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*
With the recent increase in underground urban
development as well as for transportation, tunnels
need to he driven in increasingly dif&ult soil con-
ditions. In most cases the ground itself is not stable
and face stability is achieved by applying fluid
pressure to the tunnel front. The question of deter-
mining the retaining pressure to he used has
received special consideration in the past hecause
of the concern for safety during construction, and
also hecause of the damage that could he caused to
surface structures by the failure of a shallow
tunnel. The problem is three-dimensional and can
he studied by using the limit state design method.
Solutions are available for the case of a circular
tunnel in purely cohesive ground, but very little is
known of the face stability of a tunnel driven in
sandy soils. This Paper approaches this latter
problem from the point of view of limit analysis.
Both safety against face collapse and blow-out are
considered. Three upper hound solutions are
derived from the consideration of mechanisms
based on the motion of rigid conical blocks. The
results are compared with lower hound solutions
published in a previous article. A failure criterion is
proposed for the tunnel face in the general case of
a cohesive and frictional soil, and charts are pro-
vided to allow a bracketed estimate of the required
retaining pressure. A comparison with centrifuge
laboratory tests shows close agreement between the
theoretical upper hound solutions and the face
pressures at collapse measured experimentally.
KEYWORDS: limit state design/analysis;
city; research; sands; stability; tunnels.
INTRODUCTION
The stability of the front of a tunnel driven in
cohesive material has been studied by several
authors since the paper by Broms & Bennermark
(1967) on a stability criterion based on laboratory
extrusion tests and field observations. Similar
Discussion on this Paper closes 5 April 1991; for further
details see p. ii.
* Ecole Nationale des Ponts et Chaussees, 93167,
Noisy-laGrand Cedex, Paris, France.
Downloaded by [ Middle East Technical University] on [19/06/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
and L. DORMIEUX*
L’utilisation croissante du sous-sol en site urbain
ainsi que le dtveloppement des riseaux de trans-
ports enter& conduit i construire des tunnels dans
des conditions toujours plus difficiles. Dans la
plupart des cas le terrain est instable et ii est n&
cessaire d’appliquer une pression de souttinement
au niveau du front de taille. Le cboix de la pression
I utiliser a fait l’objet de qombreuses 6tudes au
tours des derniLres an&es en raison des problemes
po&s pour de tels projets du point de vue de la
&curiti en tours de construction et des cons&
quences d’une rupture sur les structures situ&s en
surface. 11 s’agit d’un problbme tridimensionnel qui
peut 6tre notamment btudii! par la mbtbode de
I’analyse limite. Des solutions ont dbjji &ti! propo-
s&s pour le cas d’un tunnel circulaire en terrain
cob&rent, mais les connaissances sont encore lim-
it&es quant ai la stabilite du front de taille I’un
tunnel creu& dans des sols sableux. Ce dernier
problkme est examin dans le pr&sent article du
point de vue de I’analyse limite. On s’intkresse h la
fois aux risques de rupture par effondrement et par
explosion. L’examen de trois m6canismes ha.6 sur
le mouvement rigide de blocs coniques permet
d’ahoutir 1 une approche par l’extbrieur des condi-
tions de stabilitb. Les rbultats sont comparb i
I’approcbe par I’int&ieur p&sent&e dans un article
p&&dent. L’6tude ahoutit P la mise en C?vidence
d’un critere de rupture pour le front de taille dans
le cas g&n&al d’un sol frottant-cob&ent. On
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
plasti- pressions mesuri?es exp&imentalement P la
rupture.
conclusions were presented by Peck (1969) and
more recently a more theoretical approach was
proposed by Davis et al. (1980), which is derived
from the limit state design concept. Their results
are supported by centrifuge model tests
(Schofield. 1980) and nrovide a more general
expression of the stability criterion, -which
accounts for the effects of tunnel depth.
Yet very little is known about the face stability
of tunnels when the ground is characterized by a
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
length behind the face P is taken as zero (which is
a reasonable assumption for shield driven tunnels)
and a retaining pressure rrr is applied to the front.
Such support can be achieved by using com-
LIMIT ANALYSIS
The purpose of limit analysis is to provide an
estimate of stability conditions for a mechanical
system regardless of the behaviour of the material
it is made of (Salencon, 1983, 1990). Stability con-

