TUNNELS AND DEEP SPACE

0886-7798(94)E0006-5

The Face Stability of

Slurry-shield-driven Tunnels
G. Anagnostou and K. Kovdri

Abstract--During the excavation of a tunnel through soft water-
bearing ground, a temporary support is often required to maintain
the stability of the working face. In a slurry shield, this support is
provided by a pressurized mixture of bentonite and water. Slurry-
shield tunnelling has been applied successfully worldwide in
recent years. Under extremely unfavorable geological conditions,
however, face instabilities may occur. This paper aims at a better
understanding of the mechanics of face failure when using a
bentonite slurry support. The complex interrelations between the
various parameters (shear strength and ground permeability,
suspension parameters, slurry pressure, geometric data of the
tunnel, safety factor) are studied. Attention is paid to the time-
dependent effects associated with the gradual infiltration of slurry
into the ground ahead of the tunnel. Related topics, such as the
stand-up time, soil properties and the effect of advance rate, are
discussed quantitatively.
R$sumg,--Le creusement d'un tunnel darts un terrain meuble
ndcessite souvent un sout}nement temporaire afin de stabiliser le
front de taille. Dane le cas d'un bouclier g~bone, cette pression de
stabilisation est r~alisde par un mdlange de bentonite et d'eau sous
pression. Durant ces dernikres anndes, grdve g~ une dvolution
technologique importante, l'utilisation de boucliere g~bous pour la
r~alisation d'ouvrages souterrains a connu un saccgs mondial.
Pourtant, face d des conditions g~ologiquesextr~mement cl~favorables,
des probl~mes majeurs de stabilitd du front de taille peuvent se
prdsentsr. L'article prdsent a pour objectif d'am~liorer la
compr~heneion de la mdcanique de la rupture du front de taille pour
le cas d'un front stabilisd par de la bous ~ base de bentonite. On
~tudie les relations complexes entre les diffdrents param$trss
(r~sistance au cisaillement et perm~abilit~ du sol, pression de boue,
donndes g~omdtriques du tunnel, coefficient de sdcurit~) en tenant
compte des effets transitoires dtls ~ l'infiltration progressive de la
boue darts le sol en avant de l'avancement. En outre, d'autres sujets
comme le temps pendant lequel le front de mille reste stable ou
l'influence de la vitesse d'avancement sont discut~s quanti tativement.

1. Introduction results in excess air pressure and may ditions, face instabilities m a y occur
cause an escape of air to the surface-- locally when this technique is used

D
u r i n g the e x c a v a t i o n of a
tunnel through soft water-
bearing ground, the excava-
tion face becomes instable when the
soillacks sufficient cohesion. Atempo-
r a r y support is therefore required to
maintain ground stability in the work-
ing area.
In shield tunnelling, collapse of the
walls and roof is prevented by the shield
and the subsequent segment lining.
Apart from r a t h e r impracticable types
of support such as breasting plates,
stability of the working face can be
achieved by using compressed air.
However, the use of compressed air
introduces the risk of a blowout, i.e., a
sudden reduction of support pressure
on account of rapid loss of air. The
difference in the hydrostatic head at
the crown and the floor of the tunnel
Present address: Dr. G. Anagaostou and
Prof. If. Kovdri, Institute for Geotechnics,
Swiss Federal Institute of Technology
Zurich, ETH-H6nggerberg PF- 133, CH-8093
Zurich, Switzerland.
either by leakage through soil pores or (Belling and Eisenbach 1989; Baben-
by a heaving of the ground mass above dererde 1991; Balmer 1992).
the shield. This phenomenon is par- Figure 2 shows schematically two
tieularly likely to occur when the tun- typical patterns of failure. In the first
nel is shallow and its diameter large. case, major soil movements are re-
The problems associated with the
use of compressed air have led to the
increasing use of slurry-shield tunnel-
ling over the last twenty years (see,
e.g., Becker and Sawinski 1982). In a
slurry shield, the temporary support of
the face is provided by a pressurized
mixture of bentonite or clay and water.
Because of the high viscosity of the
slurry, the risk of an uncontrolled es-
cape of fluid by leakage is generally
reduced. As slurry is only slightly
heavier than water, the excess fluid
pressure in the crown is small. The
risk of an upheaval of the ground there-
fore is eliminated as well.
In the last decade, slurry-shield tun-
nelling has been applied successfully
worldwide on several projects. The
largest existing tunnel (in Grauholz,
Switzerland), excavated by the slurry Figure 1. The cutting-head o f the
shield method, has a diameter of 11.65 hydroshield in the Grauholz Tunnel
m (see Fig. 1). However, under ex- h a d a diameter o f 11.65 m (from
tremely unfavourabie geological con- Kovdri et al. 1993).

Tunnellingand UndergroundSpace Technology,Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 165-174. 1994

