Final Thesis Meng Ombang Corrected

DEPARTEMENT DU GENIE CIVIL
MASTER IN CIVIL ENGINEERING GEOTECHNICAL

CURRICULUM
2nd cycle degree
TUNNELING SETTLEMENT INDUCED BY

THE CONSTRUCTION OF TUNNEL WITH A
TUNNEL BORING MACHINE IN PARIS AREA
OMBANG MANGA Jean Derrik
Supervisor
Prof. Ing. Simonetta COLA

i
TUNNELLING: SETTLEMENT INDUCED BY THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
TUNNEL WITH TUNNEL BORING MACHINE IN PARIS AREA
DEDICATION
To my wonderful and loving parents Mr MANGA MANGA Denis

Claude, Madam MANGA Monique and to my son NGOUNDOU
MANGA II Daegan Emerys Mayron.
Page i sur xv
Mémoire de fin d’études de Master II en Génie Civil Option Géotechnique OMBANG MANGA Jean
Derrik
xviii
TUNNELLING SETTLEMENT INDUCED BY THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
TUNNEL WITH A TUNNEL BORING MACHINE IN PARIS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This Thesis is the fruit of the combined efforts of several individuals who contributed
either directly or indirectly to its elaboration. It is therefore with gratitude that I address my
sincere thanks to:
 The President of the jury;
 The Examiner of this jury for accepting to bring his criticisms and observations to
improve this work;
 My Examiner Dr. WOUNBA Jean François for all his guidance, explanations,
documentation and advice during this thesis work;
 Prof. George NKENG, the Director of ENSTP for his academic and administrative
support during these years spent at ENSTP;
 Pr. Carmelo MAJORANA and Pr. ESOH ELAME, of the University of Padova
(Rome-Italy), for their work with establishing this partnership with NASPW for the
training of young Cameroonians.
 Prof. MBESSA Michel, the head of department of Civil Engineering for his tutoring
and valuable advices;
 All the teaching staff of ENSTP and University of Padua for their good quality
teaching and the motivation they developed in us to continue our studies;
 All my classmates who were a source of motivation and tenacity.
 To my darling brother, NYANGONO MANGA II, for the support, care and help
throughout these years.
 My siblings: KAMANA Babette Fleur, ONGUETOU Séraphine, MEYIFI Jérôme, for
their encouragement, love, affection and support since our childhood.
 All the students of ENSTP and my friends MENYE Ernest for the confidence they
always put on me. Find here all my gratitude.
Page ii on xviii
Master Thesis in Civil Engineering (Geotechnical Curriculum) OMBANG MANGA Jean Derrik
xviii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AFTES Association Française des Tunnels et de l'Espace Souterrain
ASTM American Society For Testing And Materials

BEM Boundary Element Method
CETU Centre d'études des tunnels
CLB: Clichy la Briche
CPT Cone penetrometer test
CPTU: Piezocone penetration test;
DCPT Dynamic cone penetration test
DEM Discrete Element Method
DMT: Marchetti’s dilatometer test;
EPB Earth pressure balance
EPB: Earth Pressure Balance
FDM Finite Difference Method
FEM Finite Element Method
FEM Finite element method
NATM New Austrian Tunnel Method
NATM: New Austrian Tunnelling Method
NGF Niveau Géodésique Français
OCR Over Consolidation Ratio
PMT Pressuremeter test
PMT: Pressuremeter test.
RTE Réseau de transport d’électricité
SCPT: Seismic cone penetration test;
SEM Sequential excavation method
SFT Submerged floating tunnel
Syndicat Interdépartemental pour l’Assainissement et l’Agglomération
SIAAP:
Parisienne
SLS Serviceability Limit States
SNCF Société Nationale des Chemins de fer Français
SPB: Slurry Pressure Balance
SPT Standard penetrometer test
Page iii on xviii

xviii
SS: Slurry Shield
PDE Partial Differential Equation

TBM Tunnel boring machine
TBM: Tunnel Boring Machine
ULS Ultimate Limit States
Page iv on xviii
xviii
LIST OF SYMBOLS
a: Cohesive term
 Adhesion factor
c: Soil cohesion
c’: Effective soil cohesion
cc: Compression index
Csoil : Cohesion of soil
cu: Undrained shear strength
cu : Undrained shear strength
d: Plate thickness
D: Tunnel diameter
dtp: Horizontal distance between tunnel axis and pile axis
E: Young’s modulus
e0: Void ratio
E0: Tangent modulus
E50: Loading modulus
EA: Axial stiffness
EI: Bending stiffness
Eoed : Oedometric soil modulus
Eur: Unloading modulus
G: Shear modulus
H: Vertical distance between tunnel axis and the soil level
he: Efficiency factor
I: Moment of inertia
K: Compression resistance factor
Ksf: Tunnel lining bending stiffness
Ksn: Tunnel lining axial stiffness
kx: Horizontal permeability
ky: Vertical permeability
PLM: Ménard limit pressure
Sg: Average settlement
Sp: Settlement of single pile
U: Elastic displacement
Page v on xviii
xviii
WL: Liquid limit

γsat : Saturated unit weight of soil
γunsat: Unsaturated unit weight of soil
δ: Soil pile friction angle
δ’: Effective soil-wall friction angle
εr: Radial strain
εx: Horizontal strain
εy: Vertical strain
εz: Axial strain
εθ: Tangential strain
ν: Poisson’s ratio
σ’vl: Effective vertical Stress
σr: Radial stress
σx: Horizontal stress
σy: Vertical stress
σz: Horizontal stress
σθ: Tangential stress
φ: Internal friction angle
φ’: Effective soil friction angle
ψ: Dilatancy angle
Page vi on xviii
xviii
ABSTRACT
The objective of this study is to determine and evaluate the settlements induced during
the excavation of a tunnel using a tunnel boring machine in Paris Area. Indeed, the proximity
between underground structures and existing structures in urban areas is a real problem faced
by engineers during the design and construction of underground structures. The 2024
Olympic Games, which will be hosted by the city of Paris, has led a new projects to improve
or facilitate the comfort, security and movement of goods and people. In view of the existing
urban developments, companies transporting electricity, goods and people, have opted for
underground infrastructures. Technical galleries have been built to facilitate the transport of
electricity by securing the electrical cables used for this purpose. Taking into account the
existing buildings and structures, the construction of a tunnel in general or a technical gallery
in particular can be a very dangerous activity, both on the surface and at depth, especially in
view of the limited excavation methods for an urban area. Tunnelling by tunnel boring
machine is the most commonly used method in urban areas. This is not harmless because the
TBM produces vibrations, which can cause earth movements and settlements, for example.
The purpose of our report is to study and interpret one of the risks resulting from tunnel
excavations in urban areas, precisely in Paris: settlement induced by the use of a tunnel boring
machine in urban areas. We identified sensitive points on the tunnel section, which is
constituted by ten profiles. The numerical study was carried out using the 2D Finite Element
Methods software PLAXIS 2D. The HSM (Hardening Soil Model) soil behaviour law was
used to conduct the study.
Key words: tunnel, tunnel boring machine, excavation, urban areas settlement, finite element
methods, constitutive model
Page vii on xviii

xviii
RESUME:
Le but de cette étude est de déterminer et d’évaluer les tassements induits lors du
creusement d’un tunnel à l’aide d’un tunnelier dans la ville de Paris. En effet la proximité
entre les ouvrages souterrains et les structures existantes en zone urbaine constitue un réel
problème auquel sont confrontés les ingénieurs pendant le dimensionnement et la construction
d’ouvrages souterrains. La ville de Paris, qui accueillera les jeux olympiques 2024, a
engendré de nouveaux chantiers, afin d’améliorer ou de faciliter le confort, la sécurisation et
la circulation des biens et des hommes. Compte tenu des aménagements urbains qui existent,
les entreprises de transport d’électricité, des biens et des hommes, ont opté pour les voies
souterraines. Des galeries techniques ont été construites afin de faciliter le transport de
l’électricité via la sécurisation des câbles électriques utilisés à cet effet. Tenant compte des
bâtis et des ouvrages existants, la construction d’un tunnel en général ou d’une galerie
technique en particulier peut s’avérer être une activité très dangereuse, tant en surface qu’en
profondeur, surtout compte tenu des méthodes de creusement limitées pour une zone urbaine.
Le creusement au tunnelier est la méthode la plus utilisée en zone urbaine. Elle n’est pas sans
danger car le tunnelier produit des vibrations, qui peuvent causer des mouvements de terres et
engendrer des tassements. L’objectif de ce travail est d’étudier et d’interpréter l’un des
dangers causés par des excavations de tunnel en zone urbaine, précisément à Paris : le
tassement induit par l’utilisation d’un tunnelier en zone urbaine. Nous avons identifié des
points sensibles sur le tronçon de la galerie, qui ont constitués dix coupes de calcul. L’étude
numérique a été faite à l’aide du logiciel de modélisation par la méthode des éléments finis en
2D, PLAXIS 2D. En retenant la loi de comportement des sols HSM (Hardening Soil Model),
pour mener l’étude.
Mots clés : tunnel, tunnelier, excavation, zone urbaine, tassement, méthodes des éléments
finis, loi de comportement des sols
Page viii on xviii

xviii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1. A coal miner standing on the back of a car in a mine tunnel in the early 1900s.
Source: Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division.................................................4
Figure 1.2. A Roman aqueduct that runs from the Pools of Solomon to Jerusalem source:
Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division...............................................................5
Figure 1.3. Paw Paw Tunnel near Oldtown, Maryland (USA)..................................................5
Figure 1.4. An example of tunnel transportation.......................................................................6
Figure 1.5. An example of Off-spur tunnel................................................................................7
Figure 1.6. An example of saddle tunnel...................................................................................7
Figure 1.7. An example of slope tunnel.....................................................................................8
Figure 1.8. An example of spiral tunnel.....................................................................................8
Figure 1.9. Circularly shaped tunnel..........................................................................................9
Figure 1.10. Horseshoe tunnel...................................................................................................9
Figure 1.11. Example of rectangular shaped tunnel.................................................................10
Figure 1.12. An example of: Egg-shaped tunnel.....................................................................10
Figure 1.13. Cut and cover construction illustration................................................................12
Figure 1.14. The precursor of the tunnel boring machine, invented in 1825 by Brunel..........15
Figure 1.15. View of the Boring machine designed by Frederick Beaumont in action on the
French side of the first attempted Channel Tunnel...................................................................15
Figure 1.16. Chinese made tunnel boring machine completed in Kunming............................16
Figure 1.17. Hard Rock TBM KAWASAKI...........................................................................17
Figure 1.18. Parts of a Hard Rock TBM..................................................................................18
Figure 1.19: Operating steps of the Slurry Pressure Balance...................................................19
Figure 1.20. Parts of an EPB TBM..........................................................................................20
Figure 1.21. Elements of a Tunnel Boring Machine................................................................22
Figure 1.22. Cutting head of the first TBM of the Grand Paris Express, installed in
Champigny-sur-Marne and Cutting head and shield of the Val-de-Marne TBM, diameter 10
metres........................................................................................................................................22
Figure 1.23. Example of linings...............................................................................................23
Figure 1.24. Example of the use of universal segments...........................................................24
Figure 1.25. Installation of segments by the tunnel boring machine......................................24
Figure 1.26. Evacuation of excavated material by the Archimedes screw to the conveyor. . .25
Figure 1.27. Feed system where the cylinders (in the centre) rest on the segments (right) to
push the shield (left)..................................................................................................................25
Page ix on xviii
xviii
Figure 1.28. Champigny Tunnel Boring Machine with part of the following train on the right
...................................................................................................................................................26
Figure 1.29. Stages of construction with a TBM.....................................................................27
Figure 1.30. 3D settlement profile under free-field conditions (modified from Attewell et al.,
1986).........................................................................................................................................28
Figure 1.31. Main components of ground movements due to shield tunnelling (modified from
Cording, 1991)..........................................................................................................................28
Figure 1.32. Transversal profiles of settlements, horizontal displacements and strains at the
ground surface (a); longitudinal surface settlement profile (b)................................................30
Figure 1.33. (a) Illustration of soil and tunnel ground losses; (b) typical tunnel ground loss
distributions for shallow tunnels...............................................................................................30
Figure 1.34. Short and long-term deformations of tunnel lining after Verruijtand Booker
(1996)........................................................................................................................................34
Figure 1.35. Pattern of ground deformations and additional boundary conditions applied by
Loganathan and Poulos (1998).................................................................................................35
Figure 2.1. Location of the project...........................................................................................39
Figure 2.2. Geographical location of the entrance and exit tunnels.........................................40
Figure 2.3. Project cross-section..............................................................................................42
Figure 2.4. Retained values of soil layers................................................................................43
Figure 2.5. Interpretative geotechnical long profile part 1/2 Seine substation side.................44
Figure 2.6. Interpretative geotechnical long profile part 2/2 Briche substation side...............44
Figure 2.7. Deformation modulus of the Briche path..............................................................45
Figure 2.8. Deformation modulus of the Seine path................................................................45
Figure 2.9. Values selected for the shear parameters for Briche path.....................................45
Figure 2.10. Values selected for the shear parameters for Briche path for Seine path............46
Figure 2.11. Terzaghi Silo and prism.......................................................................................47
Figure 2.12. Three-dimensional settlement tank......................................................................49
Figure 2.13. Panet deconfinement curves................................................................................51
Figure 2.14. Finite element (Clayton et al, 2014)....................................................................53
Figure 2.15. Nodes and stress points (Plaxis manual, 2012)...................................................55
Figure 2.16. Plaxis 2D interface (Plaxis manual 2012)...........................................................56
Figure 2.17. spin edits (Plaxis manual, 2012)..........................................................................56
Figure 2.18. Input selections (Plaxis manual, 2012)................................................................57
Figure 3.1. Calculation sections studied with finite elements..................................................62
Page x on xviii
xviii
Figure 3.2. Saint-Denis Island Bridge......................................................................................63

Figure 3.3. Side view of Saint-Denis Bridge...........................................................................64
Figure 3.4. Lock n°7 of the Saint-Denis Canal........................................................................64
Figure 3.5. SNCF Bridge Rue du Fort de la Briche.................................................................65
Figure 3.6. An example of collector........................................................................................67
Figure 3.7. Example of storm water.........................................................................................68
Figure 3.8. Model selection mode for engineering calculations..............................................70
Figure 3.9. Typical representation of stiffness variation in function of the shear strain
amplitudes; comparison with the ranges for typical geotechnical problems and different tests
(based on Atkinson and Sallfors, 1991, and updated be the author); SCPT - seismic cone
penetration test; CPTU - piezocone penetration test; DMT - Marchetti’s dilatometer test; PMT
- Pressuremeter test...................................................................................................................71
Figure 3.10. Comparison of different model responses for drained triaxial compression
condition using equivalent parameters and OCR =1.2.............................................................72
Figure 3.11. Geometry of the 2D model plane deformations of the A86 section....................73
Figure 3.12. View 2D - Planar deformations of the mesh of the A86 profile model...............73
Figure 3.13. Vertical movements in the terrain as the TBM passes through of the Highway
A86 profile................................................................................................................................74
Figure 3.14. Horizontal movements in the terrain as the TBM passes through of the Highway
A86 profile................................................................................................................................75
Figure 3.15. Vertical movement in the ground after the installation of the linings of A86
profile........................................................................................................................................75
Figure 3.16. Horizontal movements in the ground after the linings have been laid of A86
profile........................................................................................................................................76
Figure 3.17. Geometry of the 2D model plane deformations of the Saint-Denis Island Bridge
section.......................................................................................................................................76
Figure 3.18.Vertical movements in the terrain as the TBM passes through of the Saint-Denis
Island profile.............................................................................................................................76
Figure 3.19. Horizontal movements in the terrain as the TBM passes through of the Saint-
Denis Island profile...................................................................................................................77
Figure 3.20. Horizontal movements in the ground after the linings have been laid of Saint-
Figure 3.21. Vertical movement in the ground after the installation of the linings of the Saint-
Page xi on xviii
xviii
Figure 3.22. Horizontal movements in the terrain as the TBM passes through Lock and Road
bridge profile.............................................................................................................................78
Figure 3.23. Vertical movements in the terrain as the TBM passes through Lock and Road
bridge profile.............................................................................................................................79
Figure 3.24. Horizontal movements in the ground after the linings have been laid of Lock and
Road bridge profile...................................................................................................................79
Figure 3.25. Vertical movement in the ground after the installation of the linings of the Lock
and road bridge.........................................................................................................................80
Figure 3.26. Horizontal movements in the terrain as the TBM passes through of the SNCF
Structure profile........................................................................................................................80
Figure 3.27. Vertical movements in the terrain as the TBM passes through of the SNCF
Figure 3.28. Horizontal movements in the ground after the linings have been laid of the
SNCF Structure profile.............................................................................................................81
Figure 3.29. Vertical movement in the ground after the installation of the linings of the SNCF
Figure 3.30. Geometry of the 2D model plane deformations of the SIAAP CLB Collector...82
Figure 3.31. Vertical movements in the terrain as the TBM passes through of SIAAP CLB
Collector....................................................................................................................................83
Figure 3.32. Horizontal movements in the terrain as the TBM passes through of the SIAAP
CLB Collector...........................................................................................................................83
SIAAP CLB Collector profile...................................................................................................84
Figure 3.34. Vertical movement in the ground after the installation of the linings of the
SIAAP CLB Collector profile...................................................................................................84
Figure 3.35. Geometry of the 2D model plane deformations of the Storm water collector....85
Figure 3.36. Vertical movements in the terrain as the TBM passes through of Storm water
outfall profile............................................................................................................................85
Figure 3.37. Horizontal movements in the terrain as the TBM passes through of Storm water
outfall profile............................................................................................................................86
Figure 3.38. Horizontal movements in the ground after the segments have been laid of the
Storm water outfall profile........................................................................................................86
Figure 3.39. Vertical movement in the ground after the installation of the linings of Storm
water outfall profile...................................................................................................................87
Page xii on xviii

xviii
Figure 3.40. Loss of volume as a function of the confinement rate provided by the tunnel
boring machine..........................................................................................................................88
Figure 3.41. Correction factor for the results of finite element calculations...........................90
Figure 3.42. Maximum settlement at the gallery axis..............................................................92
Figure 3.43. Slope and maximum deformation.......................................................................93
Figure 3.44. Confinement pressure nozzle...............................................................................93
Page xiii on xviii

xviii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1. Selection criteria for tunnel boring machines.........................................................21