Sectm A-A

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

Downloaded by [ Middle East Technical University] on [19/06/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 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
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
theorem). Stability can be characterized by the
domain .X of supported loads; .X is bracketed by
a lower bound domain Xx- and an upper bound
domain X’. This is shown in Fig. 2 for the case
of a system subjected to a set of two loads Qi and
Q,.Any set of loads located inside X- is poten-
tially supported by the system while any set of
loads outside X’ is unstable. The domain X is
convex, which means that if the two sets of loads
Q’ and Q” are supportable, any linear com-
bination of these loads @’ + (1 - A@” where
0 < 1 < 1 is also supportable. In Fig. 2 any point
M located on the straight line between A and A’
is inside &‘- as long as A and A’ both belong to
Fig. 3. Discontinuity velocity along the failure surface
UPPER BOUND SOLUTIONS
Three failure mechanisms have been con-
sidered. They all involve the movement of solid
conical blocks with circular cross-sections. The
opening of each cone is equal to 24’ and its veloc-
ity Y is parallel to its axis (Fig. 4). Therefore con-
dition (5) is satisfied along the failure surfaces
between the moving blocks and the rest of the
ground. The three mechanisms MI, MI1 and
MI11 are shown in Fig. 5. MI and MI1 are col-
lapse mechanisms, whereas MI11 refers to blow-
out failure. Even though safety against collapse is
a major concern during tunnelling, case MI11
may be of interest for very shallow tunnels bored
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

Downloaded by [ Middle East Technical University] on [19/06/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 LECA AND DORMIEUX

(4 / A’
/ (?I’)

I /

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

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

Downloaded by [ Middle East Technical University] on [19/06/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 FACE STABILITY OF TUNNELS IN FRICTIONAL SOILS 585

The two collapse mechanisms are optimized when

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

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

QT = (KP - 1) 2 +1
Q, = WP- 1) $ (7c)
Then, relation (6) leads to upper bound
that can be put in the form
NsQs+N,Q,GQ,
for collapse mechanisms MI and MI1 and
NsQs+N,Q,aQ,
for blow-out mechanism MIII.
and (9) Ns and N, are weighting
depend on the angle a between
cone adjacent to the tunnel and
tunnel, the angle of the critical failure surface to
the horizontal P+ = 49” + r&/2 is larger than the
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-
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
solutions
around the tunnel face and would again need to
be compared to actual failures observed in the
(8) field.
The values of NSb+ and NYb+ computed for the
blow-out case, however, are large and increase
(9) sharply with the depth ratio CID,which is consis-
tent with the fact that such a failure would only
In relations (8) occur with very shallow tunnels. The critical
coefficients that geometry is obtained when
the axis of the
the horizontal. ab+ N 49” (11)

Downloaded by [ Middle East Technical University] on [19/06/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 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

Downloaded by [ Middle East Technical University] on [19/06/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 FACE STABILITY OF TUNNELS
(W
Fig. 8. Critical geometries for (a) collapse and (b) blow-out
This means that the angle of the failure surface
to the horizontal Sb+ = 49” - 4’ is smaller than
the angle of passive failure in plane strain condi-
tions 6, = 45” - @/2 for common values of 4’
(Fig. 8(b)).
LOWER BOUND SOLUTIONS
Some lower bound solutions for the case of a
Mohr-Coulomb material have been published
previously (Leca & Panet, 1988). They are based
on three stress fields similar to those used by
Davis et al. (1980). These three stress fields SI, SII,
311 are shown on Fig. 9.
SI is a geostatic stress field and it can actually
be used in the general case of a soil with weight
(y > 0). In the geometry shown on Fig. 9(a), the
ground is divided in three layers: above and
below the tunnel (y > D/2 or y < -D/2) the
stress field is also isotropic; in the layer located at
tunnel depth (-D/2 < y < D/2) the horizontal
component of stress along Oz is equal to a,. SII
and SIII both apply to a weightless soil (y = 0).
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
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,.
Downloaded by [ Middle East Technical University] on [19/06/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
IN FRICTIONAL SOILS 587
Outside the cylinder C,, which is tangential to
the ground surface, the stress field is isotropic and
equal to 0s. Between cylinders C, and C, a solu-
tion for radial stress or and tangential stress bg is
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
the tunnel face. The stresses are isotropic inside
sphere S, and outside sphere S,, where they are
equal to rrT and us respectively. Between S, and
S, the radial stress ur and both tangential stresses
bg, B, are determined as for SII by solving the
equations of equilibrium with the assumption
that the soil is at yield.
SI, SII and SIII all satisfy the equations of
equilibrium and boundary conditions of the
present problem. Therefore a lower bound solu-
tion can be found from these three stress fields by
assuming that the yield criterion is not exceeded
in the soil mass. The derivations of these lower
bounds can be found in the paper by Leca &
Panet (1988). The result can be put in each case in
the form of a double inequality. For stress field SI
and
 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

Downloaded by [ Middle East Technical University] on [19/06/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 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)

