Torino, 19-24 June 2005

Keynote Lecture

Numerical Analysis in the Design of Urban Tunnels

Michael Kavvadas
Assoc. Professor of Civil Engineering

NATIONAL TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF ATHENS

SCHOOL OF CIVIL ENGINEERING – GEOTECHNICAL DEPARTMENT

Numerical Analysis in the Design of Urban Tunnels

Lecture Outline

1. Characteristics of urban tunnels

• Need to control ground deformations
• Numerical analyses to predict ground deformations

2. Tunnelling methods in urban areas (to control settlements)

• Emphasis on pre-convergence and face pre-treatment

3. Methods of numerical analysis

• Continuum / discontinuum modelling
• Continuum 3-D modelling :
Analysis of pre-convergence & face pre-treatment (for design)
Estimation of ground parameters (E) by monitoring extrusion
• Continuum 2-D modelling :
How to model the 3-D problem in 2-D (in a cross-section)
 Main characteristics of urban (shallow) tunnels
Minimisation of ground surface displacements
Modern multi-
multi storey
building North/South Line, Amsterdam

Historic buildings

Street level

Soft clay
First sand layer
Soft silt
Timber piles
Second sand layer

Stiff clay 6.5m diameter tunnels

Main characteristics of urban tunnels

Minimisation of ground surface displacements
Surface settlement trough above an advancing tunnel

Adv
anc
e
Tu
nn
el

Settlement depends on ground, depth, diameter and excavation method

Causes of ground surface displacements :
1. Ahead of tunnel face : Axial face extrusion (radial pre-convergence)
2. Behind tunnel face : radial convergence

TUNNEL

Minimisation of ground surface displacements

Relative contribution of pre-convergence and convergence

Convergence
SUPPORT IS INSTALLED
In a properly supported
non-TBM tunnel, 70-80%
of total surface settlement
is due to deformations
ahead of tunnel face
In TBM tunnels the fraction
varies significantly (< 70%)
Pre-convergence
depending on the method

Conclusion :
In non-TBM tunnels,
Face
extrusion control of pre-convergence
(face extrusion) is critical
in urban tunnelling
 Control of pre-convergence is contrary to the basic NATM principle
of mobilising rockmass strength by deformation
This NATM principle is mainly applicable in mountain tunnels

Mountain tunnels :
• Stability is critical
• Deformation not critical
(usually desirable)
Urban tunnels :
• Deformation critical : to
be minimised
• Stability is ensured by
controlling deformation

Support load Calculation of deformations

requires numerical modelling
(important in urban tunnels)

Urban tunnelling methods

Minimisation of pre-convergence & convergence

Tunnelling Minimisation of Minimization of

method pre-convergence convergence
Adequate face support : Control cutter-head overcut
TBM Pressure control (closed) and
Cutter-head openings (open) tail-void grouting

NATM Multiple drifts

(North of Alps) (uR ∝ D) Stiff support
SATM Early closure of ring
Face pre-treatment
(South of Alps)

Emphasis on pre-convergence, since

it controls 70-80% of total settlement
Urban tunnelling methods : TBM tunnelling
Control of pre-convergence by face pressure
and ground conditioning in closed-face machines

Slurry shield EPB shield

p screw
conveyor

p=0

bentonite excavated soil

(pressure p) (pressure p)

Urban tunnelling methods : TBM tunnelling

Control of pre-convergence by the size
of cutter-head openings in open face machines

Athens Metro – 9.5m dia. open TBM

Urban tunnelling methods : TBM tunnelling
Inadequate control of pre-convergence by ground raveling
caused by too large cutterhead openings in open TBM

Athens Metro (1998)

Urban tunnelling methods : NATM tunnelling (North of Alps)

Control of pre-convergence by multi-drifting (uR ∝ D)

Excavation with side-drifting and central pillar

Athens Metro – Acropolis Station : excavation in“schist” (phyllite)
Urban tunnelling methods : NATM tunnelling (North of Alps)
• Control of pre-convergence by multi-drifting (uR ∝ D)
• Control of convergence by stiff support and early closure of ring

