Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 56 (2016) 12–21

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tust

Modelling of the EPB TBM shield tunnelling advance as a tool

for geological characterization
Laura Culí a,b,⇑, Estanislao Pujades a,c, Enric Vázquez-Suñé a, Anna Jurado a,c
a
GHS, Institute of Environmental Assessment & Water Research (IDAEA), CSIC, Jordi Girona 18-26, 08034 Barcelona, Spain
b
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Instituto de Geología, Cd. Universitária, 04510 México DF, Mexico
c
University of Liege, Hydrogeological & Environmental Geology, Aquapole, ArGEnCo Dpt, Engineering Faculty, B52, 4000 Liege, Belgium

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: One of the main causes of problems during the construction of tunnels with tunnel boring machines
Received 21 January 2015 (TBMs) is a lack of characterization of the soil. Both geological and hydrogeological characterizations
Received in revised form 19 February 2016 are essential to avoid unexpected events. The advance of TBMs produces groundwater oscillations due
Accepted 23 February 2016
to hydraulic and mechanical effects. The magnitude of these oscillations depends on the characteristics
Available online 1 March 2016
of the soil and on the ‘‘parameters” of the TBM (e.g., earth pressures, penetration). Given that the impact
caused in the groundwater could be estimated numerically, this paper proposes to use hydrogeological
Keywords:
models based on the parameters of the TBM to validate or improve the previous geological characteriza-
TBM
EPB
tion. This procedure was tested by modelling the advance of a TBM-type earth pressure balance (EPB) at a
Advance parameters real site. This study arose during the construction of the tunnel for the high speed train in Barcelona. The
Tunnelling modelling previous geological characterization revealed a vertical fault whose exact position was unknown. The
Groundwater advance of the EPB was modelled to validate the previous characterization and to locate the fault. The
numerical model included a detailed geology and hydrogeology of the study site and the parameters
of the EPB. Note that the parameters of the EPB used in the model were more related to the groundwater
response. These were determined statistically from all of the measures taken by the machine. Given the
results obtained, hydrogeological modelling of EPBs was revealed to be a useful tool to validate previous
characterizations, both the geological and the hydrogeological, and to determine the position of some
geological structures, such as faults.
Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Recently, some problems have occurred during tunnelling.

Tunnel boring machines (TBMs) are integral machines that drill,
move away the excavated soil and place the lining. Basically there
are two types of TBMs: (1) EPB TBM; shields (for soils) and (2) Hard
Rock TBM; moles (for rocks). Both have specific characteristics
depending on the type of rocks or soils that is necessary to dig
and depending on the kind of support or coating required for each
type of terrain. Earth pressure balance (EPB) is a type of TBM for
the excavation of soils that uses a shield with earth pressure
(O’Carroll, 2005). The proper characterization during tunnelling is
essential to reach the objectives of the intended works. If the geol-
ogy of the site is not well considered, several kinds of problems
may occur and, obviously, the cost of the construction may
increase.
⇑ Corresponding author at: GHS, Institute of Environmental Assessment & Water
Research (IDAEA), CSIC, Jordi Girona 18-26, 08034 Barcelona, Spain.
E-mail address: lauraculi@hotmail.com (L. Culí).
Some of them have been due to a lack in the soil characterization.
In 2005, a tunnel for the Barcelona Underground collapsed during
the construction of the station of ‘‘El Carmel”. During construction,
the geology considered to execute the manoeuvre tail was extrap-
olated from the geology determined along the main tunnel (new
boreholes were not drilled) (Melis, 2005). As a result, an unantici-
pated fault zone provoked the collapse of the tunnel (Jimenez and
Senet, 2012). Sometimes, the rock mass rating, rock mass classifi-
cation and support system proposed for fault zones are insufficient
for explaining the deformation and failure mechanisms encoun-
tered during tunnelling. For example, the Tuzla tunnel (Turkey)
was mainly excavated in faulted zones of shale and limestone
using conventional and shielded TBM methods. The excavation of
the tunnel was difficult because it was drilled into a fault-
collapsed karstic system and below the water table. Before excava-
tion, the quality of the rock was determined to be poor to fair.
However, during the excavation, it was noticed that the quality
was poor to very poor. The faulted zones caused jamming of the

