ATS11-03325

Tunnel Face Stability Analysis in Soft Ground in Urban Tunneling by EPB Shield
(Case Study : 7th Line in Tehran Metro)

J. Mohammadi*, K. Shahriar**, P. Moarefvand***, S.Hosseini*

*Department of Mining Engineering, Islamic Azad University Tehran South Branch, Iran, Email : [email protected]
**Department of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum Engineering, Amirkabir University of Technology, Hafez 424, Tehran 15875-
4413, Iran, Email: [email protected]
*** Department of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum Engineering, Amirkabir University of Technology, Hafez 424, Tehran 15875-
4413, Iran, Email: [email protected]

ABSTRACT
Traffic congestion and environmental factors are creating a demand for greater utilization of underground spaces in
urban areas. In mechanized excavation of subway tunnels, the Earth Pressure Balanced Shield (EPBS) has been
developed in the recent decades for managing the instability of the excavation profile in complicated geotechnical
conditions in urban areas. During the advancement of an EPBS, the face-stabilizing pressure is one of the most
important factors of critical and principle to be evaluated correctly. In tunneling by EPBS, high face pressure often
leads to surface upheaval whereas low face pressure leads to sudden collapse of the face and ultimately settlement of
the surface. Both of these misevaluated pressures may cause the damages which followed by pert of time and finance.
This paper is discussed about urban tunneling by EPBS in soft ground conditions and focused on calculation of face-
stabilizing pressure applying to the case of 7th line in Tehran metro project. Face-support pressure is estimated by most
current methods of limiting equilibrium analysis and limiting analysis in excavated parts (two stations) of direction with
different and difficult geotechnical conditions. Obtained results compared to EPBS operational results which showed
the results of Broere analytical method is most attractive and realistic among others. For one of the excavated stations
calculated value of the Broere analytical method obtained 78.406 KPa and EPBS actual value was equal to 81.01 KPa.
Due to results verification that illustrate a good adjustment with the actual values, quantity face-stabilizing pressure is
predicted for some of the alignment unexcavated stations (S7, V7, W7 and X7) which can be used in built procedure.
Maximum value was quantity 246.351 KPa for station V7 and minimum value obtained quantity 25.866 KPa for station
W7.
KEYWORDS
Tunneling, face-stabilizing pressure, EPBS, analytical method,7th line of Tehran metro.

slurry or conditioned soil, tunnel diameter, overburden, and

location of the ground water table. Many researchers have
proposed analytical approaches to determine the required
INTRODUCTION pressure to stabilize the tunnel face. Most of them are based
either on limiting equilibrium analysis (Broms and Bennmark,
As excavation of tunnels in unfavorable geotechnical conditions 1967; Krause, 1987; Jancsecz and Steiner, 1994;
and in heavily populated urban environments is becoming prevalent,
the importance of maintaining tunnel face stability is reaching more Anagnostou and Kovri, 1996; Broere, 2001; Carranza-
importance. Ensuring tunnel face stability is directly related to the Torres, 2004), or limiting analysis (Atkinson and Potts, 1977;
safe and successful construction of a tunnel. In this context, tunnel Davis et al., 1980; Leca and Dormieux, 1990).
face stability analysis directly relates to face-support pressure. The In the first part of the paper, some referenced methods for
correct evaluating of face pressure to avoid face instability depends evaluating the stability of face are presented then project
on various factors, such as cohesion, friction angle and permeability characteristics are described. In the next part face-stabilizing
of the ground, type of the machine, advance rate, unit weight of pressure is calculated in two excavated stations of 7th line of
Tehran subway (stations N7 & O7) by limiting equilibrium analysis
and limiting analysis methods. Then obtained results are compared
to face-stabilizing pressures of EPBS operational. In fact, purpose
of this comparison is the selection of the best analytical method for
the project. Finally as logical consequence, suitable method is
selected among others, and is predicted face-support pressure in
unexcavated various parts (stations S7, V7, W7 and X7).

