See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/268690996

On the face support of microtunnelling TBMs

Article in Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology · November 2014

DOI: 10.1016/j.tust.2014.09.015

CITATIONS READS

29 1,162

1 author:

Wout Broere
Delft University of Technology
168 PUBLICATIONS 2,567 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Wout Broere on 19 January 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 46 (2015) 12–17

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tust

On the face support of microtunnelling TBMs

Wout Broere
Delft University of Technology, Geo-Engineering Section, Stevinweg 1, 2628 CN Delft, The Netherlands

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Face stability of microtunnelling TBMs is an important aspect for a safe and controlled project execution.
Received 18 October 2013 Lack of proper face support can lead to sudden collapse with resulting large settlements. Guidelines for
Received in revised form 20 September 2014 minimal and maximal support pressures in most codes do not take the infiltration of bentonite suspen-
Accepted 28 September 2014
sion in coarser soils into account. Infiltration lowers the effectiveness of the face support. In loose sands
infiltration can lead to excess pore pressures and induce liquefaction, with possible catastrophic conse-
quences. This paper investigates the influence of infiltration and gives some guidelines for a proper selec-
Keywords:
tion of bentonite suspensions based on soil gradation.
Microtunnelling
Face support
Ó 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://
Soft soil creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).
Infiltration
Bentonite suspension

1. Introduction NEN3650-1:2003 (2003) delegated the requirements for the exe-

cution of pipeline works using trenchless techniques to an Appen-
Face support remains an important aspect for closed front mic- dix, where less than a single page is dedicated to the specific
rotunnelling. Without proper face support, the tunnel face may requirements for slurry supported closed front machines, and
collapse suddenly or an uncontrolled and unobserved overexcava- these requirements remain non-quantifiable.
tion may occur over parts of the project, both leading to possible As given there these requirements include:
large settlements at the surface. This is particularly the case in
slurry supported TBMs in non-cohesive soils.  The slurry pressure in the excavation chamber must be main-
For large diameter TBM driven tunnels many authors have tained within predetermined boundaries, to prevent face col-
looked into face stability, where following the idea of Horn lapse or blow-out. (For example the minimal support pressure
(1961) the wedge shaped limit equilibrium model has become very could be set at the active effective stress plus the water pressure
popular. Whereas Jancsecz and Steiner (1994) describes a basic plus 0.02 MPa; the maximum pressure as neutral effective
implementation, Anagnostou and Kovári (1994) implements the stress plus water pressure.)
infiltration of slurry during stand-still and Broere (2001) studies  Measures shall be taken to control that pressures exceed these
the effect of infiltration and excess pore pressures during excava- bounds.
tion. The validity of these models is underscored by numerical  The support fluid supply must be controlled with respect to
and experimental work by Vermeer and Ruse (2000), Ruse pressure and discharge, in order to react immediately to chang-
(2004), Plekkenpol et al. (2006) and Kirsch (2009). ing circumstances.
For microtunnelling, various authors have focussed their atten-  Especially within non-cohesive soils it is important to ensure
tion on the jacking forces during advance (Wilkinson, 1999; that the support pressure does not induce lowered effective
Chapman and Ichioka, 1999; Röhner and Hoch, 2010) and on the stresses in the soil.
impact of lubrication to limit or control the jacking forces in vari-  In uniform sands or layers that are prone to static liquefaction it
ous conditions (Shou et al., 2010; Barla et al., 2006; Pellet- is necessary to add bentonite [to the support fluid].
Beaucour and Kastner, 2002) or on the interaction between jacking
forces and soil response in difficult conditions (Broere et al., 2007). Although the need for a minimum and maximum support pres-
Less attention is paid to the face stability requirements for mic- sure is recognized, as well as the need for control of these bound-
rotunnelling. For instance, the Dutch code for pipeline systems ary pressures, no calculation methods are give, apart from the
example included in the guideline. Also, no specifications are given
for what constitutes a support fluid, apart from the remark that in
E-mail address: [email protected] extremely problematic soils it should include bentonite.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2014.09.015
0886-7798/Ó 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).
 W. Broere / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 46 (2015) 12–17 13

