Lea, E. & Domieux, L. (1990). Giotechnique 40, No.

4, 58146

Upper and lower bound solutions for the face stability of

shallow circular tunnels in frictional material

E. LECA* and L. DORMIEUX*

With the recent increase in underground urban L’utilisation croissante du sous-sol en site urbain
development as well as for transportation, tunnels ainsi que le dtveloppement des riseaux de trans-
need to he driven in increasingly dif&ult soil con- ports enter& conduit i construire des tunnels dans
ditions. In most cases the ground itself is not stable des conditions toujours plus difficiles. Dans la
and face stability is achieved by applying fluid plupart des cas le terrain est instable et ii est n&
pressure to the tunnel front. The question of deter- cessaire d’appliquer une pression de souttinement
mining the retaining pressure to he used has au niveau du front de taille. Le cboix de la pression
received special consideration in the past hecause I utiliser a fait l’objet de qombreuses 6tudes au
of the concern for safety during construction, and tours des derniLres an&es en raison des problemes
also hecause of the damage that could he caused to po&s pour de tels projets du point de vue de la
surface structures by the failure of a shallow &curiti en tours de construction et des cons&
tunnel. The problem is three-dimensional and can quences d’une rupture sur les structures situ&s en
he studied by using the limit state design method. surface. 11 s’agit d’un problbme tridimensionnel qui
Solutions are available for the case of a circular peut 6tre notamment btudii! par la mbtbode de
tunnel in purely cohesive ground, but very little is I’analyse limite. Des solutions ont dbjji &ti! propo-
known of the face stability of a tunnel driven in s&s pour le cas d’un tunnel circulaire en terrain
sandy soils. This Paper approaches this latter cob&rent, mais les connaissances sont encore lim-
problem from the point of view of limit analysis. it&es quant ai la stabilite du front de taille I’un
Both safety against face collapse and blow-out are tunnel creu& dans des sols sableux. Ce dernier
considered. Three upper hound solutions are problkme est examin dans le pr&sent article du
derived from the consideration of mechanisms point de vue de I’analyse limite. On s’intkresse h la
based on the motion of rigid conical blocks. The fois aux risques de rupture par effondrement et par
results are compared with lower hound solutions explosion. L’examen de trois m6canismes ha.6 sur
published in a previous article. A failure criterion is le mouvement rigide de blocs coniques permet
proposed for the tunnel face in the general case of d’ahoutir 1 une approche par l’extbrieur des condi-
a cohesive and frictional soil, and charts are pro- tions de stabilitb. Les rbultats sont comparb i
vided to allow a bracketed estimate of the required I’approcbe par I’int&ieur p&sent&e dans un article
retaining pressure. A comparison with centrifuge p&&dent. L’6tude ahoutit P la mise en C?vidence
laboratory tests shows close agreement between the d’un critere de rupture pour le front de taille dans
theoretical upper hound solutions and the face le cas g&n&al d’un sol frottant-cob&ent. On
pressures at collapse measured experimentally. propose igalement une drie d’abaques permettant
d’obtenir un encadrement de la pression de soutb
nement P utiliser. L’application I des essais en cen-
trifuge montre que les homes sup&ieures
obtenues analytiquement sont t&s proches des
KEYWORDS: limit state design/analysis; plasti- pressions mesuri?es exp&imentalement P la
city; research; sands; stability; tunnels. rupture.

INTRODUCTION conclusions were presented by Peck (1969) and

The stability of the front of a tunnel driven in more recently a more theoretical approach was
cohesive material has been studied by several proposed by Davis et al. (1980), which is derived
authors since the paper by Broms & Bennermark from the limit state design concept. Their results
(1967) on a stability criterion based on laboratory are supported by centrifuge model tests
extrusion tests and field observations. Similar (Schofield. 1980) and nrovide a more general
expression of the stability criterion, -which
Discussion on this Paper closes 5 April 1991; for further accounts for the effects of tunnel depth.
details see p. ii. Yet very little is known about the face stability
* Ecole Nationale des Ponts et Chaussees, 93167, of tunnels when the ground is characterized by a
Noisy-laGrand Cedex, Paris, France. Mohr-Coulomb yield criterion. This question

581
582 LECA AND DORMIEUX

has, however, received more attention recently pressed air, bentonite slurry or earth pressure
because of the construction of tunnels in increas- (EPB shield). In the case of this study err is
ingly difficult ground conditions and even in assumed to be constant, which best represents the
sandy materials. Some lower bound solutions case of compressed air, but also gives some infor-
were proposed by Muelhaus (1984); they essen- mation for slurry or EPB shields.
tially refer to the stability of the tunnel lining, but The ground conditions are also assumed to be
an estimate of the critical unsupported length uniform around the tunnel. The soil is modelled
behind the face is also provided. A more general as a Mohr-Coulomb material, characterized by
solution for the tunnel front is given by Leca & its cohesion c’ and its friction angle 4’. For such
Panet (1988). materials it is helpful to introduce the unconfined
This Paper addresses the problem of the face compression strength
stability of a tunnel driven in a Mohr-Coulomb
material from the point of view of limit analysis. c’ cos #J’
Uc = 2
The major difficulty of such a problem comes 1 - sin 4’
from the fact that it is fully three-dimensional. An
upper bound solution is derived from the and the Rankine earth pressure coefficients
analyses of three failure mechanisms. The results
obtained for the lower bound (Leca & Panet, 1 - sin 4’
K, =
1988) are re-examined and compared with the 1 + sin f#~’
upper bound solutions. This allows a bracketed
estimate to be made of stability conditions for the for active failure and
tunnel front. The critical pressures obtained from
this method are compared with experimental K = 1 + sin 4
P
results from centrifuge tests. 1 - sin 4
The construction procedure for shallow tunnels
in soils is described in the Paper by Davis et al. for passive failure. As an alternative set of param-
(1980). The problem can be idealized, as shown in eters uc and K, (or KP) can be used to character-
Fig. 1, by considering a circular rigid tunnel of ize the soil’s resistance. For a cohesionless
diameter D driven under a depth of cover C, i.e. material K, or K, can be used alternatively with
at a depth 4’. Dimensional analysis shows that this problem
can be analysed in terms of five dimensionless
parameters : C/D, a&,,
FM+; KA).
4~, Y%, and K, (or

The unit weight of the soil is y and a surcharge us

is applied at ground surface. The unsupported LIMIT ANALYSIS
length behind the face P is taken as zero (which is The purpose of limit analysis is to provide an
a reasonable assumption for shield driven tunnels) estimate of stability conditions for a mechanical
and a retaining pressure rrr is applied to the front. system regardless of the behaviour of the material
Such support can be achieved by using com- it is made of (Salencon, 1983, 1990). Stability con-

