SS symmetry

Article
Stability Analysis of Tunnel Face Reinforced with
Longitudinal Fiberglass Dowels Together with Steel
Pipe Umbrella
Kaihang Han 1,2 , Xuetao Wang 1,2, *, Beibei Hou 3 , Cheng-yong Cao 1,2 and Xing-Tao Lin 1,2
1 College of Civil and Transportation Engineering, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen 518060, China;
hankaihang@szu.edu.cn (K.H.); cy-cao@szu.edu.cn (C.-y.C.); xtlin@szu.edu.cn (X.-T.L.)
2 Underground Polis Academy, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen 518060, China
3 China Jingye Engineering Company Limited, Beijing 100088, China; houbeibei0311@hotmail.com
* Correspondence: xuetao.wang@szu.edu.cn




Received: 23 November 2020; Accepted: 11 December 2020; Published: 13 December 2020


Abstract: When tunnels are constructed under difficult geotechnical conditions in urban areas,
tunnel face stability is one of the main issues to be addressed. To ensure tunnel face stability and
reduce the impact of tunneling on adjacent structures, a few alternative procedures of ground
reinforcement should be adopted, which includes reinforcing the soil ahead of the face using
longitudinal fiberglass dowels alone or together with a steel pipe umbrella. It is of great academic
value and engineering signification to reasonably determine the limit reinforcement density of these
ground reinforcements. In this paper, an analytical prediction model is proposed by using the
limit analysis method to analyze the tunnel face stability, and the favorable effects of longitudinal
fiberglass dowels and steel pipe umbrella on tunnel face stability are investigated quantitatively.
The analytical prediction model consists of a wedge ahead of the tunnel face, distributed force
acting on the wedge exerted by overlying ground, and the support forces stem from the longitudinal
fiberglass dowels. Moreover, sensitivity analysis is conducted to study the effect of the depth of cover,
the tunnel shape, the reinforcement installation interval and the reduction factor on the required limit
reinforcement density.

Keywords: face stability; shallow tunneling method; limit analysis; cohesive–frictional soils; reduction
effect; reinforcement density

1. Introduction
The stability of the tunnel face is one of the main problems to be solved when the tunnel passes
through complicated geological conditions [1,2]. The shallow tunneling method is mainly applied
to urban subways, municipal underground pipe networks and other shallow-buried underground
structures. This method is mostly used in quaternary soft strata, and the excavation methods include
the positive step method, single side wall method, middle wall method (also known as CD method
and CRD method), double side wall method (eyeglasses method), etc. The shallow tunneling method
has the advantages of flexibility; little influence on the ground building, road and underground pipe
network; less land for demolition; no disturbance to nearby communities; no pollution to the urban
environment, and so on. In order to ensure the face stability of the tunnels constructed using the
shallow tunneling method, some flexible measures should be taken to improve the stability of the
tunnel face under poor ground conditions. The commonly used pre-reinforcement techniques for
tunnel construction are shown in Table 1.

Symmetry 2020, 12, 2069; doi:10.3390/sym12122069 www.mdpi.com/journal/symmetry

Symmetry 2020, 12, 2069 2 of 12

Table 1. Classification of pre-reinforcement techniques for tunnel construction.

Construction Safety
Pre-Reinforcement Technology
Stable Working Stability of Groundwater
Stable Arch
Face Arch Foot Control
√ √
payments
Advance

Advance bolt
√ √
Pipe shed
√ √
Horizontal rotary jet pile
Core soil reserved for √
excavated surfaces
Reinforcement of

annular excavation
Shotcrete on excavated √
surface
√
Anchor of excavated surface
Grouting of excavated √
surfaces
√
of arch foot
Reinforcement

Anchor bolt reinforcement

√
Reinforcement of locked pile
Grouting reinforcement of √
arch foot
√
Temporary inverted arch
Surface √ √ √
control
Groundwater

Drainage
drainage
measures √ √ √
Drainage
√ √ √
Waterproofing Grouting
measures √ √ √
Freeze
√ √ √
Formation

Contact grouting
reinforcement

√ √ √
Full section grouting
Joint grouting
√ √ √ √
Surface pre-grouting

Numerical, experimental and theoretical analytical methods have been developed to study the
stability of tunnel faces reinforced with auxiliary methods. Based on the centrifugal test, it was found
that the extrusion displacement of soil on the excavation surface decreases when the bolt is arranged in
the outer area of the excavation surface, and the optimal bolt arrangement length is approximately
twice the length from the excavation surface to the fracture surface [3]. A series of scale model tests and
three-dimensional finite element simulations were carried out to study the constraints of reinforcement
parameters such as density, length and stiffness on excavation face deformation. The results indicated
that when the reinforcement element is installed, the reinforcement effect of the excavation face is
obvious, and there is a critical value to exert the maximum effect of the reinforcement [4,5]. Centrifugal
test equipment and discrete element simulation were used to investigate the influence of typical
auxiliary bolt (front bolt, vertical pre-reinforcement bolt and advance support bolt) on the stability
of the excavation face. The results showed that when the length exceeds 0.5 D, the front bolt will
play a beneficial role, and the front bolt placed on the upper section of the tunnel is more effective
than the lower section [6]. The effectiveness of the pre-reinforcement of the excavation face of deep
buried tunnel was studied by numerical simulation methods, and the results were compared with the
measured data [7]. The stability of the tunnel excavation face under the pipe umbrella was studied,
and the support pressure needed to ensure the stability of the tunnel excavation face was deduced by
upper limit theory and limit equilibrium theory. The results showed that under the condition of no
water, the effect of multi-stage grouting on the supporting force needed to ensure the stability of the
excavation face is not obvious. When seepage is considered, the steel pipe umbrella has a relatively
strong influence on underwater tunnels. [8]. A series of centrifugal tests were carried out on the
Symmetry 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 14

