International Symposium

on :
Utilization of underground space in urban areas
6-7 November 2006, Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt


ANALYSIS OF TBM TUNNELLING USING THE
CONVERGENCE-CONFINEMENT METHOD


Ashraf ABU-KRISHA
National Authority for Tunnels (NAT), Cairo, Egypt




Abstract:

The soft ground interaction in TBM (Tunnel Boring Machine) tunnelling is studied through the use of
the C-C (Convergence-Confinement) approach. The equations that characterize the behavior of the
support (slurry pressures) are given together with a set of conceptual interaction schemes. As far as the
behavior of the support is concerned, reference is made to the ultimate limit state concept, which is
widely used in civil engineering. This approach is linked to the classical C-C method.
The static solution accounts for drainage and no-drainage conditions at the ground-liner interface.
Linear elasticity of the liner, non-linear elasticity of ground and plane strain conditions at any cross-
section of the tunnel are assumed. The analyses show that the stresses in the liner are slightly affected
whether there is drainage or not at the ground-liner interface. Hence, if the drainage conditions in the
tunnel are changed from full drainage to no-drainage or vice versa the stresses in the liners are
reasonably affected. Also, the displacements in the ground mass are changed significantly from
drainage to no-drainage conditions. Finally the ground reaction curve of the tunnel, which allows one
to analyze the structural interaction in TBM tunnel, is introduced.

Keywords: Convergence-Confinement, TBM Tunnelling, Soil interaction, drainage.

1. Introduction

During the excavation of tunnels in soft ground masses using conventional methods, several types of
temporary supports interact with the purpose of stabilizing the opening before the final lining is
completed. The study of the interaction between support structures can easily be carried out using the
convergence-confinement method. This method allows one to have a qualitative understanding of the
interaction phenomenon and helps operative choices. In more complex cases, it is necessary to use
numerical schemes; however, the computational effort required to analyze the results would need to be
intensive to produce a parametric analysis that is able to improve the final design.
The TBM tunnels are often found below the ground water table and thus the surrounding ground is
fully saturated. The static loads on the liner depend on the drainage conditions at the contact between
the support and the ground. If there is no-drainage at the contact, the liner must support the pressures
generated by the water as well as the pressures generated by the ground. With full drainage the water
pressures become zero at the contact and the liner only needs to support the pressures from the ground.
Although the concept is clear, quantification of the loads on the support under any of the two drainage
conditions described is not trivial.

2. Convergence-confinement method

The convergence-confinement method for a circular tunnel in a hydrostatic stress field is given by
A.F.T.E.S., 1993 and Peila and Oreste, 1995, that shows the displacement and the load acting on the
support through the intersection of the ground reaction curve of the tunnel and reaction line of support,
Fig. 1. The reaction line can be defined on the basis of the following parameters:

International Symposium
on :
Utilization of underground space in urban areas
6-7 November 2006, Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt
Stiffness k: ratio, in elastic conditions, between the pressure applied by the ground and
displacement of the support;
Displacement of the excavation support u
in
, developed before the installation of the supports;
Pressure p
max
, which induces the yielding of the support;
Displacement of the tunnel liner u
max
, which causes the support to collapse;
Figure 1: The convergence-confinement method (p: internal tunnel pressure; u: radial displacement)

A support defined with the reaction line of Fig. 1 has an ideal elastic-perfectly plastic behavior. There
are often some uncertainties in the evaluation of u
in.


As a first approximation, u
in
is evaluated using the
distance from the excavation face where the support is installed, the diameter of the tunnel and the
mechanical characteristics of the ground, Panet and Guenot, 1982; Panet 1995. The stiffness k of the
structure and the equilibrium load p
eq
also influence the value of u
in
. These uncertainties influence the
evaluation of the equilibrium point on the convergence-confinement curve. It is advisable to use a
parametric analysis for this calculation, varying u
in
in the interval of values that is considered to be
correct.
As the TBM tunnel is a three-dimensional problem, in order to take into account this effect in two-
dimensional analysis; the deconfinement ratio should be introduced. The
deconfinement ratio is a function of the distance x from the front of TBM,
the degree of soil plastification and the confinement slurry pressure p
eq
=
i,
as shown in Fig. 2. The effect of confinement for the soil excavation is
modeled via the relation:




where:
s is the soil deconfinement ratio and o = 0.9
o is the initial effective vertical stress at each point of the excavated surface.

