SHALLOW TUNNELS IN COHESIONLESS SOIL:

STABILITY OF TUNNEL FACE

By Pierre Chambon 1 and Jean-Fran$ois Cort6 2

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Inst of Tech - Jamshedpur on 09/23/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ABSTnACT: Few theoretical methods and experimental data exist for the analysis
of tunnel-face stability in cohesionless soils. The present paper addresses a series
of practical questions by using centrifugal-model tests. The values of limit internal-
support pressures are given for various conditions (density of the sand, position of
the tunnel with respect to the ground surface). These values are shown to be low
as predicted by the latest limit-calculation models and collapse is shown to be
sudden. The geometry of the failure zone is depicted for different embedment
depths. The initial mechanism appears to be of a bulk shape with a limited extent
in front of the face. The presence of a short unlined length of tunnel at the face
is also investigated. Data are presented about its effect on the failure mechanism,
on the limit pressure, and on stress transfer onto the tunnel lining at collapse. The
results obtained in the model tests are in general agreement with present knowledge
of full-scalesituations.

INTRODUCTION

The problems posed by u r b a n traffic and the channeling of cables and

pipes are often solved by digging tunnels. M o r e and m o r e tunnels are being
excavated and there are a host of new technologies to assist in excavation,
many of them in response to increasingly severe environmental constraints,
Briglia et al. (1989) point out that most urban tunnels are now shield-driven.
Whereas this technology solves most lining-placement p r o b l e m s , it increases
the importance of controlling the tunnel face as the tunnel advances.
Some internal pressure must be m a i n t a i n e d to support the tunnel face in
soft ground. In the case of shallow tunnels, this pressure influences signif-
icantly the surface settlements (Pantet 1991). The pressure must be k e p t
above a certain threshold, or the face is unstable and there is risk of tunnel
collapse. The present p a p e r deals with the stability conditions of a tunnel
face on cohesionless soils.
A number of studies have concerned tunnel-face stability; most results
are analytical and based on limit-analysis calculation (Davis et al. 1980; Leca
and Dormieux 1990). In the absence of experimental validation, the analyses
used in practice are based on a calculation of b l o c k equilibrium. Results
are multiplied by a large factor of safety because of the inherent uncertainty.
The resulting pressure applied at the tunnel face m a y entail higher costs,
and excess face pressures m a y cause soil to heave.
Site instrumentation can yield much information ( R o w e and Kack 1983),
but there is still a shortage of d a t a from sites where tunnel faces have
collapsed. To deal with this p r o b l e m , small-scale or full-sized modeling can
be performed. Full-scale experiments are expensive and difficult. T h e y can-
not be reproduced in series to investigate the influence of p a r a m e t e r s like

~Maitre de Conf., Ecole Centrale de Nantes, Nantes, France, 1 rue de la No6,

44000 Nantes, France.
2Head of Div., Laboratoire Central des Ponts et Chaussres, Nantes, France 44340
Bouguenais, France.
Note. Discussion open until December 1, 1994. To extend the closing date one
month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager of Journals. The
manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and possible publication on June
1, 1992. This paper is part of the Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 120, No.
7, July, 1994. 9 ISSN 0733-9410/94/0007-1148/$2.00 + $.25 per page. Paper
No. 4068.

1148
J. Geotech. Engrg., 1994, 120(7): 1148-1165
 depth and type of soil or to make sure of the repeatability of tests. On the
other hand, there are various experimental techniques by which this problem
can be approached using small-scale models (Cort6 1989).
For underground cavities, past experimental investigations, in most cases,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Inst of Tech - Jamshedpur on 09/23/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

covered plane cross sections [e.g., Atkinson et al. (1977)]. But analysis of
tunnel-face behavior requires a three-dimensional modeling approach. There
have been model studies of cavities in normal gravity, with or without
equivalent material [e.g., Egger (1985)], to observe long-term behavior.
The first set of tests on small-scale models that satisfied similarity conditions
and dealt with face behavior was conducted with the Cambridge centrifuge
on cavities in clay (Mair 1979). Studies at the Ruhr University at Bochum
(RUB), Germany, focused on the special case of boring by the "new Aus-
trian tunneling method." These studies mostly examine stress transfer in
the lining (K6nig et al. 1991).
The purpose of the small-scale models conducted with the Laboratoire
Central des Ponts et Chaussdes (LCPC) centrifuge (Cort6 1984) (Fig. 1)
was to address tunnel-face stability when excavated by a tunnel-boring ma-
chine in a cohesionless medium. The study concentrated on depths shallow
enough for the stress gradient in the soil to play a decisive role. Previous
results are described by Chambon and Cort6 (1989) and by Chambon et al.
(1991).
The present paper summarizes a stability study of a tunnel face carried
out since 1987. The following questions are addressed:

9 What is the minimum internal pressure that must be applied to a

tunnel face to ensure stability?
9 What parameters affect this minimum pressure?
9 How can failure be predicted?
9 What are the failure mechanisms?