the pipe umbrella was studied, and the support pressure needed to ensure the stability of the tunnel
excavation face was deduced by upper limit theory and limit equilibrium theory. The results showed
that under the condition of no water, the effect of multi-stage grouting on the supporting force needed
Symmetry 2020, 12, 2069 3 of 12
to ensure the stability of the excavation face is not obvious. When seepage is considered, the steel
pipe umbrella has a relatively strong influence on underwater tunnels. [8]. A series of centrifugal
tests were carried
excavation robot toout on the
study the excavation
effect of tuberobot
shedto study the
support andeffect of tubemethod
excavation shed support and excavation
(full section excavation
method (full section
or ring excavation withexcavation
reservedor ring
core excavation
soil) with reserved
on the displacement corethe
above soil) on the displacement
excavation above
face of the tunnel.
the excavation face of the tunnel. The model test showed that the maximum
The model test showed that the maximum settlement of the full section of the excavated strata under settlement of the full
section
the action of the pipe shed is one quarter of that without the action of the pipe umbrella [9]. A seriesthe
of the excavated strata under the action of the pipe shed is one quarter of that without of
action of the
large-scale pipetests
model umbrella [9]. A
are carried outseries
to studyof large-scale model tests
the reinforcement are carried
mechanism of theout to study
tunnel roof tubethe
reinforcement mechanismsystem
shed [10]. The supporting of the tunnel
structureroofof tube
the pipeshed [10].is The
shed supporting
analyzed, system
and the bendingstructure
moment of and
the
pipe
shearshed
forceisofanalyzed,
the pipeandshedthearebending
analyzed moment
using and finiteshear forcesoftware.
element of the pipe shed are they
Moreover, analyzed using
compared
finite element software. Moreover, they compared the results with general commercial
the results with general commercial software to verify the reliability of the proposed finite element software to
verify the reliability of the proposed finite element calculation [11]. An analytical
calculation [11]. An analytical study on the stability of the tunnel excavation face strengthened by the study on the
stability
auxiliaryof the tunnel
method excavation
includes face strengthened
an equivalent homogenizedbymaterial the auxiliary
concept method
[12–14]includes an equivalent
and the support forces
homogenized material concept [12–14]
exerted by the individual bolts [15–19]. and the support forces exerted by the individual bolts [15–19].
In urban subway tunnel excavation, retaining core soil is widely used to partially realize the
In urban subway tunnel excavation, retaining core soil is widely used to partially realize the
retaining wall effect, which can control the stability of the tunnel face under the general stratum
retaining wall effect, which can control the stability of the tunnel face under the general stratum
conditions. However, in special stratum conditions, such as large water inflow and sand layers with
conditions. However, in special stratum conditions, such as large water inflow and sand layers with
relatively small water barrier thickness, the core soil of the tunnel face is often difficult to retain, and soil
relatively small water barrier thickness, the core soil of the tunnel face is often difficult to retain, and
collapse occurs frequently. Subsequent measures to deal with the collapse, such as grouting small
soil collapse occurs frequently. Subsequent measures to deal with the collapse, such as grouting small
pipes, have become the conventional means to maintain normal excavation of the working face of the
pipes, have become the conventional means to maintain normal excavation of the working face of the
tunnel under such stratum conditions. This cannot be said to be a passive face of soil pre-reinforcement.
tunnel under such stratum conditions. This cannot be said to be a passive face of soil pre-
A large number of engineering practices have also shown that the use of longitudinal fiberglass dowels
reinforcement. A large number of engineering practices have also shown that the use of longitudinal
in the tunnel face is an active and effective method to pre-reinforce the front soil (c.f., Figure 1). It is of
fiberglass dowels in the tunnel face is an active and effective method to pre-reinforce the front soil
great academic value and engineering significance to reasonably determine the limit reinforcement
(c.f., Figure 1). It is of great academic value and engineering significance to reasonably determine the
density
limit of these ground
reinforcement reinforcements.
density In this
of these ground paper, based on
reinforcements. Inthe
thislimit analysis
paper, basedmethod, an analytical
on the limit analysis
prediction model is proposed to analyze the favorable effects of longitudinal fiberglass
method, an analytical prediction model is proposed to analyze the favorable effects of longitudinal dowels and
steel pipe umbrella
fiberglass dowels and on steel
face stability. Moreover,
pipe umbrella sensitivity
on face stability.analysis is carried
Moreover, out to analysis
sensitivity study theiseffect of
carried
the depth of cover, the tunnel shape, the reinforcement installation interval and the reduction
out to study the effect of the depth of cover, the tunnel shape, the reinforcement installation interval factor on
the required
and reinforcement
the reduction factor ondensity.
the required reinforcement density.