This ambiguous (from a technical point of view) definition of a

support fluid in a slurry supported TBM opens up (from a legal
point of view) the possibility to use plain water, without any addi-
tives, as the support fluid. If there is no need to use bentonite this
slightly lowers the project cost, and for competitive reasons many
tenders in the Netherlands have been made stating explicitly that
no bentonite will be used, even in non-cohesive layers. This prac-
tise has contributed to several incidents with uncontrolled face
collapse, overexcavation or extreme surface settlements
(Bezuijen, 1996; Hölscher, 2008). This practise actually overlooks
the requirement that the effective stresses in the soil should not
be lowered, as discussed below.
Internationally, codes and design guidelines give similar limited
attention to face stability. Japanese design guidelines documented
by Osumi (2000) specify an effective support pressure of 20 kPa,
irregardless of depth, diameter or soil conditions. German practice,
as documented by Stein (2005), finds the calculation method for
diaphragm walls by Walz et al. (1983) of sufficient accuracy and
thereby implicitly uses the same model as Jancsecz and Steiner
(1994), without considering the specific impact of smaller
diameters.
This paper will look at the application of stability models for
small diameter tunnels and at other face support requirements
that can be introduced to ensure a safe and successful microtun-
nelling project using a slurry supported machine.

2. Face stability models

Fig. 1. Wedge stability model.
The slurry pressure applied at the tunnel face should be higher
than the actual pore pressure and the horizontal effective stress in
order to ensure stability of the face and to prevent excessive defor- Tabulated values of N D could then be used to calculate the
mations. Field experience (Hölscher, 2006; Arends and Soons, required support pressure
2004) as well as laboratory experiments (Chambon et al., 1991;
Kirsch, 2009) and numerical simulations (Ruse, 2004) all show that s ¼ s0 þ p ¼ c1 N D r0v þ c2 p ð2Þ
the component of effective horizontal stress that needs to be coun- including safety factors c1 and c2 for the effective stress and pore
tered is lower than the traditional (plane strain) active effective pressures respectively. In theory, this would provide a simple
earth pressure, as derived by Rankine (1857). As is shown clearly design method for the minimal face support pressure. As soon as
in the experiments by Chambon et al. (1991), a significant influ- effects of a multi-layered overburden, or even multiple layers at
ence of soil arching around and above the shield should be taken the tunnel face (Broere, 1998), are taken into account, the use of
into account. ND becomes cumbersome, as its value depends on the stratigraphy.
This is one of the reasons why the wedge stability models (see This is even more so when the effects of infiltration and excess pore
Fig. 1), such as proposed by Horn (1961), and often implemented as pressures are considered. Anagnostou and Kovári (1994) incorpo-
detailed in the paper by Jancsecz and Steiner (1994), are popular. rates the influence of a slurry infiltration zone in the wedge stability
These models allow the user to relatively straightforward incorpo- model. During stand-still, the slurry will infiltrate the grain skeleton
rate the effects of arching, even though, as Kirsch (2009) shows, until a maximum penetration depth is reached. This maximum pen-
there are a number of somewhat arbitrary model choices that etration depth
can be used to tune the model outcome. These include the exact
arching formulation, whether a plane strain or fully three-dimen- Dp d10
emax ¼ a ð3Þ
sional silo description is used, how the shear stress on the side sF
planes of the failing wedge is incorporated in the calculations depends on the pressure difference over the infiltration zone Dp, the
and whether or not the effects of a layered non-homogeneous characteristic grain size d10 , the yield strength of the slurry sF and a
overburden are taken into account (Broere, 1998). The arching form factor a (Krause, 1987). As the support pressure is then trans-
aspects have also been discussed in a recent paper by ferred to the grain skeleton over this infiltration zone, instead of the
Anagnostou (2012). ideal thin filter cake modelled by Jancsecz and Steiner (1994), the
In a homogeneous soil and for a given set of model choices, the effectiveness of the support drops especially in coarse grained soils.
normalized effective support pressure If, during excavation, the filter cake is completely excavated
along with the soil by the cutter teeth of the TBM, the pressure dif-
s0
ND ¼ ð1Þ ference s0 between the support pressure in the excavation chamber
c
0 D
w of the TBM and the pore pressures in front of the TBM drives the
infiltration of the slurry into the grain skeleton. This infiltration
can be precalculated, as done by Jancsecz and Steiner (1994) (tabu- is quick at first and can be characterized using an infiltration
lated there as K 3D values). Here s0 is the effective slurry pressure half-time a as
(the difference between slurry pressure s and pore pressure p), c0w
a
the effective volumetric weight of the soil and D the tunnel e¼ emax ð4Þ
diameter. aþt
14 W. Broere / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 46 (2015) 12–17