Table 2.1. Segment stiffness for settlement calculations.........................................................51
Table 2.2. Contractual Settlement Thresholds and Vigilance Thresholds...............................52
Table 3.1. Parameters needed in Hardening Soil Model calculations......................................61
Table 3.2. Values of the parameters selected for section 1 of the tunnel.................................69
Table 3.3. Values of the parameters selected for section 2 of the tunnel.................................69
Table 3.4. Parameters for the diffusion of settlements in the cover.........................................89
Page xiv on xviii

xviii
LIST OF EQUATIONS
Equation 1-1............................................................................................................................29
Equation 1-2............................................................................................................................30
Equation 1-3............................................................................................................................31
Equation 1-4............................................................................................................................31
Equation 1-5............................................................................................................................31
Equation 1-6............................................................................................................................31
Equation 1-7............................................................................................................................32
Equation 2-1............................................................................................................................47
Equation 2-2............................................................................................................................50
Equation 2-3............................................................................................................................51
Page xv on xviii
xviii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
GENERAL INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................1
Chapter 1: LITERATURE REVIEW..................................................................................2
Introduction.............................................................................................................................2
1.1 History of tunnels.........................................................................................................2
1.2 Types of tunnel.............................................................................................................4
1.2.1 Tunnels based on purpose.....................................................................................4
1.2.2 Tunnels based on alignment..................................................................................6
1.2.3 Tunnels based on type of material met with in construction................................8
1.2.4 Classification according to shape of tunnels.........................................................8
1.3 Methods of tunnel construction..................................................................................10
1.3.1 Cut and Cover Tunnelling...................................................................................11
1.3.2 Conventional Mining Methods...........................................................................12
1.3.3 Sequential Excavation Method...........................................................................13
1.3.4 Bored Tunnelling................................................................................................14
1.4 Soil response to tunnel excavation: predictive methods............................................27
1.4.1 Empirical method: Peck Formula.......................................................................29
1.4.2 Analytical methods.............................................................................................32
1.4.3 Ground deformations and stresses......................................................................32
1.4.4 Numerical methods.............................................................................................35
Conclusion............................................................................................................................37
Chapter 2: DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT, SITE AND CONSTRUCTION

METHOD.................................................................................................................................38
Introduction...........................................................................................................................38
2.1 Tunnel Seine-Briche structure description.................................................................38
2.1.1 Location of the project implementation area......................................................38
2.1.2 Study area geology..............................................................................................39
Page xvi on xviii

xviii
2.1.3 Gallery dimensions and lining characteristics....................................................42
2.2 In-situ and laboratory geotechnical tests performed and the parameters obtained....43
2.2.1 In-situ and laboratory tests..................................................................................43
2.2.2 Geotechnical parameters.....................................................................................44
2.3 Calculation assumptions for the tunnel boring machine confinement pressure zone
calculations...........................................................................................................................46
2.3.1 Minimum confinement pressure, Maximum confinement pressure and

Confinement pressure guidance tolerance........................................................................47
2.4 Assumptions of the impact calculations of the tunnel excavation.............................48
2.4.1 General methodology of settlement calculations................................................48
2.4.2 2D finite element modelling assumptions...........................................................50
2.5 Presentation of PLAXIS 2D.......................................................................................53
2.5.1 The finite element method..................................................................................53
2.5.2 PLAXIS Input module........................................................................................54
2.5.3 Plaxis calculation program..................................................................................57
2.5.4 Plaxis output program.........................................................................................58
2.5.5 Plaxis curve program..........................................................................................59
Conclusion............................................................................................................................59
Chapter 3: NUMERICAL ANALYSIS OF THE TUNNEL............................................60
Introduction...........................................................................................................................60
3.1 Soil profile..................................................................................................................60
3.1.1 Definition of profiles...........................................................................................61
3.1.2 Profiles parameters..............................................................................................68
3.2 Presentation of the results Numerical simulation of tunnel SEINE-BRICHE with

PLAXIS 2D...........................................................................................................................69
3.2.1 Constitutive law HSM.........................................................................................69
3.2.2 Presentation of the results...................................................................................72
3.3 Synthesis of the results...............................................................................................87
Page xvii on xviii

xviii
3.3.1 Surface Settlement Estimates - Buildings and Surface Networks......................90
3.3.2 Tunnel boring machine confinement zone..........................................................93
Conclusion............................................................................................................................94
GENERAL CONCLUSION.....................................................................................................95
REFERENCES.........................................................................................................................97
APPENDICES..........................................................................................................................99
Appendix 1: OVERALL PLAN: PLAN VIEW, LONGITUDINAL PROFILE AND

CRITICAL CROSS-SECTION (Saint-Denis Island Bridge)...............................................99
Appendix 2: LONGITUDINAL PROFILE........................................................................100
Appendix 3: PROFILE PLAN AND PROFILE SURVEY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 101
Appendix 4: LONGITUDINAL PROFILE OF THE SURVEYS......................................104
Appendix 5: SITE PLAN AND SURVEY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN.........................107
Appendix 6: LININGS PARAMETERS OF THE TUNNEL............................................116
Appendix 7: NUMERICAL CALCULATION AND MODELLING ASSUMPTIONS...117
Page xviii on xviii

69
TUNNELLING SETTLEMENT INDUCED BY THE CONSTRUCTION OF A TUNNEL
WITH A TUNNEL BORING MACHINE IN PARIS AREA
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
Due to the population’s intensification, construction of underground infrastructures is
becoming an inevitable alternative to common transportation issues. Despite their great
importance, excavated tunnel in urban area induces a modification of the stress state of the
ground which can be physically identified by appearance of settlement at the ground surface.
The amplitude of the settlement depends on the confinement pressure of the Tunnel Boring
Machine (TBM) and on the soil behaviour. Displacement of the surrounded soil due to tunnel
excavation may cause damages on the nearby structures/infrastructures. The knowledge of
ground should forewarn the engineers and enable them to decide what constraints to expect
and what measures to incorporate in the design and construction method to avoid or at least to
minimize the potential risks. To achieve such a task, Engineers generally use the numerical
simulations or Analytical formulae to predict the response of the soil to the construction of
tunnels.
In this thesis report, numerical simulation is used to predict the soil deformation due to
tunnel excavation with the main goal of risk reduction. The first chapter of this thesis deals
with the literature review, with an introduction on the tunnelling concept, description of the
types of tunnel, the methodology of construction and finally, a discussion about some
analytical and numerical methods of prediction of soil response. The second chapter describes
the case of study, presents the in situ and laboratory test, presents the simulation hypothesis
and the constitutive model that describe the soil behaviour. The third chapter presents the
hypothesis of the project analysis and the results of the numerical simulations. The evolution
of the confinement pressure in function of the depth of the tunnel respecting the project
constraints is then discussed with specific focus. The conclusion is finally presented at the end
of the thesis.
Page 1 on 117
69
a.Chapter 1: LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction
A tunnel is an artificial underground channel. Tunnels are generally built, bellow huge
infrastructures such as Bridges, buildings, roads, or rivers. Tunnels are horizontal
underground ways produced by excavation or occasionally by nature’s action in dissolving a
soluble rock, such as limestone (Encyclopaedia Britannica). Tunnels have many uses: for
mining, for transportation including road vehicles, trains, subways, and canals and for
conducting water and sewage. Tunnels avoid disturbing or interfering with surface life and
traffic during construction. Tunnels prove to be cheaper than bridges or open cuts to carry
public utility services like water, sewer and gas (BALSUBRAMANIAN, 2014). Feasibility of
these constructions in natural materials, such as rock and soil, causes the geological
conditions to play a major role in their stability. Aspects of major importance and that is
decisive for the feasibility of a tunnel project is geological conditions, construction time and
costs. Underground chambers, often associated with a complex of connecting tunnels and
shafts, increasingly are being used for such things as underground hydroelectric-power plants,
ore-processing plants, pumping stations, vehicle parking, storage of oil and water, water-
treatment plants, warehouses, and light manufacturing; also command centres and other
special military needs.
a.1 History of tunnels

The first tunnels were entirely dug and built by hand by workers. This very rudimentary
technique could only be optimized. The invention of dynamite in 1866 by Alfred Nobel
allowed to limit the use of human force to dig the rock and accelerated the digging of tunnels,
especially in mines. His invention especially allowed to increase the safety of building sites
and the transport of explosives by making the explosive more stable. Blasting is still used
today for short galleries. However, these techniques are not optimal for the safety of workers
or miners, especially in the event of significant water inflow, which requires more instruments
protectors. In the midst of the industrial revolution, some people think of more powerful
machines that can dig a gallery automatically. A first instrument was invented in 1825 by
Marc Brunel, for the tunnelling under the Thames in London. This is only a cast iron shield,
to protect workers from landslides, but where nothing is mechanized.
Page 2 on 117
69
The word “tunnel” appeared in 1825. The encyclopaedic dictionary of Charles Saint
Laurent, dated 1845, gives this definition: "Underground passage built under the Thames in
London. This passage offers two parallel conduits communicating with each other by
porticoes. a French engineer, M. Brunel, who had to overcome all the difficulties of such a
large undertaking, “Tunnel” is only the English translation of the “tonnelle”, the name given
to this work and used as early as the 16th century to a long barrel vault. According to Jean
Péra, former director of the CETU and former president of the AFTES, the word “tonnelle”
derives itself from “tuna”, a popular Latin word of Celtic origin, which originally referred to a
leather case, then a big barrel, so no tunnel worthy of the name existed before 1825.
Previously, the tunnels were called galleries or mines, according to their destination. The
following definitions are borrowed from the little Robert dictionary, for which the tunnel is an
"underground gallery intended for the passage of a communication channel (under a
watercourse, an arm of the sea, through an elevation of ground)". The origin of the word
"gallery" is controversial, but seems to come from the Medieval Latin “galleria”, itself
derived from “Galilea”, denoting a lean against the columns in front of the Roman basilicas.
The gallery is a "place of passage, much longer than wide, arranged outside or inside a
building or room". It is also an "underground or covered road, practiced by the besieger to
approach a place or for the exploitation of a mine" and the sense widens to "any underpass
(tunnel, catacomb) " and finally " little underground dug by various animals ". As for the
"mine", the term would be of Celtic origin (mina). Some people think that the word "mine"
derives from the Egyptian "mina" meaning the gold nugget that was used to exchange goods.
From the 14th century, the mine is the land where the ore is located, exploited by quarries,
mines and veins. Later, it is a gallery of undermining, an excavation practiced under a book to
blow it, from where even later other meanings related to the explosive. Returning to the tunnel
word, the universal encyclopaedic dictionary Hachette of 1998 adds to the above the meaning
of "blind gallery of certain technical devices", such as wind tunnels, particle accelerator rings,
tunnel furnaces, etc. Physicists call a "tunnel effect" a phenomenon in which a particle has a
non-zero probability of crossing a potential energy barrier greater than its own. It seems that
the first writer who used the word tunnel is Stendhal in the "Memoirs of a tourist" in 1838, to
designate the underpass of Ladders built under Napoleon I. It was quickly adopted in the field
of nascent railways at that time. The tunnel embodies the transition between the inside and the
outside (the Gate of the Gods of Babylon), the connection between the three cosmic levels
(earth, sky and hell). The underground world is associated with metallurgy (Vulcan god of the
underworld). He is also a symbol of the unconscious, the darkness of inner finality opposing
Page 3 on 117
69
the light of dispersion in the world (Wagner in Tristan). The tunnel also appears as a refuge
against the dangers of the outside, caves against bandits and metro tunnels against bombs.
From the London Tunnel where the British piled up during the last war, the metros often had
a strategic role, such as that of Moscow, and protection of urban populations, the famous
“passive defence”. Some metros are even designed to withstand a medium-power atomic
bomb, as in Singapore.
a.2 Types of tunnel

The classification of tunnels is based on four aspects, we have tunnels based on purpose
(road, rail, utilities), based on alignment, based on type of materials met with in construction:
(tunnels in hard rock, tunnels in soft materials, tunnels in water bearing soils) and according
to the shape (A. BALSUBRAMANIAN, 2014).
a.2.1 Tunnels based on purpose

The classification of tunnels, based on their purpose or usefulness, highlights the
following tunnels mining tunnels, public works tunnels and transportation tunnels, which are
presented in the following paragraphs.
a.2.1.1 Mine tunnels
Mine tunnels are used during ore extraction, enabling labourers or equipment to
access mineral and metal deposits deep inside the earth. These tunnels are made using similar
techniques as other types of tunnels, but they cost less to build. However, mine tunnels are not
as safe as tunnels designed for permanent occupation. Figure 1.1. shows us an example of a
mining tunnel with a miner working in the 1900s.
Figure 1.1. A coal miner standing on the back of a car in a mine tunnel in the early 1900s.
Source: Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division
Page 4 on 117
69
a.2.1.2 Public works tunnels

Public works tunnels carry water, sewage or gas lines across great distances. The
earliest tunnels were used to transport water and sewage away from, heavily populated
regions. Roman engineers used an extensive network of tunnels to help carry water from
mountain springs to cities and villages. These tunnels were part of aqueduct systems, which
also comprised underground chambers and sloping bridge-like structures supported by a series
of arches. By A.D. 97, nine aqueducts carried approximately 85 million gallons of water a day
from mountain springs to the city of Rome. An aqueduct is a watercourse constructed to carry
water from a source to a distribution point far away. Figure 1.2 shows us a Roman aqueduct
that ran from the Pools of Solomon to Jerusalem.
Figure 1.2. A Roman aqueduct that runs from the Pools of Solomon to Jerusalem source:
Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division
a.2.1.3 Transportation tunnels

Before there were trains and cars, there were transportation tunnels such as canals,
artificial waterways used for travel, shipping or irrigation. Just like railways and roadways
today, canals usually ran above ground, but many required tunnels to pass efficiently through
an obstacle, such as a mountain. Canal construction inspired some of the world's earliest
tunnels
Page 5 on 117
69
Figure 1.3. Paw Paw Tunnel near Oldtown, Maryland (USA)
The Underground Canal, located in Lancashire County and Manchester, England, was
constructed from the mid- to late-1700s and includes miles of tunnels to house the
underground canals. Figure 1.3 shows us one of the oldest transport tunnels, the paw paw
tunnel. The Paw Paw Tunnel is a 3,118-foot-long (950 m) canal tunnel on the Chesapeake
and Ohio Canal (C&O) in Allegany County, Maryland. Located near Paw Paw, West
Virginia, it was built to bypass the Paw Paw Bends, a six-mile (9.7 km) stretch of the
Potomac River containing five horseshoe-shaped bends. One of America's first tunnels was
the Paw Paw Tunnel, built in West Virginia between 1836 and 1850 as part of the Chesapeake
and Ohio Canal. Although the canal it is still one of the longest canal tunnels in the United
States. Figure 1.4 shows us the internal layout of a modern tunnel.
Figure 1.4. An example of tunnel transportation
a.2.2 Tunnels based on alignment

Depending on the route adopted for the construction of the tunnels, a distinction shall
be made between the following classifications, set out in the following paragraphs: off-spur
tunnels, saddle or base tunnels slope and spiral tunnels.
Page 6 on 117
69
a.2.2.1 Off-spur tunnels

Short length tunnels to negotiate minor local obstacles, which cannot be followed with
permitted curves. Figure 1.5, presents us an example of off-spur tunnel.
Figure 1.5. An example of Off-spur tunnel
a.2.2.2 Saddle or base tunnels

These are constructed in the valleys along the natural slope. They are mainly constructed for
the transportation purposes. Railway tracks and roads can be constructed through these saddle
tunnel. They are one of main types of tunnel for transportation. Figure 1.6 shows us a type.
Figure 1.6. An example of saddle tunnel
Page 7 on 117
69
a.2.2.3 Slope tunnels

These include the tunnels that are constructed in steep hills as shows in Figure 1.7.
These types of tunnel are also used for transportation purposes.
Figure 1.7. An example of slope tunnel
a.2.2.4 Spiral tunnels

These include the tunnels that are provided in narrow valleys in the form of loops in
the interior of the mountain as shows in the Figure 1.8.
Figure 1.8. An example of spiral tunnel
This increases the length of the tunnel to avoid the steep slopes.
a.2.3 Tunnels based on type of material met with in construction

There are three types of tunnel in this category: Tunnels in hard rock, Tunnels in soft
materials, Tunnels in water bearing soils.
a.2.4 Classification according to shape of tunnels

Depending on the shape of the tunnel, the following tunnels can be distinguished: D
shaped tunnel, circularly shaped tunnel, etc.
Page 8 on 117
69
a.2.4.1 D shaped tunnel

These types of tunnel roof also called segmented roof takes up all the load and
distributes it to the straight walls, Suitable for subway, where the risk of failure or collapse
caused by external pressure from water or loose unstable soil conditions on tunnel lining is
non-existent
a.2.4.2 Circularly shaped tunnel
This shape of tunnels is strong in offering resistance to external pressure caused by

water, water-bearing soils or soft grounds, not suitable for rails and roadways as more filling
will be required to provide a flat base. For tunnels which may have to withstand heavy
internal or external radial pressures. Used as a sewage pipeline, to transport oil. Strongest and
economical, having more cross-section and least perimeter, Figure 1.9 is a picture of a
circularly shaped tunnel.
Figure 1.9. Circularly shaped tunnel
a.2.4.3 Horseshoe-shaped types of tunnel
Commonly used in railways and roadways, it has a semi-circular rood with arch sides,
can withstand the internal and external pressure, it combines the advantages of D shaped and
circular tunnels. Figure 1.10, represents exactly a tunnel with the shape of a horseshoe.
Figure 1.10. Horseshoe tunnel
Page 9 on 117
69
a.2.4.4 Rectangular shaped tunnel

Rectangular types of tunnels as in Figure 1.11 are suitable for hard rocks, suitable for
pedestrian passage and the most important costly.
Figure 1.11. Example of rectangular shaped tunnel
a.2.4.5 Egg-shaped tunnel

Egg-shaped types of tunnels (Figure 1.12) are best suited for sewage line as it is
having a self-cleaning velocity in dry weather. Egg shaped tunnel can resist both internal and
external pressure.
Figure 1.12. An example of Egg-shaped tunnel
Page 10 on 117
69
a.3 Methods of tunnel construction

The method of tunnel construction depends on such factors as the ground conditions,
the ground water conditions, the length and diameter of the tunnel drive, the depth of the
tunnel, the logistics of supporting the tunnel excavation, the final use and shape of the tunnel
and appropriate risk management.
a.3.1 Cut and Cover Tunnelling

