by
ShuSheng Chen
Submitted to the
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of
Master of Science
in Civil and Environmental Engineering
at the
May 1995
© ShuSheng Chen 1995
All Rights Reserved
The author hereby grants to MIT permission to reproduce and to distribute publicly paper
and electronic copies of this thesis document in whole or in part.
Signature of Author 
Department
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
May 12, 1995
Certified by
H. H. Einstein
Thesis Supervisor
Accepted bVv
Zr V 1
Joseph M. Sussman
Chairman, Departmental Committee on Graduate Studies
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE
(F "rC•u•ell n%V
JUN 2 7 1995
LIBRAlth
THE HORIZONTAL PRESUPPORT IN TUNNELS
by
ABSTRACT
This thesis provides a theoretical and analytical framework regarding the arching effects
of tunnels. It gives a new explanation for the development of arching, develops a new method to
estimate the area of yield zones, and introduces a new technique of using triangular presupport
The approach that the author employs consists of two parts. First, by analyzing in detail
the past empirical results and analytical frameworks, different stages of arching are obtained. The
soil has maximum strength when the triangular prism just forms. The triangular prism transforms
into a combination of two triangular prisms later with increasing trapdoor downward movement.
The different stages of the triangular prism are then examined with the Mohr Failure Envelope
Second, based on the observed results of crack formation (Heuer and Hendron, 1971),
there could be an inward movement of triangular failed wedges appearing around the springline
during the last stages of failure. By incoporating this result and the theory of triangular prisms, the
author presents a new method of estimating the yield zones of maximum soil strength for circular
and triangular tubes. It should be noted that this method is somewhat conservative because
inward moving triangular wedges are assumed to have formed.
Finally, a comparison between the traditional circular presupport tubes and triangular pre
support tubes is made using both Peck's Error Curve and the finite element analysis.
My thesis gratitude is hereby expressed to the following people who have helped bring this thesis into func
tion:
* Professor Herbert H. Einstein, for his intellectual insights and consistent encouragement throughout the
writing of this thesis. Without his support and help, the thesis would not have come into being. Therefore, I
owe my greatest thanks to him.
* Professor Charles C. Ladd and Professor Robert V. Whitman for their wonderful classes and patient
instructions, which laid a solid foundation for this paper.
* My classmates  Boonchi Ukritchon (Lek), Twarath Sutabutr (John), and Achilles Papadimitriou for their
support and help during my first year of graduate study at M.I.T. Especially, I thank Lek for his enthusiastic,
great friendship; I give him and John my best wishes for their future study at M.I.T.
* My senior consultants  ShunMing Lee for his help on the application of the Finite Element Method
(FEM), Patrick G Kinnicutt for his help in correcting my thesis, Samir Chauhan, and Dante Legaspi for
their help in answering many challenging questions.
* Ms. Mary, our dear administrative assistant of Geotechnics group,.for her lovely and friendly correction of
my oral English, and for always giving me new energy by making the freshest coffee.
* Mr. HsienJen Tien and Ms. Lucy Jen for their patience in teaching me how to get used to M.I.T. Marika
Santagata, Mike Geer, and Mike Whelan, for making my daily life more colorful.
* Rebecca W. Xiang for her taking a lot of time to teach me how to run a computer. She was the real T.A. for
the C language class. Without her, the programming would have been much harder for me.
* Kathy Wenyun Liu, who is a big helper and sometimes a big trouble maker, for the lovely moments I spent
with her. We sat through numerous nights in front of the computer, supported and carried each other through
the challenges of M.I.T.
* My parents, who always stand by my side, and whose love and support gave me the courage to complete
the rigorous graduate program at M.I.T. I hope I did not disappoint them.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
TITLE PAGE 1
ABSTRACT 2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 4
TABLE OF CONTENTS 5
LIST OF FIGURES 7
LIST OF TABLES 11
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 12
1.1 The General Behavior of Arching 12
1.2 Objective of Research 13
BIBLIOGRAPHY 121
APPENDIX A. The Computer Program used for Empirical Comparison 125
between the Circular and the Triangular Tubes
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No. page
11 Active Arching (a), (b), (c), (d) 14
12 Passive Arching (a), (b), (c), (d) 18
13 General Soil Behavior Active Arching 22
14 Direction of Major Principal Stress  Active Arching 23
15 General Soil Behavior Passive Arching 24
16 Direction of Major Principal Stress  Passive Arching 25
17 The Configuration of the Circular Presupport Tubes 26
21 Terzaghi's Trapdoor Experiments 34
22 Actual and Assumed Sliding Surface in Terzaghi's analysis 35
23 Theoretical Plastic Sliplines around a Circular Opening in 36
a Frictional Material  K=1
24 Potential Shear Planes about a Circular Opening Assuming 37
an Elastic Stress Distribution
25 Significant Features of the Behavior Around a Circular 38
Opening during the Last Stage of Failure (K= 1/4)
26 Model Tunnel Test Apparatus 39
27 A Radiograph of the Model Tunnel Test 40
28 Collapse Mechanism of the Model Tunnel Test for Initial Failure 41
29 Collapse Mechanism of the Model Tunnel Test for Final Equilibrium 42
210 The Results of the Model Tunnel Test 43
211 Plastic Flow Rule 44
212 Variation of Soil Displacement Pattern with Increasing Trapdoor 45
Displacement during an Active Arching Test
213 Free Body diagrams for Active Arching 46
214 Maximum Shear Strain Contours 47
215 Vertical Displacement Contours 48
216 The Development of Initial and Secondary Localizations 49
217 Proposed Theory of Iglesia 50
31 The First Stage of the Triangular Prism 59
32 The Second Stage of the Triangular Prism 59
33 The Third Stage of the Triangular Prism 60
34 The Fourth Stage of the Triangular Prism 60
35 The MohrCoulomb Failure Envelope and Mohr Circles 61
36 The Development of the Failure Surface in Region 'A' 62
Explained by the MohrCoulomb Failure Envelope
37 The Development of the Failure Surface in Region 'C' 63
Explained by the MohrCoulomb Failure Envelope
38 The Development of the Failure Surface in Region 'A' 64
Explained by the Mohr Failure Envelope
39 The Development of the Failure Surface in Region 'C' 65
Explained by the Mohr Failure Envelope
41 The Transform of the Triangle Arch at Different Unsupported 79
time Periods After the Tunnel is Excavated
42 Cracking of the Thickwalled Concrete Tube 80
43 Collapse Modes of Thinwalled Buried Cylinders  (a) Shallow 81
Cover, (b) Intermediate Cover, (c) Deep Cover
44 Collapse Sequence at Deep Covers  (a) Original Shape, 82
(b) Lower Rim Buckles, (c) One Buckle Grow, (d) Final Shape
45 Idealized Failure Mode 83
46 Optimization of the Support System 84
47 The Error Curve & Ground Loss 85
48 The Yield Zones of Circular and Triangular Tubes 86
49 Abscissa of the Inflection Point 87
410 The Assumed Yield Zones for Calculating Yield Zone 'A' 88
411 The Model for the Settlement Program 89
412 Geometry of the ASPR Ideal Plane Strain Reinforced Composite 90
Soil Element
413 Conceptual Design of the ASPR Cell 91
414 The Results of the Plane Strain Condition on the Shear Behavior 92
of Dense Ticino San
415 The Geometries of the Circular and Triangular Presupport Tubes 93
416 The Global Geometry and FEM Mesh for the Circular Tube
(cover = 2 m) 94
417 The Global Geometry and FEM Mesh for the Circular Tube
(cover = 4 m) 95
418 The Global Geometry and FEM Mesh for the Circular Tube
(cover = 9 m) 96
419 The Global Geometry and FEM Mesh for the Circular Tube
(cover = 2 m) 97
420 The Global Geometry and FEM Mesh for the Circular Tube
(cover = 4m) 98
421 The Global Geometry and FEM Mesh for the Circular Tube
(cover = 9m) 99
422 The Ground Settlement for a Circular Tube (cover = 2m) 100
423 The Ground Settlement for a Circular Tube (cover = 4m) 101
424 The Ground Settlement for a Circular Tube (cover = 9m) 102
425 The Ground Settlement for a Triangular Tube (cover = 2 m) 103
426 The Ground Settlement for a Triangular Tube (cover = 4 m) 104
427 The Ground Settlement far a Triangular Tube (cover = 9 m) 105
428 Summary of Results from Figures 424 to 429 106
429 Maximum Shear Stress for a Circular Tube (cover = 2 m) 107
430 Maximum Shear Stress for a Circular Tube (cover = 4 m) 108
431 Maximum Shear Stress for a Circular Tube (cover = 9 m) 109
432 Maximum Shear Stress for a Triangular Tube (cover = 2 m) 110
433 Maximum Shear Stress for a Triangular Tube (cover = 4 m) 111
434 Maximum Shear Stress for a Triangular Tube (cover = 9 m) 112
435 Summary of Results from Figures 431 to 436 113
436 The Modified Yield Zone of a Circular Opening in Uniform Soil 115
437 The Global Geometry and FEM Mesh for the Modified Model 116
438 The Ground Settlement for the Modified model 117
LIST OF TABLES
Table No Page
42 The Max. Shear Stresses of the Circular and Triangular Tubes 114
Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION
Om
= 0 0
o0
o
V)
=,i N ·. C~
IlIIE a
I
0o
4.) CIO
I,
4.)
