2nd Eastern European Tunnelling Conference Athens, Greece

Tunnelling in a Challenging Environment 28 September - 01 October 2014

Making tunnelling business in difficult times Greek Tunnelling Society

Investigation of the influence of face pressure on surface

settlements in EPB mechanized tunnelling

1 1 1
F. Chortis , K. Tzivakos & M. Kavvadas

1
National Technical University of Athens, Athens, Greece
philipposchortis@gmail.com
ktzivakos85@gmail.com
kavvadas@central.ntua.gr

ABSTRACT: Mechanized tunnelling is a rapidly developing field in tunnelling, due to its significant contribution in
safe construction of shallow tunnels in urban areas. The paper presents a 3D simulation procedure for the
detailed description of shield EPB tunnelling (via the finite element code ABAQUS) and quantifies the influence of
TBM face pressure on ground surface settlements. The model is used to calculate ground surface settlements for
different values of TBM face pressure, geotechnical ground properties and tunnel depths. The purpose of this
parametric investigation is to indicate the sensitivity and the correlation between these parameters. An additional
aspect of the investigation is the determination of the critical value of TBM face pressure which controls face
instability in very weak ground. The results of the numerical analyses are presented in dimensionless diagrams
and demonstrate that the influence of face pressure on surface settlements depends strongly (apart from the
geotechnical conditions) on the magnitude of the geometrical gaps between the TBM cutterhead and the final
lining.

Keywords: Mechanized tunnelling, EPB, 3D numerical analyses, Face pressure, Surface settlements

1 Introduction
The excavation of a shallow tunnel with an Earth Pressure Balance (EPB) Tunnel Boring Machine
(TBM) is effective in terms of limiting unfavourable consequences in the urban field, such as excessive
ground surface settlements. During excavation, the tunnel face suffers loss of confinement resulting in
extrusion (horizontal displacement), redistribution of the stress field, development of plastic strains and
pre-convergence of the tunnel wall. This response can lead to excessive extrusion, even to face
instability and thus contribute to the development of excessive surface settlements. The prevention
from such an event is achieved with the stabilization of the tunnel face with the application and
maintenance of a face pressure by the EPB-TBM during the excavation process. The face pressure
contributes to the decrease of the deconfinement of the advance core in front of the tunnel face and
consequently restricts the deformational response of the tunnel face and decreases the pre-
convergence which is directly correlated with the surface settlements. The influence of face pressure
in shield-driven tunnelling has been investigated by Kasper & Meschke (2006a), Kasper & Meschke
(2006b), Nagel et al. (2012) and indicate a general trend of decreasing on surface settlements due to
an increase of the support pressure. This trend is also illustrated and confirmed due to grout pressure
variation (grout in fluid state) and demonstrates the significant role of grout on formulating the final
value of the examined parameter. It should be mentioned that in the aforementioned researches
consolidation procedure, due to grout pressure, is examined and its effect is proved to be a significant
aspect determining the progressive (time dependent) development of surface settlements. However,
though, in the frame of this paper, the existence of water and therefore the consolidation procedure
and its effect have been ignored and thus not investigated, while grout pressure has been assumed as
a constant parameter.

-1-
F. Chortis, K. Tzivakos, M. Kavvadas

2 Numerical Analyses
The problem is investigated via 3D numerical analyses using the finite element code ABAQUS. Two
numerical models were constructed in order to examine the role of the overburden height (H=16m=2D
& H=32m=4D measured from the tunnel axis level). The tunnel section was circular with diameter
D=8m and the total excavation length was L=80m=10D. The numerical model for overburden height
H=2D is indicatively illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Numerical model for overburden height H=2D

