Blow-out Face Stability Analysis of Shield Tunnel in

Anisotropic and Heterogeneous Soils using 3-D Upper

Bound Limit Analysis

Supervision of Presented by
Dr. Bibhash Kumar Himanshu Rawat (BT21CIV028)
Pavan Dande (BT21CIV006)
Vaibhav Kumar Gupta (BT21CIV028)
 1. Introduction
2. Objective
CONTENT 3. Problem Definition
4. Methodology
5. Result and discussion
6. Conclusion
7. Reference

2
 INTRODUCTION

 We can analyse tunnel stability by two method

- Face study

- peripheral study

 The assessment of tunnel face stability is a crucial aspect of tunnel design, particularly in the

context of shield tunnels. During the excavation of shield tunnels, it is essential to ensure the

stability of the tunnel face. To achieve this, the shield machine applies a supporting pressure at the

tunnel face, which can be generated through compressed air, earth pressure, or bentonite slurry.

 The peripheral study is important for the stability of the tunnel stability for this we use shield or

different type of anchorage system. 3

 Face Stability

 Two type of failure occurring in face of soil

Collapse failure

Blowout failure

 When pressure exerted by the soil on face is greater then

pressure exerted by Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM) called
collapse failure.

 When pressure exerted by TBM is greater than pressure

exerted by soil on face called blowout failure. Fig 1. Tunnel boring machine for passive pressure to prevent collapse.
4
.
 Anisotropic Undrain Shear (AUS) Clay
 We use three parameter for directional dependence S uo, Su45, Su90.

 Furthermore, since μ = su90/su0 and λ = su45/su0, the two non-dimensional strength characteristics
that can be utilized to establish the relationship between s u0, su45, and su90 are μ and λ.
 For finding Su45 we use –

2

1 
 For heterogenous property –

• su0(y) = su0s + ρy
• su45(y) = su45s + ρy Fig. 2 Increment of shear strength with depth

• su90(y) = su90s + ρy
Where ρ represent strength increment and the shear strength anisotropy along the ground surface
is indicated by su0s, su45s, and su90s.
5
Objective
 Accurate evaluation of the 3-D face stability of circular tunnels using blow-out pressure across
various combinations of normalized overburden pressure, heterogeneous and anisotropic
parameters, and cover-to-depth ratio.
The failure mechanisms arising from the influence of heterogeneous and anisotropic parameters
have also been studied.

6
 Problem Definition
 A 3D face stability of a circular tunnel with a diameter (D) excavated at
a cover depth of C below the horizontal ground surface in non-
homogeneous and anisotropic undrained clays.
 For this model the material we use is anisotropic heterogenous clay the
input value of material is –
i. H/D = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
ii. µ = 0.5, 0.75, 1.
iii. ρD/su0s = 0, 0.5, 1.
iv. γD/su0s = 1, 3, 5. Fig 3. Problem statement of the numerical model
.

7
Methodology

MODELLING ANALYSIS COMPARE

The results computed from

3-D model tunnel in optum Upper bond limit present analysis will be
G-3 analysis compared with available
result in literature..

8
Comparison

Fig 4. Comparison of present study with Mollon et al. (2010)

9
 Result and Discussion

20 30
 D/su0s = 1;  D/su0s = 0  D/su0s = 5;  D/su0s = 0  D/su0s = 3;  D/su0s = 0
18 41 27
36 24
16
31 21
σb /su0s

σb /su0s
σb /su0s
14
26 18
12
21 15
10
16 12
8 11 9
μ = 0.5, 0.75, 1 (lower to upper line) μ = 0.5, 0.75, 1 (lower to upper line) μ = 0.5, 0.75, 1 (lower to upper line)
6 6 6
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
H/D H/D H/D

Fig 5: The variation of σb/Suo with γD/ su0s for ρD/su0s= 0, µ= 0.5 and

different value of H/D orµ.

10
  D/su0s = 1;  D/su0s = 0.5 66  D/su0s = 5;  D/su0s = 0.5 56  D/su0s = 3;  D/su0s = 0.5
46
41 56 46
36

σb /su0s
46

σb /su0s
36
σb /su0s

31
36
26 26
21 26
16
16
16 μ = 0.5, 0.75, 1 (lower to upper line)
11 μ = 0.5, 0.75, 1 (lower to upper line) μ = 0.5, 0.75, 1 (lower to upper line) 6
6 1 2 3 4 5
6 H/D
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
H/D H/D

Fig 6: The variation of σb/Suo with γD/ cu0s for ρD/cu0s= 0.5, µ= 0.5 and

different value of H/D orµ.

11
 76  D/su0s = 1;  D/su0s = 1 96  D/su0s = 5;  D/su0s = 1 86  D/su0s = 3;  D/su0s = 1
86 76
66
76
66
56
66

σb /su0s
σb /su0s
σb /su0s

56
46 56
46
36 46
36
36
26 26
26
16 16 16 μ = 0.5, 0.75, 1 (lower to upper line)
μ = 0.5, 0.75, 1 (lower to upper line) μ = 0.5, 0.75, 1 (lower to upper line)
6 6 6
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
H/D H/D H/D

Fig 7: The variation of σb/Suo with γD/ cu0s for ρD/cu0s= 1, µ= 0.5 and

different value of H/D orµ.

12
 Failure Pattern

Fig 8. Failure pattern at H/D=1, re=0.5, γ=1, ρ=0. Fig 9. Failure pattern at H/D=1, re=1, γ=1, ρ=0.

Fig 10. Failure pattern at H/D=1, re=1, γ=5, ρ=0. Fig 11. Failure pattern at H/D=1, re=1, γ=5, 13
Conclusion
 An increase in blow out pressure from 14% to 30% is observed when the value of µ varies between 0.5 and 1.

 An increase in the value of ρ from 0 to 1 results in a corresponding increase in the blow

out pressure from 40% to 300%.

 As the value of γ rises from 1 to 5, there is a corresponding increase in the blow out
pressure from 30% to 78%.

 When the ratio of height to diameter (H/D) increases from 1 to 5, there is a proportional
rise in the blowout pressure from 125% to 350%.

14
 Reference
• Ukritchon, B., Keawsawasvong, S., 2017. Design equations for undrained stability of opening in underground walls. Tunn.
Undergr. Space Technol. 70, 214–220.

• Ukritchon, B., Keawsawasvong, S., 2019a. Lower bound solutions for undrained face stability of plane strain tunnel headings
in anisotropic and non-homogeneous clays.

• The Ei Ei Soe , Boonchai Ukritchon . Three-dimensional undrained face stability of circular tunnels in non-homogeneous and
anisotropic clays

• Technol. 118, 104190. Li, T., Yang, X., 2020. Face failure potential of a circular tunnel driven in anisotropic and
nonhomogeneous soils. Int. J. Geomech. 20 (8), 04020112.

• Mollon, G., Dias, D., Soubra, A.-H., 2010. Face stability analysis of circular tunnels driven by a pressurized shield. J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng. 136 (1), 215–229.

15