Figure
Figure 1.1. Face
Facefailure
failure reinforced
reinforced withwith longitudinal
longitudinal fiberglass
fiberglass dowelsdowels
togethertogether with
with steel pipesteel pipe
umbrella.
umbrella.
2. Stability Analysis of the Tunnel Face Reinforced with Longitudinal Fiberglass Dowels
Together with
2. Stability Steel Pipe
Analysis of theUmbrella
Tunnel Face Reinforced with Longitudinal Fiberglass Dowels Together
with Steel Pipe Umbrella
2.1. The New Analytical Prediction Model
2.1. The Newpaper,
In this Analytical
a newPrediction
analyticalModel
prediction model is proposed to investigate the stability of a tunnel
face reinforced with auxiliary methods, as shown in Figure 2a. The tunnel is a rigid cylinder with a
In this paper, a new analytical prediction model is proposed to investigate the stability of a
diameter of D, an underground cover depth of C and a surcharge applied on the ground surface of
tunnel face reinforced with auxiliary methods, as shown in Figure 2a. The tunnel is a rigid cylinder
σs . The analytical prediction model consists of a wedge ahead of the tunnel face, distributed force
with a diameter of D, an underground cover depth of C and a surcharge applied on the ground
acting on the wedge exerted by overlying ground, and the support forces stem from the longitudinal
fiberglass dowels. On the one hand, the advanced pre-reinforcement structure of the steel pipe umbrella
is deemed the beam on the Winkler elastic foundation, which shows that the existence of the steel
pipe umbrella effectively reduces the vertical pressure exerted by overlaying ground. On the other
force acting on the wedge exerted by overlying ground, and the support forces stem from the
longitudinal fiberglass dowels. On the one hand, the advanced pre-reinforcement structure of the
steel pipe umbrella is deemed the beam on the Winkler elastic foundation, which shows that the
existence of the steel pipe umbrella effectively reduces the vertical pressure exerted by overlaying
Symmetry 2020,
ground. 12, 2069
On the 4 of 12
other hand, the strengthening effect of the longitudinal fiberglass dowels depends
primarily on the tensile bearing capacity of the bolt or the bond strength of the ground–bolt interface.
The ground extrusion in front of the tunnel face is effectively reduced for the installation of
hand, the strengthening effect of the longitudinal fiberglass dowels depends primarily on the tensile
longitudinal fiberglass dowels. The mechanical force analysis of the new analytical prediction model
bearing capacity of the bolt or the bond strength of the ground–bolt interface. The ground extrusion
is shown in Figure 2b.
in front of the tunnel face is effectively reduced for the installation of longitudinal fiberglass dowels.
The mechanical force analysis of the new analytical prediction model is shown in Figure 2b.

σs
Ground surface

C Vertical pressure exerted by

the prism upon the wedge
H Pre-supports

Subgrade reaction
D Tunnel
Longitudinal
fiberglass dowels

(a)

σv

Ts
G
s H
φ β

(b)

Figure 2. The new failure mechanism. (a) Concept map; (b) Mechanical force analysis.
Figure 2. The new failure mechanism. (a) Concept map; (b) Mechanical force analysis.
2.2. Power of the External Loads Pe
2.2. Power of the External Loads Pe
2.2.1. Power of the Soil Unit Weight
2.2.1. Power of the Soil Unit Weight
The power of self-weight of the wedge body is as follows:
The power of self-weight of the wedge body is as follows:
Pw = G  [V cos(ϕ + β)] (1)
= V21 H 2 tan βBγ [V cos(ϕ + β)] = 1 γH2 B tan β cos(ϕ + β)V
Pw = G  cos ( ϕ + β ) 
 2

 the 2wedge, V is the velocity of the

1 1 wedge, (1)is
 H tan β Bγ  V cos (ϕ + β )  = γ H B tan β cos (ϕ + β )V
where G is the weight=of 2 B is the width of the wedge, H
the height of the wedge, ϕ 2 is the angleof internal friction2of the ground, and β is the inclination of the
slope and the horizontal plane, as rendered in Figure 2b.

2.2.2. Power Induced by the Friction on Both Sides

The power of the friction on both sides is as follows:
R H nh   i o
PTs =2 c + ( H − z ) γ + z
σv tan ϕ [ z tan β ][ V cos ϕ ] dz
0 2σv +γH
 H (2)
= − c + K tan ϕ 3 H tan β cos ϕV
2
Symmetry 2020, 12, 2069 5 of 12

where c is the cohesion of the ground, z is the vertical coordinate, and K is the lateral pressure coefficient.

2.2.3. Power Induced by the Vertical Stress on the Sliding Wedge Body
Basic ideas and assumptions of the mechanical model for advanced small pipes are as follows:
(1) Both the beam theory and the theory of beam on Winkler elastic foundation are adopted to
investigate the mechanical behavior and characteristics of advanced small pipes in tunnel
construction. Beam theory is used to analyze the advanced small pipes that are embedded in soil
in the front of the tunnel face, whereas the theory of beam on Winkler elastic foundation is used
to analyze the advanced small pipes behind the tunnel face, as rendered in Figure 3.
(2) It is assumed that the fixed end A has certain vertical displacement y0 , which is a known value
and is considered as the measured vault subsidence value.
(3) The length of the advanced small pipes consists of two parts, which includes unsupported span
(length in 1.5a, includes excavation footage 1.0a and the length 0.5a due to support delay effect)
and the length of the wedge (length in l), as depicted in Figure 3. The symbol a denotes the
excavation footage—that is, the length of the tunnel for each excavation.
(4) In order to simplify the analysis, the horizontal projection length of advanced small pipes
is considered.
The load q (uniform distribution) above the tunnel face will entirely act on the collapse slope
surface of the tunnel face within length l. According to the analysis above, the stability analysis models
of the upper-bound solution of the tunnel face with the following conditions are established, as follows:
(1) The remaining length le of the pipe in soil is longer than the length l of the wedge (Type I).
The stability analysis model I is shown in Figure 3a. The subgrade reaction force that acts on the
wedge is p (triangular distribution).
(2) The remaining length le of the pipe in soil is shorter than the length l of the wedge (Type II).
The stability analysis model II is shown in Figure 3b. The load that acts on the wedge can be
divided into two parts, one is the subgrade reaction force p (trapezium distribution) along the
Symmetry 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 14
pipe and the other is the uniform load q that acts on the wedge.