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2016.02.017
0886-7798/Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 L. Culí et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 56 (2016) 12–21
TBM cutter head and the deviation from the tunnel alignment
(Dalgiç, 2002). Another example of an accident due to lack of char-
acterization of the soil occurred in Barcelona in 2010. An excava-
tion below the Borràs Square collapsed during the construction.
Alonso et al. (2010) suggested that the main reason for the accident
was poor characterization of the geology. Problems also arose dur-
ing the construction of the Dranaz Tunnel (northern Turkey). In
this construction, the difficult ground conditions, characterized
by alternating layers, folding and faulting, were not taken into
account well enough. As a result, 92 m3 of loose material flowed
into the tunnel due to a collapse, which caused a delay of
2.5 months in the construction (Aydin et al., 2004).
During tunnelling, groundwater can also cause important prob-
lems. Therefore, hydrogeological characterization also plays an
important role during tunnel construction because unexpected
water inflows make construction difficult and could result in the
collapse of the tunnel face, affecting surface structures. E.g., during
the drilling of a tunnel for the Barcelona Underground Line 9 into a
granitic rock massif, which had not been properly characterized,
large inflows occurred each time the TBM crossed fractured or dike
zones. These inflows produced several collapses, which made con-
struction difficult (Font-Capó et al., 2011, 2012, 2015). Other prob-
lems also occurred during the construction of the Second Phase of
the Underground of Seoul (South Korea) because the groundwater
was not properly considered. Although the tunnel was excavated
below the water table, dewatering operations were not undertaken
and five collapses occurred in the centre of the city because they
found numerous weathered granites at the tunnel face (Shin
et al., 2009). Other well-known incident was the collapse of the
underground tunnel in Cologne in 2009 (Van Baars, 2011).
Tunnelling with a TBM under the water table affects the aquifer
because, during the advance of a TBM EPB, the head oscillates due
to hydraulic and/or mechanical effects (Pujades et al., 2015;
Monfort et al., 2008; Bezuijen et al., 2005). The oscillations are
mainly caused by the compressions and decompressions of the soil
produced by the EPB while advancing (the soil is compressed each
time the EPB pushes and is decompressed when the push ceases).
These compressions and decompressions modify the storage
capacity of the soil (the porosity is modified), leading to groundwa-
ter oscillations.
Other less important causes are (1) the decompression pro-
duced by the loss of soil during the drilling of the tunnel and (2)
the grout injections performed once the EPB has constructed the
tunnel (these injections are performed to mitigate tunnel conver-
gence and the soil movements).
The aquifer response to the drilling depends on the geology, the
hydrogeology, the soil parameters and the parameters required for
the EPB to advance. Note that we named ‘‘parameters” of the EPB
(driving data) those variables measured by the machine, which
allow for managing its operation (e.g., thrust, torque, penetration,
earth pressure, overturn momentum, cutting wheel displacements,
etc.). In fact, it is known that a relation exists between the proper-
ties of the soil (geology and hydrogeology), the behaviour of the
EPB and the groundwater response. Thus, if the nature of the inter-
action between the soil, the EPB and the groundwater response is
determined, the head evolution could be predicted (e.g., numeri-
cally). This means that the geological characterization could be val-
idated at the same time that the tunnel is constructed (e.g.,
monitoring the head evolution and comparing the measures with
numerical estimations obtained while considering the initial char-
acterization). This procedure would help to improve the soil char-
acterization and would reduce risks during construction. This
paper proposes to use hydrogeological modelling that includes
EPB advance parameters to predict the aquifer response and to
identify imprecisions in the previous geological characterization.
Imprecisions include inaccuracies in the geometry of geological
13
layers (continuity of the layers), the existence of undetected layers
or even the presence of unknown structures, such as faults or
faulted zones. However, it is not easy to model the impact of EPBs
in aquifers because it is necessary (1) to determine what parame-
ters of the EPBs are related to the groundwater behaviour and (2)
to implement these parameters in the numerical model. Generally,
studies focused on modelling the advance of EPBs do not consider
the hydrogeological impacts. Moreover, they usually do not take
into account the detailed geological complexity, as is reflected in
the examples explained below.
There are some works in the literature focused on studying the
role of the foam injections applied for soil conditioning. Bezuijen
(2002) proposes an analytical solution to approximate the excess
of pore pressure at different distances from the tunnel face. They
conclude that, in soils with low values of hydraulic conductivity,
(1) the penetration of the foam into the soil depends on the
groundwater flow and (2) the pressure in the working chamber
is comparable to the pore pressure in the soil just in front the tun-
nel. Bezuijen et al. (2005) presented measurements performed in
the pressure chamber during the Botlek Rail tunnel construction
in Netherlands. Pressure distribution inside the chamber depends
on the properties of the mixture. Vertical pressure gradients are
controlled by the density and yield stress of the mixture, while
horizontal pressure gradients, that can be considerable over the
tunnel face, are caused by the compression of grains in the
mixture.
Other studies are based on the correlation between EPB param-
eters, ground conditions and groundwater heads dynamics. Elkadi
and Huisman (2002) built a 3D subsurface geotechnical model for
the Second Heinenoord Tunnel, undertaken in the Netherlands. The
primary operational parameters used to model the TBM were the
total thrust, the cutting wheel thrust and the cutting wheel torque.
These parameters were averaged at each ring over the selected
stretches. Afterwards, the parameters were correlated with the
geotechnical data, considering the lithology observed in the tunnel
face during the advance of the TBM. The model, which was built
using only the mechanical parameters of the TBM, did not consider
the impacts of groundwater. Gens et al. (2009) modelled the exca-
vation of a tunnel with an EPB. The aim of the numerical model,
which was built using PLAXIS3D (3D finite elements code), was
to study the relation between the loss of soil and the settlements.
The parameters considered were the pressure used for the stabi-
lization of the excavation face, the pressure of bentonite between
the shield and the soil, and the pressure of the injected grouting.
The model showed that the vertical surface displacements are
mainly related to the pressure for the stabilization of the excava-
tion face and the pressure of the grouting injections. This model,
which was built using only the pressure parameters of the EPB,
did not consider the groundwater variations.
There are other works in the literature that are not focused on
modelling the advance of TBMs, and whose goals, instead, are to
study the parameters measured in TBMs and the response of the
media. Emeriault and Kastner (2008) correlated the surface move-
ments and the TBM parameters. They compared several excavation
techniques, which had been used during the excavation of the Line
B of the Underground of Toulouse (France). They found that differ-
ences in soil response can be explained by the TBM parameters,
from which the three most important were (1) the advance rate,
(2) the hydraulic pressure used for the cutting wheel and (3) the
vertical overturn momentum. This result was obtained for a partic-
ular site and in a homogeneous geological context. The analysis,
which was made using only the pressure and the position param-
eters of the TBM, did not consider the groundwater behaviour.
Yamamoto et al. (2003) evaluated the geological condition of the