Cut-and-cover excavation is a construction method in which a trench is excavated from
the ground surface and a tunnel is constructed within the trench, and then covered over. A cut-
and-cover tunnel may require temporary stabilization of the ground to support the excavation.
When the excavation is complete, the tunnel structure is constructed within the excavated
trench, the remaining space is backfilled and the surface is restored. Temporary supports for
cut-and-cover construction typically consist of vertical support walls, including the following:
 Soldier piles with timber lagging: piles installed at regularly spaced intervals
combined with timber planks or steel sheeting;
 Slurry walls: concrete walls constructed through the use of a slurry of bentonite, a
natural, clay-like liquid material that is poured into the void and then replaced by
concrete poured afterward;
 Sheet piles: steel sheet sections with intersecting edges that are driven in place similar
to piles; or
 Secant piles: individual drilled holes filled with concrete and steel, reinforced and
installed adjacent to one another to form a continuous wall. During construction of
cut-and-cover tunnel segments, street crossings and adjacent areas may be decked to
allow unimpeded traffic and use of properties above the cut.
Cut and cover tunnelling is a common and well-proven technique for constructing
shallow tunnels. The method can accommodate changes in tunnel width and non-uniform
shapes and is often adopted in construction of stations. Several overlapping works are
required to be carried out in using this tunnelling method. Trench excavation, tunnel
construction and soil covering of excavated tunnels are three major integral parts of the
tunnelling method. Most of these works are similar to other road construction except that the
excavation levels involved are deeper. Bulk excavation is often undertaken under a road deck
to minimise traffic disruption as well as environmental impacts in terms of dust and noise
emissions and visual impact.
Page 11 on 117
69
Cut and cover construction is used when the tunnel profile is shallow and the
excavation from the surface is possible, economical, and acceptable, (Özgür SATICI, 2006).
As such, it is a disruptive technique, but it is also usually the most economical construction
method. Where the tunnel alignment is beneath a city street, the construction may cause
interference with traffic, utilities, businesses and other urban activities. The disruption,
however, can be lessened through the use of proper staging, decking over the excavation to
restore traffic or by implementing a top-down construction technique. Top/down or up/down
construction method is another method for constructing deep excavations. In this case the
basement floors are constructed as the excavation progresses. The top/down method has been
used for deep excavation projects where tieback installation was not feasible and soil
movements had to be minimized. The Post Office Square Garage in Boston (7-levels deep) is
one of the best-instrumented and documented top/down projects in the US (Whittle, et al.,
Whitman et al., 1991).
While cut and cover is a technique usually reserved for relatively shallow tunnels, it is
not uncommon to see it used at depths of around 60 feet (20m), but rarely does it exceed 100
feet (30m). The Figure 1.13, is an illustration of the cut and cover construction method.
Figure 1.13. Cut and cover construction illustration
a.3.2 Conventional Mining Methods

Conventional mining methods refer to a variety of non-mechanized mining methods
including drill-and-blast (described below), hand excavation, and excavation by road-header.
Hand excavation is excavation performed by workers using hand tools and/or small
Page 12 on 117
69
mechanical tools. A road-header is a piece of excavating equipment consisting of a cutting

head mounted on a boom, a loading device usually involving a conveyor, and a crawler
traveling on track to move the entire machine forward into the rock face.
Controlled drill-and-blast is also a conventional excavation technique, in which a
series of holes are drilled into the rock mass and loaded with a small amount of explosives.
Under carefully controlled and monitored conditions, the explosives are detonated
sequentially, breaking the rock while spreading the release of energy from the explosives over
a period of several seconds.
The first tunnels were entirely dug and built by hand by workers. This very
rudimentary technique could only be optimized. The invention of dynamite in 1866 by Alfred
Nobel limited the use of human force to dig the rock and accelerated the digging of tunnels,
especially in mines. His invention made it possible above all to increase the safety of
construction sites and the transport of explosives by making the explosive more stable.
The drill & blast method is still the most typical method for medium to hard rock
conditions. It can be applied to a wide range of rock conditions. Some of its features include
versatile equipment, fast start-up and relatively low capital cost tied to the equipment. On the
other hand, the cyclic nature of the drill & blast method requires good work site organization.
Blast vibrations and noise also restrict the use of drill & blast in urban areas. (Özgür Satici,
2006).
From the earliest days of blasting with black powder, there have been steady
developments in explosives, detonating and delaying techniques and in our understanding of
the mechanics of rock breakage by explosives, (Özgür Satici, 2006).
This tunnelling method involves the use of explosives. Drilling rigs are used to bore
blast holes on the proposed tunnel surface to a designated depth for blasting. Explosives and
timed detonators are then placed in the blast holes. Once blasting is carried out, waste rocks
and soils are transported out of the tunnel before further blasting. Most tunnelling
construction in rock involves ground that is somewhere between two extreme conditions of
hard rock and soft ground. Hence adequate structural support measures are required when
adopting this method for tunnelling. Compared with bored tunnelling by Tunnel Boring
Machine (see below), blasting generally results in higher but lesser duration of vibration
levels. A temporary magazine site is often needed for overnight storage of explosives.
Page 13 on 117
69
a.3.3 Sequential Excavation Method

Sequential Excavation Method (SEM) mining is a technique in which a tunnel is
sequentially excavated in phases and supported in a controlled manner. The excavation can be
carried out with common mining methods and equipment, chosen according to the soil
conditions. This underground method of excavation divides the space to be excavated into
segments, then mines the segments sequentially, one portion at a time. SEM mining permits a
tunnel of any shape or size to be excavated.
SEM involves the sequencing of the excavation as well as installation of supports.
Shotcrete (a kind of concrete sprayed from high-powered hoses) may be used to line the
tunnel or support the face, and grouting (the injection of a cementing or chemical agent into
the soil) may be used to increase the soil’s strength and reduce its permeability. Another
technique that can be used to increase the strength of soils in an area where SEM mining is to
be used is ground freezing.
This method is also known as the New Austrian Tunnelling Method (NATM). The excavation
location of a proposed tunnel is divided into segments first. The segments are then mined
sequentially with supports. Some mining equipment such as road headers and backhoes are
commonly used for the tunnel excavation. The ground for excavation must be fully dry for
applying the NATM and ground dewatering is also an essential process before the excavation.
Another process relates to the ground modifications such as grouting, and ground freezing is
also common with this method in order to stabilize the soil for tunnelling. This method is
relatively slow but is found useful in areas where existing structures such as sewer or subway
could not be relocated.
a.3.4 Bored Tunnelling

Bored tunnelling by using a Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM) is often used for
excavating long tunnels. An effective TBM method requires the selection of appropriate
equipment for different rock mass and geological conditions. The TBM may be suitable for
excavating tunnels which contain competent rocks that can provide adequate geological
stability for boring a long section tunnel without structural support. However, extremely hard
rock can cause significant wear of the TBM rock cutter and may slow down the progress of
the tunnelling works to the point where TBM becomes inefficient and uneconomical and may
take longer time than the drill-and-blast tunnelling method.
Page 14 on 117
69
a.3.4.1 Definition of tunnel boring machine

A tunnel boring machine (TBM) also known as a “mole“, is a machine used to
excavate tunnels with a circular cross section through a variety of soil and rock strata. They
can bore through hard rock, sand, and almost anything in between. Tunnel diameters can
range from a metre (done with micro-TBMs) to almost 16 metres to date (rail system).
Tunnels of less than a metre or so in diameter are typically done using trenchless construction
methods or horizontal directional drilling rather than TBMs. The Figure 1.14, is a
representation of the first tunnel boring machine, constructed by Brunel, in 1984.
Figure 1.14. The precursor of the tunnel boring machine, invented in 1825 by Brunel
The Figure 1.15, represents an amelioration of the TBM realized by Brunel, it was
designed by Frederick Beaumont, in action on the French side of the first attempted channel
tunnel.
Figure 1.15. View of the Boring machine designed by Frederick Beaumont in action on the
French side of the first attempted Channel Tunnel.
Page 15 on 117
69
The shaft was rotated by a two-cylinder engine powered by compressed air. Tunnel
boring machines are used as an alternative to drilling and blasting (D&B) methods in rock and
conventional ‘hand mining’ in soil. TBMs have the advantages of limiting the disturbance to
the surrounding ground and producing a smooth tunnel wall. This significantly reduces the
cost of lining the tunnel, and makes them suitable to use in heavily urbanized areas. The
major disadvantage is the upfront cost. TBMs are expensive to construct, and can be difficult
to transport. However, as modern tunnels become longer, the cost of tunnel boring machines
versus drill and blast is actually less this is because tunnelling with TBMs is much more
efficient and results in a shorter project.
The largest diameter TBM, at 15.43 m, was built by Herrenknecht AG for a recent
project in Shanghai, China. The machine was built to bore through soft ground including sand
and clay. The largest diameter hard rock TBM, at 14.4 m, was manufactured by The Robbins
Company for Canada’s Niagara Tunnel Project. The machine is currently boring a
hydroelectric tunnel beneath Niagara Falls, the machine has been named “Big Becky” in
reference to the Sir Adam Beck hydroelectric dams to which it is tunnelling to provide an
additional hydroelectric tunnel. The Figure 1.16 is an illustration of a modern TBM.
Figure 1.16. Chinese made tunnel boring machine completed in Kunming
a.3.4.2 Types of TBM

Tunnel boring machines are classified as hard rock or soft ground machines. Hard rock
TBMs are designed for boring through solid rock and solid aggregate. Soft ground machines
Page 16 on 117
69
tunnel through hydrated soil and unconsolidated sediments, and may be further optimized
based on the hydration and stability of intended ground conditions.
b. Hard rock TBMs

In hard rock, either shielded or open-type TBMs can be used. All types of hard rock
TBMs excavate rock using disc cutters mounted in the cutter head. The disc cutters create
compressive stress fractures in the rock, causing it to chip away from the rock in front of the
machine, called the tunnel face. The excavated rock, known as muck, is transferred through
openings in the cutter head to a belt conveyor, where it runs through the machine to a system
of conveyors or muck cars for removal from the tunnel.
Open-type TBMs have no shield, leaving the area behind the cutter head open for rock
support. To advance, the machine uses a gripper system that pushes against the side walls of
the tunnel. The machine can be continuously steered while gripper shoes push on the side-
walls to react the machine’s forward thrust. At the end of a stroke, the rear legs of the
machine are lowered, the grippers and propel cylinders are retracted. The retraction of the
propel cylinders repositions the gripper assembly for the next boring cycle. The grippers are
extended, the rear legs lifted, and boring begins again. The open-type, or Main Beam, TBM
does not install concrete segments behind it as other machines do. Instead, the rock is held up
using ground support methods such as ring beams, rock bolts, shotcrete, steel straps, and wire
mesh (Stack, 1995).
In fractured rock, shielded hard rock TBMs (Figure 1.17) can be used, which erect
concrete segments to support unstable tunnel walls behind the machine. Double Shield TBMs
are so called because they have two modes; in stable ground they can grip against the tunnel
walls to advance forward. In unstable, fractured ground, the thrust is shifted to thrust cylinders
that push off against the tunnel segments behind the machine. This keeps the significant thrust
forces from impacting fragile tunnel walls. Single Shield TBMs operate in the same way, but
are used only in fractured ground, as they can only push off against the concrete segments.
Page 17 on 117
69
Figure 1.17. Hard Rock TBM KAWASAKI
Hard Rock TBM method involves the use of a Tunnelling machine with a shield and
cutter head suitable for hard rock, Figure 1.18 shows us the different parts of a Hard Rock
TBM.
Figure 1.18. Parts of a Hard Rock TBM
They offer a continuous and controlled means of tunnelling capable of high rates of
advance under favourable conditions. The major disadvantage is the upfront capital cost.
TBMs are expensive to construct, difficult to transport, require significant backup systems
and power. Their applicability is limited to long tunnels where the high rates of advance
and tunnel quality can offset their high capital cost. The main characteristics are tunnel
Lining, precast Concrete Segments / Sprayed Concrete / No lining, as Typical Performance it
can excavate 12m to 67m per day. Actual performance and costs will depend on ground
conditions and tunnel diameter.
c. Soft ground TBMs

In soft ground, there are two main types of TBMs: Earth Pressure Balance Machines
(EPB) and Slurry Shield (SS). Both types of machines operate like Single Shield TBMs, using
thrust cylinders to advance forward by pushing off against concrete segments. Earth Pressure
Balance Machines are used in soft ground with less than 7 bar of pressure. The cutter head
does not use disc cutters only, but instead a combination of tungsten carbide cutting bits,
carbide disc cutters, and/or hard rock disc cutters. The EPB gets its name because it is capable
of holding up soft ground by maintaining a balance between earth and pressure. The TBM
operator and automated systems keep the rate of soil removal equal to the rate of machine
Page 18 on 117
69
advance. Thus, a stable environment is maintained. In addition, additives such as bentonite,

polymers and foam are injected into the ground to further stabilize it.
In soft ground with very high water pressure and large amounts of ground water,
Slurry Shield TBMs are needed. These machines offer a completely enclosed working
environment. Soils are mixed with bentonite slurry, which must be removed from the tunnel
through a system of slurry tubes that exit the tunnel. Large slurry separation plants are needed
on the surface for this process, which separate the dirt from the slurry so it can be recycled
back into the tunnel.
While the use of TBMs relieves the need for large numbers of workers at high
pressures, a caisson system is sometimes formed at the cutting head for slurry shield TBMs.
Workers entering this space for inspection, maintenance and repair need to be medically
cleared as “fit to dive” and trained in the operation of the locks.
d. Slurry Pressure Balance (SPB) TBM

The basic principle of this TBM is to maintain the face pressure during the excavation phase
by filling the working chamber, located behind the cutter head, with slurry. Figure 1.19,
represents the different parts and the operating steps of the slurry pressure balance TBM.
Figure 1.19: Operating steps of the Slurry Pressure Balance
As advantages, it allows soft, wet, or unstable ground to be tunnelled with a speed and safety
not previously possible, Suitable for ground with high water pressures (below water table),
Limits ground settlement and produces a smooth tunnel wall. This significantly reduces the
cost of lining the tunnel, and makes it suitable to use in heavily urbanized areas.
As disadvantages, the major disadvantage is the upfront capital cost. TBMs are
expensive to construct, difficult to transport, require significant backup systems and power.
Drive can be hindered by large stones and boulders. Their Main characteristics are Tunnel
Page 19 on 117
69
Lining: Precast Concrete Segments, Typical Performance: 5m to 30m per day. Actual
performance and costs will depend on ground conditions and tunnel diameter.
e. Earth Pressure Balance (EPB) TBM

This is a mechanised tunnelling method in which spoil is admitted into the
tunnel boring machine (TBM) via a screw conveyor arrangement which allows the pressure at
the face of the TBM to remain balanced without the use of slurry. Figure 1.20, shows the
principal parts of an Earth Pressure Balance TBM.
Figure 1.20. Parts of an EPB TBM
As advantages, it allows soft, wet, or unstable ground to be tunnelled with a speed and
safety not previously possible; Limits ground settlement and produces a smooth tunnel wall.
This significantly reduces the cost of lining the tunnel, and makes it suitable to use in heavily
urbanized areas. The major disadvantage is the upfront capital cost. TBMs are expensive to
construct, difficult to transport, require significant backup systems and power. Their Main
characteristics, Tunnel Lining: Precast Concrete Segments; Typical Performance: 9m to 35m
per day. Actual performance and costs will depend on ground conditions and tunnel diameter.
e.1.1.1 Importance of TBM in urban tunnelling and near surface tunnelling
Urban tunnelling has the special challenge of requiring that the ground surface be
undisturbed. This means that ground subsidence must be avoided. The normal method of
doing this in soft ground is to maintain the soil pressures during and after the tunnel
construction. There is some difficulty in doing this, particularly in varied strata (e.g., boring
through a region where the upper portion of the tunnel face is wet sand and the lower portion
is hard rock).
Page 20 on 117
69
TBMs with positive face control, such as EPB and SS, are used in such situations.
Both types (EPB and SS) are capable of reducing the risk of surface subsidence and voids if
operated properly and if the ground conditions are well documented.
When tunnelling in urban environments, other tunnels, existing utility lines and deep
foundations need to be addressed in the early planning stages. The project must accommodate
measures to mitigate any detrimental effects to other infrastructure.
e.1.1.2 TBM specification and selection

a. Machine Specifications: essential parts of TBM
TBMs are normally manufactured in drum shaped steel shield equipped inside with
excavation and segment erection facilities. The essential parts of the machine include the
following items:
 Rotary cutter head for cutting the ground.
 Hydraulic jacks to maintain a forward pressure on the cutting head.
 Muck discharging equipment to remove the excavated muck.
 Segment election equipment at the rear of the machine.
 Grouting equipment to fill the voids behind the segments, which is created by the over
excavation
b. TBM selection
The selection criteria for the tunnel boring machine are presented in the following table 1.1.
Ground type TBM type Suitable Ground Condition Cost Speed Risks
Water head< 4 bars & fine materials>

EPB High Moderate Low
10%
SS −8 −2 High Moderate Low

Permeability from 10 to 10 m/s
Soft Ground
weak rock, fully/partially cohesive

Open face Moderate High Moderate
soils with low GWT
Multi-mode TBM’s Most of soil types Highest Variable Low
Rock compressive strength from 100

Hard Rock Unshielded Moderate Highest Highest
to 300 MPa
Page 21 on 117
69
Single-shield High Moderate Moderate

Rock compressive strength from 50
to 300 MPa
Double-shield Highest Moderate Lowest
Table 1.1. Selection criteria for tunnel boring machines
b.1.1.1 Operation of a tunnel boring machine

The TBM consists of several elements (Figure 1.21): the cutting head, the shield, the system
of segments, the extraction system, the feed system and the following train.
Figure 1.21. Elements of a Tunnel Boring Machine
a. The cutting head

The cutting head (Figure 1.22), most often rotating, is the most impressive part of the
TBM. He is a disc with many rotating knives. These elements dig deep furrows in the rock to
weaken it until it ruptures. The disc contains
Page 22 on 117
69
Figure 1.22. Cutting head of the first TBM of the Grand Paris Express, installed in
Champigny-sur-Marne and Cutting head and shield of the Val-de-Marne TBM, diameter 10
metres
b. The shield
Immediately after the cutting head passes through, the rock, near the digging site, may
emerge weakened; it should therefore be temporarily protected so that it stabilizes and the
final coating can fully play its role. This protection is provided by a shield. It is a very rigid
cylinder with a diameter close to the diameter of the tunnel. In addition to supporting the rock,
the shield protects the equipment and workers who work as close as possible to the cutting
wheel.
c. The system of erection of linings (skirt)
If the rock is fragile, soft or impermeable, it is then necessary to add supports. These are
created by a piece depositing elements called linings that line the walls and ensure the
separation and protection of the rock from the gallery. The linings (Figure 1.23) are thick,
wide and curved elements, made of reinforced concrete.
Figure 1.23. Example of linings
The segment erection system is an element placed just behind the shield that allows
the linings to be placed on the walls of the tunnel forming a ring. The succession of rings
Page 23 on 117
69
along the length of the borehole constitutes the lining of the tunnel. Indeed, if the segments
have a decisive role in the tunnel structure, they also constitute the final inner wall of the
tunnel that metro passengers will see when the work is completed.
The shapes of the linings are particularly studied. Most of them are made to measure
to adapt to the different possible gallery diameters and the different loads they will have to
support. Ease of installation and tightness are also taken into account. Depending on the
diameter of the gallery and the loads, a ring consists of between 4 and 10 segments, with a
width of between 0.6 and 2 metres and a thickness of between 30 and 40 centimetres. Each
segment weighs about 8 tons. In addition, there are two types of segment layouts
o The universal arrangement, where all the segments are of the same trapezoidal
shape. This shape allows the wall to be covered both in a straight line and in a
curve depending on the successive arrangement of the rooms. This technique
allows some economies of scale, but imposes a close radius of curvature for all
bends;
o The mixed layout, with rectangular segments for straight lines and trapezoidal
segments for curves. This technique (Figure 1.24) allows the construction to
be adapted according to the radius of the gallery curves but can be more
expensive.
Figure 1.24. Example of the use of universal segments
In order to optimize waterproofing, joints are placed between the segments of the same
ring and between the successive rings. Finally, to facilitate their installation using cylinders,
they have shallow holes on their inner walls.
Page 24 on 117
69
The segments are therefore placed by an erection system against the tunnel wall. At
this point, the cutting head does not advance in order to facilitate the installation of the
segments. They are placed successively from the inside of the future ring except the last
segment, called "key", which requires the machine to advance to be deposited from the front
of the gallery along the wall. The installation (Figure 1.25) is done by means of jacks.
Figure 1.25. Installation of segments by the tunnel boring machine
If the rock is sufficiently hard and impermeable, then the stability of the tunnel is largely
ensured by the characteristics of the rock and it is not necessarily necessary to add large
protective elements. However, even in this situation, a cap can be added to protect the upper
part of the tunnel from possible landslides, for example made of shotcrete.
d. The extraction system
The rocks crushed by the cutting wheel descend by gravity to the bottom of the wheel and
are then recovered using an Archimedes screw (in red Figure 1.26). The rubble is then
conveyed to the following train by conveyor belt.
Figure 1.26. Evacuation of excavated material by the Archimedes screw to the conveyor
e. The feed system

