Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 38 (2013) 8798

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology

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

Stress analysis of reinforced tunnel faces and comparison with the limit
equilibrium method
P. Perazzelli , G. Anagnostou
ETH Zurich, Switzerland

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 11 March 2013
Accepted 20 May 2013
Available online 13 June 2013
Keywords:
Tunnelling
Face stability
Face reinforcement
Bolts
Numerical stress analysis
Limit equilibrium method

a b s t r a c t
The present paper investigates the stability of reinforced tunnel faces in dry cohesive-frictional soils by
means of 3D numerical stress analyses which take account of the individual bolts. The numerical calculations are performed assuming an elastic, perfectly plastic material obeying the MohrCoulomb yield
criterion. As usual in this kind of problem, the bolts are modelled by one-dimensional tension elements,
which have zero diameter and cannot take into account geometrically the diameter of the bolts or the
borehole. The rst part of the paper deals with the approximations induced by this simplication. More
specically, the paper shows by means of numerical pullout tests in respect of a single bolt in elasto-plastic soil that the behaviour of this model depends signicantly on the neness of the numerical mesh. The
second part of the paper investigates the reinforcing effect of bolts on face stability assuming that the
bond strength of the bolts depends on the conning stress with strength parameters equal to those of
the soil. For several bolting patterns, the minimum cohesion c0lim needed for face stability is calculated
iteratively and compared with the predictions of the limit equilibrium method of Anagnostou and Serafeimidis (2007).
2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Face reinforcement by breglass bolts is a very effective and
exible method for stabilizing the tunnel face in weak ground. It
has been the subject of several papers over the past two decades,
starting with Peila (1994), who performed spatial numerical stress
analyses and showed that reinforcement reduces the deformations
and the extent of the overstressed zone ahead of the face. Other related works are those of Ng and Lee (2002), which investigated the
inuence of the axial stiffness of the bolts with respect both to the
stability of the tunnel heading and to the surface settlement in a
stiff clay, and of Yoo and Shin (2003), which analysed the effect
of bolt spacing, length and axial stiffness on face stability for different cover-to-diameter ratios. Dias and Kastner (2005) also modelled each bolt individually and investigated by means of 3D
nite difference analyses the effects of bolt spacing and bond
strength (i.e. the shear strength of the interface between grouted
bolt and rock) on the face stability of a deep tunnel in soft rock.
Furthermore, they compared the numerical results with the results
of simplied analyses, which take into account the face reinforcement either by introducing an equivalent face support pressure or
by considering a higher cohesion of the core ahead of the tunnel

Corresponding author. Address: ETH Zurich, Wolfgang-Pauli-Strasse 15, 8093

Zurich, Switzerland. Tel.: +41 44 633 07 29.
E-mail address: paolo.perazzelli@igt.baug.ethz.ch (P. Perazzelli).
0886-7798/$ - see front matter 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2013.05.008

face. Kavvadas and Prountzopoulos (2009) performed spatial nite

element calculations in order to nd out the optimum bolt length
and the overall face support pressure exerted by the bolts for different soil shear strength parameters and cover-to-diameter ratios.
The face reinforcement is tackled either by smearing the effect
of the bolts and considering an equivalent higher strength ground
(e.g., Indraratna and Kaiser, 1990; Grasso et al., 1991) or by taking
account of individual bolts. The usual assumption concerning the
bearing capacity of the bolts is that it is limited either by the tensile strength of the bar or by the shear strength of the soilgrout
interface. Prete (2007) and later Oreste and Dias (2012) also took
account of the bending failure of the bolt or failure of the soil
due to the radial pressure exerted by the bolts (in a similar way
to a soil nailing analysis).
In addition to the above-mentioned 3D numerical stress analyses, simpler approaches such as limit equilibrium methods (e.g.,
Cornejo, 1989; Mohkam and Wong, 1989; Anagnostou and Kovri,
1994) or methods based on plasticity theorems (Caquot and Kerisel, 1956; Mandel and Halphen, 1974; Leca and Dormieux, 1990)
have also been proposed for assessing tunnel face stability. In fact,
a 3D numerical stress analysis, besides being very time consuming
and awkward to handle for practical engineering purposes, represents an unnecessarily complex approach (and actually a long
way round) if it is only the stability of the face (rather than the
deformation of the ground) that is concerned. On the other hand,
numerical stress analysis represents the only computational

88

P. Perazzelli, G. Anagnostou / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 38 (2013) 8798

Nomenclature
Ab
a
B
c0
cI
d
e
E0
Eb
Fa1,y
Fa2,y
Fp
h
H
I
KI
KnI
KsI
k0
l
L0
n
Nb
Nby
R
ri
ro
s
Tb

cross section area of the grouted bolt

bolt length inside the wedge
width of the rectangular tunnel face
cohesion of the ground
cohesion at the soilgrout interface
grouted borehole diameter
size of the grid elements adjacent to the bolt
Youngs modulus of the soil
Youngs modulus of the grouted bolt
nodal force
nodal force
tensile force at the head of the bolt (pullout analysis)
depth of cover
height of the rectangular tunnel face
ratio of interface stiffness to axial bolt stiffness
shear stiffness of the interface between soil and cable
element
normal stiffness of the interface elements between soil
and grouted bolt
shear stiffness of the interface elements between soil
and grouted bolt
coefcient of earth pressure at rest
grid size in the axial direction
bolt length
reinforcement density (number of bolts per unit area)
axial force of the bolt
limit tensile force of the bolt
maximum shear force at the soilgrouted bolt interface
per unit length of the bolt
inner radius
outer radius
support pressure
shear force at the soilgrouted bolt interface per unit
length of the bolt

possibility for checking the adequacy of a priori assumptions concerning the geometry of the failure mechanism and the horizontal
stresses in the ground, which are needed in limit equilibrium analyses but are statically indeterminate (Anagnostou, 2012).
A simple, limit equilibrium based computational method for
assessing the stability of a reinforced tunnel face was introduced
by Anagnostou (1999) and rened by Anagnostou and Serafeimidis
(2007). The present paper compares the results of this method
with the results of spatial numerical stress analyses of the reinforced face. The underlying computational investigations include
as a by-product the modelling of the bolts in numerical stress analyses which is of more general interest.
As in all above-mentioned stress analysis methods, the bolts are
modelled here individually by one-dimensional structural elements. This reduces computational time considerably compared
to more realistic models that use solid elements and two-dimensional interface elements to model the grouted bolts and their
interfaces to the surrounding soil, respectively. On the other hand,
however, the one-dimensional structural elements have zero
diameter, i.e. they do not take account of the diameter of the boreholes geometrically. This has some important consequences for
modelling, because the model behaviour proves to be mesh-sensitive, i.e. the structural behaviour of the reinforced core ahead of the
face depends signicantly on the neness of the computational
mesh.
The rst part of the present paper deals with this issue. More
specically, Section 2 investigates aspects of bolt modelling in

ub
up
uy
x
y
ypl
z

displacement of the bolt

displacement of the head of the bolt
longitudinal displacement at the centre of the face
horizontal co-ordinate perpendicular to tunnel axis
horizontal co-ordinate parallel to tunnel axis
extent of bolt section with failed bond
vertical co-ordinate