soil around the tunnel face by analyzing geostatically the parame-
ters of the TBM. They studied (1) the relation between the drill
14 L. Culí et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 56 (2016) 12–21
energy coefficient in front of the face, which was obtained from
drill logging data and (2) the rock mass strength or excavating
energy at the excavation site, which was derived from the data
of the TBM. Nevertheless, this analysis did not take into account
hydrogeological aspects.
Finally, Monfort et al. (2008) analyzed the groundwater evolu-
tion during the advance of the EPB. Head evolution was observed
at six piezometers during the construction of the Line 9 of the Bar-
celona Underground. They compared the groundwater behaviour
with the parameters of the EPB. This study demonstrated (1) a high
correlation between groundwater oscillations and the phases of
the installation of the tunnel rings and (2) a moderate correlation
between the groundwater variations and the pressure used for
the stabilization of the excavation face. However, they have not
modelled the groundwater response to the EPB advance.
This study arose during the construction of the tunnel for the
high speed train (HST) ‘‘Madrid-Barcelona-France frontier”. The
tunnel under Barcelona was drilled using a TBM type EPB
(Pujades et al., 2015) because this type of procedure is designed
to reduce, as much as possible, the ground loss in front, above
and behind the TBM, which minimizes the surface settlements.
The stretch of tunnel studied (and modelled) in this paper was
located in the middle of the city (Fig. 1). It was 600 m long, the
average depth of the tunnel was 35 m and its radius was 12 m.
The soil was characterized before and during tunnelling
advance using the information of several boreholes, and a fault
was detected in the path of the tunnel. However, given the distance
between boreholes, its location was unknown. Therefore, the
advance of the EPB during the construction was modelled with a
hydrogeological numerical model to locate the fault and to validate
the previous characterization. The model was undertaken by con-
sidering the parameters of the machine.
The numerical model included a detailed geology of the study
site, the hydrogeological parameters, some EPB parameters and
Besós River
N
Padilla shaft
HST
Llobregat River
Barcelona
Spain
Fig. 1. Path of the tunnel of the high speed train (HST) in Barcelona. Lower image displays in detail the study section, where it is possible to observe the situation of Provença,
Mallorca and Valencia streets.
the head observations taken during the construction. The ground-
water behaviour was predicted and compared with the observa-
tions taken at the piezometers during the construction. This
procedure allowed us to improve the geology of the site and to
observe the relation between the geology, the EPB parameters
and the groundwater response.
The objective of this paper is twofold: (1) to determine what
parameters of a EPB can be associated with the groundwater
response observed during tunnelling and (2) to suggest a method
or procedure based on numerical modelling of EPB advance to ver-
ify the characterization of the soil (stratigraphy, structure and soil
parameters) when a tunnel is constructed.
2. Methodology
Several steps were undertaken to reach the objectives of this
study. These are summarized and explained below:
(1) Geological characterization: An accurate geological profile of
the study site was performed by considering the geological
regional context and the stratigraphic register of boreholes
located in the study section (Fig. 2).
(2) Hydraulic characterization and detailed groundwater head:
Head evolution was measured at some piezometers located
near the tunnel path.
(3) Analysis of the parameters of the EPB: All EPBs have an exca-
vation control system, where all of the parameters of the
machine are registered, to manage their advance. The main
parameters were studied to determine which are more corre-
lated with groundwater behaviour. Furthermore, incidences
that occurred during the construction of the tunnel, which
were recorded by the staff, were also considered to under-
stand some unusual behaviour during the tunnelling process.
(4) Numerical modelling.
Study section
 L. Culí et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 56 (2016) 12–21
Fig. 2. Geological profile of the study section, which includes geophysical register, the path of the tunnel and the boreholes used to define the lithotypes. It is also possible to
observe the fault zone range, which affects the Pliocene lithotypes and the hydraulic conductivities of the main geological layers.
3. Application
3.1. Geological characterization
As stated above, the study section is located inside the city of
Barcelona, which is situated in the NE of Spain. The city of Barce-
lona is limited in the NE by the Besòs River, in the SE by the
Mediterranean Sea, in the SW by the Llobregat River and in the
NW by the Collserola Range. The city is located above the ‘‘Barce-
lona Coastal Plain”, which is a morphologic platform poorly
inclined towards the Mediterranean Sea and it is composed by
Pliocene and Miocene detrital and deltaic sediments (Vera, 2004).
The relief of Barcelona is conditioned by extensional Cenozoic
faults (Neogen age) (IGC, 2007).
Fig. 2 displays the geological profile of the study site. The stratig-
raphy, the underground structure and the percentage of sand of the
main lithotypes can also be observed in this figure. Note that some
lithotypes were divided into sublithotypes based on their composi-
tion (percentages of gravels/sands or fine sediments). Furthermore,
Natural Gamma Ray record of each borehole was also used for this
purpose (Cripps and McCann, 2000). Due to the large amount of
information (numerous deep boreholes very close to each other
and Natural Gamma Ray record) and good correlation between geo-
logical profile developed and the materials drilled by the machine,
the distribution of soil layers was considered enough precise. The
main features of each sublithotype are summarized below:
3.1.1. Pliocene sublithotypes
PL lithotype can be divided into three sublithotypes:
– PL1/PL2: Marls and fine sand with percentages of sand lower
than 10%. This is the dark green sublithotype in Fig. 2.
– PL21: Marls and medium-fine sand with percentages of sand
between 10% and 60%. This is the green sublithotype in Fig. 2.
– PL22: Medium and medium-fine sand with percentages of sand
greater than 60%. This is the yellow sublithotype in Fig. 2.
15
3.1.2. Quaternary sublithotypes
Qa lithotype can be divided into three sublithotypes:
– Qa1: Gravel with percentages of fine matrix lower than 10%.
This is the dark pink sublithotype in Fig. 2.
– Qa2: Sands with variable propositions of silts, sandy silts with
carbonate nodules and red brown clays with heterometric grav-
els. This is the orange sublithotype in Fig. 2.
– Qacc: Calcrete layers. This is the white sublithotype in Fig. 2.
3.1.3. Anthropic lithotypes (Ra)
Anthropic lithotype is composed of different materials. This
sublithotype is represented with diagonal black line pattern in
Fig. 2.
The underground structure of the site is conditioned by the
existence of a fault, which was determined by the register
observed at boreholes SL-15 and SL-16 and, to a lesser extent, by
the regional tectonic context. This fault was located between bore-
holes SL-15 and SL-16, but its exact position was unknown before
drilling of the tunnel commenced (Fig. 2).
3.2. Hydraulic characterization and groundwater head monitoring
3.2.1. Hydraulic characterization
The Barcelona plain can be regarded as an aquifer with a high
vertical heterogeneity. Its effective transmissivity ranges from
100 to 200 m/d and it is exploited by several wells. Groundwater
flows from the higher areas (Collserola Range) towards the sea.
The gradient is smooth and the piezometric surface is analogous
to the topographic slope. The city is intercepted by small pale-
ochannels that influence the piezometric surface.
The HST tunnel is perpendicular to the flow direction in the
study area. The piezometric head was located at 15 m.a.s.l in the
piezometers placed in Provença Street (upstream of the tunnel)
and at 8 m.a.s.l in the piezometers of Valencia Street (downstream)
16 L. Culí et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 56 (2016) 12–21