0
F I
04 I
r 0
ao
0
I
I
c, c
C.)
4
GE I V
4.
aim c
0A
o o0
o
NE co o
Z
10 U m
u~ 0
: 0
 I ~
I
o.)
I.c
eW
bO
0s
U,v
. • I
.I
C Stnlctnre 2
ii

IC

II
Assumptions:
1.i
i is the structure with no force present.
4. Due to the plane strain, 0= E (elv e2) where v is the Poisson ratio
Stress Distribution
Figure 11 (b) Stress Distribution for Structure and Surrounding Soil
(Active Arching)
D. For the soil on A1A2 and BlB2
we obtain:
d2>dl, and
BI dl d2 B2
a2>01
E2 > El
Esoil = structure ,
therefore,
Figure 11 (c) Stress Distribution for Structure and Surrounding Soil
(Active Arching)
From A, B, C,D, and E, we can draw following conclusions:
Al   A2
Structure
BI   B2
ft tt t t t t t ttt
Displacement under Pressure PS When Structure
Is More Compressible than Surrounding Soil
Normal Stress Distribution across Upper Curve Plane A1A2 or Lower Plane B B2
Figure 11 (d) Stress Distribution for Structure and Surrounding Soil
(Active Arching)
Y
+4 O
'0
 o
ClCl
I I l r
=
.o
II .oo
0 0
U02 I0
E..,,, I0.
91U O
CCl
i U1 0
I ~ ola
JJ cjC .z 
0c U
Q .0e
I 1 0
• •
U I UU IE '
O I
~l)
u
Ii
cj
ii I
II II
Sm
4 41
18
C Structure
Assumptions :
4. Due to the plane strain, a = E(El v E2) where v is the Poisson ratio
Stress Distribution
Figure 12 (b) Stress Distribution for Structure and Surrounding Soil
(Passive Arching)
D. For the soil between A1A2 and B1B2
we obtain:
d2<dl, and
~i~SI4,
Normal Stress Distribution
E2 < El
E soil  structure ,
structure ,
at the connecting
at the
connecting point
point
of
of
the
the
materials
materials
therefore,
Figure 12 (c) Stress Distribution for Structure and Surrounding Soil
(Passive Arching)
From A, B, C, D, and E, we can draw following conclusion:
I ýý, PS
Structure
ttt
tt It It It f t
Itý
 It
 It It It
Displacement under Pressure PS When Structure
Is Less Compressible than the Surrounding Soil
Stress Distribution across Upper Curve Plane A1A2 or Lower Plane B 1B2
Figure 12 (d) Stress Distribution for Structure and Surrounding Soil
(Passive Arching)
d1 vertical al vertical
c 1/horizoktal
i dilation \
vertical contraction J,
vert. exp.
vertical contraction
lateral expansion lat. cont. lateral expansion
I Trap door I
!
Figure 14 Direction of Major Principal Stress  Active Arching (Evans, 1983)
I
I I

!
TRAP DOOR
Figure 1.6 Direction of Major Principal Stress  Passive Arching (Evans, 1983)
ground surface
____

      
   



Figure 17. The Configuration of the Circular PreSupport Tube.
Chapter 2. THE HISTORICAL REVIEW OF ARCHING
THEORY
Where
F is the total force on the trap door.
H is the distance between the trap door and the surface of the overlying soil.
B is the width of the trap door.
r is the unit weight of the soil.
* is the friction angle of the soil.
q is the surcharge which acts on the soil.
c is the cohesion of the soil.
K is the coefficient of lateral stress, recommended to be taken as 1.0 by Terzaghi.
Terzaghi assumes that the shearing resistance is mobilized along the lower 2B of the slid
ing surface while the remaining overburden acts as a surcharge. Then, the surcharge is equal to
q + r (H  2B) when the soil cover H is 2B or greater, and the above equation can be modified as:
B2 (r  2)
F =i (1  e~4Ka) + B [q + r (H 2B) ] e4 Kta (2.2)
2Ktanh
TB 2
F (2.4)
4tan€
The purpose of the limit value for H/B ratios is to consider whether a triangular zone can
be formed. A trapezoidal prism can be formed when the depth of the soil is not sufficient to con
tain a triangular prism.
a,  x ah (2.5)
1 + sin2
by assuming
2
ov COS4
K' 1 +sinO 2 (2.7)
replhacing+ by
',he
got
sin2
He wanted to keep in line with Engesser's formulation, but the angle of Engesser's equa
tion and that of Iglesia's equation are complementary. Therefore, a modified expression for the
minimum load can be obtained as below:
HK' cot
Pmin = B 2T ( + )
(2.9)
BK'+ 2Hcoto 6
normalizing this with the geostatic force (per unit length) P0 = r HB,one obtains
( ) B K + (2.10)
2
an H + cot
By applying this equation to centrifuge tests, he concluded from Table 21 that his pro
posed EngesserBierbaumerEvans hybrid scheme provides a very good prediction of the mini
mum trapdoor load.
Finally, he found that the computed load for parabolic yield zones are almost the same as
the computed load for the triangular yield zone; this could possibly explain why the load tends to
be at a low level for quite a while as the triangular arch slowly transforms into the curved arch.
Eventually, the soil will collapse, and the failure surface will become vertical.
1.00 17 •6
C~ I
0.12
I .I
0.01 H
 4.3
Ah (ma,
4.10.6
C. TRAPDOOR REACTION
VS DEFLECTION
4.3
AIL _
tog
3.0
DENSE SAND
',p •
r.
h lmm
VA
onm
o. h
0. VARIATION OF VERTICAL SOIL STRESS E. VARIATION OF EARTH PRESSURE
ABOVE CENTER LINE OF TRAPOOOR COEFFICIENT ABOVE CENPmrn ...
aa,
SdW
a b'''
41
I
S·
'Ii
tj, U
.91
U)
F~
3
a
O 00 O
C C. O0
OU C 0l lo
OdC
o O
L f
U C7 o  O
6. a e.j
9' 05
0
. J
. 0,
L
I
U Z
V.,
CT
Fractures eoundain' ..edges
at Soringtine Propagate
Outward Into the Mass
Surrounding the Tunnel
and
Invert
39
Figure 27 A Radiograph of the Model Tunnel Test (Atkinson et. al., 1975)
40
Figure 28 Collapse Mechanism of the Model Tunnel Test for Initial Failure
(Atkinson et. al., 1975)
41
Figure 29 Collapse Mechanism of the Model Tunnel Test for Final Equilibrium
(Atkinson et. al., 1975)
42
Figure 210 The Results of the Model Tunnel Test (Atkinson et. al., 1975)
43
snear
0 s.iive 6E
vol = ContraZcion
Dilatlon Constanz
( v•O",\ volume
oo<v<
(66plastic
snear 1
( 6plasti )
vol
6bE ast ic
vol
c ~ ~LL~ ~ . .L *Ja
,: v"t
, oj'w. 4
'TWO
s~4
Ja..
csl~~r '  ~
SCALE 3M
SCALE    S•  m U,T I_
ý'
I15r!Irr
p ~DTHREE
~  . ) ..