The feed system allows the cutter head to progress in the digging process. This system
consists of powerful cylinders that rest on the last ring of segments placed to move the head
forward. Indeed, once a ring of segments has been removed, the edges of the segments form a
Page 25 on 117
69
plane orthogonal to the cutting direction. It is on this surface that the cylinders rest with the
help of spikes to push the machine (Figure 1.27).
Figure 1.27. Feed system where the cylinders (in the centre) rest on the segments (right) to
push the shield (left)
When the segments are installed, these cylinders retract towards the cutting wheel, which
stops moving forward to allow the segments to be installed by other orthogonal steering
cylinders.
f. The following train
The following train allows the supply and management of everything necessary for the
operation of the front part of the TBM (Figure 1.28). It includes a conveyor belt for the
extraction of rubble and a system that leads the segments to the erection system. With a total
length of several hundred metres, it also provides a link to the outside world.
Upstream of the following train, a temporary railway can be used to transport equipment
(segments), people and extract crushed rock to the nearest well. A loading area is provided at
the rear of the following train, where the temporary railway track is also completed as the
TBM progresses. Finally, the following train includes living areas for the staff.
Figure 1.28. Champigny Tunnel Boring Machine with part of the following train on the right
Page 26 on 117
69
f.1.1.1 Stages of TBM Construction

The construction of a tunnel using a tunnel boring machine (TBM) involves the following
steps: an entrance shaft is built to bring the TBM in and to assemble it, then the excavation
procedure is started, at the end of the tunnel excavation, the TBM is removed through an exit
shaft at the end of the selected section of the tunnel. The Figure 1.29 shows the steps.
Figure 1.29. Stages of construction with a TBM
f.2 Soil response to tunnel excavation: predictive methods

During tunnelling, stress relief and over-excavation result in movements within the soil
that may cause deformations of subsurface structures and foundations. To estimate possible
structural damage, urban-tunnelling induced ground movements need to be predicted and used
within tunnel-structure interaction analyses. Tunnel construction is inevitably associated to
ground movements which result in a surface settlement trough developing above and ahead of
the tunnel (Figure. 1.29). They are the result of different displacements occurring near the
tunnel as shown in Figure 1.30 and presented in the following:
Page 27 on 117
69
Figure 1.30. 3D settlement profile under free-field conditions (modified from Attewell et al.,
1986).
Figure 1.31. Main components of ground movements due to shield tunnelling (modified from
Cording, 1991).
 Component 1: face extrusion, i.e. ground displacement at the tunnel face resulting
from the stress relief associated to the excavation. This latter can be minimised by
applying a support pressure using slurry-shield or earth pressure balance (EPB)
machines;
 Component 2: displacement due to the shield passage. It depends on the amount of
over-excavation and it is related to the shield geometry (e.g. cutting bead thickness,
conicity) combined with the tendency of the machine, more marked in steering phases,
to plough or yaw;
Page 28 on 117
69
 Component 3: loss due to the tail void, i.e. the existence of a gap between the tail of
the shield and the lining which allows further radial ground movements that can be
reduced by the immediate application of grouting injections;
 Component 4: lining deflection as the ground loading develops, generally smaller than
the other components if the lining is stiff enough;
 Component 5: displacements due to the consolidation process in fine-grained soils.
Subway tunnels and other public facility tunnels are often constructed by the subsurface
excavation method due to the problem of traffic congestion and the environmental quality
requirements. The underground excavation of urban subway tunnels is bound to cause surface
settlement and even cause surface collapse, thus affecting the safety of driving and
pedestrians. Therefore, it is of great practical significance to predict surface settlement
induced by the underground excavation of urban subway tunnels to prevent excessive surface
settlement or surface collapse. At present, there are many methods for predicting surface
settlement induced by tunnel construction, for example, the empirical formula method, elastic
strain method, the airy stress function method, stochastic medium theory, numerical
simulation method, and centrifuge test method. There are many methods to predict surface
settlement, the Peck method and stochastic medium theory are still the two most widely
applied approaches to predict surface settlement (Zhanping Song, Xiaoxu Tian and Yuwei
Zhang, 2019).
f.2.1 Empirical method: Peck Formula

In 1969, Peck proposed that the ground settlement conforms to the law of normal
distribution by summarising the measured data of ground settlement caused by a large number
of tunnel construction at that time. The following formula can be used to calculate surface
settlement:
( )
2
−x
S( x )=S max exp Equation 1- 1
2 i2
where S(x) is the surface settlement value at a distance of x from the central axis of the
tunnel; Smax is the maximum value of surface settlement, generally located in the axis of the
tunnel; and i is the width of the surface settlement trough and is the horizontal distance from
the axis of the tunnel to the inflexion point of the settlement curve (as shown in Figures 1.32
and 1.33). The Peck method was not suitable for the shallow buried tunnel according to the
Page 29 on 117
69
analysis of the applicability of the Peck formula in different regions (Zhanping Song, Xiaoxu
Tian and Yuwei Zhang, 2019).
Figure 1.32. Transversal profiles of settlements, horizontal displacements and strains at the
ground surface (a); longitudinal surface settlement profile (b).
Figure 1.33. (a) Illustration of soil and tunnel ground losses; (b) typical tunnel ground loss
distributions for shallow tunnels.
Greenfield tunnelling-induced settlements, uz are often described using a standard
Gaussian distribution which includes the maximum uz,max, settlement and the horizontal
distance from the tunnel centreline to the inflection point of the curve, i:
( )
2
−x Equation 1-2
u z=u z , max exp 2
2i
Page 30 on 117
69
Where i can be related to the vertical distance between the tunnel axis zt depth and the depth
of interest, z, through the trough width parameter K:
i=K ( z t −z ) Equation 1-3
z
For the soil above a new tunnel, Mair et al. (1993) related the parameter K to the relative
zt
depth as follows
∂i z
K s+( )( ) Equation 1-4
∂ z zt
K=
z
1−
zt
Where Ks is the value of K at the surface, and (∂ i/∂ z ) is the slope of i with depth when all
other parameters are kept constant. For clays, Mair et al. (1993) suggested K s=0.5 and
( ∂ i/∂ z ) =−0.325 On the other hand, for sands and gravels Mair and Taylor (1997) reported a
significant scatter K in the available data for Ks, with values ranging from 0.25 to 0.45. Based
on a regression analysis of field data, Jones (2010), proposed a logarithmic formula for the
prediction of K in clays that depends on the height above the tunnel z t −z rather than the
relative depth z / z t .The modified Gaussian curve can better represent settlements induced by
shallow tunnels in sandy soils (Vorster et al., 2005).
The volume of the surface settlement trough per meter length of tunnel, VS, can be
evaluated by integrating Equation (2.1) along the distance x to give:
+∞
V S =∫ S v ( x ) dx=√ 2 π i x S v ,max Equation 1-5
−∞
The amount of volume lost in the region close to the tunnel, due to one or more of the
displacement components 1-4 of Figure 2.2, is generally indicated as VT. When tunnelling in
coarse-grained soils VT ≠ VS; in dense sands, for example, VS is less than
VT due to dilation (Cording and Hansmire, 1975). When tunnelling in clays VT = VS, as
ground movements occur at constant volume (i.e. in undrained conditions). Of particular
importance is the volume loss parameter, VL, defined as:
VS
V L= ×100 % Equation 1-6
At
Where At is the nominal area of the tunnel section equal to π D 2 / 4 (D is the tunnel
diameter).
Page 31 on 117
69
In many real cases the volume loss is a design parameter and its value is estimated on
the basis of excavation method, technological details of the tunnel boring machine (TBM) and
previous tunnelling experiences in similar geotechnical conditions. As reported in Mair
(1996), for open face tunnelling in stiff clays (e.g. London clay) the volume loss values are
generally included between 1% and 2%; for closed face tunnelling, using earth pressure
balance or slurry shields, a high degree of settlement control can be achieved, particularly in
sands where the volume loss is often as low as 0.5% and even in soft clays where, excluding
the consolidation settlements, it is of only 1%-2%.
The settlement distribution can be expressed as a function of VL:
√
2
2−x
π V L D 2i 2
Sv ( x ) = e x
Equation 1-7
2 4 ix
f.2.2 Analytical methods

The analytical methods for the estimation of tunnelling effects are fast and easy tools
based on the theoretical frameworks. In these methods simplified constitutive relations are
introduced to describe behaviour of soil. Thus, just few, easy to obtain parameters are
required. In contrast to the empirical relations, they are characterized by a consistent
framework used to interpret deformations and stresses in the soil. Moreover, the analytical
solutions can be used for the evaluation of numerical analyses, especially when simple
constitutive relations are applied. However, these methods have several shortcomings which
limits their applicability. In general, by the lack of the possibility to include operations needed
to construct a tunnel, an assumption of an overall effect is made. This overall effect represents
a deformation pattern of the cavity, which then is used to compute, e.g. far field ground
movements and stresses in the whole medium. It is derived from the fact that deformations in
the far field have smooth characteristics. Most of the methods are based on a theory of the
linear elasticity and just in few of them plasticity by means of the Mohr-Coulomb failure
criterion has been introduced. However, it needs to be noted that it is a significant
simplification of the mechanical behaviour of soil and thus it significantly limits their
applicability
f.2.3 Ground deformations and stresses

f.2.3.1 Stochastic medium theory
The first approach used to predict the surface settlements by means of the analytical
solution was presented by Litwiniszyn (1957). Author introduced a stochastic medium theory
to describe the shape of surface settlement profile in the transversal direction induced by the
Page 32 on 117
69
coal mining in rock stratum. This theory was then extended by several authors (e.g. Liu
(1993), Liu et al. (1999) or Yang et al. (2004)) and further simplified by Yang and Wang
(2011), in order to describe ground movements due to the tunnelling. This theory applied to
tunnelling assumes that movements near the cavity are equal to the sum of movements of
numerous infinitesimal elements corresponding to the subsoil inducted by excavation.
f.2.3.2 Exact elasticity solutions
The exact analytical solution for a circular cavity in the elastic half-plane was
presented by Verruijt (1997). In order to solve this problem, the author used a complex
variable method introduced to the elastic medium by Muskhelishvili and Radok (1953),
together with bipolar co-ordinates suggested, e.g. by Mindlin (1940). Similarly to the
previously described methods, a medium in which the cavity is created has been assumed to
be homogeneous and to behave as linear-elastic. Furthermore, two boundary conditions were
assumed, the first one says that ground surface is stress free. The second boundary condition
defines that tunnel walls undergo certain prescribed deformations due to the ground loss. The
analytical solution of this problem leads to both, displacement and stress fields in the medium
surrounding the tunnel. In the modern tunnelling methods, especially when the tunnel heading
ma-chines are used, the cavity can be supported by a pressurized medium. For this case, a
theoretical solution in the plane-strain condition can be obtained applying prescribed
boundary conditions to tunnel walls. In the paper of Verruijt (1998), a solution for the case
with prescribed uniform radial stress applied to the boundary of the cavity instead of
deformation is presented. A more recent study has been carried out by Verruijt and Booker
(2000), who presented a further extension of this exact solution. In this paper the authors
solved the Mindlin‘s problem which deals with the gradient distribution of stress field in an
homogeneous medium induced by load resulting from the self-weight of soil. The Mindlin‘s
issue refers just to the case of shallow circular tunnel wherein close proximity of a ground
surface has significant influence on the stress distribution in soil. For deep tunnels the solution
is much simpler because horizontal and vertical stresses can be considered as equal. It should
be noted that Mindlin (1940) gave just a partial solution in the form of displacement field
which then was supplemented by Verruijt and Booker (2000), giving formulations for the
stress field. A last improvement, which can be found in the literature (see Verruijt and Strack
(2008)), introduces an effect of weight loss due to the material extraction. Load inducted by
the self-weight of structural elements of a tunnel does not compensate unloading due to the
soil excavation. To obtain an equilibrium, the forces directed upward are generated. This
phenomena is named the buoyancy effect, which in general, is evident at the tunnel invert. All
Page 33 on 117
69
relations corresponding to the highly complex closed-form analytical solutions for the above
described problems for both displacement and stress fields are not presented here and can be
found in the mentioned references. Moreover, in order to improve their usability, small
packages freely available in the internet were introduced by Verruijt (2015).
f.2.3.3 Approximate elasticity solution
In order to simplify rather complex closed-form analytical solutions, several
approximate approaches have been introduced. A rapid method to estimate deformations in
the subsoil due to the material extraction at the shallow depth has been proposed by Sagaseta
(1987). Due to the material extraction, surrounding medium contracts partially filling empty
space which in tunnelling is called the ground loss. In the proposed solution it is assumed that
a cavity is located in the isotropic, homogeneous and incompressible elastic medium. A
deformation pattern of the cavity wall can be identified as a uniform radial contraction.
Verruijt and Booker (1996) presented a generalization (Figure 1.34) of Sagaseta (1987)
solution which includes the compressibility of soil and an additional deformation pattern. Soil
behaviour is still assumed as the linear-elastic isotropic medium, however, a Poisson‘s ratio is
included as an input parameter. In this solution final shape of the deformed cavity is a result
of the radial contraction induced immediately after tunnel construction (undrained conditions)
and the long term ovalization of the lining
Figure 1.34. Short and long-term deformations of tunnel lining after Verruijt and Booker
(1996)
The presented closed form solution by Verruijt and Booker (1996) was then extended
(Figure 1.35) by Loganathan and Poulos (1998) who tackled the problem of a realistic ground
loss definition induced in the short-term manner (undrained conditions).An assumption that
the radial ground loss is uniform was pointed out to be wrong by Rowe and Kack (1983). The
authors found that it is non-uniform, oval-shaped due to the non-circular 2D gap around the
Page 34 on 117
69
tunnel. It can be caused by shield pitching to avoid a diving tendency, a vertical movement of
lining after shield.
Figure 1.35. Pattern of ground deformations and additional boundary conditions applied by
Loganathan and Poulos (1998)
Another approach to obtain the approximate analytical solution comes from the general
series of a stress function in the polar coordinates. Bobet (2001) expanded the solution
presented by Einstein and Schwartz (1979) for deep tunnels in dry ground. To obtain a
consistent framework for three various cases, following assumptions have been made:
 circular cross-section R
 plane strain conditions
 frictionless interface between subsoil and support
 ratio depth to radius Z0/R >1.5
 homogeneous and isotropic subsoil conditions
 poroelastic behaviour of subsoil and elastic behaviour of lining
 relatively small lining thickness d<<R
 undrained conditions (no dissipation of excess pore pressure)
f.2.4 Numerical methods

Third group of tools used to analyse the effects of tunnelling processes are various
numerical tools. These tools represent the most complete solutions for simulation of
Page 35 on 117
69
tunnelling. They give possibility to include most of the complexity of technology without
introducing subjective assumptions. According to the used approach they can be divided into
three groups (sorted from the most to the less popular):
 Finite Element Method (FEM) and Finite Difference Method (FDM)
 Boundary Element Method (BEM)
 Discrete Element Method (DEM)
Obviously, there are several other methods but their application is limited to very
specific problems which mostly are connected with geotechnical engineering. In fact, a
numerical method used to solve a problem is in most the cases predetermined by the user’s
choice of the software. The various packages give to the user certain amount of features
mostly common for all of them. (Osmański, 2016)
f.2.4.1 Finite Element and Difference Methods
Simulation of tunnelling process using the FEM and FDM are the most popular ones.
Their popularity is derived from a user-friendly interface of the modern packages, a wide
range of features giving possibility to study both the ultimate and serviceability limit states
and also a relatively low computational effort needed to obtain results. The FEM is a
numerical technique in which the boundary value problems for the partial differential
equations are solved by finding the approximate solutions. The Finite Difference Method
(FDM) is a method which takes use of the difference equations in order to approximate
solution for the differential equations. In the literature there are a multitude of examples
showing application of both methods to simulate tunnelling process in both two and three
dimensional space. (Osmański, 2016)
f.2.4.2 Boundary Element Methods
The Boundary Element Method (BEM) is a numerical technique used to solve
boundary value problems expressed in the term of the Partial Differential Equation (PDE).
This method is derived from the discretized integral equation which constitutes a
mathematical of the original PDE. It is composed of the two main integral equations, one for
the definition of a domain boundary and the second equation which relates a solution obtained
at the boundary to that in the domain.
Few example of the Boundary Element Method (BEM) applied to tunnelling can be
found in the literature. Most of them show analyses performed in the bi-dimensional space.
First application presented by (Swoboda, 1986) concerns on the model in bi-dimensional
space explaining a way to couple beam elements and boundary element. (Swoboda M. B.)
Page 36 on 117
69
Performed rheological analysis of tunnel excavation using coupled FEM and BEM. Similar
study has been carried out by Varadarajan et al (1987), who performed elasto-plastic analysis
using FEM and coupled FEM-BEM, while analysis for the jointed rocks has been done by
Xiao et al (1994). The non-linearity has been tackled in the paper of Venturini and Brebbia
(1984). While Prazerers et al (2012) presented a new approach to simulated conventional
tunnelling with the BEM in three dimensional space.
f.2.4.3 Discrete Element Method
A numerical method used to compute motion of a large number of small particles is
called the Discrete Element Method (DEM) or the Distinct Element Method. In the analysis of
soil mechanics problems, this method is used to simulate the mechanical behaviour of subsoil
material as interaction between their particles. Considering material as not continuum but as
individual very small particles, a number of mathematical equations describing their motion
and interaction increases enormously. Thus the computational effort needed to solve a
problem rapidly increases reducing application just to local, mostly the bi-dimensional
problems.
Conclusion
The objective of this chapter, was to introduce tunnels: their history, the types of
tunnels; their methods of construction; their method of excavation by boring machines,
TBMs; predictive methods for estimating soil response. A tunnel is an underground passage,
dug through the surrounding soil/earth/rock and closed except for the entrance and exit,
usually at each end. With the current economic situation, there are important buildings and
engineering structures that cannot be destroyed, so we need to assess the soil response using
the Peck's Formula.
Page 37 on 117
69
g.Chapter 2: DESCRIPTION OF THE

