Computers and Geotechnics xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers and Geotechnics

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

Research Paper

Stability of NATM tunnel faces in soft surrounding rocks

⁎
Zhiqiang Zhang, Xiaoquan Shi, Bo Wang , Huayun Li
Key Laboratory of Transportation Tunnel Engineering, Ministry of Education, Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu 610031, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: NATM (new Austrian tunneling method) tunnel construction is unable to proceed under instable states of
NATM tunnel working face, so the stability of working face has been regarded as a key scientific issue. In this paper, a hor-
Face bolt izontal slice method based on the limit equilibrium analysis theory is employed to establish a model for the
Stability tunnel face stability. This model can overcome the shortcomings of the intersections between the slices and the
Limit equilibrium
bolts. In particular, an equivalent pressure coefficient is proposed to analyze the reinforcement of tunnel face
Limit analysis
bolts. Furthermore, based on the model, the influence of soil parameters and reinforcing strength of tunnel face
bolt on the limit support forces are investigated. Moreover, based on the limit analysis upper bound theorem, the
tunnel face failure model is also established, and the factors such as the soil parameters, the length and support
force for unsupported section, tunnel depth and reinforcing strength of tunnel face bolt, are studied in order to
investigate the limit support forces for tunnel faces. It is found that the tunnel face bolts can effectively increase
the shearing strength of the front core soil. However, the strength of surrounding rocks cannot be enhanced too
much because such an enhancement is not economical and effective. Finally, based on the comparison analysis,
it is demonstrated that the variation trends of support force with the above relevant factors are almost the same
in the proposed stability models, indicating the promising and wide applications of the proposed method.

1. Introduction
With the development and upgrade of infrastructure such as high
speed railway, expressway, urban subway, and other facilities, NATM
(new Austrian tunneling method) tunnels are served in very severe soil
conditions. In most cases, the base or ground will becomes unstable,
because the loose areas occur in the front of the tunnel face during the
excavations. As a result, the tunnel face will lose the stability, and this
face could become a severe failure one.
To solve such a serious engineering problem, researchers have
conducted numerous investigations on the tunnel face stability. For the
theoretical aspects, the current studies are mainly to determine poten-
tial sliding and collapse profiles in the front of tunnel faces (logarithmic
spiral type or linear type), and the minimum support forces to maintain
the tunnel faces with the limit equilibrium method and limit analysis
method in order to predict the tunnel face stability. Broms and
Bennermark [1] adopted limit analysis method and firstly put forward
the concept of stability index of excavation face in clay formation. Davis
et al. [2] adopted limit analysis upper bound method and studied issues
related to plane strain stability of Tresca materials by taking failure
mechanism such as collapse and heaving into consideration. Leca and
Dormieux [3] created the three-dimensional failure mode of tunnel face
at sandy soil formation to determine the maximum and minimum
support forces for the stability of the excavation face of tunnel. The
three-dimensional failure mode of shallow-buried tunnel face by Leca is
still slightly simple, and considering the collapse and upheaval of the
tunnel excavation surface, Soubra [4,5] proposed two improved failure
modes to provide the smooth transition between two cone-shaped
bodies in the front of tunnel faces in order to obtain the optimized
upper-bound solution. For the sliding surface caused by the shield ex-
cavation in the front, Maidl et al. [6] assumed that a sliding surface
started from the lower part of the excavation surface and was in log
spiral distribution. Such a surface can rotate around the log spiral O and
limit the support pressure. As a result, the stability of excavation surface
can be obtained by the moment equilibrium. Mollon et al. [7] employed
the limit analysis theory to investigate the collapse and blow-out face
pressures of a circular tunnel driven by a pressurized shield. Han et al.
[8] further proposed a new 3-D failure mechanism to analyze the limit
support pressure of multilayered cohesive–frictional soils based on the
limit analysis theory. Moreover, based on the limit equilibrium method,
Zhao et al. [9] used the silo theory and considered a sliding surface as a
broken line to establish a model of limit supporting force and the cor-
responding formula of excavation face for the shield tunnels in the
upper-hard lower-soft ground.
For the numerical simulations of the tunnel face stability, Qin [10]
adopted finite difference software FLAC3D to conduct simulation