Sectm A-A

Fig. 1. Simplified geometry for tbe front stability of a shallow tunnel

 FACE STABILITY OF TUNNELS IN FRICTIONAL SOILS 583

Fig. 2. Bracketed estimate of the domain of supported loads

ditions for this system are derived in terms of the

loads that can be applied to the system without
causing its failure. An upper bound estimate of
such loads is found by considering a kine-
matically admissible failure mechanism for which
the power 8, of the loads applied to the system is
larger than the power P, that can be dissipated
inside the system during its movement (the upper
Fig. 3. Discontinuity velocity along the failure surface
bound theorem). On the other hand, any set of
loads for which a stress field can be found that
satisfies equilibrium and the material yield cri-
terion, is a lower bound solution (lower bound UPPER BOUND SOLUTIONS
theorem). Stability can be characterized by the Three failure mechanisms have been con-
domain .X of supported loads; .X is bracketed by sidered. They all involve the movement of solid
a lower bound domain Xx- and an upper bound conical blocks with circular cross-sections. The
domain X’. This is shown in Fig. 2 for the case opening of each cone is equal to 24’ and its veloc-
of a system subjected to a set of two loads Qi and ity Y is parallel to its axis (Fig. 4). Therefore con-
Q,.Any set of loads located inside X- is poten- dition (5) is satisfied along the failure surfaces
tially supported by the system while any set of between the moving blocks and the rest of the
loads outside X’ is unstable. The domain X is ground. The three mechanisms MI, MI1 and
convex, which means that if the two sets of loads MI11 are shown in Fig. 5. MI and MI1 are col-
Q’ and Q” are supportable, any linear com- lapse mechanisms, whereas MI11 refers to blow-
bination of these loads @’ + (1 - A@” where out failure. Even though safety against collapse is
0 < 1 < 1 is also supportable. In Fig. 2 any point a major concern during tunnelling, case MI11
M located on the straight line between A and A’ may be of interest for very shallow tunnels bored
is inside &‘- as long as A and A’ both belong to in weak soils, when the pressure (TVcan become

//fi\
X‘-. This convexity can be used to obtain an so great that soil is heaved in front of the shield.
improved lower bound solution.
For the tunnel problem analysed in this Paper
three loading parameters need to be considered: \ --_
\ \\
%lo, t %/UC7 and yDJa,.Since soil yield is con-
trolled by the Mohr-Coulomb criterion, the \\F--- \

TR
failure mechanisms must be chosen such that \\
along any failure surface X,, the angle ed between
the discontinuity velocity V,, and & (Fig. 3)
satisfies the condition

&<8*<rC-4 (5) V
Otherwise, the dissipated power P, is equal to
infinity and no upper bound solution can be Fig. 4. Conical blocks and kinematic conditions used in
derived from the mechanisms analysed. MI, MI1 and MID
 LECA AND DORMIEUX

(4 / A’
/ (?I’)

I /

Fig. 5. Mechanisms (a) MI, (b) MI1 and (c) MI11

Such a phenomenon has been observed during Xi2 between n and block 1; plane ri projects as
tunnelling projects (Clough et al., 1983). A on Fig. 5(b)). This ensures that plane x inter-
Failure is due to the collapse of one conical sects both blocks along the same elliptical surface
block in MI and two blocks in MII. The Zr2. Plane x is chosen such that the axis of the
geometry is a little more complex in the latter second cone is vertical. Therefore, both MI and
case: the first cone (block 1) is truncated by a MI1 are characterized by only one parameter, the
plane K perpendicular to the plane of symmetry of angle a between the axis of the cone adjacent to
the tunnel, which projects as A on Fig. 5(b). The the tunnel and the horizontal. MI11 is also char-
second cone (block 2) is a mirror image of the acterized by a (Fig. 5(c)); the geometry is similar
first with respect to plane rr’ (perpendicular to rr to that of MI except that the cone is inverted and
and going through the centre of the intersection the velocity reversed. It should be noted that for
 FACE STABILITY OF TUNNELS IN FRICTIONAL SOILS 585

The two collapse mechanisms are optimized when

u is chosen such that N, and N, are at maximum.
MI11 is optimized when Ns and N, are at
minimum. For all three mechanisms the coeffi-
cients N, and N, of the best upper bound results
will be respectively referred to as Ns’+, N,‘+ for
collapse and Nsb+, NYb+ for blow-out. The results
of these optimizations are summarized on
Fig. 7(a) for collapse and Fig. 7(b) for blow-out
failure.
In Fig. 7, optimal values Ns’+, N,” and Nsb+,
N b+ are plotted as functions of the depth ratio
CID for common values of the friction angle 4’
(20”45”). It was found that MIX provides the best
Fig. 6. Area of failure at the tunnel face upper bound for collapse in most cases except for
very shallow tunnels (C/D< 0.25) or friction
angle values smaller than 30”. MI and MI1 lead
all three mechanisms the intersection of the to similar results when C/D is greater than 1.0.
tunnel with its adjacent cone is an ellipse &,i the Fig. 7(a) shows that N,‘+ is almost always
major semi-axis length of which is equal to D/2 smaller than N,‘+ and is equal to zero for any
(Fig. 6). This implies that only part of the tunnel value of 4’ when C/D 2 0.6. This suggests that if
face is failing. However, limit analysis theory the actual failure conditions are similar to those
remains valid for such a geometry and upper predicted by MI and MII, the surcharge us will
bound solutions can still be derived from these have very little influence on face collapse, unless
three mechanisms. the tunnel is very shallow. For most conditions,
The derivations related to MI, MI1 and MI11 failure would not reach the ground surface and
are given in Appendices I, II and III respectively. MI as well as MI1 could be considered as local
In all three cases the power 8, of external loads collapse mechanisms. However, such mechanisms
Wffc > a&,, yD/u,}and the dissipation power could lead to some larger scale failure with the
P, are first calculated separately. An upper formation of sink holes, since a large amount of
bound solution is then found, given that in order soil would be left unsupported once initial col-
for the set of loads {as/u,, a&,-, yD/u,}to be lapse of the tunnel face had occurred.
stable, 8, and Pv must satisfy Another conclusion from the analysis of col-
PC < Pv lapse mechanisms was that the optimal values
(6) N Et NC+ are always obtained for essentially the
To interpret the results obtained in Appendices I, sa”,e’vaLe a’+ of parameter a
II and III it is convenient to rewrite the three
loading parameters a’+ N 49” - $

Qs = (K, - 1) z + 1 (7a) This means that in the plane of symmetry of the

tunnel, the angle of the critical failure surface to
the horizontal P+ = 49” + r&/2 is larger than the
QT = (KP - 1) 2 +1 angle of active failure in plane strain conditions
6, = 45” + #/2 (Fig. 8(a)). Therefore the area in
front of the tunnel which is influenced by the col-
Q, = WP- 1) $ (7c) lapse is more limited than in the case of a long
open cut. This could be seen as a stabilizing effect
due to three-dimensional equilibrium conditions
Then, relation (6) leads to upper bound solutions
around the tunnel face and would again need to
that can be put in the form
be compared to actual failures observed in the
NsQs+N,Q,GQ, (8) field.
The values of NSb+ and NYb+ computed for the
for collapse mechanisms MI and MI1 and
blow-out case, however, are large and increase
NsQs+N,Q,aQ, (9) sharply with the depth ratio CID,which is consis-
tent with the fact that such a failure would only
for blow-out mechanism MIII. In relations (8) occur with very shallow tunnels. The critical
and (9) Ns and N, are weighting coefficients that geometry is obtained when
depend on the angle a between the axis of the
cone adjacent to the tunnel and the horizontal. ab+ N 49” (11)
586 LECA AND DORMIEUX

e I N”,’ ’ ___ Iv,+

- --- NC,+
022 -
/
\
g’ = 20

0.16- \
\
\
0.16- \
\
\ I$’ = 25
0.14- \
\
\
0.12-\ \
\
\ lp’ = 30
O.lO- ‘\ \
\ \