PROJECT, SITE AND CONSTRUCTION
METHOD.
Introduction
In order to host the Paris 2024 Olympic Games, RTE is asked to install certain overhead
electrical structures underground in the future area dedicated to the Olympic Village, located
in the municipality of SAINT-DENIS and the ILE-SAINT-DENIS in the department of
SEINE-SAINT-DENIS (93). In order to meet this demand, RTE wishes to partially
underground the 225kV Plessis Gassot / Seine 1-2-3-4 overhead power lines on part of their
route, between the Seine substation and the Fort de Briche area, by creating an underground
tunnel about 2.5 km long. As part of the work to create the technical gallery, it is essential to
build two access shafts (an entrance shaft and an exit shaft), which will allow the entrance and
exit of the tunnel boring machine, which will be used to build this technical gallery.
g.1 Tunnel Seine-Briche structure description

g.1.1 Location of the project implementation area
The operation concerned by this project is located in the department of SEINE SAINT
DENIS (93), in the commune of SAINT DENIS, near Saint-Denis Island. It is more precisely
located on a 2.5 km line between:
 The northern end of the route next to the Fort de La Briche, which houses the fire
brigade base, located at an altimeter level of approximately 37 m NGF;
 The southern end located in the right-of-way of the "Seine" substation, owned by
RTE, whose altimeter level is located at approximately 32 m NGF.
The route of the gallery between these two ends is located as far as possible under public
property, preferably under existing roads, in order to limit as much as possible the need to
acquire subsoil and any damage to the building that could be attributed to the excavation of
the gallery (risk of settling).
The gallery will be deliberately sloped towards the southern end, in order to allow in the
final phase the gravity collection of infiltration water only in way of the access shaft of the
"Seine" substation, for discharge directly to the Seine or by re-injection into the water table.
Page 38 on 117
69
The location of the project is presented below in the Figure 2.1:
Figure 2.36. Location of the project
g.1.2 Study area geology

The project is part of the geological context of the Tertiary sedimentary terrains of the
Paris Basin, more particularly on the outer edge of the Gennevilliers meander of the Seine
alluvial plain.
The study area is located on the right bank of the Seine, in the commune of SAINT-
DENIS. On this bank, we are at the outer limit of the Gennevilliers meander: the Seine's
alluvial deposits therefore have a much more limited lateral extension and are also present in a
much thinner layer than on the left bank. Due to the more limited erosion in this area, the soils
encountered under the alluvial deposits start higher up in the sedimentary series of the Paris
basin.
The extract of the geological map of PARIS (Figure 2.2) at the 50,000th (Map n°183 -
BRGM Editions) presented below defines the following lithological succession to the right of
the study area (from top to bottom):
Page 39 on 117
69
N
Exit shaft
Briche area
Entrance shaft
Seine area
Figure 2.37. Geographical location of the entrance and exit tunnels
 Gypsum masses and infragypsum marls (MG, noted e7a on the geological map). The
gypsum masses and marls consist of four gypsum masses separated by three dolomitic
marl beds, also containing gypsum intercalations. When these formations have been
reworked by fluvial erosion, dissolution and substitution, they are grouped under the
generic term subgypsum marls. These are more or less dolomitic marls within which
residual gypsum and more or less mineralised substitutes can be found in banks or
kidneys;
 Monceau sands (SM, noted e6e on the geological map). Fine greenish sands, more
marly towards the base. They contain gypsum banks;
Page 40 on 117
69
 St-Ouen marl-limestone (MCO, noted e6d on the geological map). Clayey marls at the
head and calcareous banks at the base (Mortefontaine level and Ducy limestone), with
a marl-limestone transition in the central part; the formation may present gypsum
horizons;
 Beauchamp sands and sandstones (Sb, noted e6a on the geological map). One can
distinguish in this formation :
o Upper Beauchamp sands, clean medium to coarse sands, locally gritty,
o The middle Beauchamp sands, clay and marl horizons. sandy, containing
gypsum crystallizations,
o Lower Beauchamp sands, fine sands, clayey or clayey-gravelly, with coarse
sandstone sands. At the base, a brecciated sandstone level can be found;
 Marls and pebbles (MC, noted e5d on the geological map). Heterogeneous formation
consisting of alternating banks of whitish sandy marl and hard limestone, with some
clayey intercalations. On the upper two thirds, marly banks of decimetric to multi-
decimetric thickness predominate. On the lower third, the thickness of the limestone
banks increases, becoming decimetric to multi-decimetric. These calcareous banks
become predominant and give the horizon a soft rock (pebble) character. At the base
of the formation, a fossiliferous limestone bank "rochette" is quite constant at 1 m
from the top of the Coarse Limestone. This formation also contains gypsum levels;
 Coarse Limestone (GSC, noted e5c on the geological map). Massive fossiliferous
limestone, glauconitic at its base. The subsets of this formation are :
o At the head, an alternation of frankly calcareous banks partially dolomitized
and whitish marly levels, constituting the Upper Coarse Limestone (CGsup);
o Below the soft sandy limestones, little fractured, constituting the median
coarse limestones (CGmoy);
o Then more compact, slightly fractured, clearly glaucous levels, constituting the
lower coarse limestones (CGinf). The base of the lower limestones
progressively passes to a sandier level rich in glauconias containing shell
debris, more friable and without apparent cohesion;
 Ypresian sands and clays (YPR, noted e4 and e3 on the geological map). For this
project, the roof of this formation is located at a depth of more than 50 m. It should
simply be mentioned that this formation can be subdivided into :
Page 41 on 117
69
o -Firing Sands and Superior Sands;

o Fake clay;
o D'Auteuil Sands
o Plastic Clay.
g.1.3 Gallery dimensions and lining characteristics

The tunnel will be excavated with an earth pressure tunnel boring machine that can
confine the cutting face and allow the installation of reinforced concrete segments directly at
the exit of the skirt. The excavation diameter is 4.0 m. The annular gap between the top
surfaces of the shield tail and the top surface of the segment covering is filled with a tamping
mortar.
The main characteristics (Figure 2.3) of the tunnel are:
 Diameter of the coating on the bottom surface: 3.1 m,
 Thickness of the segments: 0.25 m,
 Top surface diameter of the coating: 3.6 m,
 Excavation diameter: 4.0 m.
The lining will be composed of 5 identical segment elements + 1 key element and the
thickness of the joint will be in the order of 0.166 m.
Figure 2.38. Project cross-section
Page 42 on 117
69
g.2 In-situ and laboratory geotechnical tests performed and the

parameters obtained
g.2.1 In-situ and laboratory tests
It is necessary during the design phase to delimit the risks that may arise for a given
route. Once the choice of the route has been made, we try to determine the parameters that
characterize the soils and find elements that could cause problems during construction due to
their presence. In situ methods are suitable for both giving orders of magnitude for soil
parameters and revealing the presence of disturbing elements. Annexe (1) presents the
location of some in situ tests along the tunnel path.
A summary concerning the depth of the tests and associated results are presents in
figures Figure 2.4, Figure 2.5 and Figure 2.6.
Remblais MIG SV MSO DUCY Beauchamp M&C CG
E Pl* E Pl* E Pl* E Pl* E Pl* E Pl* E Pl* E Pl*
nb val 3 3 12 12 3 3 14 14 6 6 23 23 31 31 19 19
min 18 1.6 1.30 0.15 5.90 1.04 2.60 0.56 1.50 0.13 7.70 1.42 23.90 1.22 53.60 2.84
max 66 4 29.20 3.24 20.30 2.10 41.70 3.18 4.40 0.56 287.70 5.00 378.80 5.00 518.20 5.00
moy arith 47 3 15.55 1.80 11.23 1.43 16.83 1.87 2.77 0.31 117.60 4.16 132.70 4.13 217.90 4.89
ecart type 25.48 1.60 8.90 1.01 7.89 0.58 12.68 0.96 1.06 0.18 79.36 1.14 98.07 1.19 89.25 0.50
coef var 0.54 0.46 0.57 0.56 0.70 0.40 0.75 0.51 0.38 0.57 0.67 0.27 0.74 0.29 0.41 0.10
mediane 56.0 4.3 14.20 1.77 7.50 1.16 12.40 1.71 2.55 0.28 112.10 5.00 123.70 5.00 201.50 5.00
moy geo 3.15 1.39 1.36 1.60 0.27 3.96 3.90 4.85
moy harm 33.91 7.07 8.52 8.37 2.44 44.29 66.30 182.48
Figure 2.39. Retained values of soil layers
These tests can be grouped as follows:

 Geophysical methods
 Surveys and logs
 Water tests
 Tests by drilling
Page 43 on 117
69
Figure 2.40. Interpretative geotechnical long profile part 1/2 Seine substation side
Figure 2.41. Interpretative geotechnical long profile part 2/2 Briche substation side
Laboratory test were conducted for the determination of some parameters such as the
cohesion and the frictional angle. The methodology will not be present here. In the following
section, the result from those tests are presented.
g.2.2 Geotechnical parameters

From the result of the Pressuremeter test, deformation modulus is derived. The results
are divided in two categories representing the geological configuration that were encountered.
For the Briche path, the Figure 2.7 summarise the deformation modulus.
Page 44 on 117
69
Remblais SV MSO Beauchamp M&C M&C D CG
E Pl* E Pl* E Pl* E Pl* E Pl* E Pl* E Pl*
nb val 11 11 4 4 19 19 30 30 24 24 3 3 17 17
min 1.60 0.16 9.90 1.44 5.00 0.69 4.80 0.88 12.50 1.41 0.40 0.03 16.10 1.43
max 5.20 1 40.90 4.01 44.50 3.28 316.50 5.00 699.10 5.00 1.20 0.09 920.60 5.00
moy arith 3.04 0.28 23.25 2.57 16.25 1.78 92.19 4.33 98.30 4.28 0.83 0.05 301.06 4.43
ecart type 1.19 0.10 13.10 1.16 11.54 0.62 85.69 1.11 137.19 1.23 0.40 0.03 294.13 1.14
coef var 0.39 0.36 0.56 0.45 0.71 0.35 0.93 0.26 1.40 0.29 0.48 0.60 0.98 0.26
mediane 2.70 0.27 21.10 2.42 11.70 1.74 67.15 5.00 65.45 5.00 0.90 0.04 194.70 5.00
moy geo 0.26 2.38 1.68 4.11 4.02 0.05 4.22
moy harm 2.68 18.02 11.29 39.32 43.48 0.68 72.81
Figure 2.42. Deformation modulus of the Briche path
The results of deformation modulus characterising the Seine path is presented in the
Figure 2.8.
Remblais MIG SV MSO DUCY Beauchamp M&C CG
E Pl* E Pl* E Pl* E Pl* E Pl* E Pl* E Pl* E Pl*
nb val 3 3 12 12 3 3 14 14 6 6 23 23 31 31 19 19
min 18 1.6 1.30 0.15 5.90 1.04 2.60 0.56 1.50 0.13 7.70 1.42 23.90 1.22 53.60 2.84
max 66 4 29.20 3.24 20.30 2.10 41.70 3.18 4.40 0.56 287.70 5.00 378.80 5.00 518.20 5.00
moy arith 47 3 15.55 1.80 11.23 1.43 16.83 1.87 2.77 0.31 117.60 4.16 132.70 4.13 217.90 4.89
ecart type 25.48 1.60 8.90 1.01 7.89 0.58 12.68 0.96 1.06 0.18 79.36 1.14 98.07 1.19 89.25 0.50
coef var 0.54 0.46 0.57 0.56 0.70 0.40 0.75 0.51 0.38 0.57 0.67 0.27 0.74 0.29 0.41 0.10
mediane 56.0 4.3 14.20 1.77 7.50 1.16 12.40 1.71 2.55 0.28 112.10 5.00 123.70 5.00 201.50 5.00
moy geo 3.15 1.39 1.36 1.60 0.27 3.96 3.90 4.85
moy harm 33.91 7.07 8.52 8.37 2.44 44.29 66.30 182.48
Figure 2.43. Deformation modulus of the Seine path
The shear parameters as the frictional angle and the cohesion are also divided in two as shown
in the Figure 2.9 and the Figure 2.10.
Figure 2.44. Values selected for the shear parameters for Briche path
Page 45 on 117
69
Figure 2.45. Values selected for the shear parameters for Briche path for Seine path
g.3 Calculation assumptions for the tunnel boring machine

confinement pressure zone calculations
From a mechanical point of view, the tunnel boring machine's confinement pressure
performs several functions. She ensures the stability of the cutting edge and allows the control
of induced settlement at the surface during the passage of the tunnel boring machine.
Thus, two confinement pressures can be defined:
 A critical pressure below which the stability of the forehead is not ensured,
 When the confinement pressure is close to the in-situ ground constraint and the ground
deflates less as the TBM passes, limiting the loss of volume and thus the deformation
and settlement of the ground.
However, this confinement pressure must not exceed a confinement stress maximum,
known as "Blow-Out pressure" or "Blow-Up pressure", close to the in situ vertical stress and
beyond which a rupture of the ground above by lifting or a leak of the mud could occur,
particularly when the tunnel evolves with a reduced low coverage of quality.
In addition, the confinement pressure shall be chosen as a minimum equal to the
hydrostatic pressure of so as to avoid the flow of the slick towards the front and therefore
settling which could be induced by the entrainment of fine soil particles.
Page 46 on 117
69
g.3.1 Minimum confinement pressure, Maximum confinement pressure

and Confinement pressure guidance tolerance
The method used to calculate the minimum confinement pressure to ensure the
stability of the tunnel size front is the method of Anagnostou and Kovari, completed the work
of Broere
This method is based on the three-dimensional earth pressure model developed by Horn, and
the silo theory proposed by Janssen. It involves a failure mechanism linked to a prism loaded
by a silo (Figure 2.11). The forces applying to the prism are:
 The loading at the roof level of the prism brought by the Terzaghi silo,
 Friction and cohesion forces along the faces of the prism,
 The force resulting from the effective confinement pressure at the chamber level of
excavation.
Figure 2.46. Terzaghi Silo and prism
For cohesive soils, the method developed by Kimura and Mair (1981) was adopted. The
minimum confinement pressure, P'S in cohesive soils uses the recommendation in Report
(2009), given as follows:
'
Ps =¿ Equation 2- 8
Page 47 on 117
69
Where γ is bulk unit weight of the ground, H is cover over the tunnel, D is excavated diameter
of the tunnel, q is average surcharge pressure at the ground surface, Su is undrained shear
strength of the ground, Nc is stability number at collapse, obtained from charts in Kimura and
Mair (1981), and kFOS is partial factor of safety.
For frictional soils, the method developed by Anagnostou and Kovari (1996) was
adopted. The minimum confinement pressure in frictional soils is derived from the ‘‘silo
model” developed by Horn (1961), in which a 3D sliding mechanism in limiting equilibrium
is assumed to occur along slip plane AB–EF–LM, as shown in Figure 2.11 . The sliding
surface is assumed to be bounded within a wedge (volume inside ABDCEF) plus the silo
above (volume inside DCEF-KNLM).
An iterative process is applied to the limit equilibrium method to derive a balance
between the driving force from the wedge and the silo and the resistance force from sliding
planes ABEF (back), ADE (side) and BCF (side). The minimum confinement pressure is
determined by varying the inclination angle, ω until the maximum driving shear force is
obtained.
The maximum confinement pressure is calculated through a conservative approach
based only on the dead weight of the soil above the tunnel, without consideration of additional
surcharge loading at the ground surface.
This stability analysis, which corresponds to a limit equilibrium, is carried out by
considering the approach proposed in the German recommendation, i. e. by applying factors
of 1.5 on the effective confinement pressure and 1.05 on the groundwater pressure. In
addition, the shear strength parameters (c' and ϕ') of the cover formations (Backfill, Alluvia,
Infragypso Marl and Green Sands) will be ignored. The coverage on the height of these
formations, which can represent from 5m to 10m thick, will therefore be exclusively heavy.
According to the German recommendation, uplift stability is ensured if the key
confinement pressure does not exceed 90% of the total in-situ vertical stress.
The guidance tolerance of the confinement pressure is considered to be +/- 30 kPa.
Page 48 on 117
69
g.4 Assumptions of the impact calculations of the tunnel

excavation
g.4.1 General methodology of settlement calculations
The construction of this tunnel will inevitably lead to the displacement of the land
whose source is the Relaxation of natural stresses at the tunnel during excavation. These trips
of the terrain near the TBM spread through the massif and can reach the surface.
The general shape of the three-dimensional settlement basin can be approximated

Figure 2.12 by next.
Figure 2.47. Three-dimensional settlement tank
Under the effect of the relaxation of stresses during excavation, which tend to close
the excavation and extruding the cutting face, the excavated volume is slightly higher than the
theoretical volume excavated. This additional volume, called "volume loss" or lost volume, is
one of the most important fundamental parameters in the determination of induced effects and
depends both intimately on the geotechnical and hydrogeological context of the excavation
but also of the guidance parameters of the tunnel boring machine, in particular the
confinement pressure.
The way in which settlements diffuse to the surface depends on the thickness of the
cover and its geotechnical parameters. This diffusion of deformations in the coverage can be
described as by the bowl width parameter, noted k, and allows to define the shape of the bowl
from settlements.
The two Peck parameters, the volume loss and the diffusion parameter, must be the
subject of a choice. This choice can be guided by the feedback of site experience and/or by
Page 49 on 117
69
the results other calculation methods, such as finite element modelling. In the context of this
project and in order to take into account the feedback of a geotechnical context similar project
the method for determining settlement is as follows:
 First, a dozen sections covering the different geotechnical contexts encountered as
well as the different tunnel depth configurations will be analysed using finite element
calculation (PLAXIS 2D). Based on the results of these it will be possible to
determine the volume loss according to the geotechnical context and of the
confinement pressure and to set the parameters k defining the width of the cells of
settlement so that the settlement curves obtained by the Peck method are as accurate as
possible the results of finite element analyses. The use of the finite element method
can lead to a representation of the impact of the digging of the tunnel boring machine
on the surface, in particular if the mechanisms of rupture (plasticity) are generated.
Consider the raw results of the finite element calculations can then lead to overly large
settlement basins, i.e. an overestimation of the parameter k and an underestimation of
the amplitude of Smax settlements and slopes βmax.
 Also, in a second step and in order to correct this limitation of the calculation methods
to the elements the surface settlement values will be calculated by Peck's formulation
in considering the volume losses determined by finite elements (not affected by the
undervaluation issue mentioned above) and considering values of k parameters from
experience feedback. The depth settlement values cannot be corrected in the same way
because the bowl of settlement is then not a Gauss curve. The depth settlement values
will be however, increased by a factor
g.4.2 2D finite element modelling assumptions

In addition to the characteristics mentioned in the previous paragraph (use of the
elasto-plastic behaviour law for terrain modelling, possibility of modelling soil-structure
interactions, taking into account digging phase and loading), the calculation method to 2D
finite elements allows access to the entire displacement field in the massif of land, both on the
surface and at depth. This method is therefore particularly suitable for the study of buildings
and structures providing significant loading or unloading (in particular the Ile Saint-Denis
bridge, the lock and the SNCF bridge), when the constructions are based on deep foundations
(Ile Saint-Denis bridge and SNCF bridge) or for the study of interactions with underground
structures (SIAAP collector and EP3500). In relation to the assumptions made for the
Page 50 on 117
69
calculation of the forces in the segments, the modelling of the segments and the phasing of
settlement calculations are different.
g.4.2.1 Lining modelling
As with the calculations of forces in the segments, the ring is modelled by a beam
element having (see Table 2.1) axial stiffness and bending stiffness, with inertia reduced by
the Muir Wood formula (Equation 3-1) to take into account the joints. However, the
deformation modulus considered for concrete is the long-term modulus, 3 times lower than
the short-term modulus.
I e =I J +() 4 2 e3
.
n 12 Equation 2-9
With
α 3 . e3 Equation 2- 10
I J=
12
n : Number of elements
I J :Joint inertia
e : Segment thickness
α =0,665
Ij [m4/ml] Ie [m /ml]
4
E [GPa] E.A [kN/ml] E.Ie [kN.m -
3.8.10-4 9.6.10-4 11.7 2.9.106 2