CI~~'L
4*y'r
~7~:

1:
;. . ..
.4
c' a..
 ap 41   ~. .  \ ·
· · ~i·~
r~' ~i *
· ' r * '
L .....
¶ ,.
,
.'.
4'"
iC·
,,
'4
T:.,•, ;·i:
. .... :
1 INCH' ..,:i'
I INCH "ciDi; ' .. 
9,(
SCALE SCALE _ _ _
RC=
2CYr.. .
Figure 212 Variation of Soil Displacement Pattern with Increasing Trapdoor
Displacement during an Active Arching (Evans, 1983)
A 0 ,•X.
r
Izz
4
"""
=n s in sinr0
dh
N=dr cos
rp dh
A=Area
cos
A=Area of element
F ree B
.B
.Body
Diagram
for
00
A. Free Body Diagram for v>O°
eP9. M..Mpd.wMý
r=dnsinj V
v
N=dndh
yBdh edh I N
T= rdh T
V dV
TRAP f DOOR
L•
B
Figure 213 Free Body Diagram for Active Arching (Evans, 1983)
N).
i 3
7/
\ L
Cg
Zý
C..
:OS"
sin'
p
(Iglesia, 1991)
0.355 0.36
0.183 0.18
9
,.
0.093 0.09
0.453
9 0.232 0.210.25
Chapter 3. New Explanations for the Development of the Tri
angular Prisms
3.1 Introduction
The development of triangular prisms are not clearly understood. In this chapter, the
MohrCoulomb failure envelope and Mohr failure envelope are used to explain the development
of triangular prisms.
After the triangular prism has already formed, the shapes of the yield zone will change
with the increment in the downward trapdoor displacement. This change can be divided roughly
into four stages which are shown in the pictures of Evans' experiment (see Figure 211), and the
pictures of Stone's tests (see Figure 213, and Figure 214). Figure 31 shows the first stage when
the triangular prism has just formed. Figure 32 indicates that the previous triangle has changed
into a combination of two triangles. One has a steeper slope than the initial triangle had, and the
slope of the other is flatter. Figure 33 shows that the lower triangle develops upward, and the
slope of upper triangle decreases continually (It seems that the development is very similar to that
of a circular arch in this stage). The final state is plotted in Figure 34, in which the upper triangle
has an approximately horizontal slope, and reaches a new equilibrium state.
Two kinds of failure envelopes are used for analysis. They are the Mohr Failure Envelope
and the MohrCoulomb Failure Envelope. The difference between these two types of envelopes is
that the Mohr Failure Envelope is a curve, while the MohrCoulomb Failure Envelope is a straight
line.
3.2 Assumptions
3.3.1 The Relationship between Different Stress States on the Same Failure
Envelope
After the stresses redistribute in the soil, the MohrCoulomb failure envelope can be
changed. There is a relationship between stresses if the soil still has the same Mohr Coulomb
failure envelope. i.e. the same slope of slip lines exit as before the stress redistribution. This rela
tionship is explained below.
11 = GliA o 1, (3.1)
o31 = a3i
N A 3,
(3.2)
A a1
(3.3)
A3
a1 +0 3
P 2 (3.4)
2
1  a3
q 2 (3.5)
Where the point "e" is the center of the original Mohr Circle, and "f" is the center
of the Mohr Circle after the stresses are redistributed.
The first equation is
(a1  a 1 )  (3  a03 )
f 2 a 1  03  (m  1)A ao3 2q (m 1) A a 3
(01 a 3) 01  0 3
(3.6)
be 2q
2
Because the triangle oaf  the triangle obe, the second equation is
(a I  Aa 1) + (7 3  Aa3 )
be of 2p  (m + 1)A a 3
(3.7)
be oe (Ga+ a 3 ) 2p
2
From the above two equations, we can get
2q (m 1) A a 3 2p  (m + 1) A 3
2q 2p
(3.8)
a1 + 03 01  0 3
p+q 2 2 
01
m 
(3.9)
pq o1 + 3 1 03 03
2 2
Because
Aa0 (3.10)
m =Aa 3 '
then
Aa 3 a3 (3.11)
A~oz 03
Therefore, after the stresses are redistributed, a new 'm' can be obtained according to the
above conclusion. The "m", therefore, will allow one to determine the new slope of the Mohr
Coulomb Failure Envelope. The new slope will become steeper if the new 'm' is greater than the
old 'm', and vice versa.
Oli
Omi
3i (3.12)
m2 = 11 (3.13)
031
There are three different regions with which we are concerned (see Figure 32).
Region 'A', which is at the edge of top triangle, is getting a flatter failure slope (see Figures (31,
32, 33, and 34). Point 'B', which is at the intersection point of the upper and the lower triangles,
is moving upward while region 'C'retains almost the same slope. It is noted that all these parts of
the prism are at relative and not absolute positions.
Because major principal stresses are approximately horizontal in the triangular
prism, the pole point of the Mohr Circle is at the a~ point. The direction of the failure surface can
be obtained from the straight line that passes the pole and the point where the failure envelope is
tangent to the Mohr circle.
Region 'A' will expand vertically when the trapdoor moves downward. Because
the vertical support is released; the vertical stress oai will therefore decrease by a03. Because the
slope of the failure surface is getting flatter in region 'A', the MohrCoulomb Failure Envelope
shifts to a steeper slope. In other words, this part of the soil develops a bigger friction angle, and
can keep the upper triangle flatter (See Figure 36).
C31
allT3i  A Y3
m2 > 1 0 (3.14)
Y3i
Therefore,
a3i. A 1 < 11
. *A 3 (3.16)
Aa 1 li
< = m0. (3.17)
The change in horizontal stress will be smaller than'm,' times the change in the vertical
stress. The value of 'm,' will be different when different kinds of sand are concerned.
Region 'C', seems to keep the original slope of the failure surface while the other
regions are changing the slopes of the failure surface (see Figures 32, 33, and 34). This means
that those on the edge of the lower triangle will have almost the same MohrCoulomb Failure
Envelope, whose ratio of change in major principal stress to the change in minor principal stress is
m1, too. Actually, from Figure 214, one can see that the maximum shear strain remain almost
unchanged in magnitude at the innermost edge of the lower triangle. For a specific MohrCou
lomb Failure Envelope whose slope is not zero, those points which have the same maximum shear
stress on the failure surface should be on the same Mohr Circle. This means that there are no
changes, or only slight changes in the major and minor principal stresses (see Figure 38).
The Mohr Failure Envelope is a curve, unlike the MohrCoulomb failure envelope which
is a straight line. The reason that most scientists use the MohrCoulomb Failure Envelope is
because the MohrCoulomb failure envelope is simple and easy to use. However, the Mohr Fail
ure Envelope is closer to the test result (Halts, & Kovacs, 1981).
The pole point of the Mohr Circle is still at the aopoint, and the direction of failure surface
can also be obtained from the straight line that passes through the pole and the point where the
failure envelope is tangent to the Mohr Circle.
Only two regions 'A', and 'C' can be explained by using the Mohr Failure Envelope:
Region 'A' will expand vertically when the trapdoor moves downward, and the horizontal
stress al will decrease with respect to the decrease in vertical stress a3. The Mohr Circle, there
fore, moves left. Because the slope of the Mohr failure envelope gets steeper when the stresses get
smaller. Then, the slope of the failure surface gets flatter until the Mohr failure envelope is tangent
to the point of origin. It means that the slope of the failure surface cannot be flattened anymore
(see Figure 39).