KP 4+400 KP 4+200
SL-17 PA-110

01/07/10 21/07/10 SL-15 10/08/10 20/08/10

SO-30 Pz-8
10
Point of maximum closeness, between
SL-17 PA-110 Pz-8 EPB and piezometer

6 SL-15 SO-30 SL-15 Pz-8

Gaps of water pressure PA-110

sensors
2

-2

-6
01/07/10 11/07/10 21/07/10 31/07/10 10/08/10 20/08/1
Date

Fig. 3. Head variations measured at piezometers SO-30, SL-17, SL-15 and PA-110.

Table 1
Main features of piezometers in the study section. ⁄ KP kilometric point.
behaviours are those noticed after the pass of the EPB near
piezometer SL-15. It is possible to observe that the magnitude of
Piezometer Depth Screen Distance tunel axis PK cutterhead the head oscillations decreased. The probable reason was that the
(m) (m) (m) (m)
piezometer was silted by substances (bentonite, grout injections,
SL-18 40.2 0–40.2 12 4+537.5 etc.). These substances, which contribute significantly to the over-
SO-30 42 30–42 15 4+438.5
all efficiency of the tunnelling operation, were used to avoid the
SL-17 40 0–40 14.5 4+537.5
SL-15 40 0–40 13 4+171.0 collapse of the tunnel face during one stop of the EPB carried out
Pz-8 40 0 - 40 18 4+164.4 near this piezometer. In Fig. 3, it is also possible to observe that
PA-110 40.9 10–40 18 4+110.3 the piezometers located after the fault did not notice the EPB until
PA-133 51 25–38 6.5 3+925
it crossed the fault zone. This response of the aquifer allowed for
locating the fault.

(Fig. 1). The piezometric head in the street where the tunnel was
excavated (Mallorca Street) was at 13 m.a.s.l. (Jurado et al., 2012).
The regional hydraulic parameters of the main lithotypes
(described in the previous section) are as follows:
PL lithotype: The hydraulic conductivity (k) of the Pliocene fine
materials ranges from 0.001 to 0.01 m/d. The k of the sand lay-
ers ranges from 0.1 to 10 m/d (Pujades et al., 2014a, 2014b).
Qa lithotype: The k of the Quaternary clay layers ranges from
0.001 to 0.01 m/d and the k of the Quaternary sand and gravel
layers ranges from 0.1 to 10 m/d (Pujades et al., 2014a, 2014b).
Locally, the hydraulic parameters of the soil at the study site
were obtained from pumping tests performed in the Padilla site
(Fig. 2). These tests were performed to design the dewatering
system to excavate a maintenance shaft associated with the HST
tunnel (Pujades et al., 2014a). The k of the geological layers is
included in Fig. 2.
3.2.2. Groundwater head monitoring
Fig. 3 displays the head evolution measured at SO-30, SL-17,
SL-15, Pz-8 and PA-110. The situation and characteristics of these
piezometers are shown respectively in Fig. 2 and Table 1. It is
possible to observe some unusual behaviour in Fig. 3, e.g., the gaps
observed in the measurements taken at piezometer SL-17. During
the period of these gaps, no data were measured because the ‘‘wa-
ter pressure sensors” were out of the water due to the large
oscillations caused by the EPB in the aquifer. Other unusual
3.3. Analysis of EPB parameters
3.3.1. EPB parameters (driving data)
The control systems of EPBs measure a wide variety of driving
data (498 parameters in total). From these, only those that can gen-
erate hydraulic or mechanical effects in the aquifer were analyzed
(36 parameters in total) (online Appendix A). The parameters
related with energy (e.g., active energy, translation energy. . .), tem-
perature (e.g., of oil. lubrication. . .), volume (e.g., grease, ben-
tonite. . .), etc., were not considered.
Regarding the continuity of the register of the parameters, two
main groups of parameters can be differentiated: continuous and
discontinuous. The continuous are those that are measured during
the entire time, while the discontinuous cannot be measured dur-
ing the stops of EPB cycle. Note that we name ‘‘EPB cycle” the event
that consists of one stop and one start (advance) of the machine
and that finishes when the EPB stops again. Given that the duration
of the stops and advances depends on several factors, the duration
of each EPB cycle is different.
The following parameters, which are listed depending on their
continuity, were selected and evaluated to find those more related
to the groundwater behaviour:
– Earth pressure and mass parameters (Continuous register): These
parameters are directly related to hydraulic effects (pressure)
and volume or weight balance of the machine. They are
recorded on the shield and the cutter head during the entire
time.
 L. Culí et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 56 (2016) 12–21
– Mechanical and position parameters (Discontinuous register):
These parameters are directly related to mechanical effects (tor-
que, cutter head displacements, overturn momentum, etc.).
They are recorded on shield and the cutter head. Given that
these parameters are discontinuous, when the EPB is stopped,
their value is zero.
3.3.2. Statistical analysis of EPB parameters
Statistical analyses of the parameters of the EPB were made by
using a Pearson matrix (XLSTAT, Excel module). The Pearson’s cor-
relation coefficient is an index to measure the lineal relation
between two random and quantitative variables. The study of this
coefficient allows for reducing the number of variables because,
when the Pearson’s correlation coefficient between two compared
variables is high, it is possible to consider that their register is sim-
ilar. Therefore, only one of them can be used because this is repre-
sentative of both. In our study, if the Pearson’s correlation
coefficient between two parameters was higher than 0.7–0.8, only
one parameter (of the compared) was selected. The Pearson’s cor-
relation coefficient between all of the parameters considered (36 in
total) can be observed in the online Appendix A.
Firstly, the different parameters of the EPB were grouped into
five main groups (earth pressure, position of cutter head displace-
ments, overturn momentum, mechanical components and param-
eters without correlation), regarding the Pearson’s correlation
coefficient between them and their nature. A more extended expla-
nation and the Pearson’s correlation coefficients between the
parameters of each group are included in the online Appendix B.
Secondly, four of these five main groups were also compared to
each other statically. A more extended explanation and the Pear-
son’s correlation coefficients between the parameters of groups
are included in the online Appendix C.
Some additional considerations were taken into account in the
selection of the more representative parameters (1) here were
seven different parameters of the group named ‘‘earth pressure”
that had high Pearson’s correlation coefficients between them
(Appendix B). Therefore, each of them could be used. However,
the values of earth pressure from cells 1 and 5 were considered
because their distribution allowed for taking measures in function
of the fill of the chamber (Fig. 4); and (2) the direction followed by
the EPB was also considered to neglect some parameters of the
group named ‘‘overturn momentum”. Given that the direction
was horizontal, the parameter of this group that indicated the
overturn momentum in the vertical direction was neglected
(‘‘overturn momentum Hy (vertical)”).
Additionally, the main groups of parameters were also studied
by using SGeMS (Stanford Geostatistical Modelling Software,
2010) to obtain the probabilistic distribution of the adopted
parameters. All of the parameters chosen had a Normal or
Lognormal distribution.
Following the methodology explained in this section, which
consisted mainly of comparing each parameter with the
Fig. 4. Pressure cells of the EPB shield.
17
parameters of its group and with the parameters of the other
groups, the more representative parameters with high positive
Pearson’s correlation coefficients, were selected to model the
advance of the EPB. Theses parameters (together with their units
and groups) were the ‘‘earth pressure 1” and ‘‘the earth pressure
5” (bar) from the ‘‘Earth Pressure group” and the ‘‘penetration”
(mm/rot) and the ‘‘advance velocity” (rpm) from the ‘‘Mechanical
Components group” (Table 2).
3.3.3. Incidences occurred during the EPB advance
The incidences that occurred during the construction of the tun-
nel were taken into account to implement the parameters of the
EPB in the numerical model. These events were considered as dis-
tortions of the hydraulic or the mechanical phenomenon that
altered the values of the parameters. Consequently, the values dur-
ing these events were neglected. The main incidents that occurred
during the drilling through the study section were (1) increases of
the pressure in the excavation chamber, which generated incre-
ments of the parameter ‘‘thrust” and decreased the parameter ‘‘ve-
locity of advance”; (2) long stops of the EPB to extend the belt
conveyor and the medium tension cable, which generated
decreases in all of the parameters; (3) reductions of the pressure
in the working chamber caused by the seal of the auscultation
piezometers, which produced decreases in the parameters of
‘‘earth pressure”; and (4) short stops of the EPB provoked by the
obstruction of the grouting lines or the lining segment erector,
which generated brief decreases in all of the parameters.
3.3.4. Groundwater head evolution and EPB parameters
Fig. 5a compares the evolution of the parameters ‘‘earth pres-
sure 5” (red line) and ‘‘penetration” (blue line), which were two
of the parameters selected to model the advance of the EPB, with
the hydraulic head evolution measured at Pz-8 (green line). Both
EPB parameters are averaged over each EPB cycle. Maximum (red
dots) and minimum (blue dots) hydraulic head reached during
each EPB advance and stop, respectively, are plotted to show the
influence of the EPB on groundwater head response. The magni-
tude of the observed groundwater head response depends on the
distance between the observation point and the EPB. Therefore,
the values of the parameters were homogenized (weighted) by
considering the location of the EPB with respect the position of
the piezometers (in the case of Fig. 5a, with respect Pz-8). The
value of the parameters was weighted with 1/r2 (where r is the dis-
tance between the EPB and the projection of the piezometer over
the path of the tunnel) (Fig. 5b). Both EPB parameters plotted in
Fig. 5a influence the hydraulic head. However, this is more affected
by ‘‘penetration” because ‘‘earth pressure 5” is more or less con-
stant over the time. In general, when the EPB advances (‘‘penetra-
tion” value increases) the hydraulic head tends to rise while when
the EPB stops (‘‘penetration” value decreases) the hydraulic head
drops.
In some cases (e.g. at 05/08/10 or at 08/08/10) the trend evolu-
tion of the groundwater head is different than the trend of the
parameters recorded by the EPB. This is because the heads mea-
surements respond to different kind of incidences during tun-
nelling. These unexpected hydraulic head behaviours observed
Table 2
Main EPB parameters selected using statistical tools.
Main parameters selected Parameter Units
Earth pressure cell 5 11 bar
Cutting whell displacements position group A 23 mm
Total overturn momentum 26 K Nm
Penetration 33 mm/rot
Cutting whell torque 34 M Nm
18 L. Culí et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 56 (2016) 12–21