Greek symbols
c
unit weight of the soil
ey
axial strain of the bolt
kp
coefcient of lateral stress for the prism in Anagnostou
and Kovri (1994) and Anagnostou and Serafeimidis
(2007) methods
kw
coefcient of lateral stress for the wedge in Anagnostou
and Serafeimidis (2007) and Anagnostou and Kovri
(1994) methods
m
Poissons ratio of the soil
mb
Poissons ratio of the bolt
r
radial conning stress acting upon the grouted bolt
rby
tensile strength of the bolt
rr
radial stress
rx
horizontal stress perpendicular to the tunnel axis
rz
vertical stress
u0
friction angle of the soil
uI
friction angle of the soilgrout interface
w0
dilatancy angle of the soil
x
angle between face and inclined sliding plane of the
wedge
sI
shear stress at the interface between soil and grouted
bolt
sm
bond strength of the soilgrout interface

numerical stress analyses by considering the relatively simple

problem layout of a bolt pullout test. The purpose of this section
is to get a better understanding of the nature and effect of the
approximations introduced by the simplied one-dimensional bolt
model and to get some guidelines concerning the choice of computational mesh in large-scale numerical simulations involving bolts.
The second part of the paper presents a numerical solution to
the reinforced tunnel face problem, determines the soil cohesion
necessary in order for the face to be stable iteratively for different
reinforcement layouts and compares the numerical results with
those obtained by the limit equilibrium method (Section 3).
2. Modelling of the bolts in the numerical stress analysis
2.1. Introduction
Pullout tests in the laboratory (Milligan and Tei, 1998; Yin et al.,
2009) or in the eld (Heymann et al., 1992; Franzn, 1998),
so-called interface tests (Milligan and Tei, 1998) and numerical
stress analyses (Di Fonzo et al., 2008; Su et al., 2008) show that
the interaction between the bolts and the soil depends on several
factors: the overburden pressure, the mechanical properties and
saturation degree of the soil, the roughness of the interface between the grouted bolt and the soil, the properties of the grout,
the grouting pressure and the borehole drilling procedure, which
may cause greater or lesser disturbance to the soil in the vicinity
of the borehole. In order to reproduce the effects of these factors,

89

P. Perazzelli, G. Anagnostou / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 38 (2013) 8798

2.2. Pullout test in rigid soil

The so-called pullout curve represents the relationship between the tensile force Fp applied at the bolt head and the corresponding displacement up. The computational investigations in
the present section assume that, (i) the soil around the grouted bolt
is rigid; (ii) the bolt behaves as an elastic bar with axial stiffness
EbAb; and (iii) the behaviour of the bond between the grouted bolt
and the surrounding soil is linearly elasticperfectly plastic with a
shear stiffness KI and a maximum bond shear force per unit length
of bolt R. Under these conditions, a closed-form solution can be derived for the pullout curve (Appendix).
Fig. 2 shows pullout curves for different values of the two interface parameters, i.e. bond stiffness KI (Fig. 2a) and bond strength sm
(Fig. 2b). The values of the other computational parameters are given in Table 1 (the rigid soil column). The tensile strength of the
bolt was taken to be innite, i.e. bond failure is the only failure
mode considered. The curves were derived analytically. The results
of one comparative numerical calculation by FLAC3D (marked by
the symbols  in Fig. 2) are equal to the analytical results.
Due to the elastic behaviour of the interface model, the force Fp
initially increases linearly with the displacement up. At larger displacements up, the pullout line is curved because the shear stress at
the interface reaches the bond strength and can increase no more.
The shear failure of the interface starts at the bolt head and propagates with increasing displacement up to the bolt end. Afterwards
the force Fp remains constant.
If the bond stiffness KI is low, the interface also remains elastic
for relatively large displacements (Fig. 2a). On the other hand, if the
stiffness is higher than a threshold value of about 10 GPa, the pullout curves do not change signicantly and the behaviour of the
interface is practically rigid-plastic (Fig. 2a). If the bond strength
is increased, the maximum pullout force increases and it is reached
at greater displacements (Fig. 2b).

(a)

up

200

m=160 kPa

Fp

160

Fp [kN]

the numerical model should map the real geometry, i.e. the nite
diameter, of the grouted bolt. Solid elements have to be used to
model the bolt, while the possibility of shear failure at the interface
between the grouted bolt and the surrounding soil calls for the use
of special interface elements. Such a bolt model would have a large
number of static degrees of freedom and would be extremely
demanding in terms of computer time, if a large number of bolts
has to be represented (as in the case of a reinforced tunnel face).
In such cases, a simplied model is usually adopted where the
bolts are represented by one-dimensional elements with an idealised zero diameter. The interaction of these elements with the soil
is dealt with by interface conditions that are incorporated into the
numerical formulation of the one-dimensional elements. Such a
simplied model (the so-called cable element of the FLAC3D
code, Fig. 1) has been used in the present work for the stress analysis of the reinforced tunnel face. The cable element is a two-node,
straight nite element with one axially oriented translational degree-of-freedom per node (no bending resistance). Its behaviour
is linearly elasticperfectly plastic, taking account of the limited
tensile strength of the bolt. The numerical formulation of the cable
element incorporates an interface condition which accounts for the
shear forces developing parallel to the bolt axes in response to the
relative motion between the bolts and the surrounding soil. The
interface model exhibits a linearly elasticperfectly plastic behaviour, which is determined by two parameters: the shear stiffness KI,
dened as the ratio between the bond force per unit length of cable
to the elastic relative displacement between the cable and the surrounding soil; and the maximum bond force R per unit length. The
latter is equal to pd sm, where d and sm denote the grouted borehole diameter and the bond strength, respectively. The bond
strength sm may be constant or may depend on the conning stress
according to the MohrCoulomb criterion (cI + r tan uI ). The conning stress r is computed at each nodal point along the cable axis,
based on the stress-eld in the soil zone to which the nodal point is
linked.
In order to check the numerical formulation and to explain
the basic behaviour of this model, we studied the relatively
simple problem of the pullout test of a bolt in rigid soil and
compared the numerical results with analytical results (Section 2.2). Naturally, the rigid soil assumption of Section 2.2 does
not account for the possibility of failure inside the soil away
from the interface. Soil failure in combination with the zero
diameter of the cable elements causes the numerical results to
be mesh-dependent. This issue is investigated by means of
numerical pullout tests of Section 2.3 assuming an elasto-plastic
soil behaviour.