pressure (Rankine, 1857), when the influence of infiltration is

taken into account the values can be as much 3 times higher and
approach N D ¼ 1 for cases with limited cover and poor soil condi-
tions (Broere and Hergarden, 2010). Generally, the required sup-
port pressure should be calculated for a specific project, taking
the TBM dimensions, local soil conditions and stratigraphy into
account, rather then estimated based on tabulated values for sim-
plified cases.

2.1. Case studies

A limited series of case studies and parameter variations is

included here to show the possible influence of infiltration and soil
conditions. Four theoretical cases are used:

Case 1: the TBM is located in a homogeneous sand layer. The

sand is assumed to have saturated volumetric weight
cs ¼ 20 kN=m3 , angle of internal friction / ¼ 30 and
d10 ¼ 100 lm.
Case 2: the TBM is located in a coarse sand layer. Properties are
Fig. 2. Definition of pressure distribution over penetration zone and excess pore
as for case 1, except d10 ¼ 30 lm.
pressures. Case 3: the TBM is located in a loose packed sand layer. Proper-
ties are as for case 1, except / ¼ 20 .
Case 4: the TBM is situated in a sand layer just below a peat
layer. properties of the sand layer are as for case 1, the peat
with t the time since the start of infiltration. The half-time a layer has cs ¼ 11 kN=m3 .
depends strongly on the composition of the slurry, as found by
Krause (1987). If further the soil is saturated, the infiltrating slurry In all calculations safety factors c1 ; c2 have been set to 1 and a
must displace the volume of water already present in the pores, volumetric weight of the bentonite slurry cF ¼ 10 kN=m3 is used.
leading to excess pore pressures and a groundwater flow radiating This is a low, pessimistic, estimate for a bentonite slurry. In the
away from the TBM. During excavation, the partially built-up filter infiltration model by Broere (2001) the excavation speed of the
cake is constantly removed by the cutter wheel and this infiltration TBM plays a role. In these calculations a ratio a=f ¼ 5 between
continues. As the cutter wheel stops, the filter cake can penetrate to the infiltration half-time a and the average time between cutter
maximum depth and the infiltration stops. Excess pore pressures in teeth passages f has been assumed. This corresponds to a ¼ 30 s
front of the TBM can then dissipate. This process could be modelled for a TBM wheel with 5 spokes and 2 rpm. For case 3 calculations
as a time-dependent infiltration just in front of the TBM, as have also been made for a poor quality slurry, with a=f ¼ 50. In
sketched in Fig. 2. The effective support pressure s0 is partly trans- all cases a model factor a ¼ 2:5 has been used.
ferred to the soil skeleton by drag forces in the slurry infiltration Figs. 3–6 show results for TBM diameters D ¼ 1, 2 and 3 m and
zone, resulting in a pressure drop Dpf over this infiltration zone, cover to diameter ratio C=D ¼ 0:5, 1, 2, 3 and 4. In the model by
estimated as Anagnostou and Kovári (1994) the yield strength of the slurry sF
e 0 influences the results. Results given here are for the minimal slurry
Dpf ¼ s ð5Þ
emax
and a remaining excess pore pressure Dpp . This excess pore pressure
in turn serves as input for a transient groundwater flow solution,
with the exact solution Dpðx; z; tÞ dependent on the geohydrological
conditions of the site. In almost all cases no more than a single aqui-
fer will be present at the tunnel face and a linear transient flow
solution for a single semi-confined aquifer is sufficiently detailed.
See Broere and van Tol (2001), Broere (2001) for full details.
The extent to which such excess pore pressures are generated in
front of the TBM depends on the permeability of the soil, the grain
size distribution, the properties of the slurry and the rotation speed
of the cutter wheel, amongst others. In impermeable, fine grained
soils there will effectively be no infiltration. In highly permeable,
coarse grained soils the excess pore pressure will dissipate so
quickly as to play no role. However, in medium fine soils, especially
fine sands, excess pore pressures can develop. These will lower the
effectiveness of the support pressure, as the difference between
support pressure and the actual pore pressure drops, and lower
the stability of the soil wedge, as the effective stresses are lowered
by excess pore pressure and as a result the friction between the
failing soil wedge and surrounding soil is lowered. Both effects
require an increased support pressure to stabilize the face.
Whereas the N D values derived by Jancsecz and Steiner (1994)
are generally lower than the coefficient of active effective earth Fig. 3. Stability ratios N D for case 1: TBM located in a sand layer.
 W. Broere / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 46 (2015) 12–17 15

