The Interaction Between Shield, Ground and Tunnel Support in TBM Tunnelling Through Squeezing Ground

Rock Mech Rock Eng (2011) 44:37–61
DOI 10.1007/s00603-010-0103-8
ORIGINAL PAPER
The Interaction Between Shield, Ground and Tunnel Support

in TBM Tunnelling Through Squeezing Ground
M. Ramoni • G. Anagnostou
Received: 15 January 2010 / Accepted: 14 May 2010 / Published online: 15 June 2010
Ó Springer-Verlag 2010
Abstract When planning a TBM drive in squeezing C Circumference

ground, the tunnelling engineer faces a complex problem Cce Arc length of the deformable concrete elements
involving a number of conflicting factors. In this respect, Csc Arc length of the shotcrete ring
numerical analyses represent a helpful decision aid as they Css Circumference of the steel set
provide a quantitative assessment of the effects of key D Boring diameter
parameters. The present paper investigates the interaction d1 Thickness of the shotcrete layer
between the shield, ground and tunnel support by means of d2 Height of the deformable elements (yielding
computational analysis. Emphasis is placed on the bound- support)
ary condition, which is applied to model the interface e Extrusion rate of the core
between the ground and the shield or tunnel support. The E Young’s modulus of the ground
paper also discusses two cases, which illustrate different Esc Young’s modulus of the shotcrete
methodical approaches applied to the assessment of a TBM Ess Young’s modulus of the steel
drive in squeezing ground. The first case history—the F Thrust force
Uluabat Tunnel (Turkey)—mainly involves the investiga- Fb Boring thrust force
tion of TBM design measures aimed at reducing the risk fc Uniaxial compressive strength of the ground
of shield jamming. The second case history—the Faido fc,ce Maximum compressive stress of the deformable
Section of the Gotthard Base Tunnel (Switzerland)—deals concrete elements
with different types of tunnel support installed behind a fc,sc Uniaxial compressive strength of the shotcrete
gripper TBM. fy,ss Yield stress of the steel
Fi Installed thrust force
Keywords Tunnel boring machine fl Boundary condition for the simulation of the
Mechanized tunnelling Squeezing ground tunnel support
Shield jamming Tunnel support Yielding support Fr Required thrust force
Numerical investigation Steady state method fs Boundary condition for the simulation of the
shield
H Depth of cover
Abbreviation
Kl Stiffness of the lining
Ass Cross-sectional area of the steel set
Ks Stiffness of the shield
b Steel set spacing
l Length of a critical geological zone
b0 Steel set clear distance
L Length of the shield
c Cohesion of the ground
N Hoop force
Nce Hoop force in the deformable concrete elements
nce Number of deformable concrete elements
M. Ramoni (&) G. Anagnostou
ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland Nf Friction loop resistance
e-mail: marco.ramoni@igt.baug.ethz.ch nf Number of friction loops
123
38 M. Ramoni, G. Anagnostou
Nmax Yield load of the steel set convergences of the bored profile, damage to the tunnel
Nsc Hoop force in the shotcrete ring support). ‘‘Squeezing’’ refers to the phenomenon of large
Ny Yield load of the sliding connections long-term deformations of the bored profile due to the
p Ground pressure overstressing of the ground surrounding the tunnel. It
ps Average ground pressure acting upon the shield occurs mostly in weak rocks with a high deformability and
r Radial co-ordinate (distance from the tunnel axis) a low strength and often in combination with a high
R Tunnel radius overburden and a high water pressure (Barla 2001; Kovári
RF,T Reaction force 1998). Phyllites, schists, serpentinites and claystones are
s Step length (step-by-step calculations) among the rocks often exhibiting heavily squeezing
t Time behaviour. As experienced, e.g., in some stretches of the
T Torque Gotthard Base Tunnel (Switzerland), relevant deformations
u Radial displacement of the ground (at the tunnel for TBM tunnelling may occur also in relatively hard but
boundary) fractured rocks (e.g., gneisses), particularly if encountered
ul Radial displacement of the lining at great depths.
v Advance rate An extended review of the literature concerning expe-
y Axial co-ordinate (distance behind the tunnel rience with TBMs in squeezing ground, the possible tech-
face) nological improvement of the common TBM types (i.e.,
y0 Position of the tunnel face gripper, single and double shielded TBM), the develop-
DR Radial gap size ment of alternative machine concepts, the possible mea-
ess,max Failure strain of the steel sures for coping with squeezing ground and the
et Hoop strain development of deformable lining systems that might cope
et,ce Hoop strain of the deformable concrete elements better with high ground pressures can be found in Ramoni
et,sc Hoop strain of the shotcrete and Anagnostou (2010b).
et,ss Hoop strain of the steel set When evaluating the feasibility of a TBM drive in
u Angle of internal friction of the ground squeezing ground, it is of paramount importance to
l Shield skin friction coefficient understand the mechanisms governing the interaction
m Poisson’s ratio of the ground between shield, ground and tunnel support. For the design
r Stress of the TBM and the tunnel support, a series of issues must
r0 Initial stress be investigated in relation to the ground pressure p (acting
r1 Maximum principal stress upon the cutter head, the shield and the lining), the con-
r3 Minimum principal stress vergence of the tunnel wall u, the extrusion rate of the
rrr Radial stress core e, the required thrust force F and the torque T as well
rry Shear stress as the resulting reaction forces RF,T (Fig. 1). All of these
rt Hoop stress parameters may also depend on the advance rate v or on the
rt,ce Hoop stress in the deformable concrete elements duration of any excavation standstill that may take place.
rt,sc Hoop stress in the shotcrete A number of different analytical, empirical and numer-
rt,ss Hoop stress in the steel set ical approaches have been proposed in the literature for the
rtt Tangential stress quantitative assessment of these parameters (Sect. 2). The
ryy Axial stress present paper follows a numerical approach, addressing the
w Dilatancy angle of the ground question of the boundary conditions that need to be applied
in order to simulate the interface between ground and
shield or tunnel support adequately (Sect. 3) and discussing
the structural interplay between these system components
by means of computational results (Sect. 4). The paper also
1 Introduction presents two examples of real world applications which
illustrate possible methodical approaches to the assessment
Squeezing ground represents a challenging condition for of a TBM drive in squeezing ground (Sects. 5, 6). The first
operating tunnel boring machines (TBMs), because even case history—the Uluabat Tunnel (Turkey)—mainly con-
relatively small convergences of up to 10–20 cm (that cerns the investigation of TBM design measures with the
would not really be problematic in conventional tunnelling) aim of reducing the risk of shield jamming. The second
may lead to difficulties in the machine (sticking of the case history—the Faido Section of the Gotthard Base
cutter head, jamming of the shield) or in the back-up area Tunnel (Switzerland)—deals with the different types of
(e.g., jamming of the back-up equipment, inadmissible tunnel support installed behind a gripper TBM. A
123
The Interaction between Shield, Ground and Tunnel Support 39
Fig. 1 Critical parameters for a

gripper TBM (a) and a single
shielded TBM (b) in squeezing
ground
considerable degree of engineering judgement is required who developed design charts for the operability of double
in cases such as this—in contrast to shielded TBMs where shielded TBMs in gripper mode, as well as by Vigl et al.
the support is, as a rule, pre-determined (precast segmental (1999) in their discussion of the latest developments in
lining). double shielded TBMs. On the basis of numerical calcu-
lations, Gärber (2003) improved the convergence-confine-
ment method, provided charts for the design of deep
2 Design and Analysis Methods tunnels in low permeability saturated porous media and
applied the proposed semi-analytical solution method to
2.1 Closed-Form Solutions the back-analysis of the segmental lining for the Nuclear
Research Centre Connecting Gallery (Belgium), which was
The method of characteristic lines is the simplest and excavated by a single shielded TBM (D = 4.81 m).
widely used analysis method in tunnelling. It has also been
used by Kovári (1986a, b) with respect to some of the 2.2 Empirical Relationships
issues of TBM tunnelling in squeezing ground. Vogelhuber
(2007) later applied the convergence-confinement method Other studies have attempted to get around the drawbacks
for investigating the crossing of a shear zone at great depth of analytical solutions by introducing empirical functions
with a double shielded TBM of 10 m diameter. He was based upon field measurements, which describe the longi-
thereby able to differentiate between the short-term and tudinal distribution of the radial displacement of the tunnel
long-term behaviour of the ground. The method of char- boundary. Schubert (2000) showed the effect of the
acteristic lines is still used today for analysing the inter- advance rate on tunnel closure in a specific case using the
action between ground and support also with regard to relationships proposed by Sulem et al. (1987) and
deformable segmental linings of shield-driven tunnels improved by Sellner (2000). Farrokh et al. (2006), Jafari
through squeezing rock (cf., e.g., Billig et al. 2007; et al. (2007) and Khademi Hamidi et al. (2008) evaluated
Schneider and Spiegl 2008). ground pressure and thrust force requirement in their
The main disadvantage of the method of characteristic empirical investigation into the double shielded TBMs of
lines is that it does not provide the longitudinal distribution the Ghomroud Tunnel (Iran, D = 4.50 m) and the Nosoud
of the ground pressure acting upon the shield and the Tunnel (Iran, D = 6.73 m).
lining. For this purpose, additional assumptions must be The performance of TBMs in squeezing ground can also
introduced. Therefore, for example, Hisatake and Iai be assessed by evaluating and correlating the operational
(1993) proposed a time-dependent (creep) non-dimensional parameters of the TBM. This was done, e.g., by Kawatani
displacement function for the longitudinal distribution of et al. (1999) for the Takisato Tunnel (Japan, double
the radial ground displacements, while Moulton et al. shielded TBM, D = 8.30 m) and by Farrokh and Rostami
(1995) and Feknous et al. (1996) introduced three-dimen- (2008, 2009) for the Ghomroud Tunnel (Iran).
sional diagrams that show support pressure as a function of In spite of the applications mentioned above, one should
convergence and distance from the tunnel face. Making an bear in mind that the reliability of empirical methods is in
a priori assumption about the distribution and magnitude of general limited, as they are based upon correlations of field
the ground pressure is an even stronger simplification. This data obtained in specific projects with potentially different
approach was followed by Eisenstein and Rossler (1995), conditions.
123
2.3 Numerical Investigations previously mentioned ‘‘TISROCK’’ research project. Floria