The excavation of the tunnel was carried out with a step sequence procedure that aims to simulate
precisely shield-driven tunnelling with an EPB-TBM. The scope of this procedure is the numerical
simulation of the cutterhead, the shield, the pressure that is applied on the tunnel face and the
geometrical annular gaps that exist in shield-driven tunnelling. Particularly, the excavation process
with an EPB-TBM through the numerical process is performed with the simulation of the following
parameters: (a) the gap between (i) the cross-section of the tunnel excavation and the shield (shield
tail gap or g st ) and (ii) the cross-section of the tunnel excavation and the segmental lining constructed
by the EPB-TBM (annular gap or g a ), (b) the pressure of the grout which is imposed on the cross-
section of the excavation and the segmental lining, (c) the filling of the annular gap with the grout
when the latter has become solid and has acquired its ultimate strength. This process aims to achieve
as far as possible a realistic simulation of the mechanized tunnelling with an EPB-TBM and deteriorate
the deviations of the real construction sequence. Analogous numerical simulation methods have been
proposed by Kasper & Meschke (2006a), Zhao et al. (2012), Lambrughi et al. (2012).
The causes of the annular gap between the cross-section of the periphery of the excavation and
segmental lining are the overcut of the cutterhead with respect to the shield, the tapered shield and
the installation of the segmental lining in the inner part of the shield (Maidl et al. 2012), where:
overcut: intentional over-excavation of the surrounding geomaterial outside the required diameter
which is necessary in order to assist steering of the EPB-TBM (especially to negotiate curves) and
reduce the friction on the shield
tapered or telescopic shield: shape of the shield in order to avoid excessive friction forces
between the shield and the surrounding geomaterial
installation of the segmental lining: installation of the segmental lining in the inner part of the
shield creates gaps due to the shield thickness and the tolerance gap between the shield and the
extrados of the rings of the segmental lining
In the frame of this paper the values of the geometrical parameters that have been adopted are the
following: (i) diameter of the excavation 8 m, (ii) diameter of the shield 8 m / 7.96 m (assumed
constant diameter without conicity), (iii) external diameter of the segmental lining: 7.7 m.
Consequently, the gaps that were formulated are the following: (a) shield tail gap (g st ): 0 / 4 cm at the
crown, (b) annular gap (g a ): 15 cm at the crown and the bottom / 17 cm at the crown and 13 cm at the

-2-
F. Chortis, K. Tzivakos, M. Kavvadas

bottom. The values of the aforementioned gaps vary due to the different values of the diameter of the
shield that have been investigated.
The numerical simulation of the EPB-TBM (Figure 2) consists of: the cutterhead which is modeled as
trapezoidal full face pressure that is applied on the tunnel face, the shield which is modelled with shell
elements and has constant diameter (no conicity) equal to the diameter at the tail of the shield (a gap
is allowed between cutterhead and shield to model the TBM overcut) and the excavation chamber, the
bulkhead and the backup system which are modelled with solid elements to account for the weight
and stiffness of the machine.

Figure 2: EPB-TBM

The segmental lining (Figure 3) is simulated as a cylindrical shell using shell elements. The
longitudinal joints (between segments) and circumferential joints (between rings) are assumed to be
infinitely stiff. The outer diameter of the segmental lining shell is smaller than the diameter of the shield
to model the tail gap. The lining shell is placed co-centrically with the shield.

Figure 3: Segmental lining

The grout (Figure 4) which fills the gap between the periphery of the excavation and the extrados of
the rings of the segmental lining is initially simulated with applied pressure (in its fluid state before
hardening) and with solid elements in its hardened state. The time dependent hardening response of
grout material on shield-driven tunnelling has been investigated and presented by Kasper & Meschke
(2006a & 2006b), Nagel & Meschke (2011), Ramoni et al. (2011), Lambrughi et al. (2012).

Figure 4: Grout (hardened state)

A contact law is being applied between the shield and the periphery of the surrounding geomaterial.
Particularly, an interface type between the two surfaces (periphery of the surrounding geomaterial and
shield) is formulated by a surface contact law, which is an exponential law between pressure and
overclosure. The parameters of this law are: (i) minimum clearance up to which the contact pressure is
zero and (ii) pressure at zero clearance.
A typical representative step of the numerical analysis procedure which is repeated until a steady state
condition is reached (Figure 1) contains the following sub steps:
remove of a cylindrical geomaterial body consisting of solid elements with length equal to one ring
length. This procedure simulates the excavation by one ring length.