FLAC3D

109 kPa
107 kPa

120

104 kPa
5103 kPa

80
40

KI=103 kPa

0
0

up [mm]

Fp [kN]

(b)

up

200

KI=107 kPa

Fp

FLAC3D

160

m=160 kPa

120

120 kPa

80

80 kPa

40

40 kPa

0
0

up [mm]

Fig. 1. Representation of fully bonded reinforcement in FLAC3D (Itasca, 2009).

Fig. 2. Pullout curves in rigid soil for different values (a) of the interface stiffness KI
and (b) of the bond strength sm (based upon analytical solution except for the case
with Ki = 107 kPa and sm = 160 kPa, for which also numerical results are presented).

90

P. Perazzelli, G. Anagnostou / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 38 (2013) 8798

Table 1
Parameter values assumed in the numerical pullout tests.
Computational case
Rigid soil

Parameters for the bolts

Interface cohesion
Interface angle of friction
Borehole diameter
Bolt Youngs modulus

cI (kPa)

40160
0

uI ()

Elasto-plastic soil
(i)

(ii)

(iii)

(iv)

1
0

10
25
0.1
20

10
0

0
25

d (m)
Eb (GPa)

Additional parameters for the cable elements (Fig. 5)

103109
Interface shear stiffness
KI (kPa)
Bolt area
Ab (m2)

107
0.00785

Additional parameters for the solid bolt elements (Fig. 4)

Interface shear stiffness
KsI (kPa/m) n/a
Interface normal stiffness KnI (kPa/m) n/a
Bolt Poissons number
mb ()
n/a

109
109
0.25

Parameters for the soil

Youngs modulus
Poissons number
Friction angle
Cohesion
Dilatancy angle

E0 (MPa)
m ()
u0 ()
c0 (kPa)
w0 ()

n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a

400
0.3
25
10
0

Initial stress eld

Initial stress

r0 (kPa)

n/a

30

2.3. Pullout test in elasto-plastic soil

2.3.1. Numerical models
As mentioned above, the one-dimensional cable element does
not take account geometrically of the real diameter of the grouted
bolt. The diameter is taken into account only indirectly, in the
determination of the maximum shear force at the interface between the grouted bolt and the soil. In order to show the effect

of this simplication, we carried out comparative numerical pullout tests in respect both of a model using elastic solid elements
for the bolts (Fig. 3a) and a simplied model with one-dimensional
elastic cable elements (Fig. 3b). The two models are equivalent in
terms of the bolt stiffness and the maximum shear force at the
interface between the soil and the grouted bolt. The parameters
are given in Table 1.
Fig. 3 shows the geometry and the boundary conditions of the
models under consideration. They are the simplest possible models
for investigating the interaction between a single bolt and the surrounding soil and they have some similarity to the situation at the
tunnel face. The unsupported right vertical boundary is free to
move and corresponds in a very idealised way to a portion of
the tunnel face (see inset in Fig. 3, top-right corner). The opposite
vertical boundary, which is constrained with respect to axial displacement, corresponds ideally to a portion of the sliding surface.
For the sake of simplicity (and contrary to what happens at the
tunnel face, where the soil moves towards the excavated tunnel,
while the bolts remain xed if bond failure occurs in the active
anchorage zone, i.e. inside the sliding wedge), the models of
Fig. 3 produce the relative motion between soil and bolt by xing
the axial soil displacements and moving the bolt head in the opposite direction. In order to simplify the problem and to gain a better
understanding of the numerical results, a cylindrical computational domain under a uniform radial connement pressure was
considered. The axial stress rz was taken equal to zero.
The soil around the grouted bolt was modelled as a hollow
thick-walled cylinder (in the case of solid bolt elements) or as a full
cylinder (in the case of one-dimensional cable elements). The
material behaviour was taken as linearly elastic, perfectly plastic
with the MohrCoulomb yield criterion. The soil parameters are given at the bottom of Table 1.
The interface between the grouted bolt and the soil was
modelled by elements describing a cylindrical surface for the case

3m

(a)
r

Soil

1m

Interface elements
Bolt - Solid elements

ub

d=0.1 m

(b)

Soil

1m

Bolt - Cable elements

ub

r
Fig. 3. Problem layout for the numerical pullout test in elasto-plastic soil with bolts modelled (a) by solid elements or (b) by cable elements.

P. Perazzelli, G. Anagnostou / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 38 (2013) 8798

of solid bolt elements (Fig. 3a). For the other case (one-dimensional
bolt elements, Fig. 3b), the behaviour of the interface is mathematically incorporated into the numerical formulation of the cable element. In both cases, the interface behaviour was taken to be rigid
plastic with the MohrCoulomb yield criterion. The rigidity was
materialised by assuming a high value of interface stiffness (cf. Table 1). The computations were carried out for different values of
interface shear strength parameters (cI, uI) in order to analyse both
of the failure modes that may occur during bolt pullout: the shear
failure in the soil around the bolt and the shear failure along the
interface between the grouted bolt and the soil. In order to enforce
the model for reproducing the rst case, the interface shear
strength was taken to be equal to innity. For the second case,
we considered interface strength parameters lower than those of
the soil. The particular case of interface shear strength parameters
equal to those of the soil was analysed as well (see columns (i)(iv)
of Table 1).
The numerical solution was carried out using the FLAC2D nite
difference code in the case of solid bolt elements (the axisymmetric model, Fig. 4) and FLAC3D in the case of cable elements (Fig. 5).
Due to symmetry, the numerical discretisation under FLAC3D takes
account of only one quarter of the cylinder and the grid points on
the two symmetry planes are xed in the normal direction. Furthermore, the stiffness- and strength parameters of the cable elements were taken to be equal to one quarter of the actual values.
In order to investigate mesh dependency effects, several numerical discretisations with more or less coarse grids (i.e. with different grid sizes e close to the bolt) were considered in both
analyses. Figs. 4 and 5 show the nest and the coarsest grids under
consideration for the cases with solid bolt elements and cable elements, respectively.
Every analysis starts with the initialization of the stress state
and proceeds with the numerical pullout test: gradual imposition
of displacements up at the head of the bolt (i.e. to the grid-points
or to the structural nodes depending on whether solid bolt or cable
elements, respectively, are used) and calculation of the reaction axial forces Fp.