/ml] 1.1.104
Table 2.2. Segment stiffness for settlement calculations
g.4.2.2 Phasing of finite element calculations for the determination of settlements

The phasing of the finite element calculations for the estimation of settlements is as follows:
 Step 1: Initialization of the constraints, considering the earth's thrust coefficient at rest
K0 for determining the effective horizontal stresses ;
 Step 2: Set up any loading/unloading and reset the travel;
 Step 3: Passing the simulated shield by:
o The application of the deconfinement rate λ=0.95 corresponding to the
deconfinement rate at the skirt exit for an unsupported tunnel (about 3 diameter
behind the front, see Figure 3.4), via the parameter ∑M_stage of PLAXIS,
o The application of the total confinement pressure (taking into account a
pressure gradient of 12 KN/m3/m) explicitly introduced in PLAXIS. This
Page 51 on 117
69
pressure is corrected by the rate λ ; thus the introduced pressure will be :

PPLAXIS=P/λ =P/0.95 ;
 Step 4: Installation of the segments and deactivation of the confinement pressure
(Figure 2.13).
Figure 2.48. Panet deconfinement

curves
g.4.2.3 Modelling of existing

buildings and structures
The project is in interaction with
several engineering structures, two
structural collectors and several
buildings. These structures will be modelled as follows:
 Buildings are simply modelled by the net load they bring and the stiffness provided by
their structure is ignored. The load drop is defined from the following values: a
uniformly distributed load of 12 kN/m²/level for recent buildings (reinforced concrete
structure): (including roof and basement levels), and a uniformly distributed load of 15
kN/m²/level for older buildings (millstone walls, masonry).
 For the modelling of underground collectors and pipes, no unloading of the underlying
ground will be considered and safely, the stiffness they bring will be ignored.
 For each structure, a particular descent of loads is established according to the
available information and the nature of the structure in order to determine the loads at
the level of the foundations.
g.4.2.4 Settlement Thresholds
The table of contractual settlement thresholds (absolute settlement, slope and
horizontal deformation) below, indicates the values beyond which the Licensee will be liable.
If these thresholds are exceeded, any repair work as well as the consequences on the progress
of the construction site will then be at the expense of the Owner. On the contrary, if the
measured displacements remain below the values defined by the contractual threshold, the
consequences of the repairs of the disorders on the neighbouring area will be borne by the
Owner. The Table recalls these contractual thresholds and presents the thresholds that we
propose to respect during the design of the works. These design thresholds are taken equal to
Page 52 on 117
69
the vigilance threshold defined as 60% of the contractual thresholds as define in the Table
2.2.
Table 2.3. Contractual Settlement Thresholds and Vigilance Thresholds
g.4.2.5 Sensitivity analysis of settlement to confinement pressure

Calculations are implemented for several confinement pressures within the spindle in
order to study the sensitivity of settling to confinement pressure and to allow the choice of the
optimal confinement pressure to meet the allowable settlement thresholds.
g.5 Presentation of PLAXIS 2D.

Plaxis is a finite element software that has been developed specifically for the two-
dimensional analysis of deformation and stability in geotechnical engineering projects. The
simple graphical input procedures enable a quick generation of complex finite element
models, and the enhanced output facilities provide a detailed presentation of computational
results. It has been developed with the principal aim to find solution to various aspects of
complex geotechnical structures and construction processes using robust and theoretically
sound computational procedures. It is a package of 04 modules that are INPUT,
CALCULATION, OUTPUT, CURVES.
g.5.1 The finite element method

The finite element method (FEM) is a numerical technique used for solving the
differential equations governing a boundary value problem (Zienkiewicz, 1977). The study
area is divided into discrete areas, often triangular or rectangular, defined by node points
located at the vertices and sometime along the element edges as seen in figure 2.14.
Page 53 on 117
69
Figure 2.49. Finite element (Clayton et al, 2014)
The method divides the continuous space subjected to analysis in small parts, i.e. the
Finite Elements (the assemble of Finite Elements is also called the mesh), and solves the
differential equations governing a particular phenomenon (mechanical problem, flow in a
river, seepage, coupled analysis, etc.) by integrating in a numerical way the equations written
in a discretized form for all the element.
The procedure of FEM consists of:
 Subdivision of soil continuum in Finite Elements (meshing);
 Define the properties of materials according to perfect-plastic or elasto-plastic model
 Calculation of initial stress state assuming elastic behaviour and applying a
gravitational load to the nodes of elements
g.5.2 PLAXIS Input module

The analysis of a new project with the software must starts by the creation of a
geometry model. This geometry model is a 2D representation of the real three-dimensional
and consist of three components which are points, lines and clusters. A geometry model
should include a representative division of subsoil into distinct soil layers, structural objects,
construction stage and loadings.
Points are from the start and end of lines. Points can also be used for the positioning of
anchors, point forces, point fixities and for local refinements of the finite element mesh.
Lines are used to define the physical boundaries of the geometry, the model
boundaries and discontinuities in the geometry such as walls or shells, separations of distinct
soil layers or construction stages. A line can have several functions or properties.
Clusters are areas that are fully enclosed by lines. PLAXIS automatically recognizes
clusters based on the input of geometry lines. Within a cluster the soil properties are
homogeneous. Hence, clusters can be regarded as parts of soil layers. Actions related to
clusters apply to all elements in the cluster.
Page 54 on 117
69
After the creation of a geometry model, a finite element model is automatically be

generated. In a finite element mesh three types of components can be identified, and described
as follow:
 Elements
During the generation of the mesh, clusters are divided into triangular elements. A
choice can be made between 15-node elements and 6-node elements. The powerful 15-node
element provides an accurate calculation of stresses and failure loads. In addition, 6-node
triangles are available for a quick calculation of serviceability states. Considering the same
element distribution, the meshes composed of 15-node elements are actually much finer and
much more flexible than meshes composed of 6-node elements, but calculations are also more
time consuming.
In addition to the triangular elements, which are generally used to model the soil,
compatible plate elements, geogrid elements and interface elements may be generated to
model structural behaviour and soil-structure interaction.
 Nodes
A 15-node element consists of 15 nodes and a 6-node triangle is defined by 6 nodes.
Adjacent elements are connected through their common nodes. During a finite element
calculation, displacements (uX and uY) are calculated at the nodes. Nodes may be pre-selected
for the generation of load displacement curves. The distribution of nodes over the elements is
shown in figure 2.15.
 Stress points
In contrast to displacements, stresses and strains are calculated at individual Gaussian
integration points (or stress points) rather than at the nodes. A 15-node triangular element
contains 12 stress points while a 6-node triangular element contains 3 stress points as
indicated in figure 3.2. Stress points may be pre-selected for the generation of stress paths or
stress-strain diagrams.
Figure 2.50. Nodes and stress points (Plaxis manual, 2012)
Page 55 on 117
69
There are different inputs data as geometry object, text and values and selections.
g.5.2.1 Input of geometry object
After applied the general setting, the input window appears. The creation of a
geometry is done through the uses of points and lines procedure but also several geometry
object available from the menu or from the toolbar. At Figure 2.16 it can be observed a view
of the Plaxis interface.
Figure 2.51. Plaxis 2D interface (Plaxis manual 2012)
g.5.2.2 Input of text and values.

Each software required the input of text and values. The required input is specified in
the edit boxes. There are multiple edit boxes for a specific subject grouped in windows. An
example of edit boxes is present at Figure 2.17.
Figure 2.52. spin edits (Plaxis manual, 2012)
Page 56 on 117
69
g.5.2.3 Input of selections

Selections are made by means of radio buttons, check boxes or combo boxes. Some
samples are presented in Figure 2.18.
 Radio buttons: only one item may be active in a radio buttons window
 Check boxes: in a check boxes window, more than one item may be selected in the
same time
 Combo boxes: it is use to choose one item from a predefined list of possible choice
Figure 2.53. Input selections (Plaxis manual, 2012)
There are also structural inputs in which the required inputs are organised in a way to make it
as logical as possible.
g.5.3 Plaxis calculation program

The calculation program is started after the generation of the real finite element. There
are several types of calculation and to perform a real finite element calculation, it is necessary
to define the type to use, but also the type of loading.
g.5.3.1 Types of calculation.
There are four main types of calculation: the plastic calculation, the consolidation
analysis, the Phi-c reduction used for a safety analysis and the dynamic calculation. The
dynamic calculation required the presence of the PLAXIS dynamics module which is an
extension of Plaxis 2D. The calculation program takes into account only deformation analysis.
 Plastic calculation
It is the one appropriate in most practical geotechnical application. Plastic calculation
should be selected to carry out an elastic-plastic deformation analysis in which it is not
necessary to take the decay of excess pore pressures with time into account. It does not take
time effect into account, except when the Soft Soil Creep model is used.
 Consolidation analysis
Page 57 on 117
69
Consolidation analysis should be selected when it is necessary to analyse the

development or dissipation of excess pore pressures in water-saturated clay-type soils as a
function of time. Plaxis allows for true elastic-plastic consolidation analyses. In general, a
consolidation analysis without additional loading is performed after an undrained plastic
calculation. It is also possible to apply loads during a consolidation analysis. However, it
should be taken when a failure situation is approached, since the iteration process may not
converge in such situations. It is possible to apply construction in time using a consolidation
analysis. Moreover, consolidation analyses can be performed in the framework of large
deformations.
 Phi-c reduction
The Phi-c reduction is used for a safety analysis by reducing the strength parameters of
the soil. It should be selected when it is desired to calculate a global safety factor for the
situation at hand. A safety analysis can be performed after each individual calculation phase
and thus for each construction stage. It is considered as a special type of plastic calculation,
when a safety analysis is performing, no loads can be increase simultaneously.
These three basics types of calculation can be performed as an updated mesh analysis
by taking into account the effect of large deformations.
g.5.3.2 Types of loading input
It can be distinguishing three types of loadings. They have to be specifying after
choosing the calculation type. They are staged construction, total multipliers and incremental
multipliers.
 Staged construction
Staged construction enables an accurate and a realistic simulation for various loading,
construction and excavation processes. The option can also be used to reassign material data
sets or to change the water pressure distribution in the geometry. A staged construction
analysis can be executed in a Plastic calculation as well as a Consolidation analysis. Staged
construction is the most important type of loading input
 incremental multipliers
it is used to specify an incremental load multiplier that is applied to the current
configuration of the external load. Before entering an increment of external load, a time
increment can be entered. This is done only for a consolidation analysis or if the soft soil
model is used. Their combination determines the loading rate that is applied in the calculation.
 total multipliers
Page 58 on 117
69
This type is used to specify the ultimate values of external loads. When the total
multiplier loading is selected, the ultimate values of external loads will be applied exactly at
the end of calculation.
g.5.4 Plaxis output program

The output program contains all facilities useful to view and list the results of
generated input data and finite element calculations. It allows to obtain a large amount of data
such as stresses, stresses, pore pressures and displacements for soils, and displacement and
forces for geogrid material.
g.5.5 Plaxis curve program

The curve program is used to generate the stress paths, stress-strain diagrams and load-
displacement curves of pre-selected point in the geometry. These curves allow to visualise the
variation of some quantities for various calculation and by this observed the local and global
behaviour of the soil.
Conclusion
The objective of this chapter was to present the procedure to determine numerically
settlements due to the passage of the TBM during the construction of a tunnel in the city of
Paris. Our methodology of work was as follows: the definition of the case study useful for the
model, then the presentation of different geotechnical tests that were applied on the project
site and on soil samples taken on the site, in order to reconstruct and determine the soil
properties. To implement a numerical model, it is important to use an appropriate software,
the software used here was Plaxis 2D for the analysis and it has been briefly presented in this
chapter. The procedure used to build the 2D numerical model in Plaxis2D software, the
different assumptions made and how to obtain different results were also presented.
Page 59 on 117
69
h. Chapter 3: NUMERICAL ANALYSIS OF

THE TUNNEL
Introduction
A finite element solution for the problem of the circular tunnel excavated in elasto-
plastic soil is presented, in order to verify numerically the acceptable ranges of settlement
values obtained by the various empirical settlement methods seen above as a function of the
values of containment pressure applicable to the tunnel working face. Our numerical analysis
of the tunnel is based on the finite element method (FEM) analysis using the HSM
constitutive law, will be done successively by presenting the profiles, the selected modelling
parameters, the HSM soil constitutive law and the results.
h.1 Soil profile

With regard to the different structures to be dimensioned, to produce 3 different
geotechnical models:
 Current plot (based on all surveys)
 Seine substation (based on the surveys carried out within the substation)
 Briche substation (based on the surveys carried out within the Briche site).
The parameters proposed below are based on the available surveys. Depending on the
construction methods used and the sensitivity of these parameters, it will be necessary to
specify them by specific tests with a tightened mesh allowing to integrate heterogeneity as
accurately as possible. These parameters will also have to be specified during the work phase
according to the geology and mechanics actually encountered. The pressure coefficient of the
resting land Ko is determined, considering the normally consolidated formations, by the
formula of Jacky: Ko = 1 - sin(φ') with φ' effective friction angle. The coefficient is defined
from Ménard's tables.
Based on the above results, in the table 3.1, we propose:
γh ; k (kN/m3) Wet weight by volume
K0 Land thrust coefficient at rest
C ct (kPa) / C' (kPa) Short-term cohesion / Long-term cohesion
φ ct ; k (°) Internal friction angle in the short term
φ' ; k (°), Internal friction angle in the long term
Rc (MPa) Simple compressive strength
Page 60 on 117
69
ν Long-term fish coefficient

α Ménard’s rheological coefficient
Table 3.4. Parameters needed in Hardening Soil Model calculations
h.1.1 Definition of profiles

Four zones can be distinguished, related to the geotechnical context encountered by the
TBM:
 The launching zone from the Briche and on about 100 m where the gallery is located
on or close to the interface between the Saint-Ouen Lime stones (weathered) and the
Beauchamp Sands, and where the presence of the embankment of the fort de La
Briche, about 8 m high, brings an important loading ;
 The crossing of the Sables de Beauchamp, between PK 0+100 and PK 0+350;
 The crossing of the interface zone of the Sables de Beauchamp and the Marls and
Pebbles. encountered over about 300 m between PK 0+350 and PK 0+650, where the
TN rises (ramp from the bridge over the Canal Saint-Denis) ;
 The excavation in full section in the Marls and Pebbles at great depth and under a high
water load, the rest of the line, i.e. approximately 1.760 m between the crossing of the
Canal Saint-Denis and the Seine well.
Ten calculation sections, see Figure 3.1, were analysed using finite element modelling to
cover the four different contexts mentioned above and to estimate settlements in the various
structures and buildings encountered. The synthesis of these analyses allows us to understand
the response of the ground during the excavation of the gallery; it is clear that, according to
the geotechnical context encountered, this response differs.
In addition, for each of the Ten Design Sections analysed, the settlement pit was established
for several confinement pressures within the confinement spindle defined in Figure 3.2.
Page 61 on 117
69
Figure 3.54. Calculation sections studied with finite elements
h.1.1.1 Highway A86

The A86 highway is adjacent to the RTE right-of-way of Poste Seine. The motorway
is a 10 m high structure made of reinforced earth embankment, extended by a viaduct crossing
the Seine whose eastern abutments are based on piles anchored at 7 NGF.
The particularly strategic A86 road axis will be impacted by the settlements induced by the
digging of the gallery. Nevertheless, finite element calculations conducted show that these
settlements will remain very low and do not present any risk to the structure, particularly with
regard to with respect to the facing of the reinforced earth fill and the deep foundations of the
abutments. With a confinement pressure of about 4.5 bar slightly higher than the pressure of
the tablecloth:
 the maximum settling at the base of the reinforced earth embankment is estimated at
about 1.5 mm (after correction), well below the contractual threshold of 10 mm;
 The slope and maximum horizontal deformation will be 0.04 ‰ and 0.03 ‰ and will
remain below the contractual thresholds. At the level of the base of the piles located
10 m above the gallery and 18.6 m above the vault of the tunnel,
 The maximum settling is estimated at about 1.4 mm (after correction);
 The maximum slope and horizontal deformation are respectively 0.08 ‰ and 0.04 ‰.,
i.e. well below the contractual thresholds.
h.1.1.2 Saint-Denis Island Bridge
The Saint-Denis Island Bridge (Figure 3.2) is an old structure dating from the early
20th century and which has undergone several disasters and structural modifications. In
addition, shoreline tracks (RN14) were built on the right bank in the 1970s. In 2010, as part of
the extension of the T1 tramway, the deck was modified to a coated beam deck. The 2013
inspection report of the structure mentions some structural disorders, including some cracks
and settlements in the tramway's traffic lanes. We consider this bridge to be sensitive.
Page 62 on 117
69
Figure 3.55. Saint-Denis Island Bridge
As it crosses this structure, the tunnel boring machine will operate in full section in the
Marls et Pebbles at the interface with a water load of around 3.3 bars. With a confinement
pressure around 3.8 bar slightly higher than the groundwater pressure (+ 0.5 bar):
 The maximum settling at the abutment foundation will be around 1.3 mm (after
correction), which is well below the contractual threshold of 10 mm;
 The slope and horizontal deformation under the abutment will reach 0.03 ‰ and 0.02
‰ respectively and will also remain well below the contractual thresholds, as a
reminder respectively set at 1.0 ‰ and 0.5 ‰. The first pile in the Seine will be
virtually unaffected by soil movement (settlement equal to 0.2 mm and no horizontal
displacement), so that the 35 m span arch between the abutment and this pile will be
affected:
 slope between support of 0.03 ‰ ;
 And a horizontal deformation between supports of 0.006 ‰.
These values are perfectly negligible and below the contractual thresholds. They do not
present any risk, either for the structure or for the T1 tramway tracks. An accidental drop in
the confinement pressure of about 0.3 bar would not have any consequences.
Figure 3.56. Side view of Saint-Denis Bridge
h.1.1.3 Lock and road bridge RN14