0.06 - \ \ $’ = 35’
\ \
\ \
fp’ = 40”

f$’ = 45”

_ I’ = 20”
-L__
0.2 0.4 0.6 CID
(a1

Fig. 7. Upper bound values of Ns and N, (a) for collapse and (b) for blow-out
 FACE STABILITY OF TUNNELS IN FRICTIONAL SOILS 587

(W

Fig. 8. Critical geometries for (a) collapse and (b) blow-out

This means that the angle of the failure surface Outside the cylinder C,, which is tangential to
to the horizontal Sb+ = 49” - 4’ is smaller than the ground surface, the stress field is isotropic and
the angle of passive failure in plane strain condi- equal to 0s. Between cylinders C, and C, a solu-
tions 6, = 45” - @/2 for common values of 4’ tion for radial stress or and tangential stress bg is
(Fig. 8(b)). derived from solving the equations of equilibrium
with the assumption that the soil is at yield. SIII
is spherically symmetrical around the centre 0 of
LOWER BOUND SOLUTIONS the tunnel face. The stresses are isotropic inside
Some lower bound solutions for the case of a sphere S, and outside sphere S,, where they are
Mohr-Coulomb material have been published equal to rrT and us respectively. Between S, and
previously (Leca & Panet, 1988). They are based S, the radial stress ur and both tangential stresses
on three stress fields similar to those used by bg, B, are determined as for SII by solving the
Davis et al. (1980). These three stress fields SI, SII, equations of equilibrium with the assumption
311 are shown on Fig. 9. that the soil is at yield.
SI is a geostatic stress field and it can actually SI, SII and SIII all satisfy the equations of
be used in the general case of a soil with weight equilibrium and boundary conditions of the
(y > 0). In the geometry shown on Fig. 9(a), the present problem. Therefore a lower bound solu-
ground is divided in three layers: above and tion can be found from these three stress fields by
below the tunnel (y > D/2 or y < -D/2) the assuming that the yield criterion is not exceeded
stress field is also isotropic; in the layer located at in the soil mass. The derivations of these lower
tunnel depth (-D/2 < y < D/2) the horizontal bounds can be found in the paper by Leca &
component of stress along Oz is equal to a,. SII Panet (1988). The result can be put in each case in
and SIII both apply to a weightless soil (y = 0). the form of a double inequality. For stress field SI
Even though this assumption may not be realistic
in the case of a shallow tunnel the lower bound
derived from SII and SIII will be used to improve
the general solution obtained from the consider-
ation of stress field SI. SII is axisymmetric around
the tunnel axis. Within the cylinder C, which and
extends the tunnel in the Oz direction, the axial
stress is equal to (or and the radial and tangential
stresses to a constant value go, which is chosen
such that the ground is at yield everywhere in C,.
588 LECA AND DORMIEUX

os+yv-Y) ~s+Y(+Y)
+!I

a__________
I
-+ A
Section A-A

(b)

Fig. 9. Stress fields (a) SI, (b) SII and (c) SIII
 FACE STABILITY OF TUNNELS IN FRICTIONAL SOlLS 589

For stress field SII Table 1. Values of (C/D)* for

collapse and blow-out.
l'y (Kp- l)a&, + 1
+2;+1 (C/D)* (C/D)*
P ( >

1
WP - lb,/% + 1 collapse blow-out
20”
25”
30”
For stress field SIII 35”
40”
*(i’Kp- l) ~ (Kr - l)a$a, + 1 45”

( >
2;+1
(KP - l)or/ck
zw-
+ 1
1)
The coefficients Nsb- and Nsb- associated to SIII
<
( >
2;+1 (14) are, for collapse

N,‘-= 2;+1
2(1-KP)
It can easily be shown that the three sets of (19a)
( >
inequalities can be written with the same general
form as for upper bound solutions. i.e. for safety and for blow-out
against collapse Z(1-W
Nsb- = 2; + 1 (19b)
&Qs+N,Q,GQ, (15) ( >

and for safety against blow-out Relations (17) to (19) show that the estimated
lower bounds all depend on the depth ratio C/D
N,Q,+N,Q,~QT (16) and the friction angle 4’ of the soil. The values of
Nsc-, N,‘- and Nsb-, NYb- have been computed
In relations (15) and (16) Qs, Q= and Q, are for 4’ = 20”, 25”, 30”, 35”, 40” and 45” and
defined as in equations (7). The values of N, and plotted as a function of C/D (for C/D < 3.0).
N, related to the best lower bound will be These plots are shown in Fig. 10 for the general
referred to respectively as Nsc-, NYC- for collapse case (y > 0) and Fig. 11 for the case of a weigh-
and Nab-, NYb- for blow-out. A closed form solu- tless soil. Figs 10(a) and 11(a) refer to collapse
tion can be obtained for these coefficients; for and Figs 10(b) and 11(b) to blow-out. The results
stress field SI, we can find for collapse obtained from stress fields SII and SIII can be
compared on Fig. 11. For these conditions, NYC-
Ns’- = K, (174 and NYb- are equal to zero, and the best lower
bound is obtained when N,‘- is at minimum for
collapse and when Nsb- is at maximum for blow-
NYC- = K,
out. It is found, as in the case of cohesive material
(Davis et al., 1980), that this best estimate of the
and for blow-out lower bound is provided by SII for shallow
tunnels and SIII for deeper tunnels. The values
Nsbm = K, (17c) (C/D)*of the depth ratio, for which both stress
fields lead to the same value of Nsc- or Nsb- are
Nb- =K$ (174 given in Table 1.
Y D
DISCUSSION
For both SII and SIII, Q, is not present in the
From an engineering point of view, the param-
solution and NYC-, NYb- are thus equal to zero.
eters Qs and Q, are imposed by geometric and
The values of NSC-, Nsb- associated to SII are,
loading conditions, and the supporting pressure
for collapse
oT (i.e. the parameter QT) should be chosen such
that failure of the tunnel during construction is
N,‘- = K, (lga) prevented. The upper and lower bound solutions
derived can be written

and for blow-out N,Qs+N,Q,GQ, (20)

for collapse and
(lgb)
NsQs + N,Q, 2 QT (21)
590 LECA AND DORMIEUX

N”,-, N”,- i - w,
---- N”,-

-,N:“-
Nb, i - Iv,-
--__ e-
20

(b)

Fig. 10. Lower bouud values of N, and N, (7 > 0) (a) for collapse and (b) for blow-out
 FACE STABILITY OF TUNNELS IN FRICTIONAL SOILS 591
N,C~/:’ 0,
- SII
----- Sill

---- Sill
30 , I

I
01 , , , , , I I I I I I I I I
0 1 ’ 2 3 C/D
(b)