2.3.2. Results for bolt modelling by solid elements

Fig. 6a shows the maximum pullout force Fpmax as a function of
the radial grid size e of the elements adjacent to the bolt. The upper
line (1 in Fig. 6a) was derived assuming that the interface shear
strength is equal to innity. Line 2 was calculated considering
interface shear strength parameters equal to those of the soil,
while the lower lines 3 and 4 assume lower interface strength
parameters.

91

Fig. 5. Numerical discretisation in the spatial analysis with cable elements. (a)
Finest grid and (b) coarsest grid.

According to Fig. 6a, line 1, the maximum pullout force Fpmax increases linearly with the grid size e. This happens only in the case
of line 1, i.e. only if the limit state is associated with failure of the
soil (innite interface shear strength). As explained below, the grid
size dependency of the maximum pullout force Fpmax is due to the
uniformity of the stress eld inside each element and to the relationship between element stresses and nodal forces.
Consider (for the sake of simplicity) the case of a purely cohesive soil. If the interface strength is innite, the pullout will cause
shear failure of the rst row of soil elements next to the bolt (see
Fig. 7, elements a, b, c, . . .). At the limit state, the shear stress
sry inside each element of the rst row will be equal to the soil
cohesion c. In axisymmetric, numerical analyses, the element contributions to the nodal forces are calculated considering the average radius of every element. They depend, therefore, not only on
the inner element radius ri (=d/2) but also on the outer radius ro
(=d/2 + e) and thus on the grid size e. In the present case (e.g., for
element a in Fig. 7),

Fig. 4. Numerical discretisation in the axisymmetric analysis with solid bolt elements. (a) Finest grid and (b) coarsest grid.

92

P. Perazzelli, G. Anagnostou / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 38 (2013) 8798

Fpmax [kN]

(a)

50

c'=10 kPa '=25

1 cI=

40

I=0

30
20

2 cI=c' I='

10

3 cI=0 I='
4 cI=c' I=0

0
0

0.04

0.08

0.12

0.16

e [m]

Fpmax [kN]

(b) 50

c'=10 kPa '=25

1 cI=

40

I=0

maximum pullout force like the model with interface elements

having the shear strength parameters of the ground. Consequently,
there are practically two possibilities for modelling bond failure: (i)
either selecting a very ne discretisation close to the bolt (and
refraining from modelling the interface explicitly) or (ii) selecting
a coarse grid for the soil in combination with interface elements
accounting for the shear strength of the soil.
The maximum pullout force calculated under the assumption of
a purely cohesive interface (line 4) is equal to the expected value
(Fpmax = pdL0 cI = p 0.1 3 10 kN = 9.4 kN). In the case of frictional interface (lines 2 and 3), however, the numerical maximum
pullout force (about 18 and 10 kN for case 2 and 3, respectively) is
lower than the force that one might expect on the basis of the prescribed
conning
stress
of
30 kPa
(Fpmax = pdL0 (cI + rr
tan uI ) = 22.6 kN and 13.2 kN). The reason is that the radial stresses
along the interface decrease during to the pullout.

30
20

2 cI=c' I='

10

3 cI=0 I='
4 cI=c' I=0

0
0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

e [m]
Fig. 6. Maximum pullout force as a function of the grid size of the soil elements
adjacent to the bolt for bolt modelling (a) by solid elements or (b) by cable
elements.

F a1;y F a2;y cl2p


ri ro
e
clpd e clpd 1 :
d
2

The pullout force increases linearly with the grid size e, because
it is equal to the sum of the contributions Fa1,y, Fa2,y, Fb1,y, Fb2,y, . . . of
the elements to the forces of the boundary nodes of the bolt. Note
that according to Eq. (1), the spatial discretisation of the problem
increases apparently the effective diameter of the grouted bolts
from d to d + e, i.e. by the factor 1 + e/d. Consequently, the grid size
e has to be selected sufciently small relatively to the bolt diameter in order to reduce the discretisation-induced error. Only the
ideal condition e = 0 would allow to reproduce the actual failure
of the soil adjacent to the interface.
The erroneously high pullout force caused by the apparent increase in bolt diameter is practically irrelevant, if the interface fails
before the soil. This is why the mesh-sensitivity disappears, if the
interface strength is equal or lower than the strength of the soil
(curves 2, 3 and 4 in Fig. 6a).
For the smallest considered grid size (e = 0.001 m), the innite
interface strength model (line 1) leads expectedly to the same

2.3.3. Results for bolt modelling by one-dimensional cable elements

The behaviour of the one-dimensional cable elements exhibits
some similarities to (but also some differences from) the behaviour
of the solid bolt elements (Fig. 6b). Consider again line 1, which applies to the case of innite interface strength. The reason for the
observed mesh sensitivity is exactly the same like before: the nodal
forces resulting from the internal element stresses are proportional
to the average radius, which in the present case is equal to e/2.
Assuming for the sake of simplicity a purely cohesive material,
the following equation applies for the example of Fig. 7 instead
of Eq. (1):

F a1;y F a2;y cl2p

According to this equation, the effect of the spatial discretisation is

equivalent to an apparent change of the bolt diameter from d to e
(or by the factor e/d). Contrary to the solid bolt elements, where
the discretisation always increases their apparent diameter, the
apparent diameter in the case of cable elements may be bigger or
smaller than the actual diameter depending on whether e > d or
e < d. This is why the cable element exhibits mesh sensitivity even
if assuming a low interface strength (lines 24 in Fig. 6b): there is
always such a small grid size, that the pullout force according to
Eq. (2) becomes lower than the actual pullout force. The results
do not depend on the grid size only if the shear failure occurs at
the interface rather than in the soil and this happens only if the grid
is sufciently coarse. The critical grid size ecr increases with the
interface strength (cf. lines 2, 3 and 4 in Fig. 6b). If the interface
shear strength parameters are equal to those of the soil (curve 2),
the critical grid size ecr is equal about to the bolt diameter d (cf.
Eq. (2)).
It is, however, thoroughly possible that the interface exhibits a
considerably higher strength sm than the soil due to the effects of
soil dilatancy (Luo et al., 2000; Wang and Richwien, 2002) or of
grouting pressure (Yin et al., 2012). In this case, the critical grid
size ecr may be much more bigger than the bolt diameter d. It is
easy to show, that the following condition must apply in order to
avoid mesh sensitivity:

e>

Fig. 7. Explanatory drawing on the mesh dependency of element nodal forces.

e
ri ro
clpe clpd
:
d
2

sm
c0 rr tan /0

d:

This result is important with respect to the stress analysis of the

reinforced face, because it means that the calculation grid should
be sufciently coarse at the tunnel face in order to avoid mesh sensitivity and to map correctly the bolt behaviour. A very coarse grid
is, nevertheless, in general computationally problematic with respect to the overall face stability problem, because it cannot map
the displacement eld and the localisation of the shear strain close
to the limit state.