Copyright (~) 1994 Elsevier Science Ltd
Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved ~ Pergamon
0886-7798/94 $6.00 + .O0
165
 2. The Collapse Mechanism
Notation Face stability in homogeneous
The following symbols are used in this paper: g r o u n d can be a s s e s s e d by considering
the simple m e c h a n i s m i l l u s t r a t e d in
c = cohesion; v = excavation advance rate; F i g u r e 3. This t h r e e - d i m e n s i o n a l
D = d i a m e t e r of tunnel; v = criticalexcavation advance model, which was first proposed by
dlo = c h a r a c t e r i s t i c g r a i n size; rate; H o r n (1961), is b a s e d on the silo-theory
e = p e n e t r a t i o n distance; = s u b m e r g e d u n i t weight; of J a n s s e n (1895).
e=~ = m a x i m u m p e n e t r a t i o n dis- 7b = unit weight of slurry incl. The circular cross-section of t h e tun-
tance; aggregated solid matter; nel is a p p r o x i m a t e d by a square whose
F = s a f e t y factor; 7d = dry unit weight; sides are as long a s the d i a m e t e r D of
the tunnel. The collapse m e c h a n i s m
f = critical p r e s s u r e gradient; 7s = unit weight of slurry with-
consists of a wedge a n d a r i g h t - a n g l e d
f = p r e s s u r e gradient; out aggregates;
p r i s m t h a t extends from the t u n n e l
f = s t a g n a t i o n p r e s s u r e gra- 7. = unit w e i g h t of water; crown to t h e surface. The soil is
dient; Ap = excess fluid pressure; i d e a l i s e d as a rigid-plastic m a t e r i a l
H = overburden; = ratio of h o r i z o n t a l to verti- obeying the Mohr-Coulomb failure con-
Hw = e l e v a t i o n of w a t e r table; cal s t r e s s above the tunnel; dition with cohesion c and angle of
k = soil p e r m e a b i l i t y w . r . t . ~w = ratio of h o r i z o n t a l to verti- i n t e r n a l friction ¢. Then, at each point
water; cal s t r e s s in t h e wedge; on t h e slip surfaces, the m o b i l i s e d
n = soil porosity; p~ = dynamic viscosity of slurry; s h e a r i n g r e s i s t a n c e v is given by
p = pressure; ~tw = d y n a m i c viscosity o f w a t e r ;
c~ = n o r m a l stress; c tan~# ( 1)
Pb = p r e s s u r e in bentonite;
c= = vertical stress; F F
p, = p r e s s u r e in g r o u n d w a t e r ;
q = macroscopic f i l t r a t i o n ve- = vertical s t r e s s a t the where aandF denote the normal stress
locity; interface; and the safety factor, respectively.
r = r a t i o of volume to surface = s h e a r stress; The wedge is acted upon by: (a) its
of p r i s m a t i c block; zf = yield s t r e n g t h of slurry; weight; (b) the r e s u l t a n t n o r m a l forces
S = s u p p o r t force; z¢ = frictional resistence; a n d s h e a r forces along the failure sur-
faces ADE, BCF a n d ABFE; (c) t h e
So = s u p p o r t force o f m e m - = angle of i n t e r n a l friction;
r e s u l t i n g s u p p o r t force of the slurry;
brane-model; co = inclination of slip surface; a n d (d) the r e s u l t a n t vertical force of
t = s t a n d - u p time; cop = inclination of critical the p r i s m a t the interface DEFC.
wedge. Solving the limit- e q u i l i b r i u m equa-
tions of t h e wedge yields the s u p p o r t
force for a specific collapse mecha-
nism, i.e., for a specific i n c l i n a t i o n ~oof
s t r i c t e d to a zone close to the h e a d i n g . culations h a s a l r e a d y been a d d r e s s e d t h e slip surface A B F E . The critical
T h e cave-in of t h e g r o u n d m a y ob- by several a u t h o r s . F o r a synopsis of i n c l i n a t i o n ~ . i s d e t e r m i n e d by i t e r a -
s t r u c t t h e r o t a t i o n of the c u t t i n g - h e a d , the various analysis methods, the t i v e l y m a x i m i z i n g t h e n e c e s s a r y sup-
t h e e x c a v a t i o n m u s t be d i s r u p t e d , and r e a d e r is r e f e r r e d to K r a u s e (1987) a n d p o r t force o r - - f o r a given s u p p o r t
t h e soil h a s to be r e m o v e d m a n u a l l y B a l t h a u s (1988). L i m i t - s t a t e - d e s i g n - f o r c e - - b y i t e r a t i v e l y m i n i m i z i n g the
from the w o r k i n g area. In t h e second b a s e d solutions h a v e b e e n p r o p o s e d by s a f e t y factor. All c o m p u t a t i o n s are
case, the collapse p r o p a g a t e s t o w a r d s Leca a n d P a n e t (1988) a n d Leca a n d c a r r i e d o u t i n t e r m s of e f f e c t i v e
t h e surface, c r e a t i n g a c h i m n e y a n d Dormieux (1991 ). s t r e s s e s , w h e r e b y a h y d r o s t a t i c distri-
By t a k i n g into c o n s i d e r a t i o n t h e ef- b u t i o n of pore w a t e r p r e s s u r e s along
s o m e t i m e s a c r a t e r on t h e g r o u n d sur-
fects of s l u r r y p e n e t r a t i o n into t h e t h e slip surfaces is a s s u m e d .
face. The h e a d i n g f a i l u r e t h e n r e s u l t s
ground, this p a p e r a i m s a t a b e t t e r The s h e a r s t r e s s e s d e p e n d essen-
in excessive subsidence, a n d possible
u n d e r s t a n d i n g of t h e mechanics of face t i a l l y on the horizontal stresses acting
damage to overlying structures. W h e n
failure w h e n u s i n g b e n t o n i t e slurry. n o r m a l to the vertical slip surfaces.
tunnelling under a river, a lake or the
Because s l u r r y i n f i l t r a t i o n is a t r a n - However, the horizontal stresses can-
see, a direct channel is established
s i e n t process, t h e s t a n d - u p time, as not be computed w i t h o u t consideration
between tunnel and water.
well as the safety factor, a r e influenced of t h e deformation c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of
The p r o b l e m of e x p l a i n i n g a n d pre-
by t h e r a t e of excavation. t h e ground. Following J a n s s e n ' s silo-
dicting face i n s t a b i l i t y b y s t a t i c a l cal-
theory, a c o n s t a n t r a t i o A of horizontal
to vertical stresses will be a s s u m e d
here. Terzaghi a n d J e l i n e k (1954) pro-
x7 posed a value ofA = 1. Based u p o n t h e
m o d e l t e s t s of M e l i x (1987) a n d
G u d e h u s a n d Melix (1986), a value of
0.80 h a s been chosen for the n u m e r i c a l
e x a m p l e s p r e s e n t e d in this paper.
The vertical force a t the interface
C D E F is c o m p u t e d b y a p p l y i n g
J a n s s e n ' s silo-formulae first to the pris-
m a t i c body above t h e w a t e r table, a n d
at~erwards to t h e p a r t b e t w e e n w a t e r
t a b l e a n d crown. Thus, the different
u n i t weights above a n d below the wa-
(a) (b) t e r t a b l e (see Table 1) a r e t a k e n into
account. The m e a n effective vertical
Figure 2. Typical patterns of face failure. stress a along DEFC is given by:

1~[~ TUNNELLING AND UNDERGROUND SPACE TECHNOLOGY V o l u m e 9, N u m b e r 2, 1994

 qv= T ' r - c (1_ e-Xta~/~w# ) +
Xtar~
T d r - c (e_Xtaa,Hw/r_e_~tan,H/r ), (2)
tan~ M
where H , / - / , $.dand 1/denote the over-
burden, the elevation of the water table
above the crown (see Fig. 3), the dry L
unit weight, and the submerged unit
weight, respectively. The parameter r
denotes the ratio of the volume to the
circumference of the prisma [r = 0.5 D
tanw/(1 + tanw)]. The eq. (2) holds for
a safety factor o f F = 1. Other values of
F can be taken into account by replac-
ing c and tan~ by c / F and tanep/F,
respectively [see eq. (1)].
With regard to the a stress distri-
bution along the slip surfaces ADE and
BCF of the wedge, the linear approxi-
mation proposed in the German Stan-
E H.
dards for slurry walls (DIN 4126,1986)
will be assumed (see Fig. 4). Accord-
ingly, the verticalstress G increases
linearlywith depth due to the weight of
the soil,whereas the contribution of
the interface stress ~ to the vertical
stress decreases. The m e a n frictional Y
resistance vfis then obtained by inte-
grating A G tan~ over the slipsurfaces J D
A D E and I~CF:

% = X,(-1y'D + 2 o,,)tan¢ (3)

3 3 F
The approximation of Figure 4 is
discussed elsewhere (Walz and Pulsfort
1983). The authors have also carried
out a numerical study in which the
wedge-equilibrium was analysed on the
basis of the silo-theory, i.e., the wedge
was divided into horizontal slices (see
Walz and Prager 1978). This study
revealed t h a t the approximation sug-
gested in DIN 4126 (1986) overesti-
mates the vertical stress ~ and, conse-
quently, the shearingresistance as well.
However, the uncertainties associated
with the linear approximation of Fig-
ure 4 can be compensated by choosing
a lower coefficient of lateral stress A
instead of A in (3). In the numerica~
examples offered in this paper, a value
of ~ = 0.40--half as large as the one
above the tunnel--will be assumed.
3. T h e Stabilizing Effect of a
B e n t o n i t e Slurry
The supporting effect of slurry has
been studied extensively by a number
of authors over the past forty years in
conjunction with the design and con-
struction of diaphragm walls. For a
comprehensive review, refer to Xan-
thakos (1979). Recent research works
related to the use of slurries in shield
tunnelling include those of Kntipfer
and Meseck (1984) and Kranse (1987).
To prevent a seepage flow towards
the excavation face, the pressure Pb in
the slurry must exceed the pore water
Figure 3. Sliding mechanism (after Horn I961).
Table 1. Parameter values.
Parameter Value
Soil:
• Dry unit weight 7d (kN/m 3 ) 20.0
•
Submerged unit weight 7 I (kN/m)3 12.0
• Porosity n 0.20
• Strength parameters c, variable
• Permeability k variable
Unit weight of slurry:
• Including aggregated solid matter 7b(kN/m 3) 12.0
• Without aggregates T,(kN/m 3) 10.3
Yield strength vf(Pa) of slurry (cf Krause 1987, DIN 4127):
•
With 4 0Yobantonite 15
• With 7% bentonite 80
Dynamic viscosityP~(cP) of slurry (after Xanthakos 1979):
• With 4% bentonite
• With 7% bentonite
pressurepw in the soil (Fig. 5). The unit the slurry during excavation, a value of
weight ~ of the slurry is higher t h a n =12 kN/m 3 will be assumed in the
that of water. The excess pressure Ap numerical examples. It should be noted,
is therefore not constant over the face however, that here, in contrast to the
of tunnel, but varies from a minimum slurry technique applied to the con-
at the crown to a m a x i m u m at the struction of diaphragm walls, the den-
invert. Because of the soil retained in sity of the suspension is not so impor-