Two types of pressure on the face were used, and different depths and
densities of material were tested. The size of the models was kept constant
to eliminate edge effects from the container walls.
Tunnel-boring machines move forward with a stop-and-go rhythm to allow

FIG. 1. LCPC Centrifuge

1149
J. Geotech. Engrg., 1994, 120(7): 1148-1165
 placement of segments. During boring, there are many periods of immo-
bility. It was accordingly decided to isolate the main factors of influence in
a quasi-static approximation of the problem.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Inst of Tech - Jamshedpur on 09/23/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

DESCRIPTION OF MODELS
Two tunnel models were built (Fig. 2), one to investigate the collapse of
the tunnel face itself, the other to examine unlined lengths between the face
and the shield.
The first model, the LCPC model, consists of a rigid metallic tube 100
mm in diameter. The end representing the face is covered with a thin (0.2-
mm) latex membrane left slack to prevent mechanical influence on the
displacement of the face. The membrane provides tightness between the
inside and outside of the cavity while leaving the soil free to move. The far
end of the tube has openings for the pressure piping and wiring to the inner
displacement sensors that track face movement.
The second model, the RUB model, was designed to allow strain mea-
surements of the tunnel for different unlined lengths near the face. It consists
of two nested tubes; the larger one is fitted with strain gages and the smaller
holds the membrane separating the interior of the tunnel from the ground.
To represent a certain unlined length, the membrane was made of a latex
thicker (1 mm) than that of the first model, so that the membrane would
retain its shape during test preparation. The displacements at the face were
measured by sensors embedded in the soil mass.
Fontainebleau sand (ds0 = 0.17 mm, Cu = d 6 o / d l o = 1.47), a fine ho-
mogeneous sand often used in France for rheological investigations, was

strain gages
i4-~4 I,I
t20 mm~
lm,~, --
40 mm~~'L ~ ...........
11~5mm

100 m m
Latex
1 't~em?ran"~ Fluid inlet

. ..........................
t ........................................................
..H I

"RUB model"
L
300
~ m m

oLa.~ex'2t~ibrane III "t [ZI

100 mm

Displacementtransducer Press ~reh ansduffer

FIG. 2. Cylindrical Tunnel Models

1150
J. Geotech. Engrg., 1994, 120(7): 1148-1165
 nt
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Inst of Tech - Jamshedpur on 09/23/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

I
I
36d mm
I
I
I
I
T
1200 m m
FIG. 3. Centrifuge Model in Container (1,200 x 800 ram)

used. It is the same material found in the Villejust tunnel on the western
high-speed rail line, a structure for which a large number of measurements
are available (Bochon 1990).
The models were prepared by raining the sand in place in order to control
both the density and the homogeneity of the sand mass. The tests described
were all performed with dry sand. The sand unit-weight values for the
various tests range from 15.3 to 16.1 kN/m 3, corresponding to relative den-
sities of 0.65-0.92.
The tests were performed with and without a uniformly distributed load
on the ground surface (Fig. 3). Two types of support for the tunnel face
were reproduced: (1) A hydrostatic pressure, to simulate the pressure dia-
gram in the case of a slurry shield; and (2) a uniform pressure for the
compressed-air shield.
The height of soil cover to the outside tunnel diameter ratio C/D varied
between 0.5 and 4.
The dimensions of the prototype was dictated by the level of acceleration
used. Prototype diameters of 5 m, 10 m, and 13 m were chosen, corre-
sponding to accelerations of 50 g, 100 g, and 130 g. The LCPC model allowed
precise monitoring of face fall out in the case of a fully lined tunnel. The
configurations in which part of the tunnel is unlined were simulated by using
different membranes in the RUB model.

MODEL PREPARATION AND CENTRIFUGE-TEST PROCEDURES

To prepare the test, sand is spread evenly in a rigid container. The tunnel
model is placed on a first layer of sand, and sand placement is resumed,
with layers of colored sand inserted at known intervals. The pressure in the
tunnel model during preparation and during acceleration on the centrifuge
is kept equal to the geostatic stress at the centerline of the tunnel.
The pressure on the face is gradually reduced, starting from the active
earth pressure, until failure occurs. Failure is detected by measurements of
horizontal movement at the face. Additionally, observations of surface set-
tlements, deformations of the lining, and pressure in the tunnel were made
1151
J. Geotech. Engrg., 1994, 120(7): 1148-1165
 during reduction of internal pressure before collapse. The geometry of the
failure mechanism is recorded after the test by wetting the sand and cutting
the soil mass along different vertical planes. For each of these planes, the
failure pattern is identified from a careful tracing onto paper of the position
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Inst of Tech - Jamshedpur on 09/23/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

of the layers of colored sand.