Region 'C' again seems to keep the same slope of the failure surface. This means that
those points on the edge of the lower triangle (See Figures 32, 33, and 34) will have the same,
or almost the same, stresses. On the other hand, Figure 214 shows us that there are the same max
imum shear stress in the innermost triangle. For a specific Mohr Failure Envelope, every Mohr
circles tangent to the failure envelope, has exact only one maximum shear stress. So those points
which have the same maximum shear stress on the failure surface have the same Mohr Circle,
which means that there are no changes, or only slight changes in the major and minor principal
stresses (see Figure 310).
sand
sand
li
m 0 = 45 S=
 4
"3i
a,
m,,
op I op i
li  m
11  m,
3i
N 31 op op i
S1 1 Z " a i
a"31.
v3i
4.1 Introduction
From the results of Evans' and Stone's research (see Figures 211, 213, 214), several
phenomena can be observed. For example, the sand samples always try to form a triangular prism
in the early stage. After the trapdoor effect starts, the shapes of the yield zone changes with the
downward movement of the trapdoor. In real cases, the time period between the completion of
driving a microtunnels and the completion of installing the presupporting tubes is a major con
cern. The longer the time period that leaves the opening unsupported, the greater the downward
the movement of the crown (See Figure 41). Larger downward movements of the upper half of
the tunnel face will produce the same effect as the downward movement of a trapdoor.
Second, after the width and location of the trapdoor are decided, the shape of the yield
zone can be a parabola (Iglesia, 1991), or triangle (Evans, 1983), and have an angle of 0 = 900 ,
at the edges when the minimum load is reached (See Figure 215). Therefore, the width and loca
tion of the trapdoor becomes a major concern in deciding the failure zone.
Bulson (1985) did a series of model tests using noncircular pipes, closed cylinders and
shells under static loads. He found that the stress distribution is totally different from that of the
circular tubes, and the surface settlement is therefore different. For example, thinwalled square
tubes have similar inward deflections between the roof and sides at deep cover, but have only a
small inward deflection of the sides at shallow cover. He also maintained that he monitored results
for different shapes of the pipe such as the elliptic culverts used in Canada.
In this chapter, the idea of a triangular prism is extended into the open face of a tunnel or
a presupport tube, by assuming that the open face can be divided into a combination of many hor
izontal trapdoors, and assuming that those trapdoors have a very small height. Furthermore, the
assumption is extended to compare the different tube shapes. The circular tube and the triangular
tube, will be used for analysis by employing empirical methods, and by using a finite element
analysis to compare different ground surface settlements induced by different tube shapes.
4.2 Comparisons between the Circular Tube and the Triangular Tube
4.2.1 The Possible Width of the Failure Base
All circular tubes can be roughly divided into two groups. thickwalled pipe, and thin
walled pipe. In general, the thinwalled pipe is more flexible than the thickwalled pipe. A useful
experimental program was reported by Allgood and Herrmann(1969), who examined reinforced
model cylinders buried in dry sands with their longitudinal axis parallel to the surface. According
to this procedure, twelve cylinders were tested with varying thicknesses, reinforcements, and
cover depths.
The outcome of the tests shows that the thickwalled cylinders have a small deflection at a
low surface load. However, a thickwalled cylinder can develop longitudinal cracks, lose stiff
ness, and, therefore, have higher deflections than a thinwalled pipe at a higher load. In real
cases, if longitudinal cracks occur, the thickwalled concrete pipe will produce more soil loss
than the thinwalled pipe. The cracks could extend to the springline (see Figure 42).
Bulson (1985) did some collapse model tests using thinwalled cylinders and pipes (see
Figures 42 &43). In his tests, twelve cylinders were tested, with varying thicknesses, reinforce
ments and cover depths. The results of his tests indicate that, regardless of the depth of cover, the
pipes will eventually end up with the same forms, yielding from the points close to the spring
lines, which are at the position of the maximum crosssection. From the results of thinwalled and
thickwalled pipe tests, it seems to be reasonable to assume that the horizontal maximum cross
section is the preferred location to assume an equivalent trapdoor base; because the crack, or
yielding, will finally extend from springline to springline.
There are different opinions about the location and width of the trapdoor base. Munn et al
(1970), for example, have suggested the width of the base should match the points of possible
crown failure of the tube (see Fig 45). Most people choose the diameter of the tube as the width
of the base, however, since it seems more reasonable to use the diameter as the width of the trap
door base when the shield tunnel, or microtunnel, is excavated in clay soils. This is so since clay
has a higher strength due to cohesion, which possibly allows workmen to finish the support before
the clay yields.
For sand, most of the deformation takes place immediately after the excavation. The sand
will soon reach the maximum soil strength state, which requires little deformation. It is reasonable
to assume that the triangular prism still forms even if there is good workmanship. Therefore, the
analytical method used for sand will be different from the one for clay. The assumed width of the
trapdoor base with sand changes with location, which will be discussed in section 4.2.2.
4.2.2 The Base Location during the Occurrence of the Trapdoor Effect
Again, there have been many different assumptions regarding the location of the trapdoor
base. Placing the base at the crown of the tunnel seems too conservative when the diameter of the
tube is still assumed to be the width of the trapdoor. However, the assumption of Munn et al
(1970), who performed the tests on circular arches and presented the idealized failure mode (see
Figure 45), seems to be overly optimistic about the location of the crown failure. In the same
year, Meyerhof (1970) did some interesting model tests and found that the crown failure is not
limited to the two points of Munn's, but can extend from one springline to the other when a rela
tively shallow cover is concerned. However, it is conservative to use the biggest slipline, which
tangent to the opening, for design.
Figures 24 and 25 show an important fact that the yield triangle can propagate along its
sliplines, which are tangent to the opening in a horizontal plane at the elevation of the tunnel cen
ter, which is also the maximum horizontal section of the opening. The directions of crack propa
gation are almost the same as those of the sliplines (see the connected straight lines in Figure 24).
To be conservative, in the comparison of the circular tube and triangular tube in sand, the width of
the trapdoor's base is, therefore, assumed to be the distance between the two points where the two
tangent sliplines intersect the horizontal plane of the maximum section.
1. The geometry of the half circular tube can be defined as half circle abde.
2. The geometry of the triangular tube can be defined as triangle ace.
3. The method mentioned in Section 422 is used to decide the width and location of the
trapdoor effect for the two different kinds of tubes.
4. Only the upper parts of the tubes are used in the analysis of the trapdoor effect.
5. When the triangular tubes aceis concerned, the maximum possible sliplines, which
pass the tube, are ac and ce. So the upper yield zone should be triangle ace.
6. When the circular tube is considered, the maximum possible sliplines for the tubes are
jf and hj, which are the tangent lines of the tube. So the upper yield zone should be the
triangle fhj. The top angle of this triangle will be maintained in the following section.
4.2.4 Quantitative Comparison Using the Empirical Method
"Prediction of ground loss is very difficult because of the influence of many factors not
only of the soil (nonlinear behavior, delayed deformation), but also details of the construction
procedure (type of excavation and support systems, advance rate, etc.), and the 3dimensional
character of the problem. As a consequence, the theoretical methods by themselves are not suit
able, and only the experience gained from measurements in actual cases gives a basis for reliable
predictions." (Sagaseta, 1992).