93

P. Perazzelli, G. Anagnostou / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 38 (2013) 8798

Another potential problem is associated with the frictional part

of the interface shear resistance. In the case of nite interface
strength and of a sufciently coarse grid, the maximum pullout
force of the cable element (Fig. 6b) is higher than the force of the
solid bolt element (Fig. 6a), if the interface has a frictional resistance (lines 2 and 3). This difference does not exist in the case of
purely cohesive interface (line 4). The reason is that the radial
stress acting upon the bolt decreases during pullout in the case
of the solid bolt elements (see Section 2.3.2) but remains equal
to the far-eld conning stress in the case of the cable elements.
In conclusion, mesh-sensitivity of the numerical results or
inability to map adequately the failure mechanism as well as inaccurate consideration of the frictional component of the pullout
force are potential problems of disregarding the actual geometry
of the bolts in the numerical model.

Table 2
Parameter values assumed in the stress analysis of the reinforced tunnel face.
Cable elements
Length
Area
Youngs modulus
Borehole diameter
Interface shear stiffness
Interface cohesion
Interface angle of friction
Soil
Young modulus
Poisson ratio
Friction angle
Cohesion
Dilatancy angle
Initial stress eld (lithostatic)
Coefcient of lateral stress
Unit weight

L0 (m)
Ab (m2)
Eb (GPa)
d (m)
KI (kPa)
cI (kPa)
uI ()

7
0.00785
20
0.1
107
c0
25

E0 (MPa)

c0 (kPa)
w0 ()

400
0.3
25
015
0

k0 ()
c (kN/m3)

0.57
17

m ()
u0 ()

3. Stress analysis of the reinforced tunnel face

3.1. Problem layout and computational model
The authors presented results of simplied numerical stress
analyses of the tunnel face, which rather than modelling the bolts
and their interaction with the surrounding soil individually
approximate the effect of face reinforcement by means of an equivalent face support pressure (Perazzelli and Anagnostou, 2011). Like
in Perazzelli and Anagnostou (2011) we consider also here a tunnel
having a square, 100 m2 big cross-section excavated through
homogeneous soil at a depth of 23 m (Fig. 8). The reason for the
unrealistic cross-section is that the numerical results shall be compared to those of the limit equilibrium method of Anagnostou and
Serafeimidis (2007), which considers the simplied model of a
rectangular face. The authors investigated the effect of the shape
of the tunnel cross-section on the numerical face stability assessment and found that it is of rather secondary importance as long
as the cross-sectional area is constant (Perazzelli and Anagnostou,
2011).
A low-strength, cohesive-frictional ground and dry conditions
are considered. The soil is modelled as a linearly elastic, perfectly
plastic material obeying the MohrCoulomb yielding criterion with
a non-associated ow rule. All calculations were carried out for a
friction angle u0 of 25, a unit weight c of 17 kN/m2 and cohesion
values c0 between 0 and 15 kPa. Table 2 shows all material

Fig. 8. Computational domain and boundary conditions.

constants as well as the assumptions concerning the initial stress

eld. According to Perazzelli and Anagnostou (2011) the dilatancy
angle w0 : and the coefcient of lateral stress k0 do not affect face
stability signicantly.
The bolts were modelled individually using the cable elements
of the nite difference code FLAC3D. Table 2 includes also the assumed parameter values for the cable elements. The tensile
strength of the bolts was taken innite in order to avoid tensile
failure and to focus to the interaction between grouted bolt and
soil. The behaviour of the interface was taken rigid-plastic by
assuming a high value of the interface stiffness. Concerning the
bond strength, the assumption was made that it depends on the
conning stress according to MohrCoulomb criterion with
strength parameters equal to those of the soil. This assumption is
reasonable in the case of soft soil with non-dilatant behaviour
(cf., e.g., Milligan and Tei, 1998) and bolts grouted at relatively
low pressure (a high grouting pressure would increase the radial
stress in the soil around the bolt and thus also the frictional resistance of the bond).
The bolt lengths L0 were taken equal to 7 m, which corresponds,
for example, to the minimum length of initially 12 m long bolts
overlapping by 5 m in the longitudinal direction. The assumed
grouted borehole diameter d of 0.1 m is typical for face reinforcements. The bolts are horizontal and uniformly distributed over
the face on a rectangular grid. Four different bolting patterns were
investigated, consisting of 3  6, 5  10, 6  12 or 7  14 bolts in
the modelled half face and corresponding to bolt spacings of
0.71.7 m or to reinforcement densities n of 0.36, 1.00, 1.44 and
1.96 bolts/m2, respectively.
Fig. 8 shows the dimensions of the computational domain and
the applied boundary conditions. Due to the vertical symmetry
plane, only one half of the entire domain needs to be discretised.
The displacements of the vertical model boundaries parallel and
perpendicular to the tunnel axis are xed in the direction x and
y, respectively. All displacement components are xed at the bottom model boundary. Square brick elements with size equal to
0.125 m are used to discretise the face. This grid size was selected
on the basis of the conclusions of Section 2 concerning the possibility of mesh dependent results using cable elements. The choice of a
structured mesh ensures reproducibility of the numerical results.
In order to avoid rather secondary effects and to focus directly
to the tunnel face behaviour, the details of the excavation and
support sequence were not simulated. Instead a simplied excavation scheme is adopted, where the position of the tunnel face remains x in the model and the excavation process is simulated
by a gradual reduction of the longitudinal horizontal stress acting
on the face. The tunnel support is considered rigid and extends up

94

P. Perazzelli, G. Anagnostou / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 38 (2013) 8798

Table 3
Stress analysis results.
n (bolts/m2)

c0equil (kPa)

c0non-equil (kPa)

c0lim (kPa)

0.36
1.00
1.44
1.96

14
12
10
7

12
10
8
5

13
11
9
6

to the face. The analysis consists of the following steps: (i) initialization of the in situ stress, considering a lithostatic distribution;
(ii) removal of the brick elements representing the excavated tunnel volume, xing of the grid-points on the tunnel boundaries and
calculation of the reaction grid-point forces; (iii) replacement of
the restraint conditions for the grid-points on the face by support
forces equal to the reactions; (iv) insertion of the cable elements;
(v) gradual reduction of the support forces at the face grid-points,
equivalent to a reduction of the original horizontal stress by a factor, which is constant along the face.
For each reinforcement pattern the face stability was investigated for a series of closely spaced cohesion values in order to
determine an upper and a lower bound of the minimum cohesion
needed for stability for the given reinforcement pattern (Table 3).
The limit cohesion c0lim was taken as the mean value of these
bounds (last column of Table 3).