et al. (2008), Amberg (2009) and Lombardi et al. (2009)
Axially symmetric or three-dimensional numerical models investigated the effect of advance drainage on ground
pay due attention to the spatial stress redistribution in the response for the excavation of the service tunnel of the
vicinity of the advancing face, thus eliminating the errors planned Gibraltar Strait Tunnel between Morocco and
introduced by the assumption of plane strain conditions Spain (D = 6.50 m). In the first two studies (Floria et al.
(Cantieni and Anagnostou 2009) and providing information 2008; John and Mattle 2007) the ground around the shield
on the evolution of stresses and deformations in the lon- was regarded as being unsupported, while Amberg (2009)
gitudinal direction as well as allowing a more detailed and Lombardi et al. (2009) simulated the shield by
modelling of the different system components (i.e., ground, applying a support pressure of 1 MPa at the face and at the
TBM, tunnel support) and their interfaces. excavation boundary around the shield. All of these works
The initial results of spatial numerical analyses have assessed the feasibility of the TBM drive by comparing the
already been presented by Lombardi (1981), who discussed computed radial displacements in the machine area with
the influence of the advance rate on the lining loading for the size of the radial gap between shield and ground.
the simplified case of a lining that starts to become loaded Research of a general character, i.e., not related to a
40 m behind the face. Lombardi’s (1981) work dealt with specific tunnel project, has been carried out by Ramoni and
aspects of tunnelling in overstressed rocks from a funda- Anagnostou (2006) and by Schmitt (2009). Schmitt (2009)
mental point of view. In the majority of cases reported in investigated the behaviour of single shielded TBMs by
the literature, however, the numerical investigations have means of fully three-dimensional, step-by-step simulations
been carried out in the framework of specific TBM pro- of tunnel excavation, thus gaining a valuable insight into
jects. So, for example, Lombardi and Panciera (1997) and the effects of non-uniform convergence and of non-
Panciera and Piccolo (1997) analyzed the feasibility of a hydrostatic shield and lining loading, while Ramoni and
double shield TBM drive for the Guadiaro–Majaceite Anagnostou (2006) employed axisymmetric numerical
Tunnel (Spain, D = 4.88 m) taking account of the effects models in order to investigate the effects of thrust force,
of advance rate and of time-dependent ground behaviour. overboring, shield length and skin friction coefficient
Matter et al. (2007) studied the crossing of shear zones by between the shield and the ground with respect to the
the Wienerwald Tunnel (Austria, single shielded TBM, problem of shield jamming.
D = 10.67 m) by means of axially symmetric numerical The numerical solution method of Ramoni and Anag-
investigations. Fully three-dimensional computational nostou (2006) simulated tunnel excavation by monotonous
models have been applied by Cobreros et al. (2005) and by unloading of the tunnel boundary from its initial value r0
Simic (2005)—a study which considers creep effects as to zero. Ramoni and Anagnostou (2007a, b, 2008)
well—for the Guadarrama Tunnel (Spain, double shielded improved this model by implementing the stress-point
TBM, D = 9.51 m) and by Graziani et al. (2007a, b), who algorithm in accordance with the so-called ‘‘steady state
studied the planned Brenner Base Tunnel (Austria, double method’’ of Nguyen Minh and Corbetta (1991), a numer-
shielded TBM, D = 11.00 m) within the framework of the ical procedure for solving problems with constant condi-
TISROCK research project (for general information about tions in the tunnelling direction by considering a reference
TISROCK see John and Schneider 2007). Other project- frame, which is fixed to the advancing tunnel face. A
related investigations include those of Wittke et al. (2007), recent description of the computational method (including
who evaluated the stresses and deformations of the shield its further development for poro-elastoplastic materials)
structure of the single shielded TBM of the Hallandsas and numerical comparisons with the step-by-step simula-
Tunnel (Sweden, D = 10.70 m) taking account of seepage tion of an advancing tunnel can be found in Anagnostou
flow and dealing with the structural detailing of the shield (2007) and Cantieni and Anagnostou (2009), respectively.
by making a simplifying a priori assumption that the The steady state method makes it possible to solve the
ground closes the steering gap at a distance of 4 m behind advancing tunnel heading problem in one single compu-
the working face. tational step, i.e., without the need to simulate several
Another group of papers involves numerical investiga- sequences of excavation and support installation. As
tions, which do not take specific account of the shield in the shown by Cantieni and Anagnostou (2009), the steady
computational model. For example, Shalabi (2005) carried state method corresponds to the limit case of an excava-
out a back-analysis of the creep deformations and pressures tion with zero round length. Therefore, it simulates TBM
of the Stillwater Tunnel (USA, D = 3.06 m) by assuming advance better than the commonly employed step-by-step
that the tunnel is lined up to the face. John and Mattle method does, as the latter requires the arbitrary selection
(2007) analyzed squeezing ground conditions for the of a finite excavation round length, while TBM advance
Strenger Tunnel (Austria, D = 11.00 m) within the is actually a continuous process. For the commonly
123
chosen, computationally manageable round length values working face (Lombardi 1973). As in other works by the
of s = 1–2 m, the step-by-step method leads to a consid- authors (see Sect. 2.3), the numerical calculations have
erable underestimation of the shield and lining loading been performed using the steady state method (Nguyen
(Cantieni and Anagnostou 2009). The choice of a smaller Minh and Corbetta 1991). For more information on the
round length (e.g., s = 0.5 m, cf. Sect. 5.3) improves computational model and for a discussion of the underlying
accuracy but increases computer time. The computational assumptions, the reader is referred to Ramoni and Anag-
economy and numerical stability of the steady state nostou (2010a). In the present section, the paper focuses on
method made it possible to carry out a comprehensive the modelling of the interface between the ground and the
parametric study and, based upon the numerical results of shield or lining.
the study, to work out design nomograms concerning
shield loading and the thrust force required to overcome 3.2 Ground–Support Interface
friction in respect of the different TBM types (Ramoni and
Anagnostou 2010a). An accurate simulation of the two support elements
In all of these investigations, the ground behaviour was ‘‘shield’’ and ‘‘tunnel support’’ must take into account, (1),
considered as being time-independent. Time effects were their different installation points (y = 0 and y = L in
taken into account by Sterpi and Gioda (2007), who Fig. 2, respectively) and, (2), that the shield and the tunnel
highlighted the fundamental effect of creep, as well as by support experience smaller displacements than the ground
Einstein and Bobet (1997) and Ramoni and Anagnostou at any given point y in the tunnel wall. This is due to the
(2007a, b), who studied the consolidation processes asso- pre-deformation of the ground ahead of the tunnel face u(0)
ciated with the development and subsequent dissipation of and to the overcut DR which is usually present between the
excess pore pressures around the tunnel in a low-perme- shield and the excavation boundary. In order to consider
ability water-bearing ground. these aspects, a mixed and non-uniform boundary condi-
tion is introduced for the tunnel wall, which in a general
form reads as follows:
3 Computational Model
f ðuðyÞÞ if 0 y L
pðyÞ ¼ s ; ð1Þ
fl ðuðyÞÞ if y [ L
3.1 Introduction
where p(y) is the ground pressure developing upon the
The numerical investigations in this paper are based upon shield or the lining; u(y) is the radial displacement of the
an axially symmetric model (Fig. 2). The condition of ground at the tunnel boundary; L denotes the shield length;
rotational symmetry presupposes that the tunnel is deep- and the functions fs and fl describe the displacement-
seated and crosses a hydrostatic, isotropic and uniform dependency of the resistance of the shield (Sect. 3.3) and of
stress field. The ground is modelled as an isotropic, linear the tunnel support (Sect. 3.4), respectively.
elastic, perfectly plastic material obeying the Mohr–Cou-
lomb yield criterion and a non-associated flow rule. 3.3 Shield
Creep or consolidation processes have been disregarded.
The gradual increase of ground pressure and of ground The function fs takes account of the fact that the ground
deformations in the longitudinal direction is therefore starts to exert a load upon the shield only after closing the
considered to be only due to the spatial stress redistribution radial gap around the shield, i.e., after experiencing an
that is associated with the progressive advance of the additional deformation of DR behind the face, where DR
Fig. 2 Problem layout

indicating the different
installation points of the shield
and of the lining
123
denotes the size of the radial gap (Fig. 3a). After the clo- shown later in the Sects. 4.3 and 6.3, a detailed simulation
sure of the gap, assuming that the shield is able to bear the of the behaviour of the tunnel support is also important for
load without being overstressed, there is a linear depen- analyzing its interaction with the shield. Specifically, a
dence between the developing ground pressure p and the rigid support that is installed close to the shield tail facil-
shield stiffness Ks. itates load transfer in the longitudinal direction, thus
Shields may have a ‘‘conical’’ shape. This so-called reducing the ground pressure acting upon the shield. On the
‘‘conicity’’ of the shield is realised with a stepwise reduc- other hand, the tunnel support has to bear a higher load in
tion of the shield diameter (Herrenknecht 2010). In the this case.
computational model, this can be taken into account
defining a variable radial gap size DR(y). For example, if 3.5 Simplified Model
the conicity of the shield is realized in two steps (Fig. 4),
the non-uniform mixed boundary conditions of Eq. 1 reads, As a simplified model for estimating shield loading, a
in a general way, as follows: uniform boundary condition (defined by the function fs) can
8
<0 if 0 y L and uðyÞ uð0Þ DRðyÞ
pðyÞ ¼ Ks ðuðyÞ uð0Þ DRðyÞÞ if 0 y L and uðyÞ uð0Þ [ DRðyÞ ; ð2Þ
:
Kl ðuðyÞ uðLÞÞ if y [ L
where be applied to the entire tunnel boundary. In this case, the