2.Limiting Equilibrium and Limiting Analysis Methods(LEM &

LAM) Figure 2. The tunnel-face stability model of the method of
Atkinson & Potts.
2.1 Method of Broms and Bennemark (1967)
A well solution based on Tresca material is Broms and 2.3 Method of Davis et al. (1980)
Bennemarks solution. They suggested the stability ratio N (Eq. (1)) Like previous solution, this method employs a plane strain
for a vertical opening. This solution is independent of the condition too. Davis et al. investigated face-stabilizing
overburden-to-diameter ratio. pressure for purely cohesive material. This method allows the
stability analysis of a tunnel with radius R, in a cohesive soil,
N=(qs- T)/cu+(C+R).Y/cu (1) where a rigid support is installed at a distance P from the face.
Hence these researchers presented distance P (Fig.3) and the
Where Y=the total unit weight of the ground, cu=undrained shear stability ratio N. The stability ratio in the two cases of
strength of the ground, qs=surcharge, R=radius, T =the minimum cylindrical (Eq.(4))and spherical (Eq.(5)) is calculated.
face support pressure and C=overburden (cover depth).

Figure 3. The loading schemes of the method of Davis et al.

Figure 1. The tunnel-face stability model of the method of Broms &
Bennemark.
N=2+2ln(C/R+1) (4)
N=4+2ln9C/R+1) (5)
Empirically, the instability conditions are associated with a value of
N 6. Therefore, the face-stabilizing pressure T is:
2.4 Method of Krause (1987)
T=Y.(C+R)+qs-N.cu (2) The minimal support pressures needed for a semi-circular and
where N=6. spherical limiting equilibrium mechanism which have been
2.2 Method of Atkinson and Patts (1977) calculated by Krause in a limiting equilibrium analysis using
Plastic limit analysis approaches employ a plane strain condition. the shear stresses on the sliding planes. Of the three
Atkinson and Potts investigated the required support pressure for mechanisms proposed, the quarter circle (Fig.4b) will always
an unlined tunnel cross section away from tunnel heading in a yield the highest minimal support pressure:
cohesionless soil. The minimum support pressure(T) is :
T=(DY/3- c/2)/tan (6)
T = 2kpYR/(kp2-1) (3)
where kp=(1+sin)/(1-sin) and =the soil friction angle. As Krause already indicates this may not always be a realistic
representation of the actual failure body. In many cases the
half-spherical body (Fig.4c) will be a better representation. In
that case the minimal support pressure can be found from:
T=(DY/9- c/2)/tan (7)
where D= tunnel diameter and c= soil cohesion.
 Figure 4. Circular and spherical failure mechanisms

2.5 Method of Leca and Dormieux (1990)

The purpose of limiting analysis is to provide an estimate of
stability conditions for a mechanical system regardless of the
behaviour of the material. Leca and Dormieux used the limiting
analysis concept to evaluate the stability of a tunnel face driven in
frictional soil and compared these results with centrifuge tests Figure 7. Failure mechanism M2 (upheaval)
performed by Chambon and Corte (1994). A reasonable agreement
was found between the theoretical upper bound estimates and the
face pressures measured at failure from the tests. Therefore, by Leca and Dormieux obtained face-support pressure (T) for
modifying the upper bound solution suggested by Leca and upper bound :
Dormieux the three-dimensional analytical model. Three failure
mechanisms have been considered. They all involve the movement T=NS qs+NY DY (8)
of solid conical blocks with circular cross-sections. The opening of
each cone is equal to 2 and its velocity V is parallel to its axis where qs=surcharge, D=diameter, Y=unit weight of ground
(Fig.5). and NS and NY are non dimensional weighting coefficients.

(9)

(10)

Figure 5. Conical blocks and kinematic conditions used in M1 and M2 (11)

Therefore condition is satisfied along the failure surfaces between (12)

the moving blocks and the rest of the ground.
The two mechanisms M1 and M2 are shown in the Fig.6 and Fig.7 (13)
respectively. M1 is a collapse mechanism, whereas M2 refers to
blow out failure. Failure is due to the collapse of one conical block (14)
in M1.
(15)

=49-/2 (16)

= /4+ /2 (17)

where RA, RB, RC, RD and RE are non dimensional factors,

=friction angle of the soil, =angle of sliding plane, and
=failure angle(slip angle).
Note: NS is almost always smaller than NY and is equal to zero
for value of when C/D 0.6.

