculations of tunnels with horseshoe-shaped cross-section
under the impact of earthquakes. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 19:179–
188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11803-020-0555-0
15. Rahaman O, Kumar J (2020) Stability analysis of twin horse-shoe
shaped tunnels in rock mass. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 98:1–
18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2020.103354
813
16. Nguyen TT, Do NA, Anatolyevich KM, Dang VK, Dias D (2020)
Influence of tunnel shape on tunnel lining behavior. In: Pro-
ceedings of the institution of civil engineers -geotechnical engi-
neering, pp 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1680/jgeen.20.00057
17. Bhattacharya P, Sriharsha P (2020) Stability of horseshoe tunnel
in cohesive-frictional soil. Int J Geomech 20(9). Doi: Ćhttps://
doi.org/10.1061/28ASCE29GM.1943-5622.0001770
18. Du D, Dias D, Do NA, Oreste PP (2018) Hyperstatic reaction
method for the design of U-shaped tunnel supports. Int J Geo-
mech 18(6). Doi: Ćhttps://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-
5622.0001127
19. Besrodny KP, Lebedev MO (2017) About rock pressure loads on
tunnel linings constructed using trenchless method. J Min Inst
228:649–654. Doi: https://doi.org/10.25515/PMI.2017.6.649
20. Wang S, Jin D, Ren B, Zhang X, Qiu K, Fan Y (2019) Instability
process of crack propagation and tunnel failure affected by cross-
sectional geometry of an underground tunnel. Adv Civil Eng,
p 17. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/3439543
21. Muskhelishvili NI (1977) Some basic problems of the mathe-
matical theory of elasticity. Springer, Dordrecht, p 732
22. Du D, Dias D, Do NA, Vo TH (2020) U-shaped tunnel lining
design using the hyperstatic reaction method—influence of the
invert. Soils Found 60(3):592–607. Ćhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.
sandf.2020.02.004
23. D. M. Potts and L. Zdravković, Finite element analysis in
geotechnical engineering, vol. 1, Thomas Telford Limited, 1999.
24. TCVN (1988) Hâ`m đường să´t và hâ`m đường ô tô -Tiêu chuẩn
thiê´t kê´. 4527-1988.
25. Oreste P (2007) A numerical approach to the hyperstatic reaction
method for the dimensioning of tunnel supports. Tunn Undergr
Space Technol 22(2):185–205. Ćhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tust.2006.05.002
26. Do NA, Dias D, Oreste P,. Maigrea ID (2014) The behaviour of
the segmental tunnel lining studied by the hyperstatic reaction
method. Eur J Environ Civil Eng 18(4): 489–510. Doi: Ćhttps://
doi.org/10.1080/19648189.2013.872583
27. Do NA, Dias D, Oreste P (2014) 2D seismic numerical analysis
of segmental tunnel lining behaviour. Bull N Z Soc Earthq Eng
47(3):1–11. https://doi.org/10.5459/bnzsee.47.3.206-216
28. Do NA, Dias D, Zhang Z, Huang X, Nguyen TT, Pham VV, Nait-
Rabah O (2020) Study on the behavior of squared and sub-rect-
angular tunnels using the Hyperstatic Reaction Method. Transp
Geotech 22. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trgeo.2020.100321
29. Du D, Dias D, Do NA (2020) Lining performance optimization of
sub-rectangular tunnels using the hyperstatic reaction method.
Comput Geotech 117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2019.
103279
30. Takano YH (2000) Guidelines for the design of shield tunnel
lining. Tunnel Underground Space Technol 15(3):303–331.
Ćhttps://doi.org/10.1016/S0886-7798(00)00058-4
31. Huebner KH, Dewhirst DL, Smith DE, Byrom TG (2001) The
finite element method for engineers. John Wiley and Sons, inc,
New York
32. Li W, Zhang C, Zhu W, Zhang D (2019) Upper-bound solutions
for the face stability of a non-circular NATM tunnel in clays with
a linearly increasing undrained shear strength with depth. Comput
Geotech 114. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2019.
103136
33. Brinkgreve R (2002) Plaxis: finite element code for soil and rock
analyses. Delft, Netherlands
34. Çelik S (2017) Comparison of Mohr-Coulomb and hardening soil
models numerical estimation of ground surface settlement caused
by tunneling. Iğdır Univ J Inst Sci Technol 7(4):96–102. Doi:
Ćhttps://doi.org/10.21597/jist.2017.202
35. Chen K-H, Peng F-L (2018) An improved method to calculate the
vertical earth pressure for deep shield tunnel in Shanghai soil
123
814
layers. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 75:43–66. Ćhttps://doi.org/
10.1016/j.tust.2018.01.027
36. Miliziano S, Lillis AD (2019) Predicted and observed settlements
induced by the mechanized tunnel excavation of metro line C
near S. Giovanni station in Rome. Tunnell Underground Space
Technol 86:236–246. Doi: Ćhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tust.2019.01.022
37. Migliazza M, Chiorboli M, Giania G (2009) Comparison of
analytical method, 3D finite element model with experimental
subsidence measurements resulting from the extension of the
Milan underground. Comput Geotech 36(1–2):113–124. Ćhttps://
doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2008.03.005
38. Vinod M, Khabbaz H (2019) Comparison of rectangular and
circular bored twin tunnels in weak ground. Underground Space 4
(4):1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.undsp.2019.03.004
39. Rostami A, Asghari N, Ziarati MA, Jahani S, Shahi B (2016)
Investigating effect of tunnel gate investigating effect of tunnel
gate inserted forces on its coverage and soil surface settlement.
J Civ Eng 6(3):358–369. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojce.2016.63030
123
Indian Geotech J (August 2022) 52(4):799–814
40. Abdellah WR, Ali MA, Yang H-S (2018) Studying the effect of
some parameters on the stability of shallow tunnels. J Sustain
Min 17(1):20–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsm.2018.02.001
41. Besharat V, Davoodi M, Jafari MK (2014) Variations in ground
surface responses under different seismic input motions due the
presence of a tunnel. Arab J Sci Eng 39:6927–6941. Ćhttps://doi.
org/10.1007/s13369-014-1260-y
42. Mahajan S, Ayothiraman R, Sharma KG (2019) A parametric
study on effects of basement excavation and foundation loading
on underground metro tunnel in soil. Indian Geotechnical Journal
49:667–686. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40098-019-00361-x
43. Terzaghi K (1941) General wedge theory of earth pressures.
Transactions, ASCE 108.
44. Blom CBM Design philosophy of concrete linings for tunnels in
soft soils. PhD thesis, TU Delft, Delft Univ. of Technology, Delft,
Netherlands
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.