ANALYSIS OF TEST RESULTS

The results are presented for the prototype structure. For a test at ng the
displacements measured on the model are multiplied by n for the prototype,
and the stresses, in particular the internal pressure, are the same for the
model and the prototype.

Uniform Pressure on Face of Fully Lined Tunnel

In all experimental cases, collapse occurs in three stages (Fig. 4). In the
first stage, when confinement is reduced, the face remains stable (no move-
ment measured) down to pressures that are very low compared to the initial
pressure, which is equal to the weight of the earth at the height of the tunnel
centerline (Table 1). These characteristic pressures Pc at the start of collapse
are of the order of 20 kPa for a cavity 5 m in diameter and sufficiently deep
(C/D > 1). They tend toward the pressure of failure at very shallow depths.

0
"E 10
u~ 20- .................. ..................................................................

Z
30-

40-

,d SO- ..................Iis ,'iill .........................',....................... ...................

SO-

7O i
o 5 10 15 20 25 30
INTERNAL PRESSURE (kPa)
FIG. 4. Evolution of Tunnel Face: Horizontal Displacementswlth Decreasing Con-
fining Pressure (C/D = 2)

TABLE 1. Influence of Density on Pressure at Failure for Tunnel 5 m in Diameter

in Dry Sand
Unit weight pf Pc
Depth/diameter (kN/m3) (kPa) (kPa)
(1) (2) (3) (4)
0.5 16.1 3.6 6.0
0.5 15.3 4.2 6.1
1 16.1 3.5 20.1
1 15.3 5.5 20.2
2 15.3 4.2 20.1

1152
J. Geotech. Engrg., 1994, 120(7): 1148-1165
 If p, is the active earth pressure at the tunnel's centerline computed ac-
cording to Rankine's formula
p. = ~l(C + D/2)tanZ('rr/4 - qb/2) (1)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Inst of Tech - Jamshedpur on 09/23/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

then Pc appears to be small compared to the active pressure. For ~b = 35 ~

C/D = 1, ~/ = 16.1 kN/m 3, and D = 5 m, pc is found to be of the order
of 20 kPa, whereas (1) gives an active pressure value p , = 32.7 kPa.
Any further decrease in the internal pressure from Pc results in an incre-
ment of face movement. During this second stage, which may be regarded
as plastic, holding or increasing the internal pressure stabilizes the face. In
this way it is possible to prevent the progression of failure.
The final stage is when actual failure occurs, after the face of the model
moves about 0.5 mm (about 25 mm on the prototype). The amount of
displacement does not seem to be affected much by the density of the sand
or the geometry of the cavity in the configurations tested. This failure stage
is sudden and takes the form of a free flow into the tunnel. If nothing is
done (instantaneous increase of internal support pressure), a collapse chim-
ney forms, grows to the ground surface, and causes surface subsidence.
The limiting pressure at which collapse occurs, Pl is determined from the
shape of the diagram of horizontal displacem.ent of the face, with special
attention paid to the sudden acceleration of the movement. By contrast to
what is found in clays (Mair 1979), the sudden acceleration of the movement
eliminates the need for a more precise way of determining the limiting
pressure at collapse.

Influence of Geometry
The limiting pressures in the tests performed at the LCPC and at the
RUB, with a dry sand having a unit weight between 16.0 and 16.2 kN/m 3,
are summarized in Table 2. Some tests were repeated two or three times
and yielded a very good repeatability for all features. Judging from these
repetitions, the experimental uncertainty on the limiting pressure is about
1 kPa.
Some of these tests were carried out with the RUB model and a small
unlined length (L/D = 0.2). Given the slight influence of this length on the
limiting pressure, the results are included.