3.2. Model behaviour close to the limit equilibrium

The typical model behaviour will be discussed on the basis of
the numerical results for a reinforcement by 1.44 bolts/m2 and a
cohesion c0 of 10 kPa, which is only slightly higher than the minimum cohesion required for stability (Table 3). Fig. 9 shows the axial displacement and the minimum principal stress of the soil

ahead of the face as well as the interface condition along selected

bolts. For the same bolts, Fig. 10a and b show the distributions of
the interface shear stress and of the axial tensile force, respectively.
According to Fig. 9b the boltsoil interface fails close to the face.
The mobilised interface shear stress is, however, very low
(Fig. 10a), because the conning stresses decreases strongly in
the vicinity of the face due to the soil plastication associated with
the axial stress release (Fig. 9a). As a consequence of the low bond
strength, the axial loads developing in the cable elements (Fig. 10b)
are considerably lower than the limit loads of breglass bars,
which are typically applied as a face reinforcement (200500 kN).

3.3. Comparison with limit equilibrium method

The black circular markers in Fig. 11 show the relationship between the limit cohesion c0lim and bolt density n according to the
numerical stress analyses. The other markers have been obtained
by the computational method of Anagnostou and Serafeimidis
(2007). This method approximates the tunnel face by a rectangle
(of height H and width B) and considers a failure mechanism that
consists of a wedge at the face and of the overlying prism up to
the soil surface (Fig. 12). At limit equilibrium the prism load is
equal to the bearing capacity of the wedge. The prism load is calculated on the basis of silo theory, while the bearing capacity of
the wedge is calculated by considering the equilibrium of an innitesimal slice. Both the load of the prism and the bearing capacity
of wedge depend on the inclination of the inclined slip plane. The
critical inclination x of the inclined slip plane is determined iteratively so that it maximises the support requirements. As explained
in detail in Anagnostou (2012), this method represents an
improvement of the model of Anagnostou and Kovri (1994) in
that it eliminates the need for an a priori assumption of the
distribution of the vertical stress rz in the wedge and offers the

Minimum principal
stress (Pa)
-8.7E+05
-8.0E+05

(a)

-6.5E+05
-5.0E+05
-3.5E+05
z

-2.0E+05
-5.0E+04
-5.3E+03

Longitudinal soil
displacement uy(m)

(b)

z [m]
10

-1.77E-02
-1.2E-02
-8.0E-03
-2.0E-03

(c)

(d)

8
6

2.94E-03
4
Interface condition
Elastic
Plastic
Plastic in the past

z
2
y

x
0

0.016
uy [m]

Fig. 9. (a) Contour lines of the minimum principal stress (compressive stresses are negative) ahead of the face (yz-plane); (b) contour lines of the longitudinal displacement
uy of the soil ahead of the face (yz-plane) and condition of the interface between bolt and soil for selected bolts; (c) extrusion prole of the tunnel face; and (d) contour lines
of the longitudinal displacement uy of the soil at the face (zx-plane) (n = 1.44 bolts/m2, c0 = 10 kPa).

95

P. Perazzelli, G. Anagnostou / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 38 (2013) 8798

(a) 160

I [kPa]

80

y
x=0.875 m

z=1.3 m
z=2.9 m
z=4.6 m
z=6.3 m
z=7.9 m
z=9.6 m

-80

-160
8

y [m]

(b) 100
Nb [kN]

80
60
40
20
0
8

y [m]
Fig. 10. Distribution (a) of the shear stress at the boltsoil interface and (b) of the axial bolt force along selected bolts (n = 1.44 bolts/m2, c0 = 10 kPa).

2.5

Numerical stress analysis

Limit equilibrium analysis with bond
strength according to Fig. 14 and
confining pressure for =45-'/2
Limit equilibrium analysis with bond
strength according to Fig. 14 and
confining pressure for =0

n [bolts/m2]

1.5

h=23 m
1

0.5

'=25
0
0

12

16

20

Fig. 11. Necessary bolt density as a function of soil cohesion according to the stress
analysis of the reinforced face (Table 3) and to the model of Anagnostou and
Serafeimidis (2007).

possibility of analysing a layered ground with an arbitrary distribution of reinforcement.

The stabilizing effect of the bolts is considered as a support
pressure s given by:

s n MinNby ; pdsm a; pdsm L0  a;

H=10 m

c' [kPa]

where Nby is the limit tensile force of the bolt, while a and (L0  a)
denote the bond length inside and outside the wedge, respectively.
Note that the bond lengths a and (L0  a) vary over the height of the
wedge and, moreover, they depend also on the specic mechanism
considered, i.e. on the angle x. Consequently, the support force

y
B=10 m

Fig. 12. Failure mechanism after Anagnostou and Serafeimidis (2007).

offered by the reinforcement will not be uniformly distributed even

in the case of constant bolt spacing (Fig. 13).
The necessary reinforcement density n can be determined as a
function of the soil cohesion for xed values of the parameters d,
L0 and sm. The geometric parameters of the bolt diameter and
length d and L0 are the same as in the stress numerical analysis.
The bond strength sm is determined taking account of the shear
strength parameters of the soil and the conning stress on the
bolts. One can make a consistent assumption about the conning
stress (and thus also about the bond strength sm) by considering

96

P. Perazzelli, G. Anagnostou / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 38 (2013) 8798

L'
ub
up
y

(a)

y=0 Nb

10

Tbdy

Nb-Tbdy

dy

ub [mm]

8
6

ub>R/KI

ub<R/KI

2
0

Fig. 13. Example of support pressure distribution in the limit equilibrium method
of Anagnostou and Serafeimidis (2007).

y [m]

(b)

=45-'/2

m [kPa]

=0
40

z=silo()

30
20

y [m]

m=c'+[0.5(w+1)z]tan'

0
0

40

z=H
'=25

ypl

10

x=wz

20

60
50

Tb [kN/m]

60

12

16

20

(c) 250
200

Fig. 14. Bond strength sm determined based upon the shear strength parameters of
the soil and assuming a trapezoidal conning stress distribution according to
Anagnostou and Kovri (1994).

the stress distribution in the ground within the wedge. Following

Anagnostou and Kovri (1994), we assume that the ratio kw of
the horizontal to the vertical stress rx/rz is constant, while the vertical stress rz changes linearly from cH in the tunnel oor to the
silo pressure at the top of the wedge (see inset of Fig. 14). The conning stress needed for the calculation of the bond strength is taken equal to the mean stress 0.5(1 + kw)rz. For simplicity, a
constant bond strength is assumed in the limit equilibrium analysis based upon the average vertical stress, i.e. the stress rz in the
centre of the face. As suggested by Anagnostou and Kovri (1994)
and as assumed also for the computation of the nomograms of
Anagnostou and Serafeimidis (2007), the value of kw is taken equal
to 0.4, i.e. half as high as the value used for calculating the silo
pressure from the overlying prism kp 0:8. Fig. 14 shows the
computed bond strength sm as a function of the soil cohesion c0
for two values of the angle x which plays a role because it affects
the silo pressure and thus the conning stress and the frictional
resistance.
The bond strength values calculated in this manner, combined
with the nomograms of Anagnostou and Serafeimidis (2007), lead
to reinforcement density predictions of Fig. 11. They agree reasonably well with those resulting from the numerical stress analysis.