The most successful empirical method has been the "Error Curve" method (Peck, 1969;
Schmidt, 1969). By using the following equation. Figure 48 shows the transverse settlement pro
file fitted by Gauss curve:
where 8Vis the transverse settlement, 8max is the maximum settlement (at the tunnel centerline,
i.e. x=O), and "i" is the abscissa of the point of inflection. A property of the error curve is the vol
ume of settlements enclosed by the error curve and the horizontal axis:
05
Vs = (2) ) .i.8
 a = 2.5  i 8m (4.2)
where v3 is the volume of settlements enclosed by the error curve and the horizontal axis, and is
related to the amount of ground loss vo. vo is generally given as k percentage of the crosssection
area of the tunnel. Attewell et. al. (1986) suggested that the value k is usually between 0.5 percent
and 2.5 percent when cohesive soils are considered, and ranges from 2 percent to 5 percent when
the tunneling is done in granular soils above the water table. After comparison with cohesive
soils, Attewell et. al. (1986) found that the granular soils are more dependent on operators' expe
rience and skills. They also mentioned that the k value should be adjusted to 210 percent when
the granular soils are below the water table, and be appropriately chosen as 5 percent for prelimi
nary calculations. v, is generally chosen as a fraction "ar " of the ground loss at the tunnel
(v, = a, vo), where the factor av is defined as "1" when incompressible soil (clay) is concerned,
and is 0 _a_, 1 when drained soil is involved.
Peck (1969) also suggested that the ratio "i/D" depends on the relative depth "H/D" and
the soil types, where 'D' is the diameter of the tunnel, and 'H' is the length of the cover above the
crown of the tunnel. The further revision reduces the influence of the soil types, and a unique rela
tion between "i/D" and "H/D" is proposed for any type of soil:
i 1 H n
= ý ( ) (4.3)
where the "n" is 1.0 (Attewell, 1977) or 0.8 (Clough & Schmidt, 1981; Schmidt,
1988)(see Figure 411).
My assumptions for the empirical analyses are:
1. The triangular yield zones are used to estimate v o , not the cross sections of the tunnel.
2. The ground loss v, is equal to "K" percentage of the yield zone. i.e. v, = K A.
3. The factor a, is taken as the mean value of the drained case where 0o av _1 (Attewell
et.al., 1977). i.e. a, is 0.5.
4. The factor 'n' is equal to 1 (Attewell's assumption, 1977).
Hence:
Vo = KA (4.4)
where A is the area of the triangular yield zone, and K is a constant.
Vs =sv a V.o = 0.5. Vo = 2.5  i a= 1.25 H  ma
max max
(4.5)
max A
0.4  (4.7)
K H
As long as we get the internal friction angle € of the soil, the area of the yield zone
can be obtained by using 2o as the top angle of the triangle; The triangle def is tangent to the cir
cular tube, and the triangle abc is a similar, and smaller triangle with def; the calculation for A
is discussed below (see Figure 412).
The estimated yield zones of circular and triangular tubes at the friction angle is €, where
the radius ýb is chosen as an unit length "1 m", which is a common size for horizontal presup
porting pipe, and the angles cab and fae are equal to twice the frictional angle 0. Thus,
oe = sec4 (4.8)
oa = cot (4.10)
2.cotQ
Aabc = 2 = cot (4.11)
8
max (dej) 0.4  sec "csc 1 ((4.15)
rmax(abc) 2
0.4 Coto cos
In general, the friction angles of sand range from 300 for loose sand to 450 for dense sand
(Lambe and Whitman, 1979). Therefore, the biggest difference in ground surface settlement
occurs between the triangular and circular tube when 0 is close to 450(dense sand). The ratio of
ground surface settlement induced by a circular tube to the one induced by a triangular tube is
about 2 for 0 = 450 (dense sand). This ratio of ground surface settlement is 1.33 when 0 is close to
300(loose sand).
A program written for the calculation of the settlement at the ground surface is listed in
Appendix A. This program is based on the "Error Curve". The only difference between my pro
gram and the "Error Curve" is that the yield zones are used to estimate the ground loss, not the
tunnel crosssection. For the purpose of simplicity, there are some assumptions presented below
(see Figure 412):
1. When the horizontal distance between the vertical center line and the presupport tube,
x, is between one sixth of the radii of the tunnel (see Figure 412, section A), the pre
supporting tubes are arranged with a midpoint distance equal to one full diameter in the
x direction. The vertical positions can then be obtained by the Pythagorean Theorem.
2. The rest of presupport tubes (see Figure 412, section B) are arranged with an space at
midpoint distance equal to one full diameter in the vertical direction. The x positions can
also be obtained by the Pythagorean Theory
3. The "Error Curve" is based on natural openings, or caverns. It does not include the
effect of reinforcement, temporary or permanent support. So the results of calculations
are higher than the field settlement using modern technologies; the results should multi
plied by a reduction factor, which will be different for different methods, or technologies
used to reduce the settlements.
4.3 The Numerical Comparisons between the Circular and Triangular Tubes
4.3.1 Introduction
In this section, the finite element method (FEM) is used to compare the difference between
the traditional circular presupport tube and the proposed triangular presupport tube. To simplify
the comparison, the influence on the neighboring tubes is neglected. In my analysis, a circular
and a triangular tube are placed in the same environment, in which they have 200 Kpa uniform
surface loading, and have no pressure on the inside surface of the opening; it means that there is
no support.
The influence of the depth of cover is determined by using different depths of cover while
the ground surface bears the same uniform loading. Therefore, the different ground surface settle
ments, due to the different depths of cover are obtained.
1.Planes EF and FG having a fixity in y direction while there is no fixity in the z direction.
2. Plane HG has a fixity in z direction while there is no fixity in the x direction.
3. Plane EF bears a 200 Kpa uniform vertical load.
4. The circular opening is excavated first, then the gravity is added.
5. There is no load applied on the inner surface of tube.
6. Points G and H are fixed in both y and z directions.
Figure 41. The Transformation of the Triangular Arch at Different Unsupport Time Periods
after the Tunnel is Excavated.
(a) Before Longitudinal Cracking.
Well comoctrea
gmnutar soii
(a)
(b)
(c)
(C)D (d)
Sail
%a ri
eim p
spor.
V
m SUDDOIT
rown laiture
Zrown initure
/
120'
,Optimum
, installed
)m face
Figure 46 Optimization of the Support System (Einstein et. al., 1980)
Initial erounci surface
Deformed zround surface
'/ o.aroot
.A . at EShnumat.7
. Slog 0.8
**** !!**
HI/D
Figure 49 Abscissa of the Inflection Point (Schlosser et. al., 1985)
a 0 e
B A B
lC uo''
non " n' ions:
.". .... . . .
.. * * .
Figure..412
. .'Geometry of the
'........... .. ASPR Ideal Plane Strain Reinforced
•, ...
•~ ~ ~ ~ ~ • C
•"••.••. ••••0•.
"""" 2
". "'e emer
"."'""""""" u P""" """"""""''" ".""e
R "rin
[
:y a50 mm
rips ocunuan. " •ormnneu Shavc
'"" ''''''
'"~'L
t D
nO
.50S 0 S 50'
400
5 kPa
,. i/ I I a~s 55 kPa
"
 PSR .Passive
 %PSR 19 (1CnaurL E
SA.PSR 45 (E _ 0.02%)
ca
4
wI
1 0 1
The CrossSection of Circular PreSupport Tube. The CrossSection of Triangular PreSupport Tube.
H 65 64 62
............
,............. .............
CJ..
66C
C I,
PRESCRIBED
~111 ~II u PRESSURE
71CC
· TIME 1.000
7$ 77
C 8 76130 128 12(C
200.0
C U" %A
C 81
135 134 133 132 131C
C
86
140 139 138 137 138:
Ci \jX
91
DsBh BR BB1 B B B B B B D
Figure 416 The Global Geometry and FEM Mesh for a Circular Tube
(Cover = 2 m)
ADINA A ........
L i
ST1. ~a7 AIh Ti :..........
X •.k.€
z
ý Y
C 4/ 3/2 1 53 52 51C
C 26 C
C 10 9/8 7 6
C 7/ 31 60 59 58 57 56C
C 15, 14/131 1 ...................C ..