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: ahbowang@163.com (B. Wang).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2017.10.009
Received 28 March 2017; Received in revised form 1 October 2017; Accepted 15 October 2017
0266-352X/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: ZHANG, Z., Computers and Geotechnics (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2017.10.009
Z. Zhang et al.
studies on the tunnel face stability of sandy-soil and clay tunnels. The
relations of tunnel diameter, soil parameters and tunnel depth with
tunnel face support force were discussed. Huang et al. [11] adopted the
numerical simulation method to study the limit support pressure ratio
of excavation faces in a shield tunnel. The influence of underground
water and soil parameters on support force was analyzed and sig-
nificant results were obtained.
For the experimental aspects on the stability of tunnel face, Zhou
et al. [12] adopted centrifuge test for large support difficulty of tunnel
in sandy soil formation to analyze the relation between tunnel face
support force and formation displacement and study the formation
stability and failure mechanism. Kamata [13] applied auxiliary con-
struction methods with bolt to the studies on tunnel excavation features
in sandy formation via centrifuge test and studied influence of vertical
bolt and tunnel face bolt on surrounding rock stability. Chambon et al.
[14] studied tunnel face stability of non-clayey soil body via centrifuge
test, and described collapse forms of tunnel faces with different tunnel
depths. Through researches, the length of unsupported section is found
to have large effect on ultimate stable air pressure. Here it is indicated
that in the recent years,
From the current research status, it can be seen that the researchers
in this field have put forward many significant and valuable models and
conducted considerable theoretical calculations or numerical simula-
tions on the tunnel face stability. To our knowledge, the available
theoretical models mostly focus on the stability of excavation face of
shield tunnel, but pay little attention to the stability analysis of ex-
cavation face of tunnel with drilling and blasting method. Moreover,
the existing models do not consider any influence of tunnel face bolts
and unsupported sections on the tunnel face stability. Therefore, it is
very necessary to carry out relevant studies.
In the present work, based on the influence of tunnel face bolts and
unsupported sections, we employ the limit equilibrium and limit ana-
lysis methods to establish a robust model to theoretically analyze the
tunnel face stability. Our analyses focus on the influence of various
factors (tunnel face bolt, unsupported section length, surrounding rock
parameters, etc.) on the tunnel face stability. Furthermore, an analytic
model is established by the use of horizontal slice method based on the
limit equilibrium theory. This model can overcome the shortcomings of
the intersections between the slices and the reinforcement structures
(bolts) by use of vertical slice method. Moreover, the equivalent pres-
sure coefficient of reinforcement of tunnel face bolts is proposed to
simulate accurately the reinforcement effect of tunnel face bolts and to
evaluated effectively the tunnel face stability due to the tunnel face
bolts. Based on the above analyses, the advantages and disadvantages
as well as the applicability of two theoretical analysis methods can be
revealed.
2. Tunnel face stability analysis model by limit equilibrium theory
2.1. Limit equilibrium theory
Limit equilibrium status is a transforming and transitional status
from static equilibrium to motion. For soil body, the stress corre-
sponding to the limit equilibrium is referred to as limit stress or
strength, and load corresponding to limit equilibrium is referred to as
limit load. According to the concept of limit equilibrium status and the
requirements of limit equilibrium issues, static equation and motion
equation of limit equilibrium shall be established for the limit equili-
brium theory, and shall be solved at corresponding boundaries to finally
obtain limit load of soil body. In the current documents relevant to slice
method, vertical slice method is mostly adopted to analyze engineering
stability. Here it is noted that if applied to bolt and steel bar re-
inforcement works, in particular, a tunnel face with horizontally in-
stalled bolt and steel bar reinforcement, vertical slice method have its
shortcomings, since vertical slices have intersections with the reinfor-
cing structures such as bolts, resulting in a certain deviation and the
2
Computers and Geotechnics xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
reinforcement effects. Thus, overall stability of the works cannot be
actually analyzed. However, the horizontal slice method can avoid such
unfavorable factors, and effectively analyze the steel bar reinforcement,
bolt and anchor cable reinforcement, in particular, for a tunnel face
with horizontally installed bolt and steel bar reinforcement.
2.2. Establishment of model
With reference to the side slope stability analysis, potential sliding
bodies and fracture plane which may lose equilibrium as well as sliding
mode of the tunnel faces shall be pre-determined, and then, minimum
tunnel face support force required by their equilibrium shall be de-
termined according to analysis of mechanical equilibrium principles,
when limit equilibrium is adopted to evaluate tunnel face stability.
From the known research and test results, it can be seen that the failure
face during collapse of tunnel face is closer to spiral failure face. See Eq.
(1) for the spiral equation [7].
This model can well simulate tunnel face stability under the effects
of tunnel face bolts. Horizontal slice method is hereby adopted for the
spiral equation.
ri = r0 e θtgφ (1)
where the starting point of fracture plane θ = 0 , radius of spiral line is
ro , internal friction angle of soil body φ is an angle kept constant and
obtained as the included angle between ro and the horizontal plane,
meeting the relevant flow rules; radius corresponding to the spiral line
at the ending point of fracture plane, i.e. the lowest end of the tunnel
face, is rh , and the included angle between ro and rh is θh . From Fig. 1, it
can be seen that, q1 is the load generated at the upper soil body of
sliding body, and q2 is the limit support force required to maintain
tunnel face stability. B is length of failure face, and D is tunnel height,
both of which are known. D can be obtained from the following rela-
tion. See Eq. (2).
D = r0 e θh tgφsin(θh + φ)−r0sinφ (2)
(1) Force equilibrium of horizontal slice
As spiral equation is considered for the front fracture plane of tunnel
face, a slice is taken out from the sliding soil body. See Fig. 2. On the
soil slice, there are gravity Wi , tunnel face support force q2 , tensile force
generated from tunnel face bolt S , normal force Ni and shear force Ti on
the fracture plane, normal forces at both sides of the soil slice Ei and
Ei + 1, and horizontal shear forces Hi and Hi + 1. With reference to the
Swedish Slice Method, assumptions are required for forces between the
slices, and forces at both sides of soil body are not taken into account,
which means that the resultant forces of Ei and Hi equal those of Ei + 1
and Hi + 1, and their action lines are also the same, so their actions offset
each other.
According to the limit equilibrium principles, force equilibrium is
realized horizontally and vertically on each slice.
Before the establishment of equilibrium equations for the soil slice,
it is necessary to describe the action characteristics and features of
B
rh q1
ij
D q2 Ti
Ni
ij
Fig. 1. Tunnel face stability analysis model.
Z. Zhang et al. Computers and Geotechnics xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

O Ti = cli + Ni tgϕ (5)

ij ș After inference and simplification,

q2 hi + hi [γ (H + yi ) ka−2c ka ] + cli cosα

Ni =
sina−tgϕcosα (6)

q2 hi + hi [γ (H + yi ) ka−2c ka ] + cli cosα

Ti = cli + tgϕ
sina−tgϕcosα (7)

Ei where yi = risin(θ + φ)−r0sinφ (8)

q2 Hi Ti hi = risinαdθ (9)
hi wi s Ni
α is the included angle between failure face of earth slice and hor-
Hi+1 ij izontal plane. From the geometrical relation in Fig. 2, it can be seen
E i+1
that:
Fig. 2. Diagram of forces borne by horizontal slice.
π
α= −θ
2 (10)
tunnel face bolts. Based on a previous study [15], it can be seen that the
maximum axial force of tunnel face bolt on the reinforced tunnel face is ri = r0 e θtgφ (11)
close to the Ranken active earth pressure. li = ri dθ (12)
From active earth pressure calculation equation of soil mechanics, it
can be seen that: (2) Overall moment equilibrium
Definition and inference have been made to internal force me-
S1 = γHka−2c ka ,S2 = γ (H + D) ka−2c ka chanical equilibrium between slices in the preceding section. However,
the minimum thrust required to maintain equilibrium of tunnel face
where ka is the coefficient of active earth pressure. In this paper, the
cannot be obtained. Therefore, the equilibrium equation is established
coefficient of equivalent earth pressure for reinforcement of soil body
hereby in consideration of the overall moment equilibrium of sliding
by tunnel face bolt is put forward to evaluate reinforcement stability by
body. The central point at spiral face O is selected as the central point
tunnel face bolt so as to simulate the effects of reinforcement of tunnel
for moment equilibrium, and moments between all the loads on sliding
face by tunnel face bolts.
soil body and the point O are obtained, and the sum of the moments is
See Fig. 3. above. It can be seen that the resultant force for re-
made zero. From Fig. 2, it can be seen that the bending moments
inforcement of working face by all the tunnel face bolts is FH, and the
generated by loads on soil body to the point O include the moment Mg
following relation can be established:
from gravity, the moment Mq1 from the upper loose load q1, the
(S1 + S2) D [γ (2H + D) ka−4c ka ] D bending moment Mfp generated at the fracture plane fracture plane, the
FH = = bending moment Mre from the tensile force of tunnel face bolt and the
2 2 (3)
moment Mq2 from the tunnel face support force q2.
Thus, when reinforcing strength from tunnel face bolts per area is In the analysis in this paper, for shear strength of soil slice, both
known, the resultant force for reinforcement of tunnel face by tunnel frictional resistance and cohesive force are brought into full play. The
face bolts FH is obtained, then, the equivalent ka of reinforced tunnel safety coefficient of the soil body is 1, and safety reserve is not con-
face by bolts is finally obtained by solving the nonlinear equation based
sidered.
on the equation above, so as to carry out stability analysis for effects of (1) Moment Mfp from forces on fracture plane
reinforcement of tunnel face by tunnel face bolts.
Bending moment generated at fracture plane of soil body:
In combination with the preceding analysis and in consideration of
θh
effects of tunnel face bolts, the micro-unit equilibrium equations are as Mfp = ∫0 (Ti ri cosφ−Ni risinφ) dθ (13)
follows:
The above mentioned equation is brought into Eq. (13) and can be
q2 hi + hi [γ (H + yi ) ka−2c ka ] + Ti cosα−Nisinα = 0 (4) simplified as:
θh
Mfp = c ∫0 ri2cosφdθ (14)
After integration, Eq. (14) can be modified as:
1 2
Mfp = cr0 cosφ·cotφ (e 2θhtanφ−1)
2 (15)
H
(2) Moment from tunnel face bolt
As force generated on the horizontal slice i from tunnel face bolt is
Si = γ (H + yi ) ka−2c ka , and the arm of the force Si is Li = risin(θ + ϕ) ,
thus, moment from the tunnel face bolt is:
s1 θh θh
Mre = ∫0 Si Li dθ = ∫0 risinα {γ [H + risin(θ + φ)−r0sinφ] ka
yi ka
−2c ka } risin(θ + φ) dθ (16)
si
D FH The numerical calculation software MATLAB is adopted for integral
solution of the Eq. (16).
s2 (3) Moment from horizontal thrust of tunnel face
The force generated by the horizontal thrust q2 on the soil slice with
Fig. 3. Equivalent diagram of actions of tunnel face bolt.
width of hi is risinαdθ ·q2 , and likewise, the arm of the force is