Urban tunnelling methods : SATM tunnelling (South of Alps)

Control of pre-convergence by face pre-treatment
1. Face protection methods : Reduction of σ1 ahead of tunnel face

1.1 Pipe-roofing (forepoling umbrella)

Each forepole works independently

along its length (in bending)
σ1

σ1
 Steel sets embedded
in shotcrete

Steel sets
Forepoles

Fiber-glass nails
Shotcrete
application

Face pre-treatment : Forepoling umbrella

1. Face protection methods : Reduction of σ1 ahead of tunnel face

Face protection using forepoling umbrella : How it works

σ1
Excavation reduces σ3 to zero
σ1 causing face instability.

σ3 Forepoling :
The presence of a stiff beam
reduces the major (vertical)
stress (σ1) on the face

open face

geostatic
Δσ1
 Urban tunnelling methods : SATM tunnelling (South of Alps)
Control of pre-convergence by face pre-treatment
1. Face protection methods : Reduction of σ1 ahead of tunnel face

1.2 Improved arch above tunnel crest

Grouted umbrella arch method

Grouted umbrella arch

arch

σ1

Control of pre-convergence by face pre-treatment

1. Face protection methods : Reduction of σ1 ahead of tunnel face
1.2 Improved arch above tunnel crest

Φ 1.2m pipes

Athens Metro : Monastiraki Station (18m wide span)

micro-tunnel pipe arch (bicycle chain)
1. Face protection methods : Reduction of σ1 ahead of tunnel face
1.3 Vertical nails (or piles) from ground surface

ATHENS
METRO

Tension elements reduce σ1

σ1

Urban tunnelling methods : SATM tunnelling (South of Alps)

Control of pre-convergence by face pre-treatment
2. Face reinforcement methods : Increase of σ3 ahead of tunnel face

Face reinforcement with fibre-glass nails

2. Face reinforcement methods : Increase of σ3 ahead of tunnel face
FG-nails Face reinforcement with
fibre-glass nails

Lateral confinement (σ3) :

σ3 P n Fy
σ3 = =
A ( FS F ) A
Factor of safety before nailing :
2
FSo =
(1 − λ ) N s
2 po
Ns = σ1 = (1-λ) po
σ3 σ cm
po = geostatic stress
1 ⎛ σ3 ⎞ 2⎛ φ⎞
Factor of safety with FG-nails : FS = FSo + ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ tan ⎜ 45 + ⎟
(1 − λ ) ⎝ po ⎠ ⎝ 2⎠

Urban tunnelling methods : SATM tunnelling (South of Alps)

Control of pre-convergence by face pre-treatment
3. Face improvement methods : Increase of cohesion ahead of tunnel face
Face grouting
Face improvement
using grouting

Grouting : increases cohesion (Δc)

Factor of safety before grouting :

2
FSo =
(1 − λ ) N s
2 po
Ns = σ1 = (1-λ) po
σ cm

2 ⎛ Δc ⎞ ⎛ φ⎞
Factor of safety after grouting : FS = FSo + ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ tan ⎜ 45 + ⎟
(1 − λ ) ⎝ po ⎠ ⎝ 2⎠
 Control of pre-convergence by face pre-treatment
3. Face improvement methods : Increase of cohesion ahead of tunnel face
Face improvement using grouting

Athens Metro

Athens Metro : Ground improvement ahead of TBM (via a pilot tunnel)

using fiber-glass anchors and TAM grouting

Numerical Analysis in the Design of Urban Tunnels

Lecture Outline

1. Characteristics of urban tunnels

2. Tunnelling methods in urban areas (to control settlements)
3. Methods of numerical analysis
• Continuum vs. discontinuum modelling
• Continuum 3-D modelling :
Analysis of pre-convergence & face pre-treatment (for design)
Prediction of ground parameters (E) by monitoring extrusion
• Continuum 2-D modelling :
How to model the 3-D problem in 2-D (in a cross-section)
 Urban tunnel design using numerical analysis