Lock No. 7 of the Canal Saint-Denis, which connects the Canal and the Seine, is a
sensitive structure given its function. The available plans show a foundation level around 18.6
NGF.
Page 63 on 117
69
In order to maintain the integrity of its structure and operating mechanisms, the induced
settlements on this structure must remain low. The supports of the National RN14 road bridge
that crosses the Canal are based around hill 24 NGF.
Figure 3.57. Lock n°7 of the Saint-Denis Canal
When crossing these two structures, the tunnel boring machine will evolve at the interface
between Les Sables of Beauchamp and the Marls et Pebbles with a water load of 2.45 bars.
With a confinement pressure around 2.95 bar slightly higher than the groundwater pressure (+
0.5 bar) :
 the maximum settling at the lock foundation will be around 1.4 mm (after correction),
which is well below the contractual threshold of 10 mm for civil engineering
structures;
 The slope and horizontal deformation reaching 0.08 ‰ and 0.05 ‰ respectively will
also remain well below the contractual thresholds, as a reminder respectively set at 1.0
‰ and 0.5 ‰.
The settlement and slope values at the bridge supports are approximately equivalent. An
accidental drop in the order's confinement pressure of 0.3 bar would have no consequences.
h.1.1.4 SNCF structure
The abutments of the railway bridge (Figure 3.5) spanning Rue du Fort de La Briche (with a
span of about 20 m transversely to the street) are based on micropiles anchored in Les Sables
de Beauchamp at 14 NGF, i.e. approximately 14 m deep.
Page 64 on 117
69
Figure 3.58. SNCF Bridge Rue du Fort de la Briche
The gallery is located in the axis of the Rue du Fort de la Briche, at a depth of about
18 m. The base of the micropiles is therefore about 3.1 m above the level of the vault. In plan,
the line of micropiles East is located 10.5 m from the axis of the gallery while the line West is
closer, 8.5 m from the axis of the gallery.
The absolute settling and slope setting between bridge support and horizontal
deformation between supports remain well below the admissible thresholds, respectively
contractually fixed at 10 mm, 1‰ and 0.5‰.
The maximum induced at the head of the railway embankment is about 0.75 mm,
which does not pose any risk to train movements. In addition, the spills induced by these
settlements will be perfectly negligible.
h.1.1.5 SIAAP CLB collector
The SIAAP CLB collector along the Seine quay in Saint-Ouen, Boulevard de la
Libération, and then Quai de Seine is a particularly sensitive structure because of its
usefulness in water treatment of the North Parisian North. The SIAAP therefore imposes
certain constraints on the design of structures adjacent to its network. For our project, these
constraints result in the maintenance of a distance between naked structures of 8m, thus
protecting the CLB collector from possible structural damage. Nevertheless, impact
calculations on this collector were carried out in order to justify the negligible impact of the
excavation of our gallery on the SIAAP structure in service. The CLB collector is crossed
twice and runs for about 1.3 km. At the first crossing located near the Seine substation, the
roof between the vault of the gallery and the collector floor is about 15.7 m. The tunnel boring
machine will operate in full section in the Marls and Pebbles and the water load will be 3.9
bar. In this context and with a confinement pressure of 4.4 bar slightly higher than the
groundwater pressure (+ 0.5 bar):
 The maximum settling at the depth of the CLB collector will be about 1.3 mm (after
correction), which is well below the contractual threshold of 5 mm;
Page 65 on 117
69
 The slope and horizontal deformation reach respectively (after correction) 0.06 ‰ and
0.02 ‰ and will therefore also remain well below the contractual thresholds, as a
reminder respectively set at 1.0 ‰ and 0.5 ‰.
An accidental drop in the confinement pressure of about 0.3 bar would not have any
consequences.
At the second crossing located near the Pont de l'île Saint-Denis, the roof between the vault of
the gallery and the collector floor is 8 m. This is where the gallery will be located located as
close as possible to the SIAAP collector, and therefore to the place where the impact of the
tunnel excavation will be the strongest. The tunnel boring machine will operate in full section
in the Marls and Pebbles with a water load of 3.3 bars. Hole SP09 located approximately 200
m from this singular point highlights an area decompressed to about 3 m thick in the Marls
and Stones between the coasts -2 NGF and -5 NGF. At this crossing of the CLB collector, this
decompressed area is located just above the vault of the gallery and constitutes the lower third
of the roof up to the collector; it was therefore considered in the analysis of induced settling
on the collector. Despite the presence of this decompressed area within the Marls and Pebbles,
with pressure 3.75 bar confinement pressure slightly higher than the groundwater pressure:
 The maximum induced settling on CLB collector will be about 4.1 mm (after
correction) thus below the contractual threshold of 5 mm;
 The slope and horizontal deformation reach 0.17 ‰ and 0.05 ‰ respectively and will
therefore also remain well below the contractual thresholds, as a reminder respectively
set at 1.0‰ and 0.5‰.
An accidental drop in confinement pressure in the order of 0.3 bar would have no impact on
the safety of the system consequences. Between these two crossings, the outside nude of the
SIAAP collector will be between 6 m and 8 m in the plane of the axis of the gallery and the
vertical coverage between the two structures will always be higher at 8 m. Under these
conditions, settling, sloping and horizontal deformations induced by of the tunnel excavation
will remain negligible.
Page 66 on 117
69
Figure 3.59. An example of collector in Saint-Denis, France
h.1.1.6 Storm water outfall EP3500

The CG93's Ø3500 storm water outfall (Figure 3.7) is a particularly sensitive structure
because of its usefulness for draining rainwater to the Seine. It is buried under the rue du Fort
de la Briche, between 10m and 13m deep at a coast close to 20 NGF, and therefore located in
the limestone of Saint Ouen. The program does not specify any particular constraints or for
the insertion of the gallery under this structure, nor with regard to the contractual settling and
vibration thresholds eligible. This work is comparable to that of the SIAAP in terms of
functionality and dimensions, we will use the same values as for the design thresholds for
settlement and vibration as for the design thresholds for those considered for the SIAAP
work. The design of the long profile of the gallery has been optimized to raise the level of the
well Cheating. Compared to the design of previous studies, this optimization results in our
gallery's rapprochement to this emissary. Nevertheless, the optimized design of the project we
are proposing maintains sufficient coverage (4 m) between the two structures to limit the
impact of the tunnel excavation on this existing structure.
Page 67 on 117
69
Figure 3.60. Example of storm water in England
In plan, the tunnel boring machine will cross this outfall for the first time approximately 120
m after the launch from the La Briche shaft and it is at this level that the 2 structures will be
the closest (4m roofing) and that the impact of the tunnel excavation will be the most
significant. About 100 metres further, the gallery will be located under the outfall for
approximately 220 m between the crossroads Chemin du Fort de La Briche / Rue du Fort de
La Briche and the crossroads Rue du Fort de La Briche / Rue de La Briche. In this area, the
tunnel boring machine will dig in full section in the Sables de Beauchamp and with a cover
composed of the Sables de Beauchamp and the Limestones de Saint-Ouen. With a
confinement pressure between 2.0 and 2.5 bar slightly higher than the groundwater pressure
(+ 0.5 bar):
 The maximum settling at the depth of the outfall will be at most about 1.7 mm (after
correction), i.e. well below the 5 mm threshold;
 The slope and horizontal deformation reach 0.20 ‰ and 0.01 ‰ respectively will also
remain well below the contractual thresholds, as a reminder respectively set at 1.0 ‰
and 0.5 ‰.
An accidental drop in the confinement pressure of about 0.3 bar would not have any
consequences.
h.1.2 Profiles parameters

Base on the result from in situ and laboratory tests and from previous experiences on
different project, parameters describing the soil behaviour using HSSM are presented in the
tables 4.3 and 4.4.
Page 68 on 117
69
Tronçon 1
PK 0 à PK 1 450 γ (kN/m3) Em Pl* c' (kPa) φ' (°) α γ [kN/m3] E50 [MPa] EOed [MPa] Eur [MPa] c' [kPa] ϕ' [°] Ѱ' [°] v
Remblais 19 43 3.1 0 28 0.50 19 256 256 769 0 28 0 0.25
Alluvions 19 3 0.3 5 36 0.33 19 24 24 73 5 30 0 0.25
MIG 18 18 1.9 5 34 0.5 18 106 106 318 5 34 4 0.25
SV 20 11 1.4 10 34 0.50 20 67 67 202 10 34 4 0.25
MSO 21 18 1.8 10 33 0.33 21 164 164 491 10 33 3 0.25
DUCY 19 2.8 0.3 5 33 0.33 19 25 25 75 5 33 3 0.25
Beauchamp 22 143 4.2 15 35 0.50 22 861 861 2582 15 35 5 0.25
M&C 21 159 4.0 25 35 0.50 21 956 956 2869 25 35 5 0.25
M&C décomprimée 19 3.9 0.6 5 20 0.33 19 35 35 106 5 20 0 0.25
Table 3.5. Values of the parameters selected for section 1 of the tunnel
Tronçon 2
PK 1 450 à PK fin γ (kN/m3) Em Pl* c' (kPa) φ' (°) α γ [kN/m3] E50 [MPa] EOed [MPa] Eur [MPa] c' [kPa] ϕ' [°] Ѱ' [°] v
Remblais 19 14 1.9 0 28 0.50 19 85 85 256 0 28 0 0.25
Alluvions 19 3 0.3 5 36 0.33 19 24 24 73 5 30 0 0.25
MIG - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SV 20 21 2.2 10 34 0.33 20 189 189 567 10 34 4 0.25
MSO 21 18 2.0 10 33 0.50 21 107 107 321 10 33 3 0.25
DUCY - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Beauchamp 22 121 4.3 10 33 0.50 22 728 728 2185 10 33 3 0.25
M&C 21 117 4.1 25 35 0.33 21 1067 1067 3201 25 35 5 0.25
M&C décomprimée 19 0.8 0.1 5 20 0.33 19 8 8 23 5 20 0 0.25
Table 3.6. Values of the parameters selected for section 2 of the tunnel
h.2 Presentation of the results Numerical simulation of tunnel

SEINE-BRICHE with PLAXIS 2D
h.2.1 Constitutive law HSM
The use of the finite element analysis has become widespread and popular in geotechnical
practice as a mean of controlling and optimizing engineering tasks. However, the quality
of any prediction depends on the adequate model adopted in the study. In general, a more
realistic prediction of ground movements requires using the models which account for pre-
failure behaviour of soil. Such behaviour, mathematically modelled with non-linear elasticity,
is characterized by a strong variation of soil stiffness which depends on the magnitude of
strain levels occurring during construction stages. Pre-failure stiffness plays a crucial role in
modelling typical geotechnical problems (Figure 3.8) such as deep excavations supported by
retaining walls or tunnel excavations in densely built-up urban areas.
Page 69 on 117
69
Figure 3.61. Model selection mode for engineering calculations
It is commonly known that soil behaviour is not as simple as its prediction with a simply
formulated linear constitutive models which are commonly used in numerical analyses.
Complex soil behaviour which stems from the nature of the multi-phase material, exhibits
both
elastic and plastic non-linearities and, deformations include irreversible plastic strains.
Depending on the history of loading, soil may compact or dilate, its stiffness may depend on
the magnitude of stress levels, soil deformations are time-dependent, etc. In fact, soil
behaviour is considered to be truly elastic in the range of small strains as schematically
presented in Figure
3.6. In this strain range, soil may exhibit a nonlinear stress-strain relationship.
However, its stiffness is almost fully recoverable in unloading conditions. In the aftermath
of pre-failure non-linearities of soil behaviour, one may observe a strong variation of stiffness
starting from very small shear strains, which cannot be reproduced by models such as linear-
elastic Mohr-Coulomb model (see Figure 3.8; 3.9 and 3.10).
Page 70 on 117
69
Figure 3.62. Typical representation of stiffness variation in function of the shear strain
amplitudes; comparison with the ranges for typical geotechnical problems and different tests
(based on Atkinson and Sallfors, 1991, and updated be the author); SCPT - seismic cone
penetration test; CPTU - piezocone penetration test; DMT - Marchetti’s dilatometer test; PMT
- Pressuremeter test.
Figure 3.63. Comparison of different model responses for drained triaxial compression
condition using equivalent parameters and OCR =1.2.
h.2.2 Presentation of the results

The computer program Plaxis was used in this study. The magnitudes of the vertical
stress and the pore water pressure were estimated with regard to the tunnel overburden and
Page 71 on 117
69
water head above the tunnel. Boundary conditions and displacements were fixed at the lateral
and lower boundaries. To simulate the construction phases and their effects on the ground
surface, the following modelling steps were applied to all of the sections:
 Initialize the in situ stresses, ro0;by turning on gravity (normally referred to as
the Ko procedure);
 Apply the surcharge at the ground surface, and install the diaphragm wall or
other ground treatment works as structural members where appropriate;
 Excavate tunnel from SEINE to BRICHE and apply a radial pressure of
' '
λ (σ 0 −Pf ) with λ = 0.95. In the program, λ is a confinement ratio describing
the proportioning of the overburden stresses applied to the lining based on the
distance between the tunnel face and the point where the tunnel lining is
erected. While excavating the tunnel, using Plaxis to define the confinement
pressure at the axis of the tunnel, we will simulate the value of the water
pressure at the axis so that it corresponds to the confinement pressure at the
axis of this section.
 Install the tunnel linings by defining cluster dry.
h.2.2.1 For Highway A86 Profile

After the modelling of the profile with PLAXIS 2D, we obtain the following geometry
Figure 4.15, we obtain after the installation of linings the different values of displacement
figures 4.17 and 4.18
Surcharge
A A
1
0 1
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
Y
14 15
24
22
20
Tunnel
26 18
17
3 2
Figure 3.64. Geometry of the 2D model plane deformations of the A86 section
Page 72 on 117
69
OMBANG MANGA, Cameroon
Figure 3.65. View 2D - Planar deformations of the mesh of the A86 profile model
Figure 3.66. Vertical movements in the terrain as the TBM passes through of the Highway
A86 profile
Page 73 on 117
69
Figure 3.67. Horizontal movements in the terrain as the TBM passes through of the Highway
A86 profile
Figure 3.68. Vertical movement in the ground after the installation of the linings of A86
profile
Page 74 on 117
69
Figure 3.69. Horizontal movements in the ground after the linings have been laid of A86
profile
h.2.2.2 Saint-Denis Island Bridge

A A A A
11 25 22 12 17 10
8 26 23 15 19 9
29 31
7 27 24 30 14 18 6
32 34 33 28 13 16
20 21
4 5
3 2
X
41
43 39
45 37
36
0 1
Figure 3.70. Geometry of the 2D model plane deformations of the Saint-Denis Island Bridge
section
Page 75 on 117
69
Figure 3.71.Vertical movements in the terrain as the TBM passes through of the Saint-Denis
Island profile
Page 76 on 117
69
Figure 3.72. Horizontal movements in the terrain as the TBM passes through of the Saint-
Denis Island profile
Figure 3.73. Horizontal movements in the ground after the linings have been laid of Saint-
Page 77 on 117
69
Figure 3.74. Vertical movement in the ground after the installation of the linings of the Saint-
h.2.2.3 Lock and road bridge RN14
18/02/20
Figure 3.75. Horizontal movements in the terrain as the TBM passes through Lock and Road
bridge profile
18/02/2020
Page 78 on 117
69
Figure 3.76. Vertical movements in the terrain as the TBM passes through Lock and Road
bridge profile
18/02/2020
Figure 3.77. Horizontal movements in the ground after the linings have been laid of Lock and
Road bridge profile
18/02/2020
Page 79 on 117
69
Figure 3.78. Vertical movement in the ground after the installation of the linings of the Lock
and road bridge
h.2.2.4 SNCF structure
Figure 3.79. Horizontal movements in the terrain as the TBM passes through of the SNCF
Structure profile
Page 80 on 117
69
Figure 3.80. Vertical movements in the terrain as the TBM passes through of the SNCF
Structure profile
SNCF Structure profile
Page 81 on 117
69
Figure 3.82. Vertical movement in the ground after the installation of the linings of the SNCF
Structure profile
h.2.2.5 SIAAP CLB collector
0 1
4 5
6 7
8 9
28
16
30
18 26
14
20
31 12
24
11
23
3 2
Figure 3.83. Geometry of the 2D model plane deformations of the SIAAP CLB Collector
Page 82 on 117
69
Figure 3.84. Vertical movements in the terrain as the TBM passes through of SIAAP CLB
Collector
Figure 3.85. Horizontal movements in the terrain as the TBM passes through of the SIAAP
CLB Collector
Page 83 on 117
69
SIAAP CLB Collector profile
Figure 3.87. Vertical movement in the ground after the installation of the linings of the
SIAAP CLB Collector profile
h.2.2.6 Storm water outfall EP3500
0 1
4 5
6 7
8 9
X
10 11
30
18
32
20 28
16
22
34 14
26
13
25
3 2
Figure 3.88. Geometry of the 2D model plane deformations of the Storm water collector
Page 84 on 117
69
Figure 3.89. Vertical movements in the terrain as the TBM passes through of Storm water
outfall profile
Page 85 on 117
69
Figure 3.90. Horizontal movements in the terrain as the TBM passes through of Storm water
outfall profile
Figure 3.91. Horizontal movements in the ground after the segments have been laid of the
Storm water outfall profile
Page 86 on 117
69
Figure 3.92. Vertical movement in the ground after the installation of the linings of Storm
water outfall profile
h.3 Synthesis of the results