Maximum hydraulic head Hydraulic head Cell pressure 5 (bars) magnitude depends on the ‘‘penetration” recorded during the
Pz8 (m) EPB advance.
8 The instant flow was computed by multiplying the ‘‘penetra-
tion” (discontinuous parameter), which was averaged at each EPB
6 cycle, by a factor that depends on the percentage of sands of the
soil. Sand percentages are directly proportional to abrasiveness of
the soil (concentrations of minerals such as quarts and feldspar).
4
Three different factors were used in the model. The differences
between these factors, which were adjusted (calibrated) manually
2
by comparing the numerical heads with the observations, were
proportional to the variations of the percentage of sands. Factor
-1 1 = 50% of sands, factor <1 = <50% of sands and factor >1 = >50%
of sands. The factor introduced in the model was: 0.6 between
-3 rings 1 and 43 (from KP 4+280 to 4+206), 0.7 between rings 44
03/08/10 04/08/10 05/08/10 06/08/10 07/08/10 08/08/10 and 81 (from KP 4+206 to 4+150) and 1.6 between rings 82 and
Averaged hydraulic head Minimum Penetration 95 (from KP 4+150 to 4+128). Note that the relation between the
Date hydraulic head (mm/rot) deformation (produced at each push) and the variation of the head
(a) was linear in the study site (the soil is overconsolidated). This fact
is a consequence of groundwater evolution in the past (Vázquez-
r Suñé et al., 2005) and is reflected in the value of the specific storage
coefficient (Ss) (0.00001), which was obtained from the tests per-
formed at Padilla site (Fig. 2).
The continuous pressure in the chamber causes that the head
KP excavation front between cycles to be higher than those observed in natural condi-
tions and acts as a fixed head boundary. When the chamber pres-
Piezometer
sure drops, hydraulic head around the machine drops and when
(b) increases, hydraulic head in the aquifer rises. As a result, the cham-
ber pressure is equivalent and was modelled as fix head boundary
Fig. 5. (a) Evolution of ‘‘earth pressure 5”, ‘‘penetration” and head oscillations
whose value was calculated by averaging the values of ‘‘earth pres-
measured at Pz-8. Note that the units of the pressure and penetration, whose scales
are located in the right axis, are bars or mm/rot (10 3 m), respectively. Yellow sure 1” and ‘‘earth pressure 5” (continuous parameters). This mean
shaded areas represent unexpected hydraulic head behaviours. (b) Position of the value was normalized between 0 and 1 from its maximum value. It
machine with respect to piezometers, where r is the distance between the projected was assumed that soil conditioning (basically related with the
piezometer and cutter head. ⁄ KP kilometric point. (For interpretation of the influence of foam injections at the tunnel face (Bezuijen, 2002))
references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of
this article.)
was integrated in the recording of the pressure inside the chamber
introduced in the numerical model like a prescribed head.