q(x) q(x)
Joint with Joint with
grid steel frame grid steel frame Pipe roof
Pipe roof
B C B
x x
A O A O
p(x)
p(x)
1.5a l 1.5a le≤l
le
y y

(a) (b)
Figure 3. Mechanical model of the steel pipe umbrella. (a) Type I; (b) Type II.
Figure 3. Mechanical model of the steel pipe umbrella. (a) Type I; (b) Type II.
(1) For Type I, the control differential equations of the reinforced foundation beam for different
(1) For Type I,are
segments the controlas
obtained differential
follows: equations of the reinforced foundation beam for different
segments are obtained as follows:
4 ( )
 AO : d y4 = bqEIx


 d yd4 y bq ( x4)
dx
 4


bq(x)
 AO
 : : 4dx=4 + 4λ y = EI ,
OB (3)
dx EI


 4
 BC : d y + 4λ4 y = 0

 d 4 ydx4 4 bq ( x )
OB : 4 + 4λ y = , (3)
where y is the deflection of the beam,dxλ is the characteristic
EI coefficient of the beam, E is the

elasticity modulus of the beam material, d 4 and
y I is4 the moment of inertia of the beam section.
 BC : 4
+ 4λ y = 0
 dx

where y is the deflection of the beam, λ is the characteristic coefficient of the beam, E is the elasticity
modulus of the beam material, and I is the moment of inertia of the beam section.

The deflection equations are obtained as follows:

Symmetry 2020, 12, 2069 6 of 12

The deflection equations are obtained as follows:

AO : y1 = qbx4 /(24EI ) + C1 x3 + C2 x2 + C3 x + C4




OB : y2 = y3 + yt , (4)


 BC : y = eλx (C cos λx + C sin λx) + e−λx (C cos λx + C sin λx)


3 5 6 7 8

where y1 , y2 and y3 denote the deflections of the beams AO, OB and BC, respectively; C1 , C2 , C3 , C4 , C5 ,
C6 , C7 and C8 present the undetermined coefficients of differential equations; yt is a particular solution
to a differential equation for beams OB.
Boundary conditions are as follows:

 y3 x→∞ = 0, θ3 |x→∞ = 0


 y1 x=− 32 a = y 0 , θ1 |x=− 32 a = 0

 


, (5)
 y1 x=0 = y2 x=0 , θ1 |x=0 = θ2 |x=0

  



M1 |x=0 = M2 |x=0 , Q1 |x=0 = Q2 |x=0


where θ, M and Q denote the angle of rotation, bending moment and shear force of the
beams, respectively.
According to the above boundary conditions, the following equations are obtained to calculate
the unknown parameters in Equation (4):
    
 A11 A12 A13 A14 A15 A16  C1   B1 
    

 A21 A22 A23 A24 A25 A26 
 C2  
  B2 

 A31 A32 A33 A34 A35 A36  C3   B3 
 =  , (6)
    
A41 A42 A43 A44 A45 A46 C4 B4
 
    
   
A51 A52 A53 A54 A55 A56 C7 B5
 
    

  
A61 A62 A63 A64 A65 A66 C8 B6
 

where
27qba4



 A11 =27a3 ,A12 =−18a2 ,A13 =12a,A14 =−8,A15 =0,A16 =0,B1 = 16EI −8y0 ,
27qba3

A21 =27a2 ,A22 =−12a,A23 =4,A24 =0,A25 =0,A26 =0,B2 =



 12EI ,
 q
A31 =0,A32 =0,A33 =0,A34 =1,A35 =−1,A36 =0,B3 = K [1−cosh(λl) cos(λl)],


(7)

 q
A41 =0,A42 =0,A43 =1,A44 =0,A45 =λ,A46 =−λ,B4 = K [sinh(λl) cos(λl)−cosh(λl) sin(λl)],




 q
A51 =0,A52 =1,A53 =0,A54 =0,A55 =0,A56 =λ2 ,B5 = K [sinh(λl) sin(λl)],




 q
A61 =−3,A62 =0,A63 =0,A64 =0,A65 =λ3 ,A 66 =λ ,B6 = K [sinh(λl) cos(λl)+cosh(λl) sin(λl)],
3


(2) For Type II, the control differential equations of the reinforced foundation beam for different
segments are obtained as follows:

d4 y bq(x)

 AO : dx4 = EI


, (8)
 OB : d4 y + 4λ4 y = bq(x)


dx4 EI

The deflection equations are obtained as follows:

AO : y1 = qbx4 /(24EI ) + C1 x3 + C2 x2 + C3 x + C4
(
, (9)
OB : y2 = eλx (C5 cos λx + C6 sin λx) + e−λx (C7 cos λx + C8 sin λx) + q/K
Symmetry 2020, 12, 2069 7 of 12

Boundary conditions are as follows:


y1 x=− 3 a = y0 , θ1 |x=− 3 a = 0


2

  2 
 y1 x=0 = y2 x=0 , θ1 |x=0 = θ2 |x=0



 , (10)
M1 |x=0 = M2 |x=0 , Q1 |x=0 = Q2 |x=0





2 x=le = y0 , Q2 |x=le = 0
 M |

According to the above boundary conditions, the following equations are obtained to calculate
the unknown parameters in Equation (9):
    