C 88 81
110 109 108 107 10
C 91
120 119 118 117 11EQ
C I14. 144 1 4•.,,
.14
C 96
124 123 122 121C U U
5•B
B / 
D B B'...B BA
.. B5 aB.. ....
8......... B R ... .........
.....
........
.. B.. ..........
a ..... . .......
. C /
0
Figure 417 The Global Geometry and FEM Mesh for a Circular Tube
(Cover = 4 m)
z
ADINA
PRESCRIBED
PRESSURE
TIME 1.000
200.0
Figure 418 The Global Geometry and FEM Mesh for a Circular Tube
(Cover = 9 m)
ADINA ......·.·.. · _ · m
z,
""
t~~b~6·66rbl
*t, 44a
d I
'I
55 54
i
C~·~b~ll+
53
53
F'
&.
cl6~f
52
!
4
g8 57 44~ij~
50go 69
9 61cci,
5 4
88 ~ ~ 0'5~6
PRESCRIBED
PRESSURE
75 4 74 73 f 72 71LU•
C: TIME 1.000
ý L•=.,m...w.m
r
14C,
141 2 241 241I'4ý12 1_f 1 49 S148 147
150 1
NW. R..R
)lr;6~L·6I"·6.r~~ ~~r~ R
)IL~r~h n
Figure 419 The Global Geometry and FEM Mesh for a Triangular Tube
(Cover = 2 m)
ADINA
5/ 4 3 /2 2 1
A '1I
55
............
........... !
...........
I...........
...........
52
'p
I..........
T.........:.
51C
t'.
I/
i 26
/9 8 7 7
60 59 58 57 560
S 1 4/1
3' 1 ....................
C .,
65 64 63 62 61C PRESCRIBED
PRESSURE
70 69 68 67 66C TIME 1.000
2rl
42
hi421.•
75 71C  200.0
4.47j1 46
C.
!
c
783 105 104 102 101C
C82 C.
110
M\\ , 110 109 108 107 103
C 8~6 I
C
8 \i .\
115 112 111C
C,
C~\
C 150 1 149 148\\ 147\14 \
120 119 118 117 11 E
c! \ 91
Figure 420 The Global Geometry and FEM Mesh for a Triangular Tube
(Cover = 4 m)
__· · · · · _· · _· 1
ADINA
I U U V F I
F Y
C 5f JdJ 3f 9,.E
54 534 52
C 4'26 '4
C 0 49 7 ' 60, 59 58, S57 6c,
C 31 PRESCRIBED
C
,
PRESSURE
64 63, 62
C .3 ,
TIME 1.000
C '
68, 67 4604
C
C '. .
42 . 70, S69
,
200.0
%C
C
78'77
S , 76 105, 1044 103, ,102 ,
C
82 *
C
. 41b
C 86
114 113, 118,
C
C
\ 120 119 118, 4117 lie, ,
C
,
C
15a
14 14 4ý 125L 124 123, ,1224 S120, ,
Figure 421 The Global Geometry and FEM Mesh for a Triangular Tube
(Cover = 9m)
I
z
CM co w
5 00 IL
C/)wI 0 0 C 0 C0 0 C
m4 00 000 '
a 2
0O
z
Z
100
Q
N I
o Z
d0 W
u~w
nO 08 0000000
000 I  o
0
w II I I',, It' I I I.
<,
4
4
V·
4
4
4t
4
_4
4
101
O
N4
0 z
0 U cI 2IL
08 o
0
o
o 0
o ot)
0
o
0
CO
qI
Q z
i ..
__
_?
z
)
102
7
SC C
z
I
103
NJ
a0
Z
W
w 0000000
ac w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Waw
cc cc• 0 0 0 0 0 0
a
I I I I I I ,
b 
ZI
)
CMz*
4
4
I
4
4
45
z 4
5C
Figure 426 The Ground Settlement for a Triangular Tube (Cover = 4 m)
104
0
LU w
0 zw
COW
WiD0 _ do
c'J
W W
013
C
ara.
w
000000
IZ:
08P
CI)w
Rjs
I ' I WnCI I
.LI I I
o•
NO
~60)
0 _
<

4
 +
4
H
H

+
 +
 +
 +

Z 4
 t
5
Figure 427 The Ground Settlement for a Triangular Tube (Cover = 9 m)
105
0.21
0.2
~0.19
(o
 0.18 
0
C,
0 0.17 ·
E 0.15  circulartube
E
x   triangular tube
E 0.14
I
0.13
0.12
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
The depth of cover above the crown of presupport tubes  m
106
0
N
CmO
c) w
Ca'
ww
aea 1 ,IiJ, I ,I ,±
r o~
2 j
D C Cv
,
T<q
F5·
4
z
Ij
Figure 429 Maximum Shear Stress for a Circular Tube (cover = 2 m)
NJ N
Ch
q O0000
j d 0 0
Vj)d c 0
a0
>.o
(1)9 a ~ I SCO
8 o
ch
L11 1
CE I w w
O0 "r8 90
a:)LII 0
CL C.
wwwIC
O
2R
M<41Tm2Z'I
ýA )K 


 +
 +
 +

F
4
z
5
Figure 430 Maximum Shear Stress for a Circular Tube (cover = 4 m)
108
NJ 0
LUW o0
G690000
o C" CD o
mmw
w LI
5 a.P CIO
jj~IJj I I ] II
Cco
U! •"
<
Z
L1
Figure 431 Maximum Shear Stress for a Circular Tube (cover = 9 m)
109
a
NJ N 00.00
n'• o r C LO O OO
0 D Co CI)
CO w EZ• W W ij jI l
, YI ýL.\N
I
cr..~
ww n _
D
~LO
Z rM i
z
5
Figure 430 Maximum Shear Stress for a Triangular Tube (cover = 2 m)
110
0
NJ N I COr4I
o 0.00000
0 Co O PL)0 CV) 6L6C;L
0 C,, Cr) 0
3w
cca:
rr• o
wn JI~~~l'C
LILLfi
rrcr _
~D
CP Cý
MM m
CO
Ht
H
H
H;
4
4'
z
r) IL_
CC
cc i CI)I
COC
ccorQ Q
2<M
_t
112
210
200
190
180
0,
. 170
Ca
S160
E
E 150
E  circular tube
o 140
  triangular tube
130
120
110
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
The depth of cover above the crown  m
113
Table 41 The settlements of Circular and Triangular Tubes
The Depths of Circular Tu'be Triangiar Tube The Different
Cover Settlements
4 13.20 cm 13 . 03 cm 0 .17 cm
!Table 42 The Max. Shear Stresses of Circular and Triangular Tubes
The Depths of Cover Circular Tube Trianglar Tube The Different Max.
Shear Stresses
2 m 142.8 KPa 204.2 KPa 61.4 KPa
115
I r I I I 1 ~~1 1 1 ·
ADINA I · · I · · I · · ·
111111111111
5
11 I
4 /3/ 2 1 55 54
1
53 52 51
ýY
10 9/ 8 / 7 6 0 9 8 7
.7 31
S/ 8 2 65 64 63 62 61 PRESCRIBED
2 7 36 PRESSURE
70 69 68 67 66 TIME 1.000
47 46 75 74 73 72 71 200.0
k 811
78
88 82
S
3087
76 105
81
8 110
104
109
103
103
108
102
102
107
101
101
106
\\86
91
\ 120 119 118 117 116
14 Q 14414 14 14
\ 96
150. 149 148\ 147\ 146\ 125 124 123 122 121
.
...........
...........
\
,......................
\\
•............'
....................
............
..............
................
..............
Figure 437 The Global Geometry and FEM Mesh for the Modified Model
116
0
WL
tw0 0 Z
•D o 0 w
w 0000000
0 00o
TcIT a)
0
r~0'~ 'f) (V)
(00 0
~ a)
0
CL CLH 000000.
COW
a 2 I~ III I~L I I I
N i
0)
NY :
A
4
I.