TABLE 2. Collapse Pressure, p~ for Various Tests (N = LCPC; B = RUB)

Collapse
Model Diameter D Depth/diameter pressure Pl Unit weight
centrifuge (m) (C/D) (kPa) (kN/ma)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
N/N 5 0.5 3.6 16.1
N/N 5 0.5 3.3 16.1
N/N 5 1 3.5 16.1
N/N 5 1 3.0 16.1
N/B 5 1 3.3 16.1
N/B 10 1 7.4 16.0
N/N 5 2 4.0 16.1
N/B 10 2 8.0 16.0
N/B 10 4 8.2 16.0
B/B 13 4 13.4 16.2

1153
J. Geotech. Engrg., 1994, 120(7): 1148-1165
 For the relative depths investigated (C/D = 0.5-4), depth does not have
a large influence on the limiting pressure for a given diameter.
The most significant parameter is tunnel diameter. The minimum support
pressure increases directly with the diameter (Fig. 5). This finding prompts
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Inst of Tech - Jamshedpur on 09/23/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

caution about tests performed at 1 g, simulating very small diameters such

as those of microtunnel boring machines, for which the problem of face
stability does not arise. The results can be expressed as a function of the
dimensionless quantity pr/(TD), where 7 is the soil unit weight. Fig. 6 shows
a size effect associated with the tunnel diameter. A 10% variation between
mean values is obtained from 5 to 10 m diameter tunnels. This conclusion,
however, needs confirmation by other tests, in particular, for the 13 m
diameter tunnel for which there is only one test result and which was per-
formed at RUB using a different sand.
Influence of Soil Density
Several tests were performed to assess the influence of sand density on
the pressure at which the first face movements are recorded and on the

14

12

I,
I o C/D=0.5
[] C/D=1
10 o C/D=2
==
x C/D=4
8
[]
==
6 ............................ i ......................: i i

4 ...........o ............................................
i .............................i...................................
~...............................

O 2 i i
4 6 8 10 12 4
T U N N E L D I A M E [ ' E R (m)
FIG. 5. Influence of Tunnel Diameter on Collapse Pressure p:

0.1

0.08
i O
0.06 -
........................................................ i .................................................. i ....................................................
o 9
0.04

0.02 ........................................................ i.

0
0 5 10 15
TUNNEL DIAMETER (m)
FIG. 6. Investigation of Size Effect on Failure Condition

1154
J. Geotech. Engrg., 1994, 120(7): 1148-1165
 Ground surface
./ -,,.
~/sr...,~../'2"./.',,2./~/x" y/7"~../'2y',Z'//i~./y/
FRONT VIEW SIDE VIEW
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Inst of Tech - Jamshedpur on 09/23/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

/ \ / \
I~I,
! , l I
I I

\ \ / .

FIG. 7. Failure Bulb for Fully Lined Tunnel (C/D = 2)

/,,-~/-,,v/,~/-~/~,

C/D = 0.5 C/D = I C/D = 2

FIG. 8. Failure Bulbs for Different C/D Ratios (Cut Made along Plane of Symmetry
of Tunnel)

1155
J. Geotech. Engrg., 1994, 120(7): 1148-1165
 limiting pressure of failure. The influence of this factor on the limiting
pressure of collapse is found to be small (Table 1). While the differences
are of the order of the experimental uncertainty, the repeatability of the
results seems to show that loose soil leads to a less stable configuration than
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Inst of Tech - Jamshedpur on 09/23/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

dense soil. As regards the pressure at which the first face movements are
observed, the scatter of the results made it impossible to demonstrate any
significant influence of density.

Failure Pattern
Cross sections of the model in different vertical planes after the test
provide information about the geometry of the mechanism of failure. In all
cases, the failure envelope is bulb-shaped (Figs. 7 and 8). Strains are lo-
calized along the surfaces bounding this bulb, which is limited by a vertical
plane passing through the tunnel face and by a concave envelope that starts
near the floor, extends a half-diameter in front of the face, and rejoins the
vertical plane at a height of about one diameter above the face. The ground
surface is affected only with relative depths C / D less than 1 (Fig. 8). With
deeper tunnels, the bulb closes and the stability of the soil is ensured by
arching with force transfer to the crown of the tunnel. At a more shallow
depth, the bulb can no longer close. The instability of the face is accom-
panied by the triggering of secondary mechanisms on the surface.
Given the brittle character of the failure, interrupting the collapse as soon
as it starts presents experimental difficulties. However, the cross sections
made on the models show that the interior of the bulb itself undergoes little
deformation. This confirms the stability estimates based on movements of
blocks and investigations of behavior assuming a tendency to strong local-
ization of strains in this type of soil.
The evolution of surface movement above the tunnel face during decon-
finement is similar from one test to another. However, loose soils do ex-
perience slightly larger settlements. Below the characteristic pressure Pc
(Table 1), for which the first movements of the face are observed, the
evolution of settlements is comparable to that of the horizontal displacement
of the face. In the case of a tunnel 5 m in diameter at a depth C / D = 1

,_,~ 0 ~ 2.0
2 .............. ............................................. .............................. ......................... .....................

r~

10

r~ 020 40 60 80 100 120 140

INTERNALPRESSURE(kPa)
FIG. 9. Evolutionof GroundSurfaceSettlementsaboveTunnelFacewithCover
to DiameterRatioof 1
1156
J. Geotech. Engrg., 1994, 120(7): 1148-1165
 (Fig. 9), displacements at the time of failure are on the order of tens of mm
(in the prototype structure).