-3-
F. Chortis, K. Tzivakos, M. Kavvadas

advance of the EPB-TBM (Figure 2) by one ring length by imposing prescribed displacements
remove of the face pressure from the previous location and application to the new location (new
excavation tunnel face)
installation of the segmental lining ring no n+1 consisting of shell elements inside the shield
(Figure 5)
application of a pressure, equal to the grout pressure, on the outer surface of ring no n and on
the corresponding geomaterial surface of equal length. This procedure simulates the interaction
between geomaterial and ring no n.
remove of the grout pressure applied on ring and geomaterial at ring no n and installation of
solid elements with the stiffness of the hardened grout. This procedure simulates that the grout
around ring no n has been hardened and acquired its ultimate stiffness.

Figure 5: Typical step of the numerical analysis procedure

The surrounding geomaterial was simulated as an isotropic linearly elastic-perfectly plastic material
following the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion with hexahedral, eight-noded, solid elements. The
segmental lining was modelled as an isotropic linear elastic material (deformation modulus E segmental
lining =30 GPa), with quadrilateral, four-noded shell elements. The grout was modeled as an isotropic
linear elastic material (deformation modulus E grout =1 GPa), with hexahedral, eight-noded, solid
elements. The EPB-TBM was modelled with solid and shell elements.
The geotechnical properties of the surrounding geomaterial were chosen so as to correspond to both
unstable or marginally stable tunnel faces where face treatment should be required, due to face
instability or excessive deformation (FS=0.70-1.10 for unsupported tunnel faces according to
Anagnostou & Kovari, 1994 & 1996) and to absolutely stable tunnel faces that do not require face
treatment to achieve stability (FS=1.80-3.10). In order to acquire a representative and wide range of
results for the trend of the under study problem the range of the geotechnical conditions that has been
adopted correspond to ( cs / ,m ) ratio values from 0.10 to 0.70. The deformation modulus of the
geomaterial has been estimated as 250*S u or 500*S u , where S u is the undrained shear strength at the
tunnel axis level (Bowles, 1997).
The range of the normalized face pressure corresponds, for the specific values of overburden height,
to realistic values in shield-driven tunnelling process. Particularly, the wide range of the values have
been adopted for the face pressure aims to examine in detail the correlation and the sensitivity of this
parameter with the under study magnitude of surface settlements.
The main symbols for the parameters used in the paper are defined in Table 1 and the range of the
numerical analyses parameters are presented in Table 2.

-4-
F. Chortis, K. Tzivakos, M. Kavvadas

Table 1. Definition of the numerical analyses main symbols

p fs : tunnel face support pressure
p grout : grout pressure (fluid state)
ho : horizontal geostatic stress before the excavation at the level of the tunnel axis level
o,m : mean geostatic stress before the excavation at the level of the tunnel axis level ,m =(1+K o )/2
cs : geomaterial uniaxial compressive strength c =2ctan(45+/2)
Uh: tunnel face extrusion (horizontal displacement weighted according to the vertical diameter)
S: surface settlements
Y/R: normalized longitudinal distance from tunnel face
X/R: normalized transversal distance from tunnel face

Table 2. Numerical analyses parameters

Category Parameter Symbol Values Units
Tunnel diameter D 8 m
Geometrical parameters
Overburden height H/D 2,4
Cohesion c 10-60 kPa

Friction angle 25,30,35 ()
Deformation modulus E 29-192 MPa
Geotechnical parameters Poisson ratio 0.30

Dilation angle /6 ()

3
Unit weight 20 kN/m
Geostatic stress ratio Ko 0.5
0.00, 0.05, 0.10,
Normalized face
p fs / ho 0.20, 0.25, 0.50,
Pressure parameters support pressure
0.75, 1.00
Grout pressure p grout 100 kPa

3 Results of the Numerical Analyses

The primary effect of tunnel face support pressure is the decrease of the extrusion and the plastic
zone at and ahead of the tunnel face, leading to: (i) the decrease of the pre-convergence and the
deconfinement at the tunnel face and the advance core and (ii) the reduction of surface settlements.
Figures 6 and 7 illustrate the decrease of the magnitude and the influence of the plastic deformations
and the reduction of horizontal displacements (extrusion) due to the applied face pressure, for a
representative numerical analysis that corresponds to a marginally stable, if unsupported, face.