during some EPB cycles are represented using a yellow shaded area 3.4.2. Numerical model performance
in Fig. 5a. The length of the model was established to implement the fault
zone inside (Fig. 2). Some assumptions were made to introduce the
3.4. Numerical modelling geology in the model (1) the geological layers were considered as
horizontal, (2) they started and ended at the beginning or end of
3.4.1. Modelling of EPB excavation process by the seepage analysis the tunnel rings, and (3) the Quaternary sediments were
The advance of EPBs could be modelled using coupled hydro- implemented as a homogeneous layer (no layers were differenti-
mechanical models. These models require hydraulic and soil ated inside the Quaternary). The tunnel was also simplified
parameters, such as the Young’s modulus (E) or the Poison coeffi- because it was located at an average depth of 34 m. Note that
cient (c), were required to be included into the analysis. However, the numerical model did not consider the geological materials
due to the difficulties for quantifying the soil parameters in the located in the unsaturated zone (Fig. 6). The numerical model
present study, only hydrogeological numerical model was consid-
ered. Consequently, only hydrogeological parameters could be val- Piezometers Fault Tunnel rings
idated by the model. Despite of these difficulties, elastic soil
parameters, such as Young’s modulus (E) and the Poison coefficient
(c) were related to the storage coefficient considered in the hydro-
geological model. These relations could be established because the
soil of Barcelona is overconsolidated (Pujades et al., 2014a, 2014b)
and behaves elastically. Therefore, applying the Jacob equation
(1950) for elastic aquifers we can assume that the specific storage 30
coefficient is similar to the compressibility coefficient.
The main problem found to model the EPB consisted of simulat- 15
ing (1) the pushes that EPBs undertake over the soil to advance and
(2) the continuous pressure applied in the chamber of the EPB to
0
avoid the collapse of the excavation and inflows of water. The
(m)
EPB over the soil compress (deform) it reducing its porosity, and 0 50 100

therefore, increasing the hydraulic head around the construction.

Fig. 6. Elements implemented in the numerical model. Tunnel rings are in red,
Hydraulic head drops when the push ceases. Therefore, the modi- piezometers in purple, fault in green and geological layers in orange, dark green,
fications of the hydraulic head caused by the pushes over the soil green, and yellow. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend,
were simulated implementing an instantaneous flow whose the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
 L. Culí et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 56 (2016) 12–21 19

included 12 geological layers with percentages of sand greater than
60%, 10 geological layers with percentages of sand between 10%
and 60%, one geological layer of Quaternary materials and, finally,
geological layers with percentages of sand lower than 10%. One
fault (1.2 m of width), three piezometers and 95 tunnel rings were
implemented in the model. The fault was modelled as an area with
a low value of equivalent permeability k (0.00001 m/d).
The numerical model comprised nine vertical layers. Note that,
contrary to the normal the layers did not represent different
depths. The model considered vertical symmetry along the tunnel
axis. They were located in the horizontal direction and simulated
the soil at different distances from the tunnel. Horizontal distances
between layers and the tunnel were 4.5 m (Ly1), 8 m (Ly2), 13 m
(Ly4), 18 m (Ly5), 22 m (Ly6), 50 m (Ly7), 250 m (Ly8) and 500 m
(Ly9) (Fig. 7). The tunnel rings were implemented only in Layer
1, and the size of each one was 1.8  12 m.
The boundary conditions adopted in the model consisted of pre-
scribed heads and flows. Prescribed heads were considered at the
lateral and lower boundaries and at the geological layers PL22
(see Section 3.1) of the last layer (Ly9). These conditions were
implemented because the distance between boundaries and the
EPB was enough to assume that the hydraulic effects caused by
the machine could be neglected. No flow boundary was considered
to the layer along the tunnel axis.
This is a multi-layered model divided in 9 layers, where the
mesh was composed of 30,126 elements and 10,665 nodes. Near
the tunnel, the size of the elements was smaller (Fig. 7).
The time period simulated is between July, 20th, 2010 (mod-
elling initial time, t = 0) and August, 10th 2010, (modelling final
time t = 13.36 days) (Fig. 2). Model computing time steps are vari-
able depending on tunnelling advance steps. Time step ranges from
0.03 min to 128 min. Moreover, time step considered were tested
to give enough precision using less computing time.

3.4.3. Modelled scenarios

The model was calibrated by comparing the evolution of mea-
sured groundwater heads versus computed heads, assuming differ-
ent hydrogeological conditions. Numerical models were performed
using the code TRANSIN-IV (Medina and Carrera, 2003; Medina
et al., 2000). Four different scenarios were modelled and their
results were compared with the field measurements. Firstly, sce-
narios S.1, S.2 and S.3 were built to evaluate the hydraulic conduc-
tivities used by comparing the magnitude of groundwater
oscillations. The hydraulic conductivity adopted in the most trans-
missive layers was the only difference between S.1, S.2 and S.3.
Hydraulic parameters obtained from the pumping test performed
at the Padilla site (Pujades et al., 2014a) were used for S.1. The
hydraulic conductivities of the more transmissive layers were
Fig. 7. Multilayer numerical model, which includes nine layers. The tunnel rings
increased one order of magnitude at S.2 and reduced (one order
were implemented only in Layer 1.
of magnitude) al S.3 with respect to S.1. The fault was located

40

S.1 S.2
30

20

10

40

S.3 S.4
30

20

10

30-Jul 1-Aug 3-Aug 5-Aug 7-Aug

0
28-Jul 30-Jul 1-Aug 3-Aug 5-Aug 7-Aug 28-Jul 30-Jul 1-Aug 3-Aug 5-Aug 7-Aug

Fig. 8. Numerical head variations (black dots) vs. computed heads variations (lines) obtained in the four different scenarios. Piezometric head is observed and computed in
Pz-8.
20 L. Culí et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 56 (2016) 12–21

10 10
SL-15 Pz-8
8 8

6 6

4 4

2 2

0 0
28-Jul 30-Jul 1-Aug 3-Aug 5-Aug 7-Aug 9-Aug 28-Jul 30-Jul 1-Aug 3-Aug 5-Aug 7-Aug 9-Aug
10
PA-10
8

0
28-Jul 30-Jul 1-Aug 3-Aug 5-Aug 7-Aug 9-Aug
Date

Fig. 9. Measured head variations (black dots) vs. computed-head variations (lines) corresponding to S.1, in piezometers SL-15, Pz-8 and PA-110.