8 shield and the tunnel support are modelled as a unique body
< DR1 if 0 y L1
DRðyÞ ¼ DR2 if L1 \y L2 : ð3Þ having the same stiffness and the same radial gap size DR.
: This simplification has been made, e.g., by Ramoni and
DR3 if L2 \y L3
Anagnostou (2006) and Sterpi and Gioda (2007) and allows
A numerical example illustrating the effect of the co-
a faster investigation to be made of the effect of the shield
nicity of the shield will be discussed in Sect. 4.3.
length L on the thrust force that is required to overcome
shield skin friction because, in cases such as this, it is
3.4 Tunnel Support sufficient to integrate the function p(y) over a tunnel sector
0 B y B L of arbitrary length L without needing to carry
The boundary condition fl makes it possible to simulate out an individual numerical computation for each shield
each kind of tunnel support. Figure 3b shows the boundary length. There are, however, several reasons for using the
condition applied for stiff supports (for example, a shot- non-uniform boundary condition of Eq. 1.
crete layer or a segmental lining being immediately back- The simplified model disregards the fact that the
filled). Note that the assumption of a constant lining installation of the tunnel support occurs later than that of
stiffness Kl presupposes that the lining is not overstressed. the shield (Fig. 2) and does not account for the radial
On the other hand, Fig. 3c shows, in general terms, a unloading of the excavation boundary at the lining instal-
definition of the boundary condition that would simulate lation point. This leads to an overestimation of the lining
the non-linear behaviour of a yielding support (for details loading. This is important not only with respect to the
see the application example described in Sect. 6). As design of the lining, but also for the loading of the shield.
Fig. 3 Boundary condition at

the tunnel boundary for the
simulation of: a shield, b stiff
supports, c yielding supports
123
Fig. 4 Stepwise reduction of

the shield diameter (conicity)
In fact, the overestimation of the support pressure exerted Table 1 Assumed parameter values
by the lining behind the shield leads (due to the longitu-
Set (figures)
dinal arch action in the ground around the shield) to an
underestimation of the shield loading and, consequently, of 1 (5–10) 2 (11) 3 (12) 4 (14–15) 5 (18)
the thrust force that is required in order to overcome shield R (m) 5.00 5.00 2.50 2.50 4.75
skin friction. (Section 4.3 analyzes quantitatively this DR (cm) 0–20 5 3/6/9/12 3 12
effect by means of a numerical example.) L (m) 6–12/? 0–12 10/12 12 5
Furthermore, the simplified boundary condition pre- Ks (MPa/m) 1,008 1,008 2,688 2,688 558
supposes that the gap size DR is constant along the shield
Kl (MPa/m) 360 0/? 2,688 2,688 Variable
and the lining and, consequently, it is not able to map
r0 (MPa) 10 10 3 3 40
neither shield conicity nor the perfect contact between
E (MPa) 1,000 2,000 200–1,000 2,000a 400b 3,235
lining and ground existing in some cases right from the
m (-) 0.25 0.25 0.20 0.20 0.30
start (for example, in the case of a gripper TBM with
fc (MPa) 3.0 4.5 – – 5.5
support by shotcrete or of a shielded TBM with annulus
c (kPa) – – 500–400 200b –
grouting taking place simultaneously with TBM advance
u (°) 25 25 20 20b 35
via the shield tail).
w (°) 5 5 1 1b 5
l (-) 0.15/0.25/ 0.45 0.25/0.50 0.50 0.30
0.30/0.45
4 Basic Aspects of the Interaction between Shield,
Fi (MN) 150 – 30/60 30 27.5
Ground and Tunnel Support
Fb (MN) 0/18 0 0 0 17
s (m) – – – 0.5/1.0 –
The interaction between the shield, the ground and the
a
tunnel support will be analyzed by means of numerical Competent rock
b
examples for the hypothetical case of a 400 m deep tunnel Weak zone
with a boring diameter of 10 m. The tunnel is excavated by
a TBM with a 10 m long single shield. The support consists
of a 30 cm thick segmental lining being immediately overcome friction (Sect. 4.3). Specifically, this section will
backfilled. The material constants are specified in Table 1 show that the ground at the excavation boundary experi-
(Set 1). ences several unloading and reloading cycles and that a
The ground pressure developing upon the shield is of stepwise reduction of the shield diameter is very favourable
paramount importance both for the structural design of the with respect to the ground pressure. Furthermore, Sect. 4.3
machine and for the frictional resistance to be overcome discusses quantitatively the simplified model for the shield-
when advancing the TBM. As the ground starts to exert ground interface mentioned in Sect. 3.5 and shows how
pressure upon the shield only after a certain amount of important it is to take into account as realistically as pos-
deformation has occurred, this section starts with a dis- sible the geometrical characteristics and the installation
cussion of the convergences and pressures developing sequence of the shield and the tunnel support. In this
along the tunnel (Sect. 4.1) and shows how much the respect, it is important to note that the installation point and
geometrical parameters of the shield influence the degree the stiffness of the tunnel support are essential not only for
of overstressing and the stress history of the ground (Sect. its loading but also for the pressure developing upon the
4.2) as well as the thrust force required in order to shield (Sect. 4.4).
123
4.1 Shield–Ground Interaction Figure 5c shows the distribution of the ground pressure p
acting upon the shield and the lining. The ground pressure
Figure 5a shows the radial displacement u of the ground at increases with the distance from the tunnel face as the
the tunnel boundary for three values of the size DR of the stabilizing effect of the core ahead of the face becomes less
radial gap between shield and ground. The latter deter- pronounced. The load concentration at the end of the shield
mines the amount of convergence that can occur freely. can be traced back to the complete unloading of the tunnel
Figure 5b shows the convergence u - u(0) of the bored boundary at the installation point of the lining.
profile, i.e., the total radial displacement u less the As expected, the ground pressure p decreases (both for
so-called ‘‘pre-deformation’’ u(0) that occurs ahead of the shield and the lining) when a larger overboring is
the tunnel face. In the case of a normal overcutting provided. In the case of a very large overboring of
(DR = 5 cm) the ground closes the gap near to the face (at DR = 15 cm the gap between ground and shield would not
point A, Fig. 5b). A larger gap (DR = 10 cm) remains close at all in this numerical example and the shield would
open for a longer interval (up to point B, Fig. 5b). After remain unloaded. It should be noted, however, that over-
closing the gap, the ground starts to load the shield. boring technology is not yet well developed and, as shown
Fig. 5 Results of numerical

computations for a 10 m long
shield and for an overboring DR
of 5, 10 or 15 cm: a radial
displacement u of the ground at
the tunnel boundary,
b convergence u - u(0) of the
bored profile, c ground
pressure p acting upon the
shield and the lining; other
parameters according to
Table 1, Set 1
123
from tunnelling experience, may be of limited reliability tangential stresses rrr and rtt decrease together with the
(ITA 2003; Ramoni and Anagnostou 2010b). The feasi- axial stress ryy. In the principal stress diagram of Fig. 7b,
bility and the reliability of a large overboring have to be the onset of plastic yielding is indicated by the point C. At
checked carefully particularly for hard rocks because very the tunnel face, the radial stress rrr becomes equal to zero
high loads act upon the extended gauge cutters in this case and the tunnel boundary remains unsupported as long as
and may endanger their structural safety. the gap between shield and bored profile is open. Because
of the Mohr–Coulomb yield criterion, the maximum prin-
4.2 Overstressing and Stress History of the Ground cipal stress over this unsupported span becomes equal to
the uniaxial compressive strength fc. (The stress state over
On the one hand, providing a larger overboring leads to a the unsupported span is indicated by the point D in the
lower shield loading and therefore to a lower frictional principal stress diagram of Fig. 7b.)
resistance during shield advance. On the other hand, a At a certain distance behind the face, the converging
larger radial gap allows a larger deformation u to occur ground closes the gap and the shield starts to develop a
and, therefore, there is a more extended zone of over- radial support pressure rrr upon the tunnel boundary with
stressed ground around the tunnel (Fig. 6). In this numer- the consequence that the ground is able to sustain a higher
ical example, the thickness of the plastic zone increases stress level and the stress state returns to the elastic domain
from 2.8 to 5.5 m practically linearly with the size DR of (Fig. 7b, stress path DE). As can be seen in Fig. 7a, the
the radial gap (DR = 5–15 cm). In a ground exhibiting ground experiences two unloading (to rrr = 0) and
brittle behaviour, the deformations and the overstressing reloading cycles, the first being near to the tunnel face until
may enhance loosening and softening of the ground, thus the ground closes the gap (Fig. 7b, stress path ABCDE) and
favouring gravity-driven instabilities. This may lead to the second at the end of the shield, where lining installation
problems with the installation of the tunnel support (grip- takes place (stress path EFGH). As can be seen from Fig. 8,
per TBMs) or the backfilling of the segmental lining which shows the radial stress p at the excavation boundary
(shielded TBMs). The issue of loosening and softening is for different shield geometries, unloading–reloading cycles
particularly important for the design of a yielding support, occur several times if the shield has a stepwise decreasing
because both strength loss and major loosening call for a diameter (‘‘conical shield’’, cf. Sect. 3.3).
higher yield pressure in the support system (Anagnostou It is also interesting to note that the wider the radial gap,
and Cantieni 2007). An example will be discussed in the more time it takes for the ground to close the gap,
Sect. 6.3 of the present paper. leading to a later occurrence of elastic re-compression and
In the so-called ‘‘past-yield zone’’ (Fig. 6), the defor- a bigger plastic zone in the longitudinal direction (Fig. 6).
mations of the ground are partially irreversible but its stress Therefore, for example, if DR = 15 cm the gap remains
state is located within the elastic domain. The ground has open over the entire shield length L (which can be seen as a
experienced plastic yielding in the past, but has become free span between the tunnel face and the lining) and the
elastic again. The reason for this so-called ‘‘elastic re- plastic zone extends up to the end of the shield
compression’’ (Gärber 2003) is the development of a radial (y = L = 10 m, Fig. 6c).
pressure from the lining with increasing distance from the
tunnel face. Figure 7 provides a complete picture of the 4.3 Thrust Force
stress history of the ground. With the approaching tunnel
excavation, the axial stress ryy decreases ahead of the The thrust force Fr required to overcome shield skin fric-
tunnel face, while a stress concentration occurs in the radial tion can be calculated easily by integrating the ground
and the tangential directions (Fig. 7a). Near the tunnel pressure p over the shield surface and multiplying the
face, the stress deviator becomes so large that the core integral by the skin friction coefficient l. Figure 9a shows
yields, plastic deformations start to develop and, due to the effect of radial gap size DR on required thrust force Fr
Mohr–Coulomb yield condition, the radial and the for two operational stages (‘‘ongoing excavation’’ and
Fig. 6 Plastic zone for a 10 m

long shield and for an
overboring DR of: a 5 cm,
b 10 cm, c 15 cm; other
Table 1, Set 1
123
Fig. 7 Results of numerical

computations for a normal
overcut of DR = 5 cm and a
shield length of L = 10 m:
a history of the radial (rrr),
tangential (rtt), axial (ryy) and
shear stress (rry) along the
tunnel boundary, b principal
stress paths along the tunnel
boundary; other parameters
according to Table 1, Set 1
Fig. 8 Ground pressure p