 A11 A12 A13 A14 A15 A16 A17 A18  C1   B1 
    

 A21 A22 A23 A24 A25 A26 A27 A28 
 C2  
  B2 


 A31 A32 A33 A34 A35 A36 A37 A38 
 C3  
  B3 

    
 A41 A42 A43 A44 A45 A46 A47 A48  C4  
 =  B4 
,
  (11)

 A51 A52 A53 A54 A55 A56 A57 A58 
 C5  
  B5 

A16 A62 A63 A64 A65 A66 A67 A68 C6 B6
    
    
 
A71 A72 A73 A74 A75 A76 A77 A78 C7 B7
    
    
  
A81 A82 A83 A84 A85 A86 A87 A88 C8 B8
 

where
27qba4



 A11 =27a3 ,A12 =−18a2 ,A13 =12a,A14 =−8,A15 =0,A16 =0,A17 =0,A18 =0,B1 = 16EI −8y0 ,
27qba3

2



 A21 =27a ,A22 =−12a,A23 =4,A24 =0,A25 =0,A26 =0,A27 =0,A28 =0,B2 = 12EI ,

 q


 A31 =0,A32 =0,A33 =0,A34 =1,A35 =−1,A36 =0,A37 =−1,A38 =0,B3 = K ,

A41 =0,A42 =0,A43 =1,A44 =0,A45 =−λ,A46 =−λ,A47 =λ,A48 =−λ,B4 =0,





A51 =0,A52 =1,A53 =0,A54 =0,A55 =0,A56 =−λ2 ,A57 =0,A58 =λ2 ,B5 =0,


, (12)


A61 =3,A62 =0,A63 =0,A64 =0,A65 =λ3 ,A66 =−λ3 ,A67 =−λ3 ,A68 =−λ3 ,B6 =0,




A71 =0,A72 =0,A73 =0,A74 =0,A75 =−eλle sin(λle ),A76 =eλle cos(λle ),A77 =e−λle sin(λle ),






A78 =−e−λle cos(λle ),B7 =0,




A81 =0,A82 =0,A83 =0,A84 =0,A85 =−eλle [cos(λle )+sin(λle )],A86 =eλle [cos(λle )−sin(λle )],






A87 =e−λle [cos(λle )−sin(λle )],A88 =e−λle [cos(λle )+sin(λle )],B8 =0.


The average ground reaction forces are calculated as follows:

R min[l, le ] Rl
0
p(x)dx 0
y2 min[l, le ]dx
σv = = ≤ σv , (13)
min[l, le ] min[l, le ]

Power of the vertical stress on the sliding wedge body is calculated as follows:

Pσv = (σv HB tan β)[cos(ϕ + β)V ], (14)

2.2.4. Power Induced by the Longitudinal Fiberglass Dowels

According to the work by Anagnostou and Perazzelli [17], the reinforcement effect of longitudinal
fiberglass dowels depends on the tensile axial force, and there are three distributions of support pressure
induced by the longitudinal fiberglass dowels for different wedge angles β, as shown in Figure 4.
Symmetry 2020, 12, 2069 8 of 12
Symmetry 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 14

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 4. Distribution of support pressure for different wedge angles β (Anagnostou and Perazzelli
Figure 4. Distribution of support pressure for different wedge angles β (Anagnostou and Perazzelli
2015). (a) Condition I; (b) Condition II; (c) Condition III.
2015). (a) Condition I; (b) Condition II; (c) Condition III.

Based on these assumptions, the tensile axial force s induced by the longitudinal fiberglass dowels
Based on these assumptions, the tensile axial force s induced by the longitudinal fiberglass
is as follows:
dowels is as follows:
β ≤ β1 , s(z) = s1 (z) = nπdτm z tan β
  , s  z   s12 ( z)   d mmz(tan  z tan β), (z1 ≤ z ≤ H )
L0 −
(
=nnπdτ
β1 ≤ β ≤ β1 2 ,
s(z) =
s1s(z)z,   n d  L  z tan   ,  (z0 ≤zz≤Hz1 )
  2 , (15)
1     2 , s  z   s3 (z) = 0,
m 1
(z2 ≤ z ≤ H ),
s2 (1z), 
  s z , (0  z  z )

β ≥ β2 ,

s(z) =  (z1 ≤ z ≤1 z2 ) (15)
1 3 

 s s(z),z  0

, ((z02 ≤z ≤H z1))

  2 , s  z   s2  z  ,  z1  z  z2 
where n is the reinforcement density of the longitudinal fiberglass dowels, d is the diameter of the

longitudinal fiberglass dowels, and τm is the s  z  , (0
 1 bond strength of the soil–grout interface  z  z1 ) of the longitudinal
fiberglass dowels.
where n is the reinforcement density of the longitudinal fiberglass dowels, d is the diameter of the
longitudinal fiberglass
( dowels, L0 and τm is the Lbond
! 0
! strength
0.5L0 of the soil–grout
L0 interface of the
β =
longitudinal fiberglass
1 arctan
dowels.2H , β 2 = arctan , z1 = , z2 = = 2z1 , (16)
H tan β tan β