Fig. 4. Stability ratios N D for case 2: TBM located in a coarse sand layer. Fig. 6. Stability ratios N D for case 4: TBM located just below a peat layer.

3. Micro-stability and liquefaction

The conclusion one might draw from the previous section is

that for relatively deep (C=D > 4) tunnels in sand, face stability is
almost automatically ensured. This conclusion is not generally
true, however, for a number of reasons.
First, part of the stabilizing force in the model taking infiltration
into account, is derived from the drag force of the infiltrating med-
ium into the soil. In theory it is indeed possible to stabilize a body
of cohesionless sand by the drag force of a constant infiltration of
water, as long as a sufficient gradient (i P 2) is maintained (van
Rhee and Bezuijen, 1992). For this drag force to be present, and
effectively act away from the TBM, the infiltration can never be
interrupted. In a microtunnelling project where one has to period-
ically insert a new tunnel segment and elongate the water or slurry
feeds, this is not practically achievable.
Secondly, one has to consider the microstability at the tunnel
face, i.e. the stability of the individual soil grains (also known as
‘‘inner stability’’). A single grain at the outer edge of a vertical wall
of cohesionless material is inherently unstable. If it drops out of the
matrix, the next grain is not stable and effectively grains would
start to rain of the wall, slowly undermining the stability. To pre-
Fig. 5. Stability ratios N D for case 3: TBM located in a loose sand layer.
vent this a (limited) amount of shear capacity or a drag force on
the grains is needed. The minimum yield strength sF of the support
fluid that will keep a vertical wall of cohesionless frictional mate-
rial (sand) stable can be estimated based on Müller-Kirchenbauer
quality obtained by their model for which the face can remain (1977) and Kilchert and Karstedt (1984) as
stable. In all cases this minimal yield strength is lower than that c0
found from Eq. (6), discussed below, indicating that in these cases sF ¼ d10 ð1  nÞ ð6Þ
tan /
the infiltration mechanism from Anagnostou and Kovári (1994) is
not governing the minimal required slurry quality. where n is the porosity and / the angle of internal friction.
The results in Figs. 3–6 show, for many small diameter tunnels If the yield strength of the slurry is too low and sand grains start
(D < 3 m) with the tunnel situated in a homogeneous sand layer to rain off, the face will move away from the TBM. The speed at
with a cover over diameter ratio C=D of more than 2 to 3, that arch- which the face will move can be estimated from the rate at which
ing dominates the global failure mechanism to such an extent that static liquefaction progresses
global face stability, at least theoretically, is ensured if the support k qk  qw
pressure is equal to the pore pressure, i.e. N D values drop to 0. This v¼ ð1  nÞ cot / ð7Þ
Dn qw
can be seen for example in Fig. 3 for C=D > 2:1 and in Fig. 5 for
C=D > 3:2. If, on the other hand, the overlying layers are soft soils with k the permeability of the sand, Dn the porosity difference
with limited shear capacity, e.g. peat or soft clay, arching does not between the sand in the matrix and in the slurry, qk the specific
occur as strongly and the calculated N D values resemble those density of the grains and qw the specific density of water (van
without such soft soil overburden at all (see Fig. 6). den Berg et al., 2002). For medium dense to dense sand, this formula
16 W. Broere / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 46 (2015) 12–17