Tunnel excavation and support is traditionally an empirical art

Numerical analyses are useful in the following cases :
• Calculation of ground surface settlements
• Design of face pre-treatment in difficult ground conditions
(selection among alternative methods)
• Sensitivity analyses :
¾ Effect of locally inferior ground on the support system
¾ Comparison of alternative support methods
• Selection of most appropriate corrective action in case of contingency
• Assessment of ground properties ahead of the excavation face using
monitoring data (mainly face extrusion)
• “Legal” support of design decisions
(decisions based on “engineering judgment” rarely stand in courts)

Design using numerical analysis: Continuum / Discontinuum models

Influence of rockmass discontinuities
Continuum models
Intact rock strength
controls response

Discrete models
Structural features
control response

Continuum models
Rockmass strength
controls response
 Design using numerical analysis: Discontinuum models
Applicable : mainly in rock where structural features control response

1. Analysis of wedge stability (at roof and sidewalls) :

Typical numerical analysis using computer programs :

• UNWEDGE (for tunnels)
• SWEDGE (for slopes)

Design using numerical analysis: Discontinuum models

2. Analysis of tunnel excavation and support using discontinuum models :
Discrete Element Method: Calculation scheme e.g. programs UDEC (2-D) , 3-DEC (3-D)

2-D analysis of
tunnel face
stability:
UDEC Results
Kamata & Mashimo
(2003)

Kawamoto & Aydan, (1999)

 Design using numerical analysis: Continuum models
3-D models : Check face stability / design face pre-treatment

Modelling stages are direct : However :

1. Geostatic (initial conditions)
2. Installation of face support
3. Advancement of the excavation (one step)
4. Installation of side support
5. REPEAT steps 3–4 until new face support
6. Install face support …..
• Input preparation and output
presentation is often complicated
• Analysis is time consuming
• Improved accuracy may be
incompatible with the level of
knowledge of ground conditions

Design using numerical analysis: Continuum models / 3-D

Use of 3-D FE/FD models for face pre-treatment :

• Modelling face treatment
• Constitutive model (E-sensitive analyses)
• Knowledge of input ground parameters (E)
 Use of numerical analyses in assessing ground parameters
Ground parameters for tunnelling can be obtained by :
• Boreholes & lab tests : not very relevant
• Field tests (inside the tunnel) : expensive, slow and not very relevant
• Exploitation of excavation data (monitoring)
Wall convergence (not sensitive)
Face extrusion (very useful)

Use of numerical analyses in assessing ground parameters

Measurement of face extrusion by sliding micrometers ahead of the tunnel face

Lunardi & Bindi (2004)

 Use of numerical analyses in assessing ground parameters
3-D numerical analyses (using FLAC-3D) were performed to assess the magnitude
of face extrusion in terms of critical ground parameters (modulus E)
1.8
Purely elastic response for Ms > 4 L=1m , t=10cm
1.6 L=1m , t=20cm
uy,max = maximum extrusion L=1m , t=30cm
1.4
(at tunnel face)
1.2
uy,max / D (%)

unlined tunnel Spyropoulos, 2005

1.0
u y ,max
0.8 = 0.0004 M s−2.25
0.6
D
E
0.4
Ms =
0.2
1000 γ H 0.90 D 0.10
0.0
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40
0.90 0.10
Ms = E / 1000γH D

Maximum extrusion uy,max (at tunnel face) as a function of the controlling ground
parameter Ms. Extrusion is not influenced by the installation of shotcrete lining
(thickness t) behind the face (distance L) ⇒ correlation uy,max & Ms is useful ⇒ E

Use of numerical analyses in assessing ground parameters

2.2

2.0
Purely elastic response for Ms > 4 L=1m , t=10cm
L=1m , t=20cm
1.8
uz,max = crown settlement L=1m , t=30cm
1.6 (at tunnel face)
crown settlement / D (%)

1.4
Spyropoulos, 2005
1.2
unlined tunnel
1.0 uz ,max
= 0.001 M s−1.80
0.8
D
0.6 unlined tunnel E
Ms =
0.4
1000 γ H 0.90 D 0.10
0.2

0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
0.90 0.10
Ms = E / 1000γH D