Power of the longitudinal  L 
fiberglass dowels reads  L  for different
0.5L conditions L as follows:
 1  arctan   ,  2  arctan   , z1  , z2   2 z1 , (16)
 s2 H  H tan  tan 
1 (H )H H2
Ps = − BV = −nπdτm tan β BV, [β ≤ β1 ], (17)
Power of the longitudinal fiberglass 2 dowels reads for different 2 conditions as follows:
 
s (z )z [s (z )+s (H )](H−z1 )
Ps = − 1 21 1 + 1 1 2 2
s  H  H
BV 2
H
Ps nπdτ
  m tan βz1 BV[nπdτ
1
2  n  d m1 +
m tan βz
tan  m (L0 −H
nπdτ , β)](
BVtan  11),
 H−z (17)
=− 2 2 + 2 2 BV

nπdτm tan βz21 [nπdτm tan βz1 +nπdτm tan β(2z1 −H )](H−z1 )
 , (18)
= − +
 s  z  z  s1 2z1   s2  H    H  z1   2 BV
Ps    1 1 1   z21 +[3z1 −H ](H−z1 ) BV
 2= −nπdτm tan β 2 2  BV, [β1 ≤ β ≤ β2 ]
 n d m tan  z12 s1 (z1n)z1d mstan zz21−z1 n)  d m  L  H tan     H  z1  
 
2 (z2 )(
  P s = −  2 + BV = −[s1 (z1 )z1 ]BV  BV
n o2 , (19)
 2
= −nπdτm tan β z1 BV, [β ≥ β2 ]
2 2 
, (18)
 n d m tan  z12  n d m tan  z1  n d m tan   2 z1  H    H  z1  
   on Discontinuity
2.3. Dissipation Power  Surface Pv  BV
 2 2 
 z  3z1  H   H  z1  
Dissipation power on the discontinuity 2 surface is obtained as follows:
 n d m tan   1  BV ,  1     2 
 2
Pv = c
H
cos  ϕBV, (20)
cos β
Symmetry 2020, 12, 2069 9 of 12

2.4. Critical Reinforcement Density of Longitudinal Fiberglass Dowels

Based on the upper-bound limit theory, the power of external force is equal to the dissipation of
internal force in the analytical prediction model, as follows:

Pw + PTs + Pσv + Ps = Pv , (21)

Since there are three distributions of support pressure induced by the longitudinal fiberglass
dowels for different wedge angles β (c.f., Figure 4), the critical reinforcement density (n1 , n2 and n3
corresponding to three distributions of support pressure) of longitudinal fiberglass dowels is calculated:

ncr = max(n1 , n2 , n3 ), (22)

where
1 γH2 B tan β cos(ϕ+β)− c+K tan ϕ 2σv +γH H2 tan β cos ϕ+σ HB tan β cos(ϕ+β)−c H cos ϕB
    

 2 3 v cos β


 n1 = 
2
 ,
πdτm tan β H2 B




β ≤ β1 ;

 



1 γH2 B tan β cos(ϕ+β)− c+K tan ϕ 2σv +γH H2 tan β cos ϕ+σ HB tan β cos(ϕ+β)−c H cos ϕB

    
 v
2 3 cos β


 n2 = ,

 " ( 2 ) #
z +[3z1 −H ](H−z1 ) , (23)


 πdτm tan β 1 2 B


β1 ≤ β ≤ β2 ;

 


1 γH2 B tan β cos(ϕ+β)− c+K tan ϕ 2σv +γH H2 tan β cos ϕ+σ HB tan β cos(ϕ+β)−c H cos ϕB

   
 v
2 3 cos β



 n3 = h n o i ,
πdτm tan β z21 B




β ≥ β2 .

 

3. Sensitivity Analysis

3.1. Longitudinal Fiberglass Dowels in the Excavation Face Alone

3.1.1. The Influence Rules of the Cover Depth on Limit Reinforcement Density
Figure 5 renders the influence rules of the cover depth h on limit reinforcement density ncr with
the variation of the cohesion c. The results indicate that when the cover depth is greater than the width
of theSymmetry
tunnel2020,
face,
12,the limit
x FOR PEERreinforcement
REVIEW density does not increase significantly. 11 of 14

1.4

H = 8 m, B = 8 m,  = 25,  = 20 kN/m , e = 0,
3
1.2
L = 12 m, l = 9 m, m= 150 kPa, d = 114 mm.
1.0
h=
ncr [bolts/m ]

h=8m
2

0.8
h=4m
0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0

c [kPa]

FigureFigure
5. The5. The influence
influence rules
rules of of
thethe coverdepth
cover depthhhon
on limit
limit reinforcement
reinforcementdensity
densityncrnwith the the variation
cr with
of thevariation
cohesion of c.
the cohesion c.

3.1.2. The Influence Rules of the Tunnel Shape on Limit Reinforcement Density
Figure 6 shows the influence rules of the different tunnel shapes on the limit reinforcement
density ncr with the variation of the cohesion c. The results are markedly different between shapes A,
B and C. Specifically, shape C needs a lower reinforcement density than shape A, though they have
the same height, which agrees with common sense that the C-D tunneling method is more stable than
 0.0
0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0

c [kPa]
Figure
Symmetry 2020,5.12,
The influence rules of the cover depth h on limit reinforcement density ncr with the
2069 10 of 12
variation of the cohesion c.