acting upon the shield and the
lining for three different shield
geometries having the same
average radial gap size (shield
length L = 10 m, radial gap
size DR = 4–6 cm; other
Table 1, Set 1)
123
‘‘restart after a standstill’’). During ongoing excavation, the As mentioned in Sect. 3.5, the computational model
TBM has to overcome sliding instead of static friction, but, can be simplified by modelling the shield and the lining
on the other hand, an additional thrust force Fb is needed as a single infinitely long cylindrical body of constant
for the boring process (Fb was taken to 18 MN in this stiffness and radial gap size. Figure 10a compares the
example). Following Gehring (1996), the skin friction longitudinal distribution of the ground pressure p of the
coefficient was taken to be l = 0.15–0.30 for sliding simplified model with a pressure distribution based on
friction and l = 0.25–0.45 for static friction, where the the more accurate model discussed in the previous
lower friction coefficient values aim to illustrate the posi- sections (for a 10 m long shield). The simplified com-
tive effects of lubrication of the shield extrados, e.g., by putational model overestimates the ground pressure
bentonite. The line marked by Fi denotes a high, but still developing upon the lining (by 56% in the final state
feasible thrust force of 150 MN. developing far behind the face) and, consequently, the
Figure 9b shows the required thrust force Fr as a func- supporting effect of the lining in the area immediately
tion of the shield length L for the two operational stages behind the shield (the diagonally dashed region in
and an overcut of DR = 5–15 cm. The diagram illustrates Fig. 10a). Due to the load transfer in the longitudinal
the positive effect of a shorter shield. It has to be noted that direction, this leads to a lower shield loading (the verti-
the dependency of thrust force on the shield length is in cally dashed region in Fig. 10a), thereby underestimating
general non-linear. the thrust force required to overcome friction. Figure 10b
As shown in a condensed form by Fig. 9, the required shows the thrust force Fr required to restart TBM advance
thrust force Fr depends strongly on the shield length L, on after a standstill as a function of the shield length L in the
the skin friction coefficient l and on the overcut DR. simplified model and based upon the more accurate model
Another important TBM design parameter is the so-called with the non-uniform boundary condition (Eq. 1). The
‘‘conicity’’ of the shield, i.e., the variation DR(y) of the simplified model underestimates the thrust force by about
radial gap size along the shield (cf. Sect. 3.3). Figure 8 40 MN in this example. It is therefore important to model
shows the ground pressure p acting upon the shield and the the characteristics and the installation point of the tunnel
lining for three different shield geometries having the same support as accurately as possible, not only from the per-
average radial gap size of DR = 5 cm. The positive effect spective of structural assessment but also with respect to
of a stepwise construction of the shield becomes evident the design of the TBM.
when comparing the average ground pressure ps (which
governs the required thrust force) acting upon the shield. It 4.4 Shield–Support Interaction
decreases by 16 or 28%, respectively, where there are two
or three steps in the construction of the shield (Fig. 8). A The installation of a stiff support close to the shield reduces
wide gap is more important for the rear part of the shield the shield loading and the thrust force requirement because
because the convergence of the ground increases with the it improves load transfer in the longitudinal direction. The
distance behind the face. stiffer the lining and the shorter its distance from the face,
Fig. 9 Required thrust force Fr during ongoing excavation (thrust respectively) lubrication of the shield extrados: a as a function of
force for the boring process Fb = 18 MN) and for the restart after a the overboring DR for a 10 m long shield, b as a function of the shield
standstill with (skin friction coefficient l = 0.15 or 0.25, respec- length L for an overboring DR of 5, 10 or 15 cm; other parameters
tively) or without (skin friction coefficient l = 0.30 or 0.45, according to Table 1, Set 1
123
Fig. 10 Distribution of the

ground pressure p acting upon
the shield and the lining (a) and
required thrust force Fr as a
function of the shield length L (b)
based upon the simplified
model as well as for a model
employing a non-uniform
boundary condition (radial gap
size DR = 5 cm, skin friction
coefficient l = 0.45; other
Table 1, Set 1)
the more pronounced will be the longitudinal arching effect be sustained by the usual linings (Fig. 11a, lower part). As
and the bigger will be the reduction of the shield load. expected, the load of the tunnel support p decreases with
The upper part of Fig. 11a illustrates this effect by increasing shield length L, i.e., with decreasing arching
presenting the thrust force Fr (required for restarting TBM effect.
advance after a standstill) as a function of the shield length L It should be noted that the case of an unsupported tunnel is
for two borderline cases with respect to support stiffness: not only theoretically possible. In fact, in shield tunnelling
a rigid support (Kl = ?) and an unsupported tunnel through rock, backfilling of the segmental lining by pea
(Kl = 0). As expected, the unloading effect is more pro- gravel is carried-out at a certain distance behind the shield
nounced for short shields. A stiff support that is installed with the consequence that the rock behind the shield actually
close to the face is favourable with respect to the shield but, remains unsupported (Fig. 11b). There is no unloading effect
nevertheless, attracts a higher ground load. In fact, for short in this case, of course (point A in Fig. 11a). Shield load
shields (where the longitudinal arching effect is particu- reduction (point B in Fig. 11a) via longitudinal arching
larly pronounced) the final ground pressure p developing between the face and the segmental lining presupposes
upon the rigid support (Kl = ?) reaches values that cannot annulus grouting simultaneously with TBM advance via the
Fig. 11 a Required thrust

force Fr and final ground
pressure p acting upon the lining
as a function of the shield
length L for a rigid support
(Kl = ?) as well as for an
unsupported tunnel (Kl = 0);
radial gap size DR = 5 cm, skin
friction coefficient l = 0.45;
other parameters according to
Table 1, Set 2; b single shielded
TBM in rock with delayed
backfilling of the segmental
lining (case A of a); c single
shielded TBM with annulus
grouting via the shield tail
(case B of a)
123
shield tail (Fig. 11c). The peculiarities of segmental lining Anagnostou 2008). Because of the variability of the
installation have been analyzed by Lavdas (2010). squeezing phenomena, attention was paid to the specific
situation prevailing in certain critical zones. The following
sections outline the most important results.
5 An Example of a Single Shielded TBM
5.2 Investigations on TBM Optimization
5.1 Introduction
The numerical investigations were carried out based on an
The first application example concerns the 11.8 km long axially symmetric model with the simplified boundary
Uluabat Tunnel in Turkey (about 100 km south of Istanbul). condition of Sect. 3.5 and a constant overcut DR along
A 12 m long single shielded TBM with a boring diameter of the shield. The calculations disregarded a possible time-
5.05 m and an installed thrust force of about 30 MN started dependency of the ground behaviour—a reasonable
work in 2006. The overcut DR was 3 cm at the front part of assumption considering the high convergence rates
the shield and increased to 4 cm at the shield tail. The observed in situ. Furthermore, because of the low strength
ground is of Triassic origin and consists of a claystone of the ground, the thrust force calculations neglected the
matrix containing 1–50 cm big sandstone lenses. The clay- boring thrust force. The skin friction coefficient was taken
stone fraction amounts to about 80%. The claystones are to l = 0.50 after Gehring (1996). This value is relevant for
intensively sheared, have several slickensides and disinte- the static friction conditions prevailing when attempting to
grate quickly under the action of water. Laboratory results restart excavation after a stop for the installation of the
revealed an angle of internal friction of about u = 208, segmental lining.
strongly variable cohesion values (c = 50–400 kPa) and a For a given depth of cover and for given TBM param-
Young’s modulus of E = 200–1000 MPa. During the first eters, a critical range of rock mass parameters can be
3 km of TBM operation, squeezing caused jamming of the determined beyond which the required thrust force is
shield on several occasions although the depth of cover was higher than the installed one, thus indicating that shield
rather moderate (about 120 m, i.e., an estimated initial stress jamming may occur. In the present case, the critical range
of r0 = 3 MPa). The available monitoring results were was defined in terms of the Young’s modulus E and of the
sparse, but indicated a large variability in squeezing inten- cohesion c of the rock mass (all other ground parameters
sity with maximum deformation rates of up to 60 mm/h. being kept constant). The reason for this choice was the
A comprehensive parametric study was carried out in large uncertainty concerning these two parameters in
order to gain a better understanding of the observed phe- combination with the great sensitivity of the ground
nomena, analyze the factors influencing the jamming of the response with respect to their variations.
TBM and evaluate the effectiveness of possible TBM Figure 12a shows the critical ground conditions for a
improvements (Kovári and Ramoni 2008; Ramoni and depth of cover of H = 120 m and an overcut DR of 3, 6 or
Fig. 12 a Critical ground

conditions for an installed thrust
force of Fi = 30 MN (radial gap
size DR = 3, 6 or 9 cm, shield
length L = 12 m, skin friction
coefficient l = 0.50, depth of
cover H = 120 m, safety factor
for the required thrust force
SF = 2.0), b effect of a
combination of several technical
improvements (installed thrust
force Fi = 30 ? 60 MN, radial
gap size DR = 6 ? 12 cm,
shield length L = 12 ? 10 m,
skin friction coefficient
l = 0.50 ? 0.25, depth of
cover H = 120 or 240 m, safety
factor for the required thrust
force SF = 2.0); other
Table 1, Set 3
123
9 cm (the 6–9 cm applies to the case of an increased the bottom-left corner of the diagram and this means that
overcut). The points of each curve (hereafter referred to as an improved TBM would be able to cope with adverse
‘‘critical curve’’) fulfil the condition that the required thrust conditions such as those encountered by the first TBM at a
force (for the specific value of DR) is equal to the installed depth of cover of H = 120 m. However, the possibility of
force. The lower the Young’s modulus E, the higher the shield jamming would persist in the deepest portion of the
cohesion c must be in order that the average ground pres- alignment (H = 240 m). According to curve D of Fig. 12b,
sure acting upon the shield remains equal to a given value. the improved TBM would perform at a depth of 240 m
Value-pairs (c, E) above a certain curve characterize sub- similarly to the current TBM at a depth of 120 m (curve A),
critical ground conditions (i.e., the installed thrust force is while operation of the current TBM at the maximum depth
sufficient for overcoming the frictional resistance of the would be possible only in the case of considerable
ground). On the other hand, the region below the critical improvements to ground strength and stiffness (curve C).
curve indicates ground conditions that may trap the TBM.
The grey box shows the actual range of the two ground 5.3 Effect of Short Weaker Zones
parameters based upon the results of laboratory tests. By
considering the position of the critical curve relative to this The numerical computations presented in the last section
box, an optical assessment can be made of TBM operating were based on the assumption of homogeneous ground in
conditions. The fact that the critical curves diagonally cross the longitudinal direction. During the TBM drive in Ulu-
the box representing the laboratory values points to a abat, however, the ground behaviour, as reflected by the
prediction uncertainty and agrees with the variability thrust force needed in order to keep the TBM advancing,
experienced during the TBM drive: depending on the changed within short intervals, thus indicating a succession
variation of the ground conditions the shield may or may of weak zones with stretches of more competent ground.
not be jammed. According to past research on the mechanics of deforma-
In order to reduce the risk of major delays in the com- tion in short geological fault zones, the adjacent competent
pletion of the project, the option of an additional TBM rock also has a stabilizing effect with respect to the fault
drive from the other portal of the tunnel was investigated zone (Cantieni and Anagnostou 2007; Kovári and Anag-
(but finally rejected for contractual reasons). The second nostou 1995). When crossing a single weak zone, shear
TBM would cross the same formation, where the first TBM stresses are mobilized at its interface with the adjacent
experienced difficulties, but under an even higher over- competent rock, because the latter experiences smaller
burden (up to 240 m in the deepest portion of the align- deformations. The shear stresses reduce the convergences
ment). A main goal of the investigations was, therefore, the within the weaker zone, particularly when its length is
optimization of the second TBM in order to cope with small. As shown, e.g., by Matter et al. (2007) and in more
squeezing ground. Figure 12b shows the critical curves for detail by Graziani et al. (2007a), this so-called ‘‘wall
a depth of cover of 120 m (curves A and B) or 240 m effect’’ is also favourable with respect to the risk of TBM
(curves C and D). The critical curves for the first machine jamming.
are denoted by A and C, while the curves B and D apply to Due to these considerations, an examination was per-
a new machine implementing a series of technical formed as to whether the variability of the ground behav-
improvements: a higher thrust force Fi (60 instead of 30 iour observed in Uluabat could be explained by the
MN), a 2 m shorter shield length L, a bigger overboring DR existence of weak zones of variable extent and an analysis
and reduced skin friction (achieved by lubrication of the was conducted into the effect of the length of a weak zone
shield extrados). The combination of all these measures on the required thrust force. Figure 13 and Table 1 (Set 4)
would shift the critical curve from curve A to curve B in show the layout of the problem and the assumed
Fig. 13 Layout of the short