3. Slurry pressure support

The support can be considered suitable when its safety factor concerning the collapse or yielding is
greater than an acceptable minimum and the displacements are lower than a given limit in relation to
) 1 ( 1

o
i
o s

International Symposium
on :
Utilization of underground space in urban areas
6-7 November 2006, Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt
the design criteria of the tunnel. The long-term performance of supports shall not be taken into
consideration when its strength exceeds the elastic limits. It is therefore, justifiable to impose the
elastic behavior of the lining through the definition of the safety factor that refers to the applied loads
p and not to the displacements u.

(2)

Figure 2: TBM tunnel excavation

4. Numerical analysis

There is a significant number of empirical, analytical and numerical procedures to obtain stresses in
the ground and in the liner for a tunnel, given the liner and the ground properties, ground water
pressure and drainage conditions at the tunnel perimeter, Einstein and Schwartz, 1979; Einstein and
Bobet, 1997; ITA, 2000 and Bobet, 2001. For the full drainage case the water pressure, u, at the
interface is zero and there is water flow towards the opening. For the no-drainage case the water
pressures are equal to far-field water pressure, u
f
, and there is no flow. Figure3 shows a tunnel with
and without drainage at the ground-liner interface.
For no-drainage conditions, the full water pressure is acting at the interface. The liner must deform
inwards. Where, there is a compatibility of deformations between the ground and the liner at the
interface, the ground must follow the deformations of the liner and thus take some of the loading from
the water pressure. Hence, the water pressure at the interface is distributed between the ground and the
liner. The axial force is reduced due to the load transfer from the liner to the ground, which is a
function of their relative stiffness. The total stresses in the liner can be obtained directly using Eq. 3.

(3)

The problem of a tunnel with a liner and full drainage conditions at the liner-ground interface
can also be decomposed into the effective stress problem and the water pressure problem, Fig.
3. The tunnel is subjected to an inward internal pressure, u
f
, and full drainage at the tunnel
wall, where it has been assumed that the tunnel has no liner. It will be shown that this
assumption is correct since the liner does not carry any water pressure, u
f
0. Thus the
stresses in the liner due to the water pressure are independent of the drainage conditions at the
contact between the liner and the ground, and can be obtained also from Eq. 3. This
conclusion is also reached by solving the same problem but using the concept of seepage
forces, Lambe and Whitman, 1969. The solution shows that indeed the stresses in the liner are
the same irrespective of the drainage conditions at the interface.

5. A calculation example

In order to verify the importance of a correct interpretation of the tunnel interaction for the conditions
of the ground water effect, 2D FE analyses are performed. The analyzed example concerns a circular
P
P
F
eq
s
max
=
u u f h h f v v
+ = + =

' '
,
x
R
o

International Symposium
on :
Utilization of underground space in urban areas
6-7 November 2006, Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt
tunnel with 8-m diameter and 0.4-m thickness of lining through homogeneous ground. Table 1
summarizes the conditions analyzed and the Geotechnical parameters. Modeling is performed using
Plaxis package based on Finite Element Method. The calculations are performed considering effective
soil stresses. A two-dimensional plane strain model is considered with a perfect elastoplastic Mohr-
Coulomb criterion for sandy soil and Cam-Clay criterion for clayey soil to describe the soil behavior
in the non-linear stage. 15-node isotropic linear strain triangular element was adopted for this analysis.
Figure 3: Decomposition of cases with drainage and no-drainage.

As the lining is not a continuous concrete ring, but is composed of 0.4-m thickness segments
connected via 0.24-m or more thickness section, the lining inertia is not constant. The stiffness at the
joint may be appreciably less than elsewhere. This can be accounted for through a decrease of stiffness
according to Muir Wood, 1975, which leads to a lesser stress within the lining. The segment joints are
never aligned along the tunnel and the thickness reduction is not as local as it is simulated in the
model, which is conservative.