Crown settlement uz,max (at tunnel face) as a function of the controlling ground
parameter Ms. Crown settlement is strongly influenced by the installation of shotcrete
lining (thickness t) behind the face (distance L).
Crown settlement cannot be used to assess the value of Ms ahead of the tunnel face
 Use of numerical analyses in assessing ground parameters

1.0

0.9 uy,max = maximum extrusion (at tunnel face)

0.8 uy = extrusion at distance (x) from tunnel face
0.7
Spyropoulos, 2005
0.6
uy / uy,max

uy
= (1 + e )
0.5 x
x R − 2
0.4 R

0.3
u y ,max
0.2

0.1

0.0
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00
x/ R

Extrusion uy as a function of the distance from tunnel face. Since the value of uy,max
is related to Ms ⇒ correlation uy & Ms (for any x/R) is useful ⇒E

Reduction of face extrusion (uy,max) by using FG-nails

1.6
Spyropoulos, 2005 n = number of FG-nails
1.4 F = mean axial force in FG-nails
A = tunnel section area
1.2 γ H = vertical overburden
without FG-nails
uy,max / D (%)

unsupported or supported with shotcrete

1.0
fG = 1000
0.8 fG = 4000 nF
f |G =
0.6 fG = 8000
Aγ H
0.4 E
Ms =
0.2 1000 γ H 0.90 D 0.10

0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Ms 1.2

Face extrusion can be reduced up 30 - 50% by installing FG-nails

 Reduction of crest settlement (uz at x=0) by using FG-nails
0.9
Spyropoulos, 2005 n = number of FG-nails
0.8 F = mean axial force in FG-nails
without FG-nails A = tunnel section area
0.7 unsupported γ H = vertical overburden
0.6
u z (x=0) / D (%)

without FG-nails nF
supported with shotcrete f |G =
0.5
Aγ H
0.4 fG = 4000

0.3
fG = 8000
0.2 E
Ms =
1000 γ H 0.90 D 0.10
0.1

0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Ms 1.2

Crest settlement is only slightly reduced by installing FG-nails

(and any reduction is masked by the shotcrete liner)

Reduction of face extrusion (uy,max) by using forepoles

3.0
Spyropoulos, 2005 fF1 = I / S (cm3),
I = moment of inertia of a forepole tube
2.5 without forepoles S = axial distance between forepoles
L = length of forepole overlap
fF1 =1 D = tunnel diameter
2.0
Purely elastic response for Ms > 4
uy,max / D (%)

fF1 =5

1.5 fF1 =10

E
fF1 =25
Ms =
1.0 1000 γ H 0.90 D 0.10
fF1 =50
fF1 =100
L / D = 0.40
0.5

0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 Ms 0.7

Practical forepoling applications correspond to fF1 < 20

 Reduction of crest settlement (uz at x=0) by using forepoles
1.0
unsupported fF1 = I / S (cm3),
I = moment of inertia of a forepole tube
without forepoles S = axial distance between forepoles
0.8
only shotcrete L = length of forepole overlap
fF1 =1 D = tunnel diameter

fF1 =5
uz(x=0) / D (%)

0.6 Purely elastic response for Ms > 4

fF1 =10
E
Ms =
0.4 fF1 =25 1000 γ H 0.90 D 0.10
fF1 =50
fF1 =100
0.2 L / D =0.40

Spyropoulos, 2005
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 Ms 0.7

Practical forepoling applications correspond to fF1 < 20

Design using numerical analysis: Continuum models

3-D models : Most suitable for face pre-convergence / face pre-treatment
2-D models : Analysis of tunnel cross-section (from 3-D to 2-D)

3-D model using FLAC 2-D model using PHASE2

Disadvantage : sophisticated Disadvantage : cannot model face
 Design using numerical analysis: Continuum models / 2-D
λ=1 0<λ<1 λ=0 The analysis is performed
by gradually reducing the
Zone 1
internal pressure “p”
Zone 2 unsupported
po = geostatic stress (isotropic)
supported
p = tunnel “internal pressure”