117
Chapter 5.Conclusion and Recommendations for Future
Research
5.1 Conclusion
The development of arching has not been well understood so far. It, however, plays a sig
nificant role in engineering design. For economic reasons, it is costeffective for geotechnical
engineers to take into account the effect of arching in the design of structural supports. The
ground adjacent to a structure, for example, can cause the subterranean structure to have a much
greater loadcarrying capacity than an identical, yet unburied, structure. On the other hand, the
arching effect can sometimes cause the buried structure to have less loadcarrying capacity than
an unburied identical structure, which may result in the collapse of the constructed object. The
safety issue hence makes the effect of arching a major concern for engineers.
The development of arching can be roughly divided into four different stages. The first
stage is an original triangle, and the other stages are different combinations of two triangles. One
triangle has a flatter slope than the original one; and the other has a steeper slope than the original
one.
The Mohr Failure Envelope is used to explain the different stages of arching. It explains
quite well the edges of the above triangular combinations, but explains poorly the points of the
intersections of the two triangles. The MohrCoulomb Failure Envelope, on the other hand,
explains the behavior well for all the regions.
By clearly categorizing the different stages of arching, using the Mohr Failure Envelope
and the MohrCoulomb Failure Envelope, further understanding of the development of arching
can be reached.
No matter how deep or shallow a tunnel is to be built, an appropriate considation is needed
to prevent potential collapse. It should be noted that the formation of triangular arching needs a
certain depth of cover above it. As a result, if a deep tunnel is being built in sandy soil, some dis
placement of the above soil can be beneficial to the tunnel structure, for example, making the soil
produce its maximum strength. However, to build a shallow tunnel, reducing the displacement of
118
the soil is the best way to prevent the settlement at the ground surface, which is especially crucial
if the tunnel is being build in a city.
Transforming the traditional horizontal presupporting circular tube into the new triangu
lar design minimizes the yield zones of the opening, and the settlement of the ground surface will
decrease. Both the empirical explanation and the F.E.M. method prove that the triangular presup
port tubes can reduce the ground surface settlement better than the traditional circular presupport
tubes.
There are a number of areas concerning the arching effect where further research is
needed. Some of them are summarized below:
1.The directions of the major principal stresses during the transformation between differ
ent stages of arching are not known. In the present analysis, the directions of major prin
cipal stresses are assumed to be horizontal. Evans (1983) has argued that major principal
stresses are horizontal when the triangular prism forms. It is unclear, though, how these
directions change during the transformation between different arching stages.
2. The triangular tubes can also produce greater interlocking effects by changing the
lower portion of the tube into a circular shape. It remains unclear that what kind of shape
is an optimal one. Again, all the connection points (Figure 417) need to keep an arc
shape to reduce the stress concentration.
3. The 'Error Curve' method for settlement prediction was originally obtained from the
natural caverns, or tunnels which do not have reinforcement and pressure support.
Therefore, a reduction factor for the calculated settlements with modern construction
technology is required. The reduction factor will change according to different excava
tion technologies and soil types.
119
BIBLOGRAPHY
Allgood, J. R., and Herrmann, H. G. (1969), "Static Behaviorof Buired Reinforced Concrete
Model Cylinders', US Naval Civil Engineering Lab.,Tech. Rep. R606.
Atkinson, J. H., E.T. Brown, and D.M. Potts (1975), "Collapse of Shallow Unlined Tunnels in
Dense Sand", Tunnels and Tunneling, Vol. 7, No 3, pp 8187.
Atkinson, J. H.,and D.M. Potts (1975),"A Note on Associated Field Solutions for Boundary Value
Problems in a Variable ý  Variable u Soil", Geotechnique, Vol. 25, pp. 379384.
Atkinson, J. H.,and D.M. Potts (1977)," Stability of a Shallow Circular Tunnel in Cohesionless
Soil", Geotechnique 27, No. 2, pp. 203215.
Attewell, P. B. (1977), "Ground Movements Caused by Tunneling in Soil". Proc. Int. Conf. Large
Ground Movs. and Structure. Cardiff, U.K. 812948. Pentech Press, London.
Attewell, P. B., Yeates, j. & Selby, A. R. (1986), Soil Movements Induced by Tunneling and
Their Effects on Pipelines and Structures. Chapman and Hall, New York.
Bickel, John o. & Kusel, T. R. (1982), "Tunnel Engineering Handbook". Van Nostrand Reinhold
Company Inc., New York.
Bulson, P. S.(1985), "Buried Structures  Static and Dynamic Strength", Chapman and Hall,
London New York.
Clough, G. W. & Schmidt, B. (1981), "Design and Performance of Excavation and Tunnels in
Soft Clay", Soft Clay Engineering. Chap. 8 569634. Eds. E. W. Brand & R. P. Brenner.
Elsevier, New York.
120
Darling, Peter (1993), " Jacking under Singapore's Busiest Street", Tunnels and Tunneling, Pac
tific rim issue, Summer, pp. 1923.
Duddeck Heinz (1988), "Guidelines for the Design of Tunnels", Tunnelling and Underground
Space Technology, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp 237249.
ElNahhas, F., ElKadi, F., Ahmed, A. (1992), "Interaction of Tunnel Linings and Soft Ground",
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp 3343.
Einstein, H. H., Schwartz, C. W., Steiner, W., Baligh, M. M., Levitt, R. E. (1980), Improved
Design For Tunnel Supports, Final Report of University Research, U. S. Department of
Transportation.
Engesser, Fr. (1882), " Ueber Den Erdduck gegen innere Stizwande (Tunnelwande)", Deutsche
Bauzeitung, No. 16, pp. 9193.
Fukuchi, G. (1991), " The Present and Future of Mechanized Tunnel Works in Soft Ground", Tun
nelling and Underground Space Technology, Vol. 6, No. 22, pp 175183.
Hough, B. K. (1957), Basic Soils Engineering. The Ronald Press Co., New York.
Lambe, T. W. and Whitman, R. V. (1969), Soil Mechanics. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Larson, D. G. (1992), "A Laboratory Investigation of Load Transfer in Reinforced Soil", Ph.D.
Thesis of Civil Engineering, M.I.T..
Lunardi, P. (1991), "Cellular Arch Technique For Large Span Station Cavern", Tunnels and
Tunneling, November, pp. 2326.
Madan, M. M. (1991), "An Analytical Approach to Tunnel Construction", Tunnels and Tunnel
ing, May, pp. 7174.
Munn, J. F., Carre, G. L. and Kennedy, T. E. (1970), Failure of FootingSupported Buried Steel
Arches Loaded Statically, US Army Waterways Experiment Station, Misc. paper N702.
Parker, H. W. (1992), "Concept and Construction of the Mount Barker Ridge Tunnel", Tunnels
and Tunneling, North American Issue, Autumn, pp. 1516.
Peck, R. B. (1969), "Deep Excavations and Tunneling in Soft Ground", State of the art report,
in 7 Th. In. Conf. On Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engry. Mexico City.
Pender, M. J. (1980), "Elastic Solutions for a Deep Circular Tunnel", Technical Notes,
September.
Sebasteiano Pelizza and Daniele Peila (1993), "Soil and Rock Reinforcements in Tunneling",
Tunneling and Underground Space Technology, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 357372.
Soliman, E., Duddeck, H., & Ahrens, H. (1993), "Two and Three Dimensional Analysis of
122
Closely Spaced DoubleTube Tunnels", Tunneling and Underground Space Technology,
Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 1318.
Stein, Dietrich, Mollers Klemens, and Bielecki Rolf (1989), Microtunnelling  Installation and
Renewal of NormanSize Supply and Sewage Lines by the Trenchless Construction
Method, Ernst & Sohn Verlag fiir Architecktur und technische Wissenschaften, Berlin.
Stone, K. J. L. (1992),"Effect of Dilatancy and Particle Size Observed in Model Tests on Sand",
Soils and Foundations, Vol. 32, No. 4, pp. 4347.