Figure 6: Plastic deformations at the tunnel face for different values of tunnel face pressure (p fs / ho ), zero

shield tail gap and overburden height ratio H/D=2 (c=20 kPa, =25 , =63 MPa)

Figure 7: Horizontal displacements (extrusion) at the tunnel face for different values of tunnel face

pressure (p fs / ho ), zero shield tail gap and overburden height ratio H/D=2 (c=20 kPa, =25 , =63 MPa)

-5-
F. Chortis, K. Tzivakos, M. Kavvadas

The influence of face pressure on surface settlements is dominantly determined by the geotechnical
conditions ratio ( cs / ,m ) and the shield tail gap. Particularly, for a marginally stable, if unsupported,
face, after the completion of the convergence - confinement procedure and the interaction between
the periphery of the excavation and the segmental lining via grout and consequently with equilibrium
state achieved, although the final magnitude of the surface settlements depends on the shield tail gap,
the influence range of face pressure is different. The variation of the distribution and the shape of the
longitudinal and transversal profiles of surface settlements is larger for zero shield tail gap, in
comparison with shield tail gap 4cm, as presented in Figure 8. This diversification derives from the fact
that the mechanism and the causes of volume loss that is directly correlated with settlements depend
on the g st . Specifically, for zero g st the volume loss is absolutely developed and controlled by the
stress redistribution at the tunnel face and ahead of it at the advance core. On the contrary, for non
zero g st the dominant aspect of the volume loss procedure is determined or influenced in a significant
degree by the redistribution on stress and strain field due to the g st . It should be mentioned that the
heaves observed at the transversal profile of surface settlements are mainly due to the constitutive
model used to simulate the geomaterial behaviour (Mohr-Coulomb faillure criterion). Particularly, this
response derives from the assumption of same value of deformation modulus of the geomaterial either
for loading or unloading.
The influence of face pressure on extrusion is more effective in comparison with surfaces settlements
as shown in Figure 9. Particularly, the percentage reduction of extrusion due to face pressure increase
is larger and is approximately of the same degree regardless of the shield tail gap value. Furthermore,
it should be mentioned that extrusion at the tunnel face is larger for non zero g st which confirms the
different redistribution mechanism that is developed.

0.000 -0.001
longitudinal profile S (m)

transversal profile S (m)

gst=0 0.000
0.001
E=500*Su
0.001
0.002
0.002
0.003
0.003

0.004 tunnel face gst=0

0.004 tunnel vertical axis
E=500*Su
shield end
0.005 0.005
16 12 8 4 0 -4 -8 -12 -16 20 16 12 8 4 0 -4 -8 -12 -16 -20
(Y/R) (X/R)

0.000 -0.005
longitudinal profile S (m)

transversal profile S (m)

gst=4cm 0.000
0.005
E=500*Su
0.005
0.010
0.010
0.015
0.015
shield end
0.020 tunnel face gst=4cm
0.020 tunnel vertical axis
E=500*Su

0.025 0.025
16 12 8 4 0 -4 -8 -12 -16 20 16 12 8 4 0 -4 -8 -12 -16 -20
(Y/R) (X/R)
pfs/ho=1.00 pfs/ho=0.50 pfs/ho=0.25 pfs/ho=0.20 pfs/ho=0.10 pfs/ho=0.05 pfs/ho=0.00

Figure 8: Longitudinal & transversal profile of surface settlements for different values of tunnel face
pressure (p fs / ho ) and shield tail gap, overburden height ratio H/D=2 and deformation modulus E=500*S u

(c=20 kPa, =25 , =63 MPa)

-6-
F. Chortis, K. Tzivakos, M. Kavvadas

1.0 1.0
gst=0 gst=4cm
0.8 0.8
e=500*Su E=500*Su
0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
(Z/R)