3
 Z. Zhang et al. Computers and Geotechnics xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

300 Fig. 4. Relation between tunnel face support forces and

internal friction angle at different tunnel depths.
Tunnel Face Support Force p2 (kPa)

250 5-wu

200 5-ka
10-wu
150
10-ka
100 15-ka
50 15-wu
25-ka
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 25-wu
-50

-100
Friction Angle ij

Li = risin(θ + φ) , thus, the moment generated by the tunnel face thrust Integration is carried out for the corresponding items in the Eq.
in the whole sliding body is: (23), and the known conditions are introduced into the equation. Thus,
θh θh it can be seen that only θ is unknown for q2 , and it can be seen from the
Mq2 = ∫0 risinαq2 risin(θ + φ) dθ = q2 ∫0 ri2sinα sin(θ + φ) dθ (17)
π
geometry that 0 < θ < 2 . In case of failure of tunnel face, the maximum
value of q2 is obtained by adopting limit equilibrium method. Thus, for
(4) Moment from load q1 at top π
the Eq. (23), θ is taken from the range of 0 < θ < 2 , and iteration is
The length of the failure face B can be determined based on the adopted to obtain the maximum value, namely, the limit equilibrium
geometrical conditions: B = r0cosφ−rh cos(θh + φ) (see Fig. 1), and value solution of q2 .
of the load at top can be calculated with different tunnel depths… The
r cosφ r cos(θ + φ)
arm of force of q1 is 0 2 + h 2 h . Thus, moment from load q1 at
top is calculated as: 2.3. Analysis of examples

B 1 Basic calculation parameters of the calculation example are tunnel

Mq1 = q1 B ⎡rhcos(θh + φ) + ⎤ = q1 {(r0cosφ)2 −[rhcos(θh + φ)]2 }
⎣ 2⎦ 2 height D = 10 m, tunnel width B = 12 m, internal friction angle of soil
(18) body φ = 20°, cohesive force c = 50 kPa, volume weight of soil body γ
(5) Moment generated by gravity = 18 kN/m3, horizontal force provided by tunnel face bolt
The weight of soil slice is: FH = 600 kN/m, and loads acting on the upper part of sliding block of
tunnel face which are calculated with different tunnel depths.
dgi = [ri cos(θ + φ)−rhcos(θh + φ)] risinaγdθ (19) Studies are carried out on support force required to maintain tunnel
face stability under different soil parameters and reinforcing forces of
The arm of the weight of soil slice is:
tunnel face bolts. As shown in Figs. 4–7, symbols of conditions in the
[ri cos(θ + φ)−rhcos(θh + φ)] diagrams are described as that: “10-wu” refers to tunnel depth of 10 m,
+ rhcos(θh + φ)
2 (20) without tunnel face bolt; “15-ka” refers to tunnel depth of 15 m, with
Bending moment generated by the gravity as calculated with slice tunnel face bolt.
method is: (1) Impact of internal friction angle of soil
Fig. 4 shows the support forces required to maintain tunnel face
∫0 h dgi { [ricos(θ + φ)−2rhcos(θh + φ)]
θ
Mg = + r h cos(θh + φ)} stability at different tunnel depths, with or without tunnel face bolts,
which vary with the internal friction angle of soil body. As the safety
1 θh
=
2
∫0 γ {[ri cos(θ + φ)]2 −[r h cos(θh + φ)]2 } risinαdθ
(21) coefficients are all assumed to be 1 for the calculation model, which
means that the cohesive force and the internal friction angle reach the
As the moments of the external forces on sliding body to the point O maximum limits, the support force may be negative in the diagram,
sums to zero after the moments are obtained based on the formulas indicating that tunnel face is in stable status and can maintain equili-
above, it can be seen that: brium without external support force.
Mq1 + Mg−Mre−Mq2−Mfp = 0 (22) For a tunnel depth of 10 m, when self-stability can be realized for
tunnel face without tunnel face bolts (indicating no external support
Eq. (23) can be obtained by introduction of the items above into Eq. force for tunnel face), the minimum internal friction angle required is
(22): about 60°. The minimum internal friction angle of soil body required for
1 1 θ self-stability of tunnel face with tunnel face bolts is 15°. For a tunnel
q {(r0 cosφ)2 −[r h cos(θh
2 1
+ φ)]2 } + 2
∫0 h γ {[ri cos(θ + φ)]2
depth of 25 m, when self-stability can be realized for tunnel face
−[r h cos(θh + φ)]2 } risinαdθ without tunnel face bolts (indicating no external support force for
q2 = θ
∫0 h ri2sinα sin(θ + φ) dθ tunnel face), the minimum internal friction angle required is about 80°.
The minimum internal friction angle of soil body required for self-sta-
θ
∫0 h risinα {γ [H + risin(θ + φ)−r0sinφ] ka−2c ka } risin(θ + φ) dθ bility of tunnel face with tunnel face bolts is about 37°. It can be seen
− θ from Fig. 4 that the tunnel face support force decreases as internal
∫0 h ri2sinα sin(θ + φ) dθ
friction angle increases with or without bolts. Furthermore, the re-
1
cr02cosφ·cotφ (e 2θhtanφ−1) quired support force with bolts is smaller than that without bolts, and
−2 θ
∫0 h ri2sinα sin(θ + φ) dθ the largest support force changes from positive to negative. It can also
(23)
be seen that with bolts, the internal friction angle in the front soil body