Hydrostatic Pressure on Face of Fully Lined Tunnel

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Inst of Tech - Jamshedpur on 09/23/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Four tests were conducted to study the case where the face is supported
by a fluid rather than by air. Loading conditions of a slurry shield were
simulated. The fluid used in the tunnel model is water, and the soil is again
dry Fontainebleau sand. The interior of the tunnel is connected to a tank
of water carried aboard the centrifuge. The filling of the tank can be adjusted
to control the pressure on the tunnel face.
The failure occurs suddenly when the free water surface goes below the
tunnel-crown level. For settlements, the same evolutions are observed as
with pneumatic support.
Experiments in which the relative depth C/D and the load applied on the
surface are varied show that, for the ranges of variation of C/D and density
in question, neither the depth nor the surface load significantly affect the
limiting pressure of failure. This essential result is also found by limit cal-
culation.
Investigation of failure after the test shows that the soil is swept into the
zone of low pressures near the arch. There is no overall failure of the face.
There is a chimney-shaped flow that tapers toward the surface and flares
again to form a subsidence (Fig. 10). Although confined to the top of the
tunnel, the mechanism of collapse develops similarly to what is observed
with a uniform support pressure.

Modeling Shield Tunneling: Withdrawal of Skirt

The forward movement of a shield causes deconfinement effects in the
nearby ground. Tunnel curves cannot be bored to the same diameter as the
straight sections because of the rigid cylindrical shape of the shield. At most
sites, ring "n" of the segments is placed inside the skirt of the tunnel-boring
machine, which continues to press against the segments of row "n - 1" to
move forward. This entails an excavation diameter slightly larger than the
diameter of the structure at the tail of the shield.

/~_~ C/D=2

. __.,,

\\\\\\\\\\\\
FIG. 10. Observed Lines of Failure with Hydrostatic Internal Pressure

1157
J. Geotech. Engrg., 1994, 120(7): 1148-1165
 The small-scale model tested in the centrifuge does not represent field
conditions precisely but attempts to simulate the worst configuration, that
is, when deconfinement occurs not behind the skirt but at the tunnel face.
The thickness of this gap is set at 100 mm (prototype), a value substantially
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Inst of Tech - Jamshedpur on 09/23/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

greater than the thickness of most skirts (50 to 60 mm). On the 1:50 model,
the gap is 2 mm. To produce it, the initial model is completed by a semi-
cylindrical shell that can slide back (Fig. 11). This movement of the external
shell takes place at 50 g, before the pressure inside the tunnel is lowered
to failure. The test is conducted at a relative depth C/D = 1 in a dense
sand. At the initial support pressure, when confinement is reduced, surface
settlement occurs that has an amplitude smaller than the thickness of the

FIG. 11. Schematic Diagram of Device Simulating Overexcavation

20

30

40-

50-
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
INTERNAL P R E S S U R E (kPa)
FIG. 12. Vertical Ground Surface and Horizontal Tunnel-Face Displacements ver-
sus Internal Confining Pressure

1158
J. Geotech. Engrg., 1994, 120(7): 1148-1165
 i Groundsurface
//-,7/x,,,/y/5~,/ ,7/v/y/"9"/Nv/TM'
SIDEVIEW
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Inst of Tech - Jamshedpur on 09/23/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

t !
G A P ~
a
//'////,/,/
i
--,k___
9 / j !

t
Y////////

FIG. 13. Failure Bulb in Presence of Annular Gap (C/D = 1)

gap theoretically left by the skirt (Fig. 12). When the internal pressure is
lowered (from 36 to 32 kPa), a first movement of the face is observed. This
corresponds to a local return of the soil around the tunnel and does not
affect the ground surface.
With regards to failure, the same characteristics are found as in the pre-
vious tests. These include the following:

9 A stage of settlement and gradual fall out of face; this stage im-
mediately precedes failure
9 Identical limiting pressure of failure (approx. 5 kPa)
9 Similar collapse bulbs (Fig. 13).