42 m away from Pz-8 in these three scenarios. Finally, the actual
position of the fault was evaluated by analyzing the time when
the piezometric head increases in Pz-8. The fourth scenario (S.4)
was modelled considering the hydraulic conductivities obtained
from the Padilla site but locating the fault 72 m away from Pz-8.
3.4.4. Numerical model results
Fig. 8 compares the compute head of the four scenarios with the
field measurements. Magnitude of the measured groundwater
oscillations only agrees with those computed for S.1. Therefore, it
is possible to deduce that the hydraulic conductivities obtained
from the pumping tests performed at Padilla site are reasonable
to simulate the groundwater response caused by the EPB advance.
Piezometric head for S.4 increases the groundwater response cause
by the EPB advance. Piezometric head for S.4 increases too early
and does not agree with the field measurements. However, time
when the computed piezometric head increases agrees with the
field measurements when S.1 is considered. Therefore, it is
deduced that the fault was located 42 m away from Pz-8.
Fig. 9 shows the results of numerical model, which were
obtained considering the characteristics of S.1, and the measured
head evolutions at piezometers SL-15, Pz-8 and PA-110. The ampli-
tude of the variations is higher in the measured than in the com-
puted heads. This occurs because the parameters of the EPB were
averaged by each EPB cycle to be implemented in the model. Note
that the amplitude of the oscillations increases when the EPB is
located near one of the piezometers. Both head evolutions (numer-
ical and measured) reflect the presence of the fault, which
hydraulically disconnects the two sides. Before the EPB crossed
the fault, head oscillations were not observed in the piezometers.
However, when the machine passed the fault, the heads started
to oscillate.
The model was compared by computing the maximum and
minimum distances where the groundwater is affected by the
EPB during each push. These distances were determined by calcu-
lating the volume of the aquifer affected. The calculation was
undertaken assuming that (1) the Ss of the aquifer was 0.00001
(this value was obtained from the pumping tests) and (2) the vol-
ume of the soil affected by the pushes had the same shape as a
truncate cone (the smaller base of the truncated cone was assumed
to be in the site of the cutter head). Note that the angle considered
between the side of the cone and the tunnel was 30° (Jiménez
Salas, 1975). The maximum and minimum volumes of water
inserted by the EPB were obtained from the mass balance of the
model (S.1). These volumes of water, which were 77.4 m3 (max)
and 17.1 m3 (min), were used to compute the height of the trun-
cated cone (distance affected). Following this methodology, the
maximum and minimum distances affected during the modelled
period were 268 and 158 m, respectively. Both lengths are realistic
according to the distance at which the piezometers noticed the EPB
approaching.
4. Conclusions
Geological characterizations must be performed prior to tun-
nelling (particularly hydrogeological characterizations when the
construction is performed below the water table). These character-
izations will allow for designing the stages of the construction and
avoiding unexpected events. However, although the characteriza-
tions may be performed carefully, they will probably contain inac-
curacies. During the construction of the HST tunnel in Barcelona,
the soil was characterized, and in the study site, a fault was
detected. Nevertheless, given the distance between the boreholes
used, this fault could not be located with precision. This fact was
the motivation to build a hydrogeological numerical model of the
advance of the EPB to locate the fault.
Furthermore, to model the advance of an EPB with a hydrogeo-
logical numerical model is not an easy issue. Given the large num-
ber of parameters registered by EPBs, a statistical study must be
conducted to determine those parameters associated with the
groundwater response during tunnelling. Statistical tools are
therefore essential to obtain the parameters that allow for mod-
elling the advance of the EPB. The statistical study undertaken to
model the advance of the EPB in Barcelona showed that the hydro-
geological impact caused by an EPB can be explained by consider-
ing only four parameters (some of them continuous and others
discontinuous). The parameters implemented in the model were
 L. Culí et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 56 (2016) 12–21
the ‘‘penetration” (discontinuous parameter) and the average of
‘‘earth pressure 1 and 5” (continuous parameter). Model result
would be the same if the ‘‘penetration” was replaced by the ‘‘veloc-
ity of advance”.
Different scenarios were simulated, and the previous character-
ization was verified by comparing the numerical heads with the
observations. Given the position of the piezometers it was only
possible to locate the end of the fault from the groundwater
response. However, results show that the piezometric head evolu-
tion depends on the geology of the site, and therefore, other char-
acteristics of faults can be ascertained if more piezometers are
available. For example, if there is one piezometers inside of wide
fault zone and other after, it would be possible characterize both,
the start and the end of the fault zone from the groundwater
response. In the same manner, data from a piezometer located
before an impervious fault could be useful to detect the position
of the fault since it would act as a no-flow boundary conditioning
the groundwater response in the piezometer depending on their
distance.
Given the results obtained, it is possible to suggest that numer-
ical modelling is a useful tool to verify the characterization of the
soil (geological and hydrogeological) during the construction of a
tunnel with a TBM type EPB, even in real time. The advance of
the EPB should be modelled, and the numerical response should
be compared with the observations. The procedure also allows
for locating some geological structures, such as faults. Note that,
to achieve the goals, a geological study, en exhaustive hydraulic
characterization an monitoring of the groundwater prior to con-
struction are required to build the numerical model.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge ADIF (Administration),