Volume 9, Number 2, 1994 TUNNELLING ANDUNDERGROUND SPACETECHNOLOGY 167


D7
< D > (a)
Figure 4. Vertical stress distribution (after DIN 4126).
tant from the point of view of face
stabilization because the slurry is pres-
surized inside the working area.
It is well known that the stabilizing
force of the slurry depends essentially
on the degree of penetration of the
slurry into the ground (see, e.g.,
Xanthakos 1979): i.e., the less the slurry
penetrates, the greater the support
force.
In the borderline case of a practi-
cally negligible penetration distance
(Fig. 5a), the hydrostatic pressure of
the slurry acts as though the face were
sealed by an impervious membrane
(the so-called "membrane-model"). In
this case, the support force results from
the difference in hydrostatic pressure
between the slurry and the ground
water.
The penetration distance is small
immediately after the filling of the
working area with slurry, or when the
soil is fine-grained or the slurry has the
ability to form a seal (the so-called
filter-cake). A filter-cake is formed
when the suspension contains aggre-
gated solid matter that is filtered out
at the beginning of the slurry penetra-
tion. A fine-grained low-permeable
layer thus builds-up and increases the
filtration effect. The difference be-
tweenpandPbis lost inside the filter-
cake and penetration of the bentonite
into the soil stops.
Suspended material u s u a l l y is
presentinthe slurry. Aggregates (such
as sawdust; see Fuchsberger 1975 and
Balmer 1992) may be added to the
suspension when necessary--e.g., in a
uniform, coarse and poorly-graded
ground.
The stability of trenches where the
slurry penetrates rather deeply into
the ground has been studied by Miiller-
Kirchenbauer (1972). The stabilizing
effect of the slurry is attributed to the
mass forces associated with the pres-
sure gradient inside the suspension-
saturated ground. The resulting sup-
port force of the slurry is obtained by
integrating the mass forces over the
penetrated zone of the wedge. Be-
cause of its yield strength, the suspen-
168 TUNNELLINGANDUNDERGROUNDSPACETECHNOLOGY
\\\\\~'-\\\'-\\\\\x\\\\\\\\\-
(~z
Excess Pressure
Figure 5. Stabilizing effect of the suspension: (a) without and
(b) with penetration into the ground.
sion comes to a standstill after the
penetration reaches a distance e
The corresponding pressure gradient
f. here is referred to as the "stagna-
~on gradient":
Ap
f so - -
e max '
where Av and e,~ denote the excess
fluid pressure and the final distance of
penetration, respectively.
For a specific slurry composition
(bentonite type and concentration, ad-
ditives,etc.)and a specificsubsoil type,
the stagnation gradient is an experi-
mentally measurable constant. Ac-
cording to (4), the penetration dis-
tance will increase linearly with ex-
cess pressure:
~P
e max-
Because the excess pressure zip is
not constant over the tunnel face, the
distance of penetration will vary with
depth along the tunnel face. It should
be noted that (5) gives the final dis-
tance of penetration, i.e., after suffi-
cient time has elapsed. Time-depen-
dent effects are dealt with in Sections
6 and 7.
Face stability will be studied first
by taking the simple case of the mem-
brane-model (Section 4); and after-
wards by considering the more com-
plex case involving infiltration of the
slurry into the ground (Section 5).
4. Results Based upon the
Membrane-Model
We carried out a parametric study
for the example of a tunnel with a
diameter ofD = 10 m; the overburden is
H = 10 m, and the water level i s / / = 5
m above the crown. Figure 6a shows
the excess pressure zip at the crown
that is necessary to retain equilibrium
(safety factor F = 1), as a function of the
soil strength parameters c and ~. At a
given angle of internal friction, a low
cohesion c a n be compensated by a
higher excess fluid pressure z~---a main
feature of slurry shield tunnelling.
~\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \ \ \..\\\',
,....'!
"Membrane"
~
Suspension
epage Force
(b)
With a friction angle of approximately
40 °, the vertical tunnel face would be
stable even when the ground is cohe-
sionless and the excess pressure at the
crown is 0. This phenomenon occurs
because the assumed unit weight of
(4) the slurry is 20% higher than that of
water.
Figure 6b illustrates the interrela-
tionship between overburden H, el-
evation of water table Hw, angle of
internal friction ~0and necessary ex-
cess pressure zip at the limiting equi-
librium (safety factor F=I). These
results hold for the special case of a
granular soil (c = 0).
It is readily apparent that neither a
doubling of the overburden from 10 m
to 20 m (see curves b and g) nor a
variation in the elevation of the water
(5) table (see curves g, c and d) will influ-
ence considerably the required excess
pressure at a given angle of internal
friction. It is interesting, however,
that while the necessary fluid pressure
increases with the elevation of the water
table, the excess pressure zip decreases
(curve d is deeper than curve g). Be-
cause of the buoyancy inside the pris-
matic block above the tunnel, the higher
the elevation of the water table, the
smaller the effective vertical stress at
the interface DEFC (Fig. 3).
Figure 6b reveals, furthermore, that
a low excess pressure of 20 kPa is
sufficient to ensure the face stability
of tunnels in gravels or sands with
values typically greater than 30 °. At
an excess pressure of 70 kPa, the tun-
nel face would be stable even in a lake
marl in which c = 0 and ~#= 15 °. Such
excess fluid pressures can be realized
easily in practice--for example, by
adjusting the air-cushion pressure in
a hydro-shield. The results obtained
by the membrane-model imply, there-
fore, that face instabilities should not
occur when a slurry shield is used,
even when the ground has an ex-
tremely low shear strength. However,
the question arises: To what extent
does the membrane model retain its
validity when the slurry penetrates
into the ground?
Volume 9, Number 2, 1994
 excess pressure, the final distance of
penetration will depend solely on the
stagnation gradient f,o (5). The fluid
excess pressure at the crown of the
tunnel is chosen to be zip = 20 kPa.
The authors carried out a paramet-
i D=10 m ric study concerning the effect off,° on
the safety factor F. In these computa-
100 tions, the variation of penetration dis-
O H=10m tance over the face was taken into
~,,_. 80' Hw=5m account. At any f,o value, the critical
inclination ~ r was determined itera-
~ 60 tively.
The c o m p u t a t i o n a l r e s u l t s are
shown in Figure 8. The stagnation
gradient, as well as the corresponding
distance of penetration at the level of
20 the tunnel axis, are given on the ab-
LU
(a) scissa. According to the membrane
01! 20 25 30 35 40 model, the safety factor is 1.50. With a
decreasing stagnation gradient (i.e.,
Friction Angle an increasing penetration distance of
the suspension into the ground), the
,,, a: H= 5 m , •H w = 5m safety factor gradually decreases. At a
,,b b: H=2Om;H w 5 critical stagnation gradientfo, of 12 kN/
~ 80 c ,, g: H=10m;Hw m 3(i.e., a mean penetration distance of
5
3 m), the safety factor equals 1; at
~ .~ " ",'~ c: H=lOm;Hw= Om I lower stagnation gradients, the tunnel
v .o ,; .;,orn,. ;,on I face cannot remain stable.
These results can be better eluci-
dated with the help of the following
empirical formulae, suggested by the
LI~ 20 .....~""; German Standards DIN 4126 (1986):
(b)
015 20 25 30 35 40 f~ =2_~ (8)
d 10
Friction Angle
Eq. (8) livks the stagnation gradi-
Figure 6. Limit equilibrium conditions for membrane model for a given set of ent f,o to the slurry type, characterized
parameters. byits yield strength vp as well as to the
subsoil type, characterized by its ef-
fective size dlo, i.e., the grain diameter
5. Stability Assessment with the wedge (i.e., ate < D taneo) and sub- at which 10% of the soil weight is
Slurry Penetration into the linearly thereafter. In contrast to the finer. The extent of slurry penetration
membrane model, the resulting sup- does not, accordingly, depend on the
Ground complete particle size distribution, but
port force depends on the value of w,
5.1. Support Force i.e., on the specific wedge. The critical r a t h e r is governed by the finer par-
The well-known reduction in the sliding mehanism (i.e., the value of~r) ticle fraction. For the theoretical and
stabilizing effect of slurry after it has will therefore be influenced by the de- empirical background of(8), refer, e.g.,
penetrated into the ground can be ex- gree of slurry penetration. to Miiller-Kirchenbauer (1972) and
plained in the following way. When Figure 7 shows the graphical rep- Xanthakos (1979).
the suspension penetrates into the resentation of(6) and (7) for a mecha- With regard to the yield strength vf
ground beyond the wedge block, it ex- nism with eo = 20 °. In this example, of the suspension, the bentonite con-
erts its thrust on a soil zone that is not approximatelly 10% of the force of the centration is essential (see Krause
involvedin the slidingmechanism. Sta- membrane model is lost per m e t e r of 1987; DIN 4127, 1986). Table 1 shows
bilizing body forces are thus withdrawn penetration. After the complete satu- the concentrations, as well as the as-
from the wedge, and the resulting sup- ration of the wedge under consider- signed v. values, t h a t will be used in
port force S (Fig. 7) will decrease gradu- ation (at e = 4 m), the force will de- the examples offered. For the design
ally during penetration. By neglecting crease more slowly. This is, however, of a tunnel, of course, the actual rela-
the variation of ponetration-distance e unimportant because the slurry will tionship between yield strength and
over the tunnel face, the following fairly have already lost approximately 50% concentration has to be determined
simple expression can be derived: of its stabilizing effect and, further- experimentally.
more, because the respective fluid Using (8), it is possible to represent
S _-1 e ife <D tanco; (6) losses are in practice intolerable. the safety factor as a function of the
S. 2D tanO characteristic grain size d m (Fig. 9).
On the abscissa, the grain size range
S _ D tano ire >D tano>,, (7) 5.2. S a f e , A s s e s s m e n t for gravels and sands is given as well:
So 2e Consider again a tunnel (D = H = 10 a d m value of 0.60 mm~ for example,
In; H = 5 m) in a granular soil (gravel) could belong to a poorly-graded me-
where S o denotes the support force of with an angle of internal friction of~ =
the membrane-model (i.e., at e = 0). dium sand with a small silt or clay
37.5°--the highest value for prelimi- fraction. The curves A, B and C in
The support force accordingly decreases
nary designs suggested by the G e r m a n Figure 9 correspond to different val-
linearly with e during the saturation of
Standard DIN 1055 (1976)• At a given ues of bentonite concentration and of