(Z/R)
0.0 0.0
-0.2 -0.2
-0.4 -0.4
-0.6 -0.6
-0.8 -0.8
-1.0 -1.0
-0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07
extrusion Uh (m) extrusion Uh (m)
pfs/ho=1.00 pfs/ho=0.50 pfs/ho=0.25 pfs/ho=0.20 pfs/ho=0.10 pfs/ho=0.05 pfs/ho=0.00

Figure 9: Horizontal displacements (extrusion) at the tunnel face for different values of tunnel face
pressure (p fs / ho ) and shield tail gap, overburden height ratio H/D=2 and deformation modulus E=500*S u

(c=20 kPa, =25 , =63 MPa)

The distribution of surface settlements and tunnel face extrusion as a function of the of geotechnical
conditions ratio ( cs / ,m ) are presented in Figure 10.

0.000 0.07

0.06 H/D=2 & gst=0

0.001 H/D=2 & gst=0 E=500*Su
E=500*Su
settlements S (m)

extrusion Uh (m)

0.05
0.002 0.04

0.003 0.03

0.02
0.004
0.01

0.005 0.00
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
( cs /o,m) ( /
cs o,m)

0.000 0.07
H/D=2 & gst=4cm
0.005 H/D=2 & gst=4cm 0.06
E=500*Su
E=500*Su
0.05
settlements S (m)

extrusion Uh (m)

0.010
0.04
0.015 0.03
0.02
0.020
0.01
0.025
0.00
0.030 -0.01
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
(cs/o,m) (cs/o,m)
pfs/ho=1.00 pfs/ho=0.50 pfs/ho=0.25 pfs/ho=0.20 pfs/ho=0.10 pfs/ho=0.05 pfs/ho=0.00

Figure 10: Surface settlements and tunnel face extrusion for different values of tunnel face pressure
(p fs / ho ) and shield tail gap, overburden height ratio H/D=2 and deformation modulus E=500*S u , as a
function of geotechnical conditions ratio ( cs / ,m )

-7-
F. Chortis, K. Tzivakos, M. Kavvadas

The results of the numerical analyses indicate that for cs / ,m >0.3, that correspond to stable tunnel
faces that do not require face treatment to achieve stability (FS=1.80-3.10 according to Anagnostou &
Kovari, 1994 & 1996), the effect of face pressure is negligible concerning the surface settlements
(percentage change up to 1%), although it influences the extrusion and this response is independent
of the shield tail gap. For this range of values for geotechnical conditions, the arch effect of the
surrounding geomaterial is created sufficiently and contributes to the limitation of the disturbance that
takes place in the surface and affects the formulation of settlements.
On the contrary, for cs / ,m <0.3 that correspond to unstable or marginally stable tunnel faces that
require face treatment to achieve stability (FS=0.70-1.10) the decrease of face pressure results in the
slight increase of surface settlements. The slight increase of surface settlements depends on the
worsening of the geotechnical conditions ratio ( cs / ,m ) and is strongly determined by the value of the
shield tail gap. Furthermore, the results demonstrate that values of normalized tunnel face pressure
p fs / ho 0.50, even for values of cs / ,m that indicate poor geotechnical conditions, do not induce
surface settlements, regardless of the shield tail gap. Consequently, the critical value of face pressure
should be oriented to p fs / ho =0.50, in the sense that further increase of the magnitude of face
pressure does not entail decrease of the examined parameter. The percentage increase of the
magnitude of surface settlements, with baseline surface settlements those occurring for p fs / ho =1.00,
due to face pressure reduction is: (i) up to 10 % for non zero g st and (ii) up to 30 % for zero g st , for the
most unfavourable geotechnical conditions ratio ( cs / ,m ) examined. It should be mentioned that for
cs / ,m <0.3, some results for very low values of face pressure or zero face pressure (unsupported
tunnel face) are not presented, due to the fact that the prevention of tunnel face failure could not be
achieved for such low values of support pressure and consequently the numerical analyses could not
achieve an equilibrium state.
The influence of deformation modulus E on surface settlements is presented in Figure 11. In order to
quantify its influence, the numerical analyses for zero shield tail gap were carried out for the half value
of deformation modulus (E=250*S u ) with all other the parameters being constant. The effect of the
reduction of deformation modulus is the increase of surface settlements and tunnel face extrusion, due
to face pressure reduction, in comparison to the values of these parameters that correspond to
E=500*S u (Figure 10). Specifically, the percentage relative increase of surface settlements is up to 40
% for the lowest geotechnical conditions ratio ( cs / ,m ) examined.