Table 1. Material properties and parameters of soil.
Parameter Name Unit Fill Clay Sand
Levels m 0.0 3.0 3.0 7.0 7.0 35.0
Material model Model - Elastic CC MC
Material behavior Type - Drained Drained Drained
Dry soil weight
dry
KN/m
3
15 16 18
Wet soil weight
wet
KN/m
3
17 18 20
H
ll
Permeability K
x
m/day 1.0 e-5 1.0 e-7 1.0 e-2
V
ll
Permeability K
y
m/day 1.0 e-5 1.0 e-7 1.0 e-2
Youngs modulus E MPa 6 15 18
Liner increment of E E
incr
MPa - - 2
Reference level Y
ref
m - - -9.0
Poissons ratio

- 0.35 0.4 0.33
Cohesion C Kpa 10 40 1
Friction angle

Degree 15.0 25.0 35.0
Dilatancy angle

Degree 0.0 1.0 5.0
Normal consolidation slope * - - 0.25 -

International Symposium
on :
Utilization of underground space in urban areas
6-7 November 2006, Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt
Elastic swelling line slope * - - 0.05 -
Lateral earth pressure at rest Ko - 1.0 0.577 0.45
Interface strength R
inter
- Rigid Rigid 0.80
Interface permeability Perm - Neutral Neutral Neu./Ipmr.
/ Drain
The construction stage is applied to simulate the tunnelling process. The tunnel lining elements is
activated and the soil elements inside tunnel are deactivated. Deactivating the soil inside the tunnel
only affects the soil stiffness and strength and effective stresses. The water pressure inside the tunnel
also removed. The volume loss is simulated by applying a contraction to the tunnel lining. This
contraction is controlled by the deconfinement ratio .
The vertical and horizontal effective stresses as well as the pore water pressure increase with depth.
The magnitude of the far-field stresses is obtained from the unit weight. The most important difference
between the previous analyses and this analysis is that the stresses along the lateral boundary increase
linearly with depth. The distance from the tunnel to the lateral and bottom boundaries of the area is
modeled with five to eight times the radius of tunnel.
Three cases are considered: first, without ground water (dry condition); second, drainage at the
ground-liner interface; third no-drainage conditions at the ground-liner interface. The ground water
level was assumed at 3.0-m below the ground surface for last two cases. Figure 4 shows the detail of
the mesh of the numerical model adopted to analyze the illustrated problem. The calculations were
performed in two stages to simulate TBM tunneling construction.


Figure 4: the developed mesh to study the illustrated examples.


6. Results of calculations

Figure 5 shows the total deformation of the mesh for the three model cases and Fig. 6 illustrates the
arrows lines of the displacements in the soil mass for the same cases. The surface settlement for the
three models is illustrated in Fig. 6. The comparisons between the calculation results of the vertical
settlements are given in Table 2. The load displacement curve at the surface point of centerline for the
models is shown in Fig. 7 at the second stage of calculation.
The results of the internal forces are developed in the tunnel lining according to the construction stages
and the conditions of every model case. The bending moments, the shearing forces and the normal
forces are compared for the three-model case in Fig. 8. The comparisons between the maximum
results of the internal forces are given in Table 2. As a result, the normal force is less after the first

International Symposium
on :
Utilization of underground space in urban areas
6-7 November 2006, Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt
stage of calculation. The bending moments, however, are larger. The deformation of lining for the
three model cases is illustrated in Fig. 9.

The contours of the vertical effective stress at the final loading for the three models are shown in Fig.
10. The plastic regions show that the soil failure occurred in a limited area around the tunnel during its
construction as shown in Fig. 11 for the three models.
The number of iteration steps for convergence in calculations for the three models are given in Table 2
for comparison.

Table 2. Results of the analysis for comparison.
Model type
Descriptions
Model (1)
Without ground water
Model (2)
Drainage
Model (3)
No-Drainage
Surface settlements 27.5 mm 32.0 mm 22.0 mm
Tunnel deformations 48.0 mm 52.5 mm 38.0 mm
Normal forces -340.2 KN/m -202.2 KN/m -667.7 KN/m
Shearing forces -53.3 KN/m -48.8 KN/m -30.1 KN/m
Bending moments 96.3 KNm/m 87.3 KNm/m 56.5 KNm/m
Iteration steps 8 65 43


model (1)

model (2)

International Symposium
on :
Utilization of underground space in urban areas
6-7 November 2006, Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt

model (3)

Figure 5: Total deformation of the mesh

model (1)

model (2)

International Symposium
on :
Utilization of underground space in urban areas
6-7 November 2006, Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt

model (3)

Figure 6: Total displacements of the mesh
0 5.00E-03 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030
0.0
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
|U| [m]
Sum-McontrA

model (1)

International Symposium
on :
Utilization of underground space in urban areas
6-7 November 2006, Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt
0 5.00E-03 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035
0.0
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
|U| [m]
Sum-McontrA

model (2)
0 5.00E-03 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025
0.0
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
|U| [m]
Sum-McontrA

model (3)

Figure 7: Load Displacement curve at surface point

Normal forces Shearing forces Bending moment
Model (1)


International Symposium
on :
Utilization of underground space in urban areas
6-7 November 2006, Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt

Normal forces Shearing forces Bending moment
Model (2)

Normal forces Shearing forces Bending moment
Model (3)

Figure 8: Comparison for internal forces for the three model cases.