Tarkoy, peter (1991), "Appropriate Support Selection", Tunnels and Tunneling, October,pp. 42
45.
Wallis Shani (1992), "Micro Assistance for Macro Undertaking In Atlanta", Tunnels and Tunnel
ling, January, pp 3942.
Watson, Kathy (1992), "Micro Goes French", Tunnels and Tunneling, May, pp. 3740.
123
APPENDIX A
The Computer Program Used for Empirical Comparison
between the Circular and the Triangular Tubes
124
Function to Calculate the Surface Settlement by Peck's Error Curve
minclude <stdio.h>
'inciude <math.h>
ginclude <stdlib.h>
void main( )
125
=canf"'%lf",&rl);
printfl" ri = %f \n".rl);
print'f" Please Key in the Right Fange of Surface Settlement for Calculating in met
scanf("%lf",&rr);
rinrtf" rr = %f \n",rrl;
printf:" Please Key in the Friction Angler of Soil in Degree \n");
scanf("%lf",&q);
printf," q = %f \n",q);
printf:"Please Key in How Far the Design Water Table Away from Ground Surface \n");
scanf("%lf",&dwt);
printf(" dwt = %f \n",dwt);
f ( hc >= dwt){
printf(" This case is not suitable for using presupporting tube \n");
exit(!);
b=settlement(hc,tr.sr,np,rl.rr,q,type.kl.k2,dwt);
reout(b,flnp);
b = malloc((3*np)*sizeof(double));
if ( b== NULL)
exit(l);
dx=(rrrl)/(npl);
ql=q'3.1416/180;
for (j=0; j<np; j++){
*(b+3*j)=0.0;
*(b+3*j+l) =0.0;
*(b+3*j+2)=0.0;
lt=sqrtipow((tr+l),2.0)pow((hc+trdwt),2));
xl= it;
126
max_s2 = 0.8/(hl), (sln(ý 1))k2*1000:
else
xli= 99999.9;/* conside only one main tunnei no supporting tube
ft (type == 1){
maxsl = 0.4/hl*kl*1000;
maxs2 = 0.4/hl*k2*1000;
else (
max_sl = 0.8/(hl)/(sin(2*ql))*kl*1000;
max_s2 = 0.8/(hl)/(sin(2*ql))'k2*1000;
y=sqrt(pow((tr+1),2.0)pow((tr/2),2));
hl=::
n r  y;
ror ( : (xl >= (tr/2  0.01)) && (xl <= (1t+0.01)); hl += (2*sr)){
xl=sqrt(pow((tr+l),2.0)pow((hc +tr hl),2));
if (type == 1)(
max_sl = 0.4/hl*kl*1000;
max_s2 = 0.4/hl*k2*1000;
else (
max_sl = 0.8/(hl)/(sin(2*ql))*kl*1000;
max_s2 = 0.8/(hl)/(sin(2*ql))*k2*1000;
*(b+3*i)= x2;
*(b+3*i+l) += (max_sl)*(exp(x2*x2/2));
*(b+3*i+2) += (max_s2)*(exp(x2*x2/2));
return(b);
127
'Function to Output Data fzr Drawing Figures
"oid re_out(double 'b,FILE `f,int nor
:.Zest:
!nt
fprintf(f,"a = [ n");
fprintf(f," ]; \n")
return:
128
Script started on Mon May 15 14:25:42 1995
athena% a.out
?lease Choose the below Type of Tubes
1. Tringular Tube.
Z. Circular Tube.
Please Choose the soil type
. Cohesive Soil.
2. Granular soil.
Please Key in the Length of the Cover in Meters
hc = 4.000000
Please Key in the Radius of the Main Tunnel in Meters
8
tr = 8.000000
Please Key in the Radius of the PreSupporting Tube in Meters
sr = 1.000000
Please Key in the Number of Surface Data Pt. in Odd Integer Number
23
np = 23
Please Key in the Left Range of Surface Settlement for Calculating in meters
20
ri = 20.000000
Please Key in the Right Range of Surface Settlement for Calculating in meters
20
rr = 20.000000
Please Key in the Friction Angler of Soil in Degree
40
q = 40.000000
Please Key in How Far the Design Water Table Away from Ground Surface
9
dwt = 9.000000
Please Enter the Name of the Output file
al.m
athena% more al.m
[H (Ka = [ (K
[K 20.000000 0.000000 0.000000 [K
[K 18.181818 0.000000 0.000000 [K
[K 16.363636 0.000000 0.000000 [K
[K 14.545455 0.000000 0.000000 [K
[K 12.727273 0.000000 0.000000 [K
[K 10.909091 0.000000 0.000000 [K
[K 9.090909 0.000000 0.000000 [K
[K 7.272727 0.000000 0.000000 [K
[K 5.454545 0.000002 0.000005 [K
[K 3.636364 0.008470 0.021174 [K
[K 1.818182 1.206116 3.015289 [K
[K 0.000000 6.298413 15.746032 [K
[K 1.818182 1.206116 3.015289 [K
[K 3.636364 0.008470 0.021174 [K
(K 5.454545 0.000002 0.000005 (K
[K 7.272727 0.000000 0.000000 [K
[K 9.090909 0.000000 0.000000 [K
[K 10.909091 0.000000 0.000000 [K
[K 12.727273 0.000000 0.000000 [K
[K 14.545455 0.000000 0.000000 (K
[K 16.363636 0.000000 0.000000 [K
[K 18.181818 0.000000 0.000000 [K
[H ([m2KGGH88e0(95890Q9gss ap&08000 c4fttriue. 'q' to quit.] [m [J
[K ]; [K
(Jathena% a.out
Please Choose the below Type of Tubes
1. Tringular Tube.
2. Circular Tube.
129
Please Choose the soil =zpe
1. Cohesive Soil.
Granular soil.
3.
Please Key in the Length of the Cover in Meters
hc = 4.000000
Please Key in the Radius of the Main Tunnel in Meters
3
tr = 3.000000
Please Key in the Radius of the PreSupporting Tube in Meters
sr = 1.000000
Please Key in the Number cf Surface Data Pt. in Odd Integer Number
23
np = 23
Please Key in the Left Range of Surface Settlement for Calculating in meters
20
rl = 20.000000
Please Key in the Right Range of Surface Settlement for Calculating in meters
20
rr = 20.000000
Please Key in the Friction Angler of Soil in Degree
q = 40.000000
Please Key in How Far the Design Water Table Away from Ground Surface
9
dwt = 9.000000
Please Enter the Name of the Output file
al.m
athena% more a2.m
(H [Ka = [ (K
[K 20.000000 0.000000 0.000000 [K
[K 18.181818 0.000000 0.000000 [K
[K 16.363636 0.000000 0.000000 (K
(K 14.545455 0.000000 0.000000 [K
(K 12.727273 0.000000 0.000000 [K
[K i0.909091 0.000000 0.000000 [K
[K 9.090909 0.000000 0.000000 (K
[K 7.272727 0.000000 3.000000 [K
[K 5.454545 0.000004 0.000011 (K
(K 3.636364 0.017200 0.043001 [K
[K 1.818182 2.449443 6.123607 [K
(K 0.000000 12.791144 31.977861 (K
(K 1.818182 2.449443 6.123607 [K
[K 3.636364 0.017200 0.043001 (K
(K 5.454545 0.000004 0.000011 [K
[K 7.272727 0.000000 0.000000 [K
[K 9.090909 0.000000 0.000000 (K
[K 10.909091 0.000000 0.000000 (K
(K 12.727273 0.000000 0.000000 [K
(K 14.545455 0.000000 0.000000 [K
[K 16.363636 0.000000 0.000000 (K
[K 18.181818 0.000000 0.000000 [K
([ ([m2K99g800§G9590090gss apBaO000 ctHtiHue. 'q' to quit.] [m ([J
[K ]; [K
(Jathena% exit
athena%
script done on Mon May 15 14:28:22 1995
130