4
 Z. Zhang et al. Computers and Geotechnics xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

300 Fig. 5. Relation between tunnel face support forces and volume
weights of soil at different tunnel depths.
Tunnel Face Surpport Face p2 (kPa)

250 5-ka
5-wu
200
10-wu
150
10-ka
100 15-ka

50 15-wu
25-wu
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 25-ka
-50

-100
Volume Weights of soil Ȗ (kN/m³)

can be improved, which is favorable for the stability of surrounding
rocks.
In addition, it can also be seen from the diagram that for internal
friction angle smaller than 40°, the tunnel face support force is very
small, whatever the tunnel depth is. It can be seen that the reinforce-
ment effects of the tunnel face bolts in the excavation of tunnel of soft
soil body is particularly obvious.
(2) Impact of volume weight of soil
Fig. 5 shows the support forces required to maintain tunnel face
stability at different tunnel depths, with or without tunnel face bolts,
which vary with the volume weight γ of soil body. It can be seen that
tunnel face support force increases as volume weight of soil body in-
creases, indicating a linear relation. At the same tunnel depth, the re-
quired tunnel face support force with tunnel face bolts is smaller than
that without the bolts, but both the tunnel face support forces increase
as the volume weight increases, indicating that the linear equation
slope is the same. At different tunnel depths, the trend of tunnel face
support force varying with the volume weight is slightly different. As
the tunnel depth increases, the trend of tunnel face support force
varying with the volume weight is more obvious, indicating that at a
large tunnel depth, the linear equation slope is higher than that at a
small tunnel depth, and variation of volume weight is more sensitive to
increase of tunnel depth.
(3) Impact of cohesive force of soil
Fig. 6 shows the support forces required to maintain tunnel face
stability at different tunnel depths, with or without tunnel face bolts,
which vary with the cohesive force c of soil body. It can be seen that
tunnel face support force decreases as cohesive force of soil body
increases, indicating a linear decrement relation. Different from volume
weight of soil body, the trend that the tunnel face support force de-
creases as the cohesive force increases is the same at different tunnel
depths, whether with or without tunnel face bolts. Similar to internal
friction angle of soil body, for a tunnel depth of 10 m, when self-sta-
bility can be realized for tunnel face without tunnel face bolts (in-
dicating no external support force for tunnel face), the minimum co-
hesive force required is 80 kPa. The minimum cohesive force of soil
body required for self-stability of tunnel face with tunnel face bolts is
40 kPa. For a tunnel depth of 15 m, when self-stability can be realized
for tunnel face without tunnel face bolts (indicating no external support
force for tunnel face), the minimum cohesive force required is 100 kPa.
The minimum cohesive force of soil body required for self-stability of
tunnel face with tunnel face bolts is 55 kPa. From another point of view,
it shows that with tunnel face bolts, the cohesive force of the front soil
body of tunnel face can be improved, which is favorable for stability of
surrounding rocks of tunnel face.
(4) Impact of reinforcing strength of tunnel face bolts
Fig. 7 shows the support forces required to maintain tunnel face
stability at different tunnel depths with different reinforcing strengths
from tunnel face bolts. It can be seen that the support force required to
maintain tunnel face stability decreases linearly as the reinforcing
strength increases, and the decrease trends at different tunnel depths
are the same. Moreover, the larger the tunnel depth, the larger the
support force required to maintain tunnel face stability under the same
reinforcement conditions.

250 Fig. 6. Relation between tunnel face support forces and

cohesive forces of soil at different tunnel depths.
Tunnel Face Support Force p2 (kPa)

200
5-wu
150
5-ka
100 10-ka
50 10-wu

0 15-wu
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 15-ka
-50
25-ka
-100
25-wu
-150

-200
Cohesive Forces C (kPa)

5
 Z. Zhang et al.
150
Tunnel Face Support Force p2 (kPa)
100
50
0 10-ka
0 200 400
-50
-100
-150
-200
Reinforcing force from Bolts (kN/m)
3. Tunnel face stability analysis model by limit analysis upper
bound method
3.1. Limit analysis theory
(1) Limit analysis theory
With the publication of the representative work “Limit Analysis and
Soil Plasticity” of W. F. Chen in 1975, the new discipline branch, i.e.,
the geotechnical limit analysis method, was established. In recent
decades, it is widely used in geotechnical engineering. In the limit
analysis method, kinematically admissible velocity field and statically
admissible stress field are created for geotechnical structure to make
yield conditions, flow rules and boundary conditions satisfied and so-
lution process simplified based on the virtual work principle under the
premise that the soil body is in ideal elastic–plastic or rigid-plastic
status [16].
The conditions required to establish such an upper-bound solution
are as follows:
(1) A valid mechanism of collapse must be assumed which satisfies the
mechanical boundary conditions.
(2) The expenditure of energy by the external loads (including soil
weights) due to the small displacement defined by the assumed
mechanism must be calculated.
(3) The internal dissipation of energy by the plastically deformed re-
gions which is associated with the mechanism must be calculated.
(4) The most critical or least upper-bound solution corresponding to a
particular layout of the assumed mechanism must be obtained by
the work equation.
(2) Upper bound theorem
The upper bound theorem can be described as that the limit load is
the lowest among all the loads corresponding to the kinematically ad-
missible plastic deformation state. The upper bound theorem can also
be described as that for certain kinematically admissible plastic de-
∗ ∗
formation state uip and εijp , the loads Ti and Xi , determined based on the
Eq. (24), will be higher than or equals the actual limit load.
∗ ∗
∫A Ti u̇ip dA + ∫V Xi ui̇ p dv = ∫V σijp εijp dv +
where the right side of the equation refers to the internal energy dis-
sipation rate.
3.2. Establishment of model
Current research results mostly pay attention to the kinetic structure
and studies of collapse modes of tunnel face of shield tunnel, and do not
take the collapse and failure of unsupported section into account.
Computers and Geotechnics xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Fig. 7. Effects of reinforcing force from bolts on tunnel face
support force.
5-ka
600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 15-ka
25-ka
Therefore, unsupported section is also taken as factor impacting on
tunnel face stability in this paper. The effects of unsupported section on
tunnel stability and effects of different pre-reinforcement measures on
tunnel face stability were taken into account.
(1) Creation of kinematically admissible velocity field
Based on the upper bound theorem, the limit analysis model for
tunnel face stability is created as shown in Fig. 8, in consideration of
effects of unsupported section. The failure mechanism consists of a
trapezoid (triangular) shear borne sliding block at top of tunnel face
and shear borne sliding block in spiral line of tunnel face. The failure
face of sliding body at the tunnel face is spiral face. It is assumed that
the soil bodies are ideal rigid-plastic bodies, and meet the Mohr-Cou-
lomb yield conditions and associated flow rules in the velocity dis-
continuity.
(2) Calculation of energy dissipation rate
For soil body in limit failure status, unsupported section and the
upper part of tunnel face move in vertical downward direction, and the
spiral body of tunnel face moves downwards along fracture plane.
Energy dissipation calculation consists of calculations of work rate done
by external forces and internal energy dissipation rate. Calculation of
rate of work done by external forces includes rate of work done by
gravity, rate of work done by the support force p1 of unsupported
section, and rate of work done by the support force p2 for tunnel face,
while calculation of internal energy dissipation rate includes internal
rate of energy dissipation along failure face and internal rate of energy
dissipation in plastic shear deformation zone [16], internal energy
dissipation in spiral body of tunnel face, and internal energy dissipation
on bolt of tunnel face.
Calculations are done for work rate of external forces and internal
energy dissipation rate as below:
1) Calculation of work rate of external forces
① Work rate done by block a
ij
∗ ∗ ∗ la
∫S C [vip ] dS (24) h
C Va
ij l r0
p1
ij
D p2
Vb
Fig. 8. Limit analysis model for tunnel face stability.
6
Z. Zhang et al. Computers and Geotechnics xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