Although the optimization of the profile of the proposed gallery brings the gallery
closer to the foundation level of some existing structures, the impacts are still compatible with
the constraints to limit impacts (settlements and vibrations) during the excavation of the
gallery.
The great depth and high water load encountered by the tunnel boring machine during
excavation of the South of the gallery requires the use of a tunnel boring machine capable of
holding a set pressure up to 4.5 bar. The device for starting the TBM from the Shaft Briche
will have to allow the TBM to enter the earth with a water load of 1.4 bars, and the receiving
device of the TBM at the Seine shaft will have to allow the TBM to enter the structure under a
water load of 4 bars. In addition, maintaining a systematically higher set pressure of around
0.5 bar above the water table pressure along the entire route will ensure that settlement (in the
broad sense, i.e. absolute settlement, differential settlement and horizontal deformation) and
compliance with the contractual thresholds of the various existing structures and buildings are
Page 87 on 117
69
controlled. At this stage, no particular measures to make the existing structures safe are
planned as the estimated settlements are low in relation to the admissible thresholds.
As a summary of this sensitivity analysis, the Figure shows the evolution of volume losses as
a function of the confinement rate provided by the TBM, defined as the ratio between the
confinement pressure and the total vertical stress.
Three behaviours are clearly apparent:
 When the tunnel is dug close to the Saint-Ouen limestones encountered near the well
Briche, the weak characteristics of the cover that these limestones make up lead to a
high sensitivity of the response of the ground to the confinement pressure, see green
curve of the Figure 3.40. In this context, confinement pressure will play an important
role in controlling ground deformation, and thus the loss of volume and settlement
generated.
 When the tunnel is located deeper in the Beauchamp Sands and the cover is largely
composed of these Sands, their good stiffness limits the deformations caused by the
deconfinement induced by the tunnel excavation, see the blue curve in Figure 3.40.
The control of volume losses is then easier and robust to the variations of the
 When the excavation is carried out in the Marls and Pebbles at great depth and under
high water load, the deformations caused by the deconfinement during the tunnel
excavation become higher again and sensitive to the confinement pressure brought by
the TBM, see orange curve in Figure 3.40. But given the great depth, the volume
losses induced at the gallery level can diffuse into the roofing without inducing
settlements important on the surface.
Page 88 on 117
69
Figure 3.93. Loss of volume as a function of the confinement rate provided by the tunnel
boring machine
Concerning the diffusion parameter of the settling in the cover, noted keq, the calibration of
the settling pits on the surface by a Peck formulation shows pit widths characterised by a keq
parameter, rather of the order of 0.50 to 0.65. These values are high and quite far from the
feedback and are a consequence of the use of finite elements. In order to return to more
realistic values, the values of the parameter are reduced keq and calculated on the basis of
feedback, in particular that from the digging of the RATP tunnel on Line 12, which gives the
following values of the parameter k for each of the ground formations encountered.
Soil formation Parameter k from the Parameter k chosen on the
performance orientation basis of experience
finite element calculations feedback
Embankment (Remblai) 0.4 0.3
Alluvium (Alluvions) 0.5 0.5
Infragypsum marls 0.5 0.5
(Marls infragypseuses)
Saint-Ouen / Ducy lime 0.6 0.55
stones (calcaires de Saint-
Ouen)
Beauchamp Sand (Sables 0.45 0.2
de Beauchamp)
Marls and stones (Marls 0.9 0.55
et Pebbles)
Table 3.7. Parameters for the diffusion of settlements in the cover
In order to correct for the effect of bowl widening due to the finite element method of
calculation, which tends to underestimate the amplitude of the bowl but especially the slope
values, the results of the finite element calculations must be multiplied by coefficients that
depend on the stratigraphy encountered. Not making this correction would, in my opinion,
lead to underestimating the potential levels of damage. These factors therefore correct for all
settlement, slope and horizontal deformation values presented in the following:
Page 89 on 117
69
Figure 3.94. Correction factor for the results of finite element calculations
h.3.1 Surface Settlement Estimates - Buildings and Surface Networks
The following paragraph specifies the settlement values expected at the surface, at the
level of the roadway, and a few meters below the surface at the level of the foundations of
buildings and small surface networks.
At the launch and for the first 150 meters of the excavation from the Briche shaft, the
TBM will operate at or very close to the interface between the Saint-Ouen Lime stones
(highly altered, Em=18 MPa) and the Beauchamp Sands. In this digging context,
characterized by a cover of low quality Saint Ouen Lime stones surmounted by a very thick
embankment (up to 8 m) constituting the enclosure of the Fort de la Briche and by a water
load of around 1.5 bars, the response of the ground will be relatively sensitive to the
Nevertheless, given the depth of the gallery and its modest diameter, ground
deformations will be able to diffuse and settlement at the surface will be limited thanks to the
adoption of an adapted confinement pressure. Thus, over these first 150 m of excavation and
Page 90 on 117
69
with a confining pressure slightly higher than the pressure of the groundwater table (+ 0.5
bars), the volume losses will be of the order of 0.5% to 1%, leading to maximum settlement at
the surface (at the axis of the gallery) estimated at around 2 mm to 4.5 mm. It is common to
observe that the confinement pressure may be affected by relatively large variations in the
launch zones. A sensitivity analysis on the confinement pressure concludes that a pressure
drop of around 0.3 bars would certainly lead to an increase in volume losses (which could
then reach 1.5%) and therefore in settlements, but that the latter would still remain acceptable
and at most of the order of 3 mm to 6.5 mm.
After the first 150 metres of digging and thanks to the 2.15% downhill slope, the TBM
will go deeper and more steeply into the Beauchamp Sands, which are moderately weathered
and much steeper than the Saint-Ouen Limestones (Em = 121 MPa). In this context
encountered over about 200 m, the ground response will be less sensitive to the confinement
pressure. In this context and with a confinement pressure slightly higher than the pressure of
the water table (+ 0.5 bars), the volume losses will be relatively low, of the order of 0.25%,
and the maximum settling generated at the surface will be very low, of the order of 2 mm. An
accidental drop in the confinement pressure of around 0.3 bars would not have significant
consequences, the volume losses would increase around 0.35% and the settlements would
then be around 2.5 mm. The settlements induced on the Ø3500 rain collector buried at a depth
of about 13 m and on the deep foundations (micropiles) of the SNCF bridge, both structures
encountered on this section, are presented respectively in § 4.2.1.5 and 4.2.1.4 following. As
it continues to deepen, the TBM will partially, then completely penetrate into the marls and
stones. Until crossing the lock of the Canal Saint Denis, the gallery is located at the interface
between the sands of Beauchamp and the marls and stones, with a coverage of between
approximately 20 m and 30 m and a water load of between 2.0 and 2.5 bar. In this context, the
response of the terrain will be moderately sensitive to the confinement pressure. Nevertheless,
with a confinement pressure slightly higher than the water table pressure (+ 0.5 bars), the
volume losses will be between 0.25% and 0.5% and settlements will still remain low, in the
order of 2.0 to 2.8 mm. Here again, an accidental drop in confinement pressure of around 0.3
bar would not have significant consequences, volume losses could increase by up to 0.6% and
maximum surface settlements would then be of the order of 2.5 to 3.0 mm. The settlements
induced on the lock structure of the Canal Saint-Denis and on the road bridge over it are
presented in §4.2.1.3.
After passing under the lock of the Canal Saint-Denis, the tunnel boring machine will
travel through the Marls and Pebbles to the Seine Well. The cover will gradually increase
Page 91 on 117
69
from 30 m to 45 m at the south end of the tunnel. The water load will also increase, from 2.5
bar to 4.0 bar. In this context and with a confinement pressure slightly higher than the water
table pressure (+0.5 bars), the loss of volume will be around 0.5%, and locally slightly higher,
reaching 0.55% to 0.6%, due to local increases in the cover, particularly at the crossing of the
ramp of the Ile Saint-Denis bridge and the embankment of the A86 motorway. The gallery
being very deep on this portion of the project, the settling generated at the surface will be very
low weak and barely perceptible by conventional auscultation devices, between 1.3 mm and
2.2 mm. An accidental drop in the confinement pressure of around 0.3 bar would again have
no consequences since the settlements would then be increased by a maximum of around 0.25
mm. The settling induced on the CLB collector of the SIAAP, which is crossed twice and
which has a length of about 1.3 km, as well as the settling generated at the base of the
foundations of the Ile Saint-Denis bridge (Tram) and the A86 motorway (reinforced earth
embankment) are presented respectively in §4.2.1.2 and 4.2.1.1.
In conclusion of this paragraph, the expected settlement levels on the surface (at the
level of the roadways and building foundations) are well below the contractual values and the
thresholds retained for the design (the latter being taken equal to the vigilance thresholds),
even if the levels of the roadways and building foundations are well below the contractual
values and the thresholds retained for the design (the latter being taken equal to the vigilance
thresholds). For very sensitive buildings, see Figure 3.42. As a reminder, the contractual
absolute settlement threshold for very sensitive buildings is 10 mm. Sloping and horizontal
deformations also always remain well below the contractual and design thresholds (the latter
being taken equal to the contractual thresholds) of vigilance), even for very sensitive
buildings, see Figure 3.43.
Figure 3.95. Maximum settlement at the gallery axis

Page 92 on 117
69
Figure 3.96. Slope and maximum deformation
h.3.2 Tunnel boring machine confinement zone

The confinement pressures exerted by the TBM during excavation are modelled using
2D finite element analysis to ensure that the surface settlement remains below acceptable
levels. As the actual excavation and installation of the segmental lining is a 3D problem, the
use of a 2D model necessitates some simplifications. It is assumed that the confinement
pressures applied at the tunnel boundaries in the mesh are overall averages of the front face
pressure in the slurry, shield pressure around the shield, and grout pressure around the lining
The Figure 3.44 shows the geotechnical profile and the confinement pressure zone
along the gallery.
Figure 3.97. Confinement pressure nozzle
Page 93 on 117
69
Conclusion
The design of a 2D numerical model to analyze the impact of tunneling with a TBM on
the existing structures around the tunnel lead to two major conclusions.
Firstly the confinement pressure is always dimensioned by the groundwater pressure.
Indeed, considering the insertion of the gallery into soil formations with different significant
cohesion, the Terzaghi constraint at the corner is always zero, i.e. the overlying silo is self-
supporting. The prism in front is therefore not loaded and the shear strength of the material is
not affected on its lateral faces, which is sufficient to make it self-supporting with respect to
its own weight (with a factor between 3 and 7, while considering the partial safety factors on
the
resistances by shear of the ground). The tunnel boring machine operates under a water load
ranging from 1.4 bars at the launch level from Poste Briche and up to 4 bars at Poste Seine.
As is customary in this type of context, the set pressure will be about 0.5 bar higher than the
groundwater pressure, i. e. from 1.9 bar to 4.5 bar.
Secondly there is no singular points with respect to pressure guidance of confinement.
The confinement zone is always open enough to allow a safe digging, even when crossing the
lock where it is open at around 0.7 bar (outside the guide tolerance). Thus, the initially
pressure set at a value of 0.5 bar above of the groundwater pressure can be increased if
necessary to control settling.
Page 94 on 117
69
GENERAL CONCLUSION
The construction of a technical gallery for the transport of electrical cables to improve the
transportation of electricity in the city of Paris for the 2024 Olympic Games required various
studies among others. The one that retained our attention was the estimation of settlements on
the tunnel section taking into account the urban character above the tunnel, the method of
digging with the tunnel boring machine chosen which requires a determination of the
containment pressures to be applied to the working face along the entire tunnel route. The
methodology adopted consisted in assessing these values empirically, and then by means of
finite element modelling, using the tunnel's HSM soil behaviour law, to obtain soil
displacements. These displacements were better represented in an Excel spreadsheet to
determine the lost volume and other resulting quantities. At the end of this study, we obtained
that the tunnel boring machine excavation is applicable while respecting the containment
pressure interval to be applied to the working face. In order to define the confinement
pressure ensuring the safety of the excavation, i.e. the stability of the front and the control of
settlements, numerous analyses were carried out, covering all the geotechnical contexts
encountered by the TBM. A total of 10 cuts were studied. The problem of defining the
minimum confinement pressure ensuring the stability of the face was studied using the
Anagnostou and Kovari analytical method, supplemented by Broere's work. This analysis,
corresponding to an equilibrium state of the front at the ELU, was carried out by looking for
an overall safety factor of 1.5. The maximum confinement pressure of the front is defined as
95% of the total vertical stress. The definition of these two confinement pressure values leads
to the definition of the extreme confinement zone. In addition, the guidance of the
confinement pressure is done with a tolerance of +/- 30 kPa with respect to the target value. In
order to take into account this tolerance related to the excavation technology, the above-
mentioned zone is reduced by 30 kPa at each of its limits. Once the containment zone was
defined, settlement analyses led to the choice of the equivalent containment pressure within
this zone, guaranteeing control of surface displacements and settlements, as well as
compliance with the prescribed criteria. The settlements were calculated using 2D numerical
plane models using PLAXIS 8.6 software. The control of settlements at singular points
(railway structures, tracks, collectors) does not present any particular problem overall and the
values for sensitive buildings are always respected by applying a sufficient equivalent
containment pressure. This equivalent containment pressure is generally between 1.5 and 4.5
bars at the axis.
Page 95 on 117
69
This work presents some limits, the deformation during tunnelling is a three-dimensional
problem; several features were incorporated in two-dimensional analyses to take into account
aspects that are important in governing behaviour in the third dimension. So, to have better
results, a 3D numerical modelling is necessary. Since the analysis was carried out without
considering vibration forces of the tunnelling process and also the dynamic loading condition
under traffic operational condition, another perspective would be taking into account all the
forces on the analysis and by this, the model can be more realistic.
Page 96 on 117
69
REFERENCES
Addenbro oke, T., Potts, D., and Puzrin, A. (1997). The influence of pre-failure soil stiffness
on the numerical. (Géeotechnique, Éd.)
al, V. e. (s.d.).
AFTES (2002). Recommendations for the convergence–confinement method. GT7R6A1.
French Tunnelling and Underground Engineering Association, 16 p.
Anagnostou, G., & Kovari, K. (1996). Face stability in slurry and EPB shield tunneling. In
Proceedings of the symposium on geotechnical aspects of underground construction in soft
ground, London (pp. 379–384).
Aristaghes, P., & Autuori, P. (2003). Confinement efficiency concept in soft ground bored
tunnels. Amsterdam: Claiming the Underground Space (pp. 909–913). Amsterdam: Claiming
the Underground Space.
M. Lei, J. Liu, Y. Lin, C. Shi, and C. Liu, “Deformation characteristics and influence factors
of a shallow tunnel excavated in soft clay with high plasticity,” Advances in Civil
Engineering, vol. 2019, Article ID 7483628, 14 pages, 2019.
Osmański, M. (2016). Numerical analyses of the effects of tunnels construction.

Schanz, T. and Vermeer, P. (1998). Pre-failure deformation behaviour of geomaterials. (D.
M. R., Éd.) Jardine, 383–387.
Swoboda, M. B. (s.d.). Rheological analysis of tunnel excavation by means of coupled finite

element (FEM)-boundary element (BEM) analysis. International Journal for
Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics 11 (2).
Swoboda, P. a. (1986). Coupled beam-boundary-element method model (BE-BEM) for

analysis of underground openings. Computers and Geotechnics 2 (4), pp. 239-256.
Page 97 on 117
69
P. B. Attewell and J. P. Woodman, “Predicting the dynamics of ground settlement and its
derivatives caused by tunnelling in soil,” International Journal of Rock Mechanics and
Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts, vol. 15, no. 8, pp. 13–22, 1982.
PLAXIS 2D (2015). Reference Manual
R. B. Peck, “Deep excavations and tunnelling in soft ground,” in Proceedings of the Seventh
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, pp. 225–290,
Mexico City, Mexico, August 1969
R. J. Mair, R. N. Taylor, and A. Bracegirdle, “Subsurface settlement profiles above tunnels in

clays,” Géotechnique, vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 361-362, 1995.
Z. Wang, W. Yao, Y. Cai, B. Xu, Y. Fu, and G. Wei, “Analysis of ground surface settlement
induced by the construction of a large-diameter shallow-buried twin-tunnel in soft ground,”
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, vol. 83, pp. 520–532, 2019
Page 98 on 117
69
APPENDICES
Appendix 1: OVERALL PLAN: PLAN VIEW,

LONGITUDINAL PROFILE AND CRITICAL CROSS-
SECTION (Saint-Denis Island Bridge)
Page 99 on 117
69
Appendix 2: LONGITUDINAL PROFILE
Page 100 on 117

69
Appendix 3: PROFILE PLAN AND PROFILE SURVEY

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Page 101 on 117

69
TUNNELLING SETTLEMENT INDUCED BY THE CONSTRUCTION OF A TUNNEL WITH A TUNNEL BORING MACHINE IN
PARIS AREA
Page 102 on 117

69
PARIS AREA
Page 103 on 117

69
Appendix 4: LONGITUDINAL PROFILE OF THE

SURVEYS
Page 104 on 117

69
PARIS AREA
Page 105 on 117

69
PARIS AREA
Page 106 on 117

69
TUNNELLING SETTLEMENT INDUCED BY THE CONSTRUCTION OF A TUNNEL WITH

A TUNNEL BORING MACHINE IN PARIS AREA
Appendix 5: SITE PLAN AND SURVEY IMPLEMENTATION

PLAN
Page 107 on 117

69
Page 108 on 117

69
Page 109 on 117

69
Page 110 on 117

69
Page 111 on 117

69
Page 112 on 117

69
Page 113 on 117

69
Page 114 on 117

69
Page 115 on 117

116
TUNNELLING: SETTLEMENT INDUCED BY THE CONSTRUCTION OF A TUNNEL
WITH TUNNEL BORING MACHINE IN PARIS
Appendix 6: LININGS PARAMETERS OF THE TUNNEL
Page 116 on 117

116
TUNNELLING: SETTLEMENT INDUCED BY THE CONSTRUCTION OF A TUNNEL
WITH TUNNEL BORING MACHINE IN PARIS
Appendix 7: NUMERICAL CALCULATION AND

MODELLING ASSUMPTIONS
Page 117 on 117


Final Thesis Meng Ombang Corrected

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Final Thesis Meng Ombang Corrected

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DEPARTEMENT DU GENIE CIVIL

MASTER IN CIVIL ENGINEERING GEOTECHNICAL

2nd cycle degree

TUNNELING SETTLEMENT INDUCED BY

OMBANG MANGA Jean Derrik

Prof. Ing. Simonetta COLA

To my wonderful and loving parents Mr MANGA MANGA Denis

AFTES Association Française des Tunnels et de l'Espace Souterrain

ASTM American Society For Testing And Materials

Page iii on xviii

SS: Slurry Shield

PDE Partial Differential Equation

WL: Liquid limit

Page vii on xviii

Page viii on xviii

Figure 3.2. Saint-Denis Island Bridge......................................................................................63

Page xii on xviii

Page xiii on xviii

Table 1.1. Selection criteria for tunnel boring machines.........................................................21

Page xiv on xviii

Chapter 1: LITERATURE REVIEW..................................................................................2

1.1 History of tunnels.........................................................................................................2

1.2 Types of tunnel.............................................................................................................4

1.2.1 Tunnels based on purpose.....................................................................................4

1.2.2 Tunnels based on alignment..................................................................................6

1.2.3 Tunnels based on type of material met with in construction................................8

1.2.4 Classification according to shape of tunnels.........................................................8

1.3 Methods of tunnel construction..................................................................................10

1.3.1 Cut and Cover Tunnelling...................................................................................11

1.3.2 Conventional Mining Methods...........................................................................12

1.3.3 Sequential Excavation Method...........................................................................13

1.3.4 Bored Tunnelling................................................................................................14

1.4 Soil response to tunnel excavation: predictive methods............................................27

1.4.1 Empirical method: Peck Formula.......................................................................29

1.4.2 Analytical methods.............................................................................................32

1.4.3 Ground deformations and stresses......................................................................32

1.4.4 Numerical methods.............................................................................................35

Chapter 2: DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT, SITE AND CONSTRUCTION

2.1 Tunnel Seine-Briche structure description.................................................................38

2.1.1 Location of the project implementation area......................................................38

2.1.2 Study area geology..............................................................................................39

Page xvi on xviii

2.1.3 Gallery dimensions and lining characteristics....................................................42

2.2.1 In-situ and laboratory tests..................................................................................43

2.2.2 Geotechnical parameters.....................................................................................44

2.3.1 Minimum confinement pressure, Maximum confinement pressure and

2.4 Assumptions of the impact calculations of the tunnel excavation.............................48

2.4.1 General methodology of settlement calculations................................................48

2.4.2 2D finite element modelling assumptions...........................................................50

2.5 Presentation of PLAXIS 2D.......................................................................................53

2.5.1 The finite element method..................................................................................53

2.5.2 PLAXIS Input module........................................................................................54

2.5.3 Plaxis calculation program..................................................................................57

2.5.4 Plaxis output program.........................................................................................58

2.5.5 Plaxis curve program..........................................................................................59

Chapter 3: NUMERICAL ANALYSIS OF THE TUNNEL............................................60

3.1 Soil profile..................................................................................................................60

3.1.1 Definition of profiles...........................................................................................61

3.1.2 Profiles parameters..............................................................................................68

3.2 Presentation of the results Numerical simulation of tunnel SEINE-BRICHE with

3.2.1 Constitutive law HSM.........................................................................................69

3.2.2 Presentation of the results...................................................................................72