4. Conclusions
A rigorous model of the interaction between grouted bolt and
surrounding soil should account of the actual geometry of the
bolt. Such a model is, nevertheless, very demanding in terms of

Nb [kN]

c' [kPa]

150
100
50
0

y [m]
Fig. A.1. Distributions (a) of the bolt displacement, (b) of the bond shear force per
unit length and (c) of the axial force along the bolt for the following two cases: a
head displacement up of 2 mm and elastic interface (dashed curves); a head
displacement up of 8 mm and elasto-plastic interface (solid curves) (L0 = 5 m,
d = 0.1 m, Eb = 20 GPa, KI = 104 kPa, R = 50 kN/m).

computer time for the problem of reinforced tunnel face, where

a relatively big number of bolts has to be represented. On the
other hand, the simplied one-dimensional bolt model with
build-in interface conditions may exhibit mesh-sensitivity or fail
to map accurately the frictional resistance of the boltsoil interface. The grid size of the soil elements adjacent to the bolt has
to be selected carefully in order to avoid failure in the soil elements. If the bond strength is high (as a consequence, e.g., of soil
dilatancy or of a high grouting pressure), a very coarse calculation
grid may be needed in order to avoid mesh-sensitivity. This, however, reduces accuracy of the numerical results close to the limit
state.
When the interface shear strength corresponds to that of the
soil, the reinforcing effect of the bolts is strongly limited by the
low conning stresses in the vicinity of the face. The reinforcement
density needed to stabilise the face increases quickly with decreasing soil cohesion.

97

P. Perazzelli, G. Anagnostou / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 38 (2013) 8798

The predictions of the limit equilibrium method of Anagnostou

and Serafeimidis (2007) are very close to those obtained by the
numerical stress analysis.
Appendix A. Analytical derivation of the pullout curve for rigid
soil
Under the rigid soil assumption, the relative displacement between bolt and soil is equal to the displacement of the bolt ub.
The bond shear force per unit length of the bolt reads then as
follows:

(
T b y

K I ub y; if

ub < KRI ; and

R;

ub P KRI ;

if

A:1

where y denotes the spatial coordinate on the axis of the bolt

(Fig. A.1). The maximum bond shear force

R pdsm ;

A:2

where d denotes the grouted bolt diameter and sm the maximum

shear stress at the interface with the surrounding soil. The shear
force Tb is related to the axial force Nb of the bolt via the equilibrium
condition

Tb 

A:4

A.1. Before bond failure

Let us consider rst the case of elastic soilbolt interface
(i.e. ub < R/KI for each y). From Eqs. (A.1), (A.3), and (A.4) follows
that

A.3. Elastic section of the bolt

In the deeper, elastic bolt section (i.e. for ypl 6 y 6 L0 ), Eq. (A.5) is
still valid. Its solutions for the boundary conditions
(

ub KRI

at y ypl boundary of the section with failed bond and

N b 0 at y L0 bolt end

A:12

ub y

p
p
0
0
R eL y I eL y I
p

p
K I eL0 ypl I eL0 ypl I

ypl 6 y 6 L0 :

A:13

From Eqs. (A.4) and (A.13) we obtain the distributions of the axial
force in the elastic section of the bolt as well as the axial force at
the boundary ypl:

ypl 6 y 6 L0 ;

p
p
0
0
R eL ypl I  eL ypl I
p
p :
Nb ypl p 0
0
I eL ypl I eL ypl I

A:14

A:15

A.4. Section of the bolt with failed bond

Iub ;

A:5
In the bolt section with failed bond (0 6 y 6 ypl), the following
equation applies instead of Eq. (A.5):

where

A:11

One can readily verify, that the maximum shear force occurs at
the bolt head (see also Fig. A.1). So, with increasing values of the
head displacement, bond failure will start at the bolt head (when
up = R/KI) and propagate afterwards towards the deepest point of
the bolt. Let the symbol ypl denote the extent of the bolt section
with failed bond (Fig. A.1).

p
p
0
0
R eL y I  eL y I
p
p
Nb y p 0
0
I eL ypl I eL ypl I

where EbAb is the axial stiffness of the bolt.

p
p
0
0
eL y I eL y I
p

T b y K I ub y K I up
:
0
0
eL I eL I

A:3

dub
Nb ey Eb Ab 
E b Ab ;
dy

dy

The distribution of the interface shear force along the bolt before failure is given by the following equation:

reads as follows:

dNb
;
dy

while the axial force Nb is related to bolt axial strain ey and thus on
the displacement:

d ub

A.2. Bond failure

KI
:
Eb Ab

A:6

This is a differential equation for the axial displacement of the

bolt. Its solution for the boundary conditions

8
>
< ub up
Nb 0
>
:

dy

R
:
E b Ab

A:16

The solution of this differential equation for the boundary

conditions

A:7

ub up
at y 0 bolt head and
;
N b N b ypl at y ypl boundary of the section with failed bond
A:17

reads as follows:
p
L0 y I

ub y up

at y 0 bolt head and

at y L0 bolt end

d ub

p
0
eL I

is
p
L0 y I

e
p
0
eL I

A:8

From Eqs. (A.4) and (A.8) we obtain the distribution of the axial
force along the bolt,
p
p
p eL0 y I  eL0 y I
p
p
Nb y Eb Ab up I
;
0
0
eL I eL I

A:9

and with y = 0 the initial linear part of the pullout curve:

p
p
p eL0 I  eL0 I
p up :
F p Eb Ab I 0 p
0
eL I eL I

ub up 

p
p !
0
0
R
y
1 eL ypl I  eL ypl I
p
p
0
y  ypl p 0
0
E b Ab
2
I eL ypl I eL ypl I