O From Fig. 9, it can be seen that the length of unsupported section is

l , and the support force for unsupported section is p1, thus, the rate of
d work Pp1 done by the pressure p1 of unsupported section is:
PP1 = p1 ·l·Va (32)

dA ④ Rate of work done by the support pressure p2 of tunnel face

The resultant force of the support forces on the tunnel face is
π π
r0 e 2 tgφ·p2 , and the velocity is Va e 2 tgϕ , thus, it can be seen that the rate of
dA work done by PP2 is:
π π
v Pp2 = Va e 2 tgφ·r0 e 2 tgφ·p2 = Va·r0 e π·tgφp2 (33)
rcos
ij
2) Calculation of internal energy dissipation rate
Fig. 9. Micro-units of spiral blocks.
① Rate of work done by the block a in the discontinuity
According to the rule of orthogonal flow, it can be seen that the
strain velocity vector V at any point in the fracture plane or line forms
D refers to tunnel height, C refers to the tunnel depth, and limit an angle φ with the direction of the sliding line in which the point is,
value is reached when the spiral face fails along the whole tunnel and the work of internal energy dissipation by soil body in fracture
π
height, namely D = r0 e 2 tgϕ . Thus, plane can be calculated by multiplying the shear velocity Vp along shear
π plane with the cohesive force c of soil. As the block a is taken as rigid,
r0 = D ·(e 2 tgϕ )−1 (25)
internal energy dissipation only occurs in the fracture planes at both
According to Fig. 9, it can be seen that, sides, so Vp = Vacosφ . Therefore, the rate of internal energy dissipation
is
l + r0 1 l + r0
h= · π =
2 cot( 2 −ϕ) 2tgϕ (26) Qa = c·Va·cosφ ·2lc (34)
h l
The weight of block a has to be obtained to determine the work rate where lc = − a
cosφ 2sinφ
that it has done. First, shape of the block a shall be truly judged as h l l
trapezoid or triangle. It can be seen that the length of the upside of the Qa = 2·[ − a ]Va·cosφ ·c = 2·[h− a cotφ]Va ·c = (2h−lacotφ)·Va·c
cosφ 2sinφ 2
trapezoid, which is referred to as la , has the following relations ac-
(35)
cording to geometrical relation: in case of h−C ⩽ 0 , the block a is a
triangle when la = 0 . In case of h−C > 0 , the block a is a trapezoid when ② The energy dissipation rate Qb1 of spiral shear-borne sliding block
la = 2(h−C ) tgφ . along fracture plane and the internal energy dissipation rate Qb2
The work rate done by weight of the block a is based on the fol- 1
lowing equation. Qb1 = Qb2 = cVa r0cotφ [exp(πtgφ)−1]
2 (36)
1 ③ Energy dissipation rate by reinforcement material
Pwa = γVa [(l + r0 ) h−la (h−C )]
2 (27)
The tunnel face bolts are tensile failure in the fracture plane. See
where γ refers to volume weight of soil body, and Va refers to velocity of Fig. 10 below, where η is the included angle between the reinforcement
the block. material and the fracture plane, φ is the friction angle of soil body, Vr is
② Work rate done by weight of the front spiral block of tunnel face the relative velocity at both sides of the fracture plane, and t is the
In order to obtain the work rate done by weight of soil body within thickness of the fracture plane.
the spiral shear deformation zone, work rate of each micro-unit of the In order to obtain the energy dissipation by tensile force of the
soil body shall be firstly obtained, and then integration shall be done for tunnel face bolts, certain description is firstly made to the energy dis-
the whole shear plane. For the diagram of the forces borne by the sipation rate (dr) per unit area of the velocity discontinuity by tensile
micro-unit of soil body, see Fig. 9. failure of reinforcement material [17] is as follows:
The area of the micro-unit dA can be obtained based on Fig. 9, t /sinη t /sinη V cos(η−ϕ)sinη
1 1 1
dr = ∫0 kt ·εẋ sinηdx = ∫0 kt ·
t
·sinηdx
dA = r·rdθ = r 2dθ = r02 e 2θ·tgφdθ
2 2 2 (28) V cos(η−ϕ)sinη2 t /sinη
= kt ·
t
∫0 dx = kt ·V cos(η−ϕ)sinη
(37)
Velocity of the micro-unit in the direction of gravity can be de-
termined according to the position of the center of gravity of triangle: With reference to Fig. 11, integration is performed for dr along the
2 fracture plane l to obtain the internal dissipation rate Dr by internal
V = Va·e θ·tgφcosθ
3 (29)
Therefore, rate of work done by weight of the micro-unit is:
t
1 2 2θ·tgφ 2 1
dPWb = dA·V ·γ = r0 e dθ · Va·e θ·tgφcosθ ·γ = Va r02 e3θ·tgφcosθ ·γdθ
2 3 3
(30) Reinforcement
ij
Integration is performed on Eq. (30) in the range of (0 ∼ π/2) to
obtain the rate of work done by gravitational force on the shear zone, Velocity
π π
1 p2
PWb = ∫0 2
dPWb = ∫0 2
Va r02 e3θ·tgφcosθ ·γ ·dθ ij
3 Sliding Face
3π
1 [−exp( 2 tgφ ) + 3tgφ ]
= − Va·γ ·r02· Reinforcement
3 9tgφ2 + 1 (31)
Fig. 10. Schematic diagram of failure of reinforcement material on fracture plane.
③ Rate of work done by the pressure p1 of unsupported section