2.6 Method of Jancsecz and Steiner (1994)

So you see the Fig.8, that shows the three dimensional failure
scheme that consists of a soil wedge (lower part) and a soil
silo (upper part). Jancsecz and Steiner investigated the effects
Figure 6. Failure Mechanism M1 (Collapse) of soil arching above the tunnel heading, and suggested a
three-dimensional earth pressure coefficient KA3 in the Table 2
for different values of the friction angle. a. d c C . K . tan
C . K . tan
V 1 e
q .e

k . tan 0
a a
(24)

a c . K . tan
H H
. K . tan
V 1 e
a .e a
Vd
k . tan (25)

where Yd=dry unit weight, =half of wedge width, H= height

of ground water, C=overburden, c=soil cohesion,
q0=surcharge, and =vertical pressure in dry
Vd
conditions(Eq.(26)).
Figure 8. Three dimensional limiting equilibrium method.
a d c
C H C H
. K . tan . K . tan

Vd 1 e
a
q .e a
k . tan
0
These researchers presented equations for calculating the face-
stabilizing pressure(T):
(26)

Table 2. Three dimensional earth pressure coefficient

T = 4E/ D2 (18)
K A3
where D=tunnel diameter and E=earth pressure(Eq.(19)).
=25
cos . tan sin . GS GW 2T K =20 =30 =35 =40
E
sin . tan cos (19) 0
0.38
0.310
0.24 0.19 0.15
6 8 9 9
Where =slip angle (Table 1), =angle of internal friction, GS=silo 0.35 0.22 0.17 0.14
1 0.279
4 2 7 1
weight (Eq.(20)), Gw=weight of soil wedge(Eq.(21)), T=shear 2
0.34
0.273
0.21 0.17 0.13
8 7 3 8
force of soil(Eq.(22)), and K=cohesive force(Eq.(23)). 0.34 0.21 0.17 0.13
3 0.271
GS B.D. cot . V 5 4 1 6
(20)
B.D 2 . . cot
GW
2 (21)
2.7 Method of Anagnostou and Kovari (1996)
T
D 2 . cot
2
c K y . V . tan
(22)
B.D.c This three-dimensional static system (Fig.9) is based upon the
K
sin (23) silo theory(Janssen, 1895) and was first applied by Horn
Where above B=wedge width, ky=earth pressure coefficient, and (1961) to the investigation of tunnel face stability. The
=submerged unit weight.
analysis is performed in drained condition, and a difference
Table 1. Variation of slip angle between the stabilizing water pressure and the effective

pressure in the plenum of an EPBS is presented.
=3
=20 =30 =40
=25 5
66.9
0 60.340 62.611 64.802 68.918
00
68.2
1 61.890 64.161 66.286 70.177
83
68.5
2 62.197 64.464 66.580 70.423
66
68.6
3 62.322 64.592 66.706 70.527
83

The vertical pressure is calculated according to Terzaghis

solution, so that in dry soil conditions (Eq.(22)) and when there is
underground water (Eq.(23)).
 2.8 Method of Broere (2001)

This method modified some important limitations of the

current analytical methods such as the heterogeneity of the
ground at the face (Fig.12). Broere method is based wedge
and silo theory that some forces are acting on the wedge
(Fig.11).

Figure 9. The tunnel-face stability model of the method of Anognostou

& Kovari.

At limiting equilibrium, the effective stabilizing pressure (Eq.(27))

depends on the tunnel diameter D, on the overburden H, on the
piezometric head hF, on the elevation of the water table hO, on the
shear strength parameters c and , on the submerged unit weight
(for the soil beneath the water table), and the dry unit weight Yd (for
the soil above the water table).

T=F0D-F1c+F2 h-F3c h/D (27)

where F0, F1, F2 and F3 are non dimensional coefficients (Fig.10)
and h=hO-hF.

Figure 11. Wedge and silo model(up) and forces acting on the
wedge(down) in Broere method.

This wedge is assumed to be a rigid body, loaded its

effective weight Gw and the overburden resulting from the
soil silo, Gs . On the triangular side planes of the wedge the
full cohesive-frictional forces T are taken into account,
derived from the horizontal effective stress. The shear force
acting on the slanted front plane of the wedge, resulting from
the normal force N acting on this plane, is split in two parts.
The frictional part R depends only on the angle of internal
friction (R = N tan ). The force K depends only on the
Figure 10. Nomograms for the dimensionless coefficients F0 to F3 cohesion of the soil or, in an undrained analysis, on the
undrained shear strength. Equilibrium of these forces results
in an effective earth force E, which has to be countered by the Qai Qbi 1 (34)
effective support force S. This is the difference between the total
support force S and the water force W that results from the pore Q N 0 and Qa1 0
Boundary conditions: b
pressure. For a given wedge angle the resulting earth force E can For slice N:
be calculated. The minimal support pressure can be found by 1 1
iterating over the angle and maximizing E. Qa N Qb N 1 Gs N Gs N 1 Gw N Gw N 1 2T N N 2T N 1 N 1
(35)
This result can be combined with the equilibrium relation for
slice N-1:

1 1
Qa N 1 Qb N 2 GS N GS N 1 GW N GW N 1 2T N N 2T N 1 N 1

1 1 N N 1
N 1

K N N K N 1 N 1 E N N E
N 1
(36)
Where,

GS GW i 2T i K i
N
1
E

i 1
Figure 12. Definition of symbols in the multilayered wedge model (37)

S=E+W (38)
Fig.12 shows the failure wedge is subdivided in N smaller bodies,
possibly of different thickness, inside each of which the soil And so on the above equations, finally minimum face-
conditions are homogeneous. The soil conditions may vary between stabilizing pressure( T) is equal to:
these slices, as may the wedge angle (i) between the ith slices
slanted failure plane and the horizontal. Each slice i is loaded by the T=4S/ D2 (39)
resulting forces from the slice above (i 1) and below (i + 1),
Qa(i) and Qb(i) respectively, the effective weight of the slice itself 2.9 Method of Carranza-Torres (2004)
Gw(i) and an overburden force Gs(i). At the slanted failure plane there Carranza-Torres integrated method of Caqout-Kerisel
is a cohesive force K(i) acting parallel to the plane, as well as a (1956).Carranzas model considers the equilibrium condition
friction force R(i), which results from the normal force N(i), working for material undergoing failure above the crown of a shallow
perpendicular to the failure plane. The side faces of the wedge are circular (cylindrical or spherical) cavity. The material has a
each assumed to be loaded by the shear forces T(i), which act in the
unit weight and a shear strength defined by Mohr-Coulomb
same direction as K(i), against the deformation direction of the
wedge. Force equilibrium will yield the effective earth force E(i) at parameters c and , the cohesion and the friction angle
the face which, combined with the water force W(i), is equal to the respectively. A support pressure Ps is applied inside the
support force S(i). tunnel, while a surcharge qs acts on the ground surface. For
There is vertical and horizontal equilibrium in condition of: the situation presented in the Fig.13, Carranzas solution
defines the value of face-stabilizing pressure (Ps) as the

E i 2T i cos i K i R i cos i N i sin i 0 (28) minimum or critical pressure below which the tunnel will
collapse:

Qai Gsi Gwi Qbi 2T i sin i K i R i sin i N i cos i 0
(29)

R i N i tan i (30)
Combination of equations (28) and (29) lead to:

1 1 i
Gsi Gwi Qai Qbi 2T i i K i i E i 0
i (31)
Because of shorthand notation:

tan sin cos (32)

tan cos sin (33)

Each slice has to satisfy the equilibrium as well as the continuity

condition: Figure 13. Main design of Caqout-Kerisel
 Table 3. main data of 7th line of Tehran metro
Name of tunnel 7th line of Tehran metro

K Nfs 1 h 1 K N 1 c 1
FS
pS qS c 1 h 1 North-South section
.
a a a tan a
K N FS 1 1 a
a tan
(40) Purpose/function of Metro line
Where =the tunnel radius, h=axis depth below the surface, the tunnel
FS=factor of safety(Eq.(42)). Total length 14.8 Km
Number of stations 13(N7,O7,P7,Q7,R7,S7,T7,U7
tan ,V7,W7,X7,Y7,Z7)
1 sin tan 1
N FS FS Maximum slope 5.0%
1 tan
1 sin tan Minimum 9.5 meter to prevent
FS (41) overburden encountering civil limitations
c tan
FS cr Minimum tunnel 5.0 meter
c tan cr (42) crown distance
from other metro
lines
3. Project characteristics
Foreseen EPB TBM 14800 m (100%
The Tehran Metro line 7 in Iran has 27 km length and is divided Construction of total)
into two parts i.e. North-South Lot and East-West Lot.(Fig.14). 7th methods
line of Tehran metro is consist of 26 stations that North-South Lot Cutterhead 9.16 meter
has 13 stations and East-West Lot has 13 stations too. The field diameter
explorations and surveying were performed by boring 37 boreholes. TBM tunnel 8.15 m internal diameter lined
Distance between boreholes is generally in the range of between typical section with precast elements
800m and 1150m approximately.
The Tables 4, 5 and 6 show soil classification, chainage, soil
category and finally geotechnical data of direction.