6 y 6 ypl ;

A:18

while the axial force reads as follows:

Nb y Rypl  y Nb ypl 0 6 y 6 ypl :

A:19

A.5. Extent of the failed bond section

A:10

The extent of the failed bond section ypl is derived from the condition of the continuity of the displacements at ypl. From Eqs. (A.13)

98

P. Perazzelli, G. Anagnostou / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 38 (2013) 8798

and (A.18) with y = ypl, we obtain the following non-linear algebraic equation for ypl:

up

R
KI

!
p
p
0
0
1 2 p eL ypl I  eL ypl I
p
p

:
Iypl I 0
y

1
0
pl
2
eL ypl I eL ypl I

A:20

This equation can be solved iteratively for given head displacement up. Once calculated ypl, the pullout force can be obtained from
Eq. (A.19) with y = 0:

F p Nb 0 Rypl Nb ypl :

A:21

Alternatively, the pullout curve can be determined by considering the extent of the failed bond zone ypl as the independent
parameter and calculating the corresponding (up, Np) pairs with
Eqs. (A.20) and (A.21), respectively.
References
Anagnostou, G., 1999. Standsicherheit im Ortsbrustbereich beim Vortrieb von
oberchennahen Tunneln. In: Symp Stdtischer Tunnelbau Bautechnik und
funktionelle Ausschreibung, Zrich, pp. 8595.
Anagnostou, G., 2012. The contribution of horizontal arching to tunnel face stability.
Geotechnik 35 (1), 3444.
Anagnostou, G., Kovri, K., 1994. The face stability of slurry-shield driven tunnels.
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 9 (2), 165174.
Anagnostou, G., Serafeimidis, K., 2007. The dimensioning of tunnel face
reinforcement. In: ITA-AITES World Tunnel Congress Underground Space
The 4th Dimension of Metropolises, Prague.
Caquot, A., Kerisel, J., 1956. Trait de mecanique des sols. Gauthier Villars, Paris.
Cornejo, L., 1989. Instability at the face: its repercussions for tunnelling technology.
Tunnels and Tunnelling April (21), 6974.
Dias, D., Kastner, R., 2005. Modlisation numrique de lapport du renforcement par
boulonnage du front de taille des tunnels. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 42 (6),
16561674.
Di Fonzo, G., Flora, A., Nicotera, M.V., Manfredi, G., Prota, A., 2008. Numerical
investigation on the factors affecting pullout resistance of driven nails in
pyroclastic silty sand. In: 2nd International Workshop on Geotechnics of Soft
Soils Focus On Ground Improvement, 35 September 2008, University of
Strathclyde, Glasgow, Scozia.
Franzn, G., 1998. Soil Nailing: A Laboratory and Field Study of Pullout Capacity.
Doctoral Thesis, Department of Geotechnical Engineering, Chalmers University
of Technology, Sweden.
Grasso, P., Mahtab, A., Ferrero, A.M., Pelizza, S., 1991. The role of cable bolting in
ground reinforcement. In: Soil and Rock Improvement in Underground Works,
ATTI, vol. 1, Milano, pp. 127138.

Heymann, G., Rhode, A.W., Schwartz, K., Friedlaender, E., 1992. Soil nail pullout
resistance in residual soils. In: Proceedings of the international symposium on
earth reinforcement practice, vol. 1. Kyushu, Japan, pp. 478492.
Indraratna, B., Kaiser, P.K., 1990. Analytical model for the design of grouted rock
bolts. International Journal of Numerical and Analytical Methods in
Geomechanics 14, 227251.
Itasca, 2009. Flac3D Ver.4.1. Users Manual. Itasca Inc., Minneapolis, USA.
Kavvadas, M., Prountzopoulos, G., 2009. 3D analyses of tunnel face reinforcement
using breglass nails. In: Proceedings of the Eur:Tun 2009 Conference, Bochum.
Leca, E., Dormieux, L., 1990. Upper and lower bound solutions for the face stability
of shallow circular tunnels in frictional material. Gotechnique 40, 581606.
Luo, S.Q., Tan, S.A., Yong, K.Y., 2000. Pullout resistance mechanism of a soil nail
reinforcement in dilative soils. Soils and Foundations 40 (1), 4756.
Mandel, J., Halphen, B., 1974. Stabilit dune cavit sphrique souterraine. In: 3rd
Congr. ISRM 2B, 10281032.
Milligan, G.W.E., Tei, K., 1998. The pullout resistance of model soil nails. Soils and
Foundations 38 (2), 179190.
Mohkam, W., Wong, Y.W., 1989. Three dimensional stability analysis of the tunnel
face under uid pressure. Numerical Methods in Geomechanics, 22712278,
Innsbruck, Swoboda (ed.).
Ng, C.W.W., Lee, G.T.K., 2002. A three-dimensional parametric study of the use of
soil nails for stabilising tunnel faces. Computers and Geotechnics 29 (8), 673
697.
Oreste, P.P., Dias, D., 2012. Stabilisation of the excavation face in shallow tunnels
using bregalss dowels. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering 45 (4), 499517.
Peila, D., 1994. A theoretical study of reinforcement inuence on the stability of a
tunnel face. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering 12 (3), 145168.
Perazzelli, P., Anagnostou, G., 2011. Comparing the limit equilibrium method and
the numerical stress analysis method of tunnel face stability assessment. In:
TC28 IS Roma, 7th Int. Symp. on Geotechnical Aspects of Underground
Construction in Soft Ground, 1618 May 2011, Roma, Italy.
Prete, V., 2007. Tunnel Face Bolting Reinforcement: A Design Approach based on
Soil Nailing Technique. Master Thesis, Politecnico di Torino.
Su, L., Chan, T., Yin, J., Shiu, Y., Chiu, S., 2008. Inuence of overburden pressure on
soilnail pullout resistance in a compacted ll. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering 134 (9), 13391347.
Wang, Z., Richwien, W., 2002. A study of soil-reinforcement interface friction.
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 128 (1), 9294.
Yin, J.-H., Su, L.-J., Cheung, W.M., Shiu, Y.-K., Tang, C., 2009. The inuence of grouting
pressure on the pullout resistance of soil nails in compacted completely
decomposed granite ll. Gotechnique 59 (2), 103113.
Yin, J., Hong, C., Zhou, W., 2012. Simplied analytical method for calculating the
maximum shear stress of nailsoil interface. International Journal of
Geomechanics 12 (3), 309317.
Yoo, C., Shin, H.K., 2003. Deformation behavior of tunnel face reinforced with
longitudinal pipes-laboratory and numerical investigation. Tunnelling and
Underground Space Technology 18 (4), 303319.