7
Z. Zhang et al. Computers and Geotechnics xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

(1) Impact of internal friction angle of soil

O Fig. 12 shows the curve chart of variation of tunnel face support
forces vs. internal friction angle of soil at different tunnel depths, with
or without tunnel face bolts. As seen, the tunnel face support force
decreases as internal friction angle of soil increases, and the larger the
tunnel depth, the longer the unsupported section, and the larger the
tunnel face support force. Furthermore, with the same tunnel depth and
length for the unsupported section, the friction angle without bolts is
larger than 50°, and the tunnel face could maintain stable by itself,
D whereas the friction angle with bolts is larger than 20°, and the tunnel
face could reach the state of self-stabilization.
Tunnel depths and lengths of unsupported sections have large ef-
fects on tunnel face support forces only if friction angle is small. When
internal friction angle of soil is larger than 30°, tunnel depths and
ij lengths of unsupported section have small effects on tunnel face support
forces, and the tunnel face support forces under different tunnel depths
and different unsupported lengths are nearly the same.
(2) Impact of cohesive force of soil
Fig. 11. Integration path of face bolt. Fig. 13 shows the curve chart of variation of tunnel face support
forces vs. cohesive forces of soil body at different tunnel depths, with or
without tunnel face bolts.
forces of reinforcement material.
Fig. 13(a) shows the minimum equilibrating force required by
π π
dθ kVr tunnel face for keeping stable under the conditions, without taking
Dr = ∫0 2 kt Va e θtgϕsinθcos(θ−ϕ) r0 e θtgϕ
cosϕ
= t a0
cosϕ
∫0 2 e 2θtgϕ·
tunnel face bolts into account. The tunnel face support force has a linear
sinθcos(θ−ϕ)·dθ (38) decrement relation with cohesive force. Fig. 13(b) shows that, tunnel
face support force decreases generally after taking reinforcement effects
After integration for the formula above, it can be seen that: of tunnel face bolts into account, which is favorable for tunnel face
1 stability.
Dr = kt Va r0 e πtgϕ The condition of tunnel depth of 10 m and length of unsupported
2 (39)
section of 0 m is exemplified. Without tunnel face bolts, self-stability
The external rate of work is made equivalent to the internal rate of can be maintained for tunnel face only when the cohesive force is
energy dissipation according to the limit analysis upper bound theorem, 16 kPa, while with tunnel face bolts, stability can be maintained for
then: tunnel face even the cohesive force is 5 kPa. Thus, similar to the limit
PWa + PWb−Pp1−Pp2 = Qa + Qb1 + Qb2 + Dr (40) equilibrium, with tunnel face bolts, cohesive force of the front soil body
of tunnel face can be improved, which is favorable for tunnel face
The formulas above are introduced, and the Va contained in the stability.
formulas are automatically omitted to obtain the solution expression of (3) Impact of different lengths of unsupported section
the support force p2 of tunnel face. Fig. 14 shows the relation of tunnel face support forces with lengths
PWa + PWb−Pp1−Qa−Qb1−Qb2−Dr of unsupported section at different tunnel depths, with or without
p2 = tunnel face bolts.
Va·r0 e π·tgφ
3π
At the same tunnel depth, support force for maintaining tunnel face
[−exp( tgφ ) + 3tgφ ]
1
γVa [(l
1
+ r0 ) h−la (h−C )]− 3 Va·γ ·r02· 2
−p1 ·l·Va stability with tunnel face bolts is smaller than that without tunnel face
2 9tgφ2 + 1
= bolts. If the tunnel depth is not less than 10 m, tunnel face support force
Va·r0 e π·tgφ has linear relation with length of unsupported section. If the tunnel
1
(2h−lacotφ)·Va·c + cVa r0cotφ [exp(πtgφ)−1] + 2 kt Va r0 e πtgφ depth is larger than 10 m, tunnel face support force and length of un-
− supported section varies nonlinearly.
Va·r0 e π·tgφ
With different tunnel depths, tunnel face support forces are rela-
(41)
tively close to each other in case of short unsupported section, or differ
significantly if the length of the unsupported section becomes large.
3.3. Analysis of examples Through analysis, the main reason is found to be relevant to the crea-
tion of geometrical modes of kinematically admissible velocity field in
3.3.1. Analysis of examples limit analysis. The upper collapse body of tunnel face is interchangeable
Parameters of the calculation examples are tunnel height D = 10 m, between trapezoid (collapsing to ground surface) and triangle (not
internal friction angle of soil body φ = 20°, cohesive force c = 5 kPa, collapsing to ground surface), namely transformation of collapse
volume weight of soil body γ = 18 kN/m3, the support force for un- modes. The collapse modes are relevant to length of unsupported sec-
supported section is 50 kPa, reinforcing strength of tunnel face bolt per tion and tunnel depth. These factors determine the variation trends of
unit height k0 = 60 kPa, and loads acting on the upper part of sliding relation between tunnel face support forces and lengths of unsupported
block of tunnel face which are calculated with different tunnel depths. section.
The established limit analysis model is adopted below to study (4) Impact of tunnel depth
support force required to maintain tunnel face stability under different Fig. 15 shows the curve for variation relation of tunnel face support
soil parameters, tunnel depths and reinforcing forces of tunnel face forces and tunnel depths at different lengths of unsupported section,
bolts. As shown in Figs. 12–17, symbols of conditions in the diagrams with or without tunnel face bolts.
are described as: “10-L2-wu” refers to tunnel depth of 10 m, and length It can be seen from the diagram that, support forces required to
of unsupported section of 2 m, without tunnel face bolts; “15-L0-k0” maintain tunnel face stability with tunnel face bolts are all smaller than
refers to tunnel depth of 15 m, and length of unsupported section of those without tunnel face bolts. From the variation curves of tunnel face
0 m, with tunnel face bolts. support force and unsupported sections length, it can be seen that the