0.000 1.40

0.001 H/D=2 & gst=0

E=250*Su
1.30
settlements S (m)

SE=250*Su/SE=500*Su

0.002

0.003
1.20
0.004

0.005
1.10
0.006 H/D=2 & gst=0
0.007 1.00
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
(cs/o,m) (cs/o,m)
pfs/ho=1.00 pfs/ho=0.50 pfs/ho=0.25 pfs/ho=0.20 pfs/ho=0.10 pfs/ho=0.05 pfs/ho=0.00

Figure 11: (Left) Surface settlements for different values of tunnel face pressure (p fs / ho ), zero shield tail
gap, overburden height ratio H/D=2 and deformation modulus E=250*S u , as a function of geotechnical
conditions ratio ( cs / ,m ) - (Right) Surface settlements ratio for E=250*S u and E=500*S u , as a function of
geotechnical conditions ratio ( cs / ,m )

In order to illustrate in detail the effect of face pressure, the incremental reduction of tunnel face
support ratio (p fs / ho ) is presented, in Figure 12, as a function of tunnel face extrusion and surface
settlements for specific locations behind and ahead of tunnel face, for geotechnical conditions that
correspond to an unstable, if unsupported, tunnel face. The results illustrate the progressive increase
of extrusion which leads to tunnel face faillure (observed as excessive horizontal displacements in

-8-
F. Chortis, K. Tzivakos, M. Kavvadas

terms of numerical analyses) and progressive increase of surface settlements. The development of
excessive extrusion and surface settlements is observed for p fs / ho <0.1. The larger values of surface
pre-settlements appear at the tunnel face and ahead of tunnel face (Y/R0) which lead to the
development of large values of settlements as tunnel excavation advances.

0.60 0.000
gst=0
0.50
E=250*Su
0.010 gst=0

settlements S (m)
extrusion Uh (m)

E=250*Su
0.40

0.30 0.020

0.20 Y/R=1.0 Y/R=-0.5

0.030 Y/R=0.0 Y/R=0.5
0.10 Y/R=-1.0 Y/R=-2.0

0.00 0.040
1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0
(pfs/ho) (pfs/ho)
Figure 12: Surface settlements and tunnel face extrusion for zero shield tail gap, overburden height ratio
H/D=2 and deformation modulus E=250*S u , as a function of tunnel face pressure (p fs / ho ) (c=10 kPa,

=25 , =31 MPa)

The influence of overburden height ratio (H/D) is presented in Figure 13. In terms of surface
settlements the increase of overburden height ratio leads to the decrease of their magnitude, as the
stress and strain redistribution does not disturb in the same degree the initial stress state on the
surface. In addition, for higher values of overburden height, the arch effect of the surrounding
geomaterial is created sufficiently and contributes to the limitation of the range of the disturbed stress
and strain field in comparison to a lower value of overburden height. Furthermore, the results
demonstrate that for a larger value of overburden height the effect of the variation of face pressure is
negligible even for very low values of geotechnical conditions ratio ( cs / ,m ) that correspond to poor
geotechnical characteristics of the surrounding geomaterial and consequently refer to marginally
stable or unstable tunnel faces. In terms of tunnel face extrusion the increase of overburden height
ratio leads to the slight increase of its magnitude.