yields speeds of 1 mm/s or less, and a short interruption of the infil- 4. Conclusions
trating drag force would not result in a serious disturbance at the
face before operations are resumed. For a loose sand, however, Dn When the influence of infiltration of the support medium into
becomes small and the resulting speed high. the soil during excavation, and the subsequent generation of
Although the risk of static liquefaction could now be deter- excess pore pressures in front of the TBM, is taken into account,
mined based on the change in porosity, a more practical approach the required minimum support pressure in permeable non-cohe-
has been suggested for the recent update to NEN3650-1:2012 sive soils can increase significantly. This is especially the case at
(2012). Field experience, at excavations and other types of con- low overburden, or where the overburden is composed of soil lay-
struction works, as documented by CUR166 (2005), shows that sta- ers with low strength, i.e. peats and soft clays.
tic liquefaction becomes an issue for sand layers with a relative The generated excess pore pressures lower the effective stresses
density Dr < 55%. CUR166 (2005) estimates the relative density in the soil. This can be problematic in non-cohesive sand layers,
from a cone penetration test (CPT) based on the work by where a lack of microstability of the individual grains can lead to
Schmertmann (1976). More recent work by Jamiolkowski et al. a slow, gradual and ongoing collapse of the tunnel face. In loose
(2003) provides an updated relationship between cone resistance sand at low relative density this mechanism can be relatively quick
qc and relative density Dr , which has been used to plot Fig. 7. This and give rise to static liquefaction of the soil in front of the TBM.
graph can be used for a quick evaluation of the liquefaction poten- This can result in initially undetected overexcavation and extre-
tial of sand layers in front of the TBM. mely large settlements at surface.
Where sand layers susceptible to liquefaction exist, with the In order to prevent micro-instabilities or static liquefaction of
susceptibility determined from a CPT, the updated NEN3650- loose sand layers, minimum requirements to the yield strength
1:2012 (2012) prescribes the use of a bentonite based slurry. For of the (bentonite) suspension used in slurry TBMs should be posed.
other site conditions, a minimum slurry quality according to Eq. The required minimal yield strength might be obtained by keeping
(6) is prescribed if the characteristic grain size d10 > 10 lm, and sufficient fines, excavated at the face, in suspension by only par-
no conditions are set for finer graded soils. These requirements tially cleaning the returns from the TBM, and reusing these as a
ensure that in sandy soils a minimum amount of fines needs to low-cost low-quality suspension. The expectation is, however, that
be present in the slurry and the use of clean water as a support in practice the amount of fines present in coarser sand and gravel
medium is not allowed any more. layers, as well as uniform fine sand layers, which soil types need a
On the other hand, these new requirements do leave the estab- sufficient yield strength of the suspension to be stable, is too low to
lished practice open, if mixed soil conditions exist at the face, and a be practical. Combined with the fact that swelling clays like ben-
sufficient clay fraction is excavated and kept in suspension at the tonite are an order more effective (by weight percentage) than
face, to keep the fine fraction of the excavated material in suspen- non-swelling clays in building up a sufficient yield strength of
sion and pump it back to the face as a low-cost low-quality slurry. the suspension and thereby preventing micro-instabilities, it is
Implicit in this method is the need for the contractor to continu- highly recommended to use bentonite based suspension in lieu
ously check the resulting slurry quality on site. And although for of pure water to stabilize the tunnel face.
fine sands this approach of re-use of excavated fines may be both At the same time, a bentonite suspension will more effectively
practical and theoretically sound, it has clear limits in coarser clog the pores at the excavation face and thereby limit the amount
material. Krause (1992) suggests that bentonite based suspensions of (filtrate) water that flows from the excavation chamber into the
have approximately 10 times higher yield strengths than non- soil. This infiltration water will generate excess pore pressures that
swelling clay based suspensions of the same density and that for lower the effective stresses of the soil, and thereby lower the global
coarser sands the required yield strength, i.e. the required density, face stability.
is so high that this is not practically attainable using non-swelling Only where site conditions are such that infiltration and lique-
clays. faction are not an issue, face stabilization with water should be
considered at all, and there it should be combined with a continu-
ous control on the actual soil conditions and the actual quality and
yield strength of the suspension present at the face.