In the collapse bulb, zones of incipient failure that did not occur in the
confguration without deconfinement can be observed; these incipient shear
failures are probably caused by the settlement of repositioning observed
when the annular gap is created. The size of the annular gap produced by
the model described is of the order of 10-20 grains of sand, a size which
is small and partially explains why the effect on the extent of the zone of
failure is slight.

ExcavationbyNewAustrianTunnelingMethod
Originally used for tunneling in squeezing rock, the new Austrian tun-
neling method involves the following sequences:

9 Excavation at the face using a backhoe or similar equipment

9 Immediate support of the tunnel wall with shotcrete
9 Installation of a waterproofing membrane to ensure long-term wa-
tertightness
9 Construction of a permanent liner using precast segments or cast-
in-place concrete

Excavation is generally done in increments of a few meters, with the

strength values of the soil taken into account. This method makes it possible
1159
J. Geotech. Engrg., 1994, 120(7): 1148-1165
 to take advantage of the natural arching of the unlined portions and to
design the linings more rationally.
The limiting pressure of collapse depends on the length of the unlined
zone (Table 3). However, a distinction must be drawn between the mode
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Inst of Tech - Jamshedpur on 09/23/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

of collapse by failure of the face as considered up to now and the mode in

which the invert of the unlined part of the tunnel collapses. These are two
distinct cases. When the ratio L/D of the unlined length to the tunnel
diameter is small (L/D = 0.1), the pressures found are of the same order
as in the lined configuration, and the characteristics of the failure are iden-
tical. For a longer unlined length (L/D = 0.4), the collapse affects the
unlined part first, and this occurs at higher confinement pressures. The
length of the unlined part has a substantial influence on the geometry of
failure. When L/D is small, the phenomenon is little different from the case
studied previously. But when it becomes larger (L/D > 0.1) the mechanism
grows in height (Fig. 14). Observation of the models shows that the mech-
anism is then similar to two-dimensional mechanisms in the plane of a
running section. This result should be compared to those of the tests per-

TABLE 3. Unlined Part and Collapse Pressure for Tunnel 13 m in Diameter in

Sand with Relative Depth C/D = 4 (after K6nig 1990)

Unlined length/diameter Collapse pressure Pl

(L/D) (kPa)
(1) (2)
0.1 13.4
0.2 14.4
0.4 32.6

J %),

~
--"~rltll/rllr
JrHt,,,,llllJlitlt
L=0.1D L=0.2D L ~- 0.4 D Unlined length
FIG. 14. Influence of Tunnel Unlined Length on Extent of Failure Mechanism (L/D
= 0.1, 0.2, and 0.4; C/D = 4)

1160
J. Geotech. Engrg., 1994, 120(7): 1148-1165
 0 I I Nl~ m --

_ -2 ~ ' i , i i i
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Inst of Tech - Jamshedpur on 09/23/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

2"~ -4 i

-6

! _,o ?mo
..............................I ~
-14 I I I E [
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
I N T E R N A L P R E S S U R E (kPa)

FIG. 15. Changes in Compressive Stress at Extrados of Lining for Different Dis-
tances to Tunnel Face (C/D - 4)

TABLE 4. Comparison between Experimental and Theoretical Results for Col-

lapse Pressure p:
Diameter D
5m 10m 13m
[p: (kPa)] [p: (kPa)] [p: (kPa)]
(1) (2) (3) (4)
(a) Experimental Results
Present study [ 3.3 [ 7.4 [ 13.4
(b) Theoretical Results
2Dmodel(c = 0 ; + = 38~) 8.9 17.9 23.3
3Dmodel(c = 0 ; + = 38~) 5.6 11.2 14.6
2Dmodel(c = 0 ; + = 42~) 7.3 14.6 19.2
3Dmodel(c = 0 ; ~ = 42~) 4.8 9.6 12.6
2D model (c = 5 KPa; + = 38~) 2.5 5.0 6.6
3D model (c = 5 KPa; + = 38~) 4.8 8.2
2D model (c = 5 kPa; + = 42~) 1.8 3.5 4.6
3D model (c = 5 kPa; + = 42~) 4 7

formed by A t k i n s o n et al. (1977), which show that the t w o - d i m e n s i o n a l

configuration is less f a v o r a b l e to the f o r m a t i o n of a stable arch.
The e v o l u t i o n of stresses in the lining n e a r the face is o n e way to detect
instability. With the R U B m o d e l fitted with strain gages (Fig. 2), the ev-
olution of stresses in the lining d u r i n g d e c o n f i n e m e n t were considered. T h e
m e a s u r e d d e f o r m a t i o n s are c a u s e d b o t h by the active earth pressure a n d
by a localized a d d i t i o n a l weighi pressure, reflecting a transfer of g r o u n d
stresses as the failure situation is a p p r o a c h e d . F o r a relative d e p t h C / D =
2, Fig. 15 shows the changes in stresses in the lining at the distances of 0.35,

1161
J. Geotech. Engrg., 1994, 120(7): 1148-1165
 1, and 2 m from the tunnel face (prototype dimensions) as the pressure
against the tunnel face decreases.