Fig. 11. Lower bound values of N, in a weightless soil (a) for collapse and (b) for blow-out
592 LECA AND DORMIEUX

for blow-out. This means that the value of Qr at Therefore only two loading parameters Qs/Qr
failure can be written and Q,/Qr need to be considered and the stability
of the tunnel front can be investigated in the
QT=NsQs+N~Q~ (2-a loading plane (Qs/Qr. Q,/Qr) by braketing the
domain Xx’ of the load combinations (QJQr,
where Qr, Qs and Q, are given by equations (7) Q,/Qr) that are stable. The procedure is shown in
and Ns, N, are weighting coefficients for loads Qs Fig. 12 for the case 4 = 20”, C/D = 0.5.
and Q, that can be bracketed from the values of Lines A,E, and A,& in Fig. 12 represent the
NsC- , Nsc+ , N,C- and N ‘+, or Nsb-, Nsb+, NYb- lower bound solution provided by the general
and N, bt derived previoYusly. In other words the stress field SI (y > 0). Since Xx’ is convex and con-
problem of the stability of the tunnel front can be tains A,, B, and B,’ (best lower bound solution
analysed by the same methods used for determin- for y = 0, i.e. Q,/Q, = 0) all points between lines
ing the bearing capacity of a foundation. The A,B, and A,B,’ belong to X’. For the same
analogy applies better to blow-out since the reason, all points between lines A, B, and A, B,’
ground is then failing when Qr becomes too large. also belong to X’. The lower bound estimate
Equation (22) actually provides a lower esti- Xx’- of X’ can in this way be extended from the
mate Qr- and an upper estimate Qr+ of the ulti- domain AlBIB A, to the domain A,B,‘B2’A,.
mate load Qr*. Qr- is found by using the lower From a practical point of view, this improved
bound values NsC- and N,,- for collapse and lower bound solution can be obtained for col-
N b- and N b- for blow-out; Qr+ is found by lapse, by rewriting relation (20) with NYC- taken
using the up& bound values Ns’+ and N,,‘+ for equal to the value found in case SI and with Nsc-
collapse and Nsb+ and Nrb+ for blow-out. In equal to the best solution found in the case of a
order to reduce the uncertainty on this estimate weightless soil (i.e. in case SII or in case SIII). For
of Qr*, the general lower bound solution (y > 0) blow-out, it can be obtained by rewriting relation
can then be improved by making use of the solu- (21) with NYb- equal to the solution found for SI,
tions obtained in the case of a weightless soil. and N,“- equal to the solution for a weightless
Relations (20) and (21) can also be written soil. This improved lower bound solution is com-
pared with the upper bound solution on Figs
N,G+N &l 13(a) and 14(a) for Ns values, and Figs 13(b) and
Qr ’ QT 14(b) for N, values.
For any value of the friction angle 4’ between
N,s+N &l (24)
20” and 45” and a depth ratio C/D between 0.0
and 3.0, the failure load Qr* can be bracketed by
QT ’ QT.

A Q,./ QT
I I I I
5- Upper bound for collapse
I I I I

4-
--- Lower bound from SI

. Best lower bound from SII

and Sill
3.

Fig. 12. Improved lower bound solution for the case I$’ = 20”, C/D = 05
 FACE STABILITY OF TUNNELS IN FRICTIONAL SOILS 593

4 1 --__ w-
Y

- NC,+
1 I /
o / 4, /’ & ,/’
8, r$ I’ ,/I
0, 1/,/ ,/‘, I

i I’ if 6!/ / Q/’
/’ ,/’ ,I’ / /’ ho”,’
/ /
I
,G /

I
/
/’
,

/’
/ ,,I’ Q, x’
/
/’ // ,/’ ,/’ /’
,I’
/’ /’ ,’
’ 1’ ,,’ ,,/ ,- +“-
I’ ,’
/’ TX’ ,Q.-
- /’ /’
,’ /
/’ / / ./’
I’ I’
/’ ,/ /’
/’ //’
0.5~,/’/’ ,,’ ,/’ ,’ ’ /’
.’

/’ / _,’ r’
I ,I’ ,/’ ,/’ ,,_. .’
f’ / /’ /’
/ /-
/
/’ ./’ I-
I’
/’
/’ ,-’ ,’
-,~‘,,,~‘//rl 0,’
,,’ ,.’ rp’ = 20”

Y- fp’ = 25”
, $5’ = 30”
_ @’ = 35”
-rp’ = 40
‘4)’ = 45
OI
0 1 2 CID
(b)

Fig. 13. Bracketing values of (a) N, and (b) N, for collapse

594 LECA AND DORMIEUX

NS
_____

- Nb+
5

N, -_-- &it-

- Nb'
Y

40

30

20

io-
_ q’ = 25”
_ @’ = 20”

O-
( 1 2
(W

Fig. 14. Bracketing values of (a) Ns and (b) N, for blow-out

 FACE STABILITY OF TUNNELS IN FRICTIONAL SOILS 595

using equation (22) together with Figs 13 and 14. internal diameter. Failure at the face was induced
Using the values of NSc- , NYC- from Fig. 13 by decreasing the face pressure Go. The soil used
provides a lower estimate QT of QT* for collapse. for the experiments was a dry fine sand
Using NSc+, NYC+ provides an upper estimate (Fontainebleau sand). The pressure gT. was
QT+ . The weighting coefficients for blow-out obtained by filling the cylinder with air (uniform
failure are given in Fig. 14. QT- is obtained by pressure) or with water (hydrostatic pressure). A
substituting Nsb- and NYb- for N, and N, in surcharge os could also be applied on top of the
equation (21), and QT+ by substituting Nsb+, model.
N Yb+ for N,, N,in this equation. Test results reported by Chambon & Corte
The case of a tunnel driven in a cohesionless (1989) show that (1) failure is sudden; (2) it occurs
material is of special interest. In this situation ~c when the face pressure is decreased to a small
is equal to zero and it is not possible to consider value r+/ (a few kPa); (3) for the range of values
the dimensionless coefficients a Ja,, U&T,- and considered, C/D has little influence on the limit
yD/a,. As a result, coefficients Q,, & and G, are pressure; (4) the failed area is bulb-shaped with its
not defined. However. it can easilv be seen that largest dimensions at face level; (5) this geometry
the pressure at failure CJ~ can be estimated by is not affected much by C/D or soil density; and
writing (6) failure does not reach the ground surface for
C/D > 1.0. The tests with compressed air support
oT= N,a,+N,yD (25) were run at two depth ratios, C/D = I.0 and
and by choosing N, and N, from Figs 13 and 14 C/D = 2.0. Two soil conditions were examined. A
as described previously. loose sand (7 = 15.3 kN/m3, D, = 62%), and a
dense sand (y = 16.1 kN/m3, D, = 86%). Shear
strength tests on these soils had shown that
COMPARISON WITH EXPERIMENTAL c‘ = 2.3 kPa, 4’ = 35.2” for the loose sand, and
RESULTS c’ = 1.1 kPa, 4’ = 38.3” for the dense sand. The
Having provided a simple method to estimate results obtained from the four tests are sum-
the value of the face pressure bT at failure, we marized in Table 2. The limit analysis estimates
may now apply it to typical conditions for the of the critical face pressures for these four tests
experimental study of face stability of tunnels in are also recorded in Table 2. It is apparent that
sands. In this way one can quantify the differ- lower bound solutions are significantly higher
ences between the predicted upper and lower than the upper bound values, as well as measured
bound values and establish the validity of the pressures at failure. On the other hand, the upper
method. In this application, it must be remem- bound estimates gT+ are in close agreement with
bered that oT acts as a retaining load for collapse. test results, with uTt values slightly lower and
Therefore upper bound estimates of the pressure almost identical to the pressures c+/ measured at
at failure (iT* should be expected to be smaller failure in the centrifuge.
than both oT* and the lower bounds. Other similarities between upper bound solu-
Centrifuge tests have been carried out in tions and experimental results are shown in Fig.
Nantes, France, to study the face stability of 15, in which the failure zone observed in the cen-
tunnels in sands (Chambon & Corte, 1989). In trifuge along the tunnel centreplane is represented
these tests, the tunnel was modelled as a rigid for the case of a loose sand for C/D = 1.0. The
cylinder, a soft membrane covered the front part critical geometry associated with the best upper
of the cylinder and allowed a supporting pressure bound solution is shown with dashed lines. Even
+ to be applied to the face. The centrifuge was though it does not extend in the vertical direction
operated at 50 g; at this acceleration level, the as much as the actual failure area, it coincides
80 mm cylinder modelled a tunnel with a 4 m almost perfectly with the observed surface in front