References

Anagnostou, G., 2012. The contribution of horizontal arching to tunnel face stability.
Geotechnik 35, 34–44.
Anagnostou, G., Kovári, K., 1994. The face stability of slurry-shield-driven tunnels.
Tunnel. Underground Space Technol. 9, 165–174.
Arends, G., Soons, C.J., 2004. Evaluation of GBB Research. Technical Report 11,
Gemeenschappelijk Basisonderzoek Boortechnologie.
Barla, M., Camusso, M., Aiassa, S., 2006. Analysis of jacking forces during
microtunnelling in limestone. Tunnel. Underground Space Technol. 21, 668–
683.
Bezuijen, A., 1996. Inventarisatie Boorprojecten met ‘‘Loopzand’’. Technical Report
15, Boren Tunnels en Leidingen.
Broere, W., 1998. Face stability calculations for a slurry shield in heterogeneous soft
soils. In: Ferreira, N., Jr. (Ed.), Tunnels and Metropolises. Balkema, Rotterdam,
pp. 215–218.
Broere, W., 2001. Tunnel Face Stability & New CPT Applications. Ph.D. thesis, Delft
University of Technology, Delft.
Broere, W., Hergarden, H., 2010. Criteria voor keuze steunvloeistof bij
microtunnelling. Technical Report 1201171-000-GEO-0013, Deltares.
Broere, W., van Tol, A., 2001. Time-dependant infiltration and groundwater flow in a
face stability analysis. In: Adachi, T., Tateyama, K., Kimura, M. (Eds.), Modern
Tunneling Science and Technology. Balkema, pp. 629–634.
Fig. 7. Relationship between cone resistance qc , effective vertical stress r0v and Broere, W., Faassen, T., Arends, G., van Tol, A., 2007. Modelling the boring of curves
relative density Dr indicating the zone of loose packed sands (after Jamiolkowski in (very) soft soils during microtunnelling. Tunnel. Underground Space Technol.
et al., 2003). 22, 600–609.
 W. Broere / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 46 (2015) 12–17 17