COMPARISON WITH A N A L Y T I C A L RESULTS

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Inst of Tech - Jamshedpur on 09/23/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Among the various methods to estimate tunnel-face stability based on a

limit calculation, the "static" approach, while erring on the safe side, cur-
rently yields coarse estimates (Leca and Dormieux 1990). The "kinematic"
approach is based on the a priori choice of kinematically admissible virtual
velocity fields.
Table 4 compares the results to two recent studies. Chambon and Cort6
(1990) propose a block mechanism based on two logarithmic spirals. The
approach is rather easy to use but has the drawback of underestimating
arching because it is two-dimensional and does not preserve the boundary
conditions of the original problem. Leca and Dormieux (1990) suggest a
three-dimensional mechanism based on virtual translations of rigid cones.
Even though the material used in assuming to be known, there is some
uncertainty in the measurements of internal friction angle and cohesion
available. The results given in Table 4 are based on values of fib and c
bounding the experimental values, that is fib is the range of 380-42 ~ and c
varies from 0 to 5 kPa.
The analytical results evolve according to the main parameters in a way
similar to the experimental behavior. The results of the 3D approach yield
a highly satisfactory estimate of the experimental values. The results of the
2D approach substantially overestimate the pressure at failure, which is
natural because they underestimate the capacity of the ground to take out
stresses by arching. Given the low level of pressure, they yield a reasonable
estimate of the limiting pressures. Considering the geometry of the failure
zones as determined by the theoretical and experimental approaches, their
extent in front of the tunnel face appear similar, whereas differences exist
in the vertical extent as shown by Fig. 16.

\
I
Experimental mechanism ~ ,
~ C/D=I

I I
I
2Danalytiealmechanism,~ I / ~ i1

313 anal~ical mechanism

xN\\\\\NX\\\\'~
FIG. 16. Comparison between Experimental and Theoretical Failure Mechanisms

1162
J. Geotech. Engrg., 1994, 120(7): 1148-1165
 CONCLUSIONS
Tunnel-face behavior in sand as failure is approached can be investigated
using small-scale models in the centrifuge. The test results have provided
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Inst of Tech - Jamshedpur on 09/23/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

parts of answers to the questions initially raised.

Let p be the pressure applied to the face, Pc the pressure at which the
first movements of the face are recorded, and Pr the pressure at failure. The
tests show that the process leading to failure of the face is the following:

9 For p > Pc, there is no observable movement of the face.

9 For Pc > P > Pi, small displacements of the face announce the
imminence of failure (a few cm). This stage is accompanied by
surface settlements above the tunnel faces.
9 For p = Ps, there is a sudden but localized collapse.
9 For p < py, there is a flow of soil in the tunnel.

There is no time effect in any of the stages; at constant internal pressures,

the tunnel face is stabilized. In a dry sand, in all cases, including in the
presence of a load on the surface, a hydrostatic pressure is sufficient to
provide stability to the face. However, the face is not self-stabilizing and
must be supported. Small uniform pressures, of the order of about 10 kPa,
are sufficient.
The pressure at failure is little affected by changes of geometry at the
relative depths considered (C/D = 0.5, 1, 2, 4) and by the density of the
soil.
The diameter of the tunnel has a linear relationship with the pressure at
failure: doubling the diameter requires approximately doubling the sup-
porting pressure. The choice of the dimensionless expression p/~lD, there-
fore, seems well suited to the problem.
The presence of a short unlined length near the tunnel face (less than
20% of the diameter) has barely any influence on pressure value at failure.
Allowance for possible overexcavation of the tunnel does not introduce any
significant changes either.
The same failure geometry is found with the different material densities
and tunnel depths investigated. The strains are localized at the surface
bounding a bulb. The material forms a stabilizing arch, which can be ob-
served directly, but also shows up in a transfer of stresses to the tunnel
lining that occurs when failure approaches. Collapse chimneys are observed,
which cause subsidence at the surface, and are the consequence of the free
flow of the material inside the tunnel following the initial failure.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The writers wish to thank D. K6nig (Bochum, Germany) for the test
results he obtained and shared kindly. We also wish to express our gratitude
to A. Zelikson (Univ. Haifa, Israel), who contributed to devising the first
tests of this study. Finally, we wish to say that this work could not have
been done without the precious help of J. Gamier and C. Favraud (LCPC,
Nantes, France).