Total displacements
Extreme total displacement 48.87*10
-3
m
Total displacements
Extreme total displacement 52.56*10
-3
m
Total displacements
Extreme total displacement 37.89*10
-3
m


Model (1) Model (2) Model (3)

Figure 9: Comparison of the deformation in lining for the three model cases.



International Symposium
on :
Utilization of underground space in urban areas
6-7 November 2006, Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt

Model (1)

Model (2)

Model (3)


International Symposium
on :
Utilization of underground space in urban areas
6-7 November 2006, Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt
Figure 10: Comparison of the effective stresses for the three model cases.
Plastic Points
Plastic Mohr-Coulomb point
Plastic cap point Tension cut-off point

Model (1)
Plastic Points
Plastic Mohr-Coulomb point
Plastic cap point Tension cut-off point

Model (2)
Plastic Points
Plastic Mohr-Coulomb point
Plastic cap point Tension cut-off point


International Symposium
on :
Utilization of underground space in urban areas
6-7 November 2006, Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt
Model (3)

Figure 11: Comparison of the plastic zones around the tunnel for the three model cases.
7. Conclusions

The interaction of support system with soil in TBM tunnelling has been studied in this work using the
convergence-confinement method. The effects of drainage and no-drainage conditions at the ground
liner interface are investigated and compared with the case of no ground water (dry condition). It is
observed that the ground displacements and total stresses at the ground liner interface depend on the
drainage conditions. The analysis shows that the current practice of applying the full water pressure to
an impermeable liner is acceptably and conservative while for liner drainage it is quite significant. So,
the choosing of the materials that are used to close the tail gap of TBM processing is an important
issue. Also, the water-tightness material of the liner segments is playing an important role to control
the drainage of ground water through liner.
The existence of groundwater condition may seriously affect the internal forces of liner and its
deformations. Also, it affects the soil mass stresses and strength and its deformations. The relationship
between the effective stress and the groundwater pressure is inversely proportional. The consolidation
analysis however may be more reasonable for the groundwater condition.

8. References

A.F.T.E.S.,1993.Groupe de travail n. 7-Souttenement et revetement, Emploi de la mthode
convergence-cofinement, Tunnels et ouvrages souterrains, Supplment au n. 117, Maj-Juin, pp. 118-
205.

Peila, D., Orests, P.P., 1995. Axisymmetrical analysis of ground reinforcing in tunnelling design,
computer and Geotechaics, Vol. 17. Elsevier Science Ltd, London, UK, pp. 235-274.

Panet M., 1995. Le calcul des tunnels par la mthode convergence-cofinement, Presses de Lcole
Nationale des Ponts et Chausses, Paris.

Panet, M., and Guent, A., 1982. Analysis of convergence behind the face of a tunnel. Proc. Tunnelling,
Brighton 82, 197-204.

Bobet, A., 2001. Analytical solutions for shallow tunnels in saturated ground. ASCE J. Eng. Mech. 12,
1258-1266.

Einstein, H.H., and Bobet, A., 1997. Mechanized tunnelling in squeezing ground-from basic thoughts
to continuous tunnelling. Proceedings of the world tunnel congress97. Vienna, Austria, pp. 619-632.

Einstein, H.H., and Schwartz, C.W., 1979. Simplified analysis for tunnel supports. J. Geotech. Eng.
Division, ASCE 105, 499-518.

International Tunnelling Association (ITA), Working Group No. 2, 2000. Guidelines for the design of
shield Tunnel Lining, Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 15 (3), pp. 303-331.

Lambe, T.W., Whitman, R.V., 1969. Soil Mechanics. Wiley, New York.

Muir Wood, A.M., 1975. The Circular Tunnel in Elastic Ground, Geotechnique 25, No. 1, pp 115-
127.