Table 4. Soil classification of North-South Lot of Tehran metro

line 7
Station BSCS Chainage
N7 GML,MLG 11+500-12+500
O7 GWM,GML,ML
12+500-13+700
G
P7 GWM,GML,GCI 13+700-14+750
Q7 GCL,GCI,CLG,C
14+750-15+300
IG
R7 GML,GCL 15+300-15+800
GPC,GPM,GWC 15+800-16+500
S7 GPC,GPM,GWC,
16+500-17+200
GWM
GPC,GPM 17+200-17+600
GWM,GML 17+600-18+000
T7 GWM,GWC,GPC
18+000-18+700
,GML
U7 GWM,GML 18+700-19+400
GCL,GCI,SMI,G
20+000-20+900
Figure 13. Direction of 7th line of Tehran metro WM
V7 ML,CL 20+900-21+600
At first the excavation started in North-South Lot from station N7. CL,MIS 21+600-22+200
There are main data of 7th line of Tehran metro, North-South section W7 GCL,CLG,CL 22+200-22+500
in the Table 3. GCL,CLG 22+500-23+700
X7 CLG,CL,GCL,CL
23+700-24+150
G
CL 24+150-24+650
CLG,CL 25+200-25+550
Y7 GML,CLG 25+550-26+200
Z7 GWC,GPC 26+200-26+600
 Table 7. Face-stabilizing pressure of analytical methods
Table 5. Soil grouping for geotechnical design purpose and EPB shield
Station N7 O7
Soil Classification Symbols Chainage 12+298 13+232
Category Group Subgroup (Km+m)
GWM , GPM
Surcharge(qs) 190 30
I G-F GWC , GPC
S-F SWM , SPM (KPa)
SWC , SPC Overburden 13.58 22.54
GML , GMI (m)
II GF GCL , GCI Attkinson & 56.207 52.803
SF SML , SMI Patts
SCL , SCI
Broms
MLG , MIG

Face-Stabilizing Pressure(T)
III FG CLG , CIG
FS MLS , MIS Krause 17.589 24.251
CLS , CIS
IV F ML , MI
Leca & 17.589 15.157
CL , CI
Dormieux

(KPa)
Carranza- 0.019
Table 6. Geotechnical design data in the project area Torres
Mohr-Coulomb Anognostou
Unit Weight Shear Strength & Kovari
Soil Parameter Broere 78.406 113.062
Class Angle of
Total Submerge Cohesion Internal
[g/cm] [g/cm] [kg/cm] Friction Actual result 81.01 119.95
[deg] of
I 1.9 1 0.2 38 EPB Shield
II 1.9 1 0.3 35
Table 7 shows the difference between the EPBS actual results
III 1.9 1 0.3 30
and the analytical methods results. As this is clear that
IV 1.9 1 0.4 27 conditions of some analytical methods such as Kovari and
Note: Broms differ from geotechnical conditions of stations N7 and
For the alternated soil layers, take average values of the geotechnical
O7, hence the boxes are filled by putting crosses ( in the
design data of the soil mass constituent layers.
table and if for these stations face-support pressure calculate
by them, obtained quantities will be illogical.
4. Calculations and comparing to EPB actual result
5. Prediction of quantity face-stabilizing pressure for some
In this paper face-stabilizing pressures are calculated for excavated
unexcavated stations
stations (N7 and O7) by analytical methods which with EPB actual
The conditions of selected stations differ from together, for
results are written in the Table 7.
example in tunnel depth, cohesion, friction angle, surcharge
and etc. Hence different quantities face-stabilizing pressures
( T) obtained for these stations by limiting equilibrium
analysis method of Broere which are written in the Table 8.
 [8]. Russo.G, ( 2003). " Evaluation the required face- support
Table 8. Predicted quantities of face-stabilizing pressure by pressure in EPBs advance mode. " Gallerie e Grandi Opere
using Broere method Sotterrananee n.71-Dicembre 2003.
Station S7 V7 W7 X7 [9]. Jancsecz.S & Steiner.W, (1994). " Face support for large
Mix- Shield in heterogeneous ground conditions". Tunneling
Chainage 16+757 20+973 22+263 23+743 94. London.
(Km+m) [10]. Muller- Kirchenbauer. H, (1972). Stability of slurry
Overburden 33.35 32.45 9.5 21.25 trenches Proc, 5th. Europ. Conf . SMFE, Madrid. Vol. I.543-
(m) 553
Surcharge(qs) 30 20 40 20 [11]. Carranza- Torres. C, (2004). " Computation of factor of
(KP) Safety for Shallow Tunnels using Caquot's Lower Bound
Solution. " In Publication.
(KPa)