Downloaded by [ Middle East Technical University] on [19/06/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 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

Downloaded by [ Middle East Technical University] on [19/06/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 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

Downloaded by [ Middle East Technical University] on [19/06/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 592 LECA AND DORMIEUX
for blow-out. This means that the value of Qr at
failure can be written
QT=NsQs+N~Q~
where Qr, Qs and Q, are given by equations (7)
and Ns, N, are weighting coefficients for loads Qs
and Q, that can be bracketed from the values of
NsC- , Nsc+ , N,C- and N ‘+, or Nsb-, Nsb+, NYb-
and N, bt derived previoYusly. In other words the
problem of the stability of the tunnel front can be
analysed by the same methods used for determin-
ing the bearing capacity of a foundation. The
analogy applies better to blow-out since the
ground is then failing when Qr becomes too large.
Equation (22) actually provides a lower esti-
mate Qr- and an upper estimate Qr+ of the ulti-
mate load Qr*. Qr- is found by using the lower
bound values NsC- and N,,- for collapse and
N b- and N b- for blow-out; Qr+ is found by
using the up& bound values Ns’+ and N,,‘+ for
collapse and Nsb+ and Nrb+ for blow-out. In
order to reduce the uncertainty on this estimate
of Qr*, the general lower bound solution (y > 0)
can then be improved by making use of the solu-
tions obtained in the case of a weightless soil.
Relations (20) and (21) can also be written
N,G+N &l
Qr ’ QT
N,s+N &l
QT ’ QT.
A Q,./ QT
5-
4-
3.
Fig. 12. Improved lower bound solution for the case I$’ = 20”, C/D = 05
Downloaded by [ Middle East Technical University] on [19/06/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
Therefore only two loading parameters Qs/Qr
and Q,/Qr need to be considered and the stability
of the tunnel front can be investigated in the
(2-a loading plane (Qs/Qr. Q,/Qr) by braketing the
domain Xx’ of the load combinations (QJQr,
Q,/Qr) that are stable. The procedure is shown in
Fig. 12 for the case 4 = 20”, C/D = 0.5.
Lines A,E, and A,& in Fig. 12 represent the
lower bound solution provided by the general
stress field SI (y > 0). Since Xx’ is convex and con-
tains A,, B, and B,’ (best lower bound solution
for y = 0, i.e. Q,/Q, = 0) all points between lines
A,B, and A,B,’ belong to X’. For the same
reason, all points between lines A, B, and A, B,’
also belong to X’. The lower bound estimate
Xx’- of X’ can in this way be extended from the
domain AlBIB A, to the domain A,B,‘B2’A,.
From a practical point of view, this improved
lower bound solution can be obtained for col-
lapse, by rewriting relation (20) with NYC- taken
equal to the value found in case SI and with Nsc-
equal to the best solution found in the case of a
weightless soil (i.e. in case SII or in case SIII). For
blow-out, it can be obtained by rewriting relation
(21) with NYb- equal to the solution found for SI,
and N,“- equal to the solution for a weightless
soil. This improved lower bound solution is com-
pared with the upper bound solution on Figs
13(a) and 14(a) for Ns values, and Figs 13(b) and
14(b) for N, values.
For any value of the friction angle 4’ between
(24)
20” and 45” and a depth ratio C/D between 0.0
and 3.0, the failure load Qr* can be bracketed by
I I I I
Upper bound for collapse
I I I I
--- Lower bound from SI
. Best lower bound from SII
and Sill
 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

Downloaded by [ Middle East Technical University] on [19/06/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 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

Downloaded by [ Middle East Technical University] on [19/06/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 FACE STABILITY OF TUNNELS IN FRICTIONAL SOILS 595

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

Downloaded by [ Middle East Technical University] on [19/06/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 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

Downloaded by [ Middle East Technical University] on [19/06/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 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)

Downloaded by [ Middle East Technical University] on [19/06/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 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)

Downloaded by [ Middle East Technical University] on [19/06/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 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
equation we find
for 9, in the above
APPENDIX II. DERIVATION OF THE
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~)

Downloaded by [ Middle East Technical University] on [19/06/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 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

Downloaded by [ Middle East Technical University] on [19/06/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 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,

Downloaded by [ Middle East Technical University] on [19/06/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 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

Downloaded by [ Middle East Technical University] on [19/06/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 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)

Downloaded by [ Middle East Technical University] on [19/06/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 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

Downloaded by [ Middle East Technical University] on [19/06/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 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

Downloaded by [ Middle East Technical University] on [19/06/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 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.

Downloaded by [ Middle East Technical University] on [19/06/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.