8
 Z. Zhang et al.
300
Tunnel Face Support Force p2 (kPa)
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 10 20
-50
Friction Angle ij
(a) Without tunnel face bolts
250
Tunnel Face Support Force p2 (kPa)
200
150
100
50
0
0 10 20 30
-50
Friction Angle ij
(b) With tunnel face bolts
support forces for the tunnel faces increase gradually as the tunnel
depths increase and then tend to be stable if a certain depth is reached.
When lengths of unsupported section are 0 m, 3 m and 6 m, the tunnel
depths reach 6 m, 10 m and 15 m respectively, at this time, tunnel face
support forces reach stability status. This is mainly relevant to the
failure modes of the upper collapse bodies of tunnel faces. For variation
curve at rising stage, upper soil bodies of tunnel faces and unsupported
sections collapse to ground surface, and the failed soil bodies are in a
trapezoid shape, indicating a failure mode of shallow-buried tunnel. For
the constant stage, upper soil bodies of tunnel faces and unsupported
sections do not collapse to ground surface, and the failed soil bodies are
in a triangular shape, belonging to a collapse failure mode of deep
tunnel and indicating a longitudinal arching effect. Thus, the support
force required for tunnel face stabilization is irrelevant to tunnel depth
when it exceeds certain limit.
Therefore, it can be seen from above analysis that with the limit
analysis mode, the different failure modes of shallow-buried tunnel and
deep tunnel can be taken into account, and the impact of unsupported
section length on the support force of tunnel face can also be found.
(5) Impact of support force for unsupported section
Fig. 16 shows the relation of tunnel face support forces to support
forces for unsupported section at different tunnel depths, with or
without tunnel face bolts. It can be seen from the diagram that, support
forces required to maintain tunnel face equilibrium with tunnel face
bolts are smaller than those without tunnel face bolts. Tunnel face
Computers and Geotechnics xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Fig. 12. Relation of tunnel face support force to internal
friction angle.
5-L0-wu
5-L4-wu
10-L0-wu
10-L4-wu
30 40 50 60
5-L0-wu
5-L0-k0
10-L0-wu
10-L0-k0
40 50 60
support force has linear decrement relation with support force for un-
supported section. As support force for unsupported section increases,
support force required to maintain tunnel face equilibrium decreases
gradually. The linear relation is also relevant to length of unsupported
section.
If the tunnel depth is 10 m and the length of unsupported section is
6 m, it can be seen that the support force for unsupported section re-
quired to maintain self-stability of tunnel face (no support force for
tunnel face) is 270 kPa, without taking effects of tunnel face bolts into
account, while with tunnel face bolts, the support force for unsupported
section required to maintain self-stability of tunnel face is 170 kPa. It is
found that tunnel face bolts is favorable for reducing support force for
unsupported section and keeping tunnel face stable. In actual works,
stability of upper surrounding rocks of unsupported section can ob-
viously be controlled effectively with tunnel face bolts, and support
force required for the unsupported section is reduced, which is favor-
able for maintaining tunnel face equilibrium.
(6) Impact of reinforcing strength for tunnel face
Fig. 17 shows the variations of tunnel face support forces to re-
inforcing strength of tunnel face bolts, by taking or not taking tunnel
face bolts into account.
It can be seen from the diagram that as the reinforcing strengths of
tunnel face bolts increase, tunnel face support forces decrease linearly,
and tunnel faces tend to change from the unstable status to self-stabi-
lity. At the same unsupported length, as the tunnel depth increases, the
9
 Z. Zhang et al. Computers and Geotechnics xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

80 Fig. 13. Relation of tunnel face support forces to cohesive

Tunnel Face Support Force p2 (kPa)

forces.
70

60
5-L0-wu
50 5-L2-wu
40 5-L4-wu

30 10-L0-wu
10-L2-wu
20
10-L4-wu
10

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Cohesive Forces c (kPa)
(a) Without tunnel face bolts

80
Tunnel Face Support Force p2 (kPa)

60
5-L0-wu
40 5-L0-k0
5-L4-wu
20
5-L4-k0
0 10-L0-wu
0 5 10 15 20 25
10-L0-k0
-20
10-L4-wu
-40 10-L4-k0

-60
Cohesive Forces c (kPa)
(b) With tunnel face bolts

reinforcing strength required for tunnel face becomes larger. As the strengths cannot be blindly enhanced for tunnel face, as it is neither
unsupported length increases, effects of tunnel depth become larger. economical nor practical. Therefore, in actual works, number and posi-
If the tunnel depth is 10 m, the reinforcing strengths required for self- tions of tunnel face bolts match the pre-reinforcement measures sur-
stability of tunnel face are 60 kPa, 85 kPa and 112 kPa respectively, when rounding tunnel (pipe umbrella reinforcement and leading ductule).
lengths of unsupported section are 0 m, 2 m and 4 m. It is found that the Tunnel face bolts enhance stability of the front surrounding rocks of
reinforcing strength for tunnel face stabilization is larger as the length of tunnel face, and pre-reinforcement measures surrounding tunnel can
unsupported section increases. However, in actual works, reinforcing improve stability of surrounding rocks of unsupported section.

120 Fig. 14. Relation of tunnel face support force to length of

Tunnel Face Support Force p2 (kPa)

unsupported section.

100
5-wu
80 10-wu
5-k0
60 10-k0
15-k0
40 15-wu
25-wu
20 25-k0

0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Length of Unsupported Section (m)

10
 Z. Zhang et al. Computers and Geotechnics xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

100 Fig. 15. Tunnel face support forces vs. tunnel depths.
Tunnel Face Support Force p2 (kPa)

80

L0-wu
60
L0-k0
L3-k0
40
L3-wu
L6-wu
20
L6-k0

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60

-20
Tunnel Depths h (m)

100 Fig. 16. Relation of tunnel face support force to support

force for unsupported section.
Tunnel Face Support Force p2 (kPa)

5-L2-wu
80
5-L2-k0
60
5-L6-wu
40
5-L6-k0
20
10-L2-wu
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 10-L2-k0
-20
10-L6-wu
-40
10-L6-k0
-60

-80
Support Force for Unsupported Section (kPa)

70 Fig. 17. Relation of tunnel face support force to reinforcing

strength for tunnel face.
Tunnel Face Support Force p2 (kPa)

60
50 5-L0
40 5-L2
30 5-L4
20 10-L0
10 10-L2
0 10-L4
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
-10
-20
-30
Reinforcing Strength for Tunnel Face (kPa)

4. Comparison and Analysis of Models Based on Different Theories
(1) Impact of internal friction angle
Fig. 18 shows the relation curve of tunnel face support forces vs.
internal friction angles of soil body with limit equilibrium method and
limit analysis method. In addition, when compared with the tunnel face
support force with limit analysis in the reference Yoo et al. [18], it is
found from the diagram that the three results are under the same law.
However, the results with the limit analysis method in this paper is
slightly lower than that in the reference, and the results with the limit
equilibrium method in this paper is slightly higher than that in the
reference. The results obtained by the limit equilibrium method is
larger than that obtained by limit analysis method, showing that the
former is more conservative.
(2) Impact of cohesive force
Fig. 19 shows the curves for variation relations of tunnel face sup-
port forces to cohesive forces of soil body in the limit analysis model
and limit equilibrium model. For the same parameters, results from
limit equilibrium slice method are slightly higher than those from limit
analysis upper bound method, showing that the former is more

11
 Z. Zhang et al. Computers and Geotechnics xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

200 Fig. 18. Relation of tunnel face support forces to internal

Tunnel Face Support Force p2 (kPa)

friction angles in two models.

180
160
140
120
Limit Equilibrium Method
100
80 Literature (Yang Feng)

60 Limit Analysis Method

40
20
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Internal Friction Angle ij

140 Fig. 19. Relation of tunnel face support forces to cohesive forces
in two models.
Tunnel Face Support Force p2 (kPa)

120

100

80
literature (Yang Feng)
60 limit analysis method

40 limit equilibrium method

20

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
-20
Cohesive Forces c (kPa)

150 Fig. 20. Relation of tunnel face support forces

to reinforcing strengths for tunnel face in two
Tunnel Face Support Force p2 (kPa)

125 models.