(ΙΙΙ) (ΙΙ) (Ι) λ = deconfinement ratio

p
λ = 1− ⇒ p = po (1 − λ )
po
Need to know λ= λ(x)
λ=1
0<λ<1 λ=0

(ΙΙΙ) (ΙΙ) (Ι)

Design using numerical analysis: Continuum models / 2-D

Use of deconfinement ratio (λ)
Deconfinement using Deconfinement using
section modulus reduction :
internal pressure reduction :
λ
p = (1 − λ ) po ⎡ (1 − 2ν ) (1 − λ )⎤
E=⎢ ⎥ Eo
⎣ (1 − 2 ν ) + λ ⎦
po = geostatic stress (isotropic)
Eo = ground E-modulus

Example : Example :
λ=0.70 ⇒ p = 30% po λ=0.70 ⇒ E = 10% Eo
Advantage : Good in anisotropic fields
 Use of deconfinement ratio (λ)
and equivalent “reduced modulus” E
Values of Ε/Εο for
λ p/po ν = 0.25 ν = 0.30 ν = 0.35
0.20 0.80 0.571 0.533 0.480
0.30 0.70 0.438 0.400 0.350
0.40 0.60 0.333 0.300 0.257
0.50 0.50 0.250 0.222 0.187
0.60 0.40 0.182 0.160 0.133
0.70 0.30 0.125 0.109 0.090
0.80 0.20 0.077 0.067 0.054
0.90 0.10 0.036 0.031 0.025

E (1 − 2 ν ) (1 − λ )
λ = 1 - p/po =
Eo (1 − 2ν ) + λ

Determination of the deconfinement ratio (λ) along the tunnel axis

uR(p) Tunnel wall displacement (uR)

varies along the tunnel axis

3-D model
uR(x)

2-D model x

Calculation method :
3-D model : uR = uR(x)
2-D model : uR = uR (p)
or uR = uR (λ)
Thus : λ = λ(x)
Standard diagrams are available
 Determination of the deconfinement ratio (λ) along the tunnel axis
⎛x ⎞
FLAC-3D : Spyropoulos, 2005 λ = f ⎜ ; Ms⎟
⎝R ⎠
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
x/R 4
0
Purely elastic response for Ms > 4
-0.1
⎡ ⎛ k −1 ⎞
−⎜ ⎟ ⎤
2 ⎛ u
⎢⎜ R ⎟ ⎞ ⎝ K +1 ⎠
-0.2 λ = 1− ⎜ ⎟ − 1⎥
(k − 1)N s ⎢⎝ u R∞ ⎠ ⎥ FLAC3D
u R / u R,max (crest settlement)

-0.3 ⎢⎣ ⎥⎦
-0.4 Chern, 2000
−1.2
-0.5 uR ⎛ ⎡ ⎛ x ⎞⎤ ⎞
Unlu, 2003 = ⎜⎜1 + exp ⎢2.2 M s0.37 ⎜ ⎟⎥ ⎟⎟
-0.6 u R∞ ⎝ ⎣ ⎝ R ⎠⎦ ⎠
Panet, 1995 E
-0.7
Ms =
-0.8
1000 γ H 0.90 D 0.10
-0.9 TUNNEL curves plotted for Ms =0.20

-1

Excavation with side-drifting

and central pillar

40 mm surface settlement

Athens Metro : Acropolis Station

excavation in“schist” (phyllite)
 Numerical Analysis in the Design of Urban Tunnels

Conclusions
1. Ground deformations are critical
2. Estimates of ground deformations require 3-D numerical
analyses ( + ground model + ground properties)
3. Relevant ground properties (mainly E) can be obtained by
measurement of face extrusion & numerical back-analyses
(or use of the normalised graphs)
4. For many tunnel designers, 3-D analyses may seem too
sophisticated :
• Methods exist to analyse the problem in 2-D using the
“deconfinement method (λ)”
• Normalised graphs are available to estimate (λ) in
tunnels without / with face pre-treatment

Thank you ...

Athens Metro (Jan. 2003)

Collapse of a tunnel under construction (NATM)