Volume 9, Number 2, 1994 TUNNELLINGANDUNDERGROUNDSPACETECHNOLOGY169


I, -
10 m ~ uspension
e
o 1,0"
f.f}
£/3 0,8-
G)
¢.)
o,6.
0,4"
r~
CI. 0,2
£/3 0,0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6
Penetration Distance
Figure 7. Loss of effective support force due to suspension
infiltration for ~ wedge with to = 20 o.
excess pressure zip at the crown of the
tunnel--i, e.,to differentvalues ofthose
parameters which can be directly con-
trolled by the engineer in practice.
5.3. Effect of the Characteristic
Grain Size dlo
Let us focus our attention on curve
A in Figure 9 (excess pressure zip = 20
kPa, bentonite concentration 4%). At
low dlo values, the deviation from the
membrane model is negligible; the
safety factor in this range remains ap-
proximately constant. In a subsoil with
a d/o value that is smaller than the
grmn size of medium sand, the slurry
acts as though the face were sealed,
regardless of whether or not a filter-
cake has built up. As a matter of
interest, in a subsoil in which the con-
ditions for the formation of a filter-
cake are fulfilled, the filter-cake will be
statically unimportant.
Soils with a dlo value higher than
0.60 nun occur rather infrequently.
Nonetheless, we will study the safety
in the range dzo > 0.60ram as well, in
order to explore the limits of slurry-
shield tunnelling. AS shown by curve
A, a steep decrease in the safety factor
occurs at dlovalues in the range of
coarse s a n d (0.60-2.00 ram). At a
characteristic grain size in the magni-
tude of fine gravel, the safety factor
becomes equal to 1. In a coarser sub-
soil, heading failure will occur.
In the example discussed above,
the concentration of bentonite is 4%
and the excess pressure is 20 kPa. The
question then arises: To what extent
170TUNNELLING AND UNDERGROUNDSPACE TECHNOLOGY
10 rn
+ iliiiiiiiii~,
2,0 -
~6
LL 1.5.
1,0 ~
500
Stagnation Gradient
I i
0.S 1.0 0.06
e/D
Figure 8. Safety factor as a function of stagnation
gradient (~ = 37.5°).
can the stability of the tunnel face be
increased by raising the excess pres-
sure or the bentonite concentration?
5.4. Effect of Excess Pressure AP
Curve B in Figure 9 holds for a
bentonite concentration of 4% and an
excess pressure of 40 kPamtwice as
high as curve A_ Accordingly, raising
the excess pressure causes an increase
in safety, but onlyin fine porous soils--
i.e., soils in which the lower pressure
would be enough as well. When the
characteristic grain size is bigger than
approxlmately 2 mm (i.e., poorly graded
gravel without a fine-grained fraction),
increasing the fluid pressure will only
cause further infiltration and fluid loss.
The considerable influence of ex-
cess pressure on face stability in the
case of a small d]ovalue can easily be
understood. In fine-grained soils, the
membrane model represents a reason-
able approximation (Fig. 8)--i.e., the
effective support force S is only slightly
lower than the support force S o of the
membrane model, which increases lin-
early with excess pressure. In a coarse
porous medium, however, increasing
the excess pressures causes a propor-
tional increase of the force So, but at
the same time, a decrease in the ratio
S/So as a result of the deeper penetra-
tion (see Fig. 7). In the final analysis,
the support force S--and, consequently,
the safety factor--remains constant.
To summarize the above discussion,
the deeper penetration of slurry into
the ground represents a serious safety
risk that cannot be compensated for by
"~ 20 kPa ."~
t--i.." !
....~i~!!;i!ii~ii~iii!iiiill
!
e !
STABLE i UNSTABL.[
MEMBRANE-MODEL
~ , "
I I i -
fcr
i
150 50 15 5 1.5
fso(kN/m a)
ecr
I. 1 --
m
I I
020 0 60 2 6 20
Penetration Distance e (m)
raising the fluid pressure. In extremely
coarse and poorly graded soils, an im-
portant technique for stabilizing the
face--the control ofthe fluidpressure--
becomes ineffective.
5.5. Effect of Bentonite
Concentration
The difference in curves A and C
lies in the differing bentonite content
(7% and 4%, respectively). Accord-
ingly, by selecting a higher bentonite
concentration, the grain-size range of
soils that can be supported by a bento-
nite slurry becomes, in this example,
larger by an order of magnitude. The
bentonite concentration influences sig-
nificantly the heading stability in a
poorly graded, coarse subsoil (see
Babendererde 1991).
As a comparison of curves A and C
reveals, increasing the bentonite con-
tent has little effect when the soil is
fine-grained. From the point of view of
face stabization, therefore, there can
be no objection to the use of a slurry
with a low concentration of bentonite;
such a suspension is favourable be-
cause of the easier separation and bet-
ter handling of the excavated material.
Conflicts may occur, however, when
the ground consists of different layers
with extreme variations in the finer
fraction.
6. Stand-up Time of the Tunnel
Face
In Sections 4 and 5, the stability of
the tunnel face was studied for two
Volume 9, N u m b e r 2, 1994
 "~ 20kP
Membrane-
model 1o~~il;~iiii
- -I ~ ~\..::::::~i~;!::ii!ii~iiiil
' ::
(~p=40 kPa) 4,
2,0 -,~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
e(z,t)
B Membrane-
13 E 4
model
t~ 'IL
p.=?o. k.p.2 ~D

f
LL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

O 3
f::
¢D t~
Ni--
O~ .-- 2
(/3 £3
c-
1,0 I O
,.~ 1
0,06 0,2 0,6 2,0 6,0 20 t~
.1=
Grain Size d (mm) c- 0
£L 0 5 10 15 20

I "SAND" I"GRAVEL" Time (hours)

Figure 9, Safety factor as a function of characteristic Figure 10. Penetration distance as a function of time (4%
grain size dlo (~ = 37.5 °. Curve A: z~ = 20 kPa, 4% bentonite according to Table 1, dlo= 6 mm, k =10~ m/sec).
bentonite; Curve B: zip = 40 kPa, 4% bentonite; Curve C:
zip = 20 kPa, 7% bentonite).