fault zone problem investigated
with step-by-step calculations
123
parameters, respectively. The main assumptions are the Figure 15 shows the maximum required thrust force Fr
same as in the last section. In order to reduce the compu- as a function of the length l of the weak zone for step
tational cost, the numerical investigations assumed that the lengths s of 0.5 or 1 m. The shorter the weak zone, the
behaviour of the competent rock before and after the more pronounced will be the wall-effect and the lower will
weaker zone is linearly elastic. Due to the non-uniformity be the risk of shield jamming. In the example of Fig. 15,
of the conditions in the longitudinal direction, it was not the wall-effect is remarkable for critical zones shorter than
possible to apply the steady state numerical solution about 10–15 m, i.e., two or three tunnel diameters. For long
method and, therefore, the tunnel excavation and support fault zones and a step length of s = 0.5 m, the results of
installation were modelled step-by-step based on a step the step-by-step solution agree well with those obtained by
length s of 0.5 or 1.0 m. the steady state method. On the contrary, for the reasons
Figure 14 shows the required thrust force Fr as a func- mentioned in Sect. 2.3, adopting a longer round length
tion of the tunnel face position y0 (the latter refers to the (e.g., s = 1 m) leads to an underestimation of the required
onset of the critical zone, cf. Fig. 13). The curves apply to thrust force Fr (by 15% in this example).
weak zones of different lengths l. As expected, the required
thrust force increases when the TBM enters into the weak
zone and decreases when the TBM leaves it. Assuming that 6 An Example of a Gripper TBM
practically the entire installed thrust force of Fi = 30 MN
is available for overcoming skin friction, the TBM would 6.1 Introduction
be able to cope with a 5–10 m thick weak zone. In the case
of a weak zone longer than about 10 m, however, the TBM Other than in the case of shielded TBMs, where the support
might become trapped. The observed variability might characteristics are largely pre-defined (precast segments,
therefore be associated with a sequence of weaker and maybe of variable reinforcement content), a certain degree
stronger rock zones. of flexibility exists in gripper TBMs with respect to the
Fig. 14 Required thrust

force Fr as a function of the
position y’ of the tunnel face
(cf. Fig. 13) for different
lengths l of the weak zone (step
length s = 1 m, radial gap size
DR = 3 cm, shield length
L = 12 m, skin friction
coefficient l = 0.50, safety
factor for the required thrust
force SF = 1.0; other
Table 1, Set 4)
Fig. 15 Maximum required

thrust force Fr in the weak zone
as a function of their length l
(radial gap size DR = 3 cm,
shield length L = 12 m, skin
friction coefficient l = 0.50,
safety factor for the required
thrust force SF = 1.0; other
Table 1, Set 4)
123
means and quantities of support. Due to the largely pre- tube) caused damage to the tunnel support and jamming of
defined boring diameter, decision-making is nevertheless the back-up trailers (Böckli 2008; Boissonnas 2008; Flury
constricted to a relatively narrow space as the geometrical and Priller 2008; Gollegger et al. 2009; Herrenknecht et al.
constraints of the tunnelling equipment limit both the 2009). Deformations of up to 10 cm occurred within the
admissible convergence and the possible thickness of the short interval between the working face and the shield tail,
tunnel support. Decision-making may also be particularly thus using up most of the convergence margin offered by
challenging because of the conflictive criteria often exist- the shield articulation, without however to immobilize the
ing in squeezing ground: stabilizing interventions behind TBM.
the machine are generally possible only in some locations
that are dictated by the TBM design. In order to avoid 6.2 Investigations
problems such as a violation of the clearance profile, a high
quantity of support may have to be installed shortly after The aim of the investigations was to find out which support
excavation, i.e., behind the cutter head. This, however, type would present the lowest risks (with respect to a series
slows down TBM advance and, in the case of time- of squeezing-related hazard scenarios), thereby maximiz-
dependent rock behaviour, increases the risk of the ing the range of manageable squeezing conditions. For this
machine becoming trapped. purpose, the authors analysed the hazard scenarios, (1),
The present section discusses the effect of different jamming of the shield, (2), overstressing of the tunnel
support types based upon the results of numerical investi- support and, (3), violation of the clearance profile for a
gations carried out by the authors (Anagnostou and Ramoni series of hypothetical rock mass constants covering a wide
2007) for the 14.2 km long Faido Section of the Gotthard range of squeezing intensity. The parameterization of the
Base Tunnel in Switzerland. The tunnel is currently under squeezing intensity was done based on the radial dis-
construction by means of two gripper TBMs (D = 9.43 m) placement that would occur in the theoretical case of an
having 5 m long cutter head shields and installed thrust unsupported opening. Figure 16a shows the range of
forces of 27.5 MN. The TBM drives in the Faido Section ground response curves for the rock types under consid-
started in July and October 2007, respectively, with eration: the radial displacement u amounts to 2–9% of the
manually shifted gauge cutters (D = 9.50 m). Squeezing tunnel radius R, while, for a given convergence, the ground
related phenomena were observed in the so-called ‘‘Luco- response curve may be more or less curved depending on
magno-Gneiss’’—a metamorphic, micaceous, crystalline the uniaxial compressive strength fc and on the Young’s
rock—at a depth of 1600 m (estimated initial stress modulus E of the ground. The values of the friction angle,
r0 = 40 MPa). In a 250 m long stretch, convergences in the the dilatancy angle and the Poisson’s ratio were fixed to
roof (of up to 5–10 cm in the eastern tube and of up to u = 35°, w = 5° and m = 0.30, respectively. Figure 16b
25 cm in the western tube) and in the tunnel floor (of up to shows the value pairs (fc, E) considered in the numerical
30 cm in the eastern tube and of up to 75 cm in the western analyses. They account for different magnitudes of the
Fig. 16 Range of the ground

response curves (a) and uniaxial
compressive strengths fc and
Young’s moduli E (b) of the
rock types considered in the
numerical computations (initial
stress r0 = 40 MPa; other
Table 2)
123
convergence of an unsupported opening and for different experience a yield strain of about 50% (Solexperts 2007).
curvatures of the ground response curve. In the present All of the support types include steel sets (TH 36) at 1 m
paper, only the results for the material constants from spacings and with sliding connections in the case of the
Table 2 will be presented, as the curvature of the ground yielding support systems. In addition to the support types
response curve does not significantly affect the main con- of Table 3, the hypothetical case of an unsupported tunnel
clusions in the present case. The term ‘‘rock mass type’’ was also considered for comparison purposes and as a
used hereafter refers to the parameters of Table 2. simplified model of very light tunnel support.
The numerical calculations were based upon an axi- For all support cases the assumption was made that the
symmetric model with uniform support characteristics over tunnel support is installed immediately behind the shield,
the tunnel cross-section. The assumption of rotational i.e., at a distance of 5 m from the working face. Concerning
symmetry represents a strong simplification in the present overcut, two radial gap sizes of DR = 6 or 12 cm have
case in view of the observed asymmetric ground defor- been considered, taking into account the shifting of the
mations. Table 3 shows the investigated tunnel support gauge cutters and the kinematics of the articulated shield.
types. The systems RS15 and RS25 are practically rigid The computational model simulates the support types
supports including a 15 or 25 cm thick shotcrete ring, described above by mixed, non-linear boundary conditions
respectively. The systems YS15/S5, YS15/C5, YS15/C15 according to the different characteristic lines (Fig. 17). The
and YS25/C15 are yielding supports with a 15 or 25 cm latter take due account of the characteristic lines of the
thick shotcrete ring incorporating either 5 cm thick Styro- different support components as well to the sizes and the
foam plates (which can be compressed completely) or number of the yielding elements, including the sliding
15 cm thick high ductility concrete elements which can connections of the steel sets. The Appendix shows the
detailed computation of the characteristic line for the
Table 2 Assumed parameter values for the ‘‘rock mass types’’ example of support type YS25/C15. The time-dependency
of the shotcrete stiffness was taken into account in a sim-
Parameter Rock mass type
plified way by adopting a reduced Young’s modulus of
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Esc = 10 GPa. For a more rigorous computation of the
u/R (%) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 characteristic line of a yielding support, the reader is
fc (MPa) 10.0 9.0 8.0 7.0 6.0 5.5 5.0 4.5 referred to Radoncic et al. (2009).
E (MPa) 7,140 5,140 4,225 3,750 3,525 3,235 3,055 2,950
m (-) 0.30 6.3 Discussion of the Results
u (°) 35
w (°) 5
The numerical analyses have been carried out for all com-
binations of rock and support types (Fig. 16b; Table 3,
Table 3 Investigated support systems

Shotcrete thickness d1 (cm) Steel set type Deformable elements
Number 9 yield deformation (cm) Material Height d2 (cm)
Rigid support
RS15 15 TH 36
RS25 25 TH 36
Yielding support
YS15/S5 15 TH 36 4 9 5.0 Styrofoam 5
YS15/C5 15 TH 36 4 9 2.5 Concrete 5
YS15/C15 15 TH 36 4 9 7.5 Concrete 15
YS25/C15 25 TH 36 4 9 7.5 Concrete 15
Rigid support Yielding support
123
Fig. 17 Characteristics lines