Table 2. Comparison between predicted and measured pressures at fake

CID y: kN/m3 Critical pressures predicted Measured pressures at failure

from limit analysis: kPa in the centrifuge: kPa

OI
+
QT- UT
1.0 15.3 29 2 6
1.0 16.1 29 3 3
2.0 15.3 46 2 4
2.0 16.1 44 3 4
596 LECA AND DORMIEUX

1 \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\<

Failure atea observed in the centrifuge

---- Crltlcal failure surface from llmlt analysrs

Fig. 15. Comparison between theoretical critical surface and observed failure area

of the tunnel. In particular the extent of failure with N, and N, estimated from Fig. 13 (collapse)
ahead of the tunnel face is the same as that or Fig. 14 (blow-out). These figures actually allow
observed. The large amount of failed material in one to bracket N, and N, between lower bound
the centrifuge over the tunnel crown, however, values N,‘- (or N,“-) and N,,- (or N,b-) and
could have resulted from the progression of upper bound values NQ+ (or Nsb+) and N,‘+ (or
failure in unsupported ground once face collapse NYb+). This way a lower estimate and an upper
had occurred. estimate can be found for the collapse load QT.
All conclusions remain valid in the particular case
CONCLUSION of a cohesionless soil as long as Qs, Qr and Q, are
The limit analysis concept has been used to assumed to be equal to es, eT and yD respec-
examine the stability conditions of the face of a tively.
shallow tunnel driven in a frictional material. The method has been applied to centrifuge
Safety against both collapse and blow-out have tests for the face stability of shallow circular
been analysed. Upper bound solutions have been tunnels in sands. Reasonable agreement has been
derived from consideration of three failure found between the theoretical upper bound esti-
mechanisms based on the movement of rigid mates and the face pressures measured at failure
blocks with conical shapes. The amount of in the tests. Other similarities are evident between
material involved in these mechanisms is limited, the critical failure mechanisms derived from limit
but such geometries could be representative of analysis, and observed failure areas in the centri-
initial ground movements that could lead to fuge. These conclusions support the idea that the
larger scale failures. In particular the results upper bound solutions are closer to the actual
suggest that if the predicted failure conditions are pressures at failure than the lower bound values,
close to the actual ones, the surcharge us has little and can provide reasonable estimates of critical
effect on face stability (except for very shallow face pressures.
tunnels), and the extent of the failure zone in front
of the tunnel is smaller than in the case of a long
APPENDIX I. DERIVATION OF THE
open cut.
UPPER BOUND SOLUTIONS ASSOCIATED
The upper bounds have been compared with
WITH MECHANISM MI
lower bounds published previously (Leca &
Panet, 1988). In both cases the problem reduces Geometric properties
to one of two loading parameters Qs/Q= and First, some geometric quantities need to be
determined, prior to the derivation of the external
QYIQT,with Qs, Q, and Qr defined above. It is power B, and the dissipation power P, associated
found that it can be treated similar to the method
used for determining the bearing capacity of foun- with mechanism MI (see Fig. 16). For this
dations, i.e. the critical supporting load is equal to purpose it is more convenient to consider two
cones W and ‘8’. Both cones have the same apex R
QT=bQ,+N,Q, (26) and the same axis A, but the base C of V is in the
 FACE STABILITY OF TUNNELS IN FRICTIONAL SOILS 597

Fig. 16. Geometry of mechanism MI

plane of the tunnel face (xOy), whereas the base Therefore, the area J& of the cone base is
r of W is at the ground surface. The moving
block ~8 corresponds to cone V minus cone r. Of ~ _ ~0' J[cos (a - 4’) cos (a + &)]
course only one cone, V, needs to be considered (31)
4 cos l#J’
when the ground surface is not reached.
Two axis systems are used: (0, x, y, z), associ- The same parameters can be determined for cone
ated with the tunnel and (a, X, Y, Z), associated v’. Its height h’ is
with the cones. The equations below allow trans-
formation between both co-ordinate systems.
sin 2ci - F sin 2f#/
x=x (27a) h’+
sin 2&
Y = 4 sin a tg@ - y cos a + 2 sin o! (27b) c’ is an ellipse, the semi-axis lengths of which are

D cos a
Z=- - - y sin a - 2 cos a sin 2a - y sin 24’
(27~)
2 tsdf D
(33a)
Both cones are characterized by the same equa- ” = Z 2 sin (a - 4’) sin (a + 4’)
tion with respect to co-ordinate system (Cl, X, Y,
Z)
sin 2~ - g sin 24’
x2 + Y* = tg%#J’z* D
(28)
” = Z 2 cos #&sin (a - 4’) sin (a + #)I
The height h of cone V is
(34b)
h = D cos (a - 4’) cos (a + 4’)
(29)
sin ~C#J Its area ~4’ is
Its intersection with the tunnel face (Fig. 16) is an 2
ellipse for which semi-axis lenths a and b are 4 sin 2a - $! sin 24’
KD= ( >
given by
d’ = 4 cos #[sin (a - 9’) sin (a + @)1312
D
a=-
2
(304 (35)
The volume Y, of the block is equal to
b = (a - 4’) ~0s (a + 4’11
D JCcos
(30b) Vs=Y-V-’
2 cos 4’ (36)
598 LECA AND DORMIEUX

where $‘” is the volume of cone W, and Y’ is the Velocity field

volume of cone v’. The moving block is rigid. Therefore all points
of the block have the same velocity
y _ nD3[cos(a - 4’) cos (u + qs’)]3’2
12
(37) V= Ve, (45)
cos 4 sin 24’
Plastic energy can only be dissipated along dis-
continuities and the dissipation energy per unit
3
area dP,JdZ is
f sin 2a - i sin 24’

’ cos 4’ sin 2&[sin (a - 4’) sin (a + #)13”

> (38)
dpv
~=C’Y-ncotc$’ (46)

The lateral area 9, of the block is equal to where n is the unit vector normal to the discon-
tinuity surface at the point where dP,/dC is com-
Y,=Y-Y (39) puted (Fig. 3). Since the angle Od between the
velocity Y and the discontinuity surface is chosen
where Y is the lateral area of cone %‘, and Y’ is
equal to $‘, equation (46) can be written
the lateral area of cone v’. An expression for Y
as well as Y’ is found by using complex number dP
integration --I = C’V cos Cp’
dZ

x-cos
a [cos(a - 4’) cos (a + $‘)I”’ Power of external loads
sin 4’ cos 4’ The power of external loads 9. has three com-
ponents
(40)
9, = 8, + 8, + Yr (48)
y’ = c ml u. where 8, is the power of the retaining pressure
4 sin #J’ cos 4’ trr , Ps is the power of the surcharge rrs, and S’r is
2 the power of the soil weight y.
f sin 2a - E sin 24’
( > B, = (are3 . (Ve,) dC
(41)
’ [sin (u - 4’) sin (a + #‘)13” ss I:
The expressions for Yb can be simplified once = -o,vcosad (49)
the following parameters are introduced
After substituting expression (31) for & we find:
R, = JCcos(c(- 4’) cos(a + 401
(424 pT= -$cos aR,a,V
cos fp’