borderline cases concerning penetra- gradient ~p I ~x is lower than the stag-
tion distance (e = 0 or e = e ). How- nation gradient f,o;at higher pressure
ever, penetrahon distance increases gradients, the validity of Darcy~s law is
gradually over time. Face stability is assumed:
therefore time-dependent as well, i.e., dp
the safety factor decreases gradually >~o;
q =k ~-b -~Ztl~-x
from its m a x i m u m value (correspond-
ing to e = O) to its m i n i m u m value (10)
(corresponding to e = e ). Subse-
q = 0,if [ ~ x l< fso; (11)
quently, time effects will be studied
for the simple case where excavation where k is the permeability of the
is interrupted, e.g., during installa- ground with respect to water; p~ und p~
tion of the lining segments. denote the dy'Damic viscosity of water
(= 1 cP) and bentonite (see Table 1),
6.1. The Penetration Distance respectively; and 7~ is the unit weight
The first step involves computing of water. For the sake of simplicity,
the time-development of the penetra- beth ground and suspension are as-
tion distance, based on the theory of sumed to be incompressible.
multiphase flow of immiscible fluids In this case, the filtration velocityis
spatially constant (&//ax = 0) due to
(Bear 1977). With regard to the stabil-
ity of the tunnel face, only the area the one-dimensional mass conserva-
close to the face is important. It is tion equation. Consequently (10), the
therefore reasonable to model suspen- pressure decreases linearly within the
sion infiltration as a one-dimensional suspension-saturated area [0 <__x
process. e(z,t)], i.e., the pressure gradient is
In Figure 10, e(z,t) denotes the pen- constant:
etratien distance at time t and eleva-
tionz. The hydrostatic pressure at the dp _ pw(z)--pb (z) _ - Zip (z) (12)
tunnel face (x = 0) and at the suspen- dx e @J ) e Cz,t )
sion-water interface Ix = e(z,t)] is equal
to pb(z) and p~(z), respectively. The From (9), (10) and (12), one obtains
displacement of the interface is given the following expression for the infil-
by the me an microscopic velocity de / dt tration velocity de ~dr :
of the suspension:
de k lJw (Zip@) f,ol (13)
de _ q (e,t) (9) dt - n/.t b Yw ~ e - - - ~ - ];
dt n '
or, due to (4):
where n and q denote the porosity and
the (macroscopic) filtration velocity,
respectively. The filtration velocity q dtde - k/4~ Fw f " ( e m~ (z(z)-e(z
,t ) ~t ) )
is equal to zero when the pressure
Accordingly, infiltration velocity de /
dt decreases with increasing penetra-
tion distance e and it becomes equal to
zero when e = e . This occurs because
of the g r a d u a l ~ decreasing pressure
gradient. Eqs. (13) and (14) illustrate
the importance ofgronnd permeability
and suspension viscosity.
Integrating (13) and taking into ac-
count the initial condition e (z,O) = 0
leads to the following expression:
-e- 1-e
f,o
t - - - - ,
(15)
or, on account of(4):
n #ub 7~,Ap [1-e e
k ftwf,o 2
(16)
These equations give the time t that
m u s t elapse in order for the suspension
to infiltrate up to a distance e. Equa-
tions (15) and (16) cannot be solved in
a closed form with respect to e. It can
easily be verified, however, that the
penetration distance reaches asymp-
totically em~ when t--~.
Figure 10 shows the graphical rep-
resentation of(15). It is apparent that,
a t ~ r an initial phase with rapid infil-
tration, the penetration distance in-
creases more and more slowly up to its
final value (in this case, 4 m). In this
example, the suspension will infiltrate
up to 1-2 m within a few hours--pro-
vided that, despite the high fluidlosses,
fluid pressure in the working area can
be maintained.