(ground pressure p as a function
of the radial displacement of the
lining ul) of the investigated
support systems (cf. Table 3)
respectively). The main results of each numerical analysis excavation and for restart after a standstill. These are dif-
are the rock pressure distribution along the shield and the ferent with respect to the skin friction coefficient—l = 0.30
tunnel and the deformations of the bored profile. These or 0.45, respectively, cf. Gehring (1996)—and to the thrust
results were evaluated with respect to the following criteria: force needed for boring (Fb = 17 MN). Furthermore, the
evaluation disregarded possible limitations of the available
1. Is the installed thrust force sufficient to overcome
thrust force due to problems with the gripper bracing—a
frictional resistance?
reasonable assumption considering the crystalline character
2. Is the structural safety of the tunnel support sufficient?
of the rock. The operational stage ‘‘ongoing excavation’’ is
3. Do the rock mass convergences violate the clearance
the relevant one in the present case. This is because the thrust
profile (‘‘underprofile’’)?
force needed for boring (which in the present example
Concerning the thrust force requirements, the inves- amounts to 62% of the installed thrust force) overweighs the
tigations considered the conditions both during ongoing positive effect of having a lower skin friction coefficient.
Table 4 Combined evaluation of the hazard scenarios ‘‘shield jamming’’, ‘‘support overstressing’’ and ‘‘underprofile’’ for ongoing excavation
(support systems according to Table 3, ground parameters according to Table 2)
Rock mass type

Overboring Support system 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Unsupported 0 B B B B B A A
RS15 0 C A A A A A A
RS25 0 C A A A A A A
6 cm YS15/S5 0 B B A A A A A
YS15/C5 0 B A A A A A A
YS15/C15 0 B B B A A A A
YS25/C15 0 B B B B A A A
Unsupported 0 0 0 0 B B A A
RS15 0 C C C C C C A
RS25 0 C C C C C C A
12 cm YS15/S5 0 0 0 0 C A A A
YS15/C5 0 0 0 C C C A A
YS15/C15 0 0 0 0 0 A A A
YS25/C15 0 0 0 C C A A A
0 Installed thrust force sufficient, structural safety of the tunnel support warranted, no under-profile; A installed thrust force not sufficient,
structural safety of the tunnel support not warranted and/or under-profile; B installed thrust force not sufficient, structural safety of the tunnel
support warranted, no under-profile; C installed thrust force sufficient, structural safety of the tunnel support not warranted and/or under-profile
123
In order to evaluate structural safety, the lining hoop point, it has also to be noted that the load developing upon
stress was compared to the shotcrete strength not only at the rigid support systems close to the shield depends
the final state (assuming fc,sc = 25 MPa) far behind the strongly on the assumed stiffness of the shotcrete. If the
TBM, but also at a section located at 2 m behind the shield assumed ‘‘average’’ value of Esc = 10 GPa overestimates
in order to check overstressing of the green shotcrete. The the actual Young’s modulus of the green shotcrete, the
early strength of the shotcrete at this section was taken to computations overestimate the ground pressure acting upon
fc,sc = 10 MPa according to lab tests on 8–10 h old spec- the lining near to the shield and, consequently, the positive
imens. This age is relevant for the shotcrete loading taking longitudinal arching effect.
into account the actual gross advance rate of v = 5–6 m/d. Limitations also exist, however, for yielding supports.
In order to check the clearance profile, the space used up Taking into account the boring diameter, the clearance
by the actual thickness of each support system was taken profile and the space needed for the final lining, 40 cm in
into account. (A thicker shotcrete lining needs more space the tunnel radius were available for the thickness of the
but leads to smaller deformations because of its higher tunnel support and for admitting some load-reducing con-
stiffness.) vergences without violating the clearance profile.
Table 4 shows the combined evaluation of the criteria A very light support (a practically unsupported tunnel) is
mentioned above. The yielding support systems in com- theoretically satisfactory. Assuming that the tunnel support
bination with the bigger overcut (DR = 12 cm) cover the would use 10 cm of the tunnel radius, the calculated
widest spectrum of geological conditions (this conclusion deformations would violate the clearance profile only for
is also true for the other parameter combinations of rock mass types 7 and 8. However, such a solution would
Fig. 16b). not allow rock deformations to be controlled and would be
The rigid support systems (RS15 and RS25) have a unacceptable with regard to possible gravity-driven
positive effect with respect to the thrust force requirements instabilities.
because they rapidly offer a high resistance to the ground After Table 4, the support systems YS15/S5 and
deformations close to the shield (cf. Sect. 4.4; Fig. 11). YS15/C15 employing 15 cm shotcrete in combination with
This becomes evident by comparing the distribution of the Styrofoam or high ductility concrete elements are the most
ground pressure p acting upon the shield and the lining for advantageous. (The first one has been successfully applied,
the support systems RS15 (rigid) and YS15/S5 (yielding). while the second one has only been tested along 30 m of
As shown in Fig. 18, the shield remains practically the TBM drive shortly before the end of the critical
unloaded in the first case, while a high load develops at the stretch.) However, when comparing these systems, it has to
shield tail in the second case and may immobilize or even be borne in mind that the admission of ground deforma-
damage the shield. Nevertheless, in the most of the cases tions may cause more loosening of the rock. The thickness
that were investigated, the load developing upon the rigid of the plastic zone (3.7 m), which results from the calcu-
support systems is much higher than their bearing capacity. lations, provides a rough indication of the extent of the
Even a simplified estimation of their bearing capacity— loosened zone and thus of the possible loosening pressure.
disregarding possible bending moments (axial symme- Assuming a unit weight of the rock of 25 kN/m2, the
try)—shows an insufficient level of structural safety. resulting loosening pressure amounts to about 90–100 kPa.
Applying a thicker shotcrete layer (d1 = 25 instead of This value is lower than the yield pressure of the support
15 cm) does not improve matters substantially. At this system with the high ductility concrete elements (YS15/C15),
Fig. 18 Ground pressure p

acting upon the shield and the
lining (‘‘rock mass type’’ 6
according to Table 2, shield
length L = 5 m, radial gap size
DR = 12 cm, support system
RS15 or YS15/S5 according to
Table 3; other parameters
according to Table 1, Set 5)
123
but exceeds the resistance of the support system with the axis because such cases call for true three-dimensional
Styrofoam elements (YS15/S5). Consequently, the latter numerical analyses.
might start to deform under the action of the loosened rock
mass (Fig. 17) and would use up its deformation capacity Acknowledgments This paper evolved within the framework of the
research project ‘‘Design aids for the planning of TBM drives in
with the consequence that it would behave like the rigid squeezing ground’’, which is being carried out at the ETH Zurich,
support RS15 during the squeezing phase. supported by the Swiss Tunnelling Society (STS) and financed by the
The support system YS15/S5 would therefore be equiv- Swiss Federal Roads Office (FEDRO).
alent to YS15/C15 only if combined with 5–6 m long rock
bolts at the crown that would bear the loosening pressure of
about 100 kPa. On the other hand, and as shown by tun- Appendix: Computation of the Characteristic Line
nelling experience, the application of the support system of the Yielding Support YS25/C15
YS15/C15 presupposes—due to the relatively high stiffness
of the high ductility concrete elements—that the shotcrete In order to carry out the numerical investigations of Sect. 6,
develops a sufficiently high early strength (i.e., at least the the characteristic line (i.e., the relationship between the
same compressive strength as the deformable concrete ground pressure p and the radial displacement ul) of each
elements). This may be a problem if the time-development considered tunnel support (cf. Table 3; Fig. 17) has been
of the shotcrete strength is too slow in relation to the TBM implemented in the computational model. As an example,
advance. This aspect may be relevant also in conventional this Appendix will illustrate the detailed computation of the
tunnelling but it is expected to be less common because of characteristic line of the tunnel support YS25/C15. This
the lower advance rates. support system is composed of three basic elements
(Fig. 19): (1) a 25 cm thick shotcrete ring; (2) 15 cm high
ductility concrete elements; (3) steel sets (TH36) at 1 m
7 Conclusions spacings having sliding connections.
For the computation of the characteristic line, it has to
The numerical solution method presented and applied in be considered that the elements (1) and (2) are connected
this paper represents a powerful tool for the simulation of a in series, while the element (3) is connected in parallel
TBM drive in homogeneous squeezing ground. The mixed with the subsystem (1–2). The elements of a serial con-
boundary condition developed for the ground-support nection have the same hoop force (due to equilibrium
interface allows an accurate simulation of the shield and of condition) but experience different deformations. On the
any kind of tunnel support. The application of the steady other hand, elements connected in parallel experience the
state method makes it possible to solve the advancing same deformations (compatibility condition), while the
tunnel heading problem in one single computation step hoop force is different. Therefore, the correct computation
with a major reduction of the computation time, thus of the characteristic line of the support system requires
allowing comprehensive parametric studies to be per- first the formulation of the relationship between hoop
formed at a justifiable cost. The effects of changes in force N and radial displacement ul for each subsystem.
ground conditions as well as the suitability of modifications Because of this, this Appendix will first compute this
to the TBM layout and the tunnel support can therefore be relationship for the subsystems (1–2) and (3). Later, the
investigated easily and quickly. same will be done for the entire system (1–2//3), leading
The steady state method can be applied not only to the thus to the characteristic line of the support system under
standard linearly elastic, perfectly plastic material model investigation.
(Mohr–Coulomb) assumed in the present paper, but also to
a large category of problems including creep or consoli- Shotcrete Ring with High Ductility Concrete Elements
dation of the ground as well as time dependencies of the
support behaviour (Anagnostou 2007). However, for the Taking into account the well-known kinematic relations,
investigation of heterogeneous ground conditions, the the radial displacement ul,1–2 of the subsystem (1–2) reads
commonly used step-by-step method remains to be applied. as follows:
A comparative analysis involving a short critical zone
ul;12 ¼ et;12 R; ð4Þ
(striking orthogonally to the tunnel axis) has shown that a
reduction of the step length improves accuracy with respect where et,1–2 is the hoop strain and R the tunnel radius. The
to the required thrust force—although this comes, of hoop strain et,1–2 corresponds to the ratio between the
course, at a higher computational cost. The later is par- reduction of the circumference DC1–2 of the ring—due to
ticularly high for non-hydrostatic initial stress conditions as the tangential deformation of both elements (1) and (2)—
well as for faults striking with a small angle to the tunnel and its initial circumference C:
123
Fig. 19 Sketch of the support