Chambon, P., Corté, J., Garnier, J., König, D., 1991. Face stability of shallow tunnels in Osumi, T., 2000. Calculating jacking forces for pipe jacking methods. No-DIG Int.
granular soils. In: Ko, H., McLean, F. (Eds.), Centrifuge ’91. Balkema, Rotterdam, Res., 40–42.
pp. 99–105. Pellet-Beaucour, A.L., Kastner, R., 2002. Experimental and analytical study of friction
Chapman, D., Ichioka, Y., 1999. Prediction of jacking forces for microtunnelling forces during microtunneling operations. Tunnel. Underground Space Technol.
operations. Tunnel. Underground Space Technol. 14 (Suppl. 1), 31–41. 17, 83–97.
CUR166, 2005. Damwandconstructies. Technical Report 166, Centrum Uitvoering en Plekkenpol, J., van der Schrier, J., Hergarden, H., 2006. Shield tunnelling in saturated
Regelgeving (CUR). sand – face support pressure and soil deformations. In: Bezuijen, A., van Lottum,
Hölscher, P., 2006. Monitoring Microtunnelling IJ, Resultaten. Technical Report CO- H. (Eds.), Tunnelling: A Decade of Progress, Geo-Delft 1995–2005. Taylor &
418890-0016, Delft Geotechnics. Francis, pp. 133–142.
Hölscher, P., 2008. Procesverbetering Aanleg Ondergrondse Infrastructuur – Rankine, W., 1857. On the stability of loose earth. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond., 9–27.
Microtunnelling. Technical Report TC161, Centrum Ondergronds Bouwen. Röhner, R., Hoch, A., 2010. Calculation of jacking force by new atv a-161. Tunnel.
Horn, N., 1961. Horizontaler Erddruck auf senkrechte Abschlussflächen von Underground Space Technol. 25, 731–735.
Tunnelröhren. In: Landeskonferenz der Ungarischen Tiefbauindustrie, pp. 7–16. Ruse, N., 2004. Räumliche Betrachtung der StandSicherheit der Ortsbrust beim
Jamiolkowski, M., lo Presti, D., Manassero, M., 2003. Evaluation of relative density Tunnelvortrieb. Technical Report, Institut für Geotechniek – Universität
and shear strength of sands from CPT and DMT. In: Soil Behavior and Soft Stuttgart.
Ground Construction. ASCE, GSP, pp. 201–238. Schmertmann, J., 1976. An Updated Correlation Between Relative Density, Dr, and
Jancsecz, S., Steiner, W., 1994. Face support for a large mix-shield in heterogenous Fugro-type Electric Cone Bearing qc. Contract Report DACW 38-76-M 6646.
ground conditions. In: Tunneling ’94, Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.
London, pp. 531–550. Shou, K., Yen, J., Liu, M., 2010. On the frictional property of lubricants and its impact
Kilchert, M., Karstedt, J., 1984. Schlitzwände als Trag- und Dichtungwände, Band 2, on jacking force and soil-pipe interaction of pipe-jacking. Tunnel. Underground
Standsicherheitberechnung von Schlitzwänden. DIN, Berlin, pp. 28–34. Space Technol. 25, 469–477.
Kirsch, A., 2009. Experimental and numerical investigation of the face stability of Stein, D., 2005. Trenchless Technology for Installation of Cables and Pipelines. Stein
shallow tunnels in sand. In: Kocsonya, P. (Ed.), ITA-AITES World Tunnel & Partner GmbH.
Congress 2009 Safe Tunnelling For The City and Environment, Hungarian van den Berg, J., van Gelder, A., Mastbergen, D., 2002. The importance of breaching
Tunneling Association, pp. O–19–12 – 1–8. as a mechanism of subaqueous slope failure in fine sand. Sedimentology 49, 81–
Krause, T., 1987. Schildvortrieb mit flüssigkeits – und erdgestützter Ortsbrust. Ph.D. 95.
Thesis, Technischen Universität Carolo-Wilhelmina, Braunschweig. van Rhee, C., Bezuijen, A., 1992. Influence of seepage on stability of sandy slope.
Krause, T., 1992. Erfahrungen mit einem Erddruckschild beim Bau eines ASCE J. Geotech. Eng. 8, 1236–1240.
Mischwasserkanals in Bremen. In: Forschung + Praxis 34: Tunnelbau – Neue Vermeer, P., Ruse, N., 2000. Face stability when tunneling in soil and homogeneous
Chancen aus europäischen Impulsen, STUVA. Alba, Düsseldorf, pp. 53–5. rock. In: Smith, D., Carter, J. (Eds.), Developments in Theoretical Geomechanics
Müller-Kirchenbauer, H., 1977. Stability of slurry trenches in inhomogeneous – The John Booker Memorial Symposium. Balkema, pp. 123–138.
subsoil. In: N.N. (Ed.), 9th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Walz, B., Gerlach, J., Pulsfort, M., 1983. Schlitzwandbauweise, Konstruktion,
Foundation Engineering, pp. 125–132. Berechnung und Ausführung. Technical Report, Bergische Universität
NEN Committee 310 004, 2003. Eisen voor Buisleidingsystemen – Deel 1: Algemeen Gesamthochschule Wuppertal.
NEN 3650-1:2003 NL. Technical Report, NEN. Wilkinson, D., 1999. Successful microtunnelling: matters which must be
NEN Committee 310 004, 2012. Eisen voor Buisleidingsystemen – Deel 1: Algemeen considered. Tunnel. Underground Space Technol. 14 (Suppl. 2), 47–61.
NEN 3650-1:2012 NL. Technical Report, NEN.

View publication stats