Volume 9, Number 2, 1994 TUNNELLINGANDUNDERGROUNDSPACETECHNOLOGY1 7 1

6.2. Face Stability
The support force of the suspension
is obtained by integrating the pressure
gradient f~ over the suspension-satu-
rated area of the wedge (see Section 5).
It should be noted that the extent of
this area, as well as the pressure gradi-
ent, are time-dependent. The following
relationship is obtained from (15):
k ~f,o 2 f~ f , ))
(17)
The pressure gradient at an arbi-
trary time t can be computed itera-
tively from (17). It can readily be veri-
fied that f, decreases over the course of
time and that f s ~ f , o when t--+oo. Fur-
thermore, apart from the borderline
case of t --+~, the higher the excess fluid
pressure zip(z), the higher the pressure
gradient. Because Lip increases with
depth (Section 3), the pressure gradi-
ent will increase from its minimum
value at the tunnel crown to its maxi-
mum value at the tunnel floor.
The variation in the pressure gra-
dient over the tunnel face is more
pronounced at the beginning of the
infiltration process (low t values), es-
pecially when the excess fluid pres-
sure Lip at the crown is low. The fact
that the pressure gradient is lower in
the upper part of the tunnel section
suggests that an instability of the face
would occur there first. Therefore,
sliding mechanisms involving a wedge
in the upper part of the tunnel face
m a y b e more critical than the ones
studied in this paper (see Fig. 3).
By taking into consideration the
time-dependency of the penetration
distance and the pressure gradient,
the safety factor can be computed as a
function of time. Figure 11 shows the
computed relation for a tunnel with
the geometric data D = H = 10 m and
2,0
'~P=
¢1 kPa
LL 1,5. \ \ SAVI NGS
>, \ IN TIME
09
1,0 ~tcr ~ t c r
• I • ! • ! .~.a| • I
0 1 2 3 4 5
Time (hours)
Figure 11. Safety factor as a function o f time (4%
bentonite according Table 1, d lo =6 mrn, k =10 a rn / sec,
granular soil with ~ = 37.5°).
172 TUNNELLINGANDUNDERGROUNDSPACETECHNOLOGY
H = 5 m and for two different excess
w
fluid pressures. As in the examples in
Section 5, the ground is assumed to be
cohesionless with a friction angle of
37.5 °. The safety factor decreases
gradually from its maximum value
under the membrane-model (approxi-
mately 2 for Ap = 40 kPa). The initial
safety margin vanishes after a critical
time-period tcr--i.e., at tcrthe limit equi-
librium is achieved. Accordingly, tcr
represents the stand-up time of the
slurry supported tunnel face.
Of course, such a stand-up time ex-
ists only when the face is instable at
the maximum penetration distance e ,
i.e., only when the stagnation gradient
f~ois lower than the critical gradient fcr
(see Fig. 8). Figure 11 reveals, further-
more, that the higher the excess pres-
sure, the longer the stand-up time.
This can be explained on the basis of
(17). Neglecting the variation of the
excess fluid pressure Lip over the tun-
nel section and replacing f, by the criti-
cal gradient f~, (17) gives the stand-up
time t . It can readily be verified that
• cr
tcr increases linearly with the excess
pressure zip.
Obviously, permeability has a deci-
sive influence on the stand-up time.
The lower the permeability, the slower
the infiltration of the suspension and
consequent loss of effective support
force; and, thus, the longer the stand-
up time will be. Based on a simple
dimensional analysis, it can be readily
verified that the stand-up time is pro-
portional to the reciprocal value of
permeability: A one order of magni-
tude higher permeability results in a
correspondingly lower stand-up time.
This relationship is represented by
a straight line in a double logarithmic
plot, as shown in Figure 12. In this
example (cohesiouless ground and in-
sufficient fines), the tunnel face will
remain stable during an interruption
5 days
• 1 day
E 8hr
F-
3hr
::~ 1 hr
"~
t- 30 min
4-, 10 rain
min
• ! .~..i ! •
10 -5
6 7 8
Figure 12. Stand-up time as a function o f permeability
(4% bentonite according Table 1, dlo =6 mm, g r a n u l a r soil
with 0 =37.50) •
in excavation of up to several hours,
provided that the permeability is lower
than 10.4 mJsec. In highly permeable
ground (e.g., k = 10.2m/sec), face insta-
bility will occur after a few minutes.
7. Face Stability during
Continuous Excavation
In this case, the infiltration of slurry
takes place simultaneously with the
removal of ground at the face. The
penetration distance is, therefore, gov-
erned not only by the filtration velocity
d e / d t , but also by the advance rate v,
i.e., the infiltration is partially com-
pensated by the continuous excava-
tion. Only the simplified case with a
constant advance rate v is considered
herein.
7. 1. Penetration Distance
Figure 13 shows schematically the
infiltration velocity d e / d t as a func-
tion of the penetration distance e. Note
that the infiltration velocity d e / d t de-
creases with an increase in the pen-
etration distance e (Section 6): at e--~
e , d e / d t will be equal to zero. Ac-
cording to (13), the infiltration veloc-
ity increases to infinity for e -~ 0, i.e., it
does not have an upper limit• Figure
13 also shows the constant advance
rate v.
Assume that at time t, penetration
distance and infiltration velocity are
given by point A in Figure 13. Accord-
ingly, the infiltration velocity is lower
than the advance rate. In this case, the
penetration distance--as measured
from the instantaneous location of the
tunnel face--gradually will be reduced
because the excavation advances more
rapidly than the infiltration of the sus-
pension. Consequently, point A will
move on the curve towards the left
(lower penetration distance) and up
(higher infiltration velocity). After
I
0 kPa
....... I ........ 1 ......
10 4 10-3 10 -2
Permeability (m/sec)
Volume 9, Number 2, 1994
 Vcr
B g
v
0 1 0-4
0 ecr
Penetration Distance
Figure 13. Relationship between penetration distance,
infiltration velocity and excavation advance rate.
some time, point 0 will be reached.
Subsequently, the penetration distance
will remain constant because infiltra-
tionvelocity and advance rate are equal.
The opposite will occur if the infil-
tration velocity at some particular time
is higher t h a n the advance rate (Point
B). In this case, the penetration dis-
tance will increase over the course of
time and, consequently, the infiltra-
tion velocity will decrease. Point B will
move on the curve towards point 0.
It can be seen that, during continu-
ous excavation, a quasi-steady state
occurs in which the infiltration veloc-
ity is equal to the advance rate. The
corresponding penetration distance is
obtained from (13) by setting d e / d t
equal to v:
e _ 1 < 1 (18)
e max l + n ~b ~w v
Accordingly, the higher the ratio
v/k of advance rate to permeability,
the smaller the penetration distance
will be. The term on the righthand
side of this equation represents a re-
duction factor that expresses the in-
fluence of continuous excavation on
penetration distance. F r o m the re-
suits of the previous sections, it be-
comes clear that the face stabilitydur-
ing continuous excavation will be
higher than ifthere is an interruption
in the excavation work.
7.2. Face Stability
To quantify this effect, we again
need the respective pressure gradient.
By reformulating (18), the following
interesting relationship is obtained:
Volume 9, N u m b e r 2, 1994
.~. 100
Stable
J
lo
iiirr
emax
e Permeability (m/sec)
Figure 14. Critical excavation advance rate as a function
of permeability (7% Bentonite according to Table 1, d~o =
20 turn, granular soil with f = 37.5°).
~b v (19)