R = cos (a - &) cos (a + #I The same method is used together with equations
B WW
sin 24’ (35) and (43) for determining 8, and qY.

cos ci
R, = - (42~)
w
(51)
R, = sin 2a - F sin 24’ (42d)
t--q) (Vez)dV
R, = &sin 2(a - 4’) sin 2(a + &)] (42e)
Equations (36) and (39) then become =yVsina*Y, (52)
that is to say
(43)
Rn2 R., R,
8, = $ 2 sin a sin 24’ 0, V (53)

1
nD= R,Rc R,= R,’ Rn3
$/,=-- 1 - 2 co3 f#hga -
4 cos Cp’ RE3 nD2 sin a
%=4 - 3 R,R.[I - ($+V (54)
 FACE STABILITY OF TUNNELS IN FRICTIONAL SOILS 599

Finally equation (48) can be rewritten where Ns and N, are obtained thus

1 Rn2
2 sin a sin 24’ -%?-J os N, = (61)
cos (24’) - cos (2a) R, tgcl

+ +x RB(, -; y D,V(55) N, = $R, tga

The best upper bound solution for MI is obtained

by choosing n such that N, and N, are at
Dissipation power maximum. These expressions only apply to cases
The dissipation power associated with mecha- where failure reaches the ground surface; that is
nism MI is to say for depth ratios C/D such that

sin 2a
P, = 2$+147
(56) sin 24’
If C/D is larger than [(sin Zu/sin 24’) - 1]/2 rela-
where dP,/dx is given by equation (47). Therefore tion (60) remains valid provided R, is set equal to
zero in equations (61) and (62).
P, = C’V cos 4’9, (57)

Y, has been determined in equation (44). If we

substitute this expression for 9, in the above
APPENDIX II. DERIVATION OF THE
equation we find
UPPER BOUND SOLUTION ASSOCIATED
WITH MECHANISM MI1
Geometric properties
Two cones are considered, vi (apex a,, axis

1
Ro2 R,* A,) of which the base x1 is in the same plane as
1 - 2 cos* #tgci ~ c’V (58) the tunnel face; and V, (apex Q2, axis A2) of
RE3 which the base El2 is in plane 7~(U, and %?*have
the same geometric properties) (see Fig. 17). The
first moving block .%3icorresponds to the portion
of %?i located below plane x and g2 is the portion
Upper bound theorem of %?zlocated below the ground surface. Four axis
The upper bound solutions associated with systems will be referred to: (0, x, y, z) associated
mechanism MI are found by writing relation (6) with the tunnel front; (Q,, Xi, Yi, Z,) associated
with 8, and P, computed as in equations (55) with vi; (a,, X2, Y,, Z,) associated with %:,;
and (58) respectively. This substitution leads to and (B, X’, Y’, Z’) associated with planes II and R’.
the inequation The following co-ordinate transformations are
used
2tga sin 24’ -
RD*R, ~ 0,
- ~
cr

YD
RE3 c’ cot gr$’ c’ cot g# x,=x (64a)

+ +tgzR,
[
1 - R,3
RE3 1
-
c’ cot g@
Y, = i sin atg# - y cos a + z sin a (64b)

R,* R,* D cos a

< 1 - 2tga cos2 I$’ ~ (5% z,=- - - y sin a - z cos a 0%
RE3 2 tg4’
X,=x’ (654
If we introduce the soil unconfined compres-
sion strength uf and the Rankine earth pressure
y _ -Dcos(a+@)sin&cos/?
coefficient K, (equations (2) and (4)) relation (59) 1
2 sin (B + 4’) cos 4’
can be rearranged in the form

1 E
- Y’ sin p - z’ cos jl Wb)
+N,(K,-l)$
-Dcos(a+#~‘) cos 4
sin p 7
” = 2 sin (@+ 4’) sin 4’
< (&, - 1) aT + 1 (60) + Y’ cos /I - z’ sin /3
n, (65~)
600 LECA AND DORMIEUX

Fig. 17. Geometry of mechanism MI1

Since plane rc is chosen such that A2 is vertical, The area &,, of X:,, is
we have between a and p the relation
d 0 cos’ (a + 4’) &sin (B - $‘)I
28 - a = n/2 Wb) 12 -
4 cos fp’ [sin (B + @)1312
The heights h, and h, of cones V, and V, respec-
tively are (72)
The intersection C, of Wz with ground surface
h = D cos (a - 4’) cos (a + 4’)
1 (67) is a circle of which the radius r2 is equal to
sin 24’
D sin /? cos a
h = D sin (/I - 4’) cos (a + 4’)
2 (68) ‘* = 2 sin 4’ sin @ + 4’)
sin 24’
W, intersects with the tunnel face along an ellipse - 2;+1 tg@ (73)
C, (Fig. 17) of which the semi-axis lengths are ( >I
D Its area CZI, is
a, = - (@a)
2
sin b cos a
b = g JCcos (a - 4’) cos (a + 441
1 2 cos Cp’
(69b) 4 sin (j? + 4’)

The area zZI of X1 is (74)

~ _ aDZ J[COS (a - 4’) cos (a + @)]

1 (70) Since .G’#ris obtained by removing a cone identical
4 cos 4’
to V$ to cone V,, its volume Vt,, and its lateral
The intersection Z,, of V, with plane n is also an area Y,,, can be put in the form
ellipse (Fig. 17) with semi-axial lengths
“Vbr = W”, - Vz (75)
cos (a + 4’)
a ,2=D2 Y,, = 9, - ,4v, (76)
sin (.jI + 4’)
where V, and V2, and 9, and 9, are, respec-
tively, the volumes and lateral areas of cones %‘r
P’lb)
and Wz. Y,, ^v,, 9, and 9, are determined by
 FACE STABILITY OF TUNNELS IN FRICTIONAL SOILS 601

using the same methods as in Appendix I, i.e. These coefllcients allow one to write Yb,, Yob,,
Y,, and Y,, in a simplified form
= c [cos (cz- 4’) cos (a + @)]3’2

Y,, = $ (R/,
R, - s R,‘) (90)

Y, +cos.
2
R, - cos (a + qY)Rc R,
1
x [cos (a - 4’) cos (a + #)]“2
(79)
sin 4’ cos 4’

nD2 sin p cos’(a + 4’)

Y,=-_- (92)
4 sin 4’ sin 4’ cos (a + 4’)
cos f#l’