3.1.2. The Influence Rules of the Tunnel

Tunnel Shape
Shape on
on Limit
Limit Reinforcement
Reinforcement Density
Density
Figure
Figure 66shows
showsthe influence
the rules
influence of the
rules of different tunnel
the different shapes
tunnel on theon
shapes limit
thereinforcement density
limit reinforcement
n cr with
density nthe
cr variation
with the of the
variation cohesion
of the c. The
cohesion results
c. The are markedly
results are different
markedly between
different shapes
between A, B and
shapes A,
C.
B andSpecifically,
C. Specifically, C needs
shape shape a lower
C needs reinforcement
a lower density
reinforcement than than
density A, though
shapeshape theythey
A, though havehave
the
same
the sameheight, which
height, agrees
which withwith
agrees common
common sense
sense the C-D
thatthat tunneling
the C-D method
tunneling methodis more stable
is more thanthan
stable the
full-face tunneling method. Moreover, a comparison between the reinforcement
the full-face tunneling method. Moreover, a comparison between the reinforcement required in the required in the cases
of tunnel
cases of tunnel B and CB indicates
shapesshapes and C indicates C-D the
that the that tunneling method is
C-D tunneling more stable
method is morethan the benching
stable than the
tunneling method. method.
benching tunneling

1.4

1.2

1.0

 = 25,  = 20 kN/m , e = 0, h = 
3
ncr [bolts/m ]
2

0.8 L = 12 m, l = 9 m, m= 150 kPa, d = 114 mm.

0.6 H = 8 m, B = 8 m (A)
H = 4 m, B = 8 m (B)
H = 8 m, B = 4 m (C)
0.4

0.2

0.0
0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0

c [kPa]
Figure 6. The influence rules of the different tunnel shapes
different tunnel shapes on
on limit
limit reinforcement
reinforcementdensity
densitynncrcr with the
variation of
variation of the
the cohesion
cohesion c.
c.

3.1.3. The Influence

3.1.3. The Influence Rules
Rules of
of the
the Reinforcement
Reinforcement Installation
Installation Interval
Interval on
on Limit
Limit Reinforcement
ReinforcementDensity
Density
Figure
Figure 77 depicts
depicts the the influence
influence rules
rules of
of the
the two two installation intervals ll on
installation intervals on the
the limit
limit reinforcement
reinforcement
density n
density ncr with the variation of the cohesion c. The results show that large installation
cr with the variation of the cohesion c. The results show that large installation intervals of
intervals of
bolts require
bolts Symmetry greater
require2020, reinforcement
12, x FOR
greater reinforcement densitynncrcr..
PEER REVIEW density 12 of 14

1.4

H = 8 m, B = 8 m,  = 25,  = 20 kN/m , e = 0,
3

1.2 L = 12 m, m= 150 kPa, d = 114 mm, h = .

1.0
l=9m
ncr [bolts/m ]

l = 4.5 m
2

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0

c [kPa]
Figure 7. The
Figure influence
7. The rules
influence of of
rules the two
the twoinstallation intervals l lon
installation intervals onlimit
limit reinforcement
reinforcement density
density ncr with
ncr with
the variation of the cohesion
the variation of the cohesion c. c.

3.2. Longitudinal Fiberglass Dowels in the Excavation Face Together with Pre-Supports
The grouting pipe roof bears the vertical stress component induced by overlying soil pressure
and seepage force that act on the tunnel crown, which leads to a decrease in the limit support pressure
of the tunnel face. Figure 8 indicates the effect of the reduction factor (RF) on the required
reinforcement density ncr.
 0.2

0.0
0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0

c [kPa]
Symmetry 2020, 12, 2069 11 of 12
Figure 7. The influence rules of the two installation intervals l on limit reinforcement density ncr with
the variation of the cohesion c.
3.2. Longitudinal Fiberglass Dowels in the Excavation Face Together with Pre-Supports
3.2. Longitudinal Fiberglass Dowels in the Excavation Face Together with Pre-Supports
The grouting pipe roof bears the vertical stress component induced by overlying soil pressure and
The grouting pipe roof bears the vertical stress component induced by overlying soil pressure
seepage force that act on the tunnel crown, which leads to a decrease in the limit support pressure of
and seepage force that act on the tunnel crown, which leads to a decrease in the limit support pressure
the tunnel
of theface. Figure
tunnel face.8Figure
indicates the effectthe
8 indicates of the reduction
effect factor (RF)
of the reduction on the
factor required
(RF) on the reinforcement
required
density n .
reinforcement density ncr.
cr

1.4

H = 8 m, B = 8 m,  = 25,  = 20 kN/m , e = 0, h = 
3

1.2 L = 12 m, l = 9 m, m= 150 kPa, d = 114 mm.

1.0 RF = 0
RF = 0.3
ncr [bolts/m ]

RF = 0.5
2

0.8
RF = 0.7
RF = 0.9
0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0

c [kPa]
Figure
Figure 8. The
8. The influence
influence rules
rules ofofthe
thereduction
reduction factor
factor(RF)
(RF)ononlimit reinforcement
limit density
reinforcement ncr with
density ncrthe
with the
variation
variation of cohesion
of the the cohesion
c. c.