system YS25/C15
DC12 DCsc þ DCce Figure 20 shows graphically the relationship used in this
et;12 ¼ ¼ : ð5Þ paper. Analogous to Eq. 7, the hoop stress rt,ce can be
C 2Rp
formulated as a function of the hoop force Nce:
The reduction of the arc length DCsc of the shotcrete ring
is: Nce
rt;ce ¼ fc;ce ; ð10Þ
rt;sc b0 d1
DCsc ¼ et;sc Csc ¼ ð2Rp nce d2 Þ; ð6Þ
Esc where fc,ce is a maximum compressive stress considered for
where Esc is the Young’s modulus of the shotcrete, while the calculations (cf. Fig. 20). Taking into account the
nce and d2 are the number and the height of the deformable Eqs. 5–10 as well as that the elements (1) and (2) are
concrete elements incorporated in the shotcrete ring, connected in series, i.e., that
respectively (Fig. 19). The hoop stress rt,sc depends on N12 ¼ Nsc ¼ Nce ; ð11Þ
the hoop force Nsc:
the relationship between hoop force N1–2 and radial dis-
Nsc placement ul,1–2 for the subsystem (1–2) of Eq. 4 can be
rt;sc ¼ 0 fc;sc ; ð7Þ
b d1 now computed (Fig. 21a).
where b0 is the width of the shotcrete ring between two
steel sets (i.e., the steel set clear distance), d1 is the Steel Sets Having Sliding Connections
thickness of the shotcrete layer and fc,sc is the uniaxial
compressive strength of the shotcrete. The reduction of the Figure 21b shows the assumed relationship between hoop
arc length DCce due to the deformation of the high ductility force N3 and radial displacement ul,3 for the subsystem (3).
concrete elements reads as follow: Neglecting stability problems (buckling), the idealized
behaviour up to failure of a steel set having sliding con-
DCce ¼ et;ce Cce ¼ et;ce nce d2 : ð8Þ nections can be divided in four phases (Fig. 21b). In phase A,
The hoop strain et,ce depends on the hoop stress rt,ce: the steel set deforms elastically. When the hoop force N3
reaches the yield load Ny, the sliding connections start to
et;ce ¼ f ðrt;ce Þ: ð9Þ
close (phase B) until the deformation capacity Dul,3,B is exha-
Equation 9 is the working line of the applied deformable usted. In phase C, the sliding connections are closed and the
concrete elements and is provided by the manufacturer. steel set deforms further elastically. When the hoop force N3
Fig. 20 Assumed load-

deformation behaviour of the
high ductility concrete elements
after Solexperts (2007)
123
Fig. 21 Hoop force N as a

function of the radial
displacement ul: a shotcrete ring
with high ductility concrete
elements, b steel sets having
sliding connections, c support
system YS25/C15
reaches the yield load of the steel set Nmax, the steel set DC3;i
deforms further plastically since it reached its failure strain. Det;3;i ¼ : ð14Þ
C
Analogous to Eq. 4, the radial deformation ul,3 of the
In phase A, as mentioned above, only the steel set deforms.
subsystem (3) reads as follows:
Therefore, DC3,A only depends on the increase of the hoop
ul;3 ¼ et;3 R: ð12Þ stress Drt,ss,A in the steel set (occurred in phase A) and on
the Young’s modulus of the steel set Ess:
Therefore, the increase of the radial deformation Dul,3,i,
which occurs in each phase (cf. Fig. 21), is Drt;ss;A
DC3;A ¼ et;ss;A Css ¼ 2Rp; ð15Þ
Ess
Dul;3;i ¼ Det;3;i R; ð13Þ
where Drt,ss,A is
where i = A, B, C or D. Analogous to Eq. 5, the increase
Ny
of the hoop strain Det,3,i corresponds to the ratio between Drt;ss;A ¼ ð16Þ
Ass
the reduction of the circumference DC3,i of the subsystem
(3)—due to the tangential deformation of the steel set or of and Ass is the cross-sectional area of the steel set. The yield
the sliding connections—and its initial circumference C load Ny depends on the number of friction loops nf of each
before deformation: sliding connection and on the friction loop resistance Nf:
123