&sin (B - &‘)I
(80)
x [sin @ + @)13/*
The volume Vb2 and the lateral area Y,, of
block .??I2are determined thus sin 4’ cos (a + 4’)
*ybz=V2-ly3 (81)
.4pb,=c4p2-Ys (82) VelocityJeld
where Y2, 9, are given by equations (78) and Both BI and a2 are rigid blocks and the
(80), and V”, and Y, are, respectively, the volume respective velocities are
and the lateral area of the portion of V2 located
VI = be,, (94)
above the ground
V2 = bez2 (95)
Since W, and g2 are not moved at the same
sin 4’ sin (B + 4’)
speed, a discontinuity in velocities is created
along their intersection YZ12,and a relative veloc-
(83) ity V,, needs to be considered between gI and
B2 (Fig. 18).
nD2 sin 4’ In order for relation (5) to be satisfied, the
y,=--
4 cos2 4’ angle between V,, and the discontinuity surface
XI2 will again be chosen equal to 4’. This implies
sin /? cos a 2
the following relations between VI, V, and VI,
(84)
x sin 4’ sin (B + 4’)
sin (D + 4’) v
It is convenient at this point to introduce the fol-
v,= sin (j3 - 4’) ’
(96)
lowing coefficients

R = JCcos (a - 4’) cos (a + 4’11

A cos l$’
(85)

R = cos (a - 4’) cos (a + 4’)

B (86)
sin (24’)

R c = cos;o:+/) [;z ;; ;;]I” (87)

sin j3
(88)
RD = sin 4’ sin (j3 + 4’)

co2 4’
R, = R, - $ sin 4’ (89)
cos (a + 4’) Fig. 18. Relative velocities of a, and 9,
602 LECA AND DORMIEUX

cos CL aDZ 1 cos’ (CL+ 4’)

&:2= V2 (97) p,=--
sin @ - I$‘) 4 3 cos2 4’

Plastic energy can be dissipated along the lateral R,R, + cos 0:

X sin a ~,2
area of Y?r and Wz and along Z,,. In all three
cases the dissipation energy per unit area is (cf.
Appendix I) cos f#J’cos (B + 4’) R
x 2 sin 4 sin (B + 4’) ’
dpv C’V cos (fi cos2 4’ 3
E =
(98)
Rc2 - 2 g sin 4’
cos (a + 4’)
withV=Vion%?,,V=I/,onV,,andV=I/,, rDv,
2 sin f$’ cos2 (cr + 4’) 'I
on Zi2.
(105)
Equation (99) can then be written

nD2 cos2 (a + 4’)

Power of external loads 9, = 4
co? f#l’
The power of external loads 8, is
RE2 cos a
9, = Yr + 8s + Yy (99)
x cos2(a + 4’) 0
s-R,~RA~T
where Yr, 9, and S’r are defined as in Appendix
I. + sin a -
RA4,
Rc2
8,= (-~TeJ (Vlez,) dC + cos a cos 4’ cos @ + 4’) R
2 sin C#J’
sin (J + 4’) ’

22
1v,
= -crTVl cos ad, ufw
Rn3
_ 2 sin 4’ cos’ (a + c#J’)
> 3
9s = (-u,e,J (V2ez,) dC

= a,V*d* (101)

9, = Dissipation power
(-re,Wd d-lr
The dissipation energy associated with mecha-
nism MI1 can be written
+ ( - re,XV,ez,) dv
P” = p,, + p,, + P,,, (107)
= yV, sin czYb, + yV2’zy,, (102) where PI,, P,, and P,,, are the respective contri-
butions of gi, SJ2 and X,2
After substituting equations (70), (74), (90), (92)
and (96) for &‘,, d,, Yb,, Y,, and VI we find
PI” =

9
T
= _ e COS c( CO2 (a + +)
= C’V, cos f$’ P,, (108)
4 cos2cp

x -
RA UT v, P2” =
(103)
RC2
= CT, cos 4’ ,40b, (109)
sin’ 4
8, D2 -
P 12v
zz ;

cos2 4’ =

co? I$’ Rc2 = C’V12cos I#/ d,, (110)

x sin # cos (a + c#/)
Equations (91), (93) and (72) together with
equations (96) and (97) allow one to write
 FACE STABILITY OF TUNNELS IN FRICTIONAL SOILS 603

equations (108) (109) and (110) in the form Relation (115) can be rearranged in the same
form as in Appendix I once the unconfined com-
p = e cosz (a + 4’) pression strength cr, and the passive earth pres-
I”
4 cos2 Cp’ sure coefficient K, are introduced.

c#l’V, 1 (111)
cos a R,

1 c
X - 1- cos (a: + 4’) 2

xcr
cos
sin 6’ R, C N, (K, - 1) ; + 1 + N,(K, - 1) F

p=gcos2
2”
(a
+4’) 4 cos2 4
<(K,- l)%+
ec
1 (116)

The weighting coeflients N, and N, are in the

cos2 4’
x cos (a + 4’)
RcRD present case equal to

1 sin @ - 4’) RE2

1
RE2 N, = (117)
cos a 60s’ 4’ sin (B + 4’) R,
- sin f#~’~0s’ (a + 4’)
cos 4’ cos (B + 4’) Rc3
x c’ cos r#J’V, (112) N, = f tgaR, +
[ 2 sin 4’ sin (B + #) R,
--
nD2 cos’ (a + 4’)
9 12” -
1
4 cos2 f#J’
- 2 sin 4’ cos a cos’ 4

1
2 cos /I sin 24 cos (a + 4’) Ro2

1
X sin (j3 - 4’) RE3
sin /3 RC (118)
’ sin (B + #) R,
x cl cos 4’ v, (113)
Relation (116) provides the best upper bound
Substituting equations (1 ll), (112) and (113) for
associated with MI1 when a is chosen such that
pi,, p2, and pi,, in equation (107) leads to N, and N, are at maximum. As in Appendix I,
p _ nD2cos’ (a + 4’) the above results only apply when the ground
Y surface is reached by the failure mechanism, that
4 cos24’ is to say when
RE2
1
cos u R,
X --_ 5 < cos (a + #) sin (B - 4’)
sin 4’ RC2 sin 4’ cos2 (a + @) (119)
D’ 2 sin c$’ sin (B + 4’)
x cl cos l#l’V, (114)
For deeper tunnels (relation (119) reversed)
Upper bound theorem expression (116) is still valid provided R, is set
The upper bound solutions associated with equal to zero in relations (117) and (118).
mechanism MI1 are obtained by substituting
equations (106) and (114) for B, and P, in rela-
tion (6) APPENDIX III. DERIVATION OF THE
UPPER BOUND SOLUTION ASSOCIATED
RE2 a -= R,aT
WITH MECHANISM MI11
cos2(a + 4’) s RC2 Geometric properties
Two cones, $? and v’ are considered (see Fig.
+ sin tl-
RARB 19). Both have the same appex n and the same
axis A. The moving block SI corresponds to cone
RC2
W minus cone v’. %’ intersects the tunnel face
+ cos a cos 4’ cos (B + I$‘) R along an ellipse z’ (base of cone W) and the
2 sin 4’ sin @I+ 4’) ’ ground surface along another ellipse x (base of
cone U).
- RE3 YD Two axis systems are used: (0, x, y, z) associ-
2 sin 4’ cos’ (0: + 4’) > 3 ated with the tunnel, and (a, X, Y, Z) associated
with the cones. The co-ordinate transformation
R, RE2 between both systems is given by the following
< cos lx - -
RC2 cos2 (a + 4’) > equations.

x c’ cot g& (115) x=x (120)