SACYR (Construction company) and INTECSA-INASA (Technical
assistance) for their support throughout the hydrogeological mon-
itoring of the civil works. The authors were appointed by ADIF as
external advisors during the construction of the tunnel. Additional
funding was provided by Spanish Ministry of Science and Innova-
tion (MEPONE project: BIA2010-20244); and the Generalitat de
Catalunya (Grup Consolidat de Recerca: Grup d’Hidrologia Sub-
terrània, 2009-SGR-1057).
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in
the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2016.02.017.
References
Alonso, E., Pinyol, N., Puzrin, A., 2010. Geomechanica of Failures. Springer.
Aydin, A., Ozbek, A., Cobanoglu, I., 2004. Tunnelling in difficult ground: a case study
from Dranaz tunnel, Sinop, Turkey. Eng. Geol. 74, 293–301.
Bezuijen, A., 2002. The Influence of Soil Permeability on the Properties of a Foam
Mixture in a TBM, Tunnelling. A Decade of Progress. GeoDelft 1995–2005.
Taylor & Francis, 2006. http://dx.doi.org/10.1201/9781439834268.ch6.
Bezuijen, A., Joustra, J.F.W., Talmon, A.M., Grote, B., 2005. Pressure gradients at the
tunnel face of an Earth Pressure Balance shield. In: Erdem, Solak (Eds.),
21
Underground Space Use Analysis of the Past and Lessons for the Future. Taylor &
Francis Group, London, ISB 04 1537 452 9.
Dalgiç, S., 2002. Tunneling in fault zones, Tuzla tunnel, Turkey. Tunn. Undergr.
Space Technol. 18, 453–465.
Cripps, A.C., McCann, D.M., 2000. The use of the natural gamma log in engineering
geological investigations. Eng. Geol. 55, 3113–3324.
Elkadi, A.S., Huisman, M., 2002. 3D-GSIS geotechnical modelling of tunnel
intersection in soft ground: the Second Heinenoord Tunnel, Netherlands.
Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 17, 363–369.
Emeriault, F., Kastner, R., 2008. Tunneling with earth pressure balance tunnel boring
machines: observations and modelling. Jornada Técnica: Túneles con EPB.
Simulación y Control de Tuneladora. Barcelona, Mayo 2008.
Font-Capó, J., Vázquez-Suñé, E., Carrera, J., Martí, D., Carbonell, R., Pérez-Estaum, A.,
2011. Groundwater inflow prediction in urban tunnelling with a tunnel boring
machine (TBM). Eng. Geol. 121, 46–54.
Font-Capó, J., Vázquez-Suñé, E., Herms, I., Carrera, J., 2012. Groundwater
characterization of a heterogeneous granite rock massif for shallow tunneling.
Geologica Acta 10 (4), 395–408.
Font-Capó, J., Pujades, E., Vázquez-Suñé, E., Carrera, J., Velasco, V., 2015. Assessment
of the barrier effect caused by underground constructions on porous aquifer
with low hydraulic gradient: a case study of the metro construction in
Barcelona, Spain. Eng. Geol. 196, 238–250.
Gens, A., Persio, R., Di Mariano, A., Castellanza, R., Arroyo, R., 2009. Relación entre
parámetros de una tuneladroa EPB y los movimientos del terreno. Terceras
jornadas hispano portuguesas sobre técnica en las infrastructuras ferroviarias.
IGC, 2007. Mapa geològic de zones urbanes 1:5000. Barcelona, Carmel.
Jimenez, R., Senet, S., 2012. Teaching the importance of engineering geology using
case histories. In: McCabe, Patasidou, Phillips (Eds.), Shaking the Foundations of
Geo-Engineering Education. Francis and Taylor Gropu, London, pp. 99–104.
Jacob, C.E., 1950. Flow of groundwater. In: Rousep, H. (Ed.), Engineering Hydraulics.
John Wiley, New York, pp. 321–386.
Jiménez Salas. Geotécnia y cimientos. Ed Rueda. Madrid, 1975. 500 p.
Jurado, A., Mastroianni, N., Vázquez-Suñé, E., Carrera, J., Tubau, I., Pujades, E.,
Postigo, C., López de Alda, M., Barceló, D., 2012. Drugs of abuse in urban
groundwater. A case study: Barcelona. Sci. Total Environ. 424, 280–288.
Monfort, D., Font-Capó, J., Vázquez-Suñé, E., Gogu, R., Carrera, J., 2008.
Comportamiento de un acuífero a nivel local al paso de una tuneladora (Caso
L9 de metro de Barcelona). Jornadas sobre el agua y las infraestructuras en el
medio subterráneo (Barcelona, 24–26 Noviembre 2008) AIH-GE, IGME, 2009.
Medina, A., Alcolea, A., Carrera, J., Castro, L.F., 2000. Modelos de flujo y transporte en
la geosfera: Código TRANSIN IV (Flow and transport modelling in the
geosphere: the code TRANSIN IV). IV Jornadas de Investigación y Desarrollo
Tecnológico de Gestión de Residuos Radioactivos de ENDRESA. Technical
Publication 9/2000, pp. 195–200.
Medina, A., Carrera, J., 2003. Computational different type of data. Geostatical
inversion of coupled problems:dealing with computational burden and
different types of data. Water Resour. Res. 32 (10), 3063–3076.
Melis, M., 2005. The collapse of a railway tunnel by face instability in soft or very
fractured rocks and soils (Second part). Revista de Obras Públicas 3458, 7–24.
O’Carroll, J., 2005. A Guide to Planning, Construction and Supervision Earth Pressure
Balance TBM Tunnelling. Parson Brinckerhoff.
Pujades, E., Vázquez-Suñé, E., Carrera, J., Jurado, A., De Simone, S., Ledesma, A.,
Ramos, G., Lloret, A., 2014a. Deep enclosures versus pumping to reduce
settlements during shaft excavations. Eng. Geol. 169, 100–111.
Pujades, E., Vázquez-Suñé, E., Carrera, J., Jurado, A., 2014b. Dewatering of a deep
excavation undertaken in a layered soil. Eng. Geol. 178, 15–27.
Pujades, E., Vázquez – Suñé, E., Culí, L., Carrera, J., Ledesma, A., Jurado, A., 2015.
Hydrogeological impact assessment by tunnelling in sites of high sensitivity.
Eng. Geol. 193, 421–434.
Shin, H.-S., Kwon, Y.-C., Jung, Y.-S., Kim, Y.-G., 2009. Methodology for quantitative
hazard assessment for tunnel collapses based on case histories in Korea. Int. J.
Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 46, 1072–1087.
Vázquez-Suñé, E., Sánchez-Vila, X., Carrera, J., 2005. Introductory review os specific
factors influencing urban groundwater, an emerging branch of hydrogeology,
with reference to Barcelona, Spain. Hydrogeol. J. 13, 522–533.
Van Baars, S., 2011. Causes of major geotechnical disasters. In: Vogt, Schuppener,
Straub, Braü (Eds.), ISGSR 2011. Bundesanstalt für Wasserbau, Germany.
Vera, J.A., 2004. Geología de España. Sociedad Geológica de España y IGME. Ed.
IGME. 884 p.
Yamamoto, T., Shirasagi, S., Yamamoto, S., Mito, Y., Aoki, K., 2003. Evaluation of the
geological condition ahead of the tunnel face by geostatical techniques using
TBM driving data. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 18, 213–221.