63.2 demonstrably robust. The objective is 10 achieve greater overall economy without compromising safety. This is not ‘design as you go’. A robust design is drawn up in advance and it is recognised that this may be altered as construction progresses. ‘Closed-torm’ analytical methods Soil deformations ahead of the face, stress relief prior to the installation of support and soil-structure interaction determine the stresses and strains in tunnel linings. While some analytical solutions can model this, they are unable to model the full complex- ity of a tunnel during construction. Specifically, they are generally two-dimensional idealisations that assume the ground is a homo- geneous continuum and the tunnel is circular (see Fig. 6.2). Analytical design tools can be used for designing adjacent tunnels using the principle of superposition but this assumption may significantly underestimate the interaction of the tunnels, especially if the distance between the two tunnels is less than two clear diameters (Szechy, 1967). Also, these models do not make any allowance for construction loads (e.g. from rams in a TBM) or the timing of support placement, with the exception of the Convergence-Confinement Method. However, they have a proven track record in soft ground such as London Clay and are still widely used for dimensioning tunnel linings in simple cases. A comprehensive review of analytical ‘models is presented by Duddeck and Erdman (1985). In terms of the range of analytical solutions available, various methods exist for determining the stresses around a hole in an elastic or elasto-plastic homogencous half-space. Various pressure distributions have been proposed to derive the stresses in the lining, for example Terzaghi or Protodiakonov (see Szechy, 1967). These are of limited use in determining the loads on linings because they consider the ground alone. More useful analytical methods are presented below. 6.3.2.1 Continuum analytical models Commonly used conti- uum analytical models, also referred to as ‘closed-form’ solutions, include those proposed by Muir Wood (1975), Einstein and Schwartz (1979) and Duddeck and Erdman (1985). All of these models are based on excavation and lining of a hole in a stressed continuum. In general these models yield similar results for normal forces for the same input parameters but the predicted bending moments may differ significantly. Most ‘closed-form’ analytical solutions assume plane stress, an isotropic, homogencous clastic medium and an elastic lining for a circular tunnel, although the Curtis-Muir Wood solution has bbeen extended by Curtis (1976) to viscoelastic ground. The assump- tion that the lining is installed immediately after the tunnel is excavated tends to overestimate the loads and hence judgement is required in deciding the proportion of the original in situ stresses to apply to the linings. Options include applying a reduction factor to the full applied ground stress; any stress relief depends on the ground conditions and the method of construction. This reduced stress can be assumed at 50-70% if the depth to tunnel axisis greater than three diameters (Duddeck and Erdman, 1985). Alternatively, the Ky value can be set, 104 Tunnel lining design guide. Thomas Telford, London, 2004