100
limit equilibrium method (at 5m depths)
75
limit analysis method (at 5m depths)
50
limit equilibrium method (at 10m depths)
25
0 limit analysis method (at 10m depths)
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175
-25
-50
-75
-100
Reinforcing strengths for Tunnel Face (kPa)

conservated. The results from the two methods are close to those in the
Ref.[18], with the same trend. It can be seen that the theoretical ana-
lysis models in this paper have certain accuracy.
(3) Impact of reinforcing strength for tunnel face
Fig. 20 shows the curves for comparative relations of reinforcing
strength per area of tunnel face bolt to support force p2 for tunnel face
in the two kinds of analysis models. As reinforcing strengths increase,
tunnel face support forces decrease linearly in the two models. By the
limit equilibrium method, the slope variation of the relation curve of
tunnel face support force and tunnel face reinforcing strength is not
large as the tunnel depth increases. If the tunnel face reinforcing
strength is fixed, the support force required for tunnel face stabilization
should increase with the tunnel depth. By the limit analysis method, the
relation curve of tunnel face support force and tunnel face reinforcing
strength is nearly unchanged, showing irrelevant to the tunnel depth.
Based on the comparison of the above results obtained by two

12
Z. Zhang et al.
methods, it is demonstrated that the limit equilibrium method is ap-
plicable to the analysis on tunnel face stability with a small tunnel
depth, whereas the limit analysis method is applicable to the analysis
on tunnel face stability with a large tunnel depth. Under the same
conditions, the tunnel face support force obtained by the limit equili-
brium method is larger, implying more stability.
5. Conclusions
The limit equilibrium method is employed to establish a horizontal
slice model on the tunnel face stability. In particular, an equivalent
pressure coefficient is proposed to analyze the reinforcement of tunnel
face bolts. Based on the calculations, it is found that the stability of
surrounding rocks can be improved if the shear strength of the front soil
body is enhanced, and the limit support force is reduced. Furthermore,
the support force required to maintain the stability decreases linearly as
the reinforcing strength increases, and the decrease trends at different
tunnel depths are the same. The larger the tunnel depth, the larger the
support force required for tunnel face stability. Based on the limit
analysis of the upper bound theorem, a face failure model is also es-
tablished in order to investigate the effects of unsupported section and
pre-reinforcement on the stability. It is revealed that tunnel depth and
length of the supported section take effects on the support force only if
the friction angle is smaller than 30°. If the length of unsupported
section increases, the limit support force will increases accordingly.
Moreover, the limit support force shows a linear decrement for the
unsupported section, and the support force can be increased to reduce
the support face required for the stability. It is also found that the
tunnel face bolts can effectively increase the shearing strength of the
front core soil. However, the strength of surrounding rocks cannot be
enhanced too much because such a enhancement is not economical and
effective. We therefore suggest that in practice, tunnel face bolts should
be used with pre-reinforcement measures surrounding the tunnel so
that the bolts can enhance the stability of the front surrounding rocks of
tunnel face, and the pre-reinforcement measures surrounding tunnel
can improve the stability of surrounding rocks of unsupported sections.
Finally, based on the comparison analysis, it is demonstrated that the
variation trends of support force with the above relevant factors are
almost the same in the two kinds of stability models, indicating the
promising and wide applications of the proposed method.
13
Computers and Geotechnics xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Acknowledgments
The authors are very grateful for the funding from the National Key
Research and Development Program of China (2016YFC0802202), the
General Program of National Natural Science Foundation of China
(51478396, 51678503, 51578456 and 51378434).
References
[1] Broms BB, Bennermark H. Stability of clay at vertical openings. J Soil Mech Found
Divis 1967;93(1):71–94.
[2] Davis EH, Gunn MJ, Mair RJ, et al. The stability of shallow tunnels and underground
opening in cohesive material. Geotechnique 1980;30(4):397–416.
[3] Leca E, Dormieux L. Upper and lower bound solutions for the face stability of
shallow circular tunnels in frictional material. Geotechnique 1990;40(4):581–606.
[4] Soubra AH, Kinematical approach to the face stability analysis of shallow circular
tunnels. In: Proceedings of the 8th international symposium plasticity, British
Columbia, Canada; 2002. p. 443–45.
[5] Soubra AH. Three-dimensional Face Stability Analysis of Shallow Circular Tunnels.
International Conference on Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, Melbourne,
Australia. November, 2000, p. 19–24.
[6] Maidl B, Herrenknecht M, Anheuser L, Mechanised Shield Tunnelling. Ernst & Sohn;
1996. p. 45–53.
[7] Mollon G, Dias D, Soubra AH. Rotational failure mechanisms for the face stability
analysis of tunnels driven by a pressurized shield. Int J Numer Anal Meth Geomech
2011;35(12):1363–88.
[8] Han KH, Zhang CP, Zhang DL, Upper-bound solutions for the face stability of a
shield tunnel in multilayered cohesive–frictional soils. Comput Geotech
2016;23(3):79:1–9.
[9] Zhao MH, Mao T, Niu HY, et al. Analysis of limit supporting force of tunnel ex-
cavation face for shield machine in upper-hard lower-soft ground. J Hunan Univ
(Nat Sci) 2016;43(1):103–9.
[10] Qin JS, Study on Excavation Face Deformation and Failure Mechanism in Shield
Tunneling. P.h.D. Thesis, Hohai University, Nanjing, China; 2005.
[11] Huang ZR, Zhu W, Liang JH, et al. A study on the limit support pressure at ex-
cavation face of shield tunneling. China Civ Eng J 2006;39(10):112–6.
[12] Zhou XW, Pu JL, Bao CG. Study on stability mechanism and relaxed soil pressure in
sandy soil during excavation. J Yangtze River Sci Res Inst 1999;16(4):9–14.
[13] Kamata H, Mashimo H. Centrifuge model test of tunnel face reinforcement by
bolting. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 2003;18(2–3):205–12.
[14] Chambon P, Corté JF. Shallow tunnels in cohesionless soil stability of tunnel face. J
Geotechn Eng 1994;120(7):1148–65.
[15] Yang F, Yang JS, Zhao LH. Collapse Mech Support Press Shallow Tunnel Face. Chin
J Geotech Eng 2010;32(2):279–84.
[16] Chen WF, Liu XL. Limit analysis in soil mechanics. Elsevier Press; 1990.
[17] Porbaha A, Zhao AG, Kobayashi M, et al. Upper bound estimate of scaled reinforced
soil retaining walls. Geotext Geomembr 2000;18(6):403–13.
[18] Yoo C. Finite-element analysis of tunnel face reinforced by longitudinal pipes.
Comput Geotech 2002;28(1):73–94.