APPENDIX I. REFERENCES
Atkinson, J. H., Potts, D. M., and Schofield, A. N. (1977). "Centrifugal model
tests on shallow tunnels in sand." Tunnel and Tunneling, (Jan.) 59-64.
1163
J. Geotech. Engrg., 1994, 120(7): 1148-1165
 Bochon, A. (1990). "Tunnel de Villejust, m6moire de synth~se des mesures," PhD
thesis, Conservatoire National des Arts et M6tiers (CNAM), Paris, France (in
French).
Briglia, P., Pantet, A., and Kastner, A. (1989). "Evolution de l'emploi et domaine
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Inst of Tech - Jamshedpur on 09/23/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

d'utilisation des tunneliers /~ bouclier en terrains meubles et aquif6res." Proc.,

Colloquium Tunnels et Micro-tunnels en terrains meubles, Presses de I'ENPC, Paris,
France, 122-127 (in French).
Chambon, P., and Cort6, J.-F. (1989). "Stabilit6 du front de taille d'un tunnel
faiblement enterr6: Mod61isation en centrifugeuse. Proc., Colloquium Tunnels et
Micro-tunnels en terrains meubles, Presses de I'ENPC, Paris, France, 307-315 (in
French).
Chambon, P., and Cort6, J.-F. (1990). "Stabilit6 du front de taille d'un tunnel dans
un milieu frottant. Approche cindmatique en calcul ~ la rupture." Revue Franfaise
de GOotechnique, Paris, France, 51, 51-59 (in French).
Chambon, P., Cort6, J.-F., Garnier, J., and K6nig, D. (1991). "Face stability of
shallow tunnels in granular soils." Proc., Int. Conf. Centrifuge 1991, Balkema,
Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 99-106.
Cort~, J.-F. (1984). "Presentation of the LCPC centrifuge." Proc., Int. Symp. Geo-
tech. Centrifuge Model Testing, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo, Japan 120-
126.
Cort~, J.-F. (1989). "Geotechnical model tests." Proc., 12th Int. Conf. of Soil Mech.
and Found. Engrg., International Society of Soil Mechanics and Foundation En-
gineers, Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 5, 2553-2571.
Davis, E. H., Gunn, M. J., Mair, R. J., and Seneviratne, H. N. (1980). "The stability
of shallow tunnels and underground openings in cohesive materials." G~otech-
nique, London, England, 30(4), 397-416.
Egger, P. (1985). "Stabilit6 des tunnels ~ faible profondeur et tassements en surface."
Rep. No. 108, Laboratoire de M6canique des roches de I'EPFL, Lausanne, Swit-
zerland, 1-20 (in French).
K6nig, D., Grittier, U., and Jessberger, H. L. (1991). "Stress redistributions during
tunnel and shaft constructions." Proc., Int. Conf. Centrifuge 1991, Balkema, Rot-
terdam, The Netherlands, 129-138.
Leca, E., and Dormieux, L. (1990). "Upper and lower bound solutions for the face
stability of shallow circular tunnels in frictional material." Gdotechnique, London,
England, 40(4), 581-606.
Mair, R. J. (1979). "Centrifugal modelling of tunnel construction in soft clay," PhD
thesis, Cambridge University, Cambridge, England.
Pantet, A. (t991). "Creusement de galeries ~ faible profondeur ?al'aide d'un tunneller
pression de bone. Mesures in situ et 6tude th6orique du champ de d~placement,"
PhD thesis, Institute National des Sciences Appliqu6es (INSA) de Lyon, France
(in French).
Rowe, R. K., and Kack, G. J. (1983). "A theoretical examination of the settlements
induced by tunneling: from cases histories." Can. Geotech. J., Ottawa, Canada,
20(2), 299-314.

A P P E N D I X II. NOTATION

The following symbols are used in this paper:

C = height of soil above tunnel crown;

C. = uniformity coefficient;
c = soil cohesion;
D = outside diameter of tunnel;
L = unlined length of, tunnel;
n = number of gravities;
p = pressure in tunnel at tunnel face;
1164
J. Geotech. Engrg., 1994, 120(7): 1148-1165
 p . = active earth pressure;
Pc = internal pressure value below which displacements occur at tunnel
face;
Pi = limit value for internal pressure corresponding to failure;
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Inst of Tech - Jamshedpur on 09/23/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

~/ = soil unit weight; and

qb = soil friction angle.

1165
J. Geotech. Engrg., 1994, 120(7): 1148-1165