604 LECA AND DORMIEUX

Fig. 19. Geometry of Mechanism MI11

Y = t sin atgf#/ + y cos a - 2 sin a The semi-axis lengths of ellipse c’ are

D cos w. D
a’ = - (128)
z=-- + y sin u + 2 cos a 2
2 44’
The height h of cone V and the height h’ of cone b’ = e JCcos(a - 44 ~0s (a + &‘)I
(129)
v’ are 2 cos 4’

Equations (126H129) allow determination of

sin 2a + g sin 24’
the area S’ of x and the area &’ of r
h=; (123)
sin 24’
2

h’ = D cm (a + 4’) cm (a - 4’)
sin 2q5’
(124) &cjf=E!c
4
(sin 2cr + T sin 24’
>
4 cos @[sin (a - 4’) sin (a + &)13j2
The equation of cones V and v’ with respect to
(130)
the co-ordinate system (a, X, Y, Z) is

x2 + Y2 = rgSj5’22 (125) &, = 9 JCCOS

(a + 4’) cm (a - f$‘)]
(131)
4 cos 4’
The semi-axis lengths of ellipse I: are
The volume Y, and the lateral area 9, of block
sin 2a + $ sin 24’ g are found by writing
D
(126)
a = Z 2 sin (a - 4’) sin (a + 4’) V,=Y-v-’ (132)

sin 2a + F sin 24’ 9, = Y - 9’ (133)

b=D (127)
2 2 cos $‘J[sin (a - 4’) sin (a + #)I where V” and y, and V’ and Y’ are the volume
 FACE STABILITY OF TUNNELS IN FRICTIONAL SOILS 605

and lateral areas respectively of cone V and cone Velocityjeld

W The velocity of moving block _6gis

>I
3

y-=e [( f

12 sin 24’ cos 4’

sin 2a + g sin 2 4’
V= Ve,
Since this is a rigid body motion, plastic energy
can only be dissipated along the lateral surface of
(143)

x [sin (a - 4’) sin (a + @)I”” &?; the dissipation energy per unit area dP,/dX is

(134) dP
2
-=c’vcos~’ (144)
dZ
Y = $ sin a

x &sin (a + 4’) sin (a - C/J’)]

Power of external loads
sin f$’ cos 4’ The power of external loads Y’, can be written

Y’, = YT + Ys + YY (145)

l
sin 2a + T sin 24’
X
with 8,, 8, and 8, defined as in Appendix I.
(135)
cos 24’ - cos 2a I After substitution of equations (139) to (141) for
&, &’ and Y, we find
^I” = e [cos(a - 4’) cos (a + &)13”
(136)
12 sin 24’ cos f#i (146)
2
nD2 R, Rc2
.V’=+cosa g?,= ---
05 v (147)
4 cos qs
x JCcos(a + 4’) cos(a - 4’11
sin 4’ cos f$’ 2 (EF)‘-(SJDv
YY = - G sin a
sin 24’ cos $J’
As in Appendices I and II, Y and Y’ are deter-
mined by using complex integration. Equation (148)
(130) to (133) can be put in a simplified form by and equation (145) can be written
introducing three coefficients
RB Rc2 R.4
-------a,+-0
R, = cos aJ[cos (a + 4’) cos (a - c#J’)] (138a) cos 4’ cos 4’ T
I

_isin-a(E)3-(2Y%
I
R, = sin a&sin (a + 4’) sin (a - @)] (138b)

R = sin 2a + (2CID + 1) sin 24’ V

sin 24’ cos I#J’
E (138~)
cos 24’ - cos 2a
(149)
The expressions for &, zZ’, Vb and Y, are then
Dissipation power
&I!!?, RBRc2 The plastic energy that can be dissipated in
(139)
4 sin a cos 4’ mechanism MI11 is

.d’=aD2 R.4
(140) (150)
4 sm a cos f$’

y,x, 12 sin 24’ cos 4’

1 where dP,/dX is given by equation (144)

P, = C’V cos qb’Yb (151)

x[(zz>‘-(ZJ] (141)
After substitution of equation
equation (151) we find
(142) for 9, in

~0~ R, Rc2 - R, C’V

9,=- (142) p, = q [R, Rc2 - &I 7
sm 4’
(152)
12 sin 4’ cos 4
606 LECA AND DORMIEUX

Upper bound theorem K, Rankine earth pressure coefficient (active)

The upper bound solutions associated with K, Rankine earth pressure coefficient (passive)
MI11 are found by writing relation (6) with 8, y soil unit weight
and P, as computed in equations (149) and (152) 0, surcharge pressure
or tunnel pressure
D tunnel diameter
-R,Rc2s-+RR,~
cos I$’ cos 4’ H tunnel depth
C tunnel depth of cover
P unsupported length behind tunnel front
Ye power of external loads
P, dissipation power
< (RBRc2 - RA) -T---- (153)
sin 4’
REFERENCES
This inequality can also be rearranged into the Broms, B. B. & Bennermark, H. (1967). Stability of clay
form at vertical openings. J. Soi/ Me& Fndn Div. Am.
Sot. Civ. Engrs 93, No. SMl, 71-94.

N, (K,, - 1) ;
1
+ 1 + N,(K, - 1) F
Chambon, P. & Corte, J. F. (1989). Stabiliti: du front de
taille d’un tunnel faiblement enterrt: modtlisation
en centrifugeuse. Proc. Int. Co@ Tunneling and
Microtunneling in Soft Ground: From Field to
>(K,- l)z+ 1 (154) Theory, Paris, pp. 307-315.
Clough, G. W., Sweeney, S. P. & Finno, R. J. (1983).
where IS=and K, refer to the unconfined compres- Measured soil response to EPB shield tunnelling. J.
Geotech. Engng Div., Am. Sot. Ciu. Engrs 109, No. 2,
sion strength and the passive earth pressure coef-
131-149.
ficient of the soil respectively, and N, and N, are
Davis, E. H., Gunn, M. J., Mair, R. J. & Seneviratne,
H. N. (1980). The stability of shallow tunnels
N,=-
4, Rc2 and underground openings in cohesive material.
(155)
RA GCotechnique 30, No. 4,397-416.
Leca, E. & Panet, M. (1988). Application du Calcul a la
N,= 3R;;J2,‘[(g-($J] (156) Rupture a la stabilitb du front de taille dun tunnel.
Revue FranGaise de Giotechnique, No. 43, 5-19.
Muelhaus, H. B. (1985). Lower bound solutions for cir-
The best upper bound associated with MI11 is cular tunnels in two or three dimensions. Rock
found by choosing a such that N, and N, are at Mech. & Rock Engng l&37-52.
minimum. Since failure always reaches the Peck, R. B. (1969). Deep excavations and tunneling in
soft ground. Proc. 7th Int. Con& Soil Mech. and
ground surface, expression (154) is valid for all
Fndn Engng, Mexico, Balkema 3,225290.
values of C/D. Salenqon, J. (1983). Calcul b la Rupture et Analyse
Limite.
Salenqon, J. (1990). An introduction to the yield design
NOTATION theory and its application to soil mechanics. Euro-
’ soil cohesion pean J. of Mech., A/solids 9, No. 5. 477-500.
;I soil friction angle Schofield, A. N. (1980). Cambridge geotechnical centri-
oc unconfined compression strength fuge operations. Gbotechnique 30, No. 3, 227-288.