Ny ¼ nf Nf : ð17Þ N ¼ N12 þ N3
: ð24Þ
ul ¼ ul;12 ¼ ul;3
In phase B, the sliding connections deform and close. The
consequent reduction of the circumference DC3,B depends Finally, the characteristic line of the support system
on the number of slots and on the maximum slot YS25/C15 used for the investigations of Sect. 6 and shown
deformation: in Fig. 17 can be computed substituting the hoop force N in
d2 Eq. 24 with the ground pressure p, applying following
DC3;B ¼ nce : ð18Þ expression:
2
In this case, as the steel sets are applied in combination N
p¼ ; ð25Þ
with high ductility concrete elements, the number of slots is Rb
equal to the number of deformable concrete elements nce. where b is the steel set spacing.
The allowed slot deformation has to be chosen according to
their deformability. As the deformable concrete elements
become practically rigid at a strain of et,ce = 50%
(cf. Fig. 20), the maximum slot deformation corresponds References
to the half of the height d2 of the deformable concrete
elements. Amberg F (2009) Numerical simulations of tunnelling in soft rock
For the phase C, where only the steel set deforms (the under water pressure. In: ECCOMAS Thematic conference on
computational methods in tunnelling, EURO:TUN 2009,
sliding connections closed at the end of phase B), the Bochum. Aedificatio Publishers, Freiburg, pp 353–360
reduction of the circumference DC3,C reads as follows: Anagnostou G (2007) Continuous tunnel excavation in a poro-
elastoplastic medium. In: Tenth international symposium on
Drt;ss;C
DC3;C ¼ et;ss;C Css ¼ 2Rp; ð19Þ numerical models in geomechanics, NUMOG X, Rhodes. Taylor
Ess & Francis Group, London, pp 183–188
Anagnostou G, Cantieni L (2007) Design and analysis of yielding
where support in squeezing ground. In: The second half century of rock
Nmax Ny mechanics, 11th Congress of the International Society for Rock
Drt;ss;C ¼ : ð20Þ Mechanics (ISRM), Lisbon, vol 2. Taylor & Francis Group,
Ass London, pp 829–832
The yield load of the steel set Nmax can be calculated as the Anagnostou G, Ramoni M (2007) Untersuchungen zum TBM-
Vortrieb südlich der Chiera Synform. AlpTransit Gotthard,
product of the yield stress fy,ss by the cross-sectional area Gotthard-Basistunnel, Teilabschnitt Faido, unveröffentlicht,
Ass of the steel set: Bericht 071101, 20. Dezember 2007, Professur für Untertagbau,
Institut für Geotechnik (IGT), ETH Zürich
Nmax ¼ fy;ss Ass : ð21Þ
Barla G (2001) Tunnelling under squeezing rock conditions. In:
Eurosummer-School in Tunnel Mechanics, Innsbruck. Logos
In phase D, the steel set deforms plastically until the
Verlag, Berlin, pp 169–268
failure strain ess,max is reached. Taking account of the Billig B, Gipperich C, Wulff M, Schaab A (2007) Ausbausysteme für
elastic deformations, which already occurred in phases A den maschinellen Tunnelbau in druckhaftem Gebirge. In:
and C, and assuming that in phase B the steel set does not Taschenbuch für den Tunnelbau 2008. VGE Verlag GmbH,
Essen, pp 223–262
experience hoop strain changes, the reduction of the
Böckli O (2008) Teilabschnitt Faido—bisherige Erfahrungen mit dem
circumference DC3,D is TBM-Vortrieb. In: FGU-Fachtagung für Untertagbau, Swiss
DC3;D ¼ DCss;max ðDC3;A þ DC3;C Þ; ð22Þ Tunnel Congress 2008, Luzern, D0229. SIA, Zürich, pp 49–58
Boissonnas Y (2008) Gotthard Base Tunnel—experience of a TBM
where DCss,max is the maximum reduction of circumference, excavation with large overburden. In: Building underground for
the future, AFTES International Congress Monaco, Montecarlo.
that the steel set can accommodate up to failure: Edition specifique, Limonest, pp 247–250
DCss;max ¼ ess;max 2Rp: ð23Þ Cantieni L, Anagnostou G (2007) On the variability of squeezing in
tunnelling. In: The second half century of rock mechanics, 11th
Support System YS25/C15 Congress of the International Society for Rock Mechanics
(ISRM), Lisbon, vol 2. Taylor & Francis Group, London,
pp 983–986
The relationship between hoop force N and radial dis- Cantieni L, Anagnostou G (2009) The effect of the stress path on
placement ul for the entire system (1–2//3) can be now squeezing behaviour in tunnelling. Rock Mech Rock Eng
calculated taking into account the parallel connection of 42(2):289–318
Cobreros JA, Cervera MM, Herrera M, Conde C (2005) Tunnels de
the subsystem (1–2) with the subsystem (3), i.e., adding Guadarrama—problèmes géotechniques rencontrés dans un
their hoop forces and equating their deformation (Eq. 24 is double tunnel de 27 km. Tunnels et ouvrages souterrains N°
represented graphically in Fig. 21c): 190—Supplement juillet/août, pp 5–12
123
Einstein HH, Bobet A (1997) Mechanized tunnelling in squeezing John M, Mattle B (2007) Auswirkungen stark druckhafter Ge-
rock—from basic thoughts to continuous tunnelling. In: Tunnels birgsverhältnisse auf den TBM-Vortrieb. Felsbau magazin 25
for people, ITA World Tunnel Congress ‘97, Vienna, vol 2. Nr. 6:14–21
A.A.Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 619–632 John M, Schneider E (2007) TBM tunnelling in squeezing rock.
Eisenstein ZD, Rossler K (1995) Geotechnical criteria for double Felsbau magazin 25 Nr 6:12
shield tunnel boring machines. In: Worldwide innovations in Kawatani T, Tezuka H, Morita R, Shimaya S (1999) Tunnel
tunnelling, STUVA-Tagung ‘95, Stuttgart, Forschung ? Praxis construction with a large-scale TBM in a collapse-prone poor
36. Alba Fachverlag GmbH ? Co. KG, Düsseldorf, pp 192–201 rock. In: Challenges for the 21st century, ITA World tunnel
Farrokh E, Rostami J (2008) Correlation of tunnel convergence with congress ‘99, Oslo. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, vol 2, pp 895–901
TBM operational parameters and chip size in the Ghomroud Khademi Hamidi J, Bejari H, Shahriar K, Rezai B (2008) Assessment
Tunnel, Iran. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 23(6):700–710 of ground squeezing and ground pressure imposed on TBM
Farrokh E, Rostami J (2009) Effect of adverse geological condition on shield. In: 12th International conference of the International
TBM operation in Ghomroud Tunnel Conveyance Project. Tunn Association for Computer Methods and Advances in Geome-
Undergr Space Technol 24(4):436–446 chanics (IACMAG), Goa. IACMAG, Goa, pp 3907–3914
Farrokh E, Mortazavi A, Shamsi G (2006) Evaluation of ground Kovári K (1986a) Rock deformation problems when using full-facing
convergence and squeezing potential in the TBM driven cutting equipment in rock, Part 1. Tunnel 3(86):236–244
Ghomroud Tunnel Project. Tunn Undergr Space Technol Kovári K (1986b) Rock deformation problems when using full-facing
21(5):504–510 cutting equipment in rock, Part 2. Tunnel 4(86):289–298
Feknous N, Ambrosii G, Henneberg I, Simard R (1996) Design and Kovári K (1998) Tunnelling in squeezing rock. Tunnel 5(98):12–31
performance of tunnel support in squeezing rock at Yacambú. In: Kovári K, Anagnostou G (1995) The ground response curve in
Rock Mechanics—tools and techniques, 2nd North American tunnelling through short fault zones. In: 8th congress of the
Rock Mechanics Symposium, Montréal, vol 1. A.A.Balkema, International Society for Rock Mechanics (ISRM), Tokyo. A.A.
Rotterdam, pp 803–810 Balkema, Rotterdam, vol 2, pp 611–614
Floria V, Fidelibus C, Repetto L, Russo G (2008) Drainage and Kovári K, Ramoni M (2008) Jamming of shield—numerical inves-
related increase of short-term strength of low permeability rock tigations. In: Uluabat Power Tunnel (Turkey)—TBM drive,
mass. In: Building underground for the future, AFTES Interna- unpublished, Report, January 25, 2008
tional Congress Monaco, Montecarlo. Edition specifique, Li- Lavdas N (2010) Einsatzgrenzen vom Tübbingausbau beim TBM-
monest, pp 281–284 Vortrieb in druckhaftem Gebirge. Master thesis, ETH Zurich
Flury S, Priller A (2008) Gotthard Base Tunnel—Part-Section Faido. Lombardi G (1973) Dimensioning of tunnel linings with regard to
Tunnel 8(4):47–51 constructional procedure. Tunnels and Tunnelling 5 No. 4, July–
Gärber R (2003) Design of deep galleries in low permeable saturated August 1973, pp 340–351
porous media. Thèse No 2721, EPFL Lausanne Lombardi G (1981) Bau von Tunneln bei grossen Verformungen des
Gehring KH (1996) Design criteria for TBM’s with respect to real Gebirges. In: Tunnel 81, Internationaler Kongress, Düsseldorf,
rock pressure. In: Tunnel boring machines—trends in design & Band 2. Messegesellschaft mbH NOEWA, Düsseldorf, und
construction of mechanized tunnelling, International lecture Deutsche Gesellschaft für Erd- und Grundbau e.V. Essen,
series TBM tunnelling trends, Hagenberg. A.A.Balkema, Rot- pp 351–384
terdam, pp 43–53 Lombardi G, Panciera A (1997) Problems with TBM & linings in
Gollegger J, Priller A, Rausch M (2009) The use of open tunnel squeezing ground. Tunn Tunn Int 29(6):54–56
boring machines in squeezing rock in the Gotthard Base Tunnel. Lombardi G, Neuenschwander M, Panciera A (2009) Gibraltar
Geomech Tunnel 2(5):591–600 Tunnel Project update—the geomechanical challenges. Geo-
Graziani A, Capata A, Romualdi P (2007a) Analysis of rock-TBM- mech Tunnel 2(5):578–590
lining interaction in squeezing rock. Felsbau magazin 25 Nr Matter J, Stauber A, Bauer F, Daller J (2007) ÖBB Wienerwaldtun-
6:23–31 nel—Erfahrungen aus dem Vortrieb. In: FGU-Fachtagung für
Graziani A, Ribacchi R, Capata A (2007b) 3D-modelling of TBM Untertagbau, Swiss Tunnel Congress 2007, Luzern, D0222, SIA,
excavation in squeezing rock masses. In: Brenner Basistunnel Zürich, pp 101–112
und Zulaufstrecken, Internationales Symposium BBT 2007, Moulton BG, Cass DT, Nowak DE, Poulin RM (1995) Tunnel boring
Innsbruck. Innsbruck University Press, Innsbruck, pp 143–151 machine concept for converging ground. In: Rapid excavation
Herrenknecht M (2010) Tunnelling through squeezing rock with and tunnelling conference, San Francisco. SME Inc. Littleton,
TBM. In: Brenner base tunnel and access routes, BrennerCon- pp 509–523
gress 2010, Innsbruck, Ernst & Sohn Verlag für Architektur und Nguyen Minh D, Corbetta F (1991) Nouvelle méthodes de calcul des
technische Wissenschaften GmbH Berlin, pp 45–54 tunnels revêtus incluant l’effet du front de taille. In: 7th congress
Herrenknecht M, Böckli O, Bäppler K (2009) Gotthard-Base Tunnel, of the International Society for Rock Mechanics (ISRM),
Section Faido, Previous experience with the use of the TBM. In: Aachen. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, vol 2, pp 1335–1338
Rapid excavation and tunnelling conference, Las Vegas, SME Panciera A, Piccolo G (1997) TBM scudate—blocco in rocce
Inc. Littleton, pp 1182–1205 spingenti. Pubblicazione 12.29, Lombardi Engineering Ltd
Hisatake M, Iai Y (1993) A method to determine necessary thrust Minusio
force for TBM. In: Developments in geotechnical engineering, Radoncic N, Schubert W, Moritz B (2009) Ductile support design.
Options for tunnelling 1993, Amsterdam, vol 74. Elsevier Geomech Tunn 2(5):561–577
Science Publishers B.V. Amsterdam, pp 519–528 Ramoni M, Anagnostou G (2006) On the feasibility of TBM drives in
ITA (2003) Long traffic tunnels at great depth. ITA Working group squeezing ground. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 21(3-4):262
N° 17 ‘‘Long tunnels at great depth’’. ITA, Lausanne Ramoni M, Anagnostou G (2007a) The effect of advance rate on shield
Jafari A, Mollaee M, Shamsi H (2007) Investigation into ground loading in squeezing ground. In: Underground space—the 4th
convergence effect on TBM performance in squeezing ground. dimension of metropolises, ITA World Tunnel Congress 2007,
In: The second half century of rock mechanics, 11th Congress of Prague. Taylor & Francis Group, London, vol 1, pp 673–677
the International Society for Rock Mechanics (ISRM), Lisbon. Ramoni M, Anagnostou G (2007b) Numerical analysis of the
Taylor & Francis Group, London, vol 2, pp 939–942 development of squeezing pressure during TBM standstills. In:
123
The second half century of rock mechanics, 11th Congress of the Shalabi FI (2005) FE analysis of time-dependent behaviour of
International Society for Rock Mechanics (ISRM), Lisbon. tunnelling in squeezing ground using two different creep models.
Taylor & Francis Group, London, vol 2, pp 963–966 Tunn Undergr Space Technol 20:271–279
Ramoni M, Anagnostou G (2008) TBM drives in squeezing rock— Simic D (2005) Tunnels de Guadarrama—problématique des tunnels
shield-rock interaction. In: Building underground for the future, profonds. La traversée de la faille de la Umbria du Tunnel de
AFTES International Congress Monaco, Montecarlo, Edition Guadarrama. Tunnels et ouvrages souterrains N° 190—Supple-
specifique Limonest, pp 163–172 ment juillet/août, pp 13–21
Ramoni M, Anagnostou G (2010a) Thrust force requirements for Solexperts (2007) HIDCON-Elemente im Tunnelbau. Solexperts AG,
TBMs in squeezing ground. Tunn Undergr Space Technol Mönchaltorf
25(4):433–455 Sterpi D, Gioda G (2007) Ground pressure and convergence for TBM
Ramoni M, Anagnostou G (2010b) Tunnel boring machines under driven tunnels in visco-plastic rocks. In: ECCOMAS Thematic
squeezing conditions. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 25(2):139– conference on computational methods in tunnelling, EURO:-
157 TUN 2007, Vienna. University of Technology, pp 89
Schmitt JA (2009) Spannungsverformungsverhalten des Gebirges Sulem J, Panet M, Guenot A (1987) Closure analysis in deep tunnels.
beim Vortrieb mit Tunnelbohrmaschinen mit Schild. Heft 89— Int J Rock Mech Mining Sci 24(3):145–154
Dissertation, Institut für Grundbau und Bodenmechanik, Tech- Vigl L, Gütter W, Jäger M (1999) Doppelschild-TBM—Stand der
nische Universität, Braunschweig Technik und Perspektiven. Felsbau 17 Nr 5:475–485
Schneider E, Spiegl M (2008) Convergency compatible support Vogelhuber M (2007) Der Einfluss des Porenwasserdrucks auf das
systems. Tunn Tunn Int 40(6):40–43 mechanische Verhalten kakiritisierter Gesteine. Veröffentlich-
Schubert W (2000) TBM excavation of tunnels in squeezing rock. In: ungen des Instituts für Geotechnik (IGT) der ETH Zürich, Band
Lo scavo meccanizzato delle gallerie, mir2000—VIII ciclo di 230, ETH Dissertation Nr. 17079, vdf Hochschulverlag AG
conferenze di meccanica e ingegneria delle rocce, Torino, Pàtron Zürich
Editore Bologna, pp 355–364 Wittke W, Wittke-Gattermann P, Wittke-Schmitt B (2007) TBM-heading
Sellner P (2000) Prediction of displacements in tunnelling. PhD in rock, design of the shield mantle. In: ECCOMAS Thematic
thesis, Institute of Rock Mechanics and Tunnelling, University conference on computational methods in tunnelling, EURO:TUN
of Technology, Graz 2007, Vienna. University of Technology, pp 98
123

The Interaction Between Shield, Ground and Tunnel Support in TBM Tunnelling Through Squeezing Ground

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Interaction Between Shield, Ground and Tunnel Support in TBM Tunnelling Through Squeezing Ground

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Interaction Between Shield, Ground and Tunnel Support in TBM Tunnelling Through Squeezing Ground

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rock Mech Rock Eng (2011) 44:37–61

The Interaction Between Shield, Ground and Tunnel Support

Abstract When planning a TBM drive in squeezing C Circumference

Fig. 1 Critical parameters for a

2.3 Numerical Investigations previously mentioned ‘‘TISROCK’’ research project. Floria

Fig. 2 Problem layout

where be applied to the entire tunnel boundary. In this case, the

Fig. 3 Boundary condition at

Fig. 4 Stepwise reduction of

Fig. 5 Results of numerical

Fig. 6 Plastic zone for a 10 m

Fig. 7 Results of numerical

Fig. 8 Ground pressure p

Fig. 10 Distribution of the

Fig. 11 a Required thrust

Fig. 12 a Critical ground

Fig. 13 Layout of the short

Fig. 14 Required thrust

Fig. 15 Maximum required

Fig. 16 Range of the ground

Table 3 Investigated support systems

Rigid support Yielding support

Fig. 17 Characteristics lines

Rock mass type

Fig. 18 Ground pressure p

Fig. 19 Sketch of the support

Fig. 20 Assumed load-

Fig. 21 Hoop force N as a

You might also like