fs=f,o+n)'wpwk
Accordingly, during continuous ex-
cavation, the pressure gradient f, is
higher than the stagnation gradient f.°
by an amount t h a t increases linearly
with the dynamic viscosity p~ of the
suspension and with the ratio of ad-
vance rate v to permeability k.
Remember t h a t the lower the pres-
sure gradient, the lower the safety fac-
tor, and t h a t face instability occurs
when the pressure gradient is lower
than a critical valuef~ (Fig. 8). Accord-
ing to (19), however, an insufficient
stagnation gradient f~ can be compen-
sated for by a higher excavation ad-
vance rate. Consequently, in coarse-
grained and poorly graded soils (i.e., in
soils with f..< f.. ), the advance rate
must be higher tl~an the critical rate v
(Fig. 13) for the tunnel face to remain
stable. The critical advance rate is
obtained from (19) by replacing f, by for:
V c r f k ~fcr-fs°) ~tb Pw
n ~'w (20)
Accordingly, a permeability higher
by one order of magnitude results in a
correspondingly higher critical advance
rate.
Figure 14 shows the critical advance
rate as a function of permeability for
the example of a granular soil with
very high dig value of 20 m m (e.g.,
poorlygraded coarse gravel) and ahigh
bentonite concentration of 70 kg/m 8
(material constants according to Table
1). Forreasons discussed in Section5,
the excess fluid pressure zip does not
have any influence on for and, conse-
quently (20), on vcr. According to Fig-
ure 14, in a soil with a permeability of
TUNNELLINGANDUNDERGROUNDSPACETECHNOLOGY1 7 3
/
Unstable
1 0-3 1 0-2
10.8 m/sec, the advance rate should be
a t l e a s t 17 mm]min. At higher advance
rates a safety margin will be present;
at lower advance rates, the tunnel face
becomes unstable.
8. Closing Remarks
The effectiveness of slurry support
depends essentially on the infiltration
distance of the suspension into the
ground. With increasing penetration
distance, the effective support force, as
well as stability of tunnel face (as ex-
pressed by the safety factor) will de-
crease. Because in~tration takes place
gradually over time, the safety factor is
time-dependent.
The computational method pre-
sented in this paper is based on the
model of Horn (1961), existing knowl-
edge concerning the interaction be-
tween bentonite suspensions and the
ground mass, and seepage flow funda-
mentals. In this way, one derives quan-
titative relationships between the shear
strength parameters of the ground, the
p a r a m e t e r s of the suspension, the
slurry pressure, the geometric data of
a tunnel, and the safety factor. Soil
permeability, as well as the dynamic
viscosity of the suspension, are deci-
sive with respect to time effects; in very
coarse-grained soils, the excavation
advance rate also has an influence.
The results of the parametric stud-
ies presented herein are in accordance
with experience. Even when, in the
absence of laboratory or field investi-
gations, the data necessary for a stabil-
ity analysis are incomplete, the com-
putations may be useful, because they
improve understanding of the complex
interrelations involved and, therefore,
 p e r m i t a better a s s e s s m e n t of the re-
sidual risks o r - - i n the case of face
i n s t a b i l i t i e s - - o f the effectiveness of
various countermeasures.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to t h a n k the engi-
neers involved i n the construction of
the Grauholz t u n n e l i n S w i t z e r l a n d for
the s t i m u l a t i n g discussions, as well as
Marti Holding AG for providing f i n a n -
cial support for this work. []
References
Babendererde, S. 1991. Kritische Betrach-
tungen zum Einsatz von Hydroschilden.
Berichte des Int. Syrup. Sicherheit und
Risiken bei Untertagebauwerken (Hrsg.
R. Fechtig and K. Kovdri), 47-51 (in
German).
Balmer, P. 1992. Einsatz des Mixschlldes
Grauholztunnel in sehr wechselhafter
Geologie. Symp. ~Probleme bei Muschin-
ellen Tunnelvortrieben ? ~ Geriiteher-
steller und Anwender beriehten ~, 22]23
Oktober 1992, Mfinchen (in German).
Balthaus, H. 1988. Standsicherheit der
flfissigkeitsgestfitzten Ortsbrust bei
schildvorgetriebenen Tunneln. Fest-
sehrift H. Duddeck, Inst. fiir Statik TU
Braunschweig, 477-492 (in German).
Bear, J. 1977. Dynamics of Fluids in
Porous Media, 764. New York: American
Elsevier.
Becket, C. H. and Sawinski, J. W. 1982.
Operationalexperience and development
of bentonite shield tunnelling in Europe
since 1975. Tunnelling '82, 41-48.
London: IMM.
174 TUNNELLING ANDUNDERGROUND SPACETECHNOLOGY
View publication stats
Belling, W. and Eisenbach, R. 1989.
Schwierigkeiten und Stillst~inde beim
Schildvortriebmit fliissigkeitsgestfitzter
O r t s b r u s t und O b e r w i n d u n g der
StSrfaktoren durch Einsatz eines neuen,
v e r i i n d e r t e n Schildes. STUVA,
Forschung + Praxis 33, 95-100 (in
German).
DIN-1055. 1976. Teil 2. Lastannahmen fi~r
Bauten; Bodenkenngr~ssen (in German).
DIN-4126. 1986. Ortbeton-Schlitzw~nde.
Konstruktion und Ausfiihrung (in
German).
DIN-4127. 1986. Schlitzwandtone fiir
sti~tzende Fliissigkeiten. Anforderungen,
Priifverfahren, Lieferung, Giiteiiber-
wachung (in German).
Fuchsberger, M. 1975. Some practical
aspects of diaphragm wall construction.
Diaphragm walls and anchorages, 75-
79. London: Inst. Civ. Eng.
Gudehus, G. and Melix, P. 1986. Stand-
sicherheitsnachweisefuer Bauzustaende
von Tunneln in schwach kohaesivem
Gebirge. STUVA, Forschung +Praxis 30,
145-152 (in German).
Horn, M. 1961. Alagutak homlokbiz-
tositAs6ra hat6 vizszintes fdldnyom~i-
svizsgdlat ndhdny eredmdnye. Az
orszdgos mdlydpitdipari konferencia
eldaddsai, K6zlekeddsi DokumentAci6s
V611alat, Budapest. (in Hungarian)
Janssen, H. A. 1895. Versuche fiber
Getreidedruck in SilozeUen. Zeitschrift
des Vereins deutscher Ingenieure, Band
XXXIX, No. 35,1045-1049 (in German).
Knfipfer, J. and Meseck, H. 1984. Schild-
vortrieb bei flfissigkeitsgestfitzter
Ortsbrust. Mitt. des Inst. fiir Grundbau
und Bodenmechanik, TU Braunschweig,
16 (in German).
Kovari, IC; Fechtig, R.; and Amstad, Ch.
1993. Experience with large-diameter
tunnel boring machines in Switzlerand.
Options for Tunnelling 1993 (H. Burger,
Ed.): Develop. in Geotech. Engng. 74,
485-496. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Krause, T. 1987. Schildvortrieb mit
fltissigkeits- und erdgesttitzter
Ortsbrust. Dissertation TU Braun-
schweig. (in German)
Leca, E. and Dormieux, L. 1990. Upper and
lower bound solutions for the face
stability of shallow circular tunnels in
frictional material. Gdotechnique 40,
581-606.
Leca, E. and Panet, M. 1988. Application
du Calcul ~ la Rupture ~ la stabilitd du
front de taille d' un tunnel. Revue
Franfaise de Gdotechnique 43, 5-19 (in
French).
Melix, P. 1987. ModellversucheundBerech-
n u n g e n zur Standsicherheit ober-
fl~ichennaher Tunnel. VerOff. des Inst.
fiir Boden- und Felsmechanik der Univ.
.Fridericiana in Karlsruhe, 103. (in
German)
Mfiller-Kirchenbauer,H. 1972. Stability of
slurry trenches. Proc. 5th Europ. Conf.
SMFE, Madrid, Vol. I, 543-553.
Terzaghi, K. and Jelinek, R. 1954.
Theoretische Bodenmechanik, 505.
Berlin: Springer-Verlag. (in German)
Walz, B. and Prager, J. 1978. Der Nachweis
der tiusseren Standsicherheit suspen-
sionsgestfitzter Erdwiinde nach der
Elementscheibentheorie. Ver6ff. des
Grundbauinstitutes der TU Berlin 4. (in
German)
Walz, B. and Pulsfort, M. 1983.
Rechnerische Standsicherheit suspen-
sionsgestfitzter Erdw~inde, Teil 1.
Tiefbau, Ingenieurbau, Strassenbau. No
1/83, 4-7. (in German)
Xanthakos, P. 1979. Slurry Walls, 622.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Volume 9, Number 2, 1994