[12]. Repetto.L, Tuninetti.V, Guglielmetti.V, and Russo.G,

Method

Broere
T

171.676 246.351 25.866 144.532 (2007).Shield tunneling in sensitive areas: a new design
Of

procedure for optimization of the construction-phase

management. GEODATA S.p.A., Torino, Italy.
[13]. Ribacchi R, (1994). " Recenti orientatenti nella
progettazione statica delle gallerie". Atti XVIII Convegno
6. Conclusions
Nazionale di Geotecnica.
According to the comparison of analytical methods results to EPBS
[14]. Anagnostou.G & Rizos.D, (2008).Geotechnical and
operational results, for this project with these geotechnical
contractual aspects of urban tunneling with closed shields.
properties, limiting equilibrium analysis method of Broere is logical
Switzerland.
and realistic among others.
[15]. Anagnostou.G & Kovari.K, (1994). " The face stability
It is impossible that all the analytical methods such as Anognosou
of slurry- shield driven tunnels" , Tunneling and
and Kovari, Carranza-Torres, Broms and etc use for all parts of
Underground Space Technology, 9(2), 165-174.
Tehran metro line 7 project, because conditions of methods differ
[16]. Kovari, K& Ramoni, M. (2006). Urban tunneling in soft
together, for example method of Carranza-Torres uses for shallow
ground using TBMS ". int Conf. & exhibition on tunneling
tunnels and method of Anognostou and Kovari do not use for
and trenchless technology, Subang Jave- Selangor Darul
cohesive soil.
Ehsan:17-31; the institution of Engineers. Malaysia
In Broere method overburden affects on the quantity face-
[17]. Anagnostou.G & Kovri.K, (1996). Face stability in
stabilizing pressure more than other parameters like angle of
slurry
internal friction.
and EPB shield tunneling. Geotechnical Aspects of
In addition, at the done predictions there are face pressures less than
Underground Construction
30 KPa (for the station W7) and more than 230 KPa (for the station
in Soft Ground, pp. 453458. Rotterdam, Balkema.
V7), so quantity of face-pressure stabilizing depends on project
[18]. W. Broere & van Tol.A.F, (2001). Time-dependant
conditions.
infiltration and groundwater flow in a face stability analysis.
Modern Tunneling Science and Technology, Kyoto, Japan.
[19]. Chambon.P and Corte. J. F, (1994). Shallow Tunnels
References
in
[1].Mohammadi.J, (2010).Tunnel Face Stability Analysis in Soft
Cohesionless Soil: Stability of Tunnel Face, Journal of
Ground by EPB Method(Case Study: Tehran Metro Line 7), MSc
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 120, No. 7, pp.1148
Thesis, Tehran, Iran.
1165.
[2]. Guglielmetti.V, Grasso.P, Mahtab.A and Xu.Sh,
[20]. Muller- Kirchenbaure. H, (1977). Stability of slurry
(2007).Mechanized Tunnelling in Urban Areas, Design
trenches in inhomogeneous subsoil. In. N.N. editor 9th
Methodology and Construction Control.
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Geodata S.p.A., Turin, Italy
Engineering.
[3]. Broere.W, (2001). Tunnel Face Stability & New CPT
[21]. Singh.B and Goel. R.K, (1999). Rock Mass
Applications, Dissertation, TU Delft 2001.
Classification, University of Roorkee and Central Mining
[4]. Broere.W, (2002). Influence of excess pore pressures on the
Research Institute, India.
stability of the tunnel face. Geotechnical Aspects of Underground
[22]. Kim.S.H & Tonon.F, (2010). Face stability and
Construction in Soft Ground, Toulouse, France.
required support pressure for TBM driven tunnels with ideal
[5]. Lece.E & Dormieux.L, (1990). "Upper and lower Bound
face membrane Drained case. Tunneling and Underground
solutions for the face stability of shallow circular tunnerl in
Space Technology.
frictional", Geotechnique", Vol.40 pp.581-606.
[6]. Wang.H & Jia.J, (2009). Face Stability Analysis of Tunnel
with Pipe Roof Reinforcement Based on Limit Analysis. EJGE,
Vol. 14.
[7]. Anagnostou.G & Kovari.K, (1993). "Face stability conditions
with Earth- Pressure- bassure- balanced Shields" . Tunneling and
Underground Space technology. Vol. 11.No.2.pp.165-173