4. Conclusions
4. Conclusions

This This
paperpaper proposed
proposed an analytical
an analytical prediction
prediction model
model by using
by using the the
limitlimit analysis
analysis method
method to
to analyze
analyze the tunnel face stability. Moreover, the sensitivity analysis is conducted to investigate
the tunnel face stability. Moreover, the sensitivity analysis is conducted to investigate the effect of the the
deptheffect of thethe
of cover, depth of cover,
tunnel the the
shape, tunnel shape, the reinforcement
reinforcement installation installation
interval and interval and the reduction
the reduction factor on the
factor on the limit reinforcement density. The main conclusions are as follows:
limit reinforcement density. The main conclusions are as follows:
(1) The advanced pre-reinforcement structure of the steel pipe umbrella is considered as the beam
on the Winkler elastic foundation, which shows that the existence of the steel pipe umbrella
effectively reduces the vertical pressure exerted by overlaying ground. Under general conditions,
with the increase in the length of the pre-reinforcement, its promoting effect on tunnel face stability
is obvious. However, when the surplus length of the pre-reinforcement structure reaches the
critical fracture length, the length of the pre-reinforcement structure on the stability of the tunnel
face is no longer a key factor.
(2) The strengthening effect of the longitudinal fiberglass dowels depends primarily on the tensile
bearing capacity of the bolt or the bond strength of the ground–bolt interface. The ground
extrusion in the front of the tunnel face is effectively reduced for the installation of longitudinal
fiberglass dowels. Moreover, the limit reinforcement density of longitudinal fiberglass dowels is
assessed under specific lengths with or without the consideration of the steel pipe umbrella.
(3) The results indicate that the required reinforcement density does not increase significantly when
the cover depth is greater than the width of the face. The C-D tunneling method is more stable
than the full-face tunneling method and benching tunneling method. Moreover, the results show
that large installation intervals of bolts require greater reinforcement density.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, K.H. and X.W.; Data curation, B.H., C.-y.C. and X.-T.L.; Funding
acquisition, K.H.; Investigation, K.H.; Methodology, K.H. and X.W.; Supervision, K.H.; Validation, X.W.;
Writing—original draft, K.H., X.W., C.-y.C. and X.-T.L.; Writing—review and editing, K.H., X.W., B.H., C.-y.C. and
X.-T.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China. (No. 51908371).
Symmetry 2020, 12, 2069 12 of 12

Acknowledgments: The authors are deeply thankful to the reviewers and editor for their valuable suggestions to
improve the quality of the paper.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Wang, L.; Han, K.; Xie, T.; Luo, J. Calculation of Limit Support Pressure for EPB Shield Tunnel Face in
Water-Rich Sand. Symmetry 2019, 11, 1102. [CrossRef]
2. Mi, B.; Xiang, Y. Analysis of the Limit Support Pressure of a Shallow Shield Tunnel in Sandy Soil Considering
the Influence of Seepage. Symmetry 2020, 12, 1023. [CrossRef]
3. Al Hallak, R.; Garnier, J.; Leca, E. Experimental study of the stability of a tunnel face reinforced by bolts.
Geotechnical aspects of underground construction in soft ground. Balkema Rotterdam 2000, 12, 65–68.
4. Yoo, C. Finite-element analysis of tunnel face reinforced by longitudinal pipes. Comput. Geotech. 2002, 29, 73–94.
[CrossRef]
5. Yoo, C.; Shin, H.K. Deformation behaviour of tunnel face reinforced with longitudinal pipes-laboratory and
numerical investigation. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 2003, 18, 303–319. [CrossRef]
6. Kamata, H.; Mashimo, H. Centrifuge model test of tunnel face reinforcement by bolting. Tunn. Undergr.
Space Technol. 2003, 18, 205–212. [CrossRef]
7. Oreste, P.P.; Peila, D.; Pelizza, S. Face reinforcement in deep tunnels. Felsbau 2004, 22, 20–25.
8. Lee, I.M.; Lee, J.S.; Nam, S.W. Effect of seepage force on tunnel face stability reinforced with multi-step pipe
grouting. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 2004, 19, 551–565. [CrossRef]
9. Hisatake, M.; Ohno, S. Effects of pipe roof supports and the excavation method on the displacements above
a tunnel face. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 2008, 23, 120–127. [CrossRef]
10. Shin, J.H.; Choi, Y.K.; Kwon, O.Y.; Lee, S.D. Model testing for pipe-reinforced tunnel heading in a granular
soil. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 2008, 23, 241–250. [CrossRef]
11. Song, K.I.; Cho, G.C.; Chang, S.B.; Lee, I.M. Beam-spring structural analysis for the design of a tunnel
pre-reinforcement support system. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 2013, 59, 139–150. [CrossRef]
12. Grasso, P.; Mahtab, A.; Ferrero, A.M.; Pelizza, S. The role of cable bolting in ground reinforcement. Soil Rock
Improv. Undergr. Works 1991, 1, 127–138.
13. Dias, D.; Kastner, R.; Jassionnesse, C. Sols renforcés par Boulonnage-Etude numérique et application au front
de taille d’un tunnel profond. Géotechnique 2002, 52, 15–27. [CrossRef]
14. Dias, D.; Kastner, R. Modélisation numérique de l’apport du renforcement par boulonnage du front de taille
des tunnels. Can. Geotech. J. 2005, 42, 1656–1674. [CrossRef]
15. Peila, D. A theoretical study of reinforcement influence on the stability of a tunnel face. Geotech. Geol. Eng.
1994, 12, 145–168. [CrossRef]
16. Anagnostou, G.; Serafeimidis, K. The dimensioning of tunnel face reinforcement. In Proceedings of the
33rd ITA-AITES World Tunnel Congress; Barták, J., Hrdina, I., Romancov, G., Zlámal, J., Eds.; CRC Press
(Taylor & Francis): Prague, Czech Republic, 2007; pp. 291–296.
17. Anagnostou, G.; Perazzelli, P. Analysis method and design charts for bolt reinforcement of the tunnel face in
cohesive-frictional soils. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 2015, 47, 162–181. [CrossRef]
18. Wong, H.; Subrin, D.; Dias, D. Extrusion movements of a tunnel head reinforced by finite length bolts-a
closed-form solution using homogenization approach. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech. 2000, 24,
533–565. [CrossRef]
19. Wong, H.; Subrin, D.; Dias, D. Convergence-confinement analysis of a bolt-supported tunnel using the
homogenization method. Can. Geotech. J. 2006, 43, 462–483. [CrossRef]

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional
affiliations.

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).