0.000 0.04

gst=4cm gst=4cm
0.005 0.03
E=500*Su E=500*Su
settlements S (m)

extrusion Uh (m)

0.010 0.02

0.015 0.01

0.020 0.00

0.025 -0.01
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
(cs/o,m) (cs/o,m)
pfs/ho=1.00 - H/D=2 pfs/ho=0.50 - H/D=2 pfs/ho =0.25 - H/D=2
pfs/ho=1.00 - H/D=4 pfs/ho=0.50 - H/D=4 pfs/ho=0.25 - H/D=4

Figure 13: Surface settlements and tunnel face extrusion for different values of tunnel face pressure
(p fs / ho ) and overburden height ratio (H/D=2 & H/D=4) and deformation modulus E=250*S u , as a function
of geotechnical conditions ratio ( cs / ,m )

-9-
F. Chortis, K. Tzivakos, M. Kavvadas

4 Conclusions
In mechanized tunnelling, the reduction of face pressure leads to the increase of extrusion at the
tunnel face, pre-convergence at the advance core and consequently surface settlements. However,
the degree of increase is larger for extrusion. The influence on surface settlements is dominantly
determined by the geotechnical conditions ratio ( cs / ,m ) and the shield tail gap. For stable, if
unsupported, tunnel faces, the effect of support pressure is negligible, since the arch effect of the
surrounding geomaterial is created sufficiently, regardless of the shield tail gap value. For unstable, if
unsupported, tunnel faces, the increase of surface settlements is strongly determined by the value of
the shield tail gap, due to the different mechanism and causes of volume loss and redistribution of
stress and strain field, that is developed. The percentage increase is: (i) up to 10 % for non zero g st
and (ii) up to 30 % for zero g st , in comparison to surface settlements for p fs / ho =1.00. The increase of
overburden ratio (H/D) restricts the effect of face pressure on the induced ground surface settlements.
The critical value of face pressure should be oriented to p fs / ho =0.50, in the sense that further
increase does not lead to decrease of the examined parameter. However, for p fs / ho <0.1 development
of excessive extrusion and surface settlements is observed. Particularly, the larger values of surface
pre-settlements appear at and ahead of the tunnel face which lead to the development of unfavourable
values of settlements as tunnel excavation advances.

5 Acknowledgements
This research was carried out in the frame of the European Research Programme NeTTUN: New
th
Technologies for Tunnelling and Underground Works funded by the European Commission (7
Framework Programme FP7) under Grant Agreement 280712.

6 References
Anagnostou, G., Kovri, K., 1994. The face stability of slurry-shield-driven tunnels. Tunnelling and Underground
Space Technology, 9(2), pp. 165-174.

Anagnostou, G., Kovri, K., 1996. Face stability conditions with Earth-Pressure-Balanced shields. Tunnelling and
Underground Space Technology, 11(2), pp. 165-173.

Bowles, J.E., 1997. Foundation Analysis and Design, 5th Edition, McGRAW HILL INTERNATIONAL EDITIONS.

Kasper, T., Meschke, G., 2004. A 3D finite element simulation model for TBM tunnelling in soft ground.
International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, 28(14), pp.1441-1460.

Kasper, T., Meschke, G., 2006a. A numerical study of the effect of soil and grout material properties and cover
depth in shield tunnelling. Computers and Geotechnics, 33(4-5), pp. 234-247.

Kasper, T., Meschke, G., 2006b. On the influence of face pressure, grouting pressure and TBM design in soft
ground tunnelling. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 21(2), pp. 160-171.

Lambrughi, A., Medina Rodrguez, L., Castellanza, R., 2012. Development and validation of a 3D numerical
model for TBM-EPB mechanised excavations. Computers and Geotechnics, 40, pp.97-113.

Maidl, B., Herrenknecht, M., Maidl, U., & Wehrmeyer, G., 2012. Mechanised Shield Tunnelling, 2nd Edition.
Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Germany.

Nagel, F., Stascheit, J., Meschke, G., 2012. Numerical simulation of interactions between the shield-supported
tunnel construction process and the response of soft water-saturated soils. International Journal of
Geomechanics, 12(6), pp. 689-696.

Ramoni, M., Lavdas, N., Anagnostou, G., 2011. Squeezing loading of segmental linings and the effect of
backfilling. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 26(6), pp. 692-717.

Zhao, K., Janutolo, M., Barla, G., 2012. A completely 3D model for the simulation of mechanized tunnel
excavation. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, 45